Ratings aren't an absolute measure but place you in respect to a set of other players. i.e. a Fischer performance rating can't be compared point for point to a Carlsen performance rating. The formula is also not useful in measuring 6 wins and no losses. Notice he could be rated 4000 or 5000, there's not enough information. I think the way it handles it is to add +400 if you win every game (or a pref. of -400 if you lose every game).
Larsen had chances in some games. However because he was always behind a draw wasn't good enough and in playing for a win Fischer kept winning. So it's not as one sided as it first appears.
Although of course it's still an amazing score. Fischer was the strongest player at the time by far, and is often in the running as one of the best players of all time.
Bobby Fischer supposedly had a perf. rating of 3060 in 1971. Won 6-0, 6-0, had a what, 20-0 record at one point. Gave him a 3060 perf. rating.
Wonder what Carlsen's perf. rating is? WILL he be the next champion??
Comments?
http://coxschess.tripod.com/greatest.html