< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 66 OF 73 ·
|May-19-11|| ||TheMacMan: fischer would have won 9-0 .. maybe karpov would have gotten a draw or 2|
|May-19-11|| ||SirChrislov: I tried to make all this wrong seem right but Bobby never answered me.|
|May-20-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that Karpov couldn't have won this match given his proven form and trajectory. It's only reasonable to be less sure of Fischer's chances given a distinct lack of evidence proving otherwise.|
|May-20-11|| ||dx9293: My opinion: Fischer would have won a close match (two or three points difference).|
Fischer was a great player...the greatest in history up to his time? I'm not convinced about that. Personally, I would have liked to see him compete in the Soviet Championships and the USSR supertournaments of the day, but I know that would have been impossible.
I think Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Smyslov achieved at least as much as Fischer did, and maybe Tal too: Fischer only won 10 international tournaments.
I don't think Fischer's match exploits are enough to make him the greatest. But it's just my opinion.
|May-21-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: Only 10 international tournaments? Karpov won more than two dozen in less than 10 years!|
Fischer reached the highest level in 1971-1972 and brought the game to new heights, and for that we should thank him.
We sure missed some great matches between Karpov and Fischer.
|May-21-11|| ||perfidious: <TheMacMan: fischer would have won 9-0 .. maybe karpov would have gotten a draw or 2>|
Fischer reached the pinnacle of his life's purpose by winning the title, and as he saw it, there was only one way for his career to go from the top of the mountain.
Great a player as Fischer was, his psychological frailties drove him away from the object of his devotion.
Anyone here believe he'd have returned twenty years on if not for the money? I rather doubt it.
|May-21-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: That's why players like Karpov and Kasparov were so great; they put their careers on the line time and time again when they were already considered the best ever.|
|May-21-11|| ||parisattack: <dx9293: My opinion: Fischer would have won a close match (two or three points difference).>|
My thought also. And it seems to be the most common opinion.
As good as Karpov was in 1975 he wasn't at his peak. A motivated Fischer would have won then but probably not in 1978.
Lest we forget how good Karpov was however, the games in How Karpov Wins (Mednis) covering the early 1970s portion of his career is illuminating.
|May-26-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: Yes, that's Spassky's assessment, and it's reasonable. Still, there's no reason not to think that Karpov couldn't have won the 1975 match given his proven form. It's only fair to be less sure of Fischer's chances given a distinct lack of evidence to the contrary. Fact is, Fischer didn't play much if any chess after winning the Title and felt that an unlimited games format gave him the best chance of winning. He wasn't afraid of Karpov, but rather, of the unknown, but then again, who wouldn't be? It takes a real sportsman to rise to the challenge once again, and Fischer declined, thus assuring his legacy and legend.|
|May-26-11|| ||Paraconti: In a 24-game match the match would've been drawn 12-12.|
In a first to win 10 match, it would be close for about 15 games or so, then a long series of draws before Fischer racing ahead with 2-3 wins and the Soviets would pull Karpov out of the match, claiming unfair conditions and their man being exhausted.
Past behavior is an indication of the future, and so is it the other way round.
|May-26-11|| ||Troller: <Past behavior is an indication of the future, and so is it the other way round.>|
Yes, therefore it is unthinkable that Fischer ever seriously considered playing Karpov.
|May-26-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: At some point in the first 10 games Fischer would have made some demand or other, suddenly required some concession. |
Karpov would have smiled and pointed to the rules, and Fischer would have been forfeited. We didn't miss much.
|May-26-11|| ||fab4: <M.D. Wilson: There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that Karpov couldn't have won this match given his proven form and trajectory. It's only reasonable to be less sure of Fischer's chances given a distinct lack of evidence proving otherwise.>|
You really do post some rubbish in this place. I've long ceased taking you seriously.
|May-27-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: You're a real gem, fab4. I suppose I must have hurt your sensitivities some time ago. Despite this, you never fail to read my posts which you claim are rubbish. I cannot actually ever recall reading one of your posts.|
|May-29-11|| ||Paraconti: <troller><Yes, therefore it is unthinkable that Fischer ever seriously considered playing Karpov.>|
Lol. Nice retort. Can't beat that!
|May-29-11|| ||SteinitzLives: Per GM Dzhindzhi who claims to have played lots of speed chess with Fischer in the early 80's, Fischer was no longer playing near Fischer strength at that point, and it would have taken him 3 years of prep to get in any kind of shape to play and defeat top players.|
He also said that in '75 and probably in '78 Fischer would have defeated Karpov, but not in 81.
|Jul-10-11|| ||Capabal: <einneu: ...Playing for 10 wins, there is no draw when score is 9-9. In no sport in the world.>|
Quite right. The notion of a "draw" when you play for a fixed number of wins is an absurdity. And that's why in the first Karpov-Kasparov match (set to 6 wins) nobody ever suggested there should be a 5-5 "draw" rule. Had that been the case, the match would have been over when the score reached 5-1.
The rule that Fischer demanded would be like proposing a tennis match in the following terms: <The first player to win 3 sets, wins the match. But that should apply only to my opponent. I want a special rule for me, stating that I only need to win 2 sets.> There is no difference *whatsoever* between that kind of proposal and what Fischer was proposing. The "draw" notion is a canard. There is no draw if you play to a set number of wins where draws don't count.
|Jul-10-11|| ||fab4: < M.D. Wilson: You're a real gem, fab4. I suppose I must have hurt your sensitivities some time ago. Despite this, you never fail to read my posts which you claim are rubbish. I cannot actually ever recall reading one of your posts >|
Tho you saying you've never read a single post of mine ? Hmmmm !
|Jul-14-11|| ||Capabal: Very interesting piece here. I copy the last part.
As you might be able to tell, I think very little of Kalme's work. He
massages, fudges and tosses out data so freely as to make his
conclusions worthless. And his attempts to prove that 2 is less than 1
simply don't fly.
Besides, the whole argument is beside the point anyway. What
difference does it make even if we could prove that Fischer's system is
less unfair than the Best of 24 system? Fischer promised to eliminate
the champion's advantage, not reduce it. Believe it or not, Kalme does
consider this point:
<"Even if one wanted to do away with the champion's advantage, it is a
question that deserves a careful consideration, and at the very least
such action must be projected to a future date when it would be
directed against an abstract champion and not against a specific one...">
He seems to be singing a different tune here. A minute ago he had no
problem whatsoever in advocating a sweeping and unprecedented change in
the system without careful study.
But he was ignoring history. What he suggests is precisely what HAD
been done already. The champion's advantage was eliminated at the FIDE
Congress in Vancounver in 1971 where they voted <at Fischer's behest>
that the 1975 match would be an unlimited one. No tie clause, and no
evidence that Fischer had ever asked for one. Remember that as
challenger he opposed the champion's advantage. And it was done
against an abstract champion, just as Kalme suggested.
Comparisons of Fischer's system vs. the Best of 24 are therefore
improper from the get go, as that system had been discarded for 1975
before Fischer even became Challenger. The system on the table for
1975 was 6 wins, no tie clause. Fischer wasn't trying to reduce the
champion's advantage, he was trying to re-introduce it after it had
already been abolished. When Fischer asked for 10 wins instead of 6,
FIDE granted it, but put a 36 game limit on it (subtly re-introducing
the champion's advantage, since there was now an 18-18 tie clause).
But Fischer wanted it both ways. He wanted not only to re-introduce
the champion's advantage after it had been eliminated, but to keep the
unlimited match format as well. He could have had one or the other,
but not both. Seeing as how he'd wanted the unlimited match for years,
and also said for years that the champion's advantage was unfair, I
think he should have taken the 10 wins no tie clause option.
5. GM Evans agreed with Graeme that nobody knows if Fischer would have
played Karpov in 1975 even if FIDE accepted ALL of his conditions.
Yes, I don't know if he would have played. He might have done so if he
had felt he would have looked too bad by refusing. In fact, I think
FIDE crossed him up. Remember, that he resigned the title in 1974 the
day after FIDE limited the match. If he was trying to get out of
playing, walking out over the Unlimited Match would gain him a lot of
sympathy. A lot of people believed in that format and wanted to see it
tried in modern chess. But at the end, when FIDE finally granted the
10 Wins unlimited match, Fischer had nothing to walk out over except
the 9-9 clause, which a lot of people even in America thought was
unfair. It wasn't his original intention to walk out over that, and
he'd probably have preferred not to.
We do know though that Fischer wasn't too eager to play chess at all,
against Karpov or anybody else. He was furious at both the Soviets and
FIDE at the time. Do you realize how much damage Fischer could have
done to them both if he'd played a title defense outside of FIDE's
auspices? Do you realize how terrible FIDE would have looked if, after
the 1978 Match, Fischer had said to Korchnoi "You got screwed in
Baguio. Why don't you and I play a match for the REAL title." The
Soviets seemed to have been scared silly that he might do exactly that,
but Fischer just didn't want to play chess any more.
|Sep-26-11|| ||blazerdoodle: <In my opinion?. Bobby was a great chess player, no doubt, but by this time of his career, the thing was just an inflated ego trip, which lasted until his last day.>|
Sad but true. But all this talk, who would have won, we forget the rules themselves ...
A long grueling match where Fischer was in his element, and a Karpov who could have used it much as Kasparov did in his first match with Karpov and grown.
My only point is, the rules should have been adopted. They're just.
|Sep-27-11|| ||Psihadal: I've always had and still have great animosity towards Fischer for chickening out and depriving the chess world of a match between these these two. This in my eyes was the biggest let down in the history of chess, even bigger than the split of the title.|
A match between Fischer and Karpov in 1975? Every chess fan salivates just at the thought of that.
Unfortunately, Fischer was being Fischer - His nerve and cowardice prevented us from watching one of the most exciting matches in history (and maybe even more than one match in years to come). What a poor sportsman he was.
|Sep-27-11|| ||KKDEREK: True thing..Fischer x karpov would be *huge*..Better than Spassky x Fischer or Karpov x Korchnoi, for sure (or at least tougher for Fischer IMO). And better than the previous matches..Would be <insane> the two K's and Korchnoi battling with a more mature Fischer in the early 80's.|
|Oct-23-11|| ||madcat: Fisher has never beaten Spassky, many would have said their is no way he would win. We might never know who would have won. This is the second time World Championship was unknown.|
|Oct-23-11|| ||chesstyro: I think its a bit of a cop out, but could the answer just be Fishcer was paranoid/nuts? I saw that hbo documentary and i think it was obvious that bobby was nuts.|
|Oct-23-11|| ||FSR: <chesstyro> I'm no psychiatrist, but I'm sure that Fischer was mentally ill, including paranoia.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 66 OF 73 ·