|
Apparently having seen me "talk the the talk" my opponent issued the challenge under the title "Can you walk the walk?" As it is very hard to refuse a challenge couched in such terms, I naturally accepted. Losing a pawn for very nebulous chances early on, I seemed to be heading for a fall, but then seemed to stumble into some very promising counterplay. Could I have saved the game? Let's see... |
|
1. Nf3 Nf6
|
My usual response to White's opening, playing just as non-committally. |

|
|
|
2. c4 g6
|
... and my next 3 moves are also my standard approach to this kind of thing. |

|
|
|
3. d4 Bg7 4. g3 O-O 5. Bg2 d6
|
Staying with a standard King's Indian Defence, where White has fianchettoed on the K-side. 5...d5, the Neo-Gruenfeld, is also playable, but not my thing, really. |

|
|
|
6. Nc3 c6
|
Also playable is the standard 6...Nbd7. I quite like to leave a hole for my Q at c7 from time to time. |
1 comment
|
|
|
7. O-O Bg4
|
A major departure for me. I've never played it before; I'm not sure I will again. 7...Nbd7 or maybe 7...Qc7 were preferable. |
2 comments
|
|
|
8. h3
|
Putting the question. But there is really just one answer... |

|
|
|
8... Bxf3
|
As the Russians say: "If you say 'A', you must then say 'B'". This exchange is the sole purpose of the bishop sortie, and the hope that White is weakened in the central dark squares and/or on the K-side. Is that how it works out? Well ... partially. |
6 comments
|
|
|
9. Bxf3 e5
|
Maybe this ought to have waited until after 9...Nbd7. |
3 comments
|
|
|
10. d5
|
A major strategic decision, to close off the centre. Also playable was 10.dxe5. |
5 comments
|
|
|
10... c5
|
Played almost by reflex. But I don't much like the look of 10...cxd5 11.Nxd5 Nxd5 12.Qxd5 Nc6 13.Rd1 ... |
1 comment
|
|
|
11. Bg2 Nbd7 12. Bg5
|
I was half-expecting (hoping for?) 12.e4, here, closing the centre completely. The pin doesn't seem so very frightening ... |
2 comments
|
|
|
12... h6 13. Bd2
|
... and this retreat was the sole purpose of White's bishop sortie, having induced a weakness in Black's K-side. This proves to have more of an impact in the unfolding drama, though much of it "behind the scenes". |

|
|
|
13... e4
|
(?!) One of those decisions that "seems like a good idea at the time". Since White has omitted e2-e4 himself, why not? But as it transpires, Black never seems quite able to bring in sufficient support for the advanced pawn, nor to establish compensating advantages against its loss. All the same, a considerable battle rages around this pawn for the next several moves. |
3 comments
|
|
|
14. Qc1
|
First strike against h6. A refined move, since the cruder 14.Nxe4 was also playable: 14.Nxe4 Nxe4 15.Bxe4 Bxb2 16.Bxh6 Bg7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Bg2 (say) and a fine game for White. |
2 comments
|
|
|
14... Kh7
|
One of the slightly annoying things about this move is that it takes from the f6-knight a useful square by which to redeploy. Not that he gets much chance to do so in the sequel... |
2 comments
|
|
|
15. Qc2
|
Now White has 3 attacking e4 and Black has one defending. Active play against other targets keeps the e4-pawn alive for the moment. The fact is, though, the pawn already survives solely on sufferance, since 15.Nxe4 was still playable. |

|
|
|
15... Qb6
|
Partly in defence of the e-pawn by putting pressure on b2; partly to bring the a-rook into the e-file. |

|
|
|
16. Rab1
|
Also Nxe4 or even a2-a4. |

|
|
|
16... Rae8 17. e3
|
Immobilising the victim. There's something of the fly in the spider's web about that wretched e-pawn. |

|
|
|
17... Qd8
|
Freeing the Q-side pawns to advance. Maybe White will let the e-pawn live one move longer...? |

|
|
|