to his credit Spassky said by 72 Fischer was stronger though even that carries a codicil stronger perhaps simply because Spassky no longer cared particularly about anything but the money and getting to France I was one never entirely convinced that the better player, given Spassky truly wanting to hang onto the title that Fischer would have beaten him

Fischer had Spassky's number in the mid 60's, when spassky was challenging the python. Only the lack of games then prevented this reality from being known to all.

Sure, Spassky v Fischer in 69 would've been closer.. ( the 72 match was wider than the result suggests.. forfeit and coasting) But the result would've been the same.

Just speculation, of course.

You have a tendency to always ignore hard facts and results in favour of your own subjective opinion. Spassky's results against Fischer prior to their match speak for themselves, yet you claim Fischer was better in the 60s. Right.

DrMAL: It was big mystery to Soviet GMs why Spassky played 14...a6 in response to 14.Bb5 instead of 14...Qb7 prepared by Geller and him. 14...Qb7 gets off of pin and prepares c4 to cut B on b5 so that in preparation, 15.dxc5 was expected with line going 15...bxc5 16.Rxc5 Rxc5 17.Qxc5 Na6 and then white has two choices. First is endgame 18.Qc6 Qxc6 19.Bxc6 where black can go 19...Rb8 for simple advantage (e.g., 20.0-0 Rxb2 ) or 19...Rc8 20.Ba4 Rc1+ 21.Bd1 (21...Rb1 or 21...Ra1) for equal double-edged game with some initiative.

Second is 18.Bxa6 Qxa6 where white is up pawn but white K cannot castle. Geller had opportunity to play this preparation shortly after match (Timman vs Geller, 1973) and Timman chose this option. Geller used this enduring edge from white K position to create decisive attack for beautiful win. Perhaps 20.Qc3 was better in that game (20...Rb8 21.Qxc4 dxc4 22.b3 cxb3 23.axb3 Rxb3 24.0-0) but black would still have solid advantage in endgame. Indeed, computer today shows 14...Qb7 as best, although score is somewhat lower because line in preparation computes as very slightly imprecise.

Spassky was severely criticized for 14...a6 some were even saying he was traitor. In looking at this game through American eyes, where Fischer is still regarded as superhero (even though he never played a single official game after match), try to keep in perspective that, at the time, Fischer was on "mission from God" having been personally called by Henry Kissinger to go and defeat opponent for USA, whereas Spassy was under enormous pressure to retain title and save face of Soviet Union. This was greatly compounded by Fischer's behavior prior to game; not showing up for drawing of lots, forfeiting game and making big unheard of demands to go into back room for next game. Spassky was a wreck, his play already showed this by mistake of 14...a6 ignoring preparation, but other unusual mistakes followed in this game.

Spassky's plus score in the 1960's was based upon a limited number of games. Meanwhile, Fischer had the higher rating, because he consistently had better tournament results as a whole than Spassky did.

The only mystery is why the Soviet GMs are lying and claiming that they predicted before the match that Fischer would play the Queen's Gambit with the white pieces. Apparently, the more absurd a lie is, the more believable it is.

Fischer's finish was beautiful he played fabulous game. But it was all possible through Spassky's errors starting with opening, the fact that he did not play preparation already showed his judgment was unusually poor, and moves played after showed he was simply not playing as WC Boris Spassky should. Few games ago Fischer beat Spassky for first time ever, since then he took 3.5/4 points to become a point ahead in the match.

14.... Qb7! <Pachman> not <Geller>? How accurate are Timman's comments?

Fischer was also changing his repertoire at the time, the middle 60s on, with more Benonis as well as the Alekhine appearing instead of his otherwise automatic Najdorf Sicilian and KID.

Karpov wouldn't address 14. ..Qb7 at all in his video on this game.

Keene video is cute made-for-TV chess somehow making big drama from obvious. It is good video for very low level non-club player but is silly to anyone higher. First, 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5 13.Qa3 Rc8 was main line theory, not some big genius Fischer thing, see Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 for one of many examples. Second, move 14.Bb5 was played two years earlier Furman vs Geller, 1970 where Geller, playing 14...a6 lost. One might just think that "Soviet machine" MIGHT have thought to examine alternatives to 14...a6 during the two years that transpired! LMAO. Keene's comment about it not being discovered is completely offhand remark that has ZERO backing, it just simply makes ridiculous statement. Keene video is simply wrong, perhaps he did this for some sort of politics, he was political animal. Idea that 14...Qb7 was discovered a year later is wrong and very misleading. It creates more falsehood about Fischer being super-hero for "fighting big bad Soviets" it is understandable that he was national hero for USA in getting into WC (and winning) to begin with. This is akin to Russian baseball star joining otherwise lousy team and hitting grand slam to beat Yankees in World Series. Great accomplishment, but no need to dramatize by falsely accusing Yankees of using minor league pitchers, cheers.

Karpov does not even mention 14...Qb7 when commenting game 6. Isn't this a bit strange?

<JeorgWalter> No I don't think Karpov not mentioning 14...Qb7 is strange. He had reason to not address that 14...Qb7 was prepared, it was embarrasing that Spassky chose not to play it.

I really enjoy accounts of good sportsmanship. And for all the bad press athletes/competitors get - deservedly, too often - most of them are gracious in victory and defeat alike.

The Russians spent time preparing Spassky to face the Queen's Gambit? I don't think so. Bird's opening would have been just as likely.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.