Frank Marshall and Mikhail Tal were just as good as Fischer or Kasparov in the "Amazing" catagory. I personally doubt any game ever surpassed Frank Marshall's "Immortal Game". That's my opinion.
I believe Fischer did not have a plus score against Tal. I think they were tied for games against each other.
Tal v. Fischer +4−2=5
Those 4 Tal wins were against a 16 year old Fischer when he skunked Bobby in the 1959 Candidates Tournament.
Hands down Kasparov for me, gameplay and technique evolved a lot since Fischer's time. Plus Kasparov is a calculating machine; him never losing to a computer until DeepBlue2 shows a lot. Fischer was sure talented, but Kasparov was the ultimate, for he had talent, machine-like calculating ability, and great Soviet-chess-schooling. Kasparov is my pick.
Hands down Kasparov for me, gameplay and technique evolved a lot since Fischer's time. Plus Kasparov is a calculating machine; him never losing to a computer until DeepBlue2 shows a lot. Fischer was sure talented, but Kasparov was the ultimate, for he had talent, machine-like calculating ability, and great Soviet-chess-schooling. Kasparov is my pick.
I agree. Kasparov all the way.
Fischer numerously stated that Kasparov vs Karpov games were all staged by jews. I am absolutely serious.
Ok I forgot the name of this guy but he has a winning record against Kasparov like 5 to 1 so what about that?(it was when Kasparov was in his prime too)
You've got to go for longevity of dominance and ability to adapt (evolution).
Kasparov wins both of these (Fischer has some 182 conditions!)
I have to say Fischer. In his prime he couldn't be beaten. Maybe I'm biased though...
This question is like picking between which is the better color, red or blue? It's really too close to call and everyone will have their own opinions.
At my level of play, I have no intelligent opinion between any two class A players let alone world champions, but I figured by submitting a comment I could maintain fuel for a fruitless fire. That said, I have always thouhgt K bcause he is the player of my generation and never refused the challenge of a computer. In truth, I should have no opinion because I have studied neither of their games to the extent in which I should have. Honestly, I don't think that the play of these games would be beneficial/understandable for me until I graduate from the basics.
Who is the best runner? Carl Lewis, Usain Bolt or...Jesse Owens? For me the question has no sense because Fisher and Kasparov are not from the same generation and every new champion has always taken benefit from the past champions. Did Kasparov become Kasparov without Fisher and his contribution to chess and did Fischer become Fischer without Botvinik, Alekhine, Lasker and the others? But also every champion has provided new ideas in chess making chess being played better and better...
Anyone who contends seriously that Ali wasnt even one of the best ten boxers ever simply is a troll or doesnt know what they are talking about. Its a ridiculous statement. Such a person should just be dismissed imo.
Frank Marshall and Mikhail Tal were just as good as Fischer or Kasparov in the "Amazing" catagory. I personally doubt any game ever surpassed Frank Marshall's "Immortal Game". That's my opinion.
I believe Fischer did not have a plus score against Tal. I think they were tied for games against each other.
Tal v. Fischer +4−2=5
Those 4 Tal wins were against a 16 year old Fischer when he skunked Bobby in the 1959 Candidates Tournament.
This simply isnt true , their record is even 5 draws with 4 wins each.
HARD TO DECIDE
Frank Marshall and Mikhail Tal were just as good as Fischer or Kasparov in the "Amazing" catagory. I personally doubt any game ever surpassed Frank Marshall's "Immortal Game". That's my opinion.
I believe Fischer did not have a plus score against Tal. I think they were tied for games against each other.
Tal v. Fischer +4−2=5
Those 4 Tal wins were against a 16 year old Fischer when he skunked Bobby in the 1959 Candidates Tournament.
This simply isnt true , their record is even 5 draws with 4 wins each.
If you include blitz games, then they each have four wins. It doesn't make sense to include blitz games with classical controls though.
Frank Marshall and Mikhail Tal were just as good as Fischer or Kasparov in the "Amazing" catagory. I personally doubt any game ever surpassed Frank Marshall's "Immortal Game". That's my opinion.
I believe Fischer did not have a plus score against Tal. I think they were tied for games against each other.
Tal v. Fischer +4−2=5
Those 4 Tal wins were against a 16 year old Fischer when he skunked Bobby in the 1959 Candidates Tournament.
This simply isnt true , their record is even 5 draws with 4 wins each.
If you include blitz games, then they each have four wins. It doesn't make sense to include blitz games with classical controls though.
Ok, you are right. However, those 4 wins in 59 angered Fischer so much ( partly because Tal rubbed it in too ) that Fischer vowed that Tal would never beat him again and he kept this vow. I believe they met 4 or 5 more times after that in classic games and Tal never again beat Fischer. By the time Fischer was 18 or 19 he was already Tal's superior. Tal once said that he beat Fischer when he was still Tal and Fischer wasnt yet Fischer.
Frank Marshall and Mikhail Tal were just as good as Fischer or Kasparov in the "Amazing" catagory. I personally doubt any game ever surpassed Frank Marshall's "Immortal Game". That's my opinion.
I believe Fischer did not have a plus score against Tal. I think they were tied for games against each other.
Tal v. Fischer +4−2=5
Those 4 Tal wins were against a 16 year old Fischer when he skunked Bobby in the 1959 Candidates Tournament.
This simply isnt true , their record is even 5 draws with 4 wins each.
If you include blitz games, then they each have four wins. It doesn't make sense to include blitz games with classical controls though.
Ok, you are right. However, those 4 wins in 59 angered Fischer so much ( partly because Tal rubbed it in too ) that Fischer vowed that Tal would never beat him again and he kept this vow. I believe they met 4 or 5 more times after that in classic games and Tal never again beat Fischer. By the time Fischer was 18 or 19 he was already Tal's superior. Tal once said that he beat Fischer when he was still Tal and Fischer wasnt yet Fischer.
I am with you on this. A player's results when young or kinda aged have to be considered as "non-characteristic" to some degree, at least when they are negative. I consider how well Kasparov did vs. Karpov in their first match even though losing (3-5) a testament to his ability. Kasparov was still green compared to Karpov, then a super-solid and honed veteran near his peak age.
Kasparov gets my vote, Fischer was a terrific player no doubt but he was only the proven best best player between 1970-72. Spassky was better than Fischer between 1967-70 with 3 wins a couple of drawers and no losses in their head to head games. Fischer gave up in 1972 mainly I think because he was not sure he could beat Karpov. The measure of a great World Champion is not only about being able to play the best moves it is also about the mental toughness to reach the summit and stay there, Fischer lacked that, he could not bear the thought of losing his title and it destroyed him. Kasparov on the other hand came back from a terrible start against Karpov to go on to win the title and defend it against the best players over the next two decades. Even after he lost his title to Kramnick he was still rated the number one player in the world up to his retirement. Last thought, if Kasparov made a comeback today would anyone here bet their house on him not winning back the title, not sure I would.
Kasparov has been retired since 2005 and is now 45 or 46 years old. I think he could make a comeback if he really wanted to but I believe he is making good money now in the business he started and its probably easier than being the top chess player ? I wouldnt want to bet on him or against him to be honest . 
However , I feel he wont come back to chess as Kamsky did.
Frank Marshall and Mikhail Tal were just as good as Fischer or Kasparov in the "Amazing" catagory. I personally doubt any game ever surpassed Frank Marshall's "Immortal Game". That's my opinion.
I believe Fischer did not have a plus score against Tal. I think they were tied for games against each other.