Interzonal 2000

(1) STULL,N - SAMRAOUI,M [D43] INTERZONAL 2000, 2000 [stull] 1.d4 Sf6 2.c4 e6 3.Sf3 d5 4.Sc3 c6 5.Lg5 h6 The Moscow variation. 6.Lxf6 The most usual move. A lot of complications arise after [ 6.Lh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Lg3 b5 ] 6...Dxf6 7.Dc2 7. e3 is the bookmove. The text, a recommendation from GM YERMOLINSKY, is less well known. 7...Sd7 7. ..dxc4 was more challenging. 8.e4 dxe4 9.Dxe4 Lb4 The natural continuation is [ 9...g6 10.Ld3 Lg7 ] 10.Ld3 De7 11.0-0 Sf6 This position has already been reached in several games. 12.De3 12. Qh4, 12.Qe2, 12. Qe1 and the textmove have been tried. 12...c5 13.Se4 cxd4 14.Dxd4 Sxe4 15.Lxe4 15. Qxe4 was more ambitious. There might follow [ 15.Dxe4 f5 16.De2 0-0 17.Tad1 Ld7 18.Se5+/= Without playing f7-f5 Black has not answered the question of how to castle. With 15. Bxe4 I expected a positional advantage which - at the end - was meaningless against the pair of Bishops and against a black position without weaknesses.] 15...0-0 16.Tad1 Lc5 17.Dc3 a5 18.Se5 Ta6 19.Sd3 Ld6 20.f4 Dc7 After this my opponent offered a draw. I accepted on the basis of the following considerations: maybe I am somewhat better developped. However my opponent's position has no structural weaknesses and - possibly important for a future ending! - he has the pair of Bishops. If I play 21. c4-c5, then this pawn on c5 will require constant protection with pieces (because I cannot play b2-b4). Occasionally Black may even play a5-a4 and Ra6-a5, thus attacking c5 once more. If I do not play 21. c4-c5, but for example 21. Kg1-h1 (preventing a check on the diagonal a7-g1), then Black has no problem to continue his development with 21. ..Rf-d8. And then (depending on circumstances) he can either play Bc8-d7 or b7-b6 (preparing Bc8-b7) or he can prepare the switch of his rook a6 to d6 or to a8 (connecting his rooks). In my opinion White cannot win this position if Black plays accurately. There is even the risk (but not very real) that Black will get the advantage because of his pair of Bishops.Therefore .. 1/2-1/2

(2) SAMRAOUI,M - STULL,N [A29] INTERZONAL 2000, 2000 [stull] 1.c4 Sf6 2.Sc3 e5 3.Sf3 Sc6 4.g3 d5 5.cxd5 Sxd5 6.Lg2 Sb6 7.0-0 Le7 8.a3 0-0 9.b4 Le6 10.Tb1 f6 11.d3 a5 This move has been played more often and with better results than the alternatives 11. ..Nd4 and 11. ..Qd7. 12.b5 Sd4 13.Sxd4 exd4 14.Sa4 Ld5 15.Sxb6 cxb6 16.a4 16. Qa4!? 16...Lxg2 17.Kxg2 Dd5+ 18.Kg1 f5 [ 18...Tac8 19.Lb2 f5 20.Tc1 1-0 (38) PSAKHIS L. - RASMUSSEN B. (Canadian Open 1997)] 19.Lf4 Tac8 20.Tc1 Both sides have potential weaknesses in their pawn formation. Black has a certain space advantage. However I can imagine that a pure Bishop + Pawn ending would be no fun for Black. Considering this I accepted my opponents draw offer. 1/2-1/2

(3) STULL,N - Dr. GRASSO,G [D87] INTERZONAL 2000, 2000 [stull] 1.d4 Sf6 2.c4 g6 3.Sc3 d5 4.cxd5 Sxd5 5.e4 Sxc3 6.bxc3 Lg7 7.Lc4 c5 8.Se2 Sc6 9.Le3 0-0 10.0-0 Lg4 11.f3 Sa5 12.Lxf7+ The Sevilla-variation. The theoretical discussion between A. KARPOW and G. KASPAROW, world championship Sevilla 1987, was the biggest Chess attraction of the years 1987/ 88. 12...Txf7 13.fxg4 Txf1+ 14.Kxf1 Dd6 This move is completely o.k. However nowadays many players prefer [ 14...cxd4 15.cxd4 e5 16.d5 ( 16.Tc1 ) 16...Sc4 ] 15.e5 Dd5 16.Lf2 Tf8 17.Kg1 Both A. KARPOW and L. GUTMAN give 17. g4-g5 as a reinforcement of White's play, for instance 17. g4-g5 Qd5-f7 18. Qd1-e1+/-. L. GUTMAN also indicates the following variation as favourable to White: [ 17.g5 De4 18.Sg1!? Sc4 19.Sf3 Se3+ 20.Lxe3 Dxe3 21.Db3+ Kh8 22.Te1 Dxg5!? 23.Dxb7 Dd2 24.Dxa7!? Dxc3 25.Dxc5 Txf3+ 26.gxf3 Dxf3+ 27.Kg1 Dg4+ 28.Kf2 Df4+ 29.Ke2 Lh6 30.Dc2 Dxd4 31.Kf1+/- However Black can get strong counterplay with 24. ..g6-g5 (instead of 24. ..Qd2xc3) and even equalize completely with 29. ..Qf4-e4+! (instead of 29. ..Bg7-h6). So, regarding the value of 17. g4-g5, I dare to disagree with these 2 great players.] 17...Lh6 18.h4 Df7 19.Lg3 Le3+ 20.Kh2 Dc4 21.dxc5 Lxc5 [ 21...Dxg4 22.Sd4 Dxd1 23.Txd1 Td8 24.Tb1 Lxd4 25.cxd4 Txd4 26.Tb5 Ta4 27.Le1 Sc6 28.Txb7 Kf7= J. PRIBYL] 22.Dd7 b6? [ 22...Dxe2 23.Dd5+ Tf7 24.Dxc5 Sc6= ] 23.Sd4 Dd3 24.Te1 Sc4 25.Dd5+ Kh8 26.De4 Dxc3?+- [ 26...Dxe4 27.Txe4 Sd2 28.Te1+/= ] 27.Se6 White is winning now. 27...Tg8 28.Sxc5 bxc5 29.Td1 Db4 30.e6 Tf8 31.Dd3 Kg8 32.Tf1 Tb8 33.Tf7 Sd6 34.Txe7 1-0

(4) GOMEZ,G - STULL,N [A00] INTERZONAL 2000, 2000 [stull] 1.b4 e5 2.Lb2 Lxb4 3.Lxe5 Sf6 4.a3 an unusual move. 4...Le7 5.e3 0-0 6.c4 d5 7.cxd5 Sxd5 8.Dc2 c5 9.Sf3 Sc6 10.Lb2 Le6 [ 10...Lf6!? ; 10...Lg4!? ] 11.Sc3 Sb6 [ 11...c4!? ] 12.Tc1 Tc8 [ 12...Sc4!? 13.Sd5 Sxb2 ( 13...Dxd5 14.Lxc4 Dxc4 15.Dxc4 Lxc4 16.Txc4 b5=/+ ) 14.Sxe7+ Dxe7 15.Dxb2 Tfd8=/+ ] 13.Se4 c4 14.Le2 Dd5 15.Sg3 Tfd8 16.0-0 Da5 [ 16...f6!? ] 17.Sd4 Sxd4 18.Lxd4 Sd5 [ 18...f6!? ] 19.De4 b5 20.Lxg7 Here my opponent offered a draw, and I accepted on the basis of the following variations: [ 20.Lxg7 Kxg7 21.De5+ Kg6 22.Dh5+ Kf6? ( 22...Kg7 23.De5+= ) 23.Dh6+ Ke5 24.Se4! Kxe4 25.Dh5 f5 26.f4 Sxf4 27.Df3+ Ke5 28.Dxf4+ Kf6 29.Dh6+ Ke5 30.d4+ cxd3 31.Dg7+ Kd6 32.Dd4+ Ld5 33.Df4++- ] 1/2-1/2

(5) STULL,N - FLEETWOOD,D [D49] INTERZONAL 2000, 2000 [stull] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Sc3 Sf6 4.e3 e6 5.Sf3 Sbd7 6.Ld3 dxc4 7.Lxc4 b5 8.Ld3 a6 9.e4 c5 10.e5 cxd4 11.Sxb5 Sxe5 12.Sxe5 axb5 13.Lxb5+ Ld7 14.Sxd7 Da5+ 15.Ld2 Dxb5 16.Sxf8 Txf8 17.a4 Dc4 In this theoretical position the usual move is 18. b2-b3 18.a5 The novelty 18. a4-a5 has been tried for the first time in AVRUKH B.-IVANOV. S., Beersheba-Peterburg Kings m St. Peterburg 1999.The idea is the supplementary possibility of Ra1-a4. [ 18.b3 Dd3 19.Df3 De4+! 20.Dxe4 Sxe4 21.b4 Ke7 22.f3 Sc3= 1/2-1/2 (28) KRAMNIK V.-KASPAROV G. Wijk aan Zee 1999.] 18...Sd5 19.h4 f5?! [ 19...Kd7 20.Ta4 Dd3 21.Th3 De4+ 22.Kf1 Tfb8 23.Lc3! AVRUKH B. - IVANOV S. 1-0 (33). White won, but Black's play could be improved. If my opponent had played 19. ..Ke8-d7, I would have come up with theimprovemen t 20. Rh1-h3. The idea of this move is to prevent 20. ..Qc4-d3. Curiously enough, Dan FLEETWOOD - as he told me after the game - did not play 19. .. Ke8-d7, because he expected my improvement 20. Rh1-h3!? However his move is probably worse, though not easy to refute at all.] 20.De2! With 2 passed pawns on the Queenside, White should have the somewhat better endgame. 20...Dxe2+ 21.Kxe2 Kd7 [ 21...e5!? ] 22.b4 Tfb8 23.Thb1 Tb5 [ 23...e5!? ] 24.f4! Sf6?! 25.Kd3 Td5 [ 25...Se4 26.Le1 Td5 27.Tc1+/- ] 26.b5 Se4 27.b6 Sc5+ 28.Ke2 Kc8 [ 28...Kc6 29.b7 Sxb7 30.Tb6+ Kc7 31.Tc1+ Sc5 32.Lb4+- ] 29.Tb5+- Kb7 30.Tc1 d3+ 31.Ke3 Kc6 32.b7 Tb8 33.Tcb1 1-0

(6) FLEETWOOD,D - STULL,N [B40] INTERZONAL 2000, 2000 [stull] 1.e4 c5 2.Sf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Sxd4 Db6?! This move - although there exists no direct refutation - is somewhat suspicious. 5.Sb3 Dc7 6.c4 Sf6 7.Sc3 a6 8.Ld3 d6 9.0-0 Sbd7 10.f4 Le7 11.Le3 b6 12.Df3 Lb7 13.Tad1 0-0 14.g4 h6 15.Dh3 Se8 The first 15 moves are identical to a correspondence game HOLANDA-SMITHERS (1999) won by Black!? White's next move is a clear improvement on that game. 16.Sd4! After this move I have already big problems, not to kep the balance, but to find a way to limit the damages. 16...Sc5 17.Lc2 Sf6 Other options are too passive. 18.g5 hxg5 [ 18...Sfxe4 19.gxh6 g6 20.Sxe4 Lxe4 21.Sxe6+- ] 19.fxg5 Sh7 20.g6 fxg6 21.Sxe6 Sxe6 22.Dxe6+ Kh8 23.Tf7 A surprise. Probably better to play 23. Qxg6 rightaway. 23...Txf7 24.Dxf7 Tf8 25.Dxg6 Dxc4 26.e5 Dh4 27.Dxh7+ Dxh7 28.Lxh7 Kxh7 29.exd6 Ld8 30.Sa4 Lf3 Black has a slight, though, in my opinion, unsufficient compensation for his minus pawn. 31.Td2 b5 32.Sc5 Te8 33.Kf2 Lh5 34.Td4 Tf8+ 35.Ke1 Lf7 Here I was near to resign. If White had now played 36. b2-b3, he could have kept a practically winning advantage. But when he gave me his a2 pawn I could hope again, and I thought that there might be drawing chances. 36.d7 Lxa2 37.Sb7 Le6 38.h4 The idea of 38. h2-h4 and 39. Be3-g5 looks terrific. However - strangely enough - this idea gives Black some drawing chances. 38...a5! 39.Lg5 Lxg5 40.hxg5 Lxd7 41.Txd7 a4 42.Sd6 After the stronger move 42. Rd7-d4 I had several drawing lines at my disposal, though with best play White should still win.One representative of them is the following one: [ 42.Td4 Tf3 43.Sc5 Kg6 44.Td5 Tg3 45.Kd2 Txg5 46.Txg5+ Kxg5 47.Se4+ Kf4 48.Sc3 Ke5 49.Sxb5 Kd5 50.Kc3 g5 51.Kb4? ( 51.Sd4!!+- ) 51...g4 52.Sc3+ Kd4 53.Kxa4 Ke3 54.Sd5+ Kf3 55.Se7 Ke4 56.Sg6 g3 57.Sh4 Kf4= ] 42...Tf4!= 43.Te7 b4 44.Ta7 a3 45.bxa3 bxa3 46.Txa3 Kg6 So I was a bit (to say the least) lucky in this game. 1/2-1/2