Has Chess advanced in a way that makes it so players of the past (top players) wouldn't stand a chance against players of today even in their prime?
Would someone rated 2600 today be better than someone rated above 2700 like Fischer from the past?
Or are the ratings absolute skill assessments?
Ratings are not absolute, but I'd like to hear from stronger players on this topic.
If, say, Fischer in the early 70s were to play a rated 2650 of today, he would just be refuted in the opening, I guess. But if he would have the time to study modern theory, I'd say he'd be amongst the best of today still.
Ratings are rubbish, they are now inflated
Fischer sweep the floor with the vast majority of current players
Elderly martial arts master.
LOL, sorry! This should've been posted in the "Connection Game". LOL!
I have no idea.
I'm a better chess player than Fischer. I have a pulse.
I tend to not believe in rating inflation, I actually think that players are just stronger now. Thus, Magnus would whip Fischer, as brilliant as they both are. Just my thoughts.
