Could Today's 2600 GMs All Beat Bobby Fischer?

Oh, I remember it. Your key words are BF "wouldn't separate himself from that group."

If Tal/Fischer/Morphy/Capablanca/Steinitz/Alekhine played Kasporav/Carlsen/Today's GMs/Deep Blue/Experts/2600+ players/Club level players

The resulting games would be really awesome and I would love to seem them.

I have a friend who played Tal in the Chicago Open. He was an Expert at the time, and unleashed a specially prepared line against Tal. He got a great game, but Tal kept posing difficult questions and ended up winning a brilliancy. Tal was eager to analyse the game with him afterwards!

Tal was one of the greatest chess players and personalities of all time. He'd destroy most masters rated U2700 today, and if he were healthy, he'd be very likely to create a beautiful game. 

Okay. I'm gonna name (12) names from 1925. Here goes.

Tartakower, Bogoljubow, Torre, Marshall, Lasker, Capablanca, Reti, Grunfeld, Levenfish, Samisch, Rubenstein, & Romanovsky. Do you know any of these names ?

I think it's fair to say that BF could probably have beat all of them 'cuz of how the game had come along after 45 years.

Now. What's that tell you about BF's chances in 2015 ?

Get Real Fischer Fanboyz !....Yes, that includes you NM Reb !

Fischer ranks in the top 16 of all time in live ratings. He's within the margin of error of all but a very small handful of players. Only Kasparov, Aronian and Carlsen managed to maintain +2800 ratings for more than a year.

Fischer really was the best player ever, in 1972.

Rembrandt could floor Picasso. Give Rembrandt five minutes to study modern art, and he'd produce a "Guernica" so incredibly horrid and human that Picasso's would look like a Disney movie in comparison.

Now I'm not very big on Picasso but I hafta say 'wait a second' on that one Berry.

My two cents. . . . I think any chess player today has a massive advantage over anyone even a few decades ago.  (Much less one 50+ years ago).

The key is technology.  

Think about it.  A Chessmaster today can play, pratice, and learn virtually anywhere via computer.  (The story -- not sure if myth or real -- was that Fischer was often forced to play games against himself because he often didn't have anyone of his calibre to play with).

A modern chess player also has virtually unlimited chess resources whether that be books, training programs, etc. -- again, all via computers.

I wonder if he had a Lazy Susan Chessboard ?

Yes! I used to watch RJ Fischer play chess against himself in the Pasadena Main Library in 1978 when he was with the religious group up there. He would come in to read Kashdans LA Times chess column, read chess books and play against himself on a small pocket chess set. Did not talk much and did not like to be bothered by others. Next time you looked his way he'd be gone. A really strange person. -Mr. Old Guy (71 now) Watched Fischer' whole career. If upset or unprepared he could be beaten. But if he focused with the tools today... he'd still be at the top. Remember his games help create the tools available today... plain and simple!!

Anand pointed out that Fischer didn't accept the role of computers in training. Fischer was part of an older generation that viewed modern computer technology with suspicion. Today's GMs know that engines aren't perfect. They don't rely on engines to think for them, but they do use computers to help hone their evaluations and to check their math.

A Revolution occurred in chess beginning in the early 1970s that Fischer never came to terms with.

They say he was uncompromising (accepting computers) and that can end up making you really stubborn....ask NM Reb.

Why does rating inflation occur ? What is the evidence for it?

"After the age of 23, he would never loose a tournament or match again"

But then he played his last tournament when he was 27, and never won a match before he was 28, and quit at 29...

"Even computers agree, in his peak, his computer accuracy rate was also on a league of it's own"

Hardly.

There are lots of engine studies of chess players, and I've seen Capablanca, Carlsen, Kramnik, Fischer and others in the top of various lists depending on how to measure it, but none of the studies have ever shown someone to be far ahead of all others.

It's all the computer's fault Matt. And it's actually the opposite. There's rating deflation. Which better explained why today's players would wax the floor with the remnants of BF's favorite black and white tiles.

I looked into that a few months ago - the main drawback in that technique seems to be that it's much easier to match the engine move in simple positions, and today's games tend to be more complex than Capa's day

Post #260 I'm going to pretend you didn't say those terrible things Lola.

Rating deflation - that would mean if I ever start playing again and I'm at the same level I'll have a lower number than before - can't have that.

Is there any evidence for rating inflation or deflation?

Matt, as much as you make me wanna flirt w/u & that you're fun to teez , there are (46) players over 2700 and (9) players over 2780 !

BF used to poke around positions (they say) and go for a quick tac tickle jab. The players of today would turn the tables on him so fast it'd leave him bewildered & steeped in regret.

And the female players of today ?....well, they'd just say "You can keep the horsey old man. BTW, do you want one of mine ?....you know, just make it fair ?"

Today the game is played w/ extraordinary precision.

Todays 2600 rated gm would not win Fischer maybe a draw.