Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen

Believable or not, I don't think 2014 Anand was stronger than 1972 Spassky, and I do think 1969 Spassky was stronger than any active player today.

Put them on an equal playing field as RJF would demand, and strip away all knowledge that Carlsen relies on for chess, which is attributed to RJF and then start the match. Magnus loses.

Put them on an equal playing field as RJF would demand, and strip away all knowledge that Carlsen relies on for chess, which is attributed to RJF and then start the match. Magnus loses.

"Put them on an equal playing field as RJF would demand, and strip away all knowledge that Carlsen relies on for chess, which is attributed to RJF and then start the match. Magnus loses"

If you just post that another three times you will maybe convince yourself about it :-) But how a Fantasy Carlsen would have played is impossible to say anything about, and not the subject of this thread, which is about the real world Fischer and Carlsen. I think the latter just plays better moves than the best players of 50 years ago, for the same obvious reasons that Fischer played better moves than Alekhine. Opening theory alone makes a huge difference.

As for talent, I guess the best chess players of different eras have been approximately equally talented. In Fantasy Carlsen's case one could just as well ask how strong he would be if he spent as much time on chess as Fischer did, as one could ask the same thing about for example Capablanca. But if one makes changes in personality of players and turn them into different people things become a bit too much fantasy

Ultimately, I'm gonna have to mirror the position that many people have already expressed: if Fischer has time to prepare, he wins. If he doesn't, Magnus wins.

My impression is that Fischer's playing level has been mythologized in a way that bears little relation to his actual results against his strongest opponents. When he retired in 1972 he had 7-6 against Spassky, 3-5 against Geller, 2-2 against Korchnoi, 2-4 against Tal, 8-4 against Petrosian, 4-3 against Keres, etc.

Nakamura said that "we all" would beat Fischer when speaking of the best players today compared to half a century back, but that is just natural and doesn't reflect badly on Fischer, just like Lasker losing to Anand wouldn't make the latter a greater player.

Chess just changes much too much over time for such questions to be meaningful, it's like asking if Jesse Owens ran faster than Usain Bolt. It's easy to see that he didn't, and that it in itself doesn't say anything about who was greater of the two. Then you can make Fantasy atheletes with the same upbringing, training, family surroundings, equipment etc and claim that whoever you like more would have been better, but that is a rather pointless exercise.

There is a big difference between the best performance and the standard rating.

Fischer's std rating was in the 2700's (with inflation it is 2900 ELO) but I am talking about his best tournament performance: 6-0 vs Larsen and 6-0 vs Taimanov in 1971. In both of these tournaments, Fischer played like a 3050-3100 ELO player.

Unfotunately, the world championship wasn't in 1971 - It was a year later when Fischer was not at the peak of his career.

master_po, you mean fart?

NKT, the weaker the player, the more randomness is a factor. 

Carlsen is so good that he would beat a Fide Master rated 2300 about 95% of the time. He might give up an occasional draw, but he has minimized the effects of randomness. 

Still, even the best engines in the world lose every now and then. They lose to other engines though, and never lose to one-movers. 

Chess got last major change in 1862, when various local pawn promotion rules were unified and codified. Therefore, from Blackburne to Carlsen, players have been playing the same game. So no change at all. Opening theory and strategic understanding are not to be overestimated, because basic theory was already known in 19th century, plus there are methods of avoiding opponent's superior opening knowledge, and last but not least, with general understading, improvization is more viable than memorization. Regarding strategy "development", it was demonstrated repeatedly that true geniuses like Philidor, Morphy or Chigorin had used strategies "discovered" many decades later.

While we can tell Bolt runs faster than Owens, we can't be sure if Bolt is clean or just "not caught yet", or even covered-up like Armstrong, thus his achievements are true and valid. Moreover, we don't know how good ancient athletes had been before stopwatch clock was invented. What if ancient Spartans ran a lot faster than Bolt?

Well, some player Nakamura isn't in position to judge his chances vs Fischer. If he even thinks he would win, he displays his pure ignorance. In my opinion, Naka would barely make it into all-time top 500. I would compare him to players of caliber like Georg Marco, Heinrich Wolf or Wolfgang Uhlmann, definitely not to greatest ones like Lasker or Fischer. He should consider himself lucky if he got a few draws from Frank Marshall in a match.

Another thing is that using of computer technology in preparation probably makes human play quality deteriorate.

"from Blackburne to Carlsen, players have been playing the same game. So no change at all"

Hard to argue against that statement :-)

Technically, the rules may have been the same the conditions however have changed and in some cases quite dramatically.Time controls to begin with,though I am no chess historian it makes sense to suspect that 150 years ago a game could last for days.Then, there were adjournments.Today chess is played using much tighter time controls,increments,and top players are way stronger due to computers.The openings are played at the highest level and defensive technique is incredibly high compared to what it was in the past.Therefore,I argue that although the Great players of the past were giants in their time,their playing strength would simply be no match for today's top players.

This statement makes you look like a complete patzer!

Why? Do you think I underestimate or overestimate him?

Actually, being in all-time top 500 is pretty high: there are ~1500 FIDE GMs alive plus even higher number of dead historical players of similar caliber, lets say 5000 overall. Nakamura belongs to top 10% there, not bad.

Perhaps you are not aware that Nakamura is ranked near the top of the super-GMs in an era of chess honed by engines and databases (off the board)? His moves are, in general, very accurate. Also relevant is his very strong blitz play (currently number 2 in the world), a common characteristic of top players, and he was number 1 at rapid chess last year.

Statistically, your ridiculously biased statement requires that the current top echelons of chess has had a hundred or more top players culled and that there is a massive conspiracy theory about how accurate the remaining players' play is by computer metrics.

Yeah, those 19th century players were just way better!

You know I argued many times pre-computer GMs were stronger than today's, because computers make deteriorate mental creativity over the board, only remembered opening lines are honed. I am aware some ignorant trolls and patzers disagree - not my fault.

Following this, Nakamura is certainly quite behind all champions, all challengers, most candidates, many other legends and even some less known players. So far, he has been no champion, no challenger, no legend, only unsuccessful candidate and quite successful tournament player in an era when human chess creativity deteriorate.

Nakamura puts me in mind of Bent Larsen. 

I guess Nakamura's peak rating of 2816 places him as the 7th strongest player in the history of the game,not too shabby...