| Oct-28-06 | | syracrophy: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. Nge2 dxe4 6. a3 Be7 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Nxe4 b6 9. N2c3 Bb7 10. Qf3<The strongest continuation that White has on this variation of the MacCutcheon>10...c6 11. O-O-O f5 12. Ng3 Nd7 13. Bc4 Qc7! <Black's next sequence is considered basical and the best> 14. Rhe1 Nf6 15. Qe2<Takes away the queen from a dangerous diagonal. As Deutsche Schachblatter pointed out, there's no good on the sacrifice 15.Nxf5 exf5 16.Qxf5 Nd5 17.Bxd5 cxd5 18.Nxd5 Bxd5 19.Qxd5 0-0!, and the three pawns for the piece aren't enough compensation for White> 15...O-O-O <Threatening now 16...f4, which wasn't possible now because of 16.Qe5> 16. Bxe6+!? <Beginning a combination, where white will exchange a piece for three pawns, but this will prove insufficient and the sequence of the game will prove it. A clear example of a wrong exchange of a piece for three pawns, is the game Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927, where Alekhine sacrificed a piece for three pawns, and trusted on their strenght for a win, but Capablanca played accurately and Alekhine ended fighting for a draw. In general, it's not secure to exchange a piece for three pawns, if these don't take active action on the game> 16...fxe6 17. Qxe6+ Rd7 18. Nxf5 Bd8 19. Ne4 Nxe4 20. Rxe4 Kb8! 21. g3 Bc8 <Posting the bishops on the proper squares to avoid the advance of the pawns of the kingside> 22. Qh6<Neither 22.Qc4 works, for example: 22...Rf8 23.Re5 Rdf7 <Not 23...Bf6? 24.Re2>24.Ne3 Rxf2 25.Rf1 Rxf1 26.Nxf1 Rf2 and the threat 26...Bf5 would be strong>22...Rf7 23. Ne3 Rxf2 <The first ripped apple has fell. White's game has no single hope> 24. c3? Rg8 25. d5 Bg5 26. Qxc6 Qxc6 27. dxc6 Bf5 <Posting the bishops on the proper squares to exploit the king's weaknesses, so the dutch master resigned and stopped the clock. In effect, after 28.Re5 <unique!> 28...Bxe3+ 29.Rxe3 Rc2+ 30.Kb1 Rxc3+ and the game would have ended on a visit to the butcher shop> 0-1 |
Annotations by 
