18977 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!
I've already stated, what an talent Magnus is, not just here but in other similiar forums. At hand though...is the question of Bobby's rating. My opinion, is & always has been...Fischer's rating would've been much higher had his generation been the Apex of the Informational Age instead of mine. To achieve such an status without such an advantage, more than eclipses any argument of talent between Carlsen vs Fischer.
he is history
Honestly who cares who was better
The other unfair part of the debate is who says that magnus would play like he does not how computers not taken over chess. Maybe he would have played in a way that is more pleasing to the layperson. Everything is conjucture.
Playing extremly sharp chess now can land you in a line that someone has been over with a computer which I would not imagine to be as fun as playing moves that you think are less likely to run into home prep.
At the top everyone is gunning for you, if I were magnus and I thought I had the best understanding of the game I would do what he does, play lines that wear down the opponent . Cant really fault a guy for being born later and dealing with what is essentially a farther advanced game.
Well, honestly, how many people debate between Michael Jordon vs Lebron James? Tiger and Jack N? I'm on record as saying any modern day GM could beat any historical great, which does include Bobby Fischer. It's an opinion, however, and I'm not following it up with wikipedia facts, googled statistics or regurgitating hypothetically alogorithmns to prove anything. "Chessmatics" somehow sounds too artificial an system to standby as an source of proof.
Obviously, alot of chess fanatics care enough.
Magnus is an exceptional player and I believe he would beat Fischer rather easily. Why? Because he is from this computer-era of chess. Boring chess wins now-a-days. But for this reason (computers) you cant compare them because it is not fair. But keep in mind Magnus is nowhere near his peak, I feel he will dominate in the future if chess does not become boring to him.
Carlsen would not beat any of the pre computer world champions. My point is merely the galloping inflation in the rating system. Its become useless.
Najdorf96 I couldn't agree more. Wise words indeed
Nope, you just still don't understand it.
Learn about what ratings are designed for and you will realise they are still completely filling their purpose.
Yes and no. The computer also bridges the gap between the very talented and the very hard working.
The top ratings absolute # depends more on the # of pro players and games than anything else.
Not sure there's any inflation, but I guess it depends on your definition.
More importantly, the purpose isn't to compare players 30 years apart.
When comparing players 30 years apart we can say that something has changed and probably different types of talents fits different times.
Magnus is made for our age , and would have done well in other ages too. One of his extra special gifts is the memory. He can remember all positions he has seen. That memory is of course more efficient these days than back in the last century because there are more games to read, and computerized games too.
Magnus is supercomplete. He has it all. Memory, maths,position, strategy, you name it.
I dont know Fischer so well, but had he the same?
Magnus is one the the players in Norway with best understanding of chess.
Well, yeah. He's also the best in the world.
I would like to make a prediction, courtesy of Kingscrucher(youtube chess annotator (sp) ).
capablanca played chess that people thought was unbeatable and frankly getting a bit dry, dynamic alekhine came in and beat him. Botnivik (sp) athough a capable calculater. played positionally at times and the unsound Tal unseated him for a year.
It seems that with most rational players saying chess is theoretically drawn slow chess is more correct than dynamic wild chess.
That said even chess engine's sacrifice pawns for piece activity at times and being that we are interested in the human vs human matches primarily I think dynamic chess will take a comfortable place in the chess world again soon.
I love kingcrusher he is so entertaining. :))
IMHO Fischer had the same for the decade he was in. It would be lacking compared to the size of the database now. I think if Fischer, with his memory, could continue to study new lines, he'd be up to snuff.
Dead men memorize no secrets.
Sure but dead men talked about on internet can!
Bishops vs Knights
by richrf a few minutes ago
A lesson from psychology
by TrumanB a few minutes ago
who would be best chess player in lord of the rings and why?
by ImGr08 3 minutes ago
2/28/2015 - Maister - Grozdov, corr. 1954
by TrumanB 8 minutes ago
losing on time
by kaynight 10 minutes ago
Unsound Openings, Testing Chaos Theory
by XPLAYERJX 19 minutes ago
could chess be a indicator of mental disease like alzheimers?
by Shi_Tou 20 minutes ago
one word to describe chess.com crowd
by kaynight 20 minutes ago
by patzermike 29 minutes ago
Michael Richards (Kramer) On Chess
by FirebrandX 29 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!