|
|
|
[#]The Bulgarian grandmaster played as White in game 1 of the match. 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 Anand played the Najdorf variation in Wijk aan Zee. 3.d4 cd 4.¤d4 ¤c6 5.¤c3 £c7 6.¥e3 a6 7.£d2 ¤f6 8.O-O-O ¥b4 9.f3 = [When playing against Morozevich in Dortmund 2001, Anand directed his queen's knight into the center: 9...¤e5 10.¤b3 b5 11.¥d4 ¥e7 12.¢b1 d6 13.£f2 ¦b8 14.g4 h6 15.h4 ¤c4 16.¥c4 bc 17.¤d2 e5 18.¥a7 ¦b7 19.g5 ¤h5 20.¤d5 £c6 21.¤f1 ¥e6 22.¥e3 ¥d5 23.ed £b5 24.c3 ¤f4 25.¥f4 ef 26.¦g1 O-O 27.¦g2 ¦fb8 28.¦d2 g6 29.£d4 ...1/2-1/2, Morozevich Alexander 2742 - Anand Viswanathan 2770 , Dortmund 2001 It (cat.21)] [In an earlier game between the same opponents Topalov opted for 10.a3 , but failed to achieve anything after 10...¥c3 11.£c3 £c3 12.bc d5 13.e5 ¤d7 14.f4 b5 15.¤b3 ¤c4 16.¥c4 bc 17.¤c5 ¦b8 18.¢d2 ¦b5 19.¤d7 ¥d7 20.a4 ¦b8 21.¦b1 O-O 22.a5 ¦b5 23.¦b5 ¥b5 , with deadly drawn position. 24.¥d4 f5?! +0,28 (24...¦b8!? 25.g4 ¢f8 26.¥a7 ¦d8 -0,26) 25.ef gf 26.g4 ¢f7 27.h4 h5 28.g5 fg 29.fg ¢g6 ...1/2-1/2, Topalov Veselin 2735 - Anand Viswanathan 2766 , Bastia 2003 It (active) (knockout system) "Corsica Masters"; playing in the same tournament against Anand, Grischuk tried 10.¥f4 d6 11.¤b3 e5 12.¥g5 ¥e6 13.¢b1 ¦c8 14.£e3 b5 15.¥h4 ¥c3 16.£c3 £c3 17.bc ¤b7 18.¢b2 ¤d7 19.¥f2 ¢e7 20.¦a1 ¤dc5 21.¤c5 ¤c5 22.¥c5 ¦c5 23.a4 ba 24.¦a4 a5 25.¥d3 ¦b8 26.¢c1 ¥d7 27.¦a3 a4 28.c4 ¢d8 29.¢d2 ¢c7 ...1/2-1/2, Grischuk Alexander 2719 - Anand Viswanathan 2766 , Bastia 2003 It (active) (knockout system) "Corsica Masters"] 10...d5 11.¢b1 ¤b3 12.ab de 13.¤b5 Otherwise White simply loses a pawn. 13...£e7 14.¤c7 £c7 15.£b4 ¤d5 (!) Black cannot keep an extra pawn, [since 15...ef? loses to 16.¥b6+-] 16.£e4 ¤e3 17.£e3 ¥d7 18.£d4 e5 19.£b4?! -0.05 [Perhaps, White should have challenged Black's presence in the center by 19.¦e1!? f6 20.f4 O-O-O 21.fe +0.46] 19...O-O-O +0.28 += Black already has no problems. [Moreover, deserving attention was 19...a5!? , intending to develop the initiative on the queenside after 20.£d2 a4 21.¥c4 ¥c6 -0.05] [After 22.f4 an unpleasant for White reply 22...¥g4 may follow.] 22...¥f5 (!) [22...¥c4 would have helped White in establishing control over the central d5-square after 23.bc] 23.g4 ¥g6 24.h4 h5 25.¥e6 ¢b8 26.¥f5 ¥f7 27.¥e4 hg 28.fg ¥e6 The black bishop completed an interesting round-trip maneuver (e6-f5-g6-f7-e6) having enticed the white kingside pawns to advance. 29.¥f3 [White could have played 30.¦d8 , trying to keep the h4-pawn. However, the computer analysis verifies Topalov's decision: 30...¦d8 31.£b5 ¦d2 32.£e8 -0.86] 30...¦d1 31.¦d1 ¦h4 32.¦d8 ¥c8 [Of course, Black cannot play 32...¢a7?? due to 33.£e3 £b6 34.¦a8+- winning the queen.] 33.¦d3? -1.26 [Perhaps, by leaving the back rank White has wasted his last chance for draw: 33.¦g8 £f7 34.¦d8 £c7 35.¦g8 -0.32; M.Pein (Daily Telegraph) suggests 33.£d5 here, intending to play ¥e4-f5, but it hits on 33...f5! with a highly unclear position, where Black's chances are not worse as long as the black central pawns advance.] 33...¦h8 The black rook immediately covers the only weakness in Black's camp. 34.b4 a4 35.£e3?! -1.86 [35.b5!? £a5 36.£c4 ¦d8 37.¦d8 -1.07] 35...¦d8 36.¦c3 £d6 37.£e4?! -3.51 [In a difficult position Topalov fails to notice that the first rank is dangerously weak in his own camp; instead, he should have exchanged rooks by: 37.¦d3!? £e7 38.¦d8 £d8 39.¢c1 -1.71] 37...£b6 38.¦c4 (?) White plays poorly the concluding part of the game. 38...¥e6 39.¦c5 ¦d4 40.£e3 ¦b4 41.£c3 ¦b5 42.¦b5 £g1 -13.01 -+ , checkmating. [0:1] |
