Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen

Agreed. And quite an epic way of putting it, too.

Fischer is more talented, but Carlsen is the better player because of the accumulation of modern day theory which is what chess has become (and why Chess 960 may be the best thing for chess). Basically, theory drains the fun out of chess (even Fischer said this and I share his sentiment as theory simply makes the game a matter of memorization (up to the first 20 moves sometimes) rather than creativity.)

Ficher ducked real competition. 

I am surprised this thread is still going. I hope we all can understand it is a time era vs era issue. Magnus in Fischer's era would probably have more losses than he would like. But Fischer in Magnus time frame may have a different outcome. We all praise the ones within the time frame of our notice of a player especially to our age. But giving cudo's to both the board is still 64 squares with 16 pieces per opponent. We must look at the advantage in time frame. there is a difference. Can we just say both are good for their time in the era's of playing chess?

OMG - Get the nukes!

I think they would both win in their time, chess changes, technology changes and the approach to chess does too. 

Agreed 

So are all agreed excluding my apostrophe catastrophe. Geesh,  you stick to topic and get graded on your grammar. LOL!  I think someone needs a productive hobby like improving your game.

snoring............... crickets chirping.............. this is more useless than my tactics training....

Are you speaking about Gaioz? Yeah, a real winner ehh? Please explain the accused of cheating!

Here is the thing: Ranking of GM Past and Present is nearly impossible. Why??  Opening theory has changed, middle game theory has, changed and end game theory has changed. Computer analysis has changed the face of chess. Put Calson ( assuming he is the best chess player to have lived) up against Deep Blue or Watson, and the human punk will lose. When a computer is asked to analyze  X-Opening, the computer can determine some line down to a +/- advantage/disadvantage of 0.1 pawns. In the past you studied opening lines played by past masters  to see what the best lines they played and the notations they made to determine advantage or disadvantage; now.... computers have analyzed every aspect of chess. A computer has determined the best lines of play and puny humans need just memorize a particular line/s. Yes creativity is still important, but even if you are computer illiterate and all you can do is read, most of the games that have been played OTB , recorded, and published have been annotated not only by other humans, but by Shredder, or some other computer engine as well. Transport Carlson back to to Fischer's era he loses -- he simply lacks all the modern theory has has developed; transport Fischer to the current time he loses to Carlson, because of all the theory that has developed since he played. Both however regardless of the era would would beat 99% of all GM in the world Past, Present, and Future.  Sadly the era of human domination of the game has passed. No human will ever beat the best computer in the world. 

However the best computer in the world still makes mistakes. Sometimes a human can find a winning line or the best line which the best computer cannot find.

hi

You  are wrong and place too much faith in computers. They are not "Gawd"  I as a 75 year old human have found best moves that the best computers did not find.

They are not perfect, but they are now the best chess players on this planet. Anyone who can find any weaknesses at all in their game is a very good player.

Ponz, every year that passes makes your assertions less and less likely.

There are still a few exceptional positions that engines don't get right, but they are becoming as rare as unicorns.

even a decade ago, cc players could still compete with engines, at least occasionally. Not anymore.

this is true--i was only talking about the present--not the probable future.

I don’t see how Fischer could lose with the white pieces vs anyone.