I would bet on Magnus in both ping pong and chess.
Fischer or Magnus?
Sort:
Well, I will have to place my bets on Fischer. Look how well he dresses even when playing table tennis. Carlsen, on the other hand, uses BLACK SOCKS WITH SHORTS and clearly lacks taste and common sense.
This thing about computer preparation is interesting. I read that Carlsen doesn't do much prep. The big difference is that Carlsen has done some modern preparation, and he has played many top players who have done so extensively. Even if Carlsen isn't big on studying nowdays, he is still learning modern ideas from the games he plays. World Champion Fischer is still stuck in the early 70's.
ClavierCavalier wrote:
This thing about computer preparation is interesting. I read that Carlsen doesn't do much prep. The big difference is that Carlsen has done some modern preparation, and he has played many top players who have done so extensively. Even if Carlsen isn't big on studying nowdays, he is still learning modern ideas from the games he plays. World Champion Fischer is still stuck in the early 70's.
I guess he always will be.
LCC R6: Hurricane Carlsen is upgraded to Category Five (chessbase article title).
I think Carlsen would be better. Dig those black sneakers and Ping Pong vibe.
Dec 7, 2012
0
#27
Fischer was like 20 inches taller than Carlsen, wasn't he??
The reach advantage would be enormous in ping-pong!
Dec 7, 2012
0
#28
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
Who would you put your money on if they were both playing at their peak?
If a match could by some miracle be arranged, I think it may be close.
To be able to study twelve games between these two, if they could exist, would be invaluable.
I would risk my money on Fischer and probably lose.
paulgottlieb wrote:
I think you forget that in his day Fischer was famous for his willingness to play on forever, as long as there was any play at all. He also made himself into a superb endgame player--particularly in pure rook or rook and bishop endings. Patience and absolute determination were two of his salient characteristics. And he was incredibly sensitive to any weakening of his opponent's will. If he felt the slightest hint of fatigue or irresolution from his opponent, he would exploit it if it took all night. In fact, the modern player who seems to embody those same characteristics would be--Carlsen!
Some do amazing things while others fall asleep... Like Fischer said: I really love the dark of the night. It helps me to concentrate.
I guess you know what time it is then 
Dec 8, 2012
0
#30
Well, if they would play as is Magnus would surely win. However, if Fischer had access to the same technology and knowledge as we have today Fischer would win. He learned Russian to be able to read their magazines. No doubt if he had access to the computer chess programs of today he would have been even better.
But the thing about past vs present is really silly, imo. What is the point of discussing this? Chess moves forward and keeps improving and refining. A master of today would have been a GM in 1890.
MAGNUS CARLSEN without a doubt.
paulgottlieb wrote:
That's quite correct. The great players of the past wrote the text books for the generations that followed them. For example, Rubinstein taught an entire generation how to play certain endgames, and every other great master passed on his unique knowledge and insight to the whole next generation. So the top masters of today inevitably play "better" than the greats of the past. This doesn't mean they are more gifted or smarter that their predecessors. but they do possess a greater store of knowledge
I agree.
Dec 17, 2012
0
#33
paulgottlieb wrote:
I think you forget that in his day Fischer was famous for his willingness to play on forever, as long as there was any play at all. He also made himself into a superb endgame player--particularly in pure rook or rook and bishop endings. Patience and absolute determination were two of his salient characteristics. And he was incredibly sensitive to any weakening of his opponent's will. If he felt the slightest hint of fatigue or irresolution from his opponent, he would exploit it if it took all night. In fact, the modern player who seems to embody those same characteristics would be--Carlsen!
Actually, what you just described sounds more like Naka. I've never seen a GM that will go on to bare kings more often than him.
Not saying Naka's endgame is as developed as Fischer's. Just his refusal to quit.
Fischer ftw.
Dec 17, 2012
0
#35
Can't we just weigh their brains to see who's the best chess player? Unless Fischer didn't save his brain for studies?
Dec 17, 2012
0
#36
I think even the most novice of chess players should have the right to choose soup without a cream base.
Dec 17, 2012
0
#37
Paulgottlieb{chess player} is insinuating that we have to have some astronomical rating to choose our soup! I just couldn't lay down on the floor for it!
Dec 17, 2012
0
#38
LisaV wrote:
I have a good gastronomical rating for Mulligatawny soup.
You made me laugh while I was drinking
Dec 17, 2012
0
#39
After I read you, kenible3, I actually put some pepper in my water. I have no idea why I did this
If both were playing at their best? Ah, the hypothetical match-ups and comparisons: nothing makes for a great argument like a proposition which is impossible to verify!
But from what we know, Carlsen would probably own Bobby. Fischer was great at exploiting weaknesses, Carlsen avoids creating them. Carlsen's strength is in creating and playing the very sort of even-but-not-sterile positions that Fischer found most taxing.
@ Estragon
This is just a question, mind you. Not a point. But wasn't Petrosian the master of not creating weaknesses?
Am thinking of their candidates match Fischer won so decisively.