BSJG: Counter-Surprise

When you play bullet chess - say, with a time limit of one minute, no increment - the element of surprise can be an effective weapon. I mean, say, what if you are planning on playing an Evans Gambit as White, but your opponent switches things up with an unusual counter-gambit?

This might have been what happened in Angel Camiña's recent lichess.org 1 0 game - except that he probably was planning on playing the Jerome Gambit, and he also had his own counter- surprise.

angelcamina - umutkaraca09
1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 

The Blackburne Shilling Gambit. Blackburne might have played the opening, but I haven't found any of his games with it. (Black whispers: take the pawn, take the pawn, take the pawn...)

4.Bxf7+

The Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit. I haven't found any games with it played by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, but you know he would have loved to give it a try. (Black face palms and whispers: not that pawn...)

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ Ke7

7.Qf7+ Kd6 8.Nc4+ Kc6 9.Qd5 checkmate

(Black: Ouch)

Jerome Gambit: Take the Half-Point (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

perrypawnpusher- Abhishek29

"Italian Battleground" Chess.com, 2019

It's time to get the "Jerome pawns" moving - carefully.

19.f5 Bd7 20.Rf4

To protect the e-pawn, so I can play d2-d4.

20...Rf7 21.d4 Nb3 22.f6 

Or 22.e5. The text gains in strength after Blacks reply.

22...g6

A double-edged move. It blunts White's Queen's pressure along the g-file. On the other hand, it allows White's pawn to become passed, and weakens the dark squares around the King. The pawn on g6 calls out for White to advance his h-pawn, although that is not something I considered during the game.

23.e5 dxe5 24.Rxe5 

Normally, I would recapture with the pawn, giving myself advanced, connected passed pawns, but they looked like they could be easily blockaded (e.g. ...Nc5, ...Nd6) and my opponent already had shown that he was a knowledgeable chess player - that tool was likely in his toolbox. Instead, I worked to "advance" my f-pawn to e7, even though it would probably never move further. (Keeping the pawn at d4 also meant that Black's Knight would have to take a longer path back to the Kingside.)

24...Qf8 25.Re7 Re8 26.Rfe4 Rexe7 27.Rxe7 

I was pretty sure that exchanging Rooks in this position, especially given the Bishops of opposite colors and the slightly exposed Kings, would cause one of us to seek a draw by repetition of position. I would have been happy with a draw.

However, I suspected that my opponent would not be happy to split the point against a refuted opening (one that he had already lost to in the tournament). He would want to avoid the draw. A subtle psychological point, but, still...

27...c5 28.Qd6 

There are now too many things "loose" in Black's position.

28...Bc6

Can Black survive after 28...Rxe7 29.fxe7 Qe8 30.Qd5+ Kg7 31.Qxb3 - ? That is what he needed to find out.

29.Qe6 cxd4 30.Bh6 

I originally planned to snatch the Knight with 30.Qxb3, but got distracted when I saw the text move. Of course, I could have captured first, then offered the piece, as that would have been even stronger. 

30...Nc5

Well, that was annoying, why did I let that piece survive? I ran my Queen away as far she could go on the diagonal.

31.Qa2 Qxe7

Unfortunate. Capturing the Bishop allows 32..Qxf7+ with mate coming quickly.

32.fxe7 dxc3 33.Qd5 

The more you look at this move, the less powerful it appears. Black's pieces are just unfortunately placed.

33...Bxd5 34.e8=Q+ Rf8 35.Qxf8 checkmate

Like I say, in the Jerome Gambit, Black wins by force, White wins by farce. My opponent deserved better in this game.

Jerome Gambit: Take the Half-Point (Part 1)

I have finished my first Jerome Gambit game in the third round of the "Italian Battleground" tournament, online at Chess.com. It was a curious game, with creative and challenging opening play by my opponent. I was able to squeeze out the win by relying on a greater familiarity with the Jerome Gambit, by utilizing some psychology - and by recognizing some of the tactical opportunities available to me.

perrypawnpusher - Abhishek29
"Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8

The Jerome Defense was first suggested by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in an article in the Dubuque Chess Journal of July, 1874, and seen, initially, in Jaeger - Jerome, correspondence, 1880 (1-0, 40).

My opponent had played 6...Ng6 against me in our first round game, so I was expecting something different this time. Because I read this blog, myself, I wasn't totally surprised by 6...Kf8, as I had written elsewhere

The biggest trouble I have had, in terms of main Jerome Gambit opening lines, has been with 6...Kf8, where I scored only 77% in 33 games.

In 647 games with the Jerome Defense in The Database, White has scored 49%. That's not a very exciting figure, but it compares well with the 46% that White scores in the 14,390 games with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ in The Database.

7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qg3 Nf6 9.Nc3

Varying from 9.d3 in my most recent game against the defense in perrypawnpusher - Sarantes, "Let's Play The Italian Game" tournament, Chess.com, 2018 (1-0, 37).

In all, I have scored 5 - 1 previously with 9.d3, compared to 1 - 1 with 9.Nc3. I can't remember why I chose 9.Nc3 for this current game. 

9...Be6 10.O-O Kf7 

Wisely, Black intends to castle-by-hand.

11.d3 Rf8 12.Na4 

The game is developing slowly, so I decided to exchange off Black's annoying dark square Bishop, to allow me to later get in the thematic f2-f4 move. In light of my opponent's response, I think I will try a different move, next time.

12...Bd4

This move is a novelty, according to The Database. I was certainly unhappy to see it played in a slightly different position in my other Jerome Gambit game (ongoing) in the 3rd round of the tournament.

13.c3 Bb6 14.Nxb6 axb6 15.a3 Kg8

16.Bg5 

This move is thematic in the Jerome Gambit, but, perhaps 16.f4 was a bit better.

16...Qe8 

Breaking the pin on the Knight, and making ...Qh5 possible, especially if White, unwisely, captures on f6.

17.f4 Nd7 

White's Bishop now looks a bit silly.

18.Rae1 Nc5 

Black has confidently developed all of his pieces, and, with a piece for two pawns, has the advantage. 

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Seriously?

I just received my latest batch of Jerome Gambit games from Bill Wall, which includes the following miniature, a reminder that chess is often played for fun, and not always taken seriously.

Wall, Bill - Guest963500
PlayChess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ 

Wow. Bill forsakes his favorite 6.d4.

6...Ng6 7.Qxc5

And, now he bypasses the "nudge", 7.Qd5+.

7...b6

Perhaps expecting 8.Qe3 Bb7.

8.Qd5+ Kf8 9.Qxa8 Black resigned

Readers, please do not snicker.

Recall the quickie Sicilian Wing Gambit game: Shirazi - Peters, Berkeley, 1984: 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.axb4 Qe5+ White resigned.

Also: from the final position, above, another game in The Database continued to move 20, when White resigned. 

Sit At the Side of the Road and Applaud

Here is the latest Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit game from Angel Camiña, playing 1-minute (no increment) chess at lichess.org. 

I have no idea how people do that - especially, successfully. I just have to sit at the side of the road and applaud.

angelcamina - aryopg
1 0 bullet game, lichess.org, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Neg4 

Posting the Knight aggressively, anticipating that White will castle Kingside.

The Database shows 7 previous games with this position, with White scoring 4-3-0

8.dxc5 Qe7 9.O-O Re8 10.f3

Protecting the e-pawn and kicking the Knight at g4, but 10.h3 was a safer way to do the latter.

10...Ne5 11.Bg5 Qxc5+ 12.Kh1 Nxf3 

Hoping to pick up the White piece at g5, but Angel has seen further.

13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Qxf3 Re6 

Material is even, but White's development is better, and Black's King is very unsafe.

15.Qh5+ 

It's not an error if your opponent doesn't punish it.

15...Ke7 16.Qxh7+ Ke8 17.Qh8+ Qf8 18.Qxf8+ Kxf8

White has eased off his attack by exchanging Queens, but he still has the better game - and, with the clock ticking, the easier one to play, too. In fact, Black quickly falls into a mating net.

19.Rae1 d6 20.Nd5 Rb8 21.Nxf6 Ke7 22.Nd5+ Kd7 23.Rf7+ Kc6 24.Rxc7+ Kb5 25. Nc3+ Kb6 26.Nd5+ Kb5 27.Re3 Black lost on time 

Jerome Gambit: Puzzles and Mysteries (Part 5)

Before I began this blog, much of my investigation into the Jerome Gambit appeared online in the "Puzzles and Mysteries" section of Edward Winter's The Chess History Information and Research Center. Although it highlighted my mis-steps almost as often as my true discoveries, it provided valuable exposure to my quest, and put me in touch with a number of helpful sources, for which I remain expecially thankful to Mr. Winter.

With the help of the online Wayback Machine, I was able to bring much of this information forward. It adds to my earlier series of posts containing my longer Jerome Gambit article.

I don't know whether you are just looking for the origins of this gambit, but here's some more modern information.

It is mentioned in a footnote as being "unsound" in Gerald Abrahams' book The Chess Mind, originally published in 1951. I can't find my copy, or I'd be more specific.

It is still played occasionally in serious chess - if not at a very high level! I won a game with 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7 ch Kxf7 5. Nxe5 Nxe5 6. Qh5ch Ng6 7. Qxc5 d6 8. Qc3 etc This was played in the Birmingham (England) League Division 4 on 5th September 2000.

Peter Banks, 21.05.03

---

Abrahams' The Chess Mind refers to the line 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ as the once popular Jerome Gambit.

I have never seen that line before, having come to the Jerome as a variant of the Giuoco Piano - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+.  I wonder if others are familiar with it?

It is not mentioned in Gary Lane's Winning with the Bishop's Opening (1993), and although Tim Harding mentions some main lines in his remarkable Bishop's Opening (1973), as well as "other rare of absurd moves," he does not touch on 3.Bxf7+.

Rick Kennedy, 04.06.03

---

Elliott Fletcher, in his enjoyable Gambits Accepted (1954), covers the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and follows in Abraham's (The Chess Mind, 1951) footsteps when he writes "Some authors have called the opening with the moves 1.P-K4, P-K4; 2.B-B4, B-B4; 3.BxPch, by the name Jerome."

Other than Abrahams - who may simply have been a victim of a typesetting error (see earlier entry) - has anyone else beside Fletcher mentioned this line in the Bishop's Opening, or attributed it to Jerome?

Rick Kennedy, 02.10.03

---

Probably the best-known example of the Jerome Gambit is Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1880
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4# 0-1. This is how the game appeared in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess(1899). To the best of my knowledge, the game was not published earlier than that.

The first player in the game has also sometimes been referred to as "NN" or "Anonymous" or "Stranger." Occasionally (e.g. www.superajedrez.com; or, with the wrong year, at www.chesslab.com ) the player has been given as "Millner," although I have not been able to find out why. At least once the player was erroneously referred to as "Jerome" - by Eric Schiller, Unorthodox Chess Openings (1988, 2002) .

Poring through some chess databases, I recently found that same game has been attributed to Halpern,J - Von Scheve,T, England, 1880.

In addition, a very similar game, varying only at White's move 10, was Amateur - Neumann Guestav R L, London ENG, 1880:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.b3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3
Bxe4# 0-1

This raises a few questions (apart from the accuracy of computer databases, of course):
Did Blackburne's game pre-date Halpern - Von Scheve and Amateur - Neumann?
If not, whose game came first?
If so, were the latter games similar by coincidence, by imitation of Blackburne (and, if so, how did Von Scheve and Neumann come to know the line?), or by a common (with Blackburne) previous source?

Any information readers might have on "Halpern,J  Von Scheve,T, England, 1880" and "Amateur - Neumann Gustav R L, London ENG, 1880" would be enlightening and greatly appreciated!

Rick Kennedy, 02.03.04

---

I've always trusted The Black Death's memory when he reported in Mr. Blackburne's Games At Chess (1899) that the Amateur - Blackburne game which crushed the Jerome Gambit occurred "about 1880."

Recently, though, I found the game reported in the August 15, 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, with the note "played some months ago in London."

Well, you play thousands of games in your life - match, tournament, casual, blindfold, simultaneous - and you're allowed to mis-remember a few!

Rick Kennedy, 30.04.04

As you  can see, some Jerome Gambit mysteries remain!

Jerome Gambit: Puzzles and Mysteries (Part 4)

Before I began this blog, much of my investigation into the Jerome Gambit appeared online in the "Puzzles and Mysteries" section of Edward Winter's The Chess History Information and Research Center. Although it highlighted my mis-steps almost as often as my true discoveries, it provided valuable exposure to my quest, and put me in touch with a number of helpful sources, for which I remain expecially thankful to Mr. Winter.

With the help of the online Wayback Machine, I was able to bring much of this information forward. It adds to my earlier series of posts containing my longer Jerome Gambit article.

The May, 1877 volume of the Nordisk Skaktidende (pp. 97-102) has an article on the Jerome Gambit by S. A. Sorensen. In it, the author refers to Jerome's article in the Dubuque Chess Journal, 1874. Interestingly, Sorensen was still playing the Jerome Gambit over a decadelater, when a game of his appeared in the November 1889 Deutsches Wochenschach (pp. 423-424) (provided by Ken Whyld). 

Sorensen's article was translated into English and appeared in the Chess Player's Chronicle, 1877 (pp 169-174). Thanks, again, to Mr. Whyld for a copy of this.

In 1879, G.H.D. Gossip's Theory of the Chess Openings appeared. I am interested in seeing the Jerome Gambit analysis it contains, if only because the April 1879 Chess Player's Chronicle (p. 86) complained in its review of Theory, that "Game V., the last of the Giuoco Piano, is an analysis of the Jerome Gambit, substantially the same with that which appeared in the Chess Player's Chronicle, 1877..."

Does anyone have access to the 1879 edition of Gossip's Theory of the Chess Openings? I am aware that the second, 1891 edition of Theory does not have any Jerome Gambit analysis.

Rick Kennedy, 11.10.02

---

My (belated) thanks to Mr. Owin Hindle, who provided a copy of Gossip's 1879 Theory of the Chess Openings which showed its Jerome Gambit information to be clearly based on Sorensen's 1877 article, or the Chess Player's Chronicle's 1877  translation of Sorensen.

Thus, first we have the publishing of some of Alonzo Jerome's writings and games, starting in 1874.

Next, Sorensen's article (published in Copenhagen) in 1877, which produced two English sources - in magazine form, in the Chess Player's Chronicle, and in book form, in Gossip's Theory.

Then, back in the U.S., we have another thread from  S. A. Charles, who started writing analyses of openings for his local Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in 1880, but who switched over to the Pittsburgh Telegraph in 1881 where his writings on the Jerome Gambit (based on correspondence games with Jerome) appear. Charles' writings are gathered together in the October 1881 Brentano's Chess Monthly, and then are  edited to appear in the Telegraph again.

Cook's English  Synopsis of the Chess Openings, third edition, in 1882 for the first time has analysis of the Jerome Gambit, likely from the Sorensen/Chess Player's Chronicle/Gossip line.

The third edition of Synopsis is reprinted in the States in 1884, with the American Supplement, written by  S. A. Charles, uniting both the American and Danish/English lines.  The English Chess Openings Ancient and Modern 1889 thereafter continue the interest.

Cook produced a 4th edition of "Synopsis" with the Jerome lines unchanged, but thereafter he did not update the book. His Evolution of Chess Openings in the early 1900s left the Jerome Gambit behind. Chess Openings Ancient and Modern was updated, but when one of its authors died, it was reprinted; and with its last edition, that source of Jerome Gambit support died out, too.

I suspect the publication of Blackburne's book of games - including his 1880 defeat of a Jerome Gambit - hastened the end of the JG as well. The game, for example, is all that shows up in Builger's Hanbuch, when the Jerome shows up at all.

However - just the other day, perusing the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette for 1881, I saw  there was a reference to a Jerome Gambit game annotated by MacKenzie in his chess column in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. It seems White won with the Jerome - in a correspondence game in Australia... 

I received the following game from Mr. Ken Fraser, chess historian in Australia. Mr. Fraser discovered it in Charlick's chess column in the 12 May 1877 issue of the Adelaide Observer, with the following introduction:

Chess in Adelaide

The following long and stubbornly-contested game was fought April 4, 1877, on the occasion of the visit to Adelaide, during the Easter holidays, of Mr. A. Holloway, of Williamstown, formerly of the Bristol Chess Club. The other game, between the same pair of players, won, at the Kt odds, by Mr. Holloway, was published a few weeks ago. The present partie was played on equal terms.

Charlick referred to the opening as the "Evans-Jerome Double Gambit."

H. Charlick - A. Holloway, Australia 1877

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.Qh5+ Ng6 9.Qd5+ Kf8 10.Qxc5+ d6 11.Qe3 Nf6 12.d4 Kf7 13.0-0 Re8 14.Nd2 c6 15.f4 Kg8 16.Re1 Kh8 17.Ba3 Nd5 18.Qg3 Ndxf4 19.Nc4 c5 20.e5 Qh4 21.Nxd6 Be6 22.Nxe8 Rxe8 23.Bxc5 b6 24.Bd6 Bc4 25.Qxh4 Nxh4 26.Rad1 Nhxg2 27.Re4 Bd5 28.Rde1 Re6 29.c4 Nxe1 30.cxd5 Rg6+ 31.Kf1 Ned3 32.e6 Nxd5 33.e7 Nxe7 34.Rxe7 h6 35.Bg3 a5 36.d5 Nc5 37.d6 Rf6+ 38.Kg1 Kh7 39.Be5 Rg6+ 40.Kf1 Rg5 41.d7 Nxd7 42.Bc7 Rd5 43.Re6 Rf5+ 44.Kg1 Rf6 45.Re7 Nc5 46.Be5 Rg6+ 47.Kf1 Nd3 48.Bc3 a4 49.a3 b5 50.Rb7 Rg5 51.h4 Rg4 52.Ke2 Rg3 53.Rxb5 Nc1+ 54.Kd2 Nb3+ 55.Kc2 Rg2+ 56.Kd1 Rg3 57.Be5 Rg4 58.Rb4 Rxb4 59.axb4 Kg6 60.Kc2 Kf7 61.Bc3 g5 62.hxg5 hxg5 63.Kb2 Ke6 64.Ka3 Kd5 65.Kxa4 Kc4 66.Be5 g4 67.b5 Nc5+ 68.Ka5 Nd7 69.Bg3 Kd5 70.Bf2 Nc5 71.Kb6 Nd7+ 72.Kc7 Ne5 73.b6 Nc6 74.b7 Nb4 75.Bg3 Ke6 76.Bd6 1-0

Rick Kennedy, 01.04.03

---

H. Charlick had at least one additional trial with the Jerome Gambit.

As I indicated earlier, there was a reference in an 1881 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette to a Jerome Gambit game played by correspondence - reported in Mackenzie's chess column in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat.

It turns out that Mackenzie copied the game - and its notes - from Charlick's column in the Adelaide (Australia) Observer. They are presented here, with the note: it looks like the game first appeared in Andrew Burns' chess column in  theMelbourne Leader... Over 100 years ago, it was still a "small" chess world!

The Adelaide Observer, Saturday, May 28, 1881

"CHESS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(From the Melbourne Leader.)

The following fine game is one of those in the closely contested match by correspondence to which we lately referred, between Messrs. Charlick and Mann.  The time occupied in playing it was six months.  It abounds in interesting and difficult positions.  Another game has since been finished ending in a draw, making the score - Charlick 4, Mann 3, drawn 6.  [Since, Mr Mann has won a game, making the score perfectly even.]

White, Mr. H. Charlick.  Black, Mr. J. Mann, J.P.
Jerome Gambit

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

This ingenious sacrifice was invented by Mr Jerome, an American player, in 1874, and, unless correctly answered, yields a strong attack.  It seems rather rash to venture on it in a correspondence game.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5

5...Kf8 is, we think, better.

6.Qh5+ Ng6

6...Ke6 is preferable.

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3

The authorities give 9.Qc3, but White prefers the text.

9...Nf6 10.d4 Qe7

10...Kf7 is surely stronger, bringing his R into immediate action, and threatening ...Nxe4.

11.0-0 Ng4

This only assists White in developing his game by driving back the N presently; 11...b6 seems the best method of getting his forces into action.

12.Qe2 Qh4 13.h3 Nf6 14.f4

White has now a most formidable attack.

14...Nh5 15.Qf2 Qxf2+ 16.Rxf2 Rf8 17.f5 Ne7 18.c4 c6

Again we should have preferred ...b6.

19.g4 Nf6 20.Nc3 d5 21.e5

White's Pawns now look quite irresistible.

21...Nd7 22.cxd5 Nxd5 23.Ne4 N7b6 24.b3 a5 25.e6

This, we believe, is premature; 25.Bg5 is a very strong move.

25...h6 26.Bb2 Ke7 27.Re1 Ra7

Black's game is so cramped that defeat is inevitable.

28.Nc5

White might also have obtained a fine game by 28.h4.

28...Na8 29.Nd3 b5 30.Ne5 Kd6 31.Rc1 Ra6 32.Rc5 Bb7 33.Rfc2 Rc8 34.Bc1 a4 35.b4

Very well played.

35...a3

Had he taken 35...Nxb4, White would have gained a winning position by 36.Bf4.

36.Bd2 Nab6 37.Be1 Na4 38.Bg3 Ke7 39.Nd7 Nxc5 40.dxc5 Rg8 41.Bd6+ Ke8 42.Rd2 Ra4

This, we believe, is his best play; had he moved 42...Nf6, White could have replied with 43.Be5, forcing the game in a few moves. (If 42...Nxb4 White wins offhand by 43.f6!)

43.Rxd5

Well played, obtaining a winning position, though it still requires great care to bring about that result.

43...cxd5 44.f6 gxf6 45.Nxf6+ Kd8 46.e7+ Kc8 47.Nxg8 Bc6 48.Nf6 Rxb4 49.e8Q+ Bxe8 50.Nxe8 Rb1+ 51.Kf2 Rb2+ 52.Kf3 Rxa2 53.Nc7 b4 54.Nxd5 b3 55.c6 Rc2 (Must) 56.Bxa3 Ra2 57.Bd6 Rc2 58.Be5 b2 59.Nb6+ Kd8 60.c7+ Rxc7 61.Bxb2 Rc5 62.Bd4 Rb5 63.Nc4 Ke7 64.h4 Ke6 65.Ke4 Rb1 66.Ne3 Kf7 67.h5 Kg8 68.Nf5 Kh7 69.Be3 Re1 70.Nxh6 Rxe3+ 71.Kxe3 Kxh6 72.Kf4 and Black resigns.

The whole of the end game has been played by White with the greatest precision."

Rick Kennedy, 30.04.03

---