Could Today's 2600 GMs All Beat Bobby Fischer?

>What I mean is assume Fischer's knowledge of chess and skill level were frozen in time and that he had never read another chess book/article, played another game, learned another new fact, etc. since the peak of his ability.  <

Freezing past greats in time will always bring them up short against moderns. Mozart wouldn't have had a clue about Stravinsky's compositions, but there's no question who was the greater composer. The real question is would Mozart have had the potential to understand and use the new materials? That answer is yes - true genius is only limited by the tools at hand. 

Fischer today, at age 30 or whenever he was strongest, would be just as solidly booked as anyone else and be just as competitive...and easily in the top three or so players in the world. 

Oh hell yeah an 1800 player could prolly beat bobby nowadays since we all know so much.  

Good info., Reb.  Thanks for posting.  We should probably get the most accurate info. if possible.  

But, also, the dates of those games would be important too.  For example, Polgar first played Kasparov in 1994 when she was only 17 and Kasparov was in his prime as World Champion.  I'm not sure she even played him after he retired ...we'd have to check.  

But my point still stands.  The gap in time with Fischer would be even greater and thus more knowledge out of date. 

Is it a fact the ELO inflation works in the same way as monetary inflation? How has it been measure? Ok, players nowday reach higher ratings than in the past, and because of it, the tendency will probably feed itself. But, how does it imply that a 2600 ELO player of today is weaker that the similar rated player in the past?

We have more people playing chess, cheap access to wonderful resources to learn, computer analysis available, which improves the opening theory and end game understanding, etc. Is it a fact that to reach 2600 in our time and age is easier and require less skills than, lets say, 30 years ago?

I'm assuming, of course, that Fischer wouldn't have a chance to get up to speed!!!  If so, the whole advantage thing disappears.  Of course, I think Fischer would crush most of today's best with time to use technology and catch up in knowledge.  But the point of my question was more of a what if . . . What if he used 1972 knowledge, but kept his innate talent and played a game against today's 2600 player?

The Petrosian who was smashed by Fischer had an even record against both Karpov and Kasparov and Karpov never did equal Fischer's best rating even though he continued playing decades after Fischer quit . If Fischer had played another 10 years he may well have broken 2900 . He would also have made Karpov stronger by making him raise the level of his game . 

Probably so....comparing apples2apples....which is futile IMO.

But, that doesn't give a certain world-class GM the right get a smart mouth about Bobby Fischer.

Oh boy....

Who Lola ? 

People overrate the importance of theory when you're playing a genius like Fischer. People aren't engines, follow theory and then they will eventually make a mistake. Fischer however was as close to a superhuman in chess as can come. A true genius. Today's 2600s would be lucky to draw him. Bobby Fischer = 2900.

I hope that was deliberately ironic.

Dodger111 wrote:

Oh hell yeah an 1800 player could prolly beat bobby nowadays since we all know so much.  

how exactly did ratings inflate? It wasn't on purpose...how did people start getting higher and higher rated?? I don't get how rating inflation works.

You grossly exaggerate that an hour would be enough. Maybe a month. But I agree with your general point that Fischer would very quickly be a super GM and, perhaps, give Carlsen the fight of his life. Curiously I suspect that Fischer with no updating (not even an hour) would fare better against Carlsen then against players like Anand, Caruana, Topalov, or Aronian who do deep opening prep and play sharp lines. Also, I think that Carlsens method of getting points by dint of good stamina in an endgame grind would be very hard to pull off against Fischer.

Morphy vs. any 2700 GM right now outside of the top 15: 1-0 Morphy, easy. Fischer is not much different. Preperation will only get you so far. Talent gets you much farther.

All very interesting thoughts, Mersaphe, but keep in mind that Fischer would not even know modern opening (let, alone, middle and endgame) theory and practices, so he wouldn't know how to deviate from it.  Again, I keep harping on the point that Fischer would not have any time to catch up in anything in chess.  So, it would be like taking Fischer out of a time machine from the very moment he won his world title against Spassky and asking him to play against today's 2600+ GMs the very next day.  No time whatsoever to learn anything new.  

So, he'd have no ability to deviate from modern opening lines (since he wouldn't know them) or learn new "tricks" in various lines, etc.  He'd have no new knowledge of traps or problems that could arise in the middle-game of different variations of a particular opening, etc.  Meanwhile, his opponents would have that knowledge and also computers assisting their preparation.

Could he overcome all of that and win a match of first to 10 wins against 2600+ GMs of today?  

[Note:  One thing I didn't specify was whether or not these 2600 GMs would know that they were playing against a 1972 Fischer.    If, yes, then they'd have the ability to purposely throw tricky lines at him with updated knowledge.  I suppose you could answer the OP question in one of two ways.  One is to assume they would know they were playing 1972 Fischer and the other would be to assume they didn't know who this person was and had just met him and forced to play a match of 10 wins the next day.] 

Assuming that he agrees with the match conditions?

Sorry, couldn't help it.

I think that out dated or dated lines don't matter. We see lines revived and die all the time during the 1920s -30s the sicilian defence was never seen now its the most common black opening

i think i am going to have a career change

life was easier when you are younger and have no responsibility

I seriously doubt that, although admittedly I have no other basis for my judgement besides intuition. Looking at Morphy's games, they just seem like a totally different game from today's games between top GMs.

Congrats!