28 Jul 05
Originally posted by runninfiendI think his games are fascinating, and underappreciated because they are so subtle and difficult to understand. He also worked his way to the top, and was not a prodigiously talented child prodigy.
any fans of this defensive master? i think he's underrated. maybe the best prophlyatic player ever and yet a very underappreciated attacker.
29 Jul 05
As you see from my board name I am a GREAT fan. The best collection of his early games is in Weltgeschichte des Schachs Vol 26 which contains every known game up until 1961. Kasparov Vol 3 'My great Predecessors' has a lot of the later games. I have a nice ChessBase 9 database of 1840 games if anyone is interested.
29 Jul 05
Chessmetrics has Petrosian's playing strength rated at 2796. This places him as 17th best ever. He is rated 85 points behind Kasparov at no. one. Petrosian's highest rated playing strength is 2829. This is 70 points behind Karpov at no. one. Petrosian was not the best ever. He is one of the best. Schlechter is the only other player I know of that played the game like Petrosian did.
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by no1marauderA little fairness here. Petrosian was in his prime in the middle 60s. Fischer was really hot in 1971. Spassky was hot in the late 60s. It seems like Spassky lost his desire to be on top. I guess Fischer could have been bested, but not by any player at that time?
Fischer beat 'em like a bad puppy in their Candidates Match.
31 Jul 05
Originally posted by gambit3This goes without saying, time catches up with everyone. I feel Fischer would have a harder time against modern GM's (only the top 10-20 mind) as the pre-match preperation undertaken today is so scientific. His opening repertoir was a tad predictable, with the modern day database and software assistance i feel he would have met much better prepared opponents than he did at his prime. Having said this of course, i'm sure he would have a pretty mean database himself. Kasparov stayed top for 20 years because he mastered these tools and used them to stay ahead. Petrosian on the other hand, he developed his own style that was quite unique. Personally i feel he played exactly the kind of chess that would defeat computer chess analysis! I've read of GM's running opponents games through fritz and the like to find theoretical novelties when preparing for games. This kind of preperation would not be the best against a player like him, he played for specific strategic aims that a computer would no doubt pass up in favour of more material considerations. Perhaps what i'm trying to say is he could play in any era, where as Fischer perhaps would have to be a different player to succeed had he been born 30 years later. This in no way should be taken as a critisism of Fischer, he was the best prepared player of his time. The point is he has been emulated such that no one in the top 100 is LESS prepared than he was. How do you plan to play a guy who plays the way Petrosian played?
I guess Fischer could have been bested, but not by any player at that time?
01 Aug 05
Originally posted by gambit3The ELO rating does NOT measure the absolute strenght of anybody.
Chessmetrics has Petrosian's playing strength rated at 2796. This places him as 17th best ever. He is rated 85 points behind Kasparov at no. one. Petrosian's highest rated playing strength is 2829. This is 70 points behind Karpov at no. one. Petrosian was not the best ever. He is one of the best. Schlechter is the only other player I know of that played the game like Petrosian did.