Live slow, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse....dammit, I wish I would've lived fast !
[In my first life, I died in 1575 when I was 25 years old. I grew up helping my mother tend My Queen Catherine de Medici's rose garden. You could say I lived slow.]
The point is that 2600 rated gm is not even close to the top 10 right now. Everyone on top ten would beat fischer but 2600 would not.
Fischer at his best would be in the top ten today! There's currently a logjam of about 15 players who would all give Fischer a good game, and then there's Carlsen who would destroy him in a match!
For what it's worth, Viatchislav Ikonnikov has the highest computer match-up rate of any player today, according to http://chess-db.com/public/top100pqi.jsp. Ikonnikov is rated 2544 currently. Capablanca has the eighth highest match-up rate listed. The top ten players in the world have significantly lower match-up rates. Magnus Carlsen, for example, is ranked 178th in match-up rates, while Fischer is ranked 268th and Kasparov ranks even lower, at 337th!
Obviously, the match-up rate doesn't tell the whole story in determining the relative strength of players. There are better methods of comparison!
Oh gee. Here's Yeres attacking someone for a blunder he made a decade ago in a blitz game again.
Yeah Yeres' posts are always entertaining. I hope he tells us about Karpov.
Apples and oranges. Today's top players have access to incredible training resources and endless information on every aspect of the game. How would Bill Russell fare in today's NBA? How would Babe Ruth fare? Fischer largely trained and worked by himself. Today even grade school prodigies have GM coaches. It's not really an answerable question.
"it's much easier to match the engine move in simple positions, and today's games tend to be more complex than Capa's day"
Yes, and the time controls were different in the old days as well, with much more time for the players. The adjournments made every endgame well analysed for hours while players today often have to blitz out their moves. Today's super tournaments also mean the top players usually face very strong opposition while tournaments were weaker before the 1980s. It's easier to play well against weaker opposition, I think one engine study claimed that Euwe some year in the 1920s played better than Kasparov ever did, and that was while not playing any really strong opponents or yet being one of the best players himself.
One of the engine studies I looked at only compared level of play in title matches, which makes the comparison slightly more fair, even if post 80s players still are "deprived" of adjournments. For his standards lately Carlsen didn't play too well in the Candidates 2013, but still far better than for example Capa and Fischer in their title matches. But I don't know howmuch these studies really say, I take them with many pinches of salt:
http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-quality-of-play-at-the-candidates-090413
Maybe the real question is how good could Fischer have become with current training methods, engines and evolved theory. A man who worked on chess up to 14 hours per day in complete solitude is a man who could survive in any generation of chess players. He was totally and unbashedly obsessed with the game. I think his 1972 year was the best performance by any player in history...Taimanov and Larsen were simply destroyed and no one saw that coming...no one. It was completely incomprehensible for two formidable GMs to be made to look like amateurs. Petrosian was supposed to be the firewall but he too ended up needing more than an asbestos suit to extinguish the Fischer inferno.
I think Fischer was ready in 1967 to take on the WC but his "heady" antics at Sousse were self-defeating. He was 3 games up on Larsen and 3.5 on Korchnoi when he abandoned after ten rounds...one game short of the half-way point. He was the only player without a loss through ten games (7 wins 3 draws). Five years later, he was mostly without challenge except from a select few. He promised that he would beat Spassky and the 125 point gap between them on the rating list certainly gave credence to the bold prediction.
Whatever Fischer was on in 1972 he could have made a fortune selling. He showed Spassky to be out of his league. Spassky could manage only one win after the forfeiture of game 2 by Fischer. If not for that forfeiture and the "patzer-psychotic-suicide" endgame bishop sortie of game one, Spassky would have been seen to have been annihilated. I don't think Karpov would have beaten him in '75 either. Maybe '78 or beyond but not 1975. After the 1970 Interzonals, he simply found another gear...if that was even possible for an already ruthlessly efficient player. Game 6 of the match showed just how vulnerable a GM can be without the security blanket of pre-game prepared analysis.
There certainly are some myths associated with Fischer, or at least unsubstantiated anecdotes, but his 1972 year was about as well as any player could ever hope to play at the super GM level.
Judit still, to this day, holds the record for the highest rating achieved at 13 years old (2555) (Carlsen 2450). She was exceptional and we "may" never see this record broken by another female player (Hou Yifan reached 2509). However, her championship aspirations, whatever they may have been, were rather pedestrian. To beat Karpov and Kasparov at a big tournament is one thing. To beat them in a 24 game match is quite another. It looks like Hou Yifan is having the same sort of trouble...at least against Carlsen.
Judit still, to this day, holds the record for the highest rating achieved at 13 years old (2555) (Carlsen 2450). She was exceptional and we "may" never see this record broken by another female player
Ooops! You should have just said we may never see this record broken, without the qualifier.
Now I fear you may be in trouble 
Oh gee. Here's Yeres attacking someone for a blunder he made a decade ago in a blitz game again.
I attacked Yeres for a blunder he made a couple years ago in a blitz game. I snap checkmated him. Little me with a 1390 rating.
Of course, he had a hellaflimsy excuse....kinda pathetic really.
Oh !....and I was 0-22 (?) against him b4 that. After that game ?....he ex-ed me.
Yeah Yeres' posts are always entertaining. I hope he tells us about Karpov.
Tits for tats HH. He fails to mention that VA returned the Homerdoh! by not taking the p w/ Kn. Hey, it takes a patzer to know one....just ask me ! 
(#278) I think his 1972 year was the best performance by any player in history...Taimanov and Larsen (and Petrosian)
Taimanov was 46 yo, Petrosian was 43, and Larsen was 36 !!
....and Spassky was 35 when their WC was played ! BF was right there at his peak but, like Jack on the Hill, his crown was about to be broken by AK and GK.
These players were way-way past their prime back at that time.
Some people need to do their homework.
More ageist nonsense Lola - you mean they were just coming into their prime!
Ahhh !....Matthew, I'll be 41 on Halloween. So I'm getting a pretty good understanding of how things work as it relates to age.
You can't even compare VA at age 43 (against Magnus Carlsen) compared to a 43 yo Petrosian. Can you say fossil or bluehair or "Petrofied" way back when in 1971 ?
I mean, look at the life expectancy even just 45 years ago. How good were their faculties back then ?....suspect ?....I mean, come now.
Lola reveals her ignorance and hate everytime she posts anything about Fischer . Studies show that chess players peak around the age of 35 , so between 30 and 40 most players peak . The performance of the players in question indicate they were in , or very near , their peak . You dont make the final 8 ( Candidates ) if you arent . This is simple common sense , of which Lola seems to have NONE . Spassky won the USSR championship in 1973 after losing to Fischer indicating that he was still one of the top 2 or 3 players in the world .
Lola reveals her ignorance and hate everytime she posts anything about Fischer .
Bit harsh Reb!
Apart from the fact that the guy reinvented this game. People always ask me, 'Were you funny as a child?' Well, no, I was an accountant.