If Kasparov never existed, who would have unseated Karpov - and when?

Anatoly Karpov was the World Champion from 1975-1985.  Garry Kasparov beat him for the title and held it from 1985-2000 (I'm not counting the FIDE splinter title for the purposes of this question).   

They played 5 champion matches against each other, for a total of 144 games and a +2 score for Kasparov. They were *that* close. So - if Garry never existed, who do you think would have beat Karpov for the title, and when?

TMB

Correct, but we are talking post-Fischer here.  Karprov was granted the title by default in 1975 and held off challenges by Korchnoi in 1978 and 1981.  So 1984 would be the first "not Kasparov" challenger. Smyslov was the runner-up in 1984.  I'm going to say that Karpov would have beat him. 

That takes us to 1987, since the matches of 85 and 86 were rematches.  In 1987 the runner-up was Sokolov, whom Karpov destroyed with a +4.  In 1990 the runner-up was Timman, whom Karpov also destroyed with a +4.  You get my drift - it wasn't until 1993 when Short beat Karpov that there appeared to be anyone (other than Gazza) ,capable of doing it. 

So Karpov holds the title for 20 years? 1975-1995ish?  That's a long time. Even Gazza only held his for 15. 

I think maybe Ivanchuk in the 90s

who;s that guy "myself" he doesn't even have a last name everybody keeps mentioning him

that makes so much more sense thank you

alright let's stop now OP might not like that.

I think Ivanchuk might have beaten Karpov in the 90s

Maybe Anand. Karpov would've been regarded much higher had Kasparov not existed. Karpov had a somewhat similar style to Fischer and really couldn't have done much more to demonstrate that he was the best in the world from 1975-85. 

Anand was still really young at that time I think and he did become world champion in 2008, one of the reason why I did not pick him

If @FranzFerdinand had not been killed... would WW2 not have happened? If @JFK hadn't been shot... If Fischer hadn't... you get the idea? People forget that Kasparov was losing four nil in WC. More pragmatic question... If Karpov had won, clean sweep, would Kaspy recover and have similar success? Or would he be like Andrei Sokolov... who was drubbed by Karpov, and didn't recover?

good point

Point be good, ya? Problem be... Nobody answer good point on here?!

Shirov came up with quite a few interesting ideas. I don't think he was stronger than karpov but maybe he could have caught him off guard.

Anand could have become world champion as early as 1995 if he beat Kasparov, so he would have likely challenged Karpov in the early 90s if Kasparov never existed. In fact in 2008 when Anand became champion, many people were saying he was already over-the-hill and not as strong as he was a decade earlier (even though his rating was higher).

Kramnik was strong enough in the 90s, but probably didn't reach his peak until the early 2000s. I predict he would have eventually faced whoever won between Anand and Karpov.

Other players of that generation like Ivanchuk and Shirov would have had much more prominent careers if Kasparov wasn't around too.

Vladimir Kramnik.

Hey crackpipelion, funny name. 

Jan Timman in the mid-to-late 80s.

I think Anand would take the title in mid 90's. I don't think anyone else could dethrone Karpov before that. Kramnik was a bit young back then, and it is  tougher to predict all of this because there were 2 federations since Kasparov's falling out with FIDE. If Kasparov never existed there would most like be only one champion. 

Well given short beat karpov in candidates matchplay in 1992, then beat timman before being schooled by kasparov, nigel short is surely the obvious answer.

He was playing some fantastic chess in the early 90s, although clearly anand and kramnik reached higher levels a bit later.