NAKAMURA: Fischer would almost certainly lose to us

[Sean Evans]

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/nakamu ... appearance

Q. How do you think Fischer would do against top players like yourself, Carlsen, or Kasparov?

A. Fischer would almost certainly lose to all of us, but this is due to the fact that the game has so fundamentally changed. If Fischer had a few years to use computers, I think he would probably be on the same level.

[S.Taylor]

OK, so Fisher would probably be on the same level if he lived in our times, and maybe Morphy would be too.
Fischer was quite magnanimous to Morphy in that respect, as maybe we should be to him.
It's absolutely no question, that Fischer had all the grey matter to see deep variations at the board, very clearly.

Also, Fischer said in interviews that he hated studting openings and that so much should depend on them. But he did it very well, because he HAD to.
Today, even Karjakin said he sometimes has problems remembering some opening lines when he needs them.
Fischer would do very well, but he MIGHT have to be a little more humble than he had to be then.

[Sean Evans]

Kasparov advised that we cannot compare chess players from different times. We can only compare chess players against other chess players from the same time period

I think this approach is correct.

Sean

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/nakamu ... appearance

Q. How do you think Fischer would do against top players like yourself, Carlsen, or Kasparov?

A. Fischer would almost certainly lose to all of us, but this is due to the fact that the game has so fundamentally changed. If Fischer had a few years to use computers, I think he would probably be on the same level.

on the contrary, I am fully certain any world champion (excluding probably just Steinitz in the old days) would quite convincingly win any match against a contender living some half a century or so later who would not be the world champion himself.

world champions are simply much ahead of the competition, as Carlsen is some 70 elo ahead of Nakamura.
it is difficult to span that elo range, no matter how hard you try.

Fischer would of course crush Nakamura. I mean, Fischer at his prime.

Nakamura's claims are verry funny and contradict experience as well as common sense. Let him first overcome Carlsen and then talk; unfortunately, he barely won a game from Carlsen.

btw., he talked the same about Kasparov: not a good player, just studied a lot of theory. Who is Nakamura to talk like that? He is able to play Kasparov, only when Kasparov is growing older. In his prime, Kasparov would have crushed him more than convincingly.

I also hardly remember notable game by Nakamura, though I remember many notable games from Kasparov, Carlsen and Fischer.

[Dirt]

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/nakamu ... appearance

Q. How do you think Fischer would do against top players like yourself, Carlsen, or Kasparov?

A. Fischer would almost certainly lose to all of us, but this is due to the fact that the game has so fundamentally changed. If Fischer had a few years to use computers, I think he would probably be on the same level.

That's at least approximately true. It's too hard to compare players from different eras to be certain.

[Ras]

If Fischer were now as old as Nakamura is, then Fischer would have had access to computers as well, so the point is pretty moot.

Given that Fischer overplayed the whole Soviet empire all alone, nothing suggests that the situation would have been different if he (and all others) would have had also computers instead of books only.

[carldaman]

If Fischer were now as old as Nakamura is, then Fischer would have had access to computers as well, so the point is pretty moot.

Given that Fischer overplayed the whole Soviet empire all alone, nothing suggests that the situation would have been different if he (and all others) would have had also computers instead of books only.

Fischer became world champion at Nakamura's current age and was head and shoulders above the superGMs of his day. A few years earlier, in the early to mid-1960's Fischer had not yet entered his prime and was basically another superGM, easily in the top 5, but not yet above the others.

What Nakamura is forgetting is that he is the beneficiary of not just more chess knowledge, but also massive Elo rating inflation, which outweighs the former. In my rough estimation, Naka's true rating, measured in 1970's (Fischer's prime) Elo, adjusted for inflation and interim knowledge gains should actually be around 2700 Elo.

Fischer reached around 2790 Elo before he retired, so he was roughly 100 same-era Elo points above Nakamura at the same age. Conclusion: Nakamura errs greatly when he puts himself in the same conversation as the great Fischer of the '70s, and this can be backed up by studying the progression of historical ratings.

CL

[leavenfish]

What Naka's comment infers (unintentionally I'm sure) is that todays top players could (perhaps only) beat Fischer due to how the game has changed and computers.

What this leads to is the thought that if Naka and others could go back in time WITHOUT the benefit of the added 'knowledge' and computers...Fischer would be every good as them...perhaps better.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

What Naka's comment infers (unintentionally I'm sure) is that todays top players could (perhaps only) beat Fischer due to how the game has changed and computers.

What this leads to is the thought that if Naka and others could go back in time WITHOUT the benefit of the added 'knowledge' and computers...Fischer would be every good as them...perhaps better.

Kasparov was best with or without computers.
no reason to believe it would have been different with Fischer.

I guess browsing every single US or foreign chess-related edition has very much to do with large databases and computers. On the other hand, many current top GMs browse just the random database here and there.

besides, computers do not add so much to knowledge-based play: you still have to look for new ideas.

[Ponti]

If he was still alive and using computers, playing and analysing chess for so many hours as he did, in a 6 game match I´d say Naka would loose to Fischer as badly as Taimanov and Larsen did in candidates match.