Krasenkov M. - The Sveshnikov Sicilian - Cadogan 1996

CHESS

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

Mikhail Krasenkov

CADOGAN chess LONDON, NEW YORK

Cadogan Books Distribution UK/EUROPE/AUSTRALASINASINAFRICA Distribution: Cadogan Books pie, c/o B.T. Batsford Ltd, 1 Bradbury Drive, Springwood Industrial Estate, Braintree, Essex CM7 2QY Tel: (01376) 321276 Fax: (01376) 552845 USNCANADA/LATIN AMERICNJAPAN Distribution: Paramount Distribution Center, Front and Brown Streets, Riverside, New Jersey 08075, USA Tel: (609) 461 6500 Fax: (609) 764 9122 First published 1996 by Cadogan Books pie, London House, Parkgate Road, London SW 114NQ Copyright © 1996 Mikhail Krasenkov 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, mechani cal, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission in writing from the publish ers.

British Library Cataloguing In Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 1 85744 123 0 Typesetting by ChessSetter

Printed in Great Britain by BPC Wheatons Ltd, Exeter

CADOGAN CHESS SERIES Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparov Editor: Andrew Kinsman Russian Series Editor: Ken Neat

For a complete catalogue of CADOGAN CHESS books, please write to Cadogan Books pie, London House, Parkgate Road, London SWll 4NQ.

Contents

Bibliography

4 4

Introduction: My Love Forever

5

Symbols and Abbreviations

1

e4 c5 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tbxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 e5 6 ltJdb5 d6 7 i..g5 a6 8 ltJa3 b5 l Evading the Discussion (deviations on move

2

:J 4

o

6

7

11 Turning off the Road (deviations on moves 7 and 8) 17 41 The choice of two K's (9 ltJd5) Made in Novosibirsk (9 i..xffl gxffl 10 ltJd5 i..g7) 68 Out of Use (9 i..xffl gxffl 10 ltJd5 f5 - side lines) 76 Always in Fashion (11 exf5) 86 101 The New Old Line (11 i..d3) 6)

Theoretical Conclusions (and Index of Variations) Play like a Grandmaster!

119 122

Symbols and Abbreviations !

!!

? ??

!? ?!

(D) corr

a good move an excellent move a bad move a serious error a move deserving attention a dubious move diagram follows correspondence game

Bibliography Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings

(volume B), S ahovski Informator,

Belgrade 1984 A.Adorjan, T.Horvath, Press, London 1987

Sicilian: Sveshnikov variation,

E.Sveshnikov, Sitsilianskaya Zashchita: i sport, Moscow 1988 ChessBase Magazine, Sahovski lnformator

Sistema 5... e7-e5,

Hamburg 1984-1996 (vols. 1-64), Belgrade 1966-1995

Various chess periodicals

Pergamon Fizkul'tura

Introduction: My Love Forever Uno way o r another, we are all 1u11coptible to fashion. I started playing the Sicilian Sveshnikov at •ho und of the 1970s when it was 1L Lho peak of its popularity. Later

IL luad its ups and downs but I

n•vur gave up my favourite open11111 MyHtem and am never going to du 110. '!'here is no other opening in which I have won as many memo rahlu games as in the Sveshnikov. AM ll precious relic, I carefully

la••I> a copy of the monograph by ICvaiuny Sveshnikov on his system,

dear reader, you needn't be ac quainted with the previous works on the same subject, since I'll cer tainly tell you about all the most important conclusions of older theory. So, we are going to deal with one of the most popular and de batable systems of the Sicilian Defence featured by the following moves: 1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 lLJc6 3 d4

cxd4 4 lLJxd4 lLJf6 5 lLJc3 e5

puhliHhed in Moscow in 1988, with 1 nmmorable note by the author:

"1�1 M i s ha Krasenkow, my chess t•ompunion-in-arms, from the author, in memory of our chess tHttuLings. It would be fine if you ftnmd mistakes and indicated them (bllMt of all, not during a game, es pctt�hally between us). E.Sveshni l& ov May 27, 1989.' A few years havu passed since then. Chess the ory nnd practice have moved far ahttnd, correcting and expanding mnny of the variations described In Hvoshnikov's book. I hope I hnv11 n l so made some contribution lo lhnt process, to a certain extent f\1If'i11 ing the grandmaster's wish. It IH l.ime to s um up what has hap l"•111•cl in the theory of the Sicilian HvoKhnikov during the past dec111111, u nd this is the main target of I h1• prosent book. But, of course, ,

Various names are given to this system in different books (Lasker, Pilnik, Pelikan variation), but these bear witness just to the in competence of the authors of those works. The 5 . . e5 system has only one author, who has worked out its positional funda mentals and laid its theoretical foundations. It is Grandmaster Evgeny Sveshnikov, of course. Be fore him the system was played .

6


occasionally, and only some lines (actually considered third-rate) were investigated to any real ex tent. In Russian literature you can often meet the name 'The Cheli abinsk variation' (Sveshnikov was born and grew up in the city of Cheliabinsk). This name was es tablished in the early 1970s when serious theoreticians couldn 't decide whether to name a whole opening system after a young lit tle-known master... The history of the Sicilian Sveshnikov is quite short; but there are a number of players who have made great theoretical con tributions. Sveshnikov's first fol lower (as far back as the 1960s) was Gennady Timoshchenko. The Hungarian Grandmasters An dras Adorjan and Gyula Sax, as well as IM Tamas Horvath, also made many extremely important theoretical discoveries in the 1970s. The generation of players that appeared on the scene in the 1980s included a number of con noisseurs of the system, especially Russian players (GMs Valery Sa lov, Alexey Vyzmanavin, Yury Yakovich, IM Nikolay Andrianov etc.). And recently the Sveshnikov has become a frequent guest in top tournaments thanks to efforts of Alexey Shirov, Vladimir Kram nik, Joel Lautier and other young stars. Their ideas have consider ably enriched the whole system. The positional grounds of the 5 ... e5 move go back to the ideas of

the Boleslavsky system, which was worked out in the 1940s (1 e4 c5 2 lL!f3 lL!c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL!xd4 lL!f6 5 lL!c3 d6 6 .i.e2 e5). Black seizes some space in the centre, thus not giving White a free hand on the kingside. Typical Sicilian attacks such as f2-f4, g2-g4 etc. are no longer possible. Besides, any danger of White's break in the centre (e4-e5 etc.) is elimi nated altogether. The price Black pays for these trumps is the weakening of the d6 pawn and the d5 square. If White could effectively rearrange his pieces or simplify the game with out positional concessions, these would become dominant factors. However, this proves to be a very difficult task. There are still many pieces on the board; besides, White's forces are not placed in the best way. Specifically, the ill fated d4 knight becomes his head ache. In the Boleslavsky system it has to go to f3 or b3 (very far from the d5 square) . In the Sveshnikov system White is forced to place it to . . . a3 (!), otherwise he loses his control over the d5 point! Take a look at this: 6 lL!db51 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 lL!a3 b51

With this sequence Black ob tains several precious tempi for his counterplay (the first of which is gained by the 5 . . . e5 move it selfl), the methods of which were conceptually developed by Svesh nikov. They include:

Introduction: My Love Forever

1) the minority attack on the 11uoenside (. . . a6-a5, . . . b5-b4 etc.); 2) the kingside attack ( . . . f7-f5, 1111Hsibly with a preliminary . g7..

jlfl) i

:J) the fight for the d5 point ( ... .tc8-e6, . . . tLlc6-e7 etc.) crowned with the . . . d6-d5 break or the 11hifting of White's e4 pawn to d5. I would like to take up the lat tttr point. Such a modification of tho pawn structure is, generally 11poaking, extremely advantageous rur Black. Both of the negative rnctors mentioned above just dis nppear; and Black obtains a pawn mujority on the kingside, which is more mobile than White's queen11ldu pawns . After . . . e5-e4 Black hnH the e5 square at his disposal, nnd after the eventual exchange of his e-pawn he has good chances 111' Hoizing the e-file. So, the pawn r1•capture after the exchange on tlr1 can rarely be favourable for White (mostly after 9 �xf6 gxf6 111111 below). What are White's most impor1 unt plans?

7

First of all, his c3 knight takes the d5 square. There are two modifications: 9 tLld5 or 9 �xf6 gxf6! 10 tLld5. Then White must do something with the other knight. The manoeuvre tLla3-bl d2 doesn't solve the problem as d2 is hardly the best position for this knight. So the most common strategical ideas of White (and Black's ways of countering) are: 1) the c2-c4 break, in order to conquer the c4 square. Black has three alternatives: • just to take on c4, allowing White's knight to enter the game powerfully. Incidentally, in some variations White can even recapture with the bishop to control the d5 square while his knight takes another way ( tLla3-c2) - see Chapter 7. This option is not very pleasant for Black but sometimes it is forced; • to play . . . b5-b4, blocking the queenside. Later on Black can try to occupy the c5 square (ideally with a knight) and de velop his queenside activity by means of .. . a6-a5-a4 etc. This plan is quite appropriate in some variations; • to leave his pawn on b5 and even to sacrifice it in order to gain time for counterplay and possibly still to prevent the white a3 knight from becom ing active. Some aspects of this plan are similar to those of the Benko Gambit. This option is

8


probably the most desirable for Black but not always possible. 2) c2-c3 followed by lba3-c2e3(b4) to support the d5 knight and possibly to attack Black's queenside by a2-a4. Black usually plays ...a6-a5 to control the b4 square. As for the e3 point, in the 9 lbd5 system (9 ... .te7 10 .txf6 .txf6) it can be taken under fire by means of ....tf6-g5, and then Black can exchange White's e3 knight at an appropriate moment. Unfortunately, in the other modi fication (9 .txf6 gxf6) the h6 and g5 squares prove insufficiently safe for Black's dark-squared bishop (in view of'ii'dl-h5 etc.) so he has to look for other ways to fight against White's knights (see, e.g., Chapter 6). Preparing to parry a2-a4, Black often plays ...l:r.a8-b8 (then after a2-a4 b5xa4 the b2 pawn will be hanging). This is considered the safest way of defence. However, if Black allows the advance of the white a-pawn, he has the following options: • to meet it by ... b5-b4 (this is desirable but rarely possible); • to take on a4 and play ...a6-a5 (however, in this case White seizes control of the important c4 square); • to leave his pawn on b5. This makes sense only quite rarely, mostly when Black is ahead in development -otherwise White can seize the a-file (with al most naked 6th and 7th ranks

in Black's camp) while Black's b5 pawn and the b4 square (af ter axb5 axb5) become perma nent weaknesses. Some more should be said about the special features of the struc ture arising after 9 .txf6 gxf6: • Black obtains more possibili ties of fighting for the e4 square (with ...f6-f5xe4 and ...f7-f5); • Black has the g-file at his dis posal for a possible kingside attack. Such a plan mostly re quires the advance of Black's f6 pawn to f4. However, this advance should be well-pre pared, otherwise White can meet it with g2-g3; • White's queen obtains an im portant outpost on h5; how ever, it requires active support from the other pieces to make use of it; • the exchange ....te6xd5 e4xd5 is less undesirable for White here as Black's double pawns are less mobile. White can try to stop them in two ways: either by playing f2-f4 (and taking the e3 square under control in the event of ...e5-e4) or provoking an early ...e5-e4 and then attacking Black's pawns with f2-f3. However, if Black manages to push ...f5-f4 and ... f 7-f5, he usually wins the fight in the centre. Taking into consideration all the above plans and counterplans, practice (first of all, of Svesh nikov himself) has developed a

Introduction: My Love Forever 'm-<:alled classic arrangement of Hlack's pieces: • the dark-squared bishop: g5 to control the e3 square (re serve squares h6 and d8); in the line 9 i.xf6 gxf6 g7; • the light-squared bishop: e6 to control the d5 square and aim at White's queenside; • the knight: e7 to press on the d5 square; • the queen's rook: b8 to pre vent a2-a4 and support Black's minority attack; • the queen: d7, b7, f7 (to con trol the d5 square); in some situations it can be activated via g6 or h5 (all these squares are light!); • the king's rook: the 8th rank, depending on the situation, mostly the c8, d8 or fB squares or g8 if the g-file is open. A few words about the possible f!Xchanges. As I mentioned before, nlmost any exchange shifting the white pawn from e4 to d5 is fa vourable for Black. If the pawn •tructure is unchanged then the following rules can be formulated: 1) the most unfavourable for Ulack is the exchange of the light iequared bishops, after which it is hurd for him to fight for the d5 point; 2) the exchange of a pair of knights is mostly good for Black "" White's knights are his most 1lnngerous blockading pieces; 3) the exchange of Black's litcht-squared bishop for White's -

9

knight has both negative (weak ening of the d5 square) and posi tive features (the elimination of White's strong knight). It mostly makes sense when it is a part of a plan of active counterplay; 4) Black's dark-squared bishop is a good defensive piece and has its own active possibilities, espe cially in the line 9 i.xf6 gxf6 when that bishop both protects Black's king and exerts pressure along the h8-al diagonal. In the 9 .!Dd5 line its position on g5 makes White's manoeuvring more diffi cult. Still, in the latter case the value of that bishop is restricted, and it can be swapped for White's knight. However, Black should never hurry with this exchange; 5) exchanges of rooks and/or queens are not very welcome as Black has more chances in the middlegame than in the endgame (of course, this applies only in the case that White maintains his control over the d5 square; other wise the endgame can even be better for Black). Another typical exchange is that of the light-squared bishops on e6 with Black's f7 pawn shift ing to that square and taking the d5 point under control. Of course, the latter is an extremely positive factor for Black; but these pawns do suffer from reduced mobility. Of course, you should not take a dogmatic approach in using these rules since each of them has many exceptions. But they are

10


solid landmarks in studying and lines of play in each variation and, practising the Sveshnikov. above all, the basic strategical and When, how, with which order of tactical ideas explained in the in moves should Black reach the troduction. Be sure to attentively classical arrangement? How can examine the games of the final he modify it in different situ chapter to remember typical plans, ations? What are the other possi strategical and tactical methods ble plans and arrangements of of play in the Sicilian Sveshnikov. pieces in different lines? I'll try to But the great thing is to play! answer all of these questions in Nobody and nothing instructs you the present book. like your own practice. So, play In conclusion I should like to the Sveshnikov as often as you mention that the main line of the can. Don't be afraid to experiment Sicilian Sveshnikov often appears even if you have only a little from another move order: 1 e4 c5 knowledge - your opponent is un 2 �f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 �ffi 5 likely to be an expert either. This �c3 �c6 6 �db5 d6 7 i.f4 e5 8 monograph will be of great help to i.g5 etc. In this way Black elimi you as a reference book: on play nates all the lines described in ing a game refer back to the ap Chapters 1 and 2 as well as some propriate section to compare your side systems of the Sicilian (such play with the theoretical recom as 3 i.b5) . However, White has mendations. Don't take it to heart if you have played differently. several alternatives on move 6; e.g., 6 .i.e3, 6 i.e2, 6 g3 and, the Carefully analyse both your game most important, 6 �xc6. Besides, and the theoretical interpretation Black has to prepare a different - perhaps your plan is more ap reply to the 3 c3 system. These propriate: after all, there is some problems are outside the scope of justification for calling the theory this book. The author hopes to de 'a short-sighted lady'! As you pick vote one of his future works to all up experience, you will better of these side lines of the Sicilian. comprehend all the niceties of dif ferent lines. How to use this book As you learn to love the Svesh nikov as I do, analysing it and The worst thing you can do is sit playing it, success will soon come! at a board worrying your head The material given covers the with the many variations cited in state of theory at 1 February 1996. the book. Nobody can remember them all at once. So, first learn as Michal Krasenkow much as necessary for playing the (Mikhail Krasenkov) opening - the most important February 1996

1

Evading the Discussion

I n this chapter we deal with side variations in which either White or Black abandons the main line on move 6. The theoretical verdict is firm and severe: all these at tempts are unsuccessful.

Section 1

Lines without 6 lLidbS

(1 e4c5 2 lLJf3 lLic6 3 d4 c:x:d4 4 lLi:x:d4 lLif6 5 lLic3 e5)

6 lbf5 Other moves are even less harmful for Black: a) 6 lbxc6?! (a weak move, giv ing Black a pawn superiority in the centre and the b-file) 6 . .. bxc6 7 .tc4 (7 .tg5 is met by 7 . . . .:lb8 ! , e.g. 8 .tc4 :Xb2! 9 .tb3 1fa5 1 0 .t d 2 .tb4 1 1 lLia4 lLixe4! , Dvoret sky, or 8 .:lbl 1fa5 ! with a clear edge for Black; to 7 .td3 Black can play7 ... .tb4 or even 7 ... d5) 7....tb4

8 0-0 h6 9 f4?!1fe7 10 fxe51fxe5 1 1 .tb3 0-0 with an advantage for Black (Tansky-Sveshnikov, Cheli abinsk 1966); b) 6 lLib3 (after this passive move Black can easily prepare ... d7-d5) 6 .tb4! (unmistakably intending to double the white pawns), and now: bl) 7 .tg5 h6 8 .txffi .txc3 + ! 9 bxc31fxffi with an excellent game for Black, e.g. 101fd2 0-0 1 1 .i.c4 d6 12 0-0 .i.e6 13 .td5 .txd5 141fxd5 .:lac8 15 .:ladl .:lfd8 16 .:ld3 .:lc7, and White's weak pawns guaran tee Black better prospects (Han doko..Jamieson, Adelaide 1990); b2) 7 .tc4 lLixe4 (or 7... d6 8 0-0 .txc3 - 8... .te6 ! 9 .i.d5 .txc3 also yields Black good chances, Svesh nikov - 9 bxc3 .tg4 101fd31fc7 1 1 .tg5 .te6 1 2 .td5 .txd5 1 3 exd5 lLie7 14 c4 lLid7 15 .txe7 �xe7 with an excellent game for Black, Romero Holmes-Chekhov, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 8 0-0 (8 1fd5 lLid6; 8 .txf7 + �xf7 9 1fd5 + �f8 10 1fxe4 d5, then, if necessary, ... h7-h6 and . ..�f8-g8-h7, and Black has the advantage, Svesh nikov) 8... lLixc3 9 bxc3, and now, according to Spassky, Black's sim plest way to obtain a good position is 9 ... .txc3 101ff3 d5! 1 1 hd5 0-0 12 .txf7 + (12 .:ldl lLid4!) 12...:xf7 13 'ifxc3 .tf5 14 .tb2 l:.c8 15 .:ladl .:ld7 followed by .. . lLic6-d4!; •••

12


b3) 7 .td3 d5 8 0-0! (8 exd5 ltixd5 - 8 . . . 'ii'xd5 is also good for Black - 9 .td2 ixc3! 10 bxc3 0-0 1 1 0-0 f5 12 ic4 �h8 13 1Ve2 lbffi!, and Black's chances are pref erable, according to Sveshnikov), and now, instead of 8 ....txc3?! 9 exd5! ltixd5 10 bxc3 0-0 1 1 'ii'f3 ! .te6 12 ltic5 ! with a strong initia tive for White, as in the game Rozenberg-Krasenkow, Moscow 1985, Black should prefer 8 . . . d4, 8 .. . dxe4, or even 8 . . . i.e6 with a good position; c) 6 lbf3 (see comment to 6 ltib3) 6 .tb4 •••

7 .tc4 (7.tg5 h6 8 .txfO.txc3 + ! 9 bxc3 'ii'xffi 1 0 ltid2 'ii'g6 1 1 'ii'f3 d6 12 .tc4 0-0 13 0-0 ltie7, Borodi ansky-Gorelov, Moscow 197 4, or 7 i.d3 d5 8 exd5 'ifxd5 - 8 . . . ltixd5 is also good, of course - 9 .td2 .txc3 10 .txc3 e4 1 1 i.xf6 gxffi 12 'ii'e 2 f513.tc4 1Va5+ 14 c3.te6 15 lDd2 ltie51, Brethe-E. Hansen, Challes 1990, also yields Black an excel lent position) 7 . . ltixe4 (7 . . . d6!? 8 0-0 .te6 ; 7 . . . 0-0 8 .tg5 .txc3 + 9 .

bxc3 1Va5 10 .txffi 1Vxc3 + 11 ltid2 gxf6 12 l:lbl ltid4! , Sveshnikov, or 8 0-0 .txc3 9 bxc3 ltixe4 leads to an unclear position) 8 0-0 (after 8 'ii'd 5 lbd6 9 i.b3 'ii'a 5! 10 0-0 'ii'xd5 11 ltixd5 .ta5 White's compensa tion for the pawn is hardly suffi cient; 8 i.xf7 + �xf7 9 'ii'd 5 + �f8 10 1Vxe4 d5 11 'ii'e 2 e4 12 ltig5 h6 is clearly favourable for Black, Delanoy-Nepomiachty, Paris 1991) 8 ... ltixc3 9 bxc3.te7 (9 ....txc3?! 10 l:lbl) 10 'ii'd5 0-0 1 1 ltixe5 ltixe5 12 1Vxe5 d6 13 'ii'e4 i.ffi 14.ta3 lle8 15 'ii'd3 CKofidis-Makropoulou, Greek championship 1994), and now the continuation 15 ... i.e6! 16.tb5.td7 1 7 i.c4 (17 l:.bl l:lc8!) 1 7 . . . l:.c8 ! 18 .txd6 b5! 19 i.b3 i.xc3 would have given Black excellent chances; d) 6 ltide2 (maintaining con trol over the d5 square but at the price of a considerable delay of development) 6 . . ..tb4 (Sveshnikov recommended 6 ...i.c5 7 ltig3 'ii'b6!? 8 'ii'd2 ltig4 9 ltidl 0-0 10 h3 lt)ffi with the idea of preparing . . . l:lf8d8 and .. . d7-d5 !) 7 .td2 (7 a3 .ta5 8 .td2 - 8 b4?! i.b6 - 8 . .. d5 with an excellent game, Gomez -Ochoa, Spain 1977) 7 . . . 0-0 8 lbg3 (8 a3?! .tc5!), and now, according to Ador jan and T.Horvath, 8 ....txc3 9 .txc3 d5, and Black has no problems. 6 lDf'5 is the best and most popu lar side-line. However, it doesn't set any problems for Black either. 6 d5! The only move. After 6 d6? 7 ltie3 White controls the d5 point 'free of charge'. •••

•••

13

Evading the Discussion 7 exd5 After 7 l£ixd5, besides an equal ondgame after 7 ... l£ixd5 8 'ibd5 1Vxd5 9 exd5 J..xf5 10 dxc6 bxc6 1 1 c3 J..c 5 12 J..c4 a5 13 0-0 r:i;e7 14 .l:cel f6 15 b3 l:thd8 (Bierbach Poggemann, Moscow 199 1), Black has an option of a pleasant middle f(ame: 7 ...l£ixe4 8 c!£lfe3 J..e6 9 i.c4 .i.c5 etc. .txf5 7 bxc61 8 dxc6 8 'ii'xdl + is somewhat weaker hut is also sufficient for equality: 9 l£ixdl bxc6 10 l£ie3 i.g6 (or l0 . .te6 11 l£ic4 c!£id7 12 .te3 f6 13 0-0-0 i.c5 14 i.e2 i.xe3+ 15 l£ixe3 ..J./e7 with equal chances, Henkin Plisetsky, Moscow 1975) 1 1 J..a6 .l:cb8 12 0-0 .te7 13 .l:cel 0-0 14 a3 J:cfd8 15 b4 c!£id5 16 J..b2 f6 17 .tc4 ..J./f8, and a draw was agreed'in Campora-Braga, Saragossa 1992. 9 1Vf3 Of course, after 9 'ii'xd8 + J:cxd8 Black has no problems, for exam ple 10 .tea .l:cb8 (10 . . . J..x c2!?) 11 0-0-0 J..b 4 12 J..c4 a5 13 f3 0-0 14 �a4 e4! with good counterplay (Shabanov-Kim, Kemerovo 1979). 'ii'd71 9 9 1Vc8 10 J..a6 1Vxa6? 11 'ii'xf5 i.d6 falls immediately into a trap: 12 i.h6! .l:cg8 13 i.xg7 J:cxg7 14 1Vxf6 .l:cg6 15 'ii'h8 + i.f8 16 0-0-0, nnd White has an extra pawn 'but' a better position (Kholmov l<'edorov, Moscow 1987). Instead of IO. 'ii'xa6, 10 . .. i.g4! is correct, o.g. 11 J..xc8 J..xf3 12 i.h3 J..h 5 (12....td5!?) 13 0-0 i.d6 14 J..g5 •••

c!£ld5 15 l£ie4 i.e7 16 J..xe7 r:i;xe7 1 7 g3, and White maintains a minimal edge (Akopian-Krasen kow, Baku 1985). 10 .tg5 10 i.c4 J..e 7 11 J..g 5 i.xc2!? 12 0-0 (12 'ii'e2? is poor in view of the reply 12 ...'ii' g4!, Ivanovic-Chan dler, Manila 1990) 12 . . 0-0 13 'ii'e2 J..g6 14 'it'xe5 i.d6 leads to a good position for Black. .

•••

.

.

•••

•••

..

e4 10 10 liJd.5?! is risky, e.g. 11 c!£ixd5 cxd5 12 0-0-0 i.e6 13 J..c4 e4 14 'it'e2 .l:cb8 15 f3 'it'c6 16 .tb3 i.c5 17 l%hel with a strong initiative for White (Y.Griinfeld-Bimboim, Jerusalem 1986). Still, Black has many other ways to obtain equal ity, for example 10 J.. e7 11 :tdl 'it'e6 12 J.. xf6 gxf6 13 i.b5 .l:cc8 14 i.c4 'it'xc4 15 'it'xf5 'it'e6 1 6 'it'xe6 fxe6 1 7 l£ie4 :td8 (Rigo-Tomczak, Baden-Baden 1987) or (the sim plest) 10 J.. b4 11 i.xf6 gxf6 12 i.d3 J..xc3+ 13 bxc3 J.. xd3 14 cxd3 'ii'e 6 15 0-0 0-0 16 .l:cael r:i;h8, and White's attacking attempt 1 7 ...

•••

•••

14


.:.e4? ! f5 18 l:t h4 proved unsuc cessful after 18 . . . .:.adS 19 •ha ._,g6 20 f4 f6 21 .:.ra llb8 (Sax-Fe dorowicz, Dubai 1986). The text move is more ambi tious. 11 'ii'e2 11 'iig3 id6 12 'ii'h4 ie5 (Khan Bon Din-Sveshnikov, Kaluga 1966) and 11 'iie 3 .*.b4 ( ll . . . lbd5?! 12 ._,d4) 12 ixf6 gxffi 13 ic4 .:.gs 14 .:.dl ? ! ( 14 0-0 is better, with un clear play) 14 ... 'ille 7 15 'jj'f4?! 'it'c5 (J.Nagy-Nemeth, Kaposvar 1987) give Black excellent chances. 11 ie7! This pawn sacrifice is Black's best chance. 11 .'ii'e6 is insuffi cient, for example 12 ixf6 gxffi 13 •a6! ib4?! 14 ic4'jj'cS 15 ixf7 + ! with an attack for White (Gusei nov-Krasenkow, Frunze 1987) . However, 11 ib4!? is possible, for example 12 ixf6 (12 'it'c4!? .:.bS! ) 12 .. . gxffi 13 .:.dl 1fe6 14 •c4 .:.bs 15 a3 'iixc4 16 ixc4 ixc3 + 1 7 bxc3 .:.b2 with good counter play for Black (Trifunovic-Muse, Banja Vrucica 1987).

Tsaturian-Markauss, corr 1988; notes by J.Markauss. 'iVe6 12 12 . ...b7 is not bad either, e.g. 13 1fa6 .:.bs 14 'iVxb7 .:.xb7 15 icl 0-0 with equality (V.Goldin-Lip man, Moscow 1978/79). 13 'jj'c4 13 1fa6 0-0 14 ic4 can be met by 14 . . . 1fe51 15 'jj'xc6 ig4 with good counterplay. 13 .:.b s ! 14 1i'xe6 •••

..

•••

.••

..

•••

12 .:.dl

It is risky for White to take the pawn: 12 ixf6 ixf6 13 lbxe4 0-0! 14 l0xf6+ gxffi 15 'jj'd2 (15 •c4? ! .:.res+ 16 ie2 .:.e4; 15 .:.dl? ! 'jj'b 7 16 'iVf3 'jj'xb2! 17 •xr5 'jj'c 3, and Black wins) 15 ... .:.fe8+ 16 �dl (16 ie2 'jj'e 7 17 'jj'e 3 'jj'b4+ 18 'jj'd 2 'it'h5 19 a4 'jj'xb2 with a small edge for Black) 16 . . .... b7 17 b3 .:.ad8 18 id3 c5, and Black's initiative be comes formidable, as in the game

14 fxe6! 14...ixe6 is also a possibility, for example 15 b3 ib4! 16 id2 0-0 1 7 ie2 .:.fd8 ! with equal chances (Parutenko-Markauss, corr 1988), but after the text move White has to be very careful to avoid getting into trouble. The game Akopian Yakovich, Rostov-on-Don 1993, continued 15 b3 (if 15 l0a4?!, then 15 . . . e3!) 15 ... lbd51 16 ixe7 (16 id2?! ib4 1 7 lba4 e3! ) 16 . ..�xe7 1 7 lba4 e3! 18 c4 exf2+ 19 �xf2 l0b4 20 ie2 !Oxa2 2 1 .:.al lbb4, and it is White who is fighting for

Evading the Discussion equality (see illustrative game

Nr.1).

Section 2

6 tLldbS without 6 d& ...

( 1 e4 c 5 2 tLif3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li)xd4 lLif6 5 tLlc3 e5)

6 tLidb5

h6 6 6 d6 is the main response (see Chapters 2-7). Others are even worse: 6 a6 7 lbd.6 + i.xd6 8 'ii'xd6 'ii'e 7 9 "fixe7 + tLixe7 10 i.g5 b5 1 1 0-0-0 i. b 7 1 2 f3 i.c6 1 3 a3 0-0 14 g3 .C.fb8 15 i.h3 .C.b7 16 b3 (Sher :r.er-Strenzwilk, Philadelphia 1992) or 6 i.c5 7 i.e3 i.xe3 (7 . . . d6 !? 8 .ixc5 dxc5 9 'ii'xd8 + 'iPxd8, and White's advantage is not so big, Sveshnikov) 8 tLld6 + 'iPf8 9 fxe3 'ii' b6 10 tLlc4 'ii'c 5 11 'ii'd6 + 'ii'xd6 12 tLlxd6 tLle8 13 tLicb5! (Byvshev Abramov, USSR 195 1) with a clear pull for White in both cases. 7 tLid6 + ! The alternatives are not dan gerous: •••

•••

•••

15

a) 7 b 3 i.c5 8 tLld6 + 'iPe 7 9 tLif5 + 'iPf8 10 .ic4 .i.b4 11 .i.d2 'ii'a 5 12 'ii'f3 d5 13 exd5 lLJd4 with unclear complications (Matulovic Bilek, Sousse 1967); b) 7 i.e 3 d6 8 lbd.5 lLJxd5 9 exd5 lLJbB 10 c4 a6 1 1 lLJc3 .i.e7 12 i.d3 i.g5 is equal (l.Zaitsev-Gheorghiu, Sochi 1976) ; c) 7 tLld5 tLlxd5 8 exd5 a6 ! 9 lLJa3 i.xa3 10 bxa3 lLJ07 11 d6 lLJc6 12 i.c4 b5 13 i.d5 i.b7 (Winants Andersson, Tilburg 1993) or 9 dxc6 axb5 10 cxd7 + i.xd 7 1 1 i.d3 i.c6 12 0-0 'ii' d5 13 'ii'g4 h5 14 'ii'h3 i.e7 (Vitolin§-Lutikov, USSR 1970). In both cases Black's coun terplay is sufficient; d) 7 i.c4 a6 8 lLJd6 + i.xd6 9 'ii'xd6 'ii'e7 10 'ii'xe7 + 'iPxe7 1 1 i.e3 d6 12 0-0-0 i.e6 13 lLJd5 + i.xd5 14 exd5 b5!? 15 i.b3 tLia5 with an equal position (Karpov-Hug, Graz 1972). The position of the white bishop on c4 proves unfortunate. Returning to 7 tLid6 + . i.xd6 7 'ii'e 7 8 'ii'xd6 9 'ii'xe7 + 9 tLib5 also brings White the better chances, e.g. 9 ... 'ii'xd6 10 tLixd6 + 'iPe7 11 lLJf5 + 'iPf8 12 b3 d5 13 i.a3 + 'iPg8 14 exd5 lLJxd5 15 lLJd6 l:bB 16 i.c4 i.e6 1 7 0-0-0 (Spassky-Gheorghiu, Bath 1973). 'iPxe 7 9 •••

•••

10 i.e3 d6 i.e6 (D) 1 1 f3 Or 1 1 aG 1 2 0-0-0 b5 13 a4 ! ...

b4 14 tLid5 +, and White is better (Byrne) .

16

The Sveshnikov Sicilian his better pawn structure, for ex ample, 12 .J:lhdS 13 g4! .J:lac8 14 h4 lbe8 15 .J:lh2 a6 16 g5 hxg5 1 7 hxg5 b 5 1 8 .i.b6 (Stein-Miagmas uren, Sousse 1967) or 12 .J:lhcS 13 g4 a614 h4 lbd7 15 .J:lh2 lba5 16 g5 hxg5 17.i.xg5+ ffl18 .i.e3 (Tuk makov-Dzindzichashvili, Odessa 1968). •••

•••

12 0-0-0 White has a steady edge be cause of his pair of bishops and

The conclusion of this chapter is: if White avoids 6 lbdb5, Black has no problems; while if Black avoids 6 . . . d6, he gets a worse game.

Turning off the Road

2

(1 e4 c5 2 lLJf3 l006 3 d4 cxd4 4 &d4 lbf6 5 l003 e5 6 ltldb5) 6 d6 •••

White's most common move in this position is 7 J.g5, after which the standard sequence is 7 . . . a6 8 �a3 b5 (see Chapters 3-7). In this chapter we deal with the other moves, the most popular of which are 7 a4 (Section 2 ) and 7 ltld5 (Section 3). But first we take a look at some rare lines. Later on in this chapter we ex amine an old variation 7 J.g5 a6 8 .txf6 (Section 4), and in Section 5 we deal with the Larsen system (8 liJa3 .ie6).

Section 1 Rare lines

7 .ie3

After 7 .ie2?! a6 8 ltla3 b5 9 lL!d5 .ie7 Black has no problems.

The alternative 7 lba3 leads to an equal position after 7 . . . J.e7 8 J.g5 (8 lbc4 lbxe4!) 8 ... lbxe4! (8 ... .i.e6!? 9 .ic4!?) 9 lbxe4 (9 .i.xe7?! �c3 1 0 J.xd8 lDxdl 1 1 .ic7 ltlxf2! 12 �xf2 d7, Sveshnikov) 9 ... .i.xg5 10 liJxg5 'li'xg5 11 'li'xd6 a6 12 lLic4 .ie6, as in V.Gusev-Timoshchenko, Odessa 1975. If White plays 10 ltlxd6+ (in stead of 10 ltlxg5) then 10 ...�e7 1 1 ltiac4 .ie6!? (Sveshnikov) 12 lbxb7 (12 'li'f3 J.d.2 + !?) 12 ...'li'xdl + 13 :Xdl, and now not 13 . . .llab8 14 ltlbd6llhd8 15 c3! but 13. .. ltlb4! with good counterchances for Black (14 lL!xe5 is answered by 14 . . . ,l;.ab8!). a6 7 After the continuation 7 J.e7 8 lLJd5 lbxd5 9 exd5 ltlb8 Black has no serious problems either (cf. 7 ltld5 line, Section 3). Or 8 g3 0-0 9 .ig2 a6 10 lLla3 b5 11 ltld5 lL!xd5 12 exd5 lDa5!? 1 3 c3 .ig5 14 J.xg5 'li'xg5 15 b4 lbc4 with unclear play; as in Perenyi-Hardicsay, Hungary 1981. 8 lLla3 This position will be very famil iar to those who play the system 1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tilltd4 lbc6. It arises in an old-fashioned line 5 ltlb5 d6 6 J.f4 e5 7 .ie3 a6 8 ltl5c3 lDffi 9 lLla3 or 7. .. ltlf6 8 lLJlc3 a6 9 lLJa3. It can also arise if Black plays the Sicilian Sveshnikov via .••

•••

18


2 ...e6 (see the introduction): 1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 tLiffi 5 tLic3 tLlc6 6 �db5 d6 7 if4 e5 8 .t.e3 a6 9 tLla3. That's why this position happens so frequently in practice despite the fact that Black has many ways to obtain a good game. 8 ...

J:tb8

This 'subtle' move is considered the most accurate but alterna tives are not bad either: a) 8 tLig4 9 tLlc4 fue3 10 tLlxe3 ie7 1 1 .t.c4 0-0 12 0-0 ig5 with balanced chances (Fischer-Badan, 1960) ; b) 8 d.5!? 9 tLlxd5 (9 exd5 .t.xa3 10 bxa3 'ifa5 1 1 'ifd2 tLld4 leads to a double-edged position, according to Sveshnikov) 9 . . .tLixe4 10 tLlc4 (10 .t.b6 ic5 ! ) 10 ... .t.e6 1 1 tLldb6 "ikxdl + 1 2 l:txdl l:[d8 with equality (Fleck-Calvo, Germany 1986); c) 8 ie6 9 tLlc4 b5! 10 tLlb6 l:[b8 1 1 tLlbd5 tLlg4! 12 ie2 tLixe3 13 tLixe3 g6 14 tLlcd5 .t.h6 15 c3 0-0 16 h4 .t.xe3 17 tLixe3 tLle7 is also equal (Szalanczy-Lanka, Vi enna 1991); d) 8 b5 9 tLld5, and now: (D) dl) 9 . tLlxd5 10 exd5 tLle7 1 1 c4 tLlf5 ! 1 2 id2 (12 cxb5 tLixe3 13 fxe3 'ifh4 + 14 g3 'ife4 15 "ikc2 ! 'ifxe3 + 16 ie2 id7 17 bxa6 ie7 18 'ifd2 'ife4! with mutual chances, according to Kasparov and Niki tin) 12 ...'ifh4 (or 12 ....t.e7, for ex ample 13 cxb5 iffi 14 .t.e2 e4 15 b6 0-0 16 tLlc4 id4 with equality, as in Fischer-Pachman, Buenos ...

...

...

...

.

.

Aires 1960, or 13 id3 0-0 14 0-0 tLlh4 15 cxb5 f5 16 f3 g5 with un clear play, Armas-Gauglitz, Wild bad 1989) 13 id3 (13 .t.e2 b4! 14 'ifa4 + id7 15 'ifxb4 tLld4 is good for Black, as given by Kasparov and Nikitin) 13 ... .t.e7 14 0-0 0-0 15 cxb5 tLld4 16 bxa6 .t.xa6 with good compensation for the sacrificed pawn, as in Madl-Gaprindashvili, France 1989; d2) o :bs!? 10 tLixru+ (10 id3 ie7 11 0-0 0-0 12 c4 bxc4 13 tLlxc4 tLlxd5 14 exd5 tLlb4! 15 ie2 if5, Szalanczy-Csom, Graz 1987 and 10 g3 tLixe4 1 1 ig2 f5 12 0-0 ie7 13 tLlc3 ie6 14 tLlxe4 fxe4 15 ixe4 d5, Sax-G.Garcia, Moscow 1982, both give Black excellent chances) 10 ... 'ir'xffi 1 1 id3 (after 1 1 c4 b4 12 tLlbl a5 13 tLid2 °ikg6 14 h4 ie7 15 g3 0-0 16 ig2 id8!? 17 0-0 ib6, Szalanczy-Dokhoian, Cat tolica 1993, or 1 1 tLlbl .t.e7 12 tLlc3 'ifg6 13 'ir'd2 0-0 14 0-0-0 ie6 15 f3 :res 16 c,i;ibl tLlb4! , Stein-Tai manov, USSR 1960, Black is okay, too) ll ... .t.e7 12 0-0 0-0 13 tLlbl .t.d8 14 tLlc3 tLle7 15 'ir'd2 h6 16 a4 ...

Turning off the Road b4 1 7 lbe2 a5 with equality in the game Hort-Andersson, Amster dam 1978. Returning to 8 . . . llb8. 9 lbd5 9 i. g5 b5 leads to a 'normal' variation of the Sicilian Sveshni kov but . . . with an extra tempo for Black! 9 f3 was played in the game Armas-Reinderman (Wijk oan Zee 1993) and led to equality 1:1.fter 9 . . . i.e6 10 Wd2 d5 11 exd5 lilxd5 12 lbxd5 Wxd5. lbxd5 9 Obtaining a favourable pawn Htructure. 9 b5 is also good - see above, line d2. lbe7 10 exd5 •••

...

1 1 c4 11 i. c4 ltif5 12 i.d2 i.e7 13 0-0 0-0 14 llel i.g5 15 i.fl. i.d7 16 lbc4 .1b5 (Perenyi-Zsu.Polgar, Hun garian championship 1986) yields Black good prospects. 1 1 b4!? is interesting and leads to a double odged position, e.g. 1 1 ... ltif5 1 2 .i.d2 i. e 7 13 lbc4 0-0 1 4 a4 i.d7 (14 . . .ig5!?) 15 i.d3 Wc7 16 c3 e4 .

19

1 7 i.e2 .if6 (Tolnai-1.Almasi, Bu dapest 1993). After 11 c3 Black has no reason to worry eithe r, e.g. 11 . . . �f5 (or 11 . . . g6 12 g3 i.g713 .ig2 0-0 14 0-0 b5 15 ltic2 a5, Kos ten-Wolff, Hastings 1989) 12 i.d2 .i.e7 13 g3 (13 i.d3 0 0 14 0-0 lbh4!? followed by . . . f7-f5, Popo vic) 13 ... o-o 14 i.g2 .id7 15 o-o g6 16 llel h5 ! 1 7 llcl lle8 with a good game (Perenyi-Popovic, St John 1988). 11 lLJf5 1 1 ltig6!? is also possible, e.g. 12 .ie2 .ie7 13 0-0 0 0 14 Wd2 f5 15 f3 f4 16 .ia7 lla8 1 7 i.f2 i.h4 (Fleck-Conquest, Germany 1987). The text move was played in Sax-Adorjan (Hungary 198 1 ) , and after 12 .id2 .ie7 13 .id3 0-0 14 0-0 .ig5 15 lbc2 lle8 16 f4? (16 llel leads to an equal position) 16 . . . e4 17 i.e2 i.f6 18 llbl g6 19 �hl h5 Black obtained clearly better prospects. So you see that, if Black is fa miliar with general concepts, he can easily obtain good counter chances in the lines we have ex amined. -

•••

...

-

Section 2 7a4

(1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLJ:xd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6) 7 a4 With this positional move White prevents . . . b7-b5 and guarantees the c4 square for his knight. Black must play accurately to equalize.


20

a6 7 Besides this natural move, Black has a wide choice of alternatives: a) 7 i.e7 S i.g5 a6 9 i.xf6 (9 lDa3 see 7... a6) 9...gxffi 10 lDa3 f5 1 1 i.d3 lbb4 (l l...fxe4!? 12 i.xe4 0-0, Andrianov) 12 exf5 d5 13 'fi'h5 'fi'h6 14 0-0 'fi'f6 15 l:t.fel i.d7 with an unclear position (Tiom kin-Andrianov, Bukhara 19Sl); b) 7 tllb 4 (a logical move to control the d5 point) S lba3 (S i.g5 i.e6 - see 7 ... i.e6) S ... i.e7 9 i.b5 + (9 i.g5!) 9 . . . lbd7! 10 lbc4 0-0 1 1 0-0 lbf6 1 2 tlle3 i.e6 1 3 'fi'e2 l:t.cS 14 l:tdl (Matanovic-Lombard, Biel 1976) 14 ... 'ii'c 7 with equality; c) 7 i.e6 and now: cl) 8 i.e2?! a6 9 tlla3 lbd4 10 0-0 l:t.cS 11 .te3 fue2 + 12 'ii'xe2 i.e7 13 l:Udl 0-0, and Black has good prospects (Lutikov-Efimov, Erevan 1977); c2) 8 i.g5 tllb 4 (S ...l:t.cB!? is an other possibility, for example 9 i.xf6 gxf6 10 lbd5 .txd5 1 1 exd5 tll e 7 12 tllc3 a6 13 i.d3 f5, Svesh nikov, or even 10 . . . f5!? 1 1 lbbc3 fxe4 12 a5 i.(l 13 a6 b6 14 :S4 0-0 •••

-

•••

...

with an initiative for Black, Cam pora-Z.Simic, Lugano 1987; for 9 lbd5! - see 8 lbd5) 9 i.xf6 (9 i.e2 a6 10 lba3 l:t.cB 11 0-0 i.e7 12 i.xf6 i.xf6 13 i.g4 0-0, Ciric-Wirthen sohn, Switzerland 1977, or 9 tlla3 i.e7 10 i.b5 + lbd7 1 1 i.xe7 'ilxe7 12 tllc4 0-0 13 0-0 .IUdS! 14 'ii'xd6 "it'xd6 15 lbxd6 lbc5 is quite satis factory for Black) 9 . . . gxf6 10 lbd5 (10 lba3!?) 10 ... fud5 11 exd5 i.d7, followed by ... f6-f5 with sufficient counterchances; c3) 8 lbd5 hd5 (S ... :cB 9 lbbc3 "it'a5 10 lbxf6 + gxf6 1 1 i.d3 l:[gS 12 0-0 i.h3 13 g3 i.xfl 14 Wxfl gave White good compensation for the exchange in the game Mednis Fedorowicz, New York 1977, while after 9 i.g5 a6 10 lbbc3 i.e7 1 1 lbxe7 lbxe7 12 i.d3 d 5 13 i.xf6 gxffi the position is roughly equal, Howell-Zezulkin, Pardubice 1994; however, in the latter variation 10 i.xf6l gxf6 11 lbbc3 is stronger) 9 exd5 lbb4 (9.. . lbe7!?) 10 lbc3 (10 c4!?, Sveshnikov) 10...a6 1 1 a5 l:cS 12 J:.a4 l:txc3!?. Now, instead of 13 bxc3 lbbxd5 14 i.d2 i.e7 with a dynamically balanced posi tion (Filipowicz-Lombard, Buda pest 1976), Sveshnikov suggests 13 l:t.xb4!? l:tc7 14 i.e3 lbd7 with a certain edge for White. There is room for improvements for both sides in this line; d) 7 h6 (preventing 8 i.g5 but losing a tempo), and now: dl) 8 lba3 i.e6 9 i.c4 i.xc4 10 tllxc4 lbxe4 1 1 lbxe4 d5 12 lbxe5 lbxe5 13 lbg3 i.c5 with equality, ...

·

Turning off the Road ""in Ljubojevic-Tal, Wijk aan Zee

1976; d2) 8 i.e2 a6 9 lLia3 i.e6 10 0-0 cll'i, equalizing (Szabo-Nun, Kap fonberg 1976); d3) 8 i.e3 a6 (8 . . . i.e6 9 lLid5!, u.g. 9. . l:tc8 10 tLJxra+ gxf6 11 M!, Hveshnikov, or 9 . . . i.xd5 10 exd5 �'\e7 11 a5 lL!exd5 12 i.xa7 'ii'd7 13 c4, and White's chances are pref Hrable, Chekhov-Panchenko, Len ingrad 1976) 9 lL!a3 i.e6 (9 . . . .l:r.b8!?) I 0 lL!c4 lL!xe4! 1 1 lLixe4 d5 12 lL!b6 dxe4 13 lL!xa8 'irxa8 14 c3 i.e7 15 nl'i 0-0 16 'ii'a4 •cB (16 . . . f5!?) 17 Wxe4 f5 with sufficient compen1mtion for the exchange (A.lva nov-L.B.Hansen, Gausdal 1991); d4) 8 lL!d5!? (with an extra move a2-a4, compared to the 7 Q'\d5 system) 8 . . . lLlxd5 9 exd5 lLib8 (9 lL!e7?! 10 a5! a6 1 1 M lLif5 12 .td3 g6 13 0-0 i.g7 14 i.d2!, pre paring 15 lL!a4, with the better prospects for White, Lombardy Arnason, Reykjavik 1978) 10 i.e3 n6 U lL!a3 lLid7 12 lLic4 i.e7 13 a5 0-0 with mutual chances; d5) 8 i.c4! a6 (8 . . . i.e6 9 lLid5 J:lc8 10 0-0 lL!xe4 11 i.e3 lL!f6 12 1'41 lL!g4 13 .l:r.a3 yielded White a cl1mgerous attack in the game Rie morsma-Wiersma, Dutch champi onship 1995) 9 lLia3 i.e6 10 0-0 J:lcB 11 l:tel (11 i.d5 hd5 12 lLlxd5 ti)xe4 13 f4 lL!f6 14 lL!c4 lL!xd5 15 •xd5 lL!b4! 16 •e4 'flc7, Semen iuk-Sveshnikov, Odessa 1975, or 13 lL!c4 lL!e7!, Sveshnikov, leads to nn unclear position) 1 1 . ..lL!b4 12 h3 i.e7 13 i.b2 0-0 14 'ii'e 2 'flc7 15 .

21

h3 .l:r.fe8 16 l:adl, and White main tained a small but clear positional edge in Radulov-Neckai', Vdac 1975. This shows White's meth ods of fighting for the d5 point. So, if Black avoids 7 . . a6, White can maintain a small edge. Now we come back to the main line. 8 lLia3 .

...

White's most dangerous plan in this position consists of the fight for the d5 square (i.fl-c4 and i.cl-g5). Black has two general plans of counterplay: a sharp one (8 . . . i.c8-e6, . . Jla8-c8, . . . lL!c6-d4 and . . . d6-d5) and a positional one: . . . i.c8-e6, . . . l:ta8-c8, . . . i.f8-e7, . . . lL!c6-b4, also fighting for the d5 square. He can also make use of some additional possibilities (like the tactical trick ... lLiffixe4 and . . . d6-d5) if he chooses the best or der of moves. i.e6 8 The most common move, fit ting both the above-mentioned plans, but there are some other possibilities: •••


22

10 J.c4 is not the best move. 10 a) 8 lbb4 9 J.g5 J.e6 - see J.g5 needs practical tests; 8 ... J.e6 b) 8 d5 (this looks too daring, d) 8 J.e7. This move generally leads to the main line with a sim but . . . ) 9 exd5 lbd4 10 J.e3 (10 J.c4 J.g4 1 1 f3 Jt..f5 12 Jt..d3 J.c5 !? 13 ple transposition of moves. White J.g5 'ila5 14 J.xf5 lbxf5 15 'ild3 can play: dl) 9 J.e3 (or 9 lbc4?! lbxe4!) lbd4 16 lbc4 'iib4!? led to unclear consequences in the game Khol 9 ... J.e6 10 lbc4?! (for 10 J.c4 - see mov-Salai, Bad Bartfeld 1991; be 8 ...J.e6) 10 ... tLlxe4! (the same trick sides, Black could have equalized as in the 7 . . . h6 line but with an exby means of 12 ... lbxd5 13 lbxd5 tra tempo for Black) 11 fue4 d5 12 J.xd3!? 14 'ifxd3 'ii'xd5 15 c3 'ii'b 3, lbb6 dxe4 13 tLlxa8 Wxa8 14 c3 0-0 according to Kholmov) 10 . . . J.b4!? 15 a5 f5 16 'ii'a4 'ith8 17 J.c4 .i.d7 18 1i'b3 f4 19 J.b6 1i'e8 20 0-0-0 (10 ... J.c5 11 lbc4 'ile7 1 2 J.d3 0-0 13 0-0 J.g4 14 f3 .i.h5 15 'ithl is J.g4 with superb counterchances favourable for White, Kramnik for Black (A.lvanov-Andrianov, Podlesnik, Sochi 1989) 1 1 J.xd4 Vilnius 1984); exd4 12 'ii'xd4 'ii'e 7 + 13 J.e2 0-0 14 d2) for 9 J.c4 J.e6 - see the tLlc4 J.g4 1 5 tLle3 J.xe2 16 'itxe2 main line 8 . . .J.e6; l:tfe8, and Black obtained enough d3) 9 J.g5 tLlxe4 (9 . . . J.e6! 10 compensation for the sacrificed J.c4 - see 8 . . . J.e6) 10 tLixe4 (10 material (Kovac-Skrobek, Del!in J.xe7 lbxc3) 10 . . . J.xg5 ll lbxd6 + 1978). Still, this gambit has not '1Pe7 12 lbac4 J.e6 13 'ii'f3! tLld4 found new supporters so far; (13 . . . 1i'c7 14 'ii'a3 or 13 ... J.d2 + 14 c) 8 ..tg4!? (an interesting idea '1Pxd2 J.xc4 15 J.xc4 'ii'xd6 + 16 to provoke f2-f3) 9 f3 (9 J.e2 'iii>c l, followed by llal-a3-e3, is yields White nothing: 9 . . . J.xe2 10 also hardly sufficient) 14 'ii'xb7 + 'ilxe2 d5 1 1 exd5 lbxd5 12 0-0 'ii'd 7 15 'ii'xd7 + 'iii>xd7 16 J.d3 J.e7 lbxc3 13 bxc3 J.c5 with an equal (Langier-Kramnik, Guarapuava position, Rublevsky-Babula, 1993, 199 1), and now after 17 tLixf7! or 1 1 .i.g5 J.b4!) 9 . . . J.e6 10 J.c4 J.xf7 18 lbxe5 + '1Pe8 19 0-0-0 l:tc8 (10 ... 'ii'b 6!?, for example 1 1 White would have maintained the lbd5 .i.xd5 12 J.xd5 lbb4 1 3 J.b3 better chances (Kramnik). d5! 14 exd5 lbbxd5 with equal Returning to 8 ... J.e6. 9 J.c4 chances, as in Tomescu-Vlad, Ro 9 J.e2 allows 9 . . . d5 ; while the mania 1995) 1 1 0-0 tLlb4 12 J.xe6 fxe6 13 'ii'el J.e7 14 .i.g5 0-0 15 continuation 9 lbc4 l:k8 10 J.e3 :dl 'ii'b 6 + ! 16 .i.e3 'ii'c 6 17 J.f2 ( 10 J.g5 leads to the 9 J.g5 line) 10 . ..tLld4 (10 . . . lbb4!? 1 1 tLlb6 :c6 :res, and Black has no problems 12 lbbd5 'ii'a 5, Korchnoi) 11 J.xd4 CJ ansa-Votava, Lazne Bohdanec 1995) . According to Sveshnikov, J.xc4 12 J.xc4 :xc4 13 J.e3 'ii'c 7 •••

••.

•.

...

Turning off the Road 14 0-0 (Korchnoi-Morovic Feman cltiz, Santiago 1991) leads to an l'qual position, in which Black .. hould have prevented .ie3-g5 by I 4 h6! . The most important alternative t.o the text move is 9 .ig5, with I.ho following possibilities for Black: ...

u) 9 'ti'b6l? 10 llbl (10 .ixf6 •xb2) 10 . . . 'ti'b4 11 .ixf6 gxffi 12 i.ti2 (Lau-Pichler, Germany 1990), nnd now 12 . . . llg8 with sufficient counterplay; b) 9 lDb4l? 10 .ic4 (10 .ixf6 .cxf6!? 1 1 .ic4 lies see 9 . . . llcS) 10 llcS ll b3 .ie7 12 .ixf6 .ixf6 I :J 0-0 (Akhsharumova-Semenova, 1.vov 1977), and now, instead of I :L0-0 14 lDd5! with an initiative for White, Sveshnikov suggests l:Lllc5; c) 9 .ie7 10 i.xf6 .ixf6 1 1 .tc4 lDe7!? ( 1 1 . . 0-0 - see 9 .ic4) ti 0-0 lies 13 'ti'd3 0-0 14 llfd l .tg4 15 f3 'ti'b6 + 1 6 h l .ie6, and Black held his ground (Brodsky Bushukov, Sochi 1993); •••

...

-

...

...

.

23

d) 9 llc8 10 .ix:f6 (10 lllc4 lDb4!? 11 lbe3 i.e7 12 i.e2 0-0 13 0-0 h6 with balanced chances, Geller-Sveshnikov, Erevan 1982) 10 . . . 'i'xf6 (10 . . . gxf6!? 1 1 .ic4 lbb4 12 lbd5 f5 13 0-0 llgS 14 exf5 'ii'g5! with good counterplay, A.Ivanov Khasanov, Minsk 19S5) 1 1 i.c4 ( 1 1 ltlc4 lbb4 12 lbe3 'ti'g6 13 i.e2 .ie7 14 0-0 0-0 15 .if3 lbc6 16 lbcd5 i.g5 with equality, Semen iuk-Timoshchenko, Novosibirsk 1976; besides, l l . . .lbd4!? 12 lbe3 d5 13 exd5 .ib4 14 .id3!? needs more investigation) 1 1 ... lDd4 12 'ti'd3 d5! 13 .ixd5 i.xa3 14 l:.xa3 llxd5 (after 14 . . . b5 !? 15 axb5 axb5, threatening 16 . . . b4, Black has enough counterplay according to A.Ivanov) 15 lbxd5 (A.Ivanov Maiorovas, Parnu 19S2), and now A.Ivanov analyses 15 . . . lbxc2 + 16 dl 'ti'e6 (16 . . . 'ti'dS!?; 16 . . . 'ti'xf2!? 17 llc3 llxc3 lS 'ti'xc3 'ti'd4 + ! 19 cl 'ti'xc3 20 bxc3 lba3 21 lbb6 h5! 22 c4 J:th6 23 c5 llxb6 24 cxb6 lbc4 leads to a drawish endgame) 1 7 :t.c3 lbd4 lS lDc7 + llxc7 19 llxc7 0-0 and Black has a strong attack for the missing exchange. Of course, in this line White can play 10 .ic4! transposing to the 9 .ic4 variation. Now we come back to that. i.e7 l 9 The most accurate order of moves. 9 .txc4? 10 lDxc4 lbxe4? doesn't work in view of 1 1 'Dxe4 d5 12 i.g5! f6 13 i.xf6 gxf6 1 4 'ti'xd5! (Galia-E.Griinfeld, Vienna 1946). But 9 llc8 is possible, ...

•••

...

...

24


with the following possibilities for White: a) 10 0-0 lbb4! (for 10 . . . .i.e7 1 1 .i.g5 - see below; while 1 0 . . . .i.xc4 1 1 ll:\xc4 ll:\d4 is answered by 12 'ii'd3!, e.g. 12 . . . ll:\xc2 13 'ii'xc2 :Xc4 14 .i.g5 .i.e7 1 5 Wb3 'ii'c 8 16 :acl with more than sufficient com pensation for the pawn, Radulov F.Portisch, Belgrade 1977) 1 1 'ii'e2 ( 1 1 b3 d5, Sveshnikov) ll . . . 'ii'c 7 12 b3 .i.e7 13 .i.b2 0-0 14 h3 lLJc6 15 :fdl lLJd4 16 'ii'd 3 'ii'c6 with rough equality (Liicke-Kuijf, Net tetal 1992); b) 10 .i.g5! .i.e7 (10 ... lLJb4!? de serves attention - see the 9 .i.g5 lLJb4 line) 1 1 0-0 0-0 ( 1 1...ll:\d4?! 12 'ifd3 lLJd7 13 .i.xe7 "ikxe7 14 lLJd5, B.Lengyel-Krasenkow, Bu dapest 1988, and 1 1 . . . ll:\xe4?! 12 lLJxe4 d5 13 he7 lLJxe7 14 ll)g5! are not quite satisfactory for Black) 12 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 13 lLJd5 .i.g5 14 c3. Extensive practice has shown that Black can equalize with accurate play, e.g. 14 . . . q,, hs ( 14. . . lLJe7 is in ferior in view of 15 "ikb3!, Balinas Ciocaltea, Nice 1974) 15 'ii'e2 (15 .i.a2 lLJe7) 15 ... lLJe7 ( 1 5 . . . f5 16 ll:\b6! ) 16 :fdl (16 ll:\xe7 "ikxe7 17 Aadl is not clear on account of l 7 . . . f5! , Votava-Babula, Czecho slovakia 1992) 16 . . . :c5 (16 . . . f5?! 17 ll:\b6! ) 17 b4 :c6 18 a5 .i.xd5 19 .i.xd5 lLJxd5 20 l:r.xd5 :xc3 2 l lLJc4 "ikc7 22 lLJxd6 g6 (Rublevsky-Che khov, USSR championship, Mos cow 1991). Returning to 9 ... .i.e7 (D). 10 0-0

The idea behind 9 . . . .i.e7 is that 10 .i.g5 is now met by 10 . . . lLJxe4! l 1 lLJxe4 d5, e.g. 12 .i.xe7 �e7! 13

.i.d3 (13 ll:\g5 dxc4 14 "ikh5 'ii'a 5 + 15 c3 .i.d5!) 13 . . . dxe4 14 .i.xe4 'ii'a5 + 15 'ii'd2 'ii'xd2 + 16 q,,xd2 :hd8 + 17 q,,e 3 f5 with initiative for Black (Gluzman-Vaiser, Bern 1992). 10 .i.e3 is also harmless: 10 . . . l:c8 11 0-0 0-0 12 'ire2 lLJb4 13 IUdl .i.xc4 ( 13 .. Ji'c7!? 14 b3 h6 with the idea of . . . "ikc7-c6 and . . . d6-d5) 14 lLJxc4 lLJxc2 15 'ii'xc2 l:txc4 16 'ii'b 3 'fic7 17 .i.g5 'iWc6 (Rytov-Klaman, USSR 1973), and Black's position is more favour able than in Radulov-EPortisch . 10 0-0 10 .i.xc4?l 1 1 lLJxc4 lLJxe4 12 •••

•••

lLJxe4 d5 is risky: 13 'ii'g4 g6 14 :dl f5 15 'irg3 fxe4 16 .i.e3 d4 l 7 lLJxe5 .i.d6 18 lLJxc6 .i.xg3 19 lLJxd8 dxe3 20 fxg3 :xd8 2 1 l:txd8 + �xd8 22 :el, and White has a clear edge, as in Rublevsky-Sveshnikov, USSR championship, Moscow 1991 (il lustrative game Nr.2). However, 10 :cs is satisfactory: 1 1 :el lLJb4 12 b3 0-0 13 .i.b2 "ikd7 14 •••

25

Turning off the Road 'it'd2 lbh5 15 lbe2 lbc6 16 i.xe6 fxe6 1 7 lbc4 l:lcd8 18 a5 'it'e8 19 'it'e3 'iVg6 with good counterplay (Kholmov-Belikov, Moscow 1992). 11 l:lel If now 1 1 .i.g5 then ll . . . i.xc4 12 lbxc4 lbxe4! 13 i.xe7 &frxe7 14 lbxe4 d5 with equality (Howell Nunn, Hastings 1994/95) . l:lc8 11 lDd4 12 b3

7 lbd5 8 exd5

lilll:d5

•••

13 lbd5?! lbxd5 14 exd5 i.f5 15 c3 b5! 16 cxd4 bxc4 17 lbxc4 exd4 proved favourable for Black in Gipslis-Gurgenidze, Tbilisi-Suk humi 1977; 13 i.b2 was better, with a complicated, roughly equal position. Generally speaking, 7 a4 is not considered dangerous for Black and remains quite a rare guest in top tournaments.

Section 3 7 lbd5 ( 1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 l006 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 e5 6 lDdb5 d6)

The last phrase of the previous section can be said about this sys tem, too. White directly modifies the pawn structure to Black's benefit. True, the b5 knight now obtains the c3 square, and White can hope to make use of his pawn advantage on the queenside. But Black's mobile central pawns be come a factor of great importance. 7 lbd5 is usually adopted by play ers who don't want to fight for an opening advantage, but hope to outplay their opponents in the middlegame. To avoid that, you should solidly master the strategi cal ideas of play in this line. lbb8 8 This is Black's most accurate reply. 8 lbb4?! failed in the game Mestel-Delaney (Bath 1987): 9 c3 lba6 10 i.e3 f5 1 1 lbxa7! f4 12 lbxc8 fxe3 13 .i.b5 + �f7 14 fxe3 'it'xc8 1 5 0-0 + �g8 16 'iff3 'fic7 17 l:lf2 'ife7 18 l:lafl with an over whelming attack for White. •••

•••

26


8 lDe7 is an important alter native to the text move. However, extensive practice has shown that White can seize the initiative by making use of the unharmonious position of Black's knight. Here are some variations: a) 9 c4 (starting the queenside pawn attack) al) 9 . . .a6? 1 0 'iia4! axb5 11 "ii'xa8 lDf5 12 cxb5 lDd4 13 J.. d3 J..e 7 14 J..e3 0-0 15 .:tel is clearly in White's favour (011-Herczeg, Bu a31) 13 �b l lDh4 14 f4 f5 15 dapest 1989) ; 'ii'c 2 e4 16 .ie2 g5!? 17 fxg5 .txg5 a2) 9 ...f5?! led to an unclear po 18 b4 .if6 (Mainka-Sakaev, Dort sition in Nagy-Forgacs (Budapest mund 1991); 1980) after 10 .ig5 h6 1 1 c5 hxg5 a32) 13 a4 .ig5 (13 . . . a5 14 lDb5 12 lbxd6 + �d7 13 "ii'a4 + �c7 14 lDh4 is risky in view of 15 f4! ) 14 1i'a5 + b6 1 5 cxb6 + axb6 16 'iVxa8 a5 .txcl 15 'iVxcl lbd4 16 'iVe3 g5 'iVxd6. 1 0 'iVa4!? �f7 1 1 'ifb4 and 17 b4 f5 18 f3 .td7 19 lDe2 f4 20 10 c5!? deserve closer investiga "ii'f2 lDf5 with the idea of2 1 . . .lDe3 tion. This line must be dubious (Westerinen-Kirpichnikov, Jur for Black. mala 1978); a3) 9 ...lDf5 (this knight now a33) 13 b4 lDh4 14 f4 ( 14 .ie3 obstructs Black's kingside coun f5 15 f3 g5 16 :ci f4 1 7 .tf2 :f7 18 terplay with . . . f7-f5) 10 J.. d3 .te7 lDa4 :g7 19 lDb6 g4! brings Black (10 . . . a6? ! 11 'ifa4! is in White's fa a strong attack, H.Olafsson-Alek vour; 10 . . . g6 l l 'ii'a4 .id7 12 .txf5 seev, corr 1988) 14 . . . exf4 15 J.. xf4 gxf5 13 'ii'b 4 1i'b8 14 .th6!? a5 - lDg6 16 J..xg6 hxg6 1 7 c5 dxc5 18 d6 14 . . . .txh6? 15 lDxd6 + �f8 16 J.. f6 19 lDd5 cxb4 20 :cl (Nunn lDxf5 + - 15 'iVa3 .ixb5 16 .ixf8 Wockenfuss, Haifa 1976) 20 . . .J..e6! �xfB 1 7 cxb5 leads to a position (Sveshnikov); that is slightly better for White, In all of these variations com V.Dundua) 1 1 0-0 a6 (to 1 1 . . .0-0 plicated, roughly equal positions White can reply 12 f4, for example arise. However. . . 12 . . . lDd4 13 lDxd4 exd4 14 'iVc2 h6 a34) 1 3 f4! exf4 1 4 J..xf4 lDh4 15 'ii'e2 .tf6 16 We4 g6 1 7 'ii'f3 l:CeB 15 "ii'c2 lDg6 16 J..e 3 (or 16 J.. g3 18 .td2 rj;g7, Kholmov-Vasiukov, J..h4 17 J..xh4 'ii'xh4 18 J..xg6 hxg6 Zalaegerszeg 1977, and now 19 f5 ! 19 'ii'e4 with a slight edge for with a small edge) 12 lDc3 0-0, White, Kholmov-Dvoiris, Barnaul and now: 1988) 16 . . . J.. d 7 1 7 J.. d4 l:Cc8 18 •••

Turning off the Road J:tael f5 19 ltla4 b5 20 ltlb6 .tf6 21 'iVf2 bxc4 22 ltlxc8 cxda 2a ltlxd6 'iVc7 24 .txf6 'iVxd6 25 .tea 'iVxd5 26 'iVd4 with a material advantage for White (Fiensch-Lew, corr 1989). Instead of . . . ltle7-f5-h4-g6 Black should immediately play a4) 9 ... ltl g8 ! 10 'iVa4 (others are not dangerous, for example 10 h4 a6 1 1 h5 axb5 1 2 hxg6 fxg6 13 cxb5 .i.e7 14 .tda .tf5 with equal chances, Speelman-Amman, Bern 1977, or 10 .i.e2 .te7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 a3 a6 13 /&a f5 14 b4 .i.g5 15 c5 .i.xcl 16 l%xc l ltlf4 with counter play, Adams-Amura, Buenos Aires 1991, or 10 .td3 .i.e7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 .tea a6 13 ltlc3 f5 14 fa .td7 15 b4 .i.£6 1 6 l%cl e4! 17 fxe4 f4 with excellent compensation for the pawn, L.B. Hansen-Peicheva, Co penhagen 1990, or 10 a4 .i.e7 1 1 a5 a 6 1 2 ltlc3 0-0 with mutual chances) 10 ....i.d7 1 1 'iVb4 1Vb8 ( l l . . . .tf5 12 .lea ! b6 13 a4 and l l . . . .txb5 12 'iVxb5+ 'iVd7 13 a4 are favourable for White, accord i ng to Sveshnikov) 12 a4 (after 12 .tea b6 13 .i.e2 .te7 14 0-0 0-0 15 a4, Kholmov-Filipenko, Jurmala 198 1, 15 . . . f5!, Sveshnikov, or 13 h4 a5 14 'iVba .i.e7 15 g3, Grosar-Kuijf, Mitropa Cup 199a, 15 . . . h5 16 lLJc3 0-0! with the idea of 1 7 'iVxb6 'iVxb6 18 .txb6 l%fb8 or 17 .txb6? a4 18 'iVb4 l%a7! and 19 . . . l%b7 analysis by T.Horvath - Black is not worse) 12 ... .i.e7 13 .te2 0-0 14 a5 (D) Now, instead of 14 a6 15 lLJc3 ltlh4?! 16 0-0 'iVcB 17 f4!? which led •••

27

to an initiative for White (Khol mov-Filipenko, Cheliabinsk 1991), Black should have played 14...f5!? with mutual chances (P.Blatny). b) 9 c3! This quiet but very cunning move badly restricts Black's pos sibilities while White's b5 knight is going to take the route lLJb5-a3c4: bl) 9 .. .f5?! is risky in view of 10 'iVa4! � 11 'iVM, e.g. l l ... ltlxd5 12 .i.c4 .i.e6 13 'iVb3 lLJf4 14 .i.xf4 d5 1 5 .i.e2! exf4 16 lLJd4 (T.Horvath Vegh, Zanka 1978), or 1 1 . . . lLJgS 12 h 4 a6?! 13 .i.g5 'ifd7 14 h5 (Ve selovsky-Zlotnik, Moscow 1978), or 11 .. . ltlg8 12 .le3 f4 1a .l d2 a6 14 ltla3 ltlf6 15 g3 fxg3 16 hxg3 .i.f5 17 .i.g5 (Hiibner-Garcia Paler mo, Germany 1990), with an ad vantage for White in each case. b2) 9 ... ltleG?! 10 'ifa4! J.d7 1 1 'iVc4! (this is the point! ) ll . . . .txb5 12 'ifxb5 + 'iVd7 la a4 a6 14 9xd7+
28


b3) 9 ... U5 (alas, this unfortu nate move is probably forced) 10 a4 (10 'ii'a4?! is now answered by 10 . . . .i.d7 ll .i.d3 a6! 12 .i.xf5 .i.xb5 13 'ii'g4 g6 with an excellent game for Black, Grosman-S.Salov, Beltsi 1977; 10 .i.d3 .i.e7 1 1 0-0 a6 12 �a3 0-0 13 �c4 b5 14 �e3 �xe3 1 5 .i.xe3 f5 is also good for Black, Cuijpers-lkonnikov, Clichy 1993 ; finally, 10 g4? lbh4 ll 9a4 .i.d7 12 9b4 doesn't work due to 12 . . . a6 ! 13 �d6 +? .i.xd6 14 'ii'xd6 � + !, P. Kondratiev) 10 ....i.e7 ( 10 . . . g6 yields White the better prospects after 1 1 .i.d3!, e.g. ll . . . .i.g7 12 0-0 0-0 13 'ii'b3 ! l:eB 14 l:el b6? 14 . . . .i.d7 or 14 . . . .i.fB, with a small advantage for White, was better, according to Yudasin - 15 a5! a6 16 axb6 l:b8 17 �a3 ! :Xb6 18 'ii'a4!, and White has the upper hand, Yudasin-Kramnik, third match game, Wijk aan Zee 1994) 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 (or l l . ..�h4 12 0-0 �g6 13 f4 �xf4 14 .i.xf4 exf4 1 5 :Xf4 0-0 16 'ii'c2 g6 1 7 l:afl with a slight edge, Cuijpers-Simic, Dieren 1990) 12 0-0 �h4! (this knight should be transferred to g6) 13 f4! (other wise 13 . . . f5) 13 . . . a6 14 �a3 exf4 (but not 14 . . . f5 15 �4 �g6 16 g3 ! exf4 1 7 gxf4 .i.d7 18 a5 with a clear pull, l.Kuznetsov-Pronitsyn, Russia 1992) 15 .i.xf4 l0if6 (D) 16 .i.xg6! (16 .i.g3 �5! 17
and White maintained a certain edge (Ye Jiangchuan-Novik, Mos cow 1992). After 8 ... �b8 the black knight has better prospects (for example, by means of ... �b8-d7-:t0, or e5, or c5), and Black's position immedi ately becomes much more pleas ant. 9 c4 White also has another plan: to provoke . . . a7-a6 and then try to seize the b6 square. However, this doesn't succeed if Black plays ac curately, e.g. 9 .i.e3 a6 10 � �7 1 1 'ii'd2 .i.e7 12 � 0-0 13 .i.e2 f5 14 f4 exf4 15 .i.xf4 �5 16 .i.f3 b5 17 �a5 .i.f6 18 �c6 l:e8 + 19
29

Turning off the Road �)xd5 16 f1Jc7 lllle3 17 fxe3 'ifxd6 1 8 llll aS e4! (S. Kiselev-V:Ivanov, Moscow 19S6) . Or 9 . . .te7 10 c5 !? 0-0 1 1 .te2 /Oa6 ! 12 cxd6 .txd6 followed by 13 . . . l0c7, and Black has no problems. Of course, White can play ' normally', and then, af lor the eventual . . . a7-a6 l0b5-c3 we obtain positions examined be lo w. If Black persistently avoids . . . a7-a6, he can get into trouble, o .g. 9 . . . .te7 10 .td3 0-0 1 1 0-0 �d7?! 12 'ifc2 ! g6 13 .th6 :es 14 1'4 1 a6? ! (too late!) 15 f5 axb5 16 fxg6 with a strong attack for White in Chandler-D.Cramling, Innsbruck 1977. 10 l00 3 After 10 1fa4 l0d7 1 1 c5 :bS! (but not l l . . . dxc5 12 d6 axb5 13 tVxaS c4 14 .te3 .i.xd6 15 0-0-0 .tb4 16 :d5!, and White is on top, Gorelov-Shneider, Moscow 1977) 1 2 /Oxd6 + .txd6 13 cxd6 0-0 14 .i.e3 l0f6 15 .ta7 :as 16 .tc5 b6 17 .ta3 .tb 7 lS :dl (lS d7 b5, and White can't win the exchange) 1S . . . b5 19 fi3 fi6 20 .te2 .txd5! Black recaptured the pawn with an excellent position (Westerinen Kramnik, Gausdal 1992). 10 ... .te7 It is risky for Black to delay his development, for example 10...lOd.7 1 1 .te2 g6?! 12 0-0 .tg7 13 /Oe4 ! 'ike7 14 tfa4 f5 15 .tg5 'iff8 16 f4 h6 1 7 .th4 exf4 lS :xf4 .te5 19 l:afl ! with an overwhelming at tack for White (Gufeld-Ivanovic, Sochi 1979). In the game Vese lovsky-Chekhov (Moscow 1978) .

Black equalized after 10 .i.:f5 1 1 .i.d3 .txd3 12 'ifxd3 J.e7 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 .te3 l0d7 15 b4 l:cS 16 l:fdl f5 but after 11 .te2 Black still must reveal the idea of his tenth move. 1 1 .te2 The most common plan. Alter natives are: a) 1 1 .i.e3 0-0 12 9d2 f5 13 f3 ( 1 3 g3?! ltld7 14 f4 exf4 1 5 gxf4 .th4 + 16 �dl .tf6 1 7 �c2 lbc5 is favourable for Black, Arbakov Gorelov, Uzhgorod 19S8) 13 . . . l0d7 14 .td3 ( 14 .te2!? .th4 + !? 15 g3 .i.f6) 14 . . . b6 15 0-0 g5 16 b4 e4! (this typical pawn sacrifice is ap propriate when White's bishop is on d3) 17 fxe4 f4 lS .td4 .tf6 with good compensation for the pawn as in I. Kuznetsov-Golodaev, USSR 199 1 ; b ) 1 1 .td3 0-0 1 2 0-0 f5 1 3 f3, and now Black has two plans: bl) 13....tg5 (a typical method of exchanging the dark-squared bishops) 14 'ifc2 .txcl 15 :axc l g6 16 �hl l0d7 1 7 b4 b6 lS 'ifb3 (Kobalia-Annakov, Moscow 1994), and after lS . . .'iff6 1 9 /Oa4 :bs Black has no reason to worry; b2) 13...lOd.7 14 .te3 g5! 15 'ifc2 e4! (the same pawn sac ! ) 16 fxe4 f4 1 7 e5?! lL!xe5 (17 . . . fxe3!?) lS .i.xh 7 + �h8 1 9 .td4 .i.f6 20 ltle2 /Og4 with an excellent position for Black (Chandler-Zsu. Polgar, Biel 19S7) . Back to 11 .i.e2. •••

11

12 0..()

0-0 f5


30

12 ltJd7 yields White the addi tional possibility 13 i.e3 . Still, this is not too painful for Black. He can play 13 . . . i.g5!? or 13 . . . f5 14 f3 f4 (14 . . . g5 15 b4 e4 is not so strong now: 16 fxe4 f4 1 7 i.d4 i.f6 18 c5 i.xd4 + 19 'fkxd4 ltJe5, Kagan-Gutman, Netanya 1983, 20 ltJa4!, and White is better, V.Liber zon) 15 i.f2 l:lf6! 1 6 ltJe4 l:lh6 17 b4 'fke8 18 g4 fxg3 19 i.xg3 ll)f6 with good counterplay (Fomina Umanskaya, Kutaisi 1983). After 12 ... f5 a critical position arises. ...

Black's plan is clear: a pawn majority attack in the centre. In the case of swapping his e-pawn for White 's f-pawn Black can make use of the e-file and the e5 and e4 points. A very important objective for Black is the ex change of dark-squared bishops, which weakens the dark squares in White's camp (such as e3) and clears the way for Black's queen and rooks. Here are some possible paths of play:

13 f4 Or: a) 13 a4?! ltJd7 14 a5 i.f6 15 i.d2 e4 ! 16 ltJa4 i.e5 ! (pay atten tion to this move : Black's bishop, and not the knight, takes the e5 square! ) 17 f4 exf3 18 llxf3 llb8 19 i.e3 liJf6! 20 h3 ltJe4 with a strong attack for Black (Kagan Geller, Skara 1980). A good illus tration of Black's plans! b) 13 f3 i.g5 ! 14 a3 ltJd7 15 b4 b6 16 i.xg5 'fkxg5 17 'ifc l 'ifd8 (17 ...'ifffi!?), and a draw was agreed in the game Perez-Ochoa, Havana 1992; c) 13 b4 a5!? (13 . . . ltJd7 14 i.b2 liJf6!? 15 'fkb3 �h8 16 lladl f4 1 7 c 5 i. f5 , followed by . . . 'ife8-g6, also yields Black good counterchances, Judycki-Bielczyk, Poland 1971) 14 b5 ltJd7 15 ltJa4 b6 16 llbl 'fkc7 17 f4 i.f6 18 �bl ltJc5 with good counterchances (Florjanl:!ic-Ank erst, Bled 1992); d) 13 a3 liJd7 (13 ... i.f6!? 14 b4 e4) 14 b4 e4 (or 14 ... i.f6 15 'fkb3 �h8 16 �bl b6 17 f3 i.g5 18 i.b2 llb8 19 llad l ll)f6 with good coun terplay, as in Adams-King, London 1990) 15 i.e3 i.f6 (after 15 . . . f4 16 i.d4 f3?! 1 7 gxf3 exf3 18 i.xf3 i.f6 19 i.g2 i.e5 20 ltJe2 ! 'ifh4 2 1 f4 ! White has parried Black's pre mature attack, Yudasin-Cs.Hor vath, Leningrad 1989) 16 i.d4 i.e5 ! 17 i.xe5 ltJxe5 18 'fkd4 i.d7 19 c5 'ii'f6 20 llfdl llfc8 2 1 llacl llc7 22 h3 'ii'e 7 23 �fl lle8 with a complicated, roughly balanced po sition (Yudasin-Kharlov, USSR

Turning off the Road championship, Moscow 1991 illus trative game Nr.4); u) 13 .J:r.bl lM7 14 b4 e4 15 .tea .t f6 16 .td4 .te5 (the same plan ngainl) 1 7 c5 'iVf6 18 .txe5 fue5 1 9 c61 (Ye Jiangchuan-Chekhov, Huijing 199 1), when, instead of 1 9 lLJf3 + ? (exchanging his most valuable piece!), Black should huve played 19 . . . .Z:.f7 or 19 . . . �h8 w i th a good position (V.Chekhov). Returning to 13 f4. .tf6 13 Black can even play 13 .. lLJd7 1 4 'iVc2 ( 14 g31) 14 . . . exf4 15 .txf4 i.g51?, e.g. 16 g3 .txf4 1 7 gxf4 1Vh4 18 'ii'd 2 lLJf6 19 .tf3 .td7 20 .Z:.ael b 5 1 with an excellent posi tion (Krasenkow-Tsesarsky, Len i ngrad 1983) or 16 .txd6 'iVb6 + 17 co lLJxc5 18 .txf8 lLJb3 + 19 �hl l,i'xal 20 l:lxal �xf8 with mutual chances (Tsesarsky). 14 g3! After 14 'iVc2 (14 fxe5 .txe5 is harmless) 14 lLJ d7 ! 15 �b l (15 1Vxf5? exf4 16 'iVe6 + �h8 17 ..xd6 i.e5 18 'iVa3 .. h4 19 .tf3 .t.d4+ 20 �hl l:.£6 is clearly in Black's fa vour but 15 g31 , transposing to the main line, is better) Black can play 1 5 ... exf4! (15 . g6 is less con vincing: 16 g3 ! .Z:.e8 17 .td2 b6 18 l:.ael .tg7 19 b3 l:.a7 20 a4, and White eventually seized the initia tive, Tal-Tseshkovsky, Riga 1979) 16 .t.xf4 (DJ 16 . .te5! (exchanging the dark squared bishops; 16 . . . lLJe5 is con siderably inferior, for example 1 7 ..ie3 b 6 1 8 b4 - preparing lLJc3-a4

31

. . .

•••

.

•••

..

..

and c4-c5 - 18 . . . lLJxc4 19 .txc4 'iVc7 20 lLJa4! b5 21 lLJb6 with in itiative for White, Yudasin-de la Villa, Pamplona 1992/93) 17 .td3 ( 1 7 b4 b6 or 17 . . ...f6) l 7 . . . g6 18 .Z:.ael b6 19 lLJe2 •m 20 •d2 .txf4 2 1 •xf4 lLJe5, and the initiative be longs to Black (Pablo-Andrianov, match Barcelona-Moscow 1982). Once again I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the first black piece to take the e5 square should be his bishop and not his knight! The arrangement .t.e5, lLJ:f6 is more harmonious than lLJe5, .t:f6. The black knight should come to e5 only after the exchange ofthe dark-squared bish ops! However, the text move ( 14 g3) deprives Black of the e5 square in general and makes him look for other plans of counterplay. The seventh match game Yudasin Kramnik (Wijk aan Zee 1994) saw 14 . . . �d7 15 •c2 ( 1 5 �hl l ? lDc5! , Yudasin) 15 . . . exf4 1 6 gxf4 ..id4 + 1 7 �hl lLJc5 18 .t.f3 .t.d7 19 .l:r.bl b5 20 b4 �e4 2 1 �xe4 fxe4 22

32

The Sueshnikou Sicilian

i.xe4 bxc4, and the complications eventually led to equality - see il lustrative game Nr. 5). According to Yudasin, Black has many other ways to obtain sufficient counter chances, e.g. 17 . . . lLJffi 18 'il'd3 i.b6 19 i.e3 lLJg4 or 16 . . . lLJc5 (instead of 16 . . .i.d4 + ) 17 i.f3 .l:.e8.

8

•••

Section 4 7 i. g 5 (1 e4 c5 2 lLJf3 lLJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLJ:x:d4 lDf6 5 lLJc3 e5 6 lLJdb5 d6) 7 i.g5 The most popular move - White fights for control of the d5 point. a6 7 Black should take the opportu nity to oust White's knight to the edge of the board. 7 i.e6 (pro posed by a Moldavian player Che banenko) is not quite satisfactory in view of 8 lLJd5 i.xd5 (or 8 . . . J:.c8 9 i.xf6 gxf6 10 c3 a6 11 lLJa3 b5 12 lLJc2 with an edge for White, R.Ro driguez-Kestler, Haifa 1976) 9 exd5 lLJe7 10 c3 ( 10 c4!?, e.g. 10 . . . a6 1 1 lLJc3 lLJg6 12 i.xf6 gxf6 13 i.d3 with a clear plus, Hellers-Delaney, Novi Sad 1990) 10 . . . a6 11 'ifa4! �d7 (ll. ..axb5? 12 i.xb5 + lLJcG 13 dxc6) 12 lLJa3 + b5 13 'il'c2 with good attacking chances for White (Sveshnikov). 8 i.xf8 The rest of the book will be de voted to White's best reply 8 lLJa3!. The immediate capture on f6 (examined in this section) ex tends Black's possibilities. •••

•••

Now Black can play 9 b5 trans posing to the main line of the Si cilian Sveshnikov (see Chapters 4-7). However, he has some good alternatives. 9 f5 9 d5 (the Pelikan variation) leads to a slightly better endgame for White: 10 lLJxd5 (10 'ifxd5 i.e6! or 10 exd5 i.xa3 1 1 bxa3 'il'a5 12 'ifd2 lLJd4 13 i.d3 i.h3! 14 �fl .l:.c8, Sax-T.Horvath, Balatonsze plak 1967, is quite satisfactory for Black) 10 . . . i.xa3 1 1 bxa3 i.e6 (or 11 . . . J:.g8 12 g3 f5 13 exf5 i.xf5 14 i.g2 'ifa5 + 15 c3 with a small edge, as recommended by Suetin) 12 i.c4! 'ifa5 + 13 'il'd2 'ifxd2 + (13 . . . 0-0-0?! 14 J:.dl 'ifxa3 15 0-0 J:.hg8 16 'ife3! 'ifxe3 17 fxe3 is fa vourable for White, Fischer-Ros setto, Buenos Aires 1960) 14 �d2 0-0-0 15 J:.adl!, though after 15 . . . f5 16 f3 J:.hg8 17 g3 fxe4 ( 1 7 . . . �b8?! 18 �e3 lLJd4 19 i.b3 fxe4 20 fxe4 f5 21 lLJe7! with a clear advantage ...

•••

•.•

Turning off the Road for White, Stein-Benko, Caracas

1970) 18 fxe4 lLJa5 ! 19 �c3 lLJxc4 20 �c4 l:g4 21 l:hel f5 a draw is not far off (Sveshnikov). The text move leads to sharp po Hitions with good counterchances for Black. 10 1fh5 Other moves are dangerous . . . for White! a) 10 .tc4 1i'g5 (10 . . . l:a7!?, A. Karpov, 1 1 .td5!?) 11 g3 ltld4!? 12 lLJd5?! fxe4 13 lLJc7 + �dB 14 /;)xa8 .tg4 with a strong attack for Black; b) 10 .t d3 l:tg8 1 1 lLJc4 ( 1 1 g3 f41?) 1 1 . . . l:xg2 12 lLJe3 :Xf2! 13 �xf2?1 (13 h4 l:f4 14 1i'h5, Svesh nikov) 13 ... 1Wh4 + 14 �gl (14 �e2 �d4 + 15 �d2 1i'f2 + etc. ) 14 . . . d51 1 5 lLJcxd5 f4 16 1i'el 1i'g5 + 17 �f2 �d4 with decisive threats (Szi rcke-Burke, corr 1985); c) 10 exf5 .hf5 1 1 llX:4 (11 .td3 J.e6 12 .tc4 .tg7 13 .txe6 fxe6 14 �e4 d5 15 1i'g4 1i'e7 16 lLJg5 .tf6! 17 h4 h6 18 lLJh3 0-0-0 with an in itiative for Black, Minic-Urlica, Athens 1976, or 15 1i'h5 + �e7 16 ltlg5 1i'f8 with mutual chances, Sveshnikov) 1 1 . . . .ie6 ( l l . . . lLJd41? 12 ltle3 .te6 13 g31, Boleslavsky) 12 lLJe3 .th6 13 .td3?1 (13 lLJcd5!?) 13 . . d5! 14 lLJf5 .tf8 15 1i'g4 'ifb6, und Black seized the initiative (Torre-Jamieson, Haifa 1976); d) 10 lLJc4 b5 11 lLJe3 (or 1 1 lLJd2 J.e6 12 .td3 fxe4 13 .txe4 d5 14 J.f3 .ig7 15 .tg4 0-0, and Black is better, Zagorovsky-Timoshchenko, Voronezh 1973) 1 1 . . . b4 12 lLJcd5 .

33

fxe4 13 a3 (after 13 9h5 .tg71 14 .tc4 0-0 15 0-0 lL!a5! White has no compensation for the pawn, ac cording to Sveshnikov) 13 . . . b31? (13 . . . bxa3 !?) 14 c3 Jl.g7 1 5 9xb3 0-0 16 'ifb6 .id7 1 7 'i'xd8 l:fxd8 18 lLJb6 .J:r.ab8 19 lLJxd7 l:xd7 20 0-0-0 .ih6 with good counter chances for Black (Zaichik-Chek hov, Minsk 1978) . Back to 10 'i'h5 (D).

b5! 10 The complications after the re ply 10 d5!? are rather favourable for White because of his advan tage in development: 1 1 0-0-0! (11 exd5? .txa3 12 bxa3 'ifa5 and 1 1 lLJxd5 .txa3 1 2 bxa3 1i'a5 + 1 3 c3 .ie6 yield Black good attacking chances; 1 1 lLJc4!? doesn't work in view of 1 1. .. d41 12 0-0-0 b51, ac cording to G.Botterill and W.Hart ston) 1 1.. . .txaa 12 bxa3 (12 �d5!? .td6 13 exf5, K.Lerner) 12 ... fxe4 (12 . . . lLJd4 13 lLJxd5! .ie6 14 -*.c4 l:c8 1 5 l:xd4! exd4 16 exf5 with a strong attack, Hamilton-Davies, Australia 1975, or even 13 'i'h6! •••

•••

34


:rs 14 exd5 with a clear advan

tage, Boleslavsky; if 12 . . . d4 then 13 i.c4 fke7 14 lbd5! fixa3 + 15 �bl with a strong attack) 13 lbxd5 i.e6 14 i.c4 l:c8 15 tDf4, winning material without sufficient com pensation for Black ( Sveshnikov). The text move is stronger. Now White is practically forced to sac rifice a piece. 1 1 lbaxb5 1 1 ltid.5 fxe4 and 1 1 exf5 b4 12 i.c4 :a7 13 tLiab5 axb5 14 lbxb5 good counterplay. That's why this :b7 (Sveshnikov) are clearly fa move has practically gone out of vourable for Black. use. axb5 11 Section 5 i.b7 12 i.xb5 13 i.c4 8 lLia3 Larsen system If 13 exf5, then 13 . . .Wa5 fol lowed by 13 ... 0-0-0 (Gligoric, V.So (1 e4 c5 2 lM3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 kolov). 13 fixf5 i.g7 14 0-0-0 0-0 tLixd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lLidb5 d6 15 i.xc6 i.xc6 16 :d3 i.d7 1 7 7 i.g5 a6) Wh5 i.e6 leads to a pleasant posi 8 lba3 tion for Black, too (Levchenkov Sveshnikov, Jurmala 1969). fif6 13 13 Wc7!? is also interesting, according to Sveshnikov. fig6 14 lbd.5 �d8 15 lbc7+ fxg6 16 fixg6 i.xaS 17 lbxa8 �c7 (DJ 18 i.d5 This kind of endgame is typical for the variations with a piece sac rifice on b5. Black's two pieces can Black's most common reply is successfully fight against White's rook and pawns (Tarrasch-Janow now 8 b5! (restricting the mobil ski, Vienna 1898). ity of White's a3 knight) . In this So, after White plays 8 i.xft> it section we deal with all the other is not difficult for Black to obtain moves. •••

-

•••

•••

•••

Turning off the Road .te6 8 This line was first applied by Larsen in his game against Ro batsch (Halle 1963). Other moves ure inferior: a) 8 ... d5?! 9 lbxd5 1..xa3 10 bxa3 1i'a5 + 1 1 'ii'd2 'ii'xd2 + 12 .txd2 lbxd5 13 exd5 lbd4 14 0-0-0 .tf5 15 c3 l:.cS 16 �b2 lbb5 17 I:.el f6 lS f4 0-0 19 c4 with a clear ad vantage for White (Sax-Velimi rovic, Rio de Janeiro 1979) ; b) 8 ...1..e 7 9 lbc4 ! 0-0!? (9 . . . b5? iH poor in view of 10 1-xffi! gxf6 1 1 �e3 ; while 9 . . . lbd4 10 1.. xf6 1..xf6 1 1 lbd5 1..e 6 12 lbcb6 1..xd5 13 .txd5 i.. g5 14 c3 also yields White the better chances, lsupov-Gusei nov, USSR 1976) 10 1..xf6 1.. xf6 1 1 'ii'x d6 'ii'xd6 1 2 lbxd6 1.. e6 1 3 lbc4 .ig5 14 lbe3, and Black doesn't have enough compensation for the missing pawn (Sigurjonsson G.ROder, Germany 19S5). 9 lbc4 9 .tc4?! b5 10 1.. d 5 l:.cS 1 1 .ixc6 + llxc6 12 .txf6 'ji'xf6 13 lbd5 1i'g6 is favourable for Black (Simo-Rovid, Hungary 1991). 9 tl:ld5!? 1.. xd5 (9 . . . 'ji'a5 + !? 10 1.. d2 'ii'd S) 10 1..x f6 ! 'ii'a5 + 1 1 c3 gxf6 ( 1 1 . . . .txe4? is risky due to 12 tl:lc4 'ii'c 7 13 1..xg7 ! 1..xg7 14 tl:lxd6 + �e7 15 lbxe4 but 1 1 . . . .te6 12 1..h 4 d5 is possible) 12 exd5 lbe7 13 lbc4 'ii'c 5 also yields Black good counterplay. The most common alternative to the text move is 9 1.. xf6. This usually leads to a simple transpo sition of moves; but there are .•.

35

some variations of independent significance: a) 9 . .'ji'xf6 10 lbc4 'ii'dS 11 tl1e3 ( 1 1 ltJd5!?) 1 1 . . . .te7 12 ltJcd5 i.g5 13 c3 0-0 14 1..e 2 g6 15 0-0 f5 16 exf5 gxf5 1 7 f4 1..h 6 18 �h l tf:Je7 19 i.c4 with a small edge for White (Moldovan-Rogozenko, Bu charest 1993). This line needs more tests; b) 9 . gxf6 10 1..c4 (10 lbd5 Ac8 1 1 c3 1.. h 6 12 'ji'h5 1.. g7 13 ltJc4 1.. xd5 14 exd5 lbe7 15 lbe3 'i'b6 leads to a position with mutual chances, as in Van Riemsdijk-Quin teros, Sao Paolo 1977; besides, 10 . . . 'ii'a5 + !? 11 c3 1..xd5 is possible - see 9 lbd5; for 10 lbc4! l:.c8 - see 9 lbc4) 10 ...b5 (10 ... l:.c8 1 1 1..xe6 fxe6 12 'ft'h5 +
..

.

.

36


10 . . . '4i'xf6 (for 10 . . . gxf6 1 1 lbe3 l:r.c8 12 i.d3 - see 9 . . . l:r.c8) l l lbb6 l:r.b8 12 /l)cd5 '4i'd8 13 c3 i.xd5 14 lbxd5 lbe6 15 g3 with a small but clear advantage for White (Tal Wade, Reykjavik 1964).

10 lbd5 This is probably the most accu rate order of moves for White. However, extensive practice has seen a lot of alternatives: a) 10 i.d3 i.e7 1 1 i.xf6 (or 1 1 0-0 b5 1 2 i.xf6 - 1 2 ltJe3 lbxe4! 12 . . . bxc4 13 i.xe7 lbxe7 14 i.e2 0-0 15 '4i'd2 'ii'b 6 with good pros pects for Black, Gufeld-Chekhov, Vladivostok 1978) l l . . . i.xf6 12 lbe3 lbe7! 13 0-0 0-0 14 'ii'f3 i.g5 ! 15 lbcd5 i.xd5 16 lbxd5 lbxd5 1 7 exd5 g6, and Black i s slightly bet ter (Ilijin-Kharlov, Biel 1992); b) 10 lbe3 i.e7 (10 ... 'ii'b 6 11 l:r.bl i.e7 12 i.xf6 i.xf6 13 lbcd5 and l l. . .lbxe4!? 12 lbxe4 h6 13 c3! hxg5 14 i.c4 lbd8 15 i.b3 i.e7 16 0-0, Benjamin-Ginsburg, New York 1981, are hardly good for Black) 1 1 i.xf6 (11 i.d3 lbg8!? and

1 1 i.c4!? 0-0 12 0-0 b5!? are satis factory for Black) 1 1 . . . i.xf6 12 lbcd5 i.g5 13 c3 0-0 ( 13 . . . lbe7 is premature due to 14 lbxe7 'ilxe7 15 lL!d5, A.Sokolov-Burger, St Martin 1992) 14 i.e2, and now Black can play either 14 . . . g6 15 0-0 f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 �hl lDe7! (Plisetsky) or 14 . . . i.xe3 15 lbxe3 lbe7 16 i.f3 l:l:c7!? 17 0-0 l:r.d7 18 '4i'e2 g6 19 l:[fdl f5 (Yu.Chernov-Arkhipov, Moscow 1980), with good counterplay in both cases. In this line we already see some positional elements typi cal of the main variations of the Sicilian Sveshnikov (see Chapters 3 and 6); the difference is that Black's b-pawn is on b7, and at tacks like a2-a4 are impossible; c) 10 i.xf6 (a very popular move; however, Black can keep the balance with accurate play) cl) 10 . . . gxf6 ell) 1 1 lbe3 i.h6 ( l l . . . lbd4?! is as poor as it was on move 9, e.g. 12 i.d3 i.h6 13 0-0 0-0 14 lbcd5 followed by c2-c3, Dely-Flesch, Hungary 1965; ll . . . lbe7 12 i.d3! leads to the 11 i.d3 line; besides, White can play 12 lbcd5 i.xd5 13 lbxd5 lbxd5 14 'Wxd5 .lhc2 15 i.d3 llc6 16 i.c4 with good compensa tion for the pawn, Velimirovic Matulovic, Vinkovci 1982), and now: (D) clll) 12 lbed5 lbd4 13 i.d3 l:r.g8 14 'ii'h5 l:r.g6 15 h3 �d7 16 � l:r.c6 17 a4 'ii'g8 18 a5 'flg7 19 g3 �dB, and Black obtained good counterplay on the g-file (Y.Griin feld-Tisdall , New York 1981);

Turning off the Road

37

Black's extra pawn (Tseshkovsky Petkevich, Moscow 1979); cl l4) 1.2 J. d3!? J.xe3 (12 :gs 13 0-0!; 12 . . . lLle7 - see 11 J.d3) 13 fxe3 �6 14 ti'cl ( 14 0-0!?) 14 . . . hS (14 . . . lOaS lS 0-0 rt6e7 16 •et ! hS 1 7 b3, Kir. Georgiev-Shirov, Biel 1992 illustrative game Nr. 7 or 16 . . . l0c4 1 7 t'Odl hS 18 a4! , fol lowed by b2-b3 - recommended by Kir.Georgiev - doesn't enable Black to equalize either) lS 0-0, and White's chances are preferable, e.g. 1S . . . llh6 16 llbl lLle7 17 ti'd2 h4 1s ha rtJd7 19 l:lbdl l:lg8 20 :ra llhg6 2 1 J.fl (Borriss-Yakovich, Munich 1993) ; c12) 1 1 J.d3 (avoiding 1 1 lLle3 J.h6) 1 1 . . . l0e7 ( 1 1 . . .llg8 12 0-0 J.h6 13 l0d5 f5?! is risky in view of 14 •hs ! , Matulovic-Arnason, 1983) 12 lLle3 ( 12 1i'e2 is harmless in view of 12 . . . d5 13 exd5 lbxd5 14 lbxd5 •xd5 lS l0e3 •c6 16 c3 e4 17 J.c2 fS, Browne-Timman, Til burg 1978) 12 . . . J.h6 (12 . . ...b6 1 3 0-0 •xb2 14 lOcdS! yields White a strong attack for the pawn, e.g. 14 . . . J.xdS 15 exdS ..d4 16 llbl llc7 1 7 •fa •f4 18 ti'e2 J.h6 19 lbc4 lbcB 20 llb4! , Ghinda-Mark Tseitlin, Pernik 1978) 13 0-0 J.xe3 14 fxe3 ft6 15 •ra (lS •ct lbgB 16 rtJhl •cs 1 7 •d2 h5, Anand-Morovic, Las Palmas 1993, also leads to a better position for White, for example 18 a4! h4 1 9 h 3 followed by a4-aS and lbc3-a4 indicated by T. Horvath) lS . . . hS (lS . . . •xb2?! 16 lOdS!, V. Tseshk ovsky) 1 6 lOdS J.xd5 17 exdS %lh6 . • .

c l l2) 1.2 l0g4!? J.g7 13 J.d3 ti'b6?! 14 llbl lLle7 lS 0-0 fS 16 uxfS lOxfS 1 7 J.xfS J.xfS 18 lLle3 .i.e6 19 ti'hS, and White main tained better prospects (Zso.Pol gar-Hjartarson, Reykjavik 199S). 'l'he position of the black queen 1 1 n b6 proves unfortunate; there fore, Black should have played 1 3 . . . l0e7 at once, e.g. 14 0-0 fS l S uxfS lOxfS 16 J.xfS J.xfS 1 7 lLle3 .i.g6!? with the idea of . . . 0-0 and . . . f7-f5. This line needs more tests; cl l3) 12 l0cd5 J.xe3 13 lLlxe3 ti'b6 ( 1 3 . . . l0e7 14 J.d3 dS is pre mature: lS 0-0 d4?! 16 l0g4 lbg6 i 1 lbh6 •ds 18 g3 •rs 19 •hs, and White is better, Velimirovic Simic, Yiigoslavia 1982, or 1S ... dxe4 16 J.xe4 •xdl 17 llaxdl llc7 18 f4!, maintaining a small edge, accord i ng to Sveshnikov) 14 J.d3 ..b4+ < 1 4 . . . •xb2 lS 0-0 •ca 16 f4 •cs 1 7 •el, Pukshansky-Chepukaitis, Leningrad 1980, gives White good attacking chances) lS •d2 •xb2 16 0-0 •d4 17 c3 •cs 18 llac l 4Je7 19 .. b2 llc7 20 c4 0-0, and White's initiative compensates for

38


18 l:.abl, and White 's chances are preferable, due to the poor posi tion of Black's king, e.g. 18 . . . llc7 19 c4 f5 20 'itih l ! (Sveshnikov) or 18 . . . 'ft'a5 19 e4 f5 20 exf5!? ll:lxd5 21 �h l ! 'ifc5 22 libel f6 (22 . . . b5 23 '6'g3 ! ) 23 .i.e4 llle 7 24 .i.xb7 l:.b8 25 l:.dl (Am.Rodriguez-Espi noza, Cali 1990); c13) 1 1 ltld5 .i.xd5 12 'ifxd5 leads to a p osition from the main line (10 ll:ld5 ) ; l l . ..f5 12 exf5 .i.xf5 1 3 ll:lce3 .i.e6 14 c3 .i.g7 (Svesh 'ii'cS 19 c4 b6 intending 20 . . . a5, nikov) 15 .i.d3 ! also yields White with equality (Geo. Timoshenko the better chances; Sveshnikov, Naberezhnye Chelny c2) 10 'ii':xf6 ! (this is stronger 1988); than 10 . . . gxf6 and gives Black c22) 14 .i.e2 0-0 15 0-0 .i.g5 16 chances to equalize the game) 1 1 'fkd3 �h8 1 7 l:.adl g6 18 .i.f3 f5 19 ll:lb6 (after 1 1 lllxd6 + .i.xd6 12 'fke2 Il.f7 20 l:.d3 'firs 21 l:fdl lids, 'iVxd6 l:.d8 13 'ifc5 ll:ld4 14 .i.d3 and Black's position is very solid 'fig5 15 �fl l:.c8 16 'ifb4 b5, with (Kaiumov-Kharlov, Vladivostok ideas such as . . . .i.e6-c4 or . . . h 7-h5 1994) ; and l:.h8-h6, Black's initiative c23) 14 .i.d3 .i.g5 15 .i.c2 0-0 16 compensates White's extra pawn, 0-0 �h8 1 7 'fke2 g6 18 �h l .i.h6 according to V.Chekhov) 11 llb8 19 l:adl ll:le7 20 .i.b3 ll:lxd5 2 1 12 ll:lcd5 ( 12 ll:lbd5 '6'd8 is not ll:lxd5 b5 i s equal (Van der Wiel dangerous for Black, e.g. 13 a4 - Kuijf, Dutch championship 1987); 13 .i.c4 b5! - 13 . . . .i.e7 14 .i.c4 .i.g5 c24) 14 .i.c4 (the most logical 15 0-0 0-0 16 'ti'd3 :cs 17 .i.b3, move to control the d5 square) Glek-Arkhipov, Moscow 1977, and 14 . . . 0-0 15 0-0 .i.g5 16 a4 �h8 17 now 17 ... ll:ld4! equalizes) 12 '6'd8 'fke2 g6 ( l 7 . . . a5 18 l:ad l .i.h6 19 ( 12 . . . 'ii'g6?! is risky for Black in �hl, Nunn-Manor, London 1987, view of 13 '6'd3 .i.e7 14 lllc 7 + ! 19 . . . g6 20 .i.a2!? followed by 2 1 �d8 15 lllcd5, Karpov) 13 c3 .i.e7 ll:lc4, yields White a certain plus; (13 . . . g6? 14 '6'a4 .i.g7 15 .i.xa6! Black's other plan consists in .i.xd5 16 ll:lxd5 l:.a8 1 7 'iVb5 l:xa6 l 7 . . . '6'e8!? 18 b4 .i.d8 19 a5 when, 18 'ii'xb7, and White wins, Cifuen instead of 19 . . . ll:le7?! 20 'ii'a2 ll:lg6 tes), and now: (D) 21 .i.b3 ll:lh4?! 22 .i.a4 .i.xd5 23 c2 1) 14 a4 0-0 15 b4 .i.g5 exd5 'iVe7 24 ll:ld7 with material ( 1 5 . . . 'iVe8 !? 16 a5 .i.d8, Chekhov) gains for White, as in S.Yanovsk:y 16 .i.e2 llle7 17 0-0 lillcd5 18 lllxd 5 Sveshnikov, Moscow 1987, Black •••

•••

•••

Turning off the Road should have tried 19 . . . f5 with counterplay on the kingside) 18 ..tii h l i.h6 19 l:adl ( 19 b4 f5 20 oxf5 gxf5 2 1 f4 i.xd5 22 .!Oxd5, Karpov-Nunn, London 1982, illus trative game Nr. 6, leads to an un clear position after 22 . . . .!be7! 23 fxe5 lillc.d5 24 i.xd5 dxe5 25 .te6 25 'ifxe5 + ? .tg7 26 'ife6 ::m 25 . . . 'ii'd2 ! , Karpov; 19 l:ael!?, rec ommended by the former World Champion, has not yet been tried) 19 . . . f5 20 exf5 gxf5 2 1 f4 .tg7 22 J:f3 i.g8!? 23 l:h3 h6 24 'ifd2 �h7 25 i.d3 �e 7, and Black managed to maintain the dynamic balance (Y. Griinfeld-Cifuentes, Novi Sad 1990). So, after 10 .txf6 accurate de fence probably enables Black to neutralize White's initiative; how ever, after the move 10 �d5 his task becomes more difficult. Now we move on to the latter line. i.xd5 10 1 1 .txf6! But not 11 exd5?! .!be7 12 J.xf8 ( 12 'ifd3!? �xd5 13 0-0-0 leads to an equal position after 13 . . . b5! 14 .txf6 'ifxf6 15 lillc.d6 + 'ifxd6 16 'ifxd5 'ifxd5 1 7 l:xd5 l:c5, accord ing to M. Tai) 12 gxf6, and now White can play: a) 13 .td3?! f5 14 0-0 i.g7 1 5 'ifh5 e 4 1 6 i.e2 0-0 1 7 c3 f4 ! with a strong attack for Black (Robatsch Larsen, Halle 1963); b) 13 a4?! J:c5 14 .!Oe3 i.h6 1 5 c4 'ifb6 1 6 'ifd2 a5 1 7 i.d3 f5 with the same outcome (A.Neverov Kharlov, Kuibyshev 1990) ;

39

c) 13 c3 f5 14 'ifb3 b5 1 5 l00 3 i.h6 16 a4 J.xe3 17 fxe3 'ifb6 with good counterplay (Luther-Ikon nikov, Sochi 1990); d) 13 'ilf3 f5 14 a4 .tg7! 15 g4 e4 16 'iff4 �g6! l 7 'ifxd6 �5 with initiative for Black (G.Kuzmin Panchenko, USSR 1980); e) 13 b4! f5 14 a4 with the idea of a4-a5 (Sveshnikov) . Of course, Black is by no means worse. However, after the text move ( 1 1 i.xf6) life becomes much more difficult for him. 11 gxf6 Aft.er l l .. 'if:xf6 12 'ifxd5 J.e7 13 c3 0-0 14 �b6 (14 i.e2!?) 14 . . . J:c7 15 'ifd3 'ifg6 16 g3 i.d8 17 .!Od5 White's chances are preferable as well (Leko-Jamieson, Sydney 1992). 12 'ifxd5 •••

.

...

•••

12 b5! 12 ...�d4 is inferior: 13 0-0-0 'ii'e 7 ( 1 3 . . . 'ifc7 14 J:xd4! , Larsen) 14 �bl J:c5 15 �xd6 + ! 'ifxd6 16 'ifxd6 i.xd6 17 c3 �e7 18 cxd4 exd4 19 i.d3 with a clearly better

40


endgame for White (Enders-Ser mek, Ptuj 1995). However, the move 12 lbb4!? leads to interesting complications: 13 'ifd2 d5 14 exd5 lbxc2 + (after 14 ... 'ir'xd5?! 15 'ifxd5 lbxd5 16 0-0-0 White is clearly better) 15 Wxc2 i.b4 + 16 �dl 'ir'xd5 + ( 16 . . . b5 17 'ife4 bxc4 18 i.xc4 Wb6 19 :cl ! i.d6 2 0 :c2, and White maintains a small plus, Schandorff-Morovic, Copenhagen 1982) 17 �cl ! (17 i.d3 0-0 18 f3 :fd8 19 �e2 e4! 20 a small but clear edge. After 14 fxe4 'ifh5 + followed by 2 1 . . .b5, Wb7 Wa5 + 15 c3 :c7 16 b4 :xb7 Maksimovic-Skoko, Belgrade 1991, 17 bxa5 �dB! (this is better than yields Black good counterchances) l 7 ...i.h6 18 lbg4 i.g7 19 a4 �d7 20 17 ... 0-0 18 �bl ! :rdB 19 lbe3! hc2 i.d3 d5? 21 axb5 axb5 22 lbe3 with 20 lbxd5 hf2 2 1 i.c4 i.c5 22 a4! a clear pull for White, Murey �g7 23 b4, and White managed to Jamieson, Lucerne 1982) 18 a4! regroup his pieces 'under fire', bxa4 19 :xa4 :bl + 20 �d2 i.h6 maintaining the better chances in (20 . . . lbc6 21 �c2 :el 22 h4 !?) 2 1 the endgame (IBybin-Manor, Tunja :b4 ! h e brings his plus into the 1989) . endgame (J.Rohl, de Jesus). 14 13 lbe3 lbe7 (D) 'it'd3 .th6 15 lbg4 deserves atten 13 i.h6 was totally refuted in tion, too, according to Simic. Smagin-Kharlov, Moscow 199 1 : 1 4 lbf5 lbb4 15 lbxd6 + �d7 16 The main defect of the Larsen 'ifxf7 + �c6 (16 ... �xd6 17 :d l + system is that White's a3 knight is equally hopeless) 17 'ir'h7 + rJiic5 can easily enter the game. That's 18 :dl! lbxc2 + 19 �e2 lbd4 + 20 why Black's fight for the d5 :xd4 exd4 2 1 'ifd5 + rJiib 6 22 square becomes so hard, and his lbxc8 + 'ifxc8 23 'ifxd4 + �a5 24 pawn weaknesses so painful. So, �f3, and White won. Sveshnikov's 8 . . . b5 (restricting This position is crucial for the White's knight) has become es whole 10 lbd5 line. White's better tablished in practice as Black's pawn structure and domination of best option. Now we go on to dis the light squares guarantees him cuss it. •••

•••

The Choice of Two K's

3

( 1 e4 c5 2 � l006 3 d4 cxd4 4 l0xd4 l0f6 5 l0c3 e5 6 l0db5 d6 7 .*.15 a6 8 �) b5 8 •••

So, we have reached the main position of the Sicilian Sveshni kov. As was said in the introduc tion, the most principled option for White here is 9 .*.xf6, de stroying Black's pawn structure. However, there are many players who don't like to go in for such complicated positions. They usu ally prefer the quieter: 9 �5 This system is included in the opening repertoires of many out standing players, e.g. Garry Kas parov and Anatoly Karpov. Some twenty years ago the strange move 9 lOabl was some what popular. The idea is to bring the knight into the game via the d2 square, while simultaneously

preparing a2-a4. However, Black easily obtains good counterplay, e.g. 9 . . . .*.e7 (even 9 ... l0e7!? is not bad for Black, for example 10 .*.xf6 gxf6 11 a4 b4 12 l0d5 l0xd5 13 1Vxd5 .J:la7 14 .*.c4 .J:lg8 15 g3 .*.h6, Jacoby-T.Horvath, Copenha gen 1986) 10 .*.xf6 .*.xf6 1 1 a4 b4 12 l0d5 .*.g5 13 .*.c4 0-0 14 0-0 .*.b 7 15 l0d2 l:lc8 16 l0b3 (16 l0f3 l0d4! 17 b3 .*.xd5 18 .*.xd5 lilld'3 + 19 1Vxf3 :Xc2 with a clear advan tage for Black, Adorjan, T.Hor vath) 16 . . . l0e7 17 l0xe7 + 1rxe7 18 1re2 1rc7 19 .*.d3 a5, and Black's chances are superior (Mnatsaka nian-T. Georgadze, Tbilisi-Suhumi

1977). After 9 l0d5 Black has two pos sibilities: 9...1'a5+ (Section 1) and 9 .. ..*.e7 (Sections 2-5) . 9 .*.e6?! proves to be a loss of time after 10 .*.xf6 gxf6 11 c3. •••

Section 1 9 . . .1'a5+ 1ra5 + 9 ... This move cannot even be com pared with 9 . . . .*.e7 in terms of popularity. But, in fact, it is not so bad. 10 .*.d2 10 c3!? is little investigated. After 10. . . l0xe4 (in the event of 10 . . . l0xd5 1 1 exd5 f0e7 12 �2 Black's queen on a5 occupies an

42


awkward position) 1 1 b4!? 1i'xa3 12 �cl lLJxc3! 13 1i'd2 tDe4 14 1i'c2 ll'id4 15 1i'xe4 1i'a4 16 �d3 l:la7 White hardly has enough compen sation for the missing material (Blodstein-Al.Karpov, Tashkent 1994). •ds lo ... Black offers his opponent the chance to repeat moves: 1 1 �g5 1i'a5 + etc. (oh, how many games have ended in a draw this way!) . After 1 1 �g5 Black can also trans pose to the main variation with ll...�e7. However, White has sev eral alternatives.

1i'xa8 2 1 f3 axb5, and Black has a strong initiative for the missing exchange (Sharif-Kouatly, Mar seilles 1988); b) 1 1 c4 (this move leads to huge complications) 1 l llm:e4 (af ter 1 1 . . . M 12 lLJxf6 + 1i'xf6 13 lbc2 'i'g6 14 1i'f3 :ha 15 �d3 �e7 16 0-0 0-0 17 b3, Yudasin-Dvoiris, Moscow 1991, White obtains a minimal plus, with prospects of preparing f2-f4) 12 cxb5 �e6 13 �c4 •••

The most common move in this position is 13 ll'ie7, for example 14 �e3 :ca (14... 'ifa5 + 15 �e2 :ca is dubious in view of 16 ll'ib6! d5 16 . . . :ds 1 7 bxa6 - 1 7 ll'ixc8 lLJxc8 18 �xd5 �a3 19 �e4 'ti'b5 20 �d3, Sisniega-Espinoza, Linares 1992) 15 ll'ib6 d5 16 1i'a4 (16 lLJxc8 lLJxc8 17 �d3 'i'a5 + 18 �fl �xa3 19 bxa3 0-0 20 bxa6 f5 is unclear) 16 . . .dxc4 17 l:r.dl ll'id5 18 bxa6 + �d7 19 ll'ixd7 �b4+ 20 �fl 1i'xd7 21 1i'xd7 + 'iti>xd7 22 lhd5 + �e6 with sufficient counterchances for Black as in Yudasin-Vyzmanavin, •••

11 ll'ixf6 + Or: a) 11 �d3 ll'ixd5 12 exd5 tDe7 13 c4 g6 (sacrificing the b5 pawn see the introduction) 14 0-0 (14 cxb5 �g7 15 �c4 0-0 16 0-0 e4! 1 7 l:r.bl ll'if5 18 �f4 :es 1 9 ll'ic2 1i'h4 20 g3 1i'f6 yields Black an excel lent position, Sanden-Markovic, Stockholm 1990/91) 14 . . . �g7 15 1i'el 0-0 16 �a5 'i'e8 17 cxb5 lLJxd5 18 �e4 �e6 19 l:r.dl lbf4! 20 �xa8

The Choice of Two K's Lvov 1987. However, 14 0-0! is Htronger, e.g. 14....txd5 (14... lllxd5?! 16 ..txd5 .txd5 16 ..ia5! 'ii'xa5 17 ii'xd5 lk8 18 'ii'xe4, Kupreichik N ikfevic, Cattolica 1992) 15 ..ta5 ! ( 16 .txd5 lLixd5 16 ..ta5 lLidc3! 17 .txc3 lLixc3 18 bxc3, Leko-San Segundo, Moscow 1994, and now 18 . . . d5! equalizes) 15 . . . 'ii'xa5 16 .txd5 axb5 1 7 .txe4 d5 18 ..td3 with good attacking prospects for White. In a little-known game Brodsky Serper (Riga 1987) Black played 13 lLia5!? and obtained better chances after the continuation 14 ii'a4 fuc4 15 'ii'xc4 .txd5 16 'ii'xd5 lLixd2 1 7
•••

...

•••

43

White has the advantage (Y.Liber zon). But the simple continuation 14 . . . lLid4 15 ..te3 0-0 16 .txd4 exd4 1 7 •d2 d5 18 ..td3 ..tg5 (Anand Hergott, Thessaloniki 1984) gives Black excellent chances. If 1 4 � (instead of 14 cxb 5 } then, for in stance, 14 . . f5 15 exf5 .txf5 16 cxb5 lLid4 17 .tea 0-0 18 ..txd4 exd4 19 'ii'xd4 ..tfO with a strong initiative (Magem-Espinoza, Novi Sad 1990). 12 ifg6 Besides this natural move, Black can also play: a) 12 d5?!. This is too risky. Here is one recent example: 13 exd5 lLib4 14 ..te4 'ii' h4 1 5 'ii'f3 .tg4 ( 15 . . . ..tc5 16 c3!} 16 'ii'e 3! f5?! (Adorjan and T.Horvath recom mend 16 ... lld8!) 17 d6 fxe4 18 ifxe4 lld8 19 .txb4 with a clear edge for White (Diaz-Remon, S anta Clara 1991}; b} 12 'ii'd8 (somewhat passive} 13 c4 b4 14 lLic2 libs 15 0-0, and White maintains a small edge, for example 15 . . . J..e 7 16 a3! ba3 17 b4 0-0 18 :Xa3 J.. g5 19 .tel 'fke7 20 'ii'a l (Ghinda-Quendro, Thessalo niki 1 984}. Instead of 14 . . . llbS, the alternative 14 ... a5 deserves at tention; c) 12 .te7. A possible trans position of moves, as 1 3 c4 is not killing: 13 . . . 0-0 14 0-0 'ii'g6, and now, instead of 15 cxb5?! llld4 16 f3 ..th3 17 l%f2 ..th4 (Suetin-Kish nev, Moscow 1 984), 15 f4 or 15
•••

•••

•••

•••

44

Tiu! Sveshnikov Sicilian

13 0-0 il..e 7 13 ... lLJd4!? is interesting, e.g. 14 �b l J.e7 15 ca lLJe6 16 c4 lDc5 17 J.c2 J.d7 18 b4 lDe6 19 J.d3 l:.b8 with unclear play (Vitolin§ Savko, Riga 1993). 14 c3 Alas! 14 c4 doesn't work on ac count of 14 . . . J.g4 15 f3 J.h3 16 l:.f2 J.h4. 14 f4 is also harmless, for example 14 . . . exf4 15 e5 J.f5 16 "iff3 l:.c8 1 7 J.xf5 "ifxf5 18 exd6 J.xd6 19 l:.ael + J.e7 20 'ii'xf4 'ii'xf4 followed by 2 1 . . .0-0, with a pleas ant endgame for Black (I. Gure vich-Granda Zuniga, New York 1992 illustrative game Nr.8).

Section 2

9 J.e7 1 O lLJxe7 •••

(1 e4 c5 2 lM3 lLJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLJxd4 lLJf6 5 li:)c3 e5 6 li:)db5 d6 7 J.g5 a6 8 lLJa3 b5 9 lDd5) 9 .. J.e7 .

-

White now has two completely different plans: to give up the d5 point and concentrate on develop ment, in order to make use of his better pawn structure (10 lLJxe7), or to fight for the d5 square (10 J.xf6). In this section we deal with the first option. 10 lLJ:x:e7 lLJ:x:e7! 10 'ii'xe7 is undoubtedly less logical and yields White good prospects after 11 c4!, e.g. 1 1 h6 12 J.xf6 'ii'xf6 13 "ifd51 , or 1 1 b4 12 lDc2 0-0 13 f3 h6 14 J.h4 'ii'e6 15 'ii'd2 (Ajanski-Omstein, Plovdiv 1976), or 1 1 lLJd4 12 lDc2!, be cause 12 . . . 'ii'b 7 13 lLJxd4 lLJxe4 is too dangerous in view of 14 lDf31 bxc4 15 'ii'a4 + J.d7 16 'ii'a3 or even 15 J.cl. 11 J.xf6 •••

d5! 14 ... Now this is well-timed. In the simultaneous game Wahls-Kas parov, 1987, after 15 'ii'e2 J.g4 16 f3 dxe4 1 7 J.xe4 J.f5 18 lDc2 0-0 19 a4 J.xe4 20 fxe4 l:.ad8 Black had nothing to worry about. So, why isn't 9 .. 'ii'a5+ popular? Probably because people consider the draw after 10 J.d2 'ii'd 8 1 1 J.g5 too indecent . . . .

•••

•••

.••

45

The Choice of Two K's White 's attempts to maintain his pair of bishops don't pay him a dividend: a) 1 1 f3 d5 12 exd5, and now Black can play not only 12 . . . tDexd5 13 c4 bxc4 14 lllxc4 0-0 15 .i.e2 'flc7 1 6 0-0 .te6 17 :tcl lLlh5 18 hl f6 with good counterplay (Perovic Markovic, Vienna 1990) but also l 2 . lLlfxd5 ! 13 .i.xe7 'fla5 + ! 14 c3 �xe7 with a good position; b) l l .td3 and now: bl) l l .tb7 12 'iFe2?! (for 12 .txf6 - see 11 .txf6) 12 . . . lLld7 (or 12 0-0 13 0-0 lLlg6 14 c4 h6! 1 5 .t x f6 'ii'xf6 1 6 cxb5 lLl f4 1 7 'ii'f3 axb5 18 lllxb5 'iVg6 19 :tfdl lLlxd3 20 'ifxd3 .i.xe4 2 1 'iFg3 :tfb8! equalizing in the game Anand1 vanchuk, Linares 1992 illustra tive game Nr.9; or 12 . . . lLlg6 13 c4 h6 14 .i.d2 - 14 .txf6 'iFxf6 15 cxb5 lLlf4 16 'flf3 'ii'g6 - 14 . . . bxc4 15 lLlxc4 0-0 with equality, Bach-Ga garin, Turnu-Severin 1992; on the other hand, 12 ... d5 is not good in view of 13 exd5 'ii'xd5 14 0-0-0 'iVe6 15 .l:.hel lLld7 16 .txe7 'iFxe7 17 f4, Womacka-Vaiser, Munich 1992) 13 b4 (13 c4 b4 14 lLlc2 a5 with a good position for Black, Petrushin-Timoshchenko, USSR 1978) 13 . . . f6 14 .td2 0-0 15 c4 f5! 16 cxb5 (or 16 f3 fxe4 17 fxe4 lLlc6 18 lLlc2 lLld4 19 lLlxd4 exd4 20 cxb5 lLle5, and Black obtained a strong attack, Zezulkin-Ambart sumian, Podolsk 1990) 16 . . . fxe4 17 .txe4 d5 18 .i.c2 lLlf5 19 0-0 lLld4 20 'iVd3 lLlxc2 21 lLlxc2 axb5 22 'iFxb5 lLlb6! , and Black's compensation .

.

•••

. . .

for the pawn is more than suffi cient (Yemelin-Krasenkow, Rus sian championship, Elista 1995); b2) u d5 (even simpler) 12 exd5 1i'xd5 (trying to exchange queens; 12 ... lLlfxd5 also led to equality in the game Yudasin-Yak ovich, Moscow 1992, after 13 c4 bxc4 14 lillcc4 f6 15 .td2 0-0 1 6 0-0 .i.f5! 1 7 .txf5 lLlxf5 18 .ta5 1i'd7 19 'flg4 .l:.a7 20 :tfdl lLld4; how ever, 13 'ii'h 5! is probably stronger, for example 13 . . . 'fla5 + 14 c3 lLlxc3 - not 14 . . . 'ii'a4? 15 .txe7 lLlf4 16 'flf3 lLlxd3+ 17 1i'xd3 �e7 18 1i'd5, Yemelin-Kharlov, Kazan 1995 - 15 .td2 'ii'd8 16 .i.c2 lLld5 17 'ii'xe5 with a minimal edge for White) 13 'ird2 .tf5 ! (13 . . . 'ilr'xg2?! 14 0-0-0) 14 .txf5 'flxd2 + 15 .txd2 lLlxf5 16 c4 0-0! (not taking on c4 - see the introduction! ) 17 0-0 (Aseev-Vyz manavin, Leningrad 1990) , and now, according to AVyzmanavin, 17 . . . .l:.ab8, and Black's chances are not worse . If 13 f3 then also 13 . . . .tf5! with similar ideas, e.g. 14 .txf5 lLlxf5 15 1i'xd5 lLlxd5 16 0-0-0 lLlc7 followed by 17 ... f6 with equal prospects (Yemelin-Yako vich, Russian championship, El ista 1994). c) 1 1 'ii'f3 (DJ l l .tg4 ( 1 1 . . . lLld7 gave White a small edge in the game Yudasin Chekhov, Moscow 199 1 : 12 b4 f6 13 .td2 lLlb6 - or 13 ... .tb7 14 c4 f5 15 cxb5 .txe4 16 'iFb3, L.Yudasin - 14 c4 bxc4 15 lLlxc4 .te6 16 lll a 5! 0-0 1 7 .td3 'fld7 18 'ii'e 2 lLlc6 19 lLlxc6 'iFxc6 20 0-0) 12 'iFg3 ( 1 2 ...

...

46

The Sveshnikov Sicilian (N adyrkhanov-Salov, Leningrad 1979); c) 12 c4 .tb 7 ( 1 2 . . . 'ii'a5 + 1? 13 'ild2 'ilxd2 + 14 rj;xd2 b4 is suffi cient to equalize, as in Panchenko Sveshnikov, Cheliabinsk 1975), and now:

'ii'e 3 d5! 13 exd5 lLJfxd5 14 'ii'g3 14 'ii'xe5?! 0-0 - 14 . . . .th5 15 c4 bxc4 16 .txc4 f6 1 7 .td2 0-0 18 0-0 .tf7 gives Black an excellent game, Planinc-Govedarica, Yugo slavia 1977) 12 . . . .te6 13 .td3 lLJg6 14 'ii'f3 ( 14 0-0 h61 followed by . . . lLJh5-f4) 14 ... d5 15 c3 h6 16 .txf6 'ii'xf6 1 7 'ii'xf6 gxf6 18 g3 dxe4 19 .txe4 l:b8 20 lLJc2 f5 21 .tg2 a5 1 22 0-0 f4 23 l:fel rj;e7 24 b4 (Yudasin-Yagupov, Moscow 1992). Black now unnecessarily took on g3, when after 24 . . . axb4 25 lLJxb4 l:bc8 he would have had no prob lems at all. A very typical game for the whole system! Now we return to 11 .txf6. 1 1 ... gxf6 12 'ii'f3 Alternatives are: a) 12 'fi'd2 .tb7 13 0-0-0 .txe41 14 'ii'xd6 'ii'xd6 15 :Xd6 lLJc6 16 f3 rj;e7 1 7 l:d2 .tf5 with an initiative for Black ( Chiburdanidze-Alexan dria, Tbilisi 1977); b) 12 'ii'd3 .tb7 13 0-0-0 d5 14 exd5 'fi'xd5 15 'fi'xd5 lLJxd5 1 16 c4 lLJb4 with good counterchances

cl) 13 cxb5 .txe4 14 bxa6 (af ter 14 'ii'a4?1 d5 15 bxa6 + rj;f8 Black's advantage in development and in the centre is the dominant factor, e.g. 16 'ii'b4 l:g8 1 7 f3 .tf5 18 g4 .tc8! with a clear pull for Black, Ljubojevic-Adorjan, Riga 1979) 14 . . . 0-0 (now 14 . . . d5 is dubi ous on account of 15 .tb5 + rj;f8 16 0-0) 15 .te2 d5 16 0-0 lLJc6 1 7 lLJb5 d4 1 8 l:cl 'fi'd7, and Black ob tained enough counterplay (Hen nigan-Nunn, London 1993); c2) 13 .td3 l:g8 (13 ... bxc4 is also sufficient for equality: 14 lLJxc4 d5 15 exd5 'ii'xd5 16 lLJd6 + rj;fB 17 .te4 'ii'a5 + 18 'ii'd2 'ilxd2 + 19 rj;xd2 l:d8, Smyslov-Svesh nikov, Lvov 1978) 14 cxb5 (14 0-0?1 is poor in view of 14 . . . bxc4 15 lLJxc4 d5 16 exd5? 'ii'xd5 17 .te4

47

The Choice of Two K's llxg2 + ! or 1 7 f3 lld8 18 l:r.f2 e4! , Kupreichik-Chekhov, USSR 1976, with the idea of 19 fxe4 'ii'xd3 20 lld2 l:r.xg2 + ! ) 14 . . . l:r.xg2 15 bxa6 .txa6 16 'ita>fl l:r.g6 1 7 'ii'a4 + 'ii'd7 with equal prospects (Kozyrev1'..ezulkin, Podolsk 1990) ; d) 12 �d3 d5 (12 . . . �b7 is also possible, e.g. 13 'ii'e2 d5! or 13 'ii'd2 d5! 14 exd5 'ii'xd5 15 0-0-0 0-0-0 16 'ii'b4 'ii'e6 1 7 �xb5 axb5 18 �xb5 'ii'xa2 19 lbd6 + l:r.xd6 20 l:r.xd6 with unclear complications, V.N.Kozlov-Kishnev, USSR 1988) 13 exd5 'ii'xd5 14 'ii'e 2 (14 f3 'ii'c 5!?) 14 . . . �f5 ! 15 �xf5 lbxf5 16 f3 lbd4 1 7 'ii'd3 l:.d8, with an ex cellent game for Black (Evans Lawton, 1985); Returning to 12 'ii'f3 . 12 f5 13 exf5 �xf5 13 d5!? (threatening 14 . . . b4) also deserves attention, for exam ple 14 f6 lbg6 15 l:r.dl �e6 (with the idea of 16 ... lbh4) 16 g3 l:r.c8 17 c3 e4 18 'ii'e3 'ii'xffi 19 �g2 b4! 20 lbbl lbe5 with good counterplay (Unni-Prasad, India 1991). �e6! 14 �d3 Black should avoid exchanges, as it is easier for White to make use of his advantage in 'pawn islands' in a simplified position, while the black pawn centre is especially valuable in the middlegame. After 14 �:x:d3 White obtains a small edge: 1 5 'ii'xd3 d5 16 c3 'ii'd6 1 7 0-0 l:r.g8 18 lbc2 lbg6 1 9 g3 (Kud rin-Yusupov, Lone Pine 1980). 0-0 15 0-0

Black also has another plan: 15 d5 16 l:r.adl 'ii'c 7! 17 'ii'ffi 0-0-0, e.g. 18 �xb5 axb5 19 lbxb5 'ii'c5 20 c4 dxc4 21 lbd6 + l:r.xd6 22 'ii'xh8 + 'it>d7 (Rogers-Kostic, Valjevo 1984) or 18 l:r.fel lbc6 19 l:e3 e4 20 �e2 'ii'e5 (McDonald-Chandler, 1989), with good counterplay in both cases. 16 c4 Attacking Black's pawn struc ture. f5! 16 Counterattacking in the centre! 17 l:fdl ••.

•••

•.•

•••

•••

The most important thing for Black now is not to allow White to blockade Black's central pawns. He can play, for example I 7 e4 18 'ii'e3 bxc4 19 �xc4 d5 20 lbc2 f4 (20 . . . 'ii'd6!?) 2 1 'ii'a3 'ii'd 7 22 l:d2 l:ad8 23 l:adl l:r.f6 with unclear consequences (Yudasin-Gorelov, USSR 1982), or even 17 d5!? 18 cxd5 �xd5 19 'ii'g3 + lbg6 20 �c2 'ita>h8! 2 1 �b3 lbf4 22 'ii'e 3 'ii'd6 with a good position (Lanc-Prie hoda, Trnava 1988 ; in this game ...

•••

48


23 g3? led White to a disaster af ter 23 . . . .!Lih3 + 24 � f41). AAdor jan and T.Horvath recommend the move 17 .!Lig6 !? (with the idea of . . . l:.a7-g7), as 18 cxb5 d5 19 .tc4 e4 20 'ii'e 3 f4! is favourable for Black. The conclusion is: 10 .!Lixe7 is quite harmless. However, the idea connected with this move is not bad and has found many interest ing incarnations in other lines (see following sections) . •••

Section 3

1 0 .txf6

(1 e4 c5 2 .!Lif3 .!Lic6 3 d4 cxd4 4 .!Lixd4 .!Lif6 5 .!Lic3 e5 6 .!Lidb5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 .!Lia3 b5 9 .!Lid5 .te7) .txf6 10 .txf6

White's most common plan in this position is to activate his a3 knight. 1 1 c3 Preparing .!Lia3-c2 and possibly a2-a4. Other moves are less logi cal:

a) 11 h4?! .txh4 12 l:.xh4 'ii'xh4 13 .!Lic7 + q;e7 14 .!Lixa8 'ii'xe4 + 15 'ii'e2 'ii'b4 + 16 c3 'ii'a5 17 'ii'e3 .te6 18 .!Lib6 l:.b8, taking back the piece with an obvious advantage for Black (Chandler-Kouatly, Baguio 1977); b) 11 g3 0-0 12 .tg2 .tg5 13 0-0 .!Lie7 14 .!Lixe7 + 'ii'x e7 15 c3 l:.b8 16 .!bc2 a5 1 7 l:.el .te6 18 .!be3 .txe3 19 l:be3 l:.fc8 with an equal posi tion (Ljubojevic-lllescas, Linares 1993); c) 11 lbbl. Black now can trans pose to the 9 .!Liabl line, for exam ple ll . . . .tg5 12 a4 b4. He can also play 1 1 . . . 0-0 12 a4 l:.b8, e.g. 13 axb5 axb5 14 .!Libc3 .!Lid4 15 .td3 (Cabrilo-Beliavsky, Lvov 1993 - il lustrative game Nr. 1 1 ) 15 . . . .tg5 ! . But the most radical response is 1 1 . . . l:.b8 12 a4 bxa4 13 :Xa4 :Xb2. After 14 .txa6 .!Lid4 15 0-0 .td7 16 l:.b4 J:r.xb4 1 7 .!Lixb4 'ii'a 5 it is White who must fight for equality (I.Almasi-Mrva, Budapest 1993); d) 11 c4 b4 12 .!Lic2 (12 'ii'a4?! .td 7 13 .!Lixb4 gives Black a strong attack: 13 . . . .!Lid4 14 'ii'd l l:.b8 15 'ii'd2 .tg5 16 'ii'c3 'ii'b6 17 .!Lid3 'ii'b 7 18 f3 .th4 + 19 g3 .!Lixf3 + ! 20 � .tg5 2 1 q;xf3 f5, Price-Radashk ovich, Tel Aviv 1977) 12 . . . a5 (or 12 . . . l:.b8 13 .te2 0-0 14 0-0 .tg5 15 'ii'd3 a5 16 l:.adl .te6 with the eventual idea of . . . g7-g6 and . . . f7f5, Beliavsky-1.Sokolov, Manila 1992) 13 lLJxm + (after 13 .te2 0-0 the position is also equal, e.g. 14 0-0 .tg5 15 .tg4 .tb7 - 15 . . . .te6 is more 'conventional' - 16 'ii'd3 .!Lie7

The Choice of Two K 's 1 7 0.x.e7 + 'flxe7 lS b3 .tc6 19 :fel •b7 20 .tf3 'ii'b 6, Frolov-Kram n i k, Sochi 1990) 13 . . .'ifxf6 14 .te2 0-0 15 0-0 l:dS 16 'ifd2 .te6 1 7 b3 ( Frolov-Yakovich, Moscow 1991), 1md now, according to A.Frolov, Black should have played 17 ... 'ife7 with the idea of . . . 'ii'a7-c5, equaliz ing. After 1 1 c3 Black's most com mon systems of development start with 1 1 . . .0-0, which we shall ex umine in Sections 4 and 5. How over, during the last decade some unusual lines have become popu lar. We'll deal will those in this Hection. 11 lLJe7 Immediately attacking White's centralized knight. Black has also other possibilities: a) 11 l:b8 12 lLJc2 .tg5. This order of moves usually leads (af ter 13 .ie2 0-0 or 13 .td3 0-0) to the system examined in Section 5. Incidentally, Black avoids Kaspa rov's unpleasant idea 13 h4. White can try 13 a4 (13 a3 a5 14 .td3 lLJe7!, Florescu- Rogozenko, Roma nia 1995) 13 . . . bxa4 14 lLJcb4 .td7 15 .txa6 . However, after 15 .. 0.x.b4 16 lLJxb4 (16 cxb4 0-0 leads to equality) Black has a strong reply 16 . . . 'ifa5! (16 ... 0-0 is also possible, e.g. 17 0-0 .te7 lS 'ife2 �hS 19 .l:.ad l g6 20 �bl 'ifeS 2 1 'ife3 f5 with counterplay on the kingside, Jansa-Mili�evic, Yugoslavia 1984) 17 .td3 (17 'ifxd6 l:b6 lS 'ii'd3 .te7) 1 7 . . . l:xb4! lS cxb4 'ifxb4+ 19 �e2 d5 20 'ifc2 dxe4 2 1 .txe4 0-0 ...

•••

.

49

22 l:hdl l:cS with a strong attack (Novikov-1.Efimov, Sochi 19SO) ; b) 1 1 .tb7!?. •••

This move is an improvement of Gurgenidze's idea to transfer Black's knight to d7 (see Section 4). Black is also threatening to play just 12 . . . lLJe7. After 12 lLJc2 (in reply to 1 2 'ii'g4 0-0 13 lLJc2 lLibS 14 .l:.dl, Ljubojevic-Illescas, Linares 1992, Black should have continued 14 . . . .tg5! 15 h4 .th6 16 lLJce3 - otherwise 16 . . . lLJd7 16 . . . .txe3 17 lLixe3 'iff6 followed by lS . . . l:.dS, with sufficient coun terchances) White is ready to an swer 12 lLie7 with 13 lLJce3 (if 13 lLJcb4 then 13 . . . 0-0, for example 14 a4 lLJxd5 15 lLJxd5 .ic6 ! 16 a5 l:cS 17 lLJb6?! .txe4! lS lLJxcS 'itxcS 19 'ir'xd6 l:dS, and Black has good compensation for the ex change, Ghinda-Kouatly, Thessa loniki 19S4) 13 . . . lLJxd5 (13 . . . .tg5 14 lLJxe7 .txe3 15 lLJf5 .tc5 16 lLJxg7 + �f8 1 7 lLif5 .txe4 lS 'ir'g4 with initiative for White, Heissler Muse, Germany 1991) 14 lLJxd5 0-0 •••

50


15 'ii'b 3 followed by l:lal-dl, con trolling the d5 square and main taining a minimal edge. However, the main idea behind l l ... .tb7 is 12 liJbS!?. Your author was the first to play this move, in 1990. Black's knight is aiming for f6 or c5 to at tack White's e4 pawn. This plan justifies the development of the black light-squared bishop to b7 since it can now press on the e4 pawn, too. So far Black has man aged to hold his ground: bl) 13 .i.d3 liJd7 14 a4 bxa4 15 .:.Xa4 .i.g5 16 0-0 0-0 1 7 l:la2 a5 18 .i.c4 liJb6 ! with equal chances (Be liavsky-Shirov, Linares 1994) ; b2) 13 c4 0-0 14 cxb5 axb5 15 .i.e2 (15 b4 .i.xd5 16 'ii'xd5 'ii'c 7! 17 .i.d3 - 1 7 'ii'xa8? 'ii'c3 + ! 18 �dl l:lc8 - 1 7 . . . 'ii'c3 + 18 �e2 lLic6 with an equal position, Sanchez Al meyra-Krasenkow, Paris 1990) 15 . . . liJd7 16 0-0 liJc5 17 .i.f3 .i.g5 18 liJcb4 g6 19 liJc3 �h8 20 'ii'e2 'ii'a5 with sufficient counterplay for Black (Brodsky-Rogozenko, Nikolaev 1993); b3) 13 a4 bxa4 14 .:.Xa4 (14 liJce3 liJd7 15 liJc4?! 0-0 16 liJxd6 .i.xd5 1 7 'ii'xd5 'ii'c 7!, and Black gained the initiative, Haba-Kra senkow, Wattens 1990 illustrative game Nr.1 3, or 15 'ii'xa4 0-0 16 l:ldl .i.g5 1 7 'ii'c 2 liJc5 18 liJf5 g6 19 b4 .i.xd5 20 l:lxd5 liJb7 21 h4 .i.f6 22 liJh6 + �g7 23 liJg4 a5, and again Black seized the initiative, in the game Zapata-Shirov, Ma nila 1992). •••

Now the famous game Kaspar ov-Shirov, Horgen 1994 (illustra tive game Nr. 14) saw 14 liJd7 15 l:lb4! liJc5 16 l:lxb7! liJxb7 17 b4 .i.g5 18 lLia3 0-0 19 lLJc4 a5 20 .i.d3 axb4 21 cxb4 'ii'b 8 22 h4 .i.h6 23 lLJcb6, and White has good compen sation for the exchange. Instead of 15 . . . liJc5, 15 l:lb8 deserved at tention, and a move earlier it is probably more accurate to play 14 ... 0-0! 15 lLJce3 liJd7. b4) 13 g3 .i.g5 (in Kuporosov Kharlov, Russian championship, Elista 1994, Black tried to do without . . . .tf6-g5 and equalized after 13 . . . liJd7 14 .i.g2 liJc5 15 0-0 0-0 16 liJce3 g6 17 liJxf6 + ?! 'ii'xf6 18 liJd5 .i.xd5 19 'ii'xd5 'ii'e6 20 'ii'd2 l:lac8 2 1 b3 l:lc6 ; White should have played 1 7 h4, like in the 13 liJce3 line) 14 .i.g2 0-0 15 'ii'd3 liJd7 16 l:ldl liJb6 17 liJxb6 'ii'xb6 18 0-0 l:lfd8 19 liJb4 l:lac8 20 liJd5 .i.xd5 21 'ii'xd5 b4, and Black ob tained equality in Hubner-Nunn, San Francisco 1995; b5) 13 liJce3 liJd7 14 g3 ! (14 .i.d3 0-0 15 0-0 .i.g5 16 'ii'e2 .txe3 •••

...

51


17 lllxe3 lllc5 18 :fdl g6, Fried rlch-Krasenkow, Berlin 1990, and 1 4 lllf5 0-0! 15 lllxd6 .ixd5 16 *xd5 'ti'c7! 1 7 l:r.dl ! - 17 lllxf7? li)b6 - 1 7 ... lllb6 18 1i'b7 'it'c5, Mor ris-Krasenkow, Andorra 1991, load to satisfactory positions for Black) 14 . . . 0-0 ( 14 . . . .ig5?! 15 lllf5 ! 0-0 16 h4) 15 h4! (preventing . . . i.f6-g5) 15 . . . g6 16 '6'g4 .tg7 1 7 h5 lllf6 18 lllxf6 + 'ti'xf6 19 :dl :ac8 ( 1 9 . . . .ic8 20 'ii'e 2 .ie6 2 1 li)d5, and White i s slightly better, Htripunsk:y-Krasenkow, Pardubice t 99 3 ) 20 .tg2 :fds 2 1 o-o ltc5 ! 22 :Z.d3 .ih6 23 :Z.fdl .ixe3 24 :xe3 .ic8! 25 'ii'e2 .ie6, and Black oqualized in the game Mortensen N unn, Vejle 1994. Returning to ll ... llle 7 . 12 lllxf6 + White obtains a position from the 10 lllx e7 line with an extra tempo (c2-c3). However, it proves quite difficult to make use of it. The other options are not very promising either. 12 lllxe 7 is ab solutely harmless, e.g. 12 . . . .ixe7 13 .ie2 (otherwise 13 . . . .tb7 and 14 . . . d5) 13 . . . .ie6 14 .if3 'it'b6 15 0-0 0-0 16 lllc2 .ig5 17 .ig4 .ih6 18 .ixe6 fxe6 19 'ti'e2 :Z.f7 20 �hl a5 with equality (Semeniuk-Kra senkow, Moscow 1985). 12 lll c2 is a popular quiet reply. After 12 ... lllxd5 (for 12 . . . .tb7 - see l l . . . .tb7) 13 'ti'xd5 :b8 (13 . . . .te6!? enabled Black to equalize in the game J.Polgar-Lautier, Las Pal mas 1994, after 14 'it'c6 + �e7 15 lllb4 Wd7 16 a4 Wxc6 1 7 lllxc6 +

�d7 18 lllb4 �c7 19 �d2 .tb3! with the idea of 20 axb5 .tg5 + ! ; however, 16 'ti'b6! ? :Z.hc8 1 7 :Z.dl deserves serious attention) 14 lDb4 .tb7 ( 14 . . . 0-0!? 15 Wd3 - 15 lllc6 .tb7 - 15 . . . '6'd7 with the idea of ... Wd7-b7 and ... .tc8-e6) 15 'ii'd3 0-0 16 .ie2 a5 (16 . . g6 1 7 0-0 .ig5 18 :Z.adl a5 19 lll d5 .ia8 20 a3 yields White a minimal edge, Ro gers-Chandler, London 1989) 17 llld5 .ixd5 18 'ii'xd5 b4 19 c4 'it'b6 the position is nearly drawn (Gel ler-Ivanovic, Vr§ac 1987). This dry line has considerably reduced the number of adherents of the ll . . . llle 7 move. However, ifWhite wants to fight for an advantage, he must play 12 lllxf6 + . 12 gxf6 .

•••

13 lllc2 The alternatives are: a) 13 'ti'd3 ( or 13 'iid 2) doesn't change much from the 10 lllxe7 line: 13 . . . .tb7 14 0-0-0 d5 1 5 exd5 'it'xd5 16 'iVxd5 lllxd5! etc. Or 14 :dl d5 15 'iVf3 'ii'd6 16 exd5 .ixd5 1 7 c4 bxc4 18 .ixc4 'iVb4 + , and

52


Black is not worse (Barua-Chand ler, 1989) ; b) 13 �d3 �b7 (13 ... d5 14 exd5 'ii'xd5 15 'ii'e 2 �f5!?) 14 0-0 (for 14 c!bc2 - see 13 c!bc2) 14 . . . f5 15 exf5 llg8 16 f3?! c!Dd5 17 'ii'd2 .!Df4 18 g3 'ii'h 4! with an overwhelming at tack for Black (Prasad-Kouatly, Kolhapur 1987). White should have played 16 g3 d5 1 7 c!Dc2 e4 18 �e2 c!Dxf5 with mutual chances (Kouatly) ; c) 13 �e2 f5! (the simplest but 13 . . . �b7 also works, e.g. 14 �f3 'ii'b6 15 c!Dc2 d5 ! 16 exd5 lld8 17 0-0 - 17 c!be3 f5! - l 7 ... llg8 18 1i'e2 c!Dxd5 with an excellent position for Black, Forster-Sermek, Switz erland 1994) 14 exf5 �xf5 15 c!Dc2 'ii'b 6 16 tbe3 �e6 17 �g4 (17 �f3 d5 ! ) l 7 . . . d5 18 �xe6 'ii'xe6 19 a4 l:.d8 (preparing . . . d5-d4), and Black had the initiative in Prandstetter Mrva, Czechoslovakian champi onship, Bratislava 1991; d) 13 'ii'f3 f5 14 exf5 �xf5 (14 . . . d5?! 15 f6) 15 �d3 �e6 16 0-0 0-0 ( 16 . . . d5 is now not so worth while as White can establish a blockade, e.g. 17 lladl c!Dg6 18 'ii'g3 'iff6 19 �xg6 hxg6 20 f4! e4 21 c!bc2, Mokry-Welin, Copenha gen 1985) 1 7 �c2 (for 17 c4 - see 10 c!Dxe7, Section 2) 17 . . . f5 (after l 7 . llb8 18 �b3 b4 19 �xe6 bxa3 20 �b3 axb2 2 1 llabl q;g7 22 l:lxb2 White's chances are some what better due to his strong bishop, Popovic-Vukic, Yugoslavia 1988) 18 �b3 'i'd7 19 llfel c!Dg6 20 lladl l:cad8 21 c!Dc2 �xb3 22 axb3 .

.

d5 (22 . . . f4!? is probably safer) 23 c!Db4 e4 24 'ii'g3 f4 25 'ii'g5 llf5 with enough counterplay for Black (Popovic-Kouatly, Paris 1986) ; e) 13 g3 �b7 (again 13 . . . f5!? deserves serious attention, e.g. 14 �g2 fxe4 15 �xe4 d5 16 �g2 �e6 17 'ii'h 5 'ilc7 18 c!Dc2 0-0 19 0-0 f6 with a good position for Black, Gobet-Bhend, Swiss champion ship 1988) 14 �g2 f5 (after 14 . . . d5 15 'ii'e2 dxe4 16 lldl ! 'ifb6 1 7 �xe4 �xe4 18 'ii'xe4 0-0 19 'ii'g4+ q;hs 20 0-0 White is slightly bet ter, Hellers-Maksimovic, Berlin 1988, but 15 . . . d4! 16 lldl '6'a5 looks sufficient for equality) 15 'ii'e 2 (or 15 1Vd3) 15 ... 0-0! (better than 15 . . . 'ii'b6 16 0-0-0 0-0-0 17 c!Dc2, Marjanovic-Kouatly, Clichy 1986 - illustrative game Nr.12) 16 c!bc2 fxe4 1 7 �xe4 �xe4 18 'ifxe4 f5 19 'ii'e2 'ii'b6 20 0-0-0 a5 21 c!be3 b4 22 c4 b3 23 a3 llac8 with good counterplay for Black (Stripunsky Morchat, Polanica Zdroj 1995). Returning to 13 c!bc2. 13 �b7 13 d5?! is now risky in view of 14 a4! bxa4 15 c!be3!, e.g. 15 ... dxe4 16 'ii'xa4 + �d7 (16 . . .'ifd7? 17 �b5, Shabalov-Berset, St Martin 1993) 1 7 '6'xe4 with a strong initiative for White. 14 �d3 14 a4 �xe4 15 axb5 axb5 16 �xb5 + q;f8 17 tbe3 lhal 18 'ii'xal J:[g8 is better for Black (Bachar T.Horvath, Thessaloniki 1984); 14 'ifd3 leads to equality after the continuation 14...'ii'b6 (14 ... d5!?) 15 •••

•••

53


/f)e3 l:ld8 16 .i.e2 d5 17 exd5 lllxd5 l8 lllxd5 .i.xd5 19 .i.f3 .i.c4 (Mes Lol-Van der Wiel, Leiden 1982) or 16 g3 d5!?. d5 14 14 'in>G 15 llle3 d5 16 'iff3 0-0-0 17 exd5 lllxd5 18 .i.e4 lllf4 19 0-0 (Sharif-Kouatly, France 1986) and 14 :gS 15 llle 3 d5 16 'iff3 f5 l 7 lllxf5 lllxf5 18 'ifxf5 l:lg5 19 'iff3 (Pritchett-Littlewood, Eng land 1985) are hardly convincing ways to equality. 14 f5!? is inter esting, and after 15 exf5 .i.xg2 16 l:lgl .i.b7 17 a4 (Brodsky-Osipov, USSR 1991) Black should play 1 7 . . . bxa4 18 l:lxa4 d5 (Brodsky, A.Vaisman) . Still, the black king doesn't inspire any confidence in this line. 15 exd5 But not 15 'ife2? f5 (Alzate Ochoa, Havana 1983). 'if:x:d5 15 15 l0xd5 is inferior on account of 16 .i.e4!, for example 16 . . . f5 17 .i.xf5 lllf4 18 llle 3 .i.xg2 19 l:lgl or 16 . . . tbe3 17 lllxe3 .i.xe4 18 'ifg4 .i.g6 19 f4! , with an initiative for White. 16 llle3 'ife6 (D) This position is crucial for the whole l l . . . tbe7 variation. To make use of his better pawn structure, White should try to lure Black's pawns to light squares and block ade them. Taking this point into consideration and especially re fraining from . . . e5-e4, Black can successfully prevent White's plans, for example 17 'ifh5 (17 'ifb3?! f5! , •••

•••

•••

•••

•••

•••

Ulybin-Krasenkow, Pinsk 1986; 17 .i.c2 llld 5! 18 lllf5 0-0-0; 17 a4!? has not yet been tried) 17 0-0-0! (but not 17 ... e4?! 18 .i.c2 f5 19 .i.b3 'ifg6 20 'ifh4 h6 21 'iff4 0-0-0 22 g3, and White has achieved his aim, Berzinsh-Savko, Latvian champi onship 1993) 18 .i.c2 �b8 19 .i.b3, and now, instead of 19 . . . llld 5? 20 0-0-0 lllf4 (Zontakh-Manik, Hlo hovec 1994) when 2 1 :Xd8 + :Xd8 22 'ifxh7 'ifb6 23 l:ldl! would have yielded White a clear pull, Black should sacrifice a pawn: 19 . . . 'ifb6! 20 .i.xf7 f5! or 20 'ffxf7 lllg6 21 .i.d5 .i.c8 ! , and his advantage in devel opment and initiative guarantees him a good compensation. So, the lines examined in this section promise Black quite a rea sonable game. However, the nor mal 1 1 . . . 0-0 is quite satisfactory for him, too. . . .

Section 4 11

...

0-0

( 1 e4 c5 2 lllf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lllf6 5 lllc3 e5 6 llldb5 d6

54


7 .tg5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 lbd5 .te7 10 .txf6 .txf6 1 1 c3) 0-0 11 12 lbc2 (DJ White should immediately pre pare a2-a4. Otherwise Black eas ily obtains a good position, e.g. 12 .te2 .tg5 13 0-0 .te6 14 lbc2 lbe7 15 lbcb4 a5 16 lbxe7 + 'ilxe7 17 lbd5 'ilb71 18 g3 .txd5 19 'ilxd5 'ii'xd5 20 exd5 l:t.ab8 with a typical slightly better position for Black (Baikov-Kalinichev, Moscow 1977 - a very instructive game! ) , or 12 .td3 .tg5 13 .tc2 l:t.b81 14 'ild3 b4 15 lbc4 bxc3 16 bxc3 lbe7 with equality (Arnason-Van der Wiel, Haninge 1989), or 12 h4l? (this idea later found a better incarna tion - see Section 5) 12 . . . lbe7 13 lbxf6 + gxf6 14 'ilf3 f5 15 .td3 d5 16 exd5 'ilxd5 17 'ii'g3 + �h8 18 0-0-0 'ilc5 19 lbc2 l:t.g8 with mu tual chances (Mark Tseitlin-Kali nichev, Tbilisi 1985). ...

make a prophylactic move 12 ... .l:t.bS. In this section we'll examine the former possibility: .tg5 12 There are some other possible continuations that are worth men tioning: a) 12 ..te& (this is slightly pre mature) 13 a4 bxa4 14 :Xa4 a5 15 .tc4 .tg5 16 0-0 Wb8 17 'ild3! l:t.c8 (but not 17 . . . 'ilxb2? 18 tfJc7) 18 b4 'i1Vb7 19 l:t.fal, and White maintains the pressure (Am.Rodriguez-Yusu pov, Minsk 1982); b) 12 .tb7 (introduced by GM Gurgenidze; the idea is to trans pose Black's knight to c5 or f6; true, this plan takes a lot of time) 13 .te2 (13 a41? bxa4 14 :Xa4 lbb8 15 .tc4! lbd7 16 b4 a5 - 16 . . . lbb6 1 7 lbxb6 'ifxb6 18 .td5 - 1 7 0-0 axb4 18 :Xa8 'ifxa8 - 18 ....txaS 19 cxb4 lbb6 20 'i1Vd31? - 19 cxb4 .td8 20 lbce3 yields White a small edge, Erneste-Kalinichev, Berlin 1993; however, Black can change his mind: 13 . . . lbe71? 14 lbxf6 + gxf6 15 .td3 �h8 16 0-0 l:t.g8 1 7 lbe3 f5 !? 18 exf5 'ilb6 19 l:t.el d5 with equal chances, Moulin-Lein, Philadelphia 1992) 13 lbb8 (now 13 . . . lbe7 is hardly appropriate on account of 14 lbce3; 13 . . . .tg5 14 0-0 lbbS 15 .tg4! leads to a trans position of moves while 15 'ild3 instead of 15 .tg4 - is weaker: 15 . . . lbd7 16 l:t.fdl lbc5 17 'iff3 g6 18 lbce3 �h8 19 .tfl l:r.a7! ? 20 b4 lbe6 with a good position for Black, Tiviakov-Shirov, Oakham 1992 - illustrative game Nr. 1 5), •••

..

•••

•••

Black now has two principal op tions: to continue his plan without preventing a2-a4 (12 . . . .tg5) or to

The Choice of Two K's 14 J.g4! (preventing 14... �7; if 14 Wd3?! then 14 . . . lbd7 15 :dl J.g5 16 0-0 lbc5 17 Wf3 g6 etc., Kor neev-Krasenkow, Moscow 1987) 14 ...J.g5 15 0-0

After 15 ... l:a7 16 a4 (alterna tively 16 1i'd3!? �7 17 .txd7 1i'xd7 18 :adl a5 19 1i'g3 1i'd8! 20 lbce3 with the idea of 21 c4, and White maintained a certain plus, Novik Chekhov, Leningrad 199 1 ; Chek hov recommends 18 . . . g6 followed by . . . f7-f5) 16 . . . bxa4 1 7 :Xa4 lbd7 18 J.xd7 1i'xd7 19 :a3 ( 19 lbcb4 a5 ! and, if necessary, ... .tg5-d8) 19 ... a5 20 1i'd3 l:b8 21 b4 .txd5 22 1i'xd5 axb4 23 l:xa7 1i'xa7 24 lbxb4 White maintains a minimal edge (Serper-Krasenkow, Vilnius 1988) . However, according to Chekhov, the 'prevented' 15 lbd7!? is still possible: 16 .txd7 1i'xd7 17 lbb6 1i'c6 18 fua8 1i'xe4 19 f3 1i'c6 fol lowed by . . . l:f8xa8; this line needs practical tests; c) 12 lbbS (the same idea; af ter 13 .te2 .tb7 - 13 ... lbd7 14 .tg4! •••

•••

55

- the previous variation appears) 13 lbxf6 + !? (13 a4 is harmless: 13 . . . bxa4 14 lbce3 lbd7 15 1i'xa4 .tg5 16 1i'c2 J.xe3 17 fue3 lbf6 with equality, Geller-Gurgenidze, USSR championship, Riga 1985) 13 . . . 1i'xf6 14 g3 .tb7 15 .tg2 lbd7 16 0-0 lLJc5 17 1i'e2 l:ad8 (17 ... a5!? with the idea of . . . J.b7-c6, . . . l:f8d8, . . . :a8-c8 - recommended by Chekhov) 18 :adl 1i'e6 19 lbb4 1i'c4 20 'ifel g6 preparing . . . f7-f5 and obtaining sufficient counter play (Stripunsky-Kharlov, Rostov 1993). Still, despite the fact that Gur genidze' s plan has never been re futed, its original version (unlike the modified one, i.e. 1 1 . . . J.b7 before castling - see Section 3) re mains a rare guest in top tourna ments. Now we move on to 12 . . . .tg5. 13 a4

Other moves are not dangerous for Black: a) 13 h4 J.h6 14 g4 (attention: a typical tactical trick is coming!) 14 ... .tf4! 15 1i'f3 .te6 16 lbxf4 1i'f6! 17 g5 'ii'xf4 18 'ifxf4 exf4 19 lbd4 lbe5 20 .th3 .txh3 21 :xh3 l:fe8 with good chances for Black (Uli ashev-Novik, St Petersburg 1992); b) 13 lbce3 (the white knight can be exchanged here) 13 . . . .tb7 (13 . . . .te6!?) 14 .i.e2 J.xe3 15 lbxe3 lbe7 16 J.f3 d5 17 exd5 'ifd6 18 g4 l:ad8 19 1i'd3 :d7 20 0-0-0 l:fd8 2 1 lbf5 1i'f6 22 lbxe7 + 1i'xe7 23 :hel .txd5! is equal (Gaprindash vili-Timoshchenko, USSR 1977);

56


c) 13 .i.e2 (13 .i.d3?! .i.e6!), and now: cl) 13 f5!? 14 .i.f3 :a7?! 15 0-0 :af7 16 a4! bxa4 17 :Xa4 �h8 18 exf5 ! .i.xf5 19 lbce3 .i.c8 20 .i.e4, and White is better (Wang Zili-Li Zunian, Chinese champi onship 1987); however, 14 . . . :bs! was much stronger; c2) 13 tbe7 14 tbcb4 a5 (or 14... .i.e6 15 'ffd3!?) 15 tbxe7+ 'flxe7 16 tbd5 'flb7 17 1Vd3 (or 17 'flh3 l:.b8 18 O-O .i.e6 19 :adl :res 20 a4 b4 2 1 .i.b5 bxc3 22 bxc3 :c5 with equal chances, Sznapik-Skro bek, Warsaw 1989) 1 7 . b4 18 cxb4 axb4 19 'ilg3 .i.d8! 20 0-0 .i.b6 21 a3 bxa3 22 bxa3 .i.e6 23 .i.c4 .i.d4, and Black is not worse (Kamsky Lautier, Dos Hermanas 1995). Pay attention to the manoeuvre of Black's dark-squared bishop - it will be the 'crown jewels' of the next section! c3) 13 .i.e6. Now 14 a4 bxa4 15 :Xa4 a5 16 .i.c4 leads to the main position of the 12 . . . .i.g5 line (see below) . . . with an extra tempo for Black! 14 0-0 is also harmless and enables Black to attack the d5 point: 14 . . . tbe7! 15 tbcb4 a5 16 tbxe7 + 'flxe7 17 tbd5 'flb7! 18 'flb3 .i.xd5 19 exd5 :ab8 with an excel lent game (Breyther-Kindermann, Germany 1987) or 15 a4 bxa4 16 l:.xa4 .i.xd5 1 7 exd5 a5 18 tba3 f5 19 tbc4 e4 with good counterplay (Serper-Chekhov, Frunze 1988). White can try 14 �b4 tbxb4 15 tbxb4 'flb6 16 'fld3 but Black is by no means worse after 16 . . . a5 17 •••

•••

.

.

tbd5 .i.xd5 18 'flxd5 b4 19 c4 b3!? 20 a3 a4 followed by . . . :a8-a5. Returning to 13 a4. bxa4 13 After 13 :bS 14 axb5 axb5 the black b5 pawn is weak, and White maintains strong pressure, for ex ample 15 .i.e2 tbe7 16 tbcb4 .i.b7 1 7 0-0 .i.xd5 18 tbxd5 tbxd5 19 'ifxd5 b4 20 :a6 .i.e7 21 l:.a7 (lnkiov-Littlewood, Groningen 1978). 14 ::x&4 14 tbce3!? was played in V.Spa sov-Dochev (Sofia 1994), and after 14 ....i.b7 15 'flxa4 tbb8 16 .i.c4 tbd7 17 'ilc2 tbc5 18 f3 .i.xe3 19 tbxe3 'ffb 6 (19 . . . a5!?) 20 'flf2 White ob tained a minimal edge. Of course, Black has many other plans after 14 tbce3, for example 14 . . . .i.b7 15 'flxa4 tbe7! (the d5 point! ) with a good game. •••

•••

•••

14 a5 14 tbe7 15 .i.c4 (or even 15 lbcb4 a5 16 tbxe7 + 'flxe7 1 7 tbd5, as in the game A.Kuzmin-Mina sian, Belgorod 1989) is in White's •••

57


favour, 14 'iii>h8 15 i.c4 a5 leads to a transposition of moves (see 14 . . . a5) while 15 ... llb8 is dubious in view of 16 lbcb4! lbxb4 17 lbxb4 llb6 (or l 7 . . . i.b7 18 1i'e2) 18 0-0 i.b7 19 i.d5 i.c8 20 i.c4 i.b7 2 1 'ife2 with the better chances for White (Mokry-Kristensen, Gaus dal 1989) . The immediate 14 llb8 is also poor: 15 h4! (but not 15 b4 a5! 16 i.c4 axb4 17 cxb4 'iii>h8 18 0-0 f5, Sveshnikov; Adorjan and T.Hor vath recommend 15 .!bcb4 .!bxb4 16 cxb4 followed by 'ifdl-b3 and i.fl-c4) 15 . . . i.h6 16 i.xa6 llxb2 1 7 i.xc8 1i'xc8 18 l:tc4 1i'b8 19 0-0 .!ba5 20 llb4! :Xb4 21 cxb4 with an obvious advantage for White, as in Iordachescu-Sawatzki, Ber lin 1995. Another interesting option is 14 i.b7!? (introduced by Che khov, Kalinichev and Geo. Timosh enko in the 1980s) 15 i. c4 (if now 15 i.e2 then 15 . . . .!bb8! , for exam ple 16 0-0 .!bd7 17 lla2 a5 18 'iii>h l .!Llb6 with equality, Prandstetter Chekhov, Prague 1989) 15...c!baS!? ( 15 . . . .!Llb8 is now insufficient, e.g. 16 0-0 .!Lld7 17 b4 a5 18 1i'd3! .!Llb6 19 .!bxb6 1i'xb6 20 llfal axb4 2 1 l:lxa8 llxa8 2 2 llxa8 + i.xa8 2 3 cxb4, Kalod-Pisk, Brno 1994, or 18 . . . axb4 19 llxa8 1ixa8 20 cxb4, R.Korsunsky-Arbakov, USSR 1978, with a certain edge for White in both cases) 16 i.a2 (16 i.e2 .!Llb3 ! 1 7 lla3 .!bc5 18 f3 a 5 19 b 3 i.xd5 20 1i'xd5 i.cl 21 lla2 .!be6 22 g3 'ifg5 led to unclear consequences •••

•••

in Shmuter-Verdikhanov, Niko laev 1993) 16 i.c6 17 l:ta3 (17 l:.b4 is not so clear: 17 . . . .!bb7 18 h4 i.h6 19 g4 i.f4 20 .!Llxf4 exf4 2 1 f3 .!bc5 22 l:.d4 1i'e7! 23 1i'd2 i.a4! with sufficient counterplay for Black, as in M. Kiselev-Novik, St Petersburg 1994) 17 i.b5 , try ing to prevent White's develop ment. •••

•••

•••

However, after the continuation 18 h4! i.h6 19 .!bce3 (threatening 20 .!Lif5) 19 . . . i.xe3 20 .!Lixe3 l:.c8 (or 20 . . . l:ta7 21 1i'd5 lbc6 22 i.c4!, Rechel-Beshukov, Anapa 1991) 21 �f5! .!bc4 (2 1 . . . �b7? 22 1i'g4! 1i'f6 23 'ifg5! , exchanging queens with a strategically winning endgame, Lanka-Krasenkow, Moscow 1989 illustrative game Nr. 1 6) 22 i.xc4 l:.xc4 23 f3! (suggested by S.Gore lov; 23 lbxd6 l:.d4! is unclear), and White maintains a small but clear positional edge. So, this line has gone out of wide use. 14 . . . a5 is the most natural as Black's a-pawn is now safely pro tected.

58


15 .i.c4 15 b4 is harmless in view of 15 . . . .i.e6, e.g. 16 b5 tt:lb8 (with the idea of . . . tt:lb8-d7-c5) 17 tt:lcb4 'ffc8 18 .i.e2 axb4! 19 .l:txa8 bxc3 20 tt:le3 f5 ! with good counterplay (Yudasin-Semeniuk, Saratov 1981) or even 16 . . . tt:le7 17 .i.c4 lk8!?. 1 5 .i.b5 can be answered by 15 . . . tt:le 7!, e.g. 16 tt:lxe7 + 'ii'xe7 1 7 0-0 'ffb 7 1 8 'ii'd3 .i.e6 1 9 c4 .i.d8 20 'ii'x d6 'ifxe4 with equality (Smys lov-Sveshnikov, USSR champion ship, Leningrad 1977) or 16 tt:lcb4 .i.e6 17 tt:lxe7 + (17 tt:lc6 tt:lxc6 18 .i.xc6 l:.b8 19 l:.a2 'ffc8 20 'ii'a4 'fia6 2 1 c4 lUc8 22 .i.b5 'ffa 7 leads to a double-edged position, accord ing to Sveshnikov) l 7 . . . 'flxe7 18 .i.c6 l:.ac8 19 l:.xa5 l:.xc6! 20 tt:lxc6 'ifb7 21 h4! .i.f6 22 'ii'xd6 l:.c8 23 l:c5 .i.d7 24 tt:le7 + .i.xe7 25 'iixe7 'ii'xe4+ with perpetual check (Rai sky-Yakovich, Tashkent 1978). After 15 .i.c4 Black's general plan consists in a kingside attack by means of ... �g8-h8 and . . . f7-f5. This plan has two modifications: Black can prepare . . . f7-f5 by . . . g7g6 or do without it. l%b8 15 An immediate 15 �h8 is pos sible as well, for example 16 0-0 f5 1 7 exf5 .i.xf5 18 'ife2 (18 .i.d3 .i.e6! 19 .i.e4 l:.b8 20 b4 axb4 2 1 tt:lcxb4 tt:lxb4 22 tt:lxb4 l%c8 with equality, Tkachiev-Lautier, Moscow 1994; 18 tt:lce3 is probably more accu rate) 18 . . . .i.e6 19 tt:lce3 .l:tb8 20 lldl 'ifd7 21 .l:laal (2 1 b3 ! ) 2 1 . ..'iff7 22 tt:lfl .i.d8 ! 23 .l:ld2 tt:le7 with good •••

•••

counterplay for Black (Geller Sveshnikov, USSR championship, Leningrad 1977). The text move is a little more accurate, since it restricts White's possibilities while Black's rook is quite well placed on b8. 16 b3 16 b4 leads to the line exam ined above (14 . . . l%b8). White has two more important alternatives: a) 16 'ifal (White wants to pre pare b2-b4; however, his queen is now somewhat offside) 16 . . . �h8 (16 . . . .i.e6 doesn't fit Black's plan, e.g. 17 b3 g6 18 0-0 'ifd7 19 .l:ldl f5 20 exf5 gxf5 2 1 b4 with an edge for White, as in Karpov-Sveshni kov, USSR championship, Moscow 1973) 17 0-0 g6 (or 1 7 . . . £5 when after 18 exf5 .i.xf5 19 tt:lce3 Black should probably play 19 . . . .i.e6 ! as in the event of 19 . . . .i.g6 20 .l:ldl e4 21 .i.fl tt:le5 - otherwise 22 b4 etc. - 22 .l:ld2 .i.h6 23 .l:lxa5 'ifh4 24 'ifel ! his attack was successfully parried in Tiviakov-Degraeve, Oak ham 1992) 18 b4 axb4 19 cxb4 tt:le7 20 !i.Jxe7 .i.xe7 21 b5 (preparing tt:lc2-b4) 2 1 . . . .i.b7 22 l:.el 'ii'b6 23 'ifa2 f5 24 exf5 .i.g5 25 .i.d3 gxf5 with good counterplay for Black (Jansa-Simic, Belgrade 1977); b) 1 6 :a2 'iii>h8 (16 . . . .i.e6 17 0-0 'ii'd 7 can be met by 18 'ii'e2 .i.d8 19 tt:lce3 �h8 20 l:dl g6 21 �hl f5 22 exf5 gxf5 23 f4, Sveshnikov), and now: (D) bl) 17 tt:lce3!? g6 18 0-0 (18 h4!? is interesting, e.g. 18 . . ..i.xh4 19 g3 .i.g5 20 f4 exf4 2 1 gxf4 .i.h4 + 22

59


After the move 16 b3 White's major pieces are not tied to the de fence of his b-pawn. �h8 16 ... Again 16 .ie6 is hardly good for Black, e.g. 17 0-0 (or 17 ..al see 16 •au 17 . . . t/Je7 18 •da lLJxd5 19 .ixd5 .1:%xb3?! 20 .ixb3 .ixb3 21 l%a3 a4 22 lbal with a clear pull for White (Nikolenko Sveshnikov, Pula 1990). 17 0-0 (DJ 17 h4?! is poor: 1 7 . . . .ih6 18 g4 .if4! 19 •fa .ie6 20 lLJce3 .ixe3 21 fxe3?! lbe7 ! etc. (Mezentsev-Kim, Novosibirsk 1980) . If 17 lLJce3 then 17 . . . g6 18 0-0 f5, e.g. 19 exf5 gxf5 20 f4 exf4 2 1 lLJc2 lLJe5 22 lLJxf4 (Brodsky-Sopur, Katowice 1992), and now 22 . . . lLJxc4 23 bxc4 l%e8 with an excellent position for Black. •••

�fl f5 23 b3 fxe4 24 l%ah2 g5 25 lbg2 llb7 26 lbxh4 gxh4 27 .1:%xh4 .1:%g7 with unclear complications in the game Stangl-Kindermann, Al tensteig 1987) 18 . . . f5 19 •a4 ( 19 •d3?! f4 20 lbc2 f3 with an initia tive for Black, Sznapik-Li Zunian, Thessaloniki 1984) , and now, in stead of 19 . . . .id7 20 .ib5 :Xb5 2 1 •xb5 lbb4 2 2 •xa5 lbxa2 23 •xa2, and White's chances are prefer able (Novik-Filippov, St Petersburg 1994), Black should certainly play 19 . . . .tb71 20 .ib5 lbe7 with suffi cient kingside counterplay; b2) 1 7 0-0 f5 (17 . . . g6!? 18 •e2 .th6 19 l:tdl f5 20 exf5 gxf5 2 1 •h5 .tg7 22 lbce3 .id7 2 3 f4 a41 with equal chances, Kudrin-Beli kov; Moscow 1995) 18 exf5 .txf5 19 lbce3, and now, besides 19 .ie6 20 •da •d7 21 b3 etc. (see below, 16 b3 line), Black can try 19 ... .ig61? since it is not so easy for White to push b2-b4. 20 •a4? 1 •cs 2 1 .tb5 is refuted by 2 1 . . . .ieSI 22 c4 lbb4 23 lLJxb4 .ixe3! 24 fxe3 l:txfl + 25 �xfl .ixb5 26 cxb5 •c4 + (Matu lovic-Sax, Belgrade 1977). •••

f5 17 As usually, the main alternative to this move is 17 g6 . Black maintains sufficient counterplay after 18 •e2 .td7 19 l:tfal .th6 20 g3?! (20 b4) f5 2 1 exf5 gxf5 22 b4 •••

•••

60


e4! (Lutz-Kramnik, Germany 1995 illustrative game Nr.1 7). 18 b4 looks stronger but after 18 . . . .td7 19 'ii'al 'ii'c8 20 .td3 axb4 21 cxb4 li)e7 (2 1 . . .li)d4? 22 li)xd4 .txa4 23 t;)f3 .tb3 24 li)xg5 f6, Saltaev Cherniaev, Vladivostok 1995, is poor in view of 25 l:.cl ! 'ii'g4 26 li)xh7! xh 7 27 li)xf6 + ! l:.xf6 28 'ii'a 7 + ) 22 li)xe7 .txe7 23 l:.a7 .td8 Black seems to be okay. 18 e:xf5 .txf5 19 li)ce3 Or 19 'ii'e 2 'ii'd 7 20 li)ce3 (20 li)de3 is questionable: 20 . . . .te6 2 1 l:.dl?! .txe3 2 2 li)xe3 l:.xb3 ! , Nij boer-Van der Wiel, Netherlands 1987) 20 . . . .te6 21 l:.dl .td8 ! (the best square for this bishop!) 22 l:.a2 'ii'f 7 23 'ii'd 3 'ii'h 5 (23 . . . li)e7!?, Sveshnikov) 24 t;)fl (with the idea of li)g3-e4) 24 . . . e4 25 'ii'c 2 .th4 26 li)g3 .txg3 27 hxg3 t;)e5 28 t;)f4 l:.xf4 29 gxf4 li)f3 + 30 gxf3 .txc4 31 'ii'xe4 hb3 32 :bl l:.e8 33 l:.xa5 d5, and the game should have ended in a draw (Geller-Svesh nikov, USSR championship, Tbi lisi 1978) . 19 .te6 (DJ 19 .tg6 is also possible, e.g. 20 .te2 .tf7 (20 . . . e4 21 b4 axb4 22 cxb4 li)e5 !?, Sveshnikov) 2 1 .tf3 .txe3 22 fxe3 li)e7 23 .te4 .txd5 24 lhf'B + 'ii'xf8 25 .txd5 'ii'd8 with equal chances (Kindermann-Birn boim, Munich 1987) or 20 .td3!? .txd3 2 1 'ii'xd3 .txe3 22 fxe3 l:.xfl + 23 'ii'xfl l:.xb3 24 l:.c4 l:.b5 25 e4 l:.c5 26 :Xc5 dxc5 27 'ii'a6 with a minimal edge for White in •••

•••

the game A.Sokolov-Gurgenidze, USSR championship, Riga 1985 . 20 'ii'd3 20 'ii'c2 is harmless in view of 20 . . ..txe3 21 li)xe3 d5 (Suetin-Gor elov, Moscow 1981). 20 'ii'd7 This is the crucial position of the whole line. Black's pair ofbish ops and counterplay against the white b3 and f2 pawns compen sate the weakness of the a5 and d6 pawns and the d5 square. Here are some examples: 2 1 l:.dl 'ii'f7 22 l:.a2 'ii'h 5 23 l:.el .td8 24 t;)fl 'ii'f7 25 l:.e3 e4! 26 'ii'xe4 li)e5 with good counterplay (Cheremkhin Goldin, USSR 1980) or 2 1 l:.a2 'ii'f7 (2 1 . . . .tf7 is not bad either: 22 f3 .tg6 23 'ii'e2 'ii'b 7 24 li)g4 .td8 25 t;)f2 .tb6 26 h l .txf2 27 hf2 e4 28 f4 l:.be8 is equal, O.Efimov Kishnev, Kemerovo 1985) 22 'ii'e4! 'ii'b 7! (Black's queen always finds an appropriate light square! ) 23 l:.dl, and now, instead of 23 ... .td8 24 li)b6 ! l:.f4 25 'ii'd 3 with a small edge for White (Krasenkow-Kali nichev, Tbilisi 1985) Black should •••

The Choice of Two K's have preferred 23 . . . g6, preparing . . . i.g5-d8 and . . . lLJe6-e7, with mu tual chances.

Section 5 1 2 . . . J:.bB ( 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 l006 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 lLlf6 5 ltic3 e5 6 ltidb5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 lLia3 b5 9 lLld5 i.e7 10 i.xf6 i.xf6 11 c3 0-0 12 ltic2 ) J:.b8 12 •••

This move (preventing a2-a4) is considered the most solid line for Black. However, a new plan elabo rated by Kasparov (see below) opens new prospects for White. 13 i.e2 This is the classical, 'normal' continuation. However, recently White has preferred other op tions. The following alternatives have been seen in practice: a) 13 b4?1 ltie7 14 ltice3 i.g5 15 ltixe7 + 'ifxe7 16 ltid5 'ilb7! 1 7 h4 i.d8 18 g3 i.e6 19 i.g2 i.xd5 20 'ilxd5 'ifxd5 2 1 exd5 e4, and Black's chances are preferable

61

(Bojkovic-Sveshnikov, Novi Sad 1979); b) 13 'ifd3 i.g5 14 J:.dl f5 15 ltide3 f4 16 ltif'5 i.xf5 17 exf5 'ilb6 18 i.e2 J:.bd8 19 i.f3 ltie7 20 h4 i.h6 2 1 ltib4 ltixf5 22 ltid5! , and White obtained the slightly better prospects (A.Sokolov-Vaiser, Re union 199 1). Instead of 16 . . . i.xf5, 16 . . . d5!? is interesting, e.g. 1 7 'ifxd5 + 'ifxd5 18 :Xd5 g6 19 ltifd4! with unclear play. But 14 . . . a5! 1 5 ltide3 'ilb6 i s the simplest. c) 13 a4 (still!) 13 . . .bxa4 14 lLJeb4 ltixb4 15 cxb4 (after 15 ltixb4 i.b7 16 'ifxa4 i.g5 1 7 i.xa6 i.xe4 the position is unclear, Banas-No vak, Czechoslovakian champion ship 1978) 15 ...i.d7 (or 15 ...i.b7 16 J:.xa4 i.c6 17 J:.xa6 i.xd5 18 'ifxd5 J:.xb4 19 i.c4 J:.xb2 20 0-0 with an equal position, Diaz-Garcia Mar tinez, Cuban championship 1982) 16 .t..xa6 .t..c6 17 b5 hb5 18 hb5 J:.xb5 19 J:.xa4 Jhb2. Draw {Fili penko-Meister, Belgorod 1989); d) 13 g3 i.g5 14 .t.. g2 (14 h4 i.h6 15 .t.. g2 a5 16 a3!? .i.e6 17 0-0 ltie7 18 ltice3 i.xe3 19 ltixe3 'ilb6 led to an equal position in Stripun sky-Iskusnyh, Kazan 1995) 14 ... a5 15 0-0 ( 1 5 a3!?) 15 . . . b4! (even bet ter than 15 . . . .t..e6 16 'ifd3 ltie7 1 7 ltice3 .t.. xe3 18 ltixe3 'ilb6 19 J:.fdl J:.fd8 20 a3, Hiibner-Krasenkow, Polanica Zdroj 1995, 20 ... .t..b3 with equality) 16 f4 ( 16 'ild3 bxc3 1 7 bxc3 ltie7 1 8 ltide3?! 'ilc7 1 9 J:.fdl J:.b6 20 c4 i.e6 21 .t..fl 'ilc5 with initiative for Black, Kruppa-Kish nev, Kemerovo 1985) 16 . . . .t.. h6 1 7

62


lllc e3 (De Firmian-Ivanovic, Lone Pine 1980) l 7 . . . exf4 18 gxf4 g6 with a good game for Black; e) 13 .td3 .tgS ( 1 3 . . . .te6!? 14 lllce3 .tg5 is not bad either, for ex ample lS 0-0 llle 7 16 .tc2 .txe3 1 7 lllxe3 b 4 18 'ifd 3 bxc3 19 bxc3 .z:tb6, Aseev-Yakovich, St Peters burg 1993, or 1S . . . .txe3 16 lllxe3 •b6 1 7 .tc2 b4 18 .tb3 bxc3 19 bxc3 •cs, Aseev-Krasenkow, Rus sian championship, Elista 199S, with balanced chances in both games) 14 0-0 llle 7 (or 14 . . . .te6, e.g. lS a4 bxa4 16 llldb4 - 16 lllcb4 .txdS 1 7 lllxdS .z:txb2 is equal 16 . . . llle 7 ! 17 .txa6 fS lS exfS .z:txfS 19 .td3 .z:tf6 20 .z:txa4 dS 2 1 .z:ta7 .z:th6 22 .te2 d4 with sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Nikolenko-Dolmatov, Mos cow 1992) 1S lllxe7 + (lS a4 lllxdS) 1S . . . .txe7! 16 lllb 4 .tb7 1 7 .tc2 .z:tcS lS •d3 .z:tcS 19 a4 aS, and Black won the fight for the d5 square (M. Kaminski-Vaiser, Gro ningen 1993); 0 13 a3!? (introduced by GM Z. Lanka) 13 . . . a5 ( 13 . . . .te6 - or 13 . . . .tgS - 14 lllcb 4! lllxb4 lS axb4 is favourable for White - this is the idea behind 13 a3; 13 . . . llle 7 14 lllcb4!? .tb7 lS .te2 lllg6 !? 16 g3 aS 17 lllc 2 .txdS 18 •xdS llle 7 19 •da yielded White a small edge in Karpov-Lautier, Ubeda 1994) 14 h4!? (depriving Black's bishop of the gS square; an unusual plan was tried in the game Bologan Redon, France 1994: 14 .td3 .te6 lS •e2!? .txdS 16 exdS llle 7 17

0-0-0!? ..b6 18 �bl g6 19 h4! .tg7 20 hS fS?! 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 g4! with a strong attack for White; however, isn't Black's attack after 20 . . ...cS! 21 •ra b4! 22 axb4 axb4 23 fub4 :Xb4! 24 cxb4 •xb4 more dangerous?), and now Black has the following options: fi) 14 . . . g6 15 g3 .tg7 (after lS . . . hS 16 .th3 White can prepare g3-g4) 16 h5 •gs ( 1 6 . . . llle 7 1 7 hxg6 hxg6 1 8 lllce3 lllxdS 1 9 lllxdS .te6 20 .th3 .txd5? - 20 . . ...gS was better, according to Ftal!nik 2 1 •xd5 yielded White the better prospects in Shirov-Illescas, Lin ares 1994) 17 .th3 .te6 lS hxg6 hxg6 19 lllce3 .z:tb7 20 ..d3 .z:tfbS, preparing . . . bS-b4, with mutual chances (Borm-King, Amsterdam 19S2) ; f2) 14. . .llle 7 lS lllce3 lllxdS 16 lllxdS .te6 17 g3 (after 1 7 lllxf6 + •xf6 lS •xd6 .z:tfdS 19 •cs b4!? Black obtains a strong initiative, according to Wahls) 17 . . . 'iVd7 lS .tg2 .tdS 19 0-0 .tb6 20 ..d2 .z:tfc8 21 .z:tfdl .txd5 22 •xdS b4 23 axb4 axb4 24 •xd6 ..g4! , and Black easily reached a draw (Kasparov Kramnik, Moscow ·active 1994) . In this line White should consider lS lllxf6 + !?, by analogy with the following variation; g) 13 h4!? lll e 7 (13 . . . g6!? was played in Shmuter-Beshukov, So chi 1993 : 14 •d2 .tg7 15 hS .te6 16 lllce3 llle 7 17 g3 fudS lS fud5 .z:tcS 19 .z:tdl .z:tc5 20 llle3 .z:tc6 21 b3, and now, instead of 2 1 . . ...a8?!, Black should have played 2 1 . . . •gs

The Choice of Two K's i2 c4 l:tb8 with sufficient counter chances; this line, especially 14 g3, needs more practical tests)

14 � + !? (an interesting con cept: White gives up the d5 point trying to make use of his better pawn structure - the idea of the 10 lDxe7 line in an improved in terpretation; 14 tDce3 is not dan gerous, e.g. 14 . . . tLJxd5 15 tLJxd5 i.b7 - 15 . . . .te6!? - 16 g3 b4 17 c4 i.xd5 18 1Vxd5 'iVb6 19 l:tdl i.d8!? 20 'it'xd6 b3 21 a3 1Va7 with a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn, Smagin-Gorelov, Moscow 1982) 14 ... gxfG, and now: gl) 15 'it'd2 i.b7 ( 15 . . . f5 16 \i'g5 + tLJg6 17 exf5 'it'xg5 18 hxg5 i.xf5 19 lLJb4! with a better end game for White, T.Horvath) 16 i.d3 d5 17 exd5 1Vxd5 18 0-0-0 e4 19 i.e2 'ifxa2 (19 ... 'it'e5!?, with the idea 20 'it'd6 tLJf5, deserved atten tion, according to Fta�nik) 20 'it'h6 'ii'e 6 2 1 tLJd4. Now 21 . . . 'it'e5?! is risky due to 22 f4 exf3 23 gxf3 (23 i.d3 lLJg6 24 g3 i.e4 25 i.xe4 'ifxe4 26 h5 tLJe5 27 'ifxf6 'ife3 + 28 �bl

63

lLJg4, and Black held his ground in Gi.Garcia-lllescas, Linares 1994) 23 . . . �h8 24 l:tdgl tLJg6 25 �bl ! l:tg8 26 .td3 while 2 1 . . . 'it'b6 led to an unclear position in Kasparov Kramnik, Novgorod 1994: 22 l:th3 �h8 23 i.g4 l:tg8 24 �6!? .l:tg6 25 'ii'f4 when Black could have par ried White's attack by means of 25 . . . .td5!! (see illustrative game Nr.20); Kasparov recommends 22 g4! �h8 23 lLJf5 lLJxf5 24 gxf5 l:tfd8 25 .th5 e3 26 l:thgl l:txdl + 27 i.xdl l:tg8 28 l:txg8 + cRxg8 29 1Vxe3 with a small edge for White in the endgame; g2) 15 i.d3!? d5 16 exd5 'it'xd5 17 lLJe3 'ii'e6 18 'ifh5 . Now in Kas parov-Lautier, Moscow 1994, the French Grandmaster made a typi cal mistake: 18 . . . e4?! (weakening the dark squares), and after 19 .tc2 b4 20 c4 cRh8 2 1 0-0-0 f5 22 'ii'g5 l:tb6 23 h5 White obtained a clear positional edge (illustrativegame Nr.21 ) . According to Kasparov, af ter 18 . . . f5 19 0-0-0 'ifg6 20 'it'g5 (20 'ife2 !?) 20 . . . f6 2 1 'it'xg6 + hxg6 22 i.c2 the endgame is slightly better for White all the same, due to his domination on the d-file. Still, this statement looks disput able (Black can play 22 . . . l:tb6 etc.). The 13 h4 line needs more prac tical tests. However, even now Black often tries to avoid it, opting for another move order ( 1 1 . . .l:tb8 12 tLJc2 i.g5) or. .. for some other variations (for example 12 . . . i.g5)! Now we come back to 13 i.e2. According to the present state of

64


theory, this move is not very dan gerous for Black. .tg5 13 ... Black's moves from 11 to 13 can be made in another order (see Section 3). 14 0-0 (DJ 14 a4 is as harmless as a move earlier: 14...bxa4 15 lbcb4 �b4 (or 15 . . . .tb7 16 .txa6 lbxb4 17 .txb7 lbxd5 lS .txd5 l:Cxb2 with a quick draw, Kotkov-Krasenkow, Moscow 19S3) 16 cxb4 (16 lbxb4 i.b7 1 7 'iVxa4 a5! lS 'ifxa5 :as 19 .ta6 1i'f6 with initiative for Black, Ba nas-Plachetka, Czechoslovakian championship 197S) 16 . . . .tb7 1 7 l:Cxa4 i.c6 lS :Xa6 .txd5 1 9 'iVxd5 l:lxb4 with equality (Ulybin-Ikon nikov, Cheliabinsk 1990). 14 'ifd3 a5 15 l:ldl deserves at tention to prevent . . . lbc6-e7. After the continuation 1 5 ..te6 16 lbce3 ( 1 6 a3 �hS 1 7 b4 f5 lS i.f3 f4 19 0-0 lbe7! leads to a good position for Black, Kalegin-Doghri, Mos cow 199 1 ) 16 . . . .txe3 ( 16 . . . g6!?) 1 7 �e3 .txa2 1 8 'iVxd6 'iVxd6 1 9 l:lxd6 l:iJe7 20 0-0 (Lanka-Nokso Koivisto, Cappelle la Grande 1992) 20 . . . i.b3 21 l:Cd7 l:lfeS a draw is highly probable. a5 14 ... 14 f5 is not quite appropriate here: 15 exf5 (15 i.f3!?, Sveshni kov) 15 . . . .txf5 16 lbce3 i.e6 17 i.g4 i.f7 lS .th5 g6 19 i.f3 'iVd7 20 a4, and White maintains a small but clear edge (Unzicker-Hubner, Germany 1984). 14 . . . �h8 is just a loss of time (15 'ifd3 f5 16 .tf3 ••

•••

etc.). 14.. .&6 is possible because 15 a4 bxa4 16 lbcb4 lbxb4 17 �b4 i.b7 lS 'iVxa4 enables Black to ob tain counterplay by 18 . . . 1i'b6!? 19 .td3 .tdS 20 �a6 :as 2 1 b4 f5!? (Mertins-Lobron, Grosskrotzen burg 197S); still, the typical posi tion after 15 o!LJcb4 lbxb4 16 o!LJxb4 'ifb6 17 o!LJd5 'ifc5 lS 'iVd3 i.e6 19 l:ladl (Berg-Dolmatov, Groningen 1977) can be assessed as slightly better for White. Finally, Black can directly play 14 .. .o!LJe7, e.g. 15 o!LJcb4 .tb7 16 'ifd3 a5 1 7 �e7 + .txe7 lS o!LJd5 b4! 19 l:Cabl .txd5 20 'iVxd5 bxc3 2 1 bxc3 'ifc7 is equal (Tseshkovsk:y-Geo. Timosh enko, Podolsk 1990), or 14 .te& 15 lbcb4 (15 a4 bxa4 16 o!LJdb4 - 16 o!LJcb4 i.xd5 - 16 . . . l:iJe7! 1 7 .txa6 see 13 .td3; 15 'ird3 a5 leads to the main line; besides, Black can try 15 . . . f5 16 i.f3 g6, e.g. 1 7 l:lfdl 'iVd7 lS o!LJcb4 �b4 19 o!LJxb4 a5, Sigurjonsson-Ligterink, Wijk aan Zee 1977) 15 . . . �b4 16 �b4 1i'b6 17 'ifd3 (otherwise l 7 . . . 1i'b7), and now even l 7 . . . i.c41? 18 'iff3 .te6 19 l:ladl f5!?. •••

65

The Choice of Two K's Still, the text move, taking the b4 square away from the white knights, is the most accurate . Black now can easily obtain the best ar rangement of his minor pieces (.i.e6 and lLJe7). 15 'ifd3 With two ideas: to strengthen the d5 point by l:tal (fl)-dl, and to transfer White's queen to an active position on the kingside ('ifd3-g3). 15 a3 lLJe7 16 �3 .i.xe3 17 fue3 .i.e6 18 b4 axb4 19 axb4 'ifc7 (Hart mann-Schulte, Germany 1987) or 15 �a3 b4! 16 �b5 (or 16 �4 .i.a6!) 16 . . .bxc3 17 bxc3 lLJe7 18 a4 fud5 19 'ifxd5 l:tb6 20 .i.c4 (Petrushin-Yurtaev, Tallinn 1983) 20 . . . .te6 21 'ifd3 'ife7 yields Black good counterplay. An important alternative to the text move is 1 5 b4 with the idea of creating a passed pawn after a2-a4. However, this doesn't pose any problems for Black either: a) 15 ... .i.e6 18 a4 (16 bxa5 'ifxa5 1 7 �cb4 �cxb4 18 cxb4 'ii'a8! ) 16 . . . bxa4 17 l:txa4 ( 1 7 b5 �e7 18 c4 fud5 19 cxd5 .td7 20 lba3 'ifc7 21 'ii'xa4 'ifc3 is good for Black, L.Belov-Filipenko, Cheli abinsk 1977) 1 7 . . .axb4 18 �cxb4 (18 cxb4 lLJe7! 19 fue7 + .i.xe7 20 l:ta7 .i.b3!, Vogt-Vaiser, Berlin 1982, or 19 .i.c4 'ifc8! , gaining the d5 point, Isupov-Vaiser, Sverdlovsk 198 1 , is rather favourable for Black) 18 . . . 'ii'd 7 19 l:ta6 fub4 20 cxb4 .i.xd5 21 'ii'xd5 :Xb4 22 :Xd6 'ii'b 7, and a draw was agreed in Am.Rodriguez-Vaiser, Sochi 1988;

b) 15 lbe7! ? 16 lbxe7+ .i.xe7 17 lbe3 (17 a4 bxa4 18 b5 .te6 19 c4 'ii'd7 20 lbea .i.d8! is equal, ASo kolov-Andrianov, Moscow 1982) 17 .t e 6 18 �d5 axb4 19 cxb4 'ifd7! 20 'ii'd3 (20 a4?! .txd5 2 1 'ifxd5 bxa4 2 2 b5 'ifa7 i s risky for White, Anka-Yakovich, Kecske met 199 1) •••

•••

20....i.d8!! 2 1 �hl ?! .i.b6 ! 22 l:tacl .td4 23 f4 .i.xd5 24 exd5 f5, and Black seized the initiative (Suetin-Andrianov, Moscow 1981 illustrative game Nr. 19). After 21 lbc3 f5 ! Black maintains good counterchances, too. Returning to 15 'ifd3. .i.e6 (D) 15 Black has another way to ob tain equal chances: 15...lbe7!?, for example 16 �ce3 (16 lbde3 'ii'b 6 17 l:tfdl l:td8 18 a4 bxa4 19 l:txa4 .i.e6 20 l:tdal 'ii'xb2 2 1 :Xa5 �6 leads to equality, too, Wolff-Yak ovich, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 16 . . . .i.xe3 ! (just in time, but after the 'unconventional' 16 . . . .i.e6 1 7 l:tfdl fud5 18 fud5 'ifd7 19 'ii'g3 •••

66


i.d8 20 b3 �h8 2 1 c4 bxc4 22 i.xc4 g6, followed by . . . f7-f5, White also failed to prove his ad vantage in the game Kir.Georgiev V. Spasov, Sofia 1992) 1 7 lLixe3 (or 17 lL!xe7 + "ilxe7 18 "ilxe3 i.e6 19 l:tfd l :res, Przewoznik-Vyzmana vin, Naleczow 1986) 17 . . . "ilb6 18 b4 (18 a4 bxa4 19 tLlc4 i.a6! is also equal, Sveshnikov) 18 . . . axb4 19 cxb4 i.e6 20 l:tfbl l:tfc8 21 a4 bxa4 22 l:txa4 "ild4, and the game soon ended in a draw (Beliavsky-Svesh nikov, USSR 1980) . The text move leads to more complicated posi tions.

18 h3 l:fd8 19 i.g4 lLie7 20 l:fdl, Kamsky-Lputian, Biel 1993, and now, according to Kamsky, Black should have played 20 . . . "ilc7 2 1 i.xe6 fxe6 2 2 a 4 b 4 23 c 4 "ilc5 equalizing) 17 �h l �h8 18 i.dl!? "ild7 19 i.c2 "ila7 20 l:adl b4 21 i.a4 :res with equality (Kruppa Yakovich, Uzhgorod 1987); b) 16 l:adl g6 (16 . . . "ild7 17 lL!a3 ! tLla7 18 "ilg3 h6 19 h3 �h8 20 �h l lL!c8 21 h4 i.d8 22 f4 is better for White, Abramovic-Sel, Skopje 1984; 16 . . . lL!e7!? deserves attention, according to Sveshni kov) 17 a3 �h8 18 b4 "ild7 19 "ilg3 i.d8 20 �hl f5 ! 21 exf5 gxf5 22 f4 "ilf7 23 lL!ce3 axb4 24 axb4 lLie7 with equal chances (Larsen-Nunn, Na:stved 1985). 16 g6 Passive play such as 16 "ild7 17 "ilg3 h6 doesn't guarant.ee Black equal chances: 18 h4 i.d8 19 lLice3 �h8 20 l:d2 (after 20 a4 bxa4 21 lL!c4 i.c7 22 l:d2 i.xd5 23 l:xd5 lL!e7 24 l:d2 "ilc6 25 "ild3 l:fd8 Black held his ground, Lau-Yusu pov, Munich 1988) 20 . . . lL!e7 21 l:r.adl "ilc6 22 a3 "ilb7 23 i.g4! (a typical way to exchange the light squared bishops in this variation!) 23 . . . lLixd5 24 tLlxd5 "ilc8 25 lLie3 i.e7 26 llJd5 i.d8 27 f3 with a good position for White (Spassky Vukic, Reggio Emilia 1983) or 20 . . . i.b6 21 lL!f5!? (Balashov-Dvor etsky, USSR championship, Ere van 1975) or even 21 a3, and White has a small but clear edge (Svesh nikov) . •••

•••

Besides the usual plan of fight ing for the d5 square and queen· side counterplay ( ... lLic6-e7, . . .b5-b4 etc. ) , Black has a sharper option: . . . g7-g6, preparing . . . f7-f5. The following variations show differ ent versions of these two strate gies. 16 l:fdl Or: a) 16 lL!ce3 g6 ( 1 6 . . . lL!e7 - see 15 . . . lL!e7; 16 . . . i.xe3 17 tLixe3 "ild7


16 �b8 was played in Short Chandler (London 1991). After 1 7 .if3 'ili'd7 18 lbce3 g6 19 'ili'e2 f5 20 a4 .ixe3 21 lbxe3 bxa4 22 l:.d2 t:i:Je7 23 'ika6 White maintained some pressure. Finally, 16 b4 deserves seri ous attention. Neither 17 lbce3 .ixe3 18 lbxe3 'ifb6 19 .ig4 .ixg4 20 lbxg4 bxc3 21 bxc3 l:.fd8 22 l:.abl 'it'c5 (Short-Kindermann, Plovdiv 1984) nor 17 c4 l:.b7 18 lbde3 'ifb6 19 b3 l:d7 20 lbd5 'it'a7 21 'ifg3 .ids (Glatt-Maiorovas, Hungary 1984) give White any serious prospects of an advantage. After the text move both 17 l:.abl?! lbe7! (Krantz-Yudovich sr., corr 1979/80) and 1 7 t:i:Jde3?! 'ikb6 18 'lfxd6?! l:.ad8 19 'ika3 b4 (Perecz-T. Georgadze, Dortmund 1979) are unsatisfactory for White. Tseshkovsky-T. Georgadze (USSR ...

...

67

championship, Tbilisi 1978) saw 17 t:i:Ja3 lba7 18 lbe3 'ii'b6 19 lbac2 .ic4 20 'ii'd2 'ii'c6 21 .ixc4 bxc4 22 .l:r.abl 'ii'xe4 23 'it'xd6 lbb5 with enough counterchances for Black. It is time to draw some conclu sions. In the 9 lbd5 system White's standard strategy of occupying and strengthening the d5 point doesn't bring him an edge as Black has good possibilities of fighting for the d5 square and counterplay on both sides. It mostly leads to rather quiet, roughly equal posi tions. Kasparov's plan of giving up the d5 square and utilizing White's better pawn structure (13 h4 and 14 t:i:Jxf6 + ) looks more in teresting. However, Black can eliminate it by means of changing his move order (11 .. llbS and then 12 . . . .ig5). .

Made in Novosibirsk

4

(1 e4 c5 2 lLJf3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 e5 6 �db5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 �a3 b5) 9 .i.xf6 The systems started with this move lead to much sharper play than 9 �d5. 9 ... gxf6 Only with this recapture can Black create sufficient counter play. 9 'ii'xf6 yields White a pre cious tempo: 10 �d5 'fid8 1 1 c4! , e.g. l l . . .b4? 1 2 ._a4 ! �d7 13 �b5, and White wins (Timoshchenko Aaron, Moscow 1968) or 11 . . . �e7 12 cxb5 liJxd5 13 exd5 with a clear advantage. 10 �5 (D) If 10 �abl, then 10 . . . f5, for ex ample 1 1 �d3 f4 12 �d2 �g7 13 ._h5 �M (Kupreichik-Panchenko, Daugavpils 1978) alternatively 12 0-0 �g7 13 �d5 �e6 14 a4 b4 15 c3 bxc3 16 �bxc3 0-0 1 7 b4 a5 18 b5 �d4 (Ivanovic-Velimirovic, Yu goslav championship 1984), with good prospects for Black in both cases. Black's most common continu ation in this position is l0 . . . f5, with an immediate attack on White's central pawn. 10 � e6 is useless in view of 1 1 c3 . However, in the early 1980s the Novosibirsk play ers B.Schipkov and IM V.Malyshev introduced another move, which we examine in this chapter. •••

•••

10 �g7 Black prepares . . . tbc6-e7 to dis lodge White's knight from the d5 square. However, White can take another important point - f5 - un der control. Nevertheless, Black may later play . . . f6-f5, sacrificing a pawn to obtain a strong pawn centre. The game assumes a re ally sharp character. According to the present state of theory, the merits of White's position are more significant.

Section 1 Odds and Ends

1 1 �d3 Besides this natural move, prac tice has seen: a) 1 1 'fif3?! f5! 12 exf5 �d4 13 ._g4 �xf5 14 �e3 -.ra 15 �d5 'ii'd 8 16 �3 h5! 17 'fie4 llJxe3 ! 18 'ii'xa8 0-0 19 'ii'f3 (19 fxe3 'i'h4 + and 20 . . . 'fib4 + ) 19 . . . �g4 20 �e2

Made in Novosibirsk u41 with an overwhelming attack

for Black (Ulybin-Vaiser, Moscow 1 989) ; b) 1 1 J.e2 0-0 12 c3 lfje7 13 /;X:2 lfjxd5 14 1Wxd5 .i.e6 15 1Wd3 d5, and Black is not worse (Zezulkin Hopur, Katowice 1992); c) 11 _ _g_�� Now Black should probably prefer J l . ..f5 ob.taining a position froml�napter-5) (see be low). After 1 1 . . . c!LJ"e71-Z .i g2 lfjxd5 1 3 1Wxd5 J.e6 14 1Wd2 1Wb6 15 c3 0-0 16 0-0 J:lad8 17 lfjc2 f5 18 exf5 .txf5 19 lfjb4 White's chances are preferable as 19 . . . d5?1 20 lfjxd5 .te6 (Alzate-Braga, Bayamo 1984) hardly works in view of 21 lfje7 + ; d) 1 1 c4 f5 (11 .. .M 12 M f5 13 cxf5 J.xf5 14 lfjce3 is favourable for White, according to Stetsko, but 1 1 . . . 1Wa5 + 1? 12 1Wd2 1Wxd2 + 13 �xd2 J:lb8 deserves attention Ghinda) 12 cxb5 (or 12 .td3 fxe4 13 .txe4 0-0 14 cxb5 axb5 15 lfjxb5 J:lb8 16 a4 lfjd4! 17 0-0 lfjxb5 18 axb5 f5 with sufficient counter play for Black, Unzicker-Strutin skaya, Moscow 1991) 12 .. ,lfjd4 13 J.d3 ( 13 exf5?! J.xf5 14 bxa6 0-0 15 J.c4 J:lb8 16 1Wd2 e4 is good for Black, Lagunov-Schipkov, Novo sibirsk 1984) 13 . . . 0-0 ( 13 . . . J.e6!?) 14 lfjc2 ( 14 1Wd2?1 fxe4 15 J.xe4 J:lb8 16 lfjc2 f5 ! 17 lfjxd4 exd4 18 .tf3 J:le8 + with a strong attack for Black, Golovanov-Malyshev, USSR 1985) 14 . . . fxe4 (14 ... fuc2 + 15 1Wxc2 J.b7 16 0-0 yields White the better chances, Beliavsky-Dol matov, Yugoslavia 1992) 15 .txe4 J:lb8 16 0-0 :Xb5 17 .!LJxd4 exd4 18

69

J:lcl J.b7 19 1Wf3 1Wg5 with a more or less equal position (Herrera ADiaz, Havana 1993); e) 11 c3 lfje7?! 12 lfjc2 ! (better than 12 fue7 1Wxe7 13 lfjc2 1Wb7 14 lfje3 1Wxe4 15 1Wxd6 J.e6 16 J:ldl - 16 J.e2!? - 16 . . . 1Wb7 17 .te2 J.f8, as in the game Velimirovic V.Spasov, Belgrade 1994) 12 ... f5 13 /:i)xe7 (13 a4 bxa4 14 lfjxe7 1Wxe7 15 lfje3 0-0 16 exf5 J:lb8 is not so clear, J ansa-Schmittdiel, Gausdal 1989) 13 . . . 1Wxe7 14 exf5 0-0 15 lfje3 J.b7 16 .te2 J:[fd8 1 7 lfjd5 .txd5 18 1Wxd5 J:lac8 19 0-0 J:lc5 20 1We4 d5 21 1We3, and Black's com pensation for the pawn is hardly sufficient (Kotronias-Mastrokou kos, Hania 199 1 ) . Black should prefer 1 1 ... f5 ! (see Chapter 6) ; f) 1 1 1Wh5 lfje7 ( 1 1 . . . .te6!? 12 J:ldl lfje7, e.g. 13 lfje3 1Wa5 + 14 c3 J:ld8 15 J.e2 d5 with equality, Estrin-Arnlind, corr 1981; l l . . . f5?! is risky: 12 exf5 'ifa5 + 13 c3 b4 14 1Wg5 1Wxd5 15 1Vxg7 bxa3 16 1Wxh8 + �d7 l 7 b3 with an advan tage for White, Sirias-Ochoa, Ha vana 1984) 12 lfje3 d5 (or 12 . . . f5 13 exf5 e4 14 0-0-0 0-0 15 g4 d5 16 c3 b41 1 7 cxb4 d4 18 �bl 1Wd6 19 lfjec4 1Wf4 ! with good counterplay for Black, Geo. Timoshenko-Ikon nikov; USSR 1990) 13 J.d3 (13 exd5 f5) 13 . . . f5 ! 14 0-0-0 'lfd61, and now, instead of 15 c4?1 0-0 16 �bl bxc4 17 J.xc4 J:lb8 18 .tb3 J:lxb3! 19 axb3 fxe4 with a clear edge for Black (Adams-V. Spasov, Novi Sad 1990), V.Spasov recommends 15 exf5 e4 16 J.e2, though Black has

70


at least a draw: 16 . . . .txb2 + 1 7 �xb2 'ii'b 4 + . Returning to 1 1 .td3. l:i:Je7 1 1 ... 1 1 ....te& is worse in view of 12 c4. 12 lfur..e 7 12 l:i:Je3 f5 13 exf5 d5 14 'l'g4 :tg8 15 'l'h4 'l'd6 16 0-0-0 e4, as in Andreev-Schjpkov, Magnitogorsk 1981 and(l2 WfS l:i:Jxd5 13 exd5 'l'd7 14 g4 'l'�g4 ! 15 'l'xg4 .txg4 16 :tgl f5 17 h3 e4! 18 l:i:Jxb5 exd3 19 l:i:Jc7 + �e7 20 l:i:Jxa8 .txb2 (Rux ton-Tzermiadianos, Arnhem 1989) only present problems for White. 'l'xe7 12 ...

13 c4 • To 13 0-0 Black can play 13 ... f5 14 exf5 (14 c3 and 14 c4 are better - see 13 c3, 13 c4) 14 . . . .tb7 (an at tack along the g-file is now threat ened) 1 5 'l'g4 0-0 16 c3 �h8 17 :adl e4 18 :Cel :tgB 19 'l'h3 b4 20 cxb4 d5 with a good position (Ve li&a-Ikonnikov, Cheliabinsk. 1990). 13 c3 will be examined in a separate section (Section 2). The

text move is sharper, probably more popular, but hardly stronger. f5! 13 14 0-0 It is possible to lose at once with 14 'l'b�"!_!_!i§ 15 cxd5 fxe4, and White resigried in the game Psak his-Vaiser, Paris 1990. 14 cxb5? is poor, too : 14 ... d5! 15 exd5 e4 16 0-0 .txb2, for example 17 'ii'c2 'ii'xa3 18 'ii'c6 + .td7 19 'l'xa8 + �e7 20 'ii'b 7 .txa1 21 :txal 'l'xd3, and Black won (Liu Wenze-Morovic, Belgrade 1988). 14 ... 0-0 14.. .:tb8 is poor: 15 exf5 bxc4 16 l:i:Jxc4 d5 17 l:i:Je3 i.b7 18 'l'a4 + 'l'd7 19 'l'g4 f6 20 JUdl with an edge for White (Ernst-L.Hansen, Gausdal 1991 ). If 14 ... .tb7 then simply 15 'ii'f3 . 15 'ii'f3 According to recent theory, this continuation is the most danger ous for Black. Other moves enable him to hold his ground comfort ably: a) 15 exf5?! e4 16 f6 .txf6 17 :e1 d5! (even bett.er than 17 . . . .tf5 18 .txe4 .txe4 19 'l'g4+ i.g7 20 :txe4 f5 21 :Xe7 fxg4 with unclear play, Nunn) 18 cxd5 .txb2 19 i.xe4 'ii'xa3 20 :ea 'l'd6 2 1 .txh7 + !? �xh7 22 'ii'c2 + 'l'g6 23 'l'xb2 :tg8 24 :tg3 'ii'e4, and Black parried the white attack (Van der Wiel Nunn, Wijk aan Zee 1992); b) 15 :tel fxe4 16 .txe4 :tb8 17 cxb5 axb5 18 'l'b3 .i.e6 19 .td5 :res 20 :tad l .tf5 ! (Klovans-lvanchuk, Frunze 1988) or 18 'ii'd3 f5! 19 •••

71

Made in Novosibirsk .td5 + �h8 20 tillcb 5 e4 21 'ii'b 3 .tc5 (Kosten-Chandler, Hastings 1 990/91), with a good position for Black in both cases; c) 15 'ii'e 2 .tb7 (15 . . . bxc4 16 �)xc4 ltb8 1 7 :adl! is not so good for Black) 16 :adl ( 16 exf5 e4; 16 f'3 fxe4! 17 fxe4?! f5! etc.) 16 ... :adB! 1 7 f3 fxe4 ( l 7 . . . bxc4 is less accu rute: 18 lbxc4 fxe4 19 fxe4 f5 20 �)a5 ! .ta8 2 1 lbb3, and White has u slight edge, Wedberg-Hellers, l laninge 1989) 18 fxe4?! f5 19 lbc2 ( Geo. Timoshenko-Gagarin,Buch urest 1993) when, according to Gagarin and Kiselev, Black should have played 19 ... fxe4!, e.g. 20 .ixe4 :xfl. + 21 lhfl bxc4 22 .txb7 'ii'xb7 23 'ii'xc4 + d5 or 20 l:.xf8 + :xf8 2 1 .txe4 .txe4 2 2 'ii'xe4 'ii'a 7+ 23 �e3 (23 �bl 'ii'f2 ; 23 'ii'e3 'ii'c 7) 23 . . . .th6 24 :el 'ii'f7! seizing the initiative. White should prefer 18 i.xe4 d5! 19 cxd5 .txd5! 20 .txd5 'ii'c5 + with equality; d) 15 'ifh5 (this move leads to great complications, but is hardly favourable for White) 15 :b8 (of course, not 15 . . . f4?! 16 lbbl .ie6 17 cxb5 axb5 18 .txb5 f5 19 lbc3 with clearly better prospects for White, as in the game Luther-Beshukov, Soehl 1990; but 15 . . . 'ii'b 7!? is quite good, for example 16 exf5 e4 1 7 .tc2 :eB ! - l 7 . . . .txb2?! 18 l:.ael 18 f3 e3! - 18 . . . .txb2? 19 J:.abl 19 f6 - 19 .te4 'ii'a 7! , Schipkov 19 . . . .txf6 20 'ii'xh7+ �f8 21 'ifh6 + .tg7 22 'ii'xd6+ �g8, Markov-Schi pkov, USSR 1987, or 16 :rel d5! 1 7 exd5 e4 18 .tfl .txb2 19 :abl •••

.tg7, Beliavsky-V.Spasov, Debre cen 1992, with unclear play in both cases) 16 exf5 (16 :adl fxe4 17 .txe4 f5 18 .td5 + �h8 19 l:.fel .td7 20 cxb5 axb5 21 lbc2, Isupov Yakovich, Vladivostok 1990, and now 2 1 . . .b4 leads to a good posi tion for Black) 16 e4 17 l:.ael .tb7, and now: •••

dl) 18 lbc2 bxc4 19 .txc4 d5 20 .txd5! .txd5 2 1 f6 'ii'xf6 22 'ii'xd5 :xb2 23 lbe3 'ii'e6 24 a4 'ii'xd5 25 lbxd5 f5 with an equal endgame (Short-Illescas, Linares 1992); d2) 18 cxb5 d5 19 Zle3 .txb2 20 bxa6 .tc6 2 1 a7 :bc8 22 .ta6 ltcd8 23 :b3 .te5 with unclear play (Rodin-Prosvirin, St Peters burg 1993) ; d3) 18 f3 .txb2 19 .txe4 'ii'f6 20 lbc2 bxc4 21 .txb7 J:.xb 7 22 :e4 d5! 23 lth4 h6, and White's attack proved insufficient (Johansson Markovic, Stockholm 1990/91); d4) 18 b3 bxc4 19 bxc4 :res 20 lbc2 :bc8 21 :e3 .te5 with good counterplay for Black (Dvoiris Vyzmanavin, Cheliabinsk 1990);

72


d5) 18 .:.ea bxc4 19 .txc4 (or 19 l:lh3 h6 20 .txc4 lUd8), and now Black can either force a draw with 19 . . . d5 20 .txd5 .txd5 21 f6 'ii'xf6 22 1i'xd5 1i'xb2 23 lbc4 'ii'xa2 24 l:lg3 l:.bl 25 l:lxg7 + (Luther Degraeve, Arnhem 1989) or try 19 . . . l:.fd8!? as 20 f6 1i'xf6 21 i.d5 .txd5 22 'ii'xd5 1i'xb2 23 h3 1i'b7 now gives him some winning chances (Geenen-Vaiser, Brussels 1993) ; d6) 18 1i'g4 'iPhB ! (18 . . . l:lfeB 19 f3 h5! 20 1i'xh5 i.d4 + 21 �hl exf3 ! 22 gxf3 'ii'xel leads to un clear consequences, for example 23 'ii'g4 + �f8 24 ltlc2! .txf3 + ! 25 'ii'xf3 'ii' h4! 26 ltlxd4 1i'xd4 27 f6 1i'h4! etc. , Dvoiris-Yakovich, Leeu warden 1993; besides, White can try 19 ltlc2!? bxc4 20 i.xc4 d5 21 i.b3, Klovans-Kukin, corr 1990) 19 .txe4 :res 20 :e3?! .txe4 2 1 :re1 1i'f6! 2 2 :xe4 :Xe4 2 3 1i'xe4 'ii'xb2 24 'ii'd3 1i'c3! , and the initia tive passed to Black (Dvoiris-Nik �evic, Paris 1993 ) . According to Nik�evic, White should have played 20 f3 !? .txb2 21 ltlc2 i.c3 with a double-edged position. Returning to 15 'ii'f3 . bxc4 15 " 15 .:b8 16 exf5 bxc4 1. 7 lLlxc4 .tb7 18 .te4 d5 !? 19 .txd5 e4 20 f6 ! i.xf6 21 'ii'g4 + i.g7 22 :adl! (Vlad-Itkis, Bucharest 199 1) and 15 d5 16 cxd5 fxe4 17 .txe4 'ii'd6 18 g4 .th6 19 ltlc2 (Holmsten-Rot stein, Helsinki 1992) yield White the better prospects. However, the continuation 15 :e8 16 :rel f4 •••

••

•••

•••

deserves attention, e.g. 1 7 cxb5 1i'g5 18 h3 d5 ! 19 exd5 f5, and Black obtained enough counter play (Pons-Vallejo, Menorca 1993). 16 �(!4 d5! \ 17 exd5 e4 18 'ii'e3 18 1i'e2 is less dangerous, e.g . 18 . . . .tb7 19 d6 (19 .tc2 .txd5 20 ltlb6 :ad8 21 ltlxd5 :Xd5 22 :adl :b5! is favourable for Black, Vlad Gagarin, Turnu Severin 1992) 19 . . .1i'e6 20 .tc2 f4 21 .tb3 f3 22 'ii'd2 a5 23 ltle3 1i'h6 24 :fdl .te5 with an unclear position (Emst Kharlov, Haninge 1992). 18 .tb7 '

•••

The position has become ex tremely sharp. However, in Egger Nunn, Manila 1992, it quickly fizzled out into an equal endgame: 19 hdl .txd5 ( 19 . . . :adB 20 .te2 .txd5 is even simpler, Liss-Sevil lano, Biel 1993) 20 ltlb6 i.e6 21 lbxa8 exd3 22 lbb6 1i'b4 23 :xd3 f4 24 :ba 'ii'xb3 25 'ii'xb3 .txb3 26 axb3 :bs etc. 19 :fdl is harm less, too: 19 . . . .txd5 20 ltlb6 :ad8

73

Made in Novosibirsk

21 lbxd5 l:lxd5 22 .ba6 lhd l + 23 l:xdl 'iVe6 with a quick draw (Psakhis-Greenfeld, Haifa 1995). 19 d6!? is more interesting, e.g. 19 . . . 'iff6 20 .i.c2 f4 2 1 'ifh3 l:ac8. Now 22 .i.b3!? l:c5 ! 23 l:adl (23 l:fdl !?, M.Notkin) 23 . . . l:g5! 24 l:d2 yielded Black a strong counterat tack in the game Khalifman-Lau tier (Linares 1995), when, instead of 24 . . . .i.d5? 25 l"Db6! .i.xb3 26 !Dd 7, Lautier should have played 24 ... lld8!, for example 25 llfdl 'ifg6, �hl llae8 20 f4 'ifxd5 with equal or 25 .i.c2 f3, or 25 d7 .i.d5 (recom ity (K.uklin-Vyzmanavin, Budapest mended by M.Notkin) . The game 1989); l.Gurevich-IDescas, Biel 1993, saw b) 14 exf5 e4! 15 .i.e2 0-0 16 22 b3 (with the threat 23 llael) &Dc2 .i.xf5 17 -1fd.5 'iVe5 18 lldl .i.e6 22 ... 'iVg5 23 lladl f5 24 b4 �h8 25 19 'iVxd6 .i.xa2 20 l"Db4 .i.e6 and a .i.b3 .i.c6 26 d7 llcd8 with excel draw was agreed in Dvoiris-Yak lent counterchances for Black (il ovich, Moscow 1990. lustrative game Nr.22) . Instead of "' - - c) 14.JhcJ (immediately bring 24 b4, 24 d7!? llcd8 25 !Da5 .i.a8 ing the knight into the game) and 26 lld6 is interesting, with un now: clear consequences. cl) 14 .i.b7 (this proves to be So, sharp play with 13 c4 does a poor square for the bishop) 15 not promise White any real advan exf5 (15 l"De3 fxe4 16 l"Df5 'iff6 1 7 tage. So, let's try a quieter line. .i.xe4 d5 1 s .bd5 Ilda 1 9 'iVg4 l:lxd5 20 'iVxg7 'iVxg7 2 1 lbxg7 + �e7, Section 2 Ulybin-Vyzmanavin, Sochi 1989, or 20 lDxg/ + � 21 l"Dh5 'ifg6 and 1 3 c3 Black obtains good compensation ( 1 e4 c5 2 lDfa l°Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 for the pawn) 15 ...'iVg5 (15 . . . 0-0 16 !Dxd4 lDf6 5 l"Dc3 e5 6 l"Ddb5 d6 l"De3! d5 1 7 0-0 �h8 18 'ifh5 e4 19 7 .i.15 a6 8 l"Da3 b5 9 .i.xf8 pf6 .i.c2 is not enough for equality 10 l"Dd5 .i.g7 1 1 .i.d3 l"De7 12 either, V.Dimitrov-lkonnikov, Le &Dxe7 'iVxe7) Blanc-Mesnil 1993) 16 &Dea d5 1 7 f5! (D) 13 c3 0-0 h 5 (17 ... 0-0 1 8 f4! exf4 1 9 'iVg4 14 0-0 is also favourable for White, Topa Other options are: lov-V. Spasov, Budapest 1993 - il a) 14 'iVh5 d5 15 exd5 e4 16 0-0! lustrative game Nr.23) 18 'ife2! 0-0 0-0 17 llael 'iVc5 18 .i.bl .i.d7 19 19 f6! .i.xf6 20 f4! exf4 21 l"Df5 •••

74


with a clear edge for White (Nisi peanu-Genescu, Romanian cham pionship 1992); c2) 14 .'l'g5 15 0-0 (15 'ii'e 2!? f4 - but not 15 . . . d5?! 16 exf5 0-0 17 l003 .ib7 18 h4! with an advan tage for White, Velimirovic-Simic, Vrnja�ka Banja 1991) 15 . . . i.b7 (15 . . . f4 16 a4! bxa4 17 l:xa4 0-0 18 1i'e2 i.b7 19 f3 a5 20 l:fal 'ii'd8 21 tlla3 with the better prospects for White, as in the game Ulybin-Ser per, Tunja 1989) 16 f3 0-0 1 7 exf5 d5 18 f4! exf4 19 'i¥f3 .ie5 20 l:ael l:fe8 2 1 tl'ld4, and White is better (Mastrokoukos-J. I vanov, Herak lio 1993); c3) 14 0-0. Now after 15 0-0 the main line (14 0-0 0-0 15 tl'lc2) arises. White can also play 15 'i¥h5 (15 exf5 e4 16 i.e2 .ixf5 is not dangerous for Black), for example 15 . . .f4 16 g3 f5 17 0-0-0 i.b7 18 l:hel fxg3 19 hxg3 d5 20 exd5 'ii'ffi 21 g4! with an initiative (Dolma tov-Chandler, Hastings 1989/90) or even 15 a4 !? 'i'b7 16 axb5 fxe4 1 7 i.e2 d5 18 tl'lb4 i.e6 19 bxa6 'iVd7 20 '6'a4, and White's passed pawn proved more important than Black's pawn centre (Z.Markovic Nik�evic, Novi Sad 1989); c4) 14 1"1>71 (taking an oppor tunity to rearrange Black's pieces in the classical way: 'i'b7, i.e6) 15 'i'f3 (15 exf5 'i'xg2 16 :n i.b7 17 tlle 3 •cs 18 'ji'g4 i.ffi 19 "iVb4 0-0, Koch-Kouatly, French champion ship 1991, and 15 'ir'e2 fxe4 16 'ii'xe4 d5 1 7 'ir'b4 .if8 18 'ji'h4 e4 19 i.e2 i.g7, Dvoiris-Ikonnikov, .•

•••

•••

Cheliabinsk 1990, are satisfactory for Black) 15 0-0 16 tl'l e3 ( 16 0-0 f4!?) 16 f4 1 7 tl'ld5 .ie6 18 g41 (otherwise Black can push . . . f7-f5, for example 18 i.c2 i.xd5 19 exd5 f5 20 g4 fxg3 21 hxg3 e4 with mu tual chances, Qi Jingxuan-Vyzrna navin, Beijing 1991) •••

•••

.. . - ••• • •• · · - · • • •-*-• · · 'tJ � . -·)';-\

. -

· -

�-�· -

R Bi.R'ii' R � '0� • " �u • � � . . � •: - . �'

�,

!7,

!7,

18 . . . l:ae8 (or 18 . . . l:fe8 - see il lustniifvrg�m e Nr.24) 19 wfl (19 0-0-0!? deserves attention, accord ing to S.Dolmatov) 19 . . . f5 ! (still! ) �f5 l:Ji:f5! 21 l:tgl l:f7 22 l:dl 'iVc8 2:f .i.e2 wh8 24 Wg2 l:g8 with an equal game (Leko-Kuijf, Nette tal 1992) . The text move (14 0-0) elimi nates the possibility of 14 . . . 'i'b7. 14 ... 0-0 After 14...i.b7 15 l:el ! 0-0 16 exf5 'ji'g5 17 g3 d5 18 tllc 2 e4 19 i.fl 'ifxf5 20 a4! CV.Gurevich-Isku snykh, Orel 1995) Black's bishop is clearly misplaced on b7. In the event of 14 f4 15 tll c2 followed by a2-a4 the initiative is also with White. 15 tllc2 •••

Made in Novosibirsk 'Waiting' for Black's response . . . .i.c8-b7. The continuation 15 exf5?! e4 16 .i.e2 .i.xf5 17 llX2 _.e5 18 a4 .i.e6 19 •d2 f5 20 axb5 axb5 2 1 lbd.4 M! led to a draw in A.Sok olov-Dolmatov (Moscow 1992). .i.b7 (DJ 15 15 d5 1 6 exf5 e4 17 .i.e2 l:.d8 18 ltld4 (Psakhis-Dolmatov, Klai peda 1988) and 15 l:.b8 16 exf5 ! e4 1 7 l:lel .i.xf5 18 ltle3 (alterna tively 18 lbd.4 .i.xd4 19 cxd4 d5 20 'iVd2, Magem-San Segundo, Ma drid 1994) 18 . . . .i.g6 19 ltld5 •e5 20 .i.c2 f5 2 1 f4 (Dolmatov-Simic, Belgrade 1988) yield White the bet ter prospects, too. 16 exf5 Of course, not 16 l:.el fxe4 1 7 .i.xe4 d5 (Stefanov-Rogozenko, Bu charest 1992). Black is struggling to prove that he has enough compensation for the missing pawn, for example 16 Ji'g5 1 7 ltle3 d5 18 f4! (see also 14 ltlc2 .i.b7) 18 . . . _.h6 19 f6

75

•••

•••

•••

••

1Vxf6 20 fxe5 (Mithrakanth-Pra sad, Indian championship 1992), or 16 �h8 17 'ifh5 l:lg8 18 ltle3!, or 16 e4 17 .i.e2 d5 18 _.d2, or 16 d5 1 7 lbe3 e4 18 .i.c2. In every case White maintains the better chances . •••

•••

•••

So, the quiet 13 c3 is really dan gerous for Black. If he fails to find an improvement, one must draw the conclusion that 10 . . . .i.g7 is too passive to guarantee Black a good game.

Out of Use

5

(1 e4 c5 2 lhf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 i.xf6 gxf6 10 lb d5 ) f5 10 •••

In this chapter we start to deal with the most important lines of the Sicilian Sveshnikov. White has many possibilities in the diagram position; but only two of them ( 1 1 exf5 and 1 1 i.d3) actually remain in wide use. In the current chap ter we examine the other vari ations. They should not present any danger for Black if he plays correctly; but inexact play, espe cially in the lines with a piece sac rifice (Section 2), can be fatal. The variations examined here can be divided into two groups: positional continuations (11 'itd3, 1 1 g3 etc.) and sharp tactical ways connected with a piece sacrifice ( 1 1 lbxb5, 1 1 i.xb5). Accordingly, this

chapter is divided into two sec tions.

Section 1 Quiet lines

1 1 g3 This move (introduced by then very young Latvian players - now both experienced grandmasters E.Kengis and Z. Lanka in the 1970s) is probably the most im portant of the lines in question. Other continuations have practi cally never been used since the late 1970s: a) 1 1 g4?! fxg4 ( 1 1 . . . fxe4!? is probably even stronger) 12 c3 i.h6 13 lbc2 lbe7 14 lbcb4 �f8 15 lbxe7 'itxe7 16 lbd5 'itb7 17 h3 i.e6 18 hxg4 i.g5 results in a level position, as in Velimirovic-Kura jica, Yugoslav championship 1978; b) 1 1 c4?! b4 (or 1 1 . . . 'ita5 + 12 'itd2 1i'xd2 + 13 �xd2 i.h6 + 14 �dl 0-0 with good counterplay) 12 lbc2 fxe4 13 lbcxb4 lbxb4 14 lbxb4 'ita5 15 1i'd2 .:.bs 16 a3 d5! with advantage for Black (Svesh nikov) ; c) 1 1 1i'd3 fxe4 (or l l . . .i.g7 12 exf5 0-0 13 1i'e4 lbd4!, e.g. 14 g4 i.b7 15 i.d3 i.xd5 16 'ii'xd5 .:.cs 17 c3 e4! , Razuvaev-Bouwmees ter, telex 1978, or 14 f6 i.xf6! 15 lbxf6 + 1i'xf6 16 'ii'xa8 b4 17 i.d3 i.f5 18 1i'd5?! i.xd3 19 cxd3 bxa3

Out

20 0-0 axb2, Chekhov-Sveshnikov, Leningrad 1976, with an initia tive for Black in both cases; in the last variation White should have preferred 18 'ir'b7! with unclear play, Sveshnikov) 12 'ir'xe4

12 ... .i.g7 (or 12 ... .i.d7 13 f4 f5 14 'ii'f3 .i.g7 15 'ir'h5 + �f8 16 0-0-0 .i.e6 1 7 fxe5 dxe5 18 lDf4 'ir'f6 19 lDxe6 + 'iVxe6 20 g4 �4 with good counterplay for Black, as in the game Isserman-Shestoperov, Sar atov 1976) 13 lDe3 (or 13 lDf6 + .i.xf6 14 'ir'xc6 + .i.d7 15 'ir'xd6 'fle7 16 0-0-0 'iVxd6 17 :xd6 .i.e7 etc., Muratov-Timoshchenko, Beltsi 1977) 13 . . . d5! 14 'ii'xd5 'iVxd5 1 5 lllx d5 0 - 0 16 c 3 ( 16 lDb6 i s safer) 16 ... .i.b7 17 lllc2 (Kapengut-Kalini chev, Orjonikidze 1978) 1 7 . . . Aad8 with excellent compensation for the pawn; d) 1 1 c3. This move contains a trap : if 1 1 . . . fxe4?! then the piece sacrifice 12 .i.xb5! axb5 13 lDxb5 is very dangerous for Black, e.g. 13 . . . 'flg5 14 lDbc7 + �d8 15 lDxa8 'flxg2 16 :n .i.a6 17 �3 'flf3 18

of Use

77

:gl .i.d3 19 lDb6, and White won (Am.Rodriguez-T. Georgadze, Tbi lisi-Sukhumi 1977), or 13 . . ..i.e6 14 lllb c7 + �d7 15 lDxa8 .i.xd5 16 'ir'xd5 'flxa8 17 'ir'xf7 + lDe7 18 0-0 'fld5 19 'flh5 'ii'e6 20 a4 etc., with a clear pull for White (Geo. Timosh enko-Kishnev, Moscow 1985). Black should play 1 1 . . . .i.g7! . Then 12 exf5 .i.xf5 leads to a line examined in Chapter 6, and 12 .i.d3 .i.e6 - to a variation men tioned in Chapter 7. Other moves do not pose any problems for Black, e.g. 12 lllc2 fxe4 13 g4 0-0 14 lDce3 lDe7 15 .i.g2 �d5 16 'flxd5 .i.e6 1 7 'flxe4 Ac8, and Black is slightly better (Mateo-Catalan, Buenos Aires 1978) or 12 lDxb5!? axb5 13 .i.xb5 .i.d7 (13 ... .i.b7!?) 14 exf5 :ha (or 14 ... 0-0 15 'ii'g4 �h8 16 0-0 :bs 17 a4 l:.g8 18 b4 .i.f8 19 'fle4 'iVg5 with good counter chances, Mikulcik-Babula, Czech championship, Luhafovice 1993) 15 a4 0-0 16 'ii'f3 (Hector-L.Han sen, Kerteminde 1991), and now, instead of 16 . . . f6?! 17 0-0 �h8 18 b4 etc., Black should have played more actively: 16 . . . e4 (L.Hansen) 17 'ir'g3 �h8, with a good game. Returning to 11 g3. fxe4 11 Black can also play 1 1 . .,. .i.gT; e.g. 12 exf5!? e4 (12 . . . .i.xf5 1 :fi:.g2 .i.e6 14 c3 0-0 15 lDc2 leads to the line examined in Chapter 6) 13 c3 (but not 13 ffi? .i.xffi 14 lDxf6 + 'flxf6 15 'fld5 0-0! 16 c3 b4 17 lllc4 bxc3 18 'ii'xd6 .i.e6, and Black ob tained an overwhelming attack in •••

78


the game Ljubojevic-Kramnik, Belgrade 1995) 13 . . . lL!e5 14 'i'h5 lLlf3 + 15 �e2 .tb7 16 .l:tdl 0-0 17 .th3 .l:te8 18 lLlc2 lL!e5 19 lL!ce3 lLJd3 with unclear complications (Alzate-Ochoa, Bayamo 1984) or 12 .tg2 0-0 ( 12 . . . fxe4! leads to the main line while 12 . . . f4! ? deserves attention, for example 13 0-0 h5!? 14 h4 llh6 15 c3 .tg4 16 'ii'd3 lLle7 with an unclear position, Kotro nias-Conquest, Corfu 1991) 13 exf5 .txf5 (after 13 . . . e4 14 1i'g4!? lL!d4 15 .txe4 lle8 16 q;n l:.a7 17 l:.dl h5 18 'ii'f4 l:txe4 19 1i'xe4 .txf5 Black obtained an attack for the sacrificed material, Lane-Arakh amia, Cappelle la Grande 1993; 14 c3 .txf5 15 0-0 was more solid for White) 14 t'De3!? (or 14 c3 .te6 15 lLJc2 - see Chapter 6) 14 . . . lL!e7! 15 lL!xf5 lL!xf5 , and now, instead of 16 0-0 lta7 17 c3 lL!e7 18 t'Dc2 d5 19 lL!b4 e4 with good counter chances for Black (Vehi Bach-Cher niaev, Biel 1992), White should consider accepting the exchange sacrifice: 1 6 .txa8 'ii'xa8 17 0-0 lL!d4 18 f3 et.c. 12 .tg2 .te6 12 .t f5?! is worse on account of 13 f3! , e.g. 13 . . . .tg7 (13 . . . exf3?! 14 'ii'xf3 ; 13 ... e3 !? 14 .txe3 .te6 15 f4 l:.c8 16 f5 'ii'b 6, Bitar-Rogers, 1975) 14 fxe4 .te6 15 0-0 0-0 16 c3 with a small edge for White (Ken gis-Lputian, Jurmala 1977). Black can try 12 ... .tg7 13 .txe4, and now: a) 13 l:.a7l? (13 . . . 0-0?! is risky in view of 14 lLJe3 !) 14 'ii'd3 0-0! 15

lLJe3 lLJe7 16 .txh7+ �h8 1 7 g4 d5 with good compensation for the pawn (Soloviov-Timoshchenko, USSR 1978) or 14 'ir'h5 h6 15 c3 0-0 16 0-0 f5 17 .tg2 .td7 18 lLJc2 .te8 19 'ife2 h8 20 f4 h5 with suffi cient counterplay (Veli�ka-Geo.Ti moshenko, Cheliabinsk 1990) ; b) 13 l:.b8l? 14 'ii'h 5 (after 14 c3 0-0 15 lLlc2 f5 16 .tg2 a5, fol lowed by 17 . . . .te6, Black has an extra tempo compared to the line examined in Chapter 6) 14 . . . lLJe7 15 l:.dl lL!xd5 16 .txd5 0-0 17 0-0 'ii'e 7!? 18 c3 �h8 19 lLJc2 f5 20 l:[d2 l:tf6 21 lL!b4 'iff8 with sufficient counterchances (Solomon-Prasad, Thessaloniki 1988) ; c) 13 .te6 - see 12 . . . .te6. 13 .txe4 •••

•••

•••

•••

13 .tg7 Black can also play 13 l:.c8, e.g. 14 c3 .tg7 15 'i'd3 (for 15 'iVh5 b4!?, see below) 15 . . . lLJe7 16 l:.dl f5 17 .tf3 lLJg6 18 0-0 e4 19 'ii'e3 0-0 with mutual chances (Tseshkov sky-Timoshchenko, USSR 1975). However, White can play 14 'ii'h5 •••

79

Out of Use as 14 . . . lbd4?! (for 14 . . . .tg7! - see 13 . . . .tg7) doesn't work in view of 15 c3 l:.c5 16 cxd4 (but not 16 lbe3 d5! , V.Zak) 16 . . ..txd5 17 0-0!. 14 'ii'h5 ! White 's only chance to fight for an edge is to prevent Black from castling. After 14 c3 0-0 15 llJc2 f5 1 6 .tg2 �h8 17 0-0 a5 Black has an extra tempo by comparison with the position arising in the 1 1 exf5 system (Chapter 6). The game Tseshkovsky-Kharlov (Vladivos tok 1990) continued 18 1i'd2 l:.b8 19 l:.ad l 'ii'd 7 20 f4 b4! 21 cxb4 axb4 22 llJcxb4 llJxb4 23 llJxb4 e4, and Black seized the initiative. After 14 O·O l:.cB 15 f4!? exf4 16 llJxf4 .txb2 17 llJxe6 fxe6 18 llJxb5 'ii' b 6 + 19 h l 'ii'xb5 20 'ii'xd6 .txal ?! 21 'ii'xe6 + llJe7 22 'ii'f7 + �dB 23 l:.dl + �c7 24 'ii'xe7 + �b8 (Kapengut-Bukhman,Minsk 1977) 25 l:.xal White's chances are bet ter but, of course, Black has many other ways, for example 20 . . . llJdS 21 l:.adl .te5 with unclear play or, the simplest, 14 . . . 0-0 ! . Finally, i t i s risky t o win a n ex change by 14 llJf6 + ?!, for exam ple 14 . . . .txf6 15 .txc6 + �e7 16 .txa8 'ii'xa8 17 f3?! h5 ! 18 'ii'e2 h4 19 0-0-0 'ii'c 6! with a strong attack for Black (Solomon-V.Spasov, Novi Sad 1990). According to V. Spasov, instead of 1 7 f3 White should play 17 l:.gl h5 18 c3 i.g4 19 'ii'd 3 i.f3 20 llJc2 with an unclear position. :cs 14 Black's idea is to fight for the d5 square by . . . llJc6-e7 and . . . l:.c8-c5. •••

15 .l:r.dl To 15 c3 Black has an addi tional possibility 15 . . . b4!?, e.g. 16 llJc2 (16 cxb4 llJxb4!? 17 llJxb4 'ii'a5 18 llJc2 l:.xc2! ) 16 . . . bxc3 1 7 bxc3 llJe7 18 llJce3 'ii'a5 19 .l:r.dl llJxd5 20 llJxd5 (Sherzer-Degraeve, Mam aia 199 1), and now, instead of 20 . . ..txd5 2 1 .txd5 'ii'xc3 + 22 �fl 0-0, and White maintained a suffi cient compensation for the pawn, Black had a strong reply 20 . . . l:.c5! . 15 llJe7! 16 c3 If 16 0-0 then either 16 . . . l:.c5 17 llJb4 (or 1 7 llJe3 b4 1 8 llJbl d5) 1 7 ... 'ii'b 6 18 'ii'g5! �f8 19 'ii'e3 h5! 20 llJxa6! .th6 ! 21 :txd6 'ii'xd6 22 'ii'xc5 'ii'xa6 23 llJxb5 (or 23 'ifxe5 i.g7 24 'ii'b 8 + 'ii'c8 25 'ii'xb5 h4, Sveshnikov) 23 . . . i.g7 24 :tdl .tf6 with mutual chances (Fedorov-Ka menets, Zhdanov 1978) or (the simplest) 16 . . . llJxd5 l 7 i.xd5 'ii'd 7 (17 . . . 0-0 18 c3 l:.c5! 19 'ii'f3 'ii'd 7 is also good, Zapata-Illescas, Lin ares 1994) 18 c3 l:.c5 - see below. tlm:d5! 16 ... •••

80


The simplest course. 16 :cs 1 7 �b4 'ifb6 18 'ifg5 �f8 19 'ife3 leads to a more difficult position. Say, after 19 . . . f5 20 .i.g2 e4 2 1 0-0 �f7 22 :re1 �g6 23 �ac2 a5 24 �d3 l:.c6 25 �d4 :c4 26 �f4 White maintains a minimal edge (Lanka-Krasenkow, Tbilisi 1985) . Black should prefer 19 . . . h5!, for example 20 �d3 (20 �xa6? .i.h6 ! ) 2 0 :c& 2 1 .i.xc6 'ifxc6 2 2 f3 .i.h6 23 'iff2 a5! 24 0-0 h4 25 g4 �5 with good compensation for the exchange (Romero-Salov, Wijk aan Zee 1992 illustrative game Nr.25) or 20 �ac2 .i.h6 21 f4 exf4 22 gxf4 �f5 23 'iff2 :gs (23 . . . a5!?) with sufficient counterchances for Black (Rakowiecki-Podlesnik, Porabka 1987). However, according to V. Salov, White can maintain the better prospects by means of 20 0-0 .i.h6 21 'iff3! �g7 22 �d5. 'ifd7 17 .i.xd5 17 0-0 is less accurate in view of 18 �c2. •••

•••

•••

White can hardly hold the d5 point, e.g. 18 .i.xe6?! 'ifxe6 19 �2

0-0 20 0-0 f5 2 1 'ifh3 d5, and now Black's chances are preferable (Lanka-Vyzmanavin, Sverdlovsk 1987), 18 0-0 l:.c5 ! 19 .i.xe6 'ifxe6 20 �c2 0-0 2 1 'ife2 f5 22 f4 'iii> h8 (Zapata-Yakovich, Santa Clara 1990), 18 �c2 .i.g4 19 'ifg5 i.xdl 20 'ifxg7 .i.xc2 21 'ifxh8 + �e7 22 'ifg7 'iff5, or 18 'ifg5 0-0 19 �c2 :c5 20 �e3 h6 2 1 'ifh5 (Murey Birnboim, Holon 1986), and now even 2 1 . . . f5! threatening 22 . . . £4, with a good position for Black in all variations.

Section 2

Sacrifices on b5

(1 e4 c5 2 lLJf3 �6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 e5 6 �db5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 � b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10 �d5 f5) The piece sacrifice allows White to get rid of his 'bad' knight at once. The game becomes very sharp, and factors such as Black's uncastled king and White's passed a- and b-pawns should not be un• derestimated. However, Black's bishop pair and strong central po sition enable him to parry his op ponent's threats and eithercreate a counterattack along the g-file or liquidate into a better endgame. Sometimes Black has to give back an exchange but even then, in spite of White's formal material su periority (a rook and two or three pawns versus two minor pieces), Black's chances are no worse. 1 1 i.xb5

Out of Use 1 1 lbxbS axb5 12 i.xb5 is prob ably better than its reputation but is still not very dangerous for Black:

Sl

14 . . . �d4 15 i.xd7+ 1i'xd7 16 c3 (16 �b6?! 1i'c6; 16 0-0 1i'b7! 1 7 c4 :cs lS f6 i.h6 19 1i'd3 1i'b3!, Olt hof-Tiagunov, corr 19S4) 16 . . . 1i'b7 (16 ... 1Wxf5!? 17 cxd4 1i'e4+ lS �3 exd4 19 1i'c2 1i'xc2 20 �c2 d3, Boudy, Alonso) 17 �e3 .th6 lS cxd4 i.xe3 19 fxe3 1Wxg2 20 l:lfl 1i'xb2 and a draw was agreed in Nunn-Adorjan, Skara 1980; b) 12 .tb7!? (this looks more natural) 13 exf5 l1a5 ( 13 . . . l1c8 is possible, too, e.g. 14 0-0 i.g7 15 1i'h5?! 'ii>f8 16 i.xc6 :Xc6 17 c3 .i:r.c4 lS l:lfd l l:lgS 19 �ea l::t h4 20 l1xd6 1i'xd6 2 1 1i'xh4 .th6 with a strong counterattack, Arnlind-Morgado, corr 1990, or 15 1Wf3 i.f6 16 l:ladl 0-0 17 l1d3 'ii> hS lS 1i'h5 l:lgS 19 'ikxf7 l1g7 20 1i'xf6 'ifxf6 21 �xf6 �d4, and Black does not stand worse, Mnatsakanian-Maiorovas, Moscow 19Sl) 14 1Wd3 ! (14 a4 l1xb5! 15 axb5 �d4 16 �e3 l1g8 with a strong attack, Sveshnikov) 14 ... .tg7 15 1i'c4 :Xb5 (15 . . . 0-0? 16 i.xc6 l1c5 17 1i'g4! :Xd5 18 .txb7) 16 1i'xb5 1i'a5 + 1 7 1i'xa5 llnca5 and a draw was agreed in Waldmann T.Horvath, Hungary 19S2. The bishop sacrifice is more popular since White's remaining knight can play a more useful role in his attack. axb5 11 12 �b5 (DJ 12 l1a4 This move was introduced into practice by IM S.Gorelov and im mediately became popular. How ever, Black has several options, •••

a) 12 .td7 13 exf5 al) 13 l1b8?! (this proves un necessary) 14 a4 �d4 (14 ... i.g7 15 '6'g4 - 15 .i:r.a3!?, Sveshnikov 15 . cMS 16 0-0 lbcl4 17 .ixd7 1i'xd7 lS �3 h5 19 'ii'd l l:ldS 20 1i'd3 d5 21 a5, Guerra-Remon, Cuba 19S5, or 14 ... 1i'g5 15 0-0 l1g8 16 �3 lbcl4 1 7 i.xd 7 + 'ii>xd7 lS a5 �xf5 19 'ii'd5 �e3 20 fxe3 1i'xe3 + 21 'ii>h l, Piesina-1.Efimov, Sochi 19SO, yields White excellent prospects) 15 i.xd7+ 'ii>xd7 16 0-0!, and after 16 . . . :Xb2 17 a5 'ii'h4 1S a6 .ih6 19 1i'd3 ! l:lhbS 20 a7 :as 21 l1a6 White obtained a decisive advan tage in Haist-Kindermann, Bad Worishofen 1987. 16 . . . �xf5?! 1 7 1i'g4 'ii>e 6 l S �e3 1i'f6 i s also poor on account of 19 a5; and 16 . . . 1i'a5 17 �3 is also good for White; a2) 13 .t g7 ! 14 a4 (14 1i'h5 �d4 ! , Sveshnikov; 15 1i'g4 'ii> fB 16 0-0 l00 7 !, Adorjan, T.Horvath) ...

•••

.

.

•••

•••

•••

82


some of which are quite satisfac tory: a) 12 Ji'g5?! 13 tD
•••

and T.Horvath, needs practical tests) 16 b4 .tb7 1 7 ..,e6 + �c6 18 b5 + �c5 19 'it'f6 (alternatively 19 'it'h3 �d5 20 �6 + �b6 21 �xd8 .J:txd8) 19 . . . .txd5 20 �a6 + �xb5 21 �xb8 l:tg8 with unclear compli cations (Baer-Cavadini, corr 1988) . Still, this line looks risky for Black; c) 12.....a5 +!? 13 c3 'it'a4. Now 14 �dc7+
Out of Use

fxe4 18 �bl i.e7 19 �c4 i.a8 20 �xe5 with unclear play, T.Hor vath-Vasiukov, Zalaegerszeg 1977) 15 c3 f4, for example 16 g3 i.g7 17 0-0-0 0-0 18 l:thgl f5! 19 gxf4 �h8, and the initiative passed to Black (Panczyk-Semkov, Warsaw 1977) ; d.2) 14 c3 i.g7 (14 . . . �b5 15 a4 �7 16 a5 is favourable for White, according to Pavlovil:; if 14 . . . �c6 then 15 exf5 i.xf5 16 Wf3 i.e6 1 7 �f6 + �e7 18 �d5 + ! �e8 19 0-0) 15 Wa4+ (15 exf5 ixrs!?) 15 ...Wd7 16 Wa5 �6 17 Was Wb7 18 Wxb7 i.xb7 19 exf5 �e7! with good counterchances for Black (Svesh nikov); d3) 14 exf5 �b5! (this is now appropriate; 14 .. ixrs 15 Wf3 i.e6 16 �f6 + �e7 17 �d5 + i.xd5 18 Wxd5 i.h6 19 0-0 is favourable for White, VitolinA-Katishonok, Riga 1977) 15 a4 (or 15 c3 �c7 16 0-0 i.xf5 17 Wf3 �xd5 18 Wxf5 ! with mutual chances) 15 ... �4 (15 ... �7 16 a5 i.b7 1 7 c4, Pavlovi(:) 16 c3 Wa5 17 M+ �7 18 0-0 (Pavlovil: Todorovil:, Yugoslavia 1992) when, instead of 18 . . . �xf5? 19 b4, Black .

83

should have played 18 . . . �xf6 19 cxd4 i.xf5 with a double-edged position (Velimirovil:). Returning to 12 ... l:ta4. 13 �bc 7+ 13 0-0 l:txe4 14 �bc7 + leads to a transposition of moves. White can also try: a) 13 b4?! :Xb4 14 �bc7 + �d7 15 0-0. Now 15 ...:b7 is unclear ow ing to 16 Wh5 :Xc7 17 Wxf7 + �7 18 �b6+ ! � 19 l:.abl (Cherniaev), e.g. 19 ... d5 20 Wto+ or 19 . . . �b7 20 Wb3 �a7 21 �d7 l:txd7 22 Wb8 + �a6 23 Wb5 + with a draw. It is probably better for Black to play 15 . :gS as 16 �b4 �b4 17 �5 �d5 18 Wxd5 �e7 is favourable for him (VitolinA-Kishnev, Jur mala 1984); b) 13 c4 Wa5 + (13 . . . :Xc4 14 �bc7 + �d7 leads to a line exam ined below but 14 0-0!? �d4!? re quires more investigation) 14 b41 l:txb4 ( 14 . . . �b4?! 15 � + ! �d8 16 0-0, Nunn) 15 0-0 l:txb5 (the move 15 ... :Xc4?! is risky due to 16 l:tcl ! :Xcl 17 Wxcl, for example 17 . . . i.d7 18 Wg5 i.e7 19 �e7 Wxb5 20 �5, Nunn) 16 cxb5 �4 17 Wh5 i.g7 (17 . . . i.b7 18 �f6 + �e7, Klinger-King, Oakham 1984, is dangerous in view of 19 Wh4 �e6 20 �d5! ) 18 Wg5 o-o 19 �7+ �h8 20 exf5 h6 21 Wh5 Wd2 with a double-edged position (indicated by Sveshnikov). 13 ... �d7 14 0-0 (D) 14 exf5?! �7 15 0-0 l:td4 16 We2 �d5 is clearly better for ..

84


Black (Levchenkov-Gorelov, Jur mala 1977) and 14 lbb6 + fl. '6'h4, e.g. 17 'ikxf7 + J..e7 18 lbe6 J.. a6 + 19 �gl lbd4! 20 lbxd4 l:txd4 2 1 g3 (21 l:tcl �d8! 22 g3 'ii'g5 23 f4 exf4 24 lbc7 l:tdl + ! , N.Povah) 2 1 . . .l:tfB! 2 2 lbb6 + �c6 23 'ifb3 l:tb4, and Black won (Chi burdanidze-Maksimovic, Smed erevska Palanka 1983). Instead of 15 '6'h5, 15 0-0 is stronger. Still, according to Sveshnikov, after 15 . . . lbd4! it is difficult for White to develop his initiative.

unpleasant, for example 19 . .. :Xb5 20 cxb5 lbd4 2 1 'ifg2 'ii' h6 22 fxe5 dxe5 23 l:r.acl f4 24 l:tc7 + 'iii> d8 25 l:tfdl J.. h3 (Dittmar-Antoszkiewicz, corr 1981 - this was considered a key game for this line), and now, instead of 26 b6? fxg3!, White could have won by means of 26 l:ta 7! J.. d6 (26 . . . J..xg2 leads to a mate in five) 27 l:ta8 + �d7 28 lbffi + ! 1fxffi 29 'ii'xh3 + etc. Instead of 15 . . . l:tg8, Sveshnikov also recommends 15 . . . l:.xc4, for ex ample 16 b4! J.. h6 17 lbb5 l:r.d4 18 'ii'a4! (Nunn-F.Portisch, Budapest 1978), and now 18 . . . l:txe4! with a messy position. Still, 14 . . . :Xe4 is much more solid. 15 'ii'h5 lbe7 15 lbd4l? is interesting, e.g. 16 c3 lbe2 + 17 'it>hl �c6 (with the idea of 18 . . . lbf4) 18 g3 l:tg8 19 'l'f3 'ifxc7 (19 . . . J..e 6!? 20 lbxe6 fxe6 2 1 lbe3) 20 lbxc7 'iii>xc7 2 1 'ii'h 5 l:tg6 22 'ifxh7 J.. e6 23 l:tadl l:teg4 with dangerous counterplay (Perenyi T.Horvath, Zamardi 1979); or 16 'ii'xf7 + 'iii>c6 (after 16 ... J..e 7 17 lLJa8 'ii'f8 18 lbffi + r.i?d8 19 'ifxfB + :xrs 20 lbxe4 fxe4 21 lbb6 J..b 7 22 c4 lbe2 + ! 23 'iii>h l lbf4 the endgame is favourable for Black but 1 7 f3 l:.h4 18 g3 l:th6 19 c3 lLJe6 20 'ifxf5 'iVgB leads to an unclear position, Van der Wiel-T.Georgadze, Bad Lauterberg 1979) 17 a4 (17 lbb4+ 'iii>b 7 18 lbb5+ 'ii'd 7 19 'ii'd5 + �b6 20 a4, Szabo-T.Horvath, Oberwart 1979, is poor in view of 20 ...lbxb5) 17 ...'ii'd7 18 1i'h5 lbe2+ 19 'iii>hl lLJf4 20 lbxf4 'ifxc7 (20 . . . :Xf4!?) with •••

14 :Xe4 14 '6'g5 is a risky alternative to this move. After 15 c4 l:tg8 16 g3 l:ta7 (alternatively 16 . . . l:ta5 17 lbb5 ! :Xb5 18 cxb5 lbd4 19 f4! 'ii'g7 20 l:tcl with a strong attack, T.Horvath-Sergyan, Zalaegerszeg 1979) 1 7 lbb5 l:r.b7 18 f4 (after 18 a4 f4 19 a5 '6'h4 20 J:[a3 Black can force a draw: 20 . . . lbxa5! 21 l:txa5 fxg3 22 fxg3 l:txg3 + ) 18 . . . 'ii' h4 19 'ii' f3 White' s threats are quite •••

•••

Out of Use good chances for Black (Bryson Lawton, Nottingham 1987). Black can also play 15 1i'h4!?, e.g. 16 1i'xf7 + ie7 17 g3 .J:.g4 18 lllb 5 f4 19 .J:.adl fxg3 20 fxg3 .J:.xg3 + 2 1 hxg3 1i'xg3 + with per petual check (Coco-Pantaleoni, corr 1983). �c6 16 1i'xf7 1i'd7 (D) 17 c4 Not 17 lbxd5? 18 cxd5 + �b7 (18 ... �b6 19 .J:.fcl) 19 llle6 + 1i'd7 20 1i'xf5, with a clear advantage for White (Hulak-JokAic, Pula 1978). l 7 .J:.g8 18 J:lfcl ! .J:.eg4 ( 18 ... .J:.g7?! 19 llleG ! , Honfi-Piasetski, Subotica 1978) 19 g3 with idea 20 c5! also yields White good attacking possi bilities, according to KHonfi. 17 ... 1i'd7 enables Black to avoid any danger. •••

•••

•••

White is in trouble. How can he parry the threat of 18 . . . lllxd5

85

here? 18 lllb5? lLJg6 19 lLJb4 + �b6 20 1i'd5 lLJf4 21 1i'd2 l:.g8 (B.Kirsch-Fleck, West Germany 1979), 18 1i'h5 lLJxd5 19 lLJxd5 .J:.xc4! , 18 lLJe8 1i'e6! 19 1i'h5 1i'g6! and 18 lLJf6 + �xc7 19 lLJxe4 fxe4 20 .J:.fd l �b7 followed by . . . �b7b8 and ic8-b7 (variations by Sveshnikov) are clearly poor for White. Fortunately, 18 llla8! en ables him to maintain the bal ance: 18 . . . lllg6 19 lLJb4 + �b7 20 1i'd5 + �b8 21 lLJc6 + (but not 21 lLJb6? 1i'b7 22 1i'h5 lLJf4! 23 lLJ4d5 ie7 24 lllxe7 1i'xe7 or 24 a4 JLd8, and Black wins - Sveshnikov) 2 1 . . .�xa8 22 1i'b5 1i'h7 23 1i'a5 + 1i'a6 24 1i'c7 1i'b7 25 1i'a5 + and a draw was agreed in the game Y.Grftnfeld-Fleck, Lugano 1980) but Black can also try 22 . . .1i'c7!? 23 1i'a4 + �b7 24 lLJa5 + �b8 25 lLJc6 + 1i'xc6!? 26 1i'xc6 ib7 27 1i'e8 + �c7 with good prospects of counterplay (Sveshnikov ). So, the piece sacrifice is very risky for White as Black has many ways of obtaining good counter chances. That's why it occurs very rarely nowadays, mostly in corre spondence games in which the players are less concerned about the result of the game. Now we move on to the lines that are popular today.

6

Always in Fashion

( 1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 d4 c:x:d4 4 lD:x:d4 lDf6 5 lDc3 e5 6 lDdb5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 lDa3 b5 9 .t:x:f8 g:x:f6 10 lDd5 f5) .t:x:f5 1 1 e:x:f5

1fe3 1fxb2 20 l:el �f7 with a deci sive advantage for Black, Pavlov Manolov, Primorsko 1976, or 15 l:dl lDxc2 + etc., Armando-Yusu pov, Innsbruck 1977) 15 b4 16 c:x:b4. Now the move 16 1fb6 en ables White to defend after the continuation 1 7 .txa6 'ifxb4 + 18 �fl 1fd2 19 h4! .th6 20 'ifh7 + � 2 1 Itel .td3 + 22 .txd3 1fxd3 + 23 �gl l:g8 24 g3 (Kurkin-Azletsky, Riazan 1978). Adorjan and T.Hor vath recommend 16 .th6!. Here is their analysis, with some clari fications by the author: •••

•••

•••

This is one of the classical lines of the Sicilian Sveshnikov. Its main branch ( 12 c3) leads to com plicated, very interesting posi tional play. However, first we take a look at the deviations.

Section 1 12

.t d3 and other deviations

12 .td3 12 1ff3? is poor on account of 12 li)d4!, for example 13 li)c7 + 'if:x:c7 14 'if:x:a8 + �e7 ( 14 . . .tc8!? 15 .i.d3? d5! 16 0-0 .txa3 1 7 bxa3 0-0, and Black wins, Bellon-G.Gar cia, Orense 1976, or 15 c3 .th6!?) 15 c3 (15 .td3 'ifa5 + 16 � .txd3 + 17 cxd3 'ifd2 18 'ife4 f5 19 •••

.

a) 17 'if:x:h8? 'ifb7! 18 .tb5 'ife4 + 19 � axb5 ; b ) 11 'if:x:aG :b8! 1 8 b 5 ( 1 8 .tda l:tb6 19 'ifc4 :c6; 18 .tb5 :Xb5! 19 lDxb5 .td2 + ! ; 18 'ifc4 'ii'b 7 19 .td3 J:Cc8; 18 .tc4 .te4 19 'ii'a5 'ii'xa5 20 bxa5 .i.xg2) 18 . . . .tcl ! 19 b6 (19 lDc4 .txb2! 20 :dl .i.c3 + 21 l:d2 :xb5) 19 . . . :xb6 20 'ii'c4 :cs 2 1

87

Al,ways in Fashion :xcl (21 1ib4 :c2!) 21. ..:Xc4 22 :xc4 1ib6! ; c ) 1 7 1id5 :cs! 1 8 f3 ( 1 8 .i.e2 .tel 19 .i.xa6 - 19 lllc4 .i.xb2 19 . . .i.xb2 20 0-0 1ic6 2 1 1ixc6 :xc6 22 b5 :ca; 18 f4 1'b6 19 1ia5 lll f3 + ! 20 �e2 lllgl + ! ; 18 .i.c4 i.e6 19 1ie4 .i.g5! 20 h4 .i.f4 2 1 g3 f5 22 1ig2 .i.h6 with an irresistible attack) 18 . . . .i.cl 19 .i.xa6 ( 19 lllc4 .i.xb2! ) 19 . . . .i.xb2! 20 lllb 5 lllxb5 21 .i.xc8 .i.xc8. Black's position is winning in all these variations. 12 1if3 is absolutely never seen nowadays. However, the same can be said about 12 i.d3. e4 l? 12 The most energetic response connected with a pawn sacrifice. 12 .i.g6?l is poor in view of 13 h4 i.h6 (13 . . . e4 14 h5! ) 14 .i.xg6 hxg6 15 c3 :cs 16 1if3 b4 17 lllc4 bxc3 18 bxc3 llld4 19 cxd4 :Xc4 20 dxe5 dxe5 2 1 :dl with an edge for White (Matulovic.JokAic, Yugosla via 1976). After 12 ..i.e6 13 .i.e4 (13 1if3 .i.xd5 14 1ixd5 llle7 15 1ib7 .i.g7, then . . . 0-0 and . . . d6-d5, Adorjan, T.Horvath) we get a position from the 1 1 g3 line (Chapter 5) but the white g-pawn is still on g2! . Play is naturally quite similar. Here are some examples: 13 . . . :cs 14 0-0 ( 14 1ih5 .i.g7 15 c3 b4! 16 lllc2 - 16 cxb4 lllxb4! 17 lllxb4 1ia5 16 . . . bxc3 17 bxc3 1ia5 18 lllce3 llle 7 19 :dl lllxd5 20 lllxd5 :c5 with advantage for Black, Matu lovic-Binham, Helsinki 1981 - cf. .

•••

...

••

1 1 g3 line) 14 . . . .i.g7 15 1id3 llle 7 16 lllx e7 1ixe7 17 c3 1id7 18 .i.d5 .i.xdS 19 1ixdS 0-0 followed by . . . :cB-cS (Rogers-Rosen, corr 1980) or 13 . . . .i.g7 14 1ih5 :cs 15 :dl llle 7 16 :dl :cs (16 . . . lllxdS !?) 17 lllxe7 (for 17 lllb 4!? - see 11 g3 line) l 7 . . . 1ixe7 18 0-0 d5 19 .i.f5 .i.xfS 20 1ixfS 11e6 ( Chevaldon net-Sveshnikov, Le Havre 1977), with a good game for Black in all cases. 13 '6'e2 llld4 l .i.g7 14 '6'e3 15 .i.xe4 15 f3 forces an interesting end game: 1S ... 1ih4+ ! 16 g3 lllxf3 + 17 1ixf3 exf3 18 gxh4 .i.xd3 19 cxd3 .i.xb2, and Black is not worse in any case: 20 � .i.xal 21 :lxal :cB 22 �xf3 :cs 23 �e4 �dB! with better prospects for Black (Ador jan), or 20 :dl .i.xa3 21 lllc7 + �d7 22 lllxaB :xas 23 0-0 :gs + 24 �hl :g4 2S :Xf3 :xh4 26 :Xf7 + �c6 27 �g2 .i.b2, and Black is slightly better (JokAic-Simic, Yugoslavia 1978), or 20 �d2 .i.xa3 2 1 lllc 7 + �d7 22 lllxa8 .i.cS ! 23 �c3 .i.e3 ! 24 :ael ! :CB + 2S �b3, and Black has at least a draw: 2S . . . .i.d4 26 :e4 :ca + 27 �b2 :c4 + (J.Tis dall). 0-0 15 16 0-0·0 16 0-0 is met by 16 . . . :es 17 f3 .i.e6! 18 c3 .i.xdS 19 cxd4 b4 20 lllc2 .i.c4! winning the exchange (Danailov-Andrianov, Groningen 1980/81). 16 .i.xe4 ...

•••

88

The Sveshnikov Sicilian 17 9xe4

:es

18 9g4? is now poor in view of 18 . . . h5! 19 9h3 ( 19 9xh5? l%e5) 19 . . . 9g5 + 20 .!003 9£6 (Matulovic-Rajkovic, Yugoslavia 1975). If 18 9d3 then 18 ... 9g5 + 19 .!003 9£6 20 c3 9xf2 2 1 lDac2 lLJxc2 22 lLJxc2, and Black can play not only 22 . . . :e2 23 :hfl 9xg2 24 l%gl 9e4 with equality (Sveshnikov) but also 22 . . . a5!? with the idea of . . .b5-b4.

Section 2 1 2 c3 - dlfferent lines

( 1 e4 c5 2 lLJf3 lLJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 e5 6 lDdb5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 lLJa3 b5 9 .txf6 gxf6 10 lDd5 f5 1 1 exf5 .txf5) 12 c3 (D) White is preparing to bring his knight into the game (lLJa3-c2-e3, gaining a tempo by attacking the black bishop). .tg7 12 12 .te6 13 lDc2 .txd5?! is poor in view of 14 9xd5 .!00 7 15 9b7!, •••

•••

for example 15 ... .tg7 (or 15 . . . '6'b8 16 9xb8 + :Xb8 1 7 lDb4 l%b6 18 a4! a5 19 .txb5 + :Xb5 20 axb5 axb4 2 1 l%a7, Sveshnikov) 16 lDb4 0-0 17 lDxa6 b4?! ( 1 7 . . . lLJg6 was relatively better) 18 lLJxb4 d5 19 .tb5 with a clear advantage for White (Litvinov-Mochalov, Minsk 1976). However, instead of 13 . . . .txd5, 13 . . . .th6!? is better, for example 14 a4 ( 14 g4 0-0 15 .tg2 9h4 16 lDde3 l%ac8 17 .te4 d5! 18 .txd5 l%fd8 19 9f3 .txd5 20 lLJxd5 e4! with good counterplay for Black, Pinter-EPortisch, Hungary 1976) 14 . . . 0-0! 15 axb5 axb5 (15 . . . lDd4!?, Adorjan, T.Horvath) 16 :Xa8 9xa8 1 7 .txb5 lDd4! 18 lLJf6 + �h8 19 lDxd4 9xg2 20 9f3 (20 .tc6 d5 21 'iff3 9g6 22 lDb3 l%b8 ! ) 20 ... 9g5 2 l lDe2 e4 22 lDxe4 'ifxb5 with an equal position (Sigurjonsson-Sax, Ljubljana/Portaro! 1977). In this variation, however, 14 g3 ! looks stronger than it is after 12 . . . .tg7 (see below) as after the eventual f2-f4 Black's h6 bishop will be off side.

89

A/,ways in Fashion 13 l£ic2 13 'ii'f3 doesn't pose any prob lems for Black after 13 ... .i.e6, and now: a) 14 l£if6+ .txf6 15 'ii'xc6 + cj;e7 16 .i.e2 d5 17 0-0 'ifc8 18 'ifb6 l:tb8 19 'ii'a 7 + 'ii'b 7 20 'iVc5 + cj;e8 21 f4 l:c8 22 'ife3 d4 with a coun terattack (Mircov-Kharlov, Bern 1992); b) 14 l£ir4 lDd4! 15 cxd4 (15 'ifg3 l£if5) 15 . . . exf4 16 l£ic2 0-0 17 .i.d3 'ii'g5, and Black stands well (Ro gers-Ivanovic, Vr§ac 1987); c) 14 l£ic2 0-0 15 0-0 f5 etc.; d) 14 .i.d3 .i.xd5 15 'ifxd5 l£ie7 16 'ii'f3 d5 1 7 l:dl 'ii'b 6 18 0-0 e4 19 'ifg3 0-0 with an excellent posi tion for Black (Bellon-Lombard, Haifa 1976); e) 14 l:dl 0-0 15 .i.e2 l:c8 16 l£ic2 f5 17 0-0 l£ie7 18 l£ixe7 + 'ifxe7 19 l£ib4 cj;h8 with equality (Se menova-Alexandria, Lvov 1977). After 13 l£ic2 Black has several possibilities, the most popular be ing 13 . . . .i.e6 ! , which will be exam ined in Section 3. Here we deal with the other options. · o-o 13 ... 13 l£Je7 has recently appeared in tournament practice. Then 14 l£ice3 .i.e6 leads to a variation from Section 3. White has two other possibilities: a) 14 laxe7 .i.xc2 (but not 14 . . . 'ii'xe7?? 15 'iff3 and 14 ... cj;xe7? 15 l£ib4 cj;f8 16 'ii'f3 'ii'c 8 17 'ii'd5 'ifb8 18 .i.d3, Adams-Sandstrom, London 1993, are clearly poor) 15 'ifxc2 'ifxe7 16 .i.e2 (16 a4 0-0 17

.te2 b4 18 cxb4 'ifb7, Cvijic-Trifu novic, Banja Vrucica 1987, or 16 ::tdl 0-0 17 'ife4 f5 18 'ii'd5+ cj;h8 19 'ii'xd6 'ii' h4 20 .i.e2 l:ad8 2 1 'ii'b4 lhdl + 22 .i.xdl 'ifxb4 23 cxb4 l:d8, Zhu Dinglong-Li Zunian, Chinese championship 1987, don't prom ise White any advantage) 16 .. 0-0 17 0-0 d5 18 l:fdl l:fd8 19 'ifb3 'iVc5 20 a4 bxa4 21 :Xa4 a5 22 g3, and White maintained a tiny edge (Adams-Shirov, Chalkidiki 1993); b) 14 .i.d3!? lbxd5 (14 . ..i.e6 15 .te4 .txd5 16 .i.xd5 l:c8 17 0-0 0-0, and instead of 18 l£ie3 cj;h8 19 a4 f5 20 axb5 f4 with unclear play, Dvoiris-Nijboer, Leeuwarden 1994, White should try 18 a4! , S.Dvoi ris; besides, 15 l£ixe7 'ifxe7 16 .te4 is possible, T.Horvath) 15 .i.xf5 l£ie7 16 'ifg4 0-0 17 l:dl d5 (or 17 . . . l£ixf5 18 'i'xf5 d5 19 l£ie3, and White has a certain edge, L.Ftal! nik) 18 l£ie3 (18 0-0 'ii'd6 19 l£ie3 l:ad8 is not as strong, Dolmatov Filippov, Kemerovo 1995). .

.

•••

Now after the continuation 18 ... d4?! 19 .te4 dxe3!? 20 :Xd8

90


exf2 + 2 1 �xf2 l:taxd8 22 •e2 f5 23 i.b7! Black's compensation for the missing material was not suf ficient (lvanchuk-Kramnik, Novgo rod 1994 - illustrative game Nr.27). According to Fta!!nik, 18 ...'iVd6 19 tllx d5 tllxd5 20 'iVf3 e4 21 i.xe4 l:tfe8 22 0-0 l:Cxe4 23 'iVxe4 l:.dS also leaves White with a certain edge. He recommends 18 .l:ta7 but then 19 i.c2! looks very strong. Returning to 13 . . . 0-0. 14 l00e3 If 14 a4 (this is premature be cause White's development is in sufficient for such actions) then 14 . . . tlle 7!? (alternatively 14 . . . i.e4 15 ltice3 ltie7! - see 14 �e3 i.e4 or 14 . . . i.e6, or 14 . . . bxa4 15 .t:.xa4 a5 16 ltice3 i.d7 1 7 i.b5 �h8 lS l:tc4 l!Je7 with an equal position, Pe trushin-Sturua, Dnepropetrovsk 1978) 15 tllxe7 + ?! (15 �e3 i.e4 or 15 . . .i.e6) 15 . . . 'Wxe7 16 ltib4 i.e4 17 f3 i.b7 18 axb5 axb5 19 l:t.xaS l:.xaS 20 i.xb5 d5 with a strong in itiative for Black (Van der Wiel Yusupov, telex 1976). 14 i.e2 i.e6 15 0-0 'it>hS 16 a4 (16 i.f3?! l:.cS 17 tllcb4 tllxb4 lS ltixb4 a5 19 �6? 'fllc 7 20 a4 bxa4 21 l:.xa4 e4! 22 i.xe4 d5, and Black wins a piece, Sveshnikov-Timoshchenko, Mos cow 1975) 16 ...bxa4 17 :Xa4 a5 lS ltice3 llb8 19 1fd2 f5 20 f4 •d7 2 1 ::Caal 'W b 7 22 .t:.fbl i.h6 i s favour able for Black as well (S.Salov Gorelov, Moscow 19SO). i.e61 14 ... This is the best square for the bishop, taking the d5 square under ••

control. Black has three other op tions: a) 14...i.g6 15 h4 h6 (15 ... f5? 16 h5 i.eS, Korneev-Nikl!evic, Catto lica 1992, is poor in view of 17 h6 i.hS 18 'ii'b 3!) 16 g4 (after 16 i.d3 e4 17 i.c2 b4 lS i.a4 ltie5 19 tllxb4 libs 20 l:lbl ltid3 + Black has some compensation for the pawn, Daniilidis-Mrva, Arnhem 19SS/S9) 16 . . . i.e4 (16 . . . e4 1 7 1t'd2 ltie5 lS i.e2 l:lcS 19 tl:\f5 i.xf5 20 gxf5 l:.c5 2 1 .t:.gl 'ii>h 7 22 0-0-0, and White is better, Vegh-Perenyi, Hungary 1977), and now, instead of 17 f3 i.xd5 18 tllxd5 e4!?, Balzar-Rie mersma, Nrestved 198S, 1 7 i.g2!? i.xg2 lS tllxg2 e4 19 'ji'c2 must bring White the better prospects; b) 14...i.e4 15 i.d3! (but not 15 a4 ltie7! 16 tllxe7 + 'ikxe7 1 7 i.d3 i.c6, and Black is fine, lvanovic T.Horvath, Zalaegerszeg 1977; 15 i.e2 deserves attention, for exam ple 15 . . . f5? 16 f3 f4 17 fxe4 fxe3 lS 'iVd3 with an advantage for White, Ioseliani-Krasenkow, Tbilisi 19S6, or 15 . . . tlle 7 16 i.f3!) 15 . . . i.xd5 16 tllxd5 e4 (for 16 . . . f5 1 7 'Wh5 e4 lS i.c2 - see 14 . . . i.e6) 17 i.c2 f5 lS 0-0 ltie5 19 'Wh5 tllg6 20 llael lla7 21 f3 i.e5 22 f4, and White main tains a small but clear edge (Os tergaard-T. Horvath, Copenhagen 19S7); c) 14...i.d7!?, and now: cl) 15 'iVh5?1 e4! 16 tllf5 i.xf5 1 7 'iVxf5 l:leS lS 0-0-0 b4 19 cxb4 l:le5 20 'Wh3 'iVg5 + 21 lbe3 tllxb4 with a strong attack for Black (Avgousti-Soylu, Budva 19Sl);

91

Afways in Fashion c2) 15 g4 e4 16 .i.g2 l:r.e8 17 'ii'c2 l:r.c8 18 .i.xe4 .i.xg4 19 l:r.gl, and now, instead of 19 . . . f5? 20 l:r.xg4! fxg4 2 1 .i.xh7 + 'ifi>h8 22 0-0-0 with advantage for White (Barle-Lju bojevic, Yugoslavia 1976), Black should have played 19 . . . lLid4! 20 'ii'd 3 lLif3 + 2 1 .i.xf3 .i.xf3 22 'ii'f5 .i.xd5 23 'ii'xd5 'ii'f6 24 0-0-0 .:.Xc3 + 25 bxc3 'irxc3 + 26 lLic2 'ii'b 2 + with perpetual check (J.Boudy); c3) 15 .i.d3!? f5 16 'irh5 e4 1 7 .i.c2 1fe8! ( 1 7 . . . lLie5 18 0-0 l:i.a7 19 f3 .i.e8 20 'ii'h3 is better for White, Honfi-Forgacs, Budapest 1983) 18 'ifh4 (18 1fxe8 l:r.axe8 19 lLic7 l:r.e5! ) 18 . . . l:r.d8 19 0-0 (19 0-0-0!?) 19 . . . lLie5 20 f4 exf3 2 1 gxf3 lLig6 22 'irh5 lLif4!, and Black equalized (Ulybin-Chekhov, Pavlodar 1987); c4) 15 g3!? deserves serious attention. Returning to 14 . . . .i.e6.

with an excellent position for Black (Sharipov-Krasenkow, Sa markand 1979). 15 g4?! is now risky on account of 15 . . . b4! (15 . . . 'ii'h4 16 .i.g2 e4 17 .i.xe4 l:r.ae8 18 l:r.gl f5 19 gxf5 .i.xf5 20 .i.xf5 .:.Xf5, Dementiev-Maio rovas, Riga 1977, 21 l:r.g2 is unclear) 16 .i.g2 (16 cxb4 lLid4) 16 ... bxc3 1 7 bxc3 l:r.c8, for example 18 .i.e4 lLJe7 19 l:r.cl lLixd5 20 .i.xd5 .i.h6 2 1 h4 .i.f4 with a clear edge for Black (Zamansky-Legky, Tashkent 1977). 15 g3 leads to positions similar to those of the following section, with White's knight prematurely moved to e3. Here are some vari ations illustrating typical plans of both sides: a) 15 b4 16 .i.g2 bxc3 17 bxc3 f5 ( l 7 . . . 'ii'a 5!? 18 0-0 1fc5, T.Hor vath) 18 0-0 l:r.c8 19 1fh5 (19 l:r.bl 'ifi>h8 20 lLib6 l:r.b8 2 1 .i.xc6 l:r.xb6 22 .i.d5 .i.c8 23 lLJc4 l:r.b5! with equal ity, Illescas-Gurgenidze, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 19 . . . 'ifi>h8 20 l:r.adl lLie7 21 l:r.d2 e4 22 l:r.fdl .i.e5 23 lLif4 .i.f7 24 1fh6 l:r.c6! 25 lLie6 .i.xe6 26 'irxe6 'ii'e8 27 lLic4 l:r.f6 28 lLJxd6, and the game is equal (Gel ler-Arakhamia, Aruba 1992); b) 15 .:.bs 16 .i.g2 f5 1 7 1fh5, for example 17 . . . b4 18 0-0 bxc3 19 bxc3 1fd7 (19 ... 'ifi>h8!) 20 f4! (Sham kovich-Maguiera, Las Vegas 1994), and 20 . . . e4? doesn't work on ac count of 21 g4! fxg4 22 .i.xe4; still, 20 ... l:r.b5!? 21 l:r.adl l:r.c5 gives Black good counterchances, according to L.Shamkovich; or l 7 . . . l:i.f7 18 f4?! e4! 19 0-0 lLie7 20 l:r.adl lLixd5 2 1 •••

•••

15 .i.d3 15 a4?! can be met by 15 ... lLie7!, for example 16 lLixe7 + 'ii'x e7 17 axb5 axb5 18 .i.xb5 'ii'b 7 19 c4 d5 20 l:r.xa8 l:r.xa8 21 0-0 d4 22 lLic2 e4

92


tLlxd5 'ii'c S! 22 'ife2 'ii'c 5 + 23 1i'f2 a5 24 a3 J:tcS 25 tLle3 ib3! 26 l:.d2 b4, and Black is clearly better (Kindermann-Lobron, Ptuj 1995); or 17 0-0 (instead of 17 'ifh5) 17 . . . �hS lS 'ifh5 b4 19 l:tadl bxc3 20 bxc3 l:b2 2 1 tLlc4 if7 22 'ifh3 J:txa2 23 tLlde3 ixc4 24 tLlxc4 (Herbrechtsmeier-Antonio, Biel 1993), and now the simplest plan for Black was 24 ... tLle7. c) 15 f5 16 ig2 (or 16 f4 J:tbS! but not 16 . . . l:ta7?! 1 7 ig2 �hS lS 0-0 tLle7 19 'ifd2 tLlg6 20 'iL'hl exf4 21 tLlxf4 tLlxf4 22 .:Xf4 ie5 23 J:tf2 'ii'g5 24 id5! with an initiative for White, Klovans-Gaidarov, Riga 1979; or 16 ih3 tLle7! 1 7 0-0 - 1 7 tLlxe7 + flxe7 lS ixf5? l:txf5! 1 9 tLlxf5 •b7!, I.Millstein - 17 . . . l:tbS lS l:tel tLlxd5 19 ltlxd5 "fld7 20 •d2 a5 21 a3 �hS 22 l:tadl •f7 with equality, Ljubojevic-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 19SS) 16 . . . b4 (for 16 . . . J:tbS - see the previous variation) 17 •h5 bxc3 lS bxc3 e4 (somewhat premature; 18 . . . l:tbS or lS, . . c;j;>hS was better) 19 0-0 tLle7 20 1%.adl ltlxd5 21 ltlxd5 ie5 22 f3! ixd5 23 .:Xd5 exf3 24 •xra l:tcS 25 c4!, and White obtained a small edge (Brunner-Lyrberg, Bu dapest 1993). After 15 id3 the white bishop will be placed more actively (c2 or b3, with an eventual idea to ex change the light-squared bish ops), and his queen will take the h5 square. An attempt to start with 15 •h5 fails in view of 15 . . . e4! (cf. 14... id7 line). •••

Some time ago the 15 id3 vari ation was considered very formi dable, and black players mostly switched to the other move order (13 . . .ie6). However, recent practi ce has discovered several good plans for Black after 15 id3. f5 (DJ 15 15 ltle7?! was played in the game S.Garcia-Remon (Bayamo 19S6) . Still, after 16 tLlxe7 + •xe7 1 7 'ii'h 5 h6 lS ie4 J:tacS 19 0-0 l:tc5 20 J:tfdl l:tdS 21 id5 a5 22 l:td2, White held a slight edge. •••

•••

16 1i'h5 16 ic2!? is very interesting (this position can also be reached from a completely different line of the Sveshnikov: 1 1 id3 ie6 12 c3 ig7 13 lLlc2 0-0 14 lLlce3 fxe4 15 ixe4 f5 16 ic2 - see Chapter 7). Now 16 e4?! is hardly good in view of 1 7 tLlf4. Black has tried the following options: a) 16 J:ta7?! 17 1i'h5 b4 lS 0-0 (lS tLlxf5 l:txf5 ! ) 1S . . . bxc3 19 bxc3 l:taf7 20 l:tabl tLle7 with a good po sition for Black (Waller-Fauland, •••

•••

93

Al.ways in Fashion Vienna 1986) but what can he do after 18 g4! in this line?; b) 16 ltle7 17 0-0?! ltlg6 18 f3? .ih6 19 l:r.el l:r.a7 20 b4 Ilg7 2 1 'it> h l ltlh4 with a decisive attack for Black (Larduet-Ochoa, Hava na 1992). Of course, White should have played 17 .ib3! with a small edge; c) 16 b4 1 7 0-0 bxc3 18 bxc3, and after 18 ... hS?! 19 •h5 e4 20 f3 •as 21 f:xe4 hc3 22 :abl .ig7? (in the event of 22 . . . .if7 White is also better, according to V.Topa lov) 23 exf5! .ig8 24 f6 White won in the game Topalov-Illescas, Al cobendas 1994. T.Horvath recom mends an immediate 1S . . ...a5 but then White has 19 .ia4! forcing Black's knight to dB; d) 16 ....ih6 17 0-0 l:r.a7 (17 . . . f4 18 •h5) lS f4 •h4 (1S . . . l:r.af7 19 a4!?) 19 g3 l:r.g7? (19 . . ...h3 20 a4 also yields White a certain plus, Fta�nik) 20 ltlc7!, and White won (Topalov-Illescas, Linares 1995 il lustrative game Nr.28); e) 16 Jlf7!? (16 . . . f4?! is infe rior in view of 1 7 ltlfl) 1 7 •h5 f4! lS .ixh7 + (18 •xh7 + ? 'iit fS 19 .if5 •es! ) lS . . . fS 19 .if5 •es! (19 . . . l:r.xf5? 20 ltlxf5 .ixd5 21 l:r.dl ! i s poor fo r Black, Arnason-Birn boim, Beer-Sheva 19S7) 20 .ixe6 'iixe6 2 1 •g4 •h6! 22 ltlf5 (22 ltlc2?! e4) 22 . . ...e6 23 ltlfe3, and a draw was agreed in Yudasin-Dol matov, Kemerovo 1995 (notes by Amason). However, in this line 1 7 f4!? deserves serious attention (Black can reply 17 ...M etc.) . •••

•••

••

f) 16...bS 17 .,h5 e4 - see 1 6 'ii'h 5. Here we conclude that the 16 .ic2 line requires more tests, and move on to 16 'ii'h 5. e4 16 ... Black can also play 16 ...l:r.a7, e.g. 17 0-0 ( 1 7 g4!?) 17 :an lS .ic2 b4 19 llfd l bxc3 20 bxc3 ltle7 2 1 ltlxe7 + , and in Marjanovic Simic (Bela Crkva, 19S4) a draw was agreed, or, more significantly, 16 .....d7!? (idea . . . 'ii'd 7-f7), with the following variations: •••

a) 1 7 ltlb6 'ii'e 8! (this is the point!) 18 'ii'h 3 llbS 19 ltlbd5 'ii'f7 20 .ic2 h6 21 f4 M 22 lldl bxc3 23 bxc3 l:r.b2 24 .ia4 ltle7 25 ltlc4 ltlxd5 26 ltlxb2 llb8 (Cvijic-Muse, Banja Vrucica 1987) or 18 'ii'xe8 l:r.axe8 19 a4 e4 20 .ifl llb8 2 1 ltled5 f4 2 2 axb5 axb5 23 f3 e 3 24 :as b4 (Bauer-Schulte, West Ger many 1987), with an obvious ad vantage for Black in both games; b) 17 0-0 l:r.acS?! 18 lladl e4 19 .ic2 .ie5 20 f4 exf3 21 gxf3 f4 22 ltlg4, and White obtained a small

94


edge (Jansa-Muse, Badenweiler 1990). 17 Jlab8 and 17...'flif7 are undoubtedly better. This variation needs more practical tests; c) 17 g4 e4 18 .tc2 .tf7! (after 18 . . . .txd5 19 lDxd5 l:cae8 20 0-0-0 fxg4 21 l:chgl l:ce5 22 'flixg4 'f/ixg4 23 :Xg4 :Xf2 24 ltdgl 14£7 25 .tb3 �f8, J.Horvath-Muse, Budapest 1986, or 18 . . . ltae8 19 0-0-0 lLJe5 20 gxf5 .txf5 2 1 lDb6 .i.g4 22 lDxd7 .i.xh5 23 lDxfB .i.xdl 24 lDxdl l:[xfB 25 .txe4 l:.f4, Vogt-Klundt, Bad Worishofen 1992, Black also obtained a satisfactory position) 19 1i'h3?! ( 1 9 'ii'h4 lDe5; 19 'flixf5 'ii'xf5 20 gxf5 .i.xd5 2 1 lDxd5 .J:t.xf5 is equal) 19 . . . .txd5 20 lDxd5 fxg4 2 1 'ifh4 'ii'f5 22 0-0-0 �h8 23 h3 1i'xf2, and White had to fight for a draw (Martin-San Segundo, Sala manca 1991). 16 . .e4 is Black's oldest and most natural reply to White's plan. It frees the e5 square for the black pieces. However, Black's centre be comes less solid, and White ob tains a possibility to attack it by f2-f3. lLJe5 17 .tc2 Or: a) 17 .te5?! 18 g4! .tf7 19 'flih3 b4 20 gxf5 bxc3 2 1 bxc3 'ifa5 22 0-0 .txc3 23 lDxc3 'ifxc3 24 .i.xe4 with a decisive advantage for White (Donchev-Kouatly, 1985); b) 17 ....i.xd5?! (a premature ex change) 18 lLJxd5 'ife8 (or 18 ... lDe7 19 .i.b3 �h8 20 lDf4 'ife8 21 'ifxe8 .J:t.fxe8 22 lDe6 with a clear edge, Ghinda-Ochoa, Cienfuegos 1984, ••

.

or 18 . . . lDe5 19 0-0 �h8?! 20 f3 ! exf3 2 1 .i.xf5 l:[xf5 22 'ii'xf5 'ifh4 23 g3 'iih6 24 tDr4 :.rs 25 'ifh5, and Black's 'attack' was easily parried, Jansa-Nun, Prague 1986; to 18 . . . b4 White also plays 19 0-0 and then f2-f3, according to Ghin da) 19 'iih 3 .J:t.a7 20 0-0 lDe5 21 l:ladl lLJg6 22 f4! �h8 23 l:ld2, and White's chances are clearly better (Jansa-Zelkind, Gausdal 1990) . c) 17...1i'd7 18 .J:t.dl .J:t.ae8 19 0-0 .i.e5 20 f4 exf3 21 :.xf3? f4 was fa vourable for Black in the game Martin-Kouatly, Dubai 1986 but after 2 1 gxf3 White stands some what better; d) 17...�h8 18 lLJf4 'iff6 19 .tb3 .i.d7 20 lDed5 'ifh6 21 lDb6 'ii'xf4 22 lDxd7 lDe5 with equal chances (Filipenko-Vyzmanavin, Moscow 1986). White, however, can play in a different way: 20 .J:t.dl !? or 19 lLJxe6!? 'ii'xe6 20 .i.b3; e) 17...lLJe7 (this was popular in the 1980s), and now:

•••

el) 18 tDxe7+?! 'ifxe7 19 i.. b 3 .i.xb3 20 axb3 'ii'e6 2 1 0-0 �h8 22

Afways in Fashion b4 f4 23 •d5 •g6 24 tbc2 :gs 25 g3 i.e5 with a formidable attack for Black (P.Cramling-Fedorowicz, Hastings 19S6) or 19 g4 f4 20 tbd5 i.xd5 2 1 •xd5 + h S 22 0-0-0 e3, with an initiative for Black (Yagu pov-Minasian; Moscow 1992); e2) 18 tDf4 i.f7 19 i.b3 (not 19 ..g5 tbg6 20 •xf5 i.c4 21 tbe6 i.xc3 + !, Pelling-Emerson, London 1977/7S, with the idea of 22 bxc3 •a5) 1 9 . . . d5 (19 . . . b4 20 i.xf7 + Axf7 21 tbe6 •a5 - 21...i.xc3 + 22 n r •d1 23 tbg5 - 22 tbg5 :m 23 0-0 is better for White, Borocz T.Horvath, Szekszard 19S9) 20 ..h3 (20 ..dl d4) 20 ...M!? 21 tbfxd5 tbxd5 22 fud5 bxc3 23 fuc3 (23 bxc3 l:lbS) 23 . . . i.xb3 24 axb3 �6 with sufficient compensation for the pawn; e3) 18 i.b3 fud5 (after the con tinuation lS . . . h S 19 tbf4 i.xb3 20 axb3 •d7 21 l:ldl :m 22 •e2 White's positional plus became obvious, Ghinda-Bousmaha, Lu cerne 19S5) 19 fud5 (19 i.xd5 !?) 19 . . . a5 20 tbf4 i.xb3 21 axb3 •e7 22 0-0 b4!?. Now 23 cxb4 •e5 24 •g5 axb4 25 l:ladl l:la2 led to equality in Adams-Beliavsky, De brecen 1992, but the difficult po sition after 23 tbd5 •e5 24 l:lfdl bxc3 25 bxc3 l:la7 26 l:la4 (Klein platz-Braga, Benasque 1993) is probably slightly better for White; e4) 18 l:ldl tbg6 19 g4 (after 19 f4 exf3 20 gxf3 •d7 21 0-0 .J:.ae8 22 h l f4 23 tbg2 White also has the better prospects, K.udrin-Ricardi, Mendosa 1985) 19 . . . tbh4 (after

95

19 . . . fxg4 20 i.xe4 •es 2 1 0-0 l:la7 22 tbxg4 Black has no compensa tion for the pawn, Honfi-Muse, Bu dapest 1986) 20 gxf5 i.xf5 21 fuf5 :xf5 22 ..g4 h5 23 ..h3 ..g5 24 tbe3 :m 25 i.b3 + �f8 26 l:ld5 •f4 27 •g3 with a small edge for White (K.udrin-Rohde, USA cham pionship 1987). l 7 . . . tbe5 is connected with the idea of occupying . . .the c4 square ! 18 tbf4 (DJ 18 l:ldl tbc4 19 tbxc4 bxc4 20 0-0 i.e5 21 h l l:la7 22 f4 exf3 23 l:lxf3 l:laf7 24 b3 •a5 (Arnason Kouatly, Thessaloniki 1988) and 18 0-0-0 tbd3 + !? ( 1S . . . tbc4!?) 19 l:lxd3!? (or 19 i.xd3 exd3 20 l:lxd3 f4) 19 . . . exd3 20 i.xd3 h6 2 1 f4 l:la7 22 i.xf5 i.f7 23 •h3 :es (Velimi rovic-Vukic, Yugoslav champion ship, Tivat 1994) both lead to extremely complicated, unclear situations.

After 18 ... i.d7 19 0-0 •m 20 tbfd5 •h6 21 •xh6 i.xh6 22 tbb6 l:laeS 23 tbxd7 fud7 24 l:ladl White's position is clearly better

96


(Holzke-Volodin, Budapest 1990) but Black can play 18 .'ii'd7 !. In the game Kotronias-Winge, Stock holm 1988/89, Black obtained a good position after 19 0-0 (19 g4!?) 19 . . . J:.ab8 20 :fdl (20 �hl !? with the idea of 21 f3 deserved atten tion) 20 ...�h8 21 i.b3 i.c4! 22 :d2 :f6 23 �hl :hrs 24 :adl l0d3. Since 16 . . . 1i'd7 looks even more solid, one can hardly say that the plan starting with 15 i.d3 prom ises White the better prospects. However, it has meant that the 13 . . . 0-0 variation is no longer in fashion! 13 . . . .ie6 eliminates the whole plan with i.fl-d3 and, in deed, leads to a clearer strategical situation. ••

Section 3 1 3 ... i.e6

( 1 e4 c5 2 lLJf3 .!006 3 d4 c:x:d4 4 lD:x:d4 lDf6 5 lDc3 e5 6 lDdb5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 i.:xf6 g:x:f6 10 lDd5 f5 1 1 e:xf5 .i:xf5 12 c3 .ig7 13 .!002 ) 13 .ie6 (D) 14 g3 The most accurate move order, according to current theory. Alter natives are: a) 14 a4 0-0 15 axb5 axb5 16 lba8 'it'xa8 17 Cf:k7 (17 hb5 tDd4!) 1 7 ... 1i'a2 18 i.xb5 1i'xb2 19 0-0 .ib3 20 1i'xd6 1i'xc3 with a bal anced position (Ljubojevic-Illes cas, Pamplona 1995/96) ; b) 1 4 i.e2 0-0 1 5 0-0 f5 1 6 f4 tDe7 1 7 tDce3 lbxd5 18 lDxd5 :cs •••

19 �bl :cs, and Black seized the initiative in the game Akhma deev-Beshukov, Russian champi onship, Elista 1994; c) 14 tDce3 lDe7! (the point of Black's idea), and now White can play: cl) 15 g4?! tDxd5 16 lDxd5 0-0 17 .ig2 l:lc8 (17 . . . 1i'h4!?) 18 .ie4 1i'h4 19 lDe3 .ih6 20 lDf5 i.xf5 2 1 i.xf5 .: c4 22 'it'f3 :f4 23 1i'g3 .ig5 with an advantage for Black (Kud rin-Chandler, Thessaloniki 1988); c2) 15 tD:x:e7 'fkxe7 16 1i'f3 (16 a4 0-0! is good for Black; 16 i.e2 0-0 1 7 .if3 :ac8 - or 1 7 . . . :ab8 18 0-0 �h8 19 .id5 i.d7 20 i.b3 f5, Kimelfeld-Vyzmanavin, Moscow 1986 - 18 0-0 :c5!?, and 19 a4?! f5 20 axb5?! was refuted by 20 . . . e4! 21 b4 :xb5 22 i.e2 f4! , O.Efimov Tsesarsky, USSR 1987; finally, 16 g3 d5 17 l'Dxd5 - 11 .ig2 :d8 l 7 . . . 1i'b7 18 c4 0-0-0 or 18 i.g2 0-0-0! is favourable for Black, too) 16 . . . :a7 17 i.d3 d5! 18 l'Dxd5 e4 19 tDxe7 exf3 20 lDf5 i.xf5 2 1 i.xf5 fxg2 22 :gl :e7 + 23 �dl :e5 24 i.d3 :g5 25 i.e4 :gS leads to an

97

Al.ways in Fashion equal endgame (Hellers-Zsu. Pol gar, Amsterdam 1985); c3) 15 a4 lbxd5 16 lbxd5 0-0 17 g3 bxa4 18 l:r.xa4 a5 19 .ig2 Ab8 20 b4 axb4 21 cxb4 f5! with good counterchances for Black; or 1 7 i.e2 bxa4 18 Axa4 a5 19 0-0 Wh8 20 Wd2 Abs 2 1 i.c4 l:r.c8 22 b3 (Kuporosov-Vyzmanavin, USSR 1989) 22 . . . .td7 23 l%a3 a4 with equality (Chekhov); c4) 15 .ie2 fud5 16 fud5 0-0 17 0-0 Ab8 18 Wd2 a5 19 a4 b4 20 cxb4 i.xd5 21 Wxd5 :.Xb4 is equal (Z.Vancsura-Krasenkow,Balaton bereny 1988) ; c5) 1 5 as lDxd5! (luring the white knight to d5; 15 . . . 0-0 is less accurate because after 16 .ig2 llb8 1 7 0-0 fud5 - or l 7 . . .f5 18 tDxe7 + Wxe7 19 .id5! f4 20 Wg4! ; if 1 7 . . . whs then 18 Wh5!? f5 19 Aadl - White can play 18 i.xd5 !, e.g. 18 . . . whS 19 a4 .th6! 20 axb5 i.xe3 - 20 . . . axb5? is poor due to 21 lDc2! , Adams-Salov, Dortmund 1992, see illustrativegame Nr.29 2 1 fxe3 i.xd5 22 Wxd5 :.Xb5 23 'ii'd2 , and White maintains a small edge, according to M.Adams) 16 lDxd5 0-0 17 .ia2 (D). Black can now combine two plans: the minority attack (. .. a6a5, . . . b5-b4) and the fight for the d5 square ( . . . f7-f5, . . . e5-e4, . . . Aa8b8, . . . Wd8-d7-f7, ... l%f8-c8-c5). The white strategy includes doubling rooks along the d-file (to press on the black d6 pawn) and a kingside attack (Wdl-h5, .ig2-h3, f2-f4, g3g4 etc.). In all probability, Black

can maintain sufficient counter play. However, he must play accu rately. Here are some examples: c51) 17 wh8 18 0-0 a5 19 Wh5 (alternatively 19 We2 l:tb8 20 Aadl Wd7 2 1 Ad2 f5 22 f4 Wf7 23 Afdl ltfc8 24 Whl e4, Gufeld-Timosh chenko, Novosibirsk 1976, 25 tDea! - cf. below Yakovich-Sveshnikov) 19 . . . f5 20 l:tadl Ab8 2 1 l%d2 - see below; c52) 17 Ab8 18 0-0 a5 (in stead 18 . . . f5?! is inferior: 19 lbb4! Ab6 20 i.d5 'ifd7 21 a4 a5 22 .ixe6 + Wxe6 23 lbd5 with an edge for White, as in Jansa-Schmittdiel, Gausdal 1990; after 18 . . . Wd7 19 Wh5 Black should play 19 . . . f5 but not 19 . . . whS?? 20 lDf6! .txf6 2 1 .ie4), and now: c521) 19 a3 is not dangerous: 19 ... whS 20 Wh5 'ifd7 2 1 f4 f5 22 Aadl e4 23 whl 'ifb7 24 lDe3 Wb6 (Nijboer-Markovic, Vienna 1990); c522) 19 'ifd2 f5 20 l:tadl Wh8 21 lZ.fel Wd7 22 Wg5 Wf7 23 Ad2 e4 24 l:tedl .ie5 25 We3 Wg7 26 whl b4 with equality (Arakha mia-Nunn, London 1993) or 21 a3 •••

•••

9S


'ii'd 7 22 :re1 'fka7 23 'ii'e2 'ii'f7 24 Whl e4 25 'ii'd2 �e5 26 f3 �xd5, and a draw was agreed in Leko Lautier, Groningen 1995; c523) 19 'fke2 'iVd7 20 lladl f5 21 f4 'flf7 22 :d2 e4 23 :rdl :res 24 �h3?! l:c5 25 ll'le3 d5 26 g4 fxg4 27 �xg4 �xg4 2S 'ii'xg4 WhS! with good counterplay for Black (Yakovich-Sveshnikov, Sochi 19S6 illustrativegame Nr.30). 24 ll'le3! is stronger but after 24 . . . �fB 25 �h3 :c5 Black's position is solid enough. c524) 19 ll'le3!? 'ifd7 20 'fkh5 f5 2 1 �d5 �xd5 22 l'Llxd5 'ii'f7 23 'fixf7 +
game Secheli-Rogozenko, Eforie N ord 1993, and now White could have kept his initiative by 27 ll'ld5; c53) 17...a5 lS 0-0 f5 (this move order is probably the most accu rate) 19 1Ve2 ( 19 1Vh5 can now be met by 19 . . . b4!?, e.g. 20 lladl bxc3 21 ll'lxc3 l:lbS 22 b3 e4 23 ll'ld5 :h5 24 ll'lf4 �f7 25 'ife2 :c5, and Black seized the initiative, Hjartarson Krasenkow, Malmo 1995 illustra tive game Nr.31 ; 19 a4 bxa4 20 'ii'xa4 l:lb8 21 :fbl e4 led to equal ity in Jansa-Hellers, Oslo 199 1 ; 19 'ifd2 :bs see c522) 19 . . . :bs, moving on to the c523 line, which is quite satisfactory for Black. 14 g3 enables White, in the event of the exchange of knights on d5, to recapture with his bishop; at the same time his c2 knight pre vents . . . b5-b4. However, Black can successfully do without .. . ll'lc6-e7. 14 0-0 14 ll'le7 15 �g2 ll'lxd5!? 16 �xd5 0-0! 17 �xa8?! 'ilxaS 18 f3 d5 19 0-0 d4! 20 cxd4 exd4 2 1 ll'lb4 d3! yielded Black good compensa tion for the exchange (N evost ruev-A.1vanov, Vladivostok 1995); however, after 17 0-0 :cs lS a4! or 17 :bs 18 l003 White maintains a small edge, according to Gagarin. a5 15 �g2 15 :bs 16 o-o Wd7 (16 ... l007?! 1 7 ll'lxe7 + 'fkxe7 18 l'Llb4 :b6 19 f4 f5 20 �d5! a5 21 �xe6 + 'fixe6 22 ll'ld5 l:lb7 23 'iVd2 is favourable for White, as in Short-Illescas, Mad rid 1995) is another alternative, with the following possibilities: •••

•••

•••

•••

Always in Fashion

a) 17 1Vd2 f5 18 :adl a5 19 a3 (19 f4!?) 19 . . .:fdS 20 1i'g5 ci>h8 2 1 :d2 1Vf7 2 2 :rd1 e4 2 3 lllf4 .t. m 24 1i'h6 .i.b3 with equality (Tseshk ovsk:y-Kalinichev, Warsaw 1989); b) 17 1i'h5 £5 18 :adl e4 19 f3 .i.xd5 20 :Xd5 llle7 21 :d2 d5 with the same result (lvanchuk-Kram nik, Moscow active 1995) ; c) 17 a4! bxa4 (17...b4 18 lllcxb4 lllxb4 19 cxb4 .i.xd5 20 .i.xd5 :Xb4 21 b3 a5 22 1Ve2 e4 23 :adl, Short Kramnik, Novgorod 1995 - illus trative game Nr.32 - and 17 ... a5 18 lllce3 ci>h8 19 axb5 :Xb5 20 1Va4 :fbs 2 1 1Vh4 1i'd8 22 1Vxd8 + lllxd8 23 lllc 7 :Xb2 24 lllxe6 lllxe6 25 lllc4, ASokolov-Lastin, Russian championship, Elista 1995, yielded White the better chances) 18 ha4 a5 ( 18 . . . :xb2 19 :Xa6 llle 7 20 lllcb4! ) 19 lllce3!? (19 b4 axb4 20 lllcxb4 lllxb4 21 cxb4 :b5 with mutual chances) 19 ... :Xb2 20 :c4 :cs 2 1 1Vh5 with a strong attack for White, according to N.Short; d) 17 lllcb4 lllxb4 18 lllxb4 :b6 19 lll d5 :bs - see 14 lllce3 line.

99

f5 16 0-0 l&. . . :b8 is more common but less accurate, for example 1 7 1Vh5 (17 1i'd2 1i'd7 - see 15 . . . l:tbS; 17 b4 'ifd7 18 bxa5 lllxa5 19 lllcb4 f5 20 a4 e4, Anand-Vyzmanavin, Mos cow 1987, and 17 :tel 1i'd7 18 1i'h5 f5 19 :adl e4!? - 19 . . . b4 !? - 20 lllce3 - 20 f3 !? - 20 . . . llle 5 21 :e2 lllg6 22 :ed2 .i.e5, Short-Kram nik, Novgorod 1994, yielded Black sufficient counterchances) 17 . . .f5 ( l 7 . . . 1i'd7 18 lllce3! f5 19 g4 fxg4? 20 .i.e4 h6 2 1 'ifg6 :f7 22 f4! gxf3 23 'ifh 7 + ci>f8 24 :xra with a strong attack, Dvoiris-Iskusnyh, Novgorod 1995) 18 l:tadl ci>h8 (18 . . . 'ifd7 19 lllce3 'iff7 20 1Vxf7 + :xf7 21 :d2 with a small edge for White, Ivanchuk-Illescas, Linares 1995) 19 lllce3 (19 l:td2 .i.xd5! 20 .i.xd5 llle 7 21 lllea :m 22 .i.g2 1i'd7 23 llld5 lllxd5 24 l:txd5 b4 leads to an equal position, Dolmatov-Be likov, Russian championship, El ista 1995) 19 ... llle 7 20 lllxe7 1Vxe7 21 g4 e4! 22 gxf5 .i.xa2 with un clear play (IJubojevic-lllescas, Li nares 1995); however, 20 :d2 (cf. 14 lllce3 line) sets certain prob lems to Black. Returning to 16 .. .f5. 17 ft5 17 lllf4 exf4 18 .ixc6 fxg3 ! 19 hxg3 f4!? (19 ... l:tcS!?) 20 .i.d5 (20 .ixa8 1Vxa8 21 'ifxd6 .i.h3 22 f3 :m! , T.Horvath) 20 . . . .ixd5 2 1 1i'xd5 + ci>h8 2 2 llld4 fxg3 23 fxg3 .ie5 led to an equal position in the game Lutz-T.Horvath, Germany 1995. After 17 a4 :bs 18 llla3

100


bxa4 19 ll:lc4 e4 20 .:.Xa4 llle 5! 2 1 lllxa5 lhb2 Black i s okay, too (Nevostruev-Iskusnyh,Vladivostok 1995). 17 :tel was played in Svid ler-Filippov, Kazan 1995, and led to a good position for Black after the continuation 1 7 . . . :cs 18 'ii'd2 �h8 19 :ladl e4 20 f4 b4 2 1 lLJce3 bxc3 22 bxc3 a4 23 g4 fxg4 24 .i.xe4 llle 7. Or 17 'ii'd2 :lb8 18 lllf4 exf4 19 .i.xc6 fxg3 20 hxg3 f4 2 1 .i.d5 'ii'd 7, and Black's position is not worse (Adams-Lautier, Bel grade 1995). b4! 17 ... 18 c!OOe3 18 cxb4 axb4 19 fub4 lllxb4 20 lllxb4 e4 is clearly good for Black. 18 bxc3 19 bxc3 �h8 20 :adl :tbs (DJ Compared to the 'normal' posi tions of the variation, Black has managed to open the b-file. This means that he has enough coun terplay, e.g. 2 1 .i.h3 'ii'd 7 22 f4 e4 •••

23 l:tf2 (23 �hl? l:tb2 24 ll:lc4 l:txa2, Topalov-Krasenkow, Pola nica Zdroj 1995, with the idea of 25 ll:lxd6 .i.d4! see illustrative game Nr.33) 23 . . . :lb5 24 l:tfd2 l:tc5 25 �hl 'ii'f7 26 'ii'xf7 lhf7 2 7 ll:lb6 .:.Xc3 28 l:txd6 .i.xa2 29 li:lxf5 .i.f8 with a good endgame for Black (ASokolov-Filippov, Russian cham pionship, Elista 1995). The whole line is developing very quickly with new ideas ap pearing every month!

7

The New Old Line

(1 e 4 c 5 2 liJf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 liJf6 5 ltJc3 e5 6 liJdb5 d6 7 �g5 a6 8 ltJa3 b5 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 liJd5 f5) 1 1 �d3 This developing move has al ways been considered one of the most important answers to the Si cilian Sveshnikov. However, the interpretation of this system has lately been subjected to serious modification, with both sides opt ing for completely new plans. 11 �e6 (DJ After 1 1 f4 12 c4! �g7 13 cxb5 ltJd4 14 bxa6 0-0 15 lbc2 ltJe6 16 b4 (Nunn-Fedorowicz, Reykjavik 1990) or 1 1 .'Wg5 12 g4! Wd8 13 gxf5 i.xf5 (13 ...'ifg2 14 :fl.) 14 ltJe3 �d7 15 'ifd2 .i.h6 16 0-0-0 (Mar tin-Rivas, Spanish championship 1977) White is clearly better. •••

•••

••

and 12 'ii'h5 (Sections 3 and 4). But first we take a look at the other options.

Section 1 1 2 c3; 1 2

c4

12 c4 12 c3 is another possibility. Af ter 12 . . . .i.g7 (12 . . . .i.xd5!? 13 exd5 ltJe7 14 fub5 .i.g7 15 ltJa3 0-0 16 0-0 e4 17 .i.c2 liJg6 18 'ii'h5 'ii'c8 19 f3 :b8 brought Black enough com pensation for the missing pawn in the game Rigo-Van der Wiel, Rot terdam 1979) 13 lbc2 (13 'ii'f3?! �xd5 14 exd5 e4! 15 'ii'g3 �e5 16 f4 .i.f6 is good for Black, Gamarra Seret, Haifa Olympiad 1976, while 13 'ii'h 5 and 13 0-0 .i.xd5 14 exd5 lbe7 lead to lines discussed in Sec tions 2 and 3) 13 . . . .i.xd5 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 ltJce3! fxe4 15 .i.xe4 f5 16 .i.c2 leads to the variation described in Chapter 6, Section 2) 14 exd5 lbe7 15 a4 0-0 16 axb5 e4 17 .i.e2 axb5 18 :Xa8 'ii'xa8 19 liJb4 'ifb7 20 0-0 f4 21 'ifd2 lbg6 Black obtains good counterplay on the kingside (Poko jowczyk..Joksic, Yugoslavia 1978). 12 c4 leads to sharp play but doesn't give White any advantage. 'ii'a5 + ! 12 12 ltJd.4 13 exf5! .i.xd5 1 4 cxd5 'ii'g5 15 0-0 ltJxf'5 16 f4 exf4 17 i.xf5 'ii'xf5 18 'ii'e2 + 'ii'e 5 19 'ii'f2 (Rigo Kaman, Hungary 1993), 12 bxc4 •••

•••

In this position White has two popular moves: 12 0-0 (Section 2)

...


102

13 tbxc4 .'-xd5 14 exd5 lbd4 15 'ii'a4 + �e7 16 0-0 .'-g7 17 l:r.fel (V.N.Kozlov-Popov, Vilnius 1978) and 12 b4 13 'iVa4! .'-d7 14 lbb5! axb5 15 'ii'xa8 'ii'xa8 16 lbc7 + �dB 17 lbxa8 fxe4 18 .'-xe4 bxc4 19 lbb6 are all favourable for White. 12 .'-xd5 13 exd5 'ii'a5 + is just a transposition of moves. 13 � 13 'it'd2 'it'xd2 + 14 �xd2 .'-h6+ 15 �dl bxc4 16 lbxc4 0-0 leads to a good endgame for Black because the white king is completely mis placed. .'-xd5 13 13 b4?! 14 exf5! .'-xd5 15 exd5 'it'xd5 16 lbc4, as in Ljubojevic-Van Riemsdijk, Riga 1979 is favourable for White. 13 lbb4!? deserves at tention, for example 14 exf5 .'-xd5 15 cxd5 tbxd3 16 'it'xd3 :ca 17 lbc2 .'-h6 18 lbe3 1i'b4 (Adams-Granda Zuniga, Buenos Aires 1991 ) or 14 'ii'el !? hd5 15 exd5 bxc4 16 .'-xf5 :bs 17 tbxc4 'ii'xd5 18 b3 :gs 19 .'-e4 'ii'e 6 20 a3 d5 (Adams-Fedor owicz, the same event), with suffi cient counterplay in both cases. 13 .'-g7!? 14 cxb5 fxe4 15 .'-xe4 leads to the following line. The most important alternative to the text move is 13 fxe4 14 �xe4, and now: a) 14 .'-g7 15 cxb5 (15 tiJf6 + .'-xf6 16 'ii'xd6 lbe7 17 .'-xa8 0-0 is better for Black; 15 lbe3 l:r.c8 16 'it'xd6 lbd4 1 7 tDac2 :dS 18 �c6 + tDxc6 19 'ii'xc6 + �d7 yields Black good counterplay, Tseshkovsky Sveshnikov, Krasnodar 1978; 15 •••

•••

:cl lbd4!? needs further investi gation) 15 ... axb5 (15 . . . lbd4!? 16 lbc4 'ii'd8 1 7 b6 0-0 or 16 lbc7 + 'it'xc7 1 7 .'-xa8 0-0 deserves seri ous attention, ARodriguez) 16 :ct l:r.a6 (16 ... l:.c8 is inferior due to 17 tiJf6 + ! �e7 - 1 7 ... .'-xf6 18 'ifxd6 18 lbd5 + ! �e8?! 19 g4!, Kapen gut) 17 g4!

•••

•••

•••

•••

•••

•••

17 .'-xd5?! 18 '6'xd5 lbe7 19 '6'b7! 'ii'b6 20 l:r.c7, and White won in Kupreichik-Mochalov, Minsk 1979. Instead of 1 7 . . . .'-xd5?!, Black should try 17 .'-h6 (A.Kapengut), 17 h5 or 17 �8 CV.Chekhov). b) 14 l:tcS 15 cxb5! (15 tiJf6 + �dB 16 cxb5 lbd4 17 .'-b7!? :c2! yields Black good counterchances, Gofstein-Lipman, Liepaja 1979) 15 . . .lbd4 (for 15 . . . axb5?! 16 :cl .'-g7 - see 14 ... �g7) 16 :cl :Xcl 17 'ii'xcl axb5 18 b4 '6'a4 19 g3 �h3 + 20 �el .'-g7 with mutual chances (S.Kishnev); 13 . . . �xd5 is simpler and en ables Black to equalize without major problems. 14 exd5 •••

•••

•••

•••

•••

103

The New Old Line 14 cxd5?! is weaker, for exam ple 14 . . . fxe4 15 .txe4 'ii'b4 !? (alter natively 15 ... �7 16 tLJc2 l:[c8 17 h4 'fic7 18 ttle3 .th6 19 �f5 ttlxf5 20 .txf5 Vc4 + 2 1 �gl .:r.c5 with in itiative for Black, Kupreichik-Yur taev, Moscow 1979) 16 1i'd3 �d4 17 l:[bl l:[c8 18 g3 .th6, and the in itiative belongs to Black (Adorjan, T.Horvath). 14 �d4 axb5 15 cxb5 15 .tg7!? is interesting. The game Kapengut-1.Efimov, Minsk 1985, continued 16 �c4 'ii'd8 1 7 b 6 0-0 18 .:r.cl .:r.cs 1 9 h4 .:r.c5 20 b4 llb5 2 1 a4 .:r.xb4 22 l:[bl a5 with unclear play. lLJxc2 16 tDc2 1 7 Vxc2 1 7 .txc2 e4! 18 g4! .i.g7 leads to a position with mutual chances, for example 19 gxf5 .i.xb2 20 l:[bl '#c3 21 .i.xe4 lha2 22 1i'e2 l:[g8 23 l:[gl lhgl + 24 �xgl b4 (ldelstein Birnboim, Israel 1986). e4 17 18 Vc6+ 18 .:r.el �d8 19 .txe4 is dubious in view of 19 ... .:r.cs 20 1i'd3 fxe4 2 1 '#xe4 �c7. �e7 18 .:r.a7! (DJ 19 .txb5 After 20 1i'e8+ �IB 21 g4 .:r.e7 22 1i'b8 �e5! (Ivanovic-Sveshnikov, Krk 1976) or 20 a3 .:r.c7 2 1 b4 .:.Xc6 22 bxa5 .:r.c2 23 a6 .tg7 24 l:[dl .i.b2 25 .tc6 .txa3 26 a7 .tc5! 2 7 a81i' lha8 2 8 .txa8 l:[xf2 + 2 9 �el .:r.xg2 (Sveshnikov) the initiative belongs to Black. 20 a4 is better •••

•••

•••

•••

but after 20 . . . .tg7 21 'ii'c l l:[b8 22 l:[bl .:r.xb5 23 axb5 1i'xb5 + 24 �gl 'ii'xd5 25 h4 1i'c5! Black has no se rious problems, for example 26 1i'xc5 dxc5 27 l:[h3 l:[b7 28 �fl (Van der Wiel-Dolmatov, Gronin gen 1979), and now 28 . . . c4! (Ador jan, T.Horvath). The whole 1 2 c4 line is now a rare guest in top tournaments.

Section 2

1 2 0-0

(1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttlxd4 ttlf6 5 tbc3 e5 6 �db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 tDa3 b5 9 .txf6 gxf6 10 ttld5 f5 1 1 .td3 .te6) 12 0-0 (DJ .txd5 12 12 ttlb8?! gave Black a satis factory position in Byrne-Gurgen idze (Harare 1983) after 13 c4 .txd5 14 cxd5 ttld7 15 exf5 .th6 16 ttlc2 1i'h4 17 g3 l:[g8 18 �hl 1i'h3 19 a4 l:[g4! ; however, after 14 exd5! e4 15 .i.e2 .tg7 16 'ii'd2 White's chances are obviously bet ter. 12 f4!? 1 3 c4! l:[g8! (but not •••

•••

•••

104


13 ...bxc4? 14 .tc2! .tgT 15 .ta4 :cB 16 �xc4, Yuneev-Lagunov, Lenin grad 1977) was played in Tim man-1.Sokolov, Amsterdam 1994, when after 14 f3 b4 15 lDc2 (15 'iVa4 :cB) 15 ... a5 16 b3 .te7 17 :f2 a draw was agreed. This line de serves further investigation. 12 .tg7 13 'iVh5 ! leads to a dull variation of the 12 'iVh5 line (see Section 3). 13 c4?! (instead of 13 •h5) yields Black excellent counterchances, e.g. 13 . . . bxc4 14 lLJxc4 0-0 15 �b6 (or 15 �b6 fxe4 1 6 .txe4 :ba 1 7 .txh7 + �xh7 18 'iVc2 + e4! 19 'iVxc6 .td4 20 �4 :cB, Dely-'£Horvath, Zalaegerszeg 1977, 2 1 �7! 'iVh4! with good counterplay) 15 . . . :ba (15 . . ..txc4!? 16 �c4 �d4 1 7 exf5 d5, Svesh nikov) 16 exf5 .txc4 17 �c4 d5 18 �e3 e4 19 .txa6 �b4 20 .te2 d4 (Cuijpers-Ligterink, Nether lands 1978). •••

13 exd5 14 c3!

�7

White wants to keep his bishop on the bl-h7 diagonal. Other moves are not dangerous for Black:

a) 14 fub5 .tg7 15 lbc3 e4 16 .tc4 'iVc7 (16 . . . 'iVa5 17 'iVd2 - 17 lbe2 :cs! 18 .tb3 .txb2 1 9 :bl .te5 20 'iVcl :g8, Anand-Zsu.Pol gar, Munich 1991 - 1 7 ... :ca 18 .tb3 .txc3 19 bxc3 'iVxc3 20 'iVh6 �d7 2 1 :ael :cg8 is unclear, Malishauskas-Krasenkow, Vilnius 1988 ; and 16 ... �g6 1 7 'iVh5 .txc3 18 bxc3 'iVf6 19 f4!? 0-0 20 .tb3 :res 21 g4 fxg4 22 'iVxg4 �hs, Nunn-Zsu.Polgar, Munich 1991 , with a good position for Black) 'iVe2 ( 1 7 .tb3 .txc3 18 bxc3 'iVxc 19 :el 0-0 is favourable for Black, Ostos-Kouatly, Malta 1980) 1 7 ... 0-0 with sufficient compensation for the pawn. b) 14 'iVh5 (introduced by GM Gennady Kuzmin) 14 ... e4! 15 .te2 .tg7 16 c3 0-0 1 7 lbc2 f4! 18 a4?! f5 19 axb5? f3! 20 i.c4 (20 gxf3 lbg6!) 20 ... axb5 with a strong at tack for Black (Krasenkow-Gore lov, Moscow 1982). After 18 'iVg5 ! f5! 19 'iVxf4 lLJxd5 20 'iVd2 lbb6 Black is not worse either, accord ing to Gorelov; c) 14 c4 .tg7 15 'iVd2 e4 (for 15 . . . bxc4!? 16 lLJxc4 0-0, see illus trative game Nr.34) 16 i.e2 bxc4 17 lLJxc4 0-0 18 :adl (or 18 :acl :b8 19 b4 :b5 20 �3 f4 21 .txb5 fxe3 22 'iVxe3 axb5 23 'iVxe4 �g6 with rough equality, Hubner-Sax, Tilburg 1979) 18 .:bB 19 'iVf4 l%b5! 20 :d2 (20 �3? :Xb2 2 1 .tc4 .te5 ! 22 'iVg5 + �h8, and Black has the advantage, Novik-Kramnik, USSR 1990) 20 . . . :Xd5 21 :Xd5 �xd5 22 'iVxd6 'iVa8! ? 23 :dt :dB

�.

..

·

105

The New Old Line with equality (analysis by V.Kram nik).

i.g7 e4 After the continuation 15 'ii'd7

Neu Isenburg 1992) yield White the better prospects.

17 .J:r.ael! 18 �bl (DJ

14 15 '6b5 •••

...

16 .J:r.adl .J:r.c8 ( 16 . . . 0-0 1 7 i.bl ! fol lowed by lbaa-c2-e3) 17 lDc2 White maintains the better prospects, for example 17 . . . e4 18 i.e2 0-0 19 f3 ! .J:r.c5 2 0 �hl fud5 2 1 fxe4 lLJf6 2 2 1i'h3 .J:r.e8 23 lLJe3 (Luther-T.Hor vath, Paris 1995), or 17 . . . .J:r.c5 18 lLJe3 e4 19 i.bl! 0-0 20 g3! with the idea of f2-f3 (Dolmatov-Chek hov, Germany 1992), or 17 . . . 0-0 18 g3 e4 1 9 i.e2 .J:r.c5 20 lLJe3 f4 2 1 gxf4 f5 2 2 f3 1i'a7 23 �hl .J:r.c7 24 lLJc2 e3 (Renet-T.Horvath, Clichy 1993) 25 lLJd4! etc.

0-0

18 ..i.b3 lLJg6 19 f4 exf3 20 :xf3 f4 2 1 .J:r.h3 h6 22 lLJc2 .J:r.e8 provides Black with sufficient counterplay, as in Sznapik-Krasenkow, Rewal 1992 .

16 ..i.c2! This makes the difference from the 14 1i'h5 line. White's further plan now consists in breaking the black pawn centre by means of f2f3, or else f2-f4 and g2-g4 (after an appropriate preparation: llal el, �gl-hl, possibly i.c2-bl). His knight can be activated later on (lba3-c2-e3 etc.). Black must now play very pre cisely to create enough counterplay. 'ii'c8 16 The alternatives 16.. 1i'a5?! 17 .J:r.ael! .J:r.a7 18 �hl i.xc3 19 bxc3 'ii'xa3 20 i.b3 1i'b2 21 f3 llg8 22 g3 (Zso.Polgar-Kramnik, Guarapu ava 1991) and 16 ... 0-0 17 llael .J:r.c8?! ( 1 7 . . . 'ii'c 8!) 18 i.b3! llc5 19 lDc2 1Vd7 (19 . . .fud5 20 ..i.xd5 :Xd5 2 1 l:lxe4!) 20 f3! a5 21 a3 exf3 22 'ii'xf3 ..i.e5 23 g3 ! (Kovalev-Palac, •••

.

White is preparing both f2-f3 and g2-g4. What should Black do? 18 b4 was played in the game Tseshkovsky-Krasenkow(Voskre sensk 1992): 19 cxM i.xb2 20 lle3! f6 2 1 g4! i.xa3 22 gxf5 llf7 23 .J:r.gl + .J:r.g7 24 .J:r.xg7 + �xg7, and now White could have obtained the better endgame by 25 llg3 + ! �h8 26 'ii'f7 'ii'f8 27 'ii'xf8 + l:(xf8 28 .J:r.xa3 fud5 29 ..i.xe4 lLJxb4 30 .J:r.a4 d5 31 i.f3 (illustrativegame •••

Nr.35). 18 lLJg6 is possible. Z.Almasi •••

Krasenkow, Malmo 1994, continu ed 19 i.bl! .J:r.e8 20 f4 exf3 2 1 'ii'xf3 .J:r.xel 22 :Xel f4 23 lDc2 a5! 24 lldl 'ii'c5 with equality while 23 ..i.xg6!? hxg6 24 'ii'xf4 i.e5, followed by


106

. . . �g8-g7 and . . . ._c8-h8 or . . . l:r.a8h8, gives Black definite compen sation for the sacrificed pawn. Still, the final conclusion on this line is yet to be made.

Section 3 1 2 .. hS

( 1 e4 c5 2 � l006 3 d4 c:x:d4 4 tfJ:x:d4 tfJf6 5 tfJc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 lLJa3 b5 9 i.:x:f6 gxf6 10 lbd5 f5 1 1 i.d3 i.e6) 12 'ii'h5

The following alternatives have been investigated: a) 13 0-0-0?! (White's king is not safe here) 13 . . . l:r.cS! 14 �bl (or 14 tfJbl i.xd5 15 exd5 tfJb4 16 ._xf5 tfJxa2 + 17 �d2 l:r.c5 ! ) 14 . . . i.xd5 15 0-0 17 :hel :c5 exd5 CiJe7 16 18 g4?! (18 c3 xd5 19 i.xf5 was relatively bette but still quite pleasant for Bl ck, according to Sveshnikov) 18 . . . e4! 19 fxe4 fxe4 (Semeniuk-Timoshchenko, Novo sibirsk 1976) 20 i.xe4 tfJg6 with a strong attack for Black; b) 13 c3 (this position can arise . after 12 c3 i.g7 13 ._h5) bl) 13 f4?! 14 g3 0-0 1 5 0-0-0 (15 l:r.gl!?) 15 . . f5 16 gxf4 i.xd5 17 exd5 CiJe7 18 fxe5 i.xe5 19 tfJc2 �h8 20 tfJd4 and White is slightly better (Semeniuk - Timoshchenko, Odessa 1975); b2) 13 b4!? 14 cxb4 i.xd5 15 exd5 tfJxb4 16 ._xf5 tfJxd5 1 7 tfJc4 tfJe7 18 ._h5 (Beliavsky-Sveshni kov, Minsk 1976) 18 . . . :cS! 19 :dl :c6 20 0-0 e4 with equal chances (Sveshnikov); b3) 13 0·0 14 e:x:f5 (14 tfJc2 fxe4 15 i.xe4 f5 16 tfJf4 exf4 1 7 i.xc6 l:r.c8 18 i.f3 i.f7! 19 ._xf5 i.c4!, Bobolovich-Arbakov, Mos cow 1979, and 14 tfJe3 f4 15 tfJf5 i.xf5 16 ._xf5 b4! 1 7 tfJc2 bxc3 18 bxc3 tfJe7 19 ._h3 l:r.c8! followed by . . . :c8-c6 and . . . ._d8-c7 - recom mended by Povah - brings Black a strong initiative; 14 0-0 f4 leads to the 13 0-0 variation - see below)

�

•••

.

•••

The purpose of this move is to seize the initiative on the kingside and to prevent Black from cas tling if possible.

12

i.g7

•••

This old move has lately been superseded by 12 . . . l:r.gB, which we investigate in a separate section (Section 4). 12 f4?! 13 g3 l:r.g8 is risky - see the 12 . :gs line (Sec tion 4) - while 12 0:a7 can be met by 13 f4! i.g7 14 0-0 with good attacking chances for White. •••

. .

••

13 0-0

•••

14 i.:x:d5 15 f6 e4 16 fxg7 :es 17 i.e2 ( 1 7 ..xd5?! exd3 + 18 �fl •••

107

The New Old Line lbeS ; 17 .ic2?! :es 18 'il'hS b4!) 17 :e5 18 'il'b.6 •••

18 Jlg5 (alternatively 18 ... 'fi'gS 19 WxgS lhgS 20 lbc2 i.. c4 21 lbe3 dS 22 a4 .ixe2 23 h4, Nunn-Bim boim, London 1977, 23 ... .:es 24 'i#ae2 d4 and 18 . . . b4 19 lbc2 bxc3 20 bxc3 i..e S 21 0-0 'fi'gS 22 'fi'xgS :xgS 23 :fdl :cs 24 lhdS :xc3 2S lbe3 :cs, Beliavsky-Sveshni kov, Lvov 1978, are good for equal izing, too) 19 lbc2 (19 0-0 lbeS 20 .:adl :g6 21 'fi'f4 i..b 7 22 lbc2 'fke7 23 lbe3 'fi'eS 24 �hl :f6 with equal chances, Kapengut) 19 . . . lbeS 20 lbe3 (20 0-0-0!? l:[g6!) 20 ... i..c4 21 .ixc4 bxc4 22 0-0 :cs 23 b3 dS 24 bxc4 :cs 2S 1Wh3 dxc4 2S �hl .:cg6 with equality (Kalinichev Karasev, Odessa 197S); Returning to 13 0-0. 13 f4 13 0-0? 14 exfS is now better for White; while 13 :bs?! 14 f4! (Sveshnikov) and 13 h6?! 14 c3 0-0 lS lDc2 f4 (1S . . . fxe4 lS i..xe4 fS 17 lDf4!, as in Spassky-Sveshni kov, USSR championship, Moscow ••

•••

•••

•••

•••

1973) lS a4! bxa4 17 :xa4 aS 18 .ic4 (Ash-Morgan, Philadelphia 1992) also bring White the better prospects. 14 c4! Other moves are harmless and have almost disappeared from the tournament practice: a) 14 �bl lDe7! lS c4 bxc4 lS lDxe7 (lS i..xc4 i..xdS) 16 ... cxd3 17 lDfS i..xf5 18 1i'xfS 'ii'c8 19 'il'xc8 + :XcB 20 :adl dS! with an initiative for Black (lskov-Yusupov, Esbjerg 1980); b) 14 lDbl 0-0 lS a4 b4 1S lDd2 fS 17 .ic4 lLJaS lS b3 lLJxc4 19 bxc4 :cs 20 :abl aS, and Black's posi tion is slightly better (Ivanovic Sveshnikov, Sochi 1979); c) 14 g4 lLJe7 lS c4 bxc4 lS i..xc4 .ixdS 1 7 exdS lLJg6 18 i.. d3 1Wh4 with sufficient counterplay (Adorjan, T.Horvath); d) 14 l:[fdl lDe7 lS 'ikgS lDxdS lS "ilxg7 1Wf6 with equality (Bor zoy-Prakitsky, corr 1978); e) 14 c3 (the white knight re mains passive as the e3 square is unavailable) 14 ... 0-0 and now: el) 15 lDc2?! fS 1S lbcb4 (lS a4 i.. xdS 1 7 exdS lbe7 18 axbS e4 19 i..c4 axbS 20 i..xbS :b8 21 c4 lLJxdS, and Black is clearly better, as in the game Lukin-Timoshchenko, USSR 1973) 1S . . . lLJxb4 17 lLJxb4 aS 18 exfS (18 lLJcS Wc7 19 exfS does not work on account of 19 . . . i.. c 4!, Sveshnikov) 18 . i..f7 19 'ii'h 3 'fld7! 20 lLJc2 dS 21 :adl :as 22 'fi'g4 l:[hS 23 'fi'e2 f3 24 gxf3 'il'e7 with an obvious advantage for Black .

.

108


(Klovans-Timoshchenko, Odessa 1974) ; e2) 15 g3 f5 16 gxf4 i.xd5 17 exd5 li:Je7 1 8 fxe5 dxe5 19 lladl l:.£6 20 i.c2 'ii'd6 21 f4 llh6 22 'ii'f3 e4 23 'ii'e3 �h8 with good compen sation for the pawn (Simonov Kozyrev, Voronezh 1991); e3) 15 14 li:Je7! 16 g5 (16 li:Jc2 i.xd5 1 7 exd5 f5! 18 gxf5 li:Jxd5 is favourable for Black) 16 . . . f5! with an unclear game (Adorjan, T.Hor vath); e4) 15 l:.adl �h8!? (15 . . . li:Je7; 15 . . . llbS 16 li)c2 'ii'd 7 17 'ii'e2 �h8 18 llfel f5, Sveshnikov) 16 i.bl?! llg8 17 h3?! (17 �hl) 17 . . . .tfB 18 �h2 l:.g6 19 'ii'e2 'ii'h 4 with a strong attack for Black (Herzog Povah, Hastings 1976); e5) 15 l:[fdl li:Je7 (15 . . . llb8 16 lld2 �h8!, Sveshnikov; 15 ... �h8!?) 16 li:Jxe7 + (16 . . . i.xd5 1 7 exd5 f5 was threatened) 16 . . . 'ii'xe7 1 7 li)c2 'ii'd7 18 'ii'e2 �h8 19 a4? (Black has a good position anyway) 19 . . .bxa4 20 i.xa6 f3 ! 2 1 gxf3 i.h6, and Black obtained a dangerous at tack (Ziatdinov-Dolmatov, Moscow 1977). 14 c4 (D) was introduced by IM E.Prandstetter. White's idea is to seize the c4 square for his bishop and, later, his knight. bxc4 14 The alternatives give White the better chances: a) 14 .i.xd5?! (this is prema ture as Black can now neither cas tle nor play ... f7-f5) 15 exd5 li:Je7 16 lladl b4 17 li:Jbl li:Jg6 18 g3, ...

••

and White is better (Vogt-T. Geor gadze, Halle 1978); b) 14 0-0 15 cxb5 li:Jd4 16 li)c2 li:Jxb5 (or 16 . . . li:Jxc2 1 7 i.xc2 axb5 18 .tb3! ) 1 7 a4! (17 li:Jcb4 li:Jd4 18 l:lacl, as in Cobo-Ochoa, Cienfue gos 1979, is not so clear in view of 18 ... llbS! 19 b3 a5 20 li:Jc6 li:Jxc6 2 1 :Xc6 f5) 17 . . . li:Ja7 (if l 7 ... li:Jc7, then 18 li:Jcb4!) 18 a5 li:Jc6 19 b4 f5 20 li:Jb6 lla7 (Makarichev-Sveshni kov, USSR championship, Tbilisi 1978) when 21 exf5 i.f7 22 'ii'h 3 (Sveshnikov) would have guaran teed White a certain edge; c) 14 b4 (Black now has no counterplay while White can at tack either on the queenside - a2a3 - in the centre - c4-c5 - or on the kingside - g2-g3) 1 5 li:Jc2 llb8 (or 15 . . . a5 16 lladl 0-0 17 �hl llb8 18 b3 �h8 19 g3 'ii'd 7 20 f3 fxg3 2 1 li:Jce3 li:Jd4 22 hxg3, De la Villa-Bos-Swiecik, L'Hospitalet de l'Infant 1993; or 15 . . 0-0 16 g3 �h8 17 �hl libs 18 gxf4 f5 1 9 exf5 .tf7 20 'ii'h 3 i.£6 2 1 li:Jxf6 'ii'xf6 22 li:Je3 exf4 23 li:Jg4, Dvoiris-Geo. Ti moshenko, Cheliabinsk 1990, and •••

•••

.

109

The New Old Line

White was clearly better in both l:tc8 with a small advantage for games) 16 l:.fdl (of course, 16 b3 White, T.Horvath) 22 "ii'f5 "ii'a 5 23 followed by l:.al-dl, f2-f3 and g2- .i.fl "ii'xa2 24 "ii'xe4 "ii'xb2 25 "ii'xf4, g3, is possible, too) 16 ...h6 (16 ... 0-0 and White maintained some win 17 lDel!?, Sveshnikov) 1 7 .i.e2 0-0 ning chances CV.Gurevich-Chek 18 c5!? dxc5 19 �4 .i.d7 (19 ...exf4 hov, Orel 1995). 16 l:.acl (D) 20 lhd8 l:.fxd8 was relatively bet 16 tbc2 is less logical because ter) 20 tbd5 a5 21 tbce3 tbd4 22 l:tacl and White is obviously better this knight goes nowhere. After ( Gaprindashvili-Chiburdanidze, the continuation 16 ... �h8 17 l:.adl World championship match, Pit l:tg8! 18 b3 .i.fB 19 h3 tba5 20 .i.e2 sunda 1978). l:tg5 21 "ii'f3 (Makarichev-T.Geor gadze, USSR championship, Tbi 15 .i.xc4 1 5 tbxc4?! lifts White's control lisi 1978) 21 . . . "ii'c 8! 22 tbel l:.a7 over the d5 square, and allows (T.Georgadze) or 17 g4 l:tg8 18 f3 Black to obtain excellent counter a5 19 b3 l:ta7 20 l:tfdl .i.fB 2 1 �hl chances, e.g. 15 . . . 0-0 16 g3 tbd4 17 (lmanaliev-Pikhtin, USSR 1979) tbcb6 l:.b8 18 gxf4 f5 19 �hl lhb6 2 1 . . .l:.g6! Black obtains an excel 20 lbxb6 "ii'xb6 with a clear edge lent position. for Black (Adorjan-F.Portisch, Budapest 1977) . After the text move the white bishop not only protects the d5 point but also exerts pressure upon Black's whole position. Be sides, White now can easily ex change the light-squared bishops . if necessary (tbd5-c3!). Black must play very accurately to avoid get ting into serious trouble. 15 0-0 15 tDd.4 16 l:.acl l:.c8 (16 ... 0-0?! :b8 or 16 ... f3?! - 17 tbc2!) was tried in 16 some recent games: 17 .i.xa6 (17 Or else: l:tc3 0-0 18 l:.fcl lhc4!? 19 tbxc4 f5 a) 16 f5? 17 l:tc3 tba5 18 l:.h3, 20 lbcb6 .i.f7 21 "ii'd l fxe4 yielded and White wins (Avshalumov-Mi Black sufficient enough for the nasian, USSR 1978) as 18 . . . h6 19 exchange, Danailov-Oms, Sara 'l'g6 .i.f7 is met by 20 lhh6!; b) 18 l:.a7 17 l:.fdl (17 tbxf4 gossa 1994) 17 . . . l:.xcl 18 l:.xcl 0-0 19 lbb5 lbxb5 20 .i.xb5 .i.xd5 2 1 exf4 18 .i.xe6 tbe7 19 .i.c4 tbg6 20 exd5 e4 (21 . . . f5 22 .i.a6 "ii'f6 2 3 l:.c2 l:.e7 2 1 .i.d5 is also better for ...

•••

•••

•••

•••

1 10


White, Dobsa-Vefling, corr 1990) l 7 . . . 'iVb8 18 b3 lbd4 19 lbc2 lbb5 20 lbcb4! 'ii'b 7 (if 20 . . . 'ii'e 8, then 2 1 lbxa6! , Am.Rodriguez-Remon, Bayamo 1991) 21 �xb5 'ii'xb5 22 lbcS! llb7 23 a4! 'ii'xb3 24 lba5 with an advantage for White (Sion-Re mon, Havana 1991); c) 16 &7 17 llfd l llc8 18 lbxe7+ 'iVxe7, and now both 19 b3 llc5 20 llc2 :res 2 1 l%cd2 l%5c6 22 �d5 (Romero Holmes-Bimboim, Haifa 1989) and 19 l:tc3 �h8 20 b3 f5 21 llh3 h6 22 �xe6 'iVxe6 23 llhd3 llcd8 24 'ii'e 2 (Short-Sax, Saint John 1988) give White clearly better prospects; d) 16 ... lLJci4 17 lbc2! lbxc2 lS :Xc2 �h8 19 .:tfcl l%c8 20 b4 a5 2 1 a3 axb4 2 2 axb4 libs 23 �d3 ! 'ii'd 7 24 b5, and White is better (Ulibin Ji.Nun, Sochi 19S9); e) 16 ...�h8 17 l:tfdl lbd4 18 lbc2 lbxc2 19 :Xc2 llcS 20 l:ldcl a5 21 llc3 llg8 22 lllc2 �f8 23 lbc7!? llxc7 24 �xe6 llg5 25 llxc7 llxh5 26 l1xf7 with unclear play (Dvoi ris-Kim, Kemerovo 1979). White should consider other plans such as 20 �b3, or 20 'ii'e2 a5 21 �b3. 16 ... llbS (provoking 1 7 b3) is the most accurate option. 17 b3 17 lb:xf4?! �xc4 ( 1 7 . . . exf4 lS �xe6 lbe7 19 �f5 lbxf5 20 exf5 �xb2 is also possible, Adorjan, T.Horvath) 18 llxc4 lbe7! 19 lbd3 f5 20 lldl fxe4 2 1 :Xe4 lbg6 22 g3 d5 ( Sibarevic-Adorjan, Banja Luka 1979) yield Black superb compen sation for the missing pawn; 17 •••

�xa6 lbe7 18 lbxe7 + 'ii'xe7 19 l1c2 �xa2 20 �c4 �xc4 2 1 lbxc4 f5 leads to equality (Motwani-Yusu pov, Mexico City 19SO) . 17 'ii'd7 This classic move is probably Black's best way to fight for equal ity. The rest look insufficient: a) 17...�h8?! 18 lbxf4! exf4 (af ter the continuation 18 . . . �xc4 19 llxc4 lba5 20 lbd5 lbxc4 21 lbxc4 'ii'd 7 22 lbde3 White's compensa tion for the exchange is more than sufficient, Psakhis-Chekhov, Baku 1978) 19 �xe6 lbd4 20 �c4 f5, and now, instead of 2 1 exf5? llxf5 22 'ifh3 f3 with unclear complica tions (Idler-Reichel, corr 19S9), White could have obtained an ad vantage by 21 �d3 (Idler) ; b) 17 ..txd5?! 18 �xd5 lbb4 19 llfdl lbxa2 20 l%c6 'fle7 (20 . . . llb6 is poor in view of 2 1 l1xb6 '6'xb6 22 lbc4 'ii'c 7 23 lbxd6! , Stean-Sax, Las Palmas 1978) 2 1 lbc4 lbb4 (or 21 . . . M 22 lbxd6! lbxdl 23 'ii'xdl, Klovans-Gurgenidze, USSR 1981) 22 llxd6 lbxd5 23 l16xd5 l:txb3 24 lbd6! h6 25 h4! (Wolff-Bronstein, Wijk aan Zee 1992) , with an obvi ous advantage for White in both cases; c) 17 ... 'ii'a5!? (this move, intro duced by GM Geo.Timoshenko, is Black's most recent try to obtain active counterplay) (D). cl) 18 lbc2 '6'xa2 19 'ii'd l 'ii'a5 20 l:tal (after 20 b4 "ifd8 2 1 �xa6 �xd5 22 'flxd5 lbxb4 23 lbxb4 llxb4 a draw is highly probable) 20 ... 'ii'c5 21 :Xa6 �h8 22 lbel? (22 •••

..

111

The New Old Line

'ii'al was still sufficient to keep the balance) 22 . . . lll d4 23 llld 3 'ii'c8 24 :Xd6 f3! , and the initiative passed to Black (Todorovic-Geo. Timosh enko, Pula 1988 - illustrative game Nr.37). 19 'ii' h4 (instead of 19 'ii'd l) can lead to a draw after the con tinuation 19 . . . h6! 20 lll f6 + J.xf6 21 'ii'xf6 J.xc4 22 'ii'xh6 J.xfl 23 'ili'g5 + (indicated by Geo.Timo shchenko); c2) 18 J.d3 lllb4 (18 . . . llld4!? 19 lllc2 lllb 5 20 llle 7 + �h8 21 lllc6 'ilfxa2 is unclear, Koch-Kasparov, Evey simul 1988, but 20 a4! llla.7 2 1 J.c4 yields White a certain edge) 19 lllc4 1i'xa2! (but not 19 ... 'ii'dB 20 lllxb4 .:r.xb4 2 1 .:r.fdl .:r.b7, Cs.Hor vath-Nokso-Koivisto, Haifa 1989, 22 g3 ! with advantage for White, J.Pinter) 20 lllxb4 .:r.xb4 2 1 l:al Wxb3 22 lla3 J.xc4 23 .:r.xb3 J.xb3 24 J.xa6 d5! with a drawish end game (Rubinchik-Hamarat, corr 1990) ; c3) 18 lllb l! �h8 (preparing . . . f7-f5; 18 . . . J.xd5 19 J.xd5 lllb 4 20 J.c4 d5?! 21 exd5 lllxd5 22 1irf5 l:b6 23 .:r.fdl llle 7 24 'ii'g5 .:r.f6 25

lllc3 was favourable for White, Britton-Kouatly, London 1979, but 20 . . . lllxa2!? 21 l:.cdl requires fur ther investigation) 19 .:r.fdl (19 a3?! 1t'd8 20 lllxf4 exf4 2 1 J.xe6 fxe6 22 l:xc6 f3! 23 g3 :Xb3 24 lha6 'ii'c 7, and Black seized the initiative, Ernst-Geo. Timoshenko, Tallinn 1989; 19 lllbc3 !? f5 20 l:[fdl - but not 20 llle 7? lllxe7 2 1 J.xe6 .:r.f6! 22 exf5 e4! , Estevez-Geo.Timosh enko, Managua 1988 - 20 . . . llbeS 21 l:.d3 fxe4 22 lllxe4 J.f5?! 23 llldf6! J.xf6 24 1irxf5 with a big ad vantage for White, Marecek-Sturc, corr 1990; however, 2 1 . . .if7!, fol lowed by 22 . . . J.g6, is obviously better) 19 . . .'ii'xa2 (19 . . f5 20 lllxf4! exf4 21 ixe6 llld4 22 ixf5 lllxf5 23 llld 2! is in White's favour, ac cording to V.Varavin; 19 . . . llld4 20 lllbc3 f5?! - 20 . . . f3!? was neces sary, Varavin - led to a crushing defeat: 21 llle 7! J.xc4 22 bxc4 .:r.f6 23 lllxf5 etc., Varavin-Cherniaev, Dolgoprudny 1992) 20 lllb c3 'ii'a5 21 :al 'ii'c5 22 .:r.xa6, and White maintains a slight edge. Returning to 17 ... 11rd7 (DJ. 18 l':.fdl The others are quite harmless: a) 18 'ii'd l �h8 19 �hl f5 with good counterplay (Horacek-T.Hor vath, Oberwart 1979); b) 18 id3 �h8 19 lllc4 llld4 20 llla5 l':.fc8 21 1i'h4 l':.xcl 22 :Xcl :ca 23 :Xc8 + 1i'xc8 24 lllc4 f3 with sufficient counterplay for Black (Kuijf-King, Amsterdam 1982); c) 18 1i'g5 ixd5 (18 . . . m 19 1i'h5 llla5 20 ixa6 J.xd5 2 1 exd5 f5, .

1 12

The Sveshnikov Sicilian and Black obtained sufficient com pensation for the sacrificed pawn (Arseniev-Vaiser, Yaroslavl 1979). 2 1 l:.d3 (recommended by O.Re net) and 2 1 'i'h4!? require closer examination. 19 'i'h4 (DJ For 19 h3 lLJd4 20 �2 lDxc2 21 :Xc2 see 18 ... �4. -

Sax-Kindermann, Plovdiv 1983, 22 lD<:2, Sveshnikov, is not so good as Black's a5 knight is out of play) 19 .txd5 lLJb4 20 l:.fdl (20 l:.cdl !?) 20 . . .lDxa2 21 l:.c6 q.,h8 22 lLJc4 lLJc3 23 :Xd6 ft5 24 :n 'i'xb3, and Black is clearly better (Koch-Pod lesnik, Manila 1992); d) 18 'i'h4 .txd5!? 19 .txd5 lLJb4 20 l:.cdl!? (20 l:.fdl fua2 2 1 l:lc6 q.,h8 22 �4 lLJc3 23 lLJb6 'i'xc6! 24 .txc6 :Xb6 25 :Xd6 lLJb5 with good counterplay for Black, Dvoiris-Go relov, Odessa 1982) 20 . . . lLJxa2 2 1 lLJc4 lLJc3 2 2 l:.d3 lLJe2 + 2 3 Whl lLJd4?! 24 g3! f3 25 �. and White has the upper hand, as in Geo. Ti moshenko-Zezulkin, Warsaw 1992; however, after 23 . . . Wh8 the posi tion remains unclear.

wb8 18 18 ... .tg4 doesn't work in view of 19 'i'g5 but 18 lLJd4!? 19 lLJc2 •••

•••

lLJxc2 20 :Xc2 Wh8 deserves seri ous attention, for example 21 h3 f5 22 lLJc3 .txc4 23 bxc4 l:.bc8 24 lLJd5 'ife6 25 f3 l:.f7 26 l:.bl l:.cf8 27 l:.b3 'i'c8 28 exf5 :Xf5 29 'i'h4 e4 30 fxe4 .td4 + 3 1 Whl l:.5f7,

� - � . . .. .� ... � � � �� ··· � - ... � • .tb. • � �8� - ; ,, �� 8· • • 8� � � � n � u8n � u � � : • � � � - � � ...

19 ... f5!? Quiet lines yield White a small but clear edge: a) 19...l:.gS 20 whl lLJd4 21 �2 .txd5 22 .txd5 lLJe2 23 l:.al lLJc3 24 l:.d3 lLJxd5 25 .:.Xd5 f5 26 f3 'ifc6 27 lLJa3 (Dvoiris-Vaiser, Sochi 1981) or 20 �2 h6 21 Whl .tf8 22 f3 l:.g5 23 'iff2 (Ernst-Krasenkow, Stockholm 1989/90), with a small plus for White in both games; b) 19 .. .txd5 (once this move was considered good enough for equality but this statement was refuted at the end of the 1980s) 20 .txd5 (20 :Xd5?! lLJb4 21 l:.d2 f5 22 exf5 d5 23 l:.cdl l:.bc8 24 h3 l:.c5 is good for Black, Dvoiris Gorelov, Barnaul 1984) and now: .

113

The New Old Line bl) 2 0....!Db4 21 l:l d2 (Renet rec ommends 2 1 J:tc3, e.g. 2 1 . . .f5 22 J:th3 .i.f6 23 .i.e6 ! We7?! 24 Wh5 fxe4 25 .!Dc4 d5 26 .!Dd6 with a de cisive attack or 2 1 . . . .!Dxa2 22 l:lh3 h6 23 .!Dc4 l:lbd8 24 g4! with strong pressure for the missing pawn) 2 1 . . .f5 22 Wh3 (22 .!Dc4 is not so clear in view of 22 . . . J:tb5 23 J:tcdl .!Dxd5 24 :Xd5 :Xd5 25 :Xd5 fxe4 26 l:lxd6 Wf5, O.Renet) 22 . . . .!Dxd5 (22 . . . We7?! 23 exf5, Klovans-Vyz manavin, Tashkent 1987; or 22 . . . f3 23 .!Dc4! We7 24 exf5 e4 25 .!De3 ! fxg2 26 .i.c4 .i.e5 27 l:lcdl, Emst Benjamin, Reykjavik 1990, with a pull for White in both cases) 23 l:lxd5 Wb7 24 Wd3 (24 .!Dc4!? fxe4 25 l:lcdl) 24 . . . fxe4 25 Wxe4 f3 26 g3 .i.h6 27 l:lcdl, and White main tains the better prospects; b2) 2 0 .!Dd4 21 l:lc4 (21 �fl f5 22 .!Dc2 lhxc2 23 l:lxc2 l:lbc8 24 l:le2 is good for White, Klovans-Schaet zel, corr 1986, but Black can play 21 . . . f3! ) 2 1 . . . f5 (now 2 1 . . . f3 does not help: 22 .!Dc2 .!De2 + 23 �fl .!hf4 24 gxf3 followed by 25 lbe3 with an edge for White, according to Sveshnikov) 22 lllc2 ! fxe4?1 (af ter 22 . . . .!Dxc2 White only has a slight advantage, Sveshnikov) 23 .!Dxd4 exd4 24 .i.xe4 .i.e5 25 Wh5, and White has a clear advantage (Sveshnikov-Vyzmanavin, Moscow 1987 - illustrative game Nr.36). The 19 . . . f5!? pawn sacrifice is probably Black's last attempt to save the whole 12 ... .i.g7 line! 20 lbzf4! exf4 Wxe8 2 1 .i.xe8 •••

22 23 24 25

:Xc6 l:lcxd6

lLlc4 &e3

&e4 We8 e3 &ea

After 26 J:tel Wf7 27 lhxe3 l:lbe8 28 .!Dc4 l:le4! 29 Wg3 l:lg4 30 We3 l:le4 3 1 •d2 Wa7 + 32 �hl We7 Black's counterplay proved suffi cient for a draw (Stanciu-Brkovic, Pernik 1983). This variation needs practical tests on a higher level. So, Prandstetter's move 14 c4 sets Black quite serious problems and this explains why 12 . . . .i.g7 has gone out of fashion.

Section 4 1 2 ... l:lg&

( 1 e4 c5 2 .!DfS lbc& 3 d4 cxd4 4 .!Dxd4 lllf6 5 .!Dc3 e5 6 .!Ddb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 .!Das b5 9 .bf6 pf6 10 llld5 f5 1 1 .i.dS .i.e6 12 'a'h5) l:lg8 12 This move was introduced by GM Gyula Sax in 1979. Its idea is to make use of the drawbacks of the advanced position of White's •••


1 14

queen on h5 by attacking it ( ... l:g8g4-h4 or . . . l:g8-g5 etc.). Besides, 12 . . . l:gB is very useful for Black's future kingside attack. At the same time, his king must now re main in the centre and his rooks are disconnected. Still, practical tests have proved that the text move is much more promising than 12 . . . i.g7, which was exam ined in the previous section. Posi tions arising in the present line are extremely sharp and difficult to assess.

18 g8

The other moves are hardly dangerous for Black: a) 18 0-0?! f4! 14 c4 b4 15 lilc2 i.g4 16 1i'xh7 l:g6 17 h3 i.f3 18 1i'xg6 fxg6 19 gxf3 l:a7, and Black is on top (Smagin-Yurtaev, Hart berg 1991); b) 13 c4 i.xd5 14 cxd5 ltlb4 15 i.e2 fxe4 16 1i'xh7 l:g6 17 l:dl 1i'g5 18 g3 ltld3 + ! 19 i.xd3 exd3 with a clear advantage for Black (Henao Prasad, Thessaloniki 1988) or 14 exd5 lild4 15 0-0 l:tg4 with a good position (D.Prasad) ;

c) 13 0-0-0?! :Xg2 (13 . . . f4 14 g3 h6 15 i.e2 llld4 16 gxf4 hd5 17 exd5 1Wf6, Hasan-Espinoza, Mani la 1992; 13 . . . h6 14 h3 :cs 15 f4 l:xg2 16 'il'f3, Morgado-Milovanovic, corr 1991, 16 . . . l:tg7! 1 7 exf5 ltld4, Morgado; 13 . . . l:cB 14 �bl h6 - 14 . . . f4!? - 15 1We2 ltld4 16 'ii'e l, Dvoiris-Kalinichev, Berlin 1992, 16 . . . i.xd5 17 exd5 :xg2 18 f4 i.g7, Dvoiris - everything is good enough to obtain counterplay) , and after 14 f4? lild4! 15 ltle3 (15 c3 i.xd5 16 exd5 b4! , Tseshkovsky, Kram nik) 15 . . . l:r.f2 ! 16 exf5 i.xa2 ! 1 7 fxe5 dxe5 18 lilxb5 i.h6 ! ! 19 l:[hel axb5 20 i.xb5 + �e7 21 'i'h4 + f6 22 1i'xf2 i.f7! Black obtained an overwhelming attack in Brodsky Kramnik, USSR 1991 (illustrative game Nr.38). After 14 1i'f3 i.xd5 15 1i'xg2 i.xa2 Black has a strong at tack in any case; d) 13 f4?! ltld4! ( 13 . . . h6?! 14 0-0 fxe4 15 i.xe4 i.g4 is refuted by means of 16 lile3! i.xh5 17 i.xc6 + 'il'd7 - 17 . . . �e7 18 ltld5 + �e6 19 f5 mate - 18 i.xd7 + �xd 7 19 llld5 etc., Lopukhin-Gergel, USSR 1982; 13 . . . l:xg2 14 ltle3 1i'a5 + 15 e2 ltld4 + 19 �d2 lilf3 + 20 �e2 lild4 + leads to a draw, as in Hubner-Sax, Rio de Janeiro 1979) 14 c3 i.xd5 15 exd5 e4 16 0-0-0 (16 cxd4 'ii'a5+ 17 � 'il'd2) 16 . . .b4! 17 lilc2 ltlxc2 18 i.xc2 1i'ffi 19 i.a4+ �e7 20 1i'e2 bxc3 2 1 i.c6 i.g7! 22 i.xa8 :Xa8 with a clear advantage for Black (Bryson-Povah, corr 1989) ;

The New Old Line e) 13 c3 lh:g2 (13 ... .txd5 14 exd5 0.e7 1 5 g3 e4 16 .te2 h6 17 f4! leaves White with somewhat better chances, Gasanov-Krasen kow, Baku 19S5 ; 13 . . . f4! ? 14 g3 see 13 g3) 14 Wf3 :g4 15 exf5 (15 h3 l:.h4 16 exf5 .txd5 17 Wxd5 0.e7 lS Wg2 d5 19 lbc2 e4 20 .te2 0.xf5 leads to an unclear position, as in the game Karker-Bryson, corr 19S9) 15 .txd5 16 Wxd5 0.e7 •••

17 Wb7 .th6

lS ffil? (lS 0.c2 � 19 0.e3 .he3 20 fxe3 0.gS 2 1 f6! 0.xf6 22 l:fl l:bS with equal chances, Shirov), and now, instead of 1S . . . 0.g6? 19 l:Cdl (Van der Wiel-Reinderman, Brussels 1993), Black should have played lS . . . 0.gS 19 Wc6 + �f8 20 :dt l:f4 2 1 .te4 0.xffi! with un clear play. Returning to 13 g3. 13 ... l:g5 Preparing 14 . . . .txd5. This move is probably the simplest course for Black but he has a number of other very interesting possibili ties:

115

a) 13.. f4 (this position can also arise after 12 . . . f4 13 g3 l:gS), and now: al) 14 'ifxh7 l:g7 (or 14 . . . l:g6 15 'ii'h4 'ifxh4 16 gxh4 l:cS 17 c3 .tg4,0.Kristiansson-Bewersdorff, Reykjavik 1990, leading to a posi tion similar to the 14 c3 line) 15 'ii'h4 (15 WhS!?) 15 ... Wxh4 16 gxh4 .txd5 17 exd5 0.e7 with mutual chances (Adorjan, T.Horvath); a2) 14 c3 .tg4 15 'ii'xh7 (15 'ii' h4 'ii'xh4 16 gxh4 0-0-0 1 7 0.ffi l:g6 lS 0.xg4 :Xg4 19 0.c2 �b7 20 a4!, Hardicsay-P.Horvath, Hungarian championship 1992, 20 . . . d5!? 2 1 axb5 axb5 2 2 exd5 :Xd5 2 3 .txh 7 l:xh4 24 .te4 l:dS, P.Hardicsay, is quite satisfactory for Black; be sides, he can also play 1 7 ... .tf3! lS 0.xg8 .txhl with a very good posi tion) 15 ...l:g6 16 0.c2 (16 h3?! .tf3 17 l:fl 0.e7 lS gxf4 l:h6, Ernst- Bewersdorff, Gausdal 1990, and 16 Wh4 Wxh4 17 gxh4 .tf3 ts h5! l:h6 19 l:gl l:cS 20 lbc2 f5 are good for Black) 16 . . . l:h6 1 7 WgS l:g6 with a draw; a3) 14 gxf4!? .tg4 15 'ii'xh7 :g7 16 'it'hS 0.d4 17 �fl ! l:g6! (if 17 . . . 0.f3, lS h3 ! ; l 7 . . . .tf3 lS l:gl) lS h3! ! (but certainly not lS fxe5? .tf3!) 1S ... l:h6 (18 . . . .tf3 19 l:gl or 18 . . . .te6 19 fxe5 dxe5 20 'it'xe5 .tg7 2 1 0.c7 + �d7 22 0.xe6 fxe6 23 'ii'f4 l:ffi 24 Wg3, Madl-Maksi movic, Subotica 1991, is equally insufficient) 19 hxg4! l:xh8 20 :xhS exf4 2 1 c3 0.e6 (2 1 . . .0.c6 22 f3) 22 0.xb5! (Cs.Horvath-P.Hor vath, Hungary 1989) 22 . . . l:bS 23 .


1 16

�a3 l:r.xb2 24 �c4, and White's chances are clearly better (analy sis by Cs.Horvath) . In this line 16 . . . .i.f3 (instead of 16 . . . �d4) re quires investigation; b) 13 JlcS 14 c3 l:r.g6 15 �c2 ( 1 5 exf5? .i.xd5 16 fxg6 hxg6; 15 'it'f3 .i.xd5 16 exd5 e4 17 •xrs J:tg5 ! , Glek-Chekhov, Frunze 1988, 18 ...f4 exd3 19 dxc6 l:r.e5 + 20 �fl 'it'b6 21 'it'f3 'it'xc6 leads to equal ity) 15 . . . l:r.h6 ( 1 5 . . . fxe4 16 .i.xe4 .i.g4 17 •h4 'ii'xh4 18 gxh4 f5 19 h5 l:r.g5 20 h4 l:r.xh5 2 1 f3! is fa vourable for White, according to G.Kasparov) 16 'ii'e2 .i.xd5 17 exd5 �7 18 f3 .i.g7 19 � yields Whit.e a certain edge as Black's h6 rook is misplaced (Kasparov-Salov, Lin ares 1992 illustrative game Nr.40); c) 13 h6 14 c3 M!? (14 . . . .i.xd5 15 exd5 �7 16 'ii'dl e4 17 .i.e2 .i.g7 lS �c2 ...b6 19 a4 l:r.c8 20 axb5 axb5 2 1 0-0 was better for White, in the game Sideif-Zade-Dolma tov, USSR 1979) 15 �c2 bxc3 16 bxc3 .i.xd5 1 7 exd5 �e7 lS 0-0 e4 19 .i.c4 l:r.g5 20 'ii'e2 .i.g7 with good counterchances for Black (Mora wietz-Kalinichev, Porz 1992). This line needs more tests (15 �4 !?; 14 'it'dl!? etc.); d) 13 �d4 1 4 c3 (14 0-0-0?! l:r.cS is dangerous for White, e.g. 15 �bl fxe4 16 .i.xe4 b4 17 �xb4 l:r.g5 18 'Wxh7 d5, Liang-Kinder mann, Chicago 19S3, or 15 f4 hd5 16 exd5 'ii'tO 17 c3 e4 lS l:r.hel, Bar cenilla-Degraeve, Mamaia 1991, 1S ... .i.e7 etc.) 1 4 fxe4 15 .i.xe4 .i.g4 16 'ii'xh7 l:r.g7 (16 . . . �f3 +?! ••

•••

•••

•••

1 7 .i.xf3 .i.xf3 18 'ii'xg8 .i.xhl 19 0-0-0 .i.xd5 20 .:Xd5 •m 2 1 l:r.d2 b4, Reinderman-Degraeve, Oak ham 1992, is hardly sufficient for equality after 22 cxb4) 1 7 ft6 �f3 +

18 �e2!? (18 �fl l:r.g5 19 �f6 + �e7 20 'ii'hS �d2 + 2 1 �g2 �e4 22 �xe4 llg6 23 'ii'h4 + �d7 24 'ii'xdS + :XdS 25 f3 .i.e6 gives Black fair compensation for the pawn, as in Magem-Zsu.Polgar, Madrid 1992) 18 . . . �g5 + 19 f3 �e4 20 fxg4 'ii'cS 2 1 'ife3 'ii'xg4 + 22 'Wf3 •xra + 23 �xra f5 24 �2 �f7 with good chances to equalize (Be liavsk:y-Shirov, Groningen 1993); e) 13 l:r.g4!? (a recent idea of Kramnik's) 14 f4! ( 14 f3?! l:r.g6 15 f4 l:r.cS is favourable for Black, according to Kramnik) 14 . . . exf4 (14 . . . �d4? 15 c3 .i.xd5 16 exd5 e4 17 cxd4 exd3 18 �d2, Magem Sion, Leon 1992, and 14 . . . .i.g7 15 c3 b4!? 16 �c2 bxc3 17 �xc3 exf4 lS exf5 l:r.g5 , Magem-1.Sokolov, Barcelona 1992, 19 •e2! f3 20 •ea - recommended by l.Sokolov •••

117

The New Old Line - is better for White) 15 ltlxf4 (15 0-0-0 fxg3 16 exf5 l:.h4 17 lllc7 + �d7 18 fxe6 + b6 20 hxg3 led to unclear com plications in the game Zontakh Manik, Bratislava 1994; Zontakh also recommends 16 . . . i.xd5 17 l:thel + lLJe5 18 'iVxg4 i.xa2 or even 15 . . . fxe4!? 16 i.xe4 fxg3 17 lllf6 + 'iVxf6 18 i.xc6 + 'it>d8 19 i.xa8 l:.b4 20 c3 i.h6 + 21 'it>bl 1i'xc3) 15 . . . l:.xf4! 16 gxf4 1i'a5 + (the continuation 16 . . . 'iVf6 17 c3 b4, Geo. Timoshenko-Krasenkow, Voskresensk 1992, is insufficient in view of 18 lllbl) 17 c3 ( 1 7 'it>dl 'ii'b4! ) l 7 . . . b4 with very interest ing play, e.g. 18 lbc4 'iVc5 19 'iVe2 bxc3 20 bxc3 fxe4 21 i.xe4 l:.c8 22 f5! 'iVxc4 23 fxe6 1i'xc3 + 24 'it>f2 'if£6 + , and Black maintains good counterchances. This variation is an excellent subject for further analysis; f) 13 i.xd5 14 exd5 l:.g5 15 '6'xh7 (or 15 'iVdl) leads to the 13 . . . l:.g5 line, to which we now re turn. 14 '6'xh7 14 'iVdl i.xd5 15 exd5 lbe7 16 c3 i.g7 1 7 h4 l:.g6 18 lllc2 e4 19 i.e2 'iVc7 (19 ... 'iVb6!?) 20 a4 b4! 21 h5 l:.h6 22 cxb4 'iVb7 gave Black good counterplay in the game Sideif-Zade-Yurtaev, Dnepropet rovsk 1980. i.xd5 14 lbe7 15 exd5 16 0·0-0 (DJ 16 lbxb5? e4 17 i.e2 'iVb6 and 16 c3? lbxd5 are poor. •••

•••

White has won a pawn but his pieces are not placed very harmo niously. Black's most important problem is to settle his king. In the stem game Wang Zili-Chek hov, Beijing 1991, after the con tinuation 16 e4 1 7 i.e2 'ii'b 6 18 'it>bl 'iVxf2?! 19 lbxb5! axb5 20 i.xb5 + 'it>d8 21 1kxf7 White ob tained a dangerous attack but 18 ... l:.g6! 19 'ifh4 'ii'xf2 would have eliminated the whole problem. White's play was improved in Geo. Timoshenko-Rogozenko, Bu charest 1993: 18 1kh4 l:.g6! 19 g4! f4?! 20 g5! f3 21 i.fl e3 22 l:td3! e2 23 i.h3 'iVa5?! 24 b4! 1ka4 25 l:.xf3 with a clear advantage for White; however, after 19... i.h6 + !? 20 'it>bl i.g5 (20 . . . f4!?) 21 1kh8 + l:.g8 22 1kh7 1i'xf2 23 l:.hel 1kh4! (Glat man) Black has no problems. Be sides, an immediate 16 1kb6 is quite satisfactory, for example 17 l:.hfl (17 f4 l:.g6 18 1kh3 e4 19 i.e2 1ke3 + 20 l:.d2 i.g7 is favourable for Black, Pyda-Zezulkin, Poland 1993) l 7 . . . l:.g6 (17 . . . e4!? 18 i.e2 'ifc5, T.Horvath) 18 "ikh3 e4 19 i.e2 •••

•••

118


i.. g7 20 i.. h5 l:th6 2 1 g4 'ii'c5 with enough counterplay (Yu.Zezulkin). So, S ax' s 12 . . . l:tg8 not only en ables Black to hold his ground (his only aim after 12 . . . i.. g7) but

provides him with his own active play. That is why 12 0-0, followed by 14 c3! (Section 2), seems to be the centre of discussion in the main variation of the Sveshnikov today.

Theoretical Conclusions We have now finished examining the theory of the Sicilian Sveshnikov. What are your initi_al r�actions? There can hardly be any doubt - it's all just a muddle in your head! All those variations and move transpositions would be enough to drive anyone mad. In order to help you to a better understanding of the ideas, forty illustrative games are included in the next chapter, and here I'd like to offer you a consolidated table that re flects the interrelation of all the important lines of the Sicilian Svesh nikov and their current theoretical state. In this table we use the following symbols:

1.2

;!; ±

OK ? *

**

chapter and section numbers where the line is examined; a slight advantage for White; a clear advantage for White; the line is satisfactory and yields Black at least equal chances; the assessment is not completely reliable; a deeply developed line in which a final reliable assessment has not yet been established; a new line with insufficient practical material; a line of great theoretical imporance; transposes to

Assessments are given to the lines containing no further branches and to those transposing to other systems. THE SICILIAN SVESHNIKOV

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 ll:ic3 e5 Chapter 1 1 . 1 : 6 lbf5 etc. - OK 1.2: 6 lbdb5 h6 (6 ... i.c5 ;!;) ±

11 15

The rest of the book deals with the positions arising after 6 ll:idb5 d6.


120 Chapter 2

2.1: 2.2: 2.3: 2.4:

2.5:

7 i.e3 etc. - OK 7 a4 - 0K 7 lt)d.5 lbxd5 8 exd5 tLJb8! (8. . . tLJe7 ;!;) - OK 7 i.g5 a6 8 .i.xf6 gxffi 9 tLJa3 f5 (9 . . .b5 - Chapters 3-7; 9 ... d5 ;!;) - 0K 7 i. g5 a6 8 tLJa3 i.e6 etc. ;!;

17 19 25 32

34

The rest of the book deals with positions arising after 7 i.g5 a6 8 tLJa3 b5. Chapter a

3.1: 3.2: 3.3:

3.4: 3.5:

9 tLJd5 (9 tLJabl OK) 9 . . . 1i'a5 + 10 .i.d2 (10 c3 OK) 10 ...1i'd8 1 1 tl)xf6+ ( 1 1 c4 etc. OK) - OK 9 tLJd5 i.e7 10 lbxe7 - OK 9 tLJd5 .i.e7 10 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 11 c3 ( 1 1 c4 etc. OK) 1 1 ...tLJe7 ( l l ... l:lb8 12 tLJc2 i.g5 13 i.e2 0-0 OK - 2.5; 13 a4 OK; 1 1 ... i.b7 OK? .. ) - OK?• ! 9 tLJd5 i.e7 10 i.xf6 i.xf6 11 c3 0-0 12 tLJc2 i.g5 (12 ... .i.e6 ;!;; 12 . . . .i.b7 - OK? .. ; 12 . . . tLJb8 OK? . . ) OK! 9 lt)d.5 i.e7 10 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 11 c3 0-0 12 tLJc2 l:lb8 13 .i.e2 (13 .i.d3 etc. OK; 13 h4!? ;!;? .. !) OK!

41

44 48

53 61

The rest of the book deals with positions arising after 9 .i.xf6 gxffi 1 0 tLJd5. Chapter 4

4. 1: 4.2:

10 ... .i.g7 11 i.d3 (11 1i'f3 etc. OK; 1 1 g3 f5 OK - 5. 1; 1 1 c3 f5 12 exf5 .i.xf5 OK - 6.2 or 12 .i.d3 i.e6 OK - 7 .1) 11 ...tLJe7 12 lbxe7 1i'xe7 13 c4 - OK 1 1 .i.d3 tLJe7 12 lbxe7 1i'xe7 13 c3 ;!;

68 73

The rest of the book deals with positions arising after 10 ... f5. Chapter 5 5 . 1 : 1 1 g3 etc. ( 1 1 c 3 .i.g7 OK - 6 . 2 or 7 . 1 ) - OK 5.2: 11 i.xb5 (11 lbxb5 OK) - OK

76 80

Chapter 6

6. 1 6.2:

6.3:

1 1 exf5 .i.xf5 12 i.d3 etc. - OK; 12 c3 i.g7 (12 ... i.e6 13 tLJc2 i.h6 ;t?. . ) 13 tLJc2 0-0 - OK 12 c3 i.g7 13 tLJc2 i.e6 - OK!

86 88 96

Theoretical Conclusions

121

1 1 i.d3 i.e6 12 c4 (12 c3 0K i.g7 13 'ii'h5 OK - 7.3) - 0K 12 0-0 i.xd5 (12 ... i.g7 13 'ii'h5 ;t - 7.3) - OK?* ! 12 'ii'h5 i.g7 13 0-0 (13 c3 etc. OK) ;t 12 'ii'Ji5 J:r.g8 13 g3 (13 c3 etc. OK) - OK

101 103 106 1 13

Chapter 7

7.1: 7.2: 7.3: 7.4:

.

Play Like a Grandmaster! This chapter contains 40 grand master games played (with two exceptions) during the past dec ade. These examples illustrate nearly all of the most important lines of the Sicilian Sveshnikov, many of the key ideas and recent theoretical achievements. I will also try to acquaint you with the players who are actually making the most valuable contribution to the theory of the opening. Using the author's prerogative, I have included in this selection my own most interesting games played with the Sveshnikov. Game 1

Akopian - Yakovich Rostov on Don 1 993 Yury Yakovich is one of today's leading experts of the Sveshnikov, a great connoisseur of its posi tional niceties, while Vladimir Ak opian is probably the only top player practicing the rare 6 tl'if5 line. 1 e4 c5 2 tl'if3 tl'ic6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tl'ixd4 tl'if6 5 tl'ic3 e5 6 tl'if5 d5 7 exd5 .ixf5 8 dxc6 bxc6 9 'ii'f3 'ii'd 7 10 .ig5 e4 1 1 'ii'e2 .ie7 12 l:dl As indicated in the theoretical part (Chapter 1, Section 1), 12

.ixf6 .ixf6 13 tl'ixe4 0-0 yields Black a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn. The typical fea ture of this variation is Black's development advantage which compensates for his inferior pawn structure (or even material defi cit). The present game is a good il lustration. 12 'ii'e6 13 'ii'c4 :1>8! 14 'ii'xe6 White probably hadn't antici pated Black's reply; otherwise he would have preferred 14 b3 .ib4 15 1i'xe6 + .ixe6 16 .id2 with equal chances. 14 ... fxeGl 15 b3 tl'id5! This is the whole point! Black's threats of . . .tl'id5-b4 and . . . e4-e3 now become very unpleasant. 16 .ixe7 Or 16 .id2 tl'ib4 1 7 .if4 ( 1 7 l:lcl .if6) 17 . . . tl'ixc2 + 18 'ita>d2 l:b4 with a strong initiative. 16... he7 17 tl'ia4 Of course, 17 tl'ixd5 + ?! exd5 yields Black excellent prospects. l 7.. e3! 18 c4 e:xf2 + 19 � tl'ib4 (D) 20 .ie2! White decides to sacrifice a pawn in order to complete his de velopment. Indeed, his better pawn structure enables him to equalize. Other moves were favourable for Black: 20 a3?! tL'lc2; 20 tL'lc5?1 l:hd8! 2 1 .ie2 tl'ixa2 (Yakovich); 20 tl'ic3?! •••

.

Play like a Grandmaster

l:lhf8 21 Wg3 ltlxa2! 22 ltlxa2 l:lxb3 + with a decisive attack, e.g. 23 wh4 wf6 24 l:lcl (24 g3 h5! ) 2 4. . . g5 + 2 5 wh5 i.g4 + ! ! 2 6 wh6 (26 Wxg4 h5 + 2 7 Wxh5 l:lh8 + 28 Wg4 l:lh4 mate) 26 ... l:lg8 with an inevitable mate. 20 trum2 21 :at ltlb4 22 lOOS l a6 23 l:lhdU l:lhd8 24 :Xd8 :Xd8 25 l:la4 Draw agreed in view of 25 ... l:lb8 26 ltlxa6 ltlxa6 27 l:lxa6 :Xb3 28 l:lxc6; however, Black could have tried to play on by means of 25 . . . ltlc2 26 g4 l:lf8! 27 Wg3 ltld4 28 .i.dl .i.g6 etc. •••

123

d6). Still, from time to time he re turns to his first love (in this game - because of an unusual or der of moves). Sergey Rublevsky is one of only two grandmasters still practicing the 7 a4 line (the other is Alex Ivanov) - and often successfully! 1 e4 c5 2 ltlc3 ltlc6 3 ttiae2 ltlf6 4 d4 cxd4 5 ltlxd4 e5 6 ltldb5 d6 7 a4 a6 8 lLla3 i.e6 9 .i.c4 .i.e7 10 0-0 i.xc4?l This is premature. 10 . . . l:lc8!? and 10 ... 0-0 are better (see Chap ter 2, Section 2). 11 ltlxc4 ltlxe4 A typical tactical trick. How ever, this time it proves favour able for White on account of his development advantage. 12 ltlxe4 d5 13 'if 141 as 14 :d1 f5 15 •aa fxe4

Game 2

Rublevsky - Sveshnikov USSR championship, Moscow 1991

Since completing his monograph, Evgeny Sveshnikov has switched to another system of the Sicilian (the so-called Modem Sveshnikov or 'Kalashnikov' : 1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 e5 5 ltlb5

16 i.e3! The threat of 17 ltlb6 is hard to parry. 16 d4 Or 16 . . . .i.h4 17 'ii'g4 ltld4 18 .i.xd4 exd4 19 •e6 + etc. •••

124


17 lLJxe5 .i.d6 18 lDxc6 .i.qa After 18 . . . bxc6 19 .i.f4 Black's material losses are inevitable, too. 19 lDxd8 dxe3 20 fxgS?! 20 hxg3! exf2 + 21 � lhd8 22 lhd8 + �xd8 23 l:r.dl + with a win ning endgame thanks to the weak black e4 pawn (Rublevsky). 20 hd8 2 1 l:r.xd8 + �xd8 22 l:r.el 'itd7 23 llxeS l:r.c8 24 c3 l:r.e8? (24 . . . l:r.c4! 25 b3 l:f.c6, R.Kholmov) 25 �f2 'itd6 26 l:r.el! (preparing
•••

Game 3

Hubner

-

•

Simi c

Solingen 1989

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 lbd5 lbxd5 8 exd5 lbe7 9 c3 lLJf5 10 a4 .i.e7 11 .i.d3 0-0 12 0-0 lbh4 13 f4 a6 14 lba3 exf4 15 .i.xf4 lbg6 16 .i.g3 This variation is not considered to be quite satisfactory for Black. However, instead of the text move (to which Black could have replied 16 . . . lbe5!), 16 .i.xg6! is considered more accurate (see Chapter 2, Section 3). 16 .i.h4 17 .i.xh4 lbxh4 18 lLJc4 b6?! Black should have prevented a4-a5 by a typical move 18 . . . a5! . 1 9 a5 b5 20 lbb6 '6'g5? 20 . . . l:r.bS was a quieter reply. Black's ambitious idea of a king side counterattack has no posi tional foundation. 2 1 g3 .i.g4?! •••

Play like a Grandmaster 2 1 . . .J:le8 (with the idea of 22 lillra8 l:.e3 ! ) can be met by the sim ple 22 hl ! . But now White parries Black's threats and liquidates to a favour able endgame. 2 1 . . .l:.a7 22 'ifcl ! 'ifxcl 2 3 ltaxcl �g6 was relatively better (Simic) . 22 'ifcl! � + 23 :xf3 'ifxc l + 24 l:.xcl i.xf3 25 Wf2! i.14 26 � lba8 27 c4 l:.c8 27 . . . bxc4 28 l:.xc4 i.d7 29 l:.c7 i.e8 30 l:.b7 and 27 . . .b4 28 c5 are equally hopeless. 28 b4 Wf8 29 e3 ci>e7 30 ci>d4 bxc4 (otherwise White plays 31 c5 etc.) 3 1 :Xc4 l:.b8 3 1 . . . l:.xc4 + 32 i.xc4 i.c8 loses after 33 b5!. 32 Wc3 i.d7 33 l:.e4 + Wd8 34 i.xa6 (the rest is easy) 34 ... f5 35 l:.el 85 36 i.d3 h6 37 l:.fl Wc7 38 i.xf5. Black resigned. Game 4

Yudasin - Kharlov USSR championship, Moscow 1991

Andrey Kharlov is one of Svesh nikov's pupils. His most important contribution to the theory of this opening is in the Novosibirsk variation. Leonid Yudasin is an adherent of less popular ways of play against the Sveshnikov such as 7 � or 9 � i.e7 10 f&.e7. He has brought many fresh ideas to those seemingly harmless systems.

125

The present game is a good il lustration of the plans of both sides in the 7 �5 line. 1 e4 c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �d4 lM6 5 �c3 e5 6 �db5 d6 7 �d5 �xd5 8 exd5 �b8 9 c4 i.e7 10 i.e2 a6 1 1 �c3 f5 12 0-0 0-0 13 a3 �d7 14 b4 e4 15 i.e3 i.f6 16 i.d4 i.e5! This line is examined in Chap ter 2, Section 3. Black agrees to exchange the dark-squared bish ops; but he wants to gain a tempo by comparison to 16 . . . i.xd4 + 1 7 'ifxd4 �5. As was said i n the theoretical section, it is Black's bishop and not his knight that should first take the e5 square. 17 i.xe5 c!Oxe5 18 'ifd4 i.d7 The pawn sacrifice 18 . . . f4!? 19 �xe4 f3 is interesting, too (Yuda sin). 19 c5 'iff6 20 l:.fdl l:.fc8 Black intends to double his rooks along the c-file to pressurize White's c5 pawn and eventually force c5xd6 or c5-c6. 21 :act l:.c7 22 h3 1Ve7 23 Wf1 23 cxd6 'ifxd6 24 �e4? fxe4 25 l:.xc7 1Vxc7 26 d6 fails to 26 . . . 'ifc2 27 l:.d2 'ifbl + 28 l:.dl 'ifa2 29 l:.d2 'ife6. 23 l:.e8! 24 c6 (eventually!) 24 ... bxc6 25 dxc6 :Xc6 26 �d5 'iff7 27 l:.xc6 (Kholmov recom mended 27 �b6) 27 ... �c6 28 'ifb6 (DJ Or 28 'ifc4 �5! 29 'ifxa6 f4 etc. Now Black, using the time White needs to recapture the pawn, in itiates a kingside attack. •••

126


28 ...f4! 29 .t:u6 'ii'h5 (29 . . . f3! , Kholmov) 3 0 : c l f3 31 lDf4 :fq2 + 32 11 'ii'g5 33 lhc6 'ii'xf4 34 :cS 'ii'd2 (34 . . .'ii'e 5!?) 35 :13? A decisive error. After 35 'ii'e3! (Kharlov) White could have suc cessfully fought on. Both players were under severe time pressure. 35 ... e3! 36 lhe3 'ii'c l + 37 hg2 .tc6+ 38 f3 lhe3. White resigned. Game s

use of some other factors such as the e-file, and the c5 and e4 points. 14 ...lDd'1 15 'ii'c2 exf4 18 pf4 .t d4 + !? According to Yudasin, after 16 . . . lCic5 1 7 .tf3 :es lS l:bl! an unclear position arises. l '1 hl lDc5 (1 7 . . . lCif6!?, Yuda sin) 18 .tf3 .td'1! Black prepares . . . b7-b5. The game enters the stage of compli cations. 19 :bu b5! 20 b4 After 20 lDe2 .tf6 21 b4 lCie4 22 c5 dxc5 23 bxc5 :cs White's cen tral pawns are rather weak, ac cording to Yudasin. 20 lCie4! 2 1 lD:xe4 fxe4 22 .txe4 bxc4 23 'ii'xc4 23 .txh7 + !? ci>hS 24 'ii'xc4 .tb5! 25 'ii'xd4 .txfl 26 .tb2 'ii'f6 ! 27 'ii'xf6 gxf6 2S .tf5 .tc4 29 .te6 .txa2 leads to an equal position (Yudasin). 23...'ii'f8 24 J:[dl •••

Yudasin - Kram nik 7th match game, Wijk aan Zee 1994 Vladimir Kramnik's games form a

considerable part of the modern theory of the Sicilian Sveshnikov. 1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 lCic6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lD:xd4 lbf6 5 lCic3 e5 6 lCidb5 d6 '1 lCid5 &d5 8 exd5 lCib8 9 c4 .te'1 10 .te2 a6 l l lDc3 0-0 12 0-0 f5 13 f4 .tf6 14 1(3 Depriving the black pieces of the e5 square (see Chapter 2, Sec tion 3). Now Black should make

24...:aeS! An excellent move. 25 'ii'xd4

Play like a Grandmaster 25 :Xd4?! i.b5 26 i.xh7+ xh7 27 '6'c2 + ci>g8 is quite risky for White. 25 lhe4! 26 1Wxe4 i.f5 27 '6'd4 hbl White's extra pawn is abso lutely useless because the black pieces are active and his pawn structure is superior. The oppo site-coloured bishops guarantee a peaceful result. 2S '6'xf6 gxf6 29 a3 i.e4 + 30 gl :cs 31 i.b2 ci>f7. Draw agreed. •••

Game 6

Karpov

-

Nunn

London 1982

Before abandoning 1 e4 in 1986, Anatoly Karpov had many oppor tunities to play against the Svesh nikov, of which the quiet 9 l0d5 line was his favourite option. He won instructive games against Dolmatov (excellently using the latter's positional errors) and Yur taev (who was outplayed in the endgame). John Nunn, a loyal ad herent of the Sveshnikov, who found new ideas in many of the rare lines, was confidently out played in the present game, too. 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 lLJc6 6 lbdb5 d6 7 i.f4 e5 S i.g5 a6 9 lba3 i.e6 10 lLJc4 :cs 1 1 i.xf6 '6'xf6 12 lbb6 :bs 13 lbcd5 '6'dS 14 c3 i.e7 15 i.c4 0- 0 16 0-0 i.g5 17 a4 hS lS '6'e2

127

This line of the Larsen system (see Chapter 2, Section 5) doesn't promise White any serious advan tage; however, Black has to play very accurately. 1S g6 19 hl i.h6 20 b4 f5 2 1 exf5 gxf5 22 f4 i.xd5 23 lbxd5 e4?! According to Karpov, Black should have kept the tension in the centre: 23 . . . lbe7 24 fxe5 fud5 25 i.xd5 dxe5 as 26 '6'xe5 +?? is impossible in view of 26 . . . i.g7 27 1i'e6 :ffi , and Black wins. Aft.er the text move White has a free hand on both sides of the board, although Black's position is quite solid. 24 a5 i.g7 25 :acl lbe7 26 :fdl lbxd5 26 . . . l:[cB looks more accurate. 27 i.xd5 '6'c7 2S :c2 1i'e7 29 1i'e3 l:[bc8 30 c4 :c7 White has achieved perfect mo bilization in the centre and on the queenside. However, it is not enough to overcome Black's de fence, so Karpov tries to open a 'second front'. However, this al lows Black some counterplay. 31 g3 :es 32 :12 '6'f6 33 g4!? fxg4 34 :xg4 1i'c3! 35 :gs '6'xb4 The endgame after the continu ation 35 . . . 1i'xe3 36 :xe3 :ce7 37 b5! is favourable for White, ac cording to Karpov. The attempt to upset White's plans by means of 35 . . . :xc4!? is hardly successful: 36 i.xc4 1i'xc4 37 '6'b6 (37 l:[dgl?! i.d4) 37 . . i.c3 38 '6'xb7 e3 39 :el! •••

.

128


'ii'xf4 40 :exe3, or 39 . . . e2 40 :g2! etc. (Nunn) . After the text move the white attack becomes formi dable.

48 'ii'xf5 + 49 'ii'xf5 :xf5 50 :xg7+ hg7 51 :xf5. Black re •••

signed.

36 :c1g1 'ii'b2

36 . . . 'ii'c5 was probably better, e.g. 37 'ii'e2 'ii'd4 38 'ii'h5 :f8 39 :dl 'ii'c 5 40 :ha £f6, firmly de fending. 37 :g5 'iff8 38 :lg4 'ifal + 39 �g2 'ii'b2 + 40 �h3 :ce7 41 f5 'iff6 This is passive. Black should have tried to disturb White's play by 4 1 . . . 'ii'a l. White's plan now is to provoke . . . h7-h6 and invade the g6 square.

42 :hs :ts 43 :hg5 h6 44 :h5 :e5 45 :gg5 :cS

Game 7

Kir.Georgiev - Shirov Biel 1992

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbm 5 l003 lLJc6 6 lMb5 d6 7 M4 e5 8 £g5 a6 9 lba3 £e6 10 lbc4 :cS 1 1 £xf8 gxf8 12 lbe3 £h6 13 £d3 £xe3 1 4 &e3 'ii'b6 15 'ii'c l

I n this line (see Chapter 2 , Sec tion 5) White maintains the bet ter chances because the position of Black's king is not safe; be sides, his knight cannot reach a good square.

15 lba5 16 0-0 We7 17 'ii'e l! •••

White is preparing 18 b3. If 17 . . . lbc4 then White replies 18 lbdl h5 19 a4 followed by 20 b3 (Kir.Georgiev). 17 h5 18 b3 'ii'c5? (D) Black's only chance was �o sac rifice an exchange: 18 . . . :XCS! 19 'ii'xc3 'ii'xe3 + 20 �hl lbc6 (recom mended by Karpov) . After the text move White's knight strikes a ter rible blow. •••

46 �g4l

Decisive. Even the white king takes part in the attack!

46 �h7 •••

46 . . . :c7 leads to the same out come.

47 :g6 'ii'f8 48 'ii'g5l

The threat of 49 :gxh6 + is ir resistible.

19 lbd5+l .bd5 20 exd5 Ld5

20 . . . 'ii'c3 2 1 'ii'h 4, followed by :al-d l , :n-f5 , :d l-fl, is equally hopeless.

21 :d1 Unexpectedly, all Black's pieces are hanging. A grave material loss is inevitable.


White's attack is over, and his knight is still on a3. There is no doubt who has the edge. 22 tl:lbl l:tfd8 23 c3 l:td3 24 l:tf3?! Wea keni ng the white kingside pawns. 24 tl:\d2 was better, accord ing to Granda Zuniga . 24 .:.xfa 25 gxf3 l:td8 26
2 1 .:caa 22 'ii'f2 l:th6 23 .i.g6!. Black resigned because af ter 23 . . . 'ii'e6 24 .i.f5 be loses his queen. •••

.•.

•••

Game a

I.Gurevich - Granda Zuniga New York 1992

•••

1 e4 c5 2 tl:\f3 tl:lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tl:lxd4 tl:\f6 5 tl:\c3 e5 6 tl:ldb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 tl:\a3 b5 9 tl:ld5 'ii'a5 + 10 .i.d2 'ii'd8 1 1 tl:lxf6+ 'ii'xf6 12 .i.d3 'ii'g6 13 0-0 i.e7 14 f4?! This attempt to open up the po sition when White's knight is still on a3 proves premature. 14 c3 is better - see Chapter 3, Section 1. 14 exf4 15 e5 i.f5 16 'ii'f3 16 exd6 can be answered by 16 . . . i.xd3! 17 cxd3 'ii'xd6. 16 .:cs 17 i.xf5 'ii'xf5 18 exd6 .i.xd6 19 l:lael + i.e7 20 'ii'xf4 'ii'xf4 2 1 i.xf4 2 1 l:r.xf4 0-0 22 c4 might have offered better chances of equality (Granda Zuniga). 2 1 0-0 ••.

••.

•••

129

•••


130

17 lbf4 18 'it'f3 •••

Game 9

Anand - lvanchuk

18 axb5 This leads to simplifications. Anand recommends 18 . . . lbxd3!? 19 'ifxd3 'it'g6 20 l%fel f5 with strong counterplay. 19 lbxb5 'ii'g6 20 l%fdl! lbxd3 21 'ii'xd3 .ixe4 22 'it'g3 :fb8! 23 lbxd6 lhb2 24 lbc4. Draw agreed. •••

Linares 1 992

The Sveshnikov occupies a cen tral place in the opening reper toire of Vasily lvanchuk and he has played some very interesting games in this opening. 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 lbc6 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .if4 e5 8 .ig5 a6 9 lba3 b5 10 lbd5 .ie7 1 1 lbxe7 lbxe7 12 .id3 .ib7 13 'it'e2 0-0 This move is probably inferior to the theoretical 13 . . . tLld7 (see Chapter 3, Section 2). White could now have played 14 .ixf6 gxf6 15 0-0-0, as in the following game. 14 0-0 lbg6! 15 c4 h6! A typical way to oust White's bishop. If now 16 .id2 then 16 . .b4! 1 7 lbc2 a5 followed by ... lbf6-d7c5. 16 .txf6 'it'xf6 17 cxb5 Of course, Black's position af ter 1 7 g3 'it'g5 18 �hl f5 19 f3 (Anand) is excellent. .

Game 1 0

Ehlvest - lvanovi c Vr.Sac 1 987

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .ig5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 lbd5 .te7 10 lbxe7 lbxe7 1 1 .td3 .ib7 12 .ixf6 gxf6 13 'ifd2 0-0?! It is not a good idea to delay the advance . . . d6-d5, because now it will be difficult for Black to find an appropriate moment for this move. 14 0-0-0 �hs 15 l%hel :gs 16 g3 'it'c7 1 7 �bl l%ad8 18 'it'h6 :ga 19 'it'cl lbc6 20 c3 'it'b6?!

Play like a Grandmaster The exchange of queens is bet ter for White in this situation. According to Ehlvest and Truus, 20 . . .b4 was preferable. 2 1 'ii'e 3! 'ii'xe3 22 :Xe3 d5?! This advance doesn't succeed now, and White obtains a clear ad vantage in the endgame. Instead 22 . . .b4 was relatively better (Ehl vest, Truus). 23 exd5 :Xd5 24 :eel :gS 25 J.e4 :Xdl + 26 h:dl J:td8 27 �cl �g8 28 l002 :Xdl + 29 bdl

131

32 �c6 33 c4 bxc4 34 J.xc4 �e7 35 �b4! a5 36 �d3 J.c6 37 �c5 ltJf5 38 �b3 J.a4 This is hopeless. Black's last chance was probably 38 . . . a4 but after 39 �5 �4 40 h3 f5 41 �d2 etc. he has little chance of sur vival. 39 �d2 J.xb3 40 J.xb3 �d6 41 J.d5 The rest is easy and needs no explanation. 41 �8 42 �c3 b4 �e5 49 h3 �d6 50 a4 �f3 5 1 a5 �g5 52 a6
•••

Game 1 1

G abrila

-

Beliavsky

L vov-Belgrade match 1 993

Black's pieces are badly placed and his king is far away from the centre. In such circumstances the white queenside pawn majority proves decisive. 29 lDaS Perhaps 29 . . . �d8 30 J.d3 �6 was more tenacious; however, the continuation 30 J.xb7 �xb7 3 1 �e3 should still be sufficient to •••

win.

30 J.d3 �c6 31 J.e4 �a5 32 J.d3 32 J.xb7 lbxb7 33 �3 was pos sible here, too.

1 e4 c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 e5 6 �db5 d6 7 J.g5 a6 8 �a3 b5 9 �d5 J.e7 10 J.xf6 J.xf6 11 �bl 0-0 l l . . . J.g5 12 a4 b4 is also good enough, too (see Chapter 3, Sec tions 1 and 3) 12 a4 :tbs 13 axb5 axb5 14 �bc3 �d4 15 J.d3 g6?! Alexander Beliavsky plays the Sveshnikov very rarely; otherwise he would have played 15 . . . J.g5 or 15 . . . b4 16 0-0 J.g7 17 �! .

132


This is one of the reasons why it is risky for Black to allow the pawn exchange on b5. The b4 square becomes an excellent place for White's knight. Black's only chance now is to create kingside counterplay. 17 ...'ii'g5 18 �hl lDe6 19 lDab4 lDf4! 20 lbxf4 exf4 2 1 c3 .te6 22 l:la5?f This is not very well-consid ered. 22 .ic2 ! followed by .tc2-b3 (to exchange the light-squared bishops!) was White's best way to maintain his advantage. 22 :fc8 23 'ii'e2 :c5! Black has already obtained some counterplay (. . . 'ii'g5-h6, . . . l:c5-h5 etc.). White decides to speed up the events. 24 lDa6 :as 25 :fal 25 lDxc5 :xa5 26 lDxe6 fxe6 27 f3 followed by b2-b4 was good enough to keep a small edge (C a brilo). 25...l:le5 26 lDc7?? This unexpectedly loses. 26 f3 was necessary. •••

26...:xa5 27 lha5 f3! 28 l:a8+ .tfs 29 'ii'n Black's pawn is invulnerable: 29 gxf3 .th3. 29 ... fxg2 + 30 'ii'xg2 'ii'd2 3 1 'ii'g3 'ii'd l + 3 2 �g2 .tg4 3 3 lDe8 Or 33 .txb5 :Xe4! 34 :es .tf3 + 35 'ii'xf3 :g4 + etc. 33....tf3 + ! White resigned. Game 1 2

Marjanovi c - Kouatly Clichy 1 986

1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 e5 6 lDdb5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 lDa3 b5 9 lDd5 .te7 10 .txf6 .txf6 1 1 c3 lDe7 1 .2 lDxf&+ gxf6 13 g3 .tb7 13 . . . f5! looks more precise (see Chapter 3, Section 3). 14 .ig2 f5 15 'ii'e 2 'ii' b6 16 0-0-0 0-0-0?! The black kingside is now dan gerously unprotected. 16 .. . 0-0 was probably preferable. 17 lDc2 :he8 After the continuation 17 ... h5 18 f4! fxe4 19 .ixe4 d5 20 .if3 e4 2 1 .txh5 f5 2 2 g4 White also main tains the better chances, (M.Ka minski-Krasenkow, Rewal 1992). l 7 . . . f6!? (preparing . . . f5xe4 and . . . d6-d5) deserved attention, ac cording to Marjanovic. 1s :d2! White's plan is simple - to dou ble rooks along the d-file and later to invade with his queen on the kingside.

Play like a Grandmaster 18 fxe4 19 .txe4 d5 Or 19 . . . f5 20 .txb7 + 'il'xb7 21 .l:chdl etc. 20 .tg2 d4 21 hb7 + 'il'xb7 22 .l:chdl dxc3 23 bxc3 .l:cxd2 24 :Xd2 •••

••• .1 • • .'ii • • • • • •• • • • ••• - . • • • • � u � � � � u � � � 'P �t� � �· ��"Z.J� u � � � � � � � � � � � }°;'.

�,

!'-'

Black has got rid of his weak d pawn and simplified the position. However, his problems have only increased. He has no means of protecting both the d- file and his weak kingside pawns. 24 lDd.5 After the continuation 24 ... lbg6 25 'il'g4 + �b8 26 .l:cd7 'il'c8 27 'il'dl or. alternatively, 24 . . f6 25 'il'd3 h6 26 'il'd6 'il'c6 27 'il'xc6+ lbxc6 28 .l:cd6 Black loses at least a pawn anyway. 25 'il'd3! lbb6 26 'il'xh7 'il'hl + Black cannot create sufficient counterplay, for example after the continuation 26 . . . lbc4 27 'il'h3 + ! �b8 2 8 'il'd7 .l:ch8! 2 9 'il'xb7 + �xb7 30 .l:cd7 + �cB 3 1 .l:cxf7 :Xh2 32 lbb4 or 26 . . . �b8 27 'il'f5 lbc4 28 .l:cdl White obtains good winning chances. •••

.

133

27 .l:cdl 'il'f3 28 'il'h6! .l:ce6 29 'il'e3 'il'c6 30 lbb4 'il'c4 3 1 'il'd3 'il'c5?! Black should have agreed to an exchange of queens as now he loses another pawn. 32 'il'd8+ �b7 33 'il'b8 + ! �8 34 lbxa6 + �a7 35 lbxc5 .l:cc6 36 lbe4 f5 37 lbd6 �a6 Of course, 37 . . . :Xc3 + 38 �d2 .l:cf3 39 �e2 is totally hopeless but after the text move 38 lbxf5?! is bad due to 38 ...:Xc3 + and 39 ....l:cf3 . 38 �c2! b4 39 c4! The simplest course. Black has nothing to hope for in the rook endgame. 39 lbxc4 40 lbxc4 .l:cxc4+ 41 �b3 .l:ce4 Or 4 1 . . . .l:cc3 + 42 �xb4 :c2 43 :n .l:cxa2 44 �c5 .l:cd2 45 h4 etc. 42 h4 f4 White's simplest reply to the move 42 . . ..l:ce2 is 43 .l:cfl. 43 h5! fxg3 44 fxg3 �b5 45 h6 :ea + 46 �c2 :Xg3 47 :ht .l:cg8 48 h7 .l:ch8 49 �d3 �c5 49 . . . �a4 doesn't help due to 50 .l:ch3 �a3 51 �c4+ (Marjanovic). 50 �e4 �d6 5 1 �f5 �d5 52 �g6 e4 53 �g7 .l:cxh7 + 54 .l:cxh7 e3 55 �f6 �c4 56 .l:ce7 �d3 57 �e5 Black resigned. •••

Game 1 3

Haba - Krasenkow Wattens 1990

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6

134


7 .tg5 a6 8 lL!a3 b5 9 lL!d5 .te7 10 .txf6 .txf6 11 c3 .tb7 This was one of the first games played with this line. 12 lL!c2 lL!b8 13 a4 bxa4 14 lL!ce3 0-0 15 lL!c4?! 15 'it'xa4 is correct (see Chapter 3, Section 3). Black can now give up his d6 pawn to obtain a consid erable advantage in development. 1 5 lL!d7! 16 lLlxd6 .txd5 17 'ii'xd5?! 1 7 exd5 is more accurate but af ter 1 7 . . . lL!c5, 17 . . . lL!b6 or 17 ... l:tb8!? Black maintains excellent pros pects anyway. •••

knight but after 18 lL!f5 l:tab8! or 18 lLlc4 l:tfd8! Black was clearly better all the same. 18 lL!b6 18 . . . a3 19 bxa3 'it'xc3 + 20 'it'd2 enables White to defend firmly. 19 'ii'a5 19 'ii'a2 l:tad8, 19 'ii'd2 l:tfd8, and 19 'ii'b7 'ii'c5 , followed by 20 ...l:tad8, were equally hopeless . After the text move Black starts a round-up of White's king. 19 l:tfd8 20 lC.c4 J:lxdl + 2 1 'ih:dl l:td8 + 2 2 'itc2 'it'd7 2 3 lL!e3 23 .te2 loses after 23 . . . lL!xc4 24 .txc4 'i1Vd2 + 25 'iii>bl l:tb8 but now Black's queen runs riot. 23 ...'ii'd2 + 24 'iii>bl l:tb8 25 .txa6 'ii'xf2 26 lLlc2 'ii'xg2 27 l:tel 'ii'xh2 28 'ii'c5 'ii'd2 29 l:te2 'ii'd7 30 lL!e3 'ii'a7 3 1 lL!d5!? 'it'xa6 32 'iVd6 11d3 + 33 'iii>a2? Losing at once but after 33 J:lc2 l:td8 34 lC.xffi + gxffi 35 'ii'xb6 l:td6 Black's material advantage is suffi cient to win. 33 'ii'c4 + 34 'iii>al lL!d7! White resigned. •••

•••

•••

17 'it'c7! A quiet but very strong move. White's pieces are now very loose. 18 l:tdl? It looks unbelievable but after this White no longer has a good defence! However, it is very diffi cult to offer good advice. Black is threatening 18 . . . lL!b6 followed by 19 . . . l:tfd8 while 18 lC.xf7?? doesn't work in view of 18 . . . lL!b6. White should have urgently removed his •••

Game 1 4

Kasparov - S hirov Horgen 1 994

Alexey Shirov is one of the leading experts of the Sveshnikov. The author is especially thankful to him for bringing the 1 1 . . . .tb7 line of the 9 lL!d5 system to the prac tice of super-tournaments. How ever, in the present game Garry

Play like a Grandmaster Kasparov outplayed his young op ponent in a brilliant way, intro ducing a fantastic positional idea. 1 e4 c5 2 llJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 llJxd4 llJf6 5 llJc3 llJc6 6 llJdb5 d6 7 .tf4 e5 8 i.g5 a6 9 llJa3 b5 10 llJd5 .te7 1 1 .txf6 .txf6 12 c3 i.b7 13 llJc2 llJb8 14 a4 bxa4 15 :xa4 llJd7 16 l:tb4!? llJc5?! Had Black foreseen the World Champion's response, he would surely have preferred something else (say, 16 ... :bs)

17 :Xb7U This positional exchange sacri fice has two ideas: to get rid of Black's strong bishop, which pro tects the light squares and to cut off Black's knight. Imagine your feelings when Kasparov plays something like this against you! 1 7 llJxb7 18 b4! .tg5 19 lba3 0-0 20 llJc4 a5 2 1 i.d3 axb4 22 cxb4 'ir'b8 23 h4 i.h6 Of course it doesn't look very attractive for Black to deprive his own knight of its only available square but is it better to exclude •••

135

this bishop from play? In my opin ion, 23 . . . i.dS!? was preferable, e.g. 24 g3 'ir'a7 25 0-0 'ir'd4 26 'ir'h3 l:b8 27 1i'a3 f5 with counterchances. 24 llJcb6 l:.a2 25 0-0 :d2 26 'ir'f3 'ir'a7 (else 27 :al) 27 llJd7 The black pieces are completely passive; therefore White could have even played in a positional fashion, e.g. 27 .tb5!? (Kasparov). 27... llJdS?! After the material balance is restored White's positional ad vantage becomes obvious. Black's best chance was 27 ... :as!, and 28 llJe7 + �h8 29 'ir'xf7 :xd3 30 lbf8 can be met by 30 . . . 'ir'a2! . Still, af ter 28 i.c4 llJdS 29 llJ5b6 CT.Hor vath) or 28 lb7b6 :rs 29 .tb5 (Kasparov) White maintains the better prospects. 28 llJxf8 ltxf8 29 b5 'ii'a3 It was better to centralize the queen with 29 . . . 'ir'd4! but after 30 :dl! (Kasparov) Black's position would have remained difficult. 30 'ir'f5! �e8 30 . . .:Xd3 3 1 'ir'd7 g6 32 •xd8 + �g7 33 b6 and 30 . .. llJe6 3 1 'ii'xh7 lose at once. 31 i.c4 .l:.c2 If 3 1 . . .'ir'a4, then 32 lbc7 + �e7 33 'ii'c8!, e.g. 33 . . .:c2 34 .txf7!!, and White wins (T.Horvath). 32 'ir'xh71 :Xc4 33 'ii'g8+ �d7 34 lbb6 + �e7 35 lbxc4 'i'c5 36 :au 'ir'd4 36 . . . 'ii'xc4 loses in view of 37 :a7 + �e6 38 'ir'e8 + . 37 :aa .te l 38 lbe3! Black re signed.

136

The Sveshnikov Sicilian Game 1 5

Tiviakov - S hirov Oakham 1992

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 lbd5 i.e7 10 i.xf6 i.xf6 11 c3 O·O 12 lbc2 i.b7 13 i.e2 i.g5 14 O·O lbb8 15 'ii'd3 This plan is too slow to refute the Gurgenidze variation. 15 i.g4 is White's only way to fight for an edge. 1 5 lbd7 16 l:lfdl lbc5 17 'ii'f3 g6 18 lbce3 �b8! 19 i.fi l:la7 •••

lbxc4 i.xd5 24 lbxe5 dxe5 25 exd5 � 'ii'd 6 or 23 i.xc4 bxc4 24 lbxc4 i.xd5 25 exd5 f5 (Shirov), with a good position for Black in both variations. The text move leads to complications. 21 a4 bxa4 22 lha4 f5 23 l:la5 i.h4! 24 exf5 gxf5 25 lLJ:x:f5 lLJf4

� � �J.· • • i i. • • • � � � m � � �''l.H�-�"Z..J � R . � -� � u � �- � � � � R � u � � � � � � n�n u � u � • • .: •�= z

r.-.

-

26 l'bxb4? A decisive mistake but even af ter 26 'ii'e 3! l:lxf5 2 7 'ii'xa7 lbh3 + ! (27 . . . i.xd5 28 g3 i.f3 29 l:ld2 is unclear) 28 gxh3 'ii'g8 + 29 i.g2 l:lg5 30 'ii'xb7 :Xg2 + 31 'it.>hl i.xf2 32 1i'b8! l:lxh2 + 33 �xh2 'ii'xb8 Black is better. But now. . . 2 6 lbxd5 2 7 'ii'h5 (27 'ii'g3 l:lg8) 27 lbf4 28 'ii'b6 l:lf6 29 'ii'g5 i.xg2! This tactical blow wins. 30 i.:x:g2 l:lg7 3 1 'ii'xg7 + If 3 1 'ii'xe5 then 3 1 . . .lbh3 + 32 'it.>hl lbxf2 + 33 �gl lbxd l or 32 'it.>fl J:lxf2+ 33 'it.>el 'ii'xh4 (Shirov). 31 hg7 32 :Xe5 White's pieces are placed so badly that he is not able to main tain material parity. •••

The preparation of . . . f7-f5 is Black's most promising plan in this position. Shirov rejected the immediate 19 . . . f5?! in view of 20 exf5 gxf5 2 1 lbxf5 i.cB 22 g4, but now he threatens . . . f5, e.g. 20 g3 f5! ! 2 1 exf5 gxf5 22 lbxf5 e4 23 'ii'g4 l:lxf5! 24 'ii'xf5 i.cB, and wins. 20 b4 lbe6 20 . . . lba4 was quieter, for exam ple 21 c4 lbb2 22 l:lel lbxc4 23

r.-.

•••

•••

Play like a Grandmaster 32

•••

'iVc8l 33 l:te7 + l:tf7 34

l:txf7 + � 35 i.d5 +

35 l:txd6 'iVg4 and 35 h3 'iVxc3 (with the idea of 36 l:txd6 c!De2 + 37 �fl 1Wal + 38 �xe2 'iVe5) are also hopeless. 35 �f8 36 c!Dg2 'iVg4 37 l:td2 'iVg5l White resigned. •••

137

enables White to maintain the better prospects. After the text move, 23 i.d5 l:r.c7 24 i.xb7 l:txb7 25 'iVxd6? is impos sible in view of 25 . . . l:ld7. However, White decides the game in just two moves!

Game 1 6

Lanka - Krasenkow Moscow 1989

1 e4 c5 2 c!Df3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 c!Dxd4 c!Df6 5 c!Dc3 c!Dc6 6 c!Ddb5 d6 7 i.f4 e5 8 i.g5 a6 9 lLJa3 b5 1 0 c!Dd5 i.e7 1 1 i.xf6 i.xf6 12 c3 0-0 13 c!Dc2 i.t5 14 a4 bxa4 15 l:txa4 i.b7?l The present game marked the end of popularity of the present line (see Chapter 3, Section 4). 16 i.c4l tLJa5 17 i.a2 i.c6 18 l:ta3 i.b5 This is Black's idea - to prevent White's castling. However, the black minor pieces are now placed extremely awkwardly. 19 h4l i.h6 20 c!Dce3 i.xe3 Black is forced to exchange this knight (2 1 tbf5 was threatened), clearing both the d-file and the d5 square for White's bishop and queen. 21 tbxe3 l:tc8 22 tLJf5 tbb7?! (DJ 22 . . . tbc4 was necessary to an swer 23 i.xc4 lhc4 24 tbxd6 with 24 . . . l:td41 25 cxd4 'iVxd6 26 f3 exd4, and Black obtains a strong coun terplay. However, 24 f3! (Gorelov)

23 'iVg4! 'iVf6 23 . . . g6 24 h5 is likewise hope less. 24 'iVg5! This is the point! After the ex change of queens the white king is no longer in danger, while White adds another plus to all the ad vantages of his position, viz. the h-file (in case of 24 . . . 'iVxg5 25 hxg5) or Black's destroyed king side pawn structure (in the event of '6'g5xf6 g7xf6). This is quite sufficient for White to score an easy victory. 24 l:tc7 Or 24 . . .'iVxg5 25 hxg5 l:tc7 26 c4 i.d7 (26 . . . i.xc4 27 i.xc4 .J:r.xc4 28 c!De7 + �h8 29 l:txh7 + �xh7 30 l:th3 mate) 27 l:tah3 with a deci sive advantage. •••


138

25 -.xm gxf6 26 b4! Compare with Kasparov's 18 b4 in the previous game! 26 a5 27 bxa5 :as 28 :th3! i.c4 Or 28 . . . l:xa5 29 lha5 lbxa5 30 l:.g3 + Wf8 31 l:g7, and White is winning. 29 a6 :xa6 30 ::x:a6 i.xa6 3 1 :tg3 + 'MS 32 l:g7 lbd8 If 32 . . . i.c4? 33 :txh7 c;Pg8 34 l:tg7 + c;Pf8 then the march of the white h-pawn decides: 35 h5! i.xa2 36 h6 etc. 33 :xh7 c;Pgs 34 l:.g7 + c;Phs 35 :g3 lbe6 36 lbxd6 lbf4 37 lbe8! :tc6 38 i.xf7 lLld3+ 39 c;Pd2 .!LJ:xf2 40 i.d5 :bs 41 c4 c;Ph7 42 c5 :b2 + 43 c;Pct Black resigned. •••

Game 1 7

Lutz

-

Kramnik

Germany 1995

1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lbc6 3 d4 c:x:d4 4 .!LJ:x:d4 lLlf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 lbd5 i.e7 10 i.xf6 i.xf6 11 c3 0-0 12 lbc2 i.g5 13 a4 bxa4 14 :xa4 a5 15 i.c4 l:lb8 16 b3 c;PbS 17 0-0 g6 This plan looks more promising than the old 17 . . . f5 (see Chapter 3, Section 4). 18 -.e2 i.d7 19 :fat i.h6 20 g3?! A strange move which weakens the white kingside. 20 b4 axb4 21 lbcxb4 lbxb4 22 :Xb4 : aB leads to rough equality (Kramnik). 20 f5 2 1 exf5 gxf5 22 b4 •••

22 f4!? looks more logical 22 e4! 23 b:x:a5?! White underestimates his oppo nent's threats. According to Vla dimir Kramnik, he should have sacrificed an exchange to disrupt Black's attack: 23 :Xa5! lbxa5 24 :xa5 with mutual chances. 23 lbe5 24 :b4 :Xb4 25 cxb4 f4! 26 lbd4 If 26 -.xe4 then 26 ... i.f5 27 ,..e2 f3, winning a piece. 26 e3! 27 f:x:e3 f3 28 ._.a2 f2 + 29 c;PIJ2 -.eSr Aiming both for h5 and for e4(e3). 30 i.e2 (D) 30 i.fl lbg4 3 1 lLlf3 lbxe3 + 32 lbxe3 -.xe3 33 ._.e2 :xf3! (Kram nik) and 30 lbf4 lbxc4 3 1 ._.xc4 i.xf4 32 exf4 ._.e4 + 33
•••

•••

• ··• •-*-• • • • � � � � � · �ttJ· � u � � " � � • � � u " n · � � � � u u � � \Wr� � � .i. -· � � u a • • • %

�

� 0

30 lbg4! A deadly blow. 3 1 i.f3 3 1 i.xg4 i.xg4 32 lbf4 (or 32 -.c2 i.h3 + 33 c;Pxh3 ._.h5 + 34 'iPg2 ._.xd5 + ) loses after 32 . . . .txf4 •••

.

Play like a Grandmaster 33 exf4 'iVel ; 31 'il'b2 i.g7 and 3 1 'il'c2 'iVh5 32 i.xg4 i.xg4 are just as hopeless. 3 1 lLixe3 + 32 �e3 'iVxe3 33 'iVxf2 i.h3 + 34 �gl 'iVc3 35 l:tel i.d2! White resigned. •••

Game 1 8

Hector - Krasenkow Malmo 1995

1 e4 c5 2 lLif3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �d4 lLif6 5 lLic3 lLic6 6 lLidb5 d6 7 .if4 e5 8 i.g5 a6 9 lLia3 b5 10 lLid5 i.e7 1 1 i.xf6 i.xf6 12 c3 l:tb8 13 lLic2 i.g5 This move order eliminates Kasparov's plan with h2-h4 (see Chapter 3, Sections 3 and 5). 14 'iVd3 0-0 15 g3?! Trying to evade the theoretical lines, White starts a series of sec ond-rate moves that eventually give Black the better prospects. 15 a5 16 h4?! Unnecessarily weakening the white kingside. 16 i.h6 17 l:tdl i.e6 18 i.h3 b4 19 c4 So far, Black has just set up the classical piece arrangement (see the introduction), nothing more and his position is already slightly better (development!). Now is the time for Black to start aggressive action. 19 b3! 20 axb3 i.xd5 2 1 'iVxd5 After 2 1 exd5 lLib4 22 'iVe2 lLixc2 + 23 'iVxc2 l:tb4 it is difficult •••

•••

•••

139

for White to protect his b-pawns, and the position arising after 2 1 cxd5 lLib4 22 'iVe2 lLixc2 + 2 3 'iVxc2 l:.b4 is very pleasant for Black, too. 21 ft6! 22 'iVxd6 This is practically forced as 22 l:.d3?! doesn't work in view of 22 . . . a4!. 22 'ii'xb3 23 'iVxc6 'iVxc2 24 0-0 i.e3! This tactical blow (25 fxe3? :txb2), with the idea of transfer ring Black's bishop to the impor tant a7-gl diagonal, looks almost decisive; however, White finds an excellent defence. 25 :td7! i.d4 Alas, 25 . . . l:txb2? can now be met by 26 lhf7! . 26 'iVc7 26 :tb7!? deserved attention to prevent Black's following ma noeuvre. 26 l:.b3! 27 �bl! :tf3 28 i.g2 llxf2 29 l:.xf2 'iVxf2 30 �h2 a4! Black should now try to com bine the advance of this pawn with threats on the kingside. However, White's defensive resources are considerable. 3 1 :td8 g6 32 l:txf8 + �8 33 'iVb8 +? This check turns out to be a de cisive loss of time. White's tena cious defence could have been crowned with 33 b3! (Nunn), ex changing the dangerous a-pawn, with a probable draw. 33 'itg7 34 c5 'iVc2! 35 'iVe8 i.xb2 36 c6 a3 37 'iVa8 •••

•••

•••

•••

140

The Sveshnikov Sicilian wins. White's attempt to push his c-pawn meets a nice refutation. 40 a2 41 c7 al 'ii' 42 c8'6' 'ii'xg3 + ! 43 xg3 .i.f4 + 44 f2 (44 � 'it'dl +) 44 'ii'd4+ 45 � 'ii'd l + 46 'iW2 'ii'd2 + 47 � 4 7 �gl leads to a mate after 47 . . . 'ii'e l + 48 .i.fl 'ii'g3 + 49 .i.g2 .i.e3 + 50 �hl 'ii'el + 51 <;t>h2 .i.f4+ 47 .i.g3 To avoid a direct mate, White must give up his extra queen and end up in a hopeless endgame. 48 'ikxf7 + �7 49 'ii'c4 + �g7 50 �gl 'ii'el + 51 'it'fi .i.xh4 52 'ii'x el .i.xel 53 .i.f3 �h6 White resigned as he can't stop Black's pawns. •••

•••

•••

White can't push his c-pawn now: 37 'ii'd 7 a2 38 c7 al 'iV 39 c8'it' 'it'f2, and Black wins. After the text move Black's plan is to improve the position of his pieces ('iVc3, .i.cl) and then prepare a break on the kingside ( ... h7-h5, ... g6-g5 etc.) 37 h5? But this order of moves yields White a fantastic opportunity to escape. 37 . . . 'iVc3 ! was correct, e.g. 38 'ii'a6 .i.cl ! 39 'ii'a8 h5 etc. 38 'ii'a6 'ii'c3 Or 38 . . . .i.cl 39 'ii'b 7! a2 40 c7 al'ii' 41 c8'it', and Black's bishop prevents his queen from mating White's king. 39 'ii'a8? Jonny Hector misses his chance in time-trouble, but the study-like solution was not easy to find: 39 .i.fl ! ! .i.cl 40 'ii'c4!, e.g. 40 ... 'ii'd 2 + 4 l .i.g2 a2 42 'ii'a4, and Black can't win. After the text move White's position is hopeless. 39 ... .i.cl! 40 'iVb7 If 40 'ii'a6 then 40 . . . g5! 41 hxg5 h4 42 c7 hxg3 + 43 �h3 'ii'xc7, and •••

Game 1 9

S uetin - Andrianov Moscow 198 1

Although he is not a grandmaster, Nikolay Andrianov belongs to the multitude of outstanding special ists of the Sveshnikov. His ideas and games made a considerable contribution to the theory of the opening in the early 1980s. The following game is a Sveshnikov classic. 1 e4 c5 2 li:)f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:)xd4 ll:)f6 5 li:)c3 li:)c6 6 li:)db5 d6 7 .i.f4 e5 8 .i.g5 a6 9 li:)a3 b5 10 li:)d5 .i.e7 11 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 12 c3 0-0 13 li:)c2 J:lb8 14 .i.e2 .i.g5 15 0-0 a5 16 b4 li:)e7 17 li:)xe7+ .i.xe7 18 li:)e3 .i.e6 19 li:)d5 axb4 20 cxb4 'ii'd7

Play like a Grandmaster This prepares a typical ma noeuvre of the black bishop. 2 1 'ii'd3

141

30 'ii'g5 31 .:.c2 l:.bf7! 32 l:.cf2 .lU6 33 'ii'd3 l:.h6! 34 h3 g6 35 lliS l:.h4! The point! Black's rook enters White's camp along the 4th rank! This factor is much more impor tant than the miserable b5 pawn. 36 'ii'xb5 Ad4 37 :di Or 37 .l:r.d3 l:.xd3 38 'ii'xd3 l:.c8 followed by 39 ... l:.c3 37 l:.xdl + 38 i.xdl l:lc8 39 'ii'e 2 l:.cl 40 b5 l:.bl 4 1 a4 'ii'h4 42 'iVd3 l:.cl 43 'ii'fl 'ii'd4 44 l:.d3 'ii'xa4 45 b6 'ii'b5 46 l:.f3 'ii'xb6 The material advantage has passed to Black, and his attack is far from over. The rest is easy. 4 7 'ii'd3 'ii'b 4 48 :fl q;g7 49 1We3 l:.c3 50 'ii'a7 + q;h6 5 1 'ii'f7 1i'e4 52 q;gl :gs 53 i.f3 'ii'e3 + 54 q;hl l:.xf3! 55 gxf3 'ii'e 2 White resigned. •••

.

•••

2 1 i.d8! 22 �bl? It was absolutely necessary to prevent Black's plan by means of 22 lLlc3, with mutual chances af ter 22 . . . f5! . 2 2 i.b6! 23 l:acl i.d4 The black dark-squared bishop has become the most formidable piece on the board; additionally, White has lost control of the d5 square. 24 f4 i.xd5 25 exd5 f5 26 l:.c6 This invasion of the rook is ab solutely harmless. 26 'ii'e 7 27 i.dl 'ii'f6 28 fxe5 i.xe5 29 'ii'h3 Black should undoubtedly de velope his initiative on the king side, but how? Andrianov finds an interesting idea. 29 l:.b7 30 i.b3 Had White guessed his oppo nent's intentions, he would have surely prevented it by means of 30 i.c2!, forcing 30 ... g6. •••

•••

•••

•••

Game 20

Kasparov - Kramnik Novgorod 1994

1 e4 c5 2 lLlc3 lLlc6 3 lLlge2 ltlf6 4 d4 cxd4 5 lLlxd4 e5 6 lLldb5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 lLla3 b5 9 lLld5 i.e7 10 i.xf6 i.xf6 11 c3 0-0 12 lLlc2 l:.b8 13 h4 lLle7 14 lLlxm + ! This i s Kasparov's famous nov elty that puts the classic move or der (11 . 0-0 and 12 ... l:.bS) under a cloud. 14 gxf6 15 'ii'd2 i.b7 16 i.d3 d5 17 exd5 'ii'xd5 18 0-0-0! White's idea is to combine a kingside attack with pressure ..

•••


142

along the d-file. Of course, he doesn't hesitate to give up his a2 pawn. 18 e4 19 .te2 1i'x:a2 20 'ii'h6 'ii'e6 21 lDd4 'ii' b6 All of these moves are cited in Chapter 3, Section 5. 2 1 . . .1i'e5 en· ables White to open up the g-file: 22 f4 exf3 23 gxf3. 22 :ha After the game Kasparov rec· ommended 22 g4 hS 23 lDf5 lDxf5 24 gxf5 :rdS 25 .th5 e3 26 l:thgl :xdl + 27 .txd l :gs 2S l:txgS + 'iPxgS 29 1i'xe3, and White maintains a minimal plus in the endgame. The text move leads to unclear complications. 22 hS 23 .tg4 :gS 24 lLJeG?! According to Kasparov, 24 .te6 was better, with an unclear posi· tion after 24... :g6 25 'ii'f4 etc. 24 :gG 24 ...:xg4? is poor due to 25 lbg5! while after 24 ...fxe6 25 'ii'xffl + :g7 26 :d7 White obtains a decisive attack, for example 26 ... 'ii'c5 27 b4, or 26 .. J:tbgS 27 .txe6, or 26 . . . :es 27 :g3 ! (indicated by Kasparov and Ftat!nik). 25 'ii'f4 :es? Black fails to find the correct defence. After 25 . . . .td5! 26 .th5 .txe6 27 .txg6 hxg6 2S 'ii'xffi + �gS 29 'ii'x e7 .txh3 30 gxh3 'ii'xf2 3 1 'ii'xe4 i t is White who must fight for a draw (Kasparov). 26 :d6! An immediate 26 h5 was not good due to 26 . . . :xg4 27 'ii'xf6 + 'iPg8 but now, after 26 . . . 'ii'a 5, it •••

does work: 27 h5 'ii'a l + 28 'iPc2 'ifa4 + 29 �bl lh:g4 30 'ii'xf6 + Wg8 3 1 lDg5! 1Vc4 32 h6 :xg5 33 'ii'xg5 + lDg6 34 'ii'f6 wf8 35 :d7 'ii'fl + 36 �c2 'ii'e2 + 37 Wcl 'ii'e l + 3S l:tdl 'ii'e2 39 :g3, and White wins. 26 lDd5 •••

•••

•••

27 h5!! Still! 27 l:txb6 lDxf4 2S lDxf4 l:txg4 is insufficient but the text move leads to victory. 27... tDxf4 Or 2 7 . . . :g7 2S fug7; 27 . . . :xg4 2S 1Vxg4; and 27 . . . :ggS 2S :xd5! :xe6 29 .txe6 'ifxe6 30 :d6 everything is hopeless. 28 hxg6 'ii'xd6 Here 2S . . . fxe6 29 :xh7+ �gS 30 :Xb6, 2S ... :Xe6 29 :xh7+ Wg8 30 gxf7 + �f8 31 :hs + �xf7 32 .ixe6 + tDxe6 33 :xb6, and also 2S . . . lDxh3 29 gxf7 ! lose at once, while 28 . . . lDd3 + meets a beauti ful refutation: 29 :hxd3 ! 1Va5 (29 . . . exd3 or 29 . . . 1Vxf2 - 30 gxf7) 30 gxf7 'ii'a l + 31 'iPd2 1Vxb2 + 32 �el 'ii'c l + 33 .tdl :rs 34 :ds!

143

Play like a Grandmaster (variations by Kasparov, Ftafnik and the author). 29 hb.7+ wg8 30 gxf7+ Wxh7 3 1 fxe8• lbxe6 32 .i.f5 + ! w17 33 •g0 +
25 •f4 •e5, although after 26 g3 White is clearly better. 25 wbl l:.c5 26 h6 1We5

Game 2 1

Kasparov - Lautier Moscow 1994

1 e4 c5 2 /t)f3 e6 3 d4 c:z:d4 4 lbxd4 ltlf6 5 �c3 �c6 6 �db5 d6 7 .i.f4 e5 8 .i.15 a6 9 �a3 b5 10 � .i.e7 1 1 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 12 c3 0-0 13 �2 :b8 14 h4 �7 15 �+ gxf6 16 .i.d3 !? d5 17 e:z:d5 •xd5 18 �3 •ea 19 � e4?! With this pawn structure Black should avoid this move as long as he can. 19 . . . f5 20 0-0-0 •g6 was the correct course (see Chapter 3, Section 5). 20 .i.c2 b4 2 1 c4 wh8?! After the text move White's ad vantage becomes clear. 2 1 . . . l:.d8! (preventing White from playing 0-0-0) was Black's only chance CT.Horvath). 22 0-0-0 f5 23 •15 l:.b6 24 h5 l:.c6?! Black totally underestimates his opponent's threats. He should have played, for instance, 24 . . . f6

27 l:.h5! An unusual move with an un pleasant threat: 28 �g4. 27 .l:.g8 The alternatives 27 . . . �g6 28 l:.d8 and 27 . . . �6 28 �g4 fxg4 29 'trg7+ also lose. 28 �g4! A nice finale. 28 . . . l:.xg5 29 �e5 l:.xh5 leads to a mate: 30 l:.d8 + �g8 3 1 �xf7 mate while 28 . . . 1We6 is met by 29 l:.d8! •g6 30 •xe7. Black resigned. ••

Game 22

I . G u revich - I l l escas Biel 1993

1 e4 c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 c:z:d4 4 lbxd4 ltlf6 5 �c3 e5 6 �db5 d6 7 .i.15 a6 8 � b5 9 .i.xf6 gD6 10 �d5 .i.g7 1 1 .i.d3 �7 12 lbxe7 1W:z:e7 13 0-0 0-0 14 c4 f5 15 1Wf3 b:z:c4 16 lbxc4 d5 17


144

exd5 e4 18 'ii'e 3 �b7 19 d6 'ii'f6 20 �c2 f4 2 1 'ifb.3 .:ace This sharp line is described in Chapter 4, Section 1. If Black manages to eliminate the threats created by White's passed pawn, he can obtain a good position thanks to his pair of bishops and strong central pawns. 22 b3 'ii'g5 23 .J:ladl f5 24 b4 24 d 7 :Z.cd8 25 ltla5 �a8 26 :Z.d6!? .J:lf6 27 .J:lfdl deserved atten tion, with unclear play. After the text move Black gradually seizes the initiative. 24 'ii>h8 25 �b3 �c6 26 d7 :Z.cd8 27 :Z.d6 It is not easy for White to both protect his d-pawn and prevent Black's counterplay, for example 27 ltlb6 e3! 28 :Z.d6 �b5 29 �c4 1ffe 7 30 ltlc8 exf2 + 31 .J:lxf2 (Ftai!nik) 31 . . . .:XcB! 32 dxcB'iV .:Xc8 33 �xb5 'ii'xd6 34 'iVxf5 :dB 35 �e2 �d4, and Black wins, or 27 ltld6!? 'ii'g6 28 ltle8 .J:lxd7 29 :Z.xd7 �xd7 30 ltlxg7 'iVxg7, and Black is better. But now, after capturing the d7 pawn, Black obtains a clear edge, too. 2 7 �xd7 28 .J:lfdl 'ii'e 7 29 tLlb6 (D) Perhaps it might have been bet ter to take the a6 pawn, e.g. 29 .J:lxa6 �b5 30 .J:lad6 .J:lc8 31 tLlb6 .:ca 32 'iVh5 e3 33 .J:le6 with some counterplay (Illescas) 29 �e6! 30 :Xd8 .J:lxd8 3 1 tLid5 �xd5 32 �xd5 Or 32 .:Xd5 .:Xd5 33 �xd5 'iVxb4 34 g3 f3 etc. •••

•••

•••

32 e3 (the advance of this pawn decides the game) 33 fxe3 fxe3 34 'iVf3 e2 35 l:r.el 'iVxb4 36 .J:lxe2 �d4 + . White resigned on account of 37 'ii>fl 'iVbl + 38 .J:lel 'iVb5 + . •••

Game 23

Topalov - V. Spasov Budapest 1993

1 e4 c5 2 tLif3 lL!c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tiJ:xd4 lLif6 5 tLic3 e5 6 tiJdb5 d6 7 �g5 a6 8 tLla3 b5 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 tiJd5 �g7 1 1 �d3 tLie7 12 tLixe7 'iVxe7 13 c3 f5 14 tLic2 �b7 15 exf5 'iVg5 16 tLie3 d5 17

o-o o�o (DJ

This line is examined in Chap ter 4, Section 2. Black has sacri ficed a pawn to obtain a strong pawn centre, but White's reply re futes this idea. 18 f4! exf4 19 'iVg4 'iVxg4 20 tLlxg4 f6 2 1 :xt4 .:fe8 White has destroyed the black pawn centre while maintaining his material advantage. However,


145

29 g3 .tc5 + 30 �e2 was better but hardly enough to win. 29 ... .tc5 + 30 �g3. Draw agreed since after 30 . . . d4 31 .txh5 dxc3 32 �c3 .td4 33 .!Lidl .txb2! or 31 .tf3 .te8 Black's counterplay is sufficient to hold his position. Game 24

Dolmatov he must play accurately as Black's pair of bishops can become formi dable; besides, the rook on f4 and knight on g4 are not perfectly placed. 22 a4?! Instead of opening the a-file for Black, it was better to consolidate the white position in the centre: 22 :dl followed by .td3-c2-b3. Af ter the text move Black obtains strong counterplay. 22 .tc6 23 axb5 axb5 24 J:r.xa8 :xa8 25 'it>f2 h5 26 �e3 .tf8 27 �dl :a4 28 :Xa4 bxa4 •••

29 �e2?!

-

Mark Tseitlin

Beer-Sheva

1991

1 e4 c5 2 .!Lif3 .!Lic6 3 d4 cxd4 4 .!Lixd4 �f6 5 .!Lic3 e5 6 �db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 .!Lia3 b5 9 .txf6 gxf6 10 �d5 �g7 1 1 .td3 �e7 12 .!Lixe7 'ii'xe7 13 c3 f5 14 �c2 'it'b7 15 'ii'f3 O·O 16 �e3 f4 17 �d5 .te6 18 g4! This move (preventing . . . f7-f5) is essential to White's plan (see Chapter 4, Section 2). 18 J:r.feS 18 . . . :aeS!? (preparing 19 . f5 20 gxf5 :xf5) can be met by 19 0-0-0 (Dolmatov). 19 � :ace 20 a3 :c5 21 l:r.dl �8 It is not easy for Black to create any counterplay, but how can White break his position? His only active plan is to push his kingside pawns. 22 .tbl a5 23 g5 'ii'd7? This proves useless. 23 . . . �xd5 24 exd5 b4 loses a pawn after 25 axb4 axb4 26 .txh 7 but yields Black good counterchances, ac cording to Dolmatov. •••

..

146


24 :lgl .i.:x:d5 Parrying the unpleasant threat of 25 lbf6. 25 e:x:d5 e4! Black's only way to bring life to his pieces. However, Black doesn't obtain any compensation for the pawn. 26 iL:x:e4 b4 27 a:x:b4 a:x:b4 28 JL:xh7 b:x:c3 29 b:x:c3 ::X:c3 30 l:d3 l:tc4 31 b4 :e5 32 l:tg4?! This inaccuracy yields Black a long-awaited counterattack. 32 'iti>g2 was correct. 32 J:tcl + 33 �g2 :eel 34 ._xf4 .i.e5 35 ._f5 ._a7 36 g6 •••

36 :lgl + ? Black misses his chance. After 36 . . . J:thl ! 37 ..xf7 + ._xf7 38 gxf7 �xf7 39 .i.g6 + �e7 40 �f3 :lc2 41 :le3 J:td2 his counterplay must be strong enough to save the game. 37 �3 :lgfl 3 7 . . ...xf2 + doesn't work, for example 38 �xf2 l:tcfl + 39 �e2 :lel + 40 �d2 :ldl + 41 �c2 :lcl + 42 �b3 :lbl + 43 �a4, and White wins. •••

38 l:tg2 :lc4 39 :le3 ._b7 40 ::X:e5! Black resigned. Game 25

Romero - Salov Wijk aan Zee 1992

The Sicilian Sveshnikov is now a rare guest in Valery Salov's games but it was his favourite weapon in junior tournaments some 16-18 years ago. 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 ttlc3 e6 4 d4 c:x:d4 5 lb:x:d4 lbm 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .i.f4 e5 8 .i.g5 a6 9 lba3 b5 10 .i.:x:f6 g:x:f6 11 lbd5 f5 12 g3 f:x:e4 13 .i.g2 .i.e6 14 iL:x:e4 .i.g7 15 ft5 :lc8 16 c3 lbe7 17 :ldl :lc5 This leads to sharper play than 17 ... lbxd5 18 .i.xd5 ._d7 (see Chap ter 5, Section 1). 18 lbb4 ..b6 19 ..g5! �8 20 -.ea b5 21 lbd3?! 2 1 lbxa6? doesn't work in view of 2 1 . . . .i.h6! but the continuation 21 0-0!? .i.h6 22 'ii'f3 deserves se rious attention (Salov) . The text move wins an exchange but Black obtains excellent compensation for the sacrificed material. 2 1 ... :lc6 22 .i.xc6 -.:x:c6 23 f3 .i.h6 24 'ii'f2 a5 25 O·O b4 26 g4 lbd5 27 lbc2 b3 28 lOO l ? (D) White intends to play lbcl-e2g3 but fails and ends up in a hope less position. According to Salov, 28 ._e2 was necessary. 28 .. ..i.g5! The manoeuvre of this bishop to b6 proves fatal for White.


147

Black defends very accurately. If now 22 .:xb7 �b7 23 l:[bl + then 23 . . . �a8 24 "flh3 lbc6 25 11a4 + lba7, e.g. 26 'ii'b3 .ia6 27 lbd7 lbc6 28 'iie6 .ib7 29 l:[b6 "flc7 30 "fies+ ri;;a 7, and Black wins. 22 lbe8!

29 lbe2 .id8 30 �hl .ib6 3 1 'iig3 b4 32 lbcd4? This desperate sacrifice has tens White's defeat, but what could one advise instead? 32 exd4 33 lbxd4 .ixd4 34 :xd4 bxc3 35 bxc3 �e7 36 g5? lbe3 37 :f2 lbf5 38 'iif4 :h4 White resigned. •••

Game 26

Meister

-

Kharlov

USSR 1990

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .ig5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 .ix:f6 gxf6 10 lbd5 f5 1 1 .ixb5 axb5 12 lbxb5 .:.a4 13 b4!? .:.Xb4 14 lbbc7 + �d7 15 0-0 l:b7 16 'ii'h5 ltxc7 17 "flxf7 + lbe7 18 t;:)f6 +? This sharp line is described in Chapter 5, Section 2. Instead of the text move, White should play 18 lbb6 + ! �c6 19 :abl. 18 �c6 19 l:tabl (threatening a mate in one!) 19 d5! 20 c4 d4! 2 1 c5 l:tb7 •••

•••

22 l:tg8! This rook not only attacks but can also take part in the defence after .. :g8-g6. 23 11c4 23 :xb7 �xb7 24 l:tbl + �a7 25 :b6 l:tg6! (Kharlov) or 2 3 "flf6 + ri;;d 7 24 c6+ lbxc6 25 "flf7 + "fle7 26 t;Jf6 + �d8 27 'iid5 + 'iid6 28 lbxg8 :xbl 29 l:txbl .ie6 is also insuffi cient. 23 1la5 24 .:.be + :Xb6 25 cxb6+ hb6 26 :bl + �a7 White's attack has been par ried, so the game is over. 27 lbd6 .ia6 28 "fle6 11c7 29 'iixe5 �a8! 30 exf5 11c6 31 lbe4 .ib7 32 f3 lbd5 33 11xd4 11c2. White resigned. A good illustra tion of the risk that White takes in playing 1 1 .ixb5. •••

.

...

148

The Sveshnikov Sicilian Game 27

lvanchuk - Kramnik Novgorod 1994

1 e4 c5 2 ltif3 ltic6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltixd4 ltif6 5 ltic3 e6 6 ltidb5 d6 7 i.f4 e5 8 i.g5 a6 9 ltia3 b5 10 i.xf6 gxf6 l l ltid5 i.g7 12 c3 f5 13 exf5 i.xf5 14 ltic2 ltie7 This move is considered inaccu rate (see Chapter 6, Section 2). The present game is one of the reasons. 15 i.d3!? ltixd5 16 i.xf5 ltie7 17 •g4 0-0 18 l:.dl d5 19 ltie3 d4?1 Black intends to solve his prob lems in tactical fashion. After 19 . . . l:.a7 20 i.c2! White would only have maintained a very small ad vantage.

along the d-file is Black's best chance. 25 i.xa6 l:.fd8 26 •xb5 :d2 + 27 �g3 e4 28 :el ! ltig6 Or 28 .. . l:8d3 + 29 •xd3 exd3 30 lhe7 f8 3 1 :d7 with a clear edge for White (Ftal!nik). 29 l:te2 i.e5 + 30 �f2 .lidl 31 l:tel l:t8d2 +? Black should have avoided the exchange of rooks: 3 1 . . .lUd2 + 1? 32 �gl �g71 with the idea of . . .�f6 and . . .ltif4 (Ftal!nik). After the text move White wins easily. 32 �n l:txel + 33 �xel llxg2 34 i.c8 f4 35 i.f5! i.f6 36 i.xe4 l:txh2 37 a4 ltie5 38 a5 f3 39 a6 l:thl + 40 �d2. Black exceeded the time limit. Game 28

Topalov - Illescas Linares 1 995

20 i.e4! dxe3!? 2 1 :Xd.8 e:xf2 + 22 �xf2 :axd8 23 •e2 f5 24 i.b7! l:td7 24 . . . l:.d6 was insufficient owing to 25 l:tdl! l:lfd8 26 :Xd6 l:xd6 27 g4! or 27 c4!. The doubling of rooks

1 e4 c5 2 ltif3 ltic6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltixd4 ltif6 5 ltic3 e5 6 ltidb5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 ltia3 b5 9 i.xf6 gxf6 10 ltid5 i.g7 1 1 c3 f5 12 exf5 i.xf5 13 ltic2 0-0 14 ltice3 i.e6 15 i.d3 f5 16 i.c2 i.h6 Black starts an aggressive plan, which fails due to his weak posi tion in the centre. 16 . . . l:tf7 is probably Black's best option (see Chapter 6, Section 2). 17 0-0 :a7 17 . . . f4 can be answered by 18 •h5 .,g5 19 •xg5 + i.xg5 20 ltic7 (Ftal!nik). 18 f4 ..h4 19 g3 :g7?

Play like a Grandmaster 'This backfires badly' (Fta�nik) but after 19 . . . 'ii'h3 20 a4! White is better anyway.

149

15 g3 lbe7 16 .tg2 l:b8 17 0-0 lb:x:d5 18 .t:x:d5! That's the reason why the move order Black opted for in this game is inaccurate. He should either do without . . . tLlc6-e7 (see Chapter 6, Section 2) or continue with 13 . . . .te6 14 lbce3 lbe7 and 15 . . . lbxd5, forcing 16 lbxd5 (Sec tion 3). 18 �h8 19 a4 .th6! Black understandably wants to exchange White's strong knight. .. 20 axb5 axb5? . . . but then suddenly doesn't! 20 . . . i.xe3! 21 fxe3 i.xd5 22 'ii'xd5 l:xb5 23 'ii'd2 a5 would have yielded White only a small edge (Adams) but now things turns out much worse for Black. •••

20 lbc7! 'Illescas was shocked by this surprising jump, as he must have had this position on the board at home!' (Fta�nik). 20 ex:f4 20 . . .Jbg3 + 2 1 hxg3 'ii'xg3 + 22 lbg2 is hopeless, of course. 2 1 lbg2 'ii'b3 22 :x:f4! .txf4 22 ... :Xc7, giving up the queen (23 Jlh4), was probably more te nacious. 23 lbx:f4 lb:g3 + 24 �bl ! 'ii'h6 25 'ii':x:d6 Black resigned. •••

Game 29

Adams - Salov Dortmund 1992

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lb:x:d4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 .txf6 gxf6 10 lbd5 .tg7 1 1 c3 f5 12 e:x:f5 .txf5 13 lbc2 O·O 14 lbce3 .te6

2 1 lbc2! Occupying the M point - see the commentary to Game 1 1 . The a-file is another factor in White's favour. 2 1 'ii'd7 22 l:a6 .tb3 23 l:el .tg5 24 lbb4 .td8 25 i.e4! i.b6 26 lbd5 f5 •••

150


Black is trying to break loose in a tactical way. 27 lbxb6 'ii'd8 28 lbd7! 'ii'xd7 29 :xd6 'ii'e 7 30 :d7 'ii'15 3 1 i.c2 e4? This loses immediately but af ter 3 1 . . .:be8 White has excellent winning chances anyway. 32 'ii'd4 + 'ii'f6 33 'ii'a7 'ii'b6 34 :au b4 35 'ii'd4 + 'ii'f6 36 J:aa7 'ii'xd4 37 cxd4 Black resigned.

. . •• . . ··- · • • • • -·-·· . • · � · � • P•• � � u m • D � . 8n R • � • � u u � � . � � .: • � � � �

Game 30

28 ... �b8! 29 hd5 J:xd5 30 hd5 :as 31 :15 'ii'xa2 32 f5 A desperate attempt but the white position is already lost. 32 b4 33 cxb4 a4! (this is a future queen!) 34 f6 (34 'ii'xe4 i.xb2) 34 ... i.xf& 35 :Xg8 + 'ii'xgS 36 'ii'x18+ �x18 37 �f2 i.xb2 38 lbc2 .i.e5 39 �e3 .i.xb2 40 he4 � 41 �5 �e7. White re signed as he can't prevent both the advance of Black's h-pawn and the breakthrough of Black's king on the queenside.

Yakovich - Svesh n i kov Sochi 1986

-

•.•

This is another classic game by Sveshnikov. 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLJ:xd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 i.15 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 i.xf6 pf6 10 lbd5 f5 1 1 c3 i.17 12 exf5 i.xf5 13 lbc2 lbe7 14 lbce3 i.e6 15 13 lLJ:xd5 16 lLJ:xd5 0-0 17 i.12 a5 18 o-o :bs 19 'ii'e 2 'ii'd7 20 J:adl f5 21 f4 'ii'f7 22 J:d2 e4 23 :fdl :res 24 i.h3? This inaccurate move enables Black to complete his plan of pushing forward his d-pawn. 24 lbe3 ! was correct (see Chapter 6, Section 3). 24...:c5 25 lbe3 d5 26 14 Black was threatening 26 . . . b4, e.g. 26 lbc2 b4 27 cxb4 :Xc2! 28 :Xc2 d4 etc. (Sveshnikov) , but the opening of the g-file proves fa vourable for Black. 26 ... fx14 27 i.x14 i.xt4 28 'ii'q4

Game 31

Hjartarson - Krasen kow Malmo 1995

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .i.15 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10 lbd5 f5 1 1 exf5 .i.xf5 12 c3 .i.17 13 lbc2 .i.e6 14 lbce3 lbe7 15 13 lLJ:xd5 16 lDxd5 0-0 17 .i.12 a5 18 0-0 f5 19 'ii'b5?! b4! This direct attack is probably Black's best reaction to 'ii'h 5.

Play like a Grandmaster 20 :Sdl 20 cxb4 axb4 21 fub4 is clearly poor in view of 21. .. e4. 20 bxc3 21 lLJxc3 l:b8 22 b3 e4 23 �d5 White's knight can easily be pushed from d5 ; therefore, 23 �e2 d5 24 �d4 looks more ap propriate. 23 l:b5 24 �f4 .i.f7 25 'ii'e 2 l:c5 Black's rook has taken up a per fect position, and now his passed d6 pawn is going to start its ad vance. White's only chance is to create some counterplay on the kingside. 26 f3! d5 27 fxe4 fxe4 28 �b l (28 .i.xe4?? Wb6) 28 l:e8?! 28 . . . 'ii'e 7 was more accurate, to meet 29 �h5 with 29 ... .i.e5. 29 �h5! Finally Hjartarson manages to activate his pieces. Of course, 29 .i.xe4?! was poor due to 29 . . 'ii'g5! . 29 .i.xh5 The g7 bishop is more precious for Black. 30 'ii'xh5 l:e5 31 'ii'f7 +? This check is extremely out of place. 31 l:f5! 'ii'c 7 32 .i.h3 would have enabled White to maintain good counterchances. 31 �h8 32 l:f5 (DJ 32 d4? Black misses an excellent win ning chance 32 . . . 'ii'c7! . Since the endgame after 33 'ii'xc7 l:xc7 34 l:xe5 .i.xe5 is winning for Black (35 l:xd5 doesn't work in view of 35 . . . l:r.cl + 36 .i.fl .:txfl + 37 �g2

151

•••

•••

•••

.

•••

•••

•••

-

l:f5 38 g4 l:g5), White's only pos sibility to play on would have been 33 'ii' h5 (admitting that 3 1 'ii'f7 + was a mistake) 3 3 . . . l:cl 34 .i.h3 ! . After the text move White sacrifices the queen to obtain good drawing chances. 33 .i.xe4! l:c7 Alas, after 33 . . . l:xf5 34 .i.xf5 'ii'a8 + 35 �gl d3!? 36 .:Xd3 .:tel + 37 � l:c2 + 38 � .i.h6+ 39 �d4 .i.g7 + 40 We3 Black has nothing better than a perpetual check. 34 'ii'xg7 + ! Wxg7 35 :Xe5 .Ud7 36 .i.d3 .:t7 37 Wg2?! An inaccuracy in time-trouble. 37 Wgl was correct. 37 'ii'f6 38 l:e2 (38 l:f5 'ii'c6 +) 38 'ii'f3 + 39 wgl h5! 40 .i.c4 .:t6? Another regrettable omisson. 40 ... h4! 41 gxh4 Wffi! 42 .i.xf7 'ii'xe2 43 .Ufl Wg7 would have given Black good winning chances. 41 .Ue7 + ! Wf8 Or 41...Wh8 42 .:tfl 'ii'c6 43 l:fel with good counterplay. 42 l:del 'ii'f2 + 43 Whl 'ii'f3 + 44 Wgl 'ii'f2 +. Draw agreed . After •••

•••


152

44 . . . d3 45 :es + �g7 46 l:tle7 + �h6 47 l:thS + both 47 . . . �g5 4S :gs + :g6? 49 h4 + and 47 . . . �g6 4S :gs + �f5? 49 h4 leads to a win for. White. ..

Game 32

Short - Kramnik Novgorod

1995

1 e4 c5 2 ll)f3 ll)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll)xd4 ll)f6 5 ll)c3 e5 6 ll)db5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 lLJa3 b5 9 i.xf6 gxf6 10 ll)d5 i.g7 1 1 c3 f5 12 exf5 i.xf5 13 ll)c2 i.e6 14 g3 0-0 15 i.g2 l:lb8 16 0-0 '6'd7 17 a4! b4?! After this move Black ends up in a very passive position but 17 . . . bxa4 is not good enough to equalize either (see Chapter 6, Section 3). 18 �b4 lbxb4 19 cxb4 i.xd5 20 i.xd5 :Xb4 2 1 b3 The difference in the strength of the bishops is obvious. In addi tion, the black a-pawn is quite weak. 21 a5 22 ..-e2 e4 23 :adl 'ii'e7 24 i.c4! (d5 is a perfect square for White's rook) 24 �h8 25 J:t.d5 f5 26 l:t.fdl Black's hectic attempts to cre ate counterplay could have been parried by means of 26 f4! (Fta� nik). 26 i.e5 27 lha5 l:t.b7 28 l:tad5 ...f6 29 f4 29 a5!? deserved attention, as after the text move White's king becomes more exposed. ...

•••

•••

29 exf3 30 ..-xra :g7 31 �ht 'ii'h6 32 :gt :gG?! Losing a tempo. 32 .. Jlg5 was better. Now White easily parries Black's threats. 33 :d3 :g5 34 a5 l:th5 35 ..-f2 f4 36 g4 :h3 37 :r3 :xr3 38 'i'xf3 i.d4 39 J:t.dl i.e3 40 a6 'i'f6 41 ...d5? Black's f-pawn now becomes strong. 41 i.d5 or 41 'ii'e4 was bet ter, with a decisive advantage (Kramnik). •••

4 1 f3! 42 'ifxd6 'ifg7 43 i.d5 i.a7 44 'i'b4?! f2 45 i.g2 :es 46 :n ..-e5 Despite his two extra pawns, White now has few chances to win as Black's f2 pawn ties up his pieces. 47 i.c6 :e7 48 ..,d2

153

54 'ii'f5 J.. c7?? A terrible blunder. 54 . . . :e5 55 'ii'f7 +
Topalov - Krasenkow Polanica

Zdroj 1995

1 e4 c5 2 lll f3 lll c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lllxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 J.. g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 J..xf6 gxf6 10 lbd5 f5 1 1 c3 J.. g7 12 exf5 J..xf5 13 lbc2 J.. e6 14 g3 0-0 15 J.. g2 a5 16 0-0 f5! Abstaining from the time-con suming 16 ... l:b8, Black obtains bet ter prospects of counterplay (see Chapter 6, Section 3). 1 7 'ii'h5 1 7 lbf4 exf4 18 J..xc6 fxg3 19 J.. xa8 gxh2 + and 19 hxg3 l:.c8!? both lead to a double-edged posi tion. l 7 b41 18 lbce3 bxc3 19 bxc3 �h8 20 l:r.adl l:r.b8 Only now! 20 . . . l:c8?! was dubi ous in view of 2 1 J..h 3. 21 J..h3 'ii'd7 22 f4 e4 (DJ A position typical of this line has arisen. White's standard plan is the preparation of g3-g4, but first he should have protected the 2nd rank by 23 l:r.f2. 23
•••

24 l:r.xa2 25 lbde3 Only now did White notice that 25 lbxd6 fails to 25 . . . lbd4! (or 25 . . . J.. d4! 26 cxd4 J..xd5 27 'ii' h6 "fle7 is even simpler) 26 lbe3 (26 cxd4 J.. xd5) 26 . . . �f3 27 J.. g2 �d2 28 �dc4 J.. xc3. 25 lbdb6 was in sufficient, too: 25 . . . "flc7 26 :Xd6 J.. xc4 27 �xc4 �e7 28 l:r.e6 'ii'd 7! 29 l:d6 'ii'c 8 30 �e3 'iixc3 31 J..xf5 �xf5 32 �xf5 'ii'c5 33 g4 e3, and Black wins. After the text move he is simply a pawn up. 25 J..f7! The most accurate reply. 25 . . . d5 26 lbb6 and 25 . . . J..xc4 26 �xc4 d5 27 lbb6 (27 . . . "fkb7? 28 J.. xf5 ! l:xf5 29 "fkxf5 'ii'xb6 30 'ii'c8 + ) are much worse. 26 1i'g5 26 J.. xf5 J..xh5 27 J.. xd7 J.. xdl 28 l:r.xdl leads to a winning end game for Black, e.g. 28 . . . �e7 29 �xd6 J.. xc3 30 lbxe4 l:r.e2 3 1 �xc3 :Xe3 etc. 26 J.. xc4 27 �c4 d5 28 �e5 28 �b6 doesn't work in view of 28 . . . 'ii'b 7; if 28 �e3 then 28 . . . lbe7. 28 'ii'e6! 29 g4?? •••

•••

•••

•••

154

The Sveshnikou Sicilian

A blunder but after 29 :bl �xe5 30 fxe5 1Vg6! White's posi tion is lost as well. 29 .txe5 30 fxe5 1Vxe5 3 1 .t 82 f4. White resigned. •••

Game 34

with his knight being out of play. 24 ..ta3! This bishop should be trans ferred to the perfect c5 square. 25 .txa6 .tc5 26 �fl l:b8 27 .tc4?l 27 �g3 was more tenacious. ••

Stefansson - Krasenkow Gausdal 199 1

1 e 4 c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �d4 �f6 5 �c3 e5 6 �db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 �a3 b5 9 .txf6 gxf6 10 �d5 f5 1 1 .td3 .te6 12 0-0 .txd5 13 exd5 �7 14 c4 .tg7 15 1Vd2 bxc4 16 �c4 0-0 17 f4? This loss of time leads to very serious consequences for White. 1 7 :ac 1 or 17 :adl was correct see Chapter 7, Section 2. l 7...e4 18 .te2 :b8 Both 19 . . . .txb2 and 19 . . . :b5 are threatened. 19 :abl :b5 20 �e3 Wb&l 2 1
-

27 :b4! A strong move that sets White serious problems. As 28 .tb3 e3 is poor, he has to tie his rook to the defence of the bishop. 28 :cl ciig7! Black's general plan is to pro voke g2-g3 and then play . . . e4-e3 and . . . :b4-b2. However, White is completely passive so Black need not hurry. His idea is now to pro tect his only weakness, the f5 pawn. 28 . . . �g6 29 g3 e3 was not clear in view of 30 .td3! l:d4 (30 . . . :b2 3 1 :el ) 31 .te2 l:xd5 32 :dl. 29 h3 � 30 g4 Despair. 30 �g3 .tea and 30 g3 :b2 were hopeless. 30 ... �g6 31 g5 + (31 �g3 �xf4 32 �f5 e3) 3 1
•••

155

Play like a Grandmaster ltixf4 33 ltixf5 + �g6 34 ltig3 ltid3! 35 .txd3 35 .rl.c2 :bl + 36 �h2 ltiel and 35 .rl.c3 :I.bl + 36 �h2 l%b2 + 37 �hl ltif2 + lose at once. 35 exd3 36 l%dl l%d4 37 a4 .tb4 38 �g2 �xg5 39 �f3 l%f4 + 40 �g2 d2 41 ltifi l%e4 White resigned as after 42 �f3 :el 43 ltie3 .tc5 he loses a piece. This is probably my best Svesh nikov game so far. •••

Game 35

Tseshkovsky - Krasenkow Voskresensk 1 992

1 e4 c5 2 ltif3 ltic6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltixd4 ltif6 5 ltic3 e5 6 ltidb5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 lLJa3 b5 9 .txf6 gxf6 10 ltid5 f5 1 1 .td3 .te6 12 0-0 .txd5 13 exd5 ltie7 14 c3 .tg7 15 1Wh5 e4 16 .tc2 'ifc8 17 :ael 0-0 18 �hl b4 This variation is described in Chapter 7, Section 2. The text move looks very strong but Vitaly Tseshkovsky, one of today's most creative players, finds a fantastic attacking possibility. 19 cxb4! .txb2 20 l%e3 f6! (D) Of course not 20 ....txa3? 21 l%h3. But now it seems that White has nothing better than a perpetual after 2 1 l%g3 + ltig6 22 lhg6 + . . . 2 1 g4!! .txa3 2 2 gxf5 :f7 There is no other way to defend against the threat of 23 l%gl + �h8 24 'ifxh7 + !. 22 . . . 'ifxf5? 23 l%gl + �h8 24 •xf5 lLJxf5 25 :Xa3

:res 26 f3 leads to a lost endgame for Black. 23 l:gl + l:g7 24 :Xg7 + chg7 25 :Xa3?l This lets the white advantage slip. 25 l%g3+ was correct: 25 ... �hB 26 'iff7 'iff8 21 'ifxfB + :xrs 28 :Xa3 lbxd5 29 .txe4 lLJxb4 30 l%a4 d5 3 1 .tf3 :bs 32 a3 ltid3 33 .txd5 ltixf2 + 34 �g2 and White has a slightly better endgame. 25 ......xc2 26 l%g3 + lLJg6! 27 fxg6 h6 28 'ii'f5 l%a7 29 �g2 l%e7 30 a3 30 l%g4 'ifd3 31 h4 doesn't suc ceed due to 31.. .'ifd4 32 l%f4 'ii'e5 33 h5 'ifxf5 34 l%xf5 e3 ! 35 fxe3 :Xe3 36 l:.f3 l%e5, equalizing. 30 'ifc7 3 1 h4 l%e5 32 'ii'f4 'ifc4 33 'ife3 :Z.e7 34 'ii'd2 l%e5 35 'ife3 Draw agreed. •••

Game 36

Sveshnikov - Vyzman avin Moscow 1987

Sveshnikov against the Svesh nikov! This is always interesting.

156


1 e4 c5 2 lOf3 c!bc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 c!bc3 e5 6 c!bdb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a& 8 c!ba3 b5 9 .i.xf& gxf6 10 c!bd5 f5 1 1 .i.d3 .i.e6 12 1i'b.5 .i.g7 13 0-0 f4 14 c4! It is this strong move that forced the old 12 . . . .i.g7 line out of fashion (see Chapter 7, Section 3). 14 bxc4 15 .i.xc4 0-0 16 l:lacl l:lb8 17 b3 •d7 18 l:lfdl h8 19 1i'b.4 hd5 For a long time this line was considered satisfactory for Black, but the present game changed that conclusion. 20 .i.xd5! lbd4

White is practically a pawn up in this endgame. Sveshnikov con fidently realizes his advantage. 27 l:ldcl l:le7 28 n a5 29 .l:lc8 + l:lxc8 30 :Xc8 + g7 3 1 e2 f3 + 3 2 � l:lf7 + 3 3 e2 .i.xh2 34 l:la8 .i.gl 35 f3 l:lc7 35 . . . d3 + 36 xd3 l:la7 is hope less: 37 l:lxa7 + .i.xa7 38 c4 .i.c5 39 b5 .i.b4 40 a3 .i.d2 41 b4 axb4 42 a4 etc. (Sveshnik.ov) 36 l:lxa5 .i.e3 37 l:ld5 l:lcl 38 :Xd6 l:lal 39 a4 l:la2 + 40 d3 l:lxg2 41 a5. Black resigned.

• . ··· · -� · � � � � � . .t • � � � � · . · �� ,;. . �, . . � � - . . �� R � �' � u � � � � � R:• � � � �

Todorovic - Geo.Timoshenko Pu/a 1988

•••

�

z

2 1 l:lc4! f5 2 1 . . .f3 is now answered by 22 lbc2!, for example 22 . . . lbe2 + 23 fl c!bf4 24 gxf3, followed by 25 lbe3, with a clear edge for White (Sveshnik.ov). 22 c!bc2 fxe4?! This leads to a very bad posi tion for Black. According to Svesh nikov, 22 . . . lbxc2 was better. 23 lbxd4 exd4 24 .i.xe4 .i.e5 25 1i'h.5 •n 2& •xn :xn

Game 37

Georgy Timoshenko often tries un usual, even controversial ideas in the Sveshnikov - and not without success. 1 e4 c5 2 c!bf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 c!bc3 c!bc6 6 c!bdb5 d6 7 .i.f4 e5 8 .i.g5 a6 9 c!ba3 b5 10 .i.xf& gxf6 1 1 lbd5 f5 12 .i.d3 .i.e6 13 1i'b.5 .i.g7 14 0-0 f4 15 c4 bxc4 16 .i.xc4 0-0 17 l:lac l l:lb8 18 b3 11a5!? This is one of the first games in which this move was played. 19 lbd 19 c!bbl! is better - see Chapter 7, Section 3. 19 1lxa2 20 Wdl 20 11h4 h6! 21 c!bf6 + .i.xf6 22 11xf6 hc4 23 11xh6 .bf1 24 1lg5+ leads t o a draw (Geo. Timosh enko). •••

Play like a Grandmaster 20 Ji'a5 21 l:al 'ifc5 22 lb:a6

Game 38

••

c;i>b8 23 lDe1?

..

White underestimates the pos sibilities of his opponent, allowing Black's knight the strategically important d4 point. After 23 'ifal the position would have remained roughly equal, e.g. 23 . . . f5 24 'ifa4 l:tfc8 25 lbb6 lhb6 26 .i.xe6 lha6 27 'ifxa6 l:b8 28 1i'd3. 23 lbd4 24 lDdS 'ii'c8 25 lb:d6 White has won a pawn . . . •••

Brodsky - Kramnik Herson

•••

•••

•••

1991

1 e4 c5 2 lDfS lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 e5 6 lDdb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 lLJa3 b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10 lDd5 f5 1 1 .i.d3 .i.e6 12 'ifh5 l:tg8 13 0-0-0?! This is not a good idea, giving up the g2 pawn and castling 'into' an attack. 13 lb:g2 14 f4? 14 'iff3 is relatively better - see Chapter 7, Section 4. After the text move Black's g2 rook becomes an A-bomb. 14 lDd4! This is a typical manoeuvre af ter White's queenside castling. 15 c3 can now be met with 15 . . . .i.xd5 16 exd5 b4! . 15 lDeS l:f2 16 exf5 16 lDxf5 .i.xf5 17 exf5 l:xf4 is clearly favourable for Black. 16 l:hfl !? (to get rid of the bomb) was White's best chance. 16 .i.xa2! 17 fxe5 1 7 lDg4 or 17 l:hfl were already too late on account of 17 . . . l:cB. 17 dxe5 18 lLJxb5 (D) What now? 18 . . . axb5 19 .i.xb5 + is unclear. .. 18 .i.hGU A terrible blow. 19 'ifxh6 leads to a mate after 19 . . . .:Xc2 + ! !. 19 l:hel axb5 20 .i.xb5 + Or 20 'ifxh6 .i.c4! 21 b4 l:al + 22 �b2 l:a2 + 23 b l 'ifa8, and wins (Tseshkovsky and Kramnik). •••

25 f3! . . .but is now going to lose his king! 26 gxf3 It is interesting that the same moves were made in another game by Geo. Timoshenko (S. Yanovsky Geo. Timoshenko, Moscow 1988) when White chose another way to lose: 26 lDel fxg2 27 lLJxg2 .i.g4 28 lDe7 .i.xdl 29 lDxc8 .i.e2! and so on. 26 .i.xd5 27 l:xd5 'ifhs 28 l:xd4 l:b6! 29 lDf4 exf4 30 l:d6 .i.e5 White resigned.

157

•••

•••

•••

158


Game 39

Luther - Sh i rov Germany 1992

20 �e7 2 1 'ifh4 + 2 1 £6 + :Xf6 22 1i'xe5 + :e6 23 1i'c5 + 1i'd6 and so on. (Tseshkov sky, Kramnik). 2 1 ... f6 22 'ii':d"J White has captured Black's most dangerous piece but still he can't defend his king. 22 .i.f7! 23 .i.d3 23 b3 loses after the continu ation 23 . . . 1i'a5 24 .i.a4 1i'c3! 25 �bl (if 25 :d3, then 25 . . . l0xb3 +!) 25 ... :xa4 26 bxa4 1i'b4 + 27 �cl 1i'a3 + 28 �d2 .i.h5! with irresist ible threats. 23 ... 1i'b6! 24 .i.e4 24 c3 :al + 25 .i.bl .i.a2! and 24 b3 1i'b4 are equally hopeless. 24 :a2 25 c4 (25 c3 :al + 26 .i.bl .i.a2) 25 .i.xc4 26 �bl 1i'a5 26 . . . :al + ! 27 �xal 1i'a6 + 28 �bl .i.a2 + 29 �cl 1i'c4 + 30 .i.c2 lC!b3 mate was probably more striking. 27 lLJd&+ .i.xd5 28 1i'xd4 :at + 29 �c2 :Xdl 30 'ii'xdl 1i'a4+ 3 1 �c3, and White resigned without waiting for 31.. .1i'c4 mate. A great game! •••

••

1 e4 c5 2 lC!f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lC!xd4 lC!f6 5 lC!c3 lC!c6 6 lC!db5 d6 7 .i.f4 e5 8 .i.g5 a6 9 lC!a3 b5 10 .i.xf6 p:f6 1 1 lLJd& f5 12 .i.d3 .i.e6 13 1i'b5 :ga 14 c3 .hg2 15 1i'f3 :g4 16 exf5 .i.xd5 17 1i'xd5 lC!e7 18 1i'b7 .i.b6 19 lC!c2 � About this line see Chapter 7, Section 4. 2o :d1?1 This indifferent move gives the initiative to Black. According to Shirov, 20 lC!e3! was correct, e.g. 20 . . . .i.xe3 21 fxe3 lC!g8 22 £6! (oth erwise 22 . . . lC!f6) 22 . . . lC!xf6 23 :n :bs 24 1i'f3 e4 25 1i'xf6 1i'xf6 26 :Xf6 exd3 27 0-0-0, and a draw is not far away. 20 ... :bs 2 1 'ii'fs :14 22 'ii'hs .i.g5 23 l0e3 e4 24 'ii'gS? -

•••

••

A decisive mistake. 24 .i.e2 was essential, with unclear play after 24 . . . h6 (24 . . . d5? is poor in view of

Play like a Grandmaster 25 'ii'xh7! l:r.h4 26 .th5 or 25 ... 'ii'b 6 26 l:r.gl). 24 lbxf5! 25 lbxf5 l:txf5 26 .txe4 1We7 27 O·O 27 l:r.d4 .th4 and 27 'ii'xd6 'ii'xd6 28 l:r.xd6 :es 29 l:r.d4 l:r.f4 30 f3 f5 3 1 l:r.d5 .th4 + are hopeless, too (Shirov) . 27 JWxe4! 28 1Wxd6 + �g7 29 'ii'xb8 .tf4 White resigned. •••

·

••

Game 40

Kasparov - Salov Linares 1 992

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 .txf6 gxf6 10 lbd5 f5 1 1 .td3 .te6 12 'ii'h5 l:tgS 13 g3 :cs?! This move is not considered very promising for Black (see Chapter 7, Section 4). The pre sent game is largely responsible for this conclusion. 14 c3 :ga 15 lbc2 It now turns out that Black's idea of capturing White's queen (15 . . . fxe4 16 .txe4 .tg4 17 1Wxh7 l:[h6 18 'ii'gB .te6 followed by 19 . . . f5) fails to 1 7 'ii' h 4! 1Wxh4 18 gxh4 f5 19 h5! :g5 20 h4 :txh5 21 f3 with a clear advantage for White (indicated by Kasparov). Therefore the whole plan started with 13 . . . :cs proves to be a loss of time. The disconnection of the black rooks and the passivity of his f8 bishop now become decisive factors.

159

15 .:ha 16 1We2 hd.5 17 exd5 lbe7 18 f3 .tg7 19 lbe3 f4?! This is an incorrect pawn sacri fice but after the continuation 19 . . . 1id7 20 a4! White's chances are better anyway. 20 gxf4 lbg6 21 0-0-0?! According to Kasparov, White could have safely taken the pawn: 21 fxe5! lbf4 22 'ii'd2 "ifh4 + 23 �dl etc. 21 lbxf4 22 'ii'c 2 'ii'b6 23 lbf5 :ga Kasparov considers that Black should have exchanged White's strong bishop by 23 ... lbxd3 + 24 1Wxd3 :g6, but it is far from easy to give up such a knight! 24 .te4 b4 25 c4 �8 25 . . . l:g2 doesn't work in view of 26 :d2 :Xd2 27 �d2. ••

•••

2a :d2 :c5?

After 26 ...h5! (Kasparov) White's advantage is minimal. 27 lbg3

27...1Wc7 Black agrees to give up his 'bad' rook for the white bishop. White

160


should have accepted this sacri fice, according to Kasparov, e.g. 28 i.xg6 hxg6 29 b3 f5 30 h4. Still, 30 . . . 'ife7 31 h5 'iff6 with the idea of 32 . . . e4 would have given Black some counterplay. 28 �bl !? i.h6 If 28 .. .lbc4 then 29 :cl! :Xc2 30 l:[dxc2 'ifb6 31 i.xg6! followed by 32 :cs + (Kasparov). 29 'i'b3? 29 i.xg6 was still possible, e.g. 29 . . . lbxg6 30 b3! i.xd2 3 1 'ii'xd2 with a decisive advantage (Kas parov) . 29 .l:.g7? A strange reaction, as 29 ... lhc4 was more appropriate. After the text move White liquidates into a favourable endgame. 30 lbf5 :,s 3 1 'ii'xb4 :xc4 32 'i'xc4! 'ifxc4 33 :c2 'ifxc2 + 34 hc2 l:li6? •••

Salov has no luck with this rook. It was time to bring his bishop into the game (34 ... i.g5). 35 lbe3! lbe2 36 lbg4 lbd4 + 37 �d3 l:[f4 38 lbxb6 �g7 39 &'iJxf7 .hf7 White has won a pawn but it is still not so easy for him to realize his material advantage. 40 :n :b7 41 b3 a5 42 f4 l:[b4 43 fxe5 dxe5 44 :cl? According to Kasparov, 44 l:[gl + ! was winning, e.g. 44 . . . � 45 i.xh7 lbb5 46 l:[g6 + �f7 47 l:r.a6 or 44 ... c;.tf7 45 l:[g5! �f6 46 l:[h5 a4 4 7 'iftc3. After the text move Black is still alive. 44 ...lbb5 45 :ca �7 46 'ifte3 46 i.xh7! l:[h4 47 i.g6 + �g7 48 i.e4 or 46 ... :d4+ 4 7 �e3 l:r.xd5 48 h4 must have been good enough to win the game. Kasparov fails to display a champion's technique in this game and eventually lets the victory slip. 46 ... c;.te7 47 i.xh7 l:[b4 48 i.d3 lbd6 49 l:r.c7 + c;.tdS 50 :b7 l:[d4 5 1 h4?! l:r.g4! 52 h5 :g3 + 53 'iii> d2 .:.g2 + 54 rJ.lel e4 55 i.e2 lbf5 56 l:[f7 lbd4 57 i.fl .l:.h2 58 .l:.f4 lbc2 + 59 rJ.!dl lbe3 + 60 c;.tel lbc2 + 61 �dl lbe3 + Draw agreed. This game illustrates the prob lems Black can encounter in the 12 .. . l:r.g8 line.

MIKHAIL KRASENKOV International Grandmaster The Sveshnikov variation of the Sicilian Defence leads to dynamic positions with free piece play and provides enterprising players with the type of active game on which they can thrive. It became fashionable in the 1 970s under the influence of Evgeny Sveshnikov and other gra ndmasters from Chelya binsk, and has remained at the cutting edge of opening theory ever since. In recent years it has been a favourite of the exciting young stars Vladimir Kramnik and Alexei Shirov, and of the author himself, all of whom have introduced important new ideas. This book provides the most comprehensive and up to-date coverage of the Sveshnikov Sicilian available. It focuses on currently fashionable variations and provides club and tournament players with everything they need to know to p l ay the op ening with confidence as White or Black. Learn the secrets of the most exponents! lr of The Open Spanish.

I S BN 1 -85744-1 23-0

Krasenkov M. - The Sveshnikov Sicilian - Cadogan 1996

Recommend Documents