just thought this subject would net some great feedback and thought.? fischer is to thisday the best chess player to have ever played but could the fischer of the past truly win against the highest players now? chess tactics and stratigy have changed some r players stronger now?
just something for thought
Fischer did a lot for the study of chess. Someplace between Tal and Kasparov.
Tal being a master of tactical combinations
Kasparov being a master of positional chess.
How would Fischer do now? Taking him at peak strengh and taking say the current world champion, I’d say Fischer would have held his own, but clearly wouldn’t win the match.
Now, that being said: If Fischer had lived in a more modern setting, with access to chess engines, and chess databases, I’d think Fischer would have been an even more formidable opponent. BUT, clearly chess has evolved at the highest level of play that fatique might be the deciding factor, rather than brute strenght of a player, on the outcome of world championship level games and matches.
In essesence, in games where even a computer might have trouble navigating, the winner might be the player who’s less fatiqued at that moment in the game.
Fischer’ strengths that would still hold up today:
The Fischer of 1970-1972 would’ve liked today’s faster time controls and and format of using rapid and blitz games as match tiebreakers (NOT the Fischer of 1992, who requirements for his return match vs. Boris Spassky included the Fischer clock with an time increment guaranteeing neither would ever lose a game on time).
Fischer moved as quickly as Viswanathan Anand in his early career. As Bernard Cafferty’s final annotation to the Petrosian-Fischer Candidates Match 1971, Game 8 (0-1) played at 40 moves/2-1/2 hours time control: “Times: 2:27 - 1:35. Fischer doesn’t believe in keeping the customer waiting!”
And Fischer and Mikhail Tal were the foremost blitz players of their era. At the World 5-Minute Championship in Herceg Novi, 1970 Fischer scored 17+, 4=, 1-. Fischer finished 1st in the 12-player double round-robin with 19/22 (!); 2nd Tal 14.5; 3rd Korchnoi 14; 4th Petrosian 13.5; 5th Bronstein 13; 6th Hort 12; etc.
Fischer’s strengths that would be negated today:
- Work ethic: A number of other GMs now spend a “regular workday” studying chess daily.
- Openings study: Fischer was one of the few U.S. players who read Schahmatny Bulletin. Today, all GMs (and IMs) spend considerable time on openings, while databases and online subscriptions make the same information available to everyone.
Nowadays, there is so much in chess theory, that I can’t even imagining that any GM could digest it all, but for analysis reasons, the sky is practically the limit.
You can get the entire contents of Chess Informant Vol. 1 to 100 on CD, and that includes being able to search it like a database and play the games and variations on your computer.
Chessbase’s Opening Encyclopedia has no less than 4,500 opening surveys, 437 special theory databases, and 3.35 million game database. Thats just one item in Chessbase’s sizable inventory of products they sell.
Thats not even taking into consideration that any new opening novelties would most certainly be put on a computer and let run for hours on end, if not days, looking for the smallest weakness in the novelty.
I believe fischer would adapt to the current strategies of today. After adapting to todays strategies he would most likely be unstopable. The one thing he would have to do is get treatment for his schizophrenia.
Fischer, would have most definitely adapted.
I think the fatigue issue would be a huge determining factor. I submit there has never been a World Class Chess Player, that could wear down an opponent like Mr. Fischer.
Summation: Perhaps only Kasparov could have negotiated the pitfalls of playing Fischer. And I reserve some doubt about even that. Bobby Fischer as a Chess Player was, truly in a “class” of his own. Just my take on it.
Consider his rematch with Spassky in 1992; he really did not have too much of a struggle against his predecessor, achieving a score of +10 -5 =15, if memory serves. Let’s face it, Spassky was not a top-level GM anymore in 1992. IMHO, Fischer, through his self-imposed inactivity, would not have stood a chance against modern-day top-level players…he might get a win or two here and there, along with some draws.
As I recall, Fischer was supposed to have requested the use of a database program as well as Informants and NIC Yearbooks before his match with Spassky in 1992. There are also photos and a bit of film of Fischer from the early 1970’s reading a volume of Chess Informant. He, like all of the greats of the past, would have adapted to his era.
Remember that players like Lasker, Rubinstein, and even an aging Siegbert Tarrasch adapted to the “hypermodern” wave of the 1920’s. I would expect that Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine, and Fischer, with their superior endgame skills would be at the top of the rating lists today. Given the way ratings have climbed, I would expect each of them to have ratings above 2820. The only player to be at a great disadvantage would be Lasker; no one would let him smoke his ratty cigars today!
The subject is moot b/c Fischer would not study openings or databases, he would only play 960 or as he arrogantly called it Fischer Random. He would embarass GM’s b/c he would figure out scholar’s mate from all 960 positions and beat every one in 4 moves.
Certainly it is agreed that he has left an indelble mark on modern chess b/c his clock is used in Europe and a modified form of his clock the “delay” is used in the USA.
His chess variant is already far more popular than Capablanca’s or Yasser Seirawan’s ever were.
Also he would likely be in prison for treason. (Unless he was found not guilty due to insanity) 
Fischer had Ken Smith and Bob Wade to supply his data base. What else would explain his ability to defeat the best players on earth?
Herr Lasker would merely threaten to smoke!
He’s the best player ever? I think Morphy is the best ever. So there!
You can also make a case for William Lewis. Latter he was an author and translated works by Greco and Stamma .
:mrgreen: – Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I once had an opponent at the Marshall who, seeing cigarette smoke bothered me, proceeded to blow smoke rings around all my pieces. As so often happens such dopey actions tend to backfire, in this case it meant having to choke as I won, but all things considered it was a good trade off. Reminded me of Botvinnik having another gm blow cigarette smote in his face as part of his preparation for a big match. 
– Regarding the original question, I agree with all those who say Fischer, as well as all the other past greats would be competitive no where we dropped them in our time machine. Of course they might find it a bit awkward seeing their own games as part of the distant past in current chess theory.
– – It’s like when people ask how oldtime baseball greats would do if they were playing now; they’d make whatever adjustments were called for and would fit right in. Ted Williams was asked in the late fifties what he thought Ty Cobb would hit if he were playing at that time. Williams said .275. The sportswriter asked if he wasn’t being a bit severe. The Splendid Splinter said something like, “I don’t think so, I mean, Ty is 70.”