Old Matches vs New Matches

regarding the style...I have just checked the so called Match of the Century: Fischer - Spassky, and I noticed that Fischer used in this match a high variety of openings (using even Alekhine defence in 2 games, which is considered to be inaccurate these days)...
I am wandering why they are not trying to vary more the openings in our days ? I do not think that if a SuperGM would suddenly play an Albin CounterGambit or an Alekhine or something unusual in a game or two would have bad results, as he will come prepared for it and his opponent would be at least surprized...and I do not think that today's SuperGMs are so much stronger than Spassky of the old days, and for sure they do not have memorized all the winning variations in all openings...
Why they continue to play the same line again and again in their matches(matches like Topalov-Kramnik)?
What do you think ?

Originally posted by vipiu
regarding the style...I have just checked the so called Match of the Century: Fischer - Spassky, and I noticed that Fischer used in this match a high variety of openings (using even Alekhine defence in 2 games, which is considered to be inaccurate these days)...
I am wandering why they are not trying to vary more the openings in our days ? I do not think that same line again and again in their matches(matches like Topalov-Kramnik)?
What do you think ?

I think that at the exalted level of Super GMs players play the openings they think will be best against particular opponents. Databases make it a lot easier to do intensive preparation. I actually don't entirely agree with your original premiss. I would say in general that today's GMs have a broader repertoire than those of a generation ago, partly because of the range of study material (especially databases) available to them. For example, many of today's top GMs are equally comfortable opening 1.e4 as 1.d4, whereas many players previously used to specialise (Spassky was an exception).