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 
best 
in chess.
(TM)

(Navigation bar 
directly below.)

Home
UP (One level) 

*******

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  
from Amazon.com
(And help me out as well!)

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

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

A.J.'s TS; Game # 9

Back Next

This is (will be)  game # 9  of my Tactical School.  (A.J. Goldsby I - Internet opponent.) 

 ******* 

You should return to the main page for my  "Tactics School,"  and   re-read it carefully   ...  before continuing any further!! (This is a must to understand the method of presentation!) 

I have received a few  {small}  contributions, many of these people have asked me to annotate a game in the  Pirc Defense  ...  specifically in The Austrian Attack. I originally (about six months ago) picked out a GM game in this line of the Pirc - and I thought about adding that game here. (But I never got around to finishing the annotations of that game.).  Then I played in the big "Dos Hermanos" Internet Qualifying tournament. I played a game in this line. And although it is FAR from being perfect, the many intricate possibilities made it a PERFECT candidate for my Tactical School. Thus I decided that this should be the next entry here. (If you liked this particular effort, please e-mail me and let me know.) 

 Click  here  too see the plain text-score for this encounter.  

***

I have wanted to do something like this for some time ... I even had a similar file that was almost fully developed prior to my big Internet crash of Feb. 2003. (But those files were all lost.) Then I played a game on the Internet in this line and my interest was renewed.)

***

The annotations of this game were the result of nearly a whole week's hard work. (More now.) Additionally, I drew on file that I had been preparing on the Pirc for close to 10 years. And finally, I checked nearly every book in my library that contains material on this particular opening. 

  A.J. Goldsby I (2295) - 'Caduceo' (2060)  
 [B09] 
  XS11B / I.C.C. / on-line chess game / (Rd. # 7.)  
Pensacola, FL; (USA);  11.03.2004

 [A.J. Goldsby I] 

Oddly enough, you can now find this game on the  ChessBase  database!  (Black is supposedly one Ivan Celedon.) 

In a way, I find this to be a violation of my legal rights, and also of my privacy.  [Supposedly, the whole idea for playing on ICC is that you do so in complete privacy. I am also sure that in a couple of the losses my opponent had 'help' i.e. that my opponent cheated and used a computer. (But not in this game!) There is no note on the game {in any of my losses} that this player was booted from the tournament upon suspicion of cheating. I think it is quite obvious when someone has never obtained a OTB rating higher than 1500 - despite many tournaments - and they play a perfect game of chess, (one in which analysis by a computer reveals no mistakes); it is quite clear that something very inappropriate is going on.] 

In the end though, nothing has been hurt. Actually - in a way - whoever did this helped me by verifying that this game was played ... and it also clearly shows that I annotated the game, "as is." You can always have a look for yourself. (11/05/2004) 

This was a game that was played in the  "Internet Chess Club,"  on-line annual tournament. 
(Dos Hermanos.)  (White played under a <supposedly anonymous> 'handle.')    

The time control was an initial eight minutes on the clock, and both sides get an increment of 
two seconds per move - - - for the rest of the game. 

The following was an extremely fun and interesting game that featured a ton of tactics. Both 
sides do NOT play this game perfectly. But the complications that ensue made this game 
perfect for my tactical school. 

There is also a fairly detailed look at opening theory here. ALL the major reference works, 
(ECO, NCO, MCO; etc.); were consulted, as well as 10 to 20 books on the Pirc. The 
material presented here is: "STATE OF THE ART."  {circa 2004}
(Also - every single move in this opening survey has been meticulously checked with 
 several different strong {chess} programs to ensure accuracy.) 

*******

{The ratings are those of ICC.}  

 1.e4 d6;  2.d4 Nf6;  3.Nc3 g6;   
This is the Pirc Defense, an opening that many GM's - like Yasser Seirawan - 
have used with great success. (England's Jonathan Speelman ... and many Russian 
GM's use this opening as well.)   

The Pirc does not even attempt to equalize, but rather fights very aggressively for counterplay. 

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

According to one (computer) book, [from a CD-ROM]; White has nearly 10-15 playable 
moves at this point. This is not surprising, as it is very early in the game.  
 4.f4!?,  (Maybe - '!')   
Initiating the well-known system of this opening called, "The Austrian Attack." 
(At one time this line took a back seat to other variants, but brilliant wins by the 
 Russians and also Bobby Fischer brought this sharp system to the forefront. In 
 the year 1989, Nunn said this was the most popular variation of the whole of 
 the Pirc Defense.)  

Initially thought to be too slow, White can use his Pawns to slowly squeeze the 
second player to death, but often the first player starts an attack that is surprisingly 
swift and virulent.  

     [ White can also use the following line, which is highly similar to ... 
        the  'Yugoslav Attack'  versus the dreaded Sicilian Dragon:  
        4.f3 Bg7;  5.Be3 0-0;  6.Qd2 e5;  7.Bc4 Nc6;  8.Nge2, "+/="  {Diag?}   
        White holds a small but solid edge. 

        I have personally used this line in few games - White can castle long and 
        generate a powerful attack. 

        A.S. Suetin (2375) - M. Hirt;  ICT / 7th Wuerzburg Open / 1991.   
        (White won in 46 moves.)  

     ********************************************************   
       White can also play the so-called "Classical Line" versus the Pirc:   
        4.Nf3 Bg7;  5.Be2 0-0;  6.0-0, "+/="  {Diagram?}   
        and according to modern theory White retains a small edge and has  
        also had the better results from this position in master practice.   
        (This position was even played a few times in the Karpov-Korchnoi WCS  
         [FIDE Title] Match in 1978.)  

       See any good book on this opening. 
        (I like "The Complete Pirc,"  by  GM J. Nunn  that was published in 1989.  
         Although a bit dated, it is still a great book to help you learn this opening.)  

        [ See also MCO-14,  page # 366;  columns # 13 through col. # 16,  
          and all applicable notes. ]  

        One of the most recent games that I could find in the database was:   
        A. Minasian (2499) - W. Koch;  ICT / 20th Masters Open  
        Cappelle la Grande, FRA;  2004.   
        (White won a nice game in only 39 moves.) ]   

 

 4...Bg7;  5.Nf3 c5!?;   
A very wild line that is relatively new to modern theory. (It was analyzed and played 
by the Russians in the late 1940's and the early 1950's, but only a few times.)  

Actually the idea behind the move ...c5; is very logical. White tries to erect a large 
Pawn center, Black decides to immediately challenge the validity of this idea.  

The first time I can find GM's playing this whole line, in a real game, (NOT a quick 
and meaningless draw); was in the 1960's. 
 (V. Hort - L. Szabo;  and  P. Keres - P. Benko; both in the year 1967.)     

But this line - considered to be VERY dubious by opening theory of the day -
really did not take off until Bobby Fischer decided to use it in the 17th game of 
his ultra-famous (WCS) match with Boris Spassky in Reykjavik, Iceland in 1972.
(The game was eventually drawn.) 

After Fischer's use of this move, one book wrote that,  "5...c5! can now be considered 
the best weapon that the second player can employ."  Today it is played almost as often 
as  ...0-0; at least according to the database. 
(Even the extremely well-done book, which is highly thought of by masters, 
 {"Nunn's Chess Openings."}; gives this line first. One brand new book does 
 not even bother to analyze 5...0-0; but instead chooses to simply refer the 
 reader to ECO!)  

     [ Probably the  "main line"  of the Austrian Attack is the 
        following continuation:  (>/=)  5...0-0;  {Diagram?}   
        (This is probably a whole lot safer {duller?} for Black then  
         the wild lines with  5...c5.)  

       6.Bd3, "+/=" {Diagram?}  when White has a very solid 
       (but relatively small) advantage.  

       [ See MCO-14,  page # 362;  columns # 01 through col. # 03,  
         and all applicable notes. ]   

       The latest game that I could find in this line ... 
       was the following example, (with high-rated players):  
       GM I. Glek (2566) - E. Cekro (2441);  European Cup Championship (TT)  
       Rethymnon, Greece;  2003.  (The game was drawn in 21 moves.)  

       Also - click  HERE  to see another game in this line. (...0-0; Bd3.)  ]     

 

 6.Bb5+!?,  (Maybe - '!')   
A tremendously sharp and complicated move. It was first played, as far as I can tell, 
in the following game:  Pupels - P. Kampenuss;  National Championship Tournament 
Riga, LAT;  1958.  (The game was drawn in 27 moves.)  

Prior to the discovery and use of Bb5+ here, the move dxc5 was usually played.  
(The move 6.d4xc5, was considered by theory to give White a huge edge; but today 
 we know that is no longer true. With very exact play, White will probably get a 
 small advantage - nothing more.) 

In addition to dxc5 and Bb5+ here, White has also played 7.e5!?, and 7.d5, in this position. 
The first choice is a little interesting, the second has led to a lot of short draws at the 
master level.  

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

     [ White can also play:  (</=)  6.dxc5!? Qa5!;  7.Bd3! Qxc5;  
        8.Qe2 0-0;  {Diagram?}   This is good ... and also logical.  

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

           ( Black can also play:  8...Bg4!?;  9.Be3 Qa5;  10.0-0 Nc6;  {Diagram?}   
             Developing a Knight is good, as is castling in this position.   

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

                ( Instead - another book gives:  10...0-0;  11.h3 Bxf3;  12.Qxf3,      
                   12...Nc6;  13.a3 Nd7; "="  {Diagram?}     
                   The end of the line or row.      
                   (The esteemed author considers this position to be equal. - "+/=" ?)      
                    [ See: "Nunn's Chess Openings." (NCO)       
                      Page # 141; line/row # 01; and also the lengthy note # 6. ]  )       

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

             (Returning here to the MCO line.)  
             11.h3 Bxf3;  {Diagram?}      
             Black feels this exchange is forced, to retreat is to lose a lot of time.  

             12.Qxf3 0-0;  13.Kh1!? Nd7;  14.Bd2 Nc5, "="  {Diagram?}      
             with a very good game. (For Black.)  

             S. Kindermann - A. Khalifman; (Bundesliga?) / Hamburg, GER;  1991.  

             [ See MCO-14,  page # 364;  column # 10, and also note # (n.). ]   

             [ See also NCO, pg # 141;  line/row # 01, and also note # 5. ]  )   

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

      (Returning to the main {analysis} line - that began with  6.dxc5.)   
       9.Be3 Qa5;  10.0-0 Bg4!?N;  {Diagram?}      
       {The move  ...Bg4; was new to opening theory, at least at the time that 
         this game was played.} 

       As in the contest:  
       GM Boris Spassky - GM Robert J. ("Bobby")  Fischer; 
       / (FIDE) World Championship Match / (Game # 17) /     
       Reykjavik, ICELAND;  1972.    

       Now h3 will almost certainly give White a small - but solid - edge. 

       ( Also good was:  10...Nc6; "~"  {Diagram?} with very close to equality. )    

       After the further moves:  11.Rad1!? Nc6;  12.Bc4!? Nh5!;  "<=>"  {Diag?}      
       Black has at least equality, maybe a little more. 
       (But the game was drawn after many adventures.) ]    

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

 

 6...Bd7;  {Box?}    
Practically the only good move for Black here. 
(Other moves are clearly worse, some even lose outright.)

Now White can exchange on d7, or choose the move that sharpens the nature 
of the contest ... a great deal.  

     [ After the continuation:  </=  6...Nbd7?;  7.e5! dxe5;  8.dxe5 Ng4;  
        9.Ng5! Nh6[];  10.e6! fxe6;  11.Nxe6 Bxc3+;  12.bxc3 Qa5;  
        13.0-0!, '±'  {Diagram?}   White has a VERY large edge.   
        (If ...QxB/b5???, then  Nc7+,  forks the King and Queen.)  ]    

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

 

White takes a choice that increases the tactical possibilities in this game. 
 7.e5!?,  (Probably - '!')    
While this move at first might look very speculative, White practically 
has no choice here. (The exchange on d7 gives the first player really
no hope of any advantage.)  

     [ After the moves:  (</=)  7.Bxd7+!? Nfxd7!;  8.d5!? b5!; "="  {D?}  
        Black has no problems at all. ]   

 

 7...Ng4;  {Box.}    
This move is virtually forced for Black, the g8-square looks just plain bad ... and ugly!  

     [ Not  </=  7...Nh5?!; (Really - '?')  8.g4!, '±'  ]   

 

Once again, White has several levels of sharpness. e6!? used to be thought to refute the 
whole line. (But not anymore.)  Bxd7+!?,  (and the follow-up, d5);  is so staid and boring 
it could put both players to sleep. (But it is also rock-solid.) The move Ng5 is no longer 
played, but was once thought to give Black a lot of problems.  (And dxc5 is also no good 
for White.) 
 8.h3!?,  (Maybe - '!')     
A move that is designed to increase the heat ... and ratchet up the tension by a degree 
of several magnitudes. 

The thing I like about h3 is that the second player has never found a quick or easy way 
to draw from here. 

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

     [ One variation - that was once thought to refute Black's whole set up - 
        has now become a drawing line:   8.e6!? fxe6!!;  9.Ng5!? Bxb5!;   
        10.Nxe6!? Bxd4!;  11.Nxd8!? Bf2+;  12.Kd2 Be3+;  ("=")  {Diag?}   
        The game is drawn because White cannot escape the checks.  

        GM G. Sax - GM Yasser Seirawan;  ICT / World Cup;      
        Brussels, Belgium;  1988.    
        (Over 100 examples of this little  'gamelet'  now in the database!)      

        [ See also MCO-14,  page # 364;  and column # 11. 
          (And, of course, all applicable notes.) ]   

        (This is also covered in NCO.);  

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

       White should not play:  (</=)  8.dxc5!?, (?!)  8...Bxb5;  9.Nxb5 Qa5+;      
       10.Nc3 Qxc5; "="  {Diagram?}    
       when Black is OK ... and may have already stolen the initiative.  
       (Indeed, the second player could even be a little better in this position.) 

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

       The following line is rather dull, and - for a great many years - has (had) a 
        very drawish reputation.  (</=)  8.Bxd7+!? Qxd7;  9.d5 dxe5;  10.h3 e4;      
        11.Nxe4!? Nf6;  12.Nxf6+ Bxf6;  {Diagram?}   The end of the column.   

        13.0-0 0-0;  14.Be3 Na6!?;  15.Ne5!? Qd6;  16.Ng4 Bxb2;  17.Rb1 Bg7;      
        18.f5! Nb4;  19.c4 Nxa2;  20.Rxb7!?, "~"  {Diagram?}    
        The book (and GM N. de Firmian) calls this position as clearly better for White. ("+/=")  
        And while White has good play and some  "comp" for the Pawn, an evaluation of  "+/="  
        is probably based on the {eventual} outcome of the game, and not on the current 
        position.  

        GM Artur Yusupov - GM Vlastmil Hort;  Germany, 1994.  (Bundesliga?)  

        [ See MCO-14,  page # 364;  column # 12, and also note # (w.). ]  

        [ See also NCO,  page # 141; line/row # 02, and note # 11. ]  ]   

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

 {Returning to the actual game.}
 8...Bxb5!?;  (dubious?)   
This has always had a bad reputation according to opening theory ... 
but the respected player and author, GM John Nunn, seems to indicate that it may not be 
as bad as it's reputation.  (I remain unconvinced.)  {Many other books also like this move, 
but my research indicates that Nunn was definitely the first to ... "go out on a limb"  ... 
and recommend that Black try it.}  

The book move in this position has always been  8...cxd4;  this Bishop capture has had 
very poor results,  according to a statistical breakdown  of the games in the database.  

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

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

       [  Black could also capture on the d4-square in this position.  
          Viz:  >/=  8...cxd4!?; ('!') {Diagram?}   
          The correct move for Black here, according to most opening books.  

          9.Qxd4! dxe5!?;  {Diagram?}    
          This is always played, but is it the best move for Black?  

              ( One book suggests:  (>/=)  9...Nh6!?;  10.g4!?, "+/="  {Diagram?}     
                 with only a small edge for White in this position. )    

          10.Qd5!,  ("+/=")  {Diagram?}    
           I feel quite certain that this is the best move here for White ... 
           NOT based on what the computers or the books say, but on my own 
           chess instincts. (This is also based on years of experience playing this 
           whole system in real,  "over-the-board,"  rated tournament games.)  

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

 --->       ( Also occasionally played here is the less impressive  ...PxP/e5.  
                 For example:  (</=)  10.fxe5!? Bxb5;  11.Qxd8+ Kxd8;  
                 12.hxg4! Bd7!?;  13.Ng5?!,  {Diagram?}   
                 This looks impressive, but I do not think it is all that great for 
                 White. (He also had better.)  

                     ( >/=  13.Bh6! Bxh6;  14.Rxh6, "+/=" )       

                 13...Ke8;  14.e6 fxe6;  15.Bd2 Na6!?;  16.0-0-0, "~"  {Diagram?}   
                 White has compensation for the Pawn, but nothing more. But the  
                 first player went on to win a hard and rather difficult (long) game 
                 in 57 moves - overall.  

                 Roberto Tomczak (2384) - M. Stryjecki (2456);  (Round # 2.)     
                 59th National Championship Tournament / Warsaw, POL;  29.04.2002.  )      

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

          (Returning here to the examination of the "main line" of the 'book.')     
          10...e4; ('!')  11.Ng5 Nh6;  12.Qxb7 Bxc3+!;  13.bxc3 0-0!?;  {Diagram?}    
           Some boxes prefer  ...Bxb5;  here.  

          14.Qxa8 Qc7;  15.Qxe4 Qxc3+;  16.Kf2 Qxa1; "~"  (Maybe - "+/=")  {D?}   
           GM Nick de Firmian calls this move as leading to an equal  ("=") position,  
            ...  but to me, it has got to be better for White. (Five different chess engines 
           all prefer White in this position - some by a very wide margin for the White 
           pieces here.)  

           (GM) Judit Polgar - Tregubov;  Budapest, (rapids?)  HUN;  1992.   
            [ See MCO-14,  page # 364;  columns # 11 & 12;  
              and also (mainly) note # (u.) here. ]    

           [ See also NCO,  page # 141; line/row # 02, and also note # 9. ]   

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

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

          Black has also played the move, "Knight-to-h6"  in this position.  
          But this course cannot be recommended, it surely hands the initiative 
          solidly over to White.  

          For example:  </=  8...Nh6!?;  ('?!')  9.g4!?, "+/="  (hmmm)   
          and White had an extremely strong attack in the encounter:   
          A.J. Goldsby I - Leo Denton;  State Championship Tournament     
          Chickasaw, AL; (USA)  1997.     [see this game]   

              ( Also very good for White was:  9.dxc5 Bxb5;  10.Nxb5 Qa5+;     
                11.Nc3 Qxc5;  12.Qd5!, ("+/=")  and White is solidly better here. {analysis} )    ]   

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

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

(After a detour into opening theory, we return to the game at hand.) 
 9.Nxb5 Qa5+!?;  (hmmm)    
This looks natural ... and some programs even prefer this move.  
But it looks rather dubious to me. 

(A {former} Internet student sent me an e-mail to inform me that one web site  ...  
 where you have to pay a subscription fee to have access to  ...  is giving this 
 move as playable.  UGH! Gag! Barf!)   

The correct move according to theory is for the Pawn on the d6-square to 
capture (the pawn) on e5 here.  [ Or >/= 9...d6xe5. ]    

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

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

       [  Variation  # 9B1.)   

          Black can take on d4 in this position, but I definitely do not recommend it:  
           </=  9...cxd4!?;  ('?!')  10.c3!,  {Diagram?}    
          This is almost certainly the very best move for White in this position.  

              ( Very interesting is:  10.Qxd4!?, "+/="  {Diagram?}       
                 which could transpose to the game.     

                 [ It also sets a wicked trap.  Now if  10...Qa5+?;  then White simply      
                   just plays the move:  11.Qc3!,  ("+/-")  and Black can resign. ]  )      

           10...a6;  11.hxg4 axb5;  12.cxd4, "+/="  ('±')  {Diagram?}   
           White is much better - with the more favorable Pawn structure.  

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

           Variation  # 9B2.)   

           Supposedly Black can do OK by capturing on e5 here. 
           Viz:  >/=  9...dxe5!?;  10.hxg4,  {Diagram?}     
           This move is usually made in an automatic fashion.  

              ( Interesting was/is:  10.Qd3!?, "~" )        

           10...Qa5+;  11.c3!,  {Diagram?}    
            I think this is definitely best for White in this position.   

****************************   

 --->         ( White can also play:  (</=)  11.Bd2!? Qxb5;  {Diagram?}    
                    Obviously Black must regain his piece here.  

                    12.dxe5 Qxb2!; "~"  {Diagram?}      
                    Black is definitely OK here.  Analysis - GM John Nunn.  

                    I guess someone took Nunn's analysis seriously, several games 
                    have (now) seen the capture of  12...Qxb2;  in this position.  

                    {A. Grosar - A. Chernin;  AUT Champ. 1995/96.}   
                    [ See NCO,  page # 141;  line/row # 02, and note # 09.]   

                    [ See also the excellent book:  "The PIRC Alert"  {2001.}   
                      '(A complete defense against 1.e4.),'  by  GM's Lev Alburt  
                      and also Alexander Chernin.  

                      See Part III, page # 209. And also Chapter # 14, pg. # 233.   
                      (These authors delve into these positions in an EXTREMELY 
                       thorough and a very deep way!) 

                      {This all seems slightly superfluous. And they don't even 
                        consider a lot of viable alternatives in this line.}  ]  )    

  *******  

                         ( Not as convincing is:  (</=)  12...Nc6!?;   13.Bc3! Qc4!?;      
                           14.g3 Rd8;  15.Qe2 Qe6!?;  16.g5 h5!?;  17.gxh6 Rxh6;      
                           18.Kf2, "+/="  {Diagram?}        

                           White had a small edge in this position.     

                           J. Kristiansen - Anthony Miles;  Teeside, ENG; 1974.  )       

****************************   

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

           (Returning to the main analysis line here, that began with the move,  9...dxe5!?.)   
            11...e4!?; ('!')  12.Qe2! exf3[];  13.Nd6+!?,  {Diagram?}    
            The most controversial move here  ...  and maybe even the best move for 
            White ... at least in this particular position.   

               ( </=  13.gxf3?! cxd4;  14.Nd6+ Kf8;  15.Nc4 Qb5;        
                 16.cxd4 Nc6; "=/+" )     

            13...Kd7!;  14.Nxb7 Qb6!?;  {Diagram?}     
             This is the only move discussed here by many (most) books.    

               ( After the moves:  (</=)  14...fxe2!?; ('?!')  {Diagram?}     
                 (One GM  ...  whom I took on-line lessons from for a while  ...      
                  told me that this move was bad. I quit before we finished our        
                   'discussion' of many of these lines.)        

                  15.Nxa5 cxd4; "~"  {Diagram?}        
                  Black has at least managed to get the Queens off the board. )      

            15.Qxf3, "+/="  15...cxd4!?; "<=>"  {See the  Analysis Diagram,  just below.}   
             (Was  15...Knt-R3!?  playable?)  

The position that was reached {in analysis} after 15...cxd4. (ts-g9_anal-diag1.gif, 28 KB)

            Black (supposedly) had very good play, but a deep computer analysis   
            of  THIS  position suggests that it is much better to be the player of the  
            White pieces here.  

            Vladislav Fedorov - Mark Tseitlin;  City (St. Pete) Championship  
            Leningrad, U.S.S.R;  1977.   

            [ See the book:  "The Complete Pirc,"  (pg. # 55)  by  Dr. / GM John Nunn.  
              Copyright (c) by the author. (1989) Published by Collier / MacMillian   
              ISBN:  # 0-02-029491-3 ]   

            This line is also analyzed in some detail in the book/magazine:   
            "The R.H.M. Survey of Chess Openings."   (Volume One.)  

            {This line is covered in nearly a dozen of my books on the Pirc.   
              Strangely, some authors come to completely OPPOSING 
              conclusions here!!}   ]    

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

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

(Once again - after a  {brief?} detour into opening theory, we return to the game at hand.)  
 10.Nc3!,    
The correct move, based on OTB analysis. 
(In similar positions, I recalled the move c3, being played.)   

          [ The continuation of:  10.c3!? Qxb5;  11.hxg4, "+/="  {Diagram?}    
             may yield the first player a VERY small (tiny) edge from here. ]     

 

 10...cxd4!?;  (second-best?)     
An interesting move, and not really (necessarily) bad. But Black should 
have at least considered the move, ...Nh6; in this position.  

     [ Interesting was:  (>/=)  10...Nh6!?;  {Diagram?}   
        which is the first choice of many strong chess programs.  ]     

 

 11.Qxd4,  ('!?')   (hmmm)     
While this is very interesting ... and I am still happy with the choice that I made in this 
particular game  ...  the first choice of many computer programs is the move, Nxd4. 

This is an extremely critical position.  (For BOTH parties here!)  

     [  Also good is:  (>/=)  11.Nxd4!?, "+/="  (Maybe - '!')  {Diagram?}   
         with a solid edge for White.  

         For example:  11...Nh6;  12.exd6 exd6;  13.0-0 0-0;  14.Be3 Nd7;  {Diag?}   
         One IM I that I used to study with said that this was forced in this position. 
          (But I don't believe him.)    

            ( Maybe just:  14...Nc6!?, "~" )    

         15.Nb3 Qa6;  16.Bd4, "+/="  {Diagram?}    
          White is clearly better, a good player should be able to exploit Black's  
           isolated d-pawn here. ]    

 

 11...dxe5?!;  (Maybe - '?')    
 This is definitely less than best, ...Nc6; (or ...Nh6); was practically the only move 
for Black in this position.  

     [ Black had to play something like:  >/=  11...Nc6;  12.Qd5!? Nh6;     
        13.Qxa5 Nxa5;  14.Nb5, "+/="  {Diagram?}     
         but White retains a fairly decent edge in this position.  ('±')  ]    

 

 12.Qe4!?,  (d5 or e4?)   {See the actual diagram ... just below.}      
I saw that I could virtually win a piece, and/or force the exchange of Queens with Qd5. 
But Morphy and Tal would (probably) not try to exchange Queens here. 
(So I don't play Qd5. And when I am attacking, I almost always prefer to try and 
 keep the Queens on the board!)  

     [ The computer prefers to play:  >/=  12.Qd5! Qxd5;  13.Nxd5 Na6;  {Diag?}   
        Is this forced? (The box says so. If this is forced, Black is lost.)  

        14.hxg4, '±'  (Maybe  "+/-")  {Diagram?}    
         also with (nearly) a technically won game for White from this position.  
         (White has forced the Queens off and also has won a piece.)  ]  

I just played my Queen to the e4-square ... a very critical position has been reached. (ts-g9_gd_pos1.gif, 78 KB)

  (The actual position in the game ... after  12.Qe4.)  

 12...Nh6?;  (hmmm)   {Diagram?}     
 This looks good, it even appears to be the most natural move in this particular position  ...   
but it loses by force. (!!!)  

Black's only hope here was to play the move "Pawn-takes-Pawn" (...e5xf4); 
in this position.  

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

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

      [  Black's only hope was the capture on the f4-square. 
         For example:  >/=  12...exf4; ('!')  13.Qxb7! 0-0;  {Diagram?}  
         This is pretty much forced here.  

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

            ( It looks natural for Black to play:  </=  13...Bxc3+!?;  14.bxc3 0-0;  {D?}  
               transposes into this (the main) line of analysis here - 
               that began with the move, 12...exf4.  

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

                   ( Much worse for Black is:  (</=) 14...Qxc3+!?; ('?!')  15.Bd2!!, {D?}  
                     A truly shocking move!   

                        ( This is much better than:  </= 15.Ke2 Qc4+; ("=")  )     

                     15...Qc6;  {Diagram?}    This is forced.  

*******

                        ( </= 15...Qxa1+?;  {Diagram?}     
                           This looks like it is winning, but ...     

                           16.Ke2! Qxh1??;  {Diagram?}     
                            This is {obviously} a bad mistake. 

                           ( Black had to play 16...0-0;  but after 17.RxQ/a1,     
                              his game is hopeless. (resignable) )      

                           17.Qc8#.  {Diagram?}  
                           Study this whole line very, very carefully. 
                           Study it over and over again.      
                           TACTICS, TACTICS, ...   and more TACTICS!!! )      

 ******* 

                     16.Qxc6+ Nxc6;  17.hxg4 e5;  18.Bc3 f6;  19.g5 Kf7!?;  {Diag?}   
                      Black wants to use the e-file to pin something if White captures on 
                      the e5-square here.  

                     20.Rd1!,  ("+/-")  {Diagram?}    
                     White's game is pretty much winning in this position.    
                     (White threatens Rd6, forking the Knight on c6, and the very   
                       important button on f6.)  )  )     

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

 ************** 

         (Returning to the main line of our analysis that began with  --->   
          Black's 12th move,  ...PxP/f4.)      
         14.hxg4 Bxc3+;  15.bxc3 Qxc3+;  16.Kf2 Qc5+;  {Diagram?}    
         This is pretty much forced.   

             ( Not  </=  16...Qxa1?!;  17.Qxa8, "+/-" )       

         17.Kf1 Qc4+;  18.Kg1 Nc6;  19.Qb3 Qc5+;  20.Kh2 Rab8;   
         21.Qa3! Qc4;  22.Qd3, '±'  (Or "+/")   {Diagram?}    
         White is MUCH better in this position. Black, a piece down,   
         does NOT want to exchange Queens. But if the  BQ  backs up   
         here, White takes the button on f4  ...  with very close to a won  
         game.  (Maybe just  "+/-")     

         Study this whole line VERY, very carefully!! Go over it again and   
         again. Until you have really absorbed and fully understand all of the 
         very difficult tactical blows here, you will not be furthering your 
         knowledge of the  "hand-to-hand" aspect of the game of chess. ]     

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

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

 13.Qxb7 exf4;  14.Bd2!,  ("+/-")     
 This is the simplest ... now White has a pretty easy win - Black has
no good way to save his Rook on the a8-square.  

An interesting position ... only a handful of moves have been played, yet Black 
is already in a great deal of hot water.  

     [ White can also play:  14.Qxa8 Bxc3+;  15.bxc3 Qxc3+;   
       16.Kf2,  ("+/-")  {Diagram?}   with a fairly easily won game.  
       (The move, ...QxR?;  is met by White taking the BN on b8  
        with the Queen ... and its with check.) ]   

 

The next few moves appear to be forced.  
 14...0-0;  15.Qxa8 Nf5;  16.Qb7,     
A perfectly legitimate idea, in some lines Black wants to trap my Queen. 
(...Qb6; and then ...Nc6.)  I want to avoid Qe4?, as ...Ng3; wins material. 
(The only caution I could give is that it is natural to want to trade Queen's 
 when you are ahead in material. But beware Qb5?? in many positions for 
 White, as the reply ...Bxc3; wins a whole piece.)  

     [ Or  16.Ne2 Qb6;  17.Qe4, "+/-"  ]  

 

It does not matter what Black does now, he is a Rook down. And unless I really blow it, 
Black is going down the tubes. In such situations, I do not believe in criticizing a player for 
making bad moves, unless they are really horrible.  
 16...Ne3!?;  
Black definitely has a lost position, but does not want to resign just yet. 
(In very rapid time controls, anything can happen - and often does!) 

     [ Or  16...Qc5;  17.Qb5!, "+/-"  ]   

 

 17.Bxe3 fxe3; 
I don't think it matters what Black does in this position. At least he is trying to be tricky. 

     [ If   17...Bxc3+!?;  then  18.Bd2!, "+/-"  ]  

 

Now Qe4 might be the best move. 
(But it is only a matter of very small degrees.) 

Once White gets his King to safety, the win is only a matter of technique. 
 18.0-0 Qc5;  19.Kh1 Bxc3;  20.bxc3 Nc6;  21.Rae1 e6;  
There is nothing dramatically better.

     [ Maybe  21...Rb8!? ]   

 

22.Qc7 Qxc3;   23.Re2 Rb8; ('?')    
This could be an error.  

     [ Maybe  23...Qc4;  instead? ]     

 

24.Rfe1,    
A very tame move. (I saw Ng5, but felt it was dangerous and a little complicated. 
Plus I only had around two minutes on the clock ... so no time for a "deep think." )   

     [ >/= 24.Ng5! ]    

 

Now Ng5 is very strong for me, but I wanted to rid myself of Black's very dangerous 
e-pawn. (Safety first.)  
 24...Rb2;  25.Rxe3 Qxc2!?;  26.R3e2 Qxe2;  {Box?}    
This is  NOT  a mistake ... in fact it is virtually forced. 
(NOTE: Black had no good squares to put his Queen on  ...  that did not drop 
 another whole Rook!!)  

The rest really does not require any comment. (It was curious that I had trouble 
coming up with the correct plan from here.)  
 27.Rxe2 Rxe2;  28.Qxc6 Rxa2;  29.Kh2 a5;  30.Qc4!? Ra3;  31.Qc5 Ra2;      
 32.Ne5! a4;  33.Qe3!?,  (hmmm)     
Trying to be cute and set up a really sneaky double attack. (If Black moved off his 
a-pawn, I wanted to be able to play Qa8+, and win the {possibly} dangerous 
passed QRP.)  

Now according to the computer, I missed one move that led to a forced mate in four
moves, and another move that led to a forced mate in eight moves. (Qa7!) All I can 
say was that I was pretty short of time ...  and that this proves I do NOT use a computer 
to  "take over"  and win a won game. (As many players on the Internet now do. In fact, 
when I asked one FM, he told me it was: "the smart thing to do, as many players try to 
use a computer to defend a lost position."  But in my book, cheating is cheating!!!!!!!!!!!  
PERIOD ... AND END OF STORY!!)

     [ MUCH better was:  33.Nd7!!,  (f8-square)  {Diagram?}  
        and the computer says Black must play give-away ... and  
        then be mated in three more moves.  ]   

 

 33...a3;  34.Qf3,  ("+/-")    
and White won in a just few more moves from this position. 

     [ Better is:    >/=  34.Qa7!,  ("+/-")  {Diagram?}   
       and the computer says that it is something like a mate in 6 moves. ]  

 

An interesting game, and a good one to sharpen your tactics.  

 

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

 

  1 - 0  

I posted this analysis less than 2 weeks after playing this game. I almost had the page "formatted" within just a few days of posting it, but it continued to "blow-up," (become corrupted or unstable); and I kept having to delete it. I got so sick of this happening over and over and over again, that I basically decided that I would NOT format this page. (Format = the process of making the page look neat, so that a person can follow both the moves and the variations without too much trouble.) If you want to know what an UN-formatted page looks like, just imagine plain text ... all run together. (It is almost impossible to read or follow a game that looks like this!) 

After taking several months OFF from this game, I decided to tackle this project again. 

I worked on the formatting several different times last week, usually for about 10-30 minutes at a time. I worked at it for nearly an hour yesterday, and it took about six hours of effort to complete the formatting job this morning. I hope you enjoy all the hard work!  Contact me  to tell me what you think of this page. 
Sunday morning; May 23, 2004. 

  Click  HERE  to see another interesting game in the  Pirc Defense.  

 (Page first posted in February, 2004.   Last edit or update on:  04/14/2014 .) 

Click  HERE  to return to my home page.

Back UP (One level) Next

 Copyright (c) LM A.J. Goldsby I

 Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 1985 - 2013.  

  Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2014.  All rights reserved. 

'Counter'