Fischer vs. Kasparov

Whats interesting is Kasparov himself said , here in Lisbon, that the only way to compare champions from different eras was by how much they dominated their peers and he said by this measure Fischer was the best ever. Kasparov said this himself.

Well, Sonas both agrees and disagrees... he basically fudges, saying, "I think it's pretty clear that for about a year, Bobby Fischer dominated his contemporaries to an extent never seen before or since." So Fischer is #1? Not for Sonas, he actually drops Fischer down to (check your pacemaker Reb, this is gonna sting) a tie for number 3 with Lasker, and argues that the two-headed Kasparov/Karpov monster is the dominating #1 #2 of all time. They are near each other, but otherwise the pair utterly and convincingly dominate the remainder or their contemporaries for nearly two decades. -- pretend either Karpov, or Kasparov gets dropped on his head, age 2... and the other one suddenly stands out as a leviathan.

Reasonable people can and do disagree.

I think regardless of who was a better player, Kasparov is the favourite to win a match between the two.

If you look at the people who had multiple victories or even plus scores against Fischer many, like Geller, Tal, Reshevsky, Ivkov, Gligoric, Petrosian, Spassky.

Most of these people, certainly Geller who had the best score of of anyone against Fischer, had aggresive, complicating, highly tactical styles.

And the people who scored well against Kasparov:

Kramnik, Karpov, Petrosian, none of whom play in a similar fashion as Fischer.

I believe only Geller had a plus against Fischer and he would have certainly lost a match to Fischer had they played. Its interesting that both Spassky and Petrosian have 50% scores with Kasparov, 2 players that Fischer demolished in matches.

Reb, thats a pretty loose argument because each player was at a different stage of their career. Lots of people beat people who beat Michael Jordan at basketball when MJ was 13 years old. You wouldn't use that to compare their NBA careers.

I preffer Kasparov from these two. But the best player in history has been Lasker.

And Fischer being the best native US player? There were Morphy, Pillsburry and Marshall, which i consider at least equal to Fischer.

It's beyond loose, it's positively silly. Why don't we spin it the other way and say... Look at Fischer's record versus Petrosian and Spassky, ... even at his peak Fischer, at age 27, lost games to Petrosian and Spassky,players who never once beat Kasparov after Garry was past the age of 18 y.o. (vs.Petrosian) or 20 y.o. (vs. Spassky) respectively. ... how can you seriously even compare Fischer and Kasparov?

Please don't bother telling me that's ridiculous, I know it's ridiculous for a variety of reasons... Reb surely knows his spin is ridiculous as well.

Kasparov, although, like Newton, he would admit that he"stood on the shoulders of giants", like Fisher 

Kasparov is the greatest

 Yes, its true that Kasparov wasnt yet at his peak, but its also true that both Spassky and Petrosian were well past their peaks when they played Kasparov. I think these two facts balance out. The fact is Kasparov has never even come close to winning 20 games in a row against all GMs......what is his longest win streak with GMs anyway? If Kasparov and Fischer met ( both in their prime )  I have no doubt that Fischer would defeat Kasparov.

This is what I mean by a loose argument, Reb. You wind up saying "well, this fact balances that one." It's a very hand-waving argument, whereas someone like Sonas has done a detailed, quantitative, statistical study. So your anecdotes are going to be unconvincing.

Kasparov has given simuls against teams of GMs, playing them all at once. Has Fischer ever done that? I'm not saying this makes Kasparov better, these anecdotes simply don't settle the argument.

Fischer was blessed with a confluence of chess contexts that made his accomplishments historically spectacular. For example, no matter how great a genius one may be there is no entrenched, super-dominant chess machine nowadays that one can defeat. Kasparov, in proving superiority to Karpov, was just one wing of the system fighting the other. As great as Kasparov was, and as great as his record was, the opportunity to achieve what Fischer did just wasn't there.

As a "Fischer baby" I'd love to think that he was the best ever. That's my emotional response. In the cold light of reason I think result of a Fischer-Kasparov match would be in question, and that Fischer's psychological toughness at this highest level would be in doubt.

I think the most magnificent and artistic thing in chess are the incredible tactics and combinations that take place in the board, and Bobby Fischer was a great player that made the magic to happen in the chess board and in that way he is better than Kasparov I`m sure that if Kasparov And Fischer played when Fisher was the champ Bobby, would had won!!

But Garry its a great player still!

I cant believe this topic keeps on popping up, i think i asked the question almost a year ago now.

Kasparov is better, Fischer may have been the king of his age but chess has evolved much since his time, Kasparov's analysis skills are unmatched, he studies with computers, he studied computer logics, he developed computer logics and much more...Fischer was talent, but Kasparov is talent plus machine.

One thing I have noticed that noone has discussed is the definition. How do you define the best player? Is it through the quality of the games played? The length of time they dominated the world? How they fared against their contemparies? All of the above? There is, quite simply, no way to say which was the better player as all of these methods are flawed. Here is my interpretations: Kasparov dominated the top for longer. You can say what you will about Fischer's mental health: staying power is a factor as is mental health and if Fischer handicapped this chance through his self-imposed exile, this still is a factor. Fischer, however, seemed to produce more innovative moves eg 13th game v Spassky, 1972. This can be attributed to therotical knowledge, but that point remains. Noone will ever be able to say who was better, as we saw neither play each other at their prime, which is the most foolproof method.

B.t.w I am neutral in this. Morphy is better than both of them

 Steinitz, not Fischer, holds the record with 25! and the last 7 of that streak were against Blackburne the world #2 at the time.  BF's best undefeated streak doesn't compare with Tals or Capablancas.

It's ABSURD to draw conclusions of any kind about the relative strength of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov by looking at their records against Petrosian and Spassky...  GK has more years (15) as the World Champion than he does games against Petrosian and Spassky, combined (13, I believe). 

Effim Geller had a + score against Fischer, something like 5.5. 3.5 in Geller's favor... but Bent Larsen had a postive score against Geller -- 6 - 5 for Larsen... so I guess Larsen is better than Fischer?... oh and Kasparov never lost a game to  Geller and beat him once -- what does any of this really signify? Nothing.

Let's talk tournaments -- Using the chessmetrics data, of the top 50 higest-rated tournaments ever, Kasparov he won 17! the next best is 6 (Lasker)  Bobby Fischer won 2.  Kasparov has 5 of the top 10 highest tournament performance ratings of all time. (No other player has even 2) Fischer has none.

Kasparov is by far the most dominating tournament player of all time. He reigned as world champion for 15 years by defending his title in matches... and matches were his "weakness" (I wish I had such a  weakness!)

If we're talking streaks:Kasparov holds the record for most consecutive professional tournament victories, placing first or equal first in 15 individual tournaments from 1981 to 1990. 

Here's another streak... for 19.8 years Kasparov was the highest rated player in the world and for 18.5 of those years no one -- including Karpov -- even came within 10 rating points of him. Fischer was the top rated player in the world for 7.9 years... a number that includes two years 73-74 hiding from the public and playing no chess at all.

REB: "If Kasparov and Fischer met (both in their prime)  I have no doubt that Fischer would defeat Kasparov."

JG27Pyth: "I have no doubt that Angels fart snowflakes!"

Sure, call me a joker but Reb's statement is no less unverifiable than mine. 

At least we know what Bobby's absolute prime was -- it was that magic year 1972, when the 29 year old slashed his way through the world's best, won the world championship and then dropped out of chess... It's a little harder with Kasparov -- He first won the world championship in 1985 at 22 years old and he held it until 2000 and he was the highest-rated player in the world continuously from 1985 until 2005 -- His prime is probably one of those years in the 1990s, but, which one?

Except the answer is Dostoyevsky!

the question is pure speculation/opinion.  to know for sure who is better they would simply have to play each other.  there are way too many variables to predict the outcome.  someone should invent a time machine.

Doesn't Kramnik have a huge win % on Kasparov in his prime? And didn't Kramnik get waxed by Anand?

Using your logic you could assume that Anand should have a better score vs Kasparov than Kramnik does, but that is flawed and not necessarily true.