10 game match…
who wins the majority…
both in their peaks
Whew… Fischer 7, Kasparov 3.
One night in Bangkok…
That’s like asking who will win: Ali or Tyson? Answer for all versions: always the more recent champion.
As a clue, high school girls today can lap Johnny Weismuller.
I wouldn’t call either the poster child for emotional stability, but I think Kasparov might hold it together long enough to wear down Fischer.
Call it 6-4 with 35 draws.
Kasparov definitely because a lot had happened in chess and Kasparov used a team approach, while Fischer did it all himself.
Human physical prowess is growing quickly, but chess is a far more mental than physical game. I don’t think human mental capacity has appreciably increased in a generation.
Chess or fistfights?
Swimsuit competition
Why would they only use their tongues though?
ETA: Hot.
Fischer would increase his mental capacity by leaping across the table and gnawing on Kasparov’s brain.
Kasparov.
Reading chess boards he seems to be the overwhelming choice of best ever.
Under Fischer’s proposed random chess, who knows.
It’s not a matter of human capacity changing, necessarily. We’ve just learned more about the game. By the same token, there were doubtless Cro-Magnons as smart as Einstein, but none of them could have accomplished what Einstein did, because the groundwork just wasn’t there.
I thought the canonical answer was one-on-one basketball.
Oh Jackson. What kind of doctor are you? Human physical prowess is not growing, but today there are better materials available to athletes than before, for instance swim suits or track shoes or bikes. Also, thinking about technique has evolved, and about diets.
Chess players benefit from a lot of the same things. Diets, approach to games (concentration requires physical fitness and a good combination of rest and activity), and most of all chess strategy have developed considerably, thinking about how to handle situations, etc. Chess is not like tic-tac-toe, it’s definitely a game in which a certain manner of ‘discoveries’ are made as to which are viable strategies. So yeah, Kasparov would probably have the upper hand against Fischer.
Garry Kasparov gets my vote; although Bobby Fischer is a really cool player. I love his style. By the way, I am a former chess player that actually has a USCF rating somewhere inthe 1400’s. I stopped playing for now and decided I will start playing it again (seriously, with a chess coach and everything) when I get older.
What about Capablanca?
I would think that Kasparov at his prime would have beaten Fischer at his prime simply because Kasparov has decades more of chess theory and computer analysis behind him to learn from. Now, if they were both born in the same era with the same knowledge base at their peaks, that might be more interesting.
Really? In a 20 year span for 1963ish to 1983ish, chess strategy advanced dramatically? I’m not a chess follower, I’m really asking.
I said considerably, not dramatically - but yes, over the course of a few decades there can be and have been developments in chess theory that would put players with those new developments at their disposal at a considerable advantage. I imagine that the ability to use a lot of raw computing power would increase that process. Unfortunately I don’t play chess nearly well enough to tell you anything about what those innovations really are, but I understand the game well enough that I can grasp abstractly that they might exist.
If by that you mean “the best woman in the world can shave six seconds off Weissmuller’s 100m time” then yes, otherwise I think you’re engaging in a mite of hyperbole.
Well Weismuller did swim up to 400 meters, and his OR time in 1924 (5:04) is a full minute behind the time high schooler Janet Evans put up (4:03) in the 400 in the '88 games at the age of 17.
Based on averages, Evans was touching the wall at 400 meters only 15 or so seconds behind Weismuller’s touch at 300 meters.
So only a slight bit of hyperbole. 