Tareas de Ingeniería que se abordan en la iteración

exd5 15.cxd5 ¤b4 White will regain the piece with a huge

advanta-2.05

Gaprindashvili,V - Lupulescu,C European Ch-ship, Warsaw 2005 23...g5! Obtaining a material plus. Since 23...¦xd2 24.¦xd2 ¦d8??

doesn't work due to 25.¥xd8, the solution comes easily. 24.fxg5 24.¢d1 ¦xd2+ 25.¦xd2 ¥xd2 26.¢xd2 (and 26.¥xg5 ¥xe3 27.¥xh6

¦d8+ 28.¢e2 ¥c1 should be winning too) 26...gxh4 must be winning for Black in the long term. 24...¦xd2 25.¦xd2 ¦d8 26.¢f1 ¦xd2 27.¥e1 ¦c2 28.¥d1 Or 28.¥xc3 ¦xc3 29.¥d1 hxg5 30.¢e2 ¢g7.

28...¦c1 29.¥xc3 ¦xd1+ 30.¢e2 ¦g1 31.¢f3 hxg5 and Black gra-dually won.

2.06

Krasenkow,M - Ivanov,SA Moscow 1981

Black's king is the target: 26.¤f5+! gxf5 27.¦xe7 ¤xe7 28.£h6+

¢g8 29.£xf6 Threatening both 30 Rxe7 and 30 Bh6) £d6 30.£xe7

29.¦a3? was played instead in the game. 29...£xd5 30.e4! wins the knight.

2.08

Krasenkow,M - Gdanski,J Polish Championship, Warsaw 2010 White's attack looks deadly, but his tactical weaknesses along the b- file suggest the right defence: 22...¥xg5! 23.¥xg5 After 23.¦xd6

¥xe3+ 24.£xe3 ¦d8 , Black keeps good compensation for the mis-sing pawn since White's position is very loose. 23...¥a6! 24.¥xa6

£xb6+ 25.£e3 £xa6 26.¦xd6 exf5 27.¦xf5 £c8 and Black obtai-ned an excellent position. Despite his extra pawn, White failed to protect his numerous weaknesses and eventually lost.

2.09

Krasenkow,M - Sorin Riga 1978 Can Black play 29...Rxd5 - ?

£xc8 33.£xd5 £xh3+ 34.¢g1 £g3+ 35.£g2 ¥d4+ 36.¢h1 £h4+

37.£h2; or 30...¦f8 31.¥xf8 ¦xd3 32.£f5, and White wins in both cases. 31.£xf7+ ¢h8 32.¦xb2 £xh3+ If 32...£xe7 33.£xd5 - the consequence of 29...Rxd5. 33.¦h2. Black resigned.

2.10

Naumkin,I - Krasenkow,M Novogorsk 1982

Surprisingly, White's e1-rook is insufficiently protected: 21...¦d4!

22.¦xd4? 22.£e3! was the only defence, although the endgame after ¦c4 23.g3 £xe3 24.¥xe3 ¦xc2 is difficult for White. 22...¦xf4!

A second deflection. White resigned.

2.11

Krasenkow,M - Schneider,A Wattens 1989

28.a3! and Black resigned. If 28.£g6+ ¢f8 29.£h6+ ¢e7 30.¦e1+, there is no decisive blow as 30 Re1+ is impossible. Thus the idea of deflection arises.; If 28.a3 £xa3 29.£g6+ ¢f8 30.£h6+ ¢e7

£xd1+ 26.¢g2 f6 leads to a completely winning endgame for Black.

2.13

Krasenkow,M - Levi,V Zhitomir 1977

Geometric motifs enable a simple but beautiful combination based on two decoys and the motif of interference: 22.¤xe4! fxe4 23.¥xe4! £xe4 24.¦xg7+! ¢h8 After 24...¢xg7 25.d5+, Black lo-ses his queen. 25.£xe4 ¥xe4 26.¦xe7 ¥d5 27.e4 ¦f7 28.¦xf7

¥xf7 29.¦g1 and Black resigned. This was my first combination that went around the Soviet chess press in those times.

2.14

Krasenkow,M - Sabani,A Kusadasi 1990

30.¦xe6! is not a difficult destructive blow. In the game Black deci-ded to give up an exchange with. 30.¥xf6+ ¢xf6 31.¦xe6+ is less effective as Black can get away a pawn down after ¢g7. 30...¤g4 and soon lost. In the case of 30...fxe6 he would have come under a

Liashenko,A - Krasenkow,M Moscow 1985

23...£xh3! This queen sacrifice destroys the defences of White's king. 24.gxh3 fxe4 25.¢g1 In the case of 25.¥xe4, the simplest way to win is ¦xe4! (Here 25...¥xe4+ 26.¦xe4 ¦xe4 is quite enough too) 26.¦xe4 ¥xe4+ 27.¢g1 d3+ 28.¤e3 ¦e8! 29.¢f1 ¥xe3 30.£xe3 ¥g2+. 25...¦g6+ 26.¢f1 e3 27.¤xe3 ¦xf4+ and White resigned.

2.16

Krasenkow,M - Ahlander,B Cesme 2004

17.¦xb7! ¤xb7 Or ...¤xd4 18.¦xe7! and with this intermediate mo-ve - the so-called desperado motif as a doomed piece sells its life dearly - White obtains two pieces for the rook. 18.¤xc6 £e8 19.¤xd5! White's material advantage is symbolic, but his pieces dominate the board. ¥g5 20.¥b5 ¢h8 21.¤xa7 £d8 22.¤c6 £d7 23.h4 ¤bd8 24.hxg5 ¤xc6 25.gxh6 ¦xa2 26.¥xc6 £xc6 27.¤b4.

Black resigned.

35.¤e5.

2.18

Krasenkow,M - Dvoirys,S Rostov on Don 1993

28.¤d4! I was concerned about the poor position of my knight so this blow was easy to find despite the psychological barrier mentio-ned in the Introduction. exd4 29.£xd4+ ¢h6 30.¦d7 Threatening both 31 Qg7+ and 31 Qe3+; Black has no defence. £b1+ 31.¢h2

¦xf2 32.£e3+ g5 33.£h3+ ¢g6 34.£h7+ ¢f6 35.£g7+ ¢e6 36.£e7#.

2.19

Krasenkow,M - Rahman,Zia Dhaka 1995

By deflecting Black's overloaded queen, White's rook enters the game with some effect: 42.¦a2! £e7 ...£xa2 leads to a forced ma-te: 43.£xf7+ ¢h7 44.£g8+ ¢g6 45.£e8+! ¢h7 46.¥g8+ ¢h8 47.¥f7+ ¢h7 48.£g8#; Instead, 42...£d7! was the best way to put

18.¤xh7! A typical destructive combination. ¤xe5 White wins after 18...¢xh7 19.£h5+ ¢g7 20.£h6+ ¢g8 21.¥xg6! fxg6 22.£xg6+

¢h8 23.¦e3 ¦f4 24.£h6+ ¢g8 25.¦g3+; Instead, 18...¦fe8 was probably the best way to keep on fighting, although hardly for too long, a pawn down with a weak king, after, say, 19.¤f6+ ¥xf6 20.exf6. 19.¥f4 White could have simply taken the f8-rook - 19.¤xf8

¤xd3 20.¤xg6! fxg6 21.£xd3 - but he preferred to continue his at-tack. 19...¥d6 20.¤f6+ ¢g7 and we've reached the next position.

2.21

Janovsky,S - Krasenkow,M Voskresensk (part two) 1992

21.¦xb7!! There is no immediate mate after this deflection, but White's threats along the a1-h8 diagonal prove decisive. ¤xd3 Desperation. In the case of 21...£xb7 22.¥xe5 ¥xe5 23.£xe5, Black is helpless. 22.£xd3! Of course, it was quite possible to take the queen: 22.¦xc7 ¤xf4 23.£d1 ¥xc7 24.¤xd7, but White's choice is more consistent and convincing. 22...£xb7 23.¥xd6 Threatening

Van Wely,L - Krasenkow,M Istanbul Olympiad 2000

23.¥g4+! It is essential not to let Black's king to f5. f5 24.¦d6+ An unimportant repetition of moves occurs here and again later on. ¢f7 25.¦d7+ ¢e6 26.¤f4+! This knight sacrifice clears the long diago-nal to enable the decisive check on f6. exf4 27.¦d6+ ¢f7 28.¦d7+

¢e6 29.¦d6+ ¢f7 30.£d7+ ¤e7 31.¦f6+ ¢g7 Or ...¢g8 32.£xe7

£a1+ 33.¢d2 with inevitable mate. 32.£xe7+ ¢h6 33.¦xg6+! and with mate coming next move, Black resigned.

2.23

Howell,D - Vachier Lagrave,M Biel 2010

White's position is quite gloomy, but he can obtain sufficient coun-terplay by sacrificing a knight: 31.¤xa4! David Howell missed this rescue and was gradually crushed after 31.¢a2? ¦h1. 31...¤xa4 32.£a5. Now in the case of ¤c5 If Black doesn't with draw his knight - 32...¦h2 or 32...Rh1 - then after 33.£xa4, White has not-hing to worry about. 33.£c7+ ¢f8 34.£d8+, it is Black who should

deed, a small pawn kick is enough to destroy them: 24.h5! £xh5 Otherwise, 24...¥xh5 25.£g7#; or 24...¤xh5 25.¥d4; while ¦ae8 25.¦ae1 doesn't change anything. 25.¦h1 Now Black loses his light-squared bishop. £e5 Or 25...£f5 26.¤d4 £e5 27.£xg6 ¦g8 28.£xd3 ¦g2+ 29.¤e2. 26.£xg6 bxc4 26...¦g8 doesn't obtain co-unterplay due to 27.£xf6+! £xf6 28.¥d4. 27.¦xh7+! ¤xh7 28.¦h1

£xe3+ If 28...£g7 29.¥d4. 29.¢xe3 ¦ae8+ 30.¢d2. Black resig-ned.

2.25

Krasenkow,M - Svidler,P Polanica Zdroj 2000

After 40.c7! An obvious deflection, but the point only becomes clear on move 43. £xc7 41.£e1+, Black resigned; Foreseeing the finale:

41.£e1+ ¢g5 (if 41...¢h5 42.£e6!) 42.h4+! (42.£e6 is premature due to h5!; that said, White wins anyway by means of 43.h4+! ¢xh4 44.¥g6! ¥a1 45.£h3+ ¢g5 46.£xh5+ ¢f6 47.£f5+ ¢g7 48.£f7+

cards, albeit not totally this time as White only ends up with substan-tial positional gains. 34.¦e5 is harmless due to £d7. However, the situation changes after a double decoy. 34...£xh5 Or 34...¢xh5 35.¦e5! fxe5 36.£h6#. 35.¦e5 £h3 35...¦d8!? is interesting, but White keeps a huge advantage due to his strong passed pawn and the complete disarray of Black's pieces after 36.£xd8 fxe5 37.d5

¥a4 38.£g8+ ¢f6 39.£e6+ ¢g7 40.¥e3! 36.d5 h6? 36...g3!

37.fxg3 £d7 was the only way to keep on fighting, but White should convert his powerful extra pawn after 38.£xd7 ¥xd7 39.¦e7. 37.¦e3

£h5 38.dxc6. Black resigned.

2.27

Smagin,S - Krasenkow,M Moscow 1982

Can White start a counterattack with 27 Bg5 fxg5 28 Nxe5 - ?

White can't start a counterattack. To 27.¥g5 fxg5 28.¤xe5, Black replied with a counterblow: ¦d2! White's concept would work per-fectly after 28...£d2? 29.¦xd1!: for example, £xe2 (or 29...£xd1

2.28

Markowski,T - Krasenkow,M Polanica Zdroj 1995

White's knight is protecting his rooks and the deflecting 30...Nb5 springs to mind. However, it doesn't work due to 31 g4!. Therefore, first an intermediate move: 30...£f3! 31.£xh3 and only now ¤b5!.

A 'boar blow' is a good Russian saying for such moves. Following 32.¦d3 If 32.¤xb5 £xe2 33.¤c3 £c2 32...¤xc3 33.¦e1 ¤xd5 34.¦ed1 ¦bd7 35.£e6 ¦d6 36.£h3 ¤f4! 37.gxf4 £xh3, White re-signed.

2.29

Krasenkow,M - Blokh,M Moscow 1985

With 23.¤d5! This discovered attack suggests itself, but some va-riations have to be calculated. ¤xd5 24.exd5 ¤g5 24...¥xc1 was, of course, the main response; White wins a pawn anyway after 25.dxe6 fxe6 26.¤xe5 ¥xd3 27.¤xd3 ¥h6 28.£xe6+. 25.d6 £b7

24.¤e6! It is not difficult to find this if you think how to push g4-g5 and bring your h3-bishop into play. Black resigned in view of the following variations: 24.¤e6 fxe6 (or 24...¦xd5 25.g5) 25.g5! £c7 26.¥xe6+ ¢h8 (or 26...¢g7 27.£b2+ ) 27.gxh6.

2.31

Morozevich,A - Jakovenko,D Pamplona 2006

White has a tactical opportunity to eliminate Black's important b-pawn: 37.¤xb5! Instead, 37.£xe6+? £xe6 38.¦xe6 ¤xa3; or 37.¦xe6? ¤xa3 gives Black good drawing chances. 37...¤d6 A sad necessity. The point of White's idea is revealed by 37...£xb5 38.£xe6+ ¦f7 39.a4! £f5 40.£xc4 , regaining the knight with an easy win; and 37...£xf4+ 38.¥g3 ¦d2 39.£xe6+ is hopeless too.

38.¤c3 38.¤xd6 ¥xd6 39.g3 is equally good. 38...£xf4+ 39.¥g3.

White has not increased his material advantage, but now, with two connected passed pawns, his victory seems certain. Amazingly,

on the same tactical idea; the game continuation is the simplest, but White could also have played, say, 47.£d7 ¦f8 48.£f5+ ¢h8 49.£f4 ¢h7 50.¦g6!, etc. 47...¢h8 48.£d2! ¢h7 49.¦g6! Clearing the seventh rank. fxg6 50.£d7+ Black resigned in view of 50.£d7+

¢g8 51.£xe8+ ¢g7 52.£e7+ ¢g8 53.hxg6.

2.33

Lalic,B - Krasenkow,M Neum 2000

24.¦xd6! Another example of tactics serving a positional purpose:

Black will regain the pawn on e3, but White's pressure along the open files becomes unbearable. 24.¤d5 was not so strong due to

£d8 Or 24...£a7 24...£xe3+ 24...exd6 25.¤d5 wins. 25.¢h2 ¤e5?

25...exd6 again loses to 26.¤d5 ;and 25...¦fd8 was the only move to maintain the material balance, but White keeps a decisive advan-tage after 26.¤d5! (or 26.¦d1, but you would probably appreciate a nicer solution) 26...£a7 27.f5! exd6 (or 27...gxf5 28.¦h6 with a deci-sive attack) 28.¤f6+ ¢f8 29.¤xh7+ ¢g8 30.¤f6+ ¢f8 31.¤xd7+

example, 35.£xe4 fxe4 36.¦xd4 £f8 37.¦4xd5 £xf4+, etc.

34...¦e1+ 35.£f1?? 35.¢f2 ¦e2+! 36.¢xe2 ¤xf4+ was Black's ma-in idea; still, this was the only way for White to fight on, with 37.¦xf4

£xg2+ 38.¦f2 , although he should not survive in the long term.

35...¤e3! Exactly! But not 35...¦xf1+ 36.¢xf1 ¤e3+ 37.¢e2 £g2+

38.¢xe3 , when White regains the knight and keeps more counter-play than in the above line with 35 Kf2.; After 35...¤e3, White gets mated by 36.¦d8+ ¢g7 37.¦4d7+ ¢h6 (the checks are over) 38.£xe1 (or 38.¦xa8 ¦xf1# ) 38...£g2#, so I resigned.

2.35

Landa,K - Nevednichy,V Khanty-Mansiysk 2007

45...¤f5!! A bolt from the blue; White's unprotected queen plays a pernicious role. 46.¦xh7+ Otherwise, 46.¥xf5 ¦xh2+ 47.¢xh2

¤g4+ and 48. ..Qxa1 is Black's main idea; and 46.¤g4!? doesn't help due to ¦xh2+ 47.¤xh2 ¤g3+ 48.¢g2 ¤e2+ 49.¢h1 ¤xf4 with an easy win. 46...£xh7+ 47.¢g1 £g7+ 48.¤g2 ¤d4 Black's once

18.¤a4! was the way to exploit White's development advantage. If

¦xc1 The lesser evil for Black is now to concede a pawn by means of 18...¤c4+ 19.¥xc4 dxc4 (or 19...¦xc4 20.¦xc4 dxc4 21.¤c5) 20.¤b6 ¦c6 21.¤xc4. 19.¦xc1 ¤xa4, then after 20.¦c7+ ¢e8 21.¦xb7, Black can't bring his rook into play and stop White's que-enside pawns: for example, ¤b2 22.¥xa6 ¤c4+ 23.¥xc4 dxc4 24.a4, etc. Amazingly, I had planned this tactical operation before Black made his previous move (17...Rac8??), but then started me-diating on his other options and completely forgot about my main idea. Instead of 18 Na4!, I continued 18 Nd1?? and went on to lose.

2.37

Naumkin,I - Krasenkow,M Moscow 1985

After 26.£xf6! ¦xb7 27.£h8+ ¢xf7 28.e6+ ¢xe6 29.£xd4, White had good winning chances, although the game ended in a draw on move 78. This combination can be difficult to see for players with a

have offered resistance by means of the continuation £h6! 37.¦b6

£g7. 36...¦xf7 37.¦d8+ ¦f8 38.£e6+ ¢g7 39.£e7+! ¦f7 40.£e5+

A nice pirouette, which White certainly overlooked in his calcula-tions. ¢h6 41.¦xc8 and White is winning; for example, 41.¦xc8 b2 42.¦h8+ ¦h7 43.c8£! £xc8 44.£f4+! ¢g7 45.¦xc8 b1£ 46.£f8#.

2.39

Charbonneau,P - Krasenkow,M Bled Olympiad 2002

White's f3-knight is the target: 20...¦f4! 21.£d2 If 21.£e2 ¥xc2 22.£xc2 ¦xf3! 23.gxf3 £xh3 with the deadly threat of 24...Nh4.

21...¦xf3! and White resigned. 21...¥xc2 is now harmless due to 22.¥xf4 ¥xd1 23.¦xd1; However, after the text move, 21...¦xf3 22.gxf3 ¥xc2 Besides which Black can play the move 22...¤h4 di-rectly. 23.£xc2 £xh3 leads to the 21 Qe2 line, above.

2.40

Bocharov,D Kamsky,G Khanty-Mansiysk 2005

32.¦xe7 with a clear pull.

2.41

Seirawan,Y - Yermolinsky,A US Championship, Seattle 2000 White wins after 34.¤g5+! 34.¦xf6+?! exf6 35.¤g5+ is the wrong move order due to ¢e7! 36.£e6+ ¢d8!; Unfortunately Seirawan missed this chance, playing 34.¥g5?. 34...¢g7 After 34...¢f8 35.¦xf6+! exf6 White has several ways to win, the simplest being 36.£c8+ £e8 (note that 36...¢g7 37.£d7+ would transpose to 34…Kg7) 37.¥a3+ ¢g7 38.£c7+ ¢g6 39.£xh7+ ¢xg5 40.¥c1+

¢g4 41.£h3#. 35.¦xf6! exf6 White wins too after both 35...£xf6 36.£xh7+ ¢f8 37.¤e6+; and 35...¢xf6 36.£e6+ ¢g7 37.£xe7+

¢h6 38.¤f3+. 36.£d7+ ¢h8 37.¤f7+ ¢g7 38.¤e5+ . 2.42

Krasenkow,M - Olafsson,H Reykjavik 2004 Can Black play 25...Rxc5 - ?

29...Kg6) 30.£f6+; or 29...¦c1 30.£g5+, winning the rook.) 2.43

Brynell,S - Braun,A German League 2006

Black would be glad to capture White's g-pawn, thereby increasing his winning chances, but how? 52...¥h6!! Another example of a dif-ficult move 'under the opponent's pawn', and again missed. White can't play. If 52...¥e7 then 53.£e8+ ¢g7 54.¢h3.; In the game Arik Braun continued manoeuvring with 52...¦d5 and finally tricked his opponent. However, the problem could have been solved immedia-tely. 53.gxh6? in view of ¦e4+! 54.£xe4 f5+ 55.£xf5 gxf5+

56.¢xf5 a4 and the pawn promotes. Therefore the crucial g-pawn must fall.

2.44

Votava,J - Krasenkow,M German League 2004

¢g8 37.¦cg7+ ¢f8 38.¦a7 £xa7 39.¦xa7.; Let's look for other po-ssibilities. The deflecting 28.¦b8 comes in mind, but Black has a satisfactory defence: £d6.; The solution is now easy to find: another deflection is required! 28.¤c5! ¤xc5 (or 28...£xe2 29.¤xe6+) 29.¦b8!. Now 29...Qd6 is impossible and ¦xb8 leads to a quick ma-te afma-ter 30.£xf7+: for instance, ¢h6 31.£xh7+ ¢g5 32.£h4+ ¢f5 33.£f4#.

2.45

Pedzich,D - Krasenkow,M Polish Championship, Sopot 1997

Black plans 18...Qe6 so White should hurry: 18.¥g5!! fxg5 19.¤xe5

£d6 Or 19...£b6 20.£d5 ] 20.£f3! Threatening both 21 Nf7+ and 21 Qxa8) ¢c7 21.£xa8 ¥b7 22.£xa7 with a winning position.

2.46

Maciejewski,M - Krasenkow,M Lubniewice 1993

material advantage.

2.47

Krasenkow,M - Svetushkin,D Calvia Olympiad 2004

Black feels extremely uncomfortable: his d6-knight is hanging and 26 Qe5 threatened. However, he finds a move that consolidates his position completely: 25...¦f8! But not 25...¤xc4? 26.£h4! ¤d6 27.¦e7 ¤f5 28.¦xf7 ¤xh4 29.¦g7+ ¢f8 30.¦xh7. 26.h3 26.£xd6? is impossible due to £f2+, so White must make some luft, but doing so leads to simplification. 26...£f4! 27.£xf4 ¦xf4 28.¦e6 To 28.¥e5, Black replies ¦e4!. 28...¦xc4! 29.¥e5 ¦c1+ 30.¢h2 ¤c4 and Black is not worse. The game ended in a draw 12 moves later.

2.48

Miroshnichenko,E - Krasenkow,M European Ch-ship, Belek 2004 Black's queenside is frozen, so it is hardly surprising that he can't defend his king. However, the tactical motif which brings White

vic-23.£f4! ¤e7 24.¥c3 Black resigned in view of 24.¥c3 ¤d5 (if ¢xh7 25.£h4+ ¢g8 26.£h8#) 25.¤f6+ ¤xf6 26.£xf6 ¢f8 27.£h8+ ¢e7 28.¥f6+.

2.49

Kasimdzhanov,R - Gelfand,B Elista Candidates 2007 Which recapture would you prefer: 25 Rxe6 or 25 dxe6 - ?

Tactics can be widely used even in a positional fight. White is in tro-uble here due to the poor position of his queen on h3 and 25 dxe6 Re8 is hardly attractive as the e6-pawn will be very weak. 25.¦xe6 is more natural but Black replies with a counterblow: ¦e8!. However, the Gordian knot can be cut tactically: 26.¥xh6! If instead 26.¦xe8+

£xe8 27.£e3 (the only way to cover the e-file), then Black's queen invades White's camp through d1: £h5 28.g3 £d1+ 29.¢g2 £c2.

That said, deep analysis shows that White can hold his ground by means of 30.£e6! ¥c5 31.¥xh6!! £xf2+ 32.¢h3 (threatening 33 Bxg7+ with a perpetual) ¥d4 33.¥f4 £f1+ 34.¢h4 ¥f6+ 35.¢h5

29.£d3. This fully consolidates White's position. However, in the game Rustam Kasimdzhanov didn't notice 26 Bxh6! and reluctantly played 25 dxe6.

2.50

Ellers,H - Lauber,A Leipzig 1995

17...£d7! With two threats, one of them being 18...Bg4. Instead, 17...£f6? was played in the game, which ended in a draw; and 17...£e8 is less accurate than 17...Qd7 as White can defend by means of 18.¤db1 ¥xg6 19.£e2. 18.¥xg5 18.¤db1 now leads to a completely hopeless position after ¥g4 19.£h2 ¤f3 20.£g2 £f5 21.¤a3 ¤d4 , etc ] 18...£a4! This was the second threat. In fact, 18...¤xa2+! 19.¤xa2 £a4 is less spectacular but equally good.

19.¤b3 Or 19.¤xa4 ¤xa2#. 19...¤xa2+ 20.¤xa2 £xb3 and Black wins.

only defence 25...¥d4 26.¦f1 (both 26.cxd4; and 26.¦xd4 lose an exchange to ¦xc2 27.¦xc4 bxc4 ;while 26.¤xd4 leads to mate after

¦e1+ 27.¦xe1 ¦xe1+ 28.¢h2 £f1) 26...¥b6, threatening 27.-- ¦xd2 28.£xd2 ¦e2, White can't avoid further material losses.

2.52

Dautov,R - Krasenkow,M Essen 2002

Some consolation for the previous game occurred not too long after.

Here White has just played 22 Bc4-f7, certainly expecting 22...Qe7 23 fxe3 Bxh1 24 Rxh1 or 22...Qd7 23 Be6 with good counterplay.

However, his hopes proved in vain. 22...¥e4!! 23.¦d3 23.¥xe8 le-ads to a wellknown mate albeit in an unusual arrangement, with

¦c8+ 24.£c3 (or 24.£c2 ¦xc2+) 24...¦xc3+ 25.bxc3 ¥a3#; while 23.fxe3 £c6+ loses the h1-rook. The text move is the most stub-born, but still won't save the game. 23...£e7 24.¦c3?! 24.¦xe3!? is better, but Black still wins after ¥xh1: for example, 25.f3 £g5 26.¥d5+ ¢a7 27.£c3 ¥d6! 28.f4 (or 28.¥xd6 £xd5 ) £g1+ 29.¦e1

Should Black take the knight?

Black should not believe his opponent. Indeed, White's a-pawn can be stopped with a neat manoeuvre: 42...¢xc4! Instead, the Icelan-dic player chose 42...¤h5?? and eventually lost. 43.a6 ¤d5! 44.a7

¥b6!! 45.a8£ 45.a8¤ ¥d8 is equally hopeless. 45...¤c7+ and wins.

2.54

Spoelman,W - Krasenkow,M Hilversum 2009

White could have prepared a rook sacrifice with 32.¦e5!!, after which Black has no defence. For example: My opponent played the immediate 32.¦xf6+?, but after ¢xf6 it turned out that White had nothing better than perpetual. He found one more idea: 33.£h6+

¢f7 34.£h7+ ¢f8 35.£h8+ ¢f7 36.£e8+ ¢g7 37.¦e7+ ¦xe7 38.£xe7+ ¢g6 39.£xa3, but then Black forced perpetual: £f1+

40.¢a2 £c4+ 41.¢b1 £f1+ 42.¢a2 £c4+ 43.£b3 £a6+ 44.£a3.

32...£a6 In the case of 32...¦a1+!? 33.¢xa1 £a6+ 34.¢b1 ¦xb2+

35.¢xb2 £b5+ 36.¢c3, White's king easily escapes the checks.

wins too after 20...bxc5 21.dxe7+ ¢e8 22.exd8£+ ¦xd8 23.¥xd8;

20...¦dc8 was the only way to avoid the loss of the exchange, but was hardly a good option as after Piket's suggestion 21.dxe7+ ¢e8 22.¦d5!, threatening 23 Rhd1, Black is completely paralysed.

21.¥xd8 ¦xd8 22.¦c7. With a material advantage and such an acti-ve rook, White eacti-ventually scored a convincing victory.

2.56

Beliavsky,A - Gavrikov,V USSR Championship, Moscow 1988 How can Black save his light-squared bishop? 19...¥d7!! 19...£xa2 doesn't help as after 20.¥g5 (or 20.¥g3), threatening 21 Rf4+ and 21 Qf3+, the problem persists. 20.h3 It turns out that after 20.£xd7

¦d8 21.£a4 b5, White loses a rook and ends up a piece down.

20...¦d8 was found. Here 20...¥c6 was even stronger, and if 21.¦xc6 bxc6 22.¦xc6 then £b1+ 23.¢h2 £f5. However, the text move was good enough to keep a decisive material advantage, which Black eventually converted.

2.57

Zueger,B - Kindermann,S Munich 1989

It is far from easy to notice that Black can trap White's queen in the middle of the board. Bravo, Stefan Kindermann! 20...¦xc5!!

21.£xc5 ¥f8! 22.£xe5 ¥d6! 23.£xd4 ¥xh2+ 24.¢xh2 £xd4 and Black won.

2.58

Harika,D - Volokitin,A Moscow 2007

32.h4!! The game saw 32.d6? b2! 33.£xb2 £g5+ 34.¢f2 £d2+

35.¢g3 £g5+ with a draw by perpetual. The Indian player was pro-bably content with such a result against a strong grandmaster. Ho-wever, she could have done even better had she found the hidden possibility to exploit the position of Black's king. 32...f5 White's main idea is 32...c1£ 33.£g5+!! £xg5+ (or 33...¢g7 34.¦xc1) 34.hxg5+

¢xg5 35.¦xc1 and wins; while in the case of 32...£d1, White stops her opponent's pawns by means of 33.£e3+ ¢g7 34.£c3+ ¢h6

39.¢xf4 £bf5+ 40.£xf5 £xf5+ 41.¢g3. 38...£xf4+ 39.¢xf4 should be winning for White.

2.59

Krasenkow,M - Laketic,G Belgorod 1990

Black is threatening back-rank mate and to castle. White should thus exploit this single moment of tension and, fortunately, he has a way: 20.¥e3! Here 20.h4?! 0-0 21.¥h6 is insufficient due to f5!

22.exf5 £f7 with full consolidation and the threat of 23...Kh8; the f5-pawn will subsequently be captured. 20...¥xe3 In the case of 20...0-0 21.¥xd4 exd4 22.¦xd4 White wins a pawn, although that could be the best outcome for Black ;instead, 20...£c2 is too crazy: 21.£d7+

¢f8 22.£d6+ ¢e8 23.¦e1 with a decisive attack for White.

21.£xg7! Of course, resignation was premature, but Black had no back-rank mate anymore; after 21.£xg7 ¥d4 ( 21...£c1+ 22.¦d1) 22.¦xd4! exd4 23.£xh8+ ¢e7 24.£xd4 £c1+ 25.£d1 £xd1+

ad, Hikaru Nakamura played 30.d6?!, to which Black could have put up stubborn resistance by means of ¥a5. 30...¦f7 Or 30...¦g8.

31.£xg7+!! ¦xg7 32.¤f6+ ¢h8 33.¦e8+ ¤f8 34.¦xf8+ ¦g8 35.¦xg8#.

2.61

Wojtkiewicz,A - Krasenkow,M Palma de Mallorca 1989

Instead of capturing the c-pawn (with a drawn rook ending), White deflects it: 27.b5!! 27.¤xc6 ¤xc6 28.¥xc6 leads to a theoretical draw after ¦c7 29.¦ac3 ¥xc6 30.¦xc6 ¦xc6 31.¦xc6 ¦b5 32.¦c4 h5 33.¢f1 a3 34.¦c3 ¦xb4 35.¦xa3. 27...cxb5 In the case of 27...c5 28.f4 White wins the c-pawn without trading minor pieces, ¦h5?

29.g4 ¦h4 30.¦xc5 being obviously bad for Black. 28.¦c8 b4 29.¦a1 ¤d7 Or 29...¤a6 30.¤c6. 30.¤c6 This is White's main idea;

he wins a rook and successfully stops Black's pawns. ¤b6 31.¦b8

¦e6 32.¤xa7 b3 33.¤c6 b2 34.¦f1 ¤c4 35.¥d5 ¤d2 36.¥xe6.

Black resigned.

In document Herramienta administrativa para la plataforma PLATEL (página 61-67)