After nearly 250 votes, Bobby Fischer is leading by 66% to 34% over Anatoly Karpov. I must say that I am a little surprised that the ratio is this lopsided. I thought it would have been much closer.
You can still vote by clicking here.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Not a big surprise… simply biased US readership of your blig 😀
Why does every debate about Fischer always remind me of a religious debate?
The percentage is meaningless. The truth is that Fischer didn’t play, either he didn’t like the FIDE system or he was afraid of losing to Karpov.
Still waiting on Susan’s Wimbledon picks.
Fischer would have won – period. No I’m not from the US.
Why are you surprised? It’s just a popularity contest, based, as goldilocks observed, on a US-heady readership. I’m surprised the numbers aren’t higher.
Some food for thought: Fischer retired at 29, he had played about 915 games, and lost only 120 of those. That was such a remarkable percentage that he was considered unbeatable. Now, for comparison: by the age of 29, Karpov had also played about 915 games, of which he had lost … 55!! Karpov’s results against Spassky by 1975 was 7:1. I admire Fischer a lot, we all do, but there is little doubt Karpov would’ve won, and Fischer knew it.
Some food for thought: Fischer retired at 29, he had played about 915 games, and lost only 120 of those. That was such a remarkable percentage that he was considered unbeatable. Now, for comparison: by the age of 29, Karpov had also played about 915 games, of which he had lost … 55!! Karpov’s results against Spassky by 1975 was 7:1. I admire Fischer a lot, we all do, but there is little doubt Karpov would’ve won, and Fischer knew it.
If he was better than Karpov, he would have accepted the challenge. He knew better than us by studying Karpov that he was extremely tough and contantly improving.
Fischer was a genius, but also a looney and a coward.
Look,
Fischer was probably scared, but maybe he had reached the limits of what could be done against the Soviet Machine.
Is there ANY doubt that Fischer would have walloped Karpov OR Kasparov if those people hadn’t been supported by teams of dozens of players who fed the best opening analysis to them?
Karpov and Kasparov were products of a system which could get the most out of a talented player; however, this was at the expense of other players who were not privy to the secret opening libraries.
What Fischer did was phenomenal, especially when you consider that the Soviet bloc was cheating to keep him out.
He would have been a challenger in the mid 60’s or earlier if it hadn’t been for that cheating.
Karpov’s 1975 rating was nearly 100 points below Fischer’s 1972 rating. That translates to about an expected 62% score for the higher-rated player.
goldilocks’ personal biases aside, Fischer is in fact more popular outside of the US. So is it any wonder he would win the worldwide chess popularity contest hands down?
One thing that you should know, this is 1975, right? Fischer was in his peak and Karpov is still young and developing (progreessing).
I Fischer is normal, he will easily beat Karpov and he beat Karpov (or Korchnoi) again in 1981 and 1984, untill 1987 ther’s a new challenger, young Kasparov, yet Fischer still be able to defeat this young Sovyet Star. But, very probably and eventually Fischer will lose his title to Kasparov in a 1990 Collosal World Championship Match.
This is just in my imagination only, with in term and in condition, Fischer is a normal person (I mean: not an eccentric ones) at those times.
I’ not American nor Russian (I’m Indonesian (a country located between Australia and Philippines), so my opinion is netral.
Popular? What is this, Big Brother? The facts are what matter – and the fact is that between 1972 and 1975, Karpov lost 5 games out of 183 played, for a 3-year losing percentage of 2.7 – as far as I know, unprecedented in chess history at that level, certainly never achieved by Fischer. So was Fischer scared? You bet.