Wc

a) 10...£ke4? 11 f5 exf5 (ll...d5 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 <Ske6! I.xe6 14 Wh5+ H— Delanoy-Touzane, Montpellier

1997) 12 £>xf5 ±xf5 13 Sxf5 £if6 14 J.xf7+! is much better for White, Lar-sen-Olsen, corr. 1983.

12 fxe5 £>e4 13 -&e3 ®c7 14 #g4 ®xe5 15 &f3 ± Giles-Gratz, USA 1982) 12 J.e3 Wc7 (12...£b7?! 13 ®g4 + Ilic), and now 13 ®h5 £id7 14 fiael g6 15 ®h6 (Mirumian-Dao, Erevan OL 1996) 15...dxe5! 16 fxe5 i.b7 is unclear, but 13 %4! &h8 (Gallagher-V.Atlas, Wohlen 1993) 14 Sadl! (V.Atlas) favours White.

The position occurring after the text-move (10...®c7) requires serious testing:

a) 11 <£>hl, 11 We2 and 11 c3 have not been investigated at all.

b) 11 ¿e3 0-0!?(ll...®xe4? 12 f5 wins for White; ll...<£)bd7 12 c3 bxc3

13 £lxc3 ¿hc5 14 ±c2 0-0 15 e5! with an advantage, de Firmian-Van Wely, Buenos Aires 1995), and now 12 f5 leads to a good position for Black (7 0-0 k.e7 8 $Lb3 0-0 9 f4 b5 10 &e3 Wc7 11 f5 b4! 12 tha4).

c) The main line runs 11 e5 dxe5 (ll...£ifd7? 12lxe6!; Il...^e4?! 12 f5!) 12 fxe5 Wxe5, when 13^b6 ±c5 looks quite satisfactory for Black and 13 £.f4 WeA 14 Wd2 0-0! ? (or 14..

15 c3 Ovseevich) is very unclear.

E23)

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment