Classical Two Knights [B56−B59]

Written by GM John Fedorowicz, GM Tony Kosten & IM Richard Palliser

Last updated Tuesday, 31 May 2011

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

he Classical Two Knights isn't what you would call super theoretical. These lines

are the solid ones. The readers can follow these without much change in the

theory. It's important to note concepts not so many tactical points.

The Benko system with 6...£b6 against the Sozin is seeing a shift in main lines ... 7

¤b3, 7 ¤de2 and 7 ¤db5 are falling out of favor, and being replaced by 7 ¤xc6!?.

T

All the game references highlighted in blue have been annotated and can be downloaded in PGN form using the PGN Games Archive on www.chesspublishing.com.

Contents

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 ¤c6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6 ¥c4

6 f3 Classical 2 Knights 6 f3 & Miscellaneous [B56] 6 ¥e2 e5 7 ¤b3 (7 ¤f3 h6 Boleslavsky Variation− 6 Be2 e5 7 Nf3 & Intro [B58]) 7...¥e7

Boleslavsky Variation−7 Nb3 [B59]

6...£b6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-wqnzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LsNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...e5 Classical Sozin, 6 Bc4 − 6...e5 & Intro [B57]

7 ¤b3

7 ¥e3 Sozin Benko System 7 Be3 [B57] 7 ¤db5 Sozin Benko System 7 Ndb5 [B57] 7 ¤de2 Sozin Benko System 7 Nde2 [B57]

2

7 ¤xc6 bxc6 Sozin Benko System 7 Nxc6 [B57]

7...e6 8 0-0

8 ¥f4 Sozin Benko System−7 Nb3 misc. eighth moves [B57]

8...¥e7

Sozin Benko System−7 Nb3 & 8 0-0 [B57]

Press F5 to toggle the Navigation Pane, then click on the appropriate bookmark to go

straight to that section.

Ctrl + 2 resizes the page.

All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd

3

Classical 2 Knights 6 f3 − &

Miscellaneous [B56]

Last updated: 31/05/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is in many ways the most natural move here. 5...¥d7 The Kupreichik Variation. Black may develop along Najdorf, Classical or even

Dragon lines − while trying to avoid too much theory. 6.f3 e5 7.¤b3 ¥e7 8.¥e3 0-0 Shirov,A−Heberla,B/Baden−Baden GER 2011.

6.f3

The modern favorite. Others: 6.f4 e5 (6...g6!? This is my preference. We transpose into a Dragon where White has played

the out−of− fashion Levenfish Variation.) 7.¤f3 ¥e7 8.¥c4 0-0 9.0-0 (9.f5 ¤a5!

10.¥d5 £b6!, 9.¥b3 ¦b8 10.0-0 b5 11.£d3 a5 Leventic,I−Biliskov,V/Pula CRO 1999.) 9...exf4 10.¥xf4 ¥g4 (10...£b6+ 11.¢h1 £xb2 12.¤d5 ¤xd5 13.exd5 is unclear) 11.£d2 ¥h5 12.¦ae1 ¥g6 13.¢h1 ¦e8 14.¥b3?! (14.a3!? giving the a2−bishop an escape hatch on a2 is interesting.) 14...a6 15.¤d4 ¤a5! 16.¤f5 ¤xb3 17.axb3 ¤xe4?! (17...¥xf5!?) 18.¤h6+ gxh6 19.¦xe4 ¥xe4 20.¤xe4 ¥f8 21.¥g5! hxg5 22.¤f6+ ¢h8 23.£d3± Salmensuu,O−Atalik,S/Groningen NED 1999.

6.g3 e5 (or 6...g6!? once again transposing into a Dragon where White has played the insipid g3.) 7.¤de2 ¥e7 8.¥g2 a6 9.¥g5 (9.h3 is more normal, 9...b5 10.¥e3 b4 11.¤d5 ¤xd5

4

12.exd5 leaves White on top, he can use the e4 and f5 squares) 9...h5?! this looks ridiculous. White should get a comfortable game by playing around the d5 square. 10.£d2 ¥e6 11.h3 ¦c8 12.0-0 ¤b8 13.a4 ¤bd7 14.a5 0-0 15.¦fc1 ¦e8 16.¥e3 h4 17.g4 ¤h7 18.¤d5 ¥g5 with good dark−squared play, Stanke,J−Baklan,V/Hamburg GER 1999.

6.¥e3 ¤g4!? (I prefer 6...e5 here instead, 7.¤f3 (7.¤b3 transposes to the mainline once White plays f3) 7...¥e7 8.¥c4 0-0 9.0-0 ¥e6 10.¥b3 a6 (10...¤a5!? I find this to be the most accurate.) 11.£e2 £c7 12.¦fd1 h6 13.¤h4 ¤a5 14.¤f5 ¥xf5 15.exf5 ¤xb3 16.axb3 £c6 17.£d3 ¦fd8 18.¤d5 ¤xd5 19.£xd5 £xc2 20.£xb7 ¥f8³ Jukic,B−Jovanovic,S/Pula CRO 1999, White's pawns are a mess.) 7.¥g5 (7.¥b5!? is critical, White continues his development, allowing Black to capture his dark−squared bishop and double his pawns, but plans to use the f−file: 7...¤xe3 8.fxe3 ¥d7 9.¥xc6 (9.0-0 e6 10.¥xc6 is a better move order) 9...bxc6 10.0-0 e6 (10...e5! 11.£f3 f6

12.¤f5 g6) 11.£f3 (11.e5!? is the sharpest, Novik,M−Agopov,M/Finnish League 2011)

11...£f6! 12.£xf6?! (12.£e2) 12...gxf6 13.¦xf6 ¥g7 Black's bishops more than compensate the doubled pawn, Petrosian,T−Motylev,A/Tiayuan 2005) 7...h6 8.¥h4 g5 9.¥g3 ¥g7 10.¤b3 a6?! Black might be able to omit this, Najdorf move, and save an important tempo,

a) 10...¥e6 is most common, 11.¥e2 h5 12.h4 (12.h3 h4!) 12...gxh4 13.¥xh4 ¦c8! 14.0-0 ¥f6 Adams,M−Kramnik,V, Belgrade 1995

b) 10...¥xc3+!? 11.bxc3 ¥e6 12.¥b5 a6 13.¥xc6+ bxc6 14.¤d4 is not too clear 11.¥e2 ¤ge5 12.h4 g4 13.h5 ¥f6 14.¥f4 ¥g5 15.£d2 ¥xf4 16.£xf4 ¥e6 17.¤d5 ¤a5

18.0-0-0 ¦c8 19.¢b1± Leventic,I−Jovanovic,S/Pula CRO 1999 Black's forces are too uncoordinated to put up good resistance.

6.h3!? is a speciality of Movsesian, intending either Keres Attack−style play, or to continue as in 6 g3, with ¥g2, 0-0, followed by ¤ge2−g3. 6...g6 (6...e6 7.g4 a6 8.¥g2 is like the 'slow' Keres Attack) 7.¤de2 h5!? Movsesian,S−Likavsky,T/Czech Rep CZE 2005.

6...e5

6...e6 transposes to the English Attack in B80. 6...¤xd4 7.£xd4 g6 8.¥g5 ¥g7 9.¥b5+?! lending Black a helping hand, (9.0-0-0 0-0 10.e5

¤d7 11.£h4!²) 9...¥d7 10.¥xd7+ £xd7 11.¤d5 ¤h5 12.£b4 e6 13.¤c3 a5 Black's counterplay is rolling. 14.£b3 a4 15.£b4 a3 16.g4 axb2 17.¦d1 £c6∓ Kriventsov,S−Karklins,A/Philadelphia USA 1999.

6...£b6!? I've said it at least a million times... if Black can force White to play ¤b3 then this should be played.

7.¤b3 ¥e7

7...h6?! After White plays f3 Black doesn't have to play this, as the ¥g5xf6 idea would weaken White's crucial dark squares. 8.¥e3 ¥e7 9.£d2 a5 10.¤a4 ¤d7 11.¥e2 0-0 12.0-0 b6 13.¦fd1 ¥b7 14.a3 ¤c5 15.¤c3 a4 16.¤c1 f5 17.exf5 ¦xf5 18.¥c4+ ¢h8 19.¤1e2 ¤a5 20.¥a2 ¥f8 21.¤g3± Morozevich,A−Milos,G/Internet 2000, White has things under control on the light squares.

7...¥e6 8.¤d5! ¥xd5 9.exd5 with a plus.

5

8.¥e3 0-0

8...¥e6 is the main alternative, 9.¤d5 (9.£d2 a6 10.g4? allowing Black to break with ...d5: 10...d5! 11.g5 d4 12.gxf6 ¥xf6 13.0-0-0 dxe3 14.£xe3 ¤d4 15.¢b1 £c7 16.£f2 0-0-0 17.h4 ¢b8∓

Marchadour,C−Te Llalemand,R/Vichy FRA 2000.) 9...¥xd5 10.exd5 ¤b8 (10...¤b4 11.c4 (11.¥b5+?! ¢f8! and the d−pawn drops) 11...a5 12.£d2 b6 13.a3 ¤a6 14.¥e2 0-0?! (14...¤c5! was most accurate) 15.0-0 ¤e8 16.¤c1 ¤c5 17.b3 f5 18.¦b1 ¥h4 19.b4 axb4 20.axb4 ¤d7 21.¤d3± Tindall,B−Dwyer,D/Mingara NSW AUS 2000, White has several plans: organizing c5, locking the kingside with f4, or fighting for control of the a−file.) 11.c4 (11.¥e2 0-0 12.£d2 a5 13.a3?! White shouldn't touch this side. 13...¤bd7 14.c4 a4 15.¤c1 £b8 16.¤a2 ¥d8! playing to exchange dark−squared bishops, 17.0-0 ¥b6 18.¥xb6 ¤xb6 Black is guaranteed excellent play on the dark squares. 19.£b4 ¤bd7 20.¤c3 ¤c5 21.¤b5 £d8 22.£c3 £b6³ Zufic,M−Kozul,Z/Nova Gorica SLO 2001., 11.a4! menaces a5, so 11...a5 12.¥b5+ with advantage) 11...0-0 12.¥e2 ¤bd7 (12...a5!) 13.0-0 ¤e8 14.£e1 a5 15.¢h1 b6 16.a3?! (16.¤d2!? keeps White fighting for an advantage.) 16...¤c5 17.¤d2 ¥g5!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqntrk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-zp-zp-+-+0 9zp-snPzp-vl-0 9-+P+-+-+0 9zP-+-vLP+-0 9-zP-sNL+PzP0 9tR-+-wQR+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black gets play on the dark squares. 18.£f2 ¥xe3 19.£xe3 a4³ Saptarshi,R−

Murugan,K/Calcutta IND 2001.

9.£d2

9.¤d5 is less accurate, 9...¤xd5 10.exd5 ¤b8 11.£d2 f5 getting the kingside pawns moving before deciding on the best placement of the queenside pieces, Zhang Pengxiang−Dreev,A/Ergun CHN 2006.

9...a5!?

6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-vlpzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+NsN-vLP+-0 9PzPPwQ-+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The most aggressive, attempting to break up the white queenside. If White stops Black's

...a4 idea with ¥b5 then Black can try ...¤a7. 9...¥e6 can be played here, too, but will transpose to the last note.

10.¥b5

Played to control b5 and to stop the further advance of the pawn. 10.a4? ¤b4! leaves White in a miserable situation, as he can hardly stop the liberating ...d5. 10.¤a4!? is an interesting new idea, White aims to exploit the b6−square, rather than the b5

one, 10...¥e6 (10...d5!? 11.¤b6?! d4 12.¤xa8 a4! Black drives the knight to a passive square before capturing, Wang Yu A−Kosintseva,T/Ergun CHN 2006) 11.¤b6 a4!? a daring exchange sac to gain the initiative, 12.¤xa8 £xa8 13.¤c1 a3! with good play, Rodriguez,A−Milos,G/Sao Paulo 2005.

10.¦d1 a4 11.¤c1 £a5 12.a3 ¥e6 with active play, Rodriguez,A−CHESS TIGER/Vicente Lopez ARG 2001.

10...¥e6

10...¤a7! is better, 11.¥d3 ¥e6 (11...¤c6 12.a3 (12.¥b5 and Black can repeat 12...¤a7)

12...a4 13.¤c1 ¥e6) 12.¦d1 ¤c8!? Playing for a future ...d5, 13.a3 ¤b6 14.£f2 ¤fd7 15.¤d2 £c7 16.0-0 d5 Short,N−Stefansson,H/Reykjavik ISL 2002.

11.¤d5

11.0-0-0 is risky, 11...¤b4!? 12.a3 d5!? with sharp play, Fedorov,A−Ivanchuk,V/Moscow RUS 2005.

11.¦d1 ¤a7 12.¥e2 ¤c8 is also OK for Black.

11...¥xd5 12.exd5 ¤a7

12...¤b4?! 13.c4 b6 14.0-0 ¤a6 15.¥c6 ¦b8 16.¤c1 ¤d7 17.a3 f5 18.b4± Reyhan,D−Demir,G, Istanbul TUR 2003.

7

13.¥e2 ¤c8!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+nwq-trk+0 9+p+-vlpzpp0 9-+-zp-sn-+0 9zp-+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+N+-vLP+-0 9PzPPwQL+PzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

An important idea.

14.¦d1 ¤b6 15.c4 £c7 16.¦c1 ¤a4 17.0-0 ¤d7 18.¢h1 ¤ac5

and Black has a good dark−squared blockade on the queenside, Popovic,P−Damljanovic,B, Budva SCG 2004.

8

Classical Sozin, 6 Bc4 − 6...e5 & Intro

[B57]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥c4 e5!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+LsNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This unusual idea has been championed by GM Epishin with great success. 6...¥d7 is an inferior idea, Black will have trouble equalizing. 7.0-0 g6 8.¤xc6! (8.h3

Zacharias,C−Georgiev,V/Hamburg GER 1999) 8...¥xc6 9.¥g5 ¥g7 10.¤d5 Korbut,E−Matnadze,A/Litohoto GRE 1999.

7.¤f5

This is the best of the various knight moves. 7.¤b3 ¥e7 8.f3 0-0 9.¥e3 ¥e6 10.¤d5 ¦c8 11.¤xe7+?! This helps Black's development.

(11.c3 looks normal, but White is loose on the a7−g1 diagonal.) 11...£xe7 12.¥xe6 £xe6 13.0-0 ¦fd8 14.£e2 d5 15.exd5 ¤xd5 16.c3 b6 17.¦ae1 ¦e8³ Preusser,R−Epishin,V/Werther GER 2000.

7.¤de2 ¥e6 Black must challenge White's control of d5, 8.¥xe6 fxe6 9.¥g5 h6 10.¥h4 ¥e7 11.£d2 0-0 12.0-0-0 b5 13.f3 £a5 14.b3 ¦fd8 15.£e1 ¦ac8 16.¢b1 ¤b4 17.¢b2 ¤xc2! 18.¢xc2 £xa2+ 19.¢d3 £xb3 20.¢e3 £c4 21.¢f2 ¤g4+ 22.fxg4 ¥xh4+ 23.g3 ¥e7∓ Livshits,G−Epishin,V/Saint Vincent ITA 2000.

7.¤f3 makes sense, 7...¥e6 8.¥b3 h6 9.0-0 ¥e7 White is essentially a tempo up on certain 6 ¥e2 e5 7 ¤f3 lines, Airapetian,C−Fedorowicz,J, San Diego USA 2006.

9

7...¥e6

7...¥xf5 8.exf5 £d7!? is too greedy, 9.0-0 0-0-0 10.¥g5 £xf5 11.¥xf6 £xf6 12.¤d5 with complete control of the central light squares, Milos,G−Disconzi da Silva,R, Sao Caetano 1998.

8.¥b3

8.¤e3 Played directly this avoids Black playing ...g6 and ...¥h6 with gain of tempo. 8...¦c8 9.0-0 ¤d4 10.¥d3!? ¥e7 11.¤cd5 White is ready to expel the strong black knight with c3, Flores Rios,M−Epishin,V/Badalona 2005.

8...g6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-+nzplsnp+0 9+-+-zpN+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+LsN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9.¤e3

Playing for the d5 point looks logical. 9.¤h6?! ¤d4 10.¥g5 ¥e7 11.f4 ¤xb3 12.axb3 ¤h5 13.¤f5 ¥xg5 14.fxg5 0-0 15.¤h6+

¢g7 16.£d2 f6 17.gxf6+ £xf6-+ Schneider,D−Epishin,V/Connecticut USA 2000 − the knight on h6 is a goner.

9...¥h6

Black exchanges his potentially bad bishop. 9...¤d4 is the alternative.

10.¤ed5 ¥xc1 11.£xc1 0-0

Macieja,B−Wojtaszek,R/Warsaw POL 2005.

10

Sozin Benko System − 7 Nb3 & 8 0-0

[B57]

Last updated: 14/10/06 by TonyK

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 ¤c6 6 ¥c4 £b6!?

This avoids the messy and unpredictable Velimirovic Attack. The Benko System is my personal favorite.

7 ¤b3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-wqnzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-+0 9+NsN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...e6

7...g6?! this gives White opportunities for ¤d5, 8 ¥e3 £c7 9 ¤d5 ¤xd5 10 exd5 ¤e5 11 ¥b5+ (11 ¥e2!?) 11...¥d7 12 ¥xd7+ £xd7 13 f4 ¤g4 14 ¥d4 ¤f6 15 ¥xf6 exf6 16 0-0 ¥e7 17 £d4 0-0 18 f5 ¥d8 19 ¢h1 ¦e8³ Ruiz Gonzalez,G−Bu Xiangzhi/Budapest HUN 1999.

8 0-0

The main move, but there are important alternatives in the next chapter.

8...¥e7

11

8...a6 9 a4 a) 9 ¥d3 £c7 10 f4 ¥e7 11 £f3 0-0 12 ¢h1 ¥d7 (12...b5 of course) 13 ¥d2 b5 14

¦ae1 ¦ac8?! Black's setup looks very suspicious. 15 ¤d5 exd5 16 exd5 ¦fe8 17 dxc6 ¥xc6 18 £h3 ¥f8 19 ¥a5 £b7 20 ¥c3² Oral,T−Drei,A/Reykjavik ISL 2000.

b) 9 ¥e3 £c7 10 a4 (10 f4 b5 11 ¥d3 ¥e7 12 £f3 (12 a3 This prevents ...¤b4 ideas, but allows ...b4 ideas in return, 12...¦b8 13 £f3 b4 14 ¤e2 e5 With the knight pushed away from d5 this idea comes into play. 15 f5 ¥b7 16 ¤g3 h5 Why Black's delaying castles can be important. 17 h3 h4 18 ¤e2 d5 19 exd5 e4∓ Afek−Fedorowicz Amsterdam 1996) 12...¥b7 13 a4 b4 14 ¤e2 (14 ¤b1 is a more secure way of bolstering the e4 point, but Black is fine here as well. 14...a5 15 ¤1d2 0-0 16 ¢h1 ¤b8 17 ¤d4 ¤bd7 18

¤b5 £b8 19 ¦ae1 ¦c8 20 £h3 ¤c5³ A real history lesson! Parma−Petrosian Moscow 1971.) 14...¤b8!? Black's puts pressure on e4 and is already threatening ...d5 breaks. I've had a lot of experience with this line over the years. Black's 14th move is the product of working with GM James Tarjan in the early 80's. 15 ¤g3 (15 ¥d4!? Takes the starch out of the ...d5 break, but exposes the bishop to the e5 break.) 15...h5!

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+k+-tr0 9+lwq-vlpzp-0 9p+-zppsn-+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9Pzp-+PzP-+0 9+N+LvLQsN-0 9-zPP+-+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

One of the points of not castling too soon. 16 c3 h4 17 ¤h1 d5 18 ¤f2 h3!? Black envisions

a queen trade so throwing this in could weaken White's pawn structure. 19 g4? This gives white too many weak pawns. (19 g3 Would be similar to the game, but with one less weak pawn.) 19...bxc3 20 ¦ac1 dxe4 21 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 22 ¥xe4 ¥xe4 23 £xe4 £c6∓ Kaufman,R−Fedorowicz,J/Guelf Pro Am 2002, White's pawns on a4, f4 and g4 are all targets. And Black's knight can redeploy to d5.) 10...b6 11 ¥e2 ¥e7 12 f4 ¥b7 13 ¥f3 ¤b4 14 a5?! this hands Black good counterplay, 14...b5 15 ¥b6 £c8 16 £e2 0-0 17 ¦ad1 ¤d7 18 ¥f2 £c7 19 ¦d2 ¦ac8 20 ¦fd1 ¦fe8³ Petrov,A−Arbakov,V/St Petersburg RUS 2000.

c) 9 £e2?! it is hard to see what the queen is doing here, sometimes White needs ¥e2. 9...¥e7 10 a4 £c7 11 a5 0-0 12 ¥e3 ¤d7 13 ¤a4 ¤xa5 14 ¤xa5 b5 15 ¥d3 bxa4 16 ¦xa4 ¤c5 17 ¦a2 ¥f6 18 b4 ¤xd3 19 cxd3 ¥d7³ Koeller,O−Tyomkin,D/Biel SUI 1999.

9...¤a5 a) 9...¥d7 10 a5 £c7 11 ¥e2 ¦c8 12 f4 ¤b4 13 ¥f3 ¥e7 14 ¥e3 0-0 15 ¦f2 £b8

(15...e5!? Challenging the center looks interesting.) 16 ¤a4! ¥xa4 17 ¦xa4 d5 18 e5 ¤d7 19 c3² Kuczynski,R−Kozul,Z/Ohrid MKD 2001.

12

b) 9...£c7 10 a5 (10 f4 b6 11 ¥d3 ¥b7 (I prefer flexibility. 11...¥e7!? 12 ¢h1 0-0 13

£f3 ¦b8=) 12 £f3 ¤b4?! Black should finish his kingside development first. (12...¥e7!? Is ok for black.) 13 £g3!± Now white has to resort to contortions. 13...d5 14 e5 ¤e4 15 ¥xe4 dxe4 16 £f2 ¦b8 17 a5?! Not sure what this accomplished. 17...b5 18 ¥e3 ¥e7 19 f5 exf5 20 ¤d4ƒ Friedel,J−Gerzhoy,L/Heraklio GRE 2002) 10...¥e7 11 f4 (11 ¥e2 0-0 12 ¥e3 ¥d7 13 f4 ¤b4 14 ¥b6 £c8 15 ¥f3 d5? This ruins everything. 15...e5!? was ok 16 e5 ¤e8 17 f5?! this gives Black a chance. 17...exf5 18

¤xd5 ¤xd5 19 ¥xd5 ¤c7 20 c4² Ademi,S−O'Donnell,R/North Bay CAN 1999.) 11...0-0 12 ¥e3 ¤d7 13 ¤a4 ¤xa5 14 ¤xa5 b5 15 ¥d3 bxa4 16 ¦xa4 ¤c5 17 ¦a2 ¦b8 18 c3 ¤xd3∓ Ciric,D−Tyomkin,D/Biel SUI 1999. With the bishop pair and better placed forces.

10 ¥e3 £c7 11 ¤xa5 £xa5 12 £d2 ¥e7 13 ¦fd1 £c7 14 ¥e2 ¥d7 15 ¥f4 ¥c6 16 ¥xd6 ¥xd6 17 £xd6 £xd6 18 ¦xd6 ¥xe4 19 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 20 ¦d4 ¤f6 21 ¥f3² Mikhalchishin,A−Kozul,Z/Bled SLO 1999.

8...£c7 9 ¥g5 a6 10 ¥xf6 gxf6 11 £h5 ¥d7 (11...b5 12 ¥d3 ¥b7 13 a4 b4 14 ¤d1 0-0-0 Here Black has done several things wrong: 1) he can leave the queen on b6 till ¥e3 or ¢h1, 2) 0-0-0 is insane as Black is open already, 3) just because the f−pawns are doubled doesn't mean ...0-0 is bad. 15 ¤e3 ¤e5 16 f4 ¤xd3 17 cxd3 £b6 18 ¦fe1 f5 19

£xf7+− Mirumian,V−Manik,M/Ostrava CZE 1999.) 12 ¢h1 ¤e5 13 ¥e2 0-0-0? Yikes! Black is asking for it. 14 f4 ¤g6 15 g3 ¥e8 16 ¥f3 ¤e7 17 f5 ¤c6 18 ¥g2 ¢b8 19 ¦ad1 h6 20 ¥h3 £e7 21 ¤d4± Zambrana,O−Bakre,T/Athens GRE 2001.

9 ¥g5

Threatening to capture on f6 to double the black pawns. 9 ¥e3 £c7 Once the white bishop retreats from the exposed c4−square these positions look

like the Scheveningen with an extra move for each side, so some of these games can be found in [B82]. 10 ¥d3

a) 10 ¥e2 a6 11 f4 b5 12 a3 ¥b7 13 g4 g6 14 g5 ¤d7 15 ¥g4 (15 f5!? ¤b6 16 ¤d4

Black must take care,) 15...¤b6 16 ¤d4 ¤c4 17 ¤xc6 ¤xe3 18 £d4 ¤xg4 19 £xh8+ ¢d7 20 £d4 ¥xc6∓ Jimenez,J−Mendez,E/Buenos Aires ARG 2000.

b) 10 f4 0-0 (10...a6 11 ¥d3 ¥d7?! Much too passive... Black needs d7 for the f6−knight and the bishop is best placed on b7 anyway. 12 £f3 ¤b4 I like to wait for ¦ae1 then play ...¤b4. 13 ¦ae1 (13 a3 ¤xd3 14 cxd3 b5 15 ¦ac1 With alot of development.) 13...0-0 14 g4 ¥c6 15 g5 ¤d7 16 £h5 g6 17 £h3 ¦fe8 18 f5± Mortensen,E−Von Bahr,O/Sweden SWE 2003) 11 ¥d3 a6 12 g4 b5 13 g5 ¤d7 14 £h5 g6 15 £h6 ¦e8 16 ¦f3 ¥f8 17 £h4 ¥g7 18 ¦af1 ¤f8 after this Black must really take care of the f6 square. If a knight lands there its curtains. 19 e5 d5= Galstian,B−Evdokimov,A/Oropesa del Mar ESP 1999.

10...a6 11 a4 b6 12 f4 (12 ¦e1?! In these ...£b6 systems White can't afford to sit idly by. That's what happens here. 12...¥b7 13 £e2 0-0 14 f3 ¦fd8 15 £f2 ¤d7 16 ¦ad1 ¤a5 17 ¤xa5

bxa5 18 ¤e2 ¦dc8∓ Siraco,M−Krush,I/Internet ICC 2000.) 12...0-0 (12...¥b7!? One good setup is 12...0-0 followed by Nb4. 13 ¤d2 ¤a5 14 b4 ¤c6 (14...£xc3! 15 bxa5 d5

16 e5 ¤e4³) 15 b5 ¤a5 16 bxa6 ¥xa6 17 ¤b5² Cernousek,L−Sedlak,N/Athens GRE 2001.) 13 ¢h1 ¥b7 14 £f3 (14 ¤d4 ¤xd4 15 ¥xd4 ¤d7 16 £h5 e5 17 ¥e3 exf4 18 ¦xf4

¤e5= Parligras,M−Nevednichy,V/Lasi ROM 1999 Black has the strong Sicilian

13

knight.) 14...¤b4 15 £h3 e5!? Black has d5 covered so this becomes possible. Any tricks with the Bd3 are finished. 16 ¤d2 exf4 17 ¦xf4 ¤d7 18 ¤c4 b5! White's weak back rank make this possible. 19 ¤a5 ¤xd3 20 cxd3 b4∓ Zheliandinov,V−Atalik,S/Podlehnik SLO 2001.

9 ¢h1 a6 a) 9...£c7 10 f4 a6 11 a4 (11 ¥d3 b5 12 £f3 ¥b7 Dgebuadze,A−Nijboer,F/Groningen

NED 2002) 11...¤b4!? This or ...b6 are the best tries. 12 ¥e2 0-0 13 ¥f3 ¥d7 14 g4?! too loosening. (14 a5 ¥c6=) 14...d5! the logical reaction. 15 e5 ¤e4 16 f5?! exf5 17 gxf5 ¥xf5 18 ¤d4 ¥g6∓ Smith,B−Fedorowicz,J/Bizovac CRO 2000.

b) 9...0-0 10 ¥e2 At this point black has transposed into a Scheveningen where white retreated Nb3 prematurely. 10...¦d8?! I've always followed the rule than when the f2 pawn is no longer pinned then black's queen should drop back to c7. (10...£c7 11 a4 (11 f4 a6 12 ¥e3 b5 White is passive.) 11...b6 12 f4 a6=) 11 ¥e3 £c7 12 f4 a6?! This allows white a Maroczy Bind type space advantage. (12...b6!?) 13 ¤a4 ¤d7 14 c4 ¤c5 15 ¤c3 b6 16 ¦c1 ¥b7 Black's best hedgehog setup is with knights on d7 and f6. 17 ¥f3 ¤b4 18 ¤d4² Zapata,A−Stefansson,H/Havana CUB 2002

10 ¥d3 £c7 11 £e2?! f4 and Qf3 is a better chance 11...b5 12 ¥g5 h6 13 ¥d2 ¤e5 14 a4 b4 15 ¤d1 d5 16 f4 ¤xd3 17 cxd3 dxe4 18 dxe4 £c2∓ Zyla,J−Miroshnichenko,E/Swidnica POL 1999.

9 a4!? This space gaining idea shouldn't prove too dangerous. 9...0-0 10 ¥e3 £c7 11 ¥d3 ¦d8?! (11...b6 12 f4 a6 13 £f3 ¥b7 14 £h3 ¤b4 is normal) 12 f4 d5 13 e5 ¤e4 14 ¤b5 £b8 15 c3 a6 16 ¤5d4 ¥d7 17 £c2 ¤xd4 18 ¤xd4 ¥c5 19 ¥xe4 dxe4 20 £xe4 ¥xd4 21 ¥xd4+− Zapata,A−Mendez,E/Sao Paulo BRA 2001.

9...0-0

9...¤e5 10 ¥e2 0-0 11 ¢h1 ¥d7 (11...a6) 12 f4 ¤g6?! I've seen A Ivanov win in similar fashion after ...¤g6. 13 ¥h5!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zpp+lvlpzpp0 9-wq-zppsnn+0 9+-+-+-vLL0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+NsN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9tR-+Q+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

This strong move gives white a nice advantage. 13...¤xh5 14 ¥xe7 ¤g3+ 15 hxg3 ¤xe7 16

£d2 ¦ad8 17 ¦ad1 ¥c6 18 f5!± Ivanov,A−Evans,B/Los Angeles USA 2000. 9...a6 10 ¢h1 £c7 11 f4 0-0 (11...b5 12 ¥d3 ¥d7 13 £f3 0-0 14 a4 b4 15 ¤d1 ¤a5 16 e5! dxe5 17

fxe5 ¤d5 18 £e4 g6 19 ¥xe7 ¤xe7 20 ¤e3± Lanc,A−Krak,T/Nove Zamky SVK 1999.) 12 ¥d3 b5 13 a3 ¦b8 14 £e2 ¥b7 15 ¦ae1 b4 16 axb4 ¤xb4 17 e5?! ¤fd5 18 ¤xd5

14

¥xd5 19 ¥xe7 £xe7 20 ¥xa6 dxe5 21 fxe5 £h4∓ Cuartas,C−Pupo,E/Cali COL 1999.

10 ¥xf6 gxf6!?

10...¥xf6 is more natural, 11 £xd6 ¦d8 12 £g3 ¥e5! with good comp.

11 £h5 ¤e5 12 ¥e2 ¢h8 13 ¢h1 ¦g8 14 f4 ¤g6 15 ¦ad1

15 £a5 £xa5 16 ¤xa5 White shouldn't have too much here, more often than not Sicilian endings favor Black. 16...b6 17 ¤c6 ¥b7 18 ¤xe7 ¤xe7 19 ¦ad1 ¦ad8 20 ¥h5 ¢g7 21 ¦f3 ¢f8 22 ¦fd3 ¤c8 23 ¥f3 ¢e7² Kaidanov,G−Fedorowicz,J/Seattle USA 2000.

15...¥d7 16 ¦d3 ¦ac8 17 f5 ¤e5 18 ¦h3 ¦g7 19 ¦f4 £d8 20 ¤d4 £g8

White's heavy pieces are piled against h7, but Black is very solid.

21 ¦fh4 b5 22 ¤d1 b4 23 ¤e3 ¦c5=

Van Riemsdijk,H−Rachels,S/Manila 1990.

15

Sozin Benko System − 7 Nb3 misc.

eighth moves [B57]

Last updated: 14/10/06 by TonyK

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 ¤c6 6 ¥c4 £b6 7 ¤b3 e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-wqnzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-+0 9+NsN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8 ¥f4

A clever move, that became popular after being recommended in one of the 'Beating the Sicilian' books. White threatens d6 and lures the black knight to e5, so that he can gain a tempo with f4. Others:

8 ¥g5 a6 The most logical, but there are others: (8...¤d7?! looks very passive, Black shouldn't be afraid of doubled f−pawns. 9 £h5 ¤de5 10 ¥e2 a6 11 0-0 ¥e7 12 ¦ad1 £d8

13 ¥xe7 £xe7 when Black allows a trade of dark−squared bishops, two things happen: 1) The d6−pawn becomes a target, and 2) Black's bishop could be important for kingside defense. 14 f4 ¤d7 15 £h3 Benjamin,J−Burnett,R/Philadelphia USA 1999., 8...¥d7?! 9 a4 ¤e5 10 ¥e2 ¥e7 11 f4 ¤g6 usually the knight on g6 provides White with a target, 12 f5 ¤e5 13 a5 £c7 14 0-0 0-0 15 £e1 ¢h8 16 £h4 £d8 17 ¦ad1 h6 18 £h3 ¤h7 19

¥e3± Velimirovic,D−Sedlak,N/Subotica YUG 2000., 8...¤e5 9 ¥b5+ ¥d7 10 a4 ¥e7 11

0-0 a6 12 ¥xd7+ ¤exd7 13 a5 £c7 this position is basically a ¥b5+ Rossolimo with the exchange happening much later, Zambrana,O−Franco Ocampos,Z/Buenos Aires ARG 2003) 9 ¥xf6 gxf6 10 £h5 (10 ¥e2 ¥d7 11 0-0 ¥e7 12 ¢h1 h5 after the game GM de Firmian suggested 13 Bxh5, and then playing some defense. If Black castles

16

queenside White's king looks the safer of the two. 13 f4 h4 14 £d2 ¤a5 15 ¤xa5 £xa5 16

¦ab1 ¦c8 17 ¥f3 £c5 18 h3 b5 19 ¦fc1 f5 20 exf5 £xf5 21 ¥g4 £g6 22 f5? exf5 23 ¥f3 0-0-+

Fedorowicz,J−Gulko,B/Salt Lake City USA 1999.) 10...¤d4 11 ¤xd4 £xd4 12 ¥b3 £e5 13 £h4 (13 £e2 to play for an advantage White must keep queens on, and play for f4.) 13...£g5 14 £h3 h5 15 £g3 b5 16 f4 £xg3+ 17 hxg3 ¥b7 18 a3 ¥g7 19 ¢f2 ¢e7 20 f5 ¥h6 21 ¦h2 ¥d2 22 fxe6 fxe6 23 ¦ah1 ¥xc3 24 bxc3 ¥xe4∓ Bajkovic,N−Stajic,S/Kragujevac YUG 2000, White's structure is miserable.

8 £e2 a6 (8...¥e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 ¥e3 £c7 11 f4 a6 12 a4 b6 13 ¥d3 ¤b4 14 g4 ¥b7 15 g5 ¤d7 16 ¤d4 g6

17 f5 exf5 18 exf5 ¦ae8 19 f6 ¥d8 20 £f2 ¤e5∓ Bibko,I−Bocharov,D/Novosibirsk RUS 2001, White's king is out in the wide open spaces!) 9 f4 £c7 10 g4 These Keres Attack bayonets are complicated, but Black has resources. 10...b5 11 ¥d3 ¥e7 12 g5 ¤d7 13 ¥e3 ¤c5 14 ¦g1 ¦b8 15 ¤xc5 dxc5 16 e5 ¥b7 17 0-0-0 ¤b4!∓ Velimirovic,D−Damljanovic,B/Belgrade YUG 2000, Black is much faster.

8 ¥d3 ¥e7 9 f4 (9 ¥e3 £c7 10 f4 a6 11 g4 b5 12 g5 ¤d7 13 £g4 ¤b6 14 a4?! Playing on both sides helps black. Now white's queenside comes apart after a few simple moves. 14...¤xa4

15 ¤xa4 bxa4 16 ¦xa4 ¦b8 17 ¥d2 d5! 18 e5 ¤b4 19 ¥xb4 ¥xb4+∓ Was Tate vs Fedorowicz World Open Philadelphia 2003) 9...0-0 10 £f3 ¤b4?! Black is losing time. 11 ¥e3 ¤xd3+ 12 cxd3 £a6 13 ¦d1 ¥d7 14 0-0 ¦fe8 15 £g3 ¢h8 16 ¥d4± Polgar,S−Hort,V/Munich GER 2000, Black is all tied up.

8 ¥e2 a6 9 g4 h6 10 ¥e3 £c7 11 f4 b5 12 a3 ¥b7?! I prefer to have this guy defending e6. 12...Rb8!? or 12...Be7 are ok 13 ¥f3 ¤d7 14 £e2 ¤b6 15 ¥xb6 £xb6 16 0-0-0 g5 17 e5 0-0-0 18 exd6 ¥xd6 19 f5 exf5 20 gxf5 ¢b8?! Madl,I−Peptan,C/Batumi GEO 1999 (20...¦he8!„)

8 a4 ¥e7 9 a5 £c7 10 ¥e3 0-0 11 ¥d3 ¤e5?! 11...¥d7 and ...¤b4 looks ok 12 f4 ¤xd3+ 13 cxd3 ¥d7 14 0-0 b5 15 axb6 axb6 16 £f3² Ruiz Gonzalez,G−Belichev,N/Budapest HUN 1999.

8 ¥e3 £c7 9 f4 (9 ¥e2 a6 10 f4 b5 11 ¥f3= Roberts,D−Lewis,A/Birmingham ENG 2001, White has a passive Scheveningen setup) 9...¥e7 (9...a6 10 a3 After White plays this castling queenside becomes risky, 10...b5 11 ¥e2 ¥e7 12 g4 ¤d7 (12...h6!? 13 g5?!

White shouldn't surrender the e5 point without a fight. 13...hxg5 14 fxg5 ¤d7³) 13 g5 ¦b8?! Black could do without this. 14 £d2 0-0 15 f5 ¦e8 16 f6 ¥f8 17 fxg7 (17 h4

White should go nuts with this. 17...b4 18 axb4 ¤xb4 19 h5 d5 is very double−edged, but fine for Black,) 17...¢xg7 18 ¥h5 ¤de5 19 ¤d4 ¢g8 20 £f2 ¥g7∓ Chuprys−Fedorowicz/Brantford Canada 2002 ) 10 0-0 a6 11 a4 0-0 12 ¥d3 b6 13 ¢h1 (13 £f3 ¥b7 (13...¦b8!? 14 g4 ¤b4 15 g5 ¤d7 16 f5 ¤e5 17 £g3 ¦e8³ Black is setup well for active counterplay.) 14 g4 ¦fe8 15 £h3 g6?! I'd rather not touch this side. Black must make white work for the break. (15...¥f8 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 ¤xe5 18 ¦xf6 ¤xd3∓) 16 g5 ¤d7 17 f5 ¥f8 18 ¦f4 ¤ce5 Very often a knight cemented on e5 saves the day. 19 ¦h4 h5 20 f6 d5 21 exd5 ¤g4 22 ¦f1 ¤de5 23 ¥d4 ¥c5?? (23...exd5∓) 24 ¤xc5+− Blokhuis−Berkmortel/2003) 13...¥b7!? More often than not Black is better off delaying this. It's good to keep a close watch on the e6 point. (13...¦b8 14 £e2 ¤b4 15

¤d4 ¤d7=, 13...¤b4!?) 14 £e2 ¤b4 15 ¤d4 ¤d7 16 ¤f3 (16 f5 e5 17 ¤f3 ¤f6=)

16...¦ae8 17 ¥d2 ¤c5 At this point Black is ok, maybe even slightly better. 18 ¦ae1 ¥c6 19 e5 ¤bxd3 (19...¤cxd3!? This looks like the correct knight. 20 cxd3 ¥xf3 21 £xf3 (21 ¦xf3? ¤c2! Winning the exchange.) 21...dxe5 22 fxe5 ¦d8³ Was another

17

more solid try.) 20 cxd3 ¤xa4 Strelnikov,S−Sharapov,E/Kharkov UKR 2002, greedy, but why not. White has nothing major going.

8...¤e5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-wq-zppsn-+0 9+-+-sn-+-0 9-+L+PvL-+0 9+NsN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¥e2

9 ¥b5+ ¥d7 10 ¥xd7+ (10 ¥xe5 dxe5 11 ¥xd7+ ¤xd7 12 0-0 ¥e7 13 £d3 a6 14 ¦ad1 ¦d8 15 £g3 0-

0 16 ¦d3 £c7 17 ¦fd1 b5³ Klima,L−Cvek,R/Ostrava CZE 2000, White has no chance for activity., 10 £d4 £xd4 11 ¤xd4 offers nothing.) 10...¤fxd7 (10...¤exd7!?) 11 £e2 a6 12 ¦d1 ¥e7 13 0-0 0-0 14 ¢h1 ¦ac8 15 ¥c1 ¦fd8 (15...¦fe8 it's always good to keep an eye on e6) 16 f4 ¤c4= Aarthie,R−Bakre,T/Calcutta IND 2000.

9 ¥e3 £c7 10 ¥e2 a6 (10...¥d7 transposes to the mainline) 11 f4 ¤c4 (11...¤c6 might be safer, 12 a4 b6 13 0-0 ¥e7 14 ¥f3 ¥b7 (14...¦b8!? Stepping off the h1-a8 diagonal makes sense. Black should remain as flexible as possible. Black should be in position to deal with the g4− g5 push. 15 g4 0-0 16 g5 ¤d7 17 ¥g2 ¦e8 Is a nice setup for black.) 15 £e1 ¤d7 16 ¢h1 (16 £g3 0-0 17 £h3 With black's bishop on b7 white might be able to weaken the e6,d5 square complex.) 16...0-0 17 ¦d1 ¦fe8 18 £f2 ¤a5 19 ¤d4 ¥f8 20 £g3 ¤c6 Voitsekhovsky,S−Andreev,E/St Petersburg RUS 2002 Was solid for black.) 12 ¥xc4 £xc4 13 £f3 ¥e7 (13...£c7 14 g4 b5 15 a3 ¥b7 16

g5 ¤d7 17 0-0-0 a3 and 0-0-0 is a bad mix 17...¦c8 18 ¢b1 ¥e7 19 ¦he1 ¤b6 20 ¥xb6 £xb6

21 f5 exf5 22 ¤d5 ¥xd5 23 exd5 £c7∓ Voicu,C−Peptan,C/Lasi ROM 1999.) 14 0-0-0 0-0 15 g4 ¤d7 16 g5 b5 17 ¢b1 £c7 18 ¤d4 ¦e8 19 h4 b4 20 ¤ce2 ¥b7„ Farkas,T−Susak,Z/Paks HUN 1999

9...¥d7

This is Black's most popular. 9...a6 also controls b5, 10 ¥g3 (10 0-0 ¥e7 11 ¢h1 £c7 12 a4 b6 13 ¥g3 ¥b7 14 ¤d2 0-0 15 f4

¤ed7³ Reefat,S−Wu Wenjin/Udaipur IND 2000, White's pieces are in no shape to attack., 10 ¥e3 £c7 11 f4 ¤c4 12 ¥xc4 £xc4 13 £f3 might be best, see 9 ¥e3, above)

10...h5!? Black attacks on the dark squares, 11 f3! ¥d7 12 ¥f2 £c7 13 £d4 ¥e7 14

18

0-0-0 ¦c8 15 £b6 £xb6 16 ¥xb6 ¦c6 17 ¥d4 ¥d8 18 f4 ¤g6 19 g3 e5 20 ¥e3 ¥g4 21 ¦he1 0-0 22 f5± Gormally,D−Chandler,M/Scarborough 2001.

9...¥e7!? 10 ¥e3 £c7 11 f4 ¤c6 12 £d2 0-0 13 0-0-0 ¦d8?! Black doesn't need this. (13...a6!) 14 ¥f3 a6 15 g4 b5 16 g5 ¤d7 17 £f2 ¥b7 (17...¦b8!?) 18 ¦hg1 ¦ac8 19 ¢b1 ¤a5 20 ¤xa5 £xa5 21 ¥d4± Dembo,Y−Ruiz Gonzalez,G/Budapest HUN 1999.

10 ¥e3

10 0-0 ¥e7 11 a4 0-0 12 a5 £c7 13 a6 ¦fb8 14 axb7 ¦xb7 15 ¥e3 ¦b4 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9zp-wqlvlpzpp0 9-+-zppsn-+0 9+-+-sn-+-0 9-tr-+P+-+0 9+NsN-vL-+-0 9-zPP+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16 f3 a5 17 ¦a2 a4 18 ¤d4 ¤c4 19 ¥xc4 £xc4= Polgar,J−Timman,J/Wijk aan Zee NED

2000, White didn't do much. 10 £d2 ¥e7 11 0-0-0 a6 12 g4 ¥c6 13 f3 h6?! this weakens the k−side and makes White's

life easy. 14 h4 £c7 15 g5 ¤h5 16 ¥h2 hxg5 17 hxg5 0-0-0 18 f4 ¤d7 19 ¤d4± Malinin,Y−Mishchenko,V/St Petersburg RUS 1999.

10...£c7 11 £d4

11 f4 ¤c4 12 ¥xc4 £xc4 13 £d3! £xd3 14 cxd3 Some experts believe White to be better after the exchange on d3, but I beg to differ. Black's structure is solid and the bishops are capable of exploding. 14...¥e7 15 a4 0-0 16 h3 ¦fc8 17 0-0 h6 18 ¦fc1 a6 19 a5 ¥c6= Dervishi,E−Efimov,I/Saint Vincent ITA 2000.

11 ¤b5!? ¥xb5 12 ¥xb5+ ¤ed7 (12...¤c6! 13 ¥d3 d5 is equal) 13 ¥d3 d5 14 exd5 ¤xd5 15 ¥d4 e5 16 £f3 ¥b4+ 17 c3 exd4 18 cxb4 ¤xb4 19 0-0 0-0 20 £e4 ¤f6 Wedberg,T−Veingold,A/Upplands Vasby SWE 2000.

11...¥e7 12 f4 ¤c6

12...¤g6!? 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 g4 e5 was OK in Polgar,J−Kramnik,V, Novgorod 1996.

13 £d2 0-0 14 0-0 a6 15 a4 b6 16 g4 ¥c8 17 g5 ¤d7 18 f5 ¦e8 19 f6 ¥f8?!

19...gxf6 20 gxf6 ¤xf6³

19

20 ¦ad1 ¤ce5 21 fxg7 ¢xg7 22 ¥h5±

Klimov,S−Korotylev,A/St Petersburg RUS 2001.

20

Sozin Benko System 7 Be3 [B57]

Last updated: 14/10/06 by TonyK

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 ¤c6 6 ¥c4 £b6 7 ¥e3!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-wqnzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LsNP+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This pawn sac has been overlooked, but deserves attention.

7...£xb2 8 ¤db5

8 ¤cb5? £b4+ 9 £d2 £xc4 10 ¤c7+ ¢d7 11 ¤xa8 ¤xe4 wins.

8...£b4 9 £e2 £a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9wqN+-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9P+P+QzPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black brings the queen back to safety. Others:

21

9...¥e6!? Is this really a move? 10 ¥xe6 fxe6 11 0-0 ¢f7 (11...£a5!? The always materialistic Fritz gives Black a slight pull.) 12 ¦ab1 £a5 13 ¦b3 g6 Polzin,R−Martinovic,S, Gleisdorf AUT 2000, around here Black looks ok, but things fell apart quickly.

9...¥g4!? 10 f3 ¤xe4 is interesting.

10 ¥d2 £d8 11 ¤d5 ¤xd5 12 exd5 ¤e5 13 ¥b3!?

This looks best. White plays to keep Black bottled up. 13 f4 ¥g4 14 ¤xd6+ exd6 15 ¥b5+ ¥d7 16 fxe5 dxe5 17 £xe5+ £e7 18 £xe7+ ¥xe7 19

¥d3 ¥c5 20 0-0-0 0-0-0 21 c4 f5= Khachian,M−Sargissian,G/Yerevan ARM 1999.

13...a6 14 f4!

14 ¤a3 £c7 15 f4 ¤g4 16 ¤c4 b5 17 ¥a5 £c5 18 ¤b6 ¦b8 19 ¤xc8 £xc8 20 c4 g6³ Armanda,I−Zelic,Z/Pula CRO 1999. After Black castles, White's game looks strange.

14...¤g4 15 ¤d4

15 ¤a3 f5!? This odd looking move seemed ok to me. If the ¤g4 redeploys to e4 Black would be in good shape,. Cela,A−Fedorowicz,J/New York USA 2004.

15...g6 16 ¥a4+ ¥d7 17 ¤c6!? £c8 18 ¥c3 ¦g8

Total confusion! It looks like the pieces were dropped on the board randomly.

19 h3 ¤h6÷

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+q+kvlr+0 9+p+lzpp+p0 9p+Nzp-+psn0 9+-+P+-+-0 9L+-+-zP-+0 9+-vL-+-+P0 9P+P+Q+P+0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Objectively Black is probably winning, Asauskas,H−Izoria,Z/Yerevan ARM 2000.

22

Sozin Benko System 7 Ndb5 [B57]

Last updated: 14/03/09 by Richard Palliser

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 ¤c6 6 ¥c4 £b6 7 ¤db5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-wqnzp-sn-+0 9+N+-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black's best plan is to transpose into a Scheveningen.

7...a6

7...¥g4 not a very good idea as this move helps White. 8 ¤d5! the simplest road to advantage. (8 f3 ¥d7 9 £e2 a6 10 ¥e3 £a5 11 ¤d4 e6 12 0-0-0 b5 13 ¥b3 b4? White was gonna play ¤d5 anyway. 14 ¤d5!? exd5 15 exd5 ¤e7 16 ¥c4 ¥b5 17 ¥xb5+ axb5 18 ¦he1©

Balogh,C−Ruiz Gonzalez,G/Budapest HUN 1999) 8...¤xd5 9 £xg4 ¤db4 (9...¤f6 10

£e2 e6 is solid) 10 £e2 ¤e5 11 ¥b3 ¤bd3+ 12 cxd3 £xb5 13 d4 £b4+ 14 £d2 ¤d3+ 15 ¢f1 £b5 16 £e2 a6 17 ¥d2 ¤xb2 18 ¦b1 ¤a4 19 ¥xf7++− Macieja,B−Krush,I/Presov SVK 2000.

8 ¥e3 £a5

23

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+p+-zppzpp0 9p+nzp-sn-+0 9wqN+-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...£d8?! undeveloping the queen, 9 ¤d4 ¤g4 10 ¤xc6 bxc6 11 0-0 (11 ¥c1 g6 12 h3 ¤e5 13

¥b3 ¥g7 14 f4 ¤d7 15 ¥e3 £a5 16 0-0 0-0 17 £c1 ¤c5 18 ¥f2 ¤xb3 19 axb3 £h5 20 £e3 ¦b8

21 g4 £h6 22 ¢g2= Feldman,B−Fernandez,J/New York USA 1999 even after all that Black looks ok.) 11...¤xe3 12 fxe3 e6 13 £f3 £f6!? 14 £h5 (14 £xf6 gxf6

15 ¦xf6 ¥g7 16 ¦f3 ¥e5©) 14...£e7 15 ¤a4 g6 16 £d1 ¥h6 17 £d4 0-0 18 ¤b6 ¥g7 19 £d2 ¦a7 20 ¤xc8 ¦xc8³ Navara,D−Miroshnichenko,E/Pardubice CZE 1999.

9 ¤d4 ¤e5

Kramnik's choice. 9...¤g4!? Black gains the bishop pair, but White gets development. 10 0-0 ¤ce5 11 ¥b3

¤xe3 12 fxe3 e6 13 £h5 g6 14 £h3 £c7 15 ¥a4+! XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9+pwq-+p+p0 9p+-zpp+p+0 9+-+-sn-+-0 9L+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+Q0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This surprising move puts Black's opening play in doubt. 15...¤c6 16 £f3 ¥g7 17 ¤xc6 0-

0 18 ¤d4+− Balzar,A−Dinstuhl,V/Mainz GER 2000. 9...e6 10 0-0 (10 £d2 ¥e7 11 0-0-0 £c7 12 ¥e2 ¤a5 13 g4 b5 14 g5 ¤d7 15 ¥d3?! How many times

can the guy move this piece? 15...¤e5 16 ¦hg1 ¤ac4 17 £e2 ¤xd3+ 18 £xd3 ¥b7³

Drmic,B−Palac,M/Bizovac CRO 2000, Black has taken advantage of White's loss of time.) 10...¤e5 (10...¥e7 11 ¥b3 0-0 12 f4 ¥d7 13 f5 ¤xd4 14 ¥xd4 exf5 15 exf5 ¥c6 is a good alternative) 11 ¥e2 b5 12 f4 ¤c4 in most cases the c4 pawn clogs Black's queenside play. Ideally Black would like an open c−file + b4 break possibilities, 13 ¥xc4 bxc4

24

14 £e2 (14 e5 ¤d5 15 £f3 ¥b7 16 ¤xd5 ¥xd5 17 £g3± Dgebuadze,A−Schabanel,S/Le Touquet FRA 2002 White's huge lead in development is tough to deal with.) 14...£c7 15 ¦ad1² Kabanof,N−Van Delft,M/Dieren NED 1999: this is very ugly for Black. The c4−pawn blocks the normal Sicilian c−file play.

10 ¤b3 £c7 11 ¥e2

11 ¥d3 e6 12 f4 (12 £e2!? a tricky move that keeps a wary eye on c4, see Macieja,B−Kotronias,V/Calvia ESP 2004.) 12...¤c6 13 ¤a4!? De Firmian−Fedorowicz/Chicago 2000.

11...e6 12 f4 ¤c4

12...¤c6 is safest

13 ¥xc4 £xc4 14 £f3

Black must be careful here due to lagging development. In the long term the bishop pair will do damage.

14...e5

14...£c7 with ...b5 to follow is possible. 14...¥d7 15 0-0-0 ¦c8 16 ¥d4 b5 Black has the bishop pair, and play on the c−line

Ivanchuk,V−Kramnik,V, Paris 1995.

15 f5 b5 16 0-0-0 ¥d7 17 ¢b1 ¦c8 18 ¦c1 h6=

Macieja,B−Blehm,P/Warsaw POL 2001.

25

Sozin Benko System 7 Nde2 [B57]

Last updated: 14/10/06 by TonyK

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 ¤c6 6 ¥c4 £b6 7 ¤de2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-wqnzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+NzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This move shouldn't cause Black any great difficulties. I'm in favor of Black delaying ...0-0

and getting on with ...b5 and ...¥b7.

7...e6 8 0-0

8 ¥b3 ¥e7 9 ¤g3 h5!? 10 ¥e3 £a5 11 f3 ¥d7 12 £d2 ¤e5 13 0-0 ¦c8 14 £f2 b6 15 ¦ad1 ¤c4 16 ¥xc4 ¦xc4 17 ¦d3 0-0 18 ¦fd1 ¦fc8 19 a3 ¥e8= De Vreugt,D−Gulko,B/Wijk aan Zee NED 2001, Black has good prospects on the queenside.

8...¥e7

8...a6 9 ¥b3 ¥e7 10 ¢h1 a) 10 ¥g5 0-0 (10...¥d7 11 ¤g3 0-0-0?? Might as well resign! 12 ¥e3 £c7 13 ¤a4 ¦dg8 14

c4 h5 15 ¥b6 £b8 16 ¦e1 h4 17 ¤f1 ¦h5 18 ¦c1 ¤e5 19 ¤e3 ¥c6 20 ¤d5!+− Plachetka,J−Kolesar,M/Pardubice CZE 2000.) 11 ¢h1 (11 ¥xf6!? gxf6 12 ¢h1 f4, f5 and ¤f4 looks like a good plan) 11...£c7 12 £d3 b5 13 ¦ad1 ¤e5 14 £d4 ¥b7 15 f4 ¤c6 16 £d3 b4 17 ¤b1 ¤a5³ Hunt,A−Krush,I/Hampstead ENG 2001, Black can take the b3−bishop at her leisure and has pressure on the a8−h1 diagonal.

b) 10 ¥e3 £c7 11 ¢h1 ¥d7?! (11...b5 has to be better) 12 f4 0-0 13 f5 b5 14 ¤g3?! (14 ¤f4!? looks very logical) 14...¢h8 15 ¤h5 ¤a5 16 ¥d4 £b7 17 ¤xf6 gxf6 18 £h5 ¤xb3 19 axb3 ¥c6 20 ¦f4 ¦g8 21 fxe6 fxe6 22 ¦xf6!+− Collins,S−Londers,J/Bruges BEL 1999

26

10...£c7 11 ¤g3 (11 f4 ¤a5 12 ¤d4 ¤xb3 13 axb3 0-0 14 £e1 ¦d8?! (14...b6!? Black can cause trouble on the a8−h1 diagonal) 15 ¤f3 b6 16 e5 ¤e8 17 ¥e3 ¦b8 18 ¥d4 b5 19 £f2 £c6 20 ¦ae1 d5?± Schneider,D−Buscemi,E/New York USA 1999 ) 11...h5!? an added bonus to delaying ...0-0. Black can cause serious trouble by running his h−pawn to h3. 12 h3 b5 13 a3 ¤a5 14 £d3 ¥b7 15 ¥a2 ¤c4 16 f4 ¦c8 17 ¤ge2 h4 18 f5 e5 19 ¤d5 ¥xd5 20 exd5 £c5 21 ¤c3 ¥d8 22 £f3 ¥b6³ Schneider,D−Krush,I/New York USA 2001.

9 ¥b3

9 a3!? This was also successful in Christiansen−Gulko. My preference is for Black to get going on the queenside first. 9...0-0 10 ¥a2 preserving the bishop. 10...¥d7 11 ¤g3 ¦ac8 12 ¢h1 ¤e5 13 f4 ¤c4 14 £e2 £a6 15 e5 ¤e8 16 a4 ¥h4?! (16...f5!?) 17 ¤ge4 d5 18 ¦d1 ¥e7 19 ¤d2 ¥c6 20 ¤xc4 dxc4 21 ¦d4± Lalic,B−Timman,J/Kilkenny IRL 1999.

9 ¢h1 0-0 10 a3 a6 11 ¥a2 £c7 12 ¤g3 (12 f4 b5 13 f5 ¤e5 14 ¤d4 ¤c4 If White's light−squared bishop can't be captured then it must be blocked, Todorovic,G−Damljanovic,B/Topola SCG 2004) 12...b5 13 f4 ¤a5 14 f5 ¤c4 15 ¥xc4 £xc4 16 ¥g5 ¦a7 17 ¦f4 £c5 18 £d2 ¦c7 19 ¦f3 £e5 (19...b4 20 axb4 £xb4= Saladen,R−Pupo,E/Cali COL 1999 (36) Black's has decent counterplay.) 20 ¦d1 a5 21 b4!± This clamps down on any active counter chances, Christiansen,L−Gulko,B/Salt Lake City USA 1999.

9...0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-wqnzppsn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+LsN-+-+-0 9PzPP+NzPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

10 ¤g3

10 £d3 a6 (10...¤a5 11 £g3 ¢h8 12 ¥e3 £a6 13 ¦ad1 b5 14 e5 dxe5 15 £xe5 ¤xb3 16 axb3 b4 17 ¦a1

£b7 18 ¤a4 ¤g4 19 £g3 ¤xe3³ Tuturin,S−Belichev,N/Budapest HUN 1999 Black has the bishop pair for nothing.) 11 ¥g5 £c7 12 ¦ad1 ¤e5 13 £g3 b5 14 a3 ¥b7 15 ¦d4 ¦ac8 16 ¦fd1 ¦fd8 17 ¤f4 £c5 18 ¥xf6?! ¥xf6 19 ¤h5 ¤f3+! 20 £xf3 ¥xd4∓ Schuermans,R−Berkvens,J/BEL 2000.

27

10 ¥g5 ¦d8 11 ¤g3 h6 12 ¥e3 £c7 13 ¤h5 ¥d7 14 f4 ¤a5 15 ¥d4 ¤xh5 16 £xh5 d5!? White was developing a nice initiative so Black sacs a pawn to break it. 17 exd5 ¥c5 18 ¥xc5 £xc5+ 19 ¢h1 ¤xb3 20 axb3 exd5 21 £xd5 £c7 22 £a5 b6 23 £h5 ¥c6© De Vreugt,D−Gulko,B/Esbjerg DEN 2000.

10...a6

10...£a6!? This seems very passive and is time consuming. 11 ¤h5 b5 12 ¥g5 ¤xh5 13 ¥xe7 ¤xe7 14 £xh5 b4 15 ¤e2 ¥b7 16 ¤g3 £b6 17 a3 (17 a4!? Attempting to lock the queenside looks best. Then white can try f4 f5 ideas or pile on d6.) 17...a5 18 axb4 axb4 19 £g5² Black's lack of counterplay gives white a slight pull. Henrikas−Paragua 41st World Junior Goa 2002

11 ¢h1 ¤a5 12 ¥g5 h6 13 ¥e3 £c6 14 f4 b5 15 e5 ¥b7 16 ¦f2 ¤e8 17 £g4 ¤xb3 18 axb3 dxe5 19 fxe5 f5!

A typical Sicilian defensive move,

20 £h3 ¢h7 21 ¤ce2 ¥c5∓

Schneider,D−Goldin,A/Connecticut USA 2000, Black's ¥b7−£c6 battery keeps White occupied.

28

Sozin Benko System 7 Nxc6 [B57]

Last updated: 08/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥c4 £b6 7.¤xc6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-wqNzp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

I think this is White's most dangerous line. If it means anything it was also Fischer's choice.

7...bxc6 8.0-0 g6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zp-+-zpp+p0 9-wqpzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Sensible. 8...e5 If Black plays this he had better deal with the c4−bishop. 9.b3 ¥e7 10.¥b2 ¥g4?

Black can't afford to waste time. (10...0-0!? or, 10...¥e6!? doesn't look too bad) 11.£d3 0-0 12.¤a4 £c7 13.f3 ¥h5 14.¦ad1 ¥g6 15.£e2 ¦ad8 16.¦d2 ¢h8 17.g3 ¤h5 18.¥d3² Leventic,I−Jankovic,A/Bizovac CRO 2001.

29

8...e6 I prefer this over the alternatives. Black should try an early ...¤d7 to bother, or trade−off, the c4 bishop. 9.£e2 ¥e7 (9...¤d7!? chasing down the c4−bishop makes good sense, 10.¦d1 (10.¤a4 £a5 11.¥b3 ¥a6! forcing c4 and shutting down the Sozin bishop, Ristic,N−Nikolic,N/Budva SCG 2003, 10.b3 ¥e7 11.¥b2 0-0 transposes below)

10...¥e7 11.¦b1 0-0 12.¥f4 £c7 13.¦d2 ¥b7 14.¦bd1 e5 15.¥g3 a5 16.¤a4 ¦ad8 17.¥b3 ¤b6 18.c4 (18.¤xb6!?) 18...¤xa4 19.¥xa4 £b6 20.¦c2 £b4 21.b3= Mezentsev,V−Lobo,R/San Francisco USA 2000, the bishop on a4 is a big pawn.) 10.b3 0-0 11.¥b2 ¤d7 this was Kramnik's choice,

a) 11...¥b7?! 12.¦ad1 (12.e5!) 12...c5?! (12...¤d7!? intending to harass the c4 bishop or to challenge the b2 bishop with a timely ...¥f6.) 13.¦d3 ¥c6 14.¦g3 ¦fd8 15.¤d5! ¥xd5 16.exd5 e5 17.f4 e4 18.¦h3 ¦ab8 19.g4± Kersten,U−Bischoff,D/Altenkirchen GER 1999.

b) 11...£c7 12.f4 d5 13.¥d3 ¥b7 (13...c5? 14.exd5 exd5 15.¤xd5 ¤xd5 16.£e4) 14.¦ae1 ¦fe8 15.¢h1 I like White's plan here. Black has to take this build−up seriously. 15...c5?! (15...¥f8 keeping the e5, f5 plan under control.) 16.e5 ¤d7 17.f5! exf5 18.e6 ¤f6 19.exf7+ ¢xf7 20.£e6+ ¢f8 21.£xf5+− Shaposhnikov,E−Lugovoi,A/Saint Petersburg 1999.

c) 11...d5!? 12.exd5 cxd5 13.¥xd5 exd5 14.£xe7 ¦e8 15.£a3 ¥a6 16.¤a4 £c7 and ...¤g4 is dangerous for White

d) 11...e5 is popular. 12.¤a4 £c7 13.f4 (13.¥d3 e5 Dervishi,E−Lapiccirella,M/Bratto ITA 2001) 13...¥b7 14.¦ad1

¦ae8 15.¦d3 Golubev,M−Kuznetsov,S/Ordzhonikidze UKR 2001.

9.¥e3!?

9.e5!? dxe5 10.£e2 £c7 (10...£d4 11.¥e3 £d6 12.¦ad1 £c7 13.f4!? was Topalov,V−Kramnik,V, Novgorod 1997) 11.f4 e4!? This is a reasonable way of bailing out. Black's pawn structure is slightly inferior but his position is solid. 12.¤xe4 ¤xe4 13.£xe4 ¥g7 14.c3 0-0 15.¥e3 ¦b8 16.¦f2 ¥f5 17.£f3 ¦fd8 18.¦d1 h5 19.¦fd2 ¥g4 20.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 21.¦xd8+ £xd8= Mueller,K−Csom,I/Lippstadt GER 1999.

9.¥b3 ¥g7 10.¥f4 £c7 11.¦e1 ¤d7 12.£d2 0-0 13.¥h6 ¤b6 14.¥xg7 ¢xg7 15.f4 c5 16.¤d5 ¤xd5 17.¥xd5 ¦b8 18.¦e3 e6 19.¥c4 d5?! (19...¦d8!?) 20.exd5 £xf4 21.b3 exd5 22.¥xd5± Wedberg,T−Barkhagen,J/Hasselbacken SWE 2001.

9.a4 ¥g7 (9...a5!? or, 9...¥a6!? trading off the attacker) 10.a5 £c7 11.f4 0-0 12.h3 ¦d8 13.£e2 d5 14.¥d3 ¦b8 15.e5 ¤e8 16.£f3 e6!? 17.h4 c5 18.h5 c4 19.¥e2 d4 20.¤d1 ¥b7= Kristovic,M−Palac,M/Bizovac CRO 2000, Black is very active.

9.£e1!? this move has some merit as an alternative to the 9 e5 pawn sac. 9...¥g7 10.e5 dxe5 11.£xe5 £b4 12.£f4 £d6 13.£xd6 exd6 14.¦e1+ ¢f8 15.¥f4 ¤e8 16.¦ad1± Gajsin,E−Ehrenfeucht,W/Koszalin POL 1999, Black is seriously underdeveloped.

9...£xb2!?

Accepting the pawn seems rather risky, but it has to be admitted that refusing the pawn with 9...£a5 or 9...£c7, while less critical, also makes sense.

9...£c7 10.f4 ¥g7 11.¢h1 0-0 12.¥d4 ¦b8 13.£e2 a5 14.b3 e5 15.fxe5 ¤g4! A nice idea. Black gains control of the crucial e5 point. 16.¤a4 ¤xe5 17.h3 £e7 18.¦ad1? ¥g4

30

19.hxg4 £h4+ 20.¢g1 ¤xg4 21.g3 £xg3+ 22.¢h1 d5∓ Rodriguez Gerrero,E−Damljanovic,B/Dos Hermanas ESP 2000.

9...£a5 10.f4 ¥g7 11.e5 ¤g4! allowing this can't be right. 12.¥d4 c5 13.¥f2 0-0 14.¤d5 dxe5 15.¥e1?! (15.¤xe7+ ¢h8 16.¥d5÷ was best) 15...£d8 16.¥h4 ¥f6 17.£e1 ¥e6 18.¦d1 ¥xd5 19.¥xd5 ¥xh4 20.£xh4 ¤e3 21.¥xf7+ ¦xf7 22.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 23.¦e1 exf4∓ Berndt,S−Popovic,P/Fuerstenfeld AUT 2001.

10.¥d4!?

White has a huge lead in development.

10...e5 11.¦b1 £a3 12.¦b3 £a5 13.¥e3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zp-+-+p+p0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9wq-+-zp-+-0 9-+L+P+-+0 9+RsN-vL-+-0 9P+P+-zPPzP0 9+-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...£c7 14.¥g5 ¥g7 15.¥xf6 ¥xf6 16.£f3 ¢e7?

16...¥g7 17.¤d5 cxd5 18.¥xd5 ¥e6 19.¥xa8 ¥xb3 20.cxb3 0-0 21.¥d5± is sadly Black's best chance

17.¦fb1 h5 18.¥d5 ¥g4 19.¦b7 ¥xf3 20.¦xc7+ ¢d8 21.¦xc6 ¥g4 22.¦xd6+ ¢e7 23.¦a6+−

Arizmendi−Waitzkin,J/Mermaid Bach Club 1999.

31

Boleslavsky Variation − 6 Be2 e5 7 Nf3 &

Intro [B58]

Last updated: 11/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥e2 e5

6...¤xd4!? this rare approach has been favoured by the Russian Grandmaster Konstantin Chernyshov, 7.£xd4 g6 8.¥g5 ¥g7 see Abkarian,S−Pilavov,G/Stanitsa−Luganskaya 2010.

7.¤f3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPP+LzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is probably the best.

7...h6

To stop ¥g5xf6. 7...¥e7 8.0-0 0-0?! Black must play ...h6 to keep some control over d5. 9.¥g5 h6?! wasting

even more time (9...¥e6!?) 10.¥xf6 ¥xf6 11.¤d5 ¥e7 12.c3 f5? weakening more light squares, 13.exf5 ¥xf5 14.£b3 ¢h8 15.£xb7 ¥d7 16.£a6 ¦b8 17.b4 £c8 18.¤xe7 ¤xe7 19.£xd6+− Gashimov,V−Ovezov,D/Oropesa del Mar ESP 1999.

8.0-0 ¥e7 9.¦e1

32

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-vlpzp-0 9-+nzp-sn-zp0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPP+LzPPzP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White plays to stop Black's freeing ...d5−move by indirectly attacking e5.

9...0-0 10.h3 ¥e6

10...a6 11.b3 ¥e6 12.¥b2 £a5 13.a3 ¦fc8 14.¥f1 ¤b8 15.¦c1? (15.b4 £c7 16.¦c1 ¥c4=)

15...¦xc3! 16.£d2 ¦c5 17.b4 £b6 18.bxc5 £xb2 19.cxd6 ¥d8 20.£b4 £xb4 21.axb4 ¤c6∓ Vallejo Pons,F−Avrukh,B/Istanbul TUR 2000.

11.¥f1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzp-0 9-+nzplsn-zp0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-+N+P0 9PzPP+-zPP+0 9tR-vLQtRLmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...¤b8!?

This redeployment, whilst popular, takes a lot of time. Alternatives: 11...£a5!? This is Black's best and safest road to equality. 12.¥d2 £d8 (12...£c7 seems to

make more sense, as Black keeps his rooks connected, but 13.¤b5 £b6 14.c4 allows White a Maroczy Bind,) 13.¤a4 (13.¥c1 £a5 14.¥d2 is a well known drawing repetition) 13...¤h7 (13...d5!? if Black can play this he should, 14.exd5 ¤xd5!? 15.¤xe5

¤xe5 16.¦xe5 £c7! with adequate compensation for the pawn, Georgiev,K−

33

Balogh,C/Kusadasi TUR 2006. ) 14.c4 ¤g5 15.¥xg5 (15.¤c3 ¤xf3+ 16.£xf3 ¥g5

17.¦ad1 ¤d4 18.£d3 ¦c8 19.b3 ¥xd2 20.¦xd2 £g5= Barua,D−Khalifman,A/Las Vegas USA 1999.) 15...hxg5 16.¤c3 ¥f6 17.£d3 g4 (17...¤d4!? looks alright) 18.hxg4 ¥xg4 19.¤d5 g6 20.¥e2 ¥g7 21.b4 ¥e6 22.a3 ¦c8 23.¦ad1² Barua,D−Khalifman,A/Las Vegas USA 1999, Black's position is extremely passive.

11...a6 12.a4?! this isn't needed. It prevents ...b5 which Black shouldn't play anyway. Black's control of b4 can be quite useful. (12.¤d5 b5 13.c3 (13.a4!?) 13...¤a5 14.¤xe7+?! picking up the bishop pair, but freeing Black's game. 14...£xe7 15.¤h4 ¦fe8 16.£f3 ¤c6 17.¤f5 ¥xf5 18.£xf5 b4= De Wit,D−Apicella,M/Albufeira Algarve POR 1999.) 12...¦c8 (12...£c7 13.b3 ¤b4 14.¥b2 ¦fd8 15.¤d2 ¥f8 16.¥c4 £d7

17.¥xe6 £xe6 18.¤c4 d5 19.exd5 ¤fxd5 20.¤xd5 ¦xd5³ Wu Wenjin−Bu Xiangzhi/Qingdao CHN 1999, Black's forces are very active.) 13.b3 £a5 14.¥b2 ¦fd8 15.£d2 ¤b4 16.¦ac1 d5! Black breaks out with the better game, 17.¤xd5 ¤fxd5 18.exd5 ¦xd5 19.¥d3 ¤xd3 20.£xa5 ¦xa5∓ Zelcic,R−Dreev,A/Las Vegas USA 1999.

12.b3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzp-0 9-+-zplsn-zp0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+PsN-+N+P0 9P+P+-zPP+0 9tR-vLQtRLmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12.a4 a6 13.a5 ¤bd7 14.¤d5 ¤xd5 15.exd5 ¥f5 16.c4 ¥g6! the bishop leaves the h7−

square for the black king, and can sometimes come to h5 to pin the f3−knight. (This is why I realised long ago that this is superior to the 'obvious' 16...¥h7 17.b4 ¦c8

18.¥b2 e4 19.¤d2 f5?! Black's position is full of holes and White's counterplay looks easy to manage, Van der Wiel,J−Nijboer,F/Leeuwarden NED 2001) 17.b4 all part of White's plan of exploiting his queenside majority, 17...¦e8 18.¥b2 e4 19.¤d2 ¥g5 20.¦a3 ¦c8 21.¥d4 ¤e5 this is Black's ideal setup, the knight attacks c4 and threatens to come into d3, Guliyev,N−Korotylev,A/Moscow RUS 2006.

12.¤h4?! Fighting for the wrong light square. 12...¤c6 13.¤f5 ¥xf5 14.exf5 d5³ 15.f4 exf4 16.¥xf4 ¥d6 17.¥xd6 £xd6 Martirosov,V−Yermolinsky,A/Stratton Mountain USA 2000.

12...a6 13.¥b2

34

13.a4 £c7 (13...¤bd7 14.¥b2 ¦c8 is the mainline) 14.¥b2 ¦e8 15.¤d2 ¤c6 16.¤c4 ¤d4 the knight looks nice here, but it's only temporary, 17.a5 ¦ad8 18.¤e3 £c6 19.¦a4 ¦c8 20.¤cd5 ¥xd5 21.exd5 ¤xd5 22.¦c4!+− Zelcic,R−Kozul,Z/Bizovac CRO 2001.

13...¤bd7 14.a4 ¦c8 15.a5

15.¤d2!? ¦e8 (15...¤c5! 16.a5 £c7 17.¤c4 £c6 is better) 16.¤c4 aiming to bring the knight to e3, Felgaer,R−Illescas Cordoba,M/Dos Hermanas ESP 2005.

15...¦e8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwqr+k+0 9+p+nvlpzp-0 9p+-zplsn-zp0 9zP-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+PsN-+N+P0 9-vLP+-zPP+0 9tR-+QtRLmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...¦c6 16.¤d5 ¥xd5 17.exd5 ¦c5 18.b4 ¦xd5 19.¤d2! e4 20.c4 ¦f5 21.¤xe4± with two

bishops and the better structure, Volokitin,A−Kozul,Z/Ohrid MKD 2001. 15...£c7 16.¤d2 d5!? is a good choice, Zagrebelny,S−Aseev,K, St Petersburg 1997. 15...¦c5?! 16.b4 ¦c8 17.¤d5 ¤xd5 18.exd5 ¥f5 19.c4 White's queenside action is very

fast, Neiksans,A−Barber,H/Panormo GRE 2001.

16.¤d5

16.¤d2?! not as good as the direct ¤d5, 16...¤b8 17.¥c4 ¤c6 18.¥xe6 fxe6 19.¤c4 £c7 20.¤a4 ¦cd8= Sebe,R−Vukovic,Z/Bucharest ROM 2000.

16...¤xd5 17.exd5 ¥f5 18.c4 ¥g6 19.b4 e4 20.¤d4 ¤e5 21.£b3

Ganguly,S−Zhang Zhong/Shenyang CHN 1999 − Black has good play.

35

Boleslavsky Variation − 7 Nb3 [B59]

Last updated: 11/03/11 by Richard Palliser

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥e2 e5

This creates an unbalanced situation where the fight is over the d5 point. Can Black break with ...d5 or will White play ¤d5 with a spatial advantage? This will determine the outcome of the battle.

6...e6 transposing into a Scheveningen is possible.

7.¤b3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+NsN-+-+-0 9PzPP+LzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

I believe 7 ¤f3 gives White better chances to play for an advantage.

7...¥e7 8.0-0

8.g4?! White is better off playing positionally and trying for a timely ¤d5, as this move loosens White's king for nothing. Castling queenside for White isn't advised. 8...h6 9.h4 a5 10.a4 ¤b4 White's king has no place to hide, 11.¥f3 ¥e6 12.g5 hxg5 13.¥xg5 ¦c8 14.£d2 £b6 threatening ...¤xc2, 15.¥d1 it's not a pretty picture. 15...¥c4 16.¥e3 £c7 17.¥f3 d5 18.exd5 e4 19.d6 ¥xd6 20.¤xe4 ¤xe4 21.¥xe4 £e7!-+ Galego,L−Blalock,R/Loures POR 1999, White is getting hit from all sides.

8...0-0 9.¢h1

The king moves from the g1-a7 diagonal,

36

9.¥e3 a5 10.a4 ¤b4 11.f4 ¥e6 12.¥f3? (12.¢h1 is forced) 12...exf4 13.¥xf4 ¤xc2 14.£xc2 £b6+ 15.£f2 £xf2+ 16.¦xf2 ¥xb3 17.¦d2 ¦fd8 18.¤b5 d5 19.¤c7 ¦ac8 20.exd5 ¥b4 21.¦ad1 ¥xa4-+ Pinero Fernandez,X−Campos Moreno,J/Paretana ESP 2000.

9.¦e1 a5 10.a4 ¥e6 11.¥f1 ¤b4 12.¥g5 ¤xe4?? sometimes this trick works, but not with a knight hanging on b4. (12...¦c8!? is at least equal) 13.¥xe7 ¤xc3 14.bxc3 £xe7 15.cxb4 Resika,N−Tian Tian/Budapest HUN 1999.

9.¥g5?! ¥e6 (9...¤xe4! looks good, 10.¤xe4 (10.¥xe7 ¤xc3 11.¥xd8 ¤xd1 12.¥c7 ¤xb2)

10...¥xg5 11.¤xg5 £xg5 12.£xd6 ¦d8³) 10.¢h1 (10.£d2 a5 11.a4 When I was playing Black in this variation I was happy to see this move. White should avoid it at all costs. Black's ...¤b4 in combination with ...¦c8 gives black the better game, 11...¤b4 12.¦ad1 ¦c8 Del Bosco,R−Chemin,V/Sao Paulo BRA 2003.) 10...a5 11.¥xf6 ¥xf6 12.a4 White should always try to avoid this. Black's control of b4 is more important than White's of b5. 12...¦c8 13.¥g4 ¤b4 14.¥xe6 fxe6 15.£g4 ¦e8 16.£e2 d5 17.¦ad1 d4 18.¤a1 ¤a6 19.¤b5 ¤c5 20.b3 £e7³ Arruda,I−Milos,G/Sao Paulo BRA 1999, White's a1 knight looks completely ridiculous.

9.f4 a5!? 10.a4 ¤b4 11.¢h1 transposes.

9...a5 10.a4 ¤b4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-vlpzpp0 9-+-zp-sn-+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9Psn-+P+-+0 9+NsN-+-+-0 9-zPP+LzPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

Exploiting the newly−created semi−outpost on b4. 10...¥e6 11.f4 exf4 12.¥xf4 d5 is Ivanchuk,V−Vovk,Y/Amplico Life rapid, Warsaw 2009

11.f4 ¥d7

11...¥e6 is more common, but 12.f5 ¥d7 13.¥g5 ¥c6 14.¥xf6 ¥xf6 15.¤d5 might favour White.

12.¥f3

12.¥e3 ¥c6 13.¥f3 transposes.

12...¥c6 13.¥e3

37

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+p+-vlpzpp0 9-+lzp-sn-+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9Psn-+PzP-+0 9+NsN-vLL+-0 9-zPP+-+PzP0 9tR-+Q+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.¤d5? White loses a pawn for zero comp. 13...¥xd5 14.exd5 e4 15.¥e2 ¤bxd5 16.¤d4

¤c7 17.¤f5 ¦e8 18.¤xe7+ £xe7 19.¥e3 ¤fd5 20.¥d4 ¤e6∓ Mateus,M−Abreu,A/Cali COL 1999.

13.£e2 £c7 is also common.

13...£c7

13...¦e8 followed by Salov's regrouping plan: 14.¦f2 £b8 15.¦d2 b6 and ...£b7 is a decent alternative.

14.£d2 b6

Negi,P−Kempinski,R/German Bundesliga 2011.

38