Feb-27-08
 | | achieve: The level of play is beyond me at this point, as is the zero kibitzing for this game sofar! ;-) More later... |
 |
| Feb-27-08 | | nescio: <The level of play is beyond me at this point, as is the zero kibitzing for this game sofar! ;-)> There is nothing to kibitz about. This is a bad game and can only be understood in the context of this strange WC match. Better leave it alone. |
|
Feb-27-08
| | achieve: <nescio> Would you care to explain what is bad and strange about this game/match? I'm eager to learn.
Surprised at the <better leave it alone> bit. All the more reason, for me, as a ignorant fan, to want to know more. |
|
| Feb-27-08 | | nescio: From the beginning of the match Petrosian set up a concrete wall. Never playing actively he only obstructed, often at the cost of serious disadvantage. He could get away with this, even against Spasski, because his exceptional talent kept him alive in the most difficult situations. In the first half of the match Spasski tried to break through twice - and lost. In the second half he threw away all sound strategical principles and only tried to provoke Petrosian into attacking. Which never happened, Petrosian continued blocking. In this game Petrosian finally seemed to punish Spasski for his unsound play (5...Bxf3?), but at the crucial moment backed out (17.Nxb5 instead of 17.e4) and only achieved the equal position he wanted. I am also eager to learn from grandmasters, but if we try to play like these two in this match we will lose, and lose badly.
It was just an accident however, three years later Spasski and Petrosian played delightful and interesting chess at an amazingly high level. |
|
Feb-27-08
| | achieve: <nescio> Hmm.. Yes I called someone who said it wasn't as bad as that, but pointed me to a book that Salo Flohr wrote on this match... I will pick it up next week, and try and find out more about this match... Thanks for your insights; I obviously still have a long way to go. ;-) |
|
| Feb-28-08 | | nescio: <achieve> I like it. I recommend ignoring this match and then of course you are going to read a book about it. Wonderful! |
|
Feb-28-08
| | achieve: Pull my tail and I'll walk the other way!
I'll make it a "brief inquiry" then?
;-) |
|
| Feb-28-08 | | euripides: I don't know the match nearly as well as <nescio>, but I love the first two games Petrosian won (particularly the tenth) and the last that Spassky won. In this game the notes in Wade/O'Connell, which are by Blackstock, recommend 15.Qh3. Actually this game is quite useful for anyone who plays the Petrosian system against the QID, showing how to deal with Bxf3. I like Spassky's counterplay at the end too. |
|
| Feb-28-08 | | nescio: <achieve> Please go ahead. It will be interesting to see what Flohr had to say. As much as I admire both players, I've done my best to forget the games of this match, but <euripides> likes some of them at least and I always appreciate his opinions. |
|
| Apr-05-08 | | Knight13: What, what's wrong with 5...Bxf3 ? Gives up nice bishop for a straggler on f3? So? someone's gotta try it sometime. |
|
| Mar-02-09 | | sillybilly47: I think that Petrosian was playing this match with a chip on his shoulder. Spassky was the golden child of the Russian chess establishment at this time. He was expected to win this match. The match is great. |
|
| Jun-17-09 | | WhiteRook48: why'd he throw back the exchange? |
|
| Jun-24-09 | | sillybilly47: The decision to give back the exchange (and guarantee the draw)is perhaps based on the fact that after 18 games Petrosian is up 2-1,has lost only once,and keeps his title in a 12-12 tie. Spassky has only 3 games left with White. This also gets this game "out of the way" without much more effort. The champ loses game 19, but in the long run, he is proven correct. At this point in the match Petrosian possibly feels that he will retain the Title. |
|
