Could Today's 2600 GMs All Beat Bobby Fischer?

I dont think so. With this new knowlegde and computer analysis, even Bobby Fischer will be in 2800.

Morphy? Wow, what a great player in his time.  Today he might even take home some fine victories against IM´s.

Morphy had talent... give him a year to learn how the game has progressed and he'd be right back to GM. Same goes for Fischer! Chess engines and memorization will never overcome talent when two players face each other across the board. Now if you want to watch computers play each other I guess that's your thing... not mine! Games between Tal, Petrosian, Fischer and Spassky are fun to replay. Even Karpov and Kasparov games are fun to replay. And then came the computer and screwed up all the fun. And I designed computers for a living. Some things computers just flat ruin... chess is one of them. 

Does people here actually believe that todays super GMs plays just theory moves? Perfect theory knowledge can only take you so far, and in practical otb play most theory "debates" between grandmasters are over within 20 moves. Carlsen is one of the more likely to deviate from known theory way before that, but there are many others as well.  Even those who are known to be strong theory players needs (and have) excellent thecknique and tactical/positional understanding, with differences in what part of the game they excell. No doubt that Fischer and other great masters of the past would do just fine amongst todays top players if they were living today, with the tools of today at their hands, but to say that Fischer would be just as dominant as he was in his time is just plain wrong. But to get back to the question asked by OP, no one can tell. Given you send back GMs in time to play Fischer I guess that some 2500 GMs would crush him due to the advantage they would gain out of the opening, yet there would also be some 2700 GMs that would have their own butt whipped if they didn´t get this advantage out of the opening, and then would go down due to Fischer´s great skills. I honestly don´t think he would stand a chance against the very best of todays elite.

Nobody under today's 2750 would have a slightest chance. Only Anand and Carlsen could dream about possible, but still quite unrealistic victory.

Quick question:  Was it true that Fischer was often crushed by French defense players rated much lower than him, because of his unfamiliarity and/or dislike of that opening?  I think I've read this somewhere on the forums here, but don't recall the exact thread.  But feel free to fact correct me on this if I am mistaken.  

If this is correct, however, would that show how vulnerable Fischer would be to people in 2014 who knew more advanced opening theory than him and how an opening advantage (be it in absolute terms or merely relative terms, such as the lack of familiarity of an opponent with it) can, in fact, be a strong deciding factor?

Instaid of commenting can u prove; it? I bet you are a closet 2800.

I don´t think I´m a closet anything. And no, I can´t prove my thesis, neither can anyone stating something else on the matter.  And that actually brings us to the point of these discussion regarding the great Fischer.  People tend to believe in him like they believe in God.  So regardless of which level todays and future players achieve or reach in their play, the Fischer fans will always state that Fischer would wipe the floor with them.

I simply write what I believe to be right regarding this subject, and then anyone who reads it can make up their minds themselves.

I like putting chess pieces in my mouth

Some ignorant people believe chess evolves in a good way and therefore today's grandmasters play better than their predecessors. 4/5 of forum windbags take it as axiomatic truth.

Well, no. It's exactly opposite: computers made people lazy and today's top level play decreased compared with two decades ago.

Thank you for that breath of sanity.

This thread should switch to the question of whether Babe Ruth would hit worse against the current pitchers in the National League.

Lot's more interesting speculation there.

        If "the greatest chess talent that ever lived....did not play chess" does not make sense. He/she could not be a chess talent of any standing without being a chess player. People should think before thay speak or write. As for the "greatest ever" at any given activity, surely one should consider what an individual achieved given the training methods and knowledge available at the time - even knowledge of nutrition could be a factor.

        The example of football players is a good one. Todays players are faster and fitter than before and have the advantage of up to date experience and training methods.

Anabolic steroids help a lot too.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/29510575

RG1951, it makes perfect sense, hence talent is something you are born with, so regardless of ever doing your natural born talent, the talent for it is still there.

It is exactly as useful as saying, the greatest talent has never seen the face of the earth because the sperm unfortunately didn't make it... probably true, but no reason talking about it

Lol, seriously, who asks these ??

vultureway: You´re right, but that was not my main point either.  I just believe the semi-religious Fischer fans should come to terms with the fact that it is actually possible that better chess players than him has seen the face of the earth.  I´ve seen dozens of threads discussing variations over the same topic: who´s the greatest ever, could this or that player have beaten Fischer, etc,etc.  And every time someone dares to say or write that Fischer may very well not be the Greatest Ever, the members of The Holy Church Of RJF comes screaming "blasphemy!" (this last statement is not to be read as a direct quote that I am giving, but more like a matter of understanding the way I experience their responds, OK?)

Yeah, I think it is pretty likely that Blackburne and Marshall were stronger than Fischer. Why not?

I've looked at some of Blackburne's games and he had unbelievable accuracy sometimes, though I highly doubt he's better than Fischer.

"Some ignorant people believe chess evolves in a good way and therefore today's grandmasters play better than their predecessors. 4/5 of forum windbags take it as axiomatic truth.

        You cannot be the greatest talent ever at anything, if you have never done it. You may well have latent potential, but that is not the same thing.

2700s can