# Bobby Fischer vs. Garry Kasparov **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [March 7, 2013, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bobby-fischer-vs-garry-kasparov/652254 "2013-03-07T02:41:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2013, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bobby-fischer-vs-garry-kasparov/652254/21 "2013-03-09T08:40:44Z")
Oh, OK. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bobby-fischer-vs-garry-kasparov/652254/22 "2013-03-10T06:22:11Z")
> [@Doctor\_Jackson](#): > > Really? In a 20 year span for 1963ish to 1983ish, chess strategy advanced dramatically? I’m not a chess follower, I’m really asking. Abso-freakin’-lutely. Computers have done for chess what they did for accounting. Human chess players get through games mainly on heuristics. They know not to develop the queen early and not to make too many pawn moves in the opening. They control the center and castle early. But computers have revolutionized that thinking. We now know that you don’t always have to follow the rules precisely, and we get popular lines like the[Sveshnikov Sicilian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence#Sveshnikov_Variation:_4...Nf6_5.Nc3_e5) that moves a ton of pawns and makes weak squares, yet looks solid. The theory on the [Semi-Slav/Botvinnik variation](http://wp.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jd/jd_botvinnik_semi_slav.html) now stretches to 30 moves or more in some lines. Generally speaking, chess advances when a certain variation is pronounced dead because one side or the other comes up with a move that seems to be a complete refutation of the variation’s core idea, but then someone else finds a refutation of that refutation and all the pros start reexamining the line. It’s very much a “better sword-\>better armor-\>better sword” process. The fact that Kaspy will have the Najdorf as a weapon will turn the match in his favor, no doubt. ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bobby-fischer-vs-garry-kasparov/652254/23 "2013-03-10T07:50:29Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Abso-freakin’-lutely. Computers have done for chess what they did for accounting. Human chess players get through games mainly on heuristics. They know not to develop the queen early and not to make too many pawn moves in the opening. They control the center and castle early. But computers have revolutionized that thinking. We now know that you don’t always have to follow the rules precisely, and we get popular lines like the[Sveshnikov Sicilian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence#Sveshnikov_Variation:_4...Nf6_5.Nc3_e5) that moves a ton of pawns and makes weak squares, yet looks solid. The theory on the [Semi-Slav/Botvinnik variation](http://wp.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jd/jd_botvinnik_semi_slav.html) now stretches to 30 moves or more in some lines. > > Generally speaking, chess advances when a certain variation is pronounced dead because one side or the other comes up with a move that seems to be a complete refutation of the variation’s core idea, but then someone else finds a refutation of that refutation and all the pros start reexamining the line. It’s very much a “better sword-\>better armor-\>better sword” process. > > The fact that Kaspy will have the Najdorf as a weapon will turn the match in his favor, no doubt. I had to look up Najdorf since I’m not well versed on Chess strategy, and according to Wikipedia, Fischer used it. ---
**Author:** ![Mince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mince)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bobby-fischer-vs-garry-kasparov/652254/24 "2013-03-10T12:12:17Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > 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. The OP said “both in their peaks,” implying that it would be an anachronistic match. Given that condition, Weismuller destroys the high school girls. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bobby-fischer-vs-garry-kasparov/652254/25 "2013-03-10T14:41:42Z")
> [@Mince](#): > > The OP said “both in their peaks,” implying that it would be an anachronistic match. Given that condition, Weismuller destroys the high school girls. Of course it’s anachronistic, but I’m not following what you mean by this. ---
**Author:** ![Edward\_The\_Head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ce73a5/32.png) [@Edward\_The\_Head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edward_The_Head)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bobby-fischer-vs-garry-kasparov/652254/26 "2013-03-10T15:38:57Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > 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. Weismuller’s best time was 4:57 in 1923, the current women’s world record is [3:95.15](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_400_metres_freestyle). You have to remember that they didn’t have goggles, really poor strokes, the pools were shallow and had lots of waves. Put Weismuller in the pool today in his prime and I’m pretty sure he’d go much faster. It’d be like not being able to castle or move the pawn two on the first move for Fischer and allowing Kasparov using them. ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bobby-fischer-vs-garry-kasparov/652254/27 "2013-03-10T23:06:58Z")
If we’re talking the roughly 1994-ish Kasparov against the 1970-ish Fischer, Bobby gets killed. Chess advanced too much, and unlike Fischer, Kasparov didn’t try to learn it all on his own. > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > . > The fact that Kaspy will have the Najdorf as a weapon will turn the match in his favor, no doubt. > [@markdash](#): > > I had to look up Najdorf since I’m not well versed on Chess strategy, and according to Wikipedia, Fischer used it. I don’t think anyone has ever handled the black side of the Sicilian like Kasparov. Bobby’s insistence on playing e4 would be his doom. ---
**Author:** ![Mince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mince)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2013, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bobby-fischer-vs-garry-kasparov/652254/28 "2013-03-11T07:51:43Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Of course it’s anachronistic, but I’m not following what you mean by this. Hmmm. Not sure what _you_ mean, but if Weismuller enjoyed the same advantages as today’s swimmers have, or if today’s swimmers were as deprived as Weismuller..in other words, if they competed with the same conditions…Weismuller would destroy them. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2013, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bobby-fischer-vs-garry-kasparov/652254/29 "2013-03-11T08:04:04Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > That’s like asking who will win: Ali or Tyson? Answer for all versions: always the more recent champion. If it were possible for them to fight at their peaks, Ali takes Tyson. Tyson had a great punch, but he failed every gut check he ever faced in the ring. Ali would have given him more than he could handle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bobby-fischer-vs-garry-kasparov/652254.md?page=1)