< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Oct-24-04|| ||keypusher: In another version on the database the king is on h8, so if 36...fg Qc3+ wins. Presumably that's what happened. |
|Dec-12-05|| ||KingG: This game reminds me of Botvinnik vs E Zagoriansky, 1943. I guess it's the 'two weakness principle' in action. In this case White is trying to queen his passed pawn, and in the other game, White is trying to capture an isolated pawn. In both cases, Black can defend the primary threat, so a new front is opened on the king-side by advancing the pawns in front of White's king. Black is unable to deal with both threats and loses.|
Both of these games are very instructive.
|Feb-21-06|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: <chessgames.com> 36.Rxg6! might make a nice Monday puzzle!|
|Feb-21-06|| ||jamesmaskell: Wierd...go to the www.thetimes.co.uk and go to the chess puzzle for today <EmporerAtahualpa>. Games then chess:Winning Move. Raymond Keene had this as todays puzzle!!!|
|Feb-21-06|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: <jamesmaskell> Yes, what a coincidence huh. :)|
|Feb-22-06|| ||notyetagm: <KingG> That was my thought exactly, the similarity between this game amd that famous Botvinnik game that you referenced.|
The White passed c6-pawn is just one weakness. White needs another weakness/target to win. Petrosian decides to advance his kingside pawns to make the Black king the second weakness, just like Botvinnik did.
Note how Petrosian is able to denude his own king with impunity because Black cannot attack it, his pieces being very passively placed due to the advanced White c6-passed pawn. <A weakness is not a weakness if it cannot be exploited.> Here Petrosian's airy king is not a weakness at all because Korchnoi has no way to attack it.
|Feb-22-06|| ||notyetagm: 32 ♕f3! is one of those masterful positional moves that makes winning easy. Black plays 32 ... g7-g6 to defend the threatened h5-pawn but this creates two glaring positional weaknesses. |
First, 32 ... g7-g6 creates a terrible hole on f6. Petrosian occupies this <weak square> just two moves later with 34 ♖f6.
Secondly, 32 ... g7-g6 <opens the a1-h8> diagonal to the Black h8-king. Since White has very active pieces, he is likely going to be able to use this newly opened line.
Petrosian masterfully uses both of these weaknesses to play the winning tactical shot 36 ♖f6xg6!, exploiting the <lateral pin across the 7th rank>.
Black's best reply to the threatened 37 ♕xh5# is 36 ... fxg6 but then he is mated by 37 ♕c3+, the White d7-rook and c3-queen converging on the g7-mating focal point on the newly opened 7th rank.
|Aug-26-07|| ||patzerboy: White's game almost plays itself up through move 21. It's interesting that after playing for simplifications and open lines, Black was totally unable to stop d5. Perhaps he thought the advanced pawn would be vulnerable after blocking it at d5 with the knight at d6, but 18.Nc6 was a shot he must have underestimated. Maybe he overlooked the discovered attack on the Queen (20.Qf4) which enabled White to regain the piece. Possibly he had counted on getting Queens off the board with 21.Qxd6 Qxd6, etc. Whatever it was, he did not get the position he wanted.|
|Aug-26-07|| ||euripides: Is this from their candidates' match ? If so, I don't think it was in Ilford. |
Perhaps there's some psychology here. Petrosian had lost as Black in this line in one of the decisive games of the 1969 world championship match:
Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969
|Aug-26-07|| ||euripides: By a slight transposition, Korchnoi had played this line a year after the 1969 match and had produced the Ne7-d6 idea, establishing a blocakding knight on d6 and drawing easily: |
Uhlmann vs Korchnoi, 1970
Unlike Uhlmann, Petrosian leaves the bishop on c4 and uses the nice tactic 20.Qf4 to win the piece back and destroy the blockading knight, after which he is always better.
|Aug-26-07|| ||euripides: I seem to remember Korchnoi ironically observing that Petrosian 'forgot to resign' or something similar in |
Korchnoi vs Petrosian, 1974
So the checkmate in this game may have been particularly sweet for Petrosia.
|Aug-26-07|| ||stoy: Yes, Korchnoi mated Petrosian in game 47 of this collection, first game of their 1974 Candidates Math.|
|Aug-26-07|| ||An Englishman: Good Morning: Sigh--why is chess so much easier for the great players than it ever was for me?|
|Aug-26-07|| ||RookFile: Well, they had more talent than us, of course. But don't feel too bad, remember that they spent all their lives playing this game, and had access to training that we did not.|
|Jan-28-11|| ||Domdaniel: Somebody seems to have mixed up 'Il Ciocco' and 'Ilford'. Easily done - these Italian names all sound alike.|
That Titian knew how to paint an Essex girl, though.
|May-14-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: The authors of "Petrosian vs The Elite" say the following of 14...Ne7 in this game,|
"This is inferior to 14...Na5, but Korchnoi had recommended the N journey to d6 via e7 and f5 for Najdorf in the notes to their game from Wijk aan Zee 1971, and would have had no reason to doubt his own suggestion. There is, however, a serious flaw in the scheme that Petrosian's pre-match analysis soon reveals, after which the Armenian magician creates and exemplar of technique similar in precision to Tarrasch's rook and pawn crushing of Thorold at the Manchester tournament of 1890."
Tarrasch vs E Thorold, 1890
PS. For an example of 14...Na5 see Polugaevsky vs Tal, 1969 as mentioned in both "Petrosian vs the Elite" and "My Great Predecessors Part 3".
|Sep-29-13|| ||Howard: The late Edmar Mednis covered this match in Chess Life and Review (as it was called back then), and as I recall the opening of this game was the same for roughly the first 12 moves as in one of the earlier games---of which that one ended in a quick draw.|
Petrosian obviously came to this game with the pre-prepared sharp improvement 15.d5 ! Shortly later, when his knight landed on c6 (which Mednis gave two exclamation marks to), Korchnoi was clearly caught with his pants down.
Regarding the following technical phase, in which all Korchnoi could really do was sit tight and try to meet each threat as it came, Mednis made the observation that when it came to this type of boa constrictor type of strategy, no one in the world at that time (1977) was better at it than Petrosian. He added that Karpov and Fischer were merely Petrosian's equals.
|Sep-29-13|| ||RookFile: I find that when I play these Tarrasch and queen's gambit accepted defenses against the computer - the thing is always playing d5 and blowing me right off the board.|
|Oct-08-13|| ||Howard: Just looked this game up last night in Chess Life and Review's July 1977
(approximate month) issue so let me
correct an earlier posting.
The actual improvement wasn't 15.d5, as that move had been played before, but rather....17.Ne5 !
More specifically, the game had followed Uhlmann-Korchnoi 1970 (as an earlier post mentions) for the first 16 moves. Then Petrosian sprung his prepared improvement 17. Ne5 ! and then followed it up with 18.Nc6 !!
From that point, Korchnoi was in a very difficult position though probably still tenable. But against Petrosian's impeccable--as usually was the case--technique, he didn't stand much of a chance.
|Apr-22-14|| ||perfidious: <Dom: That Titian knew how to paint an Essex girl, though.>|
I like girls with titian-coloured hair.
Submitted a correction slip for the locale.
|Apr-11-15|| ||Howard: This was probably the best game of the match--is that was any consolation to Petrosian.|
|Jun-30-15|| ||RookFile: This was the 3rd time in the match that Korchnoi trotted out this defense. He got his draw in the first two, but this time Petrosian was ready for it.|
|Jun-30-15|| ||Howard: True ! In fact, in his notes to this game, Mednis mentioned that Korchnoi was probably wondering what Petrosian might have prepared for this defense the third time around.|
Mednis then added, "The price for this information ? One point."
Well put !
|May-16-19|| ||carpovius: <F47: What can white do after 36...fxg6?> after 36...fxg6 is mate in 3 :-)|
|May-16-19|| ||Granny O Doul: Korchnoi opined that the standard of play in this match was about 2350 level. I'm sure he exaggerated, but it was nonetheless encouraging to see that he did differentiate between 2350 and 2000 or 1800 or 1600.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·