Elo inflates over time, and so can't be easily compared like this. More interesting to me is how dominant a player was at their peak, and for that Fischer wins by a mile for modern times, with Kasparov behind him. And historically, Morphy, Lasker and Capablanca come to mind. And Tal could wipe the floor with anyone when his poor health didn't get in the way.

> Off the top of my head - World Championships matches won, time spent as number 1, peak Elo.

I meant to say that the other way around sorry. A lot of Fischer’s stats aren’t very impressive at all. He’s won less championships than say Kramnik or Petrosian, but not many people would argue that either of those two were greater players than Fischer.