Boris Spassky (Any views)

Actually, in 1992 Spassky needed the money. After his divorce and his defection from Russia, he was flat broke.

Well, that and a share of a $5 million prize pot. But I agree that Spassky seems like a great bloke from everything I've ever read or seen about him. 

IMO Spassky was a better person than Fischer, yes. But Fischer, although one-dimensional in daily life, was incomparably the stronger chess player.

Yeah, I was thinking about his paycheck when I wrote that.

If Fischer had walked away from the match (refused to continue it) as seemed highly likely after he defaulted game 2 resulting from his refusal to accept the conditions, he would have defaulted the match. If he had stated he was not going to continue, they would not have set up the boards for the next two games waiting to see if he appeared.

It is unlikely the conditions would have been accepted by Fischer without Spassky doing what he could to encourage him to play on.

According to Krogius' book, Spassky wanted to prove that he was a "true champion" by besting Fischer over the board, rather than winning by forfeit.

#95

"fischer himself said that spassky was the strongest player he ever played" ++ of course he said that, it made his own win brighter. Chessmetrics from objective statistics tells otherwise.

"spassky had two of the most dominant candidate runs in history" Fischer's candidate run was unprecedented.

"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." ++ Spassky was a natural player. His team forced all kinds of opening theory to him. This ran contrary to his own nature. His team made him play the Sicilian Defence, because they had prepared an antidote to Fischer's usual Bc4 as in game #4. Fischer got nothing, but later evaded it with Bg5.

"i also remember something along the lines of spassky's team not having fully studied a fischer game up until game 7 or so." ++ This is surely wrong. Geller was at the team because he had a plus score against Fischer. They meticulously prepared for all openings Fischer had played or was suspected to play. They even prepared in case Fischer would open 1 d4, which he did not true to his principles, but he did play 1 c4 with transposition.

It should be noted that if it were not for Benko--Fischer would not have been World Champ.  Fischer was quite lucky in that regard.

#110
Yes indeed, if it were not for Benkö to cede his spot in the Interzonal to Fischer, if it were not for Kissinger and Saidy to urge Fischer to play, if it were not for Slater to up the prize fund, if it were not to Spassky to agree on playing game 3 in a ping pong room, if it were not for Spassky to forget 14...Qb7 in game 6 Fischer would not have been champion.

True. Another remarkable part of the story.

Of course: he hoped to win. But I have not the slightest doubt that Spassky knew Fischer could win, and was aware that, based on recent play, Fischer was the stronger player.

Spassky had never lost from Fischer and had won their last encounter.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044698

The Soviet team had armed Spassky to the teeth with opening knowledge. They had covered the King's Indian Defence, the Grünfeld, The Sicilian Sozin, The Najdorf Poisoned Pawn.

Also Spassky was leading 2-0 in a 24 game match. Hard to lose...

“”SwimmerBill 
#42
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 .] “”

Is this the moment. Game 6 where Boris  deviates from Soviet preperation based on his belief that he couldn’t lose a semi- tarrasch game. For Gellar to imply he simply forgot. 

Geller had recently lost a game in the same Bb5 line in the Tartakower QGD to Furman, and had found Qb7. In a game after the Fischer one against Timman Geller proved it was good.  Geller claimed he showed this improvement to Spassky, but maybe he just didn't expect Fischer to play Queens gambit, or he didn't believe Qb7. That isn't really known. 

     Believe it or not, Spassky did more in his chess career than play one match with Bobby Fischer. He was world junior champion, beat Botvinnik in a simul when only 10 years old (1947, when Botvinnik was, by a wide margin, the best player in the world). He was the youngest player ever to become a GM (others have since broken that record). He won the USSR championship twice and tied for first two other times. He qualified for the world championship candidate tournament/matches seven times over a period of 29 years. He played three world championship matches. A chess career that compares favorably with many world champions.

     He was admittedly very lazy about his preparation, often deciding at the last minute to play an opening that he didn't know very well (including famous wins with the King's Gambit vs Bronstein and Fischer). He was known to play lines he'd never heard of in crucial games in important tournaments because he saw something interesting in a chess magazine he was reading on the subway on the way to the game. That he could have so much success with such a casual attitude speaks volumes as to his chess abilities.

     And of course he was a gracious gentleman who thought more about the good of the game than his own personal success. Can you imagine Botvinnik, Korchnoi, Petrosian, Karpov, Kasparov, or most other world-class players putting up with Fischer's 1972 shenanigans? He thought that deciding the world's championship over the board was more important than being sure he kept the title.

     Certainly Fischer was the stronger player in 1972. Spassky was undoubtedly stronger than Fischer a few years earlier. If not for Spassky's magnanimity, Fischer might well have flamed out three years earlier than he did. 

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

Oh yes. There it is Qb7.

Also some interesting comments under this game about the mindset of game 6 and this move 

Pal Benko had scant little chance to advance to the Candidates matches, or beyond, and was "paid" for his spot.

Ummm... Benko had already advanced to the Candidates in 1959 (Bled/Zagreb) and 1962 (Curacao). The 1970 Interzonal might have led to his THIRD (not first) appearance in the Candidates.

1- tal also said that tho, and so did spassky himself lol, i mean, what do u meant to tell u? and u can link me chessmetrics all u want- elo ratings take into account consistency, and spassky was not consistent, while fischer was, and up until game 3 in the 1972 match, fischer had never beaten spassky (they first played in like, 1962, so possibly a whole decade of him never being on spassky's level).

2- sure, but the only impressive match was actually his petrosian one- taimanov was severely past his prime (and didnt opening prepare well enough at all), while larsen was simply not on his level, and tbh, played quite horribly, imo. and please dont say unprecedented- steinitz once beat blackburne 7-0, and he was the 3rd best player alive at the time. nothing fischer has comes close to this. i could also mention caruana in 2014, but u already about that one as well.

3- thank you for backing me up? idk what to say, u just proved my point lol

4- they prepared for d4 100%, which fischer did not even play, so thanks again for half helping me out here, and iirc, what i said about them not actually looking at a fischer game came from krogius's own journals on the 1972 match. ill take his word over yours. 

I would also like to mention that both fischer, spassky, and krogius said that spassky was rusty during the first half (up until game 11, iirc), and played significantly better afterwards. had spassky started out at his peak, instead of having to build up towards, this match would have gone a whole other way.