Bobby Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen

i seriously doubt carlsen could beat the caliber of WC which Fischer destroyed in his prime in 71-72 Petrosian,Tal, Bottvinik, Spassky, Keres, Korchnoi

Remind us again of Fischer's lifetime record against Botvinnik, Tal, and Korchnoi. For extra credit, toss in his record against Geller.

What would Fischer think of today's tiebreak system? He hated that ties went to the champion back in his day. He hated that the USSR players would draw games to guarantee a win for one of their players. What would he think of what Magnus did in game 12 on Monday? He would of torched Magnus for not earning his championship, that's what he would of done...

Fischer would say that game 12 was rigged and that the champion should keep the title because the challenger couldn't beat him even once.

Carlsen is already on the decline. Not as good as he was a few years ago. Chess has changed since Fischer's and even Kasparov's days since now players peak quicker and most likely do not stay there as long either (it is more competitive than in the past, for example more strong (even super strong) GMs and the average level of tournaments much higher). Having said that, the chess world has not seen a chess player like Fischer after Fischer. Someone who gave everything for chess, was a chess genius and fierce fighter all in one. Carlsen does not carry the Fischer spirit, he is just a genius. Fischer would break him because I think Fischer made it personal - it was war for Fischer not a competition.

Also the last classic game (game 12 in Carlsen v Caruana) where Carlsen has a better position and offers draw shows he has FEAR of losing. Fischer was never afraid of anyone in a match. He was just autistic to a fault - leading to his downfall.

*This is all without the extra benefits Carlsen received in young age from Kasparov among others. Not my point but significant in any discussion.

"He hated that ties went to the champion back in his day"

Up until he became Champion, that is. How many more games than him were his own challenger supposed to win to get the title? Two.

"What would he think of what Magnus did in game 12 on Monday? He would of torched Magnus for not earning his championship"

That's approximately what Kasparov and Kramnik did, and it was just as silly when they did it... It's so much easier to be critical of others. Fischer refused to play at all, Kasparov offered draws in 11 and 14 moves as white when needing wins to keep the title in 2000, and Kramnik also drew in the opening when he needed to win to keep the title in 2007.

"Also the last classic game (game 12 in Carlsen v Caruana) where Carlsen has a better position and offers draw shows he has FEAR of losing. Fischer was never afraid of anyone in a match"

How many title matches did he play? I think the criticism against Carlsen mainly comes from people that wanted him to lose, and were unhappy to see a development where his winning chances increased. Anand had a slight advantage against Topalov in their last game and offered repetition draw at move 24-25. No one would have criticised Anand if Topalov had accepted, but he preferred to play on at all costs since he knew his chances in rapid playoff were small. 

Comparisons with Fischer would be more relevant if he had played a single game as Champion.

You should mention the era.

1972 - Fischer at any age.

2018 - Carlsen at any age.

If they both started with equal resources then I'll back Fischer. His ruthless determination and will to win would give him the edge. 

nakamura is better, i mean look at how he beats random 1300s in bullet speedrun while chatting on twitch

1300s?? 1300s are like baby noobs. Anybody could beat them while doing something else simultaneously.

Naka doesn't play 1300s BTW.

You clearly would have to allow both of them access to the same information.

Fischer was so far above the other players at his peak that he won the candidiates' knockout matches 6-0, 6-0, 5-1-3 against the top players on earth.  Then began like an idiot against Spassky, including a forfeit to lose the first two games, then came back and very easily beat Spassky for the World title.

Carlsen has not demonstrated such a tremendous separation.

So, on that tiny bit of information alone, it's plausible to think Fischer might be better than Carlsen.

He was certainly more insane!

Question is where will Carlsen's insanity start. Will we use that as a measure. Fischer, although had his issues but I agree with the last comment.

Carlsen has won seven elite tournaments in a row and retained his title.

He is currently playing in Zagreb. He has 4/6 points after beating Nakamura and is tied for first. In spite of this, he is actually losing rating points!

I’d say he’s separated himself from the rest in pretty convincing manner.

At a time when very few people made the GM title until their mid 20s or even later. He'd already won the US Championships.

Bobby Fischer was clearly one of the best chess players ever and probably would of destroyed Carlsen. According to Wikipedia...

"In 1981, Fischer stayed at the home of grandmaster Peter Biyiasas, where, over a period of four months, he defeated Biyiasas seventeen times in a series of speed games.^[401][402] In an interview with Sports Illustrated reporter William Nack, Biyiasas assessed Fischer's play:^[400][403]

He was too good. There was no use in playing him. It wasn't interesting. I was getting beaten, and it wasn't clear to me why. It wasn't like I made this mistake or that mistake. It was like I was being gradually outplayed, from the start. He wasn't taking any time to think. The most depressing thing about it is that I wasn't even getting out of the middle game to an endgame. I don't ever remember an endgame. He honestly believes there is no one for him to play, no one worthy of him. I played him, and I can attest to that."

"Bobby Fischer was clearly one of the best chess players ever and probably would of destroyed Carlsen"

"Fischer in his prime, if he played in 2019, beats Magnus e a s i l y"

I think the modern top players often tend to be underestimated. Take Fischer's career stats against the best players of his time, for example Spassky, Korchnoi, Geller, Petrosian and Tal, and he did ok against most of them. But somehow people often assume that Carlsen is a much weaker opponent. It shouldn't be ignored that he has been unbeaten for a year against very strong opposition. He has scored +20-0=26 this year. And unlike Fischer's opponents, Carlsen has been the clearly best player in the world for a decade. Beating him easily and destroying him etc is something else than facing Geller and Korchnoi.

"Fischer vs Carlsen at the age of fifteen/twenty-two, same result"

The young Fischer was of course a strong player, but if one looks at for example the Candidates in 1959, when Fischer was 16½ years old, he scored -3 and finished 7.5 points from first and 2.5 points from the upper half. Carlsen at the same age had some better results, like finishing second in the strongest tournament of the year, in Linares. 

When Fischer was 18 and a few months, he lost a match to Reshevsky (then 50) after forfeiting the last game, otherwise it was 5.5 vs 5.5 before that. Fischer was of course a very strong player by then, and ranked as around #10 in the world at Chessmetrics. Carlsen, however, had already been #1 on the live rating list.

On the whole, I'd say the young Carlsen was comparatively stronger than the young Fischer. Even if one only looks at world ranking and ignores that the general level of top chess is higher now than it was 50-60 years ago.

Carlsen just beat Nepo (2775) as Black. He didn’t make any mistakes. He just closed up the position, kept his options open, and gave his opponent chances to blunder. Nepo obliged around move 28, and Carlsen pounced.

Players like Nepo and the other great players today simply didn’t exist before the computer age. There just weren’t any +2750 players who could attack and defend in such complicated positions. Ok, Karpov came close. But Fischer certainly never faced opponents who were that good in all phases. And not even Kasparov regularly faced such strong opposition as is seen in modern tournaments.

Carlsen is alone in first place yet again. We are witnessing something truly historic.

Carlsen has just won one of the strongest tournaments of the year with an amazing plus five!

The way Carlsen dismantled MVL (probably the greatest Gruenfeld player in the world) in a line MVL never lost in before was brilliant.

This puts no doubt in my mind that Carlsen would rip Fischer apart.

Computers changed everything. Modern chess is much more positional. It's about reducing your opponent's ability to drop a tactic. Before modern computers and chess engines that no human could beat in a match, GM's could find an interesting line with a tactical combo in there if the opponent took a wrong turn.

Now players have to sort of manuver thier opponent into a type of position where the player has to think in terms of a safe but drawish move, or a move that has a chance to win, but risky.

The days of dazzling tactics by the likes of Tal are gone. GM's still find tactics to win, but it's more because of positional considerations made earlier in the game.

To a lesser player, it might seem convenient that a pawn is in the right spot to help win a game, after being nailed to the same square for 30 moves, but in reality, the player understood that the pawn being on that square would have long term advantages. 

One of the hardest things for beginners and low level players is to learn the nuances of moving pawn from h2 to h3 vs pawn from g2 to g3 if your not following a book line.

For black, it whether to move pawn from h7 to h6, or g7 to g6.

If you move the pawn at all.

If you don't move any pawn, then that could be used by your opponent for a back rank mate. It's insidious if your battling your opponent, then realise you need to burn a tempo to give your king some breathing room. 😱

Kasparov did this also, Naming the players, year, location, result, tournament and the next move. It's impressive how good these people's memory's are.