DrSpudnik wrote:
Not exactly the term I'd use...
[I believe the term "to win" was inserted afterwards! lol]
Since you thought I'd be the butt of more jokes over it...it wasn't a tough choice
Tigran Petrosian
Sort:
paulgottlieb wrote:
After the USSR versus The World match in 1970 they held a double-round robin blitz tournament featuring 12 of the top GMs in the world. Fischer won a crushing victory with 19-3 a full 4.5(!) points ahead of his nearest rival. Petrosian was so impressed he told Tal "Fischer plays blitz the way I used to!"
IMO, that is one of the highest badges of honor and chess player could ever wear...having two former world champs revel in your performance and have one compare himself to you, but in terms of how good he used be...
Mar 4, 2013
0
#64
nameno1had wrote:
paulgottlieb wrote:
After the USSR versus The World match in 1970 they held a double-round robin blitz tournament featuring 12 of the top GMs in the world. Fischer won a crushing victory with 19-3 a full 4.5(!) points ahead of his nearest rival. Petrosian was so impressed he told Tal "Fischer plays blitz the way I used to!"
IMO, that is one of the highest badges of honor and chess player could ever wear...having two former world champs revel in your performance and have one compare himself to you, but in terms of how good he used be...
Did Fischer ever show such grace, spare such kind words to the world champions who follwed him?
Nope actually Fischer was kind of Narcissict he once said Paul morphy in todays world would be able to beat any player... Except me ofcourse. That kind of comment kind of says it all...
Leksidoleaen wrote:
Nope actually Fischer was kind of Narcissict he once said Paul morphy in todays world would be able to beat any player... Except me ofcourse. That kind of comment kind of says it all...
are you sure? i thought he said a kid today could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, maybe Capablanca would still win, maybe not.
Anyway think i have to learn openings i guess
That doesn't really have anything to do with what Leksidoleaen said though.
Genghiskhant wrote:
That doesn't really have anything to do with what Leksidoleaen said though.
i dont know why you are only trolling me, but its obvious that Fischer ment that the opening knowledge would overcome the genius of those great players.
I think typing any claim that pops into your head (with no proof or knowledge), on any thread where Fischer is even vaugely referenced is trolling.
Guess we have different definitions of trolling.
Genghiskhant wrote:
I think typing any claim that pops into your head (with no proof or knowledge), on any thread where Fischer is even vaugely referenced is trolling.
ok i just stop talking to you from now on, im way too old for this stuff
Agreed. That works for me.
I just wanted you to read something once in a while before lying about it in the forum though. I still hope you take the advice onboard.
Mar 4, 2013
0
#73
Agreed, Genghis.
Here's one of Petrosian's more memorable, and accessible double exchange sacrifice games.
Mar 4, 2013
0
#74
Btw, the game I just posted isn't great just because of the final combination. The entire game is extremely rich and full of brilliant ideas.
We used a similar move to that Qh8 move in a vote chess game (move 14) - was played before though:
paulgottlieb wrote:
Fischer said many complementary things about Petrosian's chess and he admired the play of Leonid Stein. In fact he sent a very gracious telegram to the Moscow Chess Club expressing his condolences when Stein died unexpectedly.
yeah Fischer funny enough gave Stein odds in blitz and lost.
Mar 4, 2013
0
#77
Petrosian wrote the intro to a Russian edition of Chess Praxis by Nimzovich. Tal wrote an intro to My System.
Here's a snippet of Tal's introduction:
"Blockade is one of Nimzowitsch's favourite themes. He was the first to define it, and he was the first to show how much the strength of the a piece can grow when it stands on a blockading square, and how such a piece can compensate for a material deficit....
In 1953, when the Candidates Tournament was taking place in Switzerland, I was about to become a Candidate Master, but I had not yet read Nimzowitsch's book... And then I saw Reshevsky-Petrosian.
Petrosian's exchange sacrifice 25...Re6! made an indelible impression on me. A purely positional sacrifice by a quiet move, without a check or any obvious threat! Merely for the position of the knight at d5!...
From this example alone it is apparent that Petrosian had made a thorough study of My System . But, unfortunately, this is not the only example from his games...
After Petrosian played the opening passively, I gained the advantage and considered my position to be won. Indeed, White has prepared an attack on the kingside, while on the queenside, Black merely has weaknesses.
I remained in this happy frame of mind until in the diagram position Tigran played 31...Rf4!. It was here that I had occasion to remember Nimzowitsch and his blockade theory.... ..[A]t that time, my youthful instinct told me always to win the exchange. I won it, and only with my opponent's help did I manage to escape: 32.Bxf4 exf4 33.Nd2 Ne5 34.Qxf4 Nxc4 35.e5 Nxe5 36.Ne4 h6 37.Rae1 Bb8 38.Rd1 c4 39.d6 Nd3 40.Qg4 Ba7+ 41.Kg1. Here the game was adjourned in a position now better for Black. ... A striking illustration of the continuity of ideas and the benefit of knowledge.
~M. Tal, as quoted in The Games of Tigran Petrosian vol. 1. pp 149-150.
One of the strongest world champions. I believe only Karpov can match him. Also the greatest tactician in the history of chess. His wins against Kasparov are so instructive.
Smyslov,
Thanks so much for posting some great games, and, shockingly, talking about Tigran Petrosian in a thread about...Tigran Petrosian.
Well my friend first of all if you are going to talk about brilliant ending players like Smyslov and Karpov and you dont even mention Jose Raul Capablanca I guess I dont know if my post would make sense to you. Anyway, to me Tigran Petrosian was not only a magnificient player but a very misterious one, probably the less understandable of the champions, his depht was out of this world, a tactician like just a few hence he was so good at defence because in order to defend with accuaracy you have to check so many lines, that the only way to succed is having a fenomenal tactical vision, even to attack is a positional skill. Positional play was not his strenght, tactics was. The structures and positions he used to like were closed in their majority but full of inner energy. He introduced the material sacrifice only with long term compensation. It is true that he used to wait his opponents a lot but even Fischer, Tal, or Kasparov, in order to win they depend on an opponents mistake because chess is like that, if nobody makes a mistake is a draw.