I remember reading how at an early age, Fisher would sit alone, playing both white and black...turning the board between moves. Even later in life, he preferred to study alone. If you consider how skilled he became through self-study, it's intriguing to wonder how strong he'd have become by studying with the use of Stockfish.
With the aid of engines and his single-minded drive he'd likely be the best player on the planet. Not sure anyone has been as driven to play chess as Fischer in the history of chess. Don't forget he achieved his dominance completely by himself. Not with a team of seconds, by himself.
I'd be amazing to be in a world where Bobby was one of my contemporaries... instead of 9/11 breaking him (and to be sure, it's a key moment in the collapse of Western Civilization), he might be even more brash about how even the most honest and transparent symmetrical information game on the planet was being rigged and massaged by FIDE et al.
Yes, those who consider Carlsen the best ever disregard the fact that that he has chess engines. Fischer did his own analysis. If World class engines had existed in Fischer's day, you can be sure he'd have had a few computers running around the clock to perfect his game.
@@zanti4132 Carlsens opponents also have engines so that argument does not count and is not an advantage for him relative to Fischer. In my opinion Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen are on the same level.
At his peak, Fischer outclassed the Russian elite of Spassky, Petrosian, and Korchnoi. A decade later, Karpov struggled mightily against a very old Korchnoi who, in his prime years by age was roughly the equal of Spassky, perhaps a notch below. Prime Fischer was better than prime Karpov. Only Kasparov and Carlsen have claims to be better than Fischer. Certainly, those two had much longer periods of dominance, but Fischer of 1970 - 1972 was a supernova and as good as anyone.
20 consecutive WINS against the best in the world; a streak never to be equaled! And I see a lot of blunders by GMs today that I never saw from Fischer. Korchnoi said that in his experience Fischer was a much stronger blitz player than Kasparov.
Fischer vs Geller in 1967 Fischer 17:exf7??? 17:Rook f6!! wins easily! Fischer vs Stein famous Bishop f5! But earlier 26:Knight f7! Or 26:a3! wins easily! Fischer vs Larsen game one 1971 Bishop f3??? Bishop d6!! Wins easily! Fischer vs Spassky in 1966 olympiad Queen a6??? Rook e3!! wins easily! Fischer beat the weakest chess World champion Boris Spassky only 17 wins 10 losses! Capablanca would beat Spassky easily 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would beat Spassky easily 6 wins 6 draws zero losses!!
@@RaineriHakkarainenBorris Spassky was literally best in the world second to Fischer, you act like the WC was just given to Spassky. Check out his beautiful games and wins even against karpov. The weakest WC to their time period is easily Liren. Also capablanca played for some time after he lost his world championship, it's not like he was super dominant for a long period of time.
Agree! Bobby Fischer was a "Psychic Murderer"! He was the last Lone World Beater because after him there were teams of analysts and computer professionals supporting future World Chess Champions. Bobby, on the other hand, Walked Into History Alone. Incomparable brilliance and will to win.
And don't forget that Fischer was only 16 years old when this game was played, certainly at a level of play of other top players in recent years at this age, like Prag.
Even in Blitz games, Fischer NEVER left even a single pawn En Prise, let alone whole pieces left by GMs of today. He was as accurate in Blitz as he was in a 2.5 hour game! It's inconceivable how he did it.
The Fischer in the mid-70s was unlike anyone in the chess world today, players today would not be able to cope with his unique style, there is no doubt in my mind that if he in his prime time traveled to present day he would quickly be the world title holder. About 20 years ago I read an article, which claimed that the old rating system that was used in the 70's and 60's was refined, the article went on to claim that they recalculated Fischer's rating based on all of his games and his recalculated rating cleared 3000, which has never been achieved to this day. I don't recall the exact rating that was claimed in the article and I have tried to find the article since then but all of my searching has lead to dead ends, so I have no way of backing up this claim but I believe that if someone really wanted they could confirm this.
The question should be,, how the modern players without the help of computers for preparation will do against Fischer and company on the 20 , 40 ,50 ,60 ,and 70s
Fischer would be the best player in any era. If he played today he would be stronger of course because he would use the same modern computers to help train that everybody else does.
Come on! Bobby Fischer beat the weakest chess World champion Spassky only 17 wins 11 losses! Carlsen is 100 times better than Spassky! Capablanca would beat Spassky easily 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would Beat Spassky easily 6 wins 6 draws zero losses! You can not lose 11 times against the blunder maker Spassky like Fischer!!
After brushing up on some new chess opening theory and AI reasoning, he would be , IMO, No 1 again, as he was back in his times. But that's what I, more or less, believe for many other past champions, such as Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhin.
Fischer was only 16 when he played this game! and already taking on the russian machine by himself. Today he would be in the top two and Carlsen would still be motivated to play for the title no doubt, Fischer was extremely competitive and he disliked easy draws, playing a match against him would be much different than playing Caruana, Nepo and Karjakin these player were defeated before they started playing their matches. Fischer was a totally different beast RIP
Fischer lived long enough to make the following observation. Please note that my quote may not be exact, but the message is undeniable. He said that if he were in his prime with all the help that current players get from computers, he'd be rated nearly 3000. I don't know about you, but I would have loved to see what a 22-year-old Fischer with access to Stockfish could do.
Give Fischer one year with stock fish and he would be 2950. He would have all table bases memorized, all new opening theory assimilated and then his tactical accuracy would be too much for anyone else to handle. Just like it was when he was 2805 and the world champ was 2670. That’s a 2 and a 6. He was 135 points higher than anyone. Highest winning percentage ever. Too bad he was disturbed..
No, Fischer was ranked 2789 after he won the world title in 1972. It was an amazing achievement : as you said, he was more than 100 points above Spassky, who still was number 2. No doubt Fischer is the chess GOAT. Kasparov was the first to break the 2800 wall
I think Morphy is #1 all time. I have Fischer 2nd, if he would have defended his champioonship I'd have him over Morphy. But there were a lot of great players who if they lived today with the advancement in training would be kicking ass and taking names.
In a lot of ways it really isn’t fair to say that players like Carlson and Kasparov are better than Fischer simply because they were those who came after Fischer were able to study Fischer’s play in order to better themselves
Fisher alive today would know and understand the same as the players do now, Then it comes down to ability which he would have and would compete with Magnus and Ikaru for number 1.. Simple.
With access to todays tools (databases of opponents games, engines and so forth) Fischer would most likely destroy them. He had a measured IQ of 180 (probably needs some adjusting, but everything above 145 is more than three standard deviations above average and definitely far beyond Magnus and Hikaru). Magnus and Hikaru are spoiled kids compared to Fischer
Fisher would in his prime would be toe to toe with Magnus as Fisher is better than Magnus tactically while still being able to match his positional play.
In his prime? Obviously the World Champion! Can you imagine what he'd do to opponents if he had engines with him to assist and all top level games, no adjournments which always helped his opponents at his fingertips instantly instead of getting to see them in Russian magazines two months after they were played!
At the time of this game, Bobby was 16 years old. Bobby was and still is the youngest candidate qualifier. Bobby attained his GM title by qualifying for the candidates when he was one of the top qualifiers in the Portoroz Interzonal, 1958. It took 13 more years to attain the World Championship.
Whenever the conversation shifts to imagining Bobby Fischer in the present era, several thoughts come to mind. Reflecting on the evolution of chess since Paul Morphy's era, it's evident that historic grandmasters often held a significant edge in the opening. For instance, in the Capablanca match featured on this channel recently, the wily Cuban gained a substantial upper hand within the first dozen moves, a trend even more pronounced in Morphy's games. By Fischer's era, opening theory had evolved, yet Fischer managed to maintain at least equality in the opening by focusing on a limited set of openings. It seems that the only way to catch Fischer off guard, as demonstrated in this game, was through unorthodox, albeit less effective, moves. A hallmark of modern chess is that new opening strategies are typically robust and well-founded. Fischer's prowess in the middle game remained evident, as this match shows, with the only likely strategy to outplay him in this phase being moves of the caliber produced by chess engines. Fischer once expressed boredom with chess, and it's an open question, best addressed by top players, whether today's computer-aided analysis would have rekindled his interest. Consider the Berlin Defense, which in Fischer's time appeared somewhat uninspired, but has since been revitalized through computer analysis into a rich source of complex chess tactics. Modern chess is characterized by an abundance of intricate ideas, making the game seem farther from being completely solved than ever before. Reflecting on all sports, the rise of professionalism and scientific approaches has lessened the gap between the very best players and the top ten. However, it's likely that the greatest players from the past would be on par with today's elite players.
I'm sorry, but chess engines simply DESTROYED chess, by totally depriving the game of the PRESTIGE of the human thought that for centuries was associated to the figure of chess players. It makes no sense to remark that chess engines have solved several problems of the past (such as in complex Queen endings, or by "revitalizing" some old lines of chess openings). That's totally negligible. When Fischer was playing, in 1960s and 1970s, even good "amateurs" such as good chess players of club (whose rating was around 1700-1800 Elo points) were respected by less expert players and novices, who used to ask them advices and submitted them their games and positions. But now even a kibitzer can take the game of a GM, or of a world champion, and after submitting it to a chess engine they can mercilessly find their mistakes. NO MORE RESPECT FOR HUMAN MIND! In the past we used to buy Chess Informants, as we were fascinated by the good analysis of many prestigious GM: Tal, Huebner, Korchnoi, Kasparov, Anand, Petrosian, Geller, etc. etc. and that was also an important source of income for them. But now NOBODY is interested in analysis of GM, only to those of chess engines, those useless engines and their STUPID names: Stockfish, Houdini, Fritz, Rebel, etc. This irreversible LOSS OF PRESTIGE made today's chess simply irrelevant as a mediatic sport. In the 1970s and 1980s chess was present in reportages of TV and newspapers, I remember that even the Guinness Book of Records used to devote at least a couple of pages to chess. But now chess totally disappeared from the radar of media. EVERYBODY knew Fischer, Spassky, Karpov and Kasparov. Today NOBODY knows Magnus Carlsen. I personally and randomly asked 100 people: some of them told me that he is an actor, other people told me that he is a politician, other told me he is a scientist. NOBODY GAVE THE RIGHT ANSWER. Who is the culprit of this situation? The culprit are those chess players, chess organizers, chess managers of FIDE and federations, etc., who at the end of 1980s did not STOP the use and advertising of chess computers. They could easily imagine that in less than 10 years chess engines would have prevailed over human chess players. But Kasparov and other GM went on by promoting those stupid matches versus Deep Blue, and other super computers. They earned a lot of money, but in the meantime they DESTROYED chess.
Imagine if paul Morphy had even a handful of worthy opponents, he could have reached untold heighets. He was as good as he was playing against people who were CM strength by todays standards (and not even strong CMs)
Would love to see prime Fischer go toe to toe with Magnus, just to see how two of the greatest chess minds of all time compare. Magnus probably takes his lunch money, but it's still fun to think about.
It’s not a fair fight. Chess theory has advanced far beyond where if was in Fischer’s day, and Magnus has the advantage of studying all that theory. But bring Fischer up to speed and let him study chess for a few years and you’d have a very interesting contest.
Fischer's peak rating was 2785. Accounting for ratings inflation, he would be 2900 today. At his peak he dismantled all the top players. Carlsen drew with Karjakin and Caruana, and only beat an aged, beyond his prime Anand and a dead Nepomniatchi who was a zombie after that 200 move loss and who, despite being a brilliant and creative attacking player, is one of the most blunder prone top players in the history of chess. It's too bad Fischer went crazy and stopped playing because he was on the path to becoming the god of chess. Nobody has taken on the entire Soviet system and beat them like Fischer did. Plus, they used to adjourn games back then and Fischer raised his analysis powers where he was out analyzing teams of Soviet super GMs, reaching a level of adjournment analysis matched only by Kasparov. I don't think Carlsen or any future players will reach Fischer or Kasparov level, because they will not get the training of deep analysis of adjourned games.
As a matter of sheer talent and hard work, none can compare to Bobby. Bobby, himself, said that he couldn't do what he did, because championships are more about teams and computers than individuals. No, Bobby wouldn't be top 10, today. Not the way he did it, in the past, and I doubt he'd work well with a team of 2nds.
I've studied Fischer -- his life, his games, etc -- for decades, and I think I can sum up his *chess* career thusly: 1. He took up chess at the age of six because he was isolated at home, and chess gave his over-clocked mind something to explore. 2. He gave up chess -- as a top-level competitive sport at least -- after he'd won the world championship in 1972, age 29, because he'd accomplished his life's goals of crushing the Soviet system and becoming the world's best. There were no more dragons to slay, no more Everests to climb. Chess engines were already well developed and beating the world's best (Kasparov vs Deep Blue, 1997), and Fischer was disdainful of computer-aided assistance -- not an unexpected response since he pretty much achieved chess superiority on his own. Would he use an engine today to update his skills if given the chance? I think not, but he WOULD study the hell out current theory. He'd probably get printouts of all the important top-level games played in the last 20 years and sit down with an actual chessboard and pieces and work it out old school. And THEN eat everybody's lunch. And then quit for good.
Would Bobby Fischer Still Be in the TOP TEN Today? He'S the GOAT so of course , he will be number one , by far. Specially if he have access to top engine.
Fischer at his peak, were he to miraculously appear today and be motivated to compete......given a year to study would be rated approximately 3000, perhaps a bit better.
what's mad is he done it all before the internet? perhaps i sound naive but like, his resources would've been so limited. i can sit in my room and play people from across the world without going downstairs. I've never read a proper chess book in my life, i take youtube and the wealth of knowlege of granted. he had none of that
Fischer in his prime would still be a domiant player. His creative approach to the game would confuse and frustrate the majority of players who simply mimick moves and counter mobes fro previous masters games.
lol… what a silly question😂 Fischer would destroy everyone and perhaps only a few hand of GMs of our present date could give him a run for his money. Fischer wasn’t just a strong player. He was obsessed to crush his opponents. Nowadays with strong engines and internet with loads of database. He would be unstoppable.
Not only would Fischer be in the Top 10, but take the zero away--he would be number 1. Give him some time with these computer-driven algorithms and you won't hear so much about Magnus Carleson. The players of Fischer's time were flat-out better intuitive players than any computer-driven players today.
The innovation side of chess cannot be understated. Computer killed most innovation. Magnus may have been the greatest ever but since computers exist now it is so hard to tell anymore. Innovation of the human mind was the greatest magic to this game. Two players with only the knowledge they pernoally aquired, creating their own tactics. Now because people memorized so much on top levels you dont get to super cool positions almost ever anymore
I agree Fischer in his prime would the match of the century against Magnus. I would pay alot to see that match up, though my betting would be reluctant, I would bet on Bobby for better or worse.
Chess masters today have a HUGE benefit of learning via internet and computers. If Fisher had that similar experience I guess he would have been a top 10 player.....but if you somehow time traveled him from the 1960's to present day tournaments, he get beat a lot.
Unquestionably, he'd be no1. He understood chess strategy better than most engines. I'd love to see him play Hans Niemann, purely for the fun of seeing if they both managed to live to the end of the game.
With the computer assistance that is available to all modern players Fischer would (IMO) be number one if he were a young man now. Not only is he a strong candidate for GOAT but also he was also one of the first to clearly foresee the future of chess. When most of the chess world was wondering if engines would ever play at master strength Fischer had this to say: "The machines have it". But this game is not a good example of Fischer's strength. He did stand to lose twice!
No one dominated more than Fischer in the 1970-1972 period. After the match with Spassky he was 120 rating points ahead of Spassky. The greatest gap in history.
Let it put it this way, if an elderly Victor Korchnoi could beat elite youngster Caruana, Fischer could pose a challenge to todays elite. If he was born in 1990 who knows... more training posibillities. But he also had psychological issues. And in todays social media era, he wpuld not have thrived because of his inner demons IMO
What you call psychological issues are the consequences of intelligence, experiences and an extremely critical mind far beyond what you could imagine. Fischer was less crazy than you think, the world is more crazy than you think!
@@mircopaul5259 I said psychological issues, not that he is crazy. Pressure of social media would make him would not play for the world championship IMO. Denying the holocaust would make me take him less serious outside of his chessmind. It took alot of begging/money to bring him out to play Spassky. And I would say that after 72 Fischer lost goals. It was only downhill from there on because he could potentially lose to Karpov( I'm not saying he would lose in 75 but Karpov in 5 world championships vs Kasparov was something like 2 points difference. So Karpov was a big challenge to anyone
Yes, in comments made by Kasparov, he downplays Fischer's capabilities in the current evolved standard of play at the top level. If Kasparov's comments are true, then the assumption is that Fischer would not have evolved at the highest level. However we need to remember that Fischer was ahead of his time in the era he played. We cannot compare Fischer to the evolved game. We can therefore make an alternate assumption. That assumption being that Fischer didn't get caught up in his own mental issues, and he continued to evolve at the top level. If we make that assumption, then I don't have much doubt he would be the formidable opponent now, that he was at his peak.
Tournoi de Herceg Novi (1970) Fischer est 1er avec 19/22. Tal, second avec 14.5/22. En 1988, premier championnat officiel à Saint-Jean. Tal est premier, alors qu'il y a la participation de Kasparov et Karpov. Un jour Tal a répondu à une question, voici sa réponse : "Fischer est meilleur que moi en blitz".
Yes, he would! Firstly because his personal and outstanding rating of 2785 points of 1972 was achieved in a time when there wasn’t the Elo INFLATION of today’s top GM. Today’s top Elos are overrated for at least 100-150 points. Fischer reached a rating that was 125 points higher than the one of Spassky and other top GM such as Kortchnoi, Petrosian, Larsen. Whereas neither Kasparov nor Carlsen had similar positive gaps to their competitors. Therefore, 2785 Elo points of 1972 are like 2890/2900 points of today’s top GM. But I would like to point out that Bobby Fischer had a SECRET, that was revealed by GM Alexei Suetin, in his book of 1982 “Typische Fehler” (no translation in English as far as I know). Suetin wrote: “Even the strongest GM are not immune from the defect to (wrongly) delve into too complex and uncontrollable variations, just because these latter originate sometimes from a first seemingly amazing move. On the contrary, when we analyse Fischer’s games (even blitz games!) we realize that he prefers to give up the search of too “brilliant” moves, involving the evaluation of too complex variations.” That’s totally correct. Fischer’s strength was based on two “pillars”: 1) a deeper knowledge of openings, although with a limited repertoire; 2) a logical and straight style, with a search for logical but at the same time “simple” moves. If we analyse his blitz games (where he had almost no time to think) at Herceg Novi 1970, and at Manhattan chess club of 1971, we see that he outperformed all his challengers by showing a better knowledge of openings, but also a logical and straight approach.
I remember reading how at an early age, Fisher would sit alone, playing both white and black...turning the board between moves. Even later in life, he preferred to study alone. If you consider how skilled he became through self-study, it's intriguing to wonder how strong he'd have become by studying with the use of Stockfish.
It's scary imagining a 20 year old Fischer using Stockfish ! lol
@@davidgothard3055 It is indeed.
With the aid of engines and his single-minded drive he'd likely be the best player on the planet. Not sure anyone has been as driven to play chess as Fischer in the history of chess. Don't forget he achieved his dominance completely by himself. Not with a team of seconds, by himself.
I'd be amazing to be in a world where Bobby was one of my contemporaries... instead of 9/11 breaking him (and to be sure, it's a key moment in the collapse of Western Civilization), he might be even more brash about how even the most honest and transparent symmetrical information game on the planet was being rigged and massaged by FIDE et al.
Yes, those who consider Carlsen the best ever disregard the fact that that he has chess engines. Fischer did his own analysis. If World class engines had existed in Fischer's day, you can be sure he'd have had a few computers running around the clock to perfect his game.
@@zanti4132 Carlsens opponents also have engines so that argument does not count and is not an advantage for him relative to Fischer. In my opinion Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen are on the same level.
Nobody more driven to play chess then fischer?
Ever heard of Tyler1? 😀
@@crocothemisfisher was so much better then second place carlson had had multiple world champ matches go to rapid run outs. huge difference
At his peak, Fischer outclassed the Russian elite of Spassky, Petrosian, and Korchnoi. A decade later, Karpov struggled mightily against a very old Korchnoi who, in his prime years by age was roughly the equal of Spassky, perhaps a notch below. Prime Fischer was better than prime Karpov. Only Kasparov and Carlsen have claims to be better than Fischer. Certainly, those two had much longer periods of dominance, but Fischer of 1970 - 1972 was a supernova and as good as anyone.
20 consecutive WINS against the best in the world; a streak never to be equaled!
And I see a lot of blunders by GMs today that I never saw from Fischer.
Korchnoi said that in his experience Fischer was a much stronger blitz player than Kasparov.
Fischer vs Geller in 1967 Fischer 17:exf7??? 17:Rook f6!! wins easily! Fischer vs Stein famous Bishop f5! But earlier 26:Knight f7! Or 26:a3! wins easily! Fischer vs Larsen game one 1971 Bishop f3??? Bishop d6!! Wins easily! Fischer vs Spassky in 1966 olympiad Queen a6??? Rook e3!! wins easily! Fischer beat the weakest chess World champion Boris Spassky only 17 wins 10 losses! Capablanca would beat Spassky easily 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would beat Spassky easily 6 wins 6 draws zero losses!!
Stockfish 16 would beat Fischer 999-1!!!
@@RaineriHakkarainenBorris Spassky was literally best in the world second to Fischer, you act like the WC was just given to Spassky. Check out his beautiful games and wins even against karpov. The weakest WC to their time period is easily Liren. Also capablanca played for some time after he lost his world championship, it's not like he was super dominant for a long period of time.
@@builderphill1361 Spaskys Kings Gambit games were brilliant, worth looking up
@@RaineriHakkarainenstockfish would destroy anyone including Magnus what’s your point
Can you imagine modern chess engines in the hands of Fisher, while at his peak?
Fischer would battle it out with stockfish
Fischer was the chess engine back then
you mean if fischer was born 1990? he had been 2900 or 2920 according to the stockfish channel
He might finally have had some competition. Same with Morphy.
@@evelynn4273 Well said!
Agree! Bobby Fischer was a "Psychic Murderer"! He was the last Lone World Beater because after him there were teams of analysts and computer professionals supporting future World Chess Champions. Bobby, on the other hand, Walked Into History Alone. Incomparable brilliance and will to win.
Well... the same could more or less be said about Paul Morphy.
@@davidanderson_surrey_bc One of Fischer's chess heroes, & from whom he took parts of his game.
Bobby saw that the chess will become just memorization after the Chess Engines take over. He stopped loving chess. Ahead of his time.
Would you consider the last great chess players before the chess engines got really powerful to be the true last "human chess" players?
He stopped playing in the 70s there were no serious engines
@@maestromind9244 no one said there were?
Bobby never mentioned chess engines. He sure said chess was becoming a memory game.
@@crocothemis Back thrn he didnt, but there are a couple of videos of him talking about engines. He lived well into the 21st century.
Him and Morphy with engines would be the best ones every century.
He was rated 2785 in 1972 with no help what soever.
He stayed at Peter Leko’s house in the 1990s and Leko said he could see lines in positions at a glance that Leko’s computer was churning out
And don't forget that Fischer was only 16 years old when this game was played, certainly at a level of play of other top players in recent years at this age, like Prag.
and what peak elo will prag get in the future do you think?
Fischer from 1972 would be no 1 for sure
In their prime, at their very peak, Fischer would destroy them all!
Fischer would have adapted and utilized modern tools. His natural genius would not be dated.
The fact that a 16 year old beat a recent world champion shows how strong Fischer really was!
Even in Blitz games, Fischer NEVER left even a single pawn En Prise, let alone whole pieces left by GMs of today. He was as accurate in Blitz as he was in a 2.5 hour game! It's inconceivable how he did it.
GM Victor Korchnoi told us that Bobby Fischer playing Blitz was far superior to Kasparov.
He'd be #1. He has a brilliance and flair that the top-guys today just don't have. I'm sure if we had prime Fischer he'd be 2850+ Maybe 2900.
The Fischer in the mid-70s was unlike anyone in the chess world today, players today would not be able to cope with his unique style, there is no doubt in my mind that if he in his prime time traveled to present day he would quickly be the world title holder. About 20 years ago I read an article, which claimed that the old rating system that was used in the 70's and 60's was refined, the article went on to claim that they recalculated Fischer's rating based on all of his games and his recalculated rating cleared 3000, which has never been achieved to this day. I don't recall the exact rating that was claimed in the article and I have tried to find the article since then but all of my searching has lead to dead ends, so I have no way of backing up this claim but I believe that if someone really wanted they could confirm this.
The question should be,, how the modern players without the help of computers for preparation will do against Fischer and company on the 20 , 40 ,50 ,60 ,and 70s
First time I've seen that question flipped around. Nice thinking!
Fischer would be the best player in any era. If he played today he would be stronger of course because he would use the same modern computers to help train that everybody else does.
Fischer would be the best player today.
Come on! Bobby Fischer beat the weakest chess World champion Spassky only 17 wins 11 losses! Carlsen is 100 times better than Spassky! Capablanca would beat Spassky easily 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would Beat Spassky easily 6 wins 6 draws zero losses! You can not lose 11 times against the blunder maker Spassky like Fischer!!
@RaineriHakkarainen Obviously you are clueless as to the abilities of Spasky. Why type such immature nonsense.
After brushing up on some new chess opening theory and AI reasoning, he would be , IMO, No 1 again, as he was back in his times. But that's what I, more or less, believe for many other past champions, such as Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhin.
Bobby would have manhandled Carlsen, like a little bitch if he was playing to day
Fischer was only 16 when he played this game! and already taking on the russian machine by himself. Today he would be in the top two and Carlsen would still be motivated to play for the title no doubt, Fischer was extremely competitive and he disliked easy draws, playing a match against him would be much different than playing Caruana, Nepo and Karjakin these player were defeated before they started playing their matches. Fischer was a totally different beast RIP
I don't understand how anyone cannot put Fischer as the best player to ever play... I do think his short lived reign is the only knock against him.
Bobby would still be the world champion for many many years, if only he didn't stop playing active chess
Fischer lived long enough to make the following observation. Please note that my quote may not be exact, but the message is undeniable. He said that if he were in his prime with all the help that current players get from computers, he'd be rated nearly 3000. I don't know about you, but I would have loved to see what a 22-year-old Fischer with access to Stockfish could do.
Give Fischer one year with stock fish and he would be 2950. He would have all table bases memorized, all new opening theory assimilated and then his tactical accuracy would be too much for anyone else to handle. Just like it was when he was 2805 and the world champ was 2670. That’s a 2 and a 6. He was 135 points higher than anyone. Highest winning percentage ever. Too bad he was disturbed..
No, Fischer was ranked 2789 after he won the world title in 1972. It was an amazing achievement : as you said, he was more than 100 points above Spassky, who still was number 2. No doubt Fischer is the chess GOAT. Kasparov was the first to break the 2800 wall
@@fredericpelloud7536 Can't legit compare ratings from different eras.
I think Morphy is #1 all time. I have Fischer 2nd, if he would have defended his champioonship I'd have him over Morphy. But there were a lot of great players who if they lived today with the advancement in training would be kicking ass and taking names.
In a lot of ways it really isn’t fair to say that players like Carlson and Kasparov are better than Fischer simply because they were those who came after Fischer were able to study Fischer’s play in order to better themselves
Fisher alive today would know and understand the same as the players do now, Then it comes down to ability which he would have and would compete with Magnus and Ikaru for number 1.. Simple.
With access to todays tools (databases of opponents games, engines and so forth) Fischer would most likely destroy them. He had a measured IQ of 180 (probably needs some adjusting, but everything above 145 is more than three standard deviations above average and definitely far beyond Magnus and Hikaru). Magnus and Hikaru are spoiled kids compared to Fischer
Imagine Fischer getting hold of an Engine in his 30s!!
man, I love your videos, you have the BEST analyses
Absolutely. I dare say he would be World Champion today. And we never saw the best of him.
Fisher would in his prime would be toe to toe with Magnus as Fisher is better than Magnus tactically while still being able to match his positional play.
In his prime? Obviously the World Champion! Can you imagine what he'd do to opponents if he had engines with him to assist and all top level games, no adjournments which always helped his opponents at his fingertips instantly instead of getting to see them in Russian magazines two months after they were played!
A matter of opinion. It's like comparing different eras of baseball or basketball or football. My opinion is that Fischer would have kept up.
Remember that in 1972 Bobby defeated the USSR
Very good analyze.
Thanks
At the time of this game, Bobby was 16 years old. Bobby was and still is the youngest candidate qualifier. Bobby attained his GM title by qualifying for the candidates when he was one of the top qualifiers in the Portoroz Interzonal, 1958. It took 13 more years to attain the World Championship.
If Bobby did not have to fight the cold war single handed then I think he would still be alive and unbeatable
Whenever the conversation shifts to imagining Bobby Fischer in the present era, several thoughts come to mind. Reflecting on the evolution of chess since Paul Morphy's era, it's evident that historic grandmasters often held a significant edge in the opening. For instance, in the Capablanca match featured on this channel recently, the wily Cuban gained a substantial upper hand within the first dozen moves, a trend even more pronounced in Morphy's games. By Fischer's era, opening theory had evolved, yet Fischer managed to maintain at least equality in the opening by focusing on a limited set of openings. It seems that the only way to catch Fischer off guard, as demonstrated in this game, was through unorthodox, albeit less effective, moves. A hallmark of modern chess is that new opening strategies are typically robust and well-founded.
Fischer's prowess in the middle game remained evident, as this match shows, with the only likely strategy to outplay him in this phase being moves of the caliber produced by chess engines. Fischer once expressed boredom with chess, and it's an open question, best addressed by top players, whether today's computer-aided analysis would have rekindled his interest. Consider the Berlin Defense, which in Fischer's time appeared somewhat uninspired, but has since been revitalized through computer analysis into a rich source of complex chess tactics. Modern chess is characterized by an abundance of intricate ideas, making the game seem farther from being completely solved than ever before.
Reflecting on all sports, the rise of professionalism and scientific approaches has lessened the gap between the very best players and the top ten. However, it's likely that the greatest players from the past would be on par with today's elite players.
I'm sorry, but chess engines simply DESTROYED chess, by totally depriving the game of the PRESTIGE of the human thought that for centuries was associated to the figure of chess players. It makes no sense to remark that chess engines have solved several problems of the past (such as in complex Queen endings, or by "revitalizing" some old lines of chess openings). That's totally negligible. When Fischer was playing, in 1960s and 1970s, even good "amateurs" such as good chess players of club (whose rating was around 1700-1800 Elo points) were respected by less expert players and novices, who used to ask them advices and submitted them their games and positions. But now even a kibitzer can take the game of a GM, or of a world champion, and after submitting it to a chess engine they can mercilessly find their mistakes. NO MORE RESPECT FOR HUMAN MIND! In the past we used to buy Chess Informants, as we were fascinated by the good analysis of many prestigious GM: Tal, Huebner, Korchnoi, Kasparov, Anand, Petrosian, Geller, etc. etc. and that was also an important source of income for them. But now NOBODY is interested in analysis of GM, only to those of chess engines, those useless engines and their STUPID names: Stockfish, Houdini, Fritz, Rebel, etc. This irreversible LOSS OF PRESTIGE made today's chess simply irrelevant as a mediatic sport. In the 1970s and 1980s chess was present in reportages of TV and newspapers, I remember that even the Guinness Book of Records used to devote at least a couple of pages to chess. But now chess totally disappeared from the radar of media. EVERYBODY knew Fischer, Spassky, Karpov and Kasparov. Today NOBODY knows Magnus Carlsen. I personally and randomly asked 100 people: some of them told me that he is an actor, other people told me that he is a politician, other told me he is a scientist. NOBODY GAVE THE RIGHT ANSWER. Who is the culprit of this situation? The culprit are those chess players, chess organizers, chess managers of FIDE and federations, etc., who at the end of 1980s did not STOP the use and advertising of chess computers. They could easily imagine that in less than 10 years chess engines would have prevailed over human chess players. But Kasparov and other GM went on by promoting those stupid matches versus Deep Blue, and other super computers. They earned a lot of money, but in the meantime they DESTROYED chess.
@@Albert-ct6tt Bravo!
Boby Fisher would be a great player if he was still alive! He fought against all the Soviet Empire!
Remember, Fischer was 16-ish years old when he played this ex-world champion.
Mikhail Tal
Imagine if paul Morphy had even a handful of worthy opponents, he could have reached untold heighets. He was as good as he was playing against people who were CM strength by todays standards (and not even strong CMs)
Not top ten, but top 1. I just don't think Carlsen or Hikaru could ever match Fischer's ruthlessness on the board. He was out to break you.
Bobby Fisher was a prodigy. I don’t care when he played
Absolutely! He’d be #1!
Would love to see prime Fischer go toe to toe with Magnus, just to see how two of the greatest chess minds of all time compare. Magnus probably takes his lunch money, but it's still fun to think about.
Pretty much Kasparov vs Anand in their latest match. Kasparov got out-theoried.
Magnus would fry him
I don't think Magnus would need to steal Bobby's money and make him go hungry to win.
It’s not a fair fight. Chess theory has advanced far beyond where if was in Fischer’s day, and Magnus has the advantage of studying all that theory. But bring Fischer up to speed and let him study chess for a few years and you’d have a very interesting contest.
Magnus and other players have attained their fortunes thanks to Fischer.
Fischer's peak rating was 2785. Accounting for ratings inflation, he would be 2900 today. At his peak he dismantled all the top players.
Carlsen drew with Karjakin and Caruana, and only beat an aged, beyond his prime Anand and a dead Nepomniatchi who was a zombie after that 200 move loss and who, despite being a brilliant and creative attacking player, is one of the most blunder prone top players in the history of chess.
It's too bad Fischer went crazy and stopped playing because he was on the path to becoming the god of chess. Nobody has taken on the entire Soviet system and beat them like Fischer did. Plus, they used to adjourn games back then and Fischer raised his analysis powers where he was out analyzing teams of Soviet super GMs, reaching a level of adjournment analysis matched only by Kasparov.
I don't think Carlsen or any future players will reach Fischer or Kasparov level, because they will not get the training of deep analysis of adjourned games.
Yes I agree, he and Capablanca
As a matter of sheer talent and hard work, none can compare to Bobby. Bobby, himself, said that he couldn't do what he did, because championships are more about teams and computers than individuals. No, Bobby wouldn't be top 10, today. Not the way he did it, in the past, and I doubt he'd work well with a team of 2nds.
16 years old !!!
BEST ATTACKER MOST PRESSURE ,OPPONENT NEVER SEEMS ON OFFENSE AGAINST DR SPOCK 🖖 BOBBY FISHER 🐉🤓
I definitely agree , he is the best ever .
Fischer was only 16 years old when this game was played!
I've studied Fischer -- his life, his games, etc -- for decades, and I think I can sum up his *chess* career thusly:
1. He took up chess at the age of six because he was isolated at home, and chess gave his over-clocked mind something to explore.
2. He gave up chess -- as a top-level competitive sport at least -- after he'd won the world championship in 1972, age 29, because he'd accomplished his life's goals of crushing the Soviet system and becoming the world's best. There were no more dragons to slay, no more Everests to climb.
Chess engines were already well developed and beating the world's best (Kasparov vs Deep Blue, 1997), and Fischer was disdainful of computer-aided assistance -- not an unexpected response since he pretty much achieved chess superiority on his own. Would he use an engine today to update his skills if given the chance? I think not, but he WOULD study the hell out current theory. He'd probably get printouts of all the important top-level games played in the last 20 years and sit down with an actual chessboard and pieces and work it out old school. And THEN eat everybody's lunch. And then quit for good.
Would Bobby Fischer Still Be in the TOP TEN Today? He'S the GOAT so of course , he will be number one , by far. Specially if he have access to top engine.
Today you're only as good as the computer and programmer..Bobby had a brain like a bear trap.
I am wrong but I was taught you cannot castle once you have moved the King!?
That is correct.
Fischer at his peak, were he to miraculously appear today and be motivated to compete......given a year to study would be rated approximately 3000, perhaps a bit better.
what's mad is he done it all before the internet? perhaps i sound naive but like, his resources would've been so limited. i can sit in my room and play people from across the world without going downstairs. I've never read a proper chess book in my life, i take youtube and the wealth of knowlege of granted. he had none of that
Fischer in his prime would still be a domiant player. His creative approach to the game would confuse and frustrate the majority of players who simply mimick moves and counter mobes fro previous masters games.
Good video
Yes I believe he would be in the top 10.
I agree!
Fischer would be rated 3000 today.
lol… what a silly question😂
Fischer would destroy everyone and perhaps only a few hand of GMs of our present date could give him a run for his money.
Fischer wasn’t just a strong player. He was obsessed to crush his opponents.
Nowadays with strong engines and internet with loads of database. He would be unstoppable.
in my mind he is the best player of all time
He did beat Kasparov in 1997 !
Bobby is still the top 1
Not only would Fischer be in the Top 10, but take the zero away--he would be number 1. Give him some time with these computer-driven algorithms and you won't hear so much about Magnus Carleson. The players of Fischer's time were flat-out better intuitive players than any computer-driven players today.
Bobby Fischer Still number One of all time .
He will be not come again
The innovation side of chess cannot be understated. Computer killed most innovation. Magnus may have been the greatest ever but since computers exist now it is so hard to tell anymore. Innovation of the human mind was the greatest magic to this game. Two players with only the knowledge they pernoally aquired, creating their own tactics. Now because people memorized so much on top levels you dont get to super cool positions almost ever anymore
I agree Fischer in his prime would the match of the century against Magnus. I would pay alot to see that match up, though my betting would be reluctant, I would bet on Bobby for better or worse.
I prefer Bobby Fischer videos than anyone else. I find his chess to always be brilliant and beautiful to watch. GOAT imo
No doubt he would
Chess masters today have a HUGE benefit of learning via internet and computers. If Fisher had that similar experience I guess he would have been a top 10 player.....but if you somehow time traveled him from the 1960's to present day tournaments, he get beat a lot.
I would love to see Fischer versus Hans Niemann, just to see how the personalities survive over the board
The chess wouldn't just speak, it would deliver a speech for the ages at jet-engine decibel levels.
Unquestionably, he'd be no1. He understood chess strategy better than most engines. I'd love to see him play Hans Niemann, purely for the fun of seeing if they both managed to live to the end of the game.
With the computer assistance that is available to all modern players Fischer would (IMO) be number one if he were a young man now. Not only is he a strong candidate for GOAT but also he was also one of the first to clearly foresee the future of chess. When most of the chess world was wondering if engines would ever play at master strength Fischer had this to say: "The machines have it".
But this game is not a good example of Fischer's strength. He did stand to lose twice!
your right
No one dominated more than Fischer in the 1970-1972 period. After the match with Spassky he was 120 rating points ahead of Spassky. The greatest gap in history.
That was a gamble
Bobby would be top 10 in classical 9LX. Who cares what Bobby would be in classical chess, rapid chess or blitz chess?
Let it put it this way, if an elderly Victor Korchnoi could beat elite youngster Caruana, Fischer could pose a challenge to todays elite. If he was born in 1990 who knows... more training posibillities. But he also had psychological issues. And in todays social media era, he wpuld not have thrived because of his inner demons IMO
What you call psychological issues are the consequences of intelligence, experiences and an extremely critical mind far beyond what you could imagine. Fischer was less crazy than you think, the world is more crazy than you think!
@@mircopaul5259 I said psychological issues, not that he is crazy. Pressure of social media would make him would not play for the world championship IMO. Denying the holocaust would make me take him less serious outside of his chessmind. It took alot of begging/money to bring him out to play Spassky. And I would say that after 72 Fischer lost goals. It was only downhill from there on because he could potentially lose to Karpov( I'm not saying he would lose in 75 but Karpov in 5 world championships vs Kasparov was something like 2 points difference. So Karpov was a big challenge to anyone
I dont understand this title.Bobby Fischer is considered one of the greatest of all times.
I say top five easily. I just like his style so I'm a bit biased
Yes, in comments made by Kasparov, he downplays Fischer's capabilities in the current evolved standard of play at the top level. If Kasparov's comments are true, then the assumption is that Fischer would not have evolved at the highest level. However we need to remember that Fischer was ahead of his time in the era he played. We cannot compare Fischer to the evolved game. We can therefore make an alternate assumption. That assumption being that Fischer didn't get caught up in his own mental issues, and he continued to evolve at the top level. If we make that assumption, then I don't have much doubt he would be the formidable opponent now, that he was at his peak.
Tournoi de Herceg Novi (1970) Fischer est 1er avec 19/22. Tal, second avec 14.5/22. En 1988, premier championnat officiel à Saint-Jean. Tal est premier, alors qu'il y a la participation de Kasparov et Karpov. Un jour Tal a répondu à une question, voici sa réponse : "Fischer est meilleur que moi en blitz".
Play-back at 0.75 too fast to appreciate the dynamics.
He peaked at 2795 daily FIDE Elo, nowadays that would translate to 2900, which is good enough for top 10. Red thumb.
Yes, he would! Firstly because his personal and outstanding rating of 2785 points of 1972 was achieved in a time when there wasn’t the Elo INFLATION of today’s top GM. Today’s top Elos are overrated for at least 100-150 points. Fischer reached a rating that was 125 points higher than the one of Spassky and other top GM such as Kortchnoi, Petrosian, Larsen. Whereas neither Kasparov nor Carlsen had similar positive gaps to their competitors.
Therefore, 2785 Elo points of 1972 are like 2890/2900 points of today’s top GM.
But I would like to point out that Bobby Fischer had a SECRET, that was revealed by GM Alexei Suetin, in his book of 1982 “Typische Fehler” (no translation in English as far as I know).
Suetin wrote: “Even the strongest GM are not immune from the defect to (wrongly) delve into too complex and uncontrollable variations, just because these latter originate sometimes from a first seemingly amazing move. On the contrary, when we analyse Fischer’s games (even blitz games!) we realize that he prefers to give up the search of too “brilliant” moves, involving the evaluation of too complex variations.”
That’s totally correct. Fischer’s strength was based on two “pillars”: 1) a deeper knowledge of openings, although with a limited repertoire; 2) a logical and straight style, with a search for logical but at the same time “simple” moves.
If we analyse his blitz games (where he had almost no time to think) at Herceg Novi 1970, and at Manhattan chess club of 1971, we see that he outperformed all his challengers by showing a better knowledge of openings, but also a logical and straight approach.
If he had the same chess theory to learn from as everyone else then he would certainly be in the top 3
Fischer was literally a human chess engine, he was the strongest end game player by far.
He was 16.
I think he'd be in the top two or three today, it's possible that with engine training (like today's players) he might even be better than Magnus
Given access to the same edges players today have? He'd be World Champion IMO.
he would probably be 3000 FIDE
i feel like im not qualified to say
Beautiful game. Love your breakdowns of these classic games @ChessDawg