x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Carlsen vs Kasparov vs Fischer vs Capablanca: Who would win?!

  • #1

    In a game of 4 player Chess , who would win?

    The setting is : Everyone in their prime and during their best winning streaks and for Carlsen, as he is right now. And not a single one of them has played 4 player chess before

    There is no clock, so time will not be a factor and all chess rules apply.

    The winner will be decided after 9 games (so they get used to it over time)

    So who do you think will win? And by how much?

  • #2

    Today I consider Kasparov the greatest with Fischer a very close second. Carlsen may prove to be even better... only time well tell.

    I believe a final Kasparov and Fischer match would be very close and interesting assuming of course Fischer had the added knowledge of modern chess that Kasparov gleened from 1973 through his matches with computers. Computer software has made chess a Tic-Tac-Toe game for even Grand Masters... you either get beat or draw. To me that's Tic-Tac-Toe all over again as Yogi Berra might say! A great game ruined by technology.

  • #3

    The thing about 4 player chess is that most of the  mondern chess is pretty much useless and you have to think of a whole new way of thinking in a game. So that evens out the time difference between each player.

  • #4

    Fischer would win, my brother.

  • #5

    I didnt even know that kind of chess existed.Undecided

  • #6

    1v1 with the goal of defeating the other play is a war of attrition
    Attrition is a poor strategy against multiple opponents of similiar strength.

    Defensive play to make yourself the least profitable to attack and refraining from occupying the centre (until the game reaches the 1v1 stage) which becomes an untenable position to hold, seems a sounder strategy befitting a Petrosian or Kramnik.

  • #7

    Carlsen-Kasparov-Fischer-Capablanca assuming they're all in their prime.  Kasparov is a close second with Carlsen with Fischer being a moderate third with Capablanca as a somewhat distant fourth. 

  • #8
    BlackbirdBlackbird wrote:

    I didnt even know that kind of chess existed.

    Really? Well now you know! :)

  • #9
    TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:

    Carlsen-Kasparov-Fischer-Capablanca assuming they're all in their prime.  Kasparov is a close second with Carlsen with Fischer being a moderate third with Capablanca as a somewhat distant fourth. 

    That was in the description; and yes they are

  • #10

    Lol!

    Well, let's just say in a fictional reality where they all are alive, yet never played against each other, (except Carlsen and Kasparov, since they did play, but details!  Ignore them!) Who would win?

  • #11
    chessmicky escribió:

    I think the guys still breating have a big edge

    LOL

  • #12
    Jex_Roselin wrote:

    1v1 with the goal of defeating the other play is a war of attrition
    Attrition is a poor strategy against multiple opponents of similiar strength.

    Defensive play to make yourself the least profitable to attack and refraining from occupying the centre (until the game reaches the 1v1 stage) which becomes an untenable position to hold, seems a sounder strategy befitting a Petrosian or Kramnik.

    True, but very hard to do as you have 2 players right next to you and that complicates things further as eventullay an attack will be forced

  • #13
    913Glorax12 escribió:

    Lol!

    Well, let's just say in a fictional reality where they all are alive, yet never played against each other, (except Carlsen and Kasparov, since they did play, but details!  Ignore them!) Who would win?

    Don José would be able to win against the three other in a consultation game :)

  • #14

    Carlsen would win because Fischer and Kasparov are to opening prep minded and aggressive: they couldn't last long enough to be the last one standing, and their opening prep would be next to useless in this variant. Carlsen would have the better of a Capablanca in my opinion. Now give each player three years to study and practice that variant and I give Fisher the edge with Kasparov and Carlsen duking it out as the second to last standing; Capablanca wouldn't benefit from the three years nearly as much as the others.

  • #15

    The moment Chuck Norris walks in the room, all four would resign, apologize, and walk out the door backward, with their hats in their hands.

  • #16
    daddyjordan22 wrote:

    Carlsen would win because Fischer and Kasparov are to opening prep minded and aggressive: they couldn't last long enough to be the last one standing, and their opening prep would be next to useless in this variant. Carlsen would have the better of a Capablanca in my opinion. Now give each player three years to study and practice that variant and I give Fisher the edge with Kasparov and Carlsen duking it out as the second to last standing; Capablanca wouldn't benefit from the three years nearly as much as the others.

    Fair enough, I too would place my money on Carlsen, because he avoids main lines in normal chess and he has shown to adabt well in diferent atmospheres

  • #17

    After some thought and research I find three and four player chess totally bogus because of the gang up factor of two or three players trying to eliminate a stronger or weaker player. In the case of Carlsen, Kasparov, Fischer and Capablanca you are going to see Fischer play fair while the others are going to look for the weaker moves and try to eliminate that player in tandem. Fischer would find this irritating and throw a tantrum of biblical proportions. Carlsen would keep his cool and his head down all the while calulating. Kasparov would eventually get pissed get up shake everyones hand and leave. Capablanca would be half drunk and tired from one of his all night forlics. Eventually Carlsen and Fischer would emerge as end game combatants and Carlsen would win being the better end game player.

    Fischer would shake his hand, walk away and blame poor lighting, Russian's sending radio signals into his dental fillings and of course all the Jewish people for such a disgusting loss!

    -Owen Lee Hughman

  • #18

    Borislav Ivanov would beat all of em!

  • #19
    BlackbirdBlackbird wrote:

    Fischer would win, my brother.

    but a fisch is not a fisch in karlsablanca

    i don't even know y i wrote that ...

  • #20

    considering all the advancements in chess are for 1v1 chess you could say that the player with the most raw talent would probably win in this style of chess therefore i must go with capablanca. (or better yet morphy)

Online Now