|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Oct-17-06 |
| RookFile: I think it another way of Botvinnik admitting that he was occasionally lazy at calculating variations. He said as much about himself from time to time. |
 |
Oct-17-06
 |
| Gypsy: <RookFile: I think it another way of Botvinnik admitting that he was occasionally lazy at calculating variations.> Thx. I must admit that I did not consider this angle; after all he seems to be saying something about positional play ... |
|
Oct-17-06
 |
| AdrianP: <Botvinnik on the match> I don't think it's Botvinnik admitting that he was lazy at calculating variations. I think what Botvinnik means when he describes himself as a universal player is that he was able to play a very wide range of types of position with a constant (high) level of skill; and that he was happy that he would evaluate such a wide range of positions reasonably accurately. I think that what Botvinnik is saying about Petrosian is that he had a repertoire of very deeply analysed specific positional ideas (and, although Botvinnik does not say it, particularly 'unconventional' positional ideas), and in those sort of positions he had a clearer idea of how to play. An example (purely hypothetical): say, the exchange sacrifice was one of Petrosian's pet positional ideas; Botvinnik might rely on his general sense of positional play; whereas Petrosian would have a detailed understanding of all the nuances - e.g. interaction with pawn structure; interaction with other minor pieces. Botvinnik's statement is ironic in some ways, given that his style of chess was hallmarked by the use of extremely deeply-researched positional ideas - whole opening systems based on a strategic theme. |
|
Oct-17-06
 |
| percyblakeney: If this match had been played with the Brissago rules Botvinnik would have kept the title after an almost identical result as in the 2004 match. As Kramnik he won game 1 and 14. He lost game 5 and 7 (Kramnik lost game 5 and 8). |
|
| Oct-17-06 |
| nikolajewitsch: I think Botvinniks reputation as a "universal" player is mostly a consequence of the comparison between him and Tal, who was considered by many a mere attacking, tactical player. To me his statement sounds a little like "actually I still don't really understand why I lost since I didn't show any real weaknesses but this guy still somehow outplayed me..." |
|
Oct-17-06
 |
| Calli: <Can somebody parse this?> "That guy is better than me, but I'll never admit it." |
|
| Oct-20-06 |
| nikolajewitsch: Wouldn't it have been pretty cool if the rematch clause had been abolished one cycle earlier and thus this match would have been between Petrosian and Tal? A big match between these two very different players of roughly the same strength would have been a smash hit, I believe... |
|
Oct-21-06
|
| Gypsy: <Calli> My hat is off to you. |
|
Oct-23-06
|
| Calli: <Gypsy> I am considering a whole new career as a Russian translator. :-) The drunk collection showed up on the Euwe page! The Alekhine page, however, apparently needs three collections based on OMGP. So it goes... |
|
Jun-05-07
|
| Gypsy: An instrumental role in the definite dethroning of Botvinnik was played by Petrosian's coach and second Isaac Boleslavsky: <... Game 18, which decided the whole match, was adjourned in an even position. GM Kotov recalls: "After the home analysis, Petrosian wondered whether to offer a draw. But Boleslavsky did not want to hear about that at all. -- Go and resume play! -- he ordered his charge.
-- What for? -- asked puzzled Petrosian.
-- Because it is the game 18 and Botvinnik is tiring!" The savvy grandmaster accurately assessed situation: World Champion, after analyzing the adjourned games by himself, played the resumption poorly and lost. Petrosian's advantage thus jumped to 2pt and, after the next game which Botvinnik played too forcingly for a win, even to 3pt! At this score, the defender of the title resigned; in the remaining three games he accepted Petrosian's draw offers without a fight. ...>
Julius Kozma, 'Boje o sachovy tron' |
|
| Mar-26-08 |
| Cibator: <nikolajewitsch:> IMHO Petrosian would have seen off Tal without much difficulty in 1963. In fact I'll put a big stake in the ground here and suggest that Tal is actually a bit overrated. I've checked, and he seems to have negative scores against nearly all the big names, and no better than even against several others. |
|
| Jul-11-08 |
| Cactus: <Cibator> True, but not true. Although Tal does have negative scores against most players, this is mostly due to health problems. Tal in good form (and good health) was a wrecking ball. I think a Tal-Petrosian match, with both in good form, would be hard to call. |
|
| Oct-15-08 |
| Murphyman: Gypsy
Great quote from Boleslavsky.
I have almost all English speaking books on Tigran V. Petrosian but don't remember reading this info - a real insight. Well done |
|
Oct-15-08
 |
| ray keene: as far as i recall tal was equal with botvinnik , plus against fischer,gligoric, bronstein, taimanov, larsen,portisch,hubner , timman, not so bad |
|
Oct-18-08
 |
| Red October: <IMHO Petrosian would have seen off Tal without much difficulty in 1963.> agree with this part as Petrosyan was terrific during this time <In fact I'll put a big stake in the ground here and suggest that Tal is actually a bit overrated.> well sorry but objectively speaking Tal kept a high standard of play despite his ill health so I cannot see this being justified, sure he did not have a long reign as WC but he was no flash in the pan, plus you need to see his overall record for instance his play in the Championships of the USSR etc, he was playing at a very high level, but with Tal's style he was going to have ups and downs considering he was playing more from a creative aspect rather than for the score at the end, this aspect of his play alone puts him high above many others so even if he had a bad score against some top names like say Korchnoi it does not matter, what is fascinating is that despite all this he has a plus score against many leading names!! |
|
| Apr-15-09 |
| WhiteRook48: which Petrosian? There are lots of people named Petrosian |
|
| Aug-04-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Botvinnik was completely lost from beginning to end of this match |
|
Aug-13-09
 |
| Knight13: But Petrosian was a very positional player and wasn't as good in tactics as others at his level. So Botvinnik could've used tactical play against petrosian, knowing that he's a universal player while petrosian leans more to positional. |
|
| Aug-13-09 |
| KamikazeAttack: <But Petrosian was a very positional player and wasn't as good in tactics as others at his level.> This is a misconception.
Petrosian was a great defensive player and central to defense is tactics. He was laso a great tactical player. |
|
Aug-13-09
|
| Knight13: <Petrosian was a great defensive player central to defense is tactics.> This is a misconception.
The best defense is a good offense, and if you have good positional advantage you can do all the offense and prevent your opponent from setting up an effective attack. And Petrosian was personally better at positional chess than tactics (although, to get to his level of competition, you must be stellar at both), and he often used tactics to back up his positional ideas (letting an opponent play an effective and surprising combination ruins your game positionally). Why do you think he made exchange sacrifices? |
|
| Aug-13-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Petrosian was exceptional at tactics. It is commonly thought that in the late 50's to early 60's, Petrosian was the strongest blitz player in the world. |
|
Aug-13-09
 |
| birthtimes: "The depth of Tigran’s approach to chess is the direct consequence of his clear mind and his rare insight into general aspects of chess, into subtleties of chess tactics and strategy. Petrosian performed a special kind of art in creating harmonious positions that were full of life, where apparent absence of superficial dynamism was compensated by enormous inner energy. Every subtle change in the position was always taken into consideration in the context of a complex strategy that was not obvious to his opponents." – Garry Kasparov |
|
Aug-13-09
|
| birthtimes: "He [Petrosian] has an incredible tactical view, and a wonderful sense of the danger... No matter how much you think deep... He will "smell" any kind of danger 20 moves before!" - Robert Fischer |
|
Aug-13-09
 |
| euripides: In general, I think defensive players calculate if anything more than attacking players. Attack depends on nerve, intuitition and combinational imagination - it's often the defender who has to grind out variations the whole time. My impression is that Petrosian had very good combinational vision and intuition and could calculate fast and well when he needed to, though he also said that when in form his first instinct about a move was usually right. Botvinnik, on the other hand, used to complain about his own lack of combinational vision and there is at least one game in the 1960s against Larsen where he missed a string of forced wins. So I'm not sure that simply sharpening the play would have worked. When Spassky beat Petrosian in 1969, he said that he and Bondarevsky had worked out that Petrosian wasn't a very 'classical' player, perhaps meaning that he tended to underestimate the value of a strong pawn centre - as in the fifth game of that match. I agree with <AdrianP> that Petrosian had grasped or analysed some particular positional themes rather deeply - e.g. the use of the e4 square in the 5th game, where Petrosian had assessed the position before the match. Botvinnik liked positions (e.g. IQP positions) where dynamic potential outweighs structural weaknesses, whereas Petrosian was very good at sucking the opponent's dynamic potential out and then working on the weaknesses. Botvinnik might have been thinking of this difference. But the two good games he took off Petrosian in the 1960s - one in this match, and another in 1964 - are subtle positional games. I think the difference in stamina may have been a big factor in 1963. |
|
Aug-13-09
|
| birthtimes: "Petrosian was not only a deep thinker when it came to strategy, he was a gifted tactician – a fact well-known by Grandmasters who played him in blitz, but one which gets lost whenever the general chess-playing public constructs a “Strategist or Tactician?” dichotomy and tries to place him in one category or another. Petrosian was both by skill, if the former by temperament." "Although to many this seems strange, in general I consider that in chess everything rests on tactics. If one thinks of strategy as a block of marble, then tactics are the chisel with which a master operates, in creating works of chess art." – Tigran Petrosian From Chessville Reviews-Petrosian vs the Elite
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/p... |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Petrosian-Botvinnik World Championship Match (1963)
