These threads are the chess.com equivalent of:

I get the anaolgy in general, but I'm not entirely sure what the sprinkles represent.

They add texture.

Honestly, I don't know either (it was the first pic that caught my eye when I google-image'd "Synthetic Food").

Oh yeah, that texture thing! (that's what I was gonna say)...

Mmm, crunchy.

I'm hungry ! :)

How about this one? (the first picture you get for "Synthetic Food"):

You done left those Trix in the milk way too damn long!

 I'm not sure that they even come up to the level of synthetic food.  More like chewing gum perhaps.

I am sure Fischer would have destroyed Deep Blue. Therefore Fischer is more intelligent than Kasparov. And Fischer would have destroyed Kasparov. Even against kramnik has Kasparov shown his big fault: he gets stuck in a certain game or situation and then can't let it go to step forward to new grounds.

This is why I assume Fischer as the real legend.

 You state that you think Kasparov was the best but then give a very strong case for Fischer!  What is your case for Kasparov??

 Fischer was only 13 in that Rosewald tournament---his first big tournament. Tell me Andy do you ever cut anyone some slack? What the hell was Kasparov doing when he was 13 ? I know he was not beating the elite of Russian chess.

 Pull your head out pal !   Kasparov's epitath carved on his gravestone will be---" He lost the immortal match of Human versus machine."  If he is still remembered after a thousand years he will be remembered for this.

Najdorf---lay off the weed!

lol, how charming

 Mi amigo, do you want to be charmed or do you want the truth ?

Kasparov has never done anything that garnered more publicity that the match with Deeper Blue. Front page news all over the world. When Deeper Blue defeated Kasparov IBM's stock went up billions of dollars on the stock market which resulted in more headlines.

Kasparov realized his future image was in deep do-do and came up with the lame excuse that he was cheated. Nobody bought it and his image was tarnished now and forever.

I dont know how to sugar coat that so I'll let people such as yourself have a go at it.

Kasparov, because he isn't a quitter.

Seirawan has often been rather pro-Fischer and anti-Kasparov in his comments but that doesn't prevent him from stating this in a recent interview (where he also says that he believes that Kasparov is the greatest player ever):

"People like to say “Bobby was the best chess player ever!” Such words make them feel good or even knowledgeable. I might ask them: really? In which time frame was Bobby the best player ever? Think about it for a moment.

Before Bobby entered the cycle that culminated in his historic 1972 World Championship match victory, by his own agreement, in 1970, he allowed Bent Larsen to play board one ahead of him in the match versus the Soviets. To repeat, in 1970, the great Bobby Fischer, himself, thought it correct that Larsen play ahead of him.

Before Bobby defeated Boris Spassky in their match, he had never beaten Boris and in fact had a bad score against this rival. If we are generous, we could say that Bobby was the best player in 1971 and 1972, and then he quit. Hmm. That doesn’t sound like solid grounds to me to make the claim that he was the best ever."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7638