Karpov vs. Fischer

In the Fischer vs Kasparov thread: 

NMReb wrote: First , let me admit my extreme bias for Fischer, as I was drawn into chess due to the Fischer/Spassky match of 1972. Having said that I would like to point out the fact that both Spassky and Petrosian (the late Tigran) both have equal records against Kasparov and Petrosian had black in all his games against Kasparov. We all know what Fischer did to these two so how can anyone seriously ask this question? :-) 

I find Reb's item grossly unfair -- Kasparov lost a grand total of 4 games to these guys, his oldest loss came as a 20 year old.

To have the nerve to try to pass judgement on Kasparov's career, based on a 4 - 4 record compiled as a teenager when he was undisputed World champion for more than a decade and the highest rated player on the planet for nearly two decades -- that's not "extreme bias" that's intellectually dishonest.

But let's apply Reb's logic to two players who are much closer in age and have a lot more overlap, the player Fischer (born 1943) wouldn't play: Anatoly Karpov (born 1951) --

I tried all the famous players I could think of with significant overlap.

Here's the one's that clearly favor Karpov:

Karpov vs Spassky W 16   L 3

Fischer vs Spassky W 17  L 12

Karpov vs Tal       W 2      L 1

Fischer vs Tal       W 4     L 4

Karpov vs Korchnoi   W35   L17  ( and 70 draws!)

Fischer vs Korchnoi   W 3   L 3

Karpov vs. Gligoric   W 4 L 0

Fischer vs. Gligoric   W 6 L 4

Karpov vs. Geller      W 2  L 1

Fischer vs. Geller     W 3 L 5

Here's  the player's Fischer dominated in those famous candidates matches... but Karpov dominated them too...

Fischer vs Larsen     W 11      L 2

Karpov vs Larsen      W 11      L 3

Fischer vs Taimanov W 7      L 0

Karpov vs Taimanov W 4      L 1

And here's the one that clearly favors Fischer:

Fischer vs Petrosian  W 10      L4

Karpov vs Petrosian  W 1        L2

=== a few unclear strays:

Fischer vs. Najdorf     W 4   L 1

Karpov  vs. Najdorf     W 1    L 0

Karpov vs. Portisch     W14    L 2

Fischer vs. Portisch      W4     L 0

The more I look at these numbers the more I think Fischer vs Karpov would have been a great match -- King Kong vs. Godzilla -- and if you think you can just give the match to guy who ran away, Fischer, look again... because by NMReb's logic I think you have to say the data favors Karpov moderately-to-strongly.  But at least there is one bright ray of hope for the Fischer fans... the Fischer vs. Petrosian vs. Karpov connection.

People do wonder about it because it IS the great "what if" match scenario that is left to speculate about.

Fischer counts. In my book, his 1970-1972 run was the greatest three-year stretch in history. However, I do value the longevity at the highest levels of Karpov and Kasparov more because they played as much as they did.

I subscribe to the theory posited by some that Fischer would have had extreme difficulty in a short 1975 match with Karpov, but likely would have won an "endless-style" first-to-ten-wins match as he had proposed/demanded from FIDE. I do believe that the jury would be out on a hypothetical 1978 second match -- I would think given the experience gained and the weight of the Soviet chess machine in his corner that Karpov would take that encounter.

I find it easier to discuss a Karpov-Fischer match given their proximities than Kasparov-Fischer. Again, the "what if would depend on where you situate that on the timeline. Certainly a post-1992 Spassky II Fischer would have had huge opening theory issues with Kasparov, IMHO. Still, I regret that Karpov and Fischer never hooked up for a match, even if it had been a Chess960 tilt.

Russ

I think it's fairly obvious that Fischer was afraid to play Karpov.  To be clear, I don't think that means he would have lost.  It's just that I have known other people with elite talents and skills that behaved in a very similar way.

Gene Nagy of pocket billiard fame was notorious for leaving the world championships while still undefeated for a very silly reason. He also left competitive pool while just approaching his peak and turned into a semi-recluse and eccentric. He even looked a lot like the Fischer in his later years. The major difference was that Gene never attained the title of world champion.  He left before he got there.  

In conversations I had with him later in his life, Gene was very clear that he chose that path despite loving pool because he did not enjoy the extreme competition of playing at the highest level, feared losing, feared criticism, feared imperfection, feared failure, feared rejection, allowed his nerves to bother him etc...

He looked like Fischer, behaved like Fischer, was also considered a genius at his chosen game etc... They probably had a very similar mental makeup (or mental illness). However, I had the opportunity to interview Gene. I suspect if I had that opportunity to talk the Fischer, I would have learned that he feared Karpov, feared failure, etc...  

Interesting comments, Seattleblue

I saw an interview with Bobby Fischer (I think it's with Dick Cavett)... it's the interview where Fischer talks about liking best the momemnt where he "breaks a man's ego" -- where Fischer says that the world champion has to play perfectly -- I remember thinking the moment I heard that, "wow, that's the kiss of death, no wonder he quit..." and then on you tube I saw Karpov saying exactly the same thing about Fischer, he'd no doubt seen the same interview, Karpov says, "I don't think Fischer was afraid of me, I think he was afraid of himself, he thought the world champion cannot make mistakes, you cannot play chess like this..."  

I wonder if there wasn't a feedback loop for Bobby... a performance anxiety type neurosis prevented him from playing on, but being unable to play when it was what he was born to do, and was his truest form of self-expression must have tortured him and driven him to be the twitchy profoundly angry man he became. I honestly think he suffered. I don't envy him at all. And his 2nd match with Spassky... what a bizarre & mildly embarassing chapter in chess that was -- part cash grab, part pathetic nostalgia trip, part failed therapy session.

Karpov would have destroyed Fisher, and that has nothing to do with chess skills I am afraid.  As previously noted he (B. F.) was pretty close to a nervous breakdown.  Fear affects your thinking.  Also Boris Spassky(vs. Fisher) wasn't buying into Botvinnik's school of chess intimidation/psychology or what not.  Karpov WAS an intimidator, and Bobby would have been affected by it, if not on the board, but by walking out or something....

As a side note, (later) Karpov was up 5-0 vs the great Kasparov, before his illness overcame him...

 This is simply ridiculous. Karpov himself said he didnt have much chance against Fischer in 1975 and then he struggled to beat Korchnoi. If Karpov had any chance of "destroying" Fischer he certainly wouldnt have struggled against Korchnoi.

Fischer would have destroyed Karpov

Chessmetrics rates Fischer as the highest rated player in the world.  Fischer's one year peak was 2881 while Kasprov struggles to manage a miserly 2879.  This argument is mute.  Clearly Fischer was better than Karpov, Kasparov and [insert GM name].   Those who are downing on Fischer because he walked out on the Karpov match are intellectual cowards.  They are trying to muddy the waters with non-arguments and arbitrary speculation about Fischer’s nervous status.  Fischer haters:  come to terms with the fact that the best player the world has ever seen was an arrogant, unapologetic American. 

they were all older when they played karpov were they?

Kasparov was protected so that he could remain chess champion for 20 years by the russian system. Fisher had to beat everyone by himself. Fisher clearly demonstrated himself better than an entire russian system that produced so many elite players. Karpov has had more than his share of momements. You can't play babe ruth against mark mcguire though.

Wow, very informative post. Good work. 

I just looked to find that thread: where is it?

Bad analogy.  McGuire doesn't even compare.

 NOT true.  

As chess player then Fischer was stronger, but Karpov was a favorite representative of the Soviet System (not like semi-opponent Spassky). He had  the best trainers, advisers, psychologists, KGB, etc. Fischer knew it and was afraid.

 "Lets also consider what Karpov said about his chances in a match against Fischer. In his video on Bobby Fischer’s games with Ron Henley, Karpov estimated his chances of defeating Fischer at 40% in 1975 and 50% by 1978."

http://www.chessreporter.com/hangin_weighs_in__on_the_fischervskarpov75.htm

 That's right!

Anyone think Karpov was the greatest "single game" chess player ever but lacked the stamina of Karparov? 

You have presented nothing conclusive and say that chess metrics proves the match winner by 100%, while you idiocitly admit that Karpov would beat Bobby Fischer based on the evidence from your OWN website. Bobby fischer's Peak year 2887, performance rating. Karpov's?:Anatoly Karpov: 2899.

Obviously you have some things to rethink. You try to claim one arbitrary source and method of grading the players, and just pick the one you think serves your agenda. It is pathetic. You do not understand knowledge or proof.--In addition to THAT even if the ratings were an accurate representation of their playing strength, the difference in points between the three is not even enough to make such a blatantly idiotic conclusion that Karpov OR Kasparov would most definitely have lost.

Highest rating according to your precious website Chessmetrics.

Karpov:2848

Kasparov:2886

Fischer:2895

Thats 48 Points difference between Karpov and Fischer, and 9 points difference between Kasparov. That isn't enough of a rating difference to suggest one would lose or win to the other in addition to the flimsy website using it's own formula to calculate relative ratings.

Learn to look at things objectively kid, and don't let your emotions cloud logic.

You should take a look at the fact that boris Spassky didn't even WANT to be world chess champion and barely even STUDIED CHESS before the match. That is hilarious! he was playing tennis and relaxing. Karpov even says he's the laziest dude he's ever seen and the only reason he lost is because he was unprepared!! Fischer never even BEAT spassky before their meeting. Spassky assumed it would go the same way and didn't even train. Imagine if Spassky tried. Fischer would have went back to America, insane and just a regular GM. And to add insult to injury, Karpov was better than Spassky!! He trained with spassky before the match, and karpov made a minor blunder, and spassky just assumed he was ready. It's really kind of sad when you know whats going on behind the scenes. Fischer just took the title from an unprepared, unwilling man, that could have easily taken the titled right back from him if he didn't run away.