Would prime Karpov have beaten Kasparov?

It was 5-3 with 40 draws, not 5-0

Karpov reached his peak in the 90's, not the 70's.

Yes . He would have beaten him .

I mean no disrespect, but you seem to have a serious gripe against Fischer. You've made some seriously absurd claims such as "one of the best? Debetable." "Most top chess players will say Kasparov, Karpov or Carlsen." Both of these statements are not true, when Carlsen was asked he said Fischer or Kasparov, when asked later he said Fischer saying his energy and precision are unmatched in the history of chess. Kasparov still held Ficher in high regard, as did Karpov claiming that he and Ficher at their prime were better than Magnus. Hell, if you look at ratings Fischer was 2785 in 1972, 125 points ahead of 2nd place Spassky at 2660. Karpov reached his peak rating in 1994 of 2780 some 35 and points ahead of 3rd place, 30 points behind #1, Kasparov. Several studies have come to the conclusion that at his peak, Fischer was the most accurate player in history. Remember, Fischer did it ALL by himself, no teams of GM's analazying for him, no goverment funding, no coaching, and he tore apart the field, which consisted of 3 world champions (Spassky, Petrosian, Smyslov), and 4 world champion caliber players (Keres, Korchnoi, Geller, Larsen) in 1968, 1971 and 1972.

It is not debatable, Fischer is one of the, or the greatest chess players of all time. In fact chess.com had a historical tournament of 16 world champions, and Fischer won by dispatching Spassky 8-4, Karpov 7.5-4.5, Magnus on tie-breaks 6-6, and Kasparov 6.5-5.5. It's obviously hypothetical and thus virtually meaningless but nevertheless there is a reason why he has reached a mythical status among chess, his domination over his peers in 68/71/72 is only rivaled by Paul Morphy, and unlike Morphy, Fischer was facing the afforementioned legends of the game.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest. 

Anyway on the question, Kasparov and Karpov were nearly equal in strength, 

All their matches were extremley close and Karpov had a good chance of winning each and every one, as they were all decided on the last game. But Kasparov in the end was slightly better. And at their prime Kasparov is still slightly better. Their match history says it all, (for Karpov) +19 -21 =144. 

Their rivarly is without a doubt the greatest in history, and their achievements immortal. Karpov was #1 for 10 years, and #2 for over another decade and he won the most super tournaments in history, whilst Kasparov was #1 for 20 years.

This is still the most JILARIOUS comment in this thread, jajaja!

JOL i take my previous comment back, THIS is the best of the thread so far. Still, y'all need to Try Buffchix Mode.

LOL Prime Karpov DID!

Wait!  

Is that a rhetorical question? 

Fischer was great, but he didn't play against great. There is no doubt in my mind he feared Karpov and chose not to play than be defeated. Karpov crushed kasparov initially, but Kasparov literally wore Karpov out the second time around. I'm not saying that makes Karpov the greatest, because even though Kasparov's strategy was like Ali's "rope-a-dope" it worked and he gained the title. what I feel made Kasparov the greatest, was his staying power and ability to overcome all comers except when Deep Blue gained sentience... okay just kidding... Deep Blue got an opening library programmed in. 

Karpov was a great champion, and a great player, with a wonderful style. If I had to choose a style, I would probably choose his. I love that style. Not the big chest thumping swinging dick nuclear wearhead tactics.... no... Karpov's style was far more sinister... he would just grab hold of you....

and slowly, slowly squeeze you to death. I love that. I wish that was me. Against a tactical player, they hit that big fist and you know it's over. But with Karpov...its much worse.... you're puttering along just fine, doing awesome...and you look up one moment.....and realize you have no moves left to make... and that...you were never winning...

You had lost 25 moves ago and didn't even know it. That's what really breaks a spirit. To be squeezed to death. 

With that being said... no.... Bobby wasn't afraid of him. Bobby was a fearless maniac, who would take on anything in front of him, a monster, a demon, a beast.  But Bobby was stubborn, and was so passionate about players playing a game out to the end, that he wanted draws not to count - and he wanted a new format to be instituted instead of the one that was in place...where a player could get a win, and just draw the rest out and glide. Bobby wanted you to have to fight for every inch of that title. And had they played, Bobby would have won. 

As noted above, Karpov's best performance was Linares 1994.  Karpov was in his prime when he faced Kasparov.

Karpov actually had to act as a homeless person to get into a movie.

I've seen The Great Chess Movie (Jouer Sa Vie).  Karpov was in it, and they talk about his matches with Korchnoi.  I also saw Kasparov Karpov Lyon 1990 a movie about their match.

Searching for Bobby Fischer was apparently about Josh Waitzkin based on a book by Waitzkin's father.

The musical Chess In Concert was probably inspired by both Fischer-Spassky 1972 and Karpov-Korchnoi 1978 and 1981.

Are you kidding? The 60s and 70s was a golden era of chess. So many all-time greats like Tal, Botvinik Smyslov, Petrosian, Keres, Spassky, Korchnoi, Geller, Resehveskey, Larsen, and of course Fischer, and Fischer dominated them in 68, 70, 71 and 72, like no other had before or since. As to why Fischer wouldn't play, we'll never know, you saying he was scared of Karpov sounds silly to me. If Spassky had not given into Fischer's demands in 1972, perhaps we'd be saying Fischer was scared, but we know how the match turned out, wasn't very close, even with Bobby forefitting game 2. 

Spassky was never great and once Fischer won the title he grew paranoid of "the agony of defeat". I would have liked to see Fischer play a GREAT player, for the title, but he chickened out. He was the ultimate narcissist and his ego would not allow him to face a defeat of that caliber. The second Spassky match was many years later and had no meaning, other that a trip down nostogia lane. Bobby's ego was still intact though, since he spit on the US Federally imposed sanctions. After that he went insane. Nobody anywhere seems to know what he did the years after he forfieted to Karpov, but that alone should tell you he was a coward. He hid from the public light, instead of being a man and playing Karpov, win or lose. He dug his own grave, thanks to his overblown ego and nobody could reason with him. As with any celebrity, who gains fame and fortune, he had a responsibility to act as a role model for future generations of potential chess champions and fans. At that he failed miserably.

Spassky was never great? What? What you're asserting is ridiculous. Petrosian, Tal, Keres, Spassky, Korchnoi, Geller, Botvinik, Reshevsekey, Larsen, they're not great? These are legends. When people say who is the best attacking world champion ever, many will say Tal,  when asked who is the best defending world champion: Petrosian. Most talented players in history? Fischer, Tal and Reshevskey are on the list. First universal world champion? Spassky.

If you think these player's weren't great, it's because Fischer took them to school, and that's not because these players aren't among the greatest of all time but rather goes to show what an extraordinary chess player Bobby was.

IMHO, Fischer feared a title match against KORCHNOI.  (Karpov's close win over Korchnoi in 1974 was a major upset that Fischer did not anticipate.)

Not sure Bobby would have won even one game as white against Victor in 1975 if all those games began 1. e4 e6  2. d4 d5!

Sorry but your list includes players that never even won the title. I would classify Petrosian as great, but in his prime, which he was well past when Fischer played him. I don't consider "flash-in-the-pan" champions as great. Great has to stand the test of time. Petrosian held the "Russian boys club" title for eight years, which placed him above the rest, but by the time Fischer arrived he had long passed his peak. In the last 50 years there have been only 4 "GREAT" players in my opinion. Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov and Carlsen, in chronological order. Like Vince Lombardi once said.. "Winning isn't everything.. it's the ONLY thing".