|Sep-09-07|| ||Maynard5: Petrosian's survival in this game is rather remarkable. By move 24, Spassky appears to have a winning position, with a pawn plus. But then Petrosian comes up with a surprising defensive idea, organizing threats on the kingside with 30. ... h6, 31. ... g5 and 34. ... Rh8. This draws White's knight to the center, enabling Black to eliminate the passed pawn on d5. All in all, a good example of Petrosian's defensive skill.|
|Apr-05-08|| ||Knight13: <But then Petrosian comes up with a surprising defensive idea, organizing threats on the kingside with 30. ... h6, 31. ... g5 and 34. ... Rh8. This draws White's knight to the center> How? What happens if White doesn't play 35. Nd3 ? I'm beginning to think that move's a mistake, and that Spassky didn't mean to lose that passed pawn. Yes, Petrosian's got kingside threats but not sufficient to kill Spassky.|
|Jan-28-09|| ||sillybilly47: Hard to see how Spassky dropped this. Even in the endgame there were missed opportunities. Petrosian's rook puts up a great defense. Like a whirling dervish Petrosian moves it from post to post. Petrosian had skill, alittle luck and a little help from Spassky to split the point. Still tied. Best game of the match so far.|
|Mar-01-09|| ||Maynard5: In response to Knight_13. 35. Nd3 is virtually forced in this position. Black is menacing 35. ... Bh3+ 36. Kg1 Bg4, with the dual threat of 37. ... Bf3 and 37. ... Rfh6, setting up a mating net in either instance. 35. Nd3 makes it possible to answer ... Bg4 with Ne5, controlling the critical f3 and g4 squares.|
|Mar-13-09|| ||sillybilly47: In the long endgame Petrosian's Bishop is stronger than Spassky's Knight. At this level of play that is enough to save the game.|
|Mar-14-09|| ||larsenfan: Anyone interested on this game can take a look at Crouch's book "How to defence in chess" where it is deeply analized. A great book indeed.|
|Mar-14-09|| ||whiteshark: http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/How...|
|Mar-14-09|| ||Nietzowitsch: Great defensive skills by Petrosian|
|Dec-08-09|| ||sillybilly47: Just went over the game with the Golombek-Clarke commentary. This game is even more amazing with their notes.|
|Dec-08-09|| ||sillybilly47: The Bishops are a great defensive resource,Petrosian uses them to hold the position.|
|Nov-26-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: Only a great defensive player like Petrosian holds this, everybody else loses.|
|Nov-26-11|| ||ughaibu: How about a great defensive player like Maroczy? Was he one of those you had in mind?|
|Nov-26-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: Actually, I was thinking of Petrosian.|
|Nov-26-11|| ||ughaibu: What do you mean by "like" then? Like himself??
Anyway, do you think that Alekhine and Bogolubow used to chant "Maroczy, Maroczy, your Sicilian bind is poxy"?
|Nov-26-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: Well, Capa was another great defensive player, he's the other one who comes to mind who could held a passive position like this. |
I have no idea what Alekhine was saying when he was slapping Maroczy around.
|Nov-26-11|| ||ughaibu: Wasn't Maroczy a respected amateur boxer? Slapping around was probably well beyond Alekhine's ambitions.|
|Nov-26-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: That must be why Alekhine put 6 wins up the board against him. And Maroczy.... well, at least he showed up to play.|
Geza Maroczy - the man with losing records against Steinitz, Laskser, Capablanca, and Alekhine. Chessmetrics studies this carefully and concludes was world #1.
|Nov-26-11|| ||ughaibu: As for what Alekhine said, and what Maroczy replied, see this game: Alekhine vs Maroczy, 1924|
|Nov-26-11|| ||King Death: <AnalyzeThis: That must be why Alekhine put 6 wins up the board against him.>|
Nobody else could have beaten Capablanca 6 times and there was one pundit who predicted that Alekhine wouldn't even win a game. He hadn't before Buenos Aires, just like Fischer never beat Spassky before 1972.
< And Maroczy.... well, at least he showed up to play.
Geza Maroczy - the man with losing records against Steinitz, Laskser, Capablanca, and Alekhine. Chessmetrics studies this carefully and concludes was world #1.>
Yes, he was ranked number one by that system at that time (1906).
In 1906, Steinitz was dead, Lasker hadn't played in 2 years (which hurts him in the Sonas system), Capablanca was unknown outside of Cuba and Alekhine had played a few postal games at the tender age of 14.
|Nov-26-11|| ||Penguincw: Endgame Statistics
The superior side (white) wins 25.8% of the time.
A draw (as in this game) occurs 72.9% of the time.
The inferior side (black) wins 1.3% of the time.
In fact, here are the only two games where the inferior side gave their opponent the zero.
Averbakh vs Ragozin, 1948
J Dominguez vs M A Munoz, 2001
|Nov-26-11|| ||ughaibu: According to Suenteus Po 147's collection, the Ragozin game was drawn. But!!! it was a species of Maroczy bind.|
|Dec-05-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: <Yes, he was ranked number one by that system at that time (1906).>|
Of course! His was the triumph of activity over actual playing strength. The chessmetrics system rewards activity, even though in 1906 Lasker was head and shoulders above Maroczy.
|Dec-05-11|| ||King Death: < AnalyzeThis: ..in 1906 Lasker was head and shoulders above Maroczy.>|
Not to mention everybody else. Maroczy was a tough player then, but (just like Bogoljubov and Nimzovich) nobody ever confused him with being a serious threat to Lasker's throne.
|Dec-05-11|| ||Petrosianic: I doubt many people know much about Maroczy, except that he had a bind. He is, however, the top-rated player in every chessmetrics rating list from October 1904 through March 1907, so the onus of proof is on those who claim he wasn't a serious contender. "Bogo wasn't a serious contender, therefore Maroczy wasn't either" isn't really a serious contender in the Best Argument Championship.|
|Dec-05-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: It must have been Maroczy's minus score against Pillsbury that made chessmetrics conclude Maroczy was stronger.|