Fischer thought all the high level games of the last twenty or so years where fixed. He was an insane asshole and couldn't compete in the highest levels today regardless of if he had computer prep.
A techno-advantaged Fischer? How good?
Sort:
As I said, such emotion on each side. I agree that as he got older he got crazier and crazier. I don't agree that, from a chess standpoint, you can say his insane rantings about the chess world as he aged take anything away from the Fischer in 71-72. He was brilliant and nuts in his prime. As he aged he was just nuts.
And, the original question about Fischer can and should also be extrapolated to any of the legends of chess. Interesting to think about. Or, to put it another way, do today's best get too much credit considering how much more technological advantage they have over pre-computer aided players?
I'm sure Fischer would have dominated his peers by the same, if not larger margins.
The key thing is that Fischer wasn't winning mainly because he had better preparation for specific lines that were figured out in advance. He was winning because he was an overall better chess player AND was always updated with the current-gen knowledge. I'm pretty sure his single-minded approach + talent would have meant even with tools, he would have maintained the gap with his peers.
These computer tools are better at bringing up the bottom in chess, in my opinion - makes knowledge more accessible to more and thus class players to masters are getting stronger, faster. Even so, it's clearly not the be-all-end-all - if it were, us class players would be a lot better than we are, with all these great books and resources at our disposal!
But at the world-class level, this probably isn't remotely enough to be the main reason to be world champion.
I was reading through the thread on this board of how Fischer would do against today's players rated 2600+ and as I was posting a response I decided that it would be an interesting question to post in a separate thread. Here's my post:
l always enjoy following anything dealing with Fischer. Such emotion on each side. I do find it interesting though reading posts such as arnieus's, where he states that Fischer would have difficulty today with players since they have the benefit of much better training tools (computer technology) that Fischer did not have access to. And I agree, if we simply dumped the Fischer of '72 in front of a GM today.
But, in fairness, the question has to be asked that if Fischer so thoroughly dominated the best in the world in 71-72, with what many believed was bar raising talent, what he would be like with the same level of computer training aids we have today available to him? I see no reason he wouldn't see the same proportional benefits that everyone else sees, especially with his legendary work ethic. Which, raises the intriguing question "How much better would a techno-advantaged Fischer be than the original"?