Name some grandmasters who say the game was over rated. As for yourself---do you think you have the skill to say it was over rated ?

Agree, Raul. Considering he was only 13 when he delivered that masterpiece, its silly to think it was over rated.

Didn't Nakamura beat his first GM at age 10?  Is that the new "game of the century",  late in the same century?

And Naka beat a real GM, not a lowly IM that Fischer beat at the ripe old age of 13.

Danny boy, obviously you need some educating---Nakamura isnt qualified to carry Fischer's Jock strap !

Any game called Game of the Century risks being seen as overrated. Fischer got rook, two bishops and some pawns by giving up his queen with a not too complicated combination compared to many others in games between stronger players.  Byrne and Fischer weren't top 50 and nowhere near top three in the minor tournament in which the game was played. A game like Kasparov-Topalov in Wijk 1999 is something totally different:

http://coxschess.tripod.com/attack1.html

The appeal with Byrne-Fischer was that it was won by a 13-year-old Fischer, and that the combination is both pretty and simple enough for weaker players to appreciate, compared to games like the mentioned Kasparov-Topalov.

Fischer's reign at the top was just too short for me. Hard to compare him to people who stayed at the top for long periods of time.

I would put him up there, but probably behind Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, Topalov, Carlsen. Maybe you are safe saying he was better than most who came before him, but its still a tough call.

Fablehaft, you say---

"Fischer got rook, two bishops and some pawns by giving up his queen with a not too complicated combination compared to many others in games between stronger players."

I must say thats a pretty bold statement from a guy who can barely tell a bishop from a knight.  Hans Kmoch labled the game " The game of the century."  International grandmaster Yuri Averbach, among others, took notice, as did all of his colleagues in the Soviet Union: “After looking at it, I was convinced that the boy was devilishly talented."

Fablehaft---whats your elo ?  If you can look at a Fischer game and determine his combination is not too complicated, you must be around 2700 elo.  How about giving us your real name so we can look up your real elo and then we can have a big laugh on you. My God man, I hope you  are not a 1300 guy running aroung telling us how weak Fischer was. You must be a terribly strong player or a terribly weak player.  Give us your real name and we'll look up your elo! 

The combination immediately wins lots of material, against an opponent that got the IM title six years later, and after that it's just resignable. A pretty combination but to me the level of the game isn't comparable to for example Kasparov-Topalov, with regards to complications, level of play of the opponent or general strength of players and event.

And how many comparable games does the 13 yo Kasparov have to put up against Fischer's at age 13 ?   

There's no doubt Fischer was one of the greatest chess players of his time. Of course, we would all love to see him brought back to life with a time machine and pitted against Kasparov, Karpov, Carlsen ect..

This won't happen and as such it's fruitless to try and compare him with our modern day chess heroes. Technology has advanced greatly since then, computerised chess is a much larger part of the game, this site is a great example of how the learning process has changed. He wouldn't have used chess engines to help him study the game, instead relying on chess magazines, or even playing himself on occasion.

It wouldn't be fair to say he didn't bring anything to the game, in fact it would be a lie. He brought a lot more money into the game, during his World Championship match with Spassky. It got huge media coverage, and sparked a global chess boom which definitely would have helped the game.

Obviously he had flaws, and eventually he suffered a mental decline. It was suggested he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, after many years secluded to only the chess board. A good chess player is a paranoid player (on the board) but we wouldn't want that to convey into our daily lives. I believe the distinct line between reality and chess itself became blurred for Bobby, and he found himself unable to recover, or even unwilling. Perhaps there were other reasons, only those closest to him might have known for sure.

In any case I wouldn't say he's over rated, for his time he was the best, but please let's not keep comparing him to our more modern champions.

 Hey pal, are you going to give us your real name and elo? Man I hope you have a high elo to back up your outrageous statements. Either give us your name and elo or put a sock in it ! 

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.

No comparisons Fischer is Fischer .  Karpot is Karpot . Kazpurov is Kazpurov. 

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