Clearly we have differing ideas as to the meaning of reason and logic.
Could Spassky have beaten Fischer?
Sort:
And we never did find out who killed those two flies...or why? : )
Lol about Spassky having a chance 
Spassky would maybe have prepared really well if he thought he had any chance at all.
strngdrvnthng wrote:
And we never did find out who killed those two flies...or why? : )
lol
Jul 14, 2013
0
#26
it is famous that spassky was lazy.he didnt prepare well for this match.he had played rarely prior to the match and i think the fact he had parted with bondarevsky had a huge impact on his play.i remember reading that spassky after game2 could have won the match if simply he had disagreed to meet fischer demands but he agreed to his demands and i think this was a huge mistake which gave fischer a psychological advantage.when i look at the games specially towards end of the match it was spassky who was dictating matters so i think he had his chances but didnt use them.
tesla1 wrote:
it is famous that spassky was lazy.he didnt prepare well for this match.he had played rarely prior to the match and i think the fact he had parted with bondarevsky had a huge impact on his play.i remember reading that spassky after game2 could have won the match if simply he had disagreed to meet fischer demands but he agreed to his demands and i think this was a huge mistake which gave fischer a psychological advantage.when i look at the games specially towards end of the match it was spassky who was dictating matters so i think he had his chances but didnt use them.
to me that is all lame excuses.. people should man up and say i sucked he was just way better.
Jul 14, 2013
0
#28
I don't really get the level of aggressiveness and lack of manners towards great chess players some people show here.
So they played great chess and one of them lost the match in the end. That doesn't mean some fools have the right to be condescending towards him.
VivaChe wrote:
I don't really get the level of aggressiveness and lack of manners towards great chess players some people show here.
So they played great chess and one of them lost the match in the end. That doesn't mean some fools have the right to be condescending towards him.
its not aggressiveness its just honest truth, why take Fischers win away by inventing all kind of excuses . he was clearly better.
It would be unfair to the truth not pointing it out.
Jul 14, 2013
0
#30
He lost by a few games, "clearly better" is something else. And Spassky himself never made an excuse as far as I know.
You can not even evaluate if one of two chessplayers some 40 years ago was "clearly better". Not by the level of play they showed, not by the circumstances back then, not by their personalities.
So in fact, you have no idea what you are talking about:
Ad lapidem
Ad nauseam
cum hoc, ergo propter hoc
and so on.
Your "arguments" have no meaning.
Jul 14, 2013
0
#31
Senator-Blutarsky wrote:
Lol about Spassky having a chance
Spassky would maybe have prepared really well if he thought he had any chance at all.
i dont think spassky considered himself to be doomed before the match.
i should remind you he had a +3=2 score against fischer before the match.
Jul 14, 2013
0
#32
TetsuoShima wrote:
I believe Spassky had no chance in hell, Karpov wether young or old would not have had a chance.
Kasparov maybe he would have had a chance, but i believe Fischer would have beaten him as well..
that is just just my opinion, know one knows for sure ofc.
There is a scene Where Kasparov in his video says he found a novelty, or a sacrifice or some combination(he actually played it in his game?. It was really interesting but sadly i cant remember : Karpov even knowing that it was working said it was wrong.
If someone has such an atitude he just can´t beat Fischer...
That is not the atitude you need to have to beat Fischer, but i believe Kasparov probably would have lost too but it would have been a tougher fight.
I think Karpov would have beat him and I believe he(Fischer) felt that way too. He was afraid to lose his title. I think Kasparov would have beat him as well. Every great chess player has his time and Fischer's was up
Jul 14, 2013
0
#34
TetsuoShima wrote:
VivaChe wrote:
I don't really get the level of aggressiveness and lack of manners towards great chess players some people show here.
So they played great chess and one of them lost the match in the end. That doesn't mean some fools have the right to be condescending towards him.
its not aggressiveness its just honest truth, why take Fischers win away by inventing all kind of excuses . he was clearly better.
It would be unfair to the truth not pointing it out.
do you know what s this topic all about? we are discussing if spassky could have beaten fischer or not and i didnt say he could have beaten fischer i just pointed out to some facts and said spassky didnt use his chances.no one knows if spassky hadnt made those mistakes what would have happen but one think is certain:it would have been close with a lot of fighting epic games.i think chessworld lost a lot of things because of the fact spassky wasnt well prepared.
To tesla1:
And in game one Fischer allowed his Bishop to be trapped in the endgame. In game 6 however, Fischer was playing on a different level. What makes Fischer's accomplishment more valid, the idea that he won a hard fought match against a worthy opponent, or that he easily crushed a vastly inferior player? i believe what makes Fischer's accomplishments in chess so great is that he did beat great opponents and, to all extents, by himself. To state that Spassky had no chance, in effect, takes away from Fischer's accomplishment in my opinion. In other words, you have to be a great player to beat a great player...you only have to be competent to beat a patzer.
caveatcanis wrote:
Spassky's preparation was actually pretty good in the openings that Fischer was known to play. He won the opening battle in both the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Najdorf and the Sozin Sicilan.
His main problem was that Fischer introduced new openings into his repertoire - the Queen's Gambit Declined and the Pirc, for example - and he had nothing prepared against these.
I agree with the above post. 1) Fischer had prepared new openings just for the match. 2) Spassky may have been overconfident since he had a positive score against Fischer up to that point (in fact, Fischer hadn't won a single game against him). 3) Spassky worked hard TWICE to get to the world championship through the candidates cycles...this took a physical and psychological toll. 4) Spassky was slightly past his prime by the time the 72 match took place; while Fischer had just peaked. 5) Spassky had nothing more to prove and didn't have any grudge against Fischer. (where's his motivation to beat him?) 6) Spassky was miserable while being the champion! He hated it. He would later call those years the "worst years of his life". (again, where's his motivation to retain the title?)
I'm sure that he tried to a degree, but I'm not convinced it was his best effort or even that he was capable of giving his best effort at this point in his career; not to take anything away from Fischer's accomplishment.
strngdrvnthng wrote:
To tesla1:
And in game one Fischer allowed his Bishop to be trapped in the endgame. In game 6 however, Fischer was playing on a different level. What makes Fischer's accomplishment more valid, the idea that he won a hard fought match against a worthy opponent, or that he easily crushed a vastly inferior player? i believe what makes Fischer's accomplishments in chess so great is that he did beat great opponents and, to all extents, by himself. To state that Spassky had no chance, in effect, takes away from Fischer's accomplishment in my opinion. In other words, you have to be a great player to beat a great player...you only have to be competent to beat a patzer.
well i never said he was a patzer, what i did say was that Fischer outclassed him. Spassky could be a great player but not compared to Fischer.
Personal impression: Spassky's goal was to play beautiful chess and (hopefully) win, Fischer's goal was to win and (hopefully) play beautiful chess. Reminds me of the first time Nadal beat Federer in Wimbledon.....the guy who wanted it more triumphed!
Hilarious3 wrote:
Personal impression: Spassky's goal was to play beautiful chess and (hopefully) win, Fischer's goal was to win and (hopefully) play beautiful chess. Reminds me of the first time Nadal beat Federer in Wimbledon.....the guy who wanted it more triumphed!
I think you mistaken Spassky for Andre Agassi...
According to his second, Krogius, Spassky played tennis and went sightseeing instead of preparing during the days immediately before the match. Karpov has stated that he had been brought in as a sparring partner for Spassky prior to the match, and that he and Spassky played only one offhand game. Other Soviet sources are on record, including Spassky himself, as to how cavalier Spassky was in preparing for this match...and other events too. However, he was World Champion at the time and Fischer was on an unprecedented winning streak but was also the challenger. To say that Spassky had no chance defies reason. If He had no chance he would not have been World Champion and Fischer would have been challenging someone else.
it doesnt defy logic, Fischer outclassed Spassky very much. champion or not, unless we take a terminal ill fischer into account, no its not very reasonable to assume that.