Right but technically David was focused on engine analysis. It's changing the question a bit to say we're including the 50 years of games since Fischer's day, and the many opening variations that have been tried and either proven or discarded since.

I agree though I have to say that the level of today's engine is so high that the value of the database is declining. 5 years ago I would not have said that.

It also changes the question a bit if the group of players spends time preparing exactly to a match vs Fischer, which I think is partly your point. In that case I think even a modern 2400-guy would have some chances, due to the massive advantage he might gain from opening knowledge.

I agree, though I have to say that the level of today's engine is so high that the value of the database is declining. 5 years ago I would not have said that.

It also changes the question a bit if the group of players spends time preparing exactly to a match vs Fischer, which I think is partly your point. In that case I think even a modern 2400-guy would have some chances, due to the massive advantage he might gain from opening knowledge. Then again if Fischer knew that he has been prepared against for 2 years...

yeah ok, i think thats the point .. /thread

if from all those 24+ IMs would study specifically for a match against Fischer , and the one with the highest rating improvement would play the match.. Fischer would lose..

do the same vs Kasparov at his prime and yeah you would get pretty much 0%

vs Carlsen 0.0%

Magnus vs Kasparov having a world championship match with both at their prime, it would be a very easy game for Carlsen , i'm just not sure if anyone could've reached Kasparov's level without computer aid , technology would be highly involved here, more than any raw talent , and i stand by the OP original question with my answer.. would an IM in their 20's with 2 years of studying to beat Bobby Fischer have any odds of beating him ? Absolutely

Kasparov's peak was pre-engine as well, in the sense we know it today. Deep Blue in 1997 only eked out a 3.5/2.5 win over him after all. When we say engine now we mean computers that will win every game, every time against any human ever.

Carlsen obviously came up in the present era and this IM would have no advantage.

So just to throw out some wild numbers, maybe the IM in this scenario (one-game ambush against that one player) might have an expected score of ~0.8 against Fischer for that ONE ambush game, ~0.7 against Kasparov in that ONE GAME, 0.001 against Carlsen.

so a player that had an higher rating , a much wider opening repertoire , and yeah Kasparov already worked with computers , they were not as good .. but they wouldnt blunder , and would find 'interesting' moves that he could explore , almost 100% sure i heard him say smtg like 'ofc our team worked with computers, they were already almost as good as the top players , why would we not?'

if you believe the odds are the same of beating Fischer and Kasparov at their peak under the same conditions , you don't know what you're talking about sry

he lost in 1997 to deep blue and reached his peak rating in 99, think there's no computer influence in here?

well the whole point about this match , was that the last game changed the perception of computers , as kasparov tried to play an anti computer opening , and lost in 18 moves, this was unheard of , and a big milestone for computers , no one would do a miniature vs kasparov at that time , a computer did , by making a well known knight sac on the Steinitz Variation variation of the Caro on move 4, playing for long term compensation(well not so long apparently) , compared to being materialistic as it was before..

from this point on , if a computer can exploit a 'bad opening' this well, they are reliable !

in 1996 adjournments stopped being used , for some reason.. computers could already give a much broad spectrum on an endgame position

While Kasparov was the guy who took opening theory to a completely different level, you must understand that he was always able to ask difficult questions from the opponents because of his information advantage. Turn that advantage upside down and suddenly he doesn't look like a machine anymore. I think that Kasparov looked a bit better than he actually was and I say this with massive respect towards him as a player.

That being said these numbers "~0.8 against Fischer for that ONE ambush game, ~0.7 against Kasparov in that ONE GAME" sound a bit high.

isn't being ahead of the curve with what you can use, the whole point of being successful in life?

i mean... give Nakamura a higher IQ and you have a new WC. give Fischer Nakamura's endurance and you have the best player of all time ... all these comparisons just seem flawed ...

I don't know and that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Nonsense and guesses. I also personally view "IQ" as it is to be borderline nonsense. Of course Nakamura is not of average intelligence no matter what test he took. That or the whole concept of intelligence is seriously flawed.

ok... so why was fischer ahead of the curve , 'give him short memory loss . and he wont be as good', thats pretty much what you're saying

it doesn't have to do with the discussion per se , its just an argument that's flawed..



your opinion is completely irrelevant, it's really all about data.
IQ tests may have their flaws , but since the 1900s that they've been pretty accurate and even more today in being pretty efficient in measuring all types of raw intelligence , and people who think that an IQ test can't measure emotional intelligence , pbb never did one ..

Btw, Nakamura has a 'mildly gifted IQ' of 120, this is way above average , what you find online is not an IQ test he did when he was young , and IQ tends to go up with age

'concept of intelligence is seriously flawed' you lost me there

if you're talking about IQ, there's several examples on google, Einstein , Newton , Darwin, chess..

In science IQ would be what we call a non 'fact', thus smtg better can come out , and we throw the IQ test out the window , its an idea that has not been proven beyond a reason of a doubt that it's 100% accurate , one example , ether idea that was not a fact yet , but needed to exist for light to travel , and it turns out that light travels just fine , so there's really no ether.. IQ has done a very good job , its used in courts to get a better idea about the person they are dealing with.. saying its completely flawed its just a confirmation bias

If you don't understand what I'm saying just ask. Don't try to guess or say something nonsensical and follow it up with "that's pretty much what you're saying". Thank you.

Fischer was ahead of the curve because he understood chess better than his compatriots. That has nothing to do with anything I've previously stated in this thread.

Your last paragraph implies that after all that gibberish you do understand that there is nothing "proven" in an IQ test. There is no static IQ value for a person. Maybe it is the best we have right now, but that doesn't mean it's not flawed.

Also, I didn't say that the concept of intelligence is seriously flawed. Next time try reading what I actually say.

and Kasparov was ahead of the curve because he would come out with new opening ideas , and was extremely sharp tactically .. so what ? isn't that understanding better chess than others ?

gibberish? there's several studies where 'the IQ test' has shown to be very efficient in measuring intelligence . even if its slightly flawed on some topics , its very accurate on others . its like i said , your ' I also personally view "IQ" as it is to be borderline nonsense' its a comment coming from plain ignorance ..

yeah we'll have better tests one day, but thus far all we've done was improve the IQ test, and not come up with a brand new idea .. it's used in a court of law , it's used to aid children with lower average intelligence, where they get taught in a different way, might call that discrimination , but in reality , they do end up with a way more reasonable IQ compared to before when we put these kids in normal schools .. but nonsensical ? really ?

the flaw comes from intelligence doesn't ALWAYS bring success or happiness , in some ways the other way round

Fischer had the highest IQ of all top chess players ever, he had schizophrenia, sounded like a lunatic, made erratic decisions, died young and unhappy .. but at the chess board , oh boy, didn't that IQ count

Kasparov was ahead of the curve for several reasons, but the biggest one was that he was way ahead the field in openings. He (or his team, to be exact) would come up with lots of well-analyzed new ideas that allowed him to demolish the field even as black. Is that understanding chess better than others? No. But that is not relevant.

What is relevant for the subject is that if there was some 2400 kiddo who was able to prepare for the match for two years with computers that advantage would be turned upside down and Kasparov wouldn't look as strong anymore. I know I am repeating it, but I am doing so because you didn't understand or read what I said.

I will not comment anymore on the IQ-issue, it's unimportant and I've made my point already. I don't know what Nakamura has tested but I know he is not of "average intelligence" or so as claimed by some sources. That was a comment to your senseless guess that he would be the WC if he only had higher IQ. Had I known how you communicate I wouldn't have even brought it up.

i addressed the points that were made that i was sure were not correct , like endgames have not evolved , people reaching their peak chess rating in their 20s and IQ being borderline nonsense . in terms of chess i gave my opinion , i've won and drew vs a couple 2200s / 2300s fide over the board and online , but my rating is not even close to that .. i believe your opinion is gonna be more accurate than mine

so kasparov had a better team , and he was way more prepared than others , and his team was just that much better, and he's overrated .. at his 60's he's playing blitz fischer random and getting better positions vs top 5s in the world nowadays , idk maybe i'm missing smtg .. anyway , this thread going out of track and we're getting nowhere here

i do understand what you said tho , i still dont agree with it , i didnt the first time , english is not my native language , apologies for that

English is not my native language either, but I don't think that is the problem.

I don't know who said "endgames have not evolved", who said "people reach their peak chess rating in their 20s" or who said "he's overrated" (on Kasparov). If you seriously think I said those things just read my posts again.

"At his 60's he's playing blitz fischer random and getting better positions vs top 5s in the world nowadays". Do you think that would be impossible if what I (actually) said was true? Also modern top players are very openings-oriented for a good reason. It's only logical that Kasparov does BETTER vs modern top players in 960 than in real chess, no matter if he was very openings-oriented himself 20-30 years ago.

Kasparov would completely obliterate all comers in this thought experiment. He actually is alive. Remember a few years ago when no one played the Italian and then suddenly, everyone did? Yeah, it was because he showed up in St. Louis and had a bunch of interesting ideas in it.

Of course, if he didn't take any of the games/match seriously then whatever, but if you said something like "Putin's life is on the line" then he'd just absolutely humiliate whoever ended up playing him.

There is absolutely no way that wasn't possible 5 years ago. An outlier situation, sure? But impossible? That definitely sounds possible for certain people in certain situations.

Ya'll sleeping on Kasparov. He would outplay his opponent *in the opening* in whatever match he had in this thought experiment. He routinely outplays his 2700+ top player opponents in the opening in the exhibition stuff he has played the last few years.

A big reason is that he can look at all of their games and he has very little/no recent history. But the 2400 IM who studies and even gameplans for Kasparov is going to have to win by Kasparov blundering. He won't be able to outplay him or out prepare him.

It's a massive difference vs. Fischer where the 2400 player would absolutely be able to target theory from 1970s and get big advantages in every game (for a while at least). Fischer would likely still outplay them in a lot of positions but if the match is short, Fischer is at a disadavantage.

Oh, but we're talking about peak Kasparov. Hmmm, he could for sure be found out in the opening I guess but the 2400 player would not be able to play the Berlin as well as Kramnik in 2003 or whatever. Not even close.

bro thats what i said the entire thread , dont come @me xD

Yep you two are from the same cuckoo's nest

also chess and 'not serious' is really not in kasparov's dictionary , man always played every game like if it was the final game of the WC, he loved the feeling of winning, and he absolutely hated and hates losing . he personally said he doesn't play more invitational matches , first obviously cause he's pretty busy , but it really gets in his head. he said that actually he couldn't sleep on the first night of the first ST Louis invitational out of frustation, cause like you said , he literally got better positions on every single game on the day and i think there were at least 6 top 10s out of the 10 players(?) , playing the italian and the scotch , and his well known Najdorf pushing pawns like a maniac without castling where he made Caruana look like a 2000 rated player and kept on outplaying them in the middle game, having completely winning positions and blundering cause it was blitz ..

he still today says that his Nx blunder instead of Qx vs Anand on the blitz chess World championship finals (?) in 199(8)? is still something that gives him pain when he sees the position or the videos .. so if anyone wanted to win there , it was him

Okay so since you are now both insisting on this strange narrative that he 1)got better positions in every single game and 2)did some (major?) theoretical breakthrough in the Italian let me look at those games. When exactly was this tournament played again?

he plays every year since 2016 i think in the st louis invitational since 2016. so it was his first appearance after 15h of retirement , all his winnings get donated to 'chess schools' , but he went to win.. just too slow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA2XjWJggTI&t=37s

minute 5 to 25 says a lot ..