[Event "Masters' Forum Annotated"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B47"]
[PlyCount "138"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
{JH: It has been a long time since that I have had to analyse a game without a
chess engine. And I excepted it to be rather demanding. However I made a point
of honour to go by the rules and do the job as stipulated: no engine and no
databases. Of course, one the job was done I got curious to check it out with
Fritz but without changing none of my notes. That fortunately proved
unnecessary as the game content is more strategical than tactical which
reduces the engine's relevance. Not that being caught with an analysis mistake
would have ruined my day.} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 {
BH: What's in a name? At this early stage of a chess opening there are many
divergent paths, with transpositional possibilities. One of my favorite
historical tournaments, London 1851, saw Szen play this treatment of the
Sicilian (see reference games), and thus his name has been attributed to it's
development. Black, depending on moves such as ...a6, ...Qc7, can transpose or
convert to a Paulsen, or Taimanov, or Kan setup - it depends more on the
structural nuance than a specific move at a specific point. EH: The standard
move for the Taimanov, though transpositions to other variations are still
very possible in the next few moves.} 5. Nc3 {BH: Also possible is 5. Nb5 the
so-called Anti-Szen/Taimanov, where White attempts to change the character of
the play to that of a "Hedgehog" formation, after say 5...d6 6. c4 and Black
attempts typical future ...b5/...d5 freeing breaks. The most famous game,
which also led to less games with White attempting this, was Karpov-Kasparov
(Game 16 1985 WCC), where Kasparov sacrificed with 8...d5 and went on to win
the game in striking fashion (see reference games).} Qc7 {BH: From my
perspective on opening names, this characterizes the Taimanov variation.} 6. g3
{BH: This was one of my favorite treatments against this Black setup, as it
provided a relatively risk-free edge, where Black can go very wrong despite
the simple character of the position. JH: A solid approach that is far from
devoid of venom. EH: A main continutation, it is more positional and not as
sharp as the opposite-side castling positions that may arise from other moves
such as the fashionable be3.} a6 ({BH:} 6... Nf6 {
runs into Fischer-Tal Bled 1961, where after} 7. Ndb5 Qb8 8. Bf4 {
White won an energetic game (see reference games).}) 7. Bg2 d6 ({
BH: Also possible and popular at one time was} 7... Nf6 8. O-O Nxd4 9. Qxd4 Bc5
10. Bf4 $5 {for example, Bronstein-Taimanov 1961.}) 8. Nxc6 {BH: I consider 8.
O-O more flexible, as White can better prepare the thematic hits of Nxc6/e5 or
Re1/Nd5 to influence Black's options, versus fixing the strategy so early.
JH: ?! Not very ambitious if you don't get a tactical chance to open up the B/
g2 with e4-e5. 8.0-0 is more flexible with in certain cases Re1 setting up
dangerous tactics starting with Nd5. EH: ?! Castles is by far the main move
here. There isn't really a reason to trade on c6 right away -- black will not
benefit to take on d4 so this nxc6 can be delayed. It is considered harmless
anyways, so I would not recommend it.} bxc6 9. O-O Bb7 ({BH: There are well
known positional traps in this opening variation based on the Qc7 being over
burdened to both e5 and c6, for example, after} 9... Be7 10. Re1 Nf6 11. e5
dxe5 12. Rxe5 {etc., with the superior pawn structure.}) ({EH:} 9... Nf6 {
is also playable, with e5 coming next and the bishop staying on the c8-h3
diagonal.}) 10. Na4 {JH: A typical plan involving c2-c4 to increase White's
grip on the center. BH: Given that Black is defending against typical e5
themes by White, this idea seems appropriate. EH: White doesn't have any
obvious breaks with his development advantage so he attemps to just restrict
blacks pieces and optimize his pieces.} Nf6 11. c4 c5 {EH: = Black can't let
white play the further c5, cramping him and making the b7 bishop look bad. JH:
White in this well-known pawn formation has a minimal advantage based on the
half-backward d6 pawn. However it should not amount to much as it is easily
defended and also has some break-up potential. 11...e5 could be a viable
option but then ...Bb7 would make little sense. BH: Black can try other
central ideas; however, this seems safest and logical.} 12. Nc3 {EH: While blac
k finishes developing, white must now find a concrete plan. The position is
balanced.} Be7 13. f4 ({BH: White is not setup for e5 now, even though that is
one line to consider. For example,} 13. e5 Bxg2 ({However, after} 13... dxe5
14. Qa4+ Nd7 15. Bxb7 Qxb7 16. Rd1 Rd8 {, there are only ambiguous
opportunities remaining for White. Though, 13. f4 remains interesting, White
could also consider 13. Bf4 or 13. b3.}) 14. exf6 Bxf1 15. fxe7 {
and interestingly the Bf1 is lost as} Bxc4 {is met by} ({and} 15... Bh3 {
by the murky} 16. Qf3 {and 17.g4}) 16. Qa4+ Bb5 17. Nxb5 Qd7 18. Nc7+ {etc.}) (
{EH: Not my preference but there aren't too many options. White doesn't intend
to push the pawns any further, he just wants to keep some central dark squares
under control.} 13. Bf4 $5 {With the idea of trying to put pressure on d6
provoking e5. This is avoidable however.} Nd7 14. Qd2 Ne5 15. b3 Rd8 16. Rad1
Nc6 {and black takes control with the threat of d4}) 13... O-O 14. b3 ({
BH: Well, given 13.f4, one must consider 14.e5 here. Let's see,} 14. e5 dxe5
15. fxe5 Nd7 {and White is overextended.}) ({JH:} 14. e5 $6 {
looks too impetuous and probably is. After} dxe5 15. fxe5 Nd7 16. Bxb7 Qxb7 17.
Qe2 Qc7 {and White lacks a convenient way to defend e5:} 18. Bf4 (18. Re1 Rfd8
{followed by Nf8-g6 and P/e5 amounts to little more than a weakness)}) 18... g5
{wins the e5 pawn for what appears to be insufficient compensation.}) ({
EH: Just playing useful waiting moves. The first player to move one of his
center pawns will be taking a risk.} 14. f5 $2 Rfe8 15. g4 Nd7 $15) 14... Nd7 {
BH: It seems logical to contest the a1-h8 diagonal for Black. Structurally, if
Black can effectively trade black squared bishops, the d4 square may provide
future outpost opportunities. While Black's a-pawn is isolated, it istypically
used as a mid or end game lever with a5-a4 to attempt creating a queenside
target. JH: The knight starts his journey to the excellent outpost d4,
White's Achillees heel. EH: ! A strong move as black wants to take control of
the dark square diagonal and may also think of recycling his knight to d4 via
b8 and c6.} 15. Bb2 Bf6 16. Rc1 {BH: While it appears optically attractive to
x-ray the Black Queen with 16. Rc1, I would prefer 16. Qc2 and placing the
a-Rook on e1. The ideas being to allow the Queen to take back on b2 or g2 as
needed, and continue threatening e5 or f5 or Ne2 (to contest d4). Another
consideration should be 16. Na4 to trade the Bf6 (defender of d6, etc.),
though the Nb2 would grant Black the initiative if played here.} Rad8 {
JH: I would instinctively play the other rook to d8, keeping the other one to
support a5-a4 eventually. But as veteran GM Panno said (with somewhatdifferent
words): when you have all figured out which rook you should play to a specific
file and why, then play the other one! EH: Both sides are still playing
natural developing moves.} 17. Rc2 ({EH: White is still without a plan and
black is slowly putting his pieces on the best squares. It's just an easier
position for black.} 17. Na4 $2 Bxb2 18. Nxb2 Nb8 $15 {and the knight will
have a very strong outpost on d4 in two moves which white cannot prevent.})
17... Nb8 {JH: !} ({EH:} 17... Bd4+ 18. Kh1 Nb8 {
Is also playable, I prefer black.}) 18. Rd2 {BH: So now we see White's idea of
Rc1-c2-d2...I hadn't thought of that, but remain feeling 16. Qc2 is more
flexible. JH: Interestingly White does not try to prevent a piece to play on
d4. Instead he prepares to chase it away or exchange it once it lands on d4.
He figures that without the pieces fighting over d4 Black would become quite
passive.} Nc6 19. Qa1 {EH: An interesting way of challening the dark squares.
It also makes room for the rooks to double on the d file.} Nd4 ({EH:} 19...
Bd4+ {is also playable, just a matter of preference.}) 20. Rfd1 ({EH:} 20. Ne2
e5 $15) 20... Bc6 {
EH: Black is playing pretty well here and has built a small advantage.} 21. Ne2
{EH: Volunteering black to trade off a strong piece.} e5 {EH: The whole point;
black will keep finding new material to plug on d4. BH: Wholesale trades
(Nxe2, Bxb2) would appear to leave Black's d6 vulnerable without a
compensating White target, thus Black takes a central stand. Both sides also
have to keep exchange sacrifice themes in mind, as Petrosian demonstrated, in
semi-blocked positions sometimes a minor piece can be superior to a rook.
Suddenly lots of things to consider, but after reflection, some are just
mistakes. For example, 22. f5? Bg5. Instead, both White and Black keep the
tension while maneuvering behind the pawns on the veiled threats to e4.} ({
JH: ! The most common continuation.} 21... Nxe2+ 22. Rxe2 Bxb2 23. Qxb2 a5 {
Black will create a backward white b-pawn and claim near complete equality.
For example:} 24. Red2 Rd7 25. e5 (25. Rd3 a4 26. Qd2 axb3 27. axb3 Rfd8 {
and then ...Qb7.})) 22. Re1 ({EH: White wisely doesnt trade on d4 and braces
for future attacks on the now weak e4 pawn.} 22. Nxd4 exd4 $15) (22. Nc3) 22...
Rfe8 23. Qb1 Qb7 {EH: Black is not threatening to win any material, but by
increasing pressure he gives more ways for white to go wrong. White was
certainly uncomfortable here as black slowly takes over more and more space.}
24. f5 ({BH: I don't like the look of this move, yet Black is sometimes
threatening ...exf4 and ...Bh4 now, disrupting defense to e4, and after say}
24. Bxd4 exd4 25. Nc1 {(idea Nd3, Rde2, etc.)} Re7 26. Rde2 Rde8 {
Black keeps up the pressure.}) ({JH: ?} 24. Nxd4 cxd4 25. Qd3 {looks pretty
equal. EH: ?! White got a little desperate and tried to force things. It
turns out fine, but some things are missed.}) 24... Nxf5 {BH: This is where
the computers would help. My first impression is that 24...Bg5 is better, as
White will remain with a white squared bind notwithstanding the loss of a
pawn, which will prove difficult to exploit for Black.} ({
JH: ? This is certainly what White was hoping for. But after} 24... Bg5 $1 25.
Rdd1 Be3+ 26. Kf1 Nxf5 {wins a pawn in far better (winning) circumstances.}) ({
EH:} 24... Bg5 $1 {
This avoids the saving sequence which white used during the game.} 25. Rdd1 (
25. Rd3 Nxf5 26. exf5 Bxg2 27. Nc3 Bf3 28. Nd5 e4 $17) (25. Nxd4 Bxd2 26. Nxc6
Qxc6 27. Re2 Bg5 $15 {with pretty good winning chances.}) 25... Nxf5 26. exf5
Bxg2 27. Nc3 Bf3 $17 28. Rd3 e4) 25. exf5 Bxg2 26. Nc3 {
EH: Now there is no time for bg5 as g2 is hanging first.} Bc6 27. Nd5 {
EH: ! JH: White has obtained a complete central bind that easily compensates
for the pawn.} Bg5 28. Rdd1 Bxd5 {JH: This exchange could wait of course but
it is hard to see a point in waiting.} ({EH: This just makes white's job much
easier. Best to keep the pieces on and try to work something. In this case,
pushing a5 and trying to pressure b3 is the most logical. The only time when a
trade on d5 may be favorable is if it must be taken back by the c4 pawn.} 28...
a5 {with the idea of a4 next and pressuring the b3 pawn.}) 29. Rxd5 {
EH: A powerful blockade.} Be7 ({EH:} 29... a5 {Once again black should
probably go a5-a4 and get rid of his pawn island while making a weakness. He
as nothing else to do as long as his centre is blockaded. Time to open lines.})
30. Bc3 {JH: Preventing counter play from a6-a5-a4. Maybe Black should have
played 29...a5 instead.} f6 ({JH: I personally would wait until the last
possible moment before giving into such an anti-positionnal move. I would
instead consider} 30... Qb6 {defending d6 and d8 while intending ...a5.}) 31.
Qe4 {EH: White probably breathed some relief here, the pawn deficit is not
significant.} Bf8 {BH: It is difficult for Black to entertain anything
resembling exploiting the extra pawn, and no doubt this is now an
uncomfortable position. Thus, I think it reasonable to jettison the pawn back
and play for ...d5 to play for a messy ending, versus allowing White freedom
to choose. JH: Black returns the pawn for freedom and White falls for it!
EH: ? Simply a blunder. Qa8 or rb8 would have been fine.} 32. Rxe5 ({
JH: ?! Here I would keep the bind and start a pawn rush on the K-side with} 32.
g4) 32... Qxe4 33. R5xe4 Rxe4 34. Rxe4 {EH: All of a sudden white has regained
a pawn and sits with a better pawn structure. He is the only one with winning
chances in this endgame.} d5 35. cxd5 Rxd5 {JH: Despite the split black pawns
on the Q-side I don't think there is much for White.} 36. Ra4 {BH: I spoke too
fast on move 24... This is where the computers can help :), or Lawrence Day's
wisdom would be useful. It is near impossible to provide long winded
variations in this ending to some end, as there would simply be too many
branches (aside from checking obvious tactical lines). Thus, what is the
overarching strategy here? Certainly Black is likely lost if Rooks are traded
due to the Bf8/c5 and White's easy King access. It also seems Black would
lose most races given his more constricted situation. Thus, overall Black
should first attempt to improve his Bishop/King and create some motion on the
kingside (to distract from his weak queenside) before blowing things open any
further.} Rd6 ({BH: It makes good sense to avoid} 36... Rxf5 37. Rxa6) ({JH:}
36... Rxf5 37. Rxa6 Rf3 38. Be1 Rd3 39. Kf2 Rd1 40. Ke2 Rb1 {and Black should
be able to hold but possibly somewhat less comfortably than with the game
continuation.}) ({EH: Only move.} 36... Rxf5 37. Rxa6 {
Black wouldn't be comfortable here dealing with an outside passed pawn.}) 37.
Kf2 Kf7 38. Ke2 {JH: It proves quite mind-boggling to go any further with the
K. EH: This endgame is not enough for white to win so the main question is if
black can avoid blundering.} g6 {EH: Correctly challenging the white squares
which also tries to free more squares up for his king.} 39. Rh4 Kg8 {EH: Black
cannot allow white to ruin his pawn structure more in case of h5 fxg6+.} ({JH:
} 39... Kg7 $5 {allows Black to answer} 40. Rc4 (40. Bd2 g5 41. Rc4 Rd5 42. g4)
40... Rd5 {by having f6 covered.}) 40. Rc4 {EH: ! White keeps the pressure on.
Black must be very careful. Rooks must definitely be kept on or else White
would be winning with the pawn structure.} ({JH: If} 40. fxg6 hxg6 41. Rc4 Kf7
{and the c-pawn cannot be taken anyway.}) 40... gxf5 {BH: It is difficult to
know whether time trouble influenced the last few moves, as both White and
Black appear to be playing quick shots versus positional placement. Though,
40...gxf5 appeared tactically necessary...thus, looking back, perhaps 39...h5
while weakening Black after 40. fxg6, would have offered more active
possibilities.} ({EH: !} 40... Rc6 41. Kd3 Kf7 42. Ke4 {
and whites king becomes quite active}) (40... Rd5 41. fxg6 hxg6 42. Bxf6 $19)
41. Rf4 ({EH:} 41. Rxc5 $2 Re6+ $19) 41... Rd5 {
EH: White has successfully managed to shatter blacks pawn structure.} 42. Ra4 (
{EH: White was understandably afraid of bxf6 bh6 with rd2+. Still, it was
probably his best chance.} 42. Bxf6 Bh6 43. Ra4 Rd2+ 44. Kf3 Rxh2 45. Rxa6 $14
{Queen majority and better pawn structure gives white some winning chances.})
42... Rd6 {EH: Now, black can move his king to e6 or g6 to defend f5. The
position is equal as white cannot win back a pawn or create a passer while
black has to constantly protect his weak pawns.} 43. Bd2 {BH: Avoiding the
possible repetition after 43. Rf4 - perhaps White is the higher rated player.}
Kf7 44. Bf4 Rb6 45. Kd3 Ke6 46. Bd2 ({JH:} 46. Kc4 {
is good looking but White is not actually making much progress.} Bd6 47. Bxd6
Kxd6 48. Kd3 Ke5 49. Ke3 Rd6) 46... Rd6+ 47. Kc2 Kd5 {JH: Now that the Black K
is strongly centralised it is hard to imagine anything but a draw despite
Black's isolated pawns.} 48. Rh4 Rd7 49. Bc3 Ke6 {EH: Just a bunch of
shuffling around; neither side can win this or create winning chances unless
some blunders start to occur.} 50. Bd2 Rb7 51. Be3 Bd6 52. Ra4 Rb6 53. Kd3 Kd5
54. Rh4 Rb7 55. Rh5 Ke6 56. Bd2 Rg7 57. Be3 Rg4 ({BH: Black was getting into
what he didn't want, under pressure where White can hit simultaneous targets
until one of them falls. If Black doesn't become active as played, then, for
example,} 57... Be7 58. Rh4 Bd6 59. Ra4 Ra7 60. b4) ({JH: ?!} 57... Rb7 {
intending to respond} 58. Kc4 {with} Rb4+ {White is still not making any
headway. EH: ? Black becomes impatient and tries to force things.}) 58. Rxh7
f4 59. gxf4 Bxf4 60. Bxc5 Rg2 {BH: It seems appropriate for White to attempt
avoiding Bishop trades as most Rook endings would be difficult to win, and
perhaps White can trade under better circumstances.} 61. Ke4 {BH: Threatening
62. Re7 mate :) EH: ! Black probably missed this tricky move. He was planning
on capturing h2 into a drawn endgame but now there is a devestating mate
threat on e7!} ({JH: Forcing the B trade because mate is threatened.} 61. h4
Rxa2 62. h5 Rh2 {is harmless.}) 61... Bd6 62. Bxd6 Kxd6 {
EH: All of a sudden white is up a full pawn.} 63. a4 ({JH: ?!} 63. h4 $5 Rxa2
64. h5 Rh2 65. Kf5 {seems far more likely to keep the fight going.}) 63... Rb2
64. Rh3 ({JH: Not a natural square for the R but} 64. Rb7 Kc6 {is dead even.})
64... Kc5 {EH: Black wants to put his king on b4 so he can permanently pester
the b and a and free up his rook for king harassment. It should be enough to
hold.} 65. Rh4 ({JH:} 65. Kf5 Rf2+ 66. Ke6 Kb4 {would be no improvement.})
65... Kb4 66. Rh8 ({EH: Hoping black takes on b3 with either piece. Then the h
pawn will just push to queen first.} 66. Kf5+ Kxb3 67. Kxf6 a5 $11 68. h3 Rf2+
69. Kg5 Rf3 70. Rh8 Kxa4 71. h4 Ka3 72. h5 a4 73. h6 Rg3+ 74. Kh5 Ka2 75. Ra8
a3 76. h7 Rh3+ 77. Kg6 Kb2 78. h8=Q+ Rxh8 79. Rxh8 a2 $11) 66... Ra2 67. Rh3 ({
JH:} 67. Rb8+ Kc3 68. h4 Rh2 69. Kf5 Rxh4 70. Kxf6 Rb4 {=}) (67. a5 Kxb3) ({EH:
} 67. h4 Kxb3 68. h5 Rxa4+ 69. Kf5 Rb4 $1 70. h6 a5 71. h7 Rb7 $11) 67... a5
68. Kd5 Re2 69. Kd6 f5 {BH: Although White set a few tricks, Black rightly
simply kept improving his Rook/King and secured the draw. I enjoyed
playing over the game, as it influences me on how I would approach this
opening. I maintain that the Rc1-c2-d2 idea was too slow, and I would study
Qc2. Earlier, I would play b3 versus f4. As to the overall level of play, it
appeared high to me. Clearly both players are versed in the opening (at least
to the time period the game may have been played), strategy/tactics and
endgames. I realize it is the punch line in Masters Forum to guess the players/
strength - I would guess Eastern European/Russian players, with White being
the higher rated player, but having underestimated his opponent (i.e.,
thinking he could outplay him with a quieter line). JH: These players have a
solid strategical base but limited tactical abilities (and inclinations) which
is what makes the difference at the upper echelons of chess. I would rate
these players between 2150 and 2300 CFC. EH: Overall it was a well played
game. Neither side made any big errors. White didn't ever let himself get into
big trouble. The opening wasn't successful for him as he didn't get anything
out of it and it seemed black was a little more familiar with what to do.
Black missed his one chance to get a pretty strong position and after that the
balance was mainly kept .The endgame was pretty well played for the most part
too so a draw was a pretty logical result. I would predict that both players
were around 2100-2200. I would also guess that it was played under a classical
time control.} 1/2-1/2
[Event "Amsterdam Interzonal"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "1964.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Portisch, Lajos"]
[Black "Tal, Mihail"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "E62"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[EventDate "1964.05.20"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "23"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 d6 3. d4 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4 Bg4 7. Nc3 Qc8 8. Re1
Re8 9. Qb3 Nc6 10. d5 Na5 11. Qa4 b6 12. Nd2 Bd7 13. Qc2 c6 $5 {
An invitation to craziness. 13...c5 or 13...Nb7 were rational and about even}
14. b4 {(diagram)} Nxc4 $5 15. Nxc4 cxd5 16. Na3 d4 {Surprising the engines.
They expect ..Bf5 or ..a5 but don't like Black's chances anyway.} 17. Bxa8 Qxa8
18. Ncb5 Rc8 {(diagram) On the board Tal only has two pawns for his Rook. It
shouldn't be enough. But White is uncoordinated and has no clear plan to
unscramble his awkwardly placed forces. Even at the rate of 40 moves in 2.5
hours White wishes he had more time to sort things out. Rybka wouldn't have
helped much as all the Queen moves leave considerable evaluation edge. Still
White must choose. Perhaps a random move was required? That was Jonathon
Speelman's novel theory--sometimes it was better to play fast and random than
to risk hanging flag. The time on the clock can be saved for more critical
moments that are sure to come later. An interesting theory, but, like the
niblick, the question is when to use it.} 19. Qd1 Ne4 20. f3 (20. Nxd4 {
was possible also, e.g.,} Nc3 21. Qd3 e5 22. Nb3 Bf5 23. Qe3 d5 24. Bd2 d4 25.
Qf3 Be4 26. Qg4 {and Black still has nothing concrete. (+1.5ish sez Houdini).})
20... a6 $5 ({Another surprise. The natural (engine) choices are} 20... d3 {and
}) (20... Nc3 {forcing the play. Instead Tal avoids any resolution. Portisch
may have been regretting the time he spent analyzing those obvious moves.}) 21.
Nxd4 Qd5 $5 ({More of the same.} 21... Nc3 {
forces things. Tal is offering too much choice.}) 22. Be3 ({Was} 22. Bb2 {
better? Engines tend to like it as the exchange} Nc3 ({while} 22... Ng5 23. Kg2
Bh3+ 24. Kh1 {with e2-e4 to follow is snug also. Portisch chose the logical
human move, keeping the Bishop closer to the King.}) 23. Bxc3 Rxc3 24. Nb3 {
should consolidate}) 22... Rc3 23. Ndc2 Qf5 24. g4 $6 {Here Portisch
understandably felt that everything won. But the less forcing 34.Bd4 would
have avoided any serious risk. In any case Tal is almost out of tricks, but
almost is the key word.} Qe6 25. Bd4 h5 {
A fresh warrior enters the fray but can this pawn do anything?} 26. Bxg7 hxg4 {
Of course Tal doesn't stoop to recaptures! (diagram)} (26... hxg4 {As combinat
ions go, this one has a big flaw. But it is not easy to see. The 'easy' part
is the forced 6-move sequence} 27. Bxc3 g3 28. Qd4 {
(threatening mate forces matters.)} gxh2+ 29. Kh1 Ng3+ 30. Kg2 Qh3+ 31. Kf2 e5
$1 {A major resource.} 32. Qxd6 Qh4 {when Black's cheapo-quotient appears
enormous. Ceasing analysis here is understandable. But with more time to
analyze Portisch might have gone one move deeper. Actually the position is
White to play and win which can be accomplished by the elegant Queen sacrifice}
33. Qb8+ Kg7 34. Qh8+ $3 {followed by} Kxh8 35. Bxe5+ {and} Kg8 36. Bxg3 {
with a bag of material and the initiative as well.}) 27. Nd4 Qd5 {White figured
he had enough of the annoying Black Knight sitting on e4. He asked it to leave
way back at move 20 but it's still there, prominent and edible.} 28. fxe4 Qxe4
29. Nf3 Qe3+ 30. Kh1 {(diagram)} Bc6 $5 {Always the unexpected. With all the
White pieces hanging, Tal doesn't capture any of them.} 31. Rf1 $2 ({
Natural enough, but this blunder blows his advantage.} 31. Nc2 $1 {
was still winning. On} Qf2 32. Bd4 gxf3 33. Bxf2 fxe2+ 34. Kg1 exd1=Q 35. Raxd1
Rxc2 {White has a winning endgame.}) 31... Rxa3 $6 ({
This allows a drawing line. Houdini points out that after} 31... gxf3 32. exf3
Kxg7 33. Nc2 Bxf3+ 34. Rxf3 Qxf3+ 35. Qxf3 Rxf3 {Black has some winning
chances with three connected passed pawns against the Knight. Likely White
would hold the draw unless he were too depressed by his sudden change of
fortune.}) 32. Qc1 ({Allowing the draw was probably a conscious decision. After
} 32. Rc1 gxf3 33. exf3 Bxf3+ 34. Rxf3 Qxf3+ 35. Qxf3 Rxf3 36. Bd4 $1 {
threatens both mate on the back rank and the b6-pawn. Still with his connected
pawns and active Rook Black would have many dynamic counter-chances and a draw
would be the likely result.}) 32... gxf3 33. Qxc6 Qxe2 34. Rg1 Kxg7 {
Perpetual boot is now the best White can do.} 35. Rae1 Qd2 36. Rd1 Qe2 37. Rde1
Qd2 1/2-1/2
[Event "Montreal International 1980"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Allan, Denis"]
[Black "Day, Lawrence"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A00"]
[PlyCount "68"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c5 4. dxc5 ({A critical modern treatment is 4.Be3
but it fared poorly in Platel-Ipatov Cappelle-la-Grande 2011:} 4. Be3 cxd4 ({
Also} 4... Qa5 {is possible when the sensible} 5. Nf3 {will transpose to the
original Bilek Variation which the Hungarian GM played in several games at the
Varna 1962 Olympiad. The experimental idea had been tried in 1961 earlier by
Haag and A. Zakharov, but without much success. Instead} (5. Qd2 {
seems to lose a tempo after} cxd4 6. Bxd4 Bxd4 7. Qxd4 Nf6 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. Qd2 d6
10. h3 Be6 11. Ng5 O-O-O {as in Guliev-Korchnoy Baku 2008, 0-1, 37. )})) 5.
Bxd4 Nf6 6. e5 Ng8 {(diagram)} ({Less dynamic seems} 6... Nh5 7. Nge2 f5 8. f4
{with edge.}) 7. Qf3 $6 ({From the diagram:} 7. e6 f6 (7... Bxd4 {is an option.
}) 8. exd7+ Bxd7 9. Bc4 Nc6 10. Nge2) (7. Bc4 Nh6 8. e6 O-O 9. exf7+ Nxf7 10.
Bxg7 Kxg7 11. Qd4+ Kg8 12. Bxf7+ Rxf7 13. Nf3 Nc6 14. Qh4 {
when Black can choose between the ambitious} Rf5 ({and the endgame after} 14...
Qc7 {intending Qf4 although White has both the Knight pair and fewer pawn
islands, factors which together provide a slight edge.}) 15. O-O-O Qf8) 7...
Nh6 8. Bc4 Nc6 9. Nge2 O-O 10. Qe4 Nf5 11. f4 d5 $1 {with a big advantage for
Black. White has several logical 7th move improvements.}) 4... Qa5 5. Nge2 ({
Makarichev's Variation was rare. Likewise 5.Qd3 which I faced once in
Barth-Day Marshall International 1980:} 5. Qd3 Na6 6. Bd2 Nxc5 $6 ({
Here much simpler was} 6... Qxc5) 7. Qc4 $1 Na6 8. Nd5 Qd8 9. Bf4 ({
This is not very scary compared to} 9. Bc3 {with some play.}) 9... d6 10. O-O-O
Bd7 11. Nf3 Rc8 12. Qb3 Nc5 13. Qa3 $6 ({The engine wants} 13. Qb4 a5 14. Qe1
Nf6 {with mutual chances.}) 13... Nxe4 14. Re1 f5 $5 ({Silicon likes the munch
} 14... Nxf2 {with some edge but I rejected it intuitively.}) 15. Ng5 Rc5 16.
Qb3 {White threatens mate in two.} Qa5 {Raising the stakes, aside from
creating a flight square Black threatens mate in one.} 17. Bc4 Ba4 $1 {
Displacing the Queen from its threatening diagonal.} 18. Qd3 b5 $1 ({Again}
18... Nxf2 19. Qe3 Rxd5 20. Qe6 {with some counter-play. Instead I found a
clear and very thematic tactical win.}) 19. b4 {The only try. (diagram) The
tension has reached maximum intensity but lightning strikes as a forceful
combination clears the air.} Bxc2 $1 20. Bxb5+ Rxb5 21. Nc7+ Kd7 22. Qxb5+ Qxb5
23. Nxb5 Bd3 24. Nxa7 (24. Nxe4 {
The endgame is hopeless once Black's reserves enter the action. Also} Bxb5 25.
Ng5 Nf6 26. a3 Rc8+ 27. Kd1 Ba4+ 28. Ke2 Nd5 {wins cleanly.}) 24... Ngf6 25. b5
Nd5 26. g3 Ra8 27. b6 Nxb6 28. Be3 Nd5 29. f3 Nxe3 {0-1.}) ({
Aside from 5.Nge2 and 5.Qd3 the gambit 5.Nf3 is the most common move while} 5.
Bd2 Qxc5 6. Nd5 {Two early examples of that: Westerinen-Tal Dubna 1973:} Na6
({My old} 6... b6 {worked out well in practice when I surprised Jon Mestel at
the 1982 Lucerne Olympiad but it is very risky and White can gambit pieces
with confidence. After} 7. Be3 Qc6 8. Bb5 Qb7 {
I had to prod the engines to explore James Rizzitano's 1984 idea of} 9. Nf3 e6
10. Bd4 f6 11. O-O $5 {when Black can't open the e-file without toasting his
King but might survive with Brett Campbell's 11..Nc6. Instead the engine tried
a different way to collect a piece since the positional collapse was still
over the horizon:} a6 12. Ba4 b5 13. Bb3 exd5 14. Bxd5 Nc6 15. e5 f5 16. e6 Kf8
17. Bc5+ Nge7 18. Nd4 Bf6 19. Re1 d6 20. Nxc6 dxc5 21. Nxe7 Qxe7 22. Bxa8 Bxb2
23. Rb1 Bc3 24. Re2 {and White should win without to much difficulty.}) 7. Nf3
({Terentev-Korchnoy Svetlogorsk 1961: 6.Nd5 Na6} 7. Be3 Qa5+ 8. c3 e6 9. Bd4 f6
10. Ne3 Ne7 11. h4 $5 ({Simpler was} 11. Nf3 {with mutual chances.}) 11... Qc7
12. c4 Nc6 13. Bc3 Nc5 14. Bd3 Nxd3+ 15. Qxd3 Ne5 16. Qc2 $6 (16. Qe2 {
was the straightforward alternative but White wanted to gambit his c-pawn.})
16... b6 17. f4 {(diagram)} Nf7 ({
Korchnoy rejects the interesting gambit play after} 17... Nxc4 $5 18. Bd2 d5
19. b3 f5 20. Rd1 fxe4 21. Nh3 O-O 22. bxc4 d4 $1 {
with plenty of dynamic compensation for the sacrificed piece.}) 18. Ne2 Bb7 19.
h5 gxh5 $5 (19... Qc6 20. Ng3 Qc7 {merely invites repetition.}) 20. O-O-O O-O-O
21. b3 Kb8 22. Rxh5 ({Better was} 22. Qd3 Nd6 {
before recapturing. White would be slightly better.}) 22... Nd6 23. Ng3 Nxe4 $2
({Silicon gives} 23... Rdg8 {
as no worse for Black but Korchnoy's combo has a clear flaw.}) 24. Nxe4 Qxf4
25. Nd6 $2 ({The refutation is} 25. Qf2 $1 Qxe4 26. Rh4 Qg6 27. Rg4 {
followed by Qg3+ forking the B/g7 with a winning game.}) 25... Qxe3+ 26. Kb2
Rhg8 27. Rxh7 Bc6 28. g4 Rdf8 ({
White's splendid Knight gives adequate compensation for the pawn also after}
28... e5 {or 28...Bf8.}) 29. b4 Qg3 30. b5 Ba8 31. g5 Qxg5 32. Qh2 Qg2+ 33.
Qxg2 Bxg2 34. Rg1 Bh8 35. Rxh8 Rxh8 36. Rxg2 Rh3 37. Bxf6 a6 38. Be5 Rh5 39.
Re2 Ka7 40. a4 Rf3 41. a5 axb5 42. cxb5 Rxe5 {White could play on but
adjournment was a possible explanation for the agreed draw.) 1/2-1/2.}) 7... e6
(7... Bxb2 {proved risky in Sveshnikov-Maghami, Yerevan, 2004, where} 8. Rb1
Bg7 9. Bxa6 bxa6 10. O-O a5 11. Be3 Qc6 12. Bf4 d6 13. Nd4 {
gave active play, 1-0, 57.}) 8. Bc3 Kf8 $5 ({Also} 8... f6 9. b4 $5 Qf8 10. Ne3
Nxb4 {was quickly bizarre in So vs Pazos-Gambarrotti at the Turin 2006
Olympiad. (diagram)}) 9. Bxg7+ Kxg7 10. Nc3 Nf6 11. Bxa6 ({After} 11. e5 Ng4
12. Qe2 {Tal likely intended} f6 13. exf6+ Nxf6 {but} 14. O-O-O {
leaves white standing better due to the awkward N/a6.}) 11... bxa6 12. Qd4 Qxd4
13. Nxd4 Bb7 14. f3 e5 15. Nb3 d5 16. Nc5 {
This accomplishes little. Instead 16.exd5 would produce a slight advantage.}
Rab8 17. exd5 Nxd5 18. Nxd5 Bxd5 19. O-O-O Bxa2 {Why not?} 20. Rhe1 Rhc8 21.
Nd7 Rb5 22. Rxe5 Bb3 23. Rd2 Be6 24. f4 Rc7 25. Rxb5 axb5 26. Ne5 b4 27. Rd6 a5
28. Kd2 a4 29. Ra6 Bf5 30. Nc6 $2 ({
Missing the combination costs White his Knight. Necessary was} 30. c4 $1 {
at once. Then after} f6 31. Nc6 Be4 32. Nxb4 Rxc4 33. Rxa4 Bxg2 {
White breaks the pin by} 34. Ra7+ {
and after 35.Nd3 he has good chances to hold the draw.}) 30... Bc8 $1 {
Now White is stuck in grim geometry.} 31. Rb6 Rd7+ 32. Kc1 Rd6 {White needed
30.c4 so that he would be able to break the pin by c4-c5 guarding his Rook
with tempo.} 33. Rxb4 Rxc6 34. Rxa4 Bf5 35. c3 Rd6 36. Ra5 Kf6 37. b4 Ke6 38.
Re5+ Kd7 39. Re2 Kc6 40. Kb2 Bg4 41. Rf2 Kb5 42. h3 Bf5 43. Re2 Kc4 {0-1.})
5... Na6 $6 ({Oops! My error had also been predictable. In the previous year I
had scored twice against Denis with the Pterodactyl. Earlier he had beaten me
soundly in some other defences so I wasn't eager to deviate from what had
worked. But he had prepared well for this game. Later I switched to 5..Nf6. A
modern example of that is Sveshnikov-Inarkiev Russian Championship 2001:} 5...
Nf6 6. e5 (6. Qd4 Nc6 7. Qc4 b6 $5 8. cxb6 axb6 9. Qb5 Nb4 10. Qxa5 Rxa5 11.
Kd1 Ng4 12. Be3 Nxe3+ 13. fxe3 f5 14. Nd4 fxe4 15. Bc4 Rc5 16. Bb3 Rf8 17. a3
Nc6 18. Ndb5 Kd8 19. a4 Rcf5 20. Bc4 Rf2 21. Rg1 Nb4 22. Rc1 d5 23. Be2 Bh6 24.
Kd2 e5 25. Rcf1 d4 26. Nd1 dxe3+ 27. Kc3 Na2+ 28. Kb3 Nc1+ {
0-1 R. Murray-Day Toronto 1982.}) 6... Ng4 7. f4 Qxc5 8. Ne4 Qa5+ $5 (8... Qb6
{was the stem game Makarichev-Tcheshkovsky USSR Ch. 1978.}) 9. N2c3 f5 10. exf6
Nxf6 11. Nxf6+ Bxf6 12. Bd2 Bg7 13. h4 Nc6 14. h5 O-O 15. hxg6 h6 16. Rh5 Qb4
17. Qe2 Qxb2 18. Rb1 Qa3 19. Rb3 Qd6 {with a total mess, 1/2-1/2, 122.}) 6. Be3
Nxc5 7. Qd2 Nf6 $2 ({
(diagram) Consistent but oblivious, I stumbled into the tactic} 7... d6 {
is likely best but}) (7... Ne6 $5 8. Nd4 Nf6 9. Nxe6 fxe6 {
also leads to a playable game.}) 8. b4 $1 Qxb4 9. Rb1 ({
Somewhat similar tactically is} 9. e5 Ng4 10. Rb1 Qa3 11. Nb5 Qxa2 12. Nec3 Ne4
13. Nxa2 Nxd2 14. Bxd2 Bxe5 {
but Black would be happy to have a third pawn for the piece.}) 9... Qa3 10. Nb5
Ncxe4 {The only chance.} 11. Nxa3 Nxd2 12. Bxd2 b6 {"And wins" is sufficient
for a theoretical appraisal, but in practice one more move to address the
proper technique would have crowned the preparation. Denis had played quickly
up to here but now had a significant think.} 13. Nc3 $6 ({This came as a
welcome relief. I was much more concerned with a plan involving c2-c4 for
example} 13. f3 O-O 14. c4 Bb7 15. Nc3 Rfc8 16. Kf2 {and Black's prospects are
gloomy indeed. In this case White's a2-pawn is a useful reserve force while
the weak c-pawn will likely be liquidated. The plan with a2-a4 and piece play
on the queenside is more welcome by Black because it allows thematic
counter-play in the centre.}) 13... Bb7 14. f3 O-O 15. Nc4 ({Consistent.} 15.
Bd3 {intending 0-0 was also logical.}) 15... Rac8 16. a4 d5 17. Na3 Nd7 18. Nd1
(18. Nd1 {(diagram) Here Houdini (et al) suggests the unambitious} Bc6 19. Nb5
Bb7 20. Nxa7 Rxc2 21. a5 Ra8 22. axb6 Nxb6 23. Rxb6 Rxa7 24. Bd3 Rc7 {
without any apparent method to make future progress. The liquidation of the
queenside pawns increases Black's drawing chances. However I had a much more
ambitious plan in mind. Rather than exchanging the b-pawn I could gambit it!
This proves surprisingly strong.}) 18... a6 $5 19. c4 d4 $1 {
The key. Black envisions passed pawns on d4 and e4, a mega centre!} 20. a5 e5
21. axb6 Rfe8 22. Kf2 ({
Despite the spare piece the engine can't win this for White either. The try:}
22. Nf2 f5 23. Be2 e4 24. fxe4 Nc5 $1 25. Bb4 fxe4 26. Bg4 Rc6 27. Kd1 h5 28.
Bh3 e3 29. Bxc5 exf2 30. Bd7 Rxc5 31. Bxe8 Bxg2 32. Ke2 Bxh1 33. Rxh1 Re5+ 34.
Kxf2 Rxe8 35. Rb1 d3 36. b7 Bd4+ 37. Kf3 d2 38. b8=Q d1=Q+ 39. Rxd1 Rxb8 40.
Rxd4 Rb3+ 41. Ke4 Rxa3 {
and finally the assessment has dropped to 0.00 prefiguring a draw.}) 22... Nc5
23. Nc2 ({Here the engine's try is} 23. h4 f5 24. Nc2 e4 25. h5 {
when I have to intervene to prevent it rushing with} d3 {(?!)} ({Instead} 25...
Re6 $1 26. Bf4 a5 27. Na3 a4 28. Rb5 Bf6 29. hxg6 hxg6 30. fxe4 fxe4 31. Ke1
Be7 32. Rh6 Rcc6 $1 {and finally it prefers Black.})) 23... Re6 24. Ne1 ({After
} 24. Bc1 Nd7 25. Bd3 f5 26. Re1 e4 27. Na1 Ne5 28. Bc2 Kh8 {
White lacks any useful continuation.}) 24... e4 25. Bf4 f5 (25... f5 {
(diagram) White is running out of space. Despite the absence of Queens there
are still enough pieces for Black to drum up mating chances in a tactical line
like} 26. Kg3 a5 27. Rb5 a4 28. Bc7 exf3 29. Nxf3 Ne4+ 30. Kh3 g5 $1 31. Rxf5
Rf8 $1 32. g4 a3 33. c5 Rh6+ 34. Kg2 Rxf5 35. gxf5 g4 {winning.}) 26. h4 Rce8 (
{The most thematic but I'm not sure it is best.} 26... Rcc6) (26... Nd7 {
also had points.}) 27. Nc2 $2 ({Instead of the necessary if unclear} 27. Kg3 $1
{he collapses. The clock had become a problem as White's game is much harder
to play than Black's. For White it is much like sudoku in trying to fit the
many pieces into the few squares available. My cyber pals start off liking
White but the trend-line decreases the evaluation the deeper they look.
Usually this means that the serious problems are still over their horizon. Or
maybe the machines are just inherently imperturbable.}) 27... e3+ {
Finally the pawn advances recovering the material.} 28. Ncxe3 dxe3+ 29. Bxe3
Rxe3 30. Nxe3 Bd4 31. Kg3 ({On} 31. Re1 f4 {wins the pinned piece. Also}) (31.
Ke1 Bxe3 32. Kd1 Bc6 {fatally exposes the King.}) 31... Bxe3 32. Be2 f4+ 33.
Kh3 $2 ({In time trouble he stumbles into a mating net.} 33. Kh2 {would have
sted longer although Black has various ways to win. Simplest is probably} Bf2
34. Rb2 Bg3+ 35. Kg1 Na4 36. Rd2 Nxb6 {etc.}) 33... Bf2 34. Rb2 Bg3 0-1
[Event "Sousse Interzonal"]
[Site "Sousse"]
[Date "1967.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Matulovic, Milan"]
[Black "Suttles, Duncan"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A42"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[EventDate "1967.10.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "21"]
[EventCountry "TUN"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]
1. e4 g6 ({By the mid-sixties this old line was emerging from the grim
assessment of classical theory. The exemplary game that destroyed its
reputation for decades was Rubinstein-Selesniev Triberg 1922. Rubinstein took
the centre, migrated his army to the kingside and found an elementary
combination:} 1... d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. h3 O-O 6. Be3 c6 7. Qd2
Re8 8. Bd3 b5 9. O-O Bb7 10. Rad1 Nfd7 11. Rfe1 Nb6 12. Bh6 Bh8 13. e5 N8d7 14.
Qf4 Nf8 15. Ne4 Nd5 16. Qh4 Bg7 17. a3 Qc7 18. c4 bxc4 19. Bxc4 Rad8 20. Bxg7
Kxg7 21. Bxd5 cxd5 22. Nf6 dxe5 23. Nxe8+ Rxe8 24. Nxe5 f6 25. Nd3 e5 26. Rc1
Qb8 27. dxe5 fxe5 28. Rxe5 {0-1.}) 2. d4 Bg7 ({Three years later at the 1970
Palma da Majorca Interzonal Matulovic-Suttles saw Suttles' twist on the Two
Knights Variation:} 2... d6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Nf3 c6 5. Be2 Nd7 6. a4 Nh6 $5 {
with Matulovic turning an extremely complicated middlegame to a winning
endgame advantage before blundering at move 72 to allow a desperadoself-stalema
ting trick.}) 3. c4 d6 4. Nc3 e5 {This was the first surprise. Both at the
Yugoslav tournament and in his round two game against Ivkov at Sousse, Suttles
had played 4..Nc6. Matulovic must have prepared for that. After 4..e5 he
jumped from his chair in surprise and walked briskly around the perimeter of
the tournament hall three times, then approached the director and asked that
the sound of the Mediterranean surf be reduced. After seeing Matulovic freak
Suttles determined to surprise him as much as possible.} 5. d5 ({Of course the
GM intends to win. Theoreticians disagree on the evaluation of the endgame
after} 5. dxe5 dxe5 6. Qxd8+ Kxd8 7. f4 Be6 $5 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. fxe5 h6 {
seems to be the critical variation. In modern practice 5.Nf3 is popular.}) 5...
Nd7 ({In the Cochrane-Somacarana Calcutta series the Indian played.} 5... Nf6 {
losing in 1855}) ({and} 5... Ne7 {winning in 1856.}) ({Then the theoretical
dispute rested for over a century. In Averbach-Novopashin USSR Championship
Leningrad 1963} 5... Na6 {
was tried. Averbach won and many sources name the whole variation after him.})
6. Nge2 ({Avoiding} 6. Nf3 Ngf6 7. h3 Nc5 8. Qc2 Nh5 9. b4 Na6 10. a3 O-O 11.
g3 f5 12. Be2 Nf6 13. Nd2 c6 14. Bd3 Nc7 {as in Larsen-Petrosian Zurich 1961
(0-1, 44). Suttles approved of 6.Nge2 even awarding it an exclamation mark.}) (
{Later in 1967 Del Corral-Smyslov Palma da Majorca proceeded less sensibly:} 6.
h4 Ngf6 7. Nge2 a5 8. Ng3 h5 9. Bg5 Bh6 10. Bxh6 Rxh6 11. Qd2 Rh8 12. Bd3 Nc5
13. Bc2 Bd7 14. Nge2 c6 15. dxc6 Bxc6 16. f3 Qc7 17. O-O-O {with mutual
chances. For Black to exchange the dark-squared Bishops is usually a safe and
normal strategy once the centre locks.}) 6... h5 $5 {For surprise value, and
because if White plays h2-h4 first he would react with h7-h5 with the same
result but White thinking he was forcing things.} 7. h4 Nh6 $5 {
Since a plan with ...Bg7-h6 was predictable he plays this instead.} 8. f3 O-O
9. Bg5 f6 10. Be3 a6 $5 ({Very mysterious. The direct plan would be} 10... f5
11. Qd2 Kh7 12. Bg5 Nf6 13. exf5 Nxf5 14. O-O-O {when white might be slightly
better but both sides have chances. By not playing ..f6-f5 he gives Matulovic
the choice of preventing it. This is only understandable in terms of
psychology. Matulovic of course did not know Suttles deep motivation for
playing to win the full point.}) 11. Qd2 Kh7 12. Ng3 ({
He decides to stop ..f5. The alternative was} 12. O-O-O f5 13. Kb1 {
with complex play.}) 12... Nf7 $5 ({Simpler is} 12... a5 13. Bd3 Nc5 14. Bc2
Nf7 {when White wonders about his King. Actually castling short may be
dangerous, for example:} 15. Qf2 (15. Na4 Nxa4 16. Bxa4 Bh6 {
with slight White edge.}) 15... b6 16. O-O Bh6 17. Na4 Bxe3 18. Qxe3 Bd7 19.
Nxc5 bxc5 20. Rf2 Nh6 21. Re2 f5 22. exf5 Bxf5) 13. Bd3 {(diagram)} c5 $5 ({
Consistent with the provocative strategy but objectively this move is likely
weaker than thesolid} 13... Nc5) 14. O-O-O $1 {Now White is objectively better.
} Qa5 15. Nf1 $1 ({
Correctly threatening g2-g4 with the more dangerous attack. On the quieter} 15.
Kb1 {Black can consider the positional gambit} b5 16. cxb5 axb5 17. Bxb5 Nb6 {
...Ba6 to follow.}) 15... Nh6 {Preventing 16.g4.} 16. Qe2 $1 ({
Renewing the threat. Again} 16. Kb1 {
invites an unclear gambit. An engine variation:} b5 17. cxb5 axb5 18. Bxb5 f5
19. Qc2 fxe4 20. g4 Rxf3 21. gxh5 Nf6 22. hxg6+ Kg8 23. Be2 Nf5 24. Bxf3 exf3
25. a3 Rb8 26. Ka1 Ng4 27. Bg1 Nd4 {Nd4 and the game remains complex.}) 16...
b5 $5 17. cxb5 f5 $5 ({
Consistently surprising. The more natural, and no doubt expected, move was}
17... axb5 {to lure the B/d3 off of the sensitive b1-h7 diagonal. Then} 18.
Bxb5 f5 19. Nd2 Nb6 {looks rational.}) 18. exf5 gxf5 ({The complicated} 18...
Nxf5 19. g4 hxg4 20. h5 gxf3 21. hxg6+ Kg8 22. Qh2 Nf6 {
was also possible, but not very thematic.}) 19. Ng3 axb5 20. Nxh5 c4 {
(diagram) The critical position.} 21. Nxg7 $4 ({The surf was too loud; the
surprises too many. Cracking totally, Matulovic starts to shed whole pieces in
elementary fashion. What should he have done instead? Ivkov in the 1967
Informant and Suttles in his 1973 notes for Chess Canada recommend} 21. Bc2 {
After} b4 22. Na4 {Suttles, who considered it all unclear anyway, looked at 22.
.Bh8(?) but Chess on the Edge (2008) refutes that and gives} b3 $5 23. axb3
cxb3) ({cxb3 "when White is better but the position is still complex." (Vol. 1,
game 64.) Therefore they prefer} 21. Bb1 {(!) and if} b4 22. Ne4 {(!)} b3 {(!?)
} 23. a3 {"the looseness of Black's position will be fatal." That opinion
would have been computer checked with the version of Fritz available in 2007,
but time marches on, the engines get better and the old verdicts are
overturned.}) ({After} 21. Bc2 b4 22. Na4 {Houdini gives} Ba6 23. Qd2 Bb5 24.
Nxg7 Bxa4 25. Bxa4 c3 26. Qc2 Qxa4 27. Ne6 Rfc8 {with Black a bit better!}) ({
What's more, after} 21. Bb1 {it considers} b4 22. Ne4 c3 23. Nxg7 Kxg7 24.
Bxh6+ Kxh6 25. Qe3+ f4 26. Qf2 {to be the critical position. (diagram)} {
One perpetual check (0.00) arises after} Ra6 ({Another is} 26... cxb2+ 27. Qxb2
Ba6 28. Nxd6 b3 29. axb3 Qc5+ 30. Qc2 Qa3+ 31. Kd2 Qb4+ 32. Kc1 Rfc8 $5 33. Nc4
Nf8 34. Qf5 $1 Rxc4+ 35. bxc4 Qa3+ 36. Kd2 Qb4+ 37. Kc1 {with the draw forced.}
) ({Remarkably it is only Black who can try to win by} 26... Nb6 $1 27. Nxd6
Ra7 28. Qc2 Rf6 {but after} 29. Nxc8 Rc7 30. Nxb6 cxb2+ 31. Kxb2 Qa3+ 32. Ka1
Rxc2 33. Bxc2 b3 34. Bxb3 Rxb6 35. Kb1 {and again the evaluation slips to 0.00.
}) 27. Qc2 cxb2+ 28. Kxb2 b3 29. axb3 Nb6 30. Nxd6 Qa3+ 31. Kc3 Qc5+ 32. Kb2 {
with repetition.}) 21... cxd3 {Yummy.} 22. Rxd3 Kxg7 23. f4 b4 24. fxe5 Nxe5
25. Bd4 bxc3 26. Rxc3 Qxd5 27. Rd1 Rxa2 {The rest is merely goofy as Matulovic
tries unsuccessfully to reach adjournment.} 28. Rc7+ Kg8 29. Qh5 Ra1+ 30. Kc2
Qxg2+ 31. Rd2 Qe4+ 32. Kc3 Rc1+ 33. Kb4 Rxc7 34. Qxh6 Qb7+ 35. Ka3 Qa6+ 36. Kb4
Rb7+ 37. Bb6 Rxb6+ 0-1
[Event "Masters' Forum Unannotated"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B47"]
[PlyCount "138"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. g3 a6 7. Bg2 d6 8. Nxc6
bxc6 9. O-O Bb7 10. Na4 Nf6 11. c4 c5 12. Nc3 Be7 13. f4 O-O 14. b3 Nd7 15. Bb2
Bf6 16. Rc1 Rad8 17. Rc2 Nb8 18. Rd2 Nc6 19. Qa1 Nd4 20. Rfd1 Bc6 21. Ne2 e5
22. Re1 Rfe8 23. Qb1 Qb7 24. f5 Nxf5 25. exf5 Bxg2 26. Nc3 Bc6 27. Nd5 Bg5 28.
Rdd1 Bxd5 29. Rxd5 Be7 30. Bc3 f6 31. Qe4 Bf8 32. Rxe5 Qxe4 33. R5xe4 Rxe4 34.
Rxe4 d5 35. cxd5 Rxd5 36. Ra4 Rd6 37. Kf2 Kf7 38. Ke2 g6 39. Rh4 Kg8 40. Rc4
gxf5 41. Rf4 Rd5 42. Ra4 Rd6 43. Bd2 Kf7 44. Bf4 Rb6 45. Kd3 Ke6 46. Bd2 Rd6+
47. Kc2 Kd5 48. Rh4 Rd7 49. Bc3 Ke6 50. Bd2 Rb7 51. Be3 Bd6 52. Ra4 Rb6 53. Kd3
Kd5 54. Rh4 Rb7 55. Rh5 Ke6 56. Bd2 Rg7 57. Be3 Rg4 58. Rxh7 f4 59. gxf4 Bxf4
60. Bxc5 Rg2 61. Ke4 Bd6 62. Bxd6 Kxd6 63. a4 Rb2 64. Rh3 Kc5 65. Rh4 Kb4 66.
Rh8 Ra2 67. Rh3 a5 68. Kd5 Re2 69. Kd6 f5 1/2-1/2
[Event "Wch Moscow i 40/202; YB 4/91"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1985.01.17"]
[Round "16"]
[White "Karpov, Anatoli"]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B44"]
[PlyCount "80"]
[EventDate "1985.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nb5 d6 6. c4 Nf6 7. N1c3 a6 8. Na3
d5 9. cxd5 exd5 10. exd5 Nb4 11. Be2 Bc5 12. O-O O-O 13. Bf3 Bf5 14. Bg5 Re8
15. Qd2 b5 16. Rad1 Nd3 17. Nab1 h6 18. Bh4 b4 19. Na4 Bd6 20. Bg3 Rc8 21. b3
g5 22. Bxd6 Qxd6 23. g3 Nd7 24. Bg2 Qf6 25. a3 a5 26. axb4 axb4 27. Qa2 Bg6 28.
d6 g4 29. Qd2 Kg7 30. f3 Qxd6 31. fxg4 Qd4+ 32. Kh1 Nf6 33. Rf4 Ne4 34. Qxd3
Nf2+ 35. Rxf2 Bxd3 36. Rfd2 Qe3 37. Rxd3 Rc1 38. Nb2 Qf2 39. Nd2 Rxd1+ 40. Nxd1
Re1+ 0-1
[Event "Bled"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1961.09.04"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Fischer, Robert James"]
[Black "Tal, Mikhail"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B47"]
[PlyCount "93"]
[EventDate "1961.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. g3 Nf6 7. Ndb5 Qb8 8.
Bf4 Ne5 9. Be2 Bc5 10. Bxe5 Qxe5 11. f4 Qb8 12. e5 a6 13. exf6 axb5 14. fxg7
Rg8 15. Ne4 Be7 16. Qd4 Ra4 17. Nf6+ Bxf6 18. Qxf6 Qc7 19. O-O-O Rxa2 20. Kb1
Ra6 21. Bxb5 Rb6 22. Bd3 e5 23. fxe5 Rxf6 24. exf6 Qc5 25. Bxh7 Qg5 26. Bxg8
Qxf6 27. Rhf1 Qxg7 28. Bxf7+ Kd8 29. Be6 Qh6 30. Bxd7 Bxd7 31. Rf7 Qxh2 32.
Rdxd7+ Ke8 33. Rde7+ Kd8 34. Rd7+ Kc8 35. Rc7+ Kd8 36. Rfd7+ Ke8 37. Rd1 b5 38.
Rb7 Qh5 39. g4 Qh3 40. g5 Qf3 41. Re1+ Kf8 42. Rxb5 Kg7 43. Rb6 Qg3 44. Rd1 Qc7
45. Rdd6 Qc8 46. b3 Kh7 47. Ra6 1-0
[Event "1, London4 m3"]
[Site "1, London4 m3"]
[Date "1851.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kennedy, Hugh Alexander"]
[Black "Szen, Jozsef"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B45"]
[PlyCount "114"]
[EventDate "1851.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Bb4 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bd3 d5 8.
O-O Ne7 9. Qg4 Bxc3 10. bxc3 O-O 11. e5 Ng6 12. f4 c5 13. Be3 c4 14. Bxg6 fxg6
15. h4 Qe7 16. h5 gxh5 17. Qxh5 Bd7 18. g4 Qf7 19. Qxf7+ Kxf7 20. f5 g6 21. Bc5
exf5 22. Bxf8 Rxf8 23. Rab1 Ke6 24. Rb7 a5 25. gxf5+ gxf5 26. Re1 Rg8+ 27. Kf2
Rg6 28. Rh1 Ba4 29. Rd1 Bxc2 30. Rb6+ Ke7 31. Rxg6 hxg6 32. Ke3 g5 33. Kd4 Ke6
34. Rh1 Kf7 35. Rh6 g4 36. Kxd5 g3 37. e6+ Kg7 38. e7 Ba4 39. Rh3 f4 40. Rh4
Kf7 41. Rxf4+ Kxe7 42. Rxc4 Bd1 43. Re4+ Kf6 44. Re3 g2 45. Rg3 Kf5 46. Kd4 Bf3
47. Ke3 Bc6 48. c4 a4 49. a3 Bb7 50. c5 Bc6 51. Kf2 Ke5 52. Rd3 Bd5 53. Rd1 Ke6
54. Rd4 Bb7 55. Rd6+ Ke7 56. Rb6 Bd5 57. Rd6 Be4 1/2-1/2
[Event "20th Amber Blindfold"]
[Site "Monaco MNC"]
[Date "2011.03.14"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Gashimov, Vugar"]
[Black "Giri, Anish"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B81"]
[WhiteElo "2746"]
[BlackElo "2690"]
[PlyCount "67"]
[EventDate "2011.03.12"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 {Some players use transpositional move orders to
avoid certain lines. The game soon reenters the normal Open channels.} d6 4. d4
cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. g4 $5 {Probably White's sharpest available option.} h6 7.
h4 Nc6 8. Rg1 d5 {A thematic Sicilian counterpunch, here meeting play on the
flank with action in the centre.} 9. exd5 Nxd5 {This seems logical, opening an
attack on the h4-pawn and getting the knight out of the way of the impending
g4-g5. 9...exd5, activating the c8-bishop also looks possible, though 10.Bb5
looks annoying then, as 10...Bd7 11.g5! leaves Black's knight without a decent
square.} 10. Nxd5 Qxd5 $5 {DIAGRAM} 11. Bg2 $1 Qe5+ {I hope you weren't
considering taking the free knight for too long: 11...Qxd4?? 12.Bxc6+, winning
the Queen.} 12. Be3 Qh2 13. f4 {According to Giri, who played Black in this
game, his opponent Gashimov was at the end of his theoretical knowledge with
this move. Black wins a pawn now, but White has a significant edge in
development and activity.} Nxd4 14. Qxd4 Qxh4+ 15. Bf2 Qd8 16. Qxd8+ Kxd8 17.
O-O-O+ Kc7 {DIAGRAM} 18. Rd3 $1 {A very strong move, making room to double on
the d-file or harass Black's King along the 3rd rank. Note that all of Black's
pieces are still on their original squares - until they are out and fulfilling
active duty, there is little reason to celebrate the token one pawn advantage.}
Bd6 19. Bg3 Rd8 {Square d6 is becoming a focal point as the following active
bid for counterplay illustrates: 19...g5? 20.Rxd6! Kxd6 21.fxg5+, with 22.Be5!
to follow, dominating Black's rook.} 20. Rgd1 f6 {
Playing to avoid 21.Rxd6 and 22.f5, as now ...e5 will be possible.} 21. f5 e5
22. Be1 $1 {Now that Black has erected a barricade on one diagonal, White
switches to the other side. 23.Bb4 is the main threat, but 23.Ba5!? is
annoying as well. Giri plays to prevent both.} a5 23. Rd5 e4 {A good practical
try, banking on a check on f4 in some lines. White wisely steers clear.} 24.
Kb1 e3 25. Bf1 $1 {Nice calm play. The impetuous 25.Rxd6? Rxd6 26.Bg3 allows
26...e2!, with counterplay. Preventing the further advance of the e-pawn
maintains all of White's trumps.} Re8 26. Rxd6 e2 27. Bxe2 Rxe2 28. Bg3 Rg2 {
Black's position looks dangerous, but it has been for awhile. It takes some
precise play to put Black away, and let's not forget the Blindfold aspect -
mistakes are far from uncommon!DIAGRAM} 29. Bf4 $1 Rxg4 30. Rd7+ Kc6 {
30...Kb6 31.Be3+ certainly is no better. The bishop on f4 is more active than
it was on g3 and participates in mating nets in many lines.} 31. R1d6+ Kb5 {
White concludes elegantly.} 32. a4+ Kxa4 33. Rb6 $1 {
Here's a case in point: 33...Bxd7 34.b3+ Ka3 35.Bc1+#.} Rxf4 34. Ka2 {
And 35.b3 is coming next. A fine win by Gashimov, and an even more impressive
one given their lack of a physical board to play the game - these guys aregood!
} 1-0
[Event "20th Amber Rapid"]
[Site "Monaco MNC"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Grischuk, Alexander"]
[Black "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E11"]
[WhiteElo "2747"]
[BlackElo "2779"]
[PlyCount "90"]
[EventDate "2011.03.12"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Qe7 5. g3 Nc6 $5 {Ivanchuk is truly
capable of playing anything and everything. I have played the Black side of
this line of the Bogo-Indian myself, so the game holds some personal interest.
Strategically, the idea behind Black's last slightly odd move is too force the
play against routine development, to wit: 6.Bg2 Bxd2+ 7.Nbxd2 (the point, as 7.
Qxd2 Ne4!, with 8...Qb4+ to follow causes trouble on the Q-side) 7...d6, and
Black plays for ...e5 while having coerced White's Q-knight to a less active
post.} 6. Nc3 {Grischuk goes for another line.} Bxc3 7. Bxc3 Ne4 8. Rc1 O-O 9.
Bg2 d6 10. d5 Nd8 11. Nd2 {I suppose White could try keeping the bishop pair
at this precise point, but there would be a consequent loss of time involved.}
Nxc3 12. Rxc3 e5 {DIAGRAM} 13. c5 $5 {This pawn offer is seen in many
positions in this line, aiming to exploit the long diagonal through tactics.}
dxc5 $5 14. Qc2 c6 {Ivanchuk's approach in this game is very interesting.
Naturally 14...b6 15.d6! cannot be considered, but the text introduces some
complications.} 15. Rxc5 Bf5 $1 16. e4 Bg6 {Having induced e2-e4, the
influence of White's bishop has been markedly reduced and the d4-square is a
potential concern for White should Black's knight escape the back rank. Now
the idea is simply ...b6 and ...cxd5, exploiting the pin on White's e-pawn.}
17. Qc3 b6 18. Rc4 c5 {
Planning a new home for Black's knight on the wonderful d6-square.} 19. b4 {
DIAGRAM} a5 $1 {An excellent retort, forcing White's hand as 20.bxc5 b5!
leaves White's rook trapped midboard.} 20. b5 Nb7 21. O-O Nd6 22. a4 $1 Rae8 {
Grischuk would gladly give up the Exchange on c4 to rid himself of his
awkwardly placed rook and Black's superior knight, but Ivanchuk has no such
intentions.} 23. Qb3 f5 24. Rc3 f4 {Gaining useful space, far more relevant
than a capture on e4 which would be a very temporary win of a pawn.} 25. Nc4
Nxc4 {Taking on e4 is too risky with White's Queen sitting opposite the King
on g8. Black's knight has done its job and is content to trade now.} 26. Qxc4
Qd7 27. Qe2 Rf6 28. g4 {An attempt to seal the K-side, but it never gets very
far. Black's game is very comfortable in any case.} Bf7 29. f3 g5 {Now if White
does nothing, Black can play ...Rh6-h4 and then quietly prepare a break with ..
.h7-h5. White has no active counterplay available.} 30. h4 {Hoping to stir
something up before Black clamps down on the K-side completely, but again this
doesn't really help.} gxh4 31. Bh3 Rg6 32. Kf2 h5 33. Rh1 Qe7 34. Rcc1 Kh7 35.
Rcg1 Reg8 36. Kf1 Kh6 37. Rg2 {DIAGRAM} c4 $1 {White was hoping to hold the
fort on the g-file but now disaster strikes from the other flank. The c-pawn
is being offered for a noble cause.} 38. Qxc4 Qa3 $1 39. Rf2 hxg4 40. Bxg4 Rxg4
$1 41. fxg4 Rxg4 {The Exchange proves to be useless at generating
counterchances or defending against Black's sudden piece activity.} 42. Qe2 Bh5
{The last piece enters the fray.} 43. Rf3 Qc1+ 44. Qe1 Qc4+ 45. Kf2 Qc2+ {
Winning the house. A great game by Ivanchuk, who has arguably played the best
chess so far at the Amber tournament.} 0-1
[Event "Saint Louis Invitational"]
[Site "Saint Louis USA"]
[Date "2011.03.06"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Robson, Ray"]
[Black "Khachiyan, Melikset"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B35"]
[WhiteElo "2522"]
[BlackElo "2511"]
[PlyCount "71"]
[EventDate "2011.03.04"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 O-O 8.
Bb3 d6 9. f3 Bd7 10. Qd2 Rc8 11. O-O-O Ne5 12. Kb1 Nc4 13. Bxc4 Rxc4 14. g4 Re8
15. h4 a6 16. h5 e5 17. Nb3 Rc6 18. Nd5 Be6 19. hxg6 fxg6 20. Qh2 Bxd5 21. exd5
Rc7 22. Nd2 $1 Qd7 23. Bg5 Bh8 24. Bxf6 $5 Bxf6 25. Ne4 {I like Whi te's
approach. The knight on e4 is a huge piece and the h-file is a constant source
of worry to Black.} Rf8 26. Qe2 Qd8 27. Rh3 Bg5 28. Rdh1 Rcf7 29. Qd3 Be7 30.
c4 b6 31. Qe3 Qc7 32. Qh6 {DIAGRAM} Rg7 33. Qxg7+ $1 Kxg7 34. Rxh7+ Kg8 35. Ng5
$1 {A great final point, denying the Black King the f7-square.} Bxg5 36. Rh8+
$1 {This succeeds in trading a pair of rooks and winning the Queen: 36...Kf7
37.R1h7+ Ke8 38.Rxf8+ Kxf8 39.Rxc7, with a trivial win.} 1-0
[Event "Ontario Team Championship (Scarborough)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1985.11.08"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Morrison, Robert"]
[Black "Pacey, Kevin"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C83"]
[WhiteElo "2371"]
[BlackElo "2220"]
[Annotator "Pacey"]
[PlyCount "53"]
[EventDate "1985.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
{Mainstream Praxis: Open Ruy Lopez By NM Kevin Pacey This article presents
several games from my career in which I played on the Black side of a
mainstream Defence, namely the Open Ruy Lopez. I invite the reader to follow
my interpretation of this opening as one of the players, and as a master and
annotator at present. The following game is one of my earliest experiences
with the Black side of the Open Ruy Lopez, which I took up playing only a few
years after the last of the Karpov-Korchnoi matches that featured a number of
games involving Korchnoi on the Black side of this defence.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3
Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. Nbd2 Nc5
10. c3 Be7 11. Nd4 $6 {(diagram) Not a good move objectively, but it had an
unsettling effect on me, especially since it was played by a strong master
whom I'd had poor results against previously.} Qd7 ({I could well have played}
11... Nxe5 {but without knowing theory regarding White's last move I was
afraid that taking the pawn might be a serious mistake, so I choose what
looked like a viable alternative and hoped that it wasn't too bad. In double
king pawn openings it's a common theme for Black to decide (or preferably know)
whether or not taking a White e-pawn is safe. Here theory assumes that White
would have been worse had I captured this one, e.g. after} 12. f4 Nc4 13. f5 (
13. Qe2 {(Bryson-Flear, Dundee 1991)} g6 $1 $15 {Flear}) 13... Bd7 14. Qh5 c6
15. N2f3 Ne4 16. Bc2 Nf6 (16... O-O $5 {Korchnoi}) 17. Qh3 O-O {
(=/+ ECO) 1/2-1/2 Lobron-Hort, Biel 1981.}) (11... Nxd4 12. cxd4 Nb7 {
has in fact been played with success in the past, but I don't like the look of
Black's position somehow.}) 12. f4 ({A precedent here is} 12. Qe2 O-O 13. Bc2
Bg4 14. Qe3 Nxd4 15. cxd4 Ne6 16. Qd3 g6 17. Nb3 Bf5 18. Qe2 Bxc2 19. Qxc2 a5
20. Be3 a4 21. Nc1 b4 22. Nd3 Qb5 23. f4 Qc4 24. Qd2 f5 25. exf6 {(diagram)}
Bxf6 {(after this recapture Black loses a pawn, but in spite of this the game
fizzles out to a draw eventually)} 26. Rfc1 Qb5 27. Nxb4 Rab8 28. a3 c5 29.
dxc5 d4 30. Bf2 Nxc5 31. Rxc5 Qxc5 32. Na6 Qb6 33. Nxb8 Rxb8 34. Rd1 Qxb2 35.
Qxb2 Rxb2 36. Bxd4 Bxd4+ 37. Rxd4 Rb1+ 38. Kf2 Rb2+ 39. Kf1 Rb1+ 40. Ke2 Rb2+
41. Rd2 Rb3 42. Rd3 Rb2+ 43. Kf3 h5 44. h4 Kf7 45. g3 Ke6 {
1/2-1/2 Michel-Piazzini, Buenos Aires (ol) 1939}) 12... Nxb3 (12... Nxd4 13.
cxd4 Bg4 14. Qe1 $5 Ne6 $140 15. Qe3 c5 16. h3 Bf5 17. g4 cxd4 18. Qf3 Be4 19.
Nxe4 dxe4 20. Qxe4 $13) (12... Bg4 13. e6 $1 Bxe6 14. f5 Nxd4 15. cxd4 Bxf5 16.
dxc5 Bxc5+ 17. Kh1 {and White is better to some degree.}) 13. N2xb3 Nxd4 14.
cxd4 a5 15. Be3 a4 16. Nd2 O-O 17. Qf3 f6 {(diagram) Now, in a roughly even
position, White initiates a series of exchanges which should have led by force
to an advantage for Black.} 18. f5 $6 fxe5 19. fxe6 Rxf3 20. exd7 Rxe3 21. Rac1
{(diagram)} Bd6 $2 {This allows my opponent to obtain a drawish ending.} ({
Even worse than my chosen move is} 21... Bd8 $2 22. Nf3 ({not} 22. dxe5 $6 Rxe5
23. Rc5 Re7 24. Rxd5 c6) 22... e4 $2 (22... a3 $142 23. Nxe5 $140 axb2 24. Rc2
Rea3 25. Rxb2 Rxa2 26. Rxb5 Rc2) (22... exd4 23. Nxd4 $16 Re7 $140 24. Rce1)
23. Kf2 Rd3 24. Ke2 $16) ({Correct is} 21... exd4 $1 22. Rxc7 Rd8 23. Nf3 (23.
Rc8 g6 24. Nf3 d3 {transposes}) 23... d3 $17 {e.g.} 24. Rc8 ({or} 24. Nd4 d2
25. Nf3 ({no better is} 25. Nc2 Re4 {[/\...Rc4]} 26. b3 d4) 25... Bb4 26. Rc8
$140 Ba5 27. Rd1 Re7) 24... g6 25. Nd4 d2 26. Kf2 (26. Nc6 $2 Re1 27. Nxe7+ Kg7
28. Rxd8 Rxf1+ ({not} 28... d1=Q $4 29. Rdf8) 29. Kxf1 d1=Q+ 30. Kf2 Qd4+ {
and regardless of White's reply Black will be able to play a check that wins
the knight}) 26... Re4 27. Nf3 (27. Nc6 $4 Rf4+ 28. Ke3 $140 Rxf1 $19) 27...
Kf7 28. Nxd2 Rb4 {/\...Ke6}) 22. Nf3 exd4 (22... Rd8 23. dxe5 Bxe5 24. Nxe5
Rxe5 25. Rxc7 Re7 26. Rb7 $11) (22... e4 $2 23. Ne5 Rd8 24. Kf2 $18) 23. Nxd4
Re7 24. Nxb5 Rxd7 25. Nxd6 cxd6 26. Rf5 {(diagram)} Rb7 27. Rc2 ({Now after}
27. Rc2 {if} Rab8 {White can play simply} 28. Rxd5 Rxb2 29. Rxb2 Rxb2 30. Rxd6
{and the Black rook will end up in front of a passed Black a-pawn, while
White's rook can get behind it. Consequently this particular ending ought to
be drawn. I explained this to my Brampton team captain, who wondered if I had
accepted a draw prematurely. Against a seasoned master I saw little point in
playing out such an ending rather than conserving my energy. To my
consternation Rob was initially reluctant to agree that he would have played
this way, but then he soon decided that this continuation was satisfactory for
White.}) 1/2-1/2
[Event "RA Chess Club Championship (Ottawa)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1997.01.30"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Hubley, Roger"]
[Black "Pacey, Kevin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C83"]
[WhiteElo "2080"]
[BlackElo "2222"]
[PlyCount "78"]
[EventDate "2002.01.21"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
{In the second game of this article I walked into a line known to be dubious
if White plays exactly, which fortunately for me did not occur. White
eventually gave away a pawn, and I ended up winning a somewhat quirky endgame
in which both sides made errors.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5.
O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. Be3 Be7 10. c3 O-O 11. Nbd2 {
(diagram)} Bg4 (11... Qd7 {is the main choice here.}) 12. Nxe4 dxe4 13. Qd5 {
(diagram)} exf3 ({ECO gives} 13... Qxd5 14. Bxd5 exf3 15. Bxc6 fxg2 {when} 16.
Kxg2 {ultimately leads to a slight edge for White.}) 14. Qxc6 fxg2 15. Qxg2 {
(diagram)} Qd7 ({Here} 15... Qc8 {
has also been played, though White also gains an edge with 16.Bh6!}) 16. Qg3 ({
Roger could have set me greater difficulties had he played} 16. Bh6 $1 gxh6 17.
f3 {as in Kasparov-Yusupov, Minsk 1979, which continued} h5 (17... Rae8 18.
Rae1 h5 19. Kh1 Kh8 {appears to minimize White's advantage} (19... Qc6 {
[Nunn-Heidrich, Bundesliga 1985]} 20. fxg4 Qxg2+ 21. Kxg2 {
is good for White, in view of} hxg4 22. Re4 h5 23. Ref4)) 18. Rad1 Qf5 19. fxg4
Qxe5 20. Rde1 Qc5+ 21. Kh1 Rad8 $2 22. Rf5 Qd6 23. Rd5 {
when White won the B/e7 and eventually the game as well.}) 16... Qf5 {
Tarrasch played 16...c5 and 16...Rad8 in two games from this position in 1923,
scoring a win and a draw against Vecseg and Wolf respectively. Fritz considers
the position after White's sixteenth move to be equal in any case.} 17. f3 Bh5
18. Rad1 Rad8 19. Bd5 Bg6 {(diagram)} 20. Rd2 (20. Rfe1 $142) 20... c6 $15 21.
Be4 Qe6 22. Bxg6 hxg6 {(diagram)} 23. Rfd1 $6 {
It was better not to abandon the a-pawn. Now Black will have a large advantage.
} Qxa2 {Now if 24.Rd7 then Black simply takes on b2.} 24. Qg4 Qe6 $6 {
A bit of a slip. Better was 24...Qb3 or 24...Rxd2.} 25. Qxe6 fxe6 {(diagram)}
26. Kg2 $6 {White returns the favour.} (26. Rd7 Rxd7 (26... Bh4 $5) 27. Rxd7
Rxf3 28. Rxe7 Rxe3 29. Rxe6 $15) (26. Rxd8 Rxd8 27. Ra1 $15) 26... Rd5 ({
Correct is} 26... Rxd2+ $1 27. Rxd2 Rf5 {
with a large advantage since f3-f4 can be met by ...g5.}) 27. f4 $2 (27. Rxd5
cxd5 28. Ra1 {leaves White just slightly worse. Now Black is much better again.
}) 27... a5 28. b3 {Better is 28.Ra1 (or 28.Rxd5 first).} Kf7 (28... g5 $142 $1
{with a won ending.}) 29. c4 Rxd2+ 30. Rxd2 Rd8 31. Rxd8 ({If} 31. cxb5 {
(or first 31.Ra2)} cxb5 32. Ra2 Bb4 {Black keeps a large advantage. With the
rooks now being exchanged, Black should have less trouble winning.}) 31... Bxd8
32. cxb5 cxb5 33. Kf3 Ke8 34. Ke4 Kd7 35. Bc5 Be7 36. Bb6 a4 37. bxa4 bxa4 38.
h3 Kc6 39. Ba7 $2 {A final error that hastens resignation.} Bc5 0-1
[Event "RA Spring Frost (Ottawa)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1999.02.25"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Djerkovic, Mladin"]
[Black "Pacey, Kevin"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C80"]
[WhiteElo "2354"]
[BlackElo "2278"]
[PlyCount "43"]
[EventDate "2002.01.21"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
{The next game features a novelty by yours truly in a well-known position,
which I then failed to follow up well. I managed to escape losing the full
point, after missing out on ways to even obtain an advantage of one sort or
another.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3
d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. Nbd2 Nc5 10. c3 d4 11. Ng5 {(diagram) Karpov's prepared
novelty, which he sprung against Korchnoi in their 1978 match in Baguio City.}
Qd7 {The main moves here are 11...Qxg5, 11...Bd5 and 11...dxc3. I came up with
my chosen move at the board, and it seems to have been a novelty, which was
used independently on the other side of the world a few months later.} 12. Qf3
d3 $6 ({Mate-G.Szabo, Hajduboszormeny Cup 1999 went} 12... Nxb3 13. Nxb3 ({
Fritz prefers} 13. axb3 {and rates the position about equal}) 13... Bd5 14. Qf4
{and now} dxc3 {(rather than 14...h6) gives Black a slight advantage according
to Fritz, though this would require testing to be surer.}) 13. Bxe6 fxe6 {
(diagram)} 14. b4 ({White's chosen move is attractive, but simpler was} 14.
Nde4 $1 Nxe4 15. Qxe4 $16) 14... Na4 15. Nde4 Nxe5 16. Nd6+ Bxd6 17. Qxa8+ Qd8
{(diagram)} 18. Qxd8+ ({Also good for White is} 18. Qxa6 Nxc3 $140 19. Bd2 (19.
Nxe6 Qh4 $13) (19. f4 Ne2+ 20. Kh1 O-O $13) 19... Ne2+ 20. Kh1 O-O 21. Qxb5 $16
{(or even 21.f4).}) 18... Kxd8 19. Bf4 $2 (19. f4 $142 Nc4 ({no better is}
19... Ng6 20. Nf7+) 20. Rd1 (20. Nf7+ Ke7 21. Nxh8 d2 22. Bxd2 {is less clear.}
) 20... Nxc3 ({no better is} 20... d2 21. Bxd2 Ke7 22. Ne4) 21. Rxd3 {
and White will finish up a clear Exchange for a pawn.}) 19... Ke7 20. Rfe1 {
(diagram)} Nf3+ $6 (20... Nc4 $142 $17) 21. Nxf3 Bxf4 22. g3 {(diagram) R
elieved after my narrow escape, I thought the game was now going to fizzle out
to a draw, and I thus decided to give Mladin a draw offer without testing him
by playing a few more moves. In fact Black has an edge here.} (22. g3 Bh6 (
22... d2 23. gxf4 ({or} 23. Red1 Bh6 {transposing to 22...Bh6 etc.}) 23...
dxe1=Q+ 24. Rxe1 Rf8 $15) 23. Red1 ({not} 23. Rad1 Nb2 24. Rb1 d2 $17) 23... d2
24. Nxd2 ({or} 24. Ne5 Nxc3 25. f4 Nxd1 26. Rxd1 Rc8 27. Rxd2 c5 $15) 24...
Nxc3 25. Nb3 Nxd1 26. Rxd1 Rd8 27. Rxd8 Kxd8 $15) 1/2-1/2
[Event "Ottawa Futurity"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2004.08.09"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Yao, Sammy"]
[Black "Pacey, Kevin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C82"]
[WhiteElo "1956"]
[BlackElo "2174"]
[Annotator "Pacey"]
[PlyCount "48"]
[EventDate "2002.01.21"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
{In the final game of this article, Black plays incisively against an innocous
simplifying line by White versus the 9.c3 Bc5 variation of the mainline Open
Ruy Lopez, and he is fully rewarded.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6
5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3 Bc5 10. Nbd2 O-O {(diagram)}
11. Nxe4 {Possibly unfamiliar with the Open Ruy Lopez, Sammy eschews the
prescribed 11.Bc2. After his chosen move White will need to walk a tightrope
over the next few moves in order to obtain approximate equality, if Black
plays accurately.} dxe4 12. Ng5 $1 {(diagram)} (12. Qxd8 Raxd8 (12... Rfxd8
$142 $1 13. Ng5 Bxb3 14. axb3 Nxe5 15. Nxe4 Bb6 16. Be3 $140 Nd3 $1 {
when Black has quite reasonable hope of winning.}) 13. Ng5 Nxe5 14. Bxe6 fxe6
15. Nxe4 (15. Nxe6 $2 Bxf2+ 16. Kh1 e3 $19) 15... Bb6 16. Be3 Bxe3 17. fxe3 Nd3
(17... Nc4 18. Nc5 $11) 18. b3 (18. Ng5 $11) 18... Rf5 19. Rad1 Re5 20. Nf2
Rxe3 (20... Red5 21. Rd2 $11 Nxf2 $140 22. Rdxf2 Rd3 23. Rf7 Rxc3 24. Re7) 21.
Ng4 Re2 22. Nf2 Re3 23. Ng4 Re2 24. Nf2 Re3 {
1/2-1/2 De Souza Mendes-Charlier, Brazil (ch) 1943}) 12... Bxb3 $1 {This gives
White the chance to select one of three inferior moves out of four candidates.}
({If Black doesn't care to test his opponent first then he can proceed with}
12... Qxd1 13. Rxd1 Bxb3 14. axb3 {and now most promising attempt to keep
Black's winning chances alive could be the untested} Rfe8 $5 (14... Nxe5 15.
Nxe4 Bb6 {(1/2-1/2 Ibrahimoglu-Cassidy, Havana (ol) 1966) may hold some faint
winning chances for Black after the possible sequel} 16. Be3 (16. h3 {
can be met by} f5 $1 ({but not} 16... Rfe8 17. Be3 Bxe3 18. fxe3 Ng4 19. hxg4
Rxe4 20. Rxa6)) 16... Bxe3 17. fxe3 Ng4 $5) (14... e3 {
appears to allow White to keep the draw in hand:} 15. Bxe3 Bxe3 16. fxe3 Nxe5
17. h3 h6 18. Ne4 Rfd8 $5 19. Kf1 (19. Rxd8+ Rxd8 20. Rxa6 Rd1+ 21. Kf2 Rb1
$132 {e.g.} 22. Ra2 Nd3+ 23. Kf3 f5) 19... Rxd1+ 20. Rxd1 Kf8 21. Nc5 Ke7 22.
Ke2 a5 23. e4 Rd8 $2 24. Rxd8 Kxd8 25. Nb7+ Kd7 26. Nxa5 {and White managed to
win eventually in Weerakoon-Bauza Mercere, Philadelphia World Open 1991}) 15.
Nxe4 Bb6 16. Bf4 $140 Nxe5 17. Bxe5 $2 Rxe5 18. Rxa6 Rae8 19. Ng3 Re1+ 20. Rxe1
Rxe1+ 21. Nf1 f5 $17) 13. Qxb3 $2 {
White chooses the worst of his plausible alternatives.} (13. Qh5 $6 h6 14. Nxe4
Bc4 15. Bxh6 Be7 16. Qg4 g6 17. Bxf8 Qxf8 $17) (13. Qxd8 Rfxd8 {transposes to
the variation 12...Rfxd8! etc. in the note to White's twelfth move.}) (13. axb3
$1 {and now Black can once again test his opponent, here with the move} Qd3 $1
{and now correct is} (13... e3 14. Bxe3 Bxe3 15. Qxd8 Rfxd8 16. fxe3 Nxe5 {
produces a drawish endgame}) (13... Qxd1 14. Rxd1 {
transposes to the note to Black's twelfth move}) 14. Re1 $1 (14. Qxd3 $6 {
(or 14.e6?! f6)} exd3 {is somewhat pleasant for Black.}) (14. Qh5 $2 h6 $1 15.
Rd1 $140 Bxf2+ $1 16. Kxf2 Qc2+ {and if} 17. Rd2 ({or} 17. Kg1 g6) 17... e3+
18. Kxe3 Qf5 {and Black regains his piece with interest.}) (14. Qg4 $2 e3 15.
Bxe3 Bxe3 16. fxe3 Qxe3+ {lets Black gain a pawn for next to nothing.}) 14...
Qxd1 (14... Nxe5 $6 15. Qh5 e3 16. Bxe3 Bd6 $140 17. Bd4 Nc6 18. Nxf7 $1 Nxd4 (
18... Rxf7 $2 19. Qd5) (18... Bxh2+ $2 19. Kxh2 Nxd4 20. Nh6+ $18) 19. Nxd6 $16
) 15. Rxd1 {transposing at last to the note to Black's twelfth move, with each
side having spent an extra move.}) 13... e3 $1 14. Ne4 exf2+ 15. Nxf2 (15. Kh1
Qd3 $19 16. Ng3 Nxe5 17. Bf4 Rfe8 18. Rad1 Qc4 19. Qxc4 Nxc4 20. Rd7 Re1 21.
Rxc7 Bd6 (21... g5 $142 $1) 22. Bxd6 (22. Rxc4 {is better, though hopeless.})
22... Nd2 {0-1 Van Rijn-Bootsma, NED junior (ch) 1994}) 15... Nxe5 {(diagram)}
16. Kh1 (16. Bf4 Ng4 17. Bg3 Qd2 (17... Ne3 $1 18. Rfe1 Qf6 19. Ne4 $2 Qc6 {
0-1 Dolezal-So. Polgar, Mlada Boleslav open 1994}) 18. h3 Qe3 19. Bh4 Qh6 20.
Bg3 $2 (20. Qd5 $142) 20... Ne3 21. Kh2 Nxf1+ {
and Black won eventually in Tindall-Korneev, World Cities 1997.}) 16... Qf6 17.
Qd1 Bxf2 18. Qe2 {(diagram)} Rad8 ({At least as strong is} 18... Rae8 19. Qxf2
Qxf2 20. Rxf2 Nd3 {
but this would end Black's hopes of a victory in the middlegame.}) 19. Be3 ({
No better is} 19. Rxf2 Rd1+ 20. Qxd1 Qxf2) 19... Nd3 20. Rad1 $4 {Now Black sta
ys a piece ahead in addition to his extra pawn. After 20.Bxf2 Rfe8 Black
naturally should win.} Qe6 21. Rxd3 Rxd3 22. Qxd3 Qxe3 23. Qf5 Bh4 24. Qd7 Qe2
0-1
[Event "Ottawa Spring Open"]
[Site "RA Centre"]
[Date "2011.03.04"]
[Round "1"]
[White "O'Donnell, Tom"]
[Black "Voloaca, Mihnea"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D49"]
[WhiteElo "2451"]
[BlackElo "2318"]
[Annotator "Upper,John"]
[PlyCount "54"]
[EventDate "2011.03.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "CAN"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
{First rounds usually produce one big upset. This time is wasn't Bator.} 1. d4
d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 8. Bd3 Bb7
9. O-O a6 10. e4 c5 {Diagram #The Meran system is the reason Black doesn't
worry that ...e6 + ...c6 will leave the Bc8 shut in, and it is one of the main
attractions of playing the Semi-Slav.} 11. e5 ({More popular recently is:} 11.
d5 Qc7 12. dxe6 fxe6 13. Bc2 c4 $13) 11... cxd4 12. Nxb5 axb5 (12... Bxf3 $1 {
is the equalizer, and is reccommended in Vigorito's "Play the Semi-Slav"
(Quality, 2008)} 13. Qxf3 Nd5 $1 (13... Nxe5 $2 14. Qxa8 $1 Qxa8 15. Nc7+ Kd7
16. Nxa8 Nxd3 17. Rd1 Bc5 (17... Nb4 18. Rxd4+ Nbd5 19. Nb6+ $18) 18. Rxd3 Rxa8
19. Bf4 $14 {White has strong pressure against the Pd4 and exposed Kd7}) 14.
Nxd4 Nxe5 15. Qe4 Nxd3 16. Qxd3 Bc5 17. Qc4 (17. Nf3 O-O 18. Bd2 Qb6 19. Rac1
Rfd8 $15 {Piket,J (2570)-Kramnik,V (2775)/Monte Carlo (blindfold) 1996/(0-1 41)
}) 17... Qd6 18. Nb3 Bb6 19. Qa4+ Qd7 20. Qa3 Qe7 21. Qa4+ Qd7 22. Qa3 $11 {
Nyzhnyk,I (2563)-Gustafsson,J (2647)/Reykjavik ISL 2011/(1-0 48) was played a
week after this game.}) 13. exf6 Qb6 {"From the perspective of the year 2000
it is clear that this is a second-rate choice, since 13...gxf6! gives Black
far better practical results" - Kasparov, MGP v2 p.162} 14. fxg7 Bxg7 15. Bf4
Nc5 (15... O-O $1 16. Re1 b4 (16... Bd5 17. Ne5 Nxe5 (17... Ra7 18. Qg4 Nc5 19.
Bc2 f5 $1 20. Qd1 Ne4 $15 {
Nogueiras Santiago,J (2575)-Beliavsky,A (2640)/Barcelona 1989/(1-0 33)}) 18.
Bxe5 Bxe5 19. Bxh7+ Kxh7 20. Qh5+ Kg7 21. Qg5+ Kh7 22. Qh5+ Kg8 23. Rxe5 Rfb8
$8 $11 (23... Rfc8 24. Qh6 f5 25. Rxf5 $18) 24. Qh6 f5 $8 25. Qg6+ $1 Kf8 26.
Qf6+ Kg8 27. Qg6+ Kf8 28. Qf6+ {
1/2-1/2 Matlak,M (2480)-Bobras,P (2561)/Karpacz 2008}) 17. Ne5 Nc5 18. Qg4 f5
19. Qg3 Bd5 $13 {Brodsky,M (2524)-Bruno,F (2441)/Brescia 2009/(0-1 53)}) 16.
Re1 Nxd3 17. Qxd3 Rd8 18. Rac1 Rd5 19. Be5 Bxe5 {
Diagram #Up til now, both sides have been playing like World Champions.} 20.
Nxe5 (20. Rxe5 $1 Rxe5 21. Nxe5 $16 f6 $2 22. Qg3 $1 $18 fxe5 23. Qg7 Rf8 24.
Rc7 Qxc7 (24... Qd6 25. Rxb7 d3 26. Ra7 Qd8 27. Qxh7 $18 {
Black can't simultaneously defend a8, d7, e7, f7 and stop Qg6+.}) 25. Qxc7 Bd5
26. Qxe5 d3 27. Qe3 Bc4 28. b3 Rf7 29. f3 $1 Rd7 30. Qd2 $18 {
Botvinnik,M-Euwe,M/WCh, The Hague/Moscow 1948 (1-0, 36)}) 20... f6 $4 (20...
Qd6 21. Qg3 Rf8 $14) 21. Ng6 $1 $18 {
(as in the Botvinnik-Euwe game above, Qg3 is also winning.)} Rg5 $1 (21... hxg6
22. Qxg6+ Kf8 23. Qxf6+ Kg8 24. Qg6+ Kf8 25. Rxe6 Qd8 26. Rc7 $1 $18) 22. Nf4
$6 {(enough to keep an advantage, but misses the win)} (22. Qh3 $8 $18 Rxg2+ (
22... Bd5 23. Nxh8 $18) (22... Bxg2 23. Rxe6+ {is mating, for example:} Kd8 24.
Rd6+ Qxd6 25. Rc8#) 23. Kf1 Rxg6 24. Rxe6+ $18) 22... e5 23. Qh3 $4 (23. Qb3 $1
$14 Rg7 24. Nd5 Qd6 $1 25. Qxb5+ Kf8 26. Rc5 $14) 23... O-O $8 24. Qd7 Rg7 $8
$19 (24... exf4 $4 25. Rc7 Qxc7 26. Qxc7 Bxg2 27. h4 $1 $16) 25. Qe6+ (25. Nd5
Rxd7 26. Nxb6 Rd6 $19 {traps the Nb6.}) 25... Qxe6 26. Nxe6 Rxg2+ 27. Kf1 ({
of course not:} 27. Kh1 Rg3+ 28. f3 Bxf3#) 27... Bf3 $1 (27... Bf3 28. Rc7 Rxh2
{Black has other ways to win, but this is the most direct} (28... Ra8 {
is simpler}) ({but} 28... Re8 $4 {doesn't cut it:} 29. Nxd4 $13) 29. Rg7+ Kh8
30. Rc1 (30. Rg3 Rh1+ 31. Rg1 Rxg1+ 32. Kxg1 Rg8+ $19) 30... Re8 $19 (30... d3
$19)) 0-1
[Event "Ottawa Spring Open"]
[Site "RA Centre"]
[Date "2011.03.05"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Sambuev, Bator"]
[Black "Kraiouchkine, Nikita"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D16"]
[WhiteElo "2718"]
[BlackElo "2332"]
[Annotator "Upper,John"]
[PlyCount "89"]
[EventDate "2011.03.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "CAN"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 e6 6. e3 c5 7. Bxc4 cxd4 8. exd4
{Diagram # Black has transposed to a QGA where taking two moves to get in ...
c5 gave White the extra move a2-a4. Black's idea is that White's Pa4 doesn't
really help White, and may actually be a weakness, since Black can use b4 for
a N or B. A quick database check suggests that this isn't true: over the last
ten years, in games between 2300+ ELO players, White has scored -20 ELO with
the pawn still on a2, but +60 ELO with the pawn on a4.} Nc6 9. O-O Be7 10. Qe2
O-O ({It's worth seeing exactly why White can afford to "hang" the Pd4:} 10...
Nxd4 $2 11. Nxd4 Qxd4 12. Nb5 $1 Qb6 (12... Qd8 13. Bf4 $1 O-O $1 14. Nc7 $16 {
transposes}) 13. Be3 Qa5 14. Bd2 $1 Qd8 (14... Qb6 15. a5 Qc6 16. Nxa7 $16 {
threat: Bb5}) 15. Bf4 O-O (15... Nd5 $2 16. Bxd5 $18 {/\Nc7+}) 16. Nc7 $16 Rb8
$140 $2 17. Rfd1 $1 Bd7 18. Nxe6 $1 $18 {
is the point: White wins way more than an exchange.}) 11. Rd1 Nb4 (11... Nd5
12. Bb3 Na5 13. Ba2 Nb4 $2 {led to one of Shirov's most pathetic losses} 14. d5
$1 Nxa2 15. Rxa2 Bf6 16. dxe6 Qe7 17. Nd5 $16 Qxe6 18. b4 Nc6 19. b5 Ne5 20.
Nc7 Nxf3+ 21. gxf3 Qxe2 22. Rxe2 Be6 {Kramnik-Shirov, Bilbao 2010, (1-0, 41)} (
22... Rb8 23. Ba3 {wins the other exchange.})) 12. Bg5 h6 (12... Bd7 13. d5
exd5 14. Nxd5 Nbxd5 15. Bxd5 Nxd5 16. Rxd5 Bxg5 17. Nxg5 h6 18. Rad1 hxg5 19.
Rxd7 Qb6 20. g3 $14 {
Ivanchuk,V (2729)-Svidler,P (2765)/Monte Carlo (rapid) 2006/(1/2-1/2, 46)}) 13.
Bxf6 (13. Bh4 Bd7 14. Ne5 Bc6 15. Bg3 ({if} 15. Nxc6 bxc6 $1 {is the odd-lookin
g but typical recapture: White's IQP will never go anywhere, and Black's Pc6
is very hard to attack.}) 15... Nbd5 16. a5 Rc8 17. Bb3 a6 18. Rdc1 Bb4 19. Bh4
Qd6 20. Qd1 Bb5 21. Nxb5 axb5 22. Rxc8 Rxc8 23. Qf3 Qc7 24. h3 Ra8 25. Qd1 Bd6
{1/2-1/2 Ivanchuk,V (2748)-Tkachiev,V (2639)/France 2010}) 13... Bxf6 14. Qe4
$146 {Simple but good: White makes it hard for Black to finish developing.} Qa5
15. Ne5 Rd8 16. Be2 {Diagram #} Bd7 $6 {
This pawn sac doesn't get Black enough play. Here are two other options:} (
16... Nc6 $1 17. Nxc6 (17. Bb5 Ne7 $1 $13) 17... bxc6 18. Qxc6 Rb8 $1 $132) (
16... Nd5 $5 17. Bd3 $140 Nxc3 (17... Kf8 $5) 18. bxc3 (18. Qh7+ Kf8 19. bxc3
Ke7 $13 {is either crazy or inspired, depending on whether White can find some
way to break the position open (I haven't).}) 18... g6 (18... Qd5 $6 19. Qh7+
Kf8 20. Be4 $36) (18... Bxe5 19. dxe5 $32) 19. Nxg6 $5 fxg6 20. Qxg6+ Bg7 21.
Bc2 $1 $44 {Probably the critical variation. White threatens Qh7+ Rd3 which
will certainly win at least one more pawn; it wouldn't surprise me if White
had a forced win here.}) 17. Qxb7 Bxe5 18. dxe5 Bc6 19. Qe7 Nd5 ({
Houdini suggests the unnatural-looking:} 19... Rf8 20. Nb5 a6 21. Nd4 Rab8 22.
Qd6 Bd5 $14) 20. Nxd5 Rxd5 (20... Bxd5 21. b4 Qb6 22. Rac1 Re8 (22... Rab8 23.
Rc7 Rf8 24. Bh5 $16) 23. Qh4 $16 {
Black doesn't have any compensation for the pawn.}) 21. Rxd5 Bxd5 22. b4 Qb6
23. Qc5 (23. Rc1 $1 Qd4 24. Rc7 Rf8 25. a5 Qxe5 26. Bf1 Qe1 27. a6 Qd1 28. h3
$16 (28. Qc5 $2 Bxg2 $3 $11)) 23... Qxc5 24. bxc5 Rc8 25. Rc1 a5 26. f4 Kf8 27.
Ba6 Rc7 28. Kf2 Ke7 29. g4 Bc6 30. Bb5 Kd7 31. Rd1+ Ke7 32. Rb1 Rb7 33. Ke3 Kd8
34. Kd4 Kc7 35. Kc4 Bf3 36. Rb2 Bxg4 37. c6 Rb8 38. Rg2 {Diagram #} h5 (38...
Bf3 $5 {is a bit trickier, but White should still win:} 39. Rxg7 Bxc6 40. Kc5
$1 (40. Rxf7+ $2 Kb6 41. Bxc6 (41. Rf6 Bxb5+ 42. axb5 Rc8+ 43. Kd4 Kxb5 44.
Rxe6 a4 $132) 41... Kxc6 42. Re7 Rb4+ $11) 40... Bxb5 41. axb5 Rf8 42. b6+ Kb7
43. f5 $8 $18 exf5 $140 44. e6 $18) 39. Kc5 $8 $18 {
(threat: Rd2-d7+; Bator plays the ending very accuratley)} Rd8 40. Bc4 $1 Rd1
41. Rb2 Rc1 42. Rb7+ Kc8 43. Rxf7 Bf3 44. Kb6 $1 Bxc6 45. Rc7+ 1-0
[Event "Ottawa Spring Open"]
[Site "RA Centre"]
[Date "2011.03.05"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Sapozhnikov, Roman"]
[Black "Sambuev, Bator"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C89"]
[WhiteElo "2433"]
[BlackElo "2718"]
[Annotator "Upper,John"]
[PlyCount "130"]
[EventDate "2011.03.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "CAN"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3
d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d3 {Diagram #This move could
almost be considered the main line for White in the Marshall since it has been
impossible to prove an advantage with 12.d4.It became especially popular after
Shirov won two critical games with it during the 2007 FIDE Candidates matches.
Its tactical justification can be seen in the note to Black's move 15.} Bd6 13.
Re1 Qh4 (13... Bf5 {Shirov has had this position seven times as White. Here's
the most important theoretical game:} 14. Qf3 Qh4 15. g3 Qh3 16. Bxd5 cxd5 17.
Qxd5 Rad8 18. Qg2 Qxg2+ 19. Kxg2 Bxd3 $14 {White has an extra pawn, and if
this was a Capablanca game the annotation would be "the rest is a simple
matter for the Cuban genius's Masterful Technique". But Aronian isn't a 1920s
master, and he knows how to use the Bishop pair for (almost) full compensation.
} 20. Be3 Rfe8 21. Nd2 b4 22. Bb6 Rxe1 23. Rxe1 Rb8 24. Ba5 bxc3 25. Bxc3 f6 {
Aronian held on for a draw in Shirov-Aronian, Morelia/Linares, 2008 (1/2-1/2,
77)}) 14. g3 Qh3 15. Re4 {(White stops ...f5, since Rh4 would trap the Qh3.)} (
15. Bxd5 cxd5 16. Qf3 {
Shirov,A (2722)-Arsenau,P/Ottawa 2011/RACC 2011 Shirov Simul/(1-0 33)}) 15...
Nf6 ({If White had played 12.d4 instead of 12.d3, then Black could now play:}
15... g5 $1 $36 {since} 16. Bxg5 $2 Qf5 {
would win by forking the Bg5 and the undefended Re4.}) 16. Rh4 Qf5 17. Nd2 Ng4
{Black has several options here.} ({unbalanced but heavily analyzed:} 17... g5
$5 18. Rh6 Ng4 19. Ne4 Nxh6 20. Nxd6 Qg6 21. Ne4 {
computers prefer White, but Black scores OK from here.}) ({suicidal:} 17...
Qxd3 $4 18. Rd4 $18 {forks the Qd3 and Bd6}) ({rare:} 17... Be7 18. Nf3 c5 19.
Bg5 Bb7 20. Rf4 $1 Qg6 21. Bxf6 Bxf6 22. d4 {
Stellwagen,D (2616)-Beliavsky,A (2606)/Paks 2008/(1/2-1/2 43)} (22. a4 $5)) 18.
Qf3 $146 ({Here's the line I would study if I expected to play this opening:}
18. f3 $5 Ne3 19. Qe2 Nd5 20. c4 (20. Ne4 Be7 21. g4 Nf4 22. Bxf4 Qxf4 23. Rh3
$14) 20... Nb4 21. Ne4 Be7 22. a3 $1 Bxh4 23. gxh4 $16 {the Nb4 has no escape})
18... Be7 19. Qxf5 Bxf5 20. h3 Ne5 21. Rf4 Bxd3 22. Nf3 $11 Ng6 (22... g5 $2
23. Nxe5 gxf4 24. Nxd3 $18) 23. Rd4 Bf5 24. g4 Be6 25. Bxe6 fxe6 26. Kg2 Rf7
27. Ng5 $1 e5 28. Rd3 Rf4 29. Ne6 Rf6 30. Ng5 Raf8 31. Ne4 Rf4 32. Re3 Nh4+ 33.
Kg3 {TACTICS PRACTICE#} Rxe4 $3 34. Rxe4 Rf3+ 35. Kh2 Rxf2+ 36. Kg1 (36. Kh1 $4
Nf3 {#3}) 36... Bc5 37. Be3 $8 Re2 38. Bxc5 $8 Rxe4 $15 {Black has won a pawn
and now White has to prove that the B is enough compensation.} 39. Kf2 Rf4+ 40.
Kg3 Ng6 (40... g5 $1 $17 {seems to me to give Black more fixed targets and
good squares for his N. Critically, White doesn't have time to win the Pe5:}
41. Re1 $140 $2 (41. Bd6 $2 Rf3+ 42. Kh2 Rd3 43. Bxe5 Nf3+ $19) 41... Rf3+ 42.
Kh2 Rxc3 $1 $19) 41. Re1 e4 42. Re3 Kf7 43. Bd4 Ke6 44. h4 $1 $11 (44. Bxg7 Kd5
45. b4 (45. h4 Rf7 46. Bd4 c5 {wins the B}) 45... Rf1 $17) 44... Rf3+ 45. Rxf3
exf3 46. Bxg7 (46. h5 Ne5 47. Bxe5 Kxe5 48. Kxf3 a5 49. Ke3 $11) 46... Nxh4 47.
Bd4 Ng6 48. Kxf3 Ne5+ 49. Kf4 $5 Nd3+ 50. Kg5 Kf7 51. b4 Nc1 52. a3 Nd3 53. Kh6
Kg8 54. Kg5 Kf7 55. Kh6 Kg8 56. Kg5 Nb2 57. Kf6 Nc4 58. Ke7 Nxa3 59. Kd7 Kf7
60. Kxc6 Kg6 61. Be3 Nb1 62. Kb6 Nxc3 63. Kxa6 Nd5 64. Bd2 Nxb4+ 65. Bxb4 h5
1/2-1/2
[Event "Ottawa Spring Open"]
[Site "RA Centre"]
[Date "2011.03.06"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Upper, John"]
[Black "Ossedik, Elias"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C06"]
[WhiteElo "2174"]
[BlackElo "2219"]
[Annotator "Upper,John"]
[PlyCount "51"]
[EventDate "2011.03.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "CAN"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. Nf4 $5 {Diagram #I was playing as a "floater", but I had to take
Saturday off because of a fever. Since I hadn't eaten much the day before, one
of my main goals was to finish this game fast enough to get to the RA's Sunday
Brunch Buffet. ($13.50. All you can eat. Free coffee!) That's why I played Nf4:
like a lot of super-sharp lines, with best play it's probably a perpetual. So
if we both know what we're doing it's a quick draw, and if one of us doesn't
then it's a quick win. Either way: time for the buffet!} Nxd4 10. Qh5+ Ke7 11.
Ng6+ hxg6 12. exf6+ Nxf6 13. Qxh8 Kf7 14. O-O (14. Qh4 {is the more popular
continuation, but requires more manouvering than my appetite would allow.} e5
15. Nf3 Nxf3+ (15... e4 $5) 16. gxf3 Bf5 17. Bxf5 gxf5 18. Bg5 Qa5+ 19. Kf1 g6
20. Qh8 Qa6+ 21. Kg2 Re8 22. Rac1 Be7 23. Qh6 Qd6 $13 {
Rublevsky,S (2702)-Volkov,S (2594)/Dagomys 2009/(1-0,51)}) 14... e5 15. Nf3 {
Looks rediculous to allow Black to destroy the pawns in front of my own King,
but this trades off Black's Nd4 (as would 15.Nb3), and by opening the g-file,
White gets a second line for his Rooks.} (15. Nb3 Nxb3 16. axb3 Bf5 17. Bxf5
gxf5 18. Bg5 Bc5 19. Qh3 g6 20. Rac1 Bb6 $11 {White's problem is that he has
only one file for the rooks, and Black has it covered. Istratescu,A (2610)
-Bartel,M (2634)/Peristeri 2010/(1/2-1/2,35)}) 15... Nxf3+ 16. gxf3 Nh5 {
Diagram #} 17. Bxg6+ $1 {I spent a while trying to make sure I knew what was
going on, but this is all still theory.} Kxg6 18. Kh1 Nf6 $2 {
White remembers more than Black. Horay for homework!!} (18... Qh4 $1 19. Qxf8 {
computers prefer White here, but Black has a long-lasting initiative:} Qh3 (
19... Kh7 20. Rg1 Qxf2 21. Qf7 $4 Bg4 $1 {
again. 0-1 Pirrot,D (2355)-Hertneck,G (2475)/Germany 1989/GER-chT} ({
This is actually a very cute mating combo:} 21... Bg4 22. Rxg4 Qf1+ 23. Rg1
Ng3+ $1 24. hxg3 Qh3#)) 20. Rg1+ Kh7 21. Qa3 $1 (21. Bh6 $4 Bg4 $1 $19 22. Rg3
Rxf8 23. Rxh3 Bxh3 {
0-1 Illan Garcia,F (2005)-Casas Mor,C (2055)/Castelldefels 2001/EXT 2002})
21... Bf5 22. Bd2 $13 {Lettieri,G (2202)-Luther,T (2540)/Verona 2005/(1-0,43)})
19. Rg1+ Ng4 $4 (19... Kf7 $142 20. Rxg7+ Ke6 21. Bg5 Be7 22. Qh6 $36) (19...
Bg4 $142 20. fxg4 d4 21. Qh3 $14) 20. fxg4 $18 Kf7 ({
When he played 19...Ng4 Black overlooked that the counter-attack after} 20...
Qf6 {is very short-lived:} 21. Qh5#) ({We both saw this:} 20... Be7 21. Qh5+
Kf6 22. g5+ Ke6 23. Qg6+ Kd7 24. Qxg7 $18 {
White's up a pawn and an exchange and there's no stopping the Pg5.}) 21. Qh5+
$1 Ke6 22. f4 e4 23. Be3 b6 24. Rac1 Qd6 $1 {Subjectively the best: Black is
lost no matter what he does, and this move leaves more time for the buffet!} (
24... Bb7 25. Qe5+ Kd7 26. f5 $1 {(threatens Qe6#)} Be7 27. Bg5 $1 $18) 25.
Qe8+ Qe7 26. Rc6# {This is the first time my opening prep has paid off with a
quick win OTB. Having spent hundreds of hours studying opening lines I can
finally say that the marginal utility of opening preparation is at least very
slightly greater than zero. Of course, my opponent and I went over the game in
the restaurant :-)} 1-0
[Event "Ottawa Spring Open"]
[Site "RA Centre"]
[Date "2011.03.06"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Sapozhnikov, Roman"]
[Black "Kraiouchkine, Nikita"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C63"]
[WhiteElo "2433"]
[BlackElo "2332"]
[Annotator "Upper,John"]
[PlyCount "191"]
[EventDate "2011.03.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "CAN"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
{Going into the last round, White was tied for the lead. But with Sambuev
paired against an opponent 400 points lower rated, the pressure was on to win
to keep pace.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. Nc3 fxe4 5. Nxe4 d5 {Diagram #}
6. Nxe5 ({This seems to be Black's main choice against the Lopez. Twice last
year in Ottawa Black faced the less popular:} 6. Ng3 Bg4 7. h3 Bxf3 8. Qxf3 Nf6
9. O-O (9. d3 Bc5 10. Be3 Bxe3 11. Qxe3 O-O 12. Bxc6 bxc6 13. O-O Re8 14. Rfe1
Qd6 {1/2-1/2 Levkovsky,A-Kraiouchkine,N (2355)/National Capital Open 2010})
9... Bd6 $1 10. Nh5 Nxh5 11. Qxh5+ g6 12. Qe2 O-O $11 {
Arsenault,N (2254)-Kraiouchkine,N (2350)/RA Fall Open (Open) 2010/(1-0 38)})
6... dxe4 7. Nxc6 Qd5 ({the main line goes:} 7... Qg5 8. Qe2 Nf6 9. f4 Qxf4 10.
Ne5+ c6 11. d4 Qh4+ 12. g3 Qh3 13. Bc4 Be6 14. Bg5 {Despite the burst in
popularity of this line after Radjabov started playing it regularly in 2007,
this position is over 100 years old:} O-O-O (14... Bd6 15. Bxe6 Qxe6 16. Nc4
O-O-O 17. O-O-O Bc7 $11 {Von Bardeleben,C-Spielmann,R/Berlin 1909/(1/2-1/2 44)}
) 15. O-O-O Bd6 16. Rhf1 Rhe8 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Rxf6 Bxe5 19. Rxe6 Rxe6 20.
Bxe6+ Qxe6 21. dxe5 Qh6+ $1 $11 {
Carlsen,M (2813)-Nisipeanu,L (2672)/Medias, Bazna Kings 2010/(1/2-1/2, 32)}) 8.
c4 Qd6 (8... Qg5 $2 9. d4 $1 $16 Qxg2 $140 $2 10. Qh5+ $18 {
White has a winning attack.}) 9. Nxa7+ Bd7 10. Qh5+ g6 11. Bxd7+ Qxd7 12. Qe5+
Kf7 13. Nb5 $1 ({Black's had this position before, and White erred with:} 13.
Qxh8 $2 Nf6 $8 14. O-O Rd8 $1 (14... Rxa7 $2 {(allows the Qh8 to escape)} 15.
d4 exd3 16. Bg5 $18) 15. Nb5 Bc5 16. Qxd8 Qxd8 $13 17. a3 (17. b4 $5 Bxb4 18.
Rb1 Bc5 19. Rb3 $13) 17... Ng4 18. h3 Ne5 19. b4 Bd4 20. Nxd4 Qxd4 21. Rb1 Nd3
$13 {Libersan,T (2206)-Kraiouchkine,N (2089)/Trois Rivieres 2006 (0-1 35)})
13... c6 14. Nc3 (14. Qd4 Rd8 15. Qxd7+ ({
Chessbase databases have a suspicious game score:} 15. O-O $4 Nf6 $4 16. Qxd7+
$14 {Shirov,A (2726)-Becx,C (2250)/Dordrecht 1999 (1-0 35)}) 15... Rxd7 16. Nc3
Nf6 17. b3 Bc5 {it's hard to believe Black has full compensation for two pawns,
but White has to be careful:} 18. Bb2 $2 Bxf2+ $1 {
Keith-Jacques,L (2040)-Kraiouchkine,N (2235)/Quebec CAN 2008 (1/2-1/2 28)})
14... Re8 15. Qf4+ (15. Qxh8 $2 h5 $15 {/\...Bg7}) 15... Nf6 16. h3 Bc5 17. b4
$5 Bxb4 18. Bb2 Bd6 (18... Rhf8 19. Nd5 $1 Bxd2+ $8 20. Qxd2 (20. Kxd2 Kg8 $11)
20... cxd5 21. Bxf6 Kxf6 22. Qd4+ $14) 19. Qe3 Qe6 20. Qe2 Rhf8 21. O-O-O Kg8
22. d3 Bb4 23. Rhe1 Qf7 24. Qc2 Nh5 $2 {Black mixes up his move-order.} (24...
exd3 $1 25. Qxd3 Rxe1 26. Rxe1 Nh5 $13) 25. Rxe4 $1 Ra8 (25... Rxe4 26. Nxe4 {
defends f2, while}) (25... Bxc3 26. Qxc3 {gives White a collosal attack.}) 26.
Qb3 Bd6 27. d4 Nf4 28. c5 Bc7 29. Re7 Qxb3 30. axb3 Rf7 31. Rxf7 Kxf7 {
Diagram #} 32. d5 $6 (32. g3 $1 Nd5 (32... Nxh3 $2 33. Rh1 $1 {
wins the Nh3 or the Ph7 and Bc7.}) 33. Nxd5 cxd5 34. Re1 $18) 32... Nxg2 33.
dxc6 Bf4+ 34. Kc2 bxc6 35. Ne2 Re8 $14 36. Nd4 Be3 $1 37. fxe3 Nxe3+ 38. Kd2
Nxd1 39. Kxd1 Rc8 40. Ke2 Ke7 41. Kd3 Kd7 42. Nf3 Rf8 43. Ne5+ Kc7 44. Bc1 Rf5
45. h4 Kb7 46. Kd4 Rh5 47. Nf3 {Diagram #Bator wasn't enjoying this at all. He
had already won his last-round game and waited for this game on Board 2 to see
if he would have to split the 1st place prize.} h6 (47... Rd5+ 48. Kc4 Rf5 49.
Nd4 Rh5 50. Bg5 h6 51. Bf6 g5 52. hxg5 hxg5 $132) 48. b4 Rd5+ 49. Ke4 g5 $2 (
49... Rh5 $5 50. Bf4 Ka6 51. Bg3 Kb7 (51... Kb5 $2 52. Be1 $1 $18 {/\Nd4 or Ne5
}) 52. Ne5 g5 53. hxg5 (53. Kf5 $2 gxh4+ $8 54. Kg4 hxg3 $1 55. Kxh5 g2 56. Nf3
Ka6 $11) 53... Rxg5 54. Bf4 Rh5 {
again, Black has an outside pawn to worry White.}) 50. hxg5 hxg5 51. Bxg5 $18
Rd1 52. Nd4 Kc7 53. Bf4+ Kb7 54. Be3 Kc7 55. Kf3 (55. b5 $1 {wins, but there's
no hurry, so before playing the break White prudently brings his King where it
touches all his other pieces.}) 55... Re1 56. Kf2 Rb1 57. Bd2 Rh1 58. Ke2 Rh4
59. Kd3 Rh1 60. Kc4 Kd7 61. Bc3 Rh4 {Diagram #White is winning of course, but
an interesting practical question for the upcoming ending is whether or not
Black should give up his R for the P early, while his K is still in the centre
and one slip in the KNB v K ending would reach a 50-move-rule draw. The
problem is that if, as in the game, he plays for tricks and White successfully
supports the passer, by the time Black plays ...RxP his King will already be
on the edge. BTW, White was on the wrong side of this ending in the last
round of the Canadian U2200 in Kitchener in 2007 -- he "drew" -- so he'd have
no excuse not to know the winning technique.} 62. b5 cxb5+ 63. Kxb5 Rh1 64. Bb4
Rb1 65. c6+ Kc7 66. Ne6+ Kc8 67. Kc4 Rc1+ 68. Kd5 Rd1+ 69. Nd4 Kc7 70. Ba5+ Kc8
71. Bb6 Rb1 72. Bc5 Rc1 73. Nb5 Rd1+ 74. Bd4 Rc1 75. Kd6 {(Maybe I have a
TableBase problem: Fritz says both #33 and #31 while Rybka says #28 and #30)}
Rxc6+ 76. Kxc6 Kd8 77. Bf6+ Kc8 78. Nc7 Kb8 79. Bd4 Kc8 80. Ba7 $1 {(#17)} Kd8
81. Nd5 Ke8 82. Kd6 Kf7 83. Ne7 Kf6 84. Be3 $1 Kf7 85. Bg5 Ke8 86. Kc7 Kf7 87.
Kd7 Kf8 88. Ng6+ Kf7 89. Ne5+ Kf8 90. Kd8 (90. Bh6+ $1) 90... Kg8 91. Ke8 Kg7
92. Ke7 Kg8 93. Bh6 Kh7 94. Bf8 Kg8 95. Ke8 Kh8 96. Kf7 (96. Kf7 Kh7 97. Ng4
Kh8 98. Bg7+ Kh7 99. Nf6# {A hard-fought game and a good win for Roman, who
tied for first with 4.5/5, and had a 2693 performance rating!}) 1-0
[Event "Wesley So Simul, Toronto"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Preotu, Razvan"]
[Black "So, Wesley"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B80"]
[WhiteElo "2073"]
[BlackElo "2667"]
[Annotator ",Microsoft"]
[PlyCount "58"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5 8. Qd2
Bb7 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. g4 Nb6 11. g5 Nfd7 12. Qf2 Rc8 13. h4 Rxc3 14. bxc3 Qc7
15. Qd2 Ne5 16. Bxb5+ axb5 17. Nxb5 Qd7 18. Nxd6+ Qxd6 19. Qxd6 Bxd6 20. Bxb6
Ba3+ 21. Kb1 Ke7 22. Ba5 Nxf3 23. Bb4+ Bxb4 24. cxb4 Bxe4 25. Kb2 Rc8 26. c3
Ne5 27. Rhg1 Nd3+ 28. Kb3 Bd5+ 29. Ka4 Nb2+ 0-1
[Event "Wesley So Simul, Toronto"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Manalo, Pepin"]
[Black "So, Wesley"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C77"]
[WhiteElo "1762"]
[BlackElo "2667"]
[Annotator ",Microsoft"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. e5 Ne4 7. O-O Nc5 8.
Bxc6 dxc6 9. Nxd4 Ne6 10. Be3 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 c5 12. Be3 Qxd1 13. Rxd1 Bf5 14. c4
Be6 15. b3 b6 16. Nc3 c6 17. Ne4 Rd8 18. Rxd8+ Kxd8 19. Rd1+ Kc7 20. Ng5 Be7
21. Nxe6+ fxe6 22. f4 h5 23. g3 g6 24. Kf2 b5 25. h3 bxc4 26. bxc4 Rb8 27. Rd2
a5 28. Kf3 a4 29. Rc2 Rd8 30. Kf2 Rd1 31. Kf3 Rh1 32. Kg2 Re1 33. Kf2 Rh1 34.
Kg2 Re1 35. Kf2 1/2-1/2
[Event "Wesley So Simul, Toronto"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Casareno, Erwin"]
[Black "So, Wesley"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C54"]
[WhiteElo "2165"]
[BlackElo "2667"]
[Annotator ",Microsoft"]
[PlyCount "99"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. b4 Bb6 6. d3 d6 7. Nbd2 O-O 8. Bb3
a6 9. Nc4 Ba7 10. Qe2 h6 11. O-O Be6 12. Ne3 Ne7 13. h3 Ng6 14. Nf5 Qd7 15. g4
d5 16. Kh2 Rad8 17. Be3 Bxe3 18. Qxe3 dxe4 19. dxe4 Bxb3 20. axb3 Rfe8 21. Rad1
Qe6 22. c4 Rxd1 23. Rxd1 Qc6 24. Ng3 Nf8 25. Qc5 Qxc5 26. bxc5 N8d7 27. b4 a5
28. c6 bxc6 29. bxa5 Nc5 30. Ra1 Nfd7 31. Nd2 Ra8 32. Ra2 Nd3 33. Nb3 N7c5 34.
Nxc5 Nxc5 35. f3 Kf8 36. Nf5 g6 37. Nxh6 Ne6 38. h4 Nd4 39. Kg3 c5 40. a6 Nc6
41. Rd2 Nd4 42. Ra2 Ke7 43. Ra5 Nc6 44. Rxc5 Rxa6 45. Ng8+ Kd6 46. Rd5+ Ke6 47.
Rc5 Kd6 48. Rd5+ Ke6 49. Rc5 Kd6 50. Rd5+ 1/2-1/2
[Event "Wesley So Simul, Toronto"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Egorov, Mikhail"]
[Black "So, Wesley"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B80"]
[WhiteElo "2109"]
[BlackElo "2667"]
[Annotator ",Microsoft"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5 8. Qd2
Nbd7 9. a4 b4 10. Na2 d5 11. Nc6 Qc7 12. Ncxb4 dxe4 13. fxe4 Nxe4 14. Qd4 Nef6
15. Be2 Bb7 16. O-O Bc5 17. Qd2 Ne4 18. Qc1 Qb6 19. Rf3 Ne5 20. Rh3 f5 21. Nd3
Bxe3+ 22. Qxe3 Qxe3+ 23. Rxe3 Nc4 24. Rh3 Rc8 25. Nf2 Nxf2 26. Kxf2 Ke7 27. b3
Nd6 28. c4 Ne4+ 29. Ke1 Nc5 30. Bf3 Nxb3 31. Bxb7 Nxa1 32. Bxa6 Ra8 33. Bb5
Nc2+ 34. Kd2 Nd4 35. Nb4 Rhc8 36. Rxh7 Kf6 37. Kc3 Nxb5+ 38. axb5 Ra3+ 39. Kb2
Re3 40. Nc6 f4 41. Rh4 Kg5 42. Rh7 Kf6 43. Rh4 e5 44. Rg4 g5 45. h3 Rc7 46. Nb4
Kf5 47. Nd5 Re2+ 48. Kb3 Ra7 49. b6 Raa2 50. Nb4 Rad2 51. b7 Rb2+ 52. Ka3 Rxb4
53. Kxb4 Rb2+ 54. Kc5 Rxb7 55. Kc6 Rb3 56. c5 e4 57. Kd5 e3 58. c6 e2 59. c7
Rc3 0-1
[Event "Wesley So Simul, Toronto"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "So, Wesley"]
[Black "Picana, Andrew"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "2667"]
[BlackElo "2182"]
[Annotator ",Microsoft"]
[PlyCount "50"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Nc3 a6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. f3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. Be3
Be7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nc6 11. g4 b5 12. g5 Nh5 13. Kb1 Qc7 14. Ne2 Rfb8 15.
Ng3 Nf4 16. h4 a5 17. Nf5 a4 18. Nxe7+ Nxe7 19. Nc1 d5 20. Bxf4 exf4 21. Bd3 b4
22. h5 a3 23. g6 Qe5 24. gxf7+ Bxf7 25. c4 bxc3 0-1
[Event "Olympiad, Preliminaries, Board 1"]
[Site "Buenos Aires, Argentina"]
[Date "1939.08.30"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Yanofsky, D. Abraham"]
[Black "Dulanto, Alberto I"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C10"]
[Annotator "Cohen, David"]
[PlyCount "55"]
[EventDate "1939.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]
[WhiteTeam "Canada"]
[BlackTeam "Peru"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "CAN"]
[BlackTeamCountry "PER"]
{Notes from [4] which uses [1], [2] and [3] as sources. Chess - Canadian
Supplement by Dudley LeDain, December, 1939 [3]; Chess the Hard Way by Daniel
Abraham Yanofsky, 1953 [1]; Chess Olympiads, 1927-1968 by Arpad Foldeak, 1969
[2]; The Games of D.A. Yanofsky compiled and edited by David J. Ross, 1985 [4].
} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 {The two bishops that Black has in
this variation do not compensate for White's greater freedom of action. [2]} 5.
Nxe4 Nbd7 ({A better continuation for Black is} 5... Be7 6. Bxf6 Bxf6 {
Bxf6 followed by developing the knight at c6. [2]}) 6. Nf3 Be7 7. Nxf6+ Nxf6 ({
Simpler is} 7... Bxf6 {as} 8. Bxf6 Nxf6 {gives Black a level game. [1]}) 8. Bd3
c5 ({The immediate} 8... O-O {gives White an advantage after} 9. Qe2 c5 (9...
b6 {is prevented because of} 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Qe4 {
double attack on h7, a mate threat, and a8, where the rook is unprotected}) 10.
dxc5 Qa5+ 11. c3 Qxc5 12. O-O Rd8 13. Ne5) (8... b6 9. Ne5 Bb7 (9... Qd5 10. f3
) 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Bb5+ {[1]}) 9. dxc5 Qa5+ 10. c3 Qxc5 11. O-O O-O 12. Re1 (
12. Qe2 {is an excellent alternative. [1]}) 12... Rd8 13. Ne5 b6 (13... Bd7 {
and ...Be8, which would give Black a solid position, are stopped. [4]}) ({
Overlooking White's threat.} 13... h6 {was essential, though after} 14. Bxf6
Bxf6 15. Ng4 {White still retains the initiative, e.g.,} Bg5 16. Qf3 {[1]}) 14.
Bxf6 {Yanofsky thought for a half-hour on this move, and calculated the
subsequent play to after move 22. [1]} Bxf6 ({Not} 14... gxf6 15. Qh5 {[2]})
15. Bxh7+ Kf8 (15... Kxh7 16. Qh5+ Kg8 17. Qxf7+ Kh7 18. Re3 {
and White mates quickly [1] [2], e.g.,} Bg5 19. Rh3+ Bh6 20. Rxh6+ Kxh6 21.
Qg6#) 16. Qh5 Bxe5 (16... Qc7 {
allows White to win either the exchange or two pawns by} 17. Be4 Bb7 (17... Rb8
18. Nc6) 18. Nxf7 Bxe4 19. Nxd8) ({If Black plays the natural} 16... g6 {
he loses after} 17. Bxg6 fxg6 (17... Bxe5 18. Rxe5) 18. Qf3 Kg7 19. Ng4 {[1]})
17. Rxe5 Qc7 18. Be4 Bb7 19. Bxb7 Qxb7 20. Qh8+ Ke7 21. Qxg7 Rg8 {Black had gon
e this far in his calculations and felt quite happy since White is faced with
mate or the loss of the queen. [1][2] (diagram)} 22. Rxe6+ $3 {
A direct hit from a well camouflaged piece. [4]} Kxe6 23. Re1+ Kd6 {
Black has three other plausible continuations:} (23... Kf5 24. Re5+ Kf4 25. g3+
Kf3 26. Re3#) (23... Kd7 24. Qxf7+ Kc6 25. Re6+ Kd5 26. Re7+ {
discovered check winning the queen}) (23... Kd5 24. Qd4+ Kc6 25. Qc4+ Kd6 (
25... Kd7 26. Qxf7+) 26. Qf4+ Kc6 (26... Kd5 27. Qf3+ {
wins the queen by a skewer}) (26... Kc5 27. Re5+ Kc6 28. Qf6+ Kc7 29. Qxf7+) (
26... Kd7 27. Qxf7+) 27. Qf3+ Kc7 28. Qxf7+ {[1]}) 24. Qf6+ Kc5 (24... Kd5) (
24... Kd7 {both lose the queen quickly. [1]}) 25. Re5+ Kc4 (25... Qd5 26. b4+
Kc4 27. Qf4+ {wins the queen. [1]}) 26. b3+ Kd3 (26... Kxc3 {
loses the queen [4] on} 27. Re7+) 27. Qd6+ Kc2 (27... Kxc3 28. Re3+ Kc2 29.
Re2+ Kc1 (29... Kb1 30. Qd1#) (29... Kc3 30. Qd2#) 30. Qd2+ Kb1 31. Qb2# {[1]})
28. Re2+ {White mates [4]} 1-0