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

true, soviets totally dominated chess until about 2000, and some of the spinoff countries from the former USSR have produced many champions since then. financial incentives are definitely a big motivator. The Soviets did similar stuff with their hockey program, totally dominating the sport until at least the 80s. they paid and pampered their hockey players, which is weirdly similar to the way we treat our pro athletes. 

A match between Hikaru Nakamura at age 20 (~2670) and Fischer at age 20 (unknown, but probably about the same) would have been very interesting. 

Nakamura has made huge improvements in his game in recent years and has already reached Fischer's highest rating, and Nakamura is still improving.

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.

Sure. But chess, like other sports, evolve. Who knows how fast Jesse Owens could have run if he had the benefits of modern diet and training. But the historical Jesse Owens would finish more than 20 feet (about 6.5 meters) behind Usain Bolt in a 100 meter race.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/05/sports/olympics/the-100-meter-dash-one-race-every-medalist-ever.html?_r=0

That doesn't diminish Jesse Owens' accomplishments, it just puts into perspective how much has changed since his time.

It seems really difficult for some people to believe those same changes have occurred in chess. 

The historical Paul Morphy played at about 2344 strength. (Source: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/Reg12IPRs.pdf )

Some people believe sport is only about money. Wrong. Russia had a strong chess culture since the second half of 19th century. The support by the Soviet state meant that education in chess was available equally to everyone. Indeed, this does not cost too much money.

The difference to the rest of the world was and is, that chess players (IMs and up) are considered as smart, culturful people, artists, not just competitive sportsmen. Many of them ideed are, this includes timid, unknown trainers in many towns.

To some extent this is true until today in some countries that belonged to the Soviet Union: Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia.

In Georgia, women who marry get traditionally a chess set as a gift. 

250 Million people (inhabitants of Soviet Union) have many strong men, don't you think ?

Ballet is another old tradition in Russia, so it was natural to give money also to Sports gymnastics.

In the West it is often not realized that developping a 'hobby culture' needs not money in the first place, but enthusiastic people who sacrify a lot of their time they would otherwise spend for family.

There was never so much money involved in any communist country for any sports as it is now spent for soccer in Western Europe.

I imagine that the only reason there are not posts on chess.com claiming that Tal Shaked  could have been one of the greatest in chess history or world champion is just because he doesn´t have a movie (Even when GM Shaked became GM and Waitzkin was unable to do it).

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Morphy was the first great American, who played in the late 1850s, followed by George Mackenzie, who moved to America and who dominated so well that people thought he was another Morphy. The next great American was actually Steinitz, who moved to America and became a citizen. Actually, I don't think it's an accident that Steinitz, Lasker, and Capablanca all died in New York. Anyway, there followed Marshall, and some time later, Kashdan, Reshevsky, and Fine. This was the peak of strength, and America won 4 olympiads in a row at this time! Then Dake and Denker came into view, and in the 50s, Evans, Bisguier, the Byrne Brothers, Benko, who emigrated...and finally, Bobby Fischer. Time passed before we saw Christiansen, Kamsky, Benjamin,Seirawan, etc... and today only Kamsky and Nakamura are anywhere near world class. So America has a lot of potential in chess, if only it was treated anywhere near as seriously as other sports are.

Steinitz moved to the USA in the last 6 to 7 years of his life .  He did become a US citizen but his best years in chess certainly weren't as an American .  I consider him Austrian and he was even called by some the " Austrian Morphy " . 

At his peak, Reuben Fine was probably the strongest player in the world. Certainly one of the strongest players who never became world champion.

Well, he moved to America in 1883, shortly after the London tournament, became world champion (officially) in 1886, and died in 1900.

Fischer by landslide

Most of the great Americans who you mentioned were born (and educated) in Europe or somewhere else.

That's not true. JMB2010 mentioned 14 Americans. He didn't include Seirawan for some reason.

Of those 14, Denker, Kashdan, Reuben Fine, the Byrne brothers, Bisguier, Evans, and Joel Benjamin were born in New York.

Dake was born in Portland, Christiansen was born in California. 

Of those listed by JMB, only Reshevsky, Kamsky and Nakamura were born on foreign soil. Nakamura learned to play chess in the US, and Kamsky became a world class player as an American citizen. 

Or, do you think New York is not part of America? (There are some who think Hawaii is not part of America, so this could be a serious issue!)

Yeah, I forgot Seirawan;edited it.

Smyslovfan, I meant the others, Lasker, Steinitz etc.

---------------------

Check the US championships of the last 20 years , men and women, participants and champions. Check also the US open (biggest open of the world, if I am not wrong) during the last 20 years.

How many of them grew up in the former Soviet Union ?

The US chess has benefitted a lot from the Soviet chess school.

Factly, six out of nine players in the US who are over 2600 are from the ex-Soviet Union.

Ofcourse Fischer would win. But some people are not aware of Josh Waitzkins abilities. There's no question if he could become a GM, the only question was when. 

He defeated Kaidanov, Christiansen, Dzindzichashvili before his twentieth birthday. He also drew against Kasparov, when he was about 10 years. Therefore those who are saying it would had been 10-0 are probably wrong.

Furthermore, IM pfren, Waitzkin has contributed to the chess literature and made some very nice videos about his own games, as well as from some other top players.

Here's an instructive video made by Josh of a very interesting game of his. See for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1BX4WSmTWk&list=PLVkhnSVKIXQZ5uzLSJyCJLfh2lKIa8FSs&index=1

Funny how often it's left out that the draw was a simul with 58 other kids playing. Another kid drew too.

If you measure number of active chess players, number of GMs, number of GMs over 2600, number of competitions (leagues, open tournaments), all taken per 1000 inhabitants, then the heavy weights in the world are some smaller countries:

Armenia (surely best in percentage of GMs), Germany (best in percentage of active players and perhaps competitions), Netherlands, Iceland, perhaps also Argentina and Georgia...

Perhaps Armenia is first in all items above ?

I am not sure at all about the places of China, Russia and Ukraina, of course they have strong national teams and high total number of GMs.  

I am on the other hand sure that the USA are not a heavy weight in any of the above percentages, although they do have strong national teams.

The strongest percentage should be Iceland- although their best days were in the mid-seventies. If I can recall well, no less than seven native Grandmasters, out of a total population of 270,000- simply stunning.