Fischer or Carlsen?

Also forgot bronstein

I don't know that many of em.

I never hear it discussed when this subject is brought up but...

I recall reading at the time that in an interview Fischer gave he admitted to being unsettled by the fact that he never experienced  Spassky's  ego  being crushed and he was made very uncomfortable  by the fact that even though he was losing the match  Spassky's play was becoming  stronger in the waning games of the match.

Because of that admission he made it has never left my mind that Fischer was primarily motivated by fear in his avoidance of Karpov.

i read all about of fischer...he was indeed great player.imagine in 1972 he was 2750. if he would have played 20 more year as he was only 29 at that time...he would have gone beyond carlsen...because of his crazyness and great concentration. he would have achieved more than our imagination.

While I agree that Carlsen is probably the strongest ever (second would be Kasparov), I strongly disagree with your characterization of Fischer as making "many weak moves and blunders very often". When Fischer was White, he would play in classical style, and his games appeared cleaner than Capa's. As Black, he sought dynamic counter-chances and played some very complex chess. 

Magnus often makes moves that look like they are wasting tempi, especially as White in the opening. 

Today's GMs play the Spanish very slowly. They don't allow the Marshall at all. Their slow, deliberate maneuvering is clearly an example of "wasting tempos" compared to Fischer's more direct approach as White.

They waste tempi because most of their competition memorizes engine lines, and engines dont waste tempi

Shouldn't we wait a little bit? Ka$parov was the undisputed best for at least 15 years...

The superficiality of the Bxh2 analysis amongst chess kibitzers is outstanding. Always the same thing.

"Shouldn't we wait a little bit? Ka$parov was the undisputed best for at least 15 years..."

Wait for what? Philidor may have been the best player in the world for 50 years but didn't play better chess that Kasparov no matter how long we wait.

Oh come on, you know I didn't mean waiting in the sense of just waiting for some years to pass. I meant Ka$parov's achievements. Carlsen only surpassed him rating-wise, and that's not a hard thing to do in a world where Giri is some 60 points higher rated than Fischer (??!??).

I think Carlsen loses too much, especially with white.

PS: I admire Carlsen 100x times more than Kasparov.

"I meant Ka$parov's achievements. Carlsen only surpassed him rating-wise, and that's not a hard thing to do"

Carlsen's career achievements aged 24 are obviously not comparable to those of Kasparov, I don't think anyone could disagree about that, but that's a different subject. I don't think it's all that easy to pass 2850 though.

I'm no Fischer fan, but I'm sure everyone blunders.

Precisely because of that I said we should wait before saying he's better than Kasparov. And of course, I didn't mean that reaching a 2850 rating is child's play, but for someone of Carlsen's caliber... he's in the gotha of chess, no doubts about that.

As for who were the ten strongest chess players ever that would be approximately the current top nine plus Kasparov. Ten greatest ever would be a different list, but Kasparov, Carlsen and Anand mightend up on both, least certain in Anand's case.

"we should wait before saying he's better than Kasparov"

I think he has been playing better even if he would lose every game he plays the coming decade. He won't have to keep doing it another number of years for it to have been true 2009-15.

That's completely subjective. Everyone has a different viewpoint.

For the record, Fischer's Bxh2 wasn't even the losing move in game 1!

Fischer accomplished what he accomplished in such a totally different era; no computers, no databases; very little support besides Evans as his 2nd and yet in the final 2 years of his career he simply crushed everything in his path and seized the world championship.

We have no way of really comparing todays masters with him as the game has hugely changed. I think he is on the short list for the greatest of all time, but just who deserves that honor is an almost metaphysical debate. There is a steady inflation of Elo and can we compare Fischers 2700 to Carlson if we dont use 1972 Dollars? I believe Ray Keene tried to do such a list at one point and Fischer topped that list at that time.BB.

"Fischer accomplished what he accomplished in such a totally different era; no computers, no databases"

It wouldn't have been easier to accomplish what he accomplished in an era with computers and databases though.

"I'm no Fischer fan, but I'm sure everyone blunders"

Some Fischer fans consider that Bxh2 was no blunder and that Fischer never blundered :-)