Originally posted by sonhouseAs I already have pointed out on my reply to Dragon Fire - many things which have given him advantages in 70ties, would give him less value today. And if it would be so easy to "quickly absorb the latest theory" radically changing all things you have been made 20 years......
So you are saying that even without preparation, Fischer would be in the 2600's, against today's GM's. I think the point the crew is making here is given his level of play in '72 and time warping him to 2009, he would quickly absorb the latest theory and then come out on top again or close to it. They are saying he would not be static and stuck in 1972.
Fantasy match: Timewarped and given time to absorb modern theory Fischer Vs Carlson.
Originally posted by KorchWell don't forget we are not talking about the average GM here, we are talking about one of the all time greats. That same mind growing up like Carlson would still come out on top in my opinion.
As I already have pointed out on my reply to Dragon Fire - many things which have given him advantages in 70ties, would give him less value today. And if it would be so easy to "quickly absorb the latest theory" radically changing all things you have been made 20 years......
I see Carlson as a young Fischer but a lot more stable mentally.
Fisher was a brilliant and original player - much of his analysis he did himself and he relied on few others, unlike the Soviets of the time who had whole teams working on their side. This put him in a class of his owm - IN HIS TIME. Fisher at his peak, without modern knowledge, would lose against average GMs of today - as would most other past greats. That doesn't deny their greatness and their achievements, but time marches on. Thus, I agree with Korch. We cannot take Fisher out of his time and put him in a match today, thus the argument is pointless and fruitless. Perhaps the greatest natural ever seen was Morphy, and no one would suggest the same. The difference between him (1850s) and players of 1920 is considerably less than between 1972 and today.
Make no doubt but that the last ten years have certainly seen a revolution in chess, not only in engine analysis but also the Internet. New ideas can emerge, be played and then analysed around the world in hours - not years as in the past, when when knowledge was often usually in Russian or German. Average players like myself have access to a far greater body of knowledge and are able to play far more than ever would have been possible in the past. Just the sheer volume of games we are able to play on RHP makes us better players - if we are willing to learn.
Originally posted by buffalobillFischer with his 70s ability would not be up to scratch today although he would probably manage a good 2600 or so.
Fisher was a brilliant and original player - much of his analysis he did himself and he relied on few others, unlike the Soviets of the time who had whole teams working on their side. This put him in a class of his owm - IN HIS TIME. Fisher at his peak, without modern knowledge, would lose against average GMs of today - as would most other past greats. T ...[text shortened]... olume of games we are able to play on RHP makes us better players - if we are willing to learn.
However I do suggest we compare his 70s knowledge with that of the super GMs of today. What I am saying is that a young Fischer given todays tools and the time to use them and prepare would perform outstandingly well.
I believe that such a Fischer today would be a World Championship contender and maybe even the first 2900 player but its all conjecture and nothing can ever be proven. Maybe Morphy, Capablanca or Tal would be better but we will never know.
What I am saying is that even without all these tools Fischers ability even then to match that of todays engines is awesome.
Originally posted by sonhouseIf Fischer was born in in modern days and would start to play chess then I guess he could become something like Carlsen. But he wasn`t.
Well don't forget we are not talking about the average GM here, we are talking about one of the all time greats. That same mind growing up like Carlson would still come out on top in my opinion.
I see Carlson as a young Fischer but a lot more stable mentally.
For example lets take another wunderkind - Kamsky who have been left chess from 1996 till 2004. He needed few years to recover his chess strength and
looking at his opening play we still can see that he tend to avoid well-explored and sharp opening lines and his main strenght is in other parts of the game. Only 8 years to stop playing and during 4 years he is still unable to recover his opening. He is lucky that openings have never been too important in his success, which can`t be said about Fischer.
P.S. Example of opening play by Kamsky in 2008.
Originally posted by KorchYour snotnose assertions aside, you've given no evidence to support the claim that Capablanca played against "weaker" opponents than modern GMs.
[b]It wouldn't take Fischer long to adjust to changes in opening theory. I suspect that he would create innovations in some lines today as he did in the 60's.
Probably you misread words in my words "With his play in 70ties" in which I included also his chess knowledge then.
I don't see any higher quality in games now than 30 years ago.
Its gs/opening lines played today by chess professionals have been considered inferior before.[/b]
Just in - did not realise I started a row.
Why is everyone wanting to bring Fischer forward to this day and age.
I'm sending the modern GM's back to Fischer's time.
Fischer would suck them in and blow them out in bubbles.
One thing King Bob had which you cannot teach, you cannot learn,
you cannot buy and you cannot bluff was board presence.
Speak to or read about the players who have played him.
You all must have heard about the 'Fischer Fear Factor'.
Kasparov had it. Look how he tore through the 'modern GM's' when he
too was it his peak.
Compared to Fischer the current crop of 'modern GM's' are plain,
uncharismatic, overblown parrots.
There is more to winning OTB than opening prep. Much more.
No. Leave Fischer in his time and send back the 'modern GM's.'
Strip them of their databases and their incestious tournaments
which is make a mockery of the grading system.
(They only play each other all the time - no wonder they have
incredible and false grades)
Send them back to Fischer's era and about 3 or 4 would give Fischer
a good game, and then lose - the rest....Bubbles.
Finally if we must have Fischer coming to this age.
Why are is everyone wanting him to study and catch up on modern
theory - there would be no need.
He would be modern theory - everyone else would have to study him. 😉
Originally posted by greenpawn34I don't want to take anything away from Fisher's fantastic skills, but how do you know, other than because you want to believe? Just looking at the pure numbers of players across the world, wouldn't you expect an order of magnitude more players today with the same potential as the top players of 30+ years ago?
Just in - did not realise I started a row.
Why is everyone wanting to bring Fischer forward to this day and age.
I'm sending the modern GM's back to Fischer's time.
[b]Fischer would suck them in and blow them out in bubbles.
One thing King Bob had which you cannot teach, you cannot learn,
you cannot buy and you cannot bluff was board pr ...[text shortened]... .
He would be modern theory - everyone else would have to study him. 😉[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat evidence will convince you? How many games in which strongest players of that time played in level of modern Master Candiates?
Your snotnose assertions aside, you've given no evidence to support the claim that Capablanca played against "weaker" opponents than modern GMs.
For ANY qualified player who have analysed games from past it`s well known that top players in past have made many amateur`s mistakes which modern chess professionals would make much more less (if they will make them at all). For example look at Janowski-Rubinstein from St.Petersburg 1914 in which Janowski (one of the top GMs of his time) overplayed his opponent and then managed to lose endgame which most of modern Master Candidates would win.
Janowski also managed to lose against Capablanca in SanSebastian 1911 in similar manner. Other good example is game Samish-Nimzowitch posted in Thread 106441 in which Nimzowitch (top GM of his time!) played in quite low level.
Also many of openings used in modern GM practice (Pirc, Robatch, Hedgehog schemes etc.) were evaluated as bad for Black which witnesses about lack of chess knowledge (from modern GM point of view) in past. Have you read Alekhine`s book about New Yourk tournament 1924? In his book he have given many evaluations which from modern point of view are considered as absurd. For example after according to him after 1.e4 g6 Black should lose.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Just in - did not realise I started a row.
Just in - did not realise I started a row.
Why is everyone wanting to bring Fischer forward to this day and age.
I'm sending the modern GM's back to Fischer's time.
[b]Fischer would suck them in and blow them out in bubbles.
One thing King Bob had which you cannot teach, you cannot learn,
you cannot buy and you cannot bluff was board pr ...[text shortened]... .
He would be modern theory - everyone else would have to study him. 😉[/b]
Why is everyone wanting to bring Fischer forward to this day and age.
Actually the discussion was started because someone started to claim that Fischer in 70ties played in the same (or better) level than modern top GMs.
Originally posted by KorchOh. That will be me then.
Actually the discussion was started because someone started to claim that Fischer in 70ties played in the same (or better) level than modern top GMs.[/b]
But Squelch has just proved that Fischer has the highest match up
of any GM past or present.
I find it funny that people say Fischer would toil in this day
of the database and the strong computer.
Yet a computer has just proved - beyond doubt - Fischer was the strongest.
I also cannot see why showing blunders from the past Masters
states today's players are better.
Let us have a look at a game from the current World Champion.
This won't take long.
And Anand resigned - a piece is lost.
I'm off to search my database looking for 6 move loss from
Fischer, Kasparov, Tal, Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker....
I may be some time 😉
Originally posted by greenpawn34But Squelch has just proved that Fischer has the highest match up
Oh. That will be me then.
But Squelch has just proved that Fischer has the highest match up
of any GM past or present.
I find it funny that people say Fischer would toil in this day
of the database and the strong computer.
Yet a computer has just proved - beyond doubt - Fischer was the strongest.
I also cannot see why showing blunders from th arov, Tal, Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker....
I may be some time 😉
of any GM past or present.
I find it funny that people say Fischer would toil in this day
of the database and the strong computer.
Yet a computer has just proved - beyond doubt - Fischer was the strongest.
You should take into account his opposition - his ascendancy in 70ties to compare his contemporaries was much more superior than World Champion has today. As I already have pointed out - against much weaker players its easier to play better (to say nothing that higher engine matchup not always means better play).
Let us have a look at a game from the current World Champion.
This won't take long.
About that Anand game - he played it when he was young and was not in top elite yet. Main reason of that mistake - he trusted games played before in which no one refuted 5...Bf5??
I would like you to show 6 move loss of World Champion during his peak.
Btw. I would suggest to look at one Fisher`s game played in interzonal tournament in which he started his way to World Champion title. He won that tournement with 3,5 points ahead second place!
Look at position after 10 move and find some game in which modern topGM (playing as White!!!) was in such horrible position after 10th move. I wonder why Matulovic did not play simple 15...Nf2+ taking exchange.