Thanks for covering a Petrosian game. It sounds like Kasparov was all in on his admiration for how well Petrosian played. If my math is right, Petrosian was 52 years old when he played this game. Not extremely old, but well past his prime.
Thank you very much for your penetrating analysis. Until this video, I regarded game 7 of the 1966 World Championship between Petrosian and Spasky, in which Petrosian won playing black with an amazing pawn storm, as Petrosian's defensive masterpiece. However, I now agree that THIS game holds that distinction.
Petrosian's privilege was to see the game from the very beginning and mislead the opponent. That's why he didn't panic. It just showed that Kasparov needed to train more to beat Petrosian.
It probably did give something to Kasparov as well, but... At the time Kasparov had already passed Spassky's current rating and would catch up with Spasskys all time high (from 71) by the end of -82
Spassky taught Kasparov how to beat Petrosian and what Petrosian's weakest point was, according to according to Spassky's imagination. But, as always, these two gentlemen were mistaken, because Petrosyan never revealed the secrets of his game... The fact was that if it were not for the help of the USSR Politburo in 1969, Spassky would never have become a champion. And Fischer proved it in 1971, that Spassky was just a grandmaster, but not a champion.
@@perkalov Kaspy had a higher rating than Spassky but Spassky was always Kasparov's hero, he said himself that he got into chess watching Spassky v Petrosian wcc match
As far as I can find, Kasparov played Petrosian just twice more - both wins in 1982 and 1983. I think Petrosian was the perfect sharpening stone to make Kasparov razor sharp which helped him to his eventual World Championship in 1985.
Petrosian's privilege was to see the game from the very beginning and mislead the opponent. Although modern computers can show that in some places Petrosyan made a mistake. But sometimes these mistakes were made intentionally. Of course, if he had lived to see the computer age, then we/you might say he was wrong. Naturally, Petrosian could play with the computer differently. However, Kasparov always adhered to the tactics of creating a game based on the development of the game, and, of course, as always, he lost this game. If it were not for the illness of Petrosian and the USSR Politburo, then perhaps he would have been able to show all his genius in the history of chess. However, how he was able to see the game from the very beginning and accurately predict his opponent's unrealistic desire to win at any cost remains unknown. But one thing was obvious: he had never revealed the secrets of his game...
Before Petrosian, there was an ideology that whites were always stronger than blacks because of the privilege of starting the game. However, Petrosian was the first to prove that white and black are equal on the chessboard if the player creates a good defense. Therefore, it depends on the player and not the color. This ideology was later proven by the Computer.
Thanks for covering this great game. Maybe you already know, but there is a Swedish GM named after Tigran Petrosian - Tiger Hillarp Persson. Happy New Year from Sweden!
Thank you for the presentation and analysis of such a great game. But, for this was a kind of awe to a legendary defence, I think it would be a bit more helpful to give a point of view as black ( board upside-down)
12:50 this move is such a difficult one to see, it's such a scary looking move that most of the players would not even consider. What a game from Iron Tigran and against Kasparov in his prime.
After this game, Kasparov asked Spassky for advice how to beat Petrosian. Spassky told him: you need to grab him by the ball and slowly but gently squeeze until he relents. But only one ball at a time - if you grab him by both balls, he gets angry and beats you. The advice worked, as Kasparov won 2 next games vs Petrosian, one of those (in Bugojno 1982) in a very convincing fashion.
Spassky taught Kasparov how to beat Petrosian and what Petrosian's weakest point was, according to according to Spassky's imagination. But, as always, these two gentlemen were mistaken, because Petrosyan never revealed the secrets of his game... The fact was that if it were not for the help of the USSR Politburo in 1969, Spassky would never have become a champion. And Fischer proved it in 1971, that Spassky was just a grandmaster, but not a champion. It’s a pity that Petrosian was already ill and died in 1985.
@@andreasandre4756By that same logic, Fischer showed that Petrosian is not a champion, but just another grandmaster... Larsen and Taimanov were grandmasters, Spassky and Petrosian were among the best. Fischer was just better. I don't believe Spassky was ever that popular with the Soviets, although maybe he was before playing Fischer. But, Spassky played Petrosian for the crown twice, and it wasn't like he was blown off the board the first time. I do think if anyone would have known Petrosian's weakness(es), it'd be Spassky, anyway, since they played for the throne.
Thanks for covering a Petrosian game. It sounds like Kasparov was all in on his admiration for how well Petrosian played. If my math is right, Petrosian was 52 years old when he played this game. Not extremely old, but well past his prime.
Unfortunately though this was only 3 years before his death...
Thank you very much for your penetrating analysis. Until this video, I regarded game 7 of the 1966 World Championship between Petrosian and Spasky, in which Petrosian won playing black with an amazing pawn storm, as Petrosian's defensive masterpiece. However, I now agree that THIS game holds that distinction.
That's one of the greatest games I've ever seen! What exquisite play!
How he didn't panic under such attack, it's incredible. What a perfect game
Petrosian's privilege was to see the game from the very beginning and mislead the opponent. That's why he didn't panic. It just showed that Kasparov needed to train more to beat Petrosian.
The Iron Tigran and his armoured style ! Thank you for the post and for the analysis.
The Dude minds!!!
Awsome game from an awesome, game-changing player.
And I love any Big Levowski reference.
Thanks for the great content.
Mad respect to a chess analyst who can work in a Big Lebowski reference. Petrosian's Kc6 really tied the game together.
Congratulations for making Petrossian's genius to be known better and to appreciate a defensive game
I loved hearing about Spassky slapping Kasparov on the shoulder for his Bf1 move. That'd give me an insane confidence boost lmao
It probably did give something to Kasparov as well, but... At the time Kasparov had already passed Spassky's current rating and would catch up with Spasskys all time high (from 71) by the end of -82
Spassky taught Kasparov how to beat Petrosian and what Petrosian's weakest point was, according to according to Spassky's imagination. But, as always, these two gentlemen were mistaken, because Petrosyan never revealed the secrets of his game... The fact was that if it were not for the help of the USSR Politburo in 1969, Spassky would never have become a champion. And Fischer proved it in 1971, that Spassky was just a grandmaster, but not a champion.
@@andreasandre4756 Brother by that same logic Fischer showed the world that Petrosian was just a grandmaster too tf😭
@@perkalov Kaspy had a higher rating than Spassky but Spassky was always Kasparov's hero, he said himself that he got into chess watching Spassky v Petrosian wcc match
Thanks for the video, it is very entertaining and very rich! Love seeing Petrosian play.
Thanks, John!
As far as I can find, Kasparov played Petrosian just twice more - both wins in 1982 and 1983. I think Petrosian was the perfect sharpening stone to make Kasparov razor sharp which helped him to his eventual World Championship in 1985.
Petrosian's privilege was to see the game from the very beginning and mislead the opponent. Although modern computers can show that in some places Petrosyan made a mistake. But sometimes these mistakes were made intentionally. Of course, if he had lived to see the computer age, then we/you might say he was wrong. Naturally, Petrosian could play with the computer differently.
However, Kasparov always adhered to the tactics of creating a game based on the development of the game, and, of course, as always, he lost this game.
If it were not for the illness of Petrosian and the USSR Politburo, then perhaps he would have been able to show all his genius in the history of chess.
However, how he was able to see the game from the very beginning and accurately predict his opponent's unrealistic desire to win at any cost remains unknown.
But one thing was obvious: he had never revealed the secrets of his game...
Awesome And informative video. I find petrosians Games really interesting. Thanks for covering this Game and I just subscribed to your channel.
Thank you.
Thank you for your video👍👍
Excellent.
Before Petrosian, there was an ideology that whites were always stronger than blacks because of the privilege of starting the game. However, Petrosian was the first to prove that white and black are equal on the chessboard if the player creates a good defense. Therefore, it depends on the player and not the color. This ideology was later proven by the Computer.
Thanks for covering this great game. Maybe you already know, but there is a Swedish GM named after Tigran Petrosian - Tiger Hillarp Persson. Happy New Year from Sweden!
What a game!
Thank you for the presentation and analysis of such a great game. But, for this was a kind of awe to a legendary defence, I think it would be a bit more helpful to give a point of view as black ( board upside-down)
12:50 this move is such a difficult one to see, it's such a scary looking move that most of the players would not even consider. What a game from Iron Tigran and against Kasparov in his prime.
awesome
Try looking at Spassky-Fischer 19th game 1972 match.
After this game, Kasparov asked Spassky for advice how to beat Petrosian. Spassky told him: you need to grab him by the ball and slowly but gently squeeze until he relents. But only one ball at a time - if you grab him by both balls, he gets angry and beats you.
The advice worked, as Kasparov won 2 next games vs Petrosian, one of those (in Bugojno 1982) in a very convincing fashion.
Spassky taught Kasparov how to beat Petrosian and what Petrosian's weakest point was, according to according to Spassky's imagination. But, as always, these two gentlemen were mistaken, because Petrosyan never revealed the secrets of his game... The fact was that if it were not for the help of the USSR Politburo in 1969, Spassky would never have become a champion. And Fischer proved it in 1971, that Spassky was just a grandmaster, but not a champion.
It’s a pity that Petrosian was already ill and died in 1985.
@@andreasandre4756By that same logic, Fischer showed that Petrosian is not a champion, but just another grandmaster... Larsen and Taimanov were grandmasters, Spassky and Petrosian were among the best. Fischer was just better.
I don't believe Spassky was ever that popular with the Soviets, although maybe he was before playing Fischer. But, Spassky played Petrosian for the crown twice, and it wasn't like he was blown off the board the first time.
I do think if anyone would have known Petrosian's weakness(es), it'd be Spassky, anyway, since they played for the throne.
Good one 💯
They were masters who created combinations, which are leant and played by ''gm''-s who has only great memory )))
Sad to know that Petrosian died young.
Petrosian defence is nuts
That dawg will hunt.
Thats why they call him the Iron Tiger
Two Armenian geniuses
Thanks for advising take care of your defence first.
Armenian genius gamer🎉
Honestly,the bishop pair is overrated. I think its an individual thing. Some people are better with Bishops and other with Knights.
Both - Armenians!