Boris Spassky (Any views)

How much of this did Fine say? Is it just the bit I've put in bold or is it all of it? That's a genuine question by the way, I'm not trying to provoke an argument

     As well as I can recall it was the bit about quitting if he won. There may have been more but three years later when the prediction proved to be true that was the part that everybody remembered.

You are correct that Fischer focused on his health and stamina during the 1972 cycle.  It showed.

I can't help but think he learned from Tal's chronic illnesses.

ill say, im no big fischer fan, but people really need to learn some discipline from the guy. his consistency was crazy good. if players like tal, spassky, caruana, nepo, ivanchuk, and some others were to be that consistent, history could have literally been different.

     Certainly Steinitz was not as strong as Morphy or Lasker, Euwe was not as strong as  Alekhine or Alekhine, Karpov was not as strong as Fischer or Kasparov. At least this is the opinion of most "experts".

     Spassky's peak rating was the highest of any of the 1947-1972 Soviet champions--no mean feat.

     Boris Spassky was a GREAT chess player. So many posts here have picked out some triviality to say "he wasn't as good as so-and-so" or "he didn't accomplish as much as somebody else". By these standards there was only one truly great player:_____________(fill in your favorite).

Let me remind you a second time that Tal's peak rating was 2705, higher than Spassky's.

Twenty years after he held the title. Spassky's peak rating was the year before Fischer defeated him.

Ratings are only comparable at the time of the rating, because the scale changes as the size of the pool changes.  Comparing two ratings across a decades divide is meaningless.

For example, the sport of table tennis uses the same rating system as chess.  During Danny Seemiller's reign as five times US champion in the 1970s his rating was lower than it is now.  He is approaching 70, and there is no way he is anywhere near as strong now as he was then.  But the number of players in the association, and thus in the rating pool, is at least 10 times larger now than it was then.  So the range of ratings - low to high - increases because there are more points available.  The total size of the bell-shaped curve is larger so it extends out farther.

exatcly, people dont seem to realize this whatsoever. mind that this is even the reason why the USSR had so many top tier players like that back then- bigger population means higher chance of a super talent showing up, specially in a country whose national sport is chess lol. fischer had to deal with only 1 reshevksy, while spassky had to deal like, 5.

The other reason for the Soviet superiority, at least until Chess Informant became a thing, was better dissemination of chess information among the players. All top grandmasters, of course, had some surprises prepared with their teams, but chess information was very readily available.

By the way, the "whole country working for one champion" approach, as the last part of the Krogius series shows, only became a thing after Spassky lost to Fischer. Before that, top Soviet grandmasters worked independently with their small teams, but after Spassky insisted on even more independency than usual and lost, the whole approach was scrapped.

"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. "

The ratings disparity was indeed a factor to consider even before the tournament began

Spassky was one of the weaker world champions, rank #26 on chessmetrics, Fischer was #2.

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=

Prior to the match the Soviets fed Spassky all kinds of opening theory. For example Geller told him the move 14...Qb7, but in the famous 6th game Spassky had forgotten the move.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1049648

Fischer bypassed most of Spassky's opening preparation by playing moves and variations he previously did not play.
Fischer was not eager to play at all. After the 1962 candidates tournament Curaçao he wrote a letter that a candidates' tournament with several Soviet players was unfair and that he, Fischer, would never again play in any candidates' tournament. FIDE changed to candidates matches. In the interzonal of Sousse Fischer withdrew while leading because of some dispute. Fischer refused to play the USA championship which counted as Zonal Tournament because of some dispute. He only played and won the 1970 Palma De Mallorca Interzonal because some fellow American ceded his spot to Fischer. Fischer at first did not want to play the world championship match of 1972. State Secretary Henry Kissinger urged him 'from the worst chess player to the best', Anthony Saidy pleaded 'play for the sake of all the kids who learn chess now' and Jim Slater upped the prize fund. Fischer played, lost the first game due to a blunder as he said because he felt spied upon by the camera, forfeited the 2nd game over the dispute and booked 3 flights back home.
Fischer was willing to play the Nice olympiad, but FIDE rejected his conditions: a separate playing hall for Fischer, his opponent and the public.
Fischer was willing to play Karpov, but FIDE rejected his conditions: first to win 10 games, draws not counting, and Fischer retaining his title at 9-9.

When Spassky was bankrupt in 1992 after his emigration and divorce, Fischer played the lucrative, but forbidden rematch in Yugoslavia, after which he could not return to the USA.

u say all this without knowing that fischer himself said that spassky was the strongest player he ever played, while tal said that spassky was 100% the strongest player in the world in 1970. not to mention that spassky had two of the most dominant candidate runs in history while also having a plus score against fischer since like, 1960? (ended in 1972, of course).. fischer was already considered one of the 3 strongest players alive by like, 1963 or 64, btw.

also, spassky was literally either forgot opening prep, or straight up played a different move because he thought the prep wasnt better than what he came up with over the board. i also remember something along the lines of spassky's team not having fully studied a fischer game up until game 7 or so.

Spassky said in an interview five years ago that Ivo Nei turned to be a "spy for the Americans", feeding opening prep and such to Robert Byrne.

“”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.””

So had Boris won by forfeit would he have reigned as world champion the same as if he won outright in a full tournament against Bobby. What did Max Euwe mean  by his statement at that time 

If Fischer had forfeited the match, then the match would have been considered null, as if it hadn't taken place, and a match against the "backup" challenger (Petrosian) would have been arranged instead.

But if one game was officially played (thus beginning the challenge) and the match forfeited after one game Boris would have had a full reign as world champion . 

It's interesting that, having been inspired by hearing about Fischer's win when I was very young, I used to think of him as being the good guy and Spassky as his foil, no more than the guy who lost to Fischer. (A bit like Taimanov was a guy who was humiliated 6-0 by Fischer. Now he is that guy who has my habitual variation of the Sicilian named after him and a rare example of a GM who was world class at something else - classical piano. I suspect he would have been good at lightning chess if it had existed).

The truth was that the ideological battle between West and East had one much better "guy" (the West), but Spassky was an infinitely better human being that Fischer and a deserved world champion - he got there by beating his opponents fairly - and a tremendously magnanimous competitor. He could so easily have stayed champion and possibly passed it on to Karpov in 1975 (if Fischer had been defaulted, I am not sure he would have returned 3 years later). Even if Fischer had defaulted in 1972 and and won the right to contest the WC again, Spassky would have had 6 years as World Champion. Spassky was smart enough to recognise that Fischer was probably the best player, but very keen to play and accept what happened on the board. And again in 1992, for the love of the game!

Wow!

Taimanov  was world class at chess and classical music.  A true talent indeed

Not according to the match rules, no.

Fischer DID play game #1 (and lost). He forfeited game #2. According to the match rules, two more forfeits would have annulled the match.