Page 1 of 1

In an alternate universe

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:15 pm
by Nick Burrows
Fischer, Kasparov & Carlsen were instead all born in 1943. Who becomes World Champion in 1972?

Just for fun, so no fistycuffs please :lol:

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:45 pm
by Roger de Coverly
Nick Burrows wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:15 pm
Fischer, Kasparov & Carlsen were instead all born in 1943. Who becomes World Champion in 1972?

In the absence of computers, I'd suspect Fischer or possibly Kasparov. Kasparov became world champion before the introduction of databases, which he later benefited from at the expense of Karpov.

Carlsen might have suffered in the 1960s from the relative lack of chess culture and expectations in Western Europe. But how would he have got on against Larsen? One point in his favour would have been the anti-Soviet but pro Botvinnik rules for selecting Candidates, with no more than five allowed from the Soviet Union. Kasparov could have been squeezed out like Stein.

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:31 am
by Keith Arkell
Spassky.

Second time around he doesn't submit to Fischer's demands and then play below his strength in games 3 and 5. Meanwhile Kasparov has given up chess for politics and Carlsen chose a career as a football pundit.

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:14 pm
by Joey Stewart
Lets not forget that , as good as Fischer was, he was also pretty mentally unstable whereas Carlsen and Kasparov have shown far greater resilience to the corrupting influences of too much chess, so he would have been doing well to still be holding it together by that stage of his career - the other two players would have been far less sporting towards his bizarre requests as Spassky was so he would have been at a high risk of simply defaulting.
Also Kasparov would have been the golden child of the soviet union and bestowed huge amounts of money and resources the other two would have not had access to in that era. My vote is definitely Kasparov purely for the advantages he would receive in 1972

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:15 pm
by Matt Mackenzie
Rather as Karpov actually was, indeed.

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:23 pm
by Nick Ivell
Kasparov. The greatest player of all time.

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:46 pm
by Nick Burrows
Nick Ivell wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:23 pm
Kasparov. The greatest player of all time.
I agree that right now he is the "greatest", although he may yet be surpassed by Carlsen. I also think Fischer reached a higher peak and would have beaten him - especially if you take his opening labratory and team away from him.

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:25 pm
by Harry Duff
Kasparov. He dominated his peers (including Karpov) for a longer time than either Fischer or Carlsen.

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:18 pm
by Matt Mackenzie
For a long time it was very, very, close between him and AK though.

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:57 am
by Geoff Chandler
We know what Fischer did and became leading up to to 1972. So speculation about him is not needed.

We can only look at the other two and what influenced them (apart from Fischer!)

Kasparov got a big leg up from Botvinik when he was a child to a teenager but during Kasparov's
youth Botvinnik had not set up his school and was still involved in Defending his World title. So no support or leg up.
Of course we could say he would have got another teacher but it would not have been Botvinnik.

Carlsen said the first book he read that got him in to chess seriously was Kramnik's 'My Life and Games'.
Apparently it: "... made a strong impression on me as a child." Kramnik was not even born in 1972.
Of course we could say he would have read another book but it would not have been Kramnik's.

I vote Fischer.

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:05 pm
by Matt Mackenzie
Geoff Chandler wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:57 am
We know what Fischer did and became leading up to to 1972. So speculation about him is not needed.

We can only look at the other two and what influenced them (apart from Fischer!)

Kasparov got a big leg up from Botvinik when he was a child to a teenager but during Kasparov's
youth
Botvinnik had not set up his school and was still involved in Defending his World title. So no support or leg up.
Of course we could say he would have got another teacher but it would not have been Botvinnik.

Carlsen said the first book he read that got him in to chess seriously was Kramnik's 'My Life and Games'.
Apparently it: "... made a strong impression on me as a child." Kramnik was not even born in 1972.
Of course we could say he would have read another book but it would not have been Kramnik's.

I vote Fischer.
I think you meant to say Karpov there, old bean.

Though didn't Botvinnik say on one (in)famous occasion, when asked about boy Tolya, that he didn't particularly rate him?

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:17 pm
by Geoff Chandler
Hi Matt,

I know Karpov went to Botvinnik's School and was famously told he would not cut it.
Did Kasparov not attend the same school...recall Botvinnik saying something like the future
of chess is in this young man's [Kasparov} hands.

Don't argue with me MAtt....the opening post says no fisticuffs. :)

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:49 pm
by Kevin Thurlow
"Also Kasparov would have been the golden child of the soviet union"

I don't think he was, especially with his birth-name of "Weinstein". (No, not that one.) The USSR preferred Karpov throughout.

I think Carlsen has really benefited from use of computers (as they are available). But so have all his opponents.

So, no answer!

Re: In an alternate universe

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:10 pm
by Matt Mackenzie
Kasparov had a powerful Soviet establishment ally in Heidar Aliev, though - it wasn't all one way.