Giulio Cesare Polerio

The Gambit of Giulio Cesare Polerio

Einfacher ist 8. – d5 Tartakower-Leonhardt, Wien 1908

In the 2nd edition of ‚A new treatise on chess‘ George Walker is discussing in 1833 „The Muzio Gambit“ starting on page 80. On page 87 he is analysing „following a new and scientific method of playing the attack“ the following position:

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qxe5
8. b3
For this new and scientific method of playing the attack, I am indebted to A. McD*,****, Esq., one of the most skilful players of the day, and probably second to none other in Europe.—If Black play K. B. to K. second, or K. Kt. second, you bring out Q. Kt. and then play Q. B. to R. third.—If he check with B. you retire K. to corner. The remaining principal modes of defence we will look at in separate games.
8… Qxa1  {bad} 9. Nc3 Bc5+  {best} 10. Kh1 Ne7 {best}11. Qxf4 Rf8 12. Bxf7+ Kd8 13. d4 Qxc3 14. Qh6

Das Handbuch 1843 (1st ed.; page 330, 8.b3*, footnote on page 331) mentions:

Dieser Zug, eine Idee Mac Donnel’s, ist minder gut als 8.d2-d3. Die Ausführungen findet man bei Walker, aus dem wir unsere Variante entlehnen.

(This move, an idea of Mac Donnel, is inferior to 8.d3. The details can be found at Walker*, from whom we are loaning our variation.)

*Of note, later editions of ‚das Handbuch‘ attributed also 7.b3 to MacDonnel.

**Following the list of references at page 33 of ‚das Handbuch‘ (1st ed.), highly likely the 3rd edition of (a) new treatise on chess, 1841, was available to the authors of ‚das Handbuch‘, 1st ed.

Most recently I came accross a match played by KedDuff (1674) vs. Dutch_defense (1817), a tripple gambit muzio. With the moves 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.O-O gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5 8. b3 c6 9. Bb2 Qxb2 10. Bxf7+ chess friend KedDuff actually found his way to sacrifice, besides the f-pawn, overall 3 pieces, thus, his tripple giulio C(A)ESARe polerio GAMBIT. But, as I was also in the position to play an 8th black move after 8.b3 (A. McD*,****) once, I thought: Wow, Dutch defense really knows ‚his Walker‘ inside out.

To me the following „accident“ happened:

Einfacher ist 8. – d5 Tartakower-Leonhardt, Wien 1908 (Keres 1980)

(„Easier is 8. – d5 Tartakower-Leonhardt, Vienna 1908“ (Keres 1980))

Looking into the position after (variation of 15.Bc4 c6! 0:1 in Cullura-Stock above) 15.d4 Nxf7 16.dxc5 Qxc3 17.Qh4+ Ke8 18.Re1+ Qe5 (and the comment: „and White has some compensation while Black can finalise his development.“) I feel that, as mad as the position looks like, black has actually the better position.

Thus, and in conclusion:

8… Qxa1  {bad} (Walker 1833) ??? No! Not soooo bad!

8… Qxa1 {Easier is 8. – d5 Tartakower-Leonhardt, Vienna 1908} (Keres 1980)??? No!

„More easier“ is 8.- c6 KedDuff (1674) vs. Dutch_defense (1817) (G.C.P. 2013)!!!

Btw, how to dispraise chessfriend’s Horst Schwartz 7… Qxa1  {bad}.  Utter-most- easi-est 7.-c6! (the Klingons – near future)?


Kommentar verfassen

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

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden / Ändern )


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


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

Google+ Foto

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

Verbinde mit %s


Dieser Eintrag wurde veröffentlicht am September 14, 2013 von in Chess History, Theory.
%d Bloggern gefällt das: