< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 70 OF 79 ·
|Dec-15-10|| ||theagenbiteofinwit: Petrosian wrote an awesome post-script to the Botvinnik match, here's an excerpt on preparation:|
<Whenever I heard or read that Botvinnik the tactician was much inferior to Botvinnik the strategist, I felt a sense of protest rising up inside me All chess players make mistakes. Certainly, Botvinnik, too, has occasionally committed tactical oversights, but the chess rumor-mill has assigned exaggerated importance to these. The truth is that sometimes, one wants to see weaknesses where there are none, to be convinced that one's heroes are not superhuman, and that they have their weaknesses; and in such cases, one's wishes soon start to replace the reality. Botvinnik, famous for his self-criticism, has himself sometimes made reference to this so-called weakness of his. Thus, in his book on the return match with Smyslov in 1959, he several times points out tactical errors committed by him. For example, he writes "Here once again, my old ailment showed itself-weak combinational vision."
So there we have it. Botvinnik's organic weakness is clear. We can form our plan of campaign. We need to choose sharp opening set-ups, trying from the first few moves to create a situation on the board that is full of mutual tactical dangers. And once we do that, logic suggests that Botvinnik's old weakness will come to haunt him, he will make mistakes, and we will take him barehanded. A tempting prospect!
"But excuse me" the voice of reason suddenly interrupts. "Isn't it the case that Botvinnik is the author of many brilliant tactical victories, such as those against Rauzer, Alekhine, Vidmar and Capablanca?"
'That was a long time ago, in his youth, when a player's tactical abilities are at their best'
"I'm not convinced! No chess player who was lacking confidence in his tactical abilities could invent such a line as the Botvinnik System in the Queen's Gambit Declined. After all, in that line, everything hinges on a very non-standard assessment of the position, and on deep calculation of the tactical peculiarities of the position."
No to direct all one's attention at Botvinnik's tactical oversights would be merely to look at what is on the surface. It was essential to strip away all the thick layer of confusion and misrepresentation, which were hiding the truth>
|Dec-15-10|| ||theagenbiteofinwit: <I thought a lot, an awful lot, about the forthcoming encounter. Whether I was listening to music, reading a book, walking around Moscow, surrounded by friends and colleagues in Armenia, watching a football match-the whole time, I was thin,ing about the match with Botvinnik. And I shared my thoughts and doubts with Boleslavsky. I told him that I believed I should play against Botvinnik the same way I play against everybody else-not strive for complications at any cost, but not avoid them either, if the opponent threw down the gauntlet, and it appeared that my prospects in the given position were favourable. Not worry about the possibility of simplification of the position and if I found myself in a difficult position to keep my pecker up and not drop my head>|
|Feb-16-11|| ||Everett: <keep my pecker up and not drop my head> $&!#% hilarious. Perhaps <keep my head up and not drop my pecker> works too!|
The passage reminds me of LB Hansen's 4th group <pragmatists>, which I think every great chess player becomes. I don't think it should be a category like the other three. The best players honor their styles, embrace their preferences and play in their best style. Those who do not do not make it to the top.
|Feb-16-11|| ||talisman: the technique of "keeping my pecker up and not dropping my head" can be seen in the picture of petrosian above.|
|Apr-29-11|| ||musicmanTRIBALx: does anyone know what game is generally considered to be petrosian's "immortal"?|
|Apr-29-11|| ||ray keene: petrosians best games are generally considered to be as follows:|
game 5 v botvinnik 1963 sublime ending
game 7 v spassky 1966 exchange sac for massive attack
game 10 v spassky 1966 2 exchange sacs for massive attack plus a q sac at the end-i give this in the times chess column today saturday april 30
game 2 v fischer 1971 also nice exchange sac
however there are a lot of others to choose from as well!!
|Apr-29-11|| ||ray keene: ps i also like very much his win v keres from 1959 candidates tournament|
|May-04-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: Bronstein said, amongst other things, that Petrosian had a rare imagination which enabled Petrosian to thwart the most veiled schemes of his opponents.|
Fischer said in the early 1960s that Petrosian would have been the strongest player in the world if he would have played more boldly.
A return match between Petrosian and Botvinnik in 1964 or between Spassky and Petrosian in 1970 might have been very interesting.
|May-04-11|| ||musicmanTRIBALx: thanks, <ray keene>! |
i'd actually seen all those games before, petrosian being my favorite gm, but none of them are actually titled by cg as "petrosian's immortal", so it seemed to me that there was no consensus.
but thanks again!
|May-04-11|| ||theagenbiteofinwit: It's hard for me to correctly explain in words why a player like Petrosian doesn't have an "immortal." One of my personal favorites is Kasparov vs Petrosian, 1981.|
But I think the reason there is no "immortal" per se is that for a game to have that status, both sides must produce some beautiful ideas. Petrosian was the type of player who killed his opponent's beautiful idea before it left his head.
|May-05-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: <theagenbiteofinwit: It's hard for me to correctly explain in words why a player like Petrosian doesn't have an "immortal." ...>|
If the word "immortal" can refer to a masterpiece which will keep its place in chess history as a masterpiece, here are two immortal masterpieces on Petrosians's part:
Petrosian vs Unzicker, 1960
Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969
|May-19-11|| ||drnooo: fairly sure it was spassky ruminatting with smileslov, smiling of course, when ole smiley told him he
or was it spassky, anyway one of them admitted they had the most trouble of any of their opponents in predicting the next move of Petrosian
|May-24-11|| ||theagenbiteofinwit: Here is a provocative question:
What would this man's legacy be had Sofia rules existed during his time?
|May-24-11|| ||keypusher: <theagenbiteofinwit: Here is a provocative question:
What would this man's legacy be had Sofia rules existed during his time?>|
"Caused the repeal of the Sofia rules."
|May-24-11|| ||khursh: <theagenbiteofinwit: Here is a provocative question:|
What would this man's legacy be had Sofia rules existed during his time?>
Here is a provocative answer, He could have more wins :)
|May-24-11|| ||theagenbiteofinwit: I don't think Sofia rules would change the way Petrosian played. Sanctions and intimidation by the Soviet machine didn't.|
|May-24-11|| ||Petrosianic: <but none of them are actually titled by cg as "petrosian's immortal",>|
The whole idea of "Immortal Games" is kind of a 19th century construct anyway. You don't hear the phrase bandied about as much any more, perhaps because the top players have too many candidates to name just one. "Immortal" games are usually ones that stand out far and above the rest. Like Anderssen's two Immortal games, people don't sit around arguing if perhaps some of his other games should have got the honor, because it's clear. Or for a lesser player, like Carlos Torre. Everyone knows what his best game was. But with the World Champions who could name just one? Even Fischer, who does have one game that's far and away his most famous, but it's not clearly his best effort.
|May-25-11|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Tigran Petrosian>
Correct pronunciation of his name-
Audio/visual file: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1yI...
|May-25-11|| ||musicmanTRIBALx: <theagenbiteofinwit: But I think the reason there is no "immortal" per se is that for a game to have that status, both sides must produce some beautiful ideas.>|
i'm not sure if i agree with that. kasparov's immortal didn't have any particularly beautiful ideas from topalov.
Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999
<Petrosianic>: i know of two modern players that have "immortals". (or at least, they're titled that by cg, though these two games do seem to stand out among their best games.) karpov's immortal: Karpov vs Topalov, 1994
there are probably more modern "immortals", but i understand your argument.
|May-25-11|| ||ewan14: Petrosian's '' immortal retreat game ''
against Aronin ?
|May-25-11|| ||bronkenstein: musicmanTRIBALx , Karpov has way too many brilliant trademark ´squeezes´ to choose from , Karpov vs Topalov, 1994 is not too typical for his style IMO , I would prefer something like Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984 (17. Rfc1!!! , and third ! is no mistake =). Matter of taste anyway.|
|May-25-11|| ||TheFocus: <ewan14> Please provide a link.|
|May-25-11|| ||keypusher: <The Focus>
Petrosian vs Aronin, 1961
|May-25-11|| ||TheFocus: <keypusher> Thanks, this is a faavorite game of mine.|
At the age of 16, I read through Chernev's book <Greatest Dozen Chess Players>(Is that the correct title?), where he annotated several of Petrosian's games. He also had a section on Petrosian's style in <Chess Companion>.
I was so amazed by these games that I immediately became a follower of Petrosian. Combined with Lasker, Capablanca, Nimzowitsch and Fischer, and you can imagine what kind of style I had.
Petrosian and Fischer are my spiritual fathers.
|May-29-11|| ||WiseWizard: This is Petrosian's immortal. Botvinnik vs Petrosian, 1963 A true masterpiece.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 70 OF 79 ·