Fischer or Kasparov. Who's the best?

Kasparov would've won more tournaments, if they'd played at the same time (IMO).

I prefer Fischer. He wasn't world champion as long, but he would've beaten Karpov easily if he didn't have a dissagrement with FIDE, making him resign his title to Karpov.

And the computer that beated Kasparov? Can I vote for him!

Kasparov was a "kid" against Petrosian 16-18 something, in his 20s he beat Petrosian.  A flawed but better argument for Kasparov would be Karpovs score against Spassky. Quite a bit better than Fischers.

Fischer did contribute more novelty as Anand said. Kasparov was deeply inspired by his struggle against the "soviet machine" and of course by his games.

Kasparov certainly the more intelligent off the board and Fischer the best lunatic. Both have big egos. But as this thread is speculation and probably should be called the bias-thread im going to confess i am not shure who would win. Maybe the top 100 in the world could pitch in on the subject. Have a big vote, get it settled once and for all.  

Both backed up with all they needed in their prime, and atleast 24 games. That would have been an ok match.

If you're going to vote for a computer, vote for Rybka 3 Aquarium.

No, I'm not advertising. 

Fischer was easily better. Gasparov got whipped by deep blue, some of the games are embarrassing for the "reigning" world champ.

Well said.  I've made a similar argument several times in discussions about sports greats.  What if Jim Brown grew up in the same era as Barry Sanders?  What if Unitas and Manning were from the same generation?  What if Pele played with Ronaldo? (I realize the first two American Football reference may be meaningless to a lot of the people on this site, but it's what my friends and I discuss most often)  Chess has evolved just as sports medicine has.  The training methods improve, but so does the competition. 

I enjoy these discussions quite a bit, but I don't see any point in getting heated or pushy over them as there is no way to prove who is better from different eras.

does it matter who's the better of the 2?both of them are geniuses.and what about Capa,Alekhine,Tal,Morphy,Lasker,Karpov...why are we overlooking these geniuses?

Peak Karpov was better than both of them, but he didn't have as much stamina as Kasparov.

Kasparov would be the stronger.  He would play.  Hard to get Fisher to play without delay.  Not defending title was inexcusable.  No matter how good you are If the champ you have to play.

If they were to play today then definately Kasparov.  Fischer is severely handicapped by being dead.

IF Fischer was alive and BOTH of them were playing at their peak performance, Fischer would dominate. : ) NO doubt about it.

ADK

Kasparov is really good but fischer was much better at his prime.

I think that saying this is doing a disservice to Karpov.  Karpov wouldn't have been intimidated by Fischer's antics to the extent that Spassky was.  And Karpov was a defensive genius in his prime.  A contest between the two of them would have been in no way automatically ceded to Fischer.

 Karpov was great, and a Fischer-Karpov match will always remain the subject of speculation among chess fans.

Please note that Fischer did meet a defensive genius in a serious match: Petrosian. Fischer won +4.

Botvinnik said of Karpov that he was like Petrosian in that his positions typically remained unassailable, but that in Karpov's case his pieces were much more active. Botvinnik thought Karpov was a positional genius, that he simply understood positional play like a mother tongue.

Karpov vs. Petrosian. Lifetime score is very close with Karpov the odd game or two to the good.

nobody is better than me!

We can all agree that it was a damn shame that the Fischer/Karpov match never happened.  God, that one would be picked apart for decades.

obviusly the americans want tosay the fischer was the greatest but the true kasparov is better for all the distance, the best for many years fischer gave uo quickly. asparon  champion o n linares, week ann zees and too much more!!!

I believe that Fischer was great for a period of time.  He played as well as any granmaster ever for the short period of time he competed.  I feel emanuel lasker, capablanca, and alekhine, of course Morphy were all better, especially in terms of longevity and strength of play.  I think morphy, reshevsky, and fine were all greater granmasters from america than robert fischer.  Along with greats like rubinstein, tal, and steinitz.  Fishcher shone brighter than anyone in a short period but lost his nerve and mind to even challenge the great anatoly karpov.  At top form he would have had a hard time beating a young karpov or older for that matter.

I think Gary vs Bobby ends in a draw, all things considered.