Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 17
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C47: The Belgrade Gambit (Read 105586 times)
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #200 - 04/17/09 at 22:05:53
Post Tools
Craig Evans told:

A recent game deviated from the above with the also commonly-called-equal 11...Re8 (trying to avoid the weakness on d6 that ...c6 entails) 12.c3 Rb8 (intending Be6) 13.Be3 a6 14.Ba7!? (objectively the position is now dead equal I reckon... but white gets a nicely-anchored Q in the moddle of the board, a tiny spacial edge... and at U2200 level, that can be enough) Ra8 15.Bd4 c6 16.Bb3 Bxd4 17.Qxd4 Be6 18.Bc2!? d5 19.e5 Qg5 20.f4! and I won within another 10 moves - admittedly my opponent went wrong in time trouble, but even in a simple, level position, white's position quickly becomes very strong on even one inaccuracy. 18...Qc7! should be preferred, with at least equal chances, but even here white has scope to play for the win.


Paradoxically the idea 12..Rb8 intending Be6 was seen in my own game of Catalonian team ch (ESP) two weeks ago; the continuation was 13.Bb3 b6 ( suddenly Black change his ideas and it preffer attack e4 square ) 14.f3 Bb7 15.Rd1 Bb7 16.Ba4 Rd8 17.Bc2 g6 18.Bb3 etc. with an small plus ( Melchor-Miquel, 2009 both Expert class players ).

Another interesting idea I think is not in Monson's book is in the Main Line 11..Qe7 12.12.c3 c6 13.Bb3 Be6!? ( instead of 13..Re8 ) 14.Bc2 g6 15.Be3 ( perhaps 15.Bf4 is more accurate ) 15..Rad8?! ( maybe 15..Rfe8 or 15..d5 are better ) 16.Bxa7 b5 17.Qf3! c5 ( 17..Bxc3 18.Qxc3 Qxa7 19.a4!? ) 18.Bb6 ( 18.a4!? ) 18..Ra8 ( 18..Rb8? 19.Bc7 and 19.Bxd6! ) 19.a4 ( Melchor-Monzón, Barcelona, 2002 )

Finally, a curious History note: In all books ( including Monson's one ) the Belgrade is known was invented by Yug circles ( mainly Mihajlo Trajkovic ), but the facts are others ...

Game Spielmann - Tartakower, Wien match, 1921 was: 1. e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nd5 Be7 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 and we can see is a trasposition from 5.Nd5 ( Belgrade ) 5..Be7 6.Nxd4 etc.

and also paradoxical was Kurt Richter - Albert Becker, Berlin, 1938 so it was played a REAL Belgrade after 5.Nd5 and Black chose 5..Nxd5 6.exd5 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Qe7+ 8.Be2 d3 9.cxd3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Nb4 11.0-0 0-0 12.Bd1 Nxd5 13.Bb3 Nf6 winning Black ( !! ) in 32 moves, so maybe Richter not tried the experiment anymore!?

At present I'm typing Monson book on Chessbase format ( this will take some time ), but adding new engines analysis and recent games of last years. When I finish if somebody wants I'll send the file with this task.

Alejandro Melchor, amelchor@eresmas.net
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 588
Location: Bryn, South Wales
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #199 - 04/17/09 at 17:37:23
Post Tools
I disappear for a little while, and all heck breaks loose... No further comments from Empty yet?

The line after 5...Be7 all the way to 12...Be6 has been debated in here previously I believe, and is discussed briefly in Monson's book on the opening. He gives 13.Rd1 += with no further analysis. Following dragonmaster's analysis below, we get 13...Bxb3 14.axb3 Re8 15.Qxd6 Qxd6 16.Rxd6 Rxe4 17.Be3 h6 18.c3 Bg5?! 19.Bxg5 hxg5 and now, instead of Kiss's 20.Kf1, I'd be inclined to say that 20.Rd7 is a stronger move, although it is still equallish. I would concur with Schroeder that, whilst the position might be objectively equal after both 15.Qxd6 and 15.c3, white has ample scope to play on in a simplish position with almost no losing chances and a few chances to pressure black. If this is the best black can manage against the BG then the gambit is very much sound. I agree further with Markovich that 7...Nxe4 (or, indeed, 5...Nxe4) is the critical continuation.

Monson also mentions 13.c3, though then he only considers the erroneous 13...d5. 13...Bxb3 is indeed stronger, but after 14.axb3 Qe7 15.Bf4 Rfe8, 16.Bxd6?! is probably not strongest. Better is probably 16.Rfe1 with the idea 16...Be5 17.Be3 intending a later f4, which is a thematic manoeuver in this variation. Does white have an edge? Probably not... but again, in practice he probably has the better winning chances as black will find it difficult to get in ...d5, and sooner or later white will be able to organise his pieces efficiently. I'm not saying, with best play, he should get anywhere... but if this is all black can aim for against the Belgrade, some pseudo-grovelling, then white has nothing to fear.

I have never lost in the Belgrade gambit in a serious or semi-serious game (I did lose one quickplay 4NCL game a few years back, but even then I had a winning position and misplayed the tactics). My score after 5...Be7 remains a healthy 100% - in many games black has gone in for exactly this sort of position and, whether white has had an objective edge or not, in practice it is easier to play white.

A recent game deviated from the above with the also commonly-called-equal 11...Re8 (trying to avoid the weakness on d6 that ...c6 entails) 12.c3 Rb8 (intending Be6) 13.Be3 a6 14.Ba7!? (objectively the position is now dead equal I reckon... but white gets a nicely-anchored Q in the moddle of the board, a tiny spacial edge... and at U2200 level, that can be enough) Ra8 15.Bd4 c6 16.Bb3 Bxd4 17.Qxd4 Be6 18.Bc2!? d5 19.e5 Qg5 20.f4! and I won within another 10 moves - admittedly my opponent went wrong in time trouble, but even in a simple, level position, white's position quickly becomes very strong on even one inaccuracy. 18...Qc7! should be preferred, with at least equal chances, but even here white has scope to play for the win.

If IMs and GMs will trot this line out for black in serious competition, then I will be playing the Belgrade for a long, long time to come. Until people are willing to learn 5.Nxe4 (or maybe 5...Nb4, which I think is a serious try for black), then the BG provides a solid platform to play from.

As for Empty's comments on the 12.Qc4+ line, I am no theoretical expert so I cannot comment on this line. However, I can read, and intrigued by his computer-assisted chagrin, I plugged the line as far as 15...Nf6 into Rybka 3. It gives -0.7, which is no more an edge than white seems to get in several openings which then suddenly disappears on correct play. I do not have 100% faith in the line myself, and so not know how white is supposed to continue after 16.Bc4, but the computer seems to see plenty of compensation and, as a human using his eyes and instincts, a boxed-in Ra8, Kb8 being lined up by the Bf4 and major pieces on the d-file seem to show even there that white has come comp. Indeed, after 16.Bc4 Qd7, 17.Rhe1 might be stronger than 17.Bb5, when Rybka seems to only be suggesting the black queen dancing around d8, c7, c6 or b6...

As for the use of the "!" - we all know in any gambits that the literature is prone to excesses of these marks, and any person with knowledge of opening works such as on the BDG will know that a healthy excess of "!"s is fully permitted, especially on moves you find yourself. Empty's behaviour, as others have already stated, is not acceptable on a forum where many of the contributors have forged friendships, or at least mutual respect for each other, over the years.  As for the "mental masturbation" on the thread, as already alluded to by Markovich, any serious attempt to trawl through all the analysis posted, especially the debate between Bruce and our own TopNotch over a critical position, will both be rewarding in terms of opening and general chess understanding. And it certainly holds up to computer analysis as well, though I wonder how useful Empty's computer-assistance proclamations would be if confronted by some of these lines OTB.

Wait... I'm beginning to sound like Lev... Shocked

  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #198 - 04/08/09 at 02:34:08
Post Tools
Roger Williamson wrote on 04/07/09 at 21:39:02:
'Zukertort'


Oh him.  He doesn't even have an Iron Cross, let alone a Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds.  I bring this up only because it fits with "Rudel" and harmonizes with Moody's alleged political tendencies.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Roger Williamson
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 114
Joined: 09/26/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #197 - 04/07/09 at 21:39:02
Post Tools
'Zukertort'
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #196 - 04/07/09 at 20:06:07
Post Tools
Roger Williamson wrote on 03/31/09 at 01:02:43:
Rudel-Moody would be the real thing.


I miss the point.  Hans-Ulrich Rudel?
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Roger Williamson
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 114
Joined: 09/26/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #195 - 03/31/09 at 01:02:43
Post Tools
Rudel-Moody would be the real thing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #194 - 03/30/09 at 23:33:54
Post Tools
Zilbermints crept up into the 2000s already by the late 1990s:
http://www.wyomingchess.com/playershow/Zilbermints.html

...while I remember Richard Moody saying his rating was short of 1800, so I believe Markovich is right.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #193 - 03/30/09 at 11:56:00
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/29/09 at 21:03:38:
I second this. One more reason is a totally - for this thread and for the theory of the Vienna - irrelevant line of the Vienna, that I have written down in my book on Vienna many years ago. It looks like the quality of this site is in danger.

A game Zilbermintz-Jempty might be interesting though.


I tried to get Zilbermints and Moody to tackle each other, either rhetorically or at the chessboard, but it failed.  I opine that Zilbermints is a much better player than Moody-Jempty is, however.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10519
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #192 - 03/29/09 at 21:03:38
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 03/29/09 at 20:00:05:
But there is more than a whiff of Richard Moody about you, Mr. Jempty, not only in your trust in these machines but also in your wholesale contempt for everyone else.  If you keep up the latter I will propose that you be banned.


I second this. One more reason is a totally - for this thread and for the theory of the Vienna - irrelevant line of the Vienna, that I have written down in my book on Vienna many years ago. It looks like the quality of this site is in danger.

A game Zilbermintz-Jempty might be interesting though.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #191 - 03/29/09 at 20:00:05
Post Tools
George Jempty wrote on 03/29/09 at 15:18:42:
Whatever, he accepted my challenge, so I won't be posting again until after that game finishes, and whatever the result, the analysis will be vetted with proper software, so we will get much closer to the truth than all the mental masturbation that this thread has consisted of


Yes, well, some would argue that degree of resemblance that any given chess analysis bears to masturbation is directly proportional to the reliance it places upon the judgements of a chess machine.  If you bother to read the this thread, which I will admit is a daunting task, you will see that it contains some rather good ideas.  

But there is more than a whiff of Richard Moody about you, Mr. Jempty, not only in your trust in these machines but also in your wholesale contempt for everyone else.  If you keep up the latter I will propose that you be banned.  

I expect Monson to tear your head off, by the way, just because I know he's a good chess player.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George Jempty
Full Member
***
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 201
Location: Carrollton, TX
Joined: 03/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #190 - 03/29/09 at 15:18:42
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 03/29/09 at 13:31:18:
Looks like 'George Jempty' is a non-anagram of 'Richard Moody'


Whatever, he accepted my challenge, so I won't be posting again until after that game finishes, and whatever the result, the analysis will be vetted with proper software, so we will get much closer to the truth than all the mental masturbation that this thread has consisted of
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2174
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #189 - 03/29/09 at 13:31:18
Post Tools
Looks like 'George Jempty' is a non-anagram of 'Richard Moody'

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George Jempty
Full Member
***
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 201
Location: Carrollton, TX
Joined: 03/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #188 - 03/29/09 at 13:25:53
Post Tools
George Jempty wrote on 03/29/09 at 12:32:45:
bamonson wrote on 07/27/04 at 17:05:52:
Craig wrote:

B) 5...Nb4(!)

This move is often given a ! in theoretical manuals.

<snip>

MONSON:
As I mentioned to Craig privately, it would be a sad state of offairs if "Junior" were to be adorned with credit for this intriguing knight sacrifice variation, since I came up with this myself back in 1997.  I first played it in correspondence tournaments in 1998 and also wrote some articles on it that were published by Stefan Buecker's _Kaissiber magazine_ in 1998.  I also discovered the 12.Qc4+TN in 1998 but didn't get the chance to use it in practice until 1999, against a 2430 rated player:

Monson, B - Sakai (2430) [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 (note that 6...Nbxd5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nf5 leads to a different sacrificial attack on the other wing after 8...Ne7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Qh5+, etc.) 7.Nb5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Bf4! d6 11.O-O-O Kxc7 12.Qc4+!N (other moves are possible, such as 12.Bc4, 12.f3 and even 12.Rd4).  12...Kb8 13.h4! (rather than Craig's--or "Junior's" suggestion of 13.Qd4) 13...Qe6 14.Qd4 f5 15.f3 Nf6 16.Bc4 (16.Bb5!?) 16...Qe7 (16...Qd7 17.Bb5!) 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Re3 Bd7 19.Rc3 Bc6 20.g4 fxg4 21.fxg4 h6 22.b4 a6 23.Re1 Qd8 24.Bf7! Kc7 25.a4 g5 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Bxg5 Bg7 28.Re6 Rh1+ 29.Kb2 Rf1 30.Be8!! Rf3 31.Rxf3 Bxf3 32.Bxf6 Bxf6 33.Rxf6 Bxg4 (amazingly, material is equal, but black cannot save the position) 34.Bg6 Bc8 35.a5 1-0



Has anybody in this thread heard of chess computers?  In particular when I plug this piece sacrifice line into my software, it gets evaluated as 1.25-1.75 in Black's advantage.  This then translates to White "having insufficient compensation" for the piece.

In particular I feel that Mr Monson does a gross disservice giving the variation "(16...Qd7 17.Bb5!)".  Black of course does not play 17...Qxb5?? but rather 17...Qc7.  A master handing out an exclamation mark in this position amounts to intellectual dishonesty and has the effect of leading would-be amateur Belgrade-gambiteer sheep to the slaughter.

Earlier the suggested "(16. Bb5!?)" has 16...Nh5 to contend with, and even earlier Black can give back the gambit piece with 14...Qxa2

I'm rated 2000+ on the queenalice correspondence chess site, and I hereby challenge Mr Monson to a game on that site where I will play 4...exd4 instead of my usual 4...Bb4 so he can play his beloved Belgrade Gambit.  And that's what this comes down to, a love affair, and we all know what they say: "love is blind".

This is my first post so I can't include URLs, but if you google for jemptymethod+queenalice you will find a link to my page there with ?id=11707 as the query string on the end of the URL (second google result when I perform the search).  There you will have a link to my games, and you can see from my last loss, to Mestre_Quin in 15 moves, that I obviously do NOT use a chess engine while I'm in the middle of a game.


I've challenged Mr Monson via queenalice.com, since I'm 2000+ if he beats me he'll sport a nice provisional rating.  But if he beats me, like he says about playing Kasparov, it could well just be the disparity in playing strength, and not the opening.

Regardless of the result, he needs to be prepared for in-depth computer-assisted post-mortem analysis.  In my experience someone so intellectually dishonest will probably decline, and I welcome that just as much, Mr Monson following in the footsteps of Staunton vis-a-vis Morphy.

Lest you think I'm harsh, I subject all my interesting ideas after the fact to computer analysis.  I've uncorked pretty piece sacrifices for wins in OTB games that computer have then proven were only draws, if not worse.  I certainly don't run around attaching exclamation points to my moves nevertheless.

Want the proof?  You can see analysis I posted online 11 years ago of moves I found independent of computer usage, but that computers cannot refute either.  For instance see http://web.archive.org/web/19990505014052/www.maxpages.com/cornbeltchess/vienna wherein I positively refute Black's misguided moving of his knight three times in an open game: 1. e4 e5  2. Nc3 Nf6  3. f4 d5  4. fxe5 Nxe4  5. Nf3 Bg4  6. Qe2 Ng5?  And this move is refuted by a move that so many books give a question mark: 7. Qb5+, with the eleventh move being the clincher: 7... c6  8. Qxb7 Nxf3+  9. gxf3 Bxf3 10. Rg1 Nbd7  11. d4!  (better than the immediate 11. Qxc6, keeps the threat alive, and doesn't submit to Black's counterplay with 11...Rc8, with the additional all important advantages of protecting the e5 point and prepares to develop the Q-side)

Refuting a move as early as the sixth that has been repeated ad infinitum as a viable option is a much more significant theoretical contribution than attaching exclamation marks to moves in positions that computers can prove lost, in an opening you've staked your entire reputation on.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George Jempty
Full Member
***
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 201
Location: Carrollton, TX
Joined: 03/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #187 - 03/29/09 at 12:32:45
Post Tools
bamonson wrote on 07/27/04 at 17:05:52:
Craig wrote:

B) 5...Nb4(!)

This move is often given a ! in theoretical manuals.

<snip>

MONSON:
As I mentioned to Craig privately, it would be a sad state of offairs if "Junior" were to be adorned with credit for this intriguing knight sacrifice variation, since I came up with this myself back in 1997.  I first played it in correspondence tournaments in 1998 and also wrote some articles on it that were published by Stefan Buecker's _Kaissiber magazine_ in 1998.  I also discovered the 12.Qc4+TN in 1998 but didn't get the chance to use it in practice until 1999, against a 2430 rated player:

Monson, B - Sakai (2430) [C47]
Belgrade Gambit Corr. Thematic, 1999

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4 (note that 6...Nbxd5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nf5 leads to a different sacrificial attack on the other wing after 8...Ne7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Qh5+, etc.) 7.Nb5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Bf4! d6 11.O-O-O Kxc7 12.Qc4+!N (other moves are possible, such as 12.Bc4, 12.f3 and even 12.Rd4).  12...Kb8 13.h4! (rather than Craig's--or "Junior's" suggestion of 13.Qd4) 13...Qe6 14.Qd4 f5 15.f3 Nf6 16.Bc4 (16.Bb5!?) 16...Qe7 (16...Qd7 17.Bb5!) 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Re3 Bd7 19.Rc3 Bc6 20.g4 fxg4 21.fxg4 h6 22.b4 a6 23.Re1 Qd8 24.Bf7! Kc7 25.a4 g5 26.hxg5 hxg5 27.Bxg5 Bg7 28.Re6 Rh1+ 29.Kb2 Rf1 30.Be8!! Rf3 31.Rxf3 Bxf3 32.Bxf6 Bxf6 33.Rxf6 Bxg4 (amazingly, material is equal, but black cannot save the position) 34.Bg6 Bc8 35.a5 1-0



Has anybody in this thread heard of chess computers?  In particular when I plug this piece sacrifice line into my software, it gets evaluated as 1.25-1.75 in Black's advantage.  This then translates to White "having insufficient compensation" for the piece.

In particular I feel that Mr Monson does a gross disservice giving the variation "(16...Qd7 17.Bb5!)".  Black of course does not play 17...Qxb5?? but rather 17...Qc7.  A master handing out an exclamation mark in this position amounts to intellectual dishonesty and has the effect of leading would-be amateur Belgrade-gambiteer sheep to the slaughter.

Earlier the suggested "(16. Bb5!?)" has 16...Nh5 to contend with, and even earlier Black can give back the gambit piece with 14...Qxa2

I'm rated 2000+ on the queenalice correspondence chess site, and I hereby challenge Mr Monson to a game on that site where I will play 4...exd4 instead of my usual 4...Bb4 so he can play his beloved Belgrade Gambit.  And that's what this comes down to, a love affair, and we all know what they say: "love is blind".

This is my first post so I can't include URLs, but if you google for jemptymethod+queenalice you will find a link to my page there with ?id=11707 as the query string on the end of the URL (second google result when I perform the search).  There you will have a link to my games, and you can see from my last loss, to Mestre_Quin in 15 moves, that I obviously do NOT use a chess engine while I'm in the middle of a game.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schroeder
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 89
Location: Hamburg
Joined: 03/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #186 - 02/08/09 at 08:09:19
Post Tools
I think that the position after
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Bf6 11.Qd3 c6 12.Bb3 Be6
13.Rd1 Bxb3 14.axb3 Re8 15.c3 Qe7 16.Be3 a6 17.b4 Be5 18.g3
(Van Bommel,T- Jelic,M/IECG email 2001) - although the assessment as equal may be correct - gives White enough scope to play for a win. If this position is the worst thing that can happen to White in the BG, than there is no reason to stop playing it.

In another IECG game, 16.f3 was played instead of van Bommel's 16.Be3.

[Event "BI-2007-P-00011"]
[Site "LSS"]
[Date "2007.04.23"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kireev, Sergey"]
[Black "Petersen, Hans"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2321"]
[BlackElo "1788"]
[PlyCount "89"]
[EventDate "2007.04.23"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Be7 6. Bc4 O-O 7. O-O d6 8.
Nxd4 Nxd4 9. Qxd4 Nxd5 10. Bxd5 Bf6 11. Qd3 c6 12. Bb3 Be6 13. Rd1 Bxb3 14.
axb3 Qe7 15. c3 Rfe8 16. f3 Be5 17. g3 Qe6 18. b4 a6 19. Be3 Rad8 20. Bb6 Rd7
21. Rd2 d5 22. f4 Bb8 23. Re1 Qg4 24. e5 Re6 25. h3 Qh5 26. Rde2 Bc7 27. Bc5
Rd8 28. g4 Qh4 29. f5 Ree8 30. Kg2 Ra8 31. e6 fxe6 32. fxe6 b6 33. Qf3 bxc5 34.
Qf7+ Kh8 35. Qxc7 Rac8 36. Qd7 cxb4 37. e7 h6 38. Rf1 Kg8 39. Rf7 Qg5 40. Rf5
Qc1 41. Qe6+ Kh7 42. g5 hxg5 43. Rf1 Qxf1+ 44. Kxf1 bxc3 45. bxc3 1-0

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 17
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo