|
If
Black plays passively in this line, White's attack can
work beautifully, as Adolph Anderssen showed in probably
the earliest recorded game of the Perreux Variation, Anderssen-De
Riviere, Paris 1858 (which featured a classic struggle
for control of the f-file, concluding with an amazing
King march by White to deliver mate). But if Black can
play an early d5 break, he will be able to exploit his
own open lines -- including the open h-file -- to organize
a very strong counter-offensive. White does best to make
Black pay for the d5 break with 9.Qxd4 or
to prevent it all together with 9.Bd5!?.
In these two main lines, White appears to have good play
for the sacrificed material. You should note, however,
that Black can sidestep the main analysis by playing immediately
6....d5!? (see note below) rather than 6....h6 7.f4 hxg5
8.fxe5 Nxe4, thus sacrificing a pawn for development
and initiative. As in many lines of the Perreux (and
in the Two Knights Defense with d4 generally), White
has a pawn plus with chances of making it pay in the main
line following 6....d5!? 7.Qxd4! Qe7!? 8.Bxd5 h6 9.Nf3
Nxf3+ 10.gxf3 Nxd5 11.Qxd5 c6 12.Qb3.
The
main analysis follows 5....Ne5 (5....d5 transposes
to the Queen Check line; 5....Bb4+?!
6.c3 dxc3 7.Bxf7+ ±) 6.Bb3!? (6.Qxd4 transposes
to the Main Line) 6....h6
(Black can also seize some initiative by sacrificing a
pawn with 6....d5!? 7.Qxd4! [7.exd5?! Bc5! 8.Bf4 Nxd5! =+
Laptos-Mulet,
Bielsko-Biala Poland 1991] 7....Bd6!? [not 7...Nc6?! 8.Qd1!
Nxe4 9.Nxf7! ±, but better may be 7....Qe7 8.Bxd5 h6
9.Nf3 Nxf3+ 10.gxf3 Nxd5 11.Qxd5 c6 12.Qb3 Be6 13.Qc3 when
Black has compensation for the pawn but White has chances
of making it pay once he gets organized with Bf4 or Be3, Nbd2,
and O-O-O, as Pfleger demonstrates] 8.exd5 [8.Bxd5!? Nxd5
9.exd5 +=, but 8.f4!? Nc6! 9.Qe3 O-O!? 10.e5 was unclear in
Cayon-Torres, Bogota Open 1997] 8....h6 9.Ne4 [9.Nf3!? Nxf3+
10.gxf3 O-O 11.Be3 Re8 12.Nc3 Be5 13.Qd2 a5 14.O-O-O ±
Pfleger-Mazzoni,
Hague 1966 and White consolidated his material] 9.....Nxe4
10.Qxe4 O-O 11.O-O f5?! [11....Ng4!? 12.Bf4! += or 11....Qf6!
are less clear] 12.Qd4 Qf6 13.Kh1!? ± and White easily
converted the extra pawn in Lorite Martinez-Gil Martinez,
Valencia Provincial Center 2004) 7.f4 (7.Qxd4?! Bd6!?
[7....Qe7! 8.Nf3 Nc6 =+] 8.f4 Nc6 9.Qc4 Bb4+ 10.c3 d5 11.exd5
Qe7+ 12.Kd2! hxg5 13.Re1 Be6 14.dxe6? [14.Rxe6! =] 14....O-O-O+
=+ 15.Kc2 Rxh2?! [15....Nd4+! -+] 16.Re2?! Qd6 17.Bd2 Na5
18.Qxb4 Qd3+ 19.Kd1 Ng4 20.e7 Rh1+ 21.Re1 Ne3+ 22.Kc1 Rxe1+
23.Bxe1 Qd1+ 24.Bxd1 Rxd1# 0-1 Marshall
and Ally-Napier and Elwell, Brooklyn 1895) 7....hxg5
8.fxe5 Nxe4 (8....Ng8?! 9.Qxd4 Nh6 10.Nc3 d6 11.Rf1 Bg4
12.Be3 dxe5 13.Qxe5+ Qe7 14.Qxg5 Qxg5 15.Bxg5 ± Szalanczy-Acs,
Budapest 1993 or 9.O-O Nh6 10.Qf3 Qe7 11.Qg3 d6 12.exd6
Qxd6 13.e5 Qb6 14.Bxg5 ± Borkowski-Zarwadzka,
Poland 1991), after which White has a number of alternatives:
GL1)
9.O-O? d5 10.exd6 Qxd6! (10....f5!? 11.Nd2 Qxd6
12.Nxe4!? Qxh2+ 13.Kf2 fxe4
14.Qxd4 Be7 15.Qxe4 Bf5? 16.Bf7+! ± Anderssen-DeRiviere,
Paris 1858) 11.Bxf7+ Kd8 12.g3 d3! (12....Bd7 13.Qd3
Bc6 14.Nd2 Nxd2 15.Bxd2 Be7 16.Rae1 Rxh2 17.Rf5 Rxd2 18.Qxd2
Qxg3+ 19.Kf1 Qh3+ 20.Ke2 Qg4+ 21.Kf1 Qxf5+ 0-1 Taubenhaus-Schallopp,
Manchester 1890) 13.Qe1 Qb6+ 14.Be3 Bc5 15.Rf3 Bg4
16.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 17.Re3 Be2 0-1 Kan-Levenfish,
Leningrad 1933.
GL2)
9.Bxf7+? Kxf7 10.Qf3+
GL2a)
10....Nf6
GL2a1)
11.O-O Be7 12.Bxg5 d5 13.Nd2 Kg6 14.h4 Ng8 15.Qf7+
Kh7 16.h5 Nh6 17.Bxh6 Rg8 18.Qg6+ Kh8 19.Rf7 Bf8 20.Nf3
1-0 Beneditti-Loeb,
Correspondence 1947.
GL2a2)
11.Bxg5 Qe7 12.Qe2 d6 13.exf6 gxf6 =+ Papastavropolus-Pandavos,
Athens 1996.
GL2b)
10....Kg8! (the King is safer here)
GL2b1)
11.O-O Qe8 12.Qxe4 d6 (12....d5! 13.Qxd4 Be6
14.Bxg5 b6 15.Qd3 Qh5 16.Qg3 Bc5+ 17.Kh1 Bf2 18.Qf4 Be3
0-1 Estrin-Koptev,
Moscow 1941) 13.Qxd4 dxe5 14.Qe3 g4 15.Nd2 Qc6
16.Ne4 Qb6 17.Rf2 Qxe3 18.Bxe3 Be6 =+ 19.Rd1 b6 20.b3
Re8 21.c4 Be7 22.Nc3 a6 23.Nd5 Bxd5 24.Rxd5 Bf6 25.a4
Kf7 26.Rd7+ Re7 27.Rfd2 Ke6 ± 28.R7d5 Rb8 29.Kf2
Bh4+ 30.Ke2 Rf7 31.Kd3? c6 32.g3 Bf6 0-1 Hvenekilde-Sorensen,
Copenhagen 1996.
GL2b2)
11.Qxe4 d5! 12.Qf3 (12.Qxd4 Rh4! 13.Qd3 Re4+
=+) 12....Be6 13.Nd2 Be7 14.g3 c5 -+ 15.O-O Qc7
16.Qe2 g4 17.Nb3 Rh5 18.Bf4 g6 19.Rae1 Kg7 20.Qd1 Rf8
21.Re2 b5 22.a3 a5 23.Qe1 a4 24.Nc1 Rhh8 25.Rff2 c4 26.Bd2
c3! 27.bxc3 dxc3 28.Be3 Bxa3 -+ 29.Nd3 g5 30.Bd4 Be7 31.Qxc3
Qxc3 32.Bxc3 Rxf2 33.Rxf2 Rc8 34.Bd4 b4 35.Kf1 Kg6 36.Ke1
Rc4 37.Bb2 Bf5 38.Kd2 b3 0-1 Gasanov-Shahtahtinsky,
Baku 1967.
GL3)
9.Bd5!?
This move of Zeziulkin's is certainly more exciting than
9.Qxd4 (below), and Black must play carefully to keep from
getting in trouble. But it appears that White will need to
find improvements to prove even equality against Black's
best response, 9....f5!
GL3a)
9....Bb4+ 10.c3 dxc3 11.bxc3 Nxc3 12.Bxf7+ Kf8?!
(12....Kxf7! 13.O-O+ Ke8 14.Nxc3 Qe7! 15.Qd3 Rh6 is unclear)
13.Qb3 Qe7?! (13....Nd5+! +=) 14.O-O! ±
Zeziulkin-Kolesnik,
USSR 1990.
GL3b)
9....Qe7 10.Bxe4 Qxe5 11.Qe2 Be7 12.Nd2 d5 13.Bd3
Qxe2+ 14.Bxe2 +=/= Zeziulkin-Kagansky,
Chestohowa 1992 Black has three pawns for the piece
and should be able to put up a good fight.
GL3c)
9....Nc5 (Black should emerge here with the advantage,
but his defense is difficult) 10.Qf3 (10.O-O Ne6
11.Qf3 Qe7 12.Na3 g6 [12....g4 13.Qxg4 d6 14.Nc4 Maivelt-Yuneev,
USSR 1987] 13.Nb5 Bh6 14.b3 g4 15.Qxg4 Bxc1 16.Raxc1 a6
17.Rxf7 Kxf7 18.Nxc7 Rb8 19.Rf1+ Kg7 20.Rf6 Rh6 21.h4 d3
22.cxd3 Qc5+ 23.d4 Qxc7 24.Qf4 Nxf4 25.Rf7+ Kh8 26.Rxf4
Kg7 27.Rf7+ 1/2-1/2 Mevel-Neiman,
Paris 1994) 10....Qe7 11.O-O Ne6 12.b3 (12.Nd2!
= c6? 13.Ne4! +=) 12....g4! 13.Qf5?! (13.Qxg4 d6
14.Qf3 dxe5 15.Bc6+! Bd7 16.Bxb7 =+ and White has some compensation
for the pawn) 13....g6! 14.Qf2 Bh6 (14....Bg7) 15.Bxh6
Rxh6 16.Nd2 Ng5?! (16....f5! =+ 17.exf6? Qd6 -+) 17.Qxd4
c6 18.Bxf7+?! (18.Bc4 +=) 18....Nxf7 19.Nc4 g5 20.Rae1
Kd8 21.Qd2 b6? (21....Kc7 =+) 22.Rxf7! +- Qc5+
23.Kh1 Kc7 24.Qxg5 1-0 Lilja-El-Kher,
Olstykke 1994.
GL3d)
9....f5! 10.exf6!? (This move is tricky. No better,
though, is 10.Bxe4 fxe4 11.Qxd4 d5! 12.exd6 Qxd6
13.Qxe4+ Qe7 14.Qxe7+ Bxe7 =+ when Black's two Bishops
give him a lasting edge in the ending) 10....Nxf6
11.Qd3!? Qe7+
(11....Nxd5? 12.Qg6+ Ke7 13.O-O with a winning attack)
12.Kd1 Kd8 (12....Nxd5 13.Re1 +=) 13.Bxg5 Qe5
14.Qg6 c6
GL3d1) 15.Bf3?!
Kc7
16.Re1 Qxh2 =+ (Black's King is safe and he is up
material) 17.Qf7 Qg3 18.Bd2 b6 19.Qc4 Rh4 20.Na3 Bxa3
21.bxa3 Bb7 22.Rf1 Qe5 23.Re1 Qf5 24.Rf1 Qb5 25.Qxb5 cxb5
26.Bg5 Bxf3+ 27.gxf3 Rh5 28.Bxf6 gxf6 29.Kd2 Rh2+ 30.Kd3
Re8 31.Rae1 Rxe1 32.Rxe1 Rf2 33.Kxd4 Rxf3 34.c3 Rf2 35.Rb1
Kc6 36.a4 bxa4 37.a3 Ra2 38.Rf1 Rxa3 39.Rxf6+ d6 40.Kc4
b5+ 41.Kb4 Rb3+ 42.Ka5 a3 43.Rf1 a2 0-1 Watson-Adams,
London 1991.
GL3d2) 15.Rf1!
Qxd5 (15...cxd5?! 16.Rxf6 Be7 17.Rf5 Qxh2
18.Bxe7+ Kxe7 19.Qxg7+ Kd8 20.Nd2 +=) 16.Bxf6+
Kc7! (16...gxf6 17.Qxf6+
Kc7 18.Qxh8±) 17.Rf5 Qe6! (17...Rh6!?) 18.Be5+
d6 (18...Bd6 19.Bxd6+
Qxd6 20.Qxd6+ Kxd6 21.h3 Ke6 =+) 19.Rf7+
Kd8 20.Qxe6 Bxe6 21.Bxg7 Bxg7 22.Rxg7 Rxh2 =+ 23.Ke2
Bd5 24.Na3 Rxg2+ 25.Rxg2 Bxg2 26.Rg1 Bd5 27.Rg7!
c5 28.Kd3 Rc8 29.Nb5 Rc6 30.Nxa7 Ra6 31.Nb5 Rxa2
32.Nxd6 b6 33.b4! Ra3+ 34.Kd2 cxb4 35.Nb5 Ra2 (35...Rh3
36.Nxd4 Be4 37.Kc1=)
36.Rg4 b3 37.Rxd4 Rxc2+ 38.Kd3
Rc5 39.Nc3 b2 40.Rb4 1/2-1/2
Hervet-Negre, France 1996. White did a brilliant
job of putting every obstacle in Black's path. The
Rook and pawn ending after 40....Kc7 41.Nxd5+ Rxd5+
42.Kc3 is equal. Likely Black missed a win, but it
is difficult to say exactly where.
GL4)
9.Qxd4
This is the clearest of White's options and appears to
yield either a slight edge or at least equal chances. White
must be careful, however, to avoid disadvantageous endings
where Black has the two Bishops.
GL4a)
9....Ng3? (The idea is good, but it must be prepared
by 9....d5! -- see line GL4e below) 10.Qf2! +-
White wins the Knight due to the mate threat.
GL4b)
9....Rh4?!
GL4b1)
10.Rf1?! f6 (10....Nf6!? 11.g4! [on 11.Qe3?
d5!! =+ and not 11....Re4? 12.Bxf7+ +- as given by
Estrin and Petrosian] 11...Qe7 12.Bxg5 Rxg4! 13.Qxg4
Nxg4 14.Rxf7! +=) 11.g3 (Estrin
and Petrosian give 11.Bxg5 fxg5 12.Bf7+ Ke7 13.Bg6
d5 14.Nc3 "with a winning attack" but this
is less than clear) 11....Nxg3 12.Qd1 Re4+
13.Kf2 Qe7 14.hxg3 Rxe5 unclear, though
White won after 15.Qd3 d5 16.Nc3 c6? 17.Qg6+ Qf7
18.Qxf7+ Kxf7 19.Be3 Bh3 20.Rfe1 Rae8 21.Bxa7 Rf5+
22.Kg1 Bd6 23.Rxe8 Kxe8 24.Bf2 Rf3 25.Ne2 Be5 26.c3
f5 27.Re1 Kd7 28.Bd1 Rd3 29.Nc1 Rd2 30.Nb3 1-0 Tahiri-Walter,
Berlin 1996.
GL4b2) 10.g3! (first analyzed by C.S. Howell in 1924; 10.Qd5 Qe7 11.g3 Nxg3 transposes) 10....Nxg3 11.Qd5! Qe7 12.Bxg5! f6! (12....Qb4+? 13.Nd2 +- Howell) 13.Bxh4 Nxh1 14.Kd1!! (Unpinning the e-pawn and making room for the Bishop to retreat to e1 to trap the knight. Much less clear is 14.Nc3?!
g5! 15.Ne4 as in Sokolsky-Geller, Kiev 1947) 14....g5 15.Be1 ± Goeller
GL4c)
9....f5?! (There is no reason for Black so readily
to surrender his material advantage) 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.O-O
d5 12.Re1+ Kf7 13.Bxg5 += Goeller
GL4d)
9....Nc5
This leads to a cramped but solid game for Black, who will
strive to hang onto his extra pawn with Ne6 or gain the
two Bishops with Nxb3. White must play vigorously to gain
enough counterplay to justify the gambit. The available
games suggest that this line is about even in practice.
GL4d1)
10.Bc4?! (White cannot afford the tempo to save the
Bishop pair) 10....d6 11.O-O Be6 12.Bxe6 Nxe6 13.Qf2
Qd7 14.Rd1 Qb5! 15.Rf1 O-O-O! 16.Qxf7 Qxe5 =+ 17.g3
d5 18.Qg6 Bc5+ 19.Kh1 Rxh2+ 20.Kxh2 Rh8+ 0-1 Pronkin-Kapic,
Correspondence 1992 (21.Kg2 Qe2+ 22.Rf2 Qxf2#).
GL4d2)
10.Nc3 d6!
Black cannot play a passive defense but must strive to
force exchanges. Not 10....Ne6?! when White gains an advantage
by either 11.Qf2 Bc5 12.Be3 Bxe3 13.Qxe3 ±
Barua-Babu,
Sakthi 1996 or 11.Bxe6 dxe6 12.Qxd8+ Kxd8 13.Bxg5+
Be7 14.O-O-O+ Bd7 15.Ne4 =+ Ke8 16.Bf4 Bc6 17.Rde1 Rd8
18.c3 Rh4 19.g3 Rh8 20.g4 Rh3 21.Bg3 Bh4 22.Nf2 Bxg3 23.Nxh3
Bxh1 24.hxg3 Bd5 25.b3 Ke7 26.g5 g6 27.Nf4 Bc6 28.a4 Rh8
29.Kb2 Rh2+ 30.Ka3 Rf2 31.Re3 a5 32.b4 b6 33.Kb3 Rf1 34.b5
Bd5+ 35.c4 Bf3 36.Kb2 Bd1 37.Ka3 Bc2 38.Rc3 Bd1 39.Re3
Bc2 40.Rc3 Bd1 41.Re3 Bg4 42.Kb2 Bf5 43.Ka2 Rc1 44.Kb3
Bg4 45.Rc3 Ra1 46.Nd3 Bd1+ 47.Kb2 Rxa4 48.Rc1 Be2 49.Kb3
Bxd3 50.Kxa4 Be4 51.c5 Kd7 52.Rc4 Bd5 53.Rh4 Bf3 54.Rd4+
Ke7 55.cxb6 cxb6 56.Rd6 1-0 Szabo-Apatoczky,
Hungary 1993. Also misguided is 10....c6?! 11.Ne4
d5 12.exd6 Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Nxb3 14.cxb3 Qd5 15.Qe3 Qe6 16.O-O-O
f5 17.Nxg5 Qxe3 18.Bxe3 Rh6 19.Rhe1 Kd7 20.Bf4 1-0 Ghizdavu-Ungureanu,
Bucharest 1972.
GL4d2a)
11.Qe3 Be6 12.Bd2 Be7 13.Nb5 Qd7 14.exd6 cxd6 15.Nd4
1/2-1/2 Weber-Schwicker,
Baden 1992.
GL4d2b)
11.Be3 Nxb3! (Not 11....dxe5? 12.Bxf7+! or 11....Ne6?!
12.Bxe6 Bxe6 13.O-O-O = d5 14.Nxd5 c6 15.Nc3 Qxd4 16.Bxd4
Be7 17.h3 Bf5 18.Rhf1 Be6 19.Rfe1 g4 20.hxg4 Bxg4 21.Rd3
Be6 22.Be3 Bf5 23.Rdd1 1/2-1/2 Rev-Muri,
Zakopane 2000. Possible is 11....c6!? [planning
12....d5] but White gets some play with 12.exd6!? Qxd6
13.O-O-O.) 12.axb3 dxe5! (12....c6 13.Ne4!)
13.Qxe5+ Qe7! (Black forces the ending) 14.Qxg5
Qxg5 15.Bxg5 Bd6 =+ (Black's two Bishops combined
with his better pawns give him a solid plus in the ensuing
struggle) 16.h3 f6 17.Be3 Bd7 18.Kf2 Be6 19.Ne2
Kf7 20.Nd4 Bd7 21.c3 a5 22.Rad1 Rhe8 23.Nf3 Re7 24.Nd2
b5 25.Nf3 Rae8 26.Rhe1 a4 27.b4 Bc6 28.Nd4 Bd7 29.Nf3
Re4 30.Rd4 R8e7 31.Rd5 Bc6 32.Rd4 g5 33.Rxe4 Rxe4 34.Nd4
Bd7 35.Kf3 Re8 36.Kf2 Kg6 37.Nc2 Re4 38.Rd1 Bc6 39.Nd4
Be8 40.Nc2 Bf7 41.Na3 Bb3 42.Rd2 Re5 43.g4 f5 44.Bd4
Rd5 45.Nc2 fxg4 46.hxg4 Bxc2 47.Rxc2 Bxb4 48.Re2 Bc5
49.Re4 Bxd4+ 50.cxd4 Kf6 51.Ke3 Rd6 0-1 Pfleger-Spassky,
Hastings 1965.
GL4d2c)
11.O-O (This move is most active and forcing, but
it is even better a move earlier) 11....Nxb3 12.axb3
Be6 13.Ne4!? (Winning back the pawn immediately
with 13.Rxa7! comes into consideration, as in GL4d3
below) 13....dxe5 14.Qxe5 Qd5 15.Qxd5 Bxd5 16.Re1
(perhaps immediately 16.Bxg5!? Bxe4? 17.Rae1 =)
16....O-O-O 17.Bxg5 =+ (As in Pfleger-Spassky,
above, Black has a slight edge in the ensuing ending
due to his two Bishops and superior pawn formation.
White must struggle to draw.)
GL4d2c1)
17....Re8 18.Nc3 Bc5+ 19.Kf1 Be6 20.Bf4 Bf5 21.b4
Rxe1+ 22.Kxe1 Bxb4 23.Rxa7 Re8+ 24.Kd2 Re4 25.Ra8+
Kd7 26.g3 Bg4 27.Kd3 Re1 28.Nd5 Be2+ 29.Ke4 Bc4+ 30.Ne3
Be6 31.Kf3 f6 32.h4 Rb1 1/2-1/2 Lehtinen-Molander,
Finland 1996.
GL4d2c2)
17....f6 18.Bf4 Re8 19.Nc3 Bc5+ 20.Kf1 Bc6 21.Rxe8+
Rxe8 22.Rd1 g5 23.Bg3 f5 24.Bf2 Bd6 25.h3 a6 26.Nd5
Re6 27.c4 a5 28.Nc3 b6 29.Rd2 Kb7 30.Ne2 Bb4 31.Nd4
Rd6 32.Re2 Be4 33.Kg1 Rg6 34.g4 Rf6 35.gxf5 Bxf5 36.Re5
Bxh3 37.Rxg5 Bc5 38.Rd5 c6 39.Rd8 Kc7 40.Rh8 Rxf2
41.Kxf2 Bxd4+ 42.Kg3 Bxh8 0-1 Vasta-Rubinetti,
Mar del Plata 1972.
GL4d3)
10.O-O! Nxb3! (Now Black cannot play 10....Ne6?!
due to 11. Bxe6 dxe6 12. Qxd8+ Kxd8 13. Rxf7 Bc5+
14. Kh1 Bd4 15. Bxg5+ Ke8 16. Re7+ Kf8 17. Nc3 Rh5
18. Rf1+ Kg8 19. Re8+ Kh7 20. h4 b6 21. Rff8 Bb7
22. Rxa8 Bxa8 23. Rxa8 Kg6 24. Rxa7 Bxe5 25. Ra4
Bg3 26. Ne2 Bd6 27. Nf4+ Bxf4 28. Rxf4 Rh8 29. Rc4
c5 30. Rc3 Rf8 31. Kg1 Ra8 32. a3 Ra4 33. Rb3 Rc4
34. Rxb6 Rxc2 35. Rxe6+ Kf5 36. Rb6 Kg4 37. a4 Kg3
38. Rb3+ Kg4 39. a5 c4 40. Rb4 Kg3 41. a6 Rxg2+
42. Kf1 Rf2+ 43. Ke1 Rf8 44. Rxc4 1-0 Draica-Georgieva,
Duisburg 1992) 11.axb3 d5! (11....Be7
12.Nc3 +=) 12.Qf2!? (White seeks to draw
out Black's Bishop away from the defense of b7
before capturing the a-pawn with Rxa7. Also possible
was 12.Nc3 Be6?! 13.Rxa7 Rb8 14.Ra1?! [14.b4!
+=] 14....Be7 15.Bd2 Rh4! 16.Qd3 c6 17.Ne2 Bc5+
18.Kh1 Kd7 19.Qg3 Qh8! 20.Ra4 Qh5 21.Re1 Rxh2+
22.Qxh2 Rh8 0-1 Perman-Venalainen,
Correspondence 1970) 12....Be6 13.Rxa7
Rb8
(Black should in turn draw White's Queen out of play
with 13....Rxa7! 14.Qxa7 g4 with some prospects of attack
on the kingside) 14.Be3 = Be7 15.Nd2 g4 16.c3
Rh5 17.Bf4 Rf5?! 18.Qe3 Kf8 19.b4! d4?! 20.cxd4 g5 (20....Bxb4
21.Ne4!) 21.Bg3 Bxb4 22.Rxf5 (22.Rd1 followed
by Ne4 creates a strong position for White as well) 22....Bxf5
23.Ra1! (The Rook returns strongly to the game) 23....Be7
24.Rf1 Qd7 25.Ne4! ± Bxe4 26.Qxe4 Kg8 27.d5!
Bc5+ 28.Kh1 Rf8 29.Rf5 Be7 30.Qxg4 Qxd5 31.h4 Rd8
32.Kh2 Kf8 33.Qh5 Ke8 34.hxg5 Qe6 35.Rf2 Qg6 36.Qh8+
Kd7 37.Rd2+ Kc8 38.Rxd8+ Bxd8 39.Bf4 Kd7 1-0 Papastauropoulos-Jonkman,
Korinthos 2000.
GL4e)
9....d5! (This is Black's most active plan.) 10.Bxd5
(Playable seems 10.exd6 Nxd6 11.O-O with compensation
for the pawn and a sharp game, though Black may have a
strong response in 11....Nf5! immediately seeking exchanges) 10....Ng3! (10....f5!?
11.exf6 Nxf6 12.Nc3 Nxd5 13.Qxd5 [13.Nxd5? Be6!] 13....Qxd5
14.Nxd5 Bd6 15.Bxg5 c6 [15....Rxh2?! 16.O-O! with attack]
16.Nf4 Bxf4 17.Bxf4 with a drawish Bishops of opposite
color ending in C. S. Howell-Ed. Lasker, Informal Game
1924; 10....Bf5?! 11.Rf1 g6 12.g4 c6 13.Bxf7+ Ke7 14.Qb4+
c5 15.Qxb7+ Qd7 16.Qxe4 1-0 Cvachoucek-Strada,
Czechoslovakia 1961; 11....Bg6 12.Qc4 Qe7 13.Qb5+!
Kd8 14.Qxb7 Qxe5 15.Qxa8+ Ke7 16.Bxe4 Rh4 17.Bxg5+ Qxg5
18.Bxg6 Qe3+ 19.Kd1 fxg6 20.Qxf8+ 1-0 Nikolai-Schnapp,
1967) 11.Qa4+!?
(These Queen checks can be quite tricky, but Black appears
to have a good line. Perhaps simpler is 11.Bxf7+!? Kxf7
12.Qxd8 Bb4+ 13.Bd2! [13.c3?! Rxd8 14.hxg3 Bc5 =+ Schlechter]
13....Rxd8 14.hxg3 Bc5 15.Nc3 Re8 16.O-O-O += Goeller) 11....Qd7!
(11....Bd7?! 12.Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.Qb3+ Be6 14.Qxg3 ±
Petrosian and Estrin) 12.Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.Qb3+ Kg6! 14.Qxg3
Qg4! 15.Qe3 (15.Qxg4 Bxg4 16.Be3 Re8 =+) 15....b6!?
(With the idea of Bc5, keeping White's King in the center.
Possible, though, was 15....Qxg2!? 16.Rg1 Qxc2! [16....Qxh2?
17.Qe4+! Kf7 18.Rf1+ Ke8 19.Qg6+ Kd7 20.e6+ etc.] 17.Rxg5+
Kh7 18.Nd2 and Black has good prospects due to his two
Bishops.) 16.Nd2! (with the idea of Qe4+ to
exchange Queens or Nf3 to defend the pawn at e5 while attacking
g5. Less successful was 16.Nc3? Bf5! 17.Qf3 [17.Qf2 Re8
18.Be3 Rxe5 19.h3 Qf4! =+] 17....Qxf3 [17....Re8! may be
even stronger] 18.gxf3 Bc5 19.Bd2 Bxc2 =+ 20.Rc1 Bd3 21.Ne4
Bxe4 22.fxe4 Rh4 23.Rc4 Rd8 24.Bc3 Rh3 25.Rxc5 bxc5 26.O-O
Re3 27.e6 Rxe4 0-1 Carleton-van
Osterom, Correspondence 1987-1989.) 16....Bf5 17.Nf3
Qxg2! (17....Bxc2?! 16.Qxg5+ +=) 18.Rg1 Qxc2 19.Rxg5+ (Not
19.Nh4+? Rxh4!! 20.Qxg5+ Kf7 21.Qxh4 Re8 and Bc5 -+ with
a deadly attack for Black) 19....Kh7! (19....Kf7
20.e6+!) 20.Qf4 Qe4+ 21.Qxe4 (21.Be3!? Bb4+ 22.Kf2
is unclear) 21....Bxe4 22.Nd4 Re8 23.Rh5+ Kg8 24.Rxh8+
Kxh8 25.Bf4 Be7 26.O-O-O = White's passed pawn and
central control balance Black's two Bishops in a tense
ending (Goeller).
Main
Line>>>
|
