< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Oct-13-09|| ||Plato: <Not only was Tal quite obviously the best tactician ever and is correctly regarded so>|
Tal is one of my favorite players, but this is not "quite obviously" true, nor is is he regarded as the greatest tactician. He was a brilliant tactician, no doubt, but one who relied heavily on intuition over calculation and as a result had a high percentage of unsound sacrifices. Players like Alekhine or Kasparov were, strictly speaking, more accurate tacticians and better at calculation than Tal. Tal's early "reign of terror" leading up to him becoming World Champion, forced the level of defense to improve in messy positions, and it did. Players like Korchnoi and Polugaevsky figured out not to "trust" Tal's calculation, consistently out-calculated him over the board and scored extremely well as a result.
Tal managed to retain good results later in his career by adapting his style, taking on a less speculative and more universal approach by the mid 1960s.
|Oct-14-09|| ||slomarko: hi, Plato. welcome back to CG!|
|Oct-19-09|| ||Plato: thanks slomarko!|
|Dec-08-09|| ||duplex: Tal has an excellent positional judgement based mostly on intiution .. With his unexpected sacrifices He created such a confusion on the board that most of his opponents run out of time until they evaluated all the possible counter moves. The antithesis of Tal was Karpow..|
|Apr-13-10|| ||theagenbiteofinwit: This game mitigated some of my admiration for Botvinnik and made me really begin to appreciate Tal.|
Here we have Botvinnik, who was supposed to be the preeminent master of home preparation, treated like a patzer. Tal was well-prepared for this match. He writes that the Winawer came as no surprise to him, even though Botvinnik hadn't employed it in years.
What was Botvinnik thinking, making a gift of his kingside to Tal? Did he realize who he was playing??
|Nov-19-10|| ||Cuew: I would have preferred "Winawer Winnowned"|
|Nov-19-10|| ||4tmac: What a game! These guys played chess! It's funny how ...Ba4+ was not best (I take their word since I sure wouldn't know). The position after Tal's 27th shows you need to centralize your Rooks! :)|
|Nov-19-10|| ||Ratt Boy: In Euwe's book (I think it's _The Middle Game in Chess, Part 1_, but I can't lay my hands on it at the moment), he says that Botvinnik eschewed tactical variations in the first match, in deference to Tal's fierce calculating abilities; in the rematch, he didn't shy away from tactics, choosing the move that calculation showed to be the best that the position offered.
I'm not discounting any other possible reasons why Botvinnik won the rematch; I'm just offering up the opinion of a respected former world champ.|
|Nov-19-10|| ||OneArmedScissor: Leko is a huge embarrassing failure.|
|Nov-19-10|| ||Petrosianic: At what?|
|Nov-19-10|| ||perfidious: <madlydeeply> Botvinnik trained with his longtime second, Ragozin, blowing smoke in his face as they played, before Tal ever entered the scene. An aside: Ragozin never won a game outright from Botvinnik, despite being a strong player in his own right.|
All this discussion of 'tactical' vs 'positional' play at GM level is talk in a vacuum. When faced with a position in which a clear-cut, forcing process is required, the so-called positional player will play just as the 'tactician' will.
As noted in the excellent book Secrets of Grandmaster Play by Nunn and Griffiths from the mid 1980s, by definition, GMs are balanced and complete players, and differences in approach are a matter of style-no more than that.
<Andrewjsacks> Botvinnik was a virtuoso at preparation; it's ridiculous for anyone to state that this aspect was overrated. He had a tremendous ability to learn from his defeats and adapt to circumstances, as Lasker had before him.
<OneArmedScissor> Maybe you'd like to
be such a failure as Leko.
While Leko is hardly a favourite player of mine, he's one of the toughest hombres around, and I see nothing 'embarrassing' about him, unless of course the fact that he doesn't win every event he plays is somehow embarrassing. Even Kasparov, Alekhine and Karpov couldn't do that for ever, redoubtable as their records were.
|Nov-19-10|| ||kevin86: The passed pawn is about to be an embarrassment for black...|
|Nov-19-10|| ||Chesschatology: OK distilling the above arguments, could we all agree on the following.|
(a) Super GMs are immensely strong in all areas of the game.
(b) Super GMs have different styles.
(c) Their styles reflect the Super GMS' personalities and preferences but also, to some extent their perception of their relative strength in different areas. For example, Tal would not have aimed at sharp irrational positions so often if he didn't think he was stronger in them than his opponents. He says so himself often in L&GofMT.
(d) Such perceptions of relative strength may not be unerring, but they are likely to be pretty accurate, based as they are on years of experience and forming as they do a key element of Super GM strategy.
Therefore I disagree with the statement "All of the World Champions and Elite players are on the same level tactically" (<Poisonpawns>)
All the elite players are amazingly strong tactically, but there are small and important differences.
Kasparov said of his "Centaur Chess" with Kramnik that he found it much harder to play Kramnik when they both had computers because it eliminated his largest advantage- that he was quicker and more reliable at calculating.
<Poisonpawns> do you really think that all of these elite players are deluded, and in fact entirely equal, that in fact, their styles are purely emotional, with no strategic basis?
|Nov-19-10|| ||WhiteRook48: Botvinnik loved to talk about his wins. He hated his losses and tried to pretend that they didn't exist|
|Nov-19-10|| ||ajk68: I don't see a clear tactical win at the end of this. It would appear to be a positional win where white will shore up the weaknesses and then grind it out. It looks like black has too much counter-play for white to go in for the kill right away. Am I missing something?|
|Nov-19-10|| ||jrlepage: Strangely, going over many of Tal's games often gives me the same feeling as standing right on the edge of a 1000-foot cliff on one leg, arms tied in the back, naked, with wind blowing a 100 mph.|
|Nov-19-10|| ||BobCrisp: Hey, whatever turns you on.|
|Feb-06-11|| ||wordfunph: "In the first game of the match with Botvinnik I will play e2-e4 and beat him!"|
- Mikhail Tal
...and he did!
|Mar-21-11|| ||thomastonk: Dear <wordfunph>,
can you please give a source for Tal's announcement?! Thank you in advance!
|Jul-07-11|| ||ahubers: <wordfunph> -- I'm not sure if that's accurate... In fact, I'll quote the passage on the first game of the Botvinnik match from The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal... |
"I have to admit to the reader that my frame of mind prior to the first game was not particularly optimistic; there was good reason for this. The fact was that in the preceding years I had developed the 'nice' habit of beginning a tournament with a loss. The 25th USSR Championship, the International Tournament in Zurich, the USSR Peoples' Spartakiad, and finally the Candidates Tournament -- I think this list is quite sufficient. Besides, this had become so ingrained in me, that the result of the first game did not come as a surprise either to me, to my opponent, who turned up for the game to receive his 'due' point, or to my friends, who began listening to chess reports and buying bulletins only after the second round. One of my friends (I don't know whether he was being serious) suggested that I should simply not turn up for the start of the match, but should join at the second game. Who knows, I might have followed his advice had it not been for an old story which accidentally impressed itself on my mind. It is well known that in train crashes it is the rear coaches that come off worst. At a meeting where the question of eliminating the cause of such calamities was being discussed, a wise old signal operator suggested: let's just uncouple the last coach, and let the train go without it. As you can see, these two solutions are almost equally profound..."
Tal then goes on to state that... "At the conclusion of the Candidates Tournament in Belgrade, a Yugoslav radio commentator had asked me: 'What will you play on the first move of your first game with Botvinnik?' I then promised to begin by moving my e pawn, and, of course, I did not want to break my word for no special reason; besides, the move 1. e4 is not bad in itself."
Thus I can see where the confusion originates... Sorry for the length of the post too, I hope everyone will be more charmed by Tal's prose than annoyed by my length.
|Jul-07-11|| ||kingfu: Botvinnik should have castled on the Queen side. It should have begun with 16... Nd7.|
In The French , White is able to have the superior center. Black needs to analyze which side of the board White is controlling.
And, then, Black needs to Castle AWAY from it.
Even if White takes pawns on the Black King Side , AFTER Black does 0-0-0, then Black has open lines on the King side to attack White after 0-0.
|Aug-21-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: Had Botvinnik played to castle on the Queen side instead of playing to win the e5 pawn, he might have gained the advantage. In his notes to the game Tal recommends ...Nc6 followed by ....0-0-0 at more than one point eg 14...Nc6 to be followed by 15...0-0-0 instead of 14...Ba4+ and 15...Nc6 to be followed by 16...0-0-0 instead of 15....Qxe5.|
18 h4!! is the winning stratagem, making use of White's greater space to bring his King's Rook into play, after which White plays with an extra Rook in the central zone for the remainder of the game.
|Jun-28-12|| ||talisman: <Ulhumbrus> once again AS ALWAYS right!!...Tal's next move "keeps the king in the center"...and of course back then...in these positions he was Elliot Nest...UNTOUCHABLE!|
|Jun-28-12|| ||talisman: and 29. c4 is a Killer.|
|Aug-25-12|| ||Cemoblanca: Nice game Misha! Nice game! :0) When I play through his games I've always a smirk on my face! Misha makes the people on earth still happy! Thank you! :0) RIP!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·