Interesting game

Roldan,R - Melchor,A

Corr. Spain Team Ch. 2nd. Div., 1995

1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 f5 3.¤xe5 £f6 4.¤c4 fxe4 5.¤c3 £f7 6.¤e3 c6 7.¤xe4 d5 8.¤g5 £f6 9.¤f3 ¥d6 10.d4 ¤e7 11.g3 ¥e6 12.¥g2 ¤d7 13.0–0 [unfortunately 13..0-0-0 allows 14.¤g5! and against relatively best Black move 14...¥f5 15.¤xf5 ¤xf5 16.c3 h6 17.¤f3, but White is better ] 0–0 14.b3 [14.£d3!? Budovskis,I; 14.¤g5!?]

14...¤g6 [14...g5? 15.¤xg5! £xg5 16.¤c4±; 14...¤f5 15.¤g4 £g6 16.¤fe5 ¥xe5 17.¤xe5 ¤xe5 18.dxe5 ¤h4?! (18...¦ad8 19.¥a3 ¦fe8 20.£d3) 19.f3 (19.gxh4 ¥h3 20.¥g5 ¥xg2 21.¢xg2 h6 22.£d3 £xd3 23.cxd3 hxg5 24.hxg5 ¦f4 to avoid f4 25.¢g3 ¦af8 26.f3 Fritz6) 19...¤xg2 20.¢xg2 £h5! 21.¦f2 (21.f4? ¥g4; 21.¦e1? ¥h3+ 22.¢f2 ¥g4) 21...¥h3+ 22.¢g1 £xe5 23.¥f4 £f5= Destrebecq,F; 14...¦ae8!? 15.¥b2 ¤f5 Kosten,T]

15.¥b2 [15.c4;15. £d3]

15...h5 [?!]

[15...¦ae8 is more accurate according Kosten,T]

16.h4 [16.c4!? again]

16...¦ae8 [?]

[¹16...¥g4 Melchor,A]

17.c4? [17.¤g5! should be winning so Gunderam's anlaysis is no correct: 17...¤f4 18.gxf4 £xf4 19.¤f3 ¥g4 (-+), but 20.¤xg4 hxg4 21.¥c1! with an extra piece !]

17...¥g4 18.¤xg4 hxg4 19.¤h2 [19.¤g5 ¤xh4!? 20.£xg4 ¤xg2 21. ¢xg2 £f5 ÷ Melchor,A]

19...¤xh4 [!]

20.¤xg4 [20.gxh4 £xh4 (20...£f4 21.¤xg4 ¤f6 22.¥c1 Melchor,A) 21.f4 (21.¤xg4? ¤f6! (21...¦f4!? Gunderam,G 22.¤e5? ¤xe5 23.dxe5 ¦xe5!! 24.¥xe5 ¥xe5–+ Melchor,A) 22.¤xf6+ (22.¤e5 ¥xe5 23.dxe5 ¤g4–+ Gunderam,G) 22...¦xf6 23.f4 ¥xf4 24.¦xf4 ¦xf4–+ Gunderam,G (24...£xf4! Melchor,A) ) 21...g3 22.¤f3 £h5 was played in a known game Morgado,J-Gunderam,G cr. Betins mem I Final, 1970]

20...£g5? [20...£d8 21.cxd5 (21.¥h1! Kosten) 21...¤xg2 22.dxc6 with White adventage according Volker Hergert but,.. 22...¤f4! 23.cxd7 (23.gxf4 bxc6) 23...¤e2+ 24.¢g2 £xd7÷, so first player must to play 22. ¢xg2±]

21.gxh4 [21.cxd5? ¤xg2 22.dxc6? ¤f4!, but 21.¥c1!! £e7 22.gxh4 (also 22.cxd5 ¤xg2 23.dxc6 ¤h4 (23...¤e1? 24.¥f4!) 24.gxh4! bxc6 25.¥g5± Melchor,A) 22...£xh4 23.f4 ¤f6 24.¤e5 ¥xe5 25.dxe5 ¤g4 26. ¦f3 and White shoud to win, but more accurate is even 24.¤h2!]

21...£xh4 22.¥c1? [22.f3 ¥g3÷ (22...¦f4? 23.¦e1 (23.¥c1?? ¦xg4! 24.fxg4 ¥h2+ 25.¢h1 ¥g3+ 26.¢g1 £h2#) 23...¦ef8 24.£e2+–) ; 22.f4 ¤f6 (22...¥xf4 23.cxd5± (23.¥c1? ¥g3! 24.¦xf8+ ¦xf8 25.£e2 ¤f6µ) ) 23.¤xf6+ ¦xf6 24.¦f3 ¦xf4 25.£d2 ¦xf3 (25...¦fe4!?) 26.¥xf3 ¥f4 27.£g2 ¦e1+ 28.¦xe1 £xe1+ 29.£f1 £g3+=; 22.¤e5? ¤xe5 23.dxe5 ¥c5 24.£d2 ¦e6 and 25.. ¦h6 –+ Gunderam,G; 22.cxd5? ¤f6 23.¤xf6+ ¦xf6 24.f4 ¥xf4–+, but 22.c5 ¥c7 23. ¤e5!± Komodo 8]

22...¤f6 [22...¦e4 23.f4! (23.¥xe4 dxe4 24.£e2 (24.¦e1 ¤f6µ; 24.¢g2 ¦f3 25.¦h1 £xg4+ 26.¢f1 £f5 27.£e2 ¤e5! 28.dxe5 ¥c5 29.¦h2 £xe5µ) 24...¦f3! 25.£xe4 ¥h2+ 26.¤xh2 £xe4 27.¤xf3 £g4+ 28.¢h2 £xf3 29.¥e3 £h5+÷) 23...¦xd4 (23...¥xf4 24.¥xe4!; 23...g5 Gunderam,G 24.¥xe4 dxe4 25.¦f2+–) 24.£e2 (24.£xd4 ¥c5 25.£xc5 ¤xc5 26.¤e5± and cxd5) 24...dxc4 25.¥e3 ¥c5 26.¤e5+–]

23.¤xf6+ [23.¤e5? ¥xe5 24.dxe5 ¤g4–+]

23...¦xf6 24.f4 ¦h6! All this analyzed by FM Stefan Bücker, Black can force a draw [24...¦fe6 25.£f3 (25.¥d2? ¦e2 26.¦f3 g5!) 25...¦e4 (25...¦h6! 26.¦d1 (26.¥d2 £h2+ 27.¢f2 £h4+ 28.¢g1 £h2+=) 26...¦f8! menacing ¥xf4 27.¦f1 ¦e8 All analysis by Melchor,A) 26.£h3! (26.£d3 ¦8e6 27.¥xe4? dxe4–+; 26.£c3 ¦e2 27.£h3 £f6 28.£c3 £h4 29.£h3 £f6=; 26.£f2!? £g4 27.£f3 £h4 28.cxd5 ¦xd4 29.£h3 £xh3 30.¥xh3 ¥c5 31.¢h1 ¦xd5 32.f5!) 26...£xh3 27.¥xh3 dxc4 28.¥b2 cxb3 29.axb3 ¦e3 here finish Gunderam's analysis saying Black has a good position, but this is no correct so after 30.¥d7 ¦8e7 31.¥f5 ¦xb3 32.¥c1± Black has not sufficient compensation, Komodo8; even I think 28.bxc4! is stronger) ]

25.£f3 £h2+ 26.¢f2 £h4+ [incredibly in Homs-Melchor, corr. Spain, 1993 White chose 27.£g3?? and logically he lost quickly after 27... ¦e2+ 28. ¢f3 £e7 0-1] 26.¢g1        ½ – ½