|
|
13. Qd2
|
Played to permit the retreat that follows... |
1 comment
|
|
|
13... h6 14. Bf4
|
(!) Far better than Bh4, which might have been met by 14...g5 15.Bg3 Bxg3 16.fxg3 Qxg3 - reaching a position I didn't much like. |
1 comment
|
|
|
14... Bxf4
|
(!?) It is possible that Black might have been better off declining to exchange 'in her own time', and by, say, 14...Re8, invited me to trade 'in my time'. Would I have made the trade on d6? I rather don't think so, as the e5 square in that case wouldn't be much use to me. Instead, the c5-square might, which would suggest a sequence like b2-b4 ...; Nc3-a4 ...; Na4-c5 ... to occupy that outpost instead. |
1 comment
|
|
|
15. exf4
|
Now the e5-square looks like a splendid outpost for a White knight. |
1 comment
|
|
|
15... Nb6
|
Heading for c4, and to challenge White's tenure of e5, or to menace the White b-pawn. |
1 comment
|
|
|
16. Ne5 Nc4 17. Qe2
|
No good would come of the immediate exchange on c4. Even with this move White is not definitely committed to the exchange. |
1 comment
|
|
|
17... Nd6
|
Heading for e4. Although not as secure an outpost as e5 (on account of f2-f3) such a move would have a certain nuisance value. I had been half-expecting 17...Qb6 18.Rfd1! with the idea [A] 18...Qxd4?? 19.Bh7ch or [B] 18...Qxb2 19.Bxc4! or [C] 18...Nxb2 19.Rb1. The text-move presents different problems. |
1 comment
|
|
|
18. g4
|
At this point I finally abandoned thoughts of Q-side operations, in favour of K-side pressure, beginning with a general advance of the K-side pawns. |
2 comments
|
|
|
18... Rfe8 19. f5 Bc8
|
(?!) As it turns out, it will take a long time for the bishop to get off this square. Hindsight suggested that the bishop might have been better going to d7. Possibly Black decided that the bishop would be too vulnerable there. |
1 comment
|
|
|
20. f4 Qb6
|
Aiming at the two weak points in White's position: b2 and, especially, d4. The White queen once again has to take up guard duties. |

|
|
|
21. Qf2
|
Guarding d4 and b2, both, and getting off the e-file to unpin the e5-knight. |
1 comment
|
|
|
21... Nfe4
|
Had to come, of course, and this time, there is no pawn to lever the knight out of the e4-outpost - especially as there is a reserve knight available. There is developing quite a clash of minor pieces in the centre. |
1 comment
|
|
|
22. Nxe4
|
(!) I thought long and hard about whether to take with bishop or knight, it not being so very obvious whether the bishop would have much of a future remaining on the board. After 22.Bxe4 dxe4 23.Na4 Qb3 24.Nc5 ... looks promising, but after 24...Qd5 25.Na4 Qb3 White seems to have nothing better than 26.Nc5 again - a draw by repetition. That was enough to decide the issue. |
1 comment
|
|
|
22... dxe4
|
Instead, 22...Nxe4 23.Bxe4 dxe4 24.Rfe1 f6 25.Nc4 Qd8 26.Rcd1 ... and Black might have trouble getting the Q-side sorted out. |
1 comment
|
|
|
23. Bb1
|
There was really nowhere else to go. But now the square a2 and its accompanying diagonal to g8 is beckoning! |
1 comment
|
|
|
23... f6
|
Weakening - but how else was Black to rid herself of the incubus at e5? |
1 comment
|
|
|
24. Ba2+
|
Zwischenzug! Places the Bishop on the diagonal with a gain of tempo. |
2 comments
|
|
|
24... Kh7
|
It is hard to tell whether the King would be safer on this square, or on h8. |
1 comment
|
|
|
25. Rc5
|
Blocking the Black Queen's line to the d-pawn. The alternative 25.Re1 also suggested itself, but I much preferred the text as offering the more security to the centre - which is not what you would call rock solid. But what about the knight, 'en prise' at e5? Yes: it was to be sacrificed. |
2 comments
|
|
|
25... fxe5
|
This is an example of a passive sacrifice, and a positional sacrifice into the bargain. White gets quite a lot of benefits from the knight's noble self-sacrifice. |

|
|
|