(The annotations to this game, by M. N. Tal and his second, A. Z. Kapengut, are from ‘64’ (№ 7 38, 1979). The translation from the original Russian is by Douglas Griffin.)

Exactly 10 years ago, in September of 1969, Tal lost to Polugaevsky for the first time. This took place in the 2nd round of the 38th championship of the country. The game became widely known, and, it seems, had made its way into every theoretical reference book. Over the last decade the grandmaster from the Moscow area has led by the score 5:1. Such an association naturally does not reflect on one’s mood in the best way, but... the draw is the draw.

Polugaevsky – Tal 2nd round, FIDE Interzonal Tournament, Riga, 6th September 1979

1.Nf3 c5! So that there should be no ill-fated Queen’s Gambit with its memories of the ‘zero’.

2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwqkvl-tr0 7zpp+-zppzpp0 6-+-+-+-+0 5+-zpn+-+-0 4-+-+P+-+0 3+-sN-+N+-0 2PzP-zP-zPPzP0 1tR-vLQmKL+R0 xabcdefghy

The move 5.e2–e4 (please do not confuse with 1.e2–e4!) has known its ebbs and flows. According to the latest theoretical canons, the 3...d5 system has been put in doubt by this variation.

Incidentally, the game Timman-Tal from Montreal developed in this way. On that occasion Black played 5...Nxc3 and after 6.dxc3 obtained an unpleasant position. In a discussion on this encounter (‘64’, No. 17, 1979) the Riga grandmaster admitted that 6.dxc3 was for him a complete surprise, and that the offer to exchange queens was not at all synonymous with an offer of a draw. The variation was examined by us during our time together prior to the Interzonal tournament.

It may be added that this variation was seemingly being encountered for the first time in Polugaevsky’s practice.

5...Nb4 6.Bc4 Poutiainen (Keres Memorial, Tallinn 1977) and Tukmakov (45th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1977) continued against Tal 6.Bb5+. Both games developed favourably for Black.

(Translator’s note: Tal won these encounters in 21 and 25 moves respectively...)

6...Be6 7.Bxe6 Nd3+ 8.Kf1 fxe6 9.Ng5 XIIIIIIIIY 8rsn-wqkvl-tr0 7zpp+-zp-zpp0 6-+-+p+-+0 5+-zp-+-sN-0 4-+-+P+-+0 3+-sNn+-+-0 2PzP-zP-zPPzP0 1tR-vLQ+K+R0 xabcdefghy

Here 9...Qd7 and 9...Nc6 have been encountered. In the recently-played game Székely-Palatnik (Frunze, 1979) Black continued 9...Na6.

9...Qb6!? Black defends the e6–pawn and in some cases takes aim at the square f2 – the undefended state of the knight d3 is no more than apparent (...c5–c4).

10.Qe2 This move was proposed by A. Koblencs in our work together.

10...c4 11.b3 White’s idea is obvious – it is worth ‘smoking out’ the knight from d3, since Black will be left with not a single even slightly well-placed piece. Black’s task is also perfectly clear – to maintain the forepost at any cost.

11...h6 It is necessary for the time being to drive back the opponent’s only active piece, in order if possible to complete development (as far as the queen’s flank is concerned).

12.Nf3 12.Na4 Qd4 13.Nxe6 will not do on account of 13...Qxa1 14.Qh5+ g6 15.Qxg6+ Kd7 or simply 13...Qe5.

Possibly, 12.Nh3 made sense for White, reliably covering f2, now or after 12.Qh5+.

12...Nc6 13.bxc4 0–0–0 XIIIIIIIIY 8-+ktr-vl-tr0 7zpp+-zp-zp-0 6-wqn+p+-zp0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+P+P+-+0 3+-sNn+N+-0 2P+-zPQzPPzP0 1tR-vL-+K+R0 xabcdefghy

14.g3 The wedge at d3 to a significant extent paralyses White’s action, and as soon as Black manages to bring into battle the f8–bishop, opening the f-file for the rook, his initiative will perhaps become decisive. Therefore it is hardly possible to agree with L. Polugaevsky’s quiet handling of the position.

Important for the assessment of the position is 14.Nd5?! exd5 15.Qxd3 Nb4!, and any retreat of the queen leaves Black with the better chances. For example, 16.Qb1 dxc4; 16.Qd4 Qxd4 17.Nxd4 dxe4; 16.Qc3 dxe4 17.Ne5 g5 18.Nf7 Bg7! 19.Qxg7 Nd3 (a new fighter to replace the fallen!).

Also considered was 14.Ba3, and if 14...Qa5, then 15.Nb5 a6 16.Nd6+ exd6 17.Qxd3 Ne5 18.Qb3 Nxf3 19.gxf3 Qxd2 20.Rb1 with excellent play. In reply to 14.Ba3 Black planned 14...g5.

It should not be excluded that the best practical chance was the piece sacrifice 14.Nd5 exd5 15.exd5.

14...g5 15.Kg2 Also now the exchanging operation 15.Nd5 exd5 16.Qxd3 Bg7! 17.e5 (17.Rb1 dxc4!) 17...Rhf8 was hardly attractive for White.

15...Qc5! White had intended 16.Ne1, which now loses its point. Possibly, Polugaevsky’s position is already lost.

16.Rb1 Bg7 17.Nb5 A desperate attempt at the counter-attack 17...a6? 18.Ba3 Qxc4 19.Na7+! Nxa7 20.Rhc1.

17...Qxc4 Threatening 18...Nf4+. XIIIIIIIIY 8-+ktr-+-tr0 7zpp+-zp-vl-0 6-+n+p+-zp0 5+N+-+-zp-0 4-+q+P+-+0 3+-+n+NzP-0 2P+-zPQzPKzP0 1+RvL-+-+R0 xabcdefghy

18.Qe3 Rhf8 19.Rf1 19...Rxf3 and 19...g4 were threatened. Hopeless for White is 19.Nxa7+ Nxa7 20.Qxa7 Qxe4.

19...g4 Also sufficient is 19...a6, but the move in the game is more decisive.

20.Nh4 XIIIIIIIIY 8-+ktr-tr-+0 7zpp+-zp-vl-0 6-+n+p+-zp0 5+N+-+-+-0 4-+q+P+psN0 3+-+nwQ-zP-0 2P+-zP-zPKzP0 1+RvL-+R+-0 xabcdefghy

20...Nxf2! 21.Ng6 Rd3 A little less strong is 21...Rf3 22.Nxa7+ Nxa7 23.Qxa7 Qxe4 (without check!) 24.Nxe7+ Kc7 25.Qb6+ Kd7 26.Qxb7+.

22.Na3 In the case of 22.Qe1 Rdf3 there arises a position similar to that which occurs in the game.

22...Qa4 23.Qe1 Rdf3 24.Nxf8 Nd3 25.Qd1 Qxe4 XIIIIIIIIY 8-+k+-sN-+0 7zpp+-zp-vl-0 6-+n+p+-zp0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+-+q+p+0 3sN-+n+rzP-0 2P+-zP-+KzP0 1+RvLQ+R+-0 xabcdefghy

26.Rxf3 gxf3+ 27.Kf1 Qf5 28.Kg1 Bd4+ White resigned.