Fischer or Carlsen?

You can distinguish easily Fischer style from Anand - Carlsen Match. You won't find this kind of game from Anand - Carlsen Match.

Fischer and Spassky have played exchanges 10 times before move 20. They only have one minor piece each after move 20 i.e. Bishop and Knight.

Well in the last wcc, how many exchanges did you see before they agreed to draw on move 16? You can understand why I am very disappointed.

Here is Game 1 from Carlsen - Anand. Only a pawn exhange and draw on move 16. See the difference?

In fact, for those who are interested in facts; Fischer (playing black) opened with N-KB3 against Donald Byrne in the famous "Game of the Century"!. It is true, however, that Fischer usually shied away from the hypermodern openings. That choice, though, was where his analysis led him, i.e it was  not an arbitrary decision!

In the future, get your facts straight before you offer us your 'profound analysis.'

Catlover123456

?? He played the KID the most of his life, a very modern opening. I can only remember very few games where he answered 1. d4 with d5 and 1. e4 with e5. He was very hypermodern.

The REAL difference between the above games I posted is:

1. In Fischer - Spassky 1992 game, both White and Black Kings had been checked several times. You know a check is the result of a strong attack. So White and Black attacked the King of opposition. And they had to be careful of checkmate.

2. In Anand - Carlsen game. There was no check. No attack. Just moved pieces for an opening. And suddenly 3 fold repetition. And it even was not check repetition. Checkmate? You can dream of it.

If Carlsen would born in 1950s, fischer would be probably better than him. Chess then wasn't advanced like today, and it just keep advancing all the time. Actually Carlsen plays by some basic strategic and tactic rules, which some of them bobby fischer actually made up.

The calculation of Fischer - Spassky game is far more complex. Yet they played it to a draw. This shows their quality.

bean: I think G1 from Carlsen-Anand is a forced draw. They are at each other's throats and neither one can afford to shift a foot to try to get a better position. Left to himself Carlsen will play Bb2 Rad1 Rfd1 (and Nd2 if necessary) to force e4. At that point it seems to me Anand is cooked - his pieces are under fire (the d5 and c3 knights would be gone but the bishop has to retreat) so Carlsen gets to play d5 as well. Its very hard for Anand to fight back  and there is always the possibility of the c pawn getting to c6 supported by the Bg2. So overall; not nice from Anand's point of view.

On the other hand Anand is threatening to win Carlsen's knight, so the Q is tied to b2-b3-a3 and Anand can (and has to) keep attacking it. The critical point seems to be after 19 ... Nb6. 11) Qb3 seems like a reasonable alternative to 11) c5 but black can push back with 11) ... Ne4 and the d-pawn is now under fire.That would have been a different game. This one just exhausted itself quickly.

Bottom line is they came and swinging but they get stuck in a clinch which neither one can reasonably detach from.

thanks, that makes me feel better.

TO: ViktorHNielsen.

From Catlover123456

You are absolutely right in that against P-Q4 Openings Fischer, from his youth onwards, preferred the Kings Indian. In toto, however, i.e. including the set of black vs p-k4 openings, Fischer much prferred the Sicilian and the French (as opposed to, let's say, the Alekhine).  Furthermore, his approach against pQ4 with the King's Indian varied over his career - sometimes pure hypermodern, othertimes not so much by mitigating the ceding of the center by quickly establishing a little counterplay.

  Your point is well taken though, against the p-q4 his reply was almost always fundamentally hypermodern in its approach. Thank you for correcting me.

catlover123456

Fischer never played the French, not even once.  

Magnus  was the better than FISCHER!!! NONSENSENSE!!!! Fischer was the greatest, most accurate, best prrepared, and the least likely to let let a mistake slide. In short. Fisscher was thechess good.

Catlover123456

Fischer's been having trouble finding the right moves for the past five years. So I'd have to say Carlsen. If Fischer were alive and in his prime...he'd study Carlsen so diligently he'd know what Carlsen's DNA smelled like.

Some interesting comments.  A couple of things.  Generally Fischer greatly prefered to play e4 as his first move as white in the hopes of playing a Ruy Lopez or a sicilian, both of which he dominated as white.    However if things went in another direction such as the french defense,  he was very happy to play "hypermodern" openings even sacrificing space or material to sharpen the game but with, as Soltis writes, "a classical eye", meaning that he would revert back to a classical style if his opponents played overly passively (gaining territory and/or materialistical).   He loved the playing Kings indian "attack" (KIA, Kings indian defense reversed) and pretty much any "defense" that he played as black he was happy to play as "offense" with colors reversed as white.   Fischer took a lot of scalps go after the french defense with a KIA in his teens and 20's...

Fischer and Carlsen are stylistically as different as night and day, in my opinion.  You can't really compare them.  Fischer was a "best by test" player and his attitude was "I am going to play what I want...it is going to be stronger, and I will crush you regardless of what you do...".  Carlsen's attitude is "I will play a solid position, and then watch every single thing you do, countering everything and always staying solid until you make a misstep...I will outlast you.".

and Fischer was not one for quick draws nor for missteps if I'm not mistaken. It could be quite the slugfest. But Fischer is long gone to happier places. 

Fischer was the more accurate player. But every player, ultimately, must be judged by how they perform against the competitors of their era and, as dull as Carlsen's play may be, he is the best chessplayer at this moment in time - a hard, cold, and depressing fact - give me Fischer, Capablanca!

based on what?

Look people, I think both players are explendid, but they can't be compared with each other. Fischer lived in a NON COMPUTER ERA, the mentality at the time was not the same as the modern times, and Fischer was playing almost like a strong computer!!

Carlsen however live in a COMPUTER ERA and he is one of the first PRODIGIOUS players to enjoy this advantage, which in my opinion has completely revolutionized the game!

However, if you ask me which of them proved to be best world champion (not the best player), I would say without a doubt Magnus Carlsen, Bobby Fischer apparently gave up the game after being crowned world champion, which let me a little bit disappointed.