Boris Spassky, chess grandmaster who took on Bobby Fischer in the greatest match of the 20th century
Boris Spassky, who has died aged 88 was among the finest chess players of the 20th century, but found his reign at the summit of the game ended by the outstanding American Bobby Fischer, with whom he had an epic encounter for the world championship in the summer of 1972.
When the two met in Iceland's capital, Reykjavik, to decide who was the world's best player, it was more than a duel between two eccentric men over a chessboard. This was the period of the Cold War; the Soviet Union was considered the dominant power in the game, and the intrusion of Fischer into what the Soviets considered their exclusive preserve gave the event a new and exquisite piquancy.
As a result, for the first time in the history of chess, the world championship became a global media event, the public coming to relish the antics and the personalities of the competitors.
Of the two men, Fischer was the more flamboyant, Spassky the more dignified and reserved. The American was quick to give his public what it wanted. 'It is really the free world against the lying, cheating, hypocritical Russians,' he remarked. 'This little thing between Spassky and me, it's a microcosm of the whole world political situation.'
Fischer had wanted to play the match in Yugoslavia; Spassky, the defending world champion, insisted on Iceland. Reykjavik was duly selected as the venue, and the American threatened to withdraw altogether, claiming that the prize money ($125,000) was 'an insult'. The purse was doubled, and even the US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger intervened, telephoning Fischer to say: 'America wants you to go over there and beat the Russians.'
Even after he had finally agreed to play, Fischer kept up the psychological pressure on his opponent with a series of complaints and demands: he criticised the chairs in which the players had to sit, raged that the light was too bright – even fretted that the noses on the knights were too long. 'Chess,' Fischer once observed, 'is war on a board. The object is to crush the other man's mind.'
Despite these diversions, Spassky won the first game, which was the cue for another litany of complaints by Fischer, who claimed he was being put off by the spectators and television cameras; he refused to contest the second game, and Spassky won by a forfeit.
Although he would have been perfectly entitled to stand his ground, Spassky then agreed to play the third encounter in a side room, away from the media and the spectators. Fischer won, the match returned to the public arena, and the American began to take control of the contest, Spassky in the fifth game making what aficionados described as 'one of the worst blunders of his career'.
After Fischer crushed him in the sixth game, the Russian's resistance was effectively ended; in the eighth, Spassky made another serious error, eliciting the observation from the Argentine grandmaster Miguel Najdorf that he was 'playing like a child'.
Spassky's failure to impose himself on the challenger as the match progressed was the signal for the Soviets to find their own grounds for outrage: they claimed that Fischer was being aided by experts communicating with him via a minute radio transmitter; they also sent a sample of Spassky's preferred orange juice to Moscow to be tested for poisonous substances.
In the end Spassky was no match for his opponent, the American winning by 12½-8½; Fischer had secured seven victories to Spassky's three, with 11 games drawn. While the Americans crowed, there were dark mutterings in Moscow: 'If I had my way,' said one Soviet politician, 'everyone who was with Spassky would have been arrested.' The former champion was in disgrace and was soon allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union.
For his part, Spassky was magnanimous in defeat, telling reporters: 'Fischer is a man of art, a rare human being in the everyday life of this century.' The new world champion, now that hostilities were ended, sent his vanquished rival a friendly letter and the gift of a camera.
Boris Vasilyevich Spassky was born on January 30 1937 in Leningrad, the son of an engineer and a schoolmistress. His parents separated when he was a small child, and during the siege of Leningrad in 1941 he was evacuated to Moscow before being placed for several years in an orphanage in the Kirov region. It was there, at the age of five, that he learnt to play chess.
After returning to Leningrad in 1946, Boris pursued his interest in the game. Aged 10 he beat the reigning world champion, Mikhail Botvinnik, in an exhibition game, and by the age of 15 he was considered the country's most promising player. In 1953 he became the youngest Soviet to earn the rank of international master, and the next year he tied for third place in the Soviet championship tournament behind Botvinnik and Tigran Petrosian.
Spassky's progress in these years appeared unstoppable. He won the junior world championship in Antwerp in 1955, in the same year becoming the youngest ever international grandmaster. In 1956 he was one of eight players who competed for the right to challenge Botvinnik for the world title.
He achieved all this while successfully completing his education, going from his secondary school to Leningrad University to study mathematics and journalism. As a student he also excelled at football, athletics and volleyball.
If he had a flaw as a chess player during this period, it was perhaps overconfidence. Facing Mikhail Tal in a tournament in Latvia in 1958, Spassky was so sure of victory that when Tal offered him a draw he declined. Tal went on to win the game, and the young pretender later recalled: 'I went out on the street and cried like a child.' In 1960 – after the Soviets' students' world championship team had been beaten by the Americans, Spassky losing his game in only 29 moves – he was banned from competing abroad for two years.
He soon recovered his form and his self-discipline, winning the Soviet championship in 1961, and finishing second in 1963 and 1964. Then, in 1965, he defeated players of the calibre of Tal, Paul Keres and Efim Geller to earn the right to challenge the reigning world champion, Petrosian.
By now Spassky was considered particularly strong in his ability to switch quickly from defence to counter-attack. The Yugoslav grandmaster Svetozar Gligorić once observed: 'The secret strength of Spassky lay in his colossal skill in adapting himself to the different styles of his opponents and thus countering them most efficiently.'
He met Petrosian – famous for the complexity of his defensive play – in Moscow, the 24-game match being held between April and June 1966. It ended in a narrow win for the world champion, by 12½-11½. Later in the year, however, Spassky was placed first in the Piatigorsky Cup International at Santa Monica, ahead of both Petrosian and Fischer.
In April 1969 Spassky took his second tilt at the world title. Once again he met Petrosian in Moscow, and this time the challenger started as favourite. He justified the optimism by winning the match 12½-10½ when Petrosian agreed to a draw in the 23rd game.
Spassky had so far met Fischer on five occasions, beating him three times and drawing their other two encounters; but it was already clear that the American would be the principal threat to the new world champion. To prepare for the defence of his title, Spassky embarked on a rigorous eight-month training programme with a team that included a psychologist.
After losing his title to Fischer, Spassky continued to play at the top level; he won the Soviet championship in 1973 as well as many international tournaments. In 1976 he and his third wife settled in France and two years later he became a French citizen. In August 2012 he returned to Russia.
Spassky himself was not above what some would describe as gamesmanship. In the middle of a famous match against Viktor Korchnoi in 1978 he adopted a silver sun visor, of the kind sported by poker players in a casino. At intervals he would wander up and down the stage, brandishing the visor in his hand. The silver sparkled in the light, the audience laughed and applauded, and Korchnoi was so upset that he asked that the auditorium be cleared of spectators. The request was refused and Korchnoi lost the game, although he went on to win the match.
In 1992, Fischer – after 20 years away from the chess board – re-emerged to arrange what he called the 'Revenge Match of the 20th Century' against Spassky, in Montenegro and Belgrade, for a purse of $5 million. At the time Spassky was rated 106th in the Fide rankings, and Fischer, owing to his long absence, was not ranked at all. Once again Fischer emerged victorious. Despite the antics of 1972, the two men maintained a good relationship until Fischer's death in 2008.
Spassky's last outing was against Viktor Korchnoi in a veterans' match in Russia in 2009, in which he showed many flashes of his former genius; the match ended 3-3.
Spassky once claimed that he lacked faith in his own abilities, adding: 'During a game I seem rather unruffled, but it is like a clown's face put on for the occasion. When I appear particularly calm, I am really feeling especially nervous.'
Among his interests were jazz, fishing, bridge and fast cars. He never joined the Communist Party, and was a critic of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.
He was appointed to the USSR Order of Merit in 1968.
In 1959 Boris Spassky married Nadezda Konstantinovna Latyntceva; they had a daughter but divorced in 1961. He married, secondly, Larisa Zakharovna Solovyova; they had a son. In 1975 he married Marina Yurievna Shcherbachova, a secretary at the French embassy in Moscow; they also had a son.
Boris Spassky, born January 30 1937, died February 27 2025
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

an hour ago
Trump vows to 'HIT' any protester who spits on police. He pardoned those who did far worse on Jan. 6
In one of his first acts of his second term as president, Donald Trump pardoned hundreds of people who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to try to keep him in office, including those who beat police officers. On Monday, Trump posted a warning on social media to those demonstrating in Los Angeles against his immigration crackdown and confronting police and members of the National Guard he had deployed: 'IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' The discrepancy of Trump's response to the two disturbances — pardoning rioters who beat police on Jan. 6, which he called 'a beautiful day,' while condemning violence against law enforcement in Los Angeles — illustrates how the president expects his enemies to be held to different standards than his supporters. 'Trump's behavior makes clear that he only values the rule of law and the people who enforce it when it's to his political advantage,' said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. Trump pardoned more than 1,000 people who tried to halt the transfer of power on that day in 2021, when about 140 officers were injured. The former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, called it 'likely the largest single day mass assault of law enforcement ' in American history. Trump's pardon covered people convicted of attacking police with flagpoles, a hockey stick and a crutch. Many of the assaults were captured on surveillance or body camera footage that showed rioters engaging in hand-to-hand combat with police as officers desperately fought to beat back the angry crowd. While some who were pardoned were convicted of nonviolent crimes, Trump pardoned at least 276 defendants who were convicted of assault charges, according to an Associated Press review of court records. Nearly 300 others had their pending charges dismissed as a result of Trump's sweeping act of clemency. Roughly 180 of the defendants were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement or obstructing officers during a civil disorder. 'They were extremely violent, and they have been treated as if their crimes were nothing, and now the president is trying to use the perception of violence by some protesters as an excuse to crack some heads,' said Mike Romano, who was a deputy chief of the section of the U.S. Attorney's office that prosecuted those involved in the Capitol siege. A White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, defended the president's response: 'President Trump was elected to secure the border, equip federal officials with the tools to execute this plan, and restore law and order.' Trump has long planned to use civil unrest as an opportunity to invoke broad presidential powers, and he seemed poised to do just that on Monday as he activated a battalion of U.S. Marines to support the presence of the National Guard. He mobilized the Guard on Saturday over the opposition of California's governor, Gavin Newsom, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. The Guard was last sent to Los Angeles by a president during the Rodney King riots in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act. Those riots were significantly more violent and widespread than the current protests in Los Angeles, which were largely confined to a stretch of downtown, a relatively small patch in a city of 469 square miles and nearly 4 million people. The current demonstrations were sparked by a confrontation Saturday in the city of Paramount, southeast of downtown Los Angeles, where federal agents were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office. California officials, who are largely Democrats, argued that Trump is trying to create more chaos to expand his power. Newsom, whom Trump suggested should be arrested, called the president's acts 'authoritarian.' But even Rick Caruso, a prominent Los Angeles Republican and former mayoral candidate, posted on the social media site X that the president should not have called in the National Guard. Protests escalated after the Guard arrived, with demonstrators blockading a downtown freeway. Some some set multiple self-driving cars on fire and pelted Los Angeles police with debris and fireworks. Romano said he worried that Trump's double standard on how demonstrators should treat law enforcement will weaken the position of police in American society. He recalled that, during the Capitol attack, many rioters thought police should let them into the building because they had supported law enforcement's crackdown on anti-police demonstrations after George Floyd was murdered in 2020. That sort of 'transactional' approach Trump advocates is toxic, Romano said. 'We need to expect law enforcement are doing their jobs properly,' he said. Believing they just cater to the president 'is going to undermine public trust in law enforcement.'


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Russian drone and missile attacks kill 2 and wound 13 in Ukraine
Russia sent waves of drones and missiles in an attack on two Ukrainian cities early Tuesday that killed two people and wounded at least thirteen others, Ukrainian officials said. A maternity hospital and residential buildings in the center of the southern port city of Odesa were damaged in the attack, regional Gov. Oleh Kiper said. Two people were killed and nine injured in the city, according to a statement from the regional prosecutor's office. Four people were injured in the attack on the capital, Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said. Associated Press journalists heard explosions and the buzzing of drones around the city for hours. 3 An explosion of a drone is seen during a Russian drone strike, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine on June 10, 2025. REUTERS The fresh attacks came hours after Moscow launched almost 500 drones at Ukraine in the biggest overnight drone bombardment in the three-year war. Ukrainian and Western officials have been anticipating a Russian response to Ukraine's audacious June 1 drone attack on distant Russian air bases. Plumes of smoke were visible in Kyiv as air defense forces worked to shoot down drones and missiles Tuesday morning. Meanwhile, Ukrainian residents took shelter and slept in metro stations during the hours-long attack. Nina Nosivets, 32, and her 8-month-old son Levko were among them. 'I just try not to think about all this, silently curled up like a mouse, wait until it all passes, the attacks. Distract the child somehow because its probably the hardest thing for him to bear,' she said. 3 People rest in a metro station, being used as a bomb shelter, during a Russian drones attack in Kyiv, Ukraine, early Tuesday, June 10, 2025. AP 3 A resident reacts as he passes by burning debris following Russia's missile and drone attack in Kyiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, June 10, 2025. AP Krystyna Semak, a 37-year-old Kyiv resident, said the explosions frightened her and she ran to the metro at 2 a.m. with her rug. Russia has been launching a record-breaking number of drones and missiles targeting Ukraine while the two countries continue to swap prisoners of war, the only tangible outcome of recent direct peace talks held in Istanbul. A ceasefire, long sought by Kyiv, remains elusive. In Kyiv, fires broke out in at least four districts after debris from shot down drones fell on the roofs of residential buildings and warehouses, according to the Kyiv City Military Administration. Vasyl Pesenko, 25, stood in his kitchen, damaged in the attack. 'I was lying in bed, as always hoping that these Shaheds (drones) would fly past me, and I heard that Shahed (that hit the house),' he said. 'I thought that it would fly away, but it flew closer and closer and everything blew away.'

an hour ago
Hegseth faces Congress for first time since Signal leaks and Marine deployment to Los Angeles
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to field sharp questions from members of Congress about his tumultuous start as Pentagon chief, including his sharing of sensitive military details over a Signal chat, in three separate Capitol Hill hearings beginning Tuesday. Lawmakers also have made it clear they are unhappy that Hegseth has not provided details on the administration's first proposed defense budget, which President Donald Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. It will be lawmakers' first chance to ask Hegseth about a myriad of other controversial spending by the Pentagon, including plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army's 250th birthday bash, which happens to coincide with Trump's birthday on Saturday. Lawmakers may quiz Hegseth on the latest searing images coming out of the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. Hegseth has deployed about 700 active-duty Marines to assist more than 4,100 National Guard troops in protecting federal buildings and personnel. But there are questions about what the troops will have to do and how much it will all cost. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, troops are prohibited from policing U.S. citizens on American soil. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows troops to do that, is incredibly rare, and it's not clear if Trump plans to do it. The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Eric Smith, will be on Capitol Hill testifying at a separate budget hearing at the same time as Hegseth and is likely to face similar questions. Hegseth has spent vast amounts of time during his first five months in office promoting the social changes he's making at the Pentagon. He's been far less visible in the administration's more critical international security crises and negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and Iran. Most recently, Hegseth directed the renaming of a Navy ship that had honored Harvey Milk, a slain gay rights activist who served as a sailor during the Korean War. His spokesman, Sean Parnell, said the renaming was needed to ensure "the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the commander-in-chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.' Hegseth has posted numerous videos of his morning workouts with troops or of himself signing directives to purge diversity and equity programs and online content from the military. He has boasted of removing transgender service members from the force and firing so-called woke generals, many of whom were women. He was on the international stage about a week ago, addressing an annual national security conference in Asia about threats from China. But a trip to NATO headquarters last week was quick and quiet, and he deliberately skipped a gathering of about 50 allies and partners where they discussed ongoing support for Ukraine. Hegseth's hearing Tuesday before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee will be his first public appearance on Capitol Hill since he squeaked through his Senate confirmation with a tie-breaking vote. It was the closest vote of any Cabinet member. While he has talked a lot about making the military more lethal, it was his use of the unclassified, unsecured Signal messaging app that quickly caught public attention. Set up by then-national security adviser Mike Waltz, a group chat included Hegseth and other senior administration leaders and was used to share information about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. The chat became a public embarrassment because the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently added to it. Waltz took responsibility for the gaffe, but Hegseth was roundly criticized for sharing details about the military strikes in this chat and in another one that included his wife and brother. Multiple investigations are looking into his use of Signal. The Defense Department's acting inspector general has been looking into the initial chat at the request of the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Pentagon's watchdog also is reviewing whether any of Hegseth's aides were asked to delete any Signal messages. While any number of those issues could come up at the House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday, money issues are more likely to be the focus of the hearings Tuesday in the House and Wednesday before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. Already defense leaders have been grilled in other hearings on the plans to retrofit the Qatari jet and the costs of the military parade. Trump has long wanted a parade, and Army leaders defended it as a good way to attract new recruits. Other questions may involve the costs of expanding the use of military forces to secure the southern border, the plans for the Golden Dome missile defense program, and how the department intends to fund modernization programs for drones and other critical weapons systems.