Magnus carlsen v bobby fischer who would win? Reason your answer

Yawn

Anyone can take statistics and "prove" anything.  Fischer was a self-taught man.  He didn't have grandmasters training him from a youth.  It has also been "proven" that Fischer blundered less than Carlsen.  Take a lot of the "statistics" with a grain of salt.  Bobby Fischer was a once in a generation phenomenon just like Carlsen.

I don't know why people still compare others with Carlsen. Stop saying that Fiscer would win. All I can say is that you shouldn't compare people with GODS.

It would be extremely close, but I think Magnus would eventually get the win

That's the problem with people who make personalities "gods."  They are so biased they can't think straight.

Easy question. Magnus Carlsen would win. He's analysed very many of Fischer and his contemporaries matches whereas Fischer has analysed none of Carlsen's and has never understood the current state of the art.

A more difficult, and I think unanswerable question is who would win in an alternate history, if they were both at their peak at the same time.

Petrosian would batter both of them. Don't @ me

Fischer had a 2785 rating in his day, which means that with a year of computer-assisted training today he would easily match Carlsen in playing strength. I'm rooting for Fischer having just that bit more chess genius. But Carlsen is more devious in setting up little psychological traps, and grinding the opponent bare to the bone until he can taste the marrow.

Anyway I think a 10-game Carlsen-Fischer match would end in 7-3 or 8-2.

Magnus also indicated that if there was one player in history he would like to play, it would be Fischer in his prime.

I think Carlsen would win; though Fischer was a brilliant attacking player, one of Carlsen's main strengths lies in neutralizing his opponents plans. It feels almost like a counter.

Well since the question is who would win if both played at their peak then it would probably be Fischer. And if comparing golfers, at their peak, definitely Tiger. Nobody has ever dominated like Tiger. 

Carlsen grew up in a green house being pampered with grandmaster teachers and computers.  Fischer grew up in the desert with no outside support and defeated the Soviet chess machine by himself.  Other than both being great players there is no comparison.  No one will ever know the answer.

That's probably ok since they are both universally accepted as great. I don't see anything wrong with comparing two of the greats. Good points have been made about things like Carlsens sustained level of play, which is probably better than Fischers. Or Fischers winning streak, which is probably better than Carlsens. And also good points about how to compare ratings because of rating inflation. 

But the question was who would win at their peak. The opinions seem to be pretty evenly split. My personal opinion is Fischer was better for two reasons. His famous winning streak and also if ratings are compared the same way for both it appears Fischers rating is higher. 

Carlsen wins blindfolded easy.  Also, Fischer would duck the likes of such a match.

Does Magnus play the Bongcloud?

The first game Fischer won with the Black pieces, Carlsen would drop out because he woudn't want to get into any "trouble."

Everything else being equal, if they both had the same tools and resources and preparation, and they were both at their peaks, we will never know.  If they played while at the same age, the younger Fisher would be willing to play the younger Carlsen and we might have a result.  But, if the older, at his peak,  Fisher thought that Carlsen was as good as Carlsen is, at his peak, Bobby wouldn't play him.  Lots of drama, but no games.  Carlsen, OTOH, would play Fischer.

Carlsen is a bad joke compared to Bobby Fischer, the Creator and God of Chess.

Carlsen win because he is very clever

The first one to en passant!