HoF #47: Polugaevsky–"The Great Poluga"
This blog is a celebration that leverages an outstanding concept of GMs Nielsen and Gustafsson (both of whom are also popular chessable.com authors) but offers my unique take. The two GMs produced videos and multiple lessons regarding their top 50 chess players of all time. Although I provide a link to their work below, my focus is a bit different, though I freely accept their rankings.
How does my work differ? Well, first off, I'm not a titled player. Second, rather than videos and puzzles, I offer: brief biographies of each player; limited discussion and pictures of some of their works if they wrote; and quotes from those who proved to be eminently quotable. Third, well, I also may have found occasion to add quotes from other famous chess names regarding certain individuals and perhaps even the occasional caricature😏. Fourth and last, to the extent possible, I will include two games analyzed by the individual. After all, the greatest of the great should be able to explain what they were thinking during a game, shouldn't they? (Spoiler alert: perhaps.)
We've reached #47. I hope you enjoy my alternative, much shorter takes. Certainly, I enjoin you to visit the work of GMs Nielsen and Gustafsson (both on chess.com and chessable.com).
Chess.com Hall of Fame #47: Lev Polugaevsky
Lev Abramovich Polugaevsky (Russian: Лев Абрамович Полугаевский, IPA: [pəlʊɡɐˈjefskʲɪj]; 20 November 1934 – 30 August 1995) was a Soviet GM and strong contender for the title of World CC. Lev won or tied for the USSR CC three times, and his peak rating was 2645 in July 1972 at which time he was ranked #3 in the world. ChessMetrics offers a re-baselined rating that allows us to better compare his peak to that of modern players. The site lists him at 2761 in June 1977 and finds him at #2 in three different months in 1972.
It sucks to be #2 when there’s a Bobby Fischer on center stage, a young Karpov in the wings, and a soon-to-be Kasparov already playing. And former World CCs such as Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, and Spassky still strode the landscape.
Polugaevsky did compete in four Candidates Tournaments, but the closest he came saw him losing in the 1977 and 1980 semifinals to the forever-young Victor Korchnoi. He played on seven Soviet Olympiad teams, with the team earning six golds and one silver.
His book Grandmaster Preparation is considered a classic as he meticulously described his thinking while investigating the Najdorf Sicilian. There are two accompanying books, Grandmaster Performance and Grandmaster Achievement. I love his statement that, “Ninety per cent of all chess books you can open at page one and then immediately close again forever.” It inspires me to be one of the ten percenters…or better!
Some of Polugaevsky’s most famous quotes were:
Analysis, if it is really carried out with a complete concentration of his powers, forms and completes a chess player.
Analysis is a glittering opportunity for training: it is just here that capacity for work, perseverance, and stamina is cultivated, and these qualities are, in truth, as necessary to a chess player as a marathon runner.
My most difficult opponent is myself. When I am playing, I often involuntarily make a world champion out of a candidate master.
First and foremost, it is essential to understand the essence, the overall idea of any fashionable variation, and only then include it in one's repertoire. Otherwise, the tactical trees will conceal from the player the strategic picture of the wood, in which his orientation will most likely be lost.
A sensation, hidden in the depths of my emotional memory, was suddenly revived: what if... What if for me The Variation is not dead? If The Variation is alive?!
In those years, it was easier to win the Soviet Championship than a game against 'Iron Tigran'.
Given these are fifty of the greatest players of all time, how were they as annotators? Well, for those who wrote books we could truly explore that question in depth. But to keep the playing field even, I am only including a game or two taken from a DB or website. If such are available, as I've already discovered several left few traces of their thinking. Besides, I didn't want to burden myself with transcribing comments from a book into a pgn file. Or increase my debt burden by buying books of those who did not yet offer free access to books released to the public domain. Besides, it is far easier and faster to look for annotated games in an online database.
Below we can ponder two games that Polugaevsky analyzed.
Polugaevsky, Lev - Averbakh, Yuri, URS-ch28 Final and Zonal, Moscow, USSR 21.01.1961
The notes in this game start at move forty but are quite useful for understanding how to play an endgame with a queen and the bishop pair against a queen, knight, bishop, and slightly inferior queenside pawn structure. My main complaint is that on move 39 Polugaevsky does not explain why he refused to accept a piece sacrifice [the computer recommends accepting the piece but my Keep it Simple, Smith (KISS) Principle agrees with White's winning decision not to grab to proffered snack.]
What I particularly admire is that Polugaevsky correctly states that White is undoubtedly better but that proving it will be difficult. That's a descriptive feature you don't receive when a computer says +3.97...and then shows a hundred lines of gobbledygook (with apologies to Meleagris gallopavo and Meleagris ocellata as no slur towards the language or lineage of those birds is intended).
On move forty the game was adjourned and Polugaevsky studied the position with his coach. I'm glad those good-ol'-days are gone. Polugaevsky then explains how he and his coach intentionally dispensed with a critical defensive gesture in their adjournment analysis and how lucky he was to hold a draw when confronted with this "unexpected" move. In fact, Polugaevsky was so thrown off balance that he later failed to crush a blunder by his opponent, and there were multiple refutations. Fascinating stuff in a different clock era.
As a point of interest, the silicon chess cyber-kings point out that Black's 47th move did not merit the exclam it received. Instead, it should have been deemed a losing move. Bottom line is that there were multiple blunders on both sides in this complex endgame and White felt himself lucky to have escaped with a perpetual.
Spassky, Boris - Geller, Efim, Candidates QF, USSR, 04.1968
Many GMs will state that they provide their best analyses for their own games because they understand at least their motivations! Below we get to see Portisch explaining a Candidates match game between two chess titans and doing a great job despite not being one of the contestants!
I'll offer a quick summary of Polugaevsky's main points up front. Spassky dared Geller by choosing to once again play a Closed Variation of the Sicilian that had already twice resulted in brilliant kingside sacrifices and victories for White. In the two prior games White essentially abandoned the queenside and won with thrilling sacs on the kingside. Would the third time be the charm for Black? Or would the next World CC prevail again?
Polugaevsky offers some generic advice that Black should have created queenside counterplay, forcing White to "accommodate his plans." Though some vague ideas were mentioned in the notes, my take is that in his analysis Polugaevsky fixated on the glory of White's victory and provided scant indications for improvements in Black's play. That said, at least he offered good general advice and a few direct pointers, however paltry!
As a point of interest, the computers do not consider 17...Qa6 the decisive mistake, but computers can defend anything. However, Polugaevsky was spot on to condemn the foolhardy maneuvering Black initiated with 18...Na7. From a practical perspective it strikes me as inexplicable that Black would shuffle this minor piece around so slowly on the queenside after already losing several games to spectacular kingside attacks.
The whole purpose of this section is to address some obvious questions that might pop into your head. How come Kevin didn't talk about this? Or that? Not to mention the other thing! Well, just call me lazy! Or you could appreciate the fact I'm limiting the word count that is imposed on you😏. Nonetheless, in the series I'll be using this little section to provide links to more fulsome discussions that revolve around some well-known and lesser-known facets of the featured chess giant. That will range from videos to links to other chess.com blogs, usually by Top Bloggers. Enjoy or skip, it's your call, as always.
Here we see NM Sam Copeland's #5 game of the 1960s. He uses analysis by Polugaevsky as a basis for his discussion of this brilliant game.
Here we see NM Sam Copeland's #3 game of the 1980s. Is it just me, or did Polugaevsky not age?
That's it for the fourth installment of my own take on chess.com's 50 greatest players of all time. Hope you enjoyed the blog. The good GMs below have a full selection of videos and puzzles dedicated to each of the fifty.
Cheers!
Sources for this information included chess.com, wikipedia.com, ChessBase, FIDE, individuals' websites, YouTube.com, news articles, books, and other sources including A-Z Quotes | Quotes for All Occasions. Plus, my faulty memories. I mixed, matched, cut, and pasted so much that separation is implausible. Particularly with quotes which are found in a thousand repositories, not to mention book covers, t-shirts, and the rantings of chess coaches of whom I've had more than a few thanks to Chess University and @AttilaTurzo (my primary instructor and co-author of a book we are writing on how to analyze during a game and afterwards.)
If you enjoy reading "greatest of" lists, then you might also enjoy chess.com's Every Chess 'Player Of The Decade' (From Morphy To Magnus).
