Just a few days ago, Anand stated quite clearly in an interview for Spanish newspaper El País, that no top player should have any trouble beating Fischer or Spassky. He added it would be much different if he was given 3-4 months to get updated.
Reference: http://www.cadenaser.com/sociedad/audios/viswanathan-anand-alguna-forma-cerebro-funciona-forma-distinta/csrcsrpor/20140921csrcsrsoc_11/Aes/
NB: (around minute 11) Audio is in Spanish.
any one wanna paly
Fischer also had nice legs.
He would have won beaten other 2600 GMs if they competed in a chess pageant because he was really handsome
[...] Nakamura's defeated even Boris Gelfand!
That game was won only because Naka played the Dutch. As we all know, the Dutch refutes everything.
@rowsweep: In my opinion would Fisher be totally crushed in a chess pageant for GMs above 2600 by Judith Polgar and Hou Yifan.
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 ?
Nakamura is 4-0 against Anand in spite of having had black in almost all their games, and 5-3 against Kramnik. I don't see why players who peaked in the 1960s would be so much stronger than Anand and Kramnik that it would make Nakamura of today beating them so difficult to believe.
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 .
But that the highest rated player doesn't win every time doesn't mean there has to be something wrong with the rating system. If the best team or player won every time, every sport would have one team/player winning every match.
Put the question another way. How would today's top players do against Fischer playing chess960?
Put the question another way. How would today's top players do against Fischer playing chess960?
It's impossible to say, but that they could beat him isn't too far-fetched. Zhaoqin Peng, who never reached higher than the 2400s has mentioned doing quite well against Fischer in Chess960:
“About ten years ago I played a few Chess960 games with Bobby Fischer in Budapest. Svetozar Gligoric took me to Budapest, where I met Fischer. He did not want to play classical chess, only Chess960. We just played a few blitz games and I managed to win a few games.”
But that was of course a Fischer even a few years after the Spassky 1992 match, and not the most serious of occasions either.
http://en.chessbase.com/post/complete-che-match-tea-lanchava-vs-peng-zhaoqin
The greatest chess talent ever lived...did not play chess. I guess there are hundreds of people, living or dead, that would have crushed both Fischer and Carlsen, if they were playing chess instead of being bus drivers, sheep herders or brain surgeants or whatever. If Carlsen was born in another family he might very well be just another smart academic. In any sport or game there will always come somebody new now and then that will break previous records, take the game to a new level and so on. Fischer being the greatest ever, regardless of what others may have achieved later, is a myth many chess players clinge to like it was a question of life and death. It´s like saying Pele or George Best was the best footballers of all time. Yes, they were brilliant, but look at who they were up against; a bunch of drunken, fat hobos compared to the athletes Messi and Ronaldo is toying with every week. "Nobody" would ever beat Bob Beamons record.. Yes, someone did. How could anyone be faster than Jesse Owens? I would have to shoot Bolt in his knee cap to avoid him from running faster - backwards- on a 100 metres. There will always be someone faster, stronger or smarter than what we´ve seen so far. Enjoy the games of every eras best players, learn from them, respect their achievements, but don´t put them up on some holy throne saying they are the best ever, then, now and for eternity. Morphy? Wow, what a great player in his time. Today he might even take home some fine victories against IM´s.
what is chess 960?
Another name of chess960 is Fisher random chess. He invented it. If Zhaoqin Peng (highest rating 2462) could beat Fisher with chess 960, then is that very usefull information for this thread.
what is Fisher random chess
Just because a 2600-2700 player knows 30 moves of Slav or Najdorf theory doesn't put them in a better position to beat Fischer. Fischer could play non-theory moves, leave theory, and then beat the other players in a slightly worse position.
Same strategy Carlsen employed in his earl 2700s days yet so many question wheater Fischer could do the same, why ?
lolurspammed wrote:
Just because a 2600-2700 player knows 30 moves of Slav or Najdorf theory doesn't put them in a better position to beat Fischer. Fischer could play non-theory moves, leave theory, and then beat the other players in a slightly worse position.
rowsweep there is a great new tool available. It's called google.
People are just under the impression that theory > talent. Talent beats theory every time.
Bobby Fischer was genius, even without new knowledge, he would still beat GM's <2700