so, threads about Fischer descend into some dude trying to coax personal information from a chess.com member.  Sounds phishy

There are some nice games that are more or less unknown compared to Byrne-Fischer, I like this one with a nice sacrificial sequence from move 16 to 19:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069599

Carlsen too has won a few good games when he was 13, like this one in less than 20 moves against a strong opponent:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1274856

Very nice games worth a closer look (as well as being much more known than they are) but hard to say to what degree they are comparable. And if it was only about game quality no one would call Anderssen-Kieseritzky immortal or remember Morphy vs the Duke and the Count. Byrne-Fischer has a pretty combination that is easy to follow and that's what makes it more memorable than some of Fischer's wins against Spassky, even if the latter of course are games on a totally different level.

Didn't Kasparov lose a game to Karpov at the age of 12?   Loss to a peak Karpov vs victory over Donald Byrne. 

Anyway, after further reading of the historical contexts and environments these guys played/developed in, I am now 100% convinced Fischer is the greatest player of all time.  And also Kasparov.  And Capablanca is greater than both of them put together. 

 Thats a good summation.

Of course, Alekhine defeated Capablanca when Capa was at his peak. And Kasparov lost to Kramnik at the height of his powers. And Karpov beat Spassky easier than Fischer did, and before Karpov reached his peak.

So what can we conclude from all this? Obviously, its a tie - Morphy and Carlsen are the all time greatest.

And Kieseritsky could've beaten them both--blindfolded!

No comparisons Fisher is Fisher.   Karpov is Karpov.   Kasparov is Kasparov.

 An odd statement coming from a guy who started one of those "Who's the greatest?" threads...

"Guatemala is a land of many contrasts...."

$50 for the full paper.

Actually, I'd heard it was a land of bad guats.

I dont think he is over rated.  He did more for chess than anyone else, in regards to prizes, playing conditions, etc.  He single handedly brought chess to the fore front in the US.  He could recall games from 10+ years ago move for move.  He defects were all personal.  After defeating Spassky he had reached his goal, and i think he had no where else to go and no more worlds to conquer. 

He is not overrated.

Nuff said.

I went to a tournament, and saw a master who played up in all of his games, didn't lose any, and drew a GM for the first time in his life when he was in his 60's. The field also included an IM, an FM, and a bunch of NM's and E's, and I was very impressed.  

Now imagine dominating every GM and IM in the U.S. championship every time, including 11-0, and dominating the candidates and world championship like he did from 1970-72.  He was an egotistical selfish and often hateful person who suffered from his lack of a father figure, the eccentricities and dynamic of his unique mother/son relationship, the lack of socialization that intense chess effort requires, and his likely Asperger syndrome.  But he was not overrated.

obviously all the americans will say bobby was the besto but........ this is not true, he had to face karpov to proved that, but he did not.....

Let's see:  "Nuff said"..."End of discussion"...yep, this is definitely a guy who hasn't been around here too long. 

Ugh.

Among the general public, Fischer is probably over rated, because many people people who don't follow chess still have heard of Bobby Fischer.   Among chess fans I don't think he is over rated because while some say Fischer was the best ever, there are also plenty who would say Kasparov, Karpov, Capablance, Morphy, Carlsen etc. 

fischer desappointme, he refuse to play larpov. that was his fault

larpov-fisher...we missed some match there.