Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen

Carlsen's game as mentioned by pfren.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8257

I strongly believe that Fischer could have been greater than he was. The issue is that once he was top, where else could he really go? There was no one on par, and much worse for him, he didn't *see* anyone as a threat.

If Magnus and Fischer lived at the same time, either era, we would probably have one of them break the 2900 barrier, pushing each other further, albeit, I think Fischer might burn out in frustration overtime. Still, that would not mean he was weaker than Magnus, but merely, he would grow impatient with his attempts to place Magnus substantially behind him.

The exact interaction between them would be more interesting than who wins a single match. I would actually hope Fischer would lose at first so he stays interested, and then catch up to him so he has a goal.

If only we could see that possible world. D:

same story every time ... Fischer by a knockout

i believe that fischer can be better than he was  and carlsen will not be better than bobby was 

You forget one thing "Theory" if Carlson lived in fischer's era then he wouldn't have access to the theory of today even thought its known he gets into worse positions out of the opening anyway alot people seem to forget that one of if not fischers best quality was converting advantages from the opening which is something most todays players lack a little when faced with other 2700  you can tell that just from reading old and new articles which usually goes something like "Blah blah got a better position out of the opening but couldn't find any chances as blah blah defended well and the game ended in a draw. Fischer Once beat Larsen in less than 25 moves Carlson was BEATEN in less than 25 moves to Giri, Fischer beat Taimanov 6-0 and Larsen 6-0 and won a national championship with a perfect 11-0  non of the above has been matched by carlson not saying it wont ever but just comparing more things down the line I will always say Fischer.

That settles it :-)

This.

it's like matching sports figures from different periods of time....comes down too ones own ideas of same. I saw "fisher" play and followed him as a young man,and he could be as tough as the task required! Remember, he did not have search engines or use of computers. 

If there were no draws, I think the match would drag forever like the Karpov-Kasparov match of the 1980's, not sure if a winner would emerge of if it'd be called off. If there were draws, I still have no clear answer. I think it would be a toss-up, whoever stayed focused the longest. I do think Fischer (cranky as he may have become in his old age) would have wanted to support Carlsen in much the way Kasparov did. I found this thread by google-searching and trying to learn more about Carlsen and his games. There is no denying that he has raw talent, and since I was too late to root for Fischer, I'll be chanting "Carlsen! Carlsen!" all the way to the world championship.

No matter what rating Carlsen achieves and how well he plys NO ONE worked on the game as hard as Fischer I think if Bobby would have continued to play in 72 or 73 he would have crossed over the 2800 barrier which would be far more amazing then 2800 today. Simply put Fischer is the Greatest player to ever play the game

Carlsen would win most likely. For one thing, Fischer would be 80 years old, which wouldn't help him too much. 

Carlsen would win 12 to nil.

Fischer pulls out at the last minute because he thinks that he is still the world champion. Oh, and the FBI has said that they still want to arrest Fischer for the Fischer Spassky match and the sanctions.

Typical bloody FBI. Always stuffing up our chess enjoyment. Bastards.

Until this December, Gary Kasparov was the greatest player of all time. Now, it's debatable. And no, there isn't an American in this particular fight.

If Fischer had computer access he wouldn't use it. Too easy for the FBI and Russians to steal your preparation.

Are we even sure Fischer is really dead?

Here is what Bobby Ang has to say this is based on his Chess Article in Busines World dated Dec. 20 , 2012

"The ELO rating system is not purely a grading system for players -- it is more of a numerical system in which differences in rating may be converted into scoring or winning probabilities. For example, if you are rated 2600 and I am 2540, the fact that you are 60 points higher than me (the difference between our ratings) is more significant than the fact that you are in the 2600-rating plateau. With a 60-point difference, if we play 100 games you are probably going to win 58 times and lose 42 games. I have this on the authority of Prof. Elmer Sangalang, a worldwide authority on the rating system -- he was the editor of Dr. Arpad Elo when he wrote the definitive book on The Rating of Chessplayers."

And here is another one from the same article:

"Bobby Fischer had just come from a 20-game winning streak against the best of the world (his final seven games from Palma de Mallorca, six straight victories over Taimanov and also against Larsen in their candidates’ matches and one further game from his match against Petrosian) and the gap between him and Spassky was 125 points.Bobby Fischer had just come from a 20-game winning streak against the best of the world (his final seven games from Palma de Mallorca, six straight victories over Taimanov and also against Larsen in their candidates’ matches and one further game from his match against Petrosian) and the gap between him and Spassky was 125 points.

Garry Kasparov was the first to exceed 2800 ELO points and peaked at 2851 in the July 1999 rating list. Garry was ahead of 2nd-place Anand by 80 ELO points.

As of the end of the London 2012 Classic Tournament: The gap between Magnus Carlsen and Kramnik is 51 points.

So what am I trying to say? Magnus Carlsen had a magnificent achievement and now holds the record for the highest ever rating achieved, but let us not get carried away and declare him as the greatest player in the world -- both Fischer and Kasparov dominated world chess so much during their respective peak periods that they both have strong claims to that title as well.

Just how did they dominate their peers? Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov were both power players -- they had very strong opening preparation, usually get a plus out of the opening and then hammer home the advantage in the middlegame and, if necessary, all the way to the endgame to win. I know that is a bit of a controversial statement right there, but study their games and you will see that it is true.

Magnus Carlsen is quite different -- he is not known as an openings expert. He plays quiet openings with the objective of simply getting a playable position, then he just plays strong moves and if you do not come across with similarly strong moves you will be outplayed and lose."

Ahhhh....

Sweet, I am enthralled an IM would post in such a topic: very cool!

Fischer would win when both 15.  Simply because Fischer developed his game very early.

Th question is who would win at the height of their powers and I say Carlsen.

I say Carlsen wins at 15.

Boxing?

Swimming? Bobby took up swimming as part of his physical regimen for winning the title from Spassky.