Experts VSSicilians
Experts VSSicilians
the Sicilian
2nd edition
www .qualitychessbooks.com
First published in 2006 by Quality Chess Europe AB
Vegagatan 1 8, SE-4 1 3 09 Gothenburg, Sweden
Copyright © 2006
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocoping,
recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN 9 1 -975244-6-8
Preface 5
The writers 7
The Najdorf 9
The Dragon 37
The Sveshnikov 71
The Classical Sicilian 89
The Kan and Taimanov 117
The Accelerated Dragon 147
The Scheveningen 157
The Kalashnikov 173
The Four Knights 181
The Pin Variation 187
The Nimzowitsch Variation 197
Minor lines 209
5th move alternatives 221
List of variations 226
List of games 227
List of symbols
t Check
A strong move
!! A brilliant move
!? An interesting move
?! A dubious move
? A mistake
?? A blunder
GM John Nunn had a lot of success with his trilogy Beating the Sicilian 1, 2 and 3. Others have
tried to follow suit, but none with the same success. (The latest being Nigel Davies with Taming the
Sicilian, where the White repertoire was based on g3-lines against almost everything.)
It was with this knowledge that Ari Ziegler and Jacob Aagaard discussed the idea of a repertoire
book against the Sicilian in 2003, while developing the idea of a new chess publishing company. The
discussions (leading to this book) ended with the idea of contacting strong players who had specialist
knowledge in the lines in question. It was our conviction that this would give the reader the best
possible insight into the finer points of a particular line. As experienced players and opening book
writers we know that important finesses are missed if you do not:
1. Use a lot of time analysing the games, instead of just believing the players' own analysis.
2. Have prior knowledge of the system.
It is obviously not easy to get many busy chess players to deliver up-to-date material all at the
same time. However it was also not as difficult as we feared. Alexander Raetsky and Peter Wells were
playing tournaments at the time of the deadline, but still managed to deliver with only a week's delay.
And this despite serious computer problems for both!
It has been interesting to learn how differently some very strong players view opening theory, and
see how this has made itself apparent in their contributions. At one extreme there is Viktor Gavrikov
with his dense theoretical style, at the other Peter Heine Nielsen with his ideas-based approach. This
is not a matter of playing strength or necessarily style of play. These two GMs are the two highest
rated players contributing to this book, and are both renowned theoreticians. For this reason we
decided that it did not make any sense to make huge changes to the style chosen by the different
contributors. Clearly a lot of general editing has been done, but we made no particular effort to limit
the diversity of the book's authors.
As we wanted to re-typeset to a bigger format when we had to reprint this book, we decided to
insert the corrections of both language and chess moves we had encountered since the book was first
published. In essence, the book is the same as the 2004 edition, but a lot of minor changes and a few
updates will hopefully make it an improved edition.
The updates compared to the first edition do not only include improvements forWhite, but
also for Black. We have tried to present the reader with an honest picture of the development of the
lines over the last two years, but not upheld ourselves to the obligations of delivering a bullet proof
repertoire. We found this approach the most honest and hopefully the readers will do so too.
In that connection we would like to thank Mikhail Golubev for revising his chapter on the
Dragon.
Peter co-authored the book The Sicilian Grandmaster Alexander Raetsky vs. the Four
Accelerated Drag on in 1998 with fellow Knights.
Dane Carsten Hansen. They are currently 44-year old Alexander Raetsky very recently
contemplating an updated edition. made his first grandmaster norm after 9, 10
and 1 1 rounds of the Biel Open 2004, but was
Grandmaster Viktor Gavrikov vs. the unfortunately given one and not three norms
Scheveningen for the effort. He has for a long time been one of
Viktor Gavrikov is 47 years old and famous on the best players in his home region of Voronezh
the tournament circuit for his vast knowledge of in Russia, where for the last five years he has
opening theory. As a player he has competed at organized one of the largest open tournaments
the highest level for many years, and won games in the world.
against players such as Karpov, Beliavsky, van Alexander is also the author of several chess
Wely, Lautier, Andersson and Adams. Currently books, most often with his close friend Maxim
he contributes theoretical articles to ChessBase Chetverik, as well as a contributor to New In
Magazine and is working on a book on the Chess Yearbook. Among his books is Meeting
middlegame. 1.e4, which is a repertoire book with the main
Viktor has played the Keres Attack with both line being the Four Knights Sicilian, an opening
colours, but does not consider himself a true he has played regularly since.
expert. However his contribution to this book Alexander was finally awarded the grandmaster
suggests otherwise. title in 2005 after making the final norm in
Cappelle Ie Grande, France, where you should
International Master Jan Pinski vs. the be able to find him each year.
Kalashnikov
Jan Pinski is a 27-year-old journalist, currently Grandmaster John Shaw vs. several minor
working hard on uncovering corruption in his lines.
native Poland, as well as on his next chess book. John Shaw from Scotland has represented
Jan has written a number of chess books, the his country in many international team
first being The Kalashnikov Sicilian with Jacob tournaments, including Olympiads. He has
Aagaard. In an e-mail to the editors Jan states, written two opening books for Everyman
" It is incredible that I played this line for so long Chess and was awarded the grandmaster title in
without being punished!" 2006.
comparing the results of these two variations we
The Najdorf
see that 6.ig5 is doing fine.
- By 1homas Luther There are some specialists in this line and
I have annotated some of their best games.
Among many others I want to mention GMs
Short, Timman, Kotronias and Sulskis for their
great efforts.
The most important lines are the Poisoned
Pawn variation (6... e6 7.f4 \Wb6), which is
the most critical line and the main line (6 ... e6
7.f4 tLlbd7 8. \Wf3 \Wc7 9. 0-0-0 ie7) and now
10. id3. These two lines dominate at the moment
in tournament practice. Other formerly well
known lines, like the Polugayevsky Variation
(6 . . . e6 7.f4 b5), are rarely met nowadays.
I have checked most variations given in
this chapter with my computer. But soft- and
hardware are developing fast, and sooner or
later improvements will be found. If you are
The Najdorf System is one of the most popular
uncertain about a position after reading this
systems of the Sicilian Defence. It arises after
book I truly advise you to check it with your
the moves l .e4 cS v!L)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4
computer.
tLl fG S.tLlc3 a6. The Argentine Grandmaster
In the beginning I will give some sidelines.
M. Najdorf played it for the first time in a
Each of them is dangerous if White does not
tournament game in the 40s.
know what to do. I start with 6 . . . tLlbd7 (the
Nowadays it is seen in every level of
usual move which is played in almost all other
tournament. Many World Champions,
games here is 6 ... e6). Black's idea is to avoid
including Fischer and Kasparov, used it as their
getting double pawns on the f-line, and maybe
main defence against l.e2-e4. In many variations
later there could be an e7-e5 in one move. In
an uncompromising battle arises where every
most of the games Black just plays e7-e6 on the
move has great importance. It is a very practical
next move and the game transposes to another
choice if Black wants to play for a win from
line. Really not recommendable is this idea in
the very beginning of the game. In our times
connection with 7... \Wb6. Black is just too far
many moves from the older games belong only
behind in development to do so. The following
to history, because strong computer programs
game is a perfect example of how White should
show that they are incorrect. Nevertheless,
deal with this plan.
in some lines White just crushes Black's set
up. I will give some examples where I show
the reader some basic ideas (for example the Game l
ctJc3-d5 sacrifice), and I try to show the
Stripunsky - Granda Zuniga
New York 1998
connection of different variations and the tricks
of move orders.
l .e4 cS 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlfG S.tLlc3
This book recommends 6.ig5. I have played a6 6.igS tLl bd7
this move for nearly 20 years now and I have 6... h6 7.ixf6!
won many games with it. There are relatively 7.f4 �b6?!
few recent games in the 6.ig5 line, because 6. 7... e6 is of course the move, transposing to
ie3 is more popular right now. However when 6...e6 7.f4 ctJbd7.
10 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
7...h6? 8.i.xf6 CLlxf6 9.e5 dxe5 10.fxe5 CLld5 @d8 was Zunker - Holfelder, Bruchkoebel
l1.e6± 2002. Now 14.CLlxa8 i.b7 15.i.c4! wins.)
7... b5? also does not really work. After 8.i.xf6 13.Elb3 �a lt 14.@f2 e6 15.Elb l �a2 16.i.c4
CLlxf6 9.e5 b4 10.CLlcb5! - Nunn. White has a a5 17.�c3 CLlc5 18.ttJc6t bxc6 19.�xf6t @e8
strong position. Here are some lines: 20.CLlc7t @d7 21.�xf7t i.e7 22.i.xa2 1-0
1O...CLle4 l1.e6 �b6 12.exf7t @d8 13.�f3 d5 Garbarino - Sabas, Buenos Aires 1982.
14.0-0-0, axb5?! 15.�xe4!+- 11...�c5 12.CLlb3 �c6 13.CLla5 �c5 14.CLlxb7
1O...dxe5 l1.fxe5 �g4 (Nunn gives l1...axb5 Elb8 15.CLlxc5 ElxbIt 16.@f2 CLlxc5 17.�a5+-
12.exf6 gxf6 IHEf3 �d7 14.ttJe6+-) 12.�d3± 12. :Bb3!
axb5 13.exf6 exf6 14.�e4t �e7 15.i.xb5t i.d7 White needs to bring his pieces into action.
16.i.xd7t @xd7 17.CLle6!!+- Worse was 12.CLlc7t @d8 13.CLlxa6 bxa6
Let's return to 7... W b6?! . 14.CLlc6t @c7 15.CLlxb8 CLlxb8 16.i.c4 CLlc6't.
12 ...Wfa4
8.Wfd2 Wfxb2 After this there is not a lot to talk about.
Otherwise Black's play does not make a lot of White is simply much better.
sense. 12...�c5 13.Elc3 �a7 14.i.xa6!+- does not
9. :Bbl Wfa3 10.�xf6! work, but 12... �xa2!? has been suggested, and
White uses his lead in development by this is in fact the only way for Black to play on. Still,
immediate action. analysis assisted by a computer indicates that
10 gxf6
..•
White has the advantage. 13.i.c4! is of course
Forced. 1O...CLlxf6 11.e5 CLlg4 12.CLld5 is pretty the move. Now we have:
hopeless for Black. 12...�c5 (12"':Ba7 13.Elb3 a) 13...�a lt? This only helps White. 14.@f2
�xa2 14.�c3 i.d7 15.�c7+- or 12...Elb8 13.CLlc6 �xh l White now has a winning combination
�xa2 14.�d l±) 13.CLlb3 �c6 14.ttJa5 �c5 Now with 15.CLlc7t @d8 16.�a5! b6 17.CLlde6t fxe6
the weaker player could have won if he played 18.CLlxe6t @e8 19.�h5 mate.
15.CLlxb7+-, but respect for the grandmaster b) 13... CLlc5? 14.Elxb7! (14.0-0!? CLlxb3
made him repeat moves, Bindrich - Zagrebelny, 15.i.xb3 �a3 16.Elf3, is also tempting, but
Dresden 2000. winning the queen is more convincing.)
1 1.tLld5 :Bb8 14...�b lt 15.Elxb l Elxb lt 16.@e2 Elxh l
Other moves are no better, or maybe even 17.�a5+-
worse. c) 13...e6 14.CLlc7t @d8 15.�c3! (15.0-0
11...�xa2 12.�b4 @d8 (12... b5 13.CLlc7t �a4! and it is not possible to find more than
The Najdorf 11
g5-pawn and trade his passive rook. Now it 17.c4 lbb4 1 8J!d2!
is difficult for Black to develop his last pieces, It is important to protect the a-pawn since it
as can be seen by the following lines: 17... a4 keeps Black's knight out of the game. Huzman
(17... ia6 IS.tLlxa5 Elhc8 19.ixa6 Elxa6 20.tLlc4 gives: 18.0-0 tLlxa2 19.Ela l tLlb4 20.Elxa5 tLlc2
Elxa2 21.hxg5 hxg5 22.Elh5 Elh8 23.Elxg5±) and Black has good counterplay against the b3-
IS.hxg5 hxg5 19.Elxh8 ixh8 20.ie2:t pawn.
13.lbe4 Elb8 14.b3 l S ... Eld8 19.13f1 !
Another brilliant move by Adams. Th e king
stays in the centre to cover the important
squares.
1 9 ... 13xd2 20.@xd2 lba6
20 ... tLlxa2 Now this is different. The white
king dominates the knight on b4 after: 21.Ela l
ILl b4 22.Elxa5 the position is ±.
2 1 .ih5
Forcing Black to weaken the kingside
structure.
2 1 ...g6 22.is ib7 23.@c3 13dS 24.lbd6 iaS
25.a3??
This spoils all the previous achievements.
After protecting the knight on d6 once more,
White's victory would have been only a question
14.c4?! allows a tricky piece sacrifice: 14...Elxb2! of time. 25.Eld l! was the right move.
15.cxd5 ib4t 16.1Lld2 exd5+
14...ie7
14...g5?!. Making the check on b4 happen
is not worth weakening the structure. 15.ig3
ib4t 16.@e2! and by threatening c2-c4 White
obtained a big advantage in Brodsky - Rechel,
Groningen 1993.
1 5.ig3!
This move certainly secures an advantage for
White. Black has too little space for his pieces.
This is more important than just the usual
good/bad bishop stuff. Worse is 15.ixe7 @xe7,
and with a weak pawn on e5, White can never
be better.
1 5 ... 0-0 16.ie2
16.c4?!. White should be careful with pawn 25 f5!
.•.
moves: 16... tLlb4 17.Eld2 Eld8 with counterplay. Now Black has counterplay.
1 6 a5
.•• 26.b4 g5 27.h3 if8 2S.c5 13b8
16... tLle3 hunting the g2-pawn is not good for 28... ig7 29.lLlc4 does not change much.
Black: 17.El d2 lbxg2t IS.@f2 tLlh4 19.1Llf6t! 29.ih5
Without this move White would have nothing. 29.Ela l with the idea 30.tLlc4 was
1 9...gxf6 20.ixh4 i.c5t 21.@S fxe5 22.if6 recommended after the game.
and after id3 and Elg2 White has a dangerous 29 ... lbc7 30.iS lba6 3 1 .i.h5 lbc7 32.iS
attack. 1f2-1J2
The Najdorf 13
Game 3
Shabalov - Browne
Las Vegas 1997
into endgames as this one: 21...'lWe3t 22.'iilh2 17...i.f5!? 18.i.e2! i.xc2 19.0-0 and with his
0-0 23.�xf7 �xf7 24.gxf7t 'iilxf7 25.�f lt 'iilg8 king in the centre Black is helpless against all
26.�f6 'lWg5 27.b3 Objectively Black is just lost, the threats.
but in practice he might score between 10 and 17...'lWxh6 With this move Black is just
20%.) 22.�ae l± The outcome of the opening accepting to play a pawn down. 18.i.f4 'lWg6
is clearly in White's favour. Without having (18...'lWe6 19.'lWxe6 he6 20.g3 was seen in
sacrificed anything she has a strong attack Luther -Abreu, Havana 2001. Black had no
against the completely naked black king, and compensation for the pawn.) 19.0-0-0± With
many weak black pawns to attack. Dworakowska a safe king and an extra pawn White has a clear
- Areshchenko, Gibraltar, 2005. advantage.
c) 17...0-0!? is an interesting attempt of 18 .ie2 �g5
•
improving. White should probably play 18.gxh6 Desperation! 18...'lWg6 19.i.h4! is very
(18.0-0-0 �b8 does not seem appealing.) uncomfortable for Black.
18...i.xg3t 19.hxg3 'lWxg3t 20.'iil f l i.f5 1 9.tvh8t! 'iild7 20.tvc3+-
21.'lWd4 Now Black played 21...�ae8?, which This finishes all Black's hopes.
should have lost in one move to 22.i.g4!!, in 20 tvxc3t
•.•
Dworakowska - Calotescu, Gothenburg 2005. 20...'lWe4 21.0-0 'lWxe2 22.�ae l and the
Better is 21...'iilh7 when White is better after various threats cannot be parried anymore.
for example 22.i.d3 hd3t 23.'lWxd3t 'lWxd3t 2 1.bxc3 .if6 22.0-0
24.cxd3;!;. After this move everything is clear. The passed
13.tve2t pawn on h6 decides the game.
The point of White's play. White gets the 22 ,ixc3 23.�xf7t me6 24.�af1 .id7 25 .ih4
..• •
13 i.e714.tihc6
•••
1-0
Of course not 14.0-0-0?? 'lWf4t-+. Now after 26 ... �xh6 27.i.g4t White wins a
14 bxc6 15 .ig3! tvg6
••• •
piece, so Black resigned.
15...'lWb4t 16.c3 and, thanks to 'lWe2, the b2-
pawn is protected. The early 'IWc7 is another sideline. Black wants
16.tve5! �g817.gxh6! to play b7-b5 without allowing e4-e5. If White
The Najdorf 15
does not react to this plan and slowly develops, and White is better here.) l 1.exf6 b4 12.tDxd5
Black will kick White's knight on c3 by playing exd5 13.0-0-0 ib7 and, after studying this
b7-b5-b4. Black is doing fine if White has to position for some time, I came to the conclusion
move this knight to e2 or a4. There are many that White should not risk this piece sacrifice.
tactical lines but I cannot recommend them. S...gxf6 9.YfJd2
Basically, if White gets the chance to take on 9.ie2 is another way of setting up the pieces
f6 and Black has to recapture with the g-pawn for White. Generally I do not think the white
White should do it. The arising position is more king belongs on the kingside. 9... tDc6 10.tDb3
common in the Rauzer Defence, so I advise the b5 1 1.0-0 ib7 and Black will castle queenside
reader to study this chapter as well. and aim for the standard break d6-d5.
9...b5
Game 4 Pushing the b-pawn is in the spirit of the
Khalifman - Lautier variation. The drawback is that the black king
Moscow 200 1 will never find a safe spot on the queenside.
9... tDc6 10.0-0-0 id7 11.'iflb l h5 12.ic4
l.e4 c5 2.ttla d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 ttlf6 5.ttlc3 0-0-0 13.tDxc6 'lWxc6 14.ib3 @bS IHlhfa
a6 6.ig5 e6 7.f4 YfJc7 was seen in Topalov -Anand, Dortmund 1997.
With this move Black wants to trick White in 10.id3
his set-up. If he goes for �d l-a and castling 10.a3 ib7 I l.ie2 with the idea of castling
queenside Black quickly plays b7-b5-b4. Since kingside is another option, but Black can even
at this early stage of the game there is no ltJd5 stop this plan by playing 'lWc7-b6.
- sac possible the c3-knight has to be moved 10 ...ib7 1 1.0-0-0 ttld7
backwards, which is a big concession. Black cleverly keeps the knight because it
will be strongly placed on c5. After 1 1...ltJc6
12.ltJxc6 White is better.
12J�hel 0-0-0 13.£5 ttlc5 14.a3
White has to secure the c3-square for his
knight.
14 ...Wb8 15.Wbl h5 1 6.YfJe3 ih6 17.YfJh3
YfJe7
8.ixf6
On the other hand there is the chance to break
Black's pawn chain, since Black has not played
either ttlbS-d7 or ifS-e7. In my opinion, this is
the most principled way to treat the �c7-line.
s.�a is often played in this position. S ... b5
(Black decides not to enter one of the main lines
by playing S... ltJbd7 or ie7.) 9.hf6 gxf6 10.e5
d5 ( 10 ... ib7 11.�h5 with the idea of ltJd4xe6
16 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
Here the players agreed a draw. In my opinion a big advantage in Kasparov - Ehlvest, Baku
White could have continued the game. Instead 1978.
of 18:�f3 I prefer: 9.fxe5 V!!c7
a) 18.b4 OK, it is not everybody's taste to The idea behind Black's play. He does not lose
open one's king, but getting rid of the c5 knight material, but White gains a lot of time.
is worth it. 18...ttJxd3 19.:Bxd3 :Bde8 20.:Bed l 1 0.exf6
with pressure. Or: There is also 10.�e2 but it is not in the spirit
b) 18.'!e2 Hitting on h5. 18...e5 (18...ttJxe4? of White's set-up.
19.ttJxe4 he4 20..!f3 and White wins) 19.ttJb3 1 0 V!!e 5t 1l ..ie2 V!!xg5 12.0-0
.••
ttJxe4 20.ttJd5 hd5 21.:Bxd5 and White has 12.'%lId3 is considered as the main alternative
good compensation. He has play on the light here. Bringing the white king out of the line of
squares and against Black's king. fire is, in my opinion, the better option.
will always be remembered. Black's defence is based on this idea: the rook
goes to d7.
Game 5 12...'%lIe5 was for a long time considered the
Leko Ghaem Maghami
- main line, but is now less popular in practice. It
Yerevan 2001 is considered in the next game.
Not the natural 12....!b7? 13.'!f3 when
1.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.c!lJc3 Black's position cannot be saved:
a6 6 .tg5 e6 7.£4 b5
• a) 13...hf3 14.�xa :Ba7 (14....!c5 15.�xa8
This is the aggressive move that was played as in Bisset - Martinez, e-mail 1994 offers Black
and analysed deeply by the Russian GM Lev no compensation) 15.:Bad l �e5 16.:Bfe l '%lIxf6
Polugayevsky. 17.'%lIg3 ttJd7 18.ttJd5 '%lId8 19.ttJc6 and White
8.e5 wins.
The only way to deal with b7-b5 successfully. b) 13...�e3t 14.@h l hf3 15.:Bxa '%lIe5
Otherwise Black just manages to kick White's 16.'%lId2! '!d6 17.g4 b4 18.ttJf5!! After this Black
knight with b5-b4. is done for. 18....!c7 19.:Be l �xh2t 20.�xh2
8...dxe5 .!xh2 21.fxg7 :Bg8 22.ttJd5 ttJd7 23.@xh2
8...h6? (this move does not promise Black @d8 24.ttJde7 1-0, Stripunsky - Jaracz, Poland
much here) 9..!h4 g5 10.fXg5 ttJh7 11:�h5 1995.
hxg5 12..!g3 .!g7 13.0-0-0 and White had c) 13...:Ba7 14.ttJxe6!! An absolute stunner.
The Najdorf 17
14...fxe6 ( 14...'lWe3t IS.�h l fxe6 16.fxg7! and soon 1-0 in Rodriguez Cespedes - Stangl, Biel
it is the end of the world) IS.f7t �e7 16.'1Wd4 19S5.
The key move. At best Black will be an exchange 17...ixe4 does not solve Black's problems.
down with a ruined position. 16... �xf7 IS.lMfxe4 i.cst 19.�h l gxf6 20.axbS and
17.ixb7t �eS IS.lDe4 E!xb7 19.1DxgS E!d7 White wins back the material and keeps a clear
20.lMfeS l-0, Kaehmann - Hamburg, Ruhrgebiet advantage.
1999. IS.�abl
1 3.�d3 �d7 14.lDe4 �e5 IS.c3 This move is an old recommendation.
14...'lWdS?! is worse than the text. The game The text is better. IS...ixe4 19.1Mfxe4 gxf6
Sulskis - Stocek, Isle of Man 2002 went as and the best White can get is a repetition by
follows: IS.c3 lDc6 16.lDxc6 'lWxc6 17.lMfe3 i.b7 following Black's queen with his rooks.
IS.i.f3 and Black still could not free his position IS ... �xc2
from White's attack. IS...'lWa3 19.c3 Only now does White play
15.lDf3! this move. Black cannot finish his development
IS.c3?! i.b7 16.i.f3 ixe4 17.ixe4 gxf6 and and is in trouble.
White does not have enough compensation for 19.1Dfg5! �c7
the pawn. Black is in serious trouble as any computer
15 ... �xb2 shows. Nowadays any program can analyse this
As in many tactical lines Black is forced to tactical position far better than any human.
take some material. 19... h6!? does not help either. 20.E!bc l lMfxc l
After IS...�c7 16.lMfe3 i.b7 17.c4 ixe4 2 1.E!xc l hxgS 22.�g3 lDc6 23.ixa6 and White
IS.lMfxe4 gxf6 19.cxbS lMfb6t 20.�h l axbS wins.
2 1.a4!. White simply has a great attack for 19...g6 20.E!fc l 'lWa2 2 1.i.c4 and White wins
no risk at all. The game Vasquez - Arancibia, again...
Maipu 2003 was soon 1-0.
16.�e3 J.b7 17.a4 b4
20.E!xb4!
Opening up the position, after this blow there
After 17...lMfb4 Black could not solve all his is no longer a defence.
problems following IS.c4 ixe4 19.1Mfxe4 lMfcst 20 ...he4 21 .lDxe4 hb4
20.�h l b4 2 1.lMff4 i.d6 (a serious commitment, Allowing a nice finish.
but 2 1...lDc6 22.E!ad l lMffS 23.lMfe3 E!xd l 22.fxg7 �gS 23.lD f6t c;!;>d8 24.lDxgs J.c5
24.E!xd l 'lWxf6 2S.lMfb6 is no fun either) 22.fxg7 25.lDf6! he3t 26.c;!;>hl c;!;>c8 27.lDxd7
E!gS 23.'lWh6 i.eS 24.lMfxh7 E!xg7 2S.lMfhSt and 1-0
IB Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
In the next game we shall continue analysing 14.Whl V!fxfG l S.lLle4 V!fe7 16.lLleS!
the Polugayevsky Variation. Compared to a line The most dangerous. 16.ttlfg5 f5! has proven
like 7 ... N bd7 it might seem less relevant. But to be nothing. 17..ih5t g6 IB.ttlxh7 Wf7! and
first of all many club players really like to play Black was OK in several games.
this way, as there is something macho about it.
Secondly, the knowledge necessary for playing
an opening is not necessarily always centered
around the critical lines.
Game 6
Wosch - Nordin
e-mail 200 1
c3) 20...ttJd7? 2 1.ttJxe6!± Beliavsky - wins the queen.) 27.l"i:f7t @eS 28.'iWg3t @dS
Polugaevsky, Moscow 1979. 29.l"i:d lt and it is all over.
c4) 20..J�a7 2 1.ttJd3! A new idea, but not a
very surprising one, as the alternatives are less
encouraging. (2 1.ttJe4 l"i:d7 22.'iWe2 ttJc6 23.c3
ttJe5 24.l"i:f 1 �b7= Denaro - Bosco, corr. 1990,
and 2 1.'iWd4 l"i:c7! 22.ttJe4 l"i:xc2 23.l"i:f 1 ttJd7!+
Mauro - Soranzo, corr. 1990.) 2 1...ttJc6 22.�f3
ttJd4 (22...ib7? 23.'iWg l! l"i:a8 24.ttJc5±) And
now White has many ways to proceed. 23.ie4;!;
is probably easiest. Of course Black can fight for
a draw in such an endgame, he is only slightly
worse, but certainly White would accept this
position from the opening.
17 .ih5t g6 1 8.tlJxg6 hxg6 1 9 ..ixg6t cJifS
•
20.tlJxc5 l3h6!
The alternatives are not cheerful. 20...@g7 is
met strongly with 2 1.ttJxe6t! he6 (No better 22.M!
fate is to be found after 2 1...cJixg6 22.ttJf4t! This move makes a lot of sense: White sacrifices
[22.l"i:xfS?! cJixfS 23.'iWd3t @xe6 24.l3e l t @f7 his extra pawn to derail the knight. If this or the
25.l3xe7t cJixe7 26.'iWe4t ie6 27.'iWxa8;!;] alternative 22.ttJe4!? is stronger I do not know.
22...cJig7 [22...cJih6 23.'iWhSt+-] 23.l"i:f3!. This The position needs a lot of independent analysis
manouevre is not that easy to find, but very before anything can be said with certainty. I
logical. Black has no way to bring his pieces have tried to give some variations here that I
to the defence of the king. 23...'iWeS [23...'iWd7 believe are critical, however they cannot be said
24.l"i:d3 'iWc6 2S.l"i:c3 'iWd7 26.'iWf3+-] 24.1'!g3t to be conclusive in any way.
@f6 2S.'iWf3 l"i:h6 26.ttJhSt cJie6 [26...l"i:xh5 22...ib7 (22 ... eS?! is the computer's first
27.'iWxhS and Black has no way to survive choice, but after 23.g4!? [Seems strange, but
the attack] 27.l"i:d l and the black king cannot it works!] 23...ttJd4 24.'iWd2 'iWg7 2S.c3 �b7
escape.) 22.ixfS 'iWh4 (22...hfS 23.l"i:xfS 'iWh4 26.l"i:ae l! White has a very strong attack)
24.'iWd6! transposes) 23.'iWd6 ixfS 24.l"i:xfS l"i:e8 23.'iWg4!? ttJd4 (23...l"i:d8 24.ttJg3 ttJeS 2S.'iWf4
2S.l"i:af l l"i:a7 26.l"i:Sf4 'iWd8 27.'iWcS l"i:c7 28.'iWhS 'iWg7 26.l"i:ae l l"i:xhS 27.l"i:xeS l"i:h6 28.l"i:fe l±)
1-0. Uboldi - Lalanne, San Antonio de Padua This position is probably critical. I have tried
2001. to outline the possibilities here, but cannot give
20...'iWxcS 2 1.'iWd8t @g7 22.'iWgS with a full conclusions.
winning attack. A crucial line is 22...l"i:xh2t a) 24.l"i:ad l!? ttJxc2 2S.l"i:d3 l"i:h7 (2S...idS
23.@xh2 'iWeSt 24.@g l 'iWf6 2S.'iWg3 'iWxg6 26.l"i:g3 'iWh7 27.ttJgS 'iWd7 28.ttJh3! 'iWh7 29.ig6
26.'iWc3t+-. l"i:xg6 30.'iWxg6 'iWxg6 31.l"i:xg6;!;) 26.ttJgS @g8
21 ..ih5 27.'iWh4 l"i:g7 28.l"i:g3 l"i:fS=
Probably the best move. b) 24.c3? ttJc2 2S.l"i:ad l ttJe3 26.'iWf4 l"i:xhS
2 1.'iWg4!? 'iWxcS 22.'iWgS l"i:xg6 23.'iWxg6 l"i:a7OO 27.'iWxe3 'iWh4-+
2 1.ttJxe6t he6 22.ixfS if7 looks unclear to c) 24.ttJg3! 'iWf6 2S.'iWf4 eS 26.'iWf2;!; The
me. following analysis might be correct, but chances
21 ... tlJ c6! are that they are a bit too long to be bulletproof.
2 1...'iWxc5? 22.'iWd8t @g7 23.l"i:f3 l"i:xhS 26...f4 27.c3 ttJe6 28.l"i:ad l l"i:d8 29.'iWb6 l"i:xd l
24.l"i:g3t @f7 2S.'iWg8t @e7 26.l"i:g7t @f6 30.hd l hg2t Far from the only option here.
(26...@d6 27.'iWfSt @dS 28.l"i:d lt and White 3 1.@xg2 l"i:xh2t 32.@g l!? (32.cJixh2 'iWh4t=)
20 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
32...E1d2 33..ib3 �h4 34.E1f3 �h3 35.�bSt and much analysis was published. Seeing it from
@e7 36.�b7t @f8 37.ttJe2 �g4t 3S.�f2 �h4t today's point of view I have to say that the line
39.@f1 E1xb2 40.E1d3± Of course all of this is still has lots of resources for both sides.
not that clear, and improvements can probably
be found for both players. Game 7
22...ltJxb4? Luther - Efimenko
After this I cannot find a good position Ohrid 2001
anywhere for Black. 22...a5! looks stronger.
23..if3 �c7 24.h3 axb4 25.�d2 E1g6 (25 ...@g7 In this game I give a summary of older lines,
26.c3 looks dangerous) 26.ttJd3;!; which have gone out of fashion. Like anything
23.if3 Yffc7 24.h3 ltJc6 25.a4! bxa4 old, there may one day be a revival.
Also after 25 ...b4 26.�d2 Black has no easy l.e4 c5 2.ltJa d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lihd4 ltJf6 5.ltJc3
choice. 26...E1g6 (26...@g7 27.c3±) 27.ttJd3 a6 6.ig5 e6 7.f4 ie7
.ib7 2S.ttJxb4± 7....id7 is an interesting concept. Black wants
26.Yffd2 @g7 to put his knight on c6, after which the position
It is close to being over for Black. The has a more Rauzer-like character. S.�e2 White
following line clearly shows the potential in takes the chance to place the queen on e2. In
White's position. 26...E1g6 27..ih5 E1g7 2S.�h6 the Rauzer the queen is less efficient on d2.
�e7 29.E1ae l! @gS 30.ttJxe6 he6 31.E1xe6+- S...ttJc6 9.0-0-0 ttJxd4 (9...�c7 10..ixf6 gxf6
27J;xa4 e5 11.@b l gives White a typical position where he
27...E1a7 2S.E1h4! loses for Black as well, but it is slightly better) 10J�xd4 �a5 (10...�b6 This
might have taken a few extra moves. 2S...E1xh4 does not give Black equality either. 11.�d2 .ic6
29.�g5t @f7 30.�xh4 and the black king is This was played in Najditsch - Nakamura, Wijk
simply too fragile. One line could be 30...ttJe5 aan Zee 2004. Now 12..ixf6 gxf6 13..ic4!;!; and
31.�h7t @f8 32.�h6t @e7 33.�g5t @f8 a future f4-fS will cause Black a lot of problems.)
34.�f6t ttJf7 35.ttJxe6t he6 36.�xe6 �xc2 11.�d2 .ic6 12.fS e5 13..ixf6 exd4 14..ixd4 b5
37..id5+-. 15.�e3 with a big advantage for White in Lastin
28J;h4 gg6 - Cvitan, Moscow 2001.
28...E1xh4 29.�g5t @f8 30.�f6t! �f7 8.Yfff3 Yffc7
31.�xh4 and everything is going wrong for S...�a5?! This line has recently been refuted
Black. by Radjabov. 9.0-0-0 .id7 10..ixf6! (the older
29.ih5 move 10.e5 does not give White anything)
Black resigned. Probably a bit early, but after 1O....ixf6 l1.e5!
29...�d6 30.ttJd3 Yff f6 31.hg6 �xh4 32..ixfS
White has a very strong attack and an extra
pawn.
1-0
Now the threat of �xb7 causes Black bxc6 12.�g3 was played in Unzicker - Fischer,
trouble. 11...dxe5 12.fxe5 ig5t 13.'it>b l ctJc6 Buenos Aires 1960, after 12...e5 Black could
14.ctJe4 ctJxe5 15.ctJd6t 'it>e7 16.�b3 �a4? have achieved a nice game.) 10...ctJc6 1 1.ih4! (of
( 16 .. J'!hb8!?) 17.�b6 1'!hc8 18.ctJxc8t and in course White keeps this bishop now) 11 ...ctJxd4
the game Radjabov - Dominguez, Tripoli (2) 12.1'!xd4 b5 13.g5 and White later won, Hector
2004, White won within a few moves. - Evertsson, Stockholm 1999.
" 14... �xe5?! only opens up Black's king. 15.ctJf5 10.g4 bS 1 l .hf6 lLlxf6
exf5 16.ctJxg5 �e7 17.ic4! " These were Thomas' l 1...ixf6 12.g5 ( 12.ixb5 0-0 [ 12... axb5? is
words and moves in the first edition. Dominguez wrong. 13.ctJdxbS �b8 14.ctJxd6t 'it>f8 15.e5
later recommended snapping the e-pawn with and White is winning.] 13.ixd7 ixd7 Black
the queen in Chess Informant, claiming an edge has fine compensation for the pawn.) 12...ixd4
for Black, ignoring Thomas' idea on the 17th ( 12...ie7 transposes to the main line) 13.1'!xd4
move. Practice has shown that White is slightly 0-0 14.ih3. White was better in Luther -
better after: 17...�xg5! ( 17...ctJe5 18.ixf7t! Ardeleanu, Linares 1998.
and Black is in trouble. 17...0-0 18.�h5 h6 1 1...gxf6 is another option here. Since White
19.ctJxf7! is even worse.) 18.1'!he l t ( 18.ixf7t has played g2-g4 it is not so easy for him to
�xf7 19.1'!xd7t ctJe7! and Black defends) attack e6. 12.f5 ctJe5 13.�g3 (this is better than
18...ie6 ( 18...'it>d8 19.�d5 ctJb8 20.�xb7 the more common 13.�h3) 13 ...id7 14.ih3
and White wins) 19.ixe6 O-O! (There is no ctJc6 15.ctJxc6 ixc6 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.g5 and
choice. Black would face a lot of suffering in the White was much better in Guseinov - Makoll,
endgame after 19...fxe6 20.1'!xe6t 'it>f8 [20...ctJe7 Turkey 2004.
2 1.1'!de l±] 21.1'!d7 1'!e8 [2 1...ctJe7 22.1'!exe7 �xe7 12.gS lLl d7 13.f5
23.1'!xe7 'it>xe7 24.�xb7t 'it>f6 25.c4±] 22.h4 Here many moves have been tried. For
1'!xe6 23.hxg5 1'!e 1t 24.1'!d l 1'!xd lt 25.�xd lt-) example: a2-a3, if l-h3, h2-h4, etc. I think only
20.�xf5 (20.ixf5!?;!;) 20...�xf5 2 1.ixf5;!;White the text offers White attacking chances.
is a little better in the endgame, as he is better
developed and has bishop against knight. This
is maybe not enough to win objectively, but as
far as the opening goes, it has been a disaster for
Black. This position holds no chances for a win,
and the draw is not as close as it would have been
if he had played a passive variation of the Petroff.
21...1'!fe8 So far went Aagaard - Schacher, Arco
2005. Now I prefer 22.ie4!;l;.
It should be mentioned that after the
alternative 16...�f6 White again should
reply 17.ic4! (nc. 6 on Fritz 8's list of
recommendations). Black should transpose by
taking the knight. Alternatives such as 17...ctJe5
are met very violently indeed. 18.ixf7t! �xf7
(I8...ctJxf7 19.1'!he lt ctJe5 20.1'!xd7!±) 19.�xb7 13 ... lLlcs
ic6 20.ctJxf7± White has an extra pawn in the 13...ixg5t Taking this pawn is the principled
endgame. reaction. 14.'it>b l ctJe5 IS.�h5 if6! (This
9.0-0-0 lLl bd7 move is better than the more common moves
9...0-0 is an old sideline. Now White should IS...�e7 and 15 ..JWd8: 15 ... �d8 16.h4! if6
play 10.g4. (This move seems to me more in 17.fxe6 0-0 18.ih3. White was better in Luther
the spirit of the position. 10.id3 ctJc6 l 1.ctJxc6 - Vink, Wijk aan Zee 2001.) 16.ctJxe6 (16.fxe6
22 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
Leaving the bishop c8 alive later causes White Black cannot bring his bishop to b7 anymore.
some problems. 16 ... g6 17.ttJd5 �d8 18.exf7t White is better.
@xf7 and suddenly White's queen is in trouble.} 1 9.9g5
16... he6 17.fxe6 and the position needs further Not every game is won by a great attack.
investigation. White just wants to collect the h-pawn.
14.£6 gxf61 5.gxf6.tf8 16.gg1 h5 1 9 h4 20.gdl !?
•••
17.gel!
This move was found by GM Peter Enders.
While working on the Fritz opening book I
entered this move as a recommendation for
the computer program. Anyway, some time 2 1 .a3±
later I had the chance to play this move in a Taking the last resource (b5-b4) out of Black's
tournament game. play.
17.a3 is another possible move, but I prefer 2 1 ...VNb6 22.gh5!
the text. Finally the h-pawn is lost.
17 J3g7 This funny exchange sacrifice was 22 .th6
•••
played a couple of times in the late 80s and early Black wants to bring his passive bishop into
90s. White had some nice victories but today's the game, but there is no way it will reach a
computer analysis proved it is incorrect. comfortable square.
17 J.d7
•.• 23.gxh4 J.g5 24.E:g4 J.h4?!
17... b4 does not work here. 18.ttJd5! This is This is not leading anywhere. 24... ih6 was
the main idea behind 17.E:e l. better.
17... ib7?! 18.ih3 0-0-0 19.ttJd5 with a 25.J.g2
strong initiative. Preparing e4-e5.
IS.@bl 25 �a7 26.gg7 gdf8 27.e5!
..•
A useful waiting move. White wants to see Now it comes. Black is lost.
where Black's king is going before committing 27 d5 2s.VNf4
..•
himself to one specific line of action. The conclusion comes from the other side.
IS 0-0-0?!
••• ih4 is trapped.
This must be wrong since now White is in 2S ttJa4 29.ttJa2!
•.•
control of the game. 18... b4 was called for. Preventing any counterplay!
19.ttJce2. There is no need for ttJd5 here as 29 gh5 30.J.f3 E:hhS 3 1 ..te2 VNa5
•••
The Najdorf 23
15.b4!?
Thomas wrote: " Here Shabalov goes wrong.
White wins the queen, but in return Black gets
three minor pieces and lots of good squares."
24 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
But two years down the line this might need to I S.�d3 !"la6 1 9.iMfxb5 !"lb6 is slightly better for
be reconsidered. Though it is in practice more Black according to Gelfand. But this seems to be
comfortable to have the minor pieces, this more of an emotional evaluation. 20.iMfd3 i.h6
might be White's best shot for an advantage. 2 1 .g3 !"laS (2 1 . . .i.a6 22.iMff3 !"lcS 23.iMfh5 i.fS
Another line has developed rapidly after first 24.a3 1t>eS 25.!"ld2 !"lc3 26.lt>b2 !"lbc6 27.a4 tt'l b6
being suggested in this chapter: 1 5. tt'lxf6 t It>dS 2S.!"lal !"lc7 29.a5 tt'lcs 30.!"la3 !"lxa3 3 1 .lt>xa3
( 1 5 . . . It>e7 was played after the book came out in !"lc4 32. rilb3 (32.f5+-) 1/2-!j2 Mnatsakanian
English. 1 6.i.xd7 i.g7 1 7.tt'lh5 hb2t I S.lt>xb2 Georgiev, Yerevan 1 9S2) 22.a3 e5 (22 ... 1t>f8!?
It>xd7 1 9.!"le3 ( 1 9.lt>al !?) 1 9 . . . !"lhcS 20.!"lc3 23.!"le3 i.a6 24.iMfc3 e5 25.!"lf3i) 23.iMff3 f5
�xc3t 2 1 .�xc3 !"lxc3 22.lt>xc3 !"lcst 23.lt>d3 24.iMfh5 i.g7 1/2-!j2 Nataf - Lalic, Salou 2004.
f5 24.exf5 exf5 Now instead of 25.tt'lg3 , as in Here a bit of extra analysis by one editor, Jacob
Ibraev - Kulaots, Calvia (01) 2004, 25.!"ld2!i Aagaard, suggests that there is still something
would leave Black a pawn down as 25 ... i.e4t to play for: 25.iMfxh7 i.f6 26.!"ld3 (26.fxe5 !? was
26.1t>d4 i.xc2 27.tt'lf6t It>e7 2S.tt'lxh7 is much Nataf's other suggestion, but it probably does
better for White, and 26 . . . i.xc2? loses a piece not give a chance for an advantage.) 26 ... !"lba6
to 27. tt'l f6t and 2S.tt'lxe4.) 1 6.tt'lxd7 ( 1 6.hd7 27.iMfxf5 !"lxa3 2S.!"lxa3 !"lxa3 29.@d2! (29.@b2
i.e7 1 7.�b3 i.xf6 I S.he6 fxe6 1 9.�xb7 !"lcS !"lf3 30.@a2 !"lf2 - Nataf) 29 ... exf4 30.e5 dxe5
20.c3°o) 1 6 . . . �xb5 1 7.tt'lxf8 ( 1 7.iMfc3 does not 3 1 .iMfxf4 (3 1 .gxf4 !"lf3 32.!"le3 !"lf2t 33.!"le2 !"lf3
offer anything after 17 ... lt>xd7 I S.�xhS �h5) 34.c4 @dSoo) 3 1 ...!"lf3 32.iMfc4 and White has a
17 ... !"lxfS ( 1 7 . . . lt>e7? I S .tt'lxe6 fxe6 1 9 .�g3± small advantage.
Hanssen - Yelden, corr 2000.) I S.iMfa3
( I S.!"lxd6t is also possible, but the text is
better. IS . . . lt>c7 1 9.!"ledl !"ladS 20.�c3t i.c6
2 1 .e5) IS . . . lt>eS 1 9.�xd6 !"lcS And now:
Thomas suggested: 20.b3 with three pawns
for the bishop, White keeps an advantage. In
the corning endgame he plays c2-c4 and places
his king on c3.
In practice two other moves have been
tried:
20.!"le3 iMfc6 (20 . . . !"lgS? 2 1 .!"lc3 i.c6 22.f5+
Kosten-Kr. Georgiev, Saint Affrique 2005 .)
2 1 .�d2 It>e7 22.iMfb4t It>f6 and it is dubious if
there is any advantage. Maybe the perpetual is
the correct choice.)
20.c3 �c6 2 1 .�b4 a5 ! 22.�xa5 (22.�d4 1 8 J !xa2
. •
f6+) 22 . . . !"laS 23.�g5 f6°o Nakamura-Gelfand, IS ... i.c6 is a much safer reply.
Biel 2005 . 19.Wfxb5 i.h6 20.e5 fxe5?
It does not seem that the optimism from Better was 20 ... !"lcS, which secures Black a
the first edition was justified. Black is ok in big advantage. 2 1 .exd6t @dS 22.iMfd3 i.xf4t
practice so far. 23.@b l !"lcxc2 24.iMfxc2 !"lxc2 25.@xc2 i.xg2
15 Wfxb516.liJc7t rile7
••• black is winning.
16 . lt>d8
.. 17.tt'lxb5 axb5 IS.�h5 ± 2 1 .Wfxb7 �4t 22.@bl �ha8 23.g3 �2a7
Janetschek-Wallner, Austria 1 992. 24.Wfc6 �a6 25.Wfc3
17.liJxb5 axb5 18.Wfh5 I have the impression that White should not
This might be the mistake that gets White into have lost this position. On the other hand he
trouble. certainly has no advantage either.
The Najdorf 2S
1 8 Elxb5
•••
into a direct refutation. 1 2.e5 .tb7 13.liJxe6 1 5 .fxe5 liJh5 1 6.'!Wh4 hg5t 1 7.'!Wxg5 g6 l S.e6
fxe6 14 . .tg6t Here is the difference from liJ c5 1 9.exf7t 'k!;>xf7 20.�f1 t 'k!;>gS 2 1 .liJf5 liJe6
positions without h6 and .th4 included: White 22.liJh6t with a perpetual, Luther - Nielsen,
has this check. 14 ... 'k!;>f8 1 5 .exf6 .txf3 [ 1 5 ... .txf6 Malmo 2002. There were many other lines
16.'1Wh3 Black has too many weaknesses and no analysed and games played, but theoretically
compensation for them in return] 1 6.fxe7t 'k!;>gS they belong to the past.
1 7.gxf3 with a big material advantage.) 1 2.fxg5 14 'k!;>d8 lS.tlJc6t Lc6 16.dxc6
.••
liJ e5 1 3 .'1We2 liJ fg4 14.liJf3 liJxf3 1 5 .1!Nxf3 hxg5 Black has a large choice. Most of the variations
( 1 5 . . . liJe5 16.1!Nh5 liJ g6 1 7 . .tg3 hxg5 l S .1!Nf3 I give below I analysed with my computer. Since
.td7 White is better, but Black can definitely soft- and hardware develop fast and this is a
play this position. Luther - Ginsburg, Germany highly tactical position, I recommend that the
2004.) 1 6 . .tg3 liJe5 1 7.he5 dxe5 l S.�dfl ! reader check his favourite lines. I have played
�h7 19.h4! White's attack is coming too fast this position twice (vs. GMs Shneider and
for Black to set up a defence. Luther - Ott, Dvoirys) and I think that in practice the piece
Hockendorf 2004. sacrifice is fully justified.
b) S . . . liJ bd7 9.1!Nf3 e5 A relatively new and
surprising idea. 10.liJf5 ( 1 0.fxe5? This is the
wrong reaction. 1 0 . . . liJxe5 l 1 .'!Wd l .te7 12 . .te2
liJxe4 1 3.he7 liJxc3 14.hdS liJxd l 1 5 . .tc7
liJxb2 1 6.hd6 liJ bc4 with a decisive advantage
for Black in Radjabov - Dominguez, Tripoli
2004.) 1 0 . . . exf4 1 1 .1!Nxf4 g5 12.liJxd6t .txd6
1 3.'!Wxd6 gxh4 14.e5 '!We7 1 5.'!Wxe7t 'k!;>xe7
1 6.exf6t The tactics are finished and White has
a better ending.
8.1!Nf3 1!Nc7 9.0-0-0 bS 10 . .id3 .ib7
10 ... b4 1 1 .liJ d5 exd5 1 2.�he l with
transposition to the lines mentioned below.
l l J'�hel .ie7 1 2.1!Ng3 b4 13.tlJdS exdS
1 6 tlJ cS
•••
23 J'�xd6t @eS 24J':idSt @xdS 2S .'lWd4t @eS than the text, but White is still better, Luther
26.he7 gxe7 27.f5! f6 2S.'lWxf6 though this is - Shneider, Istanbul 2003.) 20 . . . gcS 2 1 .'lWxb4
by no means a trivial win, White will have four 'lWc6 22.g3 and White is clearly better. Besides
to five pawns against the three black pieces and the three pawns he has for the knight, Black's
should be able to secure the full point. king is in extreme danger. Later this was
b) l S . . . dS 19 . .hh 7 ghS 20.gde2 lL'l e4 improved upon: I S . . . geS! 1 9.'lWxf7 ( 1 9.gxe7
(20 . . . lL'l cS loses out right to 2 1 .'lWxg7 'lWxf4t @xe7 20.ge1 t @d7 2 1 .'lWxf7t @cS 22.ge6
22.@ b 1 gxh7 23.gxe7 ! ! lL'lxe7 24.'lWfBt @c7 gxe6 23.'lWxe6t @c7 24.'lWxf6 'lWcSoo - Palliser)
2S.'lWxaS+-) 2 1 .�xelt @xe7 22.�xe4 dxe4 1 9 ... ga7 20.gxe7 gaxe7 2 1 .'lWxf6 @c7 22.'lWd4
23.'lWxg7 @d6 24.gxe4± gives White a strong Wfb6 23.Wfxb6t @xb6 24.@d2 The question
attack and eventually four to five pawns for the is if White is better in this endgame. The fact
piece. that he lost it has little to do with the actual
c) lS ... lL'l bdS Here White has several evaluation. Navara - Shirov, Prague (blitz)
promising continuations, but I quite like the 2005.
direct 1 9 .�! lL'lxf6 ( 1 9 . . . hf6 20 . .hh7 1 6 . . .h6 This move also does not change
!'!hS 2 1 .gxdS gxh7 22.'lWd3 ghS 23.gxd6t the evaluation of the position, White picks
WcS 24.ge4 gives White a winning attack.) up another pawn in compensation for the
20.!'! de2 dS (Black has nothing better than sacrificed knight and is continuing the attack.
to give up the queen. After 20 . . . �fB 2 1 .'lWgS 1 7.�h4 gS l S.fxgS hxgS 1 9.'lWxgS lL'l cS 20.�f5
Wfxc6 22.'lWaSt 'lWc7 23.geSt ! it is lost under White is clearly better here.
worse circumstances, and; 20 . . . geS is met with 17.�h4!
21 .Wfxg7 'lWxc6 22.'lWxf7 'lWdS 23.ge6! +-. In the
long run there is no defence against gxf6 with
a winning endgame.) 2 1 .!'!xe7 'lWxe7 22.gxe7
Wxe7 23.f5 ggcS 24.'lWeSt @fB 2S .'lWd6t with
excellent winning chances.
16 . . . 'lWxc6! The most principled reply. Black
eliminates the dangerous passer. 1 7.hf6
leaves Black with a difficult choice. 1 7 . . . lL'lxf6
(17 ...hf6 l S.�e4 'lWa4 Black has no big
choice here. [The alternative lS . . . 'lWcs 1 9 .bS
WfxaS 20.gxd6 geS 2 1 .gxdlt @xd7 22.'lWd3t
Wc7 23.'lWc4t @b6 24.'lWxb4t @c7 2S.'lWcSt
Wb7 26.'lWdSt allows White an instant win]
19.bS 'lWxa2 20.gxd6 'lWxb2t 2 1 .@d1 'lWb l t
22.We2 'lWxc2t 23.@f1 ! [23.@f3?? I n my
game against Dvoirys I chose the wrong square 17 .tfS
. . .
for the king. Now Black could save the game. This makes it easier for White. More trouble
23 ... geS 24.gxeSt @xeS 2S .�c6 @fB! 26.hd7 is:
We7 27.gxf6 gxf6 2S.�g4 b3 29.'lWe l t @fB 17 . . . g6 l S.f5 This line does not change the
30.'lWaS= Luther - Dvoirys, Austria 2003.] final conclusion either: White keeps attacking.
23... 'lWc4t 24.gd3 geS 2S .ged 1 ge7?! 26.'lWf3 17 . . . ggS l S .�c4!? lL'l fe4 ( l S ... lL'lce4 19.'lWf3
and White is winning. After the first edition and White controls the game) 1 9.'lWg4 �f6 A
was published another opinion on this position typical computer move, as my friend Jacob
was voiced: 2S . . . @c7 26.�dS 'lWbS 27.@gl;!; Aagaard pointed out.
I. Rogers and Z. Zhao.) l S.'lWxg7 ggS 1 9.'lWxf7 a) White has easier play after: 19 . . . �4
WfeS 20.'lWc4 (20.'lWb3?!. This move is weaker 20.'lWxh4t lL'lf6 (20 . . . 'lWe7? 2 1 .gxd6t Losing
30 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
d6 is bad news for Black. White is winning.) White has no direct threats, but he controls
2 1 .g4 r;!{c8 22.g5 and White is overrunning the game. Black suffers from the lack of
Black's strongholds. coordination between his pieces.
b) 19 .. J'!a7 20 . .id5 i.xh4 2 1 .�xh4t ttJ f6 24 ... h5 25. <tJbl .lg7?
22 . .if.3 with the already mentioned idea of Making White's task easy, but staying passive
g2-g4-g5. 20 . .id5 i.xh4 2 1 .�xh4t ttJf6 22.g4 is not what one wants to do in Black's position .
again with initiative. 26J�xhB .ixhB 27 .lxf7 <tJb6 2B .ixh5 a4
• •
Game 1 1
Short - Kasparov
Riga 1 995
a l l 1 9 . . . fxe4 20.�c3 !dS (20 ... 0-0 2 1 .l"ial 9 ... tLl c6 This move disappeared from
!b4 22.l"ixb4 �dS 23.hhS looks promising tournament practice because it leads to a better
for White.) 2 1 .�xc6t !d7 22.�xe4 �f7 ending for White. 1 0.hf6 gxf6 I l .tLla4 �a3
(22 ... �aSt 23.�fl o-ot 24.l"if3 !f6 2S.!d3 1 2.tLlb6 l"ibS 1 3.tLlc4 �a4 1 4.a3 ! ( l 4.�f2 This
�f7 26.l"ib7 and White's attack continues) is an old line, but after 1 4 ... !e7 I S .tLlxd6t �f8
23.�fl Further analysis is required but I have White has nothing.) 14 ... bS I S .tLlxd6t hd6
great faith in White's position, Gubajdullin 1 6.1Mfxd6 �xe4t 1 7.!e2 �dS There is nothing
- Biriukov, St Petersburg 2003. better then this.
a2) Later practice has shown that this a) 1 7 ...�xg2? I S.0-0-0 !b7 1 9.�d7t �f8
impression was overly optimistic. Black can 20.�d6t �eS 2 1 .!hS leads to a winning
for example play: 1 9 . . . �a4 20.tLld6t (20.l"ibS position for White.
l"ixbS 2 1 .l"ixbS 0-0 22.tLl d6 �al t 23.�f2 b) 1 7... .tb7 1his move does not solve Black's
�h l !-+) 20 ... hd6 2 1 .�xd6 �aSt! 22.�fl problems either. I S.tLlcS ( I S.0-0-0 l"idS and
l"ia7!+ 23.l"ibS (23.l"ib6 �f7 (23 ... �dS 24.�bS Black is doing fine) IS ...�d4 1 9.1"idl 1Mfxd6
�d7 2S.�xeS 0-0 26.�f4 �g7 27.hhS as 20.�6 tLl dS 2 1 .tLlxb7 tLlxb7 22.l"ixa6 with a
2S.l"i6b3 !a6t 29.�gl eS 30.�h4) 24.c4 betterendingforWhite. 1 S.�xdS exdS I9.0-0-0
(24.l"ixc6 �dS 2S .�xdS exdS 26.l"ibS as tLle7 ( 1 9 ...!e6 20.g4 £5 2 1 .l"ihe l tLle7 22.!d3
27.l"ibxcS �cS 2S.l"ixcS a4�) 24 ... �f6 2S.�c6 �f8 [22 ... l"ib6 23.gxf5 (23.l"id2 �dS 24.gxf5
l"ig7+) 23 . . . �f7 24.�xc6 l"ic7 2S.�d6 l"id7 !cS 2S.l"ide2) 23 ... !cS] 23.gxf5 tLlxf5 24.l"ieS
26.�c6 �c7 27.�a4 l"id4 2S.�a3 h4 29.h3 tLle7 2S.tLlcS l"ib6 26.£5 l"ic6 27.tLlxe6t fxe6
l"igS 30.�f3 l"if4 0-1 Vasquez - Kosteniuk, 2S.fxe6 �eS Ih-1h Rogers - Van der Sterren,
Internet 2004. Hertogenbosch 1 999).
b) IS ... �xa2! l 6.l"idl !e7 1 7.!e2 0-0
I S.0-0 l"ia7 1 9.1"if3 �hS 20.l"ig3 l"id7 2 1 .�h6
l"if7 22.�hS l'hdl t 23.hd l �aS 24.�fl �dS
2S .�xf7 �xdl t and soon the game ended in
a perpetual, Vallejo Pons - Kasparov, Moscow
2004.
23.£5 gives White a pleasant advantage) . Now 22.�ab l h3 23.g3 �c7 24.£5 This was played in
22.g4! is best. Other moves promise less: Kotronias - Sasikiran, Moscow 2004. For the two
a) 22.liJcS �b6 23.liJd7 hd7 24.�xe7 �e6 sacrificed pawns White has a strong initiative.
2S .�xdS hdS 26.�xdS �c8 with equality. Black's pieces are bad placed, especially his king
b) 22.liJd4 �b6 23.g4 £5 24.gxf5 liJxf5 and queen. White managed to win this game
2S.liJxf5 �xfS 26.�xdS �e6 and again the game later, but it requires more analysis to come to a
is even. final conclusion about the position.) 1 4.�hS?!
c) After 22.g4! play can continue 22 ... £5 (Too early, White should wait with this move
23.gxf5 liJxf5 24 ..L:dS �be8! (24 . . . �b6? Despite until Black has played �fB-e7. Better is 14.�f3
the reduced material it is not too late for Black to protect c3 and prepare some action on the
to blunder. 2S.liJcS! �c8 26.�b3!± with much kingside. 14.�adl �e7 I S .�hS �fB 1 6.�f3
better play for White) 2S .�b7!? (2S .�xe6 �xe6 <j;Jd8 1 7.�d3 �c7 1 8.liJbl iWa4 19.1iJc3 'lWa3
V2-If2 Adams - Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee (3) 1 994) 20.liJ b l 'lWa4 2 1 .liJc3 'lWa3 was played in Luther
2S ... �c8 (2S . . . �b8? 26.liJcS !± and 2S ...hb3 - Georgiev, France 2003. All White's pieces are
26.cxb3 �xe l 27.�xe l liJd6t To win this in good positions, but Black is rather solid too.)
position with White requires good technique, 14 ... �g7! I S .�f3 0-0 Now this is a good idea.
but defending Black's side is no fun either.) The hS-bishop is misplaced and slows down
26.�xc8 �xc8 27.�eS liJh4 28.�gSt <j;Jh8 White's attack. 16.�afl liJaS 17.fS liJc4 1 8.'lWf4
29.�d6 and White keeps some advantage. liJeS and Black was better in Kasimdzhanov
10.ixf6 gxf6 1 l .ie2
• - Sadvakasov, Skanderborg 2003
1 1 . ..�g7 Black should not play this move so
early. The bishop on g7 can be attacked later by
�g3. 1 2.0-0 'lWb4 1 3.�f3! liJd7 1 4.�dl 'lWb6t
I S .<j;Jhl 'lWc7 1 6.�g3 �fB 1 7.�hS liJ cS 1 8.liJxcS
'lWxcS 1 9 .eS! After this standard move White gets
a great attack. 19 . . . 'lWaS 20.'lWe2 dxeS 2 1 .hf7t!
<j;Jxf7 22.'lWhSt <j;Je7 23.liJe4! After bringing
the knight into the attack Black is defenceless.
23 . . . �d7 24.'lWh4 exf4 2S.'lWxf6t <j;Je8 26.�g7
1 -0 Hamdouchi - Bologan, Belfort 2002.
12.0-0
1 2.h4?! Stopping Black's h-pawn so drastically
is not a recommendable idea. 1 2 ... liJ c6 13.0-0
�d7 14.liJdl �e7 I S .<j;Jh2 'lWb4 1 6.iWe3 �d8!
A typical manoeuvre to bring back Black's
l l . . . hS queen. 1 7.'lWd3 liJ aS 1 8.a3 'lWbS 1 9.'lWd2 liJxb3
1 1 ...liJc6 This is another standard reply. and Black had a large advantage in Luther -
Black wants to bring his rook to c8 as quickly Sutovsky, New York 1 998.
as possible. 1 2.0-0 �d7 ( l 2 ... �g7?! 1 3.�f3 12 ... liJd7 13.�hl
0-0. Black has chosen a very dangerous set A useful practical move. 1 3.fS is more direct.
up. White's pieces will target Black's king very 1 3 ... �e7 ( l 3 ... liJ cS 1 4.<j;Jh l �d7?! I think this
rapidly. 1 4.<j;Jh l �d8 I S .�g3 dS 1 6.exdS fS is the reason for Black's problems. It is better
1 7.�dl iWfB 1 8.d6 <j;Jh8 19.1iJa4 with a large to try Be7 here. I S .�ab l bS Black's king should
advantage in Kasimdzhanov - Polgar, Moscow not be safe in the centre, and Kotronias shows
2002.) 1 3.<j;Jhl �c8 ( 1 3 ... hS 14.liJdl �c8 a way to prove it. 1 6.fXe6 fXe6 17.eS!± with an
I S .liJe3 iWb4 1 6.c3 iWxe4 17.liJc4 liJ d8 1 8.liJd4 attack in Kotronias - Hincic, Yerevan 2000.)
h4 19.�f3 iWh7 20.liJb6 �cS 2 1 .liJxd7 <j;Jxd7 14.'lWd4 bS I S .�f3 �b7 1 6.fXe6 fXe6 1 7.�h3 h4
34 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
I S.i,g4 �f7 19.ctJdS White had a big attack in f5 with an unclear game. Anyway, Black is a
Guseinov - Villavicencio Martinez, Stockholm pawn up so White has to prove something.
2002 16 ib717.5
.••
in 1995 chess was a different game than it is 22.tLlxb l fxg4 23.hxg4 h3?!
nowadays. Today we can all check these lines Probably this spoils Black's advantage. Other
with our computers and find out how White is possibilities were 23 ... l:'i:xc2 and 23 . . . tLle5 with
winning in this position. 2 l .exf5 ! This is the way! complicated play. However all my computer
2 l ...tLle5 22.f6! vtIxc2 (22 ... tLlxg4 23.vtlxe6 tLlxf6 programs favour Black.
24.l:'i:e3 is very similar to an above mentioned 24J:'k3?!
line. White also has a very strong attack here) 24.gxh3! was a good try to win the game.
23.f7t! This unpleasant check disturbs all Black's 24 ... tLle5 (24 . . . l:'i:xc2 25.l:'i:c3! l:'i:xa2 26.l:'i:c7±
coordination. 23 ... tLlxf7 (23 . . . @f8 24.i.e2 i.xe4t 27.vtlxe4 l:'i:xh3t 2B.@gl l:'i:xb3 29.tLld2
tLlxd3 25.tLld4+- and 23 .. .'tt' d7 24.he6t @c7 l:'i:xd2 30.l:'i:cBt @f7 3 1 .vtlh7t @f6 32.vtlh6t
25.tLld5t i.xd5 26.l:'i:c3t+-) 24.l:'i:f2 The point. @e5 33.iWxd2 and White has winning chances)
Black's queen is trapped. 24 ...vtlxd3 25.vtlxd3 25.l:'i:c3 tLlxg4 26.vtlxb6 l:'i:xc3 27.tLlxc3 l:'i:xh3t
tLle5 26.vtld4 tLlxg4 27.hxg4 @d7 2B.l:'i:f7 e5 2B.@g2 l:'i:xc3 29.vtlxb7 and White is better
29.vtlxb6 l:'i:bB 30.tLlc5t dxc5 3 l .vtlxc5 l:'i:heB here.
32.tLld5 1-0 Luther - Quezada, Merida 2003. 24 ... hxg2t 25.@xg2 �g8 26.�xc8t .bc8
2 1 . .. Y;Vxbl t 27.@fl �xg4 28.c!l:Hd2 e5! 29.Y;Vc3! ib7
2 1 . . .Y;Vxc2? 22.i.d l f4 23.vtlf3 tLl e5 24.hc2 30.Y;Vc7
tLlxf3 25 .gxf3 i.f6 26.tLla5 ! bxa5 27.l:'i:xb7 l:'i:xc3 And in this still very complicated position the
2B.i.a4t @f8 29.l:'i:xd6± would have given players agreed a draw.
White a very pleasant advantage. Ih-1fz
The Dragon possible. If White does not attempt to exploit
the disadvantages of his opponent's set-up in
- By Mikhail Golubev the most principled way, then the activity of
the dark bishop can easily turn into a more
important factor than the pawn structure.
As practice has showed, White's only critical
reply to the Dragon starts with the moves
6.ie3 ig7 7.£3, followed by 8.'iWd2 and then
queenside castling. This paradoxically places
the white king on the more dangerous side of
the board: in the sphere of influence of both
the Dragon bishop and Black's queens ide rook,
which is destined to emerge on the semi-open
c-file sooner or later.
Paradoxical, yes, but there is simply no other
way for White to meet Black's initial strategic
threats. 7.f3, which both prevents . . . tt'l g4 and
removes the pressure on the e4-pawn, would
Shortly before this chapter was completed, leave White without a clear plan if played
an almost anonymous e-mail appeared in my together with kingside castling.
mailbox. The sender proclaimed that 1he Dragon Black as a rule answers with 7 . . . 0-0 8JWd2
is refuted, and attempted to prove it. As this ttJ c6, or 7 . . . ttJ c6 8.Wd2 0-0, which is of course
issue seems to be of interest to many, I decided the same thing (the only really important sideline
to discuss both the Dragon and its refutation in is 7 ... tt'lc6 8.'iWd2 �d7) . The most common
this introduction. approach is now to try to use all possible tactical
The Sicilian Dragon is defined by the tricks to open lines on the queens ide and bring
sequence l .e4 c5 2.<�J£3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttJxd4 displeasure to the white monarch. At White's
ttJ f6 5.ttJ c3 g6. It is virtually the only system disposal we have the logical schematic attack on
I play with both colours (and inevitably more the kingside with h4, g4, h5, etc. As in every
often with Black) . Being more or less unable opening where both sides have clear aims and
to propose a complete antidote to any of my targets, the Dragon is strategically simple, but
pet systems, I consider the Sicilian Dragon to tactically very complex. What is strictly defined.
be an exception. This opening is one of the Only How is a real question. Under such
few whose theoretical side attracts me more circumstances, ambitious amateurs can have
(meaning: to search for the best moves for a real chance to beat lazy professionals, which
both colours) than its practical side. It is hard they use from time to time!
to explain why. Perhaps it is because the basic The current state of affairs is that Black
conflict is outlined very nicely. With 5 . . . g6 experiences difficulties after both of White's
Black builds up an inferior pawn structure with main moves: 9.0-0-0 and 9.�c4 (stopping 9 ... d5
the hopelessly weakened d5-square. (Certainly entirely) .
the Dragon structure is less reliable for Black To choose 9.0-0-0 as the main
than that of the Scheveningen. Once, many recommendation was not difficult. Firstly, I
years ago at a juniors training session, I tried to consider it to be at least no weaker than 9.�c4.
discuss this with Boris Gelfand, but only half And secondly, 9.0-0-0 is slightly easier to
seriously) . Simultaneously, however, Black also prepare and play, as the amount of accumulated
develops his kingside bishop as aggressively as material and the number of sensible answers for
Black is somewhat lower.
38 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
6 .ig7
..• but 14 ... e6!t gives Black chances to survive in a
6 ... ttJ c6 has virtually no independent slightly worse endgame. So I would rather advise
significance. 7.f3, and now 7 ... fig7 is the most White to deviate with l 1 .ttJf3, and if 1 1 ...fxe5
normal, and 7 . . . fid7 will transpose to the early then 12.ttJxe5! as in Gufeld-Zimin, USSR 1958.
... fid7 after 8.�d2 �c8 9.0-0-0 fig7, a main More grounded is another sideline with 7 ... a6
sideline for Black in the Rauzer Attack, which (a hybrid between the Dragon and the Najdorf) .
will be considered below in the note to Black's The disadvantage of the ... a6, ... b5, ... b4 plan
8 th move. in the Dragon is evident: it does not really help
An unusual move order from Kasparov - Black to gain control over the d5-square. Still
Georgiev, Sarajevo 2000, is related with another 7 ... a6 was tested by some of the greatest chess
topic - the early ... a6. After 5 ... a6 6.fie3 ttJ bd7 players ever. But, starting from the 70s, the line
7.f3 g6 (which is equivalent to 5 . . . g6 6.fie3 began to be forgotten. Yet recently it has begun to
ttJ bd7 7.f3 a6) 8.�d2 b5?! (8 ... fig7 transposes reappear occasionally at grandmaster level. Here
to the 6 ... fig7 7.f3 a6 lines), White of course I recommend 8.�d2 (the immediate 8.fic4!? is
played 9.a4! bxa4 (9 ... b4 1 0.ttJd5!) 1 0.ttJxa4!? a decent alternative) 8 ... ttJbd7!. The early ... a6
fig7 Later Kasparov proposed l 1 .c4! with can only be justified with play in the spirit of
advantage, as the most precise. the Najdorf. (The hasty 8 ... b5 is considered to
7.0! be insufficient in view of 9.a4 b4 10.ttJa2 a5
l 1 .fib5t fid7 12.c3 bxc3 13. ttJ xc3.
After 8 ... 0-0?! 9.0-0-0! followed by h4 White
has great chances of developing a crushing attack
on the kingside. He scores over 80% from this
position! An illustrative line is 9 ... b5 10.h4 h5
l 1 .g4! e5?! 12.ttJb3 hxg4 13.fig5 , etc.
It is important to note that 8 ... ttJc6?! in
conjunction with ... a6 is always dubious, and
rather devalues the ... b5 idea. In the normal
. . . ttJc6 lines Black plays ... a6 only somewhere
around move 14, which is usually a sign that he
has run out of constructive ideas in the position.)
9.fic4!? Several old sources, for example Geller
in ECO in 1 984, gave a clear preference to this
move, while in other lines the bishop remains
Rauzer's concept, which time has proved to passive. And now:
be the best. White controls both e4 and g4 and a} 9 ... h5 prevents lO.fih6, but White's position
the f6-knight now becomes a passive, defensive becomes pleasant. Amongst other ideas he can
piece. At the same time f3 builds the basis for a consider castling kingside.
future attack with g2-g4 and h2-h4-h5. b} After 9 ... ttJ c5 10.fih6!? might be
7... tiJc6 recommended.
7 ... 0-0 makes no difference if Black wishes c} 9 ... �c7 1 0 .fib3 ! b5 (or 10 ... 0-0 l 1 .h4!?
to play the main lines with 8.�d2 ttJc6. An with prospects for an attack, Bilek - Simagin,
independent line for Black after 7 ... 0-0 8.�d2 Budapest 1 96 1 , and 10 ... h6 1 1 . 0-0-0 ttJ b6?
is 8 ... d5?! 9.e5 ttJ e8 (9 ... ttJfd7 10.f4 should give 1 2.e5 !± Karjakin - Romero Holmes, Pamplona
White some advantage after all reasonable moves, 2003, with the idea 12 ... dxe5 13.ttJdb5 axb5
e.g. 1 0 ... ttJ b6 1 1 .fie2!? ttJc6 12.0-0-0, etc.) 1 0.f4 1 4.ttJxb5 �d7 15.�b4) 1 1 .0-0-0 fib7 12.fih6
f6. Now 1 1 .0-0-0 fxe5 12.fxe5 ttJc6 13.ttJf3 fig4 fixh6 (or 12 ... 0-0 13.h4!) 13.�xh6 with
14.ttJxd5 is a very common recommendation, initiative, Torre - Fuller, Australia 1975.
40 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
d) 9 ... bS 10.i.b3 i.b7 castles kingside White usually should begin his
kingside attack with h4! rather than g4.
8.�d2 0-O
14.@bl gxf5, then both 1 5.liJxc6!? bxc6 16.liJd5 while in the line which we just considered above,
'l9d8 17.liJf4 �b8 1 8.b3 fxe4 1 9.1iJxh5 ig4 i.e. 8 ... id7 9.0-0-0 �c8, the main move 1O.g4
20.ie2 ixh5 2 1 .ixh5 Coleman, and 1 5 .liJxf5!? prevents Black from the ... h7 -h5-h4 advance,
ixf5 16.exf5 'l9xf5 1 7.id3 'l9a5 1 8.liJd5!? 'l9xd2 while 1O.@b l allows it. Black's entire concept
19.�xd2 e6 20.liJf4 h4 2 1 .g6 with initiative for looks so strategically unsound to me that I will
the pawn, Coleman - De Holanda, corr. 2000 refrain from further details. Normally, if Black
are promising for White. Imprecise is 13.@b l plays with the king in the centre, he should
ig4! 14.ie2 liJxd4 1 5 .ixd4 ixd4 16.'l9xd4 e5! collapse quite quickly.
- Xie Jun) 13 ... �e8 (or 13 ...'l9a5 14.@bl liJxd4 9.0-0-0
1 5 .ixd4 ixd4 16.'l9xd4 ie6 17.f5 ! Jandek - "Strong and safe", comments GM Boris
Binas, corr. 1998-2000) and now White should Alterman, one of the greatest experts in the
probably play 14.f5!? (why not?) 14 ... liJe5 Dragon, who amazingly has a negative score
(or 14 ... 'l9a5!? 1 5 .@b l and then for example against White's queenside castling. Alternative
1 5 ... ixd4 16.ixd4 liJxd4 17.'l9xd4 'l9c5 1 8.'l9d2 9.ic4 prevents 9 ... d5 completely, but gives Black
'lge5 19.�hflt Reichardt - Berclaz, corr. 1 998- some time to prepare his actions, and is therefore
9) 1 5 .�hfl with pressure after 15 ... @h8 16.liJd5 much more complicated.
Yagupov - Motylev, Russian Ch 1998, or 1 5 ... a6
16.�f2!? b5 17.�fdl - Coleman.
b) 10 ... liJe5 l 1 .h4 h5!? (after the rare l l ...b5
the principled move is in many ways 12. liJcxb5.
Then: 12 ... 0-0 13.h5 liJxf3 14.liJxf3 ixg4 Mestel
- Christiansen, Hastings 1978/9, and now 1 5 .ie2
liJxe4 16.'l9e 1 ! Nunn.) 12.g5 liJh7 13.@b l !? 0-0
( 1 3 ... liJf8 14.f4 or 14.ie2!? liJe6 1 5 .liJxe6 ixe6
16.id4 0-0 1 7.liJd5 ixd5 1 8.exd5 liJc4 19.'l9b4!
Istratescu - Gelashvili, Kallithea 2002) 14.ie2
liJc4 1 5 .ixc4 �xc4 16.'l9d3 �c8 (Zuidema -
Bilek, Havana (01) 1 966) 17.f4!?t Matulovic.
Before going on with 8 ... 0-0 it is useful to
observe a recent trend: in a number of games
Black tried to combine an early ... id7 with an
early ... h5, without even waiting for White's g4 9 �d7?!
••.
or h4 (e.g. 8 ... h5, or 8 ... id7 and 9 ... h5). I always "Fundamentally unsound" - FM Stefan
used to think that such ideas are unsound for Sieveres, "a flagrant error" - 1M Attila
Black, because White will quickly play h3 !? (and Schneider.
develop the fl -bishop, if necessary) , intending Now I partly agree with these strong
g4. If Black then allows g4 the pawn will create statements. The second player takes great risks
colossal strategic pressure on the fG-knight, which with this move, while White faces no pressure
Black can hardly survive. So, after h3 Black's and can calmly start his kingside assault, as no
only logical continuation will be ... h4 (forgetting adequate counter-plan for Black can be seen.
completely all ideas involving castling, as then Even the common but rather innocent idea
the h4 pawn will be doomed) , followed by moves from the 9.ic4 line: .... l"k8, ... liJe5 and ... liJc4
like ... liJh5 or ... �h5 . looks senseless here, as Black will lose two tempi
The move order nuance is that 8 ... id7 in comparison with the sharp positions after
9.0-0-0 h5 allows White to develop his bishop 9.ic4.
to c4 (which is promising here and not really As usual in the Dragon, the advance ... b7 -b5-b4
transposing to the 8 ... 0-0 9.ic4 labyrinth) , sends a rather pleasant invitation to the white
42 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
knight to visit d5. From another point of view, do without .. JkS is 1 1 ...b5 ( 1 1 ...�a5 can
9 ... i.d7 is in some ways the most complex of the be answered by liJ b3 at some point, or by
available moves for a very simple reason: Black 1 2.i>b l �fcS 13.i.e2 ! , Grischuk - Soloviov,
does not exchange pieces! This factor alone Russian Ch 1 999, which is akin to Macieja's
cannot change the assessment of the line, but important game below. On 1 3 ... b5 Grischuk
(with the exception of the very top level of chess) recommended 14.liJcxb5 'lWdS 1 5 .h5. Too
it significantly improves the practical chances risky, perhaps, is 1 1 ...h5 1 2.i.e2!? or 1 2.gxh 5
for an ambitious Black player. In the last decade liJxh5 1 3.�g l ) . After 1 1 ...b5, the line goes on
theory has begun to develop intensively in this with 1 2.h5 ( 1 2.liJd5 is also good) b4 ( 1 2 ... liJxf3
line. White has started to learn how to avoid the 1 3 .liJxf3 i.xg4 is hardly sound after 14.i.e2!?)
opponent's tricks, and Black's choice of playable 13.liJd5 liJxd5 ( 1 3 ... e6 14.liJxf6t �xf6± and
looking lines has gradually narrowed. now maybe 1 5 .i.e2 - but not 1 5 .i.g5? liJ d3t!)
The system with 9 ...i.d7 is highly 14.exd5 �a5 1 5 .i>b l 'lWxd5 1 6.hxg6 ( 1 6.liJ f5 ! ?
transpositional, so here the first player should i s another dangerous move for Black which GM
definitely know the evaluation of at least 3-4 key Vladimir Chuchelov and I analysed some 1 0
positions (both promising and unpromising) . years ago. But now I am not quite sure about
Such knowledge will be essential for navigating 1 6 ...'lWxd2 1 7.liJxe7t i>hS I S.,ixd2 �feS 19.h6
during a practical game. Before we dive into i.f8! ? 20.liJd5 liJxf3 2 1 .,ixb4 i.xg4 with the
variations, I should also note that the value of the idea 22.liJc7 �e4!) 16 . . . fxg6 1 7.�h2 with a very
developing move i.e2 is often underestimated. strong White initiative: 1 7 ... h6 (both 1 7 ... h5
In fact e2 is a very good square for the bishop! and 17 ... i>f7 can be answered in the same way)
Thus, the continuation of Svidler-Golubev, I S .i.e2!± Bologan-Fedorov, Elista (01) 1 995.
Baden-Baden 2002: 9.i.c4 i.d7 1 0.0-0-0 liJ e5 10 ... �a5 and now l 1 .liJb3!? �c7 1 2.g5 liJh5
1 1 .i.e2!?, where a top 1 0 regular puts his bishop 1 3 .i.e2!? �acS 14.liJd5 �dS 1 5 .f4 e6 1 6.liJc3
on e2 even with the loss of a tempo, should at liJ b4 1 7.i>b l ! Nevosttujev - Soloviov, Samara
least make us think. 2000. Instead 1 1 .i.c4!? transposes to the 9.i.c4
10.g4!? �a5 system.
We will concentrate on this, the most popular 1 1 .h4
continuation. A very common move. Also interesting is:
10 Jks
.• 1 1 .i>b l ! ? ( 1 1 .i.e2!? liJe5 1 2.i>b l just transposes)
1 1 . ..liJe5 12.i.e2. This is the pet line ofGM Oleg
Korneev, which has been used by him at least
four times. Virtually Black's only sensible reply
is 1 2 ... b5!? (discouraging is 12 ... h5?! 13.h3! or
1 3 .gxh5 liJxh5 14.f4 liJ c4 1 5.,ixc4 �xc4 1 6.f5
Korneev - Belezky, Lorca 200 1 , or 1 2 ...a6 13.h4
h5 14.gxh5 ! ? liJxh5 1 5.�hgl with initiative.
And after 1 2 ...'lWa5, then 1 3.h4 is good, and
even better is 1 3.liJb3! �c7 1 4.g5 liJh5 1 5 .liJd5
'IWdS 1 6.fu7 Korneev - Getta, San Sebastian
2000) . Now White can consider:
a) 13.liJdxb5 was tested in the stem game
Korneev - Fedorov, Krasnodar 1 995: 13 ...,ixb5
(worse is 1 3 ... liJ c4?! 1 4.,ixc4 �xc4 and now
maybe 1 5.e5 !?) 14.liJxb5 �bS ( 1 4 ... a6! ? Fedorov)
1 0 ... liJe5 l 1 .h4 as a rule transposes after 1 5.c4 (brave is 1 5 .fu7!?) 1 5 ... a6 16.liJd4 �c7
I 1 ..J�cS. The most common option to 1 7.�c 1 . Here Black could prevent the c4-c5
The Dragon 43
advance with 1 7 . . . etJ fd7! and if 1 8 . etJ b3, then be convinced about White's chances) 1 4.exd5
1 8 ... etJc5! with compensation - Fedorov. etJ xd4 1 5 .hd4 Hazai - Bilek, Budapest 1 98 1 .
b) 1 3 . etJ cxb5 !? was tried by Korneev recently. Now 1 5 . . ..ixd4! ? 1 6.Vfixd4 Vfib6 and Black
It seems that 1 3 . . . .ixb5 1 4.hb5!? is the idea. is hardly much worse. However those 1 3th
Instead, Korneev - Carlsen, Reykjavik 2004, move alternatives need to be investigated in
continued with 13 ... a6 14.etJc3 etJ c4 15 . .ixc4 practice.
�xc4 when Black had no real compensation. b) 1 2 . . . etJ xd5 1 3 .exd5 etJ xd4 1 4.hd4 .ixd4
1 6.etJde2!?± could be a move here. 1 5 .'Wxd4 and now 1 5 . . . 'Wa5 16.gxh5 Vfixa2
c) 1 3 .h4! ? makes sense as well. 13 ... b4 (on 1 7.h6 f6 1 8 . .id3± or 1 5 . . . hxg4 1 6.fxg4! .
13 ... etJ c4?! follows 14 . .ixc4 bxc4 1 5 .h5±. c) 1 2 . . . etJxd4 1 3.hd4 e5 ( 1 3 . . . hxg4 1 4 . .ixf6
13 . . :Wa5 !? is considered in Macieja's line .ixf6 1 5 .h5 g5 1 6.f4!?, less clear is 1 6.e5 dxe5
below) 14.etJd5 etJxd5 1 5 .exd5 'WaS ( 1 5 . . . etJ c4?! 1 7.etJxf6t exf6 1 8.Vfixd7 Vfixd7 1 9.�xd7 gx£3
1 6.hc4 �xc4 1 7.h5±) , and now untested is and the black pawns are at least frightening)
1 6.h5 ! with the idea 16 ... 'Wxd5 17.etJ f5 ! . This 14 . .ie3 etJ xd5 (Shianovsky-Geller, Kiev 1 9 57)
is probably stronger than 1 6.etJb3 Vfic7 1 7.h5, 1 5 .'Wxd5 ! hxg4 1 6.h5 and I evaluated this in
which transposes to the variation with 15 ... b4, White's favour.
deviating from the main game. After 1 1 . . .Vfia5?! then 1 2. etJ b3 ! ? looks
unpleasant for Black.
12.h5
Again, the dominating choice in practice. And
again, not necessarily the best.
1 l ltJ e5
.•.
are back in Korneev's line, which after 13 ... �a5 1 2 . . . lDxf3 13.lDxf3 hg4 is considered to
in its turn transposes to 1 2 .. .'I&a5 below. be insufficient: 1 4.i.e2 (I like this more than
c) 1 2 . . . �a5 1 3 .�b l ! 14.h6) 1 4 . . . i.xh5 and now the simplest is
probably 1 5 .lD d4 he2 16.lDdxe2! ( 1 6.�xe2
l"i:xc3 1 7. bxc3 lDxe4 1 8 .i.h6 Sermek - Kovacevic,
Belgrade 1 989 allows 1 8 . . . lDxc3! ) 1 6 . . . h5 (or
16 . . . lD g4 1 7.i.d4 lDe5 1 8.�e3±) 1 7.i.xa7!?
Hanison - Betts, corr. 2000.
13.lDb3!?
1 3.�b l ? ! , which is the most played move
here, is basically what Black hopes for in the
entire 9 . . . i.d7-system.
endgames where Black's compensation for the 2003/4, Black should now have played
exchange is rather vague. The game continued 2 1 ...h6! , when I can suggest 22.b3! ? �xd5
1 7.hxg6 fxg6 1 B.<j{b2 a5 1 9 . .ih6 .ihB and here 23.� f5 ! with advantage for White, rather than
Rogozenko gives 20.Eib l !±. 22 . .ixh6 hd4 23.b3 ! ? �c3 24.Eixd4 �xd4
13 Y;Vc7 14 ..ie2 b5 1 5.@b 1 !
.•• 25 . .ie3 �g7 26 . .id4 Eif6 27.g5 .if5 ! .
c) 1 7 ... �c4?! 1 B . .ixc4 �xc4 1 9 . .id4±
d) 1 7 ... EifeB 1B.Eih2 as in Tomescu - Piva,
Porto San Giorgio 2003, may look reasonable,
but here Black has 1 B ... � c4 ! (instead of the
game's 1 B ... a5?) 1 9.hc4 �xc4 when he is alive,
because the h2-square is no longer available for
the white queen. e.g. 20.hxg6 (20.Eidh 1 g5
2 1 ..ixg5 a5 ! 20.�f2 .ie5 !?) 20 ... fxg6 2 1 .Eidh 1
(2 1 .Eihh 1 .ie5) 2 1 ...Eif8! 22.Eixh7 Eixf3 ! and
now 23 .Eixg7t only gives a draw.
But, instead of all this, 1 B.�d4!? preserving
the initiative looks interesting.
1 6 . .ixc4 bxc4
1 6 ... �xc4?! looks terribly bad for Black: it
can be punished by 1 7.e5 or 1 7 . .ih6.
Th e position after 1 5 .<j{b 1 i s quite complex, 17 . .!D d4
but White seems to have good chances. (Still,
we remember the promising early deviations:
1 3 . .ie2, 1 2 ..ie2 and Korneev's 1 1 . <j{b 1 tLle5
1 2 . .ie2). Now 1 6.hxg6 fxg6 1 7.g5 is already
quite a threat, which would be seen after moves
like 1 5 ... a6?
1 5 ... .!D c4!?
Another direction is 1 5 ... b4 1 6.tLld5 tLlxd5
1 7.exd5 and now Black must make a difficult
choice:
a) 17 ...f5 weakens the kingside: 1 B.hxg6
hxg6 1 9 . .ih6 f4! ? 20.tLld4!? �c5 2 1 .�el
with a dangerous initiative, Fressinet - Polzin,
Bundesliga 200 1 12.
b) 1 7 ... a5 1 B.tLld4! (the tempting 1B . .ih6?!
does not work well: 1B ... .ixh6 1 9.�xh6 �xc2t In the line 9 . .ic4 �a5 1 0.0-0-0 .id7 1 1 ..ib3
20.<j{a1 iWxe2! ! and now 2 1 .hxg6 �xd1 t EifcB, when White follows with h4, g4, h5 and
22.Eixd 1 fxg6 with excellent compensation, Black responds with ... �e5, . . . b5, . . . tLl c4,
Short - Bu Xiangzhi, Taiyuan 2004, or 2 1 .�d4 a quite similar position often arises, which is
�xg4! 22.fxg4 and there is not only 22 ... iWe5 difficult for Black. Here he can attack b2 faster,
23.hxg6 �g7 24.gxh7t <j{hBoo Sax - Cebalo, but it hardly improves his chances.
Croatia 2002, but also 22 ... �e4! - Cebalo) 17 Y;Vb7
•..
1 B ... tLl c4 ( 1 B ... a4 1 9 . .ih6±) 1 9 . .ixc4 �xc4 17 . EibB would normally transpose.
..
24.gxh5 � xh5 The main idea behind this queen move (used
24 ... e5 25 .h6!?± by Geller and other strong players in the 50s) is,
25.Y;Yg2!± of course, 1 1 .. . .ie6!. For example, after l 1 .g4 it
Black's king has become too vulnerable. will transpose to the main line of the 9.g4 line,
Though the following was not free from which is acceptable for Black. 1 1 .h4 also allows
inaccuracies, White got to the enemy monarch 1 1 .. ..ie6, but there is a fresh idea: 12J�lg5 ! ?
in the end. Yemelin - Kalashnikov, S t Petersburg 2000,
25 .ieS 26.gxh5 hd4 27.gxd4 gxc3
..• should, at least, be mentioned. Usually, White
2S . .ib2 gxc2 29.Y;Yxc2 gxh5 30.Y;Yg2t �f8 chooses between two other promising, but very
3 1 .gb4 .ib5 32.Y;Yg6 e6 33.Y;Yh6t �e7 34.gd4 different, options .
.ie2 35.e5! .txf3 36.Y;Yg7t �eS 37.Y;YgSt �e7 1 1 .ic4
•
3S.Y;Yg7t �eS 39.Y;Yg8t �e7 40.exd6t �d7 Improving the position of the only relatively
4 1 .Y;Yf'7t �d8 42.Y;Yf8t �d7 43.Y;Ye7t �c6 passive piece. A reasonable alternative is
44.gc4t �b5 45.d7 1 1 .�b l !?, which can lead to tense play after
1-0 1 1 ...e5 (not 1 1 .. . .ie6? 12.ltJd5) 12 . .ie3 .ie6.
e.g. 1 3.a3 �fcS! 14 . .ie2 gc6 and after 1 5 .ltJb5,
15 . . .'lWa4! was found by Wellner. Instead White
can consider 1 5.g4 �acS 16.ltJd5.
1 l .ie6 12 . .ib3!
••.
The Dragon 47
c) I S . . . b4 1 6.hf6! ( l 6.tlJdS tlJxdS 1 7.hg7 22'Elcl with an advantage in the endgame, Ribli
is not a precise move order as it allows an - Velimirovic, Pula 1971) 1 6.i.e3 b4 17. tlJ e2
intermediate 1 7 . . . tlJe3!) 1 6 . . . bxc3 1 7.i.xc3 hb3 1 8.cxb3 Elc6 1 9.hxg6 fxg6 20.i.gS !? with
hc3 ( I 7 . . J%xc3? is refuted nicely by 1 8 .Ele2 ! ! better chances, as in Nikitin - Ignatiev, Moscow
ElcS I 9.b4+-) 1 8.bxc3 Elxc3 ( I 8 . . :�xc3 1 9:�·xc3 1 963.
Elxc3 20.Elcl can lead to the same) 1 9.Ele3 1 3 ... Elc6!? must be compared with 1 3 ... hb3
Elac8 (Black is also suffering after 1 9 . . . ElcS 1 4.axb3 Elc6. Now: 14.g4 bS!? ( 1 4 . . . hb3
20:�xaS ElxaS 2 1 .Elc3 or 2 1 .Elc l ) 20.Elxc3 transposes to 13 ... ,ixb3) I S .tlJdS (after
Wi'xc3 (or 20 . . . Elxc3 2 1 .'i:!tb2 ElcS 22.Wi'xaS I S .i.xf6 i.xf6 1 6.tlJdS \Wxd2 1 7.Elxd2 Black has
ElxaS 23.Elcl±) 2 1 .Wi'xc3 Elxc3 22.Elcl Elxcl t 1 7 . . . i.h4!, but interesting is I S .gS !?) I S .. :�'xd2
23.'i:!txc l . The arising pawn endgame will be 1 6.Elxd2 i.xdS 1 7.exdS with a slight advantage.
in White's favour - his queenside majority 1 4.cxb3 Elc6
offers prospects of sacrificing a pawn there, 14 . . . bS I S .Elhe l ! was already considered
distracting Black's king from the kingside, and above.
to win the black pawns then. Black, however,
can build up some kind of fortress by keeping
his f-pawn on f7 and placing his e-pawn on e6.
This will prevent immediate access to the black
pawns for the white king. Dutch IMs Karel
van der Weide and Jeroen Bosch filled eight
20 . . . b5? gives White promising attacking l .e4 c5 2.ttJa d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttJxd4 ttJf6
possibilities such as 2 1 .'lWd4t @gS 22.�xh5 5.ttJc3 g6 6.�e3 J.g7 7.0 ttJ c6 S.�d2 0-0
gxh5 23.g6 ! ? 9.0-0-0
2 1 .�h3!?
2 1 .�dfl , preparing f4-£5, was also possible as
after 2 1 .. .ltJ g3 White has 22.'lWh2 ! .
Also interesting i s the immediate 2 1 .£5 ! ? exfS
22.'lWd4t 'lWe5 23.exfS 'lWxd4 24.�xd4 with an
initiative in the endgame.
2 1 . . .'�c5
Here 2 1 ...b5 deserves attention. Then White
could preserve some advantage by 22.a3 ! ? �b6
(22 . . . b4 23.lLla2 ! ) 23.b4 with the idea 23 . . . a5
24.bxa5 'lWxa5 25.£5.
22.�d3 b 5
This leads to a sharp endgame, which is
objectively better for White. 23.�xd6 was not
a direct threat, but after passive Black moves
White could have improved his position by 9 ... ttJ xd4
23.£5 or 23.�d4. The immediate 9 . . . �e6! ? has very rarely
23J3xd6 �xd6 24.�xd6 �xd6 25.�xd6 been used by grandmasters in recent years. It is
ttJxf4 playable to some extent, so we should consider
2 5 ... b4 26.lLl e2± it.
26.ttJxb5 �c5? Black's first problem is 1 0.@b l when
The best chance was 26 ... a5 ! . Then 27.�d7 1 O . . . lLlxd4 j ust transposes to 9 . . . ltJxd4, and it
lLlh3! 2S.ltJd6 �f8 looks unconvincing for is unlikely that his life is easier in lines such
White as his g5-pawn falls. Better is 27.ltJd4, as 10 . . . l"1cS l 1 .lLlxe6 {or l 1 .h4! ? 'lWa5 1 2.ltJxe6
fxe6 1 3.�c4 @f7 14.�b3 lLl e5 and now
so Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
possibly I S .We2 ! ? tLlhS I 6 .!%h3 !%xc3 I 7.i.d2) tLl c4 I S .eS tLl eB 1 6.id4 with strong pressure,
1 1 . . .fxe6 1 2i.c4 Wd7 1 3i.b3 tLl eS 1 4.We2 ! , Romero Holmes - Martin Gonzalez, Linares
Matanovic - Larsen, Portoroz (iz) 1 9 S B . 1 990.
1 0.tLlxe6 fxe6 i s Black's second problem. g) 1 1 . . . tLl eS (in some ways this is a principled
His e6-pawn covers dS, but appears to be a move) 1 2 . f4 ! tLl eg4 1 3 .i.gl ( 13 .i.d4 eS ! and
weakness itself. Now 1 1 .i.c4 WcB ! 12.i.b3 the queen sacrifice 1 4.fxeS? ! ih6 I S.Wxh6
tLl aS may be dubious for Black, but it is at tLl xh6 1 6 . exf6 exf6 1 7.i.c4t cJtg7 is dubious:
least complicated. I I .h4 is uncommon and Black will transfer his knight to eS) 13 !%cB •••
Black can answer with 1 1 .. . tLl eS ! . I 1 .g4 (which (insufficient is 13 . . . WaS 1 4.ic4! Grabarczyk
transposes to the 9.g4 line) weakens 8 and is - Jedryczka, Plock rpd 1 994 and 1 3 . . . Wc7
therefore rather illogical. White's bishop pair 1 4 .We2 ! ? a6 I S.i.h3 hS 1 6.i.g2! eS?! 1 7.h3
is strong, so 1 1 .i.h6!? may not seem logical tLl h6 I B.fxeS dxeS 1 9.94 Pletanek - Jerabek,
either. Still, it is not at all easy for Black to corr. 1 999) 14.cJtb l !? ( 14.We2 !%xc3 !? I S.bxc3
develop counterplay: WaS with some compensation, Traub -
1 1 . . .hh6 1 2.Wxh6 tLleS 1 3 .i.bS !%cB?! fails Bakalarz, Germany 1 99B. 1 4.i.g2 WaS !?
to 14.Wh3! cJtfl I S.f4± Akopian - Alterman, I S .cJtb l !%c4) 1 4 . . . bS (or 1 4 . . . WaS I S .h3
USSR 1 9B6. tLl h6 1 6.tLldS!) I S .tLlxbS tLlxe4 1 6.We2 tLl gf6
Or 1 1 ...tLleS 12. i.xg7 cJtxg7 13.f4 ! . 1 7.ih3 !? Wd7 I B.i.d4 ( 1 B. tLl d4?! !%bB!) I B . . . a6
After 1 1 . ..!%cB 1 2.i.c4 Wd7 1 3.i.b3 Black and now the simple 1 9.ixf6 with the idea
maybe can try to improve on Geller's line 1 9 . . . ixf6 20.tLl d4! is very good for White. On
1 3 . . . tLl aS?! 1 4.hg7 tLlxb3t I S.axb3 cJtxg7 the whole, the entire position after 10.tLlxe6
1 6.eS±, by 13 . . . tLlhS, which still looks slightly fxe6 favours White, but the play is rather
dubious. strategic in these lines.
Keeping 1 1 .i.h6 in mind, I also recommend 1 0.hd4 Ae6
l 1 .g3! ? This is the kind of move which
is rarely seen in the Rauzer Attack, but is
interesting here as White prepares i.h3. Black's
possibilities are:
a) 1 1 . . .WaS 1 2 .i.c4!
b) 1 1 . . .tLleB!? 12.f4 !%cB! (if 1 2 . . . tLl c7 1 3 .h4!)
13.cJtbl (Here 1 3.h4 tLl b4! 1 4.i.h3 cJtfl gives
Black counterplay, but the alternative which I
like is 1 3 .i.h3 ! tLl c7 14.tLle2. 1 3 .i.c4!? can also
be considered.) 1 3 . . . tLl aS ( 1 3 . . . 'I&aS 14.tLlbS!?)
14.ih3 !%xc3 (not 1 4 . . . Wd7? I S .WdS !)
I S .ixe6t cJthB 1 6.bxc3 tLl c7 1 7.i.b3 tLlbS and
Black's piece play gives him some compensation,
011 Fedorov, St Petersburg 1 996.
-
slight advantage to White. In my view, 1 8.c3 b4 to obtain a tenable endgame. 1 6 ..txf6 .txf6
1 9.c4!?, and 1 8.b3!? 1!Nb4 1 9.9xh5 lLlxh5 20.hg7 1 7.�h6 hc3 ! = or 1 7.hc4t �xc4 18.ttld5
mxg7 2 1 ..td3 also look better for White. 1!Nxd2 1 9.ttlxf6t exf6 20.�xd2 �d8, as in Cichy
13.h5! �a5 Bauer, Bundesliga 1 9 83/4 playoff, may not look
1 3 ... lLlxh5? loses by force after 14.hg7 too convincing, and White can try 1 6.1!Ne l ! ?
mxg7 1 5.g4 lLlf6 16.1!Nh6t mg8 1 7.e5 dxe5 instead, and i f 1 6 . . .i.xfl , then 1 7.1!Nxfl .
1 8.g5 ttlh5 1 9 . .td3+- Evans - Zuckerman, USA d) After I S ... �ab8, 1 6.g4!? can be
Championship (New York) 1 967. recommended for White if he wishes to play
14.hxg6 hxg6 for an attack. 1 6 ... bS (Black creates a threat
of 1 6 ... b4. The passive 1 6 ... .tf7 1 7.gS ! ttlhS
1 8.hg7 ttlxg7 19.�h2! ttlh5 20.ttld5 hdS
2 1 .exdS �f8 22 . .th3 results in a clearly better
position for White, Ivanovic - Kudrin, Lone
Pine 1 98 1 ) 1 7.1!NgS ! (probably White also can
allow ... b4 in the lines 1 7.gS;!; b4?! 1 8.ttlbS !
and 1 7 . .txf6 .txf6 1 8.ttldS;!; b 4 1 9.axb4!? 1!Na4
20.b5) 1 7 ... 1!Nc7 (After 1 7 ....tf7 18.ttldS the
continuation 1 8 ... 1!Nd8 19.�h4! h6 20.gS hxgS
2 1 .�xgS± gives us an idea why g4 can be more
useful here than .td3. Also difficult for Black
is 1 8 ... hdS 1 9 . .txf6, where he cannot allow
the white queen to emerge on d5 with check:
1 9 ... �cS 20.exdS± Lukin - Cebalo, Biel 2004)
1 8.eS. Now Black's only chance appears to be
The relativelylittle studiedalternative 14 ... fxg6 1 8 . . . lLl e4!? 19.fxe4 dxeS. After the retreat of the
gives Black more prospects to survive White's bishop from d4, Black will play 20 ... b4 with
kingside assault, but at the same time it worsens an attack. It is a big question whether it gives
the pawn structure. I S.a3 (the immediate him sufficient compensation, but White also
l S . .txf6 as usual fails to I S ... �xc3!). Now the has 20 . .td3 !? exd4 (20 ... b4 2 1 .ttldS ! ) 2 1 .ttldS
important difference with 1 4 ... hxg6 is that there hdS 22.�xdSt e6 23.1!Nxe6t �f7 24.1!Nxf7t
White's 1 6 . .txf6 .txf6 1 7.ttldS is not a threat mxf7 2S.�xh7 with an extra pawn and winning
because Black has 1 6 ...�xd2 17.ttlxf6t mg7! chances, Sebag - Pogonina, Elista 2004.
1 8.�xd2 mxf6. But here Black cannot leave 15.a3
the h7-pawn unprotected. He is forced to take
on f6 with the e-pawn, creating an isolani on
d6. There is no sensible way for Black to avoid
White's exchange operation, and it is for White
to decide whether he wants to torment Black in
an endgame, or to develop an initiative in some
different way. Now we consider:
a) I S . . . .tf7 1 6 . .txf6;!; or 1 6.g4!?, where Black
hardly has anything better than 16 .... �ab8.
b) IS ... �c6 gives White such additional
possibilities as 1 6.ttldS ! ? and 16 . .tbS !? �xc3?!
1 7.a4! ttlxe4 1 8.1!Ne l !± Ghyssens - Koller, corr.
1 990.
c) By playing 15 ... .tc4 Black is aspiring
The Dragon 53
Black's main idea was not 15 ... E1xc3, which 16 ... ic4 is often considered to be Black's most
is not killing unless White plays 1 5 .i.xf6?, but realistic chance for acceptable play. The choice
rather 1 5 ... b5!. between White's main answers is difficult, so we
1 5 ... E1ab8 will consider the most important ones:
1 5 . . . ic4 is a rare move. (Updated coverage of
it is the main change in this chapter in comparison
with the 2004 edition of the book - MG, 2006).
Now:
a) 1 6.ixc4 E1xc4 and here 1 7.Lf6 gives White
a small plus, while 1 7.�c l ! ? e6 I S.g4 E1acS!
transposes to the 1 5 ... E1abS 16.id3 ic4 line.
b) 16.E1h3 i.xfl ( 1 6 ... b5?! 1 7.ixc4 and now
17 ... bxc4 I S .E1dh l E1abS occurred in Short -
Velimirovic, Banja Luka 19S5. Here, in contrast
to variations which arise in the line 1 5 ... E1abS
1 6.id3 ic4, White has time for 1 9.�cl ! E1b7
20.g4! E1cbS 2 1 .�h2, winning by direct attack
- Velimirovic. Also insufficient is 1 7 ... E1xc4
I S .E1dh l ! , planning 1 9.ixf6!, and if I S ... e5
then 19.ie3 threatening 20.ih6! , Van der Wiel a) 17.ie3 !? is the move that I analysed in New
- Van de Mortel, Wijk aan Zee 1 996.) 17.E1xfl In Chess Yearbook 1 1 ( 1 9S9) . As of now, Black is
E1c4 I S .�d3 ! ? ( 1 S.E1fh l E1acS Without ... b5 this alive here:
position offers Black more hope. 1 9.ixf6 ixf6! al) 17 ... b5? l s.ih6 ihS 19.ifS! is losing
20.E1h7 and now, as pointed out by "TopNotch" for Black: 19 ... tLlh5 20.E1xh5 ixc3 (20 ... gxh5
on the Chesspublishing.com forum, Black has 21 .ixe 7 +- Allemann - Loetscher, Switzerland
20 ... E1xc3 ! 2 1 .�h6 �e5 22.f4 E1h3 ! ! reaching an 2003) 2 1 .�h6!+- was pointed out by Olthof.
acceptable endgame) I S ... E1acS 1 9.i.xf6 ixf6 a2) After 1 7 . . . tLleS? I s.ixc4 E1xc4 19.tLld5
20.tLld5 (Gutman) and here 20 . . . ixb2(!!) ,"Top �b5 20.b3! e6, White obtains a big advantage
Notch", probably allows Black to reach equality by 2 1 .ih6! exd5 22.ixg7 @xg7 23.exd5 ! .
in the long, crazy lines. a3) An important line i s 17 ... tLld7!? I s.ixc4
c) Kosteniuk-Pogonina, Samara 2005, saw l"1xc4 ( I S ... i.xc3? 1 9 .i.d4!!) 19.tLld5 �xd2
1 6.g4!? i.xf1 17.E1dxfl E1c4 1 S .ie3 E1acS I 9.ih6 ( 1 9 ... �b5? 20.b3+- Black loses material) 20.E1xd2
ihS 20.tLld5 �dS 2 1 .tLle3 E14c5 22.E1h3! E1b5 l"1eS (20 ... e6? 2 1 .b3!) 2 1 .ixa7 b6 (This was my
(after 22 ... �b6 White prevents ... tLlxe4 by main suggestion for Black in 19S9.) 22.l"1d3 l"1a4
23.c4!) and now two atypical moves: 23.tLl d l ! (22 ... l"1c6 23.l"1hdl �fS?! 24.l"1b3 l"1aS 25.tLlxb6!
�a5 24.�d3! gave White the advantage. l"1xa7 26.tiJxd7t l"1xd7 27.l"1bSt wins for
16.i.d3! White. 23 ... ifS gives more chances but is still
Van der Wiel's important invention. 16.g4 is insufficient.) 23 .i.xb6 e6 24.i.c7 exd5 25.l"1xd5
less dangerous for Black. tiJe5 26.hd6 tLlc4. Despite White's four pawns
16 ... b5 for a piece his advantage is not easy to prove
After this programmed move Black faces (Cordovil - Lecroq, 14th corr. Wch 1994-2000) .
problems. The waiting 16 ... a6 can be met best by a4) 17 . . . hd3 !? I S.cxd3 (less ambitious, but
17.E1h4! b5 IS.�g5 and here IS ... E1c5 19.ixc5 interesting is 1 8 .�xd3 ! ? b5 19.tLla2 Mousessian
dxc5 seems to be totally incorrect: 20.�xc5 tLld7 - Burne, e-mail 2002) I S . . . b5 is an interesting
2 1 .�b4 �c7 (In the case of 17.E1h2?! the white line. It may look dubious, even disastrous for
rook would be hanging now.) 22.tLld5 hd5 Black, but he needs just one move ( ... b4) to
23.exd5+- Bley - Jackwertch, corr. 1995. develop serious play, and a forced win for White
S4 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
17 ...Wc7?!
This is bad, but in the more than 20 years since
the game was played Black has not succeeded
in finding a reliable antidote to Van der Wiel's
idea.
17 ... d5?! can be refuted is three ways. The
most direct of them is 1 8 .liJxd5 ixd5 19 .exd5
b4 20.ixg6! fxg6 (20 ... bxa3 2 1 .E(h7!+- Turunen
- Pyhala, Espoo 1984) 2 1 .�xg6 �a4 22.ix£6
exf6 23.E(h7 and wins - Olthof.
1 7 ... ic4? 1 8.ixc4! E(xc4 19.1iJd5 �d8
20.�h4 is just hopeless for Black. Then:
Typically for the lines with the bishop on e6, a) 19 . . . dxe5 20.ixe5 �xb4 2 1 .ia6!
17 ... a6 should be met by 18.E(h4!? The same (2 1 .ixg6? ! E(xb2t 22.\tlxb2 �b6t 23.@c1
advice can be given regarding another waiting fxg6 gives Black compensation.) 2 1 . . .E(xb2t
move: 1 7 . . . E(b7. (2 1 . . .�a5 22.ixc8 liJ d7 is refuted by 23.E(xd7!
17 ... E(xc3 !? 1 8.ixc3 �a4 is an exchange ixd7 24.f4! ixc8 2H ��xe7+-. 2 1 ... Wb6 22.ixc8
sacrifice that does not solve Black's problems, ixc8 23.\tlc 1 ! ?±.) 22.@c 1 ! (even stronger than
but can be dangerous in practice. 50 I would 22.\tlxb2 �b6t 23.ib5) 22 ... �b6 23.ixc8
ask the reader to pay special attention here. The ixc8 and White should win after 24.�d2 ! or
following variations are given by Nisipeanu and 24.id4 ! .
5toica in Informant 90: 1 9 .E(h4!? b4 20.ixb4 b ) 1 9 ... E(xb4 20.exf6 exf6 2 1 .We3! ? and
(not 20.axb4?! liJ h7 2 1 .E(xh7 ixc3 22.bxc3 despite the fact that Black is very active,
�a3 ! = , but possible is 20.e5 ! ? liJ d5 2 1 .id2 it is not clear how he can obtain sufficient
a5 22.ixg6! liJ c3t 23.ixc3 bxc3 24.E(dhl compensation. 2 1 .. .E(cb8 (2 1 . . .E(xd4 22.�xd4
E(xb2t 25.\tlc1 +-) 20 ... liJh7 (also insufficient f5 23.�a4! and 2 1 . . .�a5 22. liJ e4!) 22.liJe2!?
is 20 ... E(xb4 2 1 .axb4 �a2t 22.\tlc1) 2 1 .E(xh7! �a5 23.@c1
\tlxh7 22.�h4t! (an important check) 22 ... \tlg8 1 7 ... liJ h7? 1 8.E(xh7 ixd4 1 9.Wh6 b4
23.'1Wxe7 ifB (the line 23 ... a5 24.�a7! E(xb4 20.E(h l �e5 2 1 .f4 results in a decisive material
25 .�a8t! explains White's 220d move) 24.�g5 advantage for White.
ig7 25.f4! with an obvious advantage. 18.e5! dxe5 1 9.ixe5
S6 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
20 ... l'!b6 does not change much. 2 1 ..ixg6 White encourages Black either to exchange
(or 2 1 .l'!h4 .id7 22.l'!dh l Gutman & Reschke, the dark squared bishops, or to dose the al-h8
or 2 1 .b4 'lWc6 Bennedik - Kreiling, Steinbach diagonal.
1 998, when White wins with 22.f5 - Olthof, 1 2 ... e5
but not 2 1 .l'!h6? ctJ g4!.) 2 1 .. .fXg6 22.'lWxg6 The modest alternatives to this move attracted
ctJ e8 (22 ... .if7 23.l'!h8t!) 23.'lWh7t @f8 24.l'!hS little attention before the 90s. We will consider
and White wins easily; e.g. 24 ... 'lWc4 2S .,hglt them in the next two games. By playing 12 ... eS
ctJxg7 26.l'!gS ctJ f5 27.g4 l'!d6 28.l'!e l . Black preserves the Dragon (or, as some say,
2 1 ..hg6! fXg6 "Gufeld's") bishop, and hopes to fight for the
2 1 . ..b4 22.l'!h7 ! . initiative. From another point of view 12 ... eS
22.'iMxg6 J.f! weakens Black's pawn structure even more - the
There was no other defence against 23.l'!h7, d6 square becomes quite sensitive now.
but now... 1 3 . .ic5 .ie6
23.l'!h8t! 1-0 Black supports the dS knight, which is the key
One of the greatest ever Dragon games - detail in his set-up.
especially from White's point of view! After 13 ... l'!b8?! the simplest is 14 . .ic4! with
an advantage ( 14.ctJxdS cxdS I S.'lWxdS 'lWf6!?
Game 1 5 is more complex) . An even more dubious idea
Ehlvest Marin
- is 13 ... e4?! when White can play 14.ctJxe4!?
Calcutta 1 997 ( 14.fXe4?! ctJxc3 I S .'lWxd8 .ih6t 16.'lWd2
l .tll a c5 2.e4 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tll xd4 tll f6 ,hd2t 17.l'!xd2 ctJxe4 18 ..ixfS ctJxd2t) 14 ... f5
5.tll c3 g6 6.a J.g7 7.J.e3 tll c6 8.'iMd2 0-0 I S .ctJc3±.
9.0-0-0 d5! 13 ... l'!e8 !? is the only real alternative to the
The Dragon 57
main line. White can fight for an advantage in I S.c4 ttJ f6 1 9. ttJ b7!? but the immediate
three ways. The current main lines after both I S. ttJ b7 may be stronger: I S . . . �h4 and now,
14 . .ic4!? (which is rare) and 14.ttJxd5 result perhaps, 1 9.�a5 ! . ) .
in slightly worse endgames for Black. I will After 17 . . . e4, amongst White's various
consider 14.ttJe4, which is the most principled. promising options there is I S.fx:e4!? (not too
bad for Black is I S . .ib3 hd6 1 9 .hd5t!? cxd5
20.'lWxd5t .ie6 2 1 .�xd6 'lWg5t 22.f4 'lWxg2;t
De Firmian -Ernst, Stockholm 2002) I S ...
fx:e4 1 9 . .ib3 ( 1 9 .c4 transposes to Sutovsky -
Alterman, Rishon Le Zion 1 994. It continued
19 ... e3 20 . .ixe3± and White preserves his extra
pawn in all variations, but 1 9 ... hd6! would
be less clear. e.g. 20 . .ixd6 e3 2 1 .'lWe2 'lWa5 !?
with the idea 22 . .ib3 ttJ c3) 1 9 . . . .ixd6 20 . .ixd6
and White's positional advantage seems to be
quite certain to me, also in the case of 20 ... e3
2 1 .'lWe2.
b) 14 ... 'lWc7!? is a little studied move which
I tried against Alexei Shirov in the Bundesliga.
Black's specific idea now is to ensure an early
Now 1 4 . . . .ie6 (which may be best) just ... E1dS. 1 5 .ttJ d6 looks unclear when the black
transposes to the 13 . . . .ie6 line, and thereafter pawn is still on f7, while after either 1 5 . .ic4 or
1 3 . . . E1eS just loses its point. 1 5 .g4 Black can transpose to acceptable lines
We will consider two other moves here: by 15 ... .ie6. I will consider two options for
a) 14 . . . f5? ! 1 5 . ttJ d6! .ifS ! . For a long time White:
this was considered as equalising. In 1 993 b I ) 1 5 ..id6!? is a tricky transpositional
Beliavsky introduced 16 . .ib5 ! , which was attempt to avoid the stuff with ... E1dS and ... f5
only the first step in the right direction. entirely. Then:
After 16 . . . .id7 (forced) , White's strong and b l l ) 1 5 ... 'lWdS!? (back!) 16 . .ia3!? (claiming
mysterious novelty 1 7 . .ia4 ! (which was found that the bishop is placed better on a3 rather
by Deep Blue's support team according to than c5. Instead 16 . .ib5 !? cxb5 1 7.'lWxd5 .if5 !
De Firmian, or found by GM Lembit all I S.'lWxb5 he4 1 9.fx:e4 'lWg5t 20.\ilb l 'lWxg2, as
according to other sources, and was played in the computer game Arena - Hagrid, perso.
by " Leon" (Shirov) at Internet Chess Club) , wanadoo.fr/lefouduroi 2002, looks playable
was finally revealed only in De Firmian-Ernst, for Black.) 1 6 ... 'lWb6!? 1 7.h4 ( 1 7 . .ic5 'lWc7
Stockholm 2002. Black's position becomes returns us to the beginning) 17 ... E1bS I S.h5
strategically dubious even in the case of .ifS 19.hxg6. In the notes for New In Chess
the strongest 17 . . . e4 ! (Or: 1 7 . . . E1bS I S .c4! , 1 9 ... fx:g6 undeservedly escaped my attention, but
transposing t o Misailovic - Jovicic, Tivat tt 20 . .ic4 .ixa3 2 1 ..ib3 ! gives White interesting
1 9 9 5 , I S . . . ttJ b6 1 9.hb6! �xb6 20 . .ib3! and compensation.
Black will get no real compensation for either b 1 2) 15 ... 'lWb6 1 6.h4 ( 1 6 . .ic5 'lWc7 leads
pawn or exchange. 1 7 . . . �h4 was mistakenly to a repetition) and after 1 6 . . . �dS?! ( 1 6 ... f5?!
suggested in New In Chess SI 1 99 5 as winning 1 7 . .ic5 ! and l S.ttJd6. 1 6 . . . ttJe3?! 17 . .ic5 ttJxfl
for Black. White plays I S . .ib3 ! and now l s.�hxfl !? with advantage) , 1 7 . .ie7! (the main
I S . . . .ih6 1 9 . .ie3 or I S . . . .ixd6 1 9 . .ixd6 E1adS idea behind 1 5 . .id6) 17 ... E1d7 l S . .ic5 ! destroys
20.E1he l �xh2?! 2 1 ..ixe 5 ! E1xe5 22.�h l �g3 Black's scheme. So 16 ... h6! ? is preferable,
23.E1h3. If 1 7 . . . �e6, then Rogozenko suggests hoping to transfer to the 13 ... .ie6 main line.
58 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
unclear to me.) I S ... 1!:;!fxf8 1 6.1!:;!faS ! (the optimal Veselovsky) is rather unclear. Possible is 1 7 ..ib3!?
square for the queen) 1 6 ... E1b8 (or: 1 6 ... ttl e3 (Popovic - Sax, Subotica IZ 1 987), when 1 7 ... fS
1 7.E1e l ! , 1 6 ... .ih6t 1 7.@b l .ie3 1 8 . .ic4±) is answered by 1 8.ttlgS . Also, both 1 7.g4 and
17 . .ic4 1!:;!fe7! ( 1 7 ... fS?! 1 8.ttlcS or 18.ttlgS e4 1 7.a4 look good when the almost forced 1 7 ... h6
1 9.ttlxe6!? hb2t 20.@d2 1!:;!fh6t 2 1 .£4+-) A. can hardly justify Black's previous moves.
Ivanov - Ashley, Philadelphia 1 997. After the b) I S ... 1!:;!fc7 must be answered by 1 6 ..ixf8 !
'normal' moves such as 1 8.h4 Black hardly has .ixf8 .
full compensation.
Another rare idea is 14 . . . aS , when White has
several promising options, the simplest of them
being I S . .ic4.
Yurtaev's dangerous 1 4 ... E1b8!?
1 5 . . .a 5 1 6 . .ic4 ( 1 6.h5 lLl b4!? with the idea The main direction seems to be 1 7 ... £5
1 7.a3? .ih6! is given by Tiviakov. The possible ( 1 7 ... lLlxh5?! 1 8.g4!? or 1 8.c4 .ih6t 1 9 . .ie3 !
improvement for White is instead 1 6.g4!? with he3t 20.'lWxe3 'lWa5 2 1 .cxd5 cxd5 22.'lWd2!)
the idea 1 6 ... lLlf4 1 7.'lWe l .id5 1 8.h5) 1 6 ... h5 ! ? 1 8.hxg6 hxg6 (18 ... fxe4 didn't serve Black well
(Ljubojevic's move. I f 1 6 ... a4? ! , White has 1 7 .h5 ! in Chopin - Hanen, corr. French Ch 2003,
f5 18.lLld6 �e7 1 9.hxg6 hxg6 20.'lWg5 ! , but after 1 9.fxe4 'lWg5 20 . .ie3 ha2 2 1 .gxhlt @h8
16 ... h6 17.g4 a4! ? makes some sense) . As Black 22.g3 �ed8 23.�xd8t �xd8 24.b3 'lWg6 25 .'lWa5
can aspire to reach the position after 1 6 ... h5 lLle6 26 . .ic4 'lWxg3 27.�e l lLl fS 28.@b2 with
in two possible ways (also via 1 5 ... h5) , it advantage to White.) 19.1Lld6.�e6 20.g3 �b8!
deserves double attention: 1 7.a4 ( 1 7.g4!?, as (20 ... .ixf3 2 1 .gxf4 .ixh 1 22.lLlxf5 ! .id5 23.lLlxg7
in A. Sokolov - Ljubojevic, Belfort 1 988, is not @xg7 24.c4 and White wins - Rogozenko. Also
so dear after 1 7 . . . lLlf4!) 1 7 . . . 'lWc7 ( 1 7 ... lLlf4?! not good is 20 ... lLlh5?! 2 1 .lLlxf5 'lWg5t 22.lLle3
1 8.'lWxd8! �axd8 1 9.�xd8 �xd8 20.he6 lLlxe6 'lWxg3 23.lLlxd5 cxd5 24.'lWe3 lLlf4 25 ..ib5
2 1 . .ib6! with aserious advantage in the endgame, Haugen - Taylor, corr. 2002).
Kudrin - Golubev, Moscow 1 995) 1 8.g4!? lLlf4
1 9.he6 �xe6 and now maybe 20.'lWd7!? 'lWxd7
2 1 .�xd7 hxg4 22.fxg4 f5 23.gxf5 gxf5. Black's
connected pawns may become dangerous,
but after 24.lLlg3 ! ? �f6 25 . .ie3 I would prefer
White.
1 5 . . . h5 is "my edition" of Ljubojevic's idea.
Now 16 . .ic4 lLlf4 1 7.'lWxd8 �exd8 18 . .ixe6
lLlxe6 (Howell - Golubev, Biel Open 1 993)
19 . .ie7! �xd l t 20.�xd l lLlf4 2 1 .lLlf6t hf6
22.ixf6 lLlxg2 leads Black to a dubious but quite
puzzling endgame. The most direct 1 6.g4!? may
well be the best: 1 6 ... lLlf4 ( 1 6 . . . hxg4 17.h5 with
an attack, Korneev - Susnik, Kranj 2004) and
for example 1 7.'lWe l !? (Kutuzovic - Baric, Pula
open 1 998) 17 ... .id5 1 8.c4 (another move is In this position Black's pieces are active,
1 8.gxh5) 1 8 ... 'lWc7 19 . .id6 �b6 20.gxh5 .ixe4 which gives him many chances. At the same
2 1 .fxe4 lLlxh5 22.c5 'lWb7 23 . .ie2 with the idea time, White's king seems to feel safer than
23 ... lLlf4 24.h5 does not look nice for Black. Black's, so the prospects of the first player can
So 16.g4 is interesting after both 1 5 ... a5 and be preferred.
1 5 ... h5. The main potential problem for Black is
15 ... lLlf4!? is Sergei Tiviakov's move, which the emergence of White's bishop on the a2-g8
was topical in the 90s. White is certainly diagonal after the probable elimination of the
slightly better after 1 6.g3, but I have decided black light-squared bishop. Play can continue
to recommend 1 6.'lWe l !?, which is more fun 2 1 .lLle4!? fxe4 (Hardly sufficient is 2 1 ... lLl h5 and
- and possibly also the strongest. 1 6 ... .id5 now 22.g4 or 22 . .ih3 �e8 23 . .ixf5 ! - Haugen.)
( 1 6 ... 'lWc7?! 1 7.h5 !± is given by Rogozenko, 22.fxe4 �e8 ! (22 ... lLlh5 23.exd5 e4 24.c3 cxd5
whose main explanatory line goes 1 7 ... lLlxh5 25 . .ic4! lLlf6 and now 26.'lWe3 or 26.g4!?), and
1 8.g4 lLlf4 1 9.'lWh4 h5 20.gxh5 lLlxh5 2 1 .'lWg5 here the prophylactic 23.b3! ? can be suggested
�ad8 22.�xh5 �xdl t 23.@xdl 'lWd8t 24 ..id3 for White (who has at least five or six other
gxh5 25 .'lWxh5 �e7 26.'lWh4 @fS 27.lLlf6!+-.) possibilities to consider) . 23 ... lLl e6 (or 23 ... 'lWg5
Now 1 7.h5 ! brought some fantastic results 24 . .ie3! with the idea 24 ... he4?! 25 ..ic4t .id5
for White in recent correspondence games. 26.�xd5) 24 . .ie3 lLld4 25.exd5 cxd5 26.hd4!?
62 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
exd4 27.Wld2. White plans to continue 28 . .td3 1 9.h5 !?, when 19 ... g5 transposes to Psakhis
with a lasting positional advantage. - Vasiukov, Vilnius (USSR Ch) 1 980, which
Finally we can go on with 1 5 ... h6. is known to be good for White. So, 1 9 . . . gxh5
1 6.g4 (A cooperative line is 1 9 ... he4?! 20.fxe4 g5
2 1 ..tc4 .tfS 22 ..txf8 l:!xf8 23.,&d6!±, collecting
a pawn. After 1 9 . . . f5 20.gxf5 gxf5 2 1 .lt:Jd6 l:!fS
22.l:!gl cj,Jh8 White can try 23.lt:Jc4!? ) 20.gxh5
cj,Jh8 2 1 .lt:Jd6!? (the alternative is 2 1 .l:!gl .tfS!?
22.lt:J f6 hc5 23.Wlxc5) 2 1 .. .l:!ed8 22.lt:Jf5 .tf6!
23 . .ta6!? with somewhat better chances. Note
that 23.c4?! .te6 24 . .td6? fails to 24 ... .txf5 !
25 .hc7 lt:J e2t! 2 6. .txe2 .tg5t.
17.g5!
Another way to fix the kingside pawns: 1 7.h5
g5 , now occurs rarely. 18 ..tc4 l:!ed8 1 9 .WI£2 a5
20.a4 l:!ab8 2 1 .l:!d2 f5 gave Black reasonable
counterplay in Ye Jiangchuan - Zhu Chen,
Beijing 1 997.
1 7 ... h5 1 8.ic4!
1 6 . . . �c7 1 8 . .td6 Wlb6 1 9 . .tc5 is the typical way to
The alternatives are: make a draw against a stronger opponent.
16 .. J:!b8?! 1 7.g5 ! h5 1 8 . .tc4 and 1 8 ... Wlc7 1 8 .. .l:!ed8
1 9 ..td6 wins an exchange for White. After 16 ... a5 Or 1 8 ... l:!ad8 1 9 .WI£2!, and Black's rook on
17.g5 h5, then 1 8.a4 (with a probable transfer e8 is not so useful, while White attacks the a7-
to our featured game after 1 8 ... Wlc7 19 . .tc4 l:!ed8 pawn already.
20.WI£2) is more precise in Z. Almasi's opinion 1 9.�:f2!
than 1 8 . .tc4 which allows 18 ... a4!?
1 6 ... f5 ? ! 1 7.gxf5 gxf5 1 8.lt:Jd6 followed
by 1 9.1:!hgl is much better for White.
16 . . . lt:Jf4!?, planning 17 . . ..td5 is Black's
serious alternative. There are other moves,
but most often White answers with 1 7.Wlc3.
After 1 7 . . . .td5 (worse is 1 7 ... Wlc7?! 1 8 . .td6! or
1 7 ... lt:Jd5 1 8 .'&a3 ! ? with pressure) , White faces
an important choice: 1 8.g5 h5! 1 9.'&a3 '&c7
20.lt:Jf6t hf6 2 1 .gxf6 l:!ad8 22 . .te7 l:!d7 23.l:!h2
l:!dxe7! ? 24.fxe7 Wlxe7! , Demetrio - Donnelly,
corr. 200 1 was examined in great detail in issue
78 of Internet Magazine Correspondence Chess
News, with the verdict of acceptable for Black.
1 8.h5 ! ? f5 1 9.gxf5 gxf5 20.lt:Jd6 l:!e6! 2 1 .l:!gl '&f6
22.Wla3 l:!d8 23.lt:Jb7!? l:!d7 24.lt:Ja5 l:!e8 25.c4 The critical position for 16 . . . h6 (which, at
.te6 26.lt:Jxc6 l:!xdl t 27.cj,Jxdl (Van Kempen - least statistically, is the main line of the entire
Gupta, corr. 1 99 1 ) is too complex and risky to 9.0-0-0 Dragon) . White plans to develop his
be suggested for White, even if he is better here. hI rook, and improve his position step by step:
So I leave it as it is, and go on with 1 8 .Wla3 ! ? .ta3, with a possible invasion of the knight on
'&c7 (Black has nothing better) . Now I propose c5 , is one typical method. Experience shows
The Dragon 63
that it is extremely difficult for Black to hold 25.E1xf2 f5! 26.gxf6 if8! 27.E1fd2 ih6 Gyimesi
the position by passive defence. Instead, his - Schutt, corr. 1997. I vote for 2 1 .E1xd8t!? E1xd8
only constructive idea is ... ttJ f4, which can be 22.E1dl (not 22.ha7? E1a8 with the idea 23.ib6
played at once or in the next few moves (after 'f/!jb7! 24.a3 Ei:b8-+) 22 ... E1xdl t (22 ... E1d5?!
E1d2 and E1hd l it would be too late) . Then 23.ixa7) 23.@xdU and it is not easy for Black
... ttJ f4 is followed by a strategic struggle, where to solve his problems. For example, 23 ... �a5
the availability of squares on the d-file for the 24.a3 ttJxc5 25.�xc5 �xc5 26.ttJxc5 f6 27.ttJe6!
opponent's pieces is especially important. Black fxg5 28.hxg5 h4 29.@e2 e4 30.fxe4 hb2 3 1 .a4±
has more weaknesses than White, which ensures Korneev - Komljenovic, Alcobendas 1 994.
an edge for the first player. 20.a4 ¥;Vb? 21 .�hel!?
1 9 ... a5 Apart from this move of Ehlvest, reasonable
Provoking a4, which will give Black some also is 2 1 .b3!?, preparing 2 1 ...ttJf4 22.ixe6
attacking chances if White later plays carelessly. ttJxe6 23.E1xd8t E1xd8 24.ib6! as in Z.Almasi -
At the same time ... a5 allows White to fix this Watson, Bundesliga 1994/5.
pawn on a dark square, weakens the b6-square The continuation 2 1 .E1d2 ttJf4! 22.he6 ttJxe6
and restricts the possibilities of the black queen. 23.id6 (23.E1xd8t E1xd8 24.ib6?? E1d8) 23 ... ttJd4
The alternatives are: 24.E1hd l E1xd6! 25.ttJxd6 �b4 26.ttJe4 E1b8 27.c3
1 9 ... E1d7 20.E1d2 E1ad8 2 1 .E1hdl and there is no ttJb3t 28.@c2 �xa4 29.Ei:d8t E1xd8 30.E1xd8t
obvious continuation of Black's plan (Popovic - @h7 3 1 .@b l �al t with a draw in Palac - Kolev,
Georgiev, Vrsac 1 987) . If 2 1 ...ttJf4 (2 1 ...a5 22.a4 Skopje 2002, illustrates what should be avoided.
ttJf4? 23.ib6), then 22.he6!±. 21...�ab8
1 9 ...�b7 20.E1he l ! ? ttJf4 (20 ... @h7?! 2 1 .b3 After the immediate 2 1 ...ttJf4 22.ixe6 ttJxe6
'f/!jc7 22.a4 if5 23.ia3 with pressure, Lupulescu White has 23.id6!? E1d7 (23 ... ttJd4 24.£4! or
- Golubev, Bucharest 2003. White's main ideas 23 ... c5 24.ixc5!) 24.�g3 ! '
are ib2 and ttJc5, and 23 ... ttJ b6 24.id6 �c8 is 22.b3
answered not by 25 .ixf7?! �b7, but by 25 .�c5 !) 22.ib3 !? (Ehlvest) is the typical alternative for
2 1 .he6 ttJxe6 22.id6 E1d7 (22 ... ttJd4? 23.f4!) White.
23.E1d2!? E1ad8 24.E1edU is akin to the 1 9 ... ttJf4 22 ... tLlf4
line. Two possible waiting moves are 22 ... @h8
19 ... ttJf4!? 20.he6 ttJxe6 is important. (Marin) and 22 ... @h7. In either case quite
a logical continuation seems to be 23.E1d2
(22.ia3 is also an option) 23 ... ttJ f4 24.he6
ttJxe6 25 .id6!? Now either version of Black's
exchange sacrifice (25 . . . E1xd6 or 25 ... ttJ d4)
would hardly work well for him, while after
25 ... E1bc8 White will at least have 26.ttJ c5 ! ?
with a positional advantage.
23.ixe6 tLlxe6 24.tLlf6t!?
Such an exchange of the knight for the bishop
is always a major decision for White. Even
if he wins the e5-pawn (which is usually the
aim of ttJf6t), Black can sometimes organize
counterplay, using his queen and knight duo.
But, importandy, here the black queen cannot
be activated easily.
Not so convincing now is 2 1 . id6!? �b6!, Also possible is 24.id6!?
aiming for 22.c3 Ei:d7 23.E1d2 E1ad8 24.E1hd l �xf2 24...hf6 25.gxf6 �d5
64 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
2 1 ...ics (similarly discouraging is 2 1 . . .hc2 Morozevich in 2000. 1 5 .�b l if5 . Now White
22.llJa6! -Van der Wiel. 22 ... llJ d3t 23.�xc2 can obtain a relatively small advantage in two
llJxe 1 t 24.�xe l where Black must follow with ways: 1 6.id3 llJxc3t ( 1 6 ... llJe3 ! ? 1 7.g3 '!Wxf3
24 ... �acS and await his fate) 22.�e5 !?, etc. Van I S .ie2 ixc2t 19.�c l ! ixd l , and now possibly
der Wiel - Golubev, Germany 1 999. 20.�xd l ! ? '!Wf2 2 1 .�fl '!Wxh2 22.'!Wxe3 with an
14.�c5 initiative.) 1 7.'!Wxc3, and 1 6.llJe2!?
I cannot expect that every reader will have He can also take on d5, which involves
time to study two or more complex directions in some risk but seems to be the most principled:
full detail. So this move, as a result of a hard and 1 6.llJxd5 cxd5 1 7.'!Wxd5 (not 1 7.'!Wxe7? ixc2t
uncertain choice, is my main recommendation I S.�xc2 '!Wa4t 1 9.�d2 �acS! 20.id3 '!Wa5t
for White. 2 1 . �e2 �feS-+ Alterman) 17 ... �abS and here:
14.ic4, twice used by Shirov against Fedorov, a) I S.'!Wd4? is refuted by I S ... hc2t!
is no weaker but more complex. Then 14 ... llJ b6 (Alterman) 19.�xc2 �fcSt 20.�bl �cl t.
is Black's most popular move, when White b) After I S.�d4?! Black gets good play by
can fight for the initiative in various ways. I S ... '!Wc7 or I S . . . '!We3 - Alterman.
Shirov played 1 5 .ie2! ? ( l 5 .ib3 c5 !), trying c) I s .ic4 '!Wc7! ( I S ... ie6?! 1 9.'!Wd4 '!Wxd4
to underline the drawbacks of Black's passive 20.�xd4 �b4 2 1 .b3 ixc4 is refuted by 22.a3 !±
knight retreat. Alternatively, White can allow Balje - Nagley, corr. 1 999) 19.ib3 ( l 9.b3??
... llJxc4, because such an exchange cannot be ie6) 19 ... �bdS ! , and here a draw was agreed
called a strategic achievement for Black. Instead in Z. Almasi - Georgiev, Cacak 1 996. White
of 14 ... llJ b6, Black can play actively with could fight for something by 20.'!Wb5 �xd l t
14 ... e5 !? 1 5 .'!Wd2 (after 1 5 .'!Wc5?! llJxc3, (20 ... '!Wxh2 2 1 .g4 icS 22.�de l !?) 2 1 .�xdl '!Wxh2
16.'!Wxc3 is no longer possible) 1 5 ... ie6. Here 22.g4!?, but it looks rather double-edged.
1 6.llJe4 �adS! ? (after 1 6 ... �abS 17.h4 Black has d) I do not see a convincing way for Black to
more problems) 17.llJc5 ! ? looks slightly better obtain full compensation after I S.b3!?
for White. e) Worthy of attention is I S .'!Wd2!? For
White's reasonable options also include the example, I S ... '!We5 (An alternative is I S ... '!Wa4
rare moves 14.h4 and 14.g3 ! ? 1 9.id3 �fdS 20.�he l ixd3 2 1 .cxd3 when
1 4 tDxc3
•.. it is not so easy for White to convert his extra
The principled alternative is 1 4 ... '!Wf4 t. Kiril pawn.) 1 9.b3 �fdS ( l 9 ... a5 20.g4! ie6 2 1 .£4
Georgiev successfully used this move against followed by 22.f5 ! . ) 20.'!WxdSt �xdS 2 1 .�xdSt
Almasi in 1 996, but did not repeat it against �g7 and now not 22.id3 '!Wa5 ! but 22.�d l ! .
66 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
24 ... e6
The alternative 24 ... Elbd8!? 25 .hd5 'lWxd5
would hardly resolve all Black's problems:
26.Eldl ! 'lWg5 (or 26 ...'lWxd l t 27.Elxd l Elxd l t
28.�b2, winning one o f Black's pawns) 27.Elxd7
16.h4!? (rather than 27.'lWxd8t Elxd8 28.Elxd8t �g7
White is aimIng to create weaknesses in 29.g4 c4!?) 27 ... Elxd7 28.'lWa6!?, and it seems
Black's kingside. that after 28 ... Eld8 (28 ... e5 !?) 29.'lWxa7 'lWxg2
16 .. J�fdB 30.Ele l 'lWxf3 3 1 .'lWxc5 e6 32.a4 White's pawns
1 6 ... ha2?! 1 7.b3 a5 1 8.h5! favours White. should be faster. e.g. 32 ... Eld5 33.'lWc7 'lWf2
For example 1 8 ... g5 1 9.h6 e5 20.i.c4 and after 34.Elhl �g7 35 .'lWc3t! 'lWd4 36.'lWxd4t Elxd4
20 ... a4 2 1 .Eld7! 'lWxd7 22.'lWxe5 Black is mated 37.a5 f5 38.�b2, etc.
on g7. 2S ..ixdS exdS
17 . .id3 cS I B.hS �f4t 19.�bl �d4 20.hxg6 Better than 25 ... 'lWxd5?! 26.Ele4± (or 26.Eldl I?),
hxg6 2 1 .�aS! or 25 ... Elxd5?! 26.'lWxa7.
Black's king is potentially vulnerable and 26.:gdl !
White rightly avoids the exchange of queens. White removes his rook from one of the open
With the same idea, weaker would be 2 1 .'lWe l files that he controlled - it is more important to
(Kurnosov - Solovjov, St Petersburg 2004) disturb Black's centralised queen! 26.Elh3 would
because of 2 1 . .. Elab8 22.b3 c4! . have been premature as 26 ... 'lWb4! forces a queen
2 1 ...ElabB exchange.
Not 2 1 ...'lWb4? 22.'lWc7!. 2 1 .. .Eld7 22.Elde l 26 ...�b4 27.�a6!
could transpose to the game after 22 ... Elb8 Black should have been able to defend the
23.b3. endgame after 27.'lWxb4 cxb4! , but not 27 ... Elxb4
22.h3 :gd7! 28.c4 d4 29.Elhe l ! .
It is hard to propose a better move: 22 ... c4? 27 ...�b6?
23.i.e2 Or: 22 . . . Eld6? 23.�xa7. In the game Only here does Black go dearly wrong.
Black wishes to exchange queens by 23 ... 'lWb4. 27 ... �g7? loses to 28.Elh7t! ! �xh7 29.'lWf6.
23.:gdel! .idS! After 27 ... 'lWc3 White wins the pawn by
23 ...'lWb4 loses a pawn after 24.'lWxb4 cxb4 28.'lWc6 c4 29.Elxd5. The continuation 27 ... 'lWf4
25.hg6!, as well as 23 ... c4 24.i.xc4! hc4 28.Elh3 !? (28.'lWc6 'lWd6 29.'lWxd6 Elxd6 30.c4;1;)
(24 ... 'lWxc4? 25 .'lWe5) 25 .Ele4. 28 ... c4 29.Eldhl 'lWd4 30.'lWc6 Elbd8 allows Black
24. .ie4! to maintain the material balance, but having
The Dragon 67
passive rooks and an unsafe king his chances for This move is linked with a similar concept to
survival are uncertain. 1 2 ... �xd4: Black limits his ambitions and goes
28.Wfa4! for exchanges, aiming to defend a slightly worse
A kind of fork: the d7 rook is attacked and position.
White gains time to transfer his queen to the 13.Wfxc3 �h6t!
kingside. 13 ... �xd4?! 14.E1xd4 �b6 and now 1 5 .h4! ?
28 ...Wfd8 i s the most direct. 1 5 . . . �e6 ( l 5 . . . h5 1 6J�e4
Otherwise 29.�h4 would have been decisive. �e6 1 7.g4 �d5 1 8.E1e3 hxg4 1 9 .h5 with an
29.Wff4! attack, Brkic - Baric, Bizovac 2003.) 1 6.h5 E1fd8
With two threats: 30.�h6 and 30.�h2. 1 7.E1dh4!? ( l 7.E1xd8t E1xd8 1 8.hxg6 forcing the
White's attack seems to be unstoppable. weakening 1 8 ... fxg6 is also interesting.) 17 ... g5
29 .. J�b4 30.Wfe5 1 8.h6 f6 1 9.E1e4 with a dangerous initiative,
Even simpler was 30.�h6! �f6 3 1 .E1de l !+-. Linford - Pym, England 2003.
30 f6 3 1 .Wfe6t \t>g7 32.Wfh3!
•.. 14.�e3
Black could continue his suffering for a few 14.mb l ?? loses the bishop after 14 ... e5 ! .
more moves, but he blundered his rook by 14 ...�xe3t 1 5.Wfxe3 Wfb6!
32 ...Wfg8?? The best chance.
and immediately resigned. Still, the game was
very well played until Black's understandable
mistake on the 27th move. It gives us an example
of White's optimal strategy in positions with
Black's weakened queens ide pawn structure: to
open a second front on the kingside, in accordance
with the "Principle of two weaknesses".
1-0
Game 1 7
Rowson - Mah
Birmingham 1 999
22.hc4 E:fcS 23.�d3 with an extra pawn) Gamlitz 1 995. Perhaps White was worried that
1 9.�xb4 E:xb4 20.b3, and in this endgame Black would be able to claim compensation
Black will suffer greatly. after 23 ... �d5, but the continuation 24.h4 �a2
The idea of offering a pawn sacrifice by 25 .�c3 clearly favours White.
1 5 ... �b6 attracted attention in 1 990, after Boris After 16 ... �e6 Black's main threat is
Alterman employed it in a game against Sergei 17 ... �e3t! with a guaranteed draw following
Tiviakov. This stem game was followed by active l S.E:d2 ( 1 S.r;t>b l ?? �t) I S ... �e 1 t.
discussion. Later, Kasparov's win with White 17.YlYa3!
over Topalov in 1 995 delivered a psychological The most solid continuation.
blow to the supporters of this line. The objective
theoretical evaluation of the line is similar to
that of 1 2 ... hd4: a slight advantage and almost
no risk for the first player.
16.YlYxe7!
Accepting the offer. Black now obtains a slight
initiative, which does not fully compensate for
the pawn. Less principled is 1 6.�c3! ? �e6 1 7.h4
E:fdS I S.�d3 with a small plus, when I S ... �e3t
1 9.r;t>bl c5 20.h5 �d4, which transposes to
Balinov - Velickovic, does not look like Black's
best choice. 1 6.Wxb6 axb6 (Tiviakov - Alterman,
Sochi 1 990) 1 7�c4!? b5 1 8�b3 c5 1 9�d5 E:a7
is acceptable for Black according to Alterman &
Vaisman.
16 ....ie6! 17 .. JUd8
The alternatives include:
1 7 ... E:ab8 can be answered well by I S.�d3.
1 7 ... a5 IS.�d3 �b4 1 9.�e4 (Not 1 9.Wxb4
axb4 20.a3 bxa3 2 1 .b3 c5, preparing
... c4.) 1 9 ... Wxa3 20.bxa3 E:a6 (Schneider
recommended 20 ... E:ab8 2 1 .hc6 ha2
22.�e4! E:fcS but after 23.r;t>d2! Black has no
compensation) 2 1 .E:d6 E:cS 22.E:hd l . White is
likely to exchange bishops by 23.�d5 on the
next move, and Black's life will be hard. GM
Tolnai tried to defend the Black side as many
as three times, and his two draws with one loss
looks like quite a good result.
1 7 ... �f2, and after 1 S.h4!? E:fdS I 9.�d3 �xg2
20.h5 �xf3 ! Black probably should be able to
16 ... E:bS puts little pressure on White. 1 7. �f6 defend his king in further complications. Instead,
�e6 (If 1 7 ... Wf2? I S .�d4! forces an exchange I S .�a5 , taking control of dS, is a common
of queens, and 1 7 ... �f5 is parried by IS.�d3!') move for White. After lS ... E:abS ( I S ... �f5 ! ?
I S .�c3! E:fdS 1 9.E:xdSt E:xdS 20.�d3 (20. 1 9.�d2 �c5 20.�d3! (Pupo considers 20.�c3
h4! ?) 20 ... Wf2 2 1 .Wd2 Wd4 22.E:dl E:d7 (not �xc3 2 1 .bxc3 �e6 22.c4;l;, which does not look
22 ...�? 23.�e4! and White is winning) 23.a3. like a winning endgame) 20 ... E:fdS 2 1 .r;t>bl
Here the draw was agreed in Brod - Bonstingl, �xd3 22.cxd3 and Black has problems) White
The Dragon 69
l S ... �dS
After IS . . . cS, 1 9 .�e2! ? transposes to the
Kasparov - Topalov game, which continued
1 9 ... c4 20.f4! E1d4 2 1 .E1xd4 �xd4 22.g3±.
Instead, 1 9.h4 c4 20.�e4 E1acS 2 1 .hS (Arnold
- Bozinovic, Vienna 2003) 2 1 . . . f5 ! ? is complex
and, most likely, not bad for Black.
1 9.�hel!?
White proceeds by analogy with the
a) 1 9.�c3 E1cS 20.�f6 �xa2 looks playable Kasimdzhanov - Alterman game.
for Black: 2 1 .h4 (or 2 1 .E1he 1 �dS, planning Other approaches are:
22 ... E1aS, Pelletier - Berndt, Germany Bundesliga a) 1 9.�c3 E1cS 20.�f6 �xa2 2 1 .E1he l �aS ! ?
1999) 2 1 ...E1bS!? (after 2 1 ...E1aS White can try and Black i s probably alive. After 2 1 . . .�dS? !
22.b3 !?) 22.hS (22.E1he l ! ? can lead to a total the small difference with the Pelletier - Berndt
mess, e.g. 22 ... �aS 23.hS �xhS 24.b3 E1cS game allows White to win a crucial tempo:
2S.�al ) and 22 ... E1xhS ! equalizes. 22.�e7 E1aS 23.b3 �b4 24.E1de l ! E1f8 2S .�eS!
b) 1 9.b3 E1fdS will be considered via the move with advantage, Flores - Ballesteros, corr.
order 1 7 ... E1fdS. 1 997.
c) I suggest 1 9.E1he l E1aS 20.�c3 E1xa2 2 1 .b3 b) 1 9.b3 E1adS 20.E1he l as (maybe Black
�aS ! 22.l!ib2!? (Rogozenko), with a slight could try 20 .. �f5 !?) 2 1 .�e7 E1 Sd7 (or 2 1 . . .a4
advantage. Note that 2 1 . ..�aS? ! 22.�xaS E1xaS 22.E1xe6 fx:e6 23.�xe6t I!ig7 24.�e7t I!ih6
and now, according to Rogozenko 23.l!ib2 gives 2S.E1e l ) 22.�f6 a4 23.E1e4 axb3 24.axb3
an unpleasant endgame for Black. 23 ... E1hS and White's chances are preferable, Furlan -
24.h3 as and now 2S .�e4 �dS, Kasimdzhanov Gomboc, Ljubljana 1 995.
- Alterman, Bad Wiessee 1 997 where White has c) Curious is also 1 9.E1de 1 ! ? (as in Van den
26.E1de l !? - Rogozenko, or perhaps even better Doel-Zomer, Vlissingen 2002) .
is 2S .�e4!? 1 9 ... �a5 20.�c3 �xa2 2 1 .b3 c5?
70 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
Better is 2 1 ...l"1a5 22.'it>b2 with a slight Certainly not 26.'it>b2?? �a3 mate.
advantage for White. If 22 . . . l"1b8 (threatening 26 ... Wld6t 27.Wld3 Wlf4t 28.We2
to win by 23 . . . l"1c5 ! ) , then 23.l"1xe6! ? (not and Black admitted defeat.
23.hg6? l"1c5 24.�d3 l"1d5 !) 23 ... fxe6, and here 1-0
The Sveshnikov Yakovich (who wrote a book on the opening
for Gambit, which is great despite some Haws) ,
McShane, and the latest addition, the world's
- By Jacob Aagaard youngest grandmaster, Magnus Carlsen. To give
a strong recommendation against an opening
that is favoured by such a group of outstanding
grandmasters is by no means easy. Still it is
possible to give some useful practical advice
on where to look for an advantage and some
indication of where the most recent successful
assaults on this solid defence have been made.
The main line I have chosen against the
Sveshnikov ( 1 1 .c3 and 12.exf5) is in many ways
the most practical, as well as being objectively a
strong line, as it does not allow Black to choose
between two main lines, as he can against I I .id3.
The main game, Hector - Carlsen, clearly proves
that Black needs to find a different way to treat
this position, as the very simple harmonious set
Note to the updated edition: In the almost up demonstrated by the Swedish grandmaster
two years since the first edition came out, the brought the Norwegian boy wonder real troubles.
line I suggested has been tried out at the highest The solution chosen by Carlsen was a desperate
level and discussed in many sources, mainly bishop sacrifice, which ultimately brought him
Rogozenko's sublime The Sveshnikov Reloaded. the draw, but white's play could be improved.
Though my belief that White has an advantage After l .e4 c5 2.lDa lDc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lDxd4
in the main line does not seem to have been lDf6 5.lDc3 e5 6.lDdb5 d6 we have the standard
confirmed, this line still holds great practical position of the Sveshnikov Sicilian. Here the
value. main choice for a long time has been 7.ig5 a6
At top level there has been a heavy shift towards s.lDa3 b5 when White can either choose 9.lDd5
9.tUd5 instead of exchanging on f6, where Black or the sharper move, creating weaknesses on the
is ever so slightly worse, but suffering quite a Black kingside: 9.ixf6 gxf6 10.lDd5 f5
bit. This is possible to make quite a number of In this position Black could also play 10 . . . ig7
people depart from playing the Sveshnikov in with the idea of tUc6-e7, but if White answers
the future. 1 1 .c3 then Black cannot avoid transposition, as
Below I have added a few updates to the his only fully playable move is 1 1 . . . f5 .
original chapter, but in essence left it as it was. Now after 1 1 .c3 .ig7 12.exf5 .ixf5 13.lDc2
Black can choose between different ways to
It is almost impossible to describe the huge play this position. There is 13 . . . ie6 with the
changes the Sveshnikov has undergone since I idea of a quick tUc6-e7 to exchange a knight on
wrote a small book on it for Cadogan in the late d5 . White will in this case play 14.g3 ! , a move
90s. A great contribution to this opening has made main line. The idea is to recapture with
been delivered by players such as Kramnik, Leko, the bishop instead of the knight on d5, as the
Kasparov and Shirov, as well as lesser known exchange of bishops would favour White; partly
grandmasters, but still experts on the opening in because it eliminates the bishop pair, but also
their own right, like Rogozenko (who published because of light squared weaknesses in the Black
a CD for Chessbase with the opening, as well as camp, and because the white knight would do
writing various articles for different magazines) , little good on d5.
72 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
Usually these days Black does not play this and thereby challenged his strong opponents to
but 13 0-0 14.tDce3 .le6. Here 14 . . . .ig6!?
• • • show why it is untenable.
is an interesting alternative, popularised by 9.tDc4 l:!c8
Leko and not so easy to meet. The main point 9 . . ..ie7 1 0 . .ixf6±
is 1 5.h4 .ie4! when Black has provoked White 10.tDd5 hd5 1 l .ixf6! •
into weakening his kingside. However, the main This point is what gives White the advantage.
line is still 14 . . . .ie6, when I suggest following Now the light squares are too weak to be justified
continuation: 1 5 ..id3 f5 1 6.0-0 l:!a7 17.a4! by a Heeting initiative.
1 1 . gxf6 12.Wlxd5
••
in Matulovic - Simic, Yoguslavia 1 9S0. Now I S .tLlxd6t @d7 ( l S ... @e7 16.\1;Ifxf7t @xd6
strongest was 20JMff5 @e7 2 1 ..ib3±) 20.Ek2 17.gdlt+-) 16.Wxf7t Only one of several
@e7 2 1 .@e2± Schandorff - Morovic Fernandez, winning moves. 16 ... @c6 ( 1 6 ... @xd6 17.gdlt+-)
Copenhagen 1 9S2.) 1 9 ... .id6 ( 1 9 . . . .icS 20.b3 17.\1;Ifb7t @cS ( l 7 ... @xd6 I S.gdl t+-) IS.gdl
hf2 is possible, and probably best answered tLlxc2t 19.@e2 tLld4t 20.gxd4! exd4 2 1 .\1;IfdSt
by 2 1 ..ixa6± when White's advantage is beyond @b6 (2 1 ...@b4 22.\1;Ifb3t +-) 22.tLlxcSt WxcS
question. However the tempting 2 1 .\1;Iff5? did 23.Wxd4t @as 24.@f3 and White went on to
not work because of 2 1 . ..gxc4! 22.bxc4 \1;Ifb2t win in Smagin - Kharlov, Cheliabinsk 1 99 1 .
23.@f3 .id4 24.\WcSt @e7 2S .\1;Ifc7t @f8 1 3. . .tLle7 14.\1;Ifd3 ( l4.\1;Ifb7 \1;IfaSt I S .c3 gc7
26.\WcSt and White has no more than a draw, 16.b4 gxb7 17.bxaS .ih6 IS.tLlg4 .ig7 19.a4±
Y2-Y2 Filipenko - Sveshnikov, USSR 1 9S0.) Murey - Jamieson, Luzern 19S2.) 14 ... .ih6
20.b3 (20 ..ib3 @e7 2 1 .ghc l gcS 22.gxcS (l4 ... gc6 I S . .ie2 hS 16.0-0 .ih6 17.tLldS tLlxdS
\1;IfxcS 23.gdl \1;IfbSt 24.@f3 \1;IfcS 2S.g3± Bhend IS.\1;IfxdS gxc2 19 . .ixhS± Smirnov - Pilavov,
- Svedenborg, Lugano (01) 1 965) 20 . . . ggS AIushta 200 1 .) I S . .ie2 he3 1 6.fXe3t Korneev
2 1 .gacl @e7 22.g4 hS 23.h3 hxg4 24.hxg4 ggS - Hernandez Montalvo, Padron 2002.
2S . .id3 gcgS 26.gc6 \1;IfbS 27.gh4+- Yastreb - b) 12 ... f5!? is the newest attempt in this
Moskovets, Alushta 2002. White is winning position. After 13.0-0-0 bS 14.tLle3 .ih6
here. Black has no counterplay and is simply a I S .@b l White is simply better. I S . . . he3
pawn down for nothing. 1 6.fXe3 fXe4 1 7.\1;Ifxe4 \Wc7 I S .g3 ! A nice move
b) 16 . . . \1;IfxdSt 1 7.@cl Black cannot regain that exploits the weak structure. I S ... tLle7
his piece as is seen in the following brilliant 1 9 . .ih3 gdS 20.\1;Ifg4 ggS 2 1 .\WhS± AI Sayed -
example. 17 ... bS ( 1 7 . . . 0-0 I S .a3 and White has Sveshnikov, Dubai 2004.
won this position in several games, one of them 13.id3
being Anka - Tomcsanyi, Hungary 1 995) I S.a3 13.0-0-0!? with the idea of gxd4! has also
.ie7 1 9.tLld6t @d7 20.tihcS gxcS 2 1 ..ixbSt been played, but the text move simply assures
\1;IfxbS 22.gdl t .id6 23.gxd6t @xd6 24.\1;IfxcS the edge without any problems.
\1;Iffl t 2S.@c2 \1;Ifxal 26.\1;Ifxa6t+- Berndt - Thiel, 13 ...\We7 14.\WaS �xc4?!
Germany 1 995. This does not work tactically for many
Another attempt is 1 2 ... bS 13.tLle3. reasons.
14 ... dS does not promise Black any happiness.
I S .tLlb6 \1;IfcS 1 6.\1;IfxcS gxcS 1 7.c3! As so often
in this line Black's sick structure is so important
that White only focuses on containment of the
black forces. 1 7 ...dxe4 I S.he4 tLlc6 19.0-0-0±
.ih6t 20.@b l gbS 2 1 .tLlc4 0-0 22.tLld6 gb6
23.tLlf5 1-0 Balinov - Hausrath, Budapest
1 999.
14 ... gcS I S .\1;Ifd2 \Wc7 1 6.c3 tLl e6 1 7.tLle3 .ih6
IS.0-0t Varavin - Kharlov, Elista 1 994.
1 5.ixc4 12Jxc2t 16.';t>e2 12Jxa1 17.�cl!!±
Was this direct assault on the king something
Kharlov had overlooked in his home analysis? My
computer still has problems finding it, 6 years of
technological advance after the game. Even after
Now Black has tried: this move it takes time for the machine to see
a) 1 3 . . . .ih6? does not work because of that something is terribly wrong.
the following tactical solution. 14.tLlf5! tLlb4 17 ih6
.•.
74 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
What else? 1 7 . . . fS 1 8.exfS WfgS is the best 20. �xfS ! ?, which I do not consider critical
option for Black according to the computer. But at all. I just liked the game and would rather
with some human assistance, it is possible for include a few more moves than have one game
the machine to find the following nice winning going on for 8 pages or so.
attack. 19.�bSt rJ:ie7 2o.Wfclt rJ:if6 2 1 .Wfd8t
rJ:ixfS 22.�d3t rJ:ig4 23.Wfdlt fS (23 . . . rJ:ihS Game 1 9
24.Wfxf7t rJ:ih6 2S.Wfe6t rJ:ihS 26.l''1c4 +-) And Zeleic - Zelenika
now a move that takes only a few seconds for Pula 1 999
the machine to find.
l .e4 cS 2.1L1f3 lLl c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.1L1xd4 1Llf6
S.lLlc3 eS 6.1L1dbS d6 7.�gS a6 s.lLla3 bS
9.�xf6 gxf6 10.1L1d5 f5
1 O ... �g7 1 1 .c3 fS is nothing but a transposition
of moves after 12.exfS . Note that Black cannot
play his standard idea of 1 1 ...1L1e7?! here, as
White gets the advantage with 1 2.1L1xe7 Wfxe7
13.ctJc2± when Black cannot play his regular
push on the kingside because of a simple double
threat: 13 ... fS?! 14.exfS �xfS? I S .Wff3+-
1 1 .c3
1 6.h4! ie4 17.�xa4. The point behind 1 5 .a4, at White has promising play according to Dorian
least when I played it. 17 ... hd5 I s.lLlxd5 lLl e7 Rogozenko. Dorian clearly favours 17.�h5.]
1 9.ic4t) 16.lLlxb4! Obviously White does not I think White gets the advantage after 1 7.ic2!
want to accept a strong knight on d4. 16 ... lLlxb4 when the move . . . gbS has done very little for
17.cxb4 e4?! ( 1 7 ... f5!? is the way forward for Black, while White has ideas of �h5 and ib3,
Black. Previously I recommended I s.ic4 WhS both with advantage for White. Thanks to
19.id5 for White, but a lower league Danish Thomas Luther for this advice.
game questioned this optimism. For now let's 16 ... lLle7? loses in a very famous way to
say that the ball is in White's court.) I S .�d2! f5 1 7.lLlxe7t �xe7 I s.ixf5 ! ixf5 19.1Llxf5 :Bxf5
19.1Lld5 WhS 20.ie2 iO 2 1 .0-0± and Black has 20.�d5t+-.
no other path forward than to enter a horrible 16 ... WhS!? has been played several times, and
position with opposite coloured bishops. Baklan is bound to become more popular if the attack
- Lobron, Germany 200 1 . on the 16 ... ga7 line by De Firmian and Hector
14 ie6 1 5 .id3 f5 16.0-0
..• . continues to be successful. However White
1 6.ic2 was for some time considered the seems to be able to create real problems for
way to play this line, but Black eventually came Black in this line as well, though the last word
up with a forced draw with 1 6 . . . f4 17.�h5 is far, far away (no, not in that sci-fi movie!).
gO I s.ixh7t WfS 1 9 .if5 �eS ! ( 1 9 ... gxf5? 17.�h5 Now Black has two choices, neither of
20.lLlxf5 hd5 2 1 .gd l ! +- Arnason - Birnboim, them fully satisfactory.
Beer-Sheva 1 9S7. The draw after 19 ... �eS was 17 ... iO I S.�h3 e4 1 9.ic2 lLle5 This was the
actually given by Arnason, but it took some way Illescas Cordoba played with Black against
time before it was played in tournament games.) Judit Polgar. Now Polgar blundered with 20.f3?!
20.ixe6 �xe6 2 1 .�g4 �h6! 22.lLlf5 (22.lLlc2?! after which Blackhad a strong manoeuvre in �g5 t
e4, the same goes for 22.0-0?! e4!) 22 ... �e6 followed by �d2 with good play. Instead White
23.lLlfe3= . should play 20.gfdl ixd5 [2006 - 20 . . . �g5 !?
2 1 .�xf5 lLlf3t! 22.Wh l ! �h4 seemed to equalise
in Elburg - Knebel, corr. 2004] 2 1 .:Bxd5 �f6
22.:Badl gadS 23.f4!. Probably preparation from
Topalov and his coach. After this there are many
ways for White to create real problems for Black.
23 ...exf3 24.lLlxf5 fxg2 25 .�xg2 (an interesting
alternative was 25.:B5d2!? :BgS 26.:Bxg2 lLlg6
27.:BfU) 25 ... ggS 26.Wh l (It seems that it was
possible to play 26.gxd6!? gxd6 27.:Bxd6 �O
2s.lLlg3 lLlc4 29.�e4 ie5 30.:Bh6 :Bg7 3 1 .Wg2t
when White has good chances.) 26 ... ifS 27.�h3
lLlg6 2s.lLld4 (2S.g5d4!? is very good for White
according to Fritz.) 2S ... geS 29.:Bh5 :Bg7 30.:Bgl
�O 3 1 .�f5 �b7t 32.�f3 �xf3t 33.lLlxf3 :Be6
34.lLld4 gf6 35.lLlf5 :Bc7 36.lLle3 lLlf4 37.:Bh4
1 6 ga7
... :BcO 3s.ib3 gg7 39.ghg4 :Bxg4 Y2-Y2 Topalov
This move seems logical and has been played - Leko, Monte Carlo 2003.
many times at the top level. However it is far 1 7 ... e4 I s.ic2 lLle7 1 9.9adl :BcS 20.f3
from the only move. (20.�h3 lLlxd5 [20 ... lLlg6 2 1 .ixe4!±] 2 1 .lLlxd5
1 6 . . . gbS 17.�h5 �d7 I S.gadl WhS 19.ic2 �eS!f± would lead nowhere ... ) 20 ... iO 2 1 .�h3
b400 was played in David - Manor, Bikurei lLlxd5 22.lLlxd5 b4?! Now instead of 23.fxe4 as
Haitim 1 997. [2006 - 19 . . . gbeS 20.gad l and in Anand - Topalov, Sofia 2004, White could
76 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
have claimed a clear advantage with 23.1WxfS ! ± Aarhus 1999 is my own sad experience with
Better i s the sad 2 2 . . . ixdS 23.E1xdS 1Wb6t this position.) 1 9.1WhS E1ff7 ( 1 9 ... ih8 20.if5
24.�hl 1We3 as advised by Rogozenko. 2S.lXe4 E1xfS 21 .liJxfS ixdS 22.E1fdl IiJxb4 23.E1acl if6
1Wxh3 26.gxh3 lXe4 27.E1xf8t E1xf8 28.ixe4 24.liJxd6!, Areshchenko - Holmsten, Cappelle
ieS 29.�g2t The endgame here looks like an la Grande 2003) 20.ixh7t �f8 2 1 .ifS E1xfS
easy draw. Still Black has a few problems. His 22.liJxfS ixdS 23.bS� Vallejo Pons - Shirov,
queenside pawns are slightly weaker and h7 France 2002.
is a potential target. Till something better is 17 .. .f4 18.1WhS ih8 ( l 8 ... E1ff7 19.ixh7t!? �fS
found, this at least should make the variation 20.ifS!± - Golubev) 19.ixh7t E1xh7 20.1Wg6t+-
unattractive for Black players, who will draw 1 9 17 ... e4 18.liJf4 if7 19.axbS±
and lose 1 games from this position. But at high 18.liJxe7t
level I think we will see a revival of 1 6 ... �h8. White has two alternatives, one cautious, and
1 6 ... e4 is discussed in Game No. 21 below. one wild and hot headed:
1 7.a4! 18.ic2!? IiJxdS 19.1iJxdS bxa4 20.E1xa4t is
certainly possible. Now after 20 ... �h8 2 1 .1Wd2
as 22.E1dl E1b7 23.b3 id7 24.E1a2 E1bS 2S.c4 E1cS
26.liJc3? Black was OK in Wedberg - Von Babr,
Stockholm 1999, but instead White could have
played 26.liJe3 E1f6 27.E1dal±.
1 8.axbS !? IiJxdS (18 ... f4?! 19.1iJxe7t E1xe7
20.1WhS+- Golubev-Horvath, Scuol 200 1 )
19.ic4! (inferior i s 1 9.ixf5?! E1xfS ! 20.liJxfS as ! !
2 1 .c4 IiJf4 22.liJxd6 ifS 23.cS [23.liJe4 1Wh4+]
23 ... E1d7! - Nijboer) 19 ... liJf4 20.ixe6t IiJxe6
21 .1WdSoo Topalov - Leko, Monte Carlo 2004.
18 .. J3xe7
18 ... 1Wxe7? 19.axbS axbS 20.E1xa7 1Wxa7
21 .ixbS Why not? In Navara - Hansen, Bled
2002. White also achieved a good game with
17.1WhS E1af7 has been played many times. The 2 1 .ic2, but this is more convincing. 2 1 . . .1WcS
conclusion is that Black is doing fine, so there is 22.ia4 f4 (22 ... dS 23.b4 1Wd6 24.ib3±)
no real reason to go further down this dead-end 23.ib3 !±
road. 19.axb5 axb5
I think that 17.a4 was actually an idea of co
author Golubev.
17 ... tt:le7
This move does not seem to offer Black
enough compensation for the pawn. However
the alternatives are also not recommendable.
1 7 ...bxa4 1 8.E1xa4 aSt Rogozenko. 19.1WhS e4
20.liJf4 if7 2 1 .ic4 ixc4 22.liJxc4 1Wd7 23.E1fal±
1-0 Kolcak-Kucinskas, e-mail 2002.
17 ... b4 also does not seem to be very promising.
1 8.cxb4 ( 1 8.1WhS e4 19.1iJf4 if7 20.ic4t -
Golubev) 18 .. .f4 ( 1 8 ... liJd4!? is unclear according
to Golubev. However this seems a bit superficial.
1 8 ... e4 19.1iJf4 if7 20.ic4± Pedersen - Aagaard,
The Sveshnikov 77
[23 ... f3 24.g3 �b8 25.c4;:1;] 24.ge l e4ao) c2 is a typical approach for modern chess. White
23 . . . �xd5 24.ct:Jxd5 Now the best option is believes that in spite of opponent's initiative, he
24 . . . @h8! (24 ... f3?! 25.gel fxg2 26.id3 gd8 will be able to defend the position and convert
27.ie4± Van Kempen - Arduman, e-mail his extra pawn. It is very likely that in the near
2000.) 25.f3;:1; Rogozenko. Staudler - Hohm, future such an approach will be considered
Corr. 1 999. Also worth looking at is 25.b4!? e4 correct, but in the present game White failed
26.c4 e3 27.ge l id4 28.@fl and White looks to prove it and he missed opponent's attacking
better here, doesn't he? ideas. In principle this is the main difference
All of the above is leftovers from the first between 22.gxe6 and 22. ct:J c2. While Anand's
edition. As so often theory was overtaken by decision is more ambitious and possibly even
practice, here with the game Anand - Leko, stronger, at the same time the price for possible
Wijk aan Zee 2005: mistakes is much higher."
2 1 . . . f4!? Norwegian GM Leif Erland Johannessen
In the first edition of this book I refused to defended the Black side of the endgame twice
take this move seriously, and I am still not too in 2005:
impressed with it. I think one important thing a) 24... @h8 25.f3 (25.ge l !? e4 26.b4 might
to remember is that Peter Leko has no problems be a better try for an advantage) 25 . . . e4 26.fxe4
going into a difficult position strai ght from the gxe4 27.b4 gd8 28.id3 ge3 29.ct:Jxe3 fxe3
opening, as long as it is a pure technical position, 30.ie2 .ixc3 and Black drew in Agdestein -
and that he feels confident he can draw it. To Johannessen, Sandnes 2005.
believe that the problem itself therefore solves b) 24 . . . e4 25 .g3 f3 26.b4 @h8 27.gdl ih6
all Black's problems because Anand chose not 28.c4 e3 29.fxe3 ixe3+ 30.ct:Jxe3 (30.@fl ±)
to test Leko's technique seems to be leaping to 30 . . . gxe3 3 1 .ic6 gc3 32.id5 gb3 33.b5 gb2
conclusions as far as I go. 34.gfl f2+ 35 .@g2 @g7 36.h4 h6 37.if3 gc8
About the objective evaluation of the move 38.ic6 gffi 39.id5 gfG 40.if3 gc2 4 1 .gxf2
I do not think that I can say it better than gxc4 42.gb2 gb6 43.@h2 gc5 44.ie2 @f6
grandmaster Dorian Rogozenko does in his 45 .@h3 gc3 46.ifl @g7 47.@h2 h5 48.ih3
forthcoming masterpiece The Sveshnikov gd3 49.ig2 gc3 50.ifl V2-V2 De Firmian -
Reloaded: "Leko allowed the exchange sac on e6, Johannessen, Sweden 2005.
while Anand didn't go for it. They both certainly 22.ct:Jc2!?
analysed the position and must have come to Maybe this move should not be completely
the conclusion that the endgame arising after rejected just because of its poor performance in
22.gxe6 gxe6 23.�xd5 �xd5 24.ct:Jxd5 should this game.
be a draw. It is difficult to prove it with analysis, 22 ... ic8
but I guess that one can trust the conclusion of 22 ... f3!? was suggested by Nigel Short in his
such top players. I can only add that Black must column. Now after 23. ct:J b4 fxg2 then 24.@xg2
continue 24 ... e4 in order to avoid the blockade quite surprisingly seems to be ok, and it seems
on the light squares, although it is clear that as if White can play for an advantage this way.
only White can play for a win anyway. 24 ... �c8 (24 ... d4 25.gxe6 gxe6 26.ic4 gff6
However, in our computer era I might sound 27.cxd4 @h8 28.ixe6 gxe6 29.dxe5 �g5t
ridiculous to some people by evaluating such an 30.@h l .ixe5 3 1 .�f3 and White has some
endgame as "slightly better for White". On the advantage, though again it is not quite clear that
top level they prefer to say "this is a draw". In it will be enough to win.) 25.ct:Jxd5! (25 .gc6? is
any case I will stay where I am by affirming that bad because of 25 ... ih3t 26.@hl �f5 ! when
after 25.gel White can play on without any the Black initiative is very strong. White can
risk, while Black must work for the draw. probably play better than 27.�xd5t?! @h8
Anand's cool decision to retreat the knight to 28.id3 'lWh5-+ but it gives a good illustration
80 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
transpose to the game, as White has 26.ic6 with unjustified. The knight has to go to e 1 to protect
a definite advantage. So this slight change of move the king. 24 ... if8!� gives Black good play. Now
order might help White to retain an advantage.) White should take the draw promised to him in
24 ...E1ef7 25 .E1dl Wig5 26.ltlxd5 ig4 (26 ... e4!? the tactical lines, or everything might soon be
27.i£1 e3 28.�hl±) And now I would suggest very bad. 25.ltlc6 (25 .g3? fXg3 26.hxg3 E1eg7!!
following Fritz 8 which gives 27.E1d3! (And not 27.E1xe6? Wih4-+) 25 . . . E1xg2t 26.�hl ig4 ! !
27.E1d2?! if3 28.i£1 e4� De Firmian - Svensson, (26 . . .1Mfe8 27.ie2 E1eg7 28.ltlxe5±) 27.�xg2
Gothenburg 2004, which eventually ended in (27.ltlxd8 if3 28.h3!=) 27 . . . E1g7 28.ltlxd8
a draw, where White was the one defending.) (28.f3?? ih3t!! 29.�fL. Wih4t 30.�e2 ixfl t
27 ...if5 28.E1d2 f3 29.ltle3± The position is 3 1 .�xf1 Wixh2 32.We l E1g2 33.i£1 E1d2-+)
still very complicated, but Black's attack is still 28 ... idl t 29. �h3 ig4 t=
restrained and it seems likely that White will 24.E1d l ! ? is the only natural alternative to the
be able to benefit from his extra pawns. [2006 text move, and could be used as a surprise move
- Dorian Rogozenko proves in his book that against someone who thinks the position after
27.E1d3 is not as good as I had imagined, as after 24.Ra l is playable. However, I have a feeling
27 ... ie2 28.f3 Wih4 29.E1dl ixdl 30.Wixdl e4! that well informed Black players will tend to
Black has a definite initiative. After 3 1 .b4 E1f5 avoid this in the future, once it has been tested
32.fXe4 E1h5 White is already struggling.] a few times at the top level.
23 ... ic8 24.E1a8 E1e6 25.E1al E1h6 26.Wib4 24 ... ic8
Wih4 27.h3 E1g6 28.id7! ixd7 29.E1xf8t ixf8 Maybe a new idea can be conceived here for
30.Wixf8t E1g8 3 1 .Wid6 E1xg2t! with a draw by Black. However I cannot see that Black gains
perpetual check was the correspondence game anything with 24 ... f3 25.g3 ic8 26.E1a8±.
Teichmann-Marotta, 2003. But after 26.ltl e l !;!; 25.E1a8 .ifS
I prefer the White pieces. Black is getting ready to create threats against
g2. However they are not strong enough and
they come too late.
26 .i£1
•
29.b4 ixf2t!?
Carlsen goes into these tactics searching for
some action, as he is likely just to be run over
after 29 ... im 30.c4±. It is always possible to
dismiss such desperate measures after the game, 35 ... �a3?
especially armed with thorough computer This was the apparently brilliant idea conceived
analysis. However from a practical point of view by Carlsen. The rook cannot be accepted of
this was obviously the right decision, as Black course, because of �f2t. However, White still
gained a lot of ground in the remaining part of has a chance to make his extra piece count, by
the game, and should have played on when it returning it if nothing else. Therefore a simpler
finished. method of play, achieving instant repetition of
30.�xf2 �xc3 3 1 .c!De1 moves, was preferable.
Not the only choice, but certainly one that 3S ... �d4t 36.�hl id7 37.�a6 ic8 38.�e2
makes sense. ig4=
3 1 ... f3!? Note that 3S ... id7 36.�e2 ig4? would not
Again complicating matters. Black opens files work because of 37.�f2!±. However, 36 ... �d4t
and gains time at the cost of yet another pawn. would still draw.
32.c!Dxf3? 36.�e2?
Probably king safety was more important than This should probably have been punished by
anything else in this position. After 32.�gl ! it a strong tactical resource. However with little
is not easy to see how Black would be able to time on the clock it is hard to find the right path
attack White's king. 32 ... �h4 (32 ... e4 33.E!8a2 through such a tactical maze.
and what now?) 33.�h l Here I cannot work out 36.g3 ia6 37.�xa6 �d4t 38.�hl Elxa6
a method to create a successful attack against 39.ixa6 �xb4 and White is maybe on the way
White's king. 33 ... �f2 (33 ... Ele3 34.Elxc8 Elxc8 to being worse.
3S.lLlxf3 � e4 36.�d7 Elm 37 .Ela7�g6 38.�xdS+ 36.lLlf3! was the best move. After 36 ... Elxa2
) 34.El8a2 �d4 3S.�a4 ih3 36.�dl +-. All of 37.Elxa2 exf3 38.Elf2! Black still has not solved
this is of course still very complicated, and all the his problems. Actually there is no way for him
conclusions should be seen as temporary. Still, I to save both the dS-pawn and the f3-pawn, so a
feel that White should be successful. sad defensive task awaits him in a 3 pawns vs. 2
32 ... e4 33.c!De1 �f6t 34.�gl �f8 35.�8a2 pawns endgame.
3S.lLlf3? is the computer's favourite move for 36 ...�b6t 37.�hl �f6 38.�gl �d4t
some time. A human would hardly consider this, 1/2-1f2
The Sveshnikov 83
A draw was agreed. However in this position it One commentator writes that Black has
was Black's turn to play on. scored well with this approach recently. I do not
39.<±>h l could be answered strongly with know where he has been looking, as to me it
39 ... .tg4! and now White seems to be worse: seems that Black is actually not doing very well
40.'iWb5 �xa2! (40 ... 'iWxal 4 1 .�xal �xal 42.h3 in this line.
�xel 43.hxg4 �exfl t 44.<±>h2 �dl 45.'iWd7 and 17.tLlf4
White should be able to deliver perpetual check) Obviously 1 7 . .tc2? f4 1 8 . .txe4 fxe3 19.'iWh5
4 1 .�xa2 'iWdI 42.h3 'iWxe I 43.<±>gl (43.<±>h2 'iWxfl exf2t 20.<±>hl �f7+ spells disaster. Bestagno
44.'iWxf1 �xfl 45.hxg4 d4-+) 43 ... .td7 44.'iWe2 Kuntz, Cagnes 1 989.
'iWxb4-+ 17 .10
•••
40.ttlf3 �axf3 ! 4 1 .�a8 �xa8 42.�xa8t <±>g7 The alternatives are: 1 7 ... .td7!? 1 8 . .tc2 .te5
and White is definitely in trouble. 43.'iWe l 'iWf2 1 9.ct:Jed5 <±>h8 20.'?Nh5 �g8 2 1 .f3;1; with better
44.'iWal t �f6 45 . .tb5 d4+ play for White in Burnoiu - Veneteanu, Curtea
However, Black was short of time and a draw de Arges 2002.
seemed to be a good outcome from such a bad 1 7 ... 'lW d7 1 8 .ic2 'Ll e5 19. 'Ll xe6 was played
experience in the opening. in Rogovoi - Nikolaev, St Petersburg 1 998.
In the next game we shall investigate a minor However, stronger seems to be 19. 'Ll ed5 !? :g ae8
sideline that offers little hope for Black. In fact
the analysis goes in the direction of a clear edge 20. 'Ll xe6 � xe6 2 1 .a4.
for White in the opening, so it is probably not 18 .ic2 .ie5
•
here that the future lies for Black. Still, it is wise 1 8 ... 'iWd7 1 9 . .tb3 �ad8 20 ..txf7t 'iWxf7
for White to know this line in case it should come 2 1 .'iWd5 '?Nxd5 22.ct:J exd5;1; Mamedov - Djafarli,
up in a real game. Not everything is easy to find Baku 2002.
over the board. 19.tLlfd5
1 9.93 .ixf4 20.gxf4 'iWf6 is even according to
Game 21 Van Wely/Cifuentes.
Rivas Romero - Sarlat 19 ...'?Ng5
Corr. 2000 1 9 ... f4? 20.ct:Jg4 .tg6 2 1 .�e1 e3 22.fxe3 .txc2
23.'iWxc2 'iWg5 24.ct:Jxe5 ct:Jxe5 25.<±>h l ±
1.e4 c5 2.ttlf3 ttlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlf6 1 9 ... 'iWh4 20.g3 'iWh3 (20 ... 'iWg5 2 1 .£4 exf3
5.tLlc3 e5 6.tLldb5 d6 7 .ig5 a6 8.tLla3 b5 9 .ixf6 22.'iWxf3 .th5 and now 23.'iWf2 was played in
Palecha - Mikhajlichenko, Evpatoria 200 1 .
• •
2S.Elxfl± was played in Karasek - Underwood, 30.lLlxc2 Elxe6 3 1.lLld4 ElxeS 32.ElxeS dxeS
e-mail 200 1 . White is clearly better, maybe even 33.lLlxfS
winning. Also tried has been: 23 . . . ElacB 24.ctJe6 This should be a draw, but realistically only
�h6 2S .ctJxfB fxe3 26.�fS hh2t 27.Wh l �eS White can win.
Now White should choose 2B.�h3 ! (28.�xh7t 33 ... igG 34.lLl d6 Wg7 3s.lLlb7 if7 36.a3 idS
�xh7 29.ctJxh7 Wg7 30.g4= and a draw was 37.ctJ cS as 38. lLl d7 e4 39.Wfl ic6 40.lLlcs
agreed in Nilsson - Patrici, corr. 1 99B.) 2B ... Elxf8 Wf6 4 1 .We3 WeS 42.g4 h6 43.h4 a4 44.gS
29.ElxfBt WxfB 30.�dl - Rogozenko. The
question here is not if White has the advantage,
but of how large it is. It is likely that it is already
decisive actually.
2 1 ...ihS
Van Wely analyses 2 1 ...f4 and comes to
the conclusion that 22.h4! gives White an
advantage. 22 ... �dB 23.ctJxf4! �xh4 24.Elh3!
�xf4 2s.hh7t Wg7 26.ctJfSt Wf6 27.Elh4!+-
22.lLlc7 if4
This does not seem necessary, but Black still
should not be worse.
23.�dSt WhB
23 . . . �f7 24.�xc6 he3t 2S.Wh 1 +-
24J'!:xf4
This is, of course, the correct bishop to 44 . . . hS?
eliminate. As I said, Black's play has not been great. One
24 ...'sWxf4 2S.Ele1 move that was hard to understand was 43 ... a4,
Also possible was 2S.ctJxf5 ! ? ctJe7 26.�xd6 but that was hardly the only mysterious move.
�xd6 27.ctJxd6 Ela7 2B.lLle6 Elf6=. Now he chooses to keep the h-pawn on the
2S lLl eS
..• board. All endgame experts agree that when
Surely an improvement over 2S ... ElacB?? you try to defend, you aim for the exchange of
26.ctJe6 �h4 27.g3 ElgB 2B.ctJxf5+- Topalov - pawns. Here Black could probably have held a
Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 1 999. draw with 44 . . . hxgS 4S.hxgS WfS 46. Wd4 WxgS
26.'sWd4! (46 ... e3 !? is perhaps even better.) 47.ctJxe4t Wf4
Necessary. White cannot accept the rook, as 4B.ctJc3 �d7 49.WcS We3 SO.ctJxbS Wd2 S 1 .ctJc3
Black would naturally ignore the knight on aB Wc2 and, with only one pawn remaining, White
and instead go for the king. 26.ctJxaB? ElgB ! ! should not be able to win this endgame.
27.�xgBt (Or 27.g3 Elxg3t 2B.hxg3 �xg3t 4S.gG Wf6 46.lLlxe4t Wxg6 47.Wf4 Wf7
29.Wfl (29.ctJg2 �f3) 29 . . . �f4t 30.Wgl ctJf3t 48.lLlg3 WgG 49.WeS
+ with a winning attack.) 27 ... WxgB 2B.� Now Black can no longer save the game. The
�h4 29.Elfl �gS-+, Van Wely. two weaknesses and the bad bishop seal his
26 ...'sWxd4 fate.
Now there follows a series of forced moves 49 ... ie8 SO.lLle2 . i f7 S 1 .lLlf4t Wg7 S2.lLl e6t
that leads to an endgame that Black plays quite WgG s3.lLld4 .ic4 S4.lLle6 .if! SS.lLlf4t Wh6
badly. Of course, we can all have bad days, but it S6.Wf6 .ic4 S7.lLl e6 .if! s8.lLld4
must feel terrible when you play correspondence 1-0
chess and have so many of them in the same
game. Finally, I will end this chapter with what I
27.cxd4 Elac8 2B.lLle6 Elfe8 29.dxeS Elxc2 believe will be a main line in the Sveshnikov
The Sveshnikov 8S
Sicilian in the future. An under-rated player The key idea is that if Black exchanges on dS
delivers a performance with White of which he then White would like to recapture with the
can be truly proud. He defeats one of Israel's bishop. The plan is that if White ends up with
younger stars in a convincing manner. knight vs. bishop, then dS and f5 are likely to
be rather weak squares.
Game 22 14 ...0-0 l S.J.g2 as
Jenni Avrukh
- This is clearly the main line. Other moves
Bled (ol) 2002 have been played, but I would not recommend
anyone outside the world's top SO players to try
l .e4 cS 2.tLJa tLJ c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLJxd4 tLJ f6 to memorise the differences between l S . . . 1:!b8
S.tLJc3 e S 6.tLJ dbS d6 7.J.gS a6 8.tLJa3 bS and l S . . . aS . The main point for White is that
9.hf6 gxf6 10.tLJdS f5 1 l .exf5 oixf5 1 2.c3 the same set-up is recommended against both
oig7 13.tLJc2 J.e6!? options.
1 6.0-0 f5
This specific line can of course be prepared
to a great extent, but many different moves
are possible all the time, and it is therefore
more important to grasp the essentials of the
position. I would not like to claim mastery
of the position, but I think that I can give a
few hints and ideas. First of all, I recommend
placing the queen in the centre, and out of the
way of the rooks. I dislike 1 7.\WhS as I do not
see a fair argument for attacking f5 already, and
I dislike 1 7.\Wd2 as this should be the place
of a rook, not the queen. [2006 - I still like
my recommendation quite a lot, but maybe
1 7.\WhS ! ? is better than I thought.]
The main idea here is to play tO c6-e7xdS
and liquidate White's pressure. The immediate
1 3 . . . tO e7?! was refuted by Ivanchuk with
1 4 . .id3 ! and White has a clear plus.
I think 1 3 . . . .ie6 is the move Black players
will be playing in the future. They have not
played it a lot for the last few years, but it
offers a relatively safe position with good
counter chances. I still prefer to be White, but
in such a reliable opening as the Sveshnikov
it would be too much to hope for to prove an
easy advantage for White in every line. That
I have come as close as I have is pure luck,
and was not something I thought possible in
advance.
1 4.g3! 17.'1We2! 1:!b8 18J�adl
This was played by Anand a long time ago, 1 8J�fdl is slightly more popular, but honestly
but Short made it popular with some good I prefer this one. Now an early ... eS-e4 can be
games, including a win against Kramnik. met by f2-f3 with much greater strength.
86 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
�d8
26 • • . b4?
This allows White to enter the 7 th rank, a very
careless admission. It was necessary to return
the bishop and start to protect the coming
weaknesses in advance with 26 . . . .ie6 27 . .ih3 !
(27.g4?! .ifS !oo 28.1"lxe6?! �xe6 29.gxf5 �h6+)
and now we have:
a) 27 ... 1"le8 28.1"lxe6 �xe6 29 . .ixf5 �b6
(29 ... �f6?! 30.1"ld7! 1"lbd8 (30 ... h6 3 1 .�h5 ! +
will come and Black will not be able to defend
his king. Probably it will transpose.) 3 1 .tt:ld5! 35.�h5 �f6?
�fS 32.�h5 h6 33 .�g6 1"lxd7 34.tt:lf6t �xf6 35 ...1"lxd7 was the only move. However, after
35.�xe8t .ifS 36.�xd7+-) 30.'it>g2 (30.Whl 36.�e8t .ifS 37 . .ie6t! 'lWxe6 38.�xe6t 1"l0
1"lbd8 3 1 .1"lxd8 1"lxd8 32 . .ixe4 �e6 33.�f3 39.�xe4+- it is hard to believe that Black would
Wh8°o) 30 ... 1"lbd8 3 1 .1"ld5;!; 1"lxd5 32.tt:lxd5 �d6 survive.
33.�h5 WfS 34 . .ixh7± e3? 35.�f5t +- 36.lDd5
b) 27 ... 1"lfS!? Overprotecting f5. 28.tt:lc2 b4 One of many winning moves.
29.cxb4 axb4 30.tt:ld4 .ic4 3 1 .'lWf2;!; 36 �xb2t 37.@h3 �xd7 38.�xh7t
..•
It is possible to understand this move, but not 39 ... 1"lh l 40.Wg4 1"lxh2 4 1 .�f5t was still
to fully approve of it. winning.
28.c4!± would quickly have made Black's 40.�g6 .id4 41 ..ie6
position fall to pieces, as .ia2 is out of play. 1-0
The Classical
-By Peter Wells
l .e4 cS 2.CLIf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.CLIxd4 CLI f6 Having co-authored a rather substantial
S.CLIc3 CLI c6 work on the Richter-Rauzer in 1 998, three
main questions sprang to mind as I embarked
on the project of constructing a repertoire for
White that is effective, efficient and internally
coherent.
1 ) How much have the fundamentals of the
theory changed in 6 years?
2) How, even allowing for the advantages of
the repertoire format, will it be possible to be
able to condense such a chunk of theory into a
neatly proportioned chapter?
3) Lastly, even though my previous work
took a 'neutral' perspective, a certain emotional
attachment to the Black cause was inevitable,
and although I have played both sides, my
ailing memory has rendered outings with
The Classical Variation of the Sicilian has l .e4 something of a treat. How would I feel
one powerful and enduring appeal. Black's advocating the White side, trying to do damage
development is faster and healthier than in to the Classical Sicilian?
several other Sicilians, and this tends to afford Well, the reader will ultimately have to judge
some protection from the blustery winds of how I have risen to the task. The answer to
theoretical change. Of course fashion still takes question 1 varies greatly with different lines
its toll, but a certain stability over time can be - the system with 7 . . . a6 and 8 . . . h6 covered
expected here. in Game 24 has been entirely transformed by a
6.igS new and dangerous attacking idea. By contrast,
The Richter-Rauzer is the most respected the changes to theory in Games 25-27 are
antidote, and also combines aggression - early essentially those of detail.
pressure on d6 in particular which often obliges Never forget either, fashion in opening theory
Black to accept doubled f-pawns - with a degree moves in mysterious ways. This we shall witness
of solidity missing from, for example, the main right here in game 23. After 6 . . . id7 I sense a
lines of 6.ic4. One fundamental decision White drift from 7.ie2 towards the more voluminous
has is where to play his f-pawn. Throughout - theory of 7.\Wd2. I see no reason - let's keep
Games 3-5 - I have opted for f4 based systems, things simple!
in spite of a current surge of fashion for f3
followed by a kingside pawn storm. I strongly
suspect that these will better stand the test of Game 23
time, and that the strategic ideas are also easier Kotronias - Schwartz
to explain and to grasp. It also seemed important Philadelphia 2000
to create an internally consistent repertoire - it
is easier to get a feel for playing these positions l .e4 cS 2.CLIf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.l2hd4 CLI f6
if 'mix and match' is kept to a minimum. S.CLIc3 CLIc6 6.igS
90 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
i.dS 1 5.0-0 0-0 1 6.l'!fd l and White has one White can also consider 10.i.e3!? ic6 and then
of those examples of minor piece superiority some solid move like 1 1 .l'!ad l , when the black
which are normally only seen in textbooks. pieces somehow look a bit wayward.
Kotronias - Kovalev, Debrecen, 1 992.) 1 1 .�b3 c) 7 . . . e6!? is rather a plausible response to a
b 5 1 2 .i.e2. White will follow up with ttJd5 developing move which in general terms may
with a safe plus. be viewed as rather modest. It has moreover
7 .ie2!?
• been greatly strengthened in recent times by
Exceptionally, since Black cannot switch to the discovery that there may be a nasty surprise
. . . e6 without complication (see 'c' below) , in store for White if he simply tries to head for
there is mileage here to the idea of castling the classic 'Rauzer structure' with the doubled
short with i.xf6, ttJ f5 and ttJ d5 in the air. This f-pawns. After S.hf6?!, a young Dutchman
plan is no longer high fashion, but still seems overturned the previously unquestioned verdict
to me to have a lot of bite. of theory by playing S . . . �xf6! and after 9.ttJdb5,
far from the promised '±' White was confronted
with 9 . . . 0-0-0! in D. Mastrovasilis - Berkvens,
Patras 200 1 , and shied away from 10.ttJxd6t
�bS l 1 .ttJc4 ic5 1 2.0-0 tiJe5 ! , which indeed
would promise Black excellent compensation on
the dark squares. Of course after others 9.tiJb5
makes little sense and Black was quickly better.
It is often the hallmark of a good novelty that it
seems startlingly obvious in retrospect!
Therefore White needs to look elsewhere.
Quiet moves like s . o-o or even S.�d2 are
unobjectionable, but S.tiJdb5 !? seems more
promising. E.g. S . . . �bS 9.a4! a6 1 0.tiJa3 �c7
1 1 .�d2! (Less common, but more incisive than
the routine 1 1 .0-0. White should force the issue
7 . . . a6 by piling immediate pressure on d6.) 1 1 . . .ie7
Four alternatives, one rather questionable, 1 2.l'!d l ! and now:
two of great importance, plus one that appears
to be a slightly inferior way of trying to reach
positions that could be arrived at a good deal less
painlessly!
a) 7 . . . �b6 is rather poorly timed as White has
S.ttJdb5! l'!cS 9.0-0 a6 1 O.hf6 gxf6 1 1 .ttJd5 �dS
12.ttJbc3 e6 1 3 .ttJe3. Again one of the virtues of
the move ttJd5 is that even if the knight is forced
to retreat, this is rather a good square. 1 3 . . . b5
14.a4 b4 1 5 .ttJal �b6 1 6.c3 a5 1 7.ttJc4 �c5
I S .ttJ c 1 ! with strong pressure against d6. Vogt
- Mascarinas, Polanica Zdroj 1 977.
b) 7 . . . l'!cS is probably just an attempt to reach
the critical positions considered under 'd' below.
It is just worth mentioning because after s . o-o
ttJxd4 9.�xd4 �a5. I rather suspect that as c 1 ) 1 2 . . . l'!dS is natural but a bit passive.
well as 10.hf6 gxf6 l 1 .a4 returning to line 'd', White can exploit the weakness of b6 with gain
The Classical 93
of time by 13.ltJc4 .ics 14 . .ie3! 1MfbS 1 5 .ltJb6!? l 1 .ltJb3! 1Mfa4 12.ltJc3 \Wb4 1 3 . .ib5 d5 14.a3
ltJ d7 1 6.0-0 0-0 1 7.f4 ltJ c5 IS . .if3 with a 1Mfd6 1 5.exd5 ltJe5 1 6.hd7t 1Mfxd7 1 7.dxe6
modest but pleasant initiative in Spassky - Hort, 1Mfxe6 I S .1Mfh5 with obvious advantage in
Moscow 1 97 1 . G. Shahade - Thorhallsson, Elbow Beach Club
c2) 1 2 . . . ltJe5!? played i n Lautier - Milov 200 1 .
Cap d'Agde 2002 is a more active defence d2) 9 . . . Ei:gS 10.ltJd5 ! ( a key move, and also
inviting serious complications. After 13.f4 the main response to 'neutral' Black options
ltJg6, instead of the slightly lackadaisical 14.0-0 on move 9) 10 . . . .ih3 1 1 ..if3 ltJ e5 12.ltJe3!
White should have played 14.ltJc4! d5 ! ? (All but ( 1 2.ltJf4 .id7 achieves little, and is usually only
forced. Not 14 . . . 0-0? 1 5 .e5 dxe5 1 6.bf6+-, used for purposes of repetition) 1 2 . . . .ih6! (of
while 14 . . . .ic6 1 5 .bf6 gxf6 16.f5! is also course 12 . . . .id7 is rather pliant, and White
very unpleasant.) 1 5.exd5 ltJxd5 1 6.ltJxd5 exd5 has a clear plan in 1 3 . .ih5 ! e6 14.f4 ltJc6 1 5 .f5
17.ltJe3!? (Wells - better I think than 1 7.1Mfxd5 with a dangerous initiative in Romero Holmes
.ic6 I S.ltJd6t hd6 1 9.1Mfxd6 1Mfxd6 20.Ei:xd6 - Cifuentes Parada, El Vendrell 1 996) 13.ltJdf5
f6! 2 1 .f5 ltJ e7! 22 . .if4 ltJxfS when Black is he3 14.ltJxe3 1Mfd2! (safer than 14 . . . 0-0-0
quite OK.) 17 . . . hg5 I S.fxg5 .ie6 19.0-0 with 1 5.i>hl .id7 1 6.ltJd5 Ei:deS 1 7.a4 f5 I S.b4 1MfdS
an unusual position and structure, but I think 19.exfS .ixf5 20.a5 Borriss - Sherzer, Santiago
slightly better chances. 1 990, when it is White's queenside play
d) 7 . . . 1Mfa5 !? is arguably the single greatest which looks much the more serious.) 1 5 .i>h l
challenge to White's set-up. 1Mfxd l 16.hdl .id7 17.f4 ltJc6!? (If 1 7 . . . ltJg4
I s.hg4! hg4 19.f5, Black can extricate his
bishop by means of 1 9 . . . .ie2 20.Ei:f2 .ib5 , but
the white knight on d5 will still be a fine piece
securing some advantage.) I S.ltJd5 Ei:cS 1 9.c3
and although the players agreed a draw here
in Ebeling - Krogius, Jyvaskyla 1 99 1 , Black is
rather short on counterplay.
d3) 9 . . . ltJxd4 1 0.1Mfxd4 Ei:cS (But not
10 ... 1Mfc5? 1 1 .1Mfxc5 dxc5 12.ltJb5! Short -
Anand, Amsterdam 1 992)
since the attack almost plays itself and after of the f7 guard' is not viable, as Kotronias'
1 5.ic4 mhS 16.Wh5 WeS 17.£5 tiJe5 l s .ib3 excellent combination shows.
granting the e4 square with I S . . . d5? was 19.93 c!iJ eS 20.hf7! c!iJxf7 2 1 .c!iJxe6 VNf5
already the last straw. 1 9.exd5 ic5 20.E1ae 1 E1gS 22.VNa4t mcs 23.bS!
2 1 .tiJe4 he3 22.tiJxf6 1-0. It seems unlikely The hallmark of a strong attacking player.
that the time consuming 9 . . . ics will solve White is in no hurry to recoup his material, but
Black's problems. After all, as I have said before, rather uses the powerful position of his knight
the knight is a good piece on e3! on e6 to spearhead a direct onslaught.
10.0-0 ixf5 1 l .exf5 VNxf5 12.c!iJdS 23 . . . c!iJ eS
Or 23 ... tiJg5 24.tiJxg5 fXg5 25.bxa6 mc7
26.E1ab 1 b6 27.Wb3 Wa5 2S.Wf3! and White
invades decisively.
24.bxa6! VNxe6 2S.axb7t mc7
25 . . . mxb7 is met simply with 26.E1eb 1 t mcs
27.Wa7 mating.
26.VNaSt md7 27.VNxdSt mxdS 2S.bS=VNt VNcs
29J�ab 1 c!iJd7 30.VNa7?!
30.E1eSt!
30 . . . hS 3 1 .E:b7 E:h7 32.E:ebl h4 and Black
decided he had had enough, as 33.Wa5t meS
34.Wf5 is crushing.
1-0
Vintage Kotronias, in his element in such
attacking positions. White's compensation in
12 . . . mdS any case looks very believable, and my hunch is
Of course Black has to deal with tiJc7t and the there will not be too many takers for the cause
alternative 1 2 . . . E1bS also scarcely leaves castling of 7 . . . a6.
realistically on the agenda. One very powerful
attacker then built White's initiative effectively Game 24
with 1 3.ig4 Wg6 14.ih5 Wg7 1 5 .E1e1 E1gS Balashov - Makarov
1 6.g3 f5 1 7.c3 md7 l S.b4! e6 19.tiJf4 ie7 20.a4 Smolensk 2000
if6 2 1 .b5 in Vitolinsh - Grokhotov, USSR (ch) l .e4 cS 2.c!iJf3 c!iJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!iJxd4 c!iJ f6
1 975. S.c!iJc3 d6 6.i.g5 e6 7.VNd2 a6 S.O-O-O h6
1 3.ig4 VNg6 14.i.hS VNg7 lS.E:e1 e6 1 6.c!iJf4
md7 17.c4!
There is no set formula for handling the White
side here. His strengths are his opponent's lack
of effective development and his own active
minor pieces. Given the positional costs of the
move . . . e5 , the knight also enjoys a de facto
outpost on f4. Still, as in the example in the
note above, it is a queenside pawn storm that
gives this initiative its extra bite.
17 . . J�dS I S.b4 VNgS?!
It is not easy to give Black good advice here,
although he might have preferred the immediate
I S . . . tiJe5. What is certain is that this 'changing
96 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
Paris 2005 : 14.i.xe5 ! ttJxe5 1 5 .exd5 Wic7 i.c5 1 7.Wie5 i.xf2 1 8 .i.f3 E&c8 1 9.E&d3 i.b6?!
( 1 5 ... Wid6 1 6.ttJe4! and 1 7.d6) 1 6.f4 and White and now White could have caused quite severe
regains the piece with a winning position. problems already with 20.ttJe4!.
b) 1 1 . . . i.b4 does not overly impress me. Since 12.i.e2! i.b4?!
1 2.a3 looks good, it is not even a legitimate It is easy to be wise after the event. In putting
move order for transposing to the main game. the question to this move, it is worth reminding
White has 1 2.a3!? i.a5 ( 1 2 . . . hc3 1 3.Wixc3 ourselves that it is only the extraordinary energy
ttJxe4 14.Wixg7 Wif6 1 5 .Wixf6 ttJxf6 1 6.i.e5! of White's solution that reveals its deficiencies.
me7 1 7.g4 favours White) 1 3.i.e2 0-0 14.e5 The problem is that after the coming exchange
ttJd7 ( 14 . . . hc3 1 5 .Wixc3 ttJ e4 16.Wie3 f6 1 7.f3 on c3, White's dark squared bishop (his pride
fxe5 1 8.he5 Wig5 was better for White after and joy in this variation) will attain new
the queen exchange in Degraeve - Apicella, heights and Black's inability to contest it will
France 1 999, but 1 9.f4! Wie7 20.i.f3 could compensate for a pawn and some inconvenience
have heralded a still more punishing response.) to the white king.
1 5 .Wig3 i.c7 1 6J�he l f6 1 7.i.xh6 Wie7 1 8 .i.h5 Two alternatives, the second of which is of great
he5 19.i.f4 i.xf4t 20.Wixf4 e5 2 1 .Wih4 E&d8 importance and for a time gave me serious pause
and Black's strong centre gave him counter for thought before advocating White's hyper
chances in Mainka - Kritz, Hoeckendorf 2004. aggressive set-up:
However, while . . . f6 can be quite a potent a) 12 . . . Wic5 is all about driving away the
idea, Black really seems to me to lack a 'plan b'. queen in order to play . . . d4. However, positional
So why not play a move which really acts as a problems persist after 1 3.Wig3 d4 14.ttJa4 Wib4
deterrent to this pawn break. After 1 6.i.d3 ! ( 1 4 ... ttJxe4? 1 5 .Wif3 Wid5 1 6.c4!) 1 5 .Wib3 !
Wixb3 1 6.axb3 ttJd7 1 7.E&xd4 e5 1 8.E&xd7! i.xd7
19.he5 i.e6 20.E&dl i.e7?! (20 . . . E&d8 2 1 .ha6!
looks grim too) 2 1 .i.d6! a5 22.e5 !+- h5 23.i.f3
when White had a terrific grip, Balashov -
Kiselev, Russia 2000.
b) 12 . . . dxe4!? is a tough nut to crack.
but had to bow to the inevitable after the consistent with White's fundamental strategy:
excellent reply 13 . . . �f5 ! 14.f3 ( 1 4.g4 ttJxg4 keep the black pieces at home! Lines like
I S .�b6 �xf4t 1 6.Wb l i.d7 1 7.i'!xd7 Wxd7, 1 6 ... i'!g8 1 7.f4!? i.bS 1 8.i.hS ! g6 1 9.f5!? look
Nataf, - Gershon, Bermuda, 1 999 is fun, and very promising, but the whole thing needs
after 1 8 .�b7t �c7 1 9.i'!dl t i.d6 20.hd6t practical tests.
Wxd6 2 1 .ttJe4t etc. White should have enough 13.i.e5! hc3
to draw, but not more) 1 4 . . . i.cS ! I S .�d2 0-0 1 3 . . . dxe4 is less ambitious, arguably less
16.fxe4 ttJxe4 17.ttJxe4 �xe4 1 8.i.d3 �a4 and consistent and also probably falls short of
Black holds the balance. Again 1 8.i.xh6!? should equality although the young Chinese talent Bu
lead to no more than a draw by perpetual. Xiangzhi's patronage gives pause for thought.
b2) 1 3 .�g3! is much more to the point, White retained a structural plus after 14.i.xf6
threatening 14.i.c7 and monitoring the g7- gxf6 I S .�xe4 We7 1 6.i'!d3 i'!a7 1 7.a3 hc3
pawn too. The real conceptual breakthrough 1 8.i'!xc3 in Degraeve - Lerner, Koszalin 1 999,
is that White is even willing to 'mend' his while 14.�g3!? i.xc3 I S .i.c7 hb2t 1 6.Wxb2
opponent's compromised structure in the �b4t 1 7.Wal ttJdS 1 8.�xg7 �f8 19.�d4 i.d7
interests of maintaining the momentum of his 20.i.g3 i'!g8 2 1 .c4 cS 22.�b2 ttJb4 23.a3 ttJd3
initiative. After 1 3 . . . ttJdS! 14.ttJxdS ( 14.i.eS 24.hd3 exd3 2S.i'!xd3 was a more punchy
ttJxc3 I S.hd3 �gst) 14 . . . cxdS I S .Wbl i.d7!? route to a good position in Ponomariov - Bu
Xiangzhi, Lausanne 200 1 .
14.ixc3 Wfxa2
he can try:
b2 1 ) 16.f3?! which was recommended
by Tsesarsky, who offered only the rather 15.i.d3!?
compliant 16 . . . exf3 1 7.i.xf3, when indeed it is The priority of course is that Black should
plausible that the opening of another file piles not be able to land a knight on e4, when his
more woe upon the defender. Unfortunately, counter-chances are real indeed! The huge power
the liquidation which accompanies the very of the bishop on c3 - especially in the context
natural 1 6 . . . i.bS ! 1 7.i'!he l he2 1 8.i'!xe2 exf3 of opposite coloured bishops - in conjunction
1 9.�xf3 i.e7 looks just fine for Black. White with the weakness of g7 are the grounds for
adapted sensibly in Zaragatski- Rau, Willingen White's tremendous idea. I have to admit, I have
2003 with 20.c4 0-0 2 1 .cxdS i'!fd8 22.i'!ed2 found no flaw with Balashov's play, but in later
exdS 23.i'!xdS �b6 24.i'!xd8t and a draw was encounters White has demonstrated alternative
agreed. methods of causing trouble too:
b22) 1 6.i.eS ! is strongly preferable, and a) I S .i.f3 0-0 1 6.b3! dxe4 1 7.he4 ttJdS
The Classical 99
I S.�xdS exdS ( 1 S . . . cxdS 1 9 .@d2! 'lMfa3 20.�d4) hopeless: I S.�xhSt @e7 19.cxd3! was an
19.Ei:he l �fS?! ( 1 9 . . . f6! is not so clear) 20.�b2 effortless day for White in Bromberger - Hen.
�g6? 2 1 .'lMfc3 f6 22.Ei:d4 1-0 Chanoine - Santo Hoffmann, Bundesliga 2006.
Roman, Paris 200 1 is obviously striking. While Is.VNxf6 d2t
Black could have defended much better, the I S ... �al t 1 9.@d2 �a4 20.@e3 ! - Balashov
potency of opposite coloured bishops for the - also seems to be good. Black can try 20 . . . �b7
attacker was very much in evidence. 2 1 .Ei:xd3 cS, but 22.f3 ! consolidates, and Black's
b) I S .f3!? 0-0 1 6.g4 Ei:dS ( 1 6 ... dxe4 1 7.fxe4 eS dark square misery continues unabated.
I S . b3! and capturing on g4 is too risky, although 19.@xd2 VNd5t 20.@cl VNg5t 2 1 .VNxg5 hxg5
White will enjoy a serious kingside attack in 2 1 . ..Ei:xgS !? 22.�f6 Ei:dS is tougher, although
any case) 1 7.gS d4?! ( 1 7 . . . �al t I S.@d2 Ei:dSt 23.c4 evicts the rook, with some positional
1 9.�d3 �a4 20.gxf6 exd3 2 1 .cxd3 'lMfh4! 22.fxg7 advantage guaranteed.
also clearly holds dangers for Black, but no clear 22 .if6 .ib7 23.h4! gxh4 24.Ei:xh4 c5 25.g4
•
win is in sight) I S.Ei:xd4 Ei:xd4 1 9.�xd4 'lMfa l t .if3 26.Ei:d3 .ie2 27.Ei:e3 .ifl 2S.g5
20.@d2 �xh l 2 1 .�dSt @h7 22.gxf6 �b7
23.�e7 cS 24.fxg7 �g2 (24 ... @gS is tougher,
but White is still winning after 2S .�h4 @h7
26.gSt� Ei:xgS 27.�f6 - Boto) 2S .�f8 �gst
26.@el eS 27.�xe5 Ei:xf8 2S.gxf8=� �xeS
29.'lMfxf7t �g7 30.�xg7t @xg7 3 1 .@f2 1-0.
E. Hossain - Mohammad, Bangladesh (ch) 2003.
IS dxe4 1 6.VNg3!!
••
- Molander, Santo Domingo 2003. A snappy nasty accident on f7. Ziatdinov - Barbero,
victory for the talented young Cuban. Montpellier 1 994) 1 5 .:gdfl ! It is important
a22) I S . . . .ifS 1 9.�fl .ig7 20.ct:Jf4 and now: to free up the d l -square as a comfortable
a22 l ) 20 . . . .ihS 2 1 .c3 �e7 was Adams retreat for the knight. 1 5 . . . b4 1 6. ct:J d 1 �bS
- Timman, Wijk aan Zee 2004. White played (The recent trend has been for 16 ... hxg5 The
22.�f2(?!) which granted time for 22 . . . �deS so following sequence is almost forced. 1 7.hg5
that 23.ct:Jd4 could be met with 23 . . . ct:Ja5! and hg5 I S.ct:Jxg5 �a5 1 9. @ b 1 b3 ! 20.�xa5
some counterplay. As Adams himself points bxc2t 2 1 .@xc2 ct:Jxa5 This position has been
out the immediate 22.ct:Jd4! was better since reached a few times, including Senff-Baklan,
22 . . . ct:Jxd4?! 23.cxd4 is very pleasant for White, Cappelle la Grande 2006. The results suggest
while 22 . . . �deS 23 .ct:Jxc6t �xc6 24.�f2 again Black has just enough compensation to draw.)
represents a success for White's strategy of 1 7.@b l a5 I S.b3 ! . The key move. Since e3
constraint. is out of bounds due to the 'g5 situation'
a222) 20 . . . �c5 2 1 .c3 f5 (2 1 . . . .ih6 22.ct:Jd4 the knight is headed for c4 via b2. Black has
.ixf4 23.�xf4! makes limited sense as 23 . . . e5 tried:
can be met with 24.lDb3! and 25 .�h4 with b 1 ) I S . . . hxg5 ( 1 S . . . ct:J g6 ! ? 1 9.93 ct:J ce5 is
substantial positional plusses) 22.exfS exf5 met with the immediate 20.gxh6! although
23.�f2 b4 24.cxb4 ct:Jxb4 25 .a3 ct:J c6 26.�cl afrer 20 . . . ct:Jxf3 2 1 .:gxf3 ct:J e 5 ! ? this still might
�xf2 27.�xf2 ct:Jd4 2S.�d1 ct:Jxf3 29.:gxf3 and be Black's best choice) 1 9 .hg5 ct:Jxf3 (maybe
White retained a small advantage based on his 19 . . . .ixg5 20.ct:Jxg5 a4 (Gofshtein) 2 1 . ct:J b2
opponent's substantially damaged structure in axb3 22.cxb3 but both f7 and d6 remain
Kolev - Damljanovic, Skopje 2002 problems) 20.gxf3 hg5 2 1 .�xg5 �f6 was Acs
b) 9 . . . h6!? is also interesting. Black prepares - van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 'B' 2003, when
. . . g5 and control of the e5 square. Interestingly, 22.:gfg l ! ? �d4 23 . .id3 ! <lie7 24.f4 100ks good
recent attention has centred on White refusing to for White according to Acs and Hazai.
return the pawn lightly. The resulting positions b2) l S . . . a4 1 9 . ct:J b2 axb3 20.cxb3 �a5 ? ! . A
are, as we shall see, full of tension. 10 . .ih4 g5 !? mistake, which nicely illustrates the problem
(Rather than 1 0 . . . ct:Jxe4?! 1 1 .�e 1 ! ct:J f6 ( 1 1 . . . g5? of altering the delicate balance of force around
12.ct:Jxe4 gxh4 1 3.�c3 is a major accident) g5 . (20 . . . hxg5 2 1 .hg5 .ixg5 22.ct:Jxg5 :gaS is
12.ct:Jf5 �a5 13.ct:Jxd6t .ixd6 14.�xd6 �c7 (or better though either 23 . ct:J a4 or 23 . .ib5 look
14 . . . 0-0-0 1 5 .�d l ! �c7 1 6.�f2 ct:J e7 1 7 . .id3 quite promising) 2 1 .g6! fxg6 22 . .ixe7 @xe7
with a pleasant position) 1 5 .�d2 �xf4?! (In This exchange is pretty disastrous for the black
Izoria-Avrukh, Athens 2005, Black played the king. Not just d6 but also the dark squares on
tougher 1 5 ... 0-0-0 After 16 ..ixf6 gxf6, Avrukh the f-file become very exposed. The speed of
suggests 1 7.�h4 as promising.) 1 6.hf6 the denouement is still striking. 23.�d1 �c7
�xf6 1 7.ct:Je4 �f4 l S.ct:Jd6t @e7 1 9.93 �xd6 24.ct:Jc4 ct:Jxc4 25.hc4 ct:J a5 26.e5! d5 27 . .id3
20.�xd6 @xd6 2 1 .�f2 with a decisive plus in �c3 2S.�f4 1-0. Karjakin - Nijboer, Wijk aan
Guseinov - Mamedov, Baku 2002.) 1 1 .fxg5 Zee 2003.
ct:Jg4 12 ..ie2 ct:J ge5 13.ct:Jf3 .ie7 1 4.:ghg l !? Back to the main game with 9 . . . b 5 .
Initially played by Ziatdinov in a couple of 1 0.i.xf6
striking outings, this indirect defence of g5 Clearly the most principled continuation.
ensures that Black will not win back his pawn 10 . • • gxf6
so easily. Moreover, the considerable tension 1 0 . . . �xf6 is inferior due to I l .e5 dxe5
that arises in the position greatly restricts his 12.ct:Jdxb5 �dS 1 3 . ct:J d6t .ixd6 1 4.�xd6
options, and f7 is potentially very vulnerable. exf4 when either 1 5 .ct:Je4!? or 1 5 .ha6 �xa6
14 . . . b5 ( 1 4 . . . �gS? 1 5 . .ig3 ! hxg5 1 6.ct:Jxe5 1 6.ct:Jb5 �a7 1 7.ct:Jxa7 ct:J xa7 I S.�d4! ct:J c6
ct:Jxe5 1 7 . .ixe5! dxe5 lS ..ih5 heralds a 1 9.�xg7 � fS 20.�d2! offer good chances.
1 02 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
17.Y;Ve2!
Another example of a novelty of 'why didn't
I think of that' simplicity! Moving the queen
immediately takes the sting out of defences based
upon the activation of the bishop commencing
. . . ih6, while White has nothing to fear from
17 . . . ib5?! since the exchange of light-squared
bishops is near the top of his menu of positional
goals.
17 . . . a5 1 8.tLJxh5 �e7 19.g4 a4 20.l"i:h3!
Another excellent move with both defensive
and aggressive designs.
20 . . . a3 2 1 .b3 l"i:c8 22.Y;Vg2!
in the influential Kasparov - Mchedlishvili, opponent's structure with 1 1 .i.xf6 is by far the
Bled (01) 2002) 13.exd5 ctJxd5 14.i.c4 i.xa4 more popular choice. In particular a word on
1 5 .i.xd5 exd5 1 6J''1xa4 f6 1 7.i.e3 �f7 1 BJU 1 two on the popular tries which in my view 'just
b5 19.1"1ad4 i.c5 20.l"14d3 he3t 2 1 .l"1xe3 l"1heB miss' for White:
22.l"1de 1 l"1xe3 23.l"1xe3 l"1eB 24.l"1xeB �xeB 1 1 .hf6 gxf6! ( 1 1 . . .hf6? 1 2.e5 dxe5
25.�d2 �d7 and Black held the pawn ending 13JWc5 ! ( 1 3 .�e4! is also very strong) 13 . . . i.d7
in Volokitin - Gershon, Bermuda 2003. 14.ctJxb5 ! meeting 14 . . . axb5 with the
It might be worth checking out 13 . .ixf6!? devastating 1 5 .l"1xd7! , while if 14 . . . i.e7 simply
though. After 1 3 . . . gxf6 14.exd5 White's 1 5 .ctJc7t �f8 1 6.�xe5 is very strong according
coordination may suffer a little after 1 4 . . . e5 to Kasparov.) and now:
1 5 .l"1h4, or 14 . . . i.h6t 1 5.�b1 e5 1 6.l"1c4! b5 a) 12.i.e2 �c7 13.f5 �c5 14.fxe6 fxe6
1 7. ctJ b6, but whether that will amount to full 1 5 .�xc5 dxc5 1 6.i.h5t �f8 1 7.e5 f5 1 B.g4!
value for Black's investment is rather more was a line which put me off the black side of
doubtful. this variation for some time. White opens the
Now we return to the main game after position against the bishop pair to embarrass the
7 . . . i.e7. black king and to prise open nice squares for his
knight. However, with precise defence it seems
that Black can neutralise the White initiative,
and with precise handling the bishops can still
be a major defensive asset. 1 B . . . l"1a7 1 9.9xf5
exfS 20.ctJd5 i.g5 t 2 1 .�b1 i.e6 22.l"1hg1 l"1d7!?
(also Curt Hansen's 22 . . . l"1gB 23.ctJf4 i.c4!
seems tough to refute since 24.b3 is well met
with 24 . . . i.xf4!) 23.l"1xg5 l"1xd5 24.l"1xfSt �e7
25 .l"1g5 l"1gB 26.l"1xgB l"1xd 1 t 27.i.xd1 hgB
2B.i.g4 i.e6 29.i.8 i.f7 and this ending should
be a draw Grischuk - Grosar, Batumi 1 999.
b) 1 2.e5 d5 13.�b 1 i.b7 14.f5 has been ultra
trendy lately and is certainly the fiercest weapon
at White's disposal. However, after 14 . . . fxe5
1 5 .�xe5 i.f6 1 6.�g3 �e7 1 7.fxe6 fxe6 1 B .i.e2
B.O-O-O a6 h5
B ctJxd4 9.'1Wxd4 0-0 is a quite legitimate
• • .
I do find myself disturbed at the large number asset in the bishop ending. Malakhov - Blehm,
of positional concessions that White is required Cappelle la Grande 2000.
to make. The position reminds me of the material b) 13 . . . gxf6! 14.f5 and now:
of game 24, a true battle between strategic and
dynamic features, and yet there it is somehow
more believable that White's initiative is durable
and represents genuine compensation. It is true
that the clever break 1 9.a4 is still troublesome
for Black since 19 . . . h4 is met by 20.ltJe4!
dxe4 2 1 ."lWxg6t "lWfl 22."lWxf7t and White
recoups the piece with interest. However, I am
attracted to the deflecting 19 . . . h4!? of Kovalev
Supatashvili, Leon 200 1 . 20."lWg6t "lWfl 2 1 ."lWd3
when 2 1 . . . 0-0! ? was OK, and even 2 1 . . . bxa4
looks worth a look. I offer this so that the reader
has a starting point for keeping pace with shifts
in high fashion, but personally speaking I am
fundamentally sceptical about White's position.
1 l . . . .ib7 12 .10
• b l ) 14 ... E1cS I S .c;t>b l "lWc7 1 6."lWd2 hS (?!) My
What has this manoeuvre achieved? Well, hunch is that the weakness of g6 outweighs
the e-pawn is well defended and the e2 square the coverage of the hS and h6 squares. 1 7.fxe6
cleared for the knight, both useful preparations fxe6 I S.ltJe2 ifS 19.1tJf4 striking at the dual
for the familiar strategy of pushing f5 against weaknesses on e6 and g6. Again, I am struck by
doubled f-pawns, and also as we shall see, handy how the b 7 bishop would be happier never to
too if Black wishes to keep his structure intact. have moved. 1 9 . . . c;t>fl 20."lWe2 h4 2 1 .E1hfl ie7
More subtle, but no less important, the whole 22.ihSt E1cxhS 23.ltJxhS "lWc4 24."lWxc4 bxc4
plan with fS seems far more effective with 2S.ltJxf6! c;t>g6 26.eS ixg2 27.E1fe 1 dS 2S.E1d4±
Black's bishop already committed to b7. Indeed Kreiman - Mainka, Bad Zwesten 1 995.
it was this nuance that finally persuaded me that b2) 1 4 ... E1c4!?, gaining a tempo to double
this set-up was worthy of the repertoire. on the c-file I S ."lWd3 "lWc7 1 6.fxe6 ( 1 6.ltJe2!?)
12 . . . Wfc7 1 6 ... fxe6 1 7.ltJe2 "IWcS I S.c;t>b l ! "lWeS 19.1tJd4 hS
Or 1 2 . . . E1cS 13.ixf6 and now: (Again I am not convinced by this move. Shirov
a) 1 3 . . . ixf6?! attempts to cross White's gives 1 9 .. icS ! ? However, White will build
plans. Black doesn't even lose a pawn, but as is with g3/.tg2 etc and Black lacks counterplay.)
often the case in the Sicilian, the move . . . bS, 20.E1he l c;t>d7 2 1 .g3! E1gS? 22.ig2 E1g4?! 23.ltJf3
so useful in the middlegame, gives White a "lWcS 24.ltJd2!± E1a4 (24 ... E1d4? 2S.ltJb3!)
handy target for operations in the ending after 2S .ih3 E1gS?! 26.ltJ f3 E1g7 Shirov - Pelletier,
1 4."lWxd6 VNxd6 I S .E1xd6 ixc3 1 6. bxc3 E1xc3 Elista (01) 1 995, when 27.b3 ! E1aS 2S.ltJd4 E1g4
1 7.E1hd l 0-0 I S.E1d7! ics ( 1 S . . . .tc6 1 9 .E1c7 b4 29.ixg4 hxg4 30.c3 - Shirov, would have been
20.E1d4 ibS 2 1 .E1xc3 bxc3 22.a4 ifl 23.c;t>dl immediately decisive.
E1cS 24.c;t>e l ic4 2S .ie2 ixe2 26.c;t>xe2 also Of course these examples are not clear-cut,
left Black very overstretched in the rook ending but the simplicity of White's plan and the
in Chandler - Fernando, Santo Antonio 200 1 ) economy of force with which he can attack on
1 9.E1a7 E1eS 20.E1d4 c;t> fS 2 1 .c;t>b2 E1cS 22.eS the light squares suggest that this is a promising
E1e7 23.E1dSt E1eS 24.E1d3 ! E1e7 2S.E1xe7 c;t>xe7 approach. The main game provides further
26.E1c3 ! E1xc3 27.c;t>xc3 c;t>d7 2S.c;t>b4 c;t>c7 promising evidence.
29.c;t>cS and White's superb king is a decisive 13 ..ixf6 gxf6 14.5 h5
The Classical 107
Yet again, this does not seem strictly necessary. but now they take on an added ferocity. White
However, the complexity of Black's defensive answers threat with counter threat, and the
task is rather reflected in the complete lack of momentum never dies down!
agreement among commentators. There is in 24 . . . Wfb6 25.a5 Wfb5 26.Wff7! E1d7 27.Wfxf6
particular no consensus around whether Black E1e8 28.ttle7 �b7 29.�xb7 Wfxb7 30.Wfxe5
should be looking to castle long, or whether his �xd6 31.ttlc6t
rook belongs on cB. If it was a check on h5 Black 1-0
feared, then I think the text was questionable.
After 14 . . . E\cB 1 5 .fxe6 fxe6 neither 16.�h5t Game 27
�d7 nor 1 6.�g4 �f7 1 7.�h5t �g7 1 B.e5 Iordachescu - Campos Moreno
( l B.�g4!?=) lB . . . E1fdB ! . Linares 2000
G. Garcia - Smirin, New York 1 997 really
convinces. However 1 5 .�d2!? looks interesting. l .e4 c5 2.ttlf3 ttl c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 ttlf6
White will follow up with �b1 and 4J e2, while 5.ttlc3 d6 6.�g5 e6 7.Wfd2 �e7 8.0-0-0 0-0
if 1 5 . . . �c4?! 1 6.�b 1 b4 17.4Je2 �xe4 1 B.�xe4 After B ... ttlxd4 9.�xd4 a6 was covered in
�xe4 19.4Jg3 �c6 20.fxe6 fxe6 2 1 .E1he l �f7 game 26, while 9 . . . 0-0 is also a quite legitimate
22.�e2 d5 23.4Jf5 gives a strong attack. The move order, but since it is designed primarily to
argument against 14 . . . E1cB might indeed be circumvent lines with B . . . O-O 9.4Jb3, it causes
that . . . 0-0-0 was needed in reserve! no inconvenience to our proposed repertoire
1 5.fxe6 and White should just return to the main game
I see no special objection to this exchange, with 10.f4.
but White could also keep the tension, since
after 1 5 .�b 1 �c5 16.�xc5 !? dxc5 1 7.fxe6 fxe6
1 B.4Je2! h4 1 9.4Jf4 100ks quite promising, as in
Herrera-Fernando, Havana 2003.
1 5 ... fxe6 16.�bl O-O-O?!
As we have seen, where to put the king is a
riddle with no easy answer for Black in this
line. However at this particular moment
there is no impediment to White immediately
compromising the king's new home, and we can
give a fairly unambiguous assessment of this
decision.
17.a4! d5
Looks a bit desperate, but stronger than the
horrible 1 7 . . . bxa4 1 B.�xa4 when I B . . . E1hgB
19.�b3 ! �d7 20.4Ja4! - Gofshtein, illustrates 9.f4 ttlxd4
one danger lurking! Black can also put the question to White's
I B.exd5 b4 19.4Je2 �bB?! bishop immediately with 9 . . . h6, hoping to find
For better or worse, 19 . . . �xd5 had to be tried. situations in which its unprotected status on h4
White has a positional plus based on Black's will become a real issue. In addition, whereas
light-square looseness both in the centre and on there is often a sacrificial option available to the
the queenside after 20.�xd5 E1xd5 2 1 .�e4! but attacker in the event of a later . . . h6, choosing
he can struggle on. this moment has the important virtue that the
20.Wfe3 e5 2 1. ttl g3! �c5 22.Wfb3 h4 23.ttlfS soundness of 1 0.h4?! is in real doubt (at least
�cB 24.d6! given that White is playing for a win) and
It is still all about White's light-square chances, therefore I am recommending that White accept
l OS Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
the need for 1O . .ih4. The drawback for Black is pressure. This game was maybe treated a bit too
that there are also cases where this square proves harshly by Peter, though his recommendations
a good deal more comfortable (see in particular were correct. Here after 23.E1fl ! (23.E1d2 .ia6
(d) below) . Indeed the limitations of this piece's 24 ..ic2 E1xd2 2S .�xh6 looks very fancy, but
supposed vulnerability are immediately evident Black has 2S . . . E1xb3t ! ! 26.E1xb3 E1d1 t 27.hd 1
in the event of 10 . . . liJxe4?! 1 1 ..ixe7 liJxd2 .id3t 2S.@a1 gxh 6 29.E1xa3 .ixa3 with a better
1 2.hdS liJxf1 1 3 .liJxc6 bxc6 14 . .ie7 E1eS endgame.) 23 . . . @hS The only move. And now
l S .E1hxfl E1xe7 1 6.E1xd6 .ib7 1 7.g3! cS l S .E1fd l White should play 24 . .ic2! with an attack.
Unzicker - Stahlberg, Moscow 1 9S6, when Instead, 22 . . . @hS! makes more sense, but
although Black's weaknesses do not leave him 23.�g4! E1gS 24.E1fl is still promising. Black
'lost' his defensive task is certainly unenviable. tends not to be really threatening to sacrifice
on b3, provided the splendid knight on e4 stays
put!) l S.@b 1 cS 1 9.1iJf6t @hS 20.�e4 g6 2 1 .h4
.ib7 22.�f4 @g7 23.liJg4 E1hS 24.E1dfl E1bfS
2S.liJf6 �dS 26.�g3 hS 27.�gS E1h7 2S.E1f4
with utter domination.
But 17 . . . �c7?! is a bit cooperative. On
grounds of both offence and defence 17 . . . �b4!?
makes more sense. However, even then I prefer
White's chances after l S.E1hfl as 1 9.@b 1 a4
20.E1f3 axb3 2 1 .cxb3 �a3 22.E1g3 E1dS?! Wapner
- Pavasovic, Bled 1 996 when with 23.E1fl !
White could have exerted extreme pressure.
After 23 . . . @hS White should play 24 . .ic2! with
an attack.
Instead, 22 . . . @hS! makes more sense, but
After 10 . .ih4, Black does nonetheless have White retains the initiative: 23.E1h3! Suggested
quite a wide choice: by Phil Taylor. (23.�g4 E1gS 24.E1fl ± as
a) 10 . . . �b6 has been pretty much condemned suggested by Wells is also very strong, but
since White's powerful display in Leko - the forcing line should be more attractive
Kramnik, Belgrade 1 99 S. In the structure which on principle.) 23 ... E1dS (Fritz claims that
arises from the forcing sequence 1 1 .liJxc6! 23 ... E1aS gives Black equal play, but a little bit
bxc6 1 2.eS dxeS 13.fxeS liJ e4 14.liJxe4 .ixh4 of human help makes the machine understand
l S .�f4!, Black's bishop pair is a decidedly that 24.E1xh6t! @gS 2S.liJf6t .ixf6 26.exf6 is
mixed blessing, indeed it seems to me that he facing a faith worse than death, whatever that
sorely misses his knights. White's kingside is supposed to mean... 23 ... @gS 24.liJf6t!
aspirations are a bit crude, but rather effective, just wins.) 24.�xf7 Now White can just cash
and although Kramnik undoubtedly missed a in. 24 . . . .ia6 2S .�xe6 hd3t 26.E1hxd3 E1xd3
chance to generate a bit more on the other wing, 27.E1xd3 and White has a great advantage.
the theoretical verdict remains intact. I S . . . .ie7 b) 1 0 . . . �c7 has still more emphatically
16 . .id3 E1bS 1 7.b3 �c7?! (A bit cooperative. disappeared without trace. However, the
On grounds of both offence and defence 'refutation' is not just convincing, but also
1 7 . . . �b4!? makes more sense. However, even quite specific and hence worth being aware of.
then I prefer White's chances after l S.E1hfl as White should play l 1 .liJdbS �aS 1 2.�e 1 ! E1dS
19.@b1 a4 20.E1f3 axb3 2 1 .cxb3 �a3 22.E1g3 1 3.a3! E1d7 14 . .ixf6 .ixf6 ( l 4 ... gxf6 l S .E1d3
E1dS?! Wapner - Pavasovic, Bled 1 996 when does not bear thinking about!) l S .liJxd6 .ixc3
with 23.E1fl ! White could have exerted extreme 1 6.�xc3 �xc3 1 7.bxc3 eS l S.f5 @fS 1 9 . .ie2 as
The Classical 1 09
in Yudasin - D. Gurevich, Beersheba 1 993, and the opening battle, but the text is much more
since 1 9 ... �e7?? now loses to 20.ttJxcSt E1xcS incisive) I S . . . ttJxf3 19.E1xg7t �f8 20.�xf4
2 l .f6t gxf6 22.E1xd7t �xd7 23 . .ig4t Black has ttJxgl 2 1 ..ixf6 .ixf6 22.�xf6 .ie6 23.E1h7 �eS
particularly awkwardly placed pieces in addition 24.ib5t E1c6 25 .E1h5 d5 26.exd5 E1xd5 27.E1xd5
to his pawn deficit. ixd5 2S.iWe5t �f8 29.�hSt �e7 30.ttJxd5t
c) 10 . . . .id7 l 1 .ttJf3! (directed against �d6 3 1 .�h6t �c5 32.ixc6 �e 1 t 33.iWc1
. . . ttJxd4 and . . . .ic6 with the hope of showing �xc1 t 34. �xc1 bxc6 35.ttJf4 ttJf3 36.h3 �d4
that Black's 1 0th move is fundamentally rather and Black was active enough to hold the ending
passive) 1 1 . . .�a5 12.�bl E1fdS 1 3 . .id3 and in Ivanchuk - Cu. Hansen, Skanderborg 2003.
now: However 25 .�g5 !? d5 26.exd5 E1xd5 27.ixc6t
c 1 ) 13 . . . b5 14.g4! This dangerous pawn bxc6 2S.�xgl retains material and positional
storm is White's main strategy here, especially plusses, while restricting any counterplay.
as 9 . . . h6 has created a useful target. 14 . . . b4 d) 1 0 . . . ttJxd4 1 1 .�xd4 �a5 has, by contrast
1 5 . .ixf6 .ixf6 1 6.ttJe2 e5 1 7.g5 hxg5 I S.fxg5 with the moves considered above, recently
.ie6 1 9.ttJc1 .ie7 20.h4 d5 2 1 .iWe2 E1d6 22.h5 enjoyed a real renaissance. In the event of
E1adS 23.g6 gave White a very powerful attack 12.ic4! it quickly becomes clear that the move
in Tiviakov - Shmuter, St Petersburg 1 993. can only really be deployed in conjunction
It is instructive that Black's execution of the with a quick . . . e5, which represents a certain
standard central break with 20 . . . d5 here does positional concession for which Black seeks
nothing more than create a rather meaningless solace in the bishop pair and some activity. The
'tension' in the centre, neither impeding White fate of 12 . . . id7?, in the style of the main game,
on the kingside nor enhancing Black's efforts on emphasises the problem that the white bishop
the other wing. enjoys a far more secure existence on h4 - 1 3.e5!
c2) 13 . . . E1acS!? 14.E1hgl {the immediate wins material immediately. 1 2 . . . E1dS 1 3.E1hfl !
14.g4 is also possible, but Black can try is also problematic since White can open the
14 ... ttJxg4 1 5 ..ixe7 ttJxe7 1 6.E1hgl E1xc3 !? f-file and cause trouble there. Hence 1 2 . . . e5
1 7.�xc3 ( 1 7.E1xg4 E1c5 I S.�g2 g6 doesn't really 13.fxe5 dxe5 14.�d3 ig4 1 5.E1dfl ( l 5 .ixf6 is
convince) 1 7 ... �xc3 1 8.bxc3 ttJf6 which is quite similar, but seems to me to allow Black more
hard to assess) 14 . . . e5 1 5 .g4! exf4 16.g5 hxg5 options - White can usually throw in this move
1 7.E1xg5 ttJe5 when required) and now:
I S.E1dgl ! (the safe I S .ttJxe5 dxe5 1 9.ttJd5 ! is d l ) 1 5 . . . ie6 {the bishop on g4 can be
also sufficient to suggest that White has won vulnerable. For example 1 5 . . . E1adS?! 1 6.�g3
l lO Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
uncomfortable as the posltlon simplifies, endgame. Check this out - it is often the Black
largely due to light square targets on b7 and player annotating and trying to put his future
fl, is a reassuring sign for White.) 1 8 .Wl'e2 E1e8 opponents off the move!
(Alternatives are no panacea either. 1 8 . . . .id6
1 9.1tJxf4 looks innocuous enough, but the
Black pieces are actually quite loose, as is the fl
pawn. For example: 19 . . . E1e8? loses to 20 ..ixflt
and 19 . . . E1c8 to 20.ltJe6 ! . 19 . . . cj;>h8 holds but
looks unappetising. If 1 8 ... '!Wb8, Kobalija gives
1 9.E1hfl , but 1 9.93 ! ? played already in Mark
Tseitlin - Kveinys, Gdynia 1 989 is effective
against 1 9 . . . ltJ e3 20.gxf4 ltJxd 1 2 1 .fxe5 while
1 9 . . . fxg3 20 . .id3 ! is exceptionally awkward!)
1 9 . .ib5 ! E1e6 20.ltJxf4 E1d6 2 1 .ltJd3! The key
manoeuvre 2 1 . . . .if6 22.ltJc5! with a lasting
and powerful plus on the light squares. Kobalija
- Zaitsev, Russia 1 998.
10.Wi'xd4 Wi'a5
There are not a million ways to develop in this 1 1 . . . i.d7
position and the text, preparing either . . . e5, Black also has the sharp 1 1 ...b5 ! ? at his
or . . . .id7 by tactical means exploiting the pin disposal, but I like 1 2 .hb5 E1b8 1 3.a4 ! ?
along the 4th rank, is by far the most popular. (Securing the bishop i n preparation for a
As usual, 1 0 . . . a6 represents an alternative, quick e5) 1 3 . . . h6 ( 1 3 . . . a6 14.e5 ! dxe5 1 5 .fxe5
although for some reason less popular at this axb5 1 6.exf6 bxa4 1 7. ltJ e4! e5 1 8 .Wl'd5 is very
juncture. 1 1 .cj;> b 1 still makes sense to me, and strong, especially as after 1 8 . . . Wl'xd5 1 9.fxe7!
after 1 1 . . . b5 White has the shot 1 2 . .ixf6! Wl'a5 20.exf8='!Wt cj;>xf8 2 1 .E1d8t Wl'xd8
.ixf6 1 3 .e5 dxe5 1 4.Wl'e4 '!Wb6 1 5 .Wl'xa8 .ib7 22.hd8 .ib7 23 . .ic7 E1c8 24 . .id6t wins
1 6.E1d6! '!Wc7 1 7.Wl'a7 '!Wxd6 1 8.Wl'xb7 b4 material) 1 4 . .ih4 e5 (Here too 1 4 ... a6 fails to
( 1 8 . . . exf4!? 1 9 . .id3 hc3 20.bxc3 would at least solve the problems since 1 5 .e5 dxe5 1 6.fxe5
be less fun for White to play, although I do not axb5 1 7.exf6 gxf6 18 . .ixf6 .ixf6 1 9.Wl'xf6
believe that Black can claim full compensation.) bxa4 20.E1d3 Wl'g5t 2 1 .Wl'xg5t hxg5 22.ltJxa4
19.1tJe2 exf4 20.Wl'e4 E1d8 2 1 .ltJ c 1 Wl'd1 22.g3 leaves Black with little to show for the pawn.)
E1d4 23 . .id3 Wl'h5 Wells - A. Kiss, Hungary 1 5 .fxe5 dxe5 1 6.Wl'xe5 .ie6 1 7. ltJ d5 ltJ xd5
1 996, and now 24.'!We2! would have been an 1 8.exd5 hh4 1 9.dxe6 .ig5t 20.cj;>b l .if6
eminently sensible way to consolidate. 2 1 .exflt cj;>h8 22.Wl'd6± Campora - Moreno
1 l .i.c4 Tejera, Linares 2003.
This might be seen by some as the 'old main 1 2.e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 i.c6!
line', but in my opinion there is little doubt A good square for this piece, and a tactical
that it represents objectively the best try for an solution that underlies Black's entire strategy.
advantage - certainly when defending the Black White's best is simply to retreat and secure the
side it is the line I have the most respect for. In bishop pair.
addition it does have the serious practical virtue 1 4.i.d2! tiJ d7 1 5. tiJ d5 Wi'd8
of being rather forcing, and results in a degree The trap 1 5 . . . Wl'c5 ! ? 1 6 . .ib4? ( 1 6.ltJxe7t! )
of simplification which retains a decent level 1 6 . . . exd5 1 7 . .ixc5 .ixc5 etc netting three
of tension while at the same time somewhat pieces for the queen remains fairly victimless,
restricting Black's winning chances. Some but is worth being aware ofl
commentators refer to it as leading to a boring 1 6.tiJxe7t Wi'xe7 17.E1hel
1 12 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
edge.) 1 8 . . . i:'l:fd8 1 9.'Wg4 and now: Note 'b' above should not blur the fact
The Classical 1 13
that other things being equal this is the enjoyed a crushing position in Z. Almasi -
most threatening posting for this piece. The Hracek, Germany 1 997. It is useful to have an
exchange sacrifice above was so potent precisely illustration of what White can achieve when all
because the black knight on b6 was well poised the circumstances are favourable.) 2 1 .i.b6 ttl g6
for counterplay. Great respect though there
should be for the beast on fS, its perspective
is not primarily aggressive, and as we shall
see, the coming exchange sacrifice will also be
dominated by defensive considerations.
19 . . • �xd3
A familiar exchange sacrifice to nullifY White's
attacking prospects and his queenside majority,
while also enhancing control of the light
squares. When I last wrote about this more than
six years ago, I stressed the fact that the play
often reached an ending in which Black was
made to suffer with nothing more than a half
point to even aspire to. However, just before we
went to press, Black was just waking up to the
fact that his knight is a great piece and retaining Black has two useful sources of counterplay -
it is more important even than ensuring that he . . . � a5 forking pawns, and . . . �h4 commencing
gets a pawn into the kitty. This has undoubtedly the task of probing White's kingside pawns
enriched the counterplay, although I am still - and one vital resource . . . f5 . The latter can
generally enthusiastic for White. be critical. 22.c4?! would all but win here were
The exchange sacrifice is not the only way it not for 22 . . . f5 ! when after 23.�g3 the rook
to play. However, slow moves enable White to can nestle on d4 enjoying both security and
build up a serious initiative. 1 9 . . . �c7?! , for swing potential. 22.g3 fails to impress either.
example, was met with 20.i.b4 i.d5 2 1 .@b l After 22 . . . �a5 23.i.xg6 (23.@ b l ? ttlxe5)
l"1ac8 22.i.d6 �c6 23.b3! b5 24.l"1e3 ltJg6 25.h4 23 . . . hxg6 24.@b l l"1c8 White is a long way
f5 26.�g5 l"1d7 27.h5 ttlfS 28.l"1d2 l"1f7 29.l"1f2! from drumming up anything scary on the
h6 30.�f4 ttl h7?! 3 1 .g4± in Tatai - Epishin, kingside. In general the exchange on g6 is only
Reggio Emilia 1 994. An excellent example of recommendable if a quick h4-h5 follows. The
controlled aggression, keeping a tight grip on best move from the diagram position therefore
the position. seems to be 22.@b l ! .
Personally, as Black I would still tend to favour Now of course 22 . . . �a5?! may b e simply
the risky but apparently playable 1 9 . . . l"1d5 ! ? met with 23.�g3 and it is instructive quite
Th e idea i s clear - the rook exerts pressure on how difficult it is to strengthen Black's position.
e5 and also prepares to put further major pieces Moreover, the valuable role which the queen
on the d-file. The drawback is equally apparent should be playing stopping h4 will soon become
- the rook like the knight before it is vulnerable apparent - much as in the Almasi - Hracek note
to attack from White's c-pawn and even in some above to 20 . . . �c7?! .
danger of entrapment. After 20.i.b4 �d8 (But Much more serious then i s 2 2 . . . �h4!?
not 20 . . . �c7 2 1 .c4! l"1d7 [2 1 .. .i.b5? 22.@bl±] Then after 23.�xh4 ttlxh4 24.g3 ttl f3 25.l"1e3 !
22.i.d6 �a5 23.@b l ttl g6 24.h4! f5 25 .�g3 (this position has as yet only been reached in
�d8 26.l"1h l ! [26.h5 �h4!) 26 ... ttlh8 27.c5 ! - Shomoev - Kharlov, ACP blitz (!) prelim 2004,
cementing the bishop on d6, and activating its and after 25.l"1e2 i.b5 ! Black was fine) 25 . . . f5 ! ?
partner - 27 ... b5 28.i.c2! a5?! 29.�b3 White (25 . . . ttlxh2 26.c4 virtually obliges 2 6 . . . l"1xd3
1 14 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
A serious mistake. Better defensive chances he needs is a plan to make further progress,
were offered by 27 . . . i.b5 28Jk3 :1:ic8 29.i.b4 and his excellent 36th move reveals this. The
:1:ixc3t 30.hc3 hd3 3 1 .Wfd2 i.e4 32.Wfxd5 technical phase is a bit beyond our scope, but
hd5 33.:1:ie2 - Gofshtein, although Black is a the Moldovan's handling is very sound.
long way from securing the draw. Now, having 33 . . . 'Wfd7 35.a4 c!lJg5 36 .ia7! h6 37.'Wfb6 'it>h7
•
evicted the bishop from one excellent outpost, 38.�xc6 bxc6 39.'Wfxa6 c!lJ e4 40J:�xc6 :1:ixd4
Black offers it others. 41 ..ixd4 'Wfxd4t 42.'it>a2 'Wfd2t?! 43.'it>a3 'Wfxg2
28 .ib6! 'Wfb5 29 ..lc5 :1:id8 30.d4 'Wfa5 3 1 .'it>b2
• 44.'Wfc4 'Wfgl 45.'Wfxe6 'Wfal t 46.'it>b4 'Wfd4t
:1:id7 32J!ecl 'Wfd8 33.'Wfc4 �d5 34.'Wfb4 47.'it>b5 'Wfd3t 48.'it>b4 'Wfd4t 49.�c4 'Wfd2t
It is clear that compared with the note above, 50.'it>a3 'Wffl 5 1 .�c6
White's coordination is quite admirable. All 1-0
Kan and Taimanov
- By Sune Berg Hansen the reasons for this is to keep the risks involved
to a minimum - when White throws the g- and
f-pawns at Black's king he risks running into a
nasty counterattack, and the endings also tend
to favour Black. So the aim of this repertoire
is what I will call controlled aggression: White
will try to develop an initiative without taking
undue risks. White's main ideas include:
attacking Black's king (as usual in the Sicilian)
and - more distinctively for the Kan and
Taimanov - punishing b7-b5 if possible. I
cannot guarantee a White advantage in every
variation. But what I can promise is that you
will usually know what you are doing, and why
you are doing it! My ambition is that there will
be no dead ends - there will always be play left
The Kan and Taimanov are both very sound in the suggested positions!
and flexible Sicilian systems. I think that with Let us start with a short introduction. First
good preparation it is possible to gain an you should know that l .e4 c5 2.tLH3 e6 3.d4
advantage against both of these systems, but cxd4 4.lLlxd4 a6 is the Kan variation (also
after some time surely a proper antidote will be called the Paulsen) , and l .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 lLl c6 (or
found for Black and in the long run I do not 2 ... e6) 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 e6 is the Taimanov
think that either system can be refuted. They variation.
are popular at the highest level and players such The Taimanov and Kan variations enjoy
as Anand and Kramnik use them occasionally. If a special place and reputation in the Sicilian.
White finds a good (or winning) idea in one of These systems are not so easily understood as,
the sharpest lines he can be sure that he will only say, the Najdorf, Sveshnikov or Dragon. One
be able to use it once. Then all serious players of the reasons for this is that they overlap each
will have fed it to their computer program (Fritz other (if Black goes tiJc6 in the Kan the game
or Junior) and found an improvement. If they often transposes to the Taimanov) and they can
cannot find an improvement they will switch also overlap with the Scheveningen and therefore
to another line. So in the computer age one some understanding of the Scheveningen is
improvement usually means only one point. also necessary to avoid being 'move ordered'.
And it can take a week to find it! Move orders are one of the biggest problems
The approach I will take in this chapter is a in the flexible Taimanov and Kan lines. I
bit different. Instead of going for a refutation I will begin by explaining some of the things
will try to explain a system that is positionally that characterize the Kan/Taimanov. The big
well founded yet still active and aggressive. difference compared to the Scheveningen ( l .e4
Therefore it can be part of the reader's repertoire c5 2.lLlO e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLl f6 5.lLlc3
for a long time. d6) is, of course, that Black has not played
In general the idea behind the chosen systems d7-d6 yet (and might not do so at all) or tiJf6,
means placing the pieces on active squares and but he has the option almost every move! This
finishing development very quickly. White will is very important for understanding White's
attack with the pieces when possible. One of different lines against the Taimanov and Kan:
l IB Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
Black is under no circumstances to be allowed recommend an attacking set-up instead. The c4-
to play d7-d6 with a favourable transposition e4 system is better against the Kan than against
to the Scheveningen, or to a line that is not part the Taimanov where White has to put his knight
of the repertoire recommended in this book. at a3 in order to set up the Maroczy centre.
Hence the first principle for playing against Recommended for positional 'system' players
the Taimanov/Kan: Always remember Black who enjoy a space advantage.
can play d7-d6 (and lD f6) 'all the time', and
you should never allow him to get a g ood g3-systems
Scheveningen! A lot of tricky players use Kan Taimanov: l .e4 c5 2.lDf3 lD c6 3.d4 cxd4
or Taimanov move orders to avoid lines like 4.lDxd4 e6 5.lDc3 Wic7 (or 5 ... a6 6.g3) 6.g3
the i.g5-Najdorf, the English Attack, the Keres Kan: l .e4 c5 2.lDf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lDxd4 a6
Attack and lines with i.c4 - this should not be 5.lDc3 �c7 (5 . . . b5 6.g3) 6.g3
achieved without paying a price. Another option for White is to fianchetto his
Most of the variations I recommend against white squared bishop at g2. In general this is
both the Taimanov and Kan are based on putting not a very critical approach to the open Sicilian.
the white squared bishop on the active square The exception is the Taimanov where the g3
d3. Before we start the survey of the proposed variation ranks among the critical responses.
repertoire I will briefly mention White's other The experts are Adams and Tiviakov. Against
options. The reason is to avoid leaving the the Kan this line is pretty harmless.
reader in the dark if he or she for some reason Recommended for patient players with a solid
does not like the suggested repertoire. style and who like a heavyweight positional
battle.
Differences between the Taimanov and Kan
In the Taimanov Black has the knight on c6 ie2-Systems
from the beginning, this means that White has Taimanov: l .e4 c5 2.lDf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4
to keep the d4 knight guarded either by the 4.lDxd4 lD c6 5.lDc3 Wic7 6.i.e2 a6 7.0-0 lD f6
queen from d l or by the bishop from e3. In and now B.@hl or B.i.e3
the Kan Black often keeps the knight at bB, Kan: l .e4 c5 2.lDf3 e6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.lDxd4 a6
and most Kan players prefer a set-up with the 5.lDc3 (or 5 .i.e2) 5 . . . Wic7 6.i.e2
knight going to d7 instead of c6. This is very popular and critical line against the
Taimanov and a tricky sideline against the Kan.
Maroczy set-up The biggest problem for White is that he has
Taimanov: l .e4 c5 2.lDf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 to be ready to accept a classical Scheveningen,
4.lDxd4 lD c6 5.lDb5 d6 6.c4 lD f6 7.lD l c3 a6 which is not part of our recommended
B.lDa3 repertoire. At the moment I regard the i.e2,
Kan : l .e4 c5 2.lDf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lDxd4 a6 i.e3 line as White's most critical response to the
5.c4 Taimanov (this is what I fear the most when I
White has the option of playing a set-up with play Black) . Against the Kan this does not make
pawns at c4 and e4. Some will argue that this so much sense.
is the 'punishment' for adopting the Kan and Recommended for principled players who
Taimanov instead of say the Najdorf, Classical, have the time to keep up with current opening
Scheveningen or Dragon variations where theory (the verdict swings between an advantage
White forces lDc3 before c4 by attacking e4 for White and 'unclear' almost every week).
early. This line might give very good results for Kasparov and Shirov play this successfully
experts, but I do not think it fits very well with as White against the Taimanov. I think it is
the rest of the repertoire suggested in this book. mostly recommended for players who also use
The lines are very positional in nature and I will i.e2 against the Najdorf and Scheveningen.
Kan and Taimanov 1 19
that is not part of our recommended repertoire means there is no immediate pressure against
against the Najdorf/Classical. White's centre (no knight on c6 or f6) . Therefore
This line is only recommended for players White can also stay flexible with l .e4 c5 2.tLlf3
with plenty of time for opening studies. The e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 a6 5 .id3 keeping the
verdict changes on a daily basis and we are still options of playing c2-c4 or developing the
far from a 'stable' situation. This might be a knight at d2 instead of c3 open. This is regarded
good line for young aggressive (professional) as the main line and represents a whole different
players, but only against the Taimanov. branch of the Sicilian (there is some overlap if
White put the knight on c3 early) . This line is
f4-systems very complex and Black has no fewer than 1 0
White is currently doing very badly with f4- different respectable set-ups! Anand and Adams
systems in all lines of the Sicilian and this is are among the experts in this line.
therefore not recommended for anyone. Recommended for players with plenty of time
There are also some lines that are particular to for studying theory. This line can lead to very
the Taimanov and Kan move orders. different kind of positions, and therefore White
Special lines in the Taimanov must have a universal style to be successful with
White has the option of switching to the this line.
Pelikan/Sveshnikov kind of centre with l .e4 The above characteristics are the opinion of
c5 2.tLlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLl c6 5.tLlb5 d6 the author and are not by any means certified
6.if4 e5 7.ie3. A line previously favoured by truths.
Leko.
1 20 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
does not fit with !d3, but then the queen might
not belong at c7. (In the lines where White plays
!d3 Black does not play '\Mrc7 once in the lines
given by Emms in his excellent book Play the
Najdoif'Scheveningen Style. More on d6 set-ups
in Game 33.).
8.tLlb3 i.e7 9.f4
Threatening e4-e5, which will kick the knight
to a bad square and gain the e4-square for the
white pieces.
9 ... d6 10.a4!
Against the Kan I recommend a system based A very interesting idea. White wants to
on playing l .e4 c5 2.ttJf3 e6 3.d4 cx:d4 4.ttJxd4 play a4-a5 , which will seriously cramp Black's
a6 5.ttJc3 followed by 6.!d3. White has two queenside.
standard ways to play these positions. The first 10 ... b6
consists of playing moves like 0-0, '\Mre2, !d2,
Eiae 1 , f4, @hl and then either transfer a rook
to h3 or go e4-e5 aiming for a kings ide attack.
The other way to generate active play is to start
an assault on the queenside with a2-a4 (After
Black's b5.). This will usually be answered by
b5-b4 after which White retreats the knight,
and attacks b4 with c2-c3 leading to the opening
of the c-file (Which is usually advantageous
to White.) . White will get active play on the
queenside and in the centre.
Overview of part I
Game 28-30 covers the variation with
5 ... '\Mrc7 which is the old main line in the Kan .
In Game 3 1-34 the fashionable 5 ... b5 is covered. Almost forced. If Black allows a4-a5 White is
We begin with the game that has put the old clearly better.
Kan under a cloud. 1 0 ... ttJ c6 l 1 .a5 is just clearly better for White.
Emms' idea 1 1 ...ttJd7 planning to play . . . ttJc5
Game 28 and maybe win the a-pawn, does not work at
Acs - Fancsy all because of 1 2.!e3 ttJ c5 13.ttJa4!. Refuting
Zalakaros 1 997 the idea. 1 3 ... ttJxd3 14.cx:d3 And White is
controlling the c-file and b6, and is much
l .e4 c5 2.tLla e6 3.d4 cx:d4 4.tLlxd4 a6 5.tLlc3 better.
If Black tries 5 ... d6 here, to sidestep the Keres H .e5!
Attack, White's best move is probably 6.g4! Without this move I would not recommend
anyway (see page 2 1 8) . this line for White. White has a lead in
Kan and Taimanov 121
development and i s trying t o blow Black away '\!;!Tc6 20.Eif2 is possible, but risky.) 1 7 ... ct:l bc6
immediately. After normal moves like id2, I S.ct:ld5! exd5 19.bxc6 '\!;!Txc6 ( l 9 . . . ct:l g4 20.Eif4
�e2, mh1 etc. Black would be happy, as he has '\!;!Txc6 2 1 .�a4) 20.ct:ld4 ic5 2 1 .ie3 �c7 22.c3
reached his desired set-up and kicked White's ct:l c4 (22 . . . ct:l g4 23.if4) 23.if4 and White is
bishop to the b3-square. Also, without 1 1 .e4-e5 better. This, of course, awaits future practical
it is doubtful White should play 1 0.a4 at all. tests. If White does not like this he can just play
1 l tLl fd7
••• 1 3.'\!;!Tg4 g6 14.if4 ct:l c6 1 5 .ie4 ib7 1 6.Eiae l
Almost forced. After the dangerous 1 1 ...dxe5 with a very active position. Please notice that the
1 2.fxe5 the pawn is poisoned ( 1 2 . . . �xe5? e-pawn is immune: 1 6 ... ct:l cxe5 (Or 1 6 ... ct:l dxe5
1 3.if4 '\!;!Th5 1 4.ie2 �h4 [ 1 4 ...'\!;!Tg6 1 5 .iB] 1 7.hc6t) 17.hb7!, when White is winning
1 5 .ig3 '\!;!Tg5 1 6.iB wins for White) and Black material.
must play 1 2 . . . ct:l fd7. I recently made an attempt 12.exd6 ixd6
to revive this line for Black, but (fortunately 1 2 ... '\!;!Txd6 transposes after 13.ct:le4 '\!;!Tc7.
for us) I could not find a satisfactory reply to 13.tLle4 ie7
1 3.'\!;!TB !? Emms dismissed this line in his great 13 . . . ib7 14.ct:lxd6t '\!;!Txd6 1 5 .ie3 and White
book Sicilian Kan because of 1 3 ... ct:lxe5 ( 1 3 ... 0-0 has the bishop pair in an open position. Black
is too dangerous after 14.�h3 g6 [ 1 4 ... h6 is solid but White's advantage is quite clear.
1 5 .ixh6 is winning] 1 5 .ih6 EieS 16.ig7! A 1 5 ... ct:l c6 1 6.'\!;!Tg4 0-0-0 1 7.Eifd l ct:lf6 I S .'\!;!Te2
brilliant attacking idea my little slave Fritz found ct:l b4 and now instead of 1 9.ic4 which led to
while I was cooking. Now White is winning.) a draw in Trabert - Vasilev, Kavala 200 1 , 19.a5
14.'\!;!TxaS ib7 1 5 .ib5t axb5 16.�a7 b5 20.ixb5 is almost decisive.
With the verdict unclear. I, and maybe more 14.f5!?
notably Fritz, do not agree with this evaluation White should not rest for a second - he
at all. In the modern age where computer must use his better development before Black
programs are very strong (And everyone has consolidates.
one!) such positions can be worked out to a 14 exfS
•••
definite conclusion. I have not found a line 14 ... e5 1 5 .'\!;!Tg4 is terrible for Black. Black
where Black gets sufficient compensation. Some never had a chance in Sulskis - Emms, Gausdal
sample lines: 1995: 1 5 ... mf8 1 6.ig5 f6 17.ie3 ct:l c6 I S .EiB
ct:l b4 1 9.Eig3 EigS 20.ih6! ct:lxd3 2 1 .hg7t
meS 22.cxd3 '\!;!Tc2 23.'\!;!Th5t mdS 24.'\!;!Tf7 EieS
25.ct:lxf6 1-0.
1 5.if4!
White is very active and keeps developing
with tempo. 1 5 .Eixf5 ct:le5 does not promise
anything.
1 5 tLl e5
•••
against the amnesic editor! 1 O . . J:'!:xg2? l 1 .e5+-) f5 3 1 .a5 fxe4 32.fxe4 �b7 33.l:'!:el �a6 34.l:'!:d l
1 1 .�d2 ( 1 l .f4!? d6 12.0-0t But 1 1 .�f4 and �b7 3 5 .l:'!:el �a6 36.l:'!:e3 h5 37.h4 l:'!:c5 3B.l:'!:g3
the bishop comes to g3, which is horrible for *f6 39.l:'!:d3 �xa5 40.l:'!:d6t *e7 4 1 .l:'!:xg6
Black, as claimed by Sune is a bit optimistic. It �c8 42.l:'!:g5 �g4 43.*b4 l:'!:a2 44.l:'!:xe5t *d6
is more likely that an . . . e5 move will annoy the 45 .l:'!:d5t *c6 46.l:'!:c5t *b6 47.l:'!:b5t *c6
bishop greatly.) 1 1 . . .ctJe5 1 2.f4 ( 1 2 .�e2 �b7 4B.l:'!:c5t *b6 49.l:'!:b5t *c6 V2-V2 .
1 3.f4 ctJ c4 1 4 .�8 b4 1 5 .ctJ e2 l:'!:g6 1 6J9h3 b) 1 0.�xe7 '!Wxe7 (An earlier Hector - Agrest
be4+ Aagaard - Bosboom, Hafnarfjordur game went 1 0 . . . ctJxe7 1 1 .0-0-0 e5 1 2.�g5
1 999.) 1 2 . . . ctJ xd3t 1 3.cxd3 b4 14.ctJe2 l:'!:xg2 �e6 1 3.�e2 ctJ bc6 14.�d2 and here Ziegler in
1 5 .1Wh3 �g6°o Tiviakov - Bosboom, Hoogeveen Chessbase Magazine stated that White is slightly
1 999. better.) 1 1 .0-0-0 ctJ f6 1 2.�g3 ctJ bd7 1 3 .�e2
b) B . . . �f6 A clumsy move. White just e5 14.'!We3 0-0 1 5 .g4 b5 1 6.g5 ctJ eB 1 7.ctJd5
develops naturally and has a better position. �dB I B .h4 �b7 1 9.h5 hd5 20.l:'!:xd5 ctJ b6
9.�d2 ctJ c6 1 0.0-0 d6 1 1 .'!Wg3 and White is 2 1 .l:'!:d3 ctJ c4 and the game was later drawn in
slightly better. Hector - Mortensen, Copenhagen 1 996.
9 ..ig5!? 1 0.Wfh4 d6 1 1 .0-0-0 tLl c6
White uses the fact that the Black queen is at White also has good attacking chances after
c7 to try to exchange the black squared bishop. 1 1 ...f6 1 2.�d2 g5 1 3.�g3 h4 1 4.'!We3.
As all (!) Black's pawns are currently located 1 2.he7 Wfxe7 13.Wfg3 h4 1 4.Wfe3 g5 15 ..ie2
on light squares, Black will have weak dark .id7?!
squares for a long time to come. Please note A mistake but Black's position is full of holes
that this is not possible in the fashionable line: anyway. The text allowed . . .
1 .e4 c5 2.ctJ8 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ctJxd4 a6 5 .�d3 1 6.Wfb6!
�c5 6.ctJ b3 �e7 7.�g4 g6 and there is no �g5
due to the queen at dB.
9 ... h5
9 . . . d6 is more sensible. Hector has tried two
moves in this position:
a) 1 O.0-0-0!? Hector recently switched
to this move. It is probably best, and White
does seem to have good chances of getting
an advantage. Hector - Agrest, Aarhus 2003
continued 10 . . . ctJ f6 1 1 .'!Wf4 ctJ bd7 1 2.l:'!:he l
( 1 2.*b l also looks promising e.g. 1 2 ... b5
[ 1 2 ... e5 1 3.�d2 b5 14.a3J and now 1 3.a3 as it
is not certain the rook belongs on e 1 .) 12 ... e5
1 3.�d2 b5 ( 1 3 ... ctJ b6?! 14.�e2 Wins a pawn
or forces the knight to go back again.) 14.hb5
(Very typical of Hector, but I will recommend More or less winning a pawn by force. The
14.a3(!) instead. After 14 ... �b7 1 5 .*bl 0-0-0 b-pawn is attacked and White is planning to
1 6.8 White is better - he enjoys more space double rooks on the d-file.
and has a safe king.) The game concluded 16 tLl f6?
•••
14 . . . axb5 1 5 . ctJxb5 '!WbB 16.ctJxd6t �xd6 The lesser evil was 1 6 . . . �dB 1 7.'!WxdBt
1 7.'!Wxd6 �xd6 I B.l:'!:xd6 �a6 1 9.�xa6 �xa6 ( 1 7.ctJ a4!? But not 1 7.�xb7?? l:'!:a7!) 17 ... l:'!:xd8
20.�6 ctJxf6 2 1 .ctJc5 �cB 22.c4 *e7 23.*c2 1 8.l:'!:xd6 and White is a clear pawn up.
ctJ d7 24.ctJ d3 �a6 25.*c3 l:'!:cB 26.b3 *e6 17.Wfxb7 Wfd8 1 8. tLl d4 tLl a5 19.Wfb4 Wfc7
27.a4 ctJ c5 2B.ctJxc5 t l:'!:xc5 29.l:'!:d l �cB 30.8 20.tLl b3 tLl b7 2 1 . tLl d2! �b8 22.tLlc4 The rest
1 24 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
ltJxh2 38.�xe8t
1 -0
Notice how weak Black's dark squares
became after the exchange of the black squared
bishops.
Game 30
Predojevic - Fogarasi
Budapest 2004
10 ltJbd7
•••
l .e4 c5 2.ltJf3 e6 3.ltJd Black can also play 10 ... ltJc6. White now
A smart way to sidestep different lines like plays 1 1 .�e2! and seems to be a bit better as
the tricky 4 .. .'IWb6 and the Pin-variation. Black Black has problems in finding a safe haven for
cannot exploit this move order in any way as the king. 1 1 ...Ad7 (Not the optimal square for
both the White systems recommended in this the bishop but the more active and thematic
chapter involve playing the knight to d . 1 1 ...b5 does not solve Black's problems after the
3 a6 4.d4 cxd4 S.ltJxd4 YlYc7 6 ..ld3 ltJf6
•••
standard plan 1 2.Ad2 0-0 1 3.a3 Ab7 14J�ae 1
7.0-0 .lcs 8.ltJb3 .la7!? ltJ e7 1 5 .e5. This i s White's normal play/plan
Another way for Black to retreat the bishop. against the Kan , and if you do not know what to
Black is playing in similar fashion to 1 .e4 c5 do, this is often the recommended course! 1tJ fd5
2.1tJf3 e6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 a6 5 .Ad3 Ac5 1 6.exd6 ltJxc3 1 7.Axc3 �xd6 1 8 .Ab4 �d7
6.ltJb3 Aa7. It is White's job to make sure that 1 9.Eid1 Ad5 20.Axe7 �xe7 2 1 .hhn @xh7
he gets a worse version! 22.Eixd5 and White won in Wiese - Guimaraes,
9.cj{h1 ! Lisbon 200 1 .) 1 2.Ae3 ! Only now, when Black
I f White chooses to play WIe2 and Ae3 then has messed up his set-up with Ad7, does White
Black simply gains a good line from the 5 .Ad3 agree to this exchange. The game Ecsedi - Feher,
Ac5 6.ltJb3 Aa7 system. Once again this shows Hungary 1 995 concluded quickly: 1 2 ... Axe3
that it is necessary to have a broad knowledge 1 3.�xe3 b5 14.Eiae 1 (!)
of the various lines in the Sicilian. O-O-O? 1 5 .a4 ltJ a7 1 6.Eia1 g5 17.axb5 tiJg4
9 d6
•••
18.WIgl gxf4 19.b6 'Wc6 20.bxa7 tiJe3 2 1 .Eixa6
9 ... h5 l O.f4 ! ltJ g4 1 1 .�f3 b5 1 2.e5 Ab7 'Was 22.Eixf4 1-0. Admittedly not a great game,
1 3 . ltJ e4 shows how ineffective the bishop can but White is better!
be at a7. Some Black players (maniacs) will go 10 ...
9 . . . ltJ c6 1 0.f4 d6 just transposes to the game. h5 !? This is not very trustworthy and if White
9 . . . b 5 might be premature after 1 0.a3 ltJ c6 just sticks to the scheme ('We2, Ad2 Eiae 1 and e5)
1 l .f4 d6? 1 2.hb 5 ! 0-0 1 3 .Ae2 Black was just he will get a good position with nice attacking
a pawn down and White went on to win in chances.
Semenova - Drmic, Harkany 1 997. l 1 ..ld2
1 0.f4 White is making room for the rook at e 1 .
1 0.Ag5 is also possible. If White does not After e4-e5 the bishop will b e good on the c1-
like the text he can investigate this idea. h6 diagonal if Black takes on e5. And if Black
Kan and Taimanov 125
does not take, and instead retreats the knight, l .e4 cS 2.ltJ f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 a6 S.ltJc3
this bishop can often find a nice square at c3 bS!?
(after 4Jxd5 and exd6). In both cases the bishop Black immediately starts the attack with the
will be helpful for White's attack. wing pawn, which is so typical of the Taimanov
1 1 ... 0-0 12.Wi'e2 E:e8?! and Kan. The advance of the b-pawn creates
Black does not have time for this, but even the option of b5-b4, which increases Black's
after the better 1 2 ... b5 13.1"1ae l ib7 14.e5 dxe5 influence in the centre. The downside for Black
( 14 . . . 4J d5 1 5 .exd6 �xd6 1 6.4Je4 �c7 1 7.4Ja5 is that the a6-b5 pawn-phalanx can easily
ic8 1 8.c4 bxc4 1 9 .4Jxc4 and White has the become a weakness after either a well timed
initiative.) 1 5 .fxe5 4J d5 1 6.4Jxd5 ixd5 1 7.ig5 ! c2-c4 or especially a2-a4. Black is only making
White has a strong attack. By the way, this is pawn moves so White is ahead in development
a good position to use to "play-out" against a and, even though Black is solid, White has good
computer program. chances of creating an attack. This line has been
13.E:ael very popular in the new millennium.
White is ready for e4-e5 with a big attack. 6 . .id3 Wi'b6
13 ... e5?! This has become very popular and is currently
13 . . . ib8 (preventing e4-e5) is probably regarded as Black's best chance in the Kan after
better, even though it is awfully passive. White 5 .4Jc3. As usual Black wants a normal set-up
should go 14.g4 when Black is pushed back. with the queen at c7, but first he tries to kick
14.g4! White's knight from d4 to the passive square b3.
Here we go! In general White does not push This is known in some sources as the Enhanced
his g-pawn (and often not even his f-pawn) in Kveinys variation. I will recommend:
the lines recommended in this chapter but, 7.ltJf3!?
when the conditions dictate it, White must
include the kingside pawns in the battle or else
he will risk losing the initiative.
With g5 coming White is getting seriously
involved in the fight for control of d5.
14 ... ltJ f8 IS.gS ltJ6d7 16.ltJdS Wi'd8 1 7.f5
Black is busted.
17 ... bS 18.ltJaS ltJb8 19.c4
1 9 .�h5 is also good.
19 ... .ib6 20.ltJxb6 Wi'xb6 2 1 .b4 .ib7 22.cxbS
22.�e3 is simpler.
22 ... dS 23 ..ie3 Wi'c7 24.1"1c1 Wi'd7 2S.a4 g6
26.b6 ltJ c6 27.ltJxc6 .ixc6 28.bS dxe4 29.bxc6
exd3 30.Wi'g2
1-0
The lines with . . . ia7 promise White good It looks almost like a beginner's move -
chances if he plays precisely. blocking the f-pawn and what on earth is the
knight doing here? Of course the knight was
Now we move on to the current main line in under attack and had to retreat (I have not found
the Kan . any trace of an advantage after 7.ie3! ? ic5 !).
At b3 the knight is just passive and sometimes
Game 3 1 even gets in the way, but at f3 it is eyeing g5
Adams - Kasimdzhanov and e5 . Black is using a lot of time to kick
FIDE World Championship, Tripoli 2004 the knight so at the moment his development
1 26 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
is in a sorry state, and this might give White 1 0 ... b4 1 1 .liJ b l liJge7 1 2.liJbd2 liJg6 13.liJc4
the chance for a rapid attack with the pieces. .ic7 14 . .ifl liJge5 1 5 .liJcxe5 liJxe5 1 6.liJd4 .ib7
When I was preparing this line for Black, this 1 7.YfJh5 0-0 and now, instead of IS.l:'le3, which
was the variation I was afraid of. If White can quickly led to a draw in Smirnov - Fominyh,
attack with the pieces instead of pawns he is also Chennai 2004, White can keep an edge with
not taking the usual risks: If the attack fails the I S . .id2! attacking b4 and preparing c2-c3.
position will be approximately equal, whereas if a32) 9 ... liJ ge7 1 0 . .ie3 ! Eyeing b6. 1 0 ... d6
this happens in the normal Sicilian lines, White ( 1 0 ... liJg6 I l .a4! b4 1 2. liJd5 is very good for
is usually left with a lot of pawn weaknesses. White) 1 1 .YfJd2 liJg6 12.liJd4 liJxd4 1 3.hd4
7 Y!!c7
••• liJe5 14.f4 liJc6 1 5 . .if2 .ie7 1 6.liJd5 exd5
Black has many alternatives, but I believe this 1 7.exd5 This position was reached in two
is best. Black avoids allowing White to go a4-a5 games:
with tempo. The other lines are a jungle: Myo Naing - Zaw Win Lay, Bangkok 2004
a) 7 ... liJ c6 S.O-O was fun: 17 ... liJ a7 I S .l:'le3 .id7 1 9 .1:'lae l liJcs
20 . .ih4 f6 2 1 .YfJe2 YfJb6 22.@h l 'lWdS 23 . .ixf6!
gxf6 24.'lWh5t @f8 25 .'lWh6t @f7 26.hh7
.ig4 27.'lWg6t @f8 2S.YfJxg4 l:'lxh7 29.l:'lg3 @eS
30.'lWgSt @d7 3 1 .YfJxh7 1-0.
In Grischuk - Smirin, New Delhi (2) 2000
Black instead went 17 ... liJe5 I S.Exe5 dxe5
1 9.'lWe2 0-0 20 . .id4 exd4 2 1 .'lWxe7 g6 22.'lWf6
.ib7 23.d6 .id5 24.'lWxd4? (White is totally
winning after 24 . .ie4!). The game concluded
24 ... .ie6 25.l:'lxe6 Exe6 26.c4 bxc4 27.hc4 h5
2S.l:'lcl l:'la7 29.he6t @h7 30.h4 l:'lb7 3 1 .d7
l:'lxb2 32 . .ih3 V2-V2 .
a33) 9 ...d 6 should by answered by 1 0 . .id2!
planning the typical a4 and c3.
a4) S ... liJf6 is very provocative after 9.e5
And now: b4 1 0.liJe4 liJg4 1 1 ..if4 'lWa5 Black defended
a l ) S ....ib7 was good for White after 9.'lWe2 successfully in Bauer - Ciuksyte, Zurich 2002
(or 9J:'le l ! ) 9 . . . liJge7 1 0 . .ie3 YfJa5 I l .a3 liJg6 after 1 2.l:'le l liJgxe5 13.liJxe5 liJxe5 14.YfJh5 liJc6
1 2.liJd5 exd5 1 3.exd5 0-0-0 14.dxc6 dxc6 and 1 5 .liJg5 g6 1 6.'lWf3 .ie7 1 7.h4 0-0. But White
later 1-0 in Krakops - Bellin, Gausdal 2000. is almost winning after 12.liJeg5 ! For example
a2) S ... liJge7 9.l:'le l ! is nasty for Black. 9 ... liJg6 1 2 ... h6 13. liJxf7 ! @xf7 1 4.h3 or 1 2 ... .ib7
(9 ... YfJbS transposes to line 'c' below) 1 0.liJd5 ! ? 1 3 . .ie4 with tremendous pressure.
( 1 0.a4 allows 1 0 ... .ic5 ! when Black i s more or a5) S ... d6 9. 'lWe2 when White has done well
less OK) 10 . . . 'lWdS I l .a4 l:'lbS 1 2.axb5 axb5 in practice. Spraggett - Boudy, Montreal 1 996
13.liJc3 b4 14.liJb5 .ic5 1 5 ..ie3 he3 1 6.l:'lxe3 proceeded: 9 ... liJf6 1 0.a4! b4 1 1 .liJb l Another
0-0 1 7.liJd6 with a clear advantage for White, route for the knight. 1 1 .. ..ie7 12.liJ bd2 coming
Xu Yuhua - Khurtsidze, Hyderabad 2002. to c4. 1 2 ... 0-0 ( 1 2 ... 'lWbS did not help Black
a3) S ... 'lWbS (planning a set-up with liJge7-g6 in Baklan - Stiri, Corinth's 2004. The game
and .id6) I think White's best move is 9.l:'le l ! concluded 13.liJc4 liJg4 14 . .if4 e5 1 5 . .id2 f5?
(9.e5 is also very popular) . Black now has a Asking much too much of the black position
choice between a3 1 ) 9 ... .id6, a32) 9 ... liJge7 and 1 6.liJe3 liJxe3 1 7.Exe3 0-0 I S.exf5 d5 1 9.e4!
a33) 9 ... d6: .ic5t 20.@h l .ixf5? 2 1 .exf5 e4 22.he4 dxe4
a3 1 ) 9 ....id6 1 0.a4! Freeing c4 for the knight. 23.'lWc4t @hS 24.'lWxc5 exf3 25 .'lWxc6 1-0.)
Kan and Taimanov 1 27
1 3.ttJc4 Wic7 14.a5 ttJ d7 1 5 ..if4 and White is d) 7 ... .ib7?! 8.a4! Wia5 (A sign that everything
better ( 1-0, 43) . is not right with Black's set-up, but 8 . . . b4 9.a5
b) 7 ... d6 Wic7 1 O.ttJa4 is much better for White.) 9.0-0
b4 10.ttJbl d5 l 1 .e5 ttJ d7 1 2.ttJ bd2 ttJc5
l 3.ttJd4 Wic7 14.E!e l ttJ e7 1 5 .Wih5 g6 1 6.¥fih4
.ig7 1 7.ttJ 2b3 h6 1 8.ttJxc5 ¥fixc5 19.ttJf3 and
White is better. The game concluded. 1 9 ... ttJ c6
20 . .ie3 Wie7 2 1 .Wig3 <j;ld7 22.a5 g5 23.c3 g4
24.Wixg4 ttJxe5 25.ttJxe5t he5 26.¥fih5 f6
27 . .id4 .ixd4 28.cxd4 E!ag8 29.f4 Wig7 30.g3 f5
3 1 .E!e5 ¥fig6 32.Wie2 E!a8 33.E!el E!he8 34.Wid2
.ic6 35 .Wixb4 E!ab8 36.¥fic3 .ib5 37.hf5 ! 1-0.
Ghinda - Petre, Sovata 1 999.
8.0-0
b2) 8.a4!? b4 (8 ... bxa4 9.ttJxa4 is better for Again Black has alternatives:
White) 9.a5 ! And Black has a choice. 9 . . . Wib7 1) 8 . . . ttJc6 is not very logical (it fits better
(After 9 ... ¥fic7 10.ttJa4 ttJd7 1 1 ..ie3 .ib7 with Wib8) 9.E!e1 is a good reply.
12.ttJb6 White already has a clear advantage. l a) 9 ... d6 10.a4! The normal reply to
The a-pawn is weak and the ttJ b6 is very d7-d6. 1O ... b4 l 1 .ttJa2 ttJf6 1 2 . .id2 a5 (White is
annoying.) . 1 O.ttJa4 ttJd7 1 1 .0-0 ttJgf6 12.Wie2 better after both 12 ... d5 13.exd5 ttJxd5 14 . .ie4
with a pleasant position. and 12 ... Wib8 1 3 .c3 bxc3 14.hc3! .ie7 1 5 .b4
c) 7 . . . .ic5 8.0-0 .ib7 (8 ... ttJf6? 9.e5 ttJg4 0-0 1 6.b5) l 3.c3 bxc3 14.ttJxc3 and White is
1 0.ttJe4 and Black is busted) 9.a4 b4 1 0.a5 Wic7 clearly better.
l 1 .ttJa4 ¥fixa5 This cannot be right. Black will I b) 9 ... id6? 10. ixb5 !
miss his black squared bishop. 1 2.ttJxc5 Wixc5 l c) 9 ... ttJ f6 1 0.e5 ttJ g4 l 1 .if4 f6 1 2.ig3 !
l 3 . .ie3 ¥fic7 14.Wid2 ttJf6 ( 1 4 . . . a5 1 5 . .id4
f6 16.Wie3 and White has a raging initiative.) fxe5 l3. ttJ g5 ttJ f6 14. ixh7 d6 1 5 . ig6t
1 5.¥fixb4 ttJc6 and now instead of 1 6.Wib6 as <j;le7 16. ttJ f7 g g8 1 7. ttJ e4 d5 1 8 . ttJ eg5 1-0.
in Meshcheriakova - Kucherova, Essentuki Nikolenko - Ivanov, Moscow 2000.
2003, White has 1 6.Wic3, which gives a huge 2) 8 ... d6 9.a4! with the usual play on the c-file
advantage. Black is missing her bishop. after b5-b4, ttJ a2 and c2-c3.
128 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
A specialty of Svidler and Markowski. seems to be a bit better for White) 1 3 .i.b5t
7.0-0 lLl bd7 14.i.g5 0-0 1 5 .c3 bxc3 1 6.lLlxc3 And
White has an obvious advantage according
to Smirin in New In Chess. I tend to agree, as
White has the bishop pair and free play. The
black bishop does not seem to have a very bright
future and if White is careful he will always be
able to 'play around it'. The game continued:
16 ... h6 17.i.h4 lLl c5 I S .gadl lLl b3 1 9.i.xf6
.txf6 20.lLld5 lLl d4 2 1 .�d3 gcS 22.gc1 i.g5
23.gc3 gxc3? (23 ... gc5 is still good for White
but Black has better chances than after the text
move, which robs his knight of the d4-square)
24.bxc3 lLl b3 25.gdl lLl c5 26.'lMfe2 e4 27.'lMfg4
i.f6 2S.ge l i.e5 29.ge3 �h7 30.gh3 g6 3 1 .f3
exf3 32.gxf3 h5 33.f4 i.g7 34.'lMfg2 ggS 35.�hl
i.f6 36.fxg6t fxg6 37.f5 i.h4 3S.i.c4 gg7 39.'lMff3
7 tlJ f6
••• 'lMfg5 40.lLl f4 '1Mfxf5 4 1 .gxh4 ge7 42.i.d3? After a
a) 7 ... i.b7 is answered by the standard S.a4! well-played game Smirin throws the win away.
b4 9.lLla2 d5 (9 ... e5 is no better. 1 0. lLl f5 ! lLl c6 The easiest win is probably 42.i.b5 ! . After the
1 1 .i.d2 a5 1 2.c3 bxc3 13.lLlxc3 With a clear text move Black managed to draw. 42 ... lLlxd3
advantage in Wiersma - H. Van der Spek, 43.'lMfxd3 ge4 44.lLlg2 gxa4 45 .'lMfd l '12-'12
Amsterdam 2002.) l O.e5 lLl c6 l 1 .lLlxc6 hc6 Smirin - Markowski, Rethymnon 2003.
12.i.d2 '1MfbS 1 3 .gel '1Mfb7 14.lLlc1 lLl e7 1 5 .lLlb3 b) 10 ... 'lMfb6 Markowski's latest try. 1 1 .i.e3
lLlg6 1 6.f4 i.d7 1 7.'lMfg4 and White was better 'lMfb7 12.i.d2 ( 1 2.c3 lLlxe4 1 3.lLlxb4 lLlf6 14.i.g5
and duly won in V. Malisauskas - M. Brodsky, 0-0 1 5 .a5 d5 1 6.f4 and here White quite
Riga 1995. prematurely agreed to a draw in Bakalarz -
b) 7 ... i.e7 S.a4 i.f6 9.i.e3 bxa4 1 0.lLlxa4 Markowski, Antalya 2004. Not the best decision
lLl e7 l 1 .c4 0-0 1 2.b4 lLl bc6 1 3.lLlxc6 lLlxc6 as he has a promising attacking position.)
14.gb l gbS 1 5 .'lMfd2 i.d4 1/2-1/2 Kundin 1 2 ... e5 13.lLlb3 lLl c6 14.i.g5 0-0 1 5 .hf6
- Kudischewitsch, Tel Aviv 2002. A weird .txf6 1 6.i.c4 i.e6 1 7.gfd l The position is very
decision by White, as he is much better. unclear but later won by White in Cyborowski
8.VMe2 - Markowski, Warsaw 2004.
The best move in my opinion. The queen is c) 10 . . . a5 l 1 .c3 e5 12.i.b5t! and White
often good on this square, where it adds to the is already clearly better. V. Faibisovich -
pressure on the fl-a6 diagonal, defends e4, and R. Rodkin, Pardubice 200 1 .
supports a future e4-e5. 8.ge l is also possible. 9.a4 b4 10.tlJa2 dS
8 ...i.b7 1 0 ... i.e7 l 1 .lLlxb4! d5 1 2.e5 i.xb4 13.exf6
S ... i.e7 9.a4! b4 (9 ... bxa4 1 0.lLlxa4 i.b7 'lMfxf6 14.c3 i.e7 1 5.i.b5t! lLld7 ( 1 5 ... �f8
1 1 .i.d2 0-0 12.b4 and White has the better 1 6.i.d3 e5 17.lLlb3 leaves White only slightly
prospects and went on to win in Cernousek better.) 1 6.i.xd7t �xd7 1 7.i.e3 ghcS I s.lLlf3
- Bernasek, Lilie Litomys1 2003) 1 0.lLla2 i.d6 And here, instead of 1 9 .gfe 1 (Ribli - Garcia
a) 1 0 ... e5 l 1 .lLl f5 ! With Black's central pawns Martinez, Cienfuegos 1 972) , White should play
on dark squares it makes a lot of sense to force 1 9 .i.d4! with an obvious advantage.
the exchange of his white squared bishop. H .eS tlJ e4 12.c3 tlJ d7
1 1 . . .i.xf5 1 2.exf5 a5 ( 1 2 .. :�a5 1 3.i.d2 lLl c6 1 2 ... bxc3 1 3.lLlxc3 lLlxc3 14.bxc3 �c7 1 5 .gb l
14.c3 bxc3 1 5.hc3 'lMfb6 1 6.b4 0-0 1 7.'lMfe3 and White is better according to Smirin. Black
Kan and Taimanov 131
has n o way to develop his pieces i n a sensible l .e4 cS 2.tLlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 a6 S.tLlc3
way. And where is Black's king supposed to go? b5 6 .id3 .ic5
•
13.0 tLl ecS 14.tLlxb4 as Another way to try to reach the positions with
White's knight stuck at b3.
The alternative is 6 ... .ib7 7.0-0 and apart
from 7 ... �b6, which we looked at in Game 5 ,
Black has the following options:
IS.tLlbc6!
Very smart. Smirin has calculated that the
discovered check is harmless.
IS ... .L:c6
1 5 . . .'\Mfb6 1 6 . .ib5 CiJ b3 1 7 . .ie3 CiJxal 1) 7 ... �c7 (In combination with b5 and .ib7
IS.CiJxe6. this is begging for trouble. The position often
16.tLlxc6 Wib6 17 .ib5 tLl b3t?!
• arises via 5 ... �c7 too.) S.Ele l ! ? Getting ready
17 ... ElcS is better, but even here White is for a knight jump to d5. Now we have:
clearly better after I S . .ie3 Elxc6 1 9.b4! Elc7 l a) S ... CiJc6 9.CiJxc6 �xc6 (9 ... .ixc6 1 0.CiJd5 !
20.Elab l �a7 2 1 .l!?hl .ie7 22.bxc5 hc5 and 9 ... dxc6 1 0.a4 i s better for White) 1 0.a4 b4
23 . .ig5 0-0 24.f4 with a nice kingside attack I 1 .CiJd5 CiJf6 1 2 . .id2 .ic5 13.d and White has
in the making. the initiative.
IS . .ie3 .ic5 19J'�ael ElcS 20 .L:c5 Wixc5t
• I b) S ... d6 9.a4! bxa4 (9 . . . b4 1 0.CiJd5! A typical
2 1 .1!?hl! sacrifice even though 10.CiJa2 with the usual
A computer move. plan of attacking the queens ide is safe and good,
2 1 . Elxc6 22.Widl!
.• 10 ...exd5 l 1 .exd5t CiJ e7 and here instead
The rest is easy. White is just a pawn up. of 12.CiJf5 which looked unclear in Stocek
22 ... Elc7 23.Wixb3 0-0 24.Widl tLl b6 2S.f4 g6 - Protaziuk, Zagan 1995, I prefer 1 2 . .ig5
26.E:f3 l!?g7 27.E:h3 h5 2SJ'!d3 tLl cs 29.f5 g6 1 3 .�e2!? with an interesting attacking
A forceful shift of gear. position.) 10.Elxa4 White's play in this game is
29 exfS 30.E:xdS Wif2 3 1 .e6 Wixb2 32.E:d7
••. very instructive: 1 0 . . . CiJ f6 I 1 .Elc4 �dS 12.Elb4
E:xc3 33.e7! �c7 13 . .ig5 .ie7 14 ..ic4 CiJ c6 1 5 .CiJxc6 hc6
Winning a piece. 1 6 ..ixf6 gxf6 1 7.Elb3 ElgS 1 8 .�h5 Elg6 1 9.�xh7
33 ... tLlxe7 34.Wid4t f5 20.CiJd5 1-0 Ribli - Tokaji, Hungary 1 967.
1-0 lc) S ... b4?! 9.CiJd5 ! (The alternative 9.CiJce2
led to a White success after CiJf6 10.CiJg3 .ic5
Game 34 I 1 .CiJb3 .id6 12 . .id2 CiJ c6 13.d a5 14.CiJd4
Ponomariov - Gallagher .ic5 1 5 . .ie3 CiJe5 1 6.CiJb5 �b6 1 7 . .ixc5 �xc5
Biel 2000 I S.cxb4 1-0 in Tiviakov - Anand, Tilburg
1 32 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
1 992 but the text move is more forceful.} 4b2} 9 ... �bS !? 1 O.a4! b4 l 1 .ttl dS .td6
9 ... exdS 1 0.exdSt @dS 1 1 .�hS ! and White's 12.�hS hdS 13.exdS ttlf6 14.�gS @f8 A
attack is very strong. concession. The rest of the game is instructive -
I d} S ... .td6 rapidly led to a disaster for Black. White goes very hard after Black's king. I S .dxe6
9.ttl8 b4 10.ttla4 ttlc6 1 1 ..te3 ttleS 1 2.ttlxeS dxe6 16.�h4 @e7 1 7.aS !'lcs I S ..td2 b3 1 9 . .tc3
heS 1 3.�hS ttl f6 14.�h4 �c6? I S .�gS d6? bxc2 20 ..txc2 �bS 2 1 .!'lad l !'lc4 22.�h3 ttlg4
1 6.f4 1-0 Krakops - Kunte, Zagan 1 997. 23.!'lxd6 @xd6 24 . .td3 !'lxc3 2S.bxc3 �gS
I e} S ... .tcS !? 9.ttlb3 .te7 1 0.�g4 g6 1 1 ..tgS 26.�g3t @e7 27 ..te2 �d2 2S.@f1 hS 29.h3
is similar to Game 2. !'lcS 30.!'ld l 1-0 Tiviakov - Perez Candelario
I f) S ....te7 and in Emms - Franklin, West Malaga 2003.
Bromwich 2004, White tried the adventurous 4b3) 9 ... d6 1 0.a4 is good for White. 1 0 ... b4 is
9.eS (9.�e2!? is a good alternative) and after answered by l 1 .ttl dS ! .
9 ... b4 10.ttla4 ttl c6 l 1 .ttlxc6 hc6 1 2.b3 hS 4b4} 9 ... ttle7 1O.�hS ttlg6 l 1 .a4 b4 12.ttldS
13 . .te4 h4 14.�8 !'lcS I S . .td2 ttlh6 1 6.!'lac 1 .td6 and now, instead of 13 . .te3 which was later
ttlrs 17.c3 bxc3 I S.!'lxc3 h e had gained a big drawn in Ponomariov - Dao Thien Hai, New
advantage. The game concluded: IS ... 0-0 1 9.94 Delhi 2000, I prefer 1 3 . .td2!?
hxg3 20.hxg3 .txe4 2 1 .�xe4 �a7 22.@g2 dS 7.ttl b3 /ie7
23.exd6 ttlxd6 24.�f3 .tf6 2S.!'ld3 !'lfdS 26 . .taS
1-0.
I g} S ... ttl f6 is as usual answered by 9.eS ! . Black
went 9 ... ttldS in Haba - Voloshin, Plzen 2003.
After 1 O.ttlxdS .txdS 1 1 .�g4 ttl c6 12.ttlxc6
�xc6 13 . .td2 hS White could have gained a
clear advantage with 14. �gS when Black has
problems developing. In the game White played
14.�h3?! and still won with some luck.
2} 7 ... d6 S.�e2!
2a} S ... ttlf6 Transposes to Game 33.
2b} S ... ttlc6 9.ttlxc6 .txc6 1 0.a4! with a clear
advantage.
2c} S ... ttl d7 9.a4 bxa4 1 0.ttlxa4 and White is
a little better.
3} 7 ... ttle7 S . .tgS ! has long been known to be 8.�g4! g6
good for White. Both S ... h6 and S . . .f6 should S ... ttlf6 9.�xg7 !'lgS 1 0.�h6 ttl c6 1 1 ..tf4 and
be answered by 9 . .te3 when Black's structure Black has no compensation for the pawn.
is weakened and White has good attacking 9.VNe2
chances. Back to the ideal square. Compared to the line
4} 7 ... ttl c6!? S.ttlxc6 l .e4 cS 2.ttlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 a6 S ..td3
4a} S ... dxc6 9.eS (9.a4!) ttl e7 10.�hS �c7 .tcS 6.ttlb3 .te7 7.�g4 g6 S.�e2 Black has
1 1 .!'lel ttlg6 1 2.hg6 fxg6 1 3.�g4 �f7 14.ttle4 played b7-bS too early and White can punish
�rs I S.�h4 cS 16.ttld6t .txd6 17.exd6 and this with a well-timed a2-a4.
White went on to win in Emms - Crouch, 9 ...d6 10.0-0 b4?!
England 1 997. A strange move but White was planning to hit
4b) S ... hc6 9.!'le l ! this pawn anyway with a2-a4 (as usual).
4b l ) 9 . . .ttl f6 1 0.eS i s slightly better for White 1 1 .c!ll dl
after 1O ... b4 l 1 .ttle4. Black has some problems 1 1 . ttl b 1 is also interesting.
with his queenside pawns. 1 l .../ib7 12.a3!
Kan and Taimanov 133
Another way to attack the queenside. This is one of White's most aggressive systems.
12 ... lLl c6 In no time White finishes his development and
1 2 ... bxa3 1 3.�xa3 is slightly better for is ready for action. Plaskett's remark in his book
White. nom 1 997 The Sicilian Taimanov is still valid: 'It
1 3 ..id2 bxa3 is possible for great violence to occur very early
1 3 ... aS is answered by 14 . .ibS . on in these games as you will soon gather'. A
14J3xa3 good rule of thumb is: If you spot an attacking
According to notes by Ribli in Chess base idea - go for it!
Magazine, White is now clearly better In Game 34 we will investigate 7 bS. This
••.
and gets ready to attack Black's queenside with to Ribli - and Ribli is almost always right!
a4. Just like we did against many lines in the 14 b4 15.lLla2 a5 1 6.c3! bxc3 17.lLlxc3 0-0
••.
Kan . 18.lLlb5
1 l ....ic5! 1 8.e5 tLl d5 1 9 .tLlxd5 iLxd5 does not give
I think this move is best. Black has two anything.
alternatives. 1 8 'lWb8 1 9.e5
•..
a) I 1 . . JMfc7 is risky. 1 2.a4 b4 13.tLle2 iLe7 White could also try 1 9.1"1ac 1 ! ? with the more
1 4JWd2 0-0 1 5 .l"1fe l l"1fc8 And now instead pleasant position.
of 1 6.l"1ad l ? , which allowed 1 6 ... d5! 1 7.e5 1 9.1"1fe l l"1c8 20.'lWd2 1"1c5 2 1 .iLfl iLc6 22.tLld4
tLl e4 ! ! and Black was better and went on to and draw agreed in Lutz - Ribli, Germany
win in Hector - Cramling, Malmo 200 1 , I 1 996, is not what we want!
like 1 6.tLld4!. For instance 1 6 . . . d5 1 7.e5 tLl d7 19 ... lLl d5 20.We4 f5 2 1 .'lWd4!
( 1 7 ... 'lWxe5 1 8 .iLf4 'lWh5 1 9.1"1e5 'lWh4 20.g3 After 2 1 .exf6 tLlxf6 a draw was agreed in Z.
'lWh3 2 1 .iLfl and wins) And White has a very Almasi - Leko, Groningen 1995.
nice French structure. Do not get confused by 2 1 .. ..ic6 22.lLl d6 lLl b4!
the chess programs' evaluations - they do not The only chance. If White is allowed to play
understand the position! Sample line: 1 8.iLg5 !? .ib5 he will take over the c-file with an easy
iLc5 19.tLlb3 iLfS 20.'lWe2 tLlc5 2 1 .tLlxc5 iLxc5 win.
22.f4 h6 23.iLh4 iLd4 24.l"1ab 1 and White has a 23.l3fdl lLlxd3 24.l3xd3
free hand on the kingside.
b) 1 1 ...d6 1 2.'lWd2 iLe7 13.a4 bxa4 14.l"1xa4
0-0 1 5 .l"1fal l"1fc8 and 16.'lWe2 ( 1 6.tLle2!?
might be better. For instance, 1 7 . . . d5 1 7.e5
tLl d7 1 8.iLg5 iLfS 1 9.1"1h4 h6 20.iLf4 with an
interesting attacking position.). 1 6 ... d5 1 7.exd5
tLlxd5 1 8.tLlxd5 'lWxd5 1 9.iLxa6 (White could
also force a good ending with 1 9.iLe4 'lWd7
20.'lWd3) Hector - Tozer, Copenhagen 2002,
concluded 19 ... ha6 20.l"1xa6 l"1xa6 2 1 .l"1xa6
'lWe5 22.l"1a7 iLd6 23.f4 'lWxb2 24.'lWa6 'lWb l t
25.iLgl 'lWb8 26.g3 h6 27.c4 iLc5 28.l"1b7 'lWd6
29.'lWxd6 hd6 30.l"1d7 1"1c6 3 1 .Wg2 g5 32.Wf3
Wg7 33.h4 gxf4 34.gxf4 h5 35 .iLd4t Wg6
36.We4 f6 37.f5t 1-0.
1 2.'lWeI .he3 1 3.Wxe3 Wc7 I think this position is great for White. He has
A strong move according to Ribli. all the play and can slowly prepare a kingside
Alternatives: assault with a transfer of the queen to the
a) 13 ... h4 14.tLle2 0-0 1 5 .l"1fc 1 ! We have seen kingside followed by f4 and l"1g3. If White is
this theme before! 1 5 ... e5 1 6.c3 'lWd6 1 7.tLlg3 careful Black will not be able to build up any
and White was better in Short - Rogers, Manila counterplay.
1 992. 24 ... l3a6 25.'lWc3 'lWb6 26.b3 l3a7 27.l3c1 l3b8
b) 13 ... 0-0? 14.e5 tLl d5? 1 5 .tLlxd5 'lWxd5?? 28.'lWd2 h6 29.l3c4
1 6.iLe4 'lWxe5 1 7.iLxh7t Wxh7 1 8.'lWxe5 wins. 29.l"1dc3! Wh7 30.'lWe l l"1fS 3 1 .'lWh4 l"1aa8
c) 1 3 ... d6 14.a4 b4 1 5 .tLla2 'lWc7 1 6.'lWd2 32.f4 'lWd4 33.l"1g3 100ks promising. In the game
transposes to the main game. White starts to drift.
14.a4 29 ... Wh7 30.h3 l3f8 3 1 .Wh2 l3aa8 32.h4 l3ab8
1 4.e5 tLld5 1 5 .tLlxd5 iLxd5 is equal according 33.l3dc3 .id5 34.l3f4 .hb3 35.g4 .id5 36.gxf5
Kan and Taimanov 13S
exfS 37.hS J.e6 38Jkl �b2 39.�xb2 �xb2t I S .�hl i.b7 1 6.h3 ttJ f6 1 7 .i.eS and White has
40.�g3 �g8 41.�d4 gS 42.hxg6t �xg6t a huge initiative.
43. �f4 �g8 44.�c7? a l b) 1 2 . . . tiJ g4 1 3.i.f4 Y!JcS 14.�h l f5
44J�hl ! and White should not lose. ( 1 4 . . . eS I S .�ae l ) I S . ttJ a4 Y!Jc6 16.Y!Jb4 bS
44 ... �b4 4S.tlJbS �b8 46.�e3 �g6 47.f4 �f7 1 7.Y!Jxd4 i.b7 I S.�f3 bxa4 1 9.Y!Jxg7! and
48.�a7 hS 49.�xaS �b3t SO.�Pl h4 S 1 .�dl White is much better. This is an improvement
�b2t S2.�e3 h3 S3.tlJd4 h2 S4.tlJxe6 �8b3t on 1 9 .i.xf5 which ended in a draw in Vavra
S S.�d4 �bl - Bunk, Bayern 1 999.
0-1 a l c) 1 2 ... tiJdS? 1 3.tiJxdS Y!JxdS 14.c4 Y!Jd6
It is noteworthy that Ribli does not play this I S .Y!JPl tiJf5 1 6.i.xfS exfS 1 7.i.cS 1-0 Roger
line anymore. - Lemeaux, France 2002.
a I d) 12 . . . tiJc6 1 3.�ae l 0-0 ( 1 3 . . . bS I4.�h l ! ?
Game 36 i.b7 I S .i.gS ! (improving on I S .i.b6 from
Hector - Pogorelov Senff - Miezis, Oslo 2003) I S . . . Y!JbS 1 6.i.xf6
Copenhagen 2004 gxf6 17.tiJdS with a fantastic attack.) 14.i.b6
Y!JhS I S .�xf6! gxf6 And now instead of 16.tiJe4
l .e4 cS 2.tlJf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tlJxd4 tlJ c6 S.tlJc3 as in Garcia - Lukov, La Pobla de Lillet 1 996,
Y!Jc7 6.J.e3 a6 7.J.d3 tlJ f6 8.0-0 J.d6 White can play 1 6.�e3 ! ttJ eS 1 7.i.d4 ! ! with a
S . . . bS just transposes to Game 3S after winning attack.
9.tiJxc6 Y!Jxc6 1 0.f3 J.b7 10.�h 1 . We will deal a2) 1 0 . . . tiJ c6!? l 1 .exf6 ( 1 1 .exd6 is unclear)
with Black's other options: S . . . hS, S ... tiJxd4, 1 1 . ..gxf6 12.Y!JhS ( 1 2 .Y!Jg4 i.e7 1 3 .Y!Jg7 �f8
S ... tiJeS and S ... d6 in the following games. 14.tiJe4 f5 l S .tiJf6t i.xf6 1 6.Y!Jxf6 is very
9.f4 unclear) 1 2 ... i.e7 ( 1 2 . . . f5 1 3 .i.xf5 Y!JaS 1 4.J.g4
Y!JxhS l S .i.xhS i.b4 1 6 . ttJ a4! and White is
clearly better) 13.f5 ttJeS 14.�adl bS and
instead of I S .i.e4 which turned out badly for
White after I S . . . i.b7 1 6.i.d4 0-0-0 1 7.i.xb7t
Y!Jxb7 I S.fxe6 fxe6 1 9.i.xeS fxeS 20.Y!JxeS �hgS
2 1 .tiJe4 gg4 22.�d4 gdgS 23.g3 Y!Jc7 24.Y!Jxc7t
�xc7 in Hector - S. Salov, Copenhagen 1 997,
I prefer l S .fxe6 dxe6 1 6 .i.e4 i.b7 1 7.i.d4
0-0-0 I S.i.xeS fxeS 1 9.i.xb7t Y!Jxb7 20.Y!JxeS
with a slight advantage.
a3) 10 ... i.cS l 1 .exf6
a3a) 1 1 . . . ttJxc2 The very famous game
Azmaiparashvili - Kurajica, Strumica 1995,
continued 12.fxg7 i.xe3t 1 3 . � h l ggS
1 4.Y!Jxc2 gxg7 1 5 .gae l i.xf4 16.�xf4 Y!Jxf4
A very aggressive move. White is trying to 1 7.tiJdS Y!Jh4 I S.ge4 gg4 1 9.93 Y!JgS 20.tiJ c7t
punish Black for the extravagant bishop move. \iJdS 2 1 .ttJxaS gxe4 22.J.xe4 Y!Ja5 23.Y!Jc3
9 ...J.cS Y!Jxc3 24.bxc3 dS 2 5 .i.xh7 bS 26.ttJb6 J.b7
Once again we dive into a heavy theoretical 27.\iJgl \iJc7 2S.h4 d4 29.hS dxc3 30.i.c2 f5
minefield. 3 1 .h6 i.e4 32.h7 1-0. It was rumoured that
a) 9 ... tlJxd4 1 0.eS ! this game was prearranged, or maybe not even
a l ) 1 0 ... heS is risky. l 1 .fxeS Y!JxeS 1 2 .Y!Jd2 played at all, but that does not change the
with a further split: verdict: 1 1 . .. ttJxc2 is bad.
a l a) 12 . . . bS 1 3 .�ae l ttJ g4 14.i.f4 Y!JcS a3b) I I . ..tiJf5 1 2.i.xcS Y!Jxcst 1 3 .�Pl is j ust
136 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
better for White. 1 3 . . . g6 ( 1 3 . . . gxf6 14.�h5 is 1 7.exf6 gxf6 And now 1 8.f5 is nice for White.
very good for White) 1 4.iLxf5 gxf5 and here I b2) 14 . . . 0-0-0 1 5 .e5 is great for White.
like 1 5 .�8 preventing b7-b5 . b3) 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 .�h4! l'!ad8 1 6.l'!ae l b5
a3c) 1 1 ...ltJb5 12. fxg7 ! he3t 1 3.c;t>hl l'!g8 ( 1 6 . . . h6 1 7.e5) 1 7.ltJxd6! and White has a
1 4.iLxb5 l'!xg7 ( 1 4 . . . axb5 1 5 .�d3 wins for huge attack.
White) 1 5.iLd3 il.xf4 16.ltJe4 iLe5 1 7.�h5 c) 1 2 . . . 0-0?! 1 3.g4 ( 1 3 .l'!8 is also good.
b5 ( 1 7 . . . d6 1 8 .ltJ f6t il.xf6 1 9 .1'!xf6 and with The game De Vilder - Kiseleva, Amsterdam
the other rook coming to f1 , White has good 2000, was short and sweet. 1 3 . . . b5 1 4.l'!h3
chances.) 1 8.l'!xf7! is good for White. 1 8 . . . l'!xf7 ltJ b4 1 5 .e5 ltJxd3 1 6.�xd3 dxe5 1 7.ltJg4 l'!d8
1 9 . 1tJ g5 etc. 1 8.ltJxf6t gxf6 1 9.�xhlt c;t>f8 20.ltJe4 1-0)
b) 9 . . . e5?! has only been seen in one game. 13 ... d5 ( 1 3 ... b5 1 4.g5 ltJ d7 1 5 .�h5 ! iLb7 and
It received severe punishment: 1 0 . ltJ f5 exf4 now 1 6.l'!8 with 1 7.l'!h3 coming is very good
l 1 .ltJxd6t �xd6 1 2.iLxf4 �c5t 1 3 .c;t>hl d6 for White according to Timman - I do not see
14.�8 0-0 1 5 .ltJd5 ltJ g4 1 6.�g3 ltJ ce5 1 7.h3 a defence for Black.) 14.g5 ltJxe4 1 5 .ltJcxd5
ltJxd3 1 8.cxd3 ltJ e5 1 9.iLxe5 dxe5 20.�xe5 exd5 1 6.ltJxd5 ltJ g3t 1 7.hxg3 �d7 1 8 .�8
�c2 �h3t 1 9.c;t>gl iLg4 20.�g2 l'!ad8 and White
was just a pawn up in Manso Gil - De la Riva
Aguado, Zamora 1 996, even though the game
ended in a draw.
1 O . . . �b6?! l 1 .ltJxglt is a worse version than
the text.
Black is trying to exchange everything and 2 1 .Wig3 e5 22.E:fd l E:dS 23.Wie l Wib4 24.11*I'd2
achieve a draw. White is simply winning the d6-pawn.
9 .hd4 i.c5 1 0 .hc5 Wfxc5 1 1 .'it>hl!
• • 2 1 .e5
2 1 .exd5 liJxd5 22.liJxd5 �xd5 gives
nothing.
2 1 . .. lD g8?!
Ribli suggest 2 1 . . .liJeS!? as an improvement
for Black, but then 22.f4 ! planning a kingside
attack looks promising. A sample line: 22 . . . liJ c7
23.Wih4 @gS 24.E:h3 h6 25.E:g3 @hS 26.�d3
d4 and now 27.f5 ! gives White a winning
attack (Fritz is happy!) .
22.lD e2
22.f4 liJ h6 is Black's idea.
22 ... lD e7 23. lD d4?!
23.Wih4!? is a better try. Sample line:
23 ... @gS 24.E:c3 Wib4 2 5 .11*I'xb4 axb4 26.E:xcSt
.Lc8 27.b3 �a6 2S.b6 E:xa6 29.liJd4 and it
This is very similar to Hector's play in Game seems White has the better ending.
34. 23 ...i.c6?!
1 l ... b5 1 2.Wfe1 !? 23 . . . liJ c6! equalizes.
Looking to both sides of the board. A nice 24.g4!
flexible move. Rules out . . . liJf5 altogether.
12 i.b7
••. 24 ... .hb5 25.axb5 a4?!
After 1 2 . . . d6 I recommend 12.f3 but 1 3.f4 A strange move.
is also possible. 26.Wffl a3? 27.bxa3!
13.f3 White is winning.
Just following the recipe from Game 3 5 . 27 ... 'it>e8 2S.Wfe3 � a4 29.E:b l
1 3 . . .d 6 14.a4 b4 29.f4 i s not bad.
14 . . . bxa4 1 5 .E:xa4 is, as usual, a little better 29 ... �b8 30.£4 h5 3 1 .gxh5 � c4 32.�gl 'it>d7
for White. 33.�xg7 �h8 34.£5 �xh5 35.�xf'7 exf5 36.e6t
15.lDa2 a5 1 6.c3 'it>c8 37.'it>g2 �h4 38. lD f3 �c2t 39.'it>g3 �g4t
1 6.�b5t 'it>e7 ( l 6 . . . �c6 1 7.�xc6t Wixc6 40.'it>h3 d4 4 1 . �xd4 lD d5 42.e7!
I S .c3 bxc3 1 9 .1iJxc3 is good for White says 1-0
Ribli.) 1 7.c3 transposes to the game.
16 ... bxc3 1 7.i.b5t 'it> e7 Game 39
1 7 . . . �c6 I S.liJxc3 is a little better for Ponomariov - Sadler
White. Enghien les Bains 1 999
18.lDxc3 �hc8
I S . . . E:hdS might be more logical. White is l .e4 c5 2.lDf3 lD c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lDxd4 Wfc7!?
slightly better after 1 9.E:dl 'it>f8 20.E:d3 @gS Another way to reach the main line Taimanov.
2 1 .Wid2. Black is sidestepping the 5 . liJ b5 line.
19.�dl @f8 20.�d3 5.lDc3 e6 6.i.e3 a6 7.i.d3 lDf6 8.0-0 lD e5
With his good bishop at b5, pressure against Black' s threat is 9 . . . liJ fg4. This is by far
d6 and more activity, White is better. Black's best line against White's aggressive
20 ... d5!? system.
20 ... E:c7 was suggested by Ribli, but after 9.lD f3!?
140 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
6 ... c!LJ c6 7.�e3 a6 8.YNe YNc7 9.�d3 �e7 b) 1 2 ... l'1ac8 Ied to another success for Emms:
10.0-0 0-0 1 1 .@hl 13.1l9g3 ! . A typical attacking move: eyeing g7
and preparing e5. 13 ... CLlh5 14.1l9h3 g6 1 5 .f5
CLlxd4 1 6.hd4 �f6 1 7.�xf6 CLlxf6 1 8 .1l9h4!
with an 'autoattack'. The rest was instructive:
1 8 ... 1l9d8 19.1'1f3 exf5 20.exf5 �c6 2 1 .l'1h3
CLlh5 22.1l9g4 CLl f6 23.1l9g5 1lge7 24.l'1e3 1l9d8
25 .l'1fl @g7 26.l'1h3 l'1h8 27.1l9h6t @g8
28.fxg6 fxg6 29.�xg6! l'1c7 30.l'1g3 1-0 Emms
- Naaktgeboren, Hastings 1995.
c) 1 2 ... CLlxd4 is extremely dangerous. One
example: 1 3.hd4 �c6 14.1l9g3 b6 1 5 .e5 ! .
The typical attacking move i n this line.
1 5 ... dxe5 1 6.he5 1l9b7 17.f5! Opening more
lines. 17 . . . exf5 1 8.l'1xf5 CLle8 1 9.1l9h3 �d6
20.hd6 CLlxd6 2 1 .l'1d5 ! . The winning move.
2 1 .. .l'1fd8 22.1l9xh7t mf8 23.l'1e l f5 24.�c4 1-0
In practice Black is getting slaughtered from Tseshkovsky - Brodsky, Rostov 1 993. A model
this position. The reason is simply that White has attacking game by White.
a very promising kind of classical Scheveningen: 12 b5
•••
The bishop is at d3 and the queen is already 12 . . . CLl b4 is a bit tricky. In S. Polgar - Benko,
active at e. (In the classical Scheveningen the Budapest 1 998 White quickly got an attack
queen takes the route e l -g3, but here it might going. 1 3.�e2 e5 14.fxe5 dxe5 1 5 .1l9g3 CLle8
skip g3 altogether and go directly to h3) . 1 6.CLlf5 �xf5 1 7.exf5 f6 1 8.1l9h4 CLl d6 1 9.1'1f3 ! .
1 1 . �d7
•. Black i s now defenceless. Th e finish was nice:
a) 1 1 ...e5 Here I like 12.CLlde2!? e.g. 1 2 ... CLl b4 19 ... CLlf7 20.l'1h3 h6 2 1 .�c4 l'1fc8 22.�e6 �f8
( I 2 . . . �e6 13.f5; 1 2 ... exf4 1 3 .CLlxf4) 1 3.l'1ac 1
and 14.a3 i s coming.
b) 1 1 . ..l'1e8 1 2.l'1ae l �f8 1 3.1l9g3 CLl b4 14.e5
CLld7 1 5 .CLle4 CLlxd3 1 6.cxd3 dxe5 17.f5 ! ?
1l9a5 1 8.fxe6 fxe6 1 9 .1l9f3 And White won in
Korneev - Vidarte Morales, Badalona 1 995,
after 1 9 ... CLl f6 20.CLlxf6t gxf6 2 1 .1l9xf6 Wfc7
22.CLlf3 �g7 23.1l9h4 1l9d8 24.1l9h5 l'1f8 25.CLlg5
h6 26.CLlf7 1l9xd3 27.�xh6 1l9h7 28.l'1e3 1-0.
c) 1 1 ...CLlxd4 1 2.hd4 b5 1 3 .e5 CLl d5 14.exd6
�xd6 1 5 .CLlxd5 exd5 1 6.1l9xd5 �e6 17.1l9h5 g6
18.1l9h6 f5 1 9.1'1ae l and White is a pawn up
and went on to win, Mitkov - Bello Filgueira,
Burgas 1 998.
12 J"� ae1
1 2.a4 is also not bad: 23.�xh6 gxh6 24.l'1g3t mh7 25.1l9xf6 1-0
a) 12 . . . b6 1 3.l'1ae l e5 14.fxe5 CLlxe5 1 5 .1lge2 13.YNg3!
CLlxd3 1 6.cxd3 �e6 1 7.CLlf5 �xf5 1 8.l'1xf5 CLl d7 Again the standard attacking move. Black
1 9 .CLld5 1l9d8 20.l'1efl and White was better already has to be very careful - and even that
and later won in Emms - Baczinski, Hamburg might not be enough.
1995. 13 b4
••.
Kan and Taimanov 143
The (overtly) prophylactic 13 ... @h8? loses This position can, of course, also arise via the
to 14.lLJxc6! �xc6 1 5 .�d4 b4 1 6.e5 lLJe8 Kan: l .e4 c5 2.lLJf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLJxd4 a6
(1 6 ... dxe5 1 7.�xe5 �a5 1 8.lLJe4 l"i:g8 1 9.1LJg5 5.lLJc3 lLJ c6.
�af8 20.lLJxh7 lLJxh7 2 1 .�xh7 @xh7 22.�h3t 6.ie3
wins - a typical attack in this line.) 1 7.�h3 1-0. 6.lLJxc6!? bxc6 7.�d3 is a good alternative.
Saltaev - Gikas, Katerini 1 993. 6 lDf6
•••
14.lDce2 �h8 15.lDxc6 ixc6 16.id4! 6 ... lLJge7 is the real Taimanov variation. But
The right square for the bishop. against 6.�e3 this runs into a strong reply,
1 6 ... �g8 namely 7.lLJb3 ! .
1 6 . . . �ad8 1 7.e5 dxe5 1 8.�xe5 �a5 19.1LJd4
�d5 20.£5 with a nice attack.
17.eS lD e4 1 8.Wfh3 dxeS 19.ixeS id6??
Losing.
20.lD d4! f5 2 1 .lDxe6 Wffl 22.ixe4 ixe4
23.lD gS Wfg6
march of the h-pawn is always a problem for a) 7 ... h6 S.iJ.g2 �c7 9.h3 lL'lxd4 1 0.�xd4
Black in this line. We are following Reinaldo e5 1 1 .�b6 �xb6 1 2.iJ.xb6 d6 1 3.0-0-0 iJ.e6
Castineira - Ortega Hermida, Lanzarote 2003. 1 4.iJ.c7 @d7. Now with iJ.b6 White keeps a
The game ended 1 1 ...lL'lhS 12.�d2 f6 13.0-0-0 small edge. Instead he went 1 5 .iJ.a5 E!bS 1 6.f4
b5 14.@b 1 lL'l f7 1 5 .g4 h6 1 6.E!gl �c7 1 7.e5 b4 b6 17.iJ.b4 @c7 l S.E!hfl exf4 1 9 .E!xf4 iJ.e7
lS.lL'le4 fxe5 1 9.95 d5 20.gxh6 lL'lxh6 2 1 .fxe5 20.e5 dxe5 2 1 .he7 exf4 22.iJ.d6t @cS 23.iJ.xf4
lL'lf5 22.lL'lf6t @hS 23.lL'lg4 lL'lxe3 24.�xe3 �a7 ¥2-¥2 . Hector - Andersson, Sweden 2000.
25 .�g3 iJ.g5 26.iJ.d3 lL'le7 27.h6 g6 2S.lL'lf6 iJ.e3 b) 7 ... d5 S.g5 ! lL'lxe4 9.lL'lxe4 dxe4 1 O.lL'lxc6
29.iJ.xg6 hg1 30.E!xg1 lL'lgS 3 1 .iJ.f7 1-0. �xd 1 t 1 1 .E!xd 1 bxc6 1 2.iJ.g2 iJ.d7 1 3.iJ.xe4
c) 7 ... lL'la5?? S.lL'la4! and iJ.b6 wins something. and here White prematurely agreed a draw in
d) 7 ... b5 and now S.a4! is very annoying. Hvenekilde - Jensen, Aarhus 1 976. White is
S ... b4 9.a5 ! And now: slightly better but was apparently peacefully
d 1 ) 9 ... E!bS 1O.lL'la4 lL'lxa5 1 1 .lL'lxa5 �xa5 inclined.
12.lL'lb6 �xb6 13.hb6 E!xb6 1 4.�d4 And S.iJ.g2 d5
White won at move 37, Senff - Vanderwaeren, Ribli recommended S ... h6!? here.
Leuven 2002. 9.g5!
d2) 9 ... lL'lxa5? 1 0.lL'la4! and White wins - a This is almost always the answer to d5 after
very good trick! White has rushed forward with the g-pawn.
d3) 9 ... d6 was not a success for Black either 9 lLlxe4 10.lL'lxc6! bxc6
•••
after 1 0.lL'la4 iJ.b7 1 1 .lL'l b6 E!bS 1 2.f4 �c7 1 0 ... lL'lxc3 is answered by 1 1 .�d4 and White
13.iJ.c4 E!dS 14.�e2 lL'l bS 1 5 .f5 he4 1 6.fxe6 has a dangerous initiative after 1 1 ...lL'lb5t
fxe6 17.lL'ld4 1-0 Fressinet - Moor, Zurich 1 2.�xb4 bxc6 13.0-0-0.
200 1 . 1 1 .i.xe4 i.xc3t
7.g4!? Forced. The ending after 1 1 ... dxe4 1 2.�xdSt
@xdS 1 3 .0-0-0t @e7 1 4.lL'lxe4 is terrible for
Black who has the living dead sitting at cS.
12.bxc3 dxe4 1 3.WfxdSt @xdS 14.0-0-0t @c7
1 5.i.f4t @b7 16.i.e5
therefore see a hard struggle for the initiative in Editors' note: As can be seen in the notes to
the following moves. Black's 1 3 th move in Ponomariov - Sadler, Black
16 f6
•.. has played the ball back in White's court in this
1 6 ... E1g8 1 7.E1he l with an undisputed repertoire. This does not mean that it is not
advantage for White. good, only that some problems exist. Especially
17.gxf6 gxf6 IB .ixf6 l'!f8 19.ie5 l'!fS?!
• GM Delchev has defended the Black side with
19 ... E1xf2! was better. According to Ribli his 2006 publication - The Safest Sicilian. To pay
in Chessbase Magazine White still keeps an him back in his own currency, we have found
advantage after 20.E1hgl E10 2 1 .E1ge l c5 a possible hole in his repertoire, which we are
22.E1xe4. happy to share with the readers. It is outside
20.ig3 l'!a5 2 1 .l'!d4 e5 Sune's recommended repertoire, but might still
Getting the problem piece out. interest some of our readers.
22.l'!b4t It>a7 23.l'!dl ifS 24.l'!d6
White is clearly better. Usually Jonny Hector l .e4 c5 2.tZlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tZlxd4 tZl c6 5.tZlc3
has a very bad score against Curt Hansen, but in Wfc7 6.ie3 a6 7.Wfd2 tZl f6 B.O-O-O
this game he brings home the full point. The practical problem with playing this
24,..l'!cB 25.l'!f6 ig6 26.l'!e6 l'!bB 27.ixe5 system is that it does not harmonise too well
E1xb4 2B.cxb4 l'!xa2 29.l'!xc6 with playing 6.ig5 against the Najdorf, as
there are some overlapping variations with the
standard English Attack if Black plays an early
... d6.
B,..ib4 9.f3 b5 10.tZlb3 tZl e5 1 1 .�f2!
This is a completely new idea and should be
investigated.
l l ,..ixc3!
This is the correct move.
l L..liJc4 1 2.ic5 Wff4t 1 3 .lt>b l ixc3 14.bxc3
d5 was Delchev's recommendation, but it looks
simply suicidal. After 1 5 .lt>a l ! with the idea of
ixc4 and liJa5 it is impossible to see how the
Black king shall ever nnd safety.
12.bxc3 d6 13.ib6 WfbB 14.ia5
Delchev fears this position, but it is looks as it
A pawn and the initiative - White is is the critical position in the line currently.
winning. 14, . . tik6 1 5.Wfg3
29,..lt>b7 30.l'!c5 l'!a3 3 1 .ic3 io 32.h4! It>b6 1 5 .ib4 liJxb4 16.cxb4 0-0=
33.1t>d2 l'!a2 34.h5 1t>b7 15,..0-0 16.Wfxd6 tZlxa5 1 7.tZlxa5 Wfa7 I B.tZlc6
35.id4 l'!a3 36.c3 l'!al 37.l'!fS ic4 3B.l'!g5 Wfe3t 19.1t>bl ib7 20.Wfd4 �h6°o
l'!hl 39.l'!g7t It>c6 40.l'!xh7 l'!h3 41 .h6
The pawn decides.
41,..l'!d3t 42.lt>el l'!h3 43.l'!hB It>b7 44.ie3
id3 45.1t>d2 ib5 46.l'!h7t It>c6 47.l'!e7 It>d5
48.h7 id3 49.id4
1-0.
And with this game I conclude the repertoire
against the Taimanov and Kan I sincerely hope
.
game White won.) 10.i.d3 ! a6 ( 1 0 ... a5 1 1 .0-0 22 ... E1c7 23.e5 dxe5 24.fxe5 f5 25.E1ed l <;!lg7
a4 12.E1acl i.e6 1 3.�c2 was a little better for is better for White, but Black keeps reasonable
White in Portisch - Reshevsky, Petropolis (izt) drawing chances.
1 973, another game White won.) 1 1 .0-0 i.d7 23.e5 dxe5 24.fxe5 ge6 25.<;!ltl gfS 26.gd7
1 2.E1fe l i.c6 ( 1 2 ... �bS with the idea of ... b5 fxe5t 27.<;!le3 gb8 28.<;!le4 <;!lg8 29.<;!ld5 <;!lf7
148 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
30.gxe5 gd6t 3 1 .gxd6 exd6 32.<.!?xd6 gd8t to exchange one pair of knights. This is seen in
33.�c7 gd2 34.�xb7 gxg2 35.c5 gxh2 36.c6 all three major Black systems against White's
gc2 37.b4 main line. The old main line was 6 .te3 lLl f6 7
1-0 lLlc3 lLl g4 which these days is much less popular,
A typical Botvinnik game: simple but very despite Larsen breathing some new life into the
strong. This game has become a classic example system in the 80s. My favourite was always
of how to win with the Maroczy. 7 ... 0-0 8 .te2 d6 9 0-0 .td7 1 0 �d2 lLlxd4 1 1
hd4 .tc6 1 2 f3 a5 . Why not 1 0 lLl c2 here you
So, why not exchange as many pieces as possible might ask, as Black is now committed to putting
and get closer to the goal? Well, Black will not his bishop on d7? Good question. Experts like
cooperate. He will happily exchange some Tiviakov therefore play 9 . . lLlxd4 as Black, which
.
minor pieces, but will try to keep some on the normally transposes back to what Black wants.
board as well. Especially, White has to watch Still, White has caused Black some problems in
out for the scenario where Black ends up with a this system recently, so the real reason I have
knight against a white squared bishop. not recommended the main line for White is
How often have I had positions like this as 5 ... lLlf6 6 lLl c3 d6 7 .te2 lLlxd4 8 �xd4 .tg7.
Black? A safe and solid system that, for example, the
young Russian Malakhov uses to great effect. As
I mentioned earlier, it is noteworthy that in all
the main systems Black happily exchanges one
pair of knights. So why let him? It was Boris
Gulko who pointed this out to me. An extra pair
of knights in the standard positions is definitely
to White's advantage.
6 ... tiJfG 7.tiJ c3 d6 8 .ie2 tiJ d7 9 ..id2
•
l .c4 c5 2.liJc3 liJ f6 3.g3 d5 4.cxd5 liJxd5 5 .i.g2 White gets to put his bishop on the al-h8
liJ c7 There one of White's main ideas is 6.�b3 diagonal directly. I l .b4 not only grabbed space,
liJ c6 7.i.xc6t bxc6 8.�a4. He is actually willing it cleared b2 for the bishop. For those who are
to sacrifice a tempo in order to be able to take not impressed with all kinds of talk trying to
on c6. It is not a direct transposition as here justify White's compensation, I will just add
Black has used time on liJ f6-d7, still i.xc3 is a that Deep Fritz 8 claims White has an edge here
serious idea, even used by White players to go despite the pawn minus.
for an advantage. My suggestions are based on 13 ,ie6
•.•
i.d2, but avoiding this slightly passive move is How to deal with this as Black then? At the
worth a punt, especially for players who enjoy time I thought Tiviakov's approach was correct.
unbalanced positions. Try and attack c4 in time. As Svidler effectively
9 0-0 10.0-0 tD c5 1 1 .b4!?
.•• refutes this, Black has to look in other directions.
An interesting pawn sacrifice. The alternatives An obvious try is to block the al-h8 diagonal
are worse. For example, 1 1 f3 was once the main in time. This makes sense, but White keeps a
line. I still do not see anything wrong with my dangerous initiative.
old recommendation: 1 1 .. .�b6 1 2 I!;>hl �xb2 An instructive game is: 1 3 ... e5 1 4.�e l !?
13 2"1b 1 i.xc3 which should be fine for Black. Freeing dl for the rook. The queen is fine on e l ,
1 l ...,ixc3 as White intends to push his f-pawns i n order
The principled, brave, but probably bad to pressurize on the long diagonal. 14 . . . �g5
response to the challenge. 1 5 .2"1dl i.e6 1 6.l!;>hl ( 1 6.i.d3 ! ? f5 1 7.f3 liJf6
12 .ixc3 tDxe4 13.i.b2
• 18.f4 seems like an obvious improvement)
16 ... �h4 1 7.i.f3 f5 1 8.b5 liJ d8 1 9.93 �f6
20.liJe3 liJ f7 2 1 .i.g2 2"1ac8 22.f3 liJ c5 23.f4
with good compensation and later 1-0, Milos
- Spangenberg, Argentina 1 99 5 .
1 3 ... �b6 14.a3 i.e6 i s a way o f trying t o get
the positive sides of Tiviakov 's idea, without
facing the rout as in the game. 1 5 .�c 1 !? f6
1 6.�f4 liJg5 17.liJe3 was promising for White
in Gausel - EI Taher, Moscow 1 994. I like the
idea of activating the queen before putting the
knight on e3, but even the immediate 1 5 liJe3
should give excellent compensation.
14.b5
Ugly but strong. It of course weakens the
c5-square, but the fact that it wins tactically is
Again there are huge similarities to the English more important.
opening. Without the move b4 included (and 14 ... tD e5?
with colours reversed) it would be Vaganian - 14 ... liJa5 is given by Svidler as the only
Kasparov. Garry then had to retreat his bishop chance. He thinks White has excellent chances
to e8, but still gained enough positional after 1 5.�d4 liJ f6 16.liJe3 �c7 1 7.2"1ac 1 �c5
compensation to draw. Of course an extra tempo 18.�h4 2"1ac8 1 9.2"1fd l . I see no reason to
is something, however often sacrifices intended disagree with him on that one.
to yield positional compensation for a draw as 14 ... liJ b8 1 5 .�d4 liJ f6 1 6.g4 �b6 may seem
Black are often not enough for an advantage, OK for Black, however White keeps a huge
even with an extra tempo. However, here there initiative even without the queens: 1 7.g5 �xd4
is one huge difference: 1 8.hd4 liJe4 ( I 8 . . . liJfd7 1 9.i.f3 just wins b7)
I SO Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
1 9 .i8 dS 20.ig2 when Black's centre is about d6 l 1 .liJ e3 liJ d7 1 2.liJdS 0-0 13.Elb U] 9 ... liJ f6
to collapse. 1 0.8 d6 l 1 .ie2 ie6 12.liJe3 Elc8 1 3.Elb U
15.�d4 liJ f6 1 6.f4 liJ ed7 Cebalo-Bilobrk, Pula 1 997.) 9.id3 d6 10.liJe3
1 6 . . . liJ eg4 1 7.h3 liJh6 1 8.g4 1eft Black lost in 0-0 1 1 .0-0 liJeS 12.liJdS;!; liJxdS 13.cxdS 'lWa5
Van Wely - Gustafsson, Dieren 1 999. 14.ie2! 'lWxc3 1 5 .Elb l 'lWc7 1 6.f4 liJ d7 17.ib2�
17.g4! Eljanov - Zubarev, Kharkov 200 1 .
7.liJ c3 0-0 8.ie2 d6 9.0-0 liJd7 10.id2 liJ c5
1 1 .b4 liJ e6
White has a serious initiative although Black 17 . . . CLlxbS ( l 7 . . . E& a2 I s .id3 [ l S.E&e l !? Seems
benefits from the fact that the a-line has been like the obvious improvement, not fearing
opened.] 19.E&xc3 VJfc7!? [ 1 9 ... VJfbS 20.if4 E&cS . . . CLlxe2 and questioning Black's knight on
2 1 .E&cc 1 b6 22.eS dxeS 23.ixeS VJfb7 24.E&e l hS d4 immediately.] l s . . . id7 ! ? was drawn in
2s .id4 i>h7 26.h3 E&c7 27.VJfeS E&gS 2S.VJff4 Geller-Velimirovic, Skara 1 9S0. Black is
was basically winning for White in Speelman now very active.) l S.cxbS ie6 was seen in
- Pigusov, Sochi 1 9S2. 1t is noteworthy that the two Geller-Pigusov games. 1 9.ic4 VJfd7
presence of opposite coloured bishops makes it 20.VJfd3 E&fcS was agreed drawn in their first
much worse for the defender. He cannot oppose encounter, Sochi 1 9S9. The second, Cappelle
on the black squares. 19 . . . VJfh4?! 20.if3! E&fdS 1 992, went 1 9 .b6!? fS 20.£3 E&a3 2 1 .iWd2 E&a2
2 1 .E&c7 E&abS was played in Aagaard - Isonzo, was decent counterplay in the second. My
Arco 200S. Here White should have played: recommendation is 20 ic4 . The point being
22.VJfd2! h6 23.g3 VJff6 24.ig2 i>h7 2S.E&al E&d7 the positional pawn-sac: 20 . . . ixc4 2 1 .E&xc4 f4
26.E&a7 VJfdS 27.VJfc2±] 20.cS E&fcS [Just before 22.iWdSt �hS 23.id2 iWxb6 24.E&fc 1 , which
this book was to go to the press I noticed that to me looks like excellent compensation.
the following game had been played: 20 . . . E&fdS 13.ltJxd4 ltJxd4 1 4 . .ie3!
2 1 .if4 iWcs 22.h3 dxcS 23.E&xcS E&xd l t Again this is the key motif. Here without
24.iWxd l iWdS 2S .iWxdSt E&xdS 26.eS i> g7 the a-file open eS does not make much sense,
27.ie3 E&dS 2S.E&c1 h6 29.ics id7 30.E&al f6 so Black has to go for . . .
3 1 .exf6t Y2- Y2 . Fressinet - M aze, Val d'lsere 1 4... ltJ xe2t I S.iWxe2 b6
2004. I would not want to defend Black's The bishop pair is not a major factor here.
position in these lines, but there is a drawish White can easily exchange the dark squared
tendency you have to acknowledge when bishops and Black lacks a way of creating
you are White against this kind of opening. counterplay. White has a huge edge.
Besides, 22.iWe l ! with the idea of 22 . . . dxcS 1 6.!!fd 1 .ib7 17 . .id4 .ixd4
23.E&xcS and E&xd1 is not with check looks Probably the ugly 1 7 . . . f6 needed serious
like an obvious improvement. I would like consideration.
to make the reader believe that it is my great A proof that Peter believed in his
understanding of chess, and not my ability to recommendation was seen 2 months after the
press ctrl+3 (enabling the Fritz engine - ed. ) , first edition was published: 1 7 . . . E&cS? l S.ixg7
which found this improvement - b u t I would i>xg7 1 9.eS ! White now wins a pawn. 1 9 ... VJfeS
not enter such a foolish endeavour.] 2 1 .E&cc 1 20.exd6 exd6 2 1 .VJfxeS E&fxeS 22.CLl bS ! +
[2 1 .h3 ! ? seems like a n obvious improvement. Nielsen - Lie, Drammen 200S.
It is not clear what Black should do except 18.!!xd4 'Wic7
for . . . dxcS , which however leaves White a 19.h4!
tempo up on the game. Maybe 2 1 . . .f6!? is the A typical thrust leaving Black with an
most useful, controlling some dark squares. unpleasant choice. To allow the pawn to settle
Black might draw this fairly often, but it is an on h6 or to weaken himself with hS, allowing
unpleasant task and obviously we are playing an eventual g4 opening lines.
for two results only.] 2 1 ...dxcS 22.E&xcS iWbS 19 ... !!acS 20.hS a6 2 1 . ltJ dS .ixdS 22.exdS!
23.h3 E&xcS 24.ixcs iWc7 2 S .iWe.'\ f6 26.f4 E&dS Well, no need to be too dogmatic. Yes, I spoke
And M alakhov drew this somewhat inferior highly of E&xdS in such positions. However, here
position as Black against Dominguez at the White already has something going on the
2004 WC in Libya.) 1 7 . CLl b S ! ? I like this direct kingside and Black has no time for the typical
approach although it has never really worked e6 break. After 22 E&xdS as would give some
out in practice. If Black manages quietly to counterplay.
finish his development he should be fine. 22 ... !!fe8 23J�e4 iWd7 24J!e1 bS 2S.cxbS axbS
I S2 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
26.h6 'it>f8 27.Wfb2 f6 28.�xe7! will then lead to some standard positions with
Crashing through. White having wasted some time. For example,
28 Wfxe7 29.�xe7 'it>xe7 30.Wfe2t
..• 'it>f7 1 1 ...liJcS 12.liJd4 a4 ( 1 2 ... liJ xd4!? 13 . .ixd4
3 1 .Wfxb5 �c1 t 32.'it>h2 �c2 .id7 gives Black a reasonable version of one
But simultaneously Black resigned. Just of the Maroczy main lines, though White may
pushing his a-pawn wins easily for White. still have some edge) 1 3 . liJ dbS ie6 14.�b l
1-0 � as which actually is a transposition to a later
mentioned Dominguez-Malakhov game. 1 1
Game 44 ie3 has its points, but as what Black wants is
Bologan - Motylev to establish himself on the bS square, why go
Togliatti 2003 via d4 allowing Black a desirable exchange?
1 1 . liJ c5 1 2 . liJ ab5 liJ d4
.•
l .e4 c5 v!LJf.3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.liJxd4 liJ c6 5.c4 Black insists on exchanging knights. And
liJf6 6.liJc3 d6 7.liJ c2 .ig7 8 .ie2 0-0 9.0-0
• why not? White just lost a lot of time going
liJ d7 10 ..id2 a5 liJ c2-a3-bS. However, he has a strong retort
prepared. 1 2 . . . ie6 1 3 .ie3 a4 14.�b l (I am
not sure why this has to be played, but it is
the only move seen in practice and by some
very strong players indeed. 1 4.�e I ! ? \WaS I S .f4
to me seems logical and strong. As usual in
Maroczy positions with all minor pieces still
on the board, Black finds it hard to develop
naturally. He lacks space.) 1 4 ... \WaS I S .f4
( I S.\We I was Morozevich's move, intending to
go liJ dS at some point without allowing Black
to swap queens on d2, which would be the
obvious square for the queen. I S ... �fc8 1 6.f4
\Wd8 1 7.�e 1 liJ b4 1 8 .�d2 with the usual edge
for White in Morozevich - Iskunsnyh,Togliatti
2003, a game later won by Black though!)
A logical move, stopping White's space IS ... £5 ( I S ... a3 ! ? seems to work, which is one
grabbing b4. The drawbacks are the weakening strong argument in favour of 1 4 �e I ! ? Here
of the b6 and, especially, the bS-square. the point is that Black seems to survive the
1 1 .liJa3!? tactics after 1 6.fS [ 1 6.eS axb2 1 7.�xb2 seems
1 1 .�eI followed by ih6 might also claim a like White's best option. Despite his shattered
small edge. pawns, White's central pressure gives some
1 1 .�el liJ cS 1 2.ifl b6 1 3 . liJ a3 ib7 14.�eI hope, at least of equality.] 16 ... axb2 1 7.fXe6
�c8 I S .igS liJ d4 was reasonable for Black in ixc3.) 1 6.exfS ( 1 6.e5 !) 16 ... ixfS 1 7.�eI \Wb4?
Van Wely- van der Wiel, Leeuwarden 2004, but 1 8.g4 id7 1 9. 1iJ dS \WaS 20.id2 (20.liJxe7t !
I guess White keeps a tiny edge in a complex liJxe7 2 1 .\Wxd6 wins outright) 20 ... \Wd8 2 1 .ic3
position. with a huge edge in Dominguez-Malakhov,
l 1 .ie3. I once had a lot of sympathy for Tripoli 2004.
this. The point is that now ixc3 is much less If you are not too impressed with the quality
attractive for Black as as has weakened squares of that game, keep in mind it was the deciding
in the b-line and Black will not have liJ aS 6-S minute blitz game of their Tripoli 2004
pressurizing the c4-pawn. However, White's WC encounter. Many, including me, have
most natural plan is sooner or later liJ d4, which made worse errors in that situation.
The Accelerated Dragon 1 53
1 2 . . . f5 is a logical and aggressive choice by White's point, without this his play would
Black. This is how White tries to fight for an make much less sense. Getting rid of the white
edge with coloured reversed and thus an extra squared bishops is huge progress. Often White
tempo. Here Black might argue that ctJ a3-b5 ends up with that bishop being bad; this is
was indeed a bit slow, and therefore direct action an integral part of Black's counterp lay in the
is justified. 1 3.exf5 � 14.i.e3 seems to give Maroczy. So why is the 3.i.b5t system against
White an edge. Black's problem is: what's next? 2 ... d6 in the Sicilian not more pop ular then? It
1 2 . . . f5 certainly compromises his position, often ends up as a Maroczywith the white squared
but should give some activity in return. Here I bishops exchanged. Well, as usual generalizing
do not see how Black can intensify his pressure, such concepts is impossible in chess. I guess it
which means White's positional advantages are is again due to the fact that White prefers four
more weighty. minor pieces on the board rather than three,
13.liJxd4 .L:d4 14 ..ih6!? but will be happy to swap down to one or none.
Forcing a desirable swap. Three or two seems to favour Black somehow!
14 .ig7?!
•.. 16 .ixg4
•••
14 ... i.xc3 ! ? 1 5 .bxc3 :Be8 I think this is the 16 ... i.e6 17.�e2 when White eventually
better choice for Black, if only because here will be ready for i.xe6 fxe6 e5 !, leaving him
he can play for the win too. As usual in i.xc3 structurally clearly better.
structures, it however hurts a lot that the black 17.�xg4 a4 18.�e2 �aS 19.:Bac1
pawn is on as. This is actually the only reason White's edge is bigger than it might seem
that I think White can claim an edge. 1 6.£3 is at first sight. Apart from being solid Black
the correct approach for White. A direct attack has no plusses. His a-pawn march did not
with, for example, �d4 will not succeed. Black bring much joy, White managed to protect c3
will put pawns on e5 and f6 anyway, no need in time, which means the undermining . . . a3
to force him to do necessary deeds. Now White is pointless. White simply has control of the
will put a rook on b l , the queen on d2, play centre and the possibility of playing on the
'it>h l , etc. I think White has a slight edge, but it kings ide for free.
is a very complex position. If this does not suit 19 ... ctJ d7 20.ctJ dS ctJf6 2 1 .:Bfdl ctJxdS 22.:BxdS
you, I would recommend doing Moro's move �a6 23.h4
order 1 1 i.e3. Well, we have been here before. Such heavy
15 ..ixg7 �hg7 piece middlegames are just much better for
White.
23 .. J3fc8 24.hS e6 2S.:Bd4 :BcS 26.%Yd2
Excellent judgement by Bologan. White still
has a huge edge despite the simplifications.
26 ... :BxhS 27.:Bxd6 �aS 28.%YxaS :BhxaS
29.:Bd7 �Sa7 30.cS bS 3 1 .�d6 �b 8 32.f4 @f6
33.@f2 gS 34.g3 �c7 3S.@e3
White is winning. The king enters with
decisive effect.
3S gxf4t 36.gxf4 �g8 37.�c2 1'!gl 38.eSt
•••
1 0 a6
••• A mistake but an instructive one! 25.ttJc3
A favourite of Larsen. 1 0 ... '!Wa5?! l 1 .f4 2:!ac8 followed by ttJ ab5 keeps the edge.
12.2:!bl a6 1 3.b4 '!Wd8 14.'!Wd3 was dearly 25 ....ia4!
better for White in Short-Andersson, Wijk aan Finally I manage to exchange some minor
Zee 1 990. Black is dearly suffocating, and the pieces and get decent counterplay. An exchange
weakness of the b6-square makes things even could have been made earlier on d5, but that
worse. would change the pawn-structure in White's
1 1 .f3 2:!c8 12.%Vd2 favour. Now everything is OK.
1 2.2:!c l ! ? is an interesting move order. After 26.�el ltlxd5 27.exd5
12 . . . 2:!e8 Short went back to the game with Well, it is not always bad for Black to take on
1 3.'!Wd2, but why 1 2.2:!cl might be a tad more d5. Here I will find it easy to protect e7, and
exact was shown by Schlosser against me as will soon be active on the a-line.
after 1 2 ... ttJe5?! 13.ttJa3 '!Wa5 he had the very 27 ... .ixc2 28.�xc2 �a8 29 .ig5 •
The Accelerated Dragon 155
After 1 .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLl f6 2000.) I s .id4! '@.Ixe2 1 6.ixg7! '@.Ie6 1 7.ixc6
5.lLlc3 e 6 the move 6.g4 was introduced into Black loses a pawn without compensation.
tournament practice by Paul Keres in his game l 1 .lLlfS @f8 12.ixd7 �xd7 1 3.ie3 lLl c6
against Efim Bogoljubow, Salzburg 1 943. White 14.0-0-0 if6
invests some time moving the g-pawn onwards. 14 ... EldS 1 S .Elhe l '@.Ic7 1 6.@b l h6 1 7.h4 with
The obvious idea is to play g4-gS and thereby a dangerous initiative, Bebchuk - Sham kovich,
gain space and create attacking possibilities on Moscow (ch) 1 964.
the kingside. White hopes that Black will get a 15.�f3 d4
slightly cramped position for his pieces which
will force Black to spend time rerouting all his
pieces to better squares, while White will be
building an attacking position.
10.gxh5! 13.tLlxe7
With the following possibilities: Less convincing is the recommendation of
Nunn: 1 3.'lWg4 ttJxf5 14.exf5 Eixh6 1 5 .0-0-0
0-0-0 1 6.f4 in view of 16 ... �g6 17.'lWh3 exf4.
1 3 he7 14.0-0-0 �xh6 15.VNe2 0-0-0
•..
6 . . . a6
a) 1 0 ... tLlxe4?!
1 0 . . .l'hh5?! l 1 .ttJd5 Eixf5 1 2.exf5 ttJc6
13.�e3 and Black does not have enough for the
exchange, Tishin - Iljushin, Tula 2002.
l l .tLlxg7t hg7 12.tLlxe4 d5 1 3.h6! dxe4
14.VNxd7t <i>xd7
After 14 ... ttJxd7 1 5 .hxg7 Eig8 1 6.Eigl ttJc5
then 17.�h6 Eic8 1 8.h4 is unpleasant, Aseev
Epishin, USSR 1 988.
1 5.hxg7 �gS 16.�gl tLl c6 1 7.ie3 tLl e7 1 8.0-
o-Ot <i>e6 1 9.ic5 tLlfS 20.if8 tLl d4 2 1 .<i> b l !
<i>fS 22.c3 tLlf3?!
More stubborn was 22 ... ttJ e6 23.�a3 Eixg7
24.Eixg7 ttJxg7 25 .Eid7 Wg6 26.Eixb7 Eih8. A standard Sicilian move. Black prepares b7-
23.�hl ! �gxf8 24.gxf8=VN �xf8 25.h4 and b5 and plans to organize counterplay on the
White won in Bologan - Timofeev, Europe - queenside.
Tartarstan 200 1 . 7.g5 tLl fd7 8.h4 b5
If Black plays 8 . . . Wc7 9.h5 b5 1 0.a3 �b7
b) 1 O ... tLlxh5 l l .ih6! tLlc6! White may reply I 1 .Eih3 !? with the idea
1 1 . . .g6?! 1 2.hf8 gxf5 1 3.hd6 ttJc6 g5-g6.
14.�c5±. 9.a3 ib7
12.VNxh5 tLle7 After 9 . . . ttJ b6 1 0 .h5 Black has several
1 2 ... g6?! 1 3.'lWg5 gxf5 14.hf8 Wxf8 1 5 .0-0-0 possibilities which all seem insufficient to
ttJd4 1 6.Eihgl 'lWe6 allows White an excellent equalize:
attacking position after 1 7.Eixd4! exd4 1 8.'lWg7t a) 1 0 . . . e5?! l 1 .ttJf5 d5 1 2.h6! gxh6 1 3.ttJxh6
We7 19.ttJd5t Wd7 20.'lWxd4 Eihc8 2 1 .'lWb4! d4 14.ttJe2 ttJ c6 1 5 . ttJ g3± Lobron - K. Schulz,
Eiab8 22.'lWa4t Eic6 23.'lWxa7 Wh6t 24.Wb l , Germany 1 9 8 5 .
Shmuter - Obukhov, Russia 1 993, or 2 0. . . b5 b) 1 0 . . . �e7 1 1 .�gl (In case o f I 1 .Wg4
2 1 .exf5 'lWe5 22.Wd3 Wc6 23.Eidl , Korneev - (with the idea 1 1 . . .e5?! 1 2.ttJfS g6 13.hxg6
Suba, Zaragoza 1995. fxg6 14.�e3 ! gxf5 1 5 .exf5 and White has a
The Scheveningen 1 59
A) 1 0 ttl b6
...
1 9.tDd5 �xd5 20.exd5 with advantage. 1 99 1 . Less dangerous for Black is 1 2.l'!gl g6 or
c) 1 1 . ..�e7 1 2.'lWg4 1 2.l'!h3 d5.
1 60 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
C) 1 0 �e7 1 1 .Wfd2
.•• 1 1 .�e2 lLldeS ( 1 l . ..l'l:c8 1 2.0-0-0 lLlceS
Interesting is 1 1 .�e2 lLlc6 ( 1 1 . . . lLl b6!?) 1 2.0- 1 3.f4 lLlc4 is also good for Black, Heinemann
0-0 0-0 1 3 . f4 lLlxd4 1 4 . .ixd4 �aS , Baikov - - Hetey, Germany 1 998.) 1 2.0-0-0 lLlc4
Antkowiak, Nuremberg 1 989, and now I S .g6!? 13.lLlxc6 hc6 14.f4 �aS I S .lLldS (Alexander
Exg6 ( I S . . . hxg6? 1 6.hS) 1 6.�g4 l'l:f7 1 7.�xe6 - Lundholm, corr. 1 970-7 1 ) was recommended
with better prospects for White. by Nunn in his book with Gallagher Beating the
The continuation 1 1 .Wi g4 lLl c6 1 2.0-0-0 gives Sicilian 3, but after I S ... .ib7! White has serious
Black sufficient counterplay after 1 2 . . . lLl ceS problems!
1 3.Wig3 l'l:c8 14.f4 lLlc4 I S . .ixc4 l'l:xc4 1 6.f5
lLl cS ( 1 6 ... eS!?) 1 7.g6 Exg6 ! , Zhao - Alcazar
Jimenez, Oropesa del Mar 2000.
1 l tLl c6
.•.
6 ... tDc6
20.l'!g3!
An important resource. Now Black has to
reckon with the manoeuvre ifl -h3.
20 i.f6
..•
(or 25 ... 2"1fS 26.2"1g7 .icB 27 ..if6t @eB 2B.2"1fgS 1 7.2"1d8 bxc3 ( 1 7 ... tLlg6 l S.2"1xf7t @xf7
winning) 26.@d3 2"1acB 27.2"1g7 1 -0. 1 9.�xh7t @fS 20.2"18t) 1 B.2"1xf7t @gB 1 9.96
9 0-0
•.. winning, Zaichik - Siekanski, Polanica Zdroj
If Black plays 9 ... a6 White may reply 10.'lWhS 1 989.
when Black has nothing better than 10 . . . 0-0 a3) Probably Black should settle for the worse
transposing back into the main line. position after 14 . . . eS I S . .ie3 g6 1 6.�h6 .ifS
10.'lWh5 17.�h4, as he did in the game Santo Roman
- Bischoff, Uzes 1 990.
b) 1 O ... g6 1 1 .�h6 (unclear is 1 1 .'lWh4 tLl deS
1 2 ..ie2 tLlxd4 1 3 . .ixd4 f6, Wohl - Cvitan,
Groningen 1 997.) 1 1 ...tLldeS (the continuation
1 1 .. .2"1e8?! 12.0-0-0 .if8 1 3.�h4 a6 14.2"1g3
.ig7 I S .f4 tLlfB? 1 6.eS ! looks very dangerous
for Black, Ivanovic - Mascarinas, Manila (izt)
1 990) 12.0-0-0 f6 13 .gxf6 .ixf6 14.tLlxc6 bxc6
I S . .ie2 with slightly better prospects for White
in Kengis - Murugan, Gausdal l 99 1 .
c) 1 0 . . . tLlxd4 1 1 ..ixd4 tLleS 12.2"1g3!? (an
idea which deserves attention is 1 2.0-0-0!? g6
1 3.�h6 f6 14.gxf6 .ixf6 I S . .ie2 .ig7 16.�d2
with a slightly better position for White) 12 ... g6
1 3 .�e2 LgS I 4 . .ie3 .if6?! ( 1 4 . . . .ih4!) I S .O-O-O
This looks natural and strong. The space with compensation for the pawn, Jansa -
advantage allows White to prepare his forces Nielsen, Gausdal 1 990.
for an attack on the kings ide. 1 1 .0-0-0 tL\ f8 12.f4
10 J'!eS
.. Also possible is 1 2.2"1g3 planning to meet
Black vacates the fS-square for the knight 12 ... a6 by 13.tLlxc6 bxc6 14.eS �c7 I S .tLl e4!
and prepares for the manoeuvre 2"1g3-h3 . The dxeS 16.tLlf6t gxf6 1 7.gxf6t tLlg6 I S.fxe7 2"1xe7
alternatives are: 1 9 . .igS with a dangerous initiative, Atri Sangari
a) 1 0 ... a6 1 1 .0-0-0 2"1eS 1 2.2"1g3 (In Akopian - Kelly, Moscow (01) 1 994.
- Brenninkmeijer, Groningen 1 99 1 , White 12 . a6
. .
included first the moves 1 2.f4 .ifS and only It is easy to criticise this move, but Black has
now played 1 3.2"1g3 g6 1 4.�h4 hS?! l S . .ie2 serious problems since 1 2 ... tLlxd4 1 3 . .ixd4 .id7
.ig7 1 6.ltJxc6! bxc6 1 7.2"1xd6 .ixc3 1 B . bxc3 14 . .id3 eS?! fails to I S .fxeS dxeS 1 6.LeS .ics
'lWaS 1 9 .@d2! with a clear edge.) 1 2 ... tLlxd4 17 . .ic4 ! . Better is 14 ... 2"1cB with the idea of a
1 3 . .ixd4 bS 14.@b 1 ! (preventing .ixgS landing future sacrifice on c3, when White's chances
with check after 2"1£3 or 2"1h3). Now we have would only be slightly preferable. After 14 . . . 2"1cB,
three options: the move l S .£5 with interesting prospects for
a l ) 14 ... b4? is bad on account of l S .2"18! f6 White suggests itself.
( l S ... 2"1fS? 1 6.2"1h3 h6 1 7.gxh6) 1 6 .2"1h3 tLl fS 13.�g3 tL\xd4 14 . .ixd4
1 7.gxf6 .ixf6 1 B . .ixf6 gxf6 1 9.2"1g3t @hB Thanks to Black's last move the white bishop
(Or 19 ... tLlg6 20.2"1xg6t hxg6 2 1 .�xg6t @fS is able to take up a menacing position.
22.�h6t @f7 23 . .ie2! with decisive threats.) 14 ... b5 1 5 ..id3 b4?
20.�f7 tLl g6 2 1 .2"1h3 tLl fS and now: 22 . .ibS! Provoking the following combination. The
clearing the path for the queen's rook to gl only chance for Black to prolong his resistance
wins. was a pawn sacrifice by I S ... eS 1 6.fxeS dxeS
a2) 14 . . . tLlfS? l S .2"1dd3 ! b4 16 . .ixg7! @xg7 1 7.LeS 'lWaS .
The Scheveningen 1 65
7.h4
For a long time White mostly played 7.g5
hxg5 8.hg5, but now 7.h4 is considered more
promising. White wants to continue with Elgl
(or ii.g2) and g5 , driving the black knight away.
7 ttJ c6
•••
12.,te3!?
This pawn sacrifice is more dangerous for
Black than 1 2.�e2t.
12 ...,te7
After 1 2 . . . \Mfxh4 1 3 .�d2!? ( 1 3 .�e2 lLlxd4
1 4.i.xd4t \Mfe7 l S .i.xd7t @xd7 1 6.i.e3 �ds
17.0-0-0 @cS l S .\Mff3 a6=, Ashley - Salov,
New York 1 996) l 3 . . . a6 ( l 3 . . . i.e7 14.0-0-0
with the idea lLl fS) 14.i.xc6 bxc6 1 5 .0-0-0,
White has sufficient compensation for the
pawn. For example:
l S . . . ,td6 16.lLlfS hf5 1 7.gxfS i.eS l S.f4!
i.f6 1 9 .�b4! ( 1 9.i.cS Nunn) .
Now Black has a choice between two Or l S . . . i.e7 Ferguson-Mirumian, European
main continuations A) 8 d5 and B) 8 .. h5.
••• . Youth Championship ( V I S) Chania 1 994.
Possibilities like S ... g6 9.gS hxgS 1 0.i.xgS 1 6.i.f4!? (with the idea 16 ... 0-0 17.lLl f3 !
i.e7 1 1 .�d2 a6 1 2.0-0-0 or s ... lLl d7 9.gS �f6 1 8 .gS hxgS 1 9.hgS \Mfxf3 20.he7 �feS
hxgS 1 0.hgS !? ( 1 0.hxgS with the idea i.e3 .) 2 1 .�gS g6 22.\Mfh6! �xe7 23.�h 1 �f6 24.�h7t
1 0 ...\Mfb6 1 1 .lLl b3 a6 1 2.hS are promising for @ffi 2S .\MfhSt etc.) 16 ... cS 17. lLl f3 ( 1 7. lLl fS !?)
White. �f6 18. �de 1 gives White a solid plus.
13.\Mfd2 hl4
A) 8 d5 9.,tb5 ,td7 1 0.exd5 tDxd5
.•• This is a risky idea.
In the ending that arises after 10 ... lLlxd4 The exchanges with 1 3 . . . lLlxd4 14 ..txd7t
1 1 .hd7t \Mfxd7 1 2.�xd4 lLlxdS l3.lLlxdS �xdS �xd7 l S .\Mfxd4 .tf6 16.\Mfb4 are in White's
1 4.�xdS exdS l S.i.e3 i.e7 1 6.hS White has favour, e.g. 1 6 . . . aS ( 1 6 . . . i.e7 1 7.\Mfb3 with
slightly better prospects, Nikolenko - Zakharov, the idea 0-0-0) 17.\Mfa3 i.e7 l S .\Mfd3 \Mfa4
Smolensk 1 99 1 . 1 9.0-0-0! ? ( 1 9 .a3) 1 9 . . . \Mfxa2 20.�bSt @ffi
The Scheveningen 1 67
2 1 .'lWxb7 !l:dB (Rowson - Stocek, Budapest 1 4 . . . Gt:Jxd4?! I S . .!ixd7t 'lWxd7 1 6.hd4 with
1 996) 22.'lWc7! !l:eB 23 . .!icS .!ixcs 24.'lWxcSt the idea 1 6 . . . 0-0? 1 7.gS ! hxgS I B.hg7! !l:fcB
@ gB 2S .'lWa3t. ( I B . . . @xg7 1 9 .!l:xgSt) 1 9 . .!if6 'lWd6 20.!l:xgSt
The best move for Black is probably 13 ... 0-0 .!ixgS 2 1 .'lWxgSt @fB 22.!l:e 1 and Black gets
when White has the following options: mated. 1 6 ... @fB is better, but still problematic
for Black.
1 4 . . . 0-0?! I S .gS ! Gt:Jxd4 ( 1 S . . . .!ixgS 1 6 ..!ixgS
hxgS 1 7.!l:xgS ! with the idea Gt:Jxd4? I B.!l:xg7t
@xg7 1 9.'lWxd4t f6 20.!l:g l t @f7 2 1 .'lWxdSt
.!ie6 22.'lWxb7t+-) 1 6.'lWxd4 hxgS ( 1 6 ... hbS?
1 7.gxh6! .!if6 I B.!l:xg7t @hB 1 9 .'lWf4)
17 . .!ixd7'IWxd7 IB . .!ixgS .!ixgst 1 9.!l:xgS f6
20.!l:xdS±.
24.cxd5!
Of course not 24.fxg5? �a l t 25.<i?c2 �xa2t
26.<i?d3 �xc4t 27.<i?e3 hxg5 .
24 ... �al t 25.�c2 �xa2t 26.�d3 �xd2t?
The last mistake. Black could have offered
more resistance by 26 . . . �b3t 27.�c3 �b5t
2S.�c4 .ih4 29.E1hl .if2.
27.E1xd2 �xf4 2s.E1a2 cxd5 29J'!xa6 h5
30.�d4 h4 3 1 .�xd5 l"i:b8 32.f6 gxf6 33.l"i:xf6
�g3 34.l"i:xf7t �dS 35.E1f8t
1-0
Game 49
B} S ... h5 9.gxh5 ltJxh5 10.�g5 ltJf6 Morovic Fernandez - Veingold
The main alternative is 1 0 . . .�b6 (The passive Spain 1 993
1 0 ... �c7 1 1 .�d2 a6
1 2.0-0-0 .id7 13 . .ie2 ct:Jxd4 14.�xd4 1 1 .E1g3!?
.ic6 1 5 ..ig4!? b5 16.E1ge l �a7 1 7.�d3 ct:J f6 This move is less investigated. One of the
( 1 7 ... �xf2? IS.E1f! �a7 1 9.Le6! fxe6 20.e5) hidden points with this move is that the queen's
IS . .ixf6 gxf6 19.ct:Jd5 was very good for White rook can sometimes come to h i ! Usually White
in Van Blitterswijk - Van Beek, Haarlem 1 996.) has chosen 1 1 . �d2 or 1 1 .�e2 with the following
1 1 .ct:J b3 a6 1 2 ..ie2 g6 (After 1 2 ... ct:Jf6?! 1 3 .h5 possible continuations:
�c7 14.h6! Black has immediate difficulties a) 1 1 . � d2 � b6 (after l l .. .a6 12.0-0-0
as in the game Fedorowicz - S. Polgar, Wijk �d7 13.£4 �c7 14.f5 ! ? ctJxd4 1 5 .�xd4 �e7
aan Zee 1 990, which continued 14 . . . ct:Jh7?! 1 6.fxe6 fxe6 1 7.�h3 0-0-0 I S.Wb4 (with the
(14 ... ct:J d7) 1 5 .hxg7 .ixg7 16 ..ie3 .if6 1 7.�d2 idea Wb3) White's position is preferable, Santo
.id7 I S.0-0-0 .ie7 1 9.E1h l 0-0-0 20.ct:Ja4! with Roman - Lepelletier, Cannes 1 994.) 1 2'ct'J b3
a large advantage for White.) 1 3 .�d2 and now: a6 13.0-0-0 �d7 (Another idea is 13 . . . Wc7
a) 1 3 . . . �c7 14.0-0-0 b5 1 5 .a3 �d7?! 14.�bl b5 when White can proceed 1 5 .f3!?
( 1 5 ... E1bS) 16.�b5 !? axb5 17.ct:Jxb5 �bS �b7 1 6.�f2 0-0-0 1 7.�e3 ct:Jd7 I S.l"i:c1 �bS
I S.ct:Jxd6t �d6 1 9.�xd6 �xd6 20.E1xd6 E1cS 1 9 .a4!? b4 20.ct:Ja2 with the idea c2-c3 which
2 1 .E1gdl ct:J bS 22.e5 and the white pawns are will yield slightly better play, as in Frolov -
stronger than the black knight, Govedarica Raisa, Helsinki 1 992. One point of White's
- Mokry, Trnava 1 9S7.
The Scheveningen 1 69
(if 1 2 . . . a6?, then l 3 .li:'lxd6t hd6 1 4.�xd6 b) l 3 ... i.d7?! 14.0-0-0 i.e7 I S .eS ! dxeS
�xb2 I S .E1b l �xc2 1 6.i.xf6 gxf6 1 7.i.c4 with 1 6.li:'le4 with compensation for the pawn, e.g.
the idea i.b3) l 3.f4! (less clear is l 3 .i.e3 �dS IS . . . E1bS 1 7.i.xf6 gxf6 ( 1 7 . . . i.xf6? I S.E1xg7! )
14.li:'lxa7 E1xh4) l3 ... li:'l g6 14.eS! dxeS I S .fxeS I S.Wi'g2! E1fS 1 9.i.c4 (with the idea 1 9 . . . E1b4
li:'lhS? ( I S . . . li:'lxeS 1 6 .�e2 li:'l fd7 1 7.0-0-0t) 20.he6! fxe6 2 1 .E1gS �cS 22.E1xfSt cj;lxfS
1 6.E1d3 i.e7, Hellers - Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 23.E1g1 cj;leS 24.�gSt i.fS 2S.E1g7 with
1 990. Now White has 1 7. li:'l d6t! cj;l fS l S.i.xelt a decisive advantage for White) 1 9 . . . �b6
cj;lxe7 1 9.1i:'lfSt! cj;leS 20.E1d6 winning. 20J''1 b 3 Wi'a7 2 1 .E1bd3 E1b7 22.�g7 and White's
And after 1 1 . .. i.e7 1 2�d2 li:'l xd4 l 3.�xd4 initiative proved decisive in Kir. Georgiev - Sax,
�b6?! 1 4 .i.b S t ! cj;lfS I S .�xb6 axb6 White Reggio Emilia 1 9S5/S9.
can exploit the weak b-pawns by 1 6 .0-0-0 eS c) l3 ...i.e7 14.0-0-0 dS (after 1 4 ... Wi'c7
1 7.E1gd3 ! i.e6 I S.£3, Gavrikov - Adorjan, Biel - I S .eS! dxeS 1 6.hS ! ? (with the idea h6)
1 990, planning b3 and li:'l a4. 16 . . . li:'lxhS 1 7.i.xe7 cj;lxe7 I S.E1h3 g6 1 9 .1i:'l e4
12.ClJxc6!? bxc6 13.%Yf3 fS 20.�a3t cj;lfl 2 1 .li:'l d6t cj;lf6 22.i.e2 gives
White prepares queenside castling as quickly White a strong attack, Sibarevic - Masic, Pula
as possible, when Black has to reckon with the 1 990) I S .i.c4!? i.b7 1 6.i.b3 cj;lfS 1 7.hS ! ? li:'ld7
advance e4-eS. ( l 7 ... li:'lxhS?! would be met by I S.hen cj;lxe7
( l S . . . �xe7? 1 9 .E1h l g6 20.E1xg6) 1 9.exdS
cxdS 20.i.xdS ! exdS 2 1 .li:'lxdSt i.xdS 22.E1xdS
li:'lxg3 23.E1xdS E1axdS 24.fxg3 with good
winning chances for White) I S.i.f4:t, Pavlovic
- Razuvaev, Cetinje 1 99 1 .
14.0-0-0 %Yb6 1 5 .b3 li:'l h5
Less accurate is I S . . . i.e7 because of 1 6.eS ! ?
dxeS 1 7.li:'le4 i.a3t ( l 7 . . . li:'l h S ? I S.i.xe7 cj;lxe7
1 9.E1xg7! and 1 7 . . . li:'lxe4 I S.Wi'xe4 White's
compensation is ample.) I S. cj;l b l li:'ldS 1 9.c4
i.b7 20.cxdS cxdS (with the idea 2 1 .li:'ld2?
�d4 22.li:'lc4 dxc4.). This was played in Gorin
- Rodin, Simferopol 1 9S9. Now strong was
2 1 .Wi'f6! dxe4 22.�xg7 E1fS 23.Wi'xeS E1cS
24.E1c3± with the idea 24 . . . E1xc3? 2S.i.bSt!
l 3 .. J'�b8 axbS (2S . . . i.c6 26.�xc3) 26.Wi'xbSt+-.
This is probably the best. The alternatives 1 6.�gl d5
are: White did not achieve anything in the game
a) l 3 . . . eS?! 14.i.c4! i.e6 I S .i.xe6 fxe6 van der Wiel - Winants, Budel (zt) 1 9S7, after
1 6.0-0-0 E1bS 1 7.hS ! E1b7? ( 1 7 . . . �b6?! I S.b3 1 6 ... g6 1 7.i.c4?! Wi'aS I S.eS?! dS, but instead
li:'lxhS? loses to 1 9.E1hl g6 20.i.e3 followed of 17.i.c4?! both 17.i.h3 and 1 7.cj;lbl deserved
by E1xg6. Black should have tried 1 7 . . . i.e7 attention. The advance d6-dS looks rather risky
after which White can continue I S .h6!? gxh6 because White's forces are better prepared for
1 9.i.h4 E1fS 20.E1g7 �b6 2 1 .b3 with the idea concrete play and the position of the black king
2 1 .. .E1b7 (2 1 . .. E1fl 22.E1xfl cj;lxfl 23.E1xd6! ) in the centre becomes more vulnerable.
22.�h3.) I S .h6 E1 fl 1 9.hxg7 hg7 20.Wi'd3 17.�bl .ib4?!
dS 2 1 .�xa6 Wi'c7 22.li:'l bS! cxbS (Or 22 . . . �d7 Also if 17 . . . i.d6?! then I S.i.h3 causes serious
23.�aSt cj;le7 24.�a3t cj;ldS 2S.li:'ld6 E1e7 problems, e.g. IS ... Wi'c7 ( l S ... i.eS 1 9.exdS
26.E1b3 White wins.) 23.E1c3, 1 -0 Vasiukov - cxdS 20.E1ge l with the idea 20 ... f6 2 1 .i.g4
Danailov, Moscow 1 9S6. g6 22.i.xhS E1xhS 23.li:'lxdS exdS 24.Wi'xf6)
The Scheveningen 171
19.exd5 cxd5 20.E1ge l .ie5 (20 ... .ib7 2 1 ..ixe6 A natural reply, although 19.exd5 !? was
fxe6 22.E1xe6t @d7 23.�f5) 2 1 .lDxd5 exd5 strong too as White wins a pawn after
22.�xd5 .ixh3 (22 ... f6 23.E1xe5t!) 23.E1xe5 t 1 9 ... cxd5 ( 1 9 ... .ixc3? 20.dxe6+-) 20.lDxd5 ! .ib7
@fB 24.E1e7 +-. (20 ... exd5? 2 1 .E1xd5 �c7 22 . .ixcS E1xcS
Black should have sought to prevent the 23.�e4t ) 2 1 ..if4! .ixd5 (2 1 . ..E1cS 22.lDf6t
eventual sacrifice on d5 by 1 7 ... .ib7, although lDxf6 23.�xb7 �c5 24.c4) 22.E1xd5 �xd5
White's position is more promising after, for 23.�xd5 exd5 24 . .ixbS±.
example I S . .ih3. 19 ...i.d7?
IS.i.h3! Wa5? Black is already in trouble and it is hard to
Missing a second chance to play .ib7. suggest anything else.
20.c4
Another, and perhaps better possibility, was
20.lDf4 lDxf4 2 1 ..ixf4 E1b5 22.E1xg7.
20 ...dxe4 2 1 .'lWxe4 'lWc7?!
More stubborn is 2 1 . ..lDf6 22.�f4 E1b7.
22.lDf4! lDf6 23.'lWe2
23 ..ixf6 gxf6 24.E1g7! (Threatening .ixe6)
would have won easily with the idea 24 ... E1xh4
(24 ... �e5 25 .�d3) 25 .E1gSt .ifB 26.lDg6!.
23 ... .id6?
The final mistake. 23 ... E1dS was the only way
to continue the fight.
24.i.xe6! i.xe6 25.tLlxe6 fxe6 26.'lWxe6t i.e7
27.i.xf6 gxf6 2S.E1gst gxg8 29.'lWxg8t
1-0
19.1De2!?
The Kalashnikov The alternatives are:
7 . . . .ie6 B.liJc4 bS (Rabjabov's latest try, at
- By Jan Pinski
the Turin Olympiad 2006, was B ... :1'1b8 Perhaps
the simplest plan now, instead of 9.a4 as in the
game, was 9.liJe3 liJ f6 1 0.g3 with the usual
l .e4 c5 2.llJf3 llJ c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.llJxd4 e5 edge.) 9.liJe3 liJ f6 1 0.g3 ! The best way for White
5.llJb5 d6 to play for an advantage. 1 0 . . . :1'1cB 1 1 ..ig2 and
White is slightly better.
7 ... .ie7 B.liJc4 bS 9.liJe3 liJf6 10.g3! hS !? GM
Teimour Radjabov's idea. ( 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 ..ig2
.ie6 1 2.0-0 White is slightly better) 1 1 ..ig2
h4 12.liJedS ! A new move. 1 2 ... liJxdS 1 3 .liJxdS
h3 14 ..if3 liJd4 I S ..ie3 liJxf3t 1 6:�xf3 :1'1bB
1 7.0-0 .ib7 I B.:1'1ad l White is a little better.
8.llJd5 llJge7
The most popular move here. There was a
time when I believed in this position for Black,
but I have changed my mind. White is better
but the position is extremely complicated.
B . . ..ie7 9.c4 b4 10.liJc2 ( 1 0.liJxb4? liJxb4
1 1 :�a4t .id7 1 2.�xb4 dS 1 3.�c3 �bB and
Black is better.) 1 0 ... :1'1bB l 1 .b3 liJf6 1 2 ..id3
The Sicilian Kalashnikov has become a real 0-0 1 3.0-0 liJd7 14 . .ib2 liJcS I S .liJce3 .igS
opening over the last I S years or so. It was 1 6 . .ic2 as 1 7.@h l White is better.
developed by Evgeny Sveshnikov more than B ... :1'1bB 9.c4 liJ ge7? (for 9 ... b4 - see B ... .ie7) .
anyone to start with, but he already had his own For nearly ten years this position has been
main line in the Sicilian! assessed as unclear in E CO. The game Kaminski
Here I suggest 6.llJ lc3 is the right decision. - Pinski, Katowice 1995, and the winner's
6.c4 is the main theoretical move, but it comments (GM Kaminski) were the basis
promises positional play with an easy way for for this. The truth is different: 1 0.cxbS liJxdS
Black to gain equality. Instead this more tactical l 1 .exdS ! liJd4 1 2.bxa6 �aSt 13 . .id2 �xd5
and confrontational approach promises White 14.a7 :1'1aB I S . .ie3 :1'1xa7 16.liJbS with a clear
an advantage, and makes me wonder how I ever advantage for White.
got away with playing the Kalashnikov for so
long without being punished!
But as this is a minor line, I will not waste
your time with unnecessary talk. All you need to
know is in the games below. Basically you play
B.liJdS, 9.exdS and 1 O.c4!, or the same moves in
another order!
Game 50
Motylev - Shariyazdanov
Tomsk 2004
42J�dS VNa3 43.@g2 VNal 44.VNdl VNa2? This is more dangerous than 1 2 .id2.
The position was more or less lost, but after 1 2 ... �b8 13.ie2 ie7 1 4.0-0 0-0 I S.a4
this mistake all is clear. The critical position for the 8 ... lLlce7
4SJ!xd6! VNal 46.VNxal ixal 47J!d3 ib2 variation. 1 5 ... ib7 seems to be the best way to
48.@f3 ia3 49.@e4 ics SO.f4 ib4 S 1 .�dS search for equality.
ieI S2.@f3 ic3 S3.f5 ib4 s4.id3 �c7 I s ...ib7
SS.�bS ics S6.b4 ie7 S7.fxgG fxgG S8.�b6 1 5 ... lLld7 1 6.a5 ! This is better than the
�c3 S9.@e2 �b3 60.�xgGt @f'7 61.�a6 �b2t previously popular 16.Qd2. White's chances
62.@f1 ixb4 63.igGt @e7 64.�b6 are on the queenside, therefore it makes no
1-0 sense to play slowly. 1 6 . . . f5 1 7.f4 g5 ( 1 7 ... exf4
1 8.ixf4 lLl c5 1 9 .tiJb6 ib7 20.b4 tiJ e4 2 1 .j::\ c 1
Game S I and White i s better.) 1 8.fxe5 lLlxe5 1 9 . 1Ll b6 if6
Delchev - Brumen 20.tiJxc8 �xc8 2 1 .j::\ c 1 'lWd7 22.ib6 White is
Zadar 2003 slightly better, Ehrenfeucht - Pinski, Warsaw
1999.
l .e4 cS 2.lLlO lLl c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 eS 1 5 . . . �d7 1 6. tiJ b6 'IWf5 1 7.tiJxc8 'IWxc8 1 8 .j::\ c 1
S.lLlbS d6 6.lLl l c3 a6 7.lLla3 bS 8.lLldS lLl ce7!? � f5 1 9.b3 a 5 20.h3 e 4 2 1 .ic4 and White is
9.c4! lLlxdS 10.exdS! better.
Keeping the symmetrical pawn structure 1 5 . . . a5?! 16.id2 j::\ a 8 1 7.'lWe l with a clear
is less dangerous for Black. White has some advantage.
problems with the knight on a3 after cxd5. 16.lLlb6 lLl d7
10 ... bxc4 1 6 . . . 'lWe8 1 7.a5 id8 1 8.ic4 ixb6 1 9.axb6!
There is no compensation after 1 0 . . . ie7 ( 1 9 .hb6 lLl d7 20.ie3 f5 with counterplay.)
l 1 .cxb5 lLl f6 1 2.ic4 0-0 13.bxa6 ha6 14.0-0 1 9 ... tiJ d7 20.�b3 f5 2 1 .0 f4 22.if2 White is a
�b6 1 5 .VNd3 j::\ fc8 1 6.b3 h6 17.j::\ d l White is bit better - he has the two bishops and an attack
clearly better. on the a6-pawn, Bogachkov-Sherbakov, Russia
l 1.lLlxc4 lLl fG 200 1 .
1 1 .. .f5 1 2.id2 j::\ b 8 ( 1 2 ... a5? 13.�a4t id7 17.aS f5 1 8.0 VNe8
14.�a3 �b8 1 5 .ha5 White take a pawn.) 18 . . . tiJxb6 1 9.ixb6 �d7 20.b4 id8 2 1 .ie3
1 3 .ia5 �e7 14.tiJb6 ib7 1 5 .�a4t 1flf7 1 6.g4! if6 22.j::\ b l �f7 23.ic4 j::\ b c8 24.'lWd3 j::\ a 8
fxg4 1 7.h3 White has a clear advantage. 25.j::\ fc1 �h5 26.ib3 ig5 27.'lWd2 he3t
12.ie3! 28.'lWxe3 White is slightly better, Karjakin -
Kosteniuk, Brissago (4) 2003.
19.VNd2
More thematic is 1 9.b4 id8 20.lLlxd7 �xd7
2 1 .j::\ b l and White has the more pleasant
game.
19 id8 20.lLlxd7 VNxd7 2 1 .b4 f4?
.•.
Game 52
Anand - Shirov
Linares 2002
12 ... ib7 13.ctJxb4 gcs White takes control of the g5 square. Attacking,
13 . . . ctJ dS 1 4.'\&d l ! 'l&xe4t 1 5 .i.e3 i.e7 because White threatens h4-h5.
1 6.ctJd5 l"1cS ( 1 6 ...i.h4 17.'I&d3 i.xd5 ( 1 7 ... 'I&xd3 15 0-0
•••
I S.i.xd3 is also better for White.) I S.cxd5 1 5 ... 'I&g4 Black defends l"1cS and threatens
'l&b4t 1 9.'I&d2 'l&e4 20.l"1c1 i.g5 2 1 .'I&d3 'l&b4t ctJxb4. 1 6.l"1dl 0-0 1 7.f3! i.xh4t I S.We2!
22.Wlc3 'l&xc3t 23.l"1xc3 i.xe3 24.fxe3 This is 'l&g6 19.ctJxc6 i.xc6 20.Wlxd6 i.f6 2 1 .'I&a3
one of the typical endings in the Kalashnikov. White's position is much better: there is no real
It is also much better for White. First of all, compensation for the material.
White has bishop against knight. Secondly, the 1 5 . . . h5?! 1 6.f3 0-0 17.0-0-0 ctJxb4 I S.'I&xb7
black pawn on a6 is weak. Last but not least, ctJxa2t 1 9.Wc2 White stands much better -
White has good chances to create a passed pawn Anand.
on the queenside.} 1 7.f3 Wlg6 I S.ctJxe7! (Anand 16.h5 Wlg4 1 7.f3 Wlg3t
believes that after I S.'I&d2 White is much better. 17 ... 'I&d7 I S.ctJxc6 i.xc6 1 9 .'I&d2 White is
However it is not so easy to prove. I S . . . i.xd5! better.
1 9.'I&xd5 (of course bad is 19.cxd5 l"1c2 20.'I&b4
0-0 and White is even worse) 19 ... ctJ c6 and
White has serious weaknesses on the kingside.
The question is: how does White finish his
development? For example: 20.'I&d2? d5 ! with
an attack.} I S ... Wxe7 1 9.'I&d2 and White is
much better!
14.ie3
14.f3 i.e7 1 5 .ctJxc6 i.xc6 16.'I&d2 f5 1 7.exf5
'l&xf5 1 S.i.e2 0-0 19.0-0 e4 with compensation,
according to Anand.
14 ie7
•.•
I S ... a6!? 16.lLld6 lLlxf4 17.�xf4 �c7 I B.�e4 1 4 ... gS I s .ig3 lLl e4 1 6.f3 lLlxg3 1 7.lLlxg3 lLleS
g6 19.1Llc4 �feB 20.�h4 �g7 and White is only and Black is only very slightly worse] I S .�e l gS
slightly better. 16.ig3 lLle4?! [ 1 6 ... lLl hS was better] 1 7.lLlxd4!
1 6.�eS ltJxeS 17.�xeS lD e7?! �xd4 I B.c3 ig4 19.cxd4 ixd l 20.�xe4 ib3
I have had this position once. I played 17 ... lLl f6 2 1 .d5 lLld4 22.d6± with a close to winning
when after I B .�f4 �fdB 1 9 .�dl ig4 (Bromann ending for White in Alekseev - lanocichin,
- Raetsky, Taastrup 2002) my opponent Oropesa del Mar 200 1 .) 14.f4!? E1d5 I s.lLlg3
should have played 20.f3! when the problems ( I 5 .f5 ! ? with various attacking ideas also
with the d-pawn leave me clearly worse. e.g. looks good) 1 5 ... h6 1 6.ih4 gS ! ? Otherwise
20 ... ie6 2 1 .ifl±. Instead my opponent played White is just a whole lot better. 1 7.fxg5 hxgS
something else and we drew 136 moves later. I B.lLlhS! Only move. I B ... lLlg4 1 9 . .ig3 lLle3
I B.Wfe4 Ei:fd8?! 20.lLlf6t �xf6 2 1 .�xf6 lLlxd l 22.E1xdl with a
Black decides not to let the pawn go. It was better endgame for White in Korneev-Moreno,
a sad choice. He could have kept his kingside Mondariz 2000.
position together with I B ... lLlg6 when White 13.0
wins a pawn with 1 9.�cS ( I 9.�xe6! ?) 19 ... �fcB Harmless is 1 3.igS �d6 1 4.�e l �feB
20.�xcBt �xcB 2 1 .lLlxd4± and he should win. I S .�d2 ixe2!. The standard exchange in this
19.Wfh7t �f8 20.WfhBt lDg8 2 1 .Ei:ael �d5 variation. 16.if4 �d7 1 7.�xe2 �xe2 1 8.�xe2
22.Ei:xd5! �eB 1 9.�fl �e6 20.h3 h6 2 1 .�dl lDd5 22.ig3
The bishop must be stopped from coming to lLlf6= Kasparov - Grischuk, Cannes 200 1 .
e6. Now Black is mated. 13 ...�h5
22 ... WfxdS 23.lDc7 Wfd7 24.�h7
1-0
Game 54
Karjakin - Raetsky
Biel 2003
when 20.'lWh5 !? g6 2 1 .�h6 �d4 22.E:h5 ! ? gives top) 22 ... E:xe l t 23.E:xe l dxc2 24.ie3 ffa6 and
White a very interesting attack.) 1 7.E:e l liJ fS White is struggling to keep equality.
I S.�f3 �d7 1 9.E:e5 a6 20.id2 E:feS 2 1 .E:ae l 19 .. .l:UeS 2o.Ad2 :ge7
and White i s definitely better, A . Sokolov - Here I could also have continued 20 ... a5 ! ?
Raetsky, Basel 2003. White i s still better after 2 1 .b5 tLl e7 22.E:e l
14 ...ffb6 1 S.lLl f4 Ag6 16.lLlxg6 hxg6 1 7.f4 tLl 7d5 23.E:fe2 E:acS 24.c4 dxc3 25 .ixe3 E:xe3
26.E:xe3 c2 27.ixc2 tLlxe3 2S.ffxe3 �xe3t
29.E:xe3 E:xc2 30.E:eSt i>h7 3 1 .E:e7 and White
has some winning chances in the endgame, even
though I have drawing chances too!
2 1 .h4!? :gaeS 22.hS gS!?
He wants to complicate the game and I am
not afraid to follow suit. I estimated that after
22 ... gxh5 23.�xh5 g6 24.�g5 White would
have the better game. Black should fear the
advance f4-fS, and the white rook will also come
into play by f3-h3 with dangerous threats.
17 ... lLl dS
White should be better no matter what.
Another example is: 17 ... liJe7 I S .'IWf3 liJ ed5
1 9.E:el E:feS 20.id2 �c7 (20 ... liJ e3 2 1 .c4! is
generally good for White) 2 1 .i>hl �d6 22.f5
gxf5 23.ixfS g6 24.id3 i>g7 25 .h3 E:hS 26.E:fl
E:aeS 27.E:ae l with an advantage for White in
Galkin - Rabiega, Ohrid 200 1 .
l s.fff3
This is probably best.
I S.fS tLle3 1 9.ixe3 dxe3 20.i>h l (a bad
direction is 20.�e2 gxf5 2 1 .ixf5?! 2 l . ..tLld4 23.h6!
22.�xe3?, when Black wins with 22 . . . E:aeS OK, the little guy is not so bad. My main
23.�f2 E:e2) 20 ... tLle5!? (20 ... gxf5 2 1 .E:xf5oo) idea was 23.fxg5 tLle5 24.�e4 (24.�g3 tLlxd3
2 1 .fxg6 fxg6 and Black has good counterplay. 25.cxd3 �b5 and I cannot for the life of me
l S ... lLl e3 19.E:f2! pretend to be worse here) 24 ... tLlxd3 25 .�xd3
Subtle play from the kid who recentlydescribed E:e5 26.g6 fxg6 27.hxg6 E:Se6 and I think I am
his greatest fear in life as "not becoming World fully in the game.
Champion". If he takes a close look at what 23 ... g4
happened to his friend Ponomariov, he should I considered 23 ... gxh6 24.�h5 to be very
maybe fear becoming World Champion more uncomfortable.
than not doing so!? 24.ffg3
Anyway, 19.E:el E:feS 20.id2 looks natural, 24.h7t i>hS 25 .�g3 is not clear at all. Maybe
and the computer thinks White is better, but White is better, but I am not sure about that
Black has 20 ... tLlxc2! 2 1 .ixc2 d3t 22.fff2 at all.
(22.ie3 tLl d4 23.�f2 E:xe3! and Black ends on 24 ... g6?!
The Four Knights 1 8S
d5 17.tLlg5 b6!?
This is a marginal improvement. 17 ....id7
18 ..id3 e5 is met strongly with 19 . .ie4!? dxe4
20.l"lxd7 e3 2 1 .fxe3 ttJxe3 22.l"le l ttJxg2 23.l"lxe5
l"lad8 24.l"lxd8 l"lxd8 25 .l"le7 ttJf4 26.b4 and
White has good winning chances - Hall.
18.tLla tLld6 1 9.Ad3 Ad7 20.l"leU
l"lb8 1 6 ..ib5 �f8 1 7 . .ixc6 dxc6 1 8.ttJxc8 l"lxc8 This kind of endgame often arises from
1 9.1"ld6, which left Black a miserable endgame the French. White can now choose between
in Aagaard - Bellon Lopez, Gothenburg 2004. different plans. The main problem for Black will
1 l .Wxe7 tLlxe7 1 2.0-0-0 f5 13.tLld6 always be his slightly worse bishop and pawn
The simplest. Also possible is 1 3.e5 ttJg6 structure. He was able to draw the game with a
14.l"lel a6 1 5 .ttJd4 b5 1 6.g3 .ib7 1 7.l"lgl f4 pawn sacrifice and tenacious defence, but it was
1 8 . .id3 with a slight edge for White, or 13.0!? a difficult and unpleasant task.
The Pin Variation The following line is the established refutation
of the most important sideline with 6.e5 ttl e4?!,
- By Jacob Aagaard which is dose to a losing mistake, though it
has taken decades to prove it! In the sidelines
White wins, but only after several minor
l .e4 c5 2,<!tj e e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttJxd4 ttJf6 5.ttJc3 improvements.
�b4
l .e4 c5 2.ttJe e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttJxd4 ttJf6 5.ttJc3
�b4 6.e5 ttJ e4?!
6 . . . iW a5? can be refuted in more than one way,
but the following is probably simplest. 7.exf6
hc3t 8.bxc3 iWxc3t 9.iWd2 iWxal 1 0 .c3! iWb l
1 1 .id3 iWb6 1 2.fxg7 The only debatable move,
but here we just go for it. 1 2 ... Ei:g8 1 3 .iWg5 ! Here
White gets an endgame with two bishops and
2-3 passed pawns, where at least one is extra.
13 . . . h6 ( l 3 ... iWd8 1 4.iWxd8t ci>xd8 1 5 .ig5t
ci>c7 16.if6 d6 1 7.ixh7 ttl d7 1 8.ixg8 ttlxf6
1 9 .ixf7+- Ngo Ngoc - Bao, Dalat City 2004)
14.iWf6 iWd8 1 5 .iWxd8t ! Always this. 1 5 ... ci>xd8
16.ixh6 f5 17.ttlxf5 exf5 1 8.ic4 Ei:e8t 1 9.ci>d2
ttlc6 20.if7 d6 2 1 .Ei:e1 ttl e5 22.f4 and White
This rare and provocative line is generally won in Kozakov - Todorov, Valjevo 2000.
considered unsatisfactory for Black, as White 7.�g4 ttJxc3
will be able to start a kingside attack with the Again 7 ... iWa5 should be a losing move.
support of his advanced e-pawn. However 8.iWxg7! (8.iWxe4!? hc3t 9.bxc3 iWxc3t 1 0.ci>d1
things are not that simple. In recent years players iWxal 1 1 .ttlb5 d5 is less dear than I want it to
such as Federov, Van Wely and in particular the be. Probably it also wins though, but the main
Lithuanian grandmaster Sulskis (a legendary line seems most convincing to me.) 8 ... ixc3t
fighter on the European tournament circuit, 9.bxc3 iWxc3t 1 0.ci>e2 b6 1 l .iWxh8t ci>e7
as well as a really nice guy) have employed 12.ia3t! White wins. Most sources stop here,
this system with relative success. For the 1 .e4 but let us look a few moves further. 1 2 . . . iWxa3! ?
player who brakes for no one, insight into this ( l 2 ...d 6 13.ttlb3 ! wins easily for White. There
line seems to be becoming more and more is no reason for 1 3 . ttl c6t?! as played in some
important. For this reason we have decided to games.) 1 3.iWxc8 iWb2
expand from the planned 2 pages to a full size 14.ttlb3 ttlc6 1 5 .iWxa8 iWxc2t 1 6.ci>e3 iWxf2t
chapter. 17.ci>xe4 ttlxe5 1 8.iWf8t! ! ( 1 8. ci>xe5 iWe3t 19.iWe4
However, an interesting alternative is to play f6 mate is wonderful, and probably blinded
3.ttlc3!? in reply to 2 . . . e6. Now after 3 . . . Nf6 Black) 18 ... ci>xf8 1 9.ci>xe5 iWe3t 20.ci>d6 ci>e8
we can transpose to the Nimzowitsch variation 2 1 .ci>c7 1-0. Schatzle - Filartiga, corr. 1 974.
with 4.e5 ! , as dealt with on page 255. And after This is the line you could expect to find
all other reasonable moves 4.d4 leads into the elsewhere, as the game is certainly very nice. But
normal main lines. In this way there is also a instead of 14 . . . ttl c6? Black has 1 4 . . . iWxe5 , which
link to the Kan/Taimanov lines, where after is a strong novelty. After 1 5 .f4 iWxf4 there is
2.ttlf3 e6 Sune Berg Hansen suggests 3.ttlc3 ! ? White can apparently defend with the stunning
as a viable alternative. This actually prevents the 1 6.iWc4 ! ! Phil Taylor ( 1 6.c4 iWf2t 17.ci>d3 ttl c6
Pin-variation; but who wants to do that? 1 8.iWxa8 ttl b4t 1 9.ci>xe4 f5t 20.ci>e5 d6 mate) ,
1 88 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
when Black should have reasonable chances 10.ax:b4 tl)xd4 1 1 .J.gS �b6
after 16 . . . ttJc6 1 7.�d3 �f2t 1 8.'Jid l �h4 The standard move. 1 1 . ..ttJxc2t 12.@dl
1 9 .93 ttJ f2t 20.@e2 �f6 2 1 .�e3 ttJxh l 22.i.g2 �b6 was successful for Black in May - Beier,
ttJxg3t 23.hxg3OO• East Germany 1 979, but here 13.i.h6! �xb4
So White needs to come up with 1 4.@e3 ! , 14.@xc2 would lead to an endgame where
which i s the only winning move, and seven after White has an extra exchange against a pawn,
this it is not easy. and every chance of winning.
a) 14 ... ttJxf2 1 5 .i.e2 ttJxh I 1 6.Eld l ! (The most 12.i.h6
accurate move. White is threatening 17.ttJc6t!.) 12.i.d3 was successful in some games, but
1 6 ... �a3t 17.ttJb3 �b2 1 8.c3 and White wins. 12 ... d6 13.c3 dxe5 ! leaves the position unclear.
b) 14 ... �xal 1 5 .@xe4 �e l t 1 6.@f3 �xe5 12 ...�xb4t 13.c3 tl)f5 14.cxb4 tl)xg7 IS.J.xg7
1 7.�b7 �xd4 1 8.�xa8 ttJ c6 1 9 .h4! The white Elg8 16.J.f6±
king will escape. However this win is not hard This is the old main line. Now
to find. On move 1 6 there might be alternative 16 ... tl)c6!?
ways to do it, but here 1 9.�g8? ttJ e5t 20.@g3 was analysed by my friend Torben Sorensen in
ttJg6 ! ! would draw for Black. Denmark a long time ago. The conclusion was the
8.�xg7 following wonderful winning line. Alternatively
When I used to play the Pin Variation in Blitz Black can try 1 6 ... d5 to fight for a draw in a very
I would often lose to 8.a3, but after 8 ... i.f8! depressing way. After 1 7.exd6 ttJd7 1 8.ic3 ttJb6
Black seems to be OK. as in Krumova - Teodorescu, Bydgoszcz 1978,
8 J�f8 9.a3 ttJ bSt
.• I think the simplest is 1 9.93 @d7 20.i.d3 f5
Black has the following alternatives: 2 1 .i.e5±. Is White not just a pawn up?
9 ... ttJc6 1 O.axb4 ttJxd4 l 1 .bxc3 ttJxc2t
1 2.@dl ttJxa l , which simply loses to 1 3 .i.g5 !
as in Mendoza - Blejman, Guaymallen 200 1
among others. Now 1 3 ... �xg5 1 4.�xg5 a5
is the computer's idea. The word desperation
springs to mind.
9 ... i.a5 10.i.h6 �e7 l 1 .ttJb3! and I cannot
see any justification for the exchange Black will
eventually lose.
9 ... �a5 is the most complicated move here,
but Black will not escape after some simple
moves from White. 10.ttJb3 �d5 ( l 0 ... ttJ e4t
l 1 .axb4 �xb4t 1 2.c3 ttJxc3 1 3 .i.h6 ttJe4t
14.ttJd2 ttJxd2 1 5 .�xf8t �xf8 1 6.hf8 ttJ b3
17.Ela3 and White won in Elis - Schork, Bonn
1 998.) 1 1 .i.d3 ttJa2t ( 1 1 .. .i.e7 12.bxc3 Schmidt 17J�a3!
- Boidman, Bad Breisig 2000.) 12.axb4 ttJxc l This wonderful manoeuvre was Torben's
1 3.Elxcl± Harasimovic - Berisha, Brno 1 997. recipe against his own idea.
17 ... tl)xb4 1 8.Elh3 tl) dS 19.Elxh7 tl)xf6
1 9 ... d6!? is better, but White has the advantage
after 20.h4! with similar ideas.
20.exf6 dS 2 1 .h4
2 1 .i.b5t? only helps Black to play the move he
wants to play, ... @f8 with the idea of preventing
Elg8t. However ifWhite plays accurately, Black is
The Pin Variation 1 89
too late with his counterplay on the queenside. 9.%Yg4 0-0 10 ..ld3!
2 1 . 1t>f8 22.h5 .ld7 23.h6 �cS 24.�g7 �hS
.•
appears to be the best piece of writing on the This is, of course, the way Black should play.
Pin-variation available today. Now it gets really interesting. The alternative is
7 tt:lxc3 S.bxc3 .laS!?
..• rather passive: 10 ... tLlc6 l 1 .tLJxc6 dxc6 1 2.0-0
The bishop abandons the defence of the �d5 1 3.�h4 g6 14 . .ih6 .id8 1 5 .�f4 Ele8
kingside. However it is not so easy to refute 1 6.Elfe U This position is very uncomfortable
and a clear refutation has never occurred over for Black. The game finished: 1 6 ... �a5 1 7.Ele3
the board. The bishop does leave the kingside �xc3 1 8.Eldl �c5 1 9.Elf3 �e7 20 . .ie4 .ib6
unprotected, but on the other hand the bishop 2 1 ..ig5 �f8 22.�h4 h5 23.g4 �g7 24.gxh5
is not a very good defender in many lines, and �h7 25 . .if6 1-0 Wosch - Rueppel, e-mail
now leaves room for the queen. 200 1 .
190 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
White wins? This is beyond the immediate scope 1 6.Wxf2 .txd4t 17.We1 �xg7 18.�h5 and
of the computers, but not this writer! (Nice to White wins. Black never got out) 16.1L1xe6 and
have been of assistance Mr. Fritz ... ) now:
b) 1 1 ...,txc3t ! This move order is probably bl) 1 6 . . . ,txe6? 1 7.�xe6t Wh8 1 8 . .th6
the most reliable. ( I 1 .. .f5 ! ? is also possible, �f6 ( 1 8 . . . �d4 1 9 . .txfB E1xfB 20.0 cannot be
with the idea of transposing, but why bother?) . working) 1 9.�xf6t E1xf6 20 . .tg5±
12.Wfl f5 ! This i s absolutely forced. ( I 2 . . . �a5 b2) 16 . . . 1L1e5 ! 1 7.�c4!? ( 1 7 . .txhlt �xh7
loses easily to 13 ..tf6 g6 14.�g5 .td2 1 5 .f4 1 8 .1L1xfB lLlxg4 1 9 .1L1xh7 Wxh7 is just not very
and Black cannot protect his king. And 1 2 ... f6? clear.) 1 7 . . . �f7! ( l 7 . . . 1L1xc4 1 8.1L1xg7 lLlb2
fails to 13.�h5 ! g6 [ 1 3 ... h6 14.�g6 and White 1 9.1L1h5 1L1xd3 20.cxd3;1; with chances for White
should win.] 14 . .txg6 �d7 [ 1 4 ... �c7 1 5 . .txf6 in the endgame, though Black has reasonable
The Pin Variation 19 1
drawing chances) 1 8.i.xh7t W'xh7 1 9.1Llxf8t 1 5 .i.g5 W'g7 1 6.i.b5 a6 17.i.a4 i.c7 18.l'l ae 1 OO
ctlxc4 20.ctlxh7 Wxh7 and the endgame could This kind of position is close to impossible to
have any of three results. analyse. With the aid of a computer we can give
I think we can conclude that 1 1 .i.g5 ! ? is not a some predictions: 1 8 ...i.d7 is probably fine for
killer, though clearly interesting. Black is one of them.
1 1 ...g6? 12 ... dxeS
This is the traditional move, but my analysis 1 2 . . . f5 1 3.W'g3 dxe5 14.h5 transposes.
seems to suggest that Black cannot allow 13.hS f5
White to attack the king unhindered like this. 1 3 . . .W'c7 14.hxg6 fXg6 1 5.0-0-0 leaves White
Suddenly the critical move becomes 1 1 ...f5 ! with a very strong attack. I have not found a
12.exf6 1=1xf6 13.0-0 h6 14.W'e4;!;. I believe that good defence.
White is better here, but it is not easy to prove. 1 5 . . . e4 1 6.i.xe4 i.xc3 17.i.xc3 W'xc3 18.l'lxh7!
As there are limits to how much independent and White's attack is crushing.
analysis there is time to provide for a book 1 5 . . . ctl c6 16.l'lh6! followed by l'ldh l and
like this, especially on the Pin-variation, then Black's position will collapse.
I will stop by giving the moves in the game. 1 5 ... l'lf5 ! ? A desperate computer move.
14 ... ctl d7!? ( l 4 ... l'lf5 is also possible, though it 1 6.1=1h6! There is no reason to take the exchange,
appears risky to me not to develop.) 1 5 .W'h7t even though this also favours White. 16 ... ctl d7
Wf7 1 6.i.g5 ctl f8 1 7.i.xf6 W'xf6 18.W'e4 i.xc3 1 7.�h4 ctlf8 1 8 .i.xf5 exf5 19.ctlg5 i.e6 20.ctl xh7
1 9.1'lab l d5� Bilbao - Ramos, Alicante 1 989. Is and White wins.
White better in the end here? I am not certain.
The game was eventually drawn, but then Black
was much higher rated.
On 1 1 . . .dxe5?? then 12.i.xh7t Wxh7 13.W'h5t
Wg8 14.ctlg5 wins the game.
12.h4!
14.'&g3!
It is this new move that does the most damage
to Black's position.
14.i.xf5?! is a dubious sacrifice, far from being
completely conclusive as had previously been
thought. 1 4 . . . exf5 1 5.W'c4t cj;lg7! ( 1 5 ... l'lf7 ?
Again the most aggressive approach is 1 6.hxg6 hxg6 17.ctlg5 W'c7 18.W'h4+- Wagman
necessary, as White otherwise risks being stuck - Barle, Biel 1 98 1 ) 16.hxg6 f4! The move
with a bad structure. overlooked in other sources, which claim the
1 2.0-0?! f5 ! 13.W'g3 ( l 3 .exf6 W'xf6 14.i.g5 attack is winning. 1 7.l'lxh7t cj;lxg6 18.W'e4t In
W'g7°o Milosevic - Ammann, Switzerland 1 993) the first English edition I gave 18 ... l'lf5? here,
1 3 . . . dxe5 14.ctlxe5 W'f6! (l4 ... ctl d7?? 1 5 .ctlxg6+-) something I possibly could explain, but would
1 92 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
not want to. A reader, Phil Taylor, e-mailed me 1 7.�e5t �f6 ( 1 7 ... 1:!f6!? is maybe safer.
some analysis two days before the final editing After I B . .ig5 ttl d7 1 9 ..hf6t ttl xf6 20.1:!h6!
of the Italian version to make me aware of the fxg2 2 1 .@e2. White seems to end with a
mistake. He claimed that the old 14 . .ixfS was better game, but Black has the clever answer
the right path to an advantage. After a brief 2 1 . . . .ic7! 22.�xf6t �xf6 23.1:!xf6 .ih2 when
exchange of opinions, we settled on 14.'\Mfg3 as the endgame is at best even for White.)
the winner, and 1 4 . .ixf5 as nothing but a draw I B.�xa5 fxg2 1 9.1:!gl b6 20.�b4 .ib7
after I B . . . .if5 ! 1 9.'\Mfxb7 .id7 ( l 9 ... ttl d7!? also 2 1 .0-0-0 ttl d7+ I cannot see any reason
looks ok after some analysis, but we already why this should not be better for Black. An
know enough to stop the discussion) 20.�e4t important line is: 22.�d4 e5 ! ! 23.�xd7 .ic6
.if5 2 1 .�b7= (2 1 .�xaB?! @xh7 22.0-0-0 24.�xf5 �xfS 25 . .hf5 1:!xfS+
�e7+) . 16 ...VNf6
14.�h3?! g5 1 5 .ttlxe5 as in Lerner - Khodos, There are no alternatives. 1 6 ... ttl d7 17.0-0-0
Rostov 1 976 is less strong. After 1 5 . . . �f6!+ I ttlf6 I B.�h3 and White wins.
would prefer to be Black. Where is White's 17.0-0-0 hc3 I B.g7!
attack? White wins.
Now two moves deserve attention:
a) 14 ... e4 b) 14 �f6•.•
14 ... f4 1 5 .�g4 e4 16.hxg6! ( 1 6 . .ixe4 e5 is This move is a slight improvement of the Black
less clear) 16 ... exf3 1 7.1:!xh7 �f6 I B.g7 and position, which however remains desperate.
White wins. 15.hxg6 �xg6 16.�xe5!?
1 5.hxg6 exf3 1 6.�xg6t also provides White with a
1 5 ... exd3 16.gxh7t @hB 17.ttle5 and White substantial advantage.
wins. 16 ... tLlc6 17.�h2
It is obvious that White has an attack here,
but the options are too many to give concrete
further analysis. A few illustrative moves is
however in order.
17 . J'�f7 I B.O-O-O l'!g7
.
Black monarch, as well as the White leads in for White according to Nunn and Gallagher.
development. These are rarely aspects decisive in However this line is wishful thinking. 1 4 ... Q;f7
the endgame, but here Black is surely troubled. makes little sense, and especially 1 3 ... fxg6 is
an automatic move that serves the interests of
In the next game we shall see a Danish GM, and the opponent. After 1 3 ... Wc7! Black is simply
co-author of this book, display his full mastery winning. The lines could continue 14.0-0-0
over the opening, by disposing of the old main 'Wxe5 1 5 .E1gB Q;e7 and, though the position is
line of B �e7 9 .'Wg4 O-O?! , before we turn to
• . • still complicated, it is very hard to believe that
the critical lines of 9 . . . KfB! and 8 . . . �fB!? White will prove real counterplay.
Instead of l 1 .hxg5? then 1 1 .'& g3 ! was the
Game SS right move. Black has little pleasure in the
Hansen - Kristensen position. The weakness of the dark squares is
Taastrup 1 998 terminal. After l l ...gxh4 12.'&g7 E1fB 1 3.ctJb5
White wins. Eventually ctJd6t and �h6 will ruin
l .e4 cS 2.tLlO e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLl fG Black's position. Necessary is 1 1 . . .g4 12.ctJb5 a6
S.tLlc3 ib4 6.eS tLldS 7.id2 tLlxc3 8.bxc3 ie7 ( l 2 ... ctJc6 1 3.�gS±) 1 3 .ctJd6t ixd6 14.exd6
9.�g4 ctJ c6 1 5 .c4 where I would not mind being White.
This is the way to go. Black will have a nightmare finding safety for
9 ... 0-0?! his king, after White develops and then starts to
This used to be the main move, but now it has open up the position.
been close to refuted. 10.ih6 g6 1 1 .h4! �aS
9 ... g6?! is probably too passive and weakening Though this is bad, 1 1 ...d6? ! is an even worse
at the same time. I like the true computer move order for Black. After 12.h5 Wa5 (12 ... dxe5
move 10.ctJb5 ! ? ( 1 0.h4 h5 1 1 .'Wg3 also looks 1 3.hxg6 fxg6 1 4.ixfB! wins for White, as if Black
reasonable) 10 ... ctJ c6 l 1 .ctJd6t �xd6 12.exd6 recaptures on fB then 1 5.ctJxe6 and 1 6.ic4 is
'Wa5 1 3 .'Wf4 f5 14.id3± Shredder - Hiarcs winning. Now 14 ... exd4 I S.ixe7 'Wxe7 16.id3
7.32, Debrecen 2000. id7 17.E1b l b6 18.cxd4+- was played in Klovans
9 ... g5 also does not seem to work. 10.h4! h5 - Schein, Graz 1 999.) 1 3.ctJ b5 ! White has won a
I l .hxg5 hxg4 12.E1xhBt ifB tempo compared to the main line, which is also
winning. 1 3 ... a6 14.hxg6 fxg6 1 S.�B axbS
1 6.Q;d2 �8 1 7.E1xh7! 1-0. B. Lalk - Sulava,
Pula 1997. White's attack is conclusive: 1 7 ... Q;xh7
1B.id3 ih6t 1 9.f4 Q;gB 20.Wxg6t ig7 21 .WeBt
ifB 22.ih7t and mate follows.
12.�g3 d6
1 2 ... E1dB looks entirely wrong, when White
is not planning to take on f8 at the first given
moment anyway. However, it does make sense
to play it sooner rather than miss out on it
later. But after l 3 .hS d6 14.hxg6 fxg6 1 5.if4
(keeping the centre stable and the black king
exposed) 1 5 . . . dxeS 16.he5 E1d5 17.f4 ctJd7
I B.ic4! ctJxe5 ( l B ... E1xeSt 19.fxe5 '&xe5t
20.'Wxe5 ctJxe5 2 1 .ib3± - Nunn & Gallagher)
was played in Grosar - De Waal, Belgium 1 9.ixd5 '&xd5 20.fxe5 'We4t 2 1 .Q;d2 White is
1 9B6, and now 1 3.g6 fxg6 14.ih6 Q;f7 completely winning, Wedberg - Pokojowczyk,
1 5 .E1xfBt 'WxfB 1 6.ixfB Q;xfB 17.ie2 is good Copenhagen 19B4.
1 94 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
etJ d7 1 1 .etJxe6 Wl'b6 12.etJclt 1-0. Kasparov - 1999. This might very well be Black's best option
West, telex 1 977, but 1 0 ... dxeS would seriously in the Pin-variation.
test White's idea. Probably the position is just Very solid is 1O ... etJc6 bud still think that White
unclear.) 1 0 ...�xd6 1 1 .0-0 ( 1 1 .WI'hS ! is my is better. Black has no active play and the pawn
preferred move here. The position is not really weaknesses cannot really be attacked. 1 1 .etJxc6
so clear. Both players have their chances, but dxc6 12.0-0 Wl'c7 ( 1 2 ... hS !? l 3.WI'B Wl'dS 14.WI'e2
White seems to retain slight pressure.) 1 l .. .0-0 h4 was Diaz - Luzuriaga, Buenos Aires 1999,
( l l . ..eS!? should be considered when the critical when l S.h3 was the more normal move, when I
line is probably 1 2.WI'e2 Wl'e7 [ 1 2 ... 0-0 l 3.etJbS! think White should be a little better. There is no
is unpleasant for Black, based on 1 3 ... etJ c6 reason to fear weakening the g3-square, as Black
1 4.�xhlt <j;xh7 l S .WI'd3t e4 1 6.WI'xd6 a6 has no way to exploit it.) l 3.f4!? b6 14.E1ae 1 cS
1 7.WI'xdS E1xdS l S.etJc7 E1bS 1 9.�f4 when Black is completely oblivious to White's plans:
White has the advantage.] 1 3.E1fe 1 where White lS.fS is a nightmare for Black. White won quickly
might have the advantage, based on l 3 . . . exd4?! in Kottwitz - Hoen, St Ingbert 1994.
14.WI'hS �e6 l S.E1xe6 Wl'xe6 1 6.E1e 1 Wl'xe l t 1 l .f4 lLld7
17.�xe 1±) 12.WI'hS g6 l 3.WI'h6± Sargissian 1 L.. etJ c6 12.0-0 dS ( 1 2 ... etJxd4 l 3.cxd4 fS
- Bursteinas, Tallinn 1 997. White has a slight 14.WI'B± Leone -Galli, corr. 1969) l3.5!? White
edge after the opening. However, all the lines goes for it. An alternative was l3.E1ael preparing
are too difficult to analyse conclusively based this advance. (Also strong seems to be l3.E1ab l .
on just one game. We will stop here with the 13 . . .WI'aS 14.etJxc6 icst ( 14 . . . bxc6 I S.5 exfS
conclusion that White should not fear going for 16.ixfS was also not pleasant) I S.etJd4 ixd4t
this line. 16.cxd4 Wl'xd2 17.fS Wl'h6 l S.WI'f3 b6 19.ibS
9.Wg4 <j;f8!? Wl'h4 20.E1f2 Wl'e7, but Black had had enough and
This also has to be taken into consideration, resigned in Bresadola - Vibranovski, corr. 1996.)
one opening book says. Actually it is quite a l3 ... exfS?! (l3 ... etJxeS was the logical move. My
good move. analysis goes like this: 14.WI'e2 etJxd3 I S.fXe6!
10.Ad3 etJeS [maybe better is Is ... if6 16.cxd3±] 16.WI'xeS
if6 17.We2 ixe6 IS.etJxe6t fXe6 19.Wxe6 and I
like White. The main point is 19 ... WI'e7 20.WI'xdS
E1dS 2 1 .WgS !±) 14.etJxfS Wl'b6t I S .�h l g6
16.ih6t �eS 17.etJg7t �dS IS.WI'f4 ie6 19.c4±
Spiridonov - Poulin, e-mail, 1999.
12.0-0 lLlcs l3.l"1ael
I like this approach from the Hungarian
grandmaster. His attack has a very natural feel
to it. However also successful was l 3.fS ! ? dxeS
(An improvement would have been to remove
the queen from the excellent square g4 with
1 3 . . . hS !? 14.WI'e2 dxeS I S.WI'xeS id6 1 6.WI'e3
eS 17.etJbS etJxd3 IS.etJxd6 Wl'xd6 19.cxd3 when
White is only very slightly better.) 14.fXe6 if6?
( 1 4 . . .f6 I S .WI'hS ixe6 1 6.etJxe6t etJxe6 1 7.WI'xeS
10 . . . d6?! Wl'd6 l S.WI'e2 would just have been slightly
I do not like this approach. Black should be better for White) I S.E1xf6! Wl'xf6 1 6.igS and
careful about how he opens the position. White won comfortably in Chorfi - Nadli,
1 0 ... hS !? 1 1 .WI'e4 dS 12.exd6 hd6 l3.0-0 etJd7 Ronde 1995.
led to unclear play in Zyla - Sulskis, Swidnica l3 ... lLlxd3 14.cxd3 hS
1 96 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
This look like a weakening move, but the It is hard to see how Black should have played
computer's choice is not reassuring either. differently. Now White crashes through with a
14 .. :�a5 is met very strongly by 1 5 .f5! All the very thematic attack.
pieces are ready, so why not? 1 5 ... dxe5 (White 19.f5! gxf5 20.lLlxfS exfS
also wins after 1 5 ... exf5 1 6.ctJxf5 ixf5 17:�xf5 20 ... dxc4 2 1 .�xb7 exf5 22.E1xf5+- The f7-
�xa2 18.c4) 16.fxe6 f6 17.�h5 g6 1 8J'he5 square is very weak. Black will not be able to
Why exchange queens? 18 ...�xa2 19.�h6t @g8 resist the attack.
2o.ig5 ! ifS 2 1 .e7 and White is winning. 2 1 .¥;YxfS ¥;Ye8 22.¥;Yg6!
15.�a�/± A brilliant move. White wins by force.
The question is not if White is better, but how 22 ...dxc4 23.e6 f6 24Jhf6t hf6 25.¥;Yxf6t
much he is better. @g8 26 ..ad4
15 ... g6 16J�bl d5 17.ie3 b6 18.c4 .ab7 1-0
The Nimzowitsch Variation
- By Jacob Aagaard
l .e4 c5 2.tt'lf3 tt'l f6!? 3.tt'lc3! d5!? 13.0-0-0 .id6 14 ..ih4± Shirov - Fernandes,
This is pushing it! Black decides to open the Elista 1 998.) e6 1 0 . .if4 Vflc8 l 1 .tiJe4;!; Ganguly
position after a move like ... c5, and obviously - Sriram, Calicut 2003.) 8 . . . e6 (8 . . . Vflxe5?
being behind in development. It is no surprise 9.Vflxb7 +-. I see no possible compensation.
that aggressive play seems to give White an Remember 9 ... tiJg4? 1 0 .Vflc8 mate.) 9.Ele I ! In
advantage. this position it is very difficult to find a way
3 . . . d6 4.d4 leads to the standard positions of for Black to escape from the opening without
the Sicilian. permanent scars in his pawn structure or loss
4.exd5 tt'lxd5 5 .ib5t .id7 6.tt'le5!
• of material.
I like this move and find it logically correct, but
6.Vfle2 is a possible alternative to this aggressive
approach.
l1e7 1 5 .ttJ e3 �cB 1 6. ttJ b 5 l1eB:t) 1 2 . . . bxc6 1 6 . . . i.f6 ( 1 6 . . . �a7 1 7.g3 �f8 with the idea of
1 3 . ttJ a3± �xf4. [ 1 7 . . . b6 1 B .i.f4 �b7 1 9.�c6±] 1 B.i. d2!
e) 9 . . . a6! ? In the first edition I wrote: �f6 1 9 .�ae 1 �xe6 20.�xe6 �d6 2 1 . �gBt
"This is the best try. Actually the only one I ttJ f8 22.�xg7± 1 6 . . . �eB 1 7 .g3±) 17. g3 �cB
cannot refute directly." Now I can! 1 0.ttJd5! 1 B.i.f4 a5 1 9.�ae 1 �a6 20.�xa6 bxa6 2 1 .�e6
Being less sure first time around, I am now �eB 22.�d6± and ideas such as i.d2-a5 secures
certain that this is the right move - but for White a lasting and deadly initiative. I do not
different reasons than what I had originally think that a clear plus for White in too harsh
thought. 1 0 . . . ttJxd5 ! Only try. l 1 .i.xd7t an evaluation.
ttJxd7 1 2.IJ�hf7t ! ! Incorrectly dismissed in the
first edition. ( 1 2.ttJxf7 ttJ 7f6 1 3 .ttJxhB 0-0-0 If White is afraid of going for this kind of
1 4 .'1Wh3 was what I gave in the first book, but adventure, then B.ttJxd7 offers a slight edge
after 1 4 . . . l1bB!� as pointed out by two young without any complications. However I truly
French readers, Black is doing "very fine". believe that White is better here. 1 5 ... i.d6
I admit freely that the evaluation I gave was 1 6. d4 �xhB 1 7.dxc5 i.e5 1 B.hf4 i.xf4
superficial. I have done so much work on the 1 9 .�xe6± is j ust one line where White enjoys
sharper lines, and also quite a bit here, but the strength of a rook vs. two minor pieces
somehow I followed the computer more than which have no good squares.
my own intuition. This is of course always a 7.�f3!
danger. But this time around I have the lines This is a famous trick-shot.
some real thought.) 1 2 . . . l1dB 1 3 .�xe6 ttJxe5 7 £6 B.&lJxb5 &lJ a6
•..
1 4 .�xd5t! The move I "overlooked" in the This is the gambit choice behind 6 ... i.xb5,
first edition. 1 4 . . . ttJ d7 ( 1 4 ... i.d6 was suggested but it is flawed. Unfortunately for Black it
by Kasten Muller. Now after 1 5 .�xe5 �d7 seems that the best move is B . . . fxe5 9.�xd5
White should probably j ust follow Fritz with �xd5 10.ttJc7t l1d7 1 1 .ttJxd5 ttJ c6 1 2.d3
1 6. d3 [ 1 6.d4 ! ? i.xe5 1 7.�xe5 �xd4 1 B .�g5t e6 1 3.ttJe3U± and the endgame is great for
l1cB 1 9.i.e3 �d7 20.�xc5t is also good for White. Laznicka - Malmqvist, Marianske
White, but it strikes me as a poorer version of Lazne 2003.
the lines with 1 6.d3 , as White should benefit B . . . ttJ b4 9.�xb7! just wins for White.
from having fewer open lines for the time 9 . . . fxe5 1 0.ttJc7t 11f7 l 1 .�f3t 11gB 1 2.�b3t
being.] 1 6 . . . i.xe5 1 7.�xe5 b6 1 B.i.e3 and a ttJ d5 13.ttJxaB ttJ c6 14.ttJc7 &lJ d4 1 5.�xd5t
clear advantage. Materially White is doing �xd5 16.ttJxd5 ttJxc2t 17.l1d1 ttJ xa l 1 B.b 3+-
fine, and positionally he is doing excellently.)
1 5 .�e6! This move is a very nice example of
persistent initiative. White is better because
his domination of the light squares and sixth
rank completely paralyses Black. 1 5 . . . i.e7
I see no other sensible moves here. If White
has time for b3 and i.b2 Black will be unable
to get his kingside into play. ( 1 5 . . . h6 1 6.b3 ! ±
1 5 . . . �a7 1 6. b3 [ 1 6. d4!?±] 1 6 . . . �f4 1 7.i.b2
l1c7 1 B .�ae 1 with a lethal attack. e.g. l B . . .
h 6 1 9 .�e7 he7 20.�xe7 �dB 2 1 .i.e5t+-)
1 6.d3 ! ( 1 6.d4?! would be weaker because of
16 ... cxd4 1 7 .i.d2 �c5 ! where Black is allowed
to dismiss the queen from her dominant
position. 1 B.�xb7 �a7 1 9.�e4 ttJ f6 20.�d3°o)
200 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
Otherwise nothing makes a lot of sense to gxd3 22.h4! lLlxa3 23.bxa3 gxc3 24.h5 gxh5
me. Other moves have been played, but they are 25.gxh5 .id6?
not worth our time. Losing a piece. But after 25 ... 'it>c7 26.gh7t
9 g6 10.�xg6 hxg6 1 1 .�xh8
•.. 'it>c6 27.�hxb7 �xa3 28.�xa7 c4 29.�f7 .id6
Ka-ching! 30.�xf5 White is a likely winner.
1 l ...�d7 12.�c3 V;Ye6t 13.c;!;>f1 � db4 26.gdl !
1 3 ... lLl ab4 14.V;Yh3!? ( l 4.lLlxd5 �xd5 1 5 .�h4 1 -0
c;!;>d8 ! !+. 14.V;Yh7! however looks strong. Black
has no simple response as after 14 ... 0-0-0 I clearly have my doubts about 3 . . . d5, though
1 5 .V;Yxg6 the queen is back in the game.) an outright refutation probably cannot be found.
14 ... V;Ya6t ( 1 4 ... V;Yxh3 1 5 .gxh3 lLl c7 is in the However the next line was a real nightmare to
spirit of the position, but White should be better prepare for. It took me two days to decide that
here as well) 1 5 .d3 �d8 1 6.V;Yg4 f5 1 7.�e2+ the uncommon 6.dxc5 !? is White's best try for
Carlsen - Runde, Norway 2002. an advantage.
14.V;Yh4!
This is the way to play. The queen enters the Game 58
game and slows down Black's initiative. Ismagambetov - Palit
Less clear is 14.V;Yh3 V;Yxh3 1 5 .gxh3 lLlxc2 Kuala Lumpur (U- 1 6 Wch) 2002
1 6.�b l lLlab4 1 7.�gl c;!;>f7� Dirr - Bartsch,
Germany 2003. The pawn structure is a true l .e4 c5 2.lLlf3 �f6 3.lLlc3 �c6 4.d4 d5!?
nightmare, and White cannot develop without The more I studied this move the more
compromising it further. surprised I was. It is actually not stupid at all!
14.d3!? looks sound. However, after 1 4 ... lLlxc2 5.exd5 lLlxd5
1 5 . .ih6 O-O-O! Black certainly has a lot of play. By transposition we have reached the position
One plausible line is 1 6.�cl .ixh6 1 7.V;Yxh6 after 3.lLlc3 lLlc6 4.d4 d5 5.exd5 lLlxd5.
lLlab4 1 8.�xg6 lLlxd3 1 9 .�b l lLlf4 20.V;Ye4
V;Ya6t 2 1 .'it>gl lLlh3t! 22.gxh3 �g8t 23.V;Yg4t
�xg4t 24.hxg4 �d3+. 1 6.�dl looks safer, but
still Black obviously has play.
14 0-0-0
••.
advantage: 1 2 . . .l:kB! ( 1 2 . . . hbS 1 3.l"1xbS Black should be OK here, still the position is
'it>d7 1 4.'it>e2 and l S .l"1hb 1 is dearly good for not that easy. 1 1 ... tLl e4? 1 2.he4! l"1xf4 13.tLld3,
White.) 1 3 .i.xd7t 'it>xd7 14.llJb3:t Now there White is slighdy better in Zatonskih - Tessier
is no a7-aS , so I think that White has the better Desrosiers, Kapuskasing 2004.) 6.i.d3 tLlxc3
prospects. One line could be 14 . . . llJe6 l S .'it>e2 7.bxc3 c4 B.i.e2 i.e7 9.h4 h6 1 0.hS tLl c6 1 1 .l"1h3
i.xcs 1 6.tLlxcSt tLlxcS 1 7.hcs l"1xcS 1 B.l"1xb7t WfaS 12.i.d2 i.d7 1 3 .l"1g3 i.f8 14.'it>f1 0-0-0
'it>e6 1 9 .1"1xa7 l"1xc3 20.l"1c 1:t. l S .'it>gU Baldan - Danneel, Ghent 2003. It is
1 2 'it>xd7 1 3.0-O?!
••. all a matter of what kind of position you enjoy
1 3.'it>e2 is also better here. playing, of course.
1 3 ... llJ e6 14.l"1fd1 'it>c6 15.tLlb3 i.e??? b) S ... tLlxdS 6.tLlxdS WfxdS (6 ... exdS 7.i.bSt
Black realises that he cannot allow White to i.d7 B.i.e2!? Hardly the only way to play.
invade to the 7th rank. However, if he had B ... i.e6 9.0-0 i.e7 1 0.dxcS hcS l 1 .tLlgS
prepared it, taking the c-pawn would have tLlc6 12.tLlxe6 fxe6 1 3.i.g4 Wff6 14.Wfe2 tLl d4
been fine. l S ... aS ! 1 6.a4 i.xcs 1 7.tLlxcS tLlxcS l S .Wfd3 0-0 16.i.e3 l"1acB 1 7.l"1ae 1 , with a
1 B.i.xcS 'it>xcS 1 9.1"1d7 bS� and the distant slight advantage for the first player, Filippov
passed pawn and active king are quite good for - Kohanchik, Moscow 2002.) 7.i.e3 cxd4
creating counterplay. B.tLlxd4:t a6 9.i.e2 eS?! But it was not so easy
16.tLla5t 'it>c? 17.tLlxb7!± for Black anyway. 10.i.f3 WfaSt 1 1 .i.d2 i.b4
White won. 1 2.0-0 i.xd2 13.tLlb3 Wfc7 14.Wfxd2 0-0
l S .l"1fe1 i.e6 1 6.WfaS WfcB 1 7.WfxeS White is
In the next two games we shall see the heavily objectively winning, Tiviakov - Mek, Vlissingen
theoretical main line of the Nimzowitsch Sicilian. 2003. That White did not win this game is not
I actually think that the previous line represents easy to understand.
Black's best option here, and that the next two 5.tLlxd5 exd5 6.d4 tLl c6
games are fought over in somewhat dubious 6 ... d6 has long been held in disregard because
territory. of
Game 59
Braun - Choroba
e-mail 2002
2 1 .�t A wonderful combination, but only a better chances here. Moves like l:'!h3 and l:'!f3
draw. 2 1 . .J::1xf7 22.l:'!h8t @xh8 23.tt:lxf7t @g8 are coming, and f7 seems bound to fall. My two
24.tt:lxe5= main lines are:
But 1 6.l:'!h l ! , simple and strong, seems to be d l ) 1 8 ... �c6 1 9.�xc6! dxc6 20.i.xe6 fxe6
too dangerous for Black. 2 1 .i.xf4 l:'!xf4 22.l:'!xh5+- White clearly wins
positionally, but he has a winning attack as
well.
d2) 1 8 ... g6 1 9 .1:'!f3 i.xcl 20.@xcl and White
has an absolutely winning position. The next
few moves are likely to be �d3 and i.xe6. One
line is 20 . . . �b4 2 1 .�e4! with the idea of various
sacrifices: 2 1 . .. @g7 22.tt:lxf7 l:'!xf7 23.l:'!xf7t
@xf7 24.he6t+-
15.exd6 �d8 16.i.d3 i.xd6 17.�h5 f5 1 8.tt:lxd6
Y;Yxd6 1 9.�xf5 Wlxh2
I do not believe that Black's position can be
saved anymore.
Another try has been 1 9 ... tt:lf8, but 20.�f7t
@h8 2 1 .�f4 seems to put Black a pawn behind.
It is really as simple as that. Here are a few lines
My analysis gave these lines: to prove it:
a) 1 6 . . . i.g3 1 7.i.d3 ! h6 ( 1 7 ... f5 1 8.tt:lxf5) a) 2 1 . .. tt:lg6 22.�xd6 i.g4t 23.@e1 l:'!xd6
1 8.tt:lf5 i.f4 19.tt:le7t @h8 20:�e4+- 24.i.f4 l:'!f6 25 .i.g3+- Zanetti - Corinthios, corr.
b) 16 ... h6 loses in similar ways to the other 1 986.
lines. 1 7.i.d3 i.f4 1 8.�e4 f5 1 9 .exf6 �xd6 b) 2 1 . . .�xf4 22.i.xf4 i.f5 Repp - Boeckler,
20.fxg7 tt:lxg7 2 1 .�h7t @f7 22.l:'!f1 and White corr. 1 993. Now strongest is 23.@e2! l:'!e8t
wins material. 24.@f2+- with a winning endgame.
c) 16 . . . �f2!? 17.i.d3 ( 1 7.�e4 f500) 17 ... tt:l f4 c) 2 1 . .. �e7 22.i.d2! . White is best off
1 8.i.xb7t ! ! A very nice refutation. ( 1 8.i.xf4 developing. 22 ... tt:lg6 23.�g5 �xg5 24.i.xg5
�xf4=) 1 8 ... @xb7 1 9.�d2 �xd2t 20.i.xd2 It l:'!d5 25 .i.e3 i.g4t 26.@c1 tt:le5 27.i.e4+- Wolff
is obvious that White has a fantastic position - Izumikawa, USA 1987.
once he regains the material, but he also has a d) 2 1 ...�c5 22.i.e3 �h5t 23.@e l ! . Simplest.
fantastic attack after 20 ... tt:l e6 2 1 .l:'!xh2t @g6 There is security to be found on the kingside.
22.a4! with l:'!al-a3-g3 coming, deciding the 23 ... i.d7 24.@f2 tt:lg6 25 .�g5 l:'!f8t 26.@gl +
game in White's favour. Lehner - Kummer, Hartberg 1 992.
d) 1 6 . . . h5!? appears to be the hardest move to 20.�f'7t @h8 2 1 .i.g5 �g8 22.i.e3 Wlxg2
kill. The point is that the pawn is better placed The only move. The alternative 22 ... tt:l d8
on h5 than on h6 in many lines. However I seem 23.�f4 �xf4 24.l:'!xf4± has given White a
to have found a way to grind Black down. 1 7.a4! clearly better endgame in many games. There is
A whole new resource. ( 1 7.i.d3 g6 surprisingly no reason to know more than this.
seems to lead nowhere: Black's position is hard 23.Wlh5!
to crack. So what I thought was that White The old move. An impressive game was
should get l:'!al into play, since this was the 23 .@c l ! ? �d5 24.l:'!f5 �h l t 25 .@d2 �h2t
problem with all my previous attempts. And I 26. l:'!f2 ! �h4 27.l:'!gl g6 28.l:'!h l ! ! The final
should know, having lectured continuously on blow. 28 ... �b4t, but Black resigned because
the importance of this simple rule in my books.) of 29.@cl l:'!g7 30.l:'!xb7t! Haba - Kummer,
1 7 ... i.f4 1 8.l:'!a3. I think White must have the Austria 1 998.
The Nimzowitsch Variation 205
However, there is still life in Black's position, White has succeeded in stripping Black's
despite the computer's disbelief. 23 ... Wi'h2! king completely, and material is still level. If
24.Wi'f3 Wi'e5 25 .Ei:h l Ei:f8!! was an impressive White succeeds in getting Ei:al into play he will
discovery. I am not sure White is better after win very easily. This is exactly what happens
this. 26.Ei:xh7t @gS 27.Wi'h3 tLl d4 2SJ�&hSt in the game. There are many lines possible
@f7 29.Ei:xf8t @xf8 30.Wi'fl t tLlf5 3 1 .�f4 Wi'd5 in the coming moves, all leading to White's
32.�c4 Wi'e4 33.�d6t @eS 34.�h2 �e6 35.�d3 satisfaction. I have chosen not to include
¥2-¥2 . Elburg - Turati, e-mail 2000. them, as this position is clear enough to make
23 ...g6 24.�d4t tlJg7 25.�xg7t @xg7 26.�e5t an evaluation on, and as almost any move is
@h6 27.�e3t! possible all the time.
27.Wi'f4t @g7 2S.Wi'f6t @h6 29.Wi'h4t @g7 The game played by White here is a great
30.�d4t @h6 leads nowhere. achievement, especially as both players are rated
27 @g7
•.. around 2000. However, being an e-mail game
27 . . . g5 2S.@c l ! (2S.Ei:f6t Ei:g6 29.Ei:f2 I cannot help wondering if they had some help
�h3 30.Wi'xh3t �3°o) 2S ... �h3 29.Wi'e7 from the silicon monsters. Advanced chess does
Ei:g6 30.Ei:d l ± is similar to the game. Black is seem to live quite well in e-mail tournaments.
suffering and there is no end in sight. From a theoretical point of view it is, of course,
28.@cl! a great thing that this game exists.
This quiet waiting move underlines the real 35 ... �ac8 36.@b 1 �c6 37.a4 �g5 38.�e7 �f5
problem in Black's position, which is not the 39.�a3 �xc2t 40.@a1 �g2 41 .�f8t @h5
open king, but that he is unable to develop his 4 1 . ..Ei:g7 42.Ei:ae3 Ei:a6 43.�f4t Ei:g5 44Jle7
pieces sensibly. and Black's position is collapsing. 42.�f3
28 ...�f5 1-0
This must surely have hurt, but Black cannot
save the position. 2S ... �h3 29.Ei:f2 Wi'g l t 30.@d2 In the last game of this chapter we will have
Wi'g4 3 1 .Ei:h l Wi'b4t 32.@dl �g4t 33.@cl h5 a look at the double pawn sacrifice line with
34.Wi'e5t @h6 35.Ei:f7 and the king is toasted. S . . . d6. This is not played as often as S ... Wi'b6,
2S ... Wi'h2 29.�d4t @h6 looks like a defence, probably because it is less dramatic. White
but White wins elegantly with 30.Wi'd5 ! ! �h3 should be able to prove an advantage by
3 1 .Ei:h 1 �g3 32.�fl +-. keeping one of the pawns and torturing Black
29.�d4t @h6 30.Ei:gl �h3 3 1 .hf5 gxf5 in endless endgames, until Black players stop
32.�d2t f4 33.�xf4t @h5 34.�e5t @h6 playing this line.
35.Ei:e 1 !
Game 60
Hlavac - Bazant
Czech Republic 2000
1 1 . . .£6
Black has many alternatives, from which the
first is the best, and the last is the worst possible
move in the position.
On 1 1 .. .hd6 then 1 2.id3 ! ? is a fine
move. ( 1 2.ie2 is played more often, but after
12 ... if5 !? as in David - Luther, France 2003 it
is not easy to prove an advantage, nor after the 1 3 . . . Ei:xd6
main line 12 ... ie7 I H;IJ'e4 0-0-0) 1 2 ... tt:l b4 1 3 ... g5 14.Wi'h6 g4 1 5 .ltJg5 id5 1 6.tt:le4+-
( 1 2 ... Wi'b4t 13.c3 Wi'xh4 14.tt:lxh4 0-0-0 Joecks Seirawan - Seybold, Zurich (sim) 1 988.
- Arnold, Germany 1 989. Now strongest was 1 3 ... h5 14.ie3 !? Not the only way to play, but
1 5 .if5 !;!; and Black has some compensation, a very reliable move. 14 . . . he3 1 5 .fxe3 Wi'xe3t
but not enough.) 13.0-0 ltJxd3 was played in 1 6.c;t>h l ig4 This is given as compensation
Paavilainen - Westerinen, Finland 1 9 9 1 among in ECO, which is completely wrong. Though
others. Now White has an improvement in the book is a very well structured reference
14.Wi'a4t! which forces a nice endgame 14 .. .'IMfc6 guide, it is sometimes too apparent that the
1 5 .Wi'xc6t bxc6 16.cxd3;!; where only White has lines are made up of a reshuffling of all the
winning chances. The key idea is to play ltJf3- games in the Informants, and no evaluation
d2-e4 or c4 when the talk of the two bishops by the editors themselves. This is also why a
will stop. weaker player's recommendations are made to
1 1 . . .if5 1 2.ic4 0-0 13.0-0 hc2 ( 1 3 ...hd6 seem more important than Kasparov's choices
14.ib3±) 14.if4 Wi'xb2 1 5 .Ei:ac 1 ia3 1 6.Ei:fe l ± over the board, when given the main lines.
Doggers - Afek, Tilburg 2003. (Also after 16 . . .Ei:xd6 1 7.Wi'g3! Black is in deep
1 1 ...0-0 12.id3 Wi'b4t 1 3.c3 Wi'xh4 14.ltJxh4 trouble. White simply wins a pawn without any
Ei:ad8 was played in Jurek - Suchon, Poland counterplay. 1 7 ... Ei:hd8 1 8.Wi'xg7 ig4 1 9.Ei:ae 1
1 999. Now the strongest continuation is 1 5 .if4 Wi'b6 20.ltJd2!±.) 1 7.Wi'g3 !± A very powerful
hd6 1 6.ixd6 Ei:xd6 1 7.0-0-0± and there is no move. Now Black cannot free himself. 1 7 ... Wi' c5
compensation for the pawn. 1 8.Ei:adl c;t>b8 1 9.ie4 ltJ e5 20.ltJxe5 hdl This
1 1 ...ltJb4 12.Wi'e7 mate! Paaske - Pedersen, was Hansson - Fernandes, London 1 984. Now
Copenhagen 2003. 2 1 .Wi'xg7 just wins outright. 2 1 . . .Wi'c8 (2 1 . . .Wi'b4
12.id3 22.ltJc6t! +-; 2 1 ...Wi'b5 22.c4+-; 2 1 . .. Wi'b6
The Nimzowitsch Variation 207
22.W'xh8+-) 22 . .tf5 ! and Black has no squares I S ... tLlxBt 1 6.1!;lfxB .td4 1 7.c3 .teS 18 . .tf5±
for the queen since 22 .. :�cS 23.tLld7t is all This all seems very dear-cut to me.
over. 16.ttJxd4 gxd4
14.a3! 1 6 ... hd4 1 7 . .te4! .tdS 1 8 . .tf4 (also possible
Black's pieces are not ready to meet the is 18 . .tf5t!? .te6 1 9.1!;lfxg7 �e8 20.1!;lfxh7 and
advance of the queenside pawns. why should Black have compensation for this
1 4 ... ttJ d4 sea of pawns? 20 . . . �d7 2 1 .W'h3 .txf5 22.W'xf5
1 4 ... gS I S :�h6! A standard move in these �g8 23.g3+-) 1 8 ... �d7 1 9 . .txdS �dS 20.c3+-
lines. I S ... 1!;lfd8 1 6.b4 .tb6 1 7 . .te3± Lamprecht This is the simplest. There is no hope for Black
- Bach, Hamburg 1 998. here.
14 ... aS does not work at all. I S .b4! axb4 17.h3 g5 1 8.b4 .tb6 19 .tb2 gf4 20.gael
•
20 . . . .td7?!
Black is looking for excuses. I have not found
sufficient compensation for him here, and I
cannot see why I should.
The most obvious line goes 20 ... �d8 2 1 .�e2!
hS 22.�fe l h4 23.1!;lfxf4 Forced. (23.1!;lfh2? leads
to 23 ... .tc4 24 . .tcl hd3 25.cxd3 �fd4 26 . .te3
.tc7 27.1!;lfhl �xd3+) 23 . . . gxf4 24.�xe6 �d6
2S .�e7± and Black's defence is just a nightmare.
If White is actually already winning here is hard
to tell, but he has all the chances at least.
l S ...1!;lfc6 21 ..tcl gh4 22.c4± .tc7 23.f4 gd8 24.ga
The alternatives are not better. I S ... tLl b3?! \t>b8 2S.c5 �d5 26 .tfl �d4t 27 .te3 W'b2
• •
as 7.i.d3 or even 7.�g4 but a critical try is Instead 8 ... �c7 transposes to Karjakin
7.ttJd5 ! ? when Black has little choice. 7 ... i.xd5 - Balinov, Vienna 2003 . After 9.a3 i.e7 (If
(7 ... �e5 8.i.e3 should just be a transposition 9 . . . i.xc3 then either recapture is good enough for
after 8 ... i.xd5, but in Groszpeter - Berezjuk, an edge. Black will have weak dark squares and
Pardubice 2000 Black blundered with 8 . . . e6?? no bishop to cover them.) 10.0-0-0 b5 1 1 .i.f4
when 9.ttJf3! won easily.) 8.exd5 �e5t 9.i.e3 �c8 1 2.ttJb3! ttJc6 1 3 .i.d6 Black's position was
�xd5 10.i.e2 I believe White's massive lead in disgusting. This game was played two months
development gives him excellent compensation before our main game, so we can assume that
for the pawn. I recently had a chance to test this the text is GM Balinov's (unsuccessful) attempt
analysis against world-class opposition. Shaw to improve.
- Sasikiran, Gibraltar 2005 continued 8 . . . e5?! 9.a3 hc3
(instead of 8 . . . �e5t) 9.dxe6 fxe6 10.'t.Wf3 Ei:a7 Now Black has problems on the dark
1 1 .0-0-0 g6 1 2.�e3 ! With the idea of ttJxe6!. squares but 9 . . . i.e7 1 0.e5! was even worse. For
White's advantage is already decisive and only example, 1 O . . . ttJd5 l 1 .ttJxd5 hd5 1 2 . ttJ fS ! is
an only an idiotic blunder allowed Black to a disaster.
win in Shaw - Sasikiran, Gibraltar 2005. This 1 0.Y;Yxc3 d5 l 1 .e5 tLl fd7 12.0-0-0 tLlc5 13.f4
confirms that 8 ... �e5t is necessary, but even White has an excellent version of the Classical
here Sasikiran thought White had excellent French.
compensation. This evaluation recently had a 1 3 Y;Yd7 14.tLla
.••
successful test against super-GM opposition. Challenging Black's only well-placed piece
Rahal-Bauer, France 2006, continued 9.i.e3 with 14.ttJb3! seems more logical. For example,
�xd5 1 0.i.e2 e5 l 1 .ttJ b3 �b7 12.0-0 ttJ f6 13.f4 14 ... ttJe4 1 5 .�b4 b5 1 6.i.d3 ttJc6 1 7.'t.We l and
e4 14.c4 i.e7 1 5 .g4!? and White had a powerful White has a great position.
initiative for the pawn. Later White should have 14 0-0 15 ..id3 Ei:cS 1 6.�bl a5
•••
won, but only drew. Perhaps this line is strong, Planning to improve his feeble bishop with
but unlucky. i.a6, but the tactics dictate that ttJxd3 must be
6 e6
..• played very soon.
This is now the only sensible set-up. Playing 1 7.Ei:he1 .ia6?
in Dragon-style would be mad with the passive This was Black's last chance to reach a decent
a6 and b6 already played, and White heading for position with 1 7 ... ttJxd3.
a Yugoslav Attack. I s.hc5
White begins to clear the queen's path to h3.
I S ... bxc5
It was too late for 1 8 ... hd3 because of
1 9.�xd3 bxc5 20.ttJg5 g6 2 1 .�h3 h5 22.ttJe4
with a winning attack.
19.hh7t!
The Greek Gift is still claiming victims.
19 ... �xh7 20.tLlg5t �gS 2 1 .Y;Yh3
White is winning since f4-fS will further
. strengthen the attack.
2 1 . .. Y;YdS 22.Y;Yh5 Ei:a7
Or 22 ... �e8 23.fS! ttJd7 24.�h7t �f8
25.ttJe4! and Black has no defence. For example,
25 ...dxe4 26.Ei:xd7 �xd7 27.f6 leads to mate.
23.fS! exf5 24.e6 g6 25.Y;Yh7t �f8 26.e7t
7.Y;Yd2 .ib4 s.a tLlf6 1-0
Minor Lines 211
The O'Kelly Variation has never been regarded are inconsistent with both this book's anti-Kant
as fully respectable, yet several GMs are willing Taimanov recommendations and our attacking
to risk it. Former World Junior Champion piece play style. Having said that, the tricky line
Kurajica is a true believer and the 2600-rated 3 ... d6 4.d4 i.g4 is now under a cloud after the
Baklan has recently added it to his repertoire. discovery of S.dxcS i.xf3 6.gxf3! Wl'aSt 7.tiJc3!
Still, White should get an edge. Wl'xcS (7 ... dxcS S.Wl'b3 is more than annoying)
S.i.e3 and White has a tremendous initiative. For
Game example, Sedina-Korbut, Biel 200S , continued
Shirov - Kurajica S ... Wl'c6 9.i.g2 tiJd7 1 0.!!c1 tiJgf6 1 1 .0-0 gS?!
Sarajevo 2002 1 2.eS ! dxeS 1 3 .f4 followed by 14.fxgS with a
crushing position.
l.e4 c5 2.<!i:l B a6 3.d The trick every player must know (and
probably already does) is that 3.d4?! is a mistake.
After 3 ...cxd4 4.tiJxd4 tiJf6 S.tiJc3 eS Black has
an excellent version of the Sveshnikov with
i.cs or i.b4 as extra options. The usual tiJdbS
is ill advised and 6.tiJf5 dS is not clever either.
Instead White would have to retreat the knight
passively, and hope to hang on to equality.
3 . .. g6
This is one of many possible replies. The
unforced nature of the play means that it is
neither possible nor necessary for White to
memorise much theory in this position. Black
has a multitude of ways to achieve a worse
version of a normal variation. For example:
a) The most solid try is probably 3 ... dS but
I hesitated before selecting this as our main after 4.exdS Wl'xdS S.d4 White's "extra" move
line: a c3-Sicilian in a book that recommends gives him a pleasant position. One example:
only the most critical lines? I convinced myself S ... tiJf6 6.i.e2 cxd4 7.cxd4 g6 S.tiJc3 Wl'dS 9.0-0
by studying the database: 3.c3 is the anti-O'Kelly i.g7 10.tiJeS 0-0 1 1 .i.f3 tiJeS 1 2.i.f4 tiJd6
choice of even the most aggressive of the world's 13.Wl'd2 tiJf5 14.!!adl tiJd7 l SJ�fe l and White
top GMs (Shirov, Bologan and even Kasparov) . was clearly better in Karjakin - Khamrakulov,
It is also the move that scores most heavily Dos Hermanas 2004.
against the 2 . . . a6 experts. The convincing logic b) 3 ... e6 4.d4 dS S.eS gives White a good
of 3.c3 is that a7 -a6 is rarely a useful move in the version of the Advance French. Black can try
normal c3-Sicilian. to make use of 2 ... a6 with S ... i.d7 planning to
Those determined to play in Open Sicilian exchange the bad bishop on bS but this runs
style could consider 3.tiJc3. After 3 ... bS 4.d4 into problems. For example, 6.i.d3 (Not the
transposing to our anti-Kan repertoire may seem only good move. Reasonable alternatives include
likely but Black has enjoyed considerable success 6.a3 and 6.tiJ bd2.) 6 ...cxd4 (The problem with
with the surprising 4 ... e6. The critical line 6 ... i.bS is 7.hbSt axbS S.dxcS hcs 9.b4 i.b6
should be S.dS but then we reach a I .d4-style 10.tiJa3 and White wins a safe pawn.) 7.tiJxd4!.
position where White seems to have "forgotten" Cutting across Black's plans. 7 ... tiJc6 S.tiJxc6
to answer . . . a6 with a4. hc6
3.c4 is a logical, reliable move, but if Black 9.0-0 and White's lead in development gives
chooses a line with e7 -e6 the positions reached him attacking chances on the kingside.
212 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
played with White scoring well after 1O.lLlxd6t transposition to the Accelerated Dragon. Black
rJJ e7 l 1 .lLlf5t. After 9 ... ElbS! one critical line has interesting alternatives in 4 ... �b6 and
is 1 0.b3 lLlxe4! 1 1 .�xe7t rJJ xe7 12.ia3t d6 4 . . .�a5t.
l 3 .f3 a6! 14.fxe4 axb5 1 5 .ixb5 ElaS and Black 4 .. ,1,MiaSt S.c3!
is fine. 5.lLlc3 is a little speculative. After 5 ... ixc3 t
9 ... rJJ xe7 1 0 ..ie3 d6 6.bxc3 �xc3t 7.id2 �xc5 Black has had
10 ... lLl g4? is premature. l 1 .lLld5t rJJ d S encouraging results.
l 2 .ic5 and Black is crushed. S .. ,1,Mixcs
1 1 .£3 .ie6 12.0-0-0
6.lL'l a3!
White has a slight but definite edge. The plan is This causes Black far more problems than the
g2-g4 and h2-h4 preparing a later g5 . White can obvious 6.ie3. Black now has six likely replies
wait and play lLl d5t only if and when it is most of which four are clearly bad.
inconvenient for Black. 6 ... lL'lf6
a) 6 ... ixc3t? is a trap which has caught several
The following line has been around for a while, strong players. 7.bxc3 �xc3t S.�d2! �xal
but it does not seem to be fully trustworthy. 9.lLlb5. The threatened fork gives White just
enough time to trap the queen. 9 ... lLla6 lo.lLlc3.
1 .e4 cS 2.lL'l£3 g6 There is no escape. For example 1O ... lt:lc5
This is a perfectly acceptable move order to l 1 .lLld4! and White wins easily.
reach either variety of Dragon. However, if b) Preventing lLlb5 with 6 ... a6? is disastrous
Black avoids this possibility then he runs into after 7.lLlc4 with ie3 to follow.
immediate trouble. Of course White has third c) 6 ... �a5?! 7.�d5 ! forces an advantage in
move alternatives, but none of them are superior every variation: 7 ... lLlc6 S.�xa5 lLlxa5 9.lLlb5,
to 3.d4. 7 ... �dS S.ic4 e6 9.�d3 and 7 ... �xd5 S.exd5
3.d4 .ig7?! lLlf6 9.d6 - Bruzon.
Black can, and should, head back towards d) 6 ... �c7?! allows White to gain a clear
regular Dragon lines with 3 ... cxd4 4.lt:lxd4. advantage: 7.lLlb5 �dS (7 ... �a5 S.�d5!) S.if4
White can prevent a transposition with 4.�xd4 d6 9.e5 a6 10.�a4 - Bruzon.
but I think Black is OK after 4 ... lLlf6. For e) 6 ... d6 is the only serious alternative to
example, 5 .ib5 a6 6.e5 axb5 7.exf6 lLlc6. 6 ... lLlf6, but White can still achieve a slight
4.dxc5 advantage. 7.lLlb5 a6 (7 ... �b6?! wastes more
It is worth noting that 4.c4 does not force a time than Black can afford. Markowski -
214 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
7.�e2!?
I think this is the best way to attack Black's
system. White prepares queenside castling, while
the fl bishop will develop to g2. A common
alternative is 7 . .te3 but it not clear that this
is a gain of tempo. Firstly, the queen is almost
certain to move anyway to enable a later b7-b5.
Secondly, since . . . .tb4 is a definite possibility,
d2 may prove to be the correct square for the
So far this is Bruzon - Malakhov, Yerevan bishop.
2000. Now Bruzon's suggestion of 1 1 .�f3! 7 ... d6
forces a queen exchange while still winning the The major alternative is 7 ... .tb4 8 . .td2 0-0
exchange. 9.a3 and now Black has a major decision to
The line with 2 . . . ltJc6 and 4 . . . �b6 is a make:
favourite of Israeli GM Golod, who plays a} Most strong players have given up 9 ....txc3
it with absolutely fantastic results {94%, a 1 0 . .txc3 e5 1 1 .0-0-0 E:d8. {In A. Ivanov
fabulous 2790 performance in the last 5 years. Yermolinsky, USA {ch} 2000, Black tried the
But all games were played against lower rated tricky l l .. .d6. After 12.E:xd6 ltJd4 1 3 . .txd4
opponents.}. It should not be underrated. Still, �xd6 14 . .tc5 �c7 1 5 . .txf8 cj;Jxf8 1 6.f3?! [Instead
it is not the refutation of the Open Sicilian I think 1 6.�c4! refutes the gambit. The idea is
and White can fight for an advantage just as in 16 ... �xc4 17 ..txc4 ltJxe4 1 8.E:e l ltJd6 {Not
any other system. Especially if he follows my 18 ... ltJxf2? 1 9.E:fl } 19 . .td3 and White will soon
recommendation. be a pawn ahead.] 16 ... .te6 Black had enough
Minor Lines 21S
for the pawn.) 1 2.E1d6! Vl1c7 ( 1 2 . . . CtJ d4?? is now Play continued 13.eS! dxeS 14.Vl1f3 CtJdS
simply a blunder. 1 3 .E1xd4 exd4 14 . .!taS) 13.E1xf6! I S .ctl xdS exdS 1 6.Vl1xdS ib7 ( 1 6 ... .!td7 17.iaS !)
This idea of Michael Adams has effectively 17.CtJcS. Black is already worse but 1 7 ... E1d8?
ended the popularity of 9 ... ixc3. 1 3 ... gxf6 1 8.CtJxa6! Vl1b6 19.Vl1xbS! did not help.
14.Vl1g4t i>h8 I S .Vl1h4 Vl1d6 (A later game l 1 .f4 b5 1 2.g5 1t1 c5
Nijboer - Piket, Amsterdam 200 1 , continued Kozul clearly believes 1 2 . . . b4 13.CtJa4 safely
I S ... d6 16.Vl1xf6t i>g8 17.Vl1gst i>h8 1 8.f4 and blocks his queenside attack.
White was much better.) 1 6.f4 Vl1e7 (Nijboer 13.1t1xc5 dxc5 14.�e3 ltld4 15.fff2 �b7
suggested 16 ... E1g8 as a better defence but also 16.�g2 0-0-0 17.e5
supplied a promising reply. 1 7.g4!? Vl1e7 1 8 . .!tbS
d6 1 9.h3 and White has superb compensation.
For example, 19 ... i>g7 20.E1fl a6 2 1 .ixc6 bxc6
22.fxeS dxeS 23.ib4 Vl1d8 24.CtJaS ! and Black is
lost.) 1 7.ibS Adams - Knezevic, France 1 997.
Blackisalreadyin troublesincethenatural l 7 ... d6?
fails to 18 . .!txc6 bxc6 19.fxeS dxeS 20 . .!tb4!.
b) 9 ... ie7 1 0.eS It is wise to push now since
1 0.0-0-0 dS ! has scored exceptionally well
for Black. 1 0 ... CtJdS 1 1 .0-0-0 (If I 1 .CtJxdS
exdS 1 2.0-0-0 d6 Black's potential c-file play
compensates for his weaker structure.) 1 1 .. .d6
1 2.exd6 ixd6 13.CtJbS! ieS ( l 3 ... .!tf4 was tried
in Kotenko - Arzumanian, Ukraine 2003. After
14.c4 ixd2t I S.E1xd2 ltJc7 1 6.cS Vl1xbS 1 7.Vl1xbS
CtJxbS 1 8 . .!txbS White had a definite edge.) 14.c4 17 . . . �e7 1 8 . .!txb7t i>xb7?!
This only looks risky - "Trust me, I know what Now White wins a safe pawn. Black had to
I'm doing." 1 4 ... a6 I S .cxdS exdS 16.ie3 Vl1xbS try 1 8 . . .Vl1xb7 but after 19.E1he l White is still a
1 7.Vl1xbS axbS 1 8.ixbS ie6 Motylev-Kunte, little better.
India 2002. Now Judit Polgar suggests 1 9.E1he l 1 9.�xd4 cxd4 20J3xd4 1'!xd4
is slightly better for White. Of course if 20 ... icS 2 1 .Vl1f3t.
Black can also play 7 ... Vl1c7, but this 2 1 .ffxd4 .!tc5 22.ffd3 1'!d8 23.fff3t ffc6
generally transposes to the 7 . . . d6 variations. 24.1'!fl 1'!d4
One independent example is 8.g4 h6 9.h4 a6 There is still work to do but Movsesian
10 ..!tg2 id6. A creative and unusual attempt completes the job convincingly.
to stop White's traditional pawn storm. l 1 .ie3 25.1t1e2 1'!e4 26.1t1g3 1'!a4 27.i>bl ffxf3
( l 1 .gS !?) l l . ..bS 1 2.0-0-0 if4?! 1 3.CtJdS ! and 28.1'!xf3 �gl 29.c3! E1c4 30.i>c2 E1c7 3 1 . 1t1 e2
White was much better in Ciuksyte V. Georgiev,
- �b6 32.1'!h3 i>c6 33.1'!xh7 g6 34. i>d3 i>d5
Porto San Giorgio 2003. 35.h4 a5 36.1t1g3 b4 37.1t1 e4 bxc3 38.bxc3
8.g4 a6 9.�d2 ffc7 10.0-0-0 1'!c4 39.1t1fGt
Black has far too many possibilities here to 1-0
give comprehensive coverage. However, White
appears generally to have the better chances in 2 . . . e6 and 4 . . . Vl1b6 is a rare line now but an
an unbalanced position. old favourite of GM Kveinys (which explains
1 O ... ltJd7 why a later ... Vl1b6 in the Kan is known as the
Black can also choose to delay g4-gS with Enhanced Kveinys variation) . The idea, as in
1 O ... h6. Now l 1 .h4 g6 12 ..!tg2 bS transposes many of the Kan lines, is to encourage the CtJd4
to Tomescu - Bruno, Porto San Giorgio 2002. to leave its perfect central position.
216 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
Rowy 1 999. He converted this to a better It is telling that Zaw Win Lay switched to this
endgame, but a full-blown attack on the king move after trying the main line a year earlier.
was also an option. The critical position is reached after 1 1 ...lLlxe4
5.�c3 1 2.'lWxc6! dxc6 13.lLlxa5 bxa5 14 . .ie3.
Minor Lines 217
Black has a healthy extra pawn on the kingside, The next line we will examine is the Lowenthal,
but his shattered queenside and White's which was first played more than 1 00 years ago.
bishop pair constitute more than adequate It has never achieved any popularity in high
compensation. I believe that White's control of level chess. Black's weakened dark squares do
the position means that he can play for the win not appeal to strong players. At lower levels the
with virtually no risk of defeat, or in modern Lowenthal is far more common. I suspect the
jargon: White is playing for two results. large number of tactical tricks in the main lines
Hamdani - Zaw Win Lay, Vietnam 2003, is the main attraction.
continued 14 ... 0-0 (Instead, Nikolenko -
Arzumanian, Tula 2000, continued 14 ... e5 l .e4 cS 2.lflf3 lflc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lflxd4 eS
1 5 .0-0-0 �e6 1 6.�a6 �b8 1 7.�he l liJf6, and S.lflbS a6
now the simple 18.�c5 would have given White This is the initial position of the Lowenthal.
a clear advantage.) 1 5 .0-0-0 e5 1 6.�c4 �f5 5 . . . d6 is of course the Kalashnikov (see page
1 7.f3 liJ f6 1 8 .�d6 �fc8 1 9 .�hd 1 . This is a typical 1 73).
position in this variation. White dominates the 6.lfld6t ixd6 7.YMxd6 YMfG
d-file while Black is tied to defending his weak
pawns. 1 9 ... liJ e8 20.�6d2 liJc7 and now White,
the lower rated player, headed for a draw with
2 1 .�d6. Instead he could have played for the
win with no risk in several ways. One example is
2 1 .a4!?, simply fixing the weaknesses. 2 1 . . .�e6
22.�xe6 liJxe6 23.�d7 and White will soon
recover his pawn with a fine position.
12.YMxe5 lflxe5 1 3.f4 lfl g6 14.eS lfl dS I S.g3
ib7 16.ig2 0-0-0 17.0-0
Without doing anything special White has
achieved a slight but definite edge.
17 ... d6 1 8.exd6 gxd6 19.1fld4 gd7 20.a4
It was worth considering 20.f5!? exfS 2 1 .liJxfS
f6 and only then 22.a4.
20 ... lfl de7 2 1 .a5 ixg2 22.@xg2 @b7 23.ie3 8.YMxf6
21B Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
This is an easy way to guarantee an edge. The In the last game of this chapter we shall look
positions tend to be not very exciting, but they at an anti-Keres Scheveningen line. Naturally I
are even less fun for Black. The main line is suggest playing the Keres attack all the same.
considered to be B.'lWdl but I do not think it is
any better than B.'lWxf6. It also commits White Game 65
to studying and remembering a large amount of Senff - Schlosser
theory about a rarely met line. Germany 2004
8 ... tbxf6 9.tbc3
Black is now committed to searching for l .e4 cS 2.tbf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tbxd4 tb c6
compensation for his positional concessions. 5.tbc3 d6
9 ... tb b4 This has never been a popular position with
The only other significant try is 9 ... dS . Black players though there is nothing particularly
Now 1 0.exdS is better than the frequently wrong with it. White has many options, but the
recommended 10.igS . After 1 0.exdS consistent move with our anti-Scheveningen
play continues 1 0 ... tiJb4 l 1 .id3 tiJxd3t line, and also the most theoretically respected, is
(if 1 1 ...tiJfxdS 12.tiJxdS tiJxdS 1 3.id2 White 6.g4!
has an edge in a simple position) 1 2.cxd3 The Pseudo-Keres Attack seems like a
ifS 1 3.0-0!? (I find this clearer than the also reasonable name. This move first attracted
promising 1 3 .igS). Now: attention after being played by Anatoly Karpov
a) 1 3 ... 0-0-0 14.i.gS i.xd3 I S . � fd l i. fs in his 1 9B5 World Championship match against
1 6. � acl and Black is in trouble. 1 6 . . . cj;1d7 Kasparov.
Instead 6.ie3 is a good alternative but
( 1 6 .. .'J;'bB 17.f4) 17. CtJ a4 6 . . . tiJf6 transposes to a Scheveningen line
b) 1 3 ... 0-0 14J'l:e1 l'l:feB I s .igS ixd3 outside this book's repertoire, so we will keep
1 6.l'l:ad l ifS 1 7.ixf6 gxf6 I B.d6 our focus on 6.g4.
c) 1 3 . . . ixd3 and now 14.l'l:e l wins a pawn. 6 ... a6
10.cj;1d2 d5 This standard Sicilian move is the most
This is the only aggressive try. The quiet popular, but Black has several reasonable, and
10 ... d6 changes nothing. A sample line: l 1 .a3 little explored, alternatives.
tiJc6 1 2.id3 ie6 1 3 .l'l:dl 0-0-0 14.cj;1el and, as 6 ... h6 was Kasparov's choice in his previously
usual, Black will suffer in a long ending. mentioned game against Karpov. Karpov
1 1 .a3 d4 12.axb4 dxc3t 13. cj;1e3 continued 7.h4, but the developing 7.ie3 is
This convincing line has been known for also fine. Transpositions are always possible
decades. but one distinct, and inspirational, example is
13 ... tb g4t Kasimdzhanov -Van der Sterren, Germany 200 1 .
The critical attempt but White has it covered. 7.ie3 tiJf6 B.h3 ie7 9.'lWd2 a6 10.0-0-0 tiJxd4
Quiet play will leave White with a simple 1 1 .'lWxd4 id7 1 2.f4 ic6 13.l'l:gl tiJd7 14.ic4
advantage. One recent example is 13 ... ie6 'lWaS I S .ixe6 fxe6 1 6.'lWxg7 if6 1 7.'lWg6t cj;1e7
14.id3 0-0 I S .f3 l'l:acB 1 6.b3 tiJeB 17.bS tiJc7 I B.eS dxeS 1 9.1'l:xd7t cj;1xd7 20.l'l:dl t cj;1e7 2 1 .gS
I B.bxa6 bxa6 19.ia3 l'l:dB 20.ib4 and White l'l:hfB 22.'lWh7t l'l:f7 23.gxf6t cj;1xf6 24.'lWxh6t
was already winning in Kotronias - Stankovic, cj;1e7 2S.fS 1-0
Greece 2002. GM Kotronias is not a player 6 . . . ie7 is also reasonable and may transpose
who ducks a theoretical challenge, so he clearly to other lines. This really is an ideal variation
believes B.'lWxf6 is an effective answer to the for those who would rather play chess than
Lowenthal. learn theory.
14.cj;1e2 f5 15.bxc3 tbf6 16.�a5! Of course 6 ... tiJf6 is a regular Keres Attack.
White has a clear advantage. See Page I S7.
Minor Lines 219
9.Wld2
I would prefer 9.f4 first. The possible downside
of this move order is the pawn sacrifice 9 ... g5,
16 . . . �hS 17.J.d3 hf6
but after 1 0.fxg5 I do not believe in Black's
compensation. The knight will look very pretty If 1 7 ... exf4 White wins with 18.ltJxh7! . For
on e5 , but White also has active pieces and example 1 8 ... fxe3 19.1tJf6! and mates.
Black's king has no safe haven. After 17 ... gxf6 White has an easy win with
9.a3!? is an interesting and unusual way to 1 8.gxf6 gg8 (if 1 8 ... hf6 then 1 9.�e4 and
avoid the regular lines. Gallagher - Klauser, mate next move) 19.�h3 gg6 20.hg6 fxg6
Switzerland 2003, continued 9 ... tiJg6 1 0.g5 2 1 .�xe6.
ib7 l 1 .h4 tiJge5 1 2.f4 ctJc4 13.ixc4 bxc4 I S.gxf6 g6
14.ctJd4 with an unclear position. Black is forced to weaken his structure since
9 .id7?!
.•. 18 ... gg8 10ses immediately to 1 9.ixh7! .
The normal move here is 9 ... ib7. Svidler - 19.'lWg5 exf4 20.W4 e5 2 1 .h4!
Bischoff, Bled (01) 2002, continued 1 0.f4 ctJc8 Not the only way to finish but definitely the
1 1 .0-0-0 ie7 12.c;f;lbl 0-0 1 3.g5 with a sharp most stylish.
opposite side castling position. In other words a 2 1 . exf4 22.'lWh6 ggS 23.h5
.•
Game 66 7. . . tLld5
Van der Wiel - Lammens Not 7 ... ttJg4? B.'Wxg4 'Wxb2 9.@d2!+-. For
Vlissingen 2000 example: 9 ... 'Wxal 1 0.'Wxg7 gfB l 1 .ttJ b3 he3t
1 2.fxe3 'Wb2 13.ttJbS
l .e4 c5 2.tLla e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLl f6 5.tLlc3 B.tLlxd5 exd5 9.tLlb5!
'lWb6 The mainline 9.ttJf5 'Wxb2 is very messy.
9 ... 0-0
The critical try must be 9 ... �xe3 1 0.fxe3 ttJc6
(If 1 0 ... 'Wxe3t 1 1 .'We2 'Wxe2t 1 2 . .ixe2± with
a clear advantage, or maybe just winning. Or
1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 .'Wd4± .) l 1 .ttJd6t @e7 12 . .ie2! and
White has a strong initiative.
1O.Axc5 'lWxc5 1 l .'lWd4! �xd4 12.tLlxd4 tLl c6
1 3.0-0-0
Or 1 3.ttJbS with similar play.
1 3 ... tLlxe5 14.tLlb5 tLl g4 15J3d2±
Material will soon be level, but Black will
still have a weak d-pawn. White has excellent
winning chances.
1 5 ... d6 16.a tLle3 17.tLlc7 gbS I S.tLlxd5 tLlxd5
1 9.9xd5 gdS 20.�d3 .ie6 21 .gd4 gbcB 22.gdl
The Gaw-Paw (named by Rolf Martens) . ha2 23.l:'�a4 �e6 24.gxa7 gbS 25 . .ib5 @fB
6.e5! Ac5 7.�e3! 26.gd4 .id7 27.Ad3 Ac6 2S.b4 @e7 29.b5
Interesting, but unnecessary, is 7.ttJdbS ! ? a6! Ad7 30.gc4 gdcS 3 1 .gxcS Axcs 32.@d2 @dS
(7 . . . i.xf2t? B.@e2 ttJg4 9.h3 ttJxeS 10.�d6! 33.b6 �e6 34.@e3 Ad5 35.Ab5 gcS 36.@d4
'Wxd6 l 1 .ttJxd6t @e7 1 2.ttJxcBt gxcB 1 3.@xf.2+ gc5 37.c4 @cS 3S.gaS mate.
and 7 ... ttJdS? B.ttJe4 0-0 9.c4 are not good) 1-0
B.ttJd6t !? or B.'Wf3!?
5th move alternatives
- By Jacob Aagaard
In this chapter we shall investigate Black's Lately 1M Bator has gone 4 ... e5 5 .il.b5t lLld7
alternatives on the 5 th move to the normal lines. 6.lLlf5 a6 7.hd7t 'Wxd7 when he is retaining
In the following position some flexibility with the gS-knight. Still White
must be a little bit better here. S.lLlc3 'Wc6 9.'W0
lLl e7 (9 ... il.e6 1 0.il.g5 f6 1 1 .il.d2;t Ramesh -
Ferrufino, Bled 2002 looks reasonable to me)
And now it is of course possible to go 1 0.g4 il.e6
I l .lLl e3 �dS 1 2.lLledSoo Hector - Bator, Sweden
2003. But White should also do well with the
simple 10.lLlxe7 il.xe7 1 1 .'Wg3;t.
S.tLlc3 eS 6.il.bSt tLl bd7
6 ... il.d7 7.il.xd7t 'Wxd7 leads to a slightly
inferior position after S.lLlde2! (s.lLlf5?! lLlxe4
9.lLlxg7t hg7 10.lLlxe4 d5 1 1 .il.h6 0-0 leads
to an equal position, or maybe even a forced
draw. One line is 12.lLlc5 'Wd6 1 3.il.xg7 @xg7
14.lLlxb7 'Wb4t 1 5 .'Wd2 'Wxb7 Schopf- Hendrix,
e-mail 1 997) . Now Black has the following
Black has some alternatives to the normal 5 . . . possibilities:
a6, 5 . . . g6, and so on. These include 5 . . . e5, a) S ... 'Wg4!? This looks very strange, but it does
5 . . . lLl d7 and 5 . . . il.d7. Though none of them win a pawn. 9.'Wd3! ? A very aggressive approach
are really completely reliable they are still not that left Black with material but without
as bad as might be imagined. In this chapter I development. 9 ... 'Wxg2 (9 ... lLlc6 1 0.0-0 il.e7
will quickly present a way to play against each I l .lLlg3;t according to Pengo However, maybe
of them. the position is just really bad for Black. The
queen is utterly misplaced and 12.lLld5 would
S • . . eS be a strong reply against 1 1 ...g6.) 1 0.�gl 'Wxh2
1 1 .il.g5 lLlbd7 12.0-0-0 'Wxf2 1 3 .il.e3 'Wf3
This line is a true provocation. Normally Black 14.�g3 'Wh5 1 5 .lLlb5 �cS 1 6.lLlxa7 �dS 1 7.lLlb5
plays 5 . . . a6 in order to play . . . e5 without il.e7 IS.�xg7 lLlc5 1 9.'Wc4 lLlcxe4 20.lLlc7t
allowing il.b5t, but here Black decides to allow @d7 2 1 .�xf7 and the attack was very strong
it. This will lead to a position where White has in Willemze - S. Ernst, Vienna 2003. Possibly
a slight positional pull, and the better player Black can defend better at various places, but
will most likely win with White, and draw with what about 9.lLld5 ! which leaves White with
Black. a small but lasting advantage after 9 . . . lLlxd5
Basically the 5 th move alternatives presented 1O.'Wxd5 lLlc6 I l .lLlg3 'We6 1 2.c4. Compared
in this chapter have their drawbacks, but are not to the Kalashnikov, White's bad bishop has
really bad moves as such. Therefore it is usual been exchanged, while Black will find it hard
for White to achieve a slight advantage, but not to exchange his bad bishop, in contrast to the
more. Kalashnikov. 9.lLlg3 'Wxdl t 1 0.@xd l also looks
like a preferable position for White.
1 .e4 cS 2.tLlo d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLl f6 b) S ... il.e7 9.0-0 0-0 10.lLlg3 g6 is no way
222 Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
This variation is the best of the three Sth move A slow but dangerous plan. Black needs to
alternatives, and is usually attributed to the react in the centre as in the game, or he will be
Byelorussian grandmaster Kupreichik. in trouble.
H ...WeS 12.h3 e5!
l .e4 e5 2.lLl6 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLl f6 12 ... lL'l c6 1 3.g4 with an advantage for White.
5.lLlc3 J.d7 6.6! 13.lLlf5 J.xf5 14.exf5 d5 1 5.f4 d4
I think the English Attack is the most natural I S ... e4? 1 6 . .ie2 .ib4 1 7 . .id4 lL'l bd7 I S.g4±
5 th move alternatives 225
20 . .ie2
Index of variations. 20 . .ixb5 78
Najdorf Classical
1 .e4 e5 2 . ttl B d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 ttlf6 5 . ttl c3 a6 6 . .ig5 1 .e4 e5 2.ttlB d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 ttlf6 5 . ttl c3 ttl e6
6 . . . ttl bd7 7.f4 Wib6 9 6 . .ig5
6 . . . e6 7.f4 6 . . . .id7 90 (6 . . . Wb6 90. 6 . . . g6 90. 6 . . . Wa5 90)
7 . . . ltk6 8.e5 h6 9 . .ih4 g5 13 6 . . . e6 7.Wd2
(9 . . . ttl xd4 1 1 , 9 . . . dxe5 1 1 ) 7 . . . a6 8.0-0-0 .id7 1 00 (8 ... h6 95)
7 . . .Wie7 15 7 . . . Wb6 1 04
7 ... b 5 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 Wie7 1 0 .exf6 Wie5t 1 1 ..ie2 Wixg5 7 . . . .ie7 8.0-0-0
1 2 . 0-0 £\a7 16 ( l 2 . . . Wie5 1 8) 8 . . . 0-0 1 07
7 . . . .ie7 20 (7 . . . .id720) 8 . . . a6 9.£4 ttlxd4 1 O.Wixd4 1 05
7 . . . h6? ! 27
7 . . . Wib6 8.Wid2 Wixb2 (8 . . . ttl e6 31) 9 . ttl b3 31 (9.£\ b l 3 1 )
Kan
7 . . . ttl bd7 8 .WiB
1 .e4 e5 2 . ttl B e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 a6 5 . ttl e3
8 . . . Wia5 20
5 . . . Wie7 6 . .id3 ttlf6 (6 . . . .ie5 122) 7.0-0 .ie5 8 . ttl b3 :1I.a7
8 . . . Wie7 9.0-0-0 b5 23
124 (7 . . . :1I.e7 120)
1 0 . .ixb5 25
5 . . . b5 6 . .id3
1 0.e5 25
6 . . . Wib6 125
1 0 . .ixf6 25
6 . . . . :1I.b7 7.0-0 Wb6 129 (7 . . . Wie7 131)
1 O . .id3 .ib7 1 1 . g h e l
6 . . . d6 129
I l . . .Wib6 23
6 . . . :1I.e5 7.ttlb3 :1I.a7 (7 . . . .ie7 132)
1 l . . ..ie7 28
Dragon Taimanov
1 .e4 e5 2.ttlB e6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 ttl e6 5 . ttl c3
1 .e4 e5 2 . ttl B d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 ttl f6 5 . ttl e3 g6 6 . .ie3
5 . . . a6 6.:1I.e3 ttl f6 143 (6 ... ttl ge7 143)
.ig7 7.B
5 . . . Wc7 6.:1I.e3 a6 7 . .id3
7 . . . a6 8 .Wid2 ttl bd7 39
7 . . . b5 133
7 . . . 0-0 8 .Wid2 d5?! 39
7 . . . ttl f6 8 .0-0
7 . . . lik6 8 .Wid2
8 ... :1I.d6 135
8 . . . .id7 9.0-0-0 £\e8 41
8 . . . h5?! 137
8 . . . 0-0 9 .0-0-0
8 . . . ttlxd4 138
9 . . . .id7 41
8 . . . ttle5 139
9 . . . ttlxd4 1 0 . .ixd4 .ie6 50 ( l 0 . . . Wa5 46)
8 . . . d6 141
9 . . . .ie6 49
9 . . . d5 1 0 . exd5 ttlxd5 l 1 .ttlxe6 bxe6 1 2 . .id4 56
1 2 . . . e5 l 3 . .ie5 .ie6 ( 1 3 . . . £\e8 56) 1 4 . ttl e4 £\e8 58 Accelerated Dragon
( l 4 . . . £\b8 59 1 4 . . .We7 58) 1 .e4 e5 2 . ttl B ttl e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 g6 5 .e4 .ig7 6.ttlc2
1 2 . . . ttl xc3 67 ttl f6 7.ttlc3 0-0 8.:1I.e2 d6 9.0-0
1 2 . . . .ixd4 l 3.Wixd4 9 . . . :1I.d7 1 0 .:1I.e3 154
l 3 . . . Wib6 64 9 . . . ttl d7 1 O . .id2
1 3 . . . Wie7 64 1 0 . . . a5 152
1 0 ... ttlc5 l 1 .b4 ttle6 150 (I l . . .:1I.xc3 1 49)
Sveshnikov
1 .e4 e5 2 . ttl B ttl e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 ttl f6 5 . ttl c3 e5
6 . ttl db5 d6 7 . .ig5 a6 8 . ttl a3 Scheveningen
8 . . . .ie6 72 1 .e4 c5 2 . ttl f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 ttl f6 5 . ttl e3 e6 6.g4
8 . . . b5 9 . .ixf6 gxf6 1 O.ttld5 6 . . . d5 157
1 0 . . ..ig7 1 1 .c3 f5 tranposes. 6 . . . e5 157
10 . . . f5 l 1 .e3 .ig7 1 2.exf5 .ixf5 1 3 . ttl e2 6 . . . :1I.e7 157
l 3 . . . .ie6 85 6 . . . a6 7.g5 ttlfd7 8.h4 b5 9.a3 :1I.b7 1 0.:1I.e3 ttlc6 161
1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 . ttl ee3 .ie6 ( l 0 . . . ttl b6 159, 1 0 . . . ttlc5 1 60, 1 0 . . . :1I.e7 1 61)
1 4 . . . .ig6 ! ? 74 6 . . . ttl e6 1 62
1 4 ... .ie6 1 5 . .id3 f5 1 6 . 0-0 6 . . . h6 7.h4
1 6 . . .\t>h8 ! ? 75 7 . . . a6 159
1 6 . . . e4 83 7 . . . :1I.e7 1 65
1 6 . . . ga7 1 7.a4 ttle7 1 8 .ttlxe7t gxe7 1 9 .axb5 axb5 7 . . . ttlc6 8.gg1
20 . .ixf5 77 8 ... h5 1 68 (8 ... d5 1 66)
Indexes 227
"This is not a good book, it is a very good book, filled with interesting
suggestions."
World Champion Finalist Nigel Short
"Highly recommendable."
GM Jonathan Rowson, New In Chess
5 2795