pedersen, steffen - easy guide to the bb5 sicilian

easy guide to the

Bbs Sicilian

by Steffen Pedersen

EVERYMAN CHESS Everyman Chess, formerly Cadogan Chess, is published by Everyman Publishers, London

First published in 1999 by Everyman Publishers pIc, formerly Cadogan Books pIc, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD in association with Gambit Publications Ltd, 69 Masbro Road, London W14 OLS.

Copyright © 1999 Gambit Publications Ltd

The right of Steffen Pedersen to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

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, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 85744230 X

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, 6 Business Park Road, P.O. Box 833, Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-0833. Telephone 1-8002430495 (toll free)

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD tel: 01715397600 fax: 0171 3794060

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparov Series Editor: Murray Chandler

Edited by Graham Burgess and typeset by Petra Nunn for Gambit Publications Ltd.

Printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts.

Contents

Symbols and Bibliography 4 Introduction S

Part 1: The Rossolimo Variation (1 e4 cS 2 tZJf3 tZJc6 3 JibS) 1 Rossolimo Variation with 3 ... g6 17 2 Rossolimo Variation with 3 ... e6 S3 3 Rossolimo Variation: Other Third Moves 69

Part 2: The Moscow Variation (1 e4 cS 2 tZJf3 d6 3 JibS+) 4 Moscow Variation with 3 ... Jid7 74 5 Moscow Variation with 3 ... tZJc6 98 6 Moscow Variation with 3 ... tZJd7 116

Index of Variations 127

Symbols + check ++ double check # checkmate x capture !! brilliant move ! good move !? interesting move ?! dubious move ? bad move ?? blunder +- White is winning ± White has a large advantage ;!;; White is slightly better = the game is equal

+ Black is slightly better =+= Black has a large advantage -+ Black is winning Ch championship Cht team championship

Bibliography Books ECO B (3rd edition), Sahovski

Informator 1997 ECO B (2nd edition), Sahovski

Informator 1984 Nunn, Burgess, Ernrns, Gallagher:

Nunn's Chess Openings, GambitlEveryman 1999

Gallagher: Beating the Anti-Sicilians, Batsford 1994

Kraut: Sicilianisch mit 3. Lb5( +), Schachverlag Kania 1996

Wch world championship Ct candidates event IZ interzonal event Z zonal event OL olympiad ECC European Clubs Cup jr junior event worn women's event mem memorial event rpd rapidplay game corr correspondence game qual qualifying event 1-0 the game ends in a win

for White 112-112 the game ends in a draw 0-1 the game ends in a win

for Black (n) nth match game (D) see next diagram

Razuvaev, Matsukevich: The Anti-Sicilian: 3 !i.b5 ( +), Batsford 1984

Periodicals Informator 1-73 New In Chess Yearbook 1-49 Various magazines

Electronic ChessBase, Chess Assistant, The Week In Chess

Introduction

The main-line Sicilian is one of the most complex of all opening systems, and with its immense number of branches, it can be a full-time job to keep up to date with the latest developments. Therefore we have seen a strong tendency for White to avoid the main lines in recent practice. There has been a move towards systems where a general understanding of the ideas is more important than being able to memorize lots of variations. The 2 c3 Sicilian is one such line, while the ..tbS Sicilian, the subject of this book, is a more aggressive and increasingly popular way to avoid the main lines.

This book covers both main forms of i.bS Sicilian:

The Rossolimo Variation (1 e4 cS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 ..tbS).

B

The Moscow Variation (1 e4 cS 2 tiJf3 d6 3 ..tbS+).

Is the ..tbS Sicilian better than the Open Sicilian (i.e. 3 d4 in either case)? Objectively, it is simply impossible to answer that question as the two approaches lead to wholly different types of game. The Open Sicilian gives rise to wide-open positions with lots of possibilities for both sides. Those who are fortunate enough to possess fine developed calculating skills, and are tactically alert, will find themselves at ease in such positions - Kasparov being one such person.

The ..tbS Sicilian leads to completely different positions, where it is more important to understand and know why and where to put your pieces. There are of course exceptions, but generally the positions become

6 Easy Guide to the i.b5 Sicilian

more closed, and knowing the common ideas and strategies will be of great benefit.

In this book, I have tried to emphasize this aspect without neglecting the theoretical coverage.

The Scope of this Book and the .i.b5 Sicilian 3 .i.b5(+) is not a universal antidote to the Sicilian - it can only be used against Black's two most popular moves after 1 e4 c5 21L1f3, viz. 2 ... d6 and 2 ... 1L1c6. Therefore to build a complete anti-Sicilian repertoire, you will need to learn some lines against the rarer lines like 2 ... g6, 2 ... 1L1f6 and 2 ... a6.

"Are you not forgetting one move?" I hear some of you think. Yes, it is also necessary to decide what to do against 2 ... e6. One can still try to lure Black into a .i.b5 Sicilian with 3 lLlc3, intending 3 ... 1L1c6 4 .i.b5 (Line B of Chapter 2), but here White needs an answer to 3 ... a6.

Repertoires for White and Black The theoretical coverage of the Rossolimo Variation (2 ... 1L1c6 3 .i.b5) and the Moscow Variation (2 ... d6 3 .i.b5+) is enough to form a repertoire for White in both these variations. Where the choice between White's options is largely a matter of taste, I have frequently provided some alternatives for White by covering more than one line.

This book also provides coverage for those who play the black side of the Rossolimo or Moscow, though here I have been rather more ruthless in my

selection of lines. Against 1 e4 c5 2 1Llf3 d6 3 .i.b5+ I advocate 3 ... .i.d7 4 .i.xd7+ lLlxd7, while after 1 e4 c5 2 1Llf3 lLlc6 3 .i.b5, it is the main line, 3 ... g6, that I have chosen, and hence have provided enough coverage of this line for Black to form a repertoire with it.

Therefore, the Theory Sections of Chapters 2, 3, 5 and 6, and Line B of Chapter 4, are designed primarily to equip White to play these lines. In Chapter 1 and Line A of Chapter 4 I have given material for both sides - including recommendations for Black against inferior white moves, and recommendations for White against inferior black moves, in addition to a particularly detailed discussion of the critical variations.

The introduction to each chapter discusses the key themes in that variation, and is relevant to players of either colour.

Pawn Structures Before we enter the main body of this book, I think it is worth getting acquainted with some of the most common structures arising in the .i.b5 Sicilian (i.e. both after 2 ... 1L1c6 3 .i.b5 and 2 ... d6 3 .i.b5+). In my opinion it is most important that you have a good understanding of how to play the positions arising. Often White's advantage is not very great out of the opening but all the same players such as the young Russian stars Morozevich and Rublevsky keep winning with White -simply because they know so well what to do after the opening. Here, we

Introduction 7

shall first take a brief look at some of The Hedgehog the most common pawn structures that arise. They will be referred to extensively throughout this book, so it is worth familiarizing yourself with them. The main structures are:

• The Maroczy Bind • The Hedgehog • The French Structure One could easily mention a few

more, but these are the most important.

The Maroczy Bind

The diagram shows the typical structure of the Maroczy Bind. White's e- and c-pawns exert a firm grip on the centre, while Black's structure is solid. The d5-square almost screams for a white knight to occupy it, while Black usually seeks his counterplay by means of a ... b5 break on the queenside, which is in general ably assisted by pressure from the strong fianchettoed bishop on g7. This advance might not always be so easy for Black to carry out, but Black's position tends in any event to be quite solid.

The Hedgehog structure looks quite similar to the Maroczy Bind. The only difference is that in the Hedgehog Black does not fianchetto his darksquared bishop. Here Black's control of the centre is stronger, but at the cost of a backward pawn on d6, which can easily end up terribly weak. On the other hand, the modern interpretation is that the Hedgehog contains a lot of hidden dynamism. White must be very careful not to over-extend, and must be constantly watching out for ... b5 and ... d5 breaks.

The French Structure The French structure (see diagram overleaf> can arise when White adopts a plan involving c3 and d4, and Black counters with ... d5. The fixed centre that results is highly reminiscent of the French Defence, except that Black has often managed to exchange off his 'bad' light-squared bishop. Black's structure is the more solid, and he would be doing well in most endings.

8 Easy Guide to the i..b5 Sicilian

However, in the middle game White's space advantage is an important factor, and he often tries to turn it to account by launching a kingside attack.

Inspirational Games The following four games serve as nice appetizers before the main dish. While there is undoubtedly much to be learned from these games, they have not been selected with any particular intention of them being of prime historical or theoretical importance.

Game 1 Kasparov - Salov

Dortmund 1992

1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 tbe6 3 i.b5 g6 4 ..txe6 This was not exactly a revolution

around this time but it was notable that the World Champion preferred to surrender his bishop-pair at this early stage, and it was only after Kasparov's use of it that interest in this particular system exploded.

4 ... bxe6 5 0-0 i.g7 6 l:tel tbf6

This system is now considered quite difficult to handle for Black as White develops a strong initiative based on his large space advantage. One year later Salov played 6 .. .f6!? and achieved a good position against the very same opponent.

7 e5 tbd5 8 e4 tbe7 9 d4 exd4 10 \ixd4 (D)

B

This is a critical position. I do not think that Black is able to equalize here, but for more details, please see Chapter 1.

10 ... 0-0?! 11 'it'h4 d6 In order to free his position Black

needs to get rid of White's e-pawn. Black would like to challenge it with l1...f6 but this would be wrong in this position in view of 12 exf6 exf6 (12 ... ..txf6 13 tbg5!) 13 c5! ±.

12 i.h6 tbe6 13 tbe3 f6 This is forced, as White was ready

to strengthen his position even further with 14l:tad1.

14..txg7?! This turns out well in the game but

only with a little cooperation from

Introduction 9

Salov. White should instead play 14 exf6!, when Black is in a very difficult situation after 14 .. .lhf6 (14 ... .txf6 also runs into trouble after 15 ttJg5 .l:tb8 I 6 ttJce4) 15 ttJg5! ttJxg5 16 .txg5.

14 ... r:l;xg7? Black could hope for counterplay

with 14 ... ttJxg7! 15 exf6 .l:txf6 16 ttJg5 0)h5 since the direct attempt 17 g4 is probably bending the bow a little too much in view of17 ... .l:tf418 .l:te4 'Wf8.

15 exf6+ .l:txf6 16 ttJg5 ttJxg5 17 ~xg5 'ikf818 .l:te2 .ia6 19 b3 (D)

/I

White has a clear advantage. While he has some prospects of a successful kingside attack, the vital factor is his pressure against Black's centre. Moreover, the white knight is far superior to the black bishop, which is struggling to find something useful to do.

19 ... e5 Not 19 ... d5? 20 l::f.ael .l:te8 21 'ilVe3!

and White is clearly better. 20.l:tdl? A serious inaccuracy. 20 'ilVe3! is far

more accurate, returning the queen to its ideal square, while targeting the

a7-pawn and preparing to double on the d-file.

20 •. J:tf4! 21.l:ted2 .1:4d8 22 'ifg3 Black's position stands up well af

ter 22 c5? h6 23 'ii'g3 d5. 22 ..• c5 23 ttJe2 .l:tf5 24 'ili'e3 .tb7 25

f3 h5 26 .1:4d3 (D) Making sure not to run into a tactic

involving ... .txf3, which would be the case after the casua126 ttJc3?

B

26 ... .1:4d7? Black spoils his chance to harvest

the fruits of his earlier efforts. Much stronger is 26 ... e4! 27 fxe4 .txe4!, when Black is doing well, for example 28 'ii'xe4 .l:te8 29 'ii'c6 lIxe2 with an attack.

27 ttJc3 .tc6 28 'ili'd2 .1:4f6 29 ttJd5 White is back in the driver's seat

and the rest of the game sees no more wobbling by the World Champion.

29 ... .l:te6 30 h3 'ii'f5 31 lIel 'ili'f7 32 a3 .l:td8 33 b4 cxb4 34 axb4 'ili'b7 35 b5 .txd5 36 .l:txd5 'ili'b6+ 37 ~h2 .l:tc8

Or 37 ... .l:tf8 38 lIal !. 38 f4! .l:tce8 39 fxe5 dxe5 40 .1:4d7+

.l:t8e7 (D)

10 Easy Guide to the J4.b5 Sicilian

w

41 'ii'd5 Kasparov later admitted that 41

:al ! would have won far more quickly, e.g. 4l...'ii'c5 42 %,taxa7 'ilVxa7 43 :xa7 :xa7 44 c5 +-.

41 ... ~h6 42 'i'd2+ ~h7 43 :n With the king on h7 rather than g7,

Black could, after 43 :al, try to mix things up with 43 ... e4!.

43 ... e4 44 :f7+ lIxf7 45 :xf7+ ~g8 46 'ii'd7! 'i'b8+ 47 ~gl 'ii'e5 48 lIg7+ 'i'xg7 49 'i'xe6+ ~h7 50 'i'xe4

The queen ending is a very easy win as White has no weaknesses around his king.

50 ... 'i'c3 51 'i'e7+ ~h6 52 'i'xa7 'ilVc1 + 53 ~h2 'i'xc4

Or 53 ... 'ilVf4+ 54 ~hl 'ii'cl + 55 'ilVgl 'ii'xc4 56 'ilVbl and White wins.

54 'ii'b8 1-0

Game 2 Shirov - Kasparov

Erevan OL 1996

1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 d6 3 ..tb5+ ..td7 4 ..txd7 + 'i'xd7 5 c4 ttJc6 6 ttJc3 g6 7 d4 ..tg7!? 8 d5 ..txc3+ 9 bxc3 ttJa5 (D)

w

Black's strategic motifs closely resemble those in the Nimzo-Indian. Having doubled White's c-pawns, Black would now like to keep the position closed and then slowly attempt to exploit White's inferior pawn-structure.

100-0 f6! 1O ... ttJxc4 is too dangerous because

White develops a strong initiative after 11 'ilVe2 ttJe5 12 ttJxe5 dxe5 13 f4.

11 ttJd2 b6 12 'i'e2? This poor move allows Black to

step up his pressure against the c4-pawn. It is noteworthy, however, that it is not the pawn in itself that makes it troublesome for White but rather that his pieces are rendered passive by the need to defend it, and thus White is not able to make much use of his army. 12 f4 or 12 a4 would be much better.

12 ... 'i'a4! (D) 13 f4 ttJh6 14 e5 White's only chance is to throw ev

erything forward and hope for the best. Surprisingly, it works in this game.

14 ... 0-0-0 15 lIb1 ttJf5?! It is understandable that Kasparov

was dissatisfied with this move, which

Introduction 11

w

;i/most returns the favour. Instead he suggests 15 ... ~hf8!, with the idea of mccting 16 e6 with 16 ... f5!, followed hy ... tiJg8-f6-e4.

16 g4! (D)

16 ... tiJh4?! This makes things very compli

cated. Black should play 16 ... tiJg7, when after 17 exf6 exf6, 18 Wle7 ~d7 II) Wlxf6 tiJxc4 is still better for Black. Shirov had planned 18 f5!? but did not rcally trust it.

17 exf6 exf6 18 ~f2! g5 19 tiJe4 ~e8

With this subtle move, Black intends to bring his queen to the kingside. 20~el Not, of course, falling for 20 tiJxf6

'iVg6, hitting the knight and rook. 20 ... ~g6 21 fxg5 21 f5 is another very interesting

idea. After 21...'ifg7 (21. .. 'iff7, with the idea that tiJh5 will not gain a tempo, loses to 22 tiJxg5 fxg5 23 iLxg5) 22 tiJg3 tiJxc4 23 tiJh5 'iff7 24 .l:r.e6 tiJe5, White's best, according to Shirov, is 25 Wle2! .l:r.he8 26 Wle4! with good compensation. Indeed, it does not look easy for Black to cover his f-pawn; 26 .. J:txe6 27 dxe6 d5 (27 .. :ii'b7 28 'ifxb7+ ~xb7 29 tiJxf6 +-) 28 'ifxe5 'ifxh5 29 Wle2 Wle8 should be very good for White in view of the trapped black knight and White's good attacking prospects on the queenside, not to mention his powerful passed e-pawn.

21..J:the8! 22 tiJxd6+! 1:txd6 23 llxe8+ ~xe8 24 iLf4!

24 'ifxh4 is mistaken on account of 24 ... Wle4 25 :tal tiJxc4, when Black's knight gallops into the game.

24 ... tiJxc4! The tactics just about work for Black.

Black cannot count on full equality after 24 ... 'ifg6 25 llel lld8! (best) 26 'ifxh4 fxg5 27 Wlxg5 'ifxg5 28 iLxg5 :tg8 29 h4!, when, for example, after 29 ... h6 30 iLxh6 :txg4+ 31 c;tf2 llxh4 32 iLg5 :th2+ 33 'iitg3 White is somewhere between clearly better and winning in view of his menacing d-pawn.

25 iLxd6 tiJd2! 26 .l:r.dl Wle4! 27 iLg3

White's planned 27 .l:r.xd2? fails since after 27 ... Wlb 1 + 28 'iff! tiJf3+


29 ~f2 fVxfl + 30 ~xfl Black takes the rook with check and then safely returns his knight, creating new problems for White: 30 ... liJxd2+ 31 ~e2 liJe4 + (Shirov).

112_112 Shirov analysed 27 ... liJhf3+ 28 ~hl

liJel + 29 ~gl liJdf3+ (29 ... liJef3+ is just a perpetual check) 30 ~flliJc2 31 d6! (31 .tf4 fVxf4 32 fVxc2liJxh2++ 33 ~gl liJxg4 +) 31...'iti>d7 32 .tf4 ~xf4 33 fVxc2 liJxg5+ 34 'it'f2 fVxg4 35 fVe2! with an unclear position.

Game 3 Morozevich - Yakovich

Samara 1998

1 e4 cS 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 .tbS g6 4 0-0 .tg7 SliJc3 d6 6 eS!?

This pawn sacrifice is currently regarded as the most dangerous, for Black has a very reasonable game if he is left in peace and gets time for ... .td7 and .. . liJf6. However, I am not quite sure that I trust it.

6 ... dxeS 7 .txc6+ bxc6 8 l:te1 f6 9 b3 (D)

B

This is the point of Morozevich's play. By opening a path for the bishop to a3, he is now ready to target the c5-pawn.

9 ... liJh6 10 .ta3 'ii'aS UliJa4 c4 It is interesting that both Moroze

vich and Yakovich let this move pass without comment in their annotations. In my opinion 11...liJf7!? deserves attention too, e.g. 12 .txc5 f5. Perhaps the reason for their silence is that White can ignore the pawn and, for example, continue 12 c4 f5 13 d3, when 13 ... e4 14 dxe4 .txal 15 ir'xallooks too risky for Black.

12 d4 cxd3 13 cxd3 .tg4 14 d4! (D)

B

This is the critical position for evaluating this whole line. Up to now the game has proceeded along methodical lines, but now it is time for some fireworks.

14 .. :~dS This move is very logical since

White will have little joy in taking on e5. There are at least two other possibilities, both pressurizing the d4-pawn,

Introduction 13

which should be examined. These are (analysis based on the players' notes):

a) 14 ... l:f.d8 15 h3 and now: al) 15 ... i.xf3 16 ~xf3 ~d5 should

.\I111ply be met by 17 ~e2! ~xd4 18 J:l.adl ± (Yakovich).

a2) 15 ... i.h5!? is left without furIher comment by Morozevich but I am lIot quite sure where Black's compensation is after 16 g4 ttJxg4 17 hxg4 ~xg4 18 i.c5.

a3) 15 ... l:f.xd4 16 ~xd4! exd4 17 J:l.xe7+ ~d8 18 hxg4 (this is the correct move; Morozevich gives 18 ttJxd4 '±', but that can be met by the very slrong 18 ... ~d5) 18 ... i.f8 19 ttJxd4 ± Yakovich.

b) 14 ... ttJf5! is much more testing; White must now play very energetically to maintain his initiative. 15 dxe5 l:f.d8 (15 .. .fxe5 16 h3 l:f.d8 17 hxg4!? l:f.xdl 18 l:f.axdl gives White compensation - Morozevich) 16 ~e2 and then:

bl) 16 .. .fxe5 17 ~e4 i.xf3 18 ~xf3 e4 (Black can more or less force a queen exchange with 18 ... ~d5 19 ~g4 ~d4 20 ~e2 ~d3 but White is not doing so badly after 21 ~xd3 nxd3 22 ttJc5) 19 ~xe4 i.xal 20 ~xc6+ (after 20 i.xe7 Black's defensive queen manoeuvre would rescue him, viz. 20 ... 'iVd5 21 ~e2 ~d3) 20 ... ~f7!? is unclear according to Morozevich. I will not disagree.

b2) 16 ... ttJd4 17 ~e3! ttJc2 18 exf6!! (Morozevich; Yakovich gave only 18 ~e4 ttJxel 19l:f.xel i.xf3 20 gxf3 'iVd5 -+) 18 ... ttJxe3 19 fxg7 ng8 20 l:f.xe3 l:f.xg7 21 ttJe5! l:f.dl+ 22 llxdl i.xdl 23 ttJxc6 ~d2 24 ttJc3

llf7 25 ttJe4 ~xa2 26 .tc5 gives White only two pieces for the queen but they cooperate splendidly.

15 ttJc3! (D)

B

15 ... i.xf3 Black can try 15 ... ~a5!, seeking a

repetition after 16 ttJa4. If White wants more he has to try the suspiciouslooking 16 h3!? Then 16 ... i.xf3 17 ~xf3 ~xa3? 18 ~xc6+ 'iitf7 19 ttJb5 reveals the point of White's idea, but 16 ... ~xa3 17 hxg4 ttJxg4 18 ttJxe5 ttJxe5 19 dxe5 0-0 is much better, when White still has a lot to prove but can claim some sort of compensation with 20 'ii'd7.

16~d3! This is the point, and now it does in

fact look like White has enough initiative to compensate for the sacrificed pawn.

16 .. :iY'e6 16 .. .'ti'a5 17 'ii'xf3 'ii'xa3? is similar

to 15 ... 'ii'a5 16 h3 i.xf3 above, while 16 .. .'ti'xd4 17 ~xd4 exd4 18 l:he7+ 'iitd8 19 llxg7 also looks dangerous for Black.


17'it'xf3 0-0 IS 'uadllbf5 19 dxe5 fxe5 20 ti'e4 'uadS 21 i.c5 'ud7 22 h3! (D)

B

Now White is getting something tangible. Black is a pawn up, but his extra pawn is one of the doubled epawns, which only seem to be obstructing his own bishop.

22 ... ,UfdS 23 'uxd7 'it'xd7 24 ti'c4+ 'it>hS 25 ti'a6 ti'c7?

This move is a little too cooperative. 25 ... ,Ua8 is more resilient.

26 'it'xa7 'it'xa7 27 i..xa7 e4!? 2S lbxe4 ':as 29 'udl! (D)

With this clever move, White prepares to defend his bishop with 30 'ud7. If he instead moved the bishop, Black would get reasonable counterplay with 29 ... ':xa2.

29 ... :'xa7 30 :'dS+ i..fS 31 :'xfS+ rJ;g7 32 :'cS lbd4 33 lbc3

White's work is nearly finished; he must now only show that his technique is all right.

33 ... l:i.a5 34l:i.dS lbb5 35 lba4 ~f6 36 'ud2 e5 37lbb6lbd4 3S f4! 'it'e6 39 fxe5 ':b5 40 lbc4 lbf5 41 g4lbh6 42 l:i.d6+ ~e7 43 l:i.xc6 1-0

Game 4 Timman - Kramnik

Riga Tal mem 1995

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 i..b5 g6 4 0-0 i..g7 5 'uellbf6

5 ... e5 is another option, which is now even more popular.

6 e5 lbd5 7 lbc3 lbc7 Despite it being played in some

games, I do not think that Black should really consider 7 ... lbxc3, because 8 dxc3 opens the d-file and activates White's dark-squared bishop, while the e5-pawn does a good job restraining any possible space-gaining actions by Black.

S i..xc6 dxc6 9 lbe4 (D) 9 ... b6 The later game, Kramnik-Kasparov,

Moscow peA rpd 1996, continued 9 ... lbe6 10 d3 0-0 11 i..e3 b6 12'it'd2 f5!? 13 exf6 exf6 14 i..h6 a5 15 i..xg7 'it'xg7 16 l:i.e2 l:i.a7 with a roughly equal position.

10 lbf6+ 'it'fS

Introduction 15

B

1O ... exf6? 11 exf6+ 'ifi>f8 12 fxg7+ Wxg7 13 b3 is very good for White, while 1O ... .txf6?! 11 exf6 e6 12 d4! also looks suspicious for Black.

11 ttJe4 .tg4 12 d3!? (D)

B

12 ... .txe5? It is quite astonishing that Kramnik

erred with this greedy move, since 12 ... ttJe6 gave Black a reasonable position in the earlier game Lutz-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1995, of which Kramnik was undoubtedly aware. The explanation for Kramnik not following Piket's path could only be that either he was

not convinced that Black solves all his problems with 12 ... ttJe6, or he just could not refute the text-move.

13 ttJxe5!! A fantastic move, and since Timman

does not find the right follow-up I suspect it was over-the-board inspiration.

13 ... .txdI14 .th6+ ~g8 The only move, as 14 .. .'iite8 15 ttJxc6

(threatening 16 ttJf6#) 15 ... f5 16 ttJxd8 :xd8 17 :axd 1 fxe4 18 ':xe4 would give White a winning endgame.

15 ttJxc6 .txc2 (D) Black has no chance of surviving

15 ... 'ii'd7 16 ttJf6+! exf6 17 ttJe7+ 'ii'xe7 18 ':xe7 ttJd5 19 ':d7, as the h8-rook is buried alive.

w

16 ttJc3? This looks very sensible but unfor

tunately Timman misses the pretty 16 ttJxd8 :xd8 17 ttJxc5!, as suggested by Kramnik in In/armatar. Whether this is really enough to win is, however, not so clear. The idea is that after 17 ... bxc5 18 l:he7 the h8-rook is boxed in and will have problems ever getting out. This means that Black is


never able to activate his other rook due to back-rank mates. Some sample lines (based on Kramnik's analysis):

a) Is ... lLld5 19 .l:.xa7 .txd3 (after 19 ... lLlf6 White replies 20 h3) 20 a4 and White's a-pawn races forward, while Black is still struggling desperately to free his hS-rook.

b) lS ... lLle6 19 b3! is, according to Kramnik, very good for White, who threatens 20 .l:.c1 .txd3 21 .l:.dl, but Black seems to have some hopes after 19 ... lLlg7, e.g. 20 .l:.xa7 lLlf5 21 .tg5 .l:.d6. The key element in Black's defence is the move ... lLlf5, so White should prevent this with 20 g4!, renewing the threat. It is difficult to see how Black is ever going to untangle. A sample line is 20 ... .txd3? 21.l:.dl.l:.d4 22 f3 .tb5 23 .l:.xd4 cxd4 24 a4 .teS 25 .l:.xa7 and White wins. Black should, of course, prefer 20 ... a6 or 20 ... aS, but even if Black keeps his a-pawn, White will be winning due to the boxed-in rook on hS.

16 ... e6! (D) This superb defensive move seems

to hold the balance. Timman had

Acknowledgements

probably prayed for 16 ... lLle6?, after which 17 lLld5! decides the game.

w

17 lLlxd8 ':xd8 18 .tg5 ~g7! 19 .txd8 ':xd8 20 .l:.acl .txd3

Two pawns constitute enough compensation to encourage White to sue for peace.

21':edl e5 22 .l:.el .l:.e8 23 b3! This strong restraining move comes

in handy before Black succeeds in advancing his pawns too far.

23 ... lLlb5 liz_liz The game would be approximately

equal after 24 lLlxb5 .txb5 25 .l:.cd l.

I would like to thank a few people for helping out with this book: GM Peter Heine Nielsen for analytical help; GM Ian Rogers for sending one of his games; FM Graham Burgess of Gambit for editing and various suggestions (not to

mention his patience when the deadline had been exceeded several times); and last but not least my fiancee, Mona Andersen, for her never-ending support in

the course of writing this book.

Steffen Pedersen Odense, April 1999

1 Rossolimo Variation with 3 ... g6

I e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 ~b5 g6 (D)

w

3 ... g6 remains the most popular defence against the Rossolimo, and it is also the defence I am advocating for Black. The further evolution of the game is rich in possibilities for both sides. As early as move 4, White needs to decide on a strategy: he can either double Black's c-pawns by eliminating the knight on c6, or he can try for an immediate advance in the centre with c3 and d4. The most common, however, is the flexible continuation 4 0-0, by which White keeps both options open.

Sacrificing for the initiative Although White's strategy is in essence rather slow and positional, there

are many positions where it is worth considering a pawn sacrifice in order to obtain a lead in development and thus usually a strong initiative. These pawn sacrifices usually involve White venturing an early b4 or an early c3 and d4, despite Black trying to prevent this by playing ... eS.

The following position arises after the moves I e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 ~b5 g6 4 0-0 ~g7 5 %:tel e5 6 b4!? (D).

B

As a consequence of moving first, White enjoys a small lead in development, and tries to turn this to account by this violent move, aiming to open the centre, or files on the queenside. Those familiar with the Benko Gambit will know how effective such pressure on semi-open a- and b-files can be.

18 Easy Guide to the iLb5 Sicilian

Black faces a major decision, and must decide which way to accept the sacrifice: 6 ... cxb4 and 6 ... ttJxb4 are the possibilities (note that declining the sacrifice with, for example, 6 ... d6 would lead to a horrible position after 7 bxc5 dxc5 8 .i.xc6+ bxc6). 6 ... ttJxb4 has the better reputation but White obtains very good practical chances with 7 .i.b2, or even 7 c3 ttJc6 8 d4.

The b4 sacrifice comes in many slightly different shapes and sizes, and one even more common than the previous example is when White exchanges on c6 first. An example:

B

Motwani - Lanka Vienna 1991

White has just played 9 a3 and is obviously planning to continue 10 b4. It is questionable whether it is worth Black preventing this with, for example, 9 ... a5. White would then change strategy, and proceed 10 ttJc4 ttJd7 11 a4, when he can claim a small advantage in view of so many black pawns

being fixed on dark squares. Lanka's reaction was much better:

9 ... 0-0 10 b4 .i.e611 bxc5 'ili'xc5 12 a4 b5! 13 .i.b2 ttJh5 14 c3 'ii'b6 15 d4 nfd8

The position is messy, but I would rather be Black.

It is very common for Black to defend with ... e5. Not only does Black try to stop White expanding in the centre with c3 and d4, but he also provides a good square for his king's knight on e7. Here it supports future activities such as ... d5 or ... f5, and removes White's threat to double Black's cpawns by .i.xc6. For this reason, White usually exchanges on c6 before the knight reaches e7, but an interesting alternative is to sacrifice a pawn with an early d4. For example, the following position arises after the moves 1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 .i.b5 g6 4 0-0 .i.g7 5 c3 e5 6 d4!? cxd4 7 cxd4 exd4 8 .i.f4 (D):

B

White obtains a strong initiative at the cost of a pawn. White has simple

Rossolimo Variation with 3 ... g6 19

positional ideas of just regaining the pawn with liJd2-b3, but Black must also be alert not to fall victim to an early attack. Things would be quite easy for Black if he had time for ... liJge7, ... 0-0 and ... dS, but the problem is that White plants a bishop on d6, thereby making further development troublesome.

Black attacks on the kings ide It is rare for Black to resort to an early attack on the kingside, but the prospect of a positionally inferior game sometimes provokes such actions. The following excerpt shows that this plan should not be underestimated.

B

Shiroy - Kramnik Novgorod 1994

White is about to play d4, which would give him the better game owing to his space advantage and Black's slightly weakened kingside. In addition, Black's light-squared bishop, despite having plenty of scope, would be pretty useless as a white knight on d4

would do a good job of restricting its activity.

Kramnik decided to burn most of his bridges with ...

9 ... g5!? Later, it was discovered that 9 ... i.d6

is perhaps a more solid alternative, but it is worth familiarizing ourselves with Kramnik's idea. Although I have described this as a kingside attack, it is also a fight for the centre.

10 'it'e2 10 d4 represents a more serious test

of Black's idea, but is also more risky, e.g. 1O ... cxd4 11 cxd4 g4, when White can choose between 12 hxg4 i.xg4 13 liJbd2 l:tg8, which Kramnik assesses as being quite promising for Black, and 12liJh4 gxh3 13 g3 with a mess. See Line B21 for a more detailed analysis of this.

10 ... h5 11 liJel i.e6 12 a3 a5 13 liJd2 b6 14liJc2 l:ta7! 15 d4?!

15 l:tfdl l:td7 16 liJn leads to equality.

15 ... cxd4 16 cxd4 l:td7 17 dxe5 liJxe5 (D)

Black is better.

w

20 Easy Guide to the ~b5 Sicilian

Black remains solid and flexible While White usually obtains a space advantage in the Rossolimo, Black often gains the pair of bishops and this has to be reckoned as a strong longterm asset. Hence a popular variation amongst many grandmasters is 1 e4 cS 2 liJf3liJc6 3 ..tbS g6 4 ..txc6 bxc6 S 0-0 ..tg7 6 l:1el liJh6 7 c3 0-0 S d4 cxd49 cxd4 f6 10 liJc3 d6 11 h3liJf7 12 'ii'c2 ..td7 (D). This is rich on ideas for both sides - one has to weigh up a space advantage against Black's longer-term assets.

w

Brodsky - Beshukov St Petersburg 1997

Black will not be able to tolerate a cramped position indefinitely, hence space-gaining actions are called for. White needs to watch out for the ... cS and ... fS thrusts, while Black's queen can join the game from as, and even in some cases swing over to hS. Often the best White can do is to be ready to answer ... cS with dS, and .. .fS with eS.

13 ..td2l:1cS 14l:1adl 'ii'b6

14 ... cS!? IS ..te3 cxd4 16 ..txd4 'ii'as deserves serious consideration.

IS ..tel 'ii'b7 16liJe2l:1feS 16 ... cS looks right. 17 'ii'd3l:1cdS ISliJc3 gS? 19liJd2

eS 20 dS cS 21liJn (D)

B

White has a strategically won position.

The Theory of the Rossolimo with 3 ... 96

1 e4 cS 2 liJf3liJc6 3 ..tbS g6 We shall now look at White's three

main choices, of which the last two are the most popular: A: 4 c3 20 B: 4 i.xc6 21 C: 40-0 34

A) 4 c3 (D) 4 ... ..tg7 4 ... liJf6 S eS liJdS 60-0 i.g7 is also

possible, with a transposition to Line C2.


5 d4 'ila5! I am surprised I have been able to

find so few games with this move. More popular (but inferior) options are:

a) 5 ... cxd4 6 cxd4 tiJf6 7 tiJc3 0-0 8 d5 tiJb8 9 0-0 d6 10 h3 tiJbd7 11 l:lel tiJc5 12 ion ;t Kr.Georgiev-Ignatiadis, Athens 1993.

b) 5 ... iVb6 6 a4 and now: bl) 6 ... a6?! 7 dxc5 'ii'xc5 8 .te3

~h5 9 .te2 'ii'a5 10 tiJbd2 tiJf6 11 tiJc4 'ii'c7 12 tiJb6l:lb8 13 tiJd5 tiJxd5 14 exd5 tiJa5 150-0 ± Magem-Granero Roca, Spanish Ch (Linares) 1998.

b2) 6 ... cxd4 7 0-0 tiJf6 (7 ... dxc3 8 tiJxc3 e6 9 .te3 gives White compensation a La Morra Gambit, but Black can also decline the sacrifice with 7 ... d3, though White probably has a slight edge following 8 tiJa3 tiJf6 9 i.xd3) 8 e5 tiJd5 9 cxd4 0-0 (9 ... a6 10 i.c4!) 10 tiJc3 tiJxc3 11 bxc3 d6 12 exd6 exd6 13 ioa3 tiJa5 14 tiJg5 h6 15 tiJe4 l:td8 16 .l:el iof5 17 'ii'f3 with an edge for White, Smirin-Schmittdiel, Wijk aan Zee 1993.

6 i.xc6

Razuvaev and Matsukevich also analyse 6 'iVe2!?, which might be a better try for White, e.g. 6 ... cxd4 7 0-0 d3 (7 ... a6!?) 8 .txd3 and now 8 ... tiJf6 9 b4 'iVc7 10 b5 tiJd8 (lO ... tiJe5) 11 e5 tiJg4 12 .l:el tiJe6 13 h3 tiJh6 14 c4 0-0 15 tiJc3 leaves White with a good game. However, Black's play in this line was poor; he would do much better' to play 8 ... d6 before developing his king's knight.

6 ... dxc6 7 dxc5 7 0-0 .tg4 is fine for Black. 7 ... 'ilxc5 8 .te3 'ila5 9 0-0 tiJf6 10

tiJbd2 0-011 h3 .l:d8 12 ~c2 ~c7 Black already has the better game in

view of his bishop-pair, EllenbroekVan der Weide, Dutch Ch 1996.

B) 4.txc6(D)

B

Prior to the 1990s there were very few examples of White giving up his bishop-pair at this early stage, but nowadays most top players prefer the immediate exchange over the more stereotyped 4 0-0, and, it seems, with

22 Easy Guide to the i&.b5 Sicilian

good reason. Since most set-ups with c3 and d4 cause Black few problems, White has been increasingly investigating the exchange on c6. By doing so as early as possible, White retains maximum flexibility - and might in some cases even castle queenside. I have always been rather suspicious about this strategy since I am usually quite fond of having the bishop-pair, but Black's centre, albeit especially solid, is not very dynamic as most pawn moves will leave weaknesses.

We now examine the two possible recaptures: BI: 4 ... bxc6 22 B2: 4 ... dxc6 28

B1) 4 ... bxc6 5 0-0 There is definitely no need for

White to consider castling queenside when Black has a semi-open b-file, so this is without doubt the most logical move.

5 ••• i.g7 (D)

w

6.::tel

Flexibility is White's watchword in this opening and so he does not commit himself to a specific plan as yet. However, 6 c3!? also deserves a brief look:

a) 6 ... d6 7 h3 tDh6!? (7 ... e5 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 exd4 10 tDxd4 tDe7 11 tDc3 ;!; Smyslov) 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 0-0 10 tDc3 f6 11 b3!? (usually White arrives at this type of position with the rook on e1, but here White can try to economize on this move) 11... 'iia5 12 i.b2 'it'h5?! (12 ... tDf7 with the idea of . .. e5 is better) 13 tDd2! 'it'xd1 14 tDxdl f5 15 e5 f4 16 :c1 i.d7 17 tDf3 (White has a space advantage and the better pawn-structure; furthermore Black's bishops are not very useful) 17 ... tDf5 18 tDc3 h6 19 .::tfe1 l:[fd8 (Matulovi6-Velimirovi6, Yugoslavia 1997) and now White should play 20 tDe4! with the rather annoying threat of21 g4!.

b) In my opinion 6 ... tDf6 is more logical; the lines with e5 and c4 followed by d4 are hardly more challenging without the rook on e1 (compare with note 'c' to the next move), so White should play 7 .::tel, transposing to note 'c1' to Black's 6th move.

6 ... tDb6 Black intends to play solidly with

... f6 and ... tDf7 and makes sure the knight is brought out in time. Other options:

a) 6 ... e5 is considered under Line C321.

b) After the immediate 6 .. .f6, White can transpose to our main lines with 7 c3 tDh6!? 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4. The other option is 7 d4 cxd4 8 tDxd4:


bl) 8 ... e5 9 lLlb3 lLlh6 10 c4 lLlf7 11 c5! 0-0 (11...a5 12 a4 0-0 13 lLla3 d5 14 cxd6 lLlxd6 15 .ltd2 ;!; HectorIkonnikov, Geneva 1994) and now 12 lLla3? a5! 13lLlc4? a4 14lLlb6 lIa7 15 lLlxc8 ~xc8 16lLld2 ~a6! left Black in command in Kasparov-Salov, French Cht 1993. However, 12 ~c2, as suggested by Salov, is much stronger; White is probably slightly better.

b2) The reason Salov rejected 8 ... lLlh6 was 9 .ltxh6 .ltxh6 10 lLlf5, when 10 ... .ltf8 11 e5 gives White some attacking possibilities. Even though this is not quite clear, Black has the much stronger 10 ... .ltf4!. I do not see anything better for White than to retreat the knight to d4, which is obviously embarrassing. 9 lLlf5 lLlxf5 10 exf5 d5 11 fxg6 hxg6 also seems perfectly OK for Black, so White probably has nothing better than 9lLlc3.

c) 6 ... lLlf6 and here: c1) 7 c3 0-0 8 e5 lLld5 9 d4 cxd4

10 cxd4 is nothing to worry about; Nevednichy-Htibner, Elista OL 1998 went 1Q ... d6 11 lLlbd2 .ltf5 12 lLlc4 'ili'd7 13 .ltd2 llab8, favouring Black.

c2) 7 e5 lLld5 8 c4 lLlc7 9 d4 cxd4 10 'ili'xd4 gives White a big space advantage and good attacking chances on the kingside. Black has a difficult defensive task:

c21) 10 ... .ltb7?! 11 lLlc3 lLle6 12 'ili'h4 h6 13 lLld4 c5 (neither does 13 ... lLlxd4 14 'ili'xd4 d6 15 .ltf4 solve Black's problems) 14 lLlxe6 dxe6 15 'ili'g3 0-016 h4! ± Kasparov.

c22) 1Q ... 0-0?! 11 'ili'h4 d6 12 .lth6 lLle6 13 lLlc3 f6 (Kasparov-Salov, Dortmund 1992) and now Kasparov

suggests 14 exf6! lIxf6 15 lLlg5! lLlxg5 16 .ltxg5 lIb8 17iLle4 llxb218lLlxf6+ exf6 19 .lth6 ±.

c23) 1Q ... d5!? 11lLlc3lLle6 12 ~h4 h6 transposes to line 'c24', note to Black's 12th, but denies White the possibility of capturing the d-pawn en passant.

c24) 1Q ... lLle611 ~h4 h6!? 12llJc3 d6 (after 12 ... d5!?, 13lLld4lLlxd4 14 ~xd4 .lte6 15 cxd5 cxd5 16 b3 gives White a slight advantage according to Kasparov, but White might try for even more with 13 exd6 exd614 ~g3!?) 13 lIdl .ltb7 14 .lte3 (14 exd6 exd6 15 'ili'g3 is also interesting) 14 ... c5 15 exd6! (15lLld5? gives Black excellent play after the queen sacrifice 15 ... dxe5! 16lLlf6+ .ltxf6 17 :'xd8+ lIxd8, Kharlov-Andersson, Haninge 1992) 15 ... exd6 16 ~g3 .ltxf3 (after 16 ... 0-0 17 lIxd6 ii'b8 18 :'d2 White is just a pawn up for insufficient compensation) 17 lhd6! ii'b8 and now White wins with 18 :'xe6+! fxe6 19 ii'xg6+ ~f8 20 .ltxc5+ ~g8 21 ~xe6+ ~h7 22 ~f5+ ~g8 23 ii'xf3.

Returning to the position after 6 ... lLlh6 (D):

7 c3 Alternatively there is 7 lLlc3 f6 8

~e2, which is a very flexible approach. Black should of course avoid 8 ... 0-0, which drops a pawn to 9 ii'c4+. Kaidanov suggests 8 ... e5 since in OrlovKaidanov, USA Ch 1994 he came out much worse after the opening following8 ... lLlf7?! 9 a3! lIb8 (9 ... a51Q~c4 d6 11 d4 cxd4 12 lLlxd4 c5 13 lLle6 gives White a clear advantage according to Kaidanov and demonstrates


w

why Black should play 8 ... e5 rather than 8 ... ttJf7?!) 10 b4! cxb4 11 axb4 a6 12l:f.a4! 0-0 13 d4 e5 14 i.e3 ~h8 15 d5! f5 16 dxc6 dxc6 17 i.c5 l:f.e8 18 l:f.dl with a tremendous position.

7 ... 0-08 d4 (D) 8 h3!? can hardly be considered

better than the text-move, although it is a move White tends to make later on anyway. It might be worth trying, since it contains a little trick:

a) 8 ... d5? 9 d3! (Black is rather uncomfortable after this; he can now easily end up in a position with weak c-pawns) 9 ... f6 10 i.e3 c4 11 exd5 cxd3 12 'iixd3 cxd5 13 i.c5 i.f5 14 'iidl i.e4 15 ttJbd2 l:f.c8 16 ttJxe4!? (16 i.a3 also looks good) 16 ... dxe4 17 'ili'xd8 l:f.fxd8 18 i.xe7 exf3 19 i.xd8 l:f.xd8 20 l:f.adl :b8 21l:f.d7 a5 22 gxf3 ttJf5 23 b4! and White has a clearly better ending as his rooks are very active and Black has very poor chances of blockading the queenside pawns, Rublevsky-Hracek, Polanica Zdroj 1996.

b) Black should play 8 ... f6, whereafter White does not have anything

better than 9 d4, transposing back into the main lines.

B

8 ... cxd4 9 cxd4 f6 This is the super-solid continuation

which is currently preferred by Svidler (amongst others). Black hopes that if he just remains patient and does not allow anything terrible to happen, his bishop-pair will come into their own later in the game.

The alternative is 9 ... d5 10 e5 and now:

a) 1O ... i.g4 has ideas of swapping the bishop for the white knight, but is unpopular, maybe for the aforementioned reasons. Nevertheless, White was unable to gain any clear advantage in Psakhis-Dautov, Nimes 1991: 11 ttJbd2 'iib6 12 b3 c5 (otherwise White would prevent this thrust with i.a3) 13 i.a3!? cxd4 14 i.xe7 .l:1fe8 15 i.g5 i.d7! 16 ttJf1 ttJf5 with an unclear position.

b) 1O ... f6Ieaves White with a difficult decision as to how to handle the situation in the centre. He can exchange on f6, but this relieves the


tension and gives Black an easier life. However, if White does not exchange, Black might eventually be able to capture on e5, forcing White to take back with the d-pawn, whereupon Black will obtain a potentially dangerous passed d-pawn. We have:

bl) 11 ttJbd2 g5?! (too ambitious; 11...ttJn is more circumspect) 12 e6! (an excellent move as long as the pawn is not simply being lost) 12 ... 'ii'd6 13 ~e2 ttJf5 14 ttJb3 and then:

bll) 14 ... g4 15 ttJfd2 a5 16 ttJn a4 17 'it'xg4 i.xe6 18 i.f4 h5! 19 'ii'f3 ~d8 20 ttJc5 ttJxd4 21 ~e3 i.n 22 ~xd4 e5 23 'ii'd2 exf4 24 'ii'xf4 ± Timman-Yakovich, K0ge 1997.

b12) 14 ... a5!? 15 g4 ttJh6 16 h3 f5 17 i.xg5 fxg4 and now 18 ttJe5 i.xe6 19 i.xh6 .txh6 20 ttJxg4 gives White clearly the better of it according to Timman, but this does not look entirely conclusive, e.g. 20 ... i.xg4 21 'iVxg4+ (21 hxg4 i.g7!?) 2l...~h8 22 %:.e6 %:.g8 23 %:.xd6 .:txg4+ 24 hxg4 exd6 25 .:tel a4 and Black might even be better. A riskier (but maybe superior) approach is 18 ttJh4 gxh3 19 ttJc5!?, but White can only indulge in this as long as he can keep the bishop on c8 buried, e.g. 19 ... h2+ 20 ~hl %:.b8 21 .:tadl with a mess.

b2) 11 h3 ttJn 12 ttJc3!? .tf5? (12 ... fxe5 must be critical) 13 e6! ttJd6 14 ttJh4 i.e4 15 f3 g5 16 fxe4 gxh4 17 exd5 cxd5 18 ttJxd5 ± Sutovsky-de la Riva, Pamplona 1998/9.

b3) 11 exf6 exf6 12 h3 ttJn and now:

b31) 13 b3 .tf5 (13 ... ttJg5!? 14 ttJbd2 %:.e8 15 %:.xe8+ 'ii'xe8 16 ttJxg5

fxg5 17 ttJn was roughly equal in Nevednichy-Poluliakhov, Yugoslavia 1994) 14 ttJc3 .:te8 15 .:txe8+ 'ii'xe816 i.a3 'ii'd7 17 ttJa4 .:te8 18 'ii'n ttJg5 19 ttJxg5 fxg5 20 i.c5 g4 21 hxg4 i.xg4 22 .:tel %:'xe1 23 'ii'xe1 h5! and Black has just about sufficient activity to compensate for the hole on c5, Kuczynski -Khalifman, B undesliga 1998/9.

b32) 13 .tf4 ttJg5!? 14 ttJbd2 ttJe6 (14 ... i.f5 15 ttJxg5 fxg5 16 i.e5 gives White an edge) 15 i.g3 c5 16 ttJb3 (Brodsky also suggests 16 .:tel c4 17 b3 as a fair chance of obtaining an advantage) 16 ... c4 17 ttJc5 'ii'b6 18 ttJa4 'ii'c6 19 b3 i.d7 20 'ii'd2 cxb3?! (20 .. JHc8 is better) 21 axb3 .:tfc8 22 'ii'a5! ;!; Brodsky-Hendriks, Wijk aan Zee 1998.

10 ttJc3 d6 (D)

w

11 h3 This flexible move serves the use

ful purpose of preparing i.e3. Alternatives:

a) 11 i.e3 ttJg4 12 .td2 i.d7 13 'ii'c2 'ii'b6 14 %:'adl %:.ac8 15 i.cl (15

26 Easy Guide to the j.b5 Sicilian

h3 ttJh6 16 i.e3 fS should be fine for Black) and now:

al) IS ... cS!? 16 ttJdS 'ii'd8 17 h3 cxd4 18 'ii'b3 l:tb8 (or 18 ... e6 19 hxg4 exdS 20 'ii'xdS+ ~h8 21 ttJxd4 with an edge) 19 'ii'c4 i.bS 20 ttJxe7+ "'h8 21 'ii'xd4 ttJxf2 22 ttJxg6+ ± Sulskis.

a2) IS ... 'ii'b7 16 eS!? fxeS 17 h3 ttJh6 (17 ... exd418 hxg4 dxc3 19 l:txe7 i.f6 20 l:txd6 i.xe7 21 l:txg6+ and now 21...hxg6 22 'ii'xg6+ is a draw, while 21... ~f7 22 :h6 is very risky for Black) 18 dxeS i.xh3 19 i.xh6 i.xh6 20 gxh3 l:txf3 21 exd6 exd6 22 l:txd6 with good attacking chances for White, Sulskis-Svidler, Pula Echt 1997.

b) 11 b3 and then: bl) 11...i.d7 12 i.b2 ttJf7 13 l:tcl

(13 'ii'c2 l:tc8 14 h3 "fic7 IS l:tadl l:tfe8 16 'ii'd2 'ii'aS!? 17 dS cxdS 18 exdS i.h6 19 'it'd4 ttJeS 20 ttJh2!? 'it'b6 21 'iiVh4 i.g7 22 ttJe4 l:tc2 23 i.d4 "fiaS 24 a4 i.fS with counterplay, Rublevsky-Svidler, Russia 1996) 13. .. "fib6 14 l:tc2 'ii'b7 IS ttJd2!? fS 16 eS cS (16 ... dxeS 17 ttJa4! e4 18 ttJcS 'it'c7 19 f3 gives White good compensation) 17 e6 cxd4 18 exd7 dxc3 19 :xe7 'ii'b4 20 a3 'it'h4 21 %:te8 %:taxe8 22 dxe8'it' l:txe8 23 ttJf3 'ii'e4 24 i.xc3 .l:tc8 2S .l:te2 and, with the dust about to settle, White has obtained a slight advantage, Yakovich-Izkuznykh, Russian Club Cup (Maikop) 1998.

b2) l1...ttJf7 12 i.b2"fiaS 13 'ii'c2 i.d7 14 ttJd2 :ac8 IS ttJc4 'it'a6 16 l:tadl i.e6 17 ttJe3 i.h6 18 'ii'bl %:tfe8 19 dS cxdS 20 ttJcxdS ;!; IUescas-Kramnik, Alcobendas (S) 1993.

c) 11 'it'a4 'ii'b6 (11...i.d7!? suggests itself as a reasonable alternative)

12 ttJd2 ttJf7 13 ttJc4 'ii'a6 and now, rather than 14 i.e3?! 'ii'xa4 IS ttJxa4 fS, when Black has good counterplay, Fischer-Spassky, Belgrade (13) 1992, White should play 14 'ii'xa6 i.xa6 IS ttJaS :fc8 16 i.e3 %:tab8 17 b3 fS 18 exfS gxfS 19 :acl ;!; Matulovic.

Returning to the position after 11 h3 (D):

B

ll ... ttJf7 12 i.e3 This position is very interesting

from a strategic point of view. Black has quite good long-term prospects in view of his bishop-pair, but right now the bishops are rather dormant. White has a space advantage and will seek to improve his position further, possibly by %:tcl and sometimes ttJd2-c4. He must also watch out for possible space-gaining actions from Black such as ... cS and/or ... fS, as discussed in the introduction to this chapter.

White has a few alternatives at this juncture:

a) 12 'ii'c2!? i.d7 and then: al) 13 i.e3 'ii'aS! (the most flexi

ble; Black still intends ... fS but now


introduces the additional idea ... 'iib5; 13 .. .f5 is not so bad either though) 14 ttJd2! f5 15 ':ad1 (planning e5; the immediate 15 e5 is not quite good enough, since Black can defend with 15 ... dxe5 16 ttJc4 'fic7 17 tDxe5 ttJxe5 18 dxe5 i.xe5 19 ..tc5 ':ae8) 15 ... fxe4 16 'fixe4 ':ae8 17 'fid3 ttJh6! with an unclear game, Yudasin-Morovic, Leon 1993.

a2) 13 ..td2 ':c8 14 ':ad 1 and now: a21) 14 ... 'fib6 15 ..tc1 'fib7 16

ttJe2 l:He8 (Black seems to be unsure what to play for; 16 ... c5 looks like the right move, although he might have feared 17 d5 f5 18 ttJg3 fxe4 19 'fixe4) 17 'fid3 %:tcd8 18 ttJc3 (White's play does not look very consistent either) 18 ... g5? 19 tDd2 eS 20 dS cS 21 ttJn and Black's position is in ruins, Brodsky-Beshukov, St Petersburg 1997.

a22) Breaking out with 14 ... cS is a logical reaction when White has played i.d2 rather than ..te3. White's best is probably IS ..te3 cxd4 16 ..txd4, but I doubt that Black has any problems after 16 ... 'fiaS.

b) 12 b3 and here: bl) 12 ... fS!? 13..tb2fxe414ttJxe4

i.d7 (14 ... 'fiaS!?) and now: bll) IS ':cl 'fiaS! 16 ..tc3 'fidS!

17 %:tc2 ttJh6 18 ttJegS ttJfS 19 llce2, Arkhipov-Yakovich, Russia 1994, and now 19 .. J::tae8!?, with the idea 20 ttJe6 i.xe6 21 %:txe6 cS, gives Black sufficient counterplay.

b12) Arkhipov claims an advantage for White after IS 'fid2! as 16 ':e2 a4 17 b4 a3 18 ..tc3 'fib6 19 ':ael.

b2) 12 ... ..td7 13 ..tb2 'fib6 14 %:tel %:tad8 IS 'fic2 eS 16 .:r.edl .:r.fe8 17

ttJa4 'fia6 18 ttJd2 ..th6 19 ':b1 'fie2 20 tDc3 'fihS 21 tDn 'iib4 22 tDg3 ;!; Rublevsky-Izkuznykh, Russian Club Cup (Maikop) 1998.

12 ... ..td7 (D) If Black plays 12 ... fS, White can re

ply 13 'fia4, and after 13 ... ..td7, 14 exfS forces Black to recapture with the pawn.

w

13 ':c1 V.Spasov-Svidler, Erevan OL 1996

instead went 13 'fid2 'fic7 (13 ... 'fiaS!?) 14 ':ac1 'fib7 15 b3 ':ad8 (Black needs to prepare the ... fS advance, because lS ... fS 16 eS dxeS 17 dxeS tDxeS 18 tDxeS ..txeS 19 ..th6 is very good for White) 16 'fic2 (16 tDa4!?) 16 .. .fS! 17 eS cS! (it is time to open the position for those bishops) 18 exd6 exd6 19 ':cdl! (19 dxcS ..tc6! gives Black a strong initiative) 19 ... ..tc6 20 d5 ..td7 with a roughly level position.

13 ..... a5 14 tDd2! 'ii'b4 14 .. :ii'a6!? 15 b3 f5 16 tDc4 fxe4 17 tDxe4

':ae8 18 .:r.e2!? ..tf5 19 ttJg3 ..td7 20 ..td2 "b5 21 ..tc3


White has a clear plus, T.Wall-Dineley, British League (4NCL) 1997/8. He has done a good job of neutralizing W any activity from Black and is now ready pressurize the e7-pawn.

82) 4 ... dxc6 (D)

W

Now White usually plays d3 and h3 in one order or the other. There is, however, a small but significant difference between the two orders. We shall discuss them as follows: B21: 5 h3 28 B22: 5 d3 30

821) 5 h3 It is now more or less established

that this is inferior to 5 d3. There seems no reason to prevent Black from playing ... .ig4 as long as White has the possibility of replying liJbd2 and recapturing on f3 with the knight.

5 ... e5! (D) The king's bishop is going to be

much better on d6 than on g7, so Black

takes advantage of the possibility to play ... e5 without playing ... !i.g7 first.

6d3 6 liJxe5 'ii'd4 reveals why Black can

play 5 ... e5! against 5 h3 but not against 5 d3.

6 ... f6! 6 ... !i.g7 transposes to Line B222. 70-0 7 c3 liJh6 8 !i.e3 liJf7 9 0-0 leads to

the same thing, but another possibility is 7 liJc3. However, in my opinion White needs to execute the d4 advance in order to claim an advantage, and in this respect 7 liJc3 is of course useless. Yudasin has played it with success, but it seems like Black has plenty of possibilities to improve: 7 ... liJh6 8 !i.e3 liJf7 9 liJd2! (according to Yudasin, 9 'ii'd2 is well met by 9 .. . !i.e6 with the idea of playing ... 'ii'd7, ... 0-0-0 and ... f5) and now:

a) 9 ... b6 10 0-0 !i.g7 11 a3!? f5?! (generally Black should be rather patient in these positions, and this seems premature; 11...'ii'e7 is an obvious improvement, e.g. 121:tbl 0-0 13 b4 cxb4 14 axb4 f5 with strong counterplay)


12 exfS gxfS 13 f4! 0-0 14 'iWf3 'iWf6 IS lbc4 exf4 16 i.xf4 i.d7 17 <ifthl l:.ae8 18 a4 and White is better due to his much superior pawn structure, Yudasin-Soffer, Israeli Cht 1996.

b) Black would stand quite well if he could bring his knight to d4, so I am very much in favour of 9 .. . lbgS! (another route is d6-bS-c4, but that is more troublesome to achieve), when 10 f4 exf4 11 i.xf4 lbe6 is fine for Black and 10 i.xgS fxgS I1lbc4 'fie7 also looks quite good as all possible knight entrances are well covered by the black pawns.

7 ... lbh6 8 i.e3lbf7 9 c3 (D)

B

9 ... i.d6 This looks a lot sounder than the al

ternative 9 ... gS !? In fact, if it had not been used by some very strong players, I would have severe doubts about such a move - Black's only developed piece is his knight on f7. However, it is not so clear how White should reply:

a) After 10 'iWe2 hS lllbel i.e6 12 a3 as 13lbd2, Shirov-Kramnik, Novgorod 1994 went 13 ... b6 14lbc2 l:.a7!

IS d4?! (1Sl:[fQl! l:[d7 16lbfl should be about equal) IS ... cxd4 16 cxd4 .l:.d7 17 dxeS lbxeS with an edge for Black. Kramnik even suggests the acrobatic 13 ... l:.h7 14lbc2lbh8! IS d4 cxd4 16 cxd4 lbg6 with good counterplay; for example, 17 l:.fdl g4!? 18 dxeS fxeS 19 lbc4 'fif6.

b) 10 d4 looks like a more serious test of Black's experiment, but again Black seems to be surprisingly well placed to meet this: 1O ... cxd4 11 cxd4 g4, with two possibilities for White:

bl) 12 hxg4 i.xg4 13lbbd2 l:.g8! gives Black a strong attack according to Kramnik, who continues his analysis with 14 'fia4 i.h3 IS lbel 'fid7 16 f3 bS 17 'fic2 exd4 and 14 'iWb3 i.h3 IS lbh4 fS (1S ... exd4 is simple and good) 16 'fixb7 'fixh4 17 'fixc6+ r3;e7 18 'fib7+ <iftf6; in both cases Black gains a clear advantage. Presumably White should not allow ... i.h3, but 14 ~hl 'iWd7 is also very pleasant for Black.

b2) 12 lbh4 gxh3 13 g3 was Krasenkow's suggestion in Informator65, but this had already been tried. OralKrakops, Guarapuava U -18 W ch 1995 continued 13 ... exd4 14 i.xd4 (maybe White should play 14 'fixd4 but I find it hard to believe that White is anywhere near being better) 14 .. Jlg8 IS lbc3 (IS lbfS?? i.xfS 16 exfS was played in Ovechkin-Gagarin, Russian Cht (Briansk) 1995, but both players must have had a little too much vodka to miss 16 ... 'fidS! with the dual threats of 17 ... 'fig2# and 17 ... 0-0-0) IS ... i.g4 16 'fia4 'fid6 with a strong attack for Black.

lOd4


10 a3 0-0 11 b4 "fIe7 12liJbd2 .te6 13 liJc4 .txc4 14 dxc4 as!? IS bS a4 was equal in Ulybin-Krasenkov, Russian Ch 1995.

10 ... cxd4 11 cxd4 0-0 12liJc3 ~e7 13 :'el <J;g7 14 ~c2 .te6 15 :'adl :'fd8 16 a3 .tc4

16 ... exd4 17 liJxd4 liJeS 18liJxe6+ "fIxe6 is worth considering but White probably has a slight edge.

17 d5! 1:tdc8 18 dxc6 lhc6 Black could also choose to cover dS

with 18 ... bxc6 but then White clamps down on the cS-square by 19 liJa4 .tbS 20 liJcS.

19 liJd2 .te6 20 ~d3 b6 21 liJd5 ~b7 22liJbl 1:tac8 23liJbc3

White's firm control of dS gives him a small advantage, Svidler-Vyzhmanavin, Russian Ch 1995.

822) 5 d3.tg7 (D) Or: a) As long as the position remains

closed, Black's bishops are not particularly useful, so another logical move is S ... .tg4, intending to exchange this bishop for White's knight on f3. This would increase Black's control of the central dark squares at the cost of parting with one of his long-term assets, the bishop-pair. This exchange will give Black good play if White has to recapture on f3 with his queen, as we see:

al) 60-0 .tg7 7 h3 .txf3 8 'Wxf3 liJf6 9liJc3liJd7 10 "fIe3 b6 liliJe2 eS 12 "fIg3 "fIe7! and Black, with the manoeuvre ... liJf8-e6, is ready to seize maximum control of the d4-square,

Kobaliya-And.Tzermiadianos, Ano Liosia 1997.

a2) 6liJbd2! .tg7 7 h3.txn 8liJxf3 liJf6 9 0-0 liJd7 10 .te3 b6 11 c3 0-0 12 'Wc2 and White has a slight but enduring edge, Khalifman-Schekachev, Russian Ch (Elista) 1996.

b) Another idea for Black is S .. .f6, intending to transpose to Line B21 after 6 h3 eS. However, in Anand-Krasenkow, Moscow PCA rpd 1996 White saw no need to engage in this, and instead continued 6 eS!? .tg4 7 exf6 exf6 8 h3 .te6 9 0-0 'Wd7 10 .te3liJh6 11 liJc3 with a solid advantage .

w

White should now choose between: B221: 60-0 30 B222: 6 h3 32

A third possibility is 6liJc3, but this can now be well met by 6 ... .tg4 since White will then be forced to recapture with the queen on f3.

8221) 60-0 liJf6 This looks most sensible to me.

Rossolimo Variation with 3 ... 86 31

6 ... -tg4 7 lDbd2 transposes to note 'a' to Black's Sth move in Line B22.

6 ... eS is another option, but I do not like the latter for the simple reason that compared to Line C322 White does not have to play l:tel, and is thus basically a tempo up on similar variations. For example: 7 -te3 (7 a3!?) 7 ... 'fiIe7 (7 ... b6 is feasible, but since the queen belongs on e7 anyway, 1 see no reason why Black should not play it immediately; after 8 lDbd2 f6 9 a3! lDh6 10 h3 'Wie7 11 b4 cxb4 12 axb4 'fiIxb4 13 c3 'Wixc3 14 'Wibl! and White is probably already winning, Stefansson-McShane, Copenhagen 1998) 8 h3 (Yudasin-Vyzhmanavin, Leon 1993 continued in rather unorthodox fashion: 8 a4 lDf6 9 lDa3 0-0 10 %:tbl!? .l:td8! 11 'Wiel!? -tg4! 12lDd2 -te6 13 lDdc4 lDd7 14 lDaS!? lDb8! IS ~hl lDa6 with an unclear position) 8 ... lDf6 9 'ii'd2 lDd7 10 -th6 0-0 (I prefer 10 ... f6, hoping to be in time with the manoeuvre ... lDfS-e6) 11 -txg7 ~xg7 12 'ii'c3 l:te8 13lDbd2lDf8 14lDh2! f6 IS f4 exf4 161::txf4 with an advantage for White, Chandler-Cummings, British League (4NCL) 1997/8.

7 h3 I consider this to be more accurate

than 7 lDc3. Black usually meets 7 lDc3 with something like 7 ... lDd7, but Black should play 7 ... -tg4!, e.g. 8 h3 -txf3 9 'Wixf3 lDd7, transposing to note 'ai' to Black's Sth move in Line B22.

7 ... 0-0 Playing 7 ... lDd7 before castling

does not make any difference if White simply continues 8 lDc3 but in the

game Lobron-Khalifman, Bad Wiessee 1998 White tried to take advantage of the fact that Black has already committed his knight: 8 c3!? (this would make much less sense if the knight had stayed on f6) 8 ... 0-09 d4 b6 10 .l:el cxd4 11 cxd4 eS 12 -tgS "ikc7 13 -te7! (this, together with White's next move, suggests that Black's 11th or 12th move might be wrong) 13 .. J~e8 14 dS! cxdS IS exdS ±.

8lDc3 (D)

8 ... lDd7 This is slightly more flexible than

8 ... lDe8, which only contains one idea, namely the manoeuvre ... lDc7-e6-d4 (with or without ... eS). After 9 -te3 b6 10 a4 as (White is better if he gets in as) 11 'Wid2 eS (this is virtually essential as ll...lDc7 12-th6lDe6 13 -txg7 ~xg714lDe2 gives White an edge) 12 -th6 f6 13lDh2 gS!? (13 ... 'Wid6100ks like a safer alternative) 14 -txg7lDxg7 with an unclear game, Becerra RiveroFraschini, Havana 1994.

9 -te3 eS 10 a3 as 1O ... "ike7!?


11 tiJd2 'fIIe7 12 tiJc4 b5 13 tiJd2 Anand-Kramnik, Villarrobledo rpd

1998. Now 13 ... a4 is roughly equal.

8222) 6 h3 (D)

B

6 ... e5 It is difficult for Black to do without

this move. It stakes out space in the centre, while restricting White's piece play.

The main alternative, 6 ... tiJf6, is entirely feasible as long as Black follows it up with a quick ... tiJd7 and ... e5. 7 tiJc3 and then:

a) 7 ... b6 8 i.e3 tiJd7 9 'fIId2 h6 10 tiJh2 e5 11 0-0-0 tiJf8 12 f4 exf4 13 i.xf4 tiJe6 14 i.e3 'fIIe7 15 J:.dfl tiJd4 16 tiJg4 i.e6! 17 i.xh6 i.xh6 18 tiJxh6 'iNh4 19 tiJg4 i.xg4 20 hxg4 'iNxh 1 21 l:.xhl l:.xhl + 22 tiJdl c4! with just sufficient counterplay for Black, Oratovsky-Ulybin, Cappelle la Grande 1996.

b) 7 ... "fllc7 8 i.e3 b6 9 "fIId2 e5 10 i.h6 0-0 11 i.xg7 ~xg7 12 g4!? tiJe8 13 0-0-0 f6 14l:.dgl ~g8 15 h4 with a

promising attack for White, Sutovsky-Kotronias, Buenos Aires 1997.

c) 7 ... 0-0 8 i.e3 b6 9 'iNd2 and then any attempt to withhold ... e5 seems to fail:

c1) 9 ... l:.e8 10 a3 (White plays very flexibly but a more direct approach is also possible, e.g. 10 0-0-0 e5 11 i.h6 'iNc7 12 tiJh2! i.e6 13 tiJg4 tiJh5 14 i.xg7 'ifi>xg7 15 'ii'h6+ ~h8 16 f4! exf4 17 e5 with a strong attack, Ziatdinov-C.Horvath, NikSi6 1991) 10 ... a5 110-0 tiJd7 12 tiJh2! tiJf8 13 f4 f5 (after 13 ... tiJe6 14 f5ltJd4 15ltJg4 White is also much better) 14 J:.ael tiJe6 15 exf5 gxf5 16 tiJf3 tiJd4 17 tiJe5 with a distinct advantage for White, Rublevsky-Andersson, Polanica Zdroj 1997.

c2) 9 ... tiJe8 10 0-0-0 tiJc7 11 i.h6 tiJe6 12 h4 i.xh6 13 'iNxh6 f6 14 tiJe2 l:.f7 15 g4 tiJd4 16 ltJfxd4 cxd4 17 l:.dgl ± Bologan-Kharlov, USSR 1991.

c3) 9 ... e5! 10 i.h6 (after 10 tiJxe5?! tiJxe4 11 tiJxf7 tiJxd2 12 tiJxd8 tiJf3+! 13 gxf3 l:.xd8 Black has enough compensation in view of White's weak pawns) 1O .. .'ii'e7 11 0-0-0 (there is no need to exchange too soon on g7; an example is 11 i.xg7 <3;xg7 12 'iNg5 l:.e8 13 0-0-0 a5 14 tiJd2 a4 15 J:.dfl h6 16 'ii'e3 b5, when Black is doing well, Kaidanov-D.Gurevich, Chicago 1996) ll...tiJh5 12 tiJe2 (Black would be happy to get a chance to play ... tiJf4, even at the cost of a pawn, but only if it meant White having to part with his dark-squared bishop) 12 ... f6 13 l:.dfl i.e6 14 g4 i.xh6 15 'ii'xh6 tiJg7 16 tiJd2! is slightly better for White, Rublevsky-Lanka, Budapest ECC 1996. White is ready to play f4,


while it would take something drastic to speed up Black's attack.

d) 7 . ./iJd7 8 .i.e3 eS 9 'iid2'iie7 10 i.h6 i.xh6 11 'iixh6 f6 12 liJd2liJf8 13 f4 and now:

dl) 13 ... liJe6? 14 fxeS fxeS ISliJe2! (White has a clear advantage, and in the following stage of the game he aims at reducing any possible counterplay while keeping his own assets, i.e. control of the f-file and an attack against the eS-pawn) IS ... i.d7 (presumably Black should at least tl) to put up a fight for the f-file with IS ... llf8) IS ... i.d7 160-00-0-0 17liJc4 i.e8 18 l:H2liJc7 19 a4liJa6 20 :aflliJb4 21 liJc 1 ± Wells-Chandler, British League (4NCL) 1997/8.

d2) Black should definitely continue 13 ... exf4 14'iixf4. Nevertheless, White maintains an edge, since his knights are significantly stronger than Black's bishop and knight, and the pawn structure will always be in White's favour.

7 i.e3 7 liJc3 'ilie7 8 i.e3 liJf6 9 'ilid2liJd7

transposes to note 'd' to Black's 6th move.

7 .. :ilie7 8 "i1i'd2 (D) This seems to be the most accurate

move-order for White. First of all it prevents ideas like .. .f6 and ... liJh6-f7, but it also introduces the idea of moving the queen to c3. For example after 8 .. .fS, 9 'ilic3! b6 10 a4 would be very strong.

8 ... liJf6 9 i.h6 The most direct, and it stops Black

transposing to Wells-Chandler (note 'd' to Black's 6th move; whether this

B

is anything for Black to strive for is another question), but other moves are also available:

a) 9 'ilic3 liJd7 10 a3 as 11 a4 b6 12 liJa3 fS 13liJc4 f4 14 i.c1 i.a6 IS b3 0-0 16 i.b2 llae8 was roughly equal in Nevednichy-Kiseliov, USSR Cht (Azov) 1991.

b) After 9liJc3, 9 ... 0-0 is likely to transpose to the main line below as White will have to play i.h6 sooner or later, while 9 ... liJd7 transposes directly into Wells-Chandler.

9 ... 0-0 10 liJc3 l:.e8 Alternatives: a) 1O ... liJhS!? 11 liJe2 i.xh6 12

'ilixh6 c4! 13 0-0 cxd3 14 cxd3 f6 = Svidler-Sutovsky, Tilburg 1996.

b) 1O ... liJe8!? intends to recapture with the knight when White exchanges on g7. Black will then play ... f6, whereafter the knight can join the game via e6. 11 0-0-0 bS 12liJh2 as 13 liJg4 (I prefer the immediate 13 i.xg7 liJxg7 14 f4) 13 ... a4 14 :de1? (I do not quite see the idea of this move; an exchange on g7 followed by f4 would still be preferable) 14 ... a3 IS b3 c4! 16


f4 cxb3 17 cxb3 exf4 18 i.xg7 0,xg7 19 0,h6+ 'it>h8 20 'tWxf4 i.e6 and Black has a promising position, Shaked-Van der Weide, Groningen 1996.

11 i.xg7 cj;xg7 (D)

w

120-0-0 12 0,h2!? h5 13 0-0-0 0,h7 140,e2

gave White an edge in Wells-Silman, Budapest 1994, and there may indeed be a case for making some kingside threats before committing the king.

12 ... b5 13 cj;bl a5 14 0,h2 a4 15 0,e2

15 0,g4 or 15 f4!? looks much stronger.

15 ... a3 16 b3 c4 17 0,c3 cxb3 18 cxb3 i.e6

Black is doing well, KhasangatinGagarin, Russian Club Cup (Maikop) 1998.

C) 40-0 i.g7 (D) Now we branch into:

Cl: 50,c3 35 C2: 5 c3 36 C3: 5 :el 44

5 'iWe2 is the only reasonable alternative to the above-mentioned options; 5 ... e5 (5 ... 0,f6 would also be met by a 'iWc4 idea, namely 6 e5 0,d5 71Wc4!? 0,c7 8 i.xc6 dxc6 9 1Wxc5 i.g4 10 0,d4! 0-0 11 h3 i.d7 12 0,f3 0,e6, Kosikov-Tukmakov, USSR 1976, and now White should play 13'tWe3!, when it is difficult for Black to prove that he has enough for the pawn) 6 'iWc4!? Now Morozevich considers the following possibilities for Black:

a) 6 ... d67 b4 0,ge7!? (7 ... cxb4 8, i.xc6+ bxc6 91Wxc6+ i.d7 101Wxd6 gives White a clear advantage, while 7 ... i.e6 81Wc3 cxb4 9 i.xc6+ cj;f8 10 'iWxb4 bxc6 11 i.a3 c5 12 1Wa4 also looks better for White) 8 bxc5 i.e6 (8 ... 0-0 9 cxd6 'tWxd6 10 i.a3 ±) 9 1Wc3 d5! with compensation.

b) 6 ... 0,d4!? 71Wxc5 (7 0,xd4 cxd4 is fine for Black) 7 ... 0,xf3+ 8 gxf3 0,e7! (intending ... 0-0 followed by ... d5) 9 d4 a6 (9 ... exd4 10 i.f4 is awkward for Black due to White's powerful bishops) 10 i.a4 b5 11 dxe5 (11 i.b3 d6 should be quite OK) 11...bxa4 12 i.g5 gives White compensation, but I


will leave it up to the reader to judge whether it is enough to compensate. Black will have to do a lot of preparatory work before he is ready to castle.

c) 6 ... b6 is definitely the safest option. Then Morozevich-Ivanchuk, Moscow OL 1994 continued 7 .i.xc6 dxc6 8 ~c3 "ilic7 9 a3 as 10 d3 tiJe7 11 .i.e3 0-0 12 tiJbd2 .i.e6 13 b4 cxb4 14 axb4 axb4 IS "ilixb4 cS 16 "ilibS, whereafter 16 ... .i.d7! 17 "ilib3 tiJc6 18l:txa8l:txa8 19 tiJgSl:tf8 20 f4 h6 21 tiJh3 .i.xh3 22 gxh3 exf4 23 .i.xf4 .i.eS!? 24 .i.xeS tiJxeS 2S tiJc4 tiJxc4 26 "ilixc4 would have led to an equal ending.

C1) S tiJc3 (D)

B

This has not exactly been Black's main worry until very recently. But with Kasparov having actually used it in a rapidplay game against Kramnik and young Russian star Alexander Morozevich's addiction to it, one has to treat it with respect. Surprisingly, it is not very easy for Black to find a suitable reply.

S ... d6

With this move Black plans ... .i.d7 followed by ... tiJf6, with quite a decent position. The problem with S ... tiJf6 straight away is, naturally, that White can continue 6 eS, and here Black does not have 6 ... tiJdS as in Line C3. Hence he must play 6 ... tiJg4, whereafter White secures an advantage with 7 .i.xc6 dxc6 8 l:te1 0-09 d3. Two other options for Black are:

a) S ... eS and now: a1) 6 d3 tiJge7 and here: all) 7 tiJd2 0-0 (7 ... tiJd4 8 tiJc4

tiJxbS 9 tiJxbS 0-0 10 tiJbd6 ±) 8 tiJc4 d6 9 tiJe3 fS 10 .i.c4+ ~h8 11 tiJedS f4 12 f3 (Ashley-Cao, Budapest 1997) 12 ... hS with an unclear position.

a12) 7 .i.gS 0-0 8 .i.c4 h6 9 .i.h4 'iti>h 7!? 10 tiJdS f6 11 tiJd2 d6 = Planine-Parma, Belgrade 1978.

a13) 7 tiJe1 0-08 f4 exf4 9.i.xf4 d6 10 tiJf3 .i.g4 11 "ilid2 tiJd4 12 tiJxd4 exd4 13 tiJe2 :c8 14 .i.a4 tiJc6 IS .i.b3 "ilid7 16:f2 .i.e6 = Morozevich-Christiansen, New York rpd 1995.

a2) 6 .i.xc6 bxc6 7 d3 tiJe7 8 a3 as 9 .i.e3 d6 10 tiJd2 0-0 11 f4 exf4 12 .i.xf4, Kaidanov-Alterman, Erevan OL 1996, and now Kaidanov believes Black has a reasonable game after 12 ... h6.

b) S ... tiJd4 and now: b1) 6 tiJxd4 cxd4 7 tiJe2 "ilib6 (7 ... a6

8 .i.a4 e6 9 c3 bS 10 .i.c2 dxc3 11 dxc3 was very pleasant for White in Morozevich-Salov, Amsterdam 1995) 8 a4 tiJf6 9 .i.d3 0-0 10 as "ilics 11 c3 dxc3 12 dxc3 dS 13 eS tiJg4 14 b4 "fic7 IS f4 f6 with good counterplay, Morozevieh-Khalifman, Yalta 1995.

b2) 6 .i.a4!? "iliaS?! (again it is surprisingly difficult for Black to find a


good reply; 6 ... a6 7liJxd4 cxd4 8liJe2 transposes to the game MorozevichSalov in 'b 1', while 6 ... e6 7 liJxd4 cxd4 8liJb5 'iVb6 9 c3 likewise results in a good game for White) 7 l:tbl! e6 (one point of White's last move is revealed after 7 ... liJxf3+? 8 'iVxf3 .i.xc3 9 'ilt'xc3 'iVxc3 10 bxc3, when the blrook wakes up) 8 a3 b5 9 b4! 'iia6 10 bxc5! (this is a very strong sacrifice, exploiting Black's poor development) 1O ... liJxf3+ 11 'ii'xf3 bxa4 12liJb5 ~e7 13 d4! (White has more than enough compensation for the piece) 13 ... f6 (13 .. .'i*'c6 is also insufficient: 14 d5! 'iVxc5 15 .i.e3 'ii'c4 16 l:tb4 'iVa2 17 .i.c5+ and White wins) 14liJc7 'iVc615 d5! 'iixc5 16liJxa8 .i.a6 17l:tel and, in Morozevich-Y akovich, Russian Club Cup (Maikop) 1998, White won in a few more moves.

6 eS!? (D) This disruptive pawn sacrifice is

White's only chance for an advantage. Others:

a) 6 d3 .i.d7 7 a4 liJf6 8 h3 0-0 9 .i.e3 e5 10 liJd2 .i.e6 11 i..c4 h6! 12 liJe2 b6 13 .i.xe6 fxe6 14 f4 exf4 15 liJxf4 'iVe8 and Black, with moves like . .. d5 and ... g5 on the agenda, is doing fine, Adams-Anand, Groningen FIDE KO Wch 1997.

b) 6 h3 .i.d7 (this is necessary as a preparation for ... liJf6, because after 6 ... liJf6? 7 e5 dxe5 8 liJxe5 Black cannot avoid doubled c-pawns) 7 l:tel liJf6 8 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 9 e5 dxe5 10 liJxe5 l:tc8 11 d3 0-0 12 .i.g5 l:te8 13 'ii'd2 liJd7 14liJxc6l:txc6 = Kasparov-Kramnik, Paris rpd 1995.

6 ... dxeS 7 .i.xc6+ bxc6 8l:tel f6

B

The problem for Black in this position is that he has very little hope of holding on to his extra pawn, and as soon as either the e5-pawn or the c5-pawn falls, White can concentrate on exploiting his positional advantage. Svidler-Van Wely, Tilburg 1998 instead saw Black giving up his e-pawn: 8 .. :ilVc7 9 d3 liJf6 10 liJxe5 liJd5 11 'ilt'e2 liJxc3 12 bxc3 'ilt'xe5 13 'ilt'xe5 i..xe5 14 l:txe5 c4 15 dxc4 f6 16 ':'c5 .i.d7 17 l:taS and White was better.

9 b3 liJh6 10 .i.a3 'iVaS UliJa4 c4 Since Black comes under some pres

sure after this move, it might be worth seeking a more dynamic solution, e.g. lL..liJf7 12 .i.xc5 f5 13 d3 'ilt'c7 .

12 d4 cxd313 cxd3 .i.g4 14 d4! This is Morozevich-Yakovich, Sam

ara 1998. Black must play carefully to hold the balance, but with correct play he should have very good counterchances too. For a more detailed discussion ofthis position, see page 12 in the introduction.

e2) S c3 (D)


5 ... lbf6 This is the most common, and also

the most logical against the c3 and d4 plan. Black's idea is to try to provoke eS. If White advances his e-pawn and follows with d4, Black will exchange pawns on d4 and hope to set up a blockade on the light squares, in the end trying to prove that White's pawn formation is weak.

Alternatives: a) S ... 'ii'b6 (this early queen sortie,

which attempts to stop White playing d4, has a rather poor reputation) 6 lba3! a6 7 ~a4 'ii'c7 8 d4 bS 9 ~b3 d6 10 ~e3 c4 11 ~c2 eS 12 b3 cxb3 13 axb3.l:f.b8 14 dSlbce7 IS c4 and White is better, Zaitsev-Apicella, Bucharest 1993.

b) S ... a6 6 ~xc6 dxc6 7 d3 and then: bI) 7 ... lbf68 h3 0-0 9'ii'e2'ii'c7?

10 eS lbe8 11 ~f4 ~e6 12 c4 b6 13 'ii'e3 l:!d8 14lbc3 'ii'd7 IS :fdllbc7 16 b3 ± Minasian-Yermolinsky, New York 1993.

b2) 7 ... ~g4 8 a4 lbf6 9 h3 ~xf3 10 'it'xf3 lbd7 11 'ii'e2 eS (l1...aS is better but White still has an edge after

12lba3 eS 13 f4) 12 aSlbfS 13 f4 exf4 14 ~xf4 lbe6 IS ~h2 0-0 16 lbd2 'ii'e7 17lbc4 ± Minasian-Goldin, New York 1993.

c) S ... eS (D) with the options:

w

cl) 6 d3lbge7 7 ~e3 d6 8 d4 exd4 9 cxd4 0-010 lbc3 b6 11 h3 a6 12 ~c4! lbaS (Krasenkov mentions 12 ... bS 13 ~dS lbxdS 14 exdS lbxd4 IS lbxd4 cxd4 16 ~xd4 and White is better) 13 ~e2 ~b7?! (Krasenkov suggests the more active 13 ... fS!? but I think Black still has some problems to solve after, for example, 14 dxcS dxcS IS'ii'c1 ~b7 16l:!dl'ii'e8 17lbgS) 14 dS bS IS l:cl 'it'd7, K veinys-Krasenkov, Poland 1992, 16 b3! fS 17 eS f4 18 ~d2 dxeS 19 lbe4 and White has a large advantage.

c2) 6 b4!? (this pawn sacrifice is quite interesting but we need a few more high-level games before a more precise evaluation can be established) 6 ... cxb4 7 d4 exd4 (7 ... bxc3 8 lbxc3 exd4 9 lbdS also gives White a lot of initiative - Zaitsev) 8 cxd4'ii'b6 9 ~c4 lbxd4 10 eS lbe6 (Zaitsev also analyses other moves, but this appears best)


11 tiJbd2 tiJe7 12 tiJe4 0-0 13 tiJf6+ (13 tiJd6!?) 13 ... ~xf6?! (13 ... <iii'h8 14 ~b2 d5 is better, with the idea 15 exd6 tiJg8, but White might try 15 ~b3 with some compensation) 14 exf6 tiJf5 15 ~b2 d5 16 ~d3 with good attacking chances, Zaitsev-Krasenkov, USSR 1991.

c3) 6 d4 exd4 7 cxd4 cxd4 (7 ... tiJxd4 8 tiJxd4 cxd4 9 f4 tiJe7 10 f5 tiJc6 11 f6! ~f8 12 ~c4 'iib6 13 tiJd2 d6 14 b4!? tiJe5 15 ~d5 ~g4 16 'iia4+ ~d7 17 'iib3 gave White fantastic compensation in W.Watson-Prasad, Thessaloniki OL 1988) 8 ~f4 and now:

c31) 8 ... a6 (starting a plan of attacking White's b5-bishop) 9 ~c4 d6 10 'iib3 tiJa5 (lO ... 'iie7? is bad in view of 11 ~xd6! 'iixd6 12 ~xf7+ ~d7 13 ~xg8 ~c7 14 ~d5 +- V.I.IvanovGoloshchapov, Sevastopol 1995) 11 ~xf7+ riite7 12 'iid5 tiJf6 13 ~g5 (13 ~xd6+ 'iixd6 14 'iixd6+ ~xd6 15 e5+ tle7 16 exf6+ ~xf6 17 ~d5 l1d8 18 ~e4 ~g4 should be fine for Black) 13 ... l1f8 14 l1e1 tiJc6 (14 .. Jhf7?! 15 e5 dxe5 16 l1xe5+ ~e6 17 l1xe6+ ~f8 18 'iixd8+ l1xd8 19 tiJe5 l1c7 20 tiJa3 and White is better - Kraut) 15 e5 dxe5 16 'iixd8+ l1xd8 17 ~b3 ~f8 18 tiJxe5 l1e8, and now Kraut suggests 19 f4!? rather than Razuvaev and Matsukevich's 19 tiJf3, when Black is quite OK after 19 ... l1xe1+ 20 tiJxe1 ~f5.

c32) 8 ... tiJge7 9 ~d6 (highlighting the main drawback of Black's 8th move) 9 ... 0-0 10 tiJbd2 a6 11 ~c4 b5 12 ~d5 ~b7 13 tiJb3 tiJxd5 (if 13 ... l1e8?, then 14 tiJc5 tiJxd5 15 exd5 tiJa5 16 b4, etc.) 14 ~xf8 'iixf8 15 exd5 tiJb4 16 a3 tiJxd5 17 tiJa5 and

Black does not have quite enough compensation, Dreev-Lputian, Simferopol1988.

We return to the position after 5 ... tiJf6 (D).

w

White has the following main possibilities: C21: 6 'iie2 39 C22: 6 l1el 41

Besides White's two main options, it is worth paying attention to two more:

a) 6 e5 tiJd5 7 d4 cxd4 8 cxd4 0-0 9 tiJc3 and now the simplest equalizing method for Black is probably to exchange on c3:

a1) 9 ... tiJxc3 10 bxc3 d6 11 exd6 (the pawn sacrifice 11 e6 fxe6 12 ~d3 has been tried but I do not quite trust it). Now both captures are fine for Black:

all) 11...'ifxd6 12 a4 a6 13 ~a3 'ifc7 14 ~xc6 (or 14 ~d3 tiJa5, intend-ing ... ~e6, controlling the c4-square) 14 ... 'ifxc6 15 ~xe7 l1e8 16 d5! 'ifxc3 17 l1c1 'ifa5 18 l1c5 'ifb4 19 l1xc8


'fixe7 20 d6 'fif6 21 lha8 lha8 = Ardeleanu-Cabrilo, Star Dojran 1994.

a12) 11 ... exd612 ~gS 'fic7 13 l:te1 a6 14 ~a4 ~d7 IS liJd2 h6 16 ~f4 liJaS = G.Kuzmin-Zubarev, Donetsk Z 1998.

a2) 9 ... liJc7 (D) and now White should decide whether he wants to play for quick development or to retain his light-squared bishop:

w

a21) 10 ~gS?! h6 11 ~h4 gS! (l1...liJxbS 12 liJxbS a6 13 liJd6!? gS 14 ~xgS! hxgS IS liJxgS f6 16 exf6 ltxf6, Smirin-Vyzhmanavin, Groningen peA qual 1993, 17 liJde4 l:tf4 18 dS liJeS 19 d6 e6 20 l:tc 1 with compensation - Smirin) 12 ~g3 liJxbS 13 liJxbS a6 14 liJc3 d6 IS l:te1?! (IS exd6 exd6 16 dS liJe7; Lanka) IS ... ~g4 16 h3 ~hS and Black is better, LeventicLanka, Portoroz 1994.

a22) 10 ~a4 d6 11 ~xc6 bxc6 12 l:te1 ~g4 13 h3 ~xf3 14 'fixf3 liJe6 IS ~e3 dxeS (Kraut's lS ... cS is interesting; he suggests that Black might even be able to seize an initiative) 16 dxeS 'fic7 17 l:tac1 ~xeS 18 liJdS 'fib7

19 lhc6 ii'xb2 20 ~c1, and now, rather than 20 ... 'fia1 ?!, as in MorenoLopez, Havana 1993, Black should play 20 ... ii'd4 21 liJxe7+ ~h8 with an unclear position.

a23) 10 a4 a6 11 ~c4 d6 12 exd6 'fixd6 13 dS liJeS 14 liJe4!? liJxf3+ IS 'fixf3 'fib4, Zaitsev-Kiseliov, Orel 1994,16 'fib3!? with an unclear position - Kiseliov and Gagarin.

a24) 10 ~f4 (this was Bronstein's preference in a few garnes, but it really ought not to give Black problems) 1O ... liJxbS 11 liJxbS a6 12 liJc3 d6 13 exd6 exd6 14 h3 l:te8 IS ~gS 'fiaS = Bronstein-Dvoretsky, Moscow 1975.

b) 6 d4!? cxd4 7 cxd4 liJxe4 8 dS liJd6 9 ~d3!? (9 liJa3 liJeS 10 liJxeS ~xeSll l:tel ~f612h4!? gives White some play for the pawn, according to Mikhalchishin) 9 ... liJb4 10 liJc3 0-0 11 ~f4 b612 l:tel?! (12 ~eS!? gives White some compensation) 12 ... ~b7 ; Kotsur-Tzermiadianos, Sofia 1994.

C21) 6 'iWe2 0-0 (D)

w


7 d4 This move clearly makes most

sense. A few other options: a) 7 .:i.d1 liJe8 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4

liJc7 10 ..txc6 dxc6 11 h3 and then: a1) l1...fS?! is a little too optimis

tic; Black hopes that the opening of the position will do him some good in view of his possession of the two bishops, but objectively it is too weakening. 12 liJc3 fxe4 13 'ilVxe4 ..tfS 14 'ilVh4 liJe6 (14 ... liJdS is safer) IS dS! ..txc3 16 bxc3 cxdS 17 c4 d4 18 ..th6 .:i.f6 19 liJxd4 ± A.Fernandez-V. Spasov, Manila OL 1992.

a2) 1l...b6 12 liJc3 ..ta6 13 'ilVc2 'ilVc8 14 ..tgS l:f.e8 = A.FernandesRa.Garcia, Lisbon Z 1993.

b) 7 eSliJe8 (7 ... liJdS 8 'ilVc4 is one of White's points when playing ~e2 rather than l:te1, but whether this is as strong as intended is not so clear: 8 ... liJc7! 9 ..txc6 dxc6 10 ~xcS ..tg4 11 liJd4 'ilr'd7 with compensation according to Kraut) 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 liJc7 10 ..ta4 d6 (Spassky once tried 1O ... dS, which should be good enough too, but beginning an attack on White's centre looks more logical) 11l:f.d1..tg4 12 h3 ..txf3 13 'ilr'xf3 dxeS 14 dxeS 'ilr'c8 IS ..txc6 bxc6 16 ~xc6 ..txeS 17 liJc3liJe6 18 liJdSl:f.e8 19 ~xc8 l:.axc8 and Black is at least equal, RogersAgdestein, Biel IZ 1993.

7 ... cxd4 7 ... dS should also be possible (this

move is seen in the related line 6 .:i.e1 0-0 7 d4 dS!?, but against 6 'ilVe2 the immediate 7 ... dS is for some reason rarely seen). Utemov-Smirin, USSR Cht (Podolsk) 1990 went 8 eS liJe4 9

liJbd2 (9 ..te3) 9 ... cxd4 10 cxd4 'ilr'b6 11 liJxe4?! dxe4 12 ..txc6 ~xc6 13 liJgS ..tfS 14 .:i.e1 l:.ad8 lSliJxe4l:txd4 with an edge for Black.

8 cxd4 dS 9 eSliJe4 10 ..te3 Another possibility for White is 10

liJc3 liJxc3 11 bxc3 ~aS (Korchnoi suggests l1...liJaS 12 h3 a6 13 ..td3 ..td7 with equality) 12 ..td2 (or 12 a4 ..tg4 13 'ilr'e3 f6 14 ..ta3l:tfe8 IS l:.fe1 'ilVd8 16 exf6 exf6 17 'ilr'f4 'ilr'd7 = SeppGausel, Debrecen Echt 1992) 12 ... ..tg4 13 .:i.fb1 'ilr'c7 = A.Fernandes-Wells, Linares Z 1995.

10 ... f6 10 ... ~b6 11 liJc3 liJxc3 12 bxc3

..tg4 13 l:f.fb1 ~c7 14 h3 ..txf3 IS 'ilr'xf3 e6 16 h4liJaS was about equal in Bilek-Szilagyi, Budapest 1964.

11 exf6 exf6 12 liJc3liJxc3 13 bxc3 liJaS 14liJd2 ..tfS?!

A very natural developing move, but in my opinion a mistake. White is positionally worse unless he can get in c4. Black cannot prevent that (since ... a6 and ... bS is too weakening) but he can attempt to make sure the lightsquared bishops are exchanged when this happens. Beginning with 14 .. .'~)h8 would be an idea. Now IS c4 fails in view of lS ... a6 16 ..ta4 dxc4 17liJxc4 liJxc4 18 ~xc4 bS (see the point of ... 'it>h8!), so a normal move would be IS ..td3, to which Black can reply lS ... ..te6, intending to place the bishop on f7. White cannot really get in c4 now without exchanging the lightsquared bishops, and this would ease Black's defence a lot.

IS c4! a6 16 ..ta4 liJxc4 17 liJxc4 dxc4 18 'ir'xc4+ 'it>h8 19 ..tb3

Rossolimo Variation with 3."g6 41

White is better due to his strong passed d-pawn, Minasian-Nikolaidis, Panormo Z 1998.

e22) 6 ~el (D)

B

6 ... 0-0 Instead, 6".a6 forces an immediate

decii!ion from White's light-squared bishop. White can retreat it to fl, but the best is 7 .txc6 dxc6 8 h3, when it is difficult to see a better move than 8".0-0, transposing to note 'd' to Black's 7th move.

7 h3!? Even though this looks like one of

those moves you just play and hope they turn out not to be completely wasted, this is actually a very good waiting move as it forces Black to 'show his cards'. White will most likely follow up with d4 but only after seeing what Black has in mind. Alternatives:

a) 7 e5 ttJd5 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 d6 (9 ... ttJc7 is also feasible) 10 ttJc3 ttJxc3 (l0 ... dxe5 11 .txc6 bxc6 12 ttJxe5 is

comfortable for White and W ... ttJc7 11 .txc6 bxc6 12 h3 h6 13 1Wa4 .tb7 14 .tf4 c5 15 ttJe4 ttJe6 16 .tg3 .txe4 17 ~xe4 cxd4 181Wa3 d5 19 ~e2 l:te8 20 l:td 1 1Wb6 was good for Black in Stavrinov-Lanka, Latvian Ch 1993) 11 bxc3 .tg4 12 exd61Wxd6 (12 ... exd6 13 h3 .txf3 14 1Wxf3 gives White an edge) and now:

al) 13 h3 .txf3 14 ~xf3 e5 15 .txc6 bxc6 16 dxe5 .txe5 17 .th6 ~fe8 18 l:tadl1Wc7 19 ~e4l:te6 = Yandemirov-Polovnikova, Perm 1997.

a2) 13 a41Wd5 14 .ta3 ~fc8 15 h3 .txf3 16 1Wxf3 1Wxf3 17 gxf3 e6 18 ~abl ttJa5 and Black is better, RibeiroTurner, Athens 1997.

b) 7 d4 and then: bl) 7 ... cxd4 8 cxd4 (8 e5 ttJd5 9

cxd4 d6 10 ttJc3 transposes to 'a') 8 ... a6 9 .txc6 dxc6 10 h3 c5 11 d5 e6?! (11...b5 is stronger but I would still prefer White after 12 ttJc3 .tb7 13 ~g5) 12 d6! (this pawn turns out to be very annoying) 12 ... e5 13 ttJc3 l:te8 14 .te3 b6 15 ~d3 and White is better, Rozentalis-Timman, Moscow OL 1994.

b2) 7 ... d5!? (this move has almost entirely superseded the older 7 ... cxd4; now White's knight will not have access to c3). Then:

b21) 8 exd5 ~xd5! 9 dxc5 (9 c4 ~d6 10 dxc5 ~xdl IIl:hdl ttJe4 12 .txc6 bxc6 13 ttJa3 .tg4 14 ttJc2 ttJxc5 15 ttJcd4 l:tfc8 = Torre-Kotronias, Manila OL 1992) 9 ... 'iWxc5 10 .txc6? ! (this is rather dubious, but Black would have absolutely no problems if the bishop retreated) W ... ~xc6! 11 l:txe7 .te6 12 ttJd4 ~d6! 13 l:txb7 ttJg4 14 g3 l:.fd8! 15 .tg5 .txd4! 16 ~xd4


'WfS! with a winning attack for Black, Vedder-Yakovich, Leeuwarden 1992.

b22) 8 e5!? liJe4 leading to a further branch:

b221) 9 h3 'Wb6 10 ~a4 ~f5 11 liJa3 cxd4 12 cxd4 f6! 13 ~b3 ':ad8 14 exf6 exf6 15 liJc2 ':fe8 16 ~f4 ~e6 17 ':e2 g5! 18 ~h2 f5 19 'WeI ~f7! + Rozentalis-Kramnik, Bundesliga 1993/4.

b222) 9 ~xc6 bxc6 10 liJbd2liJxd2 11 liJxd2 cxd4 12 cxd4 c5! 13 dxc5 'Wc7 14liJf3 'Wxc5 15liJd4 ~d7 16 b3 l:Hc8 17 ~b2 'Wa5 = Rozentalis-Degraeve, Belfort 1997.

b223) 9liJbd2 cxd4 10 cxd4 i.d7!? (after 1O ... 'Wb6 11 ~xc6 'Wxc6, 12 liJxe4 dxe4 13 liJg5 l:ld8! was comfortable for Black in J.Polgar-Kramnik, Monaco Amber blindfold 1994, but White should prefer 12 liJb3!? followed by ~e3 and l:tc 1) 11 ~d3 (11 liJxe4 dxe4 12 ':xe4 liJxe5 {or 12 ... 'Wb6!?} 13 ':xe5 ~xe5 14 ~xd7 ~xh2+ 15 ~xh2 'Wxd7 ;!; Nesis and Novik) l1...liJxd2 12 ~xd2 'Wb6 13 ~c3 ~g4 14 ~e2 e6 15 'Wd2 l:lfc8 1/2-1/2 Shabanov-Novik, St Petersburg 1994.

Returning to the position after 7 h3 (D):

7 ... e5 Black will now be left with the

worse structure after White plays d4. Black's idea is to take twice, when he will end up with an isolated d-pawn, but he hopes that his slight lead in development and well-placed pieces will compensate for this. Other moves:

a) 7 ... d6!? 8 d4 (8 d3 ~d7 9 a3 'Wc7 10 liJbd2 a6 11 ~c4 liJe5 12

B

liJxe5 dxe5 13 liJf3 l:tad8 14 'We2 ~c6 = Certic-Skembris, Kavala 1997) 8 ... cxd4 9 cxd4 a6 10 ~fl e5 11 liJc3 l:le8 12 d5 liJd4 13 ~e3 liJxf3+ 14 'Wxf3 ;!; Hubner-Soltis, Ybbs 1968.

b) 7 ... 'Wb6 8 liJa3 d5 9 e5 liJe8 10 d3 liJc7 11 ~a4 liJe6 12 liJc2 d4 13 cxd4liJcxd4 14liJcxd4 cxd4 15 ~b3 h6 16 a4! a5 17 ~c4liJd8 18 b3 ~e6 19 ~a3 ;!; Smyslov-Zsu.Polgar, Prague 1995.

c) 7 ... liJe8 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4liJc7 10 ~fl d5 11 e5 liJe6 12 liJc3 f6 13 exf6 exf6 14 b3 with an edge for White, Ciocaltea-Ghitescu, Bucharest 1966.

d) 7 ... a6 8 ~xc6 (8 ~fl e5 9 d4 cxd4 10 cxd4 exd4 seems to give Black a better version of the main lines) 8 ... dxc6 9 d4 cxd4 10 cxd4 c5 11 d5 transposes to note 'bl' to White's 7th move.

S d4 Or: a) 8 ~xc6 dxc6 9 liJxe5 (testing

the tactical justification of Black's 7th move) 9 ... l:te8 10 f4liJh5! 11 d4 'Wh4 12l:lfl ~xh3! 13 gxh3 'Wg3+ (Black has at least a perpetual check) 14 ~hl


'iVxh3+ IS <&ti>gl tDg3 16 tDd2 'iVhl + 17 '.t>f2 (Galdunts-Dreev, St Petersburg 1993) 17 ... tDxfl! 18 'iVxfl (18 tDxfl 'iVxe4 19 tDg3 'iVdS +) 18 ... 'iVxfl+ 19 tDxfl cxd4 20 cxd4 f6. The e4-pawn drops, with clearly the better ending for Black - Dreev.

b) 8 d3 (a quieter approach) 8 ... d6 9 tDbd2 .i.d7 (9 ... h6 10 tDfl 'iVc7 11 .i.a4 l:tb8 12 .i.e3 <&ti>h7 13 .i.c2 b6 14 d4 .i.d7 IS dS tDe7 16 g4 tDfg8 17 tDg3 ~h8 18 tDh2 t5 with counterplay, Stripunsky-Antunes, Wijk aan Zee 1996) 10 tDfl and then:

bl) 1O ... h611 tDe3!? a612 .i.a4 bS 13 .i.c2 l:te8 14 a3 .i.e6 IS .i.d2 ~h7 16"1i'cl "1i'd717b4cxb4(17 ... a5!?) 18 axb4 dS 19 exdS tDxdS 20 tDg4! .i.xg4 21 hxg4 with some attacking prospects for White, Certic-Kotronias, Kavala 1997.

b2) 10 ... tDe8 ll.i.gS!? f612 .i.d2 <&ti>h8 13 b4! cxb4 (Kholmov's suggestion 13 ... tDc7 is better) 14 cxb4 fS IS .i.c4 and White has a slight advantage, Kholmov-Vasiukov, Russia 1995.

8 ... exd4 9 exd4 (D)

9 ... exd4 White has a much easier game after

9 ... tDxd4 10 tDxd4 exd4 11 "1i'xd4!, when Black has serious problems justifying the weak d-pawn, e.g.:

a) Il..J:te8 12 eS a6 13 .i.gS! h6 14 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 IS tDc3 .i.g7 16 .tc4 d6 (16 ... 'iVgS 17 tDe4!) 17 "1i'xd6 "1i'gS 18 tDe4 "1i'f4 19 e6! "1i'xd6 20 exf7+ 1-'0 Stelting-Danschczyk, 2nd Bundesliga 1991.

b) ll...a6 12 .i.a4 l:te8 13 eS bS 14 .i.b3 (the same idea as above, 14 .i.gS, still looks interesting) 14 ... d6 IS :dl tDhS 16 "1i'xd6 ± Kazhgaleev-Kozul, Pula Echt 1997.

10 e5 The best try. White can play 10

tDxd4, hoping for 1O ... tDxd4 11 "1i'xd4 with a transposition to the previous note. However, Black plays the much better 1O ... "1i'b6, forcing an exchange on c6: 11 tDxc6 dxc6 12 .i.c4 :e8 13 tDc3 .i.e6 14.i.fl :ad8 and Black has a comfortable game, Fusthy-Klundt, Berlin 1988.

10 ... tDd5 Gallagher's suggestion 1O ... tDe8!?

is also very interesting, although White may be in a position to claim some compensation - but probably not more - after 11 .i.gS f6 12 exf6 .i.xf6 13 .i.xf6 'ii'xf6 14 tDbd2 tDd6 IS .i.d3.

11 .i.g5 "fie7 Here l1...f6 is met by 12 'ii'b3!, but

Anand-Salov, Paris Immopar rpd 1992 instead saw 11...'ii'aS 12 tDa3 a6 13 .i.c4 tDb6?! (this embarrasses the queen; 13 ... tDde7 is better) 14 .i.b3 tDxeS? (a further mistake, and this time a losing one) IS tDxeS .i.xeS 16 .i.h6


d6? (16 ... .l::te8 17 'ilVf3 d5? 18 .l::txe5!) 17 .i.d2 'tWc5 18.l::tc1 'ilVxcl 19.i.xc1 .i.d7 20 .i.h6 .l::tfe8 21 'ilVf3 1-0.

12 'ilVb3! ttJb6 13 ttJbd2 13 i.f4 a6 14.in ttJa5 15 'ilVdlltJd5

16 .i. g3 'ilVb6 17 'iIV xd4 'iIV xd4 18 ttJxd4 ttJc6 19 ttJxc6 dxc6 = Tkachev-Mortensen, Moscow OL 1994.

13 ... d5 13 ... ttJxe5 14 ttJxe5 .ixe5 15 .l::tacl

'ilVb8 16 .ih6 is highly unpleasant. 14 exd6 'ilVxd6 15 ttJe4 'ilVd5 16

.i.xc6 'iji'xc6 17 .i.e7 .ie6 18 "fidl

.l::tfe8 19 ttJxd4 'iji'a4 Black must still watch his step care

fully. For example, 19 ... i.xd4? is a mistake owing to 20 'ilVxd4 .l::txe7 21 ttJf6+ 'ifi>f8 22 ttJxh7+ 'iitg8 23 ttJf6+ 'iitf8 24 ttJd5! +-.

20 ttJxe6 'iji'xdl 21 .l::taxdl .l::txe7 22 ttJxg7 ~xg7 23 ttJd6 .l::txel + 24 .l::txel .l::td8 25 ttJxb7 .l::td2

The players agreed to a draw here in Meier-Mednis, Hamburg 1997. Black seems to have just about enough counterplay.

C31 5 .l::tel (D) Now:

C31: 5 •.. ttJf6 44 C32: 5 •.. e5 47

C31) 5 ... ttJf66 e5 We have already looked at 6 c3,

which was covered in Line e22, but another important alternative here is 6 ttJc3 0-0 (6 ... ttJd4? has been known as a mistake since it was played in Rossolimo-Romanenko, Salzburg 1948: 7

B

e5 ttJg8 8 d3 ttJxb5?! {in view of what is coming, this is probably wrong} 9 ttJxb5 a6 10 ttJd6+! exd6 {1O ... ~f8 is more prudent, but White is better anyway} 11 .ig5 'ilVa5 12 exd6+ ~f8 13 .l::te8+! ~xe8 14 'ilVe2+ 'iitf8 15 .ie7+ 'iite8 16 .id8+! 'iitxd8 17 ttJg5 1-0) 7 e5 ttJe8, and now:

a) 8 d3 ttJd4!? (there is nothing wrong with 8 ... ttJc7 but Black tries to take advantage of the fact that White did not exchange on c6) 9 .ig5 ttJc7 10 .ic4 b5!? (very aggressive; a more peace-minded player might choose 1O ... ttJce6 with the idea 11 .ih4 ttJf5) 11 ttJxd4 bxc4 12 ttJdb5 ttJe6 13 .ih4 cxd3 14 "it'xd3 .ib7 and Black is taking over the initiative, Ricardi-Smirin, Moscow OL 1994.

b) 8 .ixc6 dxc6 (8 ... bxc6 9 d4 cxd4 10 "it'xd4 d6 11 'ilVh4 was better for White in Sigurjonsson-Beliavsky, Hastings 1974/5) 9 h3 ttJc7 with the possibilities:

bl) 10 b3 (this has for a long time been the choice of Rossolimo expert Rainer Kraut) 1O ... ttJe6 (an interesting idea is to activate the bishop on d5


before playing ... ttJe6; Kraut-Fahnenschmidt, Tiibingen 1994 saw an early peace agreement after 1O ... i.e6!? 11 d3 i.d5 12 ttJe4 ttJe6 13 i.b2 'ifd7 14 'tWc1 f5 15 exf6 exf6 =) 11 ttJe4 b6 12 .lib2 ttJd4 13 d3 f5! (Black needs to gain some space) 14 exf6 exf6 15 ttJxd4 cxd4 16 'iff3 f5 17 ttJd2 i.b7 18 ttJc4 'ifc7 19 'ife2 with perhaps a tiny advantage for White, SpangenbergFraschini, Buenos Aires 1991.

b2) 10 d3 ttJe6 (or 1O ... i.e6!? 11 .lie3 b6 12 'tWd2 .l:te8 13 i.h6 i.h8 14 ttJe4 with an edge for White) 11 a4 (11 ttJe4 'tWc7 12 ttJeg5 h6 13 ttJxe6 i.xe6 14i.f4~h715'ife2.l:tad816b3aSI7 a4 b6 18 'ife3 'ifc8 19 .l:tabl .l:td5 20 ttJd2 .l:tfd8 21 i.g3 i.f5 22 ttJc4 ;!; Tseshkovsky-Mihalko, Budapest 1989) ll...a5 12 b3 b6 13 ttJe4 f5 14 exf6 exf6 15 i.b2 .l:te8 16 ttJg3 .l:ta7 17 'ifd2 .l:tae7 with a roughly equal position, Gdanski-Izbinski, Polish Cht (Krynica) 1997.

Returning to the position after 6 e5 (D):

B

6 ... ttJd5 7 ttJc3 ttJc7

7 ... ttJxc3 8 dxc3 0-0 9 .lic4 gives White lasting pressure, e.g. 9 ... b6 10 i.f4 i.b7 11 'tWd2 ttJaS 12 i.d5 i.xd5 13 'ifxd5 'tWc7 14 .l:tadl .l:tad8 15 c4 'ifc6 16 b3 ± Golubovic-Ptacnikova, Mitropa Cup 1997.

8 i.xc6 dxc6 9 ttJe4 ttJe6 This is probably the most solid. The

altemative is 9 ... b6 10 ttJf6+ (10 d4 cxd4 11 ttJxd4 ttJe6! is good for Black, who has the trick 12 ttJxc6? 'tWxdl 13 .l:txdl i.b7 in mind) 1O .. .'~f8 11 ttJe4 i.g4 12 d3 (12 h3 i.xf3 13 'ifxf3 ttJe6 14 d3 'ifd5 gave Black few worries in Glek-Wells, Wijk aan Zee 1995). The question is now whether it has been worth investing two tempi to interfere with Black's right to castle. This is without doubt somewhat awkward for Black, but White cannot relax either, since it is not so easy for him to defend his e-pawn:

a) 12 ... i.xe5? (this has already been examined in the Introduction {page 15}, and hence I will not go into much detail) 13 ttJxe5!! i.xdl 14 i.h6+ ~g8 (14 ... ~e8 15 ttJxc6 f5 16 ttJxd8 .l:txd8 17 .l:taxd 1 fxe4 18 lhe4 +-) 15 ttJxc6 i.xc2 (or 15 ... 'ifd7 16 ttJf6+! exf6 17 ttJe7+ 'tWxe7 18 :'xe7 ttJd5 19 .l:td7 and again White wins) and now:

al) 16 ttJc3? e6 17 ttJxd8 Ihd8 18 i.g5 'i;g7 19 i.xd8 .l:txd8 and Black has little to worry about, with a solid position and soon to be two pawns for the exchange, Timman-Kramnik, Riga Tal mem 1995.

a2) 16 ttJxd8! l:lxd8 17 ttJxc5! bxc5 18lhe7 was Kramnik's suggestion afterwards, which he found very


dangerous. For further analysis, see pages 15-16.

b) 12...'it'd5?! 13 c4 'iVd7 (13 ... 'iVxe5 14 ~xe5 JLxdl 15 ~xf7! ~) 14 h3 JLxf3 15 'it'xf3 h6, Timman-Van der Wiel, Dutch Ch 1996, and now Timman claims a clear advantage for White after 16 b3 followed by i.b2. In the game Timman played 16 JLd2?! followed by JLc3 but later had to play b3 and JLb2, so I assume Timman decided these tempi could be better spent.

c) 12 ... ~e6! 13 ~ed2 'it'd5 14 h3 JLxf3 15 ~xf3 ':'d8 16 'iVe2 h6! is the right solution. Black is ready to play ... ~g8-h7, with a comfortable position. Lutz-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1995 now continued 17 i.e3 ~g8 18 c4! (it is already difficult to find a plan for White, so Lutz decided to gambit a pawn) 18 ... 'iVxd3 19 'it'xd3 ':xd3 20 ':'ad 11hd 1 21 ':xd 1 f5! 22 exf6 JLxf6 23 .l:td7 ~f7 24 ':'xa7 JLxb2 25 .l:tb7 .l:ta8 26 ':'xb6 ':'xa2 27 .l:txc6 and a draw was soon agreed.

10 d3 0-0 11 JLe3 b6 11 ... ~d4 12 ~xc5 leads to quite in

teresting play, e.g.: a) 12 ... JLg4!? 13 JLxd4 (13 ~xb7

JLxf3 14 gxf3 'it'd5 15 JLxd4 'iVxd4 16 ~aS JLxe5 17 ~c4 JLf4 and Black has plenty of play for the pawn) 13 ... JLxf3 14 'it'xf3 'it'xd4 15 'iVe3 'it'xb2 16 .l:tabl 'it'xa2 17 .l:txb7 with an unclear position - Lutz.

b) 12 ... ~xf3+ 13 'it'xf3 i.xe5 14 d4 JLg7 15 c4 and White's space advantage ensures an advantage, LutzWeemaes, Moscow OL 1994.

12 'it'd2 ~d4!? (D)

12 .. .f5!? 13 exf6 exf6 14 JLh6 as 15 JLxg7 'i;xg7 16 .l:te2 ':a7 was roughly equal in Kramnik-Kasparov, Moscow PCA rpd 1996.

w

13 ~xd4 cxd4 14 JLh6 It is now rather easy to see the con

tours of White's plan. If Black does nothing, White will play 'iVg5-h4 followed by ~g5 and Black will soon be mated .

14 ... c5 Black has also tried a number of

other moves: a) 14 ... f6 15 exf6 exf6 16 JLxg7

~xg7 17 'iVf4 'it'd5 18 .l:te2 JLe6 19 .l:tael ':ae8 20 ~d6 .l:te7 21 ~c4 ':'d8 22 a4 ':'ee8 23 h4 'it'd7 24 ~d2 c5 25 as and White is better, Van den DoelDe Wachter, Zagan jr W ch 1997. Note a funny thing about the position: it is actually the king's rook on d8 and the queen's rook on e8!

b) 14 ... 'it'd5 15 JLxg7 ~xg7 16 ~g5 'it'e6 17 'it'h4 h6 18 ~g3 c5 19 f4 JLb7 20 .l:te2 is clearly better for White, Kanefsck-Maurino, Buenos Aires 1998.


c) 14 .. :ti'c7 15 i.xg7 <J;xg7 16 'it'f4 h6 17 c3?! (the aforementioned plan, 17lDg3 c5 18 l:te2 i. b7 19 'if'h4, looks much better) 17 ... dxc3 18lDxc3 i.e6 19 d4 l:tfd8 20 l:tad 1 l:td7 21 l:te3 l:tad8 + Degraeve-Meins, Groningen open 1997.

15 'it'f4 i.b716 'it'h4 f6!? 17 i.xg7 'iitxg7 18 exf6+ exf6 19 l:te2 'it'd5

The chances are approximately balanced, Kanefsck-Zarnicki, Mar del Plata 1997.

C32)

w

5 ... e5 (D)

6 i.xc6 Alternatives: a) 6 c3 lDge7 7 d4 looks like an in

ferior version of 5 c3 e5 6 d4 since in that line White often does not need to play l:tel. I suppose White can play quietly with 7 d3 too but it is not really anything that I would recommend.

b) 6 b4!? is a pawn sacrifice that contains a certain amount of venom. There is certainly no hidden agenda here - White plays directly for an

attack. Since White obtains a promising game if Black declines the sacrifice, there is little choice for Black:

b1) 6 ... cxb4 (Kraut regards this as rather dubious, but it has been Black's preferred reply lately; if I should come with a rational explanation, it must be because it seems to maintain better control of the centre) 7 a3lDge7 8 axb4 and Black must now decide whether he dares to take the pawn on b4:

bl1) Van der Wiel showed that Black should keep his hands off this pawn: 8 ... lDxb4 ?! 9 i.a3lDbc6 10 i.d6 0-0 11 lDc3 a6! 12 i.c4 b6 13 lDd5 i.b7, Van der Wiel-Reindermann, Leeuwarden 1993, and now Van der Wiel recommends 14lDxe5! lDxd5!? (14 ... i.xe5 15lDxe7+ lDxe7 16 i.xe5 d5 17 exd5 lDxd5 18 'if' g4 ±; or 14 ... lDxe5?! 15 i.xe7) 15 i.xd5! lDxe5 16 i.xb7 and White has a clear, most likely winning, advantage.

b12) 8 ... 0-0 9 i.b2 d6 10 i.xc6 lDxc6 (lO ... bxc6 11 d4 f6 12 c4 i.e6 13 c5 dxc5 14 bxc5 ± Barle-Pavlov, Bucharest 1976) 11 b5 'ir'b6 12lDa3 lDa5 13 i.c3 and White is better, Timoshchenko-Arseniev, USSR 1972.

b2) 6 ... lDxb4 and now: b21) 7 c3lDc6 8 d4 exd4 (8 ... cxd4

9 cxd4 lDxd4 10 lDxd4 exd4 11 lDd2 lDe7 12 i.a3 0-0 13 i.d6 with compensation) 9 e5lDge7 10 cxd4 cxd4 11 i.a3 0-0 12 lDbd2 a6 13 i.d3 b5 14 i.d6l:te8 15 a4 and White has reasonable play for the pawns, Sigurjonsson-Kroon, Nice OL 1974.

b22) 7 i.b2 and now: b221) 7 ... 'if'c7 is surprisingly dan

gerous, e.g. 8 c3 lDc6 9 d4 d6 10 d5 a6


11 tLla3! <t;e7 (ll...axbS 12 tLJxbS 'tWb6 13 tLlxd6+ <t;e7 14 dxc6 ±) 12 dxc6 axbS 13 cxb7 'tWxb7 14 c4 and White has excellent compensation, Alexandria-Schul, Kislovodsk 1974.

b222) 7 ... a6 (also risky but nevertheless Black's best) 8 a3 axbS 9 axb4 l:txa1 10 ~xal cxb4 11 ~xeS ~xeS 12 tLlxeS tLle7 13 d4, Kapengut-Borisenko, USSR 1975, and now 13 ... dS!? would have been roughly equal.

Returning to 6 ~xc6 (D):

B

Now we have: C321: 6 ... bxc6 48 C322: 6 ... dxc6 49

C321) 6 ... bxc67 c3 It feels strange that 7 b4!? should be

more recommendable than at the previous move, but it has got a famous game linked to it since Fischer used it in his 'return-match' against Spassky. 7 ... cxb4 8 a3 gives Black a difficult choice:

a) 8 ... tLle7 9 ~b2 d6 10 d4 (this is of course much more fun, and probably

also better than just regaining the pawn with 10 axb4) 1O ... bxa3 11 tLlxa3 0-0 12 dxeS dS 13 exdS cxdS 14 c4! dxc4 IS tLJxc4 'tWxdl 16 l:texd1 ~g4 17 l:td3 ~ Ambroz-Vokac, Czech tt 1994.

b) 8 ... bxa3?! (Timman had already cited a reason to reject this, so it is strange that a top-class player such as Hubner uses it) 9 tLlxa3 (Timman suggested 9 ~xa3 d6 10 d4 exd4 11 eS dxeS 12 tLlxeS ~e6 13 tLld2 tLle7 14 tLJdf3 ±) 9 ... d6 10 d4 exd4 11 eS dxeS 12 tLlxeS i.e6 13 'tWf3 tLle7 (13 ... 'tWdS 14 'tWxdS cxdS IS tLJbS ±) 14 tLlxf7! ~xf7 IS ~gS (incidentally IS l:txe7+ 'tWxe7 16 'tWxc6+ ~f8 17 'tWxa8+ ~e8 18 ~d2100ks even stronger) IS ... 0-0 16 ~xe7 'iVd7 17 ~xf8 l:txf8 18 'iVd3 ± Klundt-Hubner, Bad Wiessee 1997.

c) 8 ... cS 9 axb4 cxb4 10 d4 exd4 11 ~b2 d6 12 tLlxd4 'iVd7 (there is no better defence to White's main threat tLlc6; 12 ... 'iVb6 is strongly met by 13 tLld2! ~xd4 14 tLJc4 ~xf2+ IS <t;hl 'tWcS 16 tLJxd6+ ~e7 17 l:tn 'iVxd6 18 'tWf3 with a powerful attack for White -Timman) 13 tLld2 ~b7?! (Black is better advised to develop his kingside; hence 13 ... tLJe7 has been suggested, even though after 14 tLlc4 I do not see a better move than 14 ... ~b7) 14 tLlc4 tLlh6 (14 ... tLJe7 IS tLlbS ~xb2 16 tLlbxd6+ <t;f8 17 tLlxb2 is also good for White) IS tLJfS!? (IS tLlbS would be a simpler solution but Fischer goes for an attack) IS ... ~xb2 16 tLlcxd6+ <t;f8 17 tLlxh6 and White is better, Fischer-Spassky, Sveti Stefan (11) 1992.

7 ••. tLJe7 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 exd4 10 tLJxd4 0-0 11 tLlc3 (D)


B

1l ... l:tb8 Black would like to play ... d5 but it

is not so easy. The immediate 11...d5? is bad in view of 12 exd5 cxd5 13 i.g5, and the rather passive 11...d6 gives White a nice grip after 12 i.g5 i.b7 13 'ir'd2 l:te8 14 l:tad1 as in Magomedov-Kharlov, USSR Cht (Azov) 1991.

However, an interesting plan, but probably too experimental, was tried in the game Smyslov-Zsu.Polgar, Monaco Women vs Veterans 1994, which went 1l...i.b7 12 i.g5 h6 13 i.h4 g5 14 i.g3 d5 15 exd5 ttJxd5, when Black hoped that her active pieces would compensate for the mess the pawns have become. However, Smyslov found the very strong 16 ttJe4!, which illustrated rather well Black's weaknesses (in particular d6, c5 and f5), and he was able to keep an advantage.

So in the end it makes reasonable sense to counter-attack down the b-file so White at least has to prepare developing the bishop.

12 ttJb3 The other idea is to try to take ad

vantage of Black not having moved

the d-pawn: 12 e5!? c5 13 ttJb3 ttJc6 14 ttJxc5 ttJxe5 15 ttJ5e4 i.a6 16 i.g5 f6 17 'ir'd5+!? (White goes for a direct refutation of Black's play, but it might have been better simply to retreat the bishop to e3) 17 ... ~h8 18 ttJxf6!? i.xf6 19 i.xf6+ (this gives Black a pretty easy game, but even after the more complicated 19 ':xe5 i.xg5 20 l:txg5 l:txb2 21 ttJe4, Black has the resourceful 21...'ir'b6!, when it is White who must be on the alert) 19 ... 'fixf6 20 'ir'xe5 'fixe5 21 ':xe5 ':xb2 with the better ending for Black in GirinathGufeld, Calcutta 1992.

12 ... d5 13 i.e3! 13 i.g5 is another possibility but

the text-move is now regarded as more accurate.

13 ... ':b7 13 ... dxe4? 14 i.c5! ':b7 15 ttJxe4!

i.xb2 16 ttJd4! i.xd4! (16 ... i.xa1 17 ttJf6+ ~h8 18 'fixa1 +-) 17 i.xd4 ttJd5 was seen in Makarychev-Krasenkov, Moscow Tal mem 1992, and now according to Kasparov Black could have been severely punished with 18 i.c5! ':e8 19 ii'xd5!! 'ii'xd5 (19 ... cxd5? 20 ttJf6+ 'i;g7 21 ':xe8 ii'a5 22 i.d4 g5 23 ':g8+ ~h6 24 h4 gxh4 25 i.e3#) 20 ttJf6+ ~g7 21 ttJxe8+ ~h8 22 i.d6! +-. However, I do not see anything completely clear after, for example, 22 ... f6.

14 i.d4 dxe4 15 i.xg7 'i;xg7 16 ttJxe4

White may claim a small edge.

C322) 6 ... dxc6 7 d3 (D) 7 .. :W1e7


B

Black has a large number of alternatives at this stage, but moving the queen to e7, where it supports the pawns on eS and cS, and thus prepares a further reinforcement by ... lOf6-d7, is not only a standard move in such positions but also, in my opinion, the most logical move. Others:

a) 7 ... f6?! is an attempt to be flexible, but it impedes his own bishop, and this suggests that White should prepare the d4 advance. 8 .i.e3 b6 9 a4 as 10 c3! lOh6 11 h3 gS!? (11.. .0-0 12 'ii'b3+ 'itth8 13 d4 is very good for White since Black will have trouble with his queenside when the centre opens) 12 lOa3 1Of7 13 d4 cxd4 14 cxd4 g4 IS hxg4 .i.xg4 (Black's impetuous g-pawn has served to create counterplay against the centre, but White replies with a nice positional sacrifice) 16 dxeS!? 'ii'xd 1 17 J:texd 1 lOxeS 18 lOxeS! .i.xd 1 19 J:txd 1 fxeS 20 i.xb6 0-0 211Oc4 ± DamljanovicIvanisevic, Pale 1997. White has only one pawn for the exchange but a couple of black pawns are likely to drop off.

b) 7 .. :iic7 8 .i.e3 b6 9 a3! lOf6 10 b4 cxb4 11 axb4 0-0 12 h3! lOhS 13 lOc31Of4 14 .i.xf4! exf4 IS 'fid2 h6?! 16 eS! gS 17 d4 ± Shirov-Illescas, Madrid 1996.

c) 7 ... lOh6!? 8 a3 as 9 a4 f6 10 lOa3 lOf7 11 .i.e3 b6 12 c3 0-0 13 lOc4?! (White's idea from line 'a' above looks worth repeating: 13 d4 cxd4 14 cxd4 .i.g4 IS dxeS 'fixdl 16 J:texd 1 lOxeS 17 lOxeS .i.xd 1 18 .l:.xd 1 fxeS 19 .i.xb6 followed by lOc4 with excellent compensation) 13 ... .i.e6 14 'ii'e2.i.xc4 IS dxc4 .i.h6 16 .l:.edl 'fie7 17 .i.xh6 lOxh6 1/2-1/2 Zhang ZhongB.Lalic, Szeged 1997.

d) 7 ... .i.g4 8 .i.e3 'fie7 91Obd21Of6 10 a4 as 11 h3 .i.xf3 IHi'xf3lOd7 13 lOc40-0 14 'ii'g3 1r'e6 IS .i.d2 b6 16 .i.c3 ;!; Van der Wiel-Antunes, Wijk aan Zee 1996.

e) 7 ... lOe7 8 .i.e3 (8 a3 is probably best met by 8 ... aS since in the game Glek-Lemmers, Belgium 1995, White was able to demonstrate an advantage after 8 ... 0-0 9 b4 cxb4 10 axb4 .i.e6 11 .i.e3 b6121r'cl1r'd613 .l:.a4!? 'itth8 14 h3 lOc8 IS lOc3 .i.d7 16 l1d 1 'fie7 17 d4!) 8 ... b6 (D) and now:

el) 9 lObd2 f6 10 a3 gS!? 11 b4 lOg6121Oc4 cxb4 13 axb4 .i.e614 l1a6 0-0 IS 'fial 'fib8 16 'fic3 g4 17 lOfd2 lOf4 18 'fia3 fS!? with counterplay, Ricardi-Petursson, Dubai OL 1986.

e2) 9 lOc3 0-0 10 a3 'fid6 11 lOd2 .i.e6 l2lOc4 'ii'c7 (White is probably slightly better after 12 ... .i.xc4 13 dxc4 'ii'xdl 14 .l:.exdl as his minor pieces are superior to their black counterparts) 13 b4 .l:.fd8 14 'fibl cxb4 IS axb4lOc8 16 f3 i.xc4 17 dxc4 lOd6 18 'fib3 bS


w

19 cxb5 cxb5 (Black should, according to Becerra Rivero, try 19 ... liJxb5 20 .:ta6 liJd4 21 ~a4, when White is only slightly better) 20 liJd5 'it'b7 21 .:tedl ± Becerra Rivero-Paredes, Albacete 1996.

e3) 9 a4 a5 10 liJbd2 f6 11 liJc4 i.e6 12liJfd2 0-013 b4!? (it is not entirely clear how good this really is, but it is an instructive way of combating the black fortress on the queenside) 13 ... axb4 14 a5 bxa5 15 .txc5 .th6! 16 'it'bl (Kostiakov suggests that White might have something after 16 .:ta4!? i.xd2 17 liJxd2 .:te8 18 'it'f3 f5 19 ~g3 and I believe this is about right, though I suspect Black is on the wrong track with his 17th and 18th move; actually it is far from easy to parry White's idea of doubling on the a-file and so threatening .txb4) l6 ... 'it'c7 17 .:ta4 .txd2 18 liJxd2 .:tfb8 19 ~al 'it'd8 20 .:tbl 1;f7 21 h4!, AnandKramnik, Monaco Amber blindfold 1998. Black seems to have consolidated reasonably well but the problem is that it is much easier for White to switch from one flank to the other:

White can generate some attacking chances on the kingside, while Black is tied to the defence of the queenside.

We return to 7 .. :i!ie7 (D):

w

8liJbd2liJf6 The other option is 8 ... liJh6 9 liJc4

(9 a3!?) 9 .. .f6 and now: a) 10 a4 b6 11 b3liJf7 12 .tb2 .tg4

13 liJe3 .txf3 14 'it'xf3 liJg5 15 'it'dl liJe6 16 liJc4 0-0 17 'it'd2 l:.fd8 18 f3 'it'f8 = Kazimdzhanov-Jansen, Vlissingen 1996.

b) 10 b4 cxb4 (1O ... .te6?! 11 bxc5 i.xc4 12 dxc4 'it'xc5 13 'it'd3 'it'e7 14 a4 'it'd7 15 'it'b3 0-0 16 .ta3 l:.fd8 17 .:tabl was better for White in AdorjanMednis, Budapest 1978) 11 a3 0-012 axb4.te6 13 .ta3 l:.fd8 14 'it'e2liJf7 (Maliutin-Ikonnikov, Lugano 1989) 15liJfd2 ;t.

9liJc4 The other natural continuation is 9

a3 0-0 (9 ... aS 10 liJc4liJd7 11 a4 0-0 is playable for Black but positions like this are just a lot more pleasant for White) 10 b4 .te6 11 bxc5 'it'xc5 12


a4 b5! 13 i.b2 tiJh5 14 c3 'ii'b6 15 d4 l:tfd8 + Motwani-Lanka, Vienna 1991.

9 ... tiJd7 10 i.d2!? B A few games have continued 10

i.g5 f6, but I do not see much point in provoking ... f6 in these positions.

The text-move has the idea that White prepares a3 and b4, while ruling out a defence based on ... a5.

10 ... 0-0 11 a3 b6 A better defence might be ll...tiJb6

12 tiJa5 l:td8 13 'ii'e2 i.g4, with the idea 14 h3 i.xf3 15 'ilVxf3 c4!.

12 b4 i.a6 13 i.c3 l:tfd8 14 tiJfd2 White is better, Torre-Timman, 'ii'e6 15 'it'e2 i.f816l:tfl (D) Moscow 1981.

2 Rossolimo Variation with 3 ... e6

1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 i.b5 e6 (D)

w

3 ... e6 is becoming more and more popular. First of all Black intends to develop his king's knight to e7, from where it might continue to g6, controlling the vital squares e5 and f4. Another advantage of having the knight on e7 is that Black can chase the white bishop away from b5 without worrying about doubled pawns after i.xc6, since Black can recapture with the knight.

White can of course exchange on c6 before Black develops his king's knight, and so saddle Black with doubled c-pawns, but Black's centre is then strengthened and the c-pawns are not really weak unless Black advances his d-pawn prematurely.

However, I should state that even though, by having doubled c-pawns, Black obtains a compact and solid centre, his pawn structure really is worse. Therefore White should generally try to keep the position closed.

Conceding the bishop-pair

w

Mortensen - S.B. Hansen Danish Ch (Tastrup) 1998

The above position has been reached after 7 ... 1i'd8-c7. Another reasonable move would have been 7 ... f6, preparing to develop the dark-squared bishop. With 7 ... 1i'c7 Black prepares ... e5, but it will always be a mistake to try to break out with a move like ... d5 as this exposes the c-pawns to a future attack.


8d4? This typical Sicilian move is a

mistake here. Black easily neutralizes White's slight initiative, and in the longer term Black will have the better chances due to his bishop-pair.

Better is 8 l:tel or 8 eS!? (see more on this in Line A of this chapter).

8 ... cxd4 9 ~xd4 f6 10 c4 White prevents Black from sud

denly expanding in the centre with ... dS, and prepares to play the cramping cS.

10 ... cS 11 ~e3 i.e712 eS? (D)

B

It seems that White is frustrated by the fact that Black has solved his opening problems, and prematurely starts action in the centre. However, this completely exposes his king's position, and Black now develops a strong attack due to his domination of the h l-a8 diagonal.

12 ... 0-0 13 tiJbd2 i.b7 14 l:tfel fS IS l:tadl 'i'c6 16 l:te2?! h6 17 tiJel?!

This rather artificial way of protecting g2 loses material. White should play tiJn on move 16 or 17, but Black

would then have a comfortable position anyway.

17 ... i.gS 18 ~g3 tiJf4 19 l:te3 ~c8?!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with 19 ... tiJhS 20 ~h3 i.xe3; for example 21 fxe3 g6 simply leaves Black an exchange up. With the text-move Black attempts to win the exchange under even more favourable conditions. However, this does not quite succeed .

20 tiJdf3 tiJhS 21 ~h3 i.xe3 22 ~xhS

22 fxe3 ~e8 is Black's idea, threatening 23 ... gS, but now White at least gets a pawn for the exchange.

22 ... i.d4 23 tiJxd4 cxd4 24 l:txd4 f4! 2S 'i'g6?

2S 'it' g4 'it'c7!? 26 l:td6 i.c6 27 i.c3 l:tfS 28 h4 followed by tiJd3 gives White some compensation.

2S ... :fS 26 f3 26 l%d6!? 26 ... i.c6 27 'iWg4 l%xeS 28 tiJd3

%:tgS 29 'i'xf4 'iWb7 Black went on to convert his mate

rial advantage into a win in 37 moves.

Cementing a black pawn weakness on c5 By playing 3 ... e6 Black more or less signals his intention of advancing his d-pawn to dS. True, this will give Black a strong centre, but he must be very careful when and under which circumstances he advances his d-pawn. When White has played 4 i.xc6, thereby doubling Black's c-pawns, this can be a very risky operation, as Black can easily end up having these pawns

Rossolimo Variation with 3 ... e6 55

fixed by White playing c4 at some stage. Here is an example:

w

Rogers - V. Milov Baden 1998

Black has just played 7 ... d7-d5?!, but should have chosen 7 ... g6 or 7 ... eS. The d-pawn's advance leaves Black with a weak pawn on c5. There is actually a close resemblance to the NimzoIndian, although White is probably better off here than Black usually is in the Nimzo-Indian.

8f4! This is a very good move for several

reasons. First of all, White should never fear the liquidation following an exchange on e4. Even though White loses the right to castle after Black captures on dl, Black's horrible cpawns are a more significant feature in the position. Secondly, it is in accord with White's plan and White is now ready to meet an ... e5 thrust with the space-gaining f5.

8 ... g6 9 0-0 i.g7 10 liJf2 i.a6 11 liJa3!

Black should not, of course, be allowed to play ... c4.

11 ... 0-0 12 l:tbl lXb8 13 c4! Cementing the weakness on c5.

The mirror thrust ( ... c5) is also a basic part of Black's strategy in the NimzoIndian but comparing the two opening variations White is much more active here.

13 ... dxc4 I do not really like this but it is

probably the best solution. Black intends to keep the position open, so at least his bishops will have something to say. If the position were to become closed, White's knights would be much superior.

14 dxc4 'it'xdllS ':'xdl i.d4 16 b3 ':'fd8 17 i.b2 i.xb2 18 lXxb2 ':'xdl+ 19 liJxdl ':'d8 20 liJc3

White threatens to win the c5-pawn with liJa4.

20 ... eS 21 fxeS gS 22liJabi There is nothing very wrong with

22 liJa4 but White's position is so good that he can afford to spend some time ruling out any chance of Black gaining counterplay.

22 ... liJg6 23 ':'d2 ':'xd2 24 liJxd2 liJxeS 2S ~f2 i.c8 26 liJf3 liJd3+ 27 ~e3liJb4 28 a3liJc2+ 29 ~d2

I suspect 29 ~d3 is an easier win; for example, 29 ... liJal (29 ... liJxa3 cannot be any good) 30 liJd2 f5 31 liJdl fxe4+ 32 ~c3 eventually winning the knight.

29 ... liJal 30 liJa4 liJxb3+ 31 ~c3 liJc1

31...liJa5 looks a lot safer. White is still much better but Black can put up some resistance.


32 tUg1! i.g4 33 h3 .1d134 tUxeS 34 tUb2! wins - Rogers. 34.Ai'f8 35 tUd7 + ~e7 36 tUeS

.1a4 Black now managed to hold the

game. Although White did not win this game, there can be no doubt that Milov will think twice about taking on such a structure in the future.

The Theory of the Rossolimo with 3 ... e6

1 e4 eS 2 tUf3 tUe6 3 i.bS e6 Now:

A: 4 i.xe6 56 B: 4 tUe3 61 C: 40-0 65

Of these moves, my preference is for Lines A and C, but I have chosen to include all three anyway, since Line B is important for transpositional purposes - it may also arise after, for example, 1 e4 c5 2 tUf3 tUc6 3 tUc3 e6 4 i.b5, and this may be a way to lure someone who usually prefers to meet 3 i.b5 with 3 ... g6 into unfamiliar territory. Another possible move-order is 1 e4 c5 2 tUf3 e6 3 tUc3 tUc6 4 i.b5.

A) 4 i.xe6 If White wants to make sure of dou

bling Black's c-pawns, it is essential to make this capture before Black gets the time to play ... tUge7. The most logical way for White to follow up seems to be a queenside fianchetto. However, White should in general be

careful not to open up the position, for then Black's bishops might become superior.

4 ... bxe6 (D) 4 ... dxc6 is certainly inferior but not

as bad as its reputation. White should again choose a queenside fianchetto combined with advancing the pawn to e5, e.g. 5 0-0 'Wic7 6 e5 tUe7 7 b3 tUf5 8 i.b2 i.e7 9 d3 h5 10 tUbd2 i.d7 11 a4 ± Rogers-Vaglio, Dubai OL 1986.

w

5 b3 It is not completely clear whether

White should fianchetto his bishop before or after castling; obviously there are many transpositional possibilities. However, the immediate fianchetto gives White some options of increasing the pressure more rapidly, and even sometimes leaving out castling entirely. Alternatives:

a) 5 d3 is also a natural move, but here White has more difficulties finding a general plan. The best idea is to move the knight from f3 (usually to g5) followed by advancing the f-pawn. Black has several options:


al) S ... f6!? has worked well in recent games. Black remains rather flexible, with such ideas as ... ttJge7-g6 or sometimes ... ttJh6-f7. My suggestion is 6 ttJh4!?, which is aimed against these ideas but is still in line with the general plan. If 6 ... g6 7 f4 dS, White should probably try S c4!? fS (S ... dxe4 9 dxe4 'ir'xdl + 10 'ittxdl ±) 9 ttJf3 fxe4 (9 ... dxe4 10 dxe4 'ir'xdl+ 11 'ittxdl fxe4 12 ttJgS ttJf6 13 ttJc3 is also clearly better for White) 10 dxe4 ttJf6 11 ttJc3 with an unclear position but I venture the assessment that White is to be preferred.

a2) S ... dS 6 0-0 ttJf6 7 ttJc3 i.e7 (if 7 ... i.a6, White should continue S :el i.e7 9 b3 0-0 10 eS ttJd7 11 ttJa4 with 12 c4 followed by 13 i.a3, or 12 i.a3 immediately, coming next - Kraut) S i.gS 0-0 9 eS ttJd7 10 i.xe7 "fixe7 (Lein-Lengyel, Cienfuegos 1972) 11 "fid2 with the idea of meeting 11 ... fS with 12 'ir'f4 ;t.

a3) S ... ttJe7 (D) and then:

a31) 6 0-0 ttJg6 (6 ... f6 7 ttJh4!) 7 ttJgS!? (this knight sortie is the only

really constructive plan White has; if allowed, he will play 'ir'h5 and f4 with a dangerous attack) 7 ... eS (it would be surprising if Black has time for this, but the alternatives are not really appealing; 7 ... f6?! S ttJh3 is good for White, as he is ready to play f4, and 7 ... i.e7 S 'ir'hS!? i.xgS 9 i.xgS 'ir'b6 10 ttJd2 also gives White an advantage). Now:

a311) S 'ir'hS 'ir'f6! 9 ttJc3 d6 10 ttJxh7?! (this is a little too brave, but on the other hand I find it difficult to believe that White has any compensation after 10 f4!? exf4 11 g3 h6 12 ttJf3 fxg3 13 hxg3 i.e7) 1O ... 'ir'd8 11 g3 'ir'd7!! (Ma.Tseitlin's suggestion, which appears to be the key move, threatening ... 'ir'h3; after 1l...i.e7?! 12 f4 exf4 13 gxf4 'it'd7 14 'ir'fS+ 'iiPe8 IS 'ir'hS ~d7 16 'ir'fS+ a draw was agreed in Hennigan-Cherniaev, Gausdal 1995) 12 ~g2 i.e7 (Black's king is now ready to flee to the queenside, while, if White does nothing, the pin on the knight on h7 will eventually win a piece) 13 f4 exf4 14 gxf4 'ir'g4+ IS 'ir'xg4 i.xg4 16 fS ttJeS 17 h3 i.f3+:t.

a312) S f4!? (Cherniaev's suggestion) S ... ttJxf4 (ifS ... exf4, 9 'ir'hS is annoying) and now 9 i.xf4 exf4 10 ttJh3 i.d6 leads to an unclear position, but there is something to be said for the more brutal 9 ttJxf7!? 'iiPxf7 10 g3 with a rather messy position, e.g. 1O ... gS 11 gxf4 exf4 12 'ir'hS+ 'iiPg8 13 i.xf4 gxf4 14 :xf4 'ir'e7 IS ttJc3 d6 16 ttJds cxdS 17 'ir'xdS+ 'ir'e6 18 'ir'xa8 i.g7 19 :afl, when White has the initiative.

a32) 6 ttJh4 (not as good as 6 ttJgS) 6 ... ttJg6 7 ttJxg6 hxg6 S i.e3 dS

58 Easy Guide to the Ji.b5 Sicilian

(8 ... 'it'f6!? 9lL'lc3 d5 is also worth considering) 9 lL'ld2 .td6 10 c3 .ta6 11 'it'c2 f5!? 12 e5 .te7 13 0-0-0 ~f7 14 lL'lf3 g5 15 h3 c4 16 dxc4 .txc4 17 lL'ld2 .te2 18 l:tdel .tb5 is unclear, Bologan-Krasenkow, New York 1997.

a33) 6lL'lg5!? and now: a331) 6 ... lL'lg6?! (this does little to

interfere with White's plan) 7 f4.te7 8lL'lf3 d5 (8 ... 'it'c7 9 g3 d6 10 'it'e2 f5 11 h4 0-0 12 e5! lL'lh8 13 b3 lL'lf7 14 .tb2 l:tb8 15 exd6 .txd6 16 lL'lbd2 with total control, Komliakov-Milanovic, Pozarevac 1995) 9 'fie2 0-0 10 c4! (a common theme in this line - White cements the weak pawn on c5; the following moves are aimed exclusively against this weakness) 10 .. J:te8 11 0-0 %:tb8 12lL'lc3 .tf6 13 e5 .te7 14lL'la4 .tb7 15 b3 d4 16 lL'ld2 lL'lf8 17 lL'le4 lL'ld7 18 .ta3 'it'a5 19 'fiel 'fixel 20 %:taxel and White finally wins the pawn, Rogers-Megibow, US Open 1998.

a332) 6 ... f6 7 lL'lh3 g6 should be met by 8 b3, e.g. 8 ... .tg7 9 .tb2 0-0 10 0-0 e5 11 f4 d6 12 fxe5 fxe5 13 %:txf8+ 'fixf8 14lL'lg5 and White has an edge since Black's centre pawns are chronically weak.

a333) 6 ... h6 7 lL'lh3 g6 (another possibility is 7 ... e5 8 f4 exf4 9lL'lxf4 g6 10 c4 .tg7 11 0-00-0 12lL'lc3 l:tb8 with fairly even chances, Solomon-GLHernandez, Elista OL 1998; 7 ... d5 was dealt with in Rogers-Milov, in the introduction to this chapter) 8 f4 .tg7 9 lL'ld2 d6 10 lL'lf2 %:tb8 11 c3 .ta6 12 0-0 0-013 'fic2 f5 = GLHernandez-Minzer, Buenos Aires 1998.

a4) 5 ... .te7!? (preventing any lL'lg5 ideas) 6 0-0 'fic7 (Black intends ... e5

with a reasonable position, which explains White's next move) 7 e5 (7 lL'lel!? is not as silly as it looks; White prepares the usual set-up with f4) 7 ... f6 8 .tf4 'fid8! 9 lL'lbd2 fxe5 10 lL'lxe5lL'lf6 lllL'le4 (trying to improve on Yandemirov-Filipenko, Lvov 1995 which went IIlL'ldc4 0-0 12 .td2 'fie8 13 f4 d6 14 lL'lf3 lL'ld5 15 lL'lg5 lL'lb6 with a good game for Black) 11...0-0 12 lL'lxf6+ and now 12 ... %:txf6?! 13 .tg5 %:tf5 14 .txe7 'fixe7 15 f4 gave White a slight advantage in Yandemirov-Mukhaev, Tomsk 1998. However, there was no need for Black to concede the bishop-pair. Smirin recommends 12 ... .txf6!? 13 .tg3 d6 14 lL'lc4 e5 15 f4 e4! with the better game for Black .

b) 50-0 lL'le7 (D).

w

Now, apart from 6 b3 lL'lg6 7 .tb2, which transposes to the main line, White may try:

bl) 6 d3lL'lg6 7lL'lg51? transposes to line 'a31'.

b2) 6 %:tellL'lg6 7 c3 .te7 8 d4 0-0 9 lL'lbd2 cxd4 10 cxd4 f5! (since he has


the bishop-pair, Black logically seeks to open the position) I1lLlb3 .i.a6 12 'tic2 fxe4 131he4 1:.xf3! (perhaps not strictly necessary, but this thematic sacrifice looks very strong) 14 gxf3 'tif8 15lLlc5 .i.xc5 16 dxc5 'tWxf3 17 1:.e3'ii'h5 18 1:.g3 and now, rather than 18 ... lLlh4?! 19 .i.f4!, which gave White some hopes of rescue in TimmanRogers, Dutch Cht 1998, 18 ... 1:.f8!, and only then ... lLlh4, is strong.

Returning to 5 b3 (D):

B

5 ... lLle7 This is the most sensible move, but

Black has a wealth of alternatives: a) 5 ... 'ii'f6?! (Black does not achieve

anything by provoking White's e-pawn forward) 6 e5! 'ii'f5 7 0-0 f6 8 1:.e1 fxe5 9 1:.xe5 'tWf6 10 lLlc3 d6 11 1:.e1 .i.e7 12 d4! cxd4 13lLlxd4 d5 14 .i.b2 .i.d7 15 lLla4 ± Ehlvest-Va'isser, Novosibirsk 1993.

b) 5 ... d5 and now 6 e5 .i.a6 7 d3 c4 8 dxc4 dxc4 9 'tWxd8+ lhd8 10.i.e3 1:.d7 I1lLlbd2 .i.b4! is probably quite playable for Black, but I would recommend 6 d3! with the idea of c4.

c) 5 ... d6 and here: cl) 60-0 e5 7 l:tel.i.e7 8 d3lLlf6?!

(after this White effortlessly gains the advantage by preparing d4; better is 8 .. .f5!) 9 c3! 0-0 10 d4 exd4 11 cxd4 d5 12 exd5lLlxd5 13 .i.a3lLlb4 14lLlc3 .i.g4 15 dxc5 .i.xc5 16 lLle4 ;t Timman-Sveshnikov, Tilburg 1992.

c2) 6 e5! dxe5 7 lLlxe5 and now White would just be a lot better if he could get in .i.b2, so Black tries to stop this:

c21) 7 ... 'tWg5 gave White a strong attack in Hracek-Araslamov, Pardubice 1993: 8lLlf3 'tWxg2 9 l:tgl 'tWh3 10 .i.b2 f6 11 'tie2 e5 12 lLla3 lLle7 (or 12 ... .i.g4 13 l:tg3 .i.xf3 14 'tixf3 'tid7 150-0-0 ±) 130-0-0 lLlg6 14 d4! cxd4 15lLlxd4.i.d7 16 l:tg3 'tWh6+ 17 ~b1 .i.e7 18lLldb5! cxb5 19 l:txd7! ±.

c22) 7 ... 'tWd4 8 lLlc4 'ii'xa1 9 lLlc3 .i.a6 10 0-0 .i.xc4 11 bxc4 .i.d6 12 'tie2lLlf6 13 .i.a3 and White is betterMurugan.

d) 5 ... f6 (this is Black's soundest alternative) 6 0-0 lLlh6 7 d4 (usually this kind of move would not be advisable, but since 7 ... cxd4 is met by 8 .i.xh6 gxh6 9lLlxd4 ;t, White is in time to exchange bishops and thus get rid of Black's main asset) 7 ... lLlf7 8 .i.a3! cxd4 9 .i.xf8 ~xf8 10 'tixd4 (10 lLlxd4 gives Black fewer problems, for example 1O ... .i.b7 11 lLlc3 c5 12 lLlde2 g6 13 'tid3 ~g7 14 l:tad1 .i.c6! = Ehlvest-Sveshnikov, Podolsk 1993) 1O ... e5 (10 ... 'tib6 11 'tid2 d6 12 c4 e5 13lLlc3 .i.e6 14lLlel t, intending lL\d3 followed by c5 or ~h1 and f4, gives White an edge, de la Paz-Lopez, Matanzas 1996) 11 'tid2 d6 12 c4 g6 13 lLlc3 ~g7 14


:tacl i.e6 15 lDel 'ike7 16lDd3 g5! with approximately equal chances, Yudasin-Sveshnikov, St Petersburg 1997.

6 i.b2lDg6 7 0-0 (D) The alternative is 7 h4 h5, when

White should probably choose the calm 8 d3, and only then follow up with 9 e5, for after the immediate 8 e5 Black has the strong pawn sacrifice 8 ... c4!. German-Milos, Buenos Aires 1997 then continued 9 bxc4 l:tb8 10 i.c3 c5 11 d3 i.e7 12 lDbd2 f5! 13 exf6 gxf6 14 'ike2 ~f7 150-0 i.b7 16 'ike3 'ikc7 17 :tfell:tbg8 with a strong attack. Note, however, that this idea only works since Black has a target on the kingside, due to the interpolation of the moves h4 and ... h5.

B

7 ... 'fie7 This flexible move prepares ... e5.

There are two other ways to do this: a) 7 ... d6 8 e5! i.a6 9 d3 d5 10 c4

i.e7 I1lDc3lDf8 12lDa4lDd7 13l:tc1 lDb6 14lDc3 0-0 15lDe2 'ii'b8 16 i.a3 l:td8 17 'ii'e1 ± de la Paz-Gamboa, Santa Clara 1998.

b) 7 .. .f68 e5!? i.e7 9 d3 0-0 (after 9 ... 'iflc7, play is likely to transpose to the main line) 10 lDbd2 fxe5 11 lDxe5 lDxe5 12 i.xe5 d6 13 i.g3 g5!? 14 f4 gxf4 15 i.xf4 e5 16 i.h6 :txfl+ 17 'ii'xfl i.e6 with approximately equal chances, Gubanov-Cherniaev, St Petersburg 1997.

8 e5 This is the principal continuation.

Other options: a) 8 d4?! cxd4 9 'ikxd4 f6 with a

good and solid position for Black, Mortensen-S.B.Hansen, Danish Ch (Tastrup) 1998. See the introduction to this chapter.

b) 8 :tel!? e5 9 c3 i.d6 10 lDa3 i.a6 11 d4 0-0 12 'ii'd2 f5!? with an unclear position, Vallejo Pons-Lopez, Cienfuegos 1997.

8 ... i.e79 d3 0-010 lDbd2 f6 (D)

w

11 exf6 11 l:te1 fxe5 12 lDxe5 lDh8! with

the idea of ... d6 is quite promising for Black, while 11 lDc4 fxe5 12 lDfxe5 lDxe5 13 i.xe5 d6 14 i.g3 e5 also seems OK.


1l ... gxf6 12lbe4 d5 13lbg3 e514 l:tel i.d6 15 c4

The position is rather unclear. Black is quite active but must be careful not to expose himself too much, WachU:ibler, Austrian Cht 199617.

B) 4lbc3(D)

B

Now we have: Bl: 4 ... lbd4 61 B2: 4 ... lbge7 63

B1) 4 ... lbd4 5 0-0 It is interesting that White, in gen

eral, is not worried about an exchange of his light-squared bishop. White is so far ahead in development that he can quickly generate pressure.

S ~d3 is the alternative, but compared to the main line Black does not have to spend a tempo on ... a6. S ... lbe7 60-0 lbec6 7 b3 g6 (7 ... lbxf3+ 8 'iWxf3 g6 must be fine for Black) 8 lbxd4 cxd4 9lbe2 ~g7 10 i.a3 d6 11 f4 fS? (too loosening; Sveshnikov suggests

11...0-0 12 lbg3 fS) 12 exfS exfS 13 i.c4! dS 14 ~bS 'iWb6 IS lie 1 ! Wf7 16 i.xc6 bxc6 17 lbc 1 ! d3+ (White would be more or less winning if he were allowed to bring his knight to d3) 18 ~hl ~xal 19 lIe7+ ~g8 20 lIe8+ Wf7 21l:te7+ ~g8, Gipslis-Sveshnikov, Podolsk 1992, and now, according to Blatny, 22 c3! 'iWd8 23 'iWel ~d7 24 'ili'eS! would have given White a decisive attack.

Note also that S lbxd4? is wrong due to S .. . cxd4 6lbe2 'iW gS with a double attack on the bS-bishop and the g2-pawn. After 7 lbxd4 'iWcS! 8 c3 eS White loses a piece for inadequate compensation, so best is 7 a4 'iWxg2 8 lbg3 'iWh3 9 c3 dxc3 (9 ... ~d6!?) 10 bxc3 lbf6, when White can try to claim that his superior development suffices for some kind of compensation, BukhtinKalinichev, Moscow 1978.

5 ... a6 S ... lbe7 transposes to Line B2.

S ... lbxbS?! is positionally desirable but Black is a long way from completing his development, and thus White is able to generate pressure rapidly: 6 lbxbS lbf6 7 d4! cxd4 8 'iWxd4 a6 9 lbc3 d6 10 lIdl! (this is more accurate than 10 ~gS ~e7 11 l:fdl, after which Black should play 11... 'iWc7 rather than 11...0-0?! 12 eS dxeS 13 'iWh4!? 'iWc7 14 lbe4 lbdS IS c4! f6 16 cxdS exdS! 17 lIac 1 'iWb8 18 l:xdS when Black is on the brink of defeat, Tkachev-Lysenko, Russia 1992) 1O ... ~e7 (here White can meet 1O ... 'iWc7 with 11 ~f4, for l1...eS 12 lbxeS dxeS 13 ~xeS gives White a strong, perhaps winning, attack) 11 eS dxeS 12 'iWxeS

62 Easy Guide to the i£.b5 Sicilian

i.d7 13 'it'g3 ± Gurgenidze-Pohla, Piirnu 1967.

6 i.d3 (D) This clumsy move appears best. Af

ter 6 i.e2 the c3-knight has no useful retreat following an exchange on d4.

B

6.JiJe7 This is the most natural move, but a

peculiar transposition to a main-line Sicilian could occur after 6 ... tiJc6!? White seems to have nothing better than 7 i.e2, after which Black can play either 7 ... tiJge7!? or 7 ... tiJf6 8 d4 cxd4 9 tiJxd4 and then 9 ... d6 or 9 ... 'WIc7 would be a normal Scheveningen or Paulsen variation respectively.

7 tiJxd4 cxd4 8 tiJe2 tiJc6 8 ... dS is a major alternative. Then

White can play: a) 9 c3?! dxe4 10 i.xe4 d3! 11 tiJf4

eS 12 tiJxd3 fS and Black wins a piece. b) 9.l:.e 1 (with the idea of 10 tiJxd4

since 1O ... dxe4 can now be met by 11 .l:.xe4) 9 ... tiJc6 10 c3 i.cs should be fine for Black. It is difficult to see what the rook is doing on el when comparing with the main lines.

c) 9 eS tiJc6 10 f4 i.d7!? and now 11 a3?! gS! 12 fS? 'ilic7 was very good for Black in Speelman-Larsen, New York 1990. Speelman instead recommends 11 'ifi'hl! intending to answer ll...gS with 12 c3.

d) 9 exdS 'WIxdS (after 9 ... tiJxdS 10 c3 dxc3 11 dxc3, ll...g6 12 i.e4 gives White an edge according to Svidler, but Black does better with 11 ... i.d6 12 tiJd4 'WIc7 13 'it'hS tiJf4 14 i.xf4 i.xf4, with an equal position, Kraut-Jasnikowski, Bundesliga 1994/S) 10 c3 tiJc6 11 'WIc2 fS (White was threatening 12 i.e4, winning a pawn, but an interesting, and positionally better, alternative is 1l...i.d6!?; then Brodsky-Markowski, Katowice 1993 continued 12 b3 'ilihS 13 tiJg3 'WIh4 14 .l:.el 0-0, when Black seems to be doing fine) 12 cxd4 bS 13 .l:.el! tiJb4 14 'WIc3 tiJxd3 IS 'it'xd3 i.cS! 16 b3 (after 16 tiJf4 'ilixd4 17 'ilixd4 i.xd4 18 tiJxe6 i.xe6 19 .l:.xe6+ 'ltd7 20 :te2 .l:.he8 Black is of course doing very well despite his pawn deficit) 16 ... 0-0 17 i.b2 (Svidler-Zyla, Groningen open 1993) and now according to Svidler Black should play 17 ... i.d6 18 tiJc3 'WIb7 19 dS eS with an unclear game.

9 c3 (D) 9 ... i.c5 Black should rarely exchange on c3

in these positions because after White recaptures with the d-pawn, he has solved his only problem, the development of the dark-squared bishop, and Black will generally be left with either a backward or an isolated d-pawn.

In this respect it makes sense to defend the d4-pawn with ... i.cS. The


B

other option is immediately to strike at the centre with 9 ... dS, viz. 10 cxd4 dxe4 11 ~xe4 and now:

a) ll...tiJxd4 12 'ii'a4+ tiJbS 13 d4 ~d614 h3 0-0 IS :dl 'ii'e7 16 'ii'c2 h6 17 ~e3 gives White a favourable IQP position in view of Black's misplaced knight on bS, A.Sokolov-Skripchenko, Cannes 1998.

b) However, ECO's suggestion of 11...~e7!? may not be so bad. If White wants to be consistent he should play 12 'ii'b3 0-013 dS, attempting to hang on to his extra pawn, but 13 ... exdS 14 ~xdS tiJb4 IS tiJc3 tiJxdS 16 'ii'xdS 'ii'xdS 17 tiJxdS ~cS seems fine for Black even though he is a pawn down. This might not even be the strongest approach; I suspect Black has other possibilities on move 16.

10 b4 ~a711 a4 (D) 11 cxd4 should be answered by ei

ther 11... tiJxb4 or 11.. .dS!?, but not l1...tiJxd4?! 12 ~b2 tiJxe2+ 13 'ii'xe2 0-0 14 eS!, which was very good for White in Ma.Tseitlin-Khenkin, Israeli Ch (Tel-Aviv) 1994.

11 ... 0-0

Black must time the central thrust ... dS precisely. Here 11...dS would be wrong due to 12 exdS 'ii'xdS 13 bS tiJeS 14 tiJf4 'ii'd7 IS ~a3 with advantage to White, Kraut-B.Stein, Bundesliga 1989/90.

12 ~a3 tiJe5 13 ..wc2 d5 14 exd5 According to Gufeld, Black would

be doing OK after 14 cxd4 tiJxd3 IS 'ii'xd3 dxe4 16 'ii'xe4 'ii'dS.

14 ... tiJxd3 15 ..wxd3 dxc3 16 b5 :e8

Now, rather than the over-optimistic 17 d6?, as in Gurgenidze-Dzhindzhikhashvili, Gori 1971, White should be content with 17 tiJxc3 exdS 18 tiJxdS ~e6 19 tiJe7+ ~h8 20 'ii'xd8 :exd8 21 bxa6 bxa6 = Gufeld.

82) 4 ... tiJge7 ( D) 50-0 a6 Others: a) S ... tiJd4 6 tiJxd4 cxd4 7 tiJe2 a6

would generally lead (after 8 ~d3) to Line B 1, but White might take the opportunity to vary with 8 ~a4 tiJc6 9 d3 ~cS. Then:

64 Easy Guide to the !il.b5 Sicilian

w

al) 10 f4 d5 I1lLlg3 dxe4 12 'ilVh5!? (12lLlxe4 is more cautious) 12 ... i.e7 13 dxe4 g6 14 'ilVf3 b5 15 i.b3 h5!? with an unclear position, Yudasin-Krasenkow, Vilnius Mikenas mem 1997.

a2) 10 c4!? l:tb8 11 i.f4 d6 12 b4! j.xb4 13 lLlxd4 i.d7 14 lLlxc6 bxc6 15 d4 and White is better, W.WatsonNunn, Kilkenny 1996.

b) 5 ... lLlg6 6 d4 cxd4 7 lLlxd4 and now:

bl) 7 ... 'ilVc7!? 8 i.e3 i.d6 9 g3 a6 10 i.e2 i.e7 11 f4 0-0 12 a4 lLla5?! (12 ... d6 is better, but White can still try the same plan as in the game, namely 13 h4 followed by h5) 13 h4! h6 14 h5 lLlh8 15 'iVd3 ± FressinetKouatly, French Ch (Meribel) 1998.

b2) 7 ... i.e7 8 i.e3 'ilVc7 (8 ... 0-0 9 f4 a6 10 i.xc6 bxc6 11 'iVh5 c5 12 lLlb3 f5 13lLlxc5 'iVc7 14lLlb3 fxe4 15 f5 'ti'e5 16 g4led to a complete mess in Tal-Ornstein, Tallinn 1977) 9 ~h1 a6 10 i.d3 b5 11lLlxc6 'ti'xc6 12 f4 i.b7 13 f5lLle5 14 'ilVh5 i.f6 15 i.g5! g6! 16 'ilVh4 .txg5 17 'ilVxg5 gxf5 with an unclear position, Yudasin-V.Milov, Haifa 1995.

6 .txc6 lLlxc6 7 d4 cxd4 8 lLlxd4 'ilic7

With this Black prevents ideas with lLlxc6 followed by e5. Alternatives:

a) 8 ... d6 and now: al) 9 lLlxc6 bxc6 10 'iVg4 h5 (or

1O ... l:tb8 11 'iVg3 h5 12 h3 h4 13 'ti'd3 .te7 14lLla4! 0-015 c4 and White is better, San Segundo-Karpov, Madrid 1992) 11 'iVe2 h4!? 12 h3 .te7 13 b3 0-0 14 .tb2 'iVc7 15 lLldl e5 16lLle3 i.e6 17 'ti'h5 g6 18 'iVe2 d5 with approximately equal chances, ZarnickiIllescas, Buenos Aires 1993.

a2) 9 l:te1 and then: a21) 9 ... .td7 10 lLlxc6! bxc6 11 e5

d5 (11...dxe5?! 121he5 .te7 13 .tf4 0-0 14 lte3! lta7 15 l:td3 ± GipslisSorokin, Ostrava 1992) 12 'ilVg4! h5 13 'ti'g3!? h4 14 'iVg4! h3! 15 g3, Yudasin-Salov, Tilburg 1993, and now Yudasin suggests 15 ... 'ilVc7!, to prevent lLle2-f4, but White should be able to retain some advantage with 16 .tf4 l:tb8 17 ltab 1 as 17 ... c5? fails in view of 18 lLlxd5!.

a22) 9 ... .te7 10 lLlxc6 bxc6 11 'ilVg4 and now Black should tread carefully:

a221) 11...0-0? 12 i.h6 .tf6 13 e5! dxe5 14 lLle4 is too dangerous for Black; White will continue ltad1 and perhaps .te3-c5.

a222) 11... ~f8 is better, but Yudasin has shown the way for White to continue: 12 b3! d5 13 'ilVg3! h5?! 14 lLla4! h4 15 'ilVc3 .l:.b8 16 .te3 h3 17 g3 ± Yudasin-Greenfeld, Haifa 1995.

a223) 11...g6!? 12 b3!? (12 e5 dxe5 13 .th6 f5 14 'ilVg3 .tf6 15 ':'xe5 'iVd6 16 l:te3 'ti'xg3 17 hxg3 ;!; GipslisKveinys, Ostrava 1992) 12 ... 0-0 13


i.h6 eS?! (probably the wrong plan; Black should try to complicate the game with 13 .. .fS!?) 14 'ii'g3 ':e8 IS Itadl ie6 16 ltJa4 'ii'c7 17 c4 and White is better, Kuczynski-Cifuentes, Polanica Zdroj 1992.

b) 8 ... ie7 9 ltJxc6 bxc6 10 eS!? 'ii'c7 (l0 ... 0-0 l1ltJe4 f6 12 exf6 ixf6 13 'ii'd6!? ie7 14 'ii'g3 dS IS ih6 Itf7 16 ltJgS was better for White in Gufeld-Furman, Moscow 1970) 11 Itel 0-0 12 if4 fS (more or less forced since White was ready to improve his position substantially with 'ii'g4 or ltJe4) 13 exf6 'ii'xf4 14 fxe7, YudasinLautier, Moscow OL 1994, and now Black has to try 14 ... 'ii'xf2+ IS "'hI Ite8, when Yudasin claims 'compensation' with 16 ltJe4 'ii'h4 17 ltJd6 ':xe7 18 Itfl but I would not be surprised if there is a forced win for White. Black's pieces are laughably placed, while White's knight on d6 is especially powerful.

9 Itel (D) 9 ltJxc6 is still quite interesting,

when 9 ... bxc6 10 f4!? dS 11 fS! ics+ 12 'iti>hl 0-0 13 f6! yielded White a strong attack in Smyslov-Arakhamia, Roquebrune Women vs Veterans 1998.

9 ... id6 9 ... i.e7 10 ltJxc6 bxc6 11 eS! trans-

poses to note 'b' to Black's 8th move. 10 'iti>hl!? White might also try the more vio

lent 10 ltJdS !? but Black should be able to equalize with 10 ... exdS 11 exdS+ ltJeS 12 f4 (12ltJfS? 0-013 i.h6 gxh6 14 'ii'hSltJg6! and Black consolidates, Timman-Lautier, Horgen 1995) 12 ... 0-0 13 fxeS i.xeS 14 ltJf3 d6 IS ltJxeS

B

dxeS 16 d6 'ii'cS+ 17 ie3 'ii'c6 18 c4 b6! = Lautier.

10 ... ltJxd4 11 'ii'xd4 f6!? l1...ieS 12 'ii'd3 bS is also equal. 12f4 Or 12 ie3 bS 13 .l:.adl ieS 14 'ii'd3

ib7 with a roughly level position. 12 ... 0-0 13 .l:.f1 ic5 14 'ii'd3 b5 With equality, Vydeslaver-Polulia

khov, Kahovka 1997.

C) 40-0 ltJge7 White has several possibilities here,

but we shall concentrate on ... 5 b3 (D) From b2, White's bishop will exert

strong pressure against Black's kingside. To neutralize this bishop, Black will be forced to make some kind of concession.

5 ... a6 There are a number of other op

tions: a) S ... b6!? 6 ib2 ib7 7.l:.elltJg6

8 a4 (8 c3!?) 8 ... f6 9 ixc6 ixc6 10 d4 cxd4 11 ltJxd4 ib4 12 i.c3 ics 13 ltJxc6 dxc6 14 'ii'xd8+ Itxd8 IS ltJd2

66 Easy Guide to the JLb5 Sicilian

eS 16 tDf3 tDf4 17 ..tfl ~e7 = I vanovic-Komarov, Yugoslavia 1997.

b) S ... tDd4 (this is not so effective when White has not played tDc3) 6 tDxd4 cxd4 7 c3! and now:

b1) 7 ... 'iifb6 8 tDa3 (8 'iife2 is also good) 8 ... tDg6 9 i.e2 i.e7!? 10 tDbS! (this is much stronger than 10 tDc4, the only purpose of which is to threaten Black's queen; now Black is forced to clarify the centre) 10 ... dxc3 11 dxc3?! (this kind of capture is the normal response but here 11 tDxc3, with the idea of d4, is better, and gives White an edge) 1l...a6 12 tDd4 0-0 13 i.e3'iifc7 14 c4 b6 IS g3 i.b7 16 i.f3 tDeS!? 17 i.g2 tDc6 = Golubev-Moroz, Yalta 1996.

b2) 7 ... tDc6 8 i.b2 i.cs 9 b4!? (another plausible approach is 9 'iifhS dxc3 10 dxc3 i.e7 11 tDd2 0-0 12 f4 fS 13 'it>hl ;1; Plaskett-Sveshnikov, Sochi 1984) 9 ... i.b6 10 a4 a6 11 i.e20-0 (Black should probably prefer 1 l...d5 !? with the idea 12 bS axbS 13 axbSl::txal 14 i.xa1 tDe7 =) 12 bS dxc3 13 dxc3 axbS 14 axbS l::txal IS i.xa1 tDeS 16 c4 'fIc7 (Pavasovic-Podlesnik, Maribor 1996) 17 'iifb3 ;1;.

b3) 7 ... a6 8 i.d3 tDc6 9 i.b2 i.cs 10 cxd4 i.xd4 11 i.xd4 tDxd4 12 tDc3 d6 13 'iifhS 0-0 14 l::tael i.d7 IS f4 i.bS 16l::te3 g6 17'iifh6;1; Peng Xiaomin-Miladinovic, Elista OL 1998.

c) S ... tDg6 6 i.b2 f6 7 l::te1 i.e7 8 c3 (8 d4 gives White nothing; Black equalizes simply with 8 ... cxd4 9 tDxd4 i.cS!? 10 tDxc6 dxc6 11'iifxd8+ ~xd8 12 i.fl ~c7 Ill-Ill Borge-Schandorff, Danish Ch (TAstrup) 1998) 8 ... 0-0 (8 ... 'iifb6?! 9 i.fl tDgeS 10 tDa3 ;1; Akopian-Kurajica, Ubeda 1996) 9 d4 a6 10 i.fl dS 11 tDbd2 cxd4 12 cxd4 i.d7 = Timoshenko-Verdikhanov, Nikolaev Z 1993.

6 i.xc6 This is the only move that gives

Black any problems. Retreating the bishop by 6 i.e2 is too much of a concession: 6 ... dS (6 ... tDg6 7 i.b2 f6 8 d4 cxd4 9 tDxd4 i.cs is also fine for Black) 7 exdS exdS 8 d4 (8l::tel g69 i.b2 d4 10 c3 i.g7 11 cxd4 cxd4 12 tDa3 0-0 = Kreiman-Waitzkin, New York 1993) 8 ... tDfS 9 dxcS i.xcs 10 i.b2 0-0 11 tDc3 (Hi.ibner-Masic, Sombor 1970) 11. .. i.e6 =.

6 ... tDxc67 i.b2 (D) Black must now choose carefully

how he is going to develop his kingside, and should take into account the possibility of White opening the position with d4. He can play this in connection with c4, which leads to a type of Hedgehog position, or without it, simply seeking active piece play.

7 ... b5 An active response, denying White

the opportunity of reaching a Hedgehog, but also postponing the decision


of what to do on the kingside. Other approaches:

a) 7 ... d6 8 d4 cxd4 9 liJxd4 i.d7 (Black's queen manoeuvre to g6, i.e. 9 ... 'ili'f6 10 liJa3! liJxd4 11 i.xd4 'iii' g6, is quite common in these positions but I have my doubts about it here, e.g. 12 liJc4! 'ili'xe4 13 l:tel 'ili'c6 14liJb6 l:tb8, Kr.Georgiev-Grigorov, Sofia tt 1991, IS 'ili'hS would leave Black looking in vam for a decent move) 10 l:[el 'ili'gS!? (1O ... 'iIi'c7 is normal but this active move has its merits) 11liJd2liJxd4 12 i.xd4 i.c6 13 l:te3 eS 14 i.b6! i.e7 ISliJc4 'ili'g6 16 i.c7 0-017 f3 bS! 18 liJaS i.d7 19l:[d3 i.h3 20 g3l:[ac8 21 i.xd6 i.xd6 22 l:txd6 'ti' gS 23 'ti'd3 fS! with counterplay, Kreiman-Waitzkin, USA 1993.

b) 7 ... 'iIi'c7 and now: bl) 8 c4 b6 9 l:tel i.b7 10 d4 (the

rather unclear sacrifice 10 liJc3 i.d6 llliJdS!? exdS 12 exdS+ liJe7 13 i.xg7 was tried in J.Johansson-L.Schneider, Swedish Ch (Borlange) 1992) 1O ... cxd4 11 liJxd4 i.d6 12 liJf3 0-0. So far we have followed the game YagupovFilipenko, Rostov on Don 1993. Now

Kraut recommends 13 eS followed by 14 liJc3 or 14 liJbd2. If White is allowed to follow up with ISliJe4 he will have promising attacking chances.

b2) 8 d4 cxd4 9 liJxd4 liJxd4 (the alternative 9 ... i.d6?! 10 liJxc6 dxc6 11 'ili'hS promises White the better chances, as Jansa has proved in a few games) 10 'ili'xd4 f6 11 i.a3 b6 12 i.xf8 l:[xf8 13 liJd2 'ti'cs 14 'ili'd3 bS IS l:[fdl ~e7 16 a4 ± YandemirovSeliviorstov, Podolsk 1993.

c) 7 .. .f6 8 lLlh4 (in many lines where Black adopts a set-up with ... f6 White can exert strong pressure with this move, which, apart from threatening 'ti'hS+, clears the way for the f-pawn) 8 ... g6 9 f4 'ti'e7 (according to Blatny Black ends up in serious trouble after 9 ... i.g7 10 fS exfS 11 exfS liJeS 12 liJc3! dS 13 d4! cxd4 14 'ti'xd4 gS IS liJf3 i. xfS 16 'ti' xdS 'ti'b6+ 17 liJd4 l:[d8 18 liJa4! 'ti'b4 19 'ti' cS 'iii' xcS 20 liJxcs intending liJe6 ±) 10 fS gxfS (lO ... gS? loses to 11 fxe6) 11 exfS eS? (ll...i.g7 is stronger but I would definitely rather be White after 12 liJc3 0-0 13 'ili'hS) 12 c4 bS 13liJc3 ± Golubev-Verdikhanov, Nikolaev Z 1993.

d) 7 ... dS 8 exdS 'ti'xdS 9liJc3 'ti'd7 (9 ... 'iIi'hS 10 liJa4! is good for WhiteSmirin and Gelfand) 10 l:[el b6 (this is more cautious than lO ... bS, which gives White a target on the queenside; note also that lO ... i.e7? is very bad in view of 11 liJa4!), and now 11 liJe4 i.b7 yields approximately equal chances. Possibly 11 liJa4 is better, after which Smirin and Gelfand claim a small edge for White if Black plays 1l...l:tb8.

8 a4 b4 9 d4 cxd410 liJxd4 (D)


B

10 ... .llb7 Or 1O ... 'ti'f6!? (an important, and

quite possibly superior, alternative) 11 :ta2 ttJxd4 12 .llxd4:

a) 12 ... 'ti'g6 13 ttJd2 is good for White:

al) 13 ... f6?! 14 l:.el! ~b7 IS f3 'ti'f7 16 ttJc4 dS 17 exdS .llxdS 18 'ti'e2! :td8 19 ~b6 :tc8 20 ttJe3 ~b7 21 :taal! (preparing to centralize the only inactive piece) 21...eS 22 :tadl 'ti'e6 23 as ~e7 24 :td2 0-0 2S :tedl ± Jansa-Scherbakov, Mlada Boleslav 1994.

a2) 13 ... aS 14 :tel .lla6 IS ttJf3! f6 16 c4 .lle7 17 :td2 and again White is controlling everything, Jansa-Kogan, Eupen 1994.

a3) 13 ... .llb7 is Jansa's suggestion, after which he thinks that 14 f3 dS IS eS is slightly better for White.

b) 12 ... eS! 13 .lle3 .llb7 14 'ti'd3 ~g6 IS :tdl l1d8 16 f3 dS = HracekYe Jiangchuan, Jakarta 1994.

11 ttJd2 (D) Other possibilities for White in

clude: a) 11 l1el ':c8 12 ttJd2 ttJxd4 13

.llxd4 dS 14 eS .lle7 IS f40-0 16 ttJf3 l:tc6 17 l:tc1 'ti'c7 = Thiel-Arakharnia, London 1994.

b) 11 ttJxc6.llxc6 12 'ti'g4!? hS 13 'ti'e2 'ti'gS 14 ttJd2 h4 IS h3 .llcS 16 ttJf3 'ti'hS 17 :tfel f6 18 c4! and White is better, Spangenberg-Gi.Hernandez, Matanzas 1993.

11... 'ti'c7 12 :tel ttJxd4 13 .llxd4 e5 14 .lle3! .lle7 15 ttJc4 0-0 16 .llb6 'ti'c6 17 a5 f6

17 ... d6?! 18 'ti'd2 fS 19 'ti'xb4 fxe4 20 :tad 1 gave White a large advantage in the game Jansa-Boyd, Benasque 1994.

18 'iVg4 d5 19 exd5 'ti'xd5 Now White has a pleasant choice

between 20 ttJe3 and 20 l:tad 1 with a slight advantage in either case - Jansa.

3 Rossolimo Variation: Other Third Moves

1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 i.b5 (D)

B

In this chapter we shall consider some of the rarer alternatives to the three most common options for Black, which are 3 ... g6 (Chapter 1), 3 ... e6 (Chapter 2) and 3 ... d6 (Chapter 5).

N one of the m ')ves encountered here enjoys a very high status but they are played occasionally, and the trick is not to underestimate them. As is the case with most openings when your opponent tries something offbeat, the most practical thing you can do is to look for a good and safe line, rather than instantly searching a refutation. This would certainly be my advice against all of Black's five alternatives we shall analyse in this chapter. Since we are at such an early stage of the

game it is hardly likely that White can achieve more than just a solid advantage.

The Theory of Rare Third Moves in the Rossolimo

1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 .tb5 Now:

A: 3 ... tLla5 70 B: 3 ... tLld4 71 C: 3 ... tLlf6 72 D: 3 .. :~c7 72 E: 3 .. :ii'b6 73

Black has a few other strange moves at his disposal, but I will restrict myself to a few cursory observations. 3 ... a6 is hardly any good since White exchanges on c6 - as Black's most obvious plan is to follow up with ... g6, no matter which way he decides to recapture, White will basically be a tempo up on many lines considered in Chapter 1. 3 ... b6 is even rarer. White has a pleasant choice between capturing on c6 or simply developing with 0-0 and .l:e1, followed by c3 and d4.

And what is there to say about a move like 3 ... e5? Consider a Ruy Lopez (1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 .tb5).


Would Black seriously consider playing 3 ... c5 if this were legal? Well, probably not, but ... e5 is in fact quite a common move in the Rossolimo. Anyway, the simple 4 0-0 looks good for White. Black's best is 4 ... ttJge7, as White is threatening to exchange on c6 and capture on e5, but e7 is hardly the best place for the knight in these kind of positions.

A) 3 ... ttJa5 (D)

w

It is not unreasonable to raise an eyebrow upon seeing this move for the first time, but it is not as stupid as it looks, and incidentally it has featured in quite a few recent grandmaster games. One can argue that Black is going too far to avoid an exchange of his knight for White's bishop, but White is in no position to exploit this immediately. It is common that Black first develops his queenside, and therefore neglects to develop the kingside for a few moves. Hence the idea of building up a broad centre with c3 and d4

makes most sense to me, as White might have hopes of launching a quick attack, while Black is not ideally organized.

4c3 Alternatives: a) 4 .te2 b6!? 5 ttJc3 .tb7 6 d4

cxd47 ttJxd4 g6 8 .te3 .tg7 9 0-0 ttJf6 = Jakupovic-Kozul, Sarajevo 1998.

b) 4 d4 a6 5 .te2 cxd4 6 ttJxd4 and now:

bl) 6 ... b5 7 0-0 .tb7 8 'ifd3 e6 9 a4 b4 10 ttJd2 'ilic7 11 f4 ':'c8 12 'iithl .tc5 13 b3 ttJe7 14 .tb2 0-015 'ifg3 f6 16 .td3 ttJac6 17 ttJe2 1:tf7 with a roughly equal position, ProkopchukChernyshov, Pardubice 1997.

b2) 6 ... 'ifc7 7 0-0 e6 8 'ifd3 (8 c4!? ttJxc4 9 .txc4 'ilixc4 10 ltJc3 ttJf6 11 .tf4 is suggested by T.Horvath, and looks very promising since l:tc 1 is coming next; perhaps Black should not accept the sacrifice, which leads to similar play to the game, except that White might not have to play 'ilid3) 8 ... ttJf6 9 c4 b6 10 ttJc3?! (White should be very careful with his moveorder here; 10 b3 is worth considering) 1O ... .tb7 11 b3?! (T.Horvath suggests 11 f3 but Black simply replies 11...l:tc8 !; then 12 b3 b5! is good for Black) 11....tb4 12 f3 b5! 13 .td2 bxc4 14 bxc4 .tc5! with the better game for Black, A.Grosar-Kozul, Maribor 1994.

4 ... a6 5 .ta4 White would rather have his bishop

on the bl-h7 diagonal, and so this retreat is the most common. 5 .te2 is also sensible. Then Styrenko-Lysenko, Podolsk 1993 continued 5 ... d6 (5 ... d5 6 exd5 'ilixd5 7 d4 would be a good c3

Rossolimo Variation: Other Third Moves 71

Sicilian for White, but S ... b6!? is possible) 6 d4 cxd4 7 cxd4 g6 8 i.d2!? i.d7 9 i.c3 i.g7 10 'ii'd2 tiJc6 11 dS ±.

S ... bS (D) S ... e6 6 0-0 bS 7 i.c2 i.b7 8 d4

cxd4 9 cxd4 tiJf6 10 'ii'e2 :c8 11 i.d3 i.e7 12 tiJc3 d5 13 eS tiJd7 14 i.f4 was better for White in Hraeek-Minasian, Manila OL 1992.

w

6 i.c2 tiJf6 Black hopes that a quick attack

against White's e-pawn will oblige White to weaken his centre. Other options:

a) 6 ... dS 7 d4! dxe4 8 i.xe4 i.b7 9 i.xb7 tiJxb7 10 0-0 tiJf6 11 'ii'e2 e6 12 i.gS i.e7 13 a4 b4 14 dxcS bxc3 (Zapolskis-Dambrauskas, Cuxhaven 1993) IS b4! as 16 c6 tiJd6 17 bS ± Zapolskis.

b) 6 ... d6 and then: bI) 7 0-0 tiJf6 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 e6

10 'ii'e2 i.e7 11 a4 b4 12 tiJbd2 'ii'c7 13 i.d3 i.b7 14 :el 0-0 IS :bl :fc8 16 b3 ;!; Baci-Aleksic, Croatian Cht (Poree) 1998.

b2) 7 d4 i.g4 8 h3 i.xf3 9 'ii'xf3 eS 10 dS tiJc4 11 h4 hS 12 a4 with a substantial advantage to White, Spangenberg-Paglilla, Villa Martelli 1996.

70-0 i.b7 8 :el e6 Black is badly off after 8 ... dS? 9 eS

followed by e6. 9 d4 cxd410 tiJxd4! (D) 10 cxd4 dS 11 eS tiJe4 would solve

most of Black's problems.

B

10 ... i.e7 11 eS tiJdS 12 'ii'g4 g6 13 i.h6 'ii'c7 14 tiJd2

White has the better game, Kobelev-Fominykh, Perm 1997.

B) 3 ... tiJd4 As I stated earlier, this kind of move

is hardly advisable when White has not developed his knight on c3.

4 tiJxd4 cxd4 S 0-0 g6 6 c3! (D) 6 ... 'ii'b6 6 ... i.g7 7 cxd4 'ii'b6 8 tiJc3 e6 9

i.e2 i.xd4 10 tiJbS i.g7 11 'ii'c2 ± Ribeiro-Costa, Loures 1997.

7 i.c4 i.g7 8 cxd4 i.xd4 9 tiJc3 a6 10 d3 e611 ~hl tiJe7 12f4 0-013 fS!


B

White has a strong attack, Petronic-Gorbatov, Paks 1997.

C) 3 ... ttJf6 4 'iWe2 Alternatives are 4 ttJc3 and 4 eS. 4 ... g6 5 ttJc3 i.g7 S ... d6?! 6 eS is very good for White

and S ... ttJd4?! is also inferior in view of 6 ttJxd4 cxd4 7 eS! dxc3 8 exf6 e6 9 dxc3 'it'xf6 10 i.e3 and White is better - Dvoretsky.

6 e5 ttJg4 7 i.xc6 dxc6 8 h3 ttJh6 9 g4! (D)

B

Just in time before the knight joins the game via fS.

9 ... 0-0 10 d3 f5 11 g5 ttJf7 12 i.f4 'tWa5 13 'tWe3

White is better, Dvoretsky-Simic, USSR-Yugoslavia 1977.

D) 3 ... 'iWc7 (D)

w

This is one of Black's more respect-able options.

4 0-0 ttJf6 5 ttJc3 e6 6 l:.el d6 Other moves are inferior: a) 6 ... i.e7?! 7 eS ttJg4 8 i.xc6

bxc6 9 d4! fS (9 ... f6 10 dxcS! i.xcs 11 ttJe4 'tWb6 12 ttJxcS 'tWxcS 13 i.e3 ttJxe3 14 ':xe3 ± Istratescu) 10 h3 ttJh6 11 i.gS! i.f8 12 i.e3! ± IstratescuChernyshov, Pardubice 1997.

b) 6 ... a6?! 7 i.xc6 'ir'xc6 8 d4 cxd4 9 ttJxd4 'tWc4 10 eS ttJdS 11 ttJe4 ± Rozentalis-B .Kristensen, Copenhagen 1988.

7 e5! Simpler than the more common 7

d4, although this also gives White an advantage, e.g. 7 ... cxd4 8 ttJdS!? 'it'd8

Rossolimo Variation: Other Third Moves 73

9 tiJxd4 i.d7 10 .tgS .l:f.c8 (1O ... exdS 11 i.xc6! bxc6 12 exdS+ i.e7 13 i.xf6 gxf6 14 dxc6 i.c8 IS 'iif3 .l:f.b8 B 16 .l:f.e3 .l:f.xb2 17 .l:f.ael i.e6 18 .l:f.xe6! and White wins, Rozentalis-Slekys, USSR 1988) 11 tiJfS tiJeS 12 tiJxf6+ gxf6 13 tiJxd6+ i.xd6 14 'iixd6 i.xbS IS 'iixd8+ .l:f.xd8 16 .txf6 tiJf3+! 17 gxf3 .l:f.g8+ 18 ~h 1 .:td2 19 .l:f.e3! ':'xf2 20 .l:f.dl ':'fl+ 21 .l:f.xfl i.xfl 22 h4 ;!; Ulybin.

7 ... dxe5 8 tiJxe5 i.d7 9 tiJxd7 'iixd7 10 'iif3 ':'c8 11 d3

White is slightly better - Istratescu.

E) 3 ... 'iib6 4 tiJc3 e6 5 i.xc6 It is possible to continue conven

tionally with S 0-0 and so on, but then it is not very easy to get in d4, so this is best.

5 ... 'iixc6 6 d4 6 0-0 a6 7 .l:f.el 'iic7 8 d4 cxd4 9

'iixd4 tiJe7 10 i.gS f6 11 i.h4 eS 12 'iid3 d6 13 tiJd2 i.e6 14 tiJf1 gS IS i.g3 hS 16 f3 g4 17 fxg4 (17 .l:f.ad 1!?) 17 ... hxg4 18 tiJe3 i.h6, Spasov-Inkiov, Bulgarian Ch 1996, 19 .l:f.adl 0-0-020 tiJedS! gives White a solid advantage.

6 ... cxd4 7 tiJxd4 'iic7 8 0-0 a6 9 I%el d6 10 i.g5 (D)

Like in the Moscow Variation with 3 ... tiJd7 (Chapter 6), White has obtained a strong lead in development, at

the cost of conceding the bishop-pair to Black.

10 ... tiJf6 11 f4 Another good move is 11 'iid2 with

the idea 11...i.e7 12 tiJfS! exfS 13 exfS 0-0 14J:.xe7! 'iixe7 IS .:tel i.e6 (much better is IS ... 'iid7, to meet 16 i.xf6 with 16 ... 'iixfS, when Black has some chance of defending) 16 tiJdS 'iid8 17 i.xf6 gxf6 18 'iih6! +- Ardeleanu-Bondoc, Romania 1994.

11 ... h6 11.. .i.e 7 12 eS gives White an

edge. 12 i.xf6 gxf6 13 f5 h5 14 ~hl

i.d7 15 'iif3 i.e7 16 'iih3 'iic4 17 .l:f.adl':'c8 18 .l:f.d3

Here White has a clear advantage due to Black's vulnerable centre and somewhat useless bishops, RO.PerezRe.Gonzalez, Ajeduni 1996.

4 Moscow Variation with 3 ... ~d7

1 e4 cS 2ll:1f3 d6 3 i.bS+ i.d7 (D)

w

We begin the section on the Moscow Variation with probably the safest line for Black, 3 ... i.d7.

Following 4 i.xd7+, Black has a choice of recapturing with the knight or the queen. Both captures provide rapid development for both sides, but in top-level games there is a tendency towards capturing with the queen. Black can then develop his knight on c6, where it plays a greater role in the fight for the centre.

I should explain briefly how the material in this chapter is structured. It is repertoire-based, but for both White and Black. First of all, I recommend that Black plays 3 ... i.d7 against the Moscow Variation, but rather than

recapturing on d7 with the queen, I advocate taking with the knight. Like in the 4 ... 'iYxd7line, White has two main options: to go for a HedgehoglMaroczy or to continue with c3 and d4.

4 ... 'iYxd7 has been very popular lately and White has various ways to play against this, and here I have been rather ruthless in just selecting 5 c4 as my recommendation for White.

Let us, before we begin our theoretical investigation, examine a few general themes. Those that spring to mind are:

1) White plays c3 and d4, and Black replies with ... d5 (usually after a preliminary exchange on d4), obtaining a 'French' structure.

2) White plays d4, but places his c-pawn on c4, thereby obtaining either a Hedgehog or a Maroczy Bind, depending on whether Black plays ... e6 and ... i.e7 or chooses a fianchetto of his king's bishop.

In the Introduction, we looked briefly at these pawn structures. A more thorough investigation is now in order.

The 'French' Structure The 'French' structure can arise after both 4 ... ll:Ixd7 and after 4 ... 'iYxd7, but it is most commonly reached in the former case. A key position for the

Moscow Variation with 3 ... i.d7 75

'French' structure is the following, which arises when Black recaptures 4 ... ttJxd7 and play continues 5 0-0 ttJgf6 6 ..we2 e6 7 c3 i.e7 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 d5 10 e5 ttJe4 (D), which is Line A21:

w

S. Pedersen - Hodgson Oxford 1998

White has a space advantage in the form of his central pawns d4+e5 vs e6+d5, but Black's structure is the more solid since it presents no obvious target, whereas White must watch his d4-pawn. Another feature that should catch your eye is Black's knight on e4. This knight is so strong that it has to be removed, and White has two ways to do so. One is the immediate challenge by ttJbd2, while the second is to avoid exchanges and play ttJe1, followed by f3.

11 ttJbd2 ttJxd2 12 i.xd2 0-0 13 l:tadl

My idea was to reinforce the dpawn by preparing to defend it with the rook. I hoped thereby to free my

minor pieces for some more exciting assignments, such as a kingside attack.

13 .. Jlc8 14 ttJel 'ii'b615 i.e3 ..wa6! An excellent defensive move. Only

Black can be happy with an exchange of queens, even if it is at the cost of doubled a-pawns.

16 'ii'xa6 Hodgson said after the game that he

had been more afraid of 16 'ifg4. I had rejected this on the simple account that Black would reply 16 ... f5. Hodgson would of course have played this and had even planned a nice manoeuvre to force an eventual exchange of queens: 17 exf6 ttJxf6 18 'ifh3 l:c6 19 a3 'ife2! 20 l:td2 'ifg4 with a good game for Black.

16 ... bxa6 (D)

w

17 ttJd3 a5 18 l:el a4 19 i.d2?! l:tc4! 20 l:txc4 dxc4 21 ttJb4 l:c8 22 :tel ttJb6

Black has much the better ending.

The other main option for White is to retreat the knight to e1, and thus


threaten to trap Black's knight with 12 f3 tiJg5 13 h4.

B

Chekhov - Ftacnik Bundesliga 199213

11 .. :~b6! 12 ..te3 f6 This is the correct decision. Since he

has a space advantage, White would benefit from a stable centre, which makes moves like 12 ... h6 and 12 ... f5 inferior.

13 f3 tiJg5 14 tiJd3 tiJf7 15 tiJc3 0-0 16 ~fel (D)

B

Black has a nice target in White's e-pawn but must be careful that his own pawn on e6 does not become any weaker. Black's route to a good position is a well-timed capture on e5, but Black's next move appears to be premature.

16 ... fxe5?! 16 ... ~ac8 is suggested by Chekhov.

White would rather not take on f6, but 17 ..tf2 would again pass the ball to Black. 17 .. .fxe5 18 dxe5 'ii'a6 19 tiJf4 still looks slightly better for White -note that 19 ... ~c4 can be met by 20 tiJfxd5!. Also after 17 ..tf2 Black must constantly be alert to tiJxd5 ideas.

17 dxe5 'ii'a6 18 tiJf4! 'ii'xe2 18 ... tiJd8 19 'ii'xa6 bxa6 20 tiJd3

tiJc6 21 ..tf2 is only slightly better for White.

19 ~xe2 tiJd8 20 tiJb5 ..tc5 21 tiJd3 ..txe3+ 22 ~xe3

White has a clear advantage due to his more active position. Black has not been quick enough with his pressure against White's pawn on e5, which is now well covered, and the pawn on e6 has become just as weak.

The Hedgehog For many players, Hedgehog positions look dreadfully passive at first sight, and indeed in many older books such positions were always evaluated as better for White. Today, however, many grandmasters happily play the black side of the Hedgehog, as it has been shown that Black's position is full of hidden dynamism. White must often play with extreme accuracy to avoid over-extending and allowing a

Moscow Variation with 3 ... ~d7 77

... b5 or ... d5 break. On the other hand, Black should also be careful not to drift into unnecessary passivity, as White is then often able to build up a kingside attack. One such example is the following:

B

Tkachev - W. Watson London Lloyds Bank 1993

A fairly typical Hedgehog position has arisen. Black will try to force through ... b5 or ... d5, while White should attempt to prevent these breaks and simultaneously build up a kingside attack.

14 .. :~e8 Preparing ... b5. 15 a4 This leaves a hole on b4, but Black

is not in a position to exploit it. 15 ... l:f.ac8 16 ~e2 ttJd7 17 l:f.cdl

ttJc5 18 ~c2 ~c6? This is really asking for it. 18 ... b6

19 l:f.e3 .ltf6 is much better. 19 l:f.e3 .ltf6? One mistake is often followed by

another one, and this was obviously

Black's intention when playing his previous move.

20 ttJd5! exd5 21 exd5 'it'd7 22 .ltxf6 gxf6 23l:f.g3+ ~h8 24 'it'xh7+! ~xh7 25l:f.d4 1-0

The key to White's attack succeeding lies in the rook transfer via e3 to g3. Black should seek to prevent this.

w

Arkhipov - A. Petrosian Lippstadt 1993

12 l:f.el b6 13 l:[c1 a6 14 ttJxc6 'iVxc6

We have come to the same position as in the previous example but with Black choosing ... b6 rather than ... 'ii'e8. I would stress that the best defensive set-up for Black is with the queen on b7. This removes the queen from the c-file and supports ... b5 and ... d5, while also serving the very useful purpose of defending the e7-bishop.

15 ~e2 (D) It is very sensible to remove the

queen from the d-file, and from e2 her majesty helps to prevent Black from


playing ... bS. However, Black is not yet threatening ... bS, so it seems odd that nobody has tried the more active IS l:te3. White then intends an attacking formation with 1i'e2, l:tg3 and f4. Black must be very careful but with accurate play his chances do look fine. We consider the position after ISl:te3 'ikb7 in the next example.

IS a4 was tried in Oratovsky-Shmuter, Rishon Ie Zion 1995, but Black got into some trouble with IS .. ..l::tac8 16 l::te3 'ii'b7 17 l:tg3 ttJe8 (Black has delayed the freeing ... ttJd7-cS manoeuvre for too long, and thus must go in for this passive set-up) 18 'ii'e2 .tf6 19 f4 g6 20 ':'d 1, with a very promising game for White. Black needs to be more accurate, though, and IS ... 'ii'b7! is the best move in this respect. Having seen the above variations you have probably already guessed that the key defence after 16 ':'e3 is 16 ... ttJd7!. Black is ready to play ... i.f6, and has sufficient counterplay.

IS .. :iY'b7 16 ':'c2 ':'ab8 Preparing ... bS.

w

17 a4 ttJd7 Here comes the knight. 18 .ta3 ':'bc8 19 ':'dl ttJcS Black has plenty of counterplay.

Black's last move was IS ... 'ii'c6-b7. I have already explained the purpose of this move, and feel that Black cannot play it soon enough. Sometimes one single misstep means that Black is not in time with his counterplay. Another useful defensive idea to know about is that if Black can provoke White into playing a4, the manoeuvre ... ttJd7-cS is enough to disturb White's attack. Retreating the knight also vacates f6 for the bishop.

16 'tWe2 If 16l::tg3, Black gets counterplay

with 16 ... bS!. 16 •.• l::tac8 Black needs first to provoke White

into playing a4, and then to manoeuvre his knight around to c5.

17 a4 Again Black is ready to counter 17

':'g3 with 17 ... bS, for if 18 cxbS axbS 19 ttJxbS, Black has 19 ... ':'xc1 + 20


i.xc1 tDxe4 21 l:f.e3 d5 with a good game.

17 ... tDd7 18 l:dl If 18 l:f.g3 here, 18 ... i.f6 comes in

helpful. 18 ... tDc5 Black has good counterplay, since

if White plays 19 b4, Black retreats his knight and suddenly the c4-pawn, or even the b4-pawn, becomes a target.

The Maroczy Bind The Maroczy Bind occurs when White places his c-pawn on c4 and follows up with d4, and Black replies by taking it, followed by a fianchetto of his dark-squared bishop. A very interesting strategic struggle arises and both sides must be well familiar with the key ideas to play these positions accurately.

w

Look at the following position:

Rublevsky - Gelfand Polanica Zdroj 1998

This position has occurred in many games, and seems like a good starting

point for a discussion of the Maroczy Bind structure. White enjoys a small space advantage due to his c4- and e4-pawns, opposed to Black's on d6 and e7. However, the positional cost is the weakening of White's dark squares. Hence we often see Black employ a strategy based on play on the dark squares, with the manoeuvres .. :ii'd8-a5, ... tDd7-c5 and ... tDb4 aiming at the d3-square. However, Black needs to prepare this with ... e6 in order to control the d5-square and this gives White a target in the form of the d6-pawn.

12a4 This move is essential in White's

attempt to maintain his space advantage. His ideal formation would be something like i.e3/g5, 'it'd2, l:tfdl, ':'abl and b3, but after the immediate 12 i.e3, Black can play 12 ... tDe5 13 b3 b5 with a good game.

12 .. :iVd8 12 .. :ii'c7 is an interesting alterna

tive. Black wants to initiate the plan ... e6 and ... tDd7-c5 without placing the queen on a5. After 13 ~hl e6 14 i.g5 tDd7 15 b3 tDc5 16 l:tbl l:tac8, Ponomariov-Shipov, Lubniewice ECC 1998 continued 17 'it'd2 tDa5! 18 tDc 1, when the tactic 18 ... tDaxb3! 19 tDxb3 tDxb3 20 l:txb3 'it'xc4 21l:tfbl i.xc3 22 'it'xd6 i.g7 23 l:txb7 'it'xa4 netted Black a pawn. Instead, 17 b4 tDd7 18 b5 tDce5 19 i.e7 is critical, but Black is doing fine after 19 ... l:tfe8 20 i.xd6 'it'xc4 21l:tb4 'it'd3. Hence White need to be more precise, and while 17 'it'c2 allows 17 ... tDb4, the right move is 17 tDa2!. Even though it looks rather strange to decentralize the knight in


this way, Black is a long way from being able to execute ... bS or ... dS, and White is ready for his ideal set-up with 'if'd2 and l:tfdl.

13 i..e3 13 ~hl is also possible. 13 .. :ii'aS 14 'ifi>hl l:tfd8 (D) Now Black intends ... e6 followed

by ... ttJd7-cS, but White effectively puts a stop to this with his next move. After 14 ... ttJd7 IS l:tbl, IS ... ttJcS 16 ttJdS is also good for White, while IS ... ttJb4 is met by 16 'if'd2 - Gelfand and Khuzman.

w

IS ttJdS! ttJxdS 16 exdS ttJeS 17 b3! ttJd7 18 i.d4

The transformation of the position has yielded White excellent long-term chances due to his queenside majority and the semi-open e-file. Black must therefore play actively.

18 ... ttJf6 18 ... i..xd4 19 ttJxd4 is very good for

White, who prevents Black's counterthrusts ... bS and ... e6 and has chances of building up a kingside attack.

19 'if'd3

19 i..c3 'if'c7 20 as :e8 21 J.d4, as suggested by Gelfand and Khuzman, may be an even simpler path to an advantage.

19 ... l:te8 20 ttJc3 e6 21 dxe6 fxe6 22l:tadl

White is still slightly better but Black has succeeded in mixing things up a little and actually went on to win the game.

The Theory of the Moscow Variation with 3 ... i.d7

1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 d6 3 i..bS+ i..d7 4 i..xd7+

There are a few alternatives to this logical exchange, but none of them promises anything for White:

a) 4 'if'e2 and then: al) 4 ... ttJf6 S i..xd7+ (S eS dxeS 6

ttJxeS e6! is equal according to Timman) S ... 'if'xd7 (S ... ttJbxd7 6 0-0 e6 transposes to Line A2) 6 eS dxeS 7 ttJxeS 'if'e6! 8 ttJa3 ttJfd7 9 ttJac4 ttJxeS 10 ttJxeS f6 11 ttJc4 'if'xe2+ 12 'ifi>xe2 ttJc6 = Timman-Ivanchuk, Amsterdam 1994.

a2) 4 ... i..xbS S 'if'xbS+ 'if'd7 6 'if'xd7+ ttJxd7 leads to an equal endgame.

b) 4 a4 ttJf6 S d3 ttJc6 (this must be quite a good version of Chapter S for Black) 6 0-0 g6 7 :el i..g7 8 i..xc6 i..xc6 9 eS dxeS 10 ttJxeS :c8 11 ttJc3 0-0 12 ttJxc6 :xc6 13 'if'f3 'if'd7 14 as l:td8 = Becerra Rivero-KLGeorgiev, Erevan OL 1996.

Now we have:

Moscow Variation with 3 ... .td7 81

A: 4 ... ttJxd7 81 B: 4 ... 'it'xd7 86

The second option is the more common in practice, but I am recommending Line A for Black.

A) 4 ... ttJxd7 (D)

w

5 0-0 White might also immediately go

for a Hedgehog or Maroczy Bind with 5 c4. Black usually chooses a Hedgehog formation, which seems the more logical when Black does not have a knight on c6. Here are a couple of examples after 5 c4 ttJgf6 6 ttJc3:

a) 6 ... e6 7 0-0 .i.e7 8 d4 cxd4 9 ttJxd4 0-0 10 b3 a6 11 .i.b2 l:te8 12 'ir'e2 .i.f8 13 l:Iadl 'iit'a5 14 f4 .l:ad8 with a roughly equal position, SedinaNovikov, Nova Gorica 1997.

b) 6 ... g6 7 0-0 .i.g7 8 d4 cxd4 9 ttJxd4 0-0 10 b3 a6 11 .i.e3 e6 12l:tc1 .l:c8 13 'iVe2 .l:e8 14 .l:fd 1 d5! and Black has equalized, Nevednichy-Sorokin, Bled 1992.

5 ... ttJgf6 We shall now deal with two options

for White: AI: 6 ];leI 81 A2: 6 'iVe2 82

A1) 6l:.e1 e6 (D) 6 ... g67 c3 .i.g7 8 d4 0-0 9 h3 e6 10

ttJbd2 'iit'c7 11 b3 ];lfd8 12 .i.b2 l:.ac8 13 'iit'e2 gave White an edge in Gdanski-Sax, Budapest 1993.

w

7 c3 Unless White tries the idea of c3 and

d4, the game will most likely evolve into a roughly equal Hedgehog position:

a) 7 c4 ttJe5 8 d3 .i.e7 9 b3 0-0 10 .i.b2 ttJc6 11 d4 cxd4 12 ttJxd4 ttJxd4!? 13 'iit'xd4 'iit'a5 14 ttJc3 a6 15 a3 l:.fd8 16 h3 l:.ac8 17 l:.ad 1 ttJe8 18 'iit'e3 .i.f6 19 f4 h6!? with approximately equal chances, Antonio-Ricardi, Elista OL 1998 .

b) 7 d4 cxd4 8 'iit'xd4 .i.e7 9 c4 0-0 10 ttJc3 ttJg4!? (the more intricate 1O ... a6 is of course also perfectly


playable, and has been tried many times) 11 h3 (Kraut suggests 11 'it'd3!? with an equal position) 11. .. liJge5 12 liJxe5 dxe5! 13 'it'dl 1:lc8 14 b3 a6 15 1:le3 'it'c7 and Black has a good game, Westerinen-Bator, Jyvaskyla 1994.

c) 7 b3 iL.e7 8 iL.b2 0-0 9 c4 a6 (9 ... e5!?) 10 d4 cxd4 11 liJxd4 'it'c7 12 liJc3 1:lfe8 13 ~d2.i.f8 14 1:ladl 1:lac8 15 'it'g5 h6 16 'it'h4 'it'c5 = AkopianVaYsser, Novosibirsk 1993.

7 ... .i.e78 d4 O-O!? 8 ... cxd4 9 cxd4 d5 10 e5 liJe4 11

liJbd2 liJxd2 gives White an interesting choice:

a) 12 liJxd2!? 0-0 13 ~g4 'it'b6 14 liJf3 (Kraut-Tolnai, Dortmund 1986) and now, according to Kraut, Black should play 14 ... 1:lfc8 with an unclear position.

b) 12 i.xd2 0-013 1:leI liJb8!? 14 ~b3 ~d7 15 .i.b4 iL.xb4 16 'iWxb4 liJc6 17 ~a3 l:tac8 = Leko-Yudasin, Leon 1993.

9 e5 9 .i.g5 l:tc8 10 ~b3 liJb6 11 dxc5

l:txc5 12 liJbd2 liJg4 13 .i.xe7 'it'xe7 14 h3 liJe5 15 liJxe5 1:lxe5 16 a4 'iWc7 17 a5 liJd7 18 'iVa3 d5! = B.LarsenPelletier, Zurich 1998.

9 •.• liJe8 Black does best to keep the centre

fluid. After 9 ... dxe5 10 dxe5 liJd5, White gets a good position with 11 'iVe2 followed by c4.

10 exd6 White does not have to resolve the

tension immediately and can, for example, play 10 'iVe2 1:lc8 (1O ... d5 is maybe better, when after 11 liJbd2 cxd4 12 cxd4 1:lc8 13 liJn 1:lc6!? the

position is about equal) 11 exd6.i.xd6 (Black needs to take with the bishop since after ll...liJxd6, 12 d5! really is strong) 12 .i.g5 'it'c7 13 liJa3 a6 14 liJc4 cxd4 15 liJxd6 liJxd6, SzmetanTal, Termas de Rio Hondo 1987, when Tal recommends 16 .i.e7 1:lfe8 17 iL.xd6 'iWxd6 18 liJxd4 with an edge for White.

10 .•. liJxd6 It is preferable to activate the knight

rather than taking with the bishop. Ideally Black wants to give White an isolated pawn on d4, blockade it, and then play ... liJf5 to attack it. All this serves to explain White's next move.

11 d5 exd5 12 1i'xd5 ':c8 13 .i.f4 liJb6 14 'tlVdl 1:le8

The position is equal, Short-Tiviakov, Linares 1995.

A2) 6 'tlVe2 e6 (D)

w

We shall examine White's two most important moves in detail: A21: 7 c3 83 A22: 7 b3 84


A21) 7 c3 i.e7 8 d4 cxd4 After 8 ... 0-0 we have: a) 9 e5 ~e8 10 dxc5 ~xc5 11 %:td1

'fIc7 12 exd6 ~xd6 13 i.f4 %:tad8 14 c4?! (this looks a little odd as White develops his knight on a3 anyway; 14 ~a3 is better) 14 ... i.f6 15 ~a3 'fIc6 16 i.e5 'fIe4! = Wahls-Serper, Adelaide jr Wch 1988.

b) 9 lIdl cxd4 10 cxd4 and then: bl) 10 ... d5 11 e5 ~e4 12 ~e1 is an

improved version of the main line for White, since Black does not have the same counterplay:

b11) In Arkhipov-Leko, Lippstadt 1993, Black struggled on to a draw with 12 ... h6 13 ~riB ~b8 14 'fIg4 ~h8 15 ~f4 ~c6 16 ~c3 ~xc3 17 bxc3 i.g5 18 l:.d3 ..txf4 19 i.xf4 ~e7 20 l:.h3 'it>h7, etc., but I would much prefer White's attacking prospects.

b12) 12 .. .f5 13 f3 ~g5 14 ~d3 l:.c8 15 ~c3 ~b6 16 i.e3 ~c4 17 i.f2 ~f7 18 l:.ac 1 'fId7 19 b3 ~a5 20 ~c5 ! i.xc5 21 dxc5 and White has the advantage, Zhang Zhong-Lin Weiguo, Beijing 1997.

b2) 1O ... ~b6 11 ~c3 'fIc7 (1l...l:.c8 12 lId3 'fIc7 13 i.g5 h614 i.xf6 i.xf6 15 lIadl i.e7 = Chekhov-Panchenko, Russian Cht (Podolsk) 1992) 12 i.g5 h6 13 i.h4 lIfc8 14 lIacl 'fId8 15 lIc2 (15 d5!? may give White an edge) 15 ... d5 16 e5 ~e8 17 i.xe7 'fIxe7 18 l:.dc1 l:.c6 = Torre-Polugaevsky, Biel 1989.

9 cxd4 d5 10 e5 ~e4 (D) 11 ~el The alternative is 11 ~bd2 ~xd2

12 i.xd2 0-0:

a) 13 lIadl lIc8 14 ~e1 'ifb6 15 i.e3 'fIa6 16 'ifxa6 bxa6 :j: S.Pedersen-Hodgson, Oxford 1998.

b) 13 'ifb5 ~b6 14 i.a5 'ifd7! 15 'fIxd7 ~xd7 16 lIfcl %:tfc8 was equal in Zoo Varga-Tolnai, Hungarian Ch (Lillafiired) 1999.

c) 13 'ifd3 h6 14 lIael 'ifb6 15 i.c3 l:.fc8 16 lIe3 a5 17 ~e1 'ifa6 18 'fId 1 lIc4 19 l:.g3 and White has reasonable prospects of building up an attack, Dreev-Kengis, Pavlodar 1987.

11 .. :ti'b6! This is an important intermediate

move. Alternative moves are clearly inferior:

a) l1...f5?! 12 exf6 i.xf6 13 ~c3! i.xd4 14 ~xe4 dxe4 15 'ifxe4 ~c5 16 'ifg4 ;!; Tirnman-Khenkin, Tilburg 1994.

b) 11...h6?! 12 f3 ~g5 13 ~c3 'ifb6 14 f4 ~h7 15 i.e3 ± KaleginTolnai, Balatonbereny 1994.

12 i.e3 f6 Seeking to destabilize the centre,

which is logical since Black is short of space. 12 ... f5 13 f3 ~g5 14 ~c3 0-0 15 ~d3 ~f7 16 'it>h1 %:tac8 17 lIgl


gave White an edge in Ricardi-A.Hoffman, Buenos Aires 1995.

13 f3liJg5 14liJd3 0-0 15 liJc3liJf7 This looks very sensible, increasing

the pressure against the e5-pawn. Nevertheless, Black has tried a few other moves:

a) 15 ... lIac8 16.if2 'ii'a6 17 lIfe 1 fxe5 18 dxe5!? (18 liJxe5 liJxe5 19 'ii'xe5 l:[xf3 20 liJxd5 .if6 21 liJxf6+ gxf6 22 'iVe2 'iVxe2 23 lhe2 lIf4 is roughly equal, Lechtynsky-Donchev, Bratislava 1983) 18 .. Jtc4 is claimed by Lechtynsky to be clearly better for Black, but White has the very interesting possibility 19 h4!? liJf7 20 liJxd5 exd5 21 e6.

b) 15 ... 'ilVa6 and then: bl) 16.if2 fxe5 17 dxe5 liJf7 18

lIfelliJh6! (a very fine move, preventing liJf4 and avoiding any liJxd5 ideas) 19lIad llIac8 20 liJc1 'ii'xe2 21 liJlxe2 .ib4! (I like this move very much, as it shows a good understanding of the position; Black's knights will simply turn out much superior to White's knight and bishop) 22 a3 (22 .ixa7 b6 embarrasses the bishop) 22 ... .ixc3 23 liJxc3 a6 and Black is better, Zhang Zhong-Kudrin, Beijing 1998.

b2) 16lIaeilIae8 17 .if2 fxe5 18 dxe5 liJf7 19 f4 (19 liJxd5 exd5 20 e6 .if6 21 exf7+ ~xf7 22 'ilVd2 may be worth trying) 19 ... liJh6 20 :'c1lIc8 21 .l:r.c2 lIc6 22 lIfcl 'ilVa5 23 a3 a6 24 liJa2 'ilVb5 25 liJab4 lIc4 + Shaked-de Firmian, Bermuda 1997.

16l:tfel fxe5?! 16 ... lIac8 is suggested by Chekhov

as an improvement but 17 .if2 fxe5 18

dxe5 'ilVa6 19liJf4 still looks slightly better for White.

17 dxe5 'iWa6 18 liJf4! 'ii'xe2 19 lIxe2 liJd8 20 liJb5 .ic5 21 liJd3 .ixe3+ 22 l:txe3

White is clearly better, ChekhovFtacnik, Bundesliga 1992/3.

A22) 7 b3 (D)

B

7 ... .ie7 Black might also change his strat

egy and play 7 ... g6: a) 8 d4 cxd4 9liJxd4 .ig7 10.ia3

'iVb6 l1liJc3 a6 (11...'ii'xd4? 12liJb5 'ilVb6 13 liJxd6+ ~d8 14liJxf7+ ~c7 15liJxh8l:txh8 16lIadi ± Ftacnik) 12 lIadl 0-0 = Kramnik-Gelfand, Sanghi Nagar FIDE Ct (1) 1994 .

b) 8 c3!? (as Black has changed his strategy, it is very reasonable for White to modify his plan too; going for c3 and d4 is very reasonable when Black has played ... g6) 8 ... .ig7 9 d4 0-0 10 liJbd2 'ikc7 ll.ib2l:tfc8 (ll...cxd4 12 cxd4 lIfc8 13 e5 dxe5 14 dxe5 liJd5 15 liJc4 gave White the advantage in


Ulybin-Zagrebelny, Russia Cup 1997) 12l:tfel a6 13 eS tLle8 14 h4 bS IS hS 'iib7 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 'ir'd3 and White is better, Rublevsky-Neverov, St Petersburg 1996.

8 i.b2 0-0 9 c4 After 9 d4 cxd4 10 tLlxd4, Poluga

evsky suggests 1O ... tLleS =, but Black also seems to do quite well with 1O ... tLlcS 11 tLld2 "b6 12l:tadl "a6 13 "xa6 tLlxa6 14 l:tfel 1/2-1/2 NunnRibli, Thessaloniki OL 1984.

9 ... a6 Black will need to play this move

sooner or later but the question is whether it is worth spendIng a tempo on it here. Alternatives:

a) 9 ... eS 10 tLlc3 leads to a further branch:

al) 1O ... tLle8 11 tLlel! tLlc7 12 tLlc2 tLle6 13 tLle3 (it is worth noting that even though Black seems to be controlling the d4-square just as well as White controls the dS-square, White can always remove a black knight from d4, whereas it is harder for Black to evict a white knight from dS, as that requires an exchange of all the knights) and now:

all) 13 ... i.gS?! 14 g3! tLlf6 IS "d3! (preparing tLle2 followed by f4) IS ... 'ir'd7!? 16 tLlcd5! i.xe3 (16 ... tLlxdS 17 cxdS tLld4 18 f4 exf4 19 gxf4 i.f6 20 'it'g2, with the idea of h3 and tLlg4 or l:tael and tLlfS, gives White a clear advantage - Yudasin) 17 tLlxf6+ gxf6 18 fxe3 ± Yudasin-Shirov, Ljubljana 1995.

a12) 13 ... tLlf6 is better, preparing to exchange a set of knights if White hops in on dS.

a2) 1O ... g6 11 a3 tLlhS 12 g3 tLlg7 13 b4 b6 14 tLldS fS IS exfSlLlxfS 16 bxcS bxcS 17 i.c3 tLlf6 18 tLlxf6+ i.xf6 19 'ir'e4 ± Kamsky-Alterman, Tilburg 1993.

a3) 1O ... tLlb8 is better; Black keeps one knight with contact to the dSsquare while preparing to manoeuvre the other around to d4. RublevskyRashkovsky, Elista 1994 witnessed an interesting idea, with White in the first place avoiding knight exchanges: 11 d3 (11 tLle 1 tLlc6 12 tLldS tLlxdS 13 cxdS had been the normal continuation) 11...tLlc6 12 tLld2 lLld4 13 'ir'dl a6 14 f4 exf4 IS ltxf4 bS 16 ltn ltb8 17 tLlf3 tLle6 18 'ir'd2 t.

b) 9 ... lte8 10 d4 cxd4 11 tLlxd4 'if'b6 12 ltdl tLlcs 13 tLlc3 ltad8 14 l:tabl .if8 IS 'iWf3 a6 16l:td2 dS! and the complications turn out fine for Black, Tal-Geller, USSR Ch 1979.

10 d4 cxd411 tLlxd4 (D)

11 .. :i'b6 Depriving White of his most natu

ral continuation, tLlc3. White could just defend the d4-knight with 12 ltdl

86 Easy Guide to the Ji..b5 Sicilian

and then play ltJc3 next move, but White would rather have his queen's rook on d 1, keeping the rook on fl to support an advance of the f-pawn.

Other options: a) 1l...:lcS 12 ltJc3 'ii'aS 13 :ladl

'ilVhS 14 f3 :lfeS IS ~hl i.fS 16 'iVel!? 'ii'aS 17 f4 eS IS fxeS 'ii'xeS 19 'ii'f2 'ilVhS 20 ltJfS ltJcs 21 'ii'f3 'iVxB 22 gxf3 ± Adams-Kengis, Arhus 1997.

b) 1l...'ii'aS 12ltJc3 :lfcS 13 l:tadl (13l:tacl !?) 13 ... ltJeS 14 ~hl i.f6 IS f4 bS!? with counterplay, MarcianoRelange, Belfort 1997.

12 'it'hl White stubbornly attempts to keep

his rook on fl, but at the same time neglects his development. Other options:

a) 12 ltJc2 :lacS 13 ttJc3 :lfeS 14 ~hl 'ilVcs IS :lac1'ii'h5 16 'iVxhS ttJxhS with approximately equal chances, Adams-Tiviakov, New York PCA Ct (12) 1994.

b) 12 :ldl :lfeS 13 ttJc3 .ifS 14 ltJf3 :lacS ISltJa4 'ilVc6 16 eS dxeS 17 ltJxeS ttJxeS IS i.xeS bS 19 i.xf6 gxf6 20 ttJb2 :ledS + K.Berg-Van Wely, Leeuwarden 1993.

12 ..... cSI3 f4 13 ttJd2 'iVhS 14 f3 :lfeS IS g4?!

'iVgS 16 :lgl (Sadler mentions 16 f4!? 'ii'xg4 17 :lf3 with some compensation) 16 ... ltJeS 17 :lafl ltJg6 + Plaskett-Sadler, Hastings 1995/9.

13 ... :lfe8 14 ltJf3 White consistently avoids putting

his knight on d2, but this allows Black a break on the queenside.

14 ... bS IS eSltJg416 ttJd4 dxeS17 ltJxe6 fxe6 18 "xg4 i.f6 19 fxeS

19 ttJc3!?

19 ... i.xeS 20 ltJc3 The position is unclear, Ricardi

Wolff, Buenos Aires 1997.

B) 4 ... 'ii'xd7 White can now choose between two

plans. One is to go for a Maroczy Bind or Hedgehog by playing c4 and d4; the other is the classical build-up of the centre with c3 followed by d4. The former possibility is my unequivocal recommendation, so we shall here only discuss ...

B

S c4 (D)

S ... ttJc6 Alternatives: a) S ... 'ii'g4?! has now been con

demned as being too risky. Black grabs a pawn but at the cost of wasting a lot of time with his queen. 6 0-0 'ii'xe4 7 d4! cxd4 (7 ... ltJf6 SltJc3'ii'fS 9'ii'b3 b6 10 dxcS 'ii'xcs 11 i.e3 ± OstojicQuinteros, Torremolinos. 1974) and then:

al) S ttJxd4 ltJf6 9 l:lel 'ii'g4 10 'ii'a4+ 'ilVd7 11 ttJbS ltJc6 12ltJlc3 eS

Moscow Variation with 3 ... Ji.d7 87

13 .tgS .te7 14 l:tadl and White is Returning to S ... ttJc6 (D): better, Aagaard-Josephsen, Lyngby 1995.

a2) 8 l%el 'it'g4 (8 ... 'iWc6 9 ttJxd4 'it'xc4 10 ttJa3 'iWc8 11 .tf4 'iWd7 12 W

ttJabS ± Browne-Quinteros, Wijk aan Zee 1974) 9 ttJa3!? a6 (according to Peptan and Stoica Black should play 9 ... ttJc6 10 ttJbS 0-0-0 11 h3 'iWd7 but White still has great compensation after 12 ttJfxd4) 10 cS! (Pep tan-Madl, Kishinev 1998 continued with the less clear, albeit quite sensible, 10 'iWb3) lO ... dxcS 11 ttJc4 'iWg6 12 ttJfeS 'iWfS 13 g4! 'iWf6 14 J.gS! 'iWxgS IS 'iWf3 ± Peptan and Stoica.

b) S ... eS is the ultra-solid choice. Usually one would avoid such a move as it makes Black's bishop more 'bad'. However, in reality, Black's bishop is not so much worse than its white counterpart. Admittedly, White's bishop has a little more scope but it is being fairly well hampered by Black's pawns, and if White becomes ambitious, he will inevitably have to open up the game, thereby also opening lines for Black's bishop. 6ttJc3 ttJc6 7 d3 (it is quite interesting that Rublevsky chose to delay this in a recent game, and instead opted for 7 0-0 g6 8 a3 .tg7 9 b4 ttJge7 10 bxcS dxcS 11 d3 0-0 12ttJdS with just an edge, Rublevsky-Brestian, Elista OL 1998) 7 ... g6 8 ttJdS .tg7 90-0 ttJge7 10 .td2 0-0 11 l:tbl ttJxdS 12 cxdS ttJd4 13 b4 fS 14 bxcS dxcS IS ttJxd4 exd4?! (IS ... cxd4 is safer) 16 'iWb3 b6 17 f4 fxe4 18 dxe4 l:tac8 19 'iWc4 'it'h8 20 a4 and White is better, Shaked-Kaidanov, USA Ch (Parsippany) 1996.

Now: Bl: 6ttJc3 87 B2: 6 d4 91

81) 6ttJc3 We already have another branch:

B11: 6 ... ttJe5 87 B12: 6 ... g6 89

6 ... ttJf6 7 d4 cxd4 8 ttJxd4 trans-poses to Line B2, while 6 ... e6 is likely to lead to variations considered in Line B22.

811) 6 ... ttJe5 (D) 7ttJxe5 In my opinion this move is rather

underrated. Black will get good play along the d-file if White plays slowly, but with active play it is possible to subject Black to some unpleasantness. Alternatives:

a) 7 d3 is the sort of thing Black hopes for, since White's basic plan has


w

been put on hold for the time being. 7 ... e6 8 0-0 !be7 (8 ... !bf6 9 h3 i.e7 10 i.e3 0-0 11 b3 a6 12 a4! !bg6 13 d4 "ikc7 14 "ikc2 l:tad8 15 l:tadl cxd4 16 !bxd4 gave White an edge in RelangeMir.Markovic, Sabac 1998) 9 !bel g6 10 f4 (or 10 !bc2 i.g7 11 i.e3 0-0 12 f4 !b5c6 13 d4 cxd4 14 !bxd4 f5 15 exf5 !bxf5 112-112 Sax-Kasparov, Tilburg 1989) 10 ... !b5c611!bf3 i.g712 i.e3 !bd4 (preventing d4) 13 i.xd4 cxd4 14 !be2 !bc6 15 l:tbl a5 16 a3, Dolmatov-Khasin, Volgograd 1974, and now Kraut claims that Black can equalize with 16 ... 0-0 17 b4 axb4 18 axb4 e5.

b) 7 d4!? gives Black a very difficult choice:

bl) 7 ... !bxc4? 8 dxc5 dxc5 9 "ike2 is just horrible for Black, who will suffer seriously for his lagging development.

b2) 7 ... cxd4 8 "ikxd4 !bc6 9 "ikd2 !bf6 100-0 g6 11 b3 i.g7 12 i.b2 0-0 13 l:tfel !bg4 14 l:tadl l:tad8 15 h3 !bge5 16 !bh2!? !bb4 17 "ike2 g5 18 !bd5 !bxd5 19 exd5 t Belikov-Golubev, Moscow 1996.

b3) 7 ... !bxf3+ 8 gxf3 cxd4 9 "ikxd4 e6 10 i.e3 !be7 11 0-0-0 and now:

b31) 11...!bc612 "ikd2 J:[d8 (the alternative 12 ... !be5 13 "ike2 "ikc6 14 b3 is probably good for White, for he is ready to push the knight away from e5 with f4) 13 l:thgl "ikc8 14 f4 favoured White in Rublevsky-Becerra Rivero, Lucerne W cht 1997.

b32) I suggest 11...l:tc8!? as an improvement for Black, intending ... tDc6-e5. While 12 "ikxa7 l:txc4 does not look too intimidating, 12 b3 b5! highlights the unpleasant aspect for White of having his king on cl opposed to a rook on c8.

7 ... dxe5 8 't't'h5! (D)

B

If Black is allowed some peace he will soon obtain promising play against White's backward d-pawn, so White has to follow up very energetically.

8 .. :ClM4 This forces White's queen back

from its active post at h5 but Black's own queen also soon has to retreat.

8 ... "ikd6 is the more solid approach. Then White has got nothing from 9


tiJb5, e.g. 9 ... 'it'b8 10 0-0 a6 (l0 ... e6?! is risky due to 11 f4 exf4 12 d4!; Komliakov-Lipman, Moscow 1989 continued 12 ... tiJf6 13 'ii'e5 tiJd7 14 'ii'xb8+ nxb8 15 .Jtxf4 ±) 11 tiJc3 e6 12 d3 tiJf6 13 'ii'e2 tiJd7 = Titov-Rashkovsky, Moscow 1991. However, I would like to draw your attention towards the interesting, albeit as yet untested 9 f4!? exf4 10 d4!? It seems to me that there is a lot of unexplored territory here.

9 ~e2 e6 10 d3 'iVd7 (D)

w

11 f4! This is much better than 11 0-0

tiJe7 12 f4 after which Black got quite a decent position with 12 ... exf4 13 .Jtxf4 tiJg6 14 .Jtg3 .Jte7 15 e5 0-0 16 '1thl l:.ad8 in Nevednichy-Mi.Tseitlin, Bucharest 1993.

11 ... tiJe7 White's idea is designed to prevent

the defensive method outlined in the Nevednichy-Mi.Tseitlin game above, since here 11...exf4 12 .Jtxf4 tiJe7 would be too slow in view of the reply 13 tiJb5!.

12 fxe5 tiJg6 13 .Jte3 tiJxe5 14 0-0-0 tiJc615 'ii'f2 b616 lthfi ltd817 d4! cxd4 18 .Jtxd4 ~b7 19 tiJb5

White has a very strong attack, Oral-Barbero, Basle 1999.

812) 6 ... g67 d4 (D)

B

7 ... .Jtg7!? Some move-order subtleties come

into play here; the alternative is to exchange on d4 first, and then to play ... .Jtg7. If White answers the text-move with 8 .Jte3, then Black will reply 8 ... cxd4 9 tiJxd4, reaching the same position as after 7 ... cxd4 8 tiJxd4 .Jtg7 9 .Jte3, but having avoided 9 tiJde2, which is currently regarded as somewhat better for White (9 ... tiJf6 10 0-0 is Line B23). However, 7 ... .Jtg7 also gives White an extra option, which we take to be the main line of this section.

Let us, then, briefly look at 7 ... cxd4 8 tiJxd4 .Jtg7 9 .Jte3 tiJf6 10 f3 0-0 11 0-0. Black now has two plans:

1) Preparing a ... b5 break, beginning with ... a6 and playing either rook


to c8. This might force White to weaken himself with a4, which would give Black the opportunity to settle his knights on c5 and b4.

2) Preparing a ... d5 break, initiated by the moves ... .:.fd8 and ... e6.

Hence we consider: a) 1l ... .:.ac8 12 b3l:tfd8 131i'd2 e6

14 l:tacl (14 ':'adl might be preferable, when White is in a better position to answer 14 ... d5 with 15 exd5 exd5 16c5) 14 ... d5 15 exd5 exd5 16 c5? (Black has no worries after 16 ttJxc6 bxc6 but this is still White's best choice) 16 ... ttJxd4! (16 ... l:te8 has also been played, for example in GelfandShirov, Wijk aan Zee blitz 1998, but the text-move is better) 17 .Jtxd4 ttJe4! 18 fxe4 dxe4 (it is surprising that Shirov, who is such a sharp tactician, missed this nice idea, even in a blitz game) 19 ttJxe4 'iWxd4+ 20 'iWxd4 .Jtxd4+ 21 'it>hl. Kraut now claims that Black is clearly better, and while I would not disagree, I feel that a few accurate moves are needed to display it, and the right starter seems to be 21.. . .Jte5! with the intention of following up with ... fS.

b) 11...':'fc8 12 b3 'iWd8 (12 ... a6 13 ttJxc6 'iWxc6 14 a4 ttJg4! 15 .Jtd4 ttJe3 16 .Jtxe3 .Jtxc3 = Kuijf-Van den Doel, Wijk aan Zee 1998) 13 1i'd2 ttJd7 14 ttJde2 a6 15 ':'abl ':'ab8 16 a4 ttJcS 17 ':'fdl ttJb4 18 ttJd4 'ili'd7 19 'ifthl b6 20 ttJd5 ttJxd5 21 exdS .Jtxd4! 22.Jtxd4 bS with a roughly equal position, Oratovsky-Ilinci6, ECC 1998.

c) ll...a6 12 a4 e6 13 ttJde2 'iWc7 14 ':'cl ttJd7 IS b3 ttJcS 16 ':'bll:tac8 17 ~h 1 ':'fd8 18 .Jtg5 l:te8 19 .Jtf4

.JteS and also here is B lack doing well, Zubarev-Savchenko, Donetsk Z 1998.

d) 1l...l:tfd8 12 1i'd2 e6 13 l:tadl d5 (on the face of it I would prefer 13 ... ttJeS 14 b3 dS) 14 ttJxc6 bxc6 15 .JtgS1i'c7 16 cxd5 cxdS 17 exd5 exd5 181i'f21i'b7 and Black seems to have enough counterplay to compensate for his weak d-pawn, Morozevich-Sadler, Elista OL 1998.

8 d5 .Jtxc3+!? 9 bxc3 ttJa5 (D)

w

The whole point of Black's play has been to give White doubled c-pawns. The nature of the position is similar to some Nimzo-Indian lines and is indeed a very modern interpretation of such positions. If Black succeeds in keeping the position closed White will inevitably experience problems with his c4-pawn.

10 ttJd2 Shirov had rejected this on the

grounds that it was unnecessary to protect the pawn immediately, but since he was forced to do so anyway, the text-move seems the most flexible. Shirov-Kasparov, Erevan OL 1996


proceeded 10 0-0 f6! (1O ... ltJxc4 11 'ii'e2 ltJe5 12 li.Jxe5 dxe5 13 f4 gives White a dangerous initiative according to Shirov) 11 ltJd2 b6 12 'ii'e2?! 'ii'a4 13 f4 ltJh6 14 e5 0-0-0 and Black is close to standing better.

10 ... f6 Black copies Kasparov's plan, but

1O ... e5 is also interesting, even though after 11 dxe6 'ii'xe6 12 'ii'a4+ ltJc6 13 l:[b1 0-0-0 14 0-0 ltJge7 15 l:te1 l:td7 16 ltJn White retained a small advantage in Ponomariov-Bologan, Belfort 1998.

11 f40-0-0?! While this, strictly speaking, might

not be a mistake in itself, it definitely looks like Black is committing his king prematurely. I would instead suggest 11...ltJh6, by analogy with Kasparov's plan. Then after 120-0 ltJn 13 a4 b6 Black can still choose whether to castle queenside or kingside.

12 0-0 b6 13 a4 13 'ii'e2 is met by 13 ... 'ii'a4!. 13 ... ~b7 In Rublevsky-Ehlvest, Polanica

Zdroj 1997, Black played 13 ... ltJh6?, failing to take White's idea of 14 ltJb3! into account. Black could not then stop White opening lines on the queenside: 14 ... ltJn (both 14 ... ltJxc4 15 'ii'e2 and 14 ... ltJb7 15 a5 are clearly very good for White, while Black would also rapidly get into trouble with 14 ... ltJxb3 15 'ii'xb3 f5 16 a5 bxa5 17 l:txa5 fxe4 18 'ii'a2 ± Ftacnik) 15 ltJxa5 bxa5 16 'ii'b3 'ii'b7 17 'ii'c2 'ii'd7 18 l:[b1 ~c7 19 e5! (White cannot break through immediately on the b-file, but with this nice sacrifice he finds another, very

instructive, way forward) 19 ... fxe5 (after 19 ... dxe5? the c-pawn is too weak) 20 f5! gxf5 21 l:txf5. Now Black has the almost impossible task of covering the b- and f-files simultaneously while White will find it a lot easier to switch from side to side.

14 ltJb3 ltJxb3 15 'ti'xb3 as 16 l:tbl 'ti'c7 17 l:tf2 cj;a7 18 l:ttb2 l:tb8 (D)

w

Ftacnik thinks that Black has chances of holding the position and while this does contain a grain of truth, it certainly looks like an uphill struggle to me. For starters, I do not see how Black develops after 19 'ii'dl. 19 ... ltJh6 is the most natural, but 20 e5! fxe5 21 fxe5 ltJn 22 e6 ltJe5 23 ~h6! ltJxc4 24 :f2 is terribly annoying.

82) 6 d4 cxd4 Or 6 ... 'ii'g4?! 7 d5! (if 7 0-0, then

7 ... cxd4 is fully playable) 7 ... 'ii'xe4+ 8 ~e3 ltJd4 9 'ii'a4+ b5 10 'ii'a6 ltJc2+ and now Stean-Geller, Moscow 1975 continued 11 ~d2 'ii'd3+! 12 ~c1 l:tb8


(12 ... liJb4? 131i'xb5+ ~d8 14liJel) 131i'xa7l:[d8 141i'b7liJxal 15 'iWc6+ l::td7 16 'iWc8+ 112_112. Later Polugaevsky pointed out that Black would be in trouble after the more accurate 11 ~dl! and this was verified by BaklanFtacnik, Bundesliga 1998/9: 1l...l:[d8 12 'iWxb5+ l:[d7 13liJbd2 'iWg6 14l::tcl liJxe3+ 15 fxe3 liJf6 16 b4! liJe4 (Black is in dire straits after 16 ... cxb4 17 c5!, e.g. 17 ... 'iWxg2 18l:[g 1 'iWh3 19 l:[g3 'iWf5 20 :g5 'iWh3 21 cxd6 and wins, or 17 ... liJxd5 18 c6!) 17 liJxe4 'iWxe4 (17 ... 'iWxg2 18liJed2 'iWxhl+ 19 ~c2 'iWg2 20 bxc5 and White's attack crashes through) 18 bxc5 ±.

7 liJxd4 liJf6 7 ... e6 or 7 ... g6 will most likely

transpose to Line B22 or Line B23, but one independent line is worth mentioning: 7 ... g6 8 0-0 i..g7 9liJe2!? liJe5 10 liJbc3liJxc4 11 b3liJb6 12 a4 'iWd8 13 i..e3liJf6 14l::tc1 0-0 15 h3 (I find it hard to believe that White's compensation really is sufficient but Black's knight on b6 is misplaced and right now Black cannot make use of his extra pawn) 15 ... liJbd7 16 g4!? liJe5 17 f4liJc6 18 f5 with some compensation, Morozevich-Topalov, Pamplona 1995/6.

SliJc3 (D) Now we shall look at:

B21: S ... 'iWg4 92 B22: S ... e6 93 B23: S ... g6 95

821) S •. :iWg4 9 'iVxg4 9 0-0 constitutes no threat since

Black can simplify with 9 ... 'iWxdl 10

B

l:[xdlliJxd4 11l:[xd4l:[c8 12 b3 g6 13 l:[dl i..g7 14 i..e3liJg4 15 i..d4 i..xd4 16 l:[xd4 liJe5 17 f4 liJc6 18 l:[d2 0-0 and a draw was soon agreed in the game Leko-Maksimenko, Br0nsh0j 1995.

9 ... liJxg4 10 liJxc6 bxc6 (D)

w

11 i..f4! If Black were allowed time to de

velop, he would have no problems. With the text-move, White intends h3 and 0-0-0, perhaps combined with an e5 break, which would compromise Black's pawn structure somewhat.

Moscow Variation with 3 ... ~d7 93

Instead Milov-Savon, Simferopol 1992 continued 11 b3 g6 12 i.b2 i.g7 13 h3 ltJeS 14 0-0-0 ltJd7 IS ltJa4 i.xb2+ 16 cJ;>xb2 cS =.

1l ... g5! This aggressive move seems the only

solution to Black's opening problems. Lutz analyses a wealth of alternatives:

a) 11...e6 12 h3 ltJf6 13 0-0-0 ±. b) 11...f6 12 h3ltJeS 13 i.xeS fxeS

14cS!±. c) 11...ltJf6 120-0-0 ltJd7 13 :the1

(13 i.e3?! g6 14 f4 i.g7 IS ~c2 fS! 16 i.d4 i.xd4 171hd4 0-0-018 :LeI J:the8 1/2-1/2 Baklan-Lutz, Bundesliga 1997/8) 13 ... g614ltJa4ltJb61SltJxb6 axb6 16 eS and now 16 ... dxeS 17 i.xeS i.h6+ 18 'it>b1leaves White better, but Atalik claims that Black equalizes with 16 ... 'it>d7 !.

d) 11...g6 12 h3 ltJf6 13 eS t Atalik.

e) l1...eS 12 i.g3 t. 12 i.xg5 ltJe5 ( D) Black's counterplay lies on the g

file, and therefore it makes sense to clear the g -file by removing the knight.

Goldin considers 12 ... i.g7!? but White seems to consolidate with accurate play, viz. 13 'it>e2 and then:

a) 13 ... i.xc3 14 bxc3 ltJeS (or 14 .. J~g81S f4! ltJeS16cS f617 i.xf6! exf6 18 fxeS dxeS 19 g3 ±) IS cS :tg8 16 i.f4 and Black does not have compensation for the pawn.

b) 13 ... ltJeS 14 cS ±. c) 13 .. J:tb814J:tabl J:tb41S f3ltJeS

16 cS ±. 13 b3 J:tg8 14 i.h4 J:tg4 14 ... J:txg2?! IS .tg3 i.g7 16 cJ;>f1

J:txg3 17 hxg3 turns out favourably for

w

White. Atalik's main line then runs 17 ... ltJd3! 18 .l:[d1ltJb2 19 .:tc1ltJd3 20 :txh7 i.f6 21ltJe2ltJxc1 22ltJxc1, which he continues even further but it is clear that White has a large advantage.

15 i.g3 i.g7 16 'it>d2 ltJg6 17 f3 .l:[g5

So far we have followed BaklanAtalik, Yugoslavia 1998. Now Atalik analyses ...

18 f4! .l:[g4 19 :tan h5 20 ltJdl i.h6 21ltJf2 i.xf4+ 22 ~e2 :tg5 23 ltJh3 :Lxg3 24 hxg3 i.xg3 25 ltJg5 ltJf4+ 26 cJ;>d2 h4 27 :tf3 :td8

Black has some compensation.

822) 8 ... e6 (D) With this move, Black will try to di

rect the game into a Hedgehog type of position. This set-up is extremely solid and usually provides chances for both sides, with some quite interesting strategic play in view.

90-0 i.e7 10 b3 It is basically a matter of taste

whether the bishop is developed on b2


w

or on e3. On b2 the bishop points against Black's kingside, and thus this is usually followed by an attempt to build up a kingside attack, which, of course, needs to be supported by firm control of the centre.

After 10 i.e3 play might continue 10 ... 0-0 11 'ii'e2 (there are other ways for White to arrange his pieces but this does look like the most sensible, freeing dl for a rook and supporting the c4-pawn). Now Black's choice of move also seems like a matter of taste:

a) ll...a6 12 l::tadl l::tfcS 13 b3 'ii'c7 14 f4 'ii'aS IS lLlxc6 :lxc6 16 i.d4 lLld7 (16 ... eS? 17lLldS ±) 17 l::td3 l::teS IS lLldS!? 'ii'dS 19 lLlxe7+ 'ii'xe7 20 :lfdl e5! = Gubanov-Nepomnishay, St Petersburg Ch 1997.

b) 1l...:lfdS 12 :lfdlltacS (Black would like to play 12 ... dS? but is not quite ready for it: 13 lLlc2 lLlb4 14 exdSlLlxc2 15 'ii'xc2 ± Kraut-Moingt, Wilhelmsfeld 19S5) 13lLlb3 (13 l::tac1 transposes to line 'd2') 13 ... b6 14 f4 'ii'b7 IS i.f2 a6 16 l::tac1 l::tbS 17 a4 lLld7 with equality, Korchnoi-Ki.Georgiev, Biel 1992.

c) l1...b612 l::tadl :ladS 13 f4 lIfeS 14 ~h 1 (Bologan-Tisdall, Gausdal 1991) 14 ... 'ii'b7 with approximately equal chances.

d) 11...l::tacS and now: dl) 12 l::tadl a6 13 b3 'ii'c7 14 f4

'ii'a5 15 lLlxc6 bxc6 (lS .. .ltxc6 16 i.d4, with the idea 16 ... lLld7 17 lLldS 'ii'dS ISlLlxe7+ 'iixe7 19 eS, is slightly better for White) 16 i.d2 'ii'b6+ 17 ~hl :lcdS IS fS exfS 19 l::txfslLld7 20 lLla4 'ii'b7 21 i.c3 ;!; Shaked-Alterman, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

d2) 12 lIac1 a6 (12 ... :lfdS 13 lIfdl b6 14 f3 'ii'b7 IS b3 lLleS = DreiCvitan, Biel 1995) 13 l::tfdllLlxd4 14 i.xd4 'ifc6 IS b3 eS 16 i.e3lLlxe4 17 lLldS i.dS ISlLlb4 'ii'c7 19 'ii'd3 fS 20 f3 f4 21 'ii'xe4 fxe3 22 lLldS 'ii'aS 23 l::tc2 b5! and it is unclear whether White can make any real use of his magnificent knight on dS, BenjaminD.Gurevich, Toronto 1995.

10 ... 0-0 11 i.b2 lIfd8 This type of position was discussed

in some detail in the introduction to this chapter.

The game Panchenko-Tseshkovsky, Sochi 19S0 continued 11.. .a6 12 lIc 1 l::tfdS 13lLlxc6 'ii'xc6 14 'ii'e2 (14 lIel transposes to the main line, and looks like a better chance of achieving an advantage) 14 ... b6 IS lIfdl 'ii'b7 (Black has obtained his more or less ideal defensive formation) 16 eS dxe5 17 'ii'xeS lLleS! with an equal game.

12 :leI (D) 12 ... a6 12 ... :lacS could easily lead to the

same position, but with the text-move Black introduces the idea of a ... b5


B

break immediately. Let us, however, take a brief look at 12 ... l:tac8:

a) 13 l:tcl b6 14 ttJxc6 'iWxc6 15 'iWf3 a6 16 'iWg3 'tlVb7 17 a4 ttJh5 18 'iWf3 ttJf6 1/2-1/2 Smirin-Wojtkiewicz, Antwerp 1994.

b) 13 'iWd2 b6 14 l:tadl a6 15 ttJxc6 'tlVxc6 16 'iWe2 iof8 17 l:td3 ttJd7 = Tkachev-Lutz, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

13 ttJxc6 13 ttJa4?! .l:f.ab8 14 l:tcl b5 15 ttJxc6

'iWxc6 16 cxb5 'tlVxb5 17 'iWc2 d5 = Hjartarson-W.Watson, Brighton 1982.

13 ... 'iVxc6 14 :'cl b6 14 ... 'iWe8 15 a4 :'ac8 16 'iWe2 ttJd7

17 :'cdl ttJc5 18 'iWc2 'iWc6? 19 l:te3 iof6? 20 ttJd5! exd5 21 exd5 'tlVd7 22 ioxf6 gxf6 23 l:tg3+ ~h8 24 'iWxh7+ ~xh7 25 :d4 1-0 Tkachev-W.Watson, London Lloyds Bank 1993.

15 a4 15 'iWe2 'iWb7 16 l:tc2 l:tab8 17 a4

ttJd7 18 ioa3 l:tbc8 = Arkhipov-A.Petrosian, Lippstadt 1993.

15 ... :'ac8 15 ... 'iWb7!. 16 l:te3 'iVb7 17 l:tg3 ttJe8 18 'iVe2

iof6 19 f4 g6 20 :'dl

White is better, Oratovsky-Shmuter, Rishon Ie Zion 1995.

823) 8 ... g6 9 0·0 iog7 (D)

10 ttJde2 10 ioe.3 is not good in view of

10 ... ttJg4, but 10 ttJc2 is a worthy alternative. 10 ... 0-0 and then:

a) 11 l:tel a6 12 iod2 ttJe5 13 'iWe2 l:tfc8 14 ttJa3 'iWc615 l:tacl e6 16 b3 'iWc5 17 ttJabl ttJfd7 18 l:tedl 'iWc7 19 ioe3 ttJc5 20 f4 ttJc6 = Mohr-Sutovsky, Dresden Z 1998.

b) 11 f3 e6 12 iog5 l:tad8 13 'iWd2 dS 14 cxdS exdS 15 ioh6 dxe4 16 'iWxd7 l:txd7 17 ioxg7 ~xg7 18 fxe4 l:td2 19 l:tf2 l:tfd8 20 l:tafl with approximately equal chances, Marciano-Gallagher, Biel 1998.

c) 11 'iWe2 a6 12 iod2 l:tab8 13 l:tac1 b5 14 cxb5 axb5 15 ttJd5 e6 = Tkachev-Gelfand, Groningen FIDE KOWch 1997.

10 ... 0-0 11 f3 a6 Another idea is 11.. . .l:f.fc8 but it is

not clear that Black can do any better


than transposing to note 'a' to Black's 12th move, viz. 12 ~e3 'iWd8 13 b3 (13 1Ic1 a6 14liJf4 lIab8 15 'iWe2liJd7 16 lIfdl ;j; Kr.Georgiev-Ftacnik, Warsaw Z 1987) 13 ... a6 14 a4, etc.

12 a4 (D) Note that White has to play this pre

paratory move. 12 ~e3 would permit 12 ... liJe5 13 b3 b5 with a good game for Black. For more detailed explanation of the key ideas in this position see the introduction to this chapter.

B

12 ..... Wd8 Alternatives: a) 12 ... lIfc8 13 b3 'iWd8 and now

White can try: al) 14 ~hl liJd7 15 ~g5 'iWaS 16

~d2liJc5 17 lIabl e6 18 lIfdl lIab8 19 ~h4! ;j; Kramnik-Gelfand, Sanghi Nagar FIDE Ct (3) 1994.

a2) 14 ~e3 liJd7 15 lIbl liJc5 16 ~d2 lIab8 17 lIfd 1 ~f8 18liJf4 ;j; Andersson-Donner, Wijk aan Zee 1973.

b) 12 ... ~c7 13 ~hl e6 (13 ... ~b6!? is an interesting idea, transposing to note 'b' to White's 13th move) 14 ~g5 (Shipov suggests 14 ~f4!?) 14 ... liJd7

15 b3liJc5 (15 ... ~aS) 16 lIbl lIac8!? (16 ... lIfe8 17 ~d2liJb4 18 lIfdlliJcd3 19 ~h4 'iWb6 20 liJa2 d5! is also satisfactory for Black, Rublevsky-Ki.Georgiev, Yugoslavia 1997) 17 ~d2 (17 b4 liJd7 18 b5 is critical but Black seems to be in good shape after 18 ... liJce5 19 ~e7 :tfe8 20 ~xd6 ~xc4 21 1Ib4 ~d3; perhaps the strange-looking 17 liJa2 is White's best) 17 ... liJa5! 18 liJc1 liJaxb3 19 liJxb3 liJxb3 20 :txb3 'ir'xc4 21 :ttbl ~xc3 22 'ir'xd6 ~g7! 23 lIxb7 'ir'xa4 24 h3 as + PonomariovShipov, Lubniewice ECC 1998. 13~e3 White does not have to commit his

bishop to the e3-square, and might instead play 13 ~h 1. Then Black has tried:

a) 13 ... liJd7 14 lIbl!? 'ir'as 15liJd5 e6 16 b4 ~d8 17liJe3 'ir'c7 18 ~b2 as 19 ~xg7 ~xg7 20 b5 liJb4 and Black is doing fine, Rublevsky-Khuzman, Erevan OL 1996.

b) 13 ... ..wb6!? 14 lIbl ~c5 15 b3 e6 16 ~f4 lIad8 17 ..wclliJd7 18 ~g5 ~f6 19 ~e3 'ir'a5 20 f4 ~g7 with a roughly equal position, Glek-Khuzman, Bonnevoie ECC 1998.

13 .. :ii'aS 14 ~hl (D) A very useful prophylactic move.

Others: a) 14 liJd5 and now 14 ... liJxd5 15

exd5 liJe5 16 b3 'ir'b4 17 liJd4 looks slightly better for White, but Black might try 14 ... liJd7 intending to chase the knight away from d5 by ... e6.

b) 14 1Ic1liJd7 15 b3liJc5 16liJa2 (16 liJd5 e6 17 b4 liJxb4 18 liJxb4 ~xb4 19 ~xd6 lIfc8 is fine for Black) 16 ... lIac8 17 lIbl (17 b4? liJxb4 18

Moscow Variation with 3 ... iLd7 97

iLd2 tDcd3! holds more than well for Black) 17 ... b5! 18 cxb5 axb5 19 axb5 'il'xb5 = Kramnik-Gelfand, Sanghi Nagar FIDE Ct (7) 1994.

c) 14 l:tbl!? tDe5 15 b3 l:tfd8 16 'it>h 1 (Lutz recommends 16 'il'd2! e6 17l:tfdl, while 16 tDd5 is another alternative) 16 ... e6 17 'il'd4 'il'c7 18l:tfdl 'il'e7 19 'il'd2 'il'c7 20 l1bc1l1ac8 with roughly equal play, Komliakov-Lutz, Moscow OL 1994.

B

14 .. JUd8 15 tDd5! tDxd5

15 ... tDd7 16 b4!. 16 exd5 tDe5 17 b3! (D)

B

17 ... tDd7 18 iLd4 tDf6 19 ii'd3 19 iLc3 'itic7 20 aSl1e8 21 iLd4, as

suggested by Gelfand and Khuzman, looks even better.

19 ... l1e8 20 tDc3 e6 21 dxe6 fxe6 22l:tadl

White is slightly better but must play accurately to maintain his advantage, Rublevsky-Gelfand, Polanica Zdroj 1998.

5 Moscow Variation with 3 ... ttJc6

1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 d6 3 .tbS+ ttJc6 (D)

w

The variation with 3 ... ttJc6 remains quite popular for Black. One important point about this line is that it can also arise via 2 ... ttJc6 3 .tb5 d6.

The lines discussed in this chapter are quite solid for Black, but probably offer him more serious winning prospects than 3 ... .td7. On the other hand, White should not be too unhappy with this since his chances of obtaining a real opening advantage are likewise better than against 3 ... .td7.

I am recommending that White plays the main lines, i.e. proceeding with 40-0, and after 4 ... .td7 5 c3 ttJf6 6 nel a6, I have decided to examine all three of White's main possibilities, 7 .txc6!?, 7 .ta4 and 7 .tfl.

Sacrificial options The line 7 .txc6!? .txc6 8 d4 is extremely dangerous for Black if he does not know what to do. There is no real alternative to capturing the pawn on e4, but Black needs to decide whether to throw in a preliminary pawn exchange on d4 - it is probably best not to. 8 ... .txe4 9 .tg5 leads to the following position (D):

B

White has a strong initiative for the pawn, but has yet to prove that it is really worth it. Black has found some satisfactory defences but there is no doubt that White has good practical chances. 9 ... .td5 seems to be the best way to minimize White's initiative, while simultaneously holding on to the extra pawn.

Moscow Variation with 3 ... thc6 99

Ruy Lopez similarities The other main lines, 7 ~a4 and 7 ~f1, often lead to closed positions W

reminiscent of the Ruy Lopez.

In such positions, White would like to transfer his queen's knight to e3 and maybe then play c4, depending on what Black does in the meantime. If White can prevent counterplay on the queenside, he will usually end up with fairly good chances of a successful kingside attack, but right now White's greatest asset is his space advantage.

What to do with the two bishops? Quite often White manages to obtain the bishop-pair, but what should he do with them? White has a space advantage, but Black's position is very solid. Here (see next diagram) is how a game between two of the world's best players evolved:

12 d4 cxd4 13 cxd4 :c8 14 'ii'b3 This is the most unpleasant, as it

creates a direct threat against Black's b-pawn and vacates dl for a rook.

Adams - Tiviakov Groningen FIDE KO Wch 1997

14 ... :c7 15 ~f4 tiJd7 16 :adl 'ilt'b8 17 h4!?

White has a space advantage, the two bishops and good control of the centre, and by threatening a kingside attack, he forces Black to do something.

17 ... e5 18 dxe5 dxe5 19 ~e3 White has not done anything amaz

ingly creative, but nevertheless he has obtained quite a substantial advantage. He can simply double on the dfile; it is obvious that White's two bishops are much superior to Black's knights, which lack space.

The Theory of the Moscow Variation with 3 ... ttJc6

1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 d6 3 ~b5+ tiJc6 4 0-0 ~d7

An occasional try here is 4 ... ~g4 but this early bishop excursion proves

100 Easy Guide to the 1i.b5 Sicilian

rather risky. White continues S h3 i.hS 6 c3 and then:

a) 6 ... 'iIi'b6 7liJa3 a6 8 i.a4 'ili'c7 9 d4 bS 10 liJxbS! axbS 11 i.xbS 0-0-0 12 b4! (this is the point of White's sacrifice; Black's kingside is completely undeveloped, while White is crashing through on the queenside) 12 ... i.xf3 13 gxf3liJb8 14 'ili'a4 c4 IS dS! liJf6 16 i.e3 ±Adams-Tiviakov, New York PCA Ct (2) 1994.

b) 6 ... a6 7 i.xc6+ bxc6 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 liJf6 10 i.gS ;!; Van der WielLarsen, Brussels 1987.

5 c3 (D)

B

5 ... liJf6 S ... a6 has recently gained in popu-

larity. While it often transposes to the main lines, Black is now certain to avoid Line C. White has two possibilities:

a) 6 i.xc6 i.xc6 7 ~el e6 (7 ... liJf6 8 d4 transposes to Line A) 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 dS 10 liJeS dxe4 11 liJxc6 bxc6 12 liJc3 liJf6 (12 .. .fS 13 f3!?) 13 'ili'a4 'ili'b6 14 i.e3 (14 i.gS !?) 14 ... liJdS IS ~ac1 ~c816liJxe4 'ili'bSI7'i1i'dli.e7

18 'ili'g4 g6 = Moreno-Kharlov, Ubeda 1999.

b) 6 i.a4 and now 6 ... liJf6 7 ~el transposes to Line B, while 6 ... bS 7 i.c2 eS 8 h3 liJf6 9 d4 i.e7 10 dS looks like a good version of this line since White does not need to play ~e 1.

6 ~el a6 (D)

w

We shall now look at: A: 7 i.xc6!? 100 B: 7 i.a4 106 C: 7 i.n 109

Al 7 i.xc6!? i.xc6 8 d4 This move involves a pawn sacrifice

but is the only way to justify giving up the bishop-pair. Black must accept the sacrifice; otherwise White's space advantage will give him the advantage.

8 ... i.xe4 It is not totally clear who benefits

from a preliminary exchange of the c-pawns. 8 ... cxd4 9 cxd4 i.xe4 and now:

a) 10 i.gS i.xf3 (lO ... dS 11 liJc3 e6 12 liJxe4 dxe4 13 ~xe4 i.e7 14

Moscow Variation with 3 . ..lt:Jc6 101

.1xf6 .1xf6 IS dS! ;I; MaksiutovYagupov, Ore11992) 11 'i!Vxf3 'i!VaS 12 liJc3!? (more dangerous than 12 i.d2 'i!Vb6 13liJc3 e6 14 .1gS .1e7 IS i.xf6 .1xf6 16 liJdS 'i!Vd8 17 liJxf6+ 'i!Vxf6 18 'i!Vxb7 0-0 = Alterman) 12 ... 'i!VxgS 13 'i!Vxb7 ~d8 14 'i!Vc6+ ~d7 IS dS (1S 'i!Vc8+ ~d8 16 'i!Vc6+ :'d7 17 'i!Vc8+ is an instant perpetual check) IS ... e6! 16 dxe6 (16 :'xe6+ ?! fxe6 17 dxe6 .1e7 18 exd7+ ~f7 favours Black) 16 ... fxe6 17 ~xe6+ .1e7 (D) and now:

w

al) 18 'i!Vc8+ ~d8 (18 ... c;t>f7? 19 :'xf6+ ±) 19 'i!Vb7 ~d7 '/2-1f2 SmirinAlterman, Israel 1995.

a2) 18 ~ael 0-0 19 h4 is more ambitious, but Black should have no worries. 19 ... 'i!Vxh4! 20 g3 (20 :'xe7 :'xe7! 21 ~xe7 'i!Vf4 +) 20 .. .'iVh3 21 ~xe7 liJg4 22 'i!VdS+ ~h8 23 'i!Vhl 'ili'xhl+ 24 ~xhl liJxf2+ 2S 'i&;>g2 :'xe7 26 :'xe7 h6 27 :'d7 and White is probably active enough to secure the draw, but certainly nothing more, Borisenko-Shabanov, Yaroslavl199S.

b) 10 liJc3 .1xf3 (1O ... .1c6 11 dS .1d7 12 .1gS looks dangerous for

Black; Pedzich-Wojtcieszyn, Polish Cht (Lubniewice) 1998 went 12 ... .1g4 13 .1xf6 gxf6 14liJe4 .1g7 IS h3 .1c8 16liJd4 with compensation) 11 'i!Vxf3 e6 12 'i!Vxb7 'i!Vc8 and now:

bl) 13 'ili'xc8+ ~xc8 14 dS c;t>d7 = Stripunsky.

b2) 13 'i!Vb3 .1e7 14 dS eS IS .1gS (ISliJa4 l:tb8 16liJb6 'i!Vg4 17 f3 'ili'h4 18 .1e3 0-0 = Shabanov-Stripunsky, Karvina 1993/4) IS ... 0-0 16liJe4 .:tb8 (16 ... liJxe4 17 .1xe7 .:te8 18 .:txe4 ~x\!7 19 :'c4 'i!Vb7 20 .:tb4, intending ~b6-c6, is slightly better for White -Stripunsky) 17 'ili'a3 liJxdS 18 .1xe7 liJxe7 19liJxd6 'i!Ve6 with an equal position, Zaitsev-Stripunsky, Bucharest 1994.

b3) 13 'ii'f3 (the queen seems more useful on the kingside) 13 ... .1e7 14 dS (Black's defensive resources look adequate after 14 'ii'g3 0-0 IS .1h6 liJe8 16 liJdS .1d8!, with the idea 17 l:tac1 'i!Vb7 18 liJf4 c;t>h8, when White's attack is repelled) 14 ... eS IS .1gS 0-016 liJe4 (16 ~acl 'ii'd7 17 .1xf6 .1xf6 18 liJe4 .1e7 with the idea of ... fS should be all right for Black) 16 ... liJxdS (16 ... liJxe4 17 .1xe7 .:te8 18 'ili'xe4 lhe7 19 .:tecl 'ili'b7 20 b3 .:tc8 21 .:tc6 is good for White, who will take control of the c-file or obtain a monster passed pawn on c6) 17 liJxd6 'ili'e6!? (17 ... .1xd6 18 'ili'xdS 'ii'b8 19 .:tadl .1c7 20 b3 ;1;) 18 :'adl! 'ili'xd6 19 .1xe7 (19 ~xdS 'ili'b4 20 .:te4 "i!Vb7 21 ~dxeS .1xgS 22 .:txgS 'ili'xb2 =) 19 ... 'i!Vxe7 20 ~xdS f6! 21 .:tedl .:tad8 with equality, Smirin-Alterrnan, Struga Z 1995.

9 .1g5 (D)


B

Black can now try to defend in various ways, the most popular (and best) being: AI: 9 ... dS 102 A2: 9 ... .i.dS 104

Others are less explored, e.g.: a) 9 ... .i.f5!? 10 tiJbd2 e6 11 dxc5

dxc5 12 'iWa4+ b5 13 'iWf4 .i.e7 14 .i.xf6 gxf6 15 tiJe4 .i.xe4 16 'iWxe4 0-0 17 a4 with compensation, BrynellAstrom, Swedish Ch (Ronneby) 1998.

b) 9 ... .i.xbl 10 l:txbl e6 11 .i.xf6 gxf6 (Yusupov claims an advantage for White after 11...'ir'xf6?! 12 dxc5 dxc5 13 'ir'a4+ b5 14 'ir'e4) 12 d5 'ir'd7 13 b4 0-0-014 'ir'd3 .i.g7 15 tiJd2 exd5 16 'ir' xd5 f5 17 tiJc4 and White has a strong attack, Yusupov-Timoshchenko, USSR 1978.

c) 9 ... .i.g6 and now: c 1) 10 d5 'ir'd7 11 c4 tiJe4! 12.i.h4

h6 13 'it'b3 .i.f5 14 tiJc3 tiJxc3 15 'ir'xc3 ltg8 16 ltadl g5 17 .tg3 .i.g7 18 'it'a3 .i.f6 and Black has survived the opening with an extra pawn and a good position, Berg-Kristiansen, Aalborg 1995.

c2) 10 tiJbd2 e6 (1O ... d5 transposes to Line AI) 11 d5 e5 12 tiJc4 .i.e7 13 tiJfxe5! 0-0 (13 ... dxe5 14 d6) 14 tiJxg6 hxg6 15 a4 ;!; Kraut.

d) 9 ... .i.c6 10 c4!? (White can also try 10 .i.xf6 gxf6 11 d5 .i.d7 and then 12 tiJh4 or 12 tiJbd2) 1O ... cxd4 11 .i.xf6 gxf6 12 tiJxd4 ltg8 13 tiJxc6 bxc6 14 tiJc3 .i.h6 15 'ir'f3 'it>f8 16 ltadl 'it'd7 17 h3 ltb8 18 b3 ltg6 19 tiJe2! c5 20 tiJg3 and White's more harmonious pieces and better pawn structure compensate for the pawn minus, UlybinDvoirys, Cheliabinsk 1991.

A1) 9 ... dS (D)

w

10 tiJbd2 An important alternative is to take

back the pawn with 10 dxc5, and after 10 ... e6, to hold on to it with 11 b4. Then a few games have proceeded with 11.. . .i.e7 (l1. .. .i.xf3 12 'it'xf3 .i.e7 13 tiJd2 0-0 is maybe not so bad since White cannot get his ideal set-up) 12 tiJbd2 .i.xf3 13 tiJxf3 0-0, when White has tried:

Moscow Variation with 3 . .,tlJc6 103

a) Soltis-Browne, USA Ch 1983 was agreed drawn after 14 a4. According to Browne, Black's best reply is 14 ... a5.

b) 14 'it'd4l::te8 15 a3!? (with this move White intends at some stage to play c4, thereby creating a 3 vs 2 scenario on the queenside, and hopefully a slight advantage) 15 ... lbd7 16 i.xe7 l::txe7 17 c4 dxc4 18 'ir'xc4 l:tc8 19 l:tadl 'it'e8 20 'ir'e2 and White is better, Darnljanovic-Dzhandzhgava, Panormo Z 1998.

10 ... i.xf3 Black hopes to win some time for

his development, but there is a drawback to this too: White's queen is activated at f3. Alternatives:

a) 1O ... i.g6 11 dxc5 (11 'ir'b3!? c4 12 'ir'xb7 'ir'c8 13 'ir'b6 e6 14 b3 cxb3 15 axb3 i.e7 16 c4 ;!; Zaitsev-Epishin, Podolsk 1992) l1...e6 12 'ir'a4+ (a setup with 12 b4 is still perfectly feasible but not quite as direct as the text-move) 12 ... 'ir'd7 13 'ir'h4 i.xc5 (White also gets a large advantage after 13 ... l:tg8 14lbe5 'it'b5 15 b4 'ir'a4 16 i.xf6 gxf6 17 'ir'xf6 i.e7 18 'ir'f4, Zarnicki-Norri, Parana 1993) 14lbe5 'ir'e7 15lbb3 (15 lbg4lbxg4!) 15 ... i.a7 16 'ir'a4+!? b5 17 'ir'h4l:tc8 18 a4 and White is better, Maier-Howell, Groningen 1988.

b) 1O ... e6 I1lbxe4 dxe4 12l:txe4 i.e7 13 i.xf6 gxf6 14 'ir'e2! 0-0 15 l:td 1 f5 16 l:te3 i.f6 17 dxc5 'ir'c7 18 lbd4 ~h8 19 b4l:tg8 20 lbf3 ± Borisenko-Yaakkimeinen, Russia 1995.

11 'tWxf3 cxd4 White regains his pawn after this,

but it is probably best since Black gets some counterplay in return. Worse is

l1...e6 12 i.xf6 gxf6 (12 ... 'ii'xf6?! 13 'it'xd5 'ike7 14 'ii'e5 cxd4 15 cxd4 'ikd6 16 'ike4 'ikb4 17 lbf3 ± GeorgadzeTal, USSR Ch (Tbilisi) 1978) 13 c4! i.h6 14l::tadl i.xd2 15l:txd2 dxc4 16 'ikf4!? (16 ::tedl is another good move; all White's major pieces are ready to attack, while Black still needs to castle and coordinate his pieces) 16 ... 'ii'a5 17 dxc5 l:td8 18 l:tde2 cJ;e7 19 'ii'xc4 ± Kalegin-Kalinichev, Katowice 1990.

12 i.xf6 gxf6 13 'tWxf6 White can play even more energeti

cally with 13 c4!?, whereafter Ulybin suggests 13 ... l:tg8 14 cxd5 l:tg5 with an unclear game but I would definitely prefer White after 15 d6!. For exam-pIe, 15 ... e516'ii'xb7l:tb817'ii'xa6±.

13 ... l:tg8 (D)

w

14 'tWxd4 14 cxd4!? is quite an interesting

idea. This certainly discourages Black from castling queens ide, and thus leave Black struggling to find a safe place for his king. Borisenko analyses 14 ... l:tg6 15 'ii'h8! e6 16lbf3l:tg7 17 l:tacl 'ii'f6 18 cJ;f1 after which he likes


White. I am not sure that I agree with that; first of aU, I would not feel secure with the white queen so short of squares. 18 ... I:.d8 looks like a good move, planning ... ii'g6, ... l:tg8 and ... .id6.

14 ... ii'd7 IS I:.adl 15 liJf3 is not advisable in view of

15 ... ii'g4!, while the alternative 15 liJn 0-0-0 16 l:tad 1 e6 17 liJg3 ii'c7 was roughly equal in Lanc-Hracek, Stare Mesto 1992.

IS ... 0-0-0 16 'i'd3 Yudasin also mentions 16 'ilka7!?

ii'c7 17 liJf3 e6 18 liJe5 I:.g7 with an unclear position. Black is intending ... .ic5.

16 ... ii'g417 g3 hS Black seems to have good counter

play, Ulybin-Yudasin, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1991.

A2) 9 ... i.dS (D)

w

This is the most popular in practice. Black stubbornly tries to hold on to his extra pawn while simultaneously

trying to keep White's initiative to a minimum.

10 liJbd2 Now White is ready to kick the

bishop away from d5 by playing c4, but it is worth taking a look at the immediate 10 c4!? With a second pawn sacrifice White does nothing to reveal his intentions but simply opens the position completely, preparing for the onslaught. Black must be very careful:

a) lO ... .ixf3 is often mistakenly chosen as the safe option but it seems that White has the better chances after 11 'it'xf3:

al) ll...e6 12 .ixf6 gxf6 13 dxc5 dxc5 14 liJc3 .ie7 15 ii'xb7 'it'c8 16 ii'f3 ± Rogers-Nikolaidis, Agios Nikolaos 1995.

a2) ll...cxd4 12 'it'xb7 'ilkc8 13 'it'f3 e6 (13 ... liJd7 14 liJd2liJe5 15 'it'e4 h6 16 i.f4 ±) 14 .ixf6 gxf6 15liJd2 .ie7 16 liJb3! ± Damaso-Grivas, Erevan OL 1996.

b) 1O ... .ixc4 11ltJc3 (11.ixf6 gxf6 12 d5 .ib5 13liJc3 is also interesting) ll...e6 12 .ixf6 'it'xf6 (12 ... gxf6 13 d5 e5 14liJh4 i.b5 15liJe4 .id7 16 'it'h5 is also unclear, Martinovic-Anand, Groningen 1989) 13 dxc5 O-O-O! 14 'iWa4 with a messy position, TaulbutKupreichik, Hastings 1981/2.

10 ... e6 The alternatives all look inferior: a) 1O ... b5!? 11 c4!? (11 b3 is an-

other idea) ll...bxc4 (11.. . .ixc4?! 12 liJxc4 bxc4 13 dxc5 dxc5 14 'it'a4+ 'ilkd7 15 'it'xc4 ±) 12 dxc5 e6 13 .::tel .ixf3 and now Kraut analyses:

al) 14 'ilkxf3 d5 15 liJxc4 dxc4 16 ii'c6+ ~e7 and White seems to have

Moscow Variation with 3 ... 4:Jc6 105

nothing better than a perpetual check with 17 'iVb7+ ~e8 18 'iVc6+.

a2) 14liJxf3 dxc5 (not 14 ... d5?! 15 liJe5.ixc5? 16'iVa4+~f817 i.xf6±) 15 'iVa4+ 'it'd7 16 'it'xc4 i.e7 gives White compensation but probably not more.

b) 1O ... c4 11 b3 b5 12 bxc4 bxc4 with two promising options for White:

bl) 13 liJn e6 (13 ... .l:f.c8 14 liJe3 .ia8 15 d5 'it'a5 16 .ixf6 gxf6 17 .l:.bl ± Lyrberg-Bator, Stockholm 1992) 14 i.xf6! gxf6 (14 ... 'it'xf6? 15 'it'a4+) 15 liJe3 'it'a5? (Black has to try 15 ... .ixf3 16 'it'xf3 .ie7 but White's attack looks very strong after 17 d5!) 16 liJd2! ± Fette-Ruban, Miskolcffapolca 1990.

b2) 13liJh4!? 'it'd7 (13 ... e614liJf5) 14.l:.bl and now:

b21) 14 ... h6 15 .ixf6 gxf6 16 'it'h5 'it'c6 (16 ... .ie6 17 'it'f3 .l:f.c8 18 d5 .ig4 19 'it'xf6 ± Cifuentes) 17 .l:.b6! 'it'xb6 18 'iVxd5 .l:f.d8 19liJf5 and White's attack looks too strong, Ricardi-Cifuentes, Buenos Aires 1991.

b22) Later an improvement was found for Black, namely 14 ... liJg8!? Elburg-Hendriks, corr 1993-4 continued 15 'it'e2 h6 16 .ie3 g5 17 liJhf3 .l:.c8 and Black was doing quite well, but 15 .l:.b6100ks more annoying.

c) 10 ... cxd4 llliJxd4 'it'd7 12 .ixf6 gxf6 13 'it'h5! e5 14 c4 (14 liJe4!?) 14 ... .ic6 (Oratovsky suggests 14 ... .ie6 as a better defence, for example 15 liJe4 i.e 7 16 liJxe6 'it' xe6 17 .l:.ad 1 0-0-0 18liJc3! ;1;) 15 liJxc6! bxc6 16 c5! 'iVe6 (16 ... d5 17 lIxe5+ fxe5 18 'it'xe5+ 'it'e7 19 'it'xh8 ±) 17 cxd6 .ixd6 18 liJe4 ± Oratovsky-Yudasin, Israel 1993.

11 c4 .ixf3 12 'it'xf3 cxd4 13 .ixf6 13 'it'xb7 'iVc8 14 'it'f3 .ie7 15liJb3

h6! 16.ih4 0-0 did not give Black any problems in H.Pedersen-Sher, Farum 1993.

13 ... gxf614 'iVxb7 (D)

B

14 ... .ig7 It is not entirely clear how White

should respond to 14 ... 'it'c8. In de la Riva-A.David, Andorra Z 1998 Black was more or less OK after 15 'it'd5 .ie7 16 'it'xd4 'it'c6 17 liJe4 l:tg8 18 g3 .l:f.g6. Perhaps 15 'it'e4.ig7 16liJf3 is best.

15 'it'c6+ 15 l:txe6+? fxe616 'it'xg7 l:tf8 is not

quite sufficient for White. 15 ... ~e7 16 'tWe4!? There have been different opinions

about how White should strengthen his position. Here is a brief summary of what else has appeared in practice:

a) 16liJb3 f5 17 l:tadl 'ii'c8 18 'ii'f3 'ii'xc4 19 l:tel (19 'ii'b7 + ~f6 20 l:txd4 'ii'b5 21 'ii'c7 .l:.hd8 22 l:txd6 l:tac8 should also be OK for Black) 19 .. :iib4 20 .l:f.c7 + ~f6 21 lIn does not look too


convincing, Wells-Grivas, Kopavogur 1994.

b) 16 'ifdS 'ifb6 17 lLlf3 .l:the8 18 %:tad1 'ifcs 19 'ifxd4 'ifxd4 20 lLlxd4 ~d7 21 ':'e3 fS 22 l:.ed3 l:.ec8 23 b3 ~e7 = Vazquez-Vasquez, Santa Clara 1998.

c) 16lLlf3 fS 17 .l:tad1 ~c8 18 'ifdS ~d7 (18 ... i.eS!?) 19 'ii'aS 'ii'cs and Black was doing fine in RomanishinSosonko, Reggio Emilia 1985/6.

16 .. :ii'b6 17 lLlf3 ':'hc8 Black might consider 17 ... ':'hd8!?

to support a ... dS advance. Then 18 'ii'xh7 ~f8 is rather unclear.

18 'ii'xh7 ~f8 19 b3 This position occurred in Kalegin

Tiviakov, USSR 1988. Black could not resist the temptation to increase the scope of his bishop by 19 .. .fS?! but was worse after 20 lLlgS 'ii'd8 21 'ifhS 'ii'e7 22 ':'ad1':'cS 23 f4. Instead Black should have returned to the plan of .. . dS and therefore chosen 19 ... ':'d8 with a roughly equal position.

B) 7 i.a4 (D)

B

We shall now consider: Bl: 7 ... b5 106 B2: 7 ... c4 108

B1) 7 ... b5 8 i.c2 e5 Black decides to steer the game into

positions similar to the Ruy Lopez. Alternatives:

a) 8 ... c4 9 b3 eS transposes to Line B2.

b) 8 ... i.g4 9 h3 i.xf3 10 'ii'xf3 g6 (1O ... lLld7 11 d3 g6 12 i.b3 e6 13 'ii'd1 i.g7 14 i.e3 0-0 lslLld2lLlb6 16 a3 ;!; Svidler-Tiviakov, Russian Ch 1998) 11 a4 ':'b8 (l1...i.g7?! 12 axbS axbS 13 eS! ':'xa 1 14 exf6 i.xf6 IS 'ii' xf6 0-016 'ii'f3 ± w.Watson-Kharlov, Cologne 1993) 12 axbS axbS 13 lLla3 lLld7 14 'ii'e2 'ii'b6 IS i.d3 c4 16 i.c2 i.g7 17 d3 cxd3 18 i.xd3 b4 19 i.e3 'ii'd8 20 lLlbS bxc3 21 bxc3 ± Minasian-Tiviakov, Linares 1999 .

9 h3 (D) A useful precaution against ... i.g4,

which would be annoying if White played 9 d4 immediately, viz. 9 ... cxd4 10 cxd4 i.g4 11 i.e3 (after 11 dS lLld4 12 lLlbd2, 12 ... lLlxc2 13 'ifxc2 i.e7 14 a4 bxa4 IS ':'xa4 0-0 16 'ii'd3 as looked fine for Black in TypekKuczynski, Lubniewice 1995, while Black could also sharpen the game with 12 ... ':'c8 13 i.d3 lLlhS!?) 1l...exd4 12 i.xd4 lLlxd4 13 'ii'xd4 i.xf3 14 gxf3 i.e7 with a roughly equal position, Shabanov-Ruban, Kursk 1987.

Another idea is to start with 9 a4 and see how Black responds:

a) 9 ... b4?! seems to be to White's advantage:

Moscow Variation with 3 ... ttJc6 107

al) White can even continue 10 d4!?, with the idea 1O ... cxd4 11 cxd4 .i.g4 12 .i.e3 exd4 13 .i.xd4 .i.xf3 14 gxf3, and now if Black takes on d4 as in the line above, White will have a target on b4, so it is probably better to develop but then White keeps the bishop-pair, i.e. 14 ... .i.e7 15 .i.e3 0-0 16 tiJd2 and White has an edge.

a2) 10 h3 still seems sensible. For example, 1O ... .i.e7 11 d4 bxc3 12 bxc3 cxd4 13 cxd4 :'c8 14 tiJbd2! "YJIic7 15 .i.a3! ;t Mi. Tseitlin-Dvoirys, Cappelle la Grande 1994.

b) 9 ... .i.e7 is more solid. 10 axb5 axb5 111ha8 "YJIixa8 12 tiJa3 "YJIib7 1/2-1/2 Ye Jiangchuan-Tiviakov, Tan Chin Nam 1998. The game is about level.

B

9 ... .i.e7 This is the most common; others: a) 9 ... :'c8 (aimed against d4, but. .. )

10 d4!? cxd4 11 cxd4 exd4 12 .i.b3 .i.e7 (l2 ... "YJIib613 tiJg5 tiJe5 14 .i.f4 is also good for White) 13 tiJxd4 0-0 14 tiJc3 and White is better.

b) 9 ... g6 10 d4 .i.g7 11 dxc5 dxc5 12 a4 :b8 13 axb5 axb5 14 .i.e3 "YJIie7

15 tiJbd2 0-0 16 tiJb3 c4 17 tiJc5 .i.c8 18 b4 .::td8 19 'iVcl ± Zhang ZhongEhlvest, Beijing 1998.

10 d4 0-0 Kraut suggests 1O .. :iWc7 with the

idea 11 d5 tiJd8 but it does not look like the knight is better on d8 than on as.

H d5 tiJaS (D) 11...tiJb8?! is clearly worse; after

12 a4 bxa4 13 .i.xa4 White has a distinct advantage, Bukhtin-Gik, USSR 1968.

w

12 b3!? Alternatives: a) 12 tiJxe5 dxe5 13 d6 .i.c6 14

dxe7 "YJIixe7 15 tiJd2 tiJb7 16 "YJIie2 tiJd6 1/2-1/2 Zhang Zhong-Tiviakov, Beijing 1998.

b) 12 tiJbd2 and now 12 ... g6 13 b4 tiJb7 14 :bl a5 15 a3 gave White an edge in Savon-Beliavsky, Leningrad 1975, but Black is fine after 12 ... c4!.

12 ... 'ike7 13 tiJbd2 White is in fact a tempo down on a

line in the Chigorin Variation of the Ruy Lopez, i.e. 1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 tiJc6 3

108 Easy Guide to the j.b5 Sicilian

.i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 tDf6 5 0-0 .i.e7 611el b5 7 .i.b3 d6 8 c3 0-09 h3 tDa5 10.i.c2 c5 11 d4 'fic7 12 tDbd2 tDc6 13 d5 tDa5 14 b3 .i.d7. This line is considered slightly better for White, but with an extra move I suspect Black should be fine. A possible continuation:

13 ... l1tb8 14 tDfl tDb7 15 c4 bxc4 16 bxc4 tDa5 17 tDe3 .i.f8

The game is roughly equal.

82) 7 ... c4 (D)

w

8 d4 White basically has two plans here.

One is introduced by the text-move: advancing the d-pawn and permitting Black to capture it en passant. This often leads to a Hedgehog or Maroczy position, while the other plan is to attack Black's c-pawn with b3. This means that the bishop has to be retreated first, viz. 8 .i.c2 and then:

a) 8 ... e5 and now: al) 9 d3 (inconsistent with White's

plan, but justified because Black has weakened his d-pawn) 9 ... cxd3 10

'fixd3 .i.e7 11 .i.g5 .i.e6 12 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 13l1dl 'fib6 14 tDbd2'ii'xb2 15 .i.b3 0-0 16 .i.xe6 fxe6 17 a4 favours White, Shaposhnikov-Se.lvanov, St Petersburg Ch 1998.

a2) 9 b3 b5 10 'iWe2 l1c8 11 b4! (this was suggested by Dokhoian as an improvement on Rozentalis-Dokhoian, Bad Godesberg 1994 which went 11 d3 cxb3 12 axb3 b4 =) 11... tDe7 12 a4 tDg6 13 d3'ii'c7 14 axb5 axb5 15 dxc4 bxc4 16 i.e3 .i.e7 17 tDbd2 0-0 18 l1a7'ii'b8 1911eal ± Zhang Zhong-Ye Jiangchuan, Beijing 1998.

b) 8 ... l1c8 9 b3 b5 10 'iWe2 tDe5 11 tDxe5 dxe5 12 bxc4 bxc4 13 tDa3'ii'c7 14 d3 cxd3 15 .i.xd3 e6 1611bl .i.c5 with roughly equal chances, Zhang Zhong-Grivas, Elista OL 1998. If White takes on a6, Black will gain counterplay on the a-file after ... .l:f.a8.

c) 8 ... .i.g4 9 h3 (9 b3 cxb3 10 axb3 e6 11 d4.i.e7 12 tDbd2 0-0 13 .i.b2 b5 14 c4 bxc4 15 bxc4 tDd7 16 h3 .th5 17 .ta4 ;!; Manik-Babula, Olomouc 1998) 9 ... .i.h5 10 b3 (10 d4 cxd3 11 'ii'xd3 .i.xf3 12'ii'xf3 g6 13 tDd2 .i.g7 14 tDc4 tDd7 15 .i.g5 tDde5 16 tDxe5 tDxe5 17 'iWe2 0-018 .i.b3 b5 1911adl 'iWc7 = Magem-Babula, Elista OL 1998) 1O ... cxb3 11 axb3 e6 12 d4 d5 13 e5 tDd7 14 tDbd2 b5 15 tDfl .i.xf3 16 'ti'xf3 b4 with counterplay, JansaHracek, Prague 1994.

8 ... cxd3 9 .i.g5 The reason for delaying the recap

ture on d3 is that White wants to avoid a Maroczy structure; for example, 9 'iWxd3 g6! gives Black a satisfactory position. Zaitsev-Timoshenko, Bucharest 1993 continued 10 .i.xc6 .i.xc6

Moscow Variation with 3 ... 4Jc6 109

11 c4 iLg7 12 liJc3 0-0 13 iLd2 liJd7 14 b4 b5!, and Black had at least equalized.

9 ... e6 In Timman-Alterman, Belgrade

ECC 1999, Black stubbornly played for a set-up with ... g6, beginning with 9 ... liJg4, and after 10 'Wxd3 liJge5 11 liJxe5liJxe5 12 iLxd7+ 'ifxd7 13 'ifd2 g6 he achieved his aim but White was nevertheless able to generate some pressure following 14 f4liJc6 15 c4 h6 16 i.h4 'if g4 17 iLg3 h5 18liJc3 h4 19 h3! 'Wh5 20 iLf2 iLg7 21 liJd5 0-0 22 .I!adl. However, Black's 15th to 18th moves look a little too ambitious. 15 ... iLg7 would be a much more sensible move, even though I would still prefer White since he can continue 16 liJc3 followed by liJd5.

10 'it'xd3 (D)

B

10 ... iLe7 1O ... liJe5!? is a feasible alternative.

After 11 liJxe5 i.xa4, BronsteinTimman, Rio de Janeiro IZ 1979 continued 12 liJc4 iLc6 13 liJbd2 b5 14 liJe3 iLe7 =. Perhaps White ought to

try 12 liJg4!? as a better chance for an advantage.

UliJbd2 In the great Mikhail Tal's last ever

tournament game, he preferred to double Black's pawns, and even give up both his bishops for Black's knights, with 11 iLxf6 gxf6 12 iLxc6 iLxc6 (12 ... bxc6 13 c4 c5 14 liJc3 0-0 15 .I!adl .:Ia7 16liJd2 'iti>h8 17 Ae3 .:Ig8 18l:tg3 l:.g6 19 f4 'if g8 20 liJn iLc621 'ife2 looked slightly better for White in Minasian-Grivas, Panorma Z 1998) 13 c4 0-0 14liJc3 'iti>h8 15 Aadl Ag8 16 'ife3 'iff8! 17 liJd4 l:tc8 with an approximately equal position, Tal-Akopian, Barcelona 1992. Compared to 12 ... bxc6, here Black has dynamic possibilities with ... b5.

11..:ii'c7 Black can also try ll...liJe5!?, which

closely resembles 10 ... liJe5!? above. Now Nijboer-Akopian, Wijk aan Zee 1993 continued 12 liJxe5 iLxa4 13 liJec4 'ifc7 14 iLxf6 gxf6 15 liJe3 O-O-O!? 16 c4 Ahg8 17 b3 iLd7 18 b4 'it>b8 19 a4 Ac8 20 Aebl d5!? 21 exd5 'ife5 with an unclear game.

12 l:tadl l:td8 13 liJn 0-0 Chances are approximately equal,

L.Bronstein-Polugaevsky, Rio Hondo 1987. White has slightly more space but Black's position is rock solid and he will have a good position if he manages a ... d5 break.

C) 7 iLn iLg4 ( D) White would obviously like to play

d4, so Black takes steps towards meeting this advance. Others:

110 Easy Guide to the .ib5 Sicilian

a) 7 ... e6 is too passive, and allows White an advantage, e.g. 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 J..e7 10 tiJc3 0-0 11 J..f4 dS 12 eS tiJe8 13 ::tc1 bS 14 J..d3, as in TorreApol, Nice OL 1974.

b) The other main option is 7 ... eS, with these possibilities for White:

b1) 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 J..g4 transposes to Line C 1.

b2) 8 h3 J..e7 (8 ... h6?! 9 d4 'Wic7 10 a4 g6 11 tiJa3 J..g7 12 dxcS dxcS 13 tiJc4l:tb8 14 b4!? cxb4 IS cxb4 J..e6 16 tiJd6+ 7;e7 17 J..a3! ± AnderssonPortisch, Skopje OL 1972) 9 d4 'fic7 10 tiJa3 bS 11 tiJc2 tiJaS 12 J..gS ;!; Ciocaltea-Kertesz, Romania 1970.

w

White has three main options: Cl: 8 d4 110 C2: 8 h3 112 C3: 8 d3 112

C1) 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 e5 This position often arises via the

move-order 7 ... eS 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 J..g4. It makes sense to fight for the centre in this way, and to me it seems

that Black has much more influence here than, for example, after 9 ... dS 10 eS. Others:

a) 9 ... J..xf3 10 gxf3 dS 11 tiJc3 e6 12 J..gS (this, together with White's next couple of moves, is an immediate attempt to refute Black's set-up, but there might be something said for the quieter 12 J..e3) 12 ... J..e7 13 J..xf6 .txf6 14 exdS tiJxd4 IS l:te4 tiJfS! 16 dxe6 0-0 17 exf7+ 7;h8, and in view of White's tripled f-pawns and the opposite-coloured bishops, Black has plenty of compensation for two pawns - analysis by Morozevich.

b) 9 ... dS and then: bl) 10 exdS tiJxdS 11 tiJc3 e6 12

h3 J..xf3 13 'fixf3 J..b4 (13 ... J..e7 is solid and good) 14 'fig3 0-0 IS J..h6 'fif6 16 J..gS 'fig6 17 J..d3 fS 18 J..c4;!; Seeman-Lautier, Parnu Keres mem 1998.

b2) 10 eS and here: b21) 1O ... tiJd7 11 J..e3 e6 12 a3

J..e7 13 tiJbd2 0-0 14 J..d3 J..hS! IS 'ilVb1 J..g6 16 J..xg6 hxg6 (16 ... fxg6!? is not such a bad idea either; Black has counterplay on the f-file, and White has to decide what to do against Black's space-gaining idea ... gS, ... l:tf7 and ... tiJf8-g6) 17 'fid3 bS 18l:tecl l::tc8 19 l:tc2 tiJb6 = Kuczynski-Hracek, Bundesliga 1994/S.

b22) 1O ... tiJg8!? (this idea is becoming more and more popular; Black is willing to spend a few more moves with his knight in order to put it somewhere more active than d7) 11 J..e3 e6 12 a3! (if 12 tiJbd2, Black will play 12 ... J..b4, and possibly even exchange it for the knight) 12 ... tiJge7 13 tiJbd2

Moscow Variation with 3 ... tZJc6 111

ttJf5 14 i.d3 i.e7 (14 ... ttJfxd4? 15 i.xd4 ttJxd4 16 'it'a4+ +-) 15 'it'bl 'it'd7 16 b4 i.h5 (Morozevich-Petursson, London Lloyds Bank 1994) 17 h3! i.xf3 (17 ... 0-0 18 g4 ttJxe3 19 i.xh7+ ~h8 20 1:txe3 ±) 18 ttJxf3 ;l; Morozevich.

Returning to the position after 9 ... e5 (D):

w

10 d5 White may also try not to concede

the d4-square so easily, and thus opt for 10 i.e3, but Black should be able to equalize without too many problems, e.g. 1O ... exd4 (1O ... i.xf3 11 gxf3 exd4 12 i.xd4 i.e7 13 ttJc3 ttJxd4 14 'it'xd4 0-0 = Khachian-Dvoirys, Cappelle la Grande 1996) 11 i.xd4 i.e7 12 i.c3 0-0 13 h3 i.h5 14 g4! (according to Tal, White must play actively; otherwise he will be worse, e.g. 14 ttJbd2 d5! +) 14 ... i.g6 15 ttJh4, RomanishinTal, USSR 1975, and now Tal analyses 15 ... d5! 16 ttJxg6 (16 e5 ttJe4 17 ttJxg6 fxg6 is very good for Black) 16 ... hxg6 17 exd5 (or 17 i.xf6 i.xf6 18 exd5 i.xb2 19 dxc6 bxc6 20 ttJa3

+) 17 ... ttJxd5 18 i.g2 ttJf4 19 'it'xd8 i.xd8 20 ttJd2 =.

10 ... ttJd4 11 i.e3 11 ttJbd2 l:tc8 12 i.d3 ttJh5! is cer

tainly not a problem for Black. 11 ... ttJxf3+ Worse is 11...i.xf3. For example,

12 gxf3 g6 13 f4 ttJh5 14 ttJd2 i.g7 15 fxe5 dxe5 16 ttJf3 ttJxf3+ 17 'it'xf3 0-0 18 i.h3 and White's bishop-pair begins to tell, Kotronias-Kuijf, Wijk aan Zee 1992.

12 gxf3 i.d7! (D) This is much better than 12 ... i.h5,

when the bishop is only hidden away on the kingside. An example is GlekBosch, Netherlands 1995: 13 ttJd2 i.e7 14 ttJc4 0-0 15 i.h3 ;l;.

w

13 'tWb3 b514 ttJc3 i.e715 a4 O-O! 16 axb5 axb5 17 i.xb5 l:tb8 18 'iVc4 i.xb5 19 ttJxb5 ttJh5!

Van den Doel-Grivas, Athens 1997. Despite being a pawn down, Black has a good position. He is ready to start an attack on the kingside, while White will find it difficult to do anything without surrendering the b-pawn.


C2) 8 h3 .txf3 If 8 ... .thS, White should indeed

take the opportunity to play 9 d4!. After 9 ... cxd4 10 cxd4, Black can reply in three ways:

a) 1O ... dS 11 eS ttJd7 12 e6! is good for White.

b) 1O ... eS 11 g4 ,ig6 12 dS ttJb8 13 ttJc3 ttJbd7 14 .td3 also gives White an edge.

c) 1O ... .txf3 11 gxf3 g6 12 dS! ttJb8 13 'ii'b3! .tg7!? (13 ... 'ii'c7 14 .te3 ttJbd7 IS l%.el 'ii'b8 16 ttJa3 .tg7 17 ttJc4 0-0 18 ttJaS ± Glek) 14 'ii'xb7 ttJbd7 IS 'ii'b3 0-0 16 ttJc3 does not give Black quite enough for the pawn, Glek-Hracek, Bundesliga 1995/6.

9 'ir'xf3 g6 9 ... eS 10 ttJa3 .te7 11 ttJc40-0 12

ttJe3 ttJe8 13 g3 ;j; Degraeve-Belkhodja, French Cht (Mulhouse) 1998.

10 'tWdl Preparing d4. Alternatives: a) 10 :d1 dS 11 exdS 'ii'xdS 12

'ii'xdS ttJxdS 13 d4 cxd4 14 cxd4 .tg7 IS ttJc3 .l:td8 = Tal-Kupreichik, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1976.

b) 10 d3 .tg7 11 .te3 ttJd7 12 ttJd2 0-0 13 'tWdl bS 14 a3 eS IS a4 'ii'c7 16 .te2.l:tfd8 17 h4 ttJb6 18 axbS axbS 19 .l:txa81ha8 = Kharlov-Brodsky, Russia Cup 1998.

c) 10 ttJa3!? .tg7 11 ttJc2 ttJd7 12 'tWdl 'ii'b613 b30-0 14.tb2a51SttJe3 ;j; Glek-Janssen, Vlissingen 1998.

10 ... .th6 The other way to prevent d4 is

1O .. :ir'b6!? and even though it looks like the queen only exposes itself to an attack from White's knight, Black gets

reasonable counterplay: 11 ttJa3 .tg7 12 ttJc4 'ii'c7 13 d3 (13 d4?! is premature in view of 13 ... cxd4 14 cxd4 dS) 13 ... 0-014 .tgS bS IS ttJe3 e6 16.l:tel IHc8 17 a3 .l:tab8 with approximately equal chances, Timman-Petursson, Reykjavik 1987.

11 ttJa3 11 a3 0-012 b4 ttJd7 13 .tb2 bS (af

terwards Dorfman considered 13 ... .tg7 a lot safer) 14 a4 bxa4 IS bxcS ttJxcS 16 d4 'ii'b8! 17 .ta3 ttJb3 18 .l:ta2 :d8 with chances for both sides, Gurgenidze-Dorfman, USSR 1978.

11 ... 0-0 12 ttJc2 e5 13 d4 .txc114 :xc1 'tWe7 15 dxc5 dxc5 16 ttJe3! .l:tad8 17 'ir'f3

Glek-Bosch, Wijk aan Zee 1999. White has a slight advantage since his bishop will dominate a black knight in any forthcoming ending.

C3) 8 d3 (D)

We have already seen a few ways for White to implement a d4 thrust. Now we turn our attention towards a

Moscow Variation with 3 ... 4Jc6 113

rather different approach. Rather than trying to force through d4 immediately, White remains more flexible and intends first to complete his development. Another theme which sometimes occurs is an attack on the kingside, following h3, g4 and lLlh4. Black's two main options are now: C31: S ... g6 113 C32: S ... e6 114

C31) S ... g6 9 lLlbd2 i.g7 Petursson's favourite 9 ... i.h6!?,

with the idea of exchanging the darksquared bishops, is also interesting. 10 h3 i.xf3 I1lLlxf3 i.xcl 121:txc1 (12 'ii'xc1 eS 13 'ii'h6lLld7 14 d4 'ii'f6 was approximately equal in Van der WielPetursson, Wijk aan Zee 1990) 12 ... 0-0 13 d4 eS 14 'ii'd2 ~g7 IS i.c4 'ii'e7 16 i.dS 1:tac8 17 dxcS dxcS 18 1:tcd 1 bS 19 'ii'e3 lLlb8! (improving on ShortPetursson, Wijk aan Zee 1990, which went 19 ... lLlaS 20 b3 with an edge for White due to Black's rather uncomfortable knight on as) 20 'ii'gS 1:tfe8! = Brynell-Petursson, Malmo 1993.

10 h3 i.xf3 1O ... i.d7 was seen in Anand-Khal

ifman, Groningen FIDE KO Wch 1997 and since it was played by such a strong player as Khalifman, one has to view it with some respect. But is it really worth spending two tempi (maybe only one since White plays d2-d3-d4) luring White's knight to d2? The game went 11 d4 cxd4 12 cxd4 1:tc8 13 dS!? lLlb4 14lLlc4 bS ISlLle3 as 16 a3lLla6 17 eS dxeS 18lLlxeS 0-019 a4 with a clear advantage for White.

lllLlxf3 0-0 12 d4 12 i.gS 1:tc8 13 'ii'd2 bS 14 a3 'ii'b6

IS b4lLld7 16 1:tadl 'iii'b7 17 d4 cxd4 18 cxd4lLlb6 19 i.h6 ;!; Glek-Babula, Stare Mesto 1992.

12 ... cxd4 13 cxd4 1:tcS (D)

w

14 'iib3 White has tried a few other moves

but this appears to be the most awkward for Black.

a) 14 a3 e6 (Sveshnikov suggests 14 ... 'iii'b6!, which also looks good) IS i.gS h6 16 i.h4 'iii'b6 17 'iii'd2 dS is equal, Smirin-Anand, Moscow PCA rpd 1994.

b) 14 dslLlb4 IS 1:te2 as 16 .i.gS h6 17 i.f4 = Wahls-Akopian, Adelaide jr Wch 1988.

14 ... 1:tc7 14 ... lLld7 IS i.e3 bS 16 a4lLlaS 17

'iii'b4lLlc4 18 axbS axbS 19 i.gS gives White an advantage, Ghinda-Groszpeter, Bucharest 1980, but Adams suggests 14 ... lLlaS. This is probably best, and after IS 'iii'b4 Black might even consider lS ... dS 16 eSlLle4.

15 i.f4


Har-Zvi suggests IS eS!? dxeS 16 dxeSlDdS 17 i.gS 'ii'd7 18 l:tad1 with an edge.

15 ... lDd7 16 l:tad1 Adams-Tiviakov, Groningen FIDE

KO W ch 1997. White is slightly better due to his bishop-pair and good control of the centre.

C32) 8 ... e69lDbd2 In Sutovsky-Tiviakov, Isle of Man

1998, White went for the direct 9 h3 .thS 10 g4 i.g6 11 lDh4 i.e7 (both 1l...lDd7!? and l1...dS!? are worth investigating - compare with the main line) 12 f4lDd7 13lDg2 h6 14 fS i.h7 IS lDf4 exfS 16 gxfS i.gS 17 %le2!? lDf6 18 l:tg2 0-0 19 ~e1 with promising attacking chances.

9 ... i.e7 10 h3 i.h5 (D)

w

11 g4!? This seems critical. If White can get

in lDh4 and f4, the attack will be rolling. On the other hand, if the attack fails White will have fatally weakened his kingside. Quieter options:

a) 11 'ii'c2 dS 12 lDh2 'ii'c7 13 g3 0-0 14lDdf3 bS IS eSlDd7 16 i.f4 b4 with roughly equal chances, A.Sokolov-Volzhin, Russian Ch (Elista) 1996.

b) 11 a3 dS 12 g4 i.g6 13 lDh4 (surprisingly, White has been doing very well with this, even though in the main line, after 12 ... dS!?, White can transpose to this position with 13 a3) 13 ... dxe4 (13 ... 'ii'c7!?, as suggested by Christiansen, actually looks more logical, trying to keep the position closed for a while) 14lDxg6 hxg6 IS lDxe4 and now:

b1) lS ... lDxe4 16 %lxe4 ~d7 17 i.f40-0 18 'ii'e2 .td6 19 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 20 %leI ;!; Christiansen-Khalifman, Munich 1992.

b2) lS ... 'ii'c7 16 f4lDxe4 17 l:txe4 gS 18 'ii'e2 0-0-0 19 fxgS g6 20 b4 and White is better, McDonald-Grivas, Hampstead 1998.

11 ... .tg6 12lDh4 d5!? Black might find a more peaceful

life in 12 ... lDd7: a) 13lDxg6 hxg6 14lDb3!? (this is

not as stupid as it looks; it is not so easy to find a sensible plan for Black) 14 ... eS IS d4 cxd4 (lS ... i.gS 16 dxcS dxcS 17 i.xgS ~xgS 18 'ii'd6 'ii'e7 19 'ii'c7! ±) 16 cxd4 i.gS 17 dSlDa7 18 i.xgS 'ii'xgS 19lDaS %lb8 20 ':c 1 'ii'd8 21 b4 0-0 22 l:te3! ± Grosar-R.Sergeev, Pula Echt 1997.

b) 13 lDg2 hS (13 ... eS 14 lDf3 hS IS gS lDf8 16 lDgh4 ;!; CamporaSpangenberg, Buenos Aires 1995) 14 f4 hxg4 IS hxg4 i.h7 16lDf3 gS 17 fS lDdeS 18lDxeS lDxeS 19lDe3 favoured White in B.Larsen-S.B.Hansen, Danish Ch (Esbjerg) 1997.

Moscow Variation with 3 ... ttJc6 115

13 f4 13 a3 transposes to note 'b' to

White's 11th move, but an entirely new idea was introduced in Van den Doel-McDonald, London 1998: 13 tLlxg6!? hxg6 14 eS tLld7 IS tLlf3 fic7 16 .tf4 bS (I believe Black should be doing OK around here) 17 .tg3 as (17 ... tLlb6!?) 18 a4 b4 19 c4 tLlb6 20 cxdS !? tLlxdS 21 tLld2 0-0 22 tLlb3 and White was better.

13 ... dxe414 dxe4 (D)

B

14 ... tLld7! 14 ... tLlxe4? IS tLlxg6 and 14 ... .txe4?

IS gS are both disastrous for Black,

but initially it was thought that 14 ... c4 was the way to create counterplay. However, after IS fS!? (Zeziulkin suggests another sensible approach: IS tLlxg6!? hxg6 16 tLlxc4 ii'xd117 ':'xdl tLlxe4 18 .tg2 .tcS+ 19 .te3 .txe3+ 20 tLlxe3 tLlf6 21 tLlc4 ~e7 and White is slightly better since his bishop is much stronger than either of Black's knights) IS ... tLlxg4 16 ii'xg4 (not 16 tLlxg6? 'ir'b6+) 16 ... .txh4 17 tLlxc4! (17 fxg6 hxg6 18 tLlxc4!? .txe 1 19 .tgS is also dangerous for Black) 17 ... .txel, Motwani-Zeziulkin, Gyor 1990, Zeziulkin recommends 18 fxg6! .th4 19 gxf7 + c,i;>f8 20 .tf4 .te7 21 eS ~xf7 22 .tg2 with a strong attack for White.

IS tLlxg6 In Arkhipov-Dokhoian, Munster

1993, Black seized the initiative after IS tLlhf3?! hS 16 fS .th7 17 tLlc4 hxg4 18 hxg4 'ilic7 19 'ir'd2 bS! 20 tLle3 tLldeS 21 tLlxeS tLlxeS but IS tLlg2!? might be White's best move.

IS ... hxg6 16 tLlf3 'fIe7 17 'tie2 0-0-0 18 .td2 eS 19 fS gxfS 20 exfS

The position is unclear - analysis by Dokhoian.

6 Moscow Variation with 3 ... ltJd7

1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 d6 3 .ibS+ ttJd7 (D)

The 3 ... ttJd7 line has had a small boost in the late 1990s - maybe because many people find the 3 ... .id7 line too boring, and 3 ... ttJc6 is not too entertaining either. Another reason is the fact that Joe Gallagher recommended it in his excellent book Beating the Anti-Sicilians.

While 3 ... ttJd7 certainly appeals to the fighting player, it is, however, a lot riskier than 3 ... .id7 and 3 ... ttJc6. Black must play with great care in order to avoid some early pitfalls, and thus it may not be to everybody's liking. My recommendation is 4 d4, immediately trying to open the position, and thus exploiting Black's rather cramped position.

Black takes his share of space Basically, Black has two ways of playing the 3 ... ttJd7 line. One is to exchange on d4 and then to play ... e5, thereby claiming some space in the centre. While this is a rather solid option, it does leave Black's d-pawn backward, though this scenario is known from several lines of the Open Sicilian.

w

This is a well-known position and one which, in my opinion, is slightly in White's favour. As long as White can prevent Black from breaking out with ... d5, he will always enjoy a positional plus in the form of Black's backward d-pawn. Hence White should strengthen his position with .ic4 and l::tfdl, and possibly even try to gain the

Moscow Variation with 3 . ..thd7 117

bishop-pair with ttJh4 followed by either ttJfS or ttJg6.

Black gains the bishop-pair Black can rather easily 'win' the bishop-pair but this is usually at the cost of space and development.

w

The big question is whether White should exchange on cS, thereby diverting Black's knight away from the centre, or let Black exchange on d4. Let us first take a look at the former option (see following diagram):

With the rook on el, exerting pressure down the e-file towards the black king, Black must be constantly on the alert, watching out for ttJdS. This is a common theme in the Sicilian, and one that occurs quite often in this particular line. Therefore Black chose first to chase the bishop away from gS.

10 ... f6 11 -th4 b5!? 11 ... -te7 is a more solid option. 12 ttJd4 b413 ttJd5 exd514 'ii'h5+

"ikf7 15 exd5+ -te7 16 'ii'e2 White's pressure on the e-file is

rather uncomfortable, which explains

Ricardi - Gallagher Benidorm 1991

Black's very wise decision just to return the piece.

16 .•. 0-0!? 17 'ii'xe7 'ii'xd5 18 :adl -tb7 19 ttJf3 'ii'xa2

w

The position is unclear.

P.H. Nielsen - S. Pedersen Copenhagen 1998

Black has just played 10 ... ttJd7-eS. Not being aware of the theory here, I thought I was doing reasonably well.


White would rather not exchange on e5, which would just open lines for Black's dark-squared bishop and eliminate one of Black's weaknesses (the pawn on d6). Checking up on the position after the game, it turned out that Kasparov had played exactly the same position as Black against Ljubojevic.

11 tZJa4! A very nasty surprise, and it oc

curred to me that Black should probably have left the knight on d7 for a while. IIl:tadl was played in the Ljubojevic-Kasparov game, but the textmove, highlighting the weakness on b6, is much stronger.

11 ... h6 Black gains nothing from exchang

ing on f3, but 11...f6 12 i.d2 i.e7 is better.

12 tZJb6 l:tb8 13 i.d2! (D)

B

After this excellent move, I did not have much confidence about the future course of the game. Black's position is severely cramped and there is no realistic hope of him ever getting the chance to break out with ... d5,

while White has some very annoying threats like i.a5, or just strengthening the position with a4-a5, c4 and i.c3.

The Theory of the Moscow Variation with 3 ... ~d7

1 e4 c5 2 tZJf3 d6 3 i.b5+ tZJd7 4 d4 tZJf6 5 tZJc3 (D)

I am not going to waste too much time on 5 0-0 except to say that after 5 ... a6 6 i.xd7+ tZJxd7 White can play 7 tZJc3, transposing to the main lines, or 7 c4, after which Black should be doing fine with 7 ... cxd4 8'iixd4 'iib6.

5 e5 is another possibility, but this apparently aggressive line is not really a problem for Black, and thus I will restrict myself to showing two sensible options for Black:

a) 5 ... 'iia5+ 6 tZJc3 tZJe4 7 i.d2 tZJxc3 8 i.xd7+ i.xd7 9 i.xc3 'iia6!. It is essential to prevent White from castling since if White got the chance to bring his rooks into the game, he would obtain a strong attack due to his lead in development. However, after this strong retreat chances are approximately balanced:

al) 10 'iid2 0-0-0 11 a3 i.c6 12 1i'e3 dxe5 (12 ... cxd4!?) 13 dxe5'iic4 14l:tdl'iie4 and Black reaches a comfortable ending, O'Donnell-Tukmakov, Toronto 1990.

a2) 10 d5 'iic4!? (l0 ... i.g4 and 1O ... i.f5 are other good moves) 11 1i'd2 'iie4+ 12 'iii>f1 i.h3!? 13 1i'dl i.g4 14 exd6 O-O-O! 15 h3 i.h5 16 1i'e2 'iixe2+ 17 'iii>xe2l:txd6 18l:thdl

Moscow Variation with 3 . ..ti)d7 119

e6 19 dxe6 l::txe6+ 20 'ifi>f1 f6 21 l:te 1 l:txel + 22 l:txel .id6 and Black is slightly better since in an open position like this Black's bishops are superior to White's combination of knight and bishop, Arkhipov-Lau, Lippstadt 1993.

b) 5 ... cxd4!? (the above lines all appear fine for Black but this might be an even simpler equalizing method for him) and now:

bl) 6 iVxd4 dxe5 7 ~xe5 a6 8 .ixd7+ .ixd7 9 0-0 .if5 and Black is already doing very well, Kengis-Lautier, Erevan OL 1996.

b2) 6 exf6 iVa5+ 7 ~bd2 iVxb5 8 fxe7 .ixe7 9 ~xd4 iVd5 10 ~2f3 ~e5 11 h3 0-0 (ll...'ii'c4!?) 120-0 .if6 13 c3 h6 14 .if4 b6 15 'ii'b3 iVc5 16 ~d2 .ib7 = Fernandez Garcia-Dorfman, Barcelona 1993.

B

Black has two major options: A: 5 ... cxd4 119 B: 5 ... a6 123

A) 5 ... cxd4 61Wxd4 e5

There are a number of other moves available to Black, but all of them are slightly passive and give White the more active position:

a) 6 ... e6 7 .ig5 and now: al) 7 ... .ie7 8 e5! dxe5 9ltJxe5 is

unpleasant. Black's best seems to be 9 ... 0-0 10 ~xd7 ~xd7 ll.ixe7 iVxe7 12 0-0-0 ~f6 13l:thel (Polugaevsky) but White is obviously better. 9 ... h6?! is worse: 10 .ixf6 .ixf6 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 .ixd7 .ixd7 13 ~e4 .ixe5 14 iVxe5 iVe7 15 'ii'c7 ± Vasiukov-Beliavsky, Vilnius 1975.

a2) 7 ... a6 8 .ixd7+ .ixd7 90-0-0 .ie7 10 e5!? (White tries to make maximum use of his lead in development; 10 :Lhel is another natural move) 1O ... dxe5 11 ~xe5 .ic612 ~xc6 bxc6 13 .ixf6 .ixf6 14 'ii'c5 and now rather than 14 ... 'ii'c8? 15 ~e4 .ie7 16 ~d6+ .ixd6 17 :Lxd6, Gurgenidze-Gufeld, Tbilisi 1969, Black ought to try 14 ... 'ii'c7. White can reply 15 ~d5!? exd5 16 .:the 1 + <jj;>d7 17 :Lxd5+, hoping for 17 ... ~c8?! 18 :Ld6 <jj;>b7 19 :Lxf6 gxf6 20 :Le7, but after 17 ... cxd5 18 'ii'xd5+ ~c8 19 iVxa8+ 'ii'b8 I think White should take a perpetual with 20 'ii'c6+. Instead, White's best is probably still 15 ~e4, since after 15 ... 'ii'f4+ 16 iVe3 'ii'xe3+ 17 fxe3 White has a tiny edge in any sort of endgame.

b) 6 ... a67 .ixd7+ .ixd7 8 .ig5 h6 9 .ixf6 gxf6 10 ~d5! and then:

bl) 10 ... :Lg8 11 O-O!? :Lc8 (not 11....ih3 12 ~h4 :Lg4? 13 ~b6 :Lxh4 14 gxh3 and White wins - Ulybin and Lysenko) 12 c4 .ih3 13 ~el, with the idea <jj;>h 1, f4 and ~f3, gives White the advantage - Ulybin and Lysenko.


b2) 10 ... i.g7!? 11 tiJb6 .l:tb8 12 tiJxd7 li'xd7 and now, instead of 13 tiJh4 e6 14 0-0-0 ~e7 15 f4 .l:thc8 = Lipovsky-Browne, Winnipeg 1974, Razuvaev and Matsukevich suggest 13 h4!? as a possible improvement.

b3) 1O ... .l:tc8 11 0-0-0 'it'aS 12 tiJb6 .l:tc5 13 tiJxd7 'it>xd7 14 ~bl ;!; Ulybin-Istratescu, Moscow OL 1994.

c) 6 ... g6 7 i.g5 i.g7 8 e5 (8 0-0-0 0-0 9 e5! dxe5 10 tiJxe5 is a more accurate move-order) 8 ... dxe5 9 tiJxe5 (D) and now:

B

cl) 9 ... 0-0100-0-0 'it'a5 11 tiJc4! (better than 11 tiJxd7 i.xd7! 12 i.xf6 i.xf6 13 li'xd7 i.xc3 14 bxc3 .l:tad8 15 li'xe7 .l:txdl+ 16 l:.xdl li'xb5 = Radulov-Ljubojevic, Poiana Brasov 1973). There are now two not very encouraging options for Black:

c 11 ) 11... 'ir'b4 12 'it'h4 tiJb6 13 tiJxb6 li'xh4 14 i.xh4 axb6 15 a3 ± Stean-Dueball, Germany 1974.

c12) 1l...'ir'c7 12 l:.hel li'xh2 13 lhe7 (also good is 13 .l:thl 'ir'xg2 14 'ir'h4 'ir'g4, Kosikov-Kaminsky, Leningrad 1974, 15 i.xd7 'it'xh4 16 i.xh4

tiJxd7 17 i.xe7 .l:te8 18 tiJd5, threatening tiJd6, and White is much better -Razuvaev and Matsukevich) 13 ..... xg2 (13 ... a6 14 i.xd7 tiJxd7 15 li'e3 was very good for White in Me.SharifMantovani, Aosta 1988) 14 li'h4 h6 15 i.xh6li'g4 16 'it'h2 tiJc5 17 i.xg7 ri;xg7 18 tiJe3 li'h5 19 li'g3 i.e6 20 i.e2 'it'h3 21 li'e5 and White should win, Timman-Lautier, Wijk aan Zee 1997.

c2) 9 ... a6! (Black seems to hold on after this move, but note that White can avoid this option with 8 0-0-0) 10 tiJxd7 i.xd7 11 i.xf6 i.xf6 12li'xd7+ 'it'xd7 13 i.xd7+ ri;xd7 140-0-0+ and now, rather than 14 ... ri;e8? 15 tiJd5 i.e5 16 .l:thel i.d6 17 l:.xe7+!, as in Dvoretsky-Grigorian, Leningrad 1974, Illescas thinks that Black can equalize with 14 ... ~c6 15 tiJd5 .l:the8 16 l:.hel .l:tad8 17 tiJxf6 exf6 18 .l:txe8 .l:txe8 19 ri;d2 .l:td8+ 20 ~e2 l1e8+ 21 ri;f3 h5.

7 'ilr'd3 (D)

B

7 ... h6 (D) This move is essentially linked with

Black's previous move, for if White is

Moscow Variation with 3 ... 0.d7 121

allowed to play i.gS, he will either obtain complete control over the dSsquare or win the d6-pawn. One example is Kasparov-Svidler, ICC Blitz 1998: 7 ... i.e7? 8 i.gS 0-0 9 i.xd7 liJxd7 (9 ... i.xd7 10 i.xf6 i.xf6 11 'it'xd6, Torre-Christiansen, San Francisco 1991, is similarly favourable for White) 10 i.xe7 "fIIxe7 11 0-0-0 liJf6 12 "fIIxd6 'it'xd6 13 J:txd6 ±.

w

8 i.e3 This natural move currently enjoys

the best reputation, presumably due to its flexibility. White has a number of different plans he can pursue. The most popular is to keep the light-squared bishop, usually by retreating it to c4 -this idea is often prefaced by a4. Another idea is the knight manoeuvre liJd2-c4. Both these strategies can still be implemented after 8 i.e3, but a third one, namely castling queens ide, is also very interesting, despite its rarity. Thus we consider a few alternatives:

a) 8 a4 i.e7 (8 ... a6 might be more accurate, e.g. 9 i.c4liJcS 10 "fIIe2 i.e7

11 h3 i.d7 120-00-0 13 J:tdl liJxa4 14 liJxa4 bS IS i.b3 bxa4 16 i.xa4 i.bS! = Madl-Nunn, Hastings 1994/S) 90-00-0 10 J:tdl a6 11 i.c4 WIIc7 12 'it'e2liJb6 (12 ... liJcS 13liJdSliJxdS 14 i.xdS i.e6 IS as gives White a pleasant advantage) 13 i.b3 i.e6 14liJh4! J:tad8 IS as liJc4 16liJfS J:tfe8 17 liJe3 ! with an edge for White, ShamkovichValvo, New York Open 1987.

b) 8liJd2 i.e7 (here it is not advisable to throw in 8 ... a6 since after 9 i.xd7+ i.xd7 10 liJc4 i.e6 11 i.e3 J:tc8 12 liJb6 J:tc6 13 liJbdS White is much better, M.Tseitlin-Rajkovic, Yugoslavia 1976) 9 liJc4 0-0 10 i.xd7 i.xd7 11 liJe3! i.e6 12 0-0 l:tc8 13 i.d21it'b6 14 b31it'd4 = Heidrich-Lau, Bundesliga 198112.

8 ... i.e7 (D)

w

90-0 Again there are a number of other

options: a) 9 a4 0-0 10 0-0 'it'c7 (1O ... liJb8

11 as liJc6 12 liJdS liJxdS 13 exdS liJb8 14liJd2liJd7 ISliJc4 'it'c7 16 b4 ;!; Rozentalis-Smirin, Klaipeda 1988)

122 Easy Guide to the .ib5 Sicilian

11 i.c4 lLIcs 12 i.xcS (this is better than 12 'ii'e2, which allows Black to equalize by 12 ... lLIcxe4 13lL1xe4lL1xe4 14 i.xh6 i.fS IS i.e3 lLIf6, I.WellsFedorowicz, Brighton 1979) 12 ... 'ii'xcS 13 lLIdS lLIxdS 14 i.xdS, DvoretskyGeller, USSR Ch (Ere van) 1975, and now Black's best is 14 ... l::tb8 with an approximately equal position.

b) 9 lLId2 0-0 10 f3 'ii'c7 11 0-0-0 a6 12 i.c4 (Tal also analysed 12 i.xd7 i.xd7 13lL1c4, giving the continuation 13 ... i.bS 14lL1xbS axbS ISlLIb61ha2 16 'ii'xbS 'ii'c6 as unclear) 12 ... bS 13 i.b3?! (better is 13 lLIdS lLIxdS 14 i.xdS l:b8 IS ~bl = Tal) 13 ... lLIcs 14 i.xcs dxcS IslLIdSlLIxdS 16 i.xdS c4 17 'ii'e2 l:b8 ~ Dvoretsky-Tal, USSR Ch (Erevan) 1975.

c) 9 h3!? 0-0 (9 ... a6 10 i.xd7+ i.xd7 11 g4 l:c8 120-0-0 'ii'aS 13 gS hxgS 14 i.xgS l::txc3! IS bxc3 'ii'a3+ 16 <iftd2 i.bS 17 'ii'e3 O-O! was unclear in Quillan-S.Pedersen, British League (4NCL) 1997/8) 10 g4 a6 11 i.xd7 i.xd7 12 gS hxgS 13 i.xgS lLIhS 14 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 (Ivkov-Chiburdanidze, Monaco Women vs Veterans 1994) and now White should try IS 0-0-0 'ii'f6! 16 'ii'xd6 i.e6 17 'ii'd3 (17 lLIxeS? l::tad8 18 'ii'cs b6 19 'ikc7 l:c8 20 'ii'd6 lHd8 +) 17 ... lLIf4 18 'ikfll:tac8 with an unclear position - Ivkov.

9 ... 0·010 i.c4!? (D) Since White is now planning to

keep his bishop (or at least not to exchange it for Black's knight), he retreats the bishop immediately.

10 ... lLIb6 10 ... 'ikc7 I1lL1d2lL1b6 12 i.b3 i.e6

13 lLIbS 'ikc6 14 c4 is slightly better

for White, while Black also fails to equalize by liquidating White's darksquared bishop: 10 ... lLIg4 11 l:fdl lLIb6 12 i.b3lL1xe3 13 'ii'xe3 'ii'c7 14 lLIdS lLIxdS IS l:xdS ~h8 16 l:d3 ;!; Bhend-Korchnoi, Montreux 1977.

11 i.b3 i.e6 (D)

12lL1h4 Intending lLIg6. Another interest

ing plan was seen in Yudasin-Avrukh, Beersheba 1996: beginning with 12 l::tfel I?, White plans the manoeuvre lLId2-fl, i.xb6 and lLIe3, thereby controlling the dS-square. The game went

Moscow Variation with 3.JiJd7 123

12 .. J:tc8 13 ttJd2 ttJg4 14 i.xb6 'iVxb6 lSl:te2 and White was ready for ttJf1, h3 and ttJe3. This explains why the rook should be on el.

12 ... :tcS 13 ttJg6l:teS 14 ttJxe7+ 14 :tfd1 ttJc4 IS i.xc4 l:txc4 16

ttJxe7+ lhe7 17 'iVxd6 'iVxd6 18l:hd6 ttJxe4 19 ttJxe4 :txe4 20 b3 a6 21 c4 with a slight advantage for White, Chandler-Mestel, Brighton Z 1984.

14 ... .:txe7 IS .:tfdl .:td7 lS ... ttJc4 transposes to the note to

White's 14th move. 16 ttJdS White is better, Shaked-Ashley, Ber

muda 1997. See the introduction to this chapter.

B) S ... a6 6 i.xd7+ ttJxd7 (D) 6 ... i.xd7 7 dxcS 'iVaS 8 cxd6 ttJxe4

9 'iVdS! ± (Van der Wiel); 6 .. :ii'xd7 7 dxcS dxcS 8 'iVxd7+ ttJxd7 9 i.f4 e6 10 a4 i.e7 11 ttJd2 also gives White the better chances, Van der Wiel-Kupreichik, Leeuwarden 1993.

w

7 0-0

7 i.gS!? leads to a more complicated position if Black takes up the challenge and plays 7 ... h6 8 i.h4 gS 9 i.g3 i.g7:

a) 10 dxcS!? ttJxcS 11 eS (11 'iVd2 'iVb6!) 11...g4 12 ttJh4 'iVaS 13 0-0 dxeS 14 .:tel f6 IS ttJg6 .:th7 16 ttJdS (16 ttJxe7!?) 16 ... e6 17 ttJde7 with an obscure position, Ansell-Sadler, British League (4NCL) 1997/8.

b) 10 0-0 g4 11 ttJh4 cxd4 (after 1l...i.xd4 12 ttJfS i.xc3 13 bxc3 ttJf6 14 i.eS! i.xfS IS i.xf6 exf6 16 exfS hS 17 .:tel + ~f8 18 "if'dS White has good compensation for the pawn, Pavasovic-Soffer, Budapest 1994) 12 ttJfS dxc3 13 ttJxg7+ ~f8 and now:

b1) 14 ttJfS cxb2 IS .:tb1 ttJf6, Dvoretsky-Ljubojevic, Wijk aan Zee 1976, and now White should play 16 .:txb2 i.xfS 17 exfS with a complicated position, albeit probably good for Black.

b2) 14 ttJhS is Razuvaev and Matsukevich's suggestion. This might be better, and after 14 ... cxb2 IS .:tbl "if'aS 16 'iVxg4 "if'gS (16 ... "if'c3!?) 17 "if'f3 ttJcS 18 h3 Black still has to be careful.

7 ... e6 If Black wants to make sure that his

knight stays within reach of the eSsquare, he should play 7 ... cxd4 8 'iVxd4 e6, which leads to very similar play to the main lines, but cuts out dxcS possibilities.

Si.gS White can also take on cS immedi

ately, but this gives Black an additional (albeit not very good) possibility: 8 dxcS ttJxcS 9 i.gS "if'b6 (9 ... "if'c7 transposes to the note 'a' to White's


9th move) 10 l:[bl i.d7 (Keres-Ljubojevic, Petropolis IZ 1973) 11 l:tel gives White with the better game as he is threatening lDdS.

8 ... 'ii'c7 (D) 8 .. .f6!? 9 i.e3 i.e7 10 dS eS I1lDh4

g6 12 f4 exf4 13 iLxf4 0-0 14 'it'g4 lDeS IS 'it'g3 l:tf7 with unclear play, Rogers-Sunye, Lucerne OL 1982.

w

9l:tel White has a rather big decision to

make, for he can also exchange on cS, directing the black knight to the queenside rather than having it controlling the centre. This issue is discussed in more detail in the introduction to this chapter.

a) 9 dxcS lDxcs and here: al) 10 l:[el and now: all) 10 ... bS 11 lDdS!? (I would

prefer to throw in 11 a4 b4 before moving the knight to dS) 11...'it'b7 (1l...exdS?! is too dangerous: 12 exdS+ 'iii>d7 13 lDd4! 'it'b6 14 'it'f3 f6 IS i.xf6 'iii>c7 16 b4! ±) 12 'it'd4!? eS (12 ... exdS 13 exdS+ 'iii>d7 still looks extremely suspicious; amongst several

promising continuations White might choose 14lbc1 I?, e.g. 14 ... 'iii>c7 IS b4 lDa4 16 c4 'iii>b8 17 l:te8 with a probably winning attack) 13 'it'b4 i.e6 14 l:tadl h61S i.h4l:tc816 b3 gS17 i.g3 i.g7 with unclear play, Peng XiaominPigusov, Beijing 1997.

a12) 1O ... f6 11 i.h4 (another possibility is 11 i.d2) 11...bS!? (11...i.e7 is more solid and fully playable) 12 lDd4 b4 13lDdS (this can hardly come as a surprise) 13 ... exdS 14 'it'hS+ 'it'f7 IS exdS+ i.e7 16 'it'e2 O-O!? (a good practical decision, rather than stubbornly trying to hold on to the piece) 17 'it'xe7 'it'xdS 18l:tadl i.b7 19lDf3 'ii'xa2 with a very unclear position, Ricardi-Gallagher, Benidorm 1991.

a2) 10 'it'd4!? f6 11 ~e3 i.e7 (11...b6!?) 12 a4 b6 13 'it'c4 (an interesting idea; White threatens b4 and simultaneously eyes the slightly weak e6-pawn) 13 ... i.d8 (the best move; 13 ... aS?! is positionally miserable after 14 lDd4 and IS lDdbS) 14 lDd4 lDb7 IS 'it'a2 'ii'f7 16 f4 0-017 fS (17 lDf3!?) 17 ... l:te8 18 l:tad 1 exfS 19 'it'xf7+ 'iii>xf7 20 lDxfS i.xfS 21l:txfS and White has an edge, Liang JinrongZhu Chen, Beijing 1997.

b) 9 a4 h6 10 i.h4 cxd4 11lDxd4 lDeS 12 'iii>hl (12 f4 gS!? 13 fxgSlDg6! is fine for Black) 12 ... gS 13 i.g3 hS 14 f3 h4 IS i.f2 h3 16 g3 b6 with a promising position for Black, KamskyD.Gurevich, USA Ch 1993.

c) 9 dS!? (it is not clear how Black should best react to this) 9 ... eS (an idea is 9 ... bS 10 dxe6 fxe6 11 l:tel i.b7 followed by ... lDeS, but this looks risky) 10 a4 g6?! (Glek recommends

Moscow Variation with 3 . ./'iJ.d7 125

10 ... h6 11 .i.e3 .i.e7 12 ttJd2 ;1;) 11 ttJd2 .i.g7 12 ttJc4 ttJb6 13 ttJxb6 ir'xb6 14 as ir'c7 IS ir'd2 0-0 16 ttJa4 ± Glek-Belichev, Cappelle la Grande 1998.

Returning to the position after 9 l:tel (D):

B

9 ... cxd4 Black is a long way behind in devel

opment, and this move even seems to help White activate his major pieces. However, Black wants the central tension clarified and to obtain a good square for his knight on eS. However, I am not sure I can recommend this idea for Black. The reason is that when the knight has gone to eS, there will be serious problems covering the sensitive b6-square. Other moves:

a) Van Wely tried the highly provocative 9 ... bS in a recent game, and was probably doing OK after 10 a3 .i.b7 11 'iVd2 h6 12 i.h4 cxd4 13 ttJxd4 gS!? 14 .i.g3 ttJeS IS a4 ttJc4 16 ir'e2 b4 17 ttJa2 J..g7 with a complicated position, Curdo-Van Wely, New York Open 1997. However, 10 a4! is

more critical, when play might con-tinue 1O ... b4 11 ttJdS 'iVb8.

b) 9 ... f6 10 .i.h4 .i.e7 11 eS! dxeS (ll...fxeS 12 J..xe7 rJi;xe7 13 dxeS dS 14 ir'd2 ± Von Gleich) 12 dxeS 0-0 (12 ... ttJxeS 13 ttJxeS fxeS 14 .i.xe7 'iVxe7 IS ir'hS+ g6 16 ir'xeS 0-0 17 l:tadl is horrible) 13 exf6 ttJxf6 14 'iVe2 with a clear advantage for White, Maiwald-Kengis, Bonn 1995.

c) 9 ... h6 is worth considering. 10 .i.h4 cxd4 11 ir'xd4 ttJeS should be compared with the main line, but 10 ttJdS! 'iVb8 (Kr.Georgiev points out that 10 ... 'iVaS? loses to the clever 11 ir'd2!) 11 .i.h4 gS 12 .i.g3 exdS 13 exdS+ ~d8 14 ir'e2 ttJf6 IS dxcS 'iVc7 16 ttJeS!? looks most fun for White.

10 'ii'xd4 10 ttJxd4 ttJeS 11 f4 h6 12 .i.h4 gS!

is not a problem. Capturing with the queen, however, gives Black more difficulties finishing his development.

10 ... ttJe5 (D)

w

11 ttJa4! I predict a dark future for Black af

ter this move.


Previously, 11 ':adl had been the most common move in this position, but then 11. .. i.d7 enables Black to solve his problems:

a) 12 i.f4 f6 13 tDd2 i.e7 14 i.g3 b5 is equal, Gufeld-Ljubojevic, Belgrade 1974.

b) 12 tDxe5 dxe5 13 'it'd2 b5 (Kasparov suggests 13 ... ':c8!?) 14 a3, Ljubojevic-Kasparov, Amsterdam 1991, and now Kasparov thinks that Black is OK after 14 .. .f6 15 i.e3 i.e7 16 i.b6 'it'xb6 17 'it'xd7+ cJi>f7.

1l ... h6 (D) 11...b5 12 tDb6 tDxf3+ 13 gxf3

l:.b8 14 tDxc8 ':xc8 15 a4 is very good for White, but 11...f6 12 i.d2 i.e7 might be Black's best.

w

12 tDb6 ':b8 13 i.d2! White is clearly better, P.H.Niel

sen-S.Pedersen, Copenhagen 1998. For further explanation see the introduction to this chapter.

Index of Variations

Chapter 1: 1 e4 c5 2liJf3 liJc6 3 ~b5 g6 Chapter 2: 1 e4 c5 2liJf3 liJc6 3 ~b5 e6 Chapter 3: 1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 ~b5 without 3 ... g6, 3 ... e6 or 3 ... d6 Chapter 4: 1 e4 c5 2liJf3 d6 3 ~b5+ ~d7 Chapter 5: 1 e4 c5 2liJf3 d6 3 ~b5+ liJc6 (or 1 e4 c5 2liJf3liJc6 3 ~b5 d6) Chapter 6: 1 e4 c5 2liJf3 d6 3 ~b5+ liJd7

1: Rossolimo Variation with 3 ... g6 1 e4 cS 2 liJf3liJc6 3 ~bS g6 20

w

A: 4 c3 20 B: 4 ~xc6 21 Bl: 4 ... bxc6 22 B2: 4 ... dxc6 28 B21: S h3 28 B22: S d3 30 S ... ~g7 30 B221: 60-030 B222: 6 h3 32 C: 4 0-0 34 4 ... ~g7 34 Cl: SliJc3 35 C2: S c3 36 S ... liJf6 37 C21: 6 'it'e2 39

C22: 6 lle141 C3: S lle144 C31: S ... liJf6 44 C32: S ... eS 47 6 ~xc6 47 C321: 6 ... bxc6 48 C322: 6 ... dxc6 49

2: Rossolimo Variation with 3 ... e6 1 e4 cS 2liJf3 liJc6 3 ~bS e656

w

A: 4 ~xc656 B: 4liJc3 61 Bl: 4 ... liJd4 61 B2: 4 ... liJge7 63 C: 40-065


3: Rossolimo Variation: Other Third 5: Moscow Variation with 3 ... ltJc6 Moves I e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 j.b5+ ltJc6 99 I e4 c5 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 j.b5 69 A: 3 ... ltJa5 70 B: 3 ... ltJd4 71 C: 3 ... ltJf6 72 w D: 3 ... Wic7 72 E: 3 ... Wib6 73

4: Moscow Variation with 3 ... j.d7 I e4 c5 2ltJf3 d6 3 j.b5+ i.d7 80

w

4 j.xd7+ 80 A: 4 ... ltJxd7 81 50-0 ltJgf6 81 AI: 6l::te181 A2: 6 'iVe2 82 6 ... e6 82 A2l: 7 c3 83 A22: 7 b3 84 B: 4 ... 'iVxd7 865 c4ltJc6 86 B 1: 6ltJc3 87 B 11: 6 ... ltJe5 87 B12: 6 ... g6 89 B2: 6 d4 91 6 ... cxd47 ltJxd4 ltJf6 8 ltJc392 B2l: 8 ... Wig4 92, B22: 8 ... e6 93, B23: 8 ... g6<15!.

1-....

4 0-0 j.d7 5 c3 ltJf6 6 l::tel a6 100 A: 7 j.xc6!? 100 7 ... j.xc6 8 d4 j.xe4 9 j.g5 101 AI: 9 ... d5 102 A2: 9 ... j.d5 104 B: 7 j.a4 106 Bl: 7 ... b5 106 B2: 7 ... c4 108 C: 7 j.f1 109 7 ... j.g4 109 Cl: 8 d4110 C2: 8 h3112 C3: 8 d3112 C3l: 8 ... g61 13 C32: 8 ... e6 114

6: Moscow Variation with 3 ... ltJd7 I e4 c5 2ltJf3 d6 3 j.b5+ ltJd7 1184 d4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 118 A: 5 ... cxd4 119 6 'iWxd4 119 6 ... e5 7 'iWd3 120 7 ... h6 8 j.e3 121 8 ... j.e7 9 0-00-0122 B: 5 ... a6 123 6 j.xd7 + ltJxd7 7 0-0 e6 8 j.g5 Wic7 124 9 l::tel 125 9 ... cxd4 125 10 'iWxd4ltJe5 llltJa4! 125

pedersen, steffen - easy guide to the bb5 sicilian

Documents

rossolimo variation

moscow variation

everyman chess series

chess yearbook

chess assistant

game ends

nunns chess openings

everyman publishers