Fischer vs. Kasparov

certainly i am glad that bobby didn't take that advice, but it would have been interesting to see what other ways he might have contributed to the world, for bobby's own personal life though i am sure he possibly sometimes wished he had taken it rather than ending up running from the government for around 40 years and ending up being thrown in prison around age 80 all because of his chess career. 

I read 'Profile of a Prodigy' about Fischer many years ago...fischer grew up in a one-parent family that struggled to make ends meet. By the time Fischer was 11 his elo was around 2100. By 13 his rating was at least 2300. At 14 U.S Champion & a strong GM just after turning 15. Paid lessons...no way...mother was too poor bringing up two kids in heartless america. Compare this feat with Judit Polgar [lovely, highly intelligent woman] who was raised by a psychologist father to become as good as his study plan would allow. She's now about 2700.

Fischer's 'coach'? Who? There was a guy called John Collins who might have helped a bit, but Fischer did it alone - he was a loner and wouldn't accept help from others according to what I have read.

I can guarantee that even a very bright person with the desire to become a GM will fail 99% of the time. It is just very very difficult & requires a freakish set of abilities + the desire to work hard & very often.

I wonder what freakish abilities morphy must have had.  The idea of a chess lesson would have seemed quite alien then, no?

Both players are great for me..

surely kasparov.bobby is very clever, very agressive but (t)his style is lingered. everybody is versatile anymore.for example kasparov is like this.

Is it ok then to say that Fischer was the greater talent and Kasparov was the better player?

I don't think that is contradictory, due to the myriad excellent points made in the previous posts.

Fischer was the best of all time until Kasparov came along and now its his turn.

both players is a genius player.
equally eligible to become a legend of world chess.

 I agree with this sentiment.

IMO, it's virtually impossible to compare great players of different eras based on common opponents because a master's quality of play changes as time passes. 

IMO, it's also virtually impossible to compare them by analyzing their games because players that come later have the inherent advantage of being able to study the games of great players that came later (as well as the use of computers).

It might be possible to compare the Karpov of 75 to the Fischer of 72 because they were fairly close, but any comparison of Fischer to Kasparov would be prone to huge error unless the primary factor was in looking for orginality, creativeness, intrinsic chess genius, and things like that.

IMO, it is highly likely that the peak Kasparov would have beaten the peak Fischer because of all the advantages he had studying Fischer's and Karpov's etc.. games and the use of a computer. However, I don't think that says much about their relative talents or who would have won if Fischer had those same advantages.  

I don't know enough about the game to evaluate their intrinsic talent and be sure, but I suspect that Fischer was much more talented and would have won easily had they played in the same era and had the same resources for study.

We know that was BF's actual peak, but we have no idea if he would have continued to improve if he continued playing. If anything, he quit during a period of enormous impovement that showed no signs of ending.  

I have always liked Anand and now I like him even more.

I know Fischer did not think that highly of Kasparov for what that is worth. Comparing players from different era is like conmparing baseball players (and statistics) from differing periods. Fischer did not play that much post 1967 when he was probably at his peak but his match performance is probably unmatched. Kasparov was able to understand and utilize current information the best of anyone. As an amatuer it is easier to understand Fischer's games compared to the depth of Kasparov's. My slight bias is for Fischer ahead of Kasparov with Alekhine and Lasker just a small tad below them.

People don't understand that chess is evolving and competition is evolving. The caliber of people that Kasparov played was way higher than Fisher's opponents.

Fisher is very popular and that seems to blind a lot of people.

Yes I agree that it is Fischer's popularity based on his eccentricities and great achievement nevertheless in overcoming the Russian chess machine at the height of the Cold War. My own personal favourite is Capablanca.

yeah i agree with reb. thank god for history.

These kinds of questions have no resolution and engender endless opinionation. But since opinions are like garbage cans everyone having one and it generally stinking, I'll offer mine. I think Fischer was the better.

Fischer had a lousy jab and a glass jaw but he was light on his feet and had a great right hook, so if he stayed active, kept away from Kasparov long enough to land a good right or two, I think he could have taken Gary in six maybe seven rounds. Mike Tyson would have made chicken feed out of both of them (Tyson's chicken), and Ali was a much better chess player than all three put together. Rocky Marciano, however, was a better singer, songwriter, and entrepreneur.

The number two chess player of all time was my friend Osterman, who drew Bent Larsen in a simultaneous but was overdosing on tuna fish at the time, otherwise Osterman would have won.

 I am sooooooooooooo confused....

Fischer has had the greatest impact on the game....

to compare their relative abilities and talent is futile ...tho I suspect a Fischer at his peak with access to the best computers and the net , would be more than a match for Gazza...