Bobby Fischer vs Vishwanathan Anand and Magnus Carlsen

Avatar image for richubs
Richubs

8847

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Who wins in a chess match?

The man or the team?

Avatar image for shinne
Shinne

20952

Forum Posts

294

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Carlsen could solo.

Avatar image for socajunkie
socajunkie

14512

Forum Posts

2406

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#3  Edited By socajunkie  Moderator

Carlsen should win in theory given engines have him as the most accurate player in history. However in many GM’s opinions including Carlsen and Anand’s: Fischer is the greatest player in history and nobody displayed pure domination in the chess world as Bobby did against the Soviets- 6-0 Larsen and Taimanov then beating Spassky. With that said though, Carlsen benefits from engines today and having lines in his head that Fischer never had in his day so I’ll say he can solo with extreme difficulty seeing as they’re both endgame beasts.

Avatar image for michaelbn
Michaelbn

4543

Forum Posts

2807

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Carlsen needs to work so hard to beat Bobby.

Avatar image for richubs
Richubs

8847

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@socajunkie: I'm not sure but I think Carlsen has said he doesn't like the engine rankings.

Avatar image for socajunkie
socajunkie

14512

Forum Posts

2406

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#6  Edited By socajunkie  Moderator

@richubs: Would he not liking them detract from their credibility?

Avatar image for aka_aka_aka_ak
Aka_aka_aka_ak

3742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Firstly, Carlsen solos, Vishy probably could too.

Secondly, what do you mean by the team? They share ideas? Carlsen+Anand is probably only very marginally better than Carlsen on his own, since they're both probably calculating all the same lines. This thread is idiotic.

Avatar image for phantomrant
PhantomRant

1574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By PhantomRant

@richubs: Not sure if you play chess, but how is this going to work exactly? What are the match conditions also? Preparation? What kind of form are these guys in?

Avatar image for richubs
Richubs

8847

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Richubs

@aka_aka_aka_ak: @phantomrant: I don't play chess you're right but every player has a different strategy.

Carlsen and Anand can both talk with each other and discuss their next move.

And they are at the top of their game in this. They don't make silly mistakes or anything.

And yea I know this thread is idiotic which is why it's in off topic.

Avatar image for richubs
Richubs

8847

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@socajunkie: I guess if a very good player doesn't agree with the way a player's ability is measured even if he's on the top of the leaderboard then there must be something wrong with it.

Avatar image for phantomrant
PhantomRant

1574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

You probably should have kept it 1v1

Avatar image for socajunkie
socajunkie

14512

Forum Posts

2406

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#12 socajunkie  Moderator

@richubs said:

@socajunkie: I guess if a very good player doesn't agree with the way a player's ability is measured even if he's on the top of the leaderboard then there must be something wrong with it.

True, but engines are much more capable at chess than humans so their evaluations should have a higher merit.

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

7439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I'm going with Bobby. Sorry, but Magnus doesn't really impress me. Even though he is the current world champion, I don't see anything too special with him. Magnus is better than Vishy though. Vishy was known as the lightning kid because of his fast-paced blitz games, Vishy was also a 5-time World Champion. Bobby Fischer was so far ahead of his competition. The only one who dominated more than Bobby Fischer, in my mind, was Paul Morphy. Vishy has usually said that the greatest player of all time in his view is Bobby Fischer, although I think he said recently that he now thinks Magnus is better. Anyway, I think Vishy would agree that Bobby is better than Vishy. It might be farfetched to think that Bobby, on his own, could beat two great world champions, but I think he can. Bobby always played to win.

Avatar image for paytience
Paytience

6160

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By Paytience

Fischer wins if Carlsen is forced into team play. Carlsen would beat him solo.

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

7439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I think Fischer could beat Carlsen solo.

Avatar image for bladeoffury
BladeOfFury

8334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By BladeOfFury

Firstly, Carlsen solos, Vishy probably could too.

Secondly, what do you mean by the team? They share ideas? Carlsen+Anand is probably only very marginally better than Carlsen on his own, since they're both probably calculating all the same lines.

Avatar image for shirso
shirso

15071

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Any modern day GM would solo Bobby, the engine and new knowledge advantage is too much. Either of these 2 probably know Bobby's games and playing style better than the man himself lol.

Avatar image for laiks stake
Laiks Stake

2527

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Either solo, Magnus might stomp with knowledge of current engine theory.

Avatar image for laiks stake
Laiks Stake

2527

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@shirso: Any Super GM*

Fischer is taking the edge against any 2500, no matter the theory, never mind old GMs that are below 2500.

Avatar image for catlike
catlike

1685

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

7439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@richubs said:

@aka_aka_aka_ak: @phantomrant: I don't play chess you're right but every player has a different strategy.

Carlsen and Anand can both talk with each other and discuss their next move.

And they are at the top of their game in this. They don't make silly mistakes or anything.

And yea I know this thread is idiotic which is why it's in off topic.

It is not an idiotic thread, it's a nice thread, I liked it and thank you for making it :-)

Avatar image for famousroman
Famousroman

1569

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Fischer is giri level imo. Prime anand and Carlson stomp him badly. He would get forced draws in, but if u equate ability to prep, then u have stupid high level prep with anand and dumb dangerous ideas with Magnus. It's so bad too, since both are like, top 3 best rapid/blitz players of all time, so it's also a huge time problem for Fischer. Anand is a better attacker, Magnus is a better positional player, better endgame player, etc. This is such a huge stomp tbh

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

7439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Well chess rating has become inflated. I would say Fischer was a better attacker than Anand. The way Fischer just had so many consecutive wins, I haven't seen Anand do so many consecutive wins. I can't think of many better attackers than Fischer but I don't think Anand is one of them. Anand is one of the greats, no doubt about that, but Fischer was something special in his heyday. Anand even sometimes lost to Karpov in the 1990s and I don't think Fischer would have lost to Karpov although it is a shame that Fischer vacated his World Championship status and didn't play against Karpov. I don't know whether he did it out of fear of losing to the younger, rising star or whether he just wasn't happy with the FIDE rules but it doesn't look good that Fischer didn't play Karpov and didn't play Kasparov. Anand was weaker than Kasparov in Kasparov's heyday, Anand was just a bit above Kramnik. I think Fischer would've done better against Kasparov and Kramnik than Anand did against Kasparov and Kramnik. I'm not sure that Magnus is a better positional player and better endgame player than Fischer. Magnus has the advantage of playing with chess engines to boost his abilities and he has lost questionable games (even though they were informal games) to Brazilian GM Supi where he was outmatched and against Russian Super GM Dubov. Carlsen has got the better of Fabiano Caruana and Hikaru Nakamura but I think Fischer would've beat both Nakamura and Caruana too (one-on-one, of course). Carlsen has had trouble against rising 16-year old and 17-year old chess stars like Alireza, Ding Liren (yeah, he's not young), Praggnanandhaa. Fischer would've beat Alireza and Praggnanandhaa a lot...they are not on his attacking skill level or intuition level. Yeah I might be overrating Fischer. One-on-one, I think Fischer could beat Anand. Carlsen could beat Fischer or Fischer could beat Carlsen, could go either way. Two-on-one against Fischer is not fair for Fischer so Fischer loses. But I wouldn't call this a stomp, Fischer was one of the greatest players in the history of this ancient game. The greatest player of all time, in my opinion, is Paul Morphy who I would say is better than Fischer, Carlsen and Anand.

Avatar image for divyansh13
Divyansh13

8344

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Both could beat Fischer alone honestly

Avatar image for shirso
shirso

15071

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By shirso
@arranvid said:

Well chess rating has become inflated. I would say Fischer was a better attacker than Anand. The way Fischer just had so many consecutive wins, I haven't seen Anand do so many consecutive wins. I can't think of many better attackers than Fischer but I don't think Anand is one of them. Anand is one of the greats, no doubt about that, but Fischer was something special in his heyday. Anand even sometimes lost to Karpov in the 1990s and I don't think Fischer would have lost to Karpov although it is a shame that Fischer vacated his World Championship status and didn't play against Karpov. I don't know whether he did it out of fear of losing to the younger, rising star or whether he just wasn't happy with the FIDE rules but it doesn't look good that Fischer didn't play Karpov and didn't play Kasparov. Anand was weaker than Kasparov in Kasparov's heyday, Anand was just a bit above Kramnik. I think Fischer would've done better against Kasparov and Kramnik than Anand did against Kasparov and Kramnik. I'm not sure that Magnus is a better positional player and better endgame player than Fischer. Magnus has the advantage of playing with chess engines to boost his abilities and he has lost questionable games (even though they were informal games) to Brazilian GM Supi where he was outmatched and against Russian Super GM Dubov. Carlsen has got the better of Fabiano Caruana and Hikaru Nakamura but I think Fischer would've beat both Nakamura and Caruana too (one-on-one, of course). Carlsen has had trouble against rising 16-year old and 17-year old chess stars like Alireza, Ding Liren (yeah, he's not young), Praggnanandhaa. Fischer would've beat Alireza and Praggnanandhaa a lot...they are not on his attacking skill level or intuition level. Yeah I might be overrating Fischer. One-on-one, I think Fischer could beat Anand. Carlsen could beat Fischer or Fischer could beat Carlsen, could go either way. Two-on-one against Fischer is not fair for Fischer so Fischer loses. But I wouldn't call this a stomp, Fischer was one of the greatest players in the history of this ancient game. The greatest player of all time, in my opinion, is Paul Morphy who I would say is better than Fischer, Carlsen and Anand.

Bruh modern 2000-2100s probably beat Morphy. Heck I would probably beat him and I am only a low 2000. Morphy was just way ahead of his time in an era when chess theory was hardly developed. Most of his attacks don't hold up to modern scrutiny at all.

Avatar image for famousroman
Famousroman

1569

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@shirso said:
@arranvid said:

Well chess rating has become inflated. I would say Fischer was a better attacker than Anand. The way Fischer just had so many consecutive wins, I haven't seen Anand do so many consecutive wins. I can't think of many better attackers than Fischer but I don't think Anand is one of them. Anand is one of the greats, no doubt about that, but Fischer was something special in his heyday. Anand even sometimes lost to Karpov in the 1990s and I don't think Fischer would have lost to Karpov although it is a shame that Fischer vacated his World Championship status and didn't play against Karpov. I don't know whether he did it out of fear of losing to the younger, rising star or whether he just wasn't happy with the FIDE rules but it doesn't look good that Fischer didn't play Karpov and didn't play Kasparov. Anand was weaker than Kasparov in Kasparov's heyday, Anand was just a bit above Kramnik. I think Fischer would've done better against Kasparov and Kramnik than Anand did against Kasparov and Kramnik. I'm not sure that Magnus is a better positional player and better endgame player than Fischer. Magnus has the advantage of playing with chess engines to boost his abilities and he has lost questionable games (even though they were informal games) to Brazilian GM Supi where he was outmatched and against Russian Super GM Dubov. Carlsen has got the better of Fabiano Caruana and Hikaru Nakamura but I think Fischer would've beat both Nakamura and Caruana too (one-on-one, of course). Carlsen has had trouble against rising 16-year old and 17-year old chess stars like Alireza, Ding Liren (yeah, he's not young), Praggnanandhaa. Fischer would've beat Alireza and Praggnanandhaa a lot...they are not on his attacking skill level or intuition level. Yeah I might be overrating Fischer. One-on-one, I think Fischer could beat Anand. Carlsen could beat Fischer or Fischer could beat Carlsen, could go either way. Two-on-one against Fischer is not fair for Fischer so Fischer loses. But I wouldn't call this a stomp, Fischer was one of the greatest players in the history of this ancient game. The greatest player of all time, in my opinion, is Paul Morphy who I would say is better than Fischer, Carlsen and Anand.

Bruh modern 2000-2100s probably beat Morphy. Heck I would probably beat him and I am only a low 2000. Morphy was just way ahead of his time in an era when chess theory was hardly developed. Most of his attacks don't hold up to modern scrutiny at all.

no, morphy lacked the theory we have for opening and endgame, and a little bit of middlegame as well. but if u made things even, he would beat 2400s+ for sure tbh.

now, rating inflation is great and all, but its completley wasted when spassky, korchnoi, and karpov himself all said that karpov after 1975 > fischer in 1972. its really just that simple. and people who think that fischer stomped spassky really dont know anything tbh.

Avatar image for shirso
shirso

15071

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@famousroman: He didn't stomp Spassky? And yeah someone of Morphy's raw talent with modern engines and theory would obviously be incredibly formidable. I am saying modern 2000s+ probably would beat the 19th century Morphy though.

Avatar image for famousroman
Famousroman

1569

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By Famousroman
@shirso said:

@famousroman: He didn't stomp Spassky? And yeah someone of Morphy's raw talent with modern engines and theory would obviously be incredibly formidable. I am saying modern 2000s+ probably would beat the 19th century Morphy though.

they played 20 games, and he only had 4 points over spassky iirc. think about that for a second. not to mention about 3 or so games in which spassky was winning(ish) but spent too much time and couldn't find a winning combination so headed to a draw. fischer had better opening prep too.

thats what im saying tho, those 19th century top crop level players were gods of the middlegame. NO modern 2000 level player would touch them imo. if u got a match and told morphy "ur about to play a player with preparation and an opening u have never seen before, be ready for that", then he will simply play weird dubious shit, or something extremely solid, in which case, the 2000 level player will most likely lose, if not draw due to something about the endgame that it can lead to that makes it a forced draw that morphy wouldnt know about. its truly this simple.

Avatar image for shirso
shirso

15071

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By shirso

@famousroman: I see. Well I have just never been that impressed with Morphy's opponents from the games I have seen of him, they are the old school types who would rather gobble pawns or go for some unsound sac when they haven't finished development and have their King wide open at the center of the board, and endgame theory seemed practically nonexistent for those times.

Avatar image for bladeoffury
BladeOfFury

8334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@shirso: Morphy did 8-game blindfolded simuls, 2100s aren't beating him lol

Avatar image for laiks stake
Laiks Stake

2527

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@arranvid: Lmao are you joking? You're mentioning Magnus losing 3 minutes blitz games to random GMs and Dubov to argue he's worse than Fischer?

Magnus is vastly superior to Fischer, there's no comparison between a 70s WC with the current one.

Avatar image for famousroman
Famousroman

1569

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

like i said, 1978 karpov was said to be => fischer by spassky, korchnoi, and karpov himself. there is like, literally no argument to be made for fischer here

Avatar image for famousroman
Famousroman

1569

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@shirso: the opponents mostly werent that good, yes. which is mainly why i have steinitz > morphy, but anderssen, paulsen, and such players were certainly 2100+ talent, and much stronger in middlegames.

Avatar image for jucaslucasa
Jucaslucasa

771

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Petrosian solos all three.

Avatar image for famousroman
Famousroman

1569

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

the guy who lost to fischer?

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

7439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@shirso said:
@arranvid said:

Well chess rating has become inflated. I would say Fischer was a better attacker than Anand. The way Fischer just had so many consecutive wins, I haven't seen Anand do so many consecutive wins. I can't think of many better attackers than Fischer but I don't think Anand is one of them. Anand is one of the greats, no doubt about that, but Fischer was something special in his heyday. Anand even sometimes lost to Karpov in the 1990s and I don't think Fischer would have lost to Karpov although it is a shame that Fischer vacated his World Championship status and didn't play against Karpov. I don't know whether he did it out of fear of losing to the younger, rising star or whether he just wasn't happy with the FIDE rules but it doesn't look good that Fischer didn't play Karpov and didn't play Kasparov. Anand was weaker than Kasparov in Kasparov's heyday, Anand was just a bit above Kramnik. I think Fischer would've done better against Kasparov and Kramnik than Anand did against Kasparov and Kramnik. I'm not sure that Magnus is a better positional player and better endgame player than Fischer. Magnus has the advantage of playing with chess engines to boost his abilities and he has lost questionable games (even though they were informal games) to Brazilian GM Supi where he was outmatched and against Russian Super GM Dubov. Carlsen has got the better of Fabiano Caruana and Hikaru Nakamura but I think Fischer would've beat both Nakamura and Caruana too (one-on-one, of course). Carlsen has had trouble against rising 16-year old and 17-year old chess stars like Alireza, Ding Liren (yeah, he's not young), Praggnanandhaa. Fischer would've beat Alireza and Praggnanandhaa a lot...they are not on his attacking skill level or intuition level. Yeah I might be overrating Fischer. One-on-one, I think Fischer could beat Anand. Carlsen could beat Fischer or Fischer could beat Carlsen, could go either way. Two-on-one against Fischer is not fair for Fischer so Fischer loses. But I wouldn't call this a stomp, Fischer was one of the greatest players in the history of this ancient game. The greatest player of all time, in my opinion, is Paul Morphy who I would say is better than Fischer, Carlsen and Anand.

Bruh modern 2000-2100s probably beat Morphy. Heck I would probably beat him and I am only a low 2000. Morphy was just way ahead of his time in an era when chess theory was hardly developed. Most of his attacks don't hold up to modern scrutiny at all.

Yes, Morphy's time was not as developed in theory as the current time which has all this advance in theory and the addition of chess engines, but what I meant is that if Morphy was born in our era and was brought up the same way we are brought up then he definitely would be Grandmaster level. Modern 2000-2100s will never beat Morphy, not even close my friend. Paul Morphy was probably the greatest genius of all time, according to the great Bobby Fischer. Bobby Fischer has praised Paul Morphy very highly and he knows what he is talking about. Many highly ranked chess players have praised Paul Morphy. If they thought that Paul Morphy was overrated or trash or that it was just nostalgia talking then he wouldn't still be in the conversation of who is the greatest of player of all time to this day. The names that come up, rightly so, are Magnus Carlsen, Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, Jose Raul Capablanca, Paul Morphy. It is not fair to compare different eras. For example, Capablanca in his prime would lose to the greatest grandmasters of today, but that doesn't mean that they are better than him. The true test is to equalize everything and then see who comes out on top. For example, if we are going to bring Morphy into Magnus Carlsen's era, first let's bring Magnus Carlsen into Paul Morphy's era. If Magnus Carlsen was born in Paul Morphy's era when there were no chess engines and when you relied on chess books and at a time when Magnus can't rely on studying past games from past World Champions do you think Magnus Carlsen would dominate in Paul Morphy's era? Personally, I think Magnus would do very well, but I think he would lose to Paul Morphy in such a scenario. When Magnus was young, he wasn't the best youngster at chess. Nepomniatchi was better than Magnus when they were both young, I think there some other youngsters that were better than Magnus when Magnus was young. Magnus' ability got a rise when he got a bit older and after getting some teaching from Garry Kasparov and other teachers. After that, he had found his potential and now he is where he is on the rankings. Paul Morphy, on the other hand, seemed to have nobody near his skill level when he was young, he may have even been the world's best youngster when he was young. Also, I don't think Paul got as much training and coaching as Magnus did, although I could be wrong. It seems that Paul had a higher natural ability/skill and intuition than many of the other great chess players like Lasker, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Karpov, Smyslov, Petrosian, Steinitz that all came after him. When we look at different eras, you have to see that class is permanent. For example, we know more physics than Sir Isaac Newton knew, if Sir Isaac Newton came today he would have less Physics knowledge than many Physicists. But you have to factor in that these Physicists have copied and used his work. So, does that mean that your average Physicists are better than Sir Isaac Newton just because they know more Physics than him? Of course not. Sir Isaac Newton shined brightly in his era compared to his peers, that is what is important and should be noted. It means that if he came in today's era, yes he would have to get used to the new information by reading and updating his info, but once he has done that he will come with more helpful advancements in modern Physics for the future. You could turn this the other way round. Let's say you put the top physicists of our generation and put them in Sir Isaac Newton's era but not allow them to have use all the copied and researched info that they have in the modern era and can only use the textbooks and information available in Newton's era. Will those modern physicists be better than Sir Isaac Newton? No, I don't think so. Sir Isaac Newton was a titan who, with his tremendous brain, developed Calculus and Gravitational theories and he tried to be an expert in many fields. Any modern physicist who time travels to Newton's era but gets their memory taken off and can only use the information available in Newton's era would have a hard time competing intellectually against Sir Isaac Newton. This is the same argument I'm making for why I think Paul Morphy is the best ever. It is not always the case that the newer the generation, the better the game player/sport player. Paul Morphy memorized the entire Louisiana Civil Code in different languages without even trying, I would like to see the best modern chess players try that. He also played and won simultaneous blindfold chess against multiple players easily, which is a skill that even today is hard. He was way ahead of his time. Yes, the chess at the time was not as developed but can you blame him for that? You can only play against who is in your era. He stopped playing because he wanted to further his law career, he didn't stop playing because he was scared or because somebody was beating him in chess. If someone was beating Morphy definitively at chess or if there was evidence that Morphy was scared of playing some players then yes of course that would knock my ranking of him to many notches down, but there is no evidence that Morphy was scared or that Morphy was beatable (he had a few losses, but all greats have losses, Kasparov lost to Judit Polgar, Magnus Carlsen lost to GM Supi from Brazil in an informal game and some young teens). It seems that Morphy was unbeatable and very very dominant in his era. Morphy would have beaten Steinitz, I think so, the money definitely would be on Morphy to win a match between those two. Steinitz's natural chess skill was lower than Morphy's and he relied more on theoretical frameworks. They also have a common opponent in Andersson and Morphy was easily beating Andersson whereas it was close between Steinitz and Andersson with Steinitz just coming out on top...but yes, the rock-paper-scissors argument is not determinative. To see who really is the best player is, you have to equalize everything in one timeline and see how they would do, and the timeline I prefer to put everybody would be a past timeline. So if we put Morphy, Carlsen, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Capablanca, Anand, Kramnik etc. in the late 1800s (all of them born in around the 1800s) with only the availability that is there for them and if all of their conditions were equalized like housing etc. and they were allowed to fulfil their full potential then who would be the best? I think that is how it should be done and for me I think Morphy is the best although I could be wrong. Carlsen is a great of chess, no doubt about that. He beat Karpov when he was around 13 and he drew with Kasparov when he was around 13. Karpov said, after losing to Carlsen, that Carlsen played like an adult, which is high praise from a great former World Champion like Anatoly Karpov. Also when it comes to the 'old era player vs new era player means new era player is always better than old era player' argument, it surprises me that players like Wesley So and Viswanathan Anand say that Bobby Fischer is their greatest player of all time, even though if Fischer came today out of his grave he would lose to both Wesley So and Anand. This means that we can't just look at era vs era and that there is something special that Wesley So and Anand are seeing in Fischer's potentiality and true chess level that we people are not seeing, same thing with Morphy. Many of today's grandmasters have said that Morphy is the greatest player of all time, his level of reading the board in chess was phenomenal even in today's chess. Fischer also said that he thought that Morphy was the most accurate player but that is debatable.

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

7439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@laiks stake: Both Carlsen and Fischer are great, special players. I hesitate to say that Carlsen is vastly superior to Fischer although he could be. Fischer not going against Karpov in 1975 is a bad look for Fischer because many people have accused him of cowardice for that, and they could be right. But then Fischer had mental issues, like his dad, and he seemed to be paranoid. He even wasn't sure about wanting the Spassky match. There are top grandmasters who have said that Fischer would've beaten Karpov in 1975, even Karpov thinks so. But Karpov thinks that after Fischer wins in 1975, Karpov would've beaten Fischer in around 1978 for the World Championship. Maybe Karpov is right that Karpov could beat Fischer in 1978 but then I think about his dominance in the 1960s and 1970s against other chess players. Nobody dominated like Fischer except Paul Morphy. I don't think Magnus' level of domination so far is like Fischer's level of domination, although of course I respect Magnus Carlsen because he really is the number one and big boss so far in the current chess era. I didn't mean to downplay Carlsen, I'm just picking at points to see who is better, Fischer or Carlsen. Yes, chess theory has advanced a lot since the 1970s, that's the same with many games and sports, but to see who is really better you need to equalize to a certain timeline. For example, if we send Carlsen back to the 1970s, not allow him to have all the modern chess theory and chess engines and all the information he has accumulated of past chess champions, and Magnus is only allowed the same era information Fischer has in the 1960s/1970s, would Carlsen beat Fischer? That is the real test in my opinion, if Carlsen can beat Fischer in such a scenario where pure skill is involved then I think Carlsen is better than Fischer and you know what, I think Carlsen is better than Fischer but it's a bit difficult to call, it is not easy. I think Karpov, Kasparov, Carlsen are all better than Fischer. I may have also put Anand as better than Fischer, but then the surprising thing is that when Anand was asked who he thought was the best player of all time, he said Fischer, which surprised me because Anand's skill level is on level, slightly below or maybe even better than Fischer's, but if he has a view like that then maybe he is seeing something that I'm not. So yes, I agree that Carlsen, Kasparov, Karpov are all better than Fischer but why it is difficult to place Fischer is obviously because Fischer stopped playing competitively after he didn't want to play against Karpov, so we never got to see his true potential. Fischer created Fischerrrandom but that was just a creation, nothing to do with chess skill. The only time later that we can use to see how good Fischer really was was in the Spassky rematch, but then again Fischer purposely avoided Karpov and Kasparov and chose to play Spassky...which might be a sign of cowardice or maybe he thinks that Karpov and Kasparov are cheaters or maybe he considers himself to be champion and not Karpov...anyway, it is again not a good look on Fischer. There is a reason many people were uncomfortable with Fischer, I being one of them, but of course I admire and respect his chess. Fischer also had The White Man's Bible, which is a horrible, racist book and he was always attacking Jews. Anyway, when it came to the Spassky rematch, Kasparov assessed Fischer's skill level as around 2680 (Kasparov was around the high 2700s or low 2800s at the time if I recall correctly) and Kasparov said that if Kasparov and Fischer played then "it would not be close" and that Kasparov would beat him. This gives further evidence that Fischer's play in the Spassky rematch was outdated, but having a 2680 rating after a huge amount of competitive inactivity is quite impressive...but that's the thing, is it good enough for Fischer to be considered better than Carlsen, Karpov and Kasparov? And I think the answer is no, but it is hard to call for me, it is not easy for me to call, I would be grateful if you could your opinion on why you think Carlsen is vastly superior to Fischer, thank you very much for reading.

Avatar image for laiks stake
Laiks Stake

2527

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Dude keep mentioning Magnus losing a 3 minutes blitz game online to a random GM from Brazil like if that's a big deal. Don't you realize he and every other player loses blitz and bullet games every single day?

Like what the hell are you talking about? This is awkward to read, one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in my entire life.

Avatar image for famousroman
Famousroman

1569

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

honestly, the argument that morphy is the greatest genius of all time is just... no lol he is wanked to hell and back. lasker was considered a morphy level genius in case u guys didnt know. like, by people who played morphy too. magnus was beating karpov and drawing kasparov at 13 lol morphy is not more of a genius then him. not even close. any modern top 20 player is likely a bigger talent than morphy tbh

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

7439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@famousroman: Yeah Morphy might be overhyped but I wouldn't go so far as to say that any modern top 20 player is likely a bigger talent than Morphy. Maybe you're right, but I'm not sure about that.

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

7439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@famousroman: Yes, I know that Albert Einstein said that one of the people he would call genius was Emmanuel Lasker.

Avatar image for famousroman
Famousroman

1569

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@arranvid: caruana was beating modern GM's at the age of 10, and Spassky beat Botvinnik in the 50s at the same age in a simul. Morphy is just not that big of a deal imo. He is a big deal yes, but not a bigger talent than giri, or Ivanchuk, or Anand or Kasparov, or capablanca, or even Lasker. I do like Morphy tbh, but I can't stand the wank

Avatar image for famousroman
Famousroman

1569

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@arranvid: for ur second comment, it's not even that. People don't know this, but lasker, just like Morphy, went around beating strong players just like Morphy did back in the day, when he was in his 20s. Look into it ino