< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Oct-16-06|| ||Petrosian63: Can anyone explain to me the term "Universal player" please?|
|Oct-16-06|| ||Confuse: Im guessing botvinnik was saying he was "well rounded" and not focused as much on positional play as petrosian. Generally specialists will win at what they are good at =)|
|Oct-17-06|| ||Gypsy: <Botvinnik on the match:
... The thing is that he had a somewhat different understanding of positional play. He went deeper into it than usual, and myself, a universal player, did not completely understand Tigran's way and depth of judgement, although I was judging all positions well.>
Can somebody parse this?
|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.
|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|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·