-Viktor Korchnoi "My Best Games Volume 1"

You can feel Maestro´s fine touch (extremely independent thinking - David`s trademark ) in this complicated line. I believe that looney triangulation Qd1-Qc2!?-Qd2! belongs to him - for such moves today we have computers.

offramp: I totally believe it and here is why:
Later, in their next match, game 28, Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1978 this position was reached

click for larger view

Karpov had certainly played on too long, and now Lothar Schmid was skeezing around with a black queen in his hand. Kortschnoi asked him to go and get a rook, knight and bishop as well. At that moment Karpov resigned; he took the hint.
That is what happened in this game. VK could not talk to Karpov to tell him to give up, but he sure as all getout could talk to the arbiter - giving a deafening hint that resistence was futile.

It was a pity, of course, that the game concluded so quickly and I did not see a genuine battle... Even so, this was my first encounter with big-time chess, and as an 11-year-old boy, it left an indelible impression on me.> (OMGP V)

Though it wasn't really "losing to Karpov or Korchnoi" (the opponent wasn't decided at the time he resigned the title, although either would have been Fischer's toughest challenge yet, with him finding Korchnoi an unusually tough opponent) which was specifically what he was avoiding, so much as just generally "playing at a level below what he did for 1970-1972".

That was the problem. He was nuts. Even he didn't know what he wanted to do until he was right up against it. You see the same with guys babbling to themselves walking down the sidewalk. One of these days I will post something I overheard Seirawan talking about which he has never repeated, and ultimately he can be contacted for verification but it beyond the shadow of a doubt shows just how far gone Fischer was by 76. People keep giving some kind of rational reasoning to his antics, when at a certain point they are nearly as crazy as he trying to do so. Also they try to cram too much into the suitcase, once it gets too full and stuff starts to fall out: Rubenstein suffered the same fate except more poignantly and faster: when he started really going bonkers some of his remarkable chess powers also left him. In short, after the winning of the championship, he was too far gone, knew it, my guess is had Spassky called the whole thing off when he could have, that would have been it: Fischer had just enough left in him to beat Spassky, another trip around and he could never have made it.

Discuss what exactly?? the majority think that Fischer would have won in 1975 and also in 1978 provided that he started playing first class tournaments again ! Karpov would win in 1981 ...

<Later, in their next match, game 28, Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1978 this position was reached... Karpov had certainly played on too long, and now Lothar Schmid was skeezing around with a black queen in his hand. Kortschnoi asked him to go and get a rook, knight and bishop as well. At that moment Karpov resigned; he took the hint. That is what happened in this game. VK could not talk to Karpov to tell him to give up, but he sure as all getout could talk to the arbiter - giving a deafening hint that resistence was futile.>

Hey kidz!!? Why don't we put on a Karpov-Fischer World Championship Match (1975) show right here!?!

No, therefore the story must be true.

Off stalking Seirawan to see what else he can overhear?

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.

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!).

...and not quote Ed Edmondson.
Heresy!

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.

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.

It would have been a great match. Maybe the best ever.

So if Karpov said that he would have beaten Fischer, you'd believe that based on his authority too?

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.