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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Section I: The left hook a3!?

This section caters for l.e4 players who

are looking for weapons against

1 .•.

eS,

the Pirc, or the Sicilian Four Knights. In

these first

chapters

will demonstrate

that an

early

a3 will pose your opponent

some new and unexpected problems.

Chapter

deals with, what

have called,

the

Gunsberg Variation of the Four Knights.

1.e4

e5 2.lf'f3 lLlc6

3.tbc3

tDf6

4.a3

Compared to 4.~bS and 4.d4 the move

4.a3 docs not make a big impression at first

sight. However, it is

clever waiting move

that, if you don't mind the

use of

hyperbo-

le,

places Black in

kind of

Zugzwang.

should decide in which opening the move

'a6' (White's extra tempo) is not useful.

Black is in a real quandary here!

The idea behind the move 5.a3 in Chapter

2 is more straightforward.

1.e4 d6 2.d4 4"':163.ttJc3 g6

4.14 .tg7 5.a3

With his last little pawn move White has

prevented Black from leashing out with

S...cS (a main line after S.~f3). This

the

SOS

way

play the Austrian attack.

Plenty

strong grandmasters are playing

this line with considerable success.

In Chapter

we will meet the

Sicilian

Four Knights

with 6.a3.

1.e4 c5

2.tLJf3

.:tJc63.d4 cd4

4.~d4

tL:f6

5.~c3 e6 6.a3

Together with Chapter 12, this book pro-

vides the reader with a repertoire against

'he Sveshnikov. Most 6 move alternatives

for White allow 6...~b4. Clearly, 6.a3 has

a point there!

is mainly a move order

weapon, though, and ample lines are sug-

gested for the interested reader.

CHAPTER 1

The Gunsberg Variation

ltJ ltJ

8~8 ~~~

]l~W~

NICKEYS01.5

4.a3: an awesome waiting move

Let me start off

expressing my

sos-

admiration

for

theoretical contribution

made by Isidor Gunsberg. Gunsberg scored

decent

result in a World Championship's

match versus Steinitz, New York 1&90191.

In the Four Knights, Gunsberg was fond of

the

awesome move

4.a.1!

Now before you faJl off your chair laug-

hing and skip the rest of this chapter, al-

low me to explai n. The little pawn move is

a waiting move of superior order: While

is playing Black but with a

very

useful

ex-

tra tempo. A brief scheme to convince

you of

the possibilities of

4.<.l3:

• 4...~b4,

the 'Spanish

Four Knights is

prevented;

• 4 ~c5

is answered

5.<1\e5!;

• 4 d5, the 'Scotch Four Knights: is met

by 5.~b5

when a3 is useful and the oppo-

nent is lured into unknown territory;

• 4 ...g6, the 'Glek variation', is somew-

hat under a cloud these days anyway, be-

sides White has some extra ideas here too.

• 4...a6,

provokes White into playing

5.d4! (ed4

and..Qb4 is no longer on);

• 4 ...d6 and 4 ...

sa,

are perhaps best,

however Black is forced into passivity af-

ter 5.d4.

Before we stan our investigation proper

let me briefly mention some similar ideas.

Hugh Myers wrote

book on a3-lines in

the open games calling them Mengarini's

opening. The American Ariel Mengarini

liked to play Le4 e5 2.a3. This is a less

forcing move order though. Myers feels

that after 2...f5 White's second move has

little

merit.

We may think of other set-ups

too. Myers himself advocated l.e4 e5

2.lilc3

tLlf6 3.a3. This

indeed quite a

tricky move order. Its main idea is shown

after

3...d5

4.ed5 ttJd5 5.'it'h5!

reversed

Scotch with the important difference that

the best move

lbd5-b4

is obviously not

on. There are some other ideas connected

the Vienna move order too. For exam-

ple, 3....ic5 4.ltJf3 tLJg4 (the Two

Knights) 5.d4 ed4 6.tDa4 and again a3

proves its usefulness. However, I think

that

4...

d6 is an easy equalizer, and besi-

des Black can always play

3...

tLlc6when

White has nothing better than to transpo-

se into

Gunsberg's

Four Knights. There-

fore we will concentrate on 4.a3 in the

Four Knights. Naming this the

Gunsberg

Variation strikes me as most logical, con-

sidering that he was both the first and the

strongest player to regularly adopt 4.a3.

Black

falls for

1. e4 e5

2. tL:c3 tbc6

3. ~f3

~f6

4. 83

ses

This allows a simple tactic, which is

known with colours reversed too (4jLC4

lDe4).

5. ~e5 tee5

This is better than 5...

~f2?!

6.~f2 ~5

7.d4 ttJfg4?

(7...

lDg6 8.e5lDg8 9.h4!? d5

lD.ed6 ~d6

l.ttJbS 1!r'd8 12.1!r'el

rj.lf8

13.h5 Cvorovic-Stipic, Pula

1992)

8.'~gl ~h4

9.1li'e2

teg6

iO.g3

it'h5

II.h3 tLlf6 12.~h5 ~h5 13.~h2±

Bhend-Avrarn, Lenk

1991.

However,

5...0-0

may well

berter

idea. For example, 6.iLe2 tt::\d47.lOf3

(7.~d3!?) 7...l1e8 S.O-O(8.d3

d5)

8...l1le4

was equal in

Tarrasch-Duras,

Nuremberg

1906.

Likewise. 6.LUc6dc6 7.~e2 1td4

8.0-0 ttJe4 was also equal in Vande Oude-

weetering-Wemmers, Dutch Team

Championship 2000.

6. d4 i.d6

6...~d4

7.~d4 d6it.

7.de5 iLe5 8.~d3 0-0 9.0-0 is almost

equal

for

Black.

Worth

investigating

though

8.lDb5!'! (White is planning f4)

8...

(S...d5

9.f4 LUe4

(9...

~d6 lO.e5)

1O.fe5 ft'h4 I Lg3 ~g3 l2.hg3 'it'g3

13.~d2 itf4 l4.'~c3 and wins) 9.f4 .if4

10.

iLf

4 ab5 I '.e5 with decent compensa-

tion in Hofsteuer-Labahn, cr 1993.

7.... ti:lc6

8. eS iLe7

Grandmaster Patrick Wolff played this

position twice with White:

• 9.el6 .i.16 10.d5 "e7

1V;.t>f2

0,d8

11...~d4 12.'~g3 ~c3 13.be3 -.d6

12.dS!?

t!t'd6

13.'iYd6

cd6

14.ti':d5

and

White had an edge in Wolff-COMP

KChess, Harvard 1993.

• 9.dS 4')dS 10.tlJd5 dS 1'1.ed6 'i'd6

12.1oe7 'i'e7 13.~f2

0-0

14.~d3

~f5

15.~f5 'i'e5 16..

b3 .fS

17.g4

We4

18.ne1 White has no advantage of course.

He won after a hard struggle. 18...f5 19.95

l%fe8

20.-.0 ...wc421.b3

"t7

22.:cd 1

lle4 23J:1d3 llaeM24.h4 .e7 25.na I ttJd8

26Jbdl

cc,t7

27.a4 b6 28.c4 tDd6 29.c5

tiJt7

30.11cI "e6 31J:1cc3 tLJdS32.cb6

cb6 33...t>g3 tUc6 34.~f2 tilb4 35J:l.d4

<UJ5

36.lIcc4

37.a5

baS

3S.:c5 tLJh4

39.'i'c3 I1d4 40.~d4 lbdS 41.'i'cl .adS

42.~5

'iff7

43..ac8 lIcS 44.'fIt'c8 ~f8

45.~a6 0,e7 46.~a5+- "iWc847.~d6

r.tJc648.~d5 wh849.b4tLld8 50.~c5

tbe6

51.h5 1-0 Wolff-Lesiege, Montreal 1993.

II The Improved Scotch

1. e4 e5

2. tt';c3

li\'6

3. lljf3

tj';eG

4. a3

Now White can play 5.ed5

tUd5

6.~b5 re-

asoning that Black is quite OK in the

Scotch Four Knights. However,

you

want 10 make use of your extra tempo it is

better

to play

5. ~b5

when the lines fork:

A) S d4

B) 5 de4

5 0,e4

A) 5.... d4

6. tL.e2

AI) 6...tbe4 7.d3 Without a3 (so with

colours reversed) Black would now give

check on b4. 7...

tbfS

B.tDe5 'itd5

9...Q.c6bc6 10Ajf3 c5

11.lbf4

'f¥d8

12.0-0

Welling-Paci, Cappelle la

Grande 200

A 12) Taking with the knight is also in-

teresting: 9.tt\e6 beG

O.~e4

O.~a4

1!i'g2 I U1g1 '@d5 12.li\d4 Qd7 13.~e3

and White is much better, Pacbman.

10...'i!Yg211.:g1 "h212.~f4 with com-

pensation (Pachman), again the pawn on

a3 is very useful with regard to the check

on b4.

A2) 6...

.i.d6 7.d3

~g4?! 7...h6?! 8.0-0

(8.ttJed4 is a none-too-convincing recom-

mendation of Steinitz: 8...ed4 9.eS 0-0)

I:LO-O 9.

ilg3

11',e7

and now instead of

1O.~h4'!. Gunsberg-Pollock. 1888, Stei-

nitz gives IO.tLle5 ~e5 1l.f4 which in-

deed promises While an advantage.

8.0,g3 0.h5

9.h3

$\g3 10.fg3

~h5?1

11.0-0 0-0

12.94 ~g6

13.'W'e1±

(13.~c6±) Bosch-Lipinsky, Germany

Bundesliga 2001 (15).

A3) In honour of Gunsberg, one of his

crushing wins: 6...~d7 7.d3 .Q.d68.lbg3

tile7 9.il.e4 h6?! 10.0-0 g5 11.e31 de3

II...c5 12.'ffb3 12.d41? lbg6 13.be3 0-0

14.tDfS ~e415.~h6 wg716.de5

16...~e7 16...t/,e5 17JDe5 ~eS 18.tdn!

tIfl 19..tfl

wins 17./Uf7!+- ~e318.~e2

J:tf7

19.xf7

<M1

20.'iWc3g4 21.:d1!1 In

truly

romantic style 21...gf3 22.e6 ~

23.'iVb3 ~f6 24.~b2 wg5 25.'iVe3 ~f4

26JId5 1-0 Gunsberg-Zukerton, London

1888.

B} 5....

de4

This looks bad.

(oe5 'iVd6

ed3?

Black must play 7...a6 !L~c6 he6 9.~f4

'ffe6 10.0-0 ~d5 1J.0d5 cdS 12.c4 ~d6

13.... a4

(Vl-Yl

Bhend-Flear, San Bernar-

dino 1991)

13...~d7

14.'lWc2,

Van

Oudeweetering-

Van

Gisbergen, Enschede

1994.

8.0-0 .ie6 No better

was

8...a6 9..Q.c6bc6

1O.~f4 'it'd4 II.'fiD 0,d5 12.l:tfe 1 ~e6

13.1:te4

'*b6

14.ttJfl~+-

Mihevc-

Markovic, Yugoslavia 11)91. 9.~t4 ~c5

10.tL;d3 ~e7 11.~e5 '\tc5 12.Wfl 0-0-0

13.~e6 be6 14.b4 'irb6 15.~e3 'iWa6

16.b5 1-0 Stocklin-Rodel, Zurich 1993.

5....

tDe4!?

With colours reversed (so without a3) this

is one of the main lines.

6. t;~:e5

6.'t!t'e2 ~d6!

(6 ...tLlc3

7.lte5 is equal)

7.ttJe4 de4

~.'i'e4 Ad7 is

than OK

for Black.

S.... 'iVfS

Black has an exciting alternative here:

6...

'ffg5

7/1'11:.6

1Wg2 8.l:tfl a6

9.0d5

(9.~a4) 9...

ab5

JO.tt::.c7 ~d7 II.ltJa8

Wc6 is a theoretical position with colours

reversed, here White

has a3

extra. This is

useful but it is not clear to what extent.

Kover-Urnberto,

1997.

VDf3~e6

8.'iWe2

0.c38..:i'g6

9.dc3

~cs 1O.Ags ~g6 11 .

.1d3

f5 11...

'ifh5

12.

.Q.fS

White is clearly better

now and won

quite nicely. 12.tbh41? "'g5 13."e6

Ci\e7

14.tbf5 Ilf8 14...

1Wg2

15.0-0-0

~g5 16.f4 'ii'f4

17.~bl+-

'it'g5

UL~bS c6 19J1d5 15.f4! "'g2 IS...ltf4

16.1:tf)

'i'

g5 17.h4 1Wg2

18.0-0-0+-

16.0-0-0

l:tf6

17.~eS .id6 18.~d6 cdS

19.'tt'h5 q,;,f8 20.l:lhg1 ttl2 21.tldf1

'tt'e3 22.~b1 h6 23.1i'g4 llf7 24.llg3

'tt'd2 2S.tlg2

25.~e2!+-

(Welling)

25...1i'e3 26.11e2 "'b6 27JUe1 ltJg8

28.~g6

tDf6

29.~e6

1-0

Welling-

Granados, Martinenc 200

J .

III The Reversed Glek Variation

e4 e5

2. lLlf3 tL:.e6

3. tDc3

.!DrG

4. 83

There are several playable ideas here for

White:

• 5.~b5 'fie7 6.d3 tLld8!? was Guns-

berg-Gunston, Manchester 1890.

• S.d4 ed4 6.

.0d4 -*.g7 7.tDde2 by ana-

logy to the main lines versus 4.g3, White

may

consider 7.0.c6

bee R..tc4.

8.~d3

and

8.~e2.7...

d6 8.g3 0-0 9..ig2 Ci-

gan-Mikac, Bled

1996.

• S.d4 ed4 6.Q)d5!? a kind of Belgrade

gambit with a3 and g6 thrown in.

• Speculative and spectacular is

5.lDe5!? ttJe5 6.d4 tlJc6 and now 7.d5

with considerable compensation. Not,

however. 7.e5 ~g8 8.~c4 d6 and While

had

nOI

enough in R.Hendriks-Jonkman.

Zwolle 2001.

Most often

White just plays:

5. ~c4 ~g7

Some players blunder with 5...tDe4.

6.lDe4

only

realising at

this

stage

that

6...dfi?

met

by 7...Q.d5.

Still what to

make of 6....ig7

7.lDc3

8.lOgJ

0-0

9.0.ge2

...wh4Zecevic-Rade,

Pula

I994?

White should win,

bur

didn't. And how

about 6....fS 7.d3?! fe4 8.de4 Utasi-Lu-

kacs, Budapest 1990'1

d3 d6

6...0-0 7.h4 d6 8.~g5

.lii.e6

9.'od5 iLd5

10.~d5 h6= G.Horvath-Lukacs, Balaton-

bereny

996.

7. h3 1l.e6

7...0-0 8.~.g5 h6 9.~e3 a6 10.'iVd2Wh7,

Van de Oudeweetering- Van Wessel, Ne-

therlands

2000.

8.~e3 h6 9.~e6 fe6 10.d4 ed4 11.~4

~d71Vbc6 ~c613."'d3 tLld714.~d4

~e5 lS.~g3 0-0-0 16.0-0·0 'tid7

17.~e5 .QeS 18.f4 .Q.c319JIi'c3 The po-

sition is quite equal. Black won after

some inaccuracies by While 19_..• e7

20.M h5 21.g3 Wb8 22.e5 d5 23.'fid3

:thg8 24.r.t.>b1es 25.c4 ~f7 26.<J;a2 bG

27.l:lh2 11d7 28.l:thd2 .!Igd8 29.~a1

<3;c7 30.'ffc2

31.cd5 l:td5 32.Ad5

edS 33.l:te1 'ire6 34.11d1 d4 35.b3 84

36.ba4 c4 37.'iI'e4 c3 38.l:ld4 "b3 0-1

Hamdouchi-Adarns. Cannes

rapid

2001.

IV Waiting tactics

1. e4 e5

2. tljr3 ces

3. tLlc3

.!/~f6

4. 83

Calling White's bluff? This counter-

waiting move is not entirely insipid.

ed4

6. ~d4

The Belgrade Gambit 6.tLJd5with the ad-

ditional

a3 a6

is worth investigating.

6. ... d6

There are some alternatives:

• 6...~5 is possible. But the Scotch

main line with ~b4 has been prevented.

• 6...tal4 7.'Wd4 d6 Gutschow-Jakobi,

Germany

1989,

eases White's task.

• 6...ti)e4(!)

had

already been recom-

mended by Myers and it may well be

Black's best option here.

is also possi-

ble after 4.d4 ed4 5.tL.d4 tLie4(!) 7.'be4

'it'e7 8.f3 d5 and in the 'ordinary' version

(without

a6) White now

has 9..Q.bS.

So the inclusion of a3 a6 is useful for

Black!

.te2

fLe7 8.0-0

0-0

9.~h1 :e8

10.f4

Af8

11.tt;c6

11..Q.f3

lbd4 l2 .

..-d4

.ig4

11...bc6 12.~f3 White is slightly better,

Bhend-Gattenlohner,

Zurich

1997.

V Showing restraint

Black avoids all the traps and simply de-

velops with 4...d6 or 4 ...~e7. Yet, such

set-ups, reminiscent of the Steinitz varia-

tion of the Ruy Lopez, may not be to

everyone's taste. Still we must acknow-

ledge that the value of the extra move4.a3

is neglible. Since concrete variations are

less important here we will end this article

with some annotated games.

Isidor Gunsberg

• Joseph Blackbume

Bradford 1887

1.e4 e5 2.~c3 tijf6 3.li::;f3~c6 4.a3 d6

S.h3

This looks like a beginner's move, but

White

preventing ~g4. 5.~c4'!! ttJe4

6.'Lle4

7.~d3 de4 8.~e4 .id6 was

Nirnzowitsch-Kashdan, Bled 1931. Whi-

te equalises at best.

Ae7 6.d4 0-0

6 ed4

7.lud4

0-0 8.~e2

:e8

(B...dS)

9.0-0 h6 1O.f4

AfS

,-'t.f3;;

Repko-

va-Starr, Yerevan Olympiad 1996.

7.dS ~b8

8.~e3

~e8

8...c6

what Steinitz recommended.

9.g4 ~h8 10.... d2 c5?1 11.4)e2 b5

1VDg3 a6 13.jLe2 g6 14.jLh6 :g8

14...

tt'!g7

preferable but While

better

anyway.

15.0-0-0 ~f6 16JXdg1 lla7 17.gS ~g7

18..Q.g71:1.g71

lB ...

tiJg7 was necessary.

19.h4 fS 20.ef5

gf5

21.h5 f41

2l...c4

n.h6

l:lg6 23 .... c3 (23.~ fe4

24.tuh4

may

well be stronger) 23 ...

<it'g8

24.tLlh4 :g5 25.t2lgf5 is given by Steinitz

as winning, but 25 ...~f5 26.tbf5

1:1f7

still not so easy.

22.h6

I:1g8

23.~h5

nf7

24•

.id3 .ifS

25.

.ifS tus 26.'~d3

nn8

27.g6 llg6

28Jlg6 hg6

29.tDh4!

As Steinitz put

'The way Mr. Gunsberg

conducts the attack in the latter part of the

game deserves the highest commenda-

tion:

29...gh5

30.tL:g6

wg8 31.h7! Wh7

32.~e7 Mating. 1-0

Paul Motwani

• Luc Winants

Belgium

2001

1.e4

VLif3 tUc6 3.tt::c3 lLil6 4.a3 d6

5.d4ed4

• S..•

~e7, see 4...~e7 5.d4 d6 Hort-Qu-

ast below.

• S...~g4 6.~.b5 ed4

HWd4 ~e7

(7...

~d7 8:~d3;!; Rufenacht-Lematchko,

Switzerland u 1994)

R.eSdeS

9.~d8

l:td8

lO.lC.eS

gave White a small edge in

Smallbone-Ashron. England 2000.

• 5...~g4

6.dS

tLld4

7._Q_e2

tDe2

8.~e2

(;69.h3 i.d7 was played in two games be-

tween Nanu and Vajda.

6.tUd4 i.e7 7..

0-0 8.~e3

Preparing to castle queenside.

lIe8

S dS.

9."d2 -1ld7

This regrouping seems too cumbersome.

Better is 9...~d4 1O.~d4 .ie6.

10.0-0-0 .Q.f611.14 ~b6 12.g4

Crude but quite effective. White just gains

a lot of space. Black now has to seek relief

in exchanges.

12....Q.d7 13.g5 ~d4 14.~d4 ~d4

15.~d4~c6

16.l:thel

Overlooking Black's idea.

16.~f3

pre-

vents further exchanges, when White's po-

sition is preferable.

16...tba4! 17.ti::d5

17.~a4 l:te4 is the tactical just! fication.

17...ti:.b6

18.~d3 18.tL;c3 0a4

18...

.Q.d5

19.ed5 'ffd7 20.15 lle1 21.~el lle8

22.l:te4 .:1e423:~e4 f6 24.96

%-'12

Vlastimil Hort

• Michael Quast

Germany Bundesliga 1995

1.e4 e5 Vt:if3 C~f63.o!bc3tbc6 4.a3 iLe7

5.d4

d6 6.

.Q.e2

Perhaps this is best. Some alternatives:

A) 6...Q.hSed4 (6...~.07 7.~c6 - 7.'lrd3

- 7...fo..c68:~'d3

was Tarrasch-Fleisch-

mann, Hamburg 1910)

7.tLid4

.~.d7 8.0-0

0-0

9.11el 01.)04

IO:~'d4 .~b5

11.&...:b5

ttld7 12.a4!'1 Wahls-Piket, Novi Sad

Olympiad 1990.

B) 6.d5 ~b8 7.h3 0-0 !L~e3 c6 Nur-

rnamedov-Mats, Moscow

1979.

6.h3 0-0 7.~e2 ed4

8.ltJd4

d5! is

comfortable for Black, Bhend-Ziatdinov,

Lenk 1991.

6...

0-0 7.0-0 i.g4

7...ed4 B.dS ~f3

9.~f3 lLId410..ie3

White is slightly

better.

10•..

11.84

12.a5

o1\e8

13.~g4

14.~h3LDg7

15.tL:.a4'5

IS ...

Wa5 16.c3

16.~b6 J:lb8

17.c3

Ci!b5 18..Q.h6

,Uf7

19.~g7 ~g7 20.ef5 g1521....

~g6

2l...e422.f3+-

22.~f5!

1-0

Mark Hebden

• Jonathan Ady

London 19B6

1.e4

2.a3!?

Hebden goes for Mengarini 's move order.

2...lij'6 3.lLic3 lLic6

4.lLif3

.ie7

5.d4

ed4

6.~4O-0

Black is ready for 7...d5, which is his re-

ply to both 7..Qe2 and 7.~.e3.

7.~c6 bc6 7...ddi l(~dR l:td8;£

a.es

8...~d5!?

Sacrificing a pawn. The alternative is

8...tLieR9.'t!i'd4 (9.~d3) 9...f6

1O.f4

fe.S

) l.fe5 d5 12.¥e3 0.f6!? 13.ef6 ~f6

14."-c5 l:te8 and Black had good com-

pensation for the piece in Y.Gure-

vich-Ivanov, Soviet Union 1978.

9.tL\d5cd510.'ft'd5l:1b8

IO...c6!?

11.~d3 d6 12.0-0

~b7

13....d4 deS

14....

e5 .i16

15.'I'g3

l:te8

16.~f4

lte7

17.%%ad1

"'e81B ..te7

and White won.

RECENT GAMES

Jeroen Bosch

• Paul van der Sterren

Breda 2001

1.e4 eS 2.ti'·,f3

ti'!c6 3.tt'~c34\16

4.a3

..ic4

Rather meek was S.g3

iJ..g7

6.~g2 0-0

7.0-0 d6 8.d3 h6 9.h3 Vz-!jzPalac-Sax,

Medulin 2002.

S....Q.g7

S.d3 d6

7.0-0

About equal was 7.~g5 ~e6

8.'IIe2

9.~d2 'fNd7 10.h) a6 11.0-0-0 0-0-0

12.lbd5 ~d5 l3.~d5 tUdS 14.ed5

t.Lid4

15.tUd4ed4, Ganguly-Babu, Nagpur 2002.

7...0-0 B.h3 ~e6 9.~g5

Black is slightly better after 9.~e6 fe6

1O.~e3. No better is 9,tLidS ~d5 (9...h6)

IO.ed5 CDc7.

9...

h6 10.~h4 't!¥d7

Black has a comfonable position,

11.11el

o!ijh5?!

Stronger are Il..J:tae8 or 11...<.t>h7.

12.~d5! tLf4 13.~g3 95 14.c3

15.~f4!

gf4

Not IS ...ef4

16.efS+-.

16.~h4

16.efS

I:[f5.

16...

fe4 H.de4 ~d818.~b3!

Here

18.lDf5

is answered

by 18...~h8.

While,

18.ii'g4

only useful after

~g4?? 19.tiJf6

wh8

20.tDg6

mate!

IS ...

19.<1)f5.

19.~b4

20.ttJd3

With

the

idea

lUeS.

20...llJf7 21..te6 't!fe6 22 ....g4

22.li;fS

~h7.

22...Wg423.hg4

White is

somewhat better.

23 d5? 24.~f5 llfe8 2S.ne2! de4

2S b6 26.edS cd5 27Jlael±.

2S.tec5 b6 27.!be4 a4?

Stronger

was

27..

JbdS.

28.11dl lladB 29J:Id8

29.1:1ed2

%td2 30.%td2 ~dS 31.tiJe7

~f8

32.ttJc6

%td2 33.tiJd2 ~d6 34.f3

with a

clear

advantage.

29..~d8

Here

29...li.\d8

is answered

30.l:td2

30.ltJed6.

30.tile7 'iPf8 31.tDc6 l:Id1 32.'~h2 ~8

33.13

But not, 33.g3'!

34J:ld2 (34.1:te31:tbl)

34 ..

.l:tel.

33...'iPd7 34.t;~b4 tt\d6 35.tDf2

3S.1:td2l:ld2

36lud2

35...11bl 36.~fd3 t.Gc4

37.g3

.!1'ieJ1T

38.gf4 ef4 39.tt.Jc2?T

Winning was 39.tLlf4 ~e5 40.tL2d3.

39...tOe4 40.ti:.cb4

40.tiJd4

~d4

41.cd4 l:tdl (4l...Wd6!)

4Vbf4l::ld4.

40...b5 41.~d5 ~f8!? 42.<.1;>g2

Winning was

42.lbSf4!

~d6 43.<ot>g3l:td I

44.<;t>h3.

42....tdS 43.'~f2 wc6 44.tDSb4 ~d7

45.ti:.d5 wcS 4S.tL:5b4 ~d7 47.l:lel!

!:rel 48.'it'e1 ~b4 49.cb4!

49.ab4 <ot>d6

(49 ...tL:b2

50.tiJb2 a3

51.tDd3+-) SO.<;t>d

49...~dS 50.~e2!

SO.<;Pd1 lDeS 51.<ot>e2 (51.tiJeS ~e5

52.<itc2'iPd4 53.\9d2 ~c4=) Sl...1Oc4.

50...$d7 51.'~d1t ~d6 52.~c2 ttJe5

53.lLle5! <i>e554.~d3 ~d5 55.~c3 ~e5

5S.b3 ab3 57.~b3 ~d4 58.a4 ba4

59.<ito>a4<ito>e3SO.b5 'iPf3 st.es ~g2

62.b7 f3 63.b8. f2 64.~b7 ~g1

65 b6 ~g2 66 .... cS ~gl 67 .... c5 'itig2

~g1

69.'iWd4 $>g2 70.'i'd2

~g17UWe3

71.~h6

it' 72:~e3

~g2 73.g5.

71···~92

72:~e4

White wins with

72.iIi'e2!!

wgl

73.g5!

hgS

(73 ...

fI'it'

74.'ii'fl

c;t;fl

7S.gh6)

74.it'g4

~h2

75.VJgf3

~gl 76.ii'g3

*f1

77.~b3

g4 7S.rt>c2

~e2 79.'t!fd3

~el

HO:.wd I mate.

72...~g1 73.g5? f1'iW 74.'ifg4 ~2

75.gS

75.'ii'h4 IiPg2

76.gh6

'iWa6.