Another Fischer myth that needs to die. Before 1972, Fischer had never taken off <years at a time>. In 1970, he'd been off a year and a half, and was much stronger. In 1965, he'd been off a similar period of time, and was weaker.

People trying to predict how Fischer would have played in 1975 or 1977 or 1978 or 1980 are dealing with a situation for which his career provides no precedents. (In particular, for the first time in his life, he'd stopped working on the game.) Pretending he could somehow have been dragged to the board, no one knows how well he would have played, which is why predicting these imaginary matches is a waste of time.

<RookFile: Let's see. Korchnoi tries to win the world championship. First Spassky, then Petrosian, then Karpov, and later Kasparov, turn the lights out on him. For whatever reason, he didn't play Fischer. Conclusion? Korchnoi was stronger than Fischer and would win a match.>

And, in 1978, Karpov only won by one point, too.

If one merely looks at the outcomes (win-loss-draw), then it's easier to ignore the potent danger of Korchnoi's chess playing.

Thanks I suspected as much yet the human as Black set a nasty plausible trap with Rg8. Offering a free Rook with the skewer Qa8+

Computers are great at tactics and spotting shots very deep. However if there is the slightest (no matter how slight) flaw. It's rejected.

They do not know how to play a bad position. They just give up.

More here.

<Petrosianic:> probably knows what the question is, and just doesn't like it.

Not entirely a waste, but a question about a fictitious person who never existed (i.e. a Fischer who didn't stop studying chess in 1972). There have been so many historical "What If" scenarios over the years, that we can't object to that one. It only becomes pointless when we confuse the fictional person with the real one.

<No one on this page said anything so simple-minded as that. You are making yourself look like a fool.>

People should consider that when Fischer made the voluntary choice to quit chess after 1972, the one thing in the world he loved and was so good at...

After that he conjectured that there was nothing left to prove and to him, of course, it made perfect sense; him reaching what he had wanted all along fulfilled the purpose.

Thanks

The position and what happens if WHite takes the Rook is here:

Assuming they've got the order right, this game took place in the next-to-last round. Fischer would have had 12 points and Korchnoi had 9.5. Fischer's loss to Kovacevic had taken place in Round 8.

It doesn't look as if Fischer is playing for a draw from the beginning, but at some point he may have decided a draw was the best he could do.>

If so, I must have misrecalled it. I should check the book again.

Checking now. Page 70.

"I recall the finish of the tournament. I was fighting for second place and there was possibility that I could catch Fischer. Only to do this I had first to beat him and then to win my two remaining games."

Now, where is the confusion? If any, I realized I did not retell correctly. When Korchnoi told about Fischer's loss, he tells this event as "During the tournament..." Not as "after our draw" though Korchnoi says that the game between Fischer and Kovacevic was postponed and being played in a free day.

Korchnoi goes on to say he lost to Bertok after he drew Fischer and as a result he took second place (shared with Gligoric, Smyslov and Hort. All were two points behind the American.