< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Feb-26-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Offramp.
It was a sensible post, I was just adding that on the whole I've seen '75 is Fischer and '78 is Karpov.
I added never mind that because although a debate who would have won is always fun and often instructive
that was my last word on the matter. (here - I'll go and play there in a minute.)
I then switched track.
I am waiting with to hear yet another Fischer myth. (I know it was not you who suggested he had a new one).
Finally the riddle of Bobby Fischer is about to be solved by a conversation overheard......38 years ago.
Where is drnooo?
Off stalking Seirawan to see what else he can overhear?
|Apr-07-14|| ||Domdaniel: <offramp> -- <Hey kidz!!? Why don't we put on a Karpov-Fischer World Championship Match (1975) show right here!?!>|
Heh. Give it another 5 or 10 years, and this will be quite feasible. Right now, computers are still a little too computerish ... but in a few years they should be able to emulate the play of any given player.
|Apr-07-14|| ||Petrosianic: A computer will never be able to emulate Fischer '75's play because there are no samples to draw from. The most they might ever do is compare Fischer '72 to Karpov '75, which is essentially meaningless.|
That's not to say it won't happen, though. I expect to see a Chessbase April Fool article some day assuring us that Fischer would have definitely won, and have people quoting it as gospel, the same why the April Fool article about how the King's Gambit loses by force to everything except 3. Be2 (LOL!).
|Apr-07-14|| ||diceman: <Petrosianic: A computer will never be able to emulate Fischer '75's play>|
Glad that mystery's solved.
<because there are no samples to draw from. The most they might ever do is compare Fischer '72 to Karpov '75, which is essentially meaningless.
That's not to say it won't happen, though.
I expect to see a Chessbase April Fool article some day assuring us that Fischer would have definitely won, and have people quoting it as gospel>
<have people quoting it as gospel>
Sounds like Petrosianic's opinion.
<April Fool article some day assuring us that Fischer would have definitely won>
...you can just feel the admiration.
<and have people quoting it>
...and not quote Ed Edmondson.
|Apr-07-14|| ||morfishine: Great Game but idiotic pun. Korchnoi was 43 when this game was played. Gee Whiz, how does stuff like this get through?|
|Oct-25-14|| ||Pawn Slayer: Fischer was so far ahead of anyone else in 1972, I think he needed a new challenge and lost interest after winning the title.|
Karpov was certainly a fine player in 1975 but, unless Fischer had gone completely off the boil in the interim 3 years, he (Karpov) would have lost by a clear margin.
1978 would be harder to call because Karpov improved over the three years, but who knows how Fischer would have developed? He was probably the greatest player the world has ever seen in terms of his dominance over his contemporaries, who included Spassky, Petrosian, Geller, Keres, Smyslov, Gligoric and Larsen; these guys were no mugs, yet he was well over 100 rating points above them all.
|Oct-25-14|| ||keypusher: <Pawn Slayer: Fischer was so far ahead of anyone else in 1972, I think he needed a new challenge and lost interest after winning the title.>|
A new challenge? Like Karpov? Or (a few years later) Kasparov?
<Karpov was certainly a fine player in 1975 but, unless Fischer had gone completely off the boil in the interim 3 years, he (Karpov) would have lost by a clear margin.>
Neither you nor anyone else has any idea how Fischer would have played. The fact that he failed to play might give an indication of his own view.
|Oct-26-14|| ||Joshka: <keypusher> Oh well here we go again..LOL...even KARPOV stated he would have lost to Fischer in 1975!!! Not much more authoritative than that!!!|
|Oct-26-14|| ||Joshka: <Sally Simpson> If Karpov BARELY won over Korchnoi in 1978/and Fischer was younger and much stronger than Korchnoi, seems like Fischer would have beat Karpov again in 1978. But probably closer than the 1975 match. Karpov might have beaten Fischer in 1981, but not before!!!|
|Oct-26-14|| ||tamar: But Karpov also doubted that it was not his cycle to reach the finals. He underestimated his own progress.|
It would have been a great match. Maybe the best ever.
|Oct-26-14|| ||Shams: <Joschka> <even KARPOV stated he would have lost to Fischer in 1975!!! Not much more authoritative than that!!!>|
So if Karpov said that he would have beaten Fischer, you'd believe that based on his authority too?
|Oct-26-14|| ||keypusher: <Joshka: <keypusher> Oh well here we go again..LOL...even KARPOV stated he would have lost to Fischer in 1975!!! Not much more authoritative than that!!!>|
If you are going to opine, endlessly, about that era, isn't it time you learned about it?
|Oct-26-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Fischer wins the '75 match. Kaprov the '78 match is the most popular specualtion.|
I run with that one but I could make a good case for Karpov winning the '75 match.
For instance Karpov too beat Spassky in a match and anyone who says Spassky had a hangover from the '72 WC match best remember that in 1973 Spassky won the USSR Championship which is the strongest national tournament in the world. (cannot imagine even in my wildest dreams.....and my dreams are pretty wild, Fischer winning that event 11-0.)
In 1976 Karpov won the USSR Championship and was entering his prime.
So in '75 you have one player (Fischer) who has peaked and achieved his sole aim in life.
On the other hand you have one player (one hungry player) who was just
entering his prime backed up with a team of very high class individuals
(including that man Geller) and unlike Spassky, Karpov would have listened.
"Bobby would never play that." said Spassky when prior to the '72 match Petrosian and Geller suggested they look at some QP games.
Would have been a great match but alas....
USSR Championship (1976)
|May-06-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: Had this game not been featured as GOTD, I would've suggested "Devour with d4".|
Maybe for another good 1.d4 game then!
|Oct-30-15|| ||Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson>: <Fischer wins the '75 match. Kaprov the '78 match is the most popular specualtion.>|
Possibly, although Popularity doesn't equal Truth. Fischer didn't feel he was in good enough shape to even try, so I tend to go with his judgment on it.
The mistake people make is that when they speculate on this match, they invariably compare Karpov '75 to Fischer '72, rather than to Fischer '75. When you can see the error they're making, there's no imperative to salute the speculation.
|Oct-31-15|| ||Granny O Doul: Had Fischer ever had any intent to defend his title, he wouldn't have sat idle for three years. And that's a whole different universe.|
|Oct-31-15|| ||OhioChessFan: Karpov - Fischer World Championship Match (1975)|
|Nov-02-15|| ||NeverAgain: A Chess Notes contributor recently pointed out that despite the statement "out of the two and a half thousand games that I had played, there had never been an instance where it had been necessary for me to castle when my rook was attacked ..." in his autobiography Chess Is My Life (1977) Korchnoi in fact had faced this situation OTB at least three times, one of the examples being Smyslov vs Korchnoi, 1960 : 20...Qxb7 (attacking the h1 Rook) 21.0-0|
Either Korchnoi's memory let him down or the whole "get up and address the arbiter" incident was a theatrical ploy.
|Nov-03-15|| ||offramp: <NeverAgain: ...Either Korchnoi's memory let him down or the whole "get up and address the arbiter" incident was a theatrical ploy.>|
Exactly as I explained at Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1974 (kibitz #105).
|Nov-03-15|| ||Petrosianic: <Granny O Doul>: <Had Fischer ever had any intent to defend his title, he wouldn't have sat idle for three years. And that's a whole different universe.>|
Believe it or not, that wasn't a given at the time. Botvinnik had done nearly the same thing (after winning the title in 1948, he didn't play again until 1951). And Fischer had had a history of disappearing and coming back again, so it seemed quite possible that the time that he might play. Even when he resigned the title, people thought he might be planning to play outside of FIDE like Kasparov did later.
The problem, most likely, is that it's very hard to get back into chess when you've gotten completely out of it. Fischer's biggest weakness is that his regimen was a Total Immersion Technique that left no room for anything else. Other players did a better job of balancing chess with real life, and someone like Botvinnik could keep a hand in the game even when he wasn't playing, without it consuming his whole life.
|Dec-29-15|| ||Domdaniel: <Petrosianic> - <The problem, most likely, is that it's very hard to get back into chess when you've gotten completely out of it.>|
Or, as Bob Dylan put it: "You can always go back, but you can't come back all the way". (Mississippi)
|Dec-29-15|| ||perfidious: <Dom....as Bob Dylan put it: "You can always go back, but you can't come back all the way". (Mississippi)>|
Don't I know it.
|Dec-29-15|| ||Domdaniel: <perf> Guess we all have a Mississippi that we stay in "just a day too long".|
I was reminded of this game when I saw it in Cyrus Lakadwala's new book on Viktor K -- <Korchnoi: Move by Move>.
His note to move 13 is superb (he'd already given a '!!' to 11.Qd2):
Glass shatters, concrete crumbles and metal bends. White attackers flow from nowhere with unified intent. The knight nursed a grudge against h7 for quite some time now, the long-festering resentment bubbles over into violence, and the strain on the defence surpasses capacity."
Sure, the prose borders on the purple -- but for once the context demands it.
|Dec-29-15|| ||perfidious: <Dom> Been there, done that, come to Missisip.|
Lovely stuff from Lakdawala.
My only recollection of L is travelling to a team match at Montreal in September/early October 1977 and seeing him on the opposing team--never heard of him again till he emigrated to the warmer climes of southern California, by which time he was quite a strong player.
|Nov-25-16|| ||N.O.F. NAJDORF: I once read on a forum opinions of the outcome of a Fischer v Karpov match in 1975.|
I couldn't believe it when people said, '13-11 to Fischer' and so on, assuming the match duration would have been the same as in 1972.
Certainly, most opinions I have come across over the years are that Fischer would have won.
Fischer maintained that a very long match, of unlimited duration, with the winner being the first to win ten games, would be a better way to determine which of the two players was better.
He was proved wrong in 1984, when the World Championship match was abandoned after forty-eight games, with Karpov leading Kasparov by 5-3.
What that match proved was that a very long match would become a test of endurance rather than ability.
In my opinion, the Fischer v Karpov match would also have been abandoned.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·