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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

CHAPTER 3

Outfox your opponent

NIC KEYSI34.7

Play

6.a3 in the Sicilian

This chapter presents a move order wea-

pon for the first player against the Four

Knight's Sicilian. While there are inde-

pendent lines, there

an:

also

101of trans-

positions possible to other Sicilian

variations. The Scheveningcn. the Sozin,

the Taimanov and even the Sveshnikov

and Boieslavsky systems are used for

comparison below. So one of the main

ideas of 6.a3 is to lure your opponent into

unknown territory. Unknown

him. that

is! Naturally, if you want to use this move

order weapon well. you should make sure

that the line you (or your opponent) are

aiming for is part of

your

repertoire.

1. e4

2. CLJ3 ttJc6

3. d4 cd4

4. t"iJd4

t_Df6

5. tbc3 e6

In practice Black mainly uses the Four

Knights move order, for two reasons: either

because he wants to play the Sveshnikov.

but wants to prevent some variations that he

finds unpleasant after the immediate S...e5

(mainly 6.C2db5d6 7.ti::d5).or because he

wants to play the line 6.lLldb5i.b4, where

Black's play is quite straightforward and it

is not so easy to prove a white advantage.

Still, most players will

course

go for

6.1L1db5

anyway, unless they prefer the line

6'cilc6

bc6 7.e5. Other 6th move alterna-

tives are strongly met by 6...~b4 (6.~e2

~b4, 6.g3 ~b4

6...d5, 6..te3 ~b4). This

immediately explains

part of

the usefulness

our next move.

6. a3!?

Now (hat 6...~b4 has been prevented,

Black has to change tack. Note that

6...~c5 is no good

after

7.0.c6 bc6 8.e5

tj':dS 9.toe4,

attacking the bishop. We will

investigate the following lines:

A) 6 e5

B) 6 a6

6 'i'c7

D) 6 d5

E) 6

F) 6

$.e7

Lines A, Band D lead to independent

play. The other three lines will often

transpose to other Sicilians.

Variation A

6. ... e5

A witty answer! Black opts for the Svesh-

nikov anyway with the extra move a3.

The point of his belated e5 becomes clear

after: 7.tt\db5 d6 8.~g5? a6 9.~f6 gf6,

when the extra tempo is to White's detri-

ment. The

usual

square of retreat is not

available 10 the knight. Instead of 8.~g5?

White should play 8.tlJd5!

ttJd5

9.ed5,

and here the extra move (a3!) might come

in handy.

7. tLJb3

Exploiting the fact that Black's strongest

(~b4

again) in the corresponding

Sveshnikov line is not on. With the same

reasoning White may also play 7.tiJf3.

This would be my personal preference.

7. ... d6

8. g3

Instead, !LQ.e2

~e6 9..Q.e3

~e7

10.0-0

0-0 11.f4 ef4 12.l:t.f4d5 was equal in Te

Llalernand-Ptacnikova, Bled

2002.

8...

~e6

9.kg2 ke7

O.~d5

0-0 11.0-0';

The game Pablo Marin-Suez

Moya,

Aya-

monte 2002, continued 11...l:tc8 12.h3

kd5

13.edS

~L.a5

14.~a5 ~a5 15.~e3

16.'='el

~d5 17.~d5 ~d5

18..

f5 19.13 tL!f620.fe4 fe4 21..~e4

lfJe4

22.ne4 ~d8 23.:::lf1:tc2

24J:l.b4

~f6

25.:lf2 tl.f2

26.~f2

I1f7

27.~

:lc7

28.84 W 29.85 ~e6 30.:lbS :lel

31.~el Irbl

32J~b7

~c3! 33.a6 ~el

34.a7 llal? 34 ...

1i.h4

35.~g2 Ilb2

36.~f3 Ira2

35.a8-.

llaB

36.~1

~f6

37.'ito'd2:tal 38Jld7 t:[gl 38...1:Ia639.b4

39.lld6 ~e5 40.::1d3 !'lg2 41.We3 J:1h2

42.h4 ~e4 43JXd7 \t>f544J1g7

1-0.

Variation B

6.. ,. a6

Usually u6 should be more useful than a3

in a Sicilian. but in this concrete position

this is

not the case.

7. li'.c6

7.~e2 has been played more often but is

less strong. After 7...JJ..e78.0-0 play may

transpose to a Scheveningen but Black has

some extra options involving an early dS.

Less

good

is 7...

d5 R.cd5 "Dd5

9.ttJc6 bc6

lO.ttJe4 Englisch-Schottlander, Leipzig,

1st

DSB

Congress 1879(!).

7. ... be6

8. e5 tedS

9. tee4 'fie7

10. f4 '*b6

This position has

to be

compared to the

'normal line': 6.l;Jc6 be6 7.e5

tLid5

8.lL!e4

'fIIe7

9.f4

'filM.

Via our 6.33 move order

we have the same position with the extra

pawn moves a3 and a6. As it turns out,

this difference gives White a large edge.

In the normal line White has the follo-

wing options:

• 1O.c4;

and here Black often uses both

the b4 square (.ib4) and the a6 square

(.i.a6). So including 6.a3 a6 should fa-

vour White.

• 10.·iH3 ~e7 Il.a3(!) was the game

Sherzer-San Segundo, New York Open

1988.

This clearly illustrates the useful-

ness of 6.a3 .

• 10..id3 ~a6(!) Il.a3(!) was Tsesh-

kovsky-Sveshnikov, Soviet Champions-

hip. Tbilisi 1979. Further comments are

superfluous.

11. "'f3

A good move, but

explained above, the

alternatives II.e4 and 11.

.id3(!)

are

also

strong.

11. f5

12.

ef6 tUf6

13.

tiJf6 gf6

14. jLd2

Also good is 14.~d3. In the subsequent

complications

Schekachev

loses his way

and the game:

14...dS 1S..i.c3

ssa

16.0-0-0 ~d7 17.Wh5 ~d8 18:ffh6

nf8

19.~h4? a5 20.'fie1? we7 21.g3 eS

22.~g2

d41

Black

better

23.~a8

de3

24.'I'e3

:a8

25.'i'd3 ~d6 26.'i'h7 a.b8

27.a.d6 27.b3 c4 27..:i'b2 28.~ ~d6

29.:d1 .ie6

0-1

Schekachev-Bellamine,

Metz 2001.

Variatlon C

6.... 'i'e7

This

move has little independent value. In

practice play most often transposes to

some other line of the Sicilian.

7. .i.e3

7.~e2 a6 8.0-0 is actually a Tairnanov,

when the standard continuations are

8...~e7 and

8...

l!).d4. Instead of 8.0-0

Ennenkov once went for a Scheveningen

set-up with 8.f4 d6 9.i.e3 ~d7 10.0-0

ttJd4 II..i.d4 ~c6 12...-d3 .ie7 13.nael

0-0 14.~hl and got a winning advantage

after 14...nac8 15.,*g3 g6 16.f5 e5

17..i.e3 rt>h8 IK1l'h4 ..-d8 19..i.g5 I1g8

20.~g4 1:Ie721.fg6 :g6 22 ..ifS Errnen-

kov-Skernbris, Kavala Balkaniad 1990.

7. ... 86

8. ~e2

The

Taimanov

is again the normal way

reach this

position:

l.e4 c5 2.lDf3 ti)c6

3.d4 cd4

4.tUd4

e6 5.l'Llc3

VIIc7

6.~e2 a6

7.0-0 lLlf6 8.a3 or 6.~e3 a6 7 ..te2 tbf6

8.a3 are the common move orders.

Another possibility is 8.f4 d6 9."f3. This

position is

also usually

reached via a Tai-

manov move order: 6.~e3 a6 7.a3 ~f6

8.f4. Tal won some nice games as White

in this line. One

crushing example

via our

SOS move

order

is Moroz- Yagupov,

Czestochowa

1992: 9...

i.e7 1O.i.d3 0-0

11.0-0 ttld4 12..id4 e5 13.

.tf2

~g4

l4.~g3

ef4 IS.'fJ'f4

.ie6 J6.llJd5 ~d5

17.ed5

tbd5

18.~f5!

ti'lf6

19.nael nae8

20.~h3

2J..~d4

t:{:;dT?

22.Ag6! 1-0.

8.... d6

Other possibilities at this stage:

• 8...b5

9.lL.c6

dc6 lO.f4, as

in Beli-

kov-Gasanov, Czestochowa 1992.

• 8...~e7

9.0-0 0-0 1O.f4 d6 II.'i!VeI

lDd4

12.~d4 bS 13.~g3 ~b7 is one of the

absolute main lines of the Scheveningen.

9. g4!?

..t

• ..t

~iV

~~~

~ ~~~~

Cjj~

ttJ

~~ ~~ ~

1:t

'iY~

Avoiding

the

Scheveningen

that

would

on the cards after 9.0-0 or 9.f4.

9.... h6

10. h4

This is

more like

Keres Attack. Black's

next fails

solve his problems.

10.... tDd4

11.

'iWd4

12.

'iWd31?

Correctly sacrificing

pawn

for a power-

ful

knight on d5. 12.'ti'd1 ~e6 is OK for

Black.

12. ... ~g4

l2...~g4? l3.tUd5

with

.ib6 to follow.

13. ~g4 o!Lig4

14. lOd5

~c6

15. '3!?

Stronger than 15.Ab6 ne8 16.0-0-0

ere,

and Black's position is preferable.

15. ...

tt:.e3

16. 'ta'e3 ~cB

Not 16...~c2? 17.lkl+-.

17.

'ili'c5

18. 'i!i'd2

.1.

.t.

'iVtD~

"iV

%:t

White has excellent compensation for

the pawn. 18 hS 19....

g5!1

..-a5

20.f4!?

"84

20 ~c4 21.0-0-0!

ae4

22.'*'f5+- 21.'iWf5!lWd7? Now White is

winning.

must be admitted, though,

that

is not easy either to defend

Black's position after 21...~d8

22.l"i:'1c7,

or 21...l:tc4 22.0-0. 22.'tifd7 <oPd7

23.~b6 ~c7 24.tL:c8 ef4

25.0-0

~c8

26.%lf4+- f6 27.~f2

fLe7

2B.llgl g5

zs.ms

<;pd7 30Jlhl ~e6 31.a4 fid8

32.Wf!2 fLe7 33.a5 .td8 34.b4 %.th7

35.Wd3 g4 36.l:th2

37.eb6 fib6

38J:lg2 1:Ih8 3UrdS l:th7 40.<be2 ~d8

41.1:Ig3 ~c7 42.%lgd3

llha

43.<bf2 <oPf7

44.Wg2 <&>g645.%l3d4 lla8 46.11c4 lla7

47.l:lc6

48.ba5

~a5

49.=dd6 <oPg7

50..DdS 1-0 Short-Lalic, Gibraltar 2003.

Variation D

6....

Black reasons that the 'wasted' 6.a3 (not a

developing move) justifies action in the

centre.

7. .tb5

Too meek is 7.ed5 ed5 (7...tUdS 8.tDd5

'tifdS 9.tbb5!? 'ftdl IO.';ii'd1 Pctrov-Fak-

hiridou, Kavala 2001, is a possibility for

endgame lovers) 8..Q.e2 ~e7 9,0-0 0-0,

and White has no advantage.

7.... Si..d7

edS edS

Bad is 8..,ttid4? 9.i..d7 ~d7 1O.'t!Vd4~e7

II.~e3 ed5 12.0-0-0 0-0 J3.tDdS±

Mohr-Lenic, Dobma 2002.

However, 8...tt';d5 is perhaps monger:

9.lOdS ed5 10.0-0 ~e7 11.i.e3

(11.<i.:b3?! a6 12.~c6 bc6 13.~e3 0-0

14.~cS l:te8 15.~e7

'f!ke7

16.~d4 ~gS!.

and Black is already slightly better,

Shabalov-Khrnelnitsky, US Champions-

hip, Parsippany 1996)

ll...gf6

12.c4 dc4

13.lL.c6 bc6 14.~c4 0-0 15.'ii'c2 ~c8~

16.~adl

srs

17.'ifc I ~e4 18.f3~ ~-Ih

Golubev-Krasenkow, German Bundes-

Iiga 2002/03.

9. 0-0

Ji.e7

9....

10. h3

Preparing White's next. Bad was

lO.lLJb3?! ~g4! 11.f3 .te6 12,~e3 0-0

13..Q.c6 bc6 14ka4?! tZJd7 15, q-;ac5

'ifb6! 16.~d4

ctJc5

17AJcS srs, and

Black was better in Suetin-Manor, Berlin

1995. An alternative, though, is IO.llel

0-0 II.i..g5 Pierrot-Rosito, Mar del Plata

2001.

10. 0-0

11.

tDf3

~e6

12. fLd3

White is not much better here, but Short

outplays his lower-rated opponent in the

game. 12..:.'d7 12...d4 13.IXel llfe8

14.

.if4

a6 15.~eS ~e5 16.~e5;t g6?

17:ttf3

~h5

18.l:lad1 'i'c6 19.1Ue2 b5

20.~d4

'tIib6 21.c3± :lad8 22.lle2 l:ld7

23.nde1 fLf8 24.g4 tbg7

2S:W'f6

llb7

26.~c2 ....c5 27.<ot>g2tte7 28:W'e7l:lbe7

29.~b3 .lld7 30.f4! .id6? 31,jLg7! ~g7

32.f5 J-O Short-Ellison, Port Erin 1998.

Variation E

6. ... d6

sensible move. Black just continues in

ScheveningenlRauzer style. Naturally,

7.~g5 is not a

good

idea now (a3 looks to-

tally stupid). However, depending upon

your repertoire there are two main choices:

the Sozin or the Scheveningen.

neither

case

does

an early a3 lead to highly critical

lines. On the other hand. in both the

Sozin

and

the

Scheveningen the move makes

sense. And remember, this SOS is all about

wrong-footing your opponent! There are

actually many transpositions into norma!

theoretical lines. We

are

not delving deeply

into the theory of either line. although we

will see into what directions play might de-

velop.

the way, the games quoted here

all derived from our SOS move order.

Variation E1

~c4

ke7

8. ()..O 0-0

In Beshukov-Srienz, Antalya 2002, Whi-

te got an edge after 8...~c7 9..ia2 0-0

IO.~hl ~d7 I J.f4 UadS 12.tL"f3 ~c8

13.'i!*'el b6

14.e5

ttJe8

IHIJ'g3 d5 16.f5.

9. ~a2

A quiet I

ine

from the Sozin has arisen.

a favourite of the Russian grandmaster

Semen Dvoiris.

9. ... ~d7

Black has other moves at this stage, of

course .

• 9...tZld4

IO.'tWd4

.td7 (lO ...b6

11.'ft'd3!? planning i.f4 and :adl is a

recommendation of Beliavsky and

Mikhalchishin) II.f4 '6'b6 12.'MVb6ab6

13.i.d2. and

White was slightly

better

Dvoiris-Beshukov, Cappelle la Grande

1999.

• 9...a6 IO.'it>hl (to.i.e3) 10...tbd4

II...-d4

12.f4

~b7

13.f5 e5 14.Wd3

15..td2 as!'!

16.ttbS!?

.ta6 17."c6

~f1 18.:f1 'iWb8 19.i.c I Ilc8

20."a4.

and

White had enough compensation in

Dvoiris-Cifuentes,

Hoogeveen

2000. Yet

the game continuation 20 ...l:I.c3 21.bc3

'6'c7

22 ...Q.d2was not a good idea.

1O. ~e3 tLid4

Here

IO...tt!.e5

Il.ife2 tDeg4 12.~d2

'$'b6 13.tUh3 :afc8

)4J~tad1?! lLle5

15.ke3

fIIe7

16.tLld2 b5!~ is a

well-known game Medina-Polugaevsky,

Las Palmas

1974

(note: not via the 6.a3

move order). Instead of

14Jhdl

Beli-

avsky and Mikha1chishin give 14.h3 tt)eS

15.~e3 "a6l as

1;.

11. .Q.d4 ~c6

12.• d3

This looks stronger than 12.f3 b5!= (Po-

lugaevsky),

12. ... 'itd7

12...b5!?

13. l:[ad1 b6

14. 1I'g3

.b7

15. e5

The game Lutikov-Bikov, Soviet Cham-

pionship,

Kharkov

1967,

went

15...deS

16.~e5 %lad817.~c4 l:td1 18.l:dl l:d8

19..id3 White

slightly better

because

his

chances on the kingside

19...g6

20.lle1

tt)e4?! 21.tt)e4 ~e4

22..ic3

22.~e4

'W'e4 23.'W'c3 'W'f5= 22 ....Q.dS

22....id3

23.'iWe5±

23.h4 "'c6

24.hS

"e8

25.hg6

hg6

26.

'iWh3f6

27.:e3

Even

stronger than

27....

27...e5

28..ig6!

....g6 29.1:g3 ~g3 30.-.g3

<:J;f7

31....d3

<li>e632....h3

'i5'f7

33.~h7

<:J;e6

34..ib4

1-0.

Variation E2

7. f4

This

will

eventually transpose into a kind

of Scheveningen -

Black has no objec-

(ions. The same can be said for the moves

7..ie2

and

7.~e3:

7.1Le2

AI) 7...eS S.lDO h69.0-0~e6LOJ:tel

$J.e7 1Lh3

0-0

n.an.

and we have

transposed into a Boleslavsky

with

the

(useful) extra tempo aJ. Zelcic-Mrva,

Montecatini

1997.

A2) 7...~e7 8.0-0 0-0

9.~e3

with a

Scheveningen-like position in which Whi-

te has committed himself

an early a3. So

play is about equal:

• 9...

'i!fc7

lO.f4 a6

(1O...

tDd4 11..~.d4

eS) ll.~hl .ad7 12.~f3 ttJd4 13.~d4

.ic6 Andrade-RJanssen. Tallinn 1997.

• 9...ttJd4 \O..id4

b6 1l.f4 ~b7

12._d3 nc8

13.'fig3,

in Psakhis-

Christiansen, Philadelphia

1989.

• 9...a6 I0.f4

Vlkc7

.Vlke

I Ci)d412.~d4

b5 13.ffg3 i.b7 14Jlael is a perfect

transposition to one of the absolute main

lines of the Scheveningen. This occurred

in Belikov-Annakov, Zhavoronki

1995.

A3) 7...j;_e7 8.0-00-0 9!iphl. This is

an unfortunate experiment by Kotsur.

A31) 9...

a6 \O.f4 'ifc7 I L~e3 neg

12....

el ltb8!?

IHlfg3

d5 14.e5 tDe4

15.~e4 de4

16.c3

lDd4

17.~d4

b5,

and

Black was tine in Kotsur-Kharlov, Ekate-

rinburg

1997.

A32) After9 ...e5!? the king

not use-

ful

in these positions.

10.lbf3

ll.b3 ~e6

12.~b2

ne8= Kotsur-Filli-

pov,

Perm 1997.

7.~e3

~e7 8.~e2 (here

8.[4

trans-

poses to our main game. please don't con-

tinue: 8...

0-0

9.~d)?!

e5! IO.tDfS?

ars

II.ef5 d5 12.fe5 d4!

.ef6 $,f6+ Moroz-

Horvath, Bolzano 1998) 8...0-0, which

transposes to the previous line

(A:

7.~e2).

7. ...

ssa

The recent game Sax-Sakelsek, Nova

Gorica 2002, went 7 a6 8.~e3 e5!?

9.~de2!'?

(9"1'1f3) 9 ~e7 \o.f5 b5

I J.liJg3 .i.b7 IVuh5

0-0

I3.lUi5!? 0h5

(l3 ...

0e4'!

l4.'ifg4) 14.'i"h5

~d4, with

unclear

play.

8. iLe3

Here 8..Q.e2

0-0 9.0-0 is

also possible, of

course,

while

8.tl:lf3

0-0 9.~d3 transpo-

ses to the game Ermenkov-Inkiov, Bulga-

ria

1980

(see 6...ge7).

8.... e51?

To give the game an independent charac-

ter.

After

8...0-0 9.~e2 a6 10.0-0

9JIc7

1J.'1WeI tDd4 12.~d4 e5 Black had equali-

led

in Lutikov-Matulovic, Sukhumi

\966.

9. tL;f3

~g4

Preferable

is 9...ef4

1O..if40-0.

10. iLcl 0-0

Now 1O...ef4 1l.ii.f4

0-0

12:~Wd2is

per-

haps a bit better for White. After 10...'it'b6

11.'ite2 Black's pieces will shortly be for-

ced

retreat.

11.

151

12. fg6 hg6

13. ttJd5 tj_)f6

14. tOe7 'fIIe7

15. .ig5

White is just better now; Nunn tries

complicate matters. Please remember that

this

was

rapid game.

15...d516.ed5

17.l()d4 'ft"eS l8.AfS

'itf6

19.dc6 e3

20.lZl13

"-b2 21.Ad3+- .c3 22.<.te2

"W'c623J~b1 i.g4 24J:tb4! ..if3 25.9f3

J:tad8 26.J:tc4 ~d6 27."it'al IUe8 28.l:th4

J:te529.f4

~f6

30. ft'e5 ~h4 3Ui"e3 r.W8

32.wd1 J:te8 33."W'd4 ..t>g834.Wc1

:!:te6

3S.J:t11 a6 36.Ac4

:!:tf6

37.wb2 wg7

38.1112 b5 39.~d3 ~g4 40.'f#'e5 'iYh4

41.'i!t'd4 'fI'g4 42JU1 '@'h4 43.'iYf2 'ft"g4

44.15 b4 45.a4 as 46.'@'f4 ~h3 47.\!r'e5

'i'h548.lIg1

1-0 Ljubojevic-Nunn, Mo-

naco rapid 1995.

Variation F

6.... fi.e7

7. 14

This move gives the whole system more

of a bite. The following moves have also

been tried in practice:

• 7.tuc6?! bc6 S.e5 [DdS

9.0.e4

'fic7

1O.f4f5

not so

impressive

from our

mo-

dem viewpoint. Lasker-Lipschutz, New

York 1901.

• 7.Ac4 d5 8.ed5 ttJdS

9.tLlc6

bc6

.td2 ~c5 I

I.~

l:lb8 12.b3 0-0

13...td3

14.0-0

'i'b6

V2-l!2

Speel-

man-Lutz, Munich 1992.

• 7..te3 0-0 R.f4 d6 9.~e2 e5 10.tUb3

ef4 11...Q.f4

~e6

12.0-0

dS=

Ljuboje-

vic-Laurier, Linares 1995.

• 7.~e2 d5 (7...0-0 8.0-0 d6

will be that

same

Scheveningen again)

R.ed5 liJd5

9.lDc6

bc6, and now both lO.lbe4

(Zagrebelny-Siriam, Calcutta 1996) and

10.tDa2(Kotsur-Kozirev, Omsk 1996) are

ightly better

for

White.

He wi IIgo

for

and

iLf3

to claim

because

his pawn

structure.

7. '.' 0-0

No better is 7...d5 R.e5

thd7

9.~e3 0-0

[O.~e2

ti\d4 I1.lLd4 f6

12.ef6

lbf6

13.0-0 ~d7 14.'*Vd2 l:lc8 15.~e3, and

White had a nice advantage in this

French-like rniddlegamc, Mitkov-Skrip-

chenko, CappeJle [a Grande 1994.

Correct. however, is 7 ...d6, when White,

he does not want

play (he Scheve-

ningen, can try

8.CiJO

0-0 (8...a6 9.~d3

'fic7

10.0-01'>5

II.'i'el ~.b7

12.ifg3 g6

was unclear in Malevinsky-Popov, Vilni-

us 1978) 9 .~d3 c5 10.0-0 ef4 [J...tf4

~g4 (11....ae6)

12.Whl lL:d4 13.~e3

~f3

14.gf3 .~.h5 15..Q..d4±

Ermenkov-

lnkiov, Bulgaria 1980.

8. e5

Alternatively, R.':t_;f3d5 9.e5li\e4 IO..td3

.!i~c3 Il.bc3 ~b6 12.~e2 f6 looks odd.

hut after 13.h4 White got a nice attack in

M.Petrov-Ncdev. Leon 2001.

tDe8

Here 8 <Dd5!?should be investigated.

9. tiJf3 f6

The move 9...d6 is likewise answered by

IO.~d3.

10. ~d3 fe5

11.

fe5 d6

12. ed6 LUd6

13. 0-0

White has the better pawn structure and

attacking chances on the kingside.

13..... b6 14.~h1 ~d7 15.~e1 IlaeB

16.SLe3! ~c7

6...it'b2?

17J:ta2

traps

the queen 17.'@'g3 f;aS 18.'iI'h3 g6

18..

.ers

19.94 19J:'ad1 ~c8 20.~h6

lU7

21.<1\e4 t;';e4

22.~e4 :d8

23.~d2

-.c7 24 ..td3 Lutikov gives his opponent

no chances for further exchanges

24...l:tdS 25.~g4 rileS 26.tDeS ttf1

27JIf1 'iWe5Without the defending rook

on f7 Black cannot protect his bare king

28.1!6'f3'llig7 29.~h6! l1f5 Desperation.

If 29...'ilfh6 30.l!ft7 ~h8 31.~e8+-)

30.~f5 -.h6 31.~g4 1-0 Lutikov-

Khasin, Soviet Championship. Moscow

1961.