|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-21-07 | | Rodrigo Gutierrez: Mmm, I think 20. Re7 loses: 20... Bxc1 21. Qxc1 Qxd6 22. Rxb7 Qc5+ 23. Kh1 Rc8. |
|
| Mar-26-09 | | Thanatos13: in that variation 21. ... Qxd6 is like giving the queen as a gift. 20. Re7 does make an extra move, but all throughout the game, you can see Nei moving back and forth wasting 3 moves. It looked like Nei didn't see it until it was too late, but what a good game.
Playing against Iron Tigran must be very scary/ fun. |
|
| Mar-26-09 | | arsen387: this is why Spassky after their first WC match described Petrosian as 'first and foremost a stupendous tactician'. very nice tactical sequence Rxe3, Bh6, Rc8! and Bxc1 and whites lose a piece in any case, as after 22.Qxc1 Nxa2 wins the pinned N. And then the despearte attack didn't work of course, as blacks attack comes faster. Beautiful! |
|
| Apr-19-09 | | zdiddy: Why not 21. Ra1 to avoid losing that rook? |
|
| Apr-19-09 | | WhiteRook48: <zdiddy> 21...Rxc3 |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | zdiddy: 22. Nxc3 |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | arsen387: <zdiddy> whites can't avoid giving back the exchange, as after 21.Ra1 there's always Nc2 forking both Rs. There are maybe better moves than 21..Nc2 immediately, just wanted to say whites can't hold the exchange. Petrosian knew that when playing 18..Rxe3, so it wasn't an exchange sac, but a beautiful combination with some pretty tactics |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | rchczrms: With positional advantages, Petrosian was able to scatter tactics in this game. This is both fun and instructive. Do you agree with me, <arsen>? :) |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | arsen387: I agree <Rich>, in the postion before Rxe3 blacks though a pawn down, have much more powerful Bs and a monster N on b4, which decided the game due to some nice tactics. and that was really 'both fun and instructive' :) |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | mendellevin: A precursor to the famous sicilian game where kasparov played d5 against karpov to get a knight to d3 and active play (?) |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | blacksburg: who said Petrosian was boring? WHO? I DEMAND TO KNOW!!! |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | Jim Bartle: (raises hand meekly) |
|
| Apr-20-09 | | mendellevin: Petrosian is one of my favorite players, not boring at all. |
|
Apr-20-09
 | | stoy: To blacksburg: it was a Moscow taxi driver. You are welcome. |
|
Apr-20-09
 | | keypusher: <blacksburg> Larry Evans before the 1971 Candidates final: <The only way Petrosian will beat Bobby is by boring him to death.> Draw (ha!) your own conclusions. |
|
| Apr-21-09 | | arsen387: I'd like to know what Evans would say about those guys' chess strength in early 60s... Nothing like that I'm sure :) |
|
| Apr-21-09 | | blacksburg: <Jim Bartle> <Larry Evans> <taxi driver> you're on my list now! you don't want want to be on my list! bad things happen to people on my list! ok...i like <Jim>...but <Larry Evans> is going down ITS ON LIKE DONKEY KONG LARRY EVANS!!!! <The only way Petrosian will beat Bobby is by boring him to death.> honestly, that may have been a better strategy. instead, Petrosian played the Sicilian. bad decision. |
|
| Apr-21-09 | | rchczrms: <honestly, that may have been a better strategy. instead, Petrosian played the Sicilian. bad decision.> Yes, I agree. What could Fischer do if Petrosian again used the French Winawer against him? Fischer might have prepared for that but he always found it hard to tackle. |
|
| Apr-21-09 | | rchczrms: <arsen> Nei's somewhat backward position---pieces kept in the back rank certainly helped Petrosian. |
|
Apr-21-09
| | keypusher: <rchczrms: <honestly, that may have been a better strategy. instead, Petrosian played the Sicilian. bad decision.>> Petrosian played a different defense in each black game. In #1, the Sicilian Taimanov, when Petrosian wasted Suetin's great innovation; in #3, the French Burn; in #5, the Petroff; in #7, the Sicilian Kan; in #9, the French Guimard. Also, there are Sicilians and then there are Sicilians. The Kan is not the Najdorf. <Yes, I agree. What could Fischer do if Petrosian again used the French Winawer against him? Fischer might have prepared for that but he always found it hard to tackle.> One advantage of Fischer's narrow repertoire was that he was prepared to a fare-thee-well in any line he could reasonably expect to encounter. Fischer vs Larsen, 1971
Petrosian was obviously determined to avoid lines in which Fischer had lots of experience (again, except for Game 1, where Petrosian had a surprise ready). Openings are much more important at the super GM level than they are for us amateurs, but this wasn't a particularly opening-centric match. |
|
| Apr-24-09 | | rchczrms: Hello <keypusher>! What a surprise! You are one of the most respected kibitzers here (because you play well and your contributions have weight) and you happen to drop by and answer my not-so-important kibitz. I have looked at the match again particularly Petrosian's Black games. What amazed me (and I must admit!) that Fischer has adopted Petrosian's style and used it against him. Certainly Fischer (prior to 1970 and this match) might have been obsessed on beating Petrosian. I agree that this might not have been a match of openings but instead, skill pitted against skill. Fischer in 1970-71 should we say have already known and understood chess---he could play any position and could solve all minute problems on his position. Destiny might have a hand in "reserving" a place for Fischer in the history books. To sum all of this, this Petrosian-Fischer match should be studied by amateurs who want some depth in their positional game. |
|
| Jul-05-11 | | ToTheDeath: Petrosian's 13...d5 is in reality premature and a mistake. In positions like this you want the pawn on a6 before playing ...d5 so the knight can't hop into b5 as it did here. Since ...a5 has already been played Black should objectively seek a different plan (like 13...Nfd7 to e5 or 13...Nh5), as here White was simple a clear pawn up while retaining a dominating position. White's real error was 21.Nd4? effectively giving up the pride and joy of his position, the "extra" passed d pawn. After 21. Qd4! Bxc1 22. Rxc1 the position is just extremely bad for Black. White's original intention was probably 22.Nxf5 but he must have talked himself out of it after seeing 22...Rxc3- however here again, 23.Qd4! (centralization) threatening Ne7+ forces 23...gxf5 24.Qxc3 Bf4- a scrappy position with chances for both sides. Instead after the second error 22.Bc4? Petrosian has no problem consolidating his extra piece and forcing a favorable conclusion via direct attack. A nice struggle but in reality a very lucky game for Petrosian. |
|
| May-09-18 | | Shadow4523: 13)....,d5 is that correct ,what if 14 NXc6 ....Am i missing something I feel white is good after NXC6 |
|
Sep-29-21
 | | kingscrusher: Echoes of the "Kasparov gambit" in this game which was used against Karpov - early d5. Seems very liberational of the black pieces even if it might not be entirely sound. |
|
Feb-17-23
 | | plang: 9..a5 was a new move; 9..c6 and 9..exd had been played previously. Black waited to play 10..exd until after White had weakened himself on the long diagonal with 10 b3?!. 13 Bb2..a4 14 b4..Qb6! looks very shaky for White. Later on in his career Petrosian perhaps would have preferred 13..Nfd7. 14 Nxc6..bxc 15 Bxc5..Nxe4 would have favored Black. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 18...Rxe3
