Annotated Game #270: Learning the Slow Slav the hard way

This last-round tournament game is yet another example of the main lesson from Annotated Game #267: How openings are really learned. Here it's a Slow Slav that I had little depth on previously, but studying this game and looking at a couple database examples now have armed me much better for future clashes in the opening.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Class A"] [Black "ChessAdmin"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D12"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Dragon 3.2"] [PlyCount "55"] 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bf5 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nh4 Bg6 7. Nxg6 hxg6 8. Bd3 Qc7 {targeting h2 and prompting White's next.} (8... Nbd7 {is the standard move here.}) 9. h3 Nbd7 10. Bd2 Be7 11. Rc1 O-O 12. O-O {up to this point, although we have not followed the full main line, play has been pretty standard as both sides develop. Now I have to start thinking for myself in the middlegame, without however having much experience with it.} a6 $5 {not a standard idea in this position, but not a bad one either. The point is to possibly prepare b5, while also serving as a waiting move.} (12... Rfd8) (12... Rac8) 13. Qf3 {increasing pressure on d5 and connecting the rooks.} Qd8 (13... dxc4 {is a common liquidation of the center at this stage.} 14. Bxc4 c5 {would be a standard follow-up.}) 14. cxd5 cxd5 $6 {this poor decision is the start of my problems. Opening the c-file is a bad idea, with White's rook already occupying it.} (14... exd5 $11) 15. e4 $6 {however, this is an overly aggressive reaction.} dxe4 {the correct response.} 16. Nxe4 b5 {I saw White's next move, but did not handle it properly.} 17. Rc6 Nb8 $6 {this contributes to the cramping of Black's position and un-develops a good piece.} (17... Nxe4 18. Bxe4 Nf6 $11) 18. Rc2 $14 Nbd7 19. Rfc1 {now the c-file is a much more obvious problem. Essentially I have done nothing in the last few moves while my opponent has managed to double his rooks on the only open file on the board.} Nd5 {best chance to keep things together, centralizing the knight in front of the isolated queen pawn.} 20. Nc5 {the best choice to keep up the pressure. The defense becomes more complex now and I falter.} Bf6 $6 {this pressures d4 but underestimates White's attacking potential.} (20... Bxc5 {I considered this but obviously did not like the creation of a strong passed pawn. However, it should be containable.} 21. dxc5 Ne5 $1 $14 {and the knight can blockade on c6 or exchange off the Bd3, both of which would be helpful.}) 21. Qg4 {now sacrifices on e6 and g6 are in the air.} Nxc5 22. Rxc5 $6 {this lets up the pressure.} (22. dxc5 $16 {the Nd5 is not in as good a position to blockade the c-pawn, plus White's two bishops look dangerous.}) 22... Be7 $11 {enough for equality.} (22... Ne7 {is better, thereby guarding c6 and c8 and g6, while jumping to f5 later would also be good.}) 23. Rc6 Bb4 {not wrong, but it betrays my lack of understanding of the need to keep pieces available to defend the kingside.} (23... Bf6) 24. Bg5 Qa5 $2 {the losing move. Now White unleashes a breakthrough sacrifice.} (24... Be7 $11) 25. Rxe6 {now I realize that I'm simply lost, so try a desperation shot at counterplay.} Qxa2 26. Rxg6 Qxb2 27. Rxg7+ Kxg7 28. Be7+ 1-0

Annotated Game #269: Symmetrical = wild??

Due to having a bye round in the tournament (and having quickly lost my first game as Black), I surprisingly ended up having two Whites in a row. This one, despite being a Symmetrical English, turned into one of the wildest games I have played in at least the past few years. 

Similar to Annotated Game #265 and others, I often get the sense from my opponent's initial hesitation to respond to 1. c4 that they have decided to simply mimic moves, rather than actually follow a prepared repertoire. The problem from White's perspective is that in this opening, that works reasonable well for Black up until around moves 8-9. The positive aspect, as I've also learned, is that once asymmetry is reached, Black may have less of an idea about what to do in the middlegame.

In this game, Black's asymmetric move 9 allows White to obtain a small positional plus and led to what could be a comfortable, even winning middlegame. One of the main lessons for me was a failure on move 14 to kick Black's strong centralized knight on d4 - this is something that I recognize I have repeatedly failed to do in other games, also with poor results. A big benefit of analyzing your own games is recognizing these types of specifc patterns that recur and then correcting them; I articulated this in more detail in Annotated Game #192: The problem of mental perspective. 

Starting on move 17 the game gets a lot crazier and mutual time pressure contributes to a number of swings in evaluation. I wish I had been able to spot the more sophisticated way to play, but felt relatively good at the end of an exhausting wide ride, escaping with a draw.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class A"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A38"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Dragon 3.2/Stockfish 16"] [PlyCount "117"] 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. O-O O-O 7. d3 d6 8. Rb1 Rb8 {this sort of mirror-imaging can be annoying, but ultimately it has to stop somewhere, and does the next move.} 9. a3 Ng4 $6 {this is a dubious maneuver, however, since it does nothing to counter White's queenside plans or help Black's development.} 10. Bd2 $14 Nge5 {this was evidently the idea behind the maneuver, but the knight has taken up time to move to a square which is not evidently better.} 11. b4 (11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. b4 $14 {is a similar idea to get in the pawn advance while opening the long diagonal; it seems to be easier/better for White to play, since the bishop in the game loses a tempo retreating from f3.}) 11... Nxf3+ 12. Bxf3 Nd4 13. Bg2 {although it's only a small positional advantage for White, I was quite happy here with control of the long diagonal and the d5 square, and having already got in b2-b4.} Bd7 14. bxc5 {this wins a pawn, but Black has significant compensation.} (14. e3 {is the engine recommendation, getting the strong centralized knight out of d4. A common flaw in my play has been leaving such knights in place for too long.} Nc6 15. b5 Ne5 16. f4 Ng4 17. Qe1 $14 {covering e3 and preparing to push the e-pawn.}) 14... dxc5 15. Bxb7 Nc6 $6 {this passive move allows White to keep the pawn and a positional advantage as well.} (15... Bg4 {is the most aggressive response, pressuring e2 and combining well with the centralized Nd4.} 16. Be4 {simply retreating does not help.} (16. Bf4 e5 17. Bd2 {eliminates the threat to the Nc3, but after} Qc7 {Black renews his threats and can pick up the e-pawn again by capturing on b1.}) 16... Rxb1 17. Qxb1 Bxe2 $11) 16. Ne4 $16 {now my own centralized knight causes Black problems.} Na5 {this seems to just lose another pawn, but eliminating the bishop is better for Black.} 17. Nxc5 (17. Bd5 $1 {positionally alone this might be best, but there is also a tactical justification.} Rxb1 18. Qxb1 e6 19. Nxc5 $1 exd5 20. Nxd7 {and the Na5 will be hanging if the Qd8 moves off the diagonal to recapture, so} Nxc4 21. dxc4 Qxd7 22. Rd1 $18) 17... Nxb7 {I thought for a while here and picked the wrong piece to recapture with.} 18. Rxb7 $6 (18. Nxb7 Qc7 19. Na5 $16) 18... Rxb7 19. Nxb7 Qa8 $1 $11 {I had missed this idea, which exploits the weakness of the long diagonal on White's king position.} 20. Na5 {essentially forced} (20. Nc5 Bh3 21. e4 Qc6 22. Be3 Rc8 23. d4 Bxf1 $17) 20... Bh3 21. e4 {this works to block the mate threat, but leaves the e-pawn as a target for a Black pawn lever.} (21. f3 $5 {I don't recall considering this at length, not sure why.}) 21... Bxf1 22. Kxf1 $15 {Black has a small advantage in the middlegame, as his pieces will be able to coordinate better and White's two extra pawns are not yet able to be mobilized.} Rb8 (22... f5 {would immediately hit at White's e-pawn and threaten to open more lines for the rook.}) 23. Nb3 $6 {it's understandable that I wanted to get the knight off the rim, but this is too slow.} (23. Bb4 $11 {mobilizing the bishop with tempo, as it threatens e7.}) 23... Rb7 (23... Qc6 $1 $17 {and Black threatens to move to a4, causing greater problems for White.}) 24. Ke2 {it's still a little early to be moving the king. Again, mobilizing the bishop looks better.} Qb8 25. Bb4 {I finally hit on the best idea, although it is not quite as effective as before. At least the b-file is shut off, and I felt that I could hold the position now.} Bd4 $4 {both my opponent and I hallucinated that the bishop was safe on the square. Mutual time pressure likely played a part.} 26. Nc5 $4 (26. Nxd4 {and wins.}) 26... Bxc5 (26... a5 $1 {is even better.} 27. Nxb7 axb4 28. Na5 bxa3 $19 {and the advanced passed a-pawn will be decisive.}) 27. Bxc5 Qe5 28. Bb4 Qh5+ $6 {this sequence was what I had anticipated with my (erroneous) calculations on move 26, and in fact it is balanced.} (28... a5 $17 {is the idea that both my opponent and I overlooked, which would allow the rook to penetrate.}) 29. Ke1 Qe5 30. Qd2 {again failing to defend against ...a5. However, luckily my opponent continues to miss it as well.} (30. Qa4) 30... Qa1+ 31. Qd1 Qd4 32. Qd2 $6 (32. Qc2) 32... e5 33. Bc3 {some complex and rather stressful defensive calculations were required here.} (33. Ke2 $5 {looks simpler.}) 33... Rb1+ 34. Ke2 Qd6 35. Bb4 $11 {now there should not be any threat of a breakthrough.} Qf6 36. Bc3 {just playing it safe.} g5 {my opponent meanwhile continues to try to press.} 37. Qe3 Qe7 {covering a7.} 38. Bb4 Rb2+ 39. Kd1 {keeping the king attached to the defense of the f2 pawn is a much better idea.} (39. Ke1) 39... Qf6 {immediately targeting f2.} 40. Qc5 $2 {this aggressive counterattacking defense has a major flaw, but Black overlooks it in time pressure.} (40. Bc5) (40. Bc3) 40... Qd8 $6 (40... h6 $1 $19 {and Black's king will be able to eventually avoid White's checks, while the Q+R combo can effectively penetrate and attack White's position.}) 41. Qd6 $11 {forcing the queen trade, to what should be a balanced position.} Qxd6 42. Bxd6 Rxf2 $2 {this is too greedy, but I miss the refutation.} (42... f6 $11) 43. Bxe5 $6 {thinking too materialistically here.} (43. c5 $1 $18 {passed pawns must be pushed! Leaving the bishop in place covers the f8 square, so Black's king is cut off.}) 43... Kf8 $11 44. c5 {one tempo too late.} Ke8 {as often happens in endgames, sometimes good-looking moves have subtle refutations.} (44... Ke7 $11) 45. h4 $2 {I was obviously worried about protecting the h-pawn, but this is done better with} (45. g4 $11) (45. d4 $1 {and the central connected passed pawns win, as the engine points out.} Rxh2 (45... Rf1+ 46. Kd2 Rf2+ 47. Ke3 Rc2 48. Kd3 Rc1 49. Bf6 $18) 46. d5 $18) 45... f5 $1 $19 {now Black should be winning.} 46. Ke1 Ra2 $2 {now White should be winning.} (46... Rf3 $1 $19) 47. exf5 $1 gxh4 48. gxh4 Rxa3 49. Ke2 $6 {another subtle endgame misstep and we are back to equality.} (49. Kd2 {and the king can chase the rook on the queenside.}) 49... a5 $11 50. c6 Ra2+ 51. Ke3 Rc2 52. c7 a4 53. d4 $2 {looks reasonable, but should lose.} (53. Kd4 a3 54. Kd5 Kd7 55. f6 a2 56. f7 Rf2 57. c8=Q+ Kxc8 58. Ke6 Kd8 $11 {and now neither pawn can queen.}) 53... a3 $19 54. d5 a2 55. d6 Kd7 56. f6 {desperate pressure added to Black, but it works. There is only one winning move.} a1=Q (56... Rc5 $1 57. Bd4 Rc1 $19) 57. Bxa1 Kxd6 58. f7 Ke7 59. Bf6+ {this is a little flashy and sets an obvious trap, but my opponent sees through it. Draw agreed.} (59. Be5 {also draws.} Kxf7 60. Kd3 $11) 1/2-1/2

Video completed: 3 Steps To Think Like a Grandmaster by GM Igor Smirnov

3 Steps To Think Like a Grandmaster by GM Igor Smirnov (in his "Remote Chess Academy" series) is a 20-minute video that offers what I consider as another useful and practical contribution to a chess improver's thinking process. It outlines three broad steps, which I'll paraphrase:

1) Identify reasonable candidate moves

2) Remove ones from consideration that do not advance your plan

3) Calculate the ones left for safety (in other words, blunder check), then select the most aggressive of the valid moves remaining

Any chessplayer who has looked at constructing or analyzing their own thinking process - my version is the Simplified Thought Process (that works) - knows that it can be easy to build a lot of complexity into it, a tendency which quickly becomes self-defeating. A well-defined thinking process should not attempt to incorporate the sum total of your chess knowledge; any attempts to do so remind me of the Jorge Luis Borges story "Del rigor en la ciencia" ("On Exactitude in Science") about the project to make a 1:1 scale map.

To simplify the process and make it effective, it is necessary to focus on the "meta-cognition" piece of it - which can be defined as thinking about how you think. On a practical level, this means coming up with a formula describing how best to focus your (limited) attention and energy on those discrete elements of playing chess which are most important in decision-making. Temposchlucker's blog is one amateur's outstanding example of devoting a lot of thought to thinking.

Returning to the video content, I would say that its focus on basic principles is its strength, including citing common (but still useful to hear) ones like seeking to improve your worst piece in the absence of other obvious candidate moves, and limiting your calculations to only those few moves and situations which require them. It will not answer all the necessary questions about your thinking process, and of course will only reflect your current chess strength in terms of evaluating candidate moves, tactical considerations, and strategic plans. However, sometimes sticking to first principles can indeed help cut through a lot of unhelpful noise, and help you focus on the signals the position in front of you is sending.

EDIT: Smirnov provides some similar follow-on thinking process illustrations in "How I went from 1600 to 2260 Chess Rating in 1 Year" - which isn't about chess training, as I originally thought, but is a useful adjunct to the concept of a simpler, principles-based thinking approach. Examples of muddled thinking around the 1600 level were especially relevant (and unfortunately familiar).

Annotated Game #268: When a winning advantage evaporates

In my next "comeback" tournament, I blundered early (move 8) in my first round game after having a distracting morning, which was not worth analyzing beyond remembering the obvious lesson of avoiding that particular blunder again. We'll therefore start with the second round game, which helped highlight the previous theme of Annotated Game #267: How openings are really learned, as it featured a dubious variation from Black in an English Four Knights. I had faced it before twice in my tournament career, but did not recall the previous games at the time. After looking at this one, I should remember the ideas better and be more confident in choosing how to respond (either of two main options for White on move 7 are good for an advantage.)

The new theme for this game is the evaporating winning advantage. In this case, I go up a pawn early and also have a nice positional edge heading into a major and minor piece endgame. This should be an easy win, but I let Black get too much play on the kingside and then end up in a drawn rook endgame, despite retaining the extra pawn. It is a helpful illustration of how quickly even a decisive positional advantage validated by the engines can quickly dissipate, based on some inaccurate calculations and visualization. At least it wasn't a loss, is my only consolation.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class B"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A28"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Dragon 3.2"] [PlyCount "80"] 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Bb5 f6 {I've faced this twice previously in tournaments. Black is attempting a reversed Sicilian formation, but with a tempo down this weakening of the king position benefits White.} 7. O-O $14 {emphasizing king safety before commencing operations in the center. An immediate d4 is also possible.} Nb6 {seemingly a safe choice, but} 8. d4 $1 $16 Bd7 9. dxe5 a6 $18 {White should now just be winning, after the following.} 10. Bxc6 Bxc6 11. Nd4 {I thought for a while here, and the engine validates my choice. The centralized knight is a strong attacking piece, while Black's king remains in the center and White is also a full pawn up.} Qe7 12. Nxc6 {the clearest road to a positionally won game.} bxc6 13. exf6 {so far so good.} Qxf6 {White now has a decisive positional advantage, with Black's weak doubled c-pawns and king position, but there is no immediate knockout.} 14. e4 {played to control d5 and open up the diagonal for the bishop.} Bd6 15. Qh5+ (15. Be3 $5 {simple development is good.}) 15... g6 16. Qg4 h5 $5 {provocative, but playing it safe won't get Black much either.} 17. Qg5 {I would be happy to trade queens and grind the position in the won endgame.} Be7 18. Qxf6 Bxf6 {With a 4-2 advantage on the kingside and Black's shattered queenside pawns, this should be a simple win.} 19. e5 {a good start, advancing the passed pawn and seizing more space. It is tactically protected.} Be7 (19... Bxe5 $2 20. Re1 $18 {and the bishop is lost.}) 20. Rd1 {perhaps an inaccuracy, although not terrible.} (20. Ne4 {played immediately is good, leaving open where to put the rook. Here if} O-O $6 21. Bg5 $18 {essentially forcing another minor piece trade, bringing me closer to a simplified victory.}) 20... O-O 21. Ne4 {this has less punch now.} (21. g3) 21... Nd5 22. g3 {with the idea of advancing the f-pawn.} Rf5 23. f4 g5 {here I thought for a while and miscalculated the resulting position.} 24. Nxg5 $2 (24. Rf1) (24. Nc3) 24... Bxg5 $16 {Black regains the material.} 25. fxg5 Rxe5 $14 {Black hasn't fully equalized, but his active rooks and centralized knight largely compensate for White's (doubled) 3-1 kingside majority.} 26. Bf4 Nxf4 $6 {this gives back some hope to White, by undoubling the pawns.} (26... Re2) 27. gxf4 $16 Re4 28. Rf1 Rf8 29. Rad1 $2 {unfortunately after the following sequence White has no real threats. It was necessary to get back the material.} (29. Rac1 $1 Rexf4 30. Rxf4 Rxf4 31. Rxc6 Rg4+ 32. Kf2 Rxg5 $2 (32... Rf4+ $16) 33. Rxa6 $1 $18 {and White's outside passed pawn should win.}) 29... Rexf4 30. Rxf4 Rxf4 31. Rd8+ Kg7 32. Rd7+ Kg6 33. Rxc7 Rc4 {now White can't avoid giving Black a passed pawn and we reach a drawn rook ending.} 34. h4 Rxh4 35. Rxc6+ Kxg5 $11 36. Rxa6 Rf4 37. b3 Rg4+ 38. Kf2 Rf4+ 39. Kg2 Rg4+ 40. Kf2 Rf4+ 1/2-1/2

Video completed: The 4...Nf6 Caro-Kann by Nigel Davies

 

I recently completed the FritzTrainer The 4...Nf6 Caro-Kann by GM Nigel Davies, which was published in 2016. It covers lines in both the Bronstein-Larsen (5...gxf6) and Tartakower (5...exf6) variations for Black, which is unusual, since Caro-Kann opening resources normally focus on one or the other, because of their major structural differences. The content description is copied below; there are also 16 quiz positions at the end, mostly from the Bronstein-Larsen side. In each of the lines, a full game is presented as the baseline, although certain sub-variations or ideas are demonstrated within it. There is also a separate, larger database of model games included in both variations.

As is reflected in my annotated games database attached to this blog, I've long played the Classical (4...Bf5) variation of the main line Caro-Kann. I have no intention of giving it up, but the 4...Nf6 variations are of interest both from a general improvement standpoint and for potentially expanding my personal repertoire. The position-types that result have some resemblance to familiar ones, but especially the Bronstein-Larsen requires a more dynamic, attacking approach from Black. The positional imbalances that result are also a useful way to deliberately (if more riskily) play for a win as Black, versus the normally more staid positions of the Classical variation.

Although this video set is one of the more comprehensive ones available on the topic, it still covers a lot of territory without much depth, particularly in the main line Bronstein-Larsen 6. c3, where Davies recommends ...h5 as Black's response, rather than the much more common ...Bf5. The database supports this choice, however, with ...h5 scoring significantly better. White has a large number of 6th move possibilities, as can be seen below, so this lack of depth is probably unavoidable.

I avoided the Tartakower variation when originally building my personal repertoire largely because of Korchnoi's defeat against Karpov in the world championship series while relying on it. That said, it's certainly solid and in fact underwent something of a renaissance several years after this video was published. I don't believe it's quite as trendy at the moment, but there are many current games with it and it scores significantly better than the Bronstein-Larsen, so it may be worth delving into further. If you are looking for an introduction to the modern (2017 and on) treatment of the Tartakower, this blog post by GM Max Illingworth on Chess.com may be of interest: https://www.chess.com/blog/Illingworth/the-modern-caro-kann-antidote-to-3-nc3

• The 4...Nf6 Caro-Kann: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6
• 01: Introduction [06:28]
• 02: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 Strategy 1 - Kavalek,L - Larsen,B [11:17]
• 03: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 Strategy 2 - Victor Ciocaltea - Mikhail Botvinnik [10:09]
• 04: 5.Nxf6 exf6 Strategy 1 - Rosino,A - Bilek,I [14:29]
• 05: 5.Nxf6 exf6 Strategy 2 - Torre,E - Kortschnoj,V [12:00]
• 06: 5.Nxf6 exf6 Strategy 3 - Tarrasch,S - Tartakower,S [07:56]
• 07: 5.Nxf6 exf6 Strategy 4 - Perez - Alekhine,A [07:52]
• 08: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.c3 Bf5 - John Fedorowicz - Nigel Rodney Davies [09:47]
• 09: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.c3 h5 - Eggleston,D - Short,N [15:40]
• 10: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be2 Qc7 8.Be3 - Tiviakov,S - Short,N [06:42]
• 11: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be2 Qc7 8.0-0 - Lombaers,P - Jones,G [06:46]
• 12: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.g3 h5 - Nakar,E - Paichadze,L [10:29]
• 13: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Ne2 Nd7 8.Ng3 Bg6 9.0-0 - Aseev,K - Bronstein,D [05:17]
• 14: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.c3 e6 8.Ne2 - Pohla,H - Bronstein,D [06:09]
• 15: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.c3 e6 8.Qf3 - Ivanovic,B - Bronstein,D [08:58]
• 16: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Bf4 - Davies,N - Groszpeter,A [04:45]
• 17: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Be3 - Bakulin,N - Bronstein,D [08:53]
• 18: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Ne2 - Kopaev,N - Bronstein,D [07:35]
• 19: 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.Qd3 - Barczay,L - Bronstein,D [05:32]
• 20: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.c3 Bd6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.Qc2 Re8+ 9.Ne2 Kh8 White castles short - Tiviakov,S - Spraggett,K [10:37]
• 21: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.c3 Bd6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.Ne2 Re8 9.Qc2 Kh8 White castles long - Fontaine,R - Asrian,K [07:19]
• 22: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.c3 Bd6 7.Bd3 Be6 - Arakhamia-Grant,K - Korchnoi,V [07:33]
• 23: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.Bc4 Qe7 7.Qe2 Be6 8.Bxe6 - Ivanovic,B - Miladinovic,I [09:03]
• 24: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.Bc4 Qe7 7.Qe2 Be6 8.Bb3 - Estevez,G - Lechtynsky,J [09:43]
• 25: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.Bc4 Qe7 7.Be2 - Karjakin,S - Jobava,B [11:19]
• 26: 5.Nxf6 exf6 6.Bc4 Bd6 - Bednarski,J - Donner,J [11:38]
• 27: 5.Ng3 g6 - Sax,G - Larsen,B [16:23]
• 28: 5.Ng3 h5 - Elezi,E - Akopian,V [09:21]