I don't know but I hear Kasparov and Fischer's name in the news almost
every week.

Maria
Chess Mom


Taylor Kingston wrote:
wrote:
But who would you pick?

This is one of the most well-worn topics on the chess newsgroups. A
major obstacle to settling the question definitively (other than the
fact that the masters involved cannot play each other!) is that
varying
conditions can be proposed. Do we try to compare ratings? If so, for
what period: 5 years? 10? Lifetime? Do we fantasize using a time
machine to pluck, say, Capablanca from 1922, Lasker from 1900,
Alekhine
from 1931, and Morphy from 1859, and immediately plunk them down in
front of today's Kasparov? Or do we give them a year to study first?
Or
do we, =E0 la "Jurassic Park," take their DNA to produce clones all of
the same age? Could such clones actually be considered "Morphy" or
"Lasker" per se, without them growing up in their respective
historical/cultural milieus?
And are we discussing innate talent, or dedication as well? For
pure
talent Capablanca was hard to beat, but his work ethic lagged well
behind Alekhine's, Fischer's, Kasparov's and others'.
These are just a few of the complications that prevent this
question
from being settled.