10942 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
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.
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.
now thats just rude....you should be removed from chess.com because no one needs your opinion on this site...
I do not need your opinion either, kid, may you leave the site please?
I can understand the naive concept of the good jew vs the bad jew, but try finding a better match for the bad jew- he would simply eat your hero alive.
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"?
Ironically, Fischer himself said that Morphy would beat modern grandmasters if he was given some time to brush up on modern theory.
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
I can understand the concept of the good jew vs the bad jew, but try finding a better match for the bad jew- he would simply eat your hero alive.
everybody keep your hands off of my hero
Waitzkin would win at push hands
Fischer would win hands down at chess
[This is inappropriate here -mod]
(everyone glances at their hands)
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"
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.
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.
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.
7,000 views and only 200 some comments. Sheesh. Almost all of them say the same thing too. Weird.
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.
by gary172000 a few minutes ago
What to do to get #1 on Most Active members list?
Numbers of games
by LongIslandMark 2 minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by gary172000 2 minutes ago
Mr. Joker in bullets
by Breakthrough_Man 3 minutes ago
0-1: Tarrasch Defense, Schara Gambit
by satxusa 4 minutes ago
Chess rating system
by gary172000 9 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by milray101 9 minutes ago
The Ultimate Test of Engine Fanatics
by Haiku575 11 minutes ago
ღ HOW to make a POPULAR forum thread? ღ
by zealandzen 11 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!