Could Spassky have beaten Fischer?

If what Korchnoi may have said is what matters it should be noted that he said that Kasparov was greater than Fischer already years before Kasparov retired :-)

anyway yes im sure about tal, because Geller is famous for being the only player with a plus score against fischer.

no it shouldnt be noted fabelhaft, if you get older your brain ist not so reliable anymore

Korchnoi won the first game of their Candidates match in 1983, after that he scored 0-15 against Kasparov. Of course that was an aging Korchnoi, but he was still very strong. In 1989 he was five points from being top three on the rating list. Against Fischer Korchnoi scored 2 wins, 2 losses and the rest draws. They didn't play much towards Fischer's peak but Korchnoi drew the last classical games they played against each other in the end of the 1960s/beginning of 1970s. Of course Korchnoi peaked after Fischer retired but he was certainly much closer to it when he played Fischer than when he played Kasparov, so in that respect it isn't a fair comparison, but maybe it influenced Korchnoi's ranking Kasparov ahead of Fischer already long before Kasparov retired.

Tal's career score against Fischer was 4-2 in wins, by the way.

no it wasnt

Im pretty sure i remember GMs saying Geller was the only one with a positive record against Fischer

http://www.chess.com/blog/MilanBgd01/13-games-robert-fischer-vs-mikhail-tal

Blitz games can't be includes in classical head to head scores, if they were Nakamura has beaten Carlsen numerous times instead of being 0-7 against him.

but i also remember GMs saying that, im very sure i heard GMs saying that. i almost have it back in mind, where GM said Geller was the only one with a positive record against Fischer

maybe there are 2 lesser known games

those Nakamura wins are still pretty cool though

the publication years may prove to be biased if i would compare Spasskys 300  Wins  book to FIschers M60MG because the latter was published in the 20th century. Spasskys games universally seemed better than that of Fischers. But on certain areas like the Sicilian and Kings Indian, RUy Lopez, Fischers were full of great lessons for me. Going back to the 72 match. I think its not Fischer who really casts doubts on Spassky but Spassky Himself. It looked like he wants none of it all. I may be wrong but watching the videos and reading books about the match and other biographies on Fischer and Spassky it looked like (for me) Spassky was in the state of "Im now one of the greats and the champion but you have proven yourself worthy of the crown, so take it and have the heavy task of defending it because with you, chess will be reborn and put to the upper echelons". 

Ofc People will invent all type of stories to make Fischers accomplishments look Bad and by accident they are Mosts victims of Fischers speech.

But it was Fischers own fault, the might destroys the powerless.

Fischer shoveled his own grave.

Fischer is doomed, to go down

As the luckiest World Champion ever.

Do you still claim that "Tal never had a plus score against Fischer"?

Pacifique wrote:

TetsuoShima wrote:

http://www.chess.com/blog/MilanBgd01/13-games-robert-fischer-vs-mikhail-tal

Do you still claim that "Tal never had a plus score against Fischer"?

Im less sure though i still think i heard a gm say that geller was the only one with a plus score

In fact it`s Fischer who nevar had a plus score against Tal. After Candidates tournament in 1959 Tal had impressive +4 =2 =0 score against Fischer, after beating him in all 4 games.

I think the question should be "did spassky really lost to karpov or did he did it on purpose?"

The real question is "Is TeutsoShima really such an idiot or is he usual internet troll?"

No im just an Idiot