Btw, Kasparov broke 2800 without using computers. He was one of the first to use chessbase databases, but that's not computer analysis, and that came out AFTER Kasparov had already broken 2800.
Fischer, like it or not, would still be dominant over anybody.
Sort:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Really? Yes, I showed him some of my games from Wijk aan Zee and tried to share some interesting developments. He was sort of able to follow everything – he hadn't lost his sharpness for chess – but his methods were a bit dated. In that sense he had fallen behind.
How do you mean? Well, he had some suggestions, and he was sort of in the ball park … but when I would tell him that the computer says white is winning here, for me that was a sign to move on – but for him it was a starting point to argue with me! [Laughs]. I found it difficult to say to him 'No, no, no – these computers are really strong. You shouldn't be arguing with them!"'
.
ha nice post, remeber this article from somewhere.
but the point is actually that a man who was world champion that time was "calling for" computer support in his toughts. computers are realy strong, but face to face with opponent on board tournament game, you do not have computer near by, you have some time limits, you have some rules and so on. and fischer was aware of it. maybe fischer tought it is a shame that world best player reffers to computers??
personally it is disgusting when somebody during some analysis refers to computers like fritz says this, rybka says that... if I sit at table with person name X.X. than I want to talk and see X.X.'s views and opinions regardless how good or bad are,, not copy paste lines from some machine, i could do that by myself.
however, fischer today would be, think, about 75, so what he could do, even with sharpest mind I am not sure.
also if young fischer would use computers today, everybody uses them, so it would be interesting to see his way how to use them.
Psychologically speaking Fischer had tremendous advantage, he was very tall compared to the dwarfs of today and was intimidating, he radiated a kind of willpower and energy that few could resist. Even a person talking to Fischer in Iceland in 2006 could feel this energy all around him. Imagine Caruana playing against him...
May 11, 2017
0
#85
manualarjona wrote:
Psychologically speaking Fischer had tremendous advantage, he was very tall compared to the dwarfs of today and was intimidating, he radiated a kind of willpower and energy that few could resist. Even a person talking to Fischer in Iceland in 2006 could feel this energy all around him. Imagine Caruana playing against him...
everybody is tall compared to dwarfs of today....except other dwarfs
May 11, 2017
0
#86
Let's start a new thread: José Raúl Capablanca, in his prime, would demolish Bobby "Sox" Fischer.
May 11, 2017
0
#87
An interesting fact is that when Fischer returned to play the 1992 match against Spassky after a 20 year hiatus, he still won easily, even though Spassky was ranked 106 in the world and had been playing at the top level through all those years.
bbelt- I found out many chess players are small in size- Kasparov, Carlsen etc. The only exception is Kramnik.
AussieRookie wrote:
An interesting fact is that when Fischer returned to play the 1992 match against Spassky after a 20 year hiatus, he still won easily, even though Spassky was ranked 106 in the world and had been playing at the top level through all those years.
spassky was still strong player little bit earlier, in 80s.
this 106. was not realistic.
Chessbooster- Fischer did not win easily in 1992 at all.Game 3 was a close shave, the following games Spassky won 4 and 5 , beating Fischer with the black pieces which was the first time Fischer lost with black against Spassky.
Fischer was unique, he can put all his energy to studying chess, back in the 1970s if face Fischer expect a lost, Kasparov comes close to this. Bobby defeated the Russian by himself, all preparation he did on his own, compare to the Russian who had a team of GMs preparing against Fischer. Fischer defeated Taimanov, Petrosian and Spassky, they had the bigger advantage, they had a team of best Soviet GMs preparing against Fischer; this mean in the adjournment Soviet GMs analyze all the line to the lone wolf Fischer; Fischer has to be super human to do this, I doubt any normal GM could do this on their own and win against such opposition. Bobby would crush Karpov and would beat Kasparov in match, and Fischer would of been the first 2800 elo ( Fischer 2785 fide), for ten year Karpov was a low 2700 when he played Kasparov and he was able to score five win and Garry could not score a win, if it was Fischer the match would been over. Fide give Fischer a big advantage, the first player to win 10 games, Fischer had more stamina and was physical fit compare to the weak physique and constitution of Karpov, could not endure a long marathon match. I can't think of any today so call and inflate rated super GMs who can beat Fischer, Fischer had the determination and the will to win, all GMs fear him and could feel his intensity and it was overbearing, Fischer would crush Carlsen will.
LeeTaylor85 wrote:
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.
Well, he was also crazy. you could call it personal reasons, but you can't say it without recognizing chronic paranoia and others going on up there. His list of demands was a bit unfair giving the advantage to one player of a match, and asking for it to go on for an undecided amount of matches, making it hard to organize. I have great respect for the man, in pure calculation and intuition he is the greatest, but with computers having come out, it's very difficult to win against someone who just memorizes best moves. That was the difficulty for Magnus v. Anand, Anand had so much prep and Magnus just wanted a straight calculation battle. It wasn't for quite a few games that he even got the calculation battle.
May 11, 2017
0
#93
Slow_pawn wrote:
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.
he wouldn't let them grind it out
May 11, 2017
0
#94
We don't have a clue about his games after '72 except for the '92 match with no-longer-dominant Spassky. Nothing left to prove? Lonely way to live? Frightening outlook on life? World Champions in all sports tend to say you're only as good as your last game and it's a challenge to maintain your position. I can't think of any that didn't have a mental problem who felt lonely or frightened when so many were praising them over and over.
May 11, 2017
0
#95
This is all simply a misplaced fascination, a teen aged love affair. "My idol is better than your idol". The Beatles were better than the Stones. Fischer had an incredible run, for a very SHORT time. He got his clock handed to him thereafter and was too scared of losing to continue playing.
Like it or not, in the OP's words, these are the facts.
LeeTaylor85 пишет:
In order to see player's real strength, it's enough to take several of his games - the games from his prime period - and to analyze with 3200+ Elo engines, giving sufficient time for engines.
Why are you so categoric - " ... like it or not ... "
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?
yureesystem пишет:
Do you really think that Karjakin is that weak?
Uncle_Bent wrote:
@yureesystem Carlsen's style may not be to your liking (or my mine), but he is a great player, and if you took away his database and engines, and sent him back to 1920, he could give Capablanca a great match. I can't say the same, for sure, for the rest of the top GMs, except maybe Anand.
Carlsen is missing wins that Soviet GMs of 2500 to 2600 elo could win, why should I admire such a player, he nothing like Fischer who did it on own. Carlsen had trainers and Kasparov to guide him and he still can't play a decent game; Magnus couldn't even beat Karjakin in a match on standard time control and had to go rapid time control.
May 11, 2017
0
#98
I'm still waiting on Fischer to rise from the dead. He IS worshiped by his followers.
May 11, 2017
0
#99
imsighked2 wrote:
I'm still waiting on Fischer to rise from the dead. He IS worshiped by his followers.
Can you imagine? The aftemath of BF''s reincarnation? Jeez. The planet would stop spinning. We'd all be on our hands and knees, board in one hand, pieces in the other, chanting e4 bobby... e4 bobby.. e4
May 11, 2017
0
#100
In 1992, Spassky was rated 2560. Fischer scored 17.5-12.5 in the match. His tournament performance rating was 58 rating points above Spassky, making his TPR 2618.
This was in September, 1992. In January, 1993 (the next FIDE rating list), Kasparov was rated 2805. There's no rating inflation argument to be made since they were both playing at the same time.
Kasparov speaking about Fischer's ability: "... his chess was brilliant."
If you took Fischer straight out of the past and had him compete with no exposure to new theory? He'd probably find himself very frustrated by engine-prepared opponents.
Give him some time to acquaint himself with engines and the latest games? He'd be back on the top all over again. No doubt. #1? Maybe. Maybe not. But certainly in the top 10.
Asked about how Fischer would fare against himself, Carlsen, or Kasparov, Hikaru Nakamura said: "If Fischer had a few years to use computers, I think he would probably be on the same level."
Heck, he was playing at a near-2800 level in the 1970's, using primarily his own OTB studies. Can you imagine what a monster he would've been with today's engines to help him train?
You should read what Anand actually said in the 2011 interview. He said that Kasparov was the best player he'd faced. This is what he said about Fischer:
Were you tempted to whip out a pocket chessboard and challenge him to a quick blitz game? No, because he whipped out his pocket chess set first and we started to analyse some recent games I'd played.
Really? Yes, I showed him some of my games from Wijk aan Zee and tried to share some interesting developments. He was sort of able to follow everything – he hadn't lost his sharpness for chess – but his methods were a bit dated. In that sense he had fallen behind.
How do you mean? Well, he had some suggestions, and he was sort of in the ball park … but when I would tell him that the computer says white is winning here, for me that was a sign to move on – but for him it was a starting point to argue with me! [Laughs]. I found it difficult to say to him 'No, no, no – these computers are really strong. You shouldn't be arguing with them!"'
If you could go back in time, which world champion would you have most liked to have faced at their peak? Mikhail Tal or Bobby Fischer. How would I have got on? Well, it depends whether the time machine drops me back in 1960 or 1972 or it puts Tal and Fischer in 2011. It would make a big difference.