Could Spassky have beaten Fischer?

To chamillionaire:

As to your point six...I had, for a long time, the impression that Spassky was 'relieved' upon losing the title to Fischer and it seems he was much happier with his life when he was no longer World Champion.

 "Spassky could be a great player but not compared to Fischer."  I have to take exception with this statement.  Spassky was 6 years and 2 months Fischer's senior.  Both were child prodigies who advanced at almost identical rates.  (many of Fischer's records were Spassky's records first, like youngest GM, Fischer would only beat them by a month or so, very close) Spassky was battle-worn.  He had gone through the candidates cycles twice having to beat the likes of Tal and so forth. He then had to face Petrosian TWICE.  On page 14 of "Petrosian vs. the Elite" by Ray Keene it shows Petrosian had a score of 79.8% in Olympiad games while Fischer had 75.4%!  The man who outperformed Fischer in Olympiad games is the man that Spassky wrestled the championship from! But, it was during Spassky's prime years. For the record, Spassky peaked in the mid to late 60's while Fischer peaked in 71-72.  The match took place in 72 when Spassky wasn't at his best and Fischer was.  So how can you say Spassky is not a great player compared to Fischer?

TetsuoShima wrote:

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.

My comment was directed to tesla1 not to you. I did not accuse you of saying Spassky was a patzer. I was trying to make the point that there is more glory in beating a great player than a lesser one. If Spassky had no chance then he was clearly no longer world class which would diminish Fischer's accomplishment in beating him. Whereas, if Spassky was still a world class player then Fischer's accomplishment becomes so much greater. Fischer's behavior, before and during the match, is not indicative of someone who is supremely confident of winning easily, in my opinion.

lol interestingly i just wanted ask who said that SPassky wasnt at his peak in 72??

and not to mention how old Korchnoi was when he peaked lol

   I agree. Like he could finally breathe without all the pressure imposed upon him.

   I've heard him described as "lazy" and "a dandy".  One gets the impression that after he accomplished what he set out to do, win the world championship, all he wanted to do was fine dining, good wine, (he moved to Paris, France), tell stories, appear at chess events and collect fees for appearances, simuls, lectures; play tennis and chess for fun. (he drew a much higher percentage of games in the later part of his career)

   Kramnik, who's in a much better position to judge him than we are, seems to rate Spassky very highly, even above Botvinnik when he reviews the champions in an article that can be found online.  It's just hard for me to sit here and listen to people say Spassky wasn't in Fischer's league because he beat him in the match.  Look at chessgames.com, Spassky beat Fischer 3 to 0 with 2 draws from 1960 to 1970; a shut-out for 10 years! Only when Spassky began to decline and Fischer briefly peaked did Fischer beat him soundly. (and as mentioned before, there were many extenuating circumstances including lack of motivation on Spassky's part)    In my oppinion, Petrosian, Spassky, and Karpov are somewhat underrated, while Fischer and Kasparov are somewhat overrated by many.

There is no way Spassky could have beaten Fischer. Easiest way to tell? Fischer showed up!

Ofc Kramniks word weight more than that of a patzer like me but still a few points.

When Spassky beat Fischer, Fischer still had the better tournament result.

When Spassky beat Fischer, Fischer pressed too hard for a win.

3 random games dont say that much in the grand sheme of things, when you its candidates or championship.

As i said it is just my personal opinion and ofc i agree when KRamnik said something different, its more likely he is correct.

Anyway we should stop mention the breath of fresh air and that he didnt care for chess, that is all just an excuse. That is very very unfair.

And for that alone i rate Spassky way way way lower and believe that such a person would never be better than Fischer, from my personal viewpoint

varelse1 wrote:

There is no way Spassky could have beaten Fischer. Easiest way to tell? Fischer showed up!

And promptly lost the first game, forfeited the second, and would have forfeited the match if Spassky had chosen not to meet his demands concerning cameras.

and in both games Fischer defeated himself and not SPassky him. I wonder if you even play chess... how can 2 games that had absolutly nothing to do with Spasskys skill be an indication for the skill of spassky

  You're entitled to your oppinion and viewpoint.  Okay, let's include ALL the games they played including the world championship(s).  From 1960 to 1992 they played 56 games.  The total record is 17 wins for Bobby, 11 wins for Boris, and 28 draws.  The formula for figuring out win percentage is (wins+draws/2) / total games. So Bobby's overall win percentage against Boris is (17+28/2)/56 = 55.36%.  An overall 5% difference isn't that impressive to me!  With the 6 year age difference, 5 of those games took place when Fischer was 'too young' and Spassky was at his peak (3+2/2)/5 = 80%! The decade between 1960 and 1970 Spassky scored 80% against Fischer. Impressive! 21 of those games took place in 1972 when Spassky was past his prime and Fischer at his peak; Fischer won 7, 11 draws so (7+11/2)/21 = 59.5%.  Here you have a guy at his peak (a brief peak at that), hungry for the title, playing a guy past his prime and only scores 59.5% against him? Now for the 1992 games, at this point both players are past their prime, but again, Spassky moreso because he's 6 years older, 24 games were played.  Bobby won 10, 12 draws; (10+12/2)/24 = 66.6% A little better, 7% better, but not that astounding.  Remember, their overall score is 55.36% and that's with 51 out of the 56 games favoring Fischer because of the age difference.  When the two careers are compared side by side, these guys look about equal.  So, you can understand my astonishment that you continue to insist that Spassky is "way way way lower" than Fischer.  It sounds like irrational hero worship.  

P.S.  People please check my math, I'm 25 years out of school. 

Still, its hardly the behaviour of the supreme chessplayer.

As opposed to Fischer who, after nearly defeating himself in '72, came back for the rematch and tottaly anhilated himself in '75.

And several times since.

To be fair to Fischer, he was obviously slipping deeper into mental illness at this juncture and was not behaving completely rationally. I think it's important to keep the idea of Fischer the chessplayer and Fischer the man distinct in order to discuss him rationally and objectively.

well actually it is just that, because he alone decided the outcome of the match

To be 100% fair, I do not accept the "mental illness" excuse for Tetsoushima's behavior. Can I really make an exception for Bobby?

So, by your reasoning, Spassky beat himself in the match by agreeing to continue, when he was perfectly within his rights to refuse Fischer's demands.

As stated in another topic, I refuse to be judgemental as to another poster and that their posts speak for themselves, as do mine. I think it is clear from reading these posts which are accurate, rational, cogent, and lucid. Perhaps that is why certain posters chose to delete what they have written previously.

Exactly. Spassky's weakness was Sportsmanship. Fischer exploited it to it's fullest.

• You're entitled to your oppinion and viewpoint.  Okay, let's include ALL the games they played including the world championship(s).  From 1960 to 1992 they played 56 games.  The total record is 17 wins for Bobby, 11 wins for Boris, and 28 draws.  The formula for figuring out win percentage is (wins+draws/2) / total games. So Bobby's overall win percentage against Boris is (17+28/2)/56 = 55.36%.  An overall 5% difference isn't that impressive to me!  With the 6 year age difference, 5 of those games took place when Fischer was 'too young' and Spassky was at his peak (3+2/2)/5 = 80%! The decade between 1960 and 1970 Spassky scored 80% against Fischer. Impressive! 21 of those games took place in 1972 when Spassky was past his prime and Fischer at his peak; Fischer won 7, 11 draws so (7+11/2)/21 = 59.5%.  Here you have a guy at his peak (a brief peak at that), hungry for the title, playing a guy past his prime and only scores 59.5% against him? Now for the 1992 games, at this point both players are past their prime, but again, Spassky moreso because he's 6 years older, 24 games were played.  Bobby won 10, 12 draws; (10+12/2)/24 = 66.6% A little better, 7% better, but not that astounding.  Remember, their overall score is 55.36% and that's with 51 out of the 56 games favoring Fischer because of the age difference.  When the two careers are compared side by side, these guys look about equal.  So, you can understand my astonishment that you continue to insist that Spassky is "way way way lower" than Fischer.  It sounds like irrational hero worship.  

  P.S.  People please check my math, I'm 25 years out of school.