Fischer was a bigger talent, but Karpov out peeked Fischer at some point. Fischer could have trained more and beat Karpov, for sure. Only Lord Gary himself beats both 😂 😂😂
@@adnan4688 For sure ? I am not convinced. Remember when Karpov and Kasparov went to the draw at the 1985 world championship, Karpov wasn't finished. But about Fisher, we'll never know.
@@thegamer97HS man..go check his career stats. Top 3 for sure. He has almost even head to head with kasparov and was playing prime kasparov all the time.
@@was1swill I don't think you can reasonanly put Karpov as the third greatest chess player of all times. To me, the top 3 is obvious: Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer (with number 1 and 2 being debatable between Carlsen and Kasparov). Now putting Karpov at number 4 is justifiyable, but I feel like other players could also reasonnably get this spot as well: Capablanca, Anand, Kramnik or Morphy to name a few. So I don't think you can say Karpov is DEFINITELY number 3 or 4 of all times. He's definitely top 10, and arguably top 5.
Let's be real, Fischer was definitely the favourite, but Kasparov was the favourite in 2000 and yet Kramnik won. Karpov once said he believed his chances against Fischer to be 40% at the time. Could Karpov have beaten Fischer? Yes. Would he have beaten Fischer? Nobody will ever know, Fischer refused to play.
Fisher proposed a change in the rules designed to de-incentivize the strategy of nursing a one point match lead by steering remaining games into endless draws. (Remember, Bobby grew up in the boring Petrosian era -- from which he and Spassky rescued chess.) HIs proposal was not the same as "refused to play." All Karpov had to do is say Yes., but he wouldn't. How do you justify THAT refusal? Blame him or his Soviet handlers, not Bobby.
@@donaldconway5305 bro, Fischer's proposal was terrible and justifiably unacceptable. He refused to play the best of 24 games which was the format at the time. His proposal was to play a match where only wins count. First to 10 wins, and Fischer starts with 1 point lead (the exact wording was that Fischer wins if he gets to 9, while his challenger wins on 10 but it's effectively the same). You CANNOT tell me that this was a less drawish format that the previous one: the 1984-5 match was with a similar format and 40 games were drawn with only 8 decisive results. Not only would it lead to dry games, it would also lead to a potentially infinite match and it was also very unfair. FIDE even proposed a compromise: accepting the format but denying Fischer the lead. He refused as well. To me, it cannot be said that the organisers were at fault. They proposed 2 fair formats (the 24 games match gave him a privilege as well since in case of a tie Fischer would keep the title) but Fischer would only play an unfair one. I 100% blame Fischer for this, he forfeited and thus he lost his title.
Why on earth did fischer propose best of 9 instead of best of 10? it sounds like a joke to me. Someone who was 2900 like fischer... couldn't even accept a match with fair rules, wow. fair rules is best to 10
@@scottwarren4998 what Fischer proposed was not best of 9 or 10. What he proposed was that he and Karpov play as many games as necessary but only the wins are counted. Karpov wins if he gets to 10, Fischer wins if he gets to 9. So yes, definitely unfair. If you don't believe me just Google it, there's plenty evidence for it. Also, Fischer reached 2785 as his record. I don't know where you read that he was 2900 but it never happened. And you don't need to overstate his greatness by exaggerating his rating. He was the first ever to get to 2700, and got 125 points ahead of number 2. And it took 18 years for someone to beat this record.
@@scottwarren4998 Hard to say how players like fischer would have responded to the latest advances in the understanding of chess. He might have rankled at the idea of studying with engines as he famously despised opening theory and preferred a chess variant he invented where both players rearrange the back rank of the opponent's pieces. He was an immensely intuitive player, so either he would have suffered in the era of engine-assisted analysis relative to his competition, or used it as an incredible springboard to go even higher. Unlikely to be a linear improvement like many other players would find it.
@@thegamer97HS karpov was world champion 10 years and spanked kasparov on their first title war on 84, lossing to him closely in 85, after failing to convert his advantage, stop disrespecting Karpov mate come on, the bro is one of the Goats
he is maybe top 20/30 all time but isnt even close to Kasparov level, let alone Fischer. The head to head matches dont interest me particularly the elo is way more important when talking about strenght and Kasparov has always been way above Karpov, even if he was the only one trying to contesting him. @@sergiorodriguez6316
Karpov was so great in 1975 that it was really unknown whether Fischer would win. Karpov was the young, Soviet, chess superstar, as good in chess as they would come. Even Fischer’s fans (like me) were unsure and scared about Karpov. He was that good. I remember.
True but given the objective quality of play, creative brilliance and Fischers domination over all sorts of soviet styles of play its hard to say Fischer would have lost.
Karpov was skinner than Fischer, who was quite big and had a natural athletic build. Fischer's plan, or fantasy, was to make draws not count and that Karpov would have had to beat him by a wider margin to count as a win, so Fischer could force draws for weeks, wear the thin Karpov down physically in terms of endurance, and then go for the wins. It was a shameful demand that Karpov of course could not consent to. Fischer left and it turns out the world kept spinning when he wasn't around, the world of chess moved on without him.
@@keaton718I don’t think he didn’t want draws to count because of that, he always hated draws and he never played for them, he would always play for a win and never for a draw
@@JoeJoe-uh5rp Nah, he was no dummy, he knew not counting draws gave him a massive advantage. He is a big man with an athletic build. Karpov was a gangly kid. I think that Fischer honestly believed he could lose against him in a fair match, with the same rules that had been used for decades, the same rules he won his championship with. Fischer is not someone you should admire. I mean really, that isn't a hot take, everyone always knew it.
Both players were definitly very strong at their peak. Just look up how Karpov did against Garry in all their WC matches. Karpov was hard to beat and also theoretically on the top, as Russian GMs supported him, additionally he was feared for converting little advantages.
Karpov was a real weapon. I didn't much care for his grinding out a pawn advantage over 20 moves game style but the man's defence was like granite. I think Kasparov once said something about how tough he was to penetrate.
No matter what..there will never be a more epic battle than Spassky v Fischer. Unless you were alive during the Cold War it’s very difficult to grasp. Up there w the Space race.
Karpov vs Fischer is simply not possible to accurately guess. They were both such incredible players, but with differing styles and levels of activity. We will never know and anyone who tries to confidently guess is stabbing in the dark
A couple of his favorites did go down the drain in 1972, but that, by itself, wasn't a reason to retire. Fischer's opening repertoire was much more adaptable at the end of his career than it had been early on.
Karpov's tournament record during the 70s was truly dominant, definitely the world no. 1. Against Spassky W13 D22 L1, it's not obvious that Fischer would have beaten him
It is to me. To start with, Karpov played 20+ years after Fischer retired and in that whole time he never matched Fischer's rating. That's not a coincidence. Then you also have several matches Kaprov lost to "lesser" players including Short and Seirawan. Finally, when I became a strong enough player myself and could understand the quality of their play it became clear to me Karpov was never at Fischer's class. BTW, Carlsen beat Kaprov several times by the time he was 11 and not even a GM yet.
@@c2c001 1-Karpov's top live rating was 2790 and Fischer's was 2789 2-Fischer was never near Karpov's 2985 performace elo in a Super GM Tournament 3- Karpov won wayyyyy more GM tournaments than Fischer and any other player in history 4- Fischer was WCH for 3 years and Karpov was for 10 years + 6 years as Fide WCH Both great players but in the long run, Karpov should be ranked higher
@@schess75 Excluding the fact that most of what you said that is relevant is wrong. Karpov’s peak was 2780, not 2790. Considering it took him several more decades of play and he still couldn’t match Fischer’s peak or even keep it in any stable manner (by a huge margin the majority of his life Karpov was a high 2600 player… meaning, not even a 2700+. Again, that says a lot.) the comparison is wrong from the start. It’s fairly obvious to any decent player that Fischer would have kept a higher level of play as he did in the years he was active. This is similar to Carlsen maintaining a 2800+ rating for a long period of time whereas everyone else who managed to peak above 2800 for a brief moment clearly couldn’t sustain it by roughly 100-points. In that respect, irregardless to Fischer, the reality is the bulk of Karpov’s career he wasn’t even a 2700 player. He was always a ~2680 player. Also, Karpov lost matches to people like Nigel Short and even Yasser Seirawan. Look, this is a debate of sorts where I’m making a point… I am by no means trying to argue Karpov wasn’t an amazing player. The reason I’m saying it now is that by my own writing I started to feel like my argument is doing him down to an extent that wasn’t my intention. All I’m saying is that yes, he was amazing… he just wasn’t at Fischer’s level. BTW, unlike most people I also think Fischer was better than Kasparov and if you’re interested I can explain why (it’s not a short explanation). I also think Kasparov is a problematic figure for reasons that most people don’t think about or know about. But chess history isn’t great at showing the truth. If you’re familiar with the Bronstein - Botvinnik case you know what I mean. If not, I can elaborate. To me, it seems that there are always two different conversations people mix together: one, who was the best world champion (that includes many stipulations including duration). Two, who was the best player. As a champion Kasparov accumulated more accolades than Carlsen. As a player Carlsen is significantly better. And this is not a question of knowledge. Had they lived in the same era and were were equally privileged and equally eligible to the same training and theoretical knowledge… Carlsen would still be significantly better. Kasparov has traits that at the time people didn’t have the means to use to their advantage. These days he would have his brilliant moments but he would also suffer far greater brilliant defeats.
@@schess75 So you're comparing Karpov's 2790.9 peak live rating in 1994 to Fischer's 2789.7 in 1972? Man that's a 22-year gap. Just imagine adjusting it due to inflation. Maybe around 2900?
@@callmeandoru2627 . Did you just call a world champion irrelevant?? Clearly, you're trolling but I'll entertain you. Spassky was active until 2009. He didn't suddenly turn into some patzer in 1992 after being world champion. But you try not playing chess for 20 years then come back. Let's see how well you play.
@@MrSupernova111 bro jus got so upset huh. Fischer fans has to be to most obnoxious, and easily triggered people on Earth. How did they say it? Like celebrity like fans? You guys are literally the only reason not more people decided to play chess.
Karpov is probably absolutely best world champion, made Fisher scared and even Kasparov couldn’t beat him in match revanch , guy lost his father and still found strength to finish Korchnoy, very strong character.
@@youtubenightcrawler9571 when you say "stopped playing before he knew about Karpov" - you do know that in 1972 Karpov was ranked #8 in the world, right? and in 1975 they had long negotiations with Fisher who has been coming up with various demands and excuses to avoid the match.
Without more information, Fischer would have won, 75 rating points is a lot. However, we need to know the answer to these questions before we can begin to answer that question. 1. How much chess did Fischer play and study between 1972-75. I suspect very little (we know that he didn't play any competitive chess). 2. How much time would FIDE give Fischer to prepare for the match? 3. How much had Fischer’s mental illness taken a toll on Fischer’s mental capabilities in 1975?
Fischer was way ahead of his time. His reasoning behind those demands are only being realized today when Carlsen refused to defend his title. They have the same reason: the World Chess Championship format does not show who's the better player but who's the less risk taker instead. Magnus said the sample size is too small that's why he wanted faster time controls. Pretty much the same idea with Fischer just different time controls.
The matches were also a lot different then because they didn't have a way to check for best moves so I don't even think there was a time control in classical because they would take multiple days and they would be allowed to discuss potential moves with their team overnight and shit. I remember that being a big thing in the documentary about Bobby Fischer's championship match. The Russians decided that they were completely lost in a position at some point.
The format is awful as the defending champion has a massive advantage. The other players have to play a load of matches, using up all their prep to even have a chance of being the challenger. The champion can save everything for the one match.
@@MaraKaspar Fischer called for longer time controls, not shorter, and more games at the long time control. But Fischer also decried the state of opening theory (too much prep, not enough at-the-board competition) which is why eventually he called to replace chess with chess960 as it’s now known.
I’ll always remember Linares in 1994, Kasparov said the winner would be the World Champion of tournament chess. It had a super strong lineup with all but 1 of the top 10 players competing and plenty of world/future world champions. Karpov dominated with 11/13 and played his ‘immortal’ game. Hard to say what would happen against Fischer, Karpov was super strong and clearly had amazing stamina but I feel like w never really got to see the best Fischer. Maybe he had more levels to him.
Of course no one can really say who would win if they actually played each other, but I lean toward Bobby Fischer. I do believe he was the better player, as his rise to the top was done all on his own; he had no team of American GMs helping him plan out every move, no support system to rely on, and had the entire Russian chess hegemony bearing down on him at a time when Russia was the dominant chess figure.
I would have loved for this match to have happened. It would have been maybe the most epic match in chess history so far - the two greatest players ever at/near their peaks.
Karpov 5 x 0 and then Kasparov started to play, drawing 48 games and extending the confrontation for 4 months. He himself admitted that he didn't know that Karpov was such a strong player and considered his mach lost. Then, under the orders of a new advisor, he began to play against Karpov's physical exhaustion.
Fischer's fanboys are really annoying. Longevity is really important in chess and Karpov is absolutely consistent! Very apologetic of Fischer who started having mental problems and he was obviously scared and couldn't cope with the fact that there's a high chance someone will beat him. Karpov is very, very underrated.
He wasn't "scared," he didn't care for the championship anymore because it wasn't about who was the best chess player, but who had the better team working as a group to decide the first 20-25 moves.
"Longevity is really important in chess..." Says who? It's sad when a spectacular player Like Fischer bows out prematurely (Paul Morphy was another notable example of this), but it doesn't take anything away from the impressiveness of whatever incredible feats they had already performed before then. _Kasparov_ had longevity. He still failed to win a single game in his WC match with Kramnik in 2000, unable to adapt as a clever innovation in the Berlin appeared to be busting his preferred White opening lines. I do not believe Bobby Fischer, in peak 1972 form, would have gotten stuck like that. He of the 20 game winning-streak would, I'm confident, have pulled at least _some_ rabbits out of his hat and written some more awesome Chess history. You're right about Karpov being underrated, for sure. But no way Fischer is overrated, except by the odd nostalgic who will say things like, e.g. that he would beat Carlsen in a match in the current year if he'd been sent forward in time or some nonsense like that.
Fischer won 20 games in a row against top GM opposition. The #2 record is seven in a row by Fabi at the Sinquefeld Cup, 2013. Fischer also was rated 120 points above his nearest competition. To equal that, Magnus would need a rating of 2924 to be 120 points above Fabi. In addition, the Soviets were notorious for cheating aimed at him: pre-arranged draws between Russian players, while playing hard vs. Fischer, and using teams of GMs to analyze adjournments when Fischer had to go it alone, or, at best, use only one second. I think there are many reasons Fischer bailed out. He couldn’t get his terms (10 wins). He was tired of Russian cheating. He felt he had reached the mountaintop, and everything else was anti-climactic (There’s a famous Dick Cavett interview, where he sadly says “I feel like someone has been taken from me.”) He had dedicated so much of his life to Chess that he needed to address other areas in his life. The fame that chess had brought him also brought him unwanted attention, and he didn’t like that. And yes, there may have been an element of fear of not being able to repeat his extraordinary achievement of beating the entire Russian chess apparatus singlehandedly.
Even in Kasparov s opinion, Karpov was his greatest opponent, who was GREAT till 1997. One of the greatest of all times, probably the second best ever, according to Kasparov. (Of course, this was before chess GOAT Magnus showed up).
chess goat. dominated for half as long, didn't dominate as hard, had less WCCs and won less consistently than kasparov. high schoolers shouldn't be allowed to say who's the GOAT
@@harrywang4769 Magnus Carlsen is still in his prime and is dominating. No one, even Kasparov is willing to say they're better than Carlsen. That being said, Carlsen isn't willing to say they're better than Kasparov either
@@aquidillion Yeah, Carlsen actually says Kasparov is the GOAT, and that he needs to do more to get there, but Kasparov won't claim himself the GOAT and is extremely impressed by Carlsen as well. Carlsen is still firmly on top of everyone, and playing amazingly, so we'll what the future holds.
I'd say he had a shot at Fischer when he peaked. Considering Fischer had been inactive for a few years, I'd take Karpov. Had Fischer kept his form, then it's unclear. Many people have not studied enough Karpov if they think anyone would have easily beaten him in his peak. Nobody, not even Kasparov or Carlsen would have clearly dominated peak Karpov who btw completely dominated Kasparov early on.
Fischer destroyed all the great masters of the world. Petrosian, Geller, smyslov, botvinnik, tal, Fine, Najdorf, Bronstein, levenfish, Spassky,larsen,reshevesky... I think these names speak for Fisher's greatness. In my opinion, karpov could not resist these elders at all. Fisher karpov was razing it to the ground and destroying it Best GM all the time Robert james (bobby) legend fischer
@@mehrdadlachini7186 I am sure he was stronger than any of those players but I can't find many games where Fischer played Botvinnik, Fine, Bronstein and Levenfish.
@@mehrdadlachini7186 sure, he did beat all those people. But Karpov was quite a bit better than them, and was a very different type of player. Just because he beat some Soviet players doesn’t mean he bodies all of them lol. Karpov at his peak was super strong, and these championships can sometimes come down to just basic luck.
Karpov 5 x 0 y luego Kasparov empezó a jugar, empatando 48 partidas y extendiendo el enfrentamiento por 4 meses. Él mismo admitió que no sabía que Karpov era un jugador tan fuerte y consideraba que su máquina estaba perdida. Luego, bajo las órdenes de un nuevo asesor, empezó a jugar contra el agotamiento físico de Karpov.
If we take into consideration that fischer may have played nigel short in the early 2000's when online play was just starting out. It only takes those handful of games to understand fischer would have beaten karpov. Fischer was already in his 60's and still managed to beat short by giving him positional odds.
Admittedly this has always been a legendary story but I do believe it is fiction. Pretty sure it was a troll using a chess engine. Weird moves in those games too. Moving the king to the second rank instead of castling, things like that.
Tough call. Fischer basically stopped playing after becoming world champion. If he had played Karpov after being inactive for two years he would have had a hard time, especially because the USSR had by far the strongest players in the world and they would ALL have worked for Karpov in that match. Fischer`s team would have been much, much weaker. The USSR was dealt a big blow when the world chess champion became someone from outside the USSR. Especially because the title went into the USA. It would have been a matter of pride to them. Bobby was already over 30 and past his peak. Yeah, it would have been hard.
From 1970-1972, Fischer would have beaten anyone. He beat the entire Soviet Union by himself. He’s the reason so many started playing chess. No one else can say that. He played like a machine. Kasparov in his prime was one of the best, but Robert James Fischer is the greatest chess player of all time. One thing we can all agree on about both players: neither Fischer nor Kasparov cheated. The cheating today at every level is disgusting and has tarnished the game.
He didn't do it by himself, but he did do it. Unfortunately, Fischer burned himself out with his Total Immersion training regimen. After studying chess night and day to the exclusion of all else for 15 years, he was simply unable to continue. Every other world champion was able to balance chess with life better than Fischer did.
This question was disrespectful to Karpov. He would have crushed Fischer out of practice. Also, Karpov should have won in 85, 86 and 87 as well, but lost due to political undermining. If he hadn’t, people would be saying he was the best of all time instead of Kasparov. Which they should anyway
Karpov 5 x 0 und dann begann Kasparov zu spielen, der 48 Spiele unentschieden spielte und die Konfrontation um 4 Monate verlängerte. Er selbst gab zu, dass er nicht wusste, dass Karpov ein so starker Spieler war und dass er seine Macht für verloren hielt. Dann begann er auf Befehl eines neuen Beraters gegen Karpovs körperliche Erschöpfung zu spielen.
Speculating Fischer's level after 3 years of assumed halt of study is ludicrous and impossible to evaluate. What we know for a fact is that Fischer from 1971/1972 would comfortably beat Karpov in 1975.
Fischer is an extremely talented and gifted chess player. But he couldn't waste time and refuse the match with Karpov. Even if he had lost, he would have had the opportunity to take revenge. What he did was not a crime against his own career. It was a crime against chess.
Karpov 5 x 0 puis Kasparov ont commencé à jouer, faisant 48 matchs nuls et prolongeant la confrontation pendant 4 mois. Il a lui-même admis qu'il ne savait pas que Karpov était un joueur aussi fort et considérait sa victoire comme perdue. Puis, sous les ordres d'un nouveau conseiller, il se met à jouer contre l'épuisement physique de Karpov.
Карпов 5х0, а затем заиграл Каспаров, сыграв вничью 48 партий и продлив противостояние на 4 месяца. Сам он признался, что не знал, что Карпов настолько сильный игрок, и считал свою игру потерянной. Затем по указанию нового советника он начал играть против физического истощения Карпова.
it is hilarious how people ldiscuss this kinds of thing based on nothing but their heart feelings.beeing rationale, its obvious Karpov would crush Fischer on chess nowadays..he is just beeing humble
Yeah, pretty easy for Karpov to talk about how Spassky and Fischer were tired and making mistakes by game 13, it is always easier on the sidelines. The pressure of that match was incredible, the US Secretary of Defense had asked Fischer to defeat the Soviets and there was equivalent pressure on the other side. People today seem to have no idea.
karpov was known for not making mistakes as he is positional and not a player who would weaken his position to attack, "the hidden message there was " fischer can't beat me bc i'm not gonna be generous , and spassky thinking i might lose is stupid bc i'm not like spassky throwing chances away. "
According to the stockfish channel here on youtube, fischer would be 2900 in elo today if he was born 1990. Shall i ask him what elo karpov would have?
Stop yapping about elo the conditions and opponents fisher played in his era were different then today no one knows what elo fisher could have achieved if he was born in 1990
It's a pity we never saw the confrontation as it would have been the ultimate 'one man' vs. 'the Russian (Soviet at the time) chess machine'. Fischer always grumbled about playing a Russian meant playing more than his opponent because the top Russians collaborated. Fischer infamously prepared largely by himself. Karpov had his pick of the best Russian players, the 1970s equivalent of the best chess engine today. Fischer's sheer will to win, at his peak, plus a burning dislike for the Russians, would have made him a strong favourite. However as soon as he stopped playing his edge would have begun to erode. Fischer achieved what he achieved by himself. Karpov was always supported by the Russian chess apparatus. Both extremely strong players but personally I think Robert James Fischer would have beaten Anatoly Karpov if they had played their match, probably by at least 12.5 to 9.5.
Definitely Not!! He had a hard time beating Victor, Fischer would've walked all over him, Karpov is mentally weak he broke down against Kasparov, as for being in the top 5 you need to read chess literature and study game collections, he is top 10 at best!
Just tell what happened in reality! Fischer refused to play against Karpov not the other way around! Yes Fischer was a unique player but when he had to face his strongest opponent he refused! Also compare the score of Karpov vs Spassky and Fischer vs Spassky, that gives us an idea about Karpov's strength during those years!
Fischer was never afraid of this opponents because he knew he was the best. He just wanted to make sure that the perfect conditions were met for the benefit of the game. The players today should thank him for demanding more respect and prize money during his time. And I'm not saying Karpov was not good in 1975, I believe he would put up a good fight but Fischer would still win.
@@MaraKasparконтракт на матч не был подписан, хотя был полностью готов, только по одной причине - Фишер настаивал, что бы матч был назван Матч на звание чемпиона мира среди профессионалов. Для Карпова это было невозможно, потому что в СССР не позволи выступать в соревновании с таким названием. И Фишер это прекрасно знал, и не только Фишер. Однако он использовал этот последний пункт, чтобы не играть. И примите во внимание, что Фишер на момент переговоров о матче, не сыграл ни одной партии ни в одном турнире за 4 года примерно...
@@волшебник_в_голубом_вертолёт oh you're talking about the Fischer-Karpov negotiations in 1976? Yeah I've read about that. I don't think it was an excuse to not play the match. Fischer just wanted the match to be acknowledged and not some random private match like Karpov wanted. Looks like a childish reason but to Fischer, those small details matter. Remember in 1992 rematch with Spassky, he wanted it to name "World Chess Championship" right? What happened when Spassky agreed? THE MATCH HAPPENED. If Karpov had just found a way to allow that name/title, we might have witnessed their epic match. It's just difficult for us normals (or mortals) to understand someone like him. He may be childish, but he was for real. And for Fischer's 4-year layoff, he was known to have taken long breaks from competitive tournaments (1964-1966, 1968-1969) and came back MUCH stronger. Why? Because he still study chess nevertheless. He was addicted to chess.
@@MaraKaspar матч проводился бы под эгидой ФИДЕ, а не просто "два чувака решили сыграть между собой". И конечно же весь мир уже тогда знал, что эти двое - Фишер и Карпов сильнейшие на планете, поэтому придавать специальным названием этому матчу какой-то особый статус было лишним. Тем более, что шахматная общественность судит не по вывескам, а по силе игры, громкими вывесками можно провести людей не разбирающихся в шахматах, но не шахматное сообщество. И конечно Фишер занимался, но счет этих двоих со Спасским говорит не в пользу Фишера.
For me Karpov is the no 2 of all time just behind Kasparov. He was neck and neck with Garry and has won over 160 chess tournaments. He would have been defeated by Fisher in 1975 but won the rematch imo. Karpov was hard to beat and made very few mistakes.
Fischer is the biggest WHAT IF in chess. He was insanely incredible, but he should NOT be in any Chess Rushmore list. Kasparov, Carlsen, Karpov and Vishy are the greatest four.
Fischer would have won. He was ludicrously far ahead of everyone in 72. He had taken long breaks before and come back strong as ever. Karpov would have become champion eventually, though. I have the greatest players of all time, in chronological order, as Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Carlsen.
I think Karpov would have won simply because Fischer was rusty. You simply can't play at that level without regularly playing players at a similar level.
Generally, Karpov has been under appreciated. He was very dominant probably against slightly stiffer competition than Kasparov faced. Still, in 1975 Fischer would have beaten him like a rug. 1978 could be a different story.
of course, Karpov would have won. He wiped the floor with all his opponents for a decade. Even the wc matches against Kasparov were extremely close all the time.
He would definetly beat Fisher, no doubt…All these arguments about his rank among the so called goats emerge from his humble character, steadiness, his solid ideology and his Soviet identity. All the world, all the chess stage and FIDE worried about his dominance since instead of the other soviet legends like Spassky, Korchnoi and Kasparov , he was a true and a devoted representative of CCCP. He influenced youth all around the world; thus he was prevented, ostracized and systematically underrated in order to cut the sympathy to socialism. Remember the days that socialism was no 1 enemy of the States. His positional understanding of chess is beyond all. At the end he is the best ever…
Fischer was probably better than karpov, but why on earth would fischer propose best of 9 instead of best of 10? it sounds like a joke to me. Someone who was 2900 like fischer... couldn't even accept a match with fair rules, wow.
@@dexio8601 Such a talented player as Fischer had to to use dishonorable methods to work his way into the match? Fischer himself didn't even tell us about his dishonor lol, he lured us instead.
@@scottwarren4998 Yeah he did, I mean only because he was inactive for 3 years, I guess he felt he needed to shake off the rust and first to 10 wins would give him plenty of time to do that. Actually it was first to 10 wins not best of 10 which would be first to 6 wins.
@@dexio8601 Fischer wanted himself to win 9 times to get the title, and karpov to win 10 times to get the title. That's unfair rules. And you say Fischer did this to work himself into the match?
@@scottwarren4998 Right Fischer said first to 10 wins and in the case of 9-9 draw the reigning champion keeps the title. I'm guessing he wanted to warm up in the match since he had been out for so long.Pretty unfair for Karpov. It's a real shame the match didn't happen, Karpov was a great opponent for him, 14-2 record vs Spassky.
When you start to look into it more deeply you realise chess is filled with questionable history. From Morphy not wanting to participate while clearly better than everyone else to Steinitz becoming a world champion by beating a guy he lost to the previous match while things weren't regulated yet to Rubenstein not getting a shot against Lasker due to world war 1 while he was clearly better to Alekhine refusing to give Capablance a rematch to Bronstein's dad being held at gun-point and was told to lose the match to Btovinnik because he was Jewish to Karpov getting it by default because Fischer had to live like a nomad to the split between Kasparov and FIDE and the beginning of a list of false world champions culminating in the reunification match between Krmanik and Topalov where Kramnik "lost" a game by not playing to Ding clearly not being the best player in the world but somhow swindling a championship. There are more examples like Alekhine losing to Euwe because he was drunk... but suffice it to say quite a lot of it is far less satisfying than we would like it to be.
Seems kinda odd saying Fischer played bad because of exhaustion since Karpov burnt out against Kasparov in their first match. Karpov lost like twenty pounds in that match.
@@JPCPSeto Its called throwing rocks at glass houses. He is trying to make a point that he would have had better chances against Fischer. In the interview they talk about Fischer v Karpov and his thoughts about it. Karpov imo has thrown shade at Fischer in interviews.
@@JPCPSeto Also, it was a good game don't know if it leads by force to a win as Karpov says since the move e6 was more of a speculative sacrifice because there really isnt anything concrete. And Fischer only gave Spassky one move to consider it before he pushed a pawn to e6 himself. But the endgame is a classic despite Spassky missing the draw.
Karpov talks shit. Fischer was dominating in the era he beat Spassky behind who was the whole Russian chess elite players. Fischer had problems otherwise he would have won with Karpov as well.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Karpov is top 3 top 4 of all time, people don't give this man enough credit..He won 160 international tournaments or something.
Fischer was a bigger talent, but Karpov out peeked Fischer at some point. Fischer could have trained more and beat Karpov, for sure. Only Lord Gary himself beats both 😂 😂😂
@@adnan4688 For sure ? I am not convinced. Remember when Karpov and Kasparov went to the draw at the 1985 world championship, Karpov wasn't finished. But about Fisher, we'll never know.
Karpov isnt even top 10 all time, what you on about, come on now.
@@thegamer97HS man..go check his career stats. Top 3 for sure. He has almost even head to head with kasparov and was playing prime kasparov all the time.
@@was1swill I don't think you can reasonanly put Karpov as the third greatest chess player of all times. To me, the top 3 is obvious: Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer (with number 1 and 2 being debatable between Carlsen and Kasparov).
Now putting Karpov at number 4 is justifiyable, but I feel like other players could also reasonnably get this spot as well: Capablanca, Anand, Kramnik or Morphy to name a few. So I don't think you can say Karpov is DEFINITELY number 3 or 4 of all times. He's definitely top 10, and arguably top 5.
Karpov was near the level of Fischer in 1975 and I would have loved to see that match.
Let's be real, Fischer was definitely the favourite, but Kasparov was the favourite in 2000 and yet Kramnik won.
Karpov once said he believed his chances against Fischer to be 40% at the time.
Could Karpov have beaten Fischer? Yes. Would he have beaten Fischer? Nobody will ever know, Fischer refused to play.
Fisher proposed a change in the rules designed to de-incentivize the strategy of nursing a one point match lead by steering remaining games into endless draws. (Remember, Bobby grew up in the boring Petrosian era -- from which he and Spassky rescued chess.) HIs proposal was not the same as "refused to play." All Karpov had to do is say Yes., but he wouldn't. How do you justify THAT refusal? Blame him or his Soviet handlers, not Bobby.
@@donaldconway5305 bro, Fischer's proposal was terrible and justifiably unacceptable. He refused to play the best of 24 games which was the format at the time. His proposal was to play a match where only wins count. First to 10 wins, and Fischer starts with 1 point lead (the exact wording was that Fischer wins if he gets to 9, while his challenger wins on 10 but it's effectively the same). You CANNOT tell me that this was a less drawish format that the previous one: the 1984-5 match was with a similar format and 40 games were drawn with only 8 decisive results. Not only would it lead to dry games, it would also lead to a potentially infinite match and it was also very unfair.
FIDE even proposed a compromise: accepting the format but denying Fischer the lead. He refused as well. To me, it cannot be said that the organisers were at fault. They proposed 2 fair formats (the 24 games match gave him a privilege as well since in case of a tie Fischer would keep the title) but Fischer would only play an unfair one. I 100% blame Fischer for this, he forfeited and thus he lost his title.
Why on earth did fischer propose best of 9 instead of best of 10?
it sounds like a joke to me. Someone who was 2900 like fischer... couldn't even accept a match with fair rules, wow. fair rules is best to 10
@@scottwarren4998 what Fischer proposed was not best of 9 or 10. What he proposed was that he and Karpov play as many games as necessary but only the wins are counted. Karpov wins if he gets to 10, Fischer wins if he gets to 9. So yes, definitely unfair. If you don't believe me just Google it, there's plenty evidence for it.
Also, Fischer reached 2785 as his record. I don't know where you read that he was 2900 but it never happened. And you don't need to overstate his greatness by exaggerating his rating. He was the first ever to get to 2700, and got 125 points ahead of number 2. And it took 18 years for someone to beat this record.
@@bobing1752 i like his idea that only wins count. but fischer should have to win 10 games, just like karpov has to.
It’s impossible to call this. Fischer at his peak was ludicrously dominant… as was Karpov.
According to the stockfish channel here on youtube, fischer would be 2900 in elo today if he was born 1990.
How about karpov?
@@scottwarren4998 Hard to say how players like fischer would have responded to the latest advances in the understanding of chess. He might have rankled at the idea of studying with engines as he famously despised opening theory and preferred a chess variant he invented where both players rearrange the back rank of the opponent's pieces. He was an immensely intuitive player, so either he would have suffered in the era of engine-assisted analysis relative to his competition, or used it as an incredible springboard to go even higher. Unlikely to be a linear improvement like many other players would find it.
Karpov was never dominant, in fact he was always behind Kasparov.
@@thegamer97HS karpov was world champion 10 years and spanked kasparov on their first title war on 84, lossing to him closely in 85, after failing to convert his advantage, stop disrespecting Karpov mate come on, the bro is one of the Goats
he is maybe top 20/30 all time but isnt even close to Kasparov level, let alone Fischer. The head to head matches dont interest me particularly the elo is way more important when talking about strenght and Kasparov has always been way above Karpov, even if he was the only one trying to contesting him. @@sergiorodriguez6316
Karpov was so great in 1975 that it was really unknown whether Fischer would win.
Karpov was the young, Soviet, chess superstar, as good in chess as they would come.
Even Fischer’s fans (like me) were unsure and scared about Karpov. He was that good. I remember.
True but given the objective quality of play, creative brilliance and Fischers domination over all sorts of soviet styles of play its hard to say Fischer would have lost.
@@Narrowcros However, remember the draw in 1985 between Karpov and Kasparov, quite unexpected.
Karpov was skinner than Fischer, who was quite big and had a natural athletic build. Fischer's plan, or fantasy, was to make draws not count and that Karpov would have had to beat him by a wider margin to count as a win, so Fischer could force draws for weeks, wear the thin Karpov down physically in terms of endurance, and then go for the wins. It was a shameful demand that Karpov of course could not consent to. Fischer left and it turns out the world kept spinning when he wasn't around, the world of chess moved on without him.
@@keaton718I don’t think he didn’t want draws to count because of that, he always hated draws and he never played for them, he would always play for a win and never for a draw
@@JoeJoe-uh5rp Nah, he was no dummy, he knew not counting draws gave him a massive advantage. He is a big man with an athletic build. Karpov was a gangly kid. I think that Fischer honestly believed he could lose against him in a fair match, with the same rules that had been used for decades, the same rules he won his championship with. Fischer is not someone you should admire. I mean really, that isn't a hot take, everyone always knew it.
Never realised that Karpov speaks such good English.
His English has improved it wasn’t as good when he was at his peak though
cCc@@mr.ottoman1371
Both players were definitly very strong at their peak. Just look up how Karpov did against Garry in all their WC matches. Karpov was hard to beat and also theoretically on the top, as Russian GMs supported him, additionally he was feared for converting little advantages.
Karpov was a real weapon. I didn't much care for his grinding out a pawn advantage over 20 moves game style but the man's defence was like granite. I think Kasparov once said something about how tough he was to penetrate.
Maybe should have worded the last sentence a little better 😂
😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳
I say the same thing on my Grindr profile, but it's lies, ALL LIES.
My favorite sportsperson of all time. This man is a GIANT.
No matter what..there will never be a more epic battle than Spassky v Fischer. Unless you were alive during the Cold War it’s very difficult to grasp. Up there w the Space race.
Karpov vs Fischer is simply not possible to accurately guess. They were both such incredible players, but with differing styles and levels of activity. We will never know and anyone who tries to confidently guess is stabbing in the dark
Admiration is a liability that's so intense as it speaks to psychological frailty and the competitive mindset to win at the highest levels. ❤
The Soviets were saying that by 1972 Fischer's openings had been shown refuted, and this was the real reason he declined to play.
A couple of his favorites did go down the drain in 1972, but that, by itself, wasn't a reason to retire. Fischer's opening repertoire was much more adaptable at the end of his career than it had been early on.
Karpov's tournament record during the 70s was truly dominant, definitely the world no. 1. Against Spassky W13 D22 L1, it's not obvious that Fischer would have beaten him
It is to me. To start with, Karpov played 20+ years after Fischer retired and in that whole time he never matched Fischer's rating. That's not a coincidence. Then you also have several matches Kaprov lost to "lesser" players including Short and Seirawan. Finally, when I became a strong enough player myself and could understand the quality of their play it became clear to me Karpov was never at Fischer's class.
BTW, Carlsen beat Kaprov several times by the time he was 11 and not even a GM yet.
@@c2c001 1-Karpov's top live rating was 2790 and Fischer's was 2789
2-Fischer was never near Karpov's 2985 performace elo in a Super GM Tournament
3- Karpov won wayyyyy more GM tournaments than Fischer and any other player in history
4- Fischer was WCH for 3 years and Karpov was for 10 years + 6 years as Fide WCH
Both great players but in the long run, Karpov should be ranked higher
@@schess75 Excluding the fact that most of what you said that is relevant is wrong. Karpov’s peak was 2780, not 2790. Considering it took him several more decades of play and he still couldn’t match Fischer’s peak or even keep it in any stable manner (by a huge margin the majority of his life Karpov was a high 2600 player… meaning, not even a 2700+. Again, that says a lot.) the comparison is wrong from the start. It’s fairly obvious to any decent player that Fischer would have kept a higher level of play as he did in the years he was active. This is similar to Carlsen maintaining a 2800+ rating for a long period of time whereas everyone else who managed to peak above 2800 for a brief moment clearly couldn’t sustain it by roughly 100-points. In that respect, irregardless to Fischer, the reality is the bulk of Karpov’s career he wasn’t even a 2700 player. He was always a ~2680 player.
Also, Karpov lost matches to people like Nigel Short and even Yasser Seirawan.
Look, this is a debate of sorts where I’m making a point… I am by no means trying to argue Karpov wasn’t an amazing player. The reason I’m saying it now is that by my own writing I started to feel like my argument is doing him down to an extent that wasn’t my intention. All I’m saying is that yes, he was amazing… he just wasn’t at Fischer’s level.
BTW, unlike most people I also think Fischer was better than Kasparov and if you’re interested I can explain why (it’s not a short explanation).
I also think Kasparov is a problematic figure for reasons that most people don’t think about or know about.
But chess history isn’t great at showing the truth. If you’re familiar with the Bronstein - Botvinnik case you know what I mean. If not, I can elaborate.
To me, it seems that there are always two different conversations people mix together: one, who was the best world champion (that includes many stipulations including duration). Two, who was the best player.
As a champion Kasparov accumulated more accolades than Carlsen. As a player Carlsen is significantly better. And this is not a question of knowledge. Had they lived in the same era and were were equally privileged and equally eligible to the same training and theoretical knowledge… Carlsen would still be significantly better. Kasparov has traits that at the time people didn’t have the means to use to their advantage. These days he would have his brilliant moments but he would also suffer far greater brilliant defeats.
@@schess75 So you're comparing Karpov's 2790.9 peak live rating in 1994 to Fischer's 2789.7 in 1972? Man that's a 22-year gap. Just imagine adjusting it due to inflation. Maybe around 2900?
@@MaraKaspar Someone already did that and Fischer's rating back in 2019 would have been 2885.3
By that time, Fischer had not played for 3 years, what kind of victory can we talk about if he was simply not in shape.
Fischer went inactive for 20 years and defeated Spassky again in 1992. Don't be fooled by his 3 years of inactivity.
@@MrSupernova111 Spassky was old and irrelevant in 1992, what's your point
@@callmeandoru2627 . Did you just call a world champion irrelevant?? Clearly, you're trolling but I'll entertain you.
Spassky was active until 2009. He didn't suddenly turn into some patzer in 1992 after being world champion.
But you try not playing chess for 20 years then come back. Let's see how well you play.
@@MrSupernova111 bro jus got so upset huh. Fischer fans has to be to most obnoxious, and easily triggered people on Earth. How did they say it? Like celebrity like fans? You guys are literally the only reason not more people decided to play chess.
@@MrSupernova111Spasky was the weakest world champion of all time period. And Fischer was one of the strongest.
Karpov is probably absolutely best world champion, made Fisher scared and even Kasparov couldn’t beat him in match revanch , guy lost his father and still found strength to finish Korchnoy, very strong character.
Considering Fischer stopped playing before he knew about Karpov, I doubt the reason he didnt play Karpov was because he was scared.
@@youtubenightcrawler9571 when you say "stopped playing before he knew about Karpov" - you do know that in 1972 Karpov was ranked #8 in the world, right? and in 1975 they had long negotiations with Fisher who has been coming up with various demands and excuses to avoid the match.
Fischer definitely wasn’t scared.
He made Fischer scared? lol Bro...I do not know what you are smoking, but I want some.
@@youtubenightcrawler9571 Fischer was scared. why on earth did fischer propose best of 9 instead of best of 10?
it sounds like a joke to me.
If Kasparov hadn't come along, we would be talking about Karpov as potential GOAT
Without more information, Fischer would have won, 75 rating points is a lot. However, we need to know the answer to these questions before we can begin to answer that question.
1. How much chess did Fischer play and study between 1972-75. I suspect very little (we know that he didn't play any competitive chess).
2. How much time would FIDE give Fischer to prepare for the match?
3. How much had Fischer’s mental illness taken a toll on Fischer’s mental capabilities in 1975?
Fischer was way ahead of his time. His reasoning behind those demands are only being realized today when Carlsen refused to defend his title. They have the same reason: the World Chess Championship format does not show who's the better player but who's the less risk taker instead. Magnus said the sample size is too small that's why he wanted faster time controls. Pretty much the same idea with Fischer just different time controls.
too clueless too wrong
@@MorphysinceC.E How so? Easy to say to look cool LOL
The matches were also a lot different then because they didn't have a way to check for best moves so I don't even think there was a time control in classical because they would take multiple days and they would be allowed to discuss potential moves with their team overnight and shit. I remember that being a big thing in the documentary about Bobby Fischer's championship match. The Russians decided that they were completely lost in a position at some point.
The format is awful as the defending champion has a massive advantage. The other players have to play a load of matches, using up all their prep to even have a chance of being the challenger. The champion can save everything for the one match.
@@MaraKaspar Fischer called for longer time controls, not shorter, and more games at the long time control. But Fischer also decried the state of opening theory (too much prep, not enough at-the-board competition) which is why eventually he called to replace chess with chess960 as it’s now known.
I’ll always remember Linares in 1994, Kasparov said the winner would be the World Champion of tournament chess. It had a super strong lineup with all but 1 of the top 10 players competing and plenty of world/future world champions. Karpov dominated with 11/13 and played his ‘immortal’ game.
Hard to say what would happen against Fischer, Karpov was super strong and clearly had amazing stamina but I feel like w never really got to see the best Fischer. Maybe he had more levels to him.
Of course no one can really say who would win if they actually played each other, but I lean toward Bobby Fischer. I do believe he was the better player, as his rise to the top was done all on his own; he had no team of American GMs helping him plan out every move, no support system to rely on, and had the entire Russian chess hegemony bearing down on him at a time when Russia was the dominant chess figure.
Amen. Fischer was the best.
It depends when they would have played and what form Fischer was in.
I think if Fisher had continued to play he was steady in top 3. He could have win diverse games against Karpov and Kasparov
Positional God vs Creativity God. Would have been a great sight to behold.
I would have loved for this match to have happened. It would have been maybe the most epic match in chess history so far - the two greatest players ever at/near their peaks.
Karpov is a classy gentleman
If he had class he would have played Fischer.
Karpov 5 x 0 and then Kasparov started to play, drawing 48 games and extending the confrontation for 4 months. He himself admitted that he didn't know that Karpov was such a strong player and considered his mach lost. Then, under the orders of a new advisor, he began to play against Karpov's physical exhaustion.
Anatoly Karpov: Nah, I'd win
Fischer's fanboys are really annoying. Longevity is really important in chess and Karpov is absolutely consistent! Very apologetic of Fischer who started having mental problems and he was obviously scared and couldn't cope with the fact that there's a high chance someone will beat him. Karpov is very, very underrated.
He wasn't "scared," he didn't care for the championship anymore because it wasn't about who was the best chess player, but who had the better team working as a group to decide the first 20-25 moves.
@@kewkabeexcuses
"Longevity is really important in chess..." Says who? It's sad when a spectacular player Like Fischer bows out prematurely (Paul Morphy was another notable example of this), but it doesn't take anything away from the impressiveness of whatever incredible feats they had already performed before then.
_Kasparov_ had longevity. He still failed to win a single game in his WC match with Kramnik in 2000, unable to adapt as a clever innovation in the Berlin appeared to be busting his preferred White opening lines. I do not believe Bobby Fischer, in peak 1972 form, would have gotten stuck like that. He of the 20 game winning-streak would, I'm confident, have pulled at least _some_ rabbits out of his hat and written some more awesome Chess history.
You're right about Karpov being underrated, for sure. But no way Fischer is overrated, except by the odd nostalgic who will say things like, e.g. that he would beat Carlsen in a match in the current year if he'd been sent forward in time or some nonsense like that.
Fischer won 20 games in a row against top GM opposition. The #2 record is seven in a row by Fabi at the Sinquefeld Cup, 2013.
Fischer also was rated 120 points above his nearest competition. To equal that, Magnus would need a rating of 2924 to be 120 points above Fabi.
In addition, the Soviets were notorious for cheating aimed at him: pre-arranged draws between Russian players, while playing hard vs. Fischer, and using teams of GMs to analyze adjournments when Fischer had to go it alone, or, at best, use only one second.
I think there are many reasons Fischer bailed out. He couldn’t get his terms (10 wins). He was tired of Russian cheating. He felt he had reached the mountaintop, and everything else was anti-climactic (There’s a famous Dick Cavett interview, where he sadly says “I feel like someone has been taken from me.”) He had dedicated so much of his life to Chess that he needed to address other areas in his life. The fame that chess had brought him also brought him unwanted attention, and he didn’t like that. And yes, there may have been an element of fear of not being able to repeat his extraordinary achievement of beating the entire Russian chess apparatus singlehandedly.
@ayyleeuz4892 So is your pseudo-intellectual BS. I was there. I saw it. I know what happened. That’s what happened.
Even in Kasparov s opinion, Karpov was his greatest opponent, who was GREAT till 1997. One of the greatest of all times, probably the second best ever, according to Kasparov.
(Of course, this was before chess GOAT Magnus showed up).
chess goat. dominated for half as long, didn't dominate as hard, had less WCCs and won less consistently than kasparov. high schoolers shouldn't be allowed to say who's the GOAT
@@harrywang4769 Magnus Carlsen is still in his prime and is dominating. No one, even Kasparov is willing to say they're better than Carlsen. That being said, Carlsen isn't willing to say they're better than Kasparov either
@@aquidillion Yeah, Carlsen actually says Kasparov is the GOAT, and that he needs to do more to get there, but Kasparov won't claim himself the GOAT and is extremely impressed by Carlsen as well. Carlsen is still firmly on top of everyone, and playing amazingly, so we'll what the future holds.
I'd say he had a shot at Fischer when he peaked. Considering Fischer had been inactive for a few years, I'd take Karpov. Had Fischer kept his form, then it's unclear. Many people have not studied enough Karpov if they think anyone would have easily beaten him in his peak. Nobody, not even Kasparov or Carlsen would have clearly dominated peak Karpov who btw completely dominated Kasparov early on.
Fischer destroyed all the great masters of the world. Petrosian, Geller, smyslov, botvinnik, tal, Fine, Najdorf, Bronstein, levenfish, Spassky,larsen,reshevesky... I think these names speak for Fisher's greatness. In my opinion, karpov could not resist these elders at all. Fisher karpov was razing it to the ground and destroying it
Best GM all the time
Robert james (bobby) legend fischer
@@mehrdadlachini7186 I am sure he was stronger than any of those players but I can't find many games where Fischer played Botvinnik, Fine, Bronstein and Levenfish.
@@mehrdadlachini7186 sure, he did beat all those people. But Karpov was quite a bit better than them, and was a very different type of player. Just because he beat some Soviet players doesn’t mean he bodies all of them lol. Karpov at his peak was super strong, and these championships can sometimes come down to just basic luck.
Karpov 5 x 0 y luego Kasparov empezó a jugar, empatando 48 partidas y extendiendo el enfrentamiento por 4 meses. Él mismo admitió que no sabía que Karpov era un jugador tan fuerte y consideraba que su máquina estaba perdida. Luego, bajo las órdenes de un nuevo asesor, empezó a jugar contra el agotamiento físico de Karpov.
If we take into consideration that fischer may have played nigel short in the early 2000's when online play was just starting out. It only takes those handful of games to understand fischer would have beaten karpov. Fischer was already in his 60's and still managed to beat short by giving him positional odds.
Nowadays Nigel says there's no way he played Fischer on ICC. I wanted it to be true too.
Admittedly this has always been a legendary story but I do believe it is fiction. Pretty sure it was a troll using a chess engine. Weird moves in those games too. Moving the king to the second rank instead of castling, things like that.
Why was that T white in the thumbnail? Was it comment baiT?
“Nah I‘d win“
He rather bangs that kitty then play another game of chess 💀
Karpov, Kasparov and Capablanca are the greatest players in modern chess. Great as players and honorable in their personal attitude.
Tough call. Fischer basically stopped playing after becoming world champion. If he had played Karpov after being inactive for two years he would have had a hard time, especially because the USSR had by far the strongest players in the world and they would ALL have worked for Karpov in that match. Fischer`s team would have been much, much weaker. The USSR was dealt a big blow when the world chess champion became someone from outside the USSR. Especially because the title went into the USA. It would have been a matter of pride to them. Bobby was already over 30 and past his peak. Yeah, it would have been hard.
Chess it definitely had a higher yield of available quality talent back when.
From 1970-1972, Fischer would have beaten anyone. He beat the entire Soviet Union by himself. He’s the reason so many started playing chess. No one else can say that.
He played like a machine. Kasparov in his prime was one of the best, but Robert James Fischer is the greatest chess player of all time. One thing we can all agree on about both players: neither Fischer nor Kasparov cheated. The cheating today at every level is disgusting and has tarnished the game.
He didn't do it by himself, but he did do it. Unfortunately, Fischer burned himself out with his Total Immersion training regimen. After studying chess night and day to the exclusion of all else for 15 years, he was simply unable to continue. Every other world champion was able to balance chess with life better than Fischer did.
I like to see his analysis of game 13
Fischer towards the end of his life wasn’t a proponent of international chess tournaments.
How it Karpov doing this days? Did he ever recover from the attack?
A gentleman to boot.
Fischer had fear
My favorite chess player of all time.
Look at the interocular distance. Clearly a creative person. You'll see the same thing with Neil Young or Antonio Carlos Jobim, for that matter.
This question was disrespectful to Karpov. He would have crushed Fischer out of practice. Also, Karpov should have won in 85, 86 and 87 as well, but lost due to political undermining. If he hadn’t, people would be saying he was the best of all time instead of Kasparov. Which they should anyway
Title should be " were u at the venue?"...
Karpov 5 x 0 und dann begann Kasparov zu spielen, der 48 Spiele unentschieden spielte und die Konfrontation um 4 Monate verlängerte. Er selbst gab zu, dass er nicht wusste, dass Karpov ein so starker Spieler war und dass er seine Macht für verloren hielt. Dann begann er auf Befehl eines neuen Beraters gegen Karpovs körperliche Erschöpfung zu spielen.
Speculating Fischer's level after 3 years of assumed halt of study is ludicrous and impossible to evaluate. What we know for a fact is that Fischer from 1971/1972 would comfortably beat Karpov in 1975.
Fischer is an extremely talented and gifted chess player. But he couldn't waste time and refuse the match with Karpov. Even if he had lost, he would have had the opportunity to take revenge. What he did was not a crime against his own career. It was a crime against chess.
In their prime, at their very peak, Fischer would destroy them all!
yet he didn't
Karpov 5 x 0 puis Kasparov ont commencé à jouer, faisant 48 matchs nuls et prolongeant la confrontation pendant 4 mois. Il a lui-même admis qu'il ne savait pas que Karpov était un joueur aussi fort et considérait sa victoire comme perdue. Puis, sous les ordres d'un nouveau conseiller, il se met à jouer contre l'épuisement physique de Karpov.
Could go either way. Peak Fisher is probably a threat to beat literally anyone. Same for Karpov.
Карпов 5х0, а затем заиграл Каспаров, сыграв вничью 48 партий и продлив противостояние на 4 месяца. Сам он признался, что не знал, что Карпов настолько сильный игрок, и считал свою игру потерянной. Затем по указанию нового советника он начал играть против физического истощения Карпова.
your name sounds fisher or fish type)
I give Fischer the edge in 1975 but Karpov may have tagged him(Fischer) in 1978-80
it is hilarious how people ldiscuss this kinds of thing based on nothing but their heart feelings.beeing rationale, its obvious Karpov would crush Fischer on chess nowadays..he is just beeing humble
The Russian development of chess is foundational - i wish i could travel and meet such players and clubs
Yeah, pretty easy for Karpov to talk about how Spassky and Fischer were tired and making mistakes by game 13, it is always easier on the sidelines. The pressure of that match was incredible, the US Secretary of Defense had asked Fischer to defeat the Soviets and there was equivalent pressure on the other side. People today seem to have no idea.
karpov was known for not making mistakes as he is positional and not a player who would weaken his position to attack,
"the hidden message there was " fischer can't beat me bc i'm not gonna be generous , and spassky thinking i might lose is stupid bc i'm not like spassky throwing chances away. "
He can beat only bottle of vodka.
He is professional of this
According to the stockfish channel here on youtube, fischer would be 2900 in elo today if he was born 1990.
Shall i ask him what elo karpov would have?
Stop yapping about elo the conditions and opponents fisher played in his era were different then today no one knows what elo fisher could have achieved if he was born in 1990
@@scott_xd_ ofcourse no one knows, but the stockfish channel is all we have to ask.
Yes please.
@@drizic Stockfish said he doesn't have time to give an accurate answer this time, but stockfish said karpov would be 2800-2840 Elo.
@@scottwarren4998thank you sir.
It's a pity we never saw the confrontation as it would have been the ultimate 'one man' vs. 'the Russian (Soviet at the time) chess machine'. Fischer always grumbled about playing a Russian meant playing more than his opponent because the top Russians collaborated. Fischer infamously prepared largely by himself. Karpov had his pick of the best Russian players, the 1970s equivalent of the best chess engine today. Fischer's sheer will to win, at his peak, plus a burning dislike for the Russians, would have made him a strong favourite. However as soon as he stopped playing his edge would have begun to erode. Fischer achieved what he achieved by himself. Karpov was always supported by the Russian chess apparatus. Both extremely strong players but personally I think Robert James Fischer would have beaten Anatoly Karpov if they had played their match, probably by at least 12.5 to 9.5.
Karpov would win
I like karpov more than kasparov. Karpov looks so humble and wholesome person.
only looks so
Fischer was feared because he had the ability to concentrate 100 percent of his mind to chess. Karpov v Fischer would have been epic.
Definitely Not!! He had a hard time beating Victor, Fischer would've walked all over him, Karpov is mentally weak he broke down against Kasparov, as for being in the top 5 you need to read chess literature and study game collections, he is top 10 at best!
His demeanor reminds me of Maxim (MVL)
Fischer would have Crushed Karpov by at least 10 wins to 4. He was a monster on the chessboard
It's a timing thing.
Fischer way too good for karpov
Just tell what happened in reality! Fischer refused to play against Karpov not the other way around! Yes Fischer was a unique player but when he had to face his strongest opponent he refused! Also compare the score of Karpov vs Spassky and Fischer vs Spassky, that gives us an idea about Karpov's strength during those years!
Fischer was never afraid of this opponents because he knew he was the best. He just wanted to make sure that the perfect conditions were met for the benefit of the game. The players today should thank him for demanding more respect and prize money during his time. And I'm not saying Karpov was not good in 1975, I believe he would put up a good fight but Fischer would still win.
Assuming they didn't pre-arrange the games
@@MaraKasparконтракт на матч не был подписан, хотя был полностью готов, только по одной причине - Фишер настаивал, что бы матч был назван Матч на звание чемпиона мира среди профессионалов. Для Карпова это было невозможно, потому что в СССР не позволи выступать в соревновании с таким названием. И Фишер это прекрасно знал, и не только Фишер. Однако он использовал этот последний пункт, чтобы не играть. И примите во внимание, что Фишер на момент переговоров о матче, не сыграл ни одной партии ни в одном турнире за 4 года примерно...
@@волшебник_в_голубом_вертолёт oh you're talking about the Fischer-Karpov negotiations in 1976? Yeah I've read about that. I don't think it was an excuse to not play the match. Fischer just wanted the match to be acknowledged and not some random private match like Karpov wanted. Looks like a childish reason but to Fischer, those small details matter. Remember in 1992 rematch with Spassky, he wanted it to name "World Chess Championship" right? What happened when Spassky agreed? THE MATCH HAPPENED. If Karpov had just found a way to allow that name/title, we might have witnessed their epic match. It's just difficult for us normals (or mortals) to understand someone like him. He may be childish, but he was for real. And for Fischer's 4-year layoff, he was known to have taken long breaks from competitive tournaments (1964-1966, 1968-1969) and came back MUCH stronger. Why? Because he still study chess nevertheless. He was addicted to chess.
@@MaraKaspar матч проводился бы под эгидой ФИДЕ, а не просто "два чувака решили сыграть между собой". И конечно же весь мир уже тогда знал, что эти двое - Фишер и Карпов сильнейшие на планете, поэтому придавать специальным названием этому матчу какой-то особый статус было лишним. Тем более, что шахматная общественность судит не по вывескам, а по силе игры, громкими вывесками можно провести людей не разбирающихся в шахматах, но не шахматное сообщество. И конечно Фишер занимался, но счет этих двоих со Спасским говорит не в пользу Фишера.
The most perfect chess player in the world will never win...if he refused to play.
He wouldn’t have beaten Fischer
The greatest positional player of all time. One of the greatest players of this century and beyond.
For me Karpov is the no 2 of all time just behind Kasparov. He was neck and neck with Garry and has won over 160 chess tournaments. He would have been defeated by Fisher in 1975 but won the rematch imo. Karpov was hard to beat and made very few mistakes.
Fischer is the biggest WHAT IF in chess. He was insanely incredible, but he should NOT be in any Chess Rushmore list. Kasparov, Carlsen, Karpov and Vishy are the greatest four.
Karpov has strong grandpa vibes.
Fischer would have won. He was ludicrously far ahead of everyone in 72. He had taken long breaks before and come back strong as ever. Karpov would have become champion eventually, though. I have the greatest players of all time, in chronological order, as Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Carlsen.
ALL TIME TOP: 1.Kasparov 2.Karpov 3.Fisher
I think Karpov would have won simply because Fischer was rusty. You simply can't play at that level without regularly playing players at a similar level.
He was good in his day, but never quite at the level of Fischer and Kasparov.
Generally, Karpov has been under appreciated. He was very dominant probably against slightly stiffer competition than Kasparov faced. Still, in 1975 Fischer would have beaten him like a rug. 1978 could be a different story.
Fischer may have been naturally more talented than Karpov, but Karpov was strong mentally, I think he'd have worn Fischer down.
I remember that day as if it were yesterday. Karpov would never beat Fisher.Fisher was the strongest at that time.
Karpov plays like a fish (Kortschnoj) and its possible that a fish can win against a genie?😊
Кто может сравниться с Фишером!? Разве что Моцарт!
what language he speaking?
It would've been a close match. Fisher by a close margin in the first title defense. Then Karpov finally winning the rematch!!😁
of course, Karpov would have won. He wiped the floor with all his opponents for a decade. Even the wc matches against Kasparov were extremely close all the time.
Definitely, Karpov will win.
He would definetly beat Fisher, no doubt…All these arguments about his rank among the so called goats emerge from his humble character, steadiness, his solid ideology and his Soviet identity. All the world, all the chess stage and FIDE worried about his dominance since instead of the other soviet legends like Spassky, Korchnoi and Kasparov , he was a true and a devoted representative of CCCP. He influenced youth all around the world; thus he was prevented, ostracized and systematically underrated in order to cut the sympathy to socialism. Remember the days that socialism was no 1 enemy of the States. His positional understanding of chess is beyond all. At the end he is the best ever…
Fischer was probably better than karpov, but why on earth would fischer propose best of 9 instead of best of 10?
it sounds like a joke to me. Someone who was 2900 like fischer... couldn't even accept a match with fair rules, wow.
He was out of shape and scared to lose....so he needed to work his way into the match.
@@dexio8601 Such a talented player as Fischer had to to use dishonorable methods to work his way into the match? Fischer himself didn't even tell us about his dishonor lol, he lured us instead.
@@scottwarren4998 Yeah he did, I mean only because he was inactive for 3 years, I guess he felt he needed to shake off the rust and first to 10 wins would give him plenty of time to do that.
Actually it was first to 10 wins not best of 10 which would be first to 6 wins.
@@dexio8601 Fischer wanted himself to win 9 times to get the title, and karpov to win 10 times to get the title. That's unfair rules. And you say Fischer did this to work himself into the match?
@@scottwarren4998 Right Fischer said first to 10 wins and in the case of 9-9 draw the reigning champion keeps the title. I'm guessing he wanted to warm up in the match since he had been out for so long.Pretty unfair for Karpov.
It's a real shame the match didn't happen, Karpov was a great opponent for him, 14-2 record vs Spassky.
He became the champion by “default”, not from beating Fischer, who started having “problems” by this time. 😊
When you start to look into it more deeply you realise chess is filled with questionable history. From Morphy not wanting to participate while clearly better than everyone else to Steinitz becoming a world champion by beating a guy he lost to the previous match while things weren't regulated yet to Rubenstein not getting a shot against Lasker due to world war 1 while he was clearly better to Alekhine refusing to give Capablance a rematch to Bronstein's dad being held at gun-point and was told to lose the match to Btovinnik because he was Jewish to Karpov getting it by default because Fischer had to live like a nomad to the split between Kasparov and FIDE and the beginning of a list of false world champions culminating in the reunification match between Krmanik and Topalov where Kramnik "lost" a game by not playing to Ding clearly not being the best player in the world but somhow swindling a championship.
There are more examples like Alekhine losing to Euwe because he was drunk... but suffice it to say quite a lot of it is far less satisfying than we would like it to be.
@@c2c001yappathon
He was a genius, but what do you think about his social abilities?
And yet he defended his title several times.
Just because Fischer was afraid of losing humiliatingly by Karpov😊
Fischer was scared of Karpov
very funny
Вы правы
obviously
Seems kinda odd saying Fischer played bad because of exhaustion since Karpov burnt out against Kasparov in their first match. Karpov lost like twenty pounds in that match.
Yeah but their match was waaaaaay longer lmao
@@jeanabiazar1183 n karpov lost because he burnt out. N his most famous blunder was game 11 in the second match
Even if that is true, how is that relevant? If Fischer did start playing worse out of fatigue, it doesn't matter that Karpov says it.
@@JPCPSeto Its called throwing rocks at glass houses. He is trying to make a point that he would have had better chances against Fischer. In the interview they talk about Fischer v Karpov and his thoughts about it. Karpov imo has thrown shade at Fischer in interviews.
@@JPCPSeto Also, it was a good game don't know if it leads by force to a win as Karpov says since the move e6 was more of a speculative sacrifice because there really isnt anything concrete. And Fischer only gave Spassky one move to consider it before he pushed a pawn to e6 himself. But the endgame is a classic despite Spassky missing the draw.
I always felt Karpov would beat Fischer in that match
That,s what make,s the world go round mate, cud karpov have beaten larsen 6-0 no chance if you know any thing bout chess 😮😮
Karpov talks shit.
Fischer was dominating in the era he beat Spassky behind who was the whole Russian chess elite players.
Fischer had problems otherwise he would have won with Karpov as well.
Thats only your opinion
At that time if they,d met fischer would have won simple as that diff class.