Kasparov Murders Fischer!

Actually, Kasparov himself came to my country today to give a talk on that very game(plus play a few blitz games and a simul), and I was present.  During the talk, he said that he actually managed to vaguely see the final position.  Of course there was some intuition involved, but he also managed to more or less calculate that far ahead. Amazing...

Sure he is.http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3509

to the OP: whew, thanks for clearing that up.  all this time i thought fischer would win, but nope, he'd be dead.  what a relief.

I retract my comment.  Kramnik probably is remarkably disciplined and focussed.

Here's Wikipedia on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_for_comparing_top_chess_players_throughout_history

Actual moves played compared with computer choices

A computer-based method of analyzing chess abilities across history came from Matej Guid and Ivan Bratko from the Department of Computer and Information Science of University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, in 2006.^[19] The basis for their evaluation was the difference between the position values resulting from the moves played by the human chess player and the moves chosen as best by a chess program, Crafty. They also compared the average number of errors in the player's game. Opening moves were excluded, in an attempt to negate the progress in chess opening theory. According to their analysis, the leader was José Raúl Capablanca, followed closely by Vladimir Kramnik.

The "Classical" World Chess Championship matches were analyzed, and the results for the fourteen Classical World Champions were presented.

Players with fewest average errors:

So perhaps the question shoudl really be, "What's the relationship between fewest errors and success?"  And I'd guess the answer's not that straightforward.

Anyone who truly understands chess history knows Kasparov was stronger than Fischer. Kasparov is a machine ... Unlimited opening knowledge, one of the most creative middlegame players ever - and very strong in the endgame. Kasparov also had the theory of another 50 years behind him that Fischer didn't.

It was nice of Mimchi to share his true understanding with us, the witless masses

 Please explain to me how Kasparov had 50 years extra theory behind him ?  I mean Fischer's peak was 1972 and Kasparov became WC in 1985 ( thats NOT 50 years later ) and even if you say Kasparov didnt peak until the 90s I still dont get 50 years. Are you using that new math perhaps ? 

 I was attending anger management classes...... sorry. 

 Does that mean your position is vacant now for someone else to say "Hogwash" and "Stop the Hates"  ?