Bobby Fischer vs. Magnus Carlsen

Two incredible players from two completely different eras. How would they stack up against each other? I think that if you could send Carlsen back in time to play Fischer, Carlsen would come out on top. It would be close, but I think Carlsen would win. For the sake of argument, assume both players are in their prime.

It's not a fair comparison though. In the same way that elite athletes of today have an advantage over athletes from other eras due to advances in technology and training methods, Carlsen has used computers to prepare for games that Fischer never could have.

So, to truly determine who the better player is, you'd have figure out the answer to two questions:

1. How much better (if any) would Fischer be if he came up in the same era with the same computer prep tools?
2. How much worse (if any) would Carlsen be if he came up in the era before computers were advanced enough to be of any help?

I think the top players of past eras had a mental toughness today that is somewhat lacking in today's top players. However, that doesn't mean today's top players wouldn't obtain that toughness if they trained back then.

So who wins? It's really two different questions.

Does pre-computer Carlsen beat Fischer? Y/N
Does computer prepped Fischer beat Carlsen? Y/N

Ready? Fight!

I think Fischer has to be the gold standard at this point. Is it fair to say Carlsen is consistently beating a higher standard of opponent than Fischer did? An endgame between these two would never end. 

Kind of linked to this - what's the best Fischer biography? Thanks.

I agree.

I think the CAPS score and opponent strenght is the only real way to messure it . In that regard Carlsen is the best

https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history

Bobby Fischer for sure because that 1 Man defeated Soviet Chess Army .

Thanks Rune, will check-out.

Whether Carlsen is the absolute best ever it must be so annoying to be Ding or Fabi knowing that whatever you do the cool guy is just going to beat you... Even when he loses you get a sense it's because he's not really trying...

didnt carlsen say that he would beat fischer or something? and as for difference in eras, would that really apply to someone of fischer's caliber? who studied far more? who is absolutely prepared for almost all openings? plus, if someone of his level would really have this much trouble (as u guys think he would) with modern openings, then he isnt worthy of his hype. wasnt it spassky that said that overcoming bad positions without preparation is the least a master can do or something? carsel is more accurate regardless. ill go for him 100%  

immature because...?

Carlsen would win quite easily if you dragged Fischer from the past in a time machine to the present day. The quality of play today compared to the 70's is much higher, that's the opinion of many grand masters not my own. I think Kasparov stated a few years a go that a 15 year old can now know more than Fischer did in his prime due to opening knowledge free on the net. If Fischer played now then who knows, he was a very driven player with a talent for opening analysis and an incredible positional sense. However even though Carlsen is apparently lazy in opening study it hasn't held him back in reaching No.1 and becoming world champion. Remember at 13 Carlsen drew against Kasparov at a tourney in Iceland and defeated Karpov, that is an incredible achievement. I've also read several times comments from top players that Carlsen's strength comes from his ability to play consistently accurate moves over any length of game and at all rounds of a tournament, he almost never produces (what we would call) a weak move. To me an analogous comparison is something like who would win in a tennis match? Borg or Federer? Two players who are incredible but played in totally different ways against completely different levels of opposition. All food for thought

You really think that? Dear god. 2 weeks to know what engines know? (they know nothing of course in the way we do, they are fed data from MASSIVE game databases with particular favored lines) So in 2 weeks he would be up to date with opening books going to thousands of games? And understand their particular favorite lines and analysis? Not a chance in hell. Fischer was good but your giving him a bit too much credit.

Well his biggest issue is getting used to players who can defend a position on a level far above players from the mid 1970's, then he has to get round 45 years of opening theory too. He would need about 2 years minimum to adjust to modern play. Fischer never settled for anything less than being number one, it would be fantastic watching him adapt to modern play and to see if he could reach the top ten in rankings.

um, u guys really overrate the amount of info we have nowadays. like, a lot. I mean, if someone could make a case for us being far more advanced, id gladly agree (so long as its correct), but until then, i really cant see it. players are more advanced because the game got more serious, it has been played by more people, for a long amount of time. different ways of looking at it, studying, etc. people now take more time, and dont always attack unless they have a good shot. they arent afraid of defending. they dont make soundless sacrifices just cuz they got a good 'feel' anymore. they simply think more moves ahead than most players did back then. they arent afraid of complicated positions nowadays. fischer was good at chess because he did the same thing we do in this day and age. almost exatcly the same, actually. 

magnus is just better at those things than fischer

"um, u guys really overrate the amount of info we have nowadays."

Any player of any standard has available all games played by anyone over 2000+ at the very least. You can't understate that. On top of this it's now very easy to get a computer assistant which plays way in advance of any human to help you study games.

so having more games to study somehow makes us better players? if funny how that explanation gets directly countered by older players themselves. look at alekhine vs capablanca. almost self explanatory. 

and computers make it easier finding positions, but they dont do the work for us. u think magnus catn find the same positons a computer could, given enough time? how about fischer?

Already Happened.

"so having more games to study somehow makes us better players?"

The more games you have from top players the better as that enables you to see how opening lines perform in real games, you should know that.

"if funny how that explanation gets directly countered by older players themselves."

Older players get weaker with age naturally, and yes today's older players are far stronger and more knowledgeable that those from 30-40 years ago.

"and computers make it easier finding positions"

Computers evaluate positions better than any human, they don't 'find' them. They help players assess possible unused lines.

Carlsen was asked which players from the past he would like to play if he could play them today, and answered Tal and Fischer. On the question if he thought he could beat them he said yes. I think many would have liked him to say no though :-)

being a good player has the same effect, my man. u should know that. look at carlsen, cough cough

seems like u didnt get what i meant. thats fine.

yes because they can consistently look 20 steps ahead. humans cant do that. they cannot copy it.