Giulio Cesare Polerio

The Gambit of Giulio Cesare Polerio

Muzio-Polerio nonsense

Open letter to Tim Harding

Dear Tim,

with interest I read your ‚Plain Man’s Guide to the Kieseritzky Gambit, Part Two‚.

First of all, I visited most recently Kaissiber’s home page and read with concern and sadness:

Dear readers,

To my great regret the publication of Kaissiber had been interrupted since April of 2010 (when issue 37 came out). The interruption was caused by a longer illness of mine. After the recovery I moved at the end of 2011 from Nordwalde to Pforzheim. Please note the new address and phone number. After this basic private change, I am now planning to restart Kaissiber very soon. At least three Kaissiber issues per year will be published in the future, with Kaissiber #38 scheduled for the end of April, 2012.

All best regards,
Stefan Bücker
February 19, 2012

This message is just older than a year, and unchanged since then.

You wrote (in 2012):

Another reader, from Denmark, complained that I had not taken account of some articles by Stefan Bücker about the King’s Gambit and demanding to be told why not. Part of that message was added as a comment to my last article. I appreciate his suggestion but not the aggressive language in which it was couched.

You asked:

After studying all the Muzio-Polerio nonsense, I ask why on earth does Black unguard the f4-pawn when he has this perfectly good move 4…Bg7 instead?

I appreciate your question but have, as a black player and as a – hopefully not former – reader of Kaissiber few understanding for the aggressive language in which you raised your question.

To give an answer to your question first: As simple as it is: In order to attack the knight on f3, and having a favourable position thereafter.

Also 4.- Bg7 may lead to a favourable position as well, but as a black player I prefer to see my advantage clearer, and more directly. If you call 4. – g4 Muzio-Polerio nonsense, please be reminded that G.C. Polerio considered the position after 4.- g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 as favourable for white – but not me while playing 4.- g4 with black. It is not really nice to hear, as a black player, that 4.- g4 is „nonsense“.

I would like to adress some questions to you. With these questions I will complain – obviously like others before – that you have not taken account of some articles by Stefan Bücker about the King’s Gambit while writing, now in concrete, about the „Muzio-Polerio nonsense„, specifically 1986 Buecker DnK Kapitel VII (Muzio-Gambit, Klassische Hauptvariante 7.e5), and Kaissiber 13.

I can only hope that my language will not be considered aggressive by you.

1. You wrote (after 4.- g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5):

8 d3!

How that? I actually thought that the move is not playable for white (with Paulsen’s move, and despite the Lean Attack).

2. You wrote:

13 Qe2!

This is the Maclean Attack, analysed in depth by Chigorin in his later years, but he failed to find a decisive line for White.

Following my sources,

Snosko-Borowsi 1911, cover page

Snosko-Borowski 1911, cover page

SnB 48

SnB 47

SnB 48

SnB 49

Chigorin analysed an, at least in German, so called, „Lean-Angriff„. And seemingly Chigorin contributed very much to the defense – such as the so called (on p. 49 of Snosko-Borowski, Leipzig 1911) „Tschigorinsche Variante„.

3. You wrote

13. … Qe6 allows White to force an immediate draw by repetition with 14 Qf2 Qf5 15 Qe2 etc. and that may be Black’s best line.

May I ask kindly why a black player should allow, in this nice position, a draw to white? Is there something new in the 7th attack, 1st defense, also called „Tschigorinsche Variante„? I thought, following Snosko-Borowski, Chigorin, Smout, and Bücker, that  14.- Qg6! could do the job to win for black, and I did so in Schenning-Stock 0:1, 1998; see Kaissiber 13, p. 30.

In summary:  You disagree with Chigorin?

4. You wrote, as to your main line (of Paulsen/Lean)

13…b5?!

From a didactical point of view it is difficult to understand for a black player why he should give the  advantage out of his hand by playing, or even gambling, the 3rd defence labelled by you with ‚?!‘. And this after having read that „13…. Qe6 … may be Black’s best line“?

Sorry, but here I would follow Bücker/Stock, Kaissiber 13, pp. 28-30 and simply play 13.- Qe6! (i.e. 7th defense, exclamation point set by Snosko-Borowski 1911) 14.Nxe7 Qxe7 15.Bc3 Rg8 16.Qh5 Qg5 17.Rf2 Rf8! (analysis Bücker/Stock 1997) and highly likely win as Meißen did against Schüler with move 21 in 1999, 0:1.

In summary and in conclusion:

1. In terms of a „Plain Man’s Guide to the Kieseritzky Gambit, Part Two“ I would endorse your assessment that 4.Bc4 is not the best choice for white (so that he should play something different, such as 4.h4 or 4.d4).

2. With the term „Muzio-Polerion nonsense“ I feel insulted while playing – after my oponent played 4.Bc4 – 4.- g4! with black.

3. As a guide to the Kieseritzky Gambit part two your display of 4.Bc4 g4! is missleading from my point of view. Perhaps you could improve it a little bit, without investing much more time, by reading „some articles by Stefan Bücker about the King’s Gambit „?!

Thank you for your patience with a concerned reader of Kaissiber,

and my sincerly regards

Thomas Stock

Advertisements

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

Information

Dieser Eintrag wurde veröffentlicht am September 9, 2013 von in General, Theory.
%d Bloggern gefällt das: