Kasparov had 17 tournament performances of 2820+ compared to Fischer of just 2.
Kasparov had the longest stretch as No.1 ..19.8 years.
Fischer had the highest rating ever 2895 chessmetrics rating in 1971.
Kasparov had the most top performing years 16.
"
And of course, once we stop the pretending, and acknowledge that Kasparov did in fact compete, and dominated even the mighty Karpov, then I think it's a no-brainer to answer the overriding question of these articles. If I had to hand out medals for who were the most dominant players of all time, I would give the gold medal to Garry Kasparov, and the silver medal (fittingly) to Anatoly Karpov. And then the bronze medal goes to either Emanuel Lasker or Bobby Fischer, depending on the fine print about whether the most important timeframe is their whole career or their peak year. Admittedly, I think it's pretty clear that for about a year, Bobby Fischer dominated his contemporaries to an extent never seen before or since. It's also clear that if you exclude Kasparov and Karpov from consideration, Emanuel Lasker was number one in the world longer than anyone else, and moves up to the top of the list on several other graphs you have seen throughout the course of these articles. Who deserves the bronze medal. Fischer or Lasker? Lasker or Fischer? And the debate rages on…" Jeff Sonas,
Carlsen is to young to dominate for 19 years, so Kasparov still holds this gold, but I didnt know that Fishers best year was stronger than Carlsens best year. Are you sure? I think Carlsen already has hit the podium, and if he goes on and gets even stronger he can challenge Kasparov in the coming years.
Carlsen is born on the perfect time. He learned and played a lot chess before the computers came to him, and also after. This hybrid-background sounds perfect.
And one more thing for Steinitz fans. Morphy would take Steinitz to the cleaners...