Any engines out there that focus on gambit/high risk play?
I mean beyond opening book. But rather in middlegame play in which a sacrifice would used.
I wouldn't expect a gambit engine to outplay (or even win any games) against a top engine like Rybka or Houdini or Shredder. But stilll nice for research purposes.. or just watching an engine actually sacrifice material for a massive (if slightly inferior) attack.
Of course, it would still have to be able an estimated elo over 2800 or even 2900.
I mean beyond opening book. But rather in middlegame play in which a sacrifice would used.
I wouldn't expect a gambit engine to outplay (or even win any games) against a top engine like Rybka or Houdini or Shredder. But stilll nice for research purposes.. or just watching an engine actually sacrifice material for a massive (if slightly inferior) attack.
Of course, it would still have to be able an estimated elo over 2800 or even 2900.
Try Junior.
yep. The updated 12.5 is something special IMO.
At the moment I'm playing a match between DJ 12.5 & The King 3.50 - very violent chess indeed.
At the moment I'm playing a match between DJ 12.5 & The King 3.50 - very violent chess indeed.
in my opinion Houdini always wants to sacrifice -- usually unsoundly.
The best I've seen is the Zappa Mexico II Personality: Dissident Aggressor. Its gambits are unsound most of the time, and when they're sound, it'll probably play another gambit and ruin it (it doesn't know when to stop sacrificing), but when they fully work, whoa!
Its advantage over Junior is that when Junior doesn't see anything, it'll stay playing passive moves, while Dissident will continue playing actively.
Its advantage over Thinker is that when someone attacks Thinker, Thinker will hold back to defend, while Dissident will rather lose than defend.
Its advantage over Houdini... wait, what? Does Houdini have a playing style? It seems to me it just plays solidly and waits for the opponent to make a mistake, then it heavily punishes it, it doesn't seem to me a Gambit engine at all.
Its advantage over Junior is that when Junior doesn't see anything, it'll stay playing passive moves, while Dissident will continue playing actively.
Its advantage over Thinker is that when someone attacks Thinker, Thinker will hold back to defend, while Dissident will rather lose than defend.
Its advantage over Houdini... wait, what? Does Houdini have a playing style? It seems to me it just plays solidly and waits for the opponent to make a mistake, then it heavily punishes it, it doesn't seem to me a Gambit engine at all.
Didn't you put together a gambit engine in ProDeo?
Pro Deo Xtreme / Drunken Master would be better described as "Suicide Engine", maybe, Kamikaze would have been a better name.
Weak humans can beat it, it was meant to be a fun engine to play against, definitively not what the OP is looking for.
Weak humans can beat it, it was meant to be a fun engine to play against, definitively not what the OP is looking for.
> The best I've seen is the Zappa Mexico II Personality: Dissident Aggressor
I don't think the corresponding settings have ever been disclosed
(all I could find is http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=188)
I just posted them the other day:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=343036
Here they are again:
Zappa Mexico II - Dissident Aggressor personality.
[OPTIONS]
Enable Mate Extensions=true
Aggressive Futility Pruning=true
Eval Passed Pawn Scoring=125
Eval Pawn Scoring=135
Eval Minor Scoring=70
Eval Major Scoring=70
Eval Kingsafety Scoring=500
Hide Fail Highs=false
Print PV Tips=true
Huh, actually, that's my modification, original settings changed contempt, but I found that just disrupted the engine for analysis, so I recommend these settings.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=343036
Here they are again:
Zappa Mexico II - Dissident Aggressor personality.
[OPTIONS]
Enable Mate Extensions=true
Aggressive Futility Pruning=true
Eval Passed Pawn Scoring=125
Eval Pawn Scoring=135
Eval Minor Scoring=70
Eval Major Scoring=70
Eval Kingsafety Scoring=500
Hide Fail Highs=false
Print PV Tips=true
Huh, actually, that's my modification, original settings changed contempt, but I found that just disrupted the engine for analysis, so I recommend these settings.
When doing this in analysis do you think its better to do this form the attackers or defenders point of view?
Only from the Attacker's side, this personality does not defend at all, so that, you're better off feeding suggested defenses from other engines. Basically, you only like to use this engine when it clearly favors/likes one side, it'll be because it is seeing some attack.
Oh ok that was about what I figured. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to double check. 
I did release the settings to my Dissident Aggressor personality for Zappa Mexico II. But here they are again,
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=227
I am glad that so many people like this personality. It's play still shocks me! Tal on angel dust was the goal, you all can decide.
Enjoy!
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=227
I am glad that so many people like this personality. It's play still shocks me! Tal on angel dust was the goal, you all can decide.
Enjoy!
Thanks again for the settings Robert! It's pretty much as if you released a new engine (because its redundancy with Zappa Mexico II is virtually 0) that is very useful.
For analysis of games I still recommend leaving Contempt at 0, though.
For analysis of games I still recommend leaving Contempt at 0, though.
> I am glad that so many people like this personality. It's play still shocks me! Tal on angel dust was the goal, you all can decide.
I tried this settings against Junior and it was a game to watch when Zappa ate Junior alive at Junior's game. Thanks
>It seems to me it just plays solidly and waits for the opponent to make a mistake, then it heavily punishes it, it doesn't seem to me a Gambit engine at all.
Perfectly Said. That is why GM Petrosiyan was the most Unpopular WC of chess.
> hat is why GM Petrosiyan was the most Unpopular WC of chess.
???????????????
Did you just said that Petrosian just waited for opponents to make mistakes to win his games?
Yes!!. His style was like that. Develops pieces and waits. If opponent Blunders then Boom!!!
Ok you need to study a little more chess then...
I dont think so. It was what His rivals thought not me.
This is what it is said about him :-
Born: June 17, 1929 in Tbilisi, Georgia (USSR)
Died: August 13, 1984 in Moscow, Russia
Playing Style and Legacy:
Tigran Petrosian was known for his incredible defensive capabilities, which made him among the most difficult players to defeat in the history of chess. This style earned him the nickname "Iron Tigran." Of course, as a World Champion, Petrosian was strong in all aspects of the game; but his ability to sense tactical danger and maintain the safety of his position is what stands out when looking at his games. Rather than look to land a spectacular finishing blow, Petrosian was satisfied with accumulating small advantages and winning strategically.
This is what it is said about him :-
Born: June 17, 1929 in Tbilisi, Georgia (USSR)
Died: August 13, 1984 in Moscow, Russia
Playing Style and Legacy:
Tigran Petrosian was known for his incredible defensive capabilities, which made him among the most difficult players to defeat in the history of chess. This style earned him the nickname "Iron Tigran." Of course, as a World Champion, Petrosian was strong in all aspects of the game; but his ability to sense tactical danger and maintain the safety of his position is what stands out when looking at his games. Rather than look to land a spectacular finishing blow, Petrosian was satisfied with accumulating small advantages and winning strategically.
And from that citation where do you get that he just waited for opponents mistakes to win. "Petrosian was satisfied with accumulating small advantages and winning strategically.
First you need more reading comprehension and please do not quote wikipedia articles haven't you read about chess champions?
First you need more reading comprehension and please do not quote wikipedia articles haven't you read about chess champions?
You have Not understand chess. Better you read properly. One wins when opponent makes mistakes. If no one make mistakes ,game is drawn. But the ability lies in forcing the
opponent to make mistakes. Thats what petrosian was good. His defence is so good that his opponents try some thing different to win but He doesnot give any chances.
You can refer here. I have lots of qoutes on him in the books I have. Better you read properly. Chess is about human error.
Tigran Petrosian is most famous for being one of the best players pioneering the theory of prophylaxis, years after Aron Nimzowitsch. His style of play was often highly strategical, notable for anticipating opponent's possible attacks and he based many of his games on avoidance of error, content with accumulating small advantages.
opponent to make mistakes. Thats what petrosian was good. His defence is so good that his opponents try some thing different to win but He doesnot give any chances.
You can refer here. I have lots of qoutes on him in the books I have. Better you read properly. Chess is about human error.
Tigran Petrosian is most famous for being one of the best players pioneering the theory of prophylaxis, years after Aron Nimzowitsch. His style of play was often highly strategical, notable for anticipating opponent's possible attacks and he based many of his games on avoidance of error, content with accumulating small advantages.
You first said Petrosian just won because he benefited from opponents mistakes. Then your citations explains he won his game in strategical form. My question is to you understand the difference between the 2 concepts?
Actually there is no difference. Both co-relate to each other my friend. As chess is a mental torture , strategical maneuvers like a prophylactic move or exchange sacs always confuses the opponent. That causes the plot of a mistake.
That is what made The Great Tigran beat Fisher.
That is what made The Great Tigran beat Fisher.
Ok nice poetry but... wrong conclusion. If your opponent makes a mistake you try to capitalize of it. You could launch an attack against the king or strangle him positionally, so Petrosian style did not confuse the adversary, it was a way to achieve victory of save a difficult position. So your original statement is indeed wrong. Remember you said Petrosian won his games because he just waited for the opponent to blunder, and that is a falsehood, because as you quoted later his style was positional and that was his way to achieve his chess results not waiting for the opponent to blunder, which is an insult to Petrosian style of play. Besides if that were true the same could be said to all chess players of all times , they just waited for the opponent to blunder.
Make things simple. You are complicating. T Petrosian was a defensive player, hence boring. He Developed/defended first. He never launched a straight out attack like Tal did. Then he starts strategic planning. If opponents couldnot fathom his plan they make blunder. Then he starts attack. "He waits for opponent to make blunders" is what all chess player do. If opponent does not you cant win. He always played with Draw in Hand attitude.
Look at this game.
[Event "Tilburg (07)"]
[Site "Tilburg (07)"]
[Date "1981.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Petrosian"]
[ECO "D25"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "83"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bg4 5.Bxc4 e6 6.h3 Bh5 7.Nc3
a6 8.g4 Bg6 9.Ne5 Nbd7 10.Nxg6 hxg6 11.Bf1 c6 12.Bg2 Qc7
13.O-O Be7 14.f4 Nb6 15.g5 Nfd7 16.Qg4 O-O-O 17.Rb1 Kb8 18.b4
Nd5 19.Na4 f5 20.Qg3 Nxb4 21.Bd2 Nd5 22.Rfc1 Ka7 23.Qe1 Ba3
24.Rc2 Qd6 25.Rb3 Qe7 26.Qe2 Rb8 27.Qd3 Bd6 28.Nb2 Rhc8 29.Nc4
Bc7 30.a4 b5 31.axb5 cxb5 32.Ra2 Kb7 33.Bb4 Qe8 34.Bd6 Ra8
35.Qb1 Kc6 36.Rba3 bxc4 37.Rxa6+ Rxa6 38.Rxa6+ Bb6 39.Bc5 Qd8
40.Qa1 Nxc5 41.dxc5 Kxc5 42.Ra4 0-1
Here Kasparov was all out on attack. Kasparov attacked and attacked and Tigran defended and defended and won!!. He had a boring style. He won spectacular games as black rather than as white!! only b'coz of his style.
Against tactical Players he could not stand . His defensive style unsuited to that type of game. Like this
[Event "Ch URS ( 1/2 )"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1947.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "13"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Petrosian"]
[Black "Yuri Averbakh"]
[ECO "C89"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "80"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5
7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6
12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Re4 g5 16. Nd2 Bf5
17. Qe2 Nf6 18. Re5 Bxe5 19. dxe5 Ng4 20. Nf3 Rae8 21. Qf1
Qxf1+ 22. Kxf1 h6 23. h4 Be4 24. Ne1 Rxe5 25. f4 gxh4 26. gxh4
Re7 27. Bd1 Bf5 28. Nf3 Rd8 29. Be2 Rde8 30. Bd1 Bd3+ 31. Kg2
Be2 32. Bxe2 Rxe2+ 33. Kg3 h5 34. f5 Rf2 35. a4 Rf1 36. axb5
cxb5 37. b3 f6 38. Nd4 Ree1 39. Rxa6 Rxc1 40. Nxb5 Rxf5 0-1
Even his slow plans are not effective always.
[Event "Ch URS (1/2 final)"]
[Site "Moscow (Russia)"]
[Date "1947.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Ilia Abramovich Kan"]
[Black "Petrosian"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "83"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 c6 4. e3 e6 5. Nc3 Ne4 6. Nxe4 dxe4
7. Nd2 f5 8. c5 Nd7 9. Bc4 Nf6 10. O-O e5 11. dxe5 Ng4 12. b4
Nxe5 13. Bb2 Qc7 14. Bb3 Bd7 15. Qh5+ Ng6 16. f3 O-O-O
17. fxe4 Ne5 18. exf5 Be7 19. Ne4 Bf6 20. Nd6+ Kb8 21. Qe2 h5
22. h3 Be8 23. Rad1 h4 24. Nxe8 Rhxe8 25. Be6 Rxd1 26. Rxd1
Nf3+ 27. gxf3 Qg3+ 28. Qg2 Qxg2+ 29. Kxg2 Bxb2 30. Rd3 Bf6
31. f4 a5 32. bxa5 Rd8 33. Bc4 Rxd3 34. Bxd3 Be7 35. a4 Bxc5
36. Kf3 Ka7 37. e4 Bb4 38. Kg4 Bxa5 39. Kg5 Bc3 40. Kg6 Kb8
41. e5 Kc7 42. Kxg7 1-0
So what i said is correct but the pronblem is with you relating both. There are two type of players in chess OTB. Some who play in such a way that they make sure opponent makes blunder like Nezmetedinov,Tal , Bronstein,Spielmann and some players who wait for opponent to make mistakes like Tarrasch,Rubinstein,Reti, Flor,Lillienthal, Miles,Levenfish and many more.
P.S. This is not what i say.The players of there time say. Read the book by Ludek Pachmann if you are interested.
Look at this game.
[Event "Tilburg (07)"]
[Site "Tilburg (07)"]
[Date "1981.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Petrosian"]
[ECO "D25"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "83"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bg4 5.Bxc4 e6 6.h3 Bh5 7.Nc3
a6 8.g4 Bg6 9.Ne5 Nbd7 10.Nxg6 hxg6 11.Bf1 c6 12.Bg2 Qc7
13.O-O Be7 14.f4 Nb6 15.g5 Nfd7 16.Qg4 O-O-O 17.Rb1 Kb8 18.b4
Nd5 19.Na4 f5 20.Qg3 Nxb4 21.Bd2 Nd5 22.Rfc1 Ka7 23.Qe1 Ba3
24.Rc2 Qd6 25.Rb3 Qe7 26.Qe2 Rb8 27.Qd3 Bd6 28.Nb2 Rhc8 29.Nc4
Bc7 30.a4 b5 31.axb5 cxb5 32.Ra2 Kb7 33.Bb4 Qe8 34.Bd6 Ra8
35.Qb1 Kc6 36.Rba3 bxc4 37.Rxa6+ Rxa6 38.Rxa6+ Bb6 39.Bc5 Qd8
40.Qa1 Nxc5 41.dxc5 Kxc5 42.Ra4 0-1
Here Kasparov was all out on attack. Kasparov attacked and attacked and Tigran defended and defended and won!!. He had a boring style. He won spectacular games as black rather than as white!! only b'coz of his style.
Against tactical Players he could not stand . His defensive style unsuited to that type of game. Like this
[Event "Ch URS ( 1/2 )"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1947.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "13"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Petrosian"]
[Black "Yuri Averbakh"]
[ECO "C89"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "80"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5
7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6
12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Re4 g5 16. Nd2 Bf5
17. Qe2 Nf6 18. Re5 Bxe5 19. dxe5 Ng4 20. Nf3 Rae8 21. Qf1
Qxf1+ 22. Kxf1 h6 23. h4 Be4 24. Ne1 Rxe5 25. f4 gxh4 26. gxh4
Re7 27. Bd1 Bf5 28. Nf3 Rd8 29. Be2 Rde8 30. Bd1 Bd3+ 31. Kg2
Be2 32. Bxe2 Rxe2+ 33. Kg3 h5 34. f5 Rf2 35. a4 Rf1 36. axb5
cxb5 37. b3 f6 38. Nd4 Ree1 39. Rxa6 Rxc1 40. Nxb5 Rxf5 0-1
Even his slow plans are not effective always.
[Event "Ch URS (1/2 final)"]
[Site "Moscow (Russia)"]
[Date "1947.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Ilia Abramovich Kan"]
[Black "Petrosian"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "83"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 c6 4. e3 e6 5. Nc3 Ne4 6. Nxe4 dxe4
7. Nd2 f5 8. c5 Nd7 9. Bc4 Nf6 10. O-O e5 11. dxe5 Ng4 12. b4
Nxe5 13. Bb2 Qc7 14. Bb3 Bd7 15. Qh5+ Ng6 16. f3 O-O-O
17. fxe4 Ne5 18. exf5 Be7 19. Ne4 Bf6 20. Nd6+ Kb8 21. Qe2 h5
22. h3 Be8 23. Rad1 h4 24. Nxe8 Rhxe8 25. Be6 Rxd1 26. Rxd1
Nf3+ 27. gxf3 Qg3+ 28. Qg2 Qxg2+ 29. Kxg2 Bxb2 30. Rd3 Bf6
31. f4 a5 32. bxa5 Rd8 33. Bc4 Rxd3 34. Bxd3 Be7 35. a4 Bxc5
36. Kf3 Ka7 37. e4 Bb4 38. Kg4 Bxa5 39. Kg5 Bc3 40. Kg6 Kb8
41. e5 Kc7 42. Kxg7 1-0
So what i said is correct but the pronblem is with you relating both. There are two type of players in chess OTB. Some who play in such a way that they make sure opponent makes blunder like Nezmetedinov,Tal , Bronstein,Spielmann and some players who wait for opponent to make mistakes like Tarrasch,Rubinstein,Reti, Flor,Lillienthal, Miles,Levenfish and many more.
P.S. This is not what i say.The players of there time say. Read the book by Ludek Pachmann if you are interested.
Wrong in all accounts, why are you spreading lies against Petrosian?
So if opponents could not fathom his plan they blunder? wow if that is not the more simplistic explanation of a player style then what it is?
So what is Kasparov that he beat in the game you posted, a charity nun? Again contradicting yourself.
Ok the problem is this erroneously distinction you are making.
So if opponents could not fathom his plan they blunder? wow if that is not the more simplistic explanation of a player style then what it is?
> Against tactical Players he could not stand
So what is Kasparov that he beat in the game you posted, a charity nun? Again contradicting yourself.
> There are two type of players in chess OTB. Some who play in such a way that they make sure opponent makes blunder like Nezmetedinov,Tal , Bronstein,Spielmann and some players who wait for opponent to make mistakes like Tarrasch,Rubinstein,Reti, Flor,Lillienthal, Miles,Levenfish and many more.
Ok the problem is this erroneously distinction you are making.
I am not wrong rather you think you are correct in a wrong manner. Everywhere it is written that He waits for his opponent to blunder then he attacks severely. And you think you know better than the GMs who played against them ?
This is what wiki has to say -
Petrosian was a conservative, cautious, and highly defensive chess player who was strongly influenced by Nimzowitsch's idea of prophylaxis. He made more effort to prevent his opponent's offensive capabilities than he did to make use of his own. He very rarely went on the offensive unless he felt his position was completely secure. He usually won by playing consistently until his aggressive opponent made a mistake, securing the win by capitalizing upon this mistake without revealing any weaknesses of his own. This style of play often lead to draws, especially against other players who preferred to counterattack. Nonetheless, his patience and mastery of defense made him extremely difficult to beat. He was undefeated at the 1952 and 1955 Interzonals, and in 1962 he did not lose a single tournament game. Petrosian's consistent ability to avoid defeat earned him the nickname "Iron Tigran".
Petrosian's style of play, although highly successful for avoiding defeats, was criticized as being dull. Chess enthusiasts saw his "ultraconservative" style as an unwelcome contrast to the popular image of Soviet chess as "daring" and "indomitable".[30] Fellow Soviet chess grandmaster and personal friendMikhail Tal described Petrosian as "cowardly", out of frustration that this eminent tactician so rarely showed the chessworld what he was capable of. His 1971 Candidates Tournament match with Viktor Korchnoi featured so many monotonous draws that the Russian press began to complain. However, Svetozar Gligorić described Petrosian as being "very impressive in his incomparable ability to foresee danger on the board and to avoid any risk of defeat."[23] Petrosian responded to his criticisms by saying "They say my games should be more 'interesting'. I could be more 'interesting'—and also lose."[4] Petrosian was, in the words of future World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, "the first defender with a capital D".[31]
Remember this things are written everywhere in books written by GMs and not only on wiki. I have been teaching chess to youngsters since 6 years. One of my student is IM now. I never say such things that I am not aware off. So before saying what I say wrong about Tigran go and do some Home work first. You are Always welcome.
This is what wiki has to say -
Petrosian was a conservative, cautious, and highly defensive chess player who was strongly influenced by Nimzowitsch's idea of prophylaxis. He made more effort to prevent his opponent's offensive capabilities than he did to make use of his own. He very rarely went on the offensive unless he felt his position was completely secure. He usually won by playing consistently until his aggressive opponent made a mistake, securing the win by capitalizing upon this mistake without revealing any weaknesses of his own. This style of play often lead to draws, especially against other players who preferred to counterattack. Nonetheless, his patience and mastery of defense made him extremely difficult to beat. He was undefeated at the 1952 and 1955 Interzonals, and in 1962 he did not lose a single tournament game. Petrosian's consistent ability to avoid defeat earned him the nickname "Iron Tigran".
Petrosian's style of play, although highly successful for avoiding defeats, was criticized as being dull. Chess enthusiasts saw his "ultraconservative" style as an unwelcome contrast to the popular image of Soviet chess as "daring" and "indomitable".[30] Fellow Soviet chess grandmaster and personal friendMikhail Tal described Petrosian as "cowardly", out of frustration that this eminent tactician so rarely showed the chessworld what he was capable of. His 1971 Candidates Tournament match with Viktor Korchnoi featured so many monotonous draws that the Russian press began to complain. However, Svetozar Gligorić described Petrosian as being "very impressive in his incomparable ability to foresee danger on the board and to avoid any risk of defeat."[23] Petrosian responded to his criticisms by saying "They say my games should be more 'interesting'. I could be more 'interesting'—and also lose."[4] Petrosian was, in the words of future World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, "the first defender with a capital D".[31]
Remember this things are written everywhere in books written by GMs and not only on wiki. I have been teaching chess to youngsters since 6 years. One of my student is IM now. I never say such things that I am not aware off. So before saying what I say wrong about Tigran go and do some Home work first. You are Always welcome.
> Remember this things are written everywhere in books written by GMs
Sources please... not more wiki thx
Why any problems with wiki ?
Better You search and Tell me. I have read a lot about him. Like here.
His style made him unpopular. But Iron Defense is something that is rare to see.
His style made him unpopular. But Iron Defense is something that is rare to see.
Do you know about Tigran Petrosian's Nichevo Attack ?
Probably the one person who took on his persona the best was Kramnik. Karpov was a positional player and probably fit the Nizmoistch mold better. Then again Karpov at times had his own mold.
Yes Jimmy. Karpov and Kramnik are that capable of that kind of moves. I have a game of Karpov where he made nearly 12 king moves from nowhere.
Have you seen the wiki sources ? They are all the best manuscript on chess.
Why did you ask sources then ?
Still I am giving you another clue to the proof of what i said. I said Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian was
1. Boring or Dull or Ultraconservative. Playing style sometimes dubbed as "Boa Constrictor" Like.
2. Never goes to start tactical battle. Waits for opponent to make mistakes.
3. was himself a Tactical Genius.Defended first not to allow any from the opponent and Hence waited for mistake and them Boom!!.
So Please refer this book i have :"Warriors Of The Mind,"'(a quest for the supreme genius of the chess board)'by GM Raymond Keene and Nathan Divinsky .
It is written that
Tigran Petrosian had a reputation as a BORING player, even today this myth persists. I would not describe Petrosian this way, however his penchant for quick and easy draws could certainly be labeled as dull. It is probably more likely that the average player was simply incapable of understanding his style of play.
Before arguing Me Brush up your knowledge first. When I say I have correct Sources at my back up. Never say what I don't know. You should probably do the same.
Regards
Om Prakash
Why did you ask sources then ?
Still I am giving you another clue to the proof of what i said. I said Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian was
1. Boring or Dull or Ultraconservative. Playing style sometimes dubbed as "Boa Constrictor" Like.
2. Never goes to start tactical battle. Waits for opponent to make mistakes.
3. was himself a Tactical Genius.Defended first not to allow any from the opponent and Hence waited for mistake and them Boom!!.
So Please refer this book i have :"Warriors Of The Mind,"'(a quest for the supreme genius of the chess board)'by GM Raymond Keene and Nathan Divinsky .
It is written that
Tigran Petrosian had a reputation as a BORING player, even today this myth persists. I would not describe Petrosian this way, however his penchant for quick and easy draws could certainly be labeled as dull. It is probably more likely that the average player was simply incapable of understanding his style of play.
Before arguing Me Brush up your knowledge first. When I say I have correct Sources at my back up. Never say what I don't know. You should probably do the same.
Regards
Om Prakash
> even today this myth persists
You know what is a myth?
>You know what is a myth?
Read what is written Later and before and not the Particular sentence. Meanings change. That was written from authors perspective and later it was written
Tigran Petrosian had a reputation as a BORING player, even today this myth persists. I would not describe Petrosian this way,however his penchant for quick and easy draws could certainly be labeled as dull. It is probably more likely that the average player was simply incapable of understanding his style of play.
I have Highlighted the Important words READ IT FIRST!! . The Author considers it myth but again agrees his quick and easy draws certainly said to be dull. I have posted enough sources to prove what i said was right now you prove that you are right.(I know you cant)
What ever I said Stands. It is from the players ho have played them like Korchnoi and Tal. You think your personal views are better than them ? how pathetic. If you behave Like a Blind I cant help it. Just can't Imagine How dumb you are ?
Majority is always granted.
Didn't answer what a myth is yet you keep insulting me...
I would not describe Petrosian that way, This contradicts your thesis
I think the last sentence describes you well
It is probably more likely that the average player was simply incapable of understanding his style of play.
I would not describe Petrosian that way, This contradicts your thesis
I think the last sentence describes you well
It is probably more likely that the average player was simply incapable of understanding his style of play.
>I would not describe Petrosian that way
Correct. He didn't consider him boring where others thought but he Then he wrote Its certainly dull due to lots of quick draws.
>It is probably more likely that the average player was simply incapable of understanding his style of play.
Yes I am An average Player I am no GM .The author who wrote may be But was Spassky an average player ? Was Botvinnik was a Average player ? How dumb .
From My great predecessors. Here it is for you.
Do you know why the author put the word passive between quotations?
B'coz he thought so.
Come to the point man. Don't side track. Did you read UNPOPULAR word in there ?
I have given enough sources to prove why Tigran one of the best player of prophylaxis,tactics was unpopular till now.
Now you show me anything against it.
Come to the point man. Don't side track. Did you read UNPOPULAR word in there ?
I have given enough sources to prove why Tigran one of the best player of prophylaxis,tactics was unpopular till now.
Now you show me anything against it.
No I don't see the word UNPOPULAR, where it is?
If he thought Petrosian was a passive player We would not put the word in quotations, it is rather as your other post said a popular myth for persons who like you did not understand his style.
If he thought Petrosian was a passive player We would not put the word in quotations, it is rather as your other post said a popular myth for persons who like you did not understand his style.
>If he thought Petrosian was a passive player We would not put the word in quotations, it is rather as your other post said a popular myth for persons who like you did not understand his style.
Didn't u read the full sentence ?
He considered Tigran play boring which he thought it is not and a myth but on the contrary Too many quick and easy draws made him think certainly dull.
Now thats the full sentence
There is no full sentence copy is cut and not the whole paragraph could be read in a context.
That was from the Book "Warriors of the Mind" and get confirmed about his BORING style which they think is not but rather they consider its DULL. I have it. Read It Many times. Now its your time. And don't argue on this against me. Argue with the author GM Raymond Keene and Divinsky. You are free to do so .
>So what is Kasparov that he beat in the game you posted, a charity nun? Again contradicting yourself.
I dont think that you Are such a fool that you can't understand that I gave some examples? . Kasparov lost as he tried to win a drawn or equal position. As a rule of thumb If you overdo a position which is equal then you are likely to loose. Better shake hands.
>So if opponents could not fathom his plan they blunder? wow if that is not the more simplistic explanation of a player style then what it is?
That is what we call The positional exchange sacrifice . All are not capable of those moves. It was started by Tigran Himself later Used by Karpov.
This is what Kasparov has to say in My Great Predecessors
Petrosian introduced the exchange sacrifice for the sake of 'quality of position', where the time factor, which is so important in the play of Alekhine and Tal, plays hardly any role. Even today, very few players can operate confidently at the board with such abstract concepts. Before Petrosian no one had studied this. By sacrificing the exchange 'just like that', for certain long term advantages, in positions with disrupted material balance, he discovered latent resources that few were capable of seeing and properly evaluating
It is to Petrosian's advantage that his opponents never know when he is suddenly going to play like Mikhail Tal. - Boris Spassky
> I dont think that you Are such a fool
Sorry sir but the only foolishness here are your comments about Tigran Vartanovich.
You said his strategy failed against attacking players, so again I ask what is Kasparov?
What does the positional exchange sacrifice got to do with opponents blundering?
>Sorry sir but the only foolishness here are your comments about Tigran Vartanovich.
Never. As these are not only my views.
>You said his strategy failed against attacking players, so again I ask what is Kasparov?
Kasparov game was to show the defense of Tigran Petrosian not kasparov attacking.
Look at the Game of Yuri Avervakh beating in Marshall Attack.
>What does the positional exchange sacrifice got to do with opponents blundering?
Most don't understand why it was done. So they continue with their plan falling into Tigrans Deep Plan.
Petrosian's favorite chess book was "My System" according to G. Kasparov.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill