< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|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
♔♖♗♙ vs. ♔♖♘
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.|
|Apr-09-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: I like how these 1966 draws between Spassky and Petrosian were played out until there was nothing creative to do.|
|Sep-26-16|| ||Aunt Jemima: After 25 Nd5, Black's position looks horrible. It looks like the kind of game I find myself in before I eventually lose to my much better opponent.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·