In 1935, he took second in the RSFSR Championship. He won the Ukrainian Chess Championship twice, in 1947 and 1948, and was the runner-up in the 1958 Belarusian Chess Championship.[2] He also played in the 13th Soviet Championship in 1944, finishing with 7½/16 (tie for 8th–10th place); the 17th Championship in 1949, finishing with 8½/19 (12th place); and the 21st Championship in 1954, finishing last with 5/19.[3]
He was the first Soviet Correspondence Chess Champion (1948–1951).
The name of Sokolsky is known now mostly for his opening research and development of the chess opening1.b4 which became known as the Sokolsky Opening. It is also known as the Polish Opening or the Orangutan.
Sokolsky Memorial master-norm tournaments have been held regularly in Minsk since 1970.[4]
Sokolsky wrote over a dozen books.[5]The most famous of these are The Modern Openings in Theory and Practice (1962)[6] and Debyut 1.b2-b4(1963), a book about his eponymousopening.[1]
here is a good game showing how to play for a win as white vs the queen indian formation.
https://lichess.org/K8lEM2Bg#0it follows the core themes of the positional advantages of white's play, play b5, threaten to play an opportune a4-a5, if possible cement a piece like a knight or rook on the c6 square. contest the light squares and blacks powerful bishop and break through at the right moment.
my play was by no means perfect either, should have played a4 before na3 for example
One thing that I like about the Polish opening is that the white king once castled is very safe. The only real danger is back rank mates in the endgame. I believe the simple answer is to create luft by advancing a pawn and activating the king. Is there a preferred pawn in the Solkosky? Or whatever pawn is best in the position?
When in such cases, I have opened up with the pawn to h3. Provided no imminent threats were there from Black. It usually clears this idea of getting into problems on the 1st row.
My limited experience playing this opening tends to give me the idea that White can usually postpone casteling very well, even up to or later than let's say between the 10th and 15th move. Casteling too soon often leads to equalising and comfortable play for Black. Instead White should seek more active moves, prior to when it is indeed necessary to castle.
What are the thoughts of others on that, and that based on their game experiences?
I bought the Carsten Hansen book. I am looking forward to studying the ideas presented.
Enjoy the book😊😊.
The time to castle is also a question I have playing the Sokolsky.
To keep momentum on whites side it helps if you keep black “ reactive” rather than dictate the terms.
Castling can be a momentum shifter if executed when your plan is not fully in place.
Nice game, ThrillerFan.
Brilliant game!!
Nice game, ThrillerFan.
Thanks. I knew he was in trouble after 27.fxe5, having calculated up through Qxc4. Yes, he could move the King after the Rook check on g1, but that would be even worse. I had figured out the sacrifice, considering various responses, like ...Nd7 instead of ...Be6 wins me either the f- or c-pawn instead of the b-pawn, and in the game line, if he does not go for the 2 pawn down Queen ending, it is lights out after, say, 35...Kf7 36.b6 Bc8 37.Ke3 Ke7 38.Kd4 Ba6 (or else 39.Kxc4 and then the c-pawn joins the march) 39.Kc5 Kd7 40.e6+ Ke7 41.Kc6 is just crushing.
Funny part is, the kid tried to offer me a draw on his ...Qxc2 and his ...Kxg7 moves. Clearly he has no concept of bad minor pieces. His bishop was bad. His knight was bad. No way was I taking a draw!
It's been a while since I posted here. I want to present a game that ended in a draw, and went along the lines like in Hansen's chapter 9 "" 1.. d5 followed by Bf5 or .. Bg4". (Mentioned earlier here in post# 355, previous page here.)
In the end both sides were unable to win, but I am looking at it when it went along the lines of the ideas mentioned on page 124 with variations f1 through f3. Black chose otherwise, and perhaps did so to earn a draw and get his rating up with other correspondence games, rather than risking anything.
My own question is, should I have played 12. d4, as this may have resulted in the drawish end result? Comments are more than welcome. Would 12. Bxf6 have promised more? In the end and against my wishes Black got hold of the a-file...
It's been a while since I posted here. I want to present a game that ended in a draw, and went along the lines like in Hansen's chapter 9 "" 1.. d5 followed by Bf5 or .. Bg4". (Mentioned earlier here in post# 355, previous page here.)
In the end both sides were unable to win, but I am looking at it when it went along the lines of the ideas mentioned on page 124 with variations f1 through f3. Black chose otherwise, and perhaps did so to earn a draw and get his rating up with other correspondence games, rather than risking anything.
My own question is, should I have played 12. d4, as this may have resulted in the drawish end result? Comments are more than welcome. Would 12. Bxf6 have promised more? In the end and against my wishes Black got hold of the a-file...
white needed to have the option to play en passant and push the b pawn. White should have also considered bx knight or moving bishop out of the dark squared pawn chain.
Well @darkunorthodox88, I found some old notes that did indeed suggest to play en passant, but now that I look at these notes, I cannot remember why I didn't do it. Most likely, because I may have been to hasty (yes.... even in correspondence chess 
), or chickened-out. 
Must remember to keep notes with notebook of games being played, and not scatter these around!
It's been a while since I posted here. I want to present a game that ended in a draw, and went along the lines like in Hansen's chapter 9 "" 1.. d5 followed by Bf5 or .. Bg4". (Mentioned earlier here in post# 355, previous page here.)
In the end both sides were unable to win, but I am looking at it when it went along the lines of the ideas mentioned on page 124 with variations f1 through f3. Black chose otherwise, and perhaps did so to earn a draw and get his rating up with other correspondence games, rather than risking anything.
My own question is, should I have played 12. d4, as this may have resulted in the drawish end result? Comments are more than welcome. Would 12. Bxf6 have promised more? In the end and against my wishes Black got hold of the a-file...
I cannot say that I have had the proper time to fully analyze it, but at first glance, I do not like 12.d4. There is no threat yet of ...e5. In fact, I would have to analyze further to determine if it is right, but one of my first "candidates" would be 12.Ne5 with intentions of playing 13.f4 (of course, if 12...Nxe5, then 13.Bxe5, and then if 13...Nd7, do not take on g7 as 14.Bxg7 Rg8 15.Bb2 Bh3 is annoying. But 14.Bb2 and if 14...e5, Black is not ready to open up. You throw out 15.f4 anyway.
Again, if I was at the board in this position, I would think long and hard. Another candidate would be 12.Bxf6 and 13.d4, but that appears to make Black's situation easier, having fewer pieces to maneuver through his space disadvantage.
12.d4 would be a candidate, but more of a last resort in my case.
Alexey Pavlovich Sokolsky (3 November 1908 Penza Governorate, Russian Empire – 27 December 1969 Minsk, USSR) was a Russian chessplayer of International Master strength in over-the-board chess,[1] a noted correspondence chess player, and an opening theoretician.