In the introduction to The Sorcerer's Apprentice on page 11 of the introduction the following is the context given to the game below:
"In 1967 Lev Polugayevsky and David Bronstein played a game which was adjourned after Black's 41st move. Polugayevsky spent all night analysing and when they came to resume this game the next day, David, sensing that his opponent had analysed extensively, deliberately avoided playing the best moves. Polugayevsky, taken completely by surprise, failed to find the best continuation and lost the game. In his book Grandmaster Achievement Polugayevsky now almost blames David for not having played correctly, thereby taking him out of his prepared variations!"
I take this as evidence of chess as art, chess as struggle and most of all chess as a human endeavor against another human adversary. There is nothing wrong with a scientific approach to chess in and of itself. The problem becomes when the scientific method becomes more of and ideology "scientism" whereby it is seen as the Alpha and Omega of knowledge and praxis, when it is but part of the endeavor of chess.
[...] 1.c4 ¤f6 2.¤c3 e6 3.¤f3 c5 4.g3 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.d4 ¤c6 7.¥g2 ¥e7 8.O-O O-O 9.¥g5 cxd4 10.¤xd4 h6 11.¥f4 £b6 12.¤xc6 bxc6 13.£c2 ¥g4 14.¥e3 £a6 15.¥d4 ¦fd8 16.h3 ¥e6 17.¦fd1 ¦ac8 18.¦ac1 ¤d7 19.e4 dxe4 20.£xe4 c5 21.¥e3 ¥f6 22.¥f1 c4 23.¦c2 ¦e8 24.¦cd2 ¥xh3 25.¦d6 ¤b6 26.¥xh3 ¦xe4 27.¥xc8 £xc8 28.¤xe4 ¥e7 29.¦6d2 £e6 30.¤c3 ¥b4 31.¥d4 £g4 32.a3 ¥a5 33.¥e3 ¢h7 34.¦d4 £g6 35.¦c1 £e6 36.¤e2 £e5 37.¤f4 £b5 38.¦c2 £b3 39.¦e2 ¤a4 40.¦d5 ¥c7 41.¦d7 ¥e5 42.¥xa7 ¥f6 43.¢h2 ¤xb2 44.¦xf7 ¤d3 45.¤d5 ¢g6 46.¦d7 ¤e5 47.¦c7 £xa3 48.¤xf6 gxf6 49.¥e3 £d3 50.¦a2 £f1 51.g4 ¤xg4+ 52.¢g3 ¤e5 53.¢h2 ¤f3+ 54.¢g3 ¤e1 55.¢f4 £g2
"In 1967 Lev Polugayevsky and David Bronstein played a game which was adjourned after Black's 41st move. Polugayevsky spent all night analysing and when they came to resume this game the next day, David, sensing that his opponent had analysed extensively, deliberately avoided playing the best moves. Polugayevsky, taken completely by surprise, failed to find the best continuation and lost the game. In his book Grandmaster Achievement Polugayevsky now almost blames David for not having played correctly, thereby taking him out of his prepared variations!"
I take this as evidence of chess as art, chess as struggle and most of all chess as a human endeavor against another human adversary. There is nothing wrong with a scientific approach to chess in and of itself. The problem becomes when the scientific method becomes more of and ideology "scientism" whereby it is seen as the Alpha and Omega of knowledge and praxis, when it is but part of the endeavor of chess.
Polugaevsky, Lev - Bronstein, David I
Result: 0-1
Site: Tbilisi
Date: 1966
