Fisher
www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history
from a empirical standpoint magnus is much better than fischer was
but that's only due to their different eras
fischer never had the technology and resources magnus had and still has
if they switched birth dates maybe fischer would be 1# on that list and magnus only 4#
the thing is we don't know
the only thing we can really use to compare champions from different eras is to look how much better they were than their pierce
and in that regard bobby was much ahead of magnus, he had a Fide rating of 2785 in 1972! the top grandmasters of that time were all around 2650
it took 18 years until kasparov had finaly overtaken fischers record rating and at that time the number of +2600 players had nearly trippled
i don't want to say that fischer is the best or that magnus is tho
i just want to say that a real comparison is not really doable
from a empirical standpoint magnus is much better than fischer was
but that's only due to their different eras
fischer never had the technology and resources magnus had and still has
if they switched birth dates maybe fischer would be 1# on that list and magnus only 4#
the thing is we don't know
the only thing we can really use to compare champions from different eras is to look how much better they were than their pierce
and in that regard bobby was much ahead of magnus, he had a Fide rating of 2785 in 1972! the top grandmasters of that time were all around 2650
it took 18 years until kasparov had finaly overtaken fischers record rating and at that time the number of +2600 players had nearly trippled
i don't want to say that fischer is the best or that magnus is tho
i just want to say that a real comparison is not really doable
Oh, Magnus is a far healthier player and is presentable to non chess audiences who may follow him into the game. He is competitive, but he has control over it. He would not let it destroy him.
OTOH, Fischer had that all consuming, burning, destructive, ever improving creativity which no one could withstand, including his own inner self. It is the kind of thing that makes some people prefer professional sports over amateur sports.
In that sense, I prefer Magnus Carlsen. He does throw those tantrums, but it is nice to watch him easily troll and joke with his opponents, just keeping games as games.
In the longer run, Magnus may actually attract more people to chess, newer people, people who make chess a part of their life, nourishing from its healthier aspects.
And yeah, Fischer would win a match, even a follow up match, but Magnus would eventually grind him down in the longer run, over many tournaments. He would last longer.
OTOH, Fischer had that all consuming, burning, destructive, ever improving creativity which no one could withstand, including his own inner self. It is the kind of thing that makes some people prefer professional sports over amateur sports.
In that sense, I prefer Magnus Carlsen. He does throw those tantrums, but it is nice to watch him easily troll and joke with his opponents, just keeping games as games.
In the longer run, Magnus may actually attract more people to chess, newer people, people who make chess a part of their life, nourishing from its healthier aspects.
And yeah, Fischer would win a match, even a follow up match, but Magnus would eventually grind him down in the longer run, over many tournaments. He would last longer.
I prefer Carlsen over Fischer. Fischer's so strange and keeps disappearing all the time, while Carlsen seems to be quite active.
Magnus and fisher
They are both admirable of how good they are
They are both admirable of how good they are
@Aragorn-Elessar Fischers dead....
Magnus Kimovich Fischer
I don't now because Magnus and Fisher are very good chess player.(This is my opinion I am not against you if you disagree.)
In my opinion, Fischer would win in a game vs Magnus.
Robert James Bobby Fischer
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.