Verdict of hypothetical battle of Fischer vs Carlsen.

@petri999 said in #20:
> @Sarg0n Obviously I cannot judge myself on quality of his calculation but according several computer studies on past and present top players he has quite good
> www.thinkmind.org/download.php?articleid=icsea_2019_9_40_10137
> Puts him ahead of Fischer.
>
> This study makes rather good effort as least compensating for complexity and player style. Making errors when playing like kasparov is more likely when playing like karpov I is a basic asumption I guess.
> http://www.chessbase.com/news/2006/world_champions2006.pdf
> and Capablanca is close to top.
>
> Obviously any sort analysis has to make asumptions which may or may not be valid but I would say very unreasonable to assume that current amateur players could crush Capablanca.
>
> And Casablanca is a town that probably has way too mane Rick's bars

Depends what you define amateur,
A reasonable strong amateur could beat him.

If you define amateur as non professional and not beginner

I do not think so. Did you check the papers. Capablanca made less mistakes and blunders then for instance Fischer. On par with many temporary top players. Lack of opening is something one can fix. Lack of basic chess skills tends to lot harder. So no IM/FM level player could just crash him. He was an extremely good player by any standards.

@petri999 said in #22:
> I do not think so. Did you check the papers. Capablanca made less mistakes and blunders then for instance Fischer. On par with many temporary top players. Lack of opening is something one can fix. Lack of basic chess skills tends to lot harder. So no IM/FM level player could just crash him. He was an extremely good player by any standards.

Thats ridiculous first of all those measures mean nothing when they are in relation to opponents.
Second Fischer had the highest accuracy rating, though as i said its not meaningful anyway.

I Show you an example in a second

Here i played the perfect game, its ridiculous

I wrote a book of fictional games of famous chess players called chess time machine i posted on here 7 years ago.

In those games i compared each players opening repertoire and found plausible middlegame positions which i played out with engines.

Fischer beat Carlsen 1.5 out of 2

lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/chess-time-machine---how-i-re-invented-chess-past-with-fictional-games

@Sarg0n said in #18:
> Casablanca for example was too lazy for calculating properly. He made quite some mistakes.
> Facing today‘s complicated openings he would lose even against amateurs.
Chess may have developed but modern players lack originality, creativity and positional play. Modern players are just stuck in web of engines!
You think you would easily defeat him in hypothetical match?
Lol! Enough for the day!

@Akbar2thegreat said in #26:
> Chess may have developed but modern players lack originality, creativity and positional play. Modern players are just stuck in web of engines!
> You think you would easily defeat him in hypothetical match?
> Lol! Enough for the day!

I think every single person in this forum is trolling.

But imagine a 16 year old kid, strong amateur with a gratis memory , studied openings and middke game plans.

You think this guy equipped with the ingenuity of all that came after capablanca. Will seriously lose to a player that needed ages for that time games?

There are countless evidences to show how great Capablanca is. And kids (I mean amateurs) won't understand his legacy.
He also holds best score of 74.2% with +382 -46 =265
You can see many online discussions talking about Capablanca, just sharing one of those:
www.quora.com/Why-were-there-not-many-chess-players-who-defeated-Capablanca-more-than-once

@Akbar2thegreat said in #28:
> There are countless evidences to show how great Capablanca is. And kids (I mean amateurs) won't understand his legacy.
> He also holds best score of 74.2% with +382 -46 =265
> You can see many online discussions talking about Capablanca, just sharing one of those:
> www.quora.com/Why-were-there-not-many-chess-players-who-defeated-Capablanca-more-than-once

Yes if you have to resort to qoura thats usually not a good sign.

@binjetzterstbeimArzt said in #27:
> I think every single person in this forum is trolling.
Yeah, seems so (except me!)

> But imagine a 16 year old kid, strong amateur with a gratis memory , studied openings and middke game plans.
Certainly possible like prodigies like Morphy. He is also one of the greatest. He faced lot of complex positions and played many unsound moves. Second best player of 19th century after Steinitz (he's too strong)

> You think this guy equipped with the ingenuity of all that came after capablanca. Will seriously lose to a player that needed ages for that time games?
A guy coming after lot of generational chess players doesn't necessarily have advantage of having known of those players games. And how do you say that such an amateur would win. You are assuming (for no reason) that Capablanca would lose to a (strong) amateur!