Misplaced Pages

#628371

30-529: First recorded by Giulio Cesare Polerio (c. 1550 – c. 1610) in the late 16th century, this line of the Italian Game was extensively developed in the 19th century. Black's third move is a more aggressive defense than the Giuoco Piano ( 3...Bc5 ). Black allows White to attack his f7-pawn with 4.Ng5. If White does so, the game quickly takes on a tactical character: Black is practically forced to give up

60-614: A choice of retreats for the knight. The usual move here is 9.Nf3, after which Black obtains some initiative after 9...e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 (see diagram). This is the Knorre Variation, and is considered to be the main line of the Two Knights Defense. After ten moves, White has developed only two pieces against Black's three pieces and pawns, but has an extra pawn as well as a better pawn structure. Both 11.d4 and 11.f4 have been tried here with no definitive conclusion. 10...Bc5

90-486: A distinct advantage of material for Black.) Correct is 5.Bxf7+! Ke7 6.d4! (6.d3 is also good) and now: White can choose to develop rapidly with 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0. Now Black can equalize simply by eliminating White's last center pawn with 5...Nxe4, after which White regains the material with 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3, but Black has a comfortable position after 8...Qa5 or 8...Qh5. The wild Nakhmanson Gambit 6.Nc3 gives White compensation if Black accepts

120-465: A lively international chess dialogue is described involving the exchange of ideas among players in Italy, Portugal, and Spain. In these codexes, besides new ideas regarding chess openings , Polerio describes some of his own matches. In Il Puttino , Salvio mentions that, starting in 1606 from " Città di Piazza ", " Geronimo Cascio , on his way to Rome, beat Giulio Cesare (Polerio), companion of Il Puttino,

150-656: A pawn by force . Despite Tarrasch's criticism, 4.Ng5 has remained a popular choice for White at all levels. After 4...d5 White has little option but to play 5.exd5, since both the bishop and e4-pawn are attacked. Then Black usually plays 5...Na5 but there are other options: After 5...Na5, the Polerio Defense, Paul Morphy would play to hold the gambit pawn with 6.d3, the Kieseritzky Attack (or Morphy Variation), which has not been popular, since it has long been known that Black obtains good chances for

180-466: A pawn for the initiative. The complications are such that David Bronstein suggested that the term "defense" does not fit, and that the name "Chigorin Counterattack" would be more appropriate. The Two Knights has been adopted as Black by many aggressive players including Mikhail Chigorin and Paul Keres , and world champions Mikhail Tal and Boris Spassky . In modern grandmaster play, 3.Bc4

210-399: Is a nickname used by Alessandro Salvio for Giovanni Leonardo . According to Salvio, Polerio accompanied Giovanni Leonardo on his way to Madrid until Genoa . After returning to Rome around 1584, Polerio became a chess player and writer in ordinary of Giacomo Boncompagni , Duke of Sora and son of Pope Gregory XIII (born Ugo Boncompagni) . Polerio wrote a number of codexes in which

240-497: Is a viable alternative for Black, as is 10...Qc7 (the Goring Variation). Steinitz favored 9.Nh3 instead, although it did not bring him success in his famous 1891 cable match against Chigorin. The Steinitz Variation was mostly forgotten until Fischer revived it in the 1960s. Nigel Short led a second revival of 9.Nh3 in the 1990s, and today it is thought to be about equal in strength to the more common 9.Nf3. In addition to

270-645: Is based on the observation that " im Handbuch (1864, S.. 366, § 3)" this move order is called "das Gambit des Calabresen". This is a rather interesting observation since in the "Handbuch" in its 2nd edition as of 1852, on p. 205 it is mentioned that the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5 can be found "at the Calabrese". That's a rather wise wording since both 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5 and 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5, according to Codexes of Polerio, occurred in games of "Gio. Leonardo" (games 236–238, p. 190 in van der Linde). Both Giovanni Leonardo and Gioacchino Greco were from Calabria ,

300-859: Is known as both the Traxler Variation and (in the United States and the United Kingdom only) the Wilkes-Barre Variation. White can play 5.d4, 5.Nxf7, or 5.Bxf7+: 4...Nxe4?! is considered unsound but must be handled carefully. 5.Nxe4 d5 poses no problems for Black. If 5.Nxf7? Qh4! 6.g3 (6.0-0 Bc5!) 6...Qh3 7.Nxh8 Qg2 8.Rf1 Nd4 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Nxg6 hxg6 11.Qxg6+ Kd8 and Black has dangerous threats. (Alternatively, after 5.Nxf7? Qh4! 6.g3, Black could play more aggressively 6...Nxg3! 7.fxg3 Qe4+ 8.Qe2 Qxh1+ 9.Qf1 Qxf1+ 10.Kxf1 d5 11.Bxd5 Bh3+ 12.Ke1 Nb4 13.Bb3 Nxc2+ 14.Bxc2 Kxf7 with

330-517: Is less common than 3.Bb5 , and the more solid 3...Bc5 is the most frequent reply, so the Two Knights Defense is infrequently seen. It remains popular with amateur players. The theory of this opening has been explored extensively in correspondence chess by players such as Hans Berliner and Yakov Estrin . German master Siegbert Tarrasch called 4.Ng5 "a real duffer's move" ( ein richtiger Stümperzug ) and Soviet opening theorist Vasily Panov called it "primitive", but this attack on f7 practically wins

SECTION 10

#1732798366629

360-592: The Giuoco Pianissimo if Black responds 4...Bc5, but there are also independent variations after 4...Be7 or 4...h6. White tries to avoid the tactical battles that are common in other lines of the Two Knights and to enter a more positional game. The resulting positions take on some characteristics of the Ruy Lopez if White plays c3 and retreats the bishop to c2 via Bc4–b3–c2. This move became popular in

390-400: The 1980s and has been used by John Nunn and others. The attempt to defend the pawn with 4.Nc3 does not work well since Black can take the pawn anyway and use a fork trick to regain the piece, 4.Nc3?! Nxe4! 5.Nxe4 d5. The try 5.Bxf7+? does not help, as Black has the bishop pair and a better position after 5...Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5. Instead, 4.Nc3 is usually played with the intent to gambit

420-528: The Codexes of Polerio has been performed and published by Alessandro Sanvito in 2005. The systematic organisation of overall seven Codexes , described and called A-G by Van der Linde, and attributed to Polerio in 1874, had major impact on the further description of chess history, and history of chess theory. A relevant part of the work of Van der Linde was to compare Codexes of Polerio and Gioacchino Greco even superfine. According to this investigation, most of

450-524: The Giuoco Piano or Scotch Game. White can choose to avoid these lines by playing 5.e5, a line often adopted by Sveshnikov . After 5.e5, either 5...Ne4 or 5...Ng4 is a playable reply, but most common and natural is 5...d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5, with sharp play. The tricky 5.Ng5?! is best met by 5...d5! 6.exd5 Qe7+! The quiet move 4.d3, the Modern Bishop's Opening, transposes into

480-515: The analytic work of Polerio was mediated outside of Italy, up to 1874, via Gioacchino Greco. More recent work by Peter J. Monté compiling game scores from all sixteenth and seventeenth century manuscripts reveals where Greco copied Polerio and where he carried the games further. The Polerio defense is one of the traditional responses to the Fried Liver Attack by black, attempting to force the bishop to an inactive square or trading until

510-676: The best in Rome, in the house/court of his Excellence Giacomo Boncompagni, Duke of Sora." The first systematic investigation of the Codexes of Polerio was published by Antonius van der Linde in 1874. The subject of the investigations by Van der Linde can be found at the Bibliotheca Van der Linde-Niemeijeriana , part of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, National Library of the Netherlands . The current systematics of

540-880: The bishop is captured, thus weakening White's attack. The moves to achieve this defense are as follows: *Classic Fried-Liver attack On p. 186 of "Das Schachspiel des XVI. Jahrhunderts" van der Linde wrote in 1874: " D. Polerio-Gambit 224 1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. f2-f4 e5-f4: 3. Sg1-f3 g7-g5 4. Lf1-c4 g5-g4 5. 0-0! g4-f3: 6. Dd1-f3: e cosi ancor che habbia perso un pezzo resta con buonissima postura di poter uencere il gioco sapendo guidarlo à presso, il che sarebbe superfluo inogni modo se si uolesse mostrare la fine di tutti giochi, e per questo basta insino à un certo che, tanto che si conosca apartemente il uantagio del gioco, si come per la postura di dette giochi ogni giudicioso giocatore lo potrà facilmente cognoscere ." ) ... in modern terms: "Polerio Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0! gxf3 6.Qxf3 +/−" Exactly this move order

570-574: The e-pawn with the Boden–Kieseritzky Gambit , 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.0-0. This gambit is not commonly seen in tournament play as it is not well regarded by opening theory, but it can offer White good practical chances, especially in blitz chess . White must respond to the attack on the e-pawn. (For explanation of notation, see chess opening theory table .) Bibliography Giulio Cesare Polerio Giulio Cesare Polerio (c. 1555, – c. 1610; reconstruction of places and dates by Adriano Chicco )

600-399: The first from Cutro , the second from Celico . Glossary of chess#develop This glossary of chess explains commonly used terms in chess , in alphabetical order. Some of these terms have their own pages, like fork and pin . For a list of unorthodox chess pieces, see Fairy chess piece ; for a list of terms specific to chess problems , see Glossary of chess problems ; for

630-510: The following Gambit was sent to him by Signor Muzio, ..." Actually, Alessandro Salvio never stated this. Rather, in the third book of the Il Puttino he wrote that Signor Mutio d'Alessandro did see that Geronimo Cascio did play the move order (with free castling, also called "Italian method" of castling ). With p. 165 , vol. 2, of the 1821 edition of A New Treatise of the Game of Chess

SECTION 20

#1732798366629

660-584: The last editions of the Handbuch . Thereafter, a trend can be seen to call this move order either with hyphenated terms such as Muzio–Polerio, Polerio–Muzio, or simply Polerio Gambit. Such a terminology is both in honour of Giulio Cesare Polerio and partially misleading since the major body of the theory of this opening was generated in the time span in-between 1821 and 1874. The number of games played by Adolf Anderssen , Paul Morphy , and Wilhelm Steinitz with 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 or 5.d4 in

690-469: The moves 8.Be2 and 8.Qf3, the move 8.Bd3 is a valid alternative that has apparently become fashionable in recent years. This bold move ignores White's attack on f7 and leads to wild play. Czech problemist Karel Traxler played it against Reinisch in Prague in 1890. Later it was named after Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania by Frank Marshall , who claimed to be first to analyze and publish it, so today 4...Bc5

720-463: The pawn with 6...h6 7.Nf3 e4 8.Qe2 Nxc4 9.dxc4 Bc5. (Bronstein once tried the piece sacrifice 8.dxe4!? with success, but its soundness is doubtful.) Instead, White usually plays 6.Bb5+, when play usually continues 6...c6 (6...Bd7 is also possible) 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6. (The move 8.Qf3, popular in the nineteenth century and revived by Efim Bogoljubow in the twentieth, can be played instead; Black may reply with 8...h6, 8...Rb8, or 8...Be7.) White then has

750-437: The piece with 6...dxc3 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qd5+ and then makes the intuitive move 8...Ke8?! Instead, 8...Kf6! has been analysed to offer Black a substantial edge with best play. Victor Bologan suggests declining the gambit with 6...Nxc3 7.bxc3 d5 8.Bb5 Be7 leading to a better position for Black. Alternatively, Black can enter the extensively analyzed Max Lange Attack after 5...Bc5 6.e5 d5, which can also arise by transposition from

780-413: The term Muzio Gambit was coined by Jacob Henry Sarratt . And with the latter work of Sarrat, in 1821 the modern theory of the "Muzio Gambit" with castling according modern rules started – an idea and a position already Polerio analysed in 1579/80. Thus, Antonius van der Linde, changed the view on the historical development of the move order 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 in 1874, most notably in

810-447: The time span 1821–1874 was already rather high. The rules for Chess opening nomenclature , and their historical development, should be taken into account while assessing van der Linde's claim of 1874 "D. Polerio-Gambit". In 1874, Van der Linde suggested as well (p. 188) to rename the move order 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.h4 h6 6.d4 d6 7.Nc3 c6 8.hxg5 hxg5 9.Rxh8 Bxh8 10.Ne5!? into "Polerio's second Gambit". This suggestion

840-460: The white king of Polerio did stand, after 5.0-0, on h1 but not on g1 (i.e. castling as defined in our days). However, in 1874, the move order 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0! was already occupied by the term " Muzio Gambit ". This term derives from a translation of a work of Alessandro Salvio , supposedly the third book of the reprint of 1723, by Sarrat in 1813. On page 209 Jacob Henry Sarratt (translated) and wrote: "SALVIO states that

870-501: Was also found later even in a second Polerio Codex discovered and described by J.A. Leon in 1894. Of note is that the position after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 may be considered by most recent grandmasters as a forced win for White – provided that 5.0-0 would mean "free castling ", i.e. bringing the White King from e1 to h1. Actually, Polerio did claim 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 to be favourable for White although

900-655: Was an Italian chess theoretician and player. Name affixes used for him are l'Apruzzese , Giu[o]lio Cesare da Lanciano (Salvio/Walker ), and Lancianese , because he was born in Lanciano , a town in the province of Chieti of the region Abruzzo of Italy. He died in Rome . The first published mention of Polerio is from 1634 in Il Puttino by Alessandro Salvio . It recounts an event that must have occurred around 1575. "Il Puttino, altramente detto il Cavaliere errante"

#628371