Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen

this is true--i was only talking about the present--not the probable future.

I don’t see how Fischer could lose with the white pieces vs anyone. 

I think the hot AI robot from the film Ex Machina would crush everyone.

Well, he lost twice with white against both Geller and Larsen...

L

I prefer Fischer because not only a tactical genius but also an excellent in analyzing and overcome the difficult position like transition to pawn ending, which requires exact knowledge of typical position and strategic ideas with precise calculation. In my view for Carlsen, is that he like to draw the result of the game and only choose opening that is drawish which is simple, unlike the messy and complicated position, ...There's a game Carlsen vs Grischuk which the position is dynamic and complicated , so he lost to grischuk...So I conclude, Fischer is adventurous chess genius, and Carlsen is just a Pure Positional player

I think Carlon would absolutely win a book battle with bobby without a doubt, but playing outside of theory, Bobby would be a much better chess player. 

@ELO200, I really think you should take another at Carlsen's games (spelled correctly here). He is extremely well versed in opening theory, but he trashes opponents rated lower than 2700 by playing ... trash openings. He doesn't even try to out book his lower rated opponents. Instead, he plays junk, like 1...Na6 or against Gawain Jones in a game he had to win to gain the highest rating ever, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4?! And yes, he won. 

He's not relying on book knowledge to beat his peers, he's relying on greater middle game understanding and endgame technique. He has won many games against world class opposition from positions that the commentators claimed were dead drawn and they expected a handshake any minute. 

Go take another look at Carlsen's games!

Indeed. I have always considered Carlsen the Second Coming of a True Chess Great (the First, obviously being Fischer) but in a head to head? Fischer without a doubt.

Fischer's peak elo is rated about 2785... maybe close to 2800 at some point but surely not 2900+.

Indeed. But no one accurately calculate Fischer's rating would be hypothetically if he played in this era of Super GM's or if he hadn't stopped playing chess from 1972 onward til 1992.

Fischer didn't trust computers and couldn't use them in training. Anand relates that he analysed with Fischer and said he was quite strong, but he couldn't accept the computer's evaluations. Anand didn't say it explicitly, but he clearly inferred that Fischer was behind the times and couldn't adjust to modern training techniques.

All of this counterfactual "if Fischer had access to today's engines he'd be even stronger" stuff ignorés Fischer's very nature.

Didn't Carlsen play the Bird against Kramnik?

Carlsen is well known for playing "lesser" lines that are not well known/analyzed to get players out of their prep.  It's actually his most unique and defining strategy...would you rather play a super GM in a line that is booked out to 35 moves with a .25 advantage to white at the end, or go into a line that ends up at .10 for white but that your opponent has not been analyzing for 3 hours the previous night?

I do agree with DeirdreSkye that I need to study Carlsen's games more. Carlsen is the best player in the world and possibly the best ever. I try to watch every event he plays in, but I do need to study his games even more. 

The last time Fischer played competitive chess, computers were very weak compared to him. I don't know when Anand analysed with Fischer, but it was not until early in this century that computers reached even 2600 standard, and were not as strong as top human players in Fischer's lifetime. They would still have been of interest as an opinion with different strengths and weaknesses to strong humans.

Hi

Fischer was right, in 1990 engines were bad (I assume Fischer and anand could work together around those years).