[Event "Eastern Ontario Open (Ottawa)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1996.06.16"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Djerkovic, Miladin"]
[Black "Pacey, Kevin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C19"]
[WhiteElo "2371"]
[BlackElo "2257"]
[Annotator "Pacey"]
[PlyCount "84"]
[EventDate "2002.01.21"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

{Mainstream Praxis: French Winawer By NM Kevin Pacey The article that follows
displays a number of games in which I've played on the Black side of the
mainstream French Winawer Variation. I invite the reader to see my
interpretation of this opening as one of the players, and as a master and
annotator at present. In following game my opponent NM Mladin Djerkovic played
an interesting novelty that I didn't react to in the best way, and soon I had
a worse position. However the Winawer is often hard to break down, and after a
couple of middlegame errors Mladin stood worse before the truly decisive time
trouble phase, which ended in my favour.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5
Ne7 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. Nf3 {I think it's completely a matter of taste
whether or not to prefer 7.a4, not to mention 7.h4 or the queen sally out to
g4. The main line Winawer is a variation rich with interesting possibilities
for both sides.} Qa5 {Opinions vary on whether White ought to gain an edge
after this move. Uhlmann prefers 7...Bd7 in order to be able to play ...Ba4 if
White omits a3-a4. Spassky introduced the unclear reply 8.dxc5!? against
Korchnoi in their 1977/78 Belgrade match, a move which Miladin very much likes
to play.} 8. Bd2 Nbc6 9. Bd3 ({Perhaps better is} 9. Be2 {since Black is quite
often willing to play ...c4 voluntarily after that move. On the other hand, a
lot of players seem willing to invest a tempo in order to encourage Black to
stabilize the queenside in this way.}) 9... Bd7 (9... c4 10. Bf1 (10. Be2 Bd7
11. O-O {transposes to the game} (11. Ng5 {
has also been tried here plenty of times})) 10... Bd7 11. g3 O-O-O 12. Bh3 f6
13. exf6 gxf6 14. O-O e5 {(Abramovic-P. Nikolic, Yugoslavia (ch) 1980) is
approximately equal according to Pedersen.}) 10. O-O (10. c4 $5 {represents
s last chance to open the position in the opening phase of this game, if he
had desired to do so.}) 10... c4 11. Be2 {White is now a tempo down on a known
line, though in practice precisely this situation (i.e. with Black to move)
has occured many times.} O-O-O (11... f6 {
is a popular alternative, when ECO gives} 12. exf6 gxf6 13. Nh4 Ng6 $6 (13...
O-O-O 14. f4 Rhg8 $13 {E. Kokkonen-P. Lehtivaara, Finland 1990}) 14. Bh5 O-O-O
15. Bxg6 hxg6 16. Nxg6 Rhg8 17. Nh4 e5 18. f4 e4 19. f5 $16 {G. Camacho-O.
Garcia, Cuba 1982 (Fritz evaluates this position as =/+, but I prefer the
human appraisal since Black really ought to be unable to achieve anything).})
12. Ng5 Rdf8 {(diagram)} 13. Bh5 $5 {
Miladin comes up with a novelty that gives me some problems.} (13. f4 f5 14.
exf6 gxf6 15. Nh3 Nf5 16. Bg4 Nce7 {
(=/+ ECO) Ljubislavljevic-Ugrinovic, Imperia 1970}) 13... g6 $6 {This turns to
be merely an unnecessary concession. My next two moves may not have been best
either.} (13... Nd8 $5 14. f4 {might be answered by} Ba4 {
giving Black a queenside blockade} (14... f6 $5 15. exf6 gxf6 16. Nh3 {
apparently gives White a better version of the note to his thirteenth move,
but at least some players might notmindthis})) (13... Nf5 {might be met by} 14.
Re1 {so as to discourage ...f6} (14. Nxf7 $6 g6 15. Nxh8 gxh5 16. Qxh5 Rxh8 $15
)) (13... f6 $5 14. Nf7 (14. exf6 $5 gxf6 15. Nf7 Rhg8 16. Bf4 (16. Bh6 $6 Ng6
17. Bxf8 Rxf8) 16... Nf5 17. Qe1 (17. Qd2 $2 Be8)) 14... g6 15. Nd6+ Kc7 16.
Rb1 gxh5 ({worse is} 16... fxe5 17. Nxb7 Qxa3 18. Bg4) 17. Rxb7+ Kd8 18. Bh6
$13 (18. Rb8+ Kc7 (18... Nxb8 $4 19. Nb7+) 19. Rb7+ {repeats})) (13... Ng6 {
could be answered by} 14. Re1 {even though it's not necessary to discourage ..
.f6 with this move since here the possibility of Nxh7 already does so.}) 14.
Be2 h6 {Here or next move Black had the option of playing ...h5 and then
hoping that his position would be virtually impregnable, but that would have
more or less amounted to playing for a draw.} 15. Nh3 f5 16. exf6 Rxf6 {
(diagram)} 17. Qc1 {
This is at best a waste of time. Instead 17.f4 at once was preferable.} Nf5 (
17... g5 $142 {when if} 18. f4 gxf4 {Black at least gets some activity in
return for a worse pawn structure after White recaptures with his rook or
knight, with ...e5 being possible at some point.}) 18. f4 ({
There's no point to playing} 18. g4 Nd6 {
since if 19.Bxh6? Black can capture the pawn on c3.}) 18... Nd6 {This might k
like a waste of time, but Black hasn't anything very positive to do after
White's last move.} 19. Bf3 Rf7 {
Anticipating that White will maneuver his knight to g4.} 20. Nf2 Rhf8 21. Qe1 {
(diagram)} Qd8 (21... Qa4 22. Ra2 {didn't appeal to me very much as I felt my
queen ought not to be so far out of reach of possible entry points for White's
queen into my camp in this situation. I also had hopes of using my queen for
meaningful kingside play of my own if Miladin became careless.}) 22. a4 {
Naturally Ng4 could have been played at once, but this advance is necessary if
White wants to bring his dark-squared bishop to a3 at some point.} Nf5 23. a5
$2 {A completely unnecessary sacrifice.} (23. Ng4 $142 $16) 23... Nxa5 24. Ng4
Nc6 25. Ne5 Nxe5 {(diagram)} 26. dxe5 $2 {Miladin seems to have lost the
thread of the game after a good start. With this recapture White plugs the
e-file along with the e5 square, gives Black the possibility of a ... d4 break,
and misses the chance to weaken Black's queenside dark squares more
extensively. Any positive aspects of this move prove to be far less
significant.} (26. Qxe5 $142 a6 27. Bc1 $44) 26... Kb8 $17 27. g4 Ne7 (27...
Nh4 {might seem attractive, but I thought that the knight would prove to be
ineffective here, besides needing to be defended.}) 28. Qf2 b6 29. Rfb1 Nc8 {
A precautionary move, which I could easily afford to play in the slight time
pressure that both sides found themselves in. The knight observes d6 and
reinforces both a7 and b6.} 30. Qd4 Qc7 {Another affordable luxury.} 31. Bg2
Bc6 32. Rf1 h5 {(diagram)} 33. h3 (33. g5 {more or less seals the kingside,
after which Black might even contemplate eventually walking his king towards
that side of the board. After White's chosen move Black has the option of
opening the h-file, but I prefer to leave the kingside situation as is for now
since there is no favourable way for White to resolve the tension at the
moment.}) 33... Qd8 34. Qf2 Rh8 35. Qg3 Kb7 {(diagram)} 36. gxh5 $6 {The prelud
e to White's next move, which Miladin rightly described as suicidal after the
game.} gxh5 37. Qg6 $2 Qe8 $1 {Now all of the White pieces on the g-file are
caught in one great decisive ambush.} 38. Rf2 (38. Qg3 Rg8 39. Qh2 d4 40. Rf2
Rfg7 $19) 38... Rg8 {(diagram)} 39. Qxh5 (39. Qh6 Rfg7 40. Kh1 (40. Kh2 Rg6 41.
Qh7+ R8g7 $19) (40. Kf1 d4 $19 41. Bxc6+ $140 Qxc6) 40... d4 $19 41. Rg1 $140
Bxg2+ 42. Rgxg2 Qc6) 39... d4 40. f5 (40. Kh1 Rxg2 (40... Bxg2+ $2 41. Rxg2
Rxg2 42. Qf3+) 41. Rxg2 Bxg2+ $19 42. Kxg2 $2 Rg7+) 40... Bxg2 41. Kh2 Be4 (
41... dxc3 {is more precise, but there is no need.}) 42. f6 (42. Qe2 {
is best, but naturally hopeless.}) 42... Rxf6 0-1

[Event "RA O'Keefe (Ottawa)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1997.10.16"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Djerkovic, Miladin"]
[Black "Pacey, Kevin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C18"]
[WhiteElo "2369"]
[BlackElo "2314"]
[Annotator "Pacey"]
[PlyCount "88"]
[EventDate "2002.01.21"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

{The next game involved the same players as in the first one, played in the
followed year. I won again, in a battle that saw queens exchanged in the
opening, with an entertaining but error filled time scramble at the finish.} 1.
e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qc7 {Discouraging 7.a4
or 7.h4 because of the reply 7...cxd4, unlike after 6...Ne7. On the other hand,
Black is committing the queen to c7 rather than reserving or immediately
taking the option of bringing it a5.} 7. Nf3 b6 {(/\...Ba6)} 8. Bb5+ Bd7 9. Bd3
{Miladin has in standard fashion thwarted my plan to trade my bishop for his
light-squared one, but now I get to bring mine to an active post from where it
blocakades his a-pawn and pressurizes the pawn on c2.} Ba4 {(diagram)} 10. h4
$6 {This permits me to liquidate into an ending where I believe Black is
fairly comfortable and has some hope of winning, especially if White presses
too hard. After the game Miladin admitted that he didn't see the liquidation
coming, though he thought he stood a little better as a result of it.} ({On} 
10. O-O {see Patterson-Pacey, Ottawa 1998 (game 3).}) 10... cxd4 (10... Ne7
$142 11. h5 h6 12. Rh4 Nd7 13. dxc5 b5 $1 14. Qe2 a6 15. Rg4 Kf8 16. Rb1 Rc8 {
(-/+ "due to Black's better pawn structure" - Lahlum) Wedberg-Djurhuus,
Munkebo 1998}) 11. cxd4 Qc3+ 12. Bd2 Qxd3 13. cxd3 Bxd1 14. Kxd1 Nc6 15. h5 h6
16. Ke2 Nge7 17. g4 Kd7 {(diagram)} 18. Rab1 ({
Lanzani-Lenz, Celle Ligure open 1997 went} 18. Ke3 Rac8 19. Nh4 Nd8 20. f4 Rc2
21. Rhc1 Rxc1 22. Rxc1 g6 23. f5 g5 {(Black might have captured on f5 with a
pawn rather than allow the kingside to be sealed)} 24. f6 Nec6 25. Nf3 Nb7 26.
Bb4 Nba5 {1/2-1/2}) 18... Rac8 19. Be3 Rc7 20. Rhc1 Rhc8 21. Kd2 Na5 22. Rxc7+
Rxc7 23. Nh4 Rc8 24. f4 g6 {(diagram)} 25. hxg6 {White trades on g6 in order
to prepare pushing the f-pawn, so that a pawn won't be eventually lost on h5
after Bxh6 is played. No advantage comes as a result of this striving for a
breakthrough, however.} fxg6 26. f5 gxf5 (26... exf5 27. gxf5 g5 28. f6 gxh4
29. fxe7 Nc6 30. e8=Q+ Rxe8 31. Rh1 Ne7 32. Rxh4 Nf5 33. Rh2 Rh8 $140 34. Rf2
Ke6 35. Rg2 {gives White nothing serious to worry about.}) 27. gxf5 exf5 28.
Bxh6 Nac6 29. Ke3 Rg8 30. Nf3 (30. Rf1 Rg3+) 30... Rg2 {(diagram)} 31. Rg1 $2
$138 (31. Bf4 $142 Ng6 (31... Ra2 32. Rh1 Ng6 (32... Rxa3 $6 33. Rh6 {/\e6(+)})
33. Rh7+ Nce7 34. Nh4 Nxh4 35. Rxh4 Rxa3 36. Rh7 Ke6 37. Rh6+ Kf7 38. Rh7+ Ke6
{repeats}) 32. Rh1 {and now} Ra2 {
transposes to 31...Ra2 32.Rh1 Ng6 etc. in this note.}) 31... Ra2 $2 $138 {
Black goes pawn hunting, but meanwhile White becomes active enough that he
ought to have secured a draw.} (31... Rxg1 $142 {=/+/-/+}) 32. Rg7 Rxa3 {
(diagram)} 33. Bg5 (33. Nh4 $11 Ke8 $140 (33... Ke6 $2 34. Ng6 {(/\Nf8#)} Nxg6
35. Rxg6+ Kd7 36. e6+) (33... b5 $2 34. Ng6) (33... Ra4 {can be met by} 34. Rf7
) (33... f4+ 34. Bxf4 Ke6 {(or even 34...b5) can be answered by} 35. Rh7) 34.
e6 Ra1 (34... b5 $2 35. Rh7 Kd8 36. Bf4 Kc8 37. Bd6 f4+ 38. Kxf4 Rxd3 39. Bxe7
Rxd4+ 40. Kg5 Re4 41. Kf6 Nd4 42. Rh8+ $18 Kb7 $140 43. Nf5 Rxe6+ 44. Kf7) 35.
Kd2 Ra2+ 36. Kd1 ({or} 36. Ke3 Ra1 {repeating}) 36... b5 37. Rf7 (37. Rh7 $2
Ra1+ 38. Kd2 Rg1) 37... Kd8 38. Bf4 Ke8 {and now} 39. Bh6 {
repeating is an immediate route to a draw if White wishes to take it}) 33... b5
(33... Ra1 {in anticipation of Nh4 (as in the note to White's last move) may
have been a better test for White, though simply retreating his king to d2 or
f2 should still suffice to hold the position.}) 34. Bf6 $2 {
This ought to have been a decisive error, but there are more mistakes to come.}
(34. Nh4 {still provides sufficient counterplay to draw.}) 34... f4+ 35. Kxf4
Rxd3 36. Rh7 b4 37. e6+ {(diagram)} Kxe6 $2 (37... Kd6 $19) 38. Bxe7 Nxe7 $4 (
38... Rxf3+ $142 39. Kxf3 Nxe7 40. Rh6+ Kd7 $17) 39. Ng5+ $4 {In time troub le
Miladin misses a fairly simple way to win an important pawn back, and loses as
a result.} (39. Rh6+ Kf7 40. Ne5+ Kg7 41. Nxd3 Kxh6 42. Nxb4 a5 43. Nc2 {
obtains a drawn knight ending.}) 39... Kd6 (39... Kd7 $142 {
since White could now play 40.Rh6+, though Black is winning in any case.}) 40.
Nf7+ Kc7 41. Ke5 b3 42. Kf6 b2 43. Ne5 b1=Q 44. Rxe7+ Kb6 0-1

[Event "RA Summer Pickup #2 (Ottawa)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1998.08.06"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Patterson, Roger"]
[Black "Pacey, Kevin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C18"]
[WhiteElo "2215"]
[BlackElo "2309"]
[Annotator "Pacey"]
[PlyCount "60"]
[EventDate "2002.01.21"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

{A year after the previous game, I found myself facing a more normal tenth
move by White in the same line, as played by Roger Patterson. I still managed
to bring home the point, in a smoother performance than in the first two games
of this article.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qc7
7. Nf3 b6 8. Bb5+ Bd7 9. Bd3 Ba4 10. O-O ({On} 10. h4 $6 {
see Djerkovic-Pacey, Ottawa 1997 (game 2).}) 10... Nd7 11. Ng5 {(diagram)} Nf8
(11... h6 {is suggested by Watson, but at the board, and not recalling this, I
decided that I didn't like the look of} 12. Nxf7 Kxf7 13. Qh5+ Kf8 (13... Ke7
14. Bg5+ Kf8 15. Qf3+) 14. f4 ({or} 14. Bg6)) 12. f4 {It's standard to keep
this square available for the knight, but in our main line Winawer encounters
Roger has resolutely aimed for an eventual f4-f5 breakthrough by playing f2-f4
at a relatively early stage.} ({Oppitz-Muehl, Germany 1991 is an example of a
Winawer win for Black that's perhaps not too rare in its length:} 12. Be3 h6
13. Nh3 c4 14. Be2 Ne7 15. Nf4 O-O-O 16. Nh5 Rg8 17. Bg4 Nf5 18. Bd2 Nh7 19. g3
g6 20. Nf4 Ng7 21. Be3 {(White vacillates and soon allows his dark-squared
bishop to be traded off, after which Black never need worry about the dark
squares in general)} Qe7 22. Qd2 Ng5 23. Rfc1 Nf5 24. Kg2 Ne4 25. Qe1 Nxe3+ 26.
Qxe3 h5 27. Bf3 Ng5 28. h4 Nh7 29. Qe2 Kc7 30. Nh3 Rg7 31. Rh1 Rh8 32. Qd2 Bc6
33. Ng5 {(an exchange of knights helps Black if anyone)} Nxg5 34. hxg5 Rgh7 35.
Rh4 Ba4 36. Be2 Qf8 37. Bd1 Qe7 38. Qc1 Qd8 39. Qd2 Qe7 40. Qe3 Qf8 41. Qd2 Qe7
42. f4 Qf8 43. Qc1 Qg7 44. Qb2 a5 45. Be2 Rb8 46. Qa2 Rhh8 47. Kf2 Rbd8 48.
Rah1 Ra8 49. Qb2 Rab8 50. Rb1 Kc6 51. Qa2 b5 52. Bf3 Kc7 53. Ra1 Ra8 54. Qb2
Kd7 55. Be2 Rhb8 56. Rhh1 Qf8 57. Rhb1 Qc8 58. Qc1 Rb7 59. Qd2 Qc6 60. Ra2 Rab8
61. Rab2 Ke7 62. Kg2 Kf8 63. Kh3 Qe8 64. Bf3 Qe7 65. Ra2 Kg7 66. Qc1 Qd7 67.
Rab2 Qe7 68. Ra2 Ra7 69. Qd2 Qf8 70. Bd1 Qc8 71. Rab2 Qc6 72. Be2 Rab7 73. Bd1
{(diagram)} b4 {(after a long period of maneuvering Black gets to the point)}
74. axb4 axb4 75. Rxb4 Rxb4 76. Rxb4 Rxb4 77. cxb4 c3 78. Qe3 Qc4 79. Be2 Qxb4
80. Bd3 Qb1 81. Qf2 Qh1+ 82. Qh2 Qe1 83. Kg2 Qd1 84. Kh3 Kf8 85. Qf2 Ke7 86.
Kg2 Kd8 87. Kh2 Kc7 88. f5 {(with Black planning ...Kb6 followed by ...Bb5
White makes a desperate bid for play)} gxf5 89. Qf4 Bxc2 90. g6 fxg6 91. Qg5
Qxd3 92. Qe7+ Kb6 93. Qxe6+ Kb5 94. Qxd5+ Kb4 95. Qd6+ Kb3 96. Qb6+ Ka2 97. e6
Qe2+ 98. Kg1 Be4 99. Qa5+ Kb3 100. Qb6+ Kc2 {0-1.}) 12... h6 13. Nh3 c4 14. Be2
Ne7 15. Bg4 {(diagram)} Nf5 {I was reluctant to play ...g6 or ...Qd7 without
first seeing whether Roger might be content with a draw, say by indicating a
willingness to repeat the position three times.} 16. Be2 (16. Bxf5 exf5 $11 {
would be rather dull, although not completely lifeless.}) 16... Ne7 17. Be3 {
With little prospect of forcing through f4-f5 any time soon, White hopes to
reduce his positional minuses by maneuvering this bad bishop to h4 so that it
will be outside of its pawn chain, but it gets a hot receptionalmostimmediatel
y after arriving there.} O-O-O 18. Bf2 Nh7 19. Bh4 f5 {(diagram)} 20. Qb1 (20.
exf6 Nxf6 21. Bf3 $140 Nf5 22. Bf2 Nd6 $17) (20. Bxe7 Qxe7 {would be =/+/ -/+,
as Black could play to compel White to seal up the kingside, and then hope to
arrange a decisive breakthrough on the queenside, similar to the game
Oppitz-Muehl (see the note to White's twelfth move).}) 20... g5 21. fxg5 ({
The humble} 21. Bg3 {would be a better attempt at resistance.}) 21... Ng6 {
Afterwards Roger admitted that he missed this intermediate move when he set
out to transfer the bishop to h4. However, even if Black did notplayincisively
with a quick ...g5 followed by ...Ng6, his position could still be viewed as
preferable.} 22. Qe1 Nxh4 23. Qxh4 hxg5 24. Nxg5 {(diagram)} Nxg5 {Playing for
strong kingside pressure in the middlegame seems better than continuing with
24...Qe7 25.Nf3 etc.} 25. Qxg5 Qh7 26. Qf4 Bxc2 {(diagram)} 27. Rf3 $2 {
With this move Roger almost certainly intended to play Rh3, overlooking that
Black's next move prevents it.} (27. Ra2 Be4 28. Bf3 Rdg8 $17) 27... Rdg8 $19
28. Rf2 (28. Rh3 $4 Qxh3) 28... Be4 {(diagram) With a monsterous light-squared
bishop securely nestled in the centre, outside of Black's pawn chain, plus
heavy pieces blazing down two open files towards the White king, what more
could a French Defence player ask for?} 29. Ra2 {
The alternatives also fail to save White:} (29. Bf3 Bxf3 30. Rxf3 Rg4) (29. Kh1
Rg6 30. Bf3 $140 Rh6 31. h3 Rxh3+ 32. gxh3 Qxh3+ 33. Kg1 Qh1+ 34. Bxh1 Rxh1#)
29... Qh3 30. g3 Rxg3+ (30... Rxg3+ 31. Qxg3 Qxg3+ 32. hxg3 Rh1#) 0-1

[Event "RA Spring Frost (Ottawa)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2000.03.16"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Ferguson, Jim"]
[Black "Pacey, Kevin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C17"]
[WhiteElo "2231"]
[BlackElo "2315"]
[Annotator "Pacey"]
[PlyCount "50"]
[EventDate "2002.01.21"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

{In the following game, without knowing it, I managed to refute a piece of
careless GM analysis over the board.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5.
Qg4 Ne7 6. dxc5 Nbc6 7. Bd2 Nf5 8. Nf3 Bxc5 9. Bd3 h5 10. Qf4 (10. Qh3 Nb4 $1
11. g4 Nxd3+ 12. cxd3 Nd4 $13 {Hertneck}) 10... Nce7 11. Nh4 d4 {(diagram)} 12.
Nxf5 $6 (12. Na4 Nd5 13. Qe4 Bb4 14. Nxf5 Bxd2+ 15. Kxd2 exf5 16. Qxd4 Qg5+ {
(~/= Hertneck) Leko-Hertneck, Moscow (ol) 1994}) 12... exf5 $1 (12... dxc3 13.
Nxg7+ Kf8 14. bxc3 Kxg7 15. Qf6+ Kg8 16. Bh6 Rxh6 17. Qxh6 Nf5 18. Qxh5 $13 {
Hertneck}) 13. Na4 Ng6 14. Qf3 Nxe5 $1 {
Hertneck awards this move a question mark in Informant 62.} (14... Qe7 $5 15.
Qe2 Bb4 $13 {Hertneck}) 15. Qe2 {(diagram)} O-O $1 {Not knowing of Hertneck's
analysis of his game with Leko, I found this move at the board before playing
my previous move.} ({Hertneck considered only} 15... Qe7 16. Nxc5 $18) 16. Nxc5
Nxd3+ 17. Nxd3 (17. Qxd3 Qe7+) 17... Re8 18. Ne5 f6 $17 19. f4 fxe5 20. fxe5
Qh4+ 21. Kf1 Be6 22. Be1 Qf4+ 23. Kg1 Rac8 {(diagram)} 24. Bg3 (24. Bf2 $142)
24... Qe4 25. Qxh5 (25. Qxe4 fxe4 26. c3 {would be a better attempt to
continue the struggle if Jim wished to do so, but the situation is still grim
for White after} dxc3) 25... Bd5 0-1

[Event "Santa Claus Invitational (Ottawa)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2003.12.28"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Nezirovic, Ozren"]
[Black "Pacey, Kevin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C18"]
[WhiteElo "2128"]
[BlackElo "2273"]
[Annotator "Pacey"]
[PlyCount "114"]
[EventDate "2002.01.21"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

{The remaining two games of this article highlight the Winawer Poisoned Pawn
Variation.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Ne7 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7.
Qg4 Qc7 8. Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 dxc3 ({On} 10... Nbc6 {
see Nezirovic-Pacey, Ottawa 2004 (game 6).}) 11. f4 b6 $5 {(diagram) An
obscure sideline of the Winawer Poisoned Pawn that GM Minev thinks is worthy
of more attention. Afterwards Ozren commented that he was taken by surprise
and didn't remember what he considered to be the best, and advantageous,
response (see the next note).} 12. Qd3 ({The critical line is thought to be} 
12. Ng3 Qc5 13. Rb1 ({Gelblum-Pacey, Ottawa 2005 continued} 13. Nh5 Rf8 (13...
Nd7 $4 14. Nf6+ Kf8 (14... Nxf6 15. exf6 $18) 15. Qh6+ Rg7 16. Bd3 {/\Nh5+-})
14. Nf6+ Kd8 15. g4 (15. Bd3 Nd7 16. Qh4 Nxf6 17. Qxf6 Kc7 18. a4 Nc6 19. Ba3
Nb4 20. Bxb4 Qxb4 21. O-O Bd7 22. f5 $13 {
Naiditsch-Luther, ch-GER Keonigshofen GER 2007}) 15... Nd7 16. h4 Bb7 (16...
Nxf6 17. exf6 Nc6 {may be better}) 17. Bg2 $2 {and now} (17. Qg7 $142) 17...
Nxf6 18. exf6 Nf5 $1 {would have been winning according to Fritz}) 13... Nd7 ({
better in my opinion is} 13... Ba6 {when after} 14. Bxa6 (14. Nh5 {
may be met with} Bxf1 {since if} 15. Nf6+ Kd8 16. Nxg8 $2 {then Black has} Bxg2
) 14... Nxa6 {the move} 15. Qd3 {can be answered by} Qa5) 14. Nh5 Rf8 15. Rb5
Qd4 16. Rb4 Qc5 17. Qd3 Nc6 18. Ra4 Na5 19. Be3 Qc6 20. Rb4 {
(+/- ECO) Oll-Romero, Terrassa 1990}) ({
Aveskulov-Pacey, Canadian Open Ottawa 2007 went} 12. Nd4 Ba6 13. Bb5+ Bxb5 14.
Nxb5 Qc5 15. Nd6+ Kd7 16. Qd3 $6 (16. g3 $142 Nbc6 17. Qd3 Qd4 $11 {
Bus-Sorensen, Copenhagen 1990}) 16... Nbc6 $6 (16... Rxg2 $142 17. Be3 Qa5 $132
{Cvicela-Petrik, SVK team ch 98-99, 1998}) 17. Be3 (17. Ne4 $5 {followed by
winning the Exchange with Nf6+ might favour White more than his chosen move,
though my GM opponent thought this to be too risky}) 17... Qa5 18. O-O Rg7 19.
g3 $14 {and now instead of 19...Qa4 Black might have tried 19...Rh8.}) 12...
Ba6 13. Qxc3 Qb7 14. Nd4 Nd7 15. g3 Rc8 $44 16. Bxa6 Qxa6 17. Qd3 Qa4 ({
More flexible is} 17... Rc4) 18. Be3 Rc4 19. O-O (19. Nb3 $5 {
would have discouraged Black's next move.}) 19... Nc5 20. Qd1 Ne4 {(diagram)}
21. Rf3 $6 (21. f5 $2 exf5 (21... Nc3 $2 22. Qh5 Rxd4 23. fxe6 $18) 22. Nxf5
$140 Nxf5 23. Rxf5 Nxg3 24. hxg3 Rxg3+ 25. Kf2 Rcg4 $40 {e.g.} 26. Rf4 Rg2+ 27.
Kf1 Rg1+ 28. Bxg1 Qxf4+ 29. Bf2 Qe4 $19) ({White might have tried} 21. Kg2 Rc3
$140 22. Re1 Rxa3 23. Rxa3 Qxa3 24. Qa1 ({or even} 24. Qd3 $5)) 21... Nc3 22.
Qd3 Rxd4 23. Qxc3 Rc4 24. Qb3 Qc6 25. Bd2 Nf5 {(diagram)} 26. Rc3 $4 {
A gaffe which loses material and the game. Ozren could have preferred 26.Rf2
or 26.Rff1 instead.} ({If} 26. c3 $6 d4 27. Kf2 $140 (27. Rc1 Qxf3 28. Qxc4
Nxg3 29. Qc8+ Ke7 30. Qc7+ Kf8 31. Qd8+ Kg7 32. Qf6+ Kh7 33. Qxf7+ Rg7 $19)
27... Qc5 $40) 26... Nd4 $19 27. Rxc4 dxc4 28. Qb4 (28. Qe3 {
is actually preferable, though it's academic.}) 28... a5 ({Somewhat stronger is
} 28... Rh8 $1 {though perhaps only a computer would prefer it.}) 29. Qd6 Qxd6
30. exd6 Nf3+ 31. Kf2 Nxd2 32. Ke3 c3 33. Kd3 Kd7 34. Kxc3 Ne4+ 35. Kd4 Nxd6
36. Ke5 Ke7 37. Kd4 Rh8 38. Rb1 Rxh2 39. Rxb6 Rxc2 40. Ra6 Rc4+ 41. Kd3 Rc5 $2
{A move made after far too little reflection. I simply made the classic
mistake of wanting to finish a won game quickly while being filled with the
hope that my opponent would resign at any moment. In this case it naturally
had no effect on the final result of the game.} (41... Ra4 {wins the a-pawn.})
42. g4 Rd5+ 43. Kc3 Ne4+ 44. Kc4 Nf2 45. Ra7+ Kf8 46. f5 Nxg4 47. fxe6 fxe6 48.
a4 Ne5+ 49. Kc3 Nd7 50. Kc4 Ke7 51. Kb3 Rc5 52. Rb7 e5 53. Rb5 Rxb5+ 54. axb5
Nb6 55. Kc3 Kd6 56. Kd3 a4 57. Kc3 Kc5 0-1

[Event "RA Chess Club Championship (Ottawa)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2004.01.22"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Nezirovic, Ozren"]
[Black "Pacey, Kevin"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C18"]
[WhiteElo "2106"]
[BlackElo "2216"]
[Annotator "Pacey"]
[PlyCount "81"]
[EventDate "2002.01.21"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

{In the final game of this article I again faced Ozren Nezirovic, and this
time we went well into one of the main lines of the Winawer Poisioned Pawn.
The result was a wild error filled see-saw battle that ended with a materially
imbalanced draw.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7
7. Qg4 Qc7 8. Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 ({If} 10... dxc3 {
see Nezirovic-Pacey, Ottawa 2003 (game 5).}) 11. f4 Bd7 12. Qd3 dxc3 {(diagram)
} 13. Rb1 ({White can push his h-pawn at once:} 13. h4 O-O-O 14. h5 Nf5 {
and if White plays} 15. Rg1 {now then there may follow} f6 16. exf6 (16. g4 Nh6
17. exf6 Rxg4) 16... e5 17. Qxc3 $140 e4 $13 {(Pacey)}) 13... O-O-O 14. h4 Nf5
15. h5 d4 (15... Na5 $142 {as in Djurhuus-Antonsen, Faroe Islands 1996}) 16.
Rg1 {(diagram)} f6 ({Objectively better (or at least safer) seems} 16... Nh6
17. Nxd4 Nxd4 (17... Be8 $6 18. Nb5 $1 {(McDonald)}) 18. Qxd4 b6 19. Rb3 Rg3
20. Bd3 Nf5 21. Qb4 Kb8 22. Rxc3 Bc6 23. Qc4 Rc8 24. Qxc6 $1 Qxc6 25. Rxc6 Rxc6
26. Kf2 {(Djurhuus-Johannessen, Norway (ch) 1996)} Rg4 27. Rh1 Rc8 $14 {
(Djurhuus)}) 17. g4 Nh6 ({After} 17... fxe5 18. gxf5 exf5 {
(as suggested by McDonald)} 19. Rxg8 Rxg8 20. Qc4 {
favours White in Fritz' (and my) opinion.}) 18. exf6 (18. Nxd4 Nxg4 19. Nb5
Ncxe5 20. fxe5 (20. Nd6+ $2 Qxd6 $1 21. Qxd6 Nf3+ 22. Ke2 Nxg1+ 23. Ke1 Nf3+
24. Ke2 Bb5+ $19 {McDonald}) 20... Bxb5 21. Qxb5 Rd5 22. Qe2 $1 Rxe5 23. Be3 f5
(23... Qd8 $142 {according to Fritz}) 24. Rb5 $1 Rh8 25. Rxe5 Qxe5 26. Bxa7 $18
{Harley-P.Webster, email 1998}) 18... e5 {(diagram)} 19. f5 $2 {This is wrong
for tactical reasons, but I failed to take full advantage of it. If White had
pushed the g-pawn instead then Black seems to be in trouble.} (19. g5 e4 20.
Qc4 d3 $2 (20... Nf5 $142 {though after} 21. f7 Rh8 22. g6 {
the White pawns are the dominant factor [McDonald]}) 21. Nxc3 dxc2 22. Rb2 e3
23. Rxc2 Bf5 24. Rcg2 Rd4 25. Qc5 Qxf4 26. Ne2 Qh4+ 27. Rg3 Rc4 28. Qxe3 Nf7
29. Qf2 Nd6 30. f7 Rd8 31. g6 Nd4 32. Rc3 Qxf2+ 33. Kxf2 Ne4+ 34. Kg2 Nxc3 35.
g7 Be4+ 36. Kh2 Nf3+ 37. Kg3 {1-0 Tait-Oomen, corr 1992}) 19... Nf7 $6 {
Now a battle royal ensues.} (19... Nxg4 $1 20. f7 Rg7 21. Bh3 (21. h6 Rxf7 22.
Rxg4 Bxf5 $17) 21... e4 22. Qxe4 Nf6 $17) 20. g5 e4 ({Not} 20... Nd6 21. g6
Bxf5 22. Bh3 $18) 21. Qxe4 {
In this case declining to take the e-pawn wasn't so appealing.} Nd6 {(diagram)}
22. Qf4 (22. Qf3 Qa5 $5 $13) (22. Qd5 $1 Bxf5 23. Bf4 Bxc2 24. Rc1 {
can be met by} d3 $8 {when the position is not quite clear, but White is in
far less danger than Black at the moment.}) 22... Bxf5 23. Nxd4 $6 {Opening mor
e lines in the centre seems to be worse than allowing Black connected passed
pawns.} (23. g6 Bxc2 24. Ra1 $13) 23... Rge8+ ({
Black had an attractive alternative in} 23... Nxd4 24. Qxd4 Bxc2 $40) 24. Be2 (
24. Ne2 Bxc2 25. Ra1 Ne5 26. Bh3+ Kb8 27. Kf1 Bd3 28. Rg2 (28. Qf2 Nf3 $1) (28.
Be3 Bxe2+ 29. Kxe2 Nec4 30. Rg3 Re4 31. Qf2 $140 Nxe3 32. Rxe3 Qc4+ 33. Ke1
Rde8 $19) 28... Qc6 $40) (24. Be3 Nxd4 25. Qxd4 Bxc2 (25... Nb5 $6 26. Qc4 $13)
26. Bh3+ Bf5 $40) 24... Nxd4 25. Qxd4 Nb5 {Black is actually winning by now,
but such a position is fertile ground for errors.} (25... Bxc2 {also should win
}) 26. Qf4 Qc5 27. Rg2 {(diagram)} Bxc2 $2 ({Correct is} 27... Nd4 $1 28. Kf1 (
28. Qg3 Nxc2+ 29. Kf1 Rxe2 30. Kxe2 Qc4+ 31. Kf2 Rd1 $19) 28... Nxe2 29. Rxe2
Bh3+ {and mates in two moves.}) 28. Qg4+ $2 (28. Kf1 Rxe2 (28... Bxb1 29. Bg4+
Rd7 30. Rg3 $44) 29. Rxb5 Qxb5 30. Rxe2 Bd3 31. Qg4+ Kb8 32. Kf2 Bxe2 33. Qxe2
Qf5+ $13) 28... Bf5 {(diagram)} 29. Qb4 (29. Rxb5 Qxb5 30. Qb4 Qc6 $19 31. f7
$140 Qxg2 32. Qc5+ Kb8 33. fxe8=Q Rxe8 34. Be3 Qh1+ $40) 29... Rd1+ (29...
Rxe2+ $142 30. Kxe2 Re8+ $1 31. Kf3 Qd5+ 32. Kg3 Qd3+ 33. Kh2 Qh3+ 34. Kg1 Re1+
$1 35. Kf2 Re2+ 36. Kxe2 Qxg2+ 37. Ke1 Qg3+ 38. Kd1 c2+ {
and mates in eight moves according to Fritz.}) 30. Kxd1 c2+ 31. Ke1 Rxe2+ 32.
Kf1 {(diagram)} Re1+ $2 {
After this Ozren escapes with a draw in spite of having to part with his queen.
} (32... Qc6 {(or 32...Qd5) wins for Black.}) 33. Kxe1 Qe5+ 34. Re2 Qg3+ 35.
Rf2 cxb1=Q 36. Qxb1 Bxb1 37. f7 Qe5+ {(diagram)} 38. Re2 (38. Kf1 Bd3+ 39. Kg2
Be4+ 40. Kf1 Bd3+ {also results in a draw.}) 38... Qg3+ ({Or} 38... Qc3+ 39.
Bd2 Qc5 40. Re8+ Kd7 41. Be3 Qc3+ 42. Kf2 Qc2+ 43. Kg3 Qc7+ 44. Bf4 Qc3+ 45.
Kh4 Bf5 46. g6 Qf6+ 47. Kg3 Qc3+ 48. Kh4 Qf6+ {with a draw.}) 39. Rf2 Qe5+ 40.
Re2 Qg3+ 41. Rf2 1/2-1/2

[Event "Gothenburg Interzonal"]
[Site "Gothenburg"]
[Date "1955.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Donner, Jan Hein"]
[Black "Panno, Oscar"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E63"]
[PlyCount "50"]
[EventDate "1955.09.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "21"]
[EventCountry "SWE"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]

{This influential game reached the diagram through a mutual King's Indian
formations.} 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. c4 d6 {
Breaking the symmetry.} 6. d4 Nc6 7. Nc3 a6 8. a3 $6 {
This inattentive move proves worse than useless.} Na5 $1 {
The attack on c4 seizes the initiative.} 9. Nd2 c5 ({
Black can also force a sharper struggle with} 9... Nd7 10. e3 c5 11. Ne2 Rb8
12. b4 Nc6 {as in Hort-Shirov German Teams  1994.}) 10. e3 $2 ({
Realistically White should play carefully to equalize with} 10. dxc5 dxc5 11.
Nd5 {Players still fall into this variation.} ({
A recent example:  Sulashvili-Sjugirov, European Championship, Rijeka 2010 went
} 11. Na4 Qc7 12. Qc2 Bf5 13. e4 Be6 14. Rb1 Rac8 15. b3 b5 {
with Black slightly better, 0-1, 40.})) 10... Bg4 $1 11. Ne2 ({(diagram) 
develops his queenside with tempo. White would like to play b2-b4 but after} 
11. Qc2 cxd4 12. exd4 Bf5 13. Qd1 Qb6 $1 {is very strong. After 11.f3 or 11.
Bf3 White would have a weak King in addition to his other problems.}) 11...
cxd4 12. exd4 Rc8 {Developing logically. 12..Qc7 or 12..Nd7 with the intention
..e7-e5 were also good moves.} 13. h3 Bf5 14. b4 ({The quieter} 14. b3 b5 $1
15. g4 Bd3 16. Re1 Qb6 {is no improvement.}) 14... Nxc4 15. Bxb7 Rc7 16. Bg2
Qd7 {(diagram0  White has managed to avoid losing a pawn but the positional
considerations, pawn islands and file control especially, as well as the
initiative are all weighing in Black's favour.} 17. Nf4 ({The defence of h3 is
temporary and the pawn drops to a forced sequence. The ugly} 17. g4 Bd3 18. Nb3
{was a different way to suffer.}) 17... Nxd2 18. Bxd2 e5 19. Ne2 Bxh3 20. dxe5
Bxg2 21. Kxg2 dxe5 22. Be3 Nd5 23. Bc5 Rd8 24. Kg1 Qb5 25. Qb3 {
Well, this hangs either minor piece but it does abbreviate his suffering.} Rxc5
{White resigned.} 0-1

[Event "New York Rosenwald"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "1956.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Reshevsky, Samuel Herman"]
[Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E63"]
[PlyCount "61"]
[EventDate "1956.10.07"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]

{One young player who quickly took up Panno's Variation was Bobby Fischer,
then 14, who played it three times at the Rosenthal Memorial in New York 1956.
He lost to Sammy Reshevsky and Abe Turner while drawing with Arthur Feuerstein
but clearly he gained greatly from the tough experience. Reshevsky-Fischer
went} 1. c4 Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. O-O a6 8.
b3 Rb8 9. Bb2 b5 10. cxb5 axb5 11. Rc1 Na5 12. e4 b4 13. e5 bxc3 14. Bxc3 Nb7 {
(diagram)  The adventuresome Knight is now passively placed. As a general
theme when the N/a5 goes to b7 White is okay; when it goes to c4 Black is okay.
In the game} 15. exf6 Bxf6 16. b4 Bf5 17. d5 {
left Reshevsky with a pleasant bind of a type he played with great accuracy:}
Bxc3 18. Rxc3 Qd7 19. Qc1 Rfc8 20. Qh6 f6 21. Nd4 Nd8 22. a3 Nf7 23. Qe3 Ne5
24. f4 Ng4 25. Qd2 h5 26. Re1 Ra8 27. h3 Nh6 28. Kh2 Kf7 29. Qe2 Ng8 30. Rec1
Ra7 31. Qe3 1-0

[Event "Candidates Tournament"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "1956.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Smyslov, Vassily"]
[Black "Petrosian, Tigran V"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "E63"]
[PlyCount "105"]
[EventDate "1956.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "18"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]

{At the Amsterdam 1956 Candidates tournament established favourites David
Bronstein and Vassily Smyslov had enjoyed many successes with the KID but
usually with ..Nbd7. As a practical point the younger generation wanted to
present their elders with novel opening problems where the benefits of
previous experience would be of less value. Indeed both Bronstein and Smyslov
were soon in trouble when the new generation employed the modern idea.} 1. c4
Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. d4 Bg7 4. g3 O-O 5. Bg2 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. O-O a6 8. h3 Rb8 9.
Be3 b5 10. cxb5 ({The more complex} 10. Nd2 $5 {was successfully employed
twice by Viktor Korchnoy at the 1968 Lugano Olympiad but by 1972
Tal-Rashkovsky in the Soviet Championship at Baku showed that a solution had
been found. Instead of 10..Bd7 or 10..e5 Rashkovsky demonstrated that} Na5 11.
cxb5 axb5 12. b4 Nc4 13. Nxc4 bxc4 14. b5 Bb7 15. d5 e6 16. dxe6 fxe6 {
produces mutual chances.}) 10... axb5 11. d5 ({Natural enough, but} 11. Rc1 Bd7
12. Ne1 {as in Spraggett-Zapata New York 1983 is far less risky. At that time
Spraggett was a becoming an expert on both sides of the Panno.} ({
In Kopec-Spraggett Rive-Sud 1983.} 12. d5 Na5 13. b4 Nc4 14. Bd4 Bh6 15. e3 e5
16. dxe6 fxe6 {favoured Black, 0-1, 55.})) 11... Na5 12. b4 Nc4 13. Ba7 Rb7 14.
Bd4 e5 15. dxe6 fxe6 16. Bxf6 Qxf6 17. Rc1 d5 {(diagram)  Obviously Black has
won the battle for the c4-square. Smyslov's game is miserable and he decides
to ballast the b-pawn for some complications.} 18. e3 Qe7 19. Nd4 Qxb4 20. Qd3
Qc5 21. Nb3 Qe7 22. Nd4 Qc5 23. a4 {A weird moment. Objectively based on the
position Petrosian was unlikely to repeat, but giving him the choice made
psychological sense.} bxa4 24. Nxa4 Qd6 25. h4 Kh8 26. Ne2 Rb4 27. Nac3 Ba6 28.
Ra1 Rb2 29. Rfc1 {(diagram)} Rfb8 $2 ({Petrosian's nerves were appalling in
this event. He hung his Queen in a winning position against Bronstein and
missed decisive tactical shots against Spassky, Panno and Paul Keres. Here he
could have simply played the obvious} 29... Rd2 30. Qb1 Bxc3 31. Nxc3 Rfxf2 {
and White can resign.}) 30. Rxa6 Qxa6 31. Nxd5 exd5 32. Bxd5 Rd2 33. Bxc4 Rxd3
34. Bxa6 Ra3 {Black has the exchange for a pawn but the opposite coloured
Bishops make progress difficult.} 35. Bc4 Ra1 36. Rxa1 Bxa1 37. Kg2 c5 38. Kf3
Rb4 39. Bd5 Kg7 40. Nf4 c4 41. Ng2 Bc3 42. g4 Be5 43. Be4 Rb2 44. Ne1 Rd2 45.
g5 c3 46. Kg2 Bd6 47. Nc2 h6 48. Nd4 hxg5 49. hxg5 Be7 {(diagram)} 50. Kg3 $1 (
50. Kg3 {Very fine. On} Bxg5 51. Nf3 Rd5 52. Bxd5 c2 {
Black promotes the pawn but White has an impregnable defensive fortress.})
50... Bd6+ 51. f4 Kf7 52. Kf3 Bc5 53. Nc2 {
Draw agreed. That was a lucky escape for the eventual tournament winner.}
1/2-1/2

[Event "Candidates Tournament"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "1956.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Bronstein, David I"]
[Black "Spassky, Boris V"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "E66"]
[PlyCount "67"]
[EventDate "1956.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "18"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. O-O a6 8. d5
Na5 9. Nd2 c5 10. Qc2 Rb8 ({Botvinnik-Smyslov World Match Moscow 1957 went} 
10... e5 11. a3 b6 12. b4 Nb7 13. Rb1 Bd7 14. Nde4 Nxe4 15. Nxe4 Qc7 {
when White might be marginally better by 16.Bd2 or 16.Be3 but insteadsimplified
to a drawish game by} 16. bxc5 Nxc5 17. Nxc5 bxc5 {1/2-1/2, 41.}) 11. b3 e5 {
Theoretically the mainline would evolve around the sharper 11..b5 as in the
next game.} 12. dxe6 fxe6 13. Bb2 b5 14. cxb5 axb5 15. Nce4 {(diagram)  White
has no weaknesses and the safer King however the advantage is likely Black's
as he can create a passed c-pawn which will be very dangerous. In addition the
p/a2 is a serious target.} Bb7 16. Bxf6 $5 {Bronstein will rely on the Knight
pair, a creative solution in keeping with his style, but 16.Bh3 was probably
safer. Perhaps positionally he did not want to block h2-h4. Playing to win by
maintaining tension always entails risk.} Bxf6 17. Rad1 $6 ({
Objectively the simplification} 17. Nxf6+ Qxf6 18. Rad1 Rbd8 19. Bxb7 Nxb7 {
was best. Black may be a tad better but White is okay after} 20. Qd3 b4 21. f4
$1 {balancing the space.}) 17... Bg7 $1 {
No second chances to exchange this powerful piece.} 18. Nf3 Bd5 $5 {This centra
lization is a novel method of stabilizing both the d-file pressure and the
defence of e6. The downside is that Black is inviting a variety of exchange
sacrifices.} 19. Nfg5 Nc6 20. e3 Qe7 {
A difficult choice as 20..Nb4 is also good.} 21. h4 c4 (21... c4 {(diagram) 
ite has some complex methods of sharpening the position but nothing clear. On}
22. Nxh7 $5 {with the idea that} (22. Rxd5 $5 exd5 23. Nc3 Nb4 24. Nxd5 Qxg5 $1
{again with Black on top.}) 22... Kxh7 {can be met by} (22... Nb4 $1 23. Qd2 c3
24. Nxc3 Kxh7 25. Nxd5 Nxd5 26. Bxd5 exd5 27. Qxd5 Ra8 {favours Black.}) 23.
Ng5+ {and 24.e4 trapping the B/d5}) 22. bxc4 bxc4 23. a3 Rb2 {
Spassky appears winning now.} 24. Qa4 Ne5 ({Better was 24..Nd8 to maintain
control of the c3-square and thereby avoid the messy 'desperation' sacrifice
which Bronstein now tries. After} 24... Nd8 25. Rd2 c3 26. Rxb2 cxb2 27. Nd2
Ba2 28. Be4 {White is reduced to a goal-line stand by the advanced pawn. 25.
Qa6 might be marginally better but the cause is not hopeful.}) 25. Rxd5 $1 {
Under the circumstances this exchange sacrifice is definitely best.} exd5 26.
Nc3 Kh8 27. Nxd5 Qe8 28. Qxe8 Rxe8 29. f4 Ng4 30. Nf7+ Kg8 31. Nxd6 Rxe3 32.
Nxc4 Rxg3 33. Nxb2 Bxb2 34. Rf3 1/2-1/2

[Event "World Championship 26th"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1966.05.02"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Petrosian, Tigran V"]
[Black "Spassky, Boris V"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E66"]
[PlyCount "59"]
[EventDate "1966.04.11"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "24"]
[EventCountry "URS"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]

{The Panno Variation appeared ten years later when Petrosian defended his
World Championship against Spassky. The tenth match game has a famous
combination which is given as an example in many tactical textbooks.} 1. Nf3
Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O Nc6 6. Nc3 d6 7. d4 a6 8. d5 Na5 9.
Nd2 c5 10. Qc2 e5 ({An interesting moment. Spassky repeats Smyslov's method,
rather than the more common} 10... Rb8 {, but Petrosian forgoes Botvinnik's}
11. a3) 11. b3 Ng4 $5 {The options 11..Nh5 and 11..Ne8 had been tried.} 12. e4
f5 13. exf5 gxf5 14. Nd1 $5 (14. Nd1 {(diagram)  This provocative retreat may
have been prepared. Black has choices. e.g.,} e4 ({but} 14... f4 $5 {may over-e
xtend as White has use of the e4-square. The play now becomes very tense.}) 15.
Bb2 Ne5) 14... b5 15. f3 {Petrosian vs the Elite (Keene and Simpole, 2006)
considers 15.Bb2 to be objectively the better move while the move played has a
psychological element in luring Spassky into an ambitious attack.} e4 16. Bb2
exf3 17. Bxf3 Bxb2 {17..Ne5 was safer.} 18. Qxb2 Ne5 19. Be2 f4 $5 ({This sharp
move was predictable considering Spassky's attacking instincts and positional
desire to be rid of the isolated f-pawn. "A sign that White's pussy-footing
tactics are having effect; this is the start of something too ambitious,"
wrote Bill Hartston. Quieter play might run} 19... Bd7 20. Ne3 Qg5 21. Ng2 Qg7
22. Qa3 $5 Nb7 23. Rae1 Ng4 24. Rf4 Ne5 25. Kh1 {
with White a little better on pawn structure.}) (19... Ra7 20. Ne3 {
Unlike Petrosian, computers might grab the b-pawn.} Qf6 {or 20...Rg7.} 21. Qc2
(21. Qa3 Qh6) 21... Rg7 22. Ng2 Ng6 {when White is having some problem with
the blockade as the R/f1 is overloaded covering f4 and a1. Perhaps 20.Kh1 is a
better move order. In my opinion Spassky's real error comes next move.}) 20.
gxf4 ({On} 20. Rxf4 Rxf4 21. gxf4 Ng6 {Black is okay.  (diagram)}) 20... Bh3 $2
(20... Bh3 21. fxe5 $2 (21. Rf2 $2 Rxf4 $1 {is strong. However Petrosian
simply gives up the exchange (a familiar theme in Panno's Variation!) and the
attack switches hands completely.}) 21... Qg5+) ({
Instead Spassky should have played} 20... Rxf4 {when} 21. Ne3 Qg5+ 22. Kh1
Rxf1+ 23. Ndxf1 {Black is okay after either} Bh3 ({or the more subtle} 23...
Ra7 {with balanced chances.})) 21. Ne3 $3 Bxf1 ({After} 21... Rxf4 22. Rxf4
Qg5+ 23. Rg4 Bxg4 24. Nxg4 Nxg4 25. Bxg4 Qxg4+ 26. Kh1 Qd4 27. Rg1+ Kh8 28.
Qxd4+ cxd4 29. Ne4 {White has the endgame edge.}) 22. Rxf1 Ng6 {
It is grim now but 22..Nd7 was a better try.} 23. Bg4 Nxf4 {Allowing white to
also sacrifice the other exchange loses thematically. 23..h6 would last longer.
} 24. Rxf4 $1 Rxf4 25. Be6+ Rf7 26. Ne4 Qh4 27. Nxd6 Qg5+ ({
Stepping into dangerous geometry but} 27... Qe1+ 28. Kg2 Qxe3 29. Bxf7+ Kf8 30.
Qh8+ Ke7 31. Nf5+ {also wins.}) 28. Kh1 Raa7 {
(diagram)  It's White to play and win.} 29. Bxf7+ Rxf7 30. Qh8+ $1 1-0

[Event "Tal Memorial 2010"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Aronian, L."]
[Black "Nakamura, H."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "E66"]
[PlyCount "120"]
[EventDate "1956.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "18"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

{In a curious synchronicity while I was annotating that last game,
simultaneously in Moscow the current theory on the Panno Variation was being
updated by a pair of top Grandmasters.} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. g3 O-O
5. Bg2 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. O-O a6 8. d5 ({It is worth noting that Boris Avruk's
extra-thick 1.d4 repertoire book considered 8.Qd3 to be the best move. White
has tried more than a dozen different moves although Aronian's choice remains
most common. Recently revived was Robert Byrne's} 8. Bf4 {
which is approved by some engines. Byrne-Reshevsky U.S. Closed 1958 went} Rb8
9. Rc1 Bd7 10. Re1 ({Attempted improvements for White include} 10. e4 {
from Larsen-Nunn Tilburg 1982}) (10. Qd2 Re8 (10... b5 11. Nd5 Ne4 12. Qc2 f5
13. cxb5 Rxb5 14. Nc3 Nxc3 15. Qxc3 {
was L'Ami-Erdogdu in an earlier round at Rijeka.)}) 11. Bh6 Bh8 12. h3 b5 13.
Nd5 {(diagram)  This move is from Dizdarevic-Svidler European Championship
Rijeka 2010. White's threat to open the game by axb5 followed by Nxc7!? and d5
induced Svidler to play the tranquil} e5 14. dxe5 Nxe5 15. Nxe5 Rxe5 16. Bf4
Re8 17. Bg5 {would still be a little better for White.}) 10... Na5 11. b3 b5
12. cxb5 axb5 13. e4 b4 14. Nd5 Nxd5 15. exd5 h6 {with an eventual draw.}) ({
Also after} 8. Bf4 {there are} Bg4 9. Rc1 Qd7 10. b3 Rab8 11. d5 Nd8 12. c5 {
with some White edge in Smeets-Nijboer Dutch Championship 2010}) (8. Bf4 {and}
Bf5 9. Rc1 Ne4 10. Nxe4 Bxe4 11. d5 Nb8 12. Qd2 c6 (12... Nd7 $5) 13. Bh3 Bxf3
14. exf3 Nd7 15. Rfe1 Nf6 {
which managed to draw in Esen-Kasimjanov at the Khanyty-Mansiysk Olympiad.}) ({
A natural and common variation is} 8. b3 Rb8 {
where Wang Hao-Ding Liren Chinese Championship Xinghua 2010 saw something new:}
9. Nd5 $5 Nd7 (9... Ne4 10. Bb2 f5 {
transposed to a Dutch Leningrad in Grigoryan-Korobov Abu Dhabi Open 2010. After
} 11. Rc1 Bd7 12. Nc3 Nf6 13. d5 Na5 14. Qd2 {
or 14.e3 looks better than 14.Qd3 when Black was happy.}) 10. e4 e6 11. Ne3 Nc5
{(It seems this tempting move allows a strong exchange sacrifice.)} 12. dxc5 $1
Bxa1 13. cxd6 Bc3 14. Ba3 Bb4 15. Bxb4 Nxb4 {(diagram)} 16. e5 $1 Nc6 17. Qd2
cxd6 18. exd6 e5 19. Rd1 Be6 20. h4 {with White winning an impressive game.}) (
{In the older line after} 8. b3 Rb8 9. Bb2 b5 10. cxb5 axb5 11. Rc1 b4 12. Na4
$1 {had a try in Papin-Inarkiev Russian Premier Teams Dagomys 2010 with the
continuation} ({In a similar position at the Montreal Invitational 1980 in
Day-Hebert I erred with the passive} 12. Nb1 $6) 12... Na5 13. Qc2 c6 14. Ne1
Ba6 15. Nd3 Qd7 16. Qd2 Qb7 17. Rc2 Nd5 18. Rfc1 {with the threat of 19.Bxd5
cxd5 20.Rc7 forking b7 and e7. Black could have defended with 18..e6 or 18..
Rfe8 instead of 18..Rfd8.}) 8... Na5 9. Nd2 c5 10. Rb1 ({Last century's} 10.
Qc2 Rb8 11. b3 b5 12. Bb2 {has been under a theoretical cloud since Morozevich
and Svidler popularized the interesting idea} h5 $5 {intending on} 13. Rae1 {
to exploit the absence of a N/f3 by} (13. cxb5 axb5 14. Nd1 Ng4 {
very appealing for White.}) ({Hence} 13. Rab1 Bf5 14. e4 Bd7 15. Nd1 {
is the critical position with a wide choice for Black. 15..Ng4, 15...h4 , 15..
bxc4, 15..Qc7 and 15..e5 are all reasonable possibilities.}) 13... h4) 10...
Rb8 11. b3 b5 12. Bb2 Bh6 13. Ba1 Bf5 ({The simpler} 13... bxc4 14. bxc4 Bf5
15. e4 Bg4 16. f3 Be3+ 17. Kh1 {was Ribli-Efimienko Bundeslieague 2006.}) 14.
e4 Bg4 15. f3 Be3+ 16. Kh1 Bd7 17. cxb5 axb5 18. Ne2 {(diagram)} e5 ({
Theoretically this is sufficient for a balanced game but the real test may be
the very active} 18... b4 $5 {It sets up 19..Bb5 which should be good against
passive play but Nakamura must have been wondering what devious exchange
sacrifice the Armenian had prepared. There is 'book', an obscure game
Kolesar-Hanko Trinec Open 1999 had gone} 19. f4 Bb5 20. h3 Bd3 21. Rf3 Bxe2 22.
Qxe2 Bxd2 23. Qxd2 Nxe4 24. Qe2 Nc3 25. Bxc3 bxc3 26. Rxc3 {...1-0, 44.}) 19.
dxe6 fxe6 ({A delicate choice. The more natural} 19... Bxe6 {
would avoid splitting the pawns.}) 20. e5 dxe5 21. Bxe5 Rc8 22. Bxf6 $1 Qxf6
23. Ne4 Qe7 24. Qd3 Bh6 25. f4 Bc6 26. Rbd1 Nb7 {The d-file looks impressive
but all the entry squares are covered. 26..c4 was the option.} 27. Qe3 b4 28.
Nc1 Bd5 29. Nd3 c4 30. bxc4 Bxc4 31. Qb6 Rfd8 {(diagram)  White could play
safely with 32.Nef2 but prefers the 'thematic' exchange sacrifice. The only
question is which one, 32.Ne5 centralizes but 32.Nxb4 creates a useful outside
passed pawn.} 32. Nxb4 $5 Bxf1 33. Rxf1 Rf8 34. a4 Kh8 35. h4 Bg7 36. a5 Qc7 ({
Simplification is the safest course. On} 36... Rc4 37. Nc6 Qd7 38. Ng5 {
White has sufficient compensation and Black's game is more difficult to play.})
37. Ng5 ({Likewise Aronian is content to draw. The gambling line is} 37. Qxc7
Rxc7 38. a6 Na5 39. Nd3 Bd4 40. Rb1 {when Black still has ways to go wrong.})
37... Nxa5 38. Qxc7 Rxc7 39. Nxe6 Rc3 40. Nd5 Rxg3 41. Nxf8 Bxf8 42. Rc1 Rg4
43. Kh2 Rxh4+ 44. Kg3 g5 {After this the draw is clear.} 45. Rc8 Kg7 46. Ra8
Nc6 47. fxg5 Rd4 48. Nf6 Ne7 49. Be4 h6 50. Nh5+ Kf7 51. Bb1 hxg5 52. Ba2+ Kg6
53. Ra6+ Kxh5 54. Bf7+ Ng6 55. Rxg6 Rd3+ 56. Kg2 Kh4 57. Be6 Rg3+ 58. Kh2 Rc3
59. Kg2 Rc6 60. Bf5 Rxg6 1/2-1/2

[Event "WYCC, Porto Carras 2010"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lopez, I."]
[Black "Cao, J."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E63"]
[PlyCount "66"]
[EventDate "1956.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "18"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

{Kudos to young Jason Cao from Saanich who won the Gold Medal in the Boys
under-10 group at the World Youth Championships. The Panno Variation showed up
in the fifth round against Spain's Inigo Lopez.} 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7
4. O-O O-O 5. c4 d6 6. d4 Nc6 7. Nc3 a6 8. b3 Rb8 9. a4 {Another new try.} Bg4
10. Ba3 a5 {Leaving book, such as it is.} 11. Qd2 Qd7 12. Rfd1 Bh3 13. Bh1 $5 {
This is ambitious leaving f2 lightly guarded and coordinated against by
Black's natural attack along the f-file. 13.Rac1 letting the Bishops come off
was simpler.} h6 {Preventing Ng5 is required.} 14. Rac1 Ng4 {
Without h2-h3 to bother it, the Knight is well placed here.} 15. e4 {(diagram)}
e5 ({Black finally exercises his preserved option regarding central pawn
structure but it may be too soon.} 15... b6 {was safer, slowing down the c4-c5
break, especially if the pawns lock as they do in the game. After} 16. d5 Nd8 {
the Knight will go to b7 reinforcing c5. Another double-edged option was the
risky 15..f5!? 16.e5 g5 with a complex struggle.}) 16. d5 Ne7 17. Nb5 $2 ({
This is the critical error, losing time and underestimating Black's dynamic
potential. White should break right awaywith} 17. c5 $1 {
for example after the active defence} f5 18. cxd6 cxd6 {then} 19. Nb5 {
comes with direct threats. After the sharp} Rf6 20. Rc7 Qd8 21. Qc2 {
would give White a serious bind.}) 17... b6 {
Now Black should be a bit better but it is still complicated.} 18. b4 axb4 19.
Bxb4 f5 {Thematic.} 20. Qe2 fxe4 21. Qxe4 Nf5 {This must have been a tough
choice since 21..Rf7 preparing ..Rbf8 was also good.} 22. Rc2 Nf6 23. Qe1 Rbe8
{By completing the development he has his whole army is involved in the
breakthrough.} 24. a5 {(diagram)} e4 $1 25. Nfd4 e3 $5 ({
Tal-style. This is certainly the most dynamic, but objectively} 25... Nxd4 26.
Nxd4 bxa5 27. Bxa5 Nh7 $1 28. Ne6 $1 {White cuts his losses to a pawn.}) 26. f3
$2 ({Missing his chance for} 26. Ne6 $1 {with some chances. Then} exf2+ 27.
Rxf2 Ng4 {looks unclear but one silicon variation producing a draw is} 28. Rf4
bxa5 29. Bxa5 g5 30. Rf3 Ne5 31. Rf2 Ng4 32. Rf3 {with repetition. Black can
try for more with 31..Nxc4!? 32.Nbxc7 Re7 and White is not quite out of the
woods.}) 26... Nxd4 27. Nxd4 Ne4 $1 (27... Ne4 {Surprise centralization.
Instead of forcing the play with 27..bxa5 he lets White calculate} 28. axb6 Nf2
29. Rxf2 exf2+ 30. Qxf2 Qa4 $1 31. Rb1 Re4 $1 {and White collapses.}) (27...
Ne4 {Also} 28. axb6 cxb6 29. Nb5 Ng5 {would be very precarious for White.}) (
27... Ne4 {On} 28. Ne6 Qa4 $1 {is very strong.}) 28. fxe4 {
This fails tactically.} Rf1+ 29. Qxf1 Bxf1 30. Kxf1 Bxd4 31. Re2 ({
Desperation since} 31. Rxd4 Qa4 {wins a piece.}) 31... bxa5 32. Be1 Rf8+ 33.
Kg1 Qg4 {A Tal-like display by the young star!} 0-1

[Event "Montreal Fall Open 1979"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Day, L."]
[Black "Nadeau, R."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "E63"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[EventDate "1956.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "18"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

{Back in the period 1977-79 I happily played 'zooms' against a variety of
defences with satisfactory results. But  in 1979 I encountered the Panno and
couldn't manage to find anything that I liked against it; in fact I often
preferred Black's position in the main lines. Evading the problem, I switched
back to a consistent 1.e4. I mentioned that Jean Hebert beat me with it, I
might have survived that by fine-tuning the repertoire, but also I had this
completely confusing battle where I was lucky to escape with a draw despite
playing White and paired down. One positive aspect of the modern engines is
that some irrational games can now be understood, or at least more understood
than was previously possible. This was the baffling game.} 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6
3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. c4 d6 6. d4 Nc6 7. Nc3 a6 8. Nd5 (8. Nd5 {
Romanishin-Adorjan Amsterdam 1978 illustrated the trap:} Nd7 9. Be3 b5 10. cxb5
axb5 11. Rc1 Bb7 12. Nxc7 $1 Qxc7 13. d5 {with advantage. Timman-Sax Tilburg
1979 improved with 8..Ne4 and later John Nunn showed 8..e6 was simple and
effective so the odd idea faded from practice.}) 8... Nd7 9. b3 e6 10. Ne3 Ne7
11. Bb2 Rb8 12. Qc2 f5 13. Ng5 $5 Nf6 14. f4 h6 {(diagram)} 15. Nf3 $6 ({
This was my first clear error. Better was the edge route:} 15. Nh3 Bd7 16. Nf2
{etc.}) 15... Bd7 16. Rad1 b5 17. Ba1 ({Better was} 17. Nd2 bxc4 18. Ndxc4 Bc6
{with mutual chances.}) 17... bxc4 18. bxc4 Qe8 19. Rb1 Bc6 {Here I jumped at
the opportunity to mix it up with some very complex tactics. The line was much
too complicated to figure out completely since the critical branching is still
7 semi-forced moves downstream. So intuition trumped calculation. Or possibly
I just felt lucky.} 20. Rxb8 $5 Qxb8 21. d5 exd5 22. Nd4 Qa7 $1 {
Both sides get super pins. This is not for the faint-hearted!} 23. cxd5 Nfxd5
$6 ({As this shouldn't work, better was} 23... Bxd5 24. Nxd5 Nfxd5 25. Qc4 Qc5
{holding on.}) ({but} 23... Be8 $6 24. Rc1 Ne4 25. Qd3 {would favour White.})
24. Qc4 {(diagram)  And wins? Not quite!} Bb5 $5 ({
The surprising resource. On the expected} 24... Bxd4 25. Bxd4 Qb7 26. Rc1 {
gives positional pressure.}) 25. Bxd5+ Kh7 {
White's pointed pin has netted a piece but there is counter-play.} 26. Qc3 Bxe2
27. Re1 $2 ({After all these pins it is ironic that what I missed here was a
final decisive one. In the exchanging line} 27. Rf2 c5 28. Nc6 Bxc3 29. Nxa7
Bxa1 30. Rxe2 Bd4 {
I stopped analyzing thinking Black fine but silicon points out} 31. Kg2 $1 Bxe3
({So Black should bail out with} 31... c4 {
but White has a winning endgame after} 32. Nc6 Nxc6 33. Bxc6 Rc8 34. Nc2 {
blockading.  Also 27.Rb1 was possible.  Instead I gambled the Queen.}) 32. Bf3
$1 {and the e-file pin decides the game.}) 27... c5 28. Ne6 Bxc3 29. Nxf8+ Kg7
30. Ne6+ Kf7 31. Nd8+ $2 ({There was no time left to calculate} 31. Ng5+ Ke8
32. Bxc3 hxg5 33. Rxe2 gxf4 34. Nxf5 gxf5 35. Bf6 c4+ 36. Kg2 Qc5 37. Rxe7+ Kf8
38. Be6 Qe3 39. Bxc4 f3+ 40. Kh3 Qh6+ 41. Bh4 Qg6 {forcing the draw.}) 31...
Kf8 32. Bxc3 Nxd5 33. Nxd5 c4+ 34. Kg2 Bd3 35. Bd4 $2 {
Taking the perpetual was better.} Qd7 36. Ne6+ Kf7 37. Nc3 Qb7+ 38. Kg1 {
(diagram)} Qb4 $2 ({Missing an chance to play for a win with} 38... Qb8 $1 {
and if} 39. Kf2 ({Also} 39. Bf2 Be4 {and Black has the dangerous chances.})
39... Qb2+ 40. Kg1 Qd2 41. Nd8+ Kf8 42. Ne6+ Kg8 43. Rd1 Qc2 44. Re1 Be4 {
and White is in trouble.}) 39. Nd8+ Kf8 40. Nc6 $2 {Now it is lost again.} Qb2
41. Nd8 Qc2 ({Lucky for me Renaud was content with a draw. On} 41... Qd2 $1 42.
Ne6+ Kg8 43. Rd1 Qc2 44. Re1 Be4 {still wins.}) 1/2-1/2

[Event "3rd Pearl Spring"]
[Site "Nanjing CHN"]
[Date "2010.10.23"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Bacrot, Etienne"]
[Black "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D17"]
[WhiteElo "2716"]
[BlackElo "2800"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[EventDate "2010.10.20"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. Ne5 $5 {A topical variati
on in modern praxis. The more classical approach is 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4. The text
is much sharper.} e6 {
The most complex. 6...Nbd7 and 6...c5 are also relatively common.} 7. f3 Bb4 8.
e4 {Gaining the "big" centre, but Black has an enterprising answer in mind.}
Bxe4 $5 9. fxe4 Nxe4 10. Bd2 Qxd4 11. Nxe4 Qxe4+ 12. Qe2 Bxd2+ 13. Kxd2 Qd5+ {
DIAGRAM Black's piece sacrifice has netted 4(!) pawns for a piece, though the
c4-pawn is not likely to survive long. Evaluating this significant material
imbalance is the hot debate in this line. With White's King exposed, it is
sensible for Black to keep the heavy pieces on the board.} 14. Kc3 $5 {
Still theory, but it is far from clear whether the White King is better on c3
or c2 - on c2, the King can be vulnerable to a knight check on b4, or a Queen
capture on g2 (with check) in some lines. On c3, the King is closer to the
advancing pawn mass.} O-O 15. Qe3 b5 16. Be2 Nd7 {16...Qxg2 is a non-starter:
17.Rag1 and 18.Rxg7+ would bring about a quick resignation.} 17. Nxd7 Qxd7 18.
Rhd1 Qe7 19. Kc2 a5 {Playing with ...a6 is also possible. Black appears
completely OK here, and practical results in similar structures arising from
this line have been very reasonable for Black.} 20. Bf3 Rac8 21. Qe5 {
DIAGRAM Centralizing, and pressuring the Q-side. White could have won his pawn
back immediately with 21.axb5 axb5 22.Rxa5, but 22...b4 gives Black fair
counterplay with the advanced pawn duo.} g6 $5 {A rather nonchalant choice,
seemingly unconcerned about losing his Q-side pawns. It is true that capture
will always provide some open lines for Black's pieces, but it is not obvious
what is wrong with the more stubborn 21...Qb4!? After 22.Ra3 (guarding b3),
even the ugly 22...bxa4!? can be considered, when the pawn structure is
ridiculous, but the b-file offers serious initiative. There are clearly lots
of decent options for Black - the position is sharp, with chances for both
sides.} 22. axb5 cxb5 23. Qxb5 Rc5 $1 24. Qd7 Qg5 {Naturally Anan d does not
exchange Queens. As compensation for the lost b5-pawn, Black has gained a few
things: the open b-file, and an ability to double rooks quickly, either on the
b-file or possibly on the c-file after an eventual c3 advance.} 25. Qd4 Rfc8
26. Ra3 Rb5 {Switching sights to the b-file now that White has bolstered
defence of the c3-square.} 27. Rd2 Rb4 {The immediate 27...Rcb8 was also
possible. The text makes room for Black's Queen on b5.} 28. Kd1 Rcb8 29. Ke2 (
29. Ke1 Rxb2 $1 30. Rxb2 Qc1+) 29... Qb5 30. Ke1 Rxb2 {There is no rush to
play this, but Anand seemed set on simplification, and this casual approach to
the position ultimately let him down. The really serious error in judgment has
yet to made.} 31. Rxb2 Qxb2 32. Qxb2 Rxb2 33. Rxa5 {It looks like we are
headed for an endgame with 4 vs. 2 on the K-side. Black will not be able to
keep his c3-pawn for long.} c3 34. Rc5 Rb1+ 35. Ke2 Rc1 $6 {Black had an
important finesse available here with 35...Rh1! The point is rather deep, but
White's pawn on h3 would allow Black far better defensive chances in the
upcoming endgame than with it on its home square of h2.} 36. Kd3 Kg7 37. Rxc3 {
DIAGRAM} Rxc3+ $2 {Even if Black can survive this endgame, the exchange of
rooks leads to a far more difficult defensive task than leaving rooks on the
board. With rooks on, White's only hope would be to find a way to exert
pressure on f7, using a threat of rook trade en route, but that looks far from
easy to achieve.} 38. Kxc3 {I have the feeling that Anand did not appreciate
the difficulties of holding this position, or perhaps he had analyzed similar
endgames arising from this variation, but failed to note the significance of a
particular aspect of this one. As we shall see, the h2-pawn plays a key role,
and if the pawn were on h3, Black would quite likely have excellent drawing
chances. The main problem for Black is that he will be forced to eventually
advance his pawns and in doing so they will become increasingly vulnerable.
Black cannot simply pass - White's King will make way for e5 and f6.} f5 39.
Kd4 Kf6 40. Bd1 {Bacrot makes it clear that he is happy to wait.} h5 41. Bf3 h4
42. Be2 g5 43. Ba6 {Excellent technique. White's bishop is prepared to take up
occupation of the long diagonal, where it has a bird's eye view of any tricks
Black may attempt by advancing his pawns.} g4 {It should be noted that if
White's pawn were on h3, this advance would force an exchange of some sort.
White is unable to win Bishop and h-pawn vs. King, as the bishop does not
control the h-pawn's queening square, and as such, this motif would be a key
defensive resource. Sadly, the idea is unavailable to Black with the h-pawn
still on h2.} 44. Bb7 e5+ {Black is out of neutral waiting moves.} 45. Kd5 f4 (
45... h3 46. g3 f4 47. Ke4 fxg3 48. hxg3 Ke6 49. Ke3 $1 Kf5 50. Bh1 Kf6 51. Kd3
Kf5 52. Kc4 Kf6 53. Kd5 Kf5 54. Be4+ Kf6 55. Kd6 {is a sample line. Black will
always be forced into Zugzwang and the pawns will fall one by one. Naturally,
White will always keep a g-pawn if he is forced down to a Bishop and single
pawn endgame, but that will be enough to win.}) 46. Ke4 1-0

[Event "Grand Slam Final Masters"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2010.10.09"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kramnik, Vladimir"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E15"]
[WhiteElo "2780"]
[BlackElo "2826"]
[PlyCount "89"]
[EventDate "2010.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Ba6 5. Qa4 Bb7 6. Bg2 c5 7. dxc5 bxc5 8. O-O
Be7 9. Nc3 O-O 10. Rd1 Qb6 11. Bf4 Rd8 {Still well known theory to both
players. 12.Rd2, and doubling on the d-file, is the most common plan here, but
the text has been tried by Kramnik before.} 12. Rab1 $5 h6 13. Qb5 {This appear
s new, though Kramnik played a very similar game against French GM Etienne
Bacrot in 2009, with the moves 12.a3 a5 tossed in before offering the Queen
trade.} Bc6 14. Qxb6 axb6 15. b3 g5 $5 16. Bxb8 Raxb8 17. Ne5 Bxg2 18. Kxg2 {
DIAGRAM Objectively, this position looks fine for Black, but it is also the
kind of game Kramnik excels in. Carlsen's form in the Olympiad and Bilbao
(where this game was played) was very shaky. He managed to recover in China's
Pearl Spring Masters in late October.} Rbc8 19. e4 d6 20. Nd3 Kf8 21. h3 Nd7
22. f4 Nb8 23. Na4 $1 {
The weakness of b6 prevents Black from his plan of bringing the knight to d4.}
Nd7 24. Nf2 Ra8 25. Rd2 Ra5 {Playing to liquidate the b-pawn with . ..b5, and
then return to the idea of rerouting his knight. This looks less direct than ..
.Rb8 with the same idea, but Black needs the b8-square for his knight.} 26. Nc3
Nb8 27. Rbd1 Nc6 28. Nb5 {Black has improved his knight, but White's simply
takes up a post on b5, eyeing the d6-pawn and guarding the important d4-square.
} gxf4 29. gxf4 d5 30. exd5 exd5 31. cxd5 Rxb5 32. dxc6 Rc8 {DIAGRAM} 33. Ng4
$1 {Black has played a bit artificially to free his position, and his pieces
are now awkwardly placed whereas White's coordinate beautifully. The rook on
b5, in particular, is not contributing much to the action at the moment.} Rxc6
34. Ne5 Re6 35. Kf3 Ra5 36. Rg2 $1 f6 {Black must do something against the
simple plan of doubling rooks on the g-file, but the f6-pawn does not
compliment the Black bishop at all.} 37. Nc4 Ra7 38. f5 Rc6 39. a4 Rb7 40. Rg6
h5 41. Rdg1 Ke8 {DIAGRAM} 42. Ne5 $1 {Again the knight demonstrates its
superiority in this position, and reenters the fray with decisive results.} Rc8
43. Rg8+ Bf8 44. Ng6 Rf7 45. Rd1 $1 {Black is paralyzed. 46.Rd6! is a direct
threat, but White could also improve his King position at will, or go after
the h5-pawn. Carlsen simply has no useful moves left. A vintage performance by
Kramnik, but also a somewhat lacklustre one by Carlsen, who still appears to
be recovering from his form at the Olympiad.} 1-0

[Event "Tal Memorial"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Date "2010.11.07"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Aronian, Levon"]
[Black "Gelfand, Boris"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E01"]
[WhiteElo "2801"]
[BlackElo "2741"]
[PlyCount "81"]
[EventDate "2010.11.05"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Qd3 $5 {The Slav Defence has become
THE answer to 1.d4 for the past decade. Nearly all the top players have taken
up some form of the opening as part of their repertoire, and theory in many of
the lines has advanced in leaps and bounds. Aronian's 5th move against the
Semi-Slav is rather unusual - personally, I can't remember ever having seen
it(!) - but it is similar to 5.Qb3 (and would transpose to a known line after
5...dxc4 6.Qxc4), with the distinction of offering a direct support to an
e2-e4 advance.} Nbd7 6. g3 Bd6 7. Bg2 O-O 8. O-O dxc4 {Gelfand releas es the
central tension and sets the battleground for the middlegame. It is worth
noting that a waiting move of 8...Re8 or 8...Qe7, seen quite often in similar
positions, is well worth considering as an early e2-e4 advance can then be
answered with ...dxc4 and ...e5!? The positional difference is the presence of
a White pawn on e4, not always an advantage to White, as it lessens the effect
of White's bishop on the long diagonal. Compare with the game, and you will
see what I mean!} 9. Qxc4 e5 10. Rd1 Qe7 11. Bg5 h6 {DIAGRAM} 12. Nh4 $3 {
A shocker, and probably a nasty surprise for Gelfand. The obvious N/h4-f5 and
the annoying N/h4-g6 (in some positions) provide tactical justification for
the move. 12.hxg5?? 13.Nf5 Qe6 14.Qxe6 fxe6 15.Nxd6 is completely wretched for
Black, so the text seems well motivated.} Nb6 13. Bxf6 Qxf6 {Black could
consider 13...Nxc4 14.Bxe7 Bxe7 15.d5! Nxb2!?, with complications, but Black's
Q-side is under quite a bit of pressure. Still, this may have been preferable
to the game continuation.} 14. Qb3 Bc7 {14...exd4? highlights one of the
aforementioned points of 12.Nh4. After 15.Ne4, Black's Queen is severely
embarrassed, as she needs to keep an eye on the B/d6. Both 15...Qe7 and ...Qe5
run into 16.Ng6!, and 15...Qd8 16.Rxd4, is a pin against the bishop.} 15. d5 $1
{Increasing the light square pressure and "reach" of the g2-bishop.} cxd5 16.
Bxd5 {Another excellent move, resisting the more reflex capture with the
knight. If 16...Nxd5,17.Nxd5 hits Black's Queen and again tactics with N/
h4-g6 become a huge problem for Black.} Kh8 {Stepping off the dangerous
diagonal, but all of these moves cost time and Black is still severely behind
in development.} 17. Rac1 Qe7 18. Qc2 Rb8 {Aiming to fina lly get the
c8-bishop developed. This is certainly a problem for Black, as is the
c7-bishop and pressure on the c-file. Black has done well to keep everything
together so far, but one gets the sense that he is just barely hanging on.} 19.
a4 Bh3 20. Bg2 {Again a surprise on the surface, but the exchange of bishops
would leave the f5-square ripe for invasion for White's knight. Black is wise
to decline the offer.} Be6 21. a5 Na8 {Ugly, but 21...Nd7 22.Nd5! is a
disaster. At least the c7-Bishop has some extra protection here, but there is
obviously no question of White's advantage.} 22. Nd5 Bxd5 23. Rxd5 Qe6 24. b4 {
Cementing the Q-side space advantage.} Bd8 25. Nf5 g6 26. Nd6 {
Of course 26.Nxh6?? Bg5 is only a dream for Black.} Nc7 27. Rdd1 b6 {DIAGRAM}
28. Nb7 {A lovely move, highlighting the importance of the long diagonal and
continuing to apply maximum tactical pressure against Black's minor pieces.}
Na6 29. Rd6 Qg4 30. Qb2 Qxb4 {
Might as well, as there is no sensible way to guard the e5-pawn.} 31. Qxe5+ Kh7
32. Rd7 {
Simple chess. Rooks often belong on the 7th - this position is no exception.}
Bg5 33. Rcd1 Nc5 {As coordinated as Black's position has been in many, many
moves, but this ultimately costs a pawn and the game. Still it's hard to
believe that Black had anything better at his disposal, and also difficult to
point out Gelfand's critical error. Aronian has been putting together a
flawless performance.} 34. Nxc5 Qxc5 35. Qxc5 bxc5 36. Rxa7 {Perhaps it seems
like White should have been able to do more than "just win a pawn", but he
rightly recognizes that the combination of passed a-pawn and unopposed bishop
on the long diagonal will be deadly to Black.} c4 37. a6 c3 38. Rc7 Rbc8 39.
Rxc8 Rxc8 40. e3 Be7 {DIAGRAM} 41. Rc1 {Avoiding t he last trick: 41.a7? Ba3!,
when both sides Queen. Now White's pawn is home free, while Black's is stopped
in its tracks. If 41...Rc7 42.Bb7!, and if Black ever puts his Bishop on c5, R/
c1xc3 is obviously game over as well. An excellent game by Aronian, and one
worthy of his recent arrival in the lofty 2800's!} 1-0

[Event "National Capital Open"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2010.11.12"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Cummings, David H"]
[Black "Mai, Lloyd"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "E92"]
[WhiteElo "2474"]
[BlackElo "2296"]
[Annotator "Upper,John"]
[PlyCount "79"]
[EventDate "2010.11.14"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

1. c4 g6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. d5 Na6 8. Nd2
Ne8 9. O-O (9. h4 $5) (9. a3 c5 10. h4 f5 11. h5 f4 $6 12. hxg6 hxg6 13. Bg4
Nf6 14. Bxc8 Qxc8 15. Nf3 Nc7 16. Bd2 Kf7 17. b4 b6 18. bxc5 bxc5 19. Qa4 Qe8
20. Qa5 $1 $16 {Anand; Speelman-Ivanchuk/Linares 1991/(1/2-1/2 37)}) 9... f5
10. a3 (10. exf5 gxf5 11. f4 c5 12. dxc6 bxc6 13. Nb3 e4 14. Be3 Nac7 15. Qd2
Be6 $16 {1/2-1/2 Gulko,B (2595)-Kasparov,G (2805)/Riga 1995}) 10... Nf6 11. b4
f4 12. Nb3 $146 g5 13. g4 $5 h5 (13... c6 14. dxc6 bxc6 15. Ra2 $16) 14. h3 (
14. gxh5 $5 Qe8 15. c5 $16) 14... hxg4 15. hxg4 Kf7 16. f3 Rh8 17. Kg2 Rh4 18.
c5 (18. Rh1 Rxh1 19. Qxh1 c6 $16) 18... Qh8 19. Rh1 Qh7 20. Qe1 Qg6 21. Bd2
Rxh1 22. Qxh1 (22. Kxh1 Bxg4 23. fxg4 Nxe4 $11) 22... Bd7 {Diagram #} (22...
Bxg4 $142 23. fxg4 Rh8 $16) 23. c6 ({Rybka suggests} 23. Qg1 $5 Qh7 24. c6 $5
bxc6 $1 25. dxc6 $1 (25. Bxa6 $143 cxd5 26. Nxd5 (26. exd5 Rh8 $44) 26... Bxg4
$1 $13) 25... Be6 26. Rb1 Nb8 27. Na5 $1 $16) 23... Rh8 (23... bxc6) 24. cxd7
$14 Rxh1 25. d8=N+ (25. d8=Q $142 Rh8 {traps the Qd8} 26. Qxh8 Bxh8 27. Na5 $36
{Black's Queenside pawns are easier targets with the Kf7 further away.}) 25...
Ke8 $15 26. Rxh1 Kxd8 27. Na5 Kc8 28. Rc1 (28. Bxa6 bxa6 29. Nc6 $17) 28... Ne8
(28... Kb8 29. Bxa6 (29. Nc6+ $2 bxc6 30. Bxa6 {
isn't check, so Black can tear open the centre.} cxd5 $19) 29... bxa6 30. Nc6+
{/\Be1-f2, Xa7.} Ka8 31. Be1 Qe8 32. b5 $5 $13) 29. Nc6 $11 bxc6 30. Bxa6+ Kd8
31. dxc6 (31. Bb7 Nf6 $11) 31... Nf6 (31... Qe6 $5 32. Rb1 Nf6 $17) 32. Bc4 $11
Qe8 33. b5 Ke7 (33... Kc8 $5 $11) 34. Be1 $14 Qc8 35. Nd5+ (35. Bf2 Qb8 $14)
35... Nxd5 $11 36. Bxd5 Qb8 37. a4 Qb6 38. Rb1 Qc5 39. Bf2 Qc3 40. Rb3 (40. Rb3
Qd2 41. Kf1 Qa5 42. Ra3 Qb4 43. Ra2 Qa5 44. Be1 Qb6 {White can't make any
progress. If the Bd5 moves off the /^a2-g8 Black will be able to activate his
Bg7 with ...d5-d5.}) 1/2-1/2

[Event "National Capital Open"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2010.11.13"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Kirby, Patrick"]
[Black "Cummings, David H"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B42"]
[WhiteElo "2201"]
[BlackElo "2474"]
[Annotator "Upper,John"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2010.11.14"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Bd3 Bc5 6. Nb3 Be7 7. Qg4 g6 8. Qe2
d6 9. Be3 ({
Computers prefer White, but Black scores well in the main line, which goes:} 9.
O-O Nd7 10. Na3 Ne5 11. Nc4 Nxc4 12. Bxc4 Qc7 13. Bd3 e5 {
Edouard,R (2597)-Vachier Lagrave,M (2703)/Nimes 2009/(1/2-1/2,32)}) 9... Nd7
10. O-O Qc7 11. N1d2 b6 12. f4 Ngf6 13. a4 {Diagram #} h5 $146 (13... O-O 14.
a5 b5 15. Rfc1 Re8 16. c4 b4 {White has more space, but that never seems to
matter in these hedgehog positions. Oliveira,S (2360)-Saldano Dayer,H (2449)/
Campinas 2009/(1/2-1/2,78)}) 14. f5 $5 gxf5 15. exf5 e5 16. Bg5 Bb7 17. Rae1 (
17. Ne4 $5 $17) 17... Rg8 $1 $15 {White's play has been thematic, but he
doesn't seem to have the fire-power to break through.} 18. h4 Ng4 (18... Nh7 $5
19. Ne4 (19. Be4 Nxg5 20. Bxb7 Nh3+ 21. Kh2 Qxb7 22. Kxh3 Rg4 23. g3 Nf6 $36)
19... d5 $3 20. Qxh5 dxe4 21. Qxh7 Nf6 22. Bxf6 Rxg2+ 23. Kxg2 exd3+ 24. Kg1
Bxf6 $19 {Rybka}) 19. f6 Ndxf6 20. Rf5 d5 $6 (20... Qc6 $1) 21. Qf1 $2 (21.
Rxe5 $142 $1 Nxe5 22. Qxe5 Qxe5 23. Rxe5 $44 {
White will get some good squares for his Ns}) 21... Rxg5 $1 (21... e4 $142 $3 {
/\...Qh2#} 22. Bf4 Bc5+ 23. Nxc5 (23. Kh1 Nf2+ 24. Qxf2 Bxf2 25. Bxc7 Bxe1 26.
Rxf6 Rc8 27. Bxb6 Bxh4 (27... exd3 $19 28. cxd3 Bxh4 $19)) 23... Qxc5+ 24. Kh1
Nf2+ 25. Kg1 (25. Kh2 $2 N6g4+ 26. Kg3 Nxd3 27. cxd3 Ne3+ $19) 25... Nxd3+ 26.
Be3 Qxc2 27. Rxf6 Nxe1 $19) 22. hxg5 e4 $1 {White is probably losing, but he
comes up with a surprise to make Black's choices more difficult.} 23. Nf3 $5
Bc5+ (23... exf3 $142 24. Rxe7+ Qxe7 25. gxf3 (25. gxf6 Qe3+ 26. Kh1 fxg2+ 27.
Qxg2 O-O-O $1 $19) 25... Qe3+ 26. Kg2 Nd7 $1 27. fxg4 d4+ 28. Kh2 hxg4 $19 {
Black's Pg3 and Bb7 are too strong.}) 24. Nxc5 Qxc5+ 25. Kh1 Nf2+ $8 26. Kh2
N6g4+ (26... Nxd3 27. cxd3 Ng4+ 28. Kg3 Qc7+ 29. Kh4 $16) 27. Kg3 Qc7+ (27...
Nxd3 28. cxd3 Bc8 29. Rxe4+ Be6 30. Nd4 Qd6+ 31. Qf4 $36) (27... Qd6+ $142 28.
Kh4 (28. Rf4 O-O-O $19) 28... Bc8 $8 $19) 28. Ne5 Nxe5 $2 (28... Bc8 $142 29.
Bb5+ Kd8 $8 $19) 29. Kxf2 Ng4+ 30. Ke2 O-O-O 31. Kd2 exd3 32. cxd3 Kb8 33. Rxf7
$14 {Diagram #Here, and in several of the variations which follow, White could
do better by pushing his g-pawn.} Rd7 $4 (33... Qd6 $142 34. Qf4 Qxf4+ 35. Rxf4
Rg8 $14) 34. Rxd7 $17 (34. g6 $142 $18 Ka7 35. Rxd7 Qxd7 36. Qf7 $18) 34...
Qxd7 35. Qf4+ $2 (35. Qf8+ $1 Ka7 36. g6 $16) 35... Ka7 36. a5 $1 d4 37. axb6+
Kxb6 38. Qf8 (38. g6 $1 a5 39. Rc1 $1 $16) 38... Ne3 39. g6 Qa4 $2 40. Qd6+ $1
$18 Bc6 (40... Kb5 41. Rc1 Qb4+ 42. Qxb4+ Kxb4 $18) 41. Rxe3 $4 (41. Rc1 $18 {
Kirby} Nd5 (41... Nf5 42. Qc5+ Kb7 43. Qxf5 $18) 42. g7 $18) 41... dxe3+ $11
42. Kxe3 Qg4 43. Qd4+ $4 (43. Qb8+ $5 Kc5 44. Qf8+ Kd5 45. g7 Qd4+ $8 46. Ke2
Qxb2+ $8 47. Kf1 Qa1+ 48. Kf2 (48. Ke2 Qe5+ 49. Kf1 Qa1+ $11) 48... Qb2+ 49.
Kg3 Qe5+ 50. Kh4 Qh2+ 51. Kg5 Qxg2+ 52. Kh6 Qd2+ 53. Kh7 Qxd3+ 54. Kh8 Qc3 $8
$11 (54... Qd4 55. Qd8+ $19)) 43... Qxd4+ 44. Kxd4 Be8 45. g7 Bf7 $19 {
White's lost: by the time White wins the Ph5 and attacks the Bg8 Black will
have an extra Q and time for a bath.} 46. Ke5 a5 47. Kd6 a4 48. d4 Kb5 49. Ke7
Bd5 50. Kd6 Bg8 51. Ke5 Kc4 52. Ke4 Bf7 53. Ke5 Bd5 54. g3 Bg8 55. Ke4 Bf7 56.
Kf5 (56. Ke5 Bd5 $22) 56... Kxd4 57. Kf6 Bc4 58. Kg5 Kd3 59. Kxh5 Kc2 1-0

[Event "National Capital Open"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2010.11.13"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Mai, Lloyd"]
[Black "Kraiouchkine, Nikita"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C55"]
[WhiteElo "2296"]
[BlackElo "2355"]
[Annotator "Upper,John"]
[PlyCount "71"]
[EventDate "2010.11.14"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O d6 6. c3 O-O 7. h3 (7. Bb3 Bg4
{Statisticallly, not Black's most common or best-scoring, but it seems good
enough to equalize.} (7... Na5 8. Bc2 c5 9. Re1 Nc6 10. h3 Be6 11. Nbd2 h6 12.
Nf1 Rc8 13. Ng3 Re8 14. Bb3 Bf8 15. Bxe6 Rxe6 16. c4 g6 17. Bd2 Nh7 18. Rb1 h5
19. b4 b6 20. b5 $36 {
Ivanchuk,V (2786)-Naiditsch,A (2678)/Dresden Ol, 2008/(1/2-1/2,65)}) 8. h3 Bh5
9. Re1 Nd7 10. Nbd2 Nc5 11. Bc2 Ne6 {controlling d4 and discouraging g4.} 12.
Nf1 Kh8 13. Ng3 Bxf3 14. Qxf3 Bg5 15. Be3 Bxe3 {
Van Mil,J (2415)-Piket,J (2590)/Eindhoven 1991/(1/2-1/2, 23)}) 7... Na5 8. Bb5
a6 9. Ba4 b5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 {Diagram # I'm not sure what to call this
opening. Fritz11 Classifies it as Two Knights (C55), but Chessbase9 sees 3.Bc4
and classifies this as a modern Giuoco Piano, but if White's R were on e1 it
would be a standard Chigorin Lopez position. White has made the usual number
of Lopez Bishop moves from f1 to c2, (four moves: Bf1-c4-b5-a4-c2, instead of
Bf1-b5-a4-b3-c2) but because White has played d2-d3-d4 instead of d2-d4 + Re1
Black is up a (half?) tempo over the Chigorin Lopez. So shouldn't Black be
better than in a Chigorin Lopez? In the game, Black gives up his e5
strongpoint, which lets White activate the Rf1 without moving it... so maybe
(on this continuation) we could say White is up a tempo over a Chigorin Lopez?}
(11. Nbd2 Nc6 12. Re1 Re8 13. Nf1 h6 14. a3 Bf8 15. Ne3 Be6 16. b4 d5 17. exd5
Nxd5 18. Nxd5 Qxd5 $11 {
1/2-1/2 Bologan,V (2682)-Fressinet,L (2624)/Bastia 2005 (is C90)}) 11... Nc6 (
11... Qc7 12. Nbd2 cxd4 13. cxd4 Bb7 14. d5 Rac8 15. Bd3 Nd7 16. Re1 {
If it were White's move we would now be in C99:} -- (16... Nc5 17. Bb1 Na4 $15
{1-0 Ismagambetov,A (2477)-Looshnikov,N (2454)/Cheliabinsk 2008 (this is C84)})
17. Nf1 Nc5 18. b3 f5 19. exf5 Bf6 20. Be4 Qf7 21. Ng3 Nxe4 22. Nxe4 Qxd5 23.
Bd2 Nc6 24. Bg5 $14 {
1-0 Kramnik,V (2754)-Sokolov,I (2685)/Wijk aan Zee 2005/(37)}) 12. Be3 Qc7 13.
Nbd2 Rd8 $146 14. Rc1 d5 $6 {
Fritz likes this, but to me it seems strategically wrong to give up e5.} 15.
Nxe5 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Nxe4 17. f4 Bf5 18. Nxe4 (18. g4 Nxd2 19. gxf5 (19. Bxf5
Nxf1 20. Qxf1) 19... Nxf1 20. Qxf1) 18... Bxe4 19. Qg4 Kh8 $6 (19... g6 $142
20. Bxe4 dxe4 21. Rce1 Rd3 $13 {the Pe4 is probably a goner, but maybe Black
will get more counterplay than in the game.}) 20. Bxe4 dxe4 21. Rce1 (21. Qf5
$1 $16) 21... g6 {prevents Qf5-xe4} 22. Bc1 Qa5 $2 (22... h5 23. Qe2 Bh4 24.
Rd1 Rxd1 25. Rxd1 Rd8 $14) 23. a3 h5 (23... b4 $142 $5 $14) 24. Qg3 Rd3 25. Qf2
b4 26. Rxe4 bxa3 27. bxa3 c4 28. Rxc4 Qd5 29. Rc7 $16 Bd8 (29... Qd8 30. Qe2
Qxc7 31. Qxd3 Rd8 32. Qxa6 Qxc3 33. e6 $1 $16) 30. c4 $8 $18 Qe6 31. Rb7 (31.
f5 $1) 31... Qc6 32. Qb2 Ba5 33. Rxf7 $18 Bb6+ 34. Kh2 (34. Kh1 $4 Rxh3#) 34...
Qxc4 35. e6+ Qd4 36. Rd7 $1 (36. Rd7 Qxb2 37. Bxb2+ Kg8 38. Rxd3 $18) 1-0

[Event "National Capital Open"]
[Site "Ottawa"]
[Date "2010.11.13"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Hartman, Brian"]
[Black "Sambuev, Bator"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C01"]
[WhiteElo "2450"]
[BlackElo "2699"]
[Annotator "Upper,John"]
[PlyCount "58"]
[EventDate "2010.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Bd3 $5 {
Diagram # This move isn't even mentioned in Watson's "Play the French" 3rd ed.}
Nc6 ({ECO has:} 3... dxe4 4. Bxe4 Nf6 5. Bd3 c5 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. Nf3 Nc6 8. O-O
Qc7 9. Nc3 Bd7 10. Bg5 O-O-O $11 11. Qe2 e5 $11 {
Tartakower - Torre,C, Moscow 1925 Chess Informant ECO, 2006}) 4. c3 e5 {
!? The most ambitious move. - Neil McDonald, chesspub.com.  It looks to me
like Black has a good version of the Guimard, which Sambuev also plays.} 5. Qe2
$146 (5. Nf3 exd4 6. exd5 Qxd5 7. O-O $32 {
Uritzky,M (2412)-Rozentalis,E (2577)/Israel 1999/(1-0, 40)}) 5... Nf6 6. Bg5 {
White is two tempos up, but it doesn't seem to matter. Maybe there issomething 
to the maxim about developing Ns before Bs!?} Be7 7. Bxf6 gxf6 $5 8. exd5 Qxd5
9. Be4 Qa5 10. b4 Nxb4 $1 {Black gets two pawns, an initative against White's
K, and how will White activate the Rh1?} 11. cxb4 Bxb4+ 12. Kf1 (12. Nd2 f5 13.
Bc2 Be6 $15 {Sambuev}) 12... Bd7 $1 {Diagram #} 13. Nf3 (13. Qf3 O-O-O $1 14.
Bxb7+ $140 Kb8 15. Ne2 Bb5 $1 $36 16. Ba8 $2 e4 $1 $19) 13... O-O-O (13... f5
14. Bxb7 Bb5 15. Bc6+ $8 Bxc6 16. Nxe5 (16. Qxe5+ $2 Qxe5 17. Nxe5 Bb5+ 18. Kg1
O-O-O 19. Nxf7 Rhe8 $1 $19) 16... Bb5 17. Nc4+ $8 Kf8 18. Nxa5 Re8 $1 $13) 14.
Qb2 $2 (14. Nbd2 f5 $1 $13 (14... Bxd2 $143 15. Qxd2 $1 (15. Nxd2 $2 Bb5 16.
Bd3 Qc3 $17) 15... Qxd2 16. Nxd2 Bb5+ 17. Ke1 Rxd4 18. f3 $14) 15. Nb3 Qb6 16.
Bd5 $1 exd4 $44) 14... f5 $1 $17 15. Bxb7+ (15. Bc2 e4 16. Ne5 Bb5+ 17. Kg1 Bc5
$1 $19 18. Qc3 (18. dxc5 $4 Qe1#) 18... Qxc3 19. Nxc3 Bxd4 $19) 15... Kxb7 16.
a3 Qb5+ $1 (16... e4 17. axb4 (17. Ne5 Qxe5 $1 $19 18. dxe5 $140 Bb5+ 19. Qe2
Rd1#) 17... Qb5+ 18. Kg1 exf3 $17) 17. Kg1 Ba5 $19 18. Qc1 exd4 19. Nbd2 $19
Qd5 20. Nc4 Bb6 21. a4 Be6 22. Nxb6 axb6 23. a5 Ra8 24. axb6 Rxa1 25. Qxa1 Ra8
26. Qc1 Qc5 $1 27. Qb1 Qc3 28. bxc7+ Kxc7 29. Nxd4 Qxd4 0-1

[Event "National Capital Open"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2010.11.14"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Kirby, Patrick"]
[Black "Sambuev, Bator"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E81"]
[WhiteElo "2201"]
[BlackElo "2699"]
[Annotator "Upper,John"]
[PlyCount "50"]
[EventDate "2010.11.14"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 O-O 5. f3 d6 6. Nge2 c5 7. d5 e6 8. Ng3 {
Diagram #} Ne8 {rare.} ({By far the most common is to play like a Benoni:} 8...
exd5 9. cxd5 h5 10. Be2 a6 11. a4 Nh7 12. Be3 Nd7 13. O-O h4 14. Nh1 f5 15. Qd2
Qf6 16. exf5 gxf5 17. Nf2 f4 18. Ng4 Qg5 19. Bf2 $13 {with a typical
Benoni-like mess where Black's piece play compensates for the suspect pawn
structure. Dreev,A (2705)-Radjabov,T (2673)/Warsaw 2005/(0-1,39)}) 9. Bd3 f5
$146 (9... exd5 10. cxd5 Nd7 11. O-O a6 12. a4 Rb8 13. Kh1 Nc7 $11 {
Bischoff,K (2505)-Schaefer,M (2430)/Germany 1993/GER-chT/(1-0,40)}) 10. dxe6 f4
$1 11. Nge2 Qh4+ 12. Kd2 Bxe6 13. Kc2 Nc6 14. b3 $2 (14. Nxf4 $5 Rxf4 15. g3
Rxf3 $1 16. gxh4 Nb4+ 17. Kb1 Rxd3 18. Bd2 Nf6 $44 {Black has only two minors
and a P for the Queen (similar to another ...Qh4+ line in the Saemisch), but
it's very hard for White to find good moves. For example:} 19. b3 $2 Nxe4 $1
20. Nxe4 Bf5 21. Re1 Rd4 $19) 14... b5 $5 15. cxb5 Nb4+ 16. Kb1 d5 (16... Nc7
$5 17. Bc4 d5 18. exd5 Nbxd5 $11) 17. exd5 Nxd3 18. Qxd3 (18. dxe6 $5 Rd8 19.
a3 $11) 18... Bf5 19. Ne4 Nd6 20. Bb2 (20. a3 Rae8 21. N2c3 (21. g3 Nxe4 22.
gxh4 Nc3+ $19) 21... Bxc3 22. Qxc3 Rxe4 $1 23. fxe4 Nxe4 24. Qe1 $8 Qf2 $1 25.
Qxf2 $8 Nxf2+ 26. Kb2 Nxh1 27. Bxf4 $17 {two pawns isn't enough for the piece})
20... Rfe8 21. N2c3 {Diagram #} c4 $3 22. Qd2 $4 (22. bxc4 $142 Rac8 $36) (22.
Qc2 cxb3 23. axb3 Rac8 $19) 22... Nxe4 $19 (22... Rxe4 $1 23. fxe4 Nxe4 24.
Nxe4 Bxe4+ 25. Kc1 c3 $19) 23. fxe4 (23. Nxe4 $4 Rxe4 24. fxe4 Bxe4+ 25. Kc1 c3
26. Bxc3 Rc8 $19) 23... Rxe4 $8 24. Nxe4 Bxe4+ 25. Kc1 c3 $1 (25... c3 26. Bxc3
Rc8 $19) 0-1

[Event "2010 PEI Open"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "2010.11.13"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Banks, Anthony"]
[Black "McKim, Fred"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C64"]
[WhiteElo "2034"]
[BlackElo "1982"]
[Annotator "Ficzere,Tony"]
[PlyCount "78"]
[EventDate "1956.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "18"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Nge7 {I've played this less common 
Classical line for quite a while, although White can get a strong game with
correct play.} 5. d4 (5. O-O {is stronger here, but we've played this line
before, so he may have wanted to try something a little different}) 5... exd4
6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 d5 8. Qb3 Bxc3+ (8... dxe4 {is considered playable by
Fritz,  but I didn't want to get in a slug fest wth him.}) 9. bxc3 O-O {
Still reluctant to capture.} 10. O-O dxe4 11. Ng5 Na5 {
This move is important, for relieving all pressure from f7.} 12. Qc2 a6 13. Be2
Bf5 ({Fritz thinks I could play} 13... f5 {but I was worried that it would
play right into the kind of game Anthony  likes. I give the pawn back.}) 14.
Ba3 Re8 15. Nxe4 Nd5 16. Bd3 Bg6 (16... Nf4 17. Nf6+ Qxf6 18. Bxf5 Qc6 19. Bh3
Nxh3+ 20. gxh3 Nc4 21. Bc1 Qf3) 17. Nd2 Nf4 18. Bxg6 hxg6 $11 19. Rfe1 Qg5 20.
g3 Nh3+ ({Black can keep and edge with} 20... Ne2+) 21. Kg2 Nf4+ 22. Kf1 {
White isn't ready to quit, although objectively allowing the perpetual might
have been a better plan.} Nd5 (22... Qh5 23. gxf4 Qxh2 24. Nf3 Qh3+ 25. Kg1
Qg4+ 26. Kf1 Qxf3) 23. c4 Nf6 24. Be7 Qg4 25. d5 b5 ({Better is} 25... b6) 26.
Bxf6 gxf6 27. cxb5 axb5 28. Qxc7 Rec8 (28... Qd4 {is much better.}) 29. Qb6 ({
White is in severe time pressure.} 29. Qe7 {is much stronger.}) 29... Nc4 30.
Nxc4 Qxc4+ 31. Kg1 Qxd5 32. Rab1 ({Simpler is just} 32. Qxf6) 32... Rxa2 33.
Rxb5 Qd2 34. Rf1 $11 Kg7 35. Rbb1 Rh8 36. Qe3 {
Finding one of the only losing moves with only 5 moves til time control.} Qxe3
37. fxe3 Rhxh2 38. Rf3 Rhc2 {This was a bit of a time waster. The idea is
simply ...g5 and ...g4, winning the pawn.} 39. Rbf1 {My opponent usually plays
well in time pressure, but has allowed this one to slip away from an even
position on move 35.} Rg2+ 0-1

[Event "Maritime Open"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "2010.10.10"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Ng, Gary"]
[Black "McKim, Fred"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A00"]
[WhiteElo "2242"]
[BlackElo "2009"]
[Annotator "Ficzere,Tony"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "1956.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "18"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[SourceDate "2009.11.16"]

1. b4 {Gary's specialty with White.} Nf6 2. Bb2 d5 3. Nf3 Bf5 {I've employed
this system with black against the Reti with mixed success over the years. I
decide to try it here.} 4. e3 e6 5. c4 c6 6. Qb3 Be7 7. Nc3 h6 {I always employ
this move before castling in these positions, but Fritz tells me it's a wasted
tempo.} 8. d4 Nbd7 9. a4 {A bit unexpected, but I now understand he's trying
ot pry open the Qside to his advantage.} O-O 10. Be2 {Finally conceding the
tempo on the Bishop, but why not simply take on d5 sometime in the past few
moves?} dxc4 11. Bxc4 Nb6 12. Be2 Nbd5 13. Nxd5 {
Fritz prefers b5 = by quite a bit over this move.} cxd5 ({Certainly} 13... Nxd5
{is the more forcing move, but I'm already thinking about trading off the
material on the C file and drawing.}) 14. O-O Rc8 15. Rfc1 Bd6 16. Rxc8 Qxc8
17. Rc1 Qb8 18. b5 Rc8 19. Qd1 Rxc1 20. Qxc1 Qc7 21. Qxc7 Bxc7 22. Ne1 Ba5 23.
Nd3 $11 Kf8 ({Better was} 23... Ne4 {, this gives Gary a little pull.}) 24.
Ba3+ Ke8 25. f3 (25. Nc5 b6 26. Nb7 Bc2 27. Nxa5 bxa5 28. Bc5 Bxa4 29. Bxa7 Ne4
30. Bb6 (30. b6 Nd6 31. Ba6 Bc6 32. Bb8 Kd7) 30... Nc3 31. Bf3 Bxb5 32. Bxa5)
25... Nd7 26. Kf2 Bc7 27. Bb4 a5 28. bxa6 bxa6 29. a5 Bxd3 30. Bxd3 Nb8 31. Bc5
h5 32. Ba7 Nc6 33. Bb6 Nb4 34. Bb5+ Kd8 35. Ba4 Kc8 36. Be8 Bxb6 37. axb6 f6
38. Bxh5 Kb7 1/2-1/2

