Would Bobby Fischer be able to beat a 1500 today?

It‘s not only the openings. They played not that many games in the past, after some hours they agreed to adjourned games. Against Carlsen or any other well-trained youngster Fischer would be devastated today.

@AdamSandler
this question can only come from a country where people believe in the existence of angels
@Sarg0n
this a question of talent plus probably better training against probably not so effective preparation against a talent which was sufficient to be the best of a given period. And even if Fischer would lose once , how much better could he be with improved training?

I was just trying to find an interview with Peter Leko - in which he talks how Robert Fischer has helped him in the studying and preparations to the WCC (2004) but i couldnt find that movie - INSTEAD i have found an interview from 2006 where Bobby Fischer explains exactly the question that was asked in this thread :)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EuxVOgrEig

The louder one who talks more is Bobby, the interviewer only nods "Yeah" and "Aha."

Bobby would not be able to beat a 1000 today let alone a 1500 and thats because today everybody plays like alpha zero!!!!

#11

Bronstein commented that payers from even a century ago would be exactly on top of rankings today as they were in the past, assuming you will allow them to observe several modern tournaments, so they can familiarize themselves with modern finds in opening theory and style of play.

Skill-wise look at this latest blitz tournament, people hanging mates in one left and right, dropping pieces. One Soviet GM, it might have been Geller, commented that Fischer at his peak won such a Blitz tournament and didn’t hang a single pawn the entire time. Good chess is good chess, doesn’t matter wether it’s today or 100 years ago when Morphy would find a 10 move mate with variations blindfolded, Gareev announced mate in 5 in a blindfold game (VS 1 2000 guy) and everyone lost their minds.

And I’m not sure what you mean “not that many games”, players of the past played blitz, casual and rapid non stop, thousands of games.

Level of Fischer during the Spassky rematch was still provably and universally agreed at 2600-2650, and that was not even remotely the same Fischer anymore.

I mean investigations have shown that Magnus' games for instance contain extremely few errors, no comparison to the old masters. Fischer's book "memorable 60 games" contains a lot of mistakes - in the analysis.

What does that mean getting used? So the mid 30s try to catch up a with a modern prodigy?

I don't believe so. Sure, the same genetic disposition born today, why not? But they have to get used to it young - not with a concrete brain.

PS: 2600-2650 is exactly: a class worse compared to the top10 right now. RJF on his peak was half a class worse then MC on his peak, MC in a much more dense chess world though.

With his 1972 opening repertoire he would still be a threat for every player under 2XXX. Above that players are good enough to hurt him bad. But under that je will blast everyone by superior combination and technique skills.

I will not define XXX. Only the first digit is a no brainer. I would be much too weak, even with a top grandmaster repertoire memorized comes the moment where i would blunder.

I’m curious, did modern computers run a blunder check on Fischer’s peak games? Like let’s say when he beat Taimanov and Larsen 6-0? Or perhaps from the time he won the Candidates to last game with Spassky? At what rating strength do computers assess he was playing at?

By the way Sargon... You said he would struggle VS 2600... then you agreed old washed up Fischer in 1990s was 2600-2650... hmmm....

#17

I can tell you with certainty, that as someone who has no issues with OTB 2000 ranked players Fischer would destroy me in 100 straight games, blindfolded, taking less than a minute for the entire game. You are getting carried away. Today’s 2000 players are dust under Fischer’s fingernails. They are not good enough to even begin to realize the insane size of the gap between them and Fischer.

I’m closing in on 2300, 2200 on chess dot com, no problems VS 2000s in OTB games. And again, I’m telling you right here right now Fischer would kill me every single time calling out the moves instantly blindfolded in under 30 moves.

You are essentially saying that a below average Julliard music student today would play better than Paganini or Liszt. I can not begin to explain to you how laughably wrong that is. It’s like trying to explain to people how far the closest star is. There is no way to even begin to grasp such distances for the human brain. That is about the size of the skill gap between 2000 today and Fisher.

Fischer "6:0" encounters were much too high. The opponents spoiled some simple draws. Really, "simple".

Chess is like soccer. Compare today's games with that 30 years ago. Technique has improved drastically.