Kristjanssen, A. - Smith , R.
Euro Finals 2004
[B33]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.O-O Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Although this move is not recommended it is difficult to refute as there is little GM experience e.g. Nunn v Z.Polgar, Munich 1991 (1-0) and Ehlvest v Van Wely, Aeroflot Moscow 2004 (0-1). The main source of material has been from correspondence and email chess but inevitably this is confusing. I will comment further as I introduce games into the text.
14...Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 This is the normal move, with 16.Be2 as the little-played alternative e.g. Barnett v McKenzie, Australia Correspondence Championship 2001.
16...Ng6 17.Qd2 Both Nunn and Ehlvest played 17.Qh5 but the most popular move incorrespondence and email games has been 17.Qd2 to which Black has replied ...Be5 or ...h5 or . ..Qh4 and then ...0-0. Although ...h5 had some appeal in Pettersson v Lyukmanov, ICCF email 2002, Black only won because Pettersson missed 33.h4 or Qb5 which were much better than Ba4. I played 17...0-0 which does not commit me to any particular line of attack and followed Pillhock v Gonzalez Freixas, ICCF 2000, but Pillhock diverged from my game with 20.g3. Against this Bc4 line it is usual for Black to defend with ...Ng6 and play on the c-file weaknesses but I had a very different plan.
17...O-O 18.Rfe1 Be5 19.Nd1 Kh8 20.Kh1 Nh4! 21.f4

[20...Nh4 creates various tactical chances e.g.
21.Rg1 Bxh2 22.Kxh2 Nf3+ 23.gxf3 Qh4+ 24.Kg2 Rg8+ 25.Kf1 Qh3+ 26.Rg2 Qxg2+ 27.Ke1 Qh1+ 28.Bf1 Rg1 29.Qc3+ Kg8 30.Qc4 and now Black needs to consider ... h5 or ...exf3. Although this line is not conclusive it does give some indication of the tactical resources after 20...Nh4. See my further note after move 23.]

21...exf3 22.g3 Ng6 23.Rg1

[If instead
23.Rf1 Black can increase the pressure by
23...f4 24.gxf4 Bxf4 25.Qd4+ Be5 26.Qg4 Rg8 27.Bd3 Nh4 28.Qh5 f5 winning.]

23...f4 24.g4 Qg5 25.c3 Rfe8 26.Nf2 Bg7 27.Qc2 This was necessary in order to play 28.Ne4 which forces me to play ... Qe7 and this disrupts my plan.
27...Re3 28.Rad1

[28.Qf5? fails to 28...Qh4 29.Rgf1 Re2!! 30.Kg1 Rxb2 when all lines favour Black.]

28...Qh4 This was a difficult move to find because my winning plan involved doubling rooks on the e-file at the expense of a pawn.
29.Rd2

[White cannot play the obvious move
29.Bf1?? because of
29...Rae8 30.Nh3 Re2 31.Qa4 f2 32.Nxf2 Qxf2 33.Rg2 Qf3 34.Bxe2 Rxe2 35.Rdg1 Rxb2 wins.]

29...Rae8 30.Qd1

[30.Bxa6 loses to 30...Re1]

[30.Qc1 also fails, to
30...Re2 31.Bxe2 fxe2 32.Qe1 f3 33.Rd3 Be5 34.h3 Bg3]

30...a5 31.Qf1 R8e5 32.Bb5

[Kristjanssen thought that this was a blunder and that he should have played
32.Qh3 but I had prepared a refutation:
32...Re2 33.Qxh4 Nxh4 34.Bxe2 fxe2 35.Nd3 Re3 36.Re1 f3 37.Kg1 Ng2 38.Rdxe2 fxe2 39.Kxg2 Rxd3 40.Rxe2 Be5 with a winning endgame.]

32...h5!! White is lost whatever he plays.
33.gxh5 Rxh5 34.Nd1 Re2 35.Rxe2 fxe2 36.Qxe2 f3 37.Qf2 Be5 38.Qxh4 Rxh4 39.Rf1 Rxh2+ 40.Kg1 Rg2+ An essential move so that an eventual ...Ng3 would fork king and rook.
41.Kh1 Rd2 a forced win follows: 42.Ba4 Nh4 43.Rf2 Re2!! 44.Bb5 Nf5 and whatever he does, ...Ng3+ wins.

0-1

Created with PGNtoJS

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.O-O Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Although this move is not recommended it is difficult to refute as there is little GM experience e.g. Nunn v Z.Polgar, Munich 1991 (1-0) and Ehlvest v Van Wely, Aeroflot Moscow 2004 (0-1). The main source of material has been from correspondence and email chess but inevitably this is confusing. I will comment further as I introduce games into the text. 14...Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 This is the normal move, with 16.Be2 as the little-played alternative e.g. Barnett v McKenzie, Australia Correspondence Championship 2001. 16...Ng6 17.Qd2 Both Nunn and Ehlvest played 17.Qh5 but the most popular move incorrespondence and email games has been 17.Qd2 to which Black has replied ...Be5 or ...h5 or . ..Qh4 and then ...0-0. Although ...h5 had some appeal in Pettersson v Lyukmanov, ICCF email 2002, Black only won because Pettersson missed 33.h4 or Qb5 which were much better than Ba4. I played 17...0-0 which does not commit me to any particular line of attack and followed Pillhock v Gonzalez Freixas, ICCF 2000, but Pillhock diverged from my game with 20.g3. Against this Bc4 line it is usual for Black to defend with ...Ng6 and play on the c-file weaknesses but I had a very different plan. 17...O-O 18.Rfe1 Be5 19.Nd1 Kh8 20.Kh1 Nh4! 21.f4
	[20...Nh4 creates various tactical chances e.g. 21.Rg1 Bxh2 22.Kxh2 Nf3+ 23.gxf3 Qh4+ 24.Kg2 Rg8+ 25.Kf1 Qh3+ 26.Rg2 Qxg2+ 27.Ke1 Qh1+ 28.Bf1 Rg1 29.Qc3+ Kg8 30.Qc4 and now Black needs to consider ... h5 or ...exf3. Although this line is not conclusive it does give some indication of the tactical resources after 20...Nh4. See my further note after move 23.]
21...exf3 22.g3 Ng6 23.Rg1
	[If instead 23.Rf1 Black can increase the pressure by 23...f4 24.gxf4 Bxf4 25.Qd4+ Be5 26.Qg4 Rg8 27.Bd3 Nh4 28.Qh5 f5 winning.]
23...f4 24.g4 Qg5 25.c3 Rfe8 26.Nf2 Bg7 27.Qc2 This was necessary in order to play 28.Ne4 which forces me to play ... Qe7 and this disrupts my plan. 27...Re3 28.Rad1
	[28.Qf5? fails to 28...Qh4 29.Rgf1 Re2!! 30.Kg1 Rxb2 when all lines favour Black.]
28...Qh4 This was a difficult move to find because my winning plan involved doubling rooks on the e-file at the expense of a pawn. 29.Rd2
	[White cannot play the obvious move 29.Bf1?? because of 29...Rae8 30.Nh3 Re2 31.Qa4 f2 32.Nxf2 Qxf2 33.Rg2 Qf3 34.Bxe2 Rxe2 35.Rdg1 Rxb2 wins.]
29...Rae8 30.Qd1
	[30.Bxa6 loses to 30...Re1]

	[30.Qc1 also fails, to 30...Re2 31.Bxe2 fxe2 32.Qe1 f3 33.Rd3 Be5 34.h3 Bg3]
30...a5 31.Qf1 R8e5 32.Bb5
	[Kristjanssen thought that this was a blunder and that he should have played 32.Qh3 but I had prepared a refutation: 32...Re2 33.Qxh4 Nxh4 34.Bxe2 fxe2 35.Nd3 Re3 36.Re1 f3 37.Kg1 Ng2 38.Rdxe2 fxe2 39.Kxg2 Rxd3 40.Rxe2 Be5 with a winning endgame.]
32...h5!! White is lost whatever he plays. 33.gxh5 Rxh5 34.Nd1 Re2 35.Rxe2 fxe2 36.Qxe2 f3 37.Qf2 Be5 38.Qxh4 Rxh4 39.Rf1 Rxh2+ 40.Kg1 Rg2+ An essential move so that an eventual ...Ng3 would fork king and rook. 41.Kh1 Rd2 a forced win follows: 42.Ba4 Nh4 43.Rf2 Re2!! 44.Bb5 Nf5 and whatever he does, ...Ng3+ wins. 0-1