Winning the Won Game E-Book

Danny, Dr. Kopec

• Herausgeber: Batsford
• Kategorie: Lebensstil
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 432

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

Every chessplayer who aspires to achieve chess mastery must learn the techniques for winning a won game. It is the perennial problem which confronts players at all levels of play. This book will enable chessplayers to better recognize their positional advantages and the ways in which these can be used in order to bring them closer to victory. It also provides many instructive examples of using this knowledge to reach a faster and more spectacular victory.   Mr. Paul M. Albert, Jr. has been donating over $2000 per year to the most brilliantly played at both the Women's and Men's United States Championships for over 20 years. This book presents, describes and illustrates the most significant examples, with emphasis on what can be learned from them in terms of winning a won game.

Leseprobe

Winning the Won Game

Dr Danny Kopec and Lubomir Ftacnik

Contents

Acknowledgements

Foreword by Paul M. Albert, Jr.

Introduction: The Notion of Brilliance and Winning a Won Game

Brilliancy and Beauty in Chess: Perspectives of Great Players

Winning the Won Game

List of Paul M. Albert, Jr. U.S. Championship Brilliancy Prize Winners

GM Lubomir Ftacnik’s Top Ten Brilliancy Prize Winners

Ranking of Brilliancy Prize Winners

Technical Ranking of Brilliancy Prize Winners

Symbols and Abbreviations

Paul M. Albert, Jr. U.S. Championship Brilliancy Prize Games

Index of Games

Acknowledgements

We would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have helped to make this book possible. First, to Paul M. Albert, Jr. for being a benefactor to chess, for recognizing and rewarding the work that goes into playing strong, brilliant, and correct chess; for making it more possible for professional chessplayers to pursue and practice their craft. We would also like to express our appreciation to Mr. Albert for providing us with all the background information that was needed and for making the right choice in choosing us to write this book.

Compared to other arts or sports (and the discussion of whether chess is art, game, struggle, science or something else is for another book) chess is easy to learn but hard to play well and hard for the general public to properly appreciate. This book acknowledges the contributions of all the great chessplayers who have dominated the United States chess scene for the past twenty years, including to a large extent those who have emigrated from the former Soviet Union. The brilliance that they have brought with them coupled with the talents of our home bred players is acknowledged and highlighted by Mr. Albert’s generosity. We hope that we have helped to explain the unique aspects of this brilliance, to make it more comprehensible to all chessplayers, and to fulfill our mission of illustrating and explaining how it relates to Winning The Won Game. (Incidentally, when in the game annotations the text says ‘I’ it is referring to Danny Kopec.)

We would like to thank our colleague and friend Hal Terrie III for his careful proofreading and helpful suggestions. We would like to thank our longtime friend and associate at the US Chess Federation, Glenn Petersen for providing the assistance we needed, along with support from Frank Niro. We would like to express our thanks to Batsford/Chrysalis, to Mr. Roger Huggins, Tina Persaud and Nicola Birtwisle who helped facilitate and enable this project.

Finally, and by no means in the least we would like to thank our families for allowing us the ‘time’ and ‘space’ to make this project possible. We remind all readers, this isn’t a project we intend to get rich on, but rather it is a labor of love.

DKSouth Strafford, Vermont and Merrick, New York

LFBratislava, Slovakia October 2004

ForewordBy Paul M. Albert, Jr.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce this highly instructive book by International Master Dr. Danny Kopec and Grandmaster Lubomir Ftacnik based on the games that have won the Paul M. Albert, Jr. Brilliancy Prizes at the U.S. Chess Championship. I have had the honor of providing these prizes that recognize outstanding, creative achievement for approximately 20 years and am pleased that the record of excellence that these games represent could also provide the basis for this book, which can both help chess players of many levels improve their own chess as well as promote a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the level of excellence of master level chess players in serious competition.

In order to understand the origins of the Brilliancy Prizes and this book, a little background about me and my interest in chess will be helpful. My introduction to chess was probably similar to that of many Americans, particularly since it was well before Bobby Fischer’s rise to the World Chess Championship stimulated some broader interest. I found a chess set in the closet and my parents, who knew little more than how to move the pieces, taught me what they knew. Fortunately, we had an Encyclopedia Britannica with a good chapter on chess, so I was able to learn chess notation, some basic strategy and tactics, and to play over a master level game which just happened to be Paul Morphy’s brilliant win at the Paris Opera over Count Isouard and the Duke of Brunswick, so I had an immediate introduction to the queen sacrifice to achieve checkmate. I then read books on my own and learned about and subscribed to Chess Review, but had no instruction from strong players. On that limited base, I became strong enough to win for example the Lehigh Valley, PA Junior Championship at 18, play with middling results in the Pennsylvania State Open Championship and U.S. Junior Open Championship, and then play on the team at Princeton University, but neither talent, nor knowledge, nor training enabled me to be more than a serious, but non-master, amateur player. Then military service, business school, an investment banking career, and family obligations relegated my chess activities to an occasional game and the following of world class chess in books and magazines, but no rated games in serious competition for over 40 years.

However, by happenstance, investment banking provided an opportunity for a new aspect of connection with chess. An Executive Vice President of one of our clients was named James Sherwin and when I became part of the team working on various projects for that company and met him, I learned with delight that it was in fact International Master Jimmy Sherwin who was also President and Trustee of the American Chess Foundation (See Footnote 1) to which I had previously made contributions. When he learned of my serious interest in chess and willingness to provide financial support, he invited me to become a Trustee of the Foundation. This was in the late 70s and I served as a Trustee until 2003, giving me both an opportunity to support chess as well as to meet and to learn from many of the top players in the world.

I have always believed that excellence in any field should be both recognized and rewarded, and such certainly was not the case in American chess in that era, so I proposed to Jimmy Sherwin and ACF Executive Director Allen Kaufman that I would be willing to provide all the funds to the ACF to recognize brilliant games played at the U.S. Chess Championship, which also would have the effect of supplementing what was then a very meager prize fund. They concurred that my proposal was consistent with the broad ACF objectives of supporting American chess, would certainly be welcomed by the top level U.S. players whose opporunities for professional financial reward were limited, and importantly, because of my total financial coverage of the prize fund, would not draw on the ACF resources needed for its other chess activities. Accordingly, they also felt that naming the prizes after the donor was appropriate. Thus the groundwork was laid for the Paul M. Albert, Jr. Brilliancy Prizes and for the creative and instructive games in this book.

My principal role in the establishment of the Brilliancy Prizes was conceiving the idea and providing the funds. Not being a master, my involvement in setting the criteria or being involved in the judging was certainly inappropriate. Accordingly, administration of the necessary details was left in the capable and dedicated hands of long time ACF Executive Director Allen Kaufman, including the coordination with the United States Chess Federation who organized the championship tournaments and arrangement of a process for judging and awarding the prizes.

Exactly what is brilliant in chess can be misunderstood, particularly by non masters, and the selection of Grandmaster Arthur Bisguier, who was the judge for the preponderance of the prizes, was an important reason that the selected games are of such high quality and so worthy of being used for instructive purposes. (Footnote 2) In my discussions with Arthur on this topic, he has emphasized the need for creative and innovative ideas, but executed precisely against formidable opposition. Contrary to the impression of neophytes who tend to associate brilliancy primarily with sacrifices of material for quick and decisive wins, e.g., a queen sacrifice leading to a quick mate, this is not what my prizes or this book is about. Those kind of sacrifices are easy to calculate and certain to be seen at the master level, so it takes something much deeper to win brilliancy prizes, and it takes hard and thorough analysis of many candidate games by a very knowledgeable GM such as Arthur to select the ones that are the most worthy of a prize. In fact, only one of the winning games involved a queen sacrifice, but it was a long term one that enhanced the mobility and attacking power of a rook and a bishop, thus overcoming the material deficit created by giving up the queen.

The authors of this book also have discussed in more depth the concept of exactly what is a brilliancy in chess. One of the merits of using the games that have won my prizes over a 20 year period to illustrate the challenge of winning a so-called won game is that the brilliancies are not limited to one theme. Consequently, the authors have been able to analyze and to discuss games which both highlight numerous creative aspects of chess as well as to illustrate the diverse challenges associated with turning an advantage into a win.

Arthur Bisguier’s dedication to objectivity in the judging is illustrated by the fact that he got the game scores for analysis without the players’ names so that he would not be influenced by his personal knowledge of individual player styles and also to avoid any suggestion of personal friendships being a factor. This rigorous and impartial approach resulted in one amusing situation. In 1995, Arthur submitted the games he had selected for the 1st and 2nd prizes for the Women’s Championship, not knowing that the top two games were both by the same player Anna Hahn. Being informed of this unusual situation, Arthur reasoned that the two best games should win, so Anna is the only player in the history of the prizes that won two prizes in the same year.

As a serious chess player, financial benefactor of chess, and a chess fan, I have derived much personal pleasure from being associated with the Brilliancy Prizes, particularly because I have gotten to meet and develop a degree of friendship with many of the winners and they have been generous in sharing their enormous chess knowledge with me, particularly sharing their analysis of winning games. Especially noteworthy are Joel Benjamin, Walter Browne, Larry Christiansen, Nick de Firmian, John Fedorowicz, Michael Rohde, and Yasser Seirawan, and also women’s prize winners Inna Izrailov Koren and Anna Hahn. From all I have learned much that has improved my understanding and appreciation of chess as it is played at the master level, and their introductions to their master colleagues has enabled me to meet, learn from, and enjoy the company of many other outstanding players.

I would like to share one anecdote which I think emphasizes the level of creativity and understanding of the players whose games are contained in this book. The one queen sacrifice game which I mentioned above was GM Michael Rohde’s brilliant win over Boris Kogan. Shortly after the announcement of the prize, I invited Michael to lunch and he was gracious enough to go over the game with me. During the course of the game analysis he commented to me that he was surprised that he had won the prize for that game, indicating that in his judgment any GM could see that the queen sacrifice was the only logical continuation to attempt to achieve a winning advantage from the position. Needless to say, it was not obvious to me, but Michael’s observation enhanced further my deep appreciation for his creative talent as well as all master level players of chess.

In 1996, a switch from full time investment banking to consulting and corporate directorships left me a little more time for my non-business interests including chess, and I started to become active again by playing in rated tournaments and getting more directly involved in the areas of chess to which I had been lending financial support such as attending and awarding the prizes at armed forces and army chess events and being a spectator at master level competitions.

In 2000, for the first time I was able to attend a U.S. Chess Championship and by getting more directly involved in some of the administrative aspects was able to assure that we announced the winners of my Brilliancy Prizes at the closing ceremony, rather than at a later date. In 2000 and 2001/2002, I had the honor and pleasure of being able to make the presentations personally; regretfully, in 2003 which will have been the last award of such prizes carrying my name, vacation in Australia prevented me from attending the Championship. With the very generous prize fund that America’s Foundation for Chess has been able to create for the U.S. Chess Championship, a broader and more diverse concept of special prizes seems appropriate, and a greater amount of money, requiring the financial donations of a corporate sponsor or a patron able to contribute much more than I can. I hope that such a greater level of recognition can be achieved in the future.

Knowing that the award of these particular prizes probably would soon be coming to an end, I had been thinking about the idea of using the games as the basis for a book, both to create some formal record of these prizes (Footnote 3) as well as to highlight the artistic achievements of a number of American men and women players. Informal discussions with a number of players, including former winners, confirmed that my idea had merit.

However, it wasn’t until I first met IM Dr. Danny Kopec while attending his summer chess camp in July 2002, where GM Lubomir Ftacnik was also present as an instructor, that a mere idea became a real project. Both Danny and Lubomir were enthusiastic about authoring such a book and created the theme of using the games to illustrate how a brilliant, creative idea in a chess game leading to a favorable position can only be validated by the subsequent accurate play required to convert the position to a win. One of the things I have appreciated from my informal learning from the many top GMs that I have met, and also at Danny’s camp where, after almost 50 years of playing, I finally got some formal instruction, is how master players think of the game as a whole right from the beginning. They regard the openings as systems, not just a series of moves, and consider the type of middle game to which they lead as well as how the pawn structures and other characteristics of the opening systems relate to the potential endings which could occur. That the opportunity for creative moves arise in master games is not a mere accident but a result of the master’s deep understanding of chess and the application of his understanding to every move he considers from the beginning of the game until the end.

I know that Danny and Lubomir have with their discussion and precise analysis of these games tried to convey this deep understanding to readers of this book in a way that can both improve the readers’ play as well as enhance their appreciation of the creative efforts put in by many players for over 20 years of intense, competitive play at the U.S. Chess Championship. I personally have benefited from my acquaintance with many of these players and was pleased to provide some financial reward in the form of the Paul M. Albert, Jr. Brilliancy Prizes to recognize their creativity. However, this anthology is perhaps an even better form of recognition, and I commend Danny and Lubomir for their excellence, hard work, and perseverance in authoring such an instructive book.

Paul M. Albert, Jr. South Salem, New York October 13, 2004

* * * *

Footnotes:

(1) The American Chess Foundation was established as a charitable foundation in 1955 to support United States chess in a broad way, including master chess, especially supporting leading U.S. players competing in international competition. In 1986, it commenced a chess program for elementary children in New York City which subsequently became the foundation’s primary program, and the American Chess Foundation was consequently renamed Chess-in-the-Schools. Another charitable foundation named The Seattle Chess Foundation was established in 2000 which has run the United States Chess Championship on a contractual basis on behalf of the United States Chess Federation (USCF) for several years and will continue to do so. As it broadened its overall chess support including school programs, the Seattle Chess Foundation changed its name to America’s Foundation for Chess. The two charitable foundations are separate entities and neither is affiliated in a formal way with the USCF, although both foundations cooperate with the USCF in the common objective of supporting chess in the United States. As the official chess governing body for the United States, the USCF represents the United States within the international chess governing organization FIDE.

(2) In addition to Arthur Bisguier who judged most of the prize awards, past winners Grandmaster Michael Rohde and Grandmaster Alexander Fishbein, when not playing in the championship, have acted as judges and in 2001/2002 and 2003, with the change of the championship format to a large swiss system tournament, a committee of masters capably led by International Master Jeremy Silman, judged the games for the prize awards.

(3) As the book project commenced, it became evident that one of the challenges would be finding a definitive record for the prizes, since neither I nor the official organizations seemed to have complete information. The games in the book represent the most definitive record based on the research of myself, the authors, and others using a number of sources. Such effort filled in most gaps which occurred in the official records and has created what is a nearly complete history of the Paul M. Albert, Jr. Brilliancy Prizes.

Introduction: The Notion of Brilliance and Winning a Won GameBy Danny Kopec

Brilliancy in chess is usually associated with some kind of significant sacrifice of material in return for a long term attack on the king. The sacrificed material will typically be a piece for a pawn or two, or a queen for a few pieces which don’t quite add up to 9 points, or a long term exchange sacrifice or pawn sacrifice. Less dramatic or more dramatic material sacrifices may occur, but the notion of brilliance is centered around initiating a surprising (and usually aggressive) concept on the chessboard which takes the game down a certain course. The player who is awarded with the brilliancy prize is usually one who has played with significant imagination, innovation, and has taken some risks to effect his ideas. He may not see the combination to the end or through all its details, yet he is willing to risk all on its success. If the opponent (or defender) finds a way to defend, a way to exploit his material advantage, or a way to return the material to obtain an advantage, then the brilliancy has failed. No doubt, for every 100 attempts at achieving brilliancy there are 99 refutations which prevent the labeling of the game or effort as ‘brilliant’. In other words, brilliancy does not come easily and that is why Mr. Paul M. Albert, Jr. has been able to offer his generous Brilliancy Prizes at the US Championship for the 20 years since 1983.

The notion of brilliancy is intrinsically tied to the assumption that correct play has taken place. Without correctness there can be no real brilliancy. There may be brilliant episodes, passages, or events, even spectacular ones, but the true brilliancy prize game is one which has unfailingly translated from one kind of advantage to another until it ultimately forces resignation. So a ‘brilliancy prize’ could be an award for the most efficiently executed conversion of an advantage in the opening to a middlegame advantage, and then the conversion of a middlegame advantage to a decisive endgame advantage. Hence brilliance can be exhibited by excellent technique.

In some sense technique is a subset of brilliance. Brilliance presumes correctness. You will find some games that have been awarded the brilliancy prize, but they are not truly brilliant in the sense we have described. That is, they may illustrate some brilliant sequences, episodes, conversions of advantages, or combinations, but they are not brilliant in the true sense. That is, some errors have occurred in earlier play, or in subsequent play.

Furthermore it should be noted that brilliance to some extent is dependent on excellent, even brilliant defense by the opponent. So we can even say that it takes two players to create a brilliant game. The most brilliant game may be viewed as the one which involves excellent play by both sides, tremendous resistance, blow by blow counterplay and ultimately one side presides, or the game may even end in a draw with the prize being shared by the two players.

As early as 1925 the Russian Professor A. Smirnov wrote:

“Brilliance in chess is a complex concept, as complex as the nature of chess itself, combining features of art and science. Its main indication is practical expediency, with which it not only accidentally coincides, but is also intrinsically linked. Scientific thought appears brilliant to us, when it appears distinctly, apparently unexpectedly, and most important – fruitfully. It is precisely this that constitutes intrinsic brilliance in chess ...”

This was quoted in Chapter 1 of the recent book by Iacov Damsky (Everyman) where two distinct features of brilliance are presented: 1. expedience and 2. disguise. That is to say brilliance is highlighted by conversion of advantages to facilitate victory, and this conversion must be somewhat surprising, unexpected and unusual. In addition the complete concept(s) behind a brilliancy is often invisible for a few moves before it is fully revealed.

Brilliancy and Beauty in Chess: Perspectives of Great PlayersBy Paul M. Albert, Jr. and Danny Kopec

Great players have produced brilliant and beautiful games and, as illustrated by the quotations below, generally evidenced a feeling that chess was more than just a game in which one could excel through mere technique and knowledge. However, it has not been uncommon for even great chess players and authorities to disagree on what really constitutes brilliance and beauty in chess. Emanual Lasker devoted a whole chapter of his Manual of Chess on “The Aesthetic Effect of Chess” and Aron Nimzowitsch frequently cited his perceptions of beauty in chess in Chess Praxis, primarily as a refutation to Siegbert Tarrasch’s characterizations of some of Nimzowitsch’s early creative moves as “bizarre” and “ugly”.

Yet Tarrasch himself produced many brilliant, beautiful, and creative games. However, as much as brilliancy, beauty, and creativity are discussed and evaluated in chess, pinpointing exactly what it is remains to a degree subjective, but probably all great players would agree that you need imagination combined with knowledge to achieve it. Lasker says that beautiful moves are strong moves, and even won games need more strong moves. That is why won games are hard to win. And this point of view from Lasker is consistent with his reputation for being the greatest chess psychologist, not necessarily always trying to play the objectively best move in a position, but the move which caused his opponent the most problems, especially given what he knew about a particular opponent’s weaknesses.

“Chess is not only knowledge and logic” – Alexander Alekhine

“Inspiration and profound ideas win chess games at the highest level, not calculation.” – Garry Kasparov

“Chess is imagination” – David Bronstein

“Independence of thought is the most valuable quality in a chess player, both at the board and when preparing for a game” – David Bronstein

“I started from the premise that every full-bodied game of chess is an artistic endeavor arising out of the battle of chess ideas.” – David Bronstein

“I don’t study – I create.” – Victor Korchnoi

“Chess, first of all, is art” – Mikhail Tal

“A chess game is a work of art between minds, which need to balance two sometimes disparate goals – to win, and to produce beauty.” – Vasily Smyslov

“In chess, as played by a good player, logic and imagination must go hand in hand, compensating each other.” – Jose Capablanca

“I find beauty in moves because they are strong.” – Emanuel Lasker

“Without error there can be no brilliancy.” – Emanuel Lasker

“The hardest game to win is a won game.” – Emanuel Lasker

“If I had the positions Alekhine had, I could find the combinations, but getting those positions is another story.” – Rudolf Spielmann.

“The beauty of a chess move lies not in its appearance, but in the thought behind it.” – Aron Nimzowitsch

Winning the Won GameBy Danny Kopec

This brings us to the other major topic that this book is about: Winning The Won Game. This is the principal challenge which confronts every chessplayer, but particularly defines master chess play and above. A master is supposed to have demonstrated skill at all phases of play – comfortable in the challenges of opening play, able to negotiate the tactical intricacies and strategical demands of the middlegame, while being able to draw upon sufficient knowledge and technique to win a won ending. Our many years of experience studying and playing against players at these levels (master and above) finds that such perfect technique is usually lacking. Masters, even grandmasters may be able to play some parts of the game accurately, but it is still rare that an entire game is played correctly. Again, bear in mind that correctness here means not giving an opponent any chances which may result in counterplay or equalization of play. So, in some sense, pure, correct play, nurturing an advantage from one phase of play to another, minute as it may seem, is a form of brilliance. Brilliance can be subtle, and yet forceful and convincing.

This view gains further support from the advances in chess playing by computer. Nowadays anyone can buy a program like Fritz 8 and have a strong master to assist with his/her analysis of play. Fritz doesn’t have the absolute truth, but if a ‘seemingly’ brilliant combination is flawed and can be refuted or in some way should have led to unclear play, Fritz will find it. This certainly affects our judgement of brilliance today, but perhaps it shouldn’t. Shouldn’t brilliance, with and without the assistance of computers be judged in different ways? Isn’t brilliance a concept in the eyes of the ‘human’ beholder?

Hence, brilliant technique, even with the assistance of a computer for analysis, may just be enough, in itself, to deem a game brilliant. If Fritz or a similar program couldn’t find a defense or an improvement for the losing side, once an advantage has been established, then the play which resulted in victory may well have been brilliant. For in the review of most games with computer assistance I think that it is safe to say that computers find errors which can be deemed ‘value changing’. That is, they (computers) find moves which weren’t played and that could change wins to losses or draws.

We will use Fritz to help us discover the truth, and this may even ‘hang a cloud’ over some of the games that were awarded the Brilliancy Prize. Nonetheless, reader please bear in mind, that nearly everything in the world is affected by context. Even the game of chess which stays the same, in terms of the rules and goals of play, continues to advance. We definitely have more opening theory than we did 100 years ago, and knowledge about middlegame and endgame play has made continual advances. We will try to strike a balance between notions of ‘marred or misjudged brilliancies’ affected by the addition of our new analytical tools and the absolute ‘human’ sense of brilliance, which to some degree, is time-transcending.

However, we do feel that it is important to distinguish between real brilliancies and ones which have clearly arisen as a result of inaccurate defense. We will try to rate the brilliancies according to the ‘Top Ten’ based on these factors.

So at this time, before we have analyzed the games, we may state that the ideal most brilliant game would be one that spans all three phases of play: opening, middlegame, and ending.

It will incorporate opening theoretical content, superb, original, strategical and/or tactical middlegame concepts, where there would be chances for both sides but the ultimate winner emerges with an advantage, and efficient endgame play resulting in victory, or even holding a draw.

We cannot even be sure that we will find such a game in this collection, whereby one side develops and holds an advantage throughout the game and it endures until the end. Certainly such a game would also serve as a model for Winning the Won Game.

List of Paul M. Albert, Jr. U.S. Chess Championship Brilliancy Prize Winners

Note: First name is White and second player is Black. Winner is in bold. Where men’s and women’s prizes were awarded, men’s names are given first. N.B. Anna Khan is now Anna Hahn. She was still using the old form of her name when she won prizes several times. Three Championships have been held under auspices of Seattle (Now America’s Foundation for Chess) from 2000 when there were separate men’s and women’s prizes and 2002 and 2003. Note that because of the end of year dates of championship there was no 2001 contest.

1984

Berkeley, California (One prize shared)

Jack Peters – Yasser Seirawan,Caro-Kann Defense [B16]

Nick de Firmian – Sergey Kudrin, Queen’s Indian Defense [E12]

1985

Estes Park, Colorado

1st Kamran Shirazi – Boris Kogan, Petroff Defense [C43]

2nd Larry Christiansen – Lev Alburt, Dzindzichashvili-Indian [E10]

1986

Estes Park, Colorado

Michael Rohde – Boris Kogan, Ruy Lopez [C75]

Women’s Championship

Liz Neely – Inna Izrailov, Sicilian Defense [B89]

1987

Estes Park, Colorado

Michael Rohde – Jay Whitehead, Sicilian Defense [B56]

Women’s Championship

Sharon Burtman – Mary Kuhner, Dutch Defense [A93]

1988

Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania

Michael Rohde – Yasser Seirawan, Pirc Defense [B07]

1989

Long Beach, California

Sergei Kudrin – Maxim Dlugy, Sicilian Defense [B66]

No information on Women’s Championship in 1989.

1990

Jacksonville, Florida

Dimitry Gurevich – Roman Dzindzichashvili, Queen’s Indian Defense [E16]

Women’s Championship, Spartanburg, SC

Diana Gherghe – Sharon Burtman, Alekhine Defense [B03]

Score not available.

1991

Los Angeles, California

Yasser Seirawan – Igor Ivanov, Nimzo-Indian Defense [E22]

1991

Women’s Championship, Highland Beach, Florida

Sharon Burtman – Liz Neely, Benko Gambit [A58]

Liz Neely – Krystina Wieckiewicz, Sicilian Defense [B96]

1992

Durango, Colorado

Patrick Wolff – Boris Gulko, French Defense [C07]

Ilya Gurevich – Joel Benjamin, Ruy Lopez [C91]

Women’s Championship

Irina Levitina – Leslie Pelech, Reti System [A12]

1993

Bloomington, Illinois

1st Gata Kamsky – Larry Christiansen, Bogo-Indian Defense [E20]

Shared 2nd and 3rd prizes:

John Fedorowicz – Alexander Ivanov, Queen’s Indian Defense [E15] and Patrick Wolff – John Fedorowicz, Sicilian Defense [B66]

Women’s Championship

1st Irina Levitina – Anna Khan, Trompowsky Opening [A45]

1994

Key West, Florida

1stWalter Browne – Boris Kreiman, King’s Indian Defense [E97]

2nd Ben Finegold – Joel Benjamin, Nimzo-Indian Defense [E33]

1995

Modesto, California

1stAlexander Ivanov – Gulko, French Defense [C07]

2ndRoman Dzindzichashvili – Joshua Waitzkin, Sicilian Defense [B23]

3rd Georgi Orlov – Nick de Firmian, Catalan/English [A32]

Women’s Championship

1st Irina Krush – Anna Khan, Czech Benoni [A56]

2ndAnna Khan – Polina Kaganovska, Sicilian Defense [B45]

1996

Parsippany, New Jersey

1st Boris Gulko – Dmitry Gurevich, Symmetrical English [A31]

2ndAlexander Ivanov – Larry Christiansen, Ruy Lopez [C97]

3rdBoris Gulko – Joel Benjamin (this game was a draw and prize was shared), Pirc Defense [B07]

Women’s Championship

1st Irina Levitina – Natalia Tsodsikova, Torre Attack [D03]

2ndAnna Akhshamurova – Tatyana Zitserman, Nimzo-Indian Defense [E50]

1997

Chandler, Arizona

1stGregory Kaidanov – Dmitry Gurevich, Symmetrical English [A31]

2nd Dmitry Gurevich – Nick de Firmian, Nimzo-Indian Defense [E48]

3rd Yasser Seirawan – Larry Christiansen, King’s Indian Defense [E81]

Women’s Championship

1stAnjelina Belakovskaia – Tatyana Zitserman, Semi-Slav Defense [D43]

2ndIvona Jezierska – Irina Krush, Sicilian Defense [B03]

1998

Denver, Colorado

1stAlexander Shabalov – Larry Christiansen, Queen’s Gambit [D63]

2ndGregory Kaidanov – Joel Benjamin, King’s Indian Attack [A08]

3rd Joel Benjamin – Nick de Firmian, Sicilian Defense [B50]

Women’s Championship

1stAnjelina Belakovskaia – Anna Khan, Sicilian Defense [B32]

2ndIrina Krush – Jennifer Shahade, English Opening [A16]

1999

Salt Lake City, Utah

1stBoris Gulko – Gregory Serper, Bogo-Indian Defense [E11]

2ndNick de Firmian – Roman Dzindzichashvili, Alekhine Defense [B04]

3rdBen Finegold – Nick de Firmian, King’s Indian Defense [E90]

Women’s Championship

1st Esther Epstein – Anna Khan, Sicilian Defense [B33]

2ndAnjelina Belakovskaia – Chouchanik Aiarapetian, Queen’s Gambit Declined [D37]

2000

Seattle, Washington

1stJoel Benjamin – Yasser Seirawan, French Defense [C10]

2ndAlexander Shabalov – John Fedorowicz, Sicilian Defense [B67]

3rdYasser Seirawan – Boris Gulko, Symmetrical English [A30]

Women’s Championship (This is the last year of separate Women’s Championship and separate prizes)

1stElina Groberman – Olga Sagalchik, Sicilian Defense [B82]

2ndJennie Frenklakh – Sharon Burtman, Dutch Defense [A80]

3rdYelena Gorlin – Sharon Burtman, Sicilian Defense [B34]

2001/2002

Seattle, Washington

1stYasser Seirawan – Igor Ivanov, Czech Benoni [A56]

2ndAlexander Shabalov – Alexander Fishbein, Sicilian Defense [B63]

3rdMichael Mulyar – Sergey Kudrin, Sicilian Defense [B76]

4thLarry Christiansen – Igor Foygel, Gurgenidze System [B15]

5thDonny Ariel – Levon Altounian, Prybl System [B07]

2003

Seattle, Washington

1stJoel Benjamin – Alexander Shabalov, Ruy Lopez [C99]

2ndJohn Donaldson – Sergey Kudrin, Queen’s Indian Defense [E14]

3rd Tie: Yasser Seirawan – Yuri Lapshun, Queen’s Gambit Declined [D54] and Gregory Serper – Dean Ippolito, Nimzo-Indian Defense [E38]

GM Lubomir Ftacnik’s Top Ten Brilliancy Prize Games

Please note that for this list 10 is high and 1 is low. DKs scores, where different, are given in brackets

Benjamin – Seirawan (#11)

1 Shocking tactical decision, instructive endgame

Belakovskaia – Zitserman (#10)

2 Excellent positional and technical play right from middlegame – no counterplay

Seirawan – Lapshun (#5)

3 Refreshing attacking game with original execution of well known ideas

Seirawan – Christiansen

4 Daring, witty tactics, excellent piece play

Shabalov – Fedorowicz

5 A model, but original Sicilian defense attack

Wolff – Gulko (#2)

6 Great opening preparation, excellent endgame technique with sacrifice of the exchange

Shabalov – Fishbein

7 Pieces and pawns fighting to the utmost, great game by both players

Rohde – Kogan (#4)

8 Very nice queen sacrifice, logical kingside attack

Shirazi – Kogan

9 Excellent bishops play, nice attacking game

Rohde – Whitehead (#8)

10 White plays actively, creatively with unbalanced material

Discussion

Opposite is the list of GM Ftacnik’s top 10 brilliancy prize games. Please note that for this list 10 is high and 1 is low. It is particularly noteworthy that my (DK’s) rankings and GM Ftacnik’s rankings are similar for 6 of our 11 choices. That is 6 games appear on both lists and Benjamin – Seirawan, Belakovskaia – Zitserman, appear in the same positions, #11 and #10 respectively. Seirawan – Lapshun is #5 on my list and #8 for GM Ftacnik. Then Wolff – Gulko is number #2 on my list and number #5 on GM Ftacnik’s list. Rohde – Kogan is #3 on GM Ftacnik’s list while it is #4 on my list. Finally Rohde – Whitehead is #1 for GM Ftacnik and it is #8 on my list.

I think there is a fairly clear reason for the differences in our rankings which can easily be explained. GM Ftacnik’s rankings seem to be based primarily on originality, which is a tried and true criterion for evaluating brilliance. I neglected to include a column for originality, which not only might have included whether a game was original or not, but the level of originality. The same thing may be done for how technical a game was. I have rated the games on whether they demonstrate good technique or not, but numbers could be added to help make finer judgements. Hence my choices for the most brilliant, and for the entire Brilliancy Table are also somewhat based on how well did the game(s) meet the criteria for this book in the context of “Winning The Won Game”. Therefore the most brilliant games (in the table) are not just ones which are most original (e.g. Rohde – Kogan, Rohde – Whitehead, and Shabalov – Fedorowicz) but games which embody most closely the themes that are covered by this book.

Again, the Brilliancy Table can be used as an index to finding games of a certain kind, e.g. White Wins, Black Wins, Winning The Won Game, Tactics, Technique, Strategy, Endings, etc. just by looking down a column.

The games are listed here in order of Technical ranking by Danny Kopec. The highest rated games and covering most categories get the highest rank.

Symbols and Abbreviations

+

check

slight advantage for White

slight advantage for Black

±

clear advantage for White

∓

clear advantage for Black

+-

decisive advantage for White

-+

decisive advantage for Black

equal game

!

good move

!!

excellent move

!?

move deserving attention

?!

dubious move

?

weak move

??

blunder

with compensation

⇄

with counterplay

only move

↑

with initiative

∞

unclear

Paul M. Albert, Jr. Brilliancy Prize Games

1Jack Peters (2500) WhiteYasser Seirawan (2565) Black Round 16, USA Championship, Berkeley 1984Caro-Kann Defense [B16]

Seirawan chooses an opening that is not for the faint hearted. It promises active play as compensation for structural weaknesses. Peters completely misreads the stars and with his ill-timed attack opens up an opportunity for a tactical brilliancy.

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 ♘c3 dxe4 4 ♘xe4 ♘f6 5 ♘xf6+ gxf6

This recapture leads to complex play and was popularised by Larsen in the 1960s. Black’s compromised pawn structure is hard to exploit and leads to complex middlegame play. Usually Black castles on the queenside and pins his counterplay on the g-file and central lever ...e5.

6 c3 ♗f5 7 ♘e2 ♘d7 8 ♘g3 ♗g6 9 h4 h5 10 ♗e2 ♕a5 11 b4 ♕c7 12 ♘xh5

Peters scores his first success by capturing the weak h5 pawn but he pays the price with an exposed queenside pawn structure and by falling behind in the development of pieces.

12...e5

12...a5!?.

13 ♘g3

On 13 dxe5 ♗xh5 14 ♗xh5 ♕xe5+ 15 ♗e2 ♗xb4∓.

13...0-0-0 14 h5 ♗h7

15 ♕b3

White was fully satisfied after 15 0-0 ♗d6 16 ♗g4 e4 17 ♘f5 ♗h2+ 18 ♔h1 ♗f4 19 ♗xf4 ♕xf4 20 g3 ♕c7 21 ♖e1 ♖de8 22 ♔g2 ♔b8 23 ♕c2 ♘f8 24 ♖xe4 1-0 Tarjan – Benjamin, South Bend 1981. Also leading to victory for White was 15 ♗e3 ♗d6 (15...♘b6 has delivered a similar fate to Black: 16 ♗d3 ♗xd3 17 ♕xd3 ♔b8 18 a3 ♘d5 19 ♔f1 ♘xe3+ 20 ♕xe3 ♗h6 21 ♕f3 exd4 22 cxd4 ♖xd4 23 ♕xf6 ♖dd8 24 ♘f5 and White dominated in Schneider – Pedersen, Lemvig 1991) 16 0-0 ♖hg8 17 ♗g4 exd4 18 ♕xd4 c5 19 bxc5 ♗e5 20 ♕b4 a5 21 ♕a4 ♗xg3 22 fxg3 ♕xg3 23 ♗f3 1-0 in Wood – Czerwonski, London 1990. Yet another reasonable move for White is 15 ♗g4 ♔b8 16 0-0 exd4 17 cxd4 ♗xb4 18 ♕f3 ♘b6 19 ♗f5 ♘d5 20 ♗xh7 ♖xh7 21 ♖b1 ♗d6= Oratovsky – Ciric, Biel 1996.

15...♘b6

Seirawan now demonstrates a very resourceful defense and counterattack for Black.

16 b5?

White is in no position to start an active fight as his pieces are still far from developed. On 16 dxe5 fxe5 (If 16...♕xe5 17 ♗e3) 17 ♗g5.

16...c5 17 dxc5

If 17 dxe5 c4! 18 ♕b2 ♘a4 wins the queen.

17...♗xc5

The problem with the game continuation from White’s point of view is that, in pure attacking races with kings on opposite wings, anything can happen. The most critical question is who can maintain the initiative?

18 a4?!

Peters consequently errs on the side of activity. 18 ♗a3!?.

18...♖hg8 19 a5 ♘d5 20 b6 axb6 21 a6

White desperately tries to open lines against the black king but White’s king isn’t so safe either. Besides, the last six(!) of White’s moves were with pawns.

21...bxa6 22 ♗xa6+ ♔b8 23 ♗c4 ♘f4 24 ♔f1

The white king in the center is helpless as most of his pieces are still sleeping – neither attacking nor defending. If 24 ♗xf4 exf4 25 ♗d5 ♕e5+ or 24 0-0 ♖xg3 25 ♗xf4 exf4 26 ♗d5 ♕e5 are both decisive.

24...♕b7 25 ♖h2 b5!

A very clever move since ♗xb5 is met by ♗d3+ and ♕xb5 fails to ♖d1 mate.

26 ♗e2

If 26 ♗xf7 ♕xf7! 27 ♕xf7 ♖d1 mate.

26...♘xe2 27 ♘xe2 ♗e4

Seirawan has successfully seized the initiative; all the advantages are in his hands. Peters can claim no compensation for his suffering.

28 f3 ♗d3 29 ♔e1 ♗c4

The black bishops are now very impressive too.

30 ♕c2 ♖d3 31 h6 ♕d5 32 h7 ♖d8

33 ♗g5

White appears to have found a defense with this creative parry to ♖d1 mate, but Seirawan still has a shot up his sleeve. Not 33 h8=♕? ♖d1+ 34 ♕xd1 ♕xd1 mate.

33...♗b3! 34 ♕xd3

Here if 34 ♕c1 ♖d1+ 35 ♕xd1 ♕xd1+ 36 ♖xd1 ♖xd1 mate.

34...♕xd3 35 h8=♖♖xh8 36 ♖xh8+

White simply doesn’t have enough for the unfavorable exchange and his king continues to walk on shaky ground.

36...♔b7 37 ♗d2

37 ♗xf6 loses to 37...♗c4.

37...♗c4 38 ♘g3 e4

Yet another shot which finally ends the struggle.

39 ♖h5 ♗d6 0-1

2Nick de Firmian (2475) WhiteSergey Kudrin (2550) Black Round 17, USA Championship, Berkeley 1984Queen’s Indian Defense [E12]

1 ♘f3

The following game, with all due respect to the participants, would not ordinarily be classed as a Brilliancy Prize game. The winner must be given credit for making some good decisions in the early middlegame and fully grabbing the chance for the witty winning combination. On the other hand, in terms of sustained brilliant play there isn’t much to talk about.

1...♘f6 2 c4 c5 3 ♘c3 b6 4 e3 ♗b7 5 d4 cxd4 6 exd4 e6 7 a3 d5 8 cxd5 ♘xd5 9 ♗b5+ ♗c6 10 ♗d3 ♘d7 11 0-0 ♗e7 12 ♖e1 0-0 13 ♘e4

13...♘7f6

Black has other methods of trying to tame White’s attack, e.g. 13...♘5f6 14 ♘g3 ♕c7 (An alternative move for Black here is 14...a6 15 ♗g5 ♖a7 16 ♕e2 ♕a8 17 ♖ac1 h6 18 ♗d2 ♗xf3 19 ♕xf3 ♕xf3 20 gxf3 ♖d8 21 ♗e3 ♘d5 22 ♖e2 b5 as in Lobo – D.Gurevich, San Francisco 1998) 15 ♕e2 ♖fd8 16 ♗d2 ♖ac8 17 ♖ac1 ♕b8 18 ♘e5 ♗d5 19 ♗c3 ♘xe5 20 dxe5 ♘d7 21 ♘h5 g6 22 ♘f6+ ♘xf6 23 exf6 ♗d6= Lahav – Tsesarsky, Tel Aviv 1990.

14 ♘e5 ♗b7 15 ♘g5 ♕c7

This appears to be one critical juncture where Black may be able to improve his play with 15...h6!? when after 16 ♘e4 there is dynamic equality.

16 ♗d2 ♖ad8 17 ♖c1

Instead the move 15...♕c7 has allowed White to gain an important tempo on the black queen.

17...♕b8

Kudrin could have tried to defend the e6 square with the queen centralisation 17...♕d6 18 ♕f3 g6 but after the sacrifice 19 ♘exf7!? ♖xf7 20 ♖xe6 ♕d7 21 ♕e2 White enjoys a strong initiative.

18♕e2

Now White threatens sacrifices on f7 coupled with ♕xe6 and creating dangerous threats. Although not clearly winning, the threat is ominous.

18...♗d6 19 ♗b1

de Firmian hopes to create a bishop and queen battery on h7.

19...♘e7 20 ♘g4 ♘ed5 21 ♕d3

White’s pressure on f6 and h7 is reaching a climax.

21...g6 22 ♕h3

22...♗f4?

Black is under strong pressure and a move like 22...a6 allows 23 ♘h6+ ♔g7 24 ♘hxf7 (More spectacular, but unfortunately not correct is 24 ♘xh7 ♘xh7! [on 24...♔xh7? 25 ♘xf7+ ♔g7 26 ♘xd8+-] 25 ♘xf7 ♖xf7 26 ♗xg6 ♗xh2+! [Here 26...♘f4? loses to 27 ♕xh7+ ♔f6 28 ♕xf7+ ♔g5 29 h4+] 27 ♔h1 [After 27 ♔f1 ♘hf6 28 ♗xf7 ♗f4 is decisive] 27...♘g5 28 ♗xg5 ♖h8 and Black is winning in a messy battle) 24...♖xf7 25 ♘xe6+ ♔g8 26 ♘xd8 ♕xd8 27 ♗a2 with a somewhat better position for White.

23 ♗xf4 ♕xf4 24 ♘h6+ ♔g7 25 ♘hxf7! ♖xf7

On 25...♖de8 26 ♕h6+ ♔g8 27 ♗xg6! is utterly crushing for White.

26 ♘xe6+ ♔g8

27 ♘xd8!

A nice final touch. White could have taken the queen: 27 ♘xf4 ♘xf4 28 ♕g3 ♖xd4 29 ♗a2 but now the material disparity is even worse for Black.

27...♘g4 28 ♖e8+ 1-0

3Kamran Shirazi (2400) WhiteBoris Kogan (2500) Black Round 10, USA Championship, Estes Park 1985Petroff Defense [C43]

1 e4

In this game, White’s middlegame explosion is impressive since he manages to exploit chances provided by his opponent’s risky opening play.

1...e5 2 ♘f3 ♘f6 3 d4 ♘xe4 4 ♗d3 d5 5 ♘xe5

Nowadays we know that Black doesn’t necessarily play the Petroff Defense for a quiet draw. Black could adopt a number of other acceptable moves now, including 5...♗f5, 5...♗e7 and 5...♗d6.

5...♘d7 6 ♘xd7 ♗xd7 7 0-0 ♕f6 8 ♘c3?!

And here Black should simply capture on c3.

8...♕xd4

A fairly risky move. Much better for Black was 8...♘xc3 9 bxc3 ♗d6 (9...0-0-0!?) 10 ♖e1 + ♗e6 11 c4 0-0-0 (11...dxc4 and Black is pretty close to equal; 11...0-0? 12 cxd5 ♗xd5 13 ♕h5+-) 12 cxd5 ♗xd5 13 c4 ♗e6 14 ♗e3 with fairly level chances.

9 ♕h5!

This is an interesting and provocative move. Much simpler was 9 ♘xe4 dxe4 10 ♗xe4 ♕xd1 11 ♖xd1 0-0-0 12 ♗g5 f6 13 ♗f4 (Also leading to equality was 13 ♗e3 a6 14 ♖e1 ♗b4 15 c3 ♗d6 16 ♖ad1 ♖de8 17 ♗f3 ♗f5 18 ♗d4 ♗g6 19 g3 ♖xe1+ 20 ♖xe1 ♖e8 21 ♖xe8+ ♗xe8 Aseev – Kochyev, Kostroma 1985) 13...♗c5 14 ♖d5 ♗b6 15 ♖ad1 g6 16 a3 c6 17 ♖5d3 ♗g4 18 ♖xd8+ ♖xd8 19 ♖xd8+ ♔xd8 which promised equal chances in the game Kengis – Rozentalis, Vilnius 1984.

9...♘f6

9...c6 10 ♗xe4 dxe4 11 ♗g5 g6 12 ♕h4 ♗g7 13 ♘xe4+-; or 9...♘xc3 10 bxc3 ♕xc3 11 ♗g5!. Leading to unclear play is 9...0-0-0!? with the idea 10 ♗e3 ♘f6.

10 ♖e1+ ♗e7 11 ♕g5 ♕g4?

An alternative might be 11...♘e4. However 12 ♕f4 would still leave Black in some trouble – possibly then 12...g5. If 11...♗e6 12 ♘b5 ♕b6 13 ♗f4! and White is slightly better.

12 ♖xe7+!

This is the move which takes this game into the category of ‘brilliancy’. White gets a continuing attack with lasting compensation for his exchange sacrifice. The alternatives are interesting, but much less convincing: 12 ♕e5 ♕e6 and Black is slightly better, but not 12...0-0-0? 13 ♘b5!±; 12 ♘xd5 ♘xd5 (12...♕xg5? 13 ♘xc7+) 13 ♕xd5 ♗c6 (If 13...0-0-0 14 ♕xf7± and White is slightly better) 14 ♕g5 ♕xg5 15 ♗xg5 f6 16 ♗f4 and White keeps an edge.

12...♔xe7 13 ♘xd5+ ♔f8

If 13...♔d8 14 ♘xf6! ♕xg5 15 ♗xg5+-. Or on 13...♔d6 14 ♘xf6 ♕xg5 15 ♘e4+ +-.

14 ♘xf6 gxf6

Upon 14...♕xg5 15 ♘xd7+ and White will be up two pieces for a rook.

15 ♕xf6

White has clear compensation for the exchange in

1) his superior development and the difficulty the black queen’s rook will have in joining play

2) his control of the dark squares

3) the weakened black king.

15...♖g8 16 ♗h6+ ♔e8 17 ♖e1+ ♗e6 18 g3 ♔d7

If 18...♖d8 19 ♗f5! ♖d1 20 ♗xg4 ♖xe1+ 21 ♔g2 ♖xg4 22 ♗g5 ♔d7 23 ♕d8+ ♔c6 24 ♗f4+-.

19 ♗xh7

Now White has full material compensation for the exchange in addition to attacking chances against the black king. In fact he has a won game.

19...♖ge8

19...♖h8 would be met by 20 h3 (So as to meet ♕xh3 by ♖d1+) 20...♕h5 21 g4 ♕a5 22 ♖d1+ ♔c6 23 ♗e4+ +-.

20 ♗f4 ♕h5

If 20...♔c8 21 ♕e5+-.

21 ♕c3! ♖e7

If 21...c6 22 ♕b4!+-.

22 ♗e4

Not 22 ♕xc7+? ♔e8 when Black is better.

22...c6 23 ♗f3 ♕h3

After each White move Black barely manages to defend against the worst threats. Now on 23...♕b5 24 ♖d1+ ♗d5 25 a4! ♕xa4 26 ♗xd5 cxd5 27 ♖xd5+ +-; Or on 23...♕f5 24 ♗g4 ♕xg4 25 ♕d4+ ♗d5 26 ♖xe7+ ♔xe7 27 ♗d6+ ♔xd6 28 ♕xg4+-.

24 ♕c5

Black’s weaknesses on the dark squares continue to be a problem. Also winning for White is 24 ♖d1 + ♗d5 25 ♕g7+-.

24...♖c8

A relatively better defense was 24...♖h8 25 ♕d6+ ♔e8 26 ♕b8+ ♗c8 27 ♖xe7+ ♔xe7 28 ♕c7+ ♔e8 29 ♗g5±.

25 ♗g5 f6

Or 25...♖ee8 26 ♖d1+ ♗d5 27 ♗xd5+-.

26 ♕d4+ ♔e8

Otherwise 26...♔c7 27 ♗f4 mate.

27 ♕xf6 ♖cc7

28 ♖xe6!

Shirazi finds a spectacular finish – the kind for which he had a reputation.

28...♕xe6

If 28...♖xe6 29 ♗h5+ ♕xh5 (29...♔d7 30 ♕d8 mate) 30 ♕xe6+ ♔f8 31 ♗h6+ ♖g7 32 ♕c8+ ♔e7 33 ♕xb7+ +-.

29 ♗h5+ ♔d7

On 29...♔d8 30 ♕xe6 and Black’s rook is pinned.

30 ♗g4!

Black resigns because after 30...♕xg4 31 ♕xe7+ ♔c8 32 ♕d8 is mate.

1-0

4Larry Christiansen (2560) WhiteLev Alburt (2535) Black Round 3, USA Championship, Estes Park 1985Dzindzichashvili-Indian [E10]

The following game must be viewed as a defensive and technical brilliancy.

1 d4 ♘f6 2 ♘f3 e6 3 c4 a6

This is a type of delayed Benko Gambit, which is a favorite of Roman Dzindzichashvili’s.

4 ♘c3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 e4!?

Lev Alburt is a great expert in this type of position, so his opponent uncorks an ambitious novelty.

6...b4

This sharp move really puts the question to White’s 6th move.

7 e5 bxc3 8 exf6 ♕a5

If 8...cxb2 9 ♗xb2 gxf6 10 ♗d3 is unclear. Or on 8...♕xf6 9 ♗g5 ♕g6 (After 9...♕f5 10 ♗d3 ♕g4 11 0-0 White has reason to be very optimistic) 10 bxc3 and again White has at least as much play as in the game.

9 bxc3

9...gxf6?!

It seems that Black can actually get away with 9...♕xc3+ 10 ♗d2 ♕xf6 11 ♗d3 ♗d6 (If instead 11...h6 12 0-0 ♗d6 [It is essential that Black starts to develop at this point. Any further delays in development could prove catastrophic, as if for example 12...d6 13 ♕a4+! This move really confuses Black’s development. Now on 13...♗d7 14 ♕b3 ♗c8 15 dxe6 fxe6 16 ♗e4 when Black must start returning material but it is already too late and in Ortega – Barsov, Porto San Giorgio 2002 play continued 16...d5 17 cxd5 ♗d6 18 dxe6 ♖a7 19 ♖fe1 etc] 13 ♗e4 This move didn’t give White enough play in Hutters – D.Gurevich, Internet ICC 2000 which continued 13...♖a7 14 ♖b1 0-0 15 ♕c2 ♗c7 16 ♖fe1 e5 17 d6 ♗xd6 18 ♗c3 ♘