Fischer's C4: Brilliancy or Cheap Tricks?

I have developed quite the reputation on this site as being a student of the game. Therefore, many of you know that I have began studying the 1972 World Championship match between Spassky and Fischer in great detail. 

Today I want to explore game 6 of the 1972 World Championship.

Bobby Fischer stared across the checkered board at his opponent, taking his time to make the first move. Spassky glanced over at Fischer in confusion almost to say "What are you waiting for? You're going to play E4". Fischer smirked, lifted his hand off the table, and grabbed a firm hold of the dark bishop's pawn. The explosive C4 by Fischer!? The crowd was stunned, Spassky's facial expression was of a man who had resigned before he had even played his first move. He sat hypnotized by the voodoo that Fischer had just performed on him. 

Needless to say Fischer went on to win this game. In my opinion what needs to be explored is if Fischer played gentlemanly in this game. For, Spassky was obviously prepared for Fischer to play E4, which he always does. It was not fair that Fischer would play C4 without warning. Fischer knew that Spassky was waiting for E4 and played C4 instead to confuse his opponent. In my opinion this is not good sportsmanship because it caught Spassky off-guard. Please share your thoughts, was Fischer's C4 a brilliancy or just mental trickery? 

It was a Queens Gambit Declined, Tartakower Defence. This was the first time Fischer had ever played this opening, or indeed any kind of Queens Gambit. From the position after move 7 Spassky had never previously lost, having used it against Smyslov, Larsen and Petrosian amongst others. Following this loss he only ever subsequently lost twice from this position, against Karpov and Korchnoi.

That's interesting. But I think it's the timelessness of Fischer playing it, as well as his reputation for not playing C4 threw Spassky off. 

Fischer simply blew up all hope for Spassky by playing c4. As for being a gentleman...well, playing c4 or Nf3 are in my opinion the two most gentle first moves, as you let your oponent choose what they want to transpose into. But he could have been a true gentleman had he also warned Spassky first.

Hahah nice! 

I think Fischer was making a point. It was suggested before the match that his opening repertoire was too predictable. So he played something he had never played before and was also able to prepare deeply this line because he was certain Spassky would play it. Unsurprisingly given his unbeaten record hitherto. Thus it was Spassky who had the predictable repertoire.

Three months before the game begins Fischer was studying a red book bublished in Germany contained all Spassky games played the last three-four years. Fischer knew before the match all Spassky preferred lines and best results with. He trapped Spassky at he's own game.

Game three plays a Benoni with a rare and doubious Knight h5 spesific designed to trick Spassky's Nd2 idea which with out the control over the light squares can't work. Spassky falls in it, exchange he's light square Bishop and trap he's own game.

Game six Fischer opens c4 because he wants to play a Queens gambit declined. In all previous Spassky's games, Spassky preferable choice to meet the English 1.c4 was 1...e6 transposing to a Queens Gambit Declined but not so when White was playing 1.d4 against him. Spassky against 1.d4 was much of universal player choosing different defenses and variations.

One month before the 1972 match begins Fischer knew how to play blindfold all Spassky's last fifty games.

There is also game lost against Portisch, in 1967. But that's for Exchange it seem that only Fisher beat him. Very strange thing, that there is not many games where Spassky would indulge in the Queen Gambit with whites.  

Did they have some sort of gentleman's agreement that Fischer would always play 1. e4?  On what are you basing your accusations of poor sportmanship and trickery?

I'm just saying that Spassky wasn't prepared for the move. It was assumed that Fischer would play E4. And then there he goes playing C4.

Sorry, I'm just not seeing how this equates to poor sportsmanship or trickery.

So you're of the opinion that it was a brilliancy then? 

It was a preparation! Nothing to do with brilliancy or unsportmanship.

Exactly!

...and being honest Fischer's preparation against the Tartakower was nothing special. Before Fischer opt a positional advantage it needed from Spassky to play couple of mistaken moves and through he's position away.

@VladimirHerceg91 let me spell it out, Spassky's record against the Queen Gambit was very good, so playing the Queen Gambit against Spassky was at best risky. It shows that Fisher relied on very scrupulous preparation, since 1.c4 can be an invitation to the Orthodox Defence.

Prove me otherwise, using logic not pathetic phraseology, please.  

apparently when Fischer won the game everyone applauded Fischer including Spassky.    

Spassky against 1.c4 never played anything else except 1...e6 transposing to QGD. Fischer's preparation was to play vs QGD irrelevant how sound it was. Apparently he was rely to surprise Spassky in something he didn't expect from him.

The thing is, as good as Spassky was against the Queen's gambit, he was not prepared to play against Fischer playing the Queen's gambit. It came to Spassky as a psychological surprise when Fischer played the move.