chess

Chess

Divide and you will unmask!
Wild name, real hobbies
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
jean-marc 20 ( +1 | -1 )
Fisher v Karpov... Does anyone know why Fisher didn't defend the World title against Karpov in the mid seventies ? Who do you think would have won ?
Wonder if bluebabygirl can write a poem about that one...
ughaibu 10 ( +1 | -1 )
Fischer had a history of chickening out, there is no
question of who would've won, Fischer didn't have
the balls.
schachfruend 11 ( +1 | -1 )
Anonymous ughaibu. No name but full of..... While it quite to have an opinion here, it is not to have swear words.
More: Chess
aggropolis 23 ( +1 | -1 )
Swear? Balls is just courage. I bet they didn't teach you that in school raisin!

Now you were closest to swear here, shame on you.

To keep to the subject, Karpov would've won. Fischer is just a sad story with a big mouth.
ughaibu 35 ( +1 | -1 )
So? Are you suggesting "balls" is a swear word?
Probably one of the words adults most often use in
their parental interlocution. The word is not taboo, it
is certainly not swearing as that implies a breach of
sanctity, is the word too anatomically explicit for
you? Well I suggest you micturite on an ancestral
grave while reflecting on the triviality of your
thinking and it's consequent complaint.
myway316 43 ( +1 | -1 )
Fischer... ,,,forfeited the title when FIDE refused to grant all his demands. The big sticking point was Fischers insistance that the winner had to be the first to win 10 games(draws not counting),but if the score reached 9-9,the match would end,and he would retain the title,meaning Karpov had to win by at least 2 points.As for the result,even tho Fischer had not played a serious game in 3 years,I don't think Karpov could take him in 1975.1978,yes. My prediction:10-5 Fischer.
ughaibu 34 ( +1 | -1 )
Moscow 1971, one of the strongest tournaments of
the 20th century, long before Karpov would need to
develope his abilities to meet Fischer. Among the
competitors Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Geller
and sharing first place Stein and Karpov. Of course
Fischer didn't stand an earthly, that's why he didn't
show.
myway316 66 ( +1 | -1 )
ughaibu... ...what is with you,and these anti-social tendencies of yours? It seems to me you only show up on these forums to be disagreeable to everyone. Do you ever have anything good to say about anyone,or anything? Don't forget the old saying:"If you can't say something nice,don't say anything at all. And I hold to my prediction-Karpov would not be able to stand up to the physical and mental strain Fischer would put him under every game. Look at his later matches vs.Korchnoi in 1978,and the first Kasparov match,when he was at his top form-he was a pale shadow,physically,after those marathons. Bobby would wear him out,playing every game until there was nothing left.
ughaibu 9 ( +1 | -1 )
Myway316 Please specify my unpleasantnesses. Alternatively
read all my posts and express a balanced view.
ughaibu 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Or are you disagreeing with my disagreement with
your opinion?
jean-marc 22 ( +1 | -1 )
ughaibu... Do you think perhaps the FBI/CIA thought Karpov would beat Fisher, so they pressurised him into not fronting up ? :)

It's a shame that match never took place. It would have been one of the best ever !
ughaibu 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Just a question of taste but I find the style of both
of them rather boring. Pity Stein died before he had
a chance.
ughaibu 38 ( +1 | -1 )
It's really very strange, chess is a competitive game,
Short says you have to be prepared to kill your
opponent's mind, yet any hint of disagreement on
these threads ie without the mediation of chess
pieces and everybody pushes off. Dont you like to
argue? Express a view point just for the fun of trying
to defend it? Anything, communicate by words not
lumps of wood?
aggropolis 28 ( +1 | -1 )
This is not suited in this forum.
We do not argue with eachother here.
Everything is good and everyone is happy.
We never disagree.
We discuss chess, but not to complicated variations, because then we can disagree.
Words of organs are not allowed, they are equal to swearing.

I am brainwashed.
ughaibu 2 ( +1 | -1 )
Okay brother sir.
aggropolis 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Aha, a freethinker. I see, stand behind the line please and sign here.
ughaibu 4 ( +1 | -1 )
No, really guv'nor my dad signed for me before I was
born.
bluebabygirl 41 ( +1 | -1 )
to jean-marc yes if you ask me i can write a poem to that !!! and it will be a goood one too!!! but if you meant that statement in another way??????????????Why would you concern yourself with the postings of a 15 year old girl . just let me know if your statement was real or sarcastic!!???????I try to be nice to everyone i meet, but i stay away if I find they refuse to bec nice also . and please take no offense in what I say , its never meant that way !!! yours bluebabygirl
ughaibu 33 ( +1 | -1 )
Bluebabygirl I dont see any reason to be suspicious, the words of
a fifteen year old girl have their degree of
independent value as much as the words of any one
else. You dont know how old I am but you thanked
me for the poem I wrote for you, so the same with
your interlocutors, I doubt if they care at all about
your age. Just feel free and have fun.
jean-marc 44 ( +1 | -1 )
No sarcasm, promise... Hi bluebabygirl,

No, I enjoy all your input on this forum. You really are quite refreshing. You're also a bit of a "provocateur" in stimulating debate on a wide range of subjects. You certainly have brought this forum to life. ...was a bit dry before.

I was betting you'd write a poem. Was interested to see if I was right. ...mind you, personally, I don't think your poems are your greatest contributions. I prefer the questions you raise. Also interested in reading your answers.
bluebabygirl 64 ( +1 | -1 )
ughaibu thanks for your kind words . yes i thanked you and also meant it when i said your poem although shorter was much better!!!!as for jean- marc i meant no disrespect just wanted to know if it was sarcasm after all he posted on another thread the statement ( its a wonder at all what with all these threads shes posting that she has any time to play her games) with no comment about the subject of that thread, only about my posting so many etc. again I am indeed sorry if I offende anyone. i try not to offend .i just want to learn and discuss chess . because its my passsion !!! yours bluebabygirl
bluebabygirl 77 ( +1 | -1 )
re- to jean- marc let me begin by saying how sorry i am that i misjudged you , how ironic that i should do that when i only want to be friends with any chess player because my opinion is for better or for worse that any person that plays chess has a far greater understanding of life in general and sad to say are usually a step above those people that do not !! however alll those people that do not or cannot play chess are missing out on the greatest gift given to man by way of a game !!and yes for you i will write that poem eventhough its about 5 hours past my bedtime . if dad gets up im in BIG TROUBLE !! i HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE BUT I WILL DO IT BECAUSE I never BREAK A PROMISE . SIR IF YOU WOULD FORGIVE ME FOR MY MISTAKE I shall always be grateful , yours bluebabygirl
aggropolis 0 ( +1 | -1 )
:) :)

jean-marc 59 ( +1 | -1 )
No Prob... No apologies required... It's so easy to misjudge the tone of the written word. That's why we see some conversations getting heated on several of the threads. Quite often offence is taken when none was meant.

No, there was never sarcasm, only a bit of tongue in cheek when I was asking if you actually had time to play chess.

Any way, these forums are for the exchange of ideas, one should never put down another's contributions. If we all agreed on everything the forum would be dead boring.

You must stay up very late. It's the middle of the afternoon in Oz. I'd hate to think what time it is where you are...
bluebabygirl 12 ( +1 | -1 )
re its very late here in WONDERLAND TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!YOURS BLUEBABYGIRL . P.S. THANKS FOR YOUR KINDNESS TO STRUGGLING ROOKIE WRITER !!
bluebabygirl 171 ( +1 | -1 )
POEM FOR JEAN-MARC I fell asleep late one stormy night!! .and dreamed two great warriors met to fight !!now they both were legend ,they both were grand !!!but onewas far more than most people could stand!!robert james fischer was his name!!playing chess and making people mad was his game!!now the other was this guy called karpov!!and fischers cruel forfiet he wanted to throw off!!he already had the fortune and the fame!!but his greatest dream was to crush fischers game!!i saw them meet at caissa's golden table!!both were ready but one was very unstable!!the clocks were started, the clocks were a ticking!!one will triumph ,the other take a bad licking!!as fischer pushed his Epawn, karpov began to frown!!his rusty old E4 shows he is still a clown!!now karpov laughed and played his counter!!soon fischers queen was delighted he finally found her!!out fischer brought her with a bang!!but karpovs knight snorted and showed his fangs !!now the game they were a playing looked old but smelt new !!fischer was a gaining. but you must give karpov his due!!he knew fischer wasa bluffing !!so he pushed his rook and fischer began a huffing !!but he was a faking covering the trick he had!!if karpov fell for it , he would crush him very bad!!but karpov was shrewd and too great a fellow!!he sacked his rook and fischer let out a bellow!!was it the king or the crown prince that saw his fate !!for that preciuos answer you just have to wait!!for caisa waved her hand and blocked my view !!then she said to never tell and if i do !!she sure get me but she will also get you !!now this just might be real or might be a fable!!she will tell you if you ever sit at her table!! yours bluebabygirl
bluebabygirl 38 ( +1 | -1 )
to jean-marc hope you enjoy dedicated to jean-marc!! who inspired me to try this little lark.!!he is a pretty good guy and a very nice fellow !!he dared me to write this and i proved i aint yellow!!so if you enjoyed all that you SEEN!! dont thank me but instead thank good ole JEAN!!! YOURS BLUEBABYGIRL . i reall hope you guys enjoyed this little dream i had .
jean-marc 16 ( +1 | -1 )
She did it again... Great poem. So, that's how it would have been, had Fisher ever played Karpov...

Let's hope bluebabygirl is finally getting some sleep, now.
brucehum 65 ( +1 | -1 )
Tal played against both of them and said... Tal, who played against Fischer and Karpov, and was in very good form during the 70s (he had two long undefeated streaks then), said once that Fischer in 1972 was better than the Karpov of the 70s and early 80s, as well as Kasparov. BUT, that the Karpov and Kasparov of mid to late 80s where stronger than the Fischer of 72.

This could be true, but we'll never know. It is just an informed opinion. If you look at the games in Karpov-Kasparov 1986, you see they have a very high level! In fact, one of the best, or the best game by Kasparov (and it is saying much!) is from then, against Karpov. Karpov plays almost perfectly, but loses!
peppe_l 143 ( +1 | -1 )
The truth is Only Fischer himself knows why he refused to show up. Yes his demands were ridiculous, so maybe he knew FIDE wasnt going to accept his two-win rule? Most of his demands were accepted, Fischer-Karpov was going to be a chess spectacle (Philippine government was offering 5,000,000$ prize, second biggest purse in sports history) and FIDE wanted it to happen - badly.

Who would have won? Once again, we can only guess. But even guessing is difficult because no one knows how well Fischer 1975 played! Yes we know Fischer 1972 was brilliant, but 3 years break is 3 years break (unless he spent 1972-75 for studying chess...). Karpov 1975 wasnt as strong as Karpov later plus it is true he seems to have some problems in long matches. Examples, Baguio 1978 where his clear 5-2 lead vs korchnoi became 5-5 (he DID beat Korchoi in fantastic 32nd game though), Moscow 1984 where his crushing 5-0 lead vs Kasparov became 5-3. So, even though I am not sure is there a point in making predictions of a match between players of different era (72/75), my guess is _in a match for 10 wins_ Fischer 72 would have beaten Karpov 75, although I do believe "Fischer myth" causes many people to overestimate him and underestimate Karpov. Fischer 1975 vs Karpov 1975? I have no clue, and neither has anyone else, except maybe Fischer himself :-)
baseline 76 ( +1 | -1 )
with respect 3 years is not an "Era" in fact Fischer was inactive from 1967 to 1970 and came back if anything a stronger player. Here is a quote from GM Lev Albert "Karpov always took a sober view of what he was capable of. He knew he could hardly draw a game with Fischer, never mind winning one or two games. His only chance was to disrupt the match. So a whole arsenal of tricks was worked out, designed to upset the sensitive American, unaccustomed to such methods. As Karpov himself said, 'This match cannot end normally. Either I'll be taken to hospital (Anatoly weighed only 48 kg at the time and even at the end of his Moscow match with Korchnoi required pep pills to keep him gong) or else he'll be taken to the insane asylum,'"
peppe_l 186 ( +1 | -1 )
Baseline Please let me quote myself...

"Yes we know Fischer 1972 was brilliant, but 3 years break is 3 years break (unless he spent 1972-75 for studying chess...)."

The reason he came back stronger than ever was the fact that he spent the time for studying chess. Now did he study chess 1972-75? I dont know.

Lev Alburt:

"Karpov always took a sober view of what he was capable of. He knew he could hardly draw a game with Fischer, never mind winning one or two games."

Alburt is ridiculous. Spassky managed to win "one or two" games vs Fischer, despite of being far from top form in 1972. Karpov managed to crush Spassky 4-1 (plus draws) in candidates matches 1974 (the only loss being a result of playing in fever), at the time when Spassky had found his lost form again.

It is no secret Alburt has somewhat cold feelings towards Karpov, and sadly his bias is showing here.

"His only chance was to disrupt the match. So a whole arsenal of tricks was worked out, designed to upset the sensitive American, unaccustomed to such methods."

It seems Alburt is comedian too, Fischer if anyone was a master of tricks - constant demands before and during matches etc. FIDE did everything they could to make the match happen, they accepted almost all his demands. The rules were more than fair for Fischer, almost unfair to Karpov, but he refused to defend his title.

I know Fischer is a legend and I understand people want to believe he was invincible, 1000 times stronger than any other player has ever been (or ever will) and lost his title to boring Karpov because evil Russians plotted against him (cold war, anyone?). But that is not how it was.

Baseline I have lots of respect for you and your views, but in all fairness Alburt is laughable sometimes...
baseline 200 ( +1 | -1 )
Everyone is laughable sometimes I have had the pleasure of meeting Lev Alburt on three occasions and I can assure you he is not a ridiculous comedian. He does overstate his case somewhat but much of what he says has merit. If you have not had a chance to read "Russians versus Fischer" by Plisetsky and Voronkov you should have a look it includes alot of what was previously confidential documents from the Soviet Chess Federation, Sports Committe of the USSR and Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party.

I was the age you are now when these events occured and for me they were current events. I can assure you Fischer was prepared to play Karpov. He fully expected his conditions for the match to be approved. His demands were not out of line and Karpov even recieved more favorable terms in his future matchs.

In the 41 Soviet Championship in 1973 all of the best players were required to participate and the winner was Spassky ! (this was a much stronger tournament than Moscow 1971 by the way) Spassky's Swan Song if you will proving a point after which he was willing to allow chess to take up a less important place in his life. Karpov is on record as saying that he did not believe that he would prevail during that championship cycle. In fact he was still impoving and a close examination of his games during this period have not convienced me he had reached Fischer's level of play.

Fischer was not a myth, he was in fact one of the most dominant tournament players of the 60's starting with his 2nd place finish at Bled 1961 by the time he withdrew from Sousse 1967 everone knew he would eventually be World Champion.

To his credit Karpov went on the be a great champion in his own right and as in life the old are replaced by the young Karpov would have been next in any event just as Kasparov over took him and Kramnik has over taken Kasparov.

The real legacy of a chess master is in the games he leaves for us to enjoy and learn from. I have learned alot from Fischer and indeed from Karpov as well.
tonlesu 37 ( +1 | -1 )
Peppe Sadly your bias is showing as it always does when you talk of Fischer. You've never had anything to root for in Finland so you bash Fischer. Whenever a thread begins on Fischer and I see you posting, I know exactly what you're going to say. Hey pal, learn to live with it---this is America and you're Finland. We produce grandmasters like you produce patzers. Have a nice day!
peppe_l 10 ( +1 | -1 )
Tonlesu I give you full credit for one of the funniest posts I have ever read :-)

Cheers, Peppe
peppe_l 417 ( +1 | -1 )
Baseline Great post.

"I have had the pleasure of meeting Lev Alburt on three occasions and I can assure you he is not a ridiculous comedian. He does overstate his case somewhat but much of what he says has merit. If you have not had a chance to read "Russians versus Fischer" by Plisetsky and Voronkov you should have a look it includes alot of what was previously confidential documents from the Soviet Chess Federation, Sports Committe of the USSR and Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party."

Thanks for the tip, I will read the book if I happen to see it somewhere!

"I was the age you are now when these events occured and for me they were current events. I can assure you Fischer was prepared to play Karpov. He fully expected his conditions for the match to be approved. His demands were not out of line and Karpov even recieved more favorable terms in his future matchs."

Here I have to disagree. Karpov has played two matches where the first player who took certain amount of wins won the match. In neither of those matches Karpov had 10-8/9-9 advantage Fischer demanded in 1972. Sure there were some debatable decisions (I know the Karpov - Kasparov case rather well) but at least IMO none of them was as unfair as the "two-win advantage" rule.

"In the 41 Soviet Championship in 1973 all of the best players were required to participate and the winner was Spassky ! (this was a much stronger tournament than Moscow 1971 by the way) Spassky's Swan Song if you will proving a point after which he was willing to allow chess to take up a less important place in his life. Karpov is on record as saying that he did not believe that he would prevail during that championship cycle. In fact he was still impoving and a close examination of his games during this period have not convienced me he had reached Fischer's level of play."

I agree Karpov 75 was not (yet?) on Fischer 75 level, and you are correct he was unsure of his chances in 74/75 candidates matches.

This is from his book, My Best Games (1978)

*** Yes, I felt at the outset that I would not win the candidates matches. I did not really know whom I would lose to, but I did think that at some point experience would prevail. The reality of the situation did not really hit me until I had reached the final. ***

He also talks about Fischer...

*** Petrosian and Spassky respected each other across the board, and they allowed themselves to take it easy during a game or a tournament. Then Fischer appeared. He forced them to play as when Botvinnik was in his heyday; he gave no quarter, and his games went on full five hours, five hours of tense struggle. Fischer did not wait for things to happen, and possibly it is this very trait that distinguishes him from the other great players. Fischer returned sharp play to chess, and he carried the competitive aspect to its limit: a fight to the death. He enchanced the meaning of universalism by demonstrating fine technique in the realization of an advantage, excellent combinational and positional play, a feeling for the initiative, and an ability to attack. But his best competitive trait, which he brought to perfection, was the ability to take advantage of every opportunity during the struggle ***

"Fischer was not a myth, he was in fact one of the most dominant tournament players of the 60's starting with his 2nd place finish at Bled 1961 by the time he withdrew from Sousse 1967 everone knew he would eventually be World Champion."

Of course he was one of the greatest players ever. The myth I am talking about is invincible Fischer who could never be defeated by anyone. You have a point when you say both Karpov and Kasparov were eventually defeated. But Fischer quit his career before "next generation" (Karpov & Kasparov) had a chance to try defeating him.

"To his credit Karpov went on the be a great champion in his own right and as in life the old are replaced by the young Karpov would have been next in any event just as Kasparov over took him and Kramnik has over taken Kasparov."

Look above :-)

"The real legacy of a chess master is in the games he leaves for us to enjoy and learn from. I have learned alot from Fischer and indeed from Karpov as well."

Wise words my friend.







peppe_l 75 ( +1 | -1 )
BTW Tonlesu If my so called bias against Fischer is a result of my country having no great grandmasters, why am I defending Karpov? After all he comes from a country that has produced many times more grandmasters than USA :-)

It seems some Americans (luckily not all!) see everything trough stars and stripes-coloured glasses, even chess.

Its just a game! To me its the same where great players come from. But I suppose to you its just a way to prove your country is better than mine. Fine, I bow to mighty America. I agree Morphy and Fischer were greater than anyone else - not because they played great chess, but because they were American. Happy now?

Yours,

Patzer from Finland
baseline 138 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe_I Korchnoi: "Was Fischer right in demanding that the world title be protected by a two-point handicap - that the challenger would be considered the winner with a 10:8 score and that the champion would retain his title in the event of a 9:9 draw? Yes, this was quite natural: the champion deserves this, not to mention the fact that further play to the first win in the event of an even score would be nothing short of a lottery - the winner in that case would not claim to have won a convincing victory. The genius Fischer was not given the chance to defend his title by this rejection of a two-point handicap.; What followed was that the Soviet later adopted Fischer's idea of an open-ended match instead of a match of 24 games. But instead of the two-point handicap, they protected Karpov far more reliably and far more ruthlessly with respect to the challenger - by insisting on a return match!"

Yes, Korchnoi's attitude toward Karpov is what cool! :o)

I agree that it is very unfortunate that Fischer didn't continue playing actively after all in the 70's he was only in his 30's.

Changing the subject I have the book "An Explosive Chess Opening Repertoire for Black" by Jouni Yrjola and Jussi Tella and I am impressed with Grandmaster Yrjola's workand look foward to see more! (forgive me...I do not know how to produce the special characters ...so as to reproduce his name properly.)

tonlesu 6 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe If my post was so funny why does it sound like you're crying?
parrvert 13 ( +1 | -1 )
tonlesu Flame Wars has gone. Let's not turn the chess forum into a place where we bash each other's countries.
peppe_l 5 ( +1 | -1 )
Indeed Lets keep chess and nationalism separate.
peppe_l 156 ( +1 | -1 )
Baseline I agree, chess world lost a great match. A battle between Fischer and Karpov would have boosted the popularity of chess in the same way Fischer did in 72 by breaking the chain of Soviet champions, but instead there was no match, the brightest star of early 70s quit playing and Karpov had to win many tournaments before people finally realized how good he was.

Korchnoi...oh well. The way I see it in a match of 10(!) wins - a potential marathon - the better player has more than fair chances to prove his superiority. I cant see the point of talking about lottery - using his argument in a 24-game match the 24th game in a situation where points are even is lottery as well. Winning a decisive game is no lottery, especially if the challenger has to score no less than 9 wins to reach a situation where he can claim his 10th win. And of course, if one really wants to play, one can always demand (for example) 24-game match where champion has the advantage of keeping the title if the match is drawn.

I bet had Karpov ever made a demand of 2-point handicap, no one would be defending him. For some reason Fischer seems to be a special case...?

Tella and Yrjölä,

Yeah I have seen the book in a tournament, it looked interesting and Im happy to hear you liked it! Good subject IMO, there are only few opening books that tell you what to do in case your opponent doesnt play 1.e4 or 1.d4. Most "complete repertoire" books seem to be for white. Both these players have a reputation of being good teachers and Yrjölä is known as a good author as well.
tonlesu 60 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree let's keep nationalism separate. But it's hard to remain silent when one hears all the time expressions like -well they're Americans, they obviously feel Fischer was the greatest. Like it was an American phenomena. Fischer was a world wide phenomena whether it be France, Italy, Germany or the USSR. Even the Soviet giants admired the guy.

I'll end this discussion with this---Fischer was something else. He would have been an earth shaker no matter where he was born. Even had he been born in Helsinki, he would have made a name for himself.
bluebabygirl 81 ( +1 | -1 )
to tonlesu bravo!!!! very well said !!!!! you are absolutely right , FISCHER would have been a GIANT , BEHEMOTH, OR COLLASSIS no matter what nation he was from!!!!!!! and also I tell you many an american has as a chess hero other great players than just a FISCHER like KASP., KARP., KRAMNIK , ANAND , CAPA, LASKER, ALEKHINE, BRONSTEIN , KERES , GELLER, SMYLOV,STEIN, BOTVINNIK and the one and only TAL !!!! PLUS MANY MORE . COUNT HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE russian , YES many so americans while they do recognize FISCHER'S GENIUS ALSO HONOR OTHER GREAT PLAYERS , MANY OF WHOM ARE russian!! so its not always a continuing of cold war thoughts . just my opinion on that .PLUS MY HERO IS rubinstein not fischer and he is not AMERICAN or RUSSIAN . YOURS BLUEBABYGIRL
tonlesu 13 ( +1 | -1 )
babyblue You are absolutely correct. Tal tops many popularity polls here in America along with Kasparov, Polgar and others.
peppe_l 76 ( +1 | -1 )
Tonlesu Im sorry you still believe every time someone critisizes Fischer (his demands for 75 match vs Karpov) it must be because Fischer is American and everyone is jealous for being from smaller and less important country. I have always agreed he was one of the greatest chess players ever and speaking of countries, I am very happy someone managed to topple Russian grandmasters and increase the popularity of chess in US. I only disagree when people claim he was an invincible superhuman or when people claim Fischer wasnt the one to blame for 75 world championship match not happening. Even the soviet giants admired the guy? Really? Wasnt the Karpov quote I gave already pointing this out?

Not everything is about being or not being American...

baseline 211 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe_l I am not one of those Americans that worship Fischer as an Invincible superhuman.

Palma de Mallorca 1970 18.5 out of 23 … 3.5 points ahead of the second place finishers.
6-0 over Taminov
6-0 over Larsen
6.5 – 2.5 over Petrosian who was World Champion from May 1963 until June 1969
12.5-8.5 over Spassky World Champion

Where in Karpov’s illustrious career can you point to a period when he dominated the chess world like this?

Is it really all Fischer’s fault that the 1975 did not take place?

You want to make a big deal out of the 9-9 draw clause. This unthinkable unreasonable demand by Fischer is to blame. Lets have a look at a little history. Alekhine could make any demands he wanted to. Botvinnik had the rematch clause up until his chess federation withdrew support wanting to get a younger man on the throne when Fischer started to loom on the horizon. Karpov got his first match with Kasparov terminated without result when things started to go against him, and got the rematch clause reinstated (Something that was ruled-out in advance for Fischer} for the next match. Kasparov decided he was so special that he could just leave FIDE and take the Title with him! The fact is that FIDE has long been a very political organization and the Soviet Chess Federation had the political muscle to get what they wanted. The U.S.A was and remains the equivalent of a third world nation in FIDE.

Fischer walking away from chess may have been the best thing that ever happened to Karpov. Up until the final match Korchnoi (one of the old guard predating Fischer) proved to be a handful. An active vigorous Fischer may not have relinquished his title until Kasparov appeared on the scene.

Karpov never managed to achieve Fischer’s Elo rating even though ratings tend to increase over time due to a small inflation factor

I also realize that nothing I have said will phase you in the least. 25 years ago like you I saw most issues in black & white, whereas today I see various shades of grey.
peppe_l 367 ( +1 | -1 )
Baseline "I am not one of those Americans that worship Fischer as an Invincible superhuman."

I know. I defitenitely wasnt referring to you in my post!

Yes the history of world championship matches has been full of unfair decisions, especially during the time where there was no FIDE. But does the history of unfair decisions mean it is ok to continue making them? Not in my opinion. Also I heavily disagree that Soviets got what they wanted. The fact that Fischer managed to push most of his demands trough clearly supports my point of view. It is obvious even without 2-point advantage rule a match for 10 wins was not something Russians wanted. It was well known Fischer had more stamina for long matches than Karpov.

I still stand behind my opinion that Fischer was the one to blame. I am not saying all the others were 100% correct in all times, but so far no one has denied the fact that Fischer had a chance to defend his title under fair conditions, whether it was going to be a match for 10 wins, traditional 24-game match, or something else. In fact he had a possiblity to alter the rules, and FIDE was accepting this. All he had to do was to pick up a format he liked (the one that was favouring him) - within certain limits. This is already more than world champion should have, is it really fair if a world champion who excels in long matches changes 24-game format to a possible marathon (first who wins 10 games?) just because it happens to suit him well? Fischer got this and more. But no - he wanted a 10-game match WITH 2-point advantage. No compromises. The point is if you want to alter the conditions to the more favourable direction for yourself, you must be prepared to compromise. You say Alekhine could make any demands he wanted to and I agree. But in 1975 FIDE wasnt willing to go back to the time when world champion decided about the rules in a way he saw good. For himself, that is.

You mention his road to the world championship,

Taimanov 6-0
Larsen 6-0
Petrosian 6.5-2.5
Spassky 12.5-8.5

"Where in Karpov’s illustrious career can you point to a period when he dominated the chess world like this?"

You choosed world championship/candidates matches to point out how dominating Fischer was. Ok. Can Karpov topple this? Propably not. His road to the world championship,

Interzonal, Leningrad +10 =7 -0
Polugajewsky +4 =5 -0
Spassky +4 =6 -1
Korchnoi +3 =19 -2

Clearly not as impressive as Fischer 72.

Of course we must remember Karpov reached his peak only years later (hard to say exactly when, he has a long and succesful career). He had his chance to compete with Fischer in the series of achievements in world championship matches in 84 when he was leading Kasparov 5-0, but he blew it.

So, to answer your question - speaking of World championship/candidates matches Karpov cant topple the achievements of Fischer 72.

Speaking of dominating tournament chess, well, his results speak for themselves. But I will not pick a short period of time because 1) matches and tournaments are different 2) I prefer making comparisons based on longer timeline. Karpov domination? How about 1974-84?

"I also realize that nothing I have said will phase you in the least. 25 years ago like you I saw most issues in black & white, whereas today I see various shades of grey."

Please no age racism...I am not the one seeing things black and white (neither are you) and Im confident you know this. You already pointed out people who see things black and white. Quote,

"I am not one of those Americans that worship Fischer as an Invincible superhuman."

Not that all the people who see Fischer as an invincible superhumans are Americans, of course. He has fans all over the globe and only a part of them lose all objectivity whenever someone says Bobby Fischer...





baseline 41 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe_l I almost posted a long caustic reply to your last post. sometimes its good to be old and have just enough wisdom to bite your tounge before you say something you might regret later. I'm tired of talking about Fischer, he broke my heart as a young man and his comments after 911 appalled me. The hero of my youth is now a deranged old man who can never come home.

best wishes

baseline
peppe_l 69 ( +1 | -1 )
Well I can certainly understand why anyone who saw Fischer as a hero back in 70s is disappointed. I too heard his comments regarding 11/9 (his radio interviews from 90s can be found as mp3 but for the most part they are really not worth listening) but I leave evaluating his current mental health to others. Lets just hope there will be no more radio interviews - having strange opinions about chess and applauding mass murder are two different things. The decision to charge him for playing Spassky in Yugoslavia 1992 wasnt exactly one of the brightest moments of US officials, but in all fairness perhaps it is better for everyone he will never return to US.

Look at the bright side my friend, his fantastic chess lives on :-)