He tends to be associated with lackluster performances vs. Fischer and relegated to a lower tier of chess player, perhaps not even great. Yet in his run up to finally gaining the title in 1969 he displayed a virtuosity in a variety of styles selected to defeat particular opponents, namely Keres, Geller (twice), Tal, Larsen, and Korchnoi. He lost one match to Petrosian (1966) and won in 1969 for the WC title.

His failing was that he was not monomaniacal about chess like Tal and Fischer, enjoying life as a well-rounded character. Similarly, Capablanca couldn't be persuaded to work like Alekhine, and he lost to him. It was predicted that he would have his title for one cycle and no more.

That is what happened.

Spassky was a stud.  Unfortunately, he's best known for losing to Fischer....but anyone in that day and age would've gotten their butt kicked by Bobby.

He was a gutsy player....willing to play the King's Gambit.  He also added a lot to the theory behind the closed Sicilian.

He got Fischers seal of approval, so that's good enough for me!

i believe his record was 12-17 with 20some draws against mr. bobby fischer...who is widely considered to be the best chess player to ever live

and b4 Antonly and Kasperov...i know there is a debate here

Ptth?  Good?  I could smash that patzer at 1 minute lightning!

Between the two, Fischer/Spassky who would I rather be?

Spassky, still alive, was a World Champion and enjoyed it.  He looks like he also enjoyed the ladies.

Spassky, jack-of-all trades.  Master of several.

One could certainly do worse and I am certain he had a Duchampian seal of approval for his creative play on and off the board.

He had his five minutes.

I'm glad to see Spassy given some notice in this forum.

Wow! I misspelled his name .

Wow this is a dumb threat. Is Spassky good? Do bears #$%^@ in the woods?

Spassky totally rocked!  he was artistic, pragmatic, interesting, entertaining, and a very strong player!  i agree with goldendog that if he had worked harder at chess he would have been even greater!  i think Spassky was kind of lazy as far as preparation goes, i don't think he took the WC match against Fischer too seriously, or he didn't want the crown anymore.  i think being a soviet champion was too much for Spassky.it wasn't enough to play good chess for the soviets, you had to crush the opposition, show soviet dominance, AND maintain a communist political reputation...i don't think he was a hardcore commie enough to last as WC anyway...Botvinik now there was a true Stalinist, he exemplified soviet philosophy...i digress, Spassky was a naturaly talented player like Capa and as such, people that play like that tend to study less than people who have to work for the talent.  and someone said once that you cant be a nice guy and be world champion...Spassky was a nice guy from what i understand...we share a birthday too so im bias towards Spassky!  Long live Boris Spassky!

Yeah, Spassky was one of the greatest.  I remember playing over a collection of his games and being constantly amazed by them.  He was intriguingly a guy who played a lot of open positions and yet seemed to prefer knights--there were countless examples of knights with outposts besting bishops in open games.

Smyslov and Spassky in 1953:

goldendog: "He tends to be associated with lackluster performances vs. Fischer and relegated to a lower tier of chess player..."

Who have you been talking to? -- I don't think anyone relegates him to "a lower tier of chess player" -- but it's true, he doesn't always get the consideration he deserves. Something went out of him after the Fischer match. And as TonyDal has pointed out, anyone who goes over Spassky games will find treasures there.

In his book "The Golden Dozen," Irving Chernev rates Spassky the 9th greatest chessplayer of all time (though this was before Karpov and Kasparov). And don't forget that in that 1972 championship cycle of matches, Spassky was the only one to win even a single game against Fischer. Even the great Petrosian could not do it. Yet Spassky won several.

I have always admired Spassky for being what a great champion should be: urbane, cosmopolitan, showing sportsmanship, and knowing how to live as well as being a great player. Spassky, compared to Fischer, came out the real winner. Just look at the results.

I assume the question means 'Was Spassky good (by World Champion standards)?' I think the account of him given here is right - he was (and is, I guess) a complicated man, with lots of enjoyment in life outside chess, and a definitely less than wholehearted commitment to the Soviet system. But some glorious games: offhand, I can think of the King's Gambit against Bronstein that made it into the film From Russia With Love, the Gruenfelds against Fischer before the 1972 match, and the stunning 19-move defeat of Larsen in the 1970 Soviet Union vs the Rest of the World match. Yes, the guy was seriously good. 

 Two of my favorite players in one picture. Nice, batgirl.

And I love those 1950s soviet hairdoos!

 I love the picture of Spassky playing with his glass of beer on the table. That's a former World Champion to love.

 You might want to check the records on that. Petrosian won Game#2 vs. Fischer in their Candidates' Match in Buenos Aires. Only 1 game, but 1 more than zero.

 I've tried Duvel, but I much prefer the trappist beer from the Leffe monastery. Those monks know to brew. I have to say that Belgian beer is my favorite. It's not nearly as common in the US as some other European beers. Much the pity.

This might be a good trick I can use on my opponents: "Wait, before you wipe me off the board, please slam three Duvels!"