Isn't there a bad error on Sonas' Fischer-Spassky page? It should be 12.5/20 for Fischer and 7.5/20 for Spassky, correct? I assume Sonas doesn't want to count the forfeit.

Unless this is just another example of Sonas trying to keep The Man down. :-)

As for ratings, they are supposed to be a predictive tool as well as an approximation of playing strength. So when the results are closer than predicted by the ratings, the performance ratings reflect the deviation of the actual results from the expected results. And if the outcome is close enough, then the weaker player has a better performance rating because he was playing someone stronger than himself.

In other words, winning by itself isn't enough to show that the stronger player outperformed the weaker one. The <margin> of victory has to be big enough.

The issue of who won the match is not the only issue - there is also the margin of victory and strength of opposition.

<It comes from the fact that the "strength of opposition" is based on their rating coming into the event, rather than calculated after the fact. If you do a "simultaneous" performance calculation (like in my description of the formulas) then it would adjust the strength of opposition to match their results in the match and you would indeed never see what you're talking about.

Quoting (here was my email address):

I was just browsing TradeMe (our version of Ebay) and I saw a book called "Fischer vs Spassky: Chess Match of the Century" by Gligoric (1972).

2000 = Ale

3000 = Your Page

4000 = Favorite Player

5000 = Favorite Tournament

6000 = Favorite Match

Reykjavik 1972 will forever stand as the one title match that truly captivated the outside world. The chess cognescenti were naturally transfixed by Fischer's spectacular success leading up to the final, while people who didn't follow the game before enjoyed the battle of contrasts: explosive Challenger versus experienced Champion, Ugly American versus Staunch Soviet, fierce loner versus team player. Given Spassky's fine career, it is astounding to consider that he only won three games in this match: Game 1's 29 ... Bxh2!? surprise, the Game 2 forfeit, and the trapped Queen in Game 11. Meanwhile Fischer's definite superiority, combined with the fantastic run-up, combined to create a vast Fischer Mystique which persists to this day.

One great feature of this match was the sweeping variety of their opening play. Fischer displayed amazing versatility in his defences - NID, Benoni, Alekhine's, QGD, Pirc - besides his trusty Sicilian (where Spassky would be well prepared). But to pull out 1. c4 *four* times (3 QGD, 1 English) in such a crucial match must have befuddled Spassky and his seconds to no end since RJF was a committed 1. e4 disciple. There are two illustrative Ruy Lopez games (Closed & Exchange) plus several fighting Sicilians, which leads to the second notable characteristic: the outstanding fighting spirit of both players. I appreciate how they reached theoretical draws, at which point they split the point, versus other WC matches where the fun stops way early (Dot Dot Dot). After building such a commanding lead, Fischer probably played more conservatively in the second half of the match (who can say), but still their draws were entertaining and instructive. I believe Spassky didn't get enough credit for trying so hard while playing from behind and eventually losing.

<Thus Fischer...will always be forgiven for [his] flaws...> The jury's still out on this one. The rabid anti-semitism is a little too much for me. With that said, on a purely chess basis, he's probably my favorite player.

<After move 15>

White Spassky: 6 x 5 [=0] / avg.eval: -0.05 (standard deviation: 0.43)

White Fischer: 6 x 1 [=2] / avg.eval: +0.12 (sd.:0.17)

<After move 20>

White Spassky: 5 x 5 [=1] / avg.eval: -0.11 (sd.:0.68)

White Fischer: 6 x 3 [=0] / avg.eval: +0.23 (sd.:0.60)

<0.10-fold>
After move 15:
White Spassky: 4 x 4 [=3]
White Fischer: 6 x 1 [=2]

After move 20:
White Spassky: 5 x 5 [=1]
White Fischer: 5 x 3 [=1]