Could Today's 2600 GMs All Beat Bobby Fischer?

Fischer(1972) vs 2600-2700(present)( 10 games ) -> 6-4 

Fischer(1972) vs 2700+(present) -> 4-6

Fischer(1972) vs 2780+(present) ->2.5-7.5 

Well, these numbers are pure speculation, but for what it's worth they seem about right to me.

Mohan1092 wrote:

Fischer(1972) vs 2600-2700(present)( 10 games ) -> 6-4 

Fischer(1972) vs 2700+(present) -> 4-6

Fischer(1972) vs 2780+(present) ->2.5-7.5 

Looking throughout history, Sultan Khan never learned a single opening and was far behind in opening prep. Yet, his pure chess ability allowed him to crush players such as Rubinstein and Capablanca. In my opinion, if Fischer played some line such as the stonewall that hasn't changed at all in the past 30 years and reached a playable middlegame where it was pure skill, he would hang in there with all 2600-2750 level players.

Another week, another Fischer thread.

That would be Fischer's best strategy. Capablanca might not do too bad either. He could play his normal d4 lines as white and QGDs with black. He would certainly play lines that are now considered inferior in the sense of being promising. But I don't think he would get awful positions from the opening. Fischer would if he played sharp Najdorf or Ruy openings.

caughtupinthemoment wrote:

Looking throughout history, Sultan Khan never learned a single opening and was far behind in opening prep. Yet, his pure chess ability allowed him to crush players such as Rubinstein and Capablanca. In my opinion, if Fischer played some line such as the stonewall that hasn't changed at all in the past 30 years and reached a playable middlegame where it was pure skill, he would hang in there with all 2600-2750 level players.

What people don't realize is that Bobby Fischer had an expansive capacity to play up to his opponent. That and he was a little cuckoo....well, a lot cuckoo....which helped.

No telling how good he really could've been, right ?....he ran himself out of opponents.

There was a study done on mistakes per GM analyzed by engines. If Morphy and Capablanca hardly made mistakes during their own time even without engine analysis, what makes you think they would make mistakes vs. new opponents? 

With an ELO peak of 2785 (Equal to Anand's this month) and 20 straight wins in the interzonals and candidate matches in 1971 I would put money of Fischer against today's 2600's.  In those matches he was facing the analysis of his opponents plus that of teams of GM seconds.  Still, 20 wins in a row, in match play.

Going into the WC he was 125 ELO points over Spassky which was greater than Carlsen vs Anand.  In todays terms it would be as if the number one on the FIDE list was 2960.

I have little doubt that 1972 Fischer saw the game with more clarity than nearly any player since except maybe Kasparov at his best and Carlsen now. I have a hard time believing that a 1972 Fischer would even sit down across from anyone outside of today's top 50 let alone be beaten in a match by any of them.

Yes, but Spassky was still active.  More importantly, I don't think I am alone in thinking Fischer kept it close in the event money surfaced for another rematch.  Don't kill the golden goose.

I don't think so. It was amazing the way Fischer plowed through Taimanov and Larsen, but Petrosian and Spassky were good enough to at least slow him down.

_Number_6 wrote:

Mersaphe wrote:

Seeing how Fischer struggled against Spassky (who was not even in the top 100 rated players in the world) in '92, it is safe to assume that Fischer's skills greatly deteriorated in the two decades since becoming world champion.

Yes, but Spassky was still active.  More importantly, I don't think I am alone in thinking Fischer kept it close in the event money surfaced for another rematch.  Don't kill the golden goose.

Fischer in his prime and Fischer in 1992 - that is simply two different things.

well fischer in 1979 was not very strong

so i would say yes

i need to vaccuum clean my house now

Wait another 10 years. The interest rate on "was reputed to" is quite steep.

Can't agree more.

I dont think Fischer would even like to play in this time, considering back in the 70s he already said chess had became too theoritical

It's interesting people keep bringing up being behind on theory. I've read all over the place Fischer was known to analyze the hell out of positions and find lines where his opponents would have as little winning chances as possible and the most chances for mistakes. What makes this interesting is its possible that just because things weren't considered the latest theory in current times doesn't mean those aren't lines/moves that Fischer already studied.

If you actually studied some of his games you wouldn't even be asking this question. Fischer could be as precise as a machine on most if not all his moves and still be creative or have a very positional mind like modern GMs today, asking if 2600s today would trash him kinda shows you barely ever looked at Fischer games, in short the answer is no

Hopefully you have a little sense of humor to know that's a joke.

patzermike wrote:

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.  

It was this exact strategy that GM Matthew Sadler used when he came back to chess after a lot of years of inactivity and he dominated rapid tournaments coming back and he maintained a 2600 elo in classical play Fischer could have done even more!

caughtupinthemoment wrote:

Looking throughout history, Sultan Khan never learned a single opening and was far behind in opening prep. Yet, his pure chess ability allowed him to crush players such as Rubinstein and Capablanca. In my opinion, if Fischer played some line such as the stonewall that hasn't changed at all in the past 30 years and reached a playable middlegame where it was pure skill, he would hang in there with all 2600-2750 level players.

Yes. I did strongly suspect it was a joke. :). But you never know. I know a 1600 player who is studying Nimzovitch's My System and he honestly believes that, armed with Nimzo's positional conceptions, he could easily beat Morphy if he had a time machine. He doesn't understand why we laugh at him.

chessmaster102 wrote:

Hopefully you have a little sense of humor to know that's a joke.

patzermike wrote:

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.