If you could play against any historical player, who would it be? 

lmaoooooo

violation of what?

violation of what?

​@@vibovitoldHuman rights

@@0rphicK He is alive lmao. A "historical" player in the literal player would mean a player who's already dead.

yeah i wonder nobody said "young Magnus" )

@@Alexander-dt2eq Magnus is still alive, and most of them already played against him

@@dandinzin young magnus is dead, according to old Magnus

@@dandinzin Vishy Anand is alive as well yet someone still mentioned him.

They finally realized their long-term audience is from 15-25

@@ZeCroiSSanT950 this has defo got that 7-14 kinda audience i reckon

@@ZeCroiSSanT950 bro this shit is for the 13 year olds

too much zoomer/millenial meme editing

Yeah lol, what 16 year old managed to upload this. The surf music as well is madness

Not prime vishy though

No, he gone.

@@musasiddiqui5629 He doesn't need to be in his prime to kick her ass, though.

@@musasiddiqui5629 VISHY is still in top 10 player list and semi active player. He comes , beats asses and leaves .

@@musasiddiqui5629 Just so you know, Vishy beat Abasov just before the candidates started. He's still got it.

I WANT to see what Tal would have become with modern prep

@@paulbarbat1926 isn't he a strong rapport? or maybe strong dubov?

he is the GOD.

@@salmanelbadessi1922 I think Rapport would be the closest in playing style ; not sure how their strengths would compare, but Tal had a positive record v Fischer and apparently Fischer has a chance to hold his own against top5 players today, so would probably beat Rapport. But even Rapport today is not a quarter of the deviant Tal was

cuz they don't want that L!

this

I think she meant vishy in his prime

​@@destroyeranmol1124 Vishy in 2008-2012 period

@@destroyeranmol1124 yes, i think so too , but funny thing is that Vishy Anand even now can beat her easy :D

I'm disappointed that he didn't get any love here! My pick as well!

@@dblthnk84 exactly!!

Mikhail Tal the goat❤

prbly current super GMs think Tal is dubious.

I would pay to lose in a simul

Idk about that, Fischer wasn’t a memorization guy

@@thebcwonder4850 I agree 100%, he isn't a memorization guy, he play mostly on intuition and in-game advanced calculation; but I think with stockfish, his intuition would be a lot better too.

He would have no chance against Magnus👍

@@huntermach7356exactly, he could play out endless games at the very highest level, try alternatives and grow his intuitive understanding of the game as he does so

@@Phurngirathaana even if true, it would be exciting to see them head to head. My top matchup if we could have had it

Absolutely.

Highest winning percantage than any world champ aswell. Perfect US championship score. Are 2 other chess World records he had.

100%

a blitz rizz you mean

Yes!

I was about to say the same thing. Don't know how so many are loving this

Supernezh

Because all of them would demolish Morphy. It seems that they were taking it as playing them as they were in the past, no modern prepartion or anything, which is why some mention that Fischer was playing at a similar level of today's top players.

I was hoping one of them would mention Morphy. A true historical figure and the best of his day.

I was waiting to hear his name. Was so disappointed not to hear it even once. Casablanca also deserves a place he got, but Vishy? I was laughing b4 that laugh😂😂😂😂😂

He was probably not mentioned because Morphy would just get crushed by today's best players.

​@@zamuzz What's up? Some Advice for You. Google Paul Morphy and check out some of His Games and then You might have a different opinion. Especially, check out His Games with Harwixt. I think His first Name was Paul Harwixt. I might be spelling His last Name wrong. But that's Close enough for Google. Have a good one, 🕊️ Out. Freeman from the States the United States that is. P.S. I'm from America, like Morphy and the Great Bobby Fisher. But, if You look at Their Games back then and look at the Best Chess Players now, You notice a Particular difference, Paul Morphy and Bobby Fisher were more Creative and Innovative in bringing Themselves Victories on the Chess Board. They created Chess Ingenuity on Their Own on the Chess Board playing by the Same Chess Principles and Rules that exist Today. And This with Their Own Mind. Not with a Computer or Chess Engine for moves or Chess Strategy. Back in Their Playing time Chess was More Intriguing and Enthusiastic. Exempting some of the Chess Games Bobby Fisher played with Boris Spasky in the World Chess Championship in 1972 , it's hard to find a Boring Game that Bobby Fisher and Paul Morphy play against Their Contemporary Chess Opponents. Have a good one, 🕊️ Out. Freeman from the States the United States that is.

@zamuzz I think today's super GMs would crush any champion of the past.

​@@zamuzz If Paul morphy lived today he would be even stronger ( learning from AI ) such as stockfish or Alphazero

It's what Fischer himself would have said.

The players would see Morphy as some aggressive amateur. It would be my answer too as a patzer, but they don't have the same reference

Heh. They can't be wrong about who they would want to play.

This guy en passants

They all would destroy Morphy easly, really 0 problems

Bro you take them seriously lol? live chat is the most ridiculous thing on the planet..

@@JJBA1000B So true lol

I bet you had a discussion with some random in the live chat and still mad about it, dont take live chat serious man lmao

Fischer peaked for like 2 years then got scared to lose and ran away. Refused to play Karpov. Not to mention his terrible personality. Don’t think anyone wants to play him tbh.

@@ndnd7614 thank you for proving the point...

Not really modern players will easily beat those old style chess players but if Morphy had undergone the same training with the engines then he'd be a different beast

It will be humiliating for them to play a patzer like morphy

Morphy was my answer as a patzer.. but all the grandmasters in this video would demolish him. They want an actual challenge

@@hhandle what about Capablanca?

He was Fischer's favorite.

Why???

Yeah he's a good example of how it's just completely impossible to know how good historical players would be today. There was nobody at the time who could challenge him, so a lot of his inaccuracies were just boredom.

The first women still said Fischer and mentioned alekhine after. Shouldn’t of negated the point

She is sent to a Gulag​@@surtursaga6789

you are funny

@@surtursaga6789 She realised she was a russian, so she had to cover

He was Fischer's favorite.

He still lost vs Alexander Alekhine tho

If Magnus and Kasparov were dead they would also be top chocies in this question though. Also, a lot of what made Fischer a "superstar" had nothing to do with his playing strenght.

⁠​⁠@@nicolasrios1231 if Anand was an answer, Kasparov surely can be.

@@thebcwonder4850 They weren't given alternatives. The only person who named someone who is still alive didn't even say Fischer so I don't see how that's relevant at all. Every other player understood that by historical they meant chess players of the past, as in, those who are not around anymore.

There's no such thing as goat. A lot of Fischer's notoriety is just a product of the time he lived in. It's impossible to know, for example, how peak Fischer/Kasparov/ Carlsen/Morphy/whoever else would do against each other, and it never will be. It's just speculation.

Carlson would beat all of them. That dont mean that Magnus is better but chess had improve with a lot of theory. I believe the next WC will be better than Magnus just because theory keeps improving

He became the world champion when Lei was like three yeasr old. Still being active and being part of chess history isn't mutually exclusive. Both statements are true with regard to Vishy.

Historical persons are individuals who are recognized for their achievements or influence in their respective fields. While many historical figures are deceased, it doesn't mean that someone needs to be dead to be considered historical.

Explain.

@@heilaarnezki8222 Chess was invented in Gupta Empire. Story goes like the youngest Gupta prince was killed in a battle and hence his older brother to explain his younger brother's death to his emotional queen mother devised this boardgame "Chaturanga" which later became Chess. It was to explain a tragic event in a relatively subtle way

tal would win in a humiliating fashion, that's why they didn't name him

No,None mentioned tal

No one mentioned Short either 😢

I know its a joke but short is one of the historical players( has a variation in caro kann) ​@@gklHBKiluvhim

​@@chouyt2158no he wouldn't

Fischer would have picked Capablanca for sure lol.

free palestine

@@cooloutac free palestine

@@ZohairArqum from hamas?

From hamas?

Extremely stupid statement. What do you mean by recent enough? There were many top player at his time but they were just not as good as he was. After 30 yrs. the answer will be the same

@@aleksdobrev1486 Im not talking about HIS time though, im talking about who came AFTER. Players like Garry Kasparov for example is a huge deal. in 30 years from now, he'll be just as much of a legend as Fischer if not more. But its kinda weird to mention someone like Gary Kasparov when he was active not all that long ago, and is still alive today even. Many current top players have even played Gary when he was active. So he's just "too recent" to really be a good consideration. But in 30 years? Yea, tons of players will probably want the chance to play peak Kasparov. There are a few other players like that too, such as Karpov. Or Annad. And in like, 50 years, players like Magnus will be on that list too. The thing is, RIGHT NOW, Fischer is just in the perfect spot where he isnt too old to not really be much of a challenge to modern players, but also old ENOUGH where modern players would really want to play him since he was never really active in their lifetimes. And just being dominant in your time isnt enough. Players like Tal or Morphy would be on that list too otherwise. Morphy especially, he was one of the most dominant players of all time, even more so than Fischer. But he lived far too long ago, he wouldnt even stand a chance against modern GMs, let alone Modern Super GMs. Fischer on the otherhand is from the 70s, meaning he's close enough to modern times where a lot of chess theory was already developed. Now, engines did make players significantly stronger again after Fischer, but he was also dominant enough in his time that even today he'd at least stand a chance against modern Super GMs instead of just getting completely destroyed like other people from his time, or any of the legends that came before.

No reverse gear!

None other player did what fischer did, no matter what you say

@@Nicolauzz Yeah. No other player was a neo-nazi misogynist.

@@GMPranav are you a jew

mikhail tal had too much vulnerability, that made it possible to force his hand into a loss. Alekhine was more organized.

I read it, its pretty good.