ELO? What ELO? What does ELO mean when we are talking about Karpov? It's getting more and more funny. Fischer's and Kasparov's fanboys don't get tired making fool of themselves.
Of course! *rofl*
If Karpov would ever had surpased Fischer's peek ELO you'd be the first pointing out this. You're making yourself a fool! 
Of course! *rofl*
If Karpov would ever had surpased Fischer's peek ELO you'd be the first pointing out this. You're making yourself a fool!
You are the one making fool of yourself. Your arguments are so silly. The highest rating performance is that of Karpov in Linares 1994 close to 3000 ELO. I didn't want to mention it but if we are going to judge by a single hit, then Karpov is once again without a match,
When it comes to performances in 1989 Zsofia Polgar won Roma with a preformance far above 2800+! 
Marion Tinsley (February 3, 1927 – April 3, 1995) is considered the greatest checkers player who ever lived. He was world champion from 1955–1958 and 1975–1991. Tinsley never lost a World Championship match, and lost only seven games (two of them to the Chinook computer program) in his entire 45 year career.[1] He withdrew from championship play during the years 1958–1975, relinquishing the title during that time.
In one game, Chinook, playing with white pieces, made a mistake on the tenth move. Tinsley remarked, "You're going to regret that." Chinook resigned after move 36, fully 26 moves later. The lead programmer Schaeffer looked back into the database and discovered that Tinsley picked the only strategy that could have defeated Chinook from that point and Tinsley was able to see the win 64 moves into the future. [2][3]
Could Bobby do that ^^^ No, and he was not nice to people either and said some hurtful things. Dr Marion was a true gent and the best in the world from 1940s up to when he died in 1995.
No one could touch Dr Marion.
Fischer might have been the best - but he did not do this. The best can maintain their performance in the face of change. Bobby was a one hit wonder to some extent.
This is totally wron, did you even ever play chess??
2 things checkers is way simpler in chess, so its way either to calculate future moves, but maybe my view about it is flawed.
You say he saw on move 10 that a move was wrong, that only materialized in 26 moves, dont chess players do it too??
I mean positional mistakes that weight in the endgame, i guess masters are able to see it as well.
Im not sure but i think checkers is so much simpler, computer even solved it, unless the guy who told me was kiddng.
Where's the evidence that Fischer was stingy and selfish?
He was stingy with his chess skills - he was the best at the time and he robbed the world of the chance to see anything more. That is selfish in respect to the world of chess (players and other GM's that wanted to play him).
Cowardly, because his ego was probably so tied up with being "World Champion" that he refused to give anyone another go.
His behaviour before and after winning could be understood by an average six year old. He won, and now he doesn't want to play anymore. Simple, and pathetic.
and no his behaviour could not be understand by anyone, he was a genius.
You are not, so i doubt you can know his true motivations.
Where's the evidence that Fischer was stingy and selfish?
He was stingy with his chess skills - he was the best at the time and he robbed the world of the chance to see anything more. That is selfish in respect to the world of chess (players and other GM's that wanted to play him).
Cowardly, because his ego was probably so tied up with being "World Champion" that he refused to give anyone another go.
His behaviour before and after winning could be understood by an average six year old. He won, and now he doesn't want to play anymore. Simple, and pathetic.
and no his behaviour could not be understand by anyone, he was a genius.
You are not, so i doubt you can know his true motivations.
A better player (Karpov) showed up.
Fisher ran like a little schoolgirl.
Simple.
Don't take to Einstein to understand that.
Of course! *rofl*
If Karpov would ever had surpased Fischer's peek ELO you'd be the first pointing out this. You're making yourself a fool!
You are the one making fool of yourself. Your arguments are so silly. The highest rating performance is that of Karpov in Linares 1994 close to 3000 ELO. I didn't want to mention it but if we are going to judge by a single hit, then Karpov is once again without a match,
According to Chessmetrics, Karpov had a 2899 performance for Linares 1994. Fischer's best was a 2887 performance in the 1971 candidates match against Larsen.
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Summary.asp?Params=1840AAS0SS03S000000000000111000000000000010100
http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4005828
Fischer was a wretched, nasty man who died alone and unloved by a world he despised. But we have to stick to the chess...the one good thing he did for us.
Most people agree that Kasparov and Karpov were more consistently better, but that Fischer in his prime (1971-72) was better than either of them in their primes. I think even Carlsen said this once.
It's impossible to put an accurate elo rating on a perfect performance. The best approximation you can do is to add one game to the final result, a draw against himself. The logic of doing that is simple, but only an approximation.
There's also a critical difference between a match and a tournament. There are good reasons that a player cannot earn a FIDE norm by playing a match against a single player.
Fischer's accomplishments are incredible and historic, but he never regularly competed in the sort of super tournaments that came about in the 1980s and 1990s.
Karpov's peak rating of 2780 is every bit as impressive as Fischer's peak rating of 2785. Which makes Kasparov's rating even more incredible! There is only one player who has eclipsed Kasparov's peak rating of 2851. To say that anyone other than Carlsen is better than Kasparov was at his peak goes against the evidence.
The argument that there is rating inflation and therefore Karpov's rating is not valid begs the question: What is the rate of this supposed inflation? Just exactly how inflated was Karpov's rating in 1994 compared to Fischer's in 1972? And if that is so, just how badly did Fischer perform in 1992? His performance rating at the time was ~2650. Was it even lower?
Or does rating inflation only work for people not named Fischer?
Marion Tinsley (February 3, 1927 – April 3, 1995) is considered the greatest checkers player who ever lived. He was world champion from 1955–1958 and 1975–1991. Tinsley never lost a World Championship match, and lost only seven games (two of them to the Chinook computer program) in his entire 45 year career.[1] He withdrew from championship play during the years 1958–1975, relinquishing the title during that time.
In one game, Chinook, playing with white pieces, made a mistake on the tenth move. Tinsley remarked, "You're going to regret that." Chinook resigned after move 36, fully 26 moves later. The lead programmer Schaeffer looked back into the database and discovered that Tinsley picked the only strategy that could have defeated Chinook from that point and Tinsley was able to see the win 64 moves into the future. [2][3]
Could Bobby do that ^^^ No, and he was not nice to people either and said some hurtful things. Dr Marion was a true gent and the best in the world from 1940s up to when he died in 1995.
No one could touch Dr Marion.
Fischer might have been the best - but he did not do this. The best can maintain their performance in the face of change. Bobby was a one hit wonder to some extent.
This is totally wron, did you even ever play chess??
2 things checkers is way simpler in chess, so its way either to calculate future moves, but maybe my view about it is flawed.
You say he saw on move 10 that a move was wrong, that only materialized in 26 moves, dont chess players do it too??
I mean positional mistakes that weight in the endgame, i guess masters are able to see it as well.
Im not sure but i think checkers is so much simpler, computer even solved it, unless the guy who told me was kiddng.
Yes, per my previous post checkers is simpler - but not simple:
Number of positions in checkers is 500 Billion Billion (10e20). Whereas in Chess it is immeasurable 10e40 to 10e50.
if a computer could solve checkers in one nanoseconds (which they can't - and not all imperfect positions have been assessed anyway), then it would take the same computer 300 years to "solve" chess.
300 years does not sound long. But a nonsecond is one billionth of a second. One nanosecond is to one second as one second is to 31.7 years!
http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4003997
So chess is way more complex.
But point is Dr Marion showed what true greatness is.
Dr Marion never showed any fear of his opponents, and lost only 7 games in 45 years - 2 of those to the Chinook computer. And on top of that he was actually a nice person too.
Fischer did not do anything like this. He might of ended up like another Naseem Hamed or Mike Tyson had he continued.
Karpov, Tal, Kasparov, Anand and everybody else showed no fear and allowed rematches.
In boxing as in chess there are some champions that are a disappointment to their field. Fischer was a flash in the pan.
Checkers? Gee lets being Risk or Parcheesi into the mix.
What was Fischer's performance rating during his run of 20 straight wins against all GMs ? This fantastic run included two straight candidates matches shut outs ! This has never been done before nor since and I doubt this particular record will ever be broken . As for inflation , Kasparov also recently spoke of rating inflation not long after Carlsen broke his rating record ....
[...]
The argument that there is rating inflation and therefore Karpov's rating is not valid begs the question: What is the rate of this supposed inflation? Just exactly how inflated was Karpov's rating in 1994 compared to Fischer's in 1972? And if that is so, just how badly did Fischer perform in 1992? His performance rating at the time was ~2650. Was it even lower?
Or does rating inflation only work for people not named Fischer?
Good question! 
(There are good reasons that a player cannot earn a FIDE norm by playing a match against a single player.) Performance normally include the own rating. In 1992 Fischer had no rating at all. Therefore performance cannot be calculated!
I guess it was Kasparov who said Fischer's Elo in that re-match would be like 2650 ... Seirawan on the other hand put Fischer far beyond 2700+!
Checkers? Gee lets being Risk or Parcheesi into the mix.
Well, let's see if you can beat Chinook?
Dr Marion is just an example of how a single person can demonstrate total mastery of a game and can be - in the word of the great MC Hammer - UNTOUCHABLE
http://www.wylliedraughts.com/Tinsley.htm
Fishcer was not - he proved his cowardice by running off to hide in the "Church" or Iceland etc and phoning radio stations talking nonsense.
For example Dr Marion got bored of playing checkers because all human opponents were so intimidated they would play for a draw (boring).
To try to win against Dr Marion was unthinkable. He returned when Chinook came out as he was just too good for human players.
Fischer did none of this, and had a very short period of dominance - which was not even complete. Hence flash in pan.
Well, let's see if you can beat Chinook?
Dr Marion is just an example of how a single person can demonstrate total mastery of a game and can be - in the word of the great MC Hammer - UNTOUCHABLE
Very useful information! Thanks a lot. No doubt Dr. Marion was great just like Karpov in chess. However, I am wondering whether checkers has its Fischer???
It's impossible to put an accurate elo rating on a perfect performance. The best approximation you can do is to add one game to the final result, a draw against himself. The logic of doing that is simple, but only an approximation.
There's also a critical difference between a match and a tournament. There are good reasons that a player cannot earn a FIDE norm by playing a match against a single player.
Fischer's accomplishments are incredible and historic, but he never regularly competed in the sort of super tournaments that came about in the 1980s and 1990s.
Karpov's peak rating of 2780 is every bit as impressive as Fischer's peak rating of 2785. Which makes Kasparov's rating even more incredible! There is only one player who has eclipsed Kasparov's peak rating of 2851. To say that anyone other than Carlsen is better than Kasparov was at his peak goes against the evidence.
The argument that there is rating inflation and therefore Karpov's rating is not valid begs the question: What is the rate of this supposed inflation? Just exactly how inflated was Karpov's rating in 1994 compared to Fischer's in 1972? And if that is so, just how badly did Fischer perform in 1992? His performance rating at the time was ~2650. Was it even lower?
Or does rating inflation only work for people not named Fischer?
Just imagine what Fischer's rating would have grown to had he continued playing long enough to also have 2700 rated players to " feed " his rating ! ? The fact that he was the ONLY one over 2700 and #2 was 100 points behind him says a lot . Kasparov fans like to point to Kasparov's higher peak rating as part of the proof of his superiority over Fischer , fine. This means that Carlsen is better than Kasparov then ? Ratings are rough guides and arent as reliable as many people seem to think . Ivanchuk just scored 1.5 - . 5 against both Kramnik and Carlsen in the candidates and look at the difference in their ratings .
BTW, Fischer's career at the top can be described best as "Hit and run". Kids just love that.