< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Aug-26-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: A dry match for some, but one full of rich positional chess for others.|
|Aug-26-11|| ||kamalakanta: Thanks,Jessica, for the video link!
Regarding Petrosian, Spassky regarded him mainly as a tactician!
|Aug-26-11|| ||Petrosianic: I don't know about "mainly" a tactician, but he was a tactician, yes. There are something like 9 piece sacrifices in the 1966 match. What he wasn't is speculative, unlike someone like Tal, who would sacrifice for an unclear position, or even one in which he might be at a technical disadvantage, but one which the opponent couldn't demonstrate in the limited time available.|
As for Tal and his lifestyle, part of it was probably due to the fact that he had health problems early on (kidney operations in his early 20's), and probably knew that he wouldn't live too long no matter how much care he took of himself. Mantle wasn't in the same boat, was he?
|Aug-26-11|| ||Psihadal: I think it was Spassky who said:
<"It is to Petrosian's advantage that his opponents never know when he is suddenly going to play like Mikhail Tal.">
|Aug-26-11|| ||Petrosianic: He might have been thinking about games like this.
Petrosian vs Estrin, 1968
But still, the big difference between this and Tal is that the attack isn't speculative. Complex maybe, but not up in the air.
|Aug-26-11|| ||kamalakanta: He sure made Korchnoi look bad in this game!
Petrosian vs Korchnoi, 1946
No wonder Petrosian is credited with saying something like" "If someone wants to play the Dutch against you, let them."
|Jul-17-12|| ||Marmot PFL: This looks like 2 different matches, the first 14 games which were even, and the last 8 where the older champion tires (as Boleslavsky told Petrosian would happen, and to keep on playing in drawn positions).|
|Jul-17-12|| ||Petrosianic: There's a psychological turning point in a long match, when a player fights uphill for a long time. If he finally succeeds in equalizing the score, it's difficult to re-adjust his frame of mind and start playing equal again. The same sort of thing happened in 1966, 1978, where the exact same thing happened: as soon as the score was equalized, the equalizer lost the very next game.|
|Jul-17-12|| ||perfidious: < Knight13: But Petrosian was a very positional player and wasn't as good in tactics as others at his level.....petrosian leans more to positional....>|
His predilection was certainly to play positional setups, but (as with all GMs, not to mention the elite), Petrosian was more than capable of playing tactical chess. Check out this gem against another strong GM: Petrosian vs Korchnoi, 1962. We should also note that, particularly in his early career, Iron Tigran played a fair number of Sicilian Najdorfs. You want to play Black in one of those without some command of tactical play, get ready to take an early train home.
|Jul-17-12|| ||Petrosianic: He was extremely tactical. What he wasn't was speculative. But at the end of a long game, when both players are tired, draws sometimes get blown.|
Here are a couple of other examples that this game always reminds me of:
Portisch vs Petrosian, 1974
Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1974
|Jan-27-13|| ||dumbgai: In his book "From London to Elista", Bareev notes the similarities between this match and the 2004 Kramnik-Leko match. In both matches the challenger lost the first game, won two games in the middle of the match (games 5 and 7 for Petrosian, 5 and 8 for Leko), and lost the 14th game. Had the 1963 match been 14 games, Botvinnik would have retained his title like Kramnik did.|
|Aug-05-13|| ||thegoodanarchist: The dichotomy of Mikhail Botvinnik! When challenging for the world championship he was unstoppable. He won the tournament in 1948, and both matches in which he was the challenger, for a record of 3-0-0.|
However, defending the title was another matter. He drew twice and lost 3 times for a record of 0-3-2. Obviously the thrill of the chase stirred up something in this man that he could not muster when the title was in his possession.
|Dec-28-13|| ||schweigzwang: <As for Tal and his lifestyle, part of it was probably due to the fact that he had health problems early on (kidney operations in his early 20's), and probably knew that he wouldn't live too long no matter how much care he took of himself. <Mantle wasn't in the same boat, was he?>>|
It is generally agreed that he was, in fact. For example, from the Mickey Mantle Wikipeidia page: 'Well before he finally sought treatment for alcoholism, Mantle admitted his hard living had hurt both his playing and his family. His rationale was that the men in his family had all died young, so he expected to die young as well. His father died of Hodgkin's disease at age 40 in 1952, and his grandfather also died young of the same disease. "I'm not gonna be cheated," he would say. Mantle did not know at the time that most of the men in his family had inhaled lead and zinc dust in the mines, which contribute to Hodgkins' and other cancers.'
|Dec-31-13|| ||offramp: Here is a list of the moves of this very tough match:
40, 35, 86, 24, 48, 27, 52, 55, 55, 43, 41, 53, 54, 57, 58, 54, 39, 61, 66, 21, 10, 10.
Apart from the last three games every game was a big struggle.|
|Jun-12-14|| ||offramp: Vasily Panov asked a good question. Why in the entire match did Botvinnik not try 1.e4 even once?|
|Jun-13-14|| ||RookFile: Because Petrosian would have played a super solid line of the Caro-Kann Defense. Botvinnik did not think he had as many chances there.|
|Jul-02-14|| ||1d410: Botvinnik may have just been too old. A younger Botvinnik would have buried the narrow minded petrosian in unfamiliar positions that work as well or better than those played here that Botvinnik prepared for at home.|
|Jul-02-14|| ||RookFile: Stamina may have been an issue. It was anybody's match until Petrosian put two wins up on the board in games 18 and 19. On the other hand, Petrosian was the sort of narrow minded guy who successfully defended his world chammpionship title, something that hadn't happened in a long time.|
|Jul-03-14|| ||keypusher: <offramp: Vasily Panov asked a good question. Why in the entire match did Botvinnik not try 1.e4 even once?>|
Doesn't seem like a good question to me. Botvinnik didn't play 1.e4 in any of his over 80 games with white in world championship matches. He played it once in the 1948 Match-Tournament -- after he had clinched the title.
Botvinnik vs Reshevsky, 1948
|Jul-03-14|| ||keypusher: <Offramp> By the way, in a Venice bookshop I saw a lovely copy of <Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry> http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19447
with Brady's portrait of Pike.|
|Jul-03-14|| ||offramp: M & D is a great book; but I already have two stunning copies and my wife is watching me!|
|Jul-03-14|| ||1d410: <RookFile> Yes,time goes on, we are seeing now that even older guys like Kramnik and Anand don't last forever.|
|May-03-15|| ||offramp: When Botvinnik discovered who his challenger was to be, in 1962, he probably set to work analysing TVP's games from 1958 to 1963, looking for weaknesses. |
He may have got a bit disheartened. How was he going to beat Petrosian 4 or 5 times in 24 games, assuming Petrosian won a similar amount? A very sobering prospect.
|May-22-15|| ||TheFocus: <It is necessary to play in tournaments where the opponents are just a little stronger than oneself, else it is possible to collapse and suffer psychological trauma> - Mikhail Botvinnik (Botvinnik-Petrosian,page 134).|
|May-22-15|| ||TheFocus: <If in the Maroczy Bind, Black manages to play ...a6 and ...b5, then he is not worse> - Mikhail Botvinnik (Botvinnik-Petrosian, page 134).|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·