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

And 1 vote for @zer0Chill lmao

@chessboy513 I’m not voting for zerochill86 he voted for himself

Well...  Carlson uses a variety of openings to make it more difficult for opponents to prepare against him and reduce the effect of computer analysis. He has stated the middlegame is his favourite part of the game as it "comes down to pure chess". His positional mastery and endgame prowess have drawn comparisons to those of former World Champions Bobby Fischer, Anatoly Karpov, Vasily Smyslov, and José Raúl Capablanca.

Kasparov, who is one of my favourite chess players,

peak rating of 2851,[4] achieved in 1999, was the highest recorded until being surpassed by Magnus Carlsen in 2013. Kasparov also holds records for consecutive professional tournament victories (15) and Chess Oscars (11). Kasparov became the youngest ever undisputed World Chess Champion in 1985 at age 22 by defeating then-champion Anatoly Karpov.[5] He held the official FIDE world title until 1993 when a dispute with FIDE led him to set up a rival organization, the Professional Chess Association.[6] In 1997 he became the first world champion to lose a match to a computer under standard time controls when he lost to the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue in a highly publicized match. He continued to hold the "Classical" World Chess Championship until his defeat by Vladimir Kramnik in 2000. In spite of losing the title, he continued winning tournaments and was the world's highest-rated player when he retired from professional chess in 2005.

But Fischer won the 1963/64 US Championship with 11 wins in 11 games, the only perfect score in the history of the tournament. His book My 60 Memorable Games, published in 1969, is regarded as essential reading. He won the 1970 Interzonal Tournament by a record 3½-point margin and won 20 consecutive games, including two unprecedented 6–0 sweeps, in the Candidates Matches. In July 1971, he became the first official FIDE number-one-rated player. 

This is from Wikipedia

These questions are always asked, can't you think of anything more unique to ask?

You're talking about 3 chess players in 3 completely different chess eras. Garry Kasparov started really rising up in the chess scene once Fischer was on his way out. Same with Magnus. You can't compare them because the resources they had, tools, influence, playstyles, and talent is all different. If you were to  put kasparov or Bobby in their prime against magnus now they would lose most of the time, plain and simple. If you gave them the resources Magnus has had for his entire chess career and given it to Kasparov and Fischer to use for their entire chess career and then paired them off each other... well who knows, it's impossible to calculate that. 

If you were to put kasparov or Bobby in their prime against magnus now they would lose most of the time, plain and simple. If you gave them the resources Magnus has had for his entire chess career and given it to Kasparov and Fischer to use for their entire chess career and then paired them off each other... well who knows, it's impossible to calculate that. 

Very well said. The resources like computer analysis and teams supporting players have made it a very different game from the organic and natural chess world of Fischer and Kasparov. I am actually a bit sad about the change, as memorizing engine lines and relying on a team of grandmasters are both far removed from the beautiful idea of the game.

1. That reason is why it's ridiculous.

2. I never voted for Carlsen, im not partaking in your forums question. I'm giving you facts. It's like asking if Paul Morphy would ever beat Magnus, the question answers itself. 

1. That reason is why it's ridiculous.

2. I never voted for Carlsen, im not partaking in your forums question. I'm giving you facts. It's like asking if Paul Morphy would ever beat Magnus, the question answers itself. 

It is, cuz those facts are relevant. 

Yes, and they're irrelevant to my original point.