- "In those years, it was easier to win the Soviet Championship than a game against 'Iron Tigran'." – Lev Polugaevsky[47]
- "It is to Petrosian's advantage that his opponents never know when he is suddenly going to play like Mikhail Tal." – Boris Spassky
- "He [Petrosian] has an incredible tactical view, and a wonderful sense of the danger... No matter how much you think deep... He will 'smell' any kind of danger 20 moves before!" – Bobby Fischer
Tigran Petrosian
Sort:
but the question is still, is klitschko the best boxer?? i mean he didnt really win against lennox and i dont think he would have had a chance against holyfield. I mean its not like Klitschko really ever boxed the really strong people. Whereby Botvinnik gave up on Petrosian if i remember correctly, saying he doesnt understand him...
Also there are a lot of documentaries out with boxers who boxed for don king and were not allowed to box, i mean you cant compare a chess player who has a proven record of playing all challengers, to some guy in a corrupt sport. Not to mention the number of worl champion titles.
i didnt watch to much of Kramniks games but i heard people say he is boring. Wasnt Kramnik the reason Kasparov retired???
varelse1 wrote:
Lol The 4 Queens. I loved that game!
I just found it 2 nights ago, too. Very good game.
I admit, as long as you cherry-pick the best 1% of games, Petrosian has some doozies.
But it's those other 99% that....OMG
Yeah, a classic one. You found it in Fischer's book I guess ?
The most amusing thing Fischer tells about his one is that the game resumed after the adjournment (where Fischer had an obvious initiative), Fischer played some move (the game ended in draw), and after the game a spectator asked Petrossian if such other plausible move wouldn't have won. Petrossian answered (when obviously he had analysed that move during the adjournment) "I have no idea".
But reducing him to a fortress defender that never goes out to attack is still a bit too easy.
As usual, trust Tetsuo to miss the point entirely.
Genghiskhant wrote:
As usual, trust Tetsuo to miss the point entirely.
i didnt make the incorrect comparison.
Its still weird to make a point with an incorrect comparison. Its like saying Cars cant fly because there are no yellow cars, but its obvious yellow cars exist but its also obvious that cars cant fly.
If you wanted to make the point that cars can fly then ok i was totally missing the point.
Also he won against botvinnik by attacking AFTER he was sure hed win. He has said that he will only attack when he can see through it and came out on top so id say hes really good and its peoples not deep enough knowledge of chess that hes often forgotten.
I consider the two volumes of Petrosian's collected games compied by Shekhtman to be one of the best investments I ever made to my chess library. It not only contains every serious game Petrosian played with fantastic notes by Petrosian, Botvinnik, Tal, Spassky, Khalifman and others, it also has his interviews and articles about Petrosian written by world champions who faced him.
The main reason Petrosian is neglected today is about the same reason Lasker's games were often neglected. They are almost incomprehensibly deep! Petrosian's reputation as a drawing master may be deserved compared to other top players of his generation, but his fighting spirit manifested itself in other ways. He was almost impossible to defeat when he was at his best. In his entire career, he lost only about 8% of his games!
I'm not a very good player, but I love Petrosian and his games. They have a mysterious beauty that just makes me want to learn more and more about them. It's hard for a player like me to see the individual brilliancies or even key winning moves sometimes, but when you step back and look at his games as a whole, they're amazing. I love the "boring" aspects, the slow pace, the control. His games inspire me - I want to be able to control the whole chess board like that.
"Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games" is indeed a good book. Note on Hoynck's post, the newest edition of the book contains algebraic notation of all the games in addition to the English notation, so it's easier to use.
We also have a Tigran Petrosian group on Chess.com. Come join us!
SmyslovFan wrote:
I consider the two volumes of Petrosian's collected games compied by Shekhtman to be one of the investments I ever made to my chess library. It not only contains every serious game Petrosian played with fantastic notes by Petrosian, Botvinnik, Tal, Spassky, Khalifman and others, it also has his interviews and articles about Petrosian written by world champions who faced him.
The main reason Petrosian is neglected today is about the same reason Lasker's games were often neglected. They are almost incomprehensibly deep! Petrosian's reputation as a drawing master may be deserved compared to other top players of his generation, but his fighting spirit manifested itself in other ways. He was almost impossible to defeat when he was at his best. In his entire career, he lost only about 8% of his games!
Thats very impressive, especially when you consider the opposition he was facing.
TetsuoShima wrote:
Genghiskhant wrote:
As usual, trust Tetsuo to miss the point entirely.
i didnt make the incorrect comparison.
Its still weird to make a point with an incorrect comparison. Its like saying Cars cant fly because there are no yellow cars, but its obvious yellow cars exist but its also obvious that cars cant fly.
If you wanted to make the point that cars can fly then ok i was totally missing the point.
No, you're missing the point because it doesn't matter if he is the best of all time, or if he lost to Lewis. That has nothing to do with the comparison of being solid, strong, hard to beat and perceived as 'boring' in his sport.
Also, (for the record) you are making broad sweeping statements about a person, and a WHOLE sport, which you obviously know nothing about.
Calling the entire sport of boxing 'corrupt' is insane. There certainly have been instances of corruption in boxing, but there have in almost every other sport as well.
Fischer accused the Russians of colluding by agreeing to draws to oust him. Does that one instance of corruption make the whole sport of chess corrupt?
There have been match fixing scandals snooker, cricket, basketball...Hell, Juventus were relegated to Serie B just a few years ago for match fixing in football. Are all of these sports corrupt? It's such a ridiculous claim to make.
As for Klitschko not beating any strong fighters. You obviously have no idea about boxing in the least. He has beaten Sanders, Adamek, Herbie Hyde, Chisora....what more can he do? Unfortunately Ali, Foreman, Frazier are not around any more. The heavyweight division is not as good as it used to be. A guy can only beat who is put in front of him though.
He has a fight record of 47 fights - 45 wins (41 KOs), and 2 losses. That gives him a KO to fight ratio in the region of 86/87%. 2nd highest of all time. (but yeah, he's rubbish)
The fight he lost to Lewis, he was ahead on all three of the judges scorecards and was stopped on a cut, which Lewis hit repeatedly in the clinch and opened up (this is not allowed). So sure, he lost to Lewis but it was controversial, he was not hurt and protested for the fight to continue..(and he hasn't lost a fight since - that's 10 years with no loss)
What more can a boxer do? Is he the best of all time? No, of course not. However, he has dominated the heavyweight division for years.
Just read something before making wild claims once in a while.
hoynck wrote:
When I was a young(er) player chess friends at the club always thought Mikhail Talj was my great hero, because I had a sharp style of playing I suppose. But apart from Bobby F. it was Tigran Petrosian.
My first 'real' chess book was 'Mein System' (Nimzowitsch), from his games I got the impression that he also learned a lot from it. Although many chess players think Petrosian's game are boring, I never thought so at all. (Just like I never thought Anatoli Karpov had a boring style.) Maybe the most interesting lines in Petrosian's games were those that 'didn't make the board'. I always believed he had a very sharp eye for tactics and a tremendous feeling for danger. But he used this talent in a particular way, by first smothering as much of his opponents attacking chances as he could, before going in for the kill himself. He tried to prevent serious counter attacks, he felt uncomfortable with his own king under fire.
The same with me by the way, prophylaxis is high on my list; and it is a bit easier to play like that at older age, if you played very sharp in earlier years. They can do to you, what you did to them.
Or, perhaps more accurately for some of us, now you can do to them what they always used to do to you.
i agree Sanders, Adamek, Herbie Hyde, Chisora. they are definelty top boxer, they are all world renowend.
Ofc boxing is totally isnt corrupt, 3 different world champion titles that is totally normal you cant have 1 world champion for one class obviously. And its totally normal That the World champion boxes nonames.
Klitschko isnt perceived boring, he is just not perceived as boxer.
-You've just listed all the 'world renowned' boxers he has beaten.
-There are more than 3 titles and, between the two brothers, they hold all of the belts.
-He has been undefeated in 10 years
-He has the second highest fight to KO ratio in the HISTORY of boxing (41 KOS out of 45 wins) - second only to Marciano
-He has dominated an entire era of boxing, and continues to do so.
-The only fight he has ever refused was against his brother to unify the belts.
Why wouldn't he be perceived as a boxer? Does that mean that Adamek, Chisora, Hyde and Sanders are not perceived as boxers either?
You're an idiot. Just read a book or google something once in a while.
theidoogy wrote:
When I asked my dad who was his favorite chess player, i excpected to an answer like bobby fischer, or garry kasparov. The answer was tigran petrosian. I never heard of this player till yesterday, and i was very surprised when i heard the answer. I looked for his games on youtube, there are really few games, but from his games you can learn how brilliant chess player he was, probably better than spassky, karpov exedora. Anyway, i would like to know why isn't he known, and why most people only heard of him and not really know his chess games and his brilliancy?
Like you, I too looked at a few of Tigran's games and was stunned at how brilliant his play was. Solving puzzles in which his games were used, always seemed to require looking deeper than that of most others. Watching him sacrifice two rooks for two bishops and win is amazing to me. He was one of the first to demonstrate the static and dynamic value of the pieces, in a sound theoretical manner. He redefined what a sacrifice is in my opinion. His tactics makes one ask the question, "When is a sacrifice, not a sacrifice" ?
Statistically speaking, he isn't on par with the Kasparov, Fischer or Capablanca, but he isn't far behind them. In my opinion, Petrosian was blessed to play in the era that had the advantage of compounded knowledge, from players like Steinitz and Botvinnik, who contributed much of the basis for modern chess theory.
Though some of the today's players are said to be better educated than those of Tigran's era, today's players have the added advantage of computers and far more intricate chess theory models. That is what in my opinion also make him great. He was ahead of his time in certain ways. I also learned from him the value of preventing difficultly in games, instead of allowing it and trying to come out on the winning end.
Genghiskhant wrote:
-You've just listed all the 'world renowned' boxers he has beaten.
-There are more than 3 titles and, between the two brothers, they hold all of the belts.
-He has been undefeated in 10 years
-He has the second highest fight to KO ratio in the HISTORY of boxing (41 KOS out of 45 wins) - second only to Marciano
-He has dominated an entire era of boxing, and continues to do so.
-The only fight he has ever refused was against his brother to unify the belts.
Why wouldn't he be perceived as a boxer? Does that mean that Adamek, Chisora, Hyde and Sanders are not perceived as boxers either?
You're an idiot. Just read a book or google something once in a while.
Well i might be an idiot but you aint smarter. If you read Don Quijote, Cervantes said something really interestin. Who is the dumber, the idiot or the people wasting their time trying to fool an idiot.
Anyway did Klitschko box against Holyfield?
paulgottlieb wrote:
Petrosian was one of the great players of his era. Exactly how he compared to Spassky is tough to say. They played two great matches and each won once, but I think that by the time of the second match, Spassky was the stronger player.
Fischer had a very high opinion of Petrosian. At one point he sad that if Petrosian played with more self confidence, he might be the best player in the world.
Certainly if he had 1/4 of Tal's chutzpah...he most very well might have been considered the greatest ever...
Nobody is trying to fool you. I have given you nothing but facts relating to Vitali. There is no trickery involved. So while it is a nice quote (however butchered it appears here), it doesn't actually mean anything in this situation.
If you want to know if he ever fought Holyfield you could do what I have been suggesting all along and read something. Go on, have a quick google search. Then you will be able to make a semi-informed statement about something. I actually hope you do. It would be a breath of fresh air.
Every match-play world champion reached Olympus, so we're comparing the gods of the chess world. But for me, Petrosian was a considerably more accomplished world champion than Spassky.
Petrosian defeated Botvinnik in convincing fashion. He made the Patriarch look a bit like a novice in terms of positional understanding. Then Petrosian defended his title against Spassky before losing the rematch. Petrosian remained one of the most powerful chess players in the world in the 1970s, and arguably had a better result against Fischer in the semis than Spassky did in the finals in 1972.
Petrosian won the title and defended it successfully. He played famous and difficult matches in the 1970s against Fischer and Korchnoi. In 1975, he won the USSR championship ahead of the likes of Tal, Bronstein, Geller, Polugaevsky, and Vaganian (who, at that time, was quite a bit more dangerous than Bronstein). In 1977, Korchnoi barely beat Petrosian 6.5-5.5. Even as late as 1981, Petrosian beat Kasparov as Black in a Queen's Gambit Accepted.
Petrosian had plus scores against Euwe, Botvinnik, Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal and Karpov. He had even records against Spassky, Korchnoi and Kasparov. The only world champion or world champion candidate of his generation he had a losing record to was Fischer.
Petrosian never had quite the same accomplishments as Botvinnik, Smyslov or Tal, but his successes were greater than Spassky's. And his legacy as the greatest defender in chess history gives him a unique place in the pantheon of chess greats.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_432KUOJN8Q
Watch this.
Now tell me petrosijan wasnt interesting, creative, smart, hard-to-beat etc...