Date:         Wed, 2 May 2001 11:21:26 -0400


EDDIE DWAYNE'S IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF GAME 10 OF THE MOLOTOV/CEUSCUSKI
CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH, 1997

Down 2-1, with 6 draws, the challenger pulled off what most consider to
be the decisive victory in the match.  Subsequent play by the returning
champion was thin and half-hearted at best; most attribute this to his
uncharacteristic error in move 4 below:

1.  X-C3...O-B2
2.  X-A2...

Ceuscuski surprised no one by opening C3, and following Molotov's
response with the A2, a variation on the Metiti Defense popularized in
the Swazi National Finals in '73, which he has relied on in all similar
situations in recent memory.

2.      ...O-B3

An aggresive move, calculated perhaps to test whether Ceuscuski was on
guard.

3.  X-B1...O-A3

The champion demonstrated his preparedness, which seems to have
surprised Molotov, who forgets the nearly unanimous rejection of the
Simian A3 in favor of Poplarov's Rotation.  This would have led to a
very close game, reminiscent ofTakitoff's grueling 1981 split with
Maskel, were it not for the champion's laspe below:

   | X |
-----------
 X | O |
-----------
 O | O | X

4.  X-C2?!...

A strange experiment, and an unwise one at this juncture.  The next move
is intended to set up a Dormin/Pavlovlov endgame, which should not be
attempted when the opponent is showing the doublet.  I personally use
the D/P (or Tyrovic's gambit) only when there have been signs of
timidity, especially against grandmaster-level players.

Most analysts agree that this was the turning point in the game, and
perhaps of the tournament.  Molotov's triumph would have been uncertain
at best had Ceuscuski attended the first file.

4.      ...O-C1

Molotov, a true grand master, wastes little time securing the victory.
No one I've spoken to on this issue can name an example of a more
beautifully concise and effective finish.