Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen

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

This is surely the key to the question - the computer is the only thing that can beat absolutely everybody no matter how good they may be, what their style is, what period they played in etc. So the way to decide who is better out of historical candidates (or modern day candidates for that matter) is to measure their skills against the computer which will give you a clear result.

Symslovfan said: "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). "

That is where we disagree. I do not think that he has arrived at something that allows players of different eras to be compared objectively.

I have not "missed the point" at all. Although I do understand that you would like to force me (and everyone else) to agree with you.

There is no conceivable experiment that could ever settle this question.  How hard is it to say "We don't know (and probably never will)" ?

But comparing them at age 22, as in the OP's question, is not all that difficult. The 22 year old Fischer finished equal with Ivkov, behind Smyslov, in Havana. A year later he finished behind Spassky after losing to him in Piatigorsky Cup. Carlsen at 22 was very clear World #1, 50 years later, when the general level of chess was much higher. It isn't a particularly radical idea to suggest that Carlsen aged 22 was better than Fischer aged 22.

It's a common misconception that player's of today are way stronger than past player's.:-O

You don't understand that if we disregard Regan's conclusions as pseudoscientific*, there is no evidence for it. And there is evidence against it, implying the top play actually declines. Challenger Gelfand, well behind his prime, or GM Spraggett, aged 51 in 2006, suddenly jumped over 2600 he had never achieved in his prime, Korchnoi, etc.

Carlsen's play doesn't show any significant increase (if any) in top3 computer choices than e.g. Botvinnik's, so your last statement is either plain ignorance or lie.

* The core of Regan's work lies in comparing human and computer play which is useful for revealing cheaters, but his conclusions about great players from the past are pseudoscientific and wrong, because chess engines he used didn't possess any algorithm to evaluate greatness.

NO HAY DUDA DE QUE bOTWINIK ERA MUCHO MAS PROFUNDO QUE cARLSEN!

Fische venceria ampliamente a Carlsen

+5

Para mi el jugador mas grande de la historia ha sido José Raul Capablanca, y despuès de él. Alekine.

last statement is a lie? ok read this-http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-quality-of-play-at-the-candidates-090413

todays play is much better then 40 years ago chess evalotion.

Yes, you lied or didn't read the article properly. There is nothing about Carlsen's 90% matchup with engine.

And btw, the article is pseudoscience.

computer analysis is pseudoscience? ok.

90% of moves this is not this article,the one i sent was about quality of play which shows clearly that todays players are better thrn the ones 40 years ago.

and more that that we dont need any acrticle to understand that todays chess is better then 40 or 50 yearsago.

Computers (used by Regan, Bratko and others) may measure only minor aspect of human's play, i.e. precision. But they fail to measure greatness. Kramnik may play a bit more precisely than Lasker did, I don't dispute that, but he is still weaker than Lasker, because Lasker's play greatness was colossal. Got it?

Polarbear has declared Regan's published work in refereed journals to be pseudoscientific. Polarbear must be right. Q.E.D.

The core of the original work itself isn't pseudoscience, but conclusion is. Reasons have been already written here.

kramnik weaker then lasker? good joke.

lasker vs kramnik would end prob 10-0 in classical time control.

next arcitle:http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-player-

computer is the best tool in saying who is better player objectiveness.