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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

B) 1O.~e2 0-0 Il.ltJc3 tLlh5. The

same manoeuvre as in [he previous exam-

ple. 12.0-0 tlJf4 l3.tlJd5 tDe2 14.1!6e2

~g4

15.• e3 e5. and Black had an easy

game in Sefc-Petrosian, Vienna 1957.

White was duly impressed. as witness the

next few moves 16.tbel?

tbd4 17.f3

.i.e6

18.t;)c3? fia5 19.ttJe2 ltJe2 20.~e2 b5!

21.cb5 .ib3 22.l:lf2

.ia4+;

1O.tbc3 0-0 (l0".~g4!?) 11..ie2

i.g4 12.tbd2 (12.l:ld I e5 13.0-0

~f3

14.~f3

tbd4

15.~e2 is given as slightly

better for White by

Boleslavsky.

The idea

is that after

~d3

and tUd5 the Black.

knight may be dislodged from his outpost

with f4)

12...~e2 13.tUe2

14.0-0 b5

15.lDe3 b4 16.~d5 tLld7 17.tLJf3

\1.0-\-2

Savon-Bronstein, Soviet Championship,

Leningrad 197

The examples

illustrate the type of posi-

tion that While should avoid.

Rather passive was 7".~a5 8.~a5

t[)a5

9..ib2

1O.l'i:JC3

l:lc8 II.~e2 1t..g7.as

played in Duckstein- Teufel, Bamberg

1968.

White is slightly better, of course,

but

Black held on to the draw.

will come

back

to this game.

Interestingly. after 7.h3 the game

Galego-Silva, Portuguese Championship

1992. nevertheless continued:

7.... .ah6

The move that White thought to have

avoided with 7.b3.

8. 'W'e3

Nothing is gained by 8.'i'b2 'S'a5 9.~c3

(9.~d2 ~d2

IO.tLlbd2lbf6

9.littd I tLJe5

10.ttie5

i.e

I II.

'iWcI

~e5) 9...

~cl

(9...iLg7 1O.~d2) IO.l:lcllbf6.

8....

'eiaS!

Black is playing

improved version of

Duckstein-

Teufel. see

the

note above.

9.'ffaS lDa5 10..2.b2 1O.~h6

tDh6

II.tOc3 is equal, compare this to

Tiviakov's Maroczy below. 10...tlJf6

11.tVe3

UH6 ef6

IVue3

is (he alter-

native.

11...

0-0 12.~d3 Afe8

And Black

is fine. the game continued.

13J)"()

14.l:tfel nab8

rs.

.ctad1 b5 16.e5 deS

17.cbS ab5

l8.neS ~c4!? 19..tc4 bc4

20.l:le7

cb3 21,ab3

This is a mistake.

The stronger 2l.tDe2 is answered

21....2.f8 22.

.CI.e3

ha2 23.~f6

l:lb

21..•

l:lb3

2VLld5 tLld5 23.l:rd7 Ab2

24Jl7d5

:ec2

Suddenly White is in big

trouble.

25.:f1 :f2 26.tLiel26.g3

~e3

also loses.

26...~e3

White resigned.

What did we learn from this survey of the

Hungarian variation?

also has the move

.2.h6. but it is more forceful (it

auacks

the

queen). Black usually plays it to disturb

White's piece coordination. However, we

also saw several examples in which the

bishops were traded. when the position

becomes rather similar to the main object

of our study. So let us return to Tiviakov's

5...~h6

the Maroczy. The move was in-

troduced in the following game from the

European championship.

Sergey Beshukov

• Sergey Tiviakov

Saint Vlncenl 2000

1. e4

2. ~f3

li)c6

3. d4

cd4

4. iOd4 g6

5. c4 .ih6

Tiviakov

deserves the highest praise for

finding and playing this move. Theory

only investigates

5...tbf6

and

5...

.tg7.

Nevertheless,

the idea to exchange

bish-

ops is

the main theme in the following

well-researched

line:

5...£l.g7

6.j(.e3 t[\f6

7.0.c3 0-0 8..1e2 d6 9.0-0 _~d7 1O.'i'd2

tDd4 II..id4 ..tc6 12.f3

l3.b3 ~d7.

Nowadays White prefers to keep his

bishop

with

14..Q.e3 or

with

the subtle

14.~f2.lfWhite

wants to keep his bishop

so badly. then

why

not offer the exchange

at a point when it cannot be avoided?

6. .th6

The move played by Beshukov.Its advan-

tage is that the knight is now stranded at

h6. A

drawback is that Black develops

with tempo. Besides. the knight may

come in useful for preparing

(it can

also

regrouped

with lL.g4-e5/f6). Let

briefly examine the alternatives:

A) 6.f4.

This avoids the exchange. but

weakens White's position somewhat. Bad

now is

6...

e5?

7.cub5.

Interesting

it;

6...1!i'b6.

which is

best met

by 7

.lbb5.

The

natural

6...d6

7.liJc3

tbf6

8.~e2

0-0

also good.

6.lUc3 ~cl

(6...

d6)

7.lkl

lUf6

looks OK for Black. A typical Maroczy

position,

but

one in which the

dark-squared bishops have already

been

exchanged.

6.tbc6'!!

The idea

this move

that

6...

bc6 7.'tWd4 leads to interesting

play: 7...'~WaS

(7..

.f6) 8.~d2

(8.lLk3

e5)

8...gd2 9.~d2 e5

IO.'~d6. and White is

better.

However. aftcr6 ...dc6 7.'fid8 'ittd8

8.Ylh6

112h69.~c3 e5

Black is slightly

better

the

endgame.

6.... li,h6

7. tZjc3 0-0

Sensible play.

7...~b6

is less

good;

after

8.ti"\b3

future l1\d5 or

will

be annoy-

ing.

Equal

to the text is 7 ...d6 (Tiviakov).

8. ~e2 d6

ILl'S is given as an alternative by

Tiviakov,

9. "d211

I think

that

this

merely helps Black. After

9.0-0 Tiviakov (on

his

webpage)

gives

9.....ie6

and

9...fS

without any further

comments.

Let

us examine both lines:

A) 9 .....Q.e6

is a noncommittal move.

White can just continue to develop with

moves like h3, ~d2 and l:tc

Or he can

try something more purposeful with

1O.~c6~? bc6 IJ.fI'd2 rt/g7 (I l...lbg4

12.~g4 ~g4 13.f4 is better for White)

12.h4!?

B) 9...f5.

This utilizes the position

the knight on

h6. There is a danger. however, after

lO.ef5 (lO.fI'd2) 1O...liJd4 (IO...4':f5 may

wellbebener) I J.fI'd4~f5 12.~d2~d7.

Bya curious transposition of moves we

have arrived at Tal-Kupreichik, Sochi

970~

I'll

give this game in full:

5...~g7 6.£e3 ~h6 7.lbc3 d6 8.~e2

0-0

9.0-0 f5 lO.cf5 08d4'!~ I L.~d4 ~d4

12.fid4

ttJf5

LHIVd2-'Ld7 14.~f3 ~.c6

JS.~d5 'it'g7 16JHei e5 17.cS de5

18J:te5 }le8 19J:tael ~d6 20J:te6 ~e6

21.l:te6

~d7

22.~f4

Ad5

2H!i'eS ~f7

24.nf6 ~gR 25.ti"',d5 ~a4 (2S...lIe8

26.ng6 hg6 27.ttJf6 Wg7

28.

ud7

~eS

29.~e5) 26.h3 ~d8'! 27.:f5 1-0.

Curious and best avoided. In general

Black should watch out when playing f5.

He improves the activity of his pieces

(knight on f5, open f-file), but structurally

he gets into an inferior position (three

pawn groups, white squares are weaker.

as might be his king).

9.... ttJg4

This looks good. The knight is on his way

to better pastures (eS or f6).

10.

~g4

Tiviakov gives

10.0-0

ttJge5=. perhaps

I l.fuc2!? is still a try to avoid further ex-

changes.

10.

11. h3

12. b3

.tg4

.ie6

'ttb6

now

Black

has

full

equality,

and

even a

choice of plans. Tiviakov gives both

12...lCd4 13.'f6'd4 ~aS= and 12...'fh5

(planning a6 and b5) as viable alterna-

tives.

13. tLc2

Avoiding an immediate draw with

13.l:1dl. when the exchanges on d4 will

lead

full

equality.

13. a6

14. 0e3 'eVeS

15. .l::lc1 ~eS

16. 0-0

~ ~~ ~

~~.t

'iN

~ ~

~Cjj Cjj~

16....

'tff4(1)

The queen is well-positioned here. The

players now agreed a draw. Tiviakov

gives l6 ...g5

interesting.

is impossible to evaluate

5...~h6

on the

basis of

one

game, of course.

Neverthe-

less, the move is

certainly

playable. an

out-

right refutation

not

the cards.

why

not

surprise

your next opponent with this

TN.

and let us see how

this

line develops!

RECENT GAMES

Meanwhile Tiviakov's 5....i.h6 has re-

ceived some

further tests.

Below

you

will

find some lightly annotated games.

Andras

Flumbort

• Coran Kosanovic

Paks 2001

1.lbf3 c5 2.c4 tbc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tDd4

5.e4

~h6 6.~h6 tbh6

V2~c3

0-0 8.~e2

d69.0-0

..t'iV

·a.

ii Ii

9...tLA4!?

The

dangers

9...f5 were illustrated in

the comments to Beshukov-Tiviakov.

10.-.d4

~e6

11..c!.ad1 iWa5 12...wd2

After 12...lt:ig4 13.11;(.15White is slightly

better,

13.~h1 a6 14.14 f6 15..id3 l:tac8

16.~d5

16.b3 b5.

16..:a'd2 17Jld2 ~d5 18.edS f5

The

ending is about equal.

19.1:tel

rJ;f7

20.'~gl ~g8 21.a4

22.b3

Draw.

Miguel Munoz

• Goran Kosanovic

Budapest 2001

1.e4 c5 2.lljf3 [Lie63.d4 ed4 4.lDd4 96

5.c4 .ih6 6.iLh6 (Lih6 7....d2 tlJg4

8k;c3 0-0 9.h3

9.~e2 d6

would transpose

to Beshu-

kov-

Tiviakov.

9... lbf6 1O.O-O-O!?

~b6 11.14d6

Note how Black will now continue to

make useful

moves before

exchanging

d4.

12.~e2 ~e6 13.g4l:[fe8 14.f5

X K •

~i i

'iV~i..t~i

Forcing Black to exchange.

14...tL'ld4 15.iWd4 iWd4 16Jld4

~d7

17.g5 -t:.;e818.~g4

8.01':05

\tf8

19.Q.g4.

18...e619.fe6 LeG 20..ie6

zo.ces

wg7.

20...fe6 21.b3

Chances are about even.

21...

ne5 22.h4 a6 23.r;t¥b2!:lae8

24.a4

~Be7

2S.ttf1 nf7 26.lU7

r.;I;f7

27.b4 l:te5

28.0.d1

29.bS

J:Ie5

30.¢>b3 cJf;e7

31.tDf2 !:le8 32.~g4 b6

sa.es

lIeS

34.ed6 ~d6 35.~f6 IlfS 36.~h7 0.b7

37.ltJf6

4.lc5

38.~c2

l:1f2

39.wdl

rth2

40.tL:g8

'iPf7

41.~h6 rJie7

4Vi';g8 W

Draw.

Joseph Gallagher

• Chris Beaumont

England

2002

15.11fd1 ~d2 16.lld2 a6

17.g4

1B.c5!

0.b4

IB...de5 19.e5 (followed

f5).

19.83 ~';82

20.lQa2

:h2 21.~f3

21...l:tc5 22.l:te5 deS 23.eS and White has

the advantage.

22.l:td6

ef4

23.ttJd5 tLJd5 24.edS lIfd8

2S.Ud8 l:tdB 26.d6+- lId7 27.b4 ~f8

28.l:tel ~e6

1.e4 c5 2.ll:Jf3 ~e6 3.d4 ed4 4.tLjd4 g6

5.c4

~h6

6.tL:e3

d6 7...Q.e2.:i.e1 8.lIe1 ~

~f6 9.0-0 0-0 10.0.c2

lO.whl ~h6 II.tUc6 bc6 12.b3 gave

Black no problems in Kwiatkowski-

Singer, Laczna 2002.

10..~.e6

11.li',e3

29.~b7! rtb730.rteS!

11...'''a5

11...'fib6 planning ~d4 makes more

sense.

12.~h1 !:rac8 13.14 ""b6 14.'ifd2 'ifd4

Black resigned as 30...fc6 31.c6 l:lb6

32.(';71:1(;633.d7 will queen.

CHAPTER 7

A bishop's wonder move

NIC KEYVO 8.8

4...~>d6:the SOSreply to l.b3

This chapter presents a complete defence

against the so-called Nimzowitsch-

Larsen attack: l.b3. Our system naturally

has a distinct SOS character. Thus

in-

volves

the

developing

move 4...~d6,

placing

the piece in front of the d7 -pawn,

and an early 0aS. avoiding a possible

exchange

(.~.c6).

Klaus Bischoff

• Emil Sutovsky

Essen 2001

1. b3

2. ~b2

t;':c6

3. e3

Keeping

all

options open. this move best

illustrates the

flexibility

of the

Nimzowitsch-Larscn attack, After 3.c4

.!!J6 4.c3 Black may go for

very decent

reversed Sicilian 4".d5. To give an en-

couraging example: 5.<:<.15-1ld5

6.aJ

.\td6

7,"'(;2 'iWe7 S.d3 f5

9,ti':c3

-1:d4 10.ed4

li~c3

Il.deS .~_e5 12..~,e2 l?:e2 l3.tCe2

.ab2 !4.'i'b2 0-015.0-0 f4 and Black was

clearly better in Hetzer-Stripunsky, New

York

2000,

However Black may also

adopt the same scheme of development as

in our main game: 4.".s').d6 5.~c3

0-0

fol-

lowed by l:te8, e4 and ~c5 or alterna-

tively l:te8,

~f8

and d5.

3....

tDf6

course,

3...d5 4.~b5 £d6 5.f4

is not

necessarily bad for Black but exactly the

kind of thing that White was looking for-

ward to when he chose l.b3.

4• .Q.b5

4.c4 transposes

the 3.c4 line given

above,

while 4.tUf3 is well met

4...e4.

Again the miracle move of this SOS is

also playable: 4...Qd6 S.d3 0-0 6.tUbd2

~eM 7.a3 was Bischoff-Khenkin, Ger-

many

Bundesliga 2000/0

Note that

7.tbc4

is answered

7...]Lb4 8.c3

ars.

4. ... ~d6!?

This is what this SOS is all about. Black

protects

his

e5-pawn. without

giving

White any clear targets. The drawback of

this odd

development of the bishop

is that

it appears to disturb the coordination of

the black forces. However this

only

seemingly the case. Black has, in fact, a

few wonderfully organic set-ups in mind.

Thus, he might play a6 and after ~c6 dc6

his light-squared bishop joins the fray.

Alternatively, he may simply continue

0-0, :!:Ie8

and

now

either

Qf8

and

d5 or

and ~e5. Finally, sometimes ~e7 (~a5)

played followed by c6, ~c7 and d5. In

all cases Black firmly takes control of the

central squares that were so generously

neglected

his l.b3 opponent. This is

hardly a modern idea,

for

it was first

played nearly one-and-a-half century ago

the great German champion Adolf

Anderssen.

is nevertheless still

effective.

our present game proves.

5. CLie2

A logical move that fails to bring any ad-

vantage. Yet. White

has

not been

particu-

larly successful

with the alternatives

either.

A) The stem game of 4...~d6 contin-

ued meekly

with

S.d3 bur developed

quite

originally after 5...tLie7!? 6.d4!? ed4

7.~d4

ti'lf5

8.~b2 tiM 9.~fJ b6 JO.liif3

lDg6 11.~d3 ~b7 Suhle-Anderssen,

Breslau 11:159.

Equally unpromising is S.lLcl 0-0

6.lL:ge2(ije7 7.d4 c6 8.~d3 ed4 9.ltJd4~b4

0.a3 W

1.(ijf5d5 and Black was tine in

Bellon

Lopez-Narciso Dublan, Havana 1999.

The

bayonet

attack

S.g4?!

dubi-

ous

here:

5".0-0 6.Q\c3 ~b4 7.g5?! i.c3 8.dc3 tDe4

9.h4 d5 10.

.-f3

ttJd6 II..~c6 bc6

12.0-0-0

13.

iJe2 a4 14.li'lg3 ~e6

15.~h5 ab3 l6.ab3 ~a2 11."g3 ~c4!

with

winning attack in Arencibia-

Efirnov, Saint Vincent 2001.

D) Preparing f4 with S.tDh3 is also du-

bious. after 5...a6 6.~e2 ~e7!? (aiming

to attack the h3-knight) ?.f4 d6 8.tt:lf2 ef4

9.ef40-0 I

O.Af3

d5 and Black was OK

Parkin-Bryson, Scottish Championship.

Glasgow 2000.

E) S.a3 looks insipid but is actually

quite cunning. White realizes the strength

of ~d6 versus his ~b5 set-up and simply

switches to a .i.e2 and c4 set-up. Both

sides will lose some tempi moving their

bishops around. Rogers-Sherbakov,

Hastings 1993/94. continued: 5...0-0

6...Q.e2~e7 7.c4 e4?! 8.lb.c3 d5?! 9.cd5

ti)e5

1O.4'le4

tLJe4

II.~e5 ~d5

12.tL;f3

and Black did not have enough compen-

sation for the pawn.

Instead of 6...!Ii.e7another solution would

6...Ae8 7.c4 ~f8; in the game ~e 7 dis-

turbs the coordination of Black's pieces.

However, 7 e4 is not forced either; after

the normal 7 d5 8.cd5 tDd5 would trans-

pose to l.b3 eS 2.~b2 ~c6 3.c4 ~f6 4.e3

dS 5.cd5 ttJd5 6.a3 f:J..e7(6...~d6 would

be preferable in this move order) 7.il.e2

0-0.

S.tiJf3 e4 (S...~e7 is playable too)

6.ttJd4 tDd4 7.~d4 c6

lLte2

0-0

9.c4

'*Ie? preparing .te5 was fairly equal in

McMichael-Parker. England Team

Championship 1996. After 5...e4 the

originaI6.lt:Jh4 has also been played. after

6...0-0 7.0-0 ~e5 8.~e5 ~e5 9.f4 ef3

10.tOf3

'IJIe7

II.~c3 d5 Black's position

is perhaps already the more attractive.

Mikhalevski-Avrukh. Rarnat Aviv 1998.

5,tt::.a3

Keene's suggestion

al-

most 25 years hence. Now if you are only

looking for equality then

5...

a6 should

suffice: 6.~c6

(6.~e2

~e 77

.It:Jc4

8.d4

Belikov-Pilipenko, Smolensk 1992)

6...dc6 7.lb.c4 "fIIe7s.tt~e2 0-0 9.0-0 h5

'0.~d6 cd6

1.f4 .ig4!= Lein-

Gruzrnann, Grieskirchen 1998. However.

more in SOS style is to give your oppo-

nent a taste of his own medicine with

5...tQaS!?

The idea is simply that

renders

ltx4

harmless. For example: 6.~c4 «4

7.xc4 0-0 8.~e2 c6 9.tL:g3

fi...c7 10.0-0

d5 with easy equality in Gelashvili-Hec-

tor, Istanbul

2000. After 6.~f3 a6

7.!iLe2~e7 8.tt:bl is a sud retreat.

the

game Hodgson-Speelman. England

Team Championship 1998, the players

called ita day after8 ...0-09.c4 b6 10.tt:lc3

.ab7 II.O-01Ue8 12.d3 .Q.a313.'i'cl.i.b2

Y2-~.

Best is the prophylactic 6.~e2. when af-

ter 6...a6 there is a parting of the ways:

G I)

7.lL;c4'?!

proved spectacularly in-

effective after

7...tbc4

8.bc4?! ~e7 9.a4

0-0 10.tDh3 ~cS 1l.f4? ~e3! 12.~e5

~a7

l3.q~f2

d6 14.~b2

ne8

15.d4 ~g4

0-1 Sakaev-Sveshnikov, Gausdal 1992.

G2) Better is 7.c4 c5!? (not obliga-

tory) &.lDf3

li:c6

9.d3 0-0 10.0-0 ~e8

Il.llJc2 ~f8 12.d4 and White was some-

what better in Teske-Berndt, German

Bundesliga 1999.

G3)

7.ttJf3

e4 8.lLld4 g6 9.c4 0-0

IO.llJbI

l:re8

11.~c3 .i.e5 12.d3 d5

13.cd5 ed3 14.'ird3 lDd5 15.~dS tt"dS

16.~f3 'i'd6 17.0-0-0 "iVb6 18.itc2

\-'2-\12

Hodgson-Harsov, York 1999.

H) Miles has tried S.~e2!? Its main

idea is comparable to line E. His

opponent. Ekstrom, rose to the occasion

and both players produced the following

bizarre tactics: 5...0-0 6.c4 lte8 7.tbc3

gf8 B.d3 d5 9.cd5lLid5 (so far so good. a

kind of Sicilian with colours reversed has

arisen) lO.tbf3 i.b4

UWd2 .Q.g4 12.h3

~5 13.a3 ~c3 14.~c3 lDd4!'! 15.lLJ<i4

(l5.ed4 ~f3 16.gf3 ~c3 17.'ffc3 ed4

with compensation) 15...tLlc3 16..a:6

"iVd.")! 17..Qh5 (17.e4? ~c6 18.~5

lLibS+) 17...'i'g2

IB.l:rn

'ifc6 19.1:I.cl

-.h6 20.~f7

'it>f7

21.• c3 c6 22. 'i'c4 and

the game is fairly equal

(l-S.-Y.!.

56)

Miles-Ekstrom. Ohrid 2001.

5.... a6

Consistent, although there is nothing

wrong. with 5...0-0 of course: 6.0-0 lte8

7.tDg3 (7.i.c6 bc6 S.d3 Af8 9.~g3 dS

Kharlov-Epishin, Elista 2001) 7...e4

8.~e2 ~e5

9.~e5 tbe5

1O.d4ed3 II.cd3

d5 12.d4 White has at best a very slight

edge, Morozevich-Sveshnikov, Podolsk

1993.

Not good is 5...tUe7?! 6.~g3 c6 7.~d3!

iLc7

8.tDh5 liJh5 9.~h5 0.g6 lO.f4! W'e7

11.0-0 e4 12.~e2 0-0 13.f5 lDe5 14.f6

with

dangerous initiative, Arencibia-

Huerta. Merida

2000.

6. ~e6 de6

~ '8

~~~fj,CiJ~~fj,

:ltb"tW~ ~

7. lLlbc3

7.tDg3

invites 7 h5 when after 8.ttJc3 h4

9.ttJge4

tL:e4

(9 h3!? Keene) lO.tCe4

.if5 Il.tUd6 ~d6 12.d3 0-0-0 13.e4?

~e4! Black went on to win in

Solbrand-Bator, Stockholm 1993.

7.d4 e4 8.c4 0-0 9.~bc3 lIe8 lO.h3

(l0.0-0? loses to

1O...

~h2 II.~h2 ttJg4)

1O... b5

was Garcia Padron-Romero

Holmes, Spain

1995.

7.d3 to prevent e4 is probably best. 7...0-0

B.tLld2'ife7 9.h3 was equal in the game

Arencibia-Estrernera Panos,

Malaga

2000.

7. e4

8. liJg3 'iIIe7

9. 'tIt'e2 0-0

10. 0-0·0

Ambitious and looking for trouble. How-

ever. everything isn't spick-and-span ei-

ther after castling kingside. After 10.0-0

~g4 11.f3 eO 12.gf3 ~h3 would be OK.

However. Black can also play more ag-

gressively with 1O...hS!?

after n.css

~h2 12.~h2 tDg4 13.~g3 (l3.Wgl

"h4) I3..... g5

14.tLJe4 'irh5 the lines

fork:

IS.tihl

'tWg6 16.f3

tlJe3

17.<o1tt1. ttJc2

l8.'it'd3lbb4!,

but not

18...lDal?

19.0f6

gf6

20.~f6

and mares.

B) 15.f4!

BI)

15..:.h2

16.<o1tf3~h5 (16 ...'tt'h7

17.l:thl tLlh2 18.<.t)g3

~e4

19.1:th2;

16...

~fS 17.<i:Jg3!)17Jlhl

~g6;

B2) 15..... g616.tLJg5

(l6.f5 ~f5 17.l:tf5

'it'f5 18.ttg4 'it'g4 19.~g4 f5) 16...f6

17."c4 ~h8

l8.~a3 l:te8 19.1:thl l'uh6

20.'iH7

zrs

2L~g6 ~g6 and

things are

still

unclear.

10.... ~a3

Exchanging an imponant defender.

11.~a3

'li'a3

12.'it>b1 J:le813.f3

13.'i!Vc4

to answer

J3...

i.e6

with

14.1/Wa4

was a safer option.

13_ ... ef3

14. gf3

Black now pushes his a-pawn

start a

devastating attack.

14. ...

15.

t;jge4

-i..;e4

16. fe4 a4

17. d3 ~e6

18. fi'd2

Suicidal is 18.lba4 b5

19.~lc)

b4 20.l1\a4

l:la4 2l.ba4 and now the fastest win is

21....aa2 22.~al ttc3 23.~a2 l:ta8

24.r,tIbI Ila4 mating.

18. ... b5

19. 'i'c1 'lWb4

20. "'b2 ab3

21. ab3 %183

22. lbe2

Running away with the king is also insuf-

ficient: 22.

'it>c

l:tea8

(but

not

22...

~b3

23.tbbl)

23...-t>d2(23J:thgl

:taI24.~d2

l:lla2 25Jtal ~b3)

B ...na2 24.nal

~b3

25.nhb

leaves Black with two

good

op-

tions: 25...l:1nl

26.nul nal

27.'f¥aJ ~.a4

25..:~a5 26.l:ta2 i.a2 27. ~a2 (27 .lla I

b4)

27..:'W·a2

2't~a2 :ta2.

In both cases

Black is a healthy

pawn

up.

22. ...

%:tea8

Threatening '\ta5.

23. l:lhg1 96

24. ""c3

24.ttJf4 ~b3.

24.... ~d6

25. 4...f4