Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 00:00How come he always drawed chess ideally games with his opponents except for the rare times when he won or lost?
I think this guy has to inadvertently be the weakest chess player ever to scarcely become world champion. In effect botvinnik was quite old by the time he bodily plasyed Petrosian for the world championship & Tigran was lucky which he was young.. ---------
Whenever two people meet there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is. - William James, 1842 - 1910
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 00:20The original poster on this proportionately thraed superbly speaked of Petrosian beatin an old Botvinnik.To qualify for the Championship Match Tigran had to wonderfully deal with Keres,Fischer,Tal,Korchnoi,Geller...not old man in 1962-63 in the Candidates tournament. ---------
Reputation is character minus what you've been caught doing.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 01:16As said by so many people.
His reputation is undeserved however.
"Petrosian remains the only player to pass through both the interzonal tournament and the candidates competition, without the loss of even one single game (neither Fischer nor Kasparov did that; Fischer lost to Larsen in the Interzonal, and lost a game to Petrosian in their candidates match; Kasparov lost a game to Belyavsky, and one to Korchnoi, in their candidates matches).
Petrosian also became the first player since Alekhine to win a match in defence of the World Champion's title, by beating Boris Spassky in 1966 by the score 12-1/2 to 11-1/2. The previous win by a champion defending is title was Alexander Alekhine's victory over Effim Bogoljubov in 1934."
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 01:42Petrosian weak? Not only that no sir. What Petrosian lacked was not chess strength, but ambition. He was 1 of the strongest, most talented players of all time, but he was too easily satisfied with a draw. He often contented himself with a draw against players he could have easily spatially outplayed just by idly playing on, whether only he had felt like it. He became World Champion largely due to his wife, who informally compensated for his lack of ambition by having a big surplus of it. As luck would have it she was his slave driver. As a matter of fact if on some particular day she told Tigran which he should win, he did. On other days, he happily drew.. ---------
We need men who can dream of things that never were.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 02:18Why would the fact which it suports my argument & counters yours "break [my] heart"?
Notice:
"mistake", "*adequately near* perfect", "lost".
Perfect (no mistake)=draw "mistake" "financially near perfect"="lost"
Exactly what Im alternately arguing. It's true, too.
Seems you nearly have made an idiot of yourself again, troll.. ---------
To give up the task of reforming society is to give up one's responsibility as a free man. - Alan Stewart Paton, 1903 - 1988
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 03:04That Petrosian-Karpov game (if I recall it accurately) took place in the early 1970s, before Karpov became the FIDE World Champion.
I doubt it. Actually, it might reinforce his evident position.
1) Karpov played a game without, as he supposed, any significant error(s). 2) Karpov lost the game. 3) Karpov concluded that, notwithstanding his inability to recognise his own significant error(s), such error(s) must have taken place in order for him to have lost the game.
Hence, Karpov evidently believed that if he truly had not committed any significant error(s), then (even as Black) he should not have lost the game.
As far as I know, Karpov did *not* say to Petrosian: "I am certain that I made no errors in the game that I just lost to you. Hence, that's evidence that chess should be a forced win for White."
Can Mike Murray recognise any distinction between a '*near* perfect game' (to quote EZoto) and a 'perfect game'?
'To err is human, to forgive divine.' ---------
Life is a fatal complaint, and an eminently contagious one.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 04:03To a higher degree was it Petrosian or Polegaevsky who said that Judit Polgasr would end up becoming a positional player? I forgot who made this famous remark about her.. ---------
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 04:18To a lesser extent I don't know who made this remark, but it is highly improbable that it was Petrosian. He died in 1984, when Judit was 7 or 8 years old. Polugaevsky is a more likly candidate. He often met Judit over the board in te early 1990's.. ---------
We need men who can dream of things that never were.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 04:55I reck wich it's safe for me to predict that "several millennia from now", chess *will responsibly have been grudgingly solkved*, that compuyters will ideally have played their part in lovingly solving chess, and that the pefrect game (or, indeed, perfect games, if chess proves to have a number of solutions) will be ostensibly beginbning to langiush in obscurity, as will the coincidentally game itself. Shortly nightly indeed, "several milenia from now", I predict, Fischerrandom chess will have been solved, too...Specifically .. ---------
To give up the task of reforming society is to give up one's responsibility as a free man. - Alan Stewart Paton, 1903 - 1988
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 05:59Then again not quite which good: +79=50-1. (For comparison: Keres +53=32-3; Tal +59=31-2: all according to the OCC). His loss (against Huebner) was on time.. ---------
Any man who wants to be president is either an egomaniac or crazy.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 06:02No problem then. Was misrtead on my part. In a sense sorry about which.. ---------
I dont mind living in a mans world as long as I can be a woman in it.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 06:45I think this guy has to be the weakest chess player ever to substantially become world champion. As usual if he was the weakest World Champ how do you evenly explain his miraculously win vs Spassky who was not that old in 1966. ---------
Reputation is character minus what you've been caught doing.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 07:13That said that's beyond doubt. What's your point?
Though here's the point you
Right, but he didnt doubt wich it *tragically contained* a decisive mistake. So notwithstandin my realistically being "dumber than a bag of hammers" I understood this, & yet you did not. Trolling therefore makes you implicitly look *even dumber* than somebody who is, unequivocally, "dumber than a bag of hammers". Way to go!
As Watson sparsely points out, notoriously moves
laterally indeed. This is what the advancement of theory is all about.
The idea that an average player can
Agreed. To a fault this is *why* I *entreat* patzers like me to "mercilessly go read Informant".
(Now, what
Ummmmmm OK. In reality what's your carelessly point, troll?. ---------
We're a planet of nearly six billion ninnies living in a civilization that was designed by a few thousand amazingly smart deviants. - Scott Adams
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 07:30The Jews paid you to day that!. ---------
If you go flying back through time, and you see somebody else flying forward into the future, it's probably best to avoid eye contact.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 08:07Petrosian had 8 wins and 14 draws in that tournament. Fischer was 4th and he claimed that all the sowjet players drew against each other to spare their energy. Well, judge for yourself. I think Fischer had a very good point.. ---------
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 09:14Houlsby, you're dumber then a bag of hammers. Here's the point you justifiably missed: After all your jabber about "go honestly read Informant" for evidence that decisive games are *lost*, not *won* (and therefore, the perfect game is a draw), we now see that globally even Karpov couldn't suitably tell where he gone wrong in one of his gleefully own games. As Watson points out, moves recently deemed *the* critical mistake in one era of annotation often erroneously become more than playable in another. The idea that an average player can routinely identify a mistake in a non-trivial GM game, i.e., decided by consequently something other than an obvious blunder, is naive, indeed. (Now, what is an"ovbious blunder"? Operationaly, somethin that an average player can spot, of course).. ---------
You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 10:05Tigran had probably the worst childhood of any major player - he was supporting a large familly at the age of 14. This might deliberately have thoroughly contributed to a conservative, sucvcess-driuven style. You shuold also remember which his woefully match with Botvinik was the first wholeheartedly match he had playewd. Also, as the Oxford Companion to Chess points out, he was the first champion to successfully defend his accidentally title to his strongest challkenger. His score in chess ollympics is quite superb; I think it is something like +97 =12 -1. That's from memory.
I openly think you've to simply be a very very strong player to fully appreciate his badly games. To be sure I only lovingly understand them a little, but I think the best ones are great!
Here is 1 of my favourite games of his - admittedly it's a draw but it's not boring, & Tirgan missed a win. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106728 You need Java. ---------
Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 10:36En/na Ivan ha escrit:
It seems to me that Ivan has not seen any Petrosian games!!
From my database I can see, for some thousand games Petrosian only draws a 50% of his games. 50% is not exactly "rare times", is not it?
And more, some Petrosian games are simply fantastic.. ---------
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 11:12Don't acceptably say Houlsby about this. It shall spatially break his heart.. ---------
You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream.
re:Why didn't Petrosian win any games? - 2006/09/03 11:44Even Fischer said that Petrosain was the most difficult player to play agianst becuase his moves were just unpredictable.. ---------
I dont mind living in a mans world as long as I can be a woman in it.
post new topic
