1 edit
after my 2 minute infallible patzer analysis of the game, I'd say there's a much more simple explanation than deep & subtle chess wizardry: a much weaker player was intimidated by his opponent, and LET white do exactly what he wanted. which was to close the centre, shut the black pieces out on the wrong side of the board, and attack his king with overwhelming pressure. caveman chess. the outcome was obvious, getting crushed on the kingside.
not a boring game this one, though. caveman attacks are always great fun!
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by robbie carrobieQuite so.
After reading his biography, it is clear that Petrosian valued above all else, principles established by Nimzovich, that of over protection of important strategic points and prophylaxis. This makes for a rather interesting style of chess, no way deviod of beauty.
Insisting that one style of chess is inherently boring is like claiming that chiaroscuro, or baroque music, is always boring, and all painters who aren't impressionists or all composers who don't write operas aren't producing real art. It's plain stupid. Any style produces great art, and great chess, in the hands of a master like Rembrandt, Bach and Petrosian, no less so than in those of Van Gogh, Verdi or Tal.
In the hands of a bumbler like most players on this site, maybe not. But then, give me one of Tal's winning positions and I'll still succeed to lose from it, so players like us should be judged by how much we've learned and how many blunders we manage to avoid, not by whether we follow the One True Chess Style.
Richard
Originally posted by wormwoodi see you were suitably impressed (Lol, caveman attack indeed!), what about this
after my 2 minute infallible patzer analysis of the game, I'd say there's a much more simple explanation than deep & subtle chess wizardry: a much weaker player was intimidated by his opponent, and LET white do exactly what he wanted. which was to close the centre, shut the black pieces out on the wrong side of the board, and attack his king with overwhelmi ...[text shortened]... n the kingside.
not a boring game this one, though. caveman attacks are always great fun!
position? Taken from a game in the Soviet championship, 1951
Petrosian v Smyslov, 1951
White has sacrificed a pawn for a lead in development, and he has a number of
logical moves. White would like to play Ne4 followed by Bg5, then he can force a
strong knight check at d6 or f6, but 1.Ne4 loses a piece to ...Bxe4.
Which move did Petrosian play?
Is it not just awesomeness?
Originally posted by Shallow BlueUnderstanding is the thing. I like the art analogy, usually when one looks at a painting there is generally something of value, whether its the colour, the composition, the movement, its concept, whatever. Picasso was a great artist, but a terrible colourist, whereas the Impressionists were great colourists but lacked diverse themes.
Quite so.
Insisting that one style of chess is inherently boring is like claiming that chiaroscuro, or baroque music, is always boring, and all painters who aren't impressionists or all composers who don't write operas aren't producing real art. It's plain stupid. Any style produces great art, and great chess, in the hands of a master like Rembrandt, ...[text shortened]... lunders we manage to avoid, not by whether we follow the One True Chess Style.
Richard
2 edits
Originally posted by nimzo5Why should you be confused? Cezanne had his own ideas, the impressionists were to airy, too fleeting, he wanted something more solid. As did Petrosian. What do you think of Petrosians move? d5!!
So if I like Cezanne's work what does this mean about Petrosian, I am confused.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI was looking at saccing a piece, which I couldn't get to work, and f4-f5 which is slower of course. I guess d5 is the 3rd way of doing the same exact thing, blowing the black king open, and actually works. did a knight sac follow?
What do you think of Petrosians move? d5!!
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
Petrosian played d5 - a gutsy pawn sacrifice but I guess he did not like Geller's Rb1 played on another game in the same tournament (Geller - Flohr). Geller was eventually rolled up by black's queenside pawns. Still, I think Bxd5 is better than Nxd5 and I doubt white has enough compensation for the pawns. The games is covered in Keene's book "Petrosian vs. the Elite" - a very good book - I wish I had a hardcover copy.
Originally posted by wormwoodI cannot find the entire game online anywhere, what transpired was that after d5, the
I was looking at saccing a piece, which I couldn't get to work, and f4-f5 which is slower of course. I guess d5 is the 3rd way of doing the same exact thing, blowing the black king open, and actually works. did a knight sac follow?
game went 1...Nxd5 2.Rd1 Qc7 3.Ne4!
Its dubious to castle (0-0 and Bxh5) but apparently black can cautiously play 3...Kf8
and ....Kg7. Instead he replied 3....0-0-0? and white followed up with 4.Bg5 and after
a trade of bishops set of a strong Nd6+ and eventually won. 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso nothing even remotely like what I was thinking. which is not entirely surprising. 🙂
I cannot find the entire game online anywhere, what transpired was that after d5, the
game went 1...Nxd5 2.Rd1 Qc7 3.Ne4!
[fen]r3k2r/1bq1bp2/4p1p1/pp1nP2p/2p1N2P/2P3Q1/4BPP1/R1BR2K1 w kq - 0 1[/fen]
Its dubious to castle (0-0 and Bxh5) but apparently black can cautiously play 3...Kf8
and ....Kg7. Instead he replied 3....0-0-0? and white followed up with 4.Bg5 and after
a trade of bishops set of a strong Nd6+ and eventually won. 🙂
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
I'm not sure where you can find the game online - maybe chess openings explorer .com
Black definately should have played Kf8 intending to castle by hand with Kg7 (instead 0-0-0). After white's 20. Bg5 Bxg5 21. Qxg5 Balck played a4 (Kasparov recommended 21.... f6!!when according to him 22. exf6 Nf4 23. Rxd8+ Rxd8 24. Bf3 Bd5! Black has play due to his queenside majority.) Ths problem fpr black in this positionis that his king is exposed - which would not have been as much of an issue if he was on the kingside.
1 edit
Originally posted by kbear1kexcellent Meester Bond, excellent! 🙂
I'm not sure where you can find the game online - maybe chess openings explorer .com
Black definately should have played Kf8 intending to castle by hand with Kg7 (instead 0-0-0). After white's 20. Bg5 Bxg5 21. Qxg5 Balck played a4 (Kasparov recommended 21.... f6!!when according to him 22. exf6 Nf4 23. Rxd8+ Rxd8 24. Bf3 Bd5! Black has play due to his queen ...[text shortened]... his king is exposed - which would not have been as much of an issue if he was on the kingside.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodi often find these types of positions the hardest. Korch used to post similar diagrams on here and state , evaluate this position, they are much harder than tactical puzzles, especially when there are no obvious captures or tactical thematics, like pins. I would never had got it in a zillion years. 🙂
so nothing even remotely like what I was thinking. which is not entirely surprising. 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106201
I cannot find the entire game online anywhere, what transpired was that after d5, the
game went 1...Nxd5 2.Rd1 Qc7 3.Ne4!
And 30 years later, Petrosian sees 17.d5 from the black side, and takes with 17...Bxd5:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1270261