Oct-12-05 | | Poisonpawns: This is a compicated one and a very dynamic imbalence as the Queen is sacrificed in the middlegame.It is a budapest gambit so i cant begin to know whats going on in this game! |
|
Oct-12-05 | | chessfreako: The queen is not really sacrificed... Just traded for 2 knights and a bishop, so the game is still equal at that point |
|
Jan-22-07 | | whiteshark: <1.d4 Sf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Sg4> [3...Se4 The Fajarowicz Variation is a gambit line which is unsuitable for high-level correspondence play. Since after 4 Nf3 Bb4+! White can only count on a slight positional advantage the critical line seems to be 4.a3 when standard methods like 4...Nc6 and 4...Qh4 are inadequate, but 4...b6 is relatively unexplored, the point being that White is ill advised to win a piece by the fork 5.Dd5 because of (¹5.Sf3!) 5...Sc5 6.Dxa8? Lb7 7.Dxa7 Sc6 trapping the Q] 4.Lf4 Lb4+ [4...Sc6 5.Sf3 Lb4+ 6.Sc3 (6.Sbd2) 6...De7 7.Dd5 Lxc3+ 8.bxc3 is the more usual move order; 4...g5 is probably too sharp, especially for CC. After 5.Ld2 Sxe5 Lalic's book recommends 6.Sf3] <5.Sc3> [5.Sd2 Sc6 Another very sharp line is 5...d6 6 exd6 Qf6 7 Nh3 Nxf2, probably more suited to OTB play than correspondence. 6.Sgf3 De7 7.e3 Sgxe5 8.Sxe5 Sxe5 Black regains his pawn and there is not much wrong with his position. 9.Le2 0–0 (9...d6 10.0–0 Ld7 11.a3 (11.Sb3 Stolyar-Reynolds, Russia-World 1993) 11...Lxd2 12.Dxd2 g5!?÷ 1–0,30 Morgado-Reynolds, CNEC–15 corr 1993) 10.0–0 a5 (10...d6 11.Sb3 Karpov-N.Short, Linares 1992) 11.a3 Lxd2 12.Dxd2 d6 13.b3 (13.b4 Te8 14.Dc3 Df6 15.Kh1 Lf5 16.c5 axb4 17.axb4 Sd3 18.Dxf6 gxf6 19.Lxd3 Lxd3 20.Tfd1 dxc5 21.bxc5 Lc2 22.Tdc1 Txa1 23.Txa1 Td8 24.Lxc7 Td1+ 25.Txd1 Lxd1 26.h3 h5 ½–½ in view of the opposite coloured Bs (P.Kindl-Gottardi, Wch16 3/4F 1992)) 13...b6 14.e4 Lb7 15.f3 De6 16.Tfe1 f5 17.exf5 Dxf5 18.Lg3 Tfe8 19.Lf1 Df6 20.Tad1 Te6 21.Te3 h5 22.h4 Tae8 23.Tde1 Dg6 Black has managed to develop all his pieces actively (½–½, 54) van Oosterom-G.Gottardi, Wch15 Final.] <5...Lxc3+ 6.bxc3 Sc6 7.Sf3 De7 8.Dd5 Da3?> Bogdan Lalic said this move is a waste of time. Black should not be interested in winning the unimportant a-pawn. [8...f6 9.exf6 Sxf6 is the critical line, Black continuing in gambit style because the extra white c-pawn is not worth much. 10.Dd3 d6 11.g3!? Little-explored Argentinian idea, recommended by Hans Berliner in Kaissiber 12 a) 11.Lg5 Dlugy's idea, to avoid N-e4-c5 manoeuvre 11...0–0 (11...Lg4!? Taking advantage of White's inability to reply Be2 12.Lxf6 Dxf6 13.De4+ Se7 Needs investigation (Donaldson, Teoria al Dia 1/91)) 12.e3 b6!÷ Ward-Motwani, British ch 1987; b) 11.e3 Se4 (11...0–0 12.Le2 b6 is a newer idea, as in Pinter-Conquest, French chT 1993) 12.Le2 (12.Dc2 Sc5 13.Le2 0–0 14.Sd4 Se5 15.0–0 Df7 (15...Ld7 16.f3 Tae8 17.Lg3 Df7 18.Lxe5 Txe5 19.e4 a6 20.Tae1 Se6² Rubinstein-Schlechter, Berlin 1918) 16.Lg3 (16.Lxe5 dxe5 17.Sf3 Lf5 18.Db2 De7 19.Tad1 c6©) 16...Ld7 17.Tad1 Sxc4= Dolmatov-Malaniuk, USSR Ch 1986) 12...0–0 (12...g5!? 13.Lg3 h5 14.h4 g4 15.Sd4 Ld7÷ idea ...O-O-O (Nunn)) 13.0–0 (13.Sd4 Sc5 14.Dd1?! Better 14 Qc2 (Donaldson) 14...Se5 15.0–0 Kh8 16.Tc1 Ld7 17.Dc2 Df7!= Vukic-Rogers, Reggio Emilia 1985-86) 13...Lg4 14.h3 (14.Sd4 Sc5 15.Dd1 Lxe2 16.Dxe2 Sa5 17.Tab1 b6³ idea ...Qf7, ...Nxc4 (Donaldson)) 14...Lh5 15.Sd4 Lg6 16.Sxc6 bxc6 17.Dd4 c5 18.Dd5+ Lf7 19.Dd3 Lg6 20.Dd5+ Kh8 21.Tfc1 Tae8 22.Lf1 Sxf2!µ although I only drew in the end (A.J.Norris-Harding, corr 1984) …23.Kxf2? Txf4+ 24.exf4?? De3#; 11...0–0 (11...Se4 was the older idea, but it may be ) 12.Lg2 Te8! was suggested as an improvement in Kaissiber 13 by Karen Babachanow of Armenia; Black threatens ...Bf5. (12...Lg4 13.Tb1! (13.0–0 Tae8 14.Tfe1 Kh8© (Gralka-Murdzia, Poland 1996 (in the Lalic book)) 13...Tab8 (13...Sa5 14.0–0 Tae8 15.Tb2 b6 16.Lg5² Kh8 17.Td1 (17.Sd4 John Knudsen) 17...Df7 18.Lxf6 Dxf6 19.Dd4 Dg6! 20.Sh4 Dh5 21.Lf3 Lxf3³ (0–1, 45) A.Helbig-J.Percze, IECG Email 2000) 14.Tb2! (prophylactic move, defending e2 and removing the R from the diagonal b1–h7). |
|
May-08-22 | | whiteshark: 15 years later, it may be too late to ask 'you' about the source.... |
|
|
|
|