[Event "Torremolinos"]
[Site "Torremolinos"]
[Date "1977.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Christiansen, Larry"]
[Black "Gheorghiu, Florin"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Hartwig,Th"]
[ECO "D42"]
[EventDate "1977.??.??"]
[PlyCount "81"]

{ The following game has been nicely annotated in various sources as a model attacking game with the IQP.  It is instructive in that regard, and I will point out a few of the typical maneuvers.  However, my main interest is in the position before black's 28th move.  According to all of the sources, white has played in perfect model fashion and a couple of black's moves are mistakes... so I am very curious as to why I can't find a win for white after 28...h4. (!) Feel free to e-mail me your analytical suggestions.  I will appreciate them although I may not be able to reply as I am getting bogged down with studying for college. } 1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 e6 4. e3 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. d4 cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1 Nf6 11. a3 b6 12. Bc2 Bb7 13. Qd3 { The thematic plan.  White intends Bg5, which threatens Bxf6 and would force a weakness. } 13... g6 { Supposed mistake number one. 13...Rc8 should be better. } ( 13... Rc8 { would appear to save a full tempo: } 14. Bg5 g6 15. Bh6 $5 ( 15. d5 $2 { doesn't work: } 15... Nxd5 ( 15... exd5 16. Rxe7 Qxe7 17. Nxd5 ) 16. Bxe7 Ndxe7 ) ) 14. Bh6 Re8 15. Rad1 Rc8 16. Bb3 { This is still completely in line with the classical plan.  After ...g6 the white bishop switches to a more active diagonal. } 16... Na5 17. Ba2 Nd5 18. Ne4 Rc7 19. Ne5 Bf8 $5 { Supposed mistake number two.  Now black gets into trouble because of the f6-square. } 20. Bg5 Be7 21. Bxe7 Rexe7 $5 { Supposed mistake number three.  Black blatantly ignores the weak dark squares and especially f6.  21...Qxe7 was the obvious move. } ( 21... Qxe7 ) 22. Bxd5 $5 { Starting a very tempting attack.  The next five moves or so usually get a flurry of exclams, and they fully deserve them, if the attack works... } 22... exd5 23. Nf6+ Kg7 24. Qh3 ( 24. Nfg4 { was the last chance to chicken out, and it may have been best. } ) 24... h5 ( 24... Kxf6 25. Ng4+ Kf5 ( 25... Kg7 26. Qh6+ Kh8 27. Nf6 $18 ) 26. Qf3+ Kg5 27. h4+ Kh5 ( 27... Kxh4 28. g3+ Kh5 29. Qh1+ Kxg4 30. Qh4+ $18 ) 28. Rxe7 Rxe7 29. Qf4 $18 ) 25. Nxh5+ { Here we go! } 25... gxh5 26. Rd3 Qh8 27. Rg3+ Kf8 28. Rg5 Re6 $4 { Now white wins smoothly.  The question posed by my computer is this: how to win after 28...h4.  Moreover, how to equalize??  Well, white has played all of the right moves and, further, black has two pieces marooned on the queenside while his king is exposed.  Therefore, at first I naturally assumed that white had something.  But I can't find it!  The computers are very powerful advocates for concrete variations over generalities, and they tenaciously find resources for the material grabber.  Chess thought is already being re-evaluated in many variations (like the Poisoned Pawn, where white can no longer just "say" he has compensation), and this may be one more example. } ( 28... h4 29. Rg4 ( 29. Qf3 Qh6 30. Ng6+ Qxg6 $19 ) ( 29. Qf5 Qh6 30. Qg4 ( 30. Rf1 Re6 31. Rh5 Qf6 $17 ) ( 30. Rh5 Rc1 $19 ) 30... Re6 31. Rg8+ Ke7 32. Qf5 Qf6 $17 ) 29... Rxe5 30. dxe5 Qxe5 $3 $17 { This is the powerful resource which I suspect most human analysts missed. } ) 29. Qxe6 fxe6 30. Ng6+ Kg7 31. Nxh8+ Kxh8 32. Rxh5+ { Now the endgame is very favorable to white. Firstly, because of the three kingside passers, and secondly, the Rs have lots of open lines. } 32... Kg7 33. h4 Nc6 34. Rxe6 Nxd4 35. Rg5+ Kh7 36. Rd6 Rf7 37. f3 Nf5 $2 38. Rxf5 Rxf5 39. Rd7+ Kg6 40. Rxb7 Rf4 41. Rxa7 1-0