It's interesting how whenever we have these discussions we never mention Ruy Lopez. The guy invented an opening several hundred years ago, that today is still considered one of the best openings! If we're talking about the gap between the greatest players in history and the #2 player of their time, surely for Ruy Lopez that gap would have been huge!
Magnus carlsen v bobby fischer who would win? Reason your answer
Sort:
just because someone invents an opening doesn't mean he's good.
chessmicky wrote:
Actually, Carlsen has a normal size brain, but it is carefully packed in a protective layer of Lutefisk
+1
I think Fischer would win. He seemed to be more of a natural and I think he was more creative than Carlsen.
Jrmld wrote:
I think Fischer would win. He seemed to be more of a natural and I think he was more creative than Carlsen.
He would obviously win if he was armed with some computers, books and a team of seconds. but sadly he doesn't, although I think the match would still be interesting and pretty close.
If they played right now, Fischer would be dead.
dashkee94 wrote:
If they played right now, Fischer would be dead.
well maybe if they played in hell or in heaven
(when magnus dies)
thunder_tiger123
I have posted that response to other threads several times before and you are the first one to get it! I hope Santa treats you well this year; Merry Christmas.
dashkee94 wrote:
thunder_tiger123
I have posted that response to other threads several times before and you are the first one to get it! I hope Santa treats you well this year; Merry Christmas.
lol are you being serious or are you being sarcastic? I have a hard time telling on the internet. I find it much easier to tell IRL because you can look at their countenances (a vocab word I learned in school :P)
I was being very facetious every time I posted it, and once had someone argue that Fischer was soooo much better than X....it went right over his head.
Carlsen would win easily.
Actually most top 10 GMs would be stronger than Fischer at his prime.
Makes no sense to compare over generations.
Dec 27, 2013
0
#33
Carlsen would win.He would make is first move,hit the clock,and then wait,eventually winning on time .
Carlsen. Because of 40 years of chess experience.
Do you mean carlsen (2013) vs Fischer (1972)?
If a player that has a 70 point lead on the rating list is a "mediocre player in the long run", I wonder what all the other players in the top ten should be called. Totally clueless patzers in the long run? Not to speak of the players just outside the top ten :-)
Mandy711 wrote:
22 year old Carlsen vs 70 year old Fischer (if alive), Carlsen all the way!
What an idiot comment, hehehehe
Tal1949 wrote:
I doubt the game would finish. Bobby would struggle to crack the defense of Carlsen and then probably leave in a huff. Media and fide would be rushing after him while Carlsen just smiled his cheesy grin. Playing a person rated 2872 is very different to 2660.
Keep dreaming man. LOL. 
They have done research to see who was the 10 best World Champions. Using SF 6 and studying 25.800 games and 2 million positions. Who played most accurate and etc. The conclusion was 1. Carlsen 2. Kramnik 3. Fischer. 4. Kasparov 5. Anand.
It's in norwegian, but I guess you can figure it out. http://mattogpatt.no/2017/05/24/tidenes-beste-sjakkspiller-utpekt-svarer-magnus-carlsen-pa-resultatet/
Alekhine and Bobby Fischer worked many chess but not great Capablanca!. Carlsen it is also great!.