A King’s Golden Cage

Efstratios Grivas, 2010

Nowadays  it  is  acceptable  that  all  combinative  motives  can  be  categorized  and  learned  by
training methods. One more combination ‘pattern’ we will examine in the present survey.

Of course I could only present the diagrammed position in question in each of the examples and
avoid the comments on the previous moves of the games. But in my opinion a combination is only
the  top  of  the  mountain;  a  natural  consequence  of  the  chessplayer  strategy.  The  reader  should
study  how  the  game  ‘produces’  the  critical  moment  of  the  potentional  combination;  how  this  is
born in the mind of the chessplayer.

Example ○

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+R+-+0
9zp-wq-+pzpk0
9-+n+-vl-+0
9+-+L+-zPp0
9-+P+-zP-+0
9+-+-+N+-0
9Ptr-wQ-+KzP0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

White seems to be in trouble. His queen is attacked and 1.Be4+ g6 2.Bc2 Bg7 =+ looks like his
only defence. But the truth is different. The uncomfortable placement of the black king can decide
the game in no time!
1.g6+! fxg6
Or 1...Kxg6 2.Be4+ Kh6 3.Rh8#. But now the golden cage has closed its gates!
2.Qxb2!
The second step: the black bishop must abandon the protection of the g5-square.
2...Bxb2 3.Ng5+ Kh6 4.Rh8#
1–0

As always, this certain combination can be categorized, according to certain factors. These
factors can be:

1) The back rank is not satisfactory protected.

2) There are or can be created, doubled g- (or b-) pawns in the opponent’s castle.

3) The queen can be ‘sacrificed’, opening the road for the rooks (or other pieces).

4) The opponent king can be driven to the h- (or a-) file.

5) The (doubled) rook(s) can deliver the final blow from the 8

rank.

“During  a  chess  competition  a  chessmaster  should  be  a  combination  of  a  beast  of  prey  and  a
monk.” Alexander Alekhine

□ Alekhine,Alexander
■ Colle,Edgar
D07 Paris 1925
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Qa4!? Bxf3
The main alternative is 4...dxc4!? 5.e3 Bxf3 6.gxf3 e5 7.dxe5 Qd5 8.Nc3 Qxf3 9.Rg1 Qh5 10.Bg2
Nge7 11.f4 0–0–0 12.Qxc4 g5 oo Braun,A-Rodshtein,M/Budapest 2006.
5.exf3 e6
Black  has  also  tried  5...dxc4  6.Bxc4  Qxd4  7.Nc3  e6  8.Be3  (8.0–0  Bd6  9.Rd1  oo/=  Portisch,L-
Mariotti,S/Budapest 1975) 8...Qe5 9.Bb5 Nge7 10.0–0 0–0–0 11.Rad1 Rxd1 12.Rxd1 a5? (12...a6
13.f4  Qh5  14.Bxa6!  Qa5  15.Qxa5  Nxa5  16.Bd3  +=)  13.f4  Qh5  14.b4!  Nd5  15.Nxd5  Nxb4
(15...exd5 16.bxa5 d4 17.a6! +-) 16.Be2! Qxe2 17.Qe8# 1–0 Inkiov,V-Dubois,L/Clichy 2001. Of
course 5...e5? should be avoided: 6.dxe5 d4 7.Bd3 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Bxd2+ 9.Nxd2 Nge7 10.f4 +/- Da
Silva Rocha,A-Grau,R/Carrasco 1938.
6.Nc3 (D)

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqkvlntr0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+n+p+-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9Q+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+P+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-vL-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

6...Bb4?!
I  do  not  really  like  the  text-move,  which  surrenders  the  bishop-pair  to  White  and  improves  his
pawn-structure.  Better  is  6...Nge7!  7.Bg5  (7.Be3  g6  8.cxd5  exd5  9.Bb5  Bg7  10.0–0  0–0  =
Fuster,G-Bronstein,D/Budapest  1949)  7...Qd7  8.Rd1  (8.cxd5  Nxd5  9.Bb5  Be7  10.Bxc6  bxc6
11.Bxe7  Nxe7  12.0–0  0–0  13.Rac1  Rfb8  14.b3  a5  =  Gebhardt,U-Zaragatski,I/Hamburg  2005)

8...h6 9.Bf4 g5 10.Be3 Bg7 11.cxd5 exd5 12.h4 0–0–0 oo Ivanov,I-Watson,J/New York 1984.
7.a3! Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Nge7 9.Rb1 Rb8 10.cxd5 Qxd5
The  other  capture  with  10...exd5  is  also  pleasant  for  White:  11.Bd3  0–0  12.Qc2  (12.0–0  Qd6
(12...Nc8?! 13.Qc2 h6 14.a4 Nb6 15.Qa2 +/- Borocz,I-Ruck,T/Zalakaros 1995) 13.g3 Ng6 14.Bb2
a6  15.Qc2  Nce7  16.h4  Rfe8  17.h5  Nf8  18.Bc1  h6  19.Bf4  +=  Smistik,M-Novak,P/Svetla  nad
Sazavou  1996)  12...Ng6  13.0–0  Re8  14.f4  Qd6  15.g3  Na5  16.f5  Nf8  17.Bf4  +/-  Kempinski,R-
Spyra,W/Karvina 1994. The bishop-pair is like heaven, at least in such a position.
11.Bd3 0–0 12.0–0 Qd6 13.Qc2 Ng6 14.f4 Nce7
Not helpful is 14...Nxf4 15.Bxh7+ Kh8 16.Be4 Nd5 17.Re1 +/-.
15.g3 Rfd8 16.Rd1 b6 17.a4 (D)

XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-tr-+k+0
9zp-zp-snpzpp0
9-zp-wqp+n+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9P+-zP-zP-+0
9+-zPL+-zP-0
9-+Q+-zP-zP0
9+RvLR+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

White  enjoys  a  healthy  advantage.  His  bishop-pair  and  the  possibility  to  create  initiative  in  both
flanks is a welcome concept for every strong player.
17...Nd5 18.Bd2?!
18.f5! is more accurate: 18...exf5 19.Bxf5 +/- as now Black cannot continue with 19...c5? 20.dxc5
Qxc5 21.Rb5 +-.
18...c5!
Black must create pawn weaknesses in White's camp, in order to find some counterplay.
19.f5 exf5 20.Bxf5 cxd4 21.cxd4 Nde7 22.Bb4 Qf6 23.Bxe7?!
White  should  maintain  his  slight  advantage  with  23.Bh3  Nc6!  (23...Rxd4?!  24.Qc7  Re8  25.Re1
Rdd8 26.Bg2 +/-) 24.d5 Nxb4 25.Rxb4 Qd6 26.Re4 +=.
23...Qxe7
Not of course 23...Nxe7? 24.Bxh7+ Kf8 25.Be4! Rxd4 26.Rxd4 Qxd4 27.Rd1 Qe5 28.Rd7 +/-.
24.Rbc1 Rd5?
According to modern middlegame theory, Black had to create a passed pawn of his own, in order
to keep equal chances. This is best done with 24...a6! 25.d5 b5 26.axb5 axb5 =.
25.Be4 Rd7 26.d5 Qf6
26...Re8  27.Re1  Rdd8  28.Re2  Qd7  29.Rce1  is  another  try  for  Black,  although  White  keeps  his
advantage.
27.Re1 Rbd8 28.Qc6?!
I 'd rather like 28.Rcd1 Ne7! 29.Rd3! (29.Bxh7+?! Kf8 30.Be4 Nxd5)  where White keeps a nice
advantage.
28...Qg5? (D)
This  is  a  fatal  mistake,  which  allows  a  nice  combination.  Black  had  to  continue  with  28...Ne7!
29.Qxf6  (29.Qb5  g6  30.Rcd1  Nf5  31.Qb4  [31.Bxf5  Qxf5  32.Qa6  =]  31...Nd6  =)  29...gxf6  30.d6
Rxd6 31.Rc7 R8d7 32.Bxh7+ Kf8 33.Rxd7 Rxd7 34.Bc2 Rd2 35.Rc1 +=.

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+k+0
9zp-+r+pzpp0
9-zpQ+-+n+0
9+-+P+-wq-0
9P+-+L+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9-+-+-zP-zP0
9+-tR-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

At first sight it would seem that Black has neutralised the dangerous passed d-pawn, and there is
now way for White to make use of the Black's temporary weakness on the back rank.
29.Bxg6!
This looks quite strange, since now the d-pawn cannot be protected anymore. But Alekhine used
this move to support his strategical plan with tactical nuances.
29...hxg6? (D)

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+k+0
9zp-+r+pzp-0
9-zpQ+-+p+0
9+-+P+-wq-0
9P+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9-+-+-zP-zP0
9+-tR-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Obviously 29...Qxg6? was bad due to  30.Qxd7 with a simple mate threat, but what is wrong with
Colle's  move  which after all  opens a safe  haven  for the black king on h7? In fact the only  move
was 29...fxg6 though it wouldn't have stopped White's decisive advantage: 30.Qe6+ Rf7 (30...Kf8
31.Rc4! Rf7 [31...Rxd5 loses nicely to  32.Rf4+ Rf5 33.Re5!!] 32.Rc8 wins) 31.Rc8 Rxc8 (31...h6
32.f4  ;  31...Kf8  32.Qe8+  Rxe8  33.Rcxe8#)  32.Qxc8+  Rf8  33.Re8  Qf6  34.Rxf8+  Qxf8  35.Qc7!
(35.Qc6  Qd8  36.d6  Kf7  37.Qc4+  Kf8  38.Qc7  Ke8  39.Qxg7  Qxd6  40.Qg8+  Kd7  41.Qxh7+  Kc6
42.h4! +/- but  not 42.Qxa7 Qd1+ 43.Kg2 Qd5+ 44.f3 Qd2+ 45.Kh3 Qh6+ 46.Kg4 Qh5+ 47.Kf4
Qf5+ 48.Ke3 =) 35...Qf3 36.Qb8+ Qf8 37.Qxa7 Qd6 38.Qb7 Kf8 39.Kf1 +-.
30.Qxd7!! Rxd7 31.Re8+
The 'correct' rook. The 'alternative' 31.Rc8+? Rd8 -+ would have ruined an excellent combination.
31...Kh7 32.Rcc8
What  an  irony!  The  black  men  on  the  g-file  create  a  burial  site  for  their  own  king.  There  is  no
escape...

32...Rd8 33.Rexd8!
33.Rcxd8? prolongs the game: 33...Qc1+ 34.Kg2 g5 +/-. But now Black had to resign.
1–0

□ Mamedyarov,Shakhriyar
■ Timofeev,Artyom
D45 Moscow Aeroflot 2004
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 b6 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.0–0 Be7 9.e4!?
Most players try 9.b3 here.
9...dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Nf6 12.Ne5 (D)

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0
9zpl+-vlpzpp0
9-zpp+psn-+0
9+-+-sN-+-0
9-+PzPL+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPQ+-zPPzP0
9tR-vL-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

12.Bd3 c5 seems to be OK for Black: 13.dxc5 Bxc5 = 14.b4?! Bxb4 15.Qa4+ Qd7 16.Qxb4 Qxd3
17.Ba3  0–0–0  18.Rfe1  Bxf3  19.Re3  Qd2  20.Rxf3  Qxb4  21.Bxb4  Rd4  -/+  Drozdovskij,Y-
Smeets,J/Oropesa del Mar 1998.
12...Rc8
Obviously 12...Qxd4? 13.Bxc6+ Bxc6 14.Nxc6 favours White.
13.Rd1 Nxe4
Black  must  capture  the  bishop,  as  after  13...0–0?  14.Bf3  +/-  he  will  face  hugh  difficulties  in
advancing his c-pawn to c5.
14.Qxe4 0–0 15.Bf4 Ba8
With  15...Bf6!?  16.Rd3  Qe7  Black  could  obtain  a  position  from  the  game  Stefanova,A-
Polgar,S/Vienna  1996  (with  the  white  rook  on  f1  instead  of  a1),  in  which  Polgar  successfully
neutralized her opponent's initiative and won.
16.Rd3 c5 17.Qe3!
Black would have an easy game after 17.d5 exd5 18.cxd5 Bd6 =.

17...Qe8!
The text-move avoids a devilish trap, which can be seen after 17...cxd4? 18.Rxd4 Qe8 19.Nd7 Bc5
(D)

XIIIIIIIIY
9l+r+qtrk+0
9zp-+N+pzpp0
9-zp-+p+-+0
9+-vl-+-+-0
9-+PtR-vL-+0
9+-+-wQ-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

20.Nf6+! gxf6 21.Bh6 Be4 (21...Kh8? 22.Bg7+! Kxg7 23.Rg4+ Kh8 24.Qh6 mates) 22.Qxe4 Kh8
(22...f5? 23.Qg4+! fxg4 24.Rxg4+ Kh8 25.Bg7+ Kg8 26.Bf6#) 23.Rd2 Rg8 24.Rad1 +/-.
18.d5?!
White  should  consider  to  continue  with  18.dxc5!?  f6!  (18...Bxc5?!  19.Qg3  +/-)  19.Nd7  e5!
(19...Bxc5? 20.Nxc5 Rxc5 21.Bd6)  20.Bg3 (20.Nxf8 exf4 21.Qxf4 Bxf8 22.cxb6 axb6 23.b3 oo)
20...Bxc5 21.Qe2 Rf7 22.Nxc5 Rxc5 23.b3 +=.
18...exd5 19.cxd5 c4!
19...Bd6 20.Qg3 +=.
20.Rdd1
20.Rd2 Bb4 21.Rdd1 Bd6 does not change anything.
20...Bd6
Black  would  be  also  stand  fine  after  20...f6  21.Ng4  (21.d6?  fxe5  22.d7  Qg6  ;  21.Nc6  Bxc6
22.dxc6 Rxc6 23.Re1 Rf7) 21...Bc5 22.Qg3 Qd7 23.Ne3 Bxe3 24.fxe3 f5.
21.Qg3 Qb5?! (D)
Black should have continued with 21...Rc5! 22.Nxc4 (22.Nd3 Bxf4 23.Nxf4 Qe4 24.Rac1 Qf5 oo)
22...Bxf4 23.Qxf4 Rxd5 =.

XIIIIIIIIY
9l+r+-trk+0
9zp-+-+pzpp0
9-zp-vl-+-+0
9+q+PsN-+-0
9-+p+-vL-+0
9+-+-+-wQ-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+R+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

22.Nc6! Bxf4 23.Ne7+ Kh8 24.Qxf4 Rcd8 25.Rd2 Qc5 26.d6 Rd7?!
White,  helped  by  Black's  21st  move,  achieved  the  advantage,  but  Black's  last  move  increase  it.
Better was 26...f5 +=.
27.Rc1 b5 28.Rc3!
Threatening Rh3-h7+!
28...Rfd8
Black feels short of moves: 28...g6 29.Qf6# ; 28...h6 29.Ng6+ ; 28...f5!? 29.Re3 +/-.
29.Re3?!
White missed the strong 29.Qxf7! Be4 30.Rg3 Qe5 31.f4 Qf6 32.Qxf6 gxf6 33.Rd4 Bb1 34.a4 a6
35.f5 +/-.
29...Rxd6? (D)

XIIIIIIIIY
9l+-tr-+-mk0
9zp-+-sNpzpp0
9-+-tr-+-+0
9+pwq-+-+-0
9-+p+-wQ-+0
9+-+-tR-+-0
9PzP-tR-zPPzP0
9+-+-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The text-move loses by force, as White can present the 'usual combination'. Bad was also 29...h6
30.Qxf7  Qg5  31.Rg3  Qf6  32.Ng6+  Kh7  33.Nf8+  +-  but  Black  should  try  the  interesting  and  far
from  completely  clear  line  with  29...Qb4!?  30.Rde2  Qxd6  31.Qxf7  Qd1+  32.Re1  Qg4  33.f3
(33.Rg3? Rd1!) 33...Qd4 34.Kf1 Qf6 35.Ng6+! hxg6 36.Re8+ Kh7 37.Qg8+ Kh6 38.h4! (38.Qh8+
Kg5  39.R8e5+  Qxe5  40.Rxe5+  Kf4  41.Re8  Rd1+  42.Kf2  R1d2+  =)  38...g5!  39.Qh8+!  (39.R1e6
Rd1+  =)  39...Kg6  40.hxg5  Rxe8  41.Qxe8+  Qf7  42.Qxa8  Qd5  43.Qe8+  Qf7  44.Qc8  +/-  or  the
modest but safe enough 29...f6! 30.Re6 Qg5 31.Qxg5 fxg5 +=.
30.Ng6+!! hxg6
The alternatives are: 30...fxg6 31.Qxd6 Rxd6 32.Re8# ; 30...Rxg6 31.Rxd8+ ; 30...Kg8 31.Rxd6
Qxd6 32.Qxd6 Rxd6 33.Re8#.
31.Qh4+ Qh5
Or 31...Kg8 32.Qxd8+ Rxd8 33.Rxd8+ Kh7 34.Rh3+ +-.
32.Qxd8+! Rxd8 33.Rxd8+ Kh7 34.Ree8
Black  resigned  as  the  forced  34...g5  35.Rh8+  Kg6  36.Rxh5  Kxh5  37.Rxa8  leaves  him  a  rook
down.
1–0

□ Azmaiparashvili,Zurab
■ Shirov,Alexei
A07 Dubai FIDE GP 2002
1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nd2 Bg4 5.h3 Bh5 6.Ngf3 Nbd7 7.0–0 e5 8.e4 Bd6 9.exd5 cxd5 (D)

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+-vl-sn-+0
9+-+pzp-+l0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+P+NzPP0
9PzPPsN-zPL+0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

10.g4!?
The  most  usual  move  is  10.c4  0–0  (10...d4  11.Qe2  0–0  12.g4  Bg6  13.Nh4  Nc5  14.Nxg6  hxg6
15.b4  +/-  King,D-Norwood,D/Germany  tt  1994)  11.cxd5  Nxd5  12.Qb3  (12.Nc4!?  Bc7  13.Qb3
N5b6  14.Bg5!  Qe8  15.Rfe1  (15.Rac1  Nxc4?  16.Qxc4  +=  Hodgson,J-De  la  Villa  Garcia,J/Dos
Hermanas  1992)  15...Kh8  16.Bd2  f6  17.Bb4  Rg8  18.Nd4  +=  Norwood,D-Girinath,P/Calcutta
1994) and now:
a) 12...N5f6 13.Nc4  (13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.dxe4 Nc5 15.Qd5 Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Qf6 17.Bg2 Rfd8 18.Be3
Bf8  19.Qc4  Nd3  =  Norwood-Adams/Plymouth  Ch-UK  1989)  13...Nc5  (13...Bc7  14.Be3  b6
15.Rfe1  Rc8?!  [15...a6  16.d4 ;  15...Re8!?  ;  15...Rb8  16.d4]  16.d4  Bxf3  [16...exd4  17.Nxd4  +/-  ;
16...e4 17.Nfe5  x  c6,  e4]  17.Bxf3  e4  [17...exd4  18.Bxd4 +/-]  18.Bg2  Re8  [18...a6!]  19.Rac1  +/-
[19.Qb5!?]  Vaganian,R-Torre,E/Moscow  OL  1994)  14.Qa3  e4  (14...Bxf3  15.Bxf3  Be7  16.Nxe5
Ncd7 17.Qc3 Rc8 18.Qe1 Bc5 19.Nxd7 Qxd7 20.Kg2 += Vaganian,R-Kaidanov,G/Glendale 1994)
15.dxe4 Ncxe4 16.Nxd6 Qxd6 17.Qxd6 Nxd6 18.Bf4 += Kogan,A-Jonkman,H/Lisbon 2000.
b)  12...N5b6  13.Ne4  Be7  14.a4  (14.Be3  Kh8  15.Rac1  +=  Bricard,E-Stefansson,H/Bischwiller
1999)  14...Kh8!  (14...a5  15.Be3  Bb4  16.Rfc1  Kh8  17.Nc5  [17.d4!?]  17...Nxc5  18.Bxc5  Bxc5
19.Rxc5  f6  =  Foisor,C-Delgado  Crespo,M/Benasque  2001  ;  14...Rb8?  15.a5  Nc8  16.d4!  +/-
Ivanov,M-Kharitonov,A/Moscow 1995) 15.a5 f5! oo Vaganian,R-Khalifman,A/Eupen 1994.
10...Bg6 11.Nh4 0–0 12.Nxg6 hxg6 13.c4
The alternative is 13.Nf3 Rc8 14.Nh4 Nb6 15.a4 a5 oo Haziev,A-Bakhtiyarova,A/Ufa 2004.
13...Nc5 14.Nb3
Or 14.cxd5 Nxd3 15.Nc4 (15.Qb3 Nf4) 15...Nxc1 16.Rxc1 Re8 =.
14...dxc4 15.dxc4 Qc7 16.Be3
Unclear is also the alternative continuation with 16.Nxc5 Bxc5 17.g5 Nh5 18.Qb3. But in general
Black  should  happy  of  the  opening  outcome,  since  he  is  fighting  under  equal  terms,  having
neutralized White's (minimal) opening edge.
16...e4!? 17.Nxc5
Bad is 17.g5?! Nfd7 =+.
17...Bxc5 18.Bxc5 Qxc5 19.Qe2 Rfe8 20.Rac1
Interesting is 20.Rad1 where Black should avoid 20...e3? 21.Bxb7 Rab8 22.Bd5 Rxb2 23.Qxb2 e2
24.Qb5 +/-.
20...Rad8 21.Rc3 Rd4 22.Qe3 Red8 23.Re1?!

In my opinion White should have tried 23.g5 Nh7 24.h4 oo.
23...Qb4?!
Why not 23...g5! 24.a3 a5 =+ ?
24.g5! (D)
24.a3?! Qxb2 25.Rb3 Qc2 26.Rxb7 Rxc4 27.Rxa7 Rd1 28.Rf1 Rc8 is about equal, although it
seems that White should be on the alert.

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+k+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+-+-snp+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9-wqPtrp+-+0
9+-tR-wQ-+P0
9PzP-+-zPL+0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

24...Rd3?
Black  had  to  be  'satisfied'  with  the  modest  24...Nh7  25.Bxe4  Qxb2  26.Rb3  Qxa2  27.Bxb7  Nxg5
28.Ra3 Qd2 29.Qxd2 Rxd2 30.Bd5 +=.
25.Qc1?!
A  much  better  continuation  than  the  game  was  with  the  simple  25.Rxd3!  Rxd3  26.Qc1  Nh5
27.Rxe4 Rd2 28.a3 Qxb2 29.Qxb2 Rxb2 30.Re8+ Kh7 31.Re7 +/-.
25...Nh5 26.Bxe4 Rd2?
Too  optimistic.  Forced  was  26...Rxc3  27.Qxc3  Qxc3  28.bxc3  b6  29.Bd5  Nf4  30.Kh2  Kf8!  +=
(30...Nxd5?! 31.Rd1 Kf8 32.cxd5 Ke7 33.c4 +/-).
27.Bd5! R8xd5
Black had counted in the text-move when he entered this variation, as the alternatives are clearly
lost for him: 27...Qxb2 28.Qxb2 Rxb2 29.Rf3 Kh7 30.Re7 +- ; 27...Rxb2 28.a3 Qb6 29.c5 +-.
28.cxd5 Qf4 (D)

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+-+-+p+0
9+-+P+-zPn0
9-+-+-wq-+0
9+-tR-+-+P0
9PzP-tr-zP-+0
9+-wQ-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

29.Rf3?
An  interesting  moment  of  mutual  blindness.  Both  players  overlooked  the  'well-known'
combination:  29.Re8+  Kh7  30.Qxd2!  Qxd2  31.Rcc8  Qxg5+  32.Kf1  Ng3+  33.Ke1  +-.  The  only
logical explanation is that this was a rapid game, but still...
29...Qxf3 30.Qxd2 Nf4
And now Black wins!
31.Qxf4 Qxf4 32.Rd1 Qxg5+ 33.Kf1 Kf8
0–1

Sometimes we can come across similar patterns, which help us not to mate on the usual way, but
just  to  win  material  or  even  strategical  superiority.  An  excellent  example  is  the  following  game
between the two K’s:

□ Kasparov,Garry
■ Karpov,Anatoly
E21 Moscow Wch m (11) 1985
1.d4  Nf6  2.c4  e6  3.Nc3  Bb4  4.Nf3  0–0  5.Bg5  c5  6.e3  cxd4  7.exd4  h6  8.Bh4  d5  9.Rc1  dxc4
10.Bxc4  Nc6  11.0–0  Be7  12.Re1  b6  13.a3  Bb7  14.Bg3  Rc8  15.Ba2  Bd6  16.d5  Nxd5  17.Nxd5
Bxg3 18.hxg3 exd5 19.Bxd5 Qf6 20.Qa4 Rfd8 21.Rcd1 Rd7 (D)

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-+k+0
9zpl+r+pzp-0
9-zpn+-wq-zp0
9+-+L+-+-0
9Q+-+-+-+0
9zP-+-+NzP-0
9-zP-+-zPP+0
9+-+RtR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

22.Qg4! Rcd8?
Equally  bad  was  22...Re7?  23.Rxe7!  Qxe7  24.Bxf7+!  Qxf7  25.Rd7  h5  26.Qh3  +-  or  22...Rdc7
23.b4!  +=  or  finally  22...Rdd8  23.b4!  +=.  But  Black  could  have  achieved  a  perfectly  playable
position with 22...Rd6! 23.Be4  (23.Re4 Rf8! 24.Rf4 Qd8 25.Qh5 Ne5!)  23...Rcd8 24.Rxd6 Rxd6
25.b4 Re6! =.
23.Qxd7!
The ‘usual’ pattern. The queen is sacrificed in order to open the road to the back rank and by using
the opponent’s king placement, to win material.
23...Rxd7 24.Re8+ Kh7 25.Be4+
Black resigned as he is losing too much material after 25...g6 26.Rxd7 Ba6 27.Bxc6.
1–0