Fischer or Kasparov. Who's the best?

You obviously know little of chess and your rating supports this conclusion imo. The rating system is NOT infallible and the lower rated player wins often enough against higher rated opponents, thats why there are matches and tournaments, in the first place ..... DUH. Anand is the current world champion but isnt the highest rated player in the world. Carlsen was recently the highest rated and yet has never even played a world championship match. Some take ratings too seriously , you are one of them....

Kasparov is all time greatest...Fischer cheated himself of that title by vacating and disappearing. Longevity and overall body of work puts Kasparov ahead... Kasparov dominated Super GM tourneys routinely. The stats prove it no matter what the crybabies say about inflated ratings systems. You could also claim Morphy as greatest... it would be equally fallacious as the Fischer claim.

If you add Paul Morphy to the list then Fischer will be crushed!

Why did you include Spassky? We were talking about candidate matches. If you include Spassky, I have all the grounds to include Karpov. In my opinion Beliavsky, Korchnoi, Smyslov and Karpov seem to be stronger than Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian and Spassky. In addition, I do not share your viewpoint that Beliavsky did not belong  to chess elite that time. Kasparov considered him as one of the strongest opponents. I read one of Kasparov's book, in that book he clearly stated that Beliavsky was a dangerous rival. Among his qualities Kasparov mentioned hard-working approach, strong character and personality, desire to stand firmly in any situations.

Fischer's "Top Ten" list was published in the short-lived quarterly, Chess World, I believe in their first issue in 1964.  Kasparov was still a baby and Karpov was a child.

The fact that he left himself off the list, but included rivals like Spassky, Tal, and Reshevsky seemed to many to indicate he meant to list "the top ten besides me."

Understood - the top ten minus himself. Thanks for the source.

Kasparov do have higher elo...

I find Fischer more innovative though, his games are lovely to watch

Almost everyone agrees that today's elo ratings are inflated. The disagreement comes concerning by how much are the inflated compared to the 60s and 70s? 100 Points seems to be fair by most who argue this point, so add 100 to Fischers best of 2785 and you have 2885 , which puts Fischer as the highest rated of all time. Ofcourse some here are going to argue that the ratings are not inflated today. For them I have a question. Do you think every player today rated over 2700 elo is better than Spassky was in his prime? Spassky never broke 2700 elo, his best was about 2680. One more thing I want to point out, not only has Fischer had amazing feats in chess that Kasparov has not even approached but Kasparov only has 50% score against both Spassky and the late Tigran Petrosian and Kasparov was white in all of his games with Petrosian. Do I really need to remind anyone here what Fischer did to them?

How can you be so sure that ratings today are inflated without providing any concrete evidence? Yes, I could understand your argument about Spassky's Elo rating, when he was world champion, compared to GM ratings of today; but I believe that ratings today are so much higher because chess players now have access to more chess theory and computer programs, which makes learning chess easier and faster, and as a result - they're better at chess than their predecessors.

The Kasparov's and Fischer's score against Spassky argument also seems good, but it's quite flawed. Sure, it might seem logical to compare their scores againt the same opponent, but it's not accurate. First of all, Kasparov wasn't in his prime when he played against Spassky or Petrosian. Second, Fischer played around 50 games against Spassky (half of which were played in 92') and 30 against Petrosian, while Kasparov played only 8 games against Spassky and 4 against Petrosian.

A link for the "evidence" on today's rating inflation was provided in another thread by batgirl I believe. Ask her for the link. From your response it seems you believe there is no rating inflation. Do you think all the players over 2700 today (more than 20 of them) are better then than Spassky was in his prime? I do not. While I agree with you that Kasparov was not yet in his prime when he played both Spassky and Petrosian that is counterbalanced by the fact that both of them were also well past their prime. Its interesting that Fischer himself once said that "Morphy was the greatest genius of them all" and yet few hold up Morphy as possibly the best of all time.

That is because most players today are used to playing against the more modern openings and have mastered them a lot more than Spassky has. I think that everyone with over 2700 rating was better than Spassky in a way, whether it is the ability to beat Spassky, or the ability to beat opponents which Spassky was unable to beat. They are still better.

I think that Fischer would have stronger opposition in case of playing against Korchnoi. Korchnoi was very aggressive player and could deliver some problems to Fischer not easy to solve.

Korchnoi, at the time of the Candidates, would not pose a more significant challenge than Petrosian, whom he lost to. 

...
You mixed up everything: Smyslov, Korchnoi, Spassky, Petrosian. We need to compare 1/4 final 1971 to 1/4 final 1983 and semi-final 1971 to semi-final 1983 and so on. it is simply logical. In my opinion Beliavsky WAS NOT weaker than Taimanov. Once again, according to Kasparov, Beliavsky was a dangerous rival. If player qualifies for 1/4 matches, then it means he is in top 10 at the moment, and consequently, he belongs to chess elite. Moreover, in Chess Olympiad 1982 Beliavsky was in Soviet chess team (Karpov, Kasparov, Polugaevsky, Beliavsky, Tal, Yusupov), and he was not reserve board! If someone is part of Soviet squad he is automatically should be recognised as elite player, especially in 1960-90s. He had enough record to inside USSR, I guess you will not argue with the fact that USSR chess championship (Premier League) was the strongest at that time.

I don't say Taimanov was even as strong as Beliavsky, and I never said Beliavsky wasn't elite, just that he doesn't belong in the category of a Smyslov, at least historically. You say I am mixing things up (adding Spassky, a non-candidate to the argument) but remember, it was with Reb that you were strictly comparing Candidates matches, not with me, and I again say that I am not doing so. No need for me to say this again, right.

Now, if you were to say that Beliavsky was at the time of his Candidates appearance a greater force than Smyslov was in 1971, I'd agree. Smyslov didn't' qualify out of the Interzonal at that time.

Now we compare Larsen to Korchnoi. Korchnoi is stronger not only because of favourable score (+6 -4), but also due to many players consider him as the best chessplayer never become World Champion (another candidate for this is Paul Keres). Now we compare finalists: Petrosian vs Smyslov. First, I do not share your viewpoint that Smyslov was not in Petrosian class. Only one sufficient evidence could be his positive score against Tigran: +6 - 4. And finally, we compare Spassky to Karpov. I believe that Karpov in 1984 was better than Spassky in 1972. Karpov's positive score is the evidence.

I placed Larsen lower than Korchnoi, historically and also at the respective times of their Candidates matches, so what point are you trying to make here? We already agree, right? And I'm not the one who was trying to compare Candidates matches per se though I see you are intent on trying to do so. Also, you didn't read my post correctly. I never placed Petrosian above Smyslov. 

You have to be careful when assigning general superiority to a player based on lifetime results between that player and another, in your case Petrosian v. Smyslov. Remember that Karpov barely has a plus score vs. an aging Petrosian (older than the Tigran Fischer faced in 1970 and 1971). So Karpov is barely better than Petrosian? No. I doubt this, and a more rigorous methodology ought to be put in place.

Obviously Kasparov did not shine so brightly as Fischer in candidate's circle and World Championship match. But I 'd like to tell you something. In 1971-72 Fischer was in his prime. Kasparov was not on his peak in 1982-84. He reached his prime in the end of 1985 when he beat Karpov. Kasparov of 1985 was quite stronger than Kasparov 1984. That is why we have to compare Kasparov of 1985-95 to Fischer 1972. Even being not on his peak, he was able to crush Beliavsky (4-1), Korchnoi (4-1) and Smyslov (4-0). The last record is very similar to Fischer's versus Petrosian (5-1).

Korchnoi and Smyslov were no where near their peaks when Kasparov faced them, to be fair, so to compare Petrosian, a World Champion in 1969 playing Fischer in 1971, to a Smyslov or Korchnoi considerably more removed from their peaks isn't fair. It's true enough that Kasparov was still a bit away from his peak when he played them, and this should be taken into consideration, but I hope you haven't forgotten that I am not Reb and that I am not and was not strictly comparing Candidates match performances. Really, I was correcting you on how long Fischer's unbeaten streak was while disagreeing on the calibers of some of their opponents.

But again, I think Kasparov's record is stellar, and I don't want, to or seek to, diminish his reputation, but I don't mind talking things out in rationally, and let the opinions fall where they may.

I also want to underscore the greatness of Fischer's accomplishments in that 1970-1972 period. Marvelous enough to not have been repeated since.

At last, nobody prohibited Fischer to enter tournaments to compete with Karpov and later with Kasparov to prove his superiority, but he did not do that. Neither Karpov nor Kasparov avoided Fischer, but he did avoid them both. I think he was not sure he could beat Karpov in 1975, unless how can we explain his demand to change rules, according to his changes Karpov would be recognised as winner in case of 2 points margin which looks obviously unfair, and may be, even cowardish.

I'm no mind reader or fortuneteller, so I cannot read Fischer's intentions nor can I assert what might have been had Fischer decided to compete instead of dropping out. You're making guesses, but they're just guesses and in contradistinction to your chess-based arguments (which are well-informed imo), no better than guesses of the next guy.

This is not so clear because Korchnoi felt that he was mistreated by the Soviet government and pressured into losing matches, which was the main reason for his defection from the USSR. His 'peak' (that is, his best results) was reached after he defected from the USSR and at a rather older age than you would normally expect from a player. He had a tie in results against Fischer and would have been a tough opponent.

It's a lot of conjecture that Korchnoi would have done better than Petrosian in 1971 vs. Fischer, and his results at the time don't suggest that he would have been a more significant obstacle for Fischer than Petrosian was, though he may have done better. No one can say. His resurgence, of course, came years after that, when out of the clutches of the Soviet System and no doubt well-focused as he reflected on his past treatment.