Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen

I found a wonderful video which compares all the top chess players , including Carlsen and Fischer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DHpW79w0Y

NOTE: In 1972 Fischer's rating (2785) was measured in CMR. Carlsen's rating (2882), however, is measured in ELO. So it is necessary to convert Fischer's rating from CMR to ELO and only then it will be possible to compare him to Magnus Carlsen.

The conversion in easy: 2785 CMR (in 1972) = 2893 ELO (today)

Now it is possible to compare them to each other:

Bobby Fischer's rating in 1972 was 2893 ELO

Magnus Carlsen's rating in 2012 was 2882 ELO

In the 1970's it was much harder to improve your rating. At that time you would get less points for each win. That's why the ratings are inflated.

Carlsen and Fischer remind me of each other, both great chess players and revolve around the game. Fischer , however was less sane than Carlsen, but more prodigous at a young age. I think Fischer would win at 15, but at age 22 its fair game.

That YouTube site uses Edo ratings. Take a closer look at how those numbers are created.  There is no science behind the numbers. In fact, it's entirely possible that the creators of that "system" started from the premise that Fischer must have the highest rating in history and worked backwards.

Take a look at some of the first numbers thrown up by the video, then take a look at the quality of play of those players. 

The Edo rating system is a bad joke.

Fischer would mop the floor with carlsen the man is a chess computer. And thats all i have to say about that.

here here!     Carlsen is having trouble with everyone today, Sergey, So, Nakamura, Ghost of Tal.  Bobby Fischer dominated everyone in his day at the same age, what, 29?  

 Fischer with his pencil and pad after seeing Carlsen play would formulate in his mind after reading his notes and play mind chess pretending his opponent was Carlsen would figure out how to gain advantage in all of Carlsen's  scenerio's. Just my thought!

Fischer would plant 2 flies in Carlsen's chair.

 Or maybe one flea and an ant.

And Carlsen has won nothing in the 70's especially in 72. They both rock I will say that but in time can Carlsen handle the game that puts him on the edge of his seat. He hasn't been to the edge yet, and looked up!

Don't be a bobby fischer, he died searching for the truth. 

Fisher might have a chance at the age of 15 for both players, but by 22 Carlsen will have destroyed him terribly. Okay it would be interesting if Bobby ofcourse had access to the same material and engines etc as Carlsen and all of us have today... But I still think Carlsen would just have owned him badly

Join my club/group guys please

https://www.chess.com/club/the-next-move

Also check out my free coaching lessons on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwjjBT5pHEAaXl_hNblli1w

lol you say this asif Carlsen will then just keel over and die... come on... This is not Botvinnik vs Tal we are talking about.

Fischer and Carlsen are two of the best ever.  And they both embraced the struggle and play(ed) down to the bare kings.  In the end, I give the edge to Fischer, only because he kept his life clear of less distractions than Magnus.  Bobby would just "want it more."  Carlsen never had to face the challenges that Fischer did in his time.  I'm not talking about any specific opponents, but of his challenge against the closed system caused by the Soviet hegonomy of the time.  Up until 1972, the winner of a world championship match would win $3000.  Do you think Magnus Carlsen would have the same drive to master a profession that paid so little?

 Players get better as time goes forward. That's just how things work. If FIscher was born the same year as Magnus then he would probably beat him given how obsessive Fischer was over chess. Fischer would probably be the closest thing to the best super computer out there if he put the same amount of effort into it. However, even Kasparov said that the Spassky vs Fischer rematch in 92 was "very much the chess of 1972." That indicates that chess theory has grown (which we all know it has), so Magnus would have close to 50 years of theory over Fischer. I'd like to say that Fischer would win, but I don't think he would under those circumstances.

He could do so (literally) blindfold without much effort. But the question is about Fischer versus Carlsen.

Based simply on the accuracy of play, Fischer, despite being one of the greatest players in chess history, would have to up his game significantly from what he needed to win the world championship in 1972. (I like the 1992 match, but the standard of play was not much different to 71-72).

Mag to Bobby:

Yo, let's play, like let's do this yo!

Fischer:

Come get your pacifier four eyes, I own you.

Magnus Carlson has the highest rating ever