% BOOKTITLE = Coach Yourself (sample)
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "About this Publication"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Neil McDonald"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "Coach Yourself"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2019.04.01"]

{Many players are serious about their chess but become stuck at a certain
playing strength. It's rarely a lack of talent or practice or opening
knowledge that holds them back. Usually they get left behind because they
don't know how to make best use of the time they have available to study
chess.} 1. Z0 {This book addresses this problem and is your self-improvement
plan. It shows you how to work on your own games to root out mistakes. It will
sharpen your calculation of variations. You will be challenged to find the
best middlegame strategy. Endgame technique is also covered in detail. All
topics are discussed with numerous examples and puzzles from the games of
modern players such as Magnus Carlsen, Fabiano Caruana and Viswanathan Anand.
If you want your chess to leap forward it's time to Coach Yourself!} (1. Z0 {
A complete self-improvement programme. --- All aspects of the game included.
--- Utilizes a structured approach, making the most of your study time.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "About the Author"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Neil McDonald"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "Coach Yourself"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2019.04.01"]

{Neil McDonald became a grandmaster in 1996 and a FIDE trainer in 2017. He is
a regular coach of the England Junior team at international events. Neil has
written numerous books on openings, endgames, tactics and strategy as well as
biographies of famous players. He lives in Gravesend in Kent, England.} 1. Z0 {
Also by the Author: -- Break the Rules! -- Catalan: Move by Move -- Chess
Secrets: The Giants of Power Play -- Chess Secrets: The Giants of Strategy --
Concise Chess Endings -- Concise Chess Middlegames -- Concise Chess Openings
-- Dutch Leningrad -- French Winawer -- How to Play Against 1 e4 -- Main Line
Caro-Kann -- Modern Defence -- Play the Dutch -- Positional Sacrifices --
Practical Endgame Play -- Rudolf Spielmann: Master of Invention -- Starting
Out: 1 e4 -- Starting Out: Queen's Gambit Declined -- Starting Out: The Dutch
Defence -- Starting Out: The English -- Starting Out: The Réti -- The King's
Indian Attack: Move by Move -- The Ruy Lopez: Move by Move} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Neil McDonald"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "Coach Yourself"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2019.04.01"]

{Along with the excitement of competition and the pleasure of social activity
that chess brings to our lives, there is also the joy of intellectual
challenge. We all want to get better at it. There is something deeply
satisfying about seeing our skill and knowledge grow. --- The aim of this book
is to show you everything you need to be working on to become a better player.
Tactics, strategy, and the endgame are covered in detail, and you are offered
guidance on subjects such as calculation, analysing your games, and choosing
your openings. --- Don't expect to understand everything straight away as some
of the material is hard: fiendishly hard. It is meant to get you thinking and
pushing forwards at the limits of your understanding. But just as the Romans
trained with heavier weapons than those used in battle, your task in your own
games will seem much lighter after analysing the combinations and strategy of
the great players.} 1. Z0 {It's not my intention to be a lifestyle guru. But
we both know that exercise, a balanced diet, and a regular routine during
tournaments will be of benefit to your chess. When world champion Magnus
Carlsen was asked by an interviewer if he was afraid for his title because an
upcoming player was spending sixteen hours a day or more studying chess, he
replied laconically: "He should get more sleep." There are many games by
the great Magnus presented here, but that is the most useful thing you will
learn from him. --- I hope that this book will spur you on to devise your own
study plan. This will mean making time not only to look at openings, but also
to solve chess puzzles, annotate your own games, learn about chess history and
the great masters, read books about the endgame, practice calculation by
selecting complicated positions to analyse to death, and so on. The more work
you put in the better (while remembering Carlsen's admonition!).} (1. Z0 {
Let me wish you luck in your quest to learn more about the mysteries of chess.
--- Neil McDonald, Gravesend, Kent, February 2019}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chapter Six"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Neil McDonald"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "Coach Yourself"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2019.04.01"]

1. Z0 {Know Yourself: Diagnosing Positional Mistakes --- If your eyes are the
windows to your soul, your games are the windows to your chess soul. They
reveal your style and temperament, your likes and dislikes, your strengths and
weaknesses. --- How about you make the following deal with yourself. For the
next two years you'll write notes to your match and tournament games - every
one of them, including horrible defeats or seemingly uneventful draws. It is
easy to "accidentally" lose a scoresheet if you have had a nasty defeat.
But you shouldn't miss out a single game. You can write the notes on paper or
on a computer, as you please. In my youth I self-penned a collection of my own
games with the hopeful title "My Best Games of Chess", though it included
all my games, including miserable losses. I undoubtedly learned a lot by
talking to myself in those pages. It's very easy to think after a game "I
lost because I put my knight on a bad square at move 12, well, I won't do that
again", and never look any more deeply into the causes. But in doing so you
are denying yourself the chance to get better at chess. --- Of course your
notes to your games will show your current limitations as a player. At times
you will get the assessment of the position wrong or not really understand why
you lost. But that's okay. Your annotations will improve as your playing
strength improves, and your playing strength will benefit from the feedback it
gets from your annotations. --- If you make the pact to analyse every game
then, after two years, you'll know a lot about your thinking processes and be
a much better player.} (1. Z0 {A Checklist for Writing Notes to Your Games ---
It's best to write notes to a game as soon as possible after you've played it.
Then it will be fresh in your mind. Try to reconstruct your feelings at
various points during it. -- 1. Any obvious blunders? What moves by the
opponent surprised you? What did you miscalculate? (Be honest.) -- 2. What
were the turning points in the game? For example, when did it go from being
equal to a slight or decisive advantage for one of the players? Did the game
swing backwards and forwards? -- 3. How did you stand after the opening? Did
you have a good position but then dip in the middlegame? If there was an
endgame, how well did you handle it? -- 4. How well did you handle the clock?
It's important to take note of how much time you had at various points in the
game. Otherwise you might draw the wrong conclusions, such as "I'm bad in
rook and pawn endgames", when you blundered at the end because you had one
minute for ten moves. -- 5. If you had a post-mortem after the game, what did
your opponent say? Include anything interesting in the analysis. --- If you
are detailed and objective in your comments then, after you've analysed a
batch of your games, some patterns should emerge.}) (1. Z0 {Possible
Conclusions After Annotating Some of Your Games -- 1. Keep falling for
tactics? Then brush up by doing puzzles. -- 2. Keep getting lousy positions
after 10 moves? Work more on your openings. -- 3. Keep getting great positions
after 10 moves, then it goes downhill? You need to improve your strategy. -- 4.
Keep getting bad results with a certain opening? You might do well to ditch it.
But beware here. It's easy to think the grass is always greener on the other
side. If you think an opening as Black gives you a nice safe game from the
start, as well as chances of counter-attack, you have either never played it
or only played it against lower-rated players! --- In this chapter we'll
investigate a lot of typical positional mistakes. This will show you the sort
of thing you should be looking for when you are annotating your own games.}) *

[Event "British Championship, Edinburgh"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1985.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Hawksworth, J"]
[Black "McDonald, N"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "D37"]
[Annotator "Neil McDonald"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[EventDate "1985.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "Coach Yourself"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2019.04.01"]

{An Example from My Personal Annotations --- The British Championship in 1985
was by far the strongest tournament I had played in up to that point. My
opponents included (if I recall correctly) five IMs and I achieved a credible
5½/11. But there was a lot of room for improvement. I rigorously analysed my
games. I was looking not so much for errors specific to one game, but for
recurring patterns behind a series of mistakes spread over two or more games.
--- Take the following two examples: ---} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nd7 4. Nc3
Ngf6 5. e3 Be7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 c5 8. O-O O-O 9. e4 cxd4 10. Nxd4 Ne5 11.
Be2 Z0 ({Here} 11... Bd7 {, preparing to answer} 12. f4 {with} Nc6 {, is fully
acceptable;}) ({as is the sharper} 11... Qb6 {.}) ({Instead, I played} 11...
Nc6 $2 {, self-inflicting damage on my pawn structure. After} 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13.
Qxd8 Rxd8 14. Be3 Bb7 15. f3 {, Black was left with weak pawns on the
queenside and a hole on c5. --- Well, you might think I was spooked by the
idea of 12 f4 and 13 e5 and played 11...Nc6 to evacuate the knight against my
better judgment. A reasonable conclusion. But to test this we need a second
so-called data point.}) *

[Event "British Championship, Edinburgh"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1985.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Horner, J"]
[Black "McDonald, N"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B08"]
[Annotator "Neil McDonald"]
[PlyCount "24"]
[EventDate "1985.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "Coach Yourself"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2019.04.01"]

{Here is another one of my games from the same tournament. ---} 1. e4 d6 2. d4
Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Be2 O-O 6. O-O Nc6 7. d5 Ne5 8. Nxe5 dxe5 9. Be3 e6
10. Bc5 Re8 11. Bc4 exd5 12. exd5 Z0 ({Here I played} 12... c6 $2 {, when after
} 13. dxc6 bxc6 14. Qxd8 Rxd8 15. Rfd1 Rxd1+ 16. Rxd1 {Black has voluntarily
broken up his queenside pawns, leaving targets on a7 and c6. If that wasn't
generous enough, he has opened a line of attack for White down the d-file. ---
I doubt I could remember my thought processes of games played so long ago. But
as I said above, I had the very good habit of writing notes to all my games.
Shortly after the tournament I reconstructed my thoughts in both games. Here
is my train of thought before playing 12...c6 in the Horner game: ---
"White's minor pieces are excellently placed (the way the bishops shot to
c4 and c5 reminds me of Karpov-Kasparov where Karpov scored a crushing win -
that would be in game three of the 1984 match). White is playing for queenside
pressure. As his pieces are better placed than mine there is no possibility of
countering on the kingside, since any attack there must be less efficient than
White's initiative on the queenside. White's main asset is his d-pawn.
Therefore I will liquidate it and relieve all the pressure. Yes, play 12...c6!.
" --- Even back in 1985, having written the above and looked at the position
in the cool light of analysis, I realized my reasoning in the paragraph above
was, well, completely bonkers. --- Firstly, for White's queenside attack to
be dangerous he needs to advance his c-pawn - and his "excellently
placed" pieces are blocking it in! And why should Black's kingside
initiative be less efficient?}) ({Here} 12... Bf5 {is a decent developing move.
}) ({More subtle is} 12... b6 $1 {, pushing the white bishop back from c5 and
making it choose which diagonal it wants to stay on. Then} 13. Ba3 ({while} 13.
Be3 Ng4 {gives Black the initiative}) 13... e4 {etc leaves the bishop on a3
out of the action. Black is at least okay. --- White's "excellently
placed" minor pieces are a long way from defending their king. At the moment
(prior to 12...c6), White has nothing to attack on the queenside. Whereas
after 12...c6? the situation is far different: Black is left with a wretched
pair of queenside pawns.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Don't Delude Yourself"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Neil McDonald"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "Coach Yourself"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2019.04.01"]

1. Z0 {Don't Delude Yourself with Psychological Explanations When Your
Faults are Technical --- Let's try to draw some conclusions from the blunders
in these two games. We might suggest that I believed in my ability to defend
bad endgames, whereas I was frightened of being outplayed by my higher rated
opponents in a complex struggle. I wanted clarity straight away, to know what
my task was (even if it meant defending a bad endgame), rather than take my
chances in a complex fight.} (1. Z0 {My play became much sharper in the years
following this tournament. This implies that I had learned the right stylistic
or psychological lessons from my first British Championship. No more voluntary
defending of bad positions: fighting play from the start! --- The conclusions
above sound neat and logical (and a bit self-aggrandizing!), but are they
true? The most valuable lessons in your games are almost always technical
rather than psychological. It's taken me a long time to learn what follows so
I want to put it in italics: --- It is a big mistake to blame your losses on
something abstract like not playing with enough creativity or not trying hard
enough or feeling under the weather or distracted. --- These excuses are a way
of hiding from the bitter acceptance of the technical inferiority of your play.
}) (1. Z0 {The brutal truth is that you will normally lose games against
higher-rated players even if you get all the psychology and mood stuff right.
It's different if you can find a technical reason why you lost a game. Then in
your next game you can face a higher-rated player with the fully reasonable
hope that correcting your fault has given you the chance to win this time. ---
If we return to the comments I wrote about the Horner game at the time, we see
the lines: "White's main asset is his d-pawn. Therefore I will liquidate it
and relieve all the pressure." --- This isn't the same as thinking "I know
that 12...c6 leads to a poor endgame but I'm willing to defend it as I don't
want to play a middlegame." There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the
nature of a space advantage. I thought that the d5-pawn was strong in itself
and once it was removed Black was closer to equalizing. But part of the
process of exploiting a space advantage is to use it to open lines in a
favourable way. This can be by breaking through and creating a passed pawn, or,
as in both the Hawksworth and Horner games, giving the opponent broken pawns
which can be attacked along open lines. In effect, my mistake was doing my
opponents' work for them. --- My weaknesses in these games were in my judgment
of positional play. They were certainly influenced by psychological factors.
But there's no need to make errors in handling a pawn structure just because
it's a blustery day in Scotland!}) *

[Event "New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1979.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Boskovic, M"]
[Black "Rohde, M"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B16"]
[Annotator "Neil McDonald"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3rk2r/1p3p2/2pqp3/5p1P/1P1b4/P6R/2Q1BPP1/3RK3 b k - 0 24"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[EventDate "1979.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "Coach Yourself"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2019.04.01"]

{Assessing a Position --- Being able to assess positions correctly is an
essential skill. If you believe you are better when you are actually worse,
you might omit a vital defensive manoeuvre. A crazy attack can follow from the
delusion that your opponent has left his king with insufficient defenders. Or,
say, you have a space advantage in the centre and the opponent's pieces are
cramped. In your assessment you observe that most of your pieces are on the
kingside, so you plan a direct assault there. But it happens that most of the
opponent's pieces are also on the kingside. Your assessment should have
emphasized the superior mobility of your pieces. Then you would have chosen to
open lines on the queenside to exploit the fact that your pieces are more
dextrous - this is an example of the rule that you should always attack your
opponent where he is weakest. --- It is Black to play. --- QUESTION: How do
you assess the position? What is Black's best move? --- I showed this position
to four players and asked them who stood better. Their answers were: -- Player
rated about 1400: White has chances to win because he has a passed pawn which
he can try to queen. -- Player rated about 1500: White is better because he
can bring his rook on h3 into the centre more easily than Black, whose rook is
stuck on h8. -- Player rated about 1800: I would prefer to play Black because
he has a strong bishop. -- Player rated about 2100: Black has a clear
advantage because the opposite-coloured bishops mean the f2-pawn is a target.
--- Personally I would be disappointed if I didn't win this position as Black.
I would also expect whoever was Black to win it in a game between Carlsen and
Caruana. --- ANSWER: White faces a highly unpleasant defence due to the
difference in power between the opposite-coloured bishops. I'll say more about
this below. First, let's see what happened in the game:} 24... Qf4 $1 25. Bf3 (
{The f2-pawn is very hard to cover:} 25. f3 $2 Qe3 {invades on the dark
squares;}) (25. Bd3 Qg5 {attacks both g2 and h5;}) ({and} 25. Rf3 Qh4 {is also
horrible for White due to his weak back rank and hanging pawn on h5.}) 25... e5
{Black presses home the attack on f2 by utilizing his pawns. He threatens to
win at once with 26... e4, as White dare not move his bishop. We shall return
to this moment and consider White's best reply in the analysis below.} 26. Rd2
{The obvious response, clearing the d1-square for the bishop.} e4 27. Bd1 Rg8 {
Now the attack moves to the g-file.} 28. g3 ({He should try} 28. Kf1 {, not
leaving a dark square target on g3.}) 28... Qe5 29. Re2 ({And here} 29. Kf1 {
was essential.}) 29... Bc3+ 30. Kf1 Qd4 $1 {White's bishop is stalemated by
its own pieces.} ({It can only be saved from capture by giving up the exchange,
since} 30... Qd4 31. Kg2 Qxd1 32. Qxc3 Qxe2 {wins.}) 31. Re1 Bxe1 32. Kxe1 f4
$1 {Players often relax after they win material, but Rohde plans to finish off
the game in style.} 33. Rh4 (33. Rh4 {hopes for} fxg3 $4 34. Rxe4+ {, winning
the queen, but:}) 33... Rxg3 34. fxg3 Qg1+ 35. Ke2 f3# $1 {. A convincing
attack with an energetic finish. --- As I say above, the key feature of the
initial position was the presence of opposite-coloured bishops and the fact
that Black's was by far the superior piece. Thanks to opposite-coloured
bishops a player can attack a point in the enemy's camp with essentially an
extra piece - here Black could pile up on f2 with the help of his bishop, and
White couldn't keep the balance by directly defending it with his own bishop.
In an endgame opposite-coloured bishops often increase the likelihood of a
draw, but in the middlegame they create more dynamic chances for the player
with the initiative. --- But we should return to the position at move 25 (see
next game).} 0-1

[Event "analysis"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Boskovic, M"]
[Black "Rohde, M"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B16"]
[Annotator "Neil McDonald"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3rk2r/1p3p2/2p1p3/5p1P/1P1b1q2/P4B1R/2Q2PP1/3RK3 b k - 0 25"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "Coach Yourself"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2019.04.01"]

25... Z0 ({One of the golden rules of defence is: exchange off the queens.
After} 25... e5 {White had the chance to avoid an attack on his king with} 26.
Qc1 $1 {. Then} Qxc1 27. Rxc1 e4 ({it would be a huge mistake for Black to
allow the exchange of bishops with} 27... Bb2 $2 28. Rc2 Bxa3 29. Bxc6+ bxc6
30. Rxa3 Rxh5 31. Rxc6 {, as it is then equal}) 28. Bd1 Ke7 {keeps a nice edge
for Black, but it is nowhere near as dangerous for White without queens on the
board.}) ({Instead, Black could have taken things more slowly with} 25... O-O
$5 {; for example,} 26. Qc1 Qe5+ 27. Kf1 Kh7 {, stopping the white queen going
to h6, when Black has safeguarded his king who is well sheltered by White's
pawn on h5. (Sometimes an enemy pawn is the best protection for a king. The
attacker might be desperate to open lines against the king, but you can't
sacrifice a pawn or piece to remove your own pawn!) Black can then build up
with ...Rg8 etc, when his piece co-ordination is much superior to White's.
The bishop on f3 remains a poor piece only good for defence as it can attack
nothing.}) (25... Z0 {For the rest of the chapter we'll examine typical
mistakes made by less experienced players (or very strong players having an
off day). When you annotate your own games, see if you can spot any of the
errors being repeated there. They will come in various disguises, but if you
look carefully and keep an open mind you will be able to see the underlying
theme and eradicate it from your games.}) *

[Event "European Team Championship, Heraklio"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lie, K"]
[Black "Avrukh, B"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C07"]
[Annotator "Neil McDonald"]
[PlyCount "70"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "Coach Yourself"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2019.04.01"]

{Typical Mistake One: Disregard of the Centre in an Eagerness to Attack ---} 1.
e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Ngf3 cxd4 6. Bc4 Qd6 7. Qe2 Nf6 8. Nb3
Nc6 9. Bg5 a6 10. O-O-O b5 11. Bd3 Bd7 12. Kb1 Be7 13. Rhe1 Rd8 14. h3 Nd5 15.
Bxe7 Qxe7 16. Nfxd4 Nxd4 17. Nxd4 {. Even if the theme is positional, you have
to watch out for tactics. Remember that no plan, however desirable, should be
carried out unless it passes the tactics test. The only exceptions would be
when you are in a desperate situation and have to take your chance with a
unsound plan to confuse the issue, or the tactical refutation is buried deep
and you decide your opponent probably won't see it - an enterprising but risky
approach, which has most validity in time pressure.} ({Here} 17. Nxd4 O-O {
is crying out to be played: it whisks the king away from the centre and
completes Black's development.} 18. Bxh7+ $1 ({A quick tactical check shows
that} 18. Qh5 {, with the double threat of mate on h7 and 19 Qxd5! exd5 20
Rxe7, winning a piece, can be answered by} Nf6 {, dealing with both threats.} (
18... Z0)) ({Likewise if} 18. Qe4 {, again attacking h7 and planning 19 Qxd5,
Black has} Nf6 {. So it seems that 17...0-0 is tactically sound. However, this
is not the case...}) 18... Kxh7 19. Qh5+ ({or} 19. Qe4+ {with the same idea})
19... Kg8 20. Qxd5 {. With the temporary piece sacrifice on h7 White was able
to prevent the ...Nf6 defence by forcing Black to move his king out of check.})
{In the game Avrukh created a double threat of his own:} 17... Qb4 $1 18. Nb3 {
Saving the knight from capture and also stopping the deadly 18...Nc3+ fork.
But now the black queen has moved from the "danger" square e7 and White's
combination will no longer work. Therefore it is safe to castle.} O-O {Black
can also be pleased that he has compelled the white knight to retreat from its
post in the centre.} 19. Be4 Nf6 20. Rd4 Qe7 21. Bd3 $6 {It's easy to get
carried away with your own plans and forget that chess strategy is also about
stopping the opponent playing good moves.} ({More natural was} 21. Bf3 {
, which would have prevented Black from putting his bishop on an active centre
square next move. White isn't thinking about central control, however. He is
planning an all-out attack on the black king. Therefore he puts his bishop on
d3 where it points toward h7. Such a strategy can't possibly succeed against
sound play when there are no structural defects in Black's kingside and he has
all his pieces well placed in an open centre.}) 21... Bc6 22. Rh4 $2 {The
consistent move, but more flagrant decentralization. Remember what we said
about tactical blunders being of more consequence than poor strategic
decisions?} ({We could forgive White his manoeuvre if Black now played} 22. Rh4
Rd7 $4 {, missing} 23. Bxh7+ Nxh7 24. Qh5 {and White wins as the knight on h7
is pinned against mate on h8.}) 22... g6 {Avrukh restricts the bishop on d3
and puts another guard on the f5-square as a measure against a possible Nf5 -
see White's next move. The black queen is also given the option of ...Qf8 and ...Qg7 should it become necessary to bolster the kingside.} ({The alternative
was} 22... h6 {.}) 23. Nd4 Bb7 24. Qe3 {White's pieces continue to make
threatening noises against the black king, but it is essentially bluff.} Rd5 {
Preparing to double rooks on the d-file and also protecting f5 once again.} 25.
g4 ({White could go all-in with} 25. Nf5 gxf5 (25... Rxf5 26. Bxf5 gxf5 {
is good for Black too}) 26. Qg5+ Kh8 27. Rxh7+ $5 {(a spectacular move but it
shows the inferiority of White's strategy that the best he can hope for is
perpetual check)} Kxh7 28. Qh4+ {(the white queen looks threatening but Black
has an extra rook and knight, and his king can slip out of the checks)} Kg6 29.
Qg3+ Kh5 $1 30. Be2+ Kh6 31. Qh4+ Kg6 32. Qg3+ ({after} 32. Bh5+ Kg7 {White is
no longer able to check on h4 with his queen}) 32... Ng4 $1 {(in line with the
principle that you should give back some of your extra material to break an
attack)} 33. hxg4 f4 34. Qxf4 Qg5 {and Black wins with his extra rook.}) 25...
Rfd8 26. Nf5 Qc5 $1 {Avrukh continues his powerful centralization with an
unwelcome offer to exchange queens;} ({wisely not getting involved in} 26...
gxf5 {.}) 27. Nh6+ {White decides to do or die.} ({After} 27. Qxc5 Rxc5 {
his pieces are terribly clumsy, as if} 28. Ne3 $2 {then} g5 29. Rh6 Kg7 {
corners the offside rook.}) 27... Kg7 28. Qd2 Rd4 $1 {Stopping White from
playing 29 g5 due to the pin on g4, and clearing the way for the bishop to
enter the battle next move.} 29. f4 Be4 {The co-ordination of the black pieces
in the centre trumps White's wing attack. The knight on h6 and rook on h4 are
cut off from the rest of his pieces.} 30. Re3 Bxd3 31. cxd3 Ne4 {It's no
surprise that Black's attack is crushing when he is essentially playing with
an extra rook and knight.} 32. Qe2 Rc8 {White's back rank is going to collapse.
} 33. Qd1 Nf2 34. Qd2 Rxd3 35. Rxd3 Nxd3 {The knight is immune due to mate on
c1.} ({If} 35... Nxd3 36. a3 {then} Qg1+ 37. Ka2 Nc1+ 38. Kb1 Nb3+ {wins the
white queen with mate soon to follow. --- Do you notice any similarities
between White's demise and what happens in your own games? Maybe you are being
too impulsive and neglecting the centre. Perhaps you are too focused on your
own plans and not paying enough attention to your opponent's dynamic chances. 
(Grandmaster Kjetil Lie is a sharp and ingenious attacking player. He just
happened to be in an experimental mood in this game.)}) 0-1

