Kurogkug, Magnus Carlsen is the #1 player. Not the world champion, but the one whose ranking is the highest. I believe when Kasparov played against the world, he was the one with the highest rating, too.
(Gari holds the record of the highest ranking ever, 2851)
so bgangioni,you mean until now nobody beat kasparov 2851 rating?.how about bobby fisher highest rating did he beat kasparov rating?.i wait to your response bgangioni.
yes your right catirene.giatay lim barok.
Apparently the OP does respond to others, but only to those who speak his tongue. 
Nope, nobody did. It appears Bobby Fischer stopped playing after he became world champion, in 1972. And at that time Kasparov was about 9 years old. I don't think they ever played against each other.
Kasparov holds the record until now, though Magnus Carlsen is getting closer and closer, and perhaps will break it soon.
So, Catirene, what church is that? Not that we're gonna start a religious conversation, I'm just curious.
so bgangioni,if kasparov and bobby fisher has the same age and let say they are both 25 years old of age,whose you gonna bet kasparov or bobby fisher?.i wait again to your response.
hi borgqueen, i have a question.did you watch the game of kasparov and deep blue in their last game when deep blue beat kasparov in i think in 19 moves if i remember?.so if you did? this is my question,my question is what is the mistakes of kasparov in the first place?,do you have any opinion about this game why kasparov lost the game?.i wait again to your response borgqueen.
Well, I don't know, Kurogkug. It's a hard choice... I haven't studied their games that much.
Fischer was a genius, but I think I'd still bet on Kasparov.
thank you bgangioni.
These hypothetical scenarios have been discussed for decades, but they will remain as amusements for the chess community because they could never be proven or disproved.
In any case, 25 yr old Fischer vs 25 yr old Kasparov would probably end up with an easy win for Kasparov.
Here's why I came up with that conclusion:
1. Kasparov was already a world champion for 3 years by the time he turned 25.
2. When Fischer was 25, he was only winning major tournaments. It would take 2 more years before he would prove to be a threat in the "USSR Versus the Rest of the World" and the "World Championship of Lightning Chess", another year after that before he dominated the Candidates Match, and yet another year after that before his (almost missed) match for the World Chess Championship.
I believe kurogkug wants to know who would be the better player with each of them in their prime.
I still say Kasparov would win. Here's why:
1. Fischer's prime was in 1971-1972 when he dominated the candidates match and won the world championship.
2. Kasparov's prime was in 1999-2000 when he reached the highest rating of 2851. The knowledge and experience that Kasparov had upto the year 2000 (up-to-date chess games and databases, strong chess engines, new opening theories and novelties, fast communication via Internet) was 28 years ahead of what Fischer had to work with. We already know how much Fischer condemned the idea of how the Soviets could pool their resources for opening preparation in the 70s. Imagine how far his eyes rolled back thinking about the advances in opening prepartion by year 2000?
These hypothetical scenarios have been discussed for decades, but they will remain as amusements for the chess community because they could never be proven or disproved.
True. It's all only for the sake of amusement. Who knows, maybe Fischer would have surprisingly won...
thank you borgqueen,i forgot to ask you this also.in my own opinion if deep blue beat kasparov in 19 moves,i think that deep blue master already the 50% positions of chess game or if a chess game has a quadrillion positions it master the 50% of it.its like a huge telescope of n.a.s.a that can see the 5% of the universe and i think the most scary one is if a computer like deep blue can master the 100% positions of chess game,i think no one want to play a chess game anymore.now how about your own opinion of this.i wait again to your respose borgqueen.by the way i think i will vote for kasparov if he will play to bobby fisher,because the opponents before by bobby fisher that he beaten is little bit not good enough than all the opponents by kasparov,you know what i mean?.
Yeah. I forgot to mention the long list of strong opponents that Kasparov had faced upto year 2000 as part of his experiences.
However, if [computers can see even close to 50% of the total number of positions in chess] then I think it is more like that people would not want to play chess vs a computer... But [people] will still very much enjoy playing versus each other... and cheating will be much easier to discover!
While we're in the topic of discovering how cheaters are caught here in chess.com, here's the top 3 matchup guide:
http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/top-3-matchup-analysis-guide
Yes, just because something is "solved" by computers does not mean people won't still play. What difference does it make to me if a computer exists that can play a perfect game? Rubik's cube is "solved", and not just by computers, there are lots of people who can always complete the puzzle. That doesn't stop people who don't know the solution from enjoying puttering with the device, or being amazed when their kid solves it faster than they can.
hehehe. I served a church mission in the Philippines, and speak fluent Cebuano. I have also grown accustomed to Filippinos speaking English. Because of this, I can almost hear Kurogkug's post in my head.
Kurogkug, visayan ka ba?