Being the selected games and writings of George Eraclides, a man of almost noble soul but average abilities in the realm of chess, who occasionally produces games worthy of a competent player, with which a discerning reader may while away a few hours in the company of a good bottle of wine, and so enjoy the writing if not the actual games, which games ought not to be analyzed too closely lest their faults be detected and the pleasure derived from their sometimes clever annotations be diminished.
Friday, March 07, 2014
An outpost, an outpost, my kingdom for an outpost!
may your whole kingdom depend on an outpost. Apologies for the tardiness of
this new posting.
some grumpiness given expression. Recent faster time-controls in professional
chess is an affliction which has been increasing over the last decade and may
now be approaching levels at which we need to call in experts in epidemiology
to put this scourge down. Faster time controls equals poorer strategic
decisions which equals shallow play which leads to tactical errors and
therefore poorer chess. Fans may like it – afficionados do not. Botvinnik was
right to stay away from this form of chess.
does not help that games now have to be completed at one sitting to avoid
cheating with computers, so endgame play suffers as well.
that I have got this off my chest I feel better already.
following game is between two amateurs and illustrates the importance of sound
development and gaining an outpost for you pieces. Eventually one opponent
succumbs to such pressure, makes a blunder, and loses the game. This happens to
the professional players as well although their ‘errors’ tend to be more
nuanced and the exploitation of error is undertaken far more skilfully than any
amateur can do it. Well, I should think so!
game is for beginners or amateurs and illustrates some basic themes.
Miquel of Spain (1255) Versus George
Eraclides of Australia (1584)
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bg5 Bg7 4. c3 (he is trying to blunt the future action
of the g7 Bishop, but in the process he concedes too much space in the centre,
while Black gets on with development) O-O 5. Qc1 (far too premature;
development with g3 or Nbd2 was better) d5 (the Gruenfeld set-up is more
effective here because it captures more space) 6. Bh6 Nbd7 7. Bxg7 Kxg7 (the
King guards the black squares quite adequately for the remainder of the game;
White is simply not sufficiently developed to do anything substantial but he
still continues with his flawed, time-wasting, plan of an early attack) 8. h4
h5 (note that in these types of positions, with the Black King on g7, a player
can always swing a Rook across to h8 if needed for the defence) 9. Nbd2 (finally
some development; White’s style seems to be to attack, and only if unable to
make any progress, think about development; it is as though Steinitz never
existed to enunciate his principles of chess; perhaps because both players are amateurs,
White thought principles could be set aside; alas, you cannot ignore sound
principles without incurring a cost) c5! (central play before White can fully
develop) 10. e3 Qc7 11. g3 (11.b5 c4 cramps White and the position is then even - Black's Queen Bishop and White's Queen's Knight are both 'developmentally challenged') e5 12.
dxe5 Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Qxe5 14. Nf3 Qe7 (the seeming win of a tempo – after having
given so many away – which forces the Queen to retreat, only serves to drive her
to where Black intended the Queen to be) 15. Bg2 Bf5 (15...Bg4 was also good
but on f5 the Bishop is eyeing e4 and d3 for future action) 16. O-O Rad8 17.
Ng5 Ne4! (Black now sees a possibility for an outpost)18. Nxe4 dxe4! 19. Qc2
Rd3 (and now we have an unassailable outpost; positionally, White is lost because
Black controls the d-file absolutely) 20. Kh2 Rfd8 21. Rad1 R8d6 22. Rfe1 Qd7
23. Rxd3 Rxd3 24. Bf1 Rd2 25. Qb3 Rxf2+ 26. Bg2 Qd2 (note how safe the Black
King has been throughout the game) 27. Rg1 Bg4 (28. Qxb7 Bf3 and it is over)
lessons from this game between amateurs are firstly, not to neglect development,
especially because of an ephemeral, premature attack. The opponent must have
made some error, there must be a disturbance of the equilibrium in your favour
(Pachman’s excellent terminology), to justify a commitment to the attack. Also,
an outpost in enemy territory, especially one which is hard to dislodge, is
highly advantageous. If you do not blunder, then with patient manoeuvring you
should win the game.
all folks and may all your outposts in future be incontestable.
players it is very important to be able to recognise, and know what to do with,
certain recurrent patterns or structures. Experienced and strong players do
this almost instinctively, while the rest of us waste mental energy trying to
work things out.
We are often
told by chess teachers, that a Knight on the edge of the board is a bad thing.
The Knight is a piece whose strength is the ability to jump other pieces and
obliquely attack or control important squares. Its natural habitat is somewhere
around the centre of the board. At the edge, much of its energy is dissipated
injunction to never place Knight at the edge of the board is really only a
generalisation rather than a universal law. There are important exceptions and
being able to recognise, and take advantage of them, is critical for all players.
We are all familiar with situations where it is perfectly sound to move a
Knight to the edge of the board as part of some tactical threat or to exchange,
say, an enemy Bishop on g6.
But there is
also sometimes, a very important positional
advantage to placing a Knight on the edge of the board, which
super-grandmasters know, or should know, since a famous game between Rubinstein
(W) and Takacs (B) at Budapest, 1926.
revealed that a Knight at the edge of the board can inflict crippling pressure
on certain kinds of pawn formations: the formation of pawns on a7 (or a6), b7,
c6 with a Knight on a5.
A modern, and
perhaps more instructive, instance of this theme occurred recently in a game
between Morozevich (W) and Mamedyarov (B) at the Grand Prix even in Beijing,
perhaps out of necessity, poor planning, or even ignorance (it happens to even
super GMs), gave himself the formation of pawns on a7, b7, c6. Morozevich,
recognising it instantly, pounced by placing his Knight on a5. The point is, as
you will see from this highly instructive game, that playing b6 to drive away
the Knight, is not possible due to the loss of the pawn on c6. Hence the need
to defend this pawn formation constantly, which completely distorts Black’s
whole position. Structural weaknesses that have to be constantly defended,
while your opponent dances around doing what he can to bury you, are absolutely
horrible to play. Unless your opponent makes a mistake, you are doomed to
endless passive defence or Kamikaze-style counter-play.
When you play
over the game, notice how Morozevich, after he has planted his Knight on a5,
expertly ties up the position, gaining more and more small advantages as an
increasingly desperate Mamedyarov fights a losing battle to survive.
Is this what
they mean when they say the win ‘is only a matter of technique’?
Probably, but it
helps if you are a superb player like Rubinstein or Morozevich.
Play this game
over carefully; learn, enjoy, and remember.
I have been
asked by readers, why I do not embed chess game app as part of the posting
(it’s easy), to make it easier for readers to play over games in two dimensions.
It is a belief (or prejudice) on my part, that because chess is most often
played competitively in a real world of three dimensions (with time as the
fourth), it is best that we break out the traditional chess set and play over
games in this real world. I think it is better for the mind. Portisch and Petrosian
preferred to do that.
Apologies for the very late new posting. I have had to contend
with illnesses, a new job, and numerous writing projects, some of which were fortunately
part of my income stream. In compensation some classic games and a poem are thrown
in for free.
One of the best chess magazines in print, for average players, is
CHESS (www.chess.co.uk ). The analysis does not
involve too many spewings from a chess engine but rather actual human-mediated
thought processes. In other words, you get words telling you what is going on
in the position, strategically and tactically, which is better for understanding
and thus improving. I imagine that the names and images of the chess writers
are of actual people rather than clever computer interfaces. You also get
snapshots of the latest chess news from many different levels of the chess
I mention this magazine because in a recent issue (May 2013, p36)
there was an interesting article by a thoughtful young player, Peter Lalic:
‘Bringing back the good times’. In this article there is discussion about
poetry in chess – not the kind with stanzas and lines with metre (see below an
effort by yours truly) but rather a game that has such a distinctive formthat it is like the structured beauty of a
poem. It is exemplified in a game of Capablanca’s against Treybal, played at the great Karlsbad
tournament in 1929. Capablanca is White.
It is worth
recalling how good these great players of the past actually were, playing in
the era before chess became a professional pursuit and with computers doing the
substantial part of the thinking for a chess player.
Treybal (1885-1941), was no slouch. He was a Master level player with an ELO of
2490, Champion of Czechoslovakia in 1921, winner of the Silver Medal in the
1933 Olympiad, and he came 6th at Karslbad in 1929. He had an older
brother, Frantisek Treybal (1882-1947) who was also a strong player and
Champion of Czechoslovakia in 1907. Not bad at all. Here
is a game of Frantisek his against the brilliant but flawed attacking player,
It appears that during World War II,
Karel Treybal was involved in resistance activity on behalf of his country and
paid the ultimate penalty. I quote the following (from http://www.echesspedia.com/ accessed July 3, 2013): ‘Treybalhad been arrested
on 30 May 1941 in his office at Velvary and was escorted to the Pankrac prison
in Prague. He was charged with concealment of weapons for use by Germany’s
enemies and for having personal possession of a pistol without authorization.
He was condemned to death on 2 October 1941 and executed the same day.’
finish for a brave man, in one of the bleakest periods of human history.
Incidentally, Capablanca and Lasker also passed away from natural causes during
that momentous year 1941.
is the poem mentioned above. A mere exercise in structure for a poetry class
but not without some value:
‘The Grandmaster’s Simultaneous Exhibition’
He stops at my board
This small grey man with
Darting, hungry eyes
And watches me move.
He leans on one hand,
Ponders his reply,
Then his other hand -
A fell bird of prey -
Swoops down to capture
The piece I dared move.
When he comes around
To my board again
I ask him to pass;
Let other players
Fall before I do
I think in my pride.
But his souless eyes
Look up from the board,
Their gaze fixed somewhere
Deep inside my head.
He utters these words:
‘There is no point
To further thought,
Your game is lost’
And shows me the win
Before moving on.
I leave the table
Humbled and disgraced,
My eyes averted,
First to lose a game.
How often has this
happened to ordinary players in simuls?
Randomise openings in tournaments and bring back sparkling chess
One of the things that used to happen in playing chess before the age of analytical engines and databases was that chess players tended to make more mistakes, especially in the openings. That led to more scintillating play as the example below amply demonstrates. Even in correspondence chess, you would see the King’s Gambits and the Evans tried out with every expectation of victory.
Today, if you played in this way you would probably get smashed with no chance to fight back. Safety first and quiet positions that disadvantage chess engines, are the prevailing strategies used by players, except in the much lower echelons of correspondence or server-based chess. In cross-board chess, thorough preparation combined with the players’ phenomenal memories and understanding, is used to produce ‘gotcha chess’.
I have previously argued in another venue, for the randomisation of openings in chess tournaments. This would bring back excitement to those of us who like to follow the games of the very best. It would mean that when you sat down to play an opponent in a tourney, the opening which would be played is selected by a random process at that moment, from a long list of sound openings (including most gambits). So you can no longer count on your experience with a particular opening or the memorisation you have undertaken prior to meeting a particular opponent whose opening preferences you know. You and your opponent are on your own! All you have is your talent and general knowledge of all the openings.
Sure, positional players end up playing gambits sometimes, but by the same token, sharp tacticians end up having to play quiet variations. It depends on what is pulled out of the hat.
Imagine this wonderful scenario:
Carlsen sits down to play a game as White against Morosevich; the tourney official selects the opening to be played at random; it is a Vienna Gambit.
Next time these two players meet in this tourney with colours reversed, the draw produces a King’s Indian. And so it goes on for all the players.
Players like the comfort zone of familiar openings but if there were no rating points involved and a sponsor threw enough money at it, I am sure many first class players would take part. Amateurs around the world would love to see such contests.
I discovered the game below in an anthology by Purdy. He used it to show how it was possible to produce great combinative games in correspondence chess that rivalled anything produced across the board. Not something likely to happen today. Notice how Black’s king is penned up and then White has all the time he needs to finish him off. I hope you enjoy it.
The game is from the British Correspondence Chess Championship 1946-47.
R. (Bob) G. Wade Versus Wallis (no other details known at this time)
1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. e5 c5
5. a3 cxd4
6. axb4 dxc3
7. Nf3! Cxb2
8. Bb2 Ne7
9. Bd3 Nbc6
10. Qd2 Ng6
11. b5 Nce7
12. h4 Nf5
13. h5 Ngh4
14. Nxh4 Nxh4
15. Ra4 Nf5
16. Rg4! Bd7 (not g6??)
17. Bf5 exf5
18. Rg7 bb5
19. Rh3 Qe7
20. Qa5! Bc6
21. e6!! f4
22. Re3!!! fxe3
23. exf7+ Kf8
24. Ba3 Qa3
25. Qa3+ Kg7
26. Qe7 exf2+
27. Kf2 Raf8
28. h6+ Kh6
29. Qf6+ Kh5
30. Kf3 Bd7 (...Rhg8!?)
31. Kf4 h6
32. Qg7 d4
33. g4+ Kh4
34. Qg6! Kh3
35. Qd3+ Kg2
36. Qe2+ 1-0 (Mate in 3)
Now that is a sparkling game which would grace any player's collection.
have just seen completed the latest World Championship of Chess between Anand
and challenger Gelfand. A few Sicilians were played in that match, although you
would be forgiven for thinking they were but a pale shadow of Sicilian-slugfests,
as we know them from previous World Championship contests.
felt a sense of déjà-vu while the match was on. It was as though I had been
placed in a time-machine and transported back 20 years. This was the Indian
prodigy who took Europe by storm, the speed-king of chess, playing against one
of the ‘beastie-boys’, as Short used to refer to that generation of amazing
young players (which included the incredible Ivanschuk and a little later,
Kramnik and Kamsky), coming along in the late 1980s and early 1990s to
challenge the dominance of Karpov, Kasparov, and other aging Grandmasters.
were the post-Karpov wunderkinds of chess, heirs to the aggression of Fischer
and dynamism of Kasparov. And wasn’t chess wonderful for it? It is with some
degree of hindsight that we can now say that the period of the 1990s was a
modern golden age for chess and we may not see its like again.
mixture of nostalgia and regret tinged my following of this match. Well played
by both; relatively risk-free play; boring for the average player. But regret
at what was not there: players like Carlsen or any of the other current,
youthful (or at least younger), giants of the modern game. Instead we have old
gladiators in their forties duking it out, with punches lacking power but
delivered with skill.
course, the younger players were not there because they either did not
participate in a selection system they thought was unfair or they simply did
not make it to the endgame. So it was up to the old(er) guys to make with the
charisma, the danger, the conflict, the drama; make it a contest worthy of the
highest level of chess competition. Did they succeed?
rapid-play decider is of questionable value; like a penalty shoot-out in
soccer, it divides the fans. Is it exciting or just an ignominious way to
decide such an important even? I think it lacks dignity for the game and the
quality of the players. I am a traditionalist. Play the match to 24 games and
if the match is drawn have done with it. The title-holder remains the champion
because the challenger failed to defeat him or her.
seems the opinions of the ‘experts’ are mixed, so your opinion reader, is as
good as any one else’s at this stage. We shall see what history will make of it
commentary. Here is the rather
Kerecsenyi, Zoltan (1567)
Hungary versus Eraclides, George (1649) Australia
This is game two of the
mini-match we played on Lechenicher SchachServer.
Defence – Najdorf Variation
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3
d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. Bg5 Be6 9. O-O O-O (this
has all been seen before; Black is following a line of Fischer’s) 10. Kh1 Nbd7 (a
risky line; h6 and Nc6 are other risky alternatives; as this is a Sicilian
Najdorf, you cannot expect any risk-free variations; this sentence sure carries
a lot of ‘risk’!)11. Qd3 (he wants to link Rooks and also be able to transition
to Qg3 if occasion calls for it) Rc8 (once again, Black had Qc7, h6, or even b5
with an unclear assessment; Black develops his Queen’s Rook to its traditional
square – can it really ever be a Sicilian without that Rook on c8?)12. Rad1 h6
13. Bc1 (appears to make Black’s h6 pointless, although later in the endgame,
h6 is useful for supporting a g5 pawn move – see move 34 below) Qc7 (the plan
is to play Bc4 to exchange Bishops and control c4) 14. Qg3 Kh7 (avoiding his
tactical trick of Bxh6 but also protecting h6 itself) 15. f4 Bc4 (15...exf4 16.
Bxf4 opens the position too much in White’s favour)16. Bxc4 Qxc4 17. Qf3 (17.
f5 may have been worth a try for its cramping effect but any follow-up is bound
to be slow; Black’s counter-chances are on the Queen-side one way or the other;
not surprising in a Sicilian) b5 18. a3 Qc7 19. fxe5 (19. f5 Nc5 20. Nxc5 Qxc5
with a5 and b4 threatened) Nxe5 (played this way on intuitive grounds; Black
liked the Knight sitting on his outpost supported by the Pawn d6, radiating
force into the White position; positionally more conservative – and perhaps
correct – was dxe5; as it turns out Black gets a strong but cramped position) 20.
Qf5+ Kh8 (leaving space for Ng8 if needed to defend h6) 21. Nd5?! (White gives
up a Pawn for the dubious compensation of constricting Black’s position in the
expectation of a winning attack, which alas for him never eventuates, due to
accurate play by Black) Nxd5 22. exd5 Qxc2 23. Qxc2 Rxc2 24. Nd4 (Black now
plays very accurately to slowly defend his weak points; then the next stage is
to uncoil his position; finally Black maximises his winning chances with the
extra Pawn; I felt like a very poor version of Lasker or Korchnoi, digging in
for a long fight on the road to victory) Rc7 25. Nf5 Ng6 26. Bd2 Re8 27. Bc3 f6
28. Nd4 Ne5 29. Ne6 (this Knight is annoying but that is all White achieves with Queens
no longer on the board; in fact, Black’s Knight is a more useful piece) Rcc8
30. h3 Nc4 31. Bd4 Bd8 (now we begin the ‘uncoiling phase’) 32. Rf3 (he still
thinks he has an initiative so plays for the attack; it is hard to suggest a
worthwhile alternative) Bb6 33. Bxb6 Nxb6 34. Rg3 g5 35. Rf3 Nxd5 (White has
fallen for – or allowed to take place – a cheap tactic; it is interesting to go
back and look at White’s position from move 29 onwards to see how brittle it
actually is; all the tactical nuances are with Black) 36. Nxg5 hxg5 37. Rxd5
Re6 38. Rfd3 Rc6 39. Kh2 Kg7 40. Kg3 Kf7 41. Kf3 Ke7 (frees up the Rook from
defensive duties so progress can be made in advancing the Pawns) 42. R5d4 Re5
43. g3 (he might as well have tried h4 with some drawing chances) Rf5+ 44. Kg4
Re5 45. h4 gxh4 46. gxh4 (an outside passed Pawn is his only hope but it is too
late; Black aims to swap one Rook then get on with exploiting the few winning
chances he has) Rc4 47. Kg3 Rxd4 48. Rxd4 d5 49. Kf4 Ke6 50. a4 (desperation;
maybe b3 was better) f5 51. h5 Re4+ 52. Rxe4+ fxe4 (the united passed Pawns are
deadly) 53. axb5 axb5 54. Kg5 Kf7! (obviously the Black King must stay close
enough to stop the White passed Pawn) 55. h6 e3 and White resigned.
From Black’s point of view a
satisfying, if flawed, game. I do not normally enjoy a cramped position,
particularly one which requires me to play very accurately all the time. As
Tarrasch taught us from years ago, it is hard to keep defending a cramped
position. I think I played well to convert the meagre chances to a win. My
opponent probably missed some opportunities to hold the game or at least to make
it harder for Black to win.
But then again, it is human to
make mistakes, otherwise we would never bother to play chess. Where would be
the fun in endless, perfect, draws?
I have been reading assiduously the works of Cecil J Purdy. You have come across some of his ideas in my reference to ‘bunny rules’ in previous postings.
There is no doubt that Purdy is the best writer, teacher, and annotator for chess players who are below Master Class. If you are an average player or no better than a category one player, then you would be very foolish to ignore his writings. Take your nose out of the latest ‘Win with...’ book or computer software upgrade and read Purdy instead.
Even if you later graduate to higher levels of play because you are talented or you want to study the current crop of openings guides so as to successfully play ‘gotcha chess’, you will have benefitted from Purdy. You will be able to orient yourself quickly and well to different positions. Purdy knew well the teachings of the greatest thinkers and writers on the game: theorists like Steinitz/Lasker, Tarrasch, Nimzovich; players like Morphy, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, up to the era of Fischer. He absorbed what was best but did not innocently just swallow everything. Practical play throws up its own kind of wisdom, and Purdy was canny enough to realise that chess is in the end, a practical activity: You want to know what will help you to play better and win; leave the dogmatic rhetoric for the theoreticians in their ivory towers.
In many of his books, his annotations are sprinkled with nuggets of wisdom about how you should evaluate a position. What you should do. Why the player under scrutiny did what he or she did and what you can learn from the moves played. And as you look at the position he is commenting upon, you have the practical example before you to remember; not just a tactical motif to help with future pattern-recognition but an idea to treasure for many different positions in future encounters. Even in correspondence chess, the ideas of Purdy are invaluable to help you in a practical, no-nonsense way. It is with good reason that Fischer himself thought highly of Purdy as a teacher of chess.
I am currently reading volume one of ‘C. J. S. Purdy’s Fine Art of Chess Annotation and other thoughts’ published by Thinkers’ Press, Davenport USA and edited by Dr Ralph J. Tykodi. I obtained my copy via mail order from Neville Ledger in Tasmania firstname.lastname@example.org . He may not have any copies left of this book or the other Purdy classics. You may have to seek them out in the specialist second hand trade or find a library which has copies. His annotations and essays are perfect for the average club player. He leaves just enough unsaid in an annotation to allow you to work things out and feel satisfied with your efforts.
Anyway, I was going through his notes to famous championship games, such as those of Bovinnink against Smyslov. It occurred to me to ask the perennial question: How good are the players of one era compared to the best of another era?
The answer from the evidence of history is that the best players from one era are in fact as strong as those of any other era. Perhaps one era has more of them than another but their strength is uniform. I base this claim not on ELO historical ratings or similar formulae applied to player results.
I believe that on the basis of players of different generations, playing against each other in the transition points of different eras, the strength of the best players can be assessed. Steinitz playing strongly, well past his best period against new players; Capablanca and Lasker did the same well into the subsequent era (the twenties and thirties) and against the hypermoderns and booked up theorists; Alekhine was devastating against players who would later come to dominate chess; Botvinnik was in the forefront of players well past his best period, which was in the thirties and forties, and he was a very, very hard man to beat, even by a rampant Fischer later in the 1960s; Smyslov, as we know, played off in candidates matches at the age of 61. And do I even need to mention Korchnoi?
If players from a more modern period were indeed so superior to those from the past, they would be giving them a hiding, almost all the time. This is not what history shows us.
So on those occasions when players of different eras actually met, played in tournaments or even matches (the transition points of eras) the results of those players past their best period, facing those about to reach or having reached their best period, are generally good to excellent. The new masters looking for a quick kill against the old and worn out, are often surprised and bested by the old warriors.
Therefore I conclude: once good, good for all time.
This is boon to those of us who like players and games from different eras.We can have fun and still learn much that is worthwhile.
This ‘chess club’ is comparable to the ICCF and players are of a very high standard. I usually struggle against them but more recently (thanks to inspiration by Fischer – see previous post – and Purdy) I have been doing better. In the following game I make a mistake using a variation in the Open Sicilian (3.Bc4) popularised by the strong Australian player Bill Jordan in the 1980s. I lose a Pawn due to some speculative nonsense but then play inventively and aggressively in the ending which forces my opponent to play conservatively. He makes an error and the result is a draw. I should mention that the time control was quite fast, hence the errors in analysis by both players.
Eraclides, George (1649) Australia versus Kerecsenyi, Zoltan (1567) Hungary
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 e6 4.0–0 Be7 5.d4 (more in the spirit of thisvariation is 5.d3 with a patient build up) cxd4 6.Nxd4 a6 7.a4 Nf6 8.Nc3 0–0 9.Be3 Nc6 10.Kh1 Bd7 11.Qe2 Rc8 12.Rad1 Qc7 13.Bb3 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 e5 15.Be3 Be6 16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.g4 (speculative and unsound; correct was 17.f3 with Qf2 and even a Rook on d3 in time) Qc6 18.f3 d5 (as Purdy and countless teachers from the past have pointed out, a central thrust is the complete answer to an unsound flank attack; I now lose a Pawn but get a strong Knight which dominates my opponent’s Bishop; I use this ‘domination’ to help me secure a draw) 19.exd5 exd5 20.g5 d4 21.gxf6 Bxf6 22.Ne4 dxe3 23.Qxe3 Qxa4 24.Qb6 (this aggressive move can lead to a loss by Black in certain variations after Qxb7 if White is allowed the time to place a Rook on the g-file and take on f6 at the right moment; Zoltan quite rightly now, plays most carefully after winning the Pawn) Qxc2 25.Qxb7 Qc6 26.Qb3+ Qc4 27.Qxc4+ Rxc4 28.Ra1 Bd8 29.Kg2 a5 30.Rfd1 Rb4 31.Rd2 Bb6 32.Nc3 Rd4 33.Rxd4 exd4 34.Nd5 Bd8 35.Rd1 Bf6? (any winning chances lay with 35...Re8 with a long endgame; my analysis showed White can still draw) 36.Nxf6+ ½–½ (Draw agreed)
I will not be playing this variation again, any time soon. Only Fischer lines when I can.
I aim to present games, my own and those of others, which are instructive for average players. After all, there are so many of us. I also occasionally present my opinion on chess matters and the occasional thimble of wisdom on the meaning or otherwise of anything and everything.