Petrosian and Nimzowitsch

Finally getting into the chapter of Kasparov's My Great Predecessors which deals with Tigran Petrosian, and it's clear from the beginning that Tigran was effectively a "super-Nimzowitsch".  All of the lessons which you find in Nimziwitsch's My System are brought to a higher form of art through Petrosian's play.  Blockade, open files, passed pawns, prophylaxis, overprotection, and purely positional sacrifices, all of these are hallmarks of Petrosian's style, which had no precedent other than Nimzowitsch.

Petrosian's judgment of piece quality enabled him to tell immediately when a minor piece was worth a rook, and specifically when the bishop pair wasn't worth allowing an opposing knight to remain on the board.  In this context, his famous exchange sacrifices aren't really sacrifices at all, but a well-calculated tactic to achieve more tranquil play.  As Petrosian himself noted, rooks without open files can't do very much to affect the game's outcome, but a well-posted bishop or knight (especially the latter) can dominate a position.

It is truly a shame the world never got to see him play Fischer for the World Championship.  That was the match which would have defined that era of Chess, which we didn't get to see because of all the political nonsense.  Of all the Soviet GMs of the Botvinnik era, Petrosian, at his peak, was the best by a considerable margin.  He alone might have been able to handle Fischer, and it's an eternal shame the world never saw them go head-to-head.  Their styles were so radically different (indeed, this was the last time you saw wildly divergent styles share the top rank of the chess world), it would have been something special to see if Fischer's trademark aggression could have broken Tigran's iron defense.

when would you consider Petrosian to be in his prime ?      Fischer was for choice in the early 70s

In 1970 Fischer came out of retirement to play Board 2 ( behind the Danish GM Bent Larsen ) to represent the "Rest of the World" versus the Soviet Union.    He was paired with Petrosian.   Here are the results.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=79449

the 2 played in 1971 a 12 game match.     The winner faced Spassky for the World Title in a 24 game match.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=79446

Petrosian's health declined quite a bit during the 1960s, he simply wasn't the same player by the time he lost to Spassky in 1969.  Petrosian's peak was brief, roughly from 1960-67.

Fischer was already playing at his full strength by 1963, but the round-robin format of the candidates meant that he stood no chance of qualifying for the world championship.  Fischer went 0+1-3= against Petrosian at that tournament, but with every Soviet GM saving their best for Fischer, and not really even trying against each other (Keres, Geller, and Petrosian all had quick draws in all of their games), the deck was stacked against him.

I disagree about Fischer being in full strength in 1963.    He was only 20 years old and was not dominating his competition.   However when 1971 rolled around, he defeated Taimonov  and Bent Larsen by unheard of scores of 6-0-0 each, he was in his prime !      He was a lean,mean fighting machine !

As far as the 1962 Candidates tournament, the Russians rightfully argue that if Fischer was superior to them, he would have come out way ahead of them -- as they were Drawing amongst themselves.   Fischer scored a respectable 14/27  showing he belonged there -- though not top notch yet.

Have to disagree.  The Russians' argument about the 1962 candidates' tournament is a farce.  Petrosian, Keres, and Geller drew all twelve of the games played between them in an average of just 19 moves.  This means each of them effectively played eight fewer serious games than everyone else.  Mental fatigue is a real thing, you know.  Playing 20 games is much easier than playing 28 over the same span.

No other opponents drew all four games, and Fischer was best among the rest of them.  In the knockout format, collusion is impossible, which is why Fischer excelled in that format in the 1972 championship cycle.  I'll entertain the notion that Fischer improved considerably between 1962 and 1972, but he was already stronger than anyone, except perhaps Petrosian, by the time of the 1962 Candidates' Tournament.

Nice thread and comments.

@Laskersnephew - Fischer's opinion of Petrosian was spot-on, and this also highlights the drastic difference in style between them.  Petrosian's style was closest to Capablanca's (who also lost very rarely, but also won much less often than his main tournament rival, Lasker), where he could sense positional danger and revert to a more tranquil position almost at will.  Petrosian would purposely play for draws as black regularity, knowing full well his opponent would spend more energy trying to prove advantage than he would expend holding on.

Fischer and Petrosian both played into positions that none of their contemporaries would dare to attempt, but how and why they went for them couldn't have been more different.  A Petrosian-Fischer match in 1966 would have been the first time since Alekhine's death that two wildly divergent styles would be pitted against each other in a World Championship match.

When everyone plays the same, the results and analysis are less insightful.  We only get to see that the stronger player wins.  When styles differ, the strengths and weaknesses of both styles are revealed.  A lot of people today try to emulate both Fischer and Petrosian, which makes me lament the lack of an at-peak head-to-head match between them even more so.

”Of all the Soviet GMs of the Botvinnik era, Petrosian, at his peak, was the best by a considerable margin”

Petrosian won the Candidates with a margin of 0.5 point ahead of Keres and Geller, and in the beginning of the 60s Tal was better, while Spassky was better at the end of the 60s. Spassky was maybe the better player already in the mid 60s, but had to play a very tough qualification series to reach the first match against Petrosian. Then he did lose 11.5-12.5 in 1966, but over all I think he was the better player of the two during the 60s.

“Fischer improved considerably between 1962 and 1972, but he was already stronger than anyone, except perhaps Petrosian, by the time of the 1962 Candidates' Tournament”

Fischer did finish three full points behind Keres and Geller, after losing games in the beginning of the event. Difficult to see Fischer as better than Keres and Geller in that event if not for those draws. He finished far behind and just played worse than them throughout.

Keres was more than 27 years older than Fischer, by the way. Impressive that he did so much better than Fischer in such a long event in 1962, even if he did save some energy with some short draws. But he did also play really well.

I know Fischer finished 3 points behind Geller and Keres, but all of the Soviet GMs saved their best preparation for Fischer specifically.  That makes a difference as well.  Fischer was dealing with a never-before-seen variation pretty much every game, one which had been prepared not just by one super-GM, but by several working together.

Keres was a fantastic player (as was Geller), but to argue that the 1962 candidates was a level playing field is absurd.  Playing strength tends not to diminish with age unless the health degrades at the same time.  Korchnoi remained strong for a very long time, too, as did Lasker before them.

Fischer, notably, worked to improve his physical fitness prior to the 1972 match with Spassky, which should tell you something about the importance of health.

Fischer claimed the only reason he didn't win was the draws between Keres, Geller and Petrosian, but I do think he was never really close. He lost his first two games, against Benko and Geller, then he lost three games with white against Korchnoi, Geller and Petrosian to stand at five losses already after 13 rounds. It never felt like some short draws between three of the players affected much in that respect.

Fischer was last in the field after 6 rounds, and after 21 he was four full points behind third place and one point behind Korchnoi in fourth. Fischer was only ahead of Benko (with one point), Filip (who had scored nine losses and one draw in his last ten games) and the sick Tal (who didn't finish the event). After playing well the last rounds Fischer reached fourth place.

Tal had maybe been the favourite to win the event in advance. In Bled 1961 he had won clearly ahead of Fischer, Petrosian, Keres and Geller, but his being sick was a lucky break for the others, even if he always was a bit unprecictable. Fischer was obviously a great player already in 1962 but not great enough to win even if Keres, Geller and Petrosian had tried to beat each other.

Interesting thread

@fabelhaft - Even supposing Fischer wasn't going to win the 1962 Candidates, if there hadn't been such obvious collusion in 1962, Fischer would have likely played and won the Candidates in 1965, which was in match play format.

Nothing from the Botvinnik era was completely above-board, and that's not to say that prior champions didn't play games with the terms for their title defenses, but still, a level playing field would have seen Fischer play for the title much sooner than 1972, and such a match against Petrosian would have helped us all learn more about chess than either player's matches against Spassky did.

Hmm yeah, fischer wasn't gonna beat spassky in 65 unless he was decently stronger than petrosian himself by that point, and that wasn't the case just yet iirc

Botvinnik as World Champion was considered the first among equals.   

Fischer had no peers.     After trouncing Petrosian in their 1971 match by winning the last 4 games in a row ( who else could do that against Petrosian in slow, classical chess ? ), he was Rated # 1 in the World at 2785.    The # 2 Rated player, World Champ Boris Spassky was 125 points behind at 2660.   

How was Petrosian regarded by his country after losing to Fischer ?    He was no longer recognized as Editor of their Chess Purblication  Shakmatny Bulletin !    He walked to his Office and his name had been removed !     Don't mess with the Soviets.   They take chess VERY seriously

Fischer by 1972 was indeed peerless, and the first since Alekhine to really earn the title.  I just wish he'd faced Petrosian closer to the latter's peak.  The 1971 match features much poorer play from Tigran than you would have seen a few years earlier.

Seems Petrosian fatigued in 1971 ( my opinion ).     It started off with a ton of drama, Petrosian uncorked an extremely sharp opening innovation that the Soviets saved and analyzed especially  against Fischer.     Bobby defended and attacked his way thru  the complications.............chances for both sides.    he prevailed to extend his consecutive win streak to 20 !!    Petrosian outplayed Fischer and won Game 2 !   then there were 3 draws.    Score was even 1-1-3.     However then the bottom fell out for Petrosian as Fischer pierced thru his defenses 4 times in a row.  

do people actually studied fischer's history and games? i wonder how many of u know like, the nuances and context behind so many of his feats

quietheathen1st.............just like many highly skilled people in other fields know their field's history, so should strong chessplayers of today's generation.   I wrote what I wrote based on my chess experiences of the 1960s and 1970s.     I'll also never forget being on the same elevator in the McAlpin Hotel in NYC in 1972 with Bobby Fischer.    He came to check out games at the US High School championships.    He walked into the playing hall.   virtually all stopped playing and crowded around him.     we knew who he was !