< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 52 OF 52 ·
|Sep-16-14|| ||Tabanus: H W Birkmyre Gifford --> Henry William.|
|Sep-17-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: <Tabanus> I'm curious who you are going to believe regarding Karpov's seconds against Spassky? Razuvaev's claim is backed by Kasparov, but appears to be at odds with what Karpov told you. Or have I misread it?|
Incidentally, I have just started drafting Karp-Polu 74 (hope to finish it soon).
In the meantime, if you agree, could you change <If 8-8 ... etc> to
<If tied at 8-8, the match would be decided by the drawing of lots.> ?
As has been said before, there is no concrete right or wrong way to say it, but I think this would be the wording I'd expect to see in a chess book.
If you could also add your 'Mikenas was arbiter' note, sourced as , then the factual intro stuff should be practically complete - all else can be added below with new sources starting at .
Thanks - just trying to tidy things so I don't get lost with source numbers, but let me know if there are any problems with what I suggest.
|Sep-17-14|| ||Tabanus: <PMD> Done! The two sentences are yet incomplete (too tired now) but it's ready for continuation.|
I'm happy that you are making progress. Not sure what to think about Razuvaev, but that was in the Spassky match (not vs Polu). Perhaps Balashov helped Karpov without telling Spassky or others. Against Polu we can safely put Furman and Razuvaev.
|Sep-17-14|| ||Tabanus: I put "If tied at 8-8, the match<es> would be decided by the drawing of lots."|
Not sure how it flows, don't be afraid of suggesting improvements.
|Sep-17-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: <Tabanus> You have a good instinct for detecting where improvements might be needed! I had not read the whole paragraph properly and I think you quite rightly refer to the massive overuse of 'match/matches'. One or two other phrases might also benefit from flowing more smoothly.|
How about ...
<Anatoly Karpov had progressed from the Leningrad Interzonal (1973) and Lev Polugaevsky from the Petropolis Interzonal (1973) and Portoroz Interzonal Playoff (1973). Three other matches, to be held in parallel, were the Spassky - Byrne Candidates Quarterfinal (1974), Petrosian - Portisch Candidates Quarterfinal (1974) and Korchnoi - Mecking Candidates Quarterfinal (1974). Each contest would be played to a maximum of 16 games; the first player to three wins advancing to the next stage. If tied at 8-8, the outcome of a match would be decided by the drawing of lots.1 The Candidates matches were held in order to select a challenger for Robert James Fischer, the World Champion.> ?
|Sep-18-14|| ||Tabanus: <Paint My Dragon> Anything you say sir!|
I pasted in your text and planned to leave it unchanged. But I could not resist and made a few changes. How is it now?
|Sep-18-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: <Tabanus> I like it!|
Just found out that Polugaevsky only turned pro in 1973. What a shocker!
|Sep-18-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: <Tabanus> First draft of the remainder of Karpov-Polugaevsky 1974 Candidates QF. |
Limiting the size has meant zero space for detailed commentary. One idea is to refer the reader to the detailed Yudovich commentary as 'recommended reading'. See what you think - I personally think the match is well summed up with the comments of the experts and players without any 'blow by blow account'.
<Karpov was seconded by his long term coach and mentor GM Semyon Furman; also by GM Yuri Razuvaev. Polugaevsky worked closely with GM Isaak Boleslavsky in the early 1970s  and was assisted by IM (later GM) Vladimir Bagirov. 
Anatoly Karpov arrived on the chess scene with precision timing. Still smarting from the defeat of Spassky by Fischer, the Soviets were anxious to find someone from the younger generation who could be a serious contender for the chess throne. Karpov had been a star pupil at Botvinnik’s chess school, had won the World Junior title convincingly in 1969, and had gained his grandmaster title while still in his teens (not usual in those days). He had recorded two major tournament wins early in his career – at Moscow and Hastings, late in 1971.
Polugaevsky had been a prolific winner of tournaments during the 1960s and shared first place in three consecutive USSR Championships. By the 1970s, he was regarded as one of the world’s best ten players,  despite only becoming a chess professional in 1973, after his win at the Petropolis play-off. He had previously balanced chess with a career as an engineer. 
Prior to the Candidates matches, Karpov had played two extremely strong events, the Soviet Championship (second behind Spassky) and Madrid, where he finished first and among other prizes was awarded the ‘Chess Oscar’, voted for annually by the International Chess Journalists Association. Polugaevsky’s form had also been good and many thought that Karpov’s task would be difficult.  In assessing the match prospects, Mikhail Yudovich expected a very close contest, and reported a greater sympathy for Karpov among the audience.  Botvinnik claimed that the majority of grandmasters supported Polugaevsky, being suspicious of the younger man. This mirrored the famous patriarch’s own experience as a young player and struck him as a good omen for Karpov.  As for Polugaevsky’s hopes, Botvinnik doubted that he was sufficiently shrewd as a competitor, a quality necessary in match play and in particular, elimination events. . Spassky regarded him as a solid calculator who was less inclined to trust his intuition than would be the case with Karpov.
Karpov and Polugaevsky had met only twice before in classical tournament play. The games, from the 39th and 41st Soviet Championships were both uneventful draws. At five minute blitz, Karpov had recorded two wins over his opponent in a 1972 tournament. 
Botvinnik described how the match unfolded – “The start of the match was difficult; the first three games were drawn. At first Karpov did not appreciate where his opponent’s weaknesses were … Polugaevsky is strong when he knows what is to be done. When, on the other hand, the plan is not clear and the game drags out, Polugaevsky is weaker. After the fourth game, Karpov gained in confidence, and the match concluded after 8 games with the score of 3:0”. 
It appeared that Polugaevsky was not psychologically equipped to play the match, and lost his belief. In his own words - “Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I see very clearly the errors I made in preparing for the match. I devoted too much time to purely chess work and did not concentrate sufficiently on the need for correct psychological preparation”. According to Karpov, this was particularly so after games four and five – “It was the natural serenity of my behaviour that overwhelmed Polugaevsky … I was so calm and playing so easily”.  Nor was Karpov afraid to confront Polugaevsky’s own choice of openings and variations, a facet of the match which made Polugaevsky’s loss all the more painful.  Karpov was undoubtedly the winner of the theoretical duel, playing a variation of the Nimzo-Indian with Black and drawing each time, while meeting the Sicilian Najdorf with 6. Be2 as White, and winning three games out of four.  The latter prompted Polugaevsky to lament that “Karpov is just as dangerous with 6.Be2 as Fischer is with 6.Bc4”. >
|Sep-18-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: refs:
< http://www6.chessclub.com/finger/Ra.... This was confirmed by Karpov in a conversation with the author of this report.
 Sicilian Love, Polugaevsky et al., (NIC, 1995), p.35
 Chess Life & Review, "The Karpov-Polugaevsky Match" Spassky, May 1974, p.315
 The Guinness Book Of Chess Grandmasters, Hartston (Guinness publ., 1996) p.160
 The Oxford Companion to Chess, Hooper & Whyld (Oxford, 1984), p.259
 Karpov’s Collected Games, Levy (Hale, 1975), p.27
 Anatoly Karpov: His Road to the World Championship’, Botvinnik (Pergamon, 1978) p. xii
 Anatoly Karpov: His Road to the World Championship’, Botvinnik (Pergamon, 1978) p. viii
 My Great Predecessors Vol. 5, Kasparov (Everyman, 2006), pp.239-240
 My Great Predecessors Vol. 5, Kasparov (Everyman, 2006), p.236
 CHESS, Ed. BH Wood (March 1974), p. 187
 Sicilian Love, Polugaevsky et al., (NIC, 1995), p.41>
|Sep-18-14|| ||Tabanus: <PMD> Wow :)
I will paste it in soon, then do some technicalities like making links (also in footnotes, give me some time!), and we take it from there!
|Sep-18-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: <Tabanus> No rush. Only one sentence I'm not fond of after a quick re-read ...|
After (13), near the end, I'd prefer
<Karpov's mastery of the theoretical duel was emphatic, playing a variation of ...>
By the way, do you think that the July 1973 ratings are the most correct to use? - I just wondered if the January 1974 set were published before or during the match - they show Karpov at 2700 and Polu at 2630.
|Sep-18-14|| ||Tabanus: <PMD> I'll have a nap first and do some more this evening! The January 1974 list does not exist according to http://www.olimpbase.org/ (click on Elo lists). I've looked for it elsewhere but could not find it.|
|Sep-18-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: <Tabanus>
Elo lists - Crikey, I'd never noticed those holes in Olimpbase's Elo records before.
I think my MS Notepad file was issued by FIDE around the time that they started showing ratings back to year 2000 on the player cards, as it conveniently includes all years up to 2000. Maybe it was the wrong format for Olimpbase to extract from (I can't say I've ever seen anything else on a Notepad file, ever!).
|Sep-18-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: Aaah, forget that. Looking more closely, they are labelled as 1974/01 on my file, but appear to have the same data as the 1974/05 list elsewhere! Probably, they were intended to be January, but got delayed and issued late, and some people continued to regard them as notionally January.|
So the May '73 figures are definitely correct for the report, I would say.
|Sep-18-14|| ||Tabanus: <PMD> I'm done for today! And will look at it again tomorrow at work on my "wide" screen there. (And of course after your next comments.)|
1) I joined two sections together (two times). The sections will be only half as "thick" on the new wide computer screens. Let me know if you disagree and I will change it back.
2) I used Karpova's footnoting method because there has to be a space between a link and a footnote.
3) I slightly altered the text 2-3 places, can you spot it?
4) I'm impressed! This will be fine.
|Sep-18-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: Yes, those changes seem fine. Feel free to bring it fully in line with your normal format/style - it was always my intention just to provide a framework for further editing.|
One more suggestion of my own - second sentence should probably start -
Three <more> matches were held in parallel ...
|Sep-19-14|| ||Tabanus: <Paint My Dragon> Yes. And I made a few other minor changes and believe I'm done. Can you please read through one more time? If OK, I will present it in the Bistro. Please consider if you want it up for review there first or up for voting immediately!|
|Sep-19-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: Looks okay. The ':' is much neater than the '-' before a quote (note to self). |
I can see a few slightly dodgy sentences but others will smooth them out more proficiently than I, so the Bistro seems like a good idea.
A couple of minor suggestions -
<... professional in 1973, after his qualification at the Petropolis playoff. He had previously balanced chess with a career as an engineer. (5)>
might be better with sentence lengths more balanced. I suggest -
< ... professional in 1973. Before the Petropolis playoff, he had balanced chess with a career as an engineer. (5)>
'Karpov had <registered> two wins over his opponent in 1972.'
may be an improvement as we already used 'recorded' a little earlier.
|Sep-19-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: Sorry, been pondering some of the slightly dodgy bits ...|
'Nor was Karpov afraid to confront Polugaevsky’s own choice of openings and variations, a facet of the match which made <the more experienced man's> loss all the more painful. (13) Karpov's mastery of the theoretical duel was <emphatic; he played a variation of the Nimzo-Indian with Black and drew each time>, while meeting the Sicilian Najdorf with 6.Be2 as White, and winning three games out of four. (14) The latter prompted Polugaevsky to <later> lament that “Karpov is just as dangerous with 6.Be2 as Fischer is with 6.Bc4”. (15)' ?
I was worried the painful loss was not associated with a specific player and didn't like the long sentence later, but a ';' breaks it up a bit. Change them only if you agree though! Or maybe you can find a better way?
I'm definitely finished!
|Sep-19-14|| ||Tabanus: <PMD> You made me write <Petropolis> playoff! :)|
Changes made. I will only change the nitpickery that you agree with, and submit for voting only when you are ready.
|Sep-19-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: <Tab> Oh right, that was the original izt. I wasn't concentrating ... apologies.|
Technically okay, but horribly clunky sounding, my latter/later/lament all in one short sentence. If no-one else solves it, we might be able to change it around and get rid of 'latter'.
|Sep-19-14|| ||Tabanus: <PMD> Perhaps delete "The latter prompted" and just write "Polugaevsky later lamented that “Karpov is just as dangerous with 6.Be2 as Fischer is with 6.Bc4.""? That should refer to Karpov's opening play clear enough?|
|Sep-19-14|| ||Chessical: <Paint My Dragon> and <Tabanus> A suggestion: |
Polugaevsky reflected ruefully that, “Karpov is just as dangerous with 6.Be2 as Fischer is with 6.Bc4”.
|Sep-19-14|| ||Paint My Dragon: <Tabanus><Chessical> Thanks guys. Normally, either would work, but we should retain the word 'later', as we are talking about a significant interval. Happy to go with Tabanus' version if nothing better comes up on the Bistro.|
|Sep-19-14|| ||Tabanus: Game Collection: Karpov - Polugaevsky Candidates Quarterfinal '74|
Ok, my suggestion rules until further!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 52 OF 52 ·
100% Cotton Chess Puzzle Shirt