TM

I US
CAN
UK
AUS
SFr
DM
$3.00
$3.50
£1.55
$3.60
3.80
430
DECEMBER 10,1990

VOLUME 3,
ISSUE 24

*s 1

x
IA
SILMAN
M
-

111 P w '
Ghess Challen
INSIDE
CHESS
magazine is a subsidiary of International Chess Enterprises, Incorporated
December 10, 1990 Volume 3, Issue 24

l llii
:
:;|
||i
|ii
||;
|||
p -
IllP -:IP
4 SUMMIT CHALLENGE MATCH
During the break between the battle of the Ks, we have all six Illl
games of the IM Jeremy Silman — IM Doug Root match. ffjjj:- '^M&i
Summit Publishing sponsored this second annual event, i;Wp lonalds
which is designed to pit the Southern California match n Bcrr
champion against a worthy challenger.

8 RULES OF THE GAME : pI||g(:nfrD

If you thought that moving the piece you've touched and Iflgtfrt
showing up within an hour were about all the rules you needed MARK.ETI N
to know, you're not ready to play for the World Uleiraw
Championship. GM Andy Soltis examines the rules and regs
of World Championship play.
:R'S-
9 U.S. DEFEATS THE REST OF THE WORLD
Our pick-up team beat their pick-up team 11-9. Adam Gale
reports from New York.
,^>ra
10 ANNOTATED GAMES
A Thanksgiving special. Annotated games from Adams, Ilic,
Nogueiras, and Gufeld — and not a turkey in the bunch! lic

'•ererr

PEllRTMlN' llil
•-CHS

16 INSIDE NEWS

18 BOOK REVIEW: The Benko Gambit

yea^

22 IMPROVE YOUR TECHNIQUE JfcS t

:pfpj

26 NIKOLAY MINEV on TACTICS

28 GAMBIT CORNER: French Fianchetto

' vpc:.
.HaO:
30 TOURNAMENT CALENDAR

Cover Photo: by Marianne Zaug

 Letters to the Editor
Two Strikes on Jonathan
Dear Editor,
Thank you for Jonathan Berry's article
on correspondence chess and for a listing
of some of the major correspondence or-
ganizations in the U.S. and Canada.
There are two things I would like to
mention that were missed by Mr. Berry:
The first is that many states have their
own correspondence chess organiza-
tions, but Northwest Postal Chess is the
only one I am aware of that is so vital. The
reason for this is because Northwest Chess
is published monthly, thus news is more
current.
The second omission is that the
Knights of the Square Table (N.O.S.T) is
one of the older clubs around, and has
many fine correspondence chess players.
To find out about NOST write to:
TlieNOST
111 Amber St.
Buffalo, N.Y. 14220-1861
Membership is $13.00 and includes
Tlie NOSTalgia, published monthly.
Faster, Faster
Dear Editor,
I wish to make a correction to one of
the games in the article: THE QUIET
POINT OF THE SACRIFICE OF PUR-
SUIT, by IM Nikolay Minev, in the 9/3/90
Issue of Inside Chess.
Analysis Diagram
In the game Herrman-Hussong on
Page 27, instead of the slow 27...Rh2(?),
the quiet move 27...Rff6! forces the quick-
December 10, 1990
est mate. For example: 28.Qxf8 + Kxf8
29.Kg4 (forced) 29...Rfg6+ 30.KB Nxgl
mate. I've shown this position to several
Experts and a Master and they all dis-
counted 27...Rff6! because after 30.Kf3 it
appears the White King will escape! Per-
haps it's some quirk in the human mind,
because most chess computers will find it
in seconds.
Incidentally, an almost identical
position after White's 23.Rgl is found
in Fred Reinfeld's 1001 Brilliant Ways to
Checkmate, problem #227. In
Reinfeld's diagram there is no White
pawn on d3, which increases White's
defensive prospects after the erroneous
27...Rh2?. After 28.Qxf8+ Kxf8
29.Rdl White avoids the quick mate he
deserves.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Ruppert
Arlington, Texas
Dear Editor,
In his annotations to the game Miles-
deFirmian from the Manila Interzonal
(Inside Chess, Vol. 3, Issue 16), after the
moves I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2
c5 5.dxc5 Na6 6.a3 Bxc3 + 7.Qxc3 Nxc5
8.f3 d5!?, the winner GM Nick deFirmian
comments, "An interesting idea of
Dzindzichashvili's. Black offers a pawn
sacrifice to open the game and gain time
for development."
I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 c5
S.dxcS Na6 6.a3 Bxc3 + 7.Qxc3 NxcS 8.f3
d5
INSIDE CHESS
Credit for this idea was also given
to Dzindzichashvili in Robert Byrne's
column which mentions the game
Ivanchuk-deFirmian which continued
8.b4 Ne4 9.Qd4 d5 10.c5 b6 Il.f3 bxc5
12.bxc5 Qa5!? 13.Qb4 Qc7 14.fxe4
Rb8.
In the interest of truth and proper at-
tribution, I would like your readers to
know that the idea of sacrificing a pawn
with 8...d5 (including the variation 9.cxd5
b610.b4 Na4 ll.Qb3 b5 12.e4 a6), as well
as sacrificing a piece with 13...Qc714.fxe6
Rb8 were developed and extensively
analyzed by me. Prior to the Interzonal,
I showed my analysis to GM
Dzindzichashvili for his personal use with
the hope that it might help his chances in
the tournament.
Sincerely,
GM Anatoly Lein
New York, New York
Out of the Mists of Memory
My Dear Friend Yasser,
How amused I was to read in the Sep-
tember 17,1990 issue of Inside Chess that
you consider me to be a "piece of cake"
at five-minute chess. While I do recall that
after having split even for some 20 or so
blitz games you did surge ahead with five
straight victories, rest assured that in the
first issue of Inside Southern Chess our
subsequent three-minute games will
receive considerably more attention.
Sincerely yours,
IM Stuart Rachels
Atlanta, Georgia
Correcting an Incorrect
Correction
Humberto Cruz, winner of the CJA's
honorable mention for best newspaper
chess column, appears in the Sun-Sen-
tinel whose principal office is in Fort
Lauderdale, not Miami as incorrectly
stated in Issue 21, Vol. III. •
Second Annual Summit Publishing Chess Challenge
Silman and Root
Tie 3-3 in So. Cal
by Mitchell Cassotto
F or the second year in a row, the Sum-
mit Publishing Chess Challenge
provided the Southern California chess
community with the chance to see two of
the area's strongest players battle it out in
match play. This year's participants were
IM Jeremy Silman, who defeated IM Jack
Peters in the first event last year, and IM
Doug Root, for many years one of the top
players in the state.
Silman should be well-known to all
chessplayers. He is a noted author,
having written books on all phases of the
game. His tournament record is also im-
pressive, having won the National Open
and the U.S. Open during his career.
IM Root has long been one of the
strongest players in California. He is cur-
rently working on his Doctorate in
Molecular Biology at UCLA.
The match began with three draws.
Both players adopted a solid style and
seemed unwilling to take unnecessary
risks because of the short format of the
match.
In Game Four, Silman pulled ahead,
winning a nice game with the White
pieces. This put Root in an almost must-
win situation with the White pieces in
Game Five. He pressed hard, but the result
was a draw. Observers felt that Game Six
would be anticlimactic since Silman had the
White pieces and a draw would clinch the
match. So much for expected results! In an
interesting line of the King's Indian
Defense, Doug managed to win the last
game, thereby drawing the match at three
points each. This final game was the most
exciting of the match, as Jeremy had a
strong attack and seemed to miss a win in
time pressure. According to the rules of the
match, the prize money was split evenly, but
IM Silman retains the right to play another
opponent next year.
-4-
ECO only gives it as a side note. The main
line with 8.e4 is not a problem for Black.
8...Nxe5 9.dxe5 Nd7 10.f4 f5 Il.exf6
The only move given in the books, but
other plans are also possible —for ex-
ample 11.c4!?, or even Il.h3 followed by
12.Kh2 and eventually g2-g4.
ll...Nxf6 12.e4 c4!
If White gets to play e4-e5, he will have
a clear advantage.
13.Be2!
Best. The natural 13.Bc2 allows Black
The sponsor would like to thank to play 13...e5! 14.exd5 Bc5 +! (ECO only
Alexey Root and Randy Hough. The lat- gives 14...Ng4 when 15.Ne4 stops Black's
ter served as match arbiter. A special
thank you goes to Mr. Sam Glassberg,
who served for many years as the mem-
threats) 15.KM Ng4 with the initiative.
Bd7
13...D5 14.e5 Nd7 15.NO Nc5 16.Nd4
bership director of the Santa Monica Bay
Chess Club. A tenacious player in his
own right, he was helpful in developing
the event.
Annotations by IM Jeremy Silman
L ast year, I was in excellent form and
managed to beat IM Jack Peters by
a 3.5-.S margin. This year's contest was
quite different. In general, the games
were theoretically interesting, but rather
dull (draws in the first three games).
Overall, the match was evenly contested,
but a bit of luck resulted in me taking a The critical position. It's Black's play
one-point lead in the fourth game. After
on the Queenside vs. White's on the
a draw in the fifth round, I looked to be Kingside. Root hastens to play against
winning the sixth and final game; the
the weakness on e6.
match seemed to be locked up. However, 17.Bg4! Qc8
a tragic blunder just at the point of victory
Here 17...Qb6!? is also possible, but I
enabled Root to even up the match. did not like 18.Be3 and the pin's potential
for causing trouble. One sample line il-
Colle System DOO
lustrating the dangers in the position is
IM Doug Root 18...b4? 19.cxb4 Qxb4 20.Nxe6! and
IM Jeremy Silman
White wins.
Summit Match (1) 1990
18.R!
I.d4 Nf6 2.ND e6 3.Nbd2 Blush! I must admit I thought this was
Root's favorite move. His idea is to impossible. After a moment of panic, I
answer 3...c5 with 4.e4, a plan which has found the right way to continue.
led to several victories for him (though I 18...Kh8!
am not convinced that it is particularly A sober response. Black tucks his
good). King into safety and threatens the pawn
3...d5 on f5. The immediate 18...exf5 failed to
Going into a classic Colle System. 19.Nxf5 Bxf5 20.Bxf5 Rxf5 21.Rxf5 Qxf5
Though Doug has had tremendous suc- 22.Qxd5 + and the Rook on a8 goes.
cess with this opening, I felt duty-bound 19.BG
to accept the challenge and test its effec- White could win the Exchange by 19.f6
tiveness. After all, how threatening can gxf6 20.Bh6, but the position after 20...f5
the Colle really be? 21.Bxf8 Qxf8 should prove good for
4.e3 c5 5.c3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Be? 7.O-O Black.
0-0 8.Ne5! After the game Root claimed that
The most challenging move, though White could obtain a slight advantage
INSIDE CHESS Issue 24
with 19.fxe6 Nxe6 20.Nf5 Bxc5 + 21.Khl.
19...Nd3 20.Qe2 BcS 21.fxe6 Bxd4 +
Okay, but there was really no hurry to
do this. The simple 21...Bxe6 was more
flexible.
22.cxd4 Bxe6 23.b3 Qc7 24.bxc4 Nxcl
Avoiding 24...bxc4? 25.Ba3 when
White's dark-squared Bishop sinks into
d6.
25.Raxcl bxc4 26.Qe3 QaS 27.RC
Rab8 28.Rcfl Kg8 29.H3 Qb4
Not falling for 29...Rf7?? 30.Bg4! with
a win for White.
30.Kh2 Rbc8 31.Bdl Draw
Queen's Gambit Declined Exchange D32
IM Jeremy Silman
IM Doug Root
Summit Match (2) 1990
I.d4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5
A slip of the fingers. I love to play the
Exchange Variation, but I never capture
this early.
3...exd5 4.Nc3 c6 5.Bf4 Bd6
Black has already equalized!
6.Bg3 Ne7 7.e3 NfS 8.Bd3
According to Root, this is a new move.
Previously seen was 8.Bxd6 Nxd6 with
equality.
8...Nxg3 9.hxg3 g610.Nge2 Nd7 ll.Qc2
Nf6 12.NF4 Qe7 13.O-O-O Be6 14.Kbl
O-O-O IS.Rhel KM 16.Nxe6 Draw
As boring a game as one is ever likely
to see.
Colle System DOO
IM Douglas Root
IM Jeremy Silman
Summit Match (3) 1990
I.d4 Nf6 2.NJ3 e6 3.Nbd2 d5 4.e3 c5 5.c3
Nc6
Root was too eager to repeat the con-
tinuation of Game One. So far so good—
I had a little surprise waiting for him on
the 10th move.
6.Bd3 Bd6 7.O-O O-O S.dxcS BxcS 9.e4
Qc710.Qe2
One of the Colle's most important
positions. Moves like 10...dxe4,
10...Re8,10...Ng4, and 10...Be7 have all
been tried, but in each case White has
obtained some advantage. Black's best
is supposed to be 10...Bd6 ll.Rel Ng4
12.H3 Nge5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.exd5 exd5
15.Nf3 Nxd3 16.Qxd3 but I'll take
White's position any time.
10...h6!
December 10, 1990
IM Jack Peters came up with this over
the board in a recent Swiss System tour-
nament against a 2100 player. He won the
game, and I decided to take his new idea
to heart. The point is that White has real
trouble coming up with a useful move.
The straightforward ll.eS loses a pawn
after ll...Ng4 12.Nb3 Bb6 13.Bf4 f6. The
only other active move is Il.b4, but
ll...Bd6 should prove comfortable for the
second player.
Il.h3!
Taking away the g4-square from Black
seems logical, but g3 now becomes weak.
Not subtle but quite effective. Black
threatens both 12...Nf4 and 12...Ng3.
12.Nb3 Ng3 13.Qdl Nxe4! 14.Bxe4
dxe4 IS.NxcS exO 16.QxO Ne5! 17.Qe3 b6
18.Nd3 Nxd3 19.Qxd3 Bb7 20.Be3 Draw
Not very exciting, but I feel that Black's
handling of the opening is a complete
answer to the Colle System.
Dutch Defense Stonewall A84
IM Jeremy Silman
IM Doug Root
Summit Match (4) 1990
I.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 f5 5.f4
Theory says that this leads to an equal
position, but I have trouble accepting that
judgement. Everything else being equal,
White's advantage in space on the
Queenside should give him a little some-
thing.
5...Nf6 6.NB Be? 7.Bd3
I played this because in some cases
White can play cxd5 when exf5 might
leave the f5-pawn loose. Here 7.Be2 may
be more accurate though, because White
can always answer ...Ne4 with Nxe4
without fearing a fork.
7...O-O 8.O-O Bd7 9.Rbl
Now comes the hard part. What is
INSIDE CHESS
White's best plan? Now 9.Ne5 Be8
lO.cxdS is comfortably answered by
10...cxd5 followed by ll...Nc6. With the
text I intend to gain more territory on the
Queenside.
9...Be8
A happy surprise. He lets me do what
I want. I expected Black to hold back my
expansion with 9...a5, though in this case
a series like 10.Ne5 Be8 ll.cxdS cxd5
would lead to a weakening of the b5
square — a slight concession, but nothing
for Black to be unduly concerned about.
10.b4 Ne4 ll.Qc2 Nd7 12.a4 Rc8
This brought to mind a bit of chess
wisdom that was given to me when I was
14 years old: "When in doubt, place your
Rook opposite the enemy Queen. Even if
several pieces and pawns are in the way
it's bound to prove useful at some point!"
13.Bd2 Bh5
14.c5?!
White has the better position, and I was
so pleased with the way things were going
that I got a bit lazy. If I had it to do over
again, I would just sit on the position with
something like 14.Qa2.
14...b6!
All of a sudden, Black has threats on
the Queenside! His intention is to shred
White's pawn formation there with
15...a5!.
IS.NeS?
Intending to answer 15...Nxe5 16.fxe5
a5 with 17.Nxe4 fxe4 18.Ba6. However, I
made a slight oversight.
15...Nxe5 16.fxe5 Nxd2!
I somehow had missed this obvious
move. Now 17.Qxd2 a5! 18.Ba6 is
answered by 18...axb4! and the Knight on
c3 is attacked. That's why I had planned
to play Nxe4 on my 15th move. The
Knight would then be out of the way.
17.Qxd2
Cursing myself for an idiot, I was wait-
-5-
ing for 17...a5! with a heavy heart. All of
a sudden, a light from the heavens burst
through and my opponent played —
17...bxc5?
A horrible move. Here 17...a5! gives
Black a big advantage.
IS.bxcS Qa5
Threatening to play 19...Bg5 and
20...Bxe3 + . White counters this easily
enough.
19.Rb3!
Defending the c3-Knight and also
preparing to double on the b-file.
19...Rb8 20.Rfbl Rxb3 21.Rxb3 BgS
22.g3
Preventing ...f5-f4.
22...Qc7 23.KC Qf7 24.Ne2 Bxe2
25.Bxe2
The Bishops of opposite colors don't
make life easier for Black. His pawns on
a7, c6, and e6 are all weak.
25...Qc7?
Too passive. For better or worse he
had to try and scare me with 25...Qg6 and
26...Qh6.
26.Qb4 Rd8 27.Qb7
Now Black is lost.
27...Rd728.Qa8 +
Just testing. Perhaps he will fall for
28...Kf7?? 29.Qh8! when the threat of
30.Bh5+ is decisive: 29...Kg6 30.Qe8 +
Kh6 31.Qh5 mate.
28...Rd8 29.Qb7
Alright...let's try something else!
29...Rd730.Qb8 +
I can't win a pawn with 30.Qxc7 Rxc7
31.Ba6 Kf7 32.Rb7 due to 32...Re7!.
30...Qxb831.Rxb8+ Kf732.Ba6!
I had no desire to give him counterplay
by32.Rc8Rb7!.
32...Rc7 33.Bb7?
Time pressure insanity. Corret was
33.a5!, and only then 34.Bb7 followed by
35.a6 and 36.Ra8 with a quick win.
33...a5!
Ooops. He stopped my plan of a5-a6.
At this point my face was red with embar-
rassment, and I was back to cursing
myself.
34.Ba6 Ke7 35.h4! Bh6 36.Be2! Ra7
37.g4!
In terrible time trouble, I somehow ac-
tually string together some good moves.
37...fxg4 38.Bxg4 Kd7 39.Ke2 Ke7
40.Kd3 Kd7 41.BH3
The sealed move and a rather useless
one at that. However, there is some logic
associated with it. I was exhausted at this
-6-
point, and since I didn't think Black could
do anything but go back and forth, I
decided not to disturb my position in any
way. I would save real thought for the
adjournment.
41...Rc7 42.Bg4 Ke7 43.Bh5!
A little aside: IM John Donaldson, ex-
hausted from the merciless workload
placed on him by the staff of Inside
Chess, had come down to visit and was
staying at my house for the sole purpose
of gaining a week of R&R. Instead the
poor guy found himself chained to my
chess table, foced to spend countless
hours analyzing my adjourned position
(I've come to the conclusion that my true
calling in life is to be a drill sergeant in the
Marines).
The point of 43.Bh5 is that White will
either place his Bishop on e8 which will
lead to Zugzwang, or Black will prevent
this by playing ...g7-g6, a move that badly
weakens Black's position.
43...Ra7
The other defense was 43...g6: 44.Bg4
(not 44.Rh8? Kf7 45.Rxh7 + Bg7)
44...Kf7 (44...Kd7? 45.Rh8 wins) 45.Ra8
Rb7 46.Rxa5 Rb3 + 47.Kc2 Rxe3
48.Ra7 +, and the quick advance of the
a-pawn will prove decisive.
44.Be8!
If 44.Re8+ Kd7 45.Bf7, then 45...Rb7
gives Black some counterplay.
44...Rc7 45.Ke2
Zugzwang. Black can only move his
g-pawn.
45...g6 46.KB Bg7 47.h5! g5
After 47...gxh5 48.Bxh5, White would
win by swinging his Rook over to the
Ringside and surrounding the e6-pawn:
48...Bh6 49.Re8 + Kd7 50.Rh8 BgS
51.Bg4! (the h7-pawn is of no impor-
tance) and the e6-pawn will fall.
48.Kg3 BI8
It is complete Zugzwang after 48...Bh6?
49.Kg4.
49.Kg4
Now 49.h6 Bxh6 50.Kg4 was also pos-
sible, but the text is much simpler.
49...Bh6 SO.RaS Rb7 51.Bxc6 Rbl
S2.Ra7+ Kd8 53.Rd7+ Kc8 54.Rxh7
Rgl + 55.KB Bf8
The other way to lose is 55...g4 +
56.KE2.
56.K£2Rhl57.Bd7+ 1-0
Also winning is 57.Rh8 Kc7 58.Rxf8,
but I decided to just take all his pawns. A
poorly played game by both sides.
INSIDE CHESS
Bogo-Indian E14
IM Doug Root
IM Jeremy Silman
Summit Match (5) 1990
I.d4 Nf6 2.NB e6 3.c4
Main lines from Doug Root!? It makes
sense:
1) His Colle had been defanged.
2) This was his last White, and thus his
last real chance to tie up the match.
3) Like them or not, main lines offer
the best chance of gaining some type of
opening advantage.
3...Bb4+ 4.Bd2a5
The last time I played this way Jay
Bonin tortured me for quite some time
before I finally made a draw. I decided to
give it another try because I doubted that
Doug knew any theory at all.
5.g3 d5 6.Bg2
Better is 6.Qc2.
6...dxc4 7.Qc2
Now Black can hold onto his ill-gotten
gains by 7...b5, but since a draw was suffi-
cient and a transposition back to main
lines gave me a theoretical edge, I
decided to just go along with the program
and avoid undue complications.
7...Nc6 8.Qxc4 Qd5 9.Qd3
A good way for White to play, but
9.Qxd5 also gives White chances for a
slight advantage.
9...Qe4 10.Qxe4
And not 10.Qc4?? b5!.
10...Nxe4 ll.Nc3 Nxd2 12.Kxd2 Bd7
13.a3 Bd6 14.Rhdl a4!
Black grabs some space and the b3-
square. Purely passive play could easily
lead to Black being slowly squeezed to
death.
IS.Kel NaS 16.Nd2 e5 17.d5 Ke7
18-Racl
m
Black has achieved a completely satis-
factory position. Now the correct course
Issue 24
was 18...Rab8 intending 19...b5 and
20...b4. Instead I mix up my order of
moves and find myself once again slog-
ging after equality.
18...b5? 19.Na2!
I missed this one! Chalk up one more
oversight for the Silman team.
19...Rab8 20.Nb4 Rhc8 21.Rc3 Rb6
I wanted to play 21...c5, but it just
doesn't work: 22.dxc6 Bxb4 23.cxd7 Rxc3
(23...Bxc3 24.dxc8 = N + !) 24.axb4 Rc2
25.bxa5 Rxb2 26.a6 and White wins.
22.Rdcl?
Lets me off the hook. Now 22.e3 fol-
lowed by 23.Bfl keeps the pressure on
Black.
22...c5!
Now this advance is on.
23.dxc6 Bxb4 24.axb4 Nxc6 25.Bd5?!
Nxb4! Draw
The follow-up could be 26.Rxc8 Bxc8
27.Bxf7 Rc6. Black's Queenside majority
allows him to play on, but I just wanted to
draw the last couple of games and end the
match.
King's Indian Defense Averbakh E74
IM Jeremy Silman
IM Doug Root
Summit Match (6) 1990
I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6
5.Be2 O-O 6.Bg5 Na6 7.Qd2 e5 8.d5 c6
9.Bd3 Nc5 10.Bc2 Qb6!? ll.Rbl Qb4
12.Nge2! h6!
Probably best under the circumstan-
ces. Petursson-Nunn, Reykjavik 1990
went 12...a5 13.a3 Qxc4 14.Bxf6 Bxf6
15.b4 axb4 16.axb4 cxd5 17.bxc5 d4
18.Nd5 Bd8 19.Bb3 and Black's dark-
squared Bishop was not happy on d8.
Root's move allows this Bishop to take up
an active post.
13.a3! Qxc4 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.b4 BgS
16.Qdl cxdS 17.bxc5 d4 IS.NdS
Not 18.cxd6?? dxc3 19.d7 due to
19...Bd2 + .
18...Qxc5
On 18...dxc5? I intended to end the
match by 19.Bd3 Qa2 20.Ral with a per-
petual on the Black Queen. However,
19.Nc7 is much stronger since 19...Rb8?
20.Bb3 wins the Queen.
19.O-O Be6 20.Bb3
Possible is 20.Rxb7, but I wanted to
hold firm on d5 and play for a Ringside
attack via f2-f4-f5.
20...Rac8
Avoiding 20...Qxa3? 21.Nc7 and
December 10, 1990
20...f5?! 21.Ndf4!.
21.Khl Qxa3
Doug grabs everything he can and
hopes that he can live through the storm.
22.F4 Bh4 23.15! gxf5 24.exf5 BxdS
25.Bxd5
Somewhere around here I offered a
draw. I thought that I was simply winning
the position, and felt that it was a polite
gesture on my part. When he refused the
offer, I got bent out of shape and decided
that nothing but mate would do.
25...Rc5 26.Rb3
Not going for 26.Bxb7? d5 27.Ral Qb4
28.Rxa7? Rc7 29.Qbl Qe7 when the pin
is troublesome. However, 26.Bb3 is also
good: 26...d5 27.Nxd4 exd4 28.Qxd4 or
26.Ng3d527.Nh5. Analysis by Peters.
26...Qa5 27.Be4 dS 28.Bbl Rfc8 29.f6
Still riding the wave of my
emotionalism. The simple 29.Rxb7! gave
White a big advantage and no real
counterplay for Black.
29...Qa6
Stopping me from playing Qd3.
30.Ng3
H \e I started to get frustrated.Qxb3
I
White refutes 33...Bxh4 by 34.Nf5!
Ill
wanted some clear way to mash him, and
I simply could not find it. The idea
30.Qd2 Bg5 31.Rg3 Kf8 doesn't work.
30...Bg5?
Losing. Forced is 30...Bxf6! when a
clear win is not so easy to find: 31.Qg4 +
(31.Rbf3 Rcl is unclear) 31...Kf8 32.Rbf3
Rcl 33.Rxf6 Qxf6 34.Qxc8+ Rxc8
35.Rxf6, and White's two extra pieces
may not be able to cope with Black's five
passed pawns. — Peters.
31.Bd3!
Black would escape after 31.Qg4?
Rcl! 32.Bd3 Qxf6 33.h4 Qf4! or 32.Rbf3
e433.Rf5Kf834.h4Bxf6.
31...Qa4 32.H4!
Hoping for 32...Bxh4 33.Qg4+ Kf8
34.Qg7 + Ke8 35.Rxb7 or 33...Bg5 34.Qf5
INSIDE CHESS
e4 35.Nxe4 dxe4 36.Qxe4 Kfi 37.Qh7 Bxffi
38.Rxb7! Qe8 39.Rxf6 Rxcl+ 40.Bfl. Fun-
nily enough, this last line actually contributed
to my defeat since I soon try to reconstruct it
in a completely different situatioa
32...Rcl 33.QO!
Very pretty so far. I saw that 33.Qg4?
Qxb3 34.hxg5 Qxd3 35.hxg6+ allows
Black the saving 35...Qg6 so I play to end
this possibility. Naturally 33...Qxb3?
loses to 34.Bh7 + Kxh7 35.Qxb3.
33...e4
35.Qg4 + BgS 36.Nxh6 + Kf8
37.Qxg5.
After Black played 33...e4,1 stared at
the clock and saw that I had a couple of
minutes left. I looked at the board and my
brain went dead. It was like someone hit
the off switch. Panic! What was going
on? Where was I . . . . who was I? Then I
remembered the line that was given in the
note to White's 32nd move. My confused
brain sent my hand rushing out to play—
34.Nxe4??
And I immediately felt sick! I remem-
bered (too late) that I had intended to
play 34.Qg4! with a quick win. The point
is that after 34...Qxb3 35.hxg5, Black no
longer has the saving ...Qg6 at his dis-
posal. After 35...h5 36.Qxh5 Qa3 37.g6,
Black can resign.
I played the rest of game in a state of
shock.
34...dxe4 35.Qxe4 Rxfl+ 36.KH2
Bf4+ 37.Kh3
Black also wins after 37.g3 Bxg3 + !
38.Kxg3 Rgl+ 39.Kh2 Rg6 or 38.Kh3
Rhl + 39.Qxhl Qxb3 40.Qe4 Qe6 +.
37...Qd7 + 38.g4 Rhl +! 39.Qxhl Qe6!
40.Rxb7Qe3+ 0-1
So Root saved the match, and I decided
to apply for a brain transplant. •
-7-

Rules of the
Game
by GM Andy Soltis
A n inkling of what was to come
during the World Championship
match arose at the opening press con-
ference: At the very end of the Q&A,
Anatoly Karpov sprung his surprise
proposal for a sudden-death playoff in
case of a tie score after 24 games. It was
unfair, he said, to allow Garry Kasparov
to retain his title by way of a second
straight tie match. And to support his
argument he cited the match rules,
specifically Regulation 6.24 "a."
Two weeks later, what became known
as the Great Flag Debate began when
Karpov's chief of delegation, GM Nikolai
Krogius, complained that Kasparov's use
of the Russian Republic flag at the board
violated Regulation 3.34 (c) Committee
meeting under Reg. 6.141 (f).
If you thought all the rules in chess
were as simple as the right way to offer a
draw or seal a move, read on. Welcome
to the world of World Championship
regulations.
Every match seems to have a huge
codex of rules, laws, statutes, paragraphs
and sub-paragraphs. The major rules,
the ones that the players argue about in
advance, are usually well-known. But
there are also dozens of minor ones,
usually adding up to about 15 pages of
specific regulations.
They cover everything from the carpet-
ing and acoustics of the playing site
("Noise reaching the stage should not ex-
ceed 35 decibels") to pocket money for
the players ("60 Swiss Francs per day
each, in local currency... paid in advance
at ten-day intervals").
They provide for a match physician
and room service for the players, their
seconds and the arbiters ("Basic rule:
each Principal must be supplied, free of
charge, with whatever food or drinks he
orders, however, wherever, and whenever
he wants it.") The rules also prohibit
quite a few things from going on. Spec-
tators, at least theoretically, are barred
from eating, whispering, standing,
pacing, or even looking at a pocket chess
set in the audience—even if you're
-8-
paying $100.00 a game. 100-meter preliminaries to qualify for a
Fans are generally aware of the major
rules. For example, we all remember that
200-meter final.
In any event, as it stands now the 1993
Bobby Fischer forfeited his title in 1975
when he was not granted rules that would
World Championship will be played at
40-in-2. The New York-Lyons match will
have required a match to last until some- be remembered, at least in that way, as the
one won 10 games (and would have al- end of an era.
lowed the Champion to retain his title in
case the score reached 9-9).
But almost no one recalls the minor
rules that Bobby did get from FIDE.
Don't Burn the Darn
Thing - Hand Me the Pliers
The only rule to cause trouble was the
There were a number of gems. For ex- one dealing with flags. Kasparov wanted
ample, Paragraph 8.33 of the 1975 rules: to have a miniature flag of the Russian
"Except with the permission of his Soviet Federative Socialist Republic,
second, addressing or photographing a rather that the Soviet hammer-and-
player away from the playing area is sickle, on his side of the board as a protest
prohibited at all times and places." against Kremlin policy.
For the 1990 match, it seemed clear Karpov didn't register opposition to
that even the major rules would be con- this when it was brought up at the opening
fusing. It was widely reported, for ex- press conference, but Krogius lodged an
ample, that the match was for the best of official protest at the beginning of the
24 games, but would end if Kasparov third game.
reached 12 points. Wrong: he would This recalled the 1978 dispute when
keep his title if he achieves 12 points, but
Karpov's side complained that Viktor
the match would go on — to determine the Kortchnoi, who had defected two years
division of prize money—until someone before, had no right to play under a Swiss
scored 12.5 points. That's what hap- flag because he was not a Swiss citizen.
pened, for example, in the third K-K The relevent match statute said nothing
match. about the flag at the players' table. It
It was also reported, widely at first, that
simply stated: "The FIDE flag and the
the match would end if someone scored
national flags of the countries of the
six victories (before they scored 12.5
players shall be displayed on the stage."
points). Although that provision had
Eventually, following the recommen-
been part of match rules since the 1985
dation of the USCF's Ed Edmondson, the
K-K match, it was dropped in 1990 be-
1978 match officials agreed to remove
cause the match was being divided be-
both Kortchnoi's Swiss flag and Karpov's
tween New York and Lyon. Had there
Soviet one from the table — and allow the
been a blowout in New York and had the
Soviet, Philippine, and FIDE flags on the
six-victory rule remained in effect, the
stage.
French might not have witnessed a single
Twelve years later, the officials in
game.
New York couldn't think of anything
The Last Marathon better. This time, there was a relevant
There was one other major rule that regulation: "Miniature flags of the na-
might have been changed in 1990 but was tions to which the players belong are to
not, and it involved the time limit. The be placed on the table." The rule didn't
pertinent rule, Paragraph 6.31, stipulates say you couldn't have an extra flag, like
that unless the players agreed to change the RSFSR one.
matters before play began, the old 40- Eventually, a two-hour meeting of the
moves in two-and-a-half-hours would appeals committee — Dr. Lim Kok-Ann
remain in effect this year. and Israel Gelfer —was held after the
The rule is something of an third game. They ruled that the Russian
anachronism, considering that the Men's Republic flag didn't conform with the re-
World Championship is just about the quirements of Reg. 3.3 (c). And to
last international event played at that remove just one flag would "unbalance
speed. Even the Candidates matches the setting on the stage." So, with
were played at 40 in 2. Karpov likened Solomonic —or Edmondsonian —wis-
that to a track meet in which you have dom, bothflagswere removed. •
INSIDE CHESS Issue 24
American Players at Their Best
U.S. Wins Match with The Rest of the World
by Adam Roy Gale
R emember those USSR vs. The Rest
of the World matches, and how the
formidable Soviet teams always won? If
so, here's a man-bites-dog story to warm
your heart.
As part of the World Championship
festivities, the United States Chess
Federation and ProChess organized a
United States of America vs. The Rest of
the World team match. Played on Sun-
days (the Karpov-Kasparov free day) at
the Hudson Theater in New York, the
Bankers Trust Challenge, underwritten
by the eponymous fianancial institution,
pitted eight top U.S. GMs against eight
GMs from the rest of the world in a series
of unrated two-game matches. Each
player had fifteen minutes to complete
the entire game. If the individual match
was tied at 1-1, then the games continued
at game/5 until a winner emerged.
On October 14, the United States
jumped out to a two-point lead when GM
Joel Benjamin defeated World Junior
Champion GM Joel Lautier of France,
the World's youngest GM, in both of their
games. The second match of the day
pitted GM John Fedorowicz against the
USSR's GM Efim Geller. Geller, no
stranger to World Championships — he
was Boris Spassky's second in Reyk-
javik — lost the first game to Fedorowicz's
Sicilian Defense before drawing a
Queen's Gambit Declined. Thus, Day
One of the match ended with the United
States leading 3.5-.5.
One week later, on October 21, newly
elected USCF President Maxim Dlugy
defeated Yugoslavian GM Stefan Djuric
in both of their games to put the U.S. at
plus five. This was followed by the United
States' first loss, when IM Alexander
Wojtkiewicz, the Polish Champion,
defeated Larry Christiansen 1.5-.5
Finally, in a special treat for those who
came to chess in 1972, former World
Champion GM Boris Spassky, now rep-
resenting France, played the United
States' GM Yasser Seirawan in what was
to be the longest individual match.
December 10, 1990
U.S.A. vs The Rest of the World
Benjamin
Fedorowicz
2
1.5
0
.5
Lautier (FRA)
Geller (URS)
Dlugy 2 0 Djuric (YUG)
Christiansen .5 1.5 Wojtkjewicz (POL)
Seirawan 1 (2) 1(1) Spassky (FRA)
Alburt 1 2 Ljubojevic (YUG)
Dzindzi .5 1.5 Tal (URS)
Gulko .5 1.5 Salov (URS)
Final Score 11-9
Seirawan's Caro-Kann put him ahead Soviet Union. Final score: United States
after the first game, but Spassky won the 11, The Rest of the World 9.
second, in which he answered I.d4 with While it may be that the Rest of the
I...b5, forcing a series of Game/5 playoffs. World was weakened by the absence of
Sticking to their previous openings, the the world's top players, the United States
players split two points before Seirawan faced strong opposition. The secret to
iced the match by defeating I...b5 in the winning these matches is to support chess
fifth game. Score: U.S. 9, Rest of the in the United States. Then our team will
World 4. It was no mean feat to make an be stronger and, as in this match, will lead
even score against that opening. Never- all the way and coast to a win.
theless, Yasser may have found its Achil-
Slav D13
les heel, going from a loss to a draw to a
win against it, all in a matter of an hour. GM Roman Dzindzichashvili
GM Mikhail Tal
That commanding lead was critical on
U.S. vs. Tfie Rest of the World 1990
the last day, October 28, as the U.S. lost
all three of its last individual matches. I.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxdS 4.Nc3 e5
After U.S. Champion Lev Alburt S.dxeS d4 6.Ne4 Qa5 + 7.Nd2 Nc6 8.Ngf3
defeated Ljubomir Ljubojevic of Yugos- Nge7 9.g3 Ng6 10.Bg2 NgxeS ll.NxeS
lavia in their first game — a surprise to QxeS 12.O-O BcS 13.Nb3 Bb6 14.Bf4 Qf6
some in the audience, because Alburt IS.Rcl O-O 16.Qd2 Re8 17.Nc5 Bg4
doesn't play that much at faster time 18.Ne4 Qg6 19.h3 Bxh3 20.Bxh3 Qxe4
limits —he fell into a mate-in-two that 21.Rc2 Rad8 22.Bg2 Qe6 23.Bxc6 bxc6
startled the Masters who were doing 24.Qd3 h6 25.b4 Qd5 26.a4 g5 27.Bcl Re6
commentary on the headphone system 28.Rdl a5 29.b5 c5 30.e3 QO
some of the spectators were using. Score:
U.S. 10, Rest of the World 6. By virtue of
the point Alburt had added, the U.S. was
m
assured of at least a drawn match.
!!
In an eagerly-awaited pairing, the
deciding match pitted two tactical blitz
kings, former World Champion and Blitz
Champion Mikhail Tal and Roman
•
*• m •
Dzindzichashvili. Tal won the first game,
but "The Dzin" managed to draw the
second which clinched the match for the
U.S. In the anticlimactic finale, Boris
Gulko drew one game and lost the other
against super-GM Valery Salov of the 31.exd4?Rel+ 0-1
INSIDE CHESS -9-
Annotated Games Selected by WGM Elena Donaldson
Annotated Games by Adams,
Soltis, Ilic, Nogueiras, and Gufeld
by GM Michael Adams
T he 14th Lloyds Bank Masters tour-
nament was held in London August
18th-27th. Seventeen GMs and 31 IMs
were among the 130 competitors.
First place was shared by Stuart Con-
quest (ENG), Zurab Sturua (URS), and
myself, Michael Adams (ENG), with
eight points from ten. Half-a-point be-
hind came John Nunn (ENG), Mihai
Suba (ENG), Jonathan Levitt (ENG),
and Gregory Kaidanov (URS).
Stuart Conquest, who was declared the
winner on tiebreak, had a wonderful run,
winning six successive games in the mid-
dle of the tournament. Nunn, Kaidanov,
Speelman, and Hodgson were among his
victims. This gave him his third GM norm
with two rounds to spare, and he should
be awarded the title at the World Chess
Federation Congress in Yugoslavia.
I managed to win all of my games with
White and secure four draws and one win
with Black. I defeated my Clinchy team-
mate, Stuart Conquest, after he had al-
ready earned his GM norm, but I only
drew with the other first-place com-
petitor, Zurab Sturua.
Sicilian Richter-Rauzer B63
GM Michael Adams
IM Stuart Conquest
Lloyds Bank Masters 1990
I.e4 c5 2.NO d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 Be7 8.O-O-O
O-O 9.Nb3 Qb6 10.13 Rd8 ll.Be3
In an earlier game in the tournament,
Conquest-Speelman, Black fell into a
trap after ll.Kbl d5 12.Bxf6 dxe4?
13.Bxe7 Rxd214.Nxd2 yielding a winning
position for White. I presumed that as a
result of that game, Stuart had concluded
that the opening was playable for Black.
In fact, there was an element of bluff in
his opening choice.
ll...Qc7 12.QC Nd7
Interesting here is 12...d513.exd5Nxd5
14.Nxd5 Rxd5 15.Rxd5 (15.Bd3 Nb4)
exd5 with an unclear position, as in
-10-
Adams-Wilder at Watson, Farley & Wil-
lams 1989. The text move is a lot sharper
and creates a position where both sides
launch pawn storms against the opposing
King.
13.H4 a6 14.H5 b5 15.g4
Here 15.Qg3 looks impressive, but
after 15...Kh8 (Bh6 was threatened) it is
not clear how Whitecontinues his attack.
Interesting here, however, is 15.f4, with
the idea of of denying Black's Knights the
e5-square and showing that White's offside
Knight on a4 cannot easily be attacked.
After 15...M 16.Na4 Rb817.g4, White has
a good position; and 15...Nf616.Bb6 Nxe4
17.Qe3 is not possible, so it is difficult to
see good play for Black. Perhaps 15...Bf6,
Stuart's next move, makes it impossible
for Whie to use this idea.
l...Nce5! 16.Rgl!
The more obvious 16.g5 b4 17.Na4
(17.Nbl a5 gives a very double-edged
position) 17...Rb8 leaves White's Knight
on a4 in big trouble. The text move allows
White the option f4.
16...b4 17.Na4 Rb8 18.f4 Nc4 19.Ba7!
White takes the opportunity to
misplace Black's Rook before playing the
Bishop to d4. I did consider 19.Bxc4
Qxc4 20.Nb6 Qxe4 21.g5, but it looked
unimpressive, if only due to the Exchange
sacrifice 20...Nxb6 21.Bxb6 Rxb6 22.Qxb6
Qxf4 + .
19...Ra8 20.Bd4 Bb7?
A very natural move, but probably a
decisive error. Correct was 20...e5!
21.Bxc4 Qxc4 22.Nb6 Nxb6 23.Bxb6 Re8,
INSIDE CHESS
when Black has a good game.
21.g5!
Very strong, although the move was
not too difficult to find as other continua-
tions are nice for Black. For example,
21.Bxc4 Qxc4 22.Na5 Qb5 23.Nxb7 Qxb7
is the best of a bad bunch.
21...e5
After 21...Bxe4 22.g6 hxg6 23.hxg6
Bxg6 24.Rxg6 fxg6 25.Qe2 Nf8 26.Qxc4,
White has a nice ending due to the activity
of his minor pieces. However, he doesn't
after 22...a5 23.Qe2, when ...d5 allows a
...Qxf4+ defense.
22.fxe5 dxeS 23.g6
A real body blow. I thought the game
was over at this stage, but Black's position
is surprisingly resilient as long as he
avoids 23...exd4 24.Qxf7 + Kh8 25.h6.
23...Nf624.gxf7+ Kh8!
After 24...Kxf7 25.Nac5, with the
threats of Bxc4 + and Rxg7 +, followed
by Ne6 +, it would be the end.
25.H6 g6 26.Bxc4 exd4 27.Nac5
It should be quite easy to convert my
advantage after this move.
27...Bxe4 28.Ne6?
Simply 28.Rxd4 was a much better
move.
28...Qxc4 29.Nxd8 Rxd8 30.Rxd4 Qc7?
Although this turned out to be a
blunder, it sent me into a panic as I had
only considered 30...Qxf7 31.Rxe4 and
30...Rxd4 31.Qxf6+ Bxf6 3218 = Q +
Qg8 33.Qxf6 +. A better move was
30...Qc8 when the game is not so clear,
e.g., 31.Rel Rf8 32.Rdxe4 Nxe4 33.Rxe4
Issue 24
Bg5+ 34.Kbl Bxh6 35.Nc5 Qf5 36.Qxf5
gxf5 37.Re8 Kg7, when Black would be
winning. Obviously there are better
moves for White, but the position is no
longer so simple.
m
IB •
31.Qh2!
Stuart, in time trouble, overlooked this
move, which put me back on the right
course. If 31...Qxh2, then 32.Rxd8 +
Bxd8 33.f8 = Q + Ng8 34.Qg7 and Black
is mated.
31...Qc8 32.Rel Rxd4 33.Nxd4 Qf8
34.Qe5Qxh6 +
Also losing was 34...Qxf7 35.Rxe4.
35.Kbl Qh4 36.Rxe4 Qxe4 37.Qxf6 +
1-0
Sicilian NajdorfB82
GM Michael Adams
IM Alex Wojtkiewicz
Lloyds Bank Masters 1990
I.e4 c5 2.NO d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 e6 7.QE3 Qb6 8.a3!?
This move, a suggestion of Tal's,
worked well in deFirmian-Yudasin in the
Manila Interzonal. After 8...g6?! 9.Be2
Bg7 10.Be3 Qc7 (10...Qxb2 ll.Kd2),
White was able to launch a quick
Ringside attack due to the time lost by
Black's Queen moves. My oppponent's
next move seems better than Yudasin's
plan.
8...Nc6! 9.Nb3
Obviously 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e5 Nd5 is no
good, so I transposed back into more con-
ventional lines.
9...Qc7 10.g4 b5 Il.g5 Nd7 12.Be3 Bb7
13.Bd3 g6!
Black could now have transposed back
into Mestel-Polugaevsky, Reykjavik Visa
Match 1990, with 13...Nc5 14.O-O Be7
15.Qf2 Nxb3 16.cxb3 O-O 17.b4 with an
advantage to White. However, my
opponent's move is more logical —in fact
December 10, 1990
in the Visa game, Black later rerouted his
Bishop to the al-h8 diagonal.
14.h4!
White has to take a vigorous approach
in this position.
14...Bg7 15.H5 Ne7?!
Undoubtedly a critical position. The
move played allowed me a slight, but
comfortable, advantage. There are
various alternatives:
a) 15...Na5 16.Nxa5 Bxc3+ (16...Qxa5
17.Bd2) 17.bxc3Qxa5 (17...Qxc3+ 18.Ke2
Qxa519.hxg6 fxg6 looks very dangerous for
Black). Now, 18.hxg6Qxc3 + 19.Ke2hxg6
is not such an impressive continuation, and
White should play 18.Ke2 or 18.Bd2 with
complications.
b) 15...b4 16.axb4 Nxb4 17.Bd2 Nc5,
with a pleasant position for Black. Possib-
ly better for White are 18.Ke2 or 18.h6
Nbxd3+ 19.cxd3 Nxb3 20.hxg7 Rg8
21.Ra3 Nxd2 22.Kxd2 Rxg7, with com-
pensation for the pawn.
I consider the latter plan as better and
certainly the most thematic way to play
the position. Black also had to consider
the possibility of playing ...gxh5 at some
point. The text move was made partly
because my opponent was running into
time trouble.
16.Bd4 Bxd4
Here 16...e517.h6 Bf8 was discussed in
the post-mortem, but it does nothing to
help Black's position.
17.Nxd4 O-O-018.O-O-O Qb619.Be2
Although this may appear as a move
that White did not want to play, in fact
White's pieces now work quite nicely.
Now 19.Nde2 wasn't as good as a later
...d5 would have been awkward.
19...KM 20.Rh3
It is important that the Rook defend
the Knight on c3, making any Exchange
sacrifice by Black impossible.
20...Rc8 21.Qhl Rhf8 22.KM Nc5
INSIDE CHESS
23.BB b4!?
This is an optimistic move, but it is
clear that Black has to counter White's
Ringside pressure.
24.axb4 Qxb4 25.Bg2 Nc6 26.Na2 Qb6
27.Nb3 Na7 28.Qel Rfd8 29.Re3 Nb5
30.Na5
By this time, I had joined my opponent
in time trouble and it was impossible to
calculate the consequences of this move
exactly. However after other continua-
tions, Black has a good game.
30...Bxe4
Taking up the challenge, but continua-
tions such as 30...Ba8 look extremely un-
appetising.
31.Bxe4 Nxe4 32.c4 N£2?
This move is definitely a mistake, after
which White can demonstrate a forced
win. The better alternative 32...Nec3 +
33.Rxc3 (33.Nxc3 Na3+ 34.Rcl Qxa5
35.bxa3 Qxa3 + 36.Rd2 Rxc4 gives Black
three pawns for a piece in a very unclear
position) 33...Nxc3+ 34.Qxc3 d5 leaves
White in a better, but not necessarily win-
ning, position.
33.Rcl
Simpler was 33.Qxf2 Na3+ 34.Kcl,
but in time trouble, I found a more com-
plicated way to win.
33...Nd4 34.Ra3 Ng4 35.Qgl!
Now the twin threats of 36.Rb3 and
36.Qxg4 net a piece. My opponent played
on until the time control before resigning.
35...Ka7 36.Qxg4 Rc5 37.Qdl Rb8
38.Qxd4Rxa539.Qxb6+ Kxb640.Rb3 +
Ka7 41.Rxb8 1-0
Sicilian NajdorfB82
GM Michael Adams
GM Mihai Suba
Lloyds Bank Masters 1990
I.e4 c5 2.Nc3
As my encounters with Suba in the
Scheveningen have not always resulted in
good opening positions, I hoped to take
him into a different variation. After
2...Nc6,1 would have played 3.Nf3.
2...a6 3.NB d6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 e6 6.f4
Nf6
So far by transposition we have
reached a variation of the Najdorf, al-
though one that bears a strong
resemblance to to a Scheveningen.
7.QB Qb6 8.Nb3
I was not keen to repeat my game
against Wojtkiewicz, in case Suba had
-11-
found an improvement.
8...Qc7 9.a4!?
Chandler used this move, I believe for
the first time, in his Round Three game
against Wojtkiewicz.
9...b6 10.Bd3 Nc6
Possibly better is 10...Bb7 ll.O-O
Nbd712.Qg3g6!?.
ll.O-O Bb7 12.Qg3 Nd7
In this position, Black is already faced
with difficult problems. Playing 12...g6 is
dangerous due to the exposed position of
the Knight on f6 after 13.f5. Other
methods, however, fail to develop his
Kingside.
13.f5
Very tempting and natural. However
after 13.Be3, completing White's
development, Black is still left with the
problem of doing the same thing.
13...Nde5 14.fxe6 fxe6 15.Qh3 Bc8
This is forced as after 15...Qd7,16.Be3
wins the b-pawn. Black's position looks
appalling at this point, but possession of
the e5-squre and the lack of targets in his
position make it difficult for White to
proceed.
16.Be3 Be7 17.Be2 Nd8 18.Nd4 Bf6
19.BH5 + Nef7 20.Bg4 Qe7 21.Nd5
The play up to here has all been very
logical. Somehow, much of White's ad-
vantage has been dissipated. Possibly
13.f5 was premature. White's last move
was effectively forced as Black is
threatening to castle and then untangle.
21...exd5 22.Bxc8 O-O 23.BF5!?
Also possible is 23.Rael. The text
move envisages an interesting piece
sacrifice. Although White only gets two
pawns for his piece, the unsafe position
of Black's King and his inactive pieces
provide further compensation. The
fact that both players were running
short of time meant that the sacrifice
was justified in a practical sense.
23...g6 24.exd5 gxfS 25.Nxf5 Qc7
26.Rael Nb7?
This was the move I was waiting for
when I played 26.Rael. It is clear that
Black needed a better defense. After-
the-game analysis centered on 26...Kh8
27.Nd4 Ne5 (possibly 27...Bg7 is better
here) 28.Bh6 Rf7 29.c3! In positions
where White cannot play for a direct
attack successfully, playing solidly
and waiting for Black to commit him-
self is strong. In this position the
Knight on d8 is paralyzed. If it moves
-12-
to b7, it allows White's Knight to occupy
the e6-square. The idea of playing quiet-
ly was suggested by Jon Speelman and
ensures White sufficient compensation,
although not more than that.
27.Nd4!
Now Black is in big trouble.
27...Ne5?
Again not the best move. Although
27...Bxd4 28.Bxd4 Ne5 29.Qe6+ Rf7
looks very dangerous, Black may have
drawing chances, e.g., 30.Rf5 Nc5
31.Rg5 + Ng6 (31...KH8 32.Rlxe5)
32.Rxg6+ hxg6 33.Qxg6+ Rxg7
34.Bxg7 Qxg7 35.Qxd6 when although
four pawns are more than enough for a
piece Black has chances to save the
game. Mihai also considered 27...Bg7
28.Ne6 Qxc2 in the post-mortem, but
this looks appalling.
28.Qe6+ Kg729.Qxe5!
A simple but effective combination,
from which I emerge two pawns up.
29...Bxe5 30.Ne6+ Kg6 31.Nxc7
Rxfl + 32.Rxfl Rc8 33.Bxb6 Bxb2 34.Rel
With both sides short of time, my tech-
nique becomes very sloppy. Now 34.Rbl
was better.
34...a535.c4Bd4 +
A good try, but White has enough
material to win fairly comfortably here.
36.Bxd4 Rxc7 37.Rcl KfS 38.Bb6! Rc8
39.R11+ Kg6
He might as well have tried 39...Ke4
40.Rf7 Nc5 41.Bxc5 Rxc5 42.Rxh7, al-
though White is still winning. The game
move gives White complete control and
the remaining moves require no explaina-
tion.
40.RT4 NcS 41.Bxc5 RxcS 42.KC h5
43.Ke3 Rc8 44.Kd4 Rb8 45.Re4 Rb4
46.Re6+ KfS 47.Rxd6 Rxa4 48.Re6 Ral
49.Re2 a4 50.RC + Kg6 Sl.KcS a3 52.d6
Rbl 53.d7 1-0
INSIDE CHESS
Annotations by GM Andy Soltis
King's Indian Classical E94
IM Ronen Lev
GM Andy Soltis
Lloyds Bank Masters 1990
Like most players, I'm annoyed at the
growing use of !? in annotations be-
cause it's usually the annotators' way of
saying, "I don't know whether the move
is very good or very bad so I'll fudge the
issue." In this game I found another use
for !? — to indicate a good move chosen
for a bad reason.
I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.NO g6
Black's move order is an unassuming
transposition that enables Black to get on
with the middlegame without worrying
about the latest analysis of the Samisch,
Averbakh, Four Pawns, etc.
5.e4 e5 6.Be2 Bg7 7.O-O O-O 8.Rel c6
9.Bfl a6
I've never understood why 9...a5 is so
automatically preferred. After all, it
doesn't restrain b2-b4 forever.
On the other hand, by moving the a-
pawn only one square instead of two,
Black can meet 10.d5 with 10...c5
while still maintaining some pawn
control of b5. He also retains the op-
tion of playing an Old Indian-like
position with ...b5 or ...b6. (A similar
idea was shown in Gutman-Kavalek,
New York Open 1984:1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6
3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.Nf3 e5 5.g3 c6 6.Bg2 g6
7.O-O Bg7 8.e4 O-O 9.h3 and now
9...b6 lO.BgS Bb7 ll.Qd2 Re8 12.Rfel
a6 13-Radl b5!. White speculated
with 14.d5 Nb6 15.c5?! dxc5 16.dxc6
Qxd2 17.Rxd2 Bxc6 18.Rd6 Re6, but
Black won a nice game.)
There are a few other ideas contained
in 9...a6 as we see after —
10.a3 exd4! ll.Nxd4 Re8
Here we have a typical King's In-
dian in which Black's a-pawn turns
out to be more usefully placed than
White's. Now 12.f3, a s t a n d a r d
move in such positions, can be met
by 12...d5! because White doesn't
have the usual Ndb5 business he
gets when Black has played ...a5.
For e x a m p l e , 13.exd5 R x e l
14.Qxel cxd5 15.cxd5 Nb6 and
16...Nbxd5, or 15.Be3 dxc4 16.Bxc4
Ne5, Lein-Soltis, U.S. Champion-
ship 1983.
12.Nb3
Issue 24
 Unveiling an attack on the d4-pawn
and discouraging ...Nc5. This Knight can
also go to d2 later on to defend the c-
pawn, but White has set his sights on
advancing this guy.
12...Qc7 13.h3 Ne5
Black needs a more active plan than
13...b5 14.Bf4 Ne5 15.c5 and tries to
provoke f4.
14.Be3 Be6 15.cS
All according to a script for exploiting
holes at c5 and b6. On 15.Nd2 b516.cxb5
axb5 17.Rcl Qb7 White has nothing dis-
cernable.
15...Rad8 16.cxd6 Rxd6 17.Qc2
Black's Rook appears to be misplaced
and vulnerable to a push of the f- and
e-pawns. No one was more surprised
than I that the Rook ended up going to g6
and helped deliver mate in a dozen
moves.
Here, because of 18.f4, I considered
17...Nd3 (18.Bxd3 Bxb3), but found noth-
ing likeable about IS.Redl. After look-
ing for nearly 20 minutes at a number of
other moves that didn't quite do the job,
I began examining the position in abstract
terms: Which piece of mine isn't being
used?, I asked. So —
17...NH5!?
— a good move despite the poor cal-
culation behind it. My original intent was
to meet 18.f4 with 18...Nxf4 19.Bxf4
Qb6 + , picking up the Knight on b3.
Then I noticed 20.Nd4! (and 21.Be3).
18.Be2 Nd3
Black would have had to meet 18.f4
with the same 18...Nd3. Now 19.Bxd3
Bxb3 is nothing of consequence, so White
decides to double Rooks in expectation
of a massive trade of heavy pieces that will
lead to a favorable endgame.
19.Redl Red8 20.Bxh5 gxhS
The ruptured King position couldn't
have been easily avoided, since putting a
Knight at f4 at move 19 would have left
both Knights precariously placed follow-
ing 20.Bf 1!. White believed he was solidly
better here, and that's often a dangerous
situation because you end up rejecting
reasonable lines because they only lead to
equality. That seems to be true here: he
decided to lure Black into Queenside ex-
pansion.
21.Rd2 c5 22.Radl c4 23.Ncl Qd7
This is the position White had figured
would, when he played his 20th move,
favor him —and I had assumed it would
December 10, 1990
favor Black. My opponent counted on
23...Qd7 being bad because the Black
Rooks can't move and yet can be harassed
by the Bishop. He rejected 24.Bc5 think-
ing Black could avoid 24...Rc6?? 25.Nxd3
and set up a fortress-draw with
24...Nxc5?! 25.Rxd6 Qxd6 26.Rxd6 Rxd6.
Actually, Black gets a pretty fair endgame
with 24...Nel! or 24...Nb4!.
And clearly 24.Bb6? Rxb6 25.Nxd3
fails to 25...Rd6. So he calculated 24.Bg5
f6 25.Be3 as favoring White (25...f5
26.Bg5! Rf8 27.Nxd3).
24.Bg5 Bxh3!?
The question mark comes from again
calculating the wrong way for the right
move. I had worked out a line that began
with 25.Bxd8 Qg4 26.f3 (26.g3 Qf3)
26...Bd4+ 27.KhlBxg2 + and somehow
ended in mate —overlooking that after
28.Rxg2, Black's Queen is pinned to his
King.
25.Bxd8
He has a cute drawing line in 25.gxh3
Qxh3 26.Nxd3 cxd3 27.Rxd3! Rxd3
28.Bxd8, forcing ...Qg4+ and ...Qh3 +
etc. However, Black avoids that with
26...Qg4 + ! 27.Kfl Qxg5 (28.f4 cxd3
29.fxg5 dxc2 30.Rxd6 Rxd6!).
25...Qg4
No turning back now. On 25...Bxg2
White has 26.Rxd3!.
26.f3Bd4 + 27.KhlQg3!
Wins. The threats include 28...Nf2 + ,
28...Be5, 28...Nel, 28...Rg6 and even
28...Bf2, e.g.:
a) 28.Rfl Nel;
b) 28.Rgl Bxgl 29.Kxgl Nel; GM Dragoljub Velimirovic
c) 28.Rxd3 cxd3 29.Nxd3 Rg6 30.Nel 28.Nxd3 cxd3 29.Qa4 Rg6
Bf2; The fastest. Neither clock had more
d)28.Nxd3 cxd3 29.Rxd3 Bf2 (or than a minute at this point.
29...Be5) SO.Rgl Rg6 or 30.Qxf2 Qxf2 30.Qxd4 Bxg2 + 31.Kgl Bh3 + 32.Khl
31.gxh3 Rxd3 32.Rxd3 Qfl +; and QxO+ 33.Kh2Rg2+ 0-1
e) 28.Nxd3 cxd3 29.Qxd3 Be5 30.gxh3
Qxh3+ 31.KglRg6 + .
The trickiest, considering time pres-
Annotations by IM Zoran Ilic
sure, would have been f) 28.Bc7 which
stops ...Rg6 and enables White to meet
BenoniAJO
28...Nel with 29.Bxd6. Moreover,
28...Be529.gxh3Qxh3+ 30.Rh2 Bxh2 al- GM Ognjen Cvitan
GM Drago Velimirovic
lows 31.Qg2 + ! while the attractive
Vrsac 1989
28...Nf2 + 29.Rxf2 Bxf2 30.Rgl Be6
(31.Bxd6 Qh4 + 32.Bh2 Bg3) is muddled I.d4 c5 2.d5 Nf6 3.c4 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4
by31.Qxf2!. d6 6.NE3 O-O 7.H3 e6 8.Bd3 exdS 9.cxd5
Black would have to find 28...Bf2! to Recently there has been a reap-
win (since then instead of 29.Rgl Be6 pearance of this line last seen in the '50s
30.Rxf2 Nxf2+ 31.Qxf2!, Black can just and characterized by the moves h3 and
play 30...Qh4 mate). Bd3. This is directed against the
INSIDE CHESS -13-
...Bg4 line, not allowing the exchange of
the c8-Bishop which is always something
of a problem for Black in the Benoni.
9...b5!?
A controversial continuation; theory
hasn't arrived at a crystallized assessment
yet. In a later round Velimirovic opted
for a less direct alternative, 9...Re8. That
game (against GM Lalic) also has some
theoretical significance. After 10.O-O c4
ll.Bc2 there followed the theoretical
novelty Il...b5!? and Black obtained a
very good game: 12,Nxb5 Nxe4 13.Bxe4
Rxe4 14.Rel Rxel IS.Qxel Bb7 16.Qe4
Nd7 17.Bg5 Qb6 etc.
For the final assessment of this line
(9...Re8 10.O-O c4), I think the critical
line is Khalifman's recommendation
ll.Bxc4! Nxe412.Nxe4 Rxe413.Bg5! with
a better game for White. It deserves a
practical test.
lO.BxbS!
Definitely better than the older
10.Nxb5. Recent games, where White
has had to face many problems after
lO.NxbS, probably will influence the dis-
appearance of the move from tournament
play.
Briefly, I will give some remarks
about this continuation. After
10...Nxe4 ll.Bxe4 Re8 12.Nd2 Ba6!
13.a4 Qa5! 14.Nxd6 Nd7!, Black cool-
ly completes his development, offer-
ing a new sacrifice. Now the game
diverges:
a) 15.f3 Be5! 16.Kf2 Bxd6 17.Rel c4
IS.Nfl Nc5 with an advantage for Black.
b) 15.g4 Rxe4+! 16.Nxe4 Ne5 17.Ra3
Nd3 + 18.Rxd3 Bxd31913 f5 20.gxf5 gxf5
21.Ng5 c4 winning in Kozul-Barlov,
Kladovo 1989.
c) 15.Qc2 f5 16.Kdl fxe4 17.N2c4
Bxc4 (17...Qd8) 18.Nxc4 Qa6 19.Rel
Vilela-Neb. Ristic, Bela Crkva 1989,
and although in Informant 47 Vilela
considers the position to be quite play-
able for White, I doubt that the plan
with 16.Kdl will attract any interest in
the future.
To complete the analysis of the posi-
tion after move 14, there is also
d)15.Nxe8 Rxe816.f3 f517.Kf2 Bd4 +.
Now let's go back to the game.
10...Nxe4 ll.Nxe4 Qa5+ 12.Nfd2
QxbS 13.Nxd6
-14-
All forced after lO.BxbS. Now Black
missteps wit an ugly-looking move —
13...Qd7?
A home-prepared move, or just ig-
norance of the theoretical continuation?
The imposing and forced move is
13...Qa6.
The last word about this continuation
is the game Palkovi-Szalanczy, Hungary
(ch) 1989, which continued 14.N2c4 Nd7
15.O-O Nb6 16.Nxb6 axb6 17.Qb3 Bd7
18.Bg5 b5! (an improvement on 18...f6,
Dreev-Shabalov, Tblisi 1989) 19.Be7 and
now instead of 19...c4?! Black should
have played 19...f5!.
In my opinion, instead of closing the
b-file with 15...Nb6 16.Nxb6 axb6, worthy
of consideration is 15...Ne5!? 16.Nxe5
Qxd6 17.Nc4 Qa6 with adequate com-
pensation. If White continues 16.Nxc8,
then Black has the option between
16...Qxc4 (wrong is 16...Nxc4 17.Ne7 +
Kh8 18.Qd3 with an advantage for
White), or 16...Raxc8 17.Nxe5 Bxe5 with
active play for a pawn.
14.N2c4 Qe7+ 15.Be3 Nd7 16.O-O
White completes his development and
his well-coordinated minor pieces
dominate the board. The exposed posi-
tion of Black's Queen on the e-file is an
additional factor which favors White.
Without any chance to create
counterplay, it could already be said that
Black's position is strategically lost.
16...Nb6
It is understandable that sooner or
later Black has to try to break White's
cavalry charge which is strangling his
position. Abandoning his c5-pawn, Black
looks for salvation with tactical play, for
which there is no real justification. Play-
ing inventively, White will very soon
refute Black's unsound concept. How-
ever, the more patient 16...Ba6 17.Rel
Qd8 is also without perspective, while the
INSIDE CHESS
line 16...Ne5 17.Rel Ba6 18.Bf4 is com-
pletely out of the question.
17.RelBa6
It seems that the pawn on c5 is taboo
because the response 18...Qc7 could cre-
ate unpredictable complications.
IS.BxcS
Cvitan is not a player to be bluffed. He
properly calculated the winning line.
18...Qc7 19.Nxb6 QxcS
Black naively relies on the strategy of a
trapped Knight on a8, still not seeing
White's key move. But the alternative of
playing two pawns down after 19...axb6
20.Ba3 offered few chances.
20.Nxa8 Qxd6 21.Rcl
This is the end of the story. Cvitan
must have foreseen it by playing IS.BxcS.
Using the threat 22.Rc6, White manages
to revive his Knight on a8.
21...Bxb2
Or 21...Rxa8 22.Rc6 and 23.Rxa6 easily
wins.
22.Rc2 Bg7 23.Nc7
With a little help the mischievous pony
cheerfully returns to the game —
23...Bb7 24.Ne8
— and continues his winning dance.
24...Qxd5
Now it's time to simplify matters and
enter a winning endgame.
25.Qxd5 BxdS 26.Nxg7 Kxg7 27.ReS
Be6 28.Ra5
Black cannot defend his a-pawn, so the
rest needs no comment.
28...Ra8 29.Rc6 h5 30.h4 Kf6 31.f3 Rb8
32.Kh2 Rb2 33.a4 Rd2 34.Kg3 Rdl
35.Rxa7 Ke5 36.Ra5+ Kf6 37.Rb6 Ral
38.Ra7 Ke5 39.a5 Bc4 40.Re7+ Kd4
41.Rb4Kc542.Rxc4 +
The simplest.
42...Kxc4 43.Rxf7 RxaS 44.RT6 g5
45.Rh6 1-0
And White wins another pawn:
45...gxh4+ 46.Kxh4 Ra2 47.Rg6 Ra5
48.Rg5 so Black resigned.
Annotations by GM Jesus Nogueiras
French Tarrasch 07
GM Andrei Sokolov
GM Jesus Nogueiras
Clennont Ferrand 1989
I.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 QxdS
This capture with the Queen is very
popular these days.
5.NgO cxd4 6.Bc4 Qd6 7.O-O Nf6
8.Nb3 Nc6 9.Nbxd4 Nxd4 10.Nxd4 a6
Issue 24
 Normally I prefer this continuation, al-
though I have played 10...Bd7 against
Sokolov before. The game continued
with Il.c3 Be7 12.Rel O-O 13.Qf3 Qc7
14.Bd3 Rfe8 15.Bg5 Nd5 16.Bxe7 Rxe7
17.RadlBa4! 18.Bc2Bxc219.Nxc2Draw,
Brussels 1988.
ll.Bb3
Here White has other important moves
such as Il.b3, Il.c3, Il.a4, and especially
ll.Rel with which after ll...Qc7 12.Bb3
we could have attained a position similar
to the text.
H...QC?
Against Hubner in Belfort I played
ll...Bd7, but after 12.c3 Qc7 13.Qf3 Bd6
14.h3 Bh2 + IS.Khl Be5 16.Rel O-O
17.Be3 Rfe8 IS.Radl h6 19.Qe2 Bf4
20.Bxf4 Qxf4 21.Nf3 Bb5 22.Qe5 Qxe5
23.Nxe5 faced a difficult endgame which
I finally lost. The natural plan to com-
plete development of the Ringside is
probably preferable, as the text shows.
12.QO
Another interesting possibility is
12.Rel Bd6 13.N£5 Bxh2+ 14.KM Kf8
(very dangerous for Black is 14...O-O
15.Nxg7 Kxg7 16.Qd2 Ng8 17.Qg5 + Kh8
18.f4 f6 19.Qh4 Bxf4 20.Bxf4 e5 21. Bxg8
Kxg8 22.Bh6 Rf7 23.Radl; or 21...exf4
22.Bd5 and 22...Qxc2 is not possible be-
cause of 23.Re8! with a strong initiative
j Gonzalez, Moron 1986.
GM Andrei Sokolov
December 10, 1990
for White in all cases. This is analysis of
Chernin published in Informant 41/328.
Black's problems are not solved with
14...h5?! 15.Nxg7+ Kf8 16.Qd4 with ad-
vantage to White.) 15.g3 exf5 16.Bf4
Qc6+ 17.Kxh2 Be6! 18.Qd6 + (White
had at his disposal the interesting move
19.c4!? with the threat of 20.c5 and
21.Ba4) 18...Qxd6 19.Bxd6 + Ke8
20.Radl when although White had a
small advantage, Black could probably
still draw in Hubner-Nogueiras, Bar-
celona 1989.
12...Bd6 13.H3 O-O 14.Bg5
There are no problems for Black after
14.c3 because of 14...b5! 15.Qxa8!?
(15.Bg5 Bb7 16.Qe2 Bd7 with equality)
15...Bb7 16.Qxf8 + Bxf8 Boudy-Sieiro
14...Nd7
Black has two other possibilities, but
both are inadequate: a) 14...Bh2 +
IS.Khl Be5 16.Radl b6 17.Bxf6 Bxf6
18.Qxa8 Bxd4 (18...Bb7 is not possible
because of 19.Nxe6! fxe6 20.Bxe6 + )
19.Qe4 and White is better; b) 14...b5
15.Bxf6 (of course not 15.Qxa8? Bb7
16.Qa7 Bh2+ 17.KH1 Bxg2 + and Black
wins) 15...gxf6 16.Qxf6 Be5 17.Qh4 Bb7
18.C3 Qd8? (better is 18...Kh8) 19.Qh5
and White is better, Chandler-Orstein,
Lucerne (ol) 1982.
15.c3 bS 16.Radl Bb7
In this position Hubner played
16...Nc5 and after 17.Bc2 Bb718.Qh5 Be4
obtained equality in Hellers-Hubner,
Wijk aan Zee 1986.
17.Qg4
Beyond any doubt, the White Queen is
better-placed here than on h5.
17...Bh2 + !?
A novelty. Played previously was
17...Kh8 IS.Rfel Ne5 19.Qh5 Ng6 20.Bc2
Kg8 21.NB Bxf3 22.Qxf3 with a clear ad-
INSIDE CHESS
vantage in Hubner-Kortchnoi, OHRA
1986.
IS.Khl Ne5 19.Nxe6!
After using a great deal of time,
Sokolov found the best move. Any
withdrawal of the Queen would give
Black an excellent position. For example:
a) 19.Qe2 Ng6 Black controls f4 and
threatens 20...Bf4; b) 19.Qh5 Ng6 20.Bc2
(the sacrifices on e6 are erroneous;
20.Bxe6? fxe6 21.Nxe6 Qc6 and Black
wins, and 20.Nxe6? fxe6 21.Bxe6 + Kh8
22.Rd7 Qc6 23.Rxb7 Qxb7 24.Kxh2 Qe4!
and Black has the advantage. The activity
of the Black pieces and the poor position
of the White Rook and Queen makes
White's position clearly inferior.) 20...Bf4
(threatens 21.Qc5) 21.Bxf4 (21.Bxg6 hxg6
22.Qg4 Bxg5 23.Qxg5 e5 with comfort-
able equality) 21...Qxf4 22.a4 bxa4
23.Bxa4 e5 24.Bc6 Nxc6 25.Nxc6 a5 equal.
19...fxe6 20.Qxe6 + Kh8 21.f4 Rfe8
The only possible move. If 21...Rae8?,
then 22.fxe5 and White wins.
22.Qd6 Qxd6 23.Rxd6 Bg3??
And now Black's position is lost.
Forced was 23...Nc4! 24.Bxc4 bxc4
25.Rb6 (25.Rd7? Bc8 and Black puts
White on ice; 25.Kxh2 Re2) 25...Bd5
26.Kxh2. (This is forced because if
26.Rdl? Bg3 winning. I didn't see
26...Bg3 in my analysis during the game.)
26.Re2 27.Rgl h6 28.Bh4 Rae8 with the
idea of 29...Rd2 and ...Ree2 with
counterplay sufficient to guarantee the
draw. Now Black loses a pawn without
compensation.
24.fxe5 RxeS 25.Rd8+ Rxd8 26.Bxd8
h5 27.Bdl Rd5?
A big mistake which brings the end
even closer.
28.RK+ Kh729.Bc2+ g630.Bf61-0
(Continued on page 20)
-15-