Hi Diophantus
In terms of chess, which is all I understand about Fischer. Yes he belongs on
a pedestal, he was World Champion and one of the greatest chess players
of the 20th century.
I can fully understand the oppositee coloured Bishop attack Fischer
carried out in Game 3 and how narrow the win in that game was.
I can show you all the mates and wins after Fischers 27...Bxa4 in Game 5.
One of the most imaginative games ever played in a World Final that was
marred by Spassky's blunder. 27.Qc2.
I can see how close Spassky came in games 13,14 & 15 to turning the whole
thing around. Game 13 he lost a drawn ending and in games 14 & 15
Spassky let wins slip away to draws.
From this tragic trio he scored 1.pt instead of 2½ which would have tied the score.
But having never met Fischer I cannot or will not pass judgement on him
as a person and I don't think others should do so either based on something
they have read.
A few others in this thread have stated they have known someone close
to them who have had what can only be termed as a nervous breakdown.
Did they tape record them whilst they were unwell and play it back
stating this what this person has been like all thier life.
Of course not.
Yet this clearly unwell man has been quoted (and mis-quoted) called malformed
and a raving madman.
Doing so is like hurling abuse at a cripple because he cannot climb a set of stairs.
It's the same thing. You are taking the words of someone who was mentally ill,
who felt persecuted and alone and claiming he was like this all his life.
You are so wrong.
The people who knew him, those he let get close to him say the complete
opposite to the utter tripe that has been written about him.
Back to the chess, which is what you should be talking about when mentioning Fischer.
In my opinion, the Fishcer of '72 would have beaten Karpov in 1975 because
Karpov was not yet Kaprov and Karpov went to pieces in the '78 match
when the pressure and the off board antics flared up.
He allowed 5-2 to become 5-5 within 4 games.
Also right up until 1980 Karpov had a slight weakness when faced with off beat
though respectible openings.
Between 72 & 80 He lost to the Budapest, Centre Counter, Classical Defence
of the Lopez, c3 Sicilain, the grand Prix attack and don't forget Miles and the a6 game.
Fischer's run in in the World Championship from game 11 when he had the lead
he required (remember at one time he was effectively 3-0 down. 2-0 down
in the match but a tie would have been no good to him, so it was 3-0).
As White his game plan was to play it safe, no need for risks.
As Black Fischer played Pircs, Alekhine and non-Najdorf Sicilains to avoid the
Russian analysis and out-played Spassky.
Karpov I fear would has got caught up with the occassion and Fischer
who was at the time the best player in the world, would have out done him
both off and over the board.
The replay in 78 and Karpov without a doubt would have qualified would
have been different and then I'd tip the scales to Karpov.
After getting the title by default Kaprov's tournament success was incredible
as if he was showing the world that he was a worthy champion.
(and he was...but he never had to face Fischer.)
In 1978 he would have been hardened by the '75 match and then
I think he would have won it.
My only doubt with Fischer is having achieved his dream since he was 8 years old
may not have had the same motivation. Though in '74 he was sending the USA
Olympiad team game analysis of Karpov pointing out a missed win that
Craig Pritchett had in his game with Karpov. So he still had his eye in and
was expecting to play Karpov, he was studying his games.
But that is just my opinion.
So let's try to keep Fischer on the chessboard and unless any of you knew him
or had him on a couch in your role as a psychiatrist then I'd leave all the
gossip, rumours and lies out of it.
Apart from that, you a are slagging off a dead man, someone who never
harmed a living soul.
He dedicated his life to the game, this dedication took an awful revenge,
leave it at that.