1001 Ways to Win at Chess
8/3/1999

One of the beauties of chess is that there are so many ways to win a game, so many different strategies and styles that may be adopted. Tal would create intense complications that, despite sometimes being unsound, were too much for his opponents to cope with over the board. Other players would bore their opponents to tears. Some players are "theory hounds" while others strive to deviate from theory as soon as possible in their will to fight mano a mano. Still others like to hone in on the weaknesses of their opponents and try and use psychology to effect, while many prefer simply to try and play the "best move" in every position. Then there is the great Vishy Anand whose sheer speed of play is a burden on his opposition.

However, more specific strategies may also be adopted. Against strong players I found a pawn grab in the opening - especially as black, in the Slav for example - very effective. It solves the problem of having to outplay your more experienced opponents as the onus is now on them to play precisely, and even strong GM's are not always up to the task. I would add that it is clever to be a pawn up and stand well positionally but give your opponent a lead in development, than say have a doubtful structure or kingside for the pawn. The first scenario puts much more pressure on the opponent to play very exactly and it is therefore quite a practical strategy. The latter plan, on the other hand is impractical, your opponents moves will come naturally. Playing "practically" can be extremely useful in itself. I simply mean by this that you strive for positions where your moves will come more easily than your opponent's, despite perhaps the 100% objective evaluation of the position. Another more specific strategy is to sit back and hide in safety behind the quills of a hedgehog - the come and get me approach. Yet the caveman attack should not be underestimated either.

There is no doubt that by studying chess you will improve. I feel there is a danger however, not only in chess but in many other sports eg squash and tennis, that many players of today are becoming clones of one other - a product of their coaches, theory and computers/technology. They all play "correct chess" or "correct squash" but lack flair and creativity. You have to learn your basics - that is clear - but don't lose touch with your individual style and remember the best players are those that know the "rules" but break them. Ok, let's have a look at the opening moves of Leko-Topalov from the super-tournament in Linares that is currently underway..

Anyone wishing to watch the Linares games live on the internet should click on the ICC (Internet Chess Club) link from the ACF front page.

Leko,P (2694) - Topalov,V (2700) [B80]
Linares Rd3 23.02.1999

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.g4 h6 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.0-0-0 Bb7 11.h4 b4 12.Nb1 d5 13.Bh3 g5!!

Leko,P - Topalov,V
Linares 1999
Position after 13...g5!!


w101.gif (5797 bytes)

What an idea! He is a genius you are thinking, what does white do now?? Yet if you were sitting
across the board from Alan Goldsmith or Chris Depasquale and were seeing ...g5 for the first time
you would be thinking: "typical Alan, if I just sit here and stay calm I should be able to refute this
rubbish". I know that that's what I would be thinking, so this is a good lesson for me in
open-mindedness and objectivity. The remaining moves of this game were 14.hxg5 hxg5 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Bxg5 Qa5 17.Bg2 Rxh1 18.Rxh1 Qxa2 19.Rh8 Rc8 20.Nf5 Nc5

w114.gif (5460 bytes)

21.Rxf8+ Kxf8 22.Bh6+ Ke8 23.Nd6+ Kd7 24.Nxc8 Kxc8 25.Qd4 Qa5 26.Bf8 Nd7 27.Bd6 Bc6 28.Bf1 Kb7 29.Nd2 Qa1+ 30.Nb1 Qa5 31.Bd3 Qd8 32.Nd2 e5 33.Qc4 Qb6 34.Kb1 a5 35.Ne4 Nf4 36.Nc5+ Nxc5 37.Bxc5 Bd5 38.Bxb6 Bxc4 39.Bxc4 Kxb6 40.Bxf7 Nh3 41.c3 Ng5 42.Bd5 bxc3 43.bxc3 Kc5 44.Bb7 Kd6 45.Kb2 Ne6 46.Ka3 Nc5 47.Be4 Ke7 48.g5 Ne6 49.g6 Nc5 50.Bd5 Kf6 51.Bf7 Kg7 52.Kb2 Kf6 53.Kc2 Kg7

w115.gif (4565 bytes)

White's extra pawn is meaningless as black has created a fortress with his knight and pawns.
1/2-1/2


Smyslov,V (2480) - Morozevich,A (2590) [D12]
FIDE-Wch k.o. Groningen (1.1), 09.12.1997
[John-Paul Wallace]

Alexander Morozevich is a young talent taking the chess world by storm, winning strings of
tournaments and now ranked 5th in the world with a rating of 2723! One of his very recent victims
was Australia's top player for many years, GM Ian Rogers who played him last week. Ian has not
shied away from publishing his defeat and so you can read his column along with other Australian
chess columns through a link at Chris Depasquale's Chess World Australia page at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~chesswd/ 

Morozevich is renowned for his tactical skills, and for some of the obscure lines like the Chigorin which he used to play. However, I was very impressed by his very solid victory over the 8th World Champion Vassily Smyslov from the FIDE world knockout tournament. Playing black in a line that is extremely solid but seemingly drawish Morozevich slowly increases the pressure and deservedly gains the full point. Before you dive in though, remember that despite outward appearances tactical skill is (as always) of the utmost importance in "positional" games as well, and the game that follows is no exception.

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.e3 [4.Nc3 Bf5? 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Bc8] 4...Bf5! This is the disadvantage with white's 4th move, 4. Nc3 avoids this contination as after 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Qb3 Bc8 is best -- and although Capablanca drew this as black it is not to be recommended. 5.Qb3 Qc7 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.Bb5+ Nc6 8.Bd2 e6 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Bb4 A standard plan, white swaps off his "bad" bishop and then tries to leave black with some small problems on the queenside and a bishop on f5 that may be a problem piece. 10...0-0 11.Bxd6 Qxd6 12.Nbd2 Rfc8 13.Rfc1 Rab8 14.Qa4 Nd7 15.Bxc6 bxc6 16.Nb3 Rc7 17.Qa5 f6 18.Qd2 Be4 19.Ne1 c5 20.f3 Bg6 21.dxc5 Nxc5 22.Nxc5 Rxc5 23.Rxc5 Qxc5

Smyslov,V - Morozevich,A
FIDE-Wch k.o. Groningen 1997
Position after 23...Qxc5


w102.gif (5236 bytes)

Black has achieved the ...c5 break and thus liquefied his backward c-pawn before it became a
liability. Black is already somewhat better here as the white knight is passive and the white king
potentially insecure. 24.Rc1 Qb5 25.b3 Qa6 26.Kf2 h6 27.Rc5 Qd6 28.Qa5 Rb7 29.h3 Kh7
30.Nc2 Rb6 31.Qc3 e5 32.b4 Qd7 33.a3 Qa4 34.Ne1 Qd1 35.Qc1 Qb3 36.Ra5 Qa2+
37.Kg3 Rb7 38.Qc6 Rf7 39.Rxd5 Qxa3 40.Nc2 Qc1 41.Rc5 Qd2 42.e4 f5!

Smyslov,V - Morozevich,A
FIDE-Wch k.o. Groningen 1997
Position after 42...f5!


w103.gif (5129 bytes)

Finally Morozevich decides the time is right to gun for white's king. He does not manage to mate,
but does manage to transpose into a winning rook ending. 43.Qa8 fxe4 44.Rc8 Bf5 45.Rh8+
Kg6 46.Qc6+ Kh5 47.Qe8 Bg6 48.Qd8 Qxd8 49.Rxd8 exf3 50.Ne3 fxg2 51.Nxg2 Be4
52.Re8 Rf5 53.Kh2 Bxg2 54.Kxg2 Kh4 55.b5 Rg5+ 56.Kf2 Kxh3 57.Re7 Rf5+ 58.Ke3 g5
59.Rxa7 e4 60.b6 Rb5 61.b7 Rb4 62.Kd2 g4 63.Kc3 Rb6 0-1
Not a bad effort at all. I will now leave you with the sort of aggresive crush that is vintage Morozevich, perhaps it may even whet your appetite for the Chigorin defence..

(3) Moskalenko,V (2535) - Morozevich,A (2590) [D07]
Moscow m Moscow (7), 1994
[John-Paul Wallace]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.cxd5 Bxf3 5.gxf3 Qxd5 6.e3 e5 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Nge7 10.c4 Qd6 11.d5 Nb8 12.Bb2 Nd7 13.h4 A typical situation for the Chigorin defence has arisen. White has the 2 bishops and is playing very sharply but his pawn structure has been seriously compromised. Morozevich simply castles into the "attack" and creates a shield with f6 and e5 to take the sting out of White's queen bishop, leaving white with all the defects of his position with nothing to compensate for them. 13...0-0! 14.Bd3 c6! 15.dxc6 Qxc6 16.Be4 Qe6 17.Rg1 f6! 18.Qc2 Kh8 19.Rc1 Nc5 20.h5 h6! Otherwise white plays h6. 21.a4 Rac8 22.Ba3 b6 23.Bxc5 This looks horrible, but white had big problems in any case. 23...Rxc5 24.Ke2? This only makes things worse. 24...f5 25.Bd3 Qf7!

Moskalenko,V - Morozevich,A
Moscow 1994
Position after 25...Qf7!


w104.gif (5344 bytes)

Now black threatens ...e4 26.Ke1 e4! This can be played anyway as 27. fxe4 fxe4 28. Bxe4
Rxc4! wins. 27.Be2 [27.fxe4 fxe4 28.Bxe4 Rxc4!-+] 27...exf3 28.Bxf3 f4 29.exf4 Qxf4 30.Qc3
Re5+ 31.Kf1 Qxf3
0-1



Topalov,V (2700) - Kramnik,V (2751) [C42]
XVI Ciudad de Linares 99 Linares (8), 02.03.1999
[John-Paul Wallace]

Postscript: In Topalov's 8th round effort against Kramnik he uncorked the incredible Cochrane
gambit - hardly ever seen in Master games, let alone in Super GM circles... I had already written the
section above where I compared Topalov's move against Leko to Chris Depasquale before this
game was played so I can't resist giving the game here. Needless to say our own Chris Depasquale
won a game with it during last years Australian Masters (in which Chris was victorious). Here are
those games: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 The Cochrane Gambit; the shock value of this
move must have been enormous. 4...Kxf7 5.Nc3 c5 This move, counterattacking white's centre, is
conidered a strong antidote to the Cochrane. 6.Bc4+ Be6 7.Bxe6+ Kxe6 8.d4

Topalov,V - Kramnik,V
Linares 1999
Position after 8.d4


w105.gif (5623 bytes)


8...Kf7 9.dxc5 Nc6 10.Qe2 Qd7 11.Be3 dxc5 12.f4 Re8 13.e5 Ng4 14.Rd1 Qf5 15.0-0 h5
16.Bc1 Nd4 17.Qc4+ Kg6 18.h3 Nh6 19.Nb5 a6 20.Nxd4 cxd4 21.Qxd4 Rc8 22.Qb6+ Kh7
23.Qxb7 Rxc2 24.Be3 Qg6 25.Rc1 Rxc1 26.Rxc1 Nf5 27.Bf2 h4 28.Rc7 Ng3 29.Kh2 Nf1+
30.Kg1 Qb1 31.Bxh4 Bc5+

Topalov,V - Kramnik,V
Linares 1999
Final Position 31...Bc5+


w106.gif (5159 bytes)

A nice end to a tough fight. 32.Rxc5 Ng3 (or 32...Nd2=) 33.Kh2 (33.Kf2? Ne4+) 33...Nf1+ is
perpetual check. [31...Bc5+ 32.Rxc5 Ng3+ 33.Kh2 (33.Kf2? Ne4+-+) 33...Nf1+=] 1/2-1/2

Depasquale,C - Solomon,S [C42]
Australian Masters, 1998
[Chris Depasquale]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 Kxf7 5.d4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.Bc4+ Be6 8.Bxe6+ Kxe6
9.0-0 dxc5 [9...d5!] 10.Qe2 Kf7 11.Nc3 Nd4 12.Qc4+ Ke8 13.Bg5 h6 14.Bh4 g5 15.Bg3
Qd7 16.Rad1 b5 17.Qd3 Rd8 18.Be5 Bg7 19.Bxd4 cxd4 20.e5!?

Depasquale,C - Solomon,S
Australian Masters 1998
Position after 20.e5!?


w107.gif (5377 bytes)

20...Ng4 21.f4?! gxf4? 21...Ne3 this was rejected because white has at least a forced draw with:
22.Qg6+ Qf7 23.Qc6+ Qd7 [21...Ne3 22.Qg6+ Qf7 23.Qc6+ Qd7 24.Qg6+=] 22.Rxf4 Nxe5
23.Re1 Qc6 24.Qf5 Rd7 25.Rxe5+ Kd8 26.Rc5 Qxc5 27.Qxc5 dxc3 28.bxc3 Re8 29.Qxb5
Re6 30.Qb8+ Ke7 31.Qb4+ Red6 32.Rf3
For all of Chris' notes to the above game see
Australian Chess Forum July 1988 No.6Vol 7. 1-0


Stephens,M - Wallace,J [C42]
State Ch, 1991
[John-Paul Wallace]

The above game Topalov-Kramnik inspired me to do some digging and I found a couple of games I
played as a fourteen year old which I give here, together with the ancient notes that I found
scrawled all over both sides of the scoresheets. I have not checked my youthful analysis but just
give some of the lines. There is an excellent lesson to be learnt from the Cochrane Gambit game, as
well as my game against Pickles which I am throwing in for those of you that really can't get enough
chess - they both show the advantages of being a theory hound! Against Stephens I decided to
venture the Petroff because I knew he goes for the Cochrone and I had a recent theoretical article
on the Cochrane in a New In Chess Yearbook. Not only was I ready to try the position after 5...c5
but I did not think that Malcolm would have seen the article. I also prepared the line against Pickles
(A Scandinavian addict) from a recent NIC Yearbook article that claimed 8.b4 busts the
Scandinavian. I remember ringing up a friend and writing down all the analysis after 8.b4!! Whether
or not b4 is as good as they claimed or not was beside the point-my opponent had probably not
seen the article and would have to work out a lot of complications over the board. In any case this
has turned into a seriously long Postscript... 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 Kxf7 5.d4 c5
6.Bc4+ d5 7.exd5 Bd6
Stephens thought 7...b5 was clear advantage black. A line I have written
down: 8.Bxb5 Qxd5 9.Qe2 Be6 10.0-0 (10.Nc3 Qxg2) 10...cxd4] [7...b5-+ 8.Bxb5 Qxd5 9.Qe2
Be6 10.0-0 (10.Nc3 Qxg2) 10...cxd4] 8.Be3?! Bg4 9.Qd3 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Re8 11.Nc3 Nbd7
12.h3only move Bh5 13.g4only move Bg6 14.0-0-0
[14.h4!? h5!-+] 14...Rc8 15.Bb3 Nc5!? 16.Bg5 Be5[16...b5 This was the original intention when either f4 or h5 are forced (after perhaps inserting a3 a5) to meet ...b4 with h5 or f5. Maybe I should have done this but I thought white would have counterplay.] [16...b5] 17.Qb4only move Qd6

Stephens,M - Wallace,J-P
State Ch 1991
Position after 17...Qd6


w108.gif (5619 bytes)


18.Kb1 Nxb3 [18...Bxc3!? 19.bxc3 Nfe4!?-+] 19.Qxb3 [19.Qxb7+? Rc7 20.Qxb3 Rxc3!!
21.bxc3 Rb8-+] [19.Qxb7+ Rc7 20.Qxb3 Rxc3!! 21.bxc3 Rb8-+] 19...Ne4 20.Nb5 Qc5
21.d6+ Qc4 22.d7 Qxb3 23.dxe8Q+ Kxe8 24.axb3 Nxg5 25.Rd2?!
[25.Nd6+ Getting rid of
Black's 2 bishops. 25...Bxd6 26.Rxd6 and here not 26...Rxc2?? 27.Rxg6] 25...Nf3 26.Re2
[26.Nd6+!? Kd7 27.Nxc8+ Nxd2+ 28.Kc1only move Bf4‚; 26.Na3!? x c2; 26.Nc3 Bf6 with 27...Nd4 xc2] [26.Nd6+!? Kd7 27.Nxc8+ Nxd2+ 28.Kc1only move Bf4‚] 26...Kf8! 27.Rd1 a6 28.Nc3 Bf6 29.Ne4 Nd4 30.Ree1 Nxc2 31.Re2 Nd4 32.Re3 Nf3 33.Ka2 Nd4 34.f4 Bf7 35.Ka3 Nc2+ 0-1


Wallace,J - Pickles,S
[B01]
State Ch, 1991
[John-Paul Wallace]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.b4 Qxb4 9.Bd2
Qd6 10.Rb1 Ne4 11.Nb5 Qd8 12.Ba5 b6
[12...Na6!? 13.Ne5!? and white intends to follow up with Bg2 and 0-0 then Qf3, with Nxc7 tactics in the air. If 12...Na6 13.Nxc7+ Nxc7 14.Bb5+ Nxb5 with compensation] [12...Na6 13.Ne5 (13.Nxc7+ Nxc7 14.Bb5+ Nxb5 with compensation) 13...-- 14.Bg2 -- 15.0-0 --16.Qf3] 13.Ne5

Wallace,J-P - Pickles,S
State Ch 1991
Position after 13.Ne5

w109.gif (5823 bytes)

13...Nd7 [I had not given a comment to 13...bxa5, but 14.Qf3 is certainly the response] [13...bxa5
14.Qf3] 14.Nxg6 hxg6 15.Qf3 a6only move 16.Qxe4 [16.Nxc7 is possibly better than the text]
[16.Nxc7+] 16...axb5 17.Bd2 e6 18.Bxb5 [18.d5!? e5! with the idea 19.f4!? Bc5! and 20...0-0
unclear.] [18.d5?! …e5! 19.f4 Bc5! 20.-- 0-0] 18...Rxa2?! [18...Bd6!?] 19.Qc6! Bd6 20.Bg5!
Be7 21.Bf4 Ra7 22.0-0 Bd6 23.Ra1?
[23.Bxd6 cxd6 24.Qxd6+- with the idea 25.Ra1 and
24...Qc7 25.Bd7 Qd7 26.Qb8 wins a rook.] [23.Bxd6 cxd6 24.Qxd6 …-- (24...Qc7 25.Bxd7+
Qxd7 26.Qb8++-) 25.Ra1] 23...Rxa1 24.Rxa1 Bxf4 25.Ra8 Ke7?! [25...0-0! may equalise]
[25...0-0!=] 26.Rxd8 Rxd8 27.Qe4 g5 28.Bxd7! Rxd7 29.h4! Kf6?! 30.Kg2 Bd6!? 31.hxg5+
Kxg5 32.d5! Kf6
[32...Re7 33.dxe6 fxe6 slight advantage/clear advantage white as e6 is weak.]
[32...Re7 33.dxe6 fxe6] 33.f4 g6 34.dxe6! fxe6 35.Qd4+! Kf7 36.g5! Kg8 37.Qf6 Rf7
38.Qxg6+ Kf8 39.Qxe6 Rxf4only move 40.Qh6+ Kg8
[40...Ke8 41.Qh5+!] 41.g6 Rg4+?? [41...Be5]
[41...Be5] 42.Kh3 Rg3+ 43.Kh4 1-0

Post Postscript Would you believe that I was in the process of sorting through all the last minute
complications in order to get this article up and posted on the internet when the following
conversation took place on the ICC between Wally and Apsolid (Andrew Allen): Apsolid tells you:Kaspy played g5!!?? tell Apsolid aaarrrggghh Apsolid oh, you may need to revise your article!

I was not viewing the game between Anand and Kasparov that was being transmitted live from
Linares on ICC, but as soon as I heard g5!!?? it could only mean one thing!! Sure enough
Kasparov, in his round 10 game against the 2nd ranked player in the world, had repeated Topalov's
bizarre novelty from round 3! Well if you were thinking maybe ...g5 was rubbish (after all it was
played by the same man that wheeled out the Cochrane) then it may be time to think again! Here is
the amazing encounter (which I am witnessing live as I type these words) between the best player in
the world and his biggest rival. Upon closing I would like to thank Matthew Herman (Mathman on
ICC) very much for his incredibly generous help. As my deadline was approaching and I was
encountering technical difficulties with chessbase, he suggested that I e-mail him the article, and
being a chessbase expert he promptly e-mailed me back the article ready for press and free of
charge! Thanks a lot Matthew!

Anand,V - Kasparov,G [B80]
Linares (10), 1999
[John-Paul Wallace]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 This move order is designed to avoid
6.Be3 Ng4 which Kasparov has fine-tuned into a serious weapon. In fact another important Sicilian
game from this event was Ivanchuk-Kasparov from round 2 that continued 6.Be3 Ng4 7.Bg5 h6
8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Bg7 and Kasparov soon achieved a much better game and went on to win. 6...e6
However, this simple response is quite effective, as the mainlines of white's English Attack are doing
well for black lately. Note that had black played 6.Be3 e6 then he may have to face 7.g4!. In this
case white does not need to waste a move on f2-f3 and can play sharply and effectively. In the
Moscow Olympiad 1994 Topalov beat Kasparov from this position. 7.Be3 b5 8.g4 h6 9.Qd2
Nbd7 10.0-0-0 Bb7 11.h4 b4 12.Nb1
A fairly new idea to appear at the highest level. Topalov
tried 12.Na4 against Kasparov in this same tournament and lost after he was out prepared. Why do
these guys keep battling Kasparov on his home territory? 12.Nce2 is (was) the standard response.
12...d5 13.Bh3 g5 Here we go again! 14.hxg5 hxg5 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Bxg5 Qb6 The first new
move of the game. 17.Bg2 Rxh1 18.Bxh1 Rc8 19.Re1 Qa5 20.f4 Qxa2 21.f5 Nc5 22.fxe6
Bg7

w110.gif (5381 bytes)

Not surprisingly the position has become ridiculously complicated. 23.exf7+ Kxf7 24.Bxd5+
Qxd5 25.Re7+ Kg8 26.Rxg7+ Kxg7 27.Nc3

w111.gif (4997 bytes)

I am typing in the moves to this game as I am watching it live on the ICC. I don't think I was the
only observer wondering if Anand's last was a typo. However, it may be the only move as black's
threats were becoming extremely serious. [27.Nf5+ Qxf5! Fritz (27...Kf7? 28.Qxd5+ Bxd5
29.Nd6+ Kg6 30.Nxc8; 27...Kf8? 28.Bh6+ and white will have a knight fork on d6 (or e7).)
28.gxf5 Nb3+ 29.Kd1 Bf3+! 30.Ke1 Nxd2 31.Nxd2 Bg4 and thanks to black's little pawn on a6
that will soon be past (if 32.c3 for example) this should be a fairly easy win.] 27...bxc3 28.Nf5+
Kf7 29.Qxd5+ Bxd5 30.Nd6+ Kg6 31.Nxc8 Kxg5 32.Nb6 Be6 33.bxc3 Kxg4

w112.gif (4490 bytes)

The position has stabilised and this ending is what Anand had in mind when he played 27.Nc3. The
ending which we now have is very interesting as white has 2 clever drawing ideas. If he can leave
Kasparov with light-squared bishop and a-pawn vs his lone white king in the corner it is a draw due
to stalemate themes. In fact black can have as many a-pawns and light-squared bishops as he likes
and it won't change a thing! The other point is that the ending of knight and bishop vs knight is also
drawn. On the otherhand the ending of knight and bishop vs lone king could be literally bashed out
by Kasparov in 10 seconds, although at lower levels even strong club players may not be able to
win it (normally only because they have not studied it, so if you are one of those people grab an
endgame book and do your homework! As it turns out Kasparov once again shows his impeccable
endgame technique. 34.Kb2 Kf4 35.Ka3 a5 36.Na4 Ne4 37.Nb2 Nxc3 38.Nd3+ Ke3 39.Nc5
Bf5 40.Kb2 Nd5 41.Nb7 a4 42.c4 Nb6 43.Nd6 Bd3 44.c5 Nd5 45.Ka3 Bc2 46.Nb5 Ne7
47.Na7 Kd4 48.c6 Nd5 49.Nb5+ Kc5 50.c7 Bf5

w113.gif (4433 bytes)

White resigned, as although he can win black's last pawn with 51.Kxa4 he loses his knight
immediately to 51...Bd7. If instead 51.Na7 Nxc7 and 52...Kb6 follows winning the trapped knight.
One of the most titanic struggles I have witnessed and a great boost for Kasparov who is now
leading Linares with the incredible score of 8/10, with Anand back on 6 points and Kramnik third
with 5. Coupled with his magnificent victory in Wijk aan zee last month, Kasparov's result here has
silenced the sceptics and I would say that he is the strongest chess player the world has ever seen. White resigns 0-1

Note: All my analysis given on these pages or for download may be reproduced, but please credit the notes to John-Paul Wallace