I fed my family with the King’s Indian has to be one of the most Armenian quotes I’ve ever heard. My first regular opponent was Armenian and his pawn play always shut my pieces down, and he loved Petrosian. Underrated, not flashy, but solid Old Testament chess!
Folks think that Petrosian didn't calculate, but remember, he was a speed chess player on par with Tal. In his earliest appearances on the Soviet chess scene he was considered a fearless tactician. One of his trainers introduced him to one of Nimzovich's books (My System) and Tigran changed his playing style completely, becoming closer to Capablanca who often use "petite combinations" to build up winning positions with minimal risk. He definitely was a rare talent.
Happy to find your channel. So happy to see some good old chess before people were told what moves to do by a computer and actually had to create for themselves. So much more beauty in these games
players also had more distinct "personalities" reflected in their play. A playing style. Nowadays everyone just plays the same lines and ideas because they know what's best.
I'm not sure about that. Spassky always said that Petrossian was, above all, a colossal tactician. Fischer had more or less the same opinion about him.
@@DarthMessias it all comes down to who you define "tactics" and "strategy". For example trading his strong bishop for that knight, thus giving up the bishop pair, to create a weak pawn structure was tactics in my opinion. You can't really separate these.
@@Puschit1 Man, tactic is when you calculate lines. "weak pwn structure" is purely strategic judgement that can be meaningless in the current tactical situation.
@@peceed there may always be dynamic, or even outright tactical compensation for weak pawn structure. a weakness is only a weakness to the extent that it can be exploited. neither strategy nor tactics can really be considered in isolation, it's more about where the emphasis goes, but it's a spectrum. at least that's how I understand it.
Chess is not only art, but also character, precision, and figural foresight. However, the computer does not know any of the above except the algorithm. 64 fields and 32 figures and rules. You don't need to count 4 million steps to win the game. A human brain with visual organs can develop human cells that can outperform even quantum computers on a limited board.
Because tactics did not occur does not mean the game had none. Tactics and calculation allows one to play the “calm” positional moves. It is more subtle than just saying oh I only want to play positional moves. Your opponent can always middy the waters as Gligoric did here with Bf2! Petrosian had to see far enough to know he would defend against the initiative and prevail.
Enjoyed the good commentary! I have always been impressed with Petrosian’s style. Oh yea, Very impressed with your pronunciations of the foreign names! Good job!
With 4 moves Petrosian secured the center without response. He was laughing inside. Not trading the bishops was also genius by Petrosian. He wanted the dark bishop to stay obsolete.
12:12 G. already had weak king defense before 12:12 then he gets greedy and grabs the pawn, hanging his bishop out to dry unless it retreats to f7. G should have kept his queen back to help the king. G. basically trapped both his rooks AND queen trying to attack a well-defended king that had 3 pawns intact on 2nd row and 2 rooks available to help defend and abandoned his king pretty much. :(
Guess it depends on your definition of "tactics." There were plenty of motifs from Petrosian that eventually led to the possibilities favoring him over his opponent, it's just that the advantages being accumulated usually didn't lead to his winning material
As has been pointed out many times before, 37. Ne2 is a huge mistake that completely gives away all of White's advantage. Black plays 37...Rxe4! and the computer says with best play it is completely equal. This was discovered shortly after the game was played; well before the computer age.
I'm sure there was plenty of calculation in this game. Even when you're playing highly positional you still need to calculate potential tactics in order to be sure your moves are safe.
37. Ne2 (11:35) was a big blunder, because black could equalize by Rxe4. (38.fxe4? Nxe4 39.Qe1 Qxd5 etc) Maybe Petrosian should have calculate that move!
It is an excellent question. I should have mentioned that move in the video. The problem bc6 is that it gives white the d5 square for his knight after he takes back with the d pawn. It also opens up the a2-g8 diagonal leading right at black's king. White would have a significant advantage.
When I started to read chess books , and going to simul exhibitions given by masters/experts/ Petrosian was invited to the Boylston Chess Club, in Boston Ma.where I played him, wished I would have recalled where I put that score sheet!!! Think I resigned by move 12 or 13:-) 1980 or 1981 seems about right.
@@chessdawg Thanks, had I known I was going to really catch the chess fever, I would have made sure I recall where I put it!:-)......there was no ICC, no on line chess, in fact I never even attended a USCF OTB chess tournament at this time, think my first on was in 1987!!..the only opponents I was playing was neighbor friends and work associates....but I loved chess books, but I spent way too much time studying openings, just a total waste of time...think the Russians teach it correctly....BACKWARDS (endgames)>>>>then the MIDDLE GAME>>>>>>THEN the openings.
Complete Amateur here, but @ 5:25 if the Knight goes C5 and gets pushed off by Pawn C4, can it not move to B3 threatening White Queen and then to D4 looking to exchange with Knight on E2, followed up with Knight to G3 capture the Rook on H1 with the next move to F2 threatening the Rook on D1? Help a chess noob out.
White's knight and bishop both control d4, so the knight would be captured if it landed there. White would win a pawn and control the key dark squared diagonal in that case.
I also did a pretty similar thing in a chess tournament at my school(btw this was back when i barely even knew anything about chess and i still don't know much about chess today) and won the first match.. I knew which were their roles and where to move them but had no tactics at all so pretty much at the start i copied what almost everyone does in the beginning..which is move the pon to a certain place and then move the horse..then after that i just moved random pieces on the board..it was so funny looking at the guys expression ..he would sometimes nod the starts to look confused at what i was doing.. anyway i won that using my queen and rook or whatever it's called.. though I lost the second match.
A 2000 rated player explaining the moves of two 2700 players is like a car pool driver explaining how to handle a F1 car. I have to admit even listening to a GM does not help in the least
6:48 isn't this a tactic though? He didn't play it, but he could have, and that's what made the move strong. Without the tactic it's just a knight sac.
I have minimal tactics as well. Not because I’m good rather I don’t know how to…. Honestly too complex for me to calculate atm. I just watch what my opponent does and play according to the general rules of defence n attack.
Exceptional game. Computers showed Kings Indian is a bad opening on the GM level. But Tigran knew that before the Silicon Era. I enjoy your commentary. You add additional layers to the game.
12:13 I'm maybe stupid and a nub at chess, but why won't the blacks just move the knight at E8? And if Queen takes bishop at H5, then blacks just go knight G7. I mean not saying that the blacks would definitely win by making these moves, but idk at least it has some variants and seems equal to me
petrsoian was a nimzowhitsch student. that means to be world champ using nimzo style had better know tactics and calculation. i dont buy the premise of this video
No disrespect for his legacy, but for me, Petrosian = The most boring world champion of all time. And it's not that I'm a fan of tactical maniacs like Tal or Fischer, but even other players known for their positional and profilactic styles, like Karpov, stayed active and tried to play for a win. Petrosian just passively waited for his opponent to blunder.
