Fischer vs. Kasparov

I also think Fischer was a great player. However, his "peak" was very short in comparison.

I know, sadly people are still focused on how wonderful Bobby Fischer was 40 years ago.

Kasparov! ( 3:1 odds Fischer wouldn't have shown up - even if he were still alive.)

Fischer of course was the better player and the greater genius.

Apropos, consider his rating of 2785 in the early 70s which is not far from the top even today. Meanwhile ratings have undergone a lot of inflation since the 70s, so 2785 adjusted for inflation may be even higher than Kaspy's 2850 record.

Fischer was not as good as kasparov. While ratings have inflated, so has player strength, and kasparov had to beat a lot more great players, many of whom were better than fischer, to achieve a rating that high.

In fact ,it's true that comparing Kasparov to Fischer ,is like comparing a cyclone and a tornado .
Same effects on a different scale of time and space .
Who was the best ?
In fact the answer is close to this one : who is the one who made u wanna play chess ?
For me ,reading "My 60 Memorable Games" still amazes me , like reading "My Best Games Of Chess 1905–1954"  by Tartakower .
These 2 books are still on my bedside table so how can i keep an objective point of viewbefore answering this question ?

I do have a tremendous respect for Kasparov carreer ,but I don't think he was the best player ever , just the best of his time .

Interesting footnote to those of you who may have had trouble conveying your arguments:  next time simply add the phrase "of course" and you will be sure to win.

I've heard some of the crap he has said about Putin, and if it's true, then I think he's in for trouble.

How much censorship is there in Russia?  His message may not be reaching them as much.  They probably already know how bad Putin is.

Is it still censorship if you simply kill the journalists who fall out of line, or is it something else entirely?

That's a tough one.  If they still get to publish and then get killed, it's not really censorship.  If they censor their articles first and then kill them, it is censorship.  Killing them so they can't publish more might be considered premptive censorship.

If you kill a journalist, therefore, you are really trying to censor the living journalists. 

It's really a strong incentive for journalists to self censor... I think it's something else altogether though.

Can we still kill paparazzi?

I think Kasparov would have`won easily  

It's just impossible to tell. They would have had to play each other not just once but many times for us to judge who was better. Even then, it may be hard to tell because some players just don't get along against certain others, even though they are absolutely brilliant in general. For example, Tal was an amazing player but struggled against Korchnoi. They would have had to play in the same era for an extented period of time with chess theory at the same level of advancement and the same access to resources against the same opponents for us to know for sure.

they have different styles but i tend to think kasparov would come out better. his ability to spot combinations is terrifying.

To be honest, I think the games between these two would have been interesting to watch. I think it would in some way or another be a difficult task for the players.

Kasparov: He himself talked about his model was Alekhine. I remember himself also commenting on Carlsen saying that Carlsen was/wasn't (double check the wikipedia article of Carlsen and Kasparov) the tactical attacking chess player like Tal and himself. This kind of gives me questions to think about.

If Alekhine was Kasparov's model and Capablanca was somewhat of Fischer's model, and the fact that Capablanca's method proved superior to Alekhine.... (Seriously I'd be crazy to play this card.) I do say both were similar to their initial favorites. 

I think the biggest clue to what the games would be like would be between Fischer and Tal. As long as Fischer didn't play tactical, he had pretty good chances or let's just say better or equal. But when the game turned tactical, Fischer seemed like he was going to lose. So to me, not making any factors of age, (My guess is that they would have played each other in the 80s and early 90s with Fischer being in his late 30s and 40s while Kasparov was in his 20s and 30s.) the same would happen with Fischer and Kasparov. If Fischer could clear the game of tactics, then he would have better or mainly equal chances. Thinking when they would have played each other, since Fischer was supposedly a near 2700 competitor based on his rematch with Spassky in 1992, I would think had he stayed with chess over the course of his career roughly from 72-92, Fischer would have been much better than he surprisingly already was at the age of 49. Otherwise, commenting on them playing in the 80s and possibly the early 90s, it would have been fun to watch.

The Fischer that Tal played was still a boy, not the giant who stomped the world's best with ease in the 70's.  Over all game scores can be misleading, especially when one was an adult at their peak against a child.  A great example of this is how Anand has a good score vs. Carlsen, but most of these were against a teen.  The score is much more in Carlsen's favor if we just look at the last few years.

At their respective peaks, Tal, Kasparov, and Karpov did not dominate their opponents the same way Fischer did.  Carlsen does not, but give the boy some time.

   I thought the limit was 200 for the IQ. I've checked the site which shows that and I think it's fake: it shows Kapsarov at 190, when he was tested in Germany and the result was 135. People like to blow things out of proportions.