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.

    Hug - Korchnoi;    

  National Team Championship(s) Tournament 
  Zurich, Switzerland;  1978. 

This is a game I remember seeing - prolly in "CL&R" - right after it was played. It is in many books as well, I have also found it in many books ... and even a few {old} magazines. 

Korchnoi is a  great  player, I think I have just about every book or pamphlet, (about 10-15); on him that was ever printed in English. (And even a few in other languages!)  Probably in terms of  {chess}  longevity, a high playing level and good results, (spread over SIX decades!!);  this player is in a class  ...  ALL BY HIMSELF! 

 Click  HERE    to see an in-depth and complete explanation of all the symbols  ... ... ...  
  that I normally use when annotating a chess game. 

  Click  HERE   to see  (and replay)  this game on a  JS-script  board. (NOT my site!!)  

IM W. Hug (2459) - GM V. Kortchnoi (2761);  
 National Team Championship Tournament 
Zurich, Switzerland, 1978.

A friend and I, (S. Davis); looked at this game last night at chess club  ...  several club members were also looking on. 

This game brought everyone, (who was present and watching us); so much pleasure ... that I thought - without delay - I would share it with chess-players everywhere  ...  via the vehicle of the Internet. 
{I also had several unanswered questions about the analysis that was contained in one book!} 


  < Brief Biographies >   


Vicktor Lvovich Kortschnoj  was born in Leningrad, (USSR/RUS); on July 23rd, 1931. 
He endured the hardships of WWII - to include the horrors of the siege of the city of Leningrad. 

As soon as the war ended, a fairly young teenager (15-16); he became actively involved in organized chess in the {former} USSR. It is entirely possible that we might have seen his star shine sooner, but not for the tragedy of the 2nd World War. (We first see him play in the National Junior Championships in 1946. Korchnoi finished in 11th place - behind the winner, and eventual World Champion, Tigran Petrosian.)  

GM V. Korchnoi is a well-known player. From the period of the later 1950's, to the early 1990's, he was one of the world's top competitors. He has won the title of Champion of the U.S.S.R. a total of four times. He has won more international tournaments than I care to count. (At nearly 74, some might consider him to be all washed up. But watch out! In 2004, he won the Second György Marx Memorial Tournament in Hungary by a full point.)  

In 1976, he defected from the  {old}  Soviet Union. For a while he lived as a Dutch citizen, he even won that country's national championship. Then later - he moved to Switzerland, and after living there for 14 years, he is now a full, naturalized citizen of that country. (He has also been Swiss Champion many times.)  

Korchnoi, (often spelled other ways); is one of history's greatest players. He has played two World Championship Matches, (with Karpov); and has also been involved in at least eight Candidate Matches and has played in close to fifteen Interzonals. He has also represented both Russia and Switzerland in the Olympiads.
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **  

Werner Hug(born September 10th, 1952);  was a young super-star when this game was played.  

Hug, was awarded the IM title in 1971 for his rather unexpected victory in the World Junior Championships. He also won the Swiss Championships in 1975, and has played in many international tournaments and events. 


I remember when this game was first played, I may have seen it in a chess magazine somewhere. 

The ratings are relatively accurate, and come from the web site of the very respected statistician, Mr. Jeff Sonas.  

The game starts out first as a Reti, then turns into a Black opening  ...  but with colors reversed.  
 (Many books call this ... "The King's Indian Attack.")   
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **  

 1.Nf3 e6;  2.g3 d5;  3.Bg2 c5;    
Note how Korchnoi floods the center with Pawns ... this is a very good policy to adopt when your opponent plays an opening that you may not be familiar with.  

 4.0-0 Nc6;  5.c4!?,  {Diagram?}  
Of course there is nothing wrong with this move ... it is both good and strong to use pawns to attack the middle of the board. 

However, Hug normally plays a full blown, reversed KID. His sudden change of heart may signal that he is nervous ... or does not believe his regular choice of opening system(s) can succeed against such an illustrious opponent.  

The move chosen by Hug will transpose either to an English, or maybe a Catalan Opening.  

     [ The standard move is:  5.d3, {Diagram?}  for the K.I.A. opening. ]   


Korchnoi chooses to relieve the pressure and the tension on the center ... his opponent is also steered away from the lines that he is most familiar with, and must decide on the best method for regaining the button on c4.  


     [ After the move:  5...Nf6{Diagram?}  
        White can explode the center with the move - 6.d4!{Diagram?}   
         with a very interesting position.  

            ( Or simply just 6.d3!?, ("=") )     

       Play could now proceed:  6...dxc47.Ne5!? Bd7!?8.Na3 cxd4;  
       9.Naxc4 Bc510.Qb3,  "~"     {Diagram?}    
       The books claim that White is better here ... but neither Fritz, nor the 
       statistics from the db bear this out.  

       GM Vladislav Tkachiev (2672) - GM Andrei Sokolov (2668);   
       2nd European Championships / Ohrid / F.Y.R.O. Macedonia; 2001. 
       (This game was drawn in under 30 moves.) ]   



A perfectly reasonable move for Black in this position ... but Korchnoi questions it. 
(Qa4 IS the first choice of the strong program, Fritz 8.0.)  


     [  Perhaps better is:  >/=  6.Na3!, "+/="  {Diagram?}   
         when according to modern theory, White will come 
         out of the opening phase with a slight advantage.   
          - GM Vicktor Korchnoi  ]     


 6...Bd7!?;  7.Qxc4 Rc8!?;    
Normally one should develop the King-side and castle as quickly as possible. But in this encounter, due to White's strong pressure on the left-hand side of the board, Black chooses to mobilize his Q-side first, instead.  

     [ Playable was:  7...Nf6!?; {Diagram?}  with a fair game for Black. ]   


Korchnoi says that White should now play an immediate d2-d4!  
 8.Nc3 Nf6;  9.d4!?,   {Diagram?}    
With White's Q and N all bunched up on the c-file ... and the fact that Black's Rook is already on c8 ...  
 perhaps White should have delayed this move for a while.  

     [ >/=  9.d3 Be710.Be3, "~"  ("+/=") ]    


 9...b5!?;  (What the heck???)   {See the diagram -  just below.}    
An extremely wild, bold, CRAZY, and daring move by Korchnoi in this position. But one that has its justification in White's previous moves - - - and move order.  



hug-kor_zu78_pos1.gif, 40 KB



A position that fully merits a diagram. 

Normally an advance like this only works in a position where your opponent has made a mistake ...  
or you are far ahead of him in your development. 
(Here - neither precondition exists. A truly exceptional position!)  

     [ Fritz prefers:   9...cxd4!?('!')  {Diagram?}   
        in this position for Black -  although I found the lines generated 
        by the machine to be very inconclusive. ]   


 10.Qd3,  {'Box?'}     
This could be forced for White.  
{Taking the pawn just looks too darn dangerous here.}  


     [  Variation # 10W01.)   

         Much worse would be:   
         </=  10.Qxb5?!,  ('?')   10...cxd4!{Diagram?}   
         This is much better than the capture with the Knight here.  

            ( Much less accurate is:  </= 10...Nxd4!?; ('?!')  11.Qc4, "~"  {Diag?}    
               when White might be better. )     

         This is clearly forced.  


            ( Korchnoi only gave the following line, which is clearly terrible:      
              </= 11.Nb1?, ('??')  11...Nb4!; {Diagram?}      
               A nice move - with lots of threats for Black.     

               12.Qb7?? Rc7;  ("-/+")  {Diagram?}     
               White is lost ... the White Queen is trapped.  {Like a rat.}    
                {A line like this just proves that Korchnoi does NOT use a      
                  computer for analysis!} )      


         11...Bd6!;  "/+"  {Diagram?}   
         Black is already clearly better.  (In this position.)  


         Variation # 10W02.)     

         Also not to be recommended for White would have 
         been the following continuation:  
          </= 10.Nxb5? Na5; 11.Qa4{Diagram?}  
         White must play this to avoid losing a piece here.  

                ( </= 11.Qd3?? c4;  "-/+" )     

          This is obviously best ... and leads to a nearly won game 
          for Black in this line.  

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

            (  Korchnoi provides the inferior continuation here of:  
               </=  11...Qb6!?; ('?!')  12.Bd2 Nb713.Qxa7 Qxb5?{Diag?}      
               This turns out badly. And why play such a risky line, when there 
                was another - very simple continuation - that was better?   


                   ( Obviously better was:  >/=  13...Qxa7;  14.Nxa7 Ra8;  "/+"     
                      Black is clearly better here.  {To be fair, Korchnoi mentions      
                      this possibility ... but considered it inferior to the variation that      
                      used the move, 13...Qxb5.} )     


               14.a4 Qb3;  "<=>"  {Diagram?}   ... ... ...   
                ... "when White's initiative will be successfully neutralized by Black." 
                - GM Viktor Kortschnoj  

               However - the simple truth is that Ne5! gives White a powerful attack ... 
                one that is considered by  Fritz 8.0  to be nearly winning. ('±') )   

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

         According to the box, this is completely forced here.  

             ( Worse is: </=  12.Bd2? Rxb5!;  13.Ne5!? Rb4!;     
                14.Qc2 Rxd4;  and White is lost. ("-/+") )       

         12...Bxb513.Qc2 Nd5!;  "/+"  {Diagram?}   
          Black is clearly much better ... here White's attack has been  
          completely repulsed, and the two pawns for the piece is hardly 
          adequate compensation. {A.J.G.}  ]   



 10...cxd4;  11.Nxd4 Ne5!;  12.Qd1,    
White's Queen has been driven home to its original square ... 
V.K. considered this a moral victory for Black.

     [ I guess ... it was possible to play the move:  12.Qb1!?, "~"  {Diag?}    
        in this position, but White's very crowded Q-side does not make a 
        favorable impression. ]   


 12...Qb6!;  13.Bg5!? Be7;  {Diagram?}    
A simple developing move ... which also protects the pressured f6-square ...  
cannot be wrong for Black in this position.  

     [ Interesting was: 13...Nc4!?; "~"  {D?}  with good play for Black. ]   


Now White could play Nf3!? ... but the move chosen by Hug here seems very logical.   
 14.Rc1 0-0;  (sensible)   {Diagram?}   
Black naturally castles ... and stands ready for the middlegame.   

     [ Korchnoi said it might be just a little better ... and a little sharper ... to play the move:   
        = 14...b4!?(Maybe - '!')  {Diagram?}    for Black in this position.  

        (He could be correct. However, several computer programs that I checked, see little 
          or no difference between ...b4; and ...0-0; here.) ]    


 15.Nf3?!,  ('?')  (hmmm)  {Diagram?}   
As far as I can see ... from something like 15 different sources ... 
not one person or annotator questions this move for White. 
(Or even provides any comment here at all.)   

Yet the move seems very much inferior - and has an immediate impact on the 
"box's" numerical evaluation of the position.  


     [ Why not the very simple move of   >/=  e3 here,  when White seems 
         to be no worse than Black?  

         The following continuation - which was meticulously checked with the 
         computer - shows that the first player is probably OK:   
         15.e3!? b4!?16.Ne4 Rxc117.Qxc1 Rc818.Qd1 Qd8;    
         19.Nxf6+ Bxf620.Bxf6 Qxf621.Qe2,  "~"  (Probably "=") {D?}    
         I see no major problems here for White. (Or Black!)  {A.J.G.} ]  



The next few moves seem to be best or forced for both sides.  
(I might have considered taking with the pawn on move 16.)  

 15...Nxf3+;  16.Bxf3!? Rfd8;  17.Qb3!?,  (hmmm)   {Diagram?}   
Korchnoi  awards this move an inferior  ('?!')  sign ... and then says:  
"Correct was 17.Ne4, Bc6;  18.Qe1, (or Qb3);  with complete equality."  
{See the analysis just below.}  

I must say however, that:
A.)  Qb3 here is the first choice of most computer programs;
B.)  That most programs see little difference in the scores of the two different moves. 
(Ne4 & Qb3};  
C.)  White already stood slightly worse in this position ... and I am not entirely certain 
that Korchnoi was aware of this.  

In my own humble opinion, Qb3 was not worthy of the inferior mark that Korchnoi gave it. 
(It should have been given to White's 15th move instead!)  

'?!' - IM Charles Partos. (Informant # 26)   


     [  The following continuation was fully playable for White. I.e.,  
        17.Ne4!? Bc618.Qb3{Diagram?}  
         This appears forced here.  

             ( </=  18.Qe1?! Bxe4!; "=/+" )     

        18...Bxe419.Bxf6 Bxf620.Bxe4 Qd421.Rxc8 Rxc8;     
        22.Bb7 Rc523.Rd1 Qe5;  "~"  {Diagram?}   
         White is perhaps only slightly worse here ... but is not losing. 

        The computer thinks Black is better, but over an hour's worth  
         of analysis failed to clearly prove this evaluation. ]     


 17...b4;  "=/+"  ('!')     
Now Black seems to be just a little better here ... but I don't see any forced wins. {yet} 

Of this move, (...b4!); Korchnoi says:  "Better late than never!"    

     [ Interesting was: 17...a5!? ]   


 18.Ne4?,  (Ugh!)     
Here it is ... the turkey, the real  "losing move."  
(Korchnoi spoke of this move as a tactical oversight.)  

The only question for me is:   
 --->  "What was the cause of this little bone-head play?"    
I suspect that the answer was  a shortage of clock times, nervousness  ... or both!  

Korchnoi makes the following comment in this position:  
"After the correct 18.Nb1, Qa6; Black stands slightly better, but there is still all to play for."  


     [ A big improvement over both the analysis ... AND  the game ... 
       would be the following line:  >/=  18.Bxf6! Bxf6[]{Diagram?}   
       This is completely forced.  

            ( </=  18...bxc3??; 19.Qxb6 axb6;  20.Bxe7, "+/-" )     

       19.Ne4,  (hmmm)   {Diagram?}    
       This ... to me ... appears to be completely forced.  
       (This move was condemned by one chess writer as an error.)   

            ( Not </=  19.Nb1?! Qd4!; "/+" )      

       19...Be720.Rfd1!? Rxc1!21.Rxc1 Be8!!22.Rc2!? a5!;      
       23.a4!? f5!24.Nd2 Bf7;  "/+"  {Diagram?}      
       Black is clearly better ... and on the verge of winning.   
       (It is entirely possible that it is the analysis of lines like these  
        that prompted Hug to despair, and play the move in the game.)  ]   


Of this move, which at a first and very casual glance might appear as an error, 
Korchnoi simply says: "This wins by force."  

     [ Less accurate would be:  
       (</=)  18...Rxc1!?19.Nxf6+! Bxf620.Bxc1 a5;  "=/+"  {Diagram?}   
       and while Black might stand a little better here, a win is very hard to prove. ]   


White's reply is now forced ... Bxe4?? just drops a piece to the move, ...BxB/g5. 
And if White plays RxR/c8?!, then the simple ...Nxg5!; is very good for Black.  
 19.Bxe7 Rxc1!;  20.Rxc1,    
This is - very definitely - forced for White in this position.  

     [  Not   </=  20.Bxd8? Qxf2+!("-/+")  {Diagram?}    and mate next move. ]   


  20...Qxf2+;  21.Kh1,     {See the diagram, just below here.}    
Placing the King in the corner is White's ONLY legal move here.  



hug-kor_zu78_pos2.gif, 40 KB



And this position ... (which I have tested on many players in the rating range of 1400-to-1900); ...  
is a little bit of a conundrum. You see, most players KNOW for a certainty that Black stands 
clearly better here, but few can actually prove the win!!  


 21...Rc8!;  (Maybe - '!!')     
The correct move ... but one that appears to have a tactical refutation.  

I give this move one exclam, and I think it could deserve two. Most authors give it at least one ... 
but Korchnoi gave it no mark at all!  ('!!' - IM Charles Partos ... in the Informant - issue # 26.)  

     [ But not   </=  21...Re8;   as    22.Qxb4;  "~"    lets White off the hook. ]  


 22.Qd1,  {Box?}     
This is probably forced for White in this position.  

     [  Variation # 22W01.)   

         White will lose in the following continuation ... although it requires Black 
          to find one or two nice moves:  </=  22.Rd1?! Nd2!23.Qd3{Diagram?}    
          White must move the Queen.  

            ( NOT </=  23.Rxd2???,   23...Qf1#. )      

         23...Nf1!24.Bg2 Ne325.Bf3{Box.}  {Diagram?}      
         Once again, there is not much choice for White, at least not in this position!   


             ( Not </=  25.Qxd7?? Qxg2#.       

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

               Or </=  25.Rg1?! Qxg2+!!; {Diagram?}       
               Shocking ... to say the least!         

               26.Rxg2 Rc1+!;  ("-/+")  {Diagram?}      
               and quickly mates. )      


         Once more ... no choice!   

             ( </=  26.Qxd7?? Qf1# )     

         26...a5!;  ("-/+")   {Diagram?}      
         Black should win without much problem ... he has R+P for the Bishop, 
         the safer King, the better position, and Black still has a strong attack as well.  

        {I might have gotten a little carried away with all the cute mates, but the guys 
          at the chess club kept missing these as well.}  


         Variation  # 22W02.)    

         White missed an apparent refutation. But the refutation has ... 
         well, I think it would be better if I simply showed you.  


         After the following seemingly reasonable moves:   

         </=  22.Rxc8+ Bxc823.Qd1{Diagram?}     
         White defends the first row  ... and threatens Qd8 mate on his next move! 
          So how does Black meet such a strong threat?  

             ( Not </= 23.Bxe4???,  23...Qf1#. )    

         Now Black simply smiles, nods his head, and plays: 
         {Very shocking, wouldn't you agree here? All the guys at the 
           chess club definitely thought so!}  

         And now after:   24.exf3 Nf2+25.Kg2 Nxd126.Bxb4 Nxb2{D?}  
         Black emerges a piece ahead  ...  with a very easy win. ("-/+")    

         (In reality, White's 22nd move in this line deserved a full question   
           mark ... but that might have ruined the surprise.)  ]    

To me  ...  this was the wrong move  ... 
because it took the White Queen  OFF  the forking square.  

But watch what Korchnoi does after this!!!  

Korchnoi - modestly - gave his 19th move no mark at all; while several different 
chess authors have all given this move at least one exclamation point here.  

     [ But definitely  NOT:   </= 22...Re8???;   23.Qxd7,  "+/-"  {Diag?}      
       and White wins.   (One kibitzer at chess club suggested Qxd7. 
       At first, I simply ignored him  ...  but he insisted that I show him  
       the refutation!!)  ]     


 23.Qxc1 Bc6!;  (Maybe - '!!')  
Very nice ... Black protects the Knight, and also sets up a dire battery against the WK.  
Vicktor also takes advantage of the fact that The bishop is taboo, as long as Black can 
play his Queen to the f1-square ... with a mate!  

I annotated this game first, then I checked this game out in the correct issue of the Informant.  
To my surprise, the annotator there, (Ch. Partos);  ...  


 24.Bxb4!?,  (hmmm)   {See the diagram - just below here.}    

White decides to snack on a Pawn ... maybe he thought his position was safe here?  



hug-kor_zu78_pos3.gif, 41 KB


  {This is a good place for a diagram.}  



At this point, NO ONE  at the club could predict Black's next move.  

Actually, White's last move was a really an error, ('?') albeit it occurred in a position that 
the computer confirms is completely lost - and without any salvation for White.   

     [  Variation # 24W01.)   

         The box seems to think White has to put the Queen on b1 or even a1 here. 
         (Korchnoi even mentions this as well.)  

         But after the moves:  >/=  24.Qb1!? a5!25.a3!? Nd2!26.Qd1 Bxf3+!;     
         27.exf3 bxa3!;  {Diagram?}    The Knight is  ...  again!  ...  immune to 
         capture because of the mate threat on f1.   

         28.Bxa3 h5!29.Bc5!? Qxf3+30.Qxf3 Nxf331.b4 axb4   
         32.Bxb4 Ne5,  ("-/+")  {Diagram?}    
         Black's two extra, healthy Pawns should be more than enough to 
         achieve the desired result. 


        Variation # 24W02.)    

         White can also try:  </=  24.Qg1?,  {Diagram?}    
          which appears to be an adequate defense here.   

         But Black replies with:  
         24...Qxe2!!;   25.Qg2{Box?}  {Diagram?}    
         According to the machine, this is completely forced.   

             ( Not </=  25.Bxe2?? Nxg3#. - Charles Partos. Informant # 26 / Game # 28. )     

         Now - according to Fritz 8.0 - the remaining moves are all completely forced.   
         25...Nf2+26.Kg1 Nh3+27.Qxh3 Qe3+28.Kg2 Qxf3+29.Kg1 Qe3+   
         30.Kf1 Bb5+31.Kg2 Qe2+32.Kg1 Qe1+33.Kg2 Bc6#{Diagram?}   
         A nice ... "mate from afar."    

             ( Or the brutal 33...Qf1# . )   ]   


Black to play ... what move would YOU make in this position???  

  24...Qxe2!!;  (WOW!!!)   {Diagram?}    (White Resigns.)  

('!!' - IM Charles Partos.)   ('!! - GM Victor Korchnoi.)  


At first glance, it appears that Black might have blundered. But IM Hug thought for a little  
bit in this position, and then he resigned. Can you figure out why?    


     [  The win is proved in the following variations:   
         24...Qxe2!!25.Bxe2{Box.}  {Diagram?}   
         Absolutely - White has no choice at all here.   


               a).  White gets incinerated in the following line. Viz:   
                      </=  25.h4? Qxf3+26.Kh2 Qf2+27.Kh1{Diag?}    
                     It doesn't matter what move White picks now.   

                          ( Or '='  27.Kh3 Qxg3#. )       

                     27...Nxg3# .    (The end of the proverbial line.)   


               b).  Its death and dishonor (also!) after:   
                      </=  25.Bxe4??  Bxe4+;  ("-/+")  {Diagram?}   
                     and mate next move.    


         Please note: Its DOUBLE check!!  (White only has one legal move in response.)   

         26.Kg1 Nxe2+27.Kf1 Nxc1{Diagram?}    
         and Black - with an extra piece, and extra buttons to boot - is winning easily. ("-/+")  ]  



Personally ... I think IM W. Hug picked the perfect place to abandon ship. Its one of the reasons that this game has found its way into SO many anthologies and problem books. (Besides: Like I.A. Horowitz and Chernev used to say ... "There is no reply to a thunderbolt!")  

A wonderful game by Korchnoi. He played with passion, fire, great imagination, originality, creativity and also ...  (Dare I say it?); ... tremendous brilliance, from start to finish of  this wonderful clash.  

I found this game in more books and magazines than I really care to enumerate here.  

But the following were my main sources for annotating this game.
(This is not necessarily the order in which I consulted these books.)  


# 1.)  The INFORMANT  (Volume # 26)
Published by 'Sahovski Informator,' out of the former Yugoslavia. (PB)  

# 2.)  "Korchnoi's 400 Best Games,"  by GM Victor Korchnoi, R.G. Wade, 
and L.S. Blackstock. (c) 1978. (Hard-back.)  
Published by ARCO Books of New York City, NY. (USA)  {Printed in Great Britain.}  
ISBN: # 0-668-04698-8  

# 3.)  "My Best Games,"  (Volume # 02: Games with Black);  by  GM V. Korchnoi. (HB)
[ Progress in Chess / Edition Olms]  Olms of Zurich, Switzerland. 
Copyright (c) by the author, 2001.  Printed in Germany, translated by Ken Neat.  
ISBN: # 03-283-00405-6

   --->  (I completed my  {game}  analysis, Friday; August 06th, 2004.)
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***   

  Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I  

 Copyright (c) A.J.G; 1979 - 2005. 
  Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2006.  All rights reserved.  


   0 - 1   


 The game analysis - and the initial HTML code - was originally generated ... by the program,  ChessBase 8.0

  The diagrams were generated by the program,  Chess Captor 2.25.  

If you enjoyed this analysis, (or want to comment on it); and would like to contact me ... this is my contact information:  
A.J. Goldsby I  (  P.O. Box 11718; Pensacola, FL  32524  (USA)   [more]   

The way this game is presented here is pretty much the way that I developed it in my ChessBase files. I shortened a few variations ... they were unnecessarily long. (I also altered the CB document to match what you see here.) If some variations look to be longer than what you might think is required, I had to disprove what other writers - like Korchnoi - had written.) 

In the end -  I am now very happy with this game. I think all the important tactical bases have been covered. The analysis has been meticulously checked and rechecked. I also carefully formatted the game to make it neat, readable, and presentable. (This process took several days.)  I feel sure that this work is of the highest quality and is very accurate as well. If you notice any mistakes, I would appreciate hearing from you! Enjoy!! 

Click  HERE  to go (or return) to my  HOME PAGE, (for this site).  

Click  HERE  to go (or return) to my page on ...  "The BEST Players." 

Click  HERE  to go (or return) to my  Annotated Games Page, (for this site).  

Click  HERE  to go (or return) to my  PAGE  ...  
on  "The Best, Short Games of Chess Ever Played." 

  (Or use the  'BACK'  button on your web browser.)  


  Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2009.  All rights reserved.  


  Page first created in August, 2004.   First posted  on the 'net:  Tuesday; August 10th, 2004.  This page was last updated on  07/14/12 .