Fischer or Kasparov. Who's the best?

When Kasparov wins 20 games in a row against all GM competition , OR wins a candidates match with 100% score ( Fischer did it twice ! ) OR wins a major tournament with 100% score , only then will I ever believe that Fischer is not the greater player of the two. Fischer did ALL of these things AND did it without a whole army/chess school and govt helping him in both acceptable and unacceptable ways..........  nuff said. Fischer was more than 100 points higher rated than the #2 Spassky when they met in 1972 for their match. Was Kasparov ever 100 points higher rated than #2 even at his peak rating ?  Fischer didnt benefit from ratings inflation as todays top players have. What was Karpov's top rating ?  I believe it was 2780 and Fischers was 2785 ! I think there is no doubt that had Fischer continued playing he would have smashed the 2800 barrier and maybe even 2900 !

It seems fairly obvious to me that the problem involved in this is selecting relevant, objective criteria. From previous posts, we see several different factors: longevity, success against contemporaries, real and assumed Elo ratings, the Transivity Law as discussed recently by WGM Pogonina, etc. I also suspect that not a not a small amount of national chauvenism might be involved as well.

The bottom line, IMO, is that it all has to be speculation at best, so I really fail to see the point of it all.

Also, I thought that the Soviet government prefered Karpov to Kasparov, while it still existed. I didn't realize Kasparov had some huge government backing.

And there was a way for Fischer to prove that he was better than Karpov or Kasparov; playing against them and winning would have probably done.

Just to clear up the wrong info: Fischer did win 20 in a row at a very high level. The last 7 from the Interzonal and then the Candidates Matches=20. One of those Interzonal games was a 1.c4 resigns game vs. Panno--so played, but barely.

Secondly, the way Fischer played Petrosian and Spassky leads one to the conclusion that he would treat Korchnoi and Smyslov no differently. Beliavsky really doesn't belong with the aforementioned luminaries, imo.

That makes no sense.  IF Garry lost all those games, Fischer's (posthomous) ELO would go through the roof and Topalov has generally had a better ELO but he lost to Krammnik and if he loses to Anand who cares what the ELO rating is?  I would much rather win the game or match than have a higher ELO.

I had read somewhere (note jotted down on my desk) that Fischer had the highest "win rate" of any player, as follows:

Fischer 73%

Alekhine 72.6%

Capablanca 72.5%

Kasparov 69.6%

Botvinnik 68.2% 

Steinitz 66.9%   etc...

Of course this doesn't necessarily mean he would beat any of the others in a match, but surely gives him the edge as the all time greatest player.

 This is simply ridiculous. If a player is crushed in a match then the victor IS the stronger player even if the loser has a higher rating. Fischer beat Spassky in 72 and STILL lost rating points because he was 100 ( or more ) points higher rated than Spassky. Todays ratings are inflated. There are more than 30 players today over 2700 , Spassky never broke 2700 in his career. I do NOT believe every player over 2700 today is better than Spassky was at his peak..... this is inflation,, plain and simple.

Does anyone know when Karpov's peak rating was ?  The year ?  I believe his peak rating was 2780 but dont recall the year....

Can anyone supply a little list, perhaps a 'top ten', of fantastic games from each contestant? Then at least we could examine their phenomenal moves, compare their brilliant games and the hot air could become more focused.

I wonder how strong a player would be needed to make a credible go at sorting out who was The Best among the top players ever?

Surely any player, no matter how strong, will still be influenced by subjective factors.

Jeff Sonas' chessmetrics (probably mentioned elsewhere on the thread, haven't read it) seems to indicate Kasparov was probably the best.

Comparing chess players from different eras is just like comparing baseball players from different eras. It is lots of fun to make arguments but it is all conjecture.

Competition, equipment (ie computers) are all different. While lots of fun it is all subjective. Even Sonas trying to use computers can not provide any definitive answer.

Re: your first point - Kasparov has won far more super-GM tournaments, i.e. where the best of the best have played.

Second point: Couldn't agree more.

It can happen in tennis too that one player usually beats another yet the other one has a higher rating. What makes you think that it's different ? Neither one is a completely reliable indicator of overall strength but both have relevance. Besides, more often than not they are strongly correlated.

 Ratings are NOT infallible. If they were then the higher rated player would always win and that simply isnt the case. At least the higher rated should never lose if what you seem to believe were correct.

There are many intangibles that you dont seem to consider and they matter. Styles also come into play, some styles are more suited to match play than tournament play and vice versa. Petrosian was a great match player but not so great in tournaments, due to his style of play , Larsen and Geller are examples of the exact opposite.

I believe that if the elite players of today played a few open tournaments each year you would see a big rating drop for most of them. The majority of elite players protect their ratings by only playing in closed events against other elite players. Ivanchuk is one of the few exceptions, he still plays in big open events.

If a 2550 GM plays a match against a 2500 GM and the lower rated wins by a big margin the the lower rated has just proven himself superior to the higher rated player. To make you happy the ratings will probably also adjust to support your point.

When I speak of a "match" in chess I am NOT referring to one game. It seems many people do these days and I think that wrong. A match is several games between the same players. Ofcourse , if I upset a GM in one game I dont consider myself a better player, maybe I just played the game of my life, or he blundered. If one wins a match by a decisive margin however , thats completely different. If what you say were true then there would be no point in having championship matches...... just crown the highest rated player as world champion !  You can't  see how ridiculous that is ?!

If you add Paul Morphy to the list then Fischer will be crushed!

 You obviously know little of chess and your rating supports this conclusion imo. The rating system is NOT infallible and the lower rated player wins often enough against higher rated opponents, thats why there are matches and tournaments, in the first place ..... DUH.  Anand is the current world champion but isnt the highest rated player in the world. Carlsen was recently the highest rated and yet has never even played a world championship match. Some take ratings too seriously , you are one of them....

I like fischer more

In order to have the discussion one really needs to start by establishing the parameters.  For example, are you referring to skill level for their time?  Skill level at their peak?  Skill level at present?  What about areas of chess or particular types of skill?  Let us recognize that any discussions about "how good they could have become" is purely fantastic and conjecture and not worth debating as it's purely hypothetical.

I lack the knowledge of chess that many of you do so I'm unqualified to make a judgement based on my understanding of the game or their games played, but what I know about top performance suggests to me Kasparov would be the superior player at their respective peaks.  This is simply due to, as a few people noted, that knowledge within the field has advanced, and this is true of every field on the planet.  High school students today run as fast as world champions did a century ago, the standards have just gone up and will continue to go up in any well studied field.  40 years of accumulated understanding about the game gives Kasparov a huge edge over Fischer, and likewise for Fischer over those from generations before him.

If you want to ask who was the best for their time, then who was the more innovative player?  Who had the best record at the time?  But at their peak I don't think there's any way to effectively argue that Kasparov, due to 40 years of additional accumulated knowledge, was superior to Fischer.

Kasparov is all time greatest...Fischer cheated himself of that title by vacating and disappearing.  Longevity and overall body of work puts Kasparov ahead... Kasparov dominated Super GM tourneys routinely.  The stats prove it no matter what the crybabies say about inflated ratings systems.  You could also claim Morphy as greatest... it would be equally fallacious as the Fischer claim.