Click here to look for "chess" with the Google search engine.   Hello friend!     ...............    Welcome to one of the best {private} chess sites around. (Recognized as such by several national chess federations and also "C.J.A." Site of The Year for 2004.)     ................     Check out my School of Tactics!!  ..........  Many improvements and NEW PAGES!!!!   (Be sure to check the T.L.A. in 'Chess Life' for the tournaments in your area.)  Thanks, and have a great day!!!

   A FIDE "Top 100" site.  
  Best site, CJA, for 2004.

All the 
in chess.

(Navigation bar 
directly below.)



Keep watching these pages as they grow and change!!

  A.J. Goldsby, 2015. 
  (All rights reserved.) 


    Click  HERE 
     to see my       
    Chess Items.  


Official PayPal Seal


Buy a book  
(And help me out as well!)


 Click  HERE ...
 to see a list of the businesses that help to sponsor all of my chess efforts.

   Yuri Averbakh - Alexander Kotov  

This is one of Kotov's best known games, and it is also a very famous brilliancy. I have received literally dozens and dozens and dozens of requests to do this game. (Going back to the early to  mid-1990's, when I first started creating chess web pages for the "World-wide web.") 

It takes time to do anything worth doing  ...  it takes even longer to do it right. 

Before I felt I could properly annotate this game, I felt I had to read just about everything ever written about this game.  (I think I now have done that.)  I also felt that my annotations should add or bring something new to this game ... otherwise I would be just repeating what everyone else had written. Now - thanks to good computer programs - I think I can do this as well. 

I also had my own opinions about this game - I wanted to see if any of these were justified. 

This is mostly a text-based page ... with just a few diagrams. The use of a chess board is very  strongly advised. (The variations have been weeded out, to be a little less intimidating.) 


 Click  HERE  to re-play this game.   (NOT my site!!!)  

 Click  here  to see a fairly detailed explanation of all the symbols that I use in this game. 

The ratings given here are reasonably accurate ... and are the one that came with the game when I downloaded it from the CB web site. The "Chess-Metrics" web site gives the following ratings for these two players: Yuri Averbakh (2562); and Alexander Kotov (2692).  (The December 31st, 1952;  rating list.)  

  GM Yuri Averbakh (2507) - GM Alexander Kotov (2556)  
  (FIDE) CT / Zuerich, SUI; / (Round # 14) / 1953.  

 [A.J. Goldsby I] 

  av-ko1_med.gif, 02 KB

This is a very famous chess game, and I wanted to at least briefly annotate it for my websites.
(From the Candidates Tournament, in Zurich, Switzerland, 1953.)

It contains one of the most astonishing chess moves ever played, as well as one of the more famous King-Hunts of all time.  

 1.d4 Nf6;  2.c4 d6;   
Black wants to play a type of a King's Indian Defense ...   
but the theory of this entire system had yet to be completely mapped out.  

At this stage of development of the theory of this line, a fianchetto on move two, (...g6); was not played very much. One should also remember that this was a very important event, and Kotov obviously cannot be blamed for not wanting to play a system that was considered - at that time - to be both frivolous and dangerous for Black.  

     [ The modern move order is:  
        (>/=) 2...g6; ('!')  3.Nc3 Bg74.e4 d6{Diagram?}    
        and we reach a standard position for the King's Indian Defense.  

        {But it would be another 10-15 years before Masters began using this 
          system on a more-or-less regular basis.} ]  


 3.Nf3 Nbd7;  4.Nc3 e5;   {See the diagram - just below.}  



 The position after 4...e5.  (averb-kotov_ct-1953_pos1.gif, 31 KB)



This is - pretty much - a system that masters (today) would refer to as: 
"The OLD Indian."   (A  game  where this line is analyzed in depth.)  

     [ Also possible is:   4...c6!?{Diagram?}    
        with a fairly playable game for Black from this position. ]   


 5.e4 Be7; ('!?')   
Black continues with an old-style opening, and avoids any possibility of the fianchetto, 
(5...g6);  that is preferred by players today.  

     [ Black could also try:  
       "=" 5...c6!?6.Be2 Be77.0-0 0-08.Re1 a69.Bf1, "+/="  {Diag?}    
       with a small but solid edge for White in this position.  

       GM Hristos Banikas (2490) - GM Miroslav Tosic (2525)  
       (FIDE) Zonal Tournament / Panormo / Rethymnon, Crete; 1998.     
       {White won a nice game.} ]  


 6.Be2 0-0;  7.0-0 c6;  8.Qc2!,  "+/="   {See the diagram - just diagram.}  
An excellent move, although one annotator criticized it. 
(White simply develops, prepares to connect the Rooks, and also keeps 
 almost all of his options open. Simple, sound strategy.)  



 The position after White plays Qc2 here. (averb-kotov_ct-1953_pos2.gif, 31 KB)



White has a very normal, solid edge out this opening - at this particular point in the game.  

     [ Another move would be:  
        8.Re1,  "+/="  {Diagram?}   
        which is a reasonable idea ... 
        and also a very popular alternative to the text move. ]    


 8...Re8;  9.Rd1 Bf8;     
Black has a very solid position, if somewhat cramped and also just a little uninspiring here.  

The second player's method of development is similar to the main lines of the closed 
Ruy Lopez ... where Black {also} often plays the maneuver, ...Re8; & ...Bf8. 
{After the opening phase is over.}  


Now b4 might have worked ...
 10.Rb1!? a5!;   
In a closed position - one must pay a lot of attention to the play on the wings. This move makes
White's idea of b2-b4 a lot more difficult to achieve.   

     [ Also possible would have been:   
        10...exd4!?11.Nxd4 Nc512.f3,  "+/="  12...a5;  "~"  {Diag?}    
         with a fair position for Black.   

        C. Kamp - D. LoschinskiBL2 - W9192 / GER; 10,1991. ]    


 11.d5,  ('!?')   
This move has been both praised and condemned. 

("This is correct, White gains space and fixes the center."  - Max Euwe 
  "This {weak} move lets Black off rather lightly."  - GM John Nunn)   

My take is that it is:  
# 1.)  Perfectly playable;
# 2.)  And guarantees the first player a solid edge in space.  


     [  Interesting was:  11.b3!?, "+/="  {Diagram?}   
         with good play for White. (Nunn)   


        Another interpretation is:    
        (>/=)  11.dxe5!? dxe512.Na4,  "+/="  {Diag?}      
        with a very small, but also a solid edge for White   
        in this position.  (The strong program - Fritz 8.0)  ]    



 11...Nc5;  12.Be3 Qc7;  13.h3!?,   (hmmmmm)    
This strikes me as just a little aimless, and also a fuzz risky.   
(I prefer b3 here.)  

"White wisely defends g4 ... and prevents Black from getting too ambitious on the   
  King-side."  - An un-named author   

     [  13.a3!?,  ("+/=")  - CM 9000  ]   


Black's position is solid, if not just a little cramped as well. But a quick   
decision does NOT seem to be in cards at this moment.  

Now one program likes dxc6! for White. But modern programs - while nearly   
perfect at tactics - are like small children when it comes to questions of strategy   
and long-range planning.   
 14.Rbc1!? g6!;   
It is time to re-deploy the KB  ...  to a much more effective diagonal.   

 15.Nd2!?,  ('!')   (defends e4)    
"Further preparation." - GM J. Nunn  

     [ Or White could play:   (</=)  15.b3!? Nh5!?;  "~"  {Diagram?}      
         - GM John Nunn  
        (Black has reasonable counterplay, according to GM John Nunn.) ]   


 15...Rab8;  (Maybe - '!')    
This is mostly a waiting move  ...   
 that possibly prepares a later Queen-side advance by Black.  

     [ Also playable was: 15...h6!? ]   


 16.Nb3!?, "+/="  (Maybe - '!')    {Diag?}   
A perfectly playable Knight volley; however it was criticized by some pundits.   
I think that White keeps a small, but permanent edge with this very savvy 
re-deployment of his cavalry here.  

White is still - very clearly - better in this position.  

     [  White could also play:   
        16.b3!? cxd5!?17.cxd5 b5?!18.a4!, "+/="  ('')  {Diagram?}    
        and maintain a very solid edge.   


        Another way for White to go would have been:   
        (</=)  16.a3!? a4!?17.Nxa4!? Nxa418.Qxa4 cxd5     
        19.Qb3 d420.Bg5, "+/="  (Maybe "~")  {Diagram?}     
         with possibly a very small edge to White in this position. ]   


 16...Nxb3;  17.Qxb3 c5!;    
Black locks up the Queen-side. 
(This is probably the safest and the wisest course that Black can choose from this position.)  

One writer - very foolishly - wrote that Black ... "was now better." But a check    
with  ANY  good chess program will clearly demonstrate that this is utter nonsense.  


     [ Not  </= 17...Bg7?18.Bb6 Qc819.Nb5! cxb520.cxb5 Nxe4!? 
        21.Rxc8 Rbxc822.Bxa5, ''  {Diagram?}      
        and White is close to winning. ]    


 18.Kh2!?,   {See the diagram ... just below.}    
"A rather odd move"  says Nunn, and I agree. Nunn goes on to point out that White 
  keeps a very sizeable advantage by playing Qc2, followed by preparing a careful 
  Queen-side advance (b2-b4) by the first player here.  



 The position immediately following Averbakh's move of 18.Kh2!? (averb-kotov_ct-1953_pos3.gif, 32 KB)



Another idea is to play Qc2 followed by Qd2 ... to dominate the dark squares on the   

     [ >/=  18.Qc2! Bg7!?19.Rb1, "+/="  {Diagram?}    
        (White has a solid edge here.) ]   


 18...Kh8!?;  19.Qc2 Ng8!?;  20.Bg4 Nh6!?;  (Maybe - '?!')   
Black begins to prepare a King-side advance ... but I am not sure that this is what 
is required by the position here.  


<< 20...Bh6  would be a more solid line, exchanging off his "bad" Bishop; but then   
      Black would be left defending a slightly worse position ... with no prospects of    
      active play. {So} Kotov prefers to keep his Bishop. >>  - GM John Nunn    


     [ Maybe a little better was:  
       (>/=)  20...Bh6!?21.Bxh6 Nxh622.Bxd7 Qxd7;     
       23.Qd2 Kg7; "~"  {Diagram?}     
       when repeated computer-vs.-computer tests shows that to win the game ...  
       is an EXTREMELY difficult proposition for White. ]   


 21.Bxd7 Qxd7;  22.Qd2 Ng8;  23.g4!?,  (Probably - '?!')   
A very poor idea - White thinks he is restricting Black from ever playing the  
freeing pawn break on the King-side. However, he also creates weaknesses 
and targets around his own King. 


Nunn points out that in a position where two sets of minor pieces have already been 
exchanged, that a strategy of trying to keep Black cramped or bottled up ... is much    
less likely to succeed.  

However ... I should point out that White still holds a very solid edge here ... 
and this was verified by both CM9000 and Fritz 8.0.  

     [ Best was:  >/=  23.Nb5!, ''  {Diagram?}    
        and White keeps a fairly large advantage in this variation. ]   


Black's next move is a "live or die" type of decision. Kotov prefers active counterplay ...   
to spending the rest of the game passively defending his many positional weakness.  
 23...f5!;  24.f3?!,  (Ugh!)    
This is simply horrible  ...  (Maybe - '?')
but Nunn does not comment on this {very faulty} move at all.  

1r2rbnk/1p1q3p/3p2p1/p1pPpp2/2P1P1P1/2N1BP1P/PP1Q3K/2RR4;  B - 0 24   


This move is wrong ... and also highly illogical here.   
(The first player has more space, and also can occupy the open g-file much more 
 quickly than his opponent.)  I see no reason at all why White should be afraid to 
open the game here!  

     [ Correct was the continuation of:   
        >/=  24.gxf5,  ('!')   24...gxf525.exf5{Diagram?}    
        Probably the best move here.   

             ( The move of: 25.Qd3!?, "~"  {Diagram?}    
                probably does not lead anywhere for White. )    

        25...Qxf526.Rg1, "+/="  ('')  {Diagram?}    
        when only the first player could stand better from this position. ]    


 24...Be7;  25.Rg1!? Rf8!?;  ('?!')    
Possibly inaccurate ... Black should definitely play ...f5-f4; as quickly as possible   
in this position. (And this possibility is repeated over the next few moves as well.)  

Now the computer says that White should definitely play g4xf5! here. 
(But White continues to ignore this possibility.)   
 26.Rcf1!? Rf7!?;  27.gxf5!?,   
Now White swaps the Pawns on f5, but this is quite possibly the wrong exchange   
in this position.  

     [ Maybe better would have been:   
       (>/=)  27.exf5! gxf528.f4!,  "+/="  {Diagram?}     
        with an edge for White.  - The program, Deep Junior. ]   


 27...gxf5;   28.Rg2?,    {Diagram?}   
This is definitely the wrong idea in this position. 
(Nunn gives this extremely faulty move a whole question mark, and so do I.)   

1r4nk/1p1qbr1p/3p4/p1pPpp2/2P1P3/2N1BP1P/PP1Q2RK/5R2 B - 0 28   

Nunn prefers 28.f4! for White, I like Fritz's suggestion of exchanging Pawns on f5,  
followed by Ne4.   

     [ After the following moves:   
        >/=  28.exf5 Qxf529.Ne4, "+/="  {Diagram?}    
        White retains a small ... but a fairly significant ... edge. ]    


"Kotov pounces on Averbakh's mistake." - Dr. John Nunn   

Now according to several different {strong} computer programs, White's edge 
has completely evaporated.   


 29.Bf2 Rf6!;  30.Ne2?,  ('??')   {See the diagram - - - just below here.}    
White hopes to bring his Knight to the defense of his King-side  ...    
but this move is a virtual blunder by White.    



  White just played Ne2 here ... what move would YOU play as Black? (averb-kotov_ct-1953_pos4.gif, 31 KB)



Nunn gives White's last move (Ne2?) a whole question mark ...   
and I am forced to agree. (Nunn also points out that h3-h4 was virtually forced for White.)   

     [   >/= 30.h4[] Rh631.Qe1 Qe8; "=/+"   ]     


Now it is Black's turn to play a move in this position. What move would you play here?   
 30...Qxh3+!!;   (Probably - '!!!')    
Without question - an extremely shocking reply by Black here.  
(Tim Krabbe rates this as one of the most astounding chess moves ever played 
  on the chess board.  


Upon second inspection however, one should note that it did not require a tremendous   
amount of courage to play this move  ...  Black saw that he always could force a draw   
by perpetual check from this position.  

"This brilliant sacrifice introduces one of the most exciting King-hunts of the 
  Twentieth Century."  - GM John Nunn  

     [ Also good was:   30...b5!?;  "=/+"  {Diagram?}    
        with a small edge for Black. ]   


White must capture the Queen, it is the only legal move that is available to Averbakh.  
 31.Kxh3 Rh6+;  32.Kg4 Nf6+;  33.Kf5 Nd7!?,   (Really - '?')   
 {See the diagram ... just below.}     
A move that was praised by many, ('!!'); at least until someone pointed out that Black   
 has another move ... that virtually wins on the spot.   



  Black just played  ...Nd7. What move was better than this? (averb-kotov_ct-1953_pos5.gif, 31 KB)



This is a very good place for a "look-see" ... {a diagram} ...   
White's King is stuck on a MOST unusual square here.  

     [   A sizeable improvement was:   
         >/=  33...Ng4!34.Nxf4, ('!')  {Diagram?}     
         This move is completely forced.   


             ( A big mistake would be:  
                </=  34.Rxg4???,  34...Rf8#.     

           ** ** ** ** **  ** ** ** ** **  ** ** ** ** **  ** **   

               And not:   
               </=  34.a3?? Rg6!;  {Diagram?}    
               and mate next move. (...Rf8#)      

           ** ** ** ** **  ** ** ** ** **  ** ** ** ** **  ** **   

               Also bad would be:     
                </= 34.Bh4? Rf8+;  35.Bf6+ Rfxf6+;  36.Kxg4 Rfg6+;   
                37.Kf5 Rh5+;  38.Rg5 Rhxg5#. )     


         34...Rg8!!35.Nh5 Rhg6!;  "-/+"  {Diagram?}     
         and Black wins easily.  (Qg5, Bxg5!)  ]   

White's next move is 100% forced.  
 34.Rg5[],   {BOX!}     {Diag?}    
If White does not play this move, he is very rapidly mated.   
(For example: if the Queen captures on a5??, then simply 
 34...Rf8+;  35.Kg4, Rg8+;  36.Kf5, Rf6#.)  


     [ One very good variation ... that clearly illustrates some of   
        White's difficulties would be:   
        </=  34.Rg7?! Rf8+35.Kg4 Kxg7!36.Nxf4, {Box!!!}  {Diag?}    
        This is completely forced.  


             ( Nunn only gives the VASTLY weaker continuation of:   
                </= 36.Rg1? Rg8;  37.Kf5+ Kf7;  38.Rxg8!? Rh5+!!; {Diag?}    
                A brilliant zwischenzug.     
                39.Kg4 Nf6#! ).   


        The box says that this move is completely forced to prevent a quick mate.   

             ( For example:  37.Qc3+ Ne5+;  38.Qxe5+ dxe5;  39.d6!?,   
                 39...Kf7!;  40.Bh4 Rg8+;    
If now Kh3, then simply the move of ...Rxh4#.   If now Kh3, then simply the move of ...Rxh4#.      
                 41.Kf5 Rh5+;  ("-/+")  {Diagram?}  
                 and mate next move. )       

        37...Rg6+!38.Kh3 Rxf4;  "-/+"  {Diagram?}     
        and the fact that Black is ahead a Rook and a piece should be more than 
        sufficient to win. ]   



 34...Rf8+;  35.Kg4 Nf6+!;  36.Kf5 Ng8+!;  37.Kg4 Nf6+!?;  (Really - '??')      
Black cravenly chooses to repeat moves rather than try and win the game here.   

With this cowardly play, Black forever scars a great game and throws away 
 any shot at true immortality.   

One could argue that Black's method  ... of repeating the moves, and only finding   
the win during the adjournment analysis  ...  is the safest and the most practical. I 
would counter that it gained Black a point, {in the Candidates Tournament};  but 
destroyed any shot at being enshrined in Chess's Hall of Fame!  

     [  Black could win instantly with:    
         >/=  37...Bxg5!!38.Qe1('!')  {[]?} {Diagram?}      
         The computer says that this is the best move here.   


              ( Bad for White would be:     
                </= 38.Kxg5?! Rf7;  39.Bh4 Rg7+;  40.Kf5 Rhg6!;    
                 41.Bg5 Nh6+!!;  42.Bxh6 Rf7#!     

           ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **   

                ---> Or White can try:   
                38.Rg1? Be7!;  39.Nxf4 Nf6+;  40.Kg5 Rg8+!; {Diag?}     
                Now if KxR/h6??, then Black simply plays ...R-to-g6 mate.     
                41.Kf5 Ng4;  42.Nh5 Rhg6!;  "-/+"  {Diagram?}    
                Black's threats of mate force White to give up material here. )    


        (Returning to the main path of our analysis line, here.)   
         Simply brilliant.   

         Ugly - yet forced.   

              ( Not </= 39.Kxg5?? Rh5#. )    

         39...Ng4+!!40.Kxg4 Rg8!41.Kf5 Be7{Diagram?}      
         This threatens ...Rf6# (mate) next.  

         42.Bh4 Bxh443.Qxh4 Rxh4{Diagram?}   
         and Black has an easy win,  ("-/+");  on both position and material here. ]   

 38.Kf5 Nxd5+!?;  (Maybe '?!' or even '?')    
"Necessary in order to avoid a three-fold repetition of the position, 
  but the capture of White's d5-Pawn actually makes the win more  
  complex." - GM John Nunn.  


This is a truly wild position ... White has plenty of material ... ... ...   
but his King is completely cut off from the rest of his forces.  


 39.Kg4 Nf6+;  40.Kf5 Ng8+;   
Both sides have reached their fortieth move. 
(One side will soon seal a move ... and play will resume on the first free 
  day for both players.)  

This means the game is no longer a contest between two players, but a challenge  
to see which player's team of seconds can do the best job of analysis.  

Kotov's team of {many} Masters worked out the win in leisure, free of tension and   
any possibility of a mistake. This completely destroys any sporting value that the 
remainder of this contest might hold ... at least it does for me!  

The rest of the game really does not interest me ... see the 'Mammoth Book' for 
the analysis of the remaining portion of this contest. (Most of White's moves are 
completely forced - to avoid a possible checkmate.)  


 41.Kg4 Nf6+;  42.Kf5 Ng8+;  43.Kg4 Bxg5!;    
{See the diagram - just below.}  
Deciding to make his opponent 'prove' the win here.  



All Black has to do is find a few good moves - to finish White off here. (averb-kotov_ct-1953_pos6.gif, 31 KB)



Some have criticized this as an error, but at this point, I do not think that it matters anymore.  


     [ Or White could try:  
        (>/=) 44.Qxd6 Rxd645.Bxc5 Be7;  "-/+"  {Diagram?}  
         but Black has an easy win here. 
         {The second player has an extra piece - and the better position.} ]   


 44...Rf7;  ('!')    
Black now threatens ...Rg7+; followed by a quick check-mate.   
(If then Kf5, then ...Ne7 is mate.)  

 45.Bh4,  ('!?')    
Looks goofy ... but it is apparently the only way that White can prevent  
a possible check-mate here.   


     [ Even worse would be:  
        </=  45.Nxf4? Rg7+!46.Ng6+{Diag?}    
        This looks forced.   

             ( Or 46.Kf5 Rf6#. )    

        46...Rgxg6+47.Kf5 Ne7#.  ]   


 45...Rg6+!;  46.Kh5 Rfg7;   
This threatens the simple ...Rh6#.   

 47.Bg5!? Rxg5+;  48.Kh4 Nf6;  
Now Kotov threatens ...Rh5#.  


(White's next move is forced.)  
 49.Ng3 Rxg3;  50.Qxd6 R3g6;  
This protects the Knight on f6  ...  AND threatens  51...Rh6;  mate.  

 51.Qb8+!? Rg8;  ("-/+")  {Diagram?}   


(White must give up the Queen to avoid mate here.)  

To some - this is an 'immortal' game of chess, but to me it was ruined by Kotov's 
lack of courage ...  and the repetition of moves.  


I have seen this game in print more times than I care to count. Possibly one of the best 
jobs of analysis is to be found in the following volume:  

 [The 'Mammoth Book' Of]  "The World's Greatest Chess Games."      
{100 of the greatest games of all time, each thoroughly annotated.}  
By Dr./GM John Nunn, GM John Emms, and also by FM Graham Burgess
Copyright (c) 1998.  


(By) Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc.  / 19 West 21st Street, Suite # 601  
New York City, NY 10010-6805 (U.S.A.) / (U.K. by Robinson)   
ISBN: # 0-7867-0587-6 (paper)  


  Copyright (c) LM A.J. Goldsby I  
  Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 2004. All rights reserved.  


   0 - 1   

This is not the original version of this game that I worked on. {That version was easily a small book.} I lost that version of this game in one of my many computer crashes. (Actually, I may have one copy on a tape back-up. But since the manufacturer will not update that software for Windows XP/OS, I have no way of accessing it.) That copy or version of this game would have run at least thirty pages - and had very few diagrams. 


Since I had lost all of my original analysis, I was forced to go back to "a clean sheet of paper," so to speak, for this game. When I first started working on this game, (this time around) - in March of 2004 - I only wanted to do a very quick version, something I could knock out in just a few hours. However, the more I worked on this game, the more I realized that this would not be possible. (The analysis would be very superficial, and nearly meaningless. The average player would have far too many questions  ... that would have been left, for the most part, completely unanswered. And this was not really my vision for this game.  I wanted something that was more worthy of this encounter.)

What I  {slowly}  created - over a period of four-to-five months - was this version of this contest.

---> This is not my original version of this game, exactly as I created it in the original ChessBase format.

What I did for this game was to annotate it in about a medium fashion. (That version of this game ran close to 25 pages ... with some deep analysis in places, and a VERY generous helping of diagrams.) Then I went back and  deleted  the really deep variations - and most of the diagrams - to create this version of this game.  

If you have any questions about this game - please contact me.
A.J. Goldsby;  P.O. Box 11718; Pensacola, FL 32524  (USA)  [I no longer offer the CB version of any game.]

  Copyright (c) LM A.J. Goldsby I 

    Copyright () A.J. Goldsby, 2015.  All rights reserved.    


This page was created in July of 2004.  I finished annotating this game sometime in September, 2004.  

The final formatting of this page was completed on:  Friday;  September 24th, 2004.  (Around 11:30 PM.)  

This page was last modified or edited on:  Thursday, February 26, 2015 03:07 PM .  

  [ Home, (for this site). ]    [Return (or go to)  to  "Annotated Games." (#1)]   [Top of page.]   

  [Return (or go to)  to the  "Best Games."]    [Go to  my personal domain.]