Spassky would have won by simply refusing to give Fischer game 3 in a back room. He was already up 2-0, having won the first game and Fischer forfeiting the second. He really wanted to beat Fischer over the board though and felt he could, having a huge plus score against Fischer going not the match and being up 2-0 already in the match. Quite simply, Fischer should have lost the match if Spassky had refused to play in the back room for game 3 as we can be confident Fischer would have refused to play out in the main hall like in game 2. Being down then 3-0, Fischer probably would have made some claim of conspiracy against him and match conditions unsuitable and took a plane back to the states, calling for a "fair" match with Spassky. Fate was on Fischers side beginning with pal benko giving him his spot in the candidates all the way through the 1972 match with Spassky. Many times along the way it seemed like Fischer would Sabatoge his chance for the world title and others, even his opponent, would have to go to extreme measures to keep him from doing that.
Could Spassky have beaten Fischer?
It does seem surprising that Spassky agreed to game 3 on Fischers terms,which I think shows that he actually underestimated Fischer, although Fischers wins in the matches prior to the title match should have told him something, but that's why I believe he was under prepared, even his team considered he hadn't put enough work in prior to the match. My own belief is that had Spassky done his preparation and not been subjected to what no player would get away with now, then the match result would have been anything but a foregone conclusion.
I know as does everyone else that Fischer is probably the greatest player of all time
Everyone knows that? I don't think so :-)
Hence 'probably the greatest player of all time' I for one am not certain he was, but he may have been, the questioned cannot be answered dfinitively. I believe Spassky was at least his equal and there were players before him and since that could lay claim to being the greatest ever, but I suspect Fischer would be the only one to actually claim that position!
Spassky may have had a chance if he was granted a 5-0 lead.
(note: Karpov couldn't beat Kasparov with a 5-0 lead)
I think not a chance in hell that Spassky could have won. Impossible in my honest opinion. But that is just my personal opinion.
Sorry about the above delete. I'm a technophobe.
Please explain what Karpove v Kasparove has to do with Fischer v Spassky. My original post posed the question "if Spassky had prepared properly' whic evidence shows he didn't and asks the question about Fischer's antics which any normal person would have been affected by and on this occasion it was Spassky. No other person on this planet would have got away with what Fischer got away with at the time in history this match had to go ahead. Later when he had to defend his title against Karpov he did not get away with it all be it I feel certain he would have beaten the young Karpov and the reasons for his demands were actually sound. However I'm not so sure he would have beaten a mature Karpov (though their styles were so different) let alone Kasparov, now that unfortunately we shall never know.
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.
Sorry about the above delete. I'm a technophobe.
Please explain what Karpove v Kasparove has to do with Fischer v Spassky. My original post posed the question "if Spassky had prepared properly' whic evidence shows he didn't and asks the question about Fischer's antics which any normal person would have been affected by and on this occasion it was Spassky. No other person on this planet would have got away with what Fischer got away with at the time in history this match had to go ahead. Later when he had to defend his title against Karpov he did not get away with it all be it I feel certain he would have beaten the young Karpov and the reasons for his demands were actually sound. However I'm not so sure he would have beaten a mature Karpov (though their styles were so different) let alone Kasparov, now that unfortunately we shall never know.
they were the 2 best at close points in history ?
turned out Karpov was a smaller distance behind Kasparov than Spassky was to Fischer.
I think not a chance in hell that Spassky could have won. Impossible in my honest opinion. But that is just my personal opinion.
Seconded.
I'm sure Spassky did not underestimate Fischer. Spassky was just a gentleman in a lot of his doings and as well in chess. In contrary to Fischer at some point.
That's what I most admired about Spassky!
None of the "I despise Bobby more than anyone" crap you see on this website.
Spassky was certainly a gentleman and very popular because of it and no doubt did have the greatest respect for Fischer and I think Fischer had respect for Spassky at least eventually if you look at what he said after game 6 when Spassky applauded Fischer for his most beautiful game. But what I can't understand is how Spassky just faile to take the advice of his team and put in more preparation time.
Spassky , by his own admission , was very lazy : " like the Russian bear " . He and Fischer liked each other and Fischer liked very few soviet players .
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.
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.
A question that I have considered for some time, 'Could Spassky have beaten Fischer in Iceland in 1972, if he had prepared better and not have been so affected by Fischer's unusual behaviour?'
Boris Spassky trained for 9 months with a team of the best experts in the Soviet Union for just about everything they believed Fischer would throw at him but it was a wasted effort because a very differen't Bobby Fischer showed up in Iceland he had prepared for. Fischer employed openings that he didn't play very often and adjusted himself well to all inovations that Spassky and his team prepared.
Every game was a shock when Fischer took the lead in the series he never gave Spassky a chance to come back he sprinted his way to victory. It was Fischers destiny to be World Champion nothing they could have done would have made a difference.
A question that I have considered for some time, 'Could Spassky have beaten Fischer in Iceland in 1972, if he had prepared better and not have been so affected by Fischer's unusual behaviour?'
Boris Spassky trained for 9 months with a team of the best experts in the Soviet Union for just about everything they believed Fischer would throw at him but it was a wasted effort because a very differen't Bobby Fischer showed up in Iceland he had prepared for. Fischer employed openings that he didn't play very often and adjusted himself well to all inovations that Spassky and his team prepared.
Every game was a shock when Fischer took the lead in the series he never gave Spassky a chance to come back he sprinted his way to victory. It was Fischers destiny to be World Champion nothing they could have done would have made a difference.
very well said. I just second that
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
A question that I have considered for some time, 'Could Spassky have beaten Fischer in Iceland in 1972, if he had prepared better and not have been so affected by Fischer's unusual behaviour?'
I know as does everyone else that Fischer is probably the greatest player of all time,but it is a fact that Spassky did not prepare properly and was very adversely affected by Fischers behaviour. I don't believe Fischer intended this to be so, I'm sure he believed and probably rightly so that he could beat Spassky at his very best and would have wanted to do so. But Spassky was also in my opinion one of the greatest ever and I just think the result may, just may have been different if Spassky had been at the top of his form. Anyone agree?