侯逸凡 (Hóu Yìfán) – Mariya Olehivna Muzychuk
Women’s World Chess Championship 2016; match game 4; Lviv, March 6, 2016
Spanish Game C83
Women’s World Chess Championship 2016; match game 4; Lviv, March 6, 2016
Spanish Game C83
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3 Be7 10. Bc2 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. g4 Bg6 13. Nd4. Fifty years ago, Bobby Fischer continued instead with 13. Bb3, which ensured him the gaining of the Pawn and ultimately the win after 13. ... Na5 14. Bxd5 c6 15. Bxe4 Bxe4 16. Qxd8+ Rxd8
17. Nbd2 Bd5 18. Re1 h5 19. Ne4 hxg4 20. hxg4 Nc4 21. Kg2 Be6
22. b3 Nb6 23. Be3 Nd5 24. Kg3 f6 25. Bc5 f5 26. Nd6+ Bxd6
27. exd6 Kd7 28. Ne5+ Kc8 29. Nxc6 f4+ 30. Kg2 Ne3+ 31. Kg1
Bd5 32. Ne7+ Kd7 33. fxe3 Rh1+ 34. Kf2 Rh2+ 35. Kf1 Bf3
36. Ng6 Be4 37. Ne5+ 1–0 R. J. Fischer – F. Ólafsson, 17th Chess Olympiad, Havana 1966. Further analysis, however, showed that Black ought to have played 13. ... Nc5 14. Bxd5 (14. Qxd5 Na5) 14. ... Qd7 with fair compensation for the Pawn.
13. ... Nxd4! A due novelty by Muzychuk, which substantially improves on 13. ... Qd7 14. f4! Nxd4 15. cxd4 f5 16. Be3 0-0 17. Nc3 c6 18. Bxe4! dxe4 19. d5!± Caruana – 韦奕 (Wéi Yì), 78th Tata Steel Chess Tournament, Utrecht 2016.
14. cxd4 h5! 15. f3! If, instead, 15. f4!? then 15. ... hxg4 16. f5 Rxh3! (16. ... Bh5!? might be stronger) 17. Bxe4 dxe4 18. fxg6 f5! with some complex variations.
15. ... Ng3 16. Rf2 hxg4 17. Bxg6 Rxh3! Not 17. ... fxg6? because of 18. Qc2! (idem to say 18. Qd3!) with powerful attack.
18. Qc2! Both are probably still in their home preparation. 18. Bxf7+? Kxf7 19. fxg4+ Ke6! 20. Qf3 Qf8! is just a hole in the water for White, whilst 18. Kg2 is prettily refuted by 18. ... Nh1!! 19. Rf1 Rg3+! 20. Kxh1 Bb4! with devastating attack (Ian Rogers’ analysis).
18. ... Bc5! That’s the pointe. It should be noted, however, that there is a dual: 18. ... Rh1+ 19. Kg2 Bc5! simply transposing to the game.
19. Qxc5! Again, 19. Bxf7+? Kxf7 20. fxg4+ is instructively wrong because of 20. ... Kg8 21. Qxc5 Rh1+ 22. Kg2 Qh4! 23. Qxd5+ Kh7 24. Qxa8 Qh3+ 25. Kf3 Re1! with mating attack.
19. ... Rh1+ 20. Kg2 Rh2+! Clearly not 20. ... Qh4?? on account of 21. Qc6+ Kf8 22. Qxa8+ Ke7 23. Bg5+! Qxg5 24. fxg4! with a winning attack.
21. Kg1 (21. Kxh2?? Qh4+ 22. Kg2 Qh3+ 23. Kg1 Qh1#)
21. ... Rh1+ ½–½.
13. ... Nxd4! A due novelty by Muzychuk, which substantially improves on 13. ... Qd7 14. f4! Nxd4 15. cxd4 f5 16. Be3 0-0 17. Nc3 c6 18. Bxe4! dxe4 19. d5!± Caruana – 韦奕 (Wéi Yì), 78th Tata Steel Chess Tournament, Utrecht 2016.
14. cxd4 h5! 15. f3! If, instead, 15. f4!? then 15. ... hxg4 16. f5 Rxh3! (16. ... Bh5!? might be stronger) 17. Bxe4 dxe4 18. fxg6 f5! with some complex variations.
15. ... Ng3 16. Rf2 hxg4 17. Bxg6 Rxh3! Not 17. ... fxg6? because of 18. Qc2! (idem to say 18. Qd3!) with powerful attack.
18. Qc2! Both are probably still in their home preparation. 18. Bxf7+? Kxf7 19. fxg4+ Ke6! 20. Qf3 Qf8! is just a hole in the water for White, whilst 18. Kg2 is prettily refuted by 18. ... Nh1!! 19. Rf1 Rg3+! 20. Kxh1 Bb4! with devastating attack (Ian Rogers’ analysis).
18. ... Bc5! That’s the pointe. It should be noted, however, that there is a dual: 18. ... Rh1+ 19. Kg2 Bc5! simply transposing to the game.
19. Qxc5! Again, 19. Bxf7+? Kxf7 20. fxg4+ is instructively wrong because of 20. ... Kg8 21. Qxc5 Rh1+ 22. Kg2 Qh4! 23. Qxd5+ Kh7 24. Qxa8 Qh3+ 25. Kf3 Re1! with mating attack.
19. ... Rh1+ 20. Kg2 Rh2+! Clearly not 20. ... Qh4?? on account of 21. Qc6+ Kf8 22. Qxa8+ Ke7 23. Bg5+! Qxg5 24. fxg4! with a winning attack.
21. Kg1 (21. Kxh2?? Qh4+ 22. Kg2 Qh3+ 23. Kg1 Qh1#)
21. ... Rh1+ ½–½.
“It’s quite scary playing such a line, with lots of tactics and many pieces around your King”, 侯逸凡 (Hóu Yìfán) said afterwards. “But the line is pretty forced,
even though there are many options for both sides”. Photo: Vitaliy Hrabar. |
No comments:
Post a Comment