|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-04-02 | | ughaibu: Iron Tigran. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | drukenknight: speaking of these guys did you ever see the spassky/petrosian game where Tigre sacrifices like all his guy on the mating square? IT was one from 1966 I think. It is the craziest of all his games. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | ughaibu: There were at least two beautiful wins by Petrosian in the 1966 match. But in Chess he got terrible reviews despite the fact that he was the first champion to beat the challenger since Alekhine pushed the wood with his crony Bogolubow, in short the first convincing title defense since Lasker. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | drukenknight: ugi, do you know which game in '66 that was? I tried to find it in the database but failed. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | Kulla Tierchen: I would not call 4 wins, 3 losses and 17 draws convincing. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | PVS: drukenknight: I think you are referring to game ten, a King's Indian. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | drukenknight: RE Title defenses. Didn't Botwinnik defend his title in the early 50s against Bronstein and/or Keres? I dont know if you consider them convinving or not. I guess you have to play through and determine for yourself. I know Sam Sloan had an article on one of Keres/Botwinnik games during ww II. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | drukenknight: Hmmm take another look at this one guys. Back to blacks 18th. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | ughaibu: If he does Ke8 Geller can still play Re6. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | ughaibu: Drukenknight: These are the games I had in mind.
Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966
Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 |
|
| Dec-05-02 | | PVS: Petrosyan went to pieces in this game. He was lost after ten moves. |
|
| Dec-05-02 | | PVS: TITLE DEFENCES
As world champion, excluding return matches when he was officially a challenger, the great Botvinnik had the following record: 1951 Bronstein drew
1954 Smyslov drew
1957 Smyslov lost
1960 Tal lost
1963 Petrosyan lost
And this is a man who had the full backing of the Soviet chess federation as well as influence higher up. He had opponents threatened and rarely played in any other events, he only prepared for his matches and could not win a single one. A pathetic record unmatched in the annals of chess history. |
|
| Dec-05-02 | | ughaibu: It seems Petrosian's plan with f6 was tactically flawed. |
|
| Dec-05-02 | | Kenneth Sterling: Yes, I think you could say that. |
|
| Dec-06-02 | | PVS: 9...Bb7 is a lot better. 10...fxe5 is not good either. |
|
| Dec-06-02 | | drukenknight: I'll go a little bit later and suggest: 13...Bd6 |
|
Dec-06-02
 | | Sneaky: 13...Bd6? 14.Rxe6+! |
|
| Dec-06-02 | | ughaibu: I dont really approve of Nge7, I prefer Bb7 and castling long straight away. |
|
| Aug-31-05 | | aw1988: <in short the first convincing title defense since Lasker.> You're kidding, right? There were plenty before Petrosian and Spassky. |
|
| Aug-31-05 | | Happypuppet: <aw> Their point is that Petrosian beat a worthy challenger with a plus score, while everyone between Lasker and Petrosian either drew/lost (Botvinnik) or didn't really play someone worthy of challenging the World Champion (Alekhine v Bogoljubow or however you spell that dang name =p). |
|
| Aug-31-05 | | aw1988: That still is a vast understatement... |
|
| Aug-31-05 | | iron maiden: Alekhine-Bogoljubov aside, no world champion ever won a title match in the fifty-five years between 1911 and 1966. |
|
| Aug-31-05 | | aw1988: Botvinnik? Smyslov and Tal? |
|
| Aug-31-05 | | Resignation Trap: <aw1988> What <iron maiden> meant was that no <<incumbent>> world champion ever won a title match during that period. |
|
| Aug-31-05 | | aw1988: OH, 1966. I mixed up the Petrosian talk above and assumed it was Lasker-Petrosian, not 1911-1966. Seems trivial, but I get the idea. Sorry. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
