|
Simmelink,J - Evans,G
IECG email, 2000
1.e4
e6
2.d4
d5
3.Nc3
Bb4
4.e5
Ne7
5.a3
Bxc3+
6.bxc3
c5
7.Qg4
0-0
8.Bd3
Qa5
9.Bd2
Nbc6
10.Nf3
f5
11.exf6
Rxf6
12.Qh5
Nf5
13.c4
Qa4
14.cxd5
Ncxd4!
This is undoubtedly better than [ 14...exd5?
as played in Svidler-Psakhis.]
15.Ng5
More analysis on White's alternatives here can be found in Svidler-Psakhis.
15...h6
16.Ne4
Rf8
17.0-0!
[ 17.Nxc5
Nxc2+
18.Bxc2
Qxc2
19.Rc1
Qa2
20.dxe6
b6
De Costa.]
17...b6!
[ Instead 17...exd5
18.Nxc5
( 18.c4
) 18...Qc6
19.Nb3!
looks slightly better for White in view of the two bishops.; 17...c4
18.Nc3
Qa6
19.Be4+/=
]
18.Nc3
Qe8
[ 18...Qd7
19.dxe6
Nxe6
( 19...Qxe6??
20.Be4
) 20.Rad1+/=
] 19.Qxe8
Rxe8
This position is critical for the assessment of the whole line. At present (Dec 2002) Black maintains the balance here. The line is worth studying.
20.Nb5
White has played two other moves here;
A 20.Rfe1 and 20.a4
[ LINE A 20.Rfe1
Bb7
21.dxe6
Nh4
22.f3 White has to be
careful as Black's tactics almost work. ( 22.Be4
Bxe4
23.Rxe4
Nhf5=/+
) 22...c4
( 22...Re7!?
Might be a better try. 23.Rf1
Why? 23...Rf8
; 22...Nhxf3+
23.gxf3
Nxf3+
24.Kf2
Nxd2
25.Re3
Trying to trap the knight. 25...Rf8+
26.Ke2
Nf3
27.e7
Nd4+
28.Kd2
Rfe8
29.Bg6
Nf3+
30.Kc1
Is all very unclear, and probably the reason it was not played.) 23.Be4
Bxe4
24.Rxe4
Nhf5
25.Rd1
Rxe6
26.Bf4
g5
27.Bc7
Rc8
28.Nd5
Rc6
29.Be5
Rd8
30.Rexd4
Nxd4
31.Rxd4
Kf7
32.Ne3
Rxd4
33.Bxd4
a6
34.Kf2
b5
35.g3
a5
36.Bc3
Ra6
37.f4
gxf4
38.gxf4
Kg6
39.f5+
Kf7
40.Kf3
Ra8
41.Ng4
h5
42.Ne5+
Kf8
43.f6
b4
44.axb4
a4
45.b5
a3
46.b6
1-0 Smirnov,P-Kim, 2002;
LINE B 20.a4
Bb7
( 20...Nh4
21.f3
exd5
22.Nxd5
Bh3
23.gxh3?! ( 23.Bc4 Looks better, or at least Black has to be careful after; 23...Bxg2
24.Nxb6+
Kh8
25.Nxa8
Bxf1
26.Kxf1
Ndxf3
27.Be1
Rxa8
28.Bxh4
Nxh4
29.Rd1
Nf5=
) 23...Nhxf3+
24.Kg2
Nxd2
25.Rfd1
c4
26.Bxc4
Nxc4
27.Rxd4
Ne3+
28.Nxe3
Rxe3
29.a5
Re2+
30.Kg3
Rae8
31.axb6
R8e3+
32.Kf4
axb6
33.Rd3
Re6
34.c4
R2e4+
35.Kf3
Rxc4
36.Ra7
Rf6+
0-1 Kulaots,K-Llobel Cortell,E 2002) 21.dxe6
Nd6
22.Rfe1
Rxe6
23.Rxe6
Nxe6
24.Re1
Kf7
&aposKulaots-De la Villa 2002.&apos 25.Nb5
( 25.Bg6+
Kf6=
) 25...Nxb5
26.axb5
Rd8
( 26...a5=
) 27.Ra1
c4
28.Rxa7
cxd3
29.Rxb7+
Kg8
30.cxd3
Rxd3
31.Be1
Rb3
32.Rxb6
Nd4
33.f3
Rxb5
34.Rd6
Rb1
35.Kf2
Rb2+
36.Kf1
Nf5
37.Rd3
h5
38.Bd2
Kf7
39.Ke2
Rb6
40.Rd7+
Ke6
41.Ra7
g6
42.Ra4
Rc6
43.Re4+
Kd5
44.Kd3
Re6
45.Bc3
Re7
46.h3
Re6
47.g4
hxg4
48.hxg4
Ne7
49.Rd4+
Kc6
50.Kc4
Nc8
51.f4
Re3
52.Rd8
Nd6+
53.Kd4
Re4+
54.Kd3
Rxf4
55.Be5
Rf3+
56.Ke2
Nf7
57.Rc8+
Kd7
58.Rc7+
Kd8
59.Kxf3
Nxe5+
60.Ke4
Nxg4
61.Rc6
Ke7
62.Rxg6
1/2-1/2 Kulaots,K-De la Villa Garcia,Jn 2002]
20...Rd8
[ The exchange sacrifice 20...Ba6
21.Nc7
Bxd3
22.cxd3
exd5
doesn&apost seem to quite give Black enough play after 23.Nxe8
Rxe8
24.Rfe1
]
21.Nc7
Rb8
22.Rae1
exd5
23.Nxd5!
Bb7!?
[ Instead 23...Rxd5
24.Bc4
Bb7
appears to be good for White after 25.c3!
but there are a lot of interesting tactics floating around in the position.]
24.Bf4
Ra8
[ Here 24...Bxd5
25.Bxb8
Rxb8
26.Re5
also seems to favour White.] 25.Ne7+
Nxe7
26.Rxe7
Bd5
27.Be5
Bf7
28.f4
Nc6!
Black now forces equality through simplification.
29.Rc7
Rac8
30.Bh7+
Kxh7
31.Rxf7
Nxe5
32.fxe5
Re8
33.Rxa7
Rxe5
34.Rff7
Rg8
35.Rfb7
A very entertaining struggle. I doubt that the last word on this line has yet been said. 1/2-1/2
|
