Easy, Kasparov would win because Bobby is dead. :)

If Bobby were alive, I'll simply quote Kasparov, "It wouldn't be close between us."

Now, considering them both in their prime...I'd STILL say Kasparov would win...but I'm a doofus 1600 player so what the heck do I know.  :D

This is a bit forced... yes, I suppose if you cherry pick Fischer's accomplishments and ignore the accomplishments of others it's all very clear isn't it? But all of these truly impressive accomplishments happen within the space of what, two years? Less?  Fischer's peak was quite sharp, but if staying power counts for anything you have to downgrade Fischer's score a bit. Of course, you can (and no doubt will) still maintain that Fischer was the best ever, plenty of people do... but please drop this combatitve attitude that there's no room for argument -- there's plenty of room for argument -- it seems to me that most people who look at all the data come away saying Kasparov's career outshines Fischer's, by a wide margin.

Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics.com has put together a wonderful overview of the question who was "The Great Chess Player of All Time" -- Sonas is trying to be as objective as possible, using all data available. In my opinion Morphy probably doesn't get his due simply because there's isn't enough quality data to evaluate Morphy properly... but that's not Sonas' fault, and otherwise it's an great look at the question.  I'm surprised Capablanca doesn't seem to contest for the #1 spot very strongly. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that Lasker *(my favorite 'legend') is really a more legit candidate for "best ever" than I'd realized. He dominated in remarkable ways.

It seems clear, datawise, that Fischer had the greatest chess year ever, by a rather wide margin... but the best career is a different question. 

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2345

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2354

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2372

http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=2409

Well, Sonas both agrees and disagrees... he basically fudges, saying, "I think it's pretty clear that for about a year, Bobby Fischer dominated his contemporaries to an extent never seen before or since." So Fischer is #1? Not for Sonas, he actually drops Fischer down to (check your pacemaker Reb, this is gonna sting) a tie for number 3 with Lasker, and argues that the two-headed Kasparov/Karpov monster is the dominating #1 #2 of all time. They are near each other, but otherwise the pair utterly and convincingly dominate the remainder or their contemporaries for nearly two decades. -- pretend either Karpov, or Kasparov gets dropped on his head, age 2... and the other one suddenly stands out as a leviathan.

Reasonable people can and do disagree.

I think regardless of who was a better player, Kasparov is the favourite to win a match between the two.

If you look at the people who had multiple victories or even plus scores against Fischer many, like Geller, Tal, Reshevsky, Ivkov, Gligoric, Petrosian, Spassky.

Most of these people, certainly Geller who had the best score of of anyone against Fischer, had aggresive, complicating, highly tactical styles.

And the people who scored well against Kasparov:

Kramnik, Karpov, Petrosian, none of whom play in a similar fashion as Fischer.

Reb, thats a pretty loose argument because each player was at a different stage of their career. Lots of people beat people who beat Michael Jordan at basketball when MJ was 13 years old. You wouldn't use that to compare their NBA careers.

I preffer Kasparov from these two. But the best player in history has been Lasker.

And Fischer being the best native US player? There were Morphy, Pillsburry and Marshall, which i consider at least equal to Fischer.

It's beyond loose, it's positively silly. Why don't we spin it the other way and say... Look at Fischer's record versus Petrosian and Spassky, ... even at his peak Fischer, at age 27, lost games to Petrosian and Spassky,players who never once beat Kasparov after Garry was past the age of 18 y.o. (vs.Petrosian) or 20 y.o. (vs. Spassky) respectively. ... how can you seriously even compare Fischer and Kasparov?

Please don't bother telling me that's ridiculous, I know it's ridiculous for a variety of reasons... Reb surely knows his spin is ridiculous as well.

Kasparov, although, like Newton, he would admit that he"stood on the shoulders of giants", like Fisher 

Kasparov is the greatest

Thsi would be the chess battle of all time. The two best who ever lived.

I see it as alot of draws with Kasparov winning by just an edge.

This is what I mean by a loose argument, Reb. You wind up saying "well, this fact balances that one." It's a very hand-waving argument, whereas someone like Sonas has done a detailed, quantitative, statistical study. So your anecdotes are going to be unconvincing.

Kasparov has given simuls against teams of GMs, playing them all at once. Has Fischer ever done that? I'm not saying this makes Kasparov better, these anecdotes simply don't settle the argument.

Fischer was blessed with a confluence of chess contexts that made his accomplishments historically spectacular. For example, no matter how great a genius one may be there is no entrenched, super-dominant chess machine nowadays that one can defeat. Kasparov, in proving superiority to Karpov, was just one wing of the system fighting the other. As great as Kasparov was, and as great as his record was, the opportunity to achieve what Fischer did just wasn't there.

As a "Fischer baby" I'd love to think that he was the best ever. That's my emotional response. In the cold light of reason I think result of a Fischer-Kasparov match would be in question, and that Fischer's psychological toughness at this highest level would be in doubt.

Kaparov plays with perfect passion, Fischer, with brilliant, precise intensity.. like music they are the Bach and Beethoven of the chess world... Like the Ying and the Yang one can't be analyzed good without the other.... If someone has the intuitive gift of the "one" and the "other' then Chess will be even greater...

I think the most magnificent and artistic thing in chess are the incredible tactics and combinations that take place in the board, and Bobby Fischer was a great player that made the magic to happen in the chess board and in that way he is better than Kasparov I`m sure that if Kasparov And Fischer played when Fisher was the champ Bobby, would had won!!

But Garry its a great player still!

I cant believe this topic keeps on popping up, i think i asked the question almost a year ago now.