Bobby Fischer vs. Magnus Carlsen

I don't recall Fischer playing for a draw in a winning position.

Both of them are overrated. 

fischer was the best player in the world for a single year, magnus has proven himself as the best for a decade now, agaisnt players of the same quality 

i am the best player senpai

I don't know that much about either player, but that one trait is usually what separates the greatest from everyone else. The current world champion is very good, even great to some degree, everyone agrees on that, but the greatest don't play it safe, they show why they are the greatest. 

When Tiger Woods was at his peak he never played it safe. When someone was close, when the score was tied, he poured it on. Relentless. That is how greatness is defined. 

Of course it's all speculation. That doesn't mean the discussion isn't worth having.

How do we come into the conclusion that Carlsen is lazy when it comes to the openings, we don't spend our daily life with Carlsen.

When Lasker went into the last round of a tournament clear of the field, he played to win, even though he didn't need the win. This is why Lasker is the greater champion than Carlsen.

When Carl Schlechter could have cruised to the World Championship with a draw in that final game with Lasker, he played to win, not draw. So even though no one remembers Schlechter today, he ranks higher than Carlsen, IMHO.

Well, how many played for a draw in 1890 and 1910? :-) And Lasker played like one tournament every third year, and could take eleven years off between title matches both 1896-1907 and 1910-1921, it was a different game then. Carlsen has played more tournaments than any other World Champion and is at the same time playing his fifth title match in eight years, with FIDE maybe making it a sixth in nine years in 2022.

But if you would compare with the other World Champions of the last 50 years, Carlsen is not too dry. Once he would have won the Sinquefield Cup with a draw against Aronian but declined the latter’s draw offer and won the game. In the World Cup a few weeks ago some were critical of Carlsen for winning 2-0 in matches instead of just taking a draw in the second game when it was possible. Not only Anand and Kramnik but also Karpov and even Kasparov had very many short draws, Kasparov even with white against Kramnik when he had to win. 

So the criticism directed against Carlsen is not too be taken too seriously in this respect, it is rather usually connected to trolling or lack of knowledge or both.

Look, I think Fischer would have the highest rating in history, greater than Magnus, if he didn't quit his title. 

Not easy to gain over 100 Elo for Fischer at that point. He lost Elo in the match against Spassky, and even if he would have beaten Karpov as easily as Spassky, which few think he would have done, he would still have lost Elo. In 1975 he would have lost Elo against Spassky with 10-0 in wins and 14 draws. Gaining more than 100 Elo in such a situation looks difficult.

The difficulty in gaining rating points in Fischer's time was the dearth of strong opponents. The chess world top was much smaller than it is today. In 1975, a total of 18 players had E2600 or higher.

fabelhaft: What you say about the Fischer losing points against Spassky in 1975 is not correct. While he did go –5 on the WC match, Spassky was still E2625 in 1975, Fischer was on the list as 2780. A 10–0 win would have meant an Elo plus for Fischer, because it would have been only 5 five draws (with a 150 points difference, the expected score would have been between 10½ and 11) and not 14. However, even if you meant first to 10 wins and draws not counting, Fischer would have gone +/–0 over 24 games, because his expected score would be about 17 points. Furthermore, don't remember exactly when, but sometime in the early 1970s FIDE introduced a rule (which later helped Karpov and Kasparov considerably) that if you won the event you would not lose points.

“What you say about the Fischer losing points against Spassky in 1975 is not correct. While he did go –5 on the WC match, Spassky was still E2625 in 1975, Fischer was on the list as 2780. A 10–0 win would have meant an Elo plus for Fischer, because it would have been only 5 five draws (with a 150 points difference, the expected score would have been between 10½ and 11) and not 14”

Fischer as 2780 would have gained 2.9 Elo for a win and lost 2.1 Elo for a draw against 2625 Spassky. Ten wins would have meant +29 and 14 draws -29.4 so in 24 games against Spassky Fischer would have had to score +11 to gain a few rating points. With such a rating difference it certainly isn’t easy to gain 100 points.

“FIDE introduced a rule (which later helped Karpov and Kasparov considerably) that if you won the event you would not lose points”

Is there one single example of an event played with such rules, helping Karpov and Kasparov?

ngl, the problem with fischer, imo, is that he managed to gain rating due to being american. he was surely strong, and for many years, but his dominance started in the mid 1960s (ish). he managed to win many, many tournaments in america due to being far better than any other player there. the soviet players, however, had to consistently compete with each other. fischer was also incredibly consistent- he didnt have bad days or tournaments that often. his elo rating over many other players was impressive, but its more exaggerated than it seems. if he really was 150 elo points stronger than spassky, he wouldve roasted him, like he did with taimanov and larsen. 

anyhow, that's how he managed to stay as number. he was weaker than spassky for like, almost all of their careers aside from 1972. if he had to play spassky every tournament he was in, his elo wouldn't have been nearly that high. add in petrosian, tal, and keres, for example, and u would understand how hard it is to achieve such a rating normally. that is what makes kasparov and magnus impressive. 

if petrosian, botvinnik, and spassky had russia all for themselves (kinda like fischer did with america, in a sense), i have no doubt that they too would also have achieved ridiculously high ratings. 

Well Fischer gave up chess in order to focus on more important things, like pro-Palestinian activism, so of course the guy who spent all his time and energy on studying a children's game would be a better player.

Fischer was the world champion as a child, because chess is a children's game. War is an adults game, and Fischer chose to get involved in that game as a child, because he's more mature than all chess players.

He was labeled crazy by the powerful people who own everything, the same people he fights against.

Go listen to Bobby Fischer talk. He knows exactly the truth about 911. He knows exactly the truth about what is happening in Israel and Palestine. He is not crazy, in fact he sees truth more clearly than anyone on earth, which is why he is so good at chess.

Fischer is obviously the best player, because he understands why the game of chess is unfair. He invented a more fair version of chess called Fischer random, where you cannot cheat by memorizing games.

Carlson isn't even the best at Fischer random, Nakamura is, because Carlson has in inhuman memory that allows him to win games without calculating, exactly the complaint that Fischer had with regular chess.

So if they played Fischer random, Bobby would probably win, not that it matters, because it's just a silly game. The thing that actually matters is that there are fascists and Nazis murdering Palestinian children daily and there is a global conspiracy to protect the aggressors.

If Palestinians stopped trying to wipe out Israel by murdering Jews and then using their children as human shields, the problem would go away.