Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen


Both at age 15, who would win? 

Who would win at age 22 between them?



Depends on the era in which they would play. I doubt that Carlsen has Fischer's grasp and overall vision of the game. Meaning that he is strong in tghe modern game where the computer has changed the way [preperation is done, but would he be able to create at the board the way Fischer did??

In his prime Fischer obliterated opposition. Carlsen is certainly not there yet!


Here we go again.


carlsen would lose at fischer's time obviously.


15 = bobby fischer 

22= draw


Actually Carlsen is very organic in his play. much easier to grasp his moves than say Kramnik's or Anand's.

I would say at 15 probably Fischer

at 22. Carlsen


at 15 Carlsen still had school and such

at 15 Fischer couldn't have cared less about anything other than Chess (maybe Sex as the one tournoment where he did poorly would indicate)

at 22. Carlsen will be a great player and will more than likely be rated mid 2800's

at 22. Fischer was dominating the US Championship. problem is people just fell over when they went up against him. here are my predictions for the match at 22 years


standard 6 game match

Game 1: Fischer: white, Carlsen: Black

Chinese Dragon. in a hectic middle game Fischer attempts his kingside thrust but fails due to superior play along the b file by Carlsen. however Fischer defends correctly and in a game that no one could call dull... .5-.5

Game 2: Carlsen: white, Fischer : black

Sicilian Poisoned Pawn. Fischer accepts the poisoned pawn but gets his queen locked in while Carlsen activates the rest of his pieces and attacks Fischer's uncastled King Fischer is unable to defend while maintaining winning chances and atempts to draw the resulting minor piece ending 2 pawns down. Due to a more active king Carlsen wins... 1-0

Game 3: Fischer: White, Carlsen: Black

King's Gambit Accepted, Bishop's Gambit. in a complex middle game which appears to swing one way and then the other. Carlsen achieves a pawn up Rook ending. Fischer manages to bring the game to a drawn position via triangulation. .5-.5

Game 4: Carlsen: White, Fischer: Black

Ruy Lopez Archangel Variation. in a positional game where manuevering predominates Fischer gets bored. He wander's the room checking the cameras and wondering why the spectators were allowed so close and is even curious about the box around him that he can't here the people talking outside. he returns to the chair and sacs a rook. In the ensuing complications Carlsen's mind is stressed but can't find a way to get a draw... 0-1


Game 5: Fischer: white, Carlsen: black

Italian Game, Evan's Gambit. The game turns ugly early, Pieces flying across the board. Carlsen's King appears very concerned sitting in the midlle but after sacing a pawn for the open file gets tremendous counterplay lasting into the endgame where based on his two bishops to knight and bishop and more active king he is able to win the pawn race. 0-1


Game 6: Carlsen: white, Fischer: Black

King's Indian Defence Mainline. Carlsen puts a squeeze on Fischer who is unable to get play despite his sacrifice of a pawn for a more active kingside. the game eventually resolves into a drawn Queen ending without pawns. .5-.5

final score:  Carlsen 3.5 Fischer 2.5

jetfighter13 wrote:

final score:  Carlsen 2.5 Fischer 1.5

The sum of their scores is only four.


sorry its midnight here so yeah just fixed it.


At 15, it would be Fischer on top.  But we are still watching to see how good Carlsen will get.  He is just phenomenol already, and before he reaches the age Fischer quit playing, he will have played at the highest levels twice as long as he has now.


It all depends on teh IQ .... 


If they are both 15 carlsen would win because he is still alive.


I know that if any average grandmaster was transported back to the time of Morphy and played Morphy-the grandmaster would win more than 60% of the games.

Also, any player rated 2350 or above if transported back in time would be World Champ up to time of Morphy.

Carlsen, without computer learning and modern chess theory knowledge would be no equal match to Fischer at age 15 or 22.


It's impossible to tell, unfortunate but true.
But why isn't Kasparov in this competition? 


Carlsen is the least computer dependent top player currently (together with Peter Svidler). He is the world's #1 simply because of his phenomenal positional understanding, and awesome fighting spirit.

IMO he has the potential (provided that he will work a bit on his soft spot, which surely enough is the opening preparation) to be the first one to come close to the 2900 ELO barrier.

Svidler too. He probably has an IQ around 200 or so, plays stunning chess (no need for advertisement- his SIX wins in the Russian individual championship speak volumes about his skill), but IMO he is a bit old to cure his almost pathological laziness.

I feel that if we could transport Fisher of the early seventies to our era, and settle a match against Carlsen, or Svidler in Fisher Chess/Chess960 (no opening theory involved) he would lose quite easily.


Surely enough it is not fair to compare... the last part of my post is sheer speculation.

But the point is that anyone who thinks that Carlsen is just a more-than-average computer kid, is simply flat wrong.


The "just a computer kid" epithet is one I don't really understand anyway. What does that mean besides a positional sensibility that has used every tool available to be better at evaulating positions and finding fighting moves than someone who hasn't used all the tools available?

If Korchnoi finds an amazing draw out of a position that looks hopelessly lost, he's a positional genius. If Caruana does it he's "just a computer kid?" If Polgar whips up an attack out of nowhere she's an attacking genius. If Nakamura does it he's "Just a computer kid?"

What's it take for these guys to just be considered damn good chess players?


I think Fischer still wins against Magnum, and also both at age 29.  Put Fischer in today's computer world, he'd be a 3000 player. 


IM pfren is exactly correct about Carlson - in fact, he admitted that Kasparov was shocked at his lack of computer experience and lack of interest in acquiring it.  He's not a "computer kid" at all.

His opening knowledge and preparation is probably the weakest of the top 10 players in the world, but he understands positional play on a par with anyone and has a fighting spirit that is always seeking a win out of every game. 


Fischer being 3000+? Bullshit.

Fischer being 2900+? Perhaps, but I highly doubt it.


It's an ill wind that blows no good.