Krasenkov, mikhail the sveshnikov sicilian by Jose Manuel Vargas

Η Ε

()

,.-'

The Sveshnikov SiciIian Mikhail Krasenkov

CADOGAN LONDON, NEW YORÎ&#x161;

Cadogan Books Distribution UΚ/EUROPE/AUSTRALASINASINAFRICA

Distribution: Cadogan Books plc, c/o Β.Τ. Batsford Ltd, 1 Bradbury Drive, Springwood Industrial Estate, Braintree, Essex CM7 2QY Tel: (01376) 321276 Fax: (01376) 552845 USA/CANADNLATIN AMERICA/JAPAN Distribution: Paramount Distribution Center, Front and Brown Streets, Riverside, New Jersey 08075, USA Tel: (609) 461 6500 Fax: (609) 7649122 First published 1996 by Cadogan Books plc, London House, Parkgate Road, London SW114NQ CoΡΥήght @

1996 Mikhall

Krasenkoν

ΑΙΙ rights reserνed. Νο part of this publicatίon may be reproduced, stored ίπ a remeνal system ΟΓ transmitted ίη any form ΟΓ by any means, electronic, electrostatίc, rnagnetic tape, mechanIcal, photocopying, recording ΟΓ otherwίse without ΡΓίΟΓ permisslon ίπ wήtίng from the publish-

ers. Βήtlsh Llbrary Catalogulng Ιη Publlcatlon Oata Α CIP catalogue record for thls book is aνailable from

the

Britίsh

Library

ISBN 1 85744 123 Ο Typesettlng by ChessSetter Printed ίπ Great BΓίtaίη by BPC Wheatons Ltd,

Eχeter

CADOGAN CHESS SERIES Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparoν Editor: Andrew Klnsman Russian serίes Editor: Ken Neat

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

Contents Symbols and AbbreVΊations Bibliography Introduction: ΜΥ Love Forever

1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 ~f6 5 6 ~db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 ~a3 b5 1 Evading the Discussion

2 :3 4 () 6 7

4 4

5 ~c3

(deVΊations οη

move 6) 11 Turning offthe Road (deVΊations οη moves 7 and 8) 17 The choice oftwo K's (9 ~d5) 41 Made ίη Ν ovosibirsk (9 .txffl gxffl 10 ~d5 .tg7) 68 Out ofUse (9.txffl gxffll0 ~d5 f5 - side lines) 76 86 Always ίη Fashion (11 exf5) The New Old Line (11 .td3) 101

'rheoretical Conclusions (and Index ofVariations) l>Iay like a Grandmaster!

119 122

Symbols and Abbreviations agood move an excellent move a bad move ?? a seήοus error !? a move deserving attention ?! a dubious move (D) diagram follows corr correspondence game ! !! ?

Bibliography Encyclopαedia ofChess Openings (volume Β), Sahovski Informator,

Belgrade 1984 A.AdoIjan, T.Horvath, Sicilian: Sveshnikov variation, Pergamon Press, London 1987 E.Sveshnikov, Sitsilianskaya Zashchita: ί sport, Moscow 1988 ChessBαse Magαzine,

Sistemα

5 ... e7-e5, Fizkul'tura

Hamburg 1984-1996

Sahovski Informator (vols. 1-64), Belgrade 1966-1995 Various chess periodicals

Introduction: ΜΥ Love Forever ()η" way or another, we are ώl 'UIlC(!ptible to fashion. Ι started plιιylng the 8icilian 8veshnikov at 'ho tlnd of the 1970s when it was ιΙ Lho peak of its popularίty. Later ΙΙ t,.,d its ups and downs but Ι ηρνΙΙΓ gave up my favourίte openΙfιιι NYHtem and am never going to dc. '"ι. Ί'here Ίs ηο other opening ίn wl,IL~t, Ι have won as many memo,ΛΙ,ΙΟ Iζ6mes as ίη the 8veshnikov. ΑΝ ιι precious relίc, Ι carefu11y Ι&...φ ιι copy of the monograph by lΘνΙΙUηy 8veshnikov οη hίB system, PtItIIiHhed ίη Moscow ίη 1988, WΊth • rIItlmorable note by the author: "1'" Misha Κrasenkow, my chess tIIlιtlpunion-in-arms, from the ΙΙΙΙΙ'ΟΓ, ίη memory of our chess ....."Lings. It would be fine if you n"and ιnistakes and ίndicated them (hιι"ι of a11, not durίng a game, espctt~I"ΙΙy between us). E.8veshnik"v, May 27, 1989.' Α few years hAvtI passed since then. Chess theIIry .. nd practice have moved far .Ι,μ"d, correcting and expandίng ..... "Υ of the variations descrίbed 111 HVQshnikov's book. Ι hope Ι Ι, .. ν., IIlso made some contribution Ι .. ιΙιιιΙ process, to a certaίn extent fi 11 Ιϊ 11 ί ng the grandmaster' s wish. ιι Ι" t.ime to sum up what has hapι".ιιι,ιl ίη the theory ofthe 8icilian HVIIHI,nikov during the past decIΙΙIΙ'ο IInd this ίΒ the maίn target of ι ΙΙΙ' Ilrosent book. But, of course,

dear reader, you needn't be acquainted WΊth the previous works οη the same subject, since 1'11 certainly te11 you about a11 the most important conclusions of older theory. 80, we are going to deal with οηθ of the most popular and debatable systems of the 8icilian Defence featured by the fo11owing moves: 1 e4 c5 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tbxd4 liJf6 5 tbc3 e5

Various names are given to thίs system ίη dίfferent books (Lasker, Pilnik, Pelίkan variation), but these bear witness just to the ίη competence of the authors of those works. The 5 ... e5 system has οηlΥ οηθ author, who has worked out its positional fundamentals and laid its theoretical foundations. It ίΒ Grandmaster Evgeny 8veshnikov, of course. Before him the system was played

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

occasionally, and only some Jines (actually considered third-rate) were investigated to any real extent. Ιη Russian Jiterature you αιη often meet the name 'The Cheliabinsk variation' (Sveshnikov was born and grew up ίη the city of Cheliabinsk). This name was established ίη the early 1970s when serious theoreticians couldn't decide whether to name a whole opening system after a young little-known master... The history of the Sicilian Sveshnikov ίΒ quite short; but there are a number ofplayers who have made great theoretical contributions. Sveshnikov's first follower (as far back θΒ the 1960s) was Gennady Timoshchenko. The Hungarian Grandmasters Αη dras Adorjan and Gyula Sax, θΒ well θΒ 1Μ Tamas Horvath, also made many extremely important theoretical discoveries ίη the 1970s. The generation of players that appeared οη the scene ίη the 1980s included a number of connoisseurs of the system, especially Russian players (GMs Valery Salον, Alexey Vyzmanavin, Yury Yakovich, 1Μ Nikolay Andrianov etc.). And recentlythe Sveshnikov has become a frequent guest ίη top toumaments thanks to efforts of Alexey Shirov, Vladimir Κram nik, Joel Lautier and other young stars. Their ideas have considerably enriched the whole system. The positional grounds of the 5...e5 move go back to the ideas of

the Boleslavsky system, which was worked out ίη the 1940s (1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 d6 6 Jιe2 e5). Black seizes some space ίη the centre, thus not giving White a free hand οη the kingside. Typical Sicilian attacks such θΒ f2-f4, g2-g4 etc. are ηο longer possible. Besides, any danger of White's break ίη the centre (e4-e5 etc.) ίΒ eliminated altogether. The price Black pays for these trumps ίΒ the weakening of the d6 pawn and the d5 square. IfWhite could effectively rearrange his pieces or simplify the game without positional concessions, these would become dominant factors. However, this proves to be a very difficult task. There are still many pieces οη the board; besides, White's forces are not placed ίn the best way. Specifically, the ίΙΙ fated d4 knight becomes his headache. Ιn the Boleslavsky system it has to go to f3 or b3 (very far from the d5 square). Ιn the Sveshnikov system White ίΒ forced to place it to ... a3(1), otherwise he loses his control over the d5 point! Take a look at this: 6 lbdb5! d6 7 Jιι5 a6 8 lba3 b5! With this sequence Black obtains several precious tempi for his counterplay (the first ofwhich ίΒ gained by the 5 ...e5 move itself1), the methods ofwhich were conceptually developed by Sveshnikov. They include:

Introduction: ΜΥ Love Forever

1) the minority attack οη the IIIIoenside (... a6-a5, ... b5-b4 etc.); 2) the kίngside attack (... f7-f5, IloHsibly with a prelίminary ... g7ιι6);

:J) the fight for the d5 point

ι. .. .tc8-e6, ... tbc6-e7 etc.)crowned

with the ... d6-d5 break or the _ltiΓting ofWhίte's e4 pawn to d5. Ι would lίke to take up the lat-

tttr point. 8uch a modification of tho pawn structure is, generally _poakίng, extremelyadvantageous (ΙΙΓ Black. Both of the negative r"ctors mentioned above just dis"IJPear; and Black obtains a pawn IIIIajority οη the kίngside, which is IIlIIre mobile than White's queen_Ido pawns. After ... e5-e4 Black 1111" the e5 square at his disposal, "lId after the eventual exchange 111' his e-pawn he has good chances 1,1· HCiZing the e-file. 80, the pawn I'I'(:Rpture after the exchange οη .Ir, can rarely be favourable for Wllite (mostly after 9 .i.xf6 gxf6"1'41 below). What βΓθ White's most imporIlIlIt plans?

First of all, his c3 knight takes the d5 square. There are two modifications: 9 tbd5 or 9 .i.xf6 gxf6! 10 tbd5. Then White must do something with the other knight. The manoeuvre tba3-b1d2 doesn't solve the problem as d2 is hardly the best position for this knight. 80 the most common strategical ideas of White (and Black's ways of cοuηteήηg) are: 1) the c2-c4 break, ίη order to conquer the c4 square. Black has three altematives: • just to take οη c4, allowing White's knight to enter the game powerfully. Incidenta11y, ίη some variations White can even recapture with the bishop to control the d5 square while his knight takes another way (tba3-c2) - see Chapter 7. This option ίΒ not very pleasant for Black but sometimes it is forced; • to play ... b5-b4, blockίng the queenside. Later οη Black can try to occupy the c5 square (ideally with a knίght) and develop his queenside activity by means of ... a6-a5-a4 etc. This plan is quite appropriate ίη some vaήations; • to leave his pawn οη b5 and θνθη to sacrifice it ίη order to gain time for counterplay and possibly still to prevent the white a3 knight from becoming active. 80me aspects of this ρΙβη are similar to those of the Benko Gambit. This option is

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

probably the most desirable for ίη Black's camp) while Black's Black but not always possible. b5 pawn and the b4 square (af2) c2-c3 followed by tba3-c2ter axb5 axb5) become permae3(b4) to support the d5 knight nent weaknesses. Some more should be said about and possibly to attack Black's quoonside by a2-a4. Black usually the special features of the strucplays ... a6-a5 to control the b4 ture aήsίηg after 9 .i.xf6 gxf6: square. As for the e3 point, ίη the • Black obtains more possibilί 9 tbd5 system (9 ... .i.e7 10 .i.xf6 ties offighting for the e4 square (with ... f6-f5xe4 and ... f7-f5); .i.xf6) it can be taken under fire by means of ....i.f6-g5, and then • Black has the g-file at his disBlack can exchange White's e3 posal for a possible kingside attack. Such a plan mostly reknight at aπ aΡΡrΟΡήate moment. U nfortunately, ίη the other modiquires the advance of Black's fication (9 .i.xf6 gxf6) the h6 and f6 pawn to f4. However, this g5 squares prove insufficiently advance should be well-presafe for Black's dark-squared pared, otherwise White can bishop (ίη view οf'δ'd1-h5 etc.) βΟ moot it with g2-g3; he has to look for other ways to • White's queen obtains an imfight against Whίte's knights (soo, portant outpost οη h5; however, it requires active support e.g., Chapter 6). Prepaήng to ΡθπΥ a2-a4, Black from the other pieces to make often plays ... :'a8-b8 (then after use ofit; a2-a4 b5xa4 the b2 pawn will be • the exchange ....i.e6xd5 e4xd5 hanging). ThίB ίΒ considered the ίΒ less undesirable for White safest way of defence. However, if here as Black's double pawns Black a110ws the advance of the are less mobile. Whίte can try white a-pawn, he has the following to stop them ίη two ways: either by playίng f2-f4 (and options: taking the e3 square under • to moot it by ... b5-M (this ίΒ desirable but rarely possible); control ίη the event of ... e5-e4) οτ provoking an early ... e5-e4 • to take οη a4 and play ... a6-a5 (however, ίη this case White and then attacking Black's seizes control ofthe important pawns with f2-f3. However, if c4 square); Black manages to push ... f5-f4 and ... f7-f5, he usually wins • to leave his pawn οη b5. This makes βθηβθ on1y quite rarely, the fight ίη the centre. mostly when Black ίβ ahead ίη Taking into consideration all development - otherwise Whίte the above plans and counterplans, can βθίΖθ the a-file (with al- practice (first of a11, of Sveshmost naked 6th and 7th ranks nikov himself) has developed a

Introduction: ΜΥ Love Forever

IIo-<:alled classic arrangement of BIack's pieces: • the dark-squared bishop: g5 to control the e3 square (reserve squares h6 and d8); ίη the line 9 .txf6 gx:f6 - g7; • the light-squared bishop: e6 to control the d5 square and aim at White's queenside; • the lmight: e7 to press οη the d5 square; • the queen's rook: b8 to prevent a2-a4 and support Black's mίηοήtΥ attack; • the queen: d7, b7, f7 (to control the d5 square); ίη some situations it can be activated νίιι g6 οτ h5 (a11 these squares ΙΙΤθ light!); • the king's rook: the 8th rank, depending οη the situation, mostly the c8, d8 οτ f8 squares οτ g8 if the g-fιle ίβ ΟΡθη. Α few words about the possible ttxchanges. As Ι mentioned before, ItImost ιιηΥ exchange shifting the white pawn from e4 to d5 ίβ favourable for Black. If the pawn IItructure ίβ unchanged then the I'olloWΊng rules can be formulated: 1) the most unfavourable for BIack ίβ the exchange of the lightIIquared bishops, after which it ίΒ I1urd for him to fight for the d5 IllιίηΙ;

2) the exchange of a ριιίτ of kl1ights ίΒ mostly good for Black 11" White's knights ΙΙΤθ his most clllngerous blockading pieces; 3) the exchange of Black's IiKht-squared bishop {στ White's

knight has both negative (weakening ofthe d5 square) and ΡΟΒί tive features (the elίmination of White's strong knight). It mostly makes sense when ί t ίβ a part of a plan of active counterplay; 4) Black's dark-squared bishop ίβ a good defensive piece and has its own active possibilities, especially ίη the line 9 .txf6 gxf6 when that bishop both protects Black's kίng and exerts pressure along the h8-al diagonal. Ιη the 9 ttJd5 lίne its position ση g5 makes White's manoeuvring more difficult. Sti11 , ίη the latter case the value of that bishop ίβ restricted, and it can be swapped for White's knight. However, Black should never hurry WΊth this exchange; 5) exchanges of rooks andlor queens are not very welcome as Black has more chances ίη the middlegame than ίη the endgame (of course, this applίes οηlΥ ίη the case that White maintains his control over the d5 square; otherwise the endgame can even be better for Black). Another typical exchange ίβ that of the lίght-squared bishops οη e6 with Black's f7 pawn shifting to that square and takίng the d5 point under control. Of course, the latter ίΒ an extremely positive factor for Black; but these pawns do suffer from reduced mobi1ity. Of course, you should not take a dogmatic approach ίη using these rules since each of them has many exceptions. But they Μθ

The Sveshnikov SΊCilίαn

solid landmarks ίη studying and practising the Sveshnikov. When, how, with which order of moves should Black reach the classical arrangement? How can he modify it ίη different situations? What are the other possible plans and arrangements of pieces ίη different lines? ΓΗ try to answer aH of these questions ίη the present book. Ιη conclusion Ι should like to mention that the main lίne of the Sicilίan Sveshnikov often appears from another move order: 1 e4 c5 2 lΔf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lΔxd4 lΔf6 5 lΔc3 lΔc6 6 lΔdb5 d6 7 .t.f4 e5 8 .t.g5 etc. Ιη this way Black eliminates aH the lines described ίη Chapters 1 and 2 as weH as some side systems of the Sicilian (such as 3 .t.b5). However, White has several alternatives οη move 6; e.g., 6 .t.e3, 6 .t.e2, 6 g3 and, the most important, 6 lΔxc6. Besides, Black has to prepare a different reply to the 3 c3 system. These problems are outside the scope of this book. The author hopes to devote οηθ ofhis future works to all of these side lines of the Sicilian.

How to use this book The worst thing you can do ίΒ sit at a board worrying your head with the many variations cited ίη the book. Ν obody can remember them aH at once. So, first learn as much as necessary for playing the opening - the most important

lines of play in each variation and, above all, the basic strategical and tactical ideas explained ίη the ίn troduction. Be sure to attentively examine the games of the final chapter to remember typical plans, strategical and tactical methods of play ίn the Sicilian Sveshnikov. But the great thing is to play! Ν obody and nothing instructs you lίke your own practice. So, play the Sveshnikov as often as you can. Don't be afraid to experiment even if you have only a little knowledge - your opponent ίΒ unlikely to be an expert either. This monograph wiH be of great help to you as a reference book: οη playing a game refer back to the appropriate section to compare your play with the theoretical recommendations. Don't take it to heart if you have played differently. Carefully analyse both your game and the theoretical interpretation - perhaps your plan is more appropriate: after aH, there is some justification for calling the theory 'a short-sighted lady'! As you pick up experience, you will better comprehend all the niceties of different lines. As you learn to love the Sveshnikov as Ι do, analysing it and playing it, success wiH soon come! The material given covers the state of theory at 1 February 1996. Michαl Krαsenkow

(Mikhαil Krαsenkov)

February 1996

Evading the Discussion

Ιη this chapter we deal with sidevariations ίη which either White or Black abandons the main ιiηθ οη move 6. The theoretίcal verdict is firm and severe: all these attempts are unsuccessful.

Section 1 Ιίnββ

without 6 lLJdb5

(1 e4 c5 2 lLJf3lLJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLJxd4 lLJf6 5 lLJc3 e5)

6 tM5 Other moves are θνθη less harmful for Black: a) 6 lLJxc6?f (a weak move, gίν ing Black a pawn superiority ίη the centre and the b-file) 6 ... bxc6 7 .i.c4 (7 J.g5 ίΒ met by 7... 1:.b8!, e.g. 8 J.c4 1:.xb2! 9 J.b3 'ifa5 10 J.d2 J.b4 l1lLJa4lLJxe4!, Dvoretsky, or 8 1:.b1 'ifa5! with a clear edge for Blackj to 7.i.d3 Black can play7 ... J.b4oreven 7... d5) 7...J.b4

8 ο-ο h6 9 f4?! 'ife7 10 fxe5 'ifxe5 11 i.b3 ο-ο with an advantage for Black (Tansky-Sveshnikov, Cheliabinsk 1966)j b) 6 lLJb3 (after this passive move Black can easily prepare ... d7-d5) 6 •••J.b4f (unmistakably intending to double the white pawns), and now: b1) 7 .i.g5 h6 8 J.xffi i.xc3 +! 9 bxc3 'ifxffi with an excellent game for Black, e.g. 10 'ifd2 0-0 11 J.c4 d6 12 ο-ο J.e6 13 J.d5 J.xd5 14 'ifxd5 1:.ac8 15 1:.ad1 1:.fd8 16 1:.d3 1:.c7, and White's weak pawns guarantee Black better prospects (Handoko..Jamieson, Adelaide 1990)j b2) 7 i.c4lLJxe4 (or 7... d6 8 ο-ο J.xc3 - 8 ... J.e6! 9 J.d5 i.xc3 also yields Black good chances, Sveshnikov - 9 bxc3 .i.g4 10 'ifd3 'ifc7 11 i.g5 i.e6 12 i.d5 i.xd5 13 exd5 fΔθ7 14 c4 lLJd7 15 i.xe7 ιJί;xθ7 with an excellent game for Black, Romero Holmes-Chekhov, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 8 ο-ο (8 'ifd5 fΔd6j 8 i.xf7+ ιJί;xf7 9 'ifd5+ ιJί;f8 10 'ifxe4 d5, then, if necessary, ... h7-h6 and ... ιJί;f8-g8-h7, and Black has the advantage, Sveshnikov) 8 ... fΔxc3 9 bxc3, and now, according to Spassk:y, Black's simplest way to obtain a good position ίΒ 9 ... J.xc3 10 'iff3 d5! 11 J.xd5 ο-ο 12 i.xf7 + (12 1:.d1 fΔd4!) 12 ...1:.xf7 13 'ifxc3 i.f5 14 J.b2 1:.c8 151:.ad1 1:.d7 followed by ... lLJc6-d4!j

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

b3) 7 ~d3 d5 8 ο-ο! (8 exd5 ttlxd5 - 8 ...1Wxd5 is also good for Black - 9 ~d2 ~xc3! 10 bxc3 ο-ο 11 ο-ο f5 12 ~c4 Φh8 13 1We2 ttlffi!, and Black's chances are preferable, accordίng to Sveshnίkov), and now, instead of 8 ... ~xc3?! 9 exd5! tαιd5 10 bxc3 ο-ο 11 1Wf3! ~θ6 12 ttlc5! WΊth a strong initiative for White, as ίη the game Rozenberg- Κrasenkow, Moscow 1985, Black should prefer 8 ... d4, 8 ... dxe4, or θνθη 8 ... ~θ6 with a good position; c) 6 ttlf3 (see comment to 6 ttlb3) 6 ••• ~b4

7 ~c4 (7 ~g5 h6 8 ~xfO ~xc3+! 9 bxc3 1Wxffi 10 ttld2 1Wg6 11 1Wf3 d6 12 ~c4 ο-ο 13 ο-ο tί)e7, Borodί ansky-Gorelov, Moscow 1974, or 7 ~d3 d5 8 exd5 'l'xd5 - 8 ... ttlxd5 is also good, of course - 9 ~d2 ~xc3 10 ~xc3 e4 11 .ιΧf6 gxf6 12 1We2 f5 13 ~c41Wa5+ 14 c3 ~e6 15 tί)d2 ttle5!, Brethe-E.Hansen, Challes 1990, also yίelds Black an excellent position) 7... ttlxe4 (7... d6!? 8 ο-ο ~θ6; 7... 0-0 8 ~g5 ~xc3+ 9

bxc3 "a510 ~xf6 "xc3+ 11 ttld2 gxf6 12 ':b1 ttld4!, Sveshnίkov, or 8 ο-ο ~xc3 9 bxc3 ttlxe4 leads to an unclear position) 8 ο-ο (after 8 1i'd5 ttld6 9 ~b31Wa5! 10 ο-ο 1Wxd5 11 ttlxd5 ~a5 White's compensation for the pawn ίΒ hardly sufficient; 8 ~xf7 + ΦΧf7 9 'iVd5 + ~f8 10 1Wxe4 d5 111We2 e4 12 ttlg5 h6 is clearly favourable for Black, Delanoy-Nepomίachty, Parίs 1991) 8 ... ttlxc3 9 bxc3 ~θ7 (9 ... ~xc3?! 10 ':b1) 10 1Wd5 ο-ο l1lbxe5lbxe5 12 1Wxe5 d6 131We4 ~f6 14.i.a3 ':e8 15 1Wd3 (Κofidίs-Makropoulou, Greek championship 1994), and now the contίnuation 15... ~e6! 16 ~b5 ~d7 17 ~c4 (17 ':b1':c8!) 17 ... .:c8! 18 ~xd6 b5! 19 ~b3 ~xc3 would have given Black excellent chances; d) 6 ttlde2 (maintaining control over the d5 square but at the Ρήce of a considerable delay of development) 6 ... ~b4 (Sveshnikov recommended 6 ...~c5 7tί)g3 1Wb6!? 8 1Wd2 ttlg4 9 ttld1 ο-ο 10 h3 ttlf6 with the idea of preparing ... ':f8d8 and ... d7 -d5!) 7 ~d2 (7 a3 ~a5 8 ~d2 - 8 b4?! ~b6 - 8 ... d5 with θη excellent game, Gomez -Ochoa, Spain 1977) 7... 0-08 ttlg3 (8 a3?! ~c5!), and now, accordίng to Adorjan and T.Horvath, 8... ~xc3 9 hc3 d5, and Black has ηο problems. 6 ttlf5 is the best and most popular side-line. However, it doesn't set any problems for Black either. 6 ••• d5! The only move. After 6 •••d6? 7 tί)e3 White controls the d5 point 'free of charge'.

Evαding

the Discussion

7 exd5 After 7 lL!xd5, besides an equal undgame after 7 ... lL!xd5 8 "xd5 "xd5 9 exd5 ixf5 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 c3 ic5 12 ic4 a5 13 ο-ο Φθ7 14 ':e1 f6 15 b3 1:thd8 (BierbachI)oggemann, Moscow 1991), Black hus an option of a pleasant mίddle J(ume: 7 ... lL!xe4 8lL!fe3 ie6 9 ic4 ~c5 etc. 7 •••

~XΙ5

lL!d5 15 lL!e4 ~θ7 16 ixe7 ΦΧθ7 17 g3, and White maίntains a minimal edge (Akopian-Κrasen kow, Baku 1985). 10 ~g5 10 .tc4 ie7 11 ~g5 ~xc2!? 12 ο-ο (12 "e2? is poor ίη VΊew of the reply 12 ......g4!, Ivanovic-Chandler, Manίla 1990) 12 ... 0-0 13 "'e2 ~g6 14 'ii'xe5 ~d61eads to a good position for Black.

8 dxc6 bxc61 8 ..."xdl + is somewhat weaker I)ut is also sufficient for equality: 9 llJxd1 bxc6 10 llJe3 ~g6 (or 1O ... ~θ6 11lL!c4llJd7 12 ~θ3 f6 13 0-0-0 ~c5 14 ~θ2 ~xθ3+ 15lL!xe3 ..J,;e7 with equal chances, Hθηkίη I>Jisetsky, Moscow 1975) 11 ~a6 :b8 12 ο-ο ~θ7 13 ':e1 ο-ο 14 a3 :fd8 15 b4lL!d5 16 ~b2 f6 17 ~c4 ..J,;f8, and a draw was agreed'in (~ampora-Braga, Saragossa 1992. 9

"f3

Of course, after 9 "xd8 + ':xd8 Black has ηο problems, for example 10 ~θ3 ':b8 (10 ... ~xc2!?) 11 u-o-o ~b4 12 ~c4 ιι5 13 f3 ο-ο 14 ~ιι4 e4! with good counterplay (Shabaηοv-Κίm, Κemerovo 1979). 9 ••• "d71 9 .•."c8 10 ~a6 "xa6? 11 "xf5 .td6 falls immedίately into a trap: 12 ~h6! ':g8 13 ~xg7 ':xg7 14 "xf6':g6 15 .. h8+ ~f8 160-0-0, IInd White has an extra pawn 'but' a better position (Κholmov ~'edorov, Moscow 1987). Instead of 10 ... "xa6, 10 ... ig4! is correct, u.g. 11 ~xc8 ~xf3 12 ~h3 ~h5 (12 ... ~d5!?) 13 ο-ο ~d6 14 ig5

10 e4 10•.•lDd.5?1 is rίsky, e.g. 11lL!xd5 cxd5 12 0-0-0 ~θ6 13 ic4 e4 14 'ii'e2 ':b8 15 f3 'ii'c6 16 ib3 ~c5 17 1:the1 with a strong initiative for White (Y.Grϋnfeld-Bimboim, Jerusalem 1986). Still, Black has many other ways to obtaίn equality, for example 10••• ~e7 11 .1:.d1 "e6 12 ixf6 gxf6 13 ~b5 ':c8 14 ~c4 'ii'xc4 15 'ii'xf5 "e6 16 'ii'xe6 fxe6 17 lL!e4 .1:.d8 (Rίgo-Tomczak, Baden-Baden 1987) or (the simplest) 10•••~b4 11 ~xf6 gxf6 12 ~d3 ixc3+ 13 bxc3 ixd3 14 cxd3 "'e6 15 ο-ο ο-ο 16 ':ae1 Φh8, and White' s attackίng attempt 17

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

:e4?! f5 18 :Μ proved unsuccessful after 18 ...:ad8 19 'i'h3 'i'g6 20 f4 f6 21 :f3 J:b8 (Sax-Fedorowicz, Dubaί 1986). The text ωονθ ίΒ more ambitious. 11 'i'e2 11 'iig3 ..td6 12 'i'h4 ..te5 (IOιan Βοη Din-Sveshnikov, Κaluga 1966) and 11 'i'e3 ..tb4 (1l ... lbd5?! 12 'i'd4) 12 ..txffi gxfO 13 ..tc4 :g8 14 :dl?! (14 ο-ο ίΒ better, with unclear play) 14 ... 'i'e7 15 'i'f4?! 'i'c5 (J.Nagy-Nemeth, Κaposvar 1987) give Black excellent chances. 11 ... ..te7! This pawn sacrifice ίΒ Black's best chance. 11 .•:ii'e6 ίΒ insufficient, for example 12 ..txffi gxfO 13 'i'a6! ..tb4?! 14..tc4 'δ'c8 15 ..txf7+! with an attack for White (Guseinov-Κrasenkow, Frunze 1987). However, 11 •••..tb4!? ίΒ possible, for example 12 ..txf6 (12 'i'c4!? :b8!) 12... gxfO 13 :dl 'i'e6 14 'i'c4 :b8 15 a3 'i'xc4 16 ..txc4 ..txc3+ 17 bxc3 :b2 with good counterplay for Black (Trifunovic-Muse, Banja Vrucica 1987). 12 :dl It ίΒ rίsky for White to take the pawn: 12 ..t:xf6 ..txffi 13lbxe4 ο-ο! 14 lbxf6+ gxf6 15 'i'd2 (15 'i'c4?! :fe8+ 16 ..te2 :e4; 15 :dl?! 'i'b7 16 'i'f3 'i'xb2! 17 'ii'xf5 'i'c3, and Black wins) 15...:fe8+ 16 'itd1 (16 ..te2 'ii'e7 17 'i'e3 'i'b4+ 18 'i'd2 'i'b5 19 a4 'i'xb2 with a small edge for Black) 16...'i'b7 17 b3 :ad8 18 ..td3 c5, and Black's initiative becomes formidable, as ίη the game

Tsaturian-Markauss, corr 1988; notes by J.Markauss. 'i'e6 12 ••• 12•••'i'b7 ίΒ not bad either, e.g. 131Wa6 :b8 14 'i'xb7 :xb7 15 ..tcl ο-ο with equality (V,Goldin-Lipman, Moscow 1978179). 13 'i'c4 13 'i'a6 ο-ο 14 ..tc4 can be met by 14... 'i'e5! 15 'i'xc6 ..tg4 with good counterplay. :b8! 13 ••• 14 'ίIνxe6

14 fxe6! 14•••..t:xe6 ίΒ also a possibility; for example 15 b3 ..tb4! 16 ..td2 0-0 17 ..te2 1Ifd8! with equal chances (Parutenko-Markauss, corr 1988), but after the text ωονθ White has to be very careful to avoid getting into trouble. The game AkopianYakovich, Rostov-on-Don 1993, continued 15 b3 (if 15lba4?!, then 15 ... e3!) 15 ... lbd5! 16 ..txe7 (16 ..td2?! ..tb4 17lba4 e3!) 16 ... ΦΧθ7 17 lba4 e3! 18 c4 exf2+ 19 ΦΧf2 lbb4 20 ..te2 lbxa2 21 .l:.al lbb4, and it ίΒ White who ίΒ fighting for

Evαding

the Discussion

cquality (see illustrative game

Section 2 6 lίJdb5 without 6 ... d6 (1 e4 c5 2 lίJf3 lίJc6 3 ~xd4lίJf6 5lίJc3 e5) 6 lίJdb5

d4 cxd4 4

6 ••• h6 6 ••• d6 is the main response (see Chapters 2-7). Others are θνθη worse: 6 ••• a6 7lίJd6 + J.xd6 8 "xd6 "e7 9 "xe7 + lίJxθ7 10 J.g5 b5 11 0-0-0 J.b7 12 f3 J.c6 13 a3 ο-ο 14 κ3 .l:.fb8 15 J.h3 .l:.b7 16 b3 (Sherzer-Strenzwilk, Philadelphia 1992) or 6 •••J.c5 7 J.e3 J.xe3 (7 ... d6!? 8 .txc5 dxc5 9 "xd8+ 'iPxd8, and White's advantage is not so big, Sveshnikov) 8 lίJd6+ 'iPf8 9 fxe3 "b6 10 lίJc4 "c5 11 "d6+ "xd6 l2lίJxd6lίJe8 13lίJcb5! (ByvshevAbramov, USSR 1951) with a clear pull for White ίη both cases. 7 lίJd6+! The alternatives are not danJζerous:

a) 7 b3 J.c5 8 lίJd6+ Φθ7 9 'iPf8 10 .tc4 J.b4 11 .i.d2 "a5 12 "f3 d5 13 exd5 lίJd4 with unclear complications (MatulovicBilek, Sousse 1967); b) 7 J.e3 d6 8lίJd5 lίJxd5 9 exd5 lίJb8 10 c4 a6 l1lίJc3 J.e7 12 .i.d3 J.g5 ίΒ equal (I.Zaitsev-Gheorghiu, Sochi 1976); c) 7 lίJd5 lίJxd5 8 exd5 a6! 9 lίJa3 J.xa3 10 bxa3lίJe7 11 d6lίJc6 12 J.c4 b5 13 J.d5 J.b7 (WinantsAndersson, Tilburg 1993) or 9 dxc6 axb5 10 cxd7+ J.xd711.i.d3 J.c6 12 ο-ο "d5 13 "g4 h5 14 "h3 J.e7 (Vitolin§-Lutikov, USSR 1970). Ιη both cases Black's counterplay is sufficient; d) 7 J.c4 a6 8 lίJd6 + J.xd6 9 "xd6 "e7 10 "xe7 + Φχθ7 11 J.e3 d6 12 0-0-0 J.e6 13 lίJd5 + J.xd5 14 exd5 b5!? 15 J.b3 lίJa5 with an equal position (Κarpov-Hug, Graz 1972). The position of the white bishop οη c4 proves unfortunate. Returning to 7 lίJd6 +. 7 ••• J.xd6 8 "xd6 "e7 9 "xe7+ 9 lίJb5 also brings White the better chances, e.g. 9 .....xd6 10 lίJxd6+ Φθ7 l1lίJf5+ 'iPf8 12 b3 d5 13 .i.a3+ 'iPg8 14 exd5lίJxd5 15 lίJd6 .l:.b8 16 J.c4 J.e6 17 0-0-0 (Spassky-Gheorghiu, Bath 1973). 9 .•. 'iPxe7 10 J.e3 d6 11 Ι3 J.e6 (D) Or 11 ... a6 12 0-0-0 b5 13 a4! b4 14 lίJd5+, and White is better (Byrne). lίJf5+

Nr.1).

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn his better pawn structure, for example, 12 ..•:hd8 13 g4! :ac8 14 h4 lί)e8 15 :h2 a6 16 g5 hxg5 17 hxg5 b5 18 J.b6 (Stein-Miagmasuren, Sousse 1967) or 12.•.:hc8 13 g4 a6 14 h4lί)d7 15 :h2lOO5 16 g5 hxg5 17 J.xg5+ ffl18 J.e3 (Tukmakov-Dzindzichashvili, Odessa 1968). The conclusion of thίs chapter ifWhite avoids 6lί)db5, Black has ηο problems; whίle if Black avoids 6 ... d6, he gets a worse game. ίΒ:

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

Τurning οΙΙ

2 (1 e4 c5 2

~f3lOO6

~xd4lί)f8

5lOO3 e5 6lί)db5)

3 d4 cxd4 4 d6

White's most common move ίη Lhis position is 7 .tg5, after which Lhe standard sequence is 7... a6 8 ~θ3 b5 (see Chapters 3-7). Ιη this chapter we deal with the other moves, the most popular ofwhich are 7 a4 (Section 2) and 7 lί)d5 (Section 3). But first we take a look at some rare lines. Later οη ίη this chapter we examine an old variation 7 .tg5 a6 8 .txf6 (Section 4), and ίη Section 5 we deal with the Larsen system (8 ~θ3 .te6).

Section 1 Rare Iines

7 .te3 Mter 7 .te2?! a6 8 lί)a3 b5 9 ~d5 .te7 Black has ηο problems.

the Road

The altemative 7 lί)a3 leads to an equal position after 7....te7 8 J.g5 (8 lί)c4lί)xe4!) 8... lί)xe4! (8 ... ~e6!? 9 J.c4!?) 9 ~xe4 (9 ~xe7?! lαιc3 10 .txd8 ~xd1 11 ~c7 lί)xf2! 12 ~xf2 Φd7, Sveshnίkov) 9 ... ~xg5 10 lΔxg5 'ii'xg5 11 'ii'xd6 a6 12 lί)c4 .te6, as in v.Gusev-Timoshchenko, Odessa 1975. If White plays 10 lί)xd6+ (ίη stead of 10 ~xg5) then 10 ... ~θ7 11 lί)ac4 ~e6!? (Sveshnikov) 12 lί)xb7 (12 'iVf3 ~d2+!?) 12.....xd1 + 13 Jb:d1, and now not 13... J:ιab8 14lί)bd6 J:ιhd8 15 c3! but 13... lί)M! with good counterchances for Black (14 lί)xe5 ίΒ answered by 14...:&b8!). 7 .•• a6 Mter the continuation 7....te7 8 ~5 lί)xd5 9 exd5 ~b8 Black has ηο serious problems either (cf. 7 lί)d5line, Section 3). Or 8 g3 ο-ο 9 .tg2 a6 10 lί)a3 b5 11 lί)d5 ~xd5 12 exd5 lί)a5!? 13 c3 .tg5 14.txg5 'ii'xg5 15 Mlί)c4 with unclear play, as ίη Perenyi-Hardicsay, Hungary 1981. 8 lί)a3 Thίs position will be very faιnil iar to those who play the system 1 e4 c5 2 lί)f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lί)c6. It arises ίη an old-fashίoned line 5 lί)b5 d6 6 ~f4 e5 7 ~e3 a6 8 ~5c3lί)f6 9lί)a3 or 7... lί)ω 8 ~1c3 a6 9lί)aS. It can also arise ifBlack plays the Sicilian Sveshnikov via

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

2 ... e6 (see the introduction): 1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 fud4 tiJffi 5 tiJc3 tiJc6 6 ll)db5 d6 7 .tf4 e5 8 .te3 a6 9 tiJa3. That's why this position happens ΒΟ frequently ίn practice despite the fact that Black has many ways to obtain a goodgame. 8 ... J:b8 This 'subtle' move ίΒ considered the most accurate but alternatives are not bad either: a) 8 ...tiJg4 9 tiJc4 fue3 10 fue3 .te7 11 .tc4 ο-ο 12 ο-ο .tg5 with balanced chances CFischer-Badan, 1960); b) 8 ...d5!? 9 fud5 (9 exd5 .txa3 10 bxa3 'ita5 11 'iνd2 tiJd41eads to a double-edged position, according to Sveshnikov) 9 ... tiJxe4 10 tiJc4 (10 .tb6 .tc5!) 10 ... .te6 11 tiJdb6 'itxd1 + 12 :xd1 :d8 with equality (Fleck-Calvo, Germany 1986); c) 8 ....te6 9 tiJc4 b5! 10 tiJb6 :b8 11 tiJbd5 tiJg4! 12 .te2 tiJxe3 13 tiJxe3 g6 14 tiJcd5 .th6 15 c3 ο-ο 16 h4 .txe3 17 tiJxe3 tiJe7 ίΒ also equal (Szalanczy-Lanka, Υί enna 1991); d) 8 ...b5 9 tiJd5, and now: (D) d1) 9 ...tiJxd5 10 exd5 tiJe7 11 c4 tiJf5! 12 .td2 (12 cxb5 tiJxe3 13 fxe3 'ith4+ 14 g3 'i'e4 15 'itc2! 'itxe3+ 16 .te2 .td7 17 bxa6 .te7 18 'itd2 'iνe4! with mutual chances, according to Κasparov and Nikitin) 12... 'iνh4 (or 12 ....te7, for example 13 cxb5 .tffi 14 .te2 e4 15 b6 ο-ο 16 tiJc4 .td4 with equality, as ίn Fischer-Pachman, Buenos

Aires 1960, or 13 .td3 ο-ο 14 ο-ο tiJh4 15 cxb5 f5 16 f3 g5 with unclear play, Armas-Gauglitz, Wildbad 1989) 13 .td3 (13 .te2 b4! 14 '6'a4+ .td7 15 'iνxb4 tiJd4 ίΒ good for Black, as given by Κasparov and Nikitin) 13 ....te7 14 ο-ο ο-ο 15 cxb5 tiJd4 16 bxa6 .txa6 with good compensation for the sacrificed pawn, as ίn Madl-Gaprindashvili, France 1989; d2) 9...:b8!? 10 tiJxffi+ (10.td3 .te7 11 ο-ο ο-ο 12 c4 bxc4 13 fuc4 tiJxd5 14 exd5 tiJb4! 15 .te2 .tf5, Szalanczy-Csom, Graz 1987 and 10 g3 tiJxe4 11.tg2 f5 12 ο-ο .te7 13 tiJc3 .te614 fue4 fxe415 .txe4 d5, Sax-G.Garcia, Moscow 1982, both give Black excellent chances) 10 ... '6'xffi 11 .td3 Cafter 11 c4 b4 12 tiJb1 a5 13 tiJd2 'iνg6 14 h4 .te7 15 g3 ο-ο 16 .tg2 .td8!? 17 ο-ο .tb6, Szalanczy-Dokhoian, Cattolica 1993, or 11 tiJb1.te7 12 tiJc3 'itg6 13 'itd2 ο-ο 14 0-0-0 .te6 15 f3 :fc8 16 'itJb1 tiJb4!, Stein-Taimanov, USSR 1960, Black ίΒ okay, too) 11 ....te7 12 ο-ο ο-ο 13 tiJb1 .td8 14 tiJc3 tiJe7 15 'itd2 h6 16 a4

Turning off the Roαd b4 17 tΔe2 a5 with equality ίη the Kame Hort-Andersson, Amsterdam 1978. Returning to 8 ... ':b8. 9 ~d5 9 .tg5 b5 leads to a 'normal' variation of the Sicilian Sveshnikov but ... with an extra tempo for Black! 9 Ι3 was played ίη the fξame Armas-Reinderman (Wijk ιιιιη Zee 1993) and led to equality Iifter 9 ... .te6 10 "'d2 d5 11 exd5 lίΊxd5 12 tΔxd5 1i'xd5. 9 ••• lhx:d5 Obtaining a favourable pawn Htructure. 9 •••b5 ίΒ also good - see ubove, line d2. 10 exd5 tΔe7

11 c4 11 .tc4lΔf5 12 .td2 .te7 13 ο-ο ο-ο 14 ':e1.tg5 15 .tf1.td7 16 l"Δc4 i.b5 (Perenyi-Zsu.Polgar, Hunjξarian championship 1986) yields Black good prospects. 11 b4I? ίδ interesting and leads to a doubleodged position, e.g. 11 ... lΔf5 12 i.d2 .te7 13 ~c4 ο-ο 14 a4 .td7 (14 ... .tg5!?) 15 .td3 1i'c7 16 c3 e4

17 .te2 .tf6 (Tolnai-I.Almasi, Budapest 1993). After 11 c3 Black has ηο reason to worry either, e.g. 11 ... lbf5 (or 11 ... g6 12 g3 .tg713 .tg2 ο-ο 14 ο-ο b5 15 lΔc2 a5, Κos ten-Wolff, Hastings 1989) 12 .td2 .te7 13 g3 (13 .td3 ο-ο 14 ο-ο lΔh4!? followed by ... f7-f5, Ρορο vic) 13 ... 0-0 14 .tg2 .td7 15 ο-ο g6 16 ':el h5! 17 ':c1':e8 with a good game (Perenyi-Popovic, St John 1988). 11 ••• l"Δf5 11 .•. lΔιβΙ? ίΒ also possible, e.g. 12 .te2 .te7 13 ο-ο ο-ο 14 'iVd2 f5 15 f3 f4 16 .ta7 ':a8 17 .tf2 .th4 (Fleck-Conquest, Germany 1987). The text move was played ίη Sax-Adorjan (Hungary 1981), and after 12 .td2 .te7 13 .td3 ο-ο 14 ο-ο .tg5 15 lΔc2 ':e8 16 f4? (16 ':e1 leads to an equal position) 16 ... e4 17 .te2 .tf6 18 J:tb1 g6 19 ~h1 h5 Black obtained clearly better prospects. 80 you see that, if Black ίδ familiar with general concepts, he can easily obtain good counterchances ίη the lines we have examined.

Section 2 784

(1 e4 c5 2lbf3lΔc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lhx:d4 tΔf6 5 tΔc3 e5 6 tΔdb5 d6) 7 a4 With this positional move White prevents ... b7-b5 and guarantees the c4 square for his knight. Black must play accurately to equalize.

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

with an initiative for Black, Campora-Z.Simic, Lugano 1987; for 9 tbd5! - see 8 tbd5) 9 ~xf6 (9 ~e2 a6 10 tba3 ':'c8 11 ο-ο ~e7 12 ~xf6 ~xf6 13 ~g4 ο-ο, cirίc-Wirthen sohn, Switzerland 1977, or 9 tba3 ~e7 10 ~b5+ tbd7 11 ~xe7 "xe7 12 tbc4 ο-ο 13 ο-ο :fd8! 14 "xd6 1Vxd6 15 tΔxd6 tbc5 ίΒ quite satisfactory for Black) 9 ... gxf6 10 tbd5 (10 tba3!?) 10... fud5 11 exd5 ~d7, followed by ... f6-f5 with sufficient counterchances; 7 ••• a6 c3) 8lM5 bd5 (8 ...':'cB 9 tbbc3 Besides this natural move, Black has a wide choice of alternatives: "a5 10 tΔxf6+ gxf6 11 ~d3 ':'g8 a) 7•••~e7 8 ~g5 a6 9 ~xf6 (9 12 ο-ο ~h3 13 g3 ~xf1 14 ~xf1 lOO3 - see 7... a6) 9... gxf6 10 lΔa3 f5 gave White good compensation for the exchange ίη the game Mednis11 ~d3 tbb4 (11 ... fxe4!? 12 ~xe4 Fedorowicz, New York 1977, while . ο-ο, Andrianov) 12 exf5 d5 13 "h5 'ίi'b6 14 ο-ο "f6 15 ':'fe1 ~d7 after 9 ~g5 a6 10tbbc3 ~e7 11 with an unclear position (Tiom- tbxe7 tbxe7 12 ~d3 d5 13 ~xf6 gxf6 the position ίΒ roughly equal, kin-Andrianov, Bukhara 1981); b) 7•••tbb4 (a logίcal move to Howell-Zezulkin, Pardubice 1994; control the d5 point) 8 tba3 (8 ~g5 however, in the latter varίation 10 ~xf6! gxf6 11 tΔbc3 ίΒ stronger) 9 ~e6 - see 7... ~e6) 8 ... ~e7 9 ~b5+ (9 ~g5!) 9 ... tbd7! 10 tbc4 ο-ο 11 exd5 tbb4 (9 ... tbe7!?) 10 tbc3 (10 c4!?, Sveshnikov) 10 ... a6 11 a5 ο-ο tbf6 12 tbe3 ~e6 13 "e2 ':'c8 14 ':'d1 (Matanovic-Lombard, Biel ':'c8 12 :a4 ':'xc3!? Now, instead 1976) 14 ... 'iνc7 with equality; of 13 bxc3 tbbxd5 14 ~d2 ~e7 c) 7 •••~θβ and now: with a dynamically balanced ΡΟΒί c1) 8 ~e2?! a6 9 tba3 tbd4 10 tion (Filipowicz-Lombard, Budapest 1976), Sveshnikov suggests ο-ο ':'c8 11 .te3 fue2 + 12 'ii'xe2 13 ':'xb4!? ':'c7 14 ~e3 tbd7 with a ~e7 13 ':'fd1 ο-ο, and Black has good prospects (Lutikov-Efimov, certain edge for White. There ίΒ Erevan 1977); room for improvements for both c2) 8 ~g5 tbb4 (8 ....:.cB!? ίΒ an- sides ίη this line; d) 7 ••• h6 (preventing 8 ~g5 other possibility, for example 9 but losing a tempo), and now: ~xf6 gxf6 10 tbd5 .txd5 11 exd5 d1) 8 tΔθ3 ~e6 9 ~c4 ~xc4 10 tΔe7 12 tbc3 a6 13 ~d3 f5, Sveshnikov, or even 10... f5!? 11 tbbc3 tΔxc4 tbxe4 11 tbxe4 d5 12 tbxe5 fxe4 12 a5 ~(l13 a6 b6 14 :a4 0-0 tbxe5 13 tbg3 ~c5 with equality,

Turning off the Roαd "" ίη Ljubojevic-Tal. WijkaanZee 1976; d2) 8 .te2 a6 9lba3 .te6 10 ο-ο (ΙΛ. equalizing (8zabo-Nun. Κap Ic,nberg 1976); d3) 8 .te3 a6 (8 ... .te6 9 lbd5!. &Ι.Κ. 9... .:tc8 10 lbxfβ+ gxfβ 11lbc3!. Hveshnikov, or 9... .txd5 10 exd5 ~ΊC7 11 a5lbexd5 12 .txa7 'iWd7 13 ι~4. and White's chances are prefιtroble. Chekhov-Panchenko. Lenlηgrad 1976) 9lba3.te6 (9 ...:b8!?) ι ο lbc4lbxe4! 11lbxe4 d5 12lbb6 dxc4 13 lbxa8 'iWxa8 14 c3 .te7 15 ιι/) ο-ο 16 'iWa4 'iWcS (16 ... f5!?) 17 "xe4 f5 with sufficient compen"lιΙίοη for the exchange (A.Iva"ov-L.B.Hansen. Gausdal1991); d4) 8 lbd5!? (with an extra move a2-a4. compared to the 7 Q)d5 system) 8 ... lbxd5 9 exd5lL1b8 (f) ... lbe7?! 10 a5! a6 11l'Δc3lbf5 12 .td3 g6 13 ο-ο .tg7 14 .td2!. preparing 15 lba4. with the better prospects for White. LombardyArnason. Reykjavik 1978) 10.te3 ιt6 11lba3lbd7 12lbc4 .te7 13 a5 0·0 with mutual chances; d5) 8 .tc4! a6 (8 ... .te6 9 lbd5 IΣc8 10 ο-ο lbxe4 11 .te3 lbf6 12 1'41 lLIg4 13 :a3 yielded White a cIangerous attack in the game Rie,norsma-Wiersma. Dutch champiCII1ship 1995) 9 lba3 .te6 10 ο-ο IΣc8 1111e1 (11 .td5 .txd5 12lbxd5 lί)xe4 13 f4 lbf6 14 lbc4 lbxd5 15 "xd5lbb4! 16 'iWe4 'iWc7. SemeniIIk-8veshnikov. Odessa 1975. ΟΓ 13lL1c4lbe7!. 8veshnikov, leads to ιιη unclear position) 11 ... lbb4 12 113 i.e7 13 .tb2 ο-ο 14 'iWe2 'iWc7 15

h3 :fe8 16 :tad1. and White maintained a small but clear positional edge ίη Radulov-Neckaf. VrAac 1975. This shows White's methods of fighting for the d5 point. 80. ifBlackavoids 7... a6. White can rnaintain a small edge. Now we corne back to the main line. 8 lDa3

White's most dangerous plan ίη this position consists of the fight for the d5 square (.tf1-c4 and .tc1-g5). Black has two general plans of counterplay: a sharp one (8 ... .tc8-e6. .. .11a8-c8. ...lbc6-d4 and ... d6-d5) and a positional one: ... .tc8-e6. .. ..:ta8-c8. .. ..tf8-e7. ... lbc6-b4. also fighting for the d5 square. He can also rnake use of some additional possibilities (like the tactical trick ...lbf6xe4 and ... d6-d5) ifhe chooses the best order of moves. 8 .ie6 The most common move. fitting both the above-mentioned plans. but there are some other possibilities: 000

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

a) 8 •••tDb4 9 ,i,g5 ,i,e6 - see 8 ... ,i,e6 b) 8 ••• d5 (this looks too daring, but... ) 9 exd5 tDd410 ,i,e3 (10 ,i,c4 ,i,g4 11 f3 ~f5 12 ~d3 ,i,c5!? 13 ~g5 'ifa5 14 ,i,xf5 lbxf5 15 'ifd3 tDd4 16 tDc4 'ifb4!? led to unclear consequences ίη the game Κhol mov-Salai, Bad Bartfeld 1991; besides, Black could have equalized by means of 12 ... lbxd5 13 tDxd5 ,i,xd3!? 14 'ίi'xd3 'ifxd5 15 c3 'ifb3, according to Κholmov) 10 ... ,i,b4!? (10 ... ~c5 11 tDc4 'ife7 12 ,i,d3 ο-ο 13 ο-ο ,i,g4 14 f3 ~h5 15 ~h1 is favourable for White, Κramnik Podlesnik, Sochi 1989) 11 ~xd4 exd4 12 'ifxd4 "e7 + 13 ,i,e2 ο-ο 14 tDc4 ,i,g4 15 lbe3 ~xθ2 16 Φχe2 1:tfe8, and Black obtained enough compensation for the sacrificed material (Kovac-Skrobek, De~in 1978). Still, this gambit has not found new supporters so far; c) 8 ....i.g4!? (an interesting idea to provoke f2-f3) 9 f3 (9 ,i,e2 yίelds White nothing: 9 ... ,i,xe2 10 'ifxe2 d5 11 exd5 lbxd5 12 ο-ο lbxc3 13 bxc3 ,i,c5 with an equal position, Rublevsky-Babula, 1993, or 11 ,i,g5 ,i,b4!) 9 ... ,i,e6 10 ,i,c4 :c8 (10 ...'fIb6!?, for example 11 tDd5 ,i,xd5 12 ,i,xd5 lbb4 13 ,i,b3 d5! 14 exd5 lbbxd5 wίth equal chances, as ίη Tomescu-Vlad, Romania 1995) 11 ο-ο lbb4 12 ,i,xe6 fxe6 13 "e1 ,i,e7 14 ,i,g5 ο-ο 15 :d1 'ifb6+! 16 ,i,e3 'ifc6 17 ,i,f2 :'fe8, and Black has ηο problems (Jansa-Votava, Lazne Bohdanec 1995). According to Sveshnίkov,

10 ,i,c4 is not the best move. 10 ,i,g5 needs practical tests; d) 8 ...,i,e7. Thίs move generally leads to the main line with a simple transposition ofmoves. White can play: d1) 9 ,i,e3 (or 9 lbc4?! tDxe4!) 9 ... ,i,e6 10 tDc4?! (for 10 ,i,c4 - see 8 ... ,i,e6) 10... lbxe4! (the same tήck as ίη the 7... h6line but with an extra tempo for Black) l1lbxe4 d5 12 tDb6 dxe4 13lbxa8 "xa8 14 c3 ο-ο 15 a5 f5 16 'ika4 Φh8 17 ,i,c4 ,i,d7 18 'ifb3 f4 19 ,i,b6 'ife8 20 0-0-0 iLg4 with superb counterchances for Black (A.Ivanov-Andrianov, νίΙηίυΒ 1984); d2) for 9 ,i,c4 ,i,e6 - see the main line 8 ...,i,e6; d3) 9 ,i,g5 lbxe4 (9 ... ,i,e6! 10 ,i,c4 - see 8 ... ,i,e6) 10 lbxe4 (10 ,i,xe7 tDxc3) 10... ,i,xg5 l1lbxd6+ Φe7 12 lbac4 ,i,e6 13 'ti'f3! lbd4 (13 .....c7 14 'ifa3 or 13 ... ,i,d2+ 14 ΦΧd2 ,i,xc4 15 ,i,xc4 "xd6+ 16 Φc1, followed by :a1-a3-e3, is also hardly sufficient) 14 'ii'xb7 + 'ii'd7 15 'iixd7+ ΦΧd7 16 ,i,d3 ,i,e7 (Langier- Κramnik, Guarapuava 1991), and now after 17 tDxf7! ,i,xf7 18 lbxe5 + ~e8 19 0-0-0 White would have maintained the better chances (Κramnίk). Returnίng to 8 ... ,i,e6. 9 ,i,c4 9 ,i,e2 allows 9 ... d5; while the continuation 9 lbc4 ':c8 10 ,i,e3 (10 ,i,g5 leads to the 9 ,i,g5 line) 10 ... lbd4 C10 ... lbb4!? l1lbb6 ':c6 12 tDbd5 'ifa5, Korchnoi) 11 ,i,xd4 ,i,xc4 12 ,i,xc4 ':xc4 13 ,i,e3 'fIc7

Turning off the Roαd 14 ο-ο (Korchnoi-Morovic FernanιΙυΖ, Santiago 1991) leads to θη

.,qual position, ίη which Black .. hould have prevented ~e3-g5 by 14 ... h6!. The most important a1ternative t.o the text move ίβ 9 ~ι5, with ΙΙιο following possibilities for BIack:

α) 9 ....ίi'b6!? 10 :b1 (10 ~xf6 .xb2) 10 ... 'ii'b4 11 ~xf6 gxf6 12 .tu2 (Lau-Pich1er, Germany 1990), ιand now 12 ...:g8 with sufficient (!ounterplay; b) 9 ••.ll)b4!? 10 ~c4 (10 ~xf6 ιιΧΓ6!? 11 ~c4 :c8 - see 9 ...:c8) 10...:c811 b3 ~e712 ~xf6 ~xf6 1:1 ο-ο (Akhsharumova-Semenova, Ινον 1977), and now, instead of 1:1 ... 0-0 14ll)d5! with an initiative Ι'ΟΓ White, Sveshnikov suggests I:J ... :c5; c) 9 ...~e7 10 .txf6 .txf6 11 .lk.c4 tDe7!? (11 ... 0-0 - see 9 .tc4) Ι ~ ο-ο :c8 13 ..d3 ο-ο 14 :fd1 .lk.joξ4 15 f3 ~6+ 16 Φh1.te6, and Ι Jlack held his ground (BrodskyBUllhukov, Sochi 1993);

d) 9...:c8 10 .txf6 (10 liJc4 ll)b4!? 11ll)e3 .te7 12 .te2 ο-ο 13 ο-ο h6 with balanced chances, Geller-Sveshnikov, Erevan 1982) 10 ......xf6 (10 ... gxf6!? 11 ~c4 ll)b4 12ll)d5 f5 13 0-0:g8 14 exf5 1i'g5! with good counterplay, A.IvanovΚhθβθnoν, Minsk 1985) 11 .tc4 (111iJc4ll)b4 12 tDe3 "g6 13 .te2 .te7 14 ο-ο ο-ο 15 ~f3 ll)c6 16 ll)cd5 .tg5 with equalίty, Semeniuk-Timoshchenko, Ν ovosibirsk 1976; besides, 11 ... ll)d4!? 12 liJe3 d5 13 exd5 .tb4 14 ~d3!? needs more investigation) 11 ... ll)d4 12 "d3 d5! 13 .txd5 .txa3 14 :Xa3 :xd5 (after 14 ... b5!? 15 axb5 axb5, threatening 16 ... b4, Black has enough counterplay according to A.lvanov) 15 ll)xd5 (A.IvanovMaίorovas, Parnu 1982), and now A.lvanovana1yses 15 ... ll)xc2+ 16 ~d1 "'e6 (16 .....d8!?; 16... "xf2!? 17 :c3 :xc3 18 "xc3 "d4+! 19 Φc1 'fί'xc3 20 bxc3 ll)a3 21 ll)b6 h5! 22 c4 J:th6 23 c5 :xb6 24 cxb6 ll)c41eads to a drawish endgame) 17 :'c3 ll)d4 18 ll)c7+ :xc7 19 :xc7 ο-ο and Black has a strong attack for the missing exchange. Of course, ίη this lίne White can play 10 .tc4! transposing to the 9 .tc4 variation. Ν ow we come back to that. 9 ... .te7! The most accurate order of moves. 9 ....txc4? 10 tDxc4ll)xe4? doesn't work ίn vίew of 11 .!tJxe4 d5 12 .tg5! f6 13 .txf6 gxf6 14 "xd5! (Galia-E.Griinfeld, Vienna 1946). But 9...:c8 ίβ possible,

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

with the following possibilities for White: a) 10 ο-ο liJb4! (for 10 ....te7 11 .tg5 - see below; while 10 ... .txc4 11 lLJxc4 lLJd4 is answered by 12 'δ'd3!, e.g. 12... tbxc2 13 'δ'χc2 :Xc4 14 .tg5 .te7 15 Wb3 'ii'c8 16 :acl with more than sufficient compensation for the pawn, RadulovEPortisch, Belgrade 1977) 11 "e2 (11 b3 d5, Sveshnikov) 11 .....c7 12 b3 .te7 13 .tb2 ο-ο 14 h3 lLJc6 15 :fdl lLJd4 16 "d3 'ii'c6 WΊth rough equalίty (Lucke-Kuijf, NettetalI992); b) 10 .tg5! .te7 (10...lLJb4!? deserves attention - see the 9 .tg5 lLJb4 lίηθ) 11 ο-ο ο-ο (11 ... lLJd4?! 12 "d3 lLJd7 13 .txe7 "xe7 14 lLJd5, B.Lengyel-Κrasenkow, Budapest 1988, and 11 ... tbxe4?! 12 lLJxe4 d5 13 he7lLJxe714lLJg5! are not quite satisfactory for Black) 12 .txf6 .txf6 13 lLJd5 .tg5 14 c3. Extensive practice has shown that Black can equalize with accurate play, e.g. 14 .. .<.tth8 (14 ... liJe7 is ίη ferior ίη VΊew of 15 "b3!, BalinasCiocaltea, Nice 1974) 15 'δ'θ2 (15 .ta2 lLJe7) 15 ... lLJe7 (15 ... f5 16 lLJb6!) 16 :fdl (16 tbxe7 'δ'Χθ7 17 1:tadl is not clear οη account of 17 ... f5!, Votava-Babula, Czechoslovakίa 1992) 16 ... :'c5 (16 ... f5?! 17 lLJb6!) 17 b4 :c6 18 a5 .txd5 19 .txd5lLJxd5 20 :xd5 :'xc3 21lLJc4 'ikc7 22lLJxd6 g6 (Rublevsky-Chekhov, USSR championship, Moscow 1991). Returning to 9....te7 (D). 10 0-0

The idea behind 9 ... .te7 ίΒ that 10 .tg5 is now met by 10 ... lLJxe4! IllLJxe4 d5, e.g. 12 .txe7 Φxe7! 13 .td3 (13lί)g5 dxc4 14 'δ'h5 "a5+ 15 c3 .td5!) 13 ... dxe4 14 .txe4 'ii'a5+ 15 'δ'd2 "xd2+ 16 ΦΧd2 :hd8+ 17 ~θ3 f5 WΊth initiative for Black (Gluzman-Vaίser, Βθτη 1992). 10 .te3 is also harmless: 10...:c8 11 ο-ο ο-ο 12 'ike2lί)b4 13 1:tfdl .txc4 (13 ... '-c7!? 14 b3 h6 with the idea of ... 'ii'c7 -c6 and ... d6-d5) 14 lLJxc4 lLJxc2 15 'iνxc2 :xc4 16 'δ'b3 'iνc7 17 .tg5 '-c6 (Rytov-Κlaman, USSR 1973), and Black's position ίΒ more favourable than ίη Radulov-EPortisch . 10 ••• ο-ο 10•••.txc4?! 11 lLJxc4 lί)xθ4 12 lLJxe4 d5 ίΒ rίsky: 13 '-g4 g614 :dl f5 15 '-g3 fxe4 16 .te3 d4 17lLJxe5 .td618lί)xc6.txg3 19lLJxd8 dxe3 20 fxg3 :xd8 21 :xd8+ ~xd8 22 Iιel, and White has a clear edge, as ίη Rublevsky-Sveshnikov, USSR championship, Moscow 1991 (ίΙ lustrative game Nr.2). However, 10•••:c8 is satisfactory: 11 :el lί)b4 12 b3 ο-ο 13 .tb2 '-d7 14

Turning off the Roαd 'ιΜ2 lΔh5 15 lΔθ2 lΔc6 16 .i.xe6 fxe6 17 lΔc4 :'cd8 18 a5 '-e8 19

7 lM.5 8 exd5

25 lillι:d5

'-e3 '-g6 with good counterplay (Κholmoν-Belikov, Moscow 1992). 11 :'el If now 11 .i.g5 then 11 ....i.xc4 12lΔxc4lΔxe4! 13 -'-xθ7lΔxθ7 14 lΔxθ4 d5 with equality (HowellNunn, Hastings 1994/95). 11 ..• :'c8 12 b3 lM.4

13lΔd5?! lΔxd5 14 exd5.i.f5 15 c3 b5! 16 cxd4 bxc4 17 lΔxc4 exd4 proνed faνourable for Black ίη Gipslis-Gurgenidze, Tbilisi-Sukhumi 1977; 13 .i.b2 was better, with a complicated, roughlyequal position. Generally speaking, 7 a4 ίβ not considered dangerous for Black and remains quite a rare guest ίη top toumaments.

Section 3 7lΔd5

(1 e4 c5 2lΔf3lOO6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lΔxd4 lΔf8 5 lOO3 e5 6 lM.b5 d6)

The last phrase of the preνious section can be said about this system, too. White directly modifies the pawn structure to Black's benefit. True, the b5 knight now obtains the c3 square, and White can hope to make use of his pawn adνantage οη the queenside. But Black's mobile central pawns become a factor of great importance. 7 lΔd5 ίβ usually adopted by playθτβ who don't want to fight for an opening adνantage, but hope to outplay their opponents ίη the middlegame. Το aνoid that, you should solidly master the strategί cal ideas of play ίη this ιiηθ. 8 ... lΔb8 This is Black's most accurate reply. 8 ...lΔM?! failed ίη the game Mestel-Delaney (Bath 1987): 9 c3 lΔa6 10 .i.e3 f5 11 lΔxa7! f4 12 lΔxc8 fxe3 13 .i.b5+ ~f7 14 fxe3 '-xc8 15 0-0+ ~g8 16 'ii'f3 Ίlc7 17 :'f2 'ii'e7 18 :'af1 with an overwhelming attack for White.

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

8 •••lDe7 is an important alternative to the text move. However, extensive practice has shown that White can seize the initiative by making use of the unharmonious position of Black's knight. Here are some variations: a) 9 c4 (starting the queenside pawn attack) al) 9 •••a6? 10 'iia4! axb5 11 'ifxa8 lDf5 12 cxb5 lDd4 13 .td3 .te7 14 .te3 ο-ο 15 :cl is clearly ίn White's favour (Oll-Herczeg, Bua31) 13 c;t>hl lDh4 14 f4 f5 15 dapest 1989); 'iνc2 e4 16 .te2 g5!? 17 fxg5 .txg5 a2) 9 •••f51! led to aπ unclear ρο 18 b4 .tf6 (Mainka-Sakaev, Dortsition ίη Nagy-Forgacs (Budapest mund 1991); 1980) after 10 .tg5 h6 11 c5 hxg5 a32) 13 a4.tg5 (13 ... a5 14lDb5 12 lDxd6+ c;t>d7 13 "iί'a4+ ι:Jί;c7 14 lDh4 is risky ίη view of 15 f41) 14 'ifa5+ b6 15 cxb6+ axb6 16 'iνxa8 a5 .txc115 'ifxcllDd4 16 'iνθ3 g5 'iνxd6. 10 'iνa4!? ι:Jί;f7 11 'ifb4 and 17 b4 f5 18 f3 .td7 19lDe2 f4 20 10 c5!? deserve closer investiga- 'iff2lDf5 with the idea of21 ... lDe3 tion. This lίne must be dubious (Westerίnen-Κirpichnikov, Jurfor Black. mala 1978); a3) 9 •••lDf5 (this knight now a33) 13 b4 lDh4 14 f4 (14 .te3 obstructs Black's kingside coun- f5 15 f3 g5 16 :'cl f4 17 .tf2 I1f7 18 terplayWΊth ... f7-f5) 10 .td3 .te7 lDa4 :g7 19lDb6 g4! brings Black (10 ... a6?! 11 'ifa4! is ίη White's fa- a strong attack, H.Olafsson-Alekvour; 10 ... g611 "iί'a4 .td712 .txf5 seev, corr 1988) 14 ... exf4 15 J..xf4 gxf5 13 "iί'b4 'ilνb8 14 .th6!? a5 - lbg6 16 .txg6 hxg6 17 c5 dxc5 18 d6 14 ... .txh6? 15 lDxd6+ Φf8 16 .tf6 19 lDd5 cxb4 20 :cl (NunnlDxf5+ - 15 'iνa3 .txb5 16 .txf8 Wockenfuss, Haifa 1976) 20....te6! c;t>xf8 17 cxb5 leads to a position (Sveshnikov); that is slίghtly better for White, Ιη all of these variations comY.Dundua) 11 ο-ο a6 (to 11 ... 0-0 plicated, roughly equal positions White can reply 12 f4, for example arίse. However. .. 12 ... lDd4 13lbxd4 exd4 14 'iνc2 h6 a34) 13 f4! exf4 14 .txf4 lbh4 15 'iνe2 .tf6 16 'iνe4 g6 17 'iνf3 :e8 15 'iνc2 lDg6 16 .te3 (or 16 J..g3 18 .td2 ι:Jί;g7, Κholmov-Vasiukov, .th4 17 .txh4 'iνxh4 18 J..xg6 hxg6 Zalaegerszeg 1977, and now 19 f51 19 'iνθ4 with a slίght edge for with a small edge) 12 lDc3 ο-ο, White, Κholmov-Dvoiris, Barnaul 1988) 16 ... .td7 17 .td4 ':c8 18 andnow:

Turning off the Road :'ael f5 19 ~β4 b5 20 ~b6 i.f6 21 'Wf2 bxc4 22 ~xc8 cxd3 23 ~xd6 'fIc7 24 .i.xf6 "'xd6 25 .i.c3 'fIxd5 26 "'d4 with a mateήal advantage for White (Fiensch-Lew, corr 1989). Instead of ...~7-f5-h4-g6 Black should immediately play a4} 9 ••• ~ι6! 10 "a4 (others I1re not dangerous, for example 10 h4 a6 11 h5 axb5 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 cxb5 i.e7 14 .i.d3 i.f5 with equal chances, Speelman-Amman, Bern 1977,or 10 i.e2 i.e7 11 ο-ο ο-ο 12 113 a6 13 ~3 f5 14 b4 i.g5 15 c5 i.xcl 16 :xcl ~f4 with counterΡΙβΥ; Adams-Amura, Buenos Aίres 1991, or 10 .i.d3 i.e7 11 ο-ο ο-ο 12 i.e3 a6 13 ~c3 f5 14 f3 i.d7 15 b4 .i.f6 16 :cl e4! 17 fxe4 f4 with excellent compensation for the pawn, L.B.Hansen-Peicheva, Copenhagen 1990, or 10 a4 i.e7 11 a5 a6 12 ~c3 ο-ο with mutual chances) 10•••i.d7 11 "'b4 "'b8 (11 ... .i.f5 12 .i.e3! b6 13 a4 and 11 ....i.xb5 12 "'xb5+ "'d7 13 a4 are favourable for White, according to Sveshnikov) 12 a4 (after 12 .te3 b6 13 i.e2 i.e7 14 ο-ο ο-ο 15 a4, Κholmov-Fίlipenko, Jurmala 1981, 15 ... f5!, Sveshnίkov, or 13 h4 115 14 ~3 i.e7 15 g3, Grosar-Κuίjf, Mitropa Cup 1993, 15 ... h5 16 ~ ο-ο! with the idea of 17 "'xb6 'fIxb6 18 .i.xb6 :fb8 or 17 .i.xb6? 114 18 "'b4 :a7! and 19 ...:b7 aηβΙΥΒίΒ by T.Horvath - Black is not worse) 12•••i.e7 13 i.e2 ο-ο 14 a5 (D) Now, instead of 14•••a6 15 tl)c3 ~h4?! 16 ο-ο 'WcS 17 f4!? which led

βη initiative for White (Κhol mov-Filίpenko, Chelίabinsk 1991),

Black should have played 14•••f5!? with mutual chances (P.Blatny). b} 9 c3! This quiet but very cunnίng move badly restricts Black's possibilities while White's b5 knight ίΒ going to take the route ~b5-a3c4: bl) 9 ••.f5?! ίΒ risky ίη view of 10 "'a4! Φf'711 ~,e.g. 11...~d5 12 i.c4 i.e6 13 "'b3 tl)f4 14 i.xf4 d5 15 i.e2! exf4 16 ~4 (T.HorvathVegh, Zanka 1978), or 11... lDg6 12 h4 a6?! 13 i.g5 'fId7 14 h5 (Veselovsky-Zlotnik, Moscow 1978), or 11 ... tl)g8 12 .lLe3 f4 13 .id2 β6 14 ~β3 ~f6 15 g3 fxg3 16 hxg3 i.f5 17 i.g5 (Hίibner-Garcia Palermo, Germany 1990), with an advantage for White ίη each case. b2} 9 •.•~ιβ?! 10 "'a4! .id7 11 'Wc4! (this ίβ the point!) 11 ... .lLxb5 12 1Ifxb5+ 'Wd713 a4 a614 9xd7+ 'ίPxd7 15 a5 f5 16 f3 ':'c8 17 Jιe3 leads to a favourable endgame for White (Ermenkov-Suradiradja, ΑΙ bena 1977);

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

b3) 9 •••lLIf5 (alas, this unfortunate move ίΒ probably forced) 10 a4 (10 'iί'θ4?! ίΒ now answered by 10... ~d7 11 ~d3 a6! 12 ~xf5 ~xb5 13 'iί'g4 g6 with θη excellent game for Black, Grosman-S.Salov, Beltsi 1977; 10 ~d3 ~θ7 11 ο-ο a6 12 lLIa3 ο-ο 13 lLIc4 b5 14 lLIe3 lLIxe3 15 ~xθ3 f5 ίΒ also good for Black, Cuijpers-Ikonnikov, Clichy 1993; finally, 10 g4? lDh4 11 "'a4 ~d7 12 'iί'b4 doesn't work due to 12 ... a6! 13lL1xd6+? ~xd614 'iί'xd6lL1f3+!, and White maintained a certain P.Kondratiev) 10••• ~e7 (10 ... g6 edge (Ye Jiangchuan-Novik, Mosyields White the better prospects cow 1992). after 11 ~d3!, e.g. 11 ... ~g7 12 ο-ο Mter 8 ... lLIb8 the black knight ο-ο 13 'iί'b3! l:te8 14 l:te1 b6? has better prospects (for example, 14 ... ~d7 or 14 ... ~f8, with a small by means of ...lLIb8-d7-ffi, or e5, or advantage for White, was better, c5), and Black's position immediaccordingto Yudasin-15 a5! a616 ately becomes much more pleasaxb6 I:tb8 17 lLIa3! I:txb6 18 'iί'θ4!, ant. and White has the upper hand, 9 c4 Yudasin-Κramnik, third match White also has another plan: to game, Wijk aan Zee 1994) 11 ~d3 provoke ... a7-a6 and then try to ο-ο (or 11 ... lLIh4 12 ο-ο lLIg6 13 f4 ΒθίΖθ the b6 square. However, this lLIxf4 14 ~xf4 exf4 15 I:txf4 ο-ο 16 doesn't succeed ifBlack plays ac'iί'c2 g6 17 1:taf1 with a slight edge, curately, e.g. 9 ~e3 a6 10 lDa3lL1d7 Cuijpers-Simic, Dieren 1990) 12 11 'iί'd2 ~θ7 12 ια4 ο-ο 13 ~θ2 f5 ο-ο lLIh4! (this knight should be 14 f4 exf4 15 ~xf4 ια5 16 ~f3 b5 transferred to g6) 13 Ι4! (other- 17lL1a5 ~ίO 18lL1c61Ie8+ 19 Φf1 wise 13 ... f5) 13 ••• a6 14lL1a3 exf4 'iί'c7 (Oll-Jamieson, Adelaide 1990) (but not 14... f5 15 lLIc4lL1g6 16 g3! or 9 a4 ~θ7 10 ~θ3 a6 11lDa3lL1d7 exf4 17 gxf4 .td7 18 a5 with a 12 lLIc4 a5 followed by ... b7-b6, clear pull,I.Kuznetsov-Pronitsyn, ... lLId7-c5, ...~c8-a6 etc. Russia 1992) 15 ~XΙ4lL1gβ (D) 9 •.. a6 16 ~xιβ! (16 ~g3lL1e5! 17 Φh1 Black needn't hurry with this 'iί'c7 18 ~xθ5 dxe5 19 lLIc4 ~d6, move. 9 •••lίXI7 ίΒ quite possible beand Black had equalized ίη the cause 10 Μ?! a6 11 'iί'a4 ~θ712 c5 game Κholmov-Novik, Bratislava enables Black to create a strong 1990) 16 ... hxg6 17 ια4 'iί'c7 18 b3! counterattack after 12 ... 0-0 13 ~f5 19 a5 ~θ4 20 l:te1 f5 21 'iί'd2, cxd6 ~ίO 14 ~θ3 lLIb6! 15 'iί'a5

Tuτning off the Roαd

ζί)χd5 16 tΔc7 tΔxθ3 17 fxe3 1i'xd6 18 tΔxa8 e4! (S.Κiselev-V.lvanov; Moscow 1986). Or9 ...~e710 c5!? ο-ο 11 ~θ2 tΔa6! 12 cxd6 ~xd6 I'ollowed by 13 ... tΔc7, and Black has ηο problems. Of course, White

can play 'normally', and then, afΙΟΓ the eventual ... a7-a6 tΔb5-c3 we obtain positions examined below. If Black persistently avoids ... a7-a6, he can get into trouble, O.g. 9 ... ~θ7 10 ~d3 ο-ο 11 ο-ο ~d7?! 12 'ii'c2! g6 13 ~h6 :e8 14 f4! ο6?! (too late!) 15 f5 axb5 16 fxg6 with a strong attack for White ίη Chandler-D.Cramling, lηηsbruck 1977. 10 tΔc3 Mter 10 'ii'a4 tΔd7 11 c5 :b8! (but not 11 ... dxc5 12 d6 axb5 13 'i'xa8 c4 14 ~θ3 ~xd6 15 0-0-0 !.Μ 16 :d5!, and White is οη top, Gorelov-Shneider, Moscow 1977) 12 tΔxd6+ ~xd6 13 cxd6 ο-ο 14 !.e3 tΔf6 15 ~o7 :a8 16 ~c5 b6 17 ~a3 ~b7 18 :d1 (18 d7 b5, and White can't win the exchange) 18 ... b5 19 'ii'b3 'ii'b6 20 ~θ2 ~xd5! Black recaptured the pawn with οη excellent position (Westeήηeη Κramnik, Gausdal1992). 10 ••• ~e7 It is risky for Black to delay his development, for example 10•••tΔd7 11 ~θ2 g6?! 12 ο-ο ~g7 13 tΔθ4! 'i'e7 14 'ii'a4 f5 15 ~g5 1i'f8 16 f4 h6 17 ~h4 exf4 18 :xf4 ~θ5 19 :af1! with an overwhelming attack for White (Gufeld-Ivanovic, Sochi 1979). Ιη the game Veselovsky-Chekhov (Moscow 1978)

Black equalized after 10..•~" 11 i.d3 i.xd3 12 'ii'xd3 J.e7 13 ο-ο ο-ο 14 i.e3 tΔd7 15 b4 1:I.c8 16 1:I.fd1 f5 but after 11 ~e2 Black still must reveal the idea of his tenth move. 11 ~e2 The most common plan. Alternatives are: a) 11 ~e3 ο-ο 12 'i'd2 f5 13 f3 (13 g3?! tΔd7 14 f4 exf4 15 gxf4 i.h4+ 16 'iti>d1 i.f6 17 Φc2lί)c5 is favourable for Black, ArbakovGorelov; Uzhgorod 1988) 13 ...lM7 14 i.d3 (14 i.e2!? ~h4+!? 15 g3 i.f6) 14... b6 15 ο-ο g5 16 b4 e4! (this typical pawn sacήfice ίΒ apΡrΟΡήate when White's bishop ίΒ οη d3) 17 fxe4 f4 18 i.d4 i.f6 with good compensation for the pawn as ίη I.Kuznetsov-Golodaev; USSR 1991; b) 11 i.d3 ο-ο 12 ο-ο Ι5 13 f3, and now Black has two plans: b1) 13••. ~g5 (a typical method of exchanging the dark-squared bishops) 14 'ii'c2 ~xc1 15 :axc1 g6 16 'iti>h1 tΔd7 17 b4 b6 18 'ii'b3 (Kobalia-Annakov;Moscow1994), and after 18 ... 'ii'f6 19 tΔa4 :b8 Black has ηο reason to worry; b2) 13••• tΔd7 14 J.e3 g5! 15 "'c2 e4! (the same pawn sac!) 16 fxe4 f4 17 e5?! tΔxθ5 (17 ... fxe3!?) 18 i.xh7+ 'iti>h8 19 ~d4 ~f6 20 tΔθ2 tΔg4 with an excellent position for Black (Chandler-Zsu.Polgar, Βίθl 1987). Back to 11 ~θ2. 11 ο-ο 12 0-0 f5

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

12... ~d7 yields White the additional possibility 13 .i.e3. Still, this is not too painful for Black. He can play 13 ... .i.g5!? or 13 ... f5 14 f3 f4 (14 ... g5 15 b4 e4 is not so strong now: 16 fxe4 f4 17 .i.d4 .i.f6 18 c5 .i.xd4+ 19 ~xd4 ~θ5, Κagan-Gutman, Netanya 1983, 20 ~a4!, and White is better, ν.Liber zon) 15 .i.f2 :f6! 16 ~4 :h6 17 b4 ~θ8 18 g4 fxg3 19 .i.xg3 ~f6 with good counterplay (FominaUmanskaya, Kutaisi 1983). Mter 12 ... f5 a critical position arises.

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

13 Ι4 Or: a) 13 a41! ~d7 14 a5 .i.f6 15 .i.d2 e4! 16 ~a4 .i.e5! (pay attention to this move: Black's bishop, and not the knight, takes the e5 square!) 17 f4 exf3 18 1:xf3 1:b8 19 .i.e3 ~f6! 20 h3 ~e4 with a strong attack for Black (Κagan Geller, Skara 1980). Α good illustration of Black's plans! b) 13 f3.i.g5! 14 a3 ~d7 15 b4 b6 16 .i.xg5 'ίItxg5 17 'iVcl 'iVd8 (17 ...'iVf13!?), and a draw was agreed ίn the game Perez-Ochoa, Havana 1992; c) 13 b4 a5!? (13 ... ~d7 14.i.b2 ~f6!? 15 'ίItb3 Φh8 16 1:adl f4 17 c5 .i.f5, followed by ... 'iVe8-g6, also yields Black good counterchances, Judycki-Bielczyk, Poland 1971) 14 b5 ~d7 15 ~a4 b6 16 1:bl 'ίItc7 17 f4 .i.f6 18 ΦhΙ ~c5 with good counterchances (Florjanl!ic-Ankerst, Bled 1992); d) 13 a3 ~d7 (13 ... .i.f6!? 14 b4 e4) 14 b4 e4 (or 14 ... .i.f6 15 'iVb3 Φh8 16 ΦhΙ b6 17 f3 .i.g5 18 .i.b2 1:b8 19 1:adl ~f6 with good counterplay, as in Adams-Κing, London 1990) 15 .i.e3 .i.f6 (after 15 ... f4 16 .i.d4 f3?! 17 gxf3 exf3 18 .i.xf3 .i.f6 19 .i.g2 .i.e5 20 ~e2! 'iVh4 21 f4! White has parried Black's premature attack, Yudasin-Cs.Horvath, Leningrad 1989) 16 .i.d4 .i.e5! 17 .i.xe5 ~xe5 18 'iVd4 .i.d7 19 c5 'ίItf6 20 1:fdl 1:fc8 21 1:acl 1:c7 22 h3 'iVe7 23 Φf1 1:e8 with a complicated, roughly balanced ρο sition (Yudasin-Κharlov, USSR

Turning off the Roαd

championship, Moscow 1991 illustI'αtive gαme Ντ.4);

ο)

13 :bllΔd7 14 b4 e4 15 i.e3 ~d4 ~e5 (the same plan ΙιΚβίη!) 17 c5 'iνf6 18 ~xe5 tbxe5 19 c6! (Ye Jiangchuan-Chekhov, Boίjing 1991), when, instead of 19 ... tbf3 +? (exchanging his most valuable piece!), Black should tIuve played 19 ... :f7 or 19 ... Φh8 with a good position (ν.Chekhον). Returning to 13 f4. 13 ••• ~f6 Black can even play 13 ...tbd7 14 'iνc2 (14 g3!) 14 ... exf4 15 ~xf4 ..tg5!?, e.g. 16 g3 ~xf4 17 gxf4 Wh4 18 "'d2 tbf6 19 ~f3 ~d7 20 IΣae1 b5! with βη excellent posiΙίοη (Krasenkow-Tsesarsky, Leningrad 1983) or 16 ~xd6 'iνb6+ 17 ι:η tbxc5 18 ~xf8 tbb3+ 19 ~h1 l;ί)xβ1 20 :xa1 ~xf8 with mutual chances (Tsesarsky). 14 g3! Mter 14 'iνc2 (14 fxe5 ~xe5 is harmless) 14 ...tbd7! 15 ~hl (15 Wxf5? exf4 16 'iνe6+ ~h8 17 'iνxd6 ..te5 18 'iVa3 'iνh4 19 ~f3 ~d4+ 20 .,ι.h1 :f6 is clearly ίη Black's favour but 15 g3!, transposing to the main line, is better) Black can play 15 ... exf4! (15 ... g6 is less convincing: 16 g3! :e8 17 ~d2 b6 18 :ae1 ~g7 19 b3 :a7 20 a4, and White eventually seized the initiaLive, Tal-Tseshkovsky, Riga 1979) 16 ~XΙ4 (D) 16...~OO! (exchangίng the darkHquared bishops; 16 ... tbe5 is conHiderably inferior, for example 17 .te3 b6 18 b4 - preparing tbc3-a4

.11'6 16

and c4-c5 - 18 ... tbxc4 19 ~xc4 20 tba4! b5 21 tbb6 with ίη itiative for White, Yudasin-de la Villa, Pamplona 1992/93) 17 ~d3 (17 b4 b6 or 17 ......f6) 17 ... g6 18 :ae1 b6 19 tbe2 'iνf6 20 'iνd2 ~xf4 21 'iνxf4 tbe5, and the initiative belongs to Black (Pablo-Andrianov, match Barcelona-Moscow 1982). Once again Ι would like to draw your attention to the fact that the first black piece to take the e5 square should be his bishop and not his knight! The arrangement ~e5, tbf6 is more harmonious than tbe5, .tf6. The black knight should come to e5 only after the exchange ofthe dark-squared bishops! However, the text move (14 g3) deprives Black ofthe e5 square ίη general and makes him look for other plans of counterplay. The seventh match game YudasinΚramnik (Wijk aan Zee 1994) saw 14 ... tlJd7 15 'iVc2 (15 ~h1!? ~c5!. Yudasin) 15 ... exf4 16 gxf4 i.d4+ 17 ~h1 tlJc5 18 ~f3 ~d7 19 :b1 b5 20 b4 tbe4 21 tbxe4 fxe4 22 'iνc7

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

~xe4 bxc4, and the complίcations eventually led to equality - see ίΙ lustrαtive gαme Nr.5). According to Yudasin, Black has many other ways to obtain sufficient counterchances, e.g. 17 ... lί)ffi 18 'iVd3 ~b6 19 ~e3 lί)g4 or 16 ... lί)c5 (instead of 16 ...~d4+) 17 ~f3 :e8.

8 θ lί)a3

Section 4 7~g5

ι!Μ3 t006 3 d4 cxd4 4 lί)c3 e5 6 lί)db5 d6) ~g5

e4 c5 2

lί)xd4

lM6 5 7

The most popular move - White fights for control of the d5 point. a6 7 ••• Black should take the opportunity to oust White's knight to the edge of the board. 7 ••• ~e6 (proposed by a Moldavian player Chebanenko) is not quite satisfactory ίη view of 8lί)d5 ~xd5 (or 8 ...:c8 9 ~xfδ gxfδ 10 c3 a6 11lOO3 b5 12 lί)c2 with an edge for White, R.Rodriguez-Κestler, Haifa 1976) 9 exd5 lί)e7 10 c3 (10 c4!?, e.g. 10 ... a6 11 lί)c3 lί)g6 12 ~xf6 gxf6 13 ~d3 with a clear plus, Hellers-Delaney, Νονί Sad 1990) 10 ... a6 11 'iVa4! Φd7 (11 ... axb5? 12 ~xb5+ lί)c613 dxc6) 12 lί)a3+ b5 13 'iVc2 with good attacking chances for White (Sveshnikov). 8~xf8

The rest of the book ΜΗ be devoted to White's best reply 8 lί)a3t. The immediate capture οη f6 (examined ίη this section) extends Black's possibilities.

Νow Black can play θ .••Μ transposing to the main lίne of the Βί cilian Sveshnikov (see Chapters 4-7). However, he has some good altematives. θ...

D•••d5 (the

Ι5 Pelίkan

variation) leads to a slίghtly better endgame for White: 10 lί)xd5 (10 'iVxd5 ~e6! or 10 exd5 ~xa3 11 bxa3 'iVa5 12 'iVd2 lί)d4 13 ~d3 ~h3! 14 Φf1 :c8, Sax-T.Horvath, Balatonszeplak 1967, ίΒ quite satisfactory for Black) 10 ... ~xa3 11 bxa3 ~e6 (or 11 ... :g8 12 g3 f5 13 exf5 ~xf5 14 ~g2 'iVa5 + 15 c3 with a small edge, as recommended by Suetin) 12 ~c4! 'iVa5+ 13 'iVd2 'iVxd2+ (13 ... 0-0-0?! 14 :d1 'iVxa3 15 ο-ο :hg8 16 'iVe3! 'iVxe3 17 fxe3 is favourable for White, Fischer-Rossetto, Buenos Aires 1960) 14 Φxd2 0-0-0 15 :ad1!, though after 15 ... f5 16 f3 :hg8 17 g3 fxe4 (17 ... Φb8?! 18 Φe3 lί)d4 19 ~b3 fxe4 20 fxe4 f5 21lί)e7! with a clear advantage

Tuming offthe Roαd for White, Stein-Benko, Caracas 1970) 18 fxe4 ~a5! 19 ~c3 ~c4 20 ~xc4 1:g4 21 1:he1 f5 a draw is not far off (Sveshnikov). The text move leads to sharp ρο Kitions with good counterchances for Black. 10 "h5 Other moves are dangerous ... for White! a) 10 .ic4 "g5 (10 ... 1:a7!?, A.Karpov, 11 .id5!?) 11 g3 ~d4!? 12 ~d5?! fxe4 13 ~7+ ~d8 14 t;)xa8 .ig4 with a strong attack for Black; b) 10 .id3 :g8 11 ~4 (11 g3 Γ4!?) 11 ...:xg2 12 ~θ3 J:xf2! 13 ~xf2?! (13 h41:f4 14 "h5, Sveshnikov) 13.....h4+ 14 ~g1 (14 ~θ2 t;)d4+ 15 ~d2 "f2+ etc.) 14 ... d5! 15 ~xd5 f4 16 "e1 "g5+ 17 ~f2 tiΊd4 with decisive threats (Szircke-Burke, corr 1985); c) 10 exf5.ixf5 11 lα4 (11.id3 .te6 12 .ic4 .ig713 .ixe6 fxe6 14 l{)e4 d5 15 "g4 "e7 16 ~g5 .if6! 17 h4 h6 18 ~h3 0-0-0 with an ίη itiative for Black, Minic-Ur!ica, Athens 1976, ΟΓ 15 "h5+ ~θ716 ~g5 "f8 with mutual chances, Sveshnikov) 11 ... .ie6 (11 ... ~d4!? 12 ~θ3 .ie6 13 g3!, Boleslavsky) 12 ~θ3 .ih6 13 .id3?! (13 ~d5!?) 13 ... d5! 14lΔf5 .if8 15 "g4 1i'b6, and Black seized the initiative (Torre..Jamieson, Haifa 1976); d) 10 lOO4 b5 11 ~ (or 11lΔd2 .te6 12 .id3 fxe4 13 .ixe4 d5 14 .tf3 .ig7 15 .ig4 ο-ο, and Black ίΒ better, Zagorovsky-Timoshchenko, Voronezh 1973) 11 ... b4 12 lΔcd5

fxe4 13 a3 (after 13 "h5 .ig7! 14 .ic4 ο-ο 15 ο-ο ~5! White has ηο compensation for the pawn, according to Sveshnikov) 13 ... b3!? (13 ... bxa3!?) 14 c3 ~g7 15 1Wxb3 ο-ο 16 "b6 .id7 17 "xd8 :fxd8 18 ~b6 1:tab8 19 lΔxd7 1:xd7 20 0-0-0 i.h6 with good counterchances for Black (Zaichik-Chekhov, Minsk 1978). Back to 10 "h5 (D).

10 b5! The complications after the Γθ ply 10.. od5!? are rather favourable for White because of his advantage in development: 11 ο-ο-ο! (11 exd5? .ixa3 12 bxa3 "'a5 and 11 ~xd5 .ixa3 12 bxa3 "a5 + 13 c3 .ie6 yίeld Black good attacking chances; 111Δc4!? doesn't work ίη view of 11... d4! 120-0-0 b5!, according to G.Botterill and W.Hartston) 11 ....ixa3 12 bxa3 (12 ~d5!? .id6 13 exf5, κ.Lerner) 12 ... fxe4 (12 ... lΔd4 13 lΔxd5! i.e6 14 .i.c4 1:c8 15 1:xd4! exd4 16 exf5 with a strong attack, Hamilton-Davies, Australia 1975, ΟΓ even 13 'i'h6! 000

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

:f8 14 exd5 with a

clear advantage, Boleslavsky; if 12 ... d4 then 13 ~c4 fie7 14 l'Δd5! fixa3+ 15 Φb1 with a strong attack) 13l'Δxd5 i.e6 14 J.c4 :c8 15 tDf4, winning material without suffιcient compensation for Black (Sveshnikov). The text move ίβ stronger. Ν ow White ίΒ practically forced to sacrifιce a piece. 11 l'Δaxb5 11l'Δd5 fxe4 and 11 exf5 b4 12 i.c4 :a7 13 l'Δab5 axb5 14 l'Δxb5 1:ιb7 (8veshnikov) are clearly favourable for Black. 11 axb5 12 i.xb5 ~b7 13 J.c4 If 13 exf5, then 13 ... fia5 fol10wed by 13... 0-0-0 (Gligoric, V.80kolov). 13 fixf5 J.g7 140-0-0 ο-ο 15 ~xc6 i.xc6 16 :d3 ~d7 17 fih5 ~e61eads to a pleasant Ροβί tion for Black, too (Levchenkov8veshnikov, Jurmala 1969). fif6 13 ••• 13•••fic7!? ίΒ also interesting, according to 8veshnikov. 14 l'Δd5 fig6 15 ~7+ Φd8 16 fixg6 fxg6 17 llmι8 i.xa8 18 J.d5 Φc7 (D) This kind of endgame ίβ typical for the variations with a piece sacrifιce οη b5. Black's two pieces can successfully fιght against White's rook and pawns (Tarrasch..Janowski, Vienna 1898). 80, after White plays 8 ~xfl:) it ίβ not dίfficώt for Black to obtain

good counterplay. That' s why this move has practically gone out of use.

Section 5 8 tDa3 - Larsen system

(1 e4 c5 2 lM3 l'Δc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l'Δxd4 l'ΔΙ6 5 l'Δc3 e5 6 l'Δdb5 d6 7 ~ι5 a6) 8 l'Δa3

Black's most common reply ίβ now 8 ...b5! (restricting the mobility of White's a3 knight). Ιη this section we deal with all the other moves.

Turning off the Roαd 8 ... .te6 This line was first applied by Ιarsen ίη his game against Robatsch (Halle 1963). Other moves ΙΙΓθ ίnfeήοr:

ιι) 8 ... d5?! 9 lΔxd5 .txa3 10 bxa3 'iί'a5+ 11 'ii'd2 'iνxd2+ 12 ~xd2lΔxd5 13 exd5lΔd4 140-0-0 ~f5 15 c3 ':c8 16 Φb2lΔb5 17 I:.e1 f6 18 [4 ο-ο 19 c4 with a clear advantage for White (Sax-Velimirovic, Rio de Janeiro 1979); b) 8 ....te7 9lΔc4! ο-ο!? (9 ... b5? ίΗ poor ίη view οί 10 .txf6! gxffi 11 tne3; while 9 ... lΔd4 10.txf6 .i.xffi Ι 1 lΔd5 .i.e6 12 lΔcb6 .txd5 13 .i.xd5 .i.g5 14 c3 also yields White Lhe better chances, Isupov-Guseiηογ, USSR 1976) 10 .txffi .txffi 11 'iνxd6 'iltxd6 12 lΔxd6 .te6 13 lΔc4 i.g5 14 lΔθ3, and Black doesn't have enough compensation for the missing pawn (SigurjonssonG.ROder, Germany 1985). 9 lΔc4 9 .i.c4?! b5 10 .td5 ':c8 11 i.xc6 + ':xc6 12 .txffi "xffi 13 lΔd5 'iί'g6 is favourable for Black (Simo-Rovid, Hungary 1991). 9 lΔd5!? .i.xd5 (9 .....a5+!? 10 .td2 'iνd8) 10 .txffi! 'ii'a5+ 11 c3 gxffi (11 ....i.xe4? is ήskΥ due to 12lΔc4 'iνc7 13 .txg7! .txg7 14 lΔxd6+ Φθ7 15 lΔxθ4 but 11 ....te6 12 .th4 d5 is possible) 12 exd5 lΔθ7 13 lΔc4 "c5 also yields Black good counterplay. The most common alternative to the text move is 9 i.xf6. This usually leads to a simple transposition of moves; but there are

some variations of independent significance: a) 9..:fί'xf6 10 lΔc4 'i'd8 11 t003 (11lΔd5!?) 11 ... .i.e7 12lΔcd5 i.g5 13 c3 ο-ο 14 i.e2 g6 15 ο-ο ί5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 f4 .i.h6 18 ΦhΙ tΔθ7 19 .i.c4 with a small edge for White (Moldovan-Rogozenko, Bucharest 1993). This line needs more tests; b) 9 ... gxf6 10 .tc4 (10 lΔd5 :c8 11 c3 .th6 12 'ii'h5 .tg7 13 lίJc4 .i.xd5 14 exd5 lΔe7 15 lΔθ3 'i'b6 leads to a position with mutual chances, as in Van Riemsdijk-Quinteros, Sao Paolo 1977; besides, 10.....a5+!? 11 c3 .i.xd5 is possible - see 9lΔd5; for 10 lΔc4! :c8 - see 9 lΔc4) 10...b5 (10 ...:c8 11 i.xe6 fxe6 12 "h5 + Φθ7 13lΔc4) 11 i.d5 ':c8 12 .i.xc6+ (12 "h5?! 'ii'd713 .txe6 'ii'xe6 14 lΔd5 lΔθ7! with better chances for Black, Todorovic-Bjelajac, Yugoslav championship, Τί vat 1995) 12 ... ':xc6 13 lΔd5 ':c5 with mutual chances. Mter 9lΔc4 White's knight immediately enters the game. 9 ...

:c8 (D)

9 ....te7? 10 .i.xffi gxf6 111iJe3 is clearly ίη White's favour (SuetinOlbrich, Moscow 1991). 9 ...lίJd4?! fails since this knight will soon ingloriously retreat: 10 .txf6 (10 lΔd5 .txd5 11 exd5 b5! 12 tbe3 'ii'a5+ 13 c3 tbe4! 14 i.h4 g5 15 .i.g3 tbxc3! 16 'fi'd2 Μ, D.Plisetsky, and 10 tbe3 1:tc8 11 i.d3 .i.e7 12 0-0 ο-ο 13 .i.xf6 .txffi 14lΔd5 .tg5 15 c3lΔc6, Shamkovich-Kuzminykh, USSR 1948, are not convincing)

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

10 ... "'xf6 (for 10 ... gxf6 11 lOO3 :c8 12 ~d3 - see 9 ... :c8) 11 ~b6 :b8 12 ~cd5 "'d8 13 c3 ~xd5 14 ~xd5 ~e6 15 g3 with a small but clear advantage for White (TalWade, Reykjavik 1964).

10 ~d5 This is probably the most accurate order of moves for White. However, extensive practice has seen a lot of alternatives: a) 10 ~d3 ~e7 11 ~xf6 (or 11 ο-ο b5 12 ~xf6 - 12 lOO3 ~xe4! 12 ... bxc4 13 ~xe7 ~xe7 14 ~e2 ο-ο 15 "d2 "'b6 with good prospects for Black, Gufeld-Chekhov, Vladivostok 1978) 11 ... ~xf6 12 ~e3 ~e7! 13 ο-ο ο-ο 14 "f3 ~g5! 15 ~cd5 ~xd5 16 ~xd5 ~xd5 17 exd5 g6, and Black is slightly better (llijin-Κharlov, Bie11992); b) 10 ~θ3 ~e7 (10 ......b6 11 :b1 ~e7 12 ~xf6 ~xf6 13 ~cd5 and 11 ... tαι:e4!? 12 ~e4 h6 13 c3! hxg5 14 ~c4 ~d8 15 ~b3 ~e7 16 ο-ο, Benjamin-Ginsburg, New York 1981, are hardly good for Black) 11 ~xffl (11 i.d3 ~g8!? and

11 ~c4!? ο-ο 12 ο-ο b5!? are satisfactory for Black) 11 ... ~xf6 12 ~cd5 ~g5 13 c3 ο-ο (13 ... ~e7 is premature due to 14 tαι:e7 "'xe7 15 ~d5, A.Sokolov-Burger, St Martin 1992) 14 ~e2, and now Black can play either 14 ... g6 15 ο-ο f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 Φh1lOO7! (Plisetsky) or 14 ... ~xe3 15 ~xe3 ~e7 16 ~f3 ':c7!? 17 0-0 J:d7 18 "'e2 g6 19 J:[fd1 f5 (Yu.Chernov-Arkhipov, Moscow 1980), with good counterplay ίη both cases. Ιη this line we already see some positional elements typical of the main variations of the Sicilian Sveshnikov (see Chapters 3 and 6); the difference is that Black's b-pawn ίΒ οη b7, and attacks like a2-a4 are impossible; c) 10 ~xf6 (a very popular move; however, Black can keep the balance with accurate play) c1) 10...gxf6 c11) 11 ~θ3 ~h6 (11 ... ~d4?! is as poor as it was οη move 9, e.g. 12 ~d3 ~h6 13 ο-ο ο-ο 14 ~cd5 followed by c2-c3, Dely-Flesch, Hungary 1965; 11 ... ~e7 12 ~d3! leads to the 11 ~d3 line; besides, White can play 12 ~cd5 ~xd5 13 ~xd5 tαι:d5 14 'ii'xd5 :Xc2 15 ~d3 ':c6 16 ~c4 with good compensation for the pawn, VelimirovicMatulovic, Vinkovci 1982), and now: (D) cll1) 12 ~ed5 ω4 13 ~d3 ':g8 14 'ii'h5 J:g6 15 h3 Φd7 16 Φf1 ':c6 17 a4 'ii'g8 18 a5 'ikg7 19 g3 Φd8, and Black obtained good counterplay οη the g-file (Y.Grίin feld-Tisdall, New York 1981);

Tuming off the Road

c1l2) 12 liJg41? J.g7 13 J.d3 'ii'b6?! 14 :bl liJe7 15 ο-ο f5 16 uxf5 liJxf5 17 J.xf5 .txf5 18 liJe3 .i.e6 19 .h5, and White maίn Luined better prospects (Zso.PolKar-Hjartarson, Reykjavik 1995). The position of the black queen ιιη b6 proves unfortunate; therefore, Black should have played 13 ... liJe7 at once, e.g. 14 ο-ο f5 15 uxf5 liJxf5 16 J.xf5 J.xf5 17 liJe3 .i.g6!? with the idea of ... 0-0 and ... f7-f5. This line needs more tests; c1l3) 12 liJcd5 J.xe3 13 liJxe3 'ii'b6 (13 .. .liJe7 14 J.d3 d5 is premature: 15 ο-ο d4?! 16 liJg4 liJg6 17 liJh6 'ii'd6 18 g3 19 'ii'h5, und White is better, Velimirovicsimίc, Yίιgoslavia 1982, οτ 15 ... dxe4 16 J.xe4 .xd117 J:axd1 :c7 18 f4!, maintaining a small edge, according to Sveshnikov) 14 .td3 'iVb4+ (14 ... 'iVxb2 15 ο-ο 'iVc3 16 f4 'iVc5 17 .el, Pukshansky-Chepukaίtis, Ιenίηgrad 1980, gίves White good ιιttackίng chances) 15 "d2 'iVxb2 16 ο-ο 'iVd4 17 c3 'iVc5 18 ':acl 'Δe7 19 'iVb2 :c7 20 c4 ο-ο, and White's initiative compensates for

"f8

Black's extra pawn (TseshkovskyPetkevich, Moscow 1979); c1l4) 12 J.d3!? .txe3 (12 ...:gs 13 ο-ο!; 12 ... liJe7 - see 11 J.d3) 13 fxe3 ~6 14 'ii'cl (14 ο-ο!?) 14... h5 (14 ... 'Δβ5 15 ο-ο Φθ7 16 "θΙ! h5 17 b3, Κir.Georgίev-Shirov, Biel 1992 illustrαtive gαme Ντ. 7 οτ 16... liJc4 17 liJdl h5 18 a4!, followed by b2-b3 - recommended by Κir.Georgίev - doesn't enable Black to equalίze either) 15 ο-ο, and White's chances are preferable, e.g. 15 ... .:h6 16 :bl liJe7 17 'iVd2 h4 18 h3 Φd7 19 :bdl :g8 20 :f3 :hg6 21 .tn (Borriss-YakoVΊch, Munich 1993); c12) 11 .td3 (avoiding llliJe3 .th6) 11 ... liJe7 (1l ... :g8 12 ο-ο J.h6 13 liJd5 f5?! is risky ίη view of 14 'iVh5!, Matulovic-Arnason, 1983) 12liJe3 (12 'iVe2 is harmless ίη view of 12 ... d5 13 exd5lillrd5 14 liJxd5 'iVxd5 15 liJe3 'ii'c6 16 c3 e4 17 J.c2 f5, Browne-Timman, ΤΗ burg 1978) 12... J.h6 (12 .....b6 13 ο-ο 'ii'xb2 14liJcd5! yίelds White a strong attack for the pawn, e.g. 14 ... J.xd5 15 exd5 'i'd4 16 :b1 :c7 17 '6'f3 'ii'f4 18 'i'e2 J.h6 19 ι!ί)c4 ι!ί)c8 20 :b4!, Ghinda-Mark Tseitlίn, Pernik 1978) 13 ο-ο J.xe3 14 fxe3 'iVb6 15 'ii'f3 (15 "c1 ι!ί)g8 16 'it>h1 'ii'c5 17 'ii'd2 h5, Anand-Morovic, Las Palmas 1993, also leads to a better position for White, for example 18 a4! h4 19 h3 followed by a4-a5 and ι!ί)c3-a4 indicated by T.Horvath) 15... h5 (15 .....xb2?! 16 ι!ί)d5!, V.Tseshkovsky) 16 ι!ί)d5 J.xd5 17 exd5 :'h6

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

18 J:tab1, and White's chances are preferable, due to the poor ΡΟΒί tion ofBlack's king, e.g. 18... J:tc7 19 c4 f5 20 Φh1! (Sveshnikov) or 18 ... 'fί'a5 19 e4 f5 20 exf5!? llJxd5 21 Φh1! 'ifc5 22 1:Ibe1 f6 (22 ... b5 23 "'g3!) 23 .i.e4 llJe7 24 .i.xb7 J:tb8 25 J:td1 (Am.RοdήgueΖ-ΕSΡί noza, Cali 1990); c13) 11 lbd5 .i.xd5 12 'ifxd5 leads to a position from the main line (10 llJd5); 11 ... f5 12 exf5 .i.xf5 13 lbce3 .i.e6 14 c3 .i.g7 (Sveshnikov) 15 .i.d3! also yields White the better chances; c2) 10......:xf6! (this ίΒ stronger than 10 ... gxf6 and gίνθB Black chances to equalize the game) 11 lbb6 (after 11 llJxd6+ .i.xd6 12 'ifxd6 J:d8 13 'ifc5 llJd4 14 .i.d3 "'g5 15 Φf1 J:tc8 16 'ifb4 b5, WΊth ideas such as ....i.e6-c4 or ... h7-h5 and J:th8-h6, Black's initiative compensates White's extra pawn, according to V.Chekhov) 11 ...J:tb8 12 lbcd5 (12 llJbd5 "'d8 ίΒ not dangerous for Black, e.g. 13 a4 13 .i.c4 b5! - 13 ....i.e7 14 .i.c4 .i.g5 15 ο-ο ο-ο 16 'ifd3 :c8 17 .i.b3, Glek-Arkhipov, Moscow 1977, and now 17... llJd4! equalizes) 12...'fί'd8 (12 ...'fί'g6?! is ήskΥ for Black ίη view of 13 'ifd3 .i.e7 14 llJc7 +! Φd8 15llJcd5, Κarpov) 13 c3 .i.e7 (13 ... g6? 14 "'a4 .i.g7 15 .i.xa6! .i.xd5 16llJxd5 J:ta8 17 'fί'b5 J:txa6 18 'fί'xb7, and White wins, Cifuentes), and now: (D) c21) 14 a4 ο-ο 15 b4 .i.g5 (15 ... 'fί'e8!? 16 a5 .i.d8, Chekhov) 16 .i.e2 lΔe7 17 ο-ο llJxd5 18llJxd5

'fί'c8 19 c4 b6 intending 20 ... a5, with equality (Geo.TimoshenkoSveshnikov, Naberezhnye Chelny 1988); c22) 14 .i.e2 ο-ο 15 ο-ο .i.g5 16 'ifd3 Φh8 17 :ad1 g6 18 .i.f3 f5 19 "'e2 1:1f7 20 J:td3 'iff8 21 J:tfd1 1:Id8, and Black's position ίΒ very solid (Κaiumov-Κharlov, Vladivostok 1994); c23) 14 .i.d3 .i.g5 15 .i.c2 ο-ο 16 ο-ο Φh8 17 'ife2 g6 18 Φh1 .i.h6 19 J:tad1 llJe7 20 .i.b3 lbxd5 21 llJxd5 b5 ίΒ equal (Van der WielKuijf, Dutch championship 1987); c24) 14 .i.c4 (the most 10gίcal move to control the d5 square) 14 ... 0-0 15 ο-ο .i.g5 16 a4 Φh8 17 "'e2 g6 (17 ... a5 18 J:tad1 .i.h6 19 Φh1, Nunn-Manor, London 1987, 19... g6 20 .i.a2!? followed by 21 llJc4, yields White a certain plus; Black's other plan consists ίη 17 ... 'ife8!? 18 b4 .i.d8 19 a5 when, instead of 19 ... llJe7?! 20 'fί'a2llJg6 21 .i.b3 llJh4?! 22 .i.a4 .i.xd5 23 exd5 "'e7 24 llJd7 with material gains for White, as ίη S.Yanovsk:ySveshnikov, Moscow 1987, Black

Turning off the Roαd

Hhould have tried 19 ... f5 with counterplay οη the kingside) 18 ..t;ιh1 i.h6 19 ':ad1 (19 b4 f5 20 oxf5 gxf5 21 f4 i.xd5 22 lίJxd5, Κarpov-Nunn, London 1982, illustrαtive gαme Nr.6, leads to βη unclear position after 22 ... lίJθ7! 23 fxe5lίJxd5 24 i.xd5 dxe5 25 i.e625 'iWxe5 +? i.g7 26 'iWe6 11αι 25 ... 'iWd2!, Κarpov; 19 ':ae1!?, recommended by the former World Champion, has not yet been tried) 19 ... f5 20 exf5 gxf5 21 f4 i.g7 22 ':f3 i.g8!? 23 ':h3 h6 24 'iWd2 'itth7 25 i.d3lίJe7, and Black managed Ιο maintain the dynamic balance (Υ. Griinfeld-Cifuentes, Νονί Sad 1990). So, after 10 i.xf6 accurate defence probably enables Black to neutralize White's initiative; however, after the move 10 lίJd5 his task becomes more difficult. Now we move οη to the latter line. 10 ••• i.:x:d5 11 i.xf61 But not 11 e:x:d5?1 lίJe7 12 i.:x:f6 (12 'iWd3!? lίJexd5 130-0-0 leads to an equal position after 13 ... b5! 14 i.xf6 'iWxf6 15 lίJxd6+ 'iWxd6 16 'ii'xd5 'iVxd5 17 ':xd5 ':c5, according to Μ. Tal) 12 .•• g:x:f6, and now White can play: a) 13 i.d3?1 f5 14 ο-ο i.g7 15 'ii'h5 e4 16 i.e2 ο-ο 17 c3 f4! WΊth a strong attack for Black (RobatschLarsen, Halle 1963); b) 13 a4?1 ':c5 14lίJθ3 i.h6 15 c4 'iWb6 16 'ii'd2 a5 17 i.d3 f5 WΊth the same outcome (A.NeverovΚharlov, Κuίbyshev 1990);

c) 13 c3 f5 14 'ii'b3 b5 15 lOO3 i.h6 16 a4 i.xe3 17 fxe3 'iWb6 WΊth good counterplay (Luther-Ikonnikov, Sochi 1990); d) 13 'iWf3 f5 14 a4 .tg7! 15 g4 e4 16 'iWf4 ll)g6! 17 'iVxd6lίJe5 WΊth initiative for Black (G.KuzminPanchenko, USSR 1980); e) 13 b41 f5 14 a4 WΊth the idea of a4-a5 (Sveshnikov). Of course, Black is by ηο means worse. However, after the text move (11 i.xf6) life becomes much more dίfficult for him. 11 ••• gxf6 After 1l...'iWxf6 12 'iWxd5 i.e713 c3 ο-ο 14lίJb6 (14 i.e2!?) 14 ... ':c7 15 'ii'd3 'iVg6 16 g3 i.d8 17 lίJd5 White's chances are preferable as well (Leko-Jamieson, Sydney 1992). 12 'iW:x:d5

12 ... b51 12 •••ll)d4 ίβ inferior: 13 0-0-0 'iWe7 (13 .. :i'c7 14 ':xd4!, Larsen) 14 'ittb1 ':c5 15 lίJxd6+! 'iWxd6 16 'iWxd6 i.xd6 17 c3 rίte7 18 cxd4 exd4 19 i.d3 with a clearly better

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

endgame for White (Enders-Sermek, Ptuj 1995). However, the move 12••• tlJb4!? leads to interesting complications: 13 'ifd2 d5 14 exd5 tlJxc2+ (after 14...'ii'xd5?! 15 'ifxd5 tlJxd5 160-0-0 White is clearly better) 15 'ifxc2 .tb4+ 16 ~dl 'ii'xd5+ (16 ... b5 17 'ii'e4 bxc4 18 .txc4 'ii'b6 19 :cl! .td6 20 :c2, and White maintains a small plus, 8chandorff-Morovic, Copenhagen 1982) 17 ~cl! (17 .td3 ο-ο 18 f3 :fd8 19 ~θ2 e4! 20 fxe4 'ifh5+ followed by 21 ... b5, Maksimovic-8koko, Belgrade 1991, yields Black good counterchances) 17... 0-0 18 ~bl! :fd8 19 tlJe3! hc2 20 tlJxd5 hf2 21 .tc4 .tc5 22 a4! ~g7 23 Μ, and White managed to regroup his pieces 'under fire', maintaining the better chances ίη the endgame (Ulybin-Manor, Tunja 1989). 13 tlJe3 tlJe7 (D) 13•••.thG was totally refuted ίη 8magin-Κharlov, Moscow 1991: 14 tlJf5 tlJb4 15 tlJxd6+ ~d7 16 'ifxf7+ ~c6 (16 ... ~xd6 17 :dl+ is equally hopeless) 17 'ii'b7 + rbc5 18 :dl! tlJxc2+ 19 ~θ2 tlJd4+ 20 :xd4 exd4 21 'ifd5+ rbb6 22 tlJxc8+ 'ifxc8 23 'ifxd4+ ~a5 24 ~f3, and White won. This position is crucial for the whole 10 tlJd5line. White's better pawn structure and domination of the light squares guarantees him

a small but clear edge. Mter 14 'in>7 'ifa5+ 15 c3 :c7 16 b4 hb7 17 bxa5 ~d8! (this ίΒ better than 17....th618 tlJg4 .tg719 a4 ~d7 20 .td3 d5? 21 axb5 axb5 22 tlJe3 with a clear pull for White, MureyJamieson, Lucerne 1982) 18 a4! bxa4 19 :xa4 :bl + 20 ~d2 .th6 (20 ... tlJc6 21 ~c2 :el 22 h4!?) 21 :b4! he brings his plus into the endgame (J.Rohl, de Jesus). 14 'ii'd3 .th6 15 tlJg4 deserves attention, too, according to 8imic. The main defect of the Larsen system ίΒ that White's a3 knight can easily enter the game. That's why Black's fight for the d5 square becomes so hard, and his pawn weaknesses so painful. 80, 8veshnikov's 8 ... b5 (restricting White's knight) has become established ίη practice as Black' s best option. Now we go οη to discuss it.

The Choice οΙ Two K's

(1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lOO6 3 d4 cxd4 4 5 tΩc3 e5 6 tΩdb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 tΩa3) 8 ... b5

tΩxd4 tΩΙ6

80, we have reached the main position of the 8icίlian 8veshnί kov. As was said ίη the introduction, the most principled option for White here ίΒ 9 .i.xf6, destroying Black's pawn structure. However, there are many players who don't like to go ίη for such complicated positions. They usually prefer the quieter: 9 tΩd5

This system ίΒ included ίη the opening repertoires ofmany outstandίng players, e.g. Garry ΚaB parov and Anatoly Κarpoν. 80me twenty years ago the strange move 9 tΩabl was somewhat popular. The idea ίβ to bring the knight into the game VΊa the d2 square, whίle simultaneously

preparing a2-a4. However, Black easily obtains good counterplay, e.g. 9....i.e7 (θνθη 9 ... lOO7!? ίΒ not bad for Black, for example 10 .i.xf6 gxffl11 a4 b4 12 ι!iJd5 fud5 13 "'xd5 :a7 14 .i.c4 :g8 15 g3 .i.h6, Jacoby-T.Horvath, Copenhagen 1986) 10 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 11 a4 b4 12 tΩd5 .i.g5 13 .i.c4 ο-ο 14 ο-ο .i.b7 15 ι!iJd2 :c8 16 tΩb3 (16 tΩf3 tΩd4! 17 b3 .i.xd5 18 .i.xd5 ι!iJxf3+ 19 "'xf3 :xc2 with a clear advantage for Black, Adoιjan, T.Horvath) 16 ... lOO7 17 ι!iJxθ7 + "ilxe7 18 "ile2 "c7 19 .i.d3 a5, and Black's chances are superior (Mnatsakanίan-Τ. Georgadze, Tbilisi-8uhumi 1977). Mter 9 tΩd5 Black has two possibilities:9•••"iI&5+ (8ection 1) and 9 •• ..i.e7 (Sections 2-5). 9 •••.i.e6?! proves to be a 10ss oftime after 10 .i.xf6 gxf6 11 c3.

Section 1 9.....85+

9 .•• "&5+ This move cannot θνθη be compared with 9 ... .i.e7 ίη terms of popularity. But, ίη fact, it ίΒ not βΟ bad. 10 .i.d2 10 c3!? ίΒ lίttle investigated. Mter 10... fue4 (ίπ the event of 10 ... ι!iJxd5 11 exd5 lΔe7 12 ι!iJc2 Black's queen οη a5 occupies an

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

awkward position) 11 b4!? 'ii'xa3 12 ~c1 tαιc3! 13 'ii'd2 ~4 14 'ii'c2 tbd4 15 'ii'xe4 "a4 16 ~d3 :a7 White hardly has enough compensation for the missing material (Blodstein-Al.Κarpov, Tashkent 1994). 10 ••• "'d8 Black offers his opponent the chance to repeat moves: 11 ~g5 'ii'a5+ etc. (oh, how many games have ended ίη a draw this way!). Mter 11 ~g5 Black can also transpose to the main variation with 11... ~e7. However, White has several alternatives.

11 tbxf6+ Or: a) 11 ~d3 tbxd5 12 exd5 ~7 13 c4 g6 (sacrificing the b5 pawn see the introduction) 14 ο-ο (14 cxb5 ~g7 15 ..tc4 ο-ο 16 ο-ο e4! 17 :tb1 tbf5 18 ..tf4 :e8 19 tbc2 'ii'h4 20 g3 'ii'f6 yields Black an excellent position, Sanden-Markovic, Stockholm 1990/91) 14 ... ..tg7 15 "e1 ο-ο 16 ..ta5 'ii'e8 17 cxb5 tbxd5 18 ..te4 ..te6 19 :td1lDf4! 20 ~xa8

"xa8 21 f3 axb5, and Black has a strong initiative for the missing exchange (Sharif-Kouatly, Marseilles 1988); b) 11 c4 (this move leads to hugecomplications) 11•••lί)xe4 (after 11...b4 12 tbxffi+ 'ii'xf6 13 tbc2 "g6 14 'ii'f3 :b8 15 ~d3 ~e7 16 ο-ο ο-ο 17 b3, Yudasin-Dvoiris, Moscow 1991, White obtains a minimal plus, with prospects of preparing f2-f4) 12 cxb5 ~e6 13 ~c4

The most common move ίη this position is 13 •••tbe7, for example 14 ~e3:c8 (14 .. :ii'a5+ 15 Φe2:c8 is dubious ίη view of 16 tbb6! d5 16 ... :d8 17 bxa6 - 17 tbxc8 tαιc8 18 ~xd5 ~a3 19 ~e4 "b5 20 ~d3, Sisniega-Espinoza, Linares 1992) 15 tbb6 d5 16 "a4 (16 tbxc8 tαιc8 17 ~d3 "a5+ 18 Φf1 ~xa3 19 bxa3 0-0 20 bxa6 f5 is unclear) 16 ... dxc4 17 :d1 tbd5 18 bxa6+ ~d7 19 tbxd7 ..tb4+ 20 Φf1 'ii'xd7 21 'ii'xd7+ ~xd7 22 :txd5+ Φe6 with sufficient counterchances for Black as ίη Yudasin-Vyzmanavin,

The Choice of Two K's Ινον 1987. However, 14 ο-ο! ίΒ Htronger, e.g. 14....i.xd5 (14...llDcd5?! 15 .txd5 .txd5 16 .ta5! "xa5 17 "xd5 ':'c8 18 "xe4, KupreichikNiktevic, Cattolica 1992) 15 .ta5! (15 .txd5 ι!LJxd5 16 .ta5 ι!LJdc3! 17 .txc3 ι!LJxc3 18 bxc3, Leko-San Segundo, Moscow 1994, and now 18 ... d5! equalizes) 15 .....xa5 16 .txd5 axb5 17 .txe4 d5 18 .td3 with good attacking prospects for White. Ιη a little-known gam.e BrodskySerper (Riga 1987) Black played 13••• ι!LJM!? and obtained better chances after the continuation 14 "'a4 ι!LJxc4 15 "xc4 .txd5 16 "xd5 lLIxd2 17 <iPxd2 .te7; ίη the event of 15 bxa6+ "d7 16 "xc4 ι!LJxd2 17 ΦΧd2 ':'c8 Black also has good counterplay. Ν ow we return to the main line 11 ι!LJxαι + .

"xf6

11 ... 11... gxf6?! now unnecessarily weakens Black's pawn structure and brings White better prospects, for exam.ple 12 c4 f5 13 cxb5 lLId4 14 .tc3 .tg7 15 .txd4 exd4 16 .td3 (Anand-Ochoa, Thessaloniki 1984). 12 .td3 White's only aggressive plan consists ίη pushing c2-c4. However, after the immediate 12 c4 "'gβ White is forced to play 13 f3. True, after 13••• .te7 14 cxb5 Black can hardly checkm.ate directly: 14 ... .th4+?! 15 g3 .txg3+ 16 hxg3 "xg3+ 17 Φθ2 ι!LJd4+ 18 Φθ3 f5 19 exf5 .txf5 20 .tc3!, and

White has the advantage (Y.Liberzon). But the simple continuation 14... ι!LJd4 15 .te3 ο-ο 16 .txd4 exd4 17 "'d2 d5 18 .td3 .tg5 (AnandHergott, Thessaloniki 1984) gives Black excellent chances. If 14 Φf2 (instead of 14 cxb5) then, for ίη stance, 14 ... f5 15 exf5 .txf5 16 cxb5 ι!LJd4 17 .te3 ο-ο 18 .txd4 exd4 19 "xd4 .tffi with a strong initiative(Magem-Espinoza,Novi Sad 1990). 12 ••• "'gβ Besides this natural move, Black can also play: a) 12•••d5?!. This ίΒ too risky. Here ίΒ οηθ recent example: 13 exd5 lLIb4 14 .te4 "h4 15 "f3 .tg4 (15 ....tc5 16 c3!) 16 "e3! f5?! (Adorjan and T.Horvath recommend 16... ':'d8!) 17 d6 fxe4 18 "xe4 ':'d8 19 .txb4 with a clear edge for White (Diaz-Remon, Santa Clara 1991); b) 12•••'ii'd8 (somewhat passive) 13 c4 b4 14 ι!LJc2 :b8 15 ο-ο, and White maintains a small edge, for example 15 ... .te7 16 a3! ba3 17 b4 ο-ο 18 :Xa3 .tg5 19 .te1 'fie7 20 'ii'a1 (Ghinda-Quendro, Thessaloniki 1984). Instead of 14... ':'b8, the altemative 14... a5 deserνes attention; c) 12•••.te7. Α possible transposition of moves, βΒ 13 c4 ίΒ not killing: 13 ... 0-0 14 ο-ο "g6, and now, instead of 15 cxb5?! lΩd4 16 f3.th3 17 ':f2.th4 (Suetin-Κish nev, Moscow 1984), 15 f4 ΟΓ 15 <iPh1 lead to a position with mutual chances.

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

13 0-0 J&.e7 13••• lDd4!? ίβ interesting, e.g. 14 Φh1 .i.e7 15 c3 lDe6 16 c4lDc5 17 .i.c2 .i.d7 18 b4 tί)θ6 19 .i.d3 1tb8 with unclear play (Vitolin§8avko, Riga 1993). 14 c3 Alasl14 c4 doesn't work οη account of 14 ... .i.g4 15 f3 .i.h3 16 1tf2 .i.h4. 14 Ι4 ίβ a180 harmless, for example 14... exf4 15 e5.i.f5 16 'ii'f3 1tc8 17 .i.xf5 'ii'xf5 18 exd6 .i.xd6 19 1tae1 + .i.e7 20 'ii'xf4 'ii'xf4 followed by 21 ... 0-0, with a pleasant endgame for Black (I.Gurevich-Granda Zuniga, New York 1992 - illustrαtive game Nr.8).

14 ... d5! Now this ίβ well-timed. Ιη the simultaneous game Wahls-Κas parov, 1987, after 15 'ii'e2 .i.g4 16 f3 dxe4 17 .i.xe4 .i.f5 18 lDc2 ο-ο 19 a4 .i.xe4 20 fxe4 1tad8 Black had nothing to worry about. 80, why isn't 9... 'ii'a5+ popular? Probably because people consider the draw after 10 .i.d2 'ii'd8 11 .i.g5 too indecent ...

Section 2 9 ....i.e7 1Ο lDxe7 (1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 &6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4lDf6 5lDc3 e5 6lDdb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 lDa3 b5 9 lDd5) 9 .i.e7

White now has two completely different plans: to give up the d5 point and concentrate οη development, ίη order to make use of his better pawn structure (10 lDxe7), or to fight for the d5 square (10 .i.xffi). Ιη this section we deal with the first option. 10 lDxe7 lDxe7! 10...'ii'xe7 ίβ undoubtedly less logical and yields White good prospects after 11 c4!, e.g. 11...h6 12 .i.xf6 'ii'xf6 13 'ii'd51, or 11...b4 12 lDc2 ο-ο 13 f3 h6 14 .i.h4 'ii'e6 15 'ii'd2 (Ajanski-Omstein, Plovdiv 1976), or 11 ...lDd4 12 lDc21, because 12 ... 'ii'b7 13 lDxd4 lDxe4 ίβ too dangerous ίη view of 14lDf31 bxc4 15 'ii'a4+ .i.d7 16 'ii'a3 or θνθη 15.i.c1. 11 .i.:d6

ΤΜ

Choice of Two K's

White's attempts to maintain his pair ofbishops don't pay him a dividend: β) 11 Ι3 d5 12 exd5, and now Olack can play not on1y 12 ... tOOxd5 13 c4 bxc4 14 tΔxc4 ο-ο 15 .i.e2 'fIc7 16 ο-ο .i.e6 17 :cl ~h5 18 ι;t>hl f6 with good counterplay (PeroVΊc MarkoVΊc, Vιenna 1990) but also 12 ... ~fxd5! 13 .i.xe7 'fIa5+! 14 c3 ~xe7 WΊth a good position; b) 11 .i.d3 and now: bl) 11 •••.i.b7 12 "e2?! (for 12 .ixf6 - see 11 .ixf6) 12 ... ~d7 (or 12 ... 0-0 13 ο-ο ~g6 14 c4 h6! 15 .ixf6 'lixf6 16 cxb5 ~f4 17 'fIf3 axb5 18 tΔxb5 'ii'g6 19 Afdl ~xd3 20 'lixd3 .i.xe4 21 'ii'g3 :fb8! cqualίzing ίη the game Anandlvanchuk, Linares 1992 illustrative gαme Nr.9; or 12 ... ~g6 13 c4 h6 14 .i.d2 -14.ixf6 'lixf615 cxb5 ttJf4 16 'fIf3 'ii'g6 - 14 ... bxc4 15 ttJxc4 ο-ο with equalίty, Bach-Gagarin, Tumu-Severin 1992; οη the other hand, 12 ... d5 ίΒ not good ίο VΊew of 13 exd5 'iνxd5 14 0-0-0 'ii'e6 15 1:thel ~d7 16 .i.xe7 "xe7 17 f4, Womacka-Vaiser, Munich 1992) 13 b4 (13 c4 b4 14 lbc2 a5 with a good position for Black, Petrushin-Timoshcheoko, USSR 1978) 13 ... f6 14 .i.d2 ο-ο 15 c4 f5! 16 cxb5 (or 16 f3 fxe4 17 fxe4 ~6 18 ~c2 ~d4 19 ~xd4 exd4 20 cxb5 ~e5, and Black obtained a stroog attack, Zezulkίn-Ambart sumian, Podolsk 1990) 16 ... fxe4 17 .i.xe4 d5 18 .i.c2 ~f5 19 0-0 lM4 20 'ΙΜ3 ~xc2 21 ~xc2 axb5 22 "xb5 ttJb6!, and Black's compensation

for the pawn ίΒ more than sufficient (Yemelin-Κrasenkow, Russian championship, Elista 1995); b2) 11 ••• d5 (even simpler) 12 exd5 'ii'xd5 (trying to exchange queens; 12 ... ttJfxd5 also led to equality ίn the game Yudasin-YakoVΊch, Moscow 1992, after 13 c4 bxc4 14 tΔxc4 f6 15 .id2 ο-ο 16 ο-ο .i.f5! 17 .ixf5 ~xf5 18 .ia5 'ii'd7 19 'fIg4 :a7 20 Afdl ~d4; however, 13 'ii'h5! ίΒ probably stronger, for example 13 .....a5+ 14 c3 ~c3 - not 14... "a4? 15 .ixe7 lbf4 16 'iνf3tΔxd3+ 17'iVxd3Φxe718 "d5, Yemelin-Κharlov, Κazan 1995 - 15 .id2 "d8 16 .i.c2 lbd5 17 "xe5 WΊth a mίnίmal edge for White) 13 'fId2 .i.f5! (13 .....xg2?! 14 0-0-0) 14 .i.xf5 "xd2+ 15 .i.xd2 ~516 c4 ο-ο! (not takίng οη c4 - see the introduction!) 17 ο-ο (Aseev-VyzmanaVΊn, Lenίngrad 1990), and now, according to A.VyzmanaVΊn, 17 ... 1:tab8, and Black's chances are not worse. If 13 f3 then also 13 ....if5! WΊth simίlar ideas, e.g. 14 .ixf5 ~xf5 15 'iνxd5 ~xd5 16 0-0-0 ~c7 followed by 17... f6 with equal prospects (Yemelίn-Yako vich, Russian championship, EIista 1994). c) 11"f3 (D) 11•••.ia4 (11 ... ~d7 gave White a small edge ίη the game YudasinChekhov, Moscow 1991: 12 b4 f6 13 .i.d2 ~b6 - or 13 ....i.b7 14 c4 f5 15 cxb5 .i.xe4 16 'fIb3, L.Yudasin - 14 c4 bxc4 15 ~xc4 .i.e6 16 tL:ιa5! ο-ο 17 .id3 'ii'd7 18 'ii'e2 ~c6 19 ~xc6 "xc6 20 ο-ο) 12 "g3 (12

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn (Ν adyrkhanov-Salov, Leningrad 1979); c) 12 c4 .tb7 (12 ... 'ii'a5+!? 13 'ii'd2 'ii'xd2+ 14 rj;xd2 b4 ίΒ sufficient to equalize, as ίη PanchenkoSveshnikov, Cheliabinsk 1975), andnow:

'ii'e3 d5! 13 exd5 ~fxd5 14 'ii'g3 14 'ii'xe5?! ο-ο - 14 ....th5 15 c4 bxc4 16 .txc4 f6 17 .td2 ο-ο 18 ο-ο .tf7 gives Black an excellent game, Planinc-Govedarica, Yugoslavia 1977) 12 ... .te6 13 .td3 ~g6 14 'ii'f3 (14 ο-ο h6! followed by ... ~h5-f4) 14... d5 15 c3 h6 16 .txf6 'ii'xf6 17 'ii'xf6 gxf6 18 g3 dxe4 19 .txe4 ':'b8 20 ~c2 f5 21 .tg2 a5! 22 ο-ο f4 23 ':'fe1 rj;e7 24 b4 (Yudasin-Yagupov, Moscow 1992). Black now uηηecessaήΙΥ took οη g3, when after 24 ... axb4 25 ~xb4 ':'bc8 he would have had ηο problems at all. Α very typical game for the whole system! Now we return to l1.txf6. 11 ... gxf6 12 'ii'f3 Alternatives are: a) 12 'ii'd.2 .tb7 130-0-0 .txe4! 14 'ii'xd6 'ii'xd6 15 .:.xd6 ~6 16 f3 rj;e7 17 ':'d2 .tf5 with an initiative for Black (Chiburdanidze-Alexandήa, Tbilisi 1977); b) 12 'ii'd3 .tb7 13 0-0-0 d5 14 exd5 'ii'xd5 15 'ii'xd5 ~xd5! 16 c4 ~b4 with good counterchances

cl) 13 cxb5 .txe4 14 bxa6 (after 14 'ii'a4?! d5 15 bxa6+ rj;f8 Black's advantage ίη development and ίη the centre ίΒ the dominant factor, e.g. 16 'ii'b4 ':'g8 17 f3 .tf5 18 g4 .tc8! with a clear pull for Black, Ljubojevic-Adorjan, Riga 1979) 14... 0-0 (now 14... d5 ίΒ dubious οη account of 15 .tb5+ rj;f8 16 ο-ο) 15 .te2 d5 16 ο-ο ~c6 17 ~b5 d4 18 ':'c1 'ii'd7, and Black obtained enough counterplay (Ηθη nigan-Nunn, London 1993); c2) 13 .td3 ':'g8 (13 ... bxc4 ίΒ also sufficient for equality: 14 ~xc4 d5 15 exd5 'ii'xd5 16 ~d6+ rj;f8 17 .te4 'ii'a5+ 18 'ii'd2 'ii'xd2+ 19 rj;xd2 ':'d8, Smyslov-Sveshnikov, Lvov 1978) 14 cxb5 (14 ο-ο?! ίΒ poor ίη view of 14 ... bxc4 15 ~xc4 d5 16 exd5? 'ii'xd5 17 .te4

The Choice ofTwo K's IΣxg2+!

or 17 f3 IΣd8 18 IΣf2 e4!, Kupreichik-Chekhov, USSRI976, with the idea of 19 fxe4 "xd3 20 :d2 IΣxg2+!) 14... IΣxg2 15 bxa6 .txa6 16 Φf1 IΣg6 17 "a4+ "d7 with equal prospects (KozyrevίI..ezulkin, Podolsk 1990); d) 12 .i.d3 d5 (12 ... .i.b7 is also possible, e.g.13 "e2 d5! or 13 "d2 d5! 14 exd5 "xd5 15 0-0-0 0-0-0 16 'ii'b4 "e6 17 .i.xb5 axb5 18 ~xb5 "xa2 19 ~d6+ IΣxd6 20 :xd6 with unclear complications, ν.Ν.ΚΟΖΙοv-Κishnev, USSR 1988) 13 exd5 'ii'xd5 14 "e2 (14 f3 "c5!?) 14....i.f5! 15 .i.xf5 ~5 16 f3 ~d4 17 "d3 IΣd8, with an excellent game for Black (EvansLawton, 1985); Returning to 12 "f3. 12 ••• Ι5 13 e:xf5 .i.:xf5 13••• d5!? (threatening 14 ... b4) also deserves attention, for example 14 f6 ~g6 15 IΣdl .i.e6 (with the idea of 16... ~h4) 16 g3 IΣcΒ 17 c3 e4 18 'ii'e3 "xf6 19 .i.g2 b4! 20 ι!LJbl ~e5 with good counterplay (Unni-Prasad, India 1991). 14 .i.d3 .i.e6! Black should avoid exchanges, as it is easier for White to make use of his advantage ίη 'pawn islands' ίη a simplified position, whίle the black pawn centre is especially valuable ίη the middlegame. After 14 ••• .i.xd3 White obtains a small edge: 15 "xd3 d5 16 c3 "d6 17 ο-ο IΣg8 18 ~c2 ~g6 19 g3 (Kudήn-ΥusuΡΟv, Lone Pine 1980). 15 ο-ο ο-ο

Black also has another plan: 15...d5 16 :adl "c7! 171i'f6 0-0-0, e.g. 18 .i.xb5 axb5 19 ~xb5 "c5 20 c4 dxc4 21 ~d6+ IΣxd6 22 "xh8+ Φd7 (Rogers-Κostic, Valjevo 1984) or 18 IΣfel ~c6 19 IΣe3 e4 20 .i.e2 'ii'e5 (McDonald-Chandler, 1989), with good counterplay ίη both cases. 16 c4 Attacking Black' s pawn structure. 16 ... Ι5! Counterattacking ίη the centre! 17 Mdl

The most important thing for Black now is not to allow Whίω to blockade Black's central pawns. He can play, for example 17... e4 18 "e3 bxc4 19 .txc4 d5 20 ~2 f4 (20 .....d6!?) 21 "a3 'ii'd7 22 IΣd2 :ad8 23 1tadl IΣf6 with unclear consequences (Yudasin-Gorelov, USSR 1982), or even 17...d5!? 18 cxd5.i.xd5 19 "g3+ ~g6 20 .i.c2 ιli>h8! 21 .i.b3 ~f4 22 'iVe3 "d6 with a good position (Lanc-Priehoda, Trnava 1988; ίη this game

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

23 g3? led White to a disaster after 23 ... lbh3+ 24 Φf1. f4!). AAdorjan and T.Horvath recommend the move 17•••lbg6!? (WΊth the idea of ... :'a7-g7), as 18 cxb5 d5 19 .i.c4 e4 20 "'e3 f4! is favourable for Black. The conclusion is: 10 lbxe7 is quite harmless. However, the idea connected WΊth this move ίΒ not bad and has found many interesting incarnations ίη other lίnes (see folloWΊng sections).

Section 3 10.i.xf6 (1 e4 c5 2lbf3 t006 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 lbd5 .i.e7) 10 .i.xf6 .i.xf6

White's most common plan ίη this position ίβ to activate his a3 knίght.

llc3 Preparing lba3-c2 and possibly a2-a4. Other moves are less logί cal:

a) 11 h4?1 .i.xh4 12 :xh4 "'xh4 13lbc7+ Φe714lbχa8 "'xe4+ 15 "'e2 'iνb4+ 16 c3 17 "'e3 .i.e6 18lbb6 :'b8, takίng back the piece with an obVΊous advantage for Black (Chandler-Κouatly, Baguίo 1977); b) 11 g3 ο-ο 12.i.g2 .i.g5 13 ο-ο lbe7 14lbxe7 + "'xe7 15 c3 :'b8 16 lbc2 a5 17 :'el .i.e6 18 lbe3 .i.xe3 19 :'xe3 :'fc8 WΊth an equal position (LjubojeVΊc-Illescas, Linares 1993); c) I1lbbl. Black now can transpose to the 9 lbabllίne, for example 11 ....i.g5 12 a4 b4. He can also play 11 ... 0-0 12 a4 :'b8, e.g. 13 axb5 axb5 14 lbbc3 lbd4 15 .i.d3 (Cabrίlo-Belίavsky, Lvov 1993 - ίΙ lustrative game Nr.ll) 15 ....i.g5!. But the most radίcal response is 11 ...:'b8 12 a4 bxa4 13 :Xa4 :Xb2. After 14 .i.xa6lbd4 15 ο-ο .i.d7 16 :'b4 :'xb4 17 lbxb4 "'a5 it is White who must fight for equalίty (I.Almasi-Mrva, Budapest 1993); d) 11 c4 b4 12lbc2 (12 "'a4?! .i.d7 13lbxb4 gίves Black a strong attack: 13 ... lbd4 14 "'dl :'b8 15 "'d2 .i.g5 16 "'c3 "'b6 17lbd3 'iνb7 18 f3 .i.h4+ 19 g3lbxf3+! 20 Φf2 .i.g5 21 ΦΧf3 f5, Prίce-Radashk oVΊch, Tel AVΊν 1977) 12 ... a5 (οτ 12 ...:'b8 13 .i.e2 ο-ο 14 ο-ο .i.g5 15 "'d3 a5 16 :'adl .i.e6 with the eventual idea of ... g7 -g6 and ... f7f5, Belίavsky-I'Sokolov, Manila 1992) 13 ~+ (after 13 .i.e2 ο-ο the position is also equal, e.g. 14 ο-ο .i.g5 15 .i.g4 .i.b7 - 15 ... .i.e6 is more 'conventional' - 16 "'d3lbe7

"'a5

ΤΜ

Choice of Two K's

17 tΔxe7 + _xe7 18 b3 .i.c6 19 :fe1 .b7 20 .i.f3 _b6, Frolov-Κram nik, Sochi 1990) 13 ... _xf6 14.i.e2 ο-ο 15 ο-ο ':d8 16 _d2 .i.e6 17 b3 <Frolov-Yakovich, Moscow 1991), Itnd now, according to A.Frolov, Black should have played 17... _e7 with the idea of ... _a7-c5, equalizing. Mter 11 c3 Black's most common systems of development start with 11 ... 0-0, which we shall exιιmίne ίη Sections 4 and 5. Howuver, during the last decade some unusuallines have become popuΙβτ. We'll deal will those ίη this Hection. 11 ... tΔe7 Immediately attacking White' s centralized knight. Black has also other possibilities: β) 11 •••':b8 12 tΔc2 .i.g5. This order of moves usually leads (after 13 .i.e2 ο-ο or 13 .i.d3 ο-ο) to the system examined ίη Section 5. Incidentally, Black avoids ΚaβpB rov's unpleasant idea 13 h4. White can try 13 a4 (13 a3 β5 14 .i.d3 tΔe7!, Florescu- Rogozenko, Romaηίβ 1995) 13 ... bxa4 14 tΔcb4 .i.d7 15 .i.xa6. However, after 15 ... tΔxM 16 tΔxM (16 cxb4 ο-ο leads to equality) Black has a strong reply 16 .....a5! (16 ... 0-0 ίβ also possible, e.g. 17 ο-ο .i.e7 18 _e2 ι;t>h8 19 ':ad1 g6 20 ι;t>h1 "e8 21 "e3 f5 with counterplay οη the kingside, Jansa-Mili~evic, Yugoslavia 1984) 17 .i.d3 (17 _xd6 ':b6 18 _d3 .i.e7) 17 ... ':xb4! 18 cxb4 _xb4+ 19 ι;t>e2 d5 20 dxe4 21.i.xe4 0-0

_c2

22 ':hd1 ':c8 with a strong attack (Novikov-I.Efιmov, Sochi 1980); b) 11 •••.i.b7!?

This move ίβ βη improvement of Gurgenidze's idea to transfer Black's knight to d7 (see Section 4). Black ίβ also threatening to play just 12 ... tΔe7. Mter 12 tΔc2 (ίη reply to 12 "g4 ο-ο 13 tΔc2 tΔb8 14 ':d1, Ljubojevic-Illescas, Linares 1992, Black should have continued 14 ... .i.g5! 15 h4 .i.h6 16 tΔce3 - otherwise 16 ... tΔd7 16 ... .i.xe3 17 tΔxe3 _f6 followed by 18 ... ':d8, with sufficient counterchances) White ίβ ready to answer 12••• tΔe7 with 13 tΔce3 (if 13 tΔcb4 then 13 ... 0-0, for example 14 a4 tΔxd5 15 tΔxd5 .i.c6! 16 a5 ':c8 17 tΔb6?! .i.xe4! 18 tΔxc8 "xc8 19 "xd6 ':d8, and Black has good compensation for the exchange, Ghinda-Kouatly, Thessaloniki 1984) 13 ... tΔxd5 (13 ... .i.g5 14 tΔxe7 .i.xe3 15 tΔf5 .i.c5 16 tΔxg7 + ι;t>f8 17 tΔf5 .i.xe4 18 .g4 with initiative for White, HeisslerMuse, Germany 1991) 14 tΔxd5 0-0

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

15 'ii'b3 followed by :a1-d1, controlling the d5 square and maintainίng a mίnίmal edge. However, the main idea behind 11 ... ~b7 ίΒ 12•••liJb8!? Your author was the first to play this move, ίη 1990. Black's knight ίΒ aiming for f6 or c5 to attack White's e4 pawn. This plan justifies the development of the black light-squared bishop to b7 since it can now press οη the e4 pawn, too. So far Black has managed to hold his ground: b1) 13 ~d3 liJd7 14 a4 bxa4 15 :Xa4 ~g5 16 ο-ο ο-ο 17 :a2 a5 18 ~c4liJb6! wίth equal chances (Belίavsky-Shirov, Linares 1994); b2) 13 c4 ο-ο 14 cxb5 axb5 15 ~e2 (15 b4 ~xd5 16 'ii'xd5 'ii'c7! 17 ~d3 - 17 'ii'xa8? 'ii'c3+! 18 Φd1 :c8 -17 ... 'ii'c3+ 18 Φe2liJc6 with an equal position, Sanchez Almeyra-Κrasenkow, Paris 1990) 15 ... liJd7 16 ο-ο liJc5 17 ~f3 ~g5 18 liJcb4 g6 19 liJc3 Φh8 20 'ii'e2 'iWa5 wίth sufficient counterplay for Black (Brodsky-Rogozenko, Nikolaev 1993); b3) 13 a4 bxa4 14 :Xa4 (14 liJce3 liJd7 15 liJc4?! ο-ο 16 liJxd6 ~xd5 17 'ii'xd5 'ii'c7!, and Black gained the initiative, Haba-Κra senkow, Wattens 1990 illustrαtive gαme Nr.13, or 15 'ii'xa4 ο-ο 16 :d1 ~g5 17 'ii'c2 liJc5 18 liJf5 g6 19 b4 ~xd5 20 :xd5 liJb7 21 h4 ~f6 22 liJh6 + Φg7 23 liJg4 a5, and again Black seized the initiative, ίη the game Zapata-Shirov, Manila 1992).

Ν ow the famous game Kasparov-Shirov, Horgen 1994 (illustrα tive gαme Nr.14) saw 14•••liJd7 15 :b4! liJc5 16 :xb7! liJxb7 17 b4 .i.g5 18liJa3 ο-ο 19liJc4 a5 20 ~d3 axb4 21 cxb4 'iWb8 22 h4 ~h6 23 liJcb6, and White has good compensation for the exchange. Instead of 15 ... liJc5, 15•••:b8 deserved attention, and a move earlier it ίΒ probably more accurate to play 14••. 0-0! 15fu3liJd7. b4) 13 g3 .i.g5 (ίη KuporosovΚharlov, Russian championship, Elista 1994, Black tried to do without ... ~f6-g5 and equalized after 13 ... liJd7 14 .i.g2liJc5 15 ο-ο ο-ο 16liJce3 g6 17liJxf6+?! 'iWxf6 18 liJd5 ~xd5 19 'ii'xd5 'ii'e6 20 'iWd2 :ac8 21 b3 :c6; White should have played 17 h4, like ίη the 13 liJce3 line) 14 .i.g2 ο-ο 15 'ii'd3 liJd7 16 :d1 liJb6 17 liJxb6 'ii'xb6 18 ο-ο :fd8 19 liJb4 :ac8 20 liJd5 .i.xd5 21 'ii'xd5 b4, and Black obtained equality ίη Hubner-Nunn, San Francisco 1995; b5) 13 liJce3 liJd7 14 g3! (14 .i.d3 ο-ο 15 ο-ο .i.g5 16 'iWe2 .i.xe3

ΤΜ

18 ':'fd1 g6, Fήed Berlin 1990, and 14 lίΊf5 ο-ο! 15 lίΊxd6 ~xd5 16 "xd5 'ti'c7! 17 :d1! - 17 lίΊxf7? t;)b6 - 17 ... lίΊb6 18 'fί'b7 'ti'c5, Morris-Krasenkow, Andorra 1991, luad to satisfactory positions for Black) 14... 0-0 (14 ...~g5?! 15lίΊf5! u-o 16 h4) 15 h4! (preventing ... ~f6-g5) 15 ... g6 16 'δ'g4 ~g7 17 h5 lίΊf6 18 lίΊxf6+ 'δ'χf6 19 ':'d1 ':'ac8 (19 ... ~c8 20 'δ'e2 ~e6 21 t;)d5, and White is slightly better, HLripunsky-Κrasenkow, Pardubice 1993) 20 ~g2 ':'fd8 21 ο-ο ':'c5! 22 rld3 ~h6 23 rlfd1 ~xe3 24 ':'xe3 ~c8! 25 "'e2 ~e6, and Black uqualized ίη the game MortensenΝυηη, Vejle 1994. Returning to 11 ... lί'Je7. 12 lίΊxfβ+ White obtains a position from the 10 lίΊxe7 lίηθ with an extra tempo (c2-c3). However, it proves quite difficult to make use of it. The other options are not very promising either. 12 lίΊxe7 is absolutely harmless, e.g. 12 ... ~xe7 13 ~θ2 (otherwise 13 ... ~b7 and 14... d5) 13 ... ~e6 14 ~f3 Wb6 15 ο-ο ο-ο 16 lίΊc2 ~g5 17 ~g4 ~h6 18 ~xe6 fxe6 19 "e2 ':'f7 20 ~h1 a5 with equality (Semeniuk-Κra senkow, Moscow 1985). 12 lίΊc2 is a popular qUΊet reply. After 12... lίΊxd5 (for 12...~b7 - see 11 ... ~b7) 13 "xd5 ':'b8 (13 ... ~e6!? enabled Black to equalize ίη the game J.Polgar-Lautier, Las Palmas 1994, after 14 "c6+ ~e7 15 lίΊb4 "d7 16 a4 "xc6 17 lίΊxc6+ 17

lίΊxe3 lίΊc5

Choice of Two K's

rlch-Κrasenkow,

~d7

18 lίΊb4 Φc7 19 ~d2 ~b3! the idea of 20 axb5 ~g5 +!; however, 16 1Vb6!? ':'hc8 17 ':'d1 deserves serious attention) 14 lίΊb4 ~b7 (14 ... 0-0!? 15 "d3 - 15 lίΊc6 ~b7 - 15 .....d7 WΊth the idea of .....d7-b7 and ... ~c8-e6) 15 'ii'd3 ο-ο 16 ~e2 a5 (l6 ... g6 17 ο-ο ~g5 18 ':'ad1 a5 19 lίΊd5 ~a8 20 a3 yields White a minimal edge, Rogers-Chandler, London 1989) 17 lίΊd5 ~xd5 18 'δ'χd5 b4 19 c4 "b6 the position is nearly drawn (Geller-Ivanovic, Vr!!ac 1987). This dry line has considerably reduced the number of adherents of the 1l ... lίΊθ7 move. However, ifWhite wants to fight for an advantage, he must play 12lίΊxf6+. 12 gxf6 WΊth

000

13 lίΊc2 The alternatives are: a) 13 'ti'd3 (or 13 "d2) doesn't change much from the 10 lίΊxe7 line: 13 ... ~b7 140-0-0 d5 15 exd5 "xd5 16 "xd5 lίΊxd5! etc. Or 14 :dl d5 15 "f3 'ifd6 16 exd5 ~xd5 17 c4 bxc4 18 ~xc4 "b4+, and

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

Black ίβ not worse (Barua-Chandler, 1989); b) 13 .td3 .tb7 (13 ... d5 14 exd5 "xd5 15 "e2 .tf5!?) 14 ο-ο (for 14 lDc2 - βθθ 13 lDc2) 14 ... f5 15 exf5 :g8 16 f3?! lDd5 17 "d2lDf4 18 g3 "h4! with an overwhelming attack for Black (Prasad-Kouatly, Kolhapur 1987). White should have played 16 g3 d5 17lDc2 e4 18 .te2 lDxf5 with mutual chances (Κouatly);

c) 13 .te2 f5! (the simplest but 13 ....tb7 also works, e.g. 14 .tf3 "b6 15 lDc2 d5! 16 exd5 :d8 17 ο-ο - 17lDe3 f5! - 17... :g8 181We2 lDxd5 with an excellent position for Black, Forster-Sermek, Switzerland 1994) 14 exf5 .txf5 15lDc2 "b6 16 lDe3 .te6 17 .tg4 (17 .tf3 d5!) 17 ... d5 18 .txe6 "xe6 19 a4 :d8 (preparing ... d5-d4), and Black had the initiative in PrandstetterMrva, Czechoslovakian championship, Bratislava 1991; d) 13 "f3 f5 14 exf5 .txf5 (14... d5?! 15 ffi) 15 .td3 .te6 16 ο-ο ο-ο (16 ... d5 ίβ now not βΟ worthwhi1e as White can estab1ish a blockade, e.g. 17 :adl lDg6 18 "g3 'iVffi 19 .txg6 hxg6 20 f4! e4 21 lDc2, Mokry-Welin, Copenhagen 1985) 17 .tc2 (for 17 c4 - βθθ 10 lDxe7, Section 2) 17... f5 (after 17... .:b8 18 .tb3 b4 19 .txe6 bxa3 20 .tb3 axb2 21 :abl Φg7 22 :xb2 White's chances are somewhat better due to his strong bishop, PopoVΊc-Vukic, YugoslaVΊa 1988) 18 .tb3 'ii'd7 19 :fellDg6 20 :adl ':ad8 21lDc2 .txb3 22 axb3

d5 (22 ... f4!?

ίβ

probably safer) 23

lDb4 e4 24 "g3 f4 25 'ii'g5 :f5

with enough counterplay for Black (PopoVΊc-Kouatly, Paris 1986); e) 13 g3 .tb7 (again 13 ... f5!? deserves serious attention, e.g. 14 ig2 fxe4 15 .txe4 d5 16 .tg2 .te6 17 1i'h5 1Wc7 18 lDc2 ο-ο 19 ο-ο ffi with a good position for Black, Gobet-Bhend, Swiss championship 1988) 14.tg2 f5 (after 14... d5 15 "e2 dxe4 16 :dl! 'iVb6 17 .txe4.txe4 18 1i'xe4 ο-ο 19 1i'g4+ Φh8 20 ο-ο White ίΒ slightly better, Hellers-MaksimoVΊc, Berlin 1988, but 15 ... d4! 16 :dl "a5 100ks sufficient for equality) 15 1We2 (or 15 "d3) 15 ... 0-0! (better than 15.....b6 16 0-0-0 0-0-0 17 lDc2, MarjanoVΊc-Κouatly, Clichy 1986 - illustrαtive gαme Nr.12) 16 lDc2 fxe4 17 .txe4 .txe4 18 'ii'xe4 f5 19 'δ'θ2'iνb6 20 0-0-0 a5 21lDe3 b4 22 c4 b3 23 a3 :ac8 with good counterplay for Black (Strίpunsky Morchat, Polanica Zdroj 1995). Returning to 13 1Dc2. 13 .tb7 13.ood5?! ίβ now rίsky ίη VΊew of 14 a4! bxa4 15lDe3!, e.g. 15 ... dxe4 16 1i'xa4+ .td7 (16 .. :iVd7? 17 .tb5, Shabalov-Berset, StMartin 1993) 17 1i'xe4 with a strong initiative forWhite. 14 .td3 14 a4 .txe4 15 axb5 axb5 16 .txb5 + Φf8 17lDe3 :Xa118 1Wxa1 :g8 ίΒ better for Black (BacharT.Horvath, Thessaloniki 1984); 14 1i'd3 leads to equality after the continuation 14...'iνb6 (14 ...d5!?) 15 000

The Choice ofTwo K's

~)θ3

J:td8 16 .i.e2 d5 17 exd5 c!l)xd5 18 c!l)xd5 .i.xd5 19 .i.f3 .i.c4 (MesLol-Van der Wiel, Leiden 1982) or 15 g3 d5!? 14 ••• d5 14•••'iVb6 15 c!l)e3 d5 16 'iff3 0-0-0 17 exd5 ~d5 18 .i.e4 c!l)f4 19 ο-ο (Sharif-Kouatly, France 1986) and 14•••J:tg8 15 ~3 d5 16 'iff3 f5 17 c!l)xf5 ~f5 18 'ifxf5 J:tg5 19 'iff3 (Pritchett-Littlewood, England 1985) are hardly conVΊncing ways to equalίty. 14•••f511 ίβ interosting, and after 15 exf5 .i.xg2 16 J:tgl .i.b7 17 a4 (Brodsky-Osipov, USSR 1991) Black should play 17 ... bxa4 18 J:txa4 d5 (Brodsk:y, A.Vaisman). Still, the black kίng doesn't inspire any confidence ίη this line. 15 exd5 But not 15 'ife21 f5 (AlzateOchoa, Havana 1983). 15 ••• 'ifxd5 15•••~d5 ίβ inferior οη account of 16 .i.e4!, for example 16 ... f5 17 .i.xf5 c!l)f4 18 c!l)e3 .i.xg2 19 J:tgl or 16 ... c!l)e3 17 c!l)xe3 .i.xe4 18 'ifg4 .i.g6 19 f4!, with an initiative for White. 16 c!l)e3 'ife6 (D) This position ίβ crucial for the whole 11 ... c!l)e7 variation. Το make use of his better pawn structure, White should try to lure Black's pawns to lίght squares and blockade them. Taking this point into consideration and especially refraining from ... e5-e4, Black can sUccθssfully prevent White's plans, forexample 17'ifh5 (17 'ifb3?! f5!,

Ulybin-Κrasenkow,

Pinsk 1986; 17 .i.c2 c!l)d5! 18 c!l)f5 0-0-0; 17 a4!? has not yet been tried) 17 ... 0-0-0! (but not 17... e4?! 18 .i.c2 f5 19.i.b3 'ifg6 20 'ifh4 h6 21 'iff4 0-0-0 22 g3, and White has achieved his aίm, Berzinsh-Savko, LatVΊan championship 1993) 18 .i.c2 Φb8 19 .i.b3, and now, instead of 19 ... c!l)d5? 20 0-0-0 c!l)f4 (Zontakh-Manik, ΗΙο hovec 1994) when 21 J:txd8+ J:txd8 22 'ifxh7 'ifb6 23 J:tdl! would have yielded White a clear pull, Black should sacrifice a pawn: 19... 'ifb6! 20.i.xf7 f5! or 20 'ifxf7 c!l)g6 21.i.d5 .i.c8!, and his advantage ίη development and initiative guarantees him a good compensation. So, the lίηθβ examined ίη this section promise Black quite a reasonable game. However, the normal 11 ... 0-0 ίβ quite satisfactory for him, too.

Sectlon 4 11 ... 0-0 (1 e4 c5 2 ~ c!l)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 c!l)xd4 c!l)f6 5 c!l)cS e5 6 c!l)db5 d6

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

7 ~ι5 a6 8 tDa3 b5 9 tDd5 ~θ7 10 ~xf6 ~xf6 11 c3) 11 ••• ο-ο 12 tDc2 (D) White should immediately prepare a2-a4. Otherwise Black easily obtains a good position, e.g. 12 ~θ2 ~g5 13 ο-ο ~θ6 14 tDc2 tDe7 15 tDcb4 a5 16 tDxe7 + 'ilxe7 17 tDd5 'ilb7! 18 g3 ~xd5 19 'ilxd5 'iWxd5 20 exd5 :'ab8 with a typical slightly better position for Black (Baikov-Κalinichev, Moscow 1977 - a very instructive game!), or 12 ~d3 ~g5 13 ~c2 :tb8! 14 'ild3 b4 15 tDc4 bxc3 16 bxc3 tDe7 with equality (Arnason-Van der Wiel, Haninge 1989), or 12 h4I? (this idea later found a better incarnation - see Section 5) 12 ... tDe7 13 tDxf6+ gxf6 14 'ilf3 f5 15 ~d3 d5 16 exd5 'ilxd5 17 'iWg3+ Φh8 18 0-0-0 'iVc5 19 tDc2 1%g8 with mutual chances (Mark Tseitlin-Κalί nichev, Tbilisi 1985).

Black now has two ΡήncίΡal ορ tions: to continue his plan without preventing a2-a4 (12 ... ~g5) or to

make a prophylactic move 12...:'b8. this section we'll examine the former possibility: 12 ••• ~ι5 There are some other possible continuations that are worth mentioning: a) 12••ie6 (this is slightly premature) 13 a4 bxa4 14 1txa4 a5 15 ~c4 ~g5 16 ο-ο 'ilb8 17 'ild3! 1%c8 (but not 17... 'ii'xb2? 18 tDc7) 18 b4 'ilb719 :tfa1, and White maintains the pressure (Am.RodήgueΖ-Υusu ρον, Minsk 1982); b) 12••• ~b7 (introduced by GM Gurgenidze; the idea ίβ to transpose Black's knight to c5 or f6; true, this plan takes a lot of time) 13 ~θ2 (13 a4!? bxa4 14 1txa4 tDb8 15 ~c4! tDd7 16 b4 a5 - 16 ... tDb6 17 tDxb6 'iVxb6 18 ~d5 - 17 ο-ο axb4 18 1txa8 'iVxa8 -18 ...~Xθ8 19 cxb4 tDb6 20 'iVd3!? - 19 cxb4 ~d8 20 tDce3 yίelds White a small edge, Erneste-Κalinichev, Berlin 1993; however, Black can change his mind: 13 ... tDe7!? 14 tDxf6+ gxf6 15 ~d3 Φh8 16 ο-ο 1%g8 17 tDe3 f5!? 18 exf5 'ilb6 19 :'el d5 with equal chances, Moulin-Lein, Philadelphia 1992) 13•••tDb8 (now 13 ...tDe7 ίβ hardly aΡΡrΟΡήate οη account of 14 tDce3; 13 ... ~g5 14 ο-ο tDb8 15 ~g4! leads to a transposition of moves while 15 'ild3 instead of 15 ~g4 - is weaker: 15 ... tDd7 16 :'fd1 tDc5 17 'iWf3 g6 18 tDce3 rJth8 19 ~f1 1%a7!? 20 b4 tDe6 with a good position for Black, Tiviakov-Shirov, Oakham 1992 - illustrative game Nr.15), Ιη

The Choice ofTwo K's 14 i.g4! (preventing 14... tαl7; if14 "'d3?! then 14 ... lLId7 15 :d1 i.g5 16 ο-ο lLIc5 17 -'f3 g6 etc., Korneev-Κrasenkow, Moscow 1987) 14•••i.g5 15 ο-ο

Mter 15•••:a7 16 a4 (alternatively 16 -'d3!? lLId7 17 i.xd7 -'xd7 18 1:tad1 a5 19 -'g3 'ίΙΜ8! 20 lL\ce3 with the idea of 21 c4, and White maintained a certain plus, NovikChekhov, Leningrad 1991; Chekhov recommends 18 ...g6 followed by ... f7-f5) 16 ...bxa417 :txa4lL1d7 18 i.xd7 -'xd7 19 :a3 (19 lLIcb4 a5! and, if necessary, ... i.g5-d8) 19... a5 20 -'d3 :b8 21 b4 i.xd5 22 -'xd5 axb4 23 :xa7 -'xa7 24 lLIxb4 White maintains a minimal edge (Serper-Κrasenkow, Vilnius 1988). However, according to Chekhov, the 'prevented' 15•••lLId7!? is still possible: 16 i.xd7 'iί'xd7 17 lLIb6 'iί'c6 18 lLIxa8 -'xe4 19 f3 -'c6 followed by ... :fBxa8; this line needs practical te8ts; c) 12•••lLIb8 (the same idea; after 13 ~θ2 ~b7 -13 ... lLId7 14 i.g4!

- the previous variation appears) 13 lLIxf6+!? (13 a4 is harmless: 13 ... bxa4 14 lL\ce3 lLId7 15 'ίi'xa4 ~g5 16 -'c2 J.xe3 17 lLIxe3 lLIf6 with equality, Geller-Gurgenidze, USSR championship, Riga 1985) 13 ......xf6 14 g3 ~b7 15 ~g2lL1d7 16 ο-ο lL\c5 17 'iνθ2 hd8 (17 ... a5!? with the idea of ... J.b7-c6, ... :f8d8, ... :a8-c8 - recommended by Chekhov) 18 :ad1 -'e6 19 lLIb4 -'c4 20 'ii'e1 g6 preparing ... f7-f5 and obtaining sufficient counterplay C8tripunsky-Κharlov, Rostov 1993). Stίll, despite the fact that Gurgenidze's plan ha8 never been refuted, its original version Cunlike the modified οηθ, i.e. 11 ... J.b7 before castling - see Section 3) remains a rare guest ίη top tournaments. Now we move οη to 12... J.g5. 13 a4 Other moves Μθ not dangerous for Black: a) 13 h4 i.h6 14 g4 (attention: a typical tactical tήck is coming!) 14 ... J.f4! 15 "'f3 ~e6 16lL1xf4 "'f6! 17 g5 'ii'xf4 18 'ii'xf4 exf4 19 lLId4 lLIe5 20 J.h3 J.xh3 21 :xh3 :fe8 with good chances for Black (Uliashev-Novik, 8t Petersburg 1992); b) 13 lLIce3 (the white knight can be exchanged here) 13 ... ~b7 (13 ... J.e6!?) 14 ~θ2 J.xe3 15lL1xe3 lLIe7 16 J.f3 d5 17 exd5 'ii'd6 18 g4 :ad8 19 'ίi'd3 Ad7 20 0-0-0 :fd8 21 lLIf5 'ίi'ίO 22 lLIxe7 + -'xe7 23 :he1 J.xd5! is equal (GaΡήηdash vili-Timoshchenko, USSR 1977);

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

c) 13 .te2 (13 .td3?! .te6!), andnow: c1) 13•••f51? 14 .tf3 lIa7?! 15 ο-ο lIaf7 16 a4! bxa4 17 ha4 ~h8 18 exf5! .txf5 19 lbce3 .tc8 20 .te4, and White ίΒ better (Wang Zilί-Li Zunian, Chίnese championship 1987); however, 14... lIb8! was much strongerj c2) 13•••ll)e7 14 ll)cb4 a5 (οτ 14....te6 15 'fί'd3!?) 15 trute7 + 'fί'xθ7 16 lLId5 'fί'b7 17 'fί'd3 (οτ 17 'fί'b3 IIb8 18 ο-ο .te6 19IΣad1 IIfc8 20 a4 b4 21 .tb5 bxc3 22 bxc3 IIc5 with equal chances, Sznapik-Skrobek, Warsaw 1989) 17...b4 18 cxb4 axb4 19 'fί'g3 .td8! 20 ο-ο .tb6 21 a3 bxa3 22 bxa3 .te6 23 .tc4 .td4, and Black ίΒ not worse (KamskyLautier, Dos Hermanas 1995). Pay attention to the manoeuvre of Black's dark-squared bishop - it will be the 'crown jewels' of the next section! c3) 13•••.te6. Now 14 a4 bxa4 15 ha4 a5 16 .tc4 leads to the main position ofthe 12 ... .tg5lίne (see below) ... with an extra tempo for Black! 14 ο-ο ίΒ also harmless and enables Black to attack the d5 point: 14 ... ll)e7! 15 lbcb4 a5 16 trute7 + 'fί'xe717ll)d5'iVb7! 18 'fί'b3 .txd5 19 exd5 lIab8 with an excellent game (Breyther-Κίηdermanη, Germany 1987) οτ 15 a4 bxa4 16 IIxa4 .txd5 17 exd5 a5 18 ll)a3 f5 19lbc4 e4 with good counterplay (Serper-Chekhov, Frunze 1988). White can try 14 tαM trutb4 15 ll)xb4 'fί'b6 16 'fί'd3 but Black ίΒ by ηο means worse after 16 ... a5 17

ll)d5.txd5 18 'fί'xd5 b4 19 c4 b3!? 20 a3 a4 followed by ... lIa8-a5. Returnίng to 13 a4. 13 ••• bxa4 Mter 13••.:b8 14 axb5 axb5 the black b5 pawn ίΒ weak, and Whίte maίntains strong pressure, for example 15 .te2 ll)e7 16 ll)cb4 .tb7 17 ο-ο .txd5 18 ll)xd5 ll)xd5 19 'ifxd5 b4 20 lIa6 .te7 21 lIa7 (Inkίov-Littlewood,

Gronίngen

1978). 14 1Σxa4 14 ll)ce31? was played ίη V.Spasov-Dochev (Sofia 1994), and after 14....tb7 15 'fί'xa4ll)b8 16 .tc4 ~7 17 'ifc2 ll)c5 18 f3 .txe3 19l1)xe3 'ifb6 (19 ... a5!?) 20 'iVf2 Whίte obtaίned a mίnίmal edge. Of course, Black has many other plans after 14ll)ce3, for example 14 ....tb7 15 'fί'xa4ll)e7! (the d5 point!) with a goodgame.

14 ••• a5 14•••ll)e7 15 .tc4 (οτ θνθη 15 ll)cb4 a5 16ll)xe7 + 'fί'xθ7 17ll)d5, as ίη the game A.Kuzmin-Minasian, Belgorod 1989) ίΒ ίη White's

The Choice ofTwo K's favour, 14••• ~h8 15 j,c4 a5 leads a transposition οί moves (see 14 ... a5) while 15...:b8 is dubious ίπ VΊew οί 16lbcb4! lbxb4 17lbxb4 :b6 (or 17... j,b7 18 1i'e2) 18 ο-ο j,b7 19 j,d5 j,c8 20 j,c4 j,b7 21 1i'e2 wίth the better chances for White (Mokry-Κristensen, GausdalI989). The immediate 14•••:b8 ίΒ also poor: 15 h4! (but not 15 b4 a5! 16 j,c4 axb4 17 cxb4 ~h8 18 ο-ο ί5, Sveshnikov; Adorjan and T.Horvath recommend 15 lbcb4 lbxb4 16 cxb4 followed by 1i'dl-b3 and j,f1-c4) 15 ... j,h6 16 j,xa6 :xb2 17 j,xc8 1i'xc8 18 :c4 1i'b8 19 ο-ο lba5 20 :b4! hb4 21 cxb4 wίth an obVΊous advantage for White, as ίη Iordachescu-Sawatzki, Berιiπ 1995. Another interesting option ίΒ 14••• j,b7!? (introduced by Chekhov, Κalinίchev and Geo. Timoshenko ίη the 1980β) 15 j,c4 (ifnow 15 j,e2 then 15 ... lbb8!, for example 16 ο-ο lbd7 17 :a2 a5 18 ~hl lbb6 wίth equalίty, PrandstetterChekhov, Prague 1989) 15•••lba5!? (15 ... lbb8 ίΒ now insufficient, e.g. 16 ο-ο lbd7 17 b4 a5 18 'ii'd3! lbb6 19 lbxb6 1i'xb6 20 :fal axb421 ':'xa8 :xa8 22 :xa8+ j,xa8 23 cxb4, Kalod-Pisk, Brno 1994, or 18 ... axb4 19 :xa8 1i'xa8 20 cxb4, R.Κorsunsky-Arbakov, USSR 1978, with a certaίn edge for White ίη both cases) 16 j,a2 (16 j,e2lbb3! 17 :a3 lbc5 18 ί3 a5 19 b3 j,xd5 20 1i'xd5 j,cl 21 :a2 lbe6 22 g3 1i'g51ed to unclear consequences Ιο

ίη Shmuter-Verdikhanov, Nikolaev 1993) 16••• j,c6 17 :a3 (17 :Μ is not so clear: 17 ...lbb718 h4 j,h6 19 g4 j,f4 20 lbxf4 exf4 21 f3 ltlc5 22 :d4 1ie7! 23 1i'd2 j,a4! with sufficient counterplay for Black, as ίη M.Κiselev-NoVΊk, St Petersburg 1994) 17••• j,b5, trying to prevent White's development.

However, after the continuation 18 h4! j,h619lbce3 (threatening 20 lbf5) 19 ... j,xe3 20 lbxe3 :c8 (or 20 ...:a7 21 1i'd5lbc6 22 j,c4!, Rechel-Beshukov, Anapa 1991) 21 lbf5! lbc4 (21 ... lbb7? 22 1i'g4! 1i'f6 23 1i'g5!, exchangίng queens wίth a strategίcally winning endgame, Lanka-Κrasenkow, Moscow 1989 illustrαtive gαme Nr.16) 22 j,xc4 :xc4 23 ί3! (suggested by S.Gorelον; 23lbxd6 :d4! is unclear), and White maintains a small but clear positional edge. So, this lίηθ has gone out οί wίde use. 14 ... a5 ίΒ the most natural as Black's a-pawn ίΒ now safely protected.

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

15 .i.c4 15 b4 ίβ harmless ίη view of 15 ... .i.e6, e.g. 16 b5 ~b8 (with the idea of ... ~b8-d7-c5) 17lbcb4 'fί'c8 18 .i.e2 axb4! 19 :xa8 bxc3 20 ~θ3 f5! with good counterplay (Yudasin-Semeniuk, Saratov 1981) or even 16 ... ~7 17 .i.c4 1:ιc8!? 15 .i.b5 can be answered by 15 ... ~θ7!, e.g. 16 ~xθ7 + 'ikxe7 17 ο-ο 'ikb7 18 'fί'd3.i.e6 19 c4 .i.d8 20 1i'xd6 1i'xe4 with equality (Smyslov-Sveshnikov, USSR championship, Leningrad 1977) or 16 ~M .i.e6 17 lbxe7 + (17 ~ lbxc6 18 .i.xc6 :b8 19 ':a2 'fί'c8 20 'fί'a4 'fί'a6 21 c4 :fc8 22 .i.b5 'fί'a71eads to a double-edged position, according to Sveshnikov) 17... 'fIxe7 18 .i.c6 :ac8 19 :xa5 :xc6! 20 lbxc6 'iί'b7 21 h4! .i.f6 22 'fί'xd6 :c8 23 :c5 .i.d7 24 ~θ7 + .i.xe7 25 'iί'xθ7 'fί'xe4+ with perpetual check (Raί sky-Yakovich, Tashkent 1978). Mter 15 .i.c4 Black's general plan consists ίη a kingside attack by means of ... Φg8-h8 and ... f7-f5. This plan has two modifications: Black can prepare ... f7 -f5 by ... g7g6 or do without it. 15 ••• :b8 Δη immediate 15••• ~h8 ίβ possible as well, for example 16 ο-ο f5 17 exf5 .i.xf5 18 'fί'θ2 (18 .i.d3 .i.e6! 19 .i.e4 :b8 20 b4 axb4 21 ~cxb4 ~xb4 22 ~xb4 ':c8 with equality, Tkachiev-Lautier, Moscow 1994; 18 ~ce3 ίβ probably more accurate) 18 ....i.e6 19 ~θ3 :b8 20 :dl 'fί'd7 21 :aal (21 b3!) 21 ... 'fί'f7 22 tΔf1 .i.d8! 23 :d2 ~7 with good

counterplay for Black (GellerSveshnikov, USSR championship, Leningrad 1977). The text move ίβ a little more accurate, since it restricts White's possibilities while Black's rook ίβ quite well placed οη b8. 16 b3 16 b4 leads to the line examined above (14 ... :b8). White has two more important altematives: a) 16 1i'al (White wants to prepare b2-b4; however, his queen ίβ now somewhat offside) 16 ... ~h8 (16 ....i.e6 doesn't fit Black's plan, e.g. 17 b3 g6 18 ο-ο 1i'd7 19 :dl f5 20 exf5 gxf5 21 b4 with an edge for White, as ίη Κarpov-Sveshni kov, USSR championship, Moscow 1973) 17 ο-ο g6 (οτ 17 ... f5 when after 18 exf5 .i.xf5 19 tΔce3 Black should probably play 19 ....i.e6! as ίη the event of 19....i.g6 20 :dl e4 21 .i.f1 tΔθ5 - otherwise 22 b4 etc. - 22 ':d2 .i.h6 23 :xa5 'ikh4 24 'fί'θl! his attack was successfully parried in Tiviakov-Degraeve, Oakham 1992) 18 b4 axb4 19 cxb4 tΔe7 20 tΔxθ7 .i.xe7 21 b5 (preparing tΔc2-b4) 21 ... .i.b7 22 :el 'ikb6 23 'fί'a2 f5 24 exf5 .i.g5 25 .i.d3 gxf5 with good counterplay for Black (Jansa-Simic, Belgrade 1977); b) 16:a2 ~h8 (16 ....i.e6 17 ο-ο 1i'd7 can be met by 18 'fί'θ2 .i.d8 19 tΔce3 Φh8 20 :dl g6 21 ~hl f5 22 exf5 gxf5 23 f4, Sveshnikov), and now: (D) b1) 17 tOOe3!? g6 18 ο-ο (18 Μ!? ίβ interesting, e.g. 18 ... .i.xh4 19 g3 .i.g5 20 f4 exf4 21 gxf4 .i.h4+ 22

The Choice ofTwo K's

Φf1 f5 23 b3 fxe4 24 :Σah2 g5 25 lίJg2 :Σb7 26 lίJxh4 gxh4 27 :Σχh4 :Σg7

with unclear complications ίη the game Stangl-Κindermann, ΑΙ tensteig 1987) 18... f5 19 'iVa4 (19 'ΙΜ3?! f4 20 lίJc2 f3 with an initiative for Black, Sznapik-Li Zunian, Thessaloniki 1984), and now, ίη stead of 19...~d7 20 ~b5 :Σxb5 21 "xb5lίJb4 22 "Xθ5lίJxa2 23 "xa2, and White's chances are preferable (Novik-Filippov, StPetersburg 1994), Black should certainly play 19... ~b7! 20 ~b5 lίJe7 with suffι cient kingside counterplay; b2) 17 ο-ο f5 (17 ... g6!? 18 "e2 .th6 19 :ΣdΙ f5 20 exf5 gxf5 21 .. h5 ~g7 22lίJce3 ~d7 23 f4 a4! with equal chances, Kudrin-Belikov, Moscow 1995) 18 exf5 .i.xf5 19 lίJce3, and now, besides 19••• ~e6 20 "d3 "d7 21 b3 etc. (see below, 16 b3line), Black can try 19....tg6!? since it ίΒ not so easy for White to push b2-b4. 20 "a4?! "c8 21 .tb5 ίΒ refuted by 21 ... ~e8! 22 c4lίJb4 23 lίJxb4 ~xe3! 24 fxe3 :Σχf1 + 25 ..tί>xf1 ~xb5 26 cxb5 "c4+ (Matulovic-Sax, Belgrade 1977).

After the move 16 b3 White's major pieces are not tied to the defence of his b-pawn. 16 ••• Φh8 Again 16•••.te6 ίΒ hardly good for Black, e.g. 17 ο-ο (or 17 'iVal see 16 "al) 17... lίJe7 18 "d3 lίJxd5 19 .txd5 :Σχb3?! 20 ~xb3 .txb3 21 :Σa3 a4 22 lίJal with a clear ρυΙΙ for White (NikolenkoSveshnikov, Pula 1990). 17 ο-ο (D) 17 h4?! ίΒ poor: 17 ... ~h6 18 g4 .tf4! 19 "f3 .te6 20 lίJcθ3 ~xe3 21 fxe3?! lίJθ7! etc. (Mezentsev-Κim, Novosibirsk 1980). If 17 lίJce3 then 17 ... g6 18 ο-ο f5, e.g. 19 exf5 gxf5 20 f4 exf4 21 lίJc2 lίJe5 22 lίJxf4 (Brodsky-Sopur, Κatowice 1992), and now 22 ... lίJxc4 23 bxc4 :Σθ8 with an excellent position for Black.

17 ••• Ι5 usually, the main altemative to this move ίΒ 17••• g6. Black maintains suffιcient counterplay after 18 "e2 .td7 19 :ΣfaΙ ~h6 20 g3?! (20 Μ) f5 21 exf5 gxf5 22 b4 ΑΒ

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

e4! (Lutz-Κraιnnik, Germany 1995 illustrαtive gαme Nr.17). 18 b4 looks stronger but after 18 ....td7 19 'ii'a1 'ii'c8 20 .td3 axb4 21 cxb4 lΔθ7 (21 ... lΔd4? 22lΔxd4 .txa4 23 lΔf3 .tb3 24 lΔxg5 f6, SaltaevCherniaev, Vladivostok 1995, ίΒ poor ίη view of 25 :c1! "g426 lΔxh7! ~xh7 27 lΔxf6+! :xf6 28 'ii'a7+) 22lΔxθ7 .txe7 23 :a7 .td8 Black seems to be okay. 18 exf5 .txf5 19 lΔce3 Or 19 'ii'e2 "d 7 20 lΔce3 (20 lΔde3 ίΒ questionable: 20 ....te6 21 :d1?! .txe3 22 lΔxθ3 :xb3!, Nijboer-Van der Wiel, Netherlands 1987) 20 ....te6 21 :d1 .td8! (the best square for this bishop!) 22 :a2 'ii'f7 23 'ii'd3 'ii'h5 (23 ...lΔθ7!?, Sveshnikov) 24lΔf1 (with the idea of lΔg3-e4) 24 ... e4 25 'ii'c2 .th4 26 lΔg3 .txg3 27 hxg3 lΔθ5 28 lΔf4 :xf4 29 gxf4lΔf3+ 30 gxf3 .txc4 31 'ii'xe4 .txb3 32 :b1 :e8 33 1:txa5 d5, and the game should have ended ίη a draw (Geller-Sveshnikov, USSR championship, TbiΙίΒί 1978). 19 ••• .te6 (D) 19•••.tg6 ίΒ also possible, e.g. 20 .te2 .tf7 (20 ... e4 21 b4 axb4 22 cxb4 lΔθ5!?, Sveshnikov) 21 .tf3 .txe3 22 fxe3 lΔθ7 23 .te4 .txd5 24 ]bf8+ 'ii'xf8 25 .txd5 "d8 with equal chances (Κindermann-Birn boim, Munich 1987) or 20 .td3!? .txd3 21 "xd3 .txe3 22 fxe3 :xf1 + 23 'ii'xf1 :Xb3 24 :c4 :b5 25 e4 :c5 26 :Xc5 dxc5 27 'ii'a6 with a minimal edge for White ίη

the game A.Sokolov-Gurgenidze, USSR championship, Riga 1985. 20 'ii'd3 20 'ii'c2 ίΒ harmless ίη view of 20 ....txe3 21lΔxθ3 d5 (Suetin-Gorelov, Moscow 1981). 20 ••• 'ii'd7 This ίΒ the crucial position of the whole line. Black's pair ofbishops and counterplay against the white b3 and f2 pawns compensate the weakness of the a5 and d6 pawns and the d5 square. Here are some examples: 21 :dl 'ii'f7 22 :a2 'ii'h5 23 :e1 .td8 24lΔf1 'ii'f7 25 :e3 e4! 26 'ii'xe4 lΔe5 with good counterplay (CheremkhinGoldin, USSR 1980) or 21 :a2 'ii'f7 (21 ....tf7 ίΒ not bad either: 22 f3 .tg6 23 'ii'e2 'ii'b7 24 lΔg4 .td8 25 lΔf2 .tb6 26 ~h1 .txf2 27 :xf2 e4 28 f4 :be8 ίΒ equal, o.EfimovΚishnev, Κemerovo 1985) 22 'ii'e4! 'ii'b7! (Black's queen always finds an appropriate light square!) 23 :d1, and now, instead of23 ....td8 24 lΔb6! :f4 25 'ii'd3 with a small edge for White (Κrasenkow-Κali nichev, Tbilisi 1985) Black should

The Choice of Two K's have preferred 23 ... g6, preparing ... .i.g5-d8 and ... lΔc6-e7, with muΙυώ chances.

Section 5 12...J:tb8 lΔf3 1Δc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 5 lΔc3 e5 6 lΔdb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 lΔa3 b5 9 lΔd5 .i.e7 10.i.xf6.i.xf6 11 c3 ο-ο 12lΔc2)

(1 e4 c5 2

~xd4 lΔf6

000

J:tb8

This move (preventing a2-a4) is considered the most solid line for Black. However, a new plan elaborated by Κasparov (see below) opens new prospects for White. 13 .i.e2 This ίθ the classical, 'normal' continuation. However, recently White has preferred other ορ tions. The following alternatives have been seen ίn practice: a) 13 b4?! lΔe7 14 lΔce3 .i.g5 15 lΔxe7 + 'iVxe7 16 lΔd5 'iVb7! 17 h4.i.d8 18 g3 .i.e6 19 .i.g2 .i.xd5 20 'iVxd5 'iVxd5 21 exd5 e4, and Black' s chances are preferable

(Bojkovic-Sveshnikov, Ν ονί Sad 1979); b) 13 'iVd3 .i.g5 14 J:tdl f5 15 lΔde3 f4 16lΔf5 ixf5 17 exf5 'iVb6 18 .i.e2 J:tbd8 19 .i.f3 lΔe7 20 h4 .i.h6 21 lΔb4 lΔxf5 22 lΔd5!, and White obtained the slightly better prospects (A.Sokolov-Vaiser, Reunion 1991). Instead of 16 ....i.xf5, 16 ... d5!? is interesting, e.g. 17 'iVxd5 + 'iVxd5 18 J:txd5 g6 19lΔfd4! with unclear play. But 14 ... a5! 15 lΔde3 'iVb6 ίθ the simplest. c) 13 a4 (still!) 13 ...bxa4 14 lbcb4lΔxM 15 αΜ (aft.er 15lΔxM .i.b7 16 'iVxa4 .i.g5 17 .i.xa6 .i.xe4 the position ίΒ unclear, Banas-N0vak, Czechoslovakian championship 1978) 15....i.d7 (or 15 ....i.b7 16 J:txa4 .i.c6 17 J:txa6 .i.xd5 18 'iVxd5 J:txb4 19 .i.c4 J:txb2 20 ο-ο with an equal position, Diaz-Garcia Martinez, Cuban championship 1982) 16 ixa6 .i.c6 17 b5 .i.xb5 18 .i.xb5 J:txb5 19 J:txa4 ]hb2. Draw (Filipenko-Meister, Belgorod 1989); d) 13 g3 .i.g5 14 .i.g2 (14 h4 .i.h6 15 .i.g2 a5 16 a3!? .i.e6 17 ο-ο lΔe7 18lΔce3 .i.xe3 19lΔxe3 'iVb6 led to an equal position ίn StήΡun sky-Iskusnyh, Κazan 1995) 14... a5 15 ο-ο (15 a3!?) 15 ... b4! (even better than 15 ....i.e6 16 'iVd3 lΔe7 17 lΔce3 .i.xe3 18lΔxe3 'iVb6 19 J:tfdl J:tfd8 20 a3, Hubner-Κrasenkow, polanίca Zdroj 1995, 20 ....i.b3 with equality) 16 f4 (16 'iVd3 bxc3 17 bxc3 lΔe7 18 lΔde3?! 'iVc7 19 J:tfdl J:tb6 20 c4 .i.e6 21 .i.f1 'iVc5 with initiative for Black, Κruppa-IGsh nev, Κemerovo 1985) 16 ....i.h6 17

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

~ce3 (De Firmian-Ivanovic, Lone Pine 1980) 17 ... exf4 18 gxf4 g6 with a good game for Black; e) 13 .i.d3 .i.g5 (13 ....i.e6!? 14 ~ce3 .i.g5 ίΒ not bad either, for example 15 ο-ο ~7 16 .i.c2 .i.xe3 17 ~xθ3 b4 18 "'d3 bxc3 19 bxc3 ':b6, Aseev-Yakovich, 8t Petersburg 1993, or 15 ... .i.xe3 16 ~xe3 "ii'b6 17 .i.c2 b4 18 .i.b3 bxc3 19 bxc3 "'c5, Aseev-Κrasenkow, Russian championship, Elista 1995, with balanced chances ίn both games) 14 ο-ο ~7 (or 14 ....i.e6, e.g. 15 a4 bxa4 16 ~M - 16 ~M .i.xd5 1 7 ~xd5 ':xb2 ίΒ equal 16 ... ~7! 17 .i.xa6 f5 18 exf5 :xf5 19 .i.d3 ':f6 20 ':xa4 d5 21 ':a7 ':h6 22 .i.e2 d4 with sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Nikolenko-Dolmatov, Moscow 1992) 15 lΔxθ7 + (15 a4lΔxd5) 15 ... .i.xe7! 16 ~b4 .i.b7 17 .i.c2 ':c8 18 "'d3 ':c5 19 a4 a5, and Black won the fight for the d5 square (Μ. Kaminski-Vaiser, Groningen 1993); f) 13 a3!? Cintroduced by GM Z.Lanka) 13... 00 (13 ... .i.e6 - or 13 ... .i.g5 - 14 ~M! ~xb4 15 axb4 ίΒ favourable for White - this ίΒ the idea behind 13 a3; 13 ... ~7 14 ~cb4!? .i.b7 15 .i.e2 ~g6!? 16 g3 a5 17 ~c2 .i.xd5 18 "'xd5 ~θ7 19 "'d3 yielded White a small edge ίη Karpov-Lautier, Ubeda 1994) 14 h4!? (depriving Black's bishop of the g5 square; an unusual plan was tried ίη the game BologanRedon, France 1994: 14 .i.d3 .i.e6 15 "'e2!? .i.xd5 16 exd5 ~7 17

ο-ο-ο!? "'b6 18 ~b1 g6 19 h4! .i.g7 20 h5 f5?! 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 g4! with a strong attack for White; however, isn't Black's attack after 20 ......c5! 21 b4! 22 axb4 axb4 23 lΔxb4 ':xb4! 24 cxb4 "ii'xb4 more dangerous?), and now Black has the following options: f1) 14..• g6 15 g3 .i.g7 (after 15 ... h5 16 .i.h3 White can prepare g3-g4) 16 h5 "ii'g5 (16 ... ~θ7 17 hxg6 hxg6 18 ~e3 ~xd5 19 ~xd5 .i.e6 20 .i.h3 .i.xd5? - 20 ... "ii'g5 was better, according to Ftaι!nίk21 "ii'xd5 yielded White the better prospects ίη 8hirov-Illescas, Linares 1994) 17 .i.h3 .i.e6 18 hxg6 hxg6 19 ~ce3 ':b7 20 "ii'd3 ':fb8, preparing ... b5-b4, with mutual chances (Borm-Κing, Amsterdam 1982); f2) 14••• ~e7 15 ~ce3 ~xd5 16 ~xd5 .i.e6 17 g3 (after 17 ~xf6+ "ii'xf6 18 "ii'xd6 ':fd8 19 "'c5 b4!? Black obtains a strong initiative, according to Wahls) 17 ......d7 18 .i.g2 .i.d8 19 ο-ο .i.b6 20 "'d2 ':fc8 21 ':fd1.i.xd5 22 "ii'xd5 b4 23 axb4 axb4 24 "ii'xd6 "ii'g4!, and Black easily reached a draw (Κasparov Κramnik, Moscow °active 1994). Ιη this line White should consider 15 ~xf6+!?, by analogy with the following νaήatίοn; g) 13 h4!? ~e7 (13 ... g6!? was played ίη 8hmuter-Beshukov, 80chi 1993: 14 "'d2 .i.g7 15 h5 .i.e6 16 ~3 ~7 17 g3lΔxd5 18lΔxd5 ':c8 19 ':d1 ':c5 20 ~θ3 ':c6 21 b3, and now, instead of 21 ... "ii'a8?!, Black should have played 21 ... "ii'g5

"'f3

The Choice ofTwo K's ~2 c4 :b8 with sufficient counterchances; this Ιίηθ, especially 14 J.ξ3, needs more practical tests)

14~+!? (an interestingconcept: White gives υρ the d5 point trying to make use of his better pawn structure - the idea of the 10 lΔxθ7 ιiηθ ίη θη improved ίη terpretation; 14lΔcθ3 is not dangerous, e.g. 14 ... lΔxd5 15 lΔxd5 .i.b7 - 15 ....i.e6!? - 16 g3 b4 17 c4 .i.xd5 18 'ikxd5 'ikb6 19 :dl .i.d8!? 20 'ikxd6 b3 21 a3 'ika7 with a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn, Smagίn-Gorelov, Moscow 1982) 14... gxf6, and now: gl) 15 'ikd2 .i.b7 (15 ... f5 16 'δ'g5+ lΔg6 17 exf5 'iVxg5 18 hxg5 .i.xf5 19 lΔb4! with a better endgame for White, T.Horvath) 16 .i.d3 d5 17 exd5 'ikxd5 18 0-0-0 e4 19 i.e2 'ikxa2 (19 ...'ike5!?, with the idea 20 'ikd6lΔf5, deserved attenΙίοη, accordίng to Fta~nik) 20 'iWh6 'δ'θ6 21 lΔd4. Now 21 ...•e5?! is ήsky due to 22 f4 exf3 23 gxf3 (23 i.d3lΔg6 24 g3 i.e4 25 i.xe4 'ikxe4 26 h5lΔe5 27 'ikxf6 'ike3+ 28ΦbΙ

lDg4, and Black held his ground ίη Gi.Garcia-Illescas, Linares 1994) 23 ... Φh8 24 :dg1 lΔg6 25 Φb1! :g8 26 i.d3 while 21 ... 'δ'b6Ied to an unclear position ίη Κasparov Κramnik, Novgorod 1994: 22 :h3 Φh8 23 i.g4 :g8 24lΔe6!?.:tg6 25 'ikf4 when Black could have parried White's attack by means of 25 ... .i.d5!! (see illustrative game Nr.20); Κasparov recommends 22 g4! Φh8 23 lbf5 lbxf5 24 gxf5 :fd8 25 i.h5 e3 26 :hgl :xdl + 27 .i.xd1 :g8 28 :xgB+ ~xg8 29 'ikxe3 with a small edge for White ίη the endgame; g2) 15 i.d3!? d5 16 exd5 'ikxd5 17lΔθ3 'iVe6 18 'iWh5. Now ίη Κas parov-Lautier, Moscow 1994, the French Grandmaster made a ιΥΡί cal mistake: 18... e4?! (weakening the dark squares), and after 19 i.c2 b4 20 c4 ~h8 21 0-0-0 f5 22 'ikg5 :b6 23 h5 White obtained a clear positional edge (ίllustratίvegame Nr.21). According to Κasparov, after 18 ... f5 19 0-0-0 'ikg6 20 'iWg5 (20 'δ'θ2!?) 20 ... f6 21 'ikxg6+ hxg6 22 i.c2 the endgame is slightly better for White a11 the same, due to his domination οη the d-file . Still, this statement looks dίsput able (Black can play 22 ...1:tb6 etc.). The 13 h4lίne needs more practical tests. However, θνθη now Black often tήes to avoid it, opting for another move order (11 ... :b8 12 lΔc2 i.g5) or. .. for some other vaήatίοηs (for example 12 ... .i.g5)! Ν ow we come back to 13 .i.e2. According to the present state of

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

theory, this move ίΒ not very dangerous for Black. ~ι5 13 ••• Black's moves from 11 to 13 can be made ίn another order (see Section 3). 14 0-0 (D) 14 a4 ίΒ as harmless as a move earlier: 14...bxa4 15 tα:b4ll)xb4 (or 15 ... ~b7 16 ~xa6 tZ)xb4 17 ~xb7 tZ)xd5 18 ~xd5 :xb2 with a quick draw, Kotkov-Κrasenkow, Moscow 1983) 16 cxb4 (16 tZ)xb4 ~b7 17 Ίi'xa4 a5! 18 Ίi'xa5 :a8 19 ~a6 Ίi'f6 with initiative for Black, Banas-Plachetka, Czechoslovakian championship 1978) 16 ... ~b7 17 :xa4 ~c6 18 :xa6 ~xd5 19 Ίi'xd5 :xb4 with equality (Ulybin-Ikonnikov, Cheliabinsk 1990). 14 Ίi'd3 a5 15 :dl deserves attention to prevent ... tZ)cβoθ7. After the continuation 15•• ~e6 16 tZ)ce3 (16 a3 ~h8 17 b4 {5 18 ~f3 (4 19 ο-ο tZ)e7! leads to a good position for Black, Κalegin-Doghri, Moscow 1991) 16... ~xθ3 (16 ... g6!?) 17 tZ)xe3 ~xθ2 18 Ίi'xd6 Ίi'xd6 19 :xd6 tZ)e7 20 ο-ο (Lanka-NoksoKoivisto, Cappelle la Grande 1992) 20 ... ~b3 21 :d7 :fe8 a draw ίΒ highly probable. a5 14 ••• 14•••f5 ίΒ not quite aΡΡrΟΡήate here: 15 exf5 (15 ~f3!?, Sveshnikov) 15 ... ~xf5 16 tZ)ce3 ~e6 17 ~g4 ~f718 ~h5 g6 19 ~f3 Ίi'd7 20 a4, and White maintaίns a small but clear edge (Unzicker-Hίibner, Gerιnany 1984). 14••• ~h8 isjust a 10ss of time (15 Ίi'd3 {5 16 ~f3

_-_-_-•••~ ~.t.~

~.~.

~.~ ~

.~.~.~ ~.-

~.~ ~

•

~.(@??! J":\. ~ ~"Z.J_

~ U

_ .

.Δ_

~.~ ~

.~ ~

Δu ~l'Δ~.(@??! Jιp ~ U Δ~'~

~ ~

~.~\Wι~.~': ~ ~1i!!I~ ~

etc.). 14•••g6 ίβ possible because 15 a4 bxa4 16 tZ)cb4 tZ)xb4 17 tZ)xb4 ~b7 18 'ii'xa4 enables Black to obtain counterplay by 18 ... Ίi'b6!? 19 ~d3 ~d8 20 tZ)xa6 l1a8 21 b4 f5!? (Mertins-Lobron, Grosskrotzenburg 1978); still, the typical ΡΟΒί tion after 15lDcb4 tZ)xb4 16 tZ)xb4 Ίi'b6 17 tZ)d5 Ίi'c5 18 Ίi'd3 ~θ6 19 1:tadl (Berg-Dolmatov, Groningen 1977) can be assessed as slightly better for White. Finally, Black can directly play 14...lDe7, e.g. 15 tZ)cb4 ~b7 16 Ίi'd3 a5 17 tZ)xe7 + ~xθ7 18 tZ)d5 b4! 19 1:tabl ~xd5 20 Ίi'xd5 bxc3 21 bxc3 Ίi'c7 ίΒ equal (Tseshkovsky-Geo. Timoshenko, Podolsk 1990), or 14...~e6 15 tZ)cb4 (15 a4 bxa4 16 tZ)db4 - 16 lDcb4 ~xd5 -16 ... tZ)e7! 17 ~xa6see 13 ~d3; 15 'ii'd3 a5 leads to the main line; besides, Black can try 15 ... f5 16 ~f3 g6, e.g. 17 :fdl 'ii'd7 18 tZ)cb4 lDxb4 19 tZ)xb4 a5, Sigurjonsson-Ligterink, Wijk aan Zee 1977) 15 ... lDxb4 16ll)xb4 'lWb6 17 Ίi'd3 (otherwise 17 ... 'ii'b7), and now even 17 ... ~c4!? 18 Ίi'f3 ~θ6 19 l1adl f5!?

The Choice of Two K's Still, the text move, taking the b4 square away from the white knights, is the most accurate. Black now can easily obtain the best arrangement of his minor pieces (j,e6 and ~7). 15 'iνd3 With two ideas: to strengthen the d5 point by 1:ta1(f1)-d1, and to transfer White's queen Ιο an active position οη the kingside ('iνd3-g3). 15 a3 CΔe7 16lbce3 j,xe3 17lbxe3 j,e6 18 b4 axb4 19 axb4 'iνc7 (Hartmann-Schώte, Germany 1987) or 15 ~a3 b4! 16 ~b5 (or 16 ~c4 j,a6!) 16 ...bxc3 17 bxc3 ~7 18 a4 lΔxd5 19 'iνxd5 :b6 20 ~c4 (Petrushin-Yurtaev, Tallinn 1983) 20 ... ~θ6 21 'iνd3 'iνθ7 yields Black good counterplay. An important alternative to the text move ίΒ 15 b4 with the idea of creating a passed pawn after a2-a4. However, this doesn't pose any problems for Black either: a) 15••• j,e6 16 a4 (16 bxa5 'ii'xa5 17 ~cb4 ~cxb4 18 cxb4 'ii'a8!) 16 ... bxa4 17 :xa4 (17 b5 lΔθ7 18 c4 lbxd5 19 cxd5 j,d7 20 lΔa3 'iνc7 21 'iνxa4 'iνc3 is good for Black, L.Belov-Filipenko, Cheliabinsk 1977) 17 ... axb4 18 ~cxb4 (18 cxb4 CΔe7! 19lbxe7 + j,xe7 20 :a7 ~b3!, Vogt-Vaiser, Berlin 1982, or 19 j,c4 'iνc8!, gaining the d5 point, Isupov-Vaiser, Sverdlovsk 1981, ίΒ rather favourable for Black) 18 ... 'iM7 19 :a6 lΔxb4 20 cxb4 ~xd5 21 'iνxd5 hb4 22 hd6 'ii'b7, and a draw was agreed ίη Am.Rodriguez-Vaiser, Sochi 1988;

b) 15••• lΔe7!? 16lΔxe7+ j,xe7 1 7lΔe3 (17 a4 bxa4 18 b5 j,e6 19 c4 'iVd7 20 ~3 j,d8! is equal, ASokolov-Andrianov, Moscow 1982) 17... j,e6 18 ~d5 axb4 19 cxb4 'iνd7! 20 'ii'd3 (20 a4?! j,xd5 21 'ii'xd5 bxa4 22 b5 'ii'a7 is risky for White, Anka-Yakovich, Kecskemet 1991)

20... j,d8!! 21 ~hl?! ~b6! 22 :acl j,d4 23 f4 j,xd5 24 exd5 f5, and Black seized the initiative (Suetin-Andrianov, Moscow 1981 illustrαtivegαme Nr.19). Mter 21 lΔc3 f5! Black maintains good counterchances, too. Returning to 15 'iνd3. 15 ... j,e6 (D) Black has another way to obtain equal chances: 15...lΔe7!?, for example 16 ~ce3 (16 llJde3 'iνb6 17 :fdl :d8 18 a4 bxa4 19 Axa4 j,e6 20 :dal 'iVxb2 21 :xa5lbc6 leads to equality, too, Wolff-Yakovich, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 16 ... j,xe3! (just ίη time, but after the 'unconventional' 16 ... j,e6 17 :fdllΔxd5 18 lΔxd5 'iVd7 19 'ii'g3

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

J.d8 20 b3 Φh8 21 c4 bxc4 22 J.xc4 g6, followed by ... f7 -f5, White also failed to prove his advantage ίn the game Κir.Georgiev V:Spasov, Sofia 1992) 17llJxe3 (or 17 llJxe7 + "xe7 18 "xe3 J.e6 19 :fd1 :fc8, Przewoznik-Vyzmanaνίn, Naleczow 1986) 17 .....b6 18 b4 (18 a4 bxa4 19 tLJc4 J.a6! is also equal, Sveshnikov) 18 ... axb4 19 cxb4 J.e6 20 :fb1 :fc8 21 a4 bxa4 22 :xa4 1Ii'd4, and the game soon ended ίn a draw (Beliavsky-Sveshnikov, USSR 1980). The text move leads to more complicated positions.

Besides the usual plan of fighting for the d5 square and queenside counterplay (... llJc6-e7, ...b5-b4 etc.), Black has a sharper option: ... g7-g6, preparing ... f7-f5. The following variations show different versions of these two strategies. 16 :fdl Or: a) 16 llJce3 g6 (16 ... llJe7 - see 15 ... llJe7; 16 ... J.xe3 17 tLJxe3 "d7

18 h3 :fd8 19 J.g4 llJe7 20 :fd1, Kamsky-Lputian, ΒίθΙ 1993, and now, according to Κamsky, Black should have played 20 .....c7 21 J.xe6 fxe6 22 a4 b4 23 c4 "c5 equalizing) 17 Φh1 Φh8 18 J.d1!? "d7 19 J.c2 'fIa7 20 :ad1 b4 21 J.a4 :fc8 with equality (Κruppa Yakovich, Uzhgorod 1987); b) 16 :adl g6 (16 .....d7 17 llJa3! llJa7 18 "g3 h6 19 h3 Φh8 20 Φh1 llJc8 21 h4 J.d8 22 f4 is better for White, Abramovic-Sel, Skopje 1984; 16 ... llJe7!? deserves attention, according to Sveshnikov) 17 a3 Φh8 18 b4 "d7 19 "g3 J.d8 20 Φh1 f5! 21 exf5 gxf5 22 f4 1Ii'f7 23 llJce3 axb4 24 axb4 llJe7 with equal chances (Larsen-Nunn, Nrestved 1985). 18 ••• gβ Passive play such as 18.....d7 17 'ifg3 h6 doesn't guarantee Black equal chances: 18 h4 J.d8 19l1Jce3 Φh8 20 :d2 (after 20 a4 bxa4 21 llJc4 J.c7 22 :d2 J.xd5 23 :xd5 llJe7 24 :d2 "c6 25 'fId3 :fd8 Black held his ground, Lau-Yusuρον, Munich 1988) 20 ... llJe7 21 :ad1 'fIc6 22 a3 'iWb7 23 J.g4! (a typical way to exchange the lightsquared bishops ίn this variation!) 23 ... llJxd5 24 llJxd5 'fIc8 25 llJe3 J.e7 26 llJd5 J.d8 27 f3 with a good position for White (SpasskyVukic, Reggio Emilia 1983) or 20... J.b6 21llJf5!? (Balashov-Dvoretsky, USSR championship, Erevan 1975) or even 21 a3, and White has a small but clear edge (Sveshnikov).

The Choice of Two K's 16...Φb8 was p1ayed ίη ShortChandler (London 1991). After 17 .tf3 'ίWd7 18lΔce3 g6 19 'ίi'θ2 f5 20 a4 .txe3 21 lDxe3 bxa4 22 J:td2 lDe7 23 '6'a6 White maintained some pressure. Final1y, 16•••b4 deserves serious attention. Neither 17 lDce3 .txe3 18 lDxe3 '6'b6 19 .tg4 .txg4 20 lDxg4 bxc3 21 bxc3 J:tfd8 22 J:tab1 "'c5 (Short-Κindermann, P10vdiv 1984) nor 17 c4 J:tb7 18lDde3 'δ'b6 19 b3 J:td7 20 lM5 'ίi'a7 21 'ίi'g3.td8 (G1att-Maiorovas, Hungary 1984) gίνθ White any serious prospects of an advantage. After the text move both 17 :abl?! lDe7! (Κrantz-Yudovich sr., corr 1979/80) and 17lDde3?! 'iί'b6 18 'iί'xd6?! 1:tad8 19 "a3 b4 (Perecz-Τ. Georgadze, Dortmund 1979) are unsatisfactory for White. Tseshkovsky-Τ. Georgadze (USSR

championship, Tbilisi 1978) saw 17lDa3 t'Δa7 18 t'Δθ3 "b6 19 t'Δac2 .tc4 20 "d2 "c6 21 .txc4 bxc4 22 1:Iabl "xe4 23 'iνxd6 lDb5 with enough counterchances for B1ack. It ίΒ time to draw some conc1uΒίοηΒ. lη the 9 t'Δd5 system White's

standard strategy of occupying and strengthening the d5 point doesn't bring him an edge as B1ack has good possibilίties of fighting for the d5 square and counterp1ay οη both sides. It most1y 1eads to rather quiet, rough1y equa1 positions. Kasparov's p1an of gίving υρ the d5 square and utilizing White's better pawn structure (13 h4 and 14 t'Δxf6+) 100ks more ίη teresting. However, B1ack can eliminate it by means of changίng his move order (11 ... J:tb8 and then 12....tg5).

Made ίπ Novosibirsk

(1 e4 c5 2 ι!Μ3 tl)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tl)xd4 tl)f6 5 tl)c3 e5 6 tl)db5 d6 7 -*.g5 a6 8 tl)a3 b5) 9-*.xf6 The systems started with this move lead to much sharper play than 9 tl)d5. 9 ••. pf6 Only with this recapture can Black create sufficient counterplay. 9 •• :iνxf6 yields White a precious tempo: 10 tl)d5 "'d8 11 c4!, e.g. 11 ... b4? 12 'iVa4! .i.d7 13lt)b5, and White wins (TimoshchenkoAaron, Moscow 1968) or 11 ... lt)e7 12 cxb5 tl)xd5 13 exd5 with a clear advantage. 10 lt)d5 (D) If 10 ti)abl, then 10...f5, for example 11 -*.d3 {4 12 lt)d2 -*.g7 13 'ifh5 tl)b4 (Kupreichik-Panchenko, Daugavpίls 1978) alternatively 12 ο-ο -*.g7 13 tl)d5 -*.e6 14 a4 b4 15 c3 bxc3 16 tl)bxc3 ο-ο 17 b4 a5 18 b5 tl)d4 (lvanovίc-Velίmirovίc, Yugoslav championship 1984), with good prospects for Black ίη both cases. Black's most common continuatίon ίη thίs positίon ίs 10... f5, with an immediate attack οη White's central pawn. 10...-*.e6 is useless ίη vίew ο! 11 c3. However, ίη the early 1980s the Ν ovosibirsk players B.Schίpkov and 1Μ v.Malyshev introduced another move, which we examine ίη thίs chapter.

10 ... -*.g7 Black prepares ... lt)c6-'e7 to dislodge White's knight from the d5 square. However, White can take another important point - f5 - under control. Nevertheless, Black may later play ... f6-f5, sacήficίηg a pawn to obtain a strong pawn centre. The game assumes a really sharp character. According to the present state of theory, the meήts ofWhite's position are more significant.

Section 1 Odds and Ends

11 -*.d3 Besides thίs natural move, practice has βθθη: a) 11 "'f3?! f5! 12 exf5 tl)d4 13 'ifg4 tl)xf5 14 tl)e3 15 lt)d5 'ifd8 16 ~3 h5! 17 'ife4 tl)xe3! 18 'ifxa8 ο-ο 19 'iff3 (19 fxe3 'iVh4+ and 20 ......b4+) 19 ... lt)g4 20 .i.e2

"'f6

Mαde

in Novosibirsk

&141 with an overwhelming attack

for Black (Ulybin-Vaiser, Moscow 1989); b) 11 i.e2 ο-ο 12 c3 rιJθ7 13 t;)c2lΔxd5 14 "xd5 i.e6 15 "d3 d5, Itnd Black ίΒ not worse (ZezulkinSopur, Κatowice 1992); c) 11_A~: Now Black should probably prefer Ι1 ... f5 ob.taining a position frοm:ρnaΡtθi-5)(see below). Mter 11 ... rιJe~12.tg2 rιJxd5 13 "xd5 i.e6 14 "d2 "b6 15 c3 ο-ο 16 ο-ο :ad8 17 rιJc2 f5 18 exf5 i.xf5 19 rιJb4 White's chances are preferable as 19 ... d5?! 20 rιJxd5 i.e6 (Alzate-Braga, Bayamo 1984) hardly works ίη view of21 rιJe7+; d) 11 c4 f5 (11 ...b4 12 rιJc2 f5 13 cxf5 i.xf5 14 rιJce3 is favourable for White, according to Stetsko, but 11 .....a5+!? 12 "d2 "xd2+ 13 <it>xd2 :b8 deserves attentionGhinda) 12 cxb5 (or 12 i.d3 fxe4 13 i.xe4 ο-ο 14 cxb5 axb5 15 rιJxb5 :b8 16 a4 rιJd4! 17 ο-ο rιJxb5 18 axb5 f5 with sufficient counterplay for Black, Unzicker-Strutinskaya, Moscow 1991) 12 ... rιJd4 13 i.d3 (13 exf5?! i.xf5 14 bxa6 ο-ο 15 i.c4 :b8 16 "d2 e4 is good for Black, Lagunov-Schipkov, Ν ovosibirsk 1984) 13 ... 0-0 (13 ... j.e6!?) 14 rιJc2 (14 "d2?! fxe4 15 j.xe4 :b8 16 rιJc2 f5! 17 rιJxd4 exd4 18 i.f3 :e8+ with a strong attack for Black, Golovanov-Malyshev, USSR 1985) 14... fxe4 (14 ... lΔxc2+ 15 "xc2 j.b7 16 ο-ο yields White the better chances, Beliavsky-Dolmatov, Yugoslavia 1992) 15 j.xe4 :b8 16 ο-ο J:txb5 17 lΔxd4 exd4 18

:c1 j.b7 19 "f3 "g5 with a more or less equal position (HerreraADiaz, Havana 1993); e) 11 c3 rιJθ7?! 12 rιJc2! (better than 12 rιJxθ7 "xe7 13 rιJc2 'ii'b7 14 rιJθ3 "xe4 15 "xd6 j.e6 16 :d1- 16 j.e2!? - 16... 'ii'b7 17 j.e2 j.f8, as ίη the game Velimirovicv.Spasov, Belgrade 1994) 12 ... f5 13 rιJxθ7 (13 a4 bxa4 14 rιJxθ7 "xe7 15 rιJθ3 ο-ο 16 exf5 :b8 ίΒ not ΒΟ clear, J ansa-Schmittdiel, Gausdal 1989) 13 .....xe7 14 exf5 ο-ο 15 rιJθ3 j.b7 16 j.e2 :fd8 17 rιJd5 j.xd5 18 "xd5 :ac8 19 ο-ο :c5 20 "e4 d5 21 "e3, and Black's compensation for the pawn ίΒ hardly sufficient (Kotronias-Mastrokoukos, Hania 1991). Black should prefer 11 ... f5! (see Chapter 6); f) 11 "h5 rιJθ7 (11 ... j.e6!? 12 :d1 rιJθ7, e.g. 13 rιJθ3 "a5+ 14 c3 :d8 15 j.e2 d5 with equality, Estrin-Arnlind, corr 1981; 11 ... f5?! is ήsky: 12 exf5 "a5+ 13 c3 b414 "g5 "xd5 15 "xg7 bxa3 16 "xh8+ ~d717b3 with an advantage for White, Sirias-Ochoa, Havana 1984) 12 rιJθ3 d5 (or 12 ... f5 13 exf5 e4 140-0-0 ο-ο 15 g4 d5 16 c3 b4! 17 cxb4 d4 18 ~b1 "d6 19 rιJec4 "f4! with good counterplay for Black, Geo. Timoshenko-Ikonnίkov, USSR 1990) 13 j.d3 (13 exd5 f5) 13 ... f5! 14 0-0-0 "d6!, and now, instead of 15 c4?! ο-ο 16 ~b1 bxc4 17 j.xc4 :b8 18 j.b3 :xb3! 19 axb3 fxe4 with a clear edge for Black (Adams-v.Spasov, Νονί Sad 1990), v.Spasov recommends 15 exf5 e416 j.e2, though Blackhas

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

at least a draw: 16 ... .txb2+ 17 ~xb21Wb4+.

Returning to 11 .td3. 11 ... ttJe7 11....te6 is worse ίη view of 12 c4. 12 !Δxe7 12 ttJe3 f5 13 exf5 d5 14 'iνg4 :g8 15 'iνh4 'iνd6 16 0-0-0 e4, as ίη Andreev-SchiP~ov, Magnitogorsk 1981 and(12 'iνΙ3 ttJxd5 13 exd5 'iνd7 14 g4 'ii:iι:g4! 15 'iνxg4.txg4 16 :g1 f5 17 h3 e4! 18 ttJxb5 exd3 19 ttJc7 + ~θ7 20 ttJxa8 .txb2 (Ruxton-Tzermiadianos,Arnhem 1989) only present problems for White. 'iνxe7 12 •••

13 c4· 13 ο-ο Black can play 13 ... f5 14 exf5 (14 c3 and 14 c4 are better - see 13 c3, 13 c4) 14....tb7 (an attack along the g-fιle is now threatened) 15 'iνg4 ο-ο 16 c3 ~h8 17 :ad1 e4 18 :fe1 :g8 19 'iνh3 b4 20 cxb4 d5 with a good position (Velii!ka-Ikonnikov; Cheliabinsk 1990). 13 c3 will be examined ίη a separate section (Section 2). The Το

text move is sharper, probably more popular, but hardly stronger. Ι51 13 ••• 14 ο-ο It is possible to lose at once with 14 'iνh~,!!_cM> 15 cxd5 fxe4, and White resigried ίη the game Psakhis-Vaiser, Paris 1990.14 cxb5? ίΒ poor, too: 14... d5! 15 exd5 e4 16 ο-ο .txb2, for example 17 'iνc2 'iνxa3 18 'iνω+ .td719 'iνxa8+ ~θ7 20 1Wb7 .txal211:.xa1 'iνxd3, and Black won (Liu Wenze-Morovic, Belgrade 1988). 14 ••• ο-ο 14•• ':b8 ίΒ poor: 15 exf5 bxc4 16 ttJxc4 d5 17 !Δθ3 .tb7 18 'iνa4+ 'iνd7 19 'iνg4 f6 20 1:tfd1 with an edge for White (Ernst-L.Hansen, Gausdal 1991). If 14•••.tb7 then simply 15 'iνf3. 15 'iνΙ3 According to recent theory, this continuation is the most dangerous for Black. Other moves enable him to hold his ground comfortably: a) 15 exf5?1 e4 16 f6 .txf6 17 :e1 d5! (even better than 17... .tf5 18 .txe4 .txe4 19 'iνg4+ .tg7 20 :xe4 f5 21 1:.xe7 fxg4 with unclear play, Nunn) 18 cxd5 .txb2 19.txe4 'iνxa3 20 :e3 'iνd6 21 .txh7+!? ~xh7 22 'iνc2+ 'iνg6 23 'iνxb2 :g8 24 :g3 'iνθ4, and Black parried the white attack (Van der WielNunn, Wijk aan Zee 1992); b) 15 :el fxe4 16 .txe4 :b8 17 cxb5 axb5 181Wb3 .te6 19 .td5 :fc8 20 :ad1.tf5! (Κlovans-Ivanchuk, Frunze 1988) or 18 'iνd3 f5! 19

Made in Novosibirsk .1d5+ 'iii'h8 20 ~b5 e4 21 'ii'b3 .105 (Kosten-Chandler, Hastings 1990/91), with a good position for Black ίη both cases; c) 15 'ii'e2 ~b7 (15 ... bxc4 16 (i)xc4 :'b8 17 :ad1! is not βΟ good Ι'ΟΓ Black) 16 :ad1 (16 exf5 e4; 16 Γ3 fxe4! 17 fxe4?! f5! etc.) 16...1:ad8! 17 f3 fxe4 (17 ... bxc4 is less accurute: 18 ~c4 fxe4 19 fxe4 f5 20 l;)a5! ~a8 21 tL:ιb3, and White has ιι slight edge, Wedberg-Hellers, IIaninge 1989) 18 fxe4?! f5 19lbc2 (Geo. Τίmοshenkο-Gagaήn,Βuch ΙΙΓθΒΙ 1993) when, according to Hagarin and ΚiBθlθY, Black should have played 19... fxe4!, e.g. 20.i.xe4 Ihfl + 21 :χα bxc4 22 ~xb7 'ii'xb7 23 'ii'xc4+ d5 or 20 ':'xf8+ :xf8 21 ~xθ4 ~xθ4 22 "xe4 'ii'a7+ 23 ~θ3 (23 'iii'h1 "f2; 23 "e3 'ii'c7) 23 ... ~h6 24 :e1 "f7! seizing the initiative. White should prefer 18 .ixe4 d5! 19 cxd5 ~xd5! 20 .i.xd5 "c5+ with equality; d) 15 'ii'h5 (this move leads to great complications, but ίβ hardly favourable for White) 15•••:b8 (of course, not 15 ...f4?! 16lbb1.i.e6 17 cxb5 axb5 18 ~xb5 f5 19lbc3 with clearly better prospects for White, as ίη the game Luther-Beshukov, Sochi 1990; but 15 .....b7!? is quite good, for example 16 exf5 e4 17 ~c2 :e8! - 17 ... ~xb2?! 18 :ae1 18 f3 e3! - 18 ... ~xb2? 19 :ab1 19 f6 - 19 ~θ4 "a7!, Schipkov 19 ... ~xf6 20 'ii'xh7 + ..tf8 21 'ii'h6+ ~g7 22 'ii'xd6+ 'iii'g8, Markov-Schipkov, USSR 1987, or 16 :fe1 d5! 17 exd5 e4 18 ~f1 ~xb2 19 :ab1

~g7, Beliavsky-V.Spasov, Debrecen 1992, with unclear play ίη both cases) 16 exf5 (16 :adl fxe4 17 .i.xe4 f5 18 ~d5+ 'iii'h8 19 ':'fe1 ~d7 20 cxb5 axb5 21lbc2, IsupovYakovich, Vladivostok 1990, and now 21 ... b4 leads to a good ΡΟΒί tion for Black) 16••• e4 17 :ael ~b7, and now:

dl) 18 tL:ιc2 bxc4 19 -*.xc4 d5 20 .i.xd5 21 f6 'ii'xf6 22 "xd5 ':'xb2 23 lbe3 'ίi'e6 24 ο4 'ii'xd5 25 lbxd5 f5 with an equal endgame (Short-lliescas, Linares 1992); d2) 18 cxb5 d5 19 :e3 .i.xb2 20 bxa6 .i.c6 21 a7 :bc8 22 ~a6 :'cd8 23 :b3 ~θ5 with unclear play (Rodin-Prosvirin, St Petersburg 1993); d3) 18 f3 ~xb2 19 ~xe4 'ii'f6 20 lbc2 bxc4 21 ~xb 7 :xb 7 22 :e4 d5! 23 :h4 h6, and White's attack proved insufficient (JohanssonMarkovic, Stockholm 1990/91); d4) 18 b3 bxc4 19 bxc4 :fe8 20 lbc2 :bc8 21 :e3 ~e5 with good counterplay for Black ωνοίΓίΒ Vyzmanavin, Cheliabinsk 1990); ~xd5!

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

d5) 18 1te3 bxc4 19 ~xc4 (or 19 1th3 h6 20 ~xc4 1tfd8), and now Black can either force a draw with 19 ... d5 20 ~xd5 ~xd5 21 f6 'ii'xf6 22 1i'xd5 'it'xb2 23 lbc4 'iVxa2 24 1tg3 1:b1 25 1txg7 + (LutherDegraeve, Arnhem 1989) or try 19 ... 1:tfd8!? as 20 f6 'it'xf6 21 ~d5 ~xd5 22 'iWxd5 'iWxb2 23 h3 1i'b7 now gives him some winning chances (Geenen-Vaiser, Brussels 1993); d6) 18 'it'g4 Φh8! (18 ... 1tfe8 19 f3 h5! 20 'it'xh5 ~d4+ 21 Φh1 exf3! 22 gxf3 'iWxe1 leads to unclear consequences, for example 23 'iWg4+ Φf8 24lL!c2! J.xf3+! 25 'ii'xf3 'iWh4! 26 lL!xd4 'iWxd4 27 f6 "ii'h4! etc., Dvoiris-Yakovich, Leeuwarden 1993; besides, White can try 19lL!c2!? bxc4 20 ~xc4 d5 21 ~b3, Κlovans-Kukin, corr 1990) 19 ~xe4 1tfe8 20 1te3?! ~xe4 21 :fe1 'iWf6! 22 1txe4 1txe4 23 'ii'xe4 Vxb2 24 'iWd3 'iWc3!, and the initiative passed to Black (Dvoiris-Nik~evic, Paris 1993). According to Nik~evic, White should have played 20 f3!? ~xb2 21lL!c2 ~c3 with a double-edged position. Returning to 15 'iWf3. 15 ••• bxc4 15•• .:tb8 16 exf5 bxc4i7lL!xc4 J.b7 18 ~e4 d5!? 19 J.xd5 e4 20 f6! ~xf6 21 1i'g4+ ~g7 22 :ad1! (Vlad-Itkis, Bucharest 1991) and 15•••d5 16 cxd5 fxe4 17 ~xe4 'iWd6 18 g4 ~h6 19lL!c2 (Holmsten-Rotstein, Helsinki 1992) yield White the better prospects. However, the continuation Ιδ •••1te8 16 1tfe1 f4

deserves attention, e.g. 17 cxb5 1i'g5 18 h3 d5! 19 exd5 f5, and Black obtained enough counterplay (Pons-Vallejo, Menorca 1993). 16 ~~4 'd5!' 17 exd5 e4 18 'iWe3 18 'iWe2 ίΒ less dangerous, e.g. 18 ... ~b7 19 d6 (19 ~c2 J.xd5 20 lbb61tad8 21lL!xd5 1txd5 22 1tad1 1tb5! ίΒ favourable for Black, VladGagarin, Turnu Seveήn 1992) 19 ... 'it'e6 20 ~c2 f4 21 ~b3 f3 22 'iWd2 a5 23 lL!e3 'iWh6 24 :fd1 ~e5 with an unclear position (ErnstΚharlov, Haninge 1992). ~b7 18 •••

The position has become extremely sharp. However, ίη EggerΝυηη, Manila 1992, it quickly fizzled out into an equal endgame: 19 :adl ~xd5 (19 ...:tad8 20 ~e2 ~xd5 ίΒ even simpler, Liss-Sevillano, Biel 1993) 20 lL!b6 ~e6 21 lL!xa8 exd3 22 lL!b6 'iWb4 23 :txd3 f4 24 1tb3 'iWxb3 25 'ii'xb3 J.xb3 26 axb3 1tb8 etc. 19 1tfdl ίΒ harmless, too: 19... J.xd5 20 lL!b6 :tad8

Mαde

in Novosibirsk

21lbxd5 hd5 22 .i.xa6 Jhdl + 23 ':xdl "e6 with a quick draw (Psakhis-Greenfeld, Haifa 1995). 19 d6!? is more interesting, e.g. 19 .. :it'f6 20 .i.c2 f4 21 "h3 ':ac8. Now 22 .i.b3!? ':c5! 23 ':adl (23 ':fdl!?,M.Notkίn) 23 ... ':g5! 24':d2 yielded Black a strong counterattack ίη the game Κhalifman-Lau tier (Linares 1995), when, instead of 24 ....i.d5? 25 lDb6! .i.xb3 26 lDd7, Lautier should have played 24 ... ':d8!, for example 25 ':fdl "g6, οτ 25 .i.c2 f3, or 25 d7 .i.d5 (recommended by M.Notkin). The game I.Gurevich-Illescas, Βίθl1993, saw 22 b3 (with the threat 23 ':ael) 22 ..."g5 23 ':adl f5 24 b4 Φh8 25 .i.b3 .i.c6 26 d7 ':cd8 WΊth excellent counterchances for Black (ίΙ lustrαtivegαmeNr.22). Instead of 24 b4, 24 d7!? ':cd8 25 lDa5 .i.a8 26 .1Σd6 is interesting, with unclear consequences. 80, sharp play WΊth 13 c4 does not promise White any real advantage. 80, let's try a quieter Ιίηθ.

Section 2 13c3 (1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 1Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 e5 6 lDdb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 lDa3 b5 9 .i.xf8 gxf6 10 lDd5 i.g7 11 i.d3 lDe7 12 lDxe7"xe7) 13 c3 Ι5! (D) 14 ο-ο Other ορΙίοηΒ θΤθ: a) 14 'ifh5 d5 15 exd5 e4 16 Ο-Ο! ο-ο 17 .1ΣΒθΙ "c5 18 i.bl i.d7 19

ΦhΙ ':ae8 20 f4 "xd5 with equality (Kuklin-Vyzmanavin, Budapest 1989); b) 14 exf5 e4! 15 i.e2 ο-ο 16 lDc2 i.xf5 171td5 "e5 18 ':dl.i.e6 19 "xd6 i.xa2 20 lDb4 i.e6 and a draw was agreed ίη Dvοίήs-Υak ovich, M08COW 1990. '<..,. c) I.4:JΩc2 (immediately bήηg tng the knight into the game) and now: cl) 14•••i.b7 (this proves to be a ροοτ square for the bishop) 15 exf5 (15 lDe3 fxe4 16 lDf5 "f6 17 i.xe4 d5 18 .i.xd5 ':d8 19 "g4 :Xd5 20 "xg7 "xg7 21 lDxg7+ Φθ7, illybin-Vyzmanavin, 80chi 1989, οτ 20 lbxg7 + Φf8 21 %5 "g6 and Black obtaίns good compensation for the pawn) 15 .....g5 (15 ...0-0 16 lDe3! d5 17 ο-ο Φh8 18 "h5 e4 19 i.c2 is ηοΙ enough for equality either, Y.Dimitrov-Ikonnikov, Le Blanc-MesnilI993) 16lDe3 d5 17 ο-ο h5 (17 ... 0-0 18 f4! exf4 19 "g4 ίβ also favourable for White, Topa10v-y'8pasov, Budapest 1993 - ίΙ lustrαtive gαme Nr.23) 18 "e2! ο-ο 19 f6! .i.xf6 20 f4! exf4 21 lDf5

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

with a clear edge for White (ΝίΒί peanu-Genescu, Romanianchampionship 1992); c2) 14.•:i'g5 15 ο-ο (15 'i'e2!? f4 - but not 15 ... d5?! 16 exf5 ο-ο 17lOO3 J.b7 18 h4! with an advantage for White, Velimirovic-Simic, Vrnja~ka Banja 1991) 15 ... J.b7 (15 ... f4 16 a4! bxa4 17 :xa4 ο-ο 18 'iWe2 J.b7 19 f3 a5 20 :fa1 'i'd8 21 lba3 with the better prospects for White, as in the game Ulybin-Serper, Tunja 1989) 16 f3 ο-ο 17 exf5 d5 18 f4! exf4 19 'i'f3 J.e5 20 :ae1 :fe8 21lbd4, and White ίΒ better (Mastrokoukos-J.Ivanov, HerakΙίσ 1993); c3) 14•••0-0. Now after 15 ο-ο the main line (14 ο-ο ο-ο 15 lbc2) arises. White can also play 15 'iί'h5 (15 exf5 e4 16 J.e2 J.xf5 ίΒ not dangerous for Black), for example 15 ... f4 16 g3 f5 17 0-0-0 J.b7 18 1Ihe1 fxg3 19 hxg3 d5 20 exd5 21 g4! with an initiative (Dolmatov-Chandler, Hastings 1989/90) or even 15 a4!? 'iVb7 16 axb5 fxe4 17 J.e2 d5 18 lbb4 J.e6 19 bxa6 \i'd7 20 'i'a4, and White's passed pawn proved more important than Black's pawn centre (Z.MarkovicNik~evic, Νονί Sad 1989); c4) 14•• :~'b71 (taking an opportunity to rearrange Black's pieces ίη the classical way: 'ii'b7, J.e6) 15 'i'f3 (15 exf5 'iί'xg2 16 :α J.b7 17 lbe3 'iί'c6 18 "'g4 J.f6 19 'iVb4 ο-ο, Koch-Kouatly, French championship 1991, and 15 'iVe2 fxe4 16 'iVxe4 d5 17 'ii'b4 J.f8 18 "'h4 e4 19 J.e2 J.g7, Dvoiris-Ikonnikov,

"'f6

Cheliabinsk 1990, are satisfactory for Black) 15••• 0-0 16 lbe3 (16 ο-ο f4!?) 16•••f4 17 lbd5 J.e6 18 g41 (otherwise Black can push ... f7 -f5, for example 18 J.c2 J.xd5 19 exd5 f5 20 g4 fxg3 21 hxg3 e4 with mutual chances, Qi Jingxuan-Vyzmanavin, Beijing 1991)

•••• .'••iV.•..1. .._. .Ι.

• -

~.~. 81'λ· ~.~ ~.~ ~.~Δ-Δ~.% ~

~--ιJ_

Δ~~

,!>!

~~.'ii. ~.~

~. ~

!>!

~.~:

18 ...1Iae8 (στ 18... J:ιfe8 - see ίΙ lustrriifυeg~meNr.24) 19 Φα (19 ο-ο-ο!? deserves attention, according to S.Dolmatov) 19 ... f5! (still!) ~f5 :~5! 21 :g1 :f7 22 :d1 'i'c8 23-.i.e2 Φh8 24 Φg2 :g8 with an equal game (Leko-Kuijf, Nettetal1992). The text move (14 ο-ο) eliminates the possibility of 14......b7. 14 ••• ο-ο After 14•••J.b7 15 :e1! ο-ο 16 exf5 "'g5 17 g3 d5 18 lbc2 e4 19 J.fi "'xf5 20 a4! (Y.Gurevich-Iskusnykh, Orel 1995) Black's bishop ίΒ clearly misplaced οη b7. Ιη the event of 14•••f4 15 lbc2 followed by a2-a4 the initiative ίΒ also with White. 15 lbc2

Made in Novosibirsk 'Waiting' for Black's response ....t.c8-b7. The continuation 15 exf5?! e4 16 .t.e2 .t.xf5 17lίJc2 'ii'e5 18 a4 .t.e6 19 'ii'd2 f5 20 axb5 axb5 21ll:kl4 Μ! led to a draw ίn A.Sokolov-Dolmatov (Moscow 1992). 15 ••• .t.b7 (D) 15•••d5 16 exf5 e4 17 .t.e2 Iιd8 18 ~d4 (Psakhis-Dolmatov, Κlai peda 1988) and 15••• Iιb8 16 exf5! e4 17 Iιe1 .t.xf5 18 ~e3 (alternatively 18 ~d4 .t.xd4 19 cxd4 d5 20 'ii'd2, Magem-San Segundo, Madrid 1994) 18 ....t.g6 19 ~d5 'ii'e5 20 .t.c2 f5 21 f4 (Dolmatov-Simic, Belgrade 1988) yίeld White the better prospects, too. 16 exf5 Of course, not 16 Iιel fxe4 17 .t.xe4 d5 (Stefanov-Rogozenko, Bucharest 1992). Black is struggling to prove that he has enough compensation for the missing pawn, for example 16•••'ii'g5 17 ~e3 d5 18 f4! (see also 14 ~c2 .t.b7) 18 ... 'ii'h6 19 f6

'ii'xf6 20 fxe5 (Mithrakanth-Prasad, Indian championship 1992), or 16•••<li'h8 17 'ii'h5 Iιg8 18 ~e3!, or 16••• e4 17 .t.e2 d5 18 'ii'd2, or 16•••d5 17 ~e3 e4 18 .t.c2. Ιn every case White maintains the better chances . So, the quiet 13 c3 ίΒ really dangerous for Black. If he fails to find an improvement, one must draw the conclusion that 10 ....t.g7 is too passive to guarantee Black a good game.

ΟυΙ οΙ

(1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 ltlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 ltlf6 5 ltlc3 e5 6 ltldb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 ltla3 b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10 ltld5) 10 f5 000

Ιη WΊth

this chapter we start to deal the most important lίnes of the Sicilian Sveshnikov. Whίte has many possibίlities ίη the diagram position; but οηlΥ two of them (11 exf5 and 11 .i.d3) actually remaίn ίη wide use. Ιη the current chapter we examine the other variations. They should not present any danger for Black if he plays correctly; but inexact play, especially ίη the lines WΊth a piece sacrifice (Section 2), can be fatal. The variations examίned here can be divided into two groups: positional continuations (11 'iVd3, 11 g3 etc.) and sharp tactical ways connected WΊth a piece sacrifice (11 ltlxb5, 11 .i.xb5). Accordingly, this

Use

chapter is divided into two sections.

Section 1 Quiet Ilnes

11g3 This move (introduced by then very young Latvian players - now both experienced grandmasters E.Kengίs and Z.Lanka ίη the 1970s) is probably the most important of the lines ίη question. Other continuations have practically never been used since the late 1970s: a) 11 g4?! fxg4 (l1 ... fxe4!? is probably θνθη stronger) 12 c3 ~h6 13 ι!Δc2ltle7 14 ι!Δcb4 Φf8 15 ltlxe7 'iνxθ7 16 ltld5 'iVb7 17 h3 ~e6 18 hxg4 .i.g5 results ίη a level position, as ίη Velimirovic-Kurajica, Yugoslav championship 1978; b) 11 c4?! b4 (or 11 ... 'iVa5+ 12 'iVd2 'iVxd2+ 13 ΦΧd2 ~h6+ 14 Φd1 ο-ο with good counterplay) 12 ltlc2 fxe4 13 ι!ΔCΧb4 ltlxb4 14 ltlxb4 'iVa5 15 'iVd2 IIb8 16 a3 d5! with advantage for Black (Sveshnikov); c) 11 'iVd3 fxe4 (or 11 ....i.g712 exf5 ο-ο 13 'iVe4 ltld4!, e.g. 14 g4 ~b7 15 .i.d3 .i.xd5 16 'iVxd5 IIc8 17 c3 e4!, Razuvaev-Bouwmeester, telex 1978, or 14 f6 ~xf6! 15 ι!ΔΧf6+ 'iVxf6 16 'iVxa8 b4 17 ~d3 .i.f5 18 'iVd5?! ~xd3 19 cxd3 bxa3

OutofUse 20 ο-ο axb2, Chekhov-Sveshnikov, Leningrad 1976, with θη initiaΙίνθ for Black ίη both cases; in the last variation White should have preferred 18 'iνb7! with unclear play, Sveshnikov) 12 'iνxe4

12 ... .i.g7 (οτ 12... .i.d7 13 f4 f5 14 'iVf3 .i.g7 15 'iνh5+ Φf8 160-0-0 .i.e6 17 fxe5 dxe5 18 lLIf4 'iνf6 19 lLIxe6 + 'iνxOO 20 g4lL1d4 with good counterplay for Black, as ίη the game Isserman-Shestoperov, Saratov 1976) 13 lLIe3 (οτ 13 lLIf6+ .i.xf614 'iνxc6+ .i.d715 'iνxd6 'iνe7 16 0-0-0 'iνxd6 17 :xd6 .i.e7 etc., Muratov-Timoshchenko, Beltsi 1977) 13 ... d5! 14 'iνxd5 'iνxd5 15 lLIxd5 ο-ο 16 c3 (16lL1b6 is safer) 16....i.b7 17lL1c2 (Κapengut-Κalini chev, Orjonikidze 1978) 17 ... :ad8 with excellent compensation for thepawn; d) 11 c3. This move contains a trap: if 1l ... fxe4?! then the piece sacrifice 12 .i.xb5! axb5 13 tL!xb5 is very dangerous for Black, e.g. 13 ... 'iνg5 14lL1bc7+ Φd8 15 tL!xa8 'iVxg2 16 :rι .i.a6 17 lLIe3 1ff3 18

1:g1 .i.d3 19 tL!b6, and White won (Am.Rodriguez-T.Georgadze, Tbilisi-Sukhumi 1977), οτ 13 ...~OO 14 lLIbc7+ Φd7 15 tL!xa8 .i.xd5 16 'iνxd5 'iνxθ8 17 'iνxf7 + tL!e7 18 ο-ο 'iνd5 19 'iνh51fe6 20 a4 etc., with a clear pull for White (Geo. Timoshenko-Κishnev, Moscow 1985). Black should play 1l ....i.g7!. Then 12 exf5 ~xf5 leads to a lίηθ examined ίη Chapter 6, and 12 .i.d3 ~e6 - to a variation mentioned ίη Chapter 7. Other moves do not pose any problems for Black, e.g. 12lL1c2 fxe4 13 g4 ο-ο 14 lLIce3 &Δe7 15 ~g2 lLIxd5 16 'iνxd5 .i.e6 17 1fxe4 :c8, and Black ίΒ slightly better (Mateo-Catalan, Buenos Aires 1978) οτ 12 tL!xb5!? axb5 13 .i.xb5 .i.d7 (13 ....i.b7!?) 14 exf5 :b8 (οτ 14 ... 0-0 151fg4 Φh8 16 ο-ο :b8 17 a4 :g8 18 b4 .i.f8 19 'iί'e4 1fg5 with good counterchances, Mikulcik-Babula, Czech championship, Luhatovice 1993) 15 a4 ο-ο 16 1ff3 (Hector-L.Hansen, Kerteminde 1991), and now, instead of 16 ... f6?! 17 ο-ο Φh8 18 b4 etc., Black should have played more actively: 16 ... e4 (L.Hansen) 17 'iί'g3 Φh8, with a good game. Returning to 11 g3. 11 .•. fxe4 Black can also play l l ..,..i.g~ e.g. 12 exf5!? e4 (12 ....i.xf5 13':tg2 .ie6 14 c3 ο-ο 15 lLIc2 leads to the line examined ίη Chapter 6) 13 c3 (but not 13 f6? .i.xf6 14 tL!xf6+ 'iί'xf6 15 'iί'd5 ο-ο! 16 c3 b4 17 tL!c4 bxc3 18 'iί'xd6 ~e6, and Black obtained an overwhelming attack ίη

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

the game Ljubojevic-Κramnik, Belgrade 1995) 13 ... lDe5 14 'ii'h5 lDf3+ 15 Φθ2 .i.b7 16 :dl ο-ο 17 .i.h3 1:te8 18 lDc2 lDe5 19 lDce3 lbd3 with unclear complίcations (Alzate-Ochoa, Bayamo 1984) οτ 12 .i.g2 ο-ο (12 ... fxe4! leads to the main ιiηθ while 12 ... f4!? deserves attention, for example 13 ο-ο h5!? 14 h4 1:.h6 15 c3 .i.g4 16 'ii'd3ll:Je7 with an unclear position, Kotronias-Conquest, Corfu 1991) 13 exf5 .i.xf5 (after 13 ... e4 14 'ii'g4!? lDd4 15 .i.xe4 :e8 16 Φf1 :a7 17 1:tdl h5 18 "f4 :xe4 19 "xe4 .i.xf5 Black obtained an attack for the sacrificed material, Lane-Arakhamίa, Cappelle la Grande 1993; 14 c3.i.xf5 15 ο-ο was more solid for White) 14lbe3!? (οτ 14 c3 .i.e6 15 lDc2 - βθθ Chapter 6) 14 ... lDe7! 15 lDxf5 lDxf5, and now, instead of 16 ο-ο :a7 17 c3lDe7 18lDc2 d5 19 lbb4 e4 with good counterchances for Black <Vehi Bach-Chernίaev, ΒίθΙ 1992), White should consider accepting the exchange sacrίfice: 16 .i.xa8 "xa8 17 ο-ο lDd4 18 f3 etc. 12 .i.g2 .i.e6 12•••.tf5?! ίβ worse οη account of13 f3!, e.g. 13 ... .tg7 (13 ... exf3?! 14 "xf3; 13... e3!? 14 .txe3 .i.e6 15 f4 :c8 16 f5 "b6, Bitar-Rogers, 1975) 14 fxe4.i.e6 15 ο-ο ο-ο 16 c3 with a small edge for White (Κeη gίs-Lputian, Jurmala 1977). Black can try 12•••.i.g7 13 .txe4, andnow: a) 13••• 1Σa7!? (13 ... ο-ο?! ίβ risky ίn view of 14lDe3!) 14 "d3 ο-ο! 15

lDe3lDe716 .i.xh7+ Φh817 g4 d5 with good compensation for the pawn (Soloviov-Timoshchenko, USSR 1978) οτ 14 'inι5 h6 15 c3 0-0 16 ο-ο f5 17 .i.g2 .i.d7 18lbc2 .i.e8 19 'ίWθ2 'ith8 20 f4 h5 with sufficient counterplay <Veli~ka-Geo.Tί moshenko, Cheliabinsk 1990); b) 13•••:b8!? 14 'ifh5 (after 14 c3 ο-ο 15 lDc2 f5 16 .i.g2 a5, followed by 17 ....i.e6, Black has an extra tempo compared to the lίηθ examined ίη Chapter 6) 14... lDe7 15 1:tdllDxd5 16 .i.xd5 ο-ο 17 ο-ο "e7!? 18 c3 Φh8 19lbc2 f5 20 :d2 :f6 21 lDb4 'ίWf8 with sufficient counterchances (Solomon-Prasad, Thessalonίki 1988); c) 13..•.te6 - see 12 ....te6. 13 .i.xe4

13 ••• .tg7 Black can also play 13•••:c8, e.g. 14 c3 .tg7 15 'ii'd3 (for 15 "h5 b4!?, βθθ below) 15 ... lDe7 16 :dl f5 17 .tf3lbg6 18 ο-ο e4 19 'ίWe3 0-0 with mutual chances (Tseshkovsky-Timoshchenko, USSR 1975). However, White can play 14 "h5

OutofUse θβ

14 ... tΔd4?! (for 14... .tg7! - see 13 ... .tg7) doesn't work ίη view of 15 c3 ':'c5 16 cxd4 (but not 16 tΔe3 d5!, ν.Ζak) 16....txd5 17 ο-ο!. 14 1fh5! White' s only chance to fight for θη edge ίβ to prevent Black from castling. After 14 c3 ο-ο 15 tΔc2 f5 16 .tg2 Φh8 17 ο-ο a5 Black has θη extra tempo by comparison with the position arising ίη the 11 exf5 system (Chapter 6). The game Tseshkovsky-Κharlov (Vladivostok 1990) continued 18 1ΙΜ2 ':'b8 19 ':'ad1 '6'd7 20 f4 b4! 21 cxb4 axb4 22 tΔcxM tΔxb4 23 tΔxb4 e4, and Black seized the initiative. After 14 ο-ο ':'c8 15 f4!? exf4 16 lbxf4 .txb2 17 tΔxe6 fxe6 18 tΔxb5 '6'b6+ 19 'it>h1 '6'xb5 20 'ίi'xd6 .txa1?! 21 'ίi'xe6+ tΔe7 22 'ίi'f7+ 'it>d8 23 ':'d1 + 'it>c7 24 'ίi'xe7 + 'it>b8 CΚapengut-Bukhman,Minsk 1977) 25 ':'xa1 White's chances are better but, of course, Black has many other ways, for example 20 ... lbd8 21 ':'ad1.te5 with unclear play or, the simplest, 14... 0-0!. Finally, it ίβ risky to win an exchange by 14lbf6+?!, for example 14 ... .txf6 15 .txc6+ 'it>e7 16 .txa8 'ίi'xa8 17 f3?! h5! 18 'ίi'e2 h4 19 0-0-0 "c6! with a strong attack for Black (Sοlοmοn-ν.sΡasοv, Νονί Sad 1990). Accordingto ν.SΡasοv, instead of 17 f3 White should play 17 ':'g1 h5 18 c3 .tg4 19 'ίi'd3 .tf3 20 tΔc2 with an unclear position. 14 ':'c8 Black's idea ίβ to fight for the d5 square by ... tΔc6-e7 and ... ':'c8-c5. 000

15 ':'dl 15 c3 Black has an additional possibility 15 ...b4!?, e.g. 16 tΔc2 (16 cxb4 tΔxM!? 17 tΔxM 'ίi'a5 18 tΔc2 :Xc2!) 16 ...bxc3 17 bxc3 lbe7 18 tΔce3 '6'a5 19 1:ιdΙ tΔxd5 20 tΔxd5 (Sherzer-Degraeve, Mamaia 1991), and now, instead of 20 ....txd5 21.txd5 'ίi'xc3+ 22 Φf1 ο-ο, and White maintained a sufficient compensation for the pawn, Black had a strong reply 20 ... ':'c5!. 15 lbe7! 16 c3 If 16 ο-ο then either 16... ':'c5 17 tΔb4 (or 17 tΔe3 b4 18 tΔbl d5) 17.....b6 18 "g5! fιtrs 19 "e3 h5! 20 lbxa6! .th6! 21 ':'xd6 "xd6 22 'ίi'xc5 'ίi'xa6 23 tΔxb5 (or 23 'ίi'xe5 .tg7 24 'ίi'b8+ 'ίi'c8 25 'ίi'xb5 h4, Sveshnikov) 23 ... .tg7 24 ':'d1.tf6 with mutual chances (Fedorov-Κa menets, Zhdanov 1978) or (the simplest) 16 ... tΔxd5 17 .txd5 "d7 (17 ... 0-0 18 c3 ':'c5! 19 '6'f3 'ίi'd7 is also good, Zapata-Illescas, Linares 1994) 18 c3 ':'c5 - see below. 16 llJxd5! Το

000

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

The simplest course. 16•••ltc5 17 ~b4 'ifb6 18 'ifg5 Φf8 19 'ife3 leads to a more difficult position. Say, after 19 ... f5 20 .i.g2 e4 21 ο-ο Φf7 22 :fe1 ~g6 23 tLlac2 a5 24 ~d3 Itc6 25 ~d4 Itc4 26 ~f4 White maintaίns a minimal edge (Lanka-Κrasenkow, Tbilίsi 1985). Black should prefer 19 ... h5!, for example 20 ~d3 (20 ~xa6? .i.h6!) 20•••ltc6 21.i.xc6 'ifxc6 22 f3 .i.h6 23 'iff2 a5! 24 ο-ο h4 25 g4 ~d5 with good compensation for the exchange (Romero-SaIov, W:ijk aan Zee 1992 illustrativegameNr.25) or 20 ~ac2 .i.h6 21 f4 exf4 22 gxf4 ~f5 23 'iff2 Itg8 (23 ... a5!?) wίth sufficient counterchances for Black (Rakowίeckί-Podlesnik, Porabka 1987). However, according to V. Salov, White can maίntaίn the better prospects by means of 20 ο-ο .i.h6 21 'iff3! Φg7 22 ~d5. 17 .i.xd5 'ifd7 17••• 0-0 is less accurate ίη vίew of18 ~c2.

White can hardly hold the d5 18.i.xe6?! 'ifxe6 19 ~2

poίnt, e.g.

ο-ο 20 ο-ο f5 21 'ifh3 d5, and now Black' s chances are preferable (Lanka-Vyzmanavίn, Sverdlovsk 1987), 18 ο-ο 1:tc5! 19 .i.xe6 'ifxe6 20 ~c2 ο-ο 21 'ife2 f5 22 f4 ι;i;>h8 (Zapata-Yakovίch, Santa Clara 1990), 18 ~c2 .i.g4 19 'ifg5 .i.xd1 20 'ifxg7 .i.xc2 21 'ifxh8+ Φθ722 'ifg7 'iff5, or 18 "g5 ο-ο 19 ~c2 Itc5 20 ~θ3 h6 21 'ifh5 (MureyBirnboim, Holon 1986), and now even 21 ... f5! threatenίng 22 ... f4, with a good position for Black ίη all vaήatίοns.

Section 2 Sacriflces οπ b5 lΔf3 ~6 3 d4 cxd4 4 5 ~c3 e5 6 ~db5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 ~ b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10~d5f5)

(1 e4 c5 2

~xd4 ~Ι6

The piece sacήfίce allows Whίte to get rid of his 'bad' knight at once. The game becomes very sharp, and factors such as Black's uncastled kίng and Whίte's passed a- and b-pawns should not be underestimated. However, Black's bishop paίr and strong centraI ρο sition enable him to parry his ορ ponent's threats and eithercreate acounterattackalong the g-fιle or lίquidate into a better endgame. Sometimes Black has to gίνθ back an exchange but even then, ίn spite ofWhίte's formal mateήaI suΡeήοήtΥ (a rook and two or three pawns versus two minor pieces), Black's chances are ηο worse. 11 .i.xb5

OutofUse

11 ~ axb5 12 .txb5 is probably better than its reputation but ίΒ still not very dangerous for Black:

a) 12•••.td7 13 exf5 al) 13•••:b8?! (this proves unnecessary) 14 a4 ~d4 (14 ....i.g7 15 'ii'g4 - 15 :a3!?, Sveshnikov 15 ... Φf8 16 ο-ο ιtJd4 17 .txd7 "xd7 18 ~3 h5 19 "dl :d8 20 "d3 d5 21 a5, Guerra-Remon, Cuba 1985, or 14.....g5 15 ο-ο :gs 16 t'Δe3 ~4 17 .txd7 + ΦΧd7 18 a5 ~xf5 19 'ii'd5ll)xe3 20 fxe3 "xe3+ 21 ΦhΙ, Piesina-I.Efimov, Sochi 1980, yields White excellent prospects) 15 .txd7 + Φxd7 16 Ο-Ο!, and after 16...1%xb2 17 a5 ~418 a6 .th6 19 "d3! :hb8 20 a7 :a8 21 :a6 White obtained a decisive advantage ίη Haist-Κindermann, Bad Wόrίshοfen 1987. 16 ... ~xf5?! 17 'iVg4 Φe6 18 ~e3 "f6 ίΒ also poor οη account of 19 a5; and 16 .....a5 17 t'Δe3 ίΒ also good for Whίte; a2) 13•••.tg7! 14 a4 (14 "h5 ~d4!, Sveshnikov; 15 "g4 Φf8 16 ο-ο lOO7!, Adorjan, T.Horvath)

14... ~d4 15 .txd7+ "xd7 16 c3 (16 ~b6?! 'ii'c6; 16 ο-ο "b7! 17 c4 :c8 18 f6 .th6 19 "d3 "b3!, 01thof-Tiagunov, corr 1984) 16.....b7 (16 .....xf5!? 17 cxd4 "e4+ 18 ~3 exd4 19 "c2 "xc2 20 ~c2 d3, Boudy, Alonso) 17 ~e3 .th6 18 cxd4 .txe3 19 fxe3 "xg2 20 :f1 "xb2 and a draw was agreed ίη Nunn-Adorjan, Skara 1980; b) 12•••.tb7!? (this looks more natural) 13 exf5 :a5 (13 ...:c8 ίβ possible, too, e.g. 14 ο-ο .tg7 15 "h5?! Φf8 16 .txc6 1:ιxc6 17 c3 :c4 18 :fdl :g8 19 ~e3 :h4 20 :xd6 "xd6 21 "xh4 .i.h6 with a strong counterattack, Arnlind-Morgado, corr 1990, or 15 .tf6 16 :adl ο-ο 17 :d3 Φh8 18 "h5 :g8 19 'ikxf7 :g7 20 "xf6 "xf6 21 ~xf6 ~d4, and Black does not stand worse, Mnatsakanian-Maiorovas, Moscow 1981) 14 "d3! (14 a4 ':'xb5! 15 axb5 ~d4 16 ~e3 :g8 with a strong attack, Sveshnikov) 14... .tg7 15 "c4 1:ιxb5 (15 ... 0-0? 16 .i.xc6 :c5 17 "g4! 1:ιxd5 18 .txb7) 16 "xb5 "a5 + 17 "xa5ll)xa5 and a draw was agreed ίη WaldmannT.Horvath, Hungary 1982. The bishop sacrifice ίΒ more popular since White's remaining knight can play a more useful role ίη his attack. 11 ... axb5

"f3

12 ~~5(D)

12 ••• :a4 This move was introduced into practice by 1Μ S.Gorelov and immediately became popular. However, Black has several options,

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

some of which are quite satisfactory: a) 12......g5?! 13 ιαtc7 + Φd8 14 "'d5! (but not 14 fua8? "'xg2 15 :f1 "'xe4+ 16 "'e2 "'a4 17 llJac7 llJd4! with a strong attack for the exchange, Honfi-T.Horvath, Subotica 1978) 14...J.b7 (after 14... llJb4? 15 'ii'xa8 llJxc2 + 16 Φd1fua11 7 llJa7 Φχc7 18 'ίWxc8+ Black was quickly mated ίη Sandler-Saksis, USSR 1979; if 14 ......xg2 then 15 ο-ο-ο!) 15 "'xf7 "'e7 16 "'xe7 + J.xe7 17 llJxa8 J.xa8 18 exf5 :g8 19 :g1 J.g5?! (after 19 ... llJb4 20 0-0-0 J.e4 21 :d2 J.g5 22 llJxd6 White is ΌnlΥ' better) 20 ~d1 Φθ7 21 c3, and the endgame is bad for Black (Tischbierek-Vodicka, D~in 1980); b) 12•••:b8 13 llJbc7 + Φd7 14 'it'h5 tΔθ7 (14 ... tΔd4?! 15 ο-ο Φc6 16 b4 fxe4 17 c3llJe6 18 b5+ Φb7 19 b6 llJc5 20 a4 is favourable for White,Juhnke-Κindermann, corr 1977/78) 15 'ii'xf7 fxe4 (15 ... Φc6!? 16 b4 llJxd5 17 b5+ :xb5! 18 exd5+ :xd5 19 "'xd5+ Φχc720 :b1 "'e8, suggested by Adorjan

and T.Horvath, needs practical tests) 16 b4 J.b717 "'e6+ Φc618 b5+ Φc5 19 'it'ffi (alternatively 19 "'h3 tΔxd5 20 llJe6+ Φb621llJχd8 :xd8) 19 ... J.xd5 20 tΔa6+ ΦΧb5 21fub8 :g8 with unclear complί cations (Baer-Cavadini, corr 1988). Still, this line looks risky for Black; c) 12......&5+!? 13 c3 "'a4. Now 14 llJdc7+ Φd8 15 'ifd5 J.d7? 16 llJxa8 "'xa8 17 tΔxd6 is better for White (Nunn-Povah, London 1978) but Black can play 15 ...:b8!!, e.g. 16 'ifxc6 J.d7 17 tΔe6+ fxe6 18 'fIc7 + Φe7 19 'ii'xd6+ Φffi 20 'it'xb8 'fIxe4+ 21 Φf1 (Berg-Povah, Wijk aan Zee 1979) 21 ...J.c6, with a winning position for Black. Alternatively 14 ... Φd715 'ifd5 :b8 (with the idea of 16 ... llJd8!) 16 'ίWxf7 + J.e7 etc. White should prefer 14 llJbc7+! Φd8 15 fua8 'fIxa8 16 llJb6! 'ifb7 17 llJxc8 Φχc8 with equal chances (Wojtkiewicz-I.Efimov, Sochi 1980); Instead of 13 c3, 13 b4!? deserves attention. The game Pokrovsky-Κrasenkow, Moscow 1984, continued 13 ... fub4 14 llJdc7 + (or 14 ο-ο!? fud5 15 'ii'xd5 :a6 16 'ίWc4 J.b7 17 llJc7 + Φe7 18 :fb1 :c6 19 llJd5+ Φd8 20 ...d3 with unclear play) 14... Φd8 15 ο-ο J.d7 16 a4 J:c8 17 c3llJa6 18llJd5, and White's compensation for the piece should not be underestimated. d) 12•••:&7 (the quietest alternative) 13 tΔxa7lbxa7 (D) dl) 14 'it'f3 llJc6 (or 14 ... llJb5 15 0-0-0 llJc7 16llJb6 J.b7 17 "'e3

OutofUse

fxe4 18 wbl .i.e7 19 lΔc4 .i.a8 20 lΔxθ5 with unclear play, T.Horvath-Vasiukov, Zalaegerszeg 1977) 15 c3 f4, for example 16 g3 .i.g7 17 0-0-0 ο-ο 18 :hgl f5! 19 gxf4 Φh8, and the initiative passed to Black (Panczyk-Semkov, Warsaw 1977)j d2) 14 c3 .i.g7 (14 ... lΔb5 15 a4 lΔc7 16 a5 ίΒ favourable for White, according to Pavloνic; if 14...lΔc6 then 15 exf5 .i.xf5 16 .i.e6 17 lΔf6+ Φθ7 18lΔd5+! Φe8 19 ο-ο) 15.a4+ (15 exf5 .i.xf5!?) 15....d7 16 .a5 lΔc6 17 .a8 'iVb7 18 .xb7 .i.xb7 19 exf5 lΔe7! with good counterchances for Black (SveshnikoV)j d3) 14 exf5lΔb5! (this ίΒ now aΡΡrΟΡήatej 14... .i.xf5 15 .i.e6 16 lΔfO+ Φθ7 17lΔd5+ .i.xd5 18 'ilVxd5 .i.h6 19 ο-ο is favourable for White, VitolinA-Κatishonok, Riga 1977) 15 a4 (οτ 15 c3 lΔc7 16 ο-ο .i.xf5 17 .f3 lΔxd5 18 .xf5! with mutual chances) 15... lΔd4 (15 ... lΔc7 16 a5 .i.b7 17 c4, Pavloνic) 16 c3 'ilVa5 17lΔf'6+ Φθ7 18 ο-ο (Pavloνic Todoroνic, Yugoslaνia 1992) when, instead of 18... lΔxf5? 19 Μ, Black

.f3

should have played 18 ... Φχf6 19 cxd4 .i.xf5 with a double-edged position (Velimiroνic). Returning to 12 ...:a4. 13 lΔbc7+ 13 ο-ο :xe4 14lΔbc7 + leads to a transposition of moves. White can also try: a) 13 Μ?! :ΧΜ 14lΔbc7 + wd7 15 0-0. Now 15...:b7 is unclear owing to 16 'ilVh5 ':'xc7 17 'ilVxf7 + lΔe7 18lΔb6+! Φc619:abΙ (Cherniaev), e.g. 19... d5 20 'ii'f6+ οτ 19 ... Φb7 20 'iί'b3 Φa7 21lΔd7 :xd7 22 'iί'b8+ Φa6 23 'ii'b5+ with a draw. It ίΒ probably better for Black to play 15 ... :g8 as 16 lΔxb41Δxb4 17 lΔd5 lΔxd5 18 'iί'xd5 Φθ7 ίΒ favourable for him (VitolinA-Κishnev, Jurmala 1984)j b) 13 c4 'ii'a5+ (13 ... :Xc4 14 lΔbc7 + Φd71eads to a line examined below but 14 ο-ο!? lΔd4!? requires more investigation) 14 b4! :xb4 (14 ... lΔxb4?! 15 lΔf'6+! wd8 16 ο-ο, Nunn) 15 ο-ο :xb5 (the move 15 ...:xc4?! ίΒ ήsky due to 16 :cl! :xcl 17 .xcl, for example 17 ....i.d7 18 .g5 .i.e7 19 lΔxθ7 'iί'xb5 20 lΔd5, Nunn) 16 cxb5lΔd4 17 'iί'h5 .i.g7 (17 ... .i.b7 18 lΔfO+ Φθ7, Κlinger-Κing, Oakham 1984, is dangerous ίη view of 19 'iVh4 Φeβ 20 lΔd5!) 18 .g5 ο-ο 19 lΔe7+ Φh8 20 exf5 h6 21 .h5 'ilVd2 with a double-edged position (indicated by Sveshnikov). Φd7 13 ••• 14 ο-ο (D) 14 exf5?! lΔθ7 15 ο-ο :d4 16 .e2 lΔxd5 ίΒ clearly better for

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

Black (Levchenkov-Gorelov, Jurmala 1977) and 14lί)b6+ Φc7 15 lί)xa4 ίΒ obviously poor, too. If 14 c4 :Xc4 15 'iVh5?! then 15 ... Axe4+ 16 Φf1 "'h4, e.g. 17 'ikxf7 + JLe7 18 lί)θ6 JLa6+ 19 ~gllί)d4! 20 lί)xd4 IΣxd4 21 g3 (21 :cl ~d8! 22 g3 'ifg5 23 f4 exf4 24 lί)c7 :dl+!, N.Povah) 21 ... ':f8! 22lί)b6+ Φc6 23 'irb3 IΣb4, and Black won (Chiburdanidze-Maksimovic, Smederevska Palanka 1983). Instead of 15 "'h5, 15 ο-ο is stronger. Still, according to Sveshnikov, after 15 ... lί)d4! it ίΒ difficult for White to develop his initiative.

14 ••• 1he4 14......g5 ίΒ a risky alternative to this move. After 15 c4 :g8 16 g3 ':a7 (alternatively 16 ... 1:Σa5 17 lί)b5! :xb5 18 cxb5 lί)d4 19 f4! "'g7 20 IΣ.cl with a strong attack, T.Horvath-Sergyan, Zalaegerszeg 1979) 17lί)b5 :b7 18 f4 (after 18 a4 f4 19 a5 "'h4 20 :a3 Black can force a draw: 20 ...lί)xa5! 21 :xa5 fxg3 22 fxg3 :xg3 +) 18......h4 19 "'f3 White's threats are quite

unpleasant, for example 19...1hb5 20 cxb5lί)d4 21 "'g2 "'h6 22 fxe5 dxe5 23 :acl f4 24 ':c7 + ~d8 25 ':fdl JLh3 (Dittmar-AntoszkieWΊcz, corr 1981- this was considered a key game for this lίne), and now, instead of 26 b6? fxg3!, White could have won by means of 26 :a7! JLd6 (26 ... JLxg2 leads to a mate ίη five) 27 :a8+ ~d7 28 lί)f6 +! 29 "'xh3 + etc. Instead of15 ... ':g8, Sveshnikov also recommends 15 ...:xc4, for example 16 b4! JLh6 17lί)b5 :d4 18 "'a4! (Nunn-EPortisch, Budapest 1978), and now 18 ... ':xe4! with a messy position. Still, 14... Axe4 ίΒ much more solίd. 15 "'h5 lί)e7 15••• lί)d41? ίΒ interesting, e.g. 16 c3lί)e2+ 17 ~hl 'iitc6 (WΊth the idea of 18 ...lί)f4) 18 g3 :g8 19 "'f3 "'xc7 (19 ...JLe6!? 20 lί)xe6 fxe6 21 lί)e3) 20 lί)xc7 Φχc7 21 "'h5 :g6 22 "'xh7 JLe6 23 :adl IΣ.eg4 with dangerous counterplay (PerenyiT.Horvath, Zamardi 1979); or 16 "'xf7 + Φc6 (after 16 ...JLe7 17lί)a8 "'f8 18lί)f6+ Φd8 19 'iVxf8+ :xrs 20 lί)xe4 fxe4 21lί)b6 JLb7 22 c4 lί)e2+! 23 ΦhΙlί)f4 the endgame ίΒ favourable for Black but 17 f3 :h4 18 g3 :h6 19 c3 lί)e6 20 'iVxf5 ...g8 leads to an unclear position, Van der Wiel-T.Georgadze, Bad Lauterberg 1979) 17 a4 (17lί)b4+ Φb7 18lί)b5+ "'d7 19 'iVd5+ Φb6 20 a4, Szabo-T.Horvath, Oberwart 1979, ίΒ poor ίη view of20 ...tbxb5) 17......d7 18 'iVh5lbe2+ 19 ΦhΙll)f4 20 lί)xf4 'iVxc7 (20 ... hf4!?) with

"'xf6

OutofUse good chances for Black (BrysonLawton, Nottingham 1987). Black can also play 15•• :ii'h4!?, c.g. 16 "ii'xf7 + iLe7 17 g3 :g4 18 ttJb5 f4 19 :ad1 fxg3 20 fxg3 :xg3+ 21 hxg3 "ii'xg3+ with perpetual check (Coco-Pantaleoni, cοπ 1983). 16 "ii'xf7 c6 17 c4 "ii'd7(D) Not 17•••ltJxd5? 18 cxd5+ b7 (18 ... b619 :Ccl) 19 ttJe6+ "ii'd720 "ii'xf5, with a clear advantage for White (Hulak-JokAil:, Pula 1978). 17•••:g8 18 :fc1! :eg4 (18 ...:g7?! 19 ttJe6!, Honfi-Piasetskί, Subotica 1978) 19 g3 with idea 20 c5! also yίelds White good attackίng possibίlities, accordίng to KHonfi. 17 ... "ii'd7 enables Black to avoid anydanger.

White ίβ ίη trouble. How can he parry the threat of 18 ... ttJxd5

here? 18 ttJb5? ttJg6 19 ttJb4+ b6 20 "ii'd5 ttJf4 21 "ii'd2 :g8 (Β. Κίrsch-FΙeck, West Germany 1979), 18 "ii'h5 ttJxd5 19 lbxd5 :xc4!, 18 ttJe8 "ii'e6! 19 "ii'h5 "ii'g6! and 18 ttJf6+ xc7 19lbxe4 fxe4 20 :fd1 b7 followed by ... b7b8 and iLc8-b7 (variations by 8veshnikov) are clearly poor for White. Fortunately, 18 lba8! enables him to maίntaίn the balance: 18 ... ttJg6 19 ttJb4+ b7 20 "ii'd5+ b8 21 ttJc6+ (but not 21 ttJb6? "ii'b7 22 "ii'b5 ttJf4! 23 lb4d5 iLe7 24 ttJxe7 "ii'xe7 or 24 a4 iLd8, and Black wins - 8veshnίkov) 21 ... xa8 22 "ii'b5 "ii'b7 23 "ii'a5+ "ii'a6 24 "ii'c7 "ii'b7 25 "ii'a5+ and a draw was agreed ίη the game Y.Griinfeld-Fleck, Lugano 1980) but Black can also try 22 ..."ii'c7!? 23 "ii'a4+ b7 24 ttJa5+ b8 25 ttJc6+ "ii'xc6!? 26 "ii'xc6 iLb7 27 "ii'e8 + c7 with good prospects of counterplay (8veshnίkov). 80, the piece sacrίfice ίβ very risky for Whίte as Black has many ways of obtaίning good counterchances. That's why it occurs very rarely nowadays, mostly ίη correspondence games ίη which the players are less concerned about the result of the game. Ν ow we move οη to the lines that are popular today.

Always ίπ Fashion

(1 e4 c5 2 lί)f3 ι!006 3 d4 cxd4 4 llJxd4 llJf6 5 llJc3 e5 6 llJdb5 d6 7 ~ι5 a6 8 llJa3 b5 9 ~xf6 gxf6 10 llJd5 f5) ~XΙ5 11 exf5

'ffe3 "xb2 20 :el q;f7 with a deciΒίνθ advantage for Black, PavlovManolov, Primorsko 1976, or 15 :dlllJxc2+ etc., Armando-Yusuρον, Innsbruck 1977) 15•••b4 18 cxb4. Now the move 16.....b6 enables White to defend after the continuation 17 .*.xa6 'ffxb4+ 18 Φf1 ..d2 19 h4! .*.h6 20 ~7 + Φf6 21 ':el.*.d3+ 22 ~xd3 "xd3+ 23 ΦgΙ J:tg8 24 g3 (Kurkin-Azletsky, Riazan 1978). Adorjan and T.Horvath recommend 16•••.*.h6!. Here ίβ their analysis, with some clarifications by the author:

This ίΒ οηθ of the classicallίnes of the Sicilian Sveshnikov. Its main branch (12 c3) leads to complίcated, very interesting ΡΟΒί tional play. However, first we take a look at the deviations.

Section 1 12 ~d3 and other devlatlons

12 ~d3 12 "f31 ίβ poor οη account of 12•••tbd4!, for example 13 tbc7+ 'ffxc7 14 'ffxa8+ Φe7(14 ... ~c8!? 15 ~d3? d5! 16 ο-ο ~xa3 17 bxa3 ο-ο, and Black wins, Bellon-G.Garcia, Orense 1976, or 15 c3 ~h6!?) 15 c3 (15 ~d3 "a5+ 16 Φf1 .*.xd3+ 17 cxd3 "d2 18 "e4 f5 19

a) 17 "xh81 "b7! 18 .*.b5 'ffe4+ 19'ίWl axb5; b) 17 'ffxa8 ':b8! 18 b5 (18 ~d3 ':b6 19 "c4 ':c6; 18 .*.b5 Jhb5! 19 tbxb5 .*.d2 +!; 18 "c4 "b7 19 .*.d3 ':c8; 18 .*.c4 .*.e4 19 "a5 "xa5 20 bxa5 .*.xg2) 18 ... ~cl! 19 b6 (19 llJc4 ~xb2! 20 ':dl .*.c3 + 21 ':d2 ':xb5) 19 ... J:txb6 20 "c4 ':c6 21

A1ways in Fαshion :xc1 (21 'ii'b4 :c2!) 21 ... :xc4 22 :xc4 "iνb6!; c) 17 'ii'd5 :c8! 18 f3 (18 ~θ2 .ic1 19 .ixa6 - 19 ltJc4 ~xb2 19 ... ~xb2 20 ο-ο 'ii'c6 21 'ii'xc6 ':xc6 22 b5 :c3; 18 f4 "iνb6 19 'ii'a5 ltJf3 +! 20 ~θ2 ltJg1 +!; 18 ~c4 .ie6 19 'ii'e4 ~g5! 20 h4 ~f4 21 g3 f5 22 'ii'g2 .ih6 with an irresistible attack) 18 ....ic119 .ixa6 (19 ltJc4 ~xb2!) 19 ... .txb2! 20 ltJb5 ltJxb5 21 ~xc8 .txc8. Black's position is winning ίη aΠ these variations. 12 'ii'f3 is absolutely never seen nowadays. However, the same can be said about 12 .id3. 12 ... e4!? The most energetic response connected with a pawn sacrifice. 12...~g6?! is poor ίη view of 13 h4 .ih6 (13 ... e4 14 h5!) 14 ~xg6 hxg6 15 c3 :c8 16 'ii'f3 b4 17 ltJc4 bxc3 18 bxc3ltJd4 19 cxd4 :Xc4 20 dxe5 dxe5 21 :d1 with an edge for White (Matulovic.Jo~ic, Yugoslavia 1976). After 12•••.te6 13 ~e4 (13 'ii'f3 .ixd5 14 'ii'xd5 ltJe7 15 'ii'b7 .ig7, then ... 0-0 and ... d6-d5, Adoιjan, T.Horvath) we get a position from the 11 g31ine (Chapter 5) but the white g-pawn is still οη g2!. Play is naturally quite similar. Here are some examples: 13 ...:c8 14 ο-ο (14 'ii'h5.ig7 15 c3 Μ! 16ltJc2 - 16 cxb4 ltJxb4! 17 ltJxb4 'ii'a5 16... bxc3 17 bxc3 'ii'a5 18 ltJce3 ltJe7 19 IΣd1 ltJxd5 20 ltJxd5 IΣc5 with advantage for Black, Matulovic-Binham, Helsinki 1981- cf.

11 g3 Ιίηθ) 14 ... .ig7 15 'ii'd3 ltJe7 16 ltJxe7 'ii'xe7 17 c3 'ii'd7 18 .id5 .ixd5 19 'ii'xd5 ο-ο fo11owed by ...:c8-c5 (Rogers-Rosen, coπ 1980) or 13 ... .ig7 14 'ii'h5 :c8 15 :d1 ltJe7 16 IΣd1 :c5 (16 ... ltJxd5!?) 17 ltJxe7 (for 17 ltJb4!? - see 11 g3 Ιίηθ) 17 ... 'ii'xe7 18 ο-ο d5 19 .if5 .txf5 20 'ii'xf5 'it'e6 (Chevaldonnet-Sveshnikov, Le Havre 1977), with a good game for Black ίη a11 cases. 13 'fIe2 ltJd4! 14 'fIe3 .ig7 15 .ixe4 15 f3 forces an interesting endgame: 15 ...'ii'h4+! 16 g3 fuf3 + 17 'ii'xf3 exf3 18 gxh4 .txd3 19 cxd3 .ixb2, and Black is not worse ίη any case: 20 Φf2 .txa1 21 1Σxa1 :c8 22 ~xf3 ':c5 23 ~θ4 ~d8! with better prospects for Black (Adorjan), or 20 :d1.ixa3 21llx7 + ~d7 22ltJxa8:xas 23 ο-ο 1Σg8+ 24 ~h1 :g4 25 :Xf3 :xh4 26 IΣxf7 + ~c6 27 ~g2 .ib2, and Black is slightly better (JokAic-Simic, Yugoslavia 1978), or 20 ~d2 .ixa3 21ltJc7+ ~d7 22 ltJxa8 .ic5! 23 ~c3 .ie3! 24 :ae1! :c8+ 25 ~b3, and Black has at least a draw: 25 ... .td4 26 :e4 :c3+ 27 Φb2 ':c4+ (J.Tisdall). 15 ... ο-ο 16 0-0-0 16 ο-ο is met by 16 ... IΣe8 17 f3 .ie6! 18 c3 -*.xd5 19 cxd4 b4 20 ltJc2 .ic4! winning the exchange (Danailov-Andrianov, Groningen 1980/81). 16 ... -*.xe4

ΤΜ

88 17 "xe4

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

:e8

18 "141 ίβ now poor ίη view of 18 ... h5! 19 "h3 (19 "xh5? :e5) 19 .....g5+ 20 lί)e3 "f6 (Matulovic-Rajkovic, Yugoslavia 1975). If 18 "d3 then 18.....g5+ 19lί)e3 20 c3 21ll)ac2 ~c2 22 ~c2, and Black can play not only 22 ... :e2 23 :hf1 "xg2 24 :g1 "e4 with equality (Sveshnikov) but also 22 ... a5!? with the idea of ...b5-b4.

"f6

"xf2

Section 2 12 c3 - dlfferent lines (1 e4 c5 2 lM3 lOO6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll)xd4 ι!fJf6 5 ι!fJε3 e5 6 ι!fJdb5 d6 7 ~15 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 ~xf6 gx:f6 10 ll)d5 f5 11 exf5 ~XΙ5) 12 c3 (D) White ίβ preparing to bring his knight into the game (ι!fJa3-c2-e3, gaίnίng a tempo by attacking the black bishop). ~g7 12 ••• 12•••J.e6 13 ~2 J.xd5?! ίβ poor ίη view of 14 "xd5 lί)e7 15 "b7!,

forexample 15 ... ~g7 (or 15 ... 'ii'b8 16 "xb8+ hb8 17 ι!fJb4 :b6 18 a4! a5 19 J..xb5+ :xb5 20 axb5 axb4 21 :a7, Sveshnikov) 16ll)b4 ο-ο 17 ι!fJxa6 b4?! (17 ... ι!fJg6 was relatively better) 18 ~b4 d5 19 J..b5 with a clear advantage for White (Litvinov-Mochalov, Mίnsk 1976). However, instead of 13 ... J..xd5, 13 ... J..h6!? ίβ better, for example 14 a4 (14 g4 ο-ο 15 ~g2 'ii'h4 16 ll)de3 :ac8 17 J..e4 d5! 18 ~xd5 :fd8 19 "f3 J.xd5 20 ~d5 e4! with good counterplay for Black, Pinter-F.Portisch, Hungary 1976) 14... 0-0! 15 axb5 axb5 (15 ... ι!fJd4!?, Adoιjan, T.Horvath) 16 ha8 "xa8 17 ~xb5 ι!fJd4! 18 ι!fJf6+ ~h8 19 ι!fJxd4 "xg2 20 "f3 (20 J.c6 d5 21 "f3 "g6 22 ι!fJb3 :b8!) 20 .....g5 21 ι!fJθ2 e4 22 ι!fJxθ4 "xb5 with an equal position (Siguιjonsson-Sax, Ljubljana/Portoro! 1977). Ιη this variation, however, 14 g3! looks stronger than it ίβ after 12 ... ~g7 (see below) as after the eventual f2-f4 Black's h6 bishop will be offside.

Always in Fashion 13 lL!c2 13 "f3 doesn't pose any problems for Black after 13•••.i.e6. and now: a) 14 lDf6+ .i.xf6 15 'iVxc6+ <l;e7 16 ~θ2 d5 17 ο-ο 'iVcS 18 'iVb6 J:tb8 19 "a7+ 'iνb7 20 'iνc5+ Φθ8 21 f4 :c8 22 "e3 d4 with a counterattack (Mircov-Κharlov. Bern 1992); b) 14lL!f4llX:l4! 15 cxd4 (15 "g3 lL!f5) 15 ... exf4 16lL!c2 ο-ο 17 ~d3 "g5. and Black stands well (Rogers-Ivanovic. Vri§ac 1987); c) 14lL!c2 ο-ο 15 ο-ο f5 etc.; d) 14 ~d3 .i.xd5 15 "xd5 lL!e7 16 '6'f3 d5 17 :d1 ..b6 18 ο-ο e4 19 '6'g3 ο-ο with θη excellent ΡοΒί tion for Black (Bellon-Lombard. Haifa 1976); e) 14 :dl ο-ο 15 .i.e2 :c8 16 lL!c2 f5 17 0-0 lL!e7 18lL!xe7 + "xe7 19 lL!b4 Φh8 with equality (Semenοva-Aleχandήa. Lvov 1977). After 13 lL!c2 Black has several possibilities. the most popular being 13 ... ~θ6!. which will be examined ίη Section 3. Here we deal with the other options. 13 ". '0-0 13".lL!e7 has recently appeared ίη tournament practice. Then 14 lL!ce3 ~θ6 leads to a variation from Section 3. White has two other possibilities: a) 14 ~e7 .i.xc2 (but not 14.....xe7?? 15 'iνf3 and 14... Φxe7? 15 lL!b4 Φf8 16 'iνf3 "c8 17 'iνd5 '6'b8 18 ~d3. Adams-Sandstrom. London 1993. are clearly poor) 15 'iVxc2 "xe7 16 .i.e2 (16 a4 ο-ο 17

~θ2 b4 18 cxb4 'iνb7. Cvijίc-Τήfu novic. Banja Vrucica 1987. or 16 J:td1 0-0 17 1We4 f5 18 "d5+ Φh819 'it'xd6 'it'h4 20 ~θ2 :ad8 21 'iVb4 1hd1 + 22 ~xdl 1WxM 23 cxb4 :d8. Zhu Dinglong-Li Ζυηίθn. Chinese championship 1987. don't promίΒθ White anyadvantage) 16 ... 0-0 17 ο-ο d5 18 :fd1 :fd8 19 "b3 'it'c5 20 a4 bxa4 21 :Xa4 a5 22 g3. and White maintained a tiny edge (Adams-Shirov, Chalkidiki 1993); b) 14 .i.d3!? lL)xd5 (14 ....i.e6 15 ~θ4 ~xd5 16 ~xd5 :c8 17 ο-ο ο-ο. and instead of 18lL!e3 Φh8 19 a4 f5 20 axb5 f4 with unclear play, Dvoiris-Nijboer. Leeuwarden 1994. White should try 18 a4!. S.Dvoiris; besides. 15lL!xe7 "xe716 ~θ4 ίΒ possible. T.Horvath) 15 .i.xf5 lL!e7 16 1Wg4 ο-ο 17 :dl d5 (or 17... lL!xf5 181Wxf5 d5 19lL!e3. and White has a certain edge. L.Fta~ nik) 18 lL!e3 (18 ο-ο 1i'd6 19 lL!e3 1:ιad8 is not as strong. DolmatovFilippov, Κemerovo 1995).

Ν ow after the continuation 18...d4?! 19 ~e4 dxe3!? 20 :Xd8

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

exf2+ 21 ΦΧf2 :axd8 22 'ife2 f5 23 .i.b7! Black'scompensationfor the missing material was not sufficient (Ivanchuk-Κramnik, Novgorod 1994 - illustrαtive gαme Nr.27). According to Ftaι!nik, 18 .. :iί'd6 19 ~xd5 tbxd5 20 'iff3 e4 21 .i.xe4 :fe8 22 ο-ο :'xe4 23 'ifxe4 :d8 also leaves White with a certain edge. He recommends 18••':a7 but then 19 .i.c2! 100Μ very strong. Returning to 13 ... 0-0. 14 lOOe3 If 14 a4 (this ίβ premature because White's development ίβ ίn sufficient for such actions) then 14 ... ~θ7!? (alternatively 14 ....i.e4 15lbce3 tbe7! - βοο 14lbce3 .i.e4 or 14 ... .i.e6, or 14 ... bxa4 15 :ΣΧθ4 a5 16 tbce3 .i.d7 17 .i.b5 Φh8 18 :c4 tbe7 WΊth an equal position, Petrushin-Sturua, Dnepropetrovsk 1978) 15 ~xθ7+?! (15 tbce3 .i.e4 or 15 ....i.e6) 15 ...'iί'xθ7 16 ~M .i.e4 17 f3 .i.b7 18 axb5 axb5 19 :xa8 :Xa8 20 .i.xb5 d5 with a strong ίn itiative for Black (Van der WielYusupov, telex 1976). 14 .i.e2 .i.e6 15 ο-ο Φh8 16 a4 (16 .i.f3?! :c8 17 ~cb4 tbxb4 18 tbxb4 a5 19lbc6? 'fIic7 20 a4 bxa4 21 :xa4 e4! 22 .i.xe4 d5, and Black wins a piece, Sveshnikov-Timoshchenko, Moscow 1975) 16 ...bxa4 17 .1ha4 a5 18 lbce3 :b8 19 'iί'd2 f5 20 f4 'iί'd7 21 :aal 'iί'b7 22 :fbl .i.h6 ίβ favourable for Black as well (S.SalovGorelov, Moscow 1980). 14 ••• .i.e61 This ίβ the best square for the bishop, taking the d5 square under

control. Black has three other ορ tions: a) 14••..i.g6 15 h4 h6 (l5 ...f5? 16 h5 .i.e8, Κοrneev-Νίkι!evic, Cattolίca 1992, is poor ίn view of 17 h6 .i.h8 18 'iί'b3!) 16 g4 (after 16 .i.d3 e4 17 .i.c2 b4 18 .i.a4 tbe5 19 ~xb4 :b8 20 :bl ~d3+ Black has some compensation for the pawn, Daniilidis-Mrva, Arnhem 1988/89) 16 ... .i.e4 (16 ... e4 17 'iί'd2 ~5 18 .i.e2 :'c8 19 ~f5 .i.xf5 20 gxf5 :'c5 21 :'gl Φh7 22 0-0-0, and White is better, Vegh-Perenyί, Hungary 1977), and now, instead of 17 (3 .i.xd5 18 tbxd5 e4!?, Balzar-Riemersma, Nrestved 1988,17 .i.g2!? .i.xg2 18 tbxg2 e4 19 'iί'c2 must bήng White the better prospectsj b) 14••..i.e4 15 .i.d3! (but not 15 a4 tbe7! 16 tbxe7 + 'iί'xθ7 17 .i.d3 .i.c6, and Black is fine, IvanovicT.Horvath, Zalaegerszeg 1977; 15 .i.e2 deserves attention, for example 15 ... f5? 16 f3 f4 17 fxe4 fxe3 18 'ifd3 with θn advantage for White, Ioseliani-Κrasenkow, Tbilisi 1986, or 15 ... ~θ7 16 .i.f3!) 15 ....i.xd5 16 ~xd5 e4 (for 16 ... f5 17 'iί'h5 e4 18 .i.c2 - βθθ 14 ....i.e6) 17 .i.c2 f5 18 ο-ο tbe5 19 'iί'h5 tbg6 20 :ael :a7 21 f3 .i.e5 22 f4, and White maintains a small but clear edge (Ostergaard-Τ. Horvath, Copenhagen 1987); c) 14•••.i.d71?, and now: cl) 15 'iί'h5?1 e4! 16 ~f5 .i.xf5 17 'ifxf5 :'e8 18 0-0-0 b4 19 cxb4 :e5 20 'iί'h3 'ifg5+ 21 ~3 ~xb4 with a strong attack for Black (Avgousti-Soylu, Budva 1981);

Alwαys

in Fαshion

c2) 15 g4 e4 16 .i.g2 ':e8 17 'ii'c2 ':c8 18 ~xθ4 .i.xg4 19 ':g1, and now, instead of 19 ... f5? 20 ':xg4! fxg4 21.i.xh7+ ι;;.h8 22 0-0-0 with advantage for White (Barle-Ljubojevic, Yugoslavia 1976), Black should have played 19... lL!d4! 20 \i'd3 lL!f3+ 21 .i.xf3 .i.xf3 22 \i'f5 .i.xd5 23 'ii'xd5 \i'f6 24 0-0-0 :Xc3 + 25 bxc3 'ii'xc3 + 26 lL!c2 \i'b2 + with perpetual check (J.Boudy); c3) 15 ~d3!1 f5 16 'ii'h5 e4 17 .i.c2 'ii'e8! (17 ... lL!e5 18 ο-ο :a7 19 f3 ~θ8 20 \i'h3 is better for White, Honfi-Forgacs, Budapest 1983) 18 'ili'h4 (18 \i'xe8 ':axe8 19 lL!c7 ':e5!) 18 ... ':d8 19 ο-ο (19 ο-ο-ο!?) 19 ... lL!e5 20 f4 exf3 21 gxf3 lL!g6 22 'ii'h5 lL!f4!, and Black equalized (Ulybin-Chekhov; Pavlodar 1987); c4) 15 g3!1 deserves serious attention. Returning to 14 ....i.e6.

15 ~d3 15 a4?! can be met by 15... lL!e7!, for example 16 lL!xe7 + 'ii'xe7 17 axb5 axb5 18 .i.xb5 'ili'b7 19 c4 d5 20 ':xa8 :xa8 21 ο-ο d4 22lL!c2 e4

with an excellent position for Black (Sharipov-Κrasenkow, Samarkand 1979). 15 g41! is now risky οη account of 15 ...b4! (15 ... \i'h4 16 ~g2 e4 17 ~xθ4 ':ae8 18 ':g1 f5 19 gxf5 .i.xf5 20 .i.xf5 ':xf5, Dementiev-Maiorovas, Riga 1977, 21:g2 ίΒ unclear) 16 ~g2 (16 cxb4lL!d4) 16... bxc3 17 bxc3 ':c8, for example 18 .i.e4lL!e7 19 ':c1lL!xd5 20 ~xd5 .i.h6 21 h4 ~f4 with a clear edge for Black (Zamansky-Legky, Tashkent 1977). 15 g31eads to positions similar to those of the fOllOWing section, with White's knight prematurely moved to e3. Here are some variations illustrating typical plans of both sides: a) 15•••b4 16 .i.g2 bxc3 17 bxc3 f5 (17 ... \i'a5!? 18 ο-ο \i'c5, T.Horvath) 18 ο-ο ':c8 19 \i'h5 (19 ':b1 ι;;.h8 20 lL!b6 ':b8 21.i.xc6 ':xb6 22 ~d5 .i.c8 23lL!c4 ':b5! with equality, Illescas-Gurgenidze, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 19 ... ι;;.h8 20 ':ad1lL!e7 21 ':d2 e4 22 ':fd1 ~θ5 23 lL!f4 .i.f7 24 'ii'h6 ':c6! 25 lL!e6 ~xθ6 26 \i'xe6 \i'e8 27 lL!c4 ':f6 28 lL!xd6, and the game ίΒ equal (Geller-Arakhamia, Aruba 1992); b) 15•••':b8 16 ~g2 f5 17 \i'h5, for example 17... b4 18 ο-ο bxc3 19 bxc3 'ii'd7 (19 ... ι;;.h8!) 20 f4! (Shamkovich-Maguiera, Las Vegas 1994), and 20 ... e4? doesn't work οη account of 21 g4! fxg4 22 .i.xe4; still, 20 ... ':b5!? 21 ':ad1 ':c5 gives Black good counterchances, according to L.Shamkovich; or 17 ...:f718 f4?! e4! 19 ο-ο lL!e7 20 ':ad1lL!xd5 21

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

tbxd5 'it'c8! 22 'it'e2 'it'c5+ 23 'it'f2 a5 24 a3 1:tc8 25ll:1e3 .i.b3! 26 1:td2 b4, and Black is clearly better (Κίηdermanη-Lobrοη, Ptuj 1995); οτ 17 ο-ο (instead of 17 'it'h5) 17 ... Φh818 'δ'h5 b419 1:tadl bxc3 20 bxc3 1:ιb2 21ll:1c4 .i.f7 22 'it'h3 1:txa2 23 ll:Ide3 .i.xc4 24 ll:Ixc4 (Herbrechtsmeier-Antonίo,

Βίθl

1993), and now the simplest plan for Black was 24 ... ll:Ie7. c) 15•••f5 16.i.g2 (οτ 16 f41:tb8! but not 16 ...1:ta7?! 17 .i.g2 Φh8 18 ο-ο ll:Ie7 19 'it'd2ll:1g6 20 Φh1 exf4 21ll:1xf4ll:1xf4 22 1:ιxf4 .i.e5 23 1:tf2 'it'g5 24 .i.d5! with an initiative for White, Κlovans-Gaidarov, Riga 1979; οτ 16 .i.h3 ll:Ie7! 17 ο-ο - 17 ll:Ixe7 + 'fkxe7 18 .i.xf5? J:txf5! 19 ll:Ixf5 "b7!, I.Millstein -17 ...1:tb8 18 1:te1 ltJxd5 19 ltJxd5 'fkd7 20 "d2 a5 21 a3 Φh8 22 l1ad1 "f7 with equalίty, Ljubojevίc-Van der Wiel, Wijk θθη Zee 1988) 16... b4 (for 16 ... l1b8 - Βθθ the prevίous varίation) 17 "h5 bxc3 18 bxc3 e4 (somewhat premature; 18 ... l1b8 οτ 18 ... Φh8 was better) 19 ο-ο ll:Ie7 20 1:tadlltJxd5 21ltJxd5 .i.e5 22 f3! .i.xd5 23 I1xd5 exf3 24 "xf3 I1c8 25 c4!, and White obtaίned a small edge (Brunner-Lyrberg, Budapest 1993). Mter 15 .i.d3 the white bishop wίll be placed more actively Cc2 οτ b3, with θη eventual idea to exchange the light-squared bishops), and his queen will take the h5 square. An attempt to start with 15 "h5 fails ίη vίew of 15... e4! (cf. 14....i.d7 lίηθ).

Some time ago the 15 .i.d3 variation was considered very formidable, and black players mostly switched to the other move order (13 ....i.e6). However, recent practice has discovered several good plans for Black after 15 .i.d3. 15 ••• Ι5 (D) 15•••ltJe7?! was played ίη the game S.Garcia-Remon (Bayamo 1986). Still, after 16ll:1xe7 + "xe7 17 "h5 h6 18 .i.e4 l1ac8 19 ο-ο I1c5 20 I1fdl I1d8 21 .i.d5 a5 22 11d2, White held a slίght edge.

16 'fkh5 16 .i.c2!? ίΒ very interesting (this position can also be reached from a completely different Ιίηθ of the Sveshnikov: 11 .i.d3 .i.e6 12 c3 .i.g7 13 ll:Ic2 ο-ο 14 ltJce3 fxe4 15 .i.xe4 f5 16 .i.c2 - see Chapter 7). Now 16••• e4?! ίΒ hardly good ίη view of 17 ltJf4. Black has tried the following options: a) 16•••l1a7?! 17 'ii'h5 b4 18 ο-ο (18ll:1xf5 :xf5!) 18 ... bxc3 19 bxc3 l1af7 20 l1ab1ll:1e7 with a good ρο sition for Black (Waller-Fauland,

A1ways in Fαshion

Vienna 1986) but what can he do after 18 g4! ίη this Ιίηθ?; b) 16 ... lDe7 17 ο-ο?! lDg6 18 f3? .i.h6 19 :e1 :a7 20 b4 Ilg7 21 ~h1 lDh4 with a decisive attack for Black (Larduet-Ochoa, Havana 1992). Of course, White should have played 17 .i.b3! wίth a small edge; c) 16•••b4 17 ο-ο bxc3 18 bxc3, and after 18... ~h8?! 19 "h5 e4 20 f3 21 fxe4 .i.xc3 22 :ab1 .i.g7? (ίη the event of 22 ... .i.f7 White is also better, according to V.Topalov) 23 exf5! .i.g8 24 f6 White won ίη the game Topalov-Illescas, Alcobendas 1994. T.Horvath recommends an immediate 18 .....a5 but then White has 19 .i.a4! forcing Black's knight to d8; d) 16•••.i.h6 17 ο-ο :a7 (17 ... f4 18 "h5) 18 f4 "h4 (18 ... :af7 19 a4!?) 19 g3 :g7? (19 ... "h3 20 a4 also yields White a certain plus, Ftafnik) 20 lDc7!, and White won (Topalov-Illescas, Linares 1995 ίΙ lustranve game Nr.28); e) 16•••:t7!? (16 ... f4?! is infeτίοτ ίη view of 17lDf1) 17 "h5 f4! 18 .i.xh7+ (18 "xh7+? 'iiff8 19 .i.f5 "e8!) 18 ... 'iiff8 19 .i.f5 "e8! (19 ...:xf5? 20 lDxf5 .i.xd5 21 :d1! is ροοτ for Black, Arnason-Birnboim, Beer-Sheva 1987) 20 .i.xe6 "xe6 21 "g4 "h6! 22 lDf5 (22 lDc2?! e4) 22 ... "e6 23lDfe3, and a draw was agreed ίη Yudasin-Dolmatov, Kemerovo 1995 (notes by Arnason). However, ίη this Ιίηθ 17 f4!? deserves serious attention (Black can reply 17 ...b4 etc.).

"a5

f) 16•••'iifh8 17 "h5 e4 - see 16 "h5. Here we conclude that the 16 .i.c2 Ιίηθ requires more tests, and move οη to 16 "h5. 16 ••• e4 Black can also play 16•••:a7, e.g. 17 ο-ο (17 g4!?) 17•••:af7 18 .i.c2 b4 19 :fd1 bxc3 20 bxc3lDe7 21 lDxe7+, and ίη MarjanovicSimil: (Bela Crkva, 1984) a draw was agreed, or, more significantly, 16.....d7!? Cidea .....d7-f7), wίth the followίng vaήatίοns:

a) 17 lDb6 "e8! (this is the point!) 18 "h3 :b8 19 lDbd5 "f7 20.i.c2 h6 21 f4 b4 22 :d1 bxc3 23 bxc3 :b2 24 .i.a4 lDe7 25 lDc4 lDxd5 26lDxb2 :b8 (Cvijic-Muse, Banja Vrucica 1987) οτ 18 "xe8 :axe8 19 a4 e4 20 .i.f1 :b8 21 lDed5 f4 22 axb5 axb5 23 f3 e3 24 :a6 b4 (Bauer-Schulte, West Germany 1987), with an obvious advantage for Black ίη both games; b) 17 ο-ο :ac8?! 18 :ad1 e419 .i.c2 .i.e5 20 f4 exf3 21 gxf3 f4 22 lDg4, and White obtained a small

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

edge (Jansa-Muse, Badenweίler 1990). 17••.hb8 and 17.....f7 are undoubtedly better. Tbis variation needs more practical testsj c) 17 g4 e4 18 .i.c2 .i.f7! (after 18 ... .i.xd5 19 ~xd5 :ae8 200-0-0 fxg4 21 :hg1 :e5 22 "xg4 "xg4 23 1:[xg4 1hf2 24 11dg1 :f7 25 .i.b3 Φf8, J.Horvath-Muse, Budapest 1986, or 18 ...11ae8 19 0-0-0 ~5 20 gxf5 .i.xf5 21 ~b6 .i.g4 22 ~xd7 .i.xh5 23 ~xf8 .i.xd1 24 ~xd1 :xf8 25 .i.xe4 11f4, Vogt-Κlundt, Bad Worishofen 1992, Black also obtained a satisfactory position) 19 "h3?! (19 "h4 ~e5j 19 'ii'xf5 '6'xf5 20 gxf5 .i.xd5 21 ~xd5 :xf5 is equal) 19 ... .i.xd5 20 ~xd5 fxg4 21 "h4 '6'f5 22 0-0-0 Φh8 23 h3 'ii'xf2, and White had to fight for a draw (Martin-San Segundo, Salamanca 1991). 16...e4 ίβ Black's oldest and most natural reply to White's plan. It frees the e5 square for the black pieces. However, Black's centre becomes less solid, and White obtaίns a possibility to attack it by f2-f3. 17 .i.c2 ~5 Or: a) 17....te5?! 18 g4! .tf7 19 '6'h3 b4 20 gxf5 bxc3 21 bxc3 "a5 22 ο-ο .i.xc3 23 ~xc3 'iVxc3 24 .i.xe4 with a decisive advantage for White (Donchev-Κouatly, 1985)j b) 17....txd5?! (aprematureexchange) 18 ~d5 "e8 (or 18... ~7 19 .i.b3 Φh8 20 ~f4 "e8 21 "xe8 :fxe8 22 ~e6 with a clear edge, Ghinda-Ochoa, Cienfuegos 1984,

or 18 ... ~e5 19 ο-ο Φh8?! 20 f3! exf3 21 .txf5 :xf5 22 "xf5 '6'h4 23 g3 "h6 24 ~f4 :f8 25 '6'h5, and Black's 'attack' was easίly parried, Jansa-Nun, Prague 1986j to 18 ... b4 White also plays 19 ο-ο and then f2-f3, according to Ghinda) 19 "h3 :a7 20 ο-ο ~e5 21 lladl ~g6 22 (4! ~h8 23 :d2, and White's chances are clearly better (Jansa-Zelkind, Gausda11990) . c) 17.....d7 18 lld1 :ae8 190-0 .i.e5 20 f4 exf3 21 1:[xf3? (4 was favourable for Black ίn the game Martin-Kouatly, Dubai 1986 but after 21 gxf3 White stands somewhat betterj d) 17...Φh8 18 ~f4 '6'f6 19.tb3 .i.d7 20 ~ed5 "h6 21 ~b6 "xf4 22 ~d7 ~e5 with equal chances (Filipenko-Vyzmanavin, Moscow 1986). White, however, can play ίn a different way: 20 11d1!? or 19 ~xe6!? "xe6 20 .i.b3j e) 17•••~7 (this was popular ίn the 1980s), and now:

el) 18 ~xe7+?! '6'xe7 19 .i.b3 .i.xb3 20 axb3 "e6 21 ο-ο Φh8 22

Alwαys

in Fαshion

b4 f4 23 'ifd5 'ifg6 24 tbc2 :g8 25 g3 .i.e5 with a formidable attack for Black (P.Cramling-Fedorowicz, Hastings 1986) or 19 g4 f4 20 tbd5 J.xd5 21 'ίi'xd5+ Φh8 22 0-0-0 e3, with an initiative for Black (Yagupov-Minasian; Moscow 1992); e2) 18tbf4 .i.f7 19 .i.b3 (not 19 'ίi'g5 tbg6 20 'ίi'xf5 J.c4 21 tbe6 J.xc3+!, Pelling-Emerson, London 1977/78, with the idea of 22 bxc3 'ίi'a5) 19... d5 (19 ... b4 20 J.xf7 + I1xf7 21 tbe6 'ίi'a5 - 21 ... .i.xc3+ 22 Φf1! 'ίi'd7 23 tbg5 - 22 tbg5:f6 23 ο-ο is better for White, BoroczT.Horvath, Szekszard 1989) 20 'ίi'h3 (20 'ίi'dl d4) 20 ... b4!? 21 tbfxd5 lί::Jxd5 22 lί::Jxd5 bxc3 23 lί::Jxc3 (23 bxc3 :b8) 23 ....i.xb3 24 axb3 'ifb6 with sufficient compensation for thepawn; e3) 18 .i.b3 tbxd5 (after the continuation 18 ... Φh8 19 tbf4 .i.xb3 20 axb3 'ίi'd7 21 :dl:f6 22 'ίi'θ2 White's positional plus became obvious, Ghinda-Bousmaha, Lucerne 1985) 19lί::Jxd5 (19 .i.xd5!?) 19 ... a5 20 lί::Jf4 .i.xb3 21 axb3 'ίi'θ7 22 0-0 b4!? Now 23 cxb4 'ίi'θ5 24 'ίi'g5 axb4 25 :adl :a2 led to equality ίη Adams-Beliavsky, Debrecen 1992, but the difficult ρο sition after 23 tbd5 'ίi'θ5 24 :fdl bxc3 25 bxc3 :a7 26 :a4 (Κlθίη platz-Braga, Benasque 1993) is probably slightly better for White; e4) 18 :dl tbg6 19 g4 (after 19 f4 exf3 20 gxf3 'ίi'd7 21 ο-ο :ae8 22 ΦhΙ f4 23lί::Jg2 White also has the better prospects, Kudrin-Ricardi, Mendosa 1985) 19... tbh4 (after

19... fxg4 20 .i.xe4 'ίi'θ8 21 ο-ο :a7 22 tbxg4 Black has ηο compensation for the pawn, Honfi-Muse, Budapest 1986) 20 gxf5 .i.xf5 21 lί::Jxf5 :xf5 22 'ίi'g4 h5 23 'ίi'h3 'ίi'g5 24lί::Je3:f6 25 .i.b3+ Φf8 26 :d5 'ίi'f4 27 'ίi'g3 with a small edge for White (Κudrin-Rohde, USA championship 1987). 17 ...tbe5 ίΒ connected with the idea of occupyίng ... the c4 square! 18 lί::Jf4 (D) 18 :dllί::Jc4 19 lί::Jxc4 bxc4 20 ο-ο .i.e5 21 ΦhΙ ':'a7 22 f4 exf3 23 ':'xf3 :af7 24 b3 'ίi'a5 (ArnasonKouatly, Thessaloniki 1988) and 18 0-0-0 lί::Jd3+!? (18 ...tbc4!?) 19 ':'xd3!? (or 19 .i.xd3 exd3 20 :xd3 f4) 19 ...exd3 20 .i.xd3 h6 21 f4 :a7 22 .i.xf5 .i.f7 23 'ίi'h3 :e8 (Yθliιni rovic-Vukic, Yugoslav championship, Tivat 1994) both lead to extremely complicated, unclear situations.

After 18....i.d7 19 ο-ο 'ίi'f6 20 21 'ίi'xh6 .i.xh6 22lί::Jb6 :ae8 23 tbxd7 tbxd7 24 :adl White's position ίΒ clearly better lί::Jfd5 'ίi'h6

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

(Holzke-Volodin, Budapest 1990) but Black can play 18.....d7!. Ιη the game Κotronias-Winge, Stockholm 1988/89, Black obtained a good position after 19 ο-ο (19 g4!?) 19 ...:ab8 20 :fdl (20 ~hl!? with the idea of 21 f3 deserved attention) 20...~h8 21i.b3 i.c4! 22 :d2 :f6 23 ~hl :bf8 24 :adllM3. Since 16 .....d71ooks θνθη more solίd, οηθ can hardly say that the plan starting with 15 i.d3 promises White the better prospects. However, it has meant that the 13 ... 0-0 vaήatίοη ίβ ηο longer ίη fashion! 13 ...i.e6 elίminates the whole plan with i.f1-d3 and, ίη deed, leads to a clearer strategical situation.

Section 3 13...i.e6 (1 e4 c5 2lM3lOO6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 i.xf6 gxf6 10 lbd5 f5 11 exf5 i.xf5 12 c3 i.g7 13 lbc2) 13 ••• i.e6 (D) 14 g3 The most accurate move order, according to current theory. Alternatives are: a) 14 a4 ο-ο 15 axb5 axb5 16 :xas 17li:k7 (17 .bb5lbd4!) 17 ..."a2 18 i.xb5 "xb2 19 ο-ο i.b3 20 "xd6 "xc3 with a balanced position (LjubojeVΊc-llles cas, Pamplona 1995/96); b) 14 i.e2 ο-ο 15 ο-ο f5 16 f4 f:Δe7 17 lbce3 lbxd5 18 lbxd5 :c8

"xa8

19 ~hl :c5, and Black seized the initiative ίη the game Akhmadeev-Beshukov, Russian championshίp, Elίβω 1994; c) 14 lbce3lbe7! (the point of Black's idea), and now White can play: cl) 15 g411 lbxd5 16lbxd5 ο-ο 17 i.g2 1:tc8 (17 .....h4!?) 18 i.e4 "h419 f:Δe3 i.h6 20 lbf5 i.xf5 21 i.xf5 :c4 22 :f4 23 "g3 i.g5 with an advantage for Black (Kudrin-Chandler, Thessalonίkί 1988); c2) 15 lbxe7 "xe7 16 "f3 (16 a4 ο-ο! ίβ good for Black; 16 i.e2 ο-ο 17 i.f3 :ac8 - or 17 ... :ab8 18 ο-ο ~h8 19 i.d5 i.d7 20 i.b3 f5, ΚίmeΙfeΙd-VΥΖmaηavίη, Moscow 1986 - 18 ο-ο :c5!?, and 19 a4?! f5 20 axb5?! was refuted by 20 ... e4! 21 b4 :xb5 22 i.e2 f4!, o.EfimovTsesarsky, USSR 1987; finally, 16 g3 d5 17 lbxd5 - 17 i.g2 :d8 17.....b7 18 c4 0-0-0 or 18 i.g2 ο-ο-ο! ίβ favourable for Black, too) 16...:a7 17 i.d3 d5! 18lbxd5 e4 19 lbxe7 exf3 20 lbf5 i.xf5 21 i.xf5 fxg2 22 :gl :e7 + 23 ~dl :e5 24 i.d3 :g5 25 i.e4 :g8 leads to an

"f3

Alwαys

in Fαshion

equal endgame (Hellers-Zsu. Polgar, Amsterdam 1985); c3) 15 a4lΩxd5 16lΩxd5 0-0 17 g3 bxa4 18 1Ixa4 a5 19 .i.g2 Ab8 20 b4 axb4 21 cxb4 f5! with good counterchances for Black; or 17 .i.e2 bxa4 18 Jha4 a5 19 ο-ο ~h8 20 "d2 Ab8 21 .i.c4 1:ιc8 22 b3 (Kuporosov-Vyzmanavin, USSR 1989) 22 ... .i.d7 23 Aa3 a4 with equality (Chekhov); c4) 15 .i.e2 lΩxd5 16 lΩxd5 ο-ο 17 ο-ο Ab8 18 'ΙΜ2 a5 19 a4 b4 20 cxb4 .i.xd5 21 'iVxd5 Jhb4 is equal (Ζ. Vancsura- Κrasenkow,Balaton bereny 1988); c5) 15 g3 lbxd5! (luήng the white knight to d5; 15 ... 0-0 ίΒ less accurate because after 16 .i.g2 J:tb8 17 ο-ο lbxd5 - or 17 ... f5 18 lbxe7 + 'iVxe7 19 .i.d5! f4 20 'iVg4!; if 17 ... ~h8 then 18 "h5!? f5 19 J:tad1- White can play 18 .i.xd5!, e.g. 18 ... ~h8 19 a4 .i.h6! 20 axb5 .i.xe3 - 20 ... axb5? ίβ poor due to 21 lbc2!, Adams-Salov, Dortmund 1992, see illustrαtivegαmeNr.2921 fxe3 .i.xd5 22 'iVxd5 Jhb5 23 'iVd2, and White maintains a small edge, according to M.Adams) 16 ~d5 0-0 17.i.g2 (D). Black can now combine two plans: the mίnοήtΥ attack (... a6a5, ... b5-b4) and the fight for the d5 square (... f7-f5, ... e5-e4, ... Aa8b8, .....d8-d7-f7, ...Af8-c8-c5). The white strategy includes doubling rooks along the d-file (to press οη the black d6 pawn) and a kingside attack ('iVd1-h5, .i.g2-h3, f2-f4, g3g4 etc.). Ιη alΙ probability, Black

can maintain sufficient counterplay. However, he must play accurately. Here are some examples: c51) 17•••~h8 18 ο-ο a5 19 'iVh5 (altematively 19 'iVe2 1Ib8 20 Aad1 'iVd7 21 Ad2 f5 22 f4 'iVf7 23 Afd1 1Ifc8 24 ~h1 e4, Gufeld-Timoshchenko, Novosibirsk 1976, 25~! - cf. below Yakovich-Sveshnikov) 19... f5 20 1Iad1 Ab8 21 1Id2 - see below; c52) 17•••:b8 18 ο-ο a5 (ίη stead 18 ... f5?! ίβ inferior: 19lbb4! Ab6 20 .i.d5 'iVd7 21 a4 a5 22 .i.xe6+ "xe6 23 ~5 with an edge for White, as ίη Jansa-Schmittdiel, Gausdal 1990; after 18 ... 'iVd7 19 'iVh5 Black should play 19 ... f5 but not 19...~h8?? 20 lbf6! .i.xf6 21 .i.e4), and now: c521) 19 a3 ίΒ not dangerous: 19 ... ~h8 20 'iVh5 'iVd7 21 f4 f5 22 :ad1 e4 23 ~h1 'iVb7 24lbe3 'iVb6 (Nijboer-Markovic, Vienna 1990); c522) 19 'iVd2 f5 20 Aad1 ~h8 21 Afe1 'iVd7 22 'iVg5 'iVf7 23 Ad2 e4 24 Aed1 .i.e5 25 "e3 'iVg7 26 ~h1 b4 with equality (Arakhamia-Nunn, London 1993) or 21 a3

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

W'd7 22 :fe1 W'a7 23 W'e2 W'f7 24 Φh1 e4 25 W'd2 ~θ5 26 f3 ~xd5, and a draw was agreed ίη LekoLautier, Groningen 1995; c523) 19 W'e2 W'd7 20 IΣad1 f5 21 f4 'ikf7 22 :d2 e4 23 :fd1 :fc8 24 ~h3?! IΣc5 25 lί'Jθ3 d5 26 g4 fxg4 27 ~xg4 ~xg4 28 "xg4 Φh8! with good counterplay for Black (Yakovich-Sveshnikov, Sochi 1986 - illustratίvegameNr.30). 24lί'Je3! is stronger but after 24 ... ~f8 25 ~h3 :c5 Black's position is solid enough. c524) 19lί'Je3!? W'd7 20 ..h5 f5 21 ~d5 ~xd5 22 lί'Jxd5 "ikf7 23 "ikxf7 + ΦΧf7 24 :fd1 :fc8 25 a3 Φθ6 26 :d2 h5, and Black equalized (Luther-Mohr, Ptuj 1995). 23 "ikdl!? deserved attention; for his part, Black can try 19 ... Φh8!? and then ... f7-f5 to meet ~g2-d5 with ... ~e6-d7; c525) 19 "'h5 f5 (19 .....d7 20 W'h4 ~xd5 21 ~xd5 Φh8 22 :ad1 f5 23 "ikh3 'iVe7 24 :fe1 e4 25 1:Σθ2 ~e5 26 f4 exf3 27 ~xf3 leads to a typical position with a slight edge for White, Short-Lautier, Linares 1995) 20 :ad1 Φh8 (20 ... b4 21 c4 b3 22 axb3 1hb3 23 c5!, E.Geller) 21 :d2 ~f7 (21 ......d7 is now ίη sufficient, for example 22 :fd1 "f7 23 "'h4! e4 24 lί'Jf4 ~e5 25 1Σχd6! ~xd6 26 1Σχd6 :fe8 27 g4! with a clear pull for White, Geller-Fedorowicz, New York 1990) 22 ...h3 ..d7 23 :fd1 :bd8 24 "'h4 "'e6 25 tLJe3! "g6 (25 ... e4 26 :d5!, D.Rogozenko) 26 ~h3! f4 (26 ... ~f6 27 ~xf5!). This was played ίη the

game Secheli-Rogozenko, EforieNord 1993, and now White could have kept his initiative by 27 lί'Jd5; c53) 17•••&5 18 ο-ο f5 (this move order ίβ probably the most accurate) 19 "'e2 (19 ..h5 can now be met by 19... b4!?, e.g. 20 IΣadl bxc3 21lί'Jxc3 IΣb8 22 b3 e4 23 lί'Jd5 :b5 24lί'Jf4 ~f7 25 "'e2 :c5, and Black seized the initiative, HjartarsonΚrasenkow, Malmo 1995 illustrα tive game Nr.31; 19 a4 bxa4 20 'ii'xa4 :b8 21 :fb1 e41ed to equality ίη Jansa-Hellers, Oslo 1991; 19 'ΙΜ2 :b8 see c522) 19 ... :b8, moving οη to the c523line, which is quite satisfactory for Black. 14 g3 enables White, in the event ofthe exchange ofknights οη d5, to recapture with his bishop; at the same time his c2 knight prevents ...b5-b4. However, Black can successfully do without ... lί'Jc6-e7 . ο-ο 14 ••• 14••• lί'Je7 15 ~g2 tLJxd5!? 16 ~xd5 ο-ο! 17 ~xa8?! 'ilxa8 18 f3 d5 19 ο-ο d4! 20 cxd4 exd4 21lί'Jb4 d3! yielded Black good compensation for the exchange (Ν evostruev-A.lvanov, Vladivostok 1995); however, after 17 ο-ο :c8 18 a4! or 17•••:b8 18 tLJe3 White maintains a small edge, according to Gagarin. a5 15 ~g2 15•••:b8 16 ο-ο "ikd7 (16 ... tLJe7?! 17 lί'Jxθ7 + 'it'xe7 18 lί'Jb4 :b6 19 f4 f5 20 ~d5! a5 21 ~xθ6+ 'iνxe622 lί'Jd5 :b7 23 "ikd2 is favourable for White, as ίη Short-Illescas, Madrid 1995) is another alternative, with the following possibilities:

Always ίπ Fashion

16 ο-ο Ι5 16...:b8 ίΒ more common but less accurate, for example 17 "h5 (17 "d7 - see 15...:b8; 17 b4 "d7 18 bxa5lbxa5 19lbcb4 f5 20 a4 e4, Anand-VyzmanaVΊn, Moscow 1987, and 17 :el ..d7 18 'ii'h5 f5 19 :adl e4!? - 19 ... b4!? - 20 lbce3 - 20 f3!? - 20 ... lbe5 21 :e2 lbg6 22 :ed2 J.e5, Short-Κram nik, Novgorod 1994, yίeIded Black sufficient counterchances) 17 ... f5 (17 .....d7 18lbce3! f5 19 g4 fxg4? 20 J.e4 h6 21 "g6 :f7 22 f4! gxf3 23 "h7+ Φf8 24 :xf3 with a strong attack, Dvoiris-Iskusnyh, Novgorod 1995) 18 :adl Φh8 (18 ... 'ii'd719lbce3 "f7 20 "xf7+ :xf7 21 :d2 with a small edge for White, Ivanchuk-Illescas, Linares 1995) 19 lbce3 (19 :d2 J.xd5! 20 J.xd5lbe7 21lbe3:m 22 J.g2 'ii'd7 23 lbd5 lbxd5 24 :xd5 b4Ieads to an equal position, Dolmatov-Belίkov, Russian championshίp, ΕΙ ista 1995) 19 ...lbe7 20 lbxe7 "xe7 21 g4 e4! 22 gxf5 J.xa2 with unclear play (LjubojeVΊc-Illescas, Ιί nares 1995); however, 20 :d2 (cf. 14 lbce3 lίηθ) sets certain problems to Black. Returnίng to 16 ... f5. 17 'ji'b5 17 lbf4 exf4 18 J.xc6 fxg3! 19 hxg3 f4!? (19 ... :c8!?) 20 J.d5 (20 J.xa8 'ii'xa8 21 'ii'xd6 J.h3 22 f3 :αι!, T.Horvath) 20 ... J.xd5 21 "xd5+ Φh8 22lbd4 fxg3 23 fxg3 J.e5 led to an equal position ίη the game Lutz-T.Horvath, Germany 1995. After 17 a4 :b8 18 lba3

"d2

a) 17"d2 f5 18 :adl a5 19 a3 (19 f4!?) 19 ... 1:tfd8 20 "g5 Φh8 21 .l:td2 "f7 22 :fdl e4 23 lbf4 J.ffi 24 'ii'h6 J.b3 with equality (Tseshkovsky-Κalinichev, Warsaw 1989); b) 17 "h5 f5 18 :adl e4 19 f3 J.xd5 20 :Xd5lbe7 21 :d2 d5 with the same result (Ivanchuk-Κram nik, Moscow active 1995); c) 17 a4f bxa4 (l7...b4 18lbcxb4 lbxb4 19 cxb4 J.xd5 20 J.xd5 J:xb4 21 b3 a5 22 "e2 e4 23 J:adl, ShortΚramnik, Novgorod 1995 - illustrative game Nr.32 - and 17...a5 18 lbce3 wh8 19 axb5 :Xb5 20 "a4 J:tfb8 21 "h4 "d8 22 "xd8+ lbxd8 23 lbc7 :Xb2 24lbxe6 lbxe6 25lbc4, ASokolov-Lastίn, RUSSΊan championshίp, Elίsαι 1995, yίeIded Whίte the better chances) 18 :Xa4 a5 (18 ...1:txb2 19 :Xa6 lbe7 20 lbcb4!) 19 lbce3!? (19 b4 axb4 20 tLJcxb4 lbxb4 21 cxb4 :b5 with mutual chances) 19... :xb2 20 :c4 .l:tc8 21 'ii'h5 with a strong attack for Whίte, accordίng to N.Short; d) 17 lbcb4 lbxb4 18 lbxb4 J:tb6 19 lbd5 :b8 - see 14 lbce3 lίηθ.

ΤΜ

100

Sveshnikov Sicilian

bxa4 19 tbc4 e4 20 1ha4 ~5! 21 ~xa5 1hb2 Black ίΒ okay, too (Nevostnιev-Iskusnyh,Vladίvostok

1995). 17 :el was played ίn SVΊd ler-Filίppov, Κazan 1995, and led to a good position for Black after the continuation 17 ...:c8 18 ΙΜ2 ~h8 19 :adl e4 20 f4 b4 21ltJce3 bxc3 22 bxc3 a4 23 g4 fxg4 24 .t.xe4 ~7. Or 17 'ifd2 :b8 18 ~f4 exf4 19 .t.xc6 fxg3 20 hxg3 f4 21 .t.d5 'ifd7, and Black's position ίΒ not worse (Adams-Lautier, Belgrade 1995). 17 b4! 18 lOOe3 18 cxb4 axb419 ~M ~M 20 ~M e4 ίΒ clearly good for Black. 18 bxc3 19 bxc3 ~h8 20 :adl :b8 (D) Compared to the 'normal' ΡΟΒί tions of the vaήatίοn, Black has managed to open the b-file. This means that he has enough counterplay, e.g. 21 .t.h3 'ifd7 22 f4 e4 000

23 :f2 (23 ~hl? :b2 24 ~c4 :xa2, Topalov-Κrasenkow, Polaniω Zdroj 1995, wίth the idea of 25 ~xd6 .t.d4! see illustrative game Nr.33) 23 ... :b5 24 :fd2 :c5 25 'ίfίιhl 'iff7 26 'ifxf7 :xf7 27 ~b6 :xc3 28 :xd6 .t.xa2 29 ~xf5 .t.f8 with a good endgame for Black (ASokolov-Filippov, RUSSΊan championshίp, Elίsta 1995). The whole lίnθ ίΒ developing very quickly WΊth new ideas appeaήng every month!

Τhe

New Old Line

(1 e4 c5 2 ι!Df3 t006 3 d4 cxd4 4 lΔxd4 lΔΙ6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 ~ι5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 ~xf6 gxf6 10 lbd5 Ι5)

11 .id3 This developing move has always been considered οηθ of the most important answers to the Sicilian Sveshnikov. However, the interpretation of this system has lately been subjected to seήοus modification, with both sides opting for completely new plans. 11 ... ~e6 (D) Mter 11•••f4 12 c41 .ig7 13 cxb5 lΔd4 14 bxa6 ο-ο 15 lbc2 lbe6 16 b4 (Nunn-Fedorowicz, Reykjavik 1990) οτ 11.....,5 12 g41 wd8 13 gxf5 .bf5 (13.....g2 14:t1) 14lbe3 il..d7 15 "d2 .ih6 160-0-0 (Martin-Rivas, Spanish championship 1977) White ίβ clearly better.

Ιη this position White has two popular moves: 12 ο-ο (Section 2)

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

Section 1 12 c3; 12 c4

12 c4 12 c3 is another possibility. Μ ter 12 ... .ig7 (12 ... il..xd51? 13 exd5 lbe7 14 lbxb5 .ig7 15 lba3 ο-ο 16 ο-ο e417 il..c2lbg618 "h5 "c819 f3 :b8 brought Black enough compensation for the missing pawn in the game Rigo-Van der Wiel, Rotterdam 1979) 13 lbc2 (13 "f3?1 .ixd5 14 exd5 e4115 "g3 il..e5 16 f4 ~f6 ίΒ good for Black, GamarraSeret, Haifa Olympiad 1976, while 13 "h5 and 13 ο-ο .ixd5 14 exd5 lbe71ead to lines discussed in Sections 2 and 3) 13 ....ixd5 (13 ... 0-0 14lbce31 fxe4 15 .ixe4 f5 16.ic2 leads to the vaήation descήbed ίη Chapter 6, Section 2) 14 exd5lbe7 15 a4 ο-ο 16 axb5 e4 17 .ie2 axb5 181:xa8 "xa8 19lbb4 Wb7 20 ο-ο f4 21 "d2lbg6 Black obtains good counterplay οη the kingside (Pokojowczyk-Joksic, Yugoslavia 1978). 12 c4 leads to sharp play but doesn't gίνθ White any advantage. 12 ••• "&5+! 12•••lbd413 exf5! .ixd5 14 cxd5 "g5 15 0-0 lΔxf5 16 f4 exf4 17 .bf5 "xf5 18 "e2+ "e5 19"f2 (RigoΚaman, Hungary 1993), 12•••bxc4

102

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

13 lbxc4 .i.xd5 14 exd5 lbd4 15 'iVa4+ Φe7 16 ο-ο .i.g7 17 :fe1 (ν.Ν.ΚΟΖΙον-Ρορογ, Vilnius 1978) and 12•••b4 13 'ίi'a4! .i.d7 14lbb5! axb5 15 'iVxa8 'ίi'xa8 16lbc7 + Φd8 17 lbxa8 fxe4 18 .i.xe4 bxc4 19 lbb6 are all favourable for White. 12•••.i.xd5 13 exd5 'ίi'a5 + ίΒ just a transposition of moves. 13 <Μι 13 'ίi'd2 'iVxd2+ 14 ΦΧd2 .i.h6+ 15 Φd1 bxc4 16 ι!CJxc4 ο-ο leads to a good endgame for Black because the white king ίΒ completely misplaced. 13 ... .i.xd5 13•••b4?! 14 exf5! .i.xd5 15 exd5 'ίi'xd5 16lbc4, as ίn Ljubojevic-Van Riemsdijk, Riga 1979 ίΒ favourable for White. 13••• ι!CJb4!? deserves attention, for example 14 exf5 .i.xd5 15 cxd5lbxd3 16 'iVxd3 :c8 17lbc2 .i.h6 18 lOO3 'iVb4 (Adams-Granda Zuniga, Buenos Aires 1991) or 14 'iVe1!? .i.xd5 15 exd5 bxc4 16 .i.xf5 :b8 17 lbxc4 'iixd5 18 b3 :g8 19 .i.e4 'iVe6 20 a3 d5 (Adams-Fedorowicz, the same event), with sufficient counterplay ίn both cases. 13•••.i.g7!? 14 cxb5 fxe4 15 .i.xe4 leads to the following line. The most important alternative to the text move ίΒ 13 •••fxe4 14 .i.xe4, and now: a) 14•••.i.g7 15 cxb5 (15 ι!CJf6+ .i.xf6 16 'iVxd6lOO7 17 .i.xa8 ο-ο ίΒ better for Black; 15 ι!CJe3 :c8 16 'iVxd6 ι!CJd4 17 ι!CJac2 1:td8 18.i.c6+ lbxc6 19 'ii'xc6+ .i.d7 yields Black good counterplay, TseshkovskySveshnikov, Κrasnodar 1978; 15

1:tc1 ι!CJd4!? needs further investigation) 15•••axb5 (15 ... ι!CJd4!? 16 ι!CJc4 'ii'd8 17 b6 ο-ο or 16 lbc7 + 'ii'xc7 17 .i.xa8 ο-ο deserves serious attention, ARodrigu.ez) 16 :cl :a6 (16 ... ':'c8 ίΒ inferior due to 17 ι!CJf6+! Φθ7 -17 ... .i.xf6 18 'ifxd618 ι!CJd5+! Φe8?! 19 g4!, Κapen gut) 17 g4!

17•••.i.xd5?! 18 'iixd5 lOO7 19 'iib7! 'iVb6 20 :c7, and White won ίn Kupreichik-Mochalov, Minsk 1979. Instead of17 ....i.xd5?!, Black should try 17•••.i.h6(A.Κapengut), 17••• h5 or 17••• Φf8 cν.Chekhov). b) 14•••:c8 15 cxb5! (15 ι!CJf6+ Φd8 16 cxb5 lbd4 17 .i.b7!? :c2! yields Black good counterchances, Gofstein-Lipman, Liepaja 1979) 15 ... ι!CJd4 (for 15 ... axb5?! 16 :c1 .i.g7 - see 14....i.g7) 16 :c1 :Xc117 'iixc1 axb5 18 b4 'iia4 19 g3 .i.h3 + 20 Φe1 .i.g7 with mutual chances (S.Κishnev);

13 ... .i.xd5 ίΒ simpler and enables Black to equalize without major problems. 14 exd5

The New Old Line 14 cxd5?! ίΒ weaker, for example 14 ... fxe4 15 .i.xe4 'ii'b4!? (alternatively 15... ~7 16liX2 :c8 17 h4 'iic7 18 lDe3 .i.h6 19 lDf5 lDxf5 20 .i.xf5 'iWc4+ 21 ~g1 :c5 with ίn itiative for Black, Kupreichik-Yurtaev, Moscow 1979) 16 'iWd3 lDd4 17 :b1 :c8 18 g3 .i.h6, and the ίn itiative belongs to Black (Adorjan, T.Horvath). 14 ••• lDd4 15 cxb5 axb5 15•••.i.g7!? ίΒ interesting. The game Kapengut-I.Efimov, Minsk 1985, continued 16 lDc4 'iWd8 17 b6 ο-ο 18 :c1 :c8 19 h4 :c5 20 b4 1:f.b5 21 a4 :xb4 22 :b1 a5 with unclear play. 16 lDc2 lDxc2 17 'iWxc2 17 .i.xc2 e4! 18 g4! .i.g7 leads to a position with mutual chances, for example 19 gxf5 .i.xb2 20 :b1 'iWc3 21.i.xe4:Xa2 22 'iWe2 :g8 23 :g1 :xg1 + 24 ~xg1 b4 (ldelsteinBirnboim, Israel 1986). 17 ••• e4 18 'iWc6+ 18 :el ~d8 19 .txe4 ίΒ dubious ίn view of 19 ...:c8 20 'iWd3 fxe4 21 'iWxe4 ~c7. 18 ••• ~e7 19 .i.xb5 :a7! (D) After 20 'iWe8+ ~ffi 21 g4 :e7 22 'iWb8 ~θ5! (lvanovic-Sveshnikov, Κrk 1976) or 20 a3 :c7 21 b4 :Xc6 22 bxa5 :c2 23 a6 .i.g7 24 :d1 .tb2 25 .i.c6 .i.xa3 26 a7 .i.c5! 27 a8'iW :xa8 28 .i.xa8 :xf2 + 29 ~θ1 :xg2 (Sveshnikov) the initiative belongs to Black. 20 a4 ίΒ better

103

but after 20 ....i.g7 21 'iWc1 :b8 22 :b1 :xb5 23 axb5 'iixb5 + 24 ~g1 'iWxd5 25 h4 'iWc5! Black has nο serious problems, for example 26 'iWxc5 dxc5 27 :h3 :b7 28 ~f1 (Van der Wiel-Dolmatov, Groningen 1979), and now 28 ... c4! (Adorjan, T.Horvath). The whole 12 c4 line ίΒ now a rare guest ίn top tournaments.

Section 2 12 ο-ο (1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 e5 6 lDdb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 lDa3 b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10 lDd5 f5 11 .i.d3 .i.e6) 12 ο-ο (D) 12 ..• .i.xd5 12•••lDb8?! gave Black a satisfactory position ίn Byrne-Gurgenidze (Harare 1983) after 13 c4 .i.xd5 14 cxd5 lDd7 15 exf5 .i.h6 16 lDc2 'iWh4 17 g3 :g8 18 ~h1 'iWh3 19 a4 :g4!; however, after 14 exd5! e4 15 .i.e2 .i.g7 16 'iWd2 White's chances are obviously better. 12•••f4!? 13 c4! :g8! (but not

104

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn a) 14 ~b5 .tg7 15 lbc3 e4 16 .tc4 "c7 (16 .....a5 17 17 lbe2 :c8! 18 .tb3 .txb2 19 :b1 .t.e5 20 _c1 :g8, Anand-Zsu.Polgar, Munich 1991 - 17 ...:c8 18 .tb3 .t.xc3 19 bxc3 'iνxc3 20 "h6 Φd7 21 :ae1 :cg8 is unclear, Malishauskas-Κrasenkow, Vilnius 1988; and 16 ... lbg6 17 'ii'h5 .txc3 18 bxc3 'iνf6 19 f4!? ο-ο 20 -*.b3 :fc8 21 g4 fxg4 22 "xg4 Φh8, Nunn-Zsu.Polgar, Munich 1991, wίth a good position for Black) ~ 'iνθ2 (17 .tb3 -*.xc3 18 bxc3 'iνxc 19 :e1 0-0 ίβ favourable for Black, Ostos-Κouatly,Malta 1980) 17... 0-0 with sufficient compensation for ' thepawn. b) 14 'ii'b5 (introduced by GM Gennady Κuzmin) 14...e4! 15 .te2 .tg7 16 c3 ο-ο 17 lbc2 f4! 18 a4?! f5 19 axb5? f3! 20 .t.c4 (20 gxf3 lbg6!) 20 ... axb5 wίth a strong attack for Black (Κrasenkow-Gore lον, Moscow 1982). After 18 "g5! f5! 19 'iνxf4 lbxd5 20 "d2 lbb6 Black ίβ not worse either, according to Gorelov; c) 14 c4 .t.g7 15 'iνd2 e4 (for 15 ... bxc4!? 16lbxc4 ο-ο, see illustrative game Nr.34) 16 .t.e2 bxc4 17 lbxc4 ο-ο 18 :ad1 (or 18 :acl :b8 19 b4 :b5 20 lbe3 f4 21 .txb5 fxe3 22 "xe3 axb5 23 "xe4 lbg6 wίth rough equality, Hίibner-Sax, Tilburg 1979) 18...:b8 19 "f4 :b5! 20 :d2 (20 lbe3? hb2 21 .tc4 .te5! 22 'iνg5+ Φh8, and Black has the advantage, Ν ovik-Κramnik, USSR 1990) 20 ... hd5 21 hd5 lbxd5 22 'iνxd6 'iνa8!? 23 :d1 :d8

_d2 -

13...bxc4? 14 .t.c2! .t.rfl15 .t.a4:c8 16lbxc4, Yuneev-Lagunov, Leningrad 1977) was played ίη Timman-I.Sokolov, Amsterdam 1994, when after 14 f3 b4 15 lbc2 (15 _a4 :c8) 15...a5 16 b3 .t.e7 17 :f2 a draw was agreed. This line deserves further investigation. 12•••.t.g7 13 _h5! leads to a dull vaήation of the 12 _h5 line (see Section 3).13 c4?! Onstead οί 13 "h5) yίelds Black excellent counterchances, e.g. 13 ... bxc4 14 lDxc40-O 15lbdb6 (or 15lbcb6 fxe4 16 .t.xe4 :b817 .t.xh7+ Φxh718 "c2+ e4! 19 "xc6 .td4 20 lOO4 :c8, Dely-rrHorvath, Zalaegerszeg 1977, 21 lbc7! "h4! wίth good counterplay) 15 ...:b8 (15 ....t.xc4!? 16 lbxc4 lbd4 17 exf5 d5, Sveshnikov) 16 exf5 .txc4 17 lbxc4 d5 18 lbe3 e4 19 .t.xa6 lbb4 20 .t.e2 d4 (CUΊjpers-Ligterink, Netherlands 1978). 13 exdli lbe7 14 c3! White wants to keep his bishop οη the b1-h7 diagonal. Othermoves are not dangerous for Black:

ΤΜ

New Old Line

with equality (analysis by v.Κram nίk).

14 ••• j.g7 15 "h5 e4 Mter the continuatίon 15•••"d7 16 :ad1 :c8 (16 ... 0-0 17 j.b1! followed by tDa3-c2-e3) 17lίX2 Whίω maίntaίns the better prospects, for example 17... e4 18 j.e2 ο-ο 19 f3! :c5 20 ~h1 tDxd5 21 fxe4 tDf6 22 "h3 :e8 23 tDe3 (Luther-T.Horvath, Paris 1995), or 17...:c5 18 tDe3 e4 19 j.b1! ο-ο 20 g3! with the idea off2-f3 (Dolmatov-Chekhov, Germany 1992), or 17... 0-0 18 g3 e4 19 j.e2 :c5 20 tDe3 f4 21 gxf4 f5 22 f3 "a7 23 ~h1 :c7 24 tDc2 e3 (Renet-T.Horvath, Clίchy 1993) 25 tDd4! etc. 16 .tc2! This makes the dίfference from the 14 "h5 lίηθ. White's further plan now consists ίη breakίng the black pawn centre by means off2f3, or else f2-f4 and g2-g4 (after an appropriate preparation: :a1e1, ~g1-h1, possibly j.c2-b1). ΗίΒ knight can be activated later οη (tDa3-c2-e3 etc.). Black must now play very precίsely to create enough counterplay. 16 ••• The alternatives 16.....&51! 17 :ae1! :a7 18 ~h1 j.xc3 19 bxc3 "xa3 20 j.b3 'iνb2 21 f3 :g8 22 g3 (Zso.Polgar-Κramnik, Guarapuava 1991) and 16•••0-0 17 :ae1 :c8?! (17 .....c8!) 18 j.b3! :c5 19 tDc2 "d7 (19 ...tDxd5 20 .txd5 :Xd5 21 :Xe4!) 20 f3! a5 21 a3 exf3 22 "xf3 j.e5 23 g3! (Kovalev-Palac,

"cS

105

Neu Isenburg 1992) yίeld White the better prospects. 17 :ael! ο-ο 18 ~hl (D) 18 .tb3 tDg6 19 f4 exf3 20 :xf3 f4 21 :h3 h6 22 tDc2 :e8 proVΊdes Black with sufficient counterplay, as ίη Sznapik-Κrasenkow, Rewal 1992.

White ίβ preparing both f2-f3 and g2-g4. What should Black do? 18 •••b4 was played ίη the game Tseshkovsky-Κrasenkow(Voskre

sensk 1992): 19 cxb4 j.xb2 20 :e3! f6 21 g4! j.xa3 22 gxf5 :f7 23 :g1 + :g7 24 :xg7 + ~xg7, and now White could have obtained the better endgame by 25 :g3 +! ~h8 26 "f7"f8 27 "xf8+ :xf8 28 :Xa3 tDxd5 29 j.xe4 tDxb4 30 :a4 d5 31 j.f3 (illustrαtivegαme Nr.35). 18•••tDg6 ίΒ possible. Z.AlmasiΚrasenkow, Malmo 1994, continued 19 j.b1! :e8 20 f4 exf3 21 "xf3 :Xe1 22 :Xe1 f4 23 tDc2 a5! 24 :d1 "c5 with equality whίle 23 .txg6!? hxg6 24 "xf4 j.e5, followed by

106

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

... ~g8-g7 and ... 'ii'c8-h8 or ... :a8h8, gives Black definite compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Sti11, the fina1 conclusion οη this line is yet to be made.

Section 3 12'ii'h5 (1 e4 c5 2 tM3 lOO6 3 d4 c:x:d4 4 lb:x:d4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 .i.:x:f6 g:x:f6 10 lbd5 Ι5 11 .i.d3 .i.e6) 12 'ii'h5

The purpose of this move ίβ to seize the initiative οη the kingside and to prevent Black from cast1ing if possible. 12 ... .i.g7 This old move has lately been superseded by 12 ...:g8, which we investigate ίη a separate section (Section 4). 12...f411 13 g3 :g8 ίβ risky - see the 12 ...:g8 line (Section 4) - whi1e 12.. ':a7 can be met by 13 f4! J.g7 14 ο-ο with good attacking chances for Whίte. 13 0·0

The following altematives have been investigated: a) 130-0-011 (White's king ίβ not safe here) 13... :c8! 14 ~bl (or 14lbbl J.xd5 15 exd5lbb4 16 'ii'xf5 lbxa2+ 17 ~d2 :c5!) 14....i.xd515 exd5 fΔe7 16~0-0 17 :hel :c5 18 g4?! (18 c3 d5 19 -*.xf5 was relatively bette but still quite pleasant for ΒΙ ck, according to Sveshnikov) 18 ... e4! 19 fxe4 fxe4 (Semeniuk-Timoshchenko, Ν ονο sibirsk 1976) 20 .i.xe4lbg6 with a strong attack for Black; b) 13 c3 (this positioncan aήse after 12 c3 -*.g7 13 'ii'h5) bl) 13•••f411 14 g3 ο-ο 150-0-0 (15 :gl!?) 15 ... f5 16 gxf4 .i.xd5 17 exd5 lbe7 18 fxe5 .i.xe5 19 lbc2 ~h8 20 lbd4 and White ίβ slightly better (Semeniuk - Timoshchenko, Odessa 1975); b2) 13...b411 14 cxb4 -*.xd5 15 exd5 lbxb4 16 'ii'xf5lbxd5 17lbc4 lbe7 18 'iνh5 (Beliavsky-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976) 18...:c8! 19 :dl :c6 20 ο-ο e4 with equal chances (Sveshnikov); b3) 13 ... 0·0 14 e:x:f5 (14 lbc2 fxe4 15 .i.xe4 f5 16 lbf4 exf4 17 J.xc6 :c8 18 -*.f3 J.f7! 19 'ii'xf5 J.c4!, Bobolovich-Arbakov, Moscow 1979, and 14 lbe3 f4 15 lbf5 J.xf5 16 'ii'xf5 b4! 17lbc2 bxc3 18 bxc3 lbe7 19 'ii'h3 :c8! followed by ... :c8-c6 and ... 'ii'd8-c7 - recommended by Povah - brings Black a strong initiative; 14 ο-ο f41eads to the 13 ο-ο variation - see below) 14... -*.:x:d5 15 f6 e4 16 f:x:g7 :e8 17 .i.e2 (17 'i'xd5?! exd3+ 18 ~f1

The New Old Line lί)θ5;

17 .ιc2?! ':'e5 18 17•••.:.e5 18 'iνh6

'iνh6

b4!)

18•••.:.g5 (altematively 18 ... 'ii'g5 19 'iνxg5 .:.xg5 20 lί)c2 .ιc4 21lί)e3 d5 22 a4 .ιΧθ2 23 h4, Nunn-Bimboim, London 1977, 23 ...1:te5 24 Φxe2 d4 and 18 ... b4 19lί)c2 bxc3 20 bxc3 .ιθ6 21 ο-ο 'iνg5 22 'iνxg5 1:ιχg5 23 ':'fd1 ':'c5 24 .:.xd6 ':'xc3 25 lί)θ3 ':'c5, Beliavsky-Sveshnikov, Lvov 1978, are good for equalizing, too) 19lί)c2 (19 ο-ο lί)θ5 20 1:ιad1 ':'g6 21 'iνf4 .ιb7 22 lί)c2 'fke7 23 lί)θ3 'iνθ6 24 Φh1.:.f6 with equal chances, Κapengut) 19... lί)e5 20 lΔe3 (20 ο-ο-ο!? ':'g6!) 20 ... .ιc4 21.ιχc4 bxc4 22 ο-ο ':'c8 23 b3 d5 24 bxc4 ':'c6 25 'iνh3 dxc4 26 Φh1 1:tcg6 with equality (Κalinichev Κaraseν, Odessa 1975)j Returning to 13 ο-ο. 13 ••• f4 13••• 0-01 14 exf5 is now better for Whitej while 13•••':'b8?! 14 f4! (Sveshnikov) and 13•••h61! 14 c3 ο-ο 15 lί)c2 f4 (15 ... fxe4 16 .ιΧθ4 f5 17lί)f4!, as ίη Spassky-Sveshnikov, USSR championship, Moscow

107

1973) 16 a4! bxa4 17 ':'xa4 a5 18 (Ash-Morgan, Philadelphia 1992) also bring White the better prospects. 14 c4! Other moves are harmless and have almost disappeared from the toumament practice: a) 14 ΦhΙlί)e7! 15 c4 bxc4 16 lί)xθ7 (16 .ιχc4 .ιΧd5) 16 ... cxd317 lί)f5.ιχf5 18 "xf5 'iνc8 19 'ii'xc8+ .:.xcS 20 .:.ad1 d5! with an initiative for Black (Iskov-Yusupov, Esbjerg 1980); b) 14lί)bl ο-ο 15 a4 b4 16lί)d2 f5 17 .ιc4lί)a5 18 b3 lΔxc4 19 bxc4 ':'c8 20 ':'ab1 a5, and Black's ΡΟΒί tion is slightly better (IvanovicSveshnikov, Sochi 1979); c) 14 g4 lί)θ7 15 c4 bxc4 16 .ιχc4 .ιΧd5 17 exd5 lί)g6 18 .ιd3 'iνh4 with sufficient counterplay (Adoιjan, T.Horvath); d) 14 ':'fdllί)e7 15 'iνg5 lί)xd5 16 'iνxg7 'iνf6 with equality (Borzoy-Prakitsky, corr 1978); e) 14 c3 (the white knight remains passive as the e3 square is unavailable) 14••• 0-0 and now: el) 15lί)c21! f5 16lί)cb4 (16 a4 .ιΧd5 17 exd5lί)e7 18 axb5 e4 19 .ιc4 axb5 20 .ιχb5:b8 21 c4lΔxd5, and Black is clearly better, as ίη the game Lukin-Timoshchenko, USSR 1973) 16... lΔxM 17lΔxM a5 18 exf5 (18lί)c6 'iνc7 19 exf5 does not work οη account of 19... .ιc4!, Sveshnikov) 18....ιf719 'ii'h3 'ii'd7! 20 lί)c2 d5 21 ':'ad1 ':'a6 22 'iνg4 1:ιh6 23 'ii'e2 f3 24 gxf3 'ii'e7 with an obvious advantage for Black .ιc4

108

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

(ΚloνθηB-Timoshchenko, Odessa 1974); e2) 15 g3 f5 16 gxf4 ~xd5 17 exd5 !Δθ7 18 fxe5 dxe5 19 :adl 1:.f6 20 ~c2 'ii'd6 21 f4 :h6 22 'ii'f3 e4 23 'ii'e3 ~h8 with good compensation for the pawn (SimonovΚozyrev, Voronezh 1991); e3) 15 g4 !Δθ7! 16 g5 (16 CfJc2 ~xd5 17 exd5 f5! 18 gxf5 CfJxd5 ίΒ favourable for Black) 16... f5! with θη unclear game (Adorjan, T.Horvath); e4) 15 :adl ~h8!? (15 ... !Δθ7; 15 ... :b8 16!Δc2 'ii'd7 17 'δ'θ2 ~h8 18 :fel f5, Sveshnikov) 16 ~bl?! :g817h3?! (17~hl) 17 ... ~f818 'iIth2 :g6 19 'ii'e2 'iί'h4 with a strong attack for Black (HerzogPovah, Hastings 1976); e5) 15 :fdl !Δθ7 (15 ...:b8 16 1td2 ~h8!, Sveshnikov; 15...~h8!?) 16 fue7 + (16 ... ~xd5 17 exd5 f5 was threatened) 16... 'ii'xe7 17!Δc2 1Μ7 18 'ii'e2 ~h8 19 a4? (Black has a good position anyway) 19 ...bxa4 20 ~xθ6 f3! 21 gxf3 ~h6, and Black obtained a dangerous attack (Ziatdinov-Dolmatov, Moscow 1977). 14 c4 (D) was introduced by 1Μ E.Prandstetter. White's idea ίβ to ΒθίΖθ the c4 square for his bishop and, later, his knight. 14 ••• bxc4 The altematives give White the better chances: a) 14•• ~xd5?! (this ίβ premature as Black can now neither C8Stle nor play ... f7 -f5) 15 exd5 !Δe7 16 :adl b4 17 CfJbl CfJg6 18 g3,

and White ίβ better CVogt-T. Georgadze, Ha1le 1978); b) 14•••0-015 cxb5!Δd4 16!Δc2 CfJxb5 (or 16 ... !Δxc2 17 ~xc2 axb5 18 ~b3!) 17 a4! (17 CfJcb4 CfJd4 18 :acl, θΒ ίη Cobo-Ochoa, Cienfuegos 1979, ίΒ not ΒΟ clear in view of 18...:b8! 19 b3 a5 20 !Δc6 !Δxc6 21 :Xc6 f5) 17...!Δa7 Cif17 ...!Δc7, then 18 CfJcb4!) 18 θ5!Δc6 19 b4 f5 20 CfJb6 :a7 (Μakaήchev-Sveshni kov, USSR championship, Tbilisi 1978) when 21 exf5 ~f7 22 'ii'h3 (Sveshnikov) would have guaranteed White a certaίn edgej c) 14•••b4 (Black now has ηο counterplay while White can attack either οη the queenside - &2a3 - ίη the centre - c4-c5 - or οη the kingside - g2-g3) 15 !Δc2 :b8 (or 15 ... a5 16 :adl ο-ο 17 ~hl :b8 18 b3 ~h8 19 g3 'ii'd7 20 f3 fxg3 21 CfJce3 CfJd4 22 hxg3, De la Villa-Bos-Swiecik, L'Hospitalet de ΙΊnfant 1993; or 15...0-0 16 g3 ~h8 17 ~hl :b8 18 gxf4 f5 19 exf5 ~f7 20 'ii'h3 ~f6 21 !Δxf6 'ii'xf6 22 !Δθ3 exf4 23 CiJg4, Dvoiris-Geo. Τί moshenko, Cheliabinsk 1990, and

ΤΜ

New Old Line

109

White was clearly better ίη both :c8 with a small advantage for games) 16 :fd1 (of course, 16 b3 White, T.Horvath) 22 "f5 "a5 23 followed by :a1-d1, f2-f3 and g2- ~f1 "xa2 24 1i'xe4 "xb2 25 "xf4, g3, ίβ possible, too) 16...h6 (16 ...0-0 and White maintained some win17lbe1!?, Sveshnikov) 17 ~θ2 ο-ο ning chances (V.Gurevich-Chek18 ώ!? <Ιχώ 19lbxf4 ~d7 (19 ...exf4 hov, Ore11995). 16 :acl (D) 20 hd8 :fxd8 was relatively better) 20 tΩd5 a5 21 tΩcθ3 tΩd4 22 16 tΩc2 ίβ less logίcal because :ac1 and White ίβ obviously better this knight goes nowhere. After (Gaprindashvili -Chiburdanidze, the continuation 16... Φh8 17 :ad1 World championship match, Pit- Ag8! 18 b3 .i.f8 19 h3 tΩa5 20 ~θ2 sunda 1978). :g5 21 (Makarichev-T.Georgadze, USSR championship, Tbi15 ~xc4 15 tΩxc4?! lifts White's control ιiβί 1978) 21 .....c8! 22 lLJe1 :a7 over the d5 square, and allows (T.Georgadze) or 17 g4:g8 18 f3 Black to obtain excellent counter- a5 19 b3 :a7 20 :fd1 .i.f8 21 Φh1 chances, e.g. 15 ... 0-0 16 g3 tΩd4 17 (Imanaliev-Pikhtin, USSR 1979) tΩcb6 :b8 18 gxf4 f5 19 Φh1 hb6 21 ... :g6! Black obtains an excel20 tΩxb6 "xb6 with a clear edge lent position. for Black (Adorjan-F.Portisch, Budapest 1977). After the text move the white bishop not only protects the d5 point but also exerts pressure upon Black's whole position. Besides, White now can easily exchange the light-squared bishops . ifnecessary (tΩd5-c3!). Black must play very accurately to avoid getting into serious trouble. 15 ••• 0-0 15•••lΔd4 16 :ac1 :c8 (16 ... 0-0?! or 16... f3?! - 17 tΩc2!) was tried ίη :b8 16 some recent games: 17 .i.xa6 (17 Orelse: :c3 0-0 18 :fc1 hc4!? 19 tΩxc4 f5 a) 16•••f5? 17 :c3 tΩa5 18 :h3, 20 tΩcb6 ~f7 21 ..d1 fxe4 yielded and White wins (Avshalumov-MiBlack sufficient enough for the nasian, USSR 1978) as 18 ... h6 19 exchange, Danailov-Oms, Sara- 1i'g6 .i.f7 ίβ met by 20 hh6!; b) 16•••:a7 17 :fd1 (17 tΩxf4 gossa 1994) 17...:xcI18 :xc1 ο-ο 19 tΩb5 tΩxb5 20 .i.xb5 .i.xd5 21 exf4 18 .i.xe61LJe7 19 .i.c41LJg6 20 exd5 e4 (21 ... f5 22 .i.a6 23 :c2 :e7 21.i.d5 ίβ also better for

"f3

"f6

110

The Sveshnikov SΊCίlίαn

White, Dobsa-Vefling, corr 1990) 17 .....b8 18 b3 lDd4 19lDc2 lDb5 20 lDcb4! "b7 (if 20 .....e8, then 21 fua6!, Am.Rodriguez-Remon, Bayamo 1991) 21 ~xb5 "xb5 22 lDc6! ':b7 23 a4! "xb3 24lDa5 with an advantage for White (Sion-Remon, Havana 1991)j c) 16•••lDe7 17 ':fdl ':c8 18 lDxe7 + "xe7, and now both 19 b3 ':c5 20 ':c2 ':fc8 21 :cd2 .l:r.5c6 22 ~d5 (Romero Holmes-Bimboim, Haifa 1989) and 19 :c3 'iith8 20 b3 f5 21 .l:r.h3 h6 22 ~xe6 'ii'xe6 23 ':hd3 :'cd8 24 "e2 (Short-Sax, Saint John 1988) give White clearly better prospectsj d) 16•••lDd4 17 lDc2! lDxc2 18 :Xc2 Φh8 19 ltfcl :c8 20 b4 a5 21 a3 axb4 22 axb4 ':b8 23 ~d3! "d7 24 b5, and White ίβ better (UlibinJi.Nun, Sochi 1989)j e) 16•••Φh8 17 :fdl lDd4 18 lDc2 fuc2 19 :Xc2 ':c8 20 .l:r.dcl a5 21 ':c3 ':g8 22 ':lc2 ~f8 23 lDc7!? ':xc7 24 ~xe6 .l:r.g5 25 ':xc7 ':xh5 26 ltxf7 with unclear play (Dvoiris-IGm, Κemerovo 1979). White should consider other plans such as 20 ~b3, or 20 "e2 a5 21 ~b3. 16... 1Σb8 (provokίng 17 b3) ίβ the most accurate option. 17 b3 17 lBxf4?! ~xc4 (17 ... exf4 18 ~xe6 lDe7 19 ~f5 lDxf5 20 exf5 ~xb2 ίβ also possible, Adorjan, T.Horvath) 18 :'xc4 lDe7! 19 lDd3 f5 20 :dl fxe4 21 :Xe4lDg6 22 g3 d5 (Sibarevic-Adorjan, Banja Luka 1979) yield Black superb compensation for the missing pawnj 17

18lDxe7 + "xe7 19 :c2 20 ~c4 ~xc4 21 lDxc4 {5 leads to equality (Motwani-Yusuρογ, Mexico CΊty 1980). 17 ••• "d7 This classic move ίβ probably Black's best way to fight for equality. The rest look insufficient: a) 17••• Φh8?! 18lDxf4! exf4 (after the continuation 18 ... ~xc4 19 ':xc4lDa5 20 lDd5lDxc4 21lDxc4 "d7 22lDde3 White's compensation for the exchange ίβ more than sufficient, Psakhis-Chekhov, Baku 1978) 19 ~xθ6 lDd4 20 ~c4 f5, and now, instead of21 exf5? ':xf5 22 "h3 {3 with unclear complications (Idler-Reichel, corr 1989), White could have obtained an advantage by 21 ~d3 (Idler)j b) 17•.• ~xd5?! 18 ~xd5lDb4 19 ':fdl lDxa2 20 1Σc6 "e7 (20 ... ':b6 ίβ poor ίη view of 21 :xb6 "xb6 22lDc4 'ii'c7 23lDxd6!, Stean-Sax, Las Palmas 1978) 21lDc4lDb4 (or 21 ... Μ 22lDxd6! lDxdl 23 'ii'xdl, IΩovans-Gurgenidze, USSR 1981) 22 ':xd6 lDxd5 23 .l:r.6xd5 :'xb3 24 lDd6! h6 25 h4! (Wolff-Bronstein, Wijk aan Zee 1992), with an obvious advantage for White ίη both caseSj c) 17.....a5!? (this move, introduced by GM Geo. Timoshenko, ίβ Black's most recent try to obtain active counterplay) (D). cl) 18 lDc2 "xa2 19 ..dl "a5 20 :al (after 20 b4 "d8 21 ~xa6 ~xd5 22 "xd5 lDxb4 23 lDxb4 :xb4 a draw ίβ highly probable) 20 ... 'ii'c5 21 :Xa6 <;i;Jh8 22lDel? (22 ~xa6lDe7 ~xa2

ΤΜ

New Old Line

111

lt)c3 was favourable for White, Britton-Κouatly, London 1979, but

'iνa1 was still sufficient to keep the balance) 22 ... lt)d4 23lt)d3 "'c8 24 1hd6 f3!, and the initiative passed to Black (Todorovic-Geo. Timoshenko, Pula 1988 - illustrαtiue game Nr.37). 19 "'h4 (instead of 19 "'d1) can lead to a draw after the continuation 19 ... h6! 20 lt)f6+ J.xf6 21 "'xf6 J.xc4 22 "'xh6 J.xf1 23 'ii'g5+ (indicated by Geo.Timoshchenko); c2) 18 J.d3lt)b4 (18 ... lt)d4!? 19 lt)c2 lt)b5 20 lt)e7 + Φh8 21 lt)c6 'ii'xa2 ίΒ unclear, Koch-Κasparov, Evry simul1988, but 20 a4! &Δa721 J.c4 yields White a certain edge) 191Dc4 "'xa2! (but not 19......d8 20 lt)xb4 :xb4 21 :fd1 :b7, Cs.Horvath-Nokso-Koivisto, Haifa 1989, 22 g3! with advantage for White, J.Pinter) 20 lt)xb4 :xb4 21 :a1 'iνxb3 22 :a3 J.xc4 23 :xb3 J.xb3 24 J.xa6 d5! with a drawish endgame (Rubinchik-Hamarat, corr 1990); c3) 18 lt)bll Φh8 (preparing ... f7-f5; 18 ... J.xd5 19 J.xd5 lt)b4 20 J.c4 d5?! 21 exd5lt)xd5 22 "'f5 .J:[b6 23 :fd1 lt)e7 24 "'g5 ':f6 25

20 ... lt)xa2!? 21 ':cd1 requires further investigation) 19 .:fd1 (19 a3?! "d8 20 lt)xf4 exf4 21 J.xe6 fxe6 22 :XCΒ f3! 23 g3 :Xb3 24 :Xa6 "'c7, and Black seized the initiative, Ernst-Geo. Timoshenko, Tallinn 1989; 19 lt)bc3!? f5 20 :fd1 - but not 20 lt)e7? lt)xe7 21 J.xe6 ':f6! 22 exf5 e4!, Estevez-Geo.Timoshenko, Managua 1988 - 20 ....:be8 21 ':d3 fxe4 22 lt)xe4 J.f5?! 23 lt)df6! J.xf6 24 "xf5 with a big advantage for Whίte, Marecek-Sturc, corr 1990; however, 21 ...J.f7!, followed by 22 ... J.g6, ίΒ obviously better) 19 ......xa2 (19 ... f5 20 lt)xf4! exf4 21 J.xe6lt)d4 22 J.xf5 lt)xf5 23 lt)d2! ίΒ ίη Whίte's favour, accordίng to V.Varavin; 19... lt)d420 lt)bc3 f5?! - 20 ... f3!? was necessary, Varavin - led to a crushing defeat: 21lt)e7! J.xc4 22 bxc4':f6 23 lt)xf5 etc., Varavin-Cherniaev, Dolgoprudny 1992) 20 ~bc3 "'a5 21 ':al 1fc5 22 ':xa6, and White maintains a slight edge. Returnίng to 17 .....d7 (D). 18 lιtfdl The others are quite harmless: a) 18 "dl Φh8 19 Φh1 f5 with good counterplay (Horacek-T.Horvath, Oberwart 1979); b) 18 J.d3 Φh8191Dc4lt)d4 20 lt)a5 1tfc8 21 "'h4 ':xc1 22 :Xc1 1tc8 23 :Xc8 + "xc8 241Dc4 f3 with sufficient counterplay for Black (Kuijf-Κίng, Amsterdam 1982); c) 18 "g5 J.xd5 (l8 ... f6 19 "'h5 lt)a5 20 J.xa6 J.xd5 21 exd5 f5,

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

112

and Black obtained sufficient compensation for the sacήficed pawn (Arseniev-Vaiser, YaroslavlI979). 21 :d3 (recommended by o.Renet) and 21 Wh4!? require closer examination. 19 'inι4 (D) For 19 h3 ~d4 20 ltJc2 lbxc2 21 :Xc2 - βθθ 18 ... ~d4.

Sax-Κindermann, Plovdiv 1983, 22 lbc2, Sveshnikov, ίβ not βΟ good as Black's a5 knight ίβ out of play) 19 .i.xd5 ~b4 20 :fdl (20 :cdl!?) 20 ... lbxa2 21 :c6 Φh8 22 ~c4 ~c3 23 :Xd6 ~5 24 :f1 Wxb3, and Black ίβ clearly better (Κoch-Pod lesnik, Manila 1992); d) 18 'inι4 hd5!? 19 .i.xd5 ~M 20 :cdl!? (20 :fdllbxa2 21 :c6 Φh8 22ltJc4 ~ 23 ~b6 "xc6! 24 .i.xc6 :Xb6 25 :Xd6 ~b5 with good counterplay for B1ack, Dvoiris-Gorelov, Odessa 1982) 20 ... ~xa2 21 ~c4 ~c3 22 :d3 ~θ2+ 23 ΦhΙ ~d4?! 24 g3! f3 25~, and White has the upper hand, as ίη Geo. Τί moshenko-Zezulkin, Warsaw 1992; however, after 23 ... Φh8 the Ροβί tion remains unclear. Φh8 18 18....i.g4 doesn't work ίn view of 19 Wg5 but 18...~d4!? 19 ~c2 ~xc2 20 :xc2 Φh8 deserves βθή ous attention, for example 21 h3 f5 22 lbc3 J.xc4 23 bxc4 :bc8 24 ~d5 We6 25 f3 :f7 26 :bl :cf8 27 :b3 Wc8 28 exf5 :Xf5 29 Wh4 e4 30 fxe4 J.d4+ 31 ΦhΙ :5f7, 0.0

19 ... f5!? Quiet Ιίηθβ yield White a small but clear edge: a) 19...:g8 20 ΦhΙ ~d4 21ltJc2 .i.xd5 22 J.xd5 lDe2 23 :al ~c3 24 :d3 ~xd5 25 :xd5 f5 26 f3 Wc6 27 ~a3 (Dvoiris-Vaiser, Sochί 1981) or 20 ltJc2 h6 21 ΦhΙ.i.f8 22 f3 :g5 23 Wf2 (Ernst-Κrasenkow, Stockholm 1989/90), with a small plus for White ίη both games; b) 19...j.xd5 (once this move was considered good enough for equality but this statement was refuted at the end of the 1980β) 20 j.xd5 (20 :Xd5?! lDb4 21 :d2 f5 22 exf5 d5 23 :cdl :bc8 24 h3 :c5 ίβ good for Black, DvoirisGorelov, Barnaul1984) and now:

ΤΜ

113

New Old Line

b1) 20•••~M 21 1Σd2 (Renet l'θC ommends 21 1Σc3, e.g. 21 ... f5 22 1Σh3 .tf6 23 .te6! "e7?! 24 "h5 fxe4 25 lbc4 d5 26 ~6 with a decisive attack or 21 ... ~2 22 1Σh3 h6 23lbc4 1Σbd8 24 g4! with strong pressure for the missing pawn) 21 ... f5 22 "h3 (22 lbc4 ίβ not βΟ clear ίη view οf22 ... 1Σb5 23 1ΣcdΙ lbxd5 24 1Σxd5 1Σxd5 25 1Σxd5 fxe4 26 1Σxd6 "f5, o.Renet) 22 ... lbxd5 (22 ..."e7?! 23 exf5, Κlovans-Vyz manavin, Tashkent 1987; or22 ...f3 23 lbc4! "e7 24 exf5 e4 25 lbe3! fxg2 26 .tc4 .te5 27 1ΣcdΙ, EmstBenjamin, Reykjavik 1990, with a pull for White ίη both cases) 23 1Σχd5 ~7 24 "d3 (24 lbc4!? fxe4 25 1ΣcdΙ) 24 ... fxe4 25 "xe4 f3 26 g3 .th6 27 1ΣcdΙ, and White maintains the better prospects; b2) 20•••lbd4 21 1Σc4 (21 Φf1 f5 22lbc2lbxc2 23 1Σxc2 1Σbc8 24 1Σθ2 ίβ good for White, Κlovans-Schaet zel, corr 1986, but Black can play 21 ... f3!) 21 ... f5 (now 21 ...f3 does not help: 22 lbc2 lbe2 + 23 Φf1 lbf4 24 gxf3 followed by 25 lbe3 with an edge for White, according to 8veshnikov) 22lbc2! fxe4?1 (after 22 ... lbxc2 White only has a slight advantage, 8veshnikov) 23 lbxd4 exd4 24 .txe4 .te5 25 "h5, and White has a clear advantage (8veshnikov-Vyzmanavin, Moscow 1987 - illustrαtive game Nr.36). The 19... f5!? pawn sacrifice ίβ probably Black's last attempt to save the whole 12....tg7 line! 20 lbxf4! exf4 21 .txe6 "xe6

221ΣxCΒ

&e4

231Σcxd8

"e8 e3 &e3

24 lbc4 25 &e3

"f7

Aft.er 28 1ΣeΙ 27lbxe3 1Σbe8 28 lbc4 1Σθ4! 29 "g3 1Σg4 30 "e3 1:[e4 31 -'d2 "a7+ 32 ΦhΙ "e7 Black's counterplay proved sufficient for a draw (8tanciu-Brkovic, Pernik 1983). This variation needs practical tests οη a hίgher level. 80, Prandstetter's move 14 c4 sets Black quite serious problems and this explains why 12 ... .tg7 has gone out οΙ fashίon.

Sectlon 4 12.•.1Σg8

(1 e4 c5 2lbf3 ~ 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4lbf8 δ lbc3 eS 8 lbdbS d8 7.tgS a8 8 ~ bδ e.b:f8 μf6 10 lbdS fδ 11 .td3 .teB 12 'ikhS) 12 ... 1Σg8 This move was introduced by GM Gyula 8ax ίη 1979. Its idea ίβ to make use οΙ the drawbacks οΙ the advanced ΡΟΒίΙίοη ofWhite's

114

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

queen οη h5 by attacking it (...:g8g4-h4 or ...:g8-g5 etc.). Besides, 12 ... :g8 ίβ veryuseful for Black's future kingside attack. At the same time, his king must now remain ίη the centre and his rooks are disconnected. Still, practical tests have proved that the text move ίβ much more promising than 12 ... i.g7, which was examined ίη the previous section. ΡΟΒί tions arising ίη the present Ιίηθ are extremely sharp and difficult to assess. 13 g3 The other moves are hardly dangerous for Black: a) 13 ο-ο?! f4! 14 c4 b4 15lbc2 i.g4 16 'iνxh7 :g6 17 h3 i.f3 18 'ii'xg6 fxg6 19 gxf3 :a7, and Black ίβ οη top (Smagin-Yurtaev, Hartberg 1991); b) 13 c4 i.xd5 14 cxd5lbb4 15 i.e2 fxe4 16 'iνxh7 :g6 17 :d1 'iνg5 18 g3lbd3+! 19 i.xd3 exd3 with a clear advantage for Black (HenaoPrasad, Thessaloniki 1988) or 14 exd5 lbd4 15 ο-ο :g4 with a good position (D.Prasad);

c) 13 ο-ο-ο?! :xg2 (13 ... f4 14 g3 h6 15 i.e2lbd4 16 gxf4 i.xd5 17 exd5 'iνf6, Hasan-Espinoza, Manila 1992; 13 ... h6 14 h3 :c8 15 f4 1:xg2 16 'iνf3, Morgado-Mίlovanovic, corr 1991, 16 ... :g7! 17 exf5 lbd4, Morgado; 13 ...:c8 14 ~b1 h6 - 14... f4!? - 15 'iνe2 lbd4 16 'ίi'e1, Dvoiris-Κalinichev, Berlin 1992, 16 ... i.xd5 17 exd5 Lg2 18 f4 i.g7, Dvoiris - everything ίΒ good enough to obtain counterplay), and after 14 f4? lbd4! 15 lbe3 (15 c3 i.xd5 16 exd5 b4!, Tseshkovsky, Κram nik) 15 ...:f2! 16 exf5 i.xa2! 17 fxe5 dxe5 18lbxb5 i.h6!! 19 :hel axb5 20 i.xb5+ ~θ7 21 'iί'h4+ f6 22 'ίi'xf2 i.f7! Black obtained an overwhelming attack ίη Brodsk.yΚramnik, USSR 1991 (illustrative game Nr.38). After 14 'iνf3 i.xd5 15 'iνxg2 i.xa2 Black has a strong attack ίη any case; d) 13 Ι4?! lbd4! (13 ...h6?! 140-0 fxe4 15 i.xe4 i.g4 ίβ refuted by means of 16lbe3! i.xh5 17 i.xc6+ 'ii'd7 - 17 ... ~θ7 18 lbd5+ ~θ6 19 f5 mate - 18 i.xd7 + ι;Pxd 7 19lbd5 etc., Lopukhin-Gergel, USSR 1982; 13 ...:xg2 14 lbe3 'iνa5+ 15 ι;Prι :g7 16 exf5 'ίi'b4 17 fxe6 'ίi'xf4+ 18 Φθ2 lbd4+ 19 ~d2 lbf3+ 20 ~e2lbd4+ leads to a draw, as ίη Hubner-Sax, Rίo de Janeiro 1979) 14 c3 i.xd5 15 exd5 e4 160-0-0 (16 cxd4 'iνa5+ 17 ςpf1 'iνd2) 16...b4! 17 lbc2 lbxc2 18 i.xc2 'ii'f6 19 i.a4+ ~θ7 20 'iνθ2 bxc3 21 i.c6 i.g7! 22 i.xa8 :Xa8 with a clear advantage for Black (Bryson-Povah, corr 1989);

The New Old Line e) 13 c3 :Xg2 (13 ... ~xd5 14 exd5 ltJe7 15 g3 e4 16 ~θ2 h6 17 f4! leaves White with somewhat better chances, Gasanov-Κrasen kow, Baku 1985; 13 ...f4!? 14 g3 see 13 g3) 14 "ΙS :g4 15 exf5 (15 h3 :'h4 16 exf5 ~xd5 17 "xd5 ltJe7 18"g2 d519l'Δc2 e4 20 ~e2ltJxf5 leads to an unclear position, as ίn the game Κarker-Bryson, corr 1989) 15000~xd5 16 "xd5 ltJe7 17"b7 ~h6

18 fOl? (l8ltJc2 <M819ltJe3.he3 20 fxe3 ltJg8 21 f6! ltJxf6 22 :f1 :b8 with equal chances, Shirov), and now, instead of 18 ... ltJg6? 19 .1:tdl (Van der Wiel-Reinderman, Brussels 1993), Black should have played 18 ... ltJg8 19 "c6+ Φf8 20 1:ιdΙ :f4 21 ~θ4 ltJxfO! with unclear play. Returning to 13 g3. 13 .. ο :g5 Preparing 14... ~xd5. This move is probably the simplest course for Black but he has a number of other very interesting possibilities:

115

a) 13.. of4 (this position can also arise after 12 ... f4 13 g3 :g8), and now: a1) 14 1Wxh7 :g7 (or 14...:g6 15 1Wh4 _xh4 16 gxh4 :c8 17 c3 ~g4, o.Κristiansson-Bewersdorff,

Reykjavik 1990, leading to a ροβί tion similar to the 14 c3 line) 15 _h4 (15 "h8!?) 15 .....xh4 16 gxh4 ~xd5 17 exd5 ltJe7 with mutual chances (Adoιjan, T.Horvath); a2) 14 c3 ~g4 15 'iVxh7 (15 "h4 'iVxh4 16 gxh4 0-0-0 17 ltJfO :g6 18ltJxg41:ιxg4 19ltJc2 Φb7 20 a4!, Hardicsay-P.Horvath, Hungarian championship 1992, 20 ... d5!? 21 axb5 axb5 22 exd5 :Xd5 23 ~xh 7 :xh4 24 ~θ4 :d8, P.Hardicsay, is quite satisfactory for Black; besides, he can also play 17 ... ~f3! 18 ltJxg8 ~xhl with a very good position) 15...:g6 16l'Δc2 (16 h3?! ~f3 17 1tf1ltJe7 18 gxf4 :h6, Emst-Bewersdorff, Gausdal 1990, and 16 "h4 "xh4 17 gxh4 ~f3 18 h5! :h6 19 :gl :c8 20 l'Δc2 (5 are good for Black) 16... :h6 17 "g8 :g6 with a draw; a3) 14 gxf4!? ~g415 'iVxh7:g7 16 1Wh8 ltJd4 17 Φf1! :g6! (if 17 ... ltJf3, 18 h3!; 17 ... ~f3 18 :gl) 18 h3!! (but certainly not 18 fxe5? ~f3!) 18 ...:h6 (18 ... ~f3 19 :gl στ 18 ... ~θ6 19 fxe5 dxe5 20 'iVxe5 ~g7 21ltJc7+ Φd7 22ltJxe6 fxe6 23 'iVf4 :fo 24 'iVg3, Madl-Maksimovic, Subotica 1991, is equally insufficient) 19 hxg4! :xh8 20 :xh8 exf4 21 c3ltJe6 (21 ... ltJc6 22 f3) 22 ltJxb5! (Cs.Horvath-P.Horvath, Hungary 1989) 22 ...:b8 23

ΤΜ

116

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

tDa3 J:xb2 24 tDc4, and White's chances are clearly better (analyΒίΒ by Cs.Horvath). Ιη this line 16 ....tf3 (instead of 16 ... tDd4) require8 investigation; b) 13•••':c8 14 c3 ':g6 15 tDc2 (15 exf5? .txd5 16 fxg6 hxg6; 15 'ii'f3 .txd5 16 exd5 e4 17 "xf5 ':g5!, Glek-Chekhov, Frunze 1988, 18 "f4 exd319 dxc6 ':e5+ 20 ~f1 1t'b6 21 1t'f3 "xc6 leads to equality) 15 ... :h6 (15 ... fxe4 16 .txe4 .tg4 17 ..h4 "xh4 18 gxh4 f5 19 h5 ':g5 20 h4 :xh5 21 f3! ίΒ favourable for White, according to G.Κasparov) 16 "e2 .txd5 17 exd5 tDe7 18 f3 .tg7 19 tDe3 yίelds White a certain edge as Black's h6 rook ίΒ misplaced (Κasparov-Salov, Linares 1992 illustrαtive game Nr:40); c) 13•••h6 14 c3 Μ!? (14 ....txd5 15 exd5 tDe7 16 "dl e4 17 .te2 .tg7 18 tDc2 "b6 19 a4 ':c8 20 axb5 axb5 21 ο-ο was better for White, ίη the game Sideif-Zade-Dolmatov, USSR 1979) 15 tDc2 bxc3 16 bxc3 .txd5 17 exd5 tDe7 18 ο-ο e4 19 .tc4 ':g5 20 "e2 .tg7 WΊth good counterchances for Black (MoraWΊetz-Κalinichev, Porz 1992). This line needs ΜΟΤθ tests (15 tDc4!?; 14 "dl!? etc.); d) 13••• tDd4 14 c3 (14 ο-ο-ο?! ':c8 ίβ dangerous for White, e.g. 15 ~bl fxe4 16 .txe4 b4 17 tDxb4 ':g5 18 "xh7 d5, Liang-Κinder mann, Chicago 1983, or 15 f4.txd5 16 exd5 17 c3 e4 18 ':hel, Barcenilla-Degraeve, Mamaia 1991, 18 ... .te7 etc.) 14•••fxe4 15.txe4 .tg4 16 "xh7 ':g7 (16 ... tDf3+?!

"f6

17 J.xf3 .txf3 18 "xg8 J.xhl 19 0-0-0 .txd5 20 J:xd5 "ffl21 :d2 b4, Reinderman-Degraeve, Oakham 1992, ίΒ hardly sufficient for equality after 22 cxb4) 17 1tb.6 tDf3+

18 ~θ2!? (18 ~f1 ':g5 19 tDffl+ ~θ7 20 "h8 tDd2+ 21 ~g2 tDxe4 22 tDxe4 ':g6 23 "h4+ ~d7 24

"xd8+ J:xd8 25 f3 J.e6 gives Black fair compensation for the pawn, a8 ίη Magem-Zsu.Polgar, Madrid 1992) 18 ... tDg5+ 19 f3 tDxe4 20 fxg4 "c8 21 'ii'e3 "xg4+ 22 'iVf3 "xf3+ 23 ~xf3 f5 24 tDc2 ~f7 WΊth good chances to equalize (Beliavsk.y-Shirov, Groningen 1993); e) 13•••':g4f? (a recent idea of Κramnik's) 14 f4! (14 f3?! ':g6 15 f4 ':c8 ίΒ favourable for Black, according to Κramnik) 14 ... exf4 (14 ... tDd4? 15 c3 .txd5 16 exd5 e4 17 cxd4 exd3 18 ~d2, MagemSion, Leon 1992, and 14....tg715 c3 b4!? 16 tDc2 bxc3 17 tDxc3 exf4 18 exf5 ':g5, Magem-I.Sokolov, Barcelona 1992, 19 "e2! f3 20 "e3 - recommended by I'Sokolov

ΤΜ New

- ίΒ better for White) 15 ~xf4 (15 0-0-0 fxg3 16 exf5 :h4 17 ~c7 + Φd7 18 fxe6+ ~xc7 19 "xf7+ Φb6 20 hxg31ed to unclear complίcations ίη the game ZontakhManik, Bratislava 1994; Zontakh also recommends 16 ... j.xd5 17 1:thel + ~5 18 "xg4 j.xa2 or θνθη 15 ... fxe4!? 16 j.xe4 fxg3 17 tL!f6+ "xf6 18 j.xc6+ ~d8 19 j.xa8 :b4 20 c3 j.h6+ 21 ~bl 'iVxc3) 15 ...Jhf4! 16 gxf4 "a5+ (the continuation 16.....f6 17 c3 b4, Geo.Timoshenko-Κrasenkow, Voskresensk 1992, ίΒ insufficient ίη VΊew of 18 ~bl) 17 c3 (17 ~dl 'ffb4!) 17 ...b4 WΊth very interesting play, e.g. 18 tα4 "c5 19 "e2 bxc3 20 bxc3 fxe4 21 j.xe4 :c8 22 f5! "xc4 23 fxe6 "xc3 + 24 ~f2 "f6 +, and Black maίntaίns good counterchances. This varίation ίΒ an excellent subject for further analysίs;

t) 13••• j.xd5 14 exd5 :g5 15 "xh7 (or 15 ..dl) leads to the 13 ...:g5line, to which we now return. 14 "xh7 14 "dl j.xd5 15 exd5 tL!e7 16 c3 j.g7 17 h4 :g6 18 ~c2 e4 19 j.e2 "c7 (19 ...'6'b6!?) 20 a4 Μ! 21 h5 :h6 22 cxb4 "b7 gave Black good counterplay ίη the game Sideif-Zade-Yurtaev, Dnepropetrovsk 1980. 14 ••• j.xd5 15 exd5 ~7 16 0-0-0 (υ) 16 ~b5? e4 17 j.e2 "b6 and 16 c3? ~d5 are ροοτ.

Old Line

117

White has won a pawn but his pieces are not placed very harmoniously. Black's most important problem ίΒ to settle his kίng. Ιη the stem game Wang Zίli-Chek hov, Beijing 1991, after the continuation 16••• e4 17 j.e2 'ii'b6 18 ΦbΙ "xf2?! 19 ~b5! axb5 20 j.xb5+ ~d8 21 "xf7 White obtaίned a dangerous attack but 18...:g6! 19 "h4 would have eliminated the whole problem. White's play was improved ίη Geo.Timoshenko-Rogozenko, Bucharest 1993: 18 "h4 :g6! 19 g4! f4?! 20 g5! f3 21 .tf1 e3 22 :d3! e2 23 j.h3 "a5?! 24 b4! "a4 25 :xf3 with a clear advantage for White; however, after 19... j.h6+!? 20 ~bl j.g5 (20 ... f4!?) 21 "h8+ :g8 22 'ffh7 "xf2 23 :hel "h4! (Glatman) Black has ηο problems. Besides, an immediate 16.....b6 ίΒ quite satisfactory, for example 17 :hf1 (17 f4 1Σg6 18 "h3 e4 19 j.e2 "e3 + 20 :d2 j.g7 ίΒ favourable for Black, Pyda-Zezulkίn, Poland 1993) 17 ... :g6 (17 ... e4!? 18 .te2 "c5, ':εΗοrvath) 18 'ikh3 e4 19.te2

"xf2

118

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

.*.g7 20 .*.h5 :h6 21 g4 'ii'c5 with enough counterplay (Yu.Zezulkin). 80, 8ax's 12 ...:g8 not οηlΥ θη ables Black to hold his ground (his οηlΥ aim after 12 ....*.g7) but

proVΊdes

him with his own active play. That is why 12 ο-ο, followed by 14 c3! (8ection 2), seems to be the centre of discussion ίη the main varίation of the 8veshnikov today.

Τheoretical

Conclusions

We have now finished examining the theory of the Sicilian Sveshnikov. What are your initi_al r~actions? There can hardly be any doubt - it's all just a muddle ίη your head! ΑΙΙ those variations and move transpositions would be enough to drive anyone mad. Ιη order to help you to a better understaI1ding of the ideas, forty illustrative games are included ίη the next chapter, and here Ι' d like to offer you a consolidated table that ref1ects the interrelation of all the important lines of the Sicilian Sveshnikov and their current theoretical state. Ιη

this table we use the following symbols:

Ι.2 ;Ι;;

± ΟΚ

* **

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

Assessments are gίven to the lines contaίning ηο further branches and to those transposing to other systems. ΤΗΕ

SICll..IAN

SVESHNIΚOV

1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 liJf6 5 lL)c3 e5

Chapter 1 Ι.Ι: 6liJf5 etc. - ΟΚ Ι_2: 6liJdb5 h6 (6 ... j,c5 ;1;;) ±

The rest of the book deals with the positions arising after 6 liJdb5 d6_

120

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

Chapter2 2.1: 7.t.e3etc.-OK 2.2: 7 a4-0K 2.3: 7 ~5 tbxd5 8 exd5 tί)b8! (8... tί)e7 ;t) - ΟΚ 2.4: 7 .i.g5 a6 8.i.xf6 gxffi 9 tί)a3 f5 (9 ...b5 - Chapters 3-7; 9... d5;1;) - ΟΚ 2.5: 7 .t.g5 a6 8 tί)a3 .te6 etc. ;t

17 19 25 32 34

The rest ofthe book deals with positions aήsing aft.er 7 .t.g5 a6 8 tί)a3 b5.

Chapter3 3.1: 9 tί)d5 (9 tί)abl ΟΚ) 9......a5+ 10.t.d2 (10 c3 ΟΚ) 10 ......d8 11 tί)xf6+ (11 c4 etc. ΟΚ) - ΟΚ 3.2: 9 tί)d5 .te7 10 tbxe7 - ΟΚ 3.3: 9 tί)d5 .te7 10 .txf6 .txf6 11 c3 (11 c4 etc. ΟΚ) 11 ... tί)e7 (11 ... Ab8 12 1Ωc2 .t.g5 13 .te2 ο-ο ΟΚ - 2.5; 13 a4 ΟΚ; 11 ....t.b7 ΟΚ?**) - ΟΚ?*! 3.4: 9 tί)d5 .te7 10 .t.xf6 .txf6 11 c3 ο-ο 12 1Ωc2 .t.g5 (12 ....te6 ;t; 12....tb7 - ΟΚ?**; 12 ... tί)b8 ΟΚ?**) ΟΚ! 3.5: 9 tί)d5 .te7 10 .txf6 .txf6 11 c3 ο-ο 12 1Ωc2 Ab8 13 .i.e2 (13 .td3 etc. ΟΚ; 13 h4!? ;t?**!) ΟΚ!

41 44 48 53 61

The rest of the book deals with positions arising after 9 .txf6 gxffi 10 tί)d5.

Chapter4 4.1: 10....tg7 11.t.d3 (11 etc. ΟΚ; 11 g3 f5 ΟΚ - 5.1; 11 c3 f5 12 exf5 .txf5 ΟΚ - 6.2 or 12 .td3 .t.e6 ΟΚ - 7.1) 11 ... tί)e7 12 tbxe7 "'xe7 13 c4 - ΟΚ 4.2: 11 .td3 tί)e7 12 tbxe7 "'xe7 13 c3 ;!;

"'f3

68 73

The rest ofthe book deals with positions arising after 10... f5.

Chapter5 5.1: 11 g3 etc. (11 c3 .tg7 ΟΚ- 6.2 or 7.1) 5.2: 11 .t.xb5 (11 tbxb5 ΟΚ) - ΟΚ Chapter6 6.1 11 exf5 .txf5 12 .td3 etc. - ΟΚ; 6.2: 12 c3 .t.g7 (12 ....te6 131Ωc2 .th6 ;tΊ**) 6.3: 12 c3 .tg7 13 1Ωc2 .te6 - ΟΚ!

ΟΚ

131Ωc2

76 80

0-0 -

ΟΚ

86 88 96

121

Theoretical Conclusions

Chapter 7 7.1: 11-*.d3 i.e612 c4 (12 c3 OKi.g713 "h5 ΟΚ-7.3) 7.2: 12 ο-ο i.xd5 (12 ... i.g7 13 'ifh5;t -7.3) - ΟΚ?*! 7.3: 12 "h5 -*.g7 13 ο-ο (13 c3 etc. ΟΚ) ;!; . 7.4: 12 "ρ5 J:g8 13 g3 (13 c3 etc. ΟΚ) - ΟΚ

ΟΚ

101 103 106 113

Play Like a Grandmaster! This chapter contains 40 grandmaster games played (with two exceptions) during the past decade. These examples i11ustrate nearly a11 of the most important lίnθβ of the Sicilίan Sveshnίkov, many of the key ideas and recent theoretical achievements. Ι WΊΙΙ also try to acquaint you with the players who are actua11y making the most valuable cοntήbutίοn to the theory of the opening. Using the author's prerogative, Ι have included ίn this selection my own most interesting games played WΊth the Sveshnίkov.

Game1

Akopian - Yakovich Rostov ΟΠ ΟΟΠ 1993

Yury YakoVΊch ίβ οnθ of today's leading experts of the Sveshnίkov, a great connoisseur of its ΡΟΒί tional nίceties, while Vladimίr Akopian ίβ probably the only top player practicing the ΤθΤθ 6 tZ:Ίf5 Ιίnθ.

tZ:ΊΙ3 tZ:Ίc6 3 d4 cxd4 tZ:Ίxd4 tZ:ΊΙ6 5 tZ:Ίc3 e5 6 tZ:ΊΙ5 d5

1 e4 c5 2

4 7 exd5 .txf5 8 dxc6 bxc6 9 'ii'f3 'ii'd7 10 .tg5 e4 11 'ii'e2 .te7 12 1tdl As indicated ίn the theoretical part (Chapter 1, Section 1), 12

.txf6 .txf6 13 tZ:Ίxθ4 ο-ο yίelds Black a strong inίtiative for the sacrificed pawn. The typical feature of this variation ίβ Black's development advantage which compensates for hίβ inferior pawn structure (οτ even mateήaΙ deficit). The present game ίβ a good ίι lustration. 12•••'ii'e6 13 'ii'c4:b8! 14 'ii'xe6 White probably hadn't anticipated Black's replYj otherwise he would have preferred 14 b3 .tb4 15 'ii'xe6+ .i.xe616.td2 WΊth equal chances. 14•••fxe6! 15 b3liJd5! This ίβ the whole point! Black's threats of ... tZ:Ίd5-b4 and ... e4-e3 now become very unpleasant. 16.txe7 Οτ 16 .td2liJb4 17 .tf4 (17 1:tcl .i.f6) 17... tZ:Ίxc2+ 18 ~d2 1tb4 WΊth a strong initiative. 16•••he7 17 tZ:Ίa4 Of course, 17 tZ:Ίxd5 +?! exd5 yίelds Black exce11ent prospects. 17••• e3! 18 c4 exf2 + 19 Φxf2 tZ:Ίb4 (D)

20.te2! White decides to sacrifice a pawn ίn order to complete his development. Indeed, his better pawn structure enables him to equalize. Other moves were favourable for Black: 20 a3?! liJc2j 20 liJc5?! .IIhd8! 21 .te2 tZ:Ίxa2 (YakoVΊch)j 20 tZ:Ίc3?!

Play like α Grandmαster

:hf8 21 ~g3 c!bxa2! 22 tlJxa2 :xb3 + with a decisive attack, e.g. 23 ~h4 ~f6 24 :cl (24 g3 h5!) 24 ... g5+ 25 ~h5 .*.g4+!! 26 ~h6 (26 ~xg4 h5+ 27 ~xh5 :h8+ 28 ~g4 :h4 mate) 26 ...:g8 with an inevitable mate. 20••• tlJxa2 21 :aι tlJb4 22lOO51 a6 23 :hdl1 :hd8 24 :Xd8 :Xd8 25:a4 Draw agreed ίη view of25 ...:b8 26 c!bxa6 c!bxa6 27 :xa6 hb3 28 :xc6; however, Black could have tried to play οη by means of 25 ... t;Jc2 26 g4 :f8! 27 ~g3 tlJd4 28 .*.dl .*.g6 etc.

123

d6). Stίll, from time to time he returns to his first love (ίη this game - because of an unusual order of moves). Sergey Rublevsky ίΒ οηθ of only two grandmasters still practicing the 7 a4line (the other ίΒ Alex Ivanov) - and often successfully! 1 e4 c5 2 tlJc3 lΩc6 3 tlJae2 tlJf6 4 d4 cxd4 5 lΩxd4 e5 6 tlJdb5 d6 7 a4 a6 8 tlJa3 .*.e6 9 .*.c4 .*.e7 10 ο-ο .*.xc4?1 This ίΒ premature. 10 ... :c8!? and 10 ... 0-0 are better (see Chapter 2, Section 2). I1lΩxc4 tlJxe4 Α typical tactical trick. However, this time it proves favourable for White οη account of his development advantage. 12 lΩxe4 d5 13 'ii'a41 ι6 14 :dl f5 15 'ii'ιs fxe4

Game2

Rublevsky - Sveshnikov USSR championship, Moscow 1991

Since completing his monograph, Evgeny Sveshnikov has switched to another system of the Sicilian (the so-called Modern Sveshnikov οτ 'Κalashnikov': 1 e4 c5 2 tlJf3 tlJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 c!bxd4 e5 5 tlJb5

16.*.e31 The threat of 17 tlJb6 ίβ hard to parry.

16••• d4 16 ....*.h4 17 'ii'g4 tlJd4 18 .*.xd4 exd4 19 'ii'e6 + etc. Οτ

124

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

17 tbxe5 .td6 18 tbxc6 .txg3 Mter 18 ... bxc6 19 .tf4 Black's materiallosses are inevitable, too. 19 tbxd8 dxe3 20 fxg3?! 20 hxg3! exf2+ 21 Φxf2 hd8 22 :'xd8+ ΦΧd8 23 :'dl + with a winning endgame thanks to the weak black e4 pawn (Rublevsky). 20 .••:'xd8 21 :'xd8+ ΦΧd822 :'el ..td7 23 ~e3 :'c8 24 c3 :'e8? (24 ...:c4! 25 b3 :'c6, R.Κholmov) 25 'iitf2 Φd6 26 :'el! (preparing Φf2-e3) 26 ..• Φc5! 27 b3 1te6 28 Φe3:b6

28 ...:'d6 29 :'cl! ίΒ hopeless. 291tbl Φd5 Mter the continuation 29 ...:e6 30 g4! h6 31 h4 Black ίΒ ίη zugzwang and has either to give υρ his e4 pawn or to abandon the ...1:ιe6-b6 idea, a1lowing :bl-f1. 30 a5! :'c6 31 :'dl+ Φe5 32 c4 b5 (32 ... :'c5 33 :d7) 33 :'d5+ Φe6 34 cxb5 :cl 34...Φxd5 35 bxc6 Φxc6 36..txe4 ..tb5 loses ίη view of 37 Φd5 Φb4 38 'iitc6 Φχa5 39 Φc5 h6 40 g4 g5 41 h3 h5 42 gxh5 g4 43 Φc4 (Rublevsky). 35 :d2 :el + 36 :e2 :al 37 he4 fιxa5 38 bxa6 fιxa6 39 b4 :b6 40 :b2 1tb5 41 'iitd4 ..td6 42 Φc4 :h5 43 h3 :e5 44 b5 Φc7 451:ιf2h5

Alternatively 45 ...:e7 46 :f6 followed by Φc4-d5, g3-g4-g5, h2h4, g2-g4 etc. 46 :f7+ Φc8 47 :'g7 :'e6 48 Φd5 :'b6 49 Φe5 ..td8 50 Φf4 Φe8 51 Φι5 :'xb5+ 52 ..txg6 Black resigned.

Game 3 . Ηϋbner - Simic SoIίngen

1989

1 e4 c5 2 ~Ι3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 ~Ι6 5 ~c3 e5 6 ~db5 d6 7 ~d5 ~xd5 8 exd5 ~e7 9 c3 ~ 10 a4 .te7 11.td3 0-0 12 0-0 ~h4 13 Ι4 a6 14 ~a3 exf4 15 .txf4 ~ 16.tg3 This variation ίΒ not considered to be quite satisfactory for Black. However, instead of the text move (to which Black could have replied 16 ... ~θ5!), 16 .txg6! ίΒ considered more accurate (see Chapter 2, Section 3). 16•••.th4 17 .txh4 ~ό4 18 ~4b6?!

Black should have prevented a4-a5 by a typical move 18... a5!. 19 a5 b5 20 ~b6 .g5? 20 ...:b8 was a quieter reply. Black's ambitious idea of a kingside counterattack has ηο ροΒί tional foundation. 21 g3 .tg4?!

Play ΙίΜ α Grαndmaster

21 ... :'e8 (with the idea of 22 sim-

~a8 :'e3!) can be met by the ple 22 ΦhΙ!.

But now White parries Black's threats and liquidates to a favourable endgame. 21 ... :'a7 22 'iί'cl! 'iί'xcl 23 :'axcl ~g6 was relatively better (Simic). 22 'iί'cl! lΔf3+ 23:.xιa 'iί':xcl+ 24 :':xcl i.:xf3 25 Φf2! i.g4 26 ~ :.:xas 27 c4 :'cS 27 ... bxc4 28 :'xc4 i.d7 29 :'c7 i.e8 30 :'b7 and 27 ...b4 28 c5 are equally hopeless. 28 b4 Φf8 29 Φe3 Φe7 30 Φd4 b:xc4 (otherwise White plays 31 c5 etc.) 31 :.:xc4 :'b8 31 ... :'xc4+ 32 i.xc4 i.c8 loses after 33 b5!. 32 Φc3 i.d7 33 :'e4+ Φd8 34 i.:xa6 (the rest ίΒ easy) 34•••f5 35 :'el g5 36 i.d3 h6 37 :.ΙΙ Φc7 38 i.:xf5. Black resigned.

Game4

Yudasin - Kharlov USSR championship, Moscow 1991

Andrey Κharlov ίΒ οηθ of Sveshnikov's pupils. His most important contribution to the theory of this opening ίΒ ίη the Ν ovosibirsk vaήatίοn.

Leonid Yudasin ίΒ an adherent of less popular ways of play against the Sveshnikov such as 7 ~5 or 9 ~5 i.e7 10 ~θ7. He has brought many fresh ideas to those seemingly harmless systems.

125

The present game ίΒ a good illustration of the plans of both sides ίη the 7 ~5 line. 1 e4 c5 2 ~Ι3 ~c6 3 d4 c:xd4 4 ~:xd4 ~6 5 ~c3 e5 6 ~db5 d6 7 ~d5 ~:xd5 8 e:xd5 ~b8 9 c4 i.e7 10 i.e2 a6 11 ~c3 Ι5 12 ο-ο ο-ο 13 a3 ~d7 14 b4 e4 15 i.e3 i.f6 16 i.d4 i.e5! This line ίΒ examined ίη Chapter 2, Section 3. Black agrees to exchange the dark-squared bishops; but he wants to gain a tempo by comparison to 16 ... i.xd4+ 17 'iί'xd4 ~θ5. As was said ίη the theoretical section, it ίΒ Black's bishop and not his knight that should first take the e5 square. 17 i.:xe5 ~e5 18 'iί'd4 i.d7 The pawn sacrifice 18 ... f4!? 19 ~xθ4 f3 ίΒ interesting, too CYudaΒίη).

19 c5 'iί'f6 20 :.tdl :'fc8 Black intends to double his rooks along the c-file to ΡressuήΖe White's c5 pawn and eventually force c5xd6 or c5-c6. 21 :.scl :'c7 22 h3 'iί'e7 23 Φf1 23 cxd6 1i'xd6 24 ~θ4? fxe4 25 :'xc7 'iί'xc7 26 d6 fails to 26 ... 'iί'c2 27 :'d2 'iί'bl + 28 :'dl 'iί'a2 29 :'d2 'iί'e6.

23 •••:'e8! 24 c6 (eventually!) 24 ..•b:xc6 25 d:xc6 :.:xc6 26 ~d5 'iί'Ι7 27 :':xc6 (Κholmov recommended 27 ~b6) 27 ••• ~:xc6 28 1i'b6 (D) Or 28 'iί'c4 ~5! 29 'iί'xa6 f4 etc. Ν ow Black, using the time White needs to recapture the pawn, ίη itiates a kίngside attack.

ΤΜ

126

Sveshnikov Sicilian

28•••f4! 29 .txa6 "h5 (29 ... f3!, 30 :cl f3 31 lbf4 fxg2+ 32 ΦιΙ "g5 33 hCΒ "xf4 34 :c3 "d2 (34 .....e5!?) 35 :g3? Α decisive error. After 35 "e3! (Κharlov) White could have successfu.lly fought οη. Both players were under severe time pressure. 35••• e3! 36 he3 "cl + 37 ΦΧg2 .tc6+ 38 f3 he3. White resigned. Κholmov)

Game5

use of some other factors such as the e-file, and the c5 and e4 points. 14•••lbd7 15 "c2 exf4 16 gxf4 .td4+!? According to Yudasin, after 16 ... lbc5 17 .tf3 :e8 18 :bl! an unclear position aήses. 17 Φhιlbc5 (17 ... lbf6!?, Yudaβίη) 18 .tf3 .td7! Black prepares ... b7-b5. The game enters the stage of complications. 19 1:.bl! b5! 20 b4 After 20 lbe2.tf6 21 b4lbe4 22 c5 dxc5 23 bxc5 :c8 White's central pawns are rather weak, according to Yudasin. 20.•• lbe4! 21 &e4 fxe4 22 .txe4 bxc4 23 "xc4 23 .txh7+!? Φh8 24 "xc4 .tb5! 25 "xd4 .txf1 26 .tb2 "f6! 27 gxf6 28 .tf5 .tc4 29 .te6 .txa2 leads to an equal position (Yudasin). 23•• :fifβ 24 :dl

"xf6

Yudasin - Kramnik 7th match game, Wifk aan Zee 1994

V1adimir Κramnik's games form a considerable part of the modem theory of the Sicilian Sveshnikov. 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbfβ 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 lbd5 &d5 8 exd5 lbb8 9 c4 .te7 10 .te2 a6 11lbc3 ο-ο 12 ο-ο f5 13 f4 .tf6 14 g3 Depriving the black pieces of the e5 square (see Chapter 2, Section 3). Now Black should make

24•••:ae8!

An excellent move. 25"xd4

Plαy

like α Grαndmaster

25 :Xd4?! .ib5 26 .ixh7 + ..t>xh7 27 'ifc2+ ..t>g8 is quite rίsky for White. 25 ••• Jhe41 26 'iVxe4 .if5 27 'iVd4.ixbl White's extra pawn is absolutely useless because the black pieces are active and his pawn structure is superior. The ορρο site-coloured bishops guarantee a peaceful result. 28 'ifxf6 gxf6 29 a3 .ie4+ 30 ..t>gl :c8 31 .ib2 ..t>f7. Draw agreed.

Game6 ΚβΓρον - Νυππ London 1982

Before abandonίng 1 e4 ίη 1986, Anatoly Κarpoν had many opportunίties to play agaίnst the Sveshnikov, of which the quiet 9 tί)d5 line was his favourite option. He won instructive games against Dolmatov (excellently using the latter's positional errors) and ΎUr taev (who was outplayed ίη the endgame). John Nunn, a loyal adherent of the Sveshnikov, who found new ideas ίη many of the rare lines, was confidently outplayed ίη the present game, too. 1 e4 c5 2 tί)f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tί)xd4 tί)f6 5 tί)c3 tί)c6 6 tί)db5 d6 7 .if4 e5 8 .ig5 a6 9 tί)a3 .ie6 10 tί)c4 :c8 11 .ixf6 'ti'xf6 12 tί)b6 :b8 13 lίJcd5 'ti'd8 14 c3 .ie7 15 .ic4 0- Ο 16 ο-ο .ig5 17 a4 ..t>h8 18 'ife2

127

This line of the Larsen system (see Chapter 2, Section 5) doesn't promise White any serious advantage; however, Black has to play very accurately. 18••• g6 19 ..t>hl .ih6 20 b4 f5 21 exf5 gxf5 22 f4 .ixd5 23 lίJxd5 e41! According to Κarpov, Black should have kept the tension ίη the centre: 23 ... tί)e7 24 fxe5 tί)xd5 25 .ixd5 dxe5 as 26 'ifxe5 +?? is impossible ίη view of 26 ... .ig7 27 'iVe6 :f6, and Black wins. After the text move White has a free hand οη both sides of the board, although Black's position is quite solid. 24 a5 .ig7 25 :acl tί)e7 26 Mdl lίJxd5 26 ...:c8 looks more accurate. 27 .ixd5 'ifc7 28 :c2 'ife7 29 'ife3 :bc8 30 c4 :c7 White has achieved perfect mobilization ίη the centre and οη the queenside. However, it is not enough to overcome Black's defence, so Κarpov tries to open a 'second front'. However, this allows Black some counterplay. 31 g3 :e8 32 :12 'iff6 33 g4!1 fxg4 34 :xg4 'ifc31 35 :g3 'ifxb4 The endgame after the continuation 35 ... 'iVxe3 36 :xe3 :ce7 37 b5! is favourable for White, according to Κarpoν. The attempt to upset White's plans by means of 35 ... :xc4!? is hardly successful: 36 .ixc4 'ifxc4 37 'ifb6 (37 :dgl?! .id4) 37....ic3 38 'ifxb7 e3 39 :el!

ΤΜ

128

Sveshnikov Sicilian

"xf4 40 :exe3, or 39 ... e2 40 :g2! etc. (Nunn). Mter the text move the white attack becomes formidable. 36 :dgl 'iνb2 36..."c5 was probably better, e.g. 37 "e2 "d4 38 "h5 :f8 39 :d1 "c5 40 :h3 ,j"f6, firmly defending. 37 :g5 38 :lg4 "al + 39 Φg2 "b2+ 40 Φh3 :ce7 41 f5

"f6

This ίβ passive. Black should have tried to disturb White's play by 41 .....a1. White's plan now ίβ to provoke ... h7-h6 and invade the g6 square. 42 :h5 :t8 43 :hg5 h6 44 :h5 :e5 45 :gg5 :c8

48 ••• "ΧΙ5+ 49 "ΧΙ5 :xt5 50 :xg7+ ~xg7 51 :ΧΙ5. Black resigned.

Game7 Kir.Georgieν - Shiroν 8;e11992

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4lbf8 5 lbc3 lDc6 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .*.f4 e5 8 .*.g5 a6 9lba3 .*.eβ 10 lbc4 :c8 11 .*.xf6 gxf6 12 lOO3 .*.h6 13 .*.d3 .*.xe3 14 fxe3 ~ 15"cl Ιη this line (see Chapter 2, Section 5) White maintains the better chances because the position of Black's king ίΒ not safe; besides, his knight cannot reach a good square. 15•••lba5 16 ο-ο ~e7 17 "el! White ίβ preparing 18 b3. If 17 ... lbc4 then White replies 18 lbd1 h5 19 a4 followed by 20 b3 (Κir.Georgiev).

46Φι4!

Decisive. Even the white king takes part ίη the attack! 46••• Φh7 46 ...:c7 leads to the same outcome. 47 :gβ "f8 48 "g5! The threat of 49 :gxh6+ ίΒ irresistible.

17•••h518 b3 "c5? (D) Black's only chance was ~o sacrifice an exchange: 18 ...:XCS! 19 "xc3 "xe3+ 20 ~h1lbc6 (recommended by Κarpoν). After the text move White's knight strikes a terrible blow. 19lbd5+! hd5 20 exd5 "xd5 20 .....c3 21 "h4, followed by :a1-d1, :f1-f5, :d1-f1, ίβ equally hopeless. 21:dl Unexpectedly, all Black's pieces are hanging. Α grave materialloss ίβ inevitable.

Plαy

like α Grandmaster

21 •••:cg8 22 'ii'f2 :h6 23 Black resigned because after 23 ... 'ii'e6 24 i.f5 he loses his queen. i.gβ!.

Game8 I.Gurevich - Granda Zuniga New York 1992

1 e4 c5 2 lL\f3 lL\c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL\xd4 lL\f6 5 lL\c3 e5 6 lL\db5 d6 7 i.ιr5 a6 8lL\a3 b5 9lL\d5 'ii'a5+ 10 i.d2 'ii'd8 11lί)xf6+ 'ii'xf6 12 i.d3 'ifgβ 13 0-0 i.e7 14 f41! This atternpt to open up the ρο sition when White's knight is still οη a3 proves prernature. 14 c3 is better - see Chapter 3, Section 1. 14••. exf4 15 e5 i.f5 16 'iff3 16 exd6 can be answered by 16... i.xd3! 17 cxd3 'ii'xd6. 16•••:c8 17 i.xf5 'ii'xf5 18 exd6 i.xd6 19 :ael + i.e7 20 'ii'xf4 'ii'xf4 21 i.xf4 21 :xf4 ο-ο 22 c4 rnight have offered better chances of equality (Granda Zuniga). 21•••0-0

129

White's attack is over, and his knight is still οη a3. There is ηο doubt who has the edge. 22 tί:)bl :fd8 23 c3 :d3 24 :f31! Weakening the white kingside pawns. 24lL\d2 was better, according to Granda Zuniga. 24•••:xf3 25 gxf3 :d8 26 <iWl Black now starts his kingside attack, fιxing his opponent's weak pawns. 26••• ιr5! 27 i.g3 h5 28 ~e2 h4 29 i.f2 lL\e5 30 :gI1! 30 i.d4lL\g6 31 i.e3 was rnore tenacious. 30••• ~h7 31 i.e3 :e8! 32 i.xg51 Α tactical miscalculation but after 32 tί:)d2 f5 White's position is very difficult all the same. 32••.i.c5 33 :g2 f6! 34 i.cl After 34 i.d2 Black's rook ίη vades along the g-file: 34... h3 35 :g3 tί:)g4+ 36 ~d1 tί:)f2+ 37 ~c2 i.d6! 38 f4 :g8!, for example 39 :e3 :g2 40 :e6 i.f8 41 :xf6 i.g7 or 39 :xg8 ~xg8 40 i.e1lL\g4 41 i.g3 tί:)e3+ 42 ~d3 tί:)f1, and Black has a winning position (Granda Zuniga). 34••• h3 35 :g3 tί:)g4+ 36 ~d2 tί:)f2 (D) Α picturesque position. White cannot organize the coordination ofhis pieces, e.g. 37 Φc2 :e2+! 38 ~b3 1:te1 39 Φc2 i.d6 40 f4 :Xc1 +!

etc. 37 c4 i.d6 38 :gl i.xh2 39 40 ~c3 i.eS+. White resigned.

:f1 i.f4+

The Sveshnikov Siciliαn

130

17••• tLJf4 18

"f3

Game9

Anand

-Iνanchuk

Linares 1992

The Sveshnikov occupies a central place ίη the opening repertoire of Vasily Ivanchuk and he has played some very interesting games ίη this opening. 1 e4 c5 2 tLJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLJxd4 tLJf6 5 tLJc3 tLJc6 6 tLJdb5 d6 7 ~f4 e5 8 ~ι5 a6 9 tLJa3 b5 10 tLJd5 ~e7 11 tLJxe7 tLJxe7 12 ~d3 ~b7 13 1i'e2 0-0 This move ίΒ probably inferior to the theoretical 13 ... tLJd7 (see Chapter 3, Section 2). White could now have played 14 ~xf6 gxf6 15 0-0-0, as ίη the following game. 14 ο-ο tLJg6! 15 c4 h6! Α typical way to oust White's bishop. Ifnow 16 ~d2 then 16...b4! 17 tLJc2 a5 followed by ... tLJf6-d7c5. 16 ~xf6 1i'xf6 17 cxb5 Of course, Black's position after 17 g3 1i'g5 18 Φh1 f5 19 f3 (Anand) ίΒ excellent.

18•••axb5 This leads to simplifications. Anand recommends 18 ... tLJxd3!? 19 1i'xd3 1i'g6 20 :fe1 f5 with strong counterplay. 19 tLJxb5 "g6 20 :fdl! tLJxd3 211i'xd3 ~xe4 221i'g3 :tb8! 23 lbxd6 :xb2 24 tLJc4. Draw agreed. )

Game10 EhIνest

VιSac

Iνanoνic 1987

1 e4 c5 2 tLJf3 tLJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLJxd4 tLJf6 5 tLJc3 e5 6 tLJdb5 d6 7 ~ι5 a6 8 tLJa3 b5 9 tLJd5 ~e7 10 lbxe7 tLJxe7 11 ~d3 ~b7 12 ~xf6 gxf6 13 1i'd2 ο-Ο?! It ίΒ not a good idea to delay the advance ... d6-d5, because now it will be difficult for Black to find an appropriate moment for this move. 140-0·0 Φh8 15 :hel :g8 16 ι3 1i'c7 17 ΦbΙ :ad8 18 1i'h6 :gβ 19 1i'cl tOO6 20 c3 1i'b6?!

ΡΙαΥ

like α Grαndrnαster

The exchange of queens ίΒ better for White ίη this situation. According to Ehlvest and Truus, 20 ...b4 was preferable. 21 'iνθ3! 'iνxe3 22 he3 d5?! This advance doesn't succeed now, and White obtaίns a clear advantage ίη the endgame. Instead 22...b4 was relatively better (Ehlvest, Truus). 23 exd5 hd5 24 :eel :g8 25 .te4 hdl + 26 :Xdl :d8 27 ~cl Φg8 28 ~2 :Xdl + 29 hdl

131

32 ••• lbc6 33 c4 bxc4 34 .txc4 lbe7 35 lbb4! a5 36lbd3 .tc6 37 lbc5 lbf5 38 lbb3 .ta4 This ίΒ hopeless. Black's last chance was probably 38 ... a4 but after 39lbc5 lbd4 40 h3 f5 41 ~d2 etc. he has little chance of surVΊval.

39 'iti>d2 .txb3 40 .txb3 lbd6 41.td5 The rest ίΒ easy and needs ηο explanation. 41 ••. Φf8 42 ~c3 ~θ7 43 ~b3 lbc8 44 .te4 lbd6 45 .tc2 e4 46 ~a4 Ι5 47 ~xa5 lbc4+ 48 ~b4 lbe5 49 h3 ~d6 50 a4lbf3 51 a5 lbg5 52 a6 'iti>c7 53 ~c5 lbxh3 54 .ta4 lbxf2 55 .tc6lbd3+ 56 'iti>b5 e3 57 a7 e2 58 a8'iν el" 59 'iνb7+ ~d6 60 'iνd7+ ~e5 61 'iνxd3. Black resigned.

Game11

Cabrilo - Beliavsky Lvov-Be/grade match 1993

Black's pieces are badly placed and his king ίΒ far away from the centre. Ιη such circumstances the white queenside pawn majοήtΥ proves decisive. 29••• ~ Perhaps 29 ... lbd8 30 .td3 lbe6 was more tenaciousi however, the continuation 30 .txb7 lbxb7 31 lbe3 should still be sufficient to wίη.

30 .td3 lbc6 31 .te4 lba5 32 .td3 32 .txb7lbxb7 33lbe3 was possible here, too.

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 lbd5 .te7 10.txf6.txf6 Illbbl ο-ο 11 ... .tg5 12 a4 b4 ίΒ also good enough, too (see Chapter 3, Sections 1 and 3) 12 a4 :b8 13 axb5 axb5 14 lbbc3 lbd4 15 .td3 g6?! Alexander Beliavsky plays the Sveshnikov very rarelYi otherwise he would have played 15 ....tg5 or 15 ... b4. 16 ο-ο .tg7 17 lba2! tίJxd4

132

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

This is οηθ of the reasons why it ίΒ risky for Black to allow the pawn exchange οη b5. The b4 square becomes an excellent place for White's knight. Black's only chance now is to create kingside counterplay. 17.....g5 18 ΦhιlDe6 19l2)ab4 tΩf4! 20 tΩxf4 exf4 21 c3 ~e6 22 11a51! This is not very well-considered. 22 ~c2! followed by ~c2-b3 (to exchange the light-squared bishops!) was White's best way to maintain his advantage. 22•••Mc8 23 'iνe2 1:tc5! Black has already obtained some counterplay (.....g5-h6, ... 11c5-h5 etc.). White decides to speed up the events. 24 tΩa6 :a8 25 :fal 25 tΩxc5 1Ixa5 26 tΩxθ6 fxe6 27 f3 followed by b2-b4 was good enough to keep a small edge (Cabrilo). 25•••1:ιe5 26 tΩc7?? This unexpectedly loses. 26 f3 was necessary.

26•••.:xa5 27 .:xa5 f3! 28 :a8+ ~f829"n

Black's pawn is invulnerable: 29 gxf3 ~h3. 29 ••• fxg2+ 30 'iWxg2 _d2 31 .g3 "'dl + 32 ~g2 ~g4 33 tΩe8 Οτ 33 ~xb5 1Ixe4! 34 :e8 ~f3+ 35 'ii'xf3 :g4+ etc. 33••• ~f3 +! White resigned.

Game12

Marjanovic - Kouatly Clίchy

1986

1 e4 c5 2 tΩf3 tΩc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tΩxd4 tΩf6 5 tΩc3 e5 6 tΩdb5 d6 7 ~g5 a6 8 tΩa3 b5 9 tΩd5 ~e7

10 ~XΙ6 ~xf6 11 c3 tΩe7 12 13 g3 ~b7 13 ... f5! looks more precise (see Chapter 3, Section 3). 14 ~g2 f5 15 "e2 'ii'b6 16 0-0-0 ο-ο-ο?! The black kingside is now dangerously unprotected. 16... 0-0 was probably preferable. 17tΩc2 :he8 After the continuation 17... h5 18 f4! fxe4 19 ~xe4 d5 20 ~f3 e4 21 ~xh5 f5 22 g4 White also maintains the better chances, (M.Κa minski-Κrasenkow, Rewal1992). 17 ... f6!? (preparing ... f5xe4 and ... d6-d5) deserved attention, according to Maιjanovic. 18 :d2! White's plan ίΒ simple - to double rooks along the d-file and later to invade with his queen οη the kingside. tΩxf6+ gxf6

Play like α Grαndmαster

18•••fxe4 19 .i.:x:e4 d5 Or 19 ... f5 20 .i.xb7 + 'iVxb7 21 1:thdl etc. 20.i.g2 d4 21 hb7+ 'iV:x:b722 1:thdl d:x:c3 23 b:x:c3 1:t:x:d2 24 1:t:x:d2

••••• • • ••• •• • • • ••• • • .•"•.• • .iν.

u d u ~ Δ ~.~t2J~'iV~'~ " ~ ~ U

~.;;$f

~.~

,\>;

•

Black has got rid ofhis weak dpawn and simplified the position. However, his problems have only increased. He has nο means of protecting both the d- file and his weak kingside pawns. 24 ...lbd5 Mter the continuation 24 ...lbg6 25 'iVg4+ Φb8 26 1:td7 'iVc8 27 'iVdl ος alternatively, 24 ... f6 25 'iVd3 h6 26 'iVd6 'iVc6 27 'iVxc6+ lbxc6 28 1:td6 Black loses at least a pawn anyway. 25 'iVd3! lbb6 26 'iV:x:h7 'iVhl + Black cannot create sufficient counterplay, for example after the continuation 26 ... lbc4 27 'iVh3+! Φb8 28 'iVd7 1:th8! 29 'iVxb7 + ΦΧb7 30 1:td7 + Φc8 31 :xf7 1:txh2 32lbb4 or 26 ... Φb8 27 'iVf5lbc4 28 1:tdl White obtains good winning chances.

133

27 1:tdl 'iVf3 28 'iVh6! 1:te6 29 'iVe3 'iVc6 30 lbb4 'iVc4 31 'iVd3 'iVc5?! Black should have agreed to βn exchange of queens as now he loses another pawn. 32 'iVd8+ Φb7 33 'iVb8+! Φ:x:b8 34lb:x:a6+ Φa7 35lb:x:c5 1:tc6 36 lbe4 Ι5 37 lbd6 Φa6 Of course, 37 ...1:txc3+ 38 Φd2 1:tf3 39 Φθ2 is totally hopeless but after the text move 38 lbxf5?! is bad due to 38...1:txc3+ and 39...1:tf3 . 38 Φc2! b4 39 c4! The simplest course. Black has nothing to hope for ίn the rook endgame. 39... lb:x:c4 40 lb:x:c4 1:t:x:c4+ 41 Φb31:te4

Or 41 ... 1:tc3+ 42 ΦΧb4 1:tc2 43 1:txa2 44 Φc5 1:td2 45 h4 etc. 42 h4f4 White's simplest reply to the move 42 ...1:te2 is 43 1:trι. 43 h5! fxg3 44 fxg3 Φb5 45 h6 1:te3+ 46 Φc2 1:t:x:g3 47 1:thl 1:tg8 48 h7 1:th8 49 Φd3 Φc5 49 ... Φa4 doesn't help due to 50 1:th3 Φβ3 51 Φc4+ (Marjanovic). 50 Φe4 Φd6 51 ΦΙ5 Φd5 52 Φg6 e4 53 Φg7 1:t:x:h7 + 54 1:t:x:h 7 e3 55 ΦΙ6 Φc4 56 1:te7 Φd3 57 Φe5 Black resigned. 1:trι

Game13

Haba - Krasenkow Wattens 1990

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 c:x:d4 4 lb:x:d4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6

134

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilίαn

7 .t.g5 a6 8 ~a3 b5 9 ~d5 .t.e7 10 .t.xf6 .t.xf6 11 c3 .t.b7 This was οηθ of the first games played with this 1ine. 12 ~c2 ~b8 13 a4 bxa4 14 ~ce3 ο-ο 15 ~c4?! 15 'ifxa4 ίΒ correct (see Chapter 3, Section 3). Black can now give up his d6 pawn to obtain a considerable advantage ίη development. 15••• ~d7! 16 ~d6 .t.xd5 17 'ifxd5?! 17 exd5 is more accurate but after 17 ... ~c5, 17... ~b6 or 17 ...:b8!? Black maintains excellent prospects anyway.

knight but after 18 ~f5 :ab8! or 18 ~4 :fd8! Black was clearly better all the same. 18••• ~b6 18 ... a3 19 bxa3 "xc3+ 20 'ifd2 enables White to defend firmly. 19"&5 19 .:ad8, 19 'ii'd2 :fd8, and 19 'iνb7 "c5, followed by 20 ....:ad8, were equally hopeless. Mter the text move Black starts a round-up ofWhite's king. 19•••:fd8 20 ~c4 :xdl+ 21 ΦΧdΙ :d8+ 22 'iti>c2 "d7 23 ~e3 23 .t.e210ses after 23 ... ~xc4 24 .txc4 "d2+ 25 'iPbl llb8 but now Black's queen runs riot. 23 •••'ii'd2+ 24 'iti>bl :b8 25 .t.xa6 26 ~c2 'ifxg2 27 :el 28 "c5 29 :e2 "d7 30 ~e31Wa7 31 ~d5!? "xa6 32 "d6 'ίi'd3+ 33 Φa2? Losing at once but after 33 :c2 :d8 34 ~xf6+ gxf6 35 'ίi'xb6 :d6 Black's material advantage is sufIicient to win. 33.....c4+ 34 ΦaΙ ~d7! Whίte resigned.

"a2

"xh2 "xf2 "d2

17.....c7! Α quiet but very strong move. Whίte's pieces are now very loose.

18 :dl? It looks unbelievable but after this White ηο longer has a good defence! However, it is very difficult to offer good advice. Black is threatening 18 ... ~b6 followed by 19 ... :fd8 while 18 ~xf7?? doesn't work ίη view of 18 ... ~b6. White should have urgently removed his

Game14

Kasparov - Shirov Horgen 1994

Alexey Shirov is οηθ of the leading experts of the Sveshnikov. The author is especially thankful to him for bringing the 11 ....t.b7line of the 9 ~d5 system to the practice of super-tournaments. However, ίη the present game Garry

ΡΙαΥ

like α Grαndmαster

Κasparov outplayed his young ορ ponent ίη a brilliant way, introducing a fantastic positional idea. 1 e4 c5 2 lΔΙ3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lΔΙ6 5 lbc3 lbc6 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .i.f4 e5 8 .i.g5 a6 9 lba3 b5 10 lbd5 .i.e7 11 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 12 c3 .i.b7 13 lΔc2 lΔb8 14 a4 bxa4 15 :xa4 lΔd7 16 1:tb4!? lbc5?! Had Black foreseen the World Champion's response, he would surely have preferred something else (say, 16 ...:b8)

17 :Xb7!! This positional exchange sacrifice has two ideas: to get rid of Black's strong bishop, which protects the light squares and to cut off Black's knight. Imagίne your feelings when Κasparov plays something like this against you! 17••• lΔxb7 18 b4! .i.g5 19 lba3 ο-ο 20 lΔc4 a5 21 .i.d3 axb4 22 cxb4 'iί'b8 23 h4 .i.h6 Of course it doesn't look very attractive for Black to deprive his own knight of its only available square but ίβ it better to exclude

135

this bishop from play? Ιη my ορin ίοη, 23 ... .i.d8!? was preferable, e.g. 24 g3 'iί'a7 25 ο-ο 'iί'd4 26 'iί'b3 :b8 27 '6'a3 f5 with counterchances. 24 lbcb6 :a2 25 ο-ο :d2 26 'iί'Ι3 'iί'a7 (else 27 :al) 27lbd7 The black pieces are completely passive; therefore White could have even played ίη a positional fashion, e.g. 27 .tb5!? (Κasparov). 27...lΔd8?! Mter the material balance is restored White's positional advantage becomes obvious. Black's best chance was 27 ...:a8!, and 28 lΔe7 + Φh8 29 'iί'xf7 :Xd3 30 lΔf8 can be met by 30...'iί'a21. Still, after 28 .i.c4lΔd8 29lΔ5b6 (T.Horvath) or 28 lb7b6 :f8 29 .i.b5 (Κasparov) White maintains the better prospects. 28 lΔxf8 Φxf8 29 b5 'iί'a3 It was better to centralize the queen with 29 ...'iί'd4! but after 30 :d11 (Κasparov) Black's position would have remained difficu1t. 30 'iί'Ι5! Φe8 30 ...:Xd3 31 'iί'd7 g6 32 "'xd8+ Φg7 33 b6 and 30 ... lbe6 31 "'xh7 lose at once. 31.i.c41:tc2 If31 ......a4, then 32lΔc7+ Φe7 33 '6'c81, e.g. 33 ...:c2 34 .txf7!1, and White wins (T.Horvath). 32 "'xh7! :Xc4 33 "'g8+ Φd7 34lbb6+ Φe7 35lbxc4 'i'c5 36 :al! "'d4 36 ......xc4 loses ίη view of 37 :a7+ Φe6 38 'iί'e8+. 37 :a3 .i.cl 38lbe3! Black resigned.

ΤΜ

136

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

Game15

Tiviakov - Shirov Oakham 1992

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 lbd5 .te7 10.txf6 .txf6 11 c3 ο-ο 12lbc2 .tb7 13 .te2 .tg5 14 ο-ο lbb8 15 'ii'd3 This plan ίβ too slow to refute the Gurgenίdze varίatίon. 15 .tg4 ίβ White's οηlΥ way to fight for an edge. 15•••lbd7 16 :fdllbc5 17 'ii'f3 g6 18 lbce3 Φh81 19 .tf1 :a7

lbxc4 .txd5 24 lbxe5 dxe5 25 exd5 'ii'd6 στ 23 .txc4 bxc4 24 lbxc4 .txd5 25 exd5 {5 (Shirov), with a good position for Black ίη both vaήatίοηs. The text move leads to complications. 21 a4 bxa4 22 ]ha4 Ι5 23 :a5 .th41 24 exf5 gxf5 25 lbxf5 lbf4

26liJxh4? decisive mistake but θνθη after 26 'ii'e3! :xf5 27 'ii'xa7lbh3+! (27 ... .txd5 28 g3 .tf3 29 :d2 ίβ unclear) 28 gxh3 'ii'g8+ 29 .tg2 :g5 30 'ii'xb7:xg2+ 31 c;t.>h1.txf2 32 'ii'b8! :xh2+ 33 Φxh2 'ii'xb8 Black ίβ better. But now. .. 26•••lbxd5 27 'ii'h5 (27 'iIg3:g8) 27 ••• lbf4 28 'ii'h6 :f6 29 'ii'g5 .txg2! This tactical blow wins. 30 .txg2 :g7 31 'ii'xg7 + If 31 'ii'xe5 then 31 ... lbh3+ 32 Φh1 lbxf2+ 33 c;t.>g1 lbxd1 στ 32 Φf1:xf2+ 33 Φθ1 'ii'xh4 (Shirov). 31•••Φxg'7 32 :Xe5 White's pieces are placed βΟ badly that he ίβ not able to maintain mateήal parίty. Α

The preparation of ... f7-f5 ίβ Black's most promίsing plan ίη this position. Shirov rejected the immediate 19 ... f5?! ίη view σ! 20 exf5 gxf5 21lbxf5 .tc8 22 g4, but now he threatens ... f5, e.g. 20 g3 f5!! 21 exf5 gxf5 22 lbxf5 e4 23 'ii'g4 :xt'5! 24 'ii'xf5 .tc8, and wins. 20b4lbe6 20 ... lba4 was quieter, {στ example 21 c4 lbb2 22 :el lbxc4 23

Play like α Grαndmαster

32 ••• Wc8! 33 Ae7 + Af7 34 Axf7 + <t;xn 35 .i.d5 + 35 :xd6 "g4 and 35 h3 Wxc3 (with the idea of 36 Axd6 lΔe2+ 37 Φf1 Wa1 + 38 Φχe2 "e5) are also hopeless. 35••• ~f8 36 lΔg2 "g4 37 Ad2 "g5! Whίte resigned.

137

enables White to maίntaίn the better prospects. Mter the text move, 23 .i.d5 Ac7 24 .i.xb7 Axb7 25 "xd6? is impossible ίη view of25 ...:d7. However, White decides the game ίη just two moves!

Game16

Lanka - Krasenkow Moscow 1989

1 e4 c5 2 lΔxd4 lΔf6

lΔf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 5 lΔc3 lΔc6 6 lΔdb5

d6 7 .i.f4 e5 8 .i.g5 a6 9 lΔa3 b5 10 lbd5 .i.e7 11 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 12 c3 ο-ο 13lbc2 .i.g5 14 a4 bxa4 15 Axa4 .i.b7?! The present game marked the end of popularity of the present lίne (see Chapter 3, Section 4). 16 .i.c4! lΔa5 17 .i.a2 .i.c6 18 Aa3 .i.b5 Thίs is Black's idea - to prevent White's castlίng. However, the black minor pieces are now placed extremely awkwardly. 19 h4! .i.h6 20 lΔce3 .i.xe3 Black is forced to exchange thίs knight (21 lΔf5 was threatened), clearίng both the d-file and the d5 square for White's bishop and queen. 21lΔxe3 Ac8 22lΔf5lbb7?! (D) 22 ...lbc4 was necessary to answer 23 .i.xc4 :Xc4 24 lΔxd6 with 24 ... Ad4! 25 cxd4 "xd6 26 f3 exd4, and Black obtaίns a strong counterplay. However, 24 f3! (Gorelov)

23 "g4!"f6 23 ... g6 24 h5 is lίkeWΊse hopeless. 24 "15! This is the point! Mter the exchange of queens the whίte king ίβ ηο longer ίη danger, whίle White adds another plus to all the advantages of his position, viz. the h-file (ίη case of 24 ..."xg5 25 hxg5) οτ Black's destroyed kingside pawn structure (ίη the event of "g5xf6 g7xf6). This is quite sufficient for White to score an easy victory. 24•••Ac7 Οτ 24.....xg5 25 hxg5 Itc7 26 c4 .i.d7 (26 ....i.xc4 27 .i.xc4 Axc4 28 lΔe7+ Φh8 29 Axh7+ Φxh7 30 Ah3 mate) 27 Aah3 WΊth a deciβίνθ advantage.

ΤΜ

138

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

25 '6'xf6 gxf6 26 b4! Compare with Κasparov's 18 b4 in the previous game! 26 ••• a5 27 bxa5 :a8 28 :h3! ~c4

Or 28 ... Axa5 29 ]ha5 lbxa5 30 :g3+ Φf8 31 Ag7, and White ίβ winning. 29 a6 :xa6 30 :xa6 ~xB6 31 :g3+ ~8 32 Ag7 lbd8 If 32 ... ~c4? 33 1:txh7 ~g8 34 :g7 + ~f8 then the march of the white h-pawn decides: 35 h5! ~xa2 36 h6 etc. 33 :xh7 ~ι8 34 :g7+ ~h8 35 :g3 lbe6 36 lbxd6 lbf4 37 lbe8! :c6 38 ~xf7lbd3+ 39 ~d2 lbxf2 40 ~d5 :b6 41 c4 ~h7 42 c5 :b2+ 43 ~cl Black resigned.

Game17

Lutz - Kramnik

22 ί4!? looks more logical 22 ••• e4! 23 bxa51! White underestimates his ορρο nent's threats. According to Vladimir Κramnik, he should have sacrificed an exchange to disrupt Black's attack: 23 lΣxa5! lbxa5 24 :xa5 with mutual chances. 23 •••lbe5 24 :b4 :Xb4 25 cxb4 f4! 26lbd4 If26 '6'xe4 then 26 ... ~f5 27 '6'e2 f3, winning a piece. 26 ••• e3! 27 fxe3 f3 28 '6'a2 f2 + 29 ~g2 "e8! Aiming both for h5 and for e4(e3). 30~θ2 (D)

30 ~α lbg4 31 lbf3 lbxe3 + 32 lbxe3 '6'xe3 33 "e2 :xf3! (Κram nik) and 30 lbf4 lbxc4 31 "xc4 ~xf4 32 exf4 "e4+ 33 ~xί2 :c8 lead to a quick loss.

Germany 1995

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 ~ι5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 lbd5 ~θ7 10 ~xf6 ~xf6 11 c3 ο-ο 12 lbc2 ~ι5 13 a4 bxa4 14 :xa4 a5 15 ~c4 :b8 16 b3 ~h8 17 ο-ο g6 This plan looks more promising than the old 17 ... f5 (see Chapter 3, Section 4). 18 '6'e2 ~d7 19 :fal ~h6 20 g31! Α strange move which weakens the white kingside. 20 b4 axb4 21 lbcxb4lbxb4 22 lΣxb4 :a8leads to rough equality (Κramnik). 20•••f5 21 exf5 gxf5 22 b4

30•••lbg4! deadly blow. 31 ~f3 . 31 ~xg4 ~xg4 32 lbf4 (or 32 'i'c2 J..h3 + 33 ~xh3 '6'h5 + 34 ~g2 'i'xd5+) loses after 32...J..xf4 Α

Play like α Grandmaster

33 exf4 'ife1; 31 'ifb2 .tg7 and 31 'ifc2 'ifh5 32 .txg4 .txg4 are just as hopeless. 31••• ~e3+ 32 ~e3 'ifxe3 33 'iνxf2 .th3+ 34 ~ιl 'ifc3 35 J:tel .td2! White resigned.

Game18

Hector - Krasenkow Malmo 1995

1 e4 c5 2 tbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tbxd4 tbf6 5 tbc3 tbc6 6 tbdb5 d6 7.tf4 e5 8 .tg5 a6 9 tba3 b5 10 tbd5 .te7 11 .txf6 .txf6 12 c3 J:tb8 13 tbc2 .tg5 This move order eliminates Κasparov's plan with h2-h4 (see Chapter 3, Sections 3 and 5). 14 'ifd3 ο-ο 15 g3?! Trying to evade the theoretical lines, White starts a seήes of second-rate moves that eventually give Black the better prospects. 15•••&5 16 h4?! Unnecessaήly weakening the white kίngside. 16•••.th6 17 J:tdl .te6 18 .th3 b419 c4 80 far, Black has just set up the classical piece arrangement (see the introduction), nothing moreand his position is already slightly better (development!). Now ίΒ the time for Black to start aggressive action. 19 ••• b3! 20 axb3 .txd5 21 'ifxd5 After 21 exd5 tbb4 22 'ife2 tbxc2+ 23 'ifxc2 J:tb4 it is difficult

139

for White to protect his b-pawns, and the position arising after 21 cxd5 tbb4 22 "e2 tbxc2 + 23 'ifxc2 ':'b4 is very pleasant for Black, too. 21 •••'ii'b6! 22 'ifxd6 This ίΒ practically forced as 22 :d3?! doesn't work ίη view of 22 ... a4!. 22 •••"xb3 23 'ifxc6 'ifxc2 24 ο-ο .te3! This tactical blow (25 fxe3? J:txb2), with the idea of transferring Black's bishop to the important a 7-g1 diagonal, looks almost decisive; however, White finds an excellent defence. 25 ':'d7! .td4 Alas, 25 ... J:txb2? can now be met by 26 ':'xf7!. 26 'ifc7 26 :b7!? deserved attention to prevent Black's following manoeuvre. 26•••J:tb3! 27 ~hl! J:tf3 28 .tg2 1bf2 29 1bf2 Wxf2 30 ~h2 a4! Black should now try to combίne the advance of this pawn wίth threats οη the kίngside. However, White's defensive resources are considerable. 31 1:td8 g6 32 J:txf8+ ~8 33 'ifb8+? This check tums out to be a decisive 10ss of time. White's tenacious defence could have been crowned with 33 b3! (Nunn), exchanging the dangerous a-pawn, with a probable draw. 33••• ~ι7 34 c5 'ifc2! 35 'ife8 .txb2 36 c6 a3 37 'ifa8

140

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

White can't push his c-pawn now: 37 '6'd7 a2 38 c7 aHi' 39 c8'if "f2, and Black Μηβ. After the text move Black's plan ίβ to improve the position of his pieces ("c3, .i.c1) and then prepare a break οη the kingside (... h7-h5, ... g6-g5 etc.) 37•••h5? But this order of moves yields White a fantastic opportunity to escape. 37 .....c3! was correct, e.g. 38 "a6 .i.c1! 39 "a8 h5 etc. 38"a6'6'c3 Οτ 38 ....i.c1 39 "b7! a2 40 c7 a1" 41 c8'6', and Black's bishop prevents his queen from mating White's kίng. 39 'ifa8? Jonny Hector misses his chance ίη time-trouble, but the study-like solution was not easy to find: 39 .i.fi!! .i.c140 'ifc4!, e.g. 40 .....d2+ 41 .i.g2 a2 42 'ifa4, and Black can't win. After the text move White's position is hopeless. 39•••.i.cl! 40 '6'b7 If 40 "a6 then 40 ... g5! 41 hxg5 h4 42 c7 hxg3+ 43 Φh3 "xc7, and

wins. White's attempt to push his c-pawn meets a nice refutation. 40 ••• a2 41 c7 al" 42 c8" 'ifxg3+! 43 Φχι3 .i.f4+ 44 Φf2 (44 Φf3 'iί'd1+) 44•••'ifd4+ 45Φfl "dl+ 46 Φf2 "d2+ 47 Φfl 47 'iitg1 leads to a mate after 47 .....e1+ 48.i.fi 'ίi'g3+ 49.i.g2 .i.e3+ 50 Φh1 'ife1+ 51 Φh2 .i.f4+ 47•••.i.g3 Το avoid a direct mate, White must give υρ his extra queen and end υρ ίη a hopeless endgame. 48 'ikxf7+ <j;xf7 49 'ikc4+ Φg7 50 <itgl "el + 51 ..n .i.xh4 52 "xel .i.xel 53 .i.f3 Φh6 White resigned as he can't stop Black's pawns.

Game19

Suetin - Andrianov M05COW 1981

Although he ίβ not a grandmaster, Nikolay Andrianov belongs to the multitude of outstanding specialists of the Sveshnikov. Ηίβ ideas and games made a considerable contribution to the theory of the opening ίη the early 1980s. The following game ίβ a Sveshnikov classic. 1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~d4 ~f6 5 ~c3 ~c6 6 ~db5 d6 7 .i.f4 e5 8 .i.g5 a6 9 ~a3 b5 10 ~d5 .i.e7 11 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 12 c3 ο-ο 13 ~c2 .J:tb8 14 .i.e2 .i.g5 15 ο-ο a5 16 b4 ~e717 ~e7+ .i.xe7 18 ~e3 .i.e6 19 ~d5 axb4 20cxb4"d7

Plαy

like α Grαndmaster

This prepares a typical manoeuvre of the black bishop. 21 'ΙΜ3

21 •••.td8! 22 ΦhΙ? It was absolutely necessary to prevent Black's plan by means of 22 ~c3, with mutual chances after 22 ...f5!. 22•••.tb6! 23 :acl.td4 The black dark-squared bishop has become the most formidable piece οη the board; additionally, White has 10st control of the d5 square. 24 f4 .txd5 25 exd5 f5 26 :c6 This invasion of the rook is absolutely harmless. 26•••"e7 27 .tdl "f6 28 fxe5 .txe529Wh3 Black should undoubtedly develope his initiative οη the kίng side, but how? Andήanοv finds an interesting idea. 29•••:b7 30 .tb3 Had White guessed his ορρο nent's intentions, he would have surely prevented it by means of 30 .tc2!, forcing 30... g6.

141

30.....g5 31 :c2 :bf7! 32 1:tcf2 :f6 33 "d3 1th6! 34 h3 g6 35 JU3 :h4! The point! Black's rook enters White's camp along the 4th rank! This factor is much more important than the miserable b5 pawn. 36 "xb5 1:td4 37 :dl Or 37 :d3 :xd3 38 "xd3 :c8 followed by 39...1tc3. 37•••1txdl + 38 .txdl :c8 39 "e2 :cl 40 b5 1tb141 a4 Wh4 42 "d3 :cl 43 "fl "d4 44 :d3 "xa4 45 b6 "b5 461:tf3 "xb6 The material advantage has passed to Black, and his attack is far from over. The rest is easy. 47 "d3 '6'b4 48 :f1 Φg7 49 '6'e3 :c3 50 "a7+ ~h6 51 "f7 "84 52 ΦgΙ :ga 53 .tf3 "e3+ 54 ΦhΙ :xf3! 55 gxf3 '6'e2 White resigned.

Game20

Kasparov - Kramnik Novgorod 1994

1 e4 c5 2 ~3 ~c6 3 ~ge2 ~f6 4 d4 cxd4 5 ~d4 e5 6 ~db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 ~3 b5 9 ~d5 .te7 10 .txf6 .txf6 11 c3 ο-ο 12 ~c2 :b8 13 h4 ~7 14 ~+! This is Κasparov's famous novelty that puts the classic move order (11 ... 0-0 and 12 ...1tb8) under a cloud. 14••• gxf6 15 "d2 .tb7 16 .td3 d5 17 exd5 "xd5 18 ο-ο-ο! White's idea is to combine a kingside attack with pressure

142

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

along the d-file. Of course, he doesn't hesitate to give υρ his β2 pawn. 18 ••• e4 19 ~e2 "xa2 20 "h6 . .eβ 21liJd4 "b6 ΑΙΙ of these moves βΤθ cited ίη Chapter 3, Section 5. 21 ... 'fi'e5 enables White to open υρ the g-file: 22 f4 exf3 23 gxf3. 22J:th3 After the game Κaspβτoν recommended 22 g4 Φh8 23 lbf5 lbxf5 24 gxf5 J:tfd8 25 ~h5 e3 26 J:thgl J:txdl+ 27 ~xdl J:tg8 28 J:txg8 + Φχg8 29 "xe3, and White maintains a minimal ρΙυβ ίη the endgame. The text move leads to unclear complications. 22•••<t>h8 23 ~ι4 :gs 24lbe6?! According to Kasparov, 24 ~θ6 was better, with an unclear ροβί tion after 24 ... J:tg6 25 "f4 etc. 24•••J:tg6 24...J:txg4? ίβ ροοτ due to 25lbg5! whίle after 24...fxe6 25 "xf6+ J:tg7 26 J:td7 Whίte obtains a decisive attack, for example 26 ..."c5 27 Μ, οτ 26 ... J:tbg8 27 ~xθ6, οτ 26 ... J:te8 27 J:tg3! (indicated by Kasparov and Fta~nίk). 25"f4J:te8? Black faίls to find the correct defence. After 25 ... ~d5! 26 ~h5 ~xe6 27 ~xg6 hxg6 28 "xf6+ <t>g8 29 "xe7 ~xh3 30 gxh3 "xf2 31 "xe4 it ίβ White who must fight for a draw (Κaspβτoν). 26J:td6! An immediate 26 h5 was not good due to 26 ... J:txg4 27 "xf6 + <t>g8 but now, after 26 .....a5, it

does work: 27 h5 'iVal + 28 <t>c2 "a4+ 29 <t>bl J:t~g4 30 'ίi'xf6+ <t>g8 31lbg5! "c4 32 h6 J:txg5 33 "xg5 + lbg6 34 "f6 Φf8 35 J:td7 "fl+ 36 <t>c2"e2+ 37ΦcΙ"eΙ+ 38 1:tdl "e2 39 J:tg3, and White WΊηβ.

26...lbd5

27 h5!! Still! 27 :Xb6 lbxf4 28 lbxf4 J:txg4 ίβ insufficient but the text move leads to VΊctory. 27...lbxf4 Or 27 ... J:tg7 28lbxg7; 27 ... J:txg4 28 'ίi'xg4; and 27 ... J:tgg8 28 J:txd5! J:txe6 29 ~xθ6 'ίi'xθ6 30 :d6 everything ίβ hopeless. 28hxg6"xd6 Here 28 ... fxe6 29 1:txh7 + <t>g8 30 :Xb6, 28 ... :Xe6 291hh7+ <t>g8 30 gxf7+ <t>f8 31 :h8+ ΦΧf732 ~xθ6+ lbxe6 33 :xb6, and also 28 ... lbxh3 29 gxf7! ΙΟβθ at once, while 28 ...lbd3+ meets a beautiful refutation: 29 1:thxd3! "a5 (29 ... exd3 οτ 29 .....xf2 - 30 gxf7) 30 gxf7 "al+ 31 <t>d2 "xb2+ 32 <t>el 'iVcl + 33 ~dl :f8 34 :d8!

Plαy

like α Grαndmαster

(vaήatίοns by Κasparov, Fta~nik and the author). 29 :xh7+ Φι8 30 gxf7+ Φό7 31 fxe8" ιtJxe6 32 ~Ι5+! Φι7 33 "g6+ Φf8 34 "xf6+ Φe8 35 ~xe6 "f81, and Black resigned ίη view of 36 ~d7+. 35 ... e3 was equally hopeless: 36 fxe3 ~xg2 37 ~f7 + Φd7 38 ~e8+ Φc7 39 "g7 + Φd8 40 "xg2 Φχe8 41 "e4+, and White exchanges queens (Κasparov).

143

25 "f4 "e5, although after 26 g3 White is clearly better. 25 ΦbΙ :c5 26 h6 "e5

Game 21

Kasparov - Lautier Moscow 1994

1 e4 c5 2 ιtJΙ3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbf6 5 lbc3 lbc6 6 lbdb5 d6 7 ~Ι4 e5 8 ~ι5 a6 9 ιtJa3 b5 10 lbd5 ~e7 11 ~XΙ6 ~xf6 12 c3 ο-ο 13lbc2 :b8 14 h4 ιtJe7 15 lbxf6+ gxf6 16 ~d3!? d5 17 exd5 "xd5 18lbe3 "e6 19 'ii'h5 e4?! With this pawn structure Black should avoid this move as long as he can. 19 ... f5 20 0-0-0 "g6 was the correct course (see Chapter 3, Section 5). 20 ~c2 b4 21 c4 Φh8?1 After the text move White' s advantage becomes clear. 21 ... :d8! (preventing White from playing 0-0-0) was Black's only chance (T.Horvath). 22 0-0-0 Ι5 23 "g5 :b6 24 h5 :c6?! Black totally underestimates his opponent' s threats. He should have played, for instance, 24 ...f6 ιtJxd4

27 :h5! An unusual move with an unpleasant threat: 28 ιtJg4. 27••.:ga The alternatives 27 ...lbg6 28 :d8 and 27 ... ιtJc6 28 ιtJg4 fxg4 29 "g7+ also lose. 28 ιtJι41 Α nice finale. 28 ... :Xg5 29 fue5 :xh5 leads to a mate: 30 :d8+ ιtJg8 31 ιtJxf7 mate while 28 .....e6 is met by 29 :d8! "g6 30 "xe7. Black resigned.

Game22

I.Gurevich - Illescas Biel1993

1 e4 c5 2 ιtJΙ3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ιtJxd4 lbf65 ιtJc3 e5 6 ιtJdb5 d6 7 ~ι5 a6 8 ιtJa3 b5 9 ~xf6 gxf6 10 ιtJd5 ~ι7 11 ~d3 lbe7 12 ιtJxe7 "xe7 13 ο-ο ο-ο 14 c4 f5 15 "f3 bxc4 16 ιtJxc4 d5 17

144

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

exd5 e4 18 .e3 .i.b7 19 d6 '6'(6 20 .i.c2 Ι4 21 'ii'b3 ':ac8 This sharp line ίΒ described ίη Chapter 4, Section 1. If Black manages to eliminate the threats created by White's passed pawn, he can obtain a good position thanks 10 his pair of bishops and strong central pawns. 22 b3 .g5 23 :adl Ι5 24 b4 24 d7 :cd8 25 ttla5 .i.a8 26 :d6!? :f6 27 :fd1 deserved attention, with unclear play. After the text move Black gradually ΒθίΖθΒ the inίtiative. 24••• Φh8 25 .i.b3 .i.c6 26 d7 :cd827 :d6 It is not easy for White to both protect his d-pawn and prevent Black's counterplay, for example 27 ttlb6 e3! 28 :d6 .i.b5 29 .i.c41ffe7 30 ttlc8 exf2 + 31 ':xf2 (Fta~nik) 31 ...:XcS! 32 dxc8. :Xc8 33 .i.xb5 .xd6 34 "xf5 :d8 35 .i.e2 .i.d4, and Black wins, or 27 ttld6!? 'ii'g6 28 ttle8 :xd7 29 :xd7 .i.xd7 30 ttlxg7 "xg7, and Black is better. But now, after capturing the d7 pawn, Black obtains a clear edge, 100.

27••• .i.xd7 28 :fdl "e7 29 ttlb6 (D) Perhaps it might have been better to take the a6 pawn, e.g. 29 :xa6 .i.b5 30 :ad6 :c8 31 ttlb6 :c3 32 ..h5 e3 33 :e6 with some counterplay (lllescas) 29 ••• .i.e6! 30 :xd8 :xd8 31 ttld5 .i.xd5 32 .i.xd5 Or 32 :Xd5 :Xd5 33 .i.xd5 "xb4 34 g3 f3 etc.

32•••e3 (the advance of this pawn decides the game) 33 fxe3 fxe3 34 "f3 e2 35 :el "xb4 36 :ΙΧθ2 .i.d4+. White resigned οη account of 37 Φf1 "b1+ 38 :e1 'ii'b5+.

Game23 Topaloν - v.Spasoν Bυdapest1993

1 e4 ε5 2 ttlf3 lί)ε6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt!xd4 lί)Ι6 5 lί)ε3 e5 6 lί)db5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 ttla3 b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10 lί)d5 .i.g7 11 .i.d3 lί)θ7 12 lί)xθ7 "xe7 13 ε3 Ι5 14 lί)ε2 .i.b7 15 exf5 .g5 16 ttle3 d5 17 ο-ο o~o

(D)

This line ίΒ examined ίη Chapter 4, Section 2. Black has sacή ficed a pawn to obtain a strong pawn centre, but White's reply refutes this idea. 18 Ι4! exf4 19 "g4 'δ'χι4 20 lt!xg4 f6 21 :ΧΙ4 :fe8 White has destroyed the black pawn centre while maintaining his mateήal advantage. However,

Play like α Grαndmaster

145

29 g3 .i.c5 + 30 ~θ2 was better but hardly enough to win. 29 •••.i.c5+ 30 ~g3. Draw agreed since after 30 ... d4 31 .i.xh5 dxc3 32 ~xc3 .i.d4 33 ~dl.i.xb2! or 31.i.f3 .i.e8 Black's counterplay ίΒ sufficient to hold his position. Game 24

Dolmatov - Mark Tseitlin he must play accurately as Black's pair ofbishops can become formidable; besides, the rook οη f4 and knight οη g4 are not perfectly placed. 22 a4?! lnstead of opening the a-fιle for Black, it was better to consolidate the white position ίη the centre: 22 ':dl followed by .i.d3-c2-b3. Μ ter the text move Black obtains strong counterplay. 22 ••• .i.c6 23 axb5 axb5 24 ':'xa8 :xa8 25 ~o h5 26 ~e3 .i.f8 27 ~dl :a4 28 ha4 bxa4

Beer-Sheva 1991

1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 ~f6 5 ~c3 e5 6 ~db5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 ~a3 b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10 ~d5 .i.g7 11 .i.d3 ~e7 12 ~e7 'iVxe7 13 c3 f5 14 t002 'iνb7 15 'iνf3 ο-ο 16 ~e3 f4 17 ~d5 .i.e6 18 g41 This move (preventing ... f7-f5) ίΒ essential to White's plan (see Chapter 4, Section 2). 18•••':fe8 18 ... ':ae8!? (preparing 19 ... f5 20 gxf5 ':xf5) can be met by 19 0-0-0 (Dolmatov). 19 Φfl ':ac8 20 a3 :c5 21 :dl ~8

29.i.e2?!

It ίΒ not easy for Black to create any counterplay, but how can White break his position? His only active plan ίΒ to push his kingside pawns. 22 .i.bl a5 23 g5 'it'd7? This proves useless. 23 ....i.xd5 24 exd5 b4 loses a pawn after 25 axb4 axb4 26 .i.xh7 but yields Black good counterchances, according to Dolmatov.

146

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

24:g1.txd5 Parrying the unpleasant threat of25lbf6. 25 exd5 e4! Black's only way to bring life to his pieces. However, Black doesn't obtain any compensation for the pawn. 26 .txe4 b4 27 axb4 axb4 28 .txh7 bxc3 29 bxc3 :Xc3 30 1:Μ3 :c4 31 h4 :e5 32 :g4?! This inaccuracy yields Black a loηg-awaited counterattack. 32 'ίItg2 was correct. 32 •••:cl + 33 'ίItI2 :eel 34 'iνXΙ4 .te5 35 'iνΙ5 1i'a7 36 g6

36,..:gl+? Black misses his chance. Mter 36 ... :hl! 371i'xf7+ 1i'xf7 38 gxf7 ~xf7 39 .tg6+ Φθ7 40 ~f3 :c2 41 :e3 :d2 his counterplay must be strong enough to save the game. 37ΦΙ3 :gf1

37 ... 1i'xf2+ doesn't work, for example 38 ~xf2 :cf1 + 39 Φθ2 :el+ 40 ~d2 :dl+ 41 Φc2 :cl+ 42 Φb3 :bl + 43 Φa4, and White wins.

38 :12 :c4 39 :e3 1i'b7 40 1txe5! Black resigned. Game 25

Romero - Salov Wijk aan Zee 1992

The Sicilian Sveshnikov ίδ now a rare guest ίη Valery Salov's games but it was his favourite weapon in junior tournaments some 16-18 years ago. 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 lbc3 e6 4 d4 cxd4 5 lbxd4lbf6 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .tf4 e5 8 .tg5 a6 9 lba3 b5 10 .txf6 gxf6 I1lbd5 Ι5 12 g3 fxe4 13 .tg2 .te6 14 .txe4 .tg7 15 1i'h5 :c8 16 c3 lbe7 17 :dl :c5 This leads to sharper play than 17...lbxd5 18 .txd5 'it'd7 (see Chapter 5, Section 1). 18 lbb4 'it'b6 19 'it'g5! Φf8 20 'it'e3 h5 21 lbd3?! 21lbxa6? doesn't work ίη view of21 ... .th6! but the continuation 21 ο-ο!? J..h6 22 'iνf3 deserves serious attention (Salov). The text move wins an exchange but Black obtains excellent compensation for the sacrificed material. 21".:c6 22 .txc6 'iνxc6 23 f3 .th6 24 'iνf2 a5 25 ο-ο h4 26 g4 lbd5 27lbc2 h3 28lbcl? (D) White intends to play lbcl-e2g3 but fails and ends up ίη a hopeless position. According to Salov, 28 'it'e2 was necessary. 28".J..g5! The manoeuvre of this bishop to b6 proves fatal for White.

Plαy

like α Grαndmaster

147

Black defends very accurately. Ifnow 22 IIxb7 Φxb7 23 IIbl + then 23 ... Φa8 24 'ii'b3 ttJc6 25 'ii'a4+ ttJa7, e.g. 26 'ii'b3 i.a6 27 ttJd7 ttJc6 28 'ii'e6 i.b7 29 J:ιb6 'ii'c7 30 'ii'e8+ Φa7, and Black wins. 22 ttJe8!

29 ttJe2 i.d8 30 r.t>hl i.b6 31 'ii'g3 b4 32 ttJcd41 This desperate sacrifice hastens White's defeat, but what could οnθ advise instead? 32•••exd4 33 ttJxd4 i.xd4 34 IIxd4 bxc3 35 bxc3 Φe7 36 g51 ttJe3 37 1If2 ttJf5 38 'ii'f4 IIh4 White resigned.

Game26

Meister υSSR

Kharloν 1990

1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 5 ttJc3 e5 6 ttJdb5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 ttJa3 b5 9 i.xf6 gxf6 10 ttJd5 f5 11 i.xb5 axb5 12 ttJxb5 :a4 13 b4!? Itxb4 14 ttJbc7 + <iPd7 15 ο-ο :b7 16 'ii'h5 :Xc7 17 'ii'xf7 + ttJe7 18 ttJf6 +? This sharp line ίΒ described ίn Chapter 5, Section 2. Instead of the text move, White should play 18 ttJb6+! <iPc619 lIabl. 18•••Φc6 19 lIabl (threatening a mate ίn one!) 19••• d5! 20 c4 d4! 21 c511b7

22 •••lIga! This rook not only attacks but can also take part ίn the defence after ...:g8-g6. 23 'ii'c4 23 IIxb7 <iPxb7 24 IIbl + r.t>a725 IIb6 1Ig6! (Κharlov) or 23 'ii'f6+ Φd7 24 c6+ ttJxc6 25 'ii'f7 + 'ii'e726 ttJf6+ <iPd8 27 'ii'd5+ 'ii'd6 28 ttJxg8 :xbl 29 IIxbl ~θ6 ίΒ also insufficient. 23 •••'ii'a5 24 J:ιb6+ :Xb6 25 cxb6+ Φxb6 26 IIbl + ΦΒ7 White's attack has been parried, so the game is over. 27 ttJd6 i.a6 28 'ii'e6 'ii'c7 29 'ii'xe5 <iPa8! 30 exf5 'ii'c6 31 ttJe4 i.b7 32 f3 ttJd5 33 'ii'xd4 'ii'c2. White resigned. Α good illustration of the risk that White takes ίn playing 11 i.xb5.

148

ΤΜ

Sveshnikov Sicilian

Game27

Ivanchuk - Kramnik Novgorod 1994

1 e4 c5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li)xd4 li)f6 5 li)c3 e6 6 li)db5 d6 7 ~f4 e5 8 ~g5 a6 9 li)a3 b5 10 ~x:f6 gx:f6 llli)d5 ~g7 12 c3 f5 13 exf5 ~XΙ5 14 ~2 li)e7 This move ίs considered inaccurate (see Chapter 6, Section 2). The present game ίβ one of the reasons. 15 ~d3!? ~d5 16 ~XΙ5 li)e7 17 '6'g4 ο-ο 18 :dl d5 19 li)e3 d4?! Black intends to solve his problems ίη tactical fashion. After 19 ...:a7 20 ~c2! White would only have maintained a very small advantage.

along the d-file ίβ Black's best chance. 25 ~xa6 :fd8 26 "xb5 :d2+ 27 ~g3 e4 28 :el! li)g6 Οτ 28 ...:8d3+ 29 "xd3 exd3 30 1he7 'iitf8 31 :d7 with a clear edge for White (Ftaι!nik). 29 :e2 ~e5+ 30 ~f2 1Id131 :el :8d2+? Black should have avoided the exchange of rooks: 31 ...:1d2+!? 32 ~gl ~g7! with the idea of ...~f6 and ...li)f4 (Ftaι!ηίk). After the text move White wins easίly. 32 φα 1hel + 33 ΦχeΙ hg2 34 ~c8 f4 35 ~f5! ~f6 36 ~xe4 1hh2 37 a4 li)e5 38 a5 f3 39 a6 :hl + 40 Φd2. Black exceeded the time limit.

Game28

Topalov -lllescas Lίnares

20 ~e4! dxe3!? 21 :Xd8 exf2+ 22 ςJ;>xf2 :axd8 23 "e2 f5 24 ~b7! :d7 24 ... :d6 was insufficient owing to 25 :dl! :fd8 26 1:xd6 :'xd6 27 g4! οτ 27 c4!. The doubling of rooks

1995

1 e4 c5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li)xd4 li)f6 5 li)c3 e5 6 li)db5 d6 7 ~g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 ~x:f6 gx:f6 10 li)d5 ~g7 11 c3 f5 12 exf5 ~XΙ5 13li)c2 ο-ο 14li)ce3 ~e6 15 ~d3 f5 16 ~c2 ~h6 Black starts an aggressive plan, which fails due 10 his weak Ροβί tion ίη the centre. 16 ...:f7 ίβ probably Black's best option (see Chapter 6, Section 2). 170-0 :a7 17 ... f4 can be answered by 18 "h5 "g5 19 "xg5+ ~xg5 20 ~7 (Ftaι!nik).

18 f4 ~4 19 g3 :g7?

Plαy

like α Grαndmαster

'This backfires badly' (Fta~nik) but after 19 .....h3 20 a4! White is better anyway.

20 lbc7! 'Illescas was shocked by this surpήsing jump, as he must have had this position οη the board at home!' (Fta~nik). 20•••exf4 20 ... Jhg3+ 21 hxg3 "xg3+ 22 lbg2 ΊS hopeless, of course. 21lbg2 'inι3 22 ]hf4! .*.ΧΙ4 22 ...:Xc7, gίvίng up the queen (23 :'h4), was probably more tenacious. 23lbxf4 1b:g3+ 24 ~hl! "h6 25 ":x:d6 Black resigned. Game 29 Adams - Saloν Dortmund 1992

1 e4 c5 2lbf3lbc6 3 d4 c:x:d4 4 lb:x:d4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 .*.g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 .*.:x:f6 g:x:f6 10 lbd5 .*.g7 11 c3 Ι5 12 e:x:f5 .*.xf5 13 lbc2 ο-ο 14 lbce3 .*.e6

149

15 g3 lbe7 16 .*.12 :'b8 17 ο-ο lb:x:d5 18 .*.:x:d5! That's the reason why the move order Black opted for ίn this game ίβ inaccurate. He should either do without ...lbc6-e7 (see Chapter 6, Section 2) or continue with 13 ... .*.e6 14 lbce3 lbe7 and 15 ... lbxd5, forcing 16 lbxd5 (Section 3). 18••• ~h8 19 a4.*.h6! Black understandably wants to exchange White's strong knight ... 20 a:x:b5 a:x:b5? ... but then suddenly doesn't! 20 ....*.xe3! 21 fxe3 .*.xd5 22 "xd5 :'xb5 23 "d2 a5 would have yielded White only a small edge (Adams) but now things turns out much worse for Black.

21lbc2! Occupying the b4 point - see the commentary to Game 11. The a-file is another factor ίη White's favour. 21 .....d7 22 :a6 .*.h3 23 :el .*.g5 24 lbb4 .*.d8 25 .*.e4! .*.b6 26 lbd5 Ι5

ΤΜ

150

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

Black ίΒ tryίng to break loose ίη a tactical way. 27 lb:x:b6 'W'd8 28 lbd7! 'if:x:d7 29 ':':x:d6 'W'e7 30 ':'d7 'W'g5 31 J.c2 e4? This 10ses immediately but after 31 ...1'tbe8 White has excellent winning chances anyway. 32 'W'd4+ 'W'f6 33 'W'a7 'W'h6 34 ':'al! b4 35 'W'd4+ 'W'f6 36 :aa7 'W':x:d4 37 c:x:d4 Black resigned. Game 30

Yakovich - Sveshnikov Sochi1986

This ίΒ another classic game by Sveshnikov. 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 c:x:d4 4 lb:x:d4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 J.g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 J.:x:f6 g:x:f6 10 lbd5 Ι5 11 c3 J.g7 12 e:x:f5 J.:x:f5 13lbc2lbe7 14lbce3 J.e6 15 g3 lb:x:d5 16lb:x:d5 ο-ο 17 J.g2 a5 18 ο-ο ':'b8 19 'W'e2 'W'd7 20 :adl Ι5 21 Ι4 'W'f7 22:d2 e4 23 ':'fdl ':'fc8 24 J.h3? This inaccurate move enables Black to complete his plan of pushing forward his d-pawn. 24 tΔe3! was correct (see Chapter 6, Section 3). 24•••1'tc5 25 lbe3 d5 26 g4 Black was threatening 26 ... b4, e.g. 26 lbc2 b4 27 cxb4 ':'xc2! 28 .:.xc2 d4 etc. (Sveshnikov), but the opening of the g-file proves favourable for Black. 26 ••• f:x:g4 27 J.:x:g4 J.:x:g4 28 'W':x:g4

28 ••• ~h8! 29 1hd5 ::x:d5 30 ]hd5 ':'g8 31 ':'g5 'W':x:a2 32 Ι5 Α desperate attempt but the white position ίΒ already 10st. 32••• b4 33 c:x:b4 a4! (this ίΒ a future queen!) 34 Ι6 (34 'W'xe4 J.xb2) 34•••J.:x:f6 35 ]hg8+ 'W':x:g8 36 'W':x:g8+ ~:x:ι8 37 ~η J.:x:b2 38 lbc2 J.e5 39 ~e3 J.:x:h2 40 ~:x:e4 ~7 41 ~Ι5 ~e7. White resigned as he can't prevent both the advance of Black's h-pawn and the breakthrough of Black's king οη the queenside. Game 31

Hjartarson - Krasenkow Malmo 1995

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 c:x:d4 4 lb:x:d4 lbf6 5 lbc3 e5 6 lbdb5 d6 7 J.g5 a6 8 lba3 b5 9 J.:x:f6 g:x:f6 10 lbd5 Ι5 11 e:x:f5 J.:x:f5 12 c3 -'-ι7 13 lbc2 J.e6 14 lbce3 tΔe7 15 g3lb:x:d5 16 ~:x:d5 ο-ο 17 J.g2 a5 18 ο-ο Ι5 19 'W'h5?! b4! This direct attack ίΒ probably Black's best reaction to 'W'h5.

Play like α Grandmaster

151

20:adl 20 cxb4 axb4 21 fub4 ίΒ clearly poor in view of 21 ... e4. 20••• bxc3 21lΔxc3 ':b8 22 b3 e423lbd5 White's knight can easily be pushed from d5; therefore, 23 lbe2 d5 24 lbd4 looks more apΡrΟΡήate.

23 ••• .:b5 24 lbf4 .t.f7 25 "ίi'e2 .l:[c5 Black's rook has taken up a perfect position, and now hίB passed d6 pawn ίΒ going to start its advance. White's οηlΥ chance ίβ to create some counterplay οη the kingside. 26 f3! d5 27 fxe4 fxe4 28 ~hl (28 .t.xe4?? 'ifb6) 28•••.:e8?! 28 ... "ίi'e7 was more accurate, to meet 29 lbh5 with 29....t.e5. 29lbh5! Finally Hjartarson manages to activate his pieces. Of course, 29 .i.xe4?! was poor due to 29 ... "ίi'g5!. 29•••.t.xh5 The g7 bishop ίΒ more precious for Black. 30 "ίi'xh5 ':e5 31 "ίi'f7 + ? This check ίΒ extremely out of place. 31':f5! "ίi'c7 32 .t.h3 would have enabled White to maintain good counterchances. 31 ••• ~h8 32 ':Ι5 (D) 32 .••d4? Black misses an excellent winning chance - 32 ... "ίi'c7!. Since the endgame after 33 "ίi'xc7 .l:[xc7 34 ':xe5 .t.xe5 ίΒ winning for Black (35 ':xd5 doesn't work ίη view ο! 35 ....:c1 + 36 .t.f1 ':xf1 + 37 ~g2

1Σf5

38 g4 1Σg5), White's only possibility to play οη would have been 33 "ίi'h5 (admitting that 31 "ίi'f7 + was a mistake) 33 ... .:c1 34 .t.h3!. Mter the text move White sacήfices the queen to obtain good drawing chances. 33 .t.xe4! 1Σc7 Alas, after 33 ....:xf5 34 .t.xf5 'iVa8+ 35 ~g1 d3!? 36 J:xd3 ':c1 + 37Φf2':c2+ 38~e3.t.h6+ 39~d4

.i.g7 + 40 ~θ3 Black has nothing better than a perpetual check. 34 "xg7 +! ~xι7 35 .1:xe5 lΣd7 36 .t.d3 .:t7 37 ~g2?! An inaccuracy ίη time-trouble. 3 7 ~g1 was correct. 37••:"f6 38 ':e2 (38':f5 "c6+) 38••:"f3 + 39 ~ιl h5! 40 .t.c4 .:f6? Another regrettable omisson. 40 ... h4! 41 gxh4 Φf'8! 42.t.xf7 "ίi'xe2 43 ':f1 ~g7 would have gίven Black good winning chances. 41':e7+I Φι8 Or 41 ... ~h8 42':f1 "ίi'c6 43 ':fe1 with good counterplay. 42 ':del "12+ 43 ~hl "f3+ 44 ~ιl "12+. Draw agreed. Aft.er

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

152

44 ... d3 45 :e8+ ~g7 46 :1e7 + 47 :h8+ both 47 ... Φg5 48 :g8+ :g6? 49 h4+ and 47 ... ~g6 48 :g8+ Φf5? 49 h4leads to a win for. .. White. Φh6

Game 32

Short - Kramnik Novgorod 1995

1 e4 ο5 2 ~f3 ~o6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 ~Ι6 5 ~o3 e5 6 ~db5 d6 7 ~ι5 a6 8 ~ b5 9 ~xf6 gxf6 10 ~d5 ~ι7 11 ο3 f5 12 exf5 ~XΙ5 13 ~c2 ~e6 14 g3 ο-ο 15 ~g2 :b8 16 ο-ο 'ti'd7 17 a4! b4?! Mter this move Black ends up a very passive position but 17 ... bxa4 is not good enough to equalize either (see Chapter 6, Section 3). 18 ~b4lbxb4 19 cxb4 ~xd5 20 ~xd5 :Xb4 21 b3 The difference ίη the strength of the bishops is obvious. Ιη addition, the black a-pawn is quite weak. 21 ...a5 22 'ti'e2 e4 23 :adl 'ii'e7 24 ~o4! (d5 is a perfect square for White's rook) 24•••~h8 25 :d5 Ι5 26JUdl Black's hectic attempts to create counterplay could have been parried by means of 26 f4! (Fta~ nik). 26..•~e5 27 :xaS :b7 28 :ad5 'ii'f6 29 f4 29 a5!? deserved attention, as after the text move White's king becomes more exposed.

29 ••• exf3 30 'ii'xf3 :g7 31 ~hl 'ii'h6 32 :gl .lΣg6?! Losing a tempo. 32 ...:g5 was better. Now White easily Ρarήes Black's threats. 33 :d3 :g5 34 a5 :h5 35 'ii'f2 Ι4 36 g4 :h3 37 :Ι3 :ΧΙ3 38 'ti'xf3 ~d4 39 :dl ~e3 40 a6 'ti'f6 41 'ii'd5? Black's f-pawn now becomes strong. 41 ~d5 or 41 'ii'e4 was better, with a decisive advantage (Κramnik).

ίη

41 ••. f3! 42 "ifxd6 'ti'g7 43 ~d5 44 'ti'b4?! f2 45 ~g2 :e8 46 :η 'ii'e5 Despite his two extra pawns, White now has few chances to win as Black's f2 pawn ties up his pieces. 4 7 ~c6 :e7 48 'ti'd2 ~" 49 b4 :f7 50 b5 ~b6 51 'ii'd5 'ii'f4 52 'ii'e4 'ii'd6 53 ~d5 :e7? But this is poor. 53 ... :f4! 54 'ii'e6 'ti'xe6 55 ~xθ6 h5! 56 gxh5 :b4 57 ~d7 :d4 58 ~c6 :g4 59 ~g2 :g5 would have lead to a draw, according to Short. ~a7

Play like α

Grαndmaster

153

54 'iff5 J.c7?? terrible blunder. 54...:e5 55 1If7 + ~h6 was necessary. 55 'ifg5+. Black resigned. Α

Game33

Topalov - Krasenkow Polanica Zdroj 1995

1 e4 c5 2 tΩf3 tΩc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tΩxd4tΩf6 5tΩc3 e5 6tΩdb5 d6 7 J.g5 a6 8 tΩa3 b5 9 J.xf6 gxf6 10 tΩd5 f5 11 c3 J.g7 12 exf5 J.xf5 13 tΩc2 J.e6 14 g3 ο-ο 15 J.g2 a5 16 ο-ο f5! Abstaining from the time-consuming 16 ...:b8, Black obtains better prospects of counterplay (see Chapter 6, Section 3). 17 'inι5 17 tΩf4 exf4 18 J.xc6 fxg3 19 J.xa8 gxh2+ and 19 hxg3 :c8!? both lead to a double-edged position. 17•••b4! 18tΩce3 bxc3 19 bxc3 Φh8 20 :adl :b8 Only now! 20 ... :c8?! was dubious ίη view of21 J.h3. 21 J.h3 'ifd7 22 f4 e4 (DJ Α position typical of this line has arisen. White's standard plan is the preparation of g3-g4, but first he should have protected the 2nd rank by 23 :f2. 23~hl?

This move is associated with a miscalculation. 23 ••• :b224tΩc4? Mter 24 a4 :a2 Black was betteranyway.

24••• :χ&2 25 tΩde3 Only now did White notice that 25 tΩxd6 fails to 25 ... tΩd4! (or 25 ... J.d4! 26 cxd4 J.xd5 27 "-h6 "-e7 is even simpler) 26 tΩe3 (26 cxd4 J.xd5) 26 ... tΩf3 27 J.g2 tΩd2 28 tΩdc4 J.xc3. 25 tΩdb6 was ίη sufficient, too: 25 ... 'ifc7 26 :Xd6 J.xc4 27 tΩxc4 tΩe7 28 :e6 'ifd7! 29 :d6 'ilc8 30 tΩe3 "xc3 31 J.xf5 tΩxf5 32 tΩxf5 'ifc5 33 g4 e3, and Black wins. Mter the text move he is simply a pawn up. 25...J.f7! The most accurate reply. 25 ... d5 26tΩb6 and 25 ... J.xc4 26tΩxc4 d5 27tΩb6 (27 .....b7? 28 J.xf5! :xf5 29 'ifxf5 'ίi'xb6 30 "c8 +) are much worse. 26 'ίi'ι5 26 J.xf5 J.xh5 27 J.xd7 J.xd1 28 :xd1 leads to a winning endgame for Black, e.g. 28 ... tΩe7 29 tΩxd6 J.xc3 30 tΩxe4 :e2 31tΩxc3 :Xe3 etc. 26 ...J.xc4 27 lί)xc4 d5 28 tΩθ5 28 tΩb6 doesn't work ίη view of 28 ... 'iib7; if28tΩe3 then 28 ... tΩe7. 28...'ife6! 29 g4??

ΤΜ

154

Sveshnikov Siciliαn

Α blunder ~xθ5 30 fxe5

but after 29 :b1 'ii'g6! White's ΡΟΒί tion ίΒ lost as well. 29•••.ixe5 30 fxe5 1Ifxe5 31 .ig2 f4. Wbite resigned. Game 34

with his knight being out of play. 24•• ..ia31 This bishop should be transferred to the perfect c5 square. 25 .ixa6 .ic5 26 ~Ιl 1:tb8 27 .ic4?1 27 ~g3 was more tenacious.

Stefansson - Krasenkow Gausda/1991

1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~d4 ~f6 5 ~c3 e5 6 ~db5 d6 7 .ig5 a6 8 ~a3 b5 9 .ixf6 gxf6 10 ~d5 f5 11 .id3 .ie6 12 ο-ο .ixd5 13 exd5 ~e7 14 c4 .ig7 1511fd2 bxc4 16 ~c4 ο-ο 17 f41 This 10ss of time leads to very serious consequences for White. 17 :ac1 or 17 Aad1 was correctsee Chapter 7, Section 2. 17•••e4 18 .ie2 :b8 Both 19 ... .ixb2 and 19 ... Ab5 are threatened. 19 Aabl :b5 20 ~e3 'iVb61 21 ~hl

After 21 .ixb5 .id4 22 :fe1 23 ~h1 ~xθ3 24.ie2 (24 .ixa6?! ~g4) 24 ... d5 Black's advantage ίΒ obvious. After the text move Black wins a pawn and liquidates to the endgame. Although White eventually manages to restore the mateήal balance, Black's strong e-pawn yields him a huge positional advantage. 21 ..•:xb2 22 :xb2 'iVxb2 23 'iVxb2 .ixb2 24 :dl After 24 ~4 .id4! 25 ~xd6 :d8 26 ~b7 :xd5 27 .ixa6 .ia7 White has few chances to survive ~xd5

27...:b41 strong move that sets White serious problems. As 28 .ib3 e3 ίΒ poor, he has to tie his rook to the defence of the bishop. 28 :cl ~g71 Black's general plan ίΒ to provoke g2-g3 and then play ... e4-e3 and ... :b4-b2. However, White ίΒ completely passive ΒΟ Black need not hurry. ΗίΒ idea ίΒ now to protect his only weakness, the f5 pawn. 28 ... ~g6 29 g3 e3 was not clear ίη view of 30 .id3! Ad4 (30 ... Ab2 31 :e1) 31 .ie2 :xd5 32 :d1. 29 h3 ~f6 30 g4 Despair. 30 ~g3 .ie3 and 30 g3 :b2 were hopeless. 30••• ~g6 31 g5+ (31 ~g3 ~xf4 32 ~xf5 e3) 31 •.• ~g7 32 ~ι3 Α

Play like α Grandmaster tΔxI4 33 tΔxI5+ Φι6 tΔd31 35 .i.xd3

155

34 tΔι3

35 :c2 :b1 + 36 Φh2 tΔe1 and 35 :c3 :b1+ 36 Φh2 :b2+ 37 Φh1 tΔf2+ lose at once. 35••• exd3 36 :dl :d4 37 a4 .i.b4 38 Φg2 Φχι5 39 Φf3 :f4+ 40 Φg2 d2 41 tΔfi :e4 White resigned βΒ after 42 Φf3 1:te1 43 tΔθ3 .i.c5 he loses a piece. This is probably my best Sveshnikov game so far.

Game35 Tseshkoνsky -

Krasenkow

Voskresensk 1992

1 e4 c5 2 tΔf3 tΔc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tΔxd4 tΔf6 5 tΔc3 e5 6 tΔdb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 tΔa3 b5 9 .i.:xf6 gxf6 10 tΔd5 f5 11 .i.d3 .i.e6 12 ο-ο .i.xd5 13 exd5 tΔe7 14 c3 .i.g7 15 "b5 e4 16 .i.c2 "c8 17 :ael b4 This variation is described in Chapter 7, Section 2. The text move looks very strong but Vitaly Tseshkovsky, οηθ of today's most creative players, finds a fantastic attacking possibility. 19 cxb4! .i.xb2 20 :e3 f61 (D) Of course not 20....i.xa3? 21 :h3. But now it seems that White has nothing better than a perpetual after 21 :g3+ tΔg6 22 J:xg6+ ... 21 g411.i.xa3 22 gxf5:f7 There is ηο other way to defend against the threat of 23 :g1 + Φh8 24 "xh7+!. 22 .....xf5? 23 :g1+ Φh8 24 "xf5 tΔxf5 25 ha3 ο-ο 18Φb1

:fe8 26 f3leads to a lost endgame forBlack. 23 :gl + 11g7 24 :Xg7 + Φxg7 25:xa3?! This lets the white advantage slip. 25 1%g3+ wascorrect: 25 ... Φh8 26 "f7 'ίi'f8 27 "xf8+ :xf8 28 ha3 tΔxd5 29 .i.xe4 tΔxb4 30 :a4 d5 31 .i.f3 :b8 32 a3 tΔd3 33 .i.xd5 tΔxf2 + 34 Φg2 and White has a slightly better endgame. 25 •• :iVxc2 26 :g3+ tΔιβ! 27 fxg6 b6 28 'ίi'f5 :a7 29 Φg2 :e7 30a3 30 :g4 'ίi'd3 31 h4 doesn't succeed due to 31 .....d4 32 :f4 "e5 33 h5 "xf5 34 :xf5 e3! 35 fxe3 he3 36 :f3 :e5, equalizing. 30•••'ίi'c7 31 b4 :e5 32 "f4 'iνc4 33 'ίi'e3 1Ie7 34 :e5 35 "e3 Draw agreed.

"d2

Game36 Sνeshnikoν - Vyzmanaνin Moscow 1987

Sveshnikov against the Sveshnikov! This is always interesting.

ΤΜ

156

Sveshnikov Sicilian

1 e4 c5 2 lΔΙ3 lΔc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lΔxd4 lΔf6 5 lΔc3 e5 6 lΔdb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 lΔa3 b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10 lΔd5 Ι5 11 .i.d3 .i.e6 12 'A'b5 .i.g7 13 0-0 Ι4 14 c4! It ίΒ this strong move that forced the old 12 ... .i.g7line out of fashion (see Chapter 7, Section 3). 14••• bxc4 15 .i.xc4 ο-ο 16 :acl :b8 17 b3 "d7 18 :fdl ~h8 19 "h4 .i.xd5 For a long time this line was considered satisfactory for Black, but the present game changed that conclusion. 20 .i.xd5! lΔd4

White ίΒ practically a pawn up this endgame. Sveshnikov confidently realίzes his advantage. 27 :dcl :e7 28 ~η a5 29 IIc8+ :xc8 30 ]hcS+ <Jig7 31 Φe2 Ι3+ 32 ~XΙ3 :Ι7 + 33 ~e2 .i.xh2 34 lIaβ .i.gl 35 Ι3 :c7 35 ... d3+ 36 ~xd3 :a7 ίΒ hopeless: 37 :xa7 + .i.xa7 38 Φc4 .i.c5 39 ~b5 .tb4 40 a3 .td2 41 b4 axb4 42 a4 etc. (Sveshnikov) 36 :xa5 .i.e3 37 :d5 1Icl 38 :xd6 :al 39 a4 :&2 + 40 ~d3 lIxg2 41 a5. Black resigned. ίn

Game 37

TodoroviG - Geo. Timoshenko Pu/a 1988

21 :c4! Ι5 21 ... f3 ίΒ now answered by 22 1Δc2!, for example 22 ... lΔe2+ 23 ~f1 lΔf4 24 gxf3, followed by 25 lΔe3, with a clear edge for White (Sveshnikov). 22 lΔc2 fxe4?! This leads to a very bad ΡΟΒί tion for Black. Accordίng to Sveshnikov, 22 ... lΔxc2 was better. 23 lΔxd4 exd4 24 .i.xe4 .i.e5 25 'A'b5 " " 26 :xf7

"xf7

Georgy Timoshenk.o often trίθB unusual, even controversial ideas ίn the Sveshnikov - and not without success. 1 e4 c5 2 lΔΙ3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lΔxd4 lΔf6 5 lΔc3 lΔc6 6 lΔdb5 d6 7 .i.f4 e5 8 .i.g5 a6 9 lΔa3 b5 10 .i.xf6 gxf6 l1lΔd5 Ι5 12 .i.d3 .i.e6 13 "h5 .i.g7 14 ο-ο Ι4 15 c4 bxc4 16 .i.xc4 ο-ο 17 :acl :b8 18b3 "a5!? This is οnθ of the first games ίn which this move was played. 19lΔc2 19lΔb1! ίΒ

better - see Chapter

7, Section 3. 19.....xa2 20 'it'dl lΔf6+

20 "h4 h6! 21 .i.xffl 22 "xf6 .i.xc4 23 "xh6.bfl24 "g5+ leads to a draw (Geo. Timoshenk.o).

Play ΙίΜ α Grαndmaster

20 •• :.a5 21 ':al 'ifc5 22 ':xa6 23 l[)el1 White underestimates the possibilities ofhίs opponent, allowing Black's knight the strategίcally important d4 point. Mter 23 'ti'a1 the position would have remaίned roughly equal, e.g. 23 ... f5 24 'ti'a4 lΣfc8 25 l[)b6 Jhb6 26 ~xθ6 Jha6 27 'ti'xa6 ':b8 28 1ΙΜ3. 23 ••• l[)d4 24 ~d3 'ii'c8 25 :Xd6 Whίte has won a pawn ...

Game 38

Φh8

25 •••f3! ... but is now going to lose his kίng!

26 gxf3 It ίβ interesting that the same moves were made ίη another game by Geo. Timoshenko (8. YanovskyGeo. Timoshenko, Moscow 1988) when White chose another way to lose: 26 ~θ1 fxg2 27 ~g2 ~g4 28 ~θ7 ~xd1 29 ~xc8 ~θ2! and so οη.

26 ••• ~xd5 27 ':xd5 'ifh3 28 ':xd4 ':b6! 29 ~Ι4 exf4 30 ':d6 ~e5 Whίte resigned.

157

Brodsky - Kramnik Herson 1991

1 e4 c5 2 ~Ι3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 l[)f6 5 ~c3 e5 6 ~db5 d6 7 ~g5 a6 8 ~ b5 9 ~xf6 μι6 10 ~d5 Ι5 11 ~d3 ~e6 12 'ifh5 lΣg8

13 0-0-01! This is not a good idea, gίvίng up the g2 pawn and castlίng 'into' an attack. 13••..1:xg2 14 Ι41 14 'iff3 is relatively better - see Chapter 7, Sectίon 4. After the text move Black' s g2 rook becomes an A-bomb. 14•••l[)d4! This is a typical manoeuvre after White's queenside castlίng. 15 c3 can now be met with 15... ~xd5 16exd5 Μ!. 15l[)e3:f2 16 exf5 16 l[)xf5 ~xf5 17 exf5 ':xf4 is clearly favourable for Black. 16 ':hf1!? (to get ήd of the bomb) was Whίte's best chance . 16•••~xa2! 17 fxe5 17 ~g4 or 17 ':hf1 were already too late οη account of 17 ... ':c8. 17••• dxe5 18 ~b5 (D) What now? 18... axb5 19.i.xb5+ is unclear. .. 18••• ~h6!! Α terrible blow. 19 'ifxh6 leads to a mate after 19... :Xc2+!!. 19 ':hel axb5 20 ~xb5+ Or 20 'ifxh6 ~c4! 21 Μ :a1 + 22 Φb2 ':a2 + 23 ~b1 'ifa8, and wins (Tseshkovsky and Κramnίk).

ΤΜ

158

Sveshnikov Siciliαn Game 39

Luther - Shirov Germany 1992

1 e4 c5 2 ~xd4 ~Ι6

20••• ~e7 21 'iνh4+ 21 f6+ 1hf6 22 'iνxe5+ :e623 'iνc5 + 'iνd6 and βΟ on. (Tseshkovsky,

Κramnik).

21 ••.f6 22 'iνxf2 White has captured Black' s most dangerous piece but still he can't defend his king. 22.. if7! 23 j,d3 23 b3 loses after the continuation 23 ... 'iνβ5 24 j,a4 'iνc3! 25 ~b1 (if25 :d3, then 25 ... lΩxb3+!) 25 ...:xa4 26 bxa4 'iνb4+ 27 ~c1 'iνβ3 + 28 c;i;>d2 j,h5! with inesistible threats. 23...1i'b6! 24 j,e4 24 c3 :a1 + 25 j,b1 j,a2! and 24 b3 'iνb4 are equally hopeless. 24...:a2 25 c4 (25 c3 :a1 + 26 j,b1 j,a2) 25 ... j,xc4 26 ..tbl 'iνa5 26 ...:a1+! 27 ~xβ1 'iνβ6+ 28 c;i;>bl j,a2+ 29 c;i;>c1 'iνc4+ 30 j,c2 ~b3 mate was probably more

~Ι3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 5 ~c3 ~c6 6 ~db5

d6 7 j,f4 e5 8 j,g5 a6 9 ~a3 b5 10 j,xf6 gxf611 tM5 f5 12 j,d3 j,e6 13 _h5 :ΙS 14 c3 1:xg2 15 'iνf3 :g4 16 exf5 j,xd5 17 'iνxd5 ~e7 18 'ifb7 j,h6 19 ~c2 ιΜ8 About this line - see Chapter 7, Section4. 20 :dl?! This indifferent move gives the initiative to Black. According to Shirov, 20 ~e3! was conect, e.g. 20 ... j,xe3 21 fxe3 tDg8 22 f6! (otherwise 22 ... tDf6) 22 ... ~xf6 23 :η :b8 24 'iff3 e4 25 'ifxf6 'iνxf6 26 1hf6 exd3 27 0-0-0, and a draw ίβ not far away. 20 ...:b8 21 'iνf3 :f4 22 'iνh3 j,g5 23 tDe3 e4 24 'iνg3?

stήking.

27 ω5+ j,xd5 28 'iνxd4:aι + 29 ~c2 1:xdl 30 'iνxdl '6'a4+ 31 ~c3, and White resigned without waiting for 31 ... 'iνc4 mate. Α great game!

Α decisive mistake. 24 j,e2 was essential, with unclear play after 24 ... h6 (24 ... d5? ίβ poor ίη view of

Plαy

like α Grαndmαster

25 "xh7! 1Ih4 26 .th5 or 25 ... 'ii'b6 2611gl). 24 ••• ~XΙ5! 25 ~XΙ5 1ΙΧΙ5 26 .txe4 'ife7 27 ο-ο 27 1Id4 .th4 and 27 "xd6 "xd6 28 1Ixd6 1Ie8 29 1Id4 1If4 30 f3 f5 31 1Id5 J.h4+ are hopeless, too (Shirov) . . 27 ••• 'ifxe4! 28 "xd6+ Φι7 29 'ii'xb8 .tf4 White resigned.

Game40 Kasparoν Lίnares

- Saloν 1992

1 e4 c5 2 ~f3 ~c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ~xd4 ~f6 5 ~c3 e5 6 ~db5 d6 7 J.g5 a6 8 ~ b5 9 .txf6 gxf6 10 ~d5 f5 11 .td3 .te6 12 "h5 .l:.g8 13 g3 1Ic8?! This move is not considered very promising for Black (see Chapter 7, Section 4). The present game is largely responsible for this conclusion. 14 c3 11g6 15 ~2 It now turns out that Black's idea of capturing White's queen (15 ... fxe4 16 .txe4 .tg4 17 "xh7 :h6 18 "g8 .te6 followed by 19 ... f5) fails to 17 "h4! "xh4 18 gxh4 f5 19 h5! 1Ig5 20 h4 1Ixh5 21 f3 with a clear advantage for White {indicated by Κasparov). Therefore the whole plan started with 13 ...11c8 proves to be a loss of time. The disconnection of the black rooks and the passivity of his f8 bishop now become decisive factors.

159

15•• .1Σh6 16 "e2 J.xd5 17 exd5 18 f3.tg7 19 ~e3 f4?! This is an ίncοπect pawn sacή fice but after the continuation 19.....d7 20 a4! White's chances are better anyway. 20 gxf4 ~g6 21 ο-ο-ο?! According to Κasparov, White could have safely taken the pawn: 21 fxe5! ~f4 22 'it'd2 "iνh4+ 23 'ittd1 etc. 21 •••~4 22 'it'c2 "b6 23 ~f5 11g6 Κasparov considers that Black should have exchanged White's strong bishop by 23 ... tDxd3+ 24 1i'xd3 11g6, but it is far from easy to give up such a knight! 24 .te4 b4 25 c4 Φf8 25 ... 11g2 doesn't work ίn view of 26 11d2 1Σxd2 27 Φxd2 . 2611d2 :oo? After 26 ...h5! (Κasparov) White's advantage ίΒ mίnimal. ~e7

27~ι3

27.....c7 Black agrees to give up his 'bad' rook for the white bishop. White

160

The Sveshnikov Sicilian

should have accepted this sacή fice, according to Κasparov, e.g. 28 i.xg6 hxg6 29 b3 f5 30 h4. Still, 30 ... 'iνe7 31 h5 'iνf6 with the idea of 32 ...e4 would have given Black some counterplay. 28 <ili>bl!1 i.h6 If 28 ... ':xc4 then 29 ':cl! .:xc2 30 Adxc2 'iνb6 31 i.xg6! followed by 32 ':c8 + (Κasparov). 29 'iνb31 29 i.xg6 was still possible, e.g. 29 ... ~xg6 30 b3! i.xd2 31 'iνxd2 with a decisive advantage (Κas parov). 29•••.:g71 Α strange reaction, as 29 ... .:xc4 was more appropriate. After the text move White liquidates into a favourable endgame. 30 ~f5 .:ιβ 31 'iνxb4 ':xc4 32 'iνxc4! 'iνxc4 33 Ac2 'iνxc2 + 34 hc2:161

Salov has ηο luck with this rook. was time to bring his bishop into the game (34 ... i.g5). 35 ~e3! ~e2 36 ~g4 ~d4+ 37 <ili>d3 ':f4 38 ~xh6 <ili>g7 39 Ιt

~hf7

White has won a pawn but it is still not so easy for him to realize his material advantage. 40 ':fl ':b7 41 b3 a5 42 f4 Ab4 43 fxe5 dxe5 44 ':cl1 According to Κasparov, 44 ':gl +! was winning, e.g. 44 ... <iI;>f6 45 i.xh 7 ~b5 46 ':g6+ <ili>f7 47 ':a6 or 44 ... 'itrf7 45 ':g5! 'itrf6 46 ':h5 a447 'iιtc3. After the text move Black is still alive. 44•••~b5 45 Ac6 <ili>f7 46 'iιte3 46 i.xh7! ':h4 47 i.g6+ <ili>g748 i.e4 or 46 ... ':d4+ 47 <ili>e3 ':xd5 48 h4 must have been good enough to win the game. Κasparov fails to display a champion's technique ίn this game and eventually lets the victory slip. 46 ••• <iIi>e7 47 i.xh7 ':h4 48 i.d3 ~d6 49 ':c7 + 'iιtd8 50 ':h 7 Ad4 51 h41! ':g4! 52 h5 1:g3+ 53 'iιtd2 ':g2+ 54 'iιtel e4 55 i.e2 ~f5 56 ':f7 ~d4 57 i.fl ':h2 58 :14 ~c2+ 59 'iιtdl ~e3+ 60 'itrel ~c2+ 61 <ili>dl ~e3+ Draw agreed. This game illustrates the problems Black can encounter ίn the 12 ... ':g8 line.

ΜΙΚΗΑΙΙ KRASENKOν Internαtionαl Grαndmαster

The Sveshnikov

νaήatίοη

of the Sicilian Defence leads

to dynamic positions with free piece play and provides eηterpήsίηg

players with the type of active game

which they can thrive . It became fashionable

ίη

οη

the

1970s under the influence of Evgeny Sveshnikov and other grandmasters from Chelyabinsk, and has remained at the cutting edge of opening theory ever since.

Ιη

recent years it has been a favourite of the

exciting young stars Vladimir Kramnik and Alexei Shirov, and of the author himself, all of whom have introduced important new ideas. This book provides the most comprehensive and upto-date coverage of the Sveshnikov Sicilian available. It focuses

οη

currently fashionable variations and

provides club and toumament players with everything they need to know to play the opening with confidence as White or Black. Leam the secrets of the lIlost exponents! )r of The Open

Spαnish .