Who's Better?: Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, or Magnus Carlsen

It's strange that someone who lives in FInland likes bananas.

the answer is me. Im better than all three

What do you charge for lessons?

check out my courses on https://chesscheat.com/

Tigran Petrosian

I only wish I were good enough to have a valid opinion on this.

But at least I can "help" with grammar. When comparing two things, one may be "better". When comparing three or more, one would be "best".  So the question, properly stated, is "Who's best?"

You're welcome.

It's odd but if you asked whether Isaac Newton was a better or worse physicist than a someone today, physicists would all say definitely Newton because they judge based on the number and importance of the new discoveries made, not on the % of modern physics they know.

Similarly for whitewater kayakers where most judge based on their first descents.

It seems like the way we judge in chess would  be analogous to judging greatness in physicists on what they would score on a current physics AP test.

@434

That's an interesting point, but I see very big differences between physics and chess. One is specifically defined and contained within very narrow rules and boundaries, and one is without limit, without borundaries, and rather generally defined. One is created and defined by man, the other.... anything but, and only discovered by man.
Therefore, IMO, it might make perfect sense to judge who is best at one by completely different standards from those applied to the other. The question might be, "Who would win the majority of games between Fischer and Kasparov?"  Such a question makes no sense in physics. 

You’re mixing up greatness and how good a player or physicist is.

Yes, Newton is an all-time great, but there are many first year college students who know more about physics than Newton did.

The question wasn’t about greatness. We know who the best (human) chess player in history is. He’s the one with the highest sustained Elo rating. The question of who the greatest is wasn’t asked.

This is of course impossible to accurately settle but my vote goes to Fischer. I go back and forth between Kasparov and Carlsen as who is better but I think I have recently switched back to Kasparov from saying Carlsen because he still was able to compete with Carlsen at a pretty old age and while he was drawn by Carlsen in the famous 2005 game, he won the other games to move on in the match. Also Kasparov was able to hold the title and world #1 spot longer though it may be accurate to say that he played in a weaker era than Carlsen. Anyways that a aside, I go to Fischer because he seemed more dedicated to chess and winning at it than any other individual including Kasparov and despite only winning one world championship, he still got the win dominantly after losing a game by default and making an early blunder that cost him a game. Fischer also won as an individual opposing the Soviet team which I believe gives even more credit to his ability. Compared to Carlsen, Fischer seems less creative but more dedicated and daunting as a player. Compared to Kasparov Fischer seems about the same in dedication but more individually genius and resilient. He is the best out of these three for me but I understand that this is a topic where any one of them can deservingly be placed on top

Carlsens Era was NOT stronger than Kasparovs. Kasparov was up against Karpov, Korchnoi, Anand, Kramnik and Topolov. Even Ivanchuk was regarded as being somewhat dangerous.

Kasparov played in a difficult era I agree but once he got passed Karpov, he was much better than everyone else and held that. Karpov failed despite good efforts to take back the title from him, Korchnoi as good as he was already had gone a bit past his prime and Kasparov was easily better, Anand is showably worse overall and it's not close, Kramnik did beat Kasparov I admit but the whole game was transitioning at this point and Kasparov was getting older, and I've never seen Topalov as much of a threat to Kasparov despite his achievements no offense. Ivanchuk is the one player that I cannot say was worse but he was also a lingering part of Carlsen's era. While Magnus started out as a champion above all others, he was soon brought back to earth and despite keeping his advantage, he to me has been given more closely leveled opponents. I'm open to hear more from your side.

Carlsen would have not liked to have went up against a peak Kramnik nor a peak Anand, or even a peak Karpov. Carlsen has never taken on players of that calibre.

I think Carlsen could fight with peak Kramnik and Anand and win because he has a more widely built repertoire while keeping up with these two's knowledge on key openings. As for peak Karpov, I can't really argue there as Karpov's solidity and brilliance is undeniable but I believe that Carlsen could still defeat him on a good day and I concede that that's more theory on my part than law. Please keep the conversation going because I definitely would like to hear more of your insights on this subject.

You are saying Carlsen could beat Kramnik because of a wider repertoire, if that is true then surely that would also mean he is capable of beating Fischer. Kasparov also had a very wide repertoire, in some respects wider than Carlsens, does this mean he would at least be able to go toe to toe with Carlsen?

Carlsen could beat Kramnik because of his repertoire but more because he's a master himself in many of Kramnik's favorite lines. He would not fall for the Berlin though it can be argued that his knowledge came from Kramnik but that is simply chess by generations so I don't see that as valid. As for Fischer, I believe that his drive was such that he would outplay Carlsen's ideas and tricks with his genius and will to win. Kasparov absolutely went toe to toe and I believe outperformed Carlsen overall head to head. I will say that I do believe Kasparov to be the greater opponent for now but I believe Carlsen's contemporaries to be a stronger generation.

As the the Berlin Defense, there is no evidence that Carlsens knowledge of that opening is better than Kramniks. You do realise Kasparov was getting on a bit while Carlsen was only 13 when Kasparov beat Carlsen.

Better maybe not but he has enough knowledge to draw a Berlin which has been seen many times. I still agree with Kasparov being better as he won in the 2005 match although Carlsen was still developing. I did see an online game later though where Carlsen had a win but missed it and Kasparov much older got a draw so I'm with you on that point. 

I come to this late, but:

Defining "better" as a player playing at his prime while sitting across the board playing against various opponents over the period of his prime, rather than defining "better" as what a computer indicates or the brilliance of a single game or a single move or speculating about endless "what-ifs" against various anachronistic or imaginary opponents with real or imagined openings --- then:

Carlson.