Petrosian...Not a real positional player?

I don't know if this question has been asked before, but Kramnik said in an interview that positional play was not necessarily Petrosian's "cup of tea." Now, from what I've heard, Petrosian was a master of defense, which obviously requires deep tactical and combinational vision. However, I've also heard that Petrosian was also great at squeezing wins out of the most drawn positions. I suppose what I really want is an assessment of Petrosians playing style. What kind of player was he??

Thanks,

Curious patzer :)

Fake it till you make it... to the WC title that is.

And, to confuse matters more, Euwe said that Petrosian was the new Capablanca! 

I've heard he's defensive and strategic but not positional.

Some translation quirks maybe.  Euwe was Dutch, Kramnik Russian, and we're talking in english.

Very true :)

Here's something funny I didn't know. Apparently,when Fischer said that Capablanca had the undeserved reputation for being the greatest living endgame player, he said Petrosian had the same reputation at the time of the writing of his article on the ten greatest chess players.

Was Fischer trying to say that he himself was the best engdame player alive?

macer75 wrote:

chessman1504 wrote:

Here's something funny I didn't know. Apparently,when Fischer said that Capablanca had the undeserved reputation for being the greatest living endgame player, he said Petrosian had the same reputation at the time of the writing of his article on the ten greatest chess players.

Was Fischer trying to say that he himself was the best engdame player alive?

Knowing Fischer, it's likely :) However, around this time, he had his famous game against Botvinnik where he missed a win.

I have finally discovered that Petrosian was the strongest chess player of them all. Said with tongue in cheek:

My favourite chess story concerns a very young Bobby Fischer, playing blitz in a Moscow chess club during his visit, and absolutely whacking everyone in sight until Petrosian, who was then in his prime, came along and gave Bobby his first losses. At the time young Bobby had the dreadful habit of adjusting his opponents pieces if they weren't in the middle of the square. Nobody had said anything, but when Fischer touched one of Petrosian's pieces, he got a lesson he never forgot. The Armenian champion was a strong man despite his short stature: he quickly stretched out a big paw and gave young Bobby an incredibly hard rap on the knuckles. This no-nonsense punishment worked absolute wonders! As far as we know, Fischer never ever again touched an opponent's pieces.....good on you Tigran! 

On a more a serious note: after looking thru some of Petrosian's interviews, I get the impression he played as he did because he loved defending more than attacking! Quite unusual, and very very difficult. This caused some intense frustration from his friend Tal, who knew full well of what Petrosian was capable......as Spassky once said: "it is to Petrosian's advantage, that whenever he wishes, he can play like Mikhail Tal"!

My favourite comment about sacrifices in chess also concerns Petrosian. Botvinnik once summarised the sacrifices done by him and his opponents in the following manner: "When I sacrifice, calculate, then take. When Tal sacrifices, take, then calculate. When Petrosian sacrifices, DON'T TAKE!" 

After reading much about Petrosian and his approach and style, I think he's now my second favorite player after Capablanca.

To add to this discussion, this man says that Petrosian played in a more aggressive style, like Tal, in his earlier years. Isn't that something?

http://www.tim-thompson.com/nichevo.html

" At the time young Bobby had the dreadful habit of adjusting his opponent's pieces if they weren't in the middle of the square."

You mean he actually placed pieces where they belonged instead of on some ambiguous edge?  Anyone who twists pieces onto a square should be given a hard hit on the knuckles, since it ruins the felt. 

Petrosian not a positional player?  Hm.

Shouldn't it be his games that determine how much you like him, rather than  whatever words other people say about him?

I like his haircut!

while he was young I believe he was one of the most tactical and attacking players around; always taking risks. However he evolved into a much more boring and positional player as he grew older

Well, it's not just what other people say about him; it's his thoughts and viewpoint on chess I find fascinating. Besides, his games are too deep for a patzer like me :) Though, that being said, there are certain games I've looked at that I also find fascinating. I wouldn't just like a player without ACTUALLY seeing him play!! :) The same thing goes for Capablanca. I've studied over 150 of Capablanca's games. Here are some Petrosian games I at least find intriguing.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106725

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106134

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1091006

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069975

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1107112

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106493

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032639

Here's a quote from Smyslov that is relevant:

"The World Champion has penetrated deeper perhaps than anyone into the secrets of positional manoeuvring."

Petrosoan was an incredible tactical player.

‘Botvinnik told me that he disagreed with people who like to compare Petrosian with Capablanca. Capablanca, says Botvinnik, was a genius who could always find a new plan in a position. Petrosian doesn’t do that; he begins to maneuver, and this is a great difference, because a chessmaster of the highest class must always be able to find fresh ideas. I feel myself that Botvinnik’s comment is only part of the truth; Petrosian is better than he says. Tal told me that Petrosian is a very careful player; not passive, but a little bit cowardly. He’s a very practical man; a real Armenian. Capablanca was quite the opposite; he was an optimist, and he played very simple and pure chess.’

I thought this quote by Spassky adds to this thread.