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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

7S...1ka6

White cannot avoid a perpetual.

76.~ 'irb6 77.q.,e4 'ire6 78.'.t>d3 ~d5

79.~3 'l!fb3 80.q.,f2

'lWe2

81.<it>ell!re3'

B2.~2 ""'e2 8:1.~e3

'ii'c3

84.';t.e2

'ii'c2

85.$e1

"*,c3

86.W12

%-V-!

o Pawel Blehm

• Larry Kaufman

Washington 2002

1.e4 eS Vbf3 tLlc6 3.t2.lc3 ~f6 4.a3 g6

S.d4

5.ttJe5!? lLle56.d4

CDc6

7.d5 was a recorn-

rnendation in the original article. Nor-

way's

biggest talent Magnus Carlsen

bravely tried

out. His game against

Nyysti (Helsinki 2002) went: 7...tbb8

8.e5 tt)g8 9.d6!'! cd6

lO.ed6

.-f6

(10 ....i.g7 1I.tUd5!)

analysis diagram

Il.tLJh5 li:a6 12.~c4 ~h6 13.'i'e2

Wffl

14.~e3 ~e3 IS.fe3 '4!r'h4 16.g3 *'h5

17.'fi'f2 ft'f5 18.'We2 (lS.1Wf5!? gf5

19.0-0 with compensation) 18...1WhS

19.1Wf2..

20.'i!ie2li\h6!'? 21.l:tf1 'tWh5

22."f2 'fi'e5!'1 23.0-0-0 and White still

had plenty of compensation for the sacri-

ficed

piece.

S...ed4 6.~d4 ~g7 7.tL.de2

7.CiJc6bc6 8.Ad3 0-09.0-0 I:tb8 IOJ:thl

d5 II.ed5 lUg4! 12.~f4 cdS 13.~e2!~

Ganguly-Haslinger, Torquay 2002.

7...0-0 8.g3 d6 9.,Q,g2 ~8?1 10.h3

t?Jg8?1 11.g4;1; f5 12.efS 5 13.gS! f4

14.~f4 ~d4 15.~e3 ~fS .• d2 tbe3

H.We3 Cf.::,e7lS.h4! dS

0-0-0 [{jfS

20:tIr'd2 c6 21.hS h6 22.tt:f4 ~h7

23.tbe4! "'b6 24.tbf6 ~f6

24...$.f6 25.gf6 ~f6 26.'i!fd±.

25.gf6 ~f6 26.~d3 tL;d6 27 .~h3 [ce4

2S.'tWb4+-

'f!Je7 29.'lWe1

'lWd6 30.'ife2

tLia3 31..ie8

ne8

32.'ifg4 1:[gS33.'iff5

""h8

34.nhg1

j,g5 35.f4

nf8

36.""'g6

IlfS 37.11g5 hg5

37....Ilg6 38.l:g6 ~f8 39.ba3.

3S.• gS ~e4 39.~e5

'lWe6

40.l:tg1 tfe7

41.'i!Vg8Male. 1-0

o Marijan Petrov

• Nikolay Managadze

Nlkea 2002

1.e4 e5 Vijf3 ~e6 3.~c3 lDf6 4.a3 d6

An alternative is 4 ....ic5 S.lDe5 tDe5 6.d4

~d6 7.de5 ~e5 8.tt:lb5!? a6 9.f4 ab5N

IO.fe5 ~e4 II.'fi'g4 d5 12.'W'g7with an

advantage, Molander-Van Hoolandt,

Gausdal 2002.

Black can improve

with

5...0-0 6.lDd3 ~b6 7.~e2 ~e8 S.eS lj'ie5

9.t~leS lieS 1O.d4

ne8=

Janev-Pina,

Odivelas 200 1.

5.d4~e7

5....Q.g4 6.d5

(6._Q_b5) 6..

.tDb8

(6...

~d4) 7.~e2

c6 8.0-0

1l.e7 9.~cl!?

Gombac-Mikac, Pula 2002.

6.~e2 ~g4 7.d5 tDb8 8.0-0 0-0 9.lt)d2

~e2 1O.tbe2! ~fd7 11.c4 96 12.b4 a5

13.~b2 b6 lHWc2 ~g5 15lilb3

'fie7

16.~c3

White is better. The position is reminis-

cent

of a King's

Indian

where White is a

lot

faster on the queenside.

16...ab417.ab4 ~a118.~al f5

19.ef51

9f5

20.~a7 tDf6 21,Ctjg3 14

22.llJt51!i'd7

23.h4!

~e8 24.~a8!+-

Or 24.hgS Itt'S 25Jbl3+-.

24...n15 25.~b8

.at8

26.hg5 f3

27.llJd2

192

28.'i!I'd3 llf4 29.tDe4 ..t;>f730.ltJdS!

cd6 31.~h7 tt;g7 32..!'lg8 1-0

Rune Djurhuus

• Andreas Moen

Gausdaf 2002

Weak is

5...

de4?!

6.tDe5

'iiVd6

7.d4 ed3

8.0-0 d2N 9.~d2

.Q.e6

10.'tWO! ~d5

1Utfe 1 fiLe7 12.l:radI 0-0 13.Qf4+-

Radulski-Matsuura,

Bled 2002. After

5...d4

6.liJe2

.i.d7 7.d3 Qd6

8.0-0

(8.log3

was Gunsberg-Zukenort,

London

18138)

8...h6 9.~e I

(alternatives are

9.c3 and

9.tDg3) 9...4\e7 10..id7 'ilkd7 1

J.f4 ef4

1VuO

4.1c6

13.~f4

tDe5 with

good po-

sition,

Blehm-Socko,

Warsaw 2002.

S.ltJe5

The

alternative

is 6.'i'e2 tbc3 (or

6...'W"d6!?)7.~e5, and

now:

A) 7...9.e7 8.iYc3 0-0

9.~c6 bc6

I0.~c6 ~J5 I I.d3 _~f6 12.0-0 ~g4 13.c4

~f3 14.gf3 dc4 IS.dc4ltb8 16.~f4! Ab2

17Jbdl -.we7 18.~d7 and White is better,

Kristjansson-Azarov, Goa 2002:

B) 7...'W"e7!

B.de3

~d7= Yousry-

Gross, Cairo 2002.

6•..~f6

6..:'lWg5leads

exciting

play.

7,tljf3~e6 8"~e2 ~Lc3

9.dc3 ~d6N

9....Qc5

10.~g5 ~g611.~.d3 ~h5

1.e4 e5

VZ!f3

t2:f6

3.tL:c3

liJcS 4.a3 d5 12.,S,f5

5.iLb5llJe4

12.h3

<1)e5was

Karttunen-Scpp,

Finland

2002.

12...tLieS!13.~e6 fe6

Or 13...

lL!f3

14.gf3 0-0 1S.~d5l:tae8 with

compensation.

14.tl)e5

14.~b5 c6 15.'ir'b7 tDtJ 16.gtJ 0-0

17.~f6!?

lIte2

14 'it'g5 15.4\,f3 'it'e7

1S.We2

.te5

16.:lae1= r;pd7

17.'itrd3

.td6

18.c4 l:thf8 19.1:te2 11f5 20.~d2

:8f8 21.f3

nh5?122.h3 11f723.cdS edS

24.f4!d4

24....2.f4 2S.l:tf2 (hut not 25JHI g5 with

the idea 26.g3? 1:(113)25...l1hf5 (2S...g5

26.g3) 26.Uhfl

+-.

2S.11e4 c5 26.94

Now

White has

distinct edge.

26..

JldS

27.b4

cb4 28.ab4 wc6 29.l:If1

lld7 30.';t>c4d3 31.c3 a5 32.Wb3 ab4

33.c41?

11a534.lIe6 :83 35.Wb2 lla4

36.f5

~cS 37.lIc1 lien

38.

..te3 1-0

Resigns, e.g. 38...~c6 39.c5 Ue640.cd6

~d6 41.fe6+-.

CHAPTER 2

Your SOS weapon versus the Pirc

Austrian Attack with 5.a3:

NIC KEVPU 11.1

White's most aggressive option versus

the Pin: is undoubtedly the Austrian

Attack. After l.e4 d6 2.d4

tijf6

3.01.';c3g6

4.f4 .ig7

S.ld]

Black

has two main

sys-

tems at his disposal: 5...0-0 and 5...c5.

Both

systems differ distinctly in charac-

ter, and as White one must

well-prepa-

red to enter the theoretical ramifications

of these lines.

the tactical nature of the

Austrian Attack attracts you but the work-

load that accompanies this choice does

not, then the following variation might be

your thing.

1. e4 d6

2. d4

Cd6

3. tUc3 g6

4. f4 ug7

5. 83!1

What on

earth

could be the

idea

behind

this insipid

looking

move? Isn

one sup-

posed to develop one's

pieces

in the ope-

ning?

Let me

try

explain

the point

of S.a3!?

After the normal S.tUf3

Black

can play

the active 5...c5 because of the

tactical

justification 6.dc5 'iWa5!and now 7.~d3

.c5

leads to a Dragon-like position that

is OK for Black. However. after 5.a3 c5?

6.dc5. 6...... a5 is met by 7.b4~ (7 ..... d8

8.e5, with advantage). So 5.a3 prevents

Black's most active system! The move a3

also takes away the b4 square from

Black's pieces. The relevance of this can

be shown by comparing another move

that prevents 5...c5. viz. 5.i.d3 (protec-

ling e4). Here Black has

5...ttJc6!

6.d5

(6.lbf3

~g4)

6...

lbb4, with good play.

Finally, 5.a3

a subtle waiting move.

After 5...0-0

6.tilf3

White will await

Black's answer before deciding upon his

set-up

(1Le3

and ~d2, .te2 and 0-0, ~d3

and 0-0, a quick e5 etc.). In practice. the

position after

6.lC.f3

is often reached via

the move order 5.~11 0-0 6.a3. This stri-

kes me as less logical, as il gives Black the

extra option of

S...

c5.

After such a move as 5.a3 Black has, of

course. many different set-ups at

his

dis-

posal. We will investigate them in turn by

means of four illustrative games.

D MJaden Palae

• Miljenko Medic

Pula 2002

1.e4 d6 2.d4 <'C.f63.iDc3 g6 4.f4 ~g7

5.a3!? 0-0 S.tL2f3

6...c6

A passive move after which aggressive

play will gain White a substantial edge.

Here are some alternatives that are not

very popular in practice:

A) 6...

b6 7.~d3 a6?! 8.0-0 c5 9.e5

lOe8 10.ke4 J:[a7 II.de5 was quite good

for White in Van den Brink-Kohler,

Leeuwarden 1993.

B) 6...ttJbd7 7.eS

lbe8

8.~e3 b6

(8...ltJb6 9.'t1M2c6 1O.h4 h5 I Lid3 was

Murey-Pfleger, Royan 1988. Black even-

tually won,

bur

at this stage White's posi-

tion looks more attractive) 9.h4 c5 1O.h5

0,c7 II.hg6 hg6 12.'.d2 ~b7

13.'tWf2

was

erude but rather effective in

Da-

vid-Kastanieda, Istanbul Olympiad 2000.

6...

1.:5!?

is interesting. Black tries

show that a3 has not prevented c5 at all.

7.dc5 ~a5 8.b4 'i'd8. Now9.cd6 is ans-

wered by 9...tbe4. while 9.~e3 lbfd7 is

given

unclear by Nunn and McNab

The Ultimate Pirc. The game Motwa-

ni-McNab, Aberdeen 200 I, therefore

continued 9.:bJ lLlfd7 10.'it'd2 dc5 It .e5

cb4 12.ab4 lLlb6 13.~d3 lLlc6, when

things were still rather

unclear.

7..i.e3

Also good is 7.~e2lObd7 8.c5llJd5 9.llJe4

b5 10.a4 b4 11.h4 a5 12.hS, with an edge

in David-Nouro, Stockholm 1998.

7...~bd7 8.e5 l1.Je89.h4

Against a passive black set-up this ag-

gressive thrust works well.

9...hS

Stopping the h-pawn short in its tracks but

also weakening his kingside.

10.~d3 <'C.c7

I0...~b6 looks essential. Now Palac cras-

hes through.

11.g4! hg4 12.h5 gh5

12...g0

13.~f3, and the attack is too po-

werful.

13.trh5

ne8

13...f5 14.t.i\g5.

14.~h7

Wf8 15.tDg5 4::.b6 16.'i'fd3

~bd5

~ .t~~~

~~~ ~~.t~

~~ lZJ~

~ ~~

~ ttJ'iY~

l:t

17.

.!bf7!

'fid7

17...

~t7

IR.'f¥g6 'it'f8 and now

)9.~d5

wins: 19...tC.d5 (19...cd5 20J:lgS llje6

21.UfS

srs

22.\\!¥g8mate) 20.J:tgS.

18.tDg5 4\e3 19."e3

20.'it'g3

deS

21.fe5 'i'd4 22..ae4 ~g8 23.l:th8

Winning the queen.

23...<;t>h824.'*h4 ~g8

2S.li.h7 1-0

Igor Glek

• Spartaco Sarno

Saint Vincenl 2002

1.e4 d6 2.d4 tt:lf6

3.tt:'lc3

96 4.f4

,Q,g7

5.~f3

0-0

6.a3

~a6 7.e5

Or 7..Q.e3c5 8..b6!'! (~.dc5

tbc5

9.e5

tj'.g4

1O.

.tg

I b6 Il.h3 0.h6

12.i.c4

.lib?,

and

Black

is definitely not

worse.

For-

ster-Neubauer, Montecatini 1997) 8...cd4

9..Q.d4 ba6 1O.tt'd3 ~b7 I) .0-0-0 1&'c8

)2.h3 ~c6

3.C'ild5 ~d5 14.ed5 tt'b7

15.c4, and White had a slight edge in Pa-

lac-Sinanovic, Pula 200 I.

7 li:ld7

7 de5 ~.fe5

tl.\d5

9.tL:.e4c6 lO.c4 ~dc7

11.it.e2 gave White a huge edge in Mu-

roy-Bernard, Cappelle

Grande 1993.

.Q.e3

Trying to undermine While's 'Austrian'

centre.

9..ta6

Black

now plays some necessary interme-

diate moves.

9 cd4

9 ba6 JO.dc5, planning

IO ...

de5

I.c6.

1o.iLd4 deS

1O...ba6 ) l.ed6.

11.fe5

ba612.~e2. ~b7

13.0-0-0

Opposite castling often leads

dou-

ble-edged play. Here

Black

has the bishop

pair, but less space. White's position

looks a lot easier to

play.

The march of the

h-pawn once again suggests itself.

13..

_tbb614.h4

14.e6 .i.f3 15.'iYf3 ..Q.d416.1&'e4fe6 or

16 f5 is unclear.

ttc8

15.h5 ~g4 16.h6!

Locking the bishop in its cage. 16.hg6

fg6,

and

Black

is OK.

16...~h8 17.~b6! ab6 18.ltld5t %1fd8

19.1Llb6J:lab8 20.:d8 l:d8 21.~b1 "tWe6

22.tDc4

23.r!:d1 rIc8

23..Jtdl 24.tvdl

~c4

25.~d8

~t7

26.e6! (not 26.~hg

"fIfi

27.~a2

"(;4,

with a perpetual) 26...~e6 (26 ...We6

27."g8+-)

27.~h!5 winning.

24.'ii'd3 ~f3 25.gf3 fe5

25..".·c4

26.'it'c4

lk4

27.l:1d8

<.Pt7

28.l:lh8.

26.lLid2

~f6

27.4',e4 'i'e6? 28:.-b3 ~8

29.rId5 'tIfe8 30.lL;'6! et6 31. 'i'b7 1-0

Rini Kuijf

• Marlin

Roobol

Netherlands n 1999/2000

1.e4 d6 2.d4 lUfS 3.tDc3 96 4.f4 .tg7

5.a3 0-0 6.4:)f3.!De6

Though it is not exactly clear what

White's best move is after 6...tDc6, it must

be said that playing

uc6

is usually more

effective when White's bishop is already

on d3. Moreover, after a3 Black no longer

has the b4 square for his knight.

7.~e2

This exploits the fact that Black's best li-

nes versus 6.Jte2 will always include

c7-c5.

Let

us examine the alternatives:

A) 7.d5 tUbS lL~.d3 c6 9.dc6 ttJc6

10.0-0 -'a5 11.~d2 ~g4 was equal in

Kuijf-Cuijpers. Hilversum

1989.

7.~e3?!

S.feS

de5

9.de5

~g4

IO.~c5 lDce5 was Sepp-Fridman, Riga

1995. After II. ... d8 J:td8 12.h3

tL;f3

13.gf3 ~e5 Black was fine.

C) 7.e5 de5 (7...lC,e8) 8.fe5 It:)h5

9..Q.e3 .Q.g4

IO."d2

II.~c4

~h8

12.e6, and White had a dangerous attack.

Milov-Ludgate, Port Erin 1994.

7 ~g4

7 e5 8.deS deS 9."e'd8 l:td8 IO.fe5 lCg4

1J.~g5

l:!e8

J2.l22d5

is better for White.

8..Q.e3 ~f3 9.~f3 e5 10.fe5 deS 11.d5

lLid4

This was Black's idea, but Kuijf's next

move emphasizes his positional edge.

12.0-0!

Certainly not 12.~d4? ed4 13.

'ir'

d4lDe4!.

12 c613.~h1 ltle8

13 cd5

looks better.

14.~e2 cd5 15.~d5 Ilc8 16.c3 ~e2

1H!ie2 ~\c7 18Jlad1 ~d519.J:td5 "c7

20.l:c5!

Converting his positional plus into a ma-

terial one,

20..."b8 21J~cB -.weB

2l...J:[c822."'f2!

22..i.a7

Now White is winning.

22...Wc6

23.~g1

J:[d8 24.h3 ~h6

25.~e3!

~e3

25 ...

'iVe4

26 .•

'f2

.if4 27.~f4 ef4

28."f4 "f4 29.l:It4

(planning

J:[b4)

and

wins.

26:twe3

White is a sound pawn up and eventually

managed to convert his advantage.

26..:"c4

27.1:lf2 J:[d1 28.Wh2

Ild7

29."e2

"84

30JU3

ffd1

31:.c4

"'d6

32.'twb5

wg7

33JH1 h6 34.'tWe2 f6

3SJlf2 "'b6 36JU3 hS 37.~g3 ~7

3B."c4

o;t>g7 39. 'iWc8

ffc7 40.-.weB

ssr

41.lld3

"e7 42.'i'e7 l:Ie7

43!~g3

Q;;f7

44.l:ld6l:lc7 4S.:b6

46.wf3 h4 47.a4

";'g6 48.85 :rcS 49.a6 ba6 50.1%a6ltc7

5Uld6 :a7 52.J:[d2 :a1 53.c,t.e3 g4

54.hg4

";'95 55.1:lc2

~g4

56.e4

:el

S7.Wf2 J:[e4 58.c5 %1f4

59.~e3

Ilb4

60.c6 ;ab8 61.c7 :lc8 62.b4 fS S3.bS

<Ji>g364.b6 f4 65.~e4

Alberto David

• Roman Siobodjan

Berlin 1997

1.e4

d6 2.d4 tDf6 3.-2.c3 g6 4.f4 i.g7

5.lLlf3

0-0

6.a3 ~94

7.~e3

The alternative is 7.h3

~f3 8.tH3

tL~,c6

(probably stronger is 8 ...t2lfd7 9.e5 cS

IO... b7 cd4 II.lL:.b5 'i'b6 l2.'W'b6 ab6

13.ed6 ed6 14..itd2, and a draw was ag-

reed

Moreno-Narciso, Parnplona

200 I.

14...~cS gives Black sufficient counter-

play) 9.i.e3 e5 10.de5 de5 II.f5

tiid4

l2.Vf2 (White is much better here, as

was borne out in practice) l2 ...gf5

(12 ...ltJh5 13.0-0-0c614.<;t>bl flie715.g4

tDf4

16.Af4

ef4

17.J:[d4+-

Illescas-

Gurevich, Madrid rapid 1988) 13.ef5

ae8

14.0-0-0tLid515.tiid5 'tIfd5 16.'~bll:lad8

l7.f6..tf8 18.~d3

19.~e2, winning

piece: Milov-Wesr, Moscow Olympiad

1994.

0fd7

7 d5

8.eS

tZle4

9.~d3

tLlc3 lO.bc3it.

David-Luetke, Groningen 1995.

8.~e2 e5

This was Black's idea. but 8...c5 is proba-

bly

stronger.

9.1e5 de5 10.dS tLib611.0-0

White

has a pleasant edge.

11...

12.a4!

cdS

13.a5

~f3

Also insufficient are 13...d4 14.ab6 de3

IS.flid8 ~d8

16.%1a7

and 13...

de4

l4.~d8 ~d8 J5.ab6 ef3 16.gf3.

14JU3

Not

4 ..

~.J3

tiic4.

14...de4

1S.cDe4

-8d5

16.~g5

flid7

1-0

David has a brilliant sacrifice up his slee-

ve that quite clearly illustrates the risk

Black is taking in this

50S

Austrian

Attack.

17JU7!!

..wf7

Or 17...'it'f7 18.~c4 'Ot>g819.1Dc5 'CIVf5

20.1Wd5

Wh8 21.1Ifl

+-.

Also bad

17...

l:I:f718.~c4ltJf4

(18 ...

ltJc7

19.tlJd6

lCoe6

transposes)

19.tL.d6 tiJe6

20.ltJf7

00 21... 0.

winning.

18.~c4 ~ha 19....d5 f¥c7

19....

d5 2o.Ad5

tbc6

21.a6.

20.~d6 tLlc6

20...h6

neatly answered by 2l..Q.d8!

'tIYd722.J:t.fl an

23.<;9fl winning.

21.li)f7 l:[f7 22_~f7 '(Wd6 23.c3 Wc5

24.<t;h1tDa5 2S.:tt6! 1-0

RECENT GAMES

Glenn Flear

• Vitaly

Tseshkovsky

Hastings 2002/03

1.d4 d6 2.e4 t2.16 3.tLlc3 g6 4.14 ~g7

5.a3

Regular New In

Chess

contributor

Glenn

Flear

became

a 5.a3 fan after reading the

original

SOS

article in

New

111

Chess

Magazine.

5...0-0 6.t~}f3c6

7.Qd3

Both 7.~e3 and 7.iLe2 give White an ad-

vantage as

well

(see game

Palac-Medic). Too hasty though is 7.e5

lDfd7 8.i.e3 c5! 9.Ab5 cd4 1O.~d4

deS

l l.fef

00<.:0

[2.~c6

heo13.co fen

14..Q.g7

~g7 15,'(ifd4 e5! Bosch-G.Jan~sen,

Dieren 2002.

7...~g4 8.h3

Also good is

8.0-0 eS 9.de5 de5 10.fS

~bd7 [1.h3

.Q.f3

12.'fYf3

It":c5

13.~e3

tLld3

14.lIadl!

Sedina-Qendro, Milan

2002.

8....ilf3 9.~f3 e5 10.de5 deS 11.15

lbbd7

12.il.e3

White

has

clear

edge because of his

two

bishops

and

his space

advantage

on the

kingside.

12...

tOh5?!

13.0-0-0 ~e7

14.h4 tDI4

15.il.c4

b5 16•..Q.a2g_abB17.g3 ~h5

18.g4

Winning

a tempo for his attack. As Chris

Ward has pointed

out

this

stronger than

18.fg6

hg6

19.~g4

double attack. since

after 19...tL.df6 20.'lWg6 b4 21.ab4 li'b4

Black has good counterplay.

18...tDf4 19.95 b4 20.ab4

20.f6 <1\f621 ,gf6 'i'f6

is not a good idea

because of the threat of

discovered

check

d3.

20...

~b4 21..Q.b3

tDcs

22.~c5

1Vc5

23.f6

Naturally

White

is winning now.

i.h8 24.h5

IUd8

24 l2jh5

25.nh5

ghS

26.~h5+-.

25.hg6 hg6 26.l':lh4

26.~f7 ~n 27.l':lh7 ~g8 28.l':ldhl lbh5

29.l:I:7h5 gh5 30.1!Yh5(Chris Ward), is a

stylish

end,

26....:1d1 27.'fYd1 tDh5 28.l:lh3 ~f8

29 ...t>b1

29.~h5 gh5 30.1!fh5+-.

29...""2

30.<;pa2

.f4

31....g1

32Jld3 a4 33..ic4 a3 34.ba3 ~h4

35 .... cS

This

threatens

'iWf8

and mate, Black may

safely resign but probably had no time

left.;

35..•li:lf6 36.gfG ~16 37.'itc6 "'f2

38.n3 C;Pg739.tDdS .i.dB 40.1!fc3 lle8

41.tDb4

llh8 1-0

Glenn Flear

• Jonathan Mestel

England

2002103

1.d4

d6 2.e4

/Uf6

3.LL·le3

g6 4.f4

~g7

5.a3

0-0 6.~f3

7.~d3

Or7.eS deS 8.de5 'it'dl 9.ttJdl

toje4

1O..ac4

~b7 Il.tiJt'2 e6 12.i.e3 ttJd7

13.tbe4

i.e4

14.0-0-0 ~O

IS.g0 %lad8

with

approxi-

mate equality. Moreno Camero-Seul, Ber-

muda

2003.

7...

SLb78.0-0

This is perhaps

100

slow, 8.eS!? looks like

an improvement.

8...c5! 9.e5 CudS1O.ti.ld5~d5 11.dcS

I l.c4.if3! (11...~b7 12.d5 e6 is playable

too) 12.""H3 ti:;d7 undermines White's

centre successfully.

11...

deS

V2.le5 bc5

Black. has equalized.

13.c4?!

Stronger are 13.'i'e2 and 13.~e3.

13...~b714.£Le3 CLJd715.~f3?!

This is too optimistic.

15.....tb2 16J~bl ~f3! 17.11f3 ~b8

18...tf1.-c7

While

has no compensation for

the

pawn.

His next makes matters worse.

19.f5?! ~e5 20.g3 llbl 21.... b1 llb8

22.'iWdl Cd6 23.1g6 hg6 24.Wh1 llb2

2S.l:!.f2l:!.f2

26..tf2

26....Q.d4127.~d4 'tWd62B.'i!!t'a4'iid4

White's king cannot be protected against

the combined power of queen, knight and

c-pawn.

29.'tWa7

'iWe430.Wg1 ~e3 31.wh1 ~g7

32..-b7 'iWc1

33.$gl

treS 34.wh1 1I'c1

35.Wg1 e5 36.a4 'tWal 37.'iWa8

38..Q.e2 "a1 39.:.t>g2 '1Wb240.~1 1I'a1

41.Wg2 '\!ie1 0..1

White resigned

as 42.~fl

1!t'd243.Wgl

(43!.t;h3 g5)

43.,,<1~g4wins.