"seems like u didnt get what i meant"
a coherent argument helps
Bobby Fischer vs. Magnus Carlsen
Sort:
Bobby Fischer would win. No question.
Jun 15, 2020
0
#25
In pre-computer days, Fischer would have defeated anyone. I would expect a well-prepared Carlsen, today, to have systematically analysed every single Fischer game, every single move.
Jun 16, 2020
0
#26
Corrupted_Doge wrote:
This is a really dumb question. Of course Robert James is MUCH better.
Anyone who even thinks about voting carlsen has no idea what he's talking about
Probably Carlsen as chess has evolved a lot in 50 years. Also he can analyze Fischer's games.
I think that after a long match, Fischer would win. He beat the entire Soviet Union and went on a twenty game winning streak. If he had played Anatoly Karpov, Fischer would have succesfully beat him and defend his title. He was also the first one to achieve a rating above 2700. Also when he had challenged Boris Spassky, he was 125 rating points ahead of him.
Fischer would win because winning was what mattered to Fischer. Magnus Carlsen is a creative attacker and a good defender, but he's not as strong an attacker as Fischer was (nor Spassky, for that matter), and not nearly as seamless a defender as Petrosian was.
Magnus gets into trouble sometimes, and his opponents' timid approach bails him out more often than his own brilliance (though he can be quite brilliant at times). You couldn't do that against Fischer.
Who Was The Best World Chess Champion In History? - Chess.com Nuff said 
The first few games are draws. Fischer gets aggravated when he can't make progress and implodes on himself. So Fischer beats himself, which makes him both the winner and loser.
Carlsen might be able to analyse Fischer's games but Fischer was smart so he might play an opening he never played before like how he played the Benoni defense against Spassky in game 3 and the Queens Gambit Declined variation in game 6
I'm new to chess and don't quite have an opinion on the main question here. But I think Fischer must have been an incredible independent-minded genius of the game to figure it out so well so young in the U.S. at that time. Magnus had the benefit of more modern training and CMIIW had/has always had extremely good coaching? My point is that with all of the extra knowledge Magnus has by living in the modern era, there's no way Fischer could challenge him. However, if roles were reversed, if Fischer had grown up in the modern era and had the benefit of studying the way players can today, and if Magnus had grown up in the mid 20th century, I'd certainly put my money on Fischer.
One way to look at it is to imagine 4 championship matches: one where Fischer is from the 20th century and Magus is from the modern era, one where the roles are reversed (Magnus is from the past and Fischer is modern), one where they both have equally modern training, and one where they both have old-school training. Doesn't it feel like Fischer would have an edge in the trial where they both had equal old school training? And doesn't it feel like Magnus would NOT necessarily have as much of an edge in the trial where they both had modern training? This is why (based on my contrived model here) I'd have to pick Fischer.
"Doesn't it feel like Fischer would have an edge in the trial where they both had equal old school training?"
I think such things are more or less impossible to speculate about. Fischer and Spassky both had old school training and after seven games between them Spassky had +5-0=2. After the 1972 match finished Fischer was up 7-6 in wins.
Carlsen has often talked about how little influence computers had on his development, he for a long time mainly studied the old school way and his early coaches were amazed at his lack of computer work.
Would Carlsen beat Spassky, all things equal? Also difficult to say, but when experts rank the greatest World Champions the latter often ends up in the bottom two with Euwe. As World Champion he was never ranked #1. Carlsen on the other hand has been clear #1 for more than a decade, and he faces opposition that is far from old school. Maybe he would do better against Fischer than Spassky did.
Players Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Game 4 Game 5 Game 6 Game 7
Magnus Carlsen - 1/2 1/2 1/2 0 1 1/2 1/2
Bobby Fischer - 1/2 1/2 1/2 1 0 1/2 1/2
Game 8 Game 9 Game 10 Game 11 Game 12
Magnus Carlsen - 1 1/2 0 1/2 0
Bobby Fischer - 0 1/2 1 1/2 1
fabelhaft wrote:
"Doesn't it feel like Fischer would have an edge in the trial where they both had equal old school training?"
I think such things are more or less impossible to speculate about. Fischer and Spassky both had old school training and after seven games between them Spassky had +5-0=2. After the 1972 match finished Fischer was up 7-6 in wins.
Carlsen has often talked about how little influence computers had on his development, he for a long time mainly studied the old school way and his early coaches were amazed at his lack of computer work.
Would Carlsen beat Spassky, all things equal? Also difficult to say, but when experts rank the greatest World Champions the latter often ends up in the bottom two with Euwe. As World Champion he was never ranked #1. Carlsen on the other hand has been clear #1 for more than a decade, and he faces opposition that is far from old school. Maybe he would do better against Fischer than Spassky did.
I've always felt that Spassky was horribly underrated in terms of not only his Strength as a champion but also his achievements as a theoretician.
Now Botvinnik on the other hand...
Robert Fischer 9 Nov 1970 to 31 Aug 1972: +39 =21 -5
He played about 800 competitive games in total.
Magnus Carlsen has played thousands of games.
I learned from Fischer games where as I admire Carlsen games.
This is a really dumb question. Of course Robert James is MUCH better.