During a one-week or so span early last month, I played four times
with White against the Najdorf, and I sac’d the house in all four games.
The sac total was five pieces and a queen, and that doesn’t include pseudo-sacs,
tactics, etc. Check it out:
| Game 1: Novikov’s 19...Rc7 seems to overturn ECO’s assessment
that this line ends in a draw. ECO gives 19...0-0 and 19...Kf7 as
both leading to draws. Actually, Maurice Ashley had previously played
19...Rc7 against me, and he too won when I blundered with 20.Qf2? Qa5 when
...fxe4 is a winning threat, i.e. 21.Qg3 fxe4 and Black is winning.
I went home and concluded that 19...Rc7 20.Kh1 was fine for White, but
now I think otherwise. I couldn’t believe that he played 20...fxe4,
it seemed suicidal, 22.Qe2 seemed too strong, but Black holds and seems
to win. The silly ending of the game is due to the fact that I spent
all of my remaining time trying to find something on move 24 and then just
played randomly after that. At any rate, it’s time to learn 17.Rb3. |
|
V. Rajlich - I. Novikov
[B97/16] Sicilian: Najdorf (Poisoned Pawn)
11 June 1999, Vermont
|
| 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6
8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.f5 Nc6 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.e5 dxe5 14.Bxf6
gxf6 15.Ne4 Be7 16.Be2 h5 17.O-O f5 18.Bf3 Ra7 19.Rb8 Rc7 20.Kh1 fxe4 21.Bxe4
Qd6 22.Qe2 Qc5 23.Qxa6 Kd8 24.Rd1+ Bd6 25.Qd3 Rd7 26.Ra8 Rf8 27.Qa6 Bb8
28.Rxd7+ Kxd7 29.Qd3+ Kc7 30.h3 Ba7 (38), 0-1. |
Game 2: I had previously analyzed the position after Kelleher’s
17...Kc7 at home with the computer, and I had concluded that Nunn’s idea
of 18.Kb1 was unplayable due to 18...Bf8. Since the alternative,
however, is a forced draw after 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qxe7 Rxb1 20.Nxb7 Ra1+
etc., I had some time to look at this line again at the board, and after
about thirty minutes of thought I changed my mind. 18.Kb1 answers Black’s
threat
of ...Bxd6 and ...Qxg2, i.e. 18...Bxd6 19.Rxd6 Qxg2 20.Rhd1 when
20...Qxg5 isn’t check, and 19.Rhf1 threatens 20.exf6, i.e. 20...Bxd6 21.Rxd6
Qxd6 22.Bf4. 19...Ra6 doesn’t work due to 20.exf6 Bxd6 21.fxg7. The
critical line is 19...Ne4, when perhaps best is 20.Be7. I am not
sure about this position, it seems that White has comp but on the other
hand he is down two pieces.
His 24...g5, sacing two pieces for a rook rather
than giving up a fifth pawn for the piece, was the clearly best chance.
I am not sure if White wins the resulting ending. We drew after thirty
more moves. Also possible was the seemingly crazy 22.Rxd7 Bc8 23.Be3+
Ka6 24.Rxd5 Bxd7 25.Qe4. Zamora and Eisen thought that White would
win this, but it seems too speculative to me. I need to run this
too through the computer. |
|
V. Rajlich - W. Kelleher
[B96/05] Sicilian: Najdorf
12 June 1999, Vermont
|
| 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Nbd7
8.Qf3 Qc7 9.O-O-O b5 10.e5 Bb7 11.Qh3 dxe5 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Qxe6+ Be7 14.Bxb5
axb5 15.Nxb5 Qc6 16.Nd6+ Kd8 17.fxe5 Kc7 18.Kb1 Bf8 19.Rhf1 Nd5 20.Rf7
Bxd6 21.exd6+ Kb6 22.Qxd7 Qxd7 23.Rxd7 h6 24.Bh4 g5 25.Bf2+ Kc6 26.Rxb7
Nc3+ 27.bxc3 Kxb7 (58), ½-½. |
Game 3: This game was crazy. It also featured the
highest sac total of the four games, one queen and one minor piece.
First of all, I was completely out of book after 7...h6, but I found the
right moves. 11...b5 is thought to be suspicious, so 11...Rb8 and 11...g5
are normal. The queen sac by White is best, as is the bishop sac
16.Bxg7, since 16.Bh4 b4 is good for Black. 17.f5 is enough for a big edge
for White, but even better is 17.Bh5. Now, 17...Rxg7 18.Nxe6 Qc4
19.Rhe1 is crushing for White, and I saw this. I rejected 17.Bh5
due to 17...Qc5, but yesterday Andrei Zaremba and I found the refutation
of this: 18.f5 Rxg7 19.Nxe6 Qe3+ 20.Kb1 and White is winning. This
too needs to go through the computer, just to make sure.
19.Rhe1 was a mistake which only draws. The
three forcing variations 19.Nd5, 19.Nf5 and 19.Bh5 were all good for Black,
i.e.19.Nd5 Qc5 20.b4 Qc4 21.Nb6 Qc3 (White of course wouldn’t play 20.b4
in light of this, but then 19.Nd5 should wait), or 19.Nf5 fxe6 20.Nxd6+
Kf8 21.Nxc8 Qxc8 and Black is at least a little better, or 19.Bh5 Rxg2
20.exf7+ Kd7 and Black is active while White’s f7-pawn doesn’t seem like
a big deal. Much better for White was 19.Rhf1, the point being that
after 19...Nxf3 20.Rxf3 White threatens exf7+, forcing 20...fxe6 21.Nxe6
Qe7 22.Nxg7+ Qxg7 when White is considerably better. I spent a good
chunk of time looking at the three forcing moves and then chose 19.Rhe1
over 19.Rhf1 intuitively without much analysis.
21.Nd5 would have been best, when Black should force
the draw with 21...Qxc2+. I rejected it due to 21...Qc5, but then
White wins with 22.exf7+ Kxf7 22.Re7+ Kg8 23.Nf6+ Kf8 24.Re2.
I had earlier concluded that 25...Qc5 was the finishing
blow, concluding that the intended 26.Nd5 lost to 26...Rxc2 27.Ne7+ Kg7
28.Nxc8 Kxf6 29.Nxc2 Qxc8 with a hopeless ending for White. However,
Andrei found a pretty brutal win against 26...Rxc2: 27.Rg1+ Kh7 28.Rxh6+
Kxh6 29.Nf5+ Kh7 30.Nf6+ Kh8 31.Rh1#. So, 26.Nd5 was right, and White
still has some chances, though I imagine that Black is winning after something
besides 26...Rxc2. My 26.Ng4 does however lose on the spot.
In the next-to-final position 29...Qe3 would have forced my resignation,
while any other move which met the perp threat should also have been enough.
A strange finish. |
|
V. Rajlich - B. Marthi
[B99/02] Sicilian: Najdorf (Browne)
18 June 1999, Toronto
|
| 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 h6
8.Bh4 Be7 9.Qf3 Qc7 10.O-O-O Nbd7 11.Be2 b5 12.e5 Bb7 13.exf6 Bxf3 14.Bxf3
Bxf6 15.Bxf6 Rc8 16.Bxg7 Rh7 17.f5 Rxg7 18.fxe6 Ne5 19.Rhe1 Nxf3 20.gxf3
Rg2 21.Nf5 fxe6 22.Rxe6+ Kf8 23.Rf6+ Kg8 24.Ne3 Rxh2 25.Kb1 Qc5 26.Ng4
b4 27.Nxh2 bxc3 28.Rg6+ Kf7 29.Rdxd6 Qf2 30.Rgf6+ ½-½. |
Game 4: Compared to the three games given above, this
was a relatively quiet positional
effort. Only one piece was sacrificed, White got three pawns
for it right away, and Black never even equalized. I prepared this
line right before the round, and he played right into it. In a previous
tournament my opponent and I had drawn in the 10.g4 line with 10...b5 11.Bxf6
Bxf6 12.g5 Be7 13.f5 Bxg5+, and I concluded that line is just too drawish.
16...Qb6, defending e6 against
the eventual Qxf7, is actually slightly inferior to 16...Qc5 with the
idea of 17.Qxg7 Qxe5 18.Nc7+ Qxc7 19.Qxh8+ Nf8 when Black is at least equal
despite the slight material deficit and the seemingly exposed king since
his counterplay is not far away. I thought for ~30-45 minutes about
the obvious 18.Qxf7, I had trouble with the line 18.Qxf7 Bg5+ 19.Kb1 Nxe5
20.Qg7 Bf4 and I also considered 18.Kb1. However, in the first line,
I finally found 21.Nd6+! and now 21...Kb8 22.Ne2 (though here perhaps 22...Bd5
is fine) or maybe 22.Na4, while in the second line Black is fine after
18...Rdf8 19. Rhf1 Rhg8 20.Qxh7 Nxe5.
21...Bxd8 was a mistake. At the board I spent
most of my time on 21...Rxd8 and concluded that White was doing well after
22.Qxh7 etc. Neither of us seriously considered what is really the
only viable move, 21...Qxd8, with the idea of 22.Rd1 Qe7. This position
has been played on several occasions. White probably has a small
edge after 23.Qd4, but the Black position also seems to have a few advocates.
After 21...Bxd8 Black is completely passive and White’s game plays itself. |
|
V. Rajlich - K. Wight
[B99/03] Sicilian: Najdorf
19 June 1999, Toronto
|
| 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7
8.Qf3 Qc7 9.O-O-O Nbd7 10.Be2 b5 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.e5 Bb7 13.Qg3 dxe5 14.fxe5
Nd7 15.Bxb5 axb5 16.Ndxb5 Qb6 17.Qxg7 O-O-O 18.Qxf7 Bg5+ 19.Kb1 Nxe5 20.Qg7
Ng6 21.Rxd8+ Bxd8 22.Rd1 Bd5 23.a4 Qc5 24.Nxd5 exd5 25.c4 Rf8 26.cxd5 Bg5
27.d6 Qf5+ 28.Ka1 Qc2 29.Nc3 Bd8 30.Qa7 1-0. |
|
