Blast from the Past - Judit at 1997 Hoogeveen

From the archives of The New York Times: CHESS Daring Judit Polgar to Attack Is an Invitation to Disaster By ROBERT BYRNE Published: December 9, 1997 Game in PGN: 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 Nf6 4.d4 d5 5.dxc5 e6 6.a3 Bxc5 7.b4Bd6 8.Nf3 O-O 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Nb5 Bb8 11.Bb2 a5 12.bxa5 Ne413.Be2 Qxa5+ 14.Kf1 Rd8 15.h3 Qb6 16.g3 Re8 17.Qe1 Na5 18.Bd4Qg6 19.Kg2 Nc4 20.Nh4 Qc6 21.a4 Ra6 22.Bg4 f5 23.Bxf5 Rf824.Bxc8 Qxc8 25.Ra2 Rh6 26.Qd1 g5 27.Nf3 g4 28.hxg4 Rxh129.Qxh1 Qxg4 30.Nh2 Rxf2+ 0-1 There are players who look, from time to time, as though they are spoiling for trouble. Take, for instance, Loek Van Wely, the Netherlands' top representative. Paired against Judit Polgar, the world's strongest female player, in the fifth round of the VAM International Tournament in Hoogeveen, the Netherlands, in mid-October, he either deliberately, or forgetfully, conceded her attacking chances in return for which survival would have meant a favorable endgame. But her strength lies in sharp, tactical play, and he did not survive. Perhaps next time he should scrawl his opponent's preferences on his shift cuff. In any case, Polgar's performance earned her the brilliancy prize. What began as an English Opening turned into an old-fashioned line of the Tarrasch Defense in which Van Wely chose to saddle his opponent with an isolated d5 pawn after 9 cd ed. He thus played for an advantageous endgame while conceding Polgar middle game attacking chances. Van Wely's 10 Nb5 let him reinforce his control of the d4 square for the blockade of the isolated pawn with a knight. But after 10 . . . Bb8, he should have developed with 11 Be2, so that after 11 . . . a5 he could have played 12 ba and castled immediately upon Black's recapture of the a5 pawn with 12 . . . Na5. After 14 Kf1, the white minor pieces were all well placed, but his king's poor situation made it difficult to unite his rooks. After 16 . . . Re8, Van Wely chose not to play 17 Qd5, probably because 17 . . . Bg3! 18 Ng5 (18 fg? Qe3 19 Bd4 Qe2 20 Ke2 Nc3 21 Kf2 Nd5 wins a pawn for Black) Ng5 19 Qg5 Be5 leaves the initiative in Black's hands. With 22 Bg4, Van Wely aimed to take pressure off his position by exchanges, but Polgar seized the opportunity to sacrifice a pawn to open lines with 22 . . . f5!? To play 23 Nf5?! would have been wrong because 23 . . . h5 24 Bh5 Bf5 25 Be8 Qe8 followed by 26 . . . Rg6 would have been too much force for the white king to withstand. After 23 Bf5 Rf8, it was useless to try a counterattack with 24 Be4 de 25 Qb4 (25 Kg1 Ne5 26 Rc1 Qf6 27 Be5 Be5 yields Black a powerful two-bishop game, which is not balanced by White's extra pawn) Ne5 26 Qe7 Qf6! 27 Qf6 Raf6 because the simultaneous threats of 28 . . . g5 and 28 . . . Rf2 cannot be handled. Polgar's breakthrough with 27 . . . g4! required Van Wely to defend by 28 Ng1 gh 29 Rh3 Nf2! 30 Rf2 Rf2 31 Kf2 Rh3 32 Nh3 Qh3 33 Qg1, but his problems would still have been insuperable. For example, 33 . . . Qf5 34 Kg2 Nd2 35 Qf2 Qe4 36 Kh3 Qh1 37 Qh2 (37 Kg4? h5 38 Kg4 h5! 39 Kf5 Qh3 40 Kg6 Qg4 41 Kh6 Nf3 42 Bf6 Kf7 weaves a mating net) Qf3 sets up decisive threats of 38 . . . Nf1 or 38 . . . Ne4. But Van Wely erred with 28 hg? and Polgar mauled him with 28 . . . Rh1 29 Qh1 (29 Kh1 Qg4 30 Kg2 Bg3! is no better) Qg4 30 Nh2 Rf2! Van Wely gave up in the face of 31 Rf2 Qg3 32 Kf1 Qf2 mate.