Which Historic GMs Would Be Best at Variants?

The topic of "which GM is the greatest ever" is incredibly played out, so I figured I'd give it a twist: which GMs would be best at variants?  Hopefully it'll lead to some interesting discussion.

Crazyhouse: Tal.  He's super tactical and aggressive.  I think he would love this variant

King of the Hill: Petrosian.  I think his ability to lock up positions and squeeze his opponents would be great for this variant, which is about space and central control.  I know some players race their kings right from the start but I doubt this would work if KotH were played at the top level.  Honorable mention to Karpov

Three Check: Tal again, for the same reason, although I think most strong GM's would excel here.  I think that attack is much stronger than defense in this variant and I think attackers would have the edge.  Morphy as well

Chess 960: Fischer. Great player who preferred to outplay his opponent rather than memorize lots of opening lines.  He invented the game as well.  Honorable mention to Carlsen and Reshevsky, who struggled mightily in the opening.

Bughouse Team: Tal (with white) and Petrosian (with black).  One to attack and the other to defend.  Looks tough to beat 

Who would struggle:

Crazyhouse: Capablanca.  He's too positional and not aggressive enough for crazyhouse, plus there's basically no endgame in this variant. Maybe Smyslov and Karpov as well

King of the Hill: Tough to say.  Maybe an overly cautious player who is afraid to develop his king, but I can't think of one at the moment.  In modern times, maybe Giri

Three Check: Petrosian.  Attack > Defense in three check.  I think any defensive or counterattacking player (like Seirawan) would struggle

Chess960: Anyone overly dependent on opening or who isn't a great positional player.  Maybe Tal.  In modern times, Giri 

Feel free to add your own thoughts!

"Fischer. Great player who preferred to outplay his opponent rather than memorize lots of opening lines."

TAKE YOUR MEDICATIONS TOMMY. TAKE THEM.

Agree that he studied openings but he wasn't reliant on openings.  Chess is a zero sum game between the two players; if Player A needs openings more, it creates a comparative advantage for Player B

Fischer was not reliant in opening theory? Damn, he must have been pretty talented to play those Najdorfs and Kings Indian Defenses without studying theory...

I don't think he was as reliant on it as his opponent's were.  Thus, a comparative advantage over his peers in 960

Let me ask you a question son, have you seen all the analysis he has on his openings in My 60 Memorable games? Have you seen his handwritten notes? 

Present a logical argument to support your claim. Gaawd.

Never heard anyone claim Tal was a positional expert.  I think it's pretty well known that his losses at the top level, Candidates and WC, occurred when his opponents played slow, positional games and didn't all ow him to attack or sacrifice

I never said that Fischer didn't know opening theory, my belief is that in a game without any opening theory (like 960) Fishcer would be exceptionally skilled because of his middlegame strength.  My general belief about chess is that memorizing openings allows weaker players to compete with stronger players, at least early in the game.  I think that most elite players who dominated their contemporaries would rather there be less theory so their dominance would show.  They would rather outplay weaker players then deal with memorized lines

Yes and you say Giri is not a good positional player? 

I'm saying that Giri knows a lot of opening theory, which is why I think he's so drawish.  All of the players I mentioned are great, but I think they would be out of their element and not quite as good in some of the variants.  I'm sure Giri would still be a top notch 960 player, but I don't think he would be a top 10 player

Giri is such a fish, once he is out of book he sucks at chess, just look at how he played against MVL in the last Sinquifield cup, he was White, played the english attack and made one of the worst moves in chess history, because he is just a BOOK. A dead BOOK.

So Giri knows theory...therefore he'd be bad at 960?

Logic doesn't follow

dpnorman: I'm saying that Giri is highly dependent on opening theory, which goes out the window in chess960.  His biggest edge over his competitors would be gone, so it's quite logical to assume that he would struggle somewhat.

Gaawd, we are all patzers, we know crap about the game yet somehow we completely understand the games and style of super GMs?

KEEEEK.

Tal oftentimes sacrificed on instinct or for initiative.  It looked good, so he went for it.  A lot of times his moves led to big material games or mate, so deep positional considerations weren't needed.  Tal obviously had some positional skill; he wasn't just a one trick pony, but all GMs excel in all levels of the game.  I think Tal would love crazyhouse because he would excel in the sac and initiative driven game

Not only was Fischer reliant on opening theory, he learned Russian strictly so he'd have access to all the latest ideas.  There was a story about the Russians being pissed that Bobby knew the latest novelty in a particular opening that his Russian opponent wasn't aware of (this may have been in his match with Taimanov).

Yes, I've heard that story.  I'm pretty sure it was Tiamanov who was upset that Fischer knew one of their women players' games