CHESS
Blood on the sand
Raymond Keene
This year's Hastings tournament was transformed by the generosity of Kevin Pakenham and the board of Foreign and Colonial in raising fees and prizes to international par. Of the 14 competitors (11 of them Grandmasters) the clash of seven ambitious British masters and Grandmasters against seven foreign en- trants has led to some exceptionally fierce battles, ending in a four-way tie on 8/13 between Chandler, Larsen, Lputian and Speelman. Bent Larsen, the Danish cham- pion, in particular, lived up to his reputa- tion for risk and daring. Next week I will give a sample of this, but meanwhile here are two stirring specimens involving young British players.
Mestel — Kudrin: Hastings 1986-87; Round 3, Sicilian Dragon.
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 Bd7 10 0-0-0 Ne5 11 Bb3 Rc8 12 h4 h5 13 Bg5 Rc5 14 Kbl b5 15 g4 a5 16 Bxf6 Bxf6 17 gxh5 a4 18 Bd5 e6 19 hxg6 exd5 20 h5 A fascinating position. In the commentary room, Professor Nathan Divinsky — Albert Einstein lookalike and resident Fal- staffian wit of the BBC TV chess series — was utterly convinced that the avalanche of white pawns would soon crush Black. However, Black has defensive chances based on the fact that White has had to surrender his dark-squared bishop. 20. . . Rxc3 21 bxc3 If 21 Qxc3 Nc4! prevents White from feeding over his pieces to the K-side attack. If White ignores Black's counter-exchange sacrifice with 21 Rdgl there follows 21 . . . fxg6 22 hxg6 Rc7! and White's attack is not convincing. Another idea is 21 Qh6 but it fails to 21 . . . fxg6 22 hxg6 Qe7 23 g7 Qxg7 24 Rdgl Ng4! 21 . . . Bg5 22 f4 Bh6 In his pre-game analysis Mestel had considered the following line: 22 . . . Nc4 23 Qg2 bxf4 24 gxf7+ Kh8 25 h6 Rxf7 26 Rdgl, considering it favour- able for White. However, during the game he noticed the defence 26 . . . Bg5!! 27 QxgS Rfl+ 28 Rxfl QxgS 29 Rf8+ Kh7 and White only has a draw via Rf7+ . 23 Rdgl Qe7? This loses since the move not only fails to hold up the onrush of White's K-side pawns, but also exposes Black's queen to moves like Nf5. During the post- mortem, Mestel suggested that Black should have played 23 . . . dxe4! The resultant varia- tions are amazingly complicated and very un- clear. It will be a long time before anyone firmly establishes what is going on in this crazy position. Here are some samples: 23 . . dxe4 24 Qg2 f5!! 25 fxe5 dxe5 is a very promising piece sacrifice for Black. Alternatively, 24 gxf7+ Kh8 25 Qg2 Nif7 26 Qxe4. Instead of 25 Qg2, 25 Rg6 Nxg6 26 hxg6 Kg7 27 Qh2 Rh8 28 f5 Qf6 29 a3 (to make space for White's king) Bxf5 30 Qxd6 speculating on . . . Qxd6 allowing the fork on f5. However, can one really believe these lines when Black has a passed `e' pawn? 24 Qg2 Bxf4 25 g7 Rb8 26 h6 Ng6 27 Nf5 Bxf5 28 exf5 Qe5 29 fxg6 f5 and Black loses on time. White wins easily with 30 Rel driving Black's queen from the defence of d5, e.g. 30 . . . Be3 31 Rxe3.
Hodgson — Lputian: Hastings 1986-87; Round 1, Trompowski Attack. 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5!? One of Hodgson's favourites, which often seems to confuse inexperienced opponents. After 2 . . . Ne4, White can try 3 Bf4, Bh4 or even 3 h4!? Lputian proceeds more classically. 2 . . . e6 3 e4 h6 4 Bxf6 Qxf6 5 Nf3 g6 Also possible is 5 . . . d6, perhaps planning to withdraw the queen to d8 and follow up with . . . Be7. 6 Nc3 Bg7 7 Qd2 a6 8 0-0-0 b5!? An extraordinary concept when Black is so lagging in development. Nevertheless, it Is difficult to refute. White tries the most obvious and direct countermeasure. 9 e5 Qe7 10 Ne4 d5 This looks dreadfully antipositional, but 10 . Bb7 is also dangerous, e.g. 11 Bd3 (11 Nc5 Bxf3 12 gxf3 d6!) 11 . . . Bd5 12 Qf4. 11 exd6 The main alternative is 11 Nc5 Nd7 12 Qc3 Nxc5 13 Qxc5 Qxc5 14 dxc5 followed by Bd3 and Nd4. Hodgson's choice is more aggressive. 11 • • • cxd6 12 Qb4 d5 12 . . . Bf8 is too Steinitzian. 13 Nd6+ Kd7! He must challenge White's knight which turns out to be unstable on d6. If 13 . • • Kf8 14 Qc5 is much better for White. 14 Nei+ BxeS 15 dxe5 Nc6 16 Qf4 g5! If now 17 Qxf1 Qxf7 18 Nxf7 Rh7 19 Nd6 Nxe5. 17 Qe3 f6 Not 17 . . . Nxe5? 18 Nxc8! Black continues to undermine White's knight. 18 c4! The best chance. If 18 Nxc8 Rhxc8 19exf6 Qxf6 when Black has the initiative. 18 . . . d4 Not 18 . • • dxc4?? 19 Nf5+ while 18 . . . bxc4 19 Nxc4 Rb8 20 Nb6+ Kc7 21 Nxc8 Rhxc8 22 Bxa6 does not give Black clear compensation for the pawn. Finally, 18 . . . Nxe5 19 cxd5 Kxd6 (19 • • • Qxd6? 20 dxe6+) 20 Qa3+ Kd7 21 BxbS+ axb5 22 Qxa8 leaves Black thoroughly disorganised. Lputian's move has the virtue of seemingly blocking the sensitive 'd' file. 19 Qf3 fxe5 20 NV Threatening Nxh8 and Nxe5+. Black's riposte is cunning. 20 . . . e4!! Lputian now suggested 21 Ne5+!? Nxe5 22 Rxd4+ Ke8 23 Qxe4 which is indeed obscure. If 24 Qxa8 Qxd4 25 Qxc8+ Kf7 26 Qxh8 Nd3+ 27 Bxd3 Qxh8 28 i cxb5 Qd4! 24 b4?! looks unconvincing, but it s hard to believe that 24 Rd5 exd5 25 Qxe5+ does not lead to perpetual check with Black's king s° exposed. Hodgson finds a different solution which leads to a similar result. 21 Rxd4+ No14 22 Qxe4 with multiple threats. 22 . . . Qxf7 23 Qxd4+ Kc7 24 Qe5+ Kb6 25 Qd4+ Kc7 , Qe5+ Drawn by perpetual check. Black has n9, way to escape the checks, e.g. 26 . . . Kd7 Qxh8 Bb7 28 Qd4+ with an extra pawn and attack, while if White tries too hard with 26 • . • Kb6 27 Qxh8 then 27 . . . Qf4+! causes grave, problems. One of the most bloodthirsty and exciting drawn games I have seen!
Previous page
