Petrosian and Nimzowitsch

thats somewhat irrelevant to what i asked, but still cool, so ill let it slide lol

One could also say that Botvinnik had no peers in the 1940s, when he could score +14-0=4 in the super strong Soviet Championship in 1945 (the year before it was ”only” +9 but with wins against all opponents in the top 5) and then win the World Championship with a margin of three points in 1948. It’s another thing that he did a bit worse in his seven title matches that were played when he was 40+, but still that was better than Fischer’s results as World Champion :-)

As for results against Petrosian, Larsen won his games against Petro in the Piatigorsky Cup in 1966, when the latter was much closer to his peak than in 1971. Not to compare Larsen with Fischer, who was a much greater player, but he did really well in those games.

I study Fischer's games quite a bit.  He gives rare insights for odd material combinations, the likes of which can only be found in one other World Champion, that being Lasker.  Fischer's games are, between the two, easier to understand.

Petrosian's style is likewise easily understood for folks with a good positional foundation, and they also involve unusual exchanges of material.  That's what makes these two champions so important to study.  Just about any decent player can get better by seeing how Fischer and Petrosian played.

U mind telling me more of botvinnik?

Botvinnik was very close with Stalin, so for Soviets players to beat him in tournament play, especially within the Soviet Union, while Stalin was alive was not generally advisable.  Botvinnik was the first World Champion since Steinitz not to obtain the title by beating the prior champion.

The prior champion, Alexander Alekhine died under mysterious circumstances in Portugal in 1946, where Soviet agents were known to have a strong presence, less than a day after coming to terms on a match with Botvinnik.  Many, including Alekhine's son, believe he was murdered, so Stalin may not have thought Botvinnik was up to the challenge of winning that match.

Botvinnik played a half-starved Max Euwe (who was nowhere near his pre-WWII form) for the vacant title.  He never played a non-Soviet challenger for the title after that, and curiously never lost to a Soviet challenger until after Stalin's passing.

Would you like to hear more?

i actually knew about all that. i was talking about playing feats lol i read up on all great players i can find, so i know most of the history regarding the more famous names, im just not a master of knowledge is all lol

Botvinnik played in the World Championship Tournament in 1948 along with Euwe, Keres, Reshevsky and Smyslov to determine who would succeed Alekhine.  I never read that Euwe was particularly starved (during WWII he did work with an underground charitable organization to provide food for those in need and immediately after the war, he won both the London Tournament -Group B; Steiner won Group A and there was no play-off and the Zaandam Tournament in 1946) but he was definitely older and his play started deteriorating. 

Ngl, I always felt like euwe could've been much stronger than he was if he was a try hard like alekhine was. he could've likely surpassed him imo

Botvinnik scored great results already in the mid 30s, like Nottingham 1936 with Capa, Alekhine, Lasker, Euwe, Fine, Reshevsky etc in the field. He shared first there as in Moscow the year before, ahead of players like Capa and Lasker. Botvinnik’s losses there came against Soviet players, by the way. In AVRO 1938 he finished ahead of Alekhine, Euwe and Capa, but reached a totally different level in the 1940s. It’s just to look up his results in 1941, 1944 or 1945 in the Soviet Championships, or the World Championship 1948.

But it’s not like he got all that much for free, he lost to Geller, Smyslov and Kopylov in the USSR Championships 1951, for example, and when Keres was picked for first board in the Olympiad next year, Botvinnik refused to participate. Someone said that Botvinnik was a truly believing Communist, which wasn’t always to his advantage in a system that in many ways was far from Communist, while Karpov had less of principles and was more someone who knew what was the right approach to stay in favour.

I have seen it claimed that Smyslov was more favoured than Botvinnik, but it’s clear that the latter had some advantages others didn’t have. But he was a great player from mid 1930s to late 1960s. His title match results are sometimes held against him, but he was between 40 and 52 years old when they were played. And even in his last title match in 1963 against Petrosian he was keeping the title after 14 games, before tiring towards the end. 

smyslov had some followers to him yeah. i remember this instance in which players were outraged at smyslov's presence in a tournament or something, even though he didnt qualify for it at all, and was placed above someone else. 

do u guys think smyslov and botvinnik surpassed capa and alekhine? i personally think so, but i like to hear other points of view

@batgirl - Pretty much everyone in Amsterdam went hungry during the winter of 1944-45 (the Allied advance stalled after Operation Market Garden), Max Euwe never really recovered from that experience.

@fabelhaft - Botvinnik would protest loudly if he knew opponents were throwing games against him, even to the point of resigning himself.  However, he also turned a blind eye to things he didn't want to know about.  Look at the games and you'll see a lot of his Soviet opponents making uncharacteristically poor moves.  That he scored well when Lasker's & Capa's health declined (Capa had a mild stroke during the 1938 AVRO tournament) and when Alekhine took to drink does not make him a comparable player or champion to any of those three.  Botvinnik's peak form, though very strong, was not superlative in the way that prior champions had been.

I don't think it's fair to call Botvinnik a "truly believing communist", either.  He was a devoted Stalinist.  How well Stalin embodied Marxist dogma (I won't call them principles, as Marx himself had none) is a matter of debate.  Of course, it's unrealistic to expect anyone who thrives in a totalitarian system to be completely untainted by it.

@quietheadthen1st - I don't think Botvinnik or Smyslov were close to Alekhine's peak form.  Sam Reshevsky, who knew all of them, indicated Alekhine was the strongest player (and worst person) he had ever played against (and that included Fischer).  Botvinnik's tactics are pretty, but not all that hard to see.  Alekhine's combinations are so technically complex that you simply have to marvel at them.  Capablanca went eight years without a loss, only four players beat him more than once, and only Alekhine beat him more than twice (Lasker, Marshall, and Spielmann had two wins each).

That is actually amazingly interesting. I have huge respect for older players, much more so for their middlegame ability if anything, but that statement is quite something. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's astounding to hear that. When did reshevsky say that? When did he last play an alekhine in good form? I'm trying to find out who he is comparing alekhine to. Albeit, I was under the impression that reshevsky and fischer had some bad blood?

“Botvinnik's tactics are pretty, but not all that hard to see”

Depends on how strong you are :-) But it isn’t only about tactics, Petrosian once complained about Botvinnik being like a bulldozer and very difficult to play against. Keres smiled and said something about “well, imagine playing him when he was younger and stronger”. Petrosian mainly played Botvinnik in the 1960s while Keres played most of his games against Botvinnik 1938-48.

@quietheathen1st - It was during an interview around the time of the 1972 World Championship.  You're right, Fischer & Reshevsky were not on friendly terms, and Reshevsky had bad blood with Botvinnik & the Soviets, as well.  The interviewer asked him to name the "best player", "worst sport", and "worst person" he'd every played against, hoping to get dirt on Fischer, but Reshevsky answered Alekhine to all three questions without hesitation.

@fabelhaft - The "bulldozer" comparison is definitely justified.  Botvinnik's style lacks subtlety (again, easy to see), which would make it a challenge for one who prefers to avoid pressure like Petrosian.  I don't share Keres' view that age necessarily diminishes a player's strength.  Lasker kept improving well into his 50s, and Botvinnik's health was generally good.  Certain styles cause other styles more trouble for the same nominal playing strength.  For example, Capablanca may have beaten Lasker head-to-head without losing a game, but Lasker had a much better overall record against common opponents (far more wins).

Fischer had the unique challenge of having to prove himself better than everyone else just to play for the title.  Botvinnik got a free return match each time he lost, and wasn't shy about leveraging the system to his advantage (particularly against Tal).  The challenge he faced in obtaining the title in the first place was clearly less than other champions.  Who but Alekhine could win six games against Capablanca?  No one else won more than two.

The World Championship has switched between "first among equals" and truly peerless players many times.  Steinitz was only slightly better than his contemporaries, but Lasker's reign was entirely different.  The gap between Lasker/Capa/Alekhine and the rest of the chess world was enormous and obvious to all (if you've read My System, Nimzowitsch, who was not a humble person, does not pretend to be an equal player to any of them).  Petrosian was the next to create the appearance of a gap, and Fischer and Kasparov clearly stood a good ways ahead of all others at their respective peaks.

did he play a fischer close in strength to his 70s self? how about alekhine?

albeit, for fischer's dominance and playing strength- i beg to differ. his showings were against taimanov (who honest to God was about 2500 in playing strength by that point; he himself even stated that he was unstable during the games, and everybody knows how players fare in such conditions), Larsen (whose play did not impress me at all in 71, and whose prime was in the 60s, i believe; he was also somewhat overrated. he had his wins against petrosians at one point, but he was never close to the level that spassky and fishcer were in in the first place tbh), Petrosian (ngl, when i think of clash of styles, petrosian and fischer some to mind. fischer's accuracy just made petrosian's life hell, and it had already started a few years prior iirc, not to mention that, yet again, i do believe that petrosian was declining in strength by this point), and Spassky (who was rusty, had worse opening prep, worse basic prep (he forgot preparation, he didnt study games, he slept, ate, and played tennis more than he shouldve), and still gave fischer hell. i do believe that reshevsky said in his book regarding that 1972 match that spassky had like, 5 or so games that he couldve won, but either lost or drew due to lack of time in the position. fischer was never far above spassky in the first place. i actually think that not only fischer said that it was horrible playing against, but also that spassky is by far the strongest person he ever played).

“The gap between Lasker/Capa/Alekhine and the rest of the chess world was enormous and obvious to all (if you've read My System, Nimzowitsch, who was not a humble person, does not pretend to be an equal player to any of them).  Petrosian was the next to create the appearance of a gap”

I don’t see Petrosian as ever having some sort of gap, or being on a different level compared to Botvinnik in that respect. Petrosian won the Candidates with the smallest possible margin when Tal was sick and Fischer had a bad tournament. I think most of the Curaçao players would have beaten 52-year-old Botvinnik. Then Petrosian had unimpressive results in international tournaments for a World Champion.
He for example played Buenos Aires 1964, which was won by Keres, Zagreb 1965 with Uhlmann and Ivkov in the top two, Yerevan 1965 won by Korchnoi, Santa Monica 1966 with Spassky, Fischer, Larsen, Unzicker and Portisch finishing ahead of Petrosian. Moscow 1967 had Stein, Bobotsov, Gipslis, Smyslov, Tal, Bronstein, Portisch and Spassky ahead of Petrosian, Venice 1967 was won by Donner, Bamberg 1968 was won by Keres, Palma 1968 had Korchnoi, Larsen and Spassky ahead of Petrosian, Palma next year was won by Larsen, etc etc. 
Petrosian did score 12.5-11.5 in the first match against Spassky, but the latter had played in all 98 games to qualify for the match in the toughest cycle ever and did win the second match. In all I don’t see Petrosian as one of the greater World Champions. But not too bad to be one of the least great World Champions either :-)

@quietheathen1st - Reshevsky was active from the 1930s through the 1970s, so yes, he got to see and face both Alekhine and Fischer at peak form.

@fabelhaft - Botvinnik gave up his right to a return match against Petrosian for a reason, and I don't believe it was age.  Botvinnik was renowned, if anything, for his ability to tailor preparation for known opponents, but Petrosian's deep positional understanding was beyond his comprehension.

Petrosian's tournament results are not that great, this is true, but his game was better suited to match play simply because he was so hard to defeat.  He won fewer games because he often settled for easy draws as black.  It's similar to the way Capablanca's tournament results were generally poorer than Lasker's.  Lasker simply won many more games, which more than offset the occasional loss.  Capablanca's style was likewise better suited to match play.

There's always a certain degree of subjectivity in these kinds of arguments (and both of your arguments have not been unreasonable, though I don't agree with them), but to me, that's kind of the point.  We never got to see the match we wanted to see between Fischer and Petrosian.  We'll never know for sure.