Boris Spassky (Any views)

”Spassky was clearly weaker than the Champion before him”

No...

https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/spassky---fischer-the-match-diary-by-nikolai-krogius-part-1

https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/spassky---fischer-the-match-diary-by-nikolai-krogius-part-2

All the answers appear to be in the first part 1 but ( within this labelled as part-0)

A detailed analysis of what Boris could have achieved at peak mental and drilled game preperation.

Of course it may be clear that Bobby was still the superior player but Boris would have been at peak preperation and perhaps a better outcome then what transpired. Still, it is just supposition. But I would have loved to see both at the peak of their abilities rather than Bobby at his genius best only

Considering the amount of draws that started to show when spassky started to play better later on, that's all that comes to mind.

If Spassky hadn't behaved like a real gentleman, then he wouldn't have been Boris Spassky. He would have been someone else... Botvinnik, perhaps.

Krogius said in his bio of Spassky that Spassky didn't want to accept the forfeit because "he didn't want to be a champion who retained without beating Fischer in an actual match", or something to that effect

He would not have retained his title there outright. Had Fischer forfeied the match in any way (not attending it completely or forfeiting 3 games [in a row or in total]), in autumn of that year Spassky would have needed to play Petrosian (loser of the candidates).

Max Euwe, FIDE president back then, told it to the press in those days.

But of course, maybe Spassky wanted to carry on champion as the one who beat the real challenger. Who knows?

Defending champion
Challenger


Boris Spassky
Bobby Fischer
8½
12½
Born 30 January 1937
35 years old
Born 9 March 1943
29 years old
Winner of the 1969 World Chess Championship
Winner of the Candidates Tournament
Rating: 2660 (World No. 2)[1]
Rating: 2785 (World No. 1)[2]

Now I see also what has been mentioned previously. The rankings difference could not be dismissed as a factor in the contest. Even before the contest began it could be argued that Bobby had an edge.

All in all it has been a fascinating incite into how the events unfolded from the soviet side. Aside from the chess itself, it had all the elements of what makes this game such a great spectacle. 

ratings arent actual portrayals of playing strength. fischer played less strong opponents more often, and was just more consistent when playing. spassky had to compete with keres, botvinnik, petrosian, tal, korchnoi, geller, smyslov, bronstein, stein, etc, while just in his own country. even then, he still managed to get the highest rating any of them ever got (in the ussr back then, i mean) of 2690, so he was still the top of crop regardless. he was also not as consistent as fischer either.

Tal did break 2700 in 1979, after his performance at the Tournament of Stars.

Less strong opponents do not generate much rating points.

In overall you are right Fischer's opponents in the usa was weaker than that of Spassky in the ussr.

But Fischer's gap was due to his Palma De Mallorca Interzonal and Candidates Runs.

"ratings aren't actual portrayals of playing strength."

This is completely wrong. It has been demonstrated over and over again the=at rating difference is absolutely the best predictor of match result. Since the rating systems considers both your results and the strength of your opponents, there is no reason to believe that it doesn't portray playing strength

     Yes, Spassky was admittedly lazy. Perhaps that kept him from becoming an even stronger player, perhaps it helped him relax and approach the game with more enthusiasm when he did play.

     Yes, Fischer was definitely better than Spassky in 1972.

     Yes, Magnus Carlsen is presently stronger than Spassky was at his peak. I believe that when Carlsen's career is done he will be recognized as one of history's very best players, but we can't say what the future will bring. Magnus' highest rating was seven years ago--perhaps he has peaked and will soon start a slow decline. Boris became a top player in the mid-1950s (tying for first in the 1956 USSR championship, becoming world junior champion in 1955) and was still playing late into the candidates' matches in 1978 and qualifying for the candidates' tournament (makin him one of the top dozen players in the world) in 1985 at 48 years old. It's not possible yet for Magus to boast such longevity.

     Nowhere in this forum has anyone suggested that Spassky was the best player ever. But we can appreciate him as a great player and admire his many accomplishments. When 10 years old (1947) he beat Botvinnik, then unquestionably the world's strongest player by a wide margin, in a simul. He beat David Bronstein and Bobby Fischer with brilliancies in the king's gambit. He used the closed Sicilian against Bent Larsen--considered the top expert in that line--in a candidates' match. 

     The variety of openings he tried and the new ideas he brought to them make his games much more interesting than those of many players who become experts in the (fewer) lines they stick to. And his sense of fairness, good sportsmanship, and staying out of the petty feuds and back-biting too frequently seen in GM circles are admirable.

Wow!!

keres,botvinnik, petrosian,Tal, korshnoi,geller,smyslov,bronstein, Stein, even a young karpov .

What a time to be a chess enthusiast

Is that really fair? Certainly Boris is and was a true gentleman - but wasn't Bobby also a good sportsman, prior to 1972? Fiercely competitive but still a good sportsman. That's what I thought anyway. He seemed to change after the 1972 match IMO.

     Unfortunately, Fischer's anti-social behavior was of long standing. He complained that the only reason he wasn't world champion was the Soviet conspiracies against him, repeatedly stated that what he liked best about chess was humiliating his opponents, was very vocal in his contention that women didn't belong in chess, and so forth. Rueben Fine, world-class player and a psychiatrist who knew Bobby for many years, opined before the 1972 match that Fischer's mental problems would mean that if he won he would never play again--he wouldn't dare risk anything happening that would undermine his belief in his own superiority. Before he became champion he couldn't indulge his true misanthropy because he needed to be accepted in the chess world to be able to prove his greatness and make everyone acknowledge that he was the greatest. Once he won, he could tell himself that he was the best, anyone else who became champion was a fraud because he was dethroned by dishonest means, and he no longer need anything from anyone. Perhaps if his inappropriate  behavior hadn't been excused as "quirky genius" he may have become a happier, better-adjusted person, but his success led him to a firm conviction of his own superiority to mankind in general.

That's the thing- it doesn't consider a players strength, it considers players a rating. Dubov is lower rated than most top players today,but is better than a good amount of them. Same for hikaru. Good luck trying to convince the public that anish is stronger than fischer as well.