Tigran Petrosian - He was a Candidate for the World Championship on eight occasions (1953, 1956, 1959, 1962, 1971, 1974, 1977 and 1980). He won the world championship in 1963 (against Botvinnik), successfully defended it in 1966 (against Spassky), and lost it in 1969 (to Spassky). Thus he was the defending World Champion or a World Champion candidate in ten consecutive three-year cycles. He won the Soviet Championship four times (1959, 1961, 1969, and 1975). He was arguably the hardest player to beat in the history of chess. Not even the overrated Fischer can match these stats. Then again Bobby ran from his problems.
Petrosian was too staid, stiff and boring. He does not compare favorably to Tal, Lasker, Anderssen, Morphy, Capablanca, etc. Petrosian does not even compare favorably to the almost champions like Schlecter, Tarrasch, Janowski, Rubenstein. Now if you're referring to the greatest positional player of all time he wins hands down, but he was never a gambler, swashbuckler kind of a player like Tal. I also think Ruben Fine was one of the greatest players never to be champion. Karpov was also better. I agree with you that Fischer was too scared to play anyone and his demons got the best of him.
Originally posted by Jasen777Point well taken. Indeed no one was tougher to beat than Petrosian, but greatest of all time?. However, I still go with Lasker or the almost rans at the peak of their powers. Petrosian would never beat Karpov or Kasparov if any of these two was on their game.
Petrosian probably is the most underrated world champion. Just because he was "boring" doesn't mean he wasn't great.
Wish I could play as staid and boring as Petrosian!
I've always found this odd:
-Petrosian,famous for his exchange sacs
-Petrosian,Iron Tigran,the boring player
Exchange sacs are boring? 😕
Different styles appeal to different people,cannot debate it.Personally I found the few games I've seen of Petrosian intresting but I like Karpov's too,yet another boring player.
Originally posted by RomanticusNever said his play was not admirable and don't we all wish we could play like Petrosian. However, he was no Tal. I do not find Karpov boring at all, but like you say different styles appeal to different players and debating this is not possible. He's still staid and boring compared to Tal.
Wish I could play as staid and boring as Petrosian!
I've always found this odd:
-Petrosian,famous for his exchange sacs
-Petrosian,Iron Tigran,the boring player
Exchange sacs are boring? 😕
Different styles appeal to different people,cannot debate it.Personally I found the few games I've seen of Petrosian intresting but I like Karpov's too,yet another boring player.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoCompared to Tal even Anderssen looks a bit boring.On the other hand nothing confuses me more than a Tal game.
Never said his play was not admirable and don't we all wish we could play like Petrosian. However, he was no Tal. I do not find Karpov boring at all, but like you say different styles appeal to different players and debating this is not possible. He's still staid and boring compared to Tal.
I like 'em all though 🙂
Originally posted by RomanticusWe agree entirely now. And Kisieritzky or however that is spelled made Anderssen seem boring. I'm assuming you have looked at the immortal game? I wish I was as daring a player as Tal who made the rest of the world seem boring. Kiesseritzky made Tal seem like a little old lady who only plays candyland.
Compared to Tal even Anderssen looks a bit boring.On the other hand nothing confuses me more than a Tal game.
I like 'em all though 🙂
Petrosian was arguably the worlds most complete positionally correct player,correct positional play does not mean boring,it means a deep understanding of how to correctly position chesspieces and pawns which naturally leads to a superior and more often than not,winning position.Neither is it true that Petrosian had little tactical ability,but similar to A.Karpov he publicly declared that he would rather build a winning position from his opponents minor positional weaknesses,than search for the less obvious tactical opportunities.----------😉
Originally posted by RECUVICis it not true, that Fischer himself stated, that he was amazed at Petrosians ability to slowly build a formidable game through the gentle application of positionally based concepts, it is to be truly admired!
Petrosian was arguably the worlds most complete positionally correct player,correct positional play does not mean boring,it means a deep understanding of how to correctly position chesspieces and pawns which naturally leads to a superior and more often than not,winning position.Neither is it true that Petrosian had little tactical ability,but similar to A.Ka ...[text shortened]... minor positional weaknesses,than search for the less obvious tactical opportunities.----------😉
Originally posted by robbie carrobieClearly those who claim petrosian to be a boring player, do not know much him; only of course what is over the internet. For example 51' he became Moscow champion. Later he won the Sverdolovsk semi-final, and finally, won a prize in the Soviet Championship. His semi-final victory was significant in itself, for he came over Geller, AVerbakh, and Boleslavsky. The last named hadone year previously shared first place with Bronstein in the Candidates' tournament. Tigran here displayed a universality of style, but with a clearly aggresive tendency. After the tourney, Boleslavsky wrote: "in this tournament Petrosian and Geller played in ways which we had not seen before." The impression was created that they had exchanged styles with each other. Petrosian was known up till now as a positional chess player not avoiding sharp play, but preferring the safe draw to unclear complications. Clearly here Petrosian won eight games, six of them by an attack on the king.
is it not true, that Fischer himself stated, that he was amazed at Petrosians ability to slowly build a formidable game through the gentle application of positionally based concepts, it is to be truly admired!
Originally posted by scacchipazzoIndeed. Petrosian was too staid, stiff and boring.
Petrosian was too staid, stiff and boring. He does not compare favorably to Tal, Lasker, Anderssen, Morphy, Capablanca, etc. Petrosian does not even compare favorably to the almost champions like Schlecter, Tarrasch, Janowski, Rubenstein. Now if you're referring to the greatest positional player of all time he wins hands down, but he was never a gambler ...[text shortened]... I agree with you that Fischer was too scared to play anyone and his demons got the best of him.
Originally posted by ResigningSoonDevelop your pieces quickly,not too many pawn moves in the opening,blablabla.....
Ivanchuck.
Who else can beat Kasparov by undeveloping in the opening?
Makes perfect sense.
[pgn]1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 b6 5. a3 Bf8 6. Nf3 Ne7 7. h4 h6 8. h5 a5 9. Bb5+ c6 10. Ba4 Nd7 11. Ne2 b5 12. Bb3 c5 13. c3 Nc6 14. O-O Qc7 15. Re1 c4 16. Bc2 Nb6 17. Bf4 Be7 18. Bg3 Rb8 19. Nh2 Qd8 20. Ng4 b4 21. axb4 axb4 22. cxb4 Nxb4 23. Bb ...[text shortened]... Nxc4 dxc4 31. Qf1 O-O 0-1[/pgn]
Oh, and when he finally finishes development, Kaspy resigns.
Great game 🙂