Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen

Well, it's a matter of what "ahead" means. Being the best chess player is not a matter of having the highest CAPS score (whatever obscure calculation that is) or the highest engine match-up. These are surely correlated with chess rating, but correlation does not mean a direct relationship. (Ratings are usually a fair comparison, although it is fair to say players in different eras may not have a level playing field for this either).

I think the real question is, if we could remove Bobby Fischer's brain, teach it nothing but the rules of chess, and have it play itself 44 million times; and if we then did the same with Magnus Carlsen's brain, and then took these two brains in tanks, let's call them Fischer Zero and Carlsen Zero, and have them play each other in a classical tournament, then the question - the real question - not the obvious basic questions like "how stupid is this idea?" or "how much prison time would you get?" - the real question is which one would have sharper barbs, the most vicious invective to throw after the match?

I'm going with little bobby zero.

Botvinnik has played a lot more than 813 games.

Also the Russians would arrange draws with each other before hand, and this will affect the caps score. Petrosian probably did it a lot thus lowering his Caps score maybe.

Also, since it's just a selection of most/ some of the games they've played. There could be a lot of games missed out from when players are in their prime and games missed out from when they were weaker towards the end and beginning of their career.

I hope the person who collected the data did the same amount of games from their early career, prime, and later career, but as most of the game amount numbers aren't divisible by 3 I doubt this took place.

Sometime, one of your best opponent is yourself.  If Fisher's presumed paranoid personality would have been taken in charge by today's psychiatrists, maybe his elo's would have been closer to Magnus 2882.  Having today's better player opposition and chess knowledge could have helped too.  They sure would have imaginatives games and fun to play, at the least for Magnus on the second point.

Some people just don’t know their chess history. Tal was amazing, and only ill health kept him from having a long tenure as World Champion. In the 1970s, he changed his style slightly and created *two* of the longest unbeaten streaks in history. 

Tal was only the third player in history to break 2700.

On top of all that, Tal’s sacs weren’t nearly as unsound as his reputation. Quite often, the “busts” to Tal’s sacs resulted in equality in positions they were unclear to begin with.

Every match play world champion has had one thing in common: they were all great endgame players. Just as Alekhine outplayed Capa in the endgame in the 1927 match, Tal produced some endgame gems against the great technician Botvinnik in 1960.

Personally, I believe Spassky was the weakest match play champion since WWII. He was still great, and a deserving champion. But when you compare him to the others on the list he was not quite as good.

Now Carlsen is basically unstoppable. By the way, he is playing this year, it seems no one can even touch him. He has reached his peak rating and has won over 5 tournaments in a row.

hiya

In 2019 I considered Spassky the weakest match play World Champion in modern history. Right now, Ding Liren has eclipsed that mark. Ding was over 2800 in 2018, but has fallen since. He has now gone almost 8 months and more than 25 games without a single classical victory. His rating is about 2726, which suggests his recent performance is probably well below 2650 strength. This is the most remarkable and one of the saddest declines of any elite player, let alone a world champion.

In the mean time, his opponent in the upcoming world championship, Gukesh, has just had a stellar Olympiad and a tournament performance rating over 3000! He has become the prohibitive favorite to win the title!

It might be an actual medical problem, interfering with his concentration.

bobby fischer is cuckoo - mikhail tal (agree with this tho)

@blueemu, Ding has stated that he has diagnosed medical conditions. He has discussed his depression and sleeplessness.

He also said that Magnus’ decision to abdicate the throne took away his incentive to be his best. He had spent his entire chess career chasing Magnus, and when he left the classical title vacant, he lost his reason for competing.

I in the last few months, including last week, he has had some overwhelming winning positions that he has simply thrown away.

I have no doubt that he has a medical condition. But it is tied to his psychological issues as well.

Bobby Fischer should win

I like hikaru

Tibor Karolyi has just published his second volume on Magnus Carlsen’s endgames. The British Chess Magazine published a review which repeats Karolyi’s argument that Carlsen has revolutionized chess endgame play. 

Fischer famously strove to win as White or Black and fought for every point. Karpov had a similar ethic. 

But Carlsen is different. When other players, including Fischer, reached a “dead drawn” position, they would agree to a draw. Carlsen just keeps playing, and constantly finds difficult questions for his opponents to answer. Quite often, his opponents fail and Carlsen wins. But additionally, Carlsen has expanded what is technically possible for humans in the endgame. Put simply, he knows far more theoretical endgames than any other player, and his intuition in the endgame is seemingly inhuman.

Carlsen has revolutionized chess endgame play.

Nah Bobby Fisher win easy

pov Fischer and Magnus fighting for first to 2900

meanwhile tal at 4000 : let the kids play