[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "2001.01.11"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 01"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "GM Nunn"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/1ppr1kp1/p1p4p/8/8/5P2/PPP1RKPP/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "0"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{{A position which might have arisen from the Exchange Variation of the
Spanish.  White's better pawn structure gives him some advantage, since he can
create a  passed pawn on the kingside while Black, owing to his doubled pawns,
cannot do  the same on the queenside.  It is not clear if this advantage is
sufficient to win. In practical play I would expect wins and draws to be about
equally divided.}  *        }  *

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1952.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 02"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "GM Nunn"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/1pk3pp/p7/3p1p2/8/3K2P1/PP2PP1P/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "0"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{{Barcza-Golombek, Budapest 1952. This endgame certainly favours White.
Black's pawn structure is inferior because of the isolated d-pawn, while
White's king is the first to occupy the fourth rank. White has the obvious
plan of putting his king on d4 followed by using zugzwang to penetrate with
his king to c5 or e5. This was in fact the plan adopted by Barcza in the game,
but accurate defence by Golombek enabled him to hold the draw. Later (in 1966)
Bondarevsky analysed the ending and concluded that White could win with a
different and far from obvious plan: playing Ke3, threatening Kf4 and inducing
Black to weaken his kingside pawn structure further by playing ...g5. It is
hard to say whether this is correct, but at any rate it is clear that this
position is finely poised between a draw and a win.}  *                      }
*

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1896.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 03"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "GM Nunn"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/4k3/r4pp1/pR6/P4KP1/5P2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "0"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{{St Petersburg-London, tele 1896. A classic ending. The game was halted at
this point with London conceding the  game. Chigorin then published some
analysis claiming that White could win. For  decades this was the accepted
opinion, but theory advances and it gradually  became recognised that
defending such position often requires the sacrifice of  the weak pawn (on a5
here). Fine, in his book Basic Chess Endings, suggested  that this plan should
lead to a draw. His analysis contained some errors, and  was refined by
Levenfish and Smyslov in their classic book Rook Endings. They  supported
Fine's conclusion, although some of the detailed variations differed  from
Fine's. That is the state of play today. Can computers unravel a position
 which took human analysts over half a century to unravel?.}  *    }  *

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1936.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 04"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "GM Nunn"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/p1p1k3/1p1p2p1/3Pq2p/2P1P3/1P3QPK/P7/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "0"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{{Keres-Alekhine, Dresden 1936. In this game between two of the leading
players of the pre-war period, Black has the advantage because he can create a
kingside passed pawn while White, thanks to his backward e-pawn, cannot create
a passed pawn. However, in a queen ending matters are never so easy, due to
the ever-present danger of perpetual check. In the game Black did succeed in
winning after a hard fight, although Konstantinopolsky later suggested an
improvement for White which might have placed Black's win in doubt.}  *
     }  *

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1972.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 05"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "GM Nunn"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/p3ppk1/1p4pp/3nN3/6PP/1P3P2/P3PK2/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "0"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{{Kholmov-Moiseev, Uzhgorod 1972. A tricky knight ending. White won the game,
but the winner's very detailed analysis (covering several pages) suggested
that the correct result should be a draw.}  *      }  *

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1992.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 06"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "GM Nunn"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7k/pp4pp/2n5/8/8/P7/1P4PP/2K1B3 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "0"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{{Ilincic-Cabrilo, Cetinje 1992. Although this position appears fairly drawish
White won the game, and in his notes indicated no real improvement for Black.
However, I analysed this ending in my book Secrets of Practical Chess, and
came to the conclusion that it should probably be a draw.  What do the
machines think?}  *        }  *

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 07"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "GM Nunn"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/p4Bp1/1pPb2P1/1P2kp2/P7/5K2/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "0"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{{Bellon-Minic, Siegen 1970. A fantastic position. An opposite-coloured bishop
position with equal pawns looks as if it should be a draw, and indeed the
players agreed to a draw at this point. However, White has serious problems
because of his weak a3-pawn, which cannot be permanently defended by his
bishop. Once this pawn has been captured, Black has the chance to make a
second passed pawn by playing ...a5, which will stretch White's defence to the
utmost. Dvoretsky and Yusupov subjected this ending to detailed analysis, and
came to the astonishing    conclusion that it is a draw, but only if White
starts with the incredible 1 c6!!. It is hard to imagine that any machine
would find such a move, but who knows what might happen in the future...}    *
            }  *

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1937.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 08"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "GM Nunn"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/4k3/p1B4p/2K5/1P4bP/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "0"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{{Eliskases-Capablanca, Semmering 1937. Another classic ending. White has
little trouble winning the a-pawn, but will this be enough to win the game?
White is handicapped by the fact that his bishop is the wrong colour for the
h-pawn, so even winning Black's bishop may not be sufficient. In the game
White won, but various analysts who have examined this ending in detail have
come to the conclusion that Black should draw with accurate play. But if even
the great Capablanca could not find the draw, can a machine?}  *
  }  *

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1926.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 09"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "GM Nunn"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3R4/1p6/2b5/2P1k2p/p3p2P/P6r/1P2KB2/8 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "0"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{{Von Gottschall-Nimzowitsch, Hannover 1926. Once again we have
opposite-coloured bishops and equal material, but here the defender's task is
complicated by the presence of rooks. Indeed, the practical  difficulties
proved too much for White in the game, and he lost. However, later analysts
indicated possible improvements for White - my own view is that the ending
should be a draw, but it would certainly be unpleasant to defend against a
strong endgame player.}  *            }  *

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1931.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 10"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Sune L"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/5b2/1k2p1p1/2NpP1P1/1K1P4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "37"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{This position is from Grigoriev 1931. Here white's knight is far superior to
black's bishop. This is very old knowledge and white is winning this one.
People that play French as black might have nightmares of positions like this.
The black bishop can only defend the two weak pawns on e6,g6 or wander around
like a ghost on the white squares. The funny thing is that exactly this
position happened in the game Dolmatov-Drasko, Sochi 1988. And yup - it was
French.} 1. Na4+ Kc6 2. Ka5 Kb7 3. Nc5+ Kc7 4. Kb5 Be8+ 5. Ka6 Bf7 6. Nb7 (6.
Ka7 Bg8 7. Nb7 Bf7 {Dolmatov-Drasko.}) 6... Be8 7. Ka7 Bf7 8. Nd6 Bg8 9. Ka6
Kc6 10. Ka5 Bh7 11. Nf7 Bg8 12. Nh8 (12. Nh6 Bh7 13. Ka6 Kc7 14. Kb5 Kb7 15.
Kc5 Kc7 16. Nf7 Bg8 17. Nd6 Bh7 18. Ne8+ {Dolmatov-Drasko 1-0 Sochi 1988.})
12... Bh7 13. Ka6 Kc7 14. Kb5 Kb7 15. Kc5 Kc7 16. Nf7 Bg8 17. Nd6 Bh7 18. Ne8+
Kd8 19. Nf6 {and wins.} 1-0

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1927.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 11"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Sune L"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/5pk1/r5pp/P7/3R3P/6P1/5PK1/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "31"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{1927 Alekhine won the 34th game in the battle vs Capablanca to become World
Champion. He did it by playing 1.Ra4! in the above position. Black's rook has
to block the pawn and white has at his disposal an endless reserve of rook
moves along the a-file. Again, the future for black spells "Zugzwang". The
general rule is that a passed pawn should be supported by a rook from the rear.
That's why ideas of 1.Rd5? are wrong. This is a knowledge that have to be
implemented in many chessprograms. I have seen numerous examples of trying to
support such a pawn sideways.} 1. Ra4 Kf6 2. Kf3 Ke5 3. Ke3 h5 4. Kd3 Kd5 5.
Kc3 Kc5 6. Ra2 Kb5 7. Kd4 $1 Rd6+ (7... Kb4 8. Ra1 $1 Kb3 9. Kc5 $18) 8. Ke5
Re6+ 9. Kf4 Ka6 (9... f6 10. a6 $1 Rxa6 11. Rxa6 Kxa6 12. Ke4 $18) 10. Kg5 Re5+
11. Kh6 Rf5 12. Kg7 Rf3 13. Kg8 Rf6 14. Kf8 Rf3 (14... Rf5 15. f4) 15. Kg7 Rf5
16. f4 $18 {Alekhine.} 1-0

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1911.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 12"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Sune L"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4b3/5k2/4p1p1/3pP2p/2pP1P1P/2P5/6N1/2K5 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "19"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{Amos Burn's only victory over Alekhine,  happened 1911, in a good knight
versus bad bishop ending, is virtually a walk-over. Test1: The above position.
This is won for white and your program should give white a big +score. Though
we may dream about the day when +9.99 pops up...;)    Test2: Exchange the bad
bishop on e8 for a better one on e7. This position is a draw and your program
should evaluate it close to 0.00.} 1. Kb2 Ba4 2. Ne3 Ke7 3. Ka3 Bc6 4. Kb4 Kd7
5. Ka5 Kc7 6. Nc2 Kb7 7. Nb4 Bd7 8. Na6 Be8 (8... Bc8 9. Nc5+ {
and the white king penetrates.}) 9. Nc5+ Kc6 10. Nxe6 {and white won.} 1-0

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1947.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 13"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Sune L"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/1p1b2k1/p1p1p1p1/2P1P2p/1P3P1P/P2B4/5K2/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{This position is from Baslavsky-Kondratiev 1947 - slightly modified. The
white bishop can aim at 5 of the opponents pawns. The white king threatens to
sneak in at the upper North-West corner - a5,b6,c7. The black bishop looks
just like another pawn. Test1: The above position. It's won for white and your
program should show a high +score for white.    Test2: Exchange the good white
Bd3 to the more ugly Bc3. This position is now a draw and your program should
show close to 0.00.} 1. Ke3 Kf7 2. Kd4 Be8 3. Kc3 Ke7 4. Kb3 Kd8 5. Ka4 Kc7 6.
Ka5 Bf7 {
[Black cannot allow Kb6 and is reduced to waiting moves with his bishop]} 7.
Bc4 $1 Bg8 8. a4 Bf7 9. b5 axb5 10. axb5 Bg8 (10... cxb5 11. Bxb5 Bg8 12. Be8)
11. b6+ {[From now on black has to constantly guard himself against Ba6, which
gives white free hands on the king's flank.]} Kd8 12. Kb4 Bf7 13. Kc3 Kd7 14.
Kd4 Kd8 15. Ke3 Kd7 16. f5 $1 gxf5 17. Kf4 Bg6 18. Kg5 Be8 19. Kf6 f4 20. Be2
1-0

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1985.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 14"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Sune L"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6k1/2p3np/1p1p2p1/3P4/1PPK1R2/6PB/7P/4r3 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "43"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{This is Gelfer-Manievich, Jerusalem 1985. The theme is about central
supremacy and active king in the endgame. The penetration of the king into the
enemy camp is many times decisive and often worth a pawn. Gelfer bought a
ticket for his king to the holy land, in a very instructive way. Test: The
move 1.Be6+! should give a high +score for white. If a program plays this move
it recognizes the value of entering into the enemy camp with the king. [Don't
do that in the middlegame]} 1. Be6+ $1 Nxe6+ 2. dxe6 Rxe6 {
The sacrifice has cleared a path for the white king.} (2... c6 3. b5 $1) 3. Kd5
Re7 4. Kc6 Kg7 5. Rf2 Re4 6. Rc2 Re7 7. b5 Kf6 8. Ra2 Re4 9. Kxc7 Rxc4+ 10.
Kxb6 d5 11. Ka7 d4 12. b6 Ke5 13. b7 Rb4 14. b8=Q+ Rxb8 15. Kxb8 d3 16. Kc7 Ke4
17. Kd6 Ke3 18. Ke5 d2 19. Ra1 Ke2 20. Kf6 d1=Q 21. Rxd1 Kxd1 22. Kg7 1-0

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1895.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 15"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Sune L"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n6/4k2p/p3ppp1/1pPp4/3P1PP1/3NP3/P3K2P/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{This position is from Pillsbury-Gunsberg 1895. Take off your hats folks,
cause this is a real piece of art! A stunning performance by a great player.
We have a knight ending with 7 pawns each. If black's knight was on c6, his
queenside majority would be a menace. As things stand, white can engineer a
dramatic central breakthrough: White is winning in a forced, sparking way.} 1.
f5 $3 g5 {Black stops Nf4, but succumbs to a brilliant diversion.} (1... gxf5
2. gxf5 exf5 3. Nf4 $18) (1... Nc6 2. Nf4 $1) 2. Nb4 a5 3. c6 $1 Kd6 4. fxe6
Nxc6 5. Nxc6 Kxc6 6. e4 $1 {with a winning pawn ending.} 1-0

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1911.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 16"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Sune L"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3r4/7p/Rp4k1/5p2/4p3/2P5/PP3P1P/5K2 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{This is Tarrasch-Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1911. Black is a pawn down and the
b6 pawn is under attack. Passive defence with 1...Rd6? or 1...Rb8? is doomed
to failure. Rubinstein grasps his only chance: To mobilize his rook and king.
Activity is vital in rook endings.     Test: Big + for your program if it
chooses 1.-Rd2! combined with activating the king. Thumbs down if it chooses
passive defence with 1...Rd6? or 1...Rb8?} 1... Rd2 $1 2. Rxb6+ Kg5 3. Ke1 (3.
a4 f4 4. a5 f3 $1 {is more than welcome to black.}) 3... Rc2 4. Rb5 Kg4 $1 5.
h3+ Kxh3 6. Rxf5 Rxb2 {and black drew without effort.} 7. Rf4 Rxa2 8. Rxe4 h5
9. c4 Kg2 10. Rf4 Rc2 11. Rh4 Kf3 12. Kd1 Rxf2 1/2-1/2

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1940.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 17"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Sune L"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/6b1/4k2p/p1p1p1p1/2P1K1P1/PP3N1P/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "25"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{Knight vs bishop and 5 pawns each. The black pawns are tied to squares of the
same color as the bishop. This is the classic "bad bishop" and the position is
won for white. But how to do it? Putting the knight on f5 and  then create
Zugzwang for black with a4, doesn't seem enough for a win...This position is
from Cortlever 1940.} 1. h4 (1. Ne1 $2 Bf8 2. Nd3 Bd6 3. a4 Bf8 4. Nxe5 Bd6) (
1. Nd2 Bf8 2. Nf1 Bd6 3. Ng3 Be7 4. Nf5 Bf8 5. a4 Bd6 $1 6. Nxd6 (6. Nxh6 Be7)
6... Kxd6 7. Kf5 e4 8. Kxe4 Ke6) 1... gxh4 2. Nxh4 Bf8 3. Nf3 Bd6 4. Ne1 Kf6 (
4... Bf8 5. Nd3 Bd6 6. a4 Bf8 7. Nxe5 Bd6 8. Nd3 Bf8 (8... Be7 9. Nf4+ Kf6 10.
Nd5+) 9. Nf4+ Kf6 10. Kd5 Kg5 11. Ne6+) 5. Kd5 Bb8 6. Kxc5 Kg5 7. Kd5 Kxg4 (
7... Kf4 8. Nd3+ Kxg4 9. Nxe5+) 8. Ke4 Bd6 (8... h5 9. b4 axb4 10. axb4 h4 11.
c5 Ba7 12. Nf3) 9. Nc2 h5 10. b4 axb4 11. axb4 h4 12. Ne3+ Kg3 13. c5 1-0

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "2001.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 18"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Sune L"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r3k1/4pp1p/3p2p1/p2R4/1r6/1P4P1/P3PP1P/R5K1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "57"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{A nice example of GM Andersson's technique and skill in endgames. Black is
better here and Andersson gives Giardelli no mercy.} 1... a4 2. Rd3 $6 (2. bxa4
Rxa4 3. Rd2 $15) 2... Rc2 {The penetration of a rook in the 7th is almost
always very strong in rook endings.} 3. Kf1 (3. e3 Rb2 4. bxa4 Rxa4 5. a3 Rc4
$15) 3... Re4 $1 {Black is provoking 4.e3 which will weaken white's 2:nd row.}
4. e3 (4. Re3 $2 Rxe3 5. fxe3 axb3 (5... a3 $5 $17) 6. axb3 Rc3 $17) 4... Rb4
5. h4 Rb2 6. bxa4 Rxa4 7. a3 Rc4 {
Now we see the idea with 3.-Re4!. The threat is Rcc2 winning.} 8. Kg2 Rcc2 9.
Rf1 Ra2 {With the idea Rc2-c5-a5 winning a pawn.} 10. Kf3 Rc5 11. g4 h5 $1 {
The "Swedish Capablanca" is playing exact and prevents the spacewinning g5.} (
11... Ra5 12. g5 R5xa3 13. Rxa3 Rxa3 14. Rb1 $15) 12. Rg1 Kg7 13. gxh5 Rxh5 {
Now white has two weak pawns - a3 and h4.} 14. Rg4 Rf5+ (14... Ra5 $17) 15. Rf4
Ra5 16. Re4 Kf6 (16... Kf8 $17) 17. Rf4+ Ke6 18. Rdd4 R2xa3 (18... R5xa3 $2 19.
Rde4+ $16) 19. Rde4+ Re5 20. Rxe5+ dxe5 $17 {
Black is now a pawn up and h4 is still weak.} 21. Rb4 f6 22. Rb7 $6 (22. Kg3
Kf5 $17) 22... Ra4 23. Kg3 $6 (23. e4 $17) 23... f5 24. Rb6+ Kf7 25. Kh3 Rg4
26. f3 Rc4 27. Rb3 e4 28. fxe4 $2 (28. f4 Rc2 $17) 28... Rxe4 $19 29. Ra3 Kg7 {
There is no defence against Kg7-h6-h5.} 0-1

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1928.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 19"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Sune L"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6k1/p2b1ppp/8/8/3N4/1P5P/5PP1/6K1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{This position is from Stoltz-Kashdan 1928. A celebrated ending where the
existence of pawns on both wings on an open board emphasizes the bishop's
superiority over the knight.} 1... Kf8 2. Kf1 Ke7 3. Ke2 Kd6 4. Kd3 Kd5 5. h4
Bc8 {Black's bishop helps push the white king backwards, enhancing the scope
of his own king.} 6. Nf3 Ba6+ 7. Kc3 h6 8. Nd4 g6 9. Nc2 Ke4 10. Ne3 f5 11. Kd2
f4 12. Ng4 h5 13. Nf6+ Kf5 14. Nd7 Bc8 15. Nf8 g5 16. g3 gxh4 17. gxh4 Kg4 18.
Ng6 Bf5 19. Ne7 Be6 20. b4 Kxh4 {and the passed h-pawn carried the day.} 0-1

[Event "Larsson"]
[Site "Endgame Test"]
[Date "1931.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsson 20"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Sune L"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4b3/pp2kp1p/5bp1/8/8/4P3/PP2NPPP/3N2K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "54"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

{This is a discussion between the pair of bishops and the pair of knights + an
extra pawn. Although Capablanca lost this in a simul/consult. game 1931, [Fine
was part of the black team!],  I think we can consider the position as about
levelled or "unclear".} 1. Ndc3 {Preventing 1.-Bb5 but permitting the black
king to advance. Here and his next move white ought to usher his king to the
centre with Kg1-f1-e1-d2.} Bg7 2. Nd4 $2 Kd6 3. Kf1 Kc5 4. Nde2 {
Acknowledging the loss of two tempi, a luxury white can ill afford.} Kc4 5. Ke1
Kd3 6. Kd1 Bxc3 $1 {One of the main advantages of bishops over knights is,
precisely and paradoxically, the former's ability to elect the appropriate
moment of renouncing the bishop pair!} 7. Nxc3 Bc6 8. Ne2 {
Protecting the g2 pawn indirectly.} Ba4+ $1 {
Weakening white's hold on the square c3.} 9. b3 (9. Ke1 Kc2) 9... Bc6 10. h4 {
White is pushed:} (10. Nf4+ Kc3 11. Kc1 g5 12. Nh3 h6 13. f3 Kd3) 10... f6 11.
Nf4+ Kc3 12. Kc1 g5 $1 13. hxg5 fxg5 14. Ne6 Bxg2 15. Nxg5 h5 16. Kd1 {Or} (16.
f4 h4 17. f5 h3 18. Nxh3 Bxh3 19. f6 Be6) 16... h4 17. Ke2 h3 18. f3 h2 19.
Ne4+ Kb4 20. Nf2 h1=Q 21. Nxh1 Bxh1 22. Kf2 Kc3 23. e4 Kd4 24. a3 a5 25. a4 b6
26. Kg3 Ke3 27. e5 Bxf3 0-1
