if you look at that photograph there is no doubt the Champion is Spassky

There was another reason why Spassky lost the title.

If I was Spassky, I would have definitely laughed at Fischer's demands and gone home with my crown.

Either Fischer would have to come down with his demands (not a certainty!), or I guess we would have seen Spassky-Petrosian III. Petrosian's best days were behind him by 1972 (meaning that he was "only" a Top 5 player!) and Spassky could have held onto his crown for ANOTHER 3 years at least.

The thing is, Spassky even got another chance to leave, after Fischer forfeited Game 2! Here he was up 2-0 in the match and no one would have blamed Spassky for walking out.

Instead, Spassky let down his guard and Fischer began to gain confidence, winning the match. Spassky still won the 1973 Soviet Championship SuperFinal but was eliminated in the '74 Candidates and a few years later left the USSR for France.

<kooley782: After some thought, I have to disagree. Spassky was either equal to or better than Fischer. >

Depends when you're talking about. In the 60's, yeah, Spassky and Petrosian were both better than Fischer. In the 70's, no. Fischer had passed them by.

<I can't help but believe that Fischer was simply scared to death of his opponent and tried to rattle him using all these demands.>

Then you don't know Fischer very well. He wasn't afraid of this opponent or that one, he was afraid of ALL of them. Or, you could say he was afraid of himself failing to deliver 100%. You could plausibly argue that he was afraid of Spassky, but do you think he was afraid of his US opponents? Ridiculous, right? But fear of losing the title is the reason he stopped playing in the US Championship. Eleven rounds was too short. He might have a bad game or two and not be able to catch up.

<The bad thing is it worked. Spassky should have won.>

How do you figure? Spassky was in pretty poor form, especially in the early part of the match. Tell me the games he should have won that he didn't. Game 14, okay. 15 maybe (though he could have lost that one too). Some might say 19, but I've never seen the win and don't believe it's there. But even if we give him all three of those games, he still loses.

I'm afraid Boris had caught a thing called Champion's Disease. It happens to most champions after they climb Olympus, and affects their results. If you'll take a look at not just the Fischer-Spassky match, but ALL of Spassky's results since early 1969, you'll see the beginnings of a decline.

That's probably true, although I'd consider that Alekhine caught Champion's Disease less badly than most champions. Apart from the blemish of avoiding a rematch, the quality of his play <improved> markedly after he won the title. The same thing happened to Karpov.

Champion's Disease usually results from the feeling that one has nothing left to prove after winning the title. But probably neither Karpov nor Alekhine felt that way. Karpov wanted to prove he was a worthy champion, despite being unable to face his predecessor, and Alekhine wanted to prove he was worthy despite being unwilling to play a rematch with his.

<It is interesting that Euwe, often considered one of the weakest Champions, did not shy away from defending his title against Alekhine.>

Part of that was a matter of honor. In fact, I find it amazing that Euwe was able to win at all, when his mindset was so totally geared towards bending over backwards to accommodate his opponent. The only real parallel is Spassky in 1972. It's not easy to work so hard to help your opponent and concentrate on fighting him at the same time. But Euwe managed to do it. Extraordinary.