GOTM; (Game # 15)  December, 2004.     

    GM Garry Kasparov (2813) - GM Alexey Dreev (2698)     
 [D43] 
  (57th National)  Super-Master Championships, {final}   
  Moscow, RUS;  (Round # 06)  /  21,11,2004.  

  [A.J. Goldsby I]  

  A.J.'s  "Game of The Month"  for  December, 2004.   (From  TWIC  # 524.)  
[My website for this feature is {now} located  at:  http://www.geocities.com/TheGOTMman/index.html.] 

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

When Kasparov played in the recent "Super-Russian Finals" ... he started well enough, winning in the very first round. But then the World's highest rated player seemed to stall. Even worse - he appeared to be off form, missing possible wins in at least one game ... maybe even two.  

In round five, Dreev and Bareev, (a nice-sounding pair!);  both won, leaving A. Dreev and A. Grischuk as the tournament leaders, with 3.5 points out of a possible five.  

But then Kasparov simply exploded, winning four games in a row!! This, coupled with a key stumble by young GM Alexander Grischuk, (already a hardened competitor, and only 21!!!); left Kasparov clearly in command of this Super-GM event. Indeed, Garry had this event sewed up with at least two rounds to spare.  

This game was the start of Garry's winning streak, and also was a very decisive defeat of a chief rival.  

Garry does not back away from the sharpest continuation ... for a long time, I was not sure who stood better. (I was one of many who observed this contest as it was being played, thanks to the miracle of the world-wide-web.) A whole series of EXTREMELY complex tactical blows then ensued. In the end, after the smoke cleared, only Garry had any winning chances. Then, nearly perfect technique brought home the full point.  

[ A  CB  final story. ]    [ A look back, {at this tournament};  part four. ]    [ The TWIC final  report. ]   

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

The ratings are those of  FIDE  ...  and are completely accurate.  

The game starts off as the Slav Defense, a solid way of declining White's offer of a Queen's Gambit.  

 1.d4 d5;  2.c4 c6;  3.Nf3 Nf6;  4.Nc3 e6;  5.Bg5 h6;  ('!?')   {Diagram?}   
According to the book on this opening system,  "The Botvinnik Semi-Slav,"  by  IM Steffen Pedersen;    
this is called the  < Moscow Variation. >   [Published by Gambit Books, Copyright (c) 2000. ]   
ISBN: # 1-901983-26-9  

Black declines White's offer of a Pawn and kicks back the White Bishop. According to theory,   
Black should get a fairly good game with this line. (This is also usually an attempt by the second   
party to avoid the inhuman complications of the gambit lines - - - current theory seems to favor   
White after Black plays 5...d5xc4!?; in this position.)  

Almost needless to say, Black could still play something like 5...Nbd7; with a good game, (but this   
is not why most players choose an opening like the Slav Defence).  

     [ Black can also play the following razor-sharp system:   
        5...dxc4!?;  6.e4 b5;  7.e5 h6;  8.Bh4 g5;  9.Nxg5! hxg5;  10.Bxg5, "+/="  {D?}   
        when White still enjoys a small edge, at least according to modern theory here.  

        << The Botvinnik Gambit? >>     [A  game  where this opening is analyzed in some detail.]   
        (Also called "The Anti-Meran Gambit," by some opening books.)   

        [ See any good opening book for more information on this line.]   

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

       Black can also play:   5...Nbd7;  {Diagram?}    
       transposing back to a more normal opening ... i.e., the Queen's Gambit Declined. ]   

 6.Bh4!?,  (hmmm)    {See the diagram ... just below here.}      
OK ... I have to be honest with you ... I have no idea what is going on now.   
{I also watched many of these games on the Internet ... I have a hunch that I was not the only one who felt 
 lost in the complexities of this opening.}  

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

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

I probably know as much about the opening as any NM, but I could not remember having studied 
ANY game {of any real significance} where the first party used the move, 6.Bh4!?  
So what is the deal here?  
( I seemed to remember reading in a chess book somewhere, that the move Bh4, was just plain bad! 
  In fact two books give this move a whole question mark! {See early versions of MCO and also the   
  1960's book by the author, I.A. Horowitz.} )   

OK, so we grab a chess book ... 
(hopefully, a much newer chess book than the one that said Bh4 was no good!),   
and see if we cannot enlighten ourselves about this variation.  

Apparently ... this line is known as, (hold your breath):  "The Anti-Moscow Variation."   
{A terribly inventive name, wouldn't you say?}  

Here is a very illuminating quote: 
<< What was not long ago considered a rather dubious gambit is now regarded as perhaps    
      the most dangerous weapon against the Moscow Variation. >>    
(The author goes on to note that this system is finding favor with many of the world's best GM's.)   
 - IM Steffen Pedersen.  His book: "The Botvinnik Semi-Slav,"  Chapter # 14 and page # 157.  

     [ The main line seems to be:  
        6.Bxf6!? Qxf6;  7.e3 Nd7;  8.Bd3 dxc4;  9.Bxc4 g6!?;  {Diagram?}     
        This is the main line here for Black ... believe it or not.   

              ( Maybe better is:    
                (>/=)  9...e5!?;  10.0-0 exd4!?;  11.exd4 Nb6!?;  "~"  ("=" ?)  {Diag?}      
                when Black seems to have a fair amount of play in this particular position. )      

        10.0-0 Bg7;  {Diagram?}    
         This is normal and natural.   

              ( Or Black can try:   
                10...Qe7!?;  11.Ne4 Bg7;  12.Qc2, "+/="  {Diagram?}      
                when White has a solid advantage in space in this position. )    

        11.b4! 0-0;  12.Rc1!?,  {Diagram?}    
        A simple move ... and quite good.   
        (Yet I am not sure exactly what the best plan is, here for White.)    

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

              ( IM Steffen Pedersen (instead) gives the following continuation      
                for Black at this point:      

                12.a4!? Qe7;  13.Rb1!? b6!?;  14.Qe2!? a5!;  "<=>"  {Diag?}     
                 when it appears that Black has more than enough play to hold      
                 the balance here. ("=" or "=/+")      

                 G. Kastenleda - A. Galkin;  ICT / The Petrov Memorial, (30)      
                 St. Petersburg, Russia; 1998.  {This game was drawn.} )      

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

        Back to the main line here.   
        12...Qe7;  {Diagram?}   
        The end of the column here.  
        (I much prefer ...e5; here for Black in this position.)    

        13.Qb3!? Nb6;  14.Bd3!? Rd8;  15.Ne4 Nd5;  16.a3 Bd7!?;     
        17.Nc5, "+/="  17...Be8;  "<=>"  {Diagram?}    
        MCO assesses the final position as equal, Fritz - after over 20 minutes of machine 
        time - gives a solid edge to White. (Perhaps the author was influenced by the result    
        of this fantastic game?)   

        GM Pedrag Nikolic - GM Viswanathan Anand;   
        FIDE World Championship Tournament / (A knock-out event, Round # 2.1);   
        / Groningen, NED; 1997.   {Black won a very brilliant  game  in only 36 total moves.}    

        [ See MCO-14, page # 471;  column # 37, and also note # (e.). ]  ]  

What follows now is - I think - all a 'book' line.   
 6...dxc4;  ('!?')    
This is not forced ... Black can still decline White's proffered gambit.   

     [ Black could (also) play:  
        6...Nbd7!?;  7.e3 Be7;  8.Qc2 0-0;  9.Rd1,  "+/="   {Diag?}   
        White has a small but solid edge.  (But Black's position is still solid.)   

        Cf. the following game:  
        GM Peter H. Nielsen (2626) - GM Lazaro Bruzon_Bautitsta (2590);    
        ICT / 17th North Sea Cup / Esbjerg, Denmark; 2002.  (40 moves.)   
        (Black won a very nice game, 0-1, in forty moves.) ]   

Both sides follow a well-known path, playing moves that have been played many times before.   
 7.e4 g5;  8.Bg3 b5;  9.Be2!,   {Diagram?}    
Easily the best move here, about half a dozen different sources award this move an exclam as well.   
(I think that the main idea of this move is simply fast development with the maximum amount of  
 choices for the first player, here.)   

     [ White could also play: 
        (</=)  9.Qc2!? g4!?;  10.Ne5 Qxd4;  11.Rd1 Qb6;  12.Be2 Nbd7!?;   
        13.0-0!? Be7!?;  14.Nxg4 Nxg4;  15.Bxg4 Bb7;  16.e5! Nc5!?;     
        17.Bh5! Rd8;  18.Qe2! Nd3;  19.Qf3 0-0!;  20.Ne4 Qd4!;  21.Rfe1!! Kh8?;   
        22.Nd6!! Nxe1;  23.Rxe1 Rxd6?;  24.exd6 Bf6;  25.h4!?,  {Diagram?}   
        OK ... but not the most accurate.  

             ( Much better was:  >/=  25.d7!, '±'  {Diag?}     
                with a clear edge to White. )    

       25...Qxb2!;  26.Bxf7!! Rxf7[];  27.Be5! Qc2?;  (Probably - '??')  {Diagram?}   
       This is a really bad mistake ... taking on e5 with the Bishop was completely forced here.   

       28.d7! Kg8;  29.Qxf6!? Rxd7;  30.Re3,  Black Resigns,  1-0.   
       (Most annotators - to include G.K. - award White's 29th move an exclam.    
         However 29.Qg4+! was better by 10-15 points ... according to Fritz 8.0.)      

       This was the contest:   GM Boris Spassky - GM Ludek Pachman;  
       ICT / Masters (Invitational?) / Moscow, U.S.S.R; 1967.    [replay]   

       GK spends many pages analyzing this game in his new book:   
       "Garry Kasparov on ... MY GREAT PREDECESSORS, Part III."  [ Copyright (c) 2004.]    
       By GM G. Kasparov and D. Plisetsky.  (English translation by Ken Neat.)    
       By: Gloucester Publishers, Plc. ('Everyman Chess.')  London/UK & NY/USA.   
       ISBN: # 1-85744-371-3  Game # 54, Page # 213.   
       (This contest is also analyzed in Andy Soltis's book on Spassky.)   

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

            ( More accurate was:  >/=  30.Qxe6+!,  {Diagram?}   
               which might even lead to mate. (If ...Rf7; then simply Bd4! wins.) )  ]    

 9...Bb7;    {See the diagram ... just below.}     
After an extensive review of all the games in the database with this line, I have determined that this 
was first seen in master-level chess in the contest of:  
GM Boris Spassky - J. Kostro; / (FIDE) {men's} Olympiad (tt) / Siegen, Germany; 1970.    

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

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

This is - at least, as far as I can tell - the main line for Black here. However, two different (relatively newer) books clearly indicate that the move ...Nbd7; is coming on strong here. They also mention that one of the principle GM's who have pioneered this move ... is none other than Alexey Dreev!! So this naturally begs the question: Why did Dreev avoid a key line?  

     [ Another important line is:   9...Nbd7!?;  10.d5! cxd5;  11.exd5 Nb6;   
       12.dxe6 Bxe6;  13.Nd4!,  {Diagram?}   
       This seems to be better than immediately grabbing the Pawn.  

             ( Also good for White is:    
               13.Nxb5!? Bb4+;  14.Kf1! 0-0;  15.Nc7, "+/="  {Diagram?}   
                when Black has limited  "comp"  for the pawn in this position. )  

       13...Bb4!?;  {Diagram?}   
        It seems that Black must let the Pawn on b5 go here.  

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

             ( Probably even worse would be:   
               </=13...a6?!; ('?')  14.Bf3 Rc8;  15.Bb7 Bg4!?;   
               16.f3, '±'  {Diagram?}   and White is clearly better.   

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

               {also} Not to be recommended was the continuation:     
               </=  13...b4!?; ('?!')  14.Ncb5 Rc8;  15.Nxa7 Rc5;   
               16.Nac6 Qd7;  17.Nxe6 Rxc6;  18.Nxf8 Kxf8;   
               19.Qc2, "+/="  (Maybe - '±')  {Diagram?}    
                when White is definitely on top. )   

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

       (Returning to the main line of our analysis at this point.)   
        14.0-0 0-0;  15.Ncxb5! Bd5;  16.Nf5!,   {Diagram?}  
        This seems (maybe) to be an improvement over previous master practice.  

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

             ( IM Steffen Pederssen gives instead:  16.a4!?, "+/="  {Diag?}      
                with a solid edge for White.   

                See Chapter Fourteen (#14), and page # 180 of his book       
                on the <Botvinnik> Semi-Slav.     

                See also the game:  GM A. Beliavsky - GM E. Bacrot;    
                The European Cup Champ. (final) / Bugojno, Bosnia/Herz; 1999.   
                {White won, 1-0, in 58 total moves.} )  

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

        16...Qd7!?;  17.Nbd4, "+/="  {Diagram?}   
        White is clearly better here.  [analysis line]  (Maybe just - '±')  ]  

Now White has tried several different moves, like e5 and 0-0, at the GM level  ...   
all with varying degrees of success.  
 10.h4!?,  (Probably - '!')    
White tries to increase the pressure on both fronts ... Fritz greatly prefers Black at this point. 
(But the box is not to be trusted completely in positions like this, that involve gambits.)  

I was not - initially - all that impressed with the move h4 here ... but I have already confessed    
my nearly complete ignorance of modern opening theory as concerns this particular system.  

I began looking this up in theoretical books, articles in various chess magazines, (NIC was especially   
helpful here); in the Informant, and also several books on the Semi-Slav. To my surprise, they nearly    
all were united in awarding this move an exclam in this position!  

     [ The alternative would be:  10.Ne5!? Bg7;  11.h4 Nfd7;  12.Ng4!, "+/="  {Diag?}   
        is supposedly good for White.   

        GM Veselin Topalov - GM Jan Timman;    
        ICT / Hoogoven's Masters / Wijk aan Zee, NED;  1998.   
        {This was a theoretically significant game, from what I can gather.  
          It was drawn after 42 wild moves.}   

        [ See MCO-14, page # 471; col. # 37, and mainly note # (b.). ];  

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

       White could also play:  
        (</=)  10.e5!? Nd5;  11.h4 Qa5;  12.Rc1 g4;  13.Nd2 Nxc3!?;  {Diag?}    
        I am not sure about this move.    

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

             ( Maybe more active would have been for Black to try:      
                >/=  13...c5!;  ("=/+")  {Diagram?}  with good play for Black.    

               GM Garik Kasparov - GM Mikhail Tal;      
               ICT / (FIDE) Interzonal (Rnd. # 05) / Moscow, U.S.S.R; 1982. (1/2, 24 m.)     
               {This  game  was drawn in only 24 total moves, here.} )      

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

       (Returning to the main line here.)   
        14.bxc3 h5;  15.Ne4!? Nd7;  16.0-0, "~"  (analysis?)  {Diagram?}    
        Fritz likes Black, but the book states that White has excellent play from this position.     

        [ See the excellent book:  
          "The COMPLETE Semi-Slav,"  by  IM Peter Wells. [Copyright (c) 1994.]   
           Published by Henry Holt Books. {Owl}  (New York, NY / USA.)    
           ISBN: # 0-8050-3288-6 (paper)  Chapter Eight (#8), page # 83. ]  ]   

 10...g4;  11.Ne5 h5;  12.f3!,  "/\"   {See the diagram ... just below.}   
Mentioned only as a note on page # 174 of the book by IM Steffen Pedersen,    
 this appears to be the sharpest test of Black's resources.  

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

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

This move was first used in the contest:  Gormally - McDonald;  Third Hampstead GM / UK / 1998.  
I predict that this move will completely supplant 12.0-0, as the main line in this variation.  

     [ Instead ... the Pedersen book gives the following continuation:   
       (</=)  12.0-0 Nbd7;  13.Qc2 Nxe5!?;  14.Bxe5 Rg8;  15.Rad1!?, "~"  {D?}   
       White has good play for the Pawn, but not a whole lot more.   
       {The game was quickly drawn.}   

       IM M. Notkin - GM A. Galkin; / Russian Club Cup Championship  
       Maikop, RUS; 1998.   (1/2, 22 moves.)   

       [ See the book: "The Botvinnik Semi-Slav,"  (© 2000);  
          by IM Steffen Pedersen.  Chapter # 14, Line C, page # 173. ]    

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

       I also found several interesting games in the INFORMANT in the  12.0-0,  line.   

       For example, see the contest:  T. Radic - Kustrak; Correspondence, 2002.   
       Informant # 87, 2003. Game # 379,  page # 234. (1-0, in 36 sharp moves.) ]    

 12...Nbd7;  13.fxg4 hxg4;  14.0-0,   
It looks dangerous to castle K-side in this position, but Kasparov seems completely unconcerned.  

     [ Or  14.Nxd7!? Qxd7;  15.Be5, "~"   with an interesting position. ]   

 14...Nxe5;  15.Bxe5 Nd7!?;  (TN)     {See the diagram ... just below.}     
Dreev is the first to break with established master practice ... 
perhaps he feared some innovation by his much feared and also greatly respected opponent?  

  ('!!' - GM Garry Kasparov)  

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

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

Certainly this appears to be a fairly reasonable move, Black logically wishes to rid himself of the powerful Bishop on the e5-square. (Fritz thinks for 30 minutes and renders a verdict of nearly equal.)  

However ... this move is a prelude to a sacrifice and a period of extreme complexity ...  
and it seems that White (in the end) will come out on top.  

     [ Previously Black had played:   
       (</=)   15...Be7!?; ('?!')  16.Qd2! Rxh4?;  {Diagram?}   
       (...b5-b4; is the indicated move for Black in this position.)   

       17.Qf4! Nh7!?;  18.Qxf7+ Kd7;  19.Bg3,  '±'   (Maybe "+/-")  {Diag?}   
       and White won a very lopsided, - and quick - victory.   

       NM Alexey Nechaev (2256) - GM Andrei Maksimenko (2524);   
       National Team Championships / (Russian/Ukrainian Olympiad) /    
       Alushta, UKR; 12,05,1999. / {White won, 1-0, in 32 moves.} ]    

Naturally, White grabs the Rook.  
(Besides, as GM Larry Evans once said, the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it!)  
 16.Bxh8 Qxh4;  17.Bxg4!,   
Very nice, White wins a key Pawn, returns a piece - - - and most importantly, safeguards his King.   
(Black's threat of ...g4-g3; should be taken very seriously here.)  

Kasparov's move choice seems to leave him with the slightly better game.   

     [ Of course  NOT: 
        </=  17.Be5?? Nxe5;  18.dxe5?? Bc5+;  {Dg?}   
        and its mate in 3 moves. ("-/+") ]   

 17...Qxh8;  18.e5!?,    
Kasparov chooses to try and block out the Black Queen ...   
I suspect somehow this was all prepared in advance.  
(Is this all a taste of computer-enhanced opening theory?)   

     [ Garry could have also played:   
       18.Rf3!? b4!?;  19.Ne2 Qh7;  20.Qc2, "~"  (Maybe "+/=")  {D?}   
       and I would prefer to be White in this position. ]  

 18...Nxe5!?;  ('!')  ('?' - GM G. Kasparov,  '?' - GM -Igor Stohl)    
   {See the diagram ... just below.}      
Black sacrifices to try and return the game to a semblance of material equality ... it did not matter,    
as the die was cast by GM Dreev's fifteenth move in this game.   

Editor's note: Several persons have written me telling me that Kasparov stated in the press {somewhere} that the best idea was for to Black to castle Queen-side at this point. However, I have not seen this article and know of no analysis of this very key idea. (Any input or more information here would be greatly welcome!)     

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

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

This is a good place for a diagram, which side would you rather play in this position?  

     [ After a continuation like:  </=  18...0-0-0!?;  19.Qe1!,  "+/="  {D?}  
        White has the much more preferable position, here. 
         (Kasparov gives 19.Qe2.)

       Note:  In his book, GM Igor Stohl gives a very long analysis of these 
       particular possibilities, (after Qe2). ]   

The next few moves need no comment.   
 19.dxe5 Bc5+;  20.Rf2[] Qxe5;  21.Qe2 Qxe2!?;    
Maybe exchanging Queens was not the best idea here for Black.   
But then again, White seems to come out on top no matter which continuation Black chooses.  

     [  After moves like:  (>/=)  21...Qf4!?;  22.Bf3!? 0-0-0;  23.Rd1 Rh8;  24.Qd2 Qh2+; "~"  {D?}   
        Black seems to have enough counterplay to retain the balance. {An unclear position, or is White   
        slightly better here?} ("+/=")  ]  

The next few moves appear close to being best or forced ... for both parties, here.   
 22.Bxe2 Rd8;  23.Kf1 Bxf2;  24.Kxf2 Ke7;  25.Ke3 a6!?;   
 26.Rd1!?,  "+/="   (hmmm)   {See the diagram ... just below here.}     
Just casually going over this game on my analysis, wooden-peg-set, I thought that Ne4 was superior to Rd1.  
(I was surprised to see that Fritz agreed with me on this point!)  

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

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

Garry's move also leaves White with a very clear advantage. From here, it may only be a matter of technique ... 
and I hear Kasparov has a little of that as well.  

     [ Or   </= 26.a3!? c5;  27.g4, "+/="  {Diagram?}    
        with an slight edge to White. (A lot of players   
        suggested this line on the Internet - as the game   
        was being played.) ]  

Now Black seemingly has no choice in this position - if 26...Rh8?!; then simply Ne4! leaves White in charge.  
 26...Rxd1!?;  27.Bxd1 f5!?;  28.g4! fxg4;  29.Bxg4 Kd6!?;    
By now, I don't imagine Black was terribly happy with his game.  
(GM A. Dreev may have thought he could draw this position.)  

     [ Also good for White is:   
        29...c5!?;  30.Ne4 Bxe4;  31.Kxe4 Kd6;  32.Bh5,  '±'  {Diag?}   
        with the better game. ]   

 30.Ne4+ Kd5;  31.Bf3!?,  ('!')    {See the diagram ... just below.}     
This could be best ... I do not really feel qualified to say for an absolute certainty.  

  ('!' - GM Garry Kasparov.)  

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

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

Initially I thought this move was simply an error, but after days of analysis I am not so sure.  

     [  Did Garry miss:  (>/=)  31.Bxe6+ Kxe6;  32.Nc5+ Kd5;  33.Nxb7 c5!?;  ("+/-")  {Diag?}    
        or did he feel that it allowed Black too much play? (White's Knight is almost trapped, if Black   
        can swap all the Pawns, which is very possible, then its a draw.)  ]   

Garry will soon repeat moves ... when he does this, I can almost guarantee that it meant that   
Kasparov was in time trouble.  

Black also uses up a lot of his useful Pawn moves during the ensuing phase of the game.   

 31...Bc8;  32.Bh5 a5;  33.Bf3 e5;  34.Ng5+ Kc5;  35.Ne4+ Kd5;  36.a3!?,    
Kasparov brands this an inferior, ('?!') and instead recommends that White play 36.Ng5 at this point. 

     [ (>/=)  36.Bg2!? "+/"  - Fritz 8.0 ]  

 36...a6;  37.Bh5!? Bc8;  38.Bf3 Ba6;  39.Ng5+ Kc5;  40.Be2 Bc8?!;  
Was this an error ... caused by time pressure?   
(Playing the King to the d6 or d5-square certainly looked to be a sturdier defense.)   

 41.Nf7!?,  (hmmm)   
This does not blow the win, so I will not be too critical here.  
---> I will simply note that Fritz greatly prefers the move of Ke4.  

     [ The continuation of:  (>/=)  41.Ke4! Kd6!?;  42.Nf7+,  ("+/-")  {Diag?}   
        was also very good for White. ]   

 41...b4!?;  (urgh)    {See the diagram ... just below.}     
Dreev decides that his e-Pawn can no longer be held ...   
Black was very close to a state of Zugzwang in this position.   

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

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

Dreev seems to be hanging on ... (barely!) ... in this position.  

     [ After the moves:   (</=)  41...Kd5!?;  ('?!')  42.Bf3+ Ke6;  
        43.Nd8+,  ("+/-")  {Diagram?}  White's advantage is decisive. ]   

Over the next series of moves, Garry maneuvers deftly and just manages to increase his advantage.  
(This endgame is not at all simple, imprecise play by White will lead to an ending where all the Pawns   
 are exchanged, and White is left with a useless extra Knight.)  

 42.Nxe5 Be6[];  43.a4! c3!?;    
This is an error ('?') according to Garry, although neither human nor machine could clearly follow 
Garry's analysis here. (Very complex!)  

     [ >/=  43...Bd5!;  "~"  - GM Garry Kasparov. ]  

 44.Nd3+! Kb6;  45.bxc3 Bb3;  46.c4! Bxa4; 47.Kd4 Bc2;   
 48.c5+ Kc7;   {See the diagram ... just below here.}     
Black is forced back ... 
a sure sign that the second party has started that long slide down the slope to a certain defeat.     

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

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

I remember at one point ... that all of the spectators - and even a few of the so-called experts ...  
were predicting a draw. However, Kasparov continues to make very clear progress in this game.  

     [ Of course not:  </=  48...Kb5???;  49.Nb2+,  {Diagram?}     
        and mate next move! ("+/-") ]   

Black continues to thrash about ... until White forces the exchange of Black's last piece.  
 49.Bf3 Bb3;  50.Be4 Ba4;  51.Kc4 Bc2;  52.Bf3 Ba4;  53.Ne5! Kb7;  54.Be4 Kc7;   
 55.Nf3 Bd1;  56.Nd4! Ba4;  57.Bc2! Bxc2;  58.Nxc2 Kd8;  59.Nd4,  ("+/-")  {Dg?}    
   Black - RESIGNS.   

     [ After the further moves:   
       59.Nd4 Kc7;  60.Kb3! Kb7;  61.Ka4 Ka6;  62.Nb3! Kb7;     
       63.Kxa5 Kc7;  64.Kxb4!?,  {Diagram?}    
       I prefer this as the simplest and surest method for White.   

            ( White could have played:  64.Ka6 Kc8;  65.Kb6 Kd7;     
               66.Kb7,  ("+/-")  {Diagram?}  with a fairly simple win. )      

       64...Kb8;  65.Ka5 Ka7;  66.Nd4 Kb7;  67.Ne6 Kc8;  {D?}     
       It does not matter here.   

            ( Or if 67...Ka7;  then  68.Nd8, "+/-"  and White wins the c-Pawn. )     

       68.Kb6 Kd7;  69.Nd4,  ("+/-")   {Diagram?}    
       Black loses his last Pawn ... and it is a very easy win from here. 
       (Dreev did not care to see this, a line like this is child's play for a near-2700 player.) ]    

An interesting game - and very powerful chess by Garry Kasparov.  

This is also a game that could have great theoretical importance to the theory of this whole opening.  

NOTE:  GM Igor Stohl does a very fine and extensive analysis of this grand contest in his book:   
<< "Garry Kasparov's Greatest Chess Games," (Volume 2). >>  [Game # 127, page # 324.]   
This excellent book is well worth having, every game of Garry's is DEEPLY annotated! 

Copyright (c) to the author, published by Gambit Publications, Ltd. in 2006. 
 ISBN: # 1-904600-43-3.   

Thursday, June 09th, 2005:  I updated this game ... using Garry's own analysis. 

See INFORMANT # 92,  Game # 421, beginning on page # 274.