Not counting his matches with Karpov (fixed in Fischer's oppinion), Kasparov broke with FIDE in 1993 ... So, from a FIDE standpoint, Kasparov never (succesfully) defended his title.
I do not remember ever hearing of FIDE adopting the Fischer opinion.
Which part of "Not counting..." you didn't understand?
ME
Not counting his matches with Karpov (fixed in Fischer's oppinion), Kasparov broke with FIDE in 1993 ... So, from a FIDE standpoint, Kasparov never (succesfully) defended his title.
I do not remember ever hearing of FIDE adopting the Fischer opinion.
Which part of "Not counting..." you didn't understand?
"Not counting" was not in the "FIDE standpoint" sentence.
Not counting his matches with Karpov (fixed in Fischer's oppinion), Kasparov broke with FIDE in 1993 ... So, from a FIDE standpoint, Kasparov never (succesfully) defended his title.
I do not remember ever hearing of FIDE adopting the Fischer opinion.
Which part of "Not counting..." you didn't understand?
An opinion. Now lets go to the facts, Kasparov defended his FIDE world championship against Karpov.
According to several different engines analyses, Fischer was the most accurate player, also the the strongest over a one year period.
No. Current engine ranks Carlsen as the most accurate. Chess.com stuff made this engine analysis few months ago.
According to several different engines analyses, Fischer was the most accurate player, also the the strongest over a one year period.
No. Current engine ranks Carlsen as the most accurate. Chess.com stuff made this engine analysis few months ago.
No, all engine analyses done to date EXCEPT chess.com's CAPS rank Fischer higher than Kasparov or anybody else to that date. It's true Carlsen was not included since he was too young at the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history
You do have to realize CAPS is a proprietary solution belonging to chess.com, so it's hard to tell what goes on under the hood so to speak. And even CAPS initially declared Fischer slightly more accurate than Kasparov, only to revert later without much explanation...
Not counting his matches with Karpov (fixed in Fischer's oppinion), Kasparov broke with FIDE in 1993 ... So, from a FIDE standpoint, Kasparov never (succesfully) defended his title.
I do not remember ever hearing of FIDE adopting the Fischer opinion.
Which part of "Not counting..." you didn't understand?
An opinion. Now lets go to the facts, Kasparov defended his FIDE world championship against Karpov.
Cannot you read? Fischer, an expert player, possibly the best, analysed those games for 2 years and concluded they were fixed. In 2002 Kasparov played a match with Karpov and lost (also written in my post).
... Fischer, an expert player, possibly the best, analysed those games for 2 years and concluded they were fixed. ...
How many GMs have said that we should accept Fischer's assessment?
According to several different engines analyses, Fischer was the most accurate player, also the the strongest over a one year period.
No. Current engine ranks Carlsen as the most accurate. Chess.com stuff made this engine analysis few months ago.
No, all engine analyses done to date EXCEPT chess.com's CAPS rank Fischer higher than Kasparov or anybody else to that date. It's true Carlsen was not included since he was too young at the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history
You do have to realize CAPS is a proprietary solution belonging to chess.com, so it's hard to tell what goes on under the hood so to speak. And even CAPS initially declared Fischer slightly more accurate than Kasparov, only to revert later without much explanation...
Those are not the latest engine. Latest engine used by chess.com resulted in Carlsen as the most accurate.
Not counting his matches with Karpov (fixed in Fischer's oppinion), Kasparov broke with FIDE in 1993 ... So, from a FIDE standpoint, Kasparov never (succesfully) defended his title.
I do not remember ever hearing of FIDE adopting the Fischer opinion.
Which part of "Not counting..." you didn't understand?
An opinion. Now lets go to the facts, Kasparov defended his FIDE world championship against Karpov.
Cannot you read? Fischer, an expert player, possibly the best, analysed those games for 2 years and concluded they were fixed. In 2002 Kasparov played a match with Karpov and lost (also written in my post).
And people knows Fischer has a troubled mind. And as one poster here told, how many GMs told that we should accept Fischer's opinion? Yeah Kasparov lost to Karpov in that match. So what? You can't win all the time. Kasparov beat Karpov in a match in 2009.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=69871
"all engine analyses done to date EXCEPT chess.com's CAPS rank Fischer higher than Kasparov or anybody else to that date"
Of course not...
Another engine analysis here, as most of them with Fischer behind some other players
http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-player-
Do you mean who played the best moves? Then I think computers would be the best judge of that. Here is an attempt at that before Carlsen became dominant so it doesn't really cover him:
http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-player-
If you mean who was strongest versus players of their time then I guess ratings would be good to decide that. But that may just as well be a matter of having a weak field at a given time as being actual strength.
If you mean who advanced the game the most. Well then its pretty clear, Morphy did that. 
edit: I see Fabelhaft has some other analysis of games. I have not gotten into the nitty gritty of which is better. But the overall gist seems similar.
... Fischer, an expert player, possibly the best, analysed those games for 2 years and concluded they were fixed. ...
How many GMs have said that we should accept Fischer's assessment?
At least one: https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/the-conspiracies-of-valery-salov-part-2
@jambyvedar: Fischer had a troubled destiny, don't blame his mind.
Fischer is truly, the GOAT!
... Fischer, an expert player, possibly the best, analysed those games for 2 years and concluded they were fixed. ...
How many GMs have said that we should accept Fischer's assessment?
At least one: https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/the-conspiracies-of-valery-salov-part-2
@jambyvedar: Fischer had a troubled destiny, don't blame his mind.
At least one. What Fischer told is an opinion and not a fact.
ME