MEMBERS' GAMES

Since around mid November 1998 my website has been hosted at Correspondence Chess.Com, the home of John Knudsens The Correspondence Chess Place, and J. Franklin Campbells The Campbell Report: Correspondence Chess. I hope those of you with Internet access have taken the opportunity to browse through my site. Additional pages of interest will be added on an on-going basis.

Some of you may already be aware that I have started posting my columns at my website. Eventually all of them will be posted. Since new columns will only be posted after they appear CHECK! and mailed out to the members, this will not compete with my magazine versions.

The 4th Qubec Open Correspondence Chess Championship (QOCCC) has finally been completed with Michel Lauzon of St-Hubert, Qubec and Penka Apostolov of Cote St-Luc, Qubec tying for 1st and 2nd place with 8 points each. 3rd place went to Sylvain Laplante with 7 ½ points. Al Fichaud took 4th with 7 points. William Roach and Robert Giroux shared 5th and 6th place with 5 ½ points apiece. Allain Lorrain placed 7th with 5 points. Martial Larrochelle took 8th with 4 points. 9th place went to Valori Ethier with 2 ½ points, and sharing the 10th and 11th spot with a 1 point apiece were Philippe St-Amour and Marc Bergeron. Pierre Boulerice, now deceased, withdrew early, as did Steve Fillion ( See crosstable below). Next issue I will features games from this event. The finalists for the 5th QOCCC Final are: William Roach, Louis Raymond, Michel Bolduc, Louis Tremblay, George Marchand, Simon Berube, Alec Goudreau, Murray Marchant, and Michel Robidoux ( Update: William Roach has decided not to participate in the Final; Michel Robidoux withdrew due to health reasons and Simon Berube due to personal reasons. The tournament began 15 January 1999.)Michel Lauzon and Penka Apostolov as co-winners of the 4th QOCCC Final have been inivited to play in the 5th QOCCC Final as well. However, they both have declined their invitations.

4th QOCCC 96'-98'		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	Total
1	Michel Lauzon	•	½	½	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	8
2	Penka Apostolov	½	•	½	½	1	1	1	½	1	1	1	8
3	Sylvain Laplante	½	½	•	1	½	½	1	½	1	1	1	7 ½
4	Alan Fichaud	1	½	0	•	½	0	1	1	1	1	1	7
5	William Roach	0	0	½	½	•	0	½	1	1	1	1	5 ½
6	Robert Giroux	0	0	½	1	1	•	½	½	½	½	1	5 ½
7	Allain Lorrain	0	0	0	0	½	½	•	1	1	1	1	5
8	Martial Larochelle	0	½	½	0	0	½	0	•	1	½	1	4
9	Valori Ethier	0	0	0	0	0	½	0	0	•	1	1	2 ½
10	Philippe St-Amour	0	0	0	0	½	0	0	½	0	•	0	1
11	Marc Bergeron	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	•	1

A number of you have correctly pointed out that Dr. Codys resignation to Dr. S. Teichmeister of Austria in the 12th CC Olympiad Final (see #528, page 22 ) was indeed in fact far from premature: After my suggested: 25....Bh6+ ? 26.Kb1 Rf8 White wins with the simple 27.Qc5! (see diagram) threatenning mate on e7. If 27....Re8 28.Bf5+; or if 27...Qa7 or 27...Qb8 28.c7+ Qxc7 29.Qe7 #. Thank you to all those who sent in this analysis!

Before we get to the games you may recall in my Spring 1998 column I challenged readers to find a winning line in the game Dravnieks-Zimninski (K-51, 1995-97) , after 43.Kc3 (see diagram) instead of what was played in the game, 43.Nf1.

Nick Zimninski was kind enough to send me his analysis of the winning lines. As I mentioned in previous columns I don't mind being called on something. It tells me that some of you are at least taking the time to read my efforts, and whether I am right or wrong is not the important thing. What's important is the chess, learning together, and you enjoy what I am trying to bring to you. I overlooked the possibility of offering the sacrifice of the Knight with 43...Ne5!, apparently the only way to win for Black, after 43.Kc3, unless someone else has spotted another winning line.

Nick writes: " After 43.Kc3, follows 43...Ne5! with a win as well. This move is made possible due to the fact that the White King on c3 is exactly, by one square, too far from the kingside, and the White Knight is still on g3. This allows the Black King to attack it at the earliest possible tempo on his march from e5 once the sacrifice is accepted. Of course, White can decline the offer at the cost of the f-pawn, and resist passively a little bit longer.

Accepting the sacrifice:

43.Kc3 Ne5 44.dxe5 Kxe5 a) 45.Kd2 (or 45.Kd3) [ if 45.Kb4 Kf4 47.Nh1 (or 47.Nf1) Kxf3; 47.Ne2+ Ke3 (or 47...Kxf3) 48.f4 h2 (or 48...Kf3) 49.Ng3 Kxf4 - +] 45...Kf4 46.Nh1 [46.Nf1 Kxf3 47.Ke1 Kg2 48.Ke2 (48.Ne3+ Kg1) h2 49.Nxh2 Kxh2 - +] 46...Kxf3 47.Ke1 Kg2 48.Nf2 h2 - +; or 48.Ke2 Kxh1 49.Kf2 d4 - +.

b) 45.Nh1 [45.Ne2 h2 46.Ng3 Kf4 47.Nh1 Kxf3 48.Kd4 Kg2 49.Ke3 (49.Kd5 Kxh1 - +) 49...Kxh1 50.Kf2 d4 - +; 45.Nf1 Kf4 46.Kd2 Kxf3 - +] 46...Kf4 47.Kd2 Kxf3 - +.

B. Declining the sacrifice:

White's objective for declining the sacrifice is to deprive the Black King from attacking White's Knight on g3 and/or the f-pawn, etc. Black's winning plan (the way I see it better) is to keep White's King from guarding c4, and attack (capture) White's g-pawn. White has to remain on c3 or d3, for anything more ambitious is worse. For example:

43.Kc3 Ne5 a) Kd2 Nc4+ (better than 44...Nxf3+); b) 44.Kb4 Nxf3 b1) 45.Kxa4 Nxd4 46.Kb4 Nc2+; b2) 45.Kc5 (45.Kc3 Kd6) h2 46.Nh1 Ne5! 47.dxe5 (47.Nf2 Nxg4) 47...Kxe5 48.Kb4 Kf4 - +."

Unfortunately I wasn't able to decipher Nick's analysis after 43.Kc3 Ne5 44.Nh1 or 44.Nf1. Perhaps in a future column I will be able to present his corrected analysis of these lines.

Next up is another game submitted by Rodney Payne from the 1996 National Open Final.

Castling on opposite sides of the board often produces games where both players are trying to mount successful attacks against the opposing King before the other is able. The following is a good example of such a game.

White: Louis G. Tremblay
Black: Rodney Payne
Nimzovich's Defense B00
O-96 1998

1.e4 Nc6

I have spent some time trying to decide on a defense to e4. The decision to play 1...Nc6 was made from pure laziness. I simply don't want to get bogged down in the Sicilian. Besides, not many prepare for the Nimzo, giving me a psychological edge. This is more apparent in otb play, but it still applies in CC.

2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bg4

The main line.

5.Be3 d5!?

(This move is not mentioned in the ECO volume edition that I have. Here ECO mentions: 5...e5, 5...g6 and 5...e6, citing lines which all lead to an advantage for White. A fellow webmaster friend of mine was able to find one game in his CHESSBASE "Horrorbase" database where 5...d5 was played. The game was apparently played by two computers. The game follows:

POTZ - Zippy [B00] ICS game ;Horror, 1994 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bg4 5.Be3 d5 6.e5 Ne4 7.Be2 Nxc3 8.bxc3 e6 9.Rb1 Qc8 10.0-0 Be7 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Rb8 13.Be2 Qd7 14.f4 0-0 15.Bd3 f516.exf6 Rxf6 17.Qe2 g6 18.Bd2 Qd6 19.Qg4 Qa3 20.h4 Qxa2 21.Ra1 Qb2 22.Rfb1 h5 23.Qd1 Qxb1 24.Rxb1 a6 25.Be3 Kg7 26.Qd2 Rf7 27.c4 Bxh4 28.cxd5 exd5 29.Kh2 Bf6 30.c3 Re7 31.Bf2 Ree8 32.Qc2 Ne7 33.c4 dxc4 34.Qxc4 c6 35.Be4 Nf5 36.Bxf5 gxf5 37.d5 Re4 38.Qc5 b6 39.Qxc6 Be7 40.Qc7 Rd8 41.Rd1 Kg6 42.d6 Bf6 43.Bxb6 Rxf4 44.d7 Rh4+ 45.Kg1 Rb4 46.Qc6 Rxb6 47.Qxb6 f4 48.Qxa6 Kg7 49.Qe6 Rb8 50.Qf5 Rd8 51.Qxf4 Rf8 52.Qxf6+ Kxf6 53.d8Q+ Rxd8 54.Rxd8 Kg5 55.Rd4 Kf5 56.Kf2 Kg5 57.Kg3 Kf5 58.Kh4 Ke5 59.Ra4 Ke6 60.Kxh5 Kf6 61.Ra5 Ke6 62.Kg5 Ke7 63.Ra6 Kd8 64.Ra7 Ke8 65.Kf6 Kd8 66.Ke6 Kc8 67.Kd6 Kb8 68.Rc7 Ka8 69.Kc6 Kb8 70.Kb6 Ka8 71.g4 Kb8 72.g5 Ka8 73.g6 Kb8 74.g7 Ka8 75.g8N Kb8 76.Ne7 Ka8 77.Kb5 Kb8 78.Kc6 Ka8 79.Kb6 Kb8 80.Nc6+ Ka8 81.Ra7# 1-0

As you can see White deviated with 7.Be2 instead of 7.h3 played by Tremblay.)

6.e5

( A natural response.)

6...Ne4 7.h3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 Bf5 9.Bd3 Qd7

Here my opponent proposed: 9...Bxd3 10.cxd3, but I didn't want to allow him three pawns in the center.

10.Rb1 0-0-0 11.0-0 f6

The anchor the for a Kingside pawn roller; it also attacks e5, and prevents the Knight or Bishop from occupying g5, but it will allow the eventual e6.

12.Qe2 Bxd3 13.cxd3 g5!

(Black starts his attack.)

14.Bc1 h5 15.e6 Qe8 16.Nh2 Rg8 17.Qb2

(White needs to start his own attack on the Queenside, and the threat of mate on b7 forces Black to weaken his pawn structure surrounding his King.)

17...b6 18.f4 gxf4!

(Opening the g-file, at the cost of allowing White to post his Queen Bishop on a strong square.)

19.Bxf4 Qg6 20.Qe2 Bh6 21.Bxh6 Qxh6 22.Rf3 Rg5 23.h4 Rg6 24.Nf1

The Knight is tied down to the defense of e3 and g3, and can't join an attack on the Queenside. With the f-pawn removed and the h-pawn advanced, White's King is starting to become a target.

24...Rdg8 25.Rf2 f5 26.Qf3 Kb8!

This move keeps the White Queen from a8, eg. 26...Nd8 27.Qxd5 and Qa8 next move and Black's in serious trouble. For example: 27...Nxe6 28.Qa8+ Kd7 29.Qxa7 +/-, since Black's King is out in the open.

27.Qxd5 Nd8 28.Qe5 f4 29.a4 f3 30.g3 Rxe6 31.Qd5 Rf8 32.Rxf3?!

(This move is probably the losing move. White underestimates the potential strength of Black's Queen in the ensuing endgame. White violates one of Purdy's famous maxims: " As a rule, the worst way of taking advantage of a weak pawn is to capture it, because then the opponent no longer has to worry about it." Perhaps 32.a5!? was better with the idea of opening up the a-file.)

32...c6!? 33.Rxf8

Here I have two options: 1) recapture with 33...Qxf8, allowing 34.Qxh5 and an endgame in which White is two pawns to the good, or 2) snag the Queen allowing White to grab my Knight and a pawn to go with the Rook. I chose the latter. Why? My Queen has lots of open lines to work with and can be quickly coordinated with my Rook. I decide to go for the unbalanced endgame with the idea of slowly eating up space with my two remaining pieces.

33...cxd5! 34.Rxd8+ Kc7 35.Rxd5 Qg6

Attacks the d3-pawn while keeping the Knight tied down to the defense of g3.

36.Rd1 Qg4 37.Rd2 Re1 38.Rg5 Qf3 39.Rf2

The King, Knight and Rook are trapped and interpinned here; only by moving my Queen were White's forces able to get play. I can now begin to remove the pawn center.

39...Qxd3 - +

40.Kg2 Qxc3 41.Rxh5 Qxd4 42.a5 Qe4 43.Kh3 Qe6+

Or 43...bxa5 44.Rxa5 Qe6+.

44.Kg2 Re2 45.axb6+ Kxb6 46.Rhf5 Rxf2+ 47.Rxf2 a5 48.Rf3 a4 49.Kf2 Qa2+ 50.Ke1 a3 0-1

Our teams have already completed three games in the 12th CC Olympiad and one in the 13th CC Olympiad Prelims, which started on 31 May 1998. These games were apparently played by email. So far our 12th CC Olympiad team has posted two draws and one loss, while our 13th CC Olympiad team has posted one loss.

The following games are the two draws from the 12th CC Olympiad Final.

White: Artur Mrugala (ICCF 2402)
Black: Jens-Uwe Klugel (ICCF 2550) (SWZ)
12th CC Olympiad/ Final Bd 5, 1998
Caro-Kann Defense B14
Notes by Artur Mrugula

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3 Bb4 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bd2 Nc6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0 Nf6

10...h6 11.Rc1 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Ba3 13.Rb1 e5 14.Qa4 Be7 15.Be4 exd4 16.cxd4 Bd6 17.Rfe1 Qf6 18.d5 Ne5 19.Nxe5 Bxe5 20.Be3 Bd6 21.g3 Re8 22.Bd4 Qg5 23.Bb6 Rf8 24.Bd4 Qg4 25.Qc4 f5 26.Bg2 f4 27.Qc3 b6 28.Be5 fxg3 29.Bxg3 Bc5 30.d6 Be6 31.Rxe6 Qxe6 32.Qd2 Qg6 33.Bxa8 Qxb1+ 34.Kg2 Qf5 35.Bc6 Qg5 36.Qxg5 hxg5 37.d7 Be7 38.Bc7 Bd8 39.Bd5+ Kh7 40.Be5 Kh6 41.Be6 Kg6 42.a4 Rh8 43.h3 Rh4 44.f4 gxf4 45.Kf3 a6 46.Bxf4 Rh5 47.Ke4 Ra5 48.Bb3 Kf6 49.Bd1 Ke6 50.Bg4+ Ke7 51.Ke3 g5 0-1 Omischuk,A-Vyzmanavin,A., Yalta super 1995/ EXP/47.

11.Bg5

11.a3 Be7 12.Be3 b6 13.Rc1 Bb7 14.Bb1 Rc8 15.Qd3 g6 16.Rfd1 Na5 17.Bh6 Re8 18.Ba2 Nd5 19.Ne5 Bg5 20.Bxg5 Qxg5 21.Ne4 Qxc1 22.b4 f5 23.Nd6 Qg5 24.Nf3 Qd8 25.Nxc8 Nc6 1/2-1/2, Yagupova,L. - Terekhov,A/ St.Petersburg Petrov, 1996.

11...Be7 12.Rc1 h6 13.Bf4

13.Be3 Nb4 14.Bb1 b6 15.Qd2 Re8 16.Ne5 1/2-1/2, Sokolov,I.-Hulak,K. Bled/Rogaska Slatina 1991.

13...Qb6

13...Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Qa5 15.Nb3+-

14.Ne5 Nb4

14...Qxb2? 15.Nc4 Qxc1 16.Qxc1+-; 14...Nxd4 15.Be3 Rd8 16.Nb5±

15.Be3 Nxd3 16.Qxd3 Rd8

16...Qxb2? 17.Nc4 Qxc1 18.Rxc1+-

17.Rc2 Nd7 18.f4 Qa5 19.Qe2 Nf6 20.Rfc1 Bd7 21.Qf3 Qa6 22.Qh3 Bc6 23.g4 Nd5

23...Nd7 24.Nxc6 bxc6 25.Qf3=

24.Nxd5

24.Nxc6 bxc6 25.Nxd5 cxd5

24...Rxd5 25.g5

White gains space, but this move leads to a very open position. Not 25.Nxc6 bxc6 26.b3 Rc8 =

25...hxg5 26.fxg5 Be8

26...Qxa2?? 27.g6 fxg6 28.Qxe6+ Kh8 29.Qxe7+-

27.Rc7 Qd6 28.Rxb7

With the idea of g6 and draw.

28...Rxd4 29.g6

29.Bxd4? Qxd4+ 30.Kh1 Bxg5-+

29...fxg6 30.Bxd4 Qxd4+ 31.Kh1 Qxe5 32.Rxe7 Bc6+ 33.Rxc6 ½-½

White: Dr. Philip Cody (ICCF 2270)
Black: IM Kier Nienhuis (ICCF 2419) (NLD)
12th CC Olympiad Final/Bd 4 1998
Nimzo Indian Defense E59
Notes by Philip Cody

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.O-O Nc6 8.a3 Bc3 9.bc3 dc4 10.Bc4 Qc7 11.Bb5

(Common alternatives are: 11.Be2; 11.Ba2; and 11.Bd3, but a whole host of others tries have also been seen.)

11...a6 12.Bxc6

White may retreat (the Bishop) to e2 or d3 and try to exploit the weakness at b6 but at d3 you must be careful of the fork at e4 and I did not like the pawn formation resulting. At e2 it would take a lot of work to use the queenside.

(My edition of ECO (1978) after 12.Bd3, gives 12...e5 13.Qc2 Bg2 14.Ne5 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Qxe5 16.f3 Bd7 17.a4 Rfe8 18.Re1 +/=, Pachman=Sterner, Munchen (ol) 1958.)

12...Qxc6 13.Ne5 Qc7 14.Qf3 Rd8

I feel that 14...Nd7 is stronger

15.Rb1

to attack b6 square

(Here White deviates from Lein-Tolus, USSR 1955, which continued: 15.Rd1 Bd7 16.a4 Rac8 = (ECO).)

15...Nd5

This is a weak move and should lose the game.

16.e4 cxd4 17.cxd4 f6 18.exd5 fxe5 19.dxe6 Rxd4

19...exd4 is better.

20.Bb2 Rf4 21.Qd5!

This is better than 21.Qb3.

(With the obvious threat of 22.e6+, and winning.)

21...Qe7 22.Bxe5 Bxe6 23.Qxb7 Qxb7 24.Rxb7 Rxf7 25.Rxf7

25.Rfb1 may be better

25...Kxf7 26.f4 Bf5

Or 26...Rd8

27.Rd1 Ra7 28.Rd6 a5 29.h3 h5 30.Rd5 Be6 31.Rb5 Bd7 32.Rb6 a4 33.Kf2 Bf5 34.Rb4 Bd7 35.Rb8 Be6 36.Ke3 g6 37.h4 Rd7 38.Rb4 Bb3 39.g3 Re7 40.Kd4 Re6 41.Kc5 Re8 42.Rb7+ Re7 43.Rb6 ½ - ½

Al Fichaud of Montreal, Quebec submitted the following interesting game from M-96, the Drew Lamb Memorial Candidate Master event.

White: Al Fichaud
Black: Tim Knechtel
M-96 Drew Lamb Memorial 1998
Modern Defense A42

1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Be3 e5 6.d5 Nce7 7.c5 f5 8.Bb5+ Kf8 9.f3 Bh6 10.Qd2 f4 11.Bf2 g5 12.Nge2 Nf6 13.g3 Bh3 14.gxf4 gxf4 15.Rg1 Ng6 16.0-0-0 Kf7 17.Kb1 a6 18.Ba4 Nh5 19.Qe1 b5 20.cxb6 cxb6 21.Bc6 Rb8 22.Rc1 Bg5 23.Nd1 Rg8 24.Qb4 h6 25.Qa3 a5 26.Ndc3 Qe7 27.Nb5 Rgd8 28.Nec3 Bh4 29.Nd1 Kf6 30.Bxh4+ Nxh4 31.Nf2 Bg2 32.Ng4+ Kg7 33.Rc2 Nxf3 34.Rgxg2 Ne1 35.Be8!! 1-0

Al gives four lines all, winning for White after 35.Be8:

35...Kh8 36.Rc7 Qxc7 37.Nxc7 Nxg2 38.Bxh5 + -; II) 35...Nxg2 36.Rc7 Rxe8 37.Qxd6! Rb7 38.Rxe7+ Rexe7 39.Qxh6+ + -; III) 35...Nxc2 36.Nxe5+ Kh8 37.Rxc2 Qxe5 38.Bxh5 Qxh5 39.Nxd6 Kh7 40.Rc7+ Kg6 41.Nf5 Rd7 42.Rc6+ Kf7 43.Qd3!! Kg8 44.Qd4 Kh7 45.Rxh6+ Qxh6 46.Nxh6+ Kxh6 + -; IV) 35...Qxe8 36.Nxd6! Qg6 37.Rc7+ Kh8 38.Nxf7+ Qxf7 39.Rxf7 Rbc8 40.Qe7 + -.

The NATT IV event is nearing completion. At the time of this writing our team has 45.5 points out of 84 completed games, and is currently in 3rd place. The following game is my first win against a player rated over 2500! J. Pedro Soberano is the Team Captain of the Portugese team. Ratings indicated were at the time this game was played.

White: Ralph P. Marconi (ICCF 2205)
Black: J. Pedro Soberano (ICCF 2525) (POR)
NATT IV/ Bd 8 1995-1997
King's Indian Defense/Säemisch Variation E88

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3

(This is my favorite response to Black's setup, although I was badly beaten by a German opponent in an ICCF Master Norm Tournament #2 when I tried it.

5...0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 c6 8.Bd3 cxd5 9.cxd5 Nh5 10.Nge2 f5 11.exf5 gxf5 12.0-0 Nd7 13.Rc1 Nc5 14.Bb1! a5 15.f4 e4!

(better than 15...b6?! 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.d6+/-, Knaak-Reyes, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990.) 16.Nd4 Nf6 17.h3!

(Preventing ...Ng4, and preparing for an eventual g4.)

17...Bd7 18.Ndb5 Qb6?

(18...Qe7 was better in my opinion. This move turns out to be quite costly in terms of tempi. Black has to subsequently spend valuable time bringing his Queen back over to the Kingside for defense.)

19.a4 Ne8 20.Qe2 Qa6 21.Bc2 Rf6 22.g4! Rg6 23.g5 Bxc3?

(Giving up his strong Bishop was a bad decision. I expected 23...h6!?)

24.bxc3 Nc7 25.c4 Qb6

(Black realizes he made an error by bringing the Queen over to queenside and is now trying to bring her back over to the kingside.)

26.h4 Nxb5 27.cxb5 Rg7 28.Bd4! +/- Be8!? 29.Kh2!

(Of course not 29.Bxg7? , for two reasons it would give up my strongly posted Bishop and 29...Nd3+!)

29...Rc7 30.h5

(With the idea of 31.g6 to follow.)

30...Rcc8 31.g6! Qd8!

(On 31...hxg6 32.hxg6 Bxg6?? 33.Rg1! + -, King moves to protect and 34.Rxg6! wins!)

32.hxh7+ Kxh7 33.Kh3!

(Preventing ...Qh4+!)

33...Qe7 34.Rg1 Rc7!? 35.h6!

(Much better than the obvious 35.Rg7+, etc.

35...Qf8!

(35...Kxh6 would lose, after 36.Rg5! followed by Rh1 or Qh2.)

36.Rg7+ Rg7 37.hxg6!

(Better than 37.Bxg7.)

37...Qf7 38.Rh1!

(Stopping 38...Qh5+)

38...Qg6

(Only move)

39.g8=Q+! Qxg8 40.Rg1 Bg6?

( However on 40...Qf7 41.Rg5! and this should win.

If 40...Qxd5!?/?! 41.Rg7+ Kh8!? {not 41...Kh6? 42.Qf3! + -}41. Qf3 and Black must give up his queen with 41...Qxd4 42.Qxd4 Ne6 43.Qf6 Nxg7 44.Bb3! Kh7 (forced) 45.Kh4 and White should win, but Black can put up a bit more resistance. )

41.Qh2 Qf8 42.Kg2+! Qh6 43.Qxh6+ Kxh6 44.Rh1+ Bh5 45.Bd1 Rg8+

(45...Nd3!? 46.Kf1!) 46.Kf1! 1-0

Since White is threatenning 47.Bxh5 with mate to follow. If 46...Rg4 47.Bxg4 fxg4 48.Bxc5 dxc5 49.d6! and the pawn cannot be stopped from queening, while Black's 3 passed pawns are useless.