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 .