Forums

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

Sort:
mpaetz

     We will have to wait a while to find out. Bobby is refusing to play because he would be distracted by the sight and sound of a living man moving and breathing. Just wait until Magnus dies and we can have an even match.

premio53
mpaetz wrote:

     We will have to wait a while to find out. Bobby is refusing to play because he would be distracted by the sight and sound of a living man moving and breathing. Just wait until Magnus dies and we can have an even match.

Fischer was known for his quirks but nothing compares to the aggression Kasparov showd over the board.  He was truly intimidating.

Sadlone

Fischer should win, adjust his 2780 elo rating in 1972 to today's inflated elos and he will probably be 3000 hence the stronger player

BlackKaweah
Fischer played to win from a drawn position. Carlsen plays to draw from a winning position. You figure it out.
fabelhaft

”an American where chess was as popular as smelling armpits”

It’s not like Norway had much chess culture if you compare with the country of Morphy, Pillsbury, Marshall, Reshevsky, Fine etc. When the US won four Chess Olympiads in the 1930s, Norway finished at best second to last. As late as in the 2000 Olympiad their highest rated player was 2424.

DesperateKingWalk
fabelhaft wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:

Bobby Fischer had no internet,  or online chess play, or chess databases, or chess computers, or computers. 

And yet Bobby Fischer had the biggest rating gap in the history of chess. 

GM Carlsen grew up in the chess computer age. 

I’ve never understood the argument that it is supposed to be easier to have a big rating gap when all players have access to computers. I’d guess it’s more difficult when all players are much more prepared than they could be 50 or 100 years ago.

You do not understand because that is not the argument. 

It is neither easier or harder to have the biggest rating gap in any era. And that is the point.

You are showing who is the greatest of all time, by showing who was better over everyone else in the time that player played the game of chess. 

That way you eliminate the advantages one player has in the era they played. That way you can fairly compare players. To determine who really was the greatest chess player of all time.

Meaning Fischer had a advantage of Morphy in knowledge of the game of chess. Like Carlsen has the advantage in knowledge over Fischer in the game of chess. As GM Carlsen grew up the the chess computer era. 

GM Fischer is the greatest chess player of all time. With an incredible 125 Elo points better then any other chess player of his era. 

GM Carlsen today is only 48 Elo better then the field of his chess competitors. 

 

 

tygxc

@100

"To me...Fischer/Spassky game 6 is arguably one of the best played games in chess history."
++ Spassky just forgot 14...Qd7, which Geller had told them during their pre-match preparation.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1049648 
Game 10 was a better game.

fabelhaft
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:

Bobby Fischer had no internet,  or online chess play, or chess databases, or chess computers, or computers. 

And yet Bobby Fischer had the biggest rating gap in the history of chess. 

GM Carlsen grew up in the chess computer age. 

I’ve never understood the argument that it is supposed to be easier to have a big rating gap when all players have access to computers. I’d guess it’s more difficult when all players are much more prepared than they could be 50 or 100 years ago.

You do not understand because that is not the argument. 

It is neither easier or harder to have the biggest rating gap in any era. And that is the point.

You are showing who is the greatest of all time, by showing who was better over everyone else in the time that player played the game of chess. 

That way you eliminate the advantages one player has in the era they played. That way you can fairly compare players. To determine who really was the greatest chess player of all time.

Meaning Fischer had a advantage of Morphy in knowledge of the game of chess. Like Carlsen has the advantage in knowledge over Fischer in the game of chess. As GM Carlsen grew up the the chess computer era. 

Carlsen certainly has an advantage in knowledge over Fischer, it’s another thing if one suggests that this advantage in knowledge would make it easier to have a bigger rating gap today than when players didn’t have computers, in line with ”Bobby Fischer had no computers. And yet Bobby Fischer had the biggest rating gap in the history of chess. GM Carlsen grew up in the chess computer age”

One might also consider that the first official Elo ratings were published the years when Fischer peaked. If one uses measures that include also past times, Steinitz has a bigger rating gap to #2 than Fischer ever did with the Chessmetrics rating system. Does that rank him ahead of Fischer? Maybe, maybe not. To me Kasparov and Lasker are the greatest ever, but Carlsen has done quite a lot compared even to them considering that he just turned 32. 

fabelhaft

”GM Fischer is the greatest chess player of all time. With an incredible 125 Elo points better then any other chess player of his era. 

GM Carlsen today is only 48 Elo better then the field of his chess competitors”

I think this is a simplified comparison. Carlsen may be ”only” 48 ahead if you pick the one today rather than both his and Fischer’s best, but that is after winning five title matches and 40 super tournaments, after more than a dozen years as #1. Fischer was more than 70 Elo ahead of #2 on one rating list before retiring, the one published just at the start of the Spassky match. Carlsen had a bigger gap than 70 Elo in the past, but the question is if that is the best way to compare. Steinitz had a bigger gap than Fischer, Topalov had a bigger gap than Anand, etc, but there are also other ways to compare.

warlard69420

Bobby Fischer only played against weak Soviets and ran away from Anatoly Karpov. 

MACchessSA
warlard69420 wrote:

Bobby Fischer only played against weak Soviets and ran away from Anatoly Karpov. 

And ran away from Spassky until her was grabbed by the scruff and forced down to the table.  Fischer apologists forget that Karpov drummed Spassky better than Fischer shortly afterwards.  Fischer fanaticism blinds them to the fact that he is the worst chess champion ever.  Why? Simple, he has zero (0) title defenses.  I strain to find any other champion in any other sport to have zero title defenses.  I mean even Hulk Hogan put the title up against the Ultimate Warrior.

DesperateKingWalk
fabelhaft wrote:

”GM Fischer is the greatest chess player of all time. With an incredible 125 Elo points better then any other chess player of his era. 

GM Carlsen today is only 48 Elo better then the field of his chess competitors”

I think this is a simplified comparison. Carlsen may be ”only” 48 ahead if you pick the one today rather than both his and Fischer’s best, but that is after winning five title matches and 40 super tournaments, after more than a dozen years as #1. Fischer was more than 70 Elo ahead of #2 on one rating list before retiring, the one published just at the start of the Spassky match. Carlsen had a bigger gap than 70 Elo in the past, but the question is if that is the best way to compare. Steinitz had a bigger gap than Fischer, Topalov had a bigger gap than Anand, etc, but there are also other ways to compare.

I can not give you what you want. GM Carlsen is still a active player. What I am showing is GM Carlsen is not even close to GM Fischer rating gap. And has never been close to GM Fischer's rating gap. 

I am showing GM Carlsen's rating gap at 32 years old. And that suggest GM Carlsen has almost no chance of breaking GM Fischer record. When today GM Carlsen's rating gap is only 48 Elo. GM Carlsen would need to increase his gap Elo by 79 Elo to surpass GM Fischer. And at 32 years old. That is not ever going to happen. 

The greatest player of all time is GM Robert James Fischer. 

jgar0093

Bobby would crush MC and that is not a put down. BF played because of an never ending desire (until it of coarse did end). MC is just in the right spot for him because of his talent and brain. Bottom line, Fisher walked away, came back and walked away again. Almost like with most geniuses they have to be a little mad. I don't believe MC can ever do that.