Congratulations ! Your spelling is correct for one of these very famous GMs ! 

And only because the last name wasn't attempted...

Although not the topic of the thread, my top 5 world champions (undisputed, and so Topalov is not included) are:

1. Fischer

2. Kasparov

3. Tal

4. Capablanca

5. Petrosian

Nytik: So you'd put Fischer, who won the title once and then refused to defend it, ahead of Kasparov who had to defend his title several times in succession against probably the 2nd strongest player in history?

 I do because of things Fischer did in chess that no other player has, such as his 20 straight wins against GMs, 13 of these were in Candidates matches. 4 wins in a row against the mighty Tigran Petrosian is also something no other player has ever done. In fact, after becoming a GM I dont believe Petrosian ever lost 4 games in a row.... until Fischer in 1971. Petrosian had 50% with Kasparov despite being well past his prime AND playing black in all the games.

Marvellosity, I haven't just taken into account their performance in world championship matches, but their entire careers- the US championship (7/7) is further evidence.

 Isnt his US chmps 8/8 and one of those with 100% ? 

Nytik: the US champsionship with a few average GMs, great.

Kasparov, by a huge margin, has the most victories in toptop level tournaments. He has about three times the number of victories in 'super-GM' quality tournaments as Fischer.

 Actually, its Karpov who is the tournament king, not Kasparov. Kasparov won the most consecutive top level tournies but Karpov is the most successful tourney player of all time. He also won his last match against Kasparov in a time control (rapid) that noone thought he had a chance in.... and I dont think Benko and Reshevsky are considered "average GMs" by many people. Oh, and R Byrne who was also a candidate for the WC.....

Yes, I apologise, he has won 8 out of 8 US championships he participated in- I don't know where I got 7 from. Perhaps it was because it rhymes with 11, as he scored 11-0 in one tournament and the 7/7 was actually referring to his score rather than the number of championships he won.

Reb: sure - you have 3 or 4 names there. Maybe a third of who he had to play :)

The fact that Fischer didnt face the quality of opposition that Kasparov did makes his achievements even more remarkable marvel. Yes, the US Championship is weaker field than the Russian, USSR, Soviet championships, noone can deny this. However, Spassky, and Petrosian and even Taimanov also had this "advantage" over Fischer. They all faced greater opponents than Fischer normally got to face, or any other great western player (Larsen) for that matter. The fact that Fischer was still able to not only win the world championship and his candidates matches but to DOMINATE them in spite of the handicaps he faced make him even more amazing ! Kasparov, Karpov, Spassky all had an entire country of strong GMs behind/helping them where Fischer was the lone genius doing battle with them all......

But he basically only managed it for 2 years. And then gave up. I think his lack of sustainability should put his achievements in a more suitable light.

You sound like the Sandy Koufax detractors in the baseball community.  "He retired when he was thirty, so he shouldn't be in the hall of fame."

Off the main topic--longevity and best are two different sets of criteria. At his peak during various periods both Karpov and Fischer were unbeatable. Kasparov was not far behind. I think all three of these players played competition (at the time) the best in the World--rankings can be tricky, for instance Bareev was once rated #4 in rhe World without ever having won a major tournament. Fischer record up to his 1972 match is a streak that has not (and probably never will) be matched. Also Fischer tended to work alone with less resources than the other two (K and K)--personally I think he was the best ever (as a chess player)

Another interesting parallel is Fischer and Michael Jackson--both geniuses in the field but messed up in their personal life--much better comparison than the Fischer/Hitler one about 75 messages ago.

 You are only looking at Fischer last 2 or 3 years. After he won his first US Championship (1957) at age 14 he won EVERY event he played in in the US except 2 !  One of them was a second to Spassky in one and I forget the other. Many believe Fischer was already the best player in the world by age 20 but he didnt play a match for the title for another 9 years due to various "problems" some of which were of his own making, true. Fischer was trying to bring more money and better conditions for the top chess players and he managed to do that. Recall that when Spassky won the WC against Petrosian in 1969 Spassky got a sum of like $2000. !!  Thanks to Fischer they now play such matches for hundreds of thousands and even winners of Open tournaments get more than Spassky got for winning the world championship.

 Bobby Fischer is my idol in chess.

Where did you ever read that Bobby Fischer "would get kind of a praise women"? Is this your imagination?

Fischer in my book hated women or at the least despised them not only in playing chess for their inability to beat him, not their ability to beat other chess players I must add, he thought they where an inferior opponent, well because of his extremely high IQ.

He could have said the same thing about men actualy as no one was equal to him when playing chess.

So what is your reference?

Fischer was king of the board, bishop evil as his pair of bishops where lethal, he was almost always, 99% of the time, castling as soon as he could, which I do,

he was prepared, patient , and no one ever knew how many moves ahead he could see in a critical position.

These days some GM'S quote up to 15 and more moves ahead, I bet you that Fisher could see the entire game to the end what ever number of moves it required up to 20 or 30 or more as he saw not only the moves but the end game positoning.

I can see the pawn positioning throught a game that might give me victory, Fischer saw the outcome.

The fact that Fischer didn’t face the quality of opposition that Kasparov did makes his achievements even more remarkable marvel. Yes, the US Championship is weaker field than the Russian, USSR, Soviet championships, no one can deny this. However, Spassky, and Petrosian and even Taimanov also had this "advantage" over Fischer. They all faced greater opponents than Fischer normally got to face, or any other great western player (Larsen) for that matter. The fact that Fischer was still able to not only win the world championship and his candidates matches but to DOMINATE them in spite of the handicaps he faced make him even more amazing ! Kasparov, Karpov, Spassky all had an entire country of strong GMs behind/helping them where Fischer was the lone genius doing battle with them all......

You hit it on the nail!

The training that the Russians chess players where given, such as Alexander Kotov and Alexander Koblentz just to name a few, and they both have published books in the mid- seventies which I have, letting only the cream of the crop participate in high level chess makes it absolutely unthinkable that someone could beat the Russian machine.

Bobby Fischer did it.

The number of games that one played and won, such as Kasparov for whom I do have a great respect, is not in my book a criteria for naming Kasparov no 1  player. And he was backed-up by the Russian machine.

The pre-retirement career of Bobby Fisher that lasted about 20 years from his early age on until his World Championship game against Spassky in 1972, he was then 29 years old is absolutely remarkable.

Read on :

http://www.bobby-fischer.net/Bobby_Fischer_Biography.html

Not only he revived chess for the whole world, aside from Russia and perhaps including Russia, but every tournament he attended the crowd was there to support him and demanded more and he did it!

His winnings against Great Masters are simply astounding in many games. I personally believe that he had a computer memory chip in his brain and could recall literally thousands of games and millions of positions.

What makes me think this is:

He then went on to Herceg Novi, Yugoslavia and won the unofficial world 5 minute Championship with 17 wins, 4 draws, and 1 loss. After the tournament he called off from memory all of the moves from his 22 games, involving over 1,000 moves. In May he took 1st at Rovinj/Zagreb. In August he took 1st place at Buenos Aires. On September he played Board 1 for the U.S. at the 19th Olympiad in Siegen, Switzerland.He then went on to Herceg Novi, Yugoslavia and won the unofficial world 5 minute Championship with 17 wins, 4 draws, and 1 loss. After the tournament he called off from memory all of the moves from his 22 games, involving over 1,000 moves. In May he took 1st at  Rovinj/Zagreb. In August he  took 1st place at Buenos Aires. On September he played Board 1 for the U.S. at  the 19th Olympiad in Siegen, Switzerland.

Where do we read anything such from Kasparov, a rather quiet background.

And to read about his life:

http://bobbyfischer.net/bobby35.html

What is absolutely amazing about Bobby Fischer and this has not been mentioned yet is that he played every game to win not accepting a draw in a few moves, a real top class competitor that even if the opponent saw and offered a draw he thought that he could beat him and win the game and did very many times.

In today's world championship we see so many draws that I loose interest at times. Perhaps all of the millions that Fischer was so criticized for asking when playing  is now what is driving the game.

The goal today is to win yes but by taking advantage only of some advantageous positional play, where is the creativity?  Where is the new line of play, the daring continuation and the battle to win the game?

Forget it, we need a new Bobby Fischer that gives a new life again to chess by winning games not draws!

MAN OH MAN do I like your style.  We FOR sure need another Alekhine, another Tal, another Fischer.  Although there are some serious attacking players out there (Kamsky, Tate, and Naka to name a few), I'm not sure there is really anyone who breathes FIRE onto the board, and has (forgive the term) absolute brass balls. 

It is my belief that computers and chess software have taken a lot of the passion out of the game because of the cool, calculating lines they produce. Very seldomly do we see a move made purely for psychological reasons, or an odd continuation with 34 different outcomes but only one or two correct replies. It is for this reason that I concentrate on games from the 1800s to about 1970; 1990 on the outside. Sure, there were prepared lines in these times, but they weren't run through Rybka or Fritz yet, and there was still magic to them. 

The GM draw is pathetic.  A few years back I remember there was a tournament held where nobody could claim a draw until AFTER move 30 - what a difference!  There were very few actual draws, and a LOT of fighting chess.  Something like this needs to be put in place or chess will become the boring sport everyone else already thinks it is.

Thanks for all your replies :).

Really appreciate your insight of the game and understanding about the true goal of chess, which is wining.

Rules modifications or changes are in order to try to have some new blood injected in the game as you suggested.

No draws before 30 moves is quite acceptable, furthermore draws should be acceptable unless that the position is very well known and to date no continuation has been found. It does not mean that there is no possible variation by the way that is a wining combinnation, only that it has not been found yet. And the true players should  work at it.

Just look at the history of chess and how many times the greatest players have found new lines of play as Fischer did. I can name easily a dozen of players.

Today money rules and creativity is at it's lowest point. 

Perhaps a tournament that would bring as much money for the canditate that wins the most games might create an incentive to play better chess.

Short GM draws are a crime, ( should be anyway ! ) . In Dortmund there have already been several draws in 20 moves or less ! I wonder how many 20 move draws Fischer gave in his entire career ?! I imagine not as many as there will be in Dortmund alone.