Boris Spassky (Any views)

Boris and his Soviet team of analysts studied Bobby’s games forensically. With a view to no surprises.

whilst game 6 was a surprise to the soviets Boris was comfortable and well versed in the positional play with Black against this opening

what changed the course of the series was that they had not seen how Bobby played this opening.

iIt was an unnerving moment for them 

As best I recall, Geller says [possibly in his book 'appl of chess thy'] that Spassky was shown that the right response was Qb7 so should have been prepared for it. Geller implies he either just forgot or didnt take the position seriously because he'd never lost a semi-Tarrasch game. [I think black is better after Qb7 .]

Yes. Boris felt very comfortable with the semi-Tarrasch. To have the record he had playing black with it .... It seemed to be a pivotal moment in the tournament

Maybe that was the move he missed ? I have always wondered why game 6 turned for Boris positionally

Bobby was like 200 rating points higher than Spassky when they played.  The result was almost perfectly predicted by the disparity in their ratings.

I have heard that Spassky privately appreciated Fischer's demands because they led to better playing conditions for both players.

The two remained friends throughout their lives.  Fischer even called Spassky once when he heard that Spassky was going to have surgery, and pleaded with him not to get it.

     Before the world championship match Fischer's FIDE rating was 2785 and Spassky's 2660. The disparity came from Fischer's overwhelming wins in the candidates' matches--he added a lot of points while Spassky was playing less and getting ready for the championship match. At their level, 125 rating points is a LARGE margin, but Fischer had never won a game vs Spassky before 1972. Had Spassky been as determined to win as Fischer was, he could have remained champion by simply refusing to go along with Bobby's many demands to change previously agreed playing conditions. The outcome of the match proves that Fischer was clearly superior in 1972. Boris was a true gentleman (a term never used in reference to Fischer) who applauded Bobby's efforts. Contrast his graciousness with Bobby's childish petulance in 1975.

You are mistaken.  Fischer did not demand a change in playing conditions - he demanded the near-perfect playing conditions he, and the sponsors, had agreed upon.

     Fischer refused to come to Iceland because he demanded a larger prize fund than had been agreed on--British banker Jim Slater came up with more cash.

     Fischer demanded that he and Spassky should receive a share of the TV rights, then refused to play unless the cameras were removed from the site.

     Fischer forfeited game two and threatened to abandon the match because he having spectators in the hall "disturbed his concentration". He insisted that the games be played in an isolated back room.

     Fischer didn't like the ventilation system in the back room and the it had to be renovated to keep the match going.

     Fischer didn't like the chairs they were using and refused to play on unless both players got the kind of chairs Fischer wanted--whether or not Spassky preferred the original chairs.

     These are just the demands that I can remember from 50 years ago that Fischer made in Reykjavik. Before he got there all the conditions had been agreed to by the players' seconds, FIDE, and the sponsors. Do you seriously believe that the sponsors of the event would have previously agreed to conditions (no TV, no spectators) that would have made it impossible for then to cover their expenses?

     At any time Spassky could have simply said "No, the match will go on as previously agreed" and Fischer could have gone home and disappeared three years earlier than he did.

     So yes, I do appreciate Spassky, not only for his sportsmanship in Iceland but for his willingness to try myriad openings and defenses just because he found them interesting--even without deep preparation, and in important events. He had a better attitude toward other players, and for the world outside of chess, than many chess professionals.

After the match was over, Fischer discussed the issue of the sound from the cameras on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, in this clip:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxvnEwvgfeI

The problem was, in part, the cameramen.

someone said that spassky's team thoroughly studied fischer's games- i actually heard the opposite, that until like, the 7th or so game, that hadnt studied a single fischer game until that point. maybe later than that too.

That is clearly nonsense. It is inconceivable that Spassky would not have studied the games of the strongest players in the world, like Larsen and Fischer.

    Of course Spassky's team had studied Fischer's games. Fischer surprised them by playing 1. d4 a couple of times and playing lines he had never used in other games. As Bobby almost always stuck to his favorite opening lines this sudden change threw Spassky's team's preparation into confusion. This was undoubtedly Fischer's plan, and it worked to perfection.

     Of course Spassky is not as good as Magnus Carlsen. He's 84 years old and his mind is not as sharp as it used to be.

Spassky is a middling champion, but he's clearly given less than his full due by most.  If not for Petrosian's declining health, and the Soviet scheming driving Fischer out for the 1969 cycle, he probably never would have been World Champion in the first place.  However, I don't think that's a fair standard to measure him against.

Spassky was clearly weaker than the Champion before him and the one after, which can't be said of any other champion, but those two (Petrosian and Fischer) were of unusually high strength at their respective peaks, and so comparing him unfavorably to either one ought not be seen as an insult.

Spassky had superb tactical skills, which made him dangerous to any opponent, and extremely taxing to someone who was of limited stamina (recall Fischer spent a lot of time working on his physical fitness prior to their 1972 match).

If you compare Spassky to the likes of Botvinnik, Tal, and Smyslov, he seems to fit in well with the larger group of Soviet champions.

    So sad to only be a "middling" world champion. Despite Fischer's paranoid delusions about everyone being out to get him, Spassky was clearly the better player in the 1960s. It's easy to say that if Tal hadn't had so many health issues for so long, or Petrosian hadn't gotten older, or Capablanca might have risen from the grave, certain world championship cycles may have turned out differently. The bottom line is that Spassky did win the championship qualifying cycle twice in a row, did become world champion, won the USSR championship (always an EXTREMELY strong tournament) twice and tying for first twice more, won the world junior championship, and reached the top levels of the championship qualification twice more in the 1970s, putting him among the handful of the world's best players for nearly 20 years. Not too shabby. I also appreciate the fact that he seemed to ENJOY chess more that many more intense GMs.

Spassky also did considerably better against Fischer, when Fischer was at his peak, than anyone else had been able to do.

ill try to look for the source of what i read, but I did in fact read that. I dont it think was gligoric who said it, but it was someone who was in spassky's inner group.

this here is not exatcly what i was looking for, but is almost just as useful. here spassky says that he would go weeks without studying chess, and this was in 1968, while he was still in his championship run, and having to try his hardest. https://www.chess.com/blog/Ruhubelent/blitz-interview-by-spassky-and-petrosian-before-their-1966-match

give this interview a read, should give some u some enlightenment. Fischer-Spassky Iceland 1972 - Chess.com