However, opinions on their respective chess talents are just 50-50 splits and cannot be proven or disproved. What is for CERTAIN is that as the match went on Karpov's advantage would increase dramatically because of his strong team supporting him. All of Fischer's openings would have been exhaustively studied during the match for weaknesses as well.

Fischer handicapped himself in this respect by refusing to assemble a team to help him, and great though he was, nobody can seriously believe that he was so much better than Karpov that he would have been able to overcome him and his whole team in the end.

Dmitry Jakovenko to defend last year's trophy

The 9th International chess tournament in honor of former world champion Anatoly Karpov will take place on 8-18th July at the NRMU CSB "Neptune" in Bragin Poikovsky, Khanty-Mansiysk. The organizers have stated that their main objective is to popularize and develop chess in the vast territory of Siberia.

Participants:

Alexei Shirov (Spain 2741)
Dmitry Jakovenko (Russia 2709) - last year winner
Sergei Rublevsky (Russia 2699)
Wang Hao (China 2691)
Ernesto Inarkiev (Russia 2675)
Andrei Volokitin (Ukraine 2671)
Vugar Gashimov (Azerbaijan 2717)
Viktor Bologan (Moldova 2686)
Alexander Onischuk (USA 2670)
Emil Sutovsky (Israel 2654)

Source:http://previews.chessdom.com/poikov...

You mean 1974. But you seem to be presupposing two things:

1) Korchnoi is a pushover. For Fischer, at least.

2) Karpov would have been playing the Fischer of 1972 in 1975.

Both these ideas seem highly questionable.

<Fischer was the king. Just look at those eyes on the Life Magazine cover. Nobody could beat him in a match in those days.>

Apologies: I don't know where to post this request!

Fischer vs Korchnoi, 1962

Fischer vs Korchnoi, 1962

Fischer vs Korchnoi, 1970

V.Korchnoi, according to Fischer himself, had been one of his toughest opponents.

In 1975 Fischer's play of 1970-72 cycle would have been somewhat "old-fashioned", well known to Karpov.

It is curious how people are so willing to fight for Fischer's honor v. Karpov, when he was unwilling to so much as push a pawn in his own defense. I won't give him the benefit of the doubt for that reason.

Of course Korchnoi was second banana to Spassky (who beat him in the 1968 candidates final) and Petrosian in the 1960s, but in the 1970s he surpassed them -- partly because they were in decline, but partly because he kept improving. He and Karpov jointly dominated the Leningrad interzonal, and he beat Petrosian quite badly in a candidates match. He also went on to give Karpov all he could handle in 1974 and 1978, years in which Karpov pretty much never lost to anybody else.

Unfortunately, no. all you've proven is that Korchnoi didn't believe he had a chance in 1971. We were discussing 1975. (Missed it by THAT much).

You may not have noticed it, but Korchnoi had a major career renaissance in the mid-1970's, in which his play improved dramatically. As for Fischer's play, who knows. But it's far from clear that he could play at his 1971 level in 1975. He certainly didn't act as though he were very confident about his chances at that time.

One thing that is clear is that in 1980, Korchnoi raised a guaranteed 3.5 million dollars to play Fischer using every one of his own rules, and Fischer declined to play. Common sense would seem to suggest that Korchnoi's opinion about his chances had changed by that time, at least. It would make little sense to go to that much trouble to try to arrange a match that you think you have no chance to win.

Too many times in these discussions, people fail to take the time factor into account, and regard a player's strenth as a constant throughout his career. It's like saying that Fischer in 1972 played no better than Fischer in 1956 because they were both Fischer.

I'm not saying that Karpov would have won (I think he would have, but that's not the point). I'm saying that it is *extremely* speculative ground, and to claim that Fischer definitely would have won simply isn't justified by the historical facts. The cover of Life magazine -- are you joking?

The truth is that both Fischer and Karpov were incredible calculators, capable of churning out opening novelties, who nonetheless played for small advantages, hoping to capitalize in the endgame with superior technique. Karpov was probably slightly more positional, and Fischer perhaps slightly more willing to go for a tactical slugfest, but both were solidly in the classical/positional camp. The fact that their play was so similar, the fact that both were so uncompromising, the fact that both would have been extremely motivated to win -- this is the recipe for a truly historic match. It seems to me utterly ridiculous to suggest that the would-be winner is obvious. Particularly when the (laughable) evidence is peering at a magazine cover to see the supposed iron grit in Fischer's soul.

The Spassky that emerged from the Fischer defeat was stronger and more experienced, and yet Karpov beat him convincingly. Fischer would have noted this and his paranoia would certainly have given him some trouble over that fact. If Fischer believed he would win with ease then he would have played the match, why not? But the point was that the situation was too close to call and he felt he had more to lose than he had to gain.