However, I believe that before playing 10...Ng4, Najdorf saw the whole combination. By allowing the trapping move 11.f4, he commits to sacrificing the bishop on move 13 (if he doesn't play 13...Bg1, black will play Rh1 and Nf3, winning the bishop AND rebuffing the attack). I don't agree with <aazqua> that all Najdorf would have done was see up to the perpetual check 'safety net' with the knight starting at move 17 (17...Nxe5+ 18.Kf4 Ng6+ 19.Kf3 Ne5+ etc.). He could have had a comfortable win with his extra pawn by playing 10...Bd6, so why go into a line risking a draw if you are not sure you can force a win?

If we can accept that Najdorf saw the whole game continuation prior to move 10, then the question is, how brilliant is it? I personally think that when you look over whole game and see how the sacrifices work to create the checkmate, the moves have an easy-when-shown character, but I don't believe they would be so easy to find in a game through 12 moves deep visualization.

I don't think it is a special effort to get to the position after 13...Bg1 14.Nxg1 Qh2+ 15.Kf3. However, from then on, it takes a considerable amount of ingenuity to find the next 8 moves in one's head. Every move bar one is a sacrifice, and they are not 'obvious' sacrifices. Each sacrifice works only because of an amazing harmony with the others that leads to the final mating position. The mechanics of the combination are very advanced.

As the sacrifices increase and the pieces disappear from the board, it would start to look to a lot of players like there was not enough force to execute the attack - it takes a lot of creativity (and courage) to conceive of sacrifice after sacrifice, and finally visualize mate in 12 moves.

For example, how many players would get to the position in their minds after 15.Kf3, and say, well, he's certainly in a net, but its looking hard to make further inroads.... Here already some will abandon the attack and play safe with 10...Bd6. Others will start to consider opening lines with 15...e5 16.dxe5 Nxe5 17.fxe5, but then think, well, that's committing to sacrificing another piece, and lets say I play 17... Nxe5+ 18.Kf4 Ng6+ 19.Kf3, then what?

Okay, I know there is no convention for that, its just a way of conveying my enthusiasm for this attack, which was certainly seen through to the finish prior to move 10. What a brilliancy!!!

LOL!!!

(If you are interested please post your moves in my forum.)

On the other, once you put on your analyst's hat, you can’t close your eyes to the numerous unforced errors by white that set up the winning combination in this contest.

It’s particularly hard to ignore white’s appalling 11th move, f4 instead of either Nh3 or Nf3, (Nf3 shown below).

click for larger view

<Endgame's> analysis of the game demonstrates the win for black after 20.Bxg6:

<JG27Pyth>, you are now on my favorites list - a dubious honor perhaps, but very obviously overdue :)>

I also felt that was top class humour by <JG>

<ajk68: I think the brilliance begins with the move 15...e5!

Without seeing that move and its continuation the whole attack doesn't work. This is not a move many of us would see (a pawn move 7 moves deep that allows the attack to continue if one is content to sacrifice 3 more pieces).>

I agree, this is where the attack gets really creative. What adds to the brilliance is that Najdorf had to have move 15 - 22 worked out before he played move 10.

<Jimfromprovidence: once you put on your analyst's hat, you can’t close your eyes to the numerous unforced errors by white that set up the winning combination in this contest.

It’s particularly hard to ignore white’s appalling 11th move, f4 instead of either Nh3 or Nf3, (Nf3 shown below).>

The game as a whole wouldn't get into my top games list because as you say, the attack was made possible by pissweak play by white. When selecting the top games from history, I would only choose games where both players fully tested eachother and one player's brilliance triumphed.

It is bizzarre that a player good enough to get a geurnsey against Najdorf could play 9.Ng5??. However, I disagree that 11.f4 is appalling. Sure, after 11.Nf3 or 11.Nh3 white will not get smashed up the way he did. But after retreating the bishop, black has a pawn and retains a (slower) attack, so it is completely lost. 11.f4 instead gives white some practical chances, since black's bishop is trapped and will die. Then the onus is on black to demonstrate the super creative sequence of moves to prove the point of 10...Ng4.