1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 h6 9.Bh4 g5 If you have either of these books,John Nunn and Michael Stean,Sicilian Defence,Najdorf Variation,1982,or,John Nunn,The Complete Najdorf,6.Bg5,1996,I suggest you use these to see where theory was. 10.fxg5 Nfd7 11.Nxe6! The socalled Gothenburg Variation. Named for the 1955 Interzonal Tournament where the Argentinian Team led by Najdorf lost all 3 games with their Soviet counterparts. ie. Geller-Panno, Keres-Najdorf,Spassky-Pilnik. It is said that Geller lead the way with Bb5 and when the Argentinians didnt like the way Pannos position looked, went another route. But Pannos way held out the most hope if followed by Rh7,but who knew that in that time.This epoc in history is known as the Argentininan Disaster. [11.Qh5!? A move which is now second best.] 11...fxe6 [11...Qb6 12.Nd5 Qa5+ 13.b4 Ne5 14.Qc3+- Francisco Trois-F.Burgos,Brazil,1969] 12.Qh5+ Kf8 13.Bb5 It is said that Geller was the first to play this move during the Triple Disaster. 13...Rh7 This move was first discovered by Keres. Bobby Fischer utilized it to gain his Grandmaster title against Gligoric, Portoroz 1958. There is a great anecdote of Fischer and Gligoric on a walk about a week before there game. Fischer asked Gligoric what he knew about the Gothenburg variation, and Gligoric replied, nothing! [13...Ne5 14.Bg3 Rh7 (14...Bxg5 15.0-0+ Ke7 16.Bxe5 Qb6+ 17.Kh1 dxe5 18.Qf7+ Kd6 19.Rad1+ Qd4 20.Rxd4+ exd4 21.e5+ Kc5 22.Qc7+ Nc6 23.Bxc6 This was the game that led the way for the Soviets and Argentinians! Efim Geller vs. Oscar Panno IZ 1955.) 15.Bxe5 dxe5 16.Rd1 A) 16...Nd7 17.Qg6 Rf7 18.Qxh6+ Kg8 19.Qg6+ Kf8 20.Qh6+ Kg8 21.g6 Rg7 22.Bc4 Qb6 23.Rd3 (23.Nd5 Qc5 24.Ne3 Qc6 25.Rd6 Bxd6 26.Bxe6+ Kf8 27.Qh8+ Ke7 28.Nd5++- Ninov-Spasov cr ch-bg-20,1989) 23...Nf8 24.Rg3 Qd4 (24...Bd7 25.Rf1 Be8 26.Rf7+-) 25.Rf1 Qxc4 26.Rxf8+ Kxf8 (26...Bxf8 27.Rh3+-) 27.Qh8+ Rg8 28.Rf3+ Ke8 29.Qxg8+ Kd7 30.g7+- J. Adams; B) 16...Bd7 B1) 17.g6 Not best , but the only move considered by theory. 17...Rg7 18.0-0+ Kg8 19.Bc4 Qc8 (19...Qe8 20.Nd5 Bc5+ 21.Kh1 exd5 22.Bxd5+ Be6 23.Bxe6+ Qxe6 24.Rd8++-) 20.Bb3 B1a) 20...Be8 21.Nd5 Qc5+ (21...Bc5+ 22.Kh1 Rxg6 23.Rf6± Blatny-Minic, Sombor 1966) 22.Kh1 Bxg6 23.Qxe5+-; B1b) 20...Nc6 21.Rf7 Nd8 22.Rxg7+ Kxg7 23.Qxe5+ Kxg6 24.Qg3+ Kh7 This is where theory left the 13...Ne5 variation. So I had to find an improvement. ; B2) 17.Bxd7!N Here is the antidote. 17...Nxd7 18.Qg6 Rf7 19.Qxh6+ Kg8 20.Qg6+ Kf8 21.Rf1 Rxf1+ 22.Kxf1 B2a) 22...Bxg5 23.Qh7 B2a1) 23...Qf6+ 24.Ke2 Nc5 (24...Nb6 25.Qxb7 Qh6 26.Qxb6+-) 25.b4+-; B2a2) 23...Be7 B2a21) 24.Rd3 Qe8 25.Rf3+!? White could transpose back with 25.Rd7 Qd7. Now white gets 2 favourable endings, 25...Nf6 (25...Bf6 26.g4 Qf7 27.Qxf7+ Kxf7 28.g5 Rh8 29.h3 Kg6 30.gxf6±) 26.g4 Qf7 27.Qxf7+ Kxf7 28.g5 Rh8 29.gxf6 Bxf6 30.h3±; B2a22) 24.Rxd7! 24...Qxd7 25.Qh8+ Kf7 26.Qxa8 Qd2 27.Qxb7 Qf4+ The other check holds no hope for Black either; (27...Qc1+ 28.Kf2 Qxc2+ 29.Ne2 Kf6 30.Qb3) 28.Ke2 Qxh2 29.Qa7 Qh5+ 30.Kd3+-; B2b) 22...Bc5 23.Rd3 Ke7 (23...Qc7 24.Qxe6 Nb6 25.Rf3+ Kg7 26.Qf6+ Kg8 27.Qg6+ Qg7 28.Qe6+ Kh8 29.Rh3+ Qh7 30.Rxh7+ Kxh7 31.Qf7+ Kh8 32.g6 Rf8 33.g7+ Kh7 34.gxf8Q#) 24.Qg7+ Ke8 25.Rf3 Qc8 (25...Qe7 26.Qg8+ Nf8 27.g6 Qg5 28.Qf7+ Kd8 29.Rd3+ Kc8 30.g7+-) 26.Qf7+ Kd8 27.g6 Kc7 28.Qxe6 Bf8 (28...Kb8 29.Rf7 Nb6 30.Qxc8+ Nxc8 31.g7+-; 28...Qe8 29.Nd5+ Kd8 30.Qxe8+ Kxe8 31.g7+-; 28...Qh8 29.Nd5+ Kd8 30.Rf7 Nf8 31.Qf5 Qg8 32.Qf6+ Kc8 33.Rc7+ Kb8 34.Qd8+ Ka7 35.Rxb7+ Kxb7 36.Qc7#) 29.Nd5+ Kb8 White now liquidates nicely; 30.Qxd7+-; 13...Kg7? Najdorf and Pilnik were more than interested in the Geller-Panno encounter. Not liking what they saw happening to poor Panno, chose this try. The power of 13.Bb5 must have come as quite a shock. 14.0-0 Ne5 15.Bg3 Ng6 16.gxh6+ Rxh6 17.Rf7+ Kxf7 18.Qxh6 axb5 19.Rf1+ Ke8 20.Qxg6+ Kd7 21.Rf7 Nc6 22.Nd5 Rxa2 23.h3 (23.h4 Qh8 24.Nxe7 Nxe7 25.Qg5 This was Paul Keres vs. Miguel Najdorf, Gothenburg IZ 1955.) 23...Qh8 24.Nxe7 Nxe7 25.Qg5 Ra1+ 26.Kh2 Qd8 27.Qxb5+ Kc7 28.Qc5+ Kb8 29.Bxd6+ Ka8 30.Bxe7 Ra5 31.Qb4 This nearly identical game was Boris Spassky vs. Herman Pilnik Gothenburg IZ 1955. ] 14.0-0+ With the 13...Ne5 variation in order. i.e. White winning. We can get on with the refutation of the Main Line. [14.Qg6 Rf7 15.Qxh6+ Kg8 16.Qg6+ (16.Rf1 Rxf1+ 17.Bxf1 Ne5 18.Bc4 Nxc4= Jan Timman-Michael Stean,London,1973) 16...Rg7 17.Qxe6+ Kh8 18.Bxd7 Nxd7 19.0-0-0 Ne5 20.Qd5 Bg4 21.Rdf1 Bxg5+ (21...Rc8µ Gligoric) 22.Bxg5 Qxg5+ 23.Kb1 Qe7 24.Qd2 Be6 25.g3 Rd8 26.Rf4 Qg5 27.Qf2 Kg8 28.Rd1 Rf7 29.b3 Qe7 30.Qd4 Ng6 31.Rxf7 Qxf7 32.Qe3 Gligoric offered Fischer a draw here, mathematically ensuring Fishers G.M. title] 14...Kg8 15.g6 Rg7 16.Rf7 Bxh4 [16...Bg5 17.Bxd7 Nxd7 18.Raf1 b5 (18...Kh8 19.Kh1 Rxf7 20.gxf7 Kg7 21.Bxg5 hxg5 22.f8Q+ Nxf8 23.Qf7+ Kh8 24.Qxf8+ Qxf8 25.Rxf8+ Kg7 26.Rd8 Kf7 27.Na4 Ke7 28.Rh8 Bd7 29.Rh7++- Nedeljkovic-Velimirovic Belgrad,1963) 19.e5 d5 (19...Qb6+ 20.Kh1 Qe3 21.Bxg5 Qxg5 22.Qf3+-) 20.Kh1 Ra7 (20...Rxf7 21.gxf7+ Kg7 22.Bxg5 hxg5 23.h4!+-) 21.Nxd5 exd5 22.e6 Nf8 23.Bxg5 hxg5 24.Qxg5 Re7 25.Rxf8+ Qxf8 26.Rxf8+ Kxf8 27.Qf6++- I. Romanov-A. Gulbrandsen cr EU/M/GT/7,1964; 16...Rxf7 17.gxf7+ Kg7 (17...Kh7 18.f8Q Qxf8 19.Rf1 Nf6 20.Bxf6 Bxf6 21.e5 dxe5 22.Ne4 axb5 23.Nxf6+ Kh8 24.Qg6+- A. Van der Tak-F. Hildama cr friendly,1996) 18.f8Q+ Nxf8 19.Be8 Nc6 20.Rf1 Ne5 21.Rf7+ Kg8 22.Rxe7 Qb6+ 23.Kh1+- Georgy Georgiev-Spas Spasov cr ch-BG,1993] 17.Qxh6 The Main Line now splits in two. 17...Qxf6 and 17...Rxf7.
17...Rxf7 [17...Qf6 Everything I could find on this move was wrong. I spent hours trying to sort it out until I discovered Parma!.Then the Gaspariants-Eidlin game started to make alot of sense. A) 18.Rf1 Not best as my analyses proves. A1) 18...Qxf1+ 19.Kxf1 Bf6 20.g4 (20.Rxg7+ Bxg7 21.Qh7+ Kf8 22.Qh4 Nf6 23.g4 unclear Romanishin) 20...Rxf7 21.gxf7+ Kxf7 22.e5 Bxe5 23.Ne4 axb5 24.Ng5+ Ke7 25.Qh7+ Kd8 26.Nxe6+ Ke8 27.Nc7+ Kf8 28.Qf5+ Ke7 29.Qe6+ Kd8 30.Nd5 Nc6 31.Qg8++- Carlos Gutierrez-Gustavo Cataldi cr ch-AR-11,1983; A2) 18...axb5 A2a) 19.Nxb5 A2a1) 19...Nc6? 20.Nc7?? (20.R1xf6!N I wonder why people dont want to take the queen? After this Novelty, Black is on the ropes. When the GMs at New In Chess added the illustrated games, this powerful move went unnoticed. This actually left the Gothenburg playable. I spent some enjoyable time proving that white wins now. 20...Bxf6 21.Nc7+- I will let you work it out. As I had to do.) 20...Bg5 21.Qh3 Qxg6 22.Rxg7+ Kxg7 23.Nxa8 Qxe4 24.Kh1 Qe2 25.Qc3+ Nde5 26.Re1 Qf2 27.Rd1 Be3 28.Nc7 Kg8 29.Nb5 Ng4-+ Yakir Kurass-Ruchkin Moscow tt,1961; A2a2) 19...Rxa2 20.R7xf6 (20.Nxd6? Bg5 21.Rxg7+ Qxg7 22.Qxg5 Qd4+ 23.Kh1 Qf6 24.Qc1 Qxb2 25.Qh6 Qg7 26.Qc1 Nc6 27.Nxc8 Nf6 28.Nd6 Ng4 29.Qe1 Qd4 30.h3 Qxd6 31.hxg4 Qe7 32.Qd2 Qg7 33.e5 Ra5 34.Qd6 Rxe5 35.Ra1 Rh5+ 36.gxh5 Qxa1+ 37.Kh2 Qe5+ 38.Qxe5 Nxe5 39.Kg3 Kg7 40.Kf4 Nd7 41.Kg5 Kg8 and a draw was agreed Adrian Mikhalchishin-Victor Kupreichik Frunze ch-SU,1981) 20...Bxf6 21.Nxd6 Nc6 22.Nf7 Rxf7 23.gxf7+ Kxf7 24.Qh7+ Ke8 25.Qg8+ Ke7 26.Qxc8 Rxb2 This is A. Mikhalchishins improvement on his game with Kupreichik. 27.Qg8² According to Polugaevsky!; A2a3) 19...Bg5!N When I found this move I knew white had gone wrong. 20.Rxg7+ Qxg7 21.Qxg5 Nc6 22.Nxd6 (22.Rf7 Qxb2 23.Qh6 Qa1+ 24.Kf2 Qh8-+) 22...Qd4+ 23.Kh1 Qxd6 24.Qh6 Qe7 25.g7 Qxg7 26.Qxe6+ Kh8 27.Qe8+ Qg8 28.Qh5+=; A2b) 19.e5 A2b1) 19...Qxe5 20.Qxh4 Nc6 21.Ne4± Diaz-Alzate,Bayamo,1984; A2b2) 19...Qxg6 20.Rxg7+ Qxg7 21.Qxe6+ Kh8 22.Rf7?? (22.Qe8+ Qg8 23.Qh5+ Qh7 24.Qe8+=) 22...Qg5 23.g3 Nc6 24.Rf5 Nf6-+ Kashliuk-Nasibullin,cr ch-SU-19,1992; A2b3) 19...Bg5!N As with the 19.Nxb5 line, this Novelty gives Black sufficient resources. Remember all Black has to do is draw. This is why I recommend 18.Rxf6 Bxf6 with White on top. A2b31) 20.Qh7+ In this article, I have endevoured to be as complete with new ideas as possible. My article in New In Chess YB.48 Gave all the refutations of known theory. Now it is my privelage to present the reader with as many secrets left unrevealed from that publicatiion. 20...Rxh7 21.gxh7+ Kh8 22.exf6 d5 Perhaps 22...Nc6 is most exact. 23.Nxb5 Nc6 24.Nd6 Be3+ 25.Kh1 Bc5 26.Nxb7 (26.Nxc8 Nce5-+) 26...Bf8 27.Re1 Rxa2 28.g4 Rxb2 29.Rxe6 (29.g5 Rxb7 30.Rxe6 Nd8 31.Rxf8+ Nxf8 32.Re8 Bh3 33.Rxf8+ Kxh7 34.Kg1 Ne6 35.Re8 Kg6-+; 29.Nd6 Bxd6 30.Rxe6 Nce5 31.Re8+ Bf8 32.Rexf8+ Nxf8 33.Rxf8+ Kxh7 34.Rxc8 Kg6 35.Rc5 Nxg4-+) 29...Rxc2 30.g5 Nce5 31.Rxe5 Nxe5 32.Rxf8+ Kxh7 33.f7 Bxb7 My fantasy line. 34.Rh8+ Kg6 35.f8Q d4+ 36.Kg1 Nf3+ 37.Kh1 Nxh2+ 38.Kg1 Rg2+ 39.Kh1 Rf2+ 40.Kg1 Rxf8 41.Rxf8 Nf3+ 42.Kf2 Nxg5-+; A2b32) 20.Rxg7+ 20...Qxg7 21.Qxg5 Nc6 22.Ne4 (22.Rf7 Qxe5 23.Qh6 Qh8; 22.Nxb5 Ndxe5 23.Nxd6 Qxg6 24.Qf4 Bd7 25.Ne4 Kg7-+) 22...Qxe5 23.Qh4 Qh8 24.Rf8+ Nxf8 25.Nf6+ Qxf6 26.Qxf6 Ne5 27.g7 Nh7 28.Qd8+ Kxg7 29.Qxd6 Nf7 30.Qg3+ Kf6 31.Qh4+ Nhg5 32.Qf4+ Ke7 33.h4 Nh7-+; B) 18.e5 A move given a question mark by Mikhalchishin for the wrong reason. 18...Nxe5 The move Mikhalchishin gives in the 1981 Informant. His annotation goes 18.e5? Nxe5 19.Ne4 Nf3!+ 20.Kh1 Qg6-+ . But this can be vastly improved by 19.Rxf6! transposing to 19.e5!!, thus 19.Ne4 is a ??. If Mikhalchishins 18...Nxe5 is to be believed then his assessment is wrong and White is probably winning with 19.Rxf6!. My question to the world is can White win against other Black responses to 18.e5? I will leave it to the reader to decide whether you will play 18.Rxf6 or 18.e5.; C) 18.Rxf6! Why not just take the Queen? 18...Bxf6
C1) 19.Bxd7 Nxd7 20.Rf1 (20.h4 Bd4+ 21.Kh1 Ne5 22.h5 Bd7 23.Rf1 Rc8 unclear, Nunn.) 20...Bd4+ 21.Kh1 Bxc3 22.bxc3 Ne5 23.Qd2² Parma; C2) 19.e5!!N Midnight by the Morphy watch. Another novelty of mine, not given in New In Chess YB. 48. The clearance sacrifice gives white e4 for his Knight, and d3 for the Bishop. In the Gaspariants game the Bishop goes to h5 to protect the g6 pawn. The Bishop from d3 allows the h pawn to skate to h5, to protect g6. It now becomes evident that Whites Queen is a most powerful piece against Blacks disorganized and undeveloped minors. A recent game of mine, with Manitoba Chess Champion, Kevin Gentes went down this path! It was the 2nd game of a three game match, which Kevin won with a score of 2 wins 1 loss. After having won the first game, in a hard fought Tarrasch, Kevin tried the Gothenburg,with Black! against me. If he wins, not only would he win the match, but he would have made me look pretty silly! Fortunately, I prevailed against a move first suggested by Fletcher Baragar about a week and a half before our game. In that time I had been working out all the nuances to Baragars suggestion, so I was secretely pleased when Gentes chose 20...Nf8. For the other possibillities I have provided some fantasy variations to give the reader an idea of the possibillities. C2a) 19...Nxe5 Here is the position Mikhalchishin allowed by transposition with his 18.e5 Nxe5 note. 20.Ne4 Be7 21.Be8 Bd7 (21...Nbc6 22.Rf1 Bd7 Blacks army is all puffed up. 23.Rf8+! With a quick mate.) 22.Qh3 C2a1) 22...d5 23.Ng3 Nxg6 (23...Bxe8 24.Qxe6+ Kh8 25.Qh3+ Kg8 26.Qc8 Bc5+ 27.Kh1 Nxg6 28.Qxe8+ Nf8 29.Rf1+-) 24.Bxd7 Nxd7 25.Qxe6+ Kh7 26.Nf5 Bc5+ 27.Kh1 Ndf8 28.Qf6 Rd7 29.h4 Re8 30.h5 Ne5 31.Qh6+ Kg8 32.Re1 Ba7 33.Qf6 Rh7 34.g4 Bb8 35.Nh6+ Rxh6 36.Qxh6 Nf7 37.Qg6+ Nxg6 38.Rxe8+ Nf8 39.Rxb8 Nd6 40.Rd8 Nc4 41.g5 Nxb2 42.g6 Kg7 43.Rb8 b5 44.Rb7+ Kg8 45.h6 Nxg6 46.Rg7+ Kh8 47.Rxg6+-; C2a2) 22...Bc8 23.Rf1 Nxg6 (23...Nbc6 24.Rf8+ Kxf8 25.Qh8+ Rg8 26.g7+ Kxe8 27.Qxg8+ Kd7 28.Qh7 d5 29.Nf2 b6 30.g8Q Bb7 31.Qgg7+-) 24.Rf6 Bxf6 25.Nxf6+ Kf8 26.Bxg6 Rxg6 27.Qh8+ Kf7 28.Qxc8+-; C2a3) 22...Bxe8 23.Qxe6+ Kh8 24.Qh3+ Kg8 25.Qc8 Nxg6 26.Qxe8+ Kh7 27.Rf1 Rg8 28.Rf7+ Kh8 29.Nf6 I tried very hard not to use to many exclams in this article. Difficult indeed, as the Gothenburg is full of tremendous tactics. 29...Bxf6 30.Qe3 Rg7 31.Rxf6 (31.Qh3+ Kg8 32.Rxf6 Nc6 33.Qe6+ Kh7 34.Rf3 Re7 35.Rf7+ Rxf7 36.Qxf7+ Kh6 37.Qxb7+-) 31...Nd7 32.Qh6+ Rh7 33.Qxg6 Rg8 34.Qf5 Nxf6 35.Qxf6+ Rhg7 36.Qh6+ Rh7 37.Qxd6+-; C2b) 19...Bxe5 20.Bd3 C2b1) 20...Nf6 21.Rf1 Nbd7 22.Qg5 b5 23.Ne4 Ne8 24.h4 Bb7 (24...d5 25.Ng3 Bf6 26.Qe3 Re7 27.Nh5 e5 28.Bf5 Bg7 29.Nxg7 Nxg7 30.Qg5 Nf6 31.Bxc8 Rxc8 32.Rxf6 Rcc7 33.h5 Ne8 34.Rf3 e4 35.Qxd5+ Kg7 36.Qd4+ Kh6 With mate in 7.) 25.h5 d5 26.Ng3 Bd4+ 27.Kh1 Bf6 28.Qg4 Re7 29.h6 Ne5 30.Qg5 Nd7 (30...Nxd3 31.Rxf6 Nxf6 32.Qxf6 Nf2+ 33.Kg1 Rae8 34.Nh5 And mate is unavoidable.) 31.Rxf6 Ndxf6 32.Nh5 Nxh5 33.Qxe7 Neg7 34.g4 Re8 35.Qf7+ Kh8 Mate in 5; C2b2) 20...Nc5 21.Rf1 Nc6 22.h4 Bd7 23.h5 Bd4+ 24.Kh1 Ne5 25.Qg5 Ncxd3 26.cxd3 Bc6 27.Ne2 Bxb2 28.Nf4 Rf8 29.Rb1 Rf5 30.Qd8+ Rf8 31.Qh4 Nf3 32.Qg4 Rxf4 33.Qxf4 Be5 34.Qg4 Nd4 35.h6 Rd7 36.Rb4 Nf5 37.Qg5 b5 38.Kg1 a5 39.Qc1 Bd4+ 40.Kh2 Rc7 41.Rxd4 Nxd4 42.Qg5+-; C2b3) 20...Nf8 Baragars suggestion. 21.Rf1 Nbd7 After Gentes chose this move I was on my own. My attention had been drawn to 21...Nc6. 22.Qh4! Nxg6 23.Bxg6 Rxg6 24.Qd8+ Kh7 25.Ne4 b5 26.Rf3 Bg7 27.Ng5+ Rxg5 28.Qxg5 Ne5 29.Qh5+ Kg8 30.Qe8+ Kh7 31.Rh3+ Bh6 32.Qh5 After this game, Gentes, with white in game 3, took full advantage of my positional mistakes, in a Tarrasch type of game, to win the match.; C2b4) 20...Nc6 21.Rf1 Bd4+ 22.Kh1 C2b41) 22...Nde5 23.Ne4 Nxd3 24.cxd3 Be5 (24...Bd7 25.Rf7 Nd8 26.Rxg7+ Bxg7 27.Qh7+ Kf8 28.Nxd6 a5 29.h4 a4 30.h5 Ra5 31.Kg1 Bd4+ 32.Kf1 Bc6 33.g4 Rc5 34.h6 Rg5 35.g7+ Bxg7 36.hxg7+ Rxg7 37.Qh8++-) 25.h4 Ne7 26.h5 Nf5 27.Qg5 Bd7 28.g4 Ne7 29.Nf6+ Bxf6 30.Rxf6 Rf8 31.Rxf8+ Kxf8 32.Qf6+ Kg8 33.g5 Bc6+ 34.Kh2 Bd5 35.b3 b5 36.Kh3 a5 37.Kg4 Nc6 38.d4 Ne7 39.h6 Rxg6 40.Qxe7 Be4 41.Qxd6+-; C2b42) 22...Bxc3 23.bxc3 Nde5 24.h4 Bd7 25.h5 Ne7 26.Qg5 Nf5 27.Be4 (27.Kg1!? Re8 28.g4 Ne7 29.Rf6 Bc6 30.Kf1 Nxd3 31.cxd3 Nd5 32.h6 Nxf6 33.Qxf6 Rge7 34.g5 Bb5 35.Ke2 e5 36.h7+ Rxh7 37.gxh7+ Kxh7 38.Qf7+ Kh8 39.g6 and wins.) 27...d5 28.Rxf5 Nxg6 29.h6 exf5 30.Qf6 Re7 31.Qxg6+ Kf8 32.h7+- It seems odd that after capturing the queen that 19.e5!! has never been mentioned. ; C3) 19.Be2!? Black must find an improvement in the following moves. 19...Ne5 20.Bh5 Bd7 21.Rf1 Be7 22.Rf7 Nxf7 23.gxf7+ Rxf7 24.Bxf7+ Kxf7 25.Qh7+ A draw was agreed here between Gaspariants-Eidlin, Moscow 1971. In the final position I believe white is winning; C3a) 25...Ke8 26.h4 Nc6 27.h5 Bf8 28.h6 Ne7 (28...Ne5 29.Qg8 Nf7 30.h7+-) 29.Qh8 Kf7 30.e5 d5 31.h7+-; C3b) 25...Kf8 26.h4 Bf6 27.e5 Bxe5 28.Ne4 d5 29.Ng5 Ke8 30.c3 Bd6 31.h5 Kd8 32.h6 Be7 33.Qg7+- So with 19.Bxd7!? Parma, 19.Be2! Gaspariants, or 19.e5!! Kirton, we see an advantage for white against 17...Qf6. Can you save The Gothenburg? ] 18.gxf7+ Kxf7 19.Rf1+ Bf6 20.Qh7+ Kf8 20...Ke8 was refuted in the game Gheorghiu-Browne,Mar del Plata 1971. Theory now considered it to risky to play on after 20...Kf8, and that white should take the draw, right now. [20...Ke8 21.Qg6+ A) 21...Kf8 22.e5 dxe5 23.Ne4 A1) 23...Qb6+ 24.Kh1 A1a) 24...axb5 25.Nxf6 Ke7 26.Qe8+ Kd6 27.Qxc8 Nxf6 28.Rxf6 Kd5 (28...Nd7 29.Qxa8 Nxf6 30.Qf8+ Kd5 31.Qxf6± Gheorghiu and Browne, Mar del Plata,1971. The players agreed a draw here, although white is much better.) 29.Rf1! Qc6 30.Rd1+ Kc4 (30...Ke4 31.Qf8+-; 30...Kc5 31.Qf8++-) 31.b3+ Kc3 32.Qd8 Kb2 33.c4 bxc4 34.Qd2+ Ka3 35.Qc3 Ra6 36.bxc4+ Ka4 37.Qb3+ Ka5 38.Rb1 Qc5 39.Qc3+ Ka4 40.Qc2++-; A1b) 24...Ke7 25.Rxf6 axb5 26.Rf7+ Kd8 27.Qg5+ Kc7 28.Qxe5+ Kd8 29.Qg5+ Kc7 30.Qg3+ Kd8 31.Rg7 e5 (31...Qd4 32.Rg8+ Ke7 33.Qg5++-) 32.Qg5+ Kc7 33.Qxe5+ Kd8 34.Rg8++-; A2) 23...axb5 24.Qh6+ Kg8 25.Nxf6+ Nxf6 26.Rxf6 Qd4+ (26...Qd1+ 27.Rf1 Qd4+ 28.Kh1 Qd8 29.Qg6+ Kh8 30.h3+-) 27.Kf1+- as there is no perpetual.; B) 21...Ke7 22.Rxf6 Qb6+ 23.Rf2 axb5 24.Qf7+ Kd8 25.Qxe6 Ne5 (25...Nf8 26.Qf6+ Kd7 27.Nd5 Qd8 28.Qg7+ Kc6 29.Qc3+ Kd7 30.Rf7++-) 26.Qg8+ Kd7 27.Nd5 Qd8 (27...Qa5 28.b4!) 28.Rf8+-] 21.e5! Preventing the Knight from occupying e5.Beliavskys idea of 21.Be2 only draws after 21...Nc6 22.Bh5 Nde5. This clearance sacrifice is a common theme throughout the Gothenburg. [21.Bxd7 Nxd7 22.e5?! (22.Qh8+=) 22...dxe5 23.Ne4 Qe7 24.Qh8+ Kf7 25.g4? (25.Qh7+) 25...Qf8 26.Qh5+ Ke7 27.g5 Qg7 28.Kh1 b5 29.gxf6+ Nxf6 30.Rxf6 Bb7 31.Qf3 Rg8 32.Qa3+ Kd7 33.Qd6+ Kc8 34.Qxe6+ Kb8 35.Qxe5+ Ka8-+ Milan Matulovic-Dragoljub Ciric,Sarajevo,1966] 21...dxe5 22.Be2!N After this discovery white is winning by force. [22.Ne4 Qb6+! (22...Qe7 23.Qh8+ Kf7 24.Ng5+ Kg6 25.Bd3++- V. Nikolic-Z. Nikolic,Yugoslavia,1972) 23.Rf2 axb5 24.g4 Ra4 25.g5 Rxe4 26.Qxe4 Qd4 27.Qg6 Qg4+ 28.Kf1 Nc6! 29.Qh6+ Kf7 30.Qh7+ Ke8 31.Qg8+ Ke7 32.gxf6+ Nxf6 33.Qxc8 Nd5 34.Ke1 Qg5-+ Nunn.] 22...Qb6+ 23.Kh1 Ke8 24.Qg8+ Ke7 25.Rd1!! This was my most difficult find in refuting the Gothenburg. 25...Nf8 [25...Qd8 26.Qh7+ Kf8 27.Rf1 Zug!; 25...Nc6 26.Bh5 Nd4 27.Ne4 Nf8 28.Qf7+ Kd8 29.Qxf6+ Kd7 30.Qxe5+-] 26.Ne4 Nbd7 27.Nxf6! Kxf6 28.h4 Qe3 [28...Ng6 29.h5 A) 29...Ne7 30.Qh8+ Kf7 31.h6+-; B) 29...Ngf8 30.h6 Ng6 31.Qg7+ Kf5 (31...Kg5 32.h7 Qd8 33.Bd3+-) 32.Bd3+ e4 33.Bxe4+ Kxe4 34.Qxg6+ Kf4 35.g3+ Ke5 36.Qg5+ Ke4 37.Qf4#; C) 29...Ndf8 30.Rf1+ Ke7 31.hxg6 Nxg6 32.Qf7+ (32.Qxg6 White should win here also.) 32...Kd6 33.Rd1+ Kc6 (33...Kc5 34.b4+ Qxb4 35.Qc7#) 34.Bf3+ Kb5 35.Rd3 Qc5 (35...Qa5 36.Rd5+ exd5 37.Qxd5+ Kb6 38.Qd8+ Kb5 39.c4+ Kb4 40.Qd6+ Qc5 41.Qd2+ Kxc4 42.Be2#) 36.Bxb7 Ra7 (36...Rb8 37.Rb3+ Ka5 38.Ra3+ Kb5 39.Be4 Bb7 40.Qd7+ Kb6 41.Rb3+ Ka5 42.Qd2+ Ka4 43.Ra3+ Qxa3 44.Qd7+ Ka5 45.Qc7+ Ka4 46.bxa3+-) 37.Qe8+ Kb6 38.Rb3+ Ka5 39.Qd8+ Ka4 40.Bc6+ Qxc6 41.Ra3+ Kb5 42.Qa5+ Kc4 43.Rc3+ Kd4 44.Qb4+ Kd5 45.Rd3#; D) 29...Nf4 30.h6 Qf2 31.Qg7+ Kf5 32.Bg4+ Ke4 33.Bf3+ Ke3 34.Qg5 e4 (34...Qxc2 35.Qg3 and wins.) 35.h7 exf3 36.Rd3+ Ke2 37.Rxf3 Qe1+ (37...Qxg2+ 38.Qxg2+ Nxg2 39.Rg3 b5 40.Rxg2+ Kf1 41.h8Q Bb7 42.Qh2 and white wins yet again.) 38.Kh2 e5 39.h8Q Kd1 40.Qhh4 Qe2 41.Qgg4 Nb6 42.Rf1+ Kxc2 43.Qxe2+ Nxe2 and white mates in 8 moves. 44.Qe4+ Kd2 45.Qb4+ Kd3 46.Rf3+ Kc2 47.Qe4+ Kd2 48.Qd3+ Ke1 49.Qb1+ Nc1 50.Qxc1+ Ke2 51.Re3+ Kf2 52.Qe1#] 29.Bh5 Ke7 30.Qf7+ Kd8 31.Qxf8+ Kc7 32.Qd6+ Kd8 33.Rf1 Qh6 34.g4 a5 [34...b5 35.g5 Qh8 36.g6 Bb7+ 37.Kg1 Qh6 (37...Rc8 38.Rf7 Qe8 39.g7 Rc6 40.Rxd7+ Kc8 41.Bxe8+-) 38.Rf7 Qc1+ 39.Bd1 Qe3+ 40.Kh2+-] 35.g5 Qh8 36.g6 Ra6 37.Rf8+ Qxf8 38.Qxf8+ Nxf8 39.g7 A nice picture to end the Gothenburg with.