By Manuel Gerardo Monasterio

Besides 1.d4 and 1.e4, I am also fond of playing 1.Nf3 now and then, as I very much like the English "a la Kramnik," when White avoids 1...e5 lines. I was lucky in this game, though, as my opponent did not grasp all the subtleties of the position.

Manuel Gerardo Monasterio - Sergio Sacerdotali [A10]
IECG2003
1.Nf3 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.e4 e5 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Be2 Re8 8.f3 c6!?

This is the most interesting move, the idea is to play ...d5 directly, without losing a tempo by playing ...d6 first.

9.Nb3!?

This is the only way to try for an advantage.

9...a5!

The sign belongs to my appreciation of the position. If, instead, Black plays the natural 9...d5, then 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Bg5! (but not 11.exd5 Nbd7 12.0-0 Nb6 13.d6 Re6, =; and perhaps even better might be -- after 11.exd5 -- 11...Na6!? 12.Bg5 Nb4 13.Qd2 Qb6 14.Na4 Qd6 15.0-0 Qxd5 16.Rfd1 b6 17.Nc3 Qxd2 18.Rxd2 Bb7 19.Rad1 Nfd5 20.Nxd5 Bxd5 21.Bb5 Bc6 22.Bc4 Ba4 23.a3 Rac8 24.Rc1 Bxb3, 0-1 as in Nyback-Navara, Bled Olimpiad 2002).
We go back to 11.Bg5! and we follow an analysis by Lautier in his game against Huzman, in Albufeira 1999:

11...h6 (better than 11...dxe4 against which Lautier have prepared 12.Qxd8 Rxd8 13.Nxe4 Nbd7 14.Rd1 Re8 15.Nd6 Re6 16.Kf2 with a bothersome initiative) 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 (12...Bxf6?! 13.Qxd5 Qb6 14.Qb5 again with enduring pressure ) 13.Qxd5 (but not 13.Nxd5 Qxb2 14.Rb1 Qe5, =) 13...Nc6 14.0-0 Rd8 15.Qc5 and White has the edge.

10.a4

10.Bf4 is just not good for White after 10...a4. Even so, I was rather worried now, as I expected Sacerdotali to do some independent work on the position.

10...Na6?

The "?" sign is mine, because I consider that here Sacerdotali, by blindly following Huzman's game, just misses a very good opportunity to complicate matters in a rather favorable manner for him.

Much later, in a game played by two Italians in 2006, Black was able to play the very interesting shot 10...d5!: 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.exd5 Qb6 13.Bg5 Na6 14.Bh4 Qb4 15.Bf2 Nxd5 16.0-0 Nxc3 17.bxc3 Bxc3 18.Rc1 Be6 19.Na1 Rad8 20.Qc2 Bxa1 21.Bxa6 Bd4 22.Bb5 Bf5 23.Qa2 Bxf2+ 24.Qxf2 Re5 25.Rfd1 Red5 26.Rxd5 Rxd5 27.Re1 Rd2 28.Qe3 Qd4 29.Qxd4 Rxd4 30.Re8+ Kg7 31.Rb8 Bc2 32.Rxb7 Bxa4 33.Bxa4 Rxa4 34.Kf2 Ra2+ 35.Kg3 a4 36.Rb6 a3 37.h4 Rb2 38.Ra6 a2 39.Kh3 h5 40.Kg3 f6 41.Ra7+ Kf8 42.Kh3 f5 43.Kg3 Ke8 44.f4 Kd8 45.Kf3 Kc8 46.g3 Kb8 47.Ra4 Kc7 48.Ke3 Kc6 49.Kd3 Kb5 50.Ra8 Rg2 51.Kd4 Kb4 52.Ke5 Kb3 53.Rb8+ Kc2 54.Ra8 Kb1 55.Rb8+ Rb2, 0-1, Cecchetto-Di Fonzo, Bratto Open 2006.

I believe that Black has too much compensation if White plays as Cecchetto did -- 12.exd5? -- but my analysis told me that even after the better 12.Bg5 Black plays 12...Qb6 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Qxd5 Rd8, and although White Knights are very dangerous beasts, Black does not lack compensation, I believe the position is quite unclear.

11.0-0 Nb4 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bh4 d5 14.exd5 cxd5 15.c5 g5 16.Bf2 Nh5

Deviating from the original Lautier-Huzman game, which continue 16...Bf5 17.Qd2 Nd7 18.Nb5 Rxe2 19.Qxe2 Bd3 20.Qd2 Bxf1 21.Rxf1 Ne5 22.Bd4 Nbc6 23.Bc3 Nc4 24.Qf2 Bxc3 25.bxc3 Qf6 26.Re1 Rd8 27.Qc2 Qg6 28.Qxg6+ fxg6 29.N3d4 Kf7 30.Rb1 N6e5 31.Nc7 Rd7 32.Rxb7 Nb2 33.c6 Nxc6 34.Nxc6, 1-0.

But I certainly do not see the improvement. White has a powerful positional bind.

17.g3

17...Bh3 18.Re1 Qd7 19.Rc1 Nf6 20.Nb5!

Ok, I may not be Kasparov, but I can assure you that you are not going to have a good time if you allow me this sort of position.

20...g4 21.Nd6 Re7 22.Bb5 Rxe1+ 23.Qxe1 Qc7 24.fxg4 Nxg4 25.Bd4 Bxd4+ 26.Nxd4 b6 27.Bf1 Bxf1 28.Qxf1 bxc5 29.Qf4 Ne3 30.Qxh6 Qe7 31.Rxc5 Ng4 32.Qf4

Again the same old story, White has wonderful piece coordination and Black has none.

32...Nf2 33.Qxf2 Qxd6 34.Nf5 Qf6 35.Qf4 Re8 36.Rxa5 Kh7 37.Qf3 Re1+ 38.Kf2 Re8 39.Qh5+ Kg8 40.Kg2 Nd3 41.Rb5 Kf8 42.Rb6 Qe5 43.Kh3 Nf2+ 44.Kh4 Qe4+ 45.g4, 1-0.

A neat positional win, but I will certainly not repeat the experiment. I just do not trust in White's chances after the possible improvement at move 10.