<Fischer would have won in 75 but Karpov would have gotten him in 1978.>

And as for a 1975 match, I would favor Karpov slightly. Fischer had been out three years and Karpov had just finished off Spassky and Korchnoi in a very convincing style. He was in top form and his opening preparation would have been the equal of Fischer's thanks to his team. And Fischer wouldn't be able to psych out Karpov like he had his other opponents: this was Karpov's greatest strength.

In 1972 Fischer reached his peak. And he knew it. Namely, he knew he could not "improve" his game any further. I believe that was one of the reasons he lost interest.

Of course, he also didn't play for 3 years.

Karpov, on the other hand, had plenty of room for improvement, which he proved later. And he kept on winning everything in sight. With ease.

So, now <Riverbeast> what kind of a logic are You using when stating Fischer would have won in '75? Never mind '78.

Based on facts, I'd rather say Fischer would have been in for a struggle the like of which he had never experienced before. And that he knew, too.

And an aside. In '78 match Karpov was not in his best form, made an unusual (for him) number of mistakes, possibly his preparation could have been better, too. By contrast, Korchnoi played his best Chess.

Well, yes and no. Fischer was clearly a better player than Larsen (this was NOT clear before their match, but was clear afterwards).

But not so much better that he should have won every game. But the dynamics of a short match force the player trailing to make reckless efforts to equalize the scores before time runs out. There were many candidates matches with lopsided scores for that reason (None as lopsided as Fischer's wins, though Ivanchuk came within one game of shutting out Yudasin in the early 90's).

Take a look at the Larsen games. Fischer obviously played much better in that match, but there were several games that Larsen threw away with his all-or-nothing approach. He flat out could have forced a draw by repetition in the last game but went for a (meaningless) win instead.

Look at the Taimanov Match. Taimanov could have won Game 3 and needed anti-heroic efforts to lose Games 2 and 5. If Fischer had won that match 6-2, it would have been very impressive but not a legendary result like 6-0 is.

But there's a reason that kind of thing happened. Fischer said that when he went out there, he gave 98% at the board, while most other people gave 2%. And it's true. He did. He had an intensity that had him always playing at full strength. It made him world champion.

Look at all the games of that match. preferably with some annotations. I have Raymond Keene's book of the match ('The Battle of Baguio') which is not heavy with analysis but explains just enough to get a feel for the games.

The truth is, Karpov did not get lazy. Korchnoi was outplaying him most of the match but blew several wins in time pressure and ended up losing (see particularly the disastrous games 13 and 17). Other wins or favorable positions of Korchnoi's were blundered into draws through time pressure.

This was Korchnoi's weakness: he was a maximalist at the board, and often got into time trouble because he spent so much time trying to find the best moves. Karpov was more practical: he didn't expend a ton of energy trying to find the best move when a good move would do just as well, and he liked to avoid the kind of blunders time trouble can bring.

Still, when Karpov was leading 4-1 with those two gift wins from losing positions, it could be argued he really should have been behind in the match.

Fischer was a maximalist at the board like Korchnoi, but unlike Korchnoi he almost never got into time pressure. And unlike both the Karpov and Korchnoi of 1978, he had no weaknesses in finishing technique. Anybody who has studied the games of Fischer knows he almost never let his opponent off the hook in favorable positions. Once he had you down, he kept increasing the pressure until you were OUT.

This is why I think Fischer would have beaten Karpov in 1975 and 1978.

Why do you feel Lasker can't be #2?

As for Steinitz, he was undefeated in matches for 32 years. And he played everybody who was anybody (except Morphy, of course, but you can't blame him for that).

No need for "understanding", it comes to You naturally. Relatively speaking.

Of course, in the above case Botvinnik meant something different, and was wrong. One of the very rare times he was wrong about anything.

I think, Karpov has had both: an "in-born" capacity of a "mother tongue" and a "deep understanding" based on study and practice.

There's no ultimate answer. I think what you're saying is that the Fischer of 1972 would have beaten Karpov in 1978. What the Fischer of 1978 would have done, nobody has a clue.

It's true that Karpov looked very vulnerable in that match. Korchnoi beat him 5 games, and let him off the hook in several more. If he played that way against the Fischer of 1972, he'd quite probably have gone down in flames.