And the eagle flys on friday. How can someone dominate chess for fifteen years and not play for five years during the same period?

When you have the highest rating of all time, you are expected to beat your closest rivals, otherwise rating system becomes suspect or the way in which you achieved it becomes questionable. Around that time, Kramnik thoroughly dominated Kasparov. Out of 16 chances, Kasparov couldn't win a single game. How do you explain that? And you say Kasparov is the greatest of all time?? Or you don't say that?

Why do you think the World Chess Organization is working to find sponsors and conduct a qualifier instead of going simply by rating? Rated 9th on the list may not manipulate to become rated 8th but if it is announced that top 8 qualifies for world championship then manipulation possibility is enhanced. Likewise a rated 2 could manipulate to become rated 1 because of attactiveness of being world #1 player! So rating can be used to judge players only to some extent. You need something more than that to decide who is better between two. In other words, if you show tendency to manipulate your rating by playing weak tournaments, or only your promoter tournaments, you will get less weightage for such achievements or you will get negative points in greatest of all time calculations.

There are many other criteria you can list like comparison of best tactical game, best positional game, your accuracy, speed of play and many more. Maybe I will list later on.

Is that all you can come up with? Who is Arnason btw? A 2200 player?? I'm sure you could expect better play from today's FMs. In that game after move 28, White has queenside majority, so if at all there is a win, white has the win, but it is compensated by black double bishop advantage.

Now take 29.c3? for example. It is an obvious weak move that helps Kasparov's case. It should have been 24.c4! Pawn trade cannot be avoided, and when queenside pawns are liquated, no win for black. But if black persists with 24...b4, then Nd5! attacking b4, so 25...a5 26.f3 and white would have a protected passed pawn at c4 as opposed to how it turned out in the game.

33.g3 again sounds like a patzer move to me. h3 is at least better or you develop your king via f1.

After 33...Kf6, you play f4! (and not h4 immediately as played) and prevent entry for black king. It goes against convention in that it allows protected passed pawn but there will be no breakthrough for black as such. e3 Knight has to be captured by dark bishop and pawns fixed on light squares for black would leave the black light bishop bad.

I can go on like that.

Please bring Kasparov games from some well known opponents so at least we don't have to doubt the quality of opponent moves to estimate Kasparov's play!

If you don't trust my analysis, please remove the names from the game, give it to a GM, and ask him to evaluate the game and judge the strength of play or the players.

BTW, 1995 match was a private match!