Could Today's 2600 GMs All Beat Bobby Fischer?

I'm in this argument a bit late, but my $0.02  Let's ask Fischer: 

In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorization is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position. It is really deadly, and that is why I don’t like chess any more. - Radio Interview, October 16 2006

Today's 2600's are weaker than before. Rating inflation, people. 2600s back in Fischer's time could wipe the floor with current 2600's.

I bet they had to walk uphill both ways to the tournaments too.

That's a perfect quote for this thread.  

Although, I wonder how big of an opening advantage we're talking about between old school players and today's 2600+ GMs.  Clearly when we're talking about 2014 players going against each other and one side might have an opening advantage, it's often a very miniscule one and not enough to win the game (like less than 1 point on chess engines).  It's still play in the middlegame that often determines a win - many times for the "disadvantaged" player out of the opening if they fight hard and smart enough (I think this is what happens in a lot of Carlsen's games, where he's not sharp in the openings, but manages to find a way to win later).

It seems like Fischer is saying that the opening knowledge of players from a generation ago (or more) would be so far behind that young kids with an advantage and some knowledge of line variations and strategy could be enough to beat these old masters.  ...His wording seems to make it ambiguous though.  He says maybe the old-timers could win or maybe the younger kids could win.  He's not totally sure.  So it makes it interesting.

refer to my previous posts

Lasker and Capablanca had stiff competition too yet their analysis is nearly perfect.  Fischer was a tactical genius and would have no problem wiping the floor with today's 2600's. Its about who's the better player, not who knows more theory. Its nice to know theory and all, but when you're a chess genius, theory isn't so important because even if you're slightly worse out of the opening, you can outplay your opponent in the middlegame and win.

One other comment and critique I thought I'd make of this Fischer quote is that it almost seems like Fischer is expressing sour grapes in a way, no?  Or, am I wrong?

I feel Fischer could have been more gracious there and simply acknowledged that chess is played differently today.  It almost feels like he's knocking today's players.  Chess is still a great game even though there's more opening preparation and theory now.  It's just a different game - not necessarily better or worse (I suppose that's subjective probably).  

Lastly, Fischer doesn't seem to acknowledge (at least in that limited quote) that chess games amongst today's players are still fought with plenty of strategy and tactical play.  It's not as if the game is completely solved.  There may be deeper opening move sequences, but it's still a hard fought game and it's not like the skills he used back then are obsolete in the middle and endgames today (right?).  

yes if they believe

Romy: "what is the meaning of life?" Fischer had the best talent, calulating skills, talent and would beat these guys today. The GMs of today have a team of computer analysts to help them prepare. Fischer had a 2nd and no computers. +

My money is on Fischer against today's 2700's...

I completely agree with this...I have heard a national master assert the same idea. Fischer could play the position he was presented and in his day, do it better than anyone, by far. He could calculate what the position required. He was a master of the king's or queen's side of the board.

If you think that you could play a line that wasn't popular in his day and he couldn't see the potential threats of it and counter it, you seriously need to reconsider your thoughts. Where is Anatoly Karpov today ? 2660ish ? Those two were to play each other for all the marbles and Karpov is now well past his prime. Only the top 10 players or maybe top 15 beat Fischer with any regularity, as he was in his prime.

Kasparov might have held him to a draw.

if we put opening theory out of the equation Fischer is as good as today's top players. to beat a genius you need another genius! rating is not everything at that level.

I would guess he could do this very often, but every single time?  I don't know.  Keep in mind that it wouldnt' just be defending against modern lines, but also avoiding making blunders of his own while on the offensive. 

He might also have to spend significantly extra time figuring stuff out over the board (that he's not familiar with) that modern top level players have memorized already from modern theory.  This might factor into a game in the form of time pressure disadvantages.

I'm just trying to offer some arguments in favor of the other side to consider here. 

Theory changes because the best players don't know yet, and have to figure out through practice.

So of course zombie-Fischer couldn't suddenly play against modern theory and do fine at the top level.

This is like asking whether a 2600-2699 GM could spring a surprise on Magnus Carlsen and then outplay him. Magnus is able to wring the life out of a position, both for his benefit and to his opponent's detriment. Bobby Fischer was no less proficient in his day, compared to his contemoraries. His rating, records and world title all speak for themselves.

Whether Magnus in his prime would outplay Bobby in his, would be up for debate but, either one of them are going to beat a 2600-2699 player, all most all of the time. Their records both show it to be the case. A better debate would be whether there is rating inflation from Bobby's time compared to Magnus' time. In my opinion, no.

2600 is quite weak actually. And inflated. Esp considering what Fischer's peak rating would be when converted today's inflated ratings.

If you simply look at: 

-The quality of the play of 2600 ers.

-The advantage they need to get from the opening to be likely to beat a 2780 player in today's ratings. The advantage a 2600 er would need to get from the opening to beat Carlsen (The rating of Fischer's peak would converge with something in that range) 

-How likely it is that 2600 ers would get these advantage just from the openings whilst the opponent is aware he is behind in theory and acting accordingly.

1.. c5 ..  Rossolimo. Playable wo theory. Fischer wins by sheer force

1.. e5    Petroff/Berlin. Fischer wins by sheer force. Ie 2600er would make enough mistakes to simply lose here to a much stronger player. Any other lines in the Ruy are not critical for Black and yes the Marshall can be avoided by 8.h3

1..c6/Pirc/Alekhine    NO comment- These just suck and highly favor white 

1..e6 Classical French might be a little tricky. Can always go for the exchange though.

With black well.. It would be just a question of realizing the NID and QGD need to be employed instead of what he played in his heyday

And against 1 e4.. Maybe he'd find his way around with the sicilian. Or he'd figure he can just play the Berlin like everyone else and be happy with a draw

'70-'72 Fischer would sloughter them just as many other strong players from the past 

Pretty much have to agree. What is the likelihood that any player would play an opening novelty that '70 - '72 Fischer would assess so wrongly as to compromise his position to the point of a dead loss.  How many Russian GM's were working theoretical novelties against him in the 60's and 70's?

His opponent would have one chance per opening per game to surprise. After that, preparation is trumped by play

"Actually according to a chess metrics calculation, Fischer's peak rating was 2895"

And Tarrasch's peak rating at Chessmetrics was 2824. That has nothing to do with Elo ratings though.

Judit never participated in any sort of women's tournaments, excluding the Chess Olympiads. Her (quite weaker) elder sister Zsusza did, and became World Champion for three years.