[COMMENT DELETED]

hello this is my article and click on begin the puzzle thats better to see this page thanks

Kasparov

Correction one is crazy the other in politics. The samething.

Kasparov is the best player ever

[COMMENT DELETED]

Garrry Kasparov!

---

To assume that another "ever" player will never come along seems presumptious. 

---

Instead of claiming Fisher was "crazy" could you not assume that he was "esoteric" in his lack of knowledge? Could also assume that a politician is seeking another "esoteric" knowledge for his freedom of thought? 

Esoteric sounds a little better than politician actually

Fischer was more creative, but Kasparov would find a way to exploit his mental illness and use it against him. Kasparov's iron will to succeed prevails over Fischer's mad genius...or maybe I just like Kasparov better.

Kasparov came from an environment where he was surrounded by, played with and was coached by the Russian GMs. What a performance system within which to reside as a chess player.  In addition, chess is not respected in the US the way it is in Russia...by a long shot.

Fischer was largely self-taught and coached and played many of his games, particularly against Spassky in their world championship match, against the entire Russian chess brain trust. AND WON while spotting Spassky 2 games. Incredible!!

IMHO, Fischer was the better of the two.  It's kind of like comparing two of Michaelangelo's masterpieces though.  Both are brilliant beyond belief.

Fischer.

they are both great.

FISCHER.......... Good.

Live Chess or Online Chess??

---

 Being in politics is supposed to count for something?  Who defines crazy?  A lot of "smart people" think that politics as we now know it is a rigged game in which the haves unfairly dominate the have-nots and so it is corrupt by its nature, and many "people who are smart" would say that "crazy" is a word thrown around by people who enjoy ad hominem in preference to rational thought.  Its the kind of a word a politician would use to defame an opponent rather than debate intelligently (i.e. "That's just CRAZY").  The quoted comment about the two men is irrelevant and inane.

---

  A well reasoned argument.  Put someone like Fischer in conditions like those which Kasparov had and it's hard to imagine he'd respond the same way of course, since he seems sort of like a creature of his own conditions and wouldn't have wanted any kind of coddling environment.  He was a Lone Wolf.  But considering the the strength of his game in the context of his time and situation he looks like the equal of a Kasparov at LEAST.  Give him a world class preparation environment that suited his own tastes with all the modern accoutrements that GMs have now and then I'm afraid he'd be something for Kasparov to be seriously worried about.  Give him a world class "chess bunker" from which to occasionally emerge and hunt down his rivals, and then watch the blood flow!!

I'm saying that with all respect for the awesome fighting power and chess intellect of Kasparov.

Fischer's will to win would prevail in a close match.  Remember Kasparov's match with Deep Blue and totally unfounded complaints about cheating by the Deep Blue team.  That's a character flaw that Fischer would have exploited fully.

Kasparov !