Bobby Fisher was many other things besides a chess player. chess player, a politician in a sense (He fought for his belives and he won. he fought for chess players to get better condition and money and he won which is why most of chess players are paid well now a days), sportsman, and an avid thinker. He had a fighting spirit and amazing personality. players now a days are just creation of computer analysis without creativity. given the fisher with his theoritical knowledge which he learned over time and later if shown the world of computers analysis he would have been just unbeatable. carlsen is just a creation of computer showning the right path and he just happen to have a good mind to learn it.
Bobby Fischer at his strongest vs Magnus Carlsen
Sort:
stoned_sherlock wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:
All these comparisons are of course unfair to the older players, the more modern players have all the advantages.
being alive is pretty much the only advantage that matters in this case.
carlsen wins every game vs fischer, no exceptions.
All dedicated chess players are dead inside. The living body is only a physical avatar. I would argue that the death of the soul--an ultimately distracting force--increases play strength. I think it'd be a match to die for.
Mar 31, 2016
0
#24
You can look at Fischer's perforamnce rating, according to engine analysis, here: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/Reg12IPRs.pdf
Judging by Carlsen's recent performance ratings, I think Carlsen would have the strong edge.
(Edited from earlier.)
Fischer was better at creating plays.
Carlsen is better at using plays that he has memorized.
" If Morphy was born in 1992, He'd probably be rated at around 3500 atleast. But, just my opinion, obviously we can't know."
Thats a bit ridiculous...put Kasparov at Morphys birthplace.....would he destroy everyone the way Morphy did? Absolutely....was Kasparov anywhere near 3500?
LarrattGHP9 wrote:
Thats a bit ridiculous...put Kasparov at Morphys birthplace.....would he destroy everyone the way Morphy did? Absolutely....was Kasparov anywhere near 3500?
I was using an exageration to prove a point. My point being that if Morphy had internet chess databases(and modern,quick, and easy chess-study technologies), he'd have been MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH stronger than he was at his strongest.
He'd also have access to INFINITE images of women's shoes, and he could have spent less time stealing them(or whatever the hell he was doing to get them), and he would have had a lot more time to focus on chess.
Magnus Carlsen has the ability to become a next Bobby Fischer.
All these comparisons are of course unfair to the older players, the more modern players have all the advantages.