BCN wishes GM John Nunn Happy Birthday (25-iv-1955). John resides in Bude, Cornwall with his wife Petra (née Fink) having previously resided in Chobham, Surrey.  John became a director of Gambit Publications Ltd. on January 30th, 1997 along with  Murray Chandler and Graham Burgess. WFM Petra Nunn is the German editor.

Harry Golombek OBE wrote the following (presumably in 1978) in the 1979 Dataday chess diary:

“Fortunate is the country which has a number six player as good and as effective as John Nunn. As I wrote last time, ‘The former European Junior champion is such a fine player and pursues the game with such energy when he does play that one is apt to forget he is an amateur with only a limited amount of time to spare for study of the game.’

He like Mestel, obtained a grandmaster norm at the Lord John tournament where he score 5.5 points coming just below Mestel but beating both Quinteros and Torre in the process.

At the Moscow Team tournament, already mentioned, he had a magnificent result scoring 3.5 out of 7 on board 4. Perhaps it was this performance that increased his Elo rating by 30 points and when I say board 4 it should be realised that opposition consisted of such players as the former world champion Tal and many other genuine grandmasters. I give the entertaining and fighting draw he had with Tal as Moscow.”

[pgn]
[Event “EU-chT 06th Final”]
[Site “Moscow (Russia)”]
[Date “1977.04.??”]
[Round “5.3”]
[White “Tal, Mihail”]
[Black “Nunn, John DM”]
[Result “1/2-1/2”]
[ECO “D32”]
[WhiteElo “2620”]
[Annotator “British Chess News”]
[PlyCount “57”]
[EventDate “1977.04.13”]
[EventType “team-tourn”]
[EventRounds “7”]
[EventCountry “URS”]
[SourceTitle “EU-chT”]
[Source “ChessBase”]
[SourceDate “1999.07.01”]
[SourceVersion “2”]
[SourceVersionDate “1999.07.01”]
[SourceQuality “1”]
[WhiteTeam “Soviet Union”]
[BlackTeam “England”]
[WhiteTeamCountry “URS”]
[BlackTeamCountry “ENG”]

{[%evp 0,49,19,-12,-9,-12,-4,-4,12,5,15,20,19,11,8,-24,-13,-20,-11,-47,-41,-16,
-25,-52,-3,18,-17,39,38,1,27,22,50,-8,-13,-27,-27,-27,-27,-22,-9,-6,-8,-11,-20,
-45,-36,-35,0,-37,0,0]} 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 c5 4. e3 Nc6 5. d4 d5 6.
cxd5 (6. a3 a6 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. b4 Ba7 9. Bb2 O-O 10. Qc2 Qe7 11. Rd1 Rd8 12.
Be2 {is the modern main line.}) 6… exd5 7. Bb5 a6 8. Bxc6+ bxc6 9. Qa4 (9.
O-O Bd6 10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. b3 O-O 12. Bb2 Bg4 13. Rc1 Bd6 14. Ne2 Rc8 15. Ne5
Bxe5 16. Bxe5) 9… Bd7 10. O-O (10. Ne5) 10… Be7 $146 (10… Bd6) 11. dxc5
Bxc5 {[#]} 12. e4 $1 O-O (12… dxe4 $2 13. Nxe4 Nxe4 14. Qxe4+ Qe7 15. Qc2 $1
{is really rather awkward for Black.}) (12… h6 {gets marks for bravery.}) 13.
Bg5 Be7 14. Rad1 Nxe4 $1 {Black correctly seeks exchanges to reduce White’s
pressure.} 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Ne5 $6 (16. Qxe4) 16… Bxg5 17. Nxd7 {[#] who
would want to have this position versus Tal but Nunn remains calm and finds
the best and only continuation.} Re8 18. Qxc6 e3 $1 19. fxe3 (19. Ne5 $2 Qe7
20. Rd5 exf2+ 21. Kxf2 Bf4) 19… Bxe3+ 20. Kh1 Qe7 21. Rfe1 Rad8 $11 22. Re2
h6 23. g3 Qb4 24. Rd3 Rc8 25. Rdxe3 {Agreed drawn.} Rxc6 {the game would have
continued} 26. Rxe8+ Kh7 27. Nf8+ Kg8 28. Ng6+ Kh7 29. Nf8+ {etc.} 1/2-1/2
[/pgn]

From British Chess (Pergamon Press, 1983), pp.201- 210:

“It is a difficult task to pick out three games from many hundreds played over the years. What criteria should be used in the selection? Brilliance, strength of opponent, importance of result – all these are reasons for a game to stand out in one’s memory. As this selection is autobiographical I have given prominence to the last criterion and so I will give one game from each of the tournaments in which I gained an International title, and one game from a team tournament.

The first of these tournaments was the European Junior Championships held over the new year 1974-5 in the Dutch town of Groningen. It was only by chance that I played in this event at all. Originally Jonathan Mestel was the English representative, but he was invited to play in concurrent Hastings Premier and so I travelled to Groningen instead.

The organisation of the Championship has changed over the years, but at that time a seven-round Swiss formed a preliminary event, with the top ten of the twenty-eight participants going on to an all-play-all final section. The score thought to be sufficient for qualification was 4.5/7 and the accepted method of reaching this target was to win one’s first two games and then draw all the others., facilitated by the fact that one’s opponents would also require draws to reach the magic figure 4.5. However tie-breaking in the final was decided  firstly by the score in the preliminaries and secondly by the result of the individual game in the final, so it was clearly an advantage to outstrip one’s rivals in the Swiss. I started with the requisite two wins and then drew my next three games, but in round six with the white pieces I decided to play for the win against Manny Rayner of Wales. I felt slightly self-conscious playing amidst a row of boards on which peace has been concluded at an early stage, but I did gain the full point. The game stirred up a certain amount of comment and I even heard one player’s second declare

You can’t trust Nunn!

In such a short race there will inevitably be upsets and the unlucky man on this occasion was Alexander Ivanov, the Russian representative.

The final round started less smoothly for me and after five rounds the leading scores were Borokowski 4, Szekely 3.5 and van der Sterren and myself on 3. I had already beaten van der Sterren, who had tied with me in the preliminaries, so in view of the tie-break rules, I had effectively half-a-point advantage over the rest of the field. In round six I played Borkowski and a win for would leave the tournament wide open.

[pgn]
[Event “EU-ch U21 fin-A”]
[Site “Groningen”]
[Date “1975.01.02”]
[Round “6”]
[White “Borkowski, Franciszek”]
[Black “Nunn, John DM”]
[Result “0-1”]
[ECO “B09”]
[Annotator “John Nunn & British Chess News”]
[PlyCount “61”]
[EventDate “1974.12.27”]
[EventType “tourn”]
[EventRounds “9”]
[EventCountry “NED”]
[SourceTitle “EXT 2000”]
[Source “ChessBase”]
[SourceDate “1999.11.16”]
[SourceVersion “1”]
[SourceVersionDate “1999.11.16”]
[SourceQuality “1”]

{[%evp 0,56,33,25,79,73,87,74,80,47,36,39,32,38,33,39,59,7,7,-56,-68,-74,-83,
-162,-154,-176,-26,4,4,4,4,8,25,25,25,-45,-45,-45,0,0,0,0,0,-112,-114,-324,
-324,-432,-213,-211,-219,-249,-199,-204,-189,-210,-208,-613,-625]} 1. e4 g6 2.
d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. f4 Nf6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3 {At the time that this game was
played} Na6 {was only seen infrequently.} 7. e5 ({the most common idea today
is to exploit the position of the knight on a6 by means of the solid build-up.
} 7. O-O c5 8. d5) {In my preparations for the tournament I wondered if} 7…
Nd7 $5 {was possible. The knight has more chances to return quickly to active
play on d7.} ({The “standard” refutation of 6…Na6 would normally follow} 7…
Ne8 8. Be3 c5 9. dxc5 Nxc5 10. Bxc5 dxc5 {and Black’s knight and king’s bishop
are out of play, giving White a clear plus.}) 8. h4 {I had already used 6…
Na6 once in this tournament and the speed with which my opponent played 8.h4
indicated that this line had been prepared.} ({Other attempts to wipe out
Black are} 8. Ng5 Nb6 9. O-O) ({and} 8. e6 {A sketchy analysis indicated that
none of these moves won instantly, so I decided to risk the line in a game. In
fact these ideas for White have not proved popular.} fxe6 9. Ng5 Nf6 10. Qe2
Nb4 11. Bc4 d5 12. Bb3) 8… c5 9. h5 cxd4 10. hxg6 hxg6 $1 ({Some analysis of
} 10… dxc3 {with Jon Speelman had convinced me that it might be playable but
over the board I decided that} 11. gxf7+ ({BCN: In fact modern analysis shows}
11. Ng5 $1 {[#]} hxg6 12. Bxg6 Nf6 13. exf6 fxg6 14. fxg7 Kxg7 15. Kf2 {
is totally winning for White.}) 11… Rxf7 12. Ng5 {looked rather dangerous so
I played the (relatively) quieter text move.}) 11. Ng5 $2 (11. Nxd4) 11… dxe5
(11… Nxe5 12. Nce4 Qa5+ 13. Bd2 Nxd3+ 14. cxd3 Qb5 $19) (11… dxc3 {was
impossible due to} 12. Bxg6 fxg6 13. Qd5+ {mating}) 12. f5 $1 {an unexpected
but strong move, bringing the other bishop into the attack.} (12. Qg4 Nf6 13.
Qh4 dxc3 14. fxe5 Nh5 {would, on the other hand, allow Black to defend
comfortably.}) 12… Nf6 {I used over an hour on this move. This move may
appear suicidal but in fact White has difficulty breaking through. In
practical play it was hard to be sure that White could not somehow deliver
mate so I settled for the safer move 12…Nf6.} ({unable to decide whether to
play} 12… gxf5 {or not.} 13. Qh5 (13. Bxf5 Nf6) 13… Nf6 14. Qh3 dxc3 15.
Nh7 Ng4 $1 (15… Re8 16. Bh6 {“wins”} {BCN: in fact} cxb2 (16… f4 17. Nxf6+
Bxf6 18. Qh5 cxb2 19. Bh7+ Kh8 20. Rb1) 17. Nxf6+ exf6 18. Rd1 Qa5+ 19. Ke2 e4
{is a crazy line}) 16. Nf6+ Nxf6 17. Bh6 cxb2 18. Rb1 Qa5+ 19. Kf1 f4 20. Qh4
e4 $1 21. Bxg7 Qh5 $1 {winning}) 13. fxg6 Bg4 14. gxf7+ Rxf7 15. Ne2 ({After
the game a spectator approached me and explained that he had expected} 15. Bg6
{However, after} Bxd1 16. Bxf7+ Kf8 17. Ne6+ Kxf7 18. Nxd8+ Rxd8 19. Nxd1 {
although White has won the exchange for a pawn the counterattack} Nb4 20. O-O
Nxc2 21. Rb1 e4 {wins for Black.}) ({I aslo considered the alternative queen
sacrifice} 15. Qxg4 Nxg4 16. Bh7+ Kf8 17. Ne6+ Ke8 18. Nxd8 Rxd8 19. Ne4 Nb4
20. Ng5 Rf6 {when the manoeuvre …Nd5-e3 should give Black the advantage.})
15… Qd5 16. Bg6 Rff8 17. Qd3 {threatening Bh7+} e4 {[#]} 18. Qxd4 $2 ({
Another bad move is} 18. Nxe4 {due to} Nb4 19. Nxf6+ Rxf6 20. Bh7+ Kf8 {
with a decisive counterattack.}) ({Two days after this game Borkowski came up
to me and claimed that the astonishing move} 18. Nc3 $1 {would have won. This
is certainly best as Black cannot reply} dxc3 $2 (18… exd3 19. Nxd5 Rae8 20.
cxd3) ({The critical line is} 18… Qe5 19. Ncxe4 Nc5 20. Qc4+ Ne6 21. Rh4 Rac8
22. Qb3 Rc6 {with an extremely double edged position. In this line the balance
between defence and attackwould have been preserved whereas after 18.Qxd4?
Black triumphs.}) {as} 19. Bh7+ {wins}) 18… Qxd4 19. Nxd4 Rad8 20. Be3 ({If}
20. Nge6 Rd6 ({BCN:} 20… Nb4 $1 21. Be3 Nxc2+ 22. Nxc2 Bxe6 23. Bxa7 Rd3 $17)
21. Nxf8 $2 ({BCN:} 21. Bf5) 21… Kxf8 22. Be3 Nd5 {picks up a piece.}) 20…
Nb4 {threatening …Rxd4} 21. Rc1 $2 {BCN: This appears to be the losing
blunder.} (21. a3 Rxd4 22. axb4 Rxb4) 21… Nbd5 $19 22. Bf2 {Both bishops are
in danger,} ({for example} 22. Bd2 e3 {is catastrophic}) 22… Nf4 {Wins two
pieces for a rook while maintaining the initiative} 23. Bf5 Rxd4 24. Bxd4 Bxf5
25. g3 Ne6 26. Nxe6 Bxe6 27. Bxa7 Ng4 28. Bc5 Bxb2 {and white resigned which
surprised me since I was expecting} {the trap} 29. Bxe7 Bxc1 $2 ({but of course
} 29… Bc3+ 30. Kd1 Nf2+ 31. Ke2 Bc4+ 32. Ke3 Rf3# {is effective.}) 30. Bxf8
Kxf8 31. O-O+ {when Black would only win with difficulty.} 0-1
[/pgn]

I scored well in the three rounds after this game and appeared to have a good chance of winning. However in the penultimate round I lost to Lars-Ake Schneider in only 18 moves so as the last round started the leading scores were Szekely 5.5 out of 8 with Schneider, Borkowski and myself on 5. Skekely was White against Borkowski while I had White against the Israeli Grunfeld. Schneider blundered quickly and lost, while to my surprise Skekely drew in only 14 moves. The way was now open to the title if only I could defeat my opponent. However after 4.5 hours play I had only a slight advantage. But then a curious thing happened. I made my 40th move with a minute or two left on my clock and Grunfeld, who had half an hour left, replied almost immediately. The game was played to a finish without adjournment and now, with an hour on my clock, I was able to see that his 40th move was a mistake allowing a decisive combination. This small event decided the result of the tournament and so I became European Junior Champion and an International Master.

The second game was played in the Finals of the European Team Championship held at Moscow 1977. This event which takes place every three years, is second in importance only to the biennial Olympiads. The twenty teams entering were divided into five preliminary groups to produce seven qualifiers for the final. The USSR, as previous winners, were admitted directly to the final to make up the total of eight countries represented at Moscow. England qualified ahead of Holland, the other teams in this preliminary group being Wales and France. Since the matches in the final take place over eight boards this event is much more test of strength in the depth than the four board Olympiads and so England was not expected to do well, especially in view of the absence of Tony Miles. Nevertheless the final result of bottom place was a disappointment. My individual performance of 50% against strong opposition was quite satisfactory, but it was the following game which made the tournament particularly enjoyable for me.

We now move ahead to the summer of 1978. At this time I had a 9-game grandmaster norm from the Lord John Cup held in London during September 1977 and so I needed a 15-game norm to actually gain the title. In July I played in an event at Lublin in Poland at which, however, there was no GM norm. My play showed evidence of lack of practice and my final position was rather low.

Then I went on to the annual Tungsram tournament held in Budapest during August. This was a much stronger event (category 10) and the GM norm was a formidable 10 out of 15. However my play was much better than in Poland and, after a first round loss, I began to score well. After 12 rounds the leading scores were Kuzmin 8, Nunn 7.5 and Csom, Jansa, Adorjan and Mednis 7. I could have had half a point more if I had not overlooked a combination two (!) moves deep winning Kuzmin’s queen, but, apart from this incident Kuzmin had played very well and seemed to be heading for first prize.

My sights were firmly set on scoring 2.5 from the last three games to reach the GM norm and my interest in winning the tournament was secondary. However, Kuzmin was destined to lose his next two games and so these two objectives became one and the same.

In these final games I was to be White against F. Portisch (Lajos’ brother), Black against GM Jansa and in the last round White against Hardicsay, the weakest player in the tournament. The plan was clear – I had to win both games with White and hold Jansa to a draw with the Black pieces. The execution, however, was more difficult.

While preparing for F. Portisch I noticed that he played either the French or the Sicilian Pelikan. Since I was playing only for the win I naturally hoped he would opt for the complications of the Pelikan. Two days before this game I had been given a copy of the latest issue of the Hungarian chess magazine, Magyar Sakkelet, containing a game Honfi – Piasetki in which Honfi had played 11.Bxb5!? and won with the aid of a novelty. This piece sacrifice seemed to be ideal for stirring up as much trouble as possible and so I decided to try it in the game, at the same time hoping that F. Portsich had not read his magazine!

The first obstacle had been surmounted, but two more remained. The opening went badly against Jansa, but I managed to restrict myself to a small disadvantage in the early middle game. To my good fortune the Czech Grandmaster was going through a bad patch, having started with 7/10 anf then scored only half a point from his next three games. With only two rounds to go his interest in the tournament had dissipated and rather try to exploit his edge he offered a draw. Of course I was only too pleased to accept.

Before the last round I was extremely nervous but bolstered my confidence with that thought that Hardicsay had only managed to score 3.5/14 , and indeed had accumulated only half a point from his last six games. In most cases this was due to his chronic addiction to time trouble. At first things went well. I accepted a pawn sacrifice and gradually seemed to be repelling my opponent’s threats. But at a crucial moment I chose a faulty bishop move and suddenly my difficulties were growing from move to move. Before long I was pawn down with an inferior position. My only hope lay in the fact that Hardicsay had only seconds to make the last eight moves of the time control. Exploiting this, I regained the pawn and even adjourned with a slight plus.

After a one hour break play was resumed and once again Hardicsay played well, almost completely neutralizing my advantage. I cunningly made some pass moves with my King until he was once again in time trouble and then tried my last winning attempt!

In the event my opponent made a mistake and a further session was not necessary. The two spectators who had stuck it out to the end dashed up to congratulate me and Hardicsay gave me a distinctly sour look (justifiably!)- I had become a Grandmaster!

From The Encyclopaedia of Chess (Batsford, 1977) by Harry Golombek OBE :

British International master and European Junior Champion, 1975. Born in London, Nunn learned chess at the age of four and soon revealed a great aptitude for the game.

 

He came 6th in the Norwich Junior international tournament in 1970 and went up to Oxford University to take a mathematics degree at a very early age. He played on top board for the University from 1972-6 and is now preparing for a doctorate there.

He won the European Junior Championship and with it the international master title in Groningen in 1975. In that year too he was equal first in the IBM Master tournament, and at London in 1975 he reached an international master norm coming 5th in the international tournament there. He played on bottom board at the Haifa Olympiad 1976 and scored 64.2%

From The Oxford Companion to Chess by Hooper & Whyld :

English player. International Grandmaster (1978), British champion 1980. He went to Oxford at the unusually young age of 15, graduated in 1973. Gained his B.Sc. the following year and his
doctorate in 1978.

 

A Junior Research Fellow, he lectured in mathematics until 1981 when he became a professional player. By then he had already achieved several good results in international tournaments: Budapest 1978, first; Hastings 1979-80, first (4-5 = 10) equal with Andersson; Baden-bei-Wien 1980, category 12, third (+5=10) after Spassky and Belyavsky: Helsinki 1981, first (+5 = 6) equal with Matulovich; and Wiesbaden 1981, first (+6=3). In the category 12 Wijk aan Zee tournament 1982, Nunn came first ( + 5=7 — 1) equal with Balashov ahead of Tal, Hubner, and Timman and at Helsinki 1983 he came second (+5 = 6) after Karlsson.

Possessing a remarkably quick sight of the board, Nunn is an expert solver: he made the second highest individual score in the world team solving championship, 1978, and won the solving championship of Great Britain in 1981.

Here is an excellent article from ChessBase

Polugayevsky-Nunn European team championship :

[pgn]
[Round “1.3”]
[White “Polugaevsky, Lev”]
[Black “Nunn, John DM”]
[Result “0-1”]
[ECO “A77”]
[WhiteElo “2635”]
[BlackElo “2515”]
[Annotator “johnu”]
[PlyCount “64”]
[EventDate “1980.01.20”]
[EventType “team-tourn”]
[EventRounds “7”]
[EventCountry “SWE”]
[SourceTitle “EU-chT”]
[Source “ChessBase”]
[SourceDate “1999.07.01”]
[SourceVersion “2”]
[SourceVersionDate “1999.07.01”]
[SourceQuality “1”]
[WhiteTeam “Soviet Union”]
[BlackTeam “England”]
[WhiteTeamCountry “URS”]
[BlackTeamCountry “ENG”]

{[%evp 0,64,19,9,21,44,45,37,46,15,12,56,70,84,108,114,123,92,82,65,73,58,59,
13,30,26,27,27,27,27,29,6,17,-128,-135,-75,-75,-69,-89,-122,-70,-43,-75,-145,
-164,-153,-153,-194,-194,-235,-235,-235,-260,-278,-279,-284,-290,-290,-290,
-465,-460,-617,-537,-536,-555,-1071,-878]} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 c5 3. d5 e6 4. c4
exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. Nc3 g6 7. e4 Bg7 8. Be2 O-O 9. O-O Re8 10. Nd2 Nbd7 11. Qc2
Ne5 12. b3 Nh5 13. Bxh5 gxh5 14. Bb2 Bd7 15. Rae1 Qh4 16. f4 Ng4 17. Nf3 Bd4+
18. Kh1 Nf2+ 19. Rxf2 Qxf2 20. Qc1 Bh3 21. Rg1 Kf8 22. Nxd4 cxd4 23. f5 dxc3
24. Qxc3 Rxe4 25. gxh3 Ke8 26. Qd3 Re1 27. Rxe1+ Qxe1+ 28. Kg2 Rc8 29. f6 Kd7
30. Qxh7 Qd2+ 31. Kg3 Qxd5 32. Kh4 Re8 0-1
[/pgn]

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NvSfumCNxo[/embedyt]

Here is his Wikipedia entry

 

[pgn]
[Event “Lugano op”]
[Site “Lugano”]
[Date “1986.??.??”]
[Round “?”]
[White “Nunn, John DM”]
[Black “Tukmakov, Vladimir B”]
[Result “1-0”]
[ECO “B57”]
[WhiteElo “2585”]
[BlackElo “2570”]
[Annotator “Nunn,J”]
[PlyCount “51”]
[EventDate “1986.02.??”]
[EventType “swiss”]
[EventRounds “9”]
[EventCountry “SUI”]
[SourceTitle “CBM 001”]
[Source “ChessBase”]
[SourceDate “2004.01.01”]
[SourceVersion “1”]
[SourceVersionDate “2004.01.01”]
[SourceQuality “1”]

{[%evp 0,51,38,23,44,51,80,55,53,51,51,30,53,39,69,55,69,52,71,22,61,56,51,50,
40,38,35,40,42,33,42,48,68,30,37,45,45,46,48,50,51,29,39,0,25,-81,84,84,119,72,
72,106,183,177]} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bc4
Qb6 7. Nb3 e6 8. O-O Be7 9. Bg5 Ne5 $6 {Although 9…Ne5 forces the bishop to
retreat, Black will waste time later after White plays f4.} ({Black’s best
line is probably} 9… a6 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Qh5 Nd4 {as played in
Nunn-Martinovic, Amsterdam 1975.}) 10. Be2 Bd7 11. Kh1 Ng6 {A necessary
precaution since} (11… O-O 12. f4 Ng6 13. e5 dxe5 14. Bxf6 Bxf6 15. Qxd7 {
does not give Black enough for the piece. Now, on the other hand, 12 f4 is met
by 12…h6.}) 12. Be3 Qc7 13. f4 O-O 14. Qe1 {We have reached a type of
Scheveningen position in which Black’s knight is on g6 rather than c6. This
favours White since the knight is subject to attack by f5 and has less
influence on the centre.} Rfe8 15. Rd1 Bc6 {Here the bishop is exposed to
attack by Nd4, so it would have been safer to play 15…Bf8.} 16. Bf3 d5 17. e5
Ne4 18. Nd4 Nxc3 (18… Bb4 19.
Nxd5) 19. Qxc3 Rac8 20. Qe1 {The queen returns to the kingside to help an
attack based on the move f5.} Bd7 21. Qg3 Qb6 $6 {Black provokes a crisis by
attacking the b2 pawn, which White cannot easily defend (e.g. 22 b3 Rc3).
However by placing his queen opposite White’s bishop he allows a tactical
breakthrough. 21…Qa5 was a better defence.} 22. f5 $1 exf5 {22…Bh4 23 Qh3
exf5 is no better after 24 Bxd5 Rxe5 25 Bxf7+ Kh8 (or 25…Kxf7 26 Nxf5 with a
winning attack) 26 Bxg6 Qxg6 27 Bf4 and White wins material.} 23. Bxd5 Bh4 24.
Nxf5 $6 {Flashy, but not the best. Simply 24 Qh3 transposes to the last note
and wins safely.} Bxg3 25. Bxb6 axb6 $2 {The obvious move, but it loses
immediately. 25…Bxe5 was the best, when White has nothing better than to
play 26 Bxa7 with an extra pawn – winning perhaps, but much more complex than
24 Qh3.} 26. Nd6 $1 {Surprisingly Black has no way to play on, e.g. 26…Bxe5
27 Bxf7+ Kh8 28 Bxe8 Rxe8 29 Nxe8 Bxe8 30 Rd8 or 26…Bh4 27 Bxf7+ Kh8 28 Bxe8
Rxe8 29 Nf7+ and 30 Rxd7.} 1-0

[/pgn]