Opening Survey

B22: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 by GM Sveshnikov (Part I)

Its history and primary objectives

By GM Evgeny Sveshnikov

The move 2.c3 in the Sicilian Defense is quite

young. It was mentioned for the first time in the
1840s in contrast with the continuations 2.b4 and
2.f4 that had already been analyzed by J. Greco in
1620; that is, more than two hundred years earlier.
Let us start with the earliest known games.
POPERT - STAUNTON
London 1841
1.e4 c5 2.c3 e6?! 3.Nf3 d5 4.e5!? (the transposition
to the French Defence, Advance Variation: 3.e5) 4...Nc6
According to modern chess theory, more promising is 4...d4!?
5.d4 Qb6 6.Bd3 Bd7 (more exact is 6...cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7) 7.Bc2?! (much stronger
is 7.dxc5! Bxc5 8.0-0, with advantage to White) 7...Rc8?!
Correct is 7...cxd4 8.cxd4 Nb4, and 9.Bb3?! is followed by 9Bb5!, hence White
would have traded his Bishop off, accepting a slightly worse position after 9.0-0
Nxc2 10.Qxc2.
8.0-0 (8.dxc5) 8...a5 (8...cxd4) 9.a4

Black to move

9g6?
This is a gross positional error. Black must play
9...cxd4=.
10.dxc5! Bxc5 11.Na3 f6 (what else?) 12.exf6
Nxf6 13.Nb5 0-0 14.Bh6 Ng4?
Stauntons question mark. Of course, the
exchange sacrifice here is not forced. More
stubborn is 14...Rf7, and all the struggle is ahead.
15.Bxf8 Bxf2+ 16.Kh1 Rxf8 17.Qe2
(threatening 18.h3) 17Bc5 18.Nfd4! (the
decisive maneuver) 18Rxf1 19.Rxf1 e5?!

Active, but not good.

20.Qf3! (Stauntons mark) 20...Nd8 21.Qxd5 Be6 22.Nxe6 Nxe6 23.Bb3. Black
resigned.

In this game, we see almost contemporary strong play by White and quite poor
Black play. The future chess classicist Howard Staunton (1810-1874) obviously
had insufficient experience playing such positions then. There were no computers
in those days and few chess books. To learn meant to accumulate ones own
experience; chess players became strong in ripe old age. The exception is Morphy,
but in his case we should remember that his father and uncle were strong chess
players and thanks to them, Morphy achieved outstanding success at the age of 21.
The move 2.c3 soon crossed the Channel.
SHULTEN SAINT AMANT
Paris 1842
1.e4 c5 2.c3 e5?!
When A. Filipenko showed this move on the sessions of GM A. Panchenkos
School (he taught nearly half of Russia to play this way!) he didnt even suspect
that more than a hundred years ago, the move was made by the talented French
chess player, Pierre Charles Saint Amant (1800-1873).
3.f4?!
A tribute to the spirit of the time. In our days, the other half of Russia, one that has
followed my advice, prefers 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4! In order to refute the Ng5 lunge
with Nd8, Black has to make the ugly move 4...Qc7, but this just amounts to the
lost of tempo and further weakening of the d5-point.
3...d6 (3...exf4!?) 4.Nf3 exf4 5.d4 Nf6 6.Bd3 Be7
Black plays very simply, without ambitions, and Shulten manages to obtain an
advantage in the center and in development.
7.Bxf4 0-0 8.Nbd2 Nc6 9.0-0 Bg4

White to move

10.e5?
There is not a single reason for opening the game
in the center. White has better prospects after the
simple 10.h3.
10...dxe5 11.dxe5??
Saint Amants question marks. He recommended
11.Bxe5. In my opinion, this also cannot save
White, because he loses a pawn.
11...Nh5 12.Bxh7+ Kxh7 13.Ng5 Bxg5 14.Qxg4
Nxf4 (-+ Saint Amant) 15.Ne4 Ne6 16.Qh5 Kg8
17.Rad1 Qe7 18.Rd7?! Qxd7 19.Nf6 gxf6 20.

Rxf6 Bxf6. 0-1

We should not judge our predecessors too rigorously, for they had no
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings and no coaches who could point out their
mistakes. They had to grasp everything only in their own experience -- if there had
not been those ancient GMs, there would have not been the present ones.

After a few games, the move 2.c3 had been forgotten by the chess elite. The reason
is quite obvious, because in those romantic days the sharp gambit openings were
popular. Tradition demanded that the opponent be crushed, not simply outplayed.
Sometimes the advance e2c3 occurred on move 3: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3, which is
even more logical, in my opinion. Here is the first historical example.
SUHLE - ANDERSSEN
Berlin 1864
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3 Ne6 4.d4 d5 5.exd5 (better is 5.e5!) 5...exd5 (5...Qxd5?!) 6.
Be2 (6.Bb5!?; 6.Be3) 6...Nf6 7.0-0 cxd4 8.cxd4 Be7 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Be3 Bd6 11.
Qd2 Be6 12.Ng5 Bf5 13.f4 Re8 14.h3 Rc8

15.Nf3?!
More energetic is 15.g4!? Ne4 16.Ngxe4 Bxe4
17.Nxe4 Rxe4 18.Bf3, retaining a slight edge.
15...Ne4 16.Nxe4 Bxe4 17.a3 Na5 18.Rac1 Nb3
19.Rxc8 Qxc8 20.Qe1 Bxf3 21.Rxf3 Qc2 22.
Bb5 Re7 23.Rf2 Qe4 24.Qc3 g6 25.Re2 Qb1+
26.Re1 Qa2 27.Ba4 Na1 28.b4 b5! 29.Rxa1
Qc4 30.Qxc4 dxc4 31.Bxb5 Rxe3 32.Bxc4 Bxf4
33.d5 Kf8 34.Bb5 Bg3! 35.Bc6 Ke7 36.a4 Kd6
37.b5 Re1+ 38.Rxe1 Bxe1= with a draw on
White to move
move 56.
The grandiose tournament in Vienna became the principal one for the system 1.e4
e5 2.c3. There, one of its participants had played a couple of interesting games on
our subject.
ALAPIN - SCHIFFERS
Vienna 1898
1.e4 c5 2.c3 e6 3.d4 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nf6?! (better is 5...Nc6) 6.Bb5+ Nc6
7.0-0 cd 8.Re1+ Be7 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.Qe2 Nxd4 11.cxd4 Bxb5 12.Qxb5+ Qd7 13.
Nc3 Qxb5 14.Nxb5 Kd7 15.a3 a6 16.Nc3 Rac8 17.Bg5 Rc4 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.
Nxd5 Rxd4 20.Nxf6+ gxf6 21.Rad1 Rxd1 22.Rxd1+
The opening has transposed directly into an endgame that is favorable for White.
Now a precise realization of the advantage follows.

22...Kc6? (more stubborn is 22...Ke6) 23.Rd3!

Re8 24.Kf1 Re5 25.Rf3 f5 26.Rh3 a5 27.Rxh7
Rb5 28.Rxf7 Rxb2 29.Rf6+! Kb5 30.Rxf5+
Ka4 31.g4! Rc2 32.g5 b5 33.g6 Rc8 34.h4 b4 35.
axb4 axb4 36.Rf7+- b3 37.Ra7 Kb4 38.Rb7
Kc3 39.g7 b2 40.h5 Ra8 41.h6 Ra1 42.Kg2 Ra8
43.h7 Ra7 44.h8Q. Black resigned.
ALAPIN - TARRASCH
Vienna 1898
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Qa5?
Black to move
It is striking, but even Tarrasch himself made
such a move! Black cannot even equalize with such lunges, let alone refute the
system.
3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Na3
The game Sveshnikov - Kupreichik (USSR Cup, Kiev 1984) proceeded with: 4.
a3!? (even better is 4.Bc4!) 4e6 5.d4 Nxd4! 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.b4 Qc7 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.
Bd3 d5 10.e5 Nd7 11.Ra2, with a clear advantage for White.
4...e6 5.Nc4
Too straightforward. 5.Be2 seems good, followed by 6.0-0 then d2d4 with
advantage for White.
5...Qc7 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4
7.cxd4 is preferable for White, retaining a slight edge after 7...d5 8.exd5 exd5 9.
Nce5.
7...a6 8.Bd3 b5 9.Ne3 Nf6 10.0-0 Bb7
Black has comfortably deployed his forces, thus solving all his opening problems.
Now Tarrasch, the winner of the tournament, skillfully outplays Alapin.
11.Nf3 Bd6! 12.Re1 Ne5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Nf1 0-0 15.Qe2
A solid but passive continuation.
15...Bc6 16.Bg5 Rfe8 17.Qe3 h6 18.Bh4 Nh5 19.Bg3 Nf4 20.Bc2 g5 21.Nd2 Qd8
22.Nf3 f6 23.Nxe5 fxe5 24.f3 Kh8!
Blacks advantage is growing. He is about to launch the attack on the K-side.
25.Qc5 Qf6 26.Qd6 Rg8 27.a4 Raf8

28.Bd3?!
White should immediately start the counter play
by 28.axb5!? axb5 29.c4!? bxc4 30.Ra5.
28...h5! 29.axb5 axb5 30.Rf1?! h4 31.Bxf4 gxf4
32.Kf2 Rg5 33.Rh1 h3 34.gxh3 Rfg8 35.Ke1
Rg2 36.Be2 Bxe4!-+ 37.fxe4 f3 38.Bf1 Rg1.
White resigned.

White to move

The move 2.c3 in the Sicilian had become associated with the Alapins name.
However, his achievements in this variation were rather modest.

Opening Survey
Sicilian B22: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 by GM Sveshnikov
(Part II)
Its history and primary objectives
By GM Evgeny Sveshnikov

ALAPIN - TARRASCH
Vienna 1898
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Qa5?
It is striking, but even Tarrasch himself made such a move! Black cannot even
equalize with such lunges, let alone refute the system.
3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Na3
The game Sveshnikov - Kupreichik (USSR Cup, Kiev 1984) proceeded with: 4.
a3!? (even better is 4.Bc4!) 4e6 5.d4 Nxd4! 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.b4 Qc7 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.
Bd3 d5 10.e5 Nd7 11.Ra2, with a clear advantage for White.
4...e6 5.Nc4
Too straightforward. 5.Be2 seems good, followed by 6.0-0 then d2d4 with
advantage for White.
5...Qc7 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4
7.cxd4 is preferable for White, retaining a slight edge after 7...d5 8.exd5 exd5 9.
Nce5.
7...a6 8.Bd3 b5 9.Ne3 Nf6 10.0-0 Bb7
Black has comfortably deployed his forces, thus solving all his opening problems.
Now Tarrasch, the winner of the tournament, skillfully outplays Alapin.
11.Nf3 Bd6! 12.Re1 Ne5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Nf1 0-0 15.Qe2
A solid but passive continuation.
15...Bc6 16.Bg5 Rfe8 17.Qe3 h6 18.Bh4 Nh5 19.Bg3 Nf4 20.Bc2 g5 21.Nd2 Qd8
22.Nf3 f6 23.Nxe5 fxe5 24.f3 Kh8!
Blacks advantage is growing. He is about to launch the attack on the K-side.
25.Qc5 Qf6 26.Qd6 Rg8 27.a4 Raf8

After 27...Raf8

28.Bd3?!
White should immediately start the counter play
by 28.axb5!? axb5 29.c4!? bxc4 30.Ra5.
28...h5! 29.axb5 axb5 30.Rf1?! h4 31.Bxf4 gxf4
32.Kf2 Rg5 33.Rh1 h3 34.gxh3 Rfg8 35.Ke1
Rg2 36.Be2 Bxe4!-+ 37.fxe4 f3 38.Bf1 Rg1.
White resigned.
The move 2.c3 in the Sicilian had become
associated with the Alapins name. However, his
achievements in this variation were rather modest.

ALAPIN DUS CHOTIMIRSKY

St. Petersburg 1905
1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 cxd4 5. Qxd4? (better is 5. cxd4! Nc6 6. Nf3
Bg4 7. Nc3!) 5. . . Qxd4 6. cxd4 Nf6 (6Nc6 7. Be3 Bf5 8. Nc3 0-0-0 9. Rc1 e6
10. Nf3 Bb4= Alapin-Maroczy, Wien 1998) 7. Nc3 Bd7 8. Nf3 e6 9. Bb5 Bb4 10.
0-0 Bxc3 11. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 12. bxc3 Rc8 13. Rb1 b6 14. Rb3 0-0 15. Re1 Nd5
16. Bd2 Rc4.
The classical blockade! White resigned on move 48.
Nevertheless, it was Simon Alapin (1856-1923), who attracted the attention of the
chess world to the system 1. e4 e5 2. c3. He was one of the strongest Russian
players, who was also famous as a chess theoretician. Being a merchant, he spent a
lot of time abroad in Paris, Berlin, and Vienna. His best achievements: he shared
the first and second places with Chigorin in Petersburg (1879/79); he won matches
against Bardeleben 3.5:1.5 (1893) and Levitsky 5.5:0.5 (1907) and drew a
match against Schlechter 3:3 (1899), achieved fifth place at Monte Carlo (1901)
and won first place in Munich (1911).
Following him in influence over the system were Aron Nimzovitch (1886-1935)
and Saviely Tartakover (1887-1956). Nimzovich used the system in the notable
games against C Chajes (Carlsbad 1911) and Vidmar (New York 1927). Tartakover
used it against Reti (Baden Baden 1925) and Colle (Paris 1925).
These three were the pioneers. Nobody took their ideas about 2. c3 seriously, and
the whole variation was reputed to be drawish.
It is interesting that the third and the fourth world champions also contributed to its
development. The position arising from the 2. c3 variation occurred in the game
Capablanca Cherniak, Buenos Aires (ol) 1939, through by transposition, as well
as in the games of Alekhine with Podgorny and Foltys (Prague 1942). Of course,
these games were not enough to create a consistent theory of the system.
After World War II, in the 1950s, the Yugoslavian players had attracted attention to
the variation B22, especially the master (later GM) Milan Matulovic. However, he
employed the following move order: 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd 3. c3!? The sharp
continuation 3dxc3 4. Nxc3 had been named the Matulovic gambit by chess

theory, but more often his opponents played 3. . . Nf6, and after 4. e5 Nd5 the
position from the system under question arose. I should point out Matulovics
games from his early period against Udovcic and Kozomara (Sombor 1957).
Subsequently, he chose only the reliable 2. c3 when playing against dangerous
opponents such as Larsen (Saraevo 1960), Polugaevsky and Geller (Belgrade
1969).
Also notable were Soviet masters Anatoly Bannik from Kiev and Jacob Yukhtman
from Odessa, who employed the system 2. c3 in the 1950 and 1960s. The Bulgarian
players also implemented it, especially their leader Nikola Padevsky, who lost
with it to Taimanov (Moscow 1956), but defeated Karpov with it (Skopje(ol)
1972).
One of the Western players, the American Arthur Bisguier, had played a game
against Fischer (Stockholm(izt) 1962) as follows: 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4.
Nf3!? Nc6 5. Na3 g6 6. g3!? (the idea of Eddie Rozentalis?!) 6Bg7 7. Bg2,
and so on. I invented the variation with 4. Nf3!? independently a quarter of century
later. Only recently I have found that they played so already against the great
Fischer!
David Bronstein made his contribution in the 1960s and 1970s, when he played 2.
c3 against Vasiukov (Berlin 1968), Hort (Monte Carlo 1969) and Fischer (HerzogNovi (blitz) 1970). The Hungarian master (later GM) Istvan Csom also added his
substantial effort: his games against Hennings (Berlin 1968), R. Rodrigues (Lugano
(ol) 1968), Matulovic (Athens 1969) and Holler (Vrniacka-Banja 1972) are
extremely illustrative.
Evgeny Sveshnikov began to play 1. e4 c5 2. c3 in January 1967. Slightly earlier,
Valerij Zhuravliov from Latvia (his game against Karpov, Daugavpils 1972
comes to mind) and the Lenigrdian Vladislav Vorotnikov had independently
started to do so.
In 1972 and 1973, I managed to gain several convincing wins, especially over the
GMs Taimanov, Gufeld and Tringov. However, the move 2. c3 had not yet
received broad public recognition. In the USSR, only a few players included it in
their repertoire: Evgeni Vasiukov (who had delivered a crushing blow to
Polugaevsky already in 1955: 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 Nc6?! 5. Bc4
Nb6?! 6. Bxf7+! Kxf7 7. dxc5 Nc4 8. Qd5+ e6 9. Qxc4 Nxe5 10. Qe2, and so on),
Ratmir Kholmov, Mark Dvoretsky, Sergey Makarychev, and Valery
Chekhov The women added it to their repertoires more readily: in general they
are less conservative and accept new ideas more willingly. The male GMs needed
more prodding.
Thus, all of us started gradually to promote this system and the theory behind it.
The growth of its popularity was reflected in articles by masters A. Kuindzhi and
D. Plisetsky titled The Sicilian Defense 2. c3 in Chess Bulletin, 7-8, 1977.
Paul Keres also tried c2-c3 a couple of times: against Langeweg (Wijk aan Zee
1969) and Spassky (Tallinn 1975), and Boris Spassky as well.

SPASSKY - WESTERMEIER
Germany 1981
1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5. cxd4 e6 6. Nc3 Nxc3 7. bxc3 Qc7 8.
Bd2 d6
Pavasovic had played even worse against me (Bled 1998): 8. . . b6 9. f4! Nc6 10.
Bd3 Na5 11. Qe2, with a clear advantage to White.
9. f4! (depriving Black of the counterplay against the e5-pawn) 9. . . b6 10. Nf3
Be7 11. Bd3 Bb7 12. 0-0 0-0 13. Qe2 Nc6 14. Rae1 dxe5 15. fxe5 Na5

16. Ng5! Bxg5 17. Bxg5 Qxc3 18. Rf4! Bd5 19.
Rh4 f5 20. exf6 gxf6 21. Rc1! Black resigned.
A very pretty miniature, but more often Boris
used this system to reach a peaceful draw.
SPASSKY - LJUBOEVIC
Linares 1981
1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 cxd4 5.
cxd4 Nc6 6. Nf3 e6 7. Nc3 Qd6 8. Bc4 Nf6 9. 00 Be7 10. d5 exd5 11. Nxd5 Nxd5 12. Qxd5 0-0
13. Qxd6 Bxd6 14. Rd1 Ne5. Draw.
After 15...Na5
In the beginning of the 1980s, I wrote a large
chapter B22 for the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings on the
proposal of the Yugoslavian Chess Informant editorial board. The whole world
started playing 2. c3 after its release, especially the amateur players.
Why? a curious reader may ask. Because, after 2. c3 you dont need to learn the
longest and most sophisticated variations of the Sicilian Defense, which is the most
principled Blacks response to 1. e4. It is profitable from the purely practical point
of view. Remember that Black has to attack the e4-pawn immediately by 2Nf6 or
2d5 in order not to get an inferior game, but then the forced play starts that must
be studied beforehand in all the variations. Here White has a slightly better position
and may force a draw practically without any risk.
Gradually, more and more professional players joined our brotherhood. They were
Eduardas Rozentalis, Sergey Smagin, then Andrei Kharlov, Eldar
Mukhametov, and Drajen Sermek
At the same time, the monograph of Murrey Chandler had been released in
England (its second edition was published in 1996). Chandler often plays 2. c3. He
did so from time immemorial as he beat the young Kasparov in the world under-16
championship.
In the 90s, the mighty group of chess professionals swelled the ranks of the
supporters of the cool c2-c3, and B22 had firmly established itself in opening
fashion. Among those who played so were Karpov, Smyslov, Kramnik, Anand,
Judit Polgar, and even the inhuman Deep Blue.
I want to add few words about my personal contribution into the development and

popularization of the system 2. c3. In the beginning of 1967 I, as a 16-year-old boy,

had to play in the USSR school championship in Tula. Before playing White
against Mikhail Shereshevski from Minsk (the future GM and good coach), I
racked my brains over what to play. I knew that ny opponent was an expert in the
Najdorf system in the Sicilian Defense, but I did not know how White can obtain an
advantage in that opening. So I put the pieces on the board and made the moves 1.
e4 (I always make this move without hesitations) 1c5. Then I asked myself:
What does Black want? He prevented the d2-d4 move. What if White resumes the
threat by playing 2. c3!? No Najdorf, no Paulsen, no Dragon! The decision
appealed to me as a practical alternative (and it still does). Since then, I have played
408 games with it, according to my database, and collected more than 70 per cent
of the points, defeating many well known GMs. I daresay that 2. c3 has supported
me and my family for the better part of thirty years!
In 1997, Chess Informant had published my monograph on B22, including more
than 2000 games. In addition, my handbooks on this variation of the Sicilian
Defense are published in many countries.
Now that we have conducted a brief digression into history (the database containing
400 mentioned games and the other old games before 1985 supplied), let us
examine the main ideas and plans of each side in the system with 1. e4 e5 2. e3.
(To be continued)

Opening Survey
B22: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 by GM Sveshnikov (Part 3)

By GM Eugeny Sveshnikov

Thus, with his move 1.e4 White has created the

threat of a total takeover in the center by d2-d4, and
Black prevents this 1c5!

Diagram 1

After 1...e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5! the black e-pawn

becomes a target for the attack, while it is not so
simple to attack the black c-pawn. However,
Blacks development is retarded, and it is possible
for White to create a firm pawn center (e4+d4) by
means of the somewhat straightforward but also a
bit sluggish 2.c3!?

A comparison with 1.e4 e5 2.c3?! is helpful here it all is much worse, because the
move 2...Nf6! attacking the already blocked e4-pawn solves all Blacks opening
problems.
See diagram 1
Whites threat is obvious: d2-d4! If Black ignores it by playing 2b6?! or 2g6?!,
then, after 3.d4, the white pair of pawns in the center is extremely stable, and
judging by the number of the controlled squares White has a clear advantage.
The game also is not even after 2...e5?! due to the apparent weakening of the d5square. However, the theory has not yet come to a definite conclusion on this
subject, but I recommend 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4! Qc7 (Black has to make such an ugly
move, because 4...d6?! 5.d4 is not to his favor) 5.0-0 Nf6 (or 5...Be7 6.Ng5 Nd8!
{6...Bg5?! 7.Qh5 d5 8.exd5, and so on.} 7.f4 exf4 8.Nf3) 6.Ng5 Nd8! 7.f4! h6 8.
Nf3 (8.Nh3!? d6 9.Qf3) 8...exf4 9.e5, with the initiative for White.
More interesting is 2...d6 3.d4 Nf6!? The most simple and reliable answer is 4.Bd3
(not so clear is 4.dxc5 Nc6!) followed by Nf3, 0-0, h3, or by the more active Ne2,
f3, Be3 and then, according to how Black plays, White can choose between 0-0 or
0-0-0, by analogy with the Saemisch variation in the Kings Indian Defense.
Slightly better but also insufficient for equality is 2...e6 3.d4 d5, due to 4.e5! with a
transposition into the Advance Variation of the French Defense C02.

Less convincing is 4.exd5?! exd5!=, because in this case it is not obvious if White
needs a rather passive move c2-c3. It is Whites idea to create a pair of pawns in the
center, while the white e-pawn is getting traded here and the path is opened for the
black c8-bishop. This argumentation is confirmed by the practice (the database
supplied contains several examples).
Only 4.e5!? poses several serious problems to Black, and some of them are of
psychological nature: it is not to the Sicilian taste to defend the French bastions.
The remaining two moves that attack the e4-pawn and prevent the e4+d4 pawn pair
from formation are 2d5 and 2Nf6. Only with their aid can black aspire to
equalize (2Qa5? was already rejected in Part I).
1) 2d5 (the most popular response) 3.exd5 Qxd5 (On 3Nf6, White can
transpose by 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 to the Panov attack in the Caro-Kann defense or try
to keep the extra pawn by 4.Qa4 or by 4.Bb5!?, Smagin-Sveshnikov, Amantea
1995.) 4.d4.
See diagram 2
4...Nf6. The other, less implemented
continuations are:
4...g6 5.Nf3 (the brave Fritz chooses the sharp 5.
dxc5!? Qxc5 6.Be3 Qc7 7.Bxa7!? Rxa7 8.Qd4,
winning the exchange and pawn but getting
under the attack) 5...Bg7 (5...Nf6 6.dxc5 or 6.
Na3!) 6.Na3 cxd4 (also playable is 6...Nf6) 7.Bc4
Qd8 (7...Qe4?! 8.Be3!) 8.Qb3 e6 9.Nxd4 Ne7 10.
Bg5 h6 11.Be3 Nd5 12.Bxd5 exd5 13.0-0 0-0 14.
Diagram 2
Nac2, with a slight advantage to White,
Sveshnikov Cvitan, Tilburg 1993;
4...e5 5.dxe5 Qxe5 (unlikely equalizing is 5...Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1, Smagin Huberty,
Eupen 1994; Rozentalis Ftacnik, Germany 1994) 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nf3 Qc7 8.Bb5+
Nc6?! (better is 8...Bd7) 9.Qe2 Be6 10.Ng5 0-0-0 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Nd2 h6 13.0-00 a6 14.Ba4 b5 15.Bc2, with the clear advantage for White (Sermek Kgosimure,
Parana 1993);
4...cxd4 5.cxd4 e5 (dubious is 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 Bg4?! 7.Nc3 Bxf3 8.gxf3 Qxd4 9.
Qxd4 Nxd4 10.Nb5 e5 11.Nc7+ Kd7 12.Nxa8 Bb4+ {12...Nf6?! 13.Bh3!} 13.Kd1!)
6.Nf3 Nc6 (6exd4 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 a6 9.Nc3 Nf6 10.Bg5, with the endgame
favorable for White) 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 e4 10.Ne5 Nxe5 11.dxe5, and
White has better chances thanks to his pair of Bishops;
4...e6 5.Na3!? cxd4 (5...Qd8 6.Bf4) 6.Nb5 Na6, with some initiative for White
(Sveshnikov Novikov, Tallinn 1988; V.Zhuravliov M.Makarov, Podolsk 1990;
Sermek Bukic, Bled 1992; Kharlov Czom, Bern 1992; Mukhametov Kiselec,
Orel 1994);

4...Nc6 5.Nf3 (unclear is 5.dxc5 Qxc5 6.Na3 e5 {6...Qa5?! 7.Nf3 Nf6 8.Bf4} 7.Nb5
Qe7 8.Be3 a6! 9.Bc5 Qxc5 10.Nc7+ Ke7 11.Nxa8 Nf6 Chekhov Evans, Algarvi
1975, or 5...Qxd1+!? 6.Kxd1 e5! Sveshnikov Rashkovsky, Moscow 1992; worse
is 5.Be3?! cxd4 6.cxd4 e5! 7.Nc3 Bb4).

See diagram 3
Here the following continuations occurred:
5...e5 6.Nxe5 (6.Nbd2!?) 6...Nxe5 7.dxe5 Qxe5+
8.Be3!? (8.Be2 Bg4 9.Be3) 8...Bd7 9.Na3 0-0-0
10.Qf3 Nf6 11.0-0-0 Be7 12.Bf4 Qh5 (Kramnik
J.Polgar, Paris(rapid) 1994; after 12...Qe4 good
is 13.Qxe4 Nxe4 14.Re1 Nxf2 15.Rxe7 then
Nc4) 13.g4!! Qg6 (13...Nxg4? 14.Ba6!; 13...
Bg4? 14.Qc6+!; 13...Qxg4? 14.Nb5! Bxb5 15.
Bh3) 14.Bg2! Bc6 15.Nb5! winning (I.Zajtsev);
Diagram 3
5...Bg4 6.Be2 e6 (60-0-0!? Strikovic Z.
Ivanovic, Budva 1986; Florean Grigore, Baile Herculane 1994; 6...cxd4!? 7.cxd4
e6) 7.h3 Bh5 8.c4!, with the initiative for White (Short J.Polgar, isle of Lewis
1995);
5...Nf6 6.dxc5 (also playable is 6.Be3) 6...Qxc5 (unclear is 6...Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 e5
Schmittdiel Donaldson, Ruggel 1990; Sermek Wirthenson, Mitrope(ch) 1993) 7.
Na3 e5 (not equalizing is 7...Ng4!? 8.Qe2 Bf5 9.h3! Bd3 10.Qxd3 Qxf2+ 11.Kd1
Rd8 12.Qxd8+ Kd8 13.hxg4 Blatny Wang Zili, Thessalonici (ol) 1988) 8.Be3,
with some advantage to White (Sveshnikov A.Sheneider, Podolsk 1993; Sermek
Riegler, Maribor 1993).
But let us return to 4Nf6.
5.Nf3 (a real rarity is 5.Be3 Bg4 6.f3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7), and now, apart from 5...
Nc6 (see 4...Nc6) and the new-fashioned 5...g6 (see 4...g6), Black has a choice
between 5...Bg4 and 5...e6.
a) 5...Bg4!? Nowadays a popular line, implemented by Kasparov.

See diagram 4
6.Be2. Sometimes the other opportunities are
tried:
6.Qa4!? Bd7 (to Whites favor is 6...Nc6?! 7.Bc4
Qd7 8.dxc5 Bxf3 9.gxf3 e6 10.Be3 Nd5 11.Bxd5
Qxd5 12.Qe4 Sveshnikov Neverov, Moscow
1989; unclear is 6...Nbd7) 7.Qb3 cxd4 (worse is
7...Qxb3?! 8.axb3) 8.Bc4 Qe4 9.Kf1 with the
compensation for the pawn (Kharlov
Tukmakov, Biel 1992; Kharlov Hofmann, Koln
Diagram 4
1993);
6.Nbd2!? Nc6 (or 6...cxd4 7.Bc4 Qd7 8.Qb3 e6, but not 7...Bxf3? 8.Bxd5! Bxd1 9.
Bxb7) 7.Bc4 Bxf3 8.gxf3 (8.Qb3!? Shirov J.Polgar, Dos Hermanas 1997) 8...Qd6
(8...Qf5!) 9.Qb3 (9.dxc5!?) 9...e6 10.dxc5 (more promising is 10.Qb7!) 10...Qc7!
11.Bb5 1/2 (Sveshnikov M.Makarov, Novgorod 1995);
6.dxc5, which was responded with 6Qxd1+?! (Khmelnitsky Christiansen, USA
(ch) 1996), as well as with 6...Qxc5 (Magomedov Adla, Chapelle le Grande
1997).
6...e6. This position, encountered in a variety of games (Rozentalis Heissler,
Germany 1992; Smagin Reschke, Germany 1993; V.Ivanov Kharlov Kiselev
A.Sokolov, Elista 1994; Adams Topalov, Las Palmas 1994, and so on) is
extremely difficult for studying and I would recommend the computer move:
7.h3! More reserved is 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Be3 cxd4 9.cxd4 Bb4! 10.a3 Ba5 11.Nc3 Qd6=
(Deep Blue Kasparov(m/3) 1996).
7...Bh5 8.0-0. Not too much promising is 8.Be3 cxd4 9.cxd4 Bb4+ 10.Nc3 0-0 11.00 Qa5 Kramnik Kasparov, Paris(rapid) 1994, or 8.c4 Qd8 9.Nc3 (9.Qb3 Qc8) 9
cxd4 (Rozentalis Kramnik, Germany 1995).
8...Nc6 9.Be3 cxd4 10.cxd4 (10.Nxd4?! Bxe2 11.Qxe2 Bc5=) 10...Bb4! If 10...Be7
11.Nc3 Qd6, then 12.Qb3! 0-0 13.Rfd1 Rfd8 14.a3 Rac8 (14...Nd5!?) 15.Rac1
Qb8 , with a light initiative for White (Nunn Lutz, Germany 1995).
11.a3 Ba5! 12.Nc3 Qd6 13.Nb5 (Deep Blue Kasparov(m/1) 1996) 13...Qd5!=.
b) 5...e6.

Diagram 5

See diagram 5
6.Be2. The other ideas:
6.Na3 (Barlov Sosonko, Haninge 1988; Blatny
Piket, Thessaloniki (ol) 1988; Okhotnik
Magerramov, Uzhgorod 1988; Sermek Andersson and Sermek - Magerramov, Tilburg
1994, and so on);
6.Bd3 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.c4 Qh5! or 8Qd7!=
(Kharlov M.Makarov, Rybinsk 1991; Kiselev Novikov, Belgorod 1991; Yagupov - Dolmatov,
Moscow 1992; Yagupov Tjutiunnikov, Podolsk

1992).
6...cxd4. After 6...Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 one should reckon with 8.c4 Qd8 (8Qd7; 8
Qf5) 9.dxc5!? (Sveshnikov A.Sokolov, Moscow 1991).
7.cxd4 Nc6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Nc3 Qd6. If 9...Qd8 10.Be3 0-0, then 11.Ne5! next Bf3
with the position favorable for White (Sveshnikov Adamski, Lvov 1983;
Sveshnikov T.Giorgadze, Tashkent 1984; Sveshnikov Andersson, Rio de
Geneiro 1985; Sveshnikov J.Polgar, Biel(iz) 1993).
10.Nb5!? (possible also is 10.Be3 0-0 11.Rc1, Sveshnikov - Tukmakov, Riga
1985) 10...Qd8 (10...Qd7!?) 11.Bf4 Nd5. Interesting is 11...0-0 12.Bc7! Qd7 13.
Ne5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Nd5 15.Bd6, with the slightly better chances for White
(Sveshnikov Limp, Rio de Geneiro 1985; Meister - Yagupov, Elista 1994).
12.Bg3 a6! After 12...0-0 13.Bc4! a6 (but not 13Nb6? 14.Bc7! Qd7 15.Bxb6
Sveshnikov Dokhoian, Moscow 1983) 14.Bxd5 exd5 15.Nc7 (Sveshnikov
Foisor, Sochi 1985; Sveshnikov Gola, Moscow 1989; Kharlov Roeder, Torcy
1991; Lautier J.Polgar, Linares 1994) or 14...axb5 15.Be4 (Sveshnikov Tunik,
Primorsko 1988; Sveshnikov Kortschnoj, Biel(iz) 1993; Sveshnikov Bukic,
Bled 1994; Kharlov Badea, Berlin 1994) White retains some pressure.
13.Nc3 0-0 14.Rc1. The alternative is 14.Qb3, for example: 14Bd6 15.Rac1 Nf4
16.Rfd1! (Sveshnikov Kajumov, USSR 1983), 14b6 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Rac1
Bb7 17.Rfd1 (Sveshnikov Micic, Cheliabinsk 1990) or 14Nxc3 15.bxc3 b5 16.
Rfd1 Bb7 17.a4 (Cherniaev Khenkin, Biel 1994), with a minimal advantage for
White. However, deserving attention is 14...Nf6!? (14b5!?) 15.Rfd1 b5! 16.d5!?
Na5! (Sveshnikov Magerramov, Moscow(rapid) 1994).
14...Nxc3!? The way to an equal play is not spread with roses after 14Qa5 15.
Qb3 (Doncevic Sosonko, Germany 1983) or 14...Nf6, as it had happened in the
games J.Polgar Tiviakov (Madrid 1994), Cherniaev A.Petrosian (Erevan 1996)
and in my encounters with E.Horvath (Sochi 1987), Delchev (Bled 1998) and
Grabliauskas (Denmark 1998).
15.bxc3. A game Chekhov Korneev (Moscow 1996) continued with 15Bf6 16.
Bd3 b5 17.a4! bxa4 (17b4? 18.Be4!) 18.Qxa4, and White seized the initiative.
Still better is 15...b5!? 16.c4 (unclear is 16.a4 bxa4 17.Qxa4 Bd7) 16...bxc4 17.
Bxc4 then d4-d5 with the sharp play (Chekhov).

Conclusion: Despite Black has good chances to obtain an even play in the
variations with 2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 or 5...e6, White still has
many opportunities to fight for advantage in opening. Therefore...
2) 2...Nf6! In my opinion, the best move: instead of trading off the e4-pawn, Black
attacks it, and after 3.e5 Nd5 the black centralized Knight is rather strong than
week.

See diagram 6
Blacks position is much more comfortable then
one from the Alekhine defense: White is not
obtaining a pawn pair in the center; he also has to
spend a tempo to drive the black Knight away
from d5; the e5-pawn is a perfect target for the
attack and Nc6 next d7-d6 must lead to an equal
play.
4.d4. So far as this natural and strongest move
does not always bring the advantage, sometimes
Diagram 6
the other ideas are being tested:
4.g3 (variation of E.Rozentalis, who implemented it in more than 20 games) 4...d6
(4Nc6 Rozentalis Shirov, Manila(ol) 1992) 5.exd6 e6 6.Bg2 Bd6 7.Nf3 Nc6
8.0-0 (after 8.d4!? cxd4 unclear is 9.cxd4 0-0, as well as 9.Nxd4 Bd7! Rozentalis
Shirov, Tilburg 1993; North Bay 1994) 8...0-0 9.d4 (too passive is 9.d3 b6! 10.
Nbd2 Bb7 11.Qe2 Bc7 12.Nc4 Re8! Short Kasparov, London(rapid: m/4) 1993)
9...Bd7 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Nbd2 Be7 12.Qe2 Qc7 13.Ne4 Rfe8 14.c4 Nf6 15.Nc3 a6
16.b3 e5! (an accurate equalization) 17.Bb2 Bg4 18.Nd5 1/2 (Rozentalis Khalifman, Rakvere 1993). After watching this game and the neighboring ones
(and also the games Rozentalis Gelfand, Tilburg 1992), one may come to the
conclusion that 4.g3 is not dangerous for Black.
4.Nf3!? (White does not hurry with the d4 advance or even restrains himself to the
d3 move; sometimes the black c5-pawn becomes a target for the attack: Sveshnikov
King, Bern 1992) 4...Nc6 (in case of 4...e6?! it is more difficult for White to
attack the e5-pawn: 5.Bc4 b6 6.0-0 Ba6 7.d3! or 5...Nb6 6.Bb3 with some
advantage to White) 5.Bc4 Nb6!

Diagram 7

See diagram 7
6.Be2 d6 7.exd5 e5! (not bad also is 7...e6 8.d4
Bd6 Adams Tiviakov, New York(m/8; rapid:
m/6) 1994, or 7...Qxd6 8.0-0 g6 Kharlov - Ernst,
Haninge 1992) 8.d4 (the best continuation) 8...
cxd4 9.cxd4 exd4 10.Nxd4 Bd6 11.Nxc6 bxc6,
and Whites advantage is purely symbolical. I
would also advise you to look through the games
Kharlov Visier (Canete 1994), Sveshnikov
Orel (Bled 1994), Sveshnikov A.Ivanov
(Vladivostok 1994), and Sveshnikov Ragozin

(Elista 1994).
6.Bb3!? d5 or 6d6 as the games Ivanchuk Kasparov (Dortmund 1992), Nunn
- Anand (Monaco 1994), Dolmatov - Greenfeld (Lyon 1994), Cherniaev Tischbierek (Biel 1994), Sveshnikov Cherniaev (Erevan 1996) and Sveshnikov
Novgorodskij (St. Petersburg 1997) have demonstrated, Black defends
successfully. But also possible is 64 7.Bc2 Qc7 8.Qe2 g5!? 9.e6! (Sveshnikov
Cherniaev, Erevan 1996; Sveshnikov Sakaev (St.Petersburg 1997).
4...cxd4 5.cxd4. Harmless is 5.Qxd4 e6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Qe4 f5 (possible is 7...d6 or
7...Qc7 and Nd5-e7-g6) 8.Qe2 (in case of 8.exf6 Nxf6 9.Qh4 d5! White risks to
obtain the worse play: Novopashin Sveshnikov, Volgodonsk 1981; Vorotnikov
Sveshnikov, Lvov 1983) 8...Qc7 (8b6!? Rogers Shirov, Brno 1991) 9.g3 Nde7
10.Na3 Ng6 11.Nb5 Qb8 12.Bf4 a6 13.Nbd4 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 b5= (Rozentalis
Dvoiris, Kharkov 1985).
Having been fashionable for a long time, the variation with 5.Nf3 Nc6 (seldom they
played 5...e6 6.cxd4 b6 7.Nc3 or 5...b6) 6.Bc4!? Nb6 7.Bb3 d6 (7...g6!?) 8.exd6
Qd6 9.0-0 Be6 10.Bxe6 (or 10.Na3 dxc3) 10...Qxe6 11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Rd8
13.Qh4 Qe2 is almost vanished from the modern practice because it is thoroughly
studied and distinguished by its drawing tendencies (however, some questions still
are to be answered in case of 9.Na3!?).
5...d6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Bc4. Harmless is 7.Nc3 dxe5! 8.dxe5 Nxc3! (but not 8...Ndb4?!
9.a3 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 Na6 11.b4) 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.bxc3 Bd7=.
7...Nb6. White has more chances after 7...e6 (7...dxe5!?) 8.0-0 Be7 9.Qe2 0-0 10.
Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 dxe5 (11d5?! 12.Bd3 then h2-h4! Sveshnikov Rashkovsky,
Sochi; Plisetsky Litvinov, Rostov on Don 1977; 11b6 12.Bd3 Bb7 13.exd6
Qxd6 14.Ng5! Sveshnikov Krogius, Sochi 1976) 12.dxe5 b6 13.Qe4! and 14.Bd3,
with the initiative on the K-side for White (Sveshnikov Am.Rodriguez,
Cienfuegos 1979; Sveshnikov Oll, Kuibyshev 1986).
However, stronger is 12Qa5! 13.Rb1 (13.Qe4?! Qa4!) 13Rd8 (Sveshnikov N.
Boikovic, Nova Gorica 1997), so I had to invent 10.Re1! (Sveshnikov Kozhul,
Liubliana 1997.
8.Bb5. Hardly better is 8.Bb3 dxe5 9.d5 Na5 10.Nc3 Nxb3= (Yagupov
Savchenko, St. Petersburg 1993; Sermek Olivier, Cannes 1995; Sermek

Sveshnikov, Bled 1996).

8...dxe5 9.Nxe5 Bd7. Here White has three responses, but none of them promises
advantage.

See diagram 8
a) 10.Bxc6. This was played in the games
Kholmov Mnatsakanian (Tbilisi 1977), V.
Zhuravliov Podgaets (USSR 1977), Oblamsky
Kapengut (Minsk 1978), Malaniuk
Rashkovsky (Tashkent 1987), Lein Spasov
(Moscow 1989), Nun Kuczynski (PolanicaZdroi 1989), Macijewski Jakovich (Belgorod
1991), Maciejewski Brodsky (Karvina 1992),
Dolmatov Alterman (Pardubice 1993),
Diagram 8
Dolmatov Vajser (Novosibirsk 1993), Smagin
Tischbierek (Germany 1993), S.Lalic Sher (Hastings 1994/95), Zarnicki
Alterman (Yerevan(ol) 1996), Rozentalis Shirov (Yerevan(ol) 1996) ..
b) 10.Nxd7. This was tested in the games V.Zhuravliov Gutman (Riga 1971),
Thipsay Hartston (New Delhi 1982), Howell Rechlis (Groningen 1984),
Machulski Tsarev (Kiev 1989), Sveshnikov Kovalev (Budapest 1989),
Stripunsky Sveshnikov (Bled 1991), V.Zhuravliov Ionov (St.Petersburg 1992),
and so on.
c) 10.Nc3. This happened in my games against T.Petrosian (Leningrad 1977), Tal
(Tbilisi 1978; Jurmala 1980), Browne (Novi Sad 1979), Govashelishvili (Moscow
1979), Kasparov (Minsk 1979), Andersson (Wijk aan Zee 1981) and Pigusov
(Moscow 1987), and also on the games Lerner Gutman (USSR 1979), Novik
Maljutin (Jurmala 1989), Tiviakov Korsunsky (Frunze 1989), Rausis Browne
(Saint Martin 1991), Garcia Fernandez Baigorri (Saragoza 1992), Rausis Suetin
(Moscow 1992), and so on.
All listed games and other important encounters (beginning from 1986B) are
listed in the supplied database that contains approximately 1300 games (while
the old games are available in the database that Part 1 was supplied with).
Conclusion: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 is not dangerous for Black, if he responds 2...Nf6! In this
case, however, Black must know the particular forced variations and White can
always achieve a quick draw But this is the chess!
If the stronger player plays with the black pieces, and he wants to win after 2.c3,
then he must take the risks of 2...g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.cxd4 d5 5.exd5 Nf6 (the Panov
attack!), 2...d6 3.d4 Nf6, 2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 (3...Nf6) 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 g6 or, even
of 2...e6 3.d4 d5, transposing into the Advance Variation of the French Defense
after 4.e5.
To be continued

Opening Survey
B22: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 by GM Sveshnikov (Part 4)

By GM Eugeny Sveshnikov

Sveshnikov Jurtaev [B22]

USSR Team Championship, Riga 1975
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 (This line is similar to
Alekhines Defense) 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.cxd4
d6 7.Bc4 Nb6.
Another option is 7...e6 (the continuation 7Nc7
8.0-0 d5 9.Bb3 Bg4 10.Be3 e6 11.Nbd2 Be7 12.
Ba4!? b5 13.Rc1 Nb4 14.a3 bxa4 15.axb4 Qd7 16.
After 12.Ne4!
Ra1 Bxb4 17.Qxa4 Qxa4 18.Rxa4 Be7 19.Bg5
Checkhov Khodos, Rostov 1975 is barely
sufficient for equalizing) 8.0-0 Be7 (see my game with Kozul).
8.Bb5 e6.
The mains line starts with 8dxe5! (see the theoretical part of this article). The
continuations 8Bd7 9.exd6!? exd6 10.Nc3 or 8d5 9.Nc3 Bg4 (9Bf5 10.
Nh4!? Bd7 11.f4 a6 12.Be2) 10.h3 Bxf3 (dangerous is 10Bh5?! 11.g4 Bg6 12.
e6!) 11.Qxf3 e6 12.0-0 Be7 13.Qg3 Kf8 14.Ne2 Rc8 15.Bf4 (Sveshnikov Palatnik, Odessa 1973) both favor White.
9.Nc3 Bd7.
9Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Qe2 Bd7 (Grosspeter Kir. Georgiev, Insbruk 1977)
Adorjan recommended 12.a3!
10.0-0.
The early game Sveshnikov Podgajetz (Moscow 1975) went 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Ne4!
Nc8! 12.0-0 (12.exd6?! Bxg5 13.Nfxg5 Qa5+ 14.Nc3 Nxd6) 12Bxg5 13.Nfxg5
d5 14.Qh5 Qe7, and here after 15.Nc5 White would have keep some edge. It looks
like Jurtaev knew neither this game nor my encounter with Mishuchkov (which is
given below).
10Nb4?

Black forgot about development just for a moment. 10a6 11.Bd3 dxe5 12.dxe5
Nb4 13.Bg5 Be7 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Be4 Bc6 16.a3! N4d5 17.Qb3 0-0 18.Nd4 Rac8
19.Nxc6 Rxc6 20.Rad1 (Chekhov Grigorian, Kishinev 1975) does not equalize,
though more solid is 10...Be7.
11.Bg5 Be7 12.Ne4!
The signal for an attack. White is aiming at the weak d6-square.
12...dxe5.
This looks like the only move: if 12Nc8 then
13.Qa4! is very unpleasant for Black, after 12...
Bxb5 13.Nxd6+ Kf8 14.Bxe7+ Qxe7 15.Nxb5
White is pawn up, 12...Bxg5 is met by 13.Nfxg5!
Bxb5 14.Nxd6+ and White has winning attack.
13. Nd6+ Kf8 14.Nxe5!?
This leads to a very interesting and sharp
position. Maybe better and simplier was 14.Nxb7
Qc7 15.Bxe7+ Kxe7 16.Qb3! N6d5 17.Bxd7 Qxb7 18.Nxe5 Qb6 19.a3 and White
is a pawn up (Sveshnikov Mishuchkov, Odessa 1972). Spassky and Polugaevsky,
my partners on the Russia team, came up to my board at this point. On the spur of
the moment I got eager to play a la Tal
.
14...Bxb5!
After 20...Rh6

Losing was 14...Bxg5? in view of 15.Ndxf7 Qe7 (or 15...Qf6 16.Bxd7) 16.Nxh8
Kg8 17.Bxd7 Nxd7 18.Nhf7.
15.Ndxf7!?
By sacrificing the piece White complicate the issue even more. It was not too late
to wise up and play 15.Bxe7+ Qxe7 16.Nxb5 with a slightly better position.
15...Qd5 16.Qh5.
Threatening 17.Nd6! g6 18.Nxg6+ Kg7 (or 18...hg 19.Qxh8#) 19.Qh6+ Kg8 20.
Nxe7#.
Though 16.Qg4, in order to build up some pressure on the e6 pawn, also deserved
consideration.
16...Bxg5 17.Nxg5 Be8 18.Qg4 Ke7! Black has played a la Steinitz: the king

should defend himself.

19.Rae1
(White is threatening 20.Nxe6!) 19...h5.
Bringing the rook into defense with tempo.
20.Qh4 Rh6. On 20...Kd6 very strong is 21.Qf4!
21.Nxe6+! Kxe6 22.Ng4+.
A second discovered check! Both knights are
sacrificed in order to open up the files and
diagonals for the heavy pieces.
22...Kf7.
Bad is 22...Kd6? in view of 23.Qe7+ Kc6 24.
Nxh6 threatening 25.Rc1+ 25.Re6+.
After 36.Qxe8

23.Qe7+.

Insufficient is 23.Nxh6+ gxh6 24.Re7+ Kg8! 25.Qf6 Bf7, and White has no
reasonable continuation of his attack.
23...Kg8.
If 23...Kg6, then 24.Re6+ Kh7 25.Rxh6 and White has the advantage.
24.Nxh6+ gxh6 25.Re3 h4 26.Qxh4?!
The simple 26.Qxb4 Bc6 27.f3 with a clear advantage was worth considering, but
in the heat of the battle I became fixated on checkmating my opponent.
26...Qd6.
Black should protect his h6 pawn; otherwise his king will be completely exposed.
27.Rfe1 Bf7 28.Rg3+ Kf8.
On 28...Kh8 White has a beautiful combination in store: 29.Qg4 Rg8 30.Re8!!
(distraction) 30...Qg6 31.Qxg6 Bxg6 32.Rxg8+ Kxg8 33.Rxg6+ winning.
29.Qg4 Qf6 30.Rf3 Qg7 (if 30...Qd6, then 31.Qf5 Qd5 32.Qh7 and White wins)

31.Qf4 threatening 32.Qd6+ Kg8 33.Rg3

31...Rd8.
On 31...Nc4 very strong is 33.d5! attacking Blacks Knights, which are dozing
while Whites pawn is rushing to queen.
32.Qc7 Nc6.
In case of 32...Re8 (or 32...Rd7 33.Qb8+) Black is checkmated after 33.Rxe8+
Kxe8 34.Re3+ Kf8 35.Qd8+ Be8 36.Qxe8#.
33.Re7!! Rd7. The only way to protract the
resistance. If 33...Nxe7?, then 34.Qxd8# this
problem checkmate deserves a diagram: three
black pieces cant protect his king, but just hinder
him.
34.Rxd7 Nxd7 35.Qxd7 (the rest is an easy ride)
35Qg6 36.Qc8+ Ke7 37.Qc7+ Ke8 38.Qc8+.
White is accumulating some time by checking.
After 10.Rxd1

38Nd8 39.Re3+ Be6 40.h3 Qb1+ 41.Kh2 Qf5

42.Qc7 Qxf2 43.Qe5.
Black resigns. There is no defense from 44.d5.
Sveshnikov - Sokolov [B22]
Moscow, 1991
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 (many years of testing showed that safer is 2...Nf6)
3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6.
On 4...e6 unpleasant for Black is 5.Na3; in case of 4...Nc6 Black should reckon
with 5.dxc5.
5.Nf3 e6.
The game Sveshnikov Tunik (Anapa 1991) went 5...Nc6 (5...Bg4 6.Qa4+!?
Sveshnikov - Neverov, Moscow 1990) 6.dxc5 Qxc5 7.Na3 e5 8.Nb5 Qe7 9.b3!?
Bg4!, and Black equalized with several precise moves: 10.Ba3 Qd8! 11.Bxf8 Kxf8
12.Qd6+ Qe7! with a draw.

6.Be2 Nc6 (more accurate is 6...cxd4, avoiding c3-c4)

7.0-0 Be7.
GM Smagin has demonstrated on many occasions Whites advantage after 7...cxd4
8.Nxd4!? Nxd4 9.cxd4 followed by Be2-f3, but in the game Sveshnikov - Lerner
(Podolsk 1993) black managed to equalize.
8.c4 Qd8 (other options are 8...Qd7 and 8...Qf5) 9.dxc5 Qxd1 10.Rxd1
10...Ne4.
A novelty. 10...Bxc5 was played in the game
Sveshnikov - Serper (Pinsk 1986) (Another
continuation is 10...Nd7) 11.Nc3 0-0 12.a3 b6 13.
b4 Be7 14.Bf4 with a clear advantage for White.
11.Be3 Bxc5 (11...Nxc5 12.Nc3)
12.Nd4!
After c20...Kxd8

Freeing the f3-square for the bishop. If 12.Nbd2,

then after Bxe3 13.fxe3 (13.Nxe4 Bf4) 13...Nf6! Black has good counter play due
to the threat Ng4 (14.Nd4 Ne5! with the same idea).
12...Bd7 13.Bf3 Bxd4 14.Bxd4 Nxd4.
If 14...Ng5 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 then 16.b4 or even 16.h4 Ne4 17.Bxg7 Rg8 18.Be5, and
the active 18...Rxg2+ 19.Kxg2 Nc3+ 20.Kf1 Nxd1 does not work in view of 21.
Nd2 and the Knight is trapped.
15.Rxd4 Nf6 16.Nc3
(Obviously not 16.Bxb7?! in view of Rb8 17...Rxb2)
16...0-0-0. The move 16...Ke7, deserves consideration. I was going to react with 17.
Re1, with a better position. For example: 17...Rhd8 18.Nd5+ Nxd5 19.cxd5 (and
19...Bc6 is met by 20.Rdd1!).
17.Rad1 Bc6
(The only move. If 17...e5?! then 18.Rd6!)
18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Rxd8+ Rxd8 20.Rxd8+ Kxd8

The game transposed into an almost equal

knights ending, which my opponent strove for
right from the opening. Though there is
something behind this almost. Steinitz said
once that there was a correlation between class of
the players and their ability to capitalize even on
the slightest advantage. Whites trumps are the
pawn superiority on the queenside and slight
space advantage.
After 32.g3

21.f3 Nd7. Bad is 21...c5?! due to 22.Nb5 a6 23.

Nd6 Ke7 24.Nb7 Nd7 25.Kf2 followed by a2-a3 and b2-b4.
22.Kf2 f5
(again White would have welcomed 22...c5?! 23.Nb5 a6 24.Nd6 etc.)
23.Ke3 Ke7 24.b4 e5 25.a4 Kd6 26.Kd3 Nf6.
Sokolov made several very logical moves: he advanced his e and f pawns, and took
control over the important central squares. However he spent too much time on the
laborious defense of his worse position. At this point he had only 13 minutes left
till the control move (40), whereas I had 35 at my disposal.
27.c5+ Ke6
Quite possibly more stubborn was 27...Kc7 28.Kc4 (28.b5 Nd5!) 28...a6.
28.b5!
(if 28.Kc4, then 28...Nd5!)
28...Kd7.
On 28...Nd5 I had a pleasant choice between 29.bxc6!? and 29.a5! These variations
require further analysis.
29.Kc4 Kc7 (obviously not 29...e4? in view of 30.Kd4 and so on)
30.a5 a6 (the only defense from the threat 31.a6, b5xc6 followed by Nb5xa7)
31.b6+
(Black would be satisfied with 31.bxa6 Kb8 32.Na2 Nd5 and Ka7xa6)

31...Kb7 32.g3.
Before transferring the knight on d6, it is useful to take control over the f4 square.
32...h5?A decisive mistake in time trouble (Andrey had only one minute left,
whereas I had ten). Black devaluated his pawn advantage on the kingside. White
would have faced much more serious task after any temporizing move (32...Nd7,
for example).
33.h4! (Whites pawn holds two black pawns)
33...Nd7
34.f4! exf4.
After 34...e4 35.Kd4 there is no reasonable defense from Whites forces (either
king or knight) penetrating to Blacks camp.
35.gxf4 Nf8
(the only way to engineer some counterplay)
36.Ne2 Ng6.
The position that emerges after 36...Ne6 37.Nd4 Nxf4 is analyzed on move 37.
37.Nd4 Nxh4.
If 37...Nxf4, then 38.Nxf5 g6 39.Ne7, and Black is in zugzwang. For example: 39...
g5 40.hxg5 h4 41.Nf5 (but not 41.g6? Nxg6) 41...h3 42.Ng3 h2 43.Nh1 Kc8 44.
Kc3 Kd7 45.Kd2 Ne6 46.g6 Nxc5 47.g7 Ne4+ 48.Ke3 Nf6 49.Kf3 c5 50.Kg2 c4 51.
Nf2 c3 52.Nd3, snatching both opponents passers with the king.
38.Ne6 Kc8
(otherwise White plays 39.Nd8+ followed by 40.Nxc6 with easy win)
39.Nxg7 Ng6 40.Nxh5 (the rest is easy)
40...Kd7 41.Kd3 Kc8 42.Ke3 Ne7 43.Ng7 Nd5 44.Kf3 Ne7 45.Ne6 Nd5 46.Nd4.
Black resigns: On 46...Ne7 White wins by 47.Kg3 and Kh4-g5.
This is one of my three victories in the 2.c3 system over the participant of the superfinal Candidate match (1986) Andrey Sokolov.

Opening Survey
B22: 1.e4 c5 2.c3
Part 5

By GM E.Sveshnikov

Sveshnikov, E.-Korchnoi, V. [B22]

Biel 1993
1.e4 c5
Victor Lvovich plays 1e6 more often. He might dislike the line I constantly use
against the French Defense, 2.d4 d5 3.e5!?. Maybe my favorite anti-Sicilian move 2.
c3 did not seem dangerous to Korchnoi.
2.c3 From the scientific, mathematical standpoint this move is insufficient for
striving for advantage, but in order to prove that, Black should play 2...Nf6! Other
continuations are not so strong. Neither Judith Polgar, Korchnoi nor Portish
equalized against me in Biel.
2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nf3.
Simpler was 4.d4, but I wanted to make my opponent think for a while (I cant
remember the position after 2.c3 in Korchois games).
4...Nc6 5.d4 Nf6.
The move 5...Bg4 also gives some problems for Black.
6.Be2
Another continuation is 6.dc see. theoretical part
6...e6 (6...cxd4!?)
7.0-0 cxd4 8.cxd4
8.Nxd4!? Nxd4 9.cxd4
8Be7 9.Nc3 Qd6.
A few rounds earlier, the game Sveshnikov Polgar went 9...Qd8 10.Be3 0-0 11.
Ne5! Nb4 (or 11Nxe5 12.dxe5 Nd7 13.f4 Bc5 14.Bxc5 Nxc5 15.b4! Qb6 16.

Qd4!) 12.Nf3 Nbd5 13.Qb3 a5 14.Rac1 with Whites clear advantage.

10.Nb5!?
10.Be3 0-0 11.Rc1
10Qd8
10...Qb8 11.g3! Nd5 12.Bc4; 10...Qd7!? 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.dxe5 Nd5
11.Bf4 Nd5.
After 11...0-0 12.Bc7! Qd7 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Nd5 15.Bd6 White keeps the
initiative.
12.Bg3 0-0.
More solid is 12...a6! 13.Nc3 0-0 . see my game with Delchev.
13.Bc4 a6. Worse is 13...Nb6? 14.Bc7! Qd7 15.Bxb6 axb 16.Qe2 (Sveshnikov
Dokhojan, Moscow 1983), though 13...Qb6!? deserves consideration.
14.Bxd5 axb5!?
The main continuation is 14...exd5 15.Nc7 Rb8 (15...Ra7?! 16.Qb3!) 16.Ne5, and
Black is doomed to fight hard for a draw (Sveshnikov Foishor, Sochi 1985). The
move that was played is not extensively tested in practice.
15.Be4!
The continuation 15.Bb3 Na5 16.Bc2 Bd7 does not promise much for White.
15...Ra6?!
After 15h6 16.Re1 (Sveshnikov Tunik,
Primorsko 1988), 15...b4 16.Re1 (Sveshnikov
Bukic, Bled 1994) or 15Qb6 16.Bf4 Rd8 17.
Be3 (Kharlov Badea, Berlin 1994) White keeps
a slight edge.
16.Qe2
After 15.Be4

16...f5?!

In case of 16.d5 exd5 17.Bxd5 Nb4! Black is fine

More consistent is 16...Nxd4 17.Nxd4 Qxd4 18.Rfd1 Qb6 and White has good
compensation for a pawn, though only further analysis and practice will show
whether this compensation is more than enough or not.
17.Bd3.
White does not want to clarify the situation at the center. Simpler (and probably
better) was 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Be5 Qd5 19.b3 and White has slight but stable
advantage.
17...Ra5.
Bad is 17...f4? 18.Qe4 fxg3 19.Qxh7+ Kf7 20.Qh5+ dubious is 17...Nxd4? in view
of 18.Nxd4 Qxd4 19.Be5 followed by 20.Bxb5 and 21.a4. But the continuation 17...
Nb4!? 18.Bxb5!? f4 19.Bxa6 bxa6 20.Bxf4 Rxf4 21.Rac1 deserves attention. In this
case a very complicated position emerges. However, Korchnoi did not like this line.
18.Rfd1 Nb4 19.Be5 Nxd3
Otherwise the Bishop might retreat
20.Rxd3 Qd5
21.Ne1!
Planning to transfer the Knight on f4. It is the
best square for this piece.
21...Bd7.
White is clearly better after 21...Rxa2 22.Rg3
Bf6 23.Bxf6 Rxf6 24.Rxa2 Qxa2 25.Qxb5.
After 20...Qd5

22.Rg3 Rf7.

If 22...Bf6, then 23.Nd3 Rxa2 24.Rx2 Qx2 25.h3 with even more dangerous
initiative.
23.Nd3!?
I realized that I was playing with Korchnoi, who likes snatching pawns.
Nevertheless I would not forgive myself for the fainthearted 23.b3.
23...Rxa2

Straight off!
24.Rc1.
I was very pleased with my position, because I could not see any reasonable
continuation for Black. For example the natural 24...Bc6?! fails to 25.Nf4 Qc4? 26.
Qe3 Qa4 27.Bxg7.
24...Ra6! 25.Nf4
The mission is completed the knight reached his cherished square
25...Rc6! 26.Qd2.
I though I was winning. Had I foreseen Blacks 27 move, I would have preferred 26.
Rf1!? Qe4 27.Qh5. Whites position is better, though it is hard to find a forced win.
For example: 27...Bf6! 28.Re3 Qc2 29.Bxf6 (not so good is 29.d5 exd5 30.Nxd5
Bxe5 31.Rxe5 Re6) 29...Rxf6 30.d5 Ra6?! (bad is 30...Rd6? 31.dxe6 Bxe6 32.Qe8
+ Rf8 33.Qe7) 31.dxe6 Bxe6 32.Qe8+ Rf8 33.Qxb5 Bc4 34.Qxb7 Bxf1 35.Re7
Kh8 36.Rxg7 Rh6 37.Qe7 Qc8 38.Rg3! and White wins, but has a strong reply 30...
Rb6!
I am still under impression (I felt it in the course of the game) that White wins by
force, but I cant prove it by concrete variations. Black holds everywhere.
26...Rxc1+ 27.Qxc1 Qc4!
If 27...Qa2 straight away, then 28.Nh5! So Korchnoi distracts the rook from the gfile.
28.Rc3 Qa2 29.h3.
There is no checkmate in sight, so White secures his King first.
29...Bc6.
Victor Lvovich regretted after the game that he had not played 29...h6?! I think
God saved him. Though I would hardly find (but if I did?) the following variations
in the course of the game: 20.Rc7! Bc6 (30...Bg5? 31.Rxd7) 31.d5! deserves a
diagram.

31...exd5 32.Rc8+ Kh7 (bad is 32...Rf8? 33.Ng6

or 32...Bf8? 33.Qc5 threatening Ng6) 33.Ne6!
Now all the white pieces aim at the black king:
a) 33...Qc4 34.Rh8+! Kxh8 (34...Kg6 35.Nf4+
Kg5 36.Qe3) 35.Qxh6+ Kg8 36.Bxg7 with
checkmating threats;
b) 33...d4 34.Qxh6+!! (here the continuation 34.
Rh8+ Kxh8 35.Qxh6+ Kg8 36.Bxg7 Qb1+ 37.
Kh2 Bd6+! 38.f4 Bxf4+ 39.Qxf4 Rxg7 favors
After 29...Bc6
Black) 34...gxh6 (34...Kxh6 35.Rh8+ Kg6 36.Nf4
+ Kg5 37.Rh5#) 35.Rh8+ Kg6 36.Nf4+ Kg5 37.Rg8+ Rg7 38.Rxg7+ Kh4 39.g3#;
c) 33...Bf6 34.Bxf6 Rxf6 35.Nf8+ Rxf8 36.Rxf8 and White emerges an exchange
up.
2) 31...Bxd5 32.Ng6 (In case of 32.Rxe7? Rxe7 33.Ng6 Rf7 34.Qc8+ Kh7 35.Nf8+
Kg8 36.Nd7+ Kh7 White should be contended with a draw, because after 37.Qe8?
Qb1+ 38.Kh2 Qf1! 39.f3 Bxf3 Black wins the knight), all three the black Bishops
retreats favor White:
a) 32...Bg5 33.Rxf7 Kxf7 34.Qc7+ Ke8 (34...Kxg6 35.Qxg7+ Kh5 36.Qf7+ Kh4 37.
Bg3#) 35.Qc8+ Bd8 36.Bc7;
b) 32...Bd8 33.Rc8 Qa5 (33...Rd7? 34.Rxd8+ Rxd8 35.Qc7+) 34.b4 Qb6 35.h4 and
after 36.h5 and Bd4 Black is completely cramped.
c) 32...Bf6 33.Bxf6 Rxf6 (after 33...Rxc7 34.Qxc7 gxf6 35.Qd8+ Kg7 36.Qf8+
Kxg6 37.Qg8+ Kh5 38.Qf7+ Black has no defense from the checkmate), and White
has a pleasant choice between extra exchange after 34.Rc8+ Kh7 35.Nf8+ Rxf8 36.
Rxf8 and the continuation of the attack by 34.Ne5.
30.Rxc6!?
A practical move. White does not gamble, whereas in case of 30.b3 Bg5 any result
would have been possible. I had no desire to play in time trouble (though I had 20
minutes left, whereas my opponent had only 8)
30...bxc6 31.Qxc6 h6.
Losing is 31...Bf6? 32.Bd6! Be7 33.Qe8+ Bf8 34.Nxe6.
32.Qxb5.
After 32.Qe8+ Bf8 33.Nxe6 Qa7!, Black leaves the worst things behind: 34.Bd6
Qd7 35.Qxd7 Rxd7 36.Bxf8 Kf7.
32...Bf6 33.Qe8+ Rf8 34.Qc6 Bxe5 35.dxe5 Qxb2!

Korchnoi plays very well in the time scramble (1 minute for 6 moves).
36.Qxe6+ Kh7 37.Ng6 Qb1+ 38.Kh2 Rd8?
Nevertheless, Black makes a mistake. After 38...Rb8! the position is about equal.
39.Qf7! Qc2.
Bad is 39...Qe4? in view of 40.f3.
40.f4?
I did not seize the lucky chance, and let victory
slide between my fingers on the last move before
the time control. Obviously 40.Nf8+ does not
work in view of 40...Rxf8 41.Qxf8 Qxf2 with a
draw. 40.f3 is well met by 40...Qe2! (I would
have had to find it in 30 seconds; 40...Rd2? 41.
Nf8+ Kh8 42.Qg6 Kg8 43.Ne6) 41.Qxf5 Qd3!
However the knights jump to the key square 40.
After 39...Qc2
Nf4! decides the game. Now, neither 40...Qxf2?
41.Nh5 Rg8 42.Nf6+ Kh8 43.Qxg8#, nor 40...Qe4? 41.Ne6 Rg8 (41...Qxe5+? 42.f4
Qf6 43.Qxf6 gf 44.Nxd8) 42.Ng5+ hg 43.Qh5# save Black. There is one option left
40...Rg8, but after 41.e6 Qxf2 (or 41...Qe4 42.Ng6! Qc2 43.e7 Qc7+ 44.f4) 42.Qxf5
+ g6 43.Qf6, the e-passer is unstoppable.
40...Qe4! 41.e6 Rd2 42.Nf8+ Kh8 43.Ng6+.
Draw in view of the perpetual.
Not unerring, but a tense and spectacular game, in which Black maintained a
difficult defense and White, as Korchnoi remarked, carried out a tough attack.
Sveshnikov,E. Sakaev,K. [B22]
St-Petersburg, 1997
I was a half point behind my opponent in the last round. This game was my last
chance to fight for first prize.
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6.
Sakaev usually played 2...e6 or 2...d5. Evidently my opponent had prepared
specially for his game with me. This knight move is the best!
3.e5 Nd5 4.Nf3!?

I decided to disguise what line I was going to opt for

4...Nc6.
After 4...e6 5.Bc4 d6 6.d4 cxd4 7.cxd4 or 4...d6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Qxd4!? e6 White has a
minimal advantage.
5.Bc4
5.d4
5...Nb6!
Soon after this game, Kozul at Ljubliana played 5...e6 6.0-0 d6, but after 7.d4 cxd4
8.cxd4 did not manage to equalize see the next game.
6.Bb3 c4!?
The alternative is 6...d5 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.Na3 a6 9.0-0 Bf5 10.d4 cxd4 11.Nxd4
Nxd4 12.cxd4 e6 13.Qf3 Qd7 14.Re1!? Be7 15.Bg5!? Bxg5 16.Qxf5 Be7! 17.Qe4
Rd8 18.d5 Nxd5 19.Rad1 0-0 20.Rxd5 1/2 (Sveshnikov Novgorodsky, St.
Petersburg 1997).
7.Bc2 Qc7
7...d6 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.b3! with slightly better chances
8.Qe2 g5!?
I had analyzed this move five years previously.
9.e6! dxe6 10.Nxg5 Qe5
The only move. Otherwise White has a
dangerous attack on the weakened f7 square.
11.Ne4 f5 12.Ng3.
Not so clear is 12.f4!? Qxf4 13.Qh5+ Kd8 14.
Ng5.
After 8...g5

12...Qxe2+.

Another continuations is 12...Bh6 13.Na3 Qxe2+ 14.Kxe2 0-0 15.b3 cxb3 16.Bxb3
Nd5! 17.Re1 Nf4+ 18.Kf1 Nd3 19.Bxe6+ Kg7 and a very complicated position

arises (Sveshnikov Cherniaev, Yerevan 1996).

13.Nxe2 Bg7! 14.Na3
14.b3?! Nb4!
14...0-0 15.0-0 Bd7.
If 15...e5 then 16.f3 followed by b2b3 and Blacks pawn are stopped and
transformed into targets for attack. Sakaev offered a draw at this point, but the
position and my tournament situation made me play for a win.
16.Rb1 Rac8
16...Rad8!?
17.b3 cxb3 18.axb3 e5 19.f3!
It is important to stop the e-pawn.
19...a5!?

After 19.f3

This move aims to stall b3b4, though the b5

square gets loosened. Frankly speaking, I
doubted for a while whether I should have
annotated this game. First, this game is very
important for opening theory. There is no reason
to giving my secrets away; second, this encounter
is very unconventional. There is no clear
evaluation criterion for this position. Even such
coryphes as Tajmanov and Nikitin evaluated

this position in Blacks favor!

20.Re1.
White does not reveal his plan yet. Whites pawn structure is more flexible. If I
manage to catch up with my opponent in development, and exchange a couple of
pieces, Blacks pawn weakness might be in danger.
20...Nd5 21.Ng3!
Planning Nh5
21...Rcd8 (21...Ncb4? 22.cxb4 axb4 23.Nc4) 22.Bd3!?

Interesting is 22.Nc4!?, followed by Ba3 and Ne3, piling on f5.

22...e6 23.Ra1.
Also good is 23.Bb5!? with the idea of Nc4. One way or another, Blacks pawns
cant advance.
23...Nf4 24.Bf1 h5 25.Nc4 h4 26.Nh1!
My opponents temporary activity does not count.
26...Rf6 27.Nf2 Rg6 28.Kh1 Kh7 29.d4!?
I had half an hour left, my opponent had only 10 minutes at this moment. I decided
to force the issue and win a piece. From the practical standpoint, better was 29.Ra2
or 29.Rb1, and Black has difficulty finding a reasonable move.
29...Nxg2.
The only move. If 29...h3?! 30.g3 Ng2 31.Re2!
(Not so clear is 31.Rxe5?! Nxe5 32.Nxe5 Bxe5
33.dxe5 Ne1 34.Nxh3 Nxf3 35.Bg2) 31...exd4 32.
Nxh3, with a clear advantage for White.
30.Bxg2 exd4 31.Nh3.
I had conceived this maneuver in advance. If 31.
cxd4!? then 31...Nxd4! (threatening Nxb3 and
After 29.d4
Nc2; not so good is 31...Bxd4?! 32.Ra2) 32.Rxa5
Bc6. Although Black threatens Rxg2 and Nxf3, it may be better than the line that
was played in the game.
31...dxc3 32.Ng5+ Kg8 33.f4.
I though that I had activated my pieces but
33...Nd4!
This knight is worth two pieces!
34.Rb1?!
In case of 34.Rxa5?! b5! and Nxb3 Blacks passers are very dangerous, though
White has some winning chances after 34.Nxa5! Nc2 35.Nxb7 Rb8 36.Be3.

34...Bc6!
Based on my previous calculations, I thought that Black could not just trade pieces.
35.Nxa5 Bxg2+
36.Kxg2 Ra8 37.b4 b6 38.Nc4.
Whites last chance to strive for victory lay in 38.Nb3!, dislodging the d4-knight:
38...Ra2+ 39.Kh3 c2 40.Rb2 Ra3 41.Re3!?
38...Ra2+ 39.Kh3 b5 40.Ne5 Bxe5 41.Rxe5 c2 42.Rb2 Ra1
43.Rc5!
I had been obsessed with the idea that I should have won in the course of the last
several moves. On closer examination it turned out that it was no so easy.: 43.Re1?!
e5! 44.Kxh4 Rxg5!, and the black knight is very strong.
43Rxg5!
43...Rxc1? leads to checkmate: 44.Rc8+ Kg7 45.Rc7+ Kh8 36.Ra2!
44.fxg5 Rxc1 45.Kxh4.
I was still nourishing hopes that my position was better. If 45.Ra2, then 45...Kg7!
46.Ra8 Kg6! 47.Rg8+ Kf7 (47...Kh5? 48.Rc7) 48.Rgc8 Kg6 with a draw.
45...Rg1 46.Rbxc2 Nf3+!
Bad is 46...Nxc2 47.Rxc2 Rg4+? in view of 48.Kh5! Rc4 49.Ra2!, but another way
is 47...Kf7! 48.Kh5 e5 49.g6+ Ke6 50.Kh6 e4 51.g7 f4 52.Rc6+ Kf5 53.Rc5+
Kf6=.
47.Kh5 Rxg5 48.Kh6.
One may think that White has good winning chances, but my opponents reply was
a cold shower to me.
48...Kf7! 49.Rf2
After 49.Rxb5? Rg6+! 50.Kh5 Rg4! White can defend himself from checkmate
only at the cost of his Rook.
49...Rg6+ 50.Kh5 Rg5+.
Now Black has to take the perpetual. Draw. The spectators appreciated this tense
battle.

Opening Survey
Sveshnikovs Six-Part Series on the
Sveshnikov Sicilian, Concluded!
B22: 1.e4 c5 2.c3

By GM Eugeny Sveshnikov

Sveshnikov,E. Kozul,Z. [B22]

Lubliana, 1997
Zdenko Kozul is a specialist on the 2.c3 system in the Sicilian. Together with
Ognen Tsvitan, he elaborated a new original plan of defense. First I faced this plan
in my game with Natasha Boikovich at the tournament in Nova-Goritse (1997) and
hardly managed to draw.
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nf3!?
I have dodged this way lately, in order to avoid all other over-analyzed
continuations.
4...Nc6 5.Bc4 e6 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Be7 9.Qe2 0-0.
This is the opening tabia which I have analyzed and played for 30 years.
The theoretical continuations in this position are
10.Qe4, 10.Rd1, 10.a3 and 10.Nc3. The latter
move seemed to me to be the strongest one for a
long time. However, the Croatian players found
an unpleasant variation: 10...Nxc3 11.bxc3 dxe5
12.dxe5 Qa5!, and if 13.Qe4, then 13...Qa4!, and
Black has equal chances, to say the least.
10.Re1!
The key in using this novelty is to play Nc3 only
after 10...b6, and the black queen does not have
access to the a5 square. In case of 10...Qc7 the further queens sortie on a5 will
entail spending one more tempo.
After 9...0-0

10...Bd7.
The continuation 10...Qb6!? also deserves attention, though I want to warn the

proponents of this line for Black, I am already analysing the endgame that emerges
in this variation!
11.Nc3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 dxe5?!
Kozul is trying to get a familiar pawn structure. In light of the Bd7 insertion, better
was 12...d5!? 13.Bd3, though White gets the advantage here, too.
13. dxe5 Na5.
The 13...Qa5 continuation clashes with 10...Bd7. In case of 13...Qc7, White is also
better; take my word for it.
14.Bd3 Bc6 15.Nd4.
White does not allow Black to exchange the f3 knight, because it would be difficult
to create an attack without it. Now it turns out that Blacks pieces are firing
nowhere.
15...Qd5 16.Qg4 g6?
This is a decisive mistake. 16...Rfc8 was called for.
17.Bh6 Rfc8
The rook has no work on the d file
18.h4 Be8 19.Be4! Qc4.
Another option, 19...Qd8?!, fails to the unpleasant 20.Rad1!
20.h5 Nc6
Bad is 20...Qxc3? in view of 21.hxg6 hxg6 22.Nxe6.
21.hxg6 hxg6

22.Bxc6!
Exactly! White takes with the bishop, because
after this exchange Black cant do much against
the white knight.
22...bxc6
(22...Bxc6 23.Re3, and checkmate on the h-file is
unavoidable
After 21...hxg6

23.Bg5 Bxg5.

After 23...Bf8 Black has time to put up the defence 24.Re3 c5 25.Bf6 cxd4 26.Rh3
Bg7 27.Qh4.
24.Qxg5 c5 25.Nf3!
In case of 25.Re3, White would have won Blacks queen, but the result of the game
would have been in doubt: 25...cxd4 26.Rh3 Qxc3 with an unclear position,
because 27.Rh4? is met by Qxa1+ 28.Kh2 Rc1.
25...Bc6 26.Nh2! Rd8 27.Ng4 Rd3 28.Rad1 Kf8.
On 28...Rad8 I was going to react with 29.Rxd3 Rxd3 (29...Qxd3 30.Qh6 loses
immediately) 30.Rb1! Bb5 31.Rxb5 Qxb5 32.Qh6 f5 33.exf6 with a crushing
attack; but not 29.Qxd8+?! with an unclear position.
29.Qh6+ Ke8 30.Qh8+ Kd7 31.Qg7 Rxd1 32.Rxd1+ Kc7
33.Qxf7+.
All White needs is a few accurate moves.
33...Kb6 34.Ne3 Qxa2 35.c4
Re8 36.Qxg6 Kb7 37.Qh7+ Ka8 38.Qc7 Qa4 39.Qd6 Rg8
40.Rc1
40.Qxe6? Rxg2+
40...Re8 41.Qxc5 White wins.
For chess professionals, the most interesting moments of this game are the novelty
on the tenth move and the exchange on move 22.

Sveshnikov,E. Delchev,A. [B22]

Bled, 1998
This game was extremely important for the tournament standing of both opponents.
This encounter also turned out to be significant for opening theory.
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 e6
6.Be2 Nc6.
Let me repeat: more accurate is 6...cxd4, because after 6...Nc6 7.0-0 cxd4 White
has an option 8.Nxd4!? Nxd4 9.cxd4 followed 10.Bf3, though after the game
Sveshnikov Lerner (Podolsk 1993) I realized that it was not so dangerous for
Black.
7.0-0 cxd4.
If 7...Be7 then White has a pleasant choice between 8.Be3 and 8.c4 Qd8 9.dxc5
Qxd1 10.Rxd1 with a good endgame.
8.cxd4 Be7
8...Bb4!?
9.Nc3 Qd6
In case of 9...Qd8, strong is 10.Be3 0-0 11.Ne5! Sveshnikov J. Polgar, Biel (int)
1993)
10.Nb5!? Qd8 11.Bf4 Nd5.
Another continuation is 11...0-0 12.Bc7! Qd7 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Nd5 15.Bd6.
12.Bg3 a6!
12...0-0 13.Bc4 see my game with Korchnoi
13.Nc3 0-0 14.Rc1.
I also tested 14.Qb3 (Sveshnikov Kajumov, Moscow 1983; Sveshnikov Micich,
Cheliabinsk 1990), but after 14...Nf6!? 15.Rad1 b5! Black has some counterplay
(Sveshnikov Magerramov, Moscow (rapid chess) 1994).
14...Nf6.
Another option is 14...Nxc3 see the theoretical part of this article.

15.a3!
The game J. Polgar Tiviakov (Madrid 1994)
went 15.h3 (defending against 15...Nh5), but
after 15...b5! 16.Nxb5 axb5 17.Rxc6 Rxa2= the
weakness of the a2 pawn took its toll.
15...Nh5.
This was a novelty at that time. The game
Sveshnikov J. Khorvat (Sochi 1987) was drawn
After 14...Nf6
after 15...b6 16.Qb3 Bb7 17.Rfd1 b5! 18.Qa2
Qb6 because White should get rid of his isolated pawn via 19.d5 Nxd5 20.Nxd5
exd5 21.Rxd5, but after 21...Bf6 Black is even slightly better.
16.Qd3 Nxg3
What else?
17.hxg3 Bd7.
A few month later Black opted for 17Qa5 (17...b6!?) in the game Sveshnikov
Graliauskas (Denmark 1998). This game went 18.Rfd1 Rd8 19.Qe3 Bf8 20.Bd3
Qh5, and at this point White could have secured a clear edge by the simple 21.Be4!
Bd7 22.d5.
18.Rfd1 Rc8 19.Qe3.
White is building up the pressure with natural moves. Black has problems finding a
good move; every continuation has its drawbacks.
19...Qb6.
The most natural plan. Black prepares Rfd8, staves off the threat d4d5, the queen
avoids an unpleasant opposition with the white rook. Nevertheless
20.Na4!
Gaining a tempo.
20...Qa7 21.Nc5 Rfd8 22.b4 Be8.
One may think that Black did a good job of arranging his pieces, but the black
queen is too far away from the center and the kingside.

23.Bc4!
Threatening 24.Nxe6.
23Kh8 24.d5.
The opening of lines favors White because he is
fully mobilized; his pieces are much more active
than Blacks.
After 22...Be8

24...exd5 25.Bxd5 b6.

This was played upon long reflection. It turns out that Black has no reasonable
move: 25...Bf6 is met by 26.g4! with the idea of 26g6 27.Qf4, 26...h6 27.g5 or
26...Nd4 (26...Ne7) 27.Bxb7; 25...Bxc5 26.bxc5 h6 (no better is 26...f6 27.Qe6 Bh5
28.Bxc6 bxc6 29.Rxd8+ Rxd8 30.Qxc6) 27.g4! f6 28.g5!? fxg5 29.Nxg5 with a
strong attack, or a simple 28.Qe6 with a clear White advantage. The centralization
of the pieces is a very dangerous weapon!
26.Nxa6 Rxd5
Even worse was 26...Qxa6?! 27.Bxc6 Bxc6 28.Rxd8+.
27.Rxd5 Qxa6 28.b5 Qxa3.
On 28...Qa5?! White wins after 29.Nd4! Na7 30.Rxc8 Nxc8 31.Rd8!
29.Rd3.
This is more precise than 29.bxc6?! Qxe3 30.fxe3 Bc5 with some counterplay.
29...Qa8.
I expected 29...Qb4, which I was going to meet with 30.bxc6 Bc5 31.Nd4! Bxc6 32.
Rxc5 Qxc5 33.Rc3 and Nxc6.
30.bxc6 Bc5 31.Rxc5 bxc5

32.Ne5!
The tempting move 32.Qe7?! was insufficient to
win the game in view of Bxc6 33.Ne5 Bd5!
32...f6?!
In the time scramble and worse position Black
missed his best chance (in my opinion) 32...c4,
though even in this case White keeps clear
advantage after the simple 33.Nxc4 Bxc6 (33...
After 31...bxc5
Qxc6 34.Nd6 Rb8 35.Qe7 h6 36.Re3 or 34...Qc1
+ 35.Kh2) 34.Nd6 Rf8 35.Qe7 (35...Bxg2? 36.Ra3).
33.Qxc5 h6 34.Ra3 Qb8 35.Ra7 Qb1+
(35...Bh5 does not help in view of 36.Qe7)
36.Kh2 Qh7 37.Nd7 Qg8
Bad is 37...Bxd7? 38.cxd7 Rxc5 39.Ra8+
38.g4! Qf7 39.f4 Qg8
40.f5 Qf7 41.Ne5 Qg8 42.Ng6 Bxg6 43.fxg6 Qe8 44.Rf7.
Black resigns. I have scored many points in my favorite variation for 30 years,
advancing the theory of this line. I hope this was not my last word!