Boris Spassky's prime...

Hi. This sort of my first 'thread' here.

Recently, i have been very intrigued by Boris Spassky and his quality of play. I used to believe that his chess levels were quite low for a world champion, but boy was i wrong. He now gives me the impression of possibly one of the strongest of them all, below only the likes of Kramnik, Anand, Carlsen, Kasparov, and obviously, Fischer. After looking at some of his games, and reading about his rise in the chess world as young man, he struck me as sort of big talent that lowered itself over time after he became world champion. This somewhat saddens me, as i personally hate seeing potential like this being, well, 'wasted'. Interestingly enough, Spassky did not seem exactly past his prime by the time he played against Fischer (he actually played respectably well during the second half against an opponent far above 99% of the other players around, living or dead). I have also heard that he played his best during his matches against Karpov.

This is what confused me- does his prime reside his younger self (1960s-1970) wherein he tried harder more often and thought about chess more than anything else; during his greatest ordeal (his matches with Fischer wherein he pushed himself to his limits and even won a legitimate game against a man fully prepared to defeat him, who did nothing but live and breathe chess, unlucky the somewhat lazy, and less studied Spassky); or during his matches against Karpov wherein he supposedly played his best ever and tried his hardest?

Give me all of your opinions. Thank you.

little bump

Spassky himself said that he didn't enjoy being World Champion. This might go some way to account for his lack of ambition after winning the title... he felt that he had overshot his goals.

I have heard things about his willingness to play and study chess, about his laziness, about his mental state during the fischer matches, but how much of this is true? did fischer somehow affect him that badly in their matches? was spassky that much underprepared?

I wouldn't really say he was underprepared he choose to play the match. Spassky had the option of not playing the match at all and just keeping his title by default owing to Fischers childish behaviour. They played and Fischer won because he was just the better player. I'd say he was in his prime it just wasn't enough.

Everything I have read about Spassky indicates that he was and is a lovely bloke and quite a laid back character. Probably too simplistic to say Fischer 'wanted it more', but his drive led to burnout and Spassky continued to live a contented life. 

Mikhail Tal has always been my favorite for the 40's to 50's era, with Reshevsky a close 2nd.

I suppose the next era after that was the Bobby Fischer era. I think Fischer was a deeply flawed human being, but there is no denying his mastery of chess for that time period.

In 1972, going into the Wch match, Spassky was rated 2755. 17 years later, in 1989 (age 52), his rating finally dropped below 2700. Between the Wch match of 1972 and 1989, Spassky was quite active and apparently reasonably successful, having played in 72 tournaments and 10 matches during those years.

Spassky was known as a gentleman and was referred to as such by Fischer himself. The 1972 WCh match was as much about psychology as it was about chess.. Spassky had a weight on him that Fischer didn't: the pride and expectations of the USSR. By the halfway point of the match, Spassky began to seem ill. They called it "Fischer fever," as the same thing had happened to Larsen, Taimanov and Petrosian. Spassky was very much a worthy world champion. By the time of the 1972 match, however, Fischer had simply surpassed him in strength. Before that match, Bobby hadn't won a single game against Boris.

From 1965-1969 Spassky could make a very strong case for himself as the best player in the world. In the 1966 Championship cycle, he defeated Keres, Geller, and Tal--all chess immortals--in matches to win the right to play Petrosian for the world championship. He lost that match by the thinnest of margins. In the next championship cycle, he won matches against Geller, Larsen, and Korchnoi before finally defeating Petrosian and becoming champion. A remarkable run of excellence

in terms of quality of play, he was better than those before him, but not as good as those who succeeded him...

That's probably true, but then again, that's true in almost every sport or science. As Newton said "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants"

People saying that Spassky could have kept the title by walking away in 1972 fail to realize that there were a lot of money involved in the match. Spassky played for a few thousand dollars in 1969 against Petrosian, while the prize fund for the WC 1972 was 250.000 dollars (thanks to Fischer of course). So you could say that Spassky made a favor to Fischer by playing. But it's also true that Fischer made a huge favor to Spassky. Spassky knew that he would get a huge amount of money for playing so he decided to play. After two games, leading 2-0, Spassky even had hopes that he would keep the title.

When critics claimed that Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian and Spassky had all played below their normal strength in their matches against Fischer, Fischer's reply was that "People have been 'playing below their true strength' against me for fifteen years".

i saw that before lol great answer from him hahahaha

anyhow, could someone tell me when his prime was between the 3 options? and is there a possibility that he was indeed below his best during some of his matches agaisnt fischer? and did he really decline that much after that? ive also heard that karpov 'whooped' him, but then i heard that karpov himself said that spassky didnt prepare whatsoever, while he was very prepared for pretty much anything. how much of all this stuff is true?