510 The British Chess Magazine
take advantage of my delay in recapturing the c-pawn. Needless to say, such a move is positionally risky and weakens Black’ s dark squares further. Play could continue: 9 0 – 0 f6 10 a4( 10 �fd1 e5 11 d3 was another of my over-the-board ideas) 10 … a6 11 a × b5 a × b5 12 a4 when Black has simplified, but cannot hold his queenside together.
8 … f6 was also interesting, preventing any notions of �g5 while preparing … e5. However, after 9 � × c4 �d5( 9 … �h8 10 d4) 10 �c2 Black fails to liberate himself by a single tempo: 10 … e5? 11 �g5.
9 � × e5 � × e5 10 � × e5 �c6
At the time, I was more concerned by 10 … �e6 11 � × b7 �b8, after which White must find 12 �e4! �g6 13 �c3, when it looks as though Black does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn: 13 … f5 14 �g2 �d5 15 0 – 0 � × g2 16 � × g2 �d5 + 17 f3.
11 � × c6!
Parting with the bishop pair, but Black’ s ruined pawn structure is the more important longterm feature.
11 … b × c6 12 � × c4?!
In hindsight, this natural move seems to be a mistake. The sneaky 12 �c3! would have kept some advantage: 12 … �d5( 12 … f6 13 � × c4 + �f7 14 �d4 leads to a position similar to the game; the bishop will control everything from e3) 13 f3 f6 14 � × c7.
12 … �e8 13 �f4 �e6?!
Having analysed this game in depth, I came to the surprising conclusion that this is possibly Black’ s first( and decisive) mistake. Peter’ s strong and forceful play would have been fully justified after 13 … �d5! This was the move I had feared at the board, and I still cannot find a way for White to keep any tension or hope of a real advantage. It seems that Black’ s dynamism is just about sufficient in all variations. After 14 � × d5 c × d5 15 � × c7( 15 d3 allows 15 … �b8 and �lack is in time to create counterplay) 15 … �a6 16 e3 �ac8 17 �a5 d4! Black’ s two-pawn deficit is offset by his strong piece activity. White could hardly hope for victory with such weakened light squares.
14 �c3 � × a2
A clever tactic to restore material equality. However, it costs two precious tempi, allowing me time to consolidate. 14 … �h3 was suggested by Leonard Barden in his column, with the intention to‘ make the white king a target’, but this feels like a misreading of a typical computer suggestion. In fact, this move only aims for a cheap trick. White must avoid 15 f3? �g2 16 �g1 � × f3! 17 � × f3 �d4, with a pretty fork on the two disconnected white rooks. Instead, I had intended 15 �g1 �b8 16 f3 with a big advantage. Black simply does not have a plan, whereas I will put my bishop on e3, bring my king to f2, perhaps swap a pair of rooks on the b-file, and it is likely that Black’ s queenside weaknesses will eventually drop off.
15 f3 Not 15 � × a2? �d5 with another pretty fork. 15 … �d5 16 �f2 f5
It is unlikely that there is any rush to push my e-pawn, but Peter prevents this advance nonetheless. Over the next few moves he wisely abandons his queenside in order to search for counterplay.
17 �ab1 �b8 18 � × b8 � × b8 19 �e3
From this square the bishop defends my king and casts its eye on the black a-pawn. White is extremely solid and there are no targets; the same cannot be said of the Black position.
19 … �e6 20 �d3 �f8 21 �b1
21 � × a7 might have been possible, but Peter could have started an attack with 21 … f4.
21 … a5 22 �b7 �c8 23 �a7 �e8 24 � × a5
The computer’ s suggestion of 24 a4! would have been a beautiful demonstration of White’ s dominance. There is simply nothing Black can do.
24 … �e6
24 … f4 does not work: 25 � × f4 �h3 26 �g1 and White’ s king hides behind his wall of pawns.
25 �d4?! An inaccuracy, but fortunately not a big one.