MEMBERS' GAMES

In the 4th Québec Open Correspondence Chess Championship (QOCCC) Final, due to end this coming Fall, Penka Apostolov of Cote St-Luc, Québec has secured at least a tie for first place. Her undefeated final score of 8/10 cannot be surpassed by any other player in the event. However, Michel Lauzon, Sylvain Laplante, Al Fichaud, and Martial Larochelle have mathematical chances to tie, but they must win all their remaining games. When this tournament comes to an end I will feature games from this event. In the 5th QOCCC prelims another qualifier has been determined. Louis G. Tremblay of Beauport, Quebec, has advanced to the Final with a score of 5/6 in section 15X-3. This score is good enough to secure at least 2nd place.

To start we present a sampling of games from K-51. In the first game White enters a dead even endgame, only to faulter on move 38, leading to a decisive advantage for Black.

White: Olgert Dravnieks
Black: Nick Zimninski
K-51 1995-97
Caro-Kann Defense/ Exchange Variation B13

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bd3

(A popular alternative in CC is 4.c4)

4...Nc6 5.c3 Qc7 (!, Anand)

(5...e5; 5...g6!?; 5...Nf6)

6.Ne2

(Cordoba-Anand, Linares 1994 Inf 60/129, continued: 6.Bg5 Nf6 (6...g6)7.Nd2 Bg4 8.Ngf3 e6 9.Bh4 Bd6 10.Bg3 Bh5 11.Bxd6 Qxd6 12.0-0 0-0 13.Re1 Rab8 14.a4 Qc7 15.Qb1 a6 16.Ne5 Rfe8 17.h3 Bg6 18.Bxg6 hxg6 19.Qd3 Nxe5 20.dxe5?! Nd7 21.Qd4 Rec8 22.Re3 Qb6 =/+ {Anand}, 0-1 in 40.)

6...Bg4 7.f3 Bd7 8.Na3 a6 9.Nc2 e6 10.Bf4 Bd6 11.Bxd6 Qxd6 12.0-0 Nge7 13.Qd2 f6

(With the idea of ...e5)

14.Rae1 0-0 15.Ng3

(15.Kh1 +/=, ECO, Lein-Goffmann, USA (ch) 1980.)

15...e5 16.dxe5 Nxe5!? 17.Ne3 Nxd3 18.Qxd3 Rfe8 19.Rd1 Rad8 20.Rf2

(If 20.Nxd5 Bb5!.)

21. ... Qb6 21.Qd4 Qxd4 22.cxd4 Rc8 23.Rc2 Rxc2 24.Nxc2 Rc8 25.Ne3 Bb5 26.Kf2 Kf7 27.Ne2 Bxe2 28.Kxe2 Ke6 29.Kd3 Kd7 30.Re1 Rc6 31.Re2 b5 32.Rc2 Rxc2 33.Nxc2 a5 34.a3 Nc6 35.Ne3 Ke6 36.b3 h5 37.h4 g5 38.hxg5?!

(I think 38...g3 would have maintained equality.)

38...fxg5 39.g4?!

(Another inaccurate move. This just gives Black a protected passed h-pawn.)

39...h4! 40.Nf5 h3 41.Ng3 a4! 42.bxa4? !

(Better was 42.b4.)

42...bxa4 43.Nf1??

(This loses outright. I couldn't find a way for Black to win after 43.Kc3! Readers can you find a way?)

43...Na7! 0-1(see diagram)
(note the Black Knight should be on a7 and not a6.)

(Since there is no defense to the threatenned ...Nb5, winning a pawn and the game.)

White: Roger Roy
Black: Gordon Morrell
K-51 1995-97
Dutch Defense D81

1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0-0 0-0 6.d5 c6 7.c4 d6 8.Nd4

(8.Nc3 is an alternative.)

8...Qb6 9.Ne6?

(This loses a pawn. Both 9.Nb3 and 9.Nc3 maintain equality.)

9...Bxe6 10.dxe6 Na6 11.Nc3 Qb4?!

(11...Nc7 gives Black the advantage.)

12.Qa4?! (White should have made Black work for his extra pawn after 12.Qb3 Qxb3 13.axb3 Nc7 14.Be3 a6 15.Rfd1 Nxe6 16.h3 since White gets open lines for his more active pieces.) 12...Qxa4 13.Nxa4 Nc7 14.Rb1 Nxe6 15.b4 Nd4 16.e3 Ne2+ 17.Kh1 Nxc1 18.Rfxc1 e5 19.b5 e4 20.bxc6 bxc6 21.Rb7 Rf7 22.Rcb1 Rd8 23.Nc3 Rxb7 24.Rxb7 Rd7 25.Rb8+ Kf7 26.h3 Rc7 27.Bf1 Nd7 28.Rb3 Nc5 29.Ra3 Bxc3 30.Rxc3 Rb7 31.Rc2 Na4 32.Kg2 Rb2 33.Rxb2 Nxb2 34.Be2 Ke6 35.Kf1 d5 36.cxd5+ Kxd5! 37.f4 Kc5 38.g4 Nc4 39.Kf2 Kb4 40.gxf5 gxf5 41.Bh5 Nd6 42.Bd1 Kc3 43.Ke2 Kb2 0-1.

(44.Bb3 c5 45.Bg8 45.a4 c4 - +.)

White: Gordon M. Greig
Black: Roger Roy
K-51 Caro-Kann/ Advance variation B12

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3

(4.Nc3 e6 5.g4!? is a more aggressive approach.)

4...e6 5.Be2 c5 6.0-0 Nc6 7.c3

(7.Be3)

7...cxd4 8.cxd4 Nge7 9.a3 Be4 10.Nbd2 Nf5 11.Bb5 Qb6 12.Bxc6+ Qxc6 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Ne1 Rd8 15.Be3 Be7 16.Rc1 Qd7 17.Qg4 Qd5 18.Nc2 0-0 19.Bd2 Nxd4 20.Nxd4 Qxd4 21.Bc3 Qa4 22.Rfe1 Rd3 23.Rxe4 Qd7 24.Rd4 Rxd4 25.Qxd4 Rd8 26.Rd1 Qxd4 27.Rxd4 Rxd4 28.Bxd4 a6 29.f4 Kf8 30.Kf2 g6 31.Kf3 Ke8 32.Ke4 Kd7 33.Bc3 Kc6 34.a4 Kc5 35.b3 b5 36.Kd3 ½ - ½ .

White: Roger Patterson
Black: O. Dravnieks
K-51 1995-1997
Caro-Kann Defense B10

1.e4 c6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 e5 4.Ngf3 Bd6 5.d4 exd4 6.exd5cxd5 7.Nxd4 Nc6 8.N2f3 Nf6 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 a6 11.Bg5 Be7 12.h3 Ne4 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.c3 b5!? 15.a4?!

Probably not best. I did not realize at the time that 16...Bd7 was possible. White should be better in this position as he has the good Bishop and play against the d-pawn.

15...bxa4 16.Rxa4 Bd7(see diagram)

Appears to equalize.

17.Ra2 a5 18.Bd3 Nc5 19.b4 Nxd3 20.Qxd3 axb4 21.Rxa8 Qxa8 22.cxb4 g6 ½ - ½ .

White: Nick Zimninski
Black: George Huczek
K-51 1995-97
Pirc Defense B07

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nd2 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.c3 c5 6.dxc5 dxc5 7.Be2 Nc6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qc2 Qc7 10.a4 b6 11.Ne4 Bb7 12.Re1 Rad8 13.Bg5 h6 14.Bd2 e6 15.Bf1 Rd7 16.Qc1 Kh7 17.Bf4 Qd8 18.Qc2 Nh5 19.Be3 Qe7 20.a5 b5 21.a6 bxc4 22.axb7 Rxb7 23.Bxc4 Rfb8 24.b3 a5 25.Kd1 Nf6 26.Bf4 Rd8 27.Rxd8 Qxd8 28.Rd1 Rd7 29.Rxd7 Nxd7 30.Qd3 Nf6 31.Qxd8+ Nxd8 32.Bd3 Nc6 33.Kf1 Nh5 34.Bd2 f5 35.h3 Ne5 36.Ke2 Nxd3 37.Kxd3 Nf6 38.exf5 exf5 39.Kc4 Ne4 40.Be1 Bf6 41.Ng1 1-0.

(Since Black will lose both Queenside pawns.)

The following is one of Martin Emig's final games demonstrating his fighting spirit to the end.

White: Martin Emig
Black: Roger Roy
K-51 1995-97
Modern Defense B06

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6 4.Bc4 d6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bg5 b5 8.Bb3 a5 9.e5 dxe5 10.dxe5 Ng4 11.Qxd8 Rxd8 12.Bxe7 Re8 13.Bd6 a4 14.Nxb5!? cxb5 15.Bd5 Ra6 16.Bxb8 Be6 17.Bxe6 Raxe6 18.Bd6 Nxe5 19.Bxe5 Bxe5 20.Nxe5 Rxe5 21.f4 Re2 22.Rf2 Re1+ 23.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 24.Rf1 Re2 25.Rc1 b4 26.Kf1 Rd2 27.a3 bxa3 28.bxa3 Rd4 29.g3 Rd2 30.Kg1 Kf8 31.c4 Rd3 32.c5 Ke7 33.c6 Kd8 34.Rc4 Rxa3 35.Rd4+ Kc7 36.Rd7+ Kxc6 37.Rxf7 Rb3 38.Rxh7 Rb7!

(With the idea of ....Ra7, getting behind the passed pawn.)

39.Rh8!

(On 39.Rxb7? Kxb7, - +, since Black will Queen first.)

39...Ra7 40.Rc8+ Kd5 41.Rc2 a3 42.Ra2 Kc4 43.Kf2 Kb3 44.Ra1 Kb2 45.Re1 a2 46.Kf3 a1=Q 47.Rxa1 Rxa1 48.h4 Ra3+ 49.Kg4 Ra5 50.Kf3 Rh5 51.Ke4 Kc3 52.Ke3 Kc4 53.Ke4 Kc5 54.Ke3 Kd5 55.Kd3 Ke6 56.Ke4 Ra5 57.Kf3 Ra3+ 58.Kg4 Kf6 0-1.

Former CHECK! columnist, Michel Fortin of Chicoutimi, Quebec submitted the following two games from the Canada vs Australia match.

White: Michel Fortin
Black: Greg Morris
Canada vs Australia/ Game 1 1994-97
King's Fianchetto Opening A49

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.0-0 d6 6.a4 a5

6...Nc6 7.d5 Nb4 8.Nc3 c6 9.e4 cxd5 10.exd5 Bf5 11.Nd4 Bg4 12.Qd2 13.Re1 Rfe8 unlcear, Simagin-Boleslavksi, SSSR 1966.

6...Na6 7.b3 c5 8.Bb2 Bf5 9.Nbd2 Qc8 10.Re1 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Bh3 12.Bh1 Nc5 13.b4 Ncd7 14.a5 Ne5 15.Ra3 d5 unclear, Sorokin-Sirov SSSR Ch. 1991.

7.Nc3

7.Nbd2 a)7...Nc6 8.e4 Nd7 9.Nc4 e5 10.dxe5 Ndxe5 = Karner-Gufeldm SSSR 1968. b)7...c6 8.e4 Qc7 9.Re1 Na6 10.b3 Bg4 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Nd7 13.Bb2 +/= Rajkovskij-Ostojic Yugoslavia Ch. 1997.

7...Nbd7 8.h3 c6 9.e4 e5 10.Be3

10.Bg5 Re8 11.Qd2 Qb6 12.Be3 exd4 13.Bxd4 c5 14.Bxf6 Nxf6 15.Rfd1 Bd7! Trois-Balogh, Zalaegerszeg 1980.

10...Re8 11.Re1

11.Qd2 Nb6? {11...exd4 12.Bxd4 Nc5 =} 12.b3 exd4 13.Bxd4 d5 + -, Speelman-Nunn,

British Ch. 1979

11...Qc7

11...Qe7!?

12.Qd2 Nb6 13.b3 Nfd7 14.Rad1 Nf8 15.d5! c5 16.Nb5 + - Qb8 17.Nh4 Bd7 18.Bf1 Nc8 19.Kg2 Na7 20.Bd3 Nxb5 21.Bxb5 Bxb5 22.axb5 b6 23.Ra1 Re7 24.Ra4 Qe8 25.Qd3 Raa7 26.c3 Qb8 27.Rea1 Rec7 28.Nf3 Ra8 29..Nd2 Tca7 30.Nc4 Nd7 31.R1a2 Bf8 32.Qb1 Qc7 33.Rc2 Nf6 34.f3 Qb7. 35.b4!(see diagram)

35...axb4 36.Rxa7 Qxa7 37.cxb4 Nd7 38.bxc5 bxc5

38...dxc5 39.f4 + -.

39.b6 Qa6 40.Qb3 Be7 41.b7 Rb8 42.Rb2 f5 43.Qb5 1-0.

(Since on 43...Qxb5 44.Rxb5 with the idea of Na5 and Nc6 winning.)

White: Greg Morris
Black: Michel Fortin
Canada vs Australia/Game 2 1994-96
Modern Defense B06

1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.f4 a6 5.Nf3 b5

5...Nd7 6.Bc4 e6 7.a4 Ne7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Be3 d5 10.Bd3 + , Honfi-Sandor, Wijk aan Zee 1969.

6.Bd3

6.a3 Bb7 7.Be3 Nd7 8.Bd3 c5 9/e5!? Levy-Friedgood, Johannesbourg 1972

6....Bb7

6...b4 7.Ne2 d5 8.e5 Bg4 9.0-0 e6 10.a3 1-0, Inkiov-Arnaudov, Sofia 1977.

7.0-0

7.a4 b4 8.Ne2 Nd7 9.c3 bxc3 10.bxc3 c5 11.Rb1 Rb8 12.0-0 e6 13.f5 + Ljubojevic-Day

Canada 1974. 12...cxd4 13.cxd4 Ngf6 14.e5 Nd5 15.Ng5! Ljubojevic-Sznapik - Buenos Aires OL. 1978. 7.Qe2 Nc6!? 8.e5 Nh6 9.d5 Nb4 Peters-Christiansen USA Ch. 1984.

7...Nd7 8.e5 e6

8...c5 9.Be4 {9.Ng5 Qb6!}Bxe4 10.Nxe4 cxd4 11.e6 {11.exd6 Qb6 12.Re1 e6 13.c3 dxc3 14.Be3 Qb7 = Barbero-Bilek Budapest 1987} fxe6 12.Neg5 Nf8 Timman-Kagan, Rio 1979.

9.a4 b4 10.Ne4 Bxe4

10...d5? 11.Neg5 Nf8 12.Qe1 Scholl-Keene, Vlissingen 1970.

11.Bxe4 d5 12.Bd3 c5 13.dxc5 Bf8!?

{Keene/Botteril}

14.Be3

(White can maintain an edge with 14.c6!? Qb6+ 15.Kh1 Qxc6 16.Nd4 due to more piece development.)

14...Bxc5 15.Bxc5 Nxc5 16.Be2 Ne7 17.Nd4 h5 = 18.Bf3 Qb6 19.Kh1 Rd8 20.a5 Qa7 21.Qd2 Rb8 22.Rfe1 Kf8 23.h3?! h4 24.Kh2 Qb7 25.Re3 Nf5 26.Nxf5 gxf5 27.Qd4 Qe7 28.Ree1 Rg8 29.Re2 Rg3 30.Re3 Kg7 31.Be2 Kh6 32.Rxg3 hxg3+ 33.Kg1

If 33.Kxg3 Rg8+ with the idea of Qh4 - +.

33...Qc7 34.Qe3 Ne4 -+(see diagram)

35.Bd3 Qc5 36.Qxc5 Nxc5 37.Be2 d4 38.Bc4 b3 39.cxb3 Nxb3 40.Ra3 Nc5 41.Rxg3 Rxb2 42.Ra3 Rc2 43.Bd3 Rd2 44.Bf1 d3 45.Rc3 Rd1! 0-1.

Louis Raymond of Montreal, submitted the following exciting game from a 1995 Major Open section. The game demonstrates the typical strategies employed by both sides in this popular line of the King's Indian Defense.

White: Philip R. Kelly
Black: Louis Raymond
Major Open A-9503 1995/96
King's Indian Defense/Classical Variation E99

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.f3 f5 11.Be3

(This moves invites the space gaining 11...f4 for Black.)

11...f4 12.Bf2 g5 13.Nb5!?

( Korhnoi's idea. The idea is to force weaknesses in Black's queenside position, a typical counter-stroke to Black's coming kingside activity. 13.b4 was met brilliantly by Kasparov at Tiblurg in 1989: 13...Nf6 14.c5 Ng6 15.cxd6 cxd6 16.Rc1 Rf7 17.a4 Bf8! 18.a5 Bd7 19.Nb5 g4! 20.Nc7 g3 21.Nxa8 {21.hxg3 is the only move according Kasparov}21...Nh5! 22.Kh1 gxf2 23.Rxf2 Ng3+ 24.Kg1 Qxa8 25.Bc4 a6 26.Qd3 Qa7 27.b5 axb5 28.Bxb5 Nh1! 0-1, Piket-Kasparov, Inf. 48/819. Other tries are: 13.a4; 13.Rc1; & 13.c5, but they have not given Black much trouble.)

13...b6!?

(Considered best according to current theory, superceding the older try 13...a6. Interesting, though is: 13...Nf6, offering a pawn, eg: 14.Nxa7 Bd7 15.c5!? Rxa7 16.cxd6 Nc8 17.dxc7 Qxc7 18.Bxa7 Nxa7 19.Qb3 Qc5+ 20.Kh1 Nh5 21.Nd3 Qe3 22.Nf2 Qxe2 23.Qxb7 unclear, Benjamin-Nunn, Hastings 1987/88.)

14.a4

( The text is considered doubtful. 14.b4 a6 15.Nc3 Rf6 {15...h5; 15...Ng6!?}16.Nd3 Rh6 17.Be1 Nf6 18.Nf2 Rg6 19.a4 h5 20.h3 Kh8 21.a5 Neg8 22.b5 Nh6 23.axb6 cxb6 24.bxa6 Rxa6 25.Rxa6 Bxa6 26.Qa4 Bc8 27.Qa8 g4 unclear {Keene& Jacobs}, van der Sterren-Douven, Dutch Ch. 1987.)

14...a5!?

This looked promising for Black in Zuger-Cvitan, Geneva 1988.

15.Nd3

(Zuger -Cvitan continued: 15.b4 axb4 16.Nd3 Nc5 17.Nxb4 g4 18.a5 g3 19.hxg3 fxg3 20.Bxg3 Rxa5 21.Rxa5 bxa5 22.Nd3 Nxd3 23.Qxd3 Ng6 =/+.)

15...Nf6 16.b4 axb4 17.Nxb4 g4 18.Bh4 g3 19.h3? Bxh3!

White's position is looking questionable in view of White'a lone Bishop vs. Black's two Knights; well worth the Bishop sacrifice. White's dark squares are weak and the Bishop on h4 is poorly placed.

20.gxh3 Ng6 21.Bxf6 Rxf6 22.Re1 Nh4 23.Bf1 g2 24.Bxg2

If the Bishop moves elsewhere, then 24...Qd7 and it's too late to defend.

24...Rg6 25.Ra2 Qd7 26.Kh1 Rxa4!

27.Rg1

If 27.Rxa4 Rxg2 - +; (or if 27.Qxa4 Nxg2 {28.Rxg2 Qxh3+ 29.Rh2 Qf3+ 30.Rg2 Qxg2 #; 28.Qa8+ K f7 - +.)

27...Rxb4 28.Bf1 Rg3 29.Rxg3 fxg3 30.Qd3 Ng6

The Knight will be stronger on f4.

31.Ra7 Nf4 32.Qc2 Qd8 33.Nxc7 Qh4 34.Ra2 Nxh3 35.Bg2 Nf4+ 36.Kg1 Qh2+ 0-1.

If 37.Kf1 Qxg2+ 38.Qxg2 Rb1 # ; or if 37.Kf1 Qxg2+ 38.Ke1 Rb1+ 39.Qxb1 Qg1+ 40.Kd2 Qxb1, etc.

Eugene Gibney submitted the following game from a WCCF Candidates section.

White: Eugene Gibney (2380) (ICCF)
Black: Heinz Fiesels (2155) (ICCF)
WCCF Candidates 13 1994-95
Scandinavian Defense B01

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 e6?!

(An unusual Gambit, not mentioned in ECO. )

3.dxe6 Bxe6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 c5 6.Bb5+ Nc6 7.0-0 Qb6 8.Nc3 0-0-0

8...cxd4 9.Qxd4 Bc5 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.Qe5 with the idea of Na4 +/=.

9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Qe2

With the idea of 11.Na4

10...Bd6 11.Be3 Qc7 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.Qa6+ Kb8 14.Rfd1 Ng4 15.Rxd6! Rxd6

(Of course not 15...Qxd6? 16.Bxa7+! Kc7 (16...Ka8?? 17.Bc5+ + -} 17.Bb6+ Kb8 18.Bxd8 Rxd8 +/- and White has a two pawn advantage.)

16.Bf4 Rhd8 17.Bxd6

(Since Black can not break the pin, White should effectively use this time build an attack with 17.Nd4.)

17...Qxd6 18.Qe2

18.h3 Nxf2!

18...Re8 19.Rd1 Qb4 20.h3 Nf6 21.Qe5+ Kb7 22.a3 Qf8

Better was 22...Qb6

23.Qa5 Rb8 24.Rd4

(Bringing another piece into the attack. )

24...Nd7 25.Rb4+ Nb6 26.Na4 Qd8 27.Nd4 Bd5 28.f3 Ra8

28...Ka8 29.Nxb6 Rxb6 30.Rxb6 Qxb6 31.Qxb6 axb6 32.Nf5 g6 33.Ne7 + -.

29.Qa6! 1-0(see diagram, note there should be a white pawn on c2.)

30...Kxa6 31.Nc5+ Ka5 32.Rb5+ (or 32.c4 Bxc4 {32...Nxc4 33.Ndb3##} 33.Nc6 ##) cxb5 33.b4 # ; 30...Kc7 31.Nxb6 axb6 32.Qxb6 + -.

The following two games were submitted by Andrew Pressburger of Toronto, Ontario.

Andrew write: "The games below illustrate my antidote for the Siclian Najdorf, especially when the opponent cooperates by developing his light-colored Bishop away from the kingside. I believe the sacrifice of a piece on e6 is justified in view of the opportunites it yields for an attack."

White: Andrew Pressburger
Black: John Schwarz
Major Open A-9502 1995
Sicilian Defense/Najdorf Variation/Sozin Attack B86

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6

(Transposing to the Sozin Attack. 6...Nbd7; 6...g6; 6...e5; 6...b5 6...Bd7 would fall under the Najdorf variation proper.)

7.0-0!?

(Unusual. More common is 7.Bb3. Other tries have been 7.f4; and 7.a3. 7.Be3? b5 8.Bb3 b4 9.Na4 Nxe4 10.Qf3 Bb7 -/+ ECO.)

7...b5 8.Bb3 Bb7 9.Re1 Nbd7

(9...b4!? or 9...Be7 deserved conisderation.)

I would have played the sacrifice even after 9...Be7.

10.Bxe6?

(This is a premature notion. White should continue his development with 10.Bg5.)

fxe6 11.Nxe6(see diagram)

Threatening, at the very least, Nxf8 and Qxd6.

11...Qb6 12.Be3 Qc6 13.Nd5 Nxd5??

(Black's defense holds after 13...Kf7, forcing White justify his sac after Black untangles his pieces.)

14.exd5 Qc8 15.Bd4 Nf6 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Qh5+ 1-0

Since after 17...Kd7 18.Qf7+ Be7 19.Nc5+! Qxc5 20.Rxe7+ Kc8 21.Rae1.

White: Andrew Pressburger
Black: Marvin Rosenhek
1994 Nationwide Open 09403 1994
Sicilian Defense/Sozin Attack B86

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 b5 8.Bb3 b4!? 9.Na4 Nxe4 10.Re1 Bb7 11.Nxe6

This time the Knight is sacrificed.

11...fxe6??

(Black can not afford to leave e6 unprotected.) 12.Qg4 Qe7

Otherwise White takes on e6 with dire consequences for Black.

13.Rxe4

(13.Nb6 Ra7 14.Bxe6 Nf6 15.Qxb4 Qc7 16.Qb3 Be7 17.Be3 gives White the edge.) Bxe4 14.Qxe4

White has tremendous compensation for the material.

14...d5 15.Qg4 Nd7 16.Bg5 Qd6

If 16...Nf6 17.Bxf6 is similar to the game.

17.Re1 Kf7 18.c4

Attempting to bring the queenside pieces into the fray. If 18...d4 19.c5 wins.

18...Nf6 19.Bxf6 h5 20.Qf3 gxf6 21.cxd5 Re8!

Black's defense is no less ingenious for its being desperate.

22.dxe6+ Kg7 23.Qe3

I have to redeploy my Kinght somehow.

23...Be7 24.Nb6 Qc5 25.Qg3+ Qg5 26.Qc7 Qc5 27.Nd5

Perhaps 27.Rc1 is better.

27...Qxc7 28.Nxc7 Rc8 29.Nd5 Kf8

The Bishop must stay in place to stop the pawn from advancing.

30.f4

To be able to relieve the Rook from having to guard against back-rank threats.

30...h4

Black wants to make his Rook more mobile on the h-file.

31.f5 Rh7

If 31...Rh5 32.Nf4 Rxf5 33.Ng6+ Ke8 34.Ba4+ Kd8 35.Rd1+

32.Nf4 Kg7 33.Re4 h3 34.gxh3

If 34.Nxh3 Rh5 35.Rf4 Rc5

34...Rh4! 35.Kg2 Bd6!(see diagram)

36.e7 Rxf4

Now Black can safely return the exchange; the opposite colored Bishops ensure the draw.

37.e8=Q Rxe8 38.Rxe8 Rxf5 39.Re6 Rg5+ 40.Kf2 Rf5+ 41.Ke3 Re5+ 42.Kd4 Rxe6 43.Bxe6 a5 44.Kd5 Bxh2 45.Kc6 Be5 46.b3 Kg6 47.Kb6 f5 48.Kxa5 Bc3 Kb5 ½ - ½ .

Did I miss a win somewhere?...

(It seems the win is there with the following improvement: 23.Rd1 Qc7 24.Qd3 a5 25.Nb6 Be7 (25...Qb6?? 26.Qg3+ checkmates) 26.Nd5 Qe5 27.Ne3 {planning Nf5+} or 27.Bc2 are both lethal.)

William Lumley, of England, an opponent of my mine in the NATT IV tournament sent me the following interesting game for the readers of CHECK! This game was quoted by IM John Watson in his revised edition (1996) of Play the French. William thought readers might be interested in how the game finished. Ratings are ICCF at the start of the event.

White: George E. Wallwark (2465)
Black: William F. Lumley (2400)
BPCF F2 1990
Annotations by William F. Lumley
French Defense/Tarrasch Variation C05

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd5 5.c4 dxc4

[5...c5 = Given by Watson in Play the French. ]

6.Nxc4

[6.Bxc4 c5 =]

6...b5!?

[The move quoted by John watson.]

7.Ne3 a6

[7...c5 8.d5 Nxe5 9.Bxb5+ looked rather messy.]

8.Nf3 Bb7 9.Bd2

[This allows 9...c5; 9.Be2 c5 10.d5 looks better.]

9...c5 10.dxc5 Bxc5 =

[10...Nxc5 with the idea of 11...Nd3+ is also possible.]

11.a4?!

[Seemingly aggressive, but Black simply develops, ignoring the b-pawn.]

11...0-0 12.axb5 axb5 13.Rxa8 Bxa8 14.b4?

[Allowing Black to further increase his lead in development. 14.Bxb5 Bxf3 and 15...Nxe5 was better.]

14...Bxe3 15.Bxe3 Qc7

[15... Bxf3 is not so clear, so Black develops.]

16.Bf4 Rd8

[16...Bxf3 17.Qxf3 Nxe5 18.Qg3 Rd8! 19.Bxb5!

17.Qd4 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Nc6 19.Qc3 Qb7

[19...Ndxe5 20.Bxb5 allows awkward pins.]

20.Rg1 Nb6

[Again offering the b-pawn for active piece play.]

21.Bh6

[Takes some of the sting out of a future ...Nd5.]

21...g6 22.Bxb5 Nd4 23.Be2 Nxe2 24.Kxe2 Nd5 25.Qd4?!

[25.Qd3 Nf4+ {25...Qxb4 26.Kf1 Qh4 with strong initiative.} 26.Bxf4 Rxd3 27.Kxd3 Qxf3+ 28.Be3 Qd5+ 29.Bd4 and Black may draw.]

25...Qa6+

[Now the White King is trapped in the center, so all that remains to force the win is to work the Black Rook into the attack.]

26.Ke1 Rc8 27.Rg4?!

[27.Bd2 is more tenacious, preventing ...Rc3 , ...b3.]

27...Rc3 28.h4 Rb3!

[The only clearcut win.]

28..Rd3 29.Qc4 Nc3 was tempting, but White has 30.Kf1 and Black's weak back rank prevents a follow up. After the text move, White has no good defense to ...Rb1+.]

29.Bc1

[29.Qc4 Qa1+.]

29...h5

[Not perhaps necessary, but it gives the King breathing space and forces the White Rook to a poor square.]

30.Re4 Rd3

[Threatening ...Nc3 and ...Rd1 mate]

31.Qc4 Nc3! 32.Kf1 Rd1+ 33.Kg2 Qa1 34.Rd4 Rxc1 0-1.

Philippe Leasge of Laval, Quebec battles former Nationwide Champion Bradley Julien in the 1989 Nation Wide Open Final.

White: Bradley Julien
Black: Philippe Lesage
Nation wide Open Final 0-89
Gruenfeld Defense D-78

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 c6

A solid choice against a strong player.

5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d5 7.Nbd2

7.Qb3 or 7.cxd5 are also possible.

7...Ne4

A good move, justified because of the less dynamic development of the Queen Kinght to d2 rather than to c3.

8.e3 Nxd2

(ECO gives: 8...Bf5 9.Qb3 Qb6 10.Qxb6 axb6 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.Nxe4 Bxe4 13.Bd2 Nc6 =/+, Gonzalez-Sajtar, Helsinki (ol) 1952. Perhaps the text is no worse than 8...Bf5.)

9.Nxd2

Forced, if not the c-pawn falls.

9...dxc4 10.Nxc4 Nd7

Black's position is solid.

11.Bd2 c5

A thematic move in the Gruenfeld.

12.Bc3 Nb6

Without fear of doubling the pawns becuase of the opening of the a-file

13.Nxb6 axb6 14.d5

I believe that 14.a3 is better.

14...Bxc3 15.bxc3 Ra3!

An excellent move, fixing the a-pawn and attacking the c-pawn.

16.c4 Bf5 17.e4 Bd7

Black has limited the scope of the Bishop on g2.

18.Qc2 Qa8

The start of a long maneveur on the a-file

19.Rfb1 b5!

A temporary pawn sacrifice to increase the activity of the Black pieces and create a dangerous protected passed c-pawn.

20.cxb6 b6 21.Rb2 Qa5 22.Bf1 Ra8

The absolute control of the a-file is compensation for the pawn minus.

23.Be2 h5

To provoke h4 thereby weakenning the g3-pawn.

24.h4 Rc3 25.Qd2 Qa3 26.Kg2

If not, ...Rxg3+ and Black can force the draw.

26...Ra4

Another Black Rook threatens to inflitrate White's position.

27.Rc2

White wants to exhange a rook as soon as possible.

27...Rxc2 28.Qxc2 Qb4

Attacking the important e-pawn.

29.e5

No doubt White is willing to give up the b-pawn with the idea of d6 in order to create a passed e-pawn. If 29.Bd3 c4!.

29...Bf5!

The b-pawn cannot be taken for the moment because on 29...Bxb5 30.Rb1!

30.Bd3 Bxd3 31.Qxd3 Qb2!

Threatenning the rook and e-pawn.

32.Re1 Qd4!!(see diagram)

An important move. Black refuses the a-pawn and provokes an endgame where Black has the better rook, since on 33.Qxd4 Rxd4 and the d-pawn will fall, giving Black a clear advantage.

33.Qf3 Rxa2

And Black regains the pawn with a good game.

34.Re3 Rd2 35.d6! exd6 36.e6!

Sacrificing a pawn for active play.

36...fxe6 37.Qa8+ Kh7

A difficult choice; Black must be very careful, for example: if 37...Rf7 38.Rf3+ and mate may be eminent.

38.Rf3 Qg7 39.Qe8 Qb7!

The point of 38...Qg7!

40.Qc6

Also possible was: 40.Qxe6 Rb2 41.Qxd6 Rxb5 and Black is better; if 41.Qc4

d5; or if 41.Qf7+ Qxf7 42.Rxf7+ Kg8 43.Rf6 Kg7 44.Rxd6 Rxb5 and Black is better.

40...Qa7

A move which demanded hours of analysis. Here are some of the other possibilities: 40...Qe7 41.Qa8! {41.Qxb6 e5 42.Qc6 e4 43.Re3 d5! 44.b6 Kh6! 45.b7 [ on 45.Qc7 Qf6!] 45...Qf7!} 41...Rb2 42.Rf8 Ra2 43.Rh8+ Kg7 44.Qg8+ Kf6 45.Rh7 Ra8!!

41.Rf8

41.Qe8 Qb7 42.Qc6 =

41...Qe7 42.Qc8 Ra2 43.Rh8+ Kg7 44.Qg8+ Kf6 45.Rh7 Ra8!! 46.Qxa8 Qxh7 47.Qf3+ Ke5 ½ - ½ .

After 47...Ke5 48.Qe3+

A fine Rook and Queen endgame!

We end had with a nice miniature submitted by Bob Taylor of Cambray, Ontario.

Bob writes: "I was born August 8, 1949 and learned to play chess with my brother and sister when I was 10. We taught ourselves from the booklet that came with the little chess set (that we played with). (I) played (in) some Highschool tournaments in the 60s. Around 1974 or 75 I was a member of the Toronto chess club and I remember watching Lawrence Day play when he was a 1800+ player back (in those days). This is my first CC tournament and my first CC win. Philip Harris (told me after the game) that he was in (a state of shock); that he did not see what was about to happen (to him) after his 12th move."

White: Philip Harris
Black: Bob Taylor
Nation wide Open 0-9702 1997
Sicilian Defense /Dragon Variation B77

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 0-0 9.Bc4 Nd7

Averbakh (1955)

10.0-0-0

(Theory considers 10.h4 Na5 11.Bb3 to give White an advantage.) 10...Na5 (!?)

(Not mentioned in my edition of ECO. Attacking an undefended Bishop makes sense, though.)

11.Bb3

(It's interesting White did not try the trappy 11.Bxf7+ Rxf7 12.Ne6 Qe8 13.Nc7 Qd8? 14.Na8 with a clear advantage. Evidently both players found the refutation with 13...Qf8! {Black threatens ...Nc4,...Nxe3, and...Bh6} 14.Qd5 (14.Nxa8? Nc4 15.Qf2 Nxe3 wins) Bxc3 15.bxc3 Nf6 16.Qxa5 Qd8 with a clear avantage for Black.)

11...Ne5 12.Bh6?

I think 12.Qe2 was necessary.

12...Nec4 13.Qg5 e5 (!) 14.Nde2?

14.Nd5 stopping ...Bf6, but then the Knight on d4 falls.

(It appears White is forced to try 14.Bxc4 Nxc4 15.Ndb5 a6 16.Na3 Bf6 17.Qg3 Nxa3, although Black has a clear advantage.)

14...Bf6 (!) 0-1(see diagram)

Since on 15.Qg3 Bh4 16.Rxd6 Nxd6 17.Qxe5 Bf6 18.Qg3 Nxb3+ 19.cxb3 Re8 20.Rd1 Re6 21.Nb5 Bh4 22.Rxd6 Rxd6 23.Qxd6 Bg5+ 24.Bxg5 Qxg5+ .

I thought that Phil might have had some pressure on the d-file with the pin on the Knight after losing the exchange trying to give him counterplay. Perhaps not.