Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen

All right... how about ZOMBIE Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen?

Does he lurch around groaning "Brainsssss"... or "Pawnssss"?

Fischer hated Jews

Ummm... Carlesen would cream Fischer at any age just look at this game (this WILL happen)

I think Fischer realized that his talents had gone down a small degree and that is why he stopped playing when he did. He did fear Karpov. [however, I agree the match conditions would have been unfair to Fischer]

When he did play a match after some years he picked Spassky who was about 100th on the rating list. [at the time]

Fischer was better than everybody else until after his match with Spassky when Karpov came along.

What a load of nonsense this whole discussion is. I guess that it is harmless fun, so long as no-one takes it seriously.

It is, in principle, impossible to say which player of two world-class players of different eras was the "stronger"  as there is no objective means to assess the chess strength of players in general, and of different eras in particular. All we can measure with any accuracy is their results relative to their contemporaries. Everything else is speculation, even if it is drerssed up on fancy mathematics or computer assessment to make it look scientific and/or objective.

We can intuitively judge strength, from playing over games, but that is useless for comparing players, as no two intuitions are the same, and most players (myself included) are not strong enough for any judgements they make to be taken seriously.

Even contemporary ratings are not true measures of strength, as they depend on achieved results ... which depend on who is played, how hard the players try, and many other things.  

And It is not a contradiction to believe that a player can be "stronger" than another player that has a higher rating.  For example a player could be impossible to beat but draw many games. A powerful tournament player might achieve a higher rating, yet always lose in match play against the Petrosian-like player.

Finally, chess strength is not transitive.  If Player A usually beats player B, and player B usually beats player C it doe not follow that Player A will usually beat player C, except when their ratings differe massively.

All of that sounds great until you take a close look at the work Kenneth Regan has done. His Intrinsic Performance Rating isn't based on results, but the quality of the moves played.

His detailed statistical work has shown quite clearly that Carlsen is playing at a significantly higher level than Fischer. He has also shown that FIDE ratings are reliable "objective" measures of chess ability over time.

"Everything else is speculation, even if it is dressed up on fancy mathematics or computer assessment to make it look scientific and/or objective".

Regan's work is one of the attempts that I had in mind when I wrote that.

IPRs for players of different eras are inherently untestable, hence unscientific.  You can use them to predict the outcome of a match, or to predict the performance of a historical player in a modern tournament, but if one or more of the players is dead the prediction can never be tested.

Furthermore, the quality of moves, even if comparing a player's moves to those of Rybka is a valid way of evaluating their quality is valid, is not necessarily a measure of a players maximum strength.  You need only play well enough to beat the players that face you at the board.

We have no way of knowing what untapped reserves Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca ... and of course Fischer, could have drawn on if they could be magically transported to the present day.

I stand by my previous post.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics !. What a load of baloney ; Magnus Carlsen is not fit to carry Bobby FIscher's chess set let alone be considered a greater player . Bobby was the great creator and played the beautiful game whereas Magnus is the great manouverer and plays the percentages. 

Over the board without the benefit of modern computer preparation Bobby would beat Magnus to a pulp.

I agree about damn  lies, statistics and baloney, but apart from that you seem to have missed my point.  We do not know and we can never know (at least not until time travel is invented) the relative strengths of Carlsen and Fischer, nor what would have happen if they could play a match when each is in their Prime.

We can speculate endlessly, we can do fancy mathematics, we can canvas the opinions of the strongest players of the day, we can cling to our opinion as to who is stronger and defend that opinion with all kinds of argument ... but there is no way that differences of opinion can ever be resolved, because the match can never happen.

...he said, bumping the dead thread back into discussion...

No, it's you who have missed the point of Regan's work. He has found a way to measure chess skill as objectively and as reliably as a stop watch can measure the relative abilities of Mark Spitz (1972) and Micheal Phelps (2012). 

Crying loudly about how great some hero of the past was and how much better he must be than today's current players just shows the emotional commitment some have made in trying to make their heroes into gods. 

Vasily Smyslov was the greatest endgame player of his generation, better than Capa at his best. But his endgame skills are nothing special when compared to the amazing accuracy today's players demonstrate. Chess has evolved and chess players get better every generation. 

We will never arrive at an answer that is going to satisfy everbody ; that much is beyond question . However , we can still reach a reasonable understanding of where the truth lies through our interpretation of the available historical records .

Some people will reach unreasonable conclusions based upon their faulty interpretation while others will get nearer to the objective truth . My truth : Bobby is the superior chess talent.

Bt the way , the invention of time travel would not help us very much . The grandfather paradox precludes travelling backwards in time .

quite interesting

Carlsen has a plus score on Nakamura and Nakamura is approximately as good as Fischer. 

A strong case could be made that Bobby Fischer in his prime would beat Magnus Carlsen, but there are three caveats that need to be made first:

1. Fischer would need access to modern chess software and chess engines.

2. Fischer would need adequate time to prepare.

3. Fischer would have to actually agree to the match and not back out like he did with Karpov.  (In other words, Fischer would have to be 100% confident that he would win first.)

By the way, I do not think that Fischer is smarter or a more talented chessplayer than Magnus Carlsen.  However, Bobby Fischer studied chess more than any player in the history of the game.  It was Former World Champion Tigran Petrosian who said that Fischer put more time into chess than the entire Soviet team, and this was not hyperbole.

With the use of chess software and chess engines, Fischer would not be "Bobby Fischer" but the nearest human equivalent of a Stockfish or a Houdini or a Rybka, with hundreds, if not thousands, of prepared technical novelties to unleash on his opponents. 

Fischer was a monster, and surelly one of my favorite players of all time. He was good enough to almost "humilliate" with his high risk plays some other high rated GM's, i can't really imagine how he would be with access to chess engines and software.

I don't mean results based but comparing their peak ratings.  Nakamura also has stronger opposition than Fischer had.  Sure Larsen, Taimanov, Tal, Geller, and Spassky were tough but their level of play is below that of Caruana, Aronian, Grischuk, and  Karjakin, who could also plausibly defeat Larsen 6-0 and easily win the title in Fischer's time. 

pepole dont understand 1 simple thing,today the players are much stronger at chess because of chess progrems and new insites in the game.

another thing carslen is almost 2900 elo today but and fisher was about 2770!

but todays elo is a differnt pool of players that are much more good players and Gms today then 40 years ago.

100 years ago best player would be 2800 but will be 2400 today because of differnt pool of players.(today much more Gms and super Gms)

today ther is a progrem who can analyze games and that is cleary shown that magnus's moves are almost 90%of houdini 1-2 top choices and fisher and his time players is only 60-70% huge diffrence in level and game accurecy fisher would be crushed 10-0or 9-1 at best against carlsen.

Wei yi beats them both at 15