Depends on the era in which they would play. I doubt that Carlsen has Fischer's grasp and overall vision of the game. Meaning that he is strong in tghe modern game where the computer has changed the way [preperation is done, but would he be able to create at the board the way Fischer did??
In his prime Fischer obliterated opposition. Carlsen is certainly not there yet!
carlsen would lose at fischer's time obviously.
15 = bobby fischer
22= draw
Actually Carlsen is very organic in his play. much easier to grasp his moves than say Kramnik's or Anand's.
I would say at 15 probably Fischer
at 22. Carlsen
reasons
at 15 Carlsen still had school and such
at 15 Fischer couldn't have cared less about anything other than Chess (maybe Sex as the one tournoment where he did poorly would indicate)
at 22. Carlsen will be a great player and will more than likely be rated mid 2800's
at 22. Fischer was dominating the US Championship. problem is people just fell over when they went up against him. here are my predictions for the match at 22 years
standard 6 game match
Game 1: Fischer: white, Carlsen: Black
Chinese Dragon. in a hectic middle game Fischer attempts his kingside thrust but fails due to superior play along the b file by Carlsen. however Fischer defends correctly and in a game that no one could call dull... .5-.5
Game 2: Carlsen: white, Fischer : black
Sicilian Poisoned Pawn. Fischer accepts the poisoned pawn but gets his queen locked in while Carlsen activates the rest of his pieces and attacks Fischer's uncastled King Fischer is unable to defend while maintaining winning chances and atempts to draw the resulting minor piece ending 2 pawns down. Due to a more active king Carlsen wins... 1-0
Game 3: Fischer: White, Carlsen: Black
King's Gambit Accepted, Bishop's Gambit. in a complex middle game which appears to swing one way and then the other. Carlsen achieves a pawn up Rook ending. Fischer manages to bring the game to a drawn position via triangulation. .5-.5
Game 4: Carlsen: White, Fischer: Black
Ruy Lopez Archangel Variation. in a positional game where manuevering predominates Fischer gets bored. He wander's the room checking the cameras and wondering why the spectators were allowed so close and is even curious about the box around him that he can't here the people talking outside. he returns to the chair and sacs a rook. In the ensuing complications Carlsen's mind is stressed but can't find a way to get a draw... 0-1
Game 5: Fischer: white, Carlsen: black
Italian Game, Evan's Gambit. The game turns ugly early, Pieces flying across the board. Carlsen's King appears very concerned sitting in the midlle but after sacing a pawn for the open file gets tremendous counterplay lasting into the endgame where based on his two bishops to knight and bishop and more active king he is able to win the pawn race. 0-1
Game 6: Carlsen: white, Fischer: Black
King's Indian Defence Mainline. Carlsen puts a squeeze on Fischer who is unable to get play despite his sacrifice of a pawn for a more active kingside. the game eventually resolves into a drawn Queen ending without pawns. .5-.5
final score: Carlsen 3.5 Fischer 2.5
final score: Carlsen 2.5 Fischer 1.5
The sum of their scores is only four.
If they are both 15 carlsen would win because he is still alive.
I know that if any average grandmaster was transported back to the time of Morphy and played Morphy-the grandmaster would win more than 60% of the games.
Also, any player rated 2350 or above if transported back in time would be World Champ up to time of Morphy.
Carlsen, without computer learning and modern chess theory knowledge would be no equal match to Fischer at age 15 or 22.
It's impossible to tell, unfortunate but true.
But why isn't Kasparov in this competition?
The "just a computer kid" epithet is one I don't really understand anyway. What does that mean besides a positional sensibility that has used every tool available to be better at evaulating positions and finding fighting moves than someone who hasn't used all the tools available?
If Korchnoi finds an amazing draw out of a position that looks hopelessly lost, he's a positional genius. If Caruana does it he's "just a computer kid?" If Polgar whips up an attack out of nowhere she's an attacking genius. If Nakamura does it he's "Just a computer kid?"
What's it take for these guys to just be considered damn good chess players?
I think Fischer still wins against Magnum, and also both at age 29. Put Fischer in today's computer world, he'd be a 3000 player.
Fischer being 3000+? Bullshit.
Fischer being 2900+? Perhaps, but I highly doubt it.
It's an ill wind that blows no good.
One thing's for sure, it'll be interesting and exciting to see how he fairs in the future.
I strongly believe that Fischer could have been greater than he was. The issue is that once he was top, where else could he really go? There was no one on par, and much worse for him, he didn't *see* anyone as a threat.
If Magnus and Fischer lived at the same time, either era, we would probably have one of them break the 2900 barrier, pushing each other further, albeit, I think Fischer might burn out in frustration overtime. Still, that would not mean he was weaker than Magnus, but merely, he would grow impatient with his attempts to place Magnus substantially behind him.
The exact interaction between them would be more interesting than who wins a single match. I would actually hope Fischer would lose at first so he stays interested, and then catch up to him so he has a goal.
If only we could see that possible world. D:
Both at age 15, who would win?
Who would win at age 22 between them?
Discussion: