Fischer or Kasparov. Who's the best?

What?  Revealing about me?  Rant?  I can rant, trust me, but that wasn't it.  By the way, the forum title just says, "Fischer or Kasparov.  Who's the best?"  Not "Who's the best at chess?"  So I was just enjoying a moment of levity allowed by the vagaries of the English language.  If I offended you with my lightheartedness, be assured I am now heavy-hearted with sorrow that my rant has shown how I despise all Anti-Semitic rants.

     Seriously, though, you tell why Fischer was better than Capablanca, but why do you think he was better than Kasparov?  I gave my highly opinionated and qualitative reasons, what are yours?

Man, a lot of stuff going on here.

I couldn't find a single reference to Fischer ever engaging GMs in a simul.  Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but the information sure isn't readily forthcoming.

Comparing Fischer to Kasparov to Morphy is comparing apples to oranges to pomegranates.  Same game, but very different too - and not just because of theory as people like to speculate.  As great a player as Kasparov was (is?) and for however long he maintained his title (15 yrs.?), he never dominated in the same way as Fischer did (or as Morphy did for that matter), neither did he do it on his own as Fischer did nor as a gentleman player (a casual player, that is) such as Morphy was. Still, Kasparov had his own hurdles such as neither Fischer nor Morphy had to jump.  Capa and Lasker also dominated their respective eras.  Lasker, however, has often been criticized for sitting on his title and Capa was the supreme remiskoenig, putting even Schlechter to shame. Botvinnik also dominated, but his reign involved so much political intrigue it's hard to get a true picture.  Steinitz himself was practically unbeatable in both match play and in tournaments (in fact he only ever came in a low as second place twice, and won all his even matches for 28 years).  The point is, each was world champion for a reason and as time changes, chess changes, but the reason remains the same.

 Mine are his  absolute domination of the some of the greatest grandmasters on his way to taking the Crown. He demolished not only Taiminov and Petrosian but the great Dane as well ,Bent Larsen!!!

Kasparov while great does not surpass Fischer, nobody does!

Keep in mind that Kasparov for many years had a group of Russian chess greats working as a team for him!

That greatly aided him in his future conquests.

Fischer had no such help!!!!!!! 

Head to head Fischer in his prime would have outplayed Kasparov. I would have even bet my life on it!

Too  bad that could never be as it would have been the dream match of all time. Greater even than a return match between Alekhine and Capablanca!-SIX 

You never know, with computer programming these days perhaps they could make a rematch happen.  As I said above, it is my qualitative opinion that Kasparov is more logical so he might be easy to "program" but Fischer definitely had a creative genius for chess. 

    You are right too about Kasparov and the Russian brain trust thing...and if there is one thing Fischer loved it was beating Russians.   

 Kasparov was/is a great player but i'm sorry if you take Fischer at his strongest there is just NOBODY that would stand a chance and that includes Kasparov. This argument could go on forever and we obviously will never know but in my opinion Fischer was and will always be the greatest.

 Sorry but they will never be able to program genius.

Fischer rates as the top player , top chess genius and tops in desire/will to win!!

Kasparov  great chess genius also but there can only be one Numero 1... Fischer got that spot unless somebody comes along that REALLY surpasses him. A long shot I believe.-SIX

Fischer again... Americans are going crazy with him Not all though...

There are probaly at least 20 threads about Fischer. Even though there are people from many countries it's still mainly american website. Hence, Fischer. Once I tried to prove my point of view that Fischer is not greatest, smartest, strongest, etc.,etc... Didn't work. My main point was ( and is ) Fischer may be strongest player (I like PurpleHaze's arguments), but even then he can't be considered best. I just don't like Fischer's character (there were some misconceptions with this word before. I think I found best description of what I mean: "the way person behave". Still it's not the best descriptions, so please don't tell me that it's wrong because Fischer was very polite to old people ). I just want that I'm really tired of such conversations, because they can hardly be solved. Different persons prefer different players. It's like talking what kind of ice-cream is the best! Rating also doesn't mean everything... In conclusion I would like to quote Lubo, greatly described the situation with Fischer's popularity:

If you ask any american who is the greatest US chess player. Of course it's Fisher. And who's second?.. :( 

Unlike USSR chess in USA in Fishers times was poorly developed.

Ask Russians who is their greatest chess player? ..Of course it's KASPAROV.. or Karpov... no it's Tal... , it's Spassky, it's Botvinnik..  the list goes on

Plus, he become WC in times of cold war and Russian chess dominance. So it has some politics value. It makes the victory more valuable. And it adds popularity to Fisher at the other side of the fence. It's like winning space race by putting a man on the moon.. In thouse time that mattered much.

That is why I think Fisher is so popular. Of course you could speak about chess skills but most of his fans know nothing about chess and still know he is the greatest. 

P.S. : I'm neutral to Kasparov, I prefer classic chess players (1900s-1950s)

unfortunately Fischer's later political paranioa and other insanities make him and his game undefensible

More than just a few believe Paul Morphy was the greatest of all time! He and Fischer were truly natural Genius' at the game!

Oh goody! Once again it is time to compare strawberries to mathematical equations and see which are best. Tough one!

Kasparov prepared his games better, was better at openings and had a longer record on track. Fischer was crazy so lots of people dig that.

And the prize goes toooooooooooo (<<drums banging in the background>>) RYBKA 3.

Noooow, what shall we compare next? Wait, I know, how about this:

Who was better: Stallone or van Damme?

 Unfortunately, this is correct. I think we all recognise that Fischer and Kasparov were some of the (if not actually the) best players of all time. We missed out on Fischer v Karpov to use Karpov as a barometer. However, while I am amazed by Fischer's chess ability I am repelled by his views.

Bobby Fischer. Took on the Soviet chess machine by himself. The world was watching. American needed him and he came through. Everyone else is a chess player, Fischer stood alone. Great chess players are exciting for other chess players. Bobby Fischer made non chess players excited and inspired millions (including me) to take up the great game. There are many great boxing champions, and then there is Ali. It is the same for Fischer.

Morphy trumps all!

The emotionally-charged answer - Fischer

The factually-based answer - Kasparov

There have been many attempts to "prove" the answer to your question and in almost every statistical method used Kasparov beats Fischer. In certain categories Karpov even beats Fischer into third. I think the only area that Fisher comes out on top is in "results over a one year period". Clearly his two 6-0 scores against extremely strong opponents in his candidates matches help him in this regard.

I actually think that Karpov would have beaten Fisher in '75. He was ruthlessly well-prepared and willing to do the hard analysis that Spassky really didn't like. His game, being one of drawing all the play out of the position and waiting for the end, would have helped him against Fisher too. Obviously this is conjecture, although Kasparov also thought that Karpov would have won.

No-one can say for sure because so many champions/great players played so many differing styles of chess that it's almost impossible to answer - but for me it is Kasparov, and then Karpov. Fischer possibly could have been the best ever but he wasn't around long enough, despite his early start. 

I think that's very perceptive, especially the last sentence. I am not a Fischer-hater by the way, I just think that some facts are useful on both sides of the debate.

See that's the problem. Fischer may not even be the best US player ever - how can he be the best world player ever?

Why can't they both be best chess players ever?

*sigh* But if I'd have to choose, I would choose Kasparov. He's got the highest Elo performance points from a Europe vs Asia rapid GM tournament, where he scored 11 points out of 12 (as in 10 wins and 2 draws). He also holds the record for most consecutive professional tournament victories and for most Chess Oscars won. And he wasn't as chess-obsessed as Fischer, yet he endured as the World Champion much longer. Yes, I know, Fischer abandoned the World Champion title on purpose, but why didn't he just accept to play an ordinary World Championship match, without demanding for the rules to be changed? Maybe it's his chess, but that proved him either not interested in regular chess, or incapable of playing it well. Even if he played classic chess too well (and he certainly wouldn't play TOO well against Karpov), it didn't bore his predcessors OR his successors, and there are players like Kasparov who maybe didn't do as percentually well as Fischer did throughout his career, but if Fischer was a World Champion as long as Kasparov was, I doubt he would do percentually better, especially when that would mean he would play Kasparov (that again meaning that Kasparov maybe wouldn't be the World Champion as long as he was, and if we look at what he did when, his best performance was near the end of his career, 5-10 years more or less, so he would presumably have a better victory percentage than he actually does). Kasparov also invented advanced chess, compared to Fischer who invented Chess 960, and both are very significant for the world of chess.

If you place all the objective measures on the board, relating to the brain, you cannot compare Fischer and Kasparov.  Bobby Fischer can be said to have the best "hardware" when it comes to his brain, whereas Kasparov can be said to have the greatest "software".  You cannot compare them because they functioned diffrently, peaked at different times and within different standards of play.  Hardware vs Software.  Which one would win?  Who knows.  I say they are equal in their achievements with respect given to both players.

i would say fischer.