What is wrong with Petrosian?

In every example game featuring Tigran Petrosian which I read or is presented to me in a different form, he is always the loser. I have even seen a chessbook which bothered to include an example of how Petrosian blundered and lost his Queen for nothing.

Do the authors of chess books hate Petrosian? I yes, why? What's wrong with him? Petrosian was a world champion, he certainly wasn't some patzer player.

His style is boring so his wins are unlikely to sell a lot of books. So you only see his losing games.

You sure can't be a happy camper if you happen to be either Predrag Nikolic or Miguel Quinteros. I swear to anything, never I have seen a victory illustrated from these two no matter how many books I saw wherever those names popped.

Sad way for immortality eh?

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/Petrosian_vs_the_Elite.html

for books that treat petrosian with respect

as to posting his losses. well considering how hard it was to beat the guy is losses are noticed.

T.Petrosian is my chess idol,he won many  subtle games with fine technique in all stages of the game;Bobby Fischer himself was a great admirer of him.

Thanks for your replies! I will look into these gems. Finally someone who does poor Petrosian justice.

Petrosian nearly beat Fischer in game 1 of their match to determine the challenger to Spassky (and Petrosian had the black pieces!) but he didn't follow the recommended line after a fantastic novelty and lost. I think he was too cautious in that game, too willing to be satisfied with a draw. A GM like Tal would have played the recommended line and thrown caution to the winds

Wise words, pfren.

 Ishi Press now do a print-on-demand edition of Vasiliev's book that is commended in Silman's review. 

pfren I remember that quote with a third player thrown in, maybe Spassky?

something like 'if Tal sacrifices against you, take it, then think. if Spassky sacrifices, think, then take it. If Petrosian sacrifices... resign'

Even Him got words of praise for Petrosian's book.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/petrosian.html

I particularly enjoyed the first one you linked, against Smyslov.

Is there any significance in Petrosian playing White in all three of your  selections ?

Interesting; I shall trawl through some Black Petrosian victories and try and find a classic.

I am a defensive, positional player.

well i would proberbly give you a hug,in a manly kind of way you understand.

Great point. After Fischer steamrolled Taimanov and Larsen with 6-0 wins in each match, he won his first game against Petrosian and I think some of the remaining games were draws. Petrosian even defeated Fischer in game 2 of their match to determine who would challenge Spassky for the WCC in 1972.

Petrosian could have and should have won game 1. That game is really worth playing out. Petrosian, playing black, had Fischer on the ropes

Yes.  Most amateur players haevn't bothered to play over more than a few different world champion's games... if any at all.  They just repeat what they've heard.  Of course any world champion would be a superb calculator and tactician.  If it's Ulf Andersson vs a club player I'm sure there'd be fireworks because GMs find combinations period.

I'd like to take a sample of 50 random games.  10 from 4 different world champions, and 10 from any FM.  How well would someone U2500 be able to determine which games belong to what player?  If they scored as high as 50% it would be a miracle

Do it. Might be interesting. For the WC games use lesser known games though, just in case.

Well, you could purposely make it tricky by picking obscure quick losses by the WCs.  So to be fair you'd have to select them randomly, and maybe afterwards filter out any games that are very well publicised.

Although I would filter it for evenly matched players and long games... that way you have a chance to see some style instead of a quick crush.

No trickery. Pick good games where the WC won.