Even so, it is the strongest move in the position and a good example of using an exchange sacrifice to create complications to defend a difficult position.

Even so, it is the strongest move in the position and a good example of using an exchange sacrifice to create complications to defend a difficult position.>

I completely disagree. 25.Ne6 seems to fit right in with White's aggressive plans, not some kind of more or less desperate measure to "maximize resistance".

Of course if by an "aggressive plan" you means the strongest active defense to try for a swindle or a draw in a bad position, I would agree. However to suggest this move was purposely calculated in advance as part of a plan to gain an advantage is a stretch, and is not IMO supported by an objective analysis of the position.

After <25. Ne6 Bxe6 26. Qxe3 Qf7 27. gxf5> 27...Bc4! White is fighting to hold the draw and Black has all the winning chances.

Fritz 8 gives the main line as continuing 28. Qg5 a5 29. f4 Nd7 30. Be4 Qf6 31. Qg2 Qa8+ 32. Kh2 Qf1 (-1.91 @ 15 depth, Fritz 8) when White is busted.

If as you say, you'd favor White's chances in this position, then give some analysis to prove it. I would welcome an improvement showing White has any winning chances against best play after 25. Ne6.

Not necessarily calculated in advance, but I definitely think he was ready to give away an exchange if necessary in return for such an initiative on the kingside. Risky for sure, but still.

<After <25. Ne6 Bxe6 26. Qxe3 Qf7 27. gxf5> 27...Bc4! White is fighting to hold the draw and Black has all the winning chances.>

I just don’t understand how you can look at the pieces swarming around Black’s king – and the passed pawn, not to forget - and claim that White has no winning chances. Not necessarily that he has an objective advantage, but that he has significant practical chances. Against ”best play” I don’t think he would win. That’s not the point, since it’s very difficult to play such a position from the Black side. This is why I said I favor White’s chances <in a practical game>.

Certainly he could have lost too.

After 28.Qg5, Fritz 8’s suggestion 28..a5 is a strange move doing nothing to counter White’s attacking possibilities. What do you play on 29.Be4 ? If you do nothing I will, perhaps, continue with the slow 30.Qg3!? intending fxg6 followed by f4, h4 or Qxd6. Even 30.f4 right away is interesting. But Black probably plays 29..Qxf5!? (30.Bxf5 Nf3+) and then 30.Qe7 Qf7 (only move) 31.Qxd6 Nd7 (only move) and then maybe 32.Qc6 and a machine is perhaps able to defend but it’s much harder for a human.

I was initially concerned with all the pieces swarming around the Black King, but like in football (soccer) with too many players pushed forward attacking the opponents goal, I thought White might be vulnerable to a counterattack. However, in this case the counterattack appears to be only a difficult defense for Black to draw as you suggest.

Rublevsky reponded by building up with the ambitious g4 and Ng3-e4, but had to allow Volokitin great piece play in the meantime.

White's attack is not likely to be repeated exactly like this in the future. There are too many ways for Black to defend after 25 Ne6. The skeptical 25...Qa4 suggested by Shredder 8 looks hard to crack, as Black feasts on the c2 pawn, saying in effect, where is the winning attack?

Instead Volokitin "believes" Rublevsky, and puts his queen on f7, and adopts a defensive posture.

click for larger view

[A] 27... Nc4? 28. Qb3!

[A1] 28... Qxb3 29. cxb3 N ~ [29... fxg4 30. Bf1 ] 30. Nc7

[A2] 28... Qd7 29. gxf5 Qf7 30. fxg6 Qxg6 [30... hxg6 31. Qg3 ] 31. Nc7 Rf8 32. Bg3 Na3 33. Nxa6 Nxc2

[B] 27... Nf7 28. Bxd6 Rc8 29. Bxc5 Qxc2 30. gxf5 Qb1 31. Kh2 Qxf5 32. Bxb4

click for larger view

29. f4 Nd7 30. Be4 Qf6 31. fxg6 Qxg5+ 32. Bxg5 hxg6 33. Bxg6 Rc8

Do you see 25...Qa4 an improvement, or does it run into similar complications?

It is hard to say if this-removing the queen from the King's area- is more difficult for a human to visualize than alternating defense ...Qf7 with skirmishing moves ...Bc4.

Tarrasch did pretty well with all queenside play versus a Kside demonstration in Pillsbury vs Tarrasch, 1895 until he froze up and played a few purely defensive moves.

25... Qa4 26. gxf5 Qxc2 27. Nc7 Bxe3 28. Qxe3 Qd1 29. Kh2 Qh5 30. Qg5 Qxg5 31. Bxg5 Bb7 32. Nxa8 Bxa8 33. Be7 Nf7 34. fxg6 hxg6

Given a few moves, as <acirce> showed in earlier posts, White can involve the bishop and even set up pawn pushes f4 or h4 h5 similar to the game.

So if there is a refutation of Rublevsky's attack, it must come between moves 25-28.

Here is one of Shredder's lines, getting just enough attack to defuse White's build-up.

25...Qa4 26 Nxc5 Bxe3 27 Qxe3 Qxa2 28 gxf5 Qa1+ 29 Kh2 Bf1 30 Bxf1 Qxf1 31 fxg6 hxg6 32 Qf4 Qe2 33 Ne4 Qf3 -3.40/15

click for larger view

if now 34 Qh4 Qh5 and the shadowing continues.

<Should be in every beginner's manual -- sometimes taking your queen on a "wild-goose chase" after a distant pawn is the right way to play!>

This game shows how strong a stenitz outpost for a N really is! black's a6 B never came into play.