Could Today's 2600 GMs All Beat Bobby Fischer?
Sort:
NM
TheOldReb
Feb 3, 2016
0
#201
Feb 4, 2016
0
#205
Ooooohhhhh....we're gonna meet one day there Mr. NM Reb. And when we do ?....you're gonna buy me a drink of my choice and I'm gonna fill the ear of your choice (with fun stuff)....
....
Feb 4, 2016
0
#206
....and you do know how to get to me w/ those photos of him as a teen .
....but the elephant wasn't becoming.
Feb 4, 2016
0
#207
5swords has just put it about as good as anyone ever could. The under-50 crowd seems to see things much-much more clearly........
Feb 4, 2016
0
#208
Hardly anyone sees things clearly in just about anything. Over 50s go almost by default for Fischer, youngsters go again by default for Kasparov or Carlsen. Exactly the same with Conservatives vs progressives.
Feb 4, 2016
0
#211
(#226) well im not over 50 so im not obsessed with bf.
Keyword here everyone: obsessed
Being obsessed doesn't help the over-50 crowd in objective sight-seeing.
All I see here is an obsessed Trolla trying to make sense in vain.
It's no secret that all modern professional chessplayers owe their job to Bobby Fischer. Without him, chess in the eyes of the West World would be nothing more than a commie scam.
Feb 4, 2016
0
#213
To: My very good pfren
You are off the deep end....
....with 5 swords !
Feb 4, 2016
0
#214
Fiveofswords wrote:
i can detect some level of unhealthy mental preoccupation with bf to even bother daydreaming about timelord bf. personally i would love to see a match between lord byron and sapho but i would mostly just watch the post game interviews.
He's 50+ Fiveofswords....so he's excused.
Feb 4, 2016
0
#215
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
5swords has just put it about as good as anyone ever could. The under-50 crowd seems to see things much-much more clearly........
Nonsense. Respect your elders. Fischer was the best and that's the end of it.
Feb 4, 2016
0
#216
Homer, as much as I luv and respect you, there are certain things even you couldn't get me to do.
Reb wrote:
Why 2600 ? Fischer was 2785 in a time when he was the ONLY player over 2700 . 2600 was much harder to achieve in the 70s than it is today so 2600s today are likely weaker than 2600s in the 70s . Fischer would smash today's 2600s and probably the 2700s as well . Only those above 2750 today might give Fischer some problems , even so my money would be on Fischer until he faced those over 2800 ....
Recently I read that Fischer had a performance 2895 in his game against Larsen in 1971 (Source: http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-greatest-che-player-of-all-time-part-ii)
Maybe he could beat Carlsen as well.
Feb 4, 2016
0
#219
Maybe we should ask ourselves....
Let's agree for a second that the top players of today, 45 years later, would all win BF (1970 to 2015).
Okay. Would BF and the other top players of 1970 win all the top players of 1925 ?
I think your answer lies here. So let's get real here and stop acting like a bunch of sun-dried old raisins dreaming of when your bell bottoms hid your platform shoes and Kaopectate was for your gramma & grampa.
Feb 4, 2016
0
#220
SmyslovFan wrote:
Reb wrote:
Why 2600 ? Fischer was 2785 in a time when he was the ONLY player over 2700 . 2600 was much harder to achieve in the 70s than it is today so 2600s today are likely weaker than 2600s in the 70s . Fischer would smash today's 2600s and probably the 2700s as well . Only those above 2750 today might give Fischer some problems , even so my money would be on Fischer until he faced those over 2800 ....
I agree with Reb, more or less. I disagree that today's 2600s are weaker than the 2600s of yore. It was harder back then because they didn't have the tools we have today, but 2600 then was equivalent to 2600 now.
Today, Fischer would be ranked somewhere from 2-16 in the world (2750-2800). He would be competitive with the top 16, but he wouldn't separate himself from that group. Yeah, Fischer was that good. His absolute best was better than all but the top 15 all time. For about 20 years, Fischer was the best ever.
Some of Fischer's openings have been worked out while others have stood the test of time (with minor tweaks). His main problems are that there are far more different types of openings than when he played. His method of analysis of the openings would get crushed today. Garry Kasparov argued that even in 1975, the revolution in openings was already in motion with the rise of hedgehogs and other "system" openings.
Fischer's chess has inspired most of us of a certain age, but some tend to idolize him too much. He was great, but the best players in the world today have caught up to him. Some have even surpassed him, but only by standing on the shoulders of giants.
I posted this in the midst of Lola's stream of posts a few days ago. It got lost in the flood.