Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 16 months ago · Quote · #161

    owltuna

    I just found out that Roman Dzindzichashvili, despite being a grandmaster and having 895 games in the chessgames.com database, does not have his name listed in the drop-down player boxes. This is a tragedy.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #162

    Conflagration_Planet

    WHOSE IN CHARGE HERE?!!!!!!!!!

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #163

    prime342

    pfren wrote:
    Phylar wrote:

    Probably one of the best chess instructors to learn from, at least for beginners. I know a few players that swear by his annotated games and thought processes.

    Could you please tell me what you are smoking, sir? I urgently need some of it.

    now thats just rude....you should be removed from chess.com because no one needs your opinion on this site...Phylar was just stating his opinion and didn't even say anything offensive...why would you insult someone who hasn't done anything to you....i never understood that kind of behavoir

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #164

    SmyslovFan

    Josh Waitzkin's Chessmaster videos have been very popular. They have encouraged quite a few players to improve. I haven't seen anything particularly noxious in his videos, so I have to wonder what Pfren has seen that makes him so derisive of Waitzkin's instructional books and videos.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #165

    Suvel

    fischer

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #166

    DrSpudnik

    Well I haven't heard of Dwyane Wade till just now, so who gives a damn what he thinks about anything?

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #167

    FirebrandX

    How did this topic make it to 10 pages? Fischer would have crushed Waitzkin off the board in his 20's.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #168

    FirebrandX

    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.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #169

    SmyslovFan

    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. The historical Morphy was decades ahead of his competition, but that still puts him decades behind Fischer. 

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #170

    FirebrandX

    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.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #172

    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. 

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #173

    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"

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #174

    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.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #175

    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.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #176

    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. 

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #177

    DerekAR

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

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #178

    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.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #179

    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: