Originally posted by powershaker
The Fischer of 1972 would clearly have torn the Kasparov of his prime apart by Fischer's 72% winning percentage versus Kasparov's 69% winning percentage lifetime. Maybe this will get some things stirred up. :0 Oh, oh, oh, and Topalov is World Champion, not Kramnik.
Kramnik is the Classical World Chess Champion. He retained his title by tying Leko 7 pts to 7 pts. Topalov is the FIDE champion. There is a significant difference.
Topalov has been playing like the best player in the world, and is currently rated 1st; Kramnik has not been playing like a world champion lately. I thought Kramnik's loss to Topalov at the Corus Chess Tournament (2005), pretty ugly.
I highly doubt the Fischer of 72 would have 'torn Kasparov apart'. Especially the Kasparov in his prime; he was relatively unchallenged (Karpov, Kramnik, and computers the only exceptions for periods of time). Remember that Fischer and Kasparov played in different eras; Kasparov's knowledge of chess theory would exceed Fischer's, although they would match up equally tactically and in endgame theory.
Slight advantage to Kasparov. But you could argue either way...both were the best in their time.