Mar-29-15
 | | Honza Cervenka: Black was quite lucky to survive white's attack in this game. For example, 26.e5!! Rb5 (26...fxe5? is not possible for 27.Qa5+ with quick mate, 26...Rb7 27.Na5  ) 27.Qd6+ Kc8 28.e6 Be8 29.Rd1 Qc5 30.a4! (An important insertion with a point, which will be apparent a few move later) 30...bxa3 e.p. 31.Qd8+ Kb7 32.Nd6+ Ka7 33.Nxb5+ Qxb5 34.Qc7+ Qb7 35.Qc5+ Qb6 36.Qe7+ Qb7 37.Qxa3+ (Here is the point.) 37...Qa6 38.Qe7+ Qb7 (or 38...Kb6 39.Qg7 ) 39.Ra1+ Kb6 40.Qd8+ Kc6 41.Qxf6 Rg8 42.e7+ Kc5 43.Qe5+ Kb6 44.Qe6+ with next 45.Qxg8 . |
|
| Mar-29-17 | | zanzibar: Since this is the debut of the Polugaevsky Variation of the Najdorf, let's add van der Sterren's comments about the line: <[After 7...b5]
This is the Polugaevsky Variation, a line that is so breathtakingly complicated that a remarkable discrepancy has evolved between theory and practice: there is a huge complex of deep theoretical analysis, but there are very few games with this line. Polugaevsky (1934-95) himself described how he studied this variation several hours a day for half a year before he dared to play it for the first time.
>
I wonder if anybody knows the original reference for Polugaevsky's statement about the opening study? . |
|
| Mar-29-17 | | Retireborn: <z> In his book Grandmaster Preparation (Pergamon 1981) Polu devotes a whole lengthy chapter to the evolution of his Variation, and he writes (p22 of my copy) - "every day for roughly six months(!) I spent hours at the board studying positions from the variation, and even went to sleep and dreamed about it." Incidentally he mentions this game as the first time he played it:- Nikitin vs Polugaevsky, 1959 That's from the USSR ch in January, whereas this one is from the Moscow Spartakiad in August. |
|
| Mar-30-17 | | zanzibar: Thanks so much <RB> for that info. So, how is <CB> going to correct this - it incorrectly claims this game as the debut. Probably using date (both being 1959.??.??) and then gid (this one being 1111482 vs. 1111481) - wait, that doesn't work - what's going on??). |
|
| Mar-31-17 | | Olavi: As Polu writes, 7...b5 had been played earlier. He mentions Reicher-Krogius, Ploesti 1957; that the Rumenians had played it earlier; and Kotkov-Shaposhnikov, RSFSR ch 1958. It's another matter if those games were true Polugaevskys in Spirit. |
|
| Mar-31-17 | | zanzibar: <Olavi> thanks for that additional info. I'm not sure exactly what qualifies a game as bona fide Polugaevsky in spirit though... ?? Turns out the Reicher--Krogius (1957) game was in <MB>: <
[Event "Ploesti"]
[Site "Ploesti"]
[Date "1957.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Reicher"]
[Black "Krogius"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B96q"]
[EventDate "1957.??.??"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 b5 8.e5
dxe5 9.fxe5 Qc7 10.exf6 Qe5+ 11.Qe2 Qxg5 12.Ne4 Qe5 13.O-O-O Bb7 14.
Nxb5 axb5 15.Qd2 1/2-1/2
>
Whereas the Kotkov--Shaposhnikov (1958) game was in <Rusbase>: <
[Event "Ch Russia"]
[Site "Sochi (Russia)"]
[Date "1958.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kotkov Yuri M (RUS)"]
[Black "Shaposhnikov Yury"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B96"]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]
[Remark ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 b5 8.e5
dxe5 9.fxe5 Qc7 10.Nf3 b4 11.Nb5 axb5 12.exf6 Nd7 13.Bxb5 Ra5 14.Qe2
gxf6 15.Bxf6 Rg8 16.Ne5 Rxb5 17.Qxb5 Rxg2 18.Rd1 Bd6 19.Nxd7 Bxd7 20.
Qd3 Be7 21.Bxe7 Qe5+ 22.Kf1 Bb5 23.Kxg2 Bxd3 24.Rxd3 Qe4+ 25.Kg1 Kxe7
26.h4 Qe1+ 27.Kg2 Qe2+ 28.Kg3 Qxc2 29.Rhd1 Qxb2 30.Rd7+ Kf8 31.Rf1
Qe5+ 32.Kg2 Qe4+ 33.Kg3 Kg8 34.h5 Qe3+ 35.Kh4 h6 36.Rfxf7 Qg5+ 0-1 >
I would venture to say both games were spirited enough to qualify (e.g. continuing 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 Qc7), even though the first was only a 15 move draw (but still some fireworks). . |
|
| Mar-31-17 | | Olavi: Yes, those qualify. Whereas if they had continued with say 8.a3 and normal Sicilian development, then I'd say they were only nominal Polus. Even then black had signalled his willingness to enter the maze. I now noticed that Polugaevsky later gives the Krogius game, saying that black could as well have resigned in the final position. |
|
| Mar-31-17 | | Olavi: Krogius should have played 13...Ra7. |
|
| Apr-04-17 | | Howard: For the record, CL&R had a write-up on this variation in a 1977 issue, in which they referred to the 20th anniversary of this ultra-complex variation... ...and then CL had a similar write-up in a 1983 issue, in which they said it was the 25th anniversary. As with a lot of openings, it's debatable as to when it was first played. |
|
Kibitzing
