View Full Version : Rogers - Tao Round 5

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2004, 05:19 PM
This game follows the game Wohl- Tao from the Aus Open 1992-1993 which Tao won in 58 moves.
The moves are the same up until Blacks 10th however the position is different only after Tao plays 11...h5 in this game which seems to be inferior to his Ne7 in the Wohl game.

Tao seems to have totally missed Ian's 19. Nxd5 temporarily sacrifing the knight.

Kevin Bonham
03-01-2004, 05:24 PM
11...h5 makes no sense to me at all. Unconvincing k-side push + 0-0-0 in shaky position = smash.

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2004, 05:27 PM
Yes h5 just seems overly ambitious aiming for a king side attack that never happens.

Kevin Bonham
03-01-2004, 06:57 PM
In the Wohl game he used ...c4 to lock the q-side (something he never got time for or didn't feel like doing in this game) and pushed ...h5 later when some pieces had gone off the board. This meant Tao could safely play ...Ng6 in that game which he didn't have in this one. Also Wohl played 13.a3 which gives Black some kind of option of capturing on b3 should White play b3, and thus makes it more difficult for White to go after the q-side. Also the N which Tao exchanged for the a6B in the Wohl game ended up becoming quite a dangerous piece in this one. I doubt a ...c4 lock would have worked in the Rogets game. All up it seems Tao was far less cautious in this game.

I will play this sort of line one of these days but I think I might give an early ...h5 a miss. :D

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2004, 11:02 PM
It would be interesting to know why he deviated from the Wohl game.
Maybe he figured Ian would know it and have an improvement, but his deviation in h5 was certainly not the way to go.

03-01-2004, 11:29 PM
The whole line is rather unpromising for Black if White manages to move his e2 knight and leave the bishop hanging on a6. Therefore Tao's ...h5 was directed against Ng3 or Nf4 (which White failed to play in the Wohl game instead of a3?). Unfortunately ...h5 has other defects, as the game showed. Probably White is close to winning by force after b4.

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2004, 11:40 PM
Thanks for the comments Ian.