There's no question they were the two greatest players of the 1970 - 2000 era.  As to which was greater... Kasparov was fantastic, and was head and shoulders above any of his contemporaries, but... I haven't seen a game of his that blew me away like the 'Game of the Century' which Fischer played when he was 13.

If anyone knows of a Kasparov game of equal brilliance, I would *love* to see it.

How come everyone of these threads always ends the same? A couple of fanboys screaming that their idol is in fact the most perfect super awesome mega player the world has ever seen.

The Byrne game is quite a piece ... Fischer seeming to be about 15+ moves ahead of another GM in tactical calculations.

I'm not as familiar with Kasparov's games, perhaps because there were just so damn many of them, as I am as Fischer's.  However the idea that Kasparov wasn't as "brilliant" as Fischer is just sort of silly.

Anyway, my favorite Fischer game, for brilliance, is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIdDt4qzuyQ

Don't be ridiculous tonydal, Kasparov is average in brilliance (I'm assuming brilliancy is slang for tactical ability?), he can't be compared to brilliant players.

To be honest, Kasparov was probably right.  Fischer wouldn't be playing people, he'd be playing massive amounts of new analysis in all of his pet openings and new developments in middlegame setups.  It's unrealistic to expect Fischer to immediately acclimate himself to all of the new ideas in chess and beat on everyone again.  Now if he got them into endgames....

Kasparov Big Mouth, Russian Toady. Paul Morphy crazy but a genuis at chess with his develope your pieces first mentally. A true Genius

José Raúl Capablanca, awesome,

mar·vel·ous.  Bobby Fischer, The best there ever was at chess he even had the guts to die at 64 yers of age the same as the number of squares on the board.

I stand corrected, Donald never was a GM (Byrned once). And the one I confused him with (Robert) wasn't a GM until several years later (Byrned twice).

This is the the Rybka 3 evaluation reached by analizing a statistically significant sample of their games

the link is : http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/summary450.pdf

Average expected error by thinking time 

Ranked in order from max to min:

 -------------------------------------------------------------------

Deep Blue 1996-97

Kramnik 1998-02

Karpov 1986-90

Fischer 1968-72

Capablanca 1916-24

Fine 1936-40

Modern 2700 player

Anand 1997-01

Kasparov 1989-93

Korchnoi 1977-81

Smyslov 1954-58

Botvinnik 1945-49

Spassky 1967-71

Petrosian 1960-64

Keres 1955-59

Nimzowitsch 1927-31

Alekhine 1929-33

Tal 1958-62

Marshall 1912-16

Tarrasch 1894-98

Rubinstein 1910-14

Maroczy 1903-07

Euwe 1934-38

Pillsbury 1899-03

Reshevsky 1951-55

Modern 2500 player

Lasker 1892-96

Chigorin 1894-98

Morphy 1857-59

Zukertort 1880-84

Steinitz 1882-86

Modern 2300 player

Modern 2100 player

World Championship, 1985? Karpov vs Kasparov ... I think this game is even more brilliant, as Kasparov was playing against the greatest defensive player ever ... and he was playing with the disadvantage of Black! All Fischer played against was a strong Master, Byrne ...

I dont know if he would "die", but I'm sure he is not as good as Kasparov. I have always felt that each generations super-GM's have the past champions games to study and improve on. Look at Carlson,he can study from the great games of Karpov, Kasparov,Fischer.....one day someone younger and in his prime will have his games to learn from too. I dont think its a fair question to ask if Kasparov is better thanFischer, I am sure he is. I think its a better question to ask, who was better than Fischer in his time? As an American who did not start playing chess during the Fischer craze, but much earlier in the Petrosian era, I can tell you, (because I was there!) in Fischers day nobody was better. Well, maybe Tal, but thats another story for another day:)

Point taken about the quality of the opposition.

That is a very fine game indeed.  The combination beginning at 33.. Ne4 (which Kasparov must have see some time before that) is wonderful. But, for me, not as amazing as Fischer's queen sac in the GotC.

Aside - don't you think 5. Nb5 is an early error by Karpov which is always going to lose a tempo and put the knight in a sub-optimal position after ... a6?

They're only stupid if you expect anything is actually going to get resolved.  However if you look on them as a forum to discuss the relative strengths of past masters and savour their games then they're pretty fun.  ;)

Sadly, no.  There are over 30 Kasparov-Topalov games in my database.  Could you please give me a date, tournament or something to help track it down?

Thanks Tonydal.  Yep, pretty amazing!  The first rook sac had to be speculative, and had black declined it I'm not sure who would have stood better, but after he did accept it it was one amazing combination after another for the next 20 moves.  Definitely one of the great games.

Thanks again.

Kramnik ahead of Kasparov, Fischer and all other carbon-based players?  Reuben Fine ahead of Bottvinnik, Alekhine, Tal, Kasparov?  Fine was never even world champion!    I have to say I find Rybka's analysis a little dubious.

I know!  I was like, Kramnik, that high on the list?

Is he really that disciplined?

This list strikes me as a totally bogus waste of time

If not for Fischer they would all still be playing for a few thousand dollars , even at the top. Like Spassky did in his 1969 WC win against Petrosian . Its only your opinion , and nothing more, that Fischer has forfeited any right to be considered as one of the best ever simply because he bowed out when he was at his peak . Some may share that opinion but many do not. Fischer didnt have a plus against Korchnoi, so what ? Kasparov also doesnt have a plus against Spassky nor Petrosian, two players that Fischer demolished. Fischer had a minus score against Geller, but in match play Geller couldnt get past Spassky ...  Korchnoi also has a huge plus score against Tal , yet Tal became WC and Korchnoi did not. What does it prove ?

Even I could beat Bobby Fischer's best game. Since there are 994 Bobby Fischers in the US, I'm sure I could beat at least one of them.