petrosian is very well known, he was an awesome player.
Tigran Petrosian
Sort:
Botvinik once said : " If Tal make a sacrifice, take and then analyse. If I make a sacrifice, analise and then take. If Petrosian make a sacrifice, DONT TAKE !!"
I think he said also something like. "If you play against Petrosian its enough to not make even a mistace, just a little inacuracy, that he will find a way to make you pay that".
That explains much about "Tiger". His cabability to analise the game was overhelming also for most of the best payer of the time. What said Fisher its another proof of that, and also explain why have some admirers. He's also considered "the most difficult player to beat of all times".
Mar 16, 2013
0
#84
Kortchmoi on Petrosian
Now how the hell can I be Petrosian's second if it makes me sick to watch how he plays?
-----------------
One cannot help but admire the devilish determination and ingenuity of this man.
varelse1 wrote:
Kortchmoi on Petrosian
Now how the hell can I be Petrosian's second if it makes me sick to watch how he plays?
-----------------
One cannot help but admire the devilish determination and ingenuity of this man.
I thought Korschnoi really hated Petrosian on a personal point of view ? If it is true, then that kind of praise sounds strange.
Mar 16, 2013
0
#86
Perhaps, he said that, before something happened to sour the relationship.
Or maybe he was just trying to sound gracious, to sell his new book. Who knows?
Jan 23, 2018
0
#87
TetsuoShima wrote:
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?
well here on chess.com i watched like 5 games of him.
that's a different petrosian
Petrosian was risk aversive and took too many quick draws but was one of the greatest players of all time. The truth is he was a great tactician and endgame player, and could attack very well when the position demanded aggression. He played many fine attacking games. He had a phenominal record at the Olympiads and could score many wins against weaker opponents when he was really motivated to do so.
Jan 23, 2018
0
#89
Petrosian lost a simultaneous game to a guy I drew against, soon after, in the 1976 U.S. Open. That's as close as I got to the Gods as I also met and got the autographs of Soviet defecting GM's Anatoly Lein and Leonid Shamkovich.
Jan 24, 2018
0
#90
mickynj wrote:
Muzammil-Muhammad wrote:
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
Also the greatest tactician in the history of chess.
Yep. lol
Actually, Petrosian was an amazing tactician, and one of the strongest blitz players in the world in his prime.
Lol
That rreminds me of fnny story.
I do not rmember the exact year, but was in the 50's. Was Fisher's very first trip to the USSR. While he was still a teenager.
Well, he expected everybody in the Soviet Union would be a Grandmaster. The butcher. The paperboy. Everybody.
But he went to the most pre-emminent chess club in Moscow, and was saddened to discover he could beat everybody there in speed chess easily.
So he starts screaming "Where are all the good players?? Why aren't any of them here???"
So they get on the phone, and start making calls, trying to see if anybody would give up their Sunday, to come in and play this tempermental American, who just arrived in the country.
Finally, they reached Tigran Petrosian, also a young rising star at the time, who agrees to come in.
And he just destroyed Bobby in blitz that day.
Petrosian beat Botvinnik and Spaasky in world champion match, that should be enough. Petrosian has a plus score against Tal, Karpov had a difficult time beating Petrosian, Kasparov complaint it was hard to beat Petrosian, he lost two games to the great Petrosian; Petrosian was a hard man to beat.
Jan 25, 2018
0
#92
Muzammil-Muhammad wrote:
He was great at seeing tactical combinations of his opponents but he wasn't as good at playing them.
"If Petrosian should begin to combine a little, he will be impossible to play against." -Max Euwe
I don't know.
I seen a couple of his games, when his opponents over-pressed their attack, and Petrosian pieces sprung to life, and counter-attacked.
Jan 27, 2018
0
#94
I also remember one he played versus Kortchnoi, was very tactical win for him
Jan 27, 2018
0
#95
Muzammil-Muhammad wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
I don't know.
I seen a couple of his games, when his opponents over-pressed their attack, and Petrosian pieces sprung to life, and counter-attacked.
If a player plays 1000 games, 1 of them is bound to be brilliant. Petrosian played 1,908 games. Other then Petrosian vs Pachman 1961, game 7 and 10 of his 1966 match and Keres vs Petrosian 1959, there are hardly any games which you can call brilliant.
This is an incredible statement. Either the person writing this hasn't studied Petrosian's games, or he's a troll. Or both.
Jan 28, 2018
0
#96
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?
In the Fischer era, in the United States Petrosian had the reputation of being a "dull" player. Like Botvinnik, Petrosian suffered from a biased American media. At least that's the impression I had reading biographies of Bobby. Then too, players like Korchnoi did not like Petrosian's style, and as he was not known as a great attacker, he suffered from this as well.
All of this is quite wrong. You can learn a lot from Petrosian's games. And despite my handle, Tigran Petrosian is my favorite player. I've everything pertaining to him I can get my hands on! Including his autograph.
Then too, players like Korchnoi did not like Petrosian's style,
Source?as Korchnoi had a similar style to Petrosian that many will agree.
Muzammil-Muhammad wrote:
Goram wrote:
as Korchnoi had a similar style to Petrosian that many will agree.
No. These two had really different styles. According to Spassky "Korchnoi is sharp and combinative with a sure killer instinct in tactical situations. Petrosian is probably the best positional player alive. And he's got cold steel wires where other people have nerves. I think that Petrosian's greater experience and more solid play is going to tell against Korchnoi. Petrosian is a unique match pugilist. His forte is that he is almost uncatchable – he tries to keep his opponent at his own distance, so that at the convenient moment he will be able to take resolute action ... he is a tiger getting ready to pounce on his victim ... in matches draws cannot affect the outcome ... therefore such a style as Petrosian is much more dangerous in matches. Korchnoi can be described as a searching chess player .. more a destroyer of the other player’s plans and positons than a creator .. (he) has a tendency not to trust his intuition; rather, he relies on cold hard calculation .. more a tournament player than a match player .. Petrosian is a tough opponent for Korchnoi. After all, during the course of the struggle Korchnoi has to be able to discover his opponent’s plan in order to begin "destroying it". But Petrosian’s style is often based on waiting, manoeuvring “semi-tones"."
And their semi final match in 1971 was also rigged. "It was already clear that whoever won would have to face Fischer, who was swiftly ascending to the chess throne .. our Sports Committee decided that that it was better to stop him on his march. Petrosian and Korchnoi were summoned and bluntly asked which of them had the greater chance against Fischer. Korchnoi replied that in the "Fischer age" almost no one had a chance, but Petrosian said that he believed in himself. At that Korchnoi was asked to throw the match to Petrosian, in compensation for which he would be sent to the three biggest international tournaments (for a Soviet chess player at that time this was a regal present) ... No documents exist to substantiate this plot. But the mediocrity of Korchnoi's play and the fact that, considering his bitter nature, after he lost to Petrosian he remained on good terms with him implies that Korchnoi let Petrosian win." -Karpov, Memoirs of a Chess World Champion, p. 114.
Wow. Wow! Karpov publicly admitted that the Russians colluded? They allowed him to publish this? That's remarkable.
google pgn game collections petrosian and you'll hundred's of games