I don´t understand at all what should I think about Spassky said about the 140 Korchnoi moves.

Hello.
I have read an interview with Boris Spassky on another website (9 April 2016).
Boris Spassky spoke with Yury Golyshak and Alexander Kruzhkov in a long "Friday interview" of the Russian newspaper Sport Express.
I remember that he spoke about Víktor Korchnói and there were phrases that caught my attention in relation to "Viktor the Terrible".
"The most unpleasant thing was when he decided to scratch the table with his nails".
"When he decided to offer the tables, Korchnoi called the referee and offered them with him as an intermediary, even though I was sitting in front of him".
The fact that Korchnoi did not win the World Championship was meritorious? (interviewer)
"100 percent. He never had any individuality".

About Kiev (1968).
"I got together with some friends, I took a car and drove to Yeisk, on the Sea of Azov. There I took a look at the last games of Korchnoi, all with many plays!"

What does that mean? (interviewer)

"Can´t you see it? Instead of winning a game in 40 moves, he used 140! The quality of each play was low! Upon discovering that, I calmed down. I stopped preparing. I went fishing to the sea and I left. I won the match quite easily. There was no trick, but then, in Belgrade, Korchnoi accused me of having "hypnotized" him!".

I haven´t experience in chess. In fact, I've never played a face-to-face game.

I just analyzed (not very carefully) a Korchnoi´s game.
Korchnoi-Tal. USSR championship. 1956.
132 movements (draw).

A game of marathon type in chess. What explanations can it have?(for a beginner player like me): exhaust the rival, somewhat Machiavellian behavior, is it prepared beforehand or does it emerge during the game?......

Thank you.

I think it means that Korchnoi wasn't able to win convincingly against weaker players. 40 moves is like a normal distance. Games are often decided within that. But he wasn't able to outplay the opponents, so he had to exhaust them in endless marathon games (and won just luckily).

Even for strong grandmasters it's not always so easy to find the right and most efficient moves. And it may have to do something with the individual style of playing chess. Ferocious attackers who jump at their opponents throat may on average play shorter games than positional grinders who stubbornly try to accumulate tiny advantages until the opponent crumbles and runs out of reasonable moves.

As for Korchnoi; I have no problems with his chess. It was his personality that made me dislike him.

To give you an example:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxi5Vglee4

So to sum it up:
He wasn't talking about the 132 move game. He was talking in general.

I remember a german chess newspaper quoting Yuri Averbakh and his classification of chess players. It contained 'Players' (they just love games), 'Sportsmen' (Chess is a Sport), 'Fighters', 'Artists', 'Scientists' and 'Killers'.

Killers: Korchnoi, Fischer and Botvinnik [1]. ('Killers typically grew up without a father')

Fighters: Kaspy and Tal (Bronstein: 'a fighter which wanted to be an artist'). [2]

Players: Karpov and Petrosian (So true, haha.)

Sportsmen: Euwe, Smyslov

Scientists: Himself (well that was obvious, wasnt it?).

Artists: Rossolimo and Simagin. (I would add Neshmetdinov to this category, but maybe he was just a patz who couldnt play normal chess :-p)

I agree very much with this classification, even if today players are more universal and also more relaxed in my opinion. We have much more Sportsmen, Scientists and Players now. The fighters and Killers are dying out.

In that Context, R.I.P Korchnoi, loved your games :-)

[1] http://www.chessblog.com/2011/11/there-are-six-types-of-chess-players.html says just Fischer and Aliechin, but in the Newspaper also Botvinnik and Korchnoi were given.

[2] i have read other sources which classified Kaspy as Killer but i think Averbakh did not say that. Also it doesnt fit. Kaspy is definitely no Killer, he is just serious about it.

Edit: I would classify Carlsen as a player.

@/WildeWildsau
Thank you very much for the video. I had not seen it before.
Although I believe personality is created by genes and circumstances of life (largely, I suppose).