Fischer's Elo Rating Today?

In July, 1972, it was 2785, which was 125 points above very strong competitor Boris Spassky.  

Adjusting for ratings inflation, what would it be today? 

Which of the contemporary players would be a good equivalent marker for Spassky? 

What would be the inflation-adjusted equivalent of 125 points?

What's your intuitive guess and/or calculated guess, for Fischer's rating today? 

Highest and lowest guess (or possibility)? 

I do not think that there is a generally accepted procedure for "adjusting for ratings inflation".

 - The existence of rating inflation is debated.

 - Fischer was a phenomenal 125 points ahead of the field. In fact he lost rating points for winning the championship vs Spassky!

But if you look at his double 6-0 runs, you'll see the games were not as dominant as the match scores suggest. His opponents (Larsen and Taimanov) could have saved draws here and there.

What I'm saying is Fischer was overrated. His rating was a near-miraculous peak, not an average.

Not to take anything away from Fischer, one of the greatest players in history of course.

Fresh out of the time machine Fischer would not be as good as today's top players.

If Fischer had been born in 1963 would he have beaten Kasparov?

If born in 1990 would he beat Carsen?

These are interesting questions. The way chess is studied, the availability of information, and the way it's played has changed over time.

We can also ask it in reverse: What if Carlsen or Kasparov had been born in 1943?

no he was at least 100 rated higher then others buthis peak was2756

Fischer's Elo rating today wouldn't be very good because dead people tend to frequently lose on time.

the question is absurd. Fischer was on a mission to destroy the Russian chess machine. Fischer didn't only crush Spassky and Petrosian, he crushed Bottvinik, Keres et all by himself. no one today could do the same.

 he crushed Bottvinik 0 - 0 with one draw

so crushed

Petrosian beat Botvinnik for the World Championship in 1963. When he played Fischer old yes, retired no.
Botvinnik v Fischer in 60 Memorable is a great read, you can feel Fischer's intensity coming out of the pages.

Fischer, rating today 2650-2700. I think he would have struggled to beat Karpov (and Kasparov).

Obviously we'll never know, but had Fischer continued to play regularly, it's highly doubtful that Karpov would have become World Champion before 1981 or 1984,  if at all. Fischer's 1970-72 results were no freak by any means. He was phenomenally strong. We have to remember that in the 1960s he took two sabbaticals lasting 18 months each, and came back playing great chess without as much as turning a hair. In the Capblanca Memorial he shared 2nd to 4th place, half a point behind Smyslov, despite having to play all his games via telex, extending his playing sessions by about 50%, and in 1970 he came back and crushed Petrosian 3-1 and then swept the board in the blitz tournament.

He's dead, so even if we propped up his remains at a chess table, he would lose every game on time. ELO=100. (I understand that is as low as it goes.)

. . . which might be why he ducked them.

Fischer would've struggled against Karpov (could go either way) but he certainly would've lost to Kasparov. 

Unless we take non-retirement as our contrafactual basis for this dicussion of Fischer's playing strength visavi Karpov and Kasparov, it's rather ridiculous to make any assumptions about his playing strength post 1972. Having said that, he still defeated Spassky soundly when he came out of retirement after 20 years.

Fischer is the only player that is demolishing everybody in a tournament. Karpov didn't do it, Kasparov did not do it , and Carlsen have not done it yet. In fact when Fischer became a U.S. champion he i did not hear he misses mate while Carlsen misses some mate and he is already a world champion. 😁😁😁😁😁

Fischer is the only player that is demolishing everybody in a tournament. Karpov didn't do it, Kasparov did not do it , and Carlsen have not done it yet. In fact when Fischer became a U.S. champion he i did not hear he misses mate while Carlsen misses some mate and he is already a world champion. 😁😁😁😁😁

in the 50s and 60s the US championship was an extremely weak tournament compared to the USSR championship. In the USSR championship there were many ex/future world chess champions and potential world chess champions playing while in the US championship Fischer's competition was Samuel reshvesky. All Fischer needed was one good result against someone slightly worse than himself and the rest would be easy.   

Kasparov: Fischer’s 1972 rating 'much more significant' than Carlsen’s current rating

Kasparov said in an interview back in 2012.: 

The most talented is Carlsen, who is of course a star of the first order. In contrast to the situation in athletics, chess records depend on “inflation”. When I was climbing to the top you’d count one or two people with a 2700 rating and that was that, while now it’s at least 45 people.
In fact, due to the increase in those playing chess the base of the pyramid has grown, and that adds points at every level. Fischer’s rating was 2785 in 1972, but that’s of course much more significant than Carlsen’s higher rating now. It can be compared to my 2851 in 1999. The evolutionary factor is having an impact, so despite the mathematical basis of ratings I nevertheless wouldn’t attribute such historical importance to them.

When Fischer was climbing to the top he’d score +6, I’d score +6-7, while Carlsen scores +3-4. That's simply enough, as the pyramid really has grown, and today’s super-tournaments are now rated above 2750. The only tournament with a similar rating was in 1996. At the tournament in Las Palmas, which featured myself, Karpov, Kramnik, Anand, Ivanchuk and Topalov, the top six were all playing. That tournament was unique, although by current standards the ratings of the top players weren’t the highest. So you have to take that into account if you want to carry out a historical analysis.

Facts