|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-17-06 | | Runemaster: I still don't understand why in games 17 and 19 Petrosian switched to playing the Sicilian. After 16 games, the score was level and Petrosian only needed to draw the match in order to retain the title. In games 13 and 15, he obtained easy draws with the Petrov Defence. Then comes the Sicilian in games 17 and 19, Petrosian loses them both (game 19 in just 24 moves) and loses the match. |
 |
| Oct-17-06 | | nikolajewitsch: Poor Tigran, he lost his title on his 40th birthday....not a nice present. |
|
| Oct-17-06 | | KasparHauser: <Runemaster> Kasparov in OMGP III wrote that he thought the success in game 1 (Petrosian palyed a Paulsen Sicilian as black) had desoriented Petrosian, who though that playing double edged openings as black could give him success. |
|
Oct-17-06
 | | Gypsy: <Runemaster> When I get some time, I will translate what Boleslavsky wrote about the choice. In short, Petrosian & Boleslavsky knew that Spassky was ready for an all-out asault. They also did not trust 'Petrov' completely, and the surprise value of it had already ran its course. On the other hand, Spassky would not expect to see 'Paulsen' again, they thought, as the opening stage of the game #1 did not realy go that well for Black. They had prepared an significant improvement, <9...Bb4!>, and only Spassky's OTB problem solving skils, <10.Bb2!...>, kept things in balance. |
|
| Oct-18-06 | | positionalgenius: Another high quality match. |
|
Oct-18-06
| | Gypsy: <Another high quality match.> One of the grandest of them all. |
|
Oct-19-06
 | | Eggman: <<I still don't understand why in games 17 and 19 Petrosian switched to playing the Sicilian.>> Petrosian did the same thing against Fischer in their 1971 candidates final. |
|
| Nov-02-06 | | Petrosian63: Why are there not a lot of WCC photos on the net? |
|
| Nov-02-06 | | setebos: Spassky staged a great comeback winning three of the last six games. |
|
Nov-06-06
 | | keypusher: <setebos> (i) he wasn't trailing going into the last six (ii) in the last six, he won two and lost one. |
|
| May-18-07 | | Grega: Chessgames, some games are missing on this page (on 66championship also) |
|
May-18-07
| | Gypsy: <Grega> The match-table has all the games (just click on the active fields). But there seems to be some sort of a glitch in the game listing table. |
|
| Apr-29-08 | | positionalgenius: Alot of very good games in tis match |
|
| Apr-29-08 | | Petrosianic: <Poor Tigran, he lost his title on his 40th birthday....not a nice present.> Well, he could have taken his final time-out (which people expected him to do) but he faced the music and didn't keep Spassky waiting. |
|
Mar-02-09
 | | Open Defence: In the photograph above Spassky looks very confident, Its pure speculation but perhaps he must have overcome any self doubt he had the last time around if you look at that photograph there is no doubt the Champion is Spassky I got a simmilar feeling looking at a photograph of Karpov vs Spassky in the candidates... there I had the feeling that Karpov was the man |
|
| Mar-02-09 | | Dredge Rivers: Back in the Summer of '69! |
|
| Aug-11-09 | | WhiteRook48: and then comes '72: Fischer |
|
| Aug-15-09 | | kooley782: If Spassky had not agreed to all Fischer's demands, he would have remained World Champion, which was the reasonable conclusion. But he was a good sportsman-he agreed to the demands and ended up losing his title for it. But he was a good sport. It's a shame he had to forfeit his title for Fischer's demands. He is one of my favorite players, along with Mikhail Tal. |
|
Aug-15-09
 | | AnalyzeThis: You mean where they couldn't use cameras? Spassky didn't give a hoot about those. There was another reason why Spassky lost the title. It was that Fischer was a stronger player. |
|
| Aug-16-09 | | kooley782: Fischer of course was a much stronger player. I agree with that. |
|
| Aug-25-09 | | kooley782: After some thought, I have to disagree. Spassky was either equal to or better than Fischer. I can't help but believe that Fischer was simply scared to death of his opponent and tried to rattle him using all these demands. The bad thing is it worked. Spassky should have won. A way to prove my point is that Fischer never actually defeated Spassky until their World Championship, and only after Fischer had demanded all these things be changed. |
|
Aug-25-09
| | dx9293: I think Fischer only became stronger than Spassky during the 1971 Candidates Matches, and even then not so much stronger. If I was Spassky, I would have definitely laughed at Fischer's demands and gone home with my crown. Either Fischer would have to come down with his demands (not a certainty!), or I guess we would have seen Spassky-Petrosian III. Petrosian's best days were behind him by 1972 (meaning that he was "only" a Top 5 player!) and Spassky could have held onto his crown for ANOTHER 3 years at least. The thing is, Spassky even got another chance to leave, after Fischer forfeited Game 2! Here he was up 2-0 in the match and no one would have blamed Spassky for walking out. Instead, Spassky let down his guard and Fischer began to gain confidence, winning the match. Spassky still won the 1973 Soviet Championship SuperFinal but was eliminated in the '74 Candidates and a few years later left the USSR for France. So Spassky taught contemporary players well, most of all Fischer: when you are the Champion, don't risk playing unless you absolutely have to play! |
|
Aug-25-09
| | AnalyzeThis: <kooley782: Fischer of course was a much stronger player. I agree with that. > <kooley782: After some thought, I have to disagree. Spassky was either equal to or better than Fischer. > Lol. Thanks for your analysis. |
|
| Aug-25-09 | | Petrosianic: <After some thought, I have to disagree. Spassky was either equal to or better than Fischer.> Depends when you're talking about. In the 60's, yeah, Spassky and Petrosian were both better than Fischer. In the 70's, no. Fischer had passed them by. <I can't help but believe that Fischer was simply scared to death of his opponent and tried to rattle him using all these demands.> Then you don't know Fischer very well. He wasn't afraid of this opponent or that one, he was afraid of ALL of them. Or, you could say he was afraid of himself failing to deliver 100%. You could plausibly argue that he was afraid of Spassky, but do you think he was afraid of his US opponents? Ridiculous, right? But fear of losing the title is the reason he stopped playing in the US Championship. Eleven rounds was too short. He might have a bad game or two and not be able to catch up. <The bad thing is it worked. Spassky should have won.> How do you figure? Spassky was in pretty poor form, especially in the early part of the match. Tell me the games he should have won that he didn't. Game 14, okay. 15 maybe (though he could have lost that one too). Some might say 19, but I've never seen the win and don't believe it's there. But even if we give him all three of those games, he still loses. I'm afraid Boris had caught a thing called Champion's Disease. It happens to most champions after they climb Olympus, and affects their results. If you'll take a look at not just the Fischer-Spassky match, but ALL of Spassky's results since early 1969, you'll see the beginnings of a decline. Of course Fischer caught Champion's Disease worse than any of the others, but that's another story... |
|
Aug-25-09
| | dx9293: <Champion's Disease> Yes, Botvinnik and Petrosian had it and, going further back, so did Alekhine! He was "scared to death" of a rematch with Capablanca. It is interesting that Euwe, often considered one of the weakest Champions, did not shy away from defending his title against Alekhine. Kasparov also did not make it easy to play "World Championship" matches against him (see Shirov, Ponomariov). |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
