You can't just say he was third best like it's some sort of fact. He had some excellent one-off results, but his overall results were not spectacular. He had a lifetime minus score to Rubinstein, Vidmar, Stahlberg and plenty of others. And of course it goes without saying to Alekhine and Capablanca. The latter of whom he actually never beat a single time in his life - the famous Spanish game where Capablanca blunderfices a pawn in the opening as black but then just slowly outplays Nimzowitsch, eventually winning, was a great example of just how vastly far apart these players were in skill.

And it's not irrelevant that players of the time all responded very poorly to his novel ideas. His ideas were huge for chess, and he was more than strong enough to make an impact with them - but a world champion contender he was not.

Chessmetrics rated him third between 1927 and 1931.

They are players from different eras.If Fischer had carried on playing it's entirely possible that he would have impressed Kasparov enough to get on to his list.

I´m pretty sure with Fischer not playing for 3 years in 1975, Karpov would have given him a good run for his money. Just look how convincingly he beat Spassky in the Candidate Matches in 1974, a ´reborn´Spassky who had just won what was probably the strongest USSR Championship in history.

In 1978, against a 35-year old Fischer Karpov would probably have been the favourite. Im pretty sure in the period 1976-1984 Karpov was the strongest player in the world, just look at his amazing tournament record.

We can get a look at Fischers strength not only from the games in 1972, in which many Spassky played sub-par, but also the ones from the 1992 match. Fischers play was compared by Kasparov with Björn Borgs after his return to competitive tennis somewhere in the eighties, sporting his still wooden racket.
One was seeing a former legend still playing the game he played before, but it was no longer good enough.

I think one of the factors older GM´s fall behind their younger colleagues is they no longer develop their outlook on the game. Their ´philosophy´ or understanding of the game doesnt change anymore, whilst the game itself does. I think one can say with confidence Karpov would eventually have beaten Fischer.

When Charousek was alive and active Lasker considered him as the most likely candidate to succeed him as the World Champion. Indeed it is a pity that he died so young.
I admit that I have a soft spot for Bronstein because of his creativity (especially in opening theory); and of course I could have added Rubinstein to my short list.

That is why he limited his list to "active" players. I have never seen anything other than praise for Fischer from Kasparov. He extensively talks about the revolution Fischer made in chess in his book on Fischer and how he was enthusiastically following the games of Fischer against Spassky in 1972 as a small boy etc.

And chessmetrics is just another opinion with a formula attached to it.

Being the third best player in the world means simply that there are only two other players in the world that you would not be a favorite against in a match. And as mentioned, there were already numerous players who Nimzowitsch already had a negative score against, and he tended to fair even worse in match play than in tournament play.

OK, this is a fair point. I did not think about the possible political angle.

Yeah...they were maybe around the level of Bogolyubov, who was FIDE champion the other time FIDE made a fake world championship. Euwe won that one too, but also won the real one, Alekhine showing up drunk to some games notwithstanding.

Korchnoi imo.

Nimzowitsch was better at tournaments.I prefer to use the rankings in preference to head to head match-ups.Short might have beaten Kasparov in 1993 but it wouldn't have made him the better player.

What do you mean about Bogolyubov? While a superb tournament player, the only reason he was selected to play either match, in 1929 or 1934, was to play the role of patsy. Alekhine knew he could likely have laid 2-3 games from the start (not that anyone would have beaten him in 1929, anyway).

Hmmmm...not sure about this. Perestroika landed in 1986, the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991 and Kasparov already well ahead was fiercely anti-apparatchik. He also maintained good relations with Korchnoi because the latter agreed to actually play the 1983 Candidates semi-final, despite Kasparov officially already being out of them due to trouble over the location. Korchnoi actually attended "game 1" of the official (later suspended) match, despite Kasparov being in the USSR. So I don´t think the political angle is valid. More likely he just didn´t consider Korchnoi among the best (anymore).

In the 1920s, FIDE made up their own "amateur world championship" (as if "amateur" has ever meant anything in chess.) I know Bogolyubov won it in a match against Euwe, and I thought Euwe also won it later before winning the real world championship.

And that was exactly my point -- that Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Kazimdzhanov were just as far behind the best players of their time as Bogolyubov was in his, and that calling any of them a world champion is a complete joke.

I was world chess champion about 4 years ago when I created my own federation and none of my opponents bothered to show up. Ship the soccer trophy!! I've tried to add my name to the wiki page several times but those bastards refuse to acknowledge my accomplishment.

WAT

As stated ITT, Fischer quit after 1972. From 1973-1983 Karpov was absolutely the BPITW, and had he not blundered terribly he wins the first match with Kasparov 6-1.

Kasparov has stated Karpov would've been the slight fave over Fischer in '75(due to both Soviet improvements in analysis/preparation and Fischer's obv deteriorating mental state), Karpov himself modestly sez he'd have been a 40-60 dog, but a slight fave in '78.

Fischer was 8 years older than Karpov, who is 12 years older than Kasparov, so I think the natural succession works perfectly.

Bill,

You are completely correct about Karpov being the strongest player in the world for many years. I personally learned tons from his games when I studied them at IM Altounian's suggestion.

That said, take Kasparov's comments about him being a favorite over Fischer with a grain of salt. "Gazza" was never immune to self-aggrandizing statements, and arguing that Karpov > Fischer makes Kasparov look that much better for defeating Karpov.

Yep, that makes sense, and Kasparov was also very grateful that Karpov visited him in jail, or made the attempt to and was not allowed in. Plus time heals all wounds, champion-champion mutual respect law, old foes grousing together about the new whippersnappers, etc, so he may indeed have wanted to throw Karpov a sop.

Fischer-Karpov '75 is the great imponderable. Fischer barely made it to & through Reykjavik, and he liked Spassky on a personal level. He had $5 mil in endorsement contracts waiting when he returned to the US and he wouldn't look at them. He was right there with Ali on a fame scale, and should today be a hale & hearty beloved Nicklaus/Palmer-like icon. Pitiful, tragic waste, and it was also very bad for chess long-term as well.

Crazy as he was by late '74, he had to have looked at some of Karpov's recent games and known it would be an entirely different kettle of fish to fry. Chess is always chess, and I think that the sane part of Bobby prolly considered himself a better player still than AK, but had grave doubts about being able to handle everything that would've come with the match outside of playing it, and the non-chess aspects of that match would've been enormous, as those of us old enough to remember 1975 can attest.

I've long thought the Soviets erred badly in not agreeing to all of Fischer's initial demands, tho it's easy to see why as so many of them got "whacked" in the wake of Reykjavik. IMO, Fischer would've always kept moving the ball; I doubt he'd have pushed a pawn against Karpov. It would've gotten to the point where Bobby would've wanted $100mil just to show up, demanded Karpov always play Black, have to win by 4 then win two subsequent matches by 2 to be considered champ, etc. Always something. Like Kasparov speculated, he was just too mentally fragile to risk losing to the ultimate personification of the Soviet chess system.

As for the OP's question, I'll go with Korchnoi. Sort of the Bert Blyleven of chess, with a dash of Doyle Brunson. He prolly played "highest for longest" tho I'm sure I'm forgetting someone (Reshevsky?), and while he was never the best at any one time, the overall career numbers are very impressive.

I also think this was the thing. What did he have to gain? His success in 72 had basically immortalized him as an unprecedented phenomenon. Crushing Karpov wouldn't really change that. Losing to him might. That's a bad situation for a man with an enormous ego and a frail mentality. On top of all of that, Fischer knew Karpov was going to be a much tougher fight than Spassky was. I also wonder if Fischer was intentionally angle shooting with all of the various demands against Spassky or if it was just him already starting to break down. If it was intentional angle shooting then I think there's a chance he even felt he was going to be a dog to Karpov.

I highly doubt he was looking that far ahead....and at the time, he knew he was unbeatable.

I salute you World Champion Swingdoc.

Do you require a 2nd for your return match? I am offering my services free of charge because you are such a great champion!



-----------------------------

As far as Fischer-Karpov 75' , Fischer knew he was a favorite over Spassky in 72' because Spassky was on his decline already. Karpov was an unknown, the new main product of the Soviet System. I do think Fischer would have been a favorite in that match if only it be 60-40 or even 55-45. My gut says that Fischer would have been victorious.

Part of the reason for Fischer's mental decline after winning in 72' was that he wasn't doing anything. He Wasn't playing chess. Chess is what helped keep his mind sharp and probably kept that illness away for some time. He didn't have chess anymore, and I'm sure that was a main part of him "breaking." Perhaps if he had played another top level or near top level tournament after the World Championship it would have eased a transition into a Championship return match and helped his psyche and confidence considerably.

Fischer was pushing back the Russians with his demands but he was not demanding anything that the Russians didn't get in that decade as Champions. He wanted what? a play to 9 wins and the Champion retains the title on a tie? Botvinnik had basically the same provisions when he tied Bronstein in their Championship match 12-12 and he retained the title. If it was good enough for the Russky Bronstein, then why not good enough for Fischer?

I also think Fischer may have somewhat seriously feared for his life if he were to play Karpov in 75' and defeat him. All it would have took is one crazy KGB nut or the KGB ordering a hit themselves. I don't think its outside the realm of somewhat logical possibilities that he may have been assassinated if he beat Karpov. The Russians would have failed in 2 attempts to defeat Fischer, why not just take him out and get the title back that way. Anyway conspiracyaments off/

The Fischer-Karpov 75' non-match is interesting enough for its own thread. Maybe RoundTower can move this to another thread if others feel the same way?

It's not about sealing his place in history or whatever. It's just about ego, and Fischer certainly had a massive ego.

And if he felt he was unbeatable, why would he make crazy demands like the challenger must win by 2 games to be declared champion? Why would he basically run away from chess after his radical demands were refused? Why would he only challenge a player he knew he could beat again twenty years later and try to call it a 'world championship' match?

I don't doubt he felt like he had a edge, but I think was extremely concerned about losing at the same time.

FWIW, I've read anecdotes of him already starting to go a bit over board even prior to 72. Sad story, especially in lieu of the charisma of the champions to come after him like Karpov and especially Kasparov.

The rule that the champion keeps the title with a tie is not the same as the challenger needing to win by two. Karpov would have needed to beat Fischer by 10-8, draws not counting. Bronstein would have taken over the title beating Botwinnink 12.5-11.5

Fischers knew his demand would be rejected. It was an unfair thing to ask for too.

In retrospect, Karpov's handlers were morons to agree to an unlimited match in 1984. Karpov is 12 years older than Kasparov, was oft-noted for physical fraility and had struggled mightily in closing out the 20 years older Korchnoi in 1978, scoring only a half point in Games 28-31.

Karpov & Co. didn't just want to defeat Kasparov, they wanted to eliminate him as a future threat. Surely the most EV way to do this was a best of 24, hope Kasparov would be nervous & Karpov could get off to a big lead and then hold on, which is exactly what happened.

Karpov would've won a best of 24 12.5-8.5, been rid of Kasparov for at least three years and who knows if Gary could've recovered psychologically. Obv, both men would've prepared differently, Kasparov would've adjusted differently after the early losses, blah blah.

As for the OQ, there should be some love ITT for Bent Larsen. IMO the Disaster in Denver unfairly tarnishes his career. Similar to Fischer, he was almost entirely self-made, and was the 2nd best Western-born player for a long historical period. He twice beat Fischer with Black (once at the 1970 Interzonal, Bobby's only loss there), and also beat Karpov with Black in 1979, 1. e4 d5 2. ed Qd5?!?!

The Scandinavian is not a dubious opening, it was used at world championship level by Anand (not exactly known for experimentation!) against Kasparov.