19.h6 Bxe4 20.hxg7 Kxg7 21.Bd3! Bxh1 22.Rxh1 Rh8 23.f5! Kg8 24.f6 Bf8 25.Qh2 and White is down the exchange but with what looks to me like an unstoppable attack.

click for larger view

19...h6 might seem the safer, but be careful: they might plan a bishop sac after 20.f5

Here is how things can quickly go wrong if we are note careful:

19...h6 20.f5 Bxe4 21.Rg1 (not yet 21.Bxh6? gxh6 22.Qxh6?? Bg5+) 21...Bxf5? (it was last chance to play ...Bg5 giving back the pawn to stop the attack) 22.Bxh6 gxh6 23.Qxh6 Nf6 24.g7 and mate.

If we don't push to h6, we must also be careful against White's h6!

For instance 19...Bc6 20.h6!? Bxa4? 21.gxh7+ Kh8 22.hxg7+ Kxg7 23.Qg2+ Kh8 24.Bc4 and 25.Rdg1 shoud force Black to give back the piece with ...Bg5 but White remains much better.

Maybe 19...Bxe4 seems greedy but it's the most correct here, trying to exchange some piece and staying ahead of a pawn after 20.Bd3 (TTLump's idea in a similar position) Nf6 21.Bxe4 Nxe4 22.Qg2 exf4!? 23.Bxf4 fxg6.

click for larger view

Position after 19...Bxe4 20.Bd3 Bxd3 21.Qxd3 h6 22.gxf7+ Rxf7 23.fxe5 Nxe5 24.Qd5 Bg5 25.Bxg5 Qxg5+ 26.Kb1

click for larger view

a) 21.Qxd3 exf4 22.gxh7+ Kh8 23.Bxf4 Qa5 (it seems time to create some threats ourselves, or maybe this is already dubious?) 24.Bxd6 [24.b3 Ne5 seems ok for us] 24...Bg5+ 25.Kb1 Qxa4 26.Bxb8 [26.Bxf8 Nxf8 27.Qg3 Qb5 28.Rhe1 Bf6 29.Rd5 Qb7 30.h6 g6 31.Rd6 Nxh7 32.Rd7 Qxd7 33.Qxb8+ Bd8 34.Qe5+ Bf6 =] 26...Nxb8 27.Qd6 Re8 28.Rhe1 Rxe1 29.Qf8+ Kxh7 30.Rxe1 Nd7 31.Qxf7 Qc6 our position seems to hold just by miracle. The evaluation is unclear to me.

And there is still the alternative b) 21.cxd3

a) taking a pawn: 19...Qa5 20.gxh7 Kxh7 21.b3 Bxe4 22.Bd3 Qd5

b) taking the exchange (if 20.Bd3): 19...Bxe4 20.Bd3 Bxh1 21.gxh7 Kh8 22.Rxh1? Is this bad? It doesn't seem so to me.

<Chessmoron> After 23.Bd5 Qa5 24.b3 Nf6 25.Bc4...it looks to me like there is play left in the position.

And if 23.Bd5 Qa5 24.b3 Nf6 25,Rhe1*...then 25...Nxd5 26.Qxd5 Qc7 27.Rd2 Rb5

click for larger view

Following <The Alchemist> on 20...Bf5 21.gxf7 Rxf7 22.Bd5 Qa5 23.Bxf7 Kxf7 24.b3 Rc8 (with problems for White on the c2 square)

click for larger view

<<<Akavall> <<I REALLY think that we should allow longer timeouts. Perhaps add another 3 timeouts for both sides, and make each timeout TWO days.>

<I am certainly fine with this proposal :).>>>

I can present the above to <CG Team> to see how they feel about it.

Personally, I'm quite sceptical. Even during first 6-7 moves when they were obvious (although not forced), like <d4><cxd4><d6><a6> etc, it still took two full days for teams to make their moves.

I don't know. What I do remember, though, in the first Consultation game I was a part of more than a year ago, we did 58 moves in 67 days, without any time-outs. And even then it felt like a marathon.

In the second game, You<Akavall> participated in with <sq> and <suenteus> it was 28 moves in 67 days, 2 time-outs each. On both occasions players were form different time-zones.

Maybe it has to do with a number of players = 10. Waiting to hear everyone's opinion, then discussing it. In the first 2 games the teams were 5 (then 3) players each team.

Also, the longer the game goes on, the players will be less and less interested, which will lead to further replacements and time-outs.

Frankly, I'd do it the other way around: No more time-outs, and instead 48 hours per a move, make it 24 hours! To force the play, like in real OTB games. Kind off. Let the more determined, more comitted team prevail, or draw. The last man standing sort of thing. Otherwise, this will not end before late summer. I wonder how many players will still be around then?