Fischer, like it or not, would still be dominant over anybody.
Sort:
LeeTaylor85
May 9, 2017
0
#1
You see all these post about Bobby Fischer, and alot of them you see people saying that opening theory has changed too much and that if Fischer at his "peak" came to the present that he wouldn't be able to compete with the top 10. I call bull crap. The thing about Fischer was that he prepared like nobody's business. His play was more accurate than anybody, his skills in the endgame are unsurpassed. Fischer wasn't scared of Karpov in 75, he made World Champion, which was all that he wanted to begin with. He had nothing left to prove, so when FIDE refused his demands he opted not to play, based on principles and wanting better conditions for players. Fischer kept up with professional chess throughout the rest of his life, studied it passionately, and still played strong GM's regularly outside of tournament play. To try and say that 71 or 72 was his peak is ridiculous. He kept his strength and his edge, but chose not to play professionally for personal reasons. He would have destroyed Kasparov over and over.
May 9, 2017
0
#2
The early 70's Fischer would still be a super gm if he came back today that's for sure. I don't really have any expertise so I could be wrong, but I think guys like Carlsen that are grinders and leave very few weaknesses would frustrate Fischer. The game evolves and each generation learns from the other, not only opening theory but style. So it's hard to compare.
May 9, 2017
0
#3
if Fischer was born 30 years later then you'd be right. you simply don't understand how much chess has evolved and how much we've learned.
May 9, 2017
0
#4
Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means saying that modern "Super" GM's wouldn't give Fischer problems. I'm sure that Carlsen, So, and the rest of the top 10 would generate really hard fought games and probably quite a few draws. I'm just saying that If He wanted to jump back in at any time when he was alive then he would still be numero uno
May 9, 2017
0
#5
chess hasn't evolved. it's still the same game it's always been. only thing different really is opening theory. That in and of itself wouldn't hold him back. what's to stop him from taking a player out of book and out playing them?
LeeTaylor85 wrote:
You see all these post about Bobby Fischer, and alot of them you see people saying that opening theory has changed too much and that if Fischer at his "peak" came to the present that he wouldn't be able to compete with the top 10. I call bull crap. The thing about Fischer was that he prepared like nobody's business. His play was more accurate than anybody, his skills in the endgame are unsurpassed. Fischer wasn't scared of Karpov in 75, he made World Champion, which was all that he wanted to begin with. He had nothing left to prove, so when FIDE refused his demands he opted not to play, based on principles and wanting better conditions for players. Fischer kept up with professional chess throughout the rest of his life, studied it passionately, and still played strong GM's regularly outside of tournament play. To try and say that 71 or 72 was his peak is ridiculous. He kept his strength and his edge, but chose not to play professionally for personal reasons. He would have destroyed Kasparov over and over.
Nice story. Who knows. No one will ever know.
You couldn't be more wrong...if Fischer was still alive today, if he wasn't locked up in a mental institution, he would most likely be chasing pigeons around a park, holding a rook and screaming, "Check, Check, Check!"
May 9, 2017
0
#8
his mental issues have no bearing on his ability to play chess. that is irrelevant
May 9, 2017
0
#10
yes I have. everything from 70-72 is the most accurate play by human standards according to several different engines move by move analyses as well
May 9, 2017
0
#11
LeeTaylor85 wrote:
chess hasn't evolved. it's still the same game it's always been. only thing different really is opening theory. That in and of itself wouldn't hold him back. what's to stop him from taking a player out of book and out playing them?
I think the game has evolved a lot. You're right, still the same game, and opening theory is a big part of it, but also the way strong players go about playing the game. I think Carlsen was a tactical player by nature but has learned from past champions that it's not enough to be the best.
LeeTaylor85 wrote:
Chess being a completely mental game, his mental issues certainly do have everything do with his ability to play. His mental capability would no doubt have deteriorated with time, to imagine otherwise is just wishful thinking.
his mental issues have no bearing on his ability to play chess. that is irrelevant
May 9, 2017
0
#13
Bonsai_Dragon wrote:
That's where you are mistaken. His problem was that he had a sick and twisted perspective concerning Jews and the people he thought were against him, but that doesn't relate to his ability to sit down and play the game.
LeeTaylor85 wrote:
Chess being a completely mental game, his mental issues certainly do have everything do with his ability to play. His mental capability would no doubt have deteriorated with time, to imagine otherwise is just wishful thinking.
his mental issues have no bearing on his ability to play chess. that is irrelevant
May 9, 2017
0
#15
You, like it or not, don't know if Fischer would still be dominant over anybody...
May 9, 2017
0
#16
I'm sorry, but the dead play pretty poor chess. You can set them up in front of a board, and they can't even make a single move. I could beat the late Bobby Fischer. He would end up losing on time. However, Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones, who has appeared to be dead for decades, continues to tour with his band. I do not know if Richards plays chess, but he does play a pretty wicked rhythm guitar.
If Fischer were alive now he probably would have a top job in the U.S. government.
May 9, 2017
0
#18
LeeTaylor85 wrote:
You see all these post about Bobby Fischer, and alot of them you see people saying that opening theory has changed too much and that if Fischer at his "peak" came to the present that he wouldn't be able to compete with the top 10. I call bull crap. The thing about Fischer was that he prepared like nobody's business. His play was more accurate than anybody, his skills in the endgame are unsurpassed. Fischer wasn't scared of Karpov in 75, he made World Champion, which was all that he wanted to begin with. He had nothing left to prove, so when FIDE refused his demands he opted not to play, based on principles and wanting better conditions for players. Fischer kept up with professional chess throughout the rest of his life, studied it passionately, and still played strong GM's regularly outside of tournament play. To try and say that 71 or 72 was his peak is ridiculous. He kept his strength and his edge, but chose not to play professionally for personal reasons. He would have destroyed Kasparov over and over.
1. Pure conjecture, we will never know. Could he still be competitive with the worlds best? I think he could.
2. I do believe that his mental issues would have caught up with him, expecially with todays electronic devices. He would have gone UBER paranoid.
3. I think the biggest reason is that after he won the world title, he was a man that accomplished everything he wanted to accomplish. He beat the Russian Chess Machine, he won the title, he got better playing conditions, better prize money. He was a man with nothing left to prove. That has to be a lonely way to live, and a frightening outlook on life. Youre in your 30's and have nothing left to accomplish.
May 9, 2017
0
#19
imsighked2 wrote:
very true. but I'm pretty sure I said at his "peak" meaning when he was still alive.
I'm sorry, but the dead play pretty poor chess. You can set them up in front of a board, and they can't even make a single move. I could beat the late Bobby Fischer. He would end up losing on time. However, Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones, who has appeared to be dead for decades, continues to tour with his band.