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

Any of today's top 5 GMs would beat Kasparov and Fischer.  21st century GMs have the ability to regularly practice against opponents stronger than themselves (i.e. computers), but pre-2000 super-GMs only faced stronger opponents in competition.

Fischer would out think any of them.

The Brain is Better than title so I will go with Kasparov

There are only two players in history who spent more than two years above 2800, and they both broke 2850. Kasparov at his best would be second only to Carlsen today.

Fischer’s best rating is “only” 21st in history, but his best rating would put him currently third on the rating list. 

Fischer and Karpov deserve respect. At their best, they would be very competitive with today’s elite players, despite not facing other elite players or being able to practice with engines or do hundreds of tactics problems every day. 

Ratings are relative to the pool of opponents, so 2800 today isn't the same as 2800 in 1999 or 1970.  Magnus would be approaching 2950 if he could use a time machine to go back to the 1990s or 1970s.

Without access to modern engines and analysis software, Fischer and Kasparov in their prime would be top 10 players today, but not top 5.  Today's top players have too much of an advantage in how they train.

@Blackakhan, please read the relevant material that has been repeatedly cited in this thread about FIDE ratings. They have been a stable measure of chess skill from 1970 through 2020. There has been some *deflation* specifically due to the pandemic and new players being underrated. Otherwise, ratings have been stable. 

Please, don’t believe me, do your own research!

Me, i am better than all of them

At Halo

paul morphy is the best amongst all. if he was exposed to all the latest chess literature and tools, he was 100 times better than all the other players during his time like adolf anderssen, so if you put him during fischer, kasparov or magnus carlsen era, he would probably give them all odds... 

https://en.chessbase.com/post/paul-morphy-how-good-was-he-really

"According to contemporary sources Morphy also had a photographic memory — he remembered everything he read.

On his twelfth birthday Morphy played the following game against his uncle Ernest. Morphy was playing blindfold — without seeing the board!"

magnus

I agree that some of the greats from the 1900s would beat Magnus if they had access to modern chess engines and game databases and books.  But they didn't have that access, and Magnus (or anybody else in the top 5) would beat them if he could go back in time to challenge Morphy or Fischer etc.  The training advantage that today's top grandmasters have is just too much for the old-time greats to overcome.

Rubbish. Training with computers doesn't make someone a better player.

A great player training with computers becomes a chess monster.

Rubbish, computers replace natural talent.

Did you mean "computers can't replace natural talent"?

True, training with computers won't turn a mediocre player into a grandmaster.  But training with computers makes great players greater.  I'm not just talking about playing against computers, but also the post-game analysis they can do, and the ease of accessing millions of recorded tournament games from databases.

Similarly, modern training methods and tools won't turn an untalented swimmer into an Olympian, but modern training tools and methods have made today's top Olympians swim much faster than the gold medalists of 50 years ago. The swimming world records Mark Spitz set at the 1972 Olympics wouldn't be good enough to place in the top 15 today.

Bobby Fisher because he did the impossible, that is beating the Russian team alone. In ELO Gary Kasparov is the best.

You are comparing physical training for sports with studying for chess, which are two completely different things. Training with computers replaces normal examination, which hinders ones own creativity and understanding.

Lol. Tell all the top grandmasters they're wasting time by training with computers, since you know more than them about how to train for chess.

You are just an arrogant fool, considering how much knowledge they have means they have no excuse to be using computers as they should know better, I don't have to tell them anything, it's not my responsibility, it's theirs, I certainly am not afraid of confronting them and putting them in their place. They are the experts, they only have themselves to blame for being the experts and still not knowing. Quit crying tears, flowercake.

Kasparov won only about 20% of his games in the 1985 world championship match.  He was perhaps better at avoiding losses than Fischer was, but Fischer was definitely better at winning.