Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Josh Waitzkin vs. Bobby Fishcer both at age 20. Who wins?


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #162

    SmyslovFan

    FirebrandX wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:
    FirebrandX wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    There isn't another American who ever came close to Fischer. Sorry all you Morphy fans, but even though Morphy was well ahead of his time, he just is no match for today's grandmasters who are equiped with amazing technique and defensive skills. Fischer would have demolished Morphy.

    That's a bit unfair. Try imagining a modernized Morphy. I suspect he would be just as strong as Fischer was.

    A modernized Morphy would not be Morphy, he'd be someone else.

    Then your comparison is moot to begin with. Of course GMs of today are generally stronger due to the body of theory built up by prior generations. For you to not allow a comparison on equal theory setting is frankly a bullshit tactic.

    Funny. 

    The original post was a suggestion that Josh Waitzkin, with the advantage of his extra knowledge, might have a chance against Fischer. He wouldn't. 

    But because Morphy would have no chance against Fischer, it's "bullshit"? 

    Brilliant. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #163

    Talfan1

    just a line to alec 841 bobby never mowed down everyone Tal had many amazing fights v Fischer prompting bobbys quote "finally he has not escaped me "when he eventually beat him on original question i would mortgage my house on Sir Bobby Fischer the wests best grandmaster ever in his many quotes he was true to "Chess is life"

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #164

    FirebrandX

    SmyslovFan wrote:
    FirebrandX wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:
    FirebrandX wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    There isn't another American who ever came close to Fischer. Sorry all you Morphy fans, but even though Morphy was well ahead of his time, he just is no match for today's grandmasters who are equiped with amazing technique and defensive skills. Fischer would have demolished Morphy.

    That's a bit unfair. Try imagining a modernized Morphy. I suspect he would be just as strong as Fischer was.

    A modernized Morphy would not be Morphy, he'd be someone else.

    Then your comparison is moot to begin with. Of course GMs of today are generally stronger due to the body of theory built up by prior generations. For you to not allow a comparison on equal theory setting is frankly a bullshit tactic.

    Funny. 

    The original post was a suggestion that Josh Waitzkin, with the advantage of his extra knowledge, might have a chance against Fischer. He wouldn't. 

    But because Morphy would have no chance against Fischer, it's "bullshit"? 

    Brilliant. 

    What's brilliant is you deciding what can and can't be compared in a completely hypothetical and impossible scenario. But hey, lets see if we can reach past your ego and have you noodle this one using your own rules:

    Morphy would not lose to Fischer because they are both dead.

    That's using the exact same rules as your "Morphy would not be Morphy" argument. Get it now, smart guy? If not, I'll try again:

    Whether you imagine both players being alive at the same time, or imagine Morphy having the benefit of Fischer-ere theory to study, the end result is two scenarios that cannot happen. So that's exactly why your shaping the rules of imagination to only work in your argument's favor is a bullshit tactic.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #165

    SmyslovFan

    John, the hypothetical was the historical Fischer at age 20 vs Waitzkin when he was 20. 

    We can indeed compare the two because they both played chess when they were 20 and we can see the quality of their games.

    We cannot see what the quality of Morphy's games would have been if he had been transported to some future date and given the same information Fischer had.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #166

    ab121705

    One "fair" way to evaluate them is to ask which was more dominant in his time. I think the answer is obvious (hint: it ain't Josh). 

    Comparing them  by saying Fischer didn't have access to today's computer's etc makes no sense; EVERYBODY today has access to this stuff. 

    Who had the most innate chess ability? it ain't Josh. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #167

    DerekAR

    7,000 views and only 200 some comments. Sheesh. Almost all of them say the same thing too. Weird.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #168

    schlechter55

    It is like talking about the death of Diana. Was she killed, or was it an accident ? Everybody has an opinion. A thread that has no value.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #169

    Conflagration_Planet

    schlechter55 wrote:

    It is like talking about the death of Diana. Was she killed, or was it an accident ? Everybody has an opinion. A thread that has no value.

    Opinion based on the fact that todays IMs aren't better than GMs of the 70s. Should be obvious.


Back to Top

Post your reply: