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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Shahade-Blehm, Paget Parish 2001.

• 9.~g4!? fie7 1O.fLd7 'ilfd7 11...~.f6

~f6 l2.lDd5 ~d8 Rivera-Glavina,

Salamanca

1998.

More testing deserves 7.tZlO ~c6 8.~g5

tZlbd7 9.tZld2!? planning .ae4, Stoiea-

Petre, Romania 2000.

7. ... ~c6

Interesting is 7...~e6!? 8.tDd5 ~d5 9.ed5

a6 IO.lfJc3

l1'Ibd7

11.0-0 g6

Zaragatski-

Vioreanu, Balatonlelle 2002.

8. ~g5

This is stronger than 8.tbd5 ttJd5 9.ed5

il.b5 I0.~b5 q~d7I 1.0-0

7 12JIi'g4 g6

13.~d7 'tWd7

14.'ifd7 ~d7 15..Q.e3

:'hc8~ Spata-Paglilla. Vicente Lopez

2000. Instead of 13.~d7 White should of

course play 13..ih6 after 13...f5 we have

reached an unclear position, Van der

Wiel-Kupreichik, Yerevan 1996.

8. ...

9. ~a3

Here 9.Af6 gf6 10.ttJa3 deserves to be

tested.

9. ... tUbd7

To continue even longer in 'Sveshnikov

fashion' with 9...bS is not a good idea.

Black equalized in Kirik-Jurkiewicz,

Baku 2002, after

io.cas

tDbd7 I l.e3

tt.~b612.tDc2 li;bd5 13.ed5 .Q.d7. How-

ever, White gets a pleasant positional

edge after 1O.~f6! 'iff6 II.~d5 'Wd8

12.0-0 1Le7

13.c4!!., Solozhenkin-

Kupreichik, St

Petersburg

996.

In general it must be said that il is not so

clear whether the bishop on c6 (which

true enough attacks e4) does not belong

on e6 as in the Sveshnikov proper.

10. tlJc4

Here 10.~g4 deserves attention as in the

game Naiditsch-Bosch, Schaan 1998.

The game Guroff-Roski, Bundesliga

1992, went lO.tDdS ~d5 Il.ed5 '&'a5

l2.c3 ..-d5 I3.'itd5 tLld5 14.~f3 CiJc7

lS.~b7:b8

t6.~c6

:b6

unclear.

10....

11. ~f6 tZlf6

And the position should be about equal.

Gomez Gomez-Andres Gonzalez.

Aviles 2000, White got a slight edge after

12.~d3 ~c7 13.0·0 ~e7 14.ltJe3 g6

15.tbed5 tLld5 16.tbd5 ~d5 17.'it'd5.

However, the immediate

2...~e7 looks

stronger.

Variation C

6. ~c4

Sozin players

witt be tempted to answer

5...~d7 with 6.~c4. After6 ...e6 wedo in-

deed get positions familiar to Sozin or

6.~c4 Najdorf players. Note that

Kupreichik, here and in other lines, often

'takes advantage' of 5...~d7 with moves

like lCa6-c5 and "'d8-e8. Also possible

179

after 6.~c4 is Ihe attempt to reach the

Dragon.

6. ... e6

Possible is

6...li\c6

7.)iLb3 g6 which is a

theoretical line from the Sozin known as

slightly better for White. The immediate

6...g6 worked well

Fedorov-

Kupreichik, Minsk 1993 after 7.h3 j_g7

8.0-0 0-0 9..ib3 ttJa6!? IOJle I ttJc5

I Ut.g5 h6 12..ih4 nc8 13.tDd5 e6 and

after the exchanges

f6 play was equal.

Instead of 7.h3 it is of course more dan-

gerous 10play 7.0 ~g7

8.~e3

0-09.'it'd2

ttJa6?! (9...tDc6

is the Dragon) 10.0-0-0

1%c8II.Jl.b3 tUc5

12.<.9bl

'(!fe8 13.Jl.h6

and White is slightly better Gorelov-

Kupreichik,

Berlin 1992.

7. ~b3

7.0-0 ~e7 8.f4

tUe6

(.J~hl 0-0 1O.~e3

Cz.je4!?

II.tbe4 d5

was

Areshchenko-

Heberla, Oropesa

del Mar 200 I. Instead

of 9.~h

9.~e3 0-0 I0.~b3 would be a

regular

Sozin,

Kengis-Kupreichik, Bundesliga 1995,

went 7..ie3 a6 !L~b3 b5 9.0-0 fie7 10.f4

II.e5

be3 12.ef6 ~f6 13.be3 tL:.c6and

Black was slightly better.

180

7.... a6

In Velirnirovic-Tosic, Subotica 2000,

Black went? ...ti:la6!? 8.f4lDe5 9.e5lDfe4

10.0.e4 tne4

II.

'it'0

tDc5

12.0-0

13..Q.e3with sharp play.

8. 14

tDc6

9. .ie3 bS

10.

"f3

10.a3 i.e7 11.0-00-0 12.f5 e5 13.tUc6

i.c6 was equal in Pozdniakov-

Kupreichik, St Petersburg 1998.

10....

'iWc81?

Covering the squares c6 and e6.

11. 0-0 ~e7

12. I:lael

0-0

And Black was ok in Hendriks-

Kupreichik,

Groningen 1995 (see the

Study Material).

Variation D

6. ~e3

A natural move, especially considering

the popularity of 6 ..ae3 against the

Najdorf. Most critical here is the 'Najdorf

sequence' 6...

i:g4 7.~g5 h6 8.jl_h4 g5

9.~g3. Black ought to be fine here, since

5 ~7 is probably more useful than

a6.

6. •.. <1\g4

When Black goes for a Rauzer-like set-up

he must realize

that

he has played the

bishop to d7 rather early

the game. Nor

only does this mean that the bishop can-

not be developed to h7. it may actually

stand in the way of the f6-knight (when a

quick g4-g5 is executed). An example is

Nisipeanu-Kupreichik. Bad

Worishofen

1995, which continued:

6...

a6 7.0 e6

8.g4 h6 (necessary now) 9.• d2 tlX6

10.0-0-0 "c7 ll.h4 lbe5 12.... g2 g6

13.g5 and White is better.

After 6...e5 7.tUf3!·! ~c6 8.~c4~ ~e7

9.ti'd3 White had a small advantage in

Ionescu-Kutnik, Bucharest 1999.

course,

6...lOc6

is playable but again you

must realize that the bishop may not be

optimally placed on d7 in this English At-

tack (~e3 .....d2. 0-0-0,

[3,

g4) type of po-

sition.

7. ~g5

Just like in the Najdorf White can play

7.~cl aiming for7 ...lbf6 8.f3.

8. ~h4

9. .Q.g3 .Q.g7

After

9 ... tDc6

IO.SiLe2

e.C;ge5

II.tZlf5 SiLfS

l2.cf5 it'd7 13.tDd5 0-0-0 14.tDe3 Ji..g7

15.c3 White had a slight edge in

Richagov-Kengis, Parnu 11 1996.

10. ~e2

The move 1O..ib5 (which takes 'advan-

tage' of 5...i..d7 rather than 5...a6) gives

Black excellent compensation for the

pawn after 1O...li;c6 Il.tUc6 bc6 12..i(c6

.ic6 13.ft'g4 "a5. The move to.h3

(which is also played in the Najdorf ver-

sion)

should

be answered hy

IO...

lilf6

rather than 10...lDe5 11.tDf5!'

equal merit to the text

10.'it'd2.

After IO...tDc6 II.tDb3 there are two op-

tions:

• 1l ...

a512.a4l:tc8l3.f3lDge5

t4.lL"\d5

tUb4! Wehmeier-Atalik, Groningen

1997, or

• ll...lbge5 12.h4 gh4 13.~h4 tUg6

14.~g3 Senff-Belotelov, Budapest 1998,

when Black should play 14...h5 instead of

the wcak game continuation 14...tDce5?

15.f4li\g4 16.f5 ~6e5 17.0-0-0±.

10. ...

In Sulipa-Kupreichik, Groningen 1997,

play was unclear after 1O...'itc8 II.tild5

CDe5

12.c3 tl\bc6

13.'1\tS~J5

l4.ef5 0-0

15.f6!,?

11. ~g4 hg4

After 11....tg4 12.0 Black has 10S1the

tempo a7-a6 compared to the

Najdorf.

With 11...hg4 Black is aiming to demon-

strate that 5...i.d7 has been more useful

!han 5...a6 is in the Najdorf. Another im-

portant difference between these moves is

that the b6 square has not been weakened.

181

12.

e-o

Black

has

adequate compensation for

the

exchange after

l2.ttJd5

tDc6

13.~f5 -tfS

14.ef5 -tb2 l5Jtbl ~a5 16.'ilYd2 ~d4

17:.waS ttJa5

18.ttJc7 ~d7

19.tLla8 l:ta8.

Again this whole line exists in the Najdorf

too.

12. lDc6

13. [uf5

We have been following Timman-Bosch,

Amsterdam

2000.

Instead of l3 ...

~f5

14,ef5

Qc3

[S.bc3

~e5 when Black still

had too play accurately to keep the bal-

ance, it would have been better to play

13...

.1i.c3

14.bc3

'iVaS

IS:~'g4

1'6

and

Black is fine.

Variation E

With

6.f3

White prevents

the knight

sortie

and plans the English Attack with

~e3,

'i!r'd2

and

0-0-0.

Interestingly, in

game W!lhls-Kupreichik (Velden

1996)

the move order was: 6.~e3

lbg4

7.~c I

~f6 8.f3.

182

6..•.

The Dragon is not such a good idea now,

since Black has already committed him-

self to an early

i..d7,

while White is going

for

the

'Yugoslav attack' anyway. Some

alternatives:

• 6...'CWb67.tub3

~c6

~UWe2

9...ae3

~c7 1O.'~f2 Jte7 Il.g4

12.0-0-0

and

white was slightly better

Wahls-Kupreichik,

Velden

1996 (be-

cause

the

above-mentioned

move order

it was in fact

8...~b6

and

so on).

• 6...e6 7..te3 a6 8.g4 h6 9.~d2 It::c6

10.0-0-0 'i"c7 II.h4 0-0-01? was

Barbitsky-Kupreichik, St Petersburg

2000.

While instead of Black's last

Perunovic-Markovic, Valjevo 2000 went

11...4"'a5 12.11gl g6 U.tDh3 kc6

V2-V2.

On the whole White ought to

slightly

better

these positions since Black is

obliged to play a7-a6 anyway. Hence, the

Najdorf with 6.f3 should be more flexible

since

Black

does not need to

play

~d7 at

such an early stage.

• 6...th6

7.~e3 1:tc.:8 8.'Wd2 t£.\d4

9.gd4 e5 10.~e3;!; Xie Jun-Riernersma,

Breda pff 1999

7. 4Jb3

The alternative is 7.tL.dbS i.e6

(7...

~c6

8.a4 a6

9.lL;a3

dS is OK

for Black.

Storna-Antoniewski,

Glogow

2001. but

8.a4 is just

weak and should be replaced

by 8.~gS) 8.~g5

9.tba3

(or

.af6

gf6

1O.lLIa3

bS 11.ltJdS)

9...tlJc6

(possible is

9...

ltJbd7 10.lLlc4 'tii'c7

l1.ttJe3

.ae7)

10.tL\c4 and White was slightly better

Vajda-Kosanovic,

Budapes12002.

7. ... .Q.c6

is more

flexible to

play

7...~e7 8.~e3

0-0 when Black keeps the option of play-

ing the bishop to e6 instead of to c6. This

worked well in Sax-Ivanisevic. Bosnia

Hercegovina

2001,

after 9.~d2

a5 10.a4

~e6~

u.ass

lUc6

12.0-0

Cub4

13....

'iYc8 14JUd 1 d5

play

was about

equal.

Likewise, Mamedov-Izoria, Baku 2002,

went9.ke2 a5 lO.a4~e6!?

11.~d21lf'c~

12.0-0 tDa6

13.f4

ef4 14.

..if4

~b4

when

Black was somewhat better already.

8. ~e3

Weaker are:

• 8.tlJd5 ~d5

9.ed5

i.e7 1O.~e3 0-0

II. 'tItd2 tiJbd7 12.~e2

'iVc8

13.c4 ~d8!

Turzo-Blehm, Calicut

199B.

and

• 8.~gS

tiJbd7

9.1M2

~e7 lO.h4 0-0

II.g4

12.a4 ~b6 l3.ti~.b5 d5!

Lawrenz-Kengis, Travernunde 1996.

B. Si..e7

9. "'d2 a5

10. 84 0-0

11. 0-0-0

tt.',86

12.

'*f2

Stronger than 12.g4 tLlb4 13.g5 tbd7

14.~bl

lLlb6 IS.~bS ~bS 16.~b6 'it'b6

17.tnb5 with equality, Hajnal-Kosanovic,

Eger 2002.

12.... tDb4

Interesting is the immediate 12...1We8

J3.i.b5 (13.tLla5) 13...

tLlC7!

l4.~c6 hc6

IS.i.b6 ttJe6 16.lUa5

with compensa-

tion, Berthelot-Efimov, Monaco

2002.

13.

..weB

Kengis twice had this position as Black.

Both games

went

14.gS tZlh5 15.tbb5 llc8

with unclear complications (see the study

material). To be

investigated

14.

..ib5!?

since 14...d5 is worse

for

Black after

lS.ed5 ~b5

16.d6! Socko-Jakubiec,

Polanica

Zdroj

1999.

Variation F -

'the rest'

FI)

6.f4

F2)

6.g3

F3) 6.h3

F4) 6.1:IgI

Variation F1

This threatens a quick e5. so Black is

more or less forced to play

6.... tDc6

7. ~e2

Also possible is 7.lt:lf1 to play for a typi-

cal attacking scheme: i.d3, 0-0, ife l-h4.

Kupreichik once achieved

good posi-

tion with 7...e6 8.a3 fie7 9.~d3 ifb6!?

preventing White's natural development,

Morawietz-

Kupreichik.

Bundesliga

1997.

7.... g6

This

is logical

as a classical

set-up (with

i.e2, i.e3 and f4) achieves little against

the Dragon.

8. ~e3 ~g7

9. 'ft"d2 0-0

10. 0-0

We have been following Mikhalchishin-

Solak. Nova Gorica 2002. Having spent a

tempo on .id7 is actually a disadvantage

in this type of Dragon. Still, Black can

equalize

now with

1O...

lUd4! II.fLd4

fLc6.

Variation F2

6. g3

Black any worries. I would recommend

the standard 'Kupreichik' method: 6...e5

and 7...iJ..c6.

6.... e5

Black often goes for the Dragon with

6...

(6...tUc6

7.iJ..g2 g6

8.lbde2

'-c8

9.0-0 h5!'! was unclear in Kofidis-Atalik,

lIioupolis 1995), after 7..Q.g2~g7 8.0-0

he can solidly continue with

8...lbc6

9.liJde2 (9.liJb3 0-0 10.l'le I a5 Il.a4liJb4

12.tbb5 iJ..g4

13.0

iJ..e6 was

Guseinov-

Blehm, Aviles 2000) 9...0-0 lO.h3 J:[c8

Il.b3 lUe5

when White was perhaps

slightly better in Vladimir Georgiev-

Kveinis, Capelle la Grande 1996. How-

ever, more adventurous (and more dan-

gerous) is 8..:ik'c8!? 9.r.te I h5 10.li)d5 h4

as in Stepanov-Blehrn, Oropesa del Mar

1998.

7. lUb3

There are other knight moves to consider:

• 7.tt:ldb5 JLc6 8.~g5 a6 9.~f6 gf6

lO.liJa3 f5 is unclear.

• 7.tt:Jf5 ~f5 8.ef5 d5 9.~g2 ~b4 is

probably about equal.

• 7.liJde2 .ic6 8.i.g2

9.0-0 lDbd7

Jens-Bosch, Dieren 2000. White should

now play 1O.i.g5 h6 II.Qffi 4)f6 with

equality.

7. .Q.c6

8. ~g2

soa

9. 0-0

0-0

10.

~e3

IO ....

c2 ~bd7 ) l.a4 b6 I2.J:[dI a6

13.i.e3 iJ..b7 14.f41:tc8 15J5 J:[e8 16.g4

h6 with approximate equality.

Jakovenko-Solak, Yerevan 2000.

10.... tL:bd7

And Black was very comfortable

A modest move that should not cause Wikstrom-Besch, Gausdal 2002.

184

Variation F3

6. h3

Your next move is largely a matter of taste.

6. ... eS

Definitely playable is

6...

tLic6 7.g4 ~4

8.'e.t'd4 e5 and 9.....Q_c6. In Stoma-

Radziewicz -s Glogow 200). Black went

for the Dragon. After 6 ...g6 7.g4 h6

lL~g2 tl:}c6 9.

/:de2 §J.g7 )0.0-0 tileS

II.Whl g5 12.tbg3 h5! I3.gh5 g4

\4.h4

lDhS it turned out that White's king was

perhaps not so safe on the kingside.

7. l/';dbS

After 7. ttJde2 .Q.c6 Black obstructs the

g4. ~g2.lbg3 set-up that White was aim-

ing for.

7....i.c6 8.~g5 a6

9.C.i:;a3

(iibd7

10.tbc4

h61'.~h4 g512.~g3

tDe4

and after the subsequent exchanges play

is completely equal. Watson-Kupreicbik,

vaskyla 1991.

Variation F4

6. :g1

While playable against the Najdorf this

move should be less dangerous here.

Black has many good moves: 6...g6.

6...e5. 6...h6!? or even 6...hS!'!. In one

the few practical examples Black

played

tDc6

g4 tLJd4

B•

'ifd4

tLJg4!?

.i.

In the Najdorf this is bad because of

9.1L1dS,but here the square b6 has not

been weakened. So Bezgodov tries the

following (dubious) exchange sacrifice.

9J:t94 .tg4 10.e5 St.f3 11.~f4 de5

12.'t!i'e5'ti'd613.tUb5 't!i'e514.~e5l:td8

White clearly has some compensation but

Black should not be toO worried.

Bezgodov-Kurnosov, Samara 2002.

Study Material with 6.~g5

Alexander Zubov

• Kamil Miton

Oropesa del Mar jr '999

1.e4 c5 2.lbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tDd4 ti:;f6

5.~3

~d7

6...tg5 e6

7.f4

h6N

7...0.c6

M.lC.db5 Wb8 9.e5 deS 10.~f6 gf6

IUi'd2 £5 12.0-0-0 ~d8 13.fe5 tbe5

14."d4~

Van den Doel-Kupreichik.

Groningen 1996 8.i.h4

8.1H6

8...liJc6?!

g.~dbS "'b8 10.e5 deS 11..Q.f6 gf6

1VDe4 12.~d2!? 12...i.e713.l!t'd2 tL:id4

14..fe5!? 14.ti',d4 ed4 15.~d4 ~f4

14...~b5

14..

.fe5?

15.ti'.,d4

ed4 16.'¥i'd4

15.0-0-0 ~e6 16.ef6 ~f8 16...~d8

17.~b5+- 17.84

ti:.d4!

18.~e4 18.'i'd4

'6'f4 18...tDf5 19...tb5 jLb5 20.abS 'fWd8

21."'f4

-..a5 22.Wb1 h5 23.l:!:d3

lld8

24.:thd1 l:%d325J~d3 ~el 26.~82 'ii'a5

Y2-V2

o Uwe Rau

• Viktor Kupreichik

Bad Worishofen 2001

5.tDc3 It.d7 6...Q.gSe6 7.f4 7"~d3 a6

8.Qc2 h6 9.~h4

fi::.c6

I0.l'Lic6 ~c6

I' .0-0-0 b5 12.'$'e3

WaS

13.lDd5!±

Marinkovic-Solak, Herceg Novi 200 I;

7.f3 a6 8.'i¥d2

1ie7

9.0-0-0 b5 IO.WbJ

b4 II..if6 (Il.tDce2 tiJe4!) 1l ....if6

12.tDce2 ~b6:j: Tomczak-Szczech-

OWic7.,

Barline

2002 7...tLlc6 B.lZ:.f3

8.o1_)db58...

9.~f6 ""6 10.'fi'd2 0-0-0

10...a6

7.... d2 11.h4

~e7 12.0-0-096

13.¢'bl

13......

g7 14.'i!Ve3 wb8 15.~5

l:!:c8

16.g3

J:thd817Jlh2

tZ,a5!

18.~d7 IId7

19....

d4 'ifg8!? 20....84

t;',e6

21.l:hd2

a6~ 22.lI,e2 IIde7 23.e3

95!

24.hg5

hg5 25.t;,ed4 9f4 26.gf4 'W'g4 27.e5?

4'id4 28.t1:,d4de5 29.1e5 'ilfe4 3O.~a1

'*¥e531.a3

-efg5

32.Wb3 e5 33.~f3

.'4

34.W'd5 f6 35.tLoe1

!1d8-+

36.'*92

I1d2

37.lld2

e4 38.t;'-,e2 .tc5 39.¢>a2 e3

40.J:td8 rJ;a7 41.'I'g8 'W'e442.tta8 q.;b6

43.-.b3 '\t:e6

44.tt.\d4

.td4 45."a4 b5

45...r;t>d546Jld8 We6

47.rLd4 46.rLa6

~d7

47.t6'b5

<t;e7

48.cd4 !:id7 49.• c5

<;Pf7 50.'iWb6? 'fWd5 51.We1 "'d4

1.e4 e5 2.luf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4

016 52.,*e6 wg7 53J~85?

:b7 0-1

186

Lev Psakhis

• Viktor Kupreichik

Lenk 1991

1.e4 cS 2.liJf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.~d4 0f6

5.tt~c3

~d7 6.~gS e6 7.~d2 a6 8.14 h6

.tf6

.f6

10.0-0-0

tt.;c6

11.~';f3 0-0-0

12.h4 g6 13Ji"e3 Vltie7 14.

ja4 .te8

15.~b6 ~b8 16.l:td3 d5! 17.a3! 17.ed5

tt.Jb4 IUtb3

(18.1i'e5

'llfc7+)

18...

'i!Vc7+

17...

de4 18.~e4 ~g7

19.<1lc4'i'e5 20.l:td8 tc.d8 21.tL.ce5 ..'.tc6

22.• d4!

22.lt"c6 ti"\c6'f

22..JIVd4

23.ltJd4 .te4 24J~h3

24...g5 24...~e5! 25.fe5

t:~c6~

25.hg5

hg5 26.:lh8 ~h8 27.g3

We7

28...t'd2 16

29..!Def3 94 30.tL.h4 15 31.c3 ~d4

32.cd4

tUc6

33.'itie3 0.e7 34.'£92 ~d6

3S.~d2 ~d5 36.~e3

Ci;16

37.~e1 b5

38.b4 ~e6 39.'.M2 '>t>b640.We1 as

41.~ ab4 42.ab4 ~b1 43.~g2 ~a2

44.d5 ~d5 45.tL:d5 Cild5 46.~d5 ed5

47.<;pe3 Y2-~

Viktor Bologan

• Vadim Zviagintsev

Azov 1996

1.e4 c5 2.0f3 d6 3.d4 ed4 4.tLJd4

l£;f6

5.tL:c3

.td7 6..tg5 eS 7.~d2 a6 8.0-0-0

h6 9..i.f6 'i!¥f610.f4

tL:c6 11.lL;13 0-0-0

12.h4 <;9b8 13.g4 ~e7 14.~e4 ~c8

15.g5 g6 16.f5?! hg5 17.hg5 r1h1

18.::1h1 ef5 19.ef5 ~f5 20.r1h7 tlJe5

21.~d5 .ae6 2V;\d4 ~d5 23.lL!d5~d7

24.b3 Ae7 25.~b2 %te8 26.'i!¥14QdB

27.lt:l13'i!fe6 28.~e5 'i!fe5 29.~e5 deS

30.l:tf7 .2.g5 31.1'197 l:te6 32.l:tgB ~a7

33.c4 e4 34.c5 :leS 35.c6 be6 36.l:tg1

<;t>b831.tL.b4~f6!

38.tL:c6

wcB 39.~a7 ~d8 40.Ilg6 ne6

0-1

RalfLau

• Vikter Kupreichik

Munster 1997

1.e4 c5 2.(2.f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tL:d4 lilf6

5.Q)c3

~d7 6.~g5 e6 7."Wd2a6 8.f4 h6

9..116 'i'f6 10.0-0-0 0.c6 11.~6 ~c6

12.g3 ~d8 13.~92 ~a5 14.:1he1 0-0-0

lS.a3 g6 16.:le3 g5 17.wb1 g1418.gf4

Itg8 19.~13 h5 20.'i'e2 11421.~h5 ~e8

22.l:led3 .te7

23.~t3

~b8 24/~)a2 l:lc8

25.'i!fd2 'ft'c5 26.<;Pb1:1g1 27.l'!g1 "'gl

28.<;Pa2"ttcS 29.~g4 ~f6 30.h3 'ft'c4

31.wb1 ~c3 32.:c3

'i'f1

33.'>t>a2

aea

34.'t'c3

.i.c6

34 ...'~Wf4'?

3Hth8+-

187

35....d2 fie4 36.b3 fics 37.'i'd3 <t;a7

38.~2 tr'f2 39.e5 d5 40.fS ~f4 41.fe6

'tIt'e5

42.~a2

fe6

43.'li'h7 Wb6

44.~h4

~e3 45....d8 <t;a7 46.~d6 e5 47.b4

~f4 48."'c5

~a8

49.84 ..Q.a4

50.fVc8

lhi-%

Robert Ciemniak

• Edwin Kengis

Suwalkl 1999

1.e4

2.tl~f3d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tDd4 tilf6

s.ees

.i.d7

6.~g5

7.~d2

86 8.f4 h6

9..116

'i'f6 10.£f3

tt.Jc6

11.0-0-0

0-0-0

12M

12.Whl .Q.c8 13.'l!fe3 VJHe714.h4

g6 15.g3 Wb8 16.J:lh2

VIIe7

I7J:thd2

.Q.g7=FTimmermans-Bosch, Hoogeveen

1998

12...

g6 13:~Ve3 'ii'e7 14.g3 ~e8

1S.nh2 ~b8 16Jlhd2

'lWc717.e57!

18.tL!e2

<CaS

19.tL:ed4

tUc4

20...Q.c4

'fi'c4.P+

21.~b1 gb4 22.:l.h2

~d7

23.1:Ie1Itc8 24.c3

ge7

2S.1:Ihc2?!

"'c7

26.e4

dc4 27.Itc4

~c4

28.l:lc4 ltc4

29.tDd2 neTt 30.tt.Je4~hc8

31.a3

ses

32.~d6

..Q.d433.'S'd4 1:1c1

34.';1;>a2

n8c7

35.~e3

35...

..Q.c6!

36:~c1 .td5 37.£c4 l:I.c4

38.

"iWb1

:'c1 0·1

188

ODaniel Mieles Palau

• Jan Teplitsky

81ed 01

2002

1.e4 c5

2.~f3

d6 3.d4 ttlfS 4.tt~3 cd4

5.~d4 Qd7 6.Qg5

7.~d2 a6 8.0-0-0

8.f4 h6 9.~f6

VIIf6

10.0·0-0 ~d8

(I0 ...

0.e6)

l1.g3

tLJc6

12.~g2

1J..e7

13.h4

VIIe7

14.~bl ne8 15.l:thel 0·0=

Horvath-Antoniewski, Aviles 2000

8...

9..b3 9.~h4'!

ti.:e4!

10.'it'i'4 tLJg5

11.'l!fe3 .J;_e7 12.f4 ibh7 13..i.e7 'ite7+

Tomczak-Heberla, Trzebinia 2002;

9..Q.f6 ~f6 10.Jlc4

tLJc6 11.0e6 ~e6

12.l:the I ..Q.e7 Zarychta-Szczechowicz,

Lubnie wice 2002

9...£g4 10.f4 ~e3

11:'lWe3

.Q.e712.wbl

12.0.r3

tDc6

13.M

VIlaS 14.~c4 ~c5+ Van Geffen-Bosch,

Dieren 2002

12...tLlc6 13.e5 dS

14.g4

..Q.c5=i=15.tLlce2 lirb6 16.~g2

tD85!

17.~c1

ii..b5 18.b3

$.e2!

19.11'oe2 Q\c4

20Jld3

:l.c8 21.~a1

~.a3 22:~'gl

~.b2

23.wbl

lDa3!-+

24.~b2

aea

25.~1

~gl 26.1:191::1e227.~f3 %lh228.11c1

1:Ic2 29.1:1c3

.!'lc330.ltc3 ~d7 0·1

Ferdinand Heifers

• Miroslav Markovic

Sweden 2003

1.e4

Vlj13

d6 3.d4 004 4.ll2d4

tDf6

S.tL::c3~d7 6.~g5 e6 7:~'d2 a6

7...Qe7

8.0-0-0 (8.tDdb5 ~b5 9..Q.b5 liX6

10.0-0 0-0 II Jhd I :c8 12.~e2 a6;!;/=

Kokarev-Kozlov,

Voronezh 2002)

8...

9.f4 ~c7 J().'iWel .ic6 I Utgl lDhd7

12.g4 h6 13..if6

.ifo

14.li)d5 ~.d5

15.ed5 e5 Draoui-Georgiev, Cliehy

2003

8.13

9.0-0-0

~e7

10.

.i.e3

1O.h4

b4 I

tUbI ~b6 Zude-Kupreicbik,

Bundesliga 1993; JO.~d3 0-0 11.h4 h4

1ViJce2 a5 13.g4 ttJa6+ Gutn-Jaracz,