Estrin-Berliner

Estrin-Berliner (1965-1968)

position after proposed continuation 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qf2

Here I present analysis of a newly discovered variation in the famous Estrin-Berliner postal game. Is the analysis sound? Does it refute the Berliner variation? Why has it taken 40 years for this variation to be discovered?

12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qf2!

"Thinking of a new move for White or Black is one thing, proving it to be correct or otherwise is quite another."

Tim Harding

The greatest game ever played

Dennis Monokroussos [trainer at playchess.com] writes: "Well, maybe. It’s pretty tough to make such a grandiose claim, but Estrin-Berliner from the 5th Correspondence World Championship has as good a claim as any to that lofty title. Hans Berliner, on his way to the title, produces a fearsome novelty against future correspondence champion Yakov Estrin in the latter’s specialty, the Two Knights Defense. Berliner’s opening idea was so deep that it is still debated to this day, and needless to say, Estrin could not even begin to solve everything, even under the relatively leisurely time controls afforded by correspondence chess. Instead, he tried to bail out to a drawn ending via a long forcing sequence. Here too, Berliner was a step ahead of him, capping off the crown jewel of his correspondence career with a beautifully played – and instructive – rook ending.

This is a game not to be missed: it possesses opening theory you can use, beautiful endgame technique, and complications to suit even the most discriminating tactical connoisseur. Check it out, bring your friends (except those who play the Italian game against you), and prepare yourself for a feast!"

The Estrin-Berliner postal game of 1965-1968 is one of my favorites.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 (diagram)

Estrin-Berliner (1965-1968)

position after 11...Bd6

12.Bxb5+ Kd8 13.O-O exf3 14.Rxf3 Rb8 15.Be2 Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Qxd4+ 17.Kh1 Bxg3 18.hxg3 Rb6 19.d3 Ne3 20.Bxe3 Qxe3 21.Bg4 h5 22.Bh3 g5 23.Nd2 g4 24.Nc4 Qxg3 25.Nxb6 gxh3 26.Qf3 hxg2+ 27.Qxg2 Qxg2+ 28.Kxg2 cxb6 29.Rf1 Ke7 30.Re1+ Kd6 31.Rf1 Rc8 32.Rxf7 Rc7 33.Rf2 Ke5 34.a4 Kd4 35.a5 Kxd3 36.Rf3+ Kc2 37.b4 b5 38.a6 Rc4 39.Rf7 Rxb4 40.Rb7 Rg4+ 41.Kf3 b4 42.Rxa7 b3 0-1

Here is what Hans Berliner has to say about this game in The System, p.61:

"When I played 10...e4! in the original game of this variation in Estrin-Berliner, 5th World Correspondence Ch 1965-8, I judged the possibilities very good for Black. Detailed analysis of the plethora of variations revealed that Black was indeed never worse than even (1). [The full analysis of this variation can be found in the author's From The Deathbed of 4.Ng5 in the Two Knight's Defence] Thus, Black has full compensation for his material inferiority due to White's lack of development and his less secure king position."

I came across the following recent game which was posted on the Estrin-Berliner game page at chessgames.com:

White: R.Seldon
Black: C.Bean

e-mail correspondence game

(commentary as posted on chessgames forum)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4!? 9.Nd3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2!?(Walter Muir`s move introduced in 1997) Be6! 13.fxe4 Nb4 14.Na3 0-0-0 15.e5 Qxd4! 16.exd6 Bg4 17.d7+ Qxd7 18.Qe3 Rhe8 19.Ne4 Qd5 20.d3 f5 21.h3 fxe4 22.d4! [JLJ 22.Kf2 exd3 23.Qxa7 d2 24.Bxd2 Qxd2+ 25.Kg1 Bf3 26.Nxb5 Bb7 27.Qc5 might be the last chance to hold for a draw] Nd3+ 23.Kd2 c5!! 24.hxg4 cxd4 25.Qg3 e3+ 26.Kxd3 [JLJ 26.Kc2 might hold out a little longer] e2 27.Bf4 Re3+ 28.Kd2 exf1N+ 29.Raxf1 Rxg3 30.Bxg3 Qxg2+ 31.Kc1 white resigns 0-1

I was particularly interested in White's 12th move Qe2. A quick search of the internet revealed no analysis of this line. Tim Harding's analysis of this game http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz60.pdf mentions 12.Qe2 but points the readers to Berliner's analysis in "The System" (actually, detailed analysis of 12.Qe2 can only be found in Berliner's "From the Deathbed of 4.Ng5 in the Two Knight's Defence").

Berliner's claim (mentioned above) is that Black has at least a draw, and at best a strong attack, if white plays 12.Qe2.

So out of curiosity I decided to see if White could improve. It looked like Black could get a good attack after 12.Qe2 Be6 13.fxe4 as in Seldon-Bean. Mr. Bean claims to have used Berliner's book as a reference in the e-mail correspondence game cited.

First I looked at 12.Qe2 0-0 13.fxg4 Bxf3+ 14.Kd1 which appeared to favor White.

Berliner has this to say about the line 12.Qe2 O-O 13.fxg4 Bxg3 14.Kd1 in "The System", p. 65:

"The most important point is that what appears to be an exchange of pieces with 12...O-O (the g4-bishop for the g3-knight) is in fact the committing of suicide. All of Black's advantages disappear for the sake of getting a king that is not really in danger into safety."

Berliner claims that best after 14.Kd1 is 14...Nf6 15.Nc3 "and White wins comfortably" (From the Deathbed of 4.Ng5, p. 16).

Switching back to 12.Qe2 Be6 (likely Black's best move) 13.fxe4, it seemed to me that White needed to get another piece into the game. I began looking at other white 13th moves.

Next I looked at 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Nc3 which generated a complicated set of positions which looked like it might favor White.

I compiled a huge analysis of the 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Nc3 line which I posted on the Estrin-Berliner game page at chessgames.com.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1224863&kpage=4

I then decided to wrap up my analysis by doing one final long look at the position after 12.Qe2 Be6.

After 81 hours of analysis on 12.Qe2 Be6. (Early versions of Rybka had a "feature" which displayed only a few moves into a long analysis run) 32-bit version of Rybka

(1.11): 13. Qf2 Nb4
(1.07): 13. Qxb5 Kf8
(1.06): 13. Nc3 exf3
(0.77): 13. fxe4 Nb4
(0.34): 13. f4 Nb4 14. Qxe4
(0.26): 13. Na3 Bxg3+

Rybka2.3.2a (24-ply) after 13.Qf2

1. +- (1.66): 13...exf3 14.Bxb5+ Kf8 15.gxf3 Bxg3 16.Qxg3 Qxd4 17.Na3 h5 18.Qf2 Qf6 19.Rg1 a6 20.Bc4

2. +- (1.72): 13...Nb4 14.Bxb5+ c6 15.Nxe4 Qxf2+ 16.Kxf2 cxb5 17.Nxd6+ Kd7 18.Nxb5 Nc2 19.d5 Bf5 20.N1a3

3. +- (2.20): 13...a6 14.Nxe4 Qd8 15.Nbc3 Nb4 16.Nxd6+ Qxd6 17.d3 f5 18.a3 Nc6 19.Ne2 0-0 20.Bf4

This result caused me to focus on the 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qf2 line.

Berliner does not address 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qf2! in The System or in From the Deathbed. In fact, it appeared that no one had published analysis of this line (A.J. Goldsby has recently looked at this line -- see his web page http://www.geocities.com/lifemasteraj/est-ber1_sh.html).

On page 64 of "The System" Berliner looks at 12.Qe2 Be6 13.fxe4, saying "other [13th] moves are of no help to white". p.26 of "From the Deathbed" looks at 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qxe4 Bxg3+ 14.Kd1 0-0 but offers nothing else.

Analysis of the position after

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6

After extensive investigation, it seems clear that 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qf2 favors White, and arguably gives white a winning position:

Black has 4 responses to 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qf2:

Variation A 13...Nb4

Variation B 13...exf3

Variation C 13...Bxg3

Variation D 13...a6

Variation A: 13...Nb4

13...Nb4
14.Bxb5+ (Richard Moody looks at only 14.Na3 here in his 2007 book Magic, p.142.)

14...c6

[14...Kd8 15.Na3 a6

(15...exf3 16.gxf3 Bxg3 (16...a6 17.Be2 Bxg3 18.Qxg3 Qxd4 19.Qf2 Nd3+ 20.Bxd3 Qxd3 21.Qh4+ 2.54/23) 17.Qxg3 Qxd4 18.Qf2 Qe5+ 19.Qe3 Qd6 20.d4 a6 21.Ba4 2.52/20)

16.Be2 exf3 17.gxf3 Bxg3 18.Qxg3 Qxd4 19.Qf2 Nd3+ 20.Bxd3 Qxd3 21.Qh4+ 2.54/23)]

15.Nxe4 Qxf2+
16.Kxf2 cxb5
17.Nxd6+ Kd7 (Ke7 18.Nxb5 Nc2 19.b3 Nxa1 20.Ba3+)
18.Nxb5 Nc2
19.d5 Bf5 (Bxd5 Nc3)
20.N1a3 Nxa1
21.Nd4 Bd3
22.Ke3 Bg6
23.d3 and the Black Knight is lost

The evaluation is roughly +2.00 and increases with search depth.

another try for Black is:

15...Qe7

16.a3! Nc2+
17.Kd1 Bb3
18.Bxc6 Kd8
19.Bxa8 Nxa1+
20.Ke2 Kd7
21.Bb7 Rb8
22.Ba6 f5
23.Bd3 or d3 and the attack fails

Variation B: 13...exf3

This line appears to offer Black the best chances.

13...exf3
14.Bb5+

Rybka 3:

[+1.93] d=24 14...Kd8 15.gxf3 Rb8 16.Be2 Nb4 17.Na3 Bxg3 18.Qxg3 Qxd4 19.Qf2 Nd3 20.Bxd3 Qxd3 21.Qe3 Qd6 22.Qxa7 Kc8 23.Nc2 Re8 24.Ne3 Bh3 25.Qa4 Bd7 26.Qa3 Qg6 27.Kf2 Qf6 28.h4 (15:43.00) 8763270kN

[+2.24] d=24 14...Kf8 15.gxf3 Bxg3 16.Qxg3 Qxd4 17.Nc3 Nb4 18.Kd1 c6 19.Be2 Bf5 20.Qg1 Qe5 (27:04.09) 13348062kN

14...Kd8

(B1 14...Kf8 15.gxf3 (15.Qxf3 Rb8 16.Be2 Re8 17.Kd1
Bxg3 18.Qxg3 Qxd4 19.Qd3 Qxd3 20.Bxd3 Bg4+ 21.Kc2
Nb4+ 22.Kc3 Nxd3 23.Kxd3 h5 24.Na3 Rh6 25.Kc3 Re2
26.d3 Rc6+ 27.Nc4 Rxg2 28.Be3 a6 2.40/20)

15...Nb4 (15...Bxg3 16.Qxg3 Qxd4 17.Na3 h5 18.Qf2 Qe5+ 19.Kd1) 16.Na3 Bxg3 17.Qxg3 Qxd4 18.Qf2 Qe5+ 19.Qe3 Qd6 20.Kd1 a6 21.Bc4 Re8 22.Re1 Bd7 23.Qf2 Rxe1+ 24.Kxe1 g6 25.d4 Kg7 26.Qh4 Re8+ 27.Kf2 h5 28.Bd2 Bf5 2.79/18;

B2 14...c6 15.Bxc6 Kf8 16.Ne2! (amazing) fxg2 17.Rg1 Qxf2 18.Kxf2 Rc8 19.Bb7 or Bxd5 2.29/19

B3 14...Bd7 15.Bxd7 Kxd7 16.O-O or Qxf3)

15.gxf3 Rb8
16.Be2 Nb4
17.Na3 Bxg3
18.Qxg3 Qxd4
19.Qf2 Nd3+
20.Bxd3 Qxd3
21.Qe3 Bf5
22.Qxd3+ Bxd3 (evaluation is now +1.97/31)
23.b3 (Rybka 2.3.2 likes 23.Kf2 Re8 24.Re1 Rxe1 25.Kxe1 +- and now if 25...g5 26.Kf2 Kd7 27.Ke3 or 27.Nb1 or 27.b3)

23...Re8+
24.Kd1 Be2+
25.Kc2 Bxf3
26.Rf1 Bh5
27.Rf2 Bg6+
28.d3 Kc8
29.Bf4 f6
30.Nc4 Rb5 and white stands better

Variation C: 13...Bxg3

C1 14.Qxg3 Qxg3+ 15.hxg3 Nb4 16.Bxb5+ c6 17.Ba4 Black has insufficient compensation

C2 14.Bxb5+ c6 15.Bxc6+ Ke7 16.Qxg3 Qxg3 17.hxg3 Rc8 18.Na3 or fxe4 also works for White.

Variation D: 13...a6

(24-ply)Rybka2.3.2a

(2.20): 13...a6 14.Nxe4 Qd8 15.Nbc3 Nb4 16.Nxd6+ Qxd6 17.d3 f5 18.a3 Nc6 19.Ne2 0-0 20.Bf4

Did Berliner know about 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qf2?

I e-mailed Hans Berliner about this move, and here is his response (!!):

John,

Well; that is an interesting move and may very well be best. My trouble is that I am 77 yrs old and not the analyst I used to be.
I have spent a couple of hours on this and my current take is that 13.- Nb4; 14. Na3,e:f3; 15. g:f3,O-O-O is best.

Now we have one of those typical situations in which black is a piece down but White's position is not too enviable. Based on my theories, I would have to vote for black to at least draw, but it would be more comforting to have a more detailed analysis.

That is the best I can do at this time.

Hans B.

I have the highest respect for Hans, his achievements and his abilities - as we all should. Hans has taken the time to respond to the e-mail of an amateur, which he did not have to do. Hans has defended his position in the past (such as Walter Muir's suggested 12.Qe2) and has taken pride in his analysis.

Berliner published analysis of 12.Qe2 Be6 13.fxe4 Nb4 14.Na3 0-0-0 15.Qf2 in "From the Deathbed" (it was his main line to the fxe4 variation) so he must have considered playing it earlier. He also suggested in Timman-Arikok, 1988, the improvement 12.Qe2 0-0 13.fxg4 Nb4 *14.Qf2*.

Conclusion

Evidence is presented that supports the claim that 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qf2! refutes the Berliner variation of the Two Knight's Defense. The evidence presented is not overwhelming - what do you think?

Note - thanks to A.J. Goldsby for his encouragement in early postings of this analysis on chessgames.com.

Addendum - an analysis of the position after 12.Qe2 Be6 using Rybka 2.1, (set to ultra slow and extremely optimistic and set to show the top 3 moves) results in the following:

+1.20/25 13.Qf2 Nb4 14.Bxb5+ c6 15.Nxe4 Qxf2+ 16.Kxf2 cxb5 17.Nxd6+ Kd7 18.Nxb5 Nc2 19.d5 Bf5

+0.90/25 13.Qxb5+ (chessgames member "monad" has looked at this line and shown that Black can cause white a number of problems)

+0.87/24 13.Nc3 (I have posted some analysis of this line on chessgames.com but think that it has been superceded by 13.Qf2)

Analysis of 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qf2: After 142 hours (screenshot available to prove this)

1.25/28 13...Nb4 14.Bxb5+ c6 15.Nxe4 Qxf2 16.Kxf2 cxb5 17.Nxd6+ Kd7 18.Nxb5 Nc2 19.d5 Bf5 20.N1a3

1.25/28 13...exf3 14.Bxb5+ Kd8 15.gxf3 Rb8 16.Be2 Nb4 17.Na3 Bxg3 18.Qxg3 Qxd4 19.Qg5+ Kc8 20.Qe3

1.73/28 13...Bxg3 14.Bxb5+ c6 15.Bxc6+ Ke7 16.Qxg3 Qxg3+ 17.hxg3 Rac8 18.fxe4 Nb4 19.Na3 Rxc6 20.d5

Here is analysis of the 12.Qe2 O-O line:

12. Qe2 O-O
13. fxg4 Bxg3+
14. Kd1

and now the top 9 possibilities:
A 14... Nf6
15. Nc3 (15. Kc2 Nxg4 16. Nc3 f5 17. Qxb5 +1.36/21) (15. g5 Ng4 16. Kc2 b4 17. a3 +1.20/21)

15... Rfe8 (15... Nxg4 16. Kc2 (16. Nxe4 Rae8 (16... Nf2+ 17. Nxf2 Bxf2 18. Qf3 Rab8 19. d5 Bc5 20. Bd3 g6 21. Kc2 a6 22. g4 Bd4 +2.07/19) 17. Kc2 Nxh2 18. d3 h6 19. Qd1 f5 20. Nxg3 Qxg3 21. Bd2 Qd6 22. Rc1 Nxf1 +1.32/20) 16... c6 (16... f5 17. Qxb5 Rab8 18. Qd5+ Kh8 19. b3 Rbd8 20. Qa5 Nf2 21. hxg3 Qxh1 22. Ba3 Rf7 +1.96/21) 17. a4 f5 18. axb5 cxb5 19. Nxb5 Qh6 20. Ra3 Nf2 21. Rxg3 Nxh1 22. Rh3 Qf4 +1.93/20)

16. Kc2 (16. g5 Ng4 (16... Nh5 17. Qxb5 Bxh2 18. Ne2 Rab8 19. Qd7 Ng3 20. Nxg3 Qxg3 21. Bc4 Rf8 22. Qh3 Qxh3 +2.64/23) 17. Kc2 Rad8

18. Nxe4 Nf2 19. hxg3 Qxh1 20. Nxf2 Rxe2 21. Nxh1 Re1 22. Bxb5 Rxh1 +2.61/25)

16... b4 (16... c6 17. d3) (16... Nxg4 17. Nxe4 +1.45/21)

17. g5 +1.44/21

B 14... b4 15. d3 (15. a3 b3 16. g5 c6 17. Nc3 +0.91/22) 15... Nf6 16. dxe4 Nxg4 17. Kc2 +1.64/20

C 14... Rae8 15. Nc3 (15. Qxb5 Nf6 16. Kc2 Nxg4 17. b3 +1.52/20) 15... c6 (15... Nf6 16. g5 Ng4 17. Kc2 +1.77/21) (15... Nxc3+ 16.

dxc3 b4 17. Qe3 +2.08/21) 16. Nxd5 cxd5 17. Qxb5 +1.75/24

D 14... Rfe8 15. Nc3 (15. Qxb5 c6 16. Qxc6 Nf6 17. Bc4 +1.41/22) 15... c6 16. Nxd5 cxd5 17. Qxb5 +1.64/23

E 14... a6 15. Nc3 (15. a4 b4 16. d3 Nf6 17. dxe4 +1.47/20) 15... Nf6 16. Nxe4 Rae8 17. Nxf6+ +1.94/24

F 14... Rad8 15. Nc3 (15. Qxb5 Bf2 16. Nc3 Qxg4+ 17. Qe2 +1.31/23) 15... Rfe8 16. Qxb5 Nf6 17. Kc2 +1.64/21

G 14... Rab8 15. Nc3 (15. d3 Nf6 16. Nc3 exd3 17. Qxd3 +1.61/21) 15... Nf6 16. Nxe4 Rfe8 17. d3 +1.95/23

H 14... Kh8 15. Nc3 (15. Qxb5 Nf6 16. Nc3 Nxg4 17. Nxe4 +1.65/21) 15... Nf6 16. Nxe4 Rae8 17. d3 +2.03/23

I 14... c6 15. Nc3 (15. d3 exd3 16. Qf3 Bf2 17. Nc3 +1.26/22) 15... Bf2 16. g3 Bxg3 17. Bg2 +1.41/20

July 26, 2007 Rybka2.3.1 analysis: after 14.Kd1:

(29-ply)

1. +- (1.55): 14...Rfe8 15.Nc3 c6 16.a4 b4 17.Nxe4

2. +- (1.55): 14...c6 15.Nc3 Rfe8 16.a4 b4 17.Nxe4 f5 18.Qf3 fxe4 19.Qxg3

3. +- (1.73): 14...Rae8 15.Nc3 c6 16.Nxd5 cxd5 17.Qxb5 Bf2 18.Be2

4. +- (1.87): 14...Nf6 15.g5 Ng4 16.Kc2 b4 17.a3 Nf2 18.hxg3 Qxg3 19.axb4

5. +- (1.93): 14...Rad8 15.Nc3 Rfe8 16.Qxb5 Nf6 17.Kc2 Nxg4

6. +- (1.97): 14...b4 15.d3 Nf6 16.dxe4 Nxg4 17.Kc2 Nxh2 18.Nd2 Rad8 19.Qd3 c5 20.d5 Rfe8 21.Kb1

7. +- (2.16): 14...Bf2 15.g3 Qf6 16.Qxe4 c6 17.Bd3 g6 18.Nc3 Nb4 19.Ne2 Rad8 20.Qf4 Bxd4 21.Qxf6

8. +- (2.18): 14...h6 15.Nc3 c6 16.a4 b4 17.Nxe4 Rae8 18.d3 Bc7 19.h3 Bb6 20.Qf2 Qd8 21.Bd2

Supplemental games (from chesslab.com):

Muir, W - Svensson, E 1974 corr FIN jub10
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 6. Bf1 Nd4 7. c3 Nxd5 8. Ne4 Qh4 9. Ng3 Bg4 10. f3 e4 11. cxd4 Bd6 12. Qe2 O-O 13. fxg4 Bxg3+ 14. Kd1 Nf6 15. Qe3 Nxg4 16. Qxg3 Qxg3 17. hxg3 Nf2+ 18. Ke1 Nxh1 19. Bxb5 Nxg3 20. Nc3 f5 21. b3 f4 22. Ba3 Rf6 23. Kf2 c6 24. Bc4+ Kh8 25. Re1 Re8 26. Bc5 h5 27. d5 cxd5 28. Bxd5 Rf5 29. Bxa7 Rd8 30. Rxe4 Rdxd5 31. Re8+ Kh7 32. d4 Rd6 33. Bc5 Rg6 34. Re5 f3 35. Rxf5 Nxf5 36. Kxf3 Rg3+ 37. Kf4 g6 38. Ne4 Rxg2 39. d5 h4 40. d6 Nxd6 41. Bxd6 Rxa2 42. Kg4 Kg7 43. Kxh4 Kf7 1/2 - 1/2

Muir, W - Abdalghaffar, A 1990
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nd4 6. c3 b5 7. Bf1 Nxd5 8. Ne4 Qh4 9. Ng3 Bg4 10. f3 e4 11. cxd4 Bd6 12. Qe2 Bxg3+ 13. Kd1 Bh5 14. Qxb5+ Ke7 15. Qxd5 exf3 16. gxf3 Rhd8 17. Qc5+ Rd6 18. Be2 Re8 19. d3 Kd7 20. Qf5+ 1-0

Timman, J - Arikok, E 1988 Zurich simul
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nd4 6. c3 b5 7. Bf1 Nxd5 8. Ne4 Qh4 9. Ng3 Bg4 10. f3 e 4 11. cxd4 Bd6 12. Qe2 O-O 13. fxg4 Nb4 14. Kd1 Bxg3 15. hxg3 Qxh1 16. Nc3 f5 17. a3 Nd3 18. Kc2 b4 19. Nd5 b3 20. Kxb3 fxg4 21. Ne3 Rf2 22. Qxg4 Rxf1 23. Nxf1 Qxf1 24. Qxe4 Nxc1+ 25. Kc2 Qc4+ 26. Kd1 Rf8 27. d3 Nxd3 28. Kd2 Nc5 0-1

Enter supporting content here