< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Apr-03-08|| ||Petrosianic: <Absolutely true. He once said "I love playing against the Dutch".>|
Yes, he said that in his notes to this game:
Petrosian vs Larsen, 1972
|Nov-11-10|| ||kasparvez: Here is a nice anecdote:
..."My 2nd round game with Petrosian, where for a long time i held the initiative, was adjourned in an unclear ending, where we each had a rook, bishop ,knight and three pawns. It was due to be resumed immediately after dinner. Holding a sceptical assessment of my winning chances, I decided not to spend much time on analysis and went down to the restaurant.
Sitting there were nearly all the participants and, as usual they were discussing the games that had just been played. Spassky asked me about my adjournment:'Well, what do you think?" I replied 'I appear to have thrown away my advantage.' He suddenly said: 'No, it's not so simple! The bishops are of opposite colours, and this is in favour of white: He can create an attack. You have a look! Petrosian hasn't come down for dinner- that means he doesn't like his position.'
I looked at the adjourned position with different eyes! The resumption lasted only nine moves: Petrosian avoided passive defence, 'flinched' and came under an irresistible attack."- Garry Kasparov [from OMGP III]
|Mar-11-12|| ||Everett: <kasparvez> thanks for that. Yet another reminder as to why I think adjournments are terrible. With the inevitable outside help, the result is adulterated in my eyes.|
The best thing computers have done for us is allowed the end of adjournments.
|Mar-11-12|| ||ephesians: I agree that from a sporting point of view, adjournments are bad.|
On the other hand, i sure learned a lot about endgames from studying adjournments.
|Mar-11-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: even worse than adjournments, which I don't think anyone really liked because it involved losing a lot of sleep and not being mentally and physically fresh for the next round game, was the practice of adjudication. Games would simply stop at a specified time and the result called by stronger players. They used that in British club chess; I doubt the actual players gained anything from it in terms of improving their practical chess skills.|
Chess has perhaps gained a new gauge of strength with the abolition of adjournments. You have to know your endgames and have technique from previous home study and training. The flip side -- as noted by GMs like Timman and Portisch -- is players can't produce beautiful endgames because they don't really have the time to ponder endgame positions as time tends to be short when they get there.
|Mar-12-12|| ||Everett: <SimonWebbsTiger> I think the need for practical endgame skill without adjournments is absolutely great, and is a truer indicator of strength than having friends help you with the homework. |
In a way, any "beautiful endgames" created after adjournment lose their luster a bit.
|Apr-13-12|| ||ozmikey: 46...Ne3 is an interesting possibility. White can't take the bishop (47. Rxf7+? Kg6 and White will have to give up his rook to prevent the mate by 48...Nf1+ and 49...Rxh2), and he probably has to block his own h-pawn by 47. Kh3. Certainly not quite so easy for White to win after that.|
|Jul-13-12|| ||Eggman: "If your opponent wants to play the Dutch, you should prevent him!"|
|Jul-13-12|| ||perfidious: < SimonWebbsTiger: even worse....was the practice of adjudication. Games would simply stop at a specified time and the result called by stronger players. They used that in British club chess; I doubt the actual players gained anything from it in terms of improving their practical chess skills....>|
Even in my early playing days (1972-73) here in USA games were adjudicated now and again. A dreadful practice and I'm thankful it's gone.
In an interview with CHO'D Alexander, Larsen was critical of adjudications; I believe he stated that they reduced fighting spirit and that players didn't learn endings.
|Jul-13-12|| ||Petrosianic: Adjudication was never very common, especially at the top level. I think in both volumes of The Games of Tigran Petrosian, there's maybe one game (from the 1940's) that was decided that way.|
It was more common at lower levels, though. In some of the High School tournaments we played in, they had to adjudicate in order to get the required rounds in.
I once heard a story (don't remember the details) about a New England tournament director, who adjudicated his own game (because he was the highest rated player available), and for the life of him couldn't see any conflict of interest when he gave himself a win.
|Jul-13-12|| ||perfidious: <Petrosianic> This was probably before my time in New England chess; at any rate I've never heard that one.|
The following happened to me once though in an event back in 1981/82 in Vermont, so strict USCF rules weren't used, though the rulebook was to hand and invoked-or not-as needed:
It's the last round, I'm 4-0 and have somehow gotten three Blacks despite being the highest-rated player in the tournament. The TD and I met. He too had got three Blacks, so somehow he assigned me a fourth (third in a row, no less!). No protests would change his mind, as he was what one would politely call stubborn. In the end, he got his, as I ground him down despite his machinations.
|Jul-13-12|| ||Petrosianic: I'm not sure what the letter of the rules said, but what do you do if a TD hands out a blatantly illegal pairing?|
I'm surprised the TD would have given himself 3 blacks in the first 4 rounds. Maybe he expected to win the earlier rounds and was saving a White for the end? It does show the problems with having a TD play in his own tournaments. In our club, the regular TD did sometimes play, but as he was only rated about 1500, it didn't matter much.
I don't think I ever had an adjudication in a rated event. I had a couple in High School tournaments, that had maybe 100 players in them from different schools, but they were unrated.
|Jul-13-12|| ||Shams: <No protests would change his mind, as he was what one would politely call stubborn.>|
He deliberately broke the rule to favor himself, then stuck by it when you pointed it out? I would have fired off a short letter to USCF. If a stunt like that isn't enough to have one's arbiter status revoked, what would it take?
|Jul-13-12|| ||perfidious: <Petrosianic> Here's a simple example of the slapdash way this TD paired players:|
Eight-player tourney, all the top seeds win and 1 gets White in round 1, etc. What do YOU do for colour allocation in round two? If your answer is flip the third and fourth players (the way you're generally supposed to), wrong! He'd pair 3 vs 1 and 4 vs 2. It isn't hard to imagine all the problems one would have with colours down the road, especially when both lower-rated players win that second round.
|Jul-29-12|| ||perfidious: < Shams: <No protests would change his mind, as he was what one would politely call stubborn.>
He deliberately broke the rule to favor himself, then stuck by it when you pointed it out? I would have fired off a short letter to USCF. If a stunt like that isn't enough to have one's arbiter status revoked, what would it take?>|
One small problem: 1980s chess in Burlington, Vermont wasn't USCF rated-it might be said that it was the only game in town.
This TD was also fond of a particular saying: 'Listen to what your higher-rated players say, then do the opposite.'
|Jul-29-12|| ||Shams: <1980s chess in Burlington, Vermont wasn't USCF rated-it might be said that it was the only game in town.> |
Someday we are going to have to explain to people what life was like before the internet. I don't like our chances.
|Nov-28-13|| ||perfidious: Reading the anecdote quoted by <kasparvez> is revealing indeed, and displays Spassky's keen psychological insight into his two-time opponent for the title.|
Not sure whether Spassky ever came out and said so directly, but I have the impression that he did not especially care for Petrosian. At Moscow 1975, Spassky helped Korchnoi during the adjournment of Korchnoi vs Petrosian, 1975. This was, of course, before they fell out in their candidates final at Belgrade two years later.
|Nov-28-13|| ||RedShield: <Not sure whether Spassky ever came out>|
I would have heard.
|Nov-25-16|| ||Muttley101: <Eggman: "If your opponent wants to play the Dutch, you should prevent him!"|
I was just browsing the comments on this game, and came across the above. I don't know if anyone corrected this (it seems not), but this is the exact opposite of what Petrosian said- "If your opponent wants to play the Dutch, you should let him!" Possibly the commenter meant this, and typed "should" instead of "shouldn't"." But the irony of Petrosian playing the Stonewall Dutch shouldn't be lost.
If I recall correctly, it was quoted in the excellent "Skopje Olympiad 1972" by Batsford (one of Keene's better works), in the notes to the game Petrosian - Hug, in which (again, from memory), Hug resigned because he was so depressed with his position. Another anecdote- Donner resigned a game against Petrosian in the Piatsigorsky Cup tournament they played in because, he commented, he was tired of the cat and mouse game (again, possible not entirely accurate).
The point is, Petrosian was superb at testing his opponents by manoeuvring and tacking, teasing out small advantages, and wearing them down in the process.
|Nov-25-16|| ||Howard: A similar comment by Iron Tigran was quoted in the book on the San Antonio 1972 tournament. In Petrosian's game with Larsen, the latter played the Dutch---and Petrosian was quoted as saying, "Oh, goody! I love playing against the Dutch."|
|Jan-15-18|| ||RookFile: 19....dxc4 from Petrosian was pretty shocking. And he almost made it work too. I think most people wouldn't have even considered the move. A more typical Petrosian move would have been ... Kh8, waiting.|
|Jan-15-18|| ||Granny O Doul: Re: perfidious above--In "Bobby Fischer vs. the Rest of the World", the author Brad Darrach (I think; otherwise I guess it was Harry Benson) has told Spassky that he (Darrach or Benson) has never met Petrosian, and Spassky replies "you haven't missed much".|
|Jan-15-18|| ||Petrosianic: <I was just browsing the comments on this game, and came across the above. I don't know if anyone corrected this (it seems not), but this is the exact opposite of what Petrosian said- "If your opponent wants to play the Dutch, you should let him!">|
That's what he said. In fact, he said that most GM's like playing against it.
The comments are from his notes on this game:
Petrosian vs Larsen, 1972
After 1. d4 e6, he ponders how to continue. If he plays 2. e4, it's a French. If 2. c4, it's probably a QGD. But if 2. Nf3, knowing Larsen, it would be a Dutch! So that made it the move of choice.
|Jan-16-18|| ||Howard: The late Kim Commons mentioned Petrosian's "Oh, goody!" remark back in a late 1977 issue of CL&R. Commons also said that he felt that "the Dutch stinks".|
|Mar-10-19|| ||Muttley101: The funny thing about Petrosian's pleasure at playing against the Dutch, then playing a Stonewall against Kasparov, was that he was a destroyer of the KID also, of course- another unsound opening (but just try beating it). Yet Petrosian also played the KID a great deal also, and very effectively.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·