| Feb-11-03 | | ughaibu: A more typical Petrosian game. He manages to sacrifice the exchange yet again. In his two matches with Spassky I wonder just how many exchanges he sacrificed, surely he set a record for exchange sacrifices in world championship matches. |
 |
| Apr-09-05 | | fgh: 30. ... Rc4!! is a brilliant conception. The point behind it is that after the rook on c4 is taken, the black pawns become practically unstoppable. |
|
| May-10-05 | | Everett: Also, look at the holes on the light squares if Spassky exchanges his bishop for Petrosian's knight. Makes a lot of sense when it's played, but most wouldn't consider it. |
|
| Jun-19-06 | | wharfrat: One of my favorite exchange sacrifices by their master. But I will always be amazed at how a WC could end up with a kingside pawn structure like White's after his 27th move. |
|
Jun-19-06
 | | CapablancaFan: 40. Nxc4? You accept the exchange sacrafice against Petrosian (The master of the exchange sacrafice) and allow him 2 passed pawns. Why did Spassky feel this was a good bargin? When Petrosian offers an exchange sac, don't take it I keep telling them at the office! |
|
Aug-23-06
 | | notyetagm: I have never seen the tactical theme <BLOCKADERS DO NOT DEFEND, THEY ONLY BLOCKADE> twice in one game before but here it occurs twice, 53 ... b2! and 55  xg7+.53 ... b2! exploits the fact that the White c1-queen must <BLOCKADE> the Black passed c2-pawn so it cannot also <DEFEND> the b2-square. Likewise 55 xg7+ exploits the fact that the Black f8-king must <BLOCKADE> the White passed f7-pawn so it cannot also <DEFEND> the g7-square. <BLOCKADERS DO NOT DEFEND, THEY ONLY BLOCKADE!> |
|
| Oct-18-06 | | Milo: I wonder if Petrosian ever gave away the exchange just for fun. "Oh, about that exhange I 'sacrificed', well, I didn't actually get anything for it, you know. Just trying to mess with you." |
|
| Jul-31-07 | | sanyas: See also Saint Amant vs Staunton, 1843. |
|
| Apr-07-08 | | Knight13: <When Petrosian offers an exchange sac, don't take it> His exchange sacrifice wasn't always sound. Don't trust your opponent, trust yourself! <CapablancaFan: 40. Nxc4? You accept the exchange sacrafice against Petrosian (The master of the exchange sacrafice) and allow him 2 passed pawns. Why did Spassky feel this was a good bargin?> Petrosian was gonna dominate the c-file and smash Spassky anyway. Spassky knew he was gonna go down in flames even if he doesn't take the rook, so he decided to take the rook and hope that he could hold off the passed-pawns. But in vain. Either way was death. I wouldn't put question mark on that move. |
|
Aug-26-09
 | | birthtimes: Spassky would have made things a lot more interesting if he played 39. Nxc4. A possible line could run 39...dxc4 40. Qc2 Rc8 41. Rab1 Bd5 42. Qc3 Qg4 43. Rb2 Qf3+ 44. Kg1 Qxg3+ 45. Rg2 Qxh4 46. Ree2 Qe7 47. Rb2 Rb8 48. Rb4 Be6 49. Rh2 and perhaps White can maintain the draw. |
|
| Sep-19-11 | | Meister326: The move Petrosian played with 30....Rc4 is beautiful. I could look at this for an hour and never come up with that. |
|
| Sep-19-11 | | ounos: Ah, such a sweet tactical trick, 12. ...Ne4 |
|
| Feb-21-13 | | aficionadoX: I think Spassky is in really trouble from movement 32. What about: 32. Rdc1 instead of 32. Bf3? |
|
sac: 39...Rec8