comon , u all know ratings work beside inflation right ?
this is why fisher best rating could never be compared to kasparov and Carlsen.
i mean if u agree that u loose rating by only drawing because your opponent is too low ...
wich imo is a significant variable.
fisher had a 125 points rating lead over spasky !
wich means even when he draws, he would still looose points. is only way to get is rating higher or even worst, to prevent him of losing points , would be for him to win 100% of his games.
Carlsen if far away from this situation.
i mean, it took karpov 22 years to reach close to the rating of fisher, because he couldnt get lot of points from his peers being too low...
juts loook Carlsen peers, is got 20 players in his 100 rating , fisher only one .
i dunno how much point u win when u face an oppoenet with 100 points difference, but at least in tournmaments Carlsen have pletny of them while fisher onyl had 1, how can u go up the ladder in that situation.
Carlsen is amazing , but his best rating cant be compared to fisher, neither of Kasparaov wich imo, was between the 2 for his best rating performance, having more players following him in the 100 rating brackertthen fisher but less than Carlsen.
i could only compared the domination of Carlsen with fisher when he will have 125 point over the #2 player in the world imo or win 20 games in a row vs the top 5 ? or something like that
...