Karpov severely trounced Spassky in their early seventies match. Spassky said," Karpov was much harder to beat than Fischer."

This all happened just before Fischer attempted to change dozens of World Championship competition rules, (favorable to Fischer), then Fischer resigned his FIDE title because just one of his self-serving stipulations was turned down by the chess governing body.

Fischer disappointed chess fans all
over the world as he ran through the briers and he ran through the brambles ducking Karpov and all other worthy challengers. Fischer's true Chess speed we'll never know ... thanks to Fischer's abundant chicken feathers.

To make it clear what I was responding to, <RookFile> made the claim that Spassky said Fischer would have defeated Karpov in 1975. He said this in response to <capatal>. I know that <RookFile>'s strong personal opinion is that Fischer would have won, but I was not aware that Spassky made any such claim. This is why I asked <RookFile> to produce a source, at which point he deleted his post.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt...

<When somebody asked him if the toughest opponent he’d had in his whole life was either Kortchnoi or Bobby Fischer, surprisingly Spassky said that neither of them had been the toughest, but Anatoly Karpov probably was.>

<Spassky said that he was in top form when he lost a candidates match to Karpov in 1974. He said that during the years 1973 and 1974 he had recovered his old top form of the sixties, but when he played Bobby Fischer in Reykjavík 1972, he was in poor form from the psychological viewpoint. Somehow he considers that Karpov in 1974 was a tougher opponent than Bobby Fischer in 1972, but he is not quite sure. At any rate he insisted that Karpov was the toughest opponent he had ever met.>

<Spassky said he did not consider it clear that Bobby Fischer might have won, because in 1975 Bobby had already been inactive for three years, and such a handicap would not possibly be overcome even by a chess genius. Under such conditions, Spassky believes that Karpov would have been the favorite.>

Oh, God, not this @$@%$ again.

Karpov has a much better score against Spassky than Fischer does. So he would crush Fischer in a match, right? Right?

In 1846, Howard Staunton played a very unusual 21-game match with Daniel Harrwitz. They played seven games on even terms, seven games at pawn and move, and seven games at pawn and two moves. Despite these severe odds, Staunton won the match easily, beating Harrwitz 7-0 in the games played even, and 5-2 at the games played at the very heavy odds of pawn and two moves.

In 1858, Paul Morphy played a match with Harrwitz on even terms, winning 5-2. In other words, he only did as well on even terms with Harrwitz as Staunton had done conceding a pawn and the first two moves. Therefore, Staunton in 1846 was much stronger than Paul Morphy in 1858, right?

In the 1960s, Bobby Fischer couldn't handle Efim Geller, winning twice and losing five times, including a pair of humiliating defeats with White in 25 moves or less in 1967. But in 1966, Geller lost a match to Bent Larsen. Clearly, Bent Larsen in 1966 was much better than Bobby Fischer in 1967, right?

I suppose it's a coincidence that you only "thought better of it" after I challenged you to provide a source.

<I've been following chess, frankly, for a lot longer than most of you here>

Very impressive. Are you going to go on about your whopping 2100 rating now? Or perhaps the tournaments you've won, or the 500+ chess books you've read? All of that doesn't make your comment about Spassky any less wrong, which is why you deleted it upon being challenged.

I know that Kasparov called Karpov a "paper champion." There was no love lost between them. I did not know that he ever said that <"Fischer would have crushed Karpov had they played."> If he really said such a thing, it wouldn't be hard to find at least a single source confirming it. Put up or shut up. And hopefully you won't delete your comment this time, even if you are wrong. I extend the offer to anyone: does anyone have any recollection of Kasparov saying something along the lines of "Fischer would have crushed Karpov had they played." This is <RF>'s claim. Are there any sources confirming this? Where and when was it said, if ever?

(Note to <Rookfile>: I really hope you're not making this one up. You should know by now that I don't let you get away with things that are either false or can't be backed up. It's happened numerous times before, which is why it's hard to take your word on this or anything.)

<That's just one of those details that you remember, and helps you keep perspective when later, Kasparov conveniently changes his opinion to write a controversial one that helps him make money.>

First let's see proof that Kasparov changed his opinion. Same for Spassky. And second, it's just ridiculous to even suggest that Kasparov's motivation for saying Karpov had good chances was because he thought saying such a thing would help him make money. Please.

click for larger view

Some analysis by Toga II:

19.Bxd6 Bxh4 20.Be5 Nxe5 21.Qxe5 Qf6 22.Rxf5 Qxe5 23.Rexe5 Rxf5 24.Rxf5 Re8 25.Ne5 Kg7 26.Kh2 Re6 27.Kh3 Be7 28.Kg4 Bd6 29.Nf7 h6 30.Nxd6 Rxd6 31.Rb5 Rd4 32.Kf3 b6 33.Re5 (eval: -1.19 @ depth 19)

19.Re6 Rg8 20.Qe3 Re8 21.Bxd6 Qd7 22.Rxe8 Rxe8 23.Qf4 Re4 24.Qxf5 Rxh4 25.Bh2 Qxf5 26.Rxf5 Kg7 27.Nf4 Be5 28.Kg1 Bd4 29.Kh1 Ne7 30.Rb5 b6 31.g3 Rh6 32.Kg2 (eval: -1.27 @ depth 19)

Plato: frankly, you're not worth the time, and I've only quoted this a representative sample of your direct, personal attacks, rather than arguing the issues. I'll try my best to ignore the rest of your nonsense.

But, as best I can, I'll come up the the quotes. To remind myself, I have two tasks, because you are not familiar with some basic facts:

1) To demonstrate that Spassky at one point had an opinion that Fischer, not Karpov, would have been the favorite in 1975, and