Petrosian did play our of character in the 1971 match.
Mind you, you have to remember who he was playing.
Fischer admits he was lucky in the Petrosian match.
"Petrosian played very well in the first games, I could have lost all of them."
The first game appears to highlight the inner turmoil Petrosian must have,
or may have been going though. I was not there I cannot give a real reason.
Suffice to say it must have been awful knowing you were about to be playing
a living legend. Fischer at that time was the best player on the planet.
Petrosian joked before the match that to surprise the chess world
after beating Taimanov and Larsen 6-0 he has to beat me 7-0!.
"All I have to do is draw one game."
Game one and Fischer knew he was walking into a prepared variation.
"I just wanted to see what he had?" said Fischer.
The source of what Petrosian 'had' now differs.
Fishcer - Petrosian (game 1) 1971
Black to play. 11...d5!
The Taimanov version.
The above arose position arose in the Taimanov match and a few games
later 11...d5 was discovered.
By then Taimanov was 4-0 down so was not allowed to use his TN.
Instead it went to the next Russian to meet Fischer.
The Chebanenko version.
He found 11...d5 years previously (so why not give it to Taimanov?)
He sent a letter addressed to 'The Winner of the Petrosian - Korchnoi match.'
This was the other semi-final being played at the same time as the Fischer - Larsen match.
Petrosian won the the semi's opened the envelope and found all this analysis.
Game One.
Petrosain uncorks his novelty and a few moves later the lights go out.
The clocks are stopped.
Petrosian complains that Fischer is still analysing the moves in his head!
They ask Fischer if the clocks can be re-started.
Fischer, who had been the bane of tournament organisers everywhere complaining
about the lightning agreed to sit there playing in the the total darkness!
(you could not make this up).
The light s come back on and Fischer walked right into the Russin prepared mainline.
Let's have a look.
Instead of 6...Bf5 Why did Petrosain not play 6...Rxg2.
Petrosian later admitted Rxg2 had been the pre-game analysis .
He had been looking at the very position in the comfort of his own house.
"It should win...I have no idea why I never played it."
Fischer spun the game and won it. That must have been a severe blow.
Petrosian did infact win the next game, a good game infact although
Fischer never offered any excuses for his losses, his run of consecutive
wins p.20 w.20 against GM opposition was bound to end in a disaster.
There followed 3 draws which Petrosian did have chances and then suddenly
a total collapse and 4-0 to Fischer. Fischer 6½ Petrosian 2½.
The way that Fischer finished off that game is well worth seeing:
Jump to move 16 to start from where Greenpawn left off. 30.Rh3 is my favourite move of the game - Fischer jettisons all his central pawns in favour of one outside passed pawn. This is the play of someone who has just won 19 games in a row against GMs!
A great win for Fischer against someone who probably had a better chance than Spassky of beating him in a match.
Hi Duchess.
I stand corrected the 20 wins were not against GM's there were a few
IM's in there as well.
I'm not to sure if those Petrosian disputes you mentioned make him out
to be any different from any other chess player.
Petrosian and that clock was a minor dispute, understanable really if you
consider that Petrosian was very proud of his no losses record.
I know players who are still arguing on another site about an arbiters decision
from 17 years ago and that was just a league game.
As for the Korchnoi - Petrosian dispute.
There were few players who did not at one time or other cross Korchnoi.
When Korchnoi played Spassky they had to have a board between them
under the table to stop them kicking each other.
And don't forget the Karpov v Korchnoi game were the handshake was refused.
Of course Petrosian may have been scared to go home after losing the
Olympiad game and blamed the clock.
Petrosian's wife, Rona, slapped Petrosoian second Suetin across the face
after her husband lost to Fischer in '71.
Agree that in the 2nd half of the match Spassky played better than Fischer
but failed to win his won games. After the loss in game 11 (the poison pawn game)
Fischer changed tactcis and played to avoid Spassky's prep (out popped the
Alekhine's Defence and the Pirc) and was happy to draw his way to the title.
Fischer played some wonderful games in the first half, Spassky blew it in the 2nd.
"If Fischer had fallen too far behind, I suspect that he would not have continued
the match and thrown a tantrum or made excuses in order to quit the match."
You can only suspect that if he had a history of doing that.
The time when Fischer walked out of tournament he was leading and the only
match that was unfinished was with Reshevsky which at the time was tied.
Fischer was at one time 3-0 (in effect) down to Spassky. (He had to win the
match, a draw was no good. So he had to overcome Spassky's 2-0 lead and
and then take the lead himself.) How far behind did you want him to be.
You are also forgetting that walking out on the match would mean forfeiting
his cut of the prize money. 🙂
The post that was quoted here has been removedIt's impossible to quantify chess talent. Who has more chess talent? The child who has been working like a dog for 5 years and becomes a GM at the age of 10 or the man who becomes a GM at the age of 60?
Who is more talented? The 2700 or the World Champion Problem Solver in chess?
It's not that I don't believe in talent, it's just lack of it or a lot of it isn't a deal-maker/breaker. The talent isn't gonna make things happen, *you* are.
I feel if one hasn't been studying chess for 10-20 years, they cannot really say they lack talent.
It's just an abstract concept that doesn't really help anyone. Let's face it, a lot of players *are* playing below their potential. I wonder how many grandmasters are like "I study chess 10 hours a day" when they hear they are talented.