Bosch J. (editor) SOS: Secrets of Opening Surprises. Volume 1

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Gonzalez-Palacios. Alicante 1989, and

now Black would have kept compensa-

tion for the pawn with 14...~c4!? or

14...

lDc4!?

9.a4

0-0

JO.0..ge2 c6 Il.dc6 bc6

12.0-0

~a6 13.l:tel .!Uc4 l4.l:tbl tDd6

15.

'iWd2

I:lb8

16.l:tbd

J ~c4 with pressure

for the pawn.e.g. 17.tiJcl e618.~e4~e4

19J1e4

'iIl'd5 20.11eel .~b3 21.t2Jb3 %:th4

Keitlinghaus- vokac, Prague 1992

(Y'2-Y.!.

45).

6. ... tbb6

6...0-0

is also possible and usually just

transposes.

7. ~b3 a5!?

is useful

gain space on the

queens ide. though there

is nothing

wrong with the natural 7 ...

0-0.

After

8.0-0

ll\bd5

9.tL)d5

t;)d5

1O.c3 ~g4

II.h3 ~f3 12.~f3

13.l%eI

e6 White

only had a very slight plus in

Besch-Hennig, Netherlands cupfinal

1998.

As I

remarked earlier such posi-

tions are reminiscent of the ones that of-

ten arise after the moves l.e4

0.f6

2.e5

ttJd5 3.d4 d6 4.lL;f3 deS 5.ttJe5 g6 6.~c4

c6 etc.

Variation A

8. a3

9. ~a2 lLibd5

10. tLibd5 tDd5

11. 0-0 0-0

12. h3 c6

13. t1e1 b5

Black's strategy is based on restraining

White's

queenside

and fortifying his

stronghold on d5.

14. ~g5

White issetting up threats against e7 but it

isn't quite clear how serious they are. In

practice Black has twice chosen to ignore

the loss of the c7-pawn.

Van

dcr Wiel-Sznapik.

Novi Sad Olym-

piad

1990,

continued: 14...~e6

15.~d5

~d5

16.~e7 %:tfe8

17..th4

~-Y.!;

Black's

white-square blockade compensates for

the

pawn.

Even more provocative was M.Ankersl-

Vokac, Dortmund 1992: 14...h6! 15.~d5

'ttd5

l6.~e7 ne8 17.~c5 (17.~h4

%:tel+)

17...~f5 IS.c3 ~e419.lDd2? .Q.g2

20:e'g4

~h3! 21....h3

'e'g5!

and

Black

was winning.

109

Variation 8

8. a4

9. ~dS

10. 0-0

tt}bdS

.:!DdS

0-0

11. ];Iel

Or II.h3 h6

J...c6 12.:l:e1 and now in-

stead of 12...tfc7?! Magem-Palacios,

Sevilla 1989, the Alekhine manoeuvre

12...

~e6 planning

13...tLlc7

is interest-

ing; J3.tOg5 ~f5)

12.l:tel e6

l3.ttJe5

tLle7

14.~f4 b6 IHWd2 ~h7 16J~adl ~b7

17.c3!/=

Shaked- Turner, London 1997.

11. .i.g4

12. h3 .if3

13. fif3

14. ...wg4 c6

15. .ig5 li'b6

16. tladl h6

17. ~e1

And White has only a very slight edge in

this characteristic position.

Bashkov-Vokac, Ostrava 1991.

Conclusion

Thus it seems that Black can mix the

Modem Defence. the Scandinavian and

the Alekhine and that he can get away

110

with it as well! In the main lines White

gains nothing speciaL At present 6.~gS!,!

is the most dangerous

try

10 refute

3...d5!?

RECENT GAMES

In the following two games the alternati-

ve" for6.ti)f3 (our main line) are tested. In

several games

Milovanovic

as Black.

his opponents chose the set-up with

'it'f3.

While it is clear that Black should play

back and forth with the bishop for a bit

(~c8-g4-fS-d7 in Berescu-Milovanovic

for instance), it is not clear what the most

accurate treatment is (with or without a5

or even a6). The game De Firmian-Hen-

nig deserves to be studied with care.

Black clearly improves upon an older

game (Sadler-Turner, 1(97). Moreover,

De Firmian opted for NCO's recommen-

dation of 6.jLg5!?, but this got him now-

here. Indeed, his lower-rated opponent

clearly outplayed him in the early middle-

game only to miraculously squander his

winning advantage later on.

Alin Berescu

• Ninoslav Milovanovic

Kavala 2002

1.e4 g6 2.d4 !J;..g7

3.tUc3 d5 4.edS

lilts

5.~c4 tDbd76..ib3 '!Jb67.

...wt3

as!?

The immediate 7...

.ig4

is more common:

now

8."g3

was the stem

game

Klovans-Gurevich, 1970.

In Mikac-Milovanovic, Halkidiki 2000,

play continued

for only a

little while:

8.'ft'd3N a5 (or 8...a6 9.h3 ~c8 Parligras-

Milovanovic, Kavala 2002) 9.a3 a4

lO.~a2 0-0

~_1/2.

8.a4 i.g4 9.'iI6'd3 i.f5 10..-b5 ~d7

11.~e2

11...~c8

Both 11...~g4!? and 11..JH5 could be

tested.

12.~g5

0-0 13.'i'f3 ~g4 14.'ifg3 ~f5

15._if6 fLf6 16.iDge2

Perhaps

16...'II:i'd6!?

is better.

17.h3

'i1¥d7 18.0-0 h4 19.~f3 ~ad8

201Ue1

Wg72U~aclH g51!

22.Ci;e4

~e4 23.'i'e4 ~,d5 24.c3 c6 25.~c1 tbf4

26.lljd3 tlJd3 27.lld3! '{l{;d62B.1:tf3 e6

29."g4 nh8?

30.~e6!+-

l:th6 31.~b3

c5 32.dc5 ft'c5 33.:f5 'ire7 34.<.to>h1

'*i'b6 35.f41i'b3 36.1g5 ~h7 37.g16 ~h8

38.nh5

Black resigned.

Nick De Firmian

• Dirk Hennig

Germany Bundesliga 2002

1.e4 g6 2.d4 ~g7 3.

;';c3 dS 4.ed5 l(jt6

5.~c4 'bbd7 6.~gS 0-0 7.~b3 l2;b6

8:\1"'3

~g4

Improving upon Sadler-Turner, 1997,

where 8.....td7'!! was played.

9.'*i'g3 ~f5 10.~f6 et6

'iV

iii iAi

jlttJ

fjfj~

~~~

ttJIt

Black's set-up in this game deserves at-

tention. He makes no effort to regain the

pawn, but just continues positionally. He

has the advantage of the bishop pair. Mo-

reover, the White bishop on b3 is obvi-

ously hindered by his own extra-pawn.

11.tt:;ge2 :!:XeS12.0-0-0

~c8!

13.'i!i'f3

lLid6 14.~g3 ~d7

Now everything is ready for a pawn

march on the queenside.

15.tL.ce4 b516.lLjc5 a517.a3 15

Black has excellent compensation for the

pawn

course.

1B.tL:e2 .l:tb8 19":LJ4 :1e7 20.h4 ~f8

21.lL!d7 1:d7 22.g4 fg4 23.~g4 1:e7

24.hSlle4!

Threatening to take the knight.

2S.<J;;b1ii.h6! 26.hg6 fg6 27.Wh3 l::tf4

2S:.h6 -.h6 29.1:h6 a4 30.~a2

l:tf2

Black has the advantage

this ending.

31.b3 :!:Xbf832.l:th3 ~g7 33.<.tJb2 h5

34.!lg1 Wh6 35.~hg3 :'8f6 36Jlc3 ~f7

37.:cg3 :g7 38.:g5 h4 39.ba4 ba4

4O/Jra1 .Df1

40...tlJbS.

41.l:tf1 ~g5 42.c4 h3 43.cSliJfS 44.~b1

ttJd4 4S.<;t;>b2h2 46J%h1 :th7 47.d6 cd6

48.cd6 tUf349..i.e4

111

tDes

49 \t>f4 50.~f3 (50.d7 ltd7) 50...Wf3

51.tl7 ltd7 52.l:th2 g5-+.

SO.<.t>c3·.t>f6

50...'~f4.

51.wd4 We6 52.Wc5 l:lh5

53.jLg2

wd7

53...

lLif7.

54.~b4 llh4

55.~c5 tLd3

56.<;t;>b5

~14

56...~d6 57.ltdl lld4.

S7.~c6 <;!id65B.J:ldl We5 59.l:le1 wf6

60.ntl <;!ig561.'.t.>a4t;\e2 62.<~a5 ~"g3

63J%b1h1't1i'

64.~h1

tLhl

65.ng1

ttlf5

66.~b5

l2,12 67.:11

nf4

68.84

69.a5 tbe4 70.J:lf4 9f4 71.86 13 72.a7

'2 73.aB1IY f1'ii' 74.<;I;>b6~f2 75.9:;07

'i¥g3 76.Wb6 1ig1 77.Wc7 ~g7

78.<.t>b8

'i'e5

79.~a7 ..-c5

80.'~b8lQf6

81.'i'13 ~e6 82.~b7

'tWb4

83.~a7

tiJd784.tt'c6

Draw.

CHAPTER 14

Only Mad Dogs and Englishmen?

NIC KEY RE 20.2

1...b5:

SOS reply to 1.ttJf3

There arc those who play

I.tDf3

trans-

pose into particular

l.d4

lines (thus avoi-

ding the Gri.infeld

for

example).

Others

prefer the sequence 1.!iJ3, 2.g3, 3.i.g2.

4.0-0.).b). 6.~b2

and so on,

almost

re-

gardless (or oblivious") of the opponent's

moves.

Both

types

ti..lf3

players can

annoying

to meet. Here is an SOS

antidote

to direct the course

play, or

liven

things up

bit.

The

move 1...

b5 versus the

Reti is particu-

larly popular

amongst English

players.

Perhaps Miles is

blame for beating

Karpov

with

l...a6

and

2...b5 more than

years ago.

Apart

from

Miles.

adhe-

rents of this reversed Sokolsky

are

HOdgson and Arkell.

This article should provide you with plen-

ty of ideas lO

combat 1.~f3

with l...b5.

The material is divided

along

the

different

set-ups

that White may

opt for.

The acid

test,

in my opinion. lies

l.tLlf3 b5 2.e4

.1b7 3.~b5.

Getting started

First

fun

game to

get into the spirit

things.

113

Tibor Karolyi

• Julian

Hodgson

Brussels 1984

1.tDf3 b5 2.d4 ~b7 3...Q.g5h6 4..i.h4 g5

5.l:l.g3 tbf6 6.'i!t'd3 ..Q.e47.~b5 tbc6

8.c3?!

8.tlibd2 nbS 9.'i'a4 nh2 and

Black has rather nice counterplay al-

ready. 10.lUbd2 ~b8 lUtel e6 12.e3

g413.~e5

13...Ild2! 14.wd2 ~b2 15.l:lc2 After

IS.Wdl .ia3 Black also wins the rook.

15...~c2 16.'ffc2 tl:;e4

17.wd3

~bS

18.c4?

This loses quickly, but the king

march is nu pleasure trip either:

IS.<ot>e4 f5 19.~f4 tt\e5 20.de5

(20.~bS qig6 mate) 20 ...h5 21.~h4

(21.~g5 ifc5) 21.. ..Q.h6 22 ..~g5 ~gS

23.<ot>g5 ~e5 24.f4 gf3 and Black

should win. 18...

2,b4 19.<$.>e2 tbg3

20.hg3 'i'e5 0·1

White plays e3

The following game is played in true Bee-

keuian spirit. I refer the interested reader

to Beckett's novel Murphy, chapter II,

the chess game between Murphy and Mr

Endon.

114

Mark Taimanov

• Peter Svidler

SI. Petersburg 1996

1.~f3 bS

2.e3

3.b4

4.a3

Recognizing the strength of Black's

set-up, White is eager to copy his oppo-

nents moves.

4...·U6 5.d4 a5

Breaking

the symmetry. Murphy would have con-

tinued with d5 of course. 6...Q.bSab4

7.0·0 ba3 8•..Q.a3 ..Q.a3 9.:la3 ~a3

1o.CL;a3 fIIe7 11.~a1 0-0 12.lIb1 e5

13.ti}c4 dS 14.tZ.ice5 'l!Vc7 15.dc5

~c5

16.c4 dc4

Although full symmetry has

not been achieved, full equality is on the

cards <the board that is). 112-112

This was partly tongue-in-cheek of

course. However, 2.e3 does not really

deserve serious treatment. The move is

too modest to cause Black any problems.

Just a brief overview:

1. tt.f3 bS

Or 2.d4 ~.b7 3.e3 a6 which transposes. In

Mikhalchishin-K.ArkeH. Cappelle la

Grande 1991. While developed his bishop

outside the pawn chain: 3...i.f4tbf6 4.c3 a6

5.a4 b4 6.c4 bc3ep 7.tLlc3 e6 8.~d3 c5

9.e4

cd4

IO.liJd4

8c6 II.lLlc6 ~c6 12.0-0

~e7 13."e2

Y.!-Yl.

The position is about

equal but still contains a lot of play.

2. ... a6

3. d4 ~b7

Delaying development of

the

bishop is

also quite sensible

(thus

avoiding an early

'ifb3 - compare Miles' recommendation

below). The game Vul-Tischbierek, Ber-

lin

1997. went 3...e6 4.c4 bc4 5.~c4 tLlf6

6.a3 d5 7.~d3 c5 8.dcS ~c5 9.b4

.id6

1O.~b2 tDbd7

l.ttJbd2 ~b7 and Black's

chances are to be preferred.

4. c4

Nothing is gained by the inclusion of

4.a4

b4. After 5.c4

be3

6.bc3 e6 7.~d3 tDf6

8.tbbd2 c5

9.0-0

cd4 lO.cd4

tbc6 I

U:lb

tbb4 Black was already slightly better in

Ljubisavljevic-Arkell, Uzes 1989.

Equally innocuous was 4.~d3 tbf6 5.0-0

6.b3

7.c4

bc4 R.bc4

Yle7

9.4\c3

~f3!? IO.'iff3

lUc6

11.4.Je2 0-0 12.:dl

:b8

13.~c2 'i'c7 14.~d2 lLla5 15.~a5

'ilta5 16.i.b3 :lfe& 17.1:Iacl cd4 18.ed4

~a3 19.1Ic2 e5 20.de5 l:le5 21.g3 J:l:be8

22.lbf4 h5

\-2-Y:>

Furman-Dzindzichashvi-

Ii,

Soviet Union 1973.

4. bc4

5. ~c4 e6

6. tbc3

tt:Jf6

7. 0-0 d5

8. ~e2 c5

A kind of Queen's Gambit Accepted but

then with bc4 instead of dc4. With an ex-

tra central pawn Black should have no

problems. Yet Miles indicates 9.1!t'b3

with a slight advantage for White. The

game Andersson-Miles, Tilburg 1984,

went instead: 9.b3'!! cd4 lO.ed4 ttJbd7

I1.a3 .Q.d6 12.M

tbe4

13.tDa4 ~6

14..2.b2 0-0 15.tDc5

'ti'b6

16.l1bl

a5=i=

17.~a I ab4 )8.ab4 ~b5 19.111'c2 llJdf6

20.~bS 'if'b5 2

ltJe5 i.e7 22.l1fc1 tDd6

23.~c3 %:ta724.l1a

JUaB 2S.l1a5 'it'e8

V!-V!.

White plays g3

do not intend to cover this completely

since play will often transpose to 1.d4

lbf6

2.tDf3

e6 3.g3 bS. This is a very res-

pectable line played by Karpov, Timman

and Andersson to name but

few.

1. tUf3 b5

2. g3 ~b7

3. i.g2

3.d4lUf6

4.~g2 e6 5.0-0 and the abo-

ve-mentioned transposition has taken

place.

3....

Also playable are moves like

3...tbf6

and

3...e6. Interesting is 3...e5, after 4.d3 g6

5.0-0 ft..g76.lUc3 a6 7.a4 b4 8.~e4 'it'e7

9.~g5 f6 1O.~e3 d6 Black had good play

in Guerra Bastida-Sulskis, Linares 2000.

4. 0-0 e6

In Romanishin- Hodgson, Ischia 1996.

Black fianchettoed both bishops. After

4.Juf6 5.d3

g6 6.e41t..g7 7.eSlDd5

8.d4

cd4

9.lUd4

'WIfb6lO.a4 ctJc7 t l.~b7 "b7

I2.Ci.b5 cDb5 l3.ab5 1Wb5 14.tDc3 1Wb7

15.:a5 White had a pleasant edge.

5. c3

This looks modest but actually contains

more bite than S.b3 lLlf6 6.c4 a6 7.lLIc3

'it'b6

8.e3

9.'i'e2 ltJe4 1O.~b2 0-0

Il.ltJe4 ~e4 12.d3

Vz-Y.!

Foisor-Armas,

Rumanian Championship, Predeal 1988.

5. lLlf6

6. 'ti'b3

.tc6

115

7. d3 d6

Black should equalize here eventually.

See the following two games by Gutman.

• Gurman-Grunfeld, Beer Sheva zonal

1985: 8.~g5 Sie7 (8...0.bd7 when

9.lDfd2

~g2

IO.~g2

.!:tb8

is fine for

Black. In the game Black is in for a rough

time) 9.tLJfd2 ~g2 JO.~g2 a6 II.Qf6

~f6 12.a4 ted7 13.ab5 ab5

14.ti\a3

is.ess

lIal 16.lIal bc3 l7.bc3 i.e7

18.0.e4 ~b8 19.1bbd6! ~d6 20.'iWb5

We7

(20 ...

Wf8 21..!:ta8)

U1a7 ttJd7

22.d4+- cd4 23.'itg5 1-0

• Gutman-Kortchnoi. Hamburg 1997:

8.lDfd2 d5 9.e4 ~e7 lO.ed5 ed5 11.~f3

lLlbd7 12.d4 c4 1HWc2 0-0 and Black had

no problems.

White plays e4

As I stated above this is the rea) test for

1...b5. Of course,

.e4 is even stronger.

1. tbf3 b5

~b1

3. SibS

This is best. Quiet moves promise little.

Thus, Kamsky-Hodgson, Amsterdam

1996, went 3.d3 a6 4.g3 d6 5.a4

lDd7

6.Qh3 g6 7.0·0 ttJgf6 !tabS

ab5

.!:ta8

SLa8

IO.4ia3 'itb8 11..~g5

Sig7

12.'{i'd2

0-0

13.lIe

J!?

(according

Karnsky Black

is better

after

both 13.~d7 <8d7 14.£e7

lieS 15.Si..g5i.b2 and 13.1Ii'b4h6! 14.Sie3

c6) 13...c5?! 14.h4! now White is

slightly

better because b5 will become weak. Ac-

cording to the American 13...e6 and

13...e5 are both OK for Black.

More to the point is 3.e5. White gains spa-

ce and a tempo, impeding Black's deve-

lopment in the process. Black's must find

an improvement over the following (start

116

looking from move 5 onwards): 3.e5 a6

4.d4 e6 5.c4 bc4 6.Sic4 0.e7 7.~c3 d5

8.ed6 cd6 9.d5 e5 10.'i'b3;i; Hodgson-K.

Arkell, British Championship, Plymouth

1989.

3.... Sie4

4. 0-0

Merely transposing is 4.d4

li::f6 5.0-0.

4.l.6c3

speeds up development but loses

out on central influence: 4...~b7 5.d4 e6

6.0-0 ttJf6

7.~g5

~e7

~U:lel

0-0 9.~f6

~f6 10.lDe4 ~e7 II.c3 d6 12.'iVd3

tDd7

13..i.a4 tLif6= Spiridonov-K. Arkell,

Cannes 1998.

4.... fut6

Black has an interesting alternative here

in the form of 4...c6!? After 5.~a4 '{i'a5

6.ltJc3

Sig6

7.d4 c6 play develops along

totally different lines, Jackelen-Tischbie-

rek, German Bundesliga 1993/94.

5. d4 e6

6. c4

6.~e2

it.e7

7.c4 ~b7 8_{~c3 0-0 9.h3 d6

1O.~e3 ttJbd7 Il.b4 tLie4 12.lbe4 i.e4

l3.~d2 ~b 7 14.i.f3;!; Szekely-Psakhis,

Tallinn 1983.

ssa

7. 0c3 .Q.b7

:i~

1i'*

~.t~i.ti~i

This position has occurred several times

in grandmaster practice. Considering its

importance for the evaluation of the who-

le line we will continue

our

survey.

Line

l:te1

McNab-King, British Championship.

Eastbourne 1990. went S.h3 0-0 9.~e3 d6

1O.~el ti~bd71I.d5e512.b4g613 ..Jic6

'it'c8

14.e5 deS 15.he5

Qc6 16.ddi

lLlc5

I7.lLid5 ttJd5 18.Wd5 J:[d8 19.'ife5

li\e6

20.tbd4

~d6

21.'tli'f6

lte8

2Vt::;f5

gf5

23.~d4lf',d4 24.~g5

wn'l

25.~h6 V:z-l6.

8. ...

0-0

9. d5

9.~g5 d6

1O.~d3

IL~.a4 tLJbd7

2.%lad

was slightly better for White

Keulinghaus-Libeau, Bad

Worishofen

1989. However, the

immediate

10...

tiJbd7

is stronger. White may consider the prop-

hylactic

9.~a4.

9. ...

c6!

The right idea, Black now has good

counterplay. Enjoy the following win by

Giorgadze:

10.de6 tLie6 11.£t4 !:te8

12.~d6 ~d6 13.~d6 tDaS 14.b3 a6

15.~a4

15.

.Q.a6

]le6

15...

£1'3

16.gf3.

16_..~e4! 17.be4 l:Le4

18.~d3

't!fc7

19.1:tacl llh4 20.f4 'i!Vf4~ 21.h3 'tWh6

22:~e3 g5 23...t>g2 dS 24.l:tcd1 tLih5

2S.!:thl 1i'g7 26.~f3 tLlf4 27.Wf1

l:tc8

28.tCb1 tLlh3 29.~d7 l:1d8

30.~e6

31.....g3 l:1h5 32_~b7 ~U533Jld2 nf3

34_'iWc7 ....,6 35J%h2

tH8

36.1:I.g2 h5

37.Aa6

f4 38.11g1 'tWa1 39."b6 J:[aS

40.ng3 na6 4U!Vb8 ~97 42.%113g13

43.nb2 lla2 44:~eS ~g6

0-1

Bclov-Giorgadze,

Hamburg 1995.

Line

8. ~a4 0-0

Or B.d5 0-0

9.~a4.

:i'il

'lV

ii.iii.iii

Black's position is fairly solid. but White

has gained considerable space. How

should Black continue his development?

Attractive at first sight is 9...~a6 follo-

wed

tile5.

However, this does not meet

the demands of the position since Black

has now no means of pressurizing dS.

See

what

happened in Wojtkiewicz-Bron-

stein. Reykjavik 1994: 9...ttJa6 10.a3!

lOC5 II..~c2

12.~e3 edS 13.cdS g6

14.llel

tL;h5 15.0.eS 0,g7

16.i.d4

While

117

was clearly better and won.

Correct is

plan with

~b4

exchange

the c3-knight that

defends

d5.

when Whi-

te is going

pin the f6-knight. A sharp

and original

position where

Black

cert-

ainly has

chances but needs to defend

well. See [he

following

(WO

examples:

• Eingom-Semeniuk, Kiev 19R4:

9 li\86 10.~el 10.a3!

prevents

~b4.

1O .Q.b4 11.~g5 ltJc5 12.i.c2 ~c3

13.bc3 d6 14..i.h4 h6 15.tDd4 White

has good attacking chances.

15...edS

16.ti}f5 tt:Jcd7 17.cd5 ~e8 18.~d2 .id5

19.~a4! An

annoying pin.

19...~e4

19...

20Jle

.Q.e6

was

the

alterna-

tive. 20.

.if6

tUf6 21.i.e8 .tfS 22..ic6

and White won.

• Speelman-Hodgson, London 1985:

9...~b4 1O.~gS .ic3

10...

h6 II..ih4 g5

12..!Dg5 hg5 13...tg5 was given as un-

dear

by Speelman.

11.bc3 h6 12.kh4

lha6 13.1le1 lbc5 14.~c2 ed5!?

14...

see above. lS.cd5 ~d5 16.:e5 16..Q.f6

i.f3

17.~h7 ~h7 18.~c2 Ae4 19.~e4

~f6

20.~e6

'i'g6 21.~g6

fg6 is better

for

White -

Speelman.

16...i.f3!

17.1I)'f3

d6 18.llf5 tLicd7 19.h3 :tb8

19...

'lWe7.

20.h4 tbeS? This is bad.

According

Speelman,

20 ...'ii'c8

21 ..if6 tL:f6 22.~f6

gf6 23J:tel with

equality

was correct.

21.'i!ff4

liJd5?! 22.~d8

Ci,f4

23.~c7

tLle2 24.<;Pf1 llb2 25.i.d6 tLlc4 26..if8

Wf827.11b5 1·0.

Odds and ends

lOf3

2. b3

Now

an Englishwoman

continued

sensi-

bly with 2...tt:lt6 3.c4 bc4 4.bc4

cS 5.0c3

ta:6

6.e3 g6

7.SiJ...c2

Jd..g7

8.0-00-0 9.J::rbI

118

d6 IO.d3 ~d7 11.~b2 J::rb8 12.~1 J::rbl

13.'tIfbl 'tIfa5

~-Ijl

Sakhatova-S.Arkell.

Manila Olympiad 1992. Obviously inspi-

red

the Karolyi-Hodgson game the in-

ventor of

5.'8a4

versus the Gtiinfeld went

berserk in the following entertaining

game:

Santiago Roa Alonso

• Ashot Nadanian

Lina res

1996

1.tbf3 bS 2.b3 ~b7

3.~b2

e6 4.e3

S.c4

~f6 6.g3

6...

SiJ...e7 7.~g2

0-0

would

be tine for

Black,

but is not as

much fun as

the text.

7..ig2

8.lDh4

~g2 9.tLlg2 J::Ig810.0-0 IO.h3 h5 10..•h5

11.f3 tLlh7 A single-minded attempt at

taking advantage

White's weakened

control over h3 and f3. 12.lOf4

~g5

13.1g4 hg4 14.a3 ~c6 1S.ab4 xb4

16.d4

CUe7 17:iWe2

'i'h6 18.~d3 ~d6

19.c5

Winning a piece or allowing an

attack?

19...~g3 20.hg3 (£)g5

One can-

not deny that Black's play has a certain

consistency about

it. 21.lDd2 ~h8

22.<;Pf2 lDf5 23.<J.!e1 23.l:th I tUh3

24..l::th3 ....h3

23 ...

tC:g3

24.

"g4 ..-h2

25.'~d1 25.l:tf2 ~hl 26.tUfi 25....!D5e4