... more interesting "facts"!

FYI, Spassky's peak rating was 2690.

 Truth is determined by examining the facts, not by majority of opinion. There was a time when the majority thought the earth was flat!

What's the relevance of such a poll, when 99.9% of voters probably couldn't win against Fischer if he were alive today, let alone in his prime?

Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions, but that doesn't mean everyone's opinion is factual. 

Fischer was a fantastic calculating machine, although many players had richer styles. It is very hard to beat someone if they play like a computer.

Bobby Fischer was an overrated player.

Sometimes he surprised with some phenomenal moves, but basically he was simply more then a good player.

I think the blunder 29... Bxh2 was planned. Losing first game, and not showing up game 2 makes Spassky think that he maybe isn't that good, and no matter what Spassky just got 2 very easy points. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm not, but I think he was the best ever. But that's just my opinion (To your question: Yes I think he was that great)

I disagree. He is a legend at chess, one with a mind of a genius. stating that he was just slightly above the average 'good' player is an insult, in my opinion. Overrated, I agree.

Well, no one seems to understand, that while Karpov, Kasparov , Carlsen and Fischer may have equal strengths (I personally doubt it), the difference between them is that Fischer never proved himself beyond the 1970-72 world championship cycle, against a declining Spassky. I personally would place someone who defended their title 5-6 times over someone who did it only once. And chess ability wise, they're at least equal. (I personally think Kasparov and Carlsen are better because of computer help.)

He just went complete mental and crazy , if that's life, then I would prefer death.

That is fine. But as you have yourself pointed out, that's still a personal preference/opinion.

That still doesn't mean Fischer wasn't great. Nor does it mean he wasn't around 2800 strength. 

As i said prior, there's a huge difference between being the greatest of all time (or the strongest of all time) and "not being that good".

The world champions that werent that good are players like Khalifman , Ponomariov , Kasimdzhanov . 

@alinfe Yeah I agree, Fischer is my 4th greatest player of all time. But it seems like everyone else here just thinks that he was the G.O.A.T

LOL, and you know what's even funnier? One of them isn't even in the top 100 anymore, and the other 2 are at #46 and #67 respectively. It's not like they've been world champions 50 years ago. Oh wait, they were never world champions to begin with...

Fischer's top rating of 2785 would put him in today's top 10 players still ! His top rating from 46 years ago ... that's amazing ! 

Indeed it is.

Now I'm going to start sounding like the typical naysayer, but I wish he continued to play for at least one more year. In 1972 he was the strongest and the 2nd youngest player of the upper echelon. There's a good chance he would have crossed the 2800 threshold.

Had he continued to play another decade there is little doubt he would have broken the 2800 barrier , he only needed 20 rating points .  This would have made him the first to do so . I also wish he had continued playing for at least one more cycle and would have defended his title against Karpov . The world of chess fans was cheated out of some beautiful games their match would have produced . 

As soon as we get the hangs of time travel, we need to get Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen and say Kramnik or Anand at their peak, and ask them to play quad chess

We agree! 

Fischer would be able to compete in the Candidates today with his peak performance. That speaks volumes about how good he was. 

BUT, that is often not enough for Fischer's fans. Since Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen have clearly surpassed him. Even Karpov peaked him in the live ratings. That doesn't diminish Fischer's greatness. It puts it into context. 

Well , add 100 points to Fischers top rating , for inflation , and he would be 2885 , so I wouldnt say he is eclipsed by anyone . 

Except that there is likely deflation, not inflation: the standard of play is constantly increasing, and to increase your rating you have to improve faster than everyone else.

I think inflation more likely . Do you really think every player today rated over 2700 is better than players like Spassky , Tal , Petrosian ?  I don't .  

I can agree with that, but at the same time I’m not sure how said inflation would be happening.