Regarding Kasparov being superior to Bobby Fischer, that is conjecture that will never be settled.One thing that's for sure is that Bobby Fischer (who himself is half Jewish) is a rabid anti semite and severely mentally ill (not just because he is an anti Semite, but because he is genuinely insane).By virtue of Fischers words, many people try and detract from what he was in the world of chess because they don't like whatever it is that he has become.It's an arguable point whether Kasparov could have ever beaten Fischer, but it is very, very far from a slam dunk answer if I were to be betting on a match of either one in their prime.As this relates to Stu Ungar, it's true that an Ungar'esque player will one day emerge, but any way you look at it, he will never be Stu Ungar.It's doubtful that an individual that played at the level Mr. Ungar played at will ever be bested by much of a margin.There may be a more sober player who is more consistent than Stu Ungar or maybe a more diverse player who can dominate cash games in the same way he dominates tournamentplay, but I do believe Stu reached the apex of tournament play and reading into people that just can't get any better.It's an old philosophical debate that applies to lots of different things.For example, look at sprinters. Is there a ceiling where the human animal just can't run any faster, or 500 years from now will sprinters be running sub 2 minute miles?The fact is, I believe that Mr. Ungar was one of those rare cases where he had achieved 'absolute best'. While one day the historical dustbin may produce a player that is his peer, I seriously doubt that anyone will ever be a measurably 'better' tournament player than he was by sole virtue of his skill level being pretty much without flaw.Flawed as a man, yes. We all are.Flawed as a gambler, for damn sure. As far as tournament play, there were no flaws to speak of.