|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-22-06 | | dakgootje: like around move 20 i thought black was nicely under pressure and white might have a win somewhere. around 8 moves later i wasnt too sure anymore. and about 10 moves later i knew white was lost lol |
|
| Jun-22-06 | | Mr. Braithwaite: 24.g3? it could have been 26.Bxd4 Nxd4 27.Qd3 Rh8 28.Nc3 Rd8 29.h3 Nb3 30.Qc4 Na5 31.Qf1 Qd3 = 38.Nf3? loses real fast but there's not much left to fight with e.g.
38.Qd1 Qc5 39.Ra1 f3 40.Kh1 Bxg5 41.hxg5 Qxg5 
|
|
| Jun-22-06 | | clampolo: Nice, game of the day is by Petrosian, one of the most overlooked champions. And to top it off, its a great defensive effort. I don't think anyone in the history of chess could defend like Petrosian. Game after game, you see him under a ferocious attack and then magically turning the tables with an exchange sacrifice. |
|
| Jun-22-06 | | CapablancaFan: <clampolo> You are 100% right regarding Petrosian, I just wish more people understood that about him. His games are one of the most instructive of all GM's. I think because Petrosian's style of chess was defense based and not as "sexy" as other GM's he gets overlooked often. Everytime I look at this guy's games I always learn something. |
|
| Jun-22-06 | | guidomiguel: sexy chess huh? Is that like chess while losing clothing hehehe
But seriously, Petrosian's games have some real quality to them, but I think they should be studied after a few other gm's like morphy and the like. |
|
| Jun-22-06 | | schnarre: Very nicely handled by Petrosian! |
|
| Dec-04-06 | | acirce: 
click for larger view<18..a5!!
One of Petrosian's most celebrated moves.
The hypermoderns once rightly used to take great pleasure in breaking the rules, or should we say dogmas, of positional chess. There is just as much creativity, just as much significance, in finding exceptions to the general rules, in positional chess as in tactical chess. To be a good positional player, you need to play intelligently and not fall victim to routine. White is attacking on the queenside and Black is attacking on the kingside, each attack being an attack against the king. The "rules" say that these attacks should be respected, but that each side should be getting on with their own attacks, and avoiding weakening pawn moves on the flank where they are being attacked themselves. Steinitz taught that the defender should make as few pawn moves as possible, and this remains basically sound advice more than a hundred years on. So why should this position be an exception? What was going through Petrosian's mind? If we were to forget about Black's king, and imagine it safely tucked away on the kingside somewhere, then ..a5 would seem a perfectly natural reaction on the queenside. White's queenside pawns are a long way advanced, and as such fall within the range of fire of Black's pieces. Black's pawns though are very difficult to attack, being close to the baseline and well protected. It is only natural that Black should want to challenge the pawn on b4, to knock away the support from the c5-pawn. Only the position of the king makes ..a5 seem, superficially at least, unnatural. Yet Steinitz also taught us that the king is a strong defensive piece, able to guard all adjoining squares, and can look after himself - particularly, we might add, if he has the support of queen, rook, bishop, and a couple of pawns. An additional factor that helps Black is that the centre is completely open, with Black having the better grip on the four central squares. It is in the centre and near-centre of the board that pieces are at their most manoeuvrable, with simultaneous influence on both sides of the board. This applies particularly to the diagonal-moving pieces (the queen and the bishop). The black queen on c7 protects the vital square b7, yet also adds to the pressure against the white kingside, and b2 in particular. A black bishop on c5 would guard various critical approaches to the black king, and also attack White's f2. Both pieces also give support to the possibility of creating a knight outpost on d4. A centralized knight on a fifth-rank outpost works on both flanks as well as in the centre. The point of Petrosian's 18..a5! is not to defend the king. Rather, it is to break White's pawn-roller so he can take control of the centre, the first stage in the ultimate objective of dominating the whole board. It is an inspired defensive move because it is an inspired attacking move.> -- Colin Crouch, "How to Defend in Chess" |
|
| Dec-28-06 | | Grega: Was this played on the second board(I don't know about Tal's health at the time)? |
|
| Dec-28-06 | | Chessdreamer: <Grega> You are right,
1st board is:
Botvinnik vs Robatsch, 1962, 2nd board is this game,
3rd board:Spassky vs A Kinzel, 1962, and 4th board:
Lokvenc vs Geller, 1962.
(Tal played quite well +7, =6, -0, but
not vs.Austria. Noteable game:
Tal vs Hecht, 1962 ]
<acirce> thanks for your kibitzing about 18.-a5!! |
|
| Jul-30-08 | | azi: I have a feeling that Petrosian was demonstrating that he had the draw in hand at move 30 and there was reason for white to offer a draw ,rather than black. Possibly a point of 'ego ordering' by El Tigre or a prediction for white. A great game and 18..a5 is a stellar move! |
|
| Mar-11-12 | | LoveThatJoker: GUESS-THE-MOVE FINAL SCORE:
A Dueckstein vs Petrosian, 1962.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF PETROSIAN.
Your score: 78 (par = 47)
LTJ |
|
Mar-11-12
 | | Penguincw: Amazing king walk. Pretty brave, especially in an open position with queens. |
|
| Mar-11-12 | | LoveThatJoker: <Penguincw> Well said! There is a famous game against Fischer where Petrosian did that for the win as well (also as Black!). Fischer vs Petrosian, 1959
LTJ |
|
Mar-11-12
| | Penguincw: Here's another game.
V Gashimov vs Grischuk, 2010
Sadly, these games don't count because:
Kramnik vs Topalov, 2003 (Queens are off the board) Short vs Timman, 1991 (Closed Position) Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999 (Topalov did the king walk but lost) |
|
| Mar-11-12 | | LoveThatJoker: <Penguincw> Thanks for the games, man. I'm interested in seeing Kramnik vs. Topalov, 2003.
For sure, I know the Grischuk game: I actually labelled it "The Tightrope Game" right there on the comment section. It's a classic. Short vs Timman, 1991: I haven't clicked on the link yet, but isn't this the game where Short marches his K all the way to h6 so as to mate Black with his Q on g7? I remember seeing GM Dzindzi comment on this game on one of his videos and it made a huge impression on me. Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999: Again, I haven't clicked on the link yet, but judging by the players and the date this must surely be Kasparov's Immortal. LTJ
PS. Swing by my forum and post your favourite/most memorable Fischer game of all-time, man! |
|
| May-08-12 | | xombie: Now that I look at this game again, I think I have some more insight into the baffling move 18 ... c5. In many ways, what transpired is rather similar to the theme in the Spassky-Petrosian Torre attack game. In the game continuation, Dueckstein takes on a5, and upon pushing to a6, black just blockades the pawn with b6 (compare with the a6+b6 formation in the Spassky-Petrosian game which lead to blockade too). The second, and critical continuation that we need to look at is white pushing the pawn to b5. I am convinced that this leads to blockade as well, after 19 ... Bxc5 20. bxc6 b6, with the pawn falling sooner or later (although, later is more like it since black might not want to open lines). The other possibility here, of white playing b6 doesn't work since Qxb6 seems to win a pawn. Remarkably simple devices that are nonetheless quite instructive. |
|
| May-08-12 | | xombie: Also, commenting on Crouch (thanks, Acirce), while the book is rather enjoyable, good even - he does not throw light on the move a5 at all. Too much verbiage. |
|
| Aug-22-12 | | backrank: <Andrew Chapman: 30..Nd4 suggests Petrosian may have been happy with a draw> Not at all! He was repeating moves to gain time on the clock. Maybe it's worth mentioning that Tigran won his only other game against Dueckstein by an exchange sac, too: A Dueckstein vs Petrosian, 1968 |
|
| Jun-05-13 | | Absentee: <backrank: <Andrew Chapman: 30..Nd4 suggests Petrosian may have been happy with a draw>
Not at all! He was repeating moves to gain time on the clock. Maybe it's worth mentioning that Tigran won his only other game against Dueckstein by an exchange sac, too: A Dueckstein vs Petrosian, 1968> Were they already using increments? |
|
| Apr-26-14 | | waustad: I don't think clocks that did increments existed yet. This is 10 years before Fischer-Spassky. I never saw clocks that could in tournaments 25 years ago and this was a lot earlier. Then again, the type of tournaments I played in, we brought our own equipment and I used a BHB wind up clock, which was typical. Actually I still use one now playing blitz in the bar. |
|
Apr-27-14
 | | perfidious: Never saw a clock with increments until 1999. |
|
| Apr-27-14 | | RedShield: All clocks have increments. Otherwise, they'd be useless. |
|
| Sep-04-15 | | bluestar2022: Very Instructive Game by Petrosian..
However, White had an escape at move 34. He should use Petrosian's own Idea and sacrifice the Exchange back himself!
34.Rxe5!! Qxe5 35.Qxc4 and Black can't win this as his King is also under fire and checks. Black will have a better pawn structure but i doubt that he can use it easily here. |
|
| Dec-19-18 | | sakredkow: I love Andy Soltis but in my edition of The Art of Defense in Chess, after 18. c5 he has White's queen standing on f3 instead of b3. I'm not sure which is actually correct but he also spells Petrosian's opponent's name Duckstein. |
|
| Dec-19-18 | | Howard: Wasn't this game analyzed in HOw to Defend in Chess, by the late Colin Crouch ? |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 26...Bxe5