10357 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!
Both at age 15, who would win?
Who would win at age 22 between them?
Depends on the era in which they would play. I doubt that Carlsen has Fischer's grasp and overall vision of the game. Meaning that he is strong in tghe modern game where the computer has changed the way [preperation is done, but would he be able to create at the board the way Fischer did??
In his prime Fischer obliterated opposition. Carlsen is certainly not there yet!
Here we go again.
Morphy would win.
carlsen would lose at fischer's time obviously.
15 = bobby fischer
Actually Carlsen is very organic in his play. much easier to grasp his moves than say Kramnik's or Anand's.
I would say at 15 probably Fischer
at 22. Carlsen
at 15 Carlsen still had school and such
at 15 Fischer couldn't have cared less about anything other than Chess (maybe Sex as the one tournoment where he did poorly would indicate)
at 22. Carlsen will be a great player and will more than likely be rated mid 2800's
at 22. Fischer was dominating the US Championship. problem is people just fell over when they went up against him. here are my predictions for the match at 22 years
standard 6 game match
Game 1: Fischer: white, Carlsen: Black
Chinese Dragon. in a hectic middle game Fischer attempts his kingside thrust but fails due to superior play along the b file by Carlsen. however Fischer defends correctly and in a game that no one could call dull... .5-.5
Game 2: Carlsen: white, Fischer : black
Sicilian Poisoned Pawn. Fischer accepts the poisoned pawn but gets his queen locked in while Carlsen activates the rest of his pieces and attacks Fischer's uncastled King Fischer is unable to defend while maintaining winning chances and atempts to draw the resulting minor piece ending 2 pawns down. Due to a more active king Carlsen wins... 1-0
Game 3: Fischer: White, Carlsen: Black
King's Gambit Accepted, Bishop's Gambit. in a complex middle game which appears to swing one way and then the other. Carlsen achieves a pawn up Rook ending. Fischer manages to bring the game to a drawn position via triangulation. .5-.5
Game 4: Carlsen: White, Fischer: Black
Ruy Lopez Archangel Variation. in a positional game where manuevering predominates Fischer gets bored. He wander's the room checking the cameras and wondering why the spectators were allowed so close and is even curious about the box around him that he can't here the people talking outside. he returns to the chair and sacs a rook. In the ensuing complications Carlsen's mind is stressed but can't find a way to get a draw... 0-1
Game 5: Fischer: white, Carlsen: black
Italian Game, Evan's Gambit. The game turns ugly early, Pieces flying across the board. Carlsen's King appears very concerned sitting in the midlle but after sacing a pawn for the open file gets tremendous counterplay lasting into the endgame where based on his two bishops to knight and bishop and more active king he is able to win the pawn race. 0-1
Game 6: Carlsen: white, Fischer: Black
King's Indian Defence Mainline. Carlsen puts a squeeze on Fischer who is unable to get play despite his sacrifice of a pawn for a more active kingside. the game eventually resolves into a drawn Queen ending without pawns. .5-.5
final score: Carlsen 3.5 Fischer 2.5
final score: Carlsen 2.5 Fischer 1.5
The sum of their scores is only four.
sorry its midnight here so yeah just fixed it.
At 15, it would be Fischer on top. But we are still watching to see how good Carlsen will get. He is just phenomenol already, and before he reaches the age Fischer quit playing, he will have played at the highest levels twice as long as he has now.
It all depends on teh IQ ....
If they are both 15 carlsen would win because he is still alive.
I know that if any average grandmaster was transported back to the time of Morphy and played Morphy-the grandmaster would win more than 60% of the games.
Also, any player rated 2350 or above if transported back in time would be World Champ up to time of Morphy.
Carlsen, without computer learning and modern chess theory knowledge would be no equal match to Fischer at age 15 or 22.
It's impossible to tell, unfortunate but true.But why isn't Kasparov in this competition?
Carlsen is the least computer dependent top player currently (together with Peter Svidler). He is the world's #1 simply because of his phenomenal positional understanding, and awesome fighting spirit.
IMO he has the potential (provided that he will work a bit on his soft spot, which surely enough is the opening preparation) to be the first one to come close to the 2900 ELO barrier.
Svidler too. He probably has an IQ around 200 or so, plays stunning chess (no need for advertisement- his SIX wins in the Russian individual championship speak volumes about his skill), but IMO he is a bit old to cure his almost pathological laziness.
I feel that if we could transport Fisher of the early seventies to our era, and settle a match against Carlsen, or Svidler in Fisher Chess/Chess960 (no opening theory involved) he would lose quite easily.
Surely enough it is not fair to compare... the last part of my post is sheer speculation.
But the point is that anyone who thinks that Carlsen is just a more-than-average computer kid, is simply flat wrong.
The "just a computer kid" epithet is one I don't really understand anyway. What does that mean besides a positional sensibility that has used every tool available to be better at evaulating positions and finding fighting moves than someone who hasn't used all the tools available?
If Korchnoi finds an amazing draw out of a position that looks hopelessly lost, he's a positional genius. If Caruana does it he's "just a computer kid?" If Polgar whips up an attack out of nowhere she's an attacking genius. If Nakamura does it he's "Just a computer kid?" What's it take for these guys to just be considered damn good chess players?
I think Fischer still wins against Magnum, and also both at age 29. Put Fischer in today's computer world, he'd be a 3000 player.
IM pfren is exactly correct about Carlson - in fact, he admitted that Kasparov was shocked at his lack of computer experience and lack of interest in acquiring it. He's not a "computer kid" at all.
His opening knowledge and preparation is probably the weakest of the top 10 players in the world, but he understands positional play on a par with anyone and has a fighting spirit that is always seeking a win out of every game.
Fischer being 3000+? Bullshit.
Fischer being 2900+? Perhaps, but I highly doubt it.
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by PowerChord158 a few minutes ago
can a women ever become world chess champion
by zanti_misfit a few minutes ago
Analyse this game please
by Britiannia 3 minutes ago
The worst chess move EVER!
by messi2 4 minutes ago
12/10/2013 - Easterwood-Williams 2004
by nilanjibroy 4 minutes ago
Official Chess Troll of the Year!
by GeorgeBlackChess123 4 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by Somebodysson 7 minutes ago
Chess.com mobile app features
by jac1yn 10 minutes ago
by jac1yn 11 minutes ago
by jac1yn 13 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!