Comparison

Who is better isnt really that important. Who earned more money/fame is more important 

On some level you are right, but it isn't rocket science to compare styles and game results, to form "certain" conclusions about their respective skill sets.

Maybe, but I'm still not convinced.

For example, I don't think because someone chooses to play positionally it means they are necessarily much worse in "dynamic" positions, or have worse tactics. It could just be they usually choose to play that way because it fits in with their personality.

For instance, take Spassky's first WC match against Petrosian where apparently he purposely tried to engineer the kinds of positions in which his slow, prophylactic opponent "should" have been worse in. And yet it backfired and he lost!

I agree that you might be right about a player choosing to play a positional style over a tactical one and vice versa, though they are better at the other. I believe GM's have figured out their best style by the time they become GM's. I could see them changing things up from time to time, if not regularly too, to not only keep their opponents guessing, but so they are more well rounded.

If they are just as good from a results standpoint in the win/loss/draw columns, they still have a preferred strength or style they like best and they need to rely upon it to have their best chances against their contemporaries, especially in match play.  I am very certain, it would have behooved both Kasparov and Karpov to play to their strength, for their best chances to win, even if this was simply choosing what was less stressful for themselves, or what was most detrimental to their opponent, whatever the reason(s).

This is why Kasparov was better known for his aggressive attacking tactical style, while Karpov tended to be more prophylactic, defensive, and positional. These are what they preferred, because it is what they were most comfortable with and were best at.

If I had to pick the best GM's in history who probably had about equal chances of playing either style well enough to still be elite, certainly these two players would be among them.

Yes, I suppose you're right.

I love them both, although I probably study Karpov's games more because of his play in the Ruy Lopez and French Tarrasch. I think they're the Mozart and Beethoven of chess -- Karpov, flawless if occasionally dull, and Kasparov never matching such perfection, yet reaching heights that Karpov never could.

Kasparov won when it mattered. He produced the greatest game of all time. He is capable of feats of memory in chess that nobody else can equal. If you ask the man on the street how good they are at chess, ten to one they'll reply, "I'm no Kasparov".

We'll never know how good Karpov could have been if he'd played Fischer and inherited his tactical muscle. It's like asking what would have happened if Karpov had peaked in today's computer-assisted chess landscape (a scary thought), or if Mozart hadn't died young -- we'll never know what could have been, so we must be grateful for what we have.

the only way to stop him!