Fischer, like it or not, would still be dominant over anybody. - Chess Forums - Page 2

LeeTaylor85

May 9, 2017

0

#21

imsighked2 wrote:

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.

IMBacon I can respect your view. I agree with pretty much everything you said. there is always going to be somebody better to come along, my whole point is that he would still hold his own against the best of today.

IMBacon22

May 9, 2017

0

#22

LeeTaylor85 wrote:

imsighked2 wrote:

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.

IMBacon I can respect your view. I agree with pretty much everything you said. there is always going to be somebody better to come along, my whole point is that he would still hold his own against the best of today.

Now that i can pretty much agree with. But there is a big difference between "holding your own" and "Being dominant"

LeeTaylor85

May 9, 2017

0

#23

very true

IMBacon22

May 9, 2017

0

#24

LeeTaylor85 wrote:

very true

I like to believe that i will dominate every tournament i play in, when the truth is that i struggle to hold my own :-)

benihor

May 9, 2017

0

#25

Fischer's peak rating was 1780. Even by today's ratings he would be a top 10. So I dont think that anyone rational would think that he couldn't have made it to the top 10 today.
Also considering "rating inflation" his rating would probably surpass Carlsen. (If we give 2 points for every year)
Now, saying who is better and who could have beaten whom is quite silly. These are all assumptions.
No one really knows what would happen with Tal vs Carlsen, Fischer vs Kasparov, Kasparov vs Carlsen. Lasker vs Morphy etc.

Franklin_Whitsell

May 9, 2017

0

#26

Actually you can predict that the more modern champions would destroy the older ones. The computer has better prepared the modern GM's with deep novelties and they are just overall better prepared. Not to mention the newer generation has already studied all the old champions games. This means they have found both the good and the bad out of those players in those times and learned from them. Knowledge is improving in chess all the time. The players now are stronger than they were back in the day.

If you do not believe look at books of those champions in the past. You'll see them playing "strong opposition" only to realize that by todays chess they look like B class players. They do not know their openings, make easy mistakes on defense...

A player like Tal would be lucky to break into the top 100 these days. The ability for grandmasters to defend positions has increased that much.

fuzzbug

May 9, 2017

0

#27

I love the way beginners in any discipline feel qualified to make assertions on the top performers of that discipline, when the beginners have nary a clue what it takes to be the best in that field.

The naivete is so charming.

Uncle_Bent

May 9, 2017

0

#28

@Franklin_Whitsell Of course, if you transported a GM from yesteryear to today, he'd have access to chess databases/engines as well, so he would have the opportunity to efficiently catch up on modern theory.

The issue is whether or not the existence of databases and engines requires a different skills to excel. Would Capablanca have the work ethic to prepare lines for every top opponent? Unlikely. But maybe Reshevsky would no longer have to take 90 minutes pondering the first 15 moves of opening theory?

One of Fischer's biggest advantages was that he had an encyclopaedic mind with the ability to look at thousands and thousands of games and remember key positions from each. Would that advantage be neutralized by databases?

I rate Kasparov as #1 of all time, because he is the only champion that was able to make the transition from one era to another. He became champion in the pre-database era, yet was the best in the years that followed.

Bonsai_Dragon

May 9, 2017

0

#29

Check! Check! Check!

Franklin_Whitsell

May 9, 2017

0

#30

Uncle Bent- Most GM's wouldn't be able to make the transition. Think of it like some 80 yr olds trying to learn computers these days... You have to grow up with the technological improvements if you want to maximize their advantage. Kasparov maybe the greatest player ever, the one exception to the rule. I think he is probably the greatest not because of the chess he played, but because of the number of times he defended his title! Any sport it is brutal staying at the top, and chess is no exception. The top usually gets knocked down by the upcoming generation. Kasparov was able to keep beating down those around him for years with few exceptions. Alas, he saw his writing was on the wall with Magnus, he got gotten older and didn't have the energy to keep up. So he retired on top.

Fischer was a paranoid schizo. He would have though someone was stealing all his chess secrets if he used the computer. No way he could have ever adapted to the changes in chess today.

LeeTaylor85

May 9, 2017

0

#31

that is absurd. when Fischer died they found fritz on his laptop, with several recent games and notes from them on it. he kept up with technology, he knew how to analyze with a computer as well

IMBacon22

May 9, 2017

0

#32

LeeTaylor85 wrote:

that is absurd. when Fischer died they found fritz on his laptop, with several recent games and notes from them on it. he kept up with technology, he knew how to analyze with a computer as well

Uncle_Bent

May 9, 2017

0

#33

@Franklin_Whitsell I'm not prepared to make the assumption that "most" would not adapt. Of course, we are shaped by the environment in which we grow up. Fischer would probably have not become one of the greatest if he was born in Iowa, instead of New York City. But Fischer, like Kasparov, did have a great work ethic and the ability to study hours on end and still find new ideas. Maybe, he would have adapted. Now, I am not talking about taking a past-their-prime player, but a player still at their peak -- transport Fischer from 1965 to today. Again, my only issue is that Fischer's edge over the rest of the field mght have been narrowed.

I also take issue with your diagnosis of "Paraonoid Schizo" -- whatever you meant. Fischer was a boy/man who never had to obey anyone. After he became emancipated from his mother at 16, he got to make up all the rules of life, if not at chess. He was isolated with no peers. It's not surprising that his behavior got more and more aberrant, with or without paranoid shiczophrenia. The fact that there are no instances of physical violence is a good indication he was not "schizo."

yureesystem

May 9, 2017

0

#34

Franklin_Whitsell wrote:

Actually you can predict that the more modern champions would destroy the older ones. The computer has better prepared the modern GM's with deep novelties and they are just overall better prepared. Not to mention the newer generation has already studied all the old champions games. This means they have found both the good and the bad out of those players in those times and learned from them. Knowledge is improving in chess all the time. The players now are stronger than they were back in the day.

If you do not believe look at books of those champions in the past. You'll see them playing "strong opposition" only to realize that by todays chess they look like B class players. They do not know their openings, make easy mistakes on defense...

A player like Tal would be lucky to break into the top 100 these days. The ability for grandmasters to defend positions has increased that much.

You give Carlsen and today positional GMs too much credit; they are missing wins that 2500 to 2600 Soviet GMs could pull out a win, that Carlsen and super GMs miss. Chess skill level has deteriorate because of engines, rely on them too much. The past GMs were creative found solution otb and not rely on trainers and computer to do the work for them. No B class player would have chance against Morphy, Anderssen, Paulsen, Zukertort, Chigorin, Pillsbury and Steinitz and these past masters played in higher standard any class B player, experts and masters.

Franklin_Whitsell

May 9, 2017

0

#35

You really need to learn more about Schizophrenia. Violence isn't one of the criteria to diagnose it. Irrational belief systems, "people are out to get me", and if you read about his behavior in any chess event, you'll find he was a pretty classic case. Anti-social behavior, in appropriate social behavior, hallucinations. I'll post a copy pasted link so you can brush up. But you can run down the list and while he doesn't fit every single box because he was exceptional in his mental capacity, he certainly qualifies for the diagnosis.

Diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia (USA criteria)

Characteristic symptoms: Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated):
1. Delusions - false beliefs strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: for example,
  1. Paranoid delusions, or delusions of persecution, for example believing that people are "out to get" you, or the thought that people are doing things when there is no external evidence that such things are taking place.
  2. Delusions of reference - when things in the environment seem to be directly related to you even though they are not. For example it may seem as if people are talking about you or special personal messages are being communicated to you through the TV, radio, or other media.
  3. Somatic Delusions are false beliefs about your body - for example that a terrible physical illness exists or that something foreign is inside or passing through your body.
  4. Delusions of grandeur - for example when you believe that you are very special or have special powers or abilities. An example of a grandiouse delusion is thinking you are a famous rock star.
2. Hallucinations - Hallucinations can take a number of different forms - they can be:
  1. Visual (seeing things that are not there or that other people cannot see),
  2. Auditory (hearing voices that other people can't hear,
  3. Tactile (feeling things that other people don't feel or something touching your skin that isn't there.)
  4. Olfactory (smelling things that other people cannot smell, or not smelling the same thing that other people do smell)
  5. Gustatory experiences (tasting things that isn't there)
3. Disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence) - these are also called "word salads".
4. Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior (An abnormal condition variously characterized by stupor/innactivity, mania, and either rigidity or extreme flexibility of the limbs).
5. Negative symptoms, these are the lack of important abilities. Some of these include:
  1. lack of emotion - the inability to enjoy acitivities as much as before
  2. Low energy - the person sits around and sleeps much more than normal
  3. lack of interest in life, low motivation
  4. Affective flattening - a blank, blunted facial experession or less lively facial movements or physical movements.
  5. Alogia (difficulty or inability to speak)
  6. Inappropriate social skills or lack of interest or ability to socialize with other people
  7. Inability to make friends or keep friends, or not caring to have friends
  8. Social isolation - person spends most of the day alone or only with close family
    
    Note: Only one Criterion A symptom is required if delusions are bizarre or hallucinations consist of a voice keeping up a running commentary on the person’s behavior or thoughts, or two or more voices conversing with each other.
Cognitive Symptoms of Schizophrenia
Cognitive symptoms refer to the difficulties with concentration and memory. These can include:
1. 1. disorganized thinking
  2. slow thinking
  3. difficulty understanding
  4. poor concentration
  5. poor memory
  6. difficulty expressing thoughts
  7. difficulty integrating thoughts, feelings and behavior
Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time s+ince the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset (or when the onset is in childhood or adolescence, failure to achieve expected level of interpersonal, academic, or occupational achievement).
Duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least 6 months. This 6-month period must include at least 1 month of symptoms (or less if successfully treated) that meet Criterion A (i.e., active-phase symptoms) and may include periods of prodromal or residual symptoms. During these prodromal or residual periods, the signs of the disturbance may be manifested by only negative symptoms or two or more symptoms listed in Criterion A present in an attenuated form (e.g., odd beliefs, unusual perceptual experiences).
Schizoaffective and mood disorder exclusion: Schizoaffective disorder and mood disorder with psychotic features have been ruled out because either (1) no major depressive, manic, or mixed episodes have occurred concurrently with the active-phase symptoms; or (2) if mood episodes have occurred during active-phase symptoms, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and residual periods.
Substance/general medical condition exclusion: The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.
Relationship to a pervasive developmental disorder: If there is a history of autistic disorder or another pervasive developmental disorder, the additional diagnosis of schizophrenia is made only if prominent delusions or hallucinations are also present for at least a month (or less if successfully treated).

benihor

May 9, 2017

0

#36

yureesystem TRUE!

Uncle_Bent

May 9, 2017

0

#37

@Franklin_Whitsell If you knew anything about Schizophrenia, you would know not to diagnose anyone you have never met.

imsighked2

May 9, 2017

0

#38

LeeTaylor85 wrote:

imsighked2 wrote:

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.

IMBacon I can respect your view. I agree with pretty much everything you said. there is always going to be somebody better to come along, my whole point is that he would still hold his own against the best of today.

"Mmmmmmmm . . . Bacon" -- Homer Simpson.

imsighked2

May 9, 2017

0

#39

benihor wrote:

Fischer's peak rating was 1780. Even by today's ratings he would be a top 10. So I dont think that anyone rational would think that he couldn't have made it to the top 10 today.
Also considering "rating inflation" his rating would probably surpass Carlsen. (If we give 2 points for every year)
Now, saying who is better and who could have beaten whom is quite silly. These are all assumptions.
No one really knows what would happen with Tal vs Carlsen, Fischer vs Kasparov, Kasparov vs Carlsen. Lasker vs Morphy etc.

Fischer's peak rating: 2785

July 1972 FIDE rating list

Franklin_Whitsell

May 9, 2017

0

#40

Many of the past world champions were amazing for their time, but look at the games of their opponents. Yes, in many cases those people playing against them were playing their opponents who had their openings no better than a B class player. It is quite obvious the way grandmasters defend now days is superior in every single way. Many positions are now playable that were considered unplayable in the past even by said champions.

There is nothing in history to suggest the quality of opponents these players defeated was very good... you go through a game collection of the champions in the 60's or even prior to them and they are littered with games that make you laugh at how bad many of their world class opponents were. There certainly was not a wealth of quality opponents for the greatest champions of that time to demonstrate they had the ability to compete with anything a grandmaster would bring to the table today.