Main differences between Petrosian and Capablanca

Originally posted by chrspayn
Don't seem to be able to edit the post above, here are win/draw/loss breakdowns for Capa, Tigran, and a couple of other World champs for reference:

Capablanca: +371 -47 =262 [73.8%]
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=47544

Petrosian: +697 -160 =1071 [63.9%]
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=16149

Kasprov: +796 -124 =780 [ ...[text shortened]... id=12295

Anand: +613 -191 =888 [62.5%]
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=12088

These stats are useless without taking into account opposition.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I mean not to offend. I was of the impression that the only reason a GM would not recommend a novice(basically, me) to study Petrosian's games is because "Petrosian is too passive." Of course, that's just one GM's opinion. I don't really know how other GMs feel about trying to study Petrosian.

Whose games should I study? Bent Larsen? Michael Adams? Karpov? Steinitz? Lasker? Paul Morphy? Please don't tell me to study Bobby Fischer's games. The KIA and Sicilian are just not my cup of tea. 😛

If the logic is that I am too inexperienced to understand Petrosian, then shouldn't it follow that by the time I understand Petrosian, I will no longer be a novice?

For the sake of chess, can't one try to understand Petrosian?

Originally posted by Pacifique
In fact during his non losing streak between 1916 and 1924 Capa played only in one top GM tournament - London 1922. He had his loss (vs Reti) in 5th round of another top GM tournament - New York 1924.

Also domination of Capa was not so absolute - during his championship he played in 5 tournaments:

1) London 1922 - 1st place
2) New York 1924 - 2nd ...[text shortened]... ind Bogoljubov and Lasker)
4) Lake Hopatcong 1926 - 1st place
5) New York 1927 - 1st place

I think in New York 1924 Lasker shared first place with Alekhine. So Capablanca was third.

Originally posted by w0lver1ne
I think in New York 1924 Lasker shared first place with Alekhine. So Capablanca was third.

Lasker- 16
Capa- 14.5
Alekhine- 12
Marshall- 11

Originally posted by hamworld
I mean not to offend. I was of the impression that the only reason a GM would not recommend a novice(basically, me) to study Petrosian's games is because "Petrosian is too passive." Of course, that's just one GM's opinion. I don't really know how other GMs feel about trying to study Petrosian.

Whose games should I study? Bent Larsen? Michael Adams? Karp ...[text shortened]... o longer be a novice?

For the sake of chess, can't one try to understand Petrosian?

Petrosian was strongly influenced by Nimzowitsch. There is a story that when he was young he slept with "My System" under his pillow.

So if you understand Nimzowitsch, you might understand Petrosian.

Petrosian liked to play on the wings, so he played openings with which he would obtain a closed center.

He was also a master of the positional sacrifice, like giving a rook for a minor piece while getting a strong passed pawn in return.

Originally posted by w0lver1ne
So if you understand Nimzowitsch, you might understand Petrosian.

Unfortunately, not even Nimzowitsch understood Nimzowitsch.

I'm currently reading a (rather clunky) translation of his "Praxis", and it's convinced me that it's quite possible to be, at one and the same time, a genius and a humbug.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Unfortunately, not even Nimzowitsch understood Nimzowitsch.

I'm currently reading a (rather clunky) translation of his "Praxis", and it's convinced me that it's quite possible to be, at one and the same time, a genius and a humbug.

Richard

Back in my younger days, I bought CHESS PRAXIS by A. Nimzovich and never really understood it, other than his opponents were not playing good moves. Perhaps I should have bought his first book MY SYSTEM first. 😏

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Aw. Studying the classics will take a long time... like, around 10 years. I just hope I gain more then lose from the classics.