Bobby Fischer Vs. Nakamura or Carlsen

Ok, so I've been watching Nakamura on chess.com for a bit and he really seems to be a chess prodigy. However, I've seen plenty of games by Magnus Carlsen and would have to say that he seems to have the same mind for chess that Bobby Fischer had. So that brings me to my question: If Bobby Fischer were still alive today, would he have beaten Carlsen or Nakamura, or would it not even be a close match?

I know that chess theory has advanced a great deal since Fischer's day. However, I think that Fischer was at least 100 elo higher than any other grand master of his time. So I've been playing with the question for a while now. Thoughts?

1) Bobby fischer is still alive in our souls.

2) Fischer had the eye of a madman and would have Slapped nakamura provided they kept to thier usual tactics. Dont really need to explain it just trust me

Fischer

knows.

Nakamura would get his butt kicked but I think carlsen vs fischer would be a hell of a match, not sure who would win that one.

Fischer was a very sophisticated player. There's no telling what he would do if placed in 2016 as a reasonably young man and allowed to study the play of these two esteemed adversaries. 

He would concoct something in his laboratory - of this I have no doubt. 

Fischer was a "laboratory" and a "home preparation" player. He prepared alone, for all aspects of the game. He was unbelievable in his capabilities to prepare. 

It's impossible to say that "his battles were already won at home" - but it's still unbelievable, to what levels he pushed preparation and study. Nobody did that quite as thoroughly before he came - probably not even Botvinnik and Alekhine. 

Lol? This guy has beaten Houdini in games. If he can beat Houdini from time to time, I have no doubt that he could hold his own to Bobby Fischer. However, I think Fischer would win.

Solskytz, you make a great point. I think that if Fischer had time to prepare he would win. However, what if Fischer was randomly challenged by Carlsen one day. Do you think Carlsen would win?

<JPaluska> in the scenario you mention, Fischer would put forth every possible condition to make play impossible. Carlsen would then just shrug and go and play some blitz with MVL. 

Chess has probably evolved a lot since 50 years ago.It is like football or other sports.

Fischer would lose .

IMHO, I think Nakamura would have about as much success against Fischer as he has against Carlsen ---- ZERO WINS in classical games. And as good as Nakamura is at blitz, Bobby was even better!

He didn't beat Houdini. He beat an old version of Rybka – Rybka 2. If Nakamura challenged today's Stockfish at full strength, he'd get mercilessly eaten.

As for Fischer vs. Carlsen, if we compared Fischer with his 70s' theory, without any improvements, he'd get completely trashed. Carlsen plays in a very simple (for a grandmaster) and defensive way, never taking any risks and taking advantage of an opponent's every mistake.

At some point in these discussions, the question inevitably turns to whether we're talking about the historical player (in this case Fischer) playing his contemporary counterparts without the benefit of decades of theory, or whether we're assuming that the former is allowed to study with modern engines, opening books, etc before his hypothetical matches with today's players. The difference is likely pretty significant.

Fischer with modern theory would be just like any other high-end player (like Anand). One benefit of modern chess theory is that it made players much more defensive (computers are very good at defense) and gave Black higher chances of winning and drawing.

Fischer would win in a match against either one if Fischer was at his but Carlsen does have a high forehead. Does Naka have an advertising contract with Red Bull? 

I doubt so. People just underestimate Carlsen's skills. Fischer can attack, but against human oponents, Carlsen can create complications and escape even in positions that are objectively lost.

idk why some of your guys are saying Naka sucks as chess... He has the 2nd highest blitz rating in the world (below Carlsen) and the 6th largest regular chess rating. If that means you suck then what is that saying for all of you commenting. 

Anyways, I do think Carlsen is underestimated these days, probably because he was a grandmaster at so young an age. People tend to treat youngsters as inexperienced. I don't even think he is at his best yet, honestly. 

And Megabyte, I should have said Komodo. He played Komodo and won one of the games. He didn't win the match, but he won a game... I think that says something. However, Carlsen doesn't play engines because he thinks it's like playing an incredibly lucky idiot, or something like that. We all know Carlsen is a better player, but I have seen plenty of Naka's games and think he is pretty good.

odds match? Like where they remove a pawn or something?

magnus for the win

No one can beat Lasker

Fischer was a genius... the other two... meh. 

Given modern theory, the use of engines for preparation and sufficient time for preparation, Paul Morphy would beat all of them.

Hikaru is far better