was Petrosian better or more meaningful than Botvinnik?

I have been going through some petrosian games and I am really impressed. what are your guys thoughts over my comment? do you think petrosian was more influential than botvinnik?

Botvinnik (2885 in 1945) was stronger than Petrosian (2796 in 1962).
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S100509000000111000000000000010100

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S015154000000111000000000000010100 

Botvinnik was with two intermezzos (Smyslov 1957-1958 and Tal 1960-1961) the World Champion from 1948 until he was dethroned by Petrosian in 1963. Petrosian lost his title in the next match in 1969 against Spassky.

Botvinnik was also more influential, as he headed the Botvinnik school of chess that produced Karpov and Kasparov.

The style of Petrosian is distinctive. Petrosian himself acknowledged he was most influenced by  "My System" and "Chess Praxis" by Nimzovich.

Let's put it like that...

With regards to the question of who was more meaningful:

With respect, Petrosian doesn't even come close to Botvinnik in terms of over all influence.

Botvinnik systems are found in so many different openings no one else comes even close.

He invented so much and so much more than anyone else one could argue he invented or influenced just about all openings we play for the last 40 years or so.

I myself played the Botvinnik system against the CK as well as the one stemming from the English. In fact, the English one is literally the one variation in the whole of chess one could argue to be a refutation of chess because it's completely sound, offers play on the king side, queen side and the centre and has no weaknesses. To my knowledge no other opening or defence can claim that.

Also, Botvinnik is the founder of the modern Russian school of chess which produced Karpov and Kasparov.

That in itself already makes him, arguably, the most influential chess player who ever lived.

The entire Russian school system which teaches systematic strategies and its endgame curriculum was founded by him. 

That said, if you're asking me who was better as a player, then I'd have to say Petrosian.

But we can never know for sure because Botvinnik was a very late bloomer and Petrosian, in his later years, never managed to "un-learn" old theory and re-learn new theory. If you look at his games against Kasparov it does look a tad sad I'm afraid.

Whenever someone uses your own ideas against you and beats you at your own game... well...

Petrosian successfully defened against Spassky the first time, then lost after the next cycle to him.

these are interesting remarks. I will have to go through both botvinnik and petrosian games again to really appreciate who I believe is teaching me more.

I prefer Petrosian, but Botvinnik was more influencial

I totally agree!

I am a huge fan of Botvinnik and pay homage by playing the English Botvinnik System once in a while.

It is incredible but it is a feat that was achieved several times by other players where the number of games was higher and one could argue the level of play harder.

I personally consider Kramnik's two year without losing to be the greatest streak, even more so than Carlsen's or others.

Many people don't know this but Botvinnik's "school of chess" was directly responsible for developing the careers of many great world champions including Karpov and Kasparov.

I think in terms of style Petrosian (and moreso probably Tal) was very influential, but Botvinnik's main contribution was in his approach to the game: establishing scientific training methods and a logical structured regime for improvement, in addition to laying the foundation for the early work in computers and AI involvement in chess.

I am no expert on who was the better player.  But as a patzer such as myself, I hear Botvinnik's name associated with the history of chess far more often than Petrosian's.  With that said, I would say Botvinnik.

Thank-you for the tip.

You are not the first one to tell me, that’s for sure. 

I do like it against certain lines as white and also reversed as black because I do have a high win percentage. 

As an English and Sicilian player, you don’t always get the Reversed Sicilian so I have the Botvinnik System and Nimzo-Larsen Attack transposed to keep me engaged.