I don't think, even, Nakamura would win. Hello there, Rating Inflation...
rowsweep wrote:
i need to vaccuum clean my house now
Going by your looks, I'm sure you would enjoy vacuum cleaning mine. 
Could Today's 2600 GMs All Beat Bobby Fischer?
Sort:
If you go strictly by rating , and don't believe in rating inflation , you would have to believe Nakamura would beat ( in a match not just a single game ) the following world champions : Spassky , Karpov, Petrosian and Tal .... there are others but you get my point . Does anyone here really believe that ?
Oct 7, 2014
0
#64
Right now, everyone in the top ten could beat fisher in a best of 5. Naka, Carlsen, and Carauna would win decisively simply because Naka is an attacking genius, carlsen is the closest thing to a super computer, and Carauna is about to be the first 2900.
PaullHutchh wrote:
Right now, everyone in the top ten could beat fisher in a best of 5. Naka, Carlsen, and Carauna would win decisively simply because Naka is an attacking genius, carlsen is the closest thing to a super computer, and Carauna is about to be the first 2900.
You rely too much on ratings and have little understanding of chess . Since you rely so heavily on ratings perhaps you can explain why Kramnik beat Kasparov in their match in 2000 ? Kasparov was unable to win a game despite having a rating advantage of almost 100 points . IN 2000 Kasparov was 2851 and Kramnik was 2758 . There are also many examples of tournaments being won by someone other than the highest rated player in the field . The Candidates that Anand recently won is a prime example .
Oct 7, 2014
0
#66
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
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.
Fascinating response.
One could argue that Fischer did not care for money, and threw it away, yet at another time, he fought for money and those who came after him may owe him a debt of gratitude.
That he may have "kept it close" for another match is not something I have considered. It's worth discussing.
There's considerable discussion on whether he had Asperberger's, or Adult Autism, in some form. In the very least, from reading Frank Brady, he had acute attachment disorder. As another pointed out, humans are not static, but growing, changing, etc.
It's difficult to predict what Fischer would or would not have done, at any point in his career.
As to the relevancy of the original poster's question: You've made a number of us think!
Oct 7, 2014
0
#67
Ratings aside, Bobby Fisher's lack of theory in today's game would leave him a great disadvantage. Enough so that he wouldn't stand a chance.
His genius would mean he would always have a chance . His lack of modern day theory would only mean he might be slightly worse out of the opening . Keep in mind that even today only 5 of the top ten have higher ratings than Fischer had way back in 1971 ! If he had played another 10 years his rating would easily have gone over 2800 and who knows what his peak would have been ?
Oct 7, 2014
0
#69
PHYSICS ANSWER: Are today’s Scientists “smarter” than Einstein? Hardly. Do they “know more” than Einstein did? Certainly. Because they build on his shoulders.
KICKBOXING ANSWER: Could 2014’s MMA Fighters beat Bruce Lee in 1971? Does a 2014 MMA Fighter travel back in time to 1971 to fight, or does Bruce Lee travel forward to the present? (Same result.) Better question: If Bruce Lee was alive today AND POSSESSED ALL THE RESOURCES POSSESSED BY TODAY’S MMA FIGHTERS, who would win? A nice thought since Bruce Lee discovered / developed / invented many techniques (health, fitness, fighting) used by MMA. Because of his ability to create and integrate knowledge, BRUCE WOULD DESTROY THEM.
CHESS ANSWER: See physics and kickboxing answers (above).
Best Question: If BOBBY FISCHER was alive today and possessed all resources of today’s MMA fighters, who would win? Google: Chess boxing. (Seriously.)
reb are you still here, i think with the use of computers to train and the vast ammount of opportunities books dvds computer programs etc, to analyse then fischer would be the number 1 not carlsen.
FISCHER WOULD BEAT ALL THOSE PLAYERS!!!! HE IS #1 ALL TIME!!!!!!!
Reb wrote:
If you go strictly by rating , and don't believe in rating inflation , you would have to believe Nakamura would beat ( in a match not just a single game ) the following world champions : Spassky , Karpov, Petrosian and Tal .... there are others but you get my point . Does anyone here really believe that ?
He'd have stylistic problems against Petrosian, though I believe he'd ultimately come out on top (Nakamura's defeated even Boris Gelfand!)
As for Tal he has an off the wall style of play and (I mean no disrespect when I say this) was a fluke champion as the return match with Botvinnik showed. If Tal reigned himself in (I've looked at some relatively quiet Tal games so he was certainly capable) he'd do fine but again ultimately lose.
" Since you rely so heavily on ratings perhaps you can explain why Kramnik beat Kasparov in their match in 2000 ?"
That was a fascinating match and Kramnik certainly deserved to pull off that upset! His Grunfeld, Berlin Wall, and endgame technique are simply unbelievable. I think Kasparov greatly underestimated the Berlin Wall and may have had some psychological baggage left over from his Deep Blue match. I don't think he threw it (with some resistence for appearences) just to pass down the torch since he loved being champ however.
2600!!!
2700!!
2800!
why, even carlsen would lose!
Oct 7, 2014
0
#74
The top gms today are geniuses as well. Also, having a disadvantage in the opening is often enough for supergms to convert a win. I imagine Fisher would have to look for a draw in middle/endgames against today's 2700+ players. Another arguement can be made that Fishers elo was much higher than others of his era because of the avalibilty of chess in that era as opposed to today where many more talented players play the game therefore competition is greater.
Yeah, I could also beat Fischer because I know more theory in the Ruy than he ever did!! And I know all the sidelines too! This is a good answer to your question. 2700+ maybe although probably not all of them. 2600 would be clear underdogs. Only two players would absolutely destroy Fischer - Carlsen and Caruana
Oct 7, 2014
0
#76
Probably Anand too. He is strong in opening theory. Also Topalov would destroy Fischer if he tried to play sharp openings.
TRANKD wrote:
Yeah, I could also beat Fischer because I know more theory in the Ruy than he ever did!! And I know all the sidelines too! This is a good answer to your question. 2700+ maybe although probably not all of them. 2600 would be clear underdogs. Only two players would absolutely destroy Fischer - Carlsen and Caruana
Fischer against
2600s n low 2700s_ lot of draws and few wins with equal loss (because of opening theory)
2750s_ few draws very few win and more loss
top 5_ very few draws lots of loss may be no win
But fischer with equal middle game (everything over the board play) equals 2750s player
But the time(1972) at which he excelled with few resources when other were weaker is unreachable.
Even carlsen reached 2850 which was already done. he just did it quicker.
fischer achievement of 2785 ratings,his impact on chess development is just like Carlsen reaching 3000. (Opponent thinking resigning the game before play).
I'd say 2767 maybe.
2769 has a bit more chance
2802 is a clear advantage over fischer
between 2837 and 2873 is a definite win,
and between 2891 and 2900 will crush due to their incredible theory knowledge.
Fischer was 2785 so probably not, though if they read My 60 Memorable Games they'd basically have a handbook on his psychology and thinking. Keep in mind that people aren't static and are capable of improving and adapting (though he wouldn't be Fischer as we know him anymore)
I think if he were to play Hikaru Nakamura in a set match it'd be a repeat of Botvinnik vs. Bronstein in that they'd be dead even, maybe Nakamura would narrowly win though his peak is only 4 points higher than Fischer's.