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

Not for nothing, but Waitzkin is cool, while Fischer was megadorky.

 @Spudnik lmao true

I can't believe you didn't know the answer to your question, before you asked it.

There is no "answer". This is a matter of opionion. 

Some things are a matter of opinion.  This is a matter of reason.

Opinion based on common sense. Wish ya had some. :)

...Very funny. Your comment is also a matter of opinion. And common sense is all relative to me. (read Einstien's theory of Relativity) ;)

So why did I find him on the list? http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ezsearch.pl?search=Josh+Waitzkin

Chessgames.com has lots of players listed who arent even titled , nevermind great !  LOL  You think Josh is comparable to Fischer just because you found his name there ?  

No. These wiseguys are trying to tell me he's not on the list.

Just because someone made a movie about Waitzkin that had the name Fischer in the title does not mean there is a comparison to be made between the two players.  Fischer is one of the greatest players who ever lived (asshole though he may have been) and Waitzkin is a nice guy who played chess at a high level.  There is no comparison between them.  It would be like comparing a competent minor league ball player to the AL or NL MVP.  

A better way to look at it might be to consider how many players would have been rated between the two.  If Fischer were rated, for example, at 2700 and Waitzkin were rated at 2400, with only three or four players between them, then perhaps there would be a comparison to be made.  But if there were 1000 players between them, then Waitzkin has no business in a comparison between the two.  In fact, Waitzkin's highest raiting was 2480 and Fischer's was 2785 (still the 13th highest rating in history).  The difference between those two numbers seems small but in fact is light years apart.  As your rating increases it becomes exponentially harder to climb the next hundred points, and at the top end becomes that much harder again to get the next 10.

Fischer would have crushed Waitzkin.  There would have been no draws, no close games, no "woulda coulda shoulda's".  It would have been a cringe-worthy destruction that likely only would have been memorable for its one-sidedness.

Although after the game Waitzkin could have kicked Bobby's ass in the parking lot.

That would ruin Josh's image as a nice guy though ... 

It might not have been as easy as you think. Fischer was pretty physically fit, himself. Though I know he didn't do that push hands stuff.

Well, Waitzkin could have pushed Fischer's hands then.

: S    

the only way waitzkin would have a chance, and id argue it's a slim one is if waitzkin and fischer each knew about the match.

we'd need some weird time travel rules (but hey they are already weird).

presumably, josh would get to book up on all of fischer's pet lines, have his own novelties prepared (they had some decent programs by 1998), and have a few surprises maybe even in his preferred scandanavian.

fischer of course played alot of the KIA at that time, and probably wouldnt have access to nearly the same amount of resources that josh did, and it was none other than fischer himself who, in the era of computer chess, bemoaned that a 10 year old punk could guarantee a good game against none other than Paul Morphy just by being booked up and whatnot

with that said, i don't think it would be enough for waitzkin, in spite of the huge edge in modern technology and immediately being able to patch his weak lines.

of course if the match was in the 1960s, and josh had nothing to go off of really but magazines, he'd probably get blown off the board.

All you people are crazy. The roman army was freaking amazing, but It wouldn't stand a chance against Napoleon let alone the Modern U.S. army. What on earth makes you think Fischer could could beat superior technology and overall chess knowledge that Josh had?

If you're scaling things to compare their strengths relative to the entire collective knowledge of the times, then maybe... but head to head? Josh wins.

Don't get me wrong I love Bobby Fischer and the wonderful sportsman story of the US vs. the Soviets. I've read the Frank Brady biography 3 times through I think.

I just don't think Young Bobby could beat young Josh. Bobby may have been more amazing in his time and field, but it's a strangle translation.

I think that eveyone in the 90's had more knowledge than eveyone in the 60's. Just as an overall generalization.

Josh talks a lot about his teacher, Bruce Pandolfini. I don't recall Fischer talking much about his teachers. Bruce learned all the things that Fischer created along with the centuries of knowlege Fischer studied, and then taught it to Josh.

Bobby spent a lifetime learning and creating all these strategies and Josh simply had a summation of a lifetime of knowledge given to him in a few years.

I've read about many games that young Bobby really struggled. Including a game against a latvian grandmaster who played with him for several hours in the latvian gambit before their game. He even told Bobby he was going to play it the next day and he still lost.

There are also stories about Reshevsky giving Bobby puzzles to solve and Bobby was unable to solve them. His stubborness asked him to give Reshevsky a day to try to solve it and Bobby still couln't come up with the answer. He was by no means a perfect chess guru in his youth.

The legend is greater than the man. Bobby Fischer just carries the weight of a great period in american history- the struggle of american idealism vs. soviet realism.

At the age of 14 Fischer won his first U.S. Championship. He then won the next 7 years in a row. This means at age 20 he had won at least 6 U.S. championships in a row. Josh has never won a U.S. Championship.He is well known largely due to the fact that his father's book "Searching for Bobby Fischer" was a big hit (as well as the movie by the same name. He has also done some excellent work on the Chessmaster computer chess games. I like Josh alot but i think he would be the first to admit at age 20 he would be outgunned against a 20 year old Bobby Fischer. I hope someday he reaches the very top of chess but this comparison does not compute.

Don't get me wrong. I doubt any of us would be here on this forum if it wasn't for Bobby Fischer and his games and the off-the-board antics.

He's truly the epitome of american "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" idealism: 1 man, a chess set, a lot of guts, and a definate "X-factor".