Professional Documents
Culture Documents
fighting the
anti-Sicilians
combating 2 q, the Closed, the Morra Gambit and other tricky ideas
EVERYMAN CHESS
Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: 978 1 85744 5206
Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.
All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House,
10 Northburgh Street, London ECl V OAT
tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708
email: info@everymanchess.com; website: www.everymanchess.com
Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this
work under licence from Random House Inc.
Contents
Bibliography
Preface
The 2 c3 Sicilian
66
84
127
166
181
189
Gambits
201
Miscellaneous
239
Index of Variations
252
Bibliography
Preface
White's many anti-Sicilian systems have been around for a while and I'm afraid
that they're here to stay. Some players inwardly sigh every time they face one, but
there's no need for such a reaction. Handling the anti-Sicilians successfully as
Black is not all about employing a lot of slow, solid lines; on the contrary, Black
can often fight for the initiative as we will see in this book. That does not mean
that every recommendation will be dynamic and exciting; just the majority! Quite
often a solid secondary system has been included, either to spoil White's fun (if
he's after a massive hack, switching to a calm approach is not so silly), or to help
Black avoid being move ordered (e.g. the c3 Sicilian doesn't have to begin with 2
c3; 2 tiJf3 e6 3 c3 being a more cunning approach).
White has a number of rather popular anti-Sicilian systems, including the fairly
theoretical 2 c3 and the aggressive Grand Prix Attack. Indeed while researching
this work, I kept being reminded just how many new ideas there have been in the
anti-Sicilians over the past decade: some being very early surprises, such as 2 a3
and 2 tiJa3, others rather ambitious ones, like 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 'iVxd5 4 d4 tiJc6 5 tiJf3
Si.g4 6 dxc5!? (a line which is both fun to analyse and full of some promising nov
elties for Black, as we'll see in Chapter One). As such I've decided to make this
work accessible to all Sicilian players by covering every single white alternative to
2 tiJf3, rather than just include White's theoretically more important systems both
with and without 2 tiJf3. This has enabled at least two systems to be thoroughly
explored against each of White's main alternatives to 2 tiJf3; one of which at least I
hope will appeal to the reader.
Throughout the emphasis has been on presenting 'fresh' lines where possible,
although I have updated coverage from early anti-Sicilian works on a few rather
Chapter One
The 2 c 3 Sici l i a n
e4 c5 2 c3
4 d4 :
A)
1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5
3 exd5
Black's 2 . . . dS ended White's hopes
of constructing an ideal centre and the
text, followed by accepting an IQP, is
an almost unanimous response. Instead
3 d3 is extremely tame, although Black
must then avoid falling for a psycho
logical trap, and one prevalent
throughout the anti-Sicilians in general,
namely not to become overconfident
and play to 'punish' White. Here Black
should be content to have equalized so
easily, while remembering that he is
10
The c3 Sicilian
..
5 tLlf3
By far White's most common move,
but occasionally he prefers one of:
a) 5 dxc5 is a radical capture which
is becoming quite popular in the form
of 5 tLlf3 g4 6 dxc5 (and is also seen
following 4 ... tLlf6 5 tLlf3 g4), but I
must admit that I've always considered
the immediate capture on c5 to be a
risky bluff. Black should not recapture
11
12
The c3 Sicilian
solid and common is 5 ... cxd4 6 cxd4 e5
7 tLlc3 i.b4, reaching a position which
often occurs with tLlf3 played instead of
i.e3. There 8 i.d2 gives White good
chances for an advantage, but in our
position Black should be able to equal
ize quite easily:
5 ...i.g4!?
Al: 6 i.e2
A2: 6 dxc5!?
The former remains the main line
and was once considered to give White
13
Al)
1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 xd5 4 d4 tLlc6 5
tLlf3 ..Il.g4 6 Ji.e2
6 ... cxd4
Best. White now gains the c3-square
for his queen's knight which is why
this line was long out of favour, but
that in itself grants Black some extra
14
cxd4 e6 8 h3
The c3 Sicilian
kuznetsk 1999) 10 ct:Jd4, 10 ...ct:Jxd4 no
longer convinces. Following 1 1 i.xg4
White's light-squared bishop is better
placed on g4 than hS which enables him
to gain the advantage with 1 1 ...ct:Jc6 12
xdS (12 O-O!? ct:Jf6 13 g5 i.e7 14 i.xf6
i.xf6 15 ct:Jxd5 is a critical position with
the bishop on h5 and may also be a
good option; certainly 15 ... i.e5 16 b4
d8 17 .:tel 0-0 18 bS i.xa1 19 bxc6 sees
the light-squared bishop making its
presence immediately felt) 12 . . .'ii'xd5 13
ct:Jxd5 Itd8 14 ct:Jc7+ and now 14 ...d7 is
illegal so Black is forced into 14...'it>e7
when White has some advantage.
However, the absence of h3 and
... i.h5 gives Black another option after
9 d5 exdS 10 ct:Jd4, namely 10 ... i.d7!
which appears to defuse White's gam
bit:
9 Jlias
..
15
All: 10 0-0
A12: 10 d5!?
AU)
1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 'it'xd5 4 d4lLlc6 5
lLlf3 .ig4 6 i..e 2 cxd4 7 cxd4 e6 8 h3
.ih5 9 ttJC3 'iVa5 10 0 -0 ttJf6
ll .ie3
Not the most active of moves, but
White's most popular choice. He has
also tried:
a) 11 a3 .id6! (just as in our main
line, this is the best development of the
king's bishop) 12 i.e3 is another com-
16
The c3 Sicilian
on the kingside and eventually e5
dropped off.
b) 11 'iVb3 is well met by 1 1 ...'iVb4!,
angling for a very pleasant ending
against the IQP as Black indeed gained
after 12 'iVxb4 (instead 12 4Jb5 J:tc8 13 g4
g6 14 'iVdl?! saw White retain the
queens, but not without enabling Black
to develop and gain a good position
after 14 ... a6 15 a3 'iVa5 16 4Jc3 d6 17
e3 0-0 in J.Pisa Ferrer-B.Kurajica, San
Sebastian 1993, and 12 J:tdl lId8! 13 e3
'iVxb3 14 axb3 a6 15 g4 i.g6 16 4Je5 4Jb4
17 i.f3 4Jfd5 also saw White failing to
make anything from his small lead in
development in Y.Afek-V.Babula, Par
dubice 1998) 12 ...i.xb4 13 i.e3 (or 13
g5 xc3 14 i.xf6 gxf6 15 bxc3 i.xf3! 16
xf3 .l::tc8 17 J:tfel cJ;,;e7 18 l:tabl b6 19
e2 4Ja5 and again Black had the edge,
although White managed to hold in
N.Managadze-A.Tzermiadianos, Poros
1998) 13 ... 0-0 14 lIac1 .l::tfd8
17
a3
18
The c3 Sicilian
for Black since White again struggles to
get his dark-squared bishop into the
game) 14 'ikxb4 (14 g4 .ig6 IS lDeS!?
was a more ambitious try in T.5haked
A.Miles, Groningen 1996, but with
IS . . . lDdS 16 f3 f6! 17 lDxc6 'ikxb3 1 8
axb3 bxc6 19 l:tfc1 rJtd7 Black main
tained the balance; observe here how
Miles correctly avoided IS ...'ikxb3 16
axb3 lDxeS? 1 7 dxeS xeS due to 1 8 f4
- Gallagher - targeting Black's light
squared bishop and centralized king
with a dangerous initiative) 14 . . . lDxb4
12 0-0 13 "iWb3
...
19
20
The c3 Sicilia n
d2 J:tbd8, as in D.Zifroni-A.Abolianin,
Antwerp 1995, with an equal game in
all cases) 15 .. :iWxb5 16 ctJxb5 ctJd5 1 7
ctJxd6 .l:txd6 1 8 'ittf1 f6 19 .l:tac1 bd8
White was ground down in S.Brady
LD.Nisipeanu, Saint Vincent 2004.
White's problem in such an ending is
that he is rather passive and the future
European Champion gave a good
demonstration of how to make pro
gress as Black: 20 g4 .ie8! 21 ctJd2 ctJce7
22 ctJe4 c6 23 .l:txc6 i.xc6 24 ctJc3 f7
25 ctJxd5 ctJxd5 26 i.d3 g5! 27 'iite2 lIh8
28 .ii.e4 h5 29 i.xd5 i.xd5 30 gl as
and White was being squeezed.
14...l:tab8
14 'ilVxb7?!
Black is happy to see this, but the al
ternatives also fail to bring White any
advantage:
a) 14 .id2 'ilVb6 15 'ilVxb6 axb6 16
ac1 saw c3 Sicilian expert, John Shaw,
obtain a comfortable draw in T.Thor
hallsson-J.5haw,
European
Team
Championship, Plovdiv 2003; Black's
control of d5 fully offsets his doubled
b-pawns.
b) 14 ctJb5 .ii.b8 15 ac1 ctJfd5 1 6
.i d l a6 1 7 ctJc3 ctJxe3!? 18 fxe3 ctJf5 19
21
A12)
1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 't!Vxd5 4 d4 CDc6 5
CDf3 g4 6 ..te2 cxd4 7 cxd4 e6 8 h3
AhS 9 CDc3 "iVa5 10 d5!?
A critical pawn sacrifice, although
my own praxis with 5 . . . g4 suggests
that a number of quite regular c3 expo
nents either remain unaware of this
gambit or simply don't like to play a
pawn down for a period of time, as
White must be prepared to here. How
ever, there is no doubt that this gambit
is quite dangerous. Black doesn't need
much concrete knowledge to get by in
A11, but here he is advised to make
sure he is well prepared.
10 exd5
...
22
The c3 Sicilian
a4) 12 tDgS!? iLg6 13 ii.d3 (S.Yudin
O.Loskutov, Tomsk 2004) attempts to
pressurize f7, but can be defused by an
excellent idea of Rogozenko's, namely
1 3 ... i.hS!.
23
24
The c3 Sicilian
1 0 ...exdS:
11 ctJd4
...
25
The c3 Sicilian
easily exploit his queenside weak
nesses. I believe that the black position
is fully playable, but, of course, it won't
suit everyone. Hence the alternatives
given in the notes to Black's 1 0th and
1 1th moves.
15 ...d4
14 .. J:td8!?
A useful, semi-active move. Black
may well want to cover e7 with ... .!:td7
and he also has ideas of disrupting
White's build-up with an advance of
the d-pawn. Instead 14 ...CLJf6 15 .itg5
f8 16 J::!.fe1 is quite pleasant for White;
Black will struggle to both free his po
sition and keep his queenside under
control after 17 l:tael. The other option
is 14 ...<.tf8, giving up castling rights,
but hoping to unravel with . . .d8, ... g6
and ...g7.
15.itd2
White's most popular move, but as
Black isn't troubled by discovered at
tacks against his queen, it may not be
the most testing. Alternatively:
a) 15 .itg5 d4! 16 .itxe7 CLJxe7 17 .!:tfe1
0-0 (the more risky 17 .. :iWgS!? 18 CLJe4
eS can also be considered) 18 xe7
dxc3 19 bxc3 l:td2 reveals one of the
27
28
A2)
1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 'ikxd5 4 d4 4Jc6 5
4Jf3 .il.g4 6 dXC5!?
Like so many lines of the c3 Sicilian,
this unbalancing capture only began to
receive attention once it was tried by
Sveshnikov. It certainly leads to some
interesting and unusual positions, but
The c3 Sicilian
despite having been endorsed by both
Rozentalis and Harley's Play the 2 c3
Sicilian and Collins' An Attacking Reper
toire for White, I'm not convinced. In
deed the Sicilian player should be quite
happy to see this variation since, so
long as Black doesn't recapture on c5, a
dynamic and complex situation quickly
ensues.
6 :iWxd1+! 7 'ittx dl e5
..
8 b4
The consistent follow-up. White
cannot allow Black to regain the pawn
when his superior development and
ability to castle gives him an easy
game; for example, 8 'it>e1?! i..xc5 9
tt'ibd2 tt'if6 10 tt'ig5 and now in
RDworzynski-H.5zapiel,
Katowice
1952 (quite possibly the stem game for
this
variation),
the
prophylactic
10 ... .Jie7!? would have left Black with a
small edge.
White can defend c5 with 8 i..e3,
but after 8 ... f5! 9 h3 (or 9 .Jib5 f4 10 .ii. d2
i..xc5 1 1 !tel 0-0-0 12 .Jixc6 bxc6 13
.:!.xe5 .Jixf2 14 'it'e2 Ji.b6 and although I
later
overpressed
in
N.Thomas
RPalliser,
British
Championship,
Swansea 2006, Black could certainly
have no complaints with his active po
sition at this point, while 9 ... 0-0-0+!?
might be even more precise) 9 ... i..xf3+
10 gxf3 f4 1 1 i.d2 .Jixc5 it is not espe
cially easy for White to complete his
development.
29
8 as
...
30
The c3 Sicilian
g . . .4Jge7!
10 a3
31
10...axb4
An important exchange to insert.
Instead Rozentalis and Harley, as well
as Collins, only analyse 10 ... 0-0-0+?! 1 1
ttJbd2 e 4 12 h3 iLhS ( 1 2... exf3 13 hxg4
fxg2 1 4 Mgl also leaves Black strug
gling for compensation) 13 g4 iLxg4 14
hxg4 exf3 IS 'it>c2 ttJeS 16 gS when
White was somewhat better in
MDubois-M.Verot, Val d'Isere 2002.
11 cxb4
ing of moves:
11...0-0-0+
32
Th e c3 Sicilian
to the forcing 1 1 .. .e4!? 12 h3 exf3 13
hxg4 fxg2 14 .l:Igl (14 i.xc6+? llJxc6
doesn't help White at all since b4 is en
prise and 15 .l:Ie 1 + i.e7 16 i.b2 0-0-0+
very promising for Black) 14 ...0-0-0+
17 gS h4 18 xg2 h3 19 h2 llJf3 20
.l:Ihl llJfS White remains both passive
and poorly co-ordinated.
b) 15 llJd2 llJd4 16 i.d3 (trying to
plug the d-file; Rogozenko also men
tions 16 i.e2 llJg6 and 16 i.c4 hS 17 gS
llJg6 1 8 .l:Ixg2 h4 19 a4 h3 20 .l:Ih2 llJeS
with Black doing quite well in both
cases) 16 ... hS (this idea again; Rogoz
enko actually stops here with an as
sessment of unclear, but already Black
has a strong initiative and appears to
be doing pretty well) 17 gS (17 .l:Ixg2
hxg4 18 .l:Igl llJec6 19 .l:Iel .l:Ih3 is very
good for Black, but perhaps White
might try 17 Si..b2!? when 17 ...hxg4 18
i.xd4 .l:Ixd4 19 Wc2 llh2 20 i.e4 fS 21
i.xg2 .l:If4 22 llafl llJg6 is one way to
keep up the pressure) 17 ... 11JdS (ensur
ing that the g-pawn can't be easily
rounded up) 18 i.b2 11Jf4
33
13 .ii.e 2
12 4Jbd2
12 CLld4
...
34
The c3 Sicilia n
35
B)
1 e4 (5 2 (3 d5 3 exd5 "ii'xd5 4 d4 4:Jf6
5 4:Jf3
As in Line A this is the main move,
although White has also tried:
a) S dxcS 'iVxcs (for once I'm not
convinced by S .. :xdl + 6 xdl eS
since here 7 b4 4:Jc6 8 .ibS! is a little
awkward, but Black can consider
6 ... 4:Jc6!?; then 7 ctJf3 .ifS is an immedi-
36
The c3 Sicilian
b) 5 ltJa3 remains a move best
played only after ... e6. Here 5 ... ii.g4!? is
an active and good riposte.
37
Returning to 5 ct:Jf3:
s e6
...
B1: 6 i.d3
B2: 6 i.e2
B3: 6 ct:Ja3
B4: 6 St..e 3
Before launching into a thorough
discussion of these important varia
tions, we should note that Black can
38
The c3 Sicilian
position, but I believe that 6 .. .'Jg4!? is a
fighting and fully playable alternative,
despite being rarely seen these days.
39
40
The c3 Sicilian
would have been fine for Black, es
pecially in the case of 15 ctJg3 'iYg6 16
d5!? (16 .i.a6 .i.xa6 17 'iYxa6 retains the
tension and makes good positional
sense, but Black should be fine after
17 ... .i.d6) 16 . . .exd5 1 7 ctJd2 'Yi'g4!.
a53) 1 1 .i.e4!? has only been seen
twice, but may well be the most testing
continuation. After 1 1 . . :'h5 (for once
this might not be the best square;
1 1 ...'Yi'd6!? 12 ctJc4 c7 was preferred in
L.Altounian-JDonaldson, Los Angeles
1995, and after 13 ctJce5 ctJxe5 14 ctJxe5
.i.d6 15 ctJf3, had Black avoided the
Greek Gift with Gallagher's suggestion
of 15 ... f5 he would have been doing
quite well) 12 .i.xc6!? (an idea of Pavas
ovic's; he actually preferred 12 ctJc4 in
D.Pavasovic-I.Farago, Ljubljana 2002,
when Black must avoid 12 ... .i.d7? 13
dxc5, but 12 ... cxd4 13 exd4 .i.d7 im
proves when both 14 3 ab8 and 14
ctJce5 ctJxe5 1 5 ctJxe5 'Yi'xdl 16 fxdl
.i.e8! don't seem to give White much, if
indeed anything at all) 12 ...bxc6, 13
ctJe5 is tricky when Pavasovic analyses
13 ...'Yi'xdl 14 .l:.axdl .i.b7 15 ctJe4 (15
ctJd7 cxd4 should be OK for Black since
16 ctJxf8? runs into the intermezzo
16 ... dxe3) 15 ... cxd4 16 cxd4 f6 1 7 ctJd7
fd8 18 ctJdc5 .i.c8 which he assesses as
being slightly better for White, but
again it's not that easy to make pro
gress against Black's bishop-pair and
solid position.
b) 6 dxc5 is the 'critical test' accord
ing to Rozentalis and Harley. Now
6 .. :iVxdl + 7 'iitx dl is usually followed
up by 7 ...e5 when play can quickly be
come quite complex and theoretical. A
41
Bl)
1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exds "iVxds 4 d4 ctJf6 5
ctJf3 e6 6 i..d3
The most natural and active square
for the light-squared bishop, but White
is going to struggle to develop his
queenside so easily.
42
8 c4
The most obvious way to try and
take advantage of Black's refusal to
create an IQP. As 8 dxc5 l:!.d8 is an easy
equalizer, White has also tried:
a) 8 .i.e3 J:1d8 (increasing the pres-
The c3 Sicilian
sure down the d-file, but 8 . . .ttJc6 is a
good alternative; after 9 'iYe2 cxd4 10
cxd4 ttJb4! 11 ttJc3 S White doesn't
want to part with his key light-squared
bishop - 12 ttJeS?! ttJxd3 13 'iYxd3 b6 14
ttJe4 b7 IS f3 .a:ad8 16 .a:adl ttJxe4! 17
fxe4 f6 1 8 ttJf3 'iYg6 was excellent for
Black in A.Kunte-S.Tiviakov, Ubeda
1999 - but 12 .tc4 b6 13 a3 ttJbdS is
very comfortable for Black with a
knight already on dS and his queen
well placed on hS, J.5peelman
Cu. Hansen, Munich 1992) 9 'iWe2 (in
stead 9 ttJeS ttJc6 10 ttJxc6 'iVxc6 merely
helps Black free his position through
exchanges, and 9 c4 'ifus 10 .te2 ttJg4!?
1 1 .tf4 cxd4, while less clear, is also
fine for Black; for example, 12 h3 ttJh6!
13 .tc7 d3 14 .txd3 .a:d7 IS .tf4 ttJc6 16
'iVe2 ttJb4 hunted down the bishop-pair
to
fully
equalize
in
N.Zinina
I.Novikov, Cattolica 1993) 9 ... ttJc6
43
fine for Black and he also has Novikov's more ambitious 10 ... ttJg4!?,
which we considered, above, i n note ' a'
to White's 8th move) 10 .. :'h4 1 1 ltJf3
'iNh5.
White has also failed to gain any
advantage with 9 ttJc3 ltJc6 (9 ....l::i.d8 is a
good alternative) 10 dxc5 ii.xc5; for
example, 1 1 ii.f4 ( 1 1 .ig5?! ttJd4! is a
tactical idea worth remembering)
1 1 . . ..l::i.d8 12 'irYe2 ttJd4!? 13 ttJxd4 ..txd4
14 ttJb5 e5 saw Black already pursuing
the initiative in R.Bozzo-C.Balogh,
online blitz 2004.
9 J;tdS 10 ii.f4 'irYxcS 11 "iVe2
Prudent. White preferred the more
ambitious 1 1 a3!? ttJc6 12 b4 in G.Lee
S.Kudrin, Manchester 1982, but after
12 .. :'h5 13 J:tel (13 'irYe2? e5! is also
rather powerful since 14 ttJxe5 ltJxe5 15
i1l.xe5 J:txd3 wins material and 14 ii.xe5
i1l.g4 leaves White badly pinned)
13 ... e5! Black had the initiative.
.
9 dxcS
Alternatively, 9 ii.e2 J:td8 can easily
lead to an early draw after 10 ttJg5 (or
10 i.e3 when 10 ... cxd4 1 1 ttJxd4 'irYe5 is
44
The c3 Sicilian
pawn) 16 jLc7?! (16 jLg3! would have
been more critical, intending 16 ...i..f6
17 .l:!.a2, while 16 ... i..f5 1 7 .l:!.xe7 l:i.xd3 1 8
e2 etJf6 19 etJd2 xe2 2 0 .l:!.xe2 .l:!.ad8 21
etJf1 appears to leave Black with insuf
ficient compensation) 16 ... i..h4 and
now Lee rather collapsed after 1 7 .l:!.a2?
jLf5, but even 1 7 i.xd8 i.xf2+ 18 c;t>f1
jLe6 19 i.c7 .l:!.c8! 20 ..tf4 g5 would have
left Black with a very strong initiative.
11 ...etJc6
82)
1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 xd5 4 d4 etJf6 5
etJf3 e6 6 ..te2
6 ....i e7
45
8 (4
7 0-0
46
7 ...0-0
The c3 Sicilian
tbc3 .i.d7 15 a3 tbd5 16 i.g3 tbxc3! 1 7
bxc3 i.a4 1 8 l:i.dbl .i.c6 gave Black the
more comfortable position in K.Hulak
A.Adorjan, Banja Luka 1983) 10 ... tbf6
1 1 i.e3 both sides have lost some time,
but Black's ... I!.d8 is probably a more
useful gain than White's h3.
47
48
F.Retter-M.Traeger, correspondence
1993, continued 1 7 g4 b6 18 l:tfel .ia6
19 i..g3 l:tc8 20 .l:!.ad .igS 21 .l:!.c2 ttJf4
and Black was better.
Returning to 8 c4:
S :YWdS
.
The c3 Sicilian
CLld4 'iVeS 13 CLlf3 in M.Hermann
N.Gaprindashvili, Berlin 1988, and
Black is also fine after 12 .i.d3 5 13
i..e3 ltJc6 1 4 e2 l:td8 followed by ... e5
or ...ltJg4.
9 CLlc3
Rogozenko believes that 9 dxc5!?
.txcS 10 CLlc3 is a better try for the ad
vantage. He may well be correct, al
though Black should be OK here so
long as he unravels slowly and pa
tiently.
49
11 l2JdbS l2Jc6
9 cxd4 10 l2Jxd4
...
1 2 3i.e3
10...eS!?
The most active, but the solid
10 ... d7 is a good alternative; for ex
ample, 1 1 3i.f3 (or 1 1 .i.f4 'bc6 12 i.f3
l:tc8 13 'bdb5!? e5 14 i.e3, as in
S.Brynell-A.Wojtkiewicz,
Stockholm
1991, and now the simplest course is
probably 14 ...e6!, meeting 15 'bd5
with 15 ... e4 and 15 c5 with 15 ... 3i.c4,
followed by ... e4 or ... 'bd4) 1 1 .. .'iic8 12
'iVe2 'bc6 13 l2Jxc6 3i.xc6 14 b3 l:td8 and
Black had fully equalized in M.Bjelajac
A.Adorjan, Vrsac 1983.
50
Th e c3 Sicilian
12 ... i.e6
Covering dS. In J.Polgar-J.Lautier,
Monaco (rapid) 1995, Black preferred
the provocative 12 ... i.fS!? when 13 lLldS
lLlxdS 14 cxdS lLlb4 IS d6 i.f6 had cer
tainly unbalanced the position, al
though now 16 ac1 probably favours
White, since it's not that easy for Black
to implement ...lLlc6-d4 followed by
rounding up d6, whereas Polgar's 1 6
lLlc7 .l:tc8 1 7 i.xa7 was much less con
vincing after 17 ...lLlc2 1 8 .l:tc1 .1i.gS.
83)
1 e4 cS 2 c3 dS 3 exds xdS 4 d4 lLlf6 S
lLlf3 e6 6 lLla3
If White wishes to avoid playing
with an IQP, not that we intend to in
flict one, the text is his only real choice.
Notably it's the invariable choice of
leading c3 protagonist, Sergei Tiviakov,
against S . . .e6 which is, incidentally, his
own preference when faced himself
with 2 c3.
6 ...lLlc6
7 lLlbS
51
52
Th e c3 S icilia n
tive here is 1 7 xg7, but after 1 7 ... i.xe5
18 xe5+ e7 Black's extra knight
should be of much more short-term use
than White's three extra pawns)
12 ... c5!? (preparing ...e5 with Rogoz
enko's 12 . . ..ii.e 7 is also quite playable,
but the immediate 12 ... e5 was rather
dangerous for Black after 13 i.xe5! fxe5
14 lbxe5 in S.Tiviakov-J.5meets, Dutch
Championship, Leeuwarden 2005) 13
.ii.b5+ .ii.d 7 (keeping it simple; I also
wonder about 13 ... f7!? 14 i.e3 .i:tb8 15
c4 'i'c7! for Black) 1 4 i.xd7+ xd7 15
i.e3 lbxe3 16 fxe3 xdl + 1 7 xdl d7
is fine for Black and 18 c2 c6 19
J::!.adl i.e7 20 .:i.d2 J::!. ad8 21 J::!.e2 h5! led
to nothing more than an unbalanced
but fairly level ending in S.Tiviakov
L.Ftacnik, Amsterdam 2006.
7 d8 8 dxcS
10 .ii.f4
White's most popular continuation,
but he can also consider:
a) 10 .ii.g5 e7 1 1 J::!.d l a6 forces
53
11 ctJxg5 12 iLxg5+ f6
...
10 ctJe4!
...
11 ctJg5
Forcing the exchange of the power
ful black knight. White has also failed
to gain any advantage with 1 1 l':!dl +
iLd7 (a solid and good alternative is
1 1 .. .We7 12 ctJbd4 ctJxd4 13 ctJxd4 l':!d8
14 iLd3 ctJf6 as employed by Degraeve,
Nevednichy and Yudasin) 12 iLe3
iLxe3 13 fxe3 a6 14 ctJbd4 (the only real
try; 14 ctJd6 ctJxd6 15 l':!xd6 We7 16 l':!d2
e5 is very comfortable for Black)
14 ... We7 15 iLd3 ctJf6 16 0-0 l':!hd8 17 e4
ctJg4 and, although Black went on to
lose a long struggle, his control of e5
meant he was fine at this pOint in
E.Sveshnikov-C.Balogh, Warsaw 2005.
White should, though, avoid 1 1
ctJbd4?! since 1 1 ...ctJxd4 12 l':!dl i.d7
forces a concession: White must either
acquiesce to an IQP with 13 cxd4, when
13 ... iLb4+ 14 ctJd2 iLc6 gives Black an
edge, or give up the bishop-pair after
54
84)
1 e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 exd5 xd5 4 d4 ctJf6 5
ctJf3 e6 6 iLe3
Now there is a threat to capture on
The c3 Sicilian
c5 and Black is pretty much forced into
an exchange on d4.
6 cxd4 7 cxd4
...
7 ... il.b4+!
8 .i.d7!?
...
8 t"bC3
It was probably this option of de
veloping the queen's knight as aggres-
9 i.d3
55
56
Th e c3 Sicilian
Black would clearly like to occupy
the c4-square, but is unlikely to be al
lowed to. Indeed White usually lands
up with pawns on c4 and d4 which
need to be kept in check; a d5-advance,
particularly if it opens up White's
dark-squared bishop, can be quite
awkward. Thus Black needs to keep
the hanging pawns under restraint,
taking care as well not to allow White's
dark-squared bishop too much activity,
but should he play quite sensibly he is
assured of quite a comfortable game.
Patience is often the key word which
both players need to remember: White
would like to play as actively as possi
ble, but unlike in an IQP structure, he
cannot mount that quick an attack;
Black, for his part, must aim to slowly
exchange pieces, gradually revealing
the weakness of the hanging pawns.
12
xb5
57
12 JiixbS 13 .l:!.bl a6
..
14 1Wb3 b6
58
15 i, gS!
Once again probably the most accu
rate:
a) IS tbeS .l:!.c8 (15 ... tbbd7!? 16 tbxd7
tbxd7, lining up ... eS, also deserves at
tention, A.Burtasova-L.Bensdorp, Ku
sadasi 2006) 16 f4?! (very committal;
leading c3 authority Pavasovic pre
ferred 16 .l:!.fc1 tbc6 1 7 tbc4! in
Zalaegerszeg
o .Pavasovic-KRuck,
2004, but this was only enough to draw
in view of 17 ...tbe7 1 8 tbeS tbc6 19 tbc4)
16 ...tbc6 17 .l:!.f3 tbdS! (prudent; 17 ...tbe4
18 tbxf7!? xf7 19 fS would have been
tricky, although perhaps this isn't any
more than rather unclear after 19 ... l:!.e8!
20 fxe6+ '.itg8 21 e7+ '.ith8 22 'idS 'lWd3
23 'lWxc6 'ixbl + 24 'ufl 1Wxa2 2S 'iVxe4
'ia3 26 i,gS h6) 1 8 i,d2 1We2!? 19 .l:!.f2
'iYh5 20 l:!.el tba5 21 1WbS?! f6! 22 g4 e8
23 1Wxe8+ .l:!.xe8 24 c4 tbxf4 25 Mxf4 fxeS
26 dxeS tbc6 was the instructive course
of Y.Afek-K.Landa, Vlissingen 200S; a
model performance from Black since
such an ending is always promising for
him due to the weakness of both eS
and c4.
b) IS c4 tbc6!? (covering f6 with
IS ... tbbd7 was a safer alternative) 16
.l:!.fc1 .l:!.ac8 1 7 1Wd3 h6 18 'id2 saw
White trying to confuse the issue with
a possible sacrifice on h6 in G.Kuba
C.Balogh, Zemplinska Sirava 2004. In
deed 18 ... 'iaS (18 . . .tbe7!? heading for fS
or g6 would have been less provocative
when Black can meet 19 i,xh6 with
19 ... gxh6 20 'ixh6 tbh7! since 21 tbg5
tbxg5 22 'ixgS+ tbg6 23 h4 '.ith7 24 h5
tbh8 keeps everything covered) 19
i,xh6!? gxh6 20 'ixh6 'ifS 21 .l:!.bS eS
Th e c3 Sicilian
lS ttJbd7 16 c4 tacS
...
17 tfc1
Swinging both rooks to the queen
side is logical as White intends to ad
vance his a-pawn, but he has also tried
17 ttJd2 when 17 ... 'iYaS!? (trying to ex
ploit White's slightly loose pieces, but
17 ... 7 might well be an improve-
17 ... b7
Black can also double immediately
with 17 ...tc6 18 l:tc2 l:tfc8 as he did in
J.Shaw-D.Pavasovic, Calvia Olympiad
2004 (two great c3 Sicilian experts in
opposition here), but after 19 l:tbc1,
59
18 a4 'iVe4 19 h3 h6
1 e4 c5 2 ct:Jf3 e6
60
C)
3 c3 d5
4 e5!?
A tricky independent try, rather
than transpose to Line B with 4 exdS
'iVxdS S d4 ct:Jf6.
4 ...d4!?
And this is a tricky independent re
sponse. There's nothing wrong with
Th e c3 Sicilian
4 .. .lbc6, but then Black must be happy
to play the Advance French after 5 d4
(and 5 lLla3!? is also an option; see the
move order 2 lLla3 e6 3 c3 d5 4 e5 lLlc6 5
lLlf3 in Line B of Chapter Nine).
(1: 5 cxd4
(2: 5 i.d3
Sometimes White prefers 5 i.b5+
i.d7 6 i.xd7+ 'iVxd7, but after 7 cxd4
(an independent try is 7 0-0 lLlc6 8 c4!?,
but here Black has a number of options,
including 8 ... lLlge7 9 d3 lLlg6 10 l::te l
O-O-O!? 11 a3 f6! which led to a double
edged game in T.Bae-P.Gayson, British
League 2005) 7 ... cxd4 we've transposed
to Line Cl.
(1)
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 c3 d5 4 e5 d4 5 cxd4
cxd4 6 ii.b5+
A critical test of Black's system
since now White gets to win the d
pawn. He can also capture it with 6
61
11 tLJa3
7 ...ii.xbS
62
The c3 Sicilian
Again Black wisely rejects the pawn
in favour of improving his pieces; the
eS-weakness won't run away.
5 .i.d7!?
..
6 0-0
(2)
1 e4 c5 2 lL'lf3 e6 3 c3 d5 4 e5 d4 5 .i.d3
A
more
positional
plan.
White
63
7 Mel
Once again White has a few alterna
tives:
a) 7 'Yi'e2 ttJe7 (bringing the knight to
g6 is especially tempting with White's
queen on e2, but, just like in our main
64
7 ... ttJe7
Bringing the knight to g6 is logical,
The c3 Sicilian
but Black can also fight for the initia
tive with 7 ... gS!?, as he did in
O.5almensuu-J.Horvath, Helsinki 2001:
8 h3 (or 8 'iiif l g4 9 tDgl tDh6 10 ii.e4
ii.xe4 1 1 l:txe4 tDc6 12 d3 dxc3 13 tDxc3
l:tg8 14 tDge2 tDfS and Black had good
central control in G.Wall-J.Rowson,
British League 2004) 8 ...hS
8 . .cxb4 9 cxb4
.
9 ...ii.xf3!
Now Black is in time to use the dS
outpost to gain sufficient counterplay
against White's extended queenside.
10 xf3 tDds 11 bS tDd7 12 ii.b2 tDcS
8 b4!?
Now it's White's turn to try and un
balance the position. The alternative is 8
tDa3 tDg6 when Black should have quite
reasonable counterplay: for example, 9
ii.xg6 (or 9 g3 tDd7!? 10 cxd4 cxd4 1 1
tDxd4 tDdxeS 1 2 tDxc6 tDxc6 1 3 ii.e4, as
in B.5adeghi-J.Halbritter, Bayern 2003,
and now 13 ... ii.e7 would have been
about equal; Black's 9th was a little
radical, but is a good way to sidestep
White's idea of M-hS) 9 ...hxg6 10 cxd4
65
Chapter Two
1 e4 c5 2 li'lc3
Once upon a time one tended to
know where one stood after 2 li'lc3:
White would follow up with a kingside
fianchetto, aiming to imitate Smyslov
and Spassky's success with the Closed
Sicilian. Then White players began to
become much more crafty. By the late
eighties, Grand Prix exponents were
becoming frustrated with 2 f4 d5 (see
Line B1 of Chapter Four) and so began
to turn more and more to a 2 li'lc3 move
order, intending to follow up with 3 f4.
Worse was to come in the shape of
players with a broad repertoire who
aimed to allow certain lines of the
Open Sicilian, while avoiding others
with 2 li'lc3. This move order 'trick' re
mains very popular at grandmaster
level; White may, for example, meet
2 ... d6 with 3 f4, thereby avoiding the
Najdorf, but be happy to meet 2 ...e6
with 3 li'lf3 and 4 d4, transposing to a
Taimanov or Kan.
One crucial point to note here is
66
67
A: 3 g3
B: 3 f4
c: 3 li::l ge2
0: 3 li::lf3
Most tricky move orders do, how
ever, have a small drawback or two
and 2 ... a6 is no exception. White might
reply with 3 a4 which is slightly ugly,
but does prevent ... bS. Should Black
have some experience of ... g6 Closed
Sicilian systems this is no problem. Af
ter 3 ... li::lc6 4 g3 (or 4 4 g6 5 li::lf3 g7
and White's most dangerous move, 6
b5, has been ruled out; Black can also
play 4 ...e6 5 li::lf3 d5 a la Chapter Four)
4 ... g6 5 g2 g7 6 d3 d6 the inclusion
of ... a6 and a4 is generally considered
to favour Black: he might have to play
... .l:tb8 to force through ...b5, but it is
usually Black who profits more from
68
A)
1 e4 C5 2 li::lC3 a6 3 g3 b5
69
70
6 d5!
...
7 e5
White's most popular choice, and
one recommended in Emms' Attacking
with 1 e4, but not every opponent will
like to close the centre so early. Alter
natively:
a) 7 fS?! was apparently tried in
J.Coll Frances-J.Granda Zuniga, Tar
ragona 2006, but I can't see anything
wrong with 7 . . . d4 followed by captur
ing on fS; for example, 8 ttJbl exfS 9
ttJh3 fxe4 10 ttJgS ttJf6 1 1 ttJd2 i.e7 12
ttJdxe4 ttJxe4 13 ttJxe4 ttJc6 and White's
compensation is insufficient.
b) 7 ttJf3 b4 8 ttJe2 (Black was also
fine after 8 ttJa4!? ttJf6 9 exdS ttJxdS 1 0
0-0 i.e7 1 1 c4 bxc3 12 bxc3 0-0 13 Mbl
71
7 hS!
...
8 CZlf3
72
11 ...c4!
Making good use of both Black's ex
tra queenside space and his control of
the d4-square to open up the position.
12 CtJe3
Perhaps 12 c3!? was a better try, al
though this gives Black a hook for a
later ...b4 and 12 ... cxd3 13 xd3 cS+ 14
e3 6 continues to look like a fa
vourable French-type position for Black.
12 .icS 13 h1 CtJcd4 14 d1 h4!
11 CtJd1?!
This doesn't especially convince, al
though White really needs to redeploy
his knight from c3 if he is to improve his
position. In E.Hidegh-N.Lakos, Hungar
ian League 2006, White preferred to pre
pare 12 CtJe2 with 1 1 f2 and now
11...CtJcd4!? is one good option, although
it's also very much possible to proceed
more slowly with Lakos' I 1 ..JkS and
... iLe7. After I l . ..CtJcd4, play might con
tinue 12 CtJdl (if 12 CtJxd4, Black should
recapture with 12 ... cxd4!, gaining good
pressure even in the event of 13 CtJe2
and c3 from White) 12 ...h4 13 g4 h3! 14
hl CtJxf3+ IS xf3 CtJd4 16 hl iLe7 17
c3 CtJc6 with a complex situation, but
also one in which White is looking a
little overextended: he has managed to
get in g4, but having lost control of the
h4-square this is a double-edged gain.
Black could now continue positionally
with ...6 and ... d4, but I also quite like
the aggressive plan of ...d7, ...0-0-0
73
3 ... b5
Again this i s the consistent follow
up, albeit one that strangely goes
unmentioned in the recent white reper
toire book Chess Openings for White, Ex
plained.
4 ttJf3
Should White be happy with a
transposition to the Closed, not that he
has anything better, he might prefer
the move order 4 g3 ii.b7 5 ii.g2 e6 6 d3
and we've reached the main line of our
last section.
5 ...e6
4 ...ii.b7
6 g3
5 d3
Best. White's less natural alterna
tives aren't so convincing:
a) 5 'iVe2 has been used by Aronian
74
6 d5
...
75
C)
1 e4 cS 2 lbc3 a6 3 lbge2
3 lbf6
...
76
4 g3
Trying to remain in independent
waters, rather than transpose to the
Najdorf with 4 d4 cxd4 S iLlxd4 d6. An
other point behind Black's move order
is that 4 eS isn't really anything to be
worried about. It actually remains un
tested, quite possibly because White's
king's knight is a little misplaced on e2
and after 4 ... iLlg4 S f4 it is not so easy
for him to complete his kingside devel
opment. Play might continue S ... dS 6
iLlg3 (6 h3 only really helps Black since
his knight will find a good home on fS,
such as after 6 ... iLlh6 7 d4 iLlc6 8 g3 e6)
6 ... iLlc6 7 i.e2 iLlh6 8 0-0 iLlfS with
rather unimpressive development from
White and a fully equal and comfort
able game for Black.
6 0-0
Now play is likely to transpose to a
Closed Sicilian. A much more critical
alternative is 6 d4 cxd4 7 iLlxd4 e6,
reaching a position which also arises
77
78
6 ... e6
7 d3
The most common choice, albeit in a
fairly rare position. Instead 7 d4 b4 8
ttJa4 .ltxe4 transposes to a position
which we considered in note 'c' to
Black's 3rd move, above. Once again 7
e5 is probably a little too committal
and 7 ... .ltxg2 8 rJ;;xg2 ttJg4 9 d4 cxd4 10
xd4 h5! 11 f4 ttJc6 12 e4 ttJh6 left
White in danger of finding himself
rather overextended, while Black had
good counterplay in SDel Rio Angelis
S.Cacho Reigadas, Cala Galdana 1994.
79
0)
1 e4 c5 2 tbC3 a6 3 tbf3
4 ... b5!?
3 . .d6
.
80
6 ...e6
5 g2
This usually implies that White is
settling for a solid type of Closed Sicil
ian set-up. More critical is 5 d4 cxd4 6
lLlxd4 when it's not so easy for Black to
reach the 6 g3 e5 variation of the Na
jdorf. Perhaps the best try is 6 ... jLb7
(6 ... e6 7 jLg2 b7 is also possible,
transposing to a line of the Kan) 7 jLg2
e5 (or 7 ...lLlf6 when 8 0-0 e5 9 lLlf5!? b4
10 lLld5 lLlxd5 1 1 exd5 g6 12 lLle3 jLg7
13 a3 bxa3 14 nxa3 0-0 15 lLlc4 was un-
81
s liJgs
Popular and the most aggressive
try, but in view of Black's aggressive
response, possibly also not the best.
82
tLJbd7
Note how Black avoids 13 ... M; he
wants to keep the f2-knight impris
oned, rather than allow White some
possible counterplay against g4. The
text was preferred in D.5chneider
G.5erper, US Championship, Seattle
2002, after which 14 a5 'iVc7 15 c3 bxc3
16 bxc3 d5! saw Black beginning to
gain the upper hand.
8 h6 9 tLJh3 gS!
...
10 f4 g4 11 ltJf2 hS 12 a4 b4 13 ltJe2
83
C h apter T h ree
1 e4 c5 2 tDc3
The text when followed by a king
side fianchetto reveals White's inten
tion to play the Closed Sicilian.
The Closed is quite easy to learn, but
also contains a number of subtleties as
one would expect from a favourite sys
tem of Smyslov's. Should Black not con
test the centre with a quick ... dS, White
may build up for a kingside attack, not
that any such aggression should overly
worry Black who will usually be rather
fast himself on the queenside. Our cov
erage now divides into:
A: 2 tDc6 3 g3
B: 2 ...e6 3 g3
4 g2 g7 5 d3 d6
A)
1 e4 C5 2 tDc3 tDc6 3 g3 g6
This remains very much Black's
84
Ai: 6 f4
A2: 6 e3
A3: 6 tDge2
A4: 6 tDh3
AS: 6 tDf3
Ai)
1 e4 c5 2 lLlc3 lLlc6 3 g3 g6 4 ..tg2 ..tg7 5
d3 d6 6 f4 lLlf6
7 lLlf3
By far White's main move. Instead 7
h3 0-0 8 lLlf3 .l:!.b8 9 0-0 transposes to our
main line, but this move order might be
a problem for fans of the note to Black's
7th. They may wish to thus investigate
7 ... eS!? after which 8 lLlge2 (8 lLlf3 lLlhS! 9
lLle2 exf4 10 gxf4 0-0 1 1 0-0 fS gives
Black good play) 8 ... lLlhS 9 0-0 (this fails
to impress, but 9 fS!? gxfS! 10 exfS lLlf6
1 1 0-0 dS 12 i..gS lLle7 doesn't appear to
be too bad at all for Black who can hold
dS) 9 ...exf4 10 g4 lLlg3 1 1 lLlxg3 fxg3 12
'iVf3 ..te6 13 "Yi'xg3 lLld4 14 Mf2 hS! gave
Black, who could still castle long, good
counterplay in K.Soldatenkov-S.Besh
ukov, St Petersburg 1999.
7 0-0
...
85
86
Th e Clo s e d Sicilian
was a thematic way to blunt White's
attacking hopes, after which Black's
queenside play was the most important
feature of the position in C.Orexel
A.Negele, German League 2002.
8 0-0 .lIb8
9 h3
Not only facilitating e3 and 'ilVd2
by preventing an awkward ...ctJg4, but
also preparing to roll the kingside
pawns. White might prefer to delay
Black on the queenside with 9 a4; an
advance which is often considered a
little suspect, but here 9 ... a6 10 h3 b5 1 1
axbS axbS 12 e3 b 4 merely transposes
to our main line.
As one of White's main attacking
schemes involves fS, 'iVel-h4, i..h6 and
ctJg5 (after which only the f6-knight
prevents mate on h7), 9 ctJh4 is a little
illogical, but this was Spassky's first try
in B.Spassky-E.Geller, 2nd matchgame,
Suhumi 1968: 9 ... ctJd4 10 fS bS 1 1 gS
b4 12 ctJbl ctJd7! 13 ctJd2 ctJeS saw
Black's superbly-centralized knights
give him a good game and after 14
hl, probably best is Kasparov's sug
gestion of 14 ... b7!? intending ... dS.
9 bS 10 a3
...
87
88
89
14 b3
This, ruling out any further advance
of the black queenside pawns, is
White's main move, but in this impor
tant tabiya he has also tried:
a) 14 l:tc1 Ita8 15 g4 Ita2 16 b3 trans
poses to our main line.
b) Before settling on our main line
in his sixth matchgame against Geller,
Spassky preferred 14 'iYd2 l:!a8 15 Itabl
in the fourth when Black should play
as in the main line with 15 . . J::ta2, fol
lowed by .. .'ii'c7 and .. JUa8 (Van der
Weide). Here White has also tried 1 5
l:!xa8!? "ii'xa8 16 g4 when 16 ... lLld7 1 7 b3
e6 18 f5 exf5 19 gxf5 lLlce5 was fine for
90
18 fS .i:.b2
19 l'bf4
17 el .i:.fa81
For the second move in a row we
witness an important improvement.
16 ...c7 was actually introduced in the
game
S.Marjanovic-RHernandez,
Vrsac 1977, but there Black erred with
1 7. . . l'bd7?! and was quickly somewhat
worse following 18 4 l'bd4 19 l'bexd4
cxd4 20 l'bxd4! e5 21 l'bf3 with the point
that 21..Jhc2?! run into the awkward
22 e7! . Instead the text is a strong
novelty of the respected Dutch theore
tician and 1M, Karel Van der Weide,
which he later explained in an excellent
survey for New In Chess. The idea is to
continue with Black's queenside coun
terplay, while asking White just how
he intends to break through on the
kingside. Indeed, like Van der Weide, I
suspect that White may well be too
slow here and that he does better with
one of his alternatives at move 10 or 14.
D.Reinderman-K.Van der Weide,
Dutch Championship, Rotterdam 1998,
continued:
19 ....i:.aa2 20 WNf2
20 g5 l'bd7 21 l'bd5 d8 22 f2
l'bce5! 23 l'bxe5 l'bxe5 sees Black's con
trol and use of the e5-square keep eve
rything together with 24 f6 now failing
to 24 ... .txd5 25 exd5 l'bxd3 (Van der
Weide).
20 ...l'bd41
Black has excellent counterplay and
now 21 .txd4 cxd4 22 l'bxd4 g5! 23 l'bfe2
91
A2)
1 e4 c5 2 lLlc3 lLlc6 3 g3 g6 4 .1l.g2 g7 5
92
d3 d 6 6 e3
A21: 6 lLlf6
A22: 6 J::i. b8
.
...
7 ...e5!?
A tricky independent approach, en
dorsed by no less a player than Kas
parov himself. Fans of Black's ap
proach in our last section might have
been expecting 7 . . . 0-0 to be recom
mended. This can transpose back to
Line A after 8 f4 l:tb8 9 tLlf3 bS 10 a3 (or
10 0-0) 10 ... aS 1 1 0-0 b4, but more of a
problem is the sneaky move order 8 f4
l:tb8 9 'iVd2 when 9 ...bS is ruled out (10
eS!). Black must thus lose a move and
although both 9 . . .ltd7 and 9 ... tLld7 are
playable, I feel that Black is likely to
land up with an inferior version of the
variations covered in Line A.
.
8 tLlge2
Another wise choice by White. An
unsuspecting opponent might prefer 8
'iVd2, but then 8 ... tLld4! prevents 9 .lth6
and contains some other tricky tactical
points:
7 h3
By far White's main choice, pru
dently preparing 'iVd2. Note that 7
tLlge2 is also possible, transposing after
7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 l:tb8 9 h3 to a variation cov
ered in Line A3. As we will see there
White might prefer the move order 8
h3, but that gives Black the extra option
of 8 . . .eS, transposing to the main line of
this section and indeed both the Ad
ams-Kasparov and Adams-Topalov
games, below, began with such a move
order.
93
94
9 bS!
...
8 0-0
...
10 ttJxbS
One of the beauties of Black's set-up
is that White must take up the chal
9 0-0
Unlike when Black responds to 6
.1i.e3 with the natural but inaccurate
6 ... e6 7 WVd2 ttJge7, here all that White
gains by castling queenside is to give
Black a strong attack. The text is thus
95
11 tLJec3!?
96
Th e Closed Sicilian
capture on d5 after which White must
be careful not to find himself left with a
bad light-squared bishop. Here 1 1 .. .a6
12 tDbc3 .l:!.xb2 13 'iiic 1 was assessed as
equal by Adams, while N.Zainullina
T.Shumiakina, St Petersburg 2002, de
viated with 13 .l:!.bl .l:!.xbl 14 'iiixbl e6
15 tDd5 and now Black should have
contested
the
queenside
with
15 ... 'iiia5! ?, intending 16 ... ..ltxd5 (and
not 16 ....l:!.b8 due to 17 tDe7+! and 1 8
tDxc6), 1 7....l:!.b8 and then either ... tDd4
or ".tDb4.
b) 11 a4 a6 12 tDa3 (White's knights
are best placed on c3 and c4; 12 tDbc3
.::i.xb2 followed by ...tDd4 would be
rather too easy for Black) 12 ....l:!.xb2 13
tDc4 .l:!.b8 with a further divide:
11 a6 12 tDa3 .l:!.xb2
...
97
98
A22)
1 e4 c5 2 CDc3 CDc6 3 g3 g6 4 jLg2 .ig7 5
d3 d6 6 jLe3 Mb8
The most dynamic option as Black
begins immediate queenside counter
play and, yet again, ...bS needs prepar
ing since 6 ...bS 7 eS! gives White the
initiative. A key feature of our main
line is that Black will hold back the de
velopment of his king's knight as long
as possible: that prevents White's main
idea of jLh6 and the knight may later
be best developed to any of e7, f6 and
even h6.
7 'iWd2
The consistent follow-up, but occa
sionally White prefers something dif
ferent:
a) 7 a4 doesn't hold Black up on the
queenside for long: RMiller-J.Silman,
Philadelphia 1 991, for example, the
matically continued 7 ...e6 8 'iVd2 CDd4 9
f4 (or 9 CDf3 CDe7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 i.h6 eS!?
12 jLxg7 xg7 13 CDxd4 cxd4 14 CDe2
jLe6 IS f4 f6 with rough equality in
V.Hort-RFischer, Zagreb 1970) 9 ... CDe7
10 CDge2 0-0 1 1 0-0 a6 12 g4?! fS! (wisely
preventing White from attacking with
99
7 bS
...
8 tbge2
1 00
101
13 h3 (White doesn't have to prevent ... lbg4 thus, but 13 d4?! is well met
by 13 ... lbe4 and 13 'it>hl 0-0 14 i.gl
lbd4! IS lbe3 'iYc7 16 llfel e6 17 lbc4
102
10 eS!
...
8 b4
...
9 ctJd1 ctJd4
10 0-0
White would quite like to expel the
d4-knight with c3 and without allow
ing it to then exchange itself on e2.
However, he should avoid the imme
diate 10 ctJc1 ? .tg4! which is a small
trap which has claimed a few victims.
Je.5mith-KPalliser, Liverpool 2005,
continued 1 1 .txd4 (relatively best
11 (3
White must avoid 1 1 h3? .txh3!, al
though after the text Black can free his
position through exchanges. White
might thus prefer:
1 03
1 04
Th e Clo s e d Sicilian
weak d3-pawn give Black an edge in
J.Houska-RPalliser, Bayswater (rapid)
2006.
a3) 14 .th6! (relatively best, not that
this brings White anywhere near an
advantage) 14 ... 0-0 15 .txg7 'it>xg7 16
tLle2 (alternatively, 16 f4 is, of course,
met by 16 ... exf4 1 7 gxf4 f5, while
A.Ledger-J.Donaldson, Isle of Man
1997, was agreed drawn in a level posi
tion after 16 tLle3 f5! 17 exf5 tLlxf5 1 8
tLle2 tLlxe3 1 9 'iVxe3 'iig5)
1 05
14...exf4
106
15 i.xf4
107
A3)
1 e4 c5 2 'DC3 'Dc6 3 g3 g6 4 .ig2 itg7
5 ... d6 6 'Dge2
5 d3
White can also begin with S 'Dge2
d6 6 0-0 'Df6 when 7 d3 transposes to
our main line, but there is also 7 a3!?,
the Murey system. White wants to be
gin by playing on the queenside, but
Black should be fine so long as he isn't
too ambitious: 7 ... 0-0 S .l::i.b 1 'Dd7 (Black
must, of course, avoid S ...b6?? 9 eS, but
he might also switch to a Botvinnik set
up and S ... e5!? 9 b4 b6 10 d3 i.e6 1 1
'DdS itxd5! 1 2 exdS 'De7 1 3 c4 'Dd7 saw
Black unbalance the position in quite a
in
way
reasonable
E.Maahs-
1 08
6 ...'Df6
Consistent with our general ap
proach, but fans of Line A22 may wish
to prefer 6 ... .l::i.bS here too since play
often transposes after 7 ite3 bS S 'iYd2.
Instead 7 0-0 bS S f4 (S a3 can be met by
either ... e6 and ...'Dge7 or S ...'Df6 9 h3
0-0 when 10 ite3 transposes to note 'b'
to White's 9th move, below) S ...b4 9
'DdS has received a few outings, but
7 0-0
White's most popular and flexible
move, but should he be after a set-up
with .ie3, the moves h3, .ie3 and 0-0
can be played in any order. Following 7
.ie3 0-0 8 0-0 b8 (Black might prefer
8 ...eS!?, transposing instead to Line A21)
9 h3 play has transposed to the note to
White's 9th move, below, as it also does
after 7 .i.e3 0-0 8 h3 b8 (or 8 ...eS and
now 9 0-0 is the main line of Line A21,
while 9 'i'd2 ctJd4 is also considered
there in note IC' to White's 8th move) 9
0-0 (9 'i'd2 bS 10 .i.h6!? was an inde
pendent
try
in
H.Westerinen
M.Rytshagov, Kuopio 1992, but Black
should have gained good counterplay
with 10 ...b4 1 1 ctJdS e6 12 .i.xg7 xg7 13
ctJe3 ctJd4 14 0-0 eS! IS f4 ctJhS!).
7 ...0-0
8 b8 9 f4
8 h3
Eliminating any notion of ... ctJg4
once and for all, and White usually
inserts this either here or after 8 f4 b8.
1 09
110
9 'bd7!?
...
10 g4
10 bS
...
111
1 1 tLJg3
Probably the most challenging since
1 1 fS b4 12 tLJdS e6! (driving back the
knight and now Black can aim to keep
control of the M-d8 diagonal, thereby
preventing any pawn-storm) 13 tLJe3 (or
13 tLJdf4 tLJdeS 14 c3 bxc3 IS bxc3 'tWaS!?
16 lithl J.d7 and Black's queenside play
was well advanced in N.Lakos-G.Feher,
Hungarian League 2002; now 17 gS!?
would have been the critical test when
Black might respond sensibly in
Scheveningen-style with 17 ... exfS 18
exfS l::te8 19 f6 J.f8, but also possible is
the radical 18 ... J.xfS!? 19 d4 cxd4 20
cxd4 tLJb4 21 dxeS dxeS with plenty of
activity to compensate for the piece)
13 ...tLJd4 14 tLJf4 tLJeS IS J.d2 (IS c3!?
might be a better try, but IS ...tLJdc6 sees
Black maintain his powerful knight on
eS since 16 d4? fails to 16 ... cxd4 17 cxd4
tLJxd4!) IS ... J.d7 16 'tWel J.f6! 17 tLJe2
J.M 18 'tWdl as gave Black the edge in
ASkripchenko-ANaiditsch, 6th match
game, Dortmund 2001.
11 ... b4
Black's main move, but as White has
lost control of the d4-square, 1 1 ...c4!?
112
12 tLJce2 as 13 l::tb 1
A useful prophylactic move, ensur
ing that White can keep lines relatively
closed with 13 ... a4 14 b3, whereas 13
fS?! a4 14 c3 a3! saw Black lever open
the queenside in T.Thissen-P.Doggers,
Hengelo 1 995.
13 ...tLJd4
A4)
1 e4 c5 2 tLlC3 tLlc6 3 g3 g6 4 i.. g2 i..g 7 5
d3 d6 6 tLlh3
6 tLlf6
..
113
114
7 0-0 0-0
8 f4
White has also been known to delay
this with S h1 l:tbS (S ... iLg4!? 9 f3
iLxh3 10 iLxh3 l:tbS looks like a good
alternative, borrowing an idea which
Black has also employed on his 7th
move) and now:
9 'iVd2
It might look like White is getting
into a tangle, but he hopes to embar
rass the slightly loose bishop on g4.
The alternative is 9 'iVe1 iDd4 10 f2,
after which 10 ...d7 1 1 iDg5 h6 12 iDf3
iDxf3+ 13 ii.xf3 J::t ab8 was about equal
in H.Emser-F.Josting, Tiefenbach 2005,
and Black can also consider the more
ambitious 10 . . . h6!? 1 1 h1 b5 12 t1JgI
b4 of A.Shakhov-A.Nikanorov, St Pe
tersburg 1997.
8 .Jtg4
9 iDd4 10 h1 'iVd7!
...
...
115
6... lbf6
The simplest approach. A popular
alternative is to head for a Botvinnik
set-up with 6 ... e5 7 0-0 lbge7, but that
allows White to usefully redeploy his
king's knight with 8 lbd2.
7 0-0 0-0
AS}
1 e4 c5 2 lbc3 lbc6 3 g3 g6 4 g2 g7 5
d3 d6 6 lbf3
8 h3
Just like in Line A3, this is a very
popular insertion, allowing White to
proceed with e3 and 'iYd2 in peace.
Alternatively:
a) 8 .i.e3 Z'tb8 is very likely to trans
pose after 9 h3.
116
S ..l::tb S 9 a4
.
12 b4
...
117
8)
1 e4 c5 2 c3 e6 3 g3
3 dS
...
118
4 exd5
This remains White's main move,
but those Grandmasters still employing
the Closed are nowadays just as likely
to avoid this exchange, trying to guide
play more into a King's Indian Attack
type position. There are two ways of
doing that:
a) 4 d3 can be met by 4 ...c6 5 i.g2
(5 exd5 exd5 6 i.g2 returns to the main
line) 5 ...f6 6 e5 d7 7 f4 e7 with a
complex closed centre position. Some
readers may like such positions, but
others won't and so we will concentrate
on a solid but much less common alter
native, namely 4... olte7!? Play usually
continues 5 oltg2 (alternatively, 5 exd5
exd5 6 g2 f6 is another route to the
main line and 5 e5 is now a little prema
ture since after 5 ...c6 6 f4 Black can
develop comfortably with 6 ...h6; ...f5
and ...h5 is one good follow-up, another
being ... 0-0 and .. .6) 5 ... dxe4 and now:
119
4 exds
...
S ..ig2
White's most popular move. Our
120
121
6 d3
The best way of developing the
queen's bishop since 6 d4 is now rather
risky for White. Following 6 ... cxd4 7
xd4 ttJc6 Black has an promising IQP
position and has scored quite well in
practice; for example, 8 "iVa4 (alterna-
122
Th e Closed Sicilian
Indeed if anyone must be careful
here it's White due to Black's long-term
spatial advantage; a fact realized ever
since
B.5passky-V.Korchnoi,
Sth
matchgame, Kiev 1968: 1 1 d3 ( 1 1 c3 is
the alternative when Kasparov has
opted for the forcing l 1 .. .d3!? 12 lLlf4
0-0 13 lLlxd3 i.xg3 14 fxg3 xd3; sim
pler and also equal is 1 1 .. .0-0 12 cxd4
cxd4 13 d3 l:i.e8 14 lLlf4 6, W.Hug
Z.Ribli, Lucerne Olympiad 1982)
1 1 .. .0-0 12 i.f4 (Tal's suggestion of 12
h3 might be a better try, although Black
was quite comfortable after 12 ... il.e6 13
lLlf4 il.xf4 1 4 il.xf4 'iVd7 15 'i.t>h2 i.dS! in
V.Krapivin-A.Shariyazdanov,
Pskov
1998) 12 . . . il.g4! 13 .ltxd6 "iVxd6 14 h3
i.d7 IS lLlf4 l:i.fe8 16 "iVd2 .ltc6 1 7 l:i.ae1
lLld7 and the black position remained
the easier to improve.
6 il.e7
...
7 lLlge2
Should White want to pressurize
dS, he might begin with 7 il.g5, al
though after 7... 0-0 he hasn't anything
better than 8 lLlge2 transposing to the
next note, since 8 il.xf6 il.xf6 9 lLlxdS
allows 9 ... il.xb2.
7 0-0
...
8 0-0
An important alternative is 8 i.gS d4
9 il.xf6 i.xf6 10 lLle4 (White can also aim
to transpose to variation 'c' in the notes
to Black's 8th, below, with 10 lLld5 lLlc6
1 1 0-0, but Black can remain in inde
pendent waters with 10 ...il.eS: 1 1 0-0
lLld7 12 lLlef4 il.xf4 was equal and
agreed drawn in A.Weiss-A.Suetin,
Schwaebisch Gmuend 1995, and Black
can also consider Jakobsen's l 1 . . .g6!?)
1O ... .lte7 11 0-0 lLlc6 12 lLlf4, but practice
has also shown this position to be about
equal. Possibly the easiest course for
Black is 12 ... .ifS (12 ...l:i.e8 is also fine
after which 13 "iYh5!? g6 14 'iVd5 i.f5 IS
l:tfe1 'i.t>g7 16 a3 l:tc8 17 h3 'iVxdS 18
lLlxdS .ltf8 maintained the balance in
RFischer-B.5passky, 23rd matchgame,
Belgrade 1992) 13 lLldS l:i.c8!?, provoking
exchanges and hoping for good coun
terplay against c2 after 14 lLlxe7+ (White
might prefer 14 "iVf3, but then 14 ...i.e6
lS lLlxe7+ "iVxe7 16 "iVf4 lLlb4 doesn't give
him anything and neither did 14 !tel
i.d6 IS 'iVd2 b6 16 l:i.e2?! i.b8! 17 h3 'i.t>h8
18 lLlf4 lLleS in A.Soltis-H.Olafsson, New
York 1986) 14 ..."iVxe7 IS S .ltg6!? 16
123
8 d4!?
...
124
9 ttJe4 ttJbd7!
Th e Closed Sicilian
either defends d4 or picks up e4 in re
turn) 14 l2lf4 'ii'd 6 and was quite un
clear; Black's strong d4-point and op
tion of ... fS offset White's control of dS.
c) 10 l2lf4
has been White's most popular approach, but 10 ....l:i.b8!? (10 ....l:!.e8 is a
solid alternative, intending ... l2leS and
.. .SLg4) 1 1 l2lxf6+ l2lxf6 12 l2lhS l2lxhS 13
'ii'xhS bS is nothing to be worried
about.
A.Karlovich-RPokorna,
Tallinn
1997, continued 10 ...l2lxe4 11 dxe4 l2leS
12 bxcS SLxcS 13 ..tb2 l2lc6 (13 ... SLg4!? is
a good alternative, intending 14 h3 SLf3
IS SLxf3 l2lxf3+ 16 g2 l2lgS when Black
125
126
Chapter Fou r
1 e4 c5
The aggressive Grand Prix Attack
remains a popular weapon and comes
about via two different move orders:
A: 2 ct:JC3 and 3 f4
B: 2 f4
The former is now by some distance
the more popular choice since the latter
has never really recovered from being
hit by the powerful gambit 2 ... d5 3
exd5 ct:Jf6 (see Line Bl).
A)
1 e4 c5 2 ct:Jc3
We will now consider the Grand
Prix in relation to both 2 ... ct:Jc6 and
2 ... e6 (2 ... a6 3 f4 was Line B of Chapter
Two). Thus we have:
Ai)
1 e4 c5 2 4:JC3 4:Jc6 3 f4 e6
I imagine that this might well come
as a surprise to some readers. Previous
works have tended to advocate 3 ... g6, a
move which is nowadays nothing less
than the main line of the Grand Prix
Attack. That is in itself a good reason
for preferring something different.
White players generally not only face
3 ... g6 much more than 3 ... e6, but are
also much better prepared for it: for
example, NCO focuses on the former
with the latter surprisingly going
unmentioned, while the recent white
repertoire, Chess Openings for White,
Explained, devotes 20 of its 38 pages of
Grand Prix coverage to 3 ... g6 as op
posed to just four for 3 ... e6.
Of course, there would be no point
in recommending the text if it was infe
rior to 3 . . . g6, but I believe that the main
line position arising after 4 ct:Jf3 d5 5
b5 ct:Jge7 most certainly isn't. Indeed
only taste, and perhaps a desire to get
127
4 Cbf3
By far White's most popular move.
Instead 4 c4?! simply invites Black to
carry out his intended central advance
and after 4 ... Cbge7 S Cbf3 dS 6 b5
White has lost an important tempo. We
should also note that 4 g3 is pretty rare
since after 4 ... dS White doesn't want to
exchange on dS: his inability to use the
f4-square gives him an inferior version
of Line B of our last chapter. Of course,
White can prefer either S eS or S d3
which should be compared with, and
may well transpose to, variations 'b'
and 'c' respectively of the notes to
White's Sth, below.
4 dS
Fighting for control o f the centre in
...
128
S bS
The main line, but occasionally
White prefers something different:
a) 5 exdS exdS with a further divide:
al) 6 b5 Cbe7 transposes to Line
B13. Black can also take advantage of
White's slightly premature exchange to
prefer the more active 6 ...Cbf6, focusing
on the weakened e4- and g4-squares.
B .5taufenberger-SDvoirys, Bad Wi
essee 2002, continued 7 Cbe5 (7 0-0 e7
8 CbeS d7 9 Cbxd7 "ilVxd7 10 xc6 "ilVxc6
1 1 "ilVf3 0-0 12 d3 .l:i.fe8 was also rather
comfortable for Black in Z.Mestrovic
GDizdar, Solin 1993; here it might be
more consistent for White to prefer 9
xc6 iLxc6 10 Cbxc6 bxc6 1 1 d3 0-0, but
then Black will gain sufficient counter
play for the doubled pawns with either
129
130
5 ...CLJge7
A11)
1 e4 c5 2 CLJc3 CLJc6 3 f4 e6 4 CLJf3 d5 5
i.. b 5 CLJge7 6 0-0
This may well be a little too routine
since Black now gets to reveal the main
idea behind his 5th.
Aii: 6 0-0
Ai2: 6 CLJe5
Ai3: 6 'i!Ve2
Ai4: 6 exd5
White has also tried:
a) 6 d3 is likely to transpose to Line
A l l after 6 . . . a6 7 i..xc6+ CLJxc6 8 0-0.
b) 6 e5 is an advance which gener
ally fails to impress in the Grand Prix.
Here Black has a number of reasonable
options, including 6 ... i.. d 7 7 0-0 CLJf5 8
8 d3
White hopes to keep the centre at
least semi-closed, thereby allowing him
to begin a kingside attack to offset
Black's long-term advantage of the
bishop-pair. Such a plan should not
particularly scare the second player,
but neither should 8 exd5 exd5 9 Me1+
(or 9 d4 cxd4 10 CLJxd4 i..e7 11 h1 0-0
12 f5 Me8 13 CLJce2 i..f6 and once again
the advance of the white f-pawn had
chiefly served to assist Black's counter
play in J.Pareja Perez-D.Komljenovic,
Ceuta 1 995) 9 ... .i.e7 10 CLJe5. This line
isn't particularly critical, but both
Black's options are quite instructive for
revealing how he can put his bishop
pair to good use:
a) 10 ... CLJd4!? 1 1 CLJe2 CLJxe2+ 12 'i!Vxe2
131
132
9 e1
The most direct. White has tried a
slew of alternatives, although he often
lands up resorting to this queen ma
noeuvre at some stage:
a) 9 e5 b5 10 el g6!? 1 1 CLJe2 h5!
keeps White at bay on the kingside:
for example, 12 d2 b7 13 a3 as
left Black well advanced on the queen
side in D.Zahorsky-Y.Kruppa, Topol
cianky 1994.
b) 9 'it'hl hopes to avoid any possi
bility of ...6 and ...c4+, but White
might well regret this use of a tempo:
9 ...0-0 10 'iVel (a more independent try
133
10...d4!
Black seizes some useful space and
forces White to lose some time with his
knight before locking up the kingside
with ... f5.
11 ttJd1
White has also tried 11 ttJe2 when
1 1 .. .5 (consistent, but 1 1 . ..ttJb4!? might
be even stronger; 12 l:tbl ttJxc2 13 i.d2
ttJe3 is not what White was after, but
his compensation is also lacking in the
event of 12 f5! Wh8! when he rather
lacks a good follow-up, apart from the
defensive 13 ttJel when 13 ... exf5 14 a3
ttJc6 15 exf5 'u'e8 is at least fine for Black
since 16 3 is well met by 16 ...'iVd5)
12 iLd2 (or 12 exf5 exf5 13 iLd2 iLf6 1 4
ttJe5 and now in M.5ig Vargas-A. Lopez
del Alamo, Gran Canaria 2002, 14 .. :iVc7
15 llae1 l:te8 16 ttJc1 i.e6 would have
134
6 .i.d7
.
7 ttJxd7
135
7 ...'iYxd7
136
8 exd5?!
Just as back at move S, the exchange
on dS fails to convince. Indeed it's a
little surprising that Short selected it
ahead of the alternatives:
a) 8 f3 a6 (Bangiev's suggestion of
8 ... dxe4!? 9 lbxe4 lbfS is fine too) 9
.Ji.xc6 xc6 10 exdS lbxdS 1 1 d3 0-0-0
12 iLd2 lbb4 13 "iVxc6+ lbxc6 14 0-0-0
was sufficient to defeat one of the all
time greats in H.EI Kher-B.Larsen,
Danish Championship, Aarhus 1999,
but clearly at this point Black had no
difficulties and might well have con
tinued with the simple 14 ... iLe7 fol
lowed by ... lbd4.
b) 8 d3 a6 9 .ixc6 lbxc6 10 0-0 fS!?
(not just holding up f4-fS, but also
fighting for control of the centre) 1 1
exdS exdS 1 2 iLd2 .Ji.e7 13 e2 0-0 14
I:tael iLf6 IS b3?! (easy to criticize, but
White was a touch worse in any case;
for example, even IS e6+ 'iYxe6 16
Itxe6 Itad8 1 7 lba4 d4+ 1 8 'lthl Itfe8
19 l:ixe8+ Itxe8 20 Itel Itxel + 21 iLxel
c4 gives Black any chances which are
going) Is ... lbd4 16 "iVdl bS gave Black
the
initiative
in
B.Nevednichy-
8 ..exd5!?
.
A13)
1 e4 c5 2 ct::lC 3 ct::lc6 3 f4 e6 4 ct::lf3 d5 5
.i.b5 ct::lge7 6 "iVe2
6 ...d4 7 ct::ld 1
137
9 d3
Here i t is not particularly easy for
White to launch an attack and 12 CDeS
(alternatively, 12 a3 fS! 13 l:.el d6 saw
Black employing a typical method of
kingside restraint in N .Panagopoulos
L Nikolaidis, Aghia Pelagia 2004, while
12 eS can be met by either the dynamic
12 ... fS!? 13 exf6 gxf6 or the more
straightforward 12 ... .ib7 13 CDe4 CDb4
when f4-fS is still some way from the
agenda) 12 ...CDb4!? (12 ... .ib7 13 CDdf3 6
is a simpler and also quite reasonable
approach) 13 CDdf3 f6 14 a3 (or 1 4 CDg4
CDc6 when Black will prepare ... c4,
while White is rather stymied on the
kingside with both his e- and f-pawns
unable to satisfactorily advance)
14 ... fxeS IS CDxeS CDdS 16 CDc6 (16 exdS
'i'xd5 1 7 .id2 .ib7 is also about equal:
Black's presence on the long diagonal
balancing White's e5-outpost) 16 ... 'i'd6
1 7 exdS .if6 18 .id2 'i'xdS 19 CDaS eS
saw
Black
fully
equalize
in
N .Panagopoulos-S.orazic,
Korinthos
1999.
7 a6 8 .ixc6+ CDxc6
...
138
9 .ie7 10 0-0
...
lo b6!
...
12 jLd2 'ilVd7
If Black desires to meet f5 with ... e5
then he might prefer 12 ... f6, but there's
no need to allow White to lock the cen
tre just yet.
13 a3
139
13 ...f6 14 c3 0-0
A14)
1 e4 c5 2 ttJC3 ttJc6 3 f4 e6 4 ttJf3 d5 5
b5 ttJge7 6 exd5
15 .l:.abl b5
6 ...ttJxd5
To those unfamiliar with this varia
140
141
in
F .Niebling-A.Shirov,
Frankfurt
(rapid) 1996.
Returning to theory's preference,
6 ... ttJxd5:
7 ttJes
142
143
10 0-0
Much less common is 10 'it'f3 when
144
c4
11 "iVe2
By far the most popular response.
Smyslov once preferred 1 1 iLle4, but
1 1 . . .c4! 12 d4 cxd3 13 'iWxd3 0-0 worked
out fairly well for Black, especially af
ter 14 f5?! exf5 15 l:txf5 "iVb6+, in
A.Matras-S.Vesselovsky, Trinec 2003.
A2)
1 e4 c5 2 iLlc3 e6 3 f4 d5
And why not? Black takes the op
portunity to logically advance in the
centre, just as he can against the Closed
Sicilian. Those who feel that the text
gives rise to positions a little too solid
for their taste can, of course, transpose
to our last section (AI) with 3 ...iLlc6.
145
4 'Llf3
146
4 ...dxe4
The solid course. Black decides that
the addition of ... c5 and f4 gives him an
improved version of the Rubinstein
French. He should, though, avoid 4 ... d4
5 lbe2 d3?! since here 6 cxd3 'ilVxd3 7
lbc3 gives White some initiative, but, of
course, 4 ...lbc6 is again a good alterna
tive, returning play to Line AI.
s lbxe4
A somewhat less common option is
5 i.b5+, but this has received some re
cent attention after being recom
mended in Chess Openings for White,
Explained. Alburt and Dzindzi's cover
age continues 5 ... i.d7 (5 ...lbc6?! is no
longer ideal since Black gets his pawns
broken for insufficient compensation,
but the rare 5 ... lbd7 6 lbxe4 a6 cannot
be so bad: White must either retreat his
bishop to a not terribly good square or
try 7 .txd7+ 'ilVxd7!? S lbe5 'Yi'c7, but
then Black will prepare a queenside
fianchetto and 9 d4 cxd4 10 'ilVxd4 lbh6
1 1 0-0 lbf5 12 f2 .te7 fails to bring
White any advantage) 6 .txd7+ lbxd7 7
lbxe4 lbgf6 S d3 when they already
stop, feeling that White is slightly for
147
148
6 .i.bS
White's most popular choice, but not
everyone is so keen to potentially have
to cede the bishop-pair on c6. Indeed
Mark Hebden, the inventor of the so
called Toilet variation which we've
transposed to after 5 tDxe4, used to pre
fer 6 g3 after which 6 ...tDh6!? (a good
alternative is 6 ...tDf6, meeting 7 tDf2
1 1 el tDb4!? 12 c1 f6 13 a3 tDc6
14 'ikel 1Wb6 when White lacked a good
plan and Black was quite comfortable.
White has also been known to head
for a double fianchetto set-up by be
ginning with 6 b3 when 6 ...tDh6 7 .Ili.b2
tDf5 8 g3 h5 9 .i.g2 .i.d7 (it's also tempt
ing to push on with 9 ... h4!? which may
explain why White preferred 9 tDf2 on
149
6 ...i.d7
7 0-0
White has also tried 7 'iVe2 when
7 . . .':tjh6 remains a good reply, focus
sing on the weakened d4-square:
a) S b3 i.e7 9 i.b2 lL'lf5 10 0-0 (or 10
0-0-0 lL'lfd4 11 lL'lxd4 lL'lxd4 12 i.xd7+
'iVxd7 13 'iVf2 0-0 14 c3 f5! and all the
exchanges gave Black easy equality in
B.Heberla-V.Erdos, Balatonlelle 2002)
10 ... 0-0 1 1 c4! ? lL'lb4! 12 i.xd7 'iVxd7 13
lL'le5 'iVdS 14 i.c3 lL'ld4 was equal in
J.Maiwald-A.Shchekachev,
Hamburg
2005; both sides' strong knights limit
the other's active options.
b) S 0-0 i.e7 (or 8 ... a6!? 9 i.xc6 i.xc6
10 b3 lL'lfS 1 1 i.b2 i.e7 12 lL'leS l:!.c8 13 d3
0-0 14 l:!.ael lL'ld4 with rough equality in
L.Yudasin-M.Ulibin, Las Palmas 1993;
once again the weakness of d4 enables
Black to close down the otherwise pow
erful b2-bishop) 9 c3 0-0 10 hl lL'lg4!
(now that White has ruled out ...lL'ld4
and looks set to meet ...lL'lfS with g4,
Black sensibly reroutes his knight) 1 1
150
8 d3
White has also exchanged immedi
ately when, as well as the solid 8 lL'lxf6+
'iVxf6 9 lL'leS ':c8 10 lL'lxd7 xd7 1 1 c3
i.d6 12 d3 l:!.hdS of M.5adler-J.Lautier,
Monaco (blindfold) 1998, I quite like
8 ...gxf6!? a la Kramnik after which 9 fS
'iVc7 10 fxe6 fxe6 gave Black easy and
active play in G.Malbran-S.Mellano,
Buenos Aires 1993.
8.. a6
.
B)
1 e4 c5 2 f4
The original Grand Prix move or
der, as used by the likes of Rumens and
Hebden when they were racking up
win after win with the system back in
the good old days of the Grand Prix
weekend circuit (in the UK).
9 ...gxf6!
This strong recapture, ruling out
lbe5 once and for all while opening the
g-file, was the choice of the world
champion in J.Polgar-V.Kramnik, Cap
d' Agde (rapid) 2003, which continued
10 .ita4 lbd4 1 1 i.xd7+ 'iVxd7 12 i.e3
lbf5 13 'iVe2 0-0-0 with quite a dynamic
set-up and good prospects of counter
play for Black.
We will now focus on:
B1: 2 ..dS
B2: 2 ...e6
.
151
3 exd5
White must allow his centre to be
broken up, although at club level 3 e5?!
is quite a common mistake. Now Black
will gain an improved French with his
light-squared bishop outside the pawn
chain (or a superior Caro-Kann if you
prefer; Black has played ... c5 in one
move), and that is sufficient to ensure
him of a good game: for example,
3 ...l2Jc6 4 12Jf3 (or 4 .1i.b5 .1i.f5 5 12Jf3 e6 6
c3?! 'YWb6 7 e2 c4! and Black was better
due to the chronic weakness of d3 in
P.Hasler-J.Gallagher, Lenk 1992) 4 ....1i.g4
152
1 53
4 b5+
White's most popular choice, de
veloping the bishop before defending
the extra pawn, but there are two im
portant alternatives:
a) 4 c4 e6 5 dxe6 ..txe6 6 tLlf3 tLlc6 is
reminiscent of the Icelandic Gambit (1
e4 d5 2 exd5 tLlf6 3 c4 e6). Just as there,
Black's pressure down the central files
and activity gives him good compensa
tion for the pawn.
154
4 lt:lbd7!?
...
155
5 (4
The only way to challenge Black. In
stead 5 d4 4:Jxd5 6 c4 4:Jc7 (Yermolinsky)
merely leaves White struggling and
Black is rather comfortable after 5 4:Jc3
a6 6 .ii.e2 (or 6 .i.xd7+?! 'iNxd7 7 'iVf3 b5 Yermolinsky - and Black regains his
pawn on d5 with advantage) 6 ...4:Jb6 7
4:Jf3 4:Jbxd5 8 4:Jxd5 4:Jxd5.
5 a6 6 .ixd7+
Practice has shown that ceding the
bishop-pair is pretty essential. White's
problem is that 6 .ii. a4?! b5! gains fur
ther time against his bishop. Indeed he
has scored quite terribly after 7 cxb5
when Black has a choice of riches:
...
156
157
1 58
7 e6
...
8 e2
An important alternative is 8 dxe6
.i.xe6 9 d3 (9 e2 transposes to the
10 0-0
1 59
10...0-0
11 tLlc3
12 d3
160
...
B2}
1 e4 c5 2 f4 e6
161
3 ctJf3 dS
Expanding in the centre, just as
Black does in Line A2 and indeed play
may transpose. A good alternative, de
pending on how Black likes to meet 2
ctJc3 and 3 f4, is 3 ...ctJc6 4 i.b5 (4 ctJc3 is
actually a more popular choice, reach
ing Line AI) 4 ...ctJge7 when the inclu
sion of f4 doesn't appear to give White
an improved Rossolimo. Indeed Black is
quite comfortable here, as shown by a
quick round-up of the key lines:
1 62
4 J. bS+
The most active development for
White's king's bishop. It does, though,
enable Black to free his position
1 63
1 64
9 ...4Jc6!
Simplest and best as Black initiates
a small forcing sequence.
S xd7+ 'iVxd7
A
more
popular
alternative
is
6 4Jes
The only real try to trouble Black,
not that it succeeds. White can also opt
for the move order 6 exd5 exd5 when 7
4Je5 'iVc7 transposes. Here 7 d4 has oc
casionally been preferred, but yet again
we find f4 not really fitting in with a
white anti-IQP set-up: for example,
7 ... 4Jf6 8 0-0 i.e7 has ideas of meeting
e3 with ...4Jg4, and White's attempt to
mix things up with 9 4Je5 1Wc7 10 4Jc3?!
failed to convince after 10 ... 4Jc6 1 1 i.e3
4Jxd4! 12 i.xd4 cxd4 13 4Jb5 'ifb6 when
Black was already pretty active in
D.Gavela-C.Ionescu, Bucharest 200l.
8...4Jf6 9 'iVf3
165
Ch apter Five
1 e4 c5 2 tLlC3
We've already studied White's tra
ditional follow-ups to this, namely the
Closed Sicilian and the Grand Prix At
tack. At club level both of those sys
tems remain pretty popular, but White
does have some other options which
we must explore after both:
A: 2 ... tLlc6
B: 2 e6
A)
1 e4 c5 2 tLlc3 tLlc6
We will now chiefly focus on one
independent system and two move
order devices:
Ai: 3 .i.b5
A2: 3 tLlge2
A3: 3 tLlf3
Also occasionally seen is 3 g4, the
166
Al)
1 e4 c5 2 lbc3 ttJc6 3 i.b5
This offbeat variation has been
steadily gaining some support over the
past decade. White hopes to gain a fa
vourable Rossolimo (his f-pawn isn't
obstructed) with an exchange on c6,
but of course Black isn't going to allow
that.
167
3 .ciJd4 4 iLC4
..
1 68
1 69
4 e6
...
1 70
1 71
8 0-0
Not essential, but the alternatives
allow Black some extra options:
a) 8 c3 tDe5!? wins the bishop-pair
and after 9 d3 tDxc4 10 dxc4 dxc3 1 1
tDxc3 'iIIc 7 12 'iIId3 a6 the position is
about equal, V.5rebrnic-F.Levin, Ljubl
jana 1993.
1 72
9 d3 0-0
lO a3
1 73
lS f4
Only with an advance of his f-pawn
can White hope to get his light-squared
bishop participating once again.
10...fS!?
By no means the only approach, but
still a useful one to study. Two reason
able alternatives being 10 ... WhS 1 1 f4
d5!? 12 exd5 exd5 13 .i.b3 f5, with
rough equality in E.Deutsch-K.Lerner,
1 74
A2)
1 e4 c5 2 CDC3 CDc6 3 CDge2
1 75
1 76
A3)
1 e4 c5 2 ctJC3 ctJc6 3 ctJf3
Sveshnikov.
b) 3 ... g6 is a move order used by a
an
ex-
1 77
8)
1 e4 c5 2 tLlC3 e6
Having
previously
discussed
White's two most important moves, 3
g3 and 3 f4, we are left with:
81: 3 tLlf3
82: 3 tLlge2
81)
1 e4 c5 2 tLlC3 e6 3 tLlf3
This reaches another position which
is a little outside our scope, but still
worth some brief coverage:
a) Kan players can opt for 3 ... a6
when White's only real alternative to 4
d4 is 4 g3 and after 4 ...b5 we've trans
posed to a position we considered in
the notes to Black's 3rd move in Line D
of Chapter Two. (A reminder that the
critical line is then 5 d4!? cxd4 6 tLlxd4
b7 7 g2 tLlf6 when play has trans
posed slightly confusingly to a critical
1 78
B2)
1 e4 c5 2 CL'lC3 e6 3 CL'lge2
1 79
1 80
Chapter Six
1 e4 c5
We've already covered the king of
kingside fianchetto systems, the Closed
Sicilian, in Chapter Three, but White
doesn't have to associate g3 with lbc3.
Indeed below we'll often see him try
ing to employ a Closed Sicilian forma
tion but with a pawn instead of a
knight on c3. That, the so-called clamp
formation, can be quite dangerous, but
not if Black responds along very simi
lar lines to Line Al (6 f4 'bf6) of Chap
ter Three.
Our coverage now divides into:
A: 2 d3
B: 2 g3
3 g3
Heading for a clamp formation, but
there are alternatives:
a) 3 lbf3 intends to play a KIA for
A)
1 e4 c5 2 d3 lbc6
Standard, but some players may
wish to also consider 2 ... e6 when 3 lbf3
transposes to a King's Indian Attack
(KIA) and one which usually arises via
181
3 g6 4 .IlLg2 i.. g7
...
5 f4
White doesn't have to employ a
clamp formation and S 'bc3 would, of
course, return play to Line A of Chap
ter Three. Somewhat less popular than
our main move is S 'bf3, even though
this reaches an important position. Fol-
1 82
S d6 6 ttJf3 4:Jf6
...
7 0-0
One reason that 6 ... ttJf6 isn't more
popular is because not everyone meets
1 83
b7 13 d2 tLlb4 14 c3 c4! in
Dubai
D.svetushkin-L.Fressinet,
(rapid) 2001) 10 ...b4 1 1 el?! a6 12
4 c4 in A.Fedorov-G.Kasparov, Wijk
aan Zee 2001.
7 0-0 8 c3
...
1 84
9 h3
8 .tg4
...
1 85
8)
1 e4 cS 2 g3
11 i.e3
Black also gained sufficient play af
ter 1 1 ctJa3 (trying to slow Black down
on the queenside) 1 1 .. .ctJd7!? 12 ..ie3 b5!
13 ctJc2 ctJb6 14 'lithl ctJa4 (note this
probing knight manoeuvre; had White
still his king's knight, it might well
have been a little slow, but here White
is still to mobilize on the kingside) 15
abl a5 in C.Braga-H.Pilaj, Calvia
Olympiad 2004.
1 86
2 ... d S 3 exds
Usual, but White's alternatives
aren't so bad:
a) 3 i.g2 dxe4 4 ctJc3!? f5!? (bravely
taking up the challenge; a sensible al
ternative is 4 ... ctJc6 5 ctJxe4 e5 6 d3 i.e7,
Belgrade
L.Drljevic-I.Chelushkina,
2005) 5 d3 (Bogoljubow's old idea of 5
3 might be stronger, although then
Black can equalize comfortably with
5 ... e3!? - Raetsky) 5 ... exd3 6 i.f4 ctJc6
(6 ... dxc2!? 7 xd8+ 'litxd8 hasn't yet
been tested, but might not be so bad;
White is currently three pawns in ar
rears) 7 "iYxd3 "iYxd3 8 cxd3 d7 9 ctJ3
3 .. :tWxd5 4 CLlf3
Harmless is 4 "ilVf3 "ilVxf3 5 CLlxf3 CLlc6
6 .i.g2 when 6 ... f5 is one good move,
another being the Maroczy bind which
Black set up with 6 ... e5 7 d3 f6 in
F.Buchenau-LRogers, London 1988.
4 CLlc6!?
...
6 f1 CLlf6
187
7 d3
By no means essential, although 7
li'la3 d7 8 d3 e6 9 h3 i.e7 10 'it'gl 0-0 1 1
'it'h2 ttJdS 12 !leI b6 13 li'lc4 .tb7 was
fine for Black in E.Atalik-E.Kovalev
skaya, Elista 1998. Likewise 7 li'lc3
'iVd7!? (7... g6 8 d3 .tg7 transposes back
to the notes to Black's 6th) 8 d3 e6 9 .tf4
.td6 10 d2 0-0 1 1 i.gS ttJdS didn't ex
actly impress for White in V.Grosar
N.5ajn, Nova Corica 1998.
7 b6!?
...
8 b4!?
White is up for the challenge and
determined to prevent Black from de
veloping smoothly.
1 88
Chapter Seven
1 e4 c5 2 b3
This surprisingly tricky system, and
one sometimes known as the Snyder
variation after the American master,
has become fairly popular with a grow
ing number of grandmasters over the
past five years. I suspect that they are
attracted to the queenside fianchetto
because it is easy to play, leads to some
quite complex positions and is often
not well countered in practice. Black
needs to learn a reliable line against 2
b3, especially before the trickle-down
effect sees it becoming popular at club
level too, and we will look at:
A: 2 d6
B: 2 ctJc6
...
...
A)
1 e4 c5 2 b3 d6
A useful and quite flexible move.
Black has a number of possible follow
ups, but one reason why he is happy to
3 itb2
Unsurprisingly this is White's main
move by far, although there are alter
natives:
a) 3 i..b5+ itd7 4 itxd7+ (4 c4!?
failed to trouble Black after 4 ... i..xb5 5
cxb5 a6! 6 ctJc3 ctJf6 7 ctJf3 g6 8 itb2
axb5 9 ctJxb5 itg7 in A.Lein-
1 89
4 ctJc3
190
191
4 g6
...
192
S tDdS
White doesn't have to double
Black's f-pawns and indeed he's tried a
number of alternatives:
a) S .ibS+ .id7 6 .ixd7+ tDbxd7 is a
position which might also arise from a
4 .ibS+ move order. After the 7 f4 .ig7
8 f3 of P.Fievet-K.Roser, Chambery
1994, there is nothing wrong with
8 ... 0-0 9 tDge2 e6 followed by ...b8 and
...bS.
b) S g3 .ig7 6 .ig2 is a set-up with
which White has scored fairly well, but
against a player who some experience
of our ... tDf6 systems in the Closed it
shouldn't be too challenging: 6 ... 0-0 7
tDge2 tDc6 (another reasonable ap
proach is 7...eS!? blunting White's
bishops and after 8 0-0 tDc6 9 hl .id7
11 d3 tDc7 12 bl e6 13 d2 tDd4 14
tDxd4 .ixd4+!? IS 'it>h2 b6 16 tDdl .ib7
led to a balanced manoeuvring strug
gle in A.Kosten-M.5enff, Marseilles
2006.
c) S f4! ? .ig7
193
6 ...exf6
Black doesn't mind an exchange of
bishops in general, but there's no need
to trade immediately. The text both
keeps options other than ... f5 open and
allows Black to recapture after any ex
change on g7 with his king.
7 i.C4
Play might transpose back to Mrva
Gelfand after 7 ii.b5+ ttJc6 8 ttJe2 0-0.
White has also tried here 8 i.xc6+ bxc6
9 'iff3 0-0 10 ttJe2 f5 (1O ...lIe8!? 1 1 0-0 d5
is a decent alternative) 1 1 i.xg7 xg7
12 'ifc3+ 'iff6 which was about equal in
Kr.Georgiev-N.5tavrev, Dupnica 1998.
7 0-0 8 ttJe2
...
8 ttJd7!?
.
6 ttJxf6+
White also has 6 ii.b5+ when
6 ... ttJc6! looks like a consistently com
bative approach: 7 ttJe2 0-0 8 ttJxf6+
exf6 9 0-0 e8 10 ttJg3 (or 10 d3 f5 1 1
ii.xg7 xg7 with equality) 10. . .h5!? 1 1
e1 h4 1 2 ttJf1 h3 13 'iff3 hxg2 14 ttJe3
ii.d7 led to a pretty complex and
194
3 b2
B)
1 e4 c5 2 b3 ctJc6
195
...
4 e5
White usually takes up the chal
lenge thus. Just as in Line A, Black
shouldn't mind seeing 4 iLxf6 gxf6
when S 'iihs has been tried in practice,
but this simply gives Black a number of
196
S lLlf3
This is standard, and the alterna
tives aren't too impressive:
a) S c4 lLlf4!? 6 g3?! (probably not
best, but 6 lLlf3 d6 7 g3 lLle6 S exd6
'iVxd6 9 ii.g2 lLled4 sees Black's clamp
on d4 offset White's small lead in de
velopment) 6 ...lLle6 7 lLlf3 g6 S ii.g2
ii.g7 9 0-0 d6 didn't give White enough
for the pawn he was set to lose on eS in
R.Van Doorn-A.Van den Berg, Dutch
League 1994.
b) S lLlc3 lLlxc3 6 ii.xc3 dS 7 exd6
'iVxd6 S lLlf3 i.g4 (S ... eS!? 9 ii.bS f6 is a
more ambitious and also quite tempt
ing option; observe White's lack of
pawn breaks) 9 i.e2 e6 10 0-0 ii.e7! was
very comfortable for Black in PDarini-
197
S ... d6
198
6 .ibS
The most active deployment of the
bishop and White's main choice. He
has again tried a number of alterna
tives, but Black is generally fine against
them with his central counterplay and
the possibility of ... i.g4:
a) 6 i.c4 dxe5 (another option is
6 ...lLlf4!?, after which 7 0-0 d5 8 i.e2
i.f5 was fine for Black in N.Hauwert
E.Knoppert, Haarlem 1991; White
might play more critically with 7 g3!?,
but then 7 ... d5 8 i.b5 lLlg6 leaves him
loath to exchange on c6 with his king
side light squares a little tender) 7
lLlxe5 lLlxe5 8 i.xe5 e6 9 lLlc3 was
B.5passky-G.5osonko, Tilburg 1978,
and now 9 ... i.d6! (Ftacnik) would have
been fine for Black: 10 i.xg7 (or 10
i.b5+ Wf8 1 1 i.xd6+ 'tINxd6 and Black's
king will emerge quite happily on g7)
10 ...g8 1 1 i.xd5!? (the most critical
try; Black hasn't any problems after
either 1 1 i.h6 'YWh4! or 1 1 lLlxd5 exd5 12
i.b5+ i.d7 13 'YWe2+ 'YWe7 - Rowson)
1 1 . ..exd5 12 'YWe2+ 'YWe7! (correctly mak
ing the pawn sacrifice permanent,
rather than allow White the advantage
7 exd6
7 e6
...
6 ....td7
A solid and sensible choice. I'm not
a fan of 6 ... .tg4 7 h3! h5, but Black
might consider 6 ... 6!?, simply trying
to win the bishop-pair. This has been
quite rare, but seems reasonable: 7 4:Ja3
(unsurprisingly, the meek 7 .txc6+
xc6 8 0-0 was pretty comfortable for
Black after 8 ... ..tg4 9 exd6 "ii'xd6 in
T.Fatianova-M.Swicarz, Wroclaw 2006,
and 7 .i.c4 tLlf4 8 g3 d5 9 f1 tLlg6 was
also quite acceptable as e5 was a little
weak in L.Steiner-A.Becker, Vienna
199
200
Chapter Eight
G a m bits
l e4 c5
2 ... cxd4 3 c3
A: 2 d4
B: 2 b4
A)
1 e4 c5 2 d4
201
6 ... a6!
One of Black's best defences to the
Morra, as initially demonstrated by Joe
Gallagher in his classic Beating the Anti
Sicilians. Black's move order centres
around being able to develop the light
squared bishop outside the pawn chain
before playing ... e6. The text is a key
link in this plan since both 6 ... g4? 7
xf7+! and 6 ...ttJf6?! 7 e5! dxe5 8 xd8+
ttJxd8 9 ttJb5 are rather undesirable.
Ai: 4 ...ttJc6
A2: 4 ...e6
The former leads to a variation
which I've always favoured and in
which the onus is currently somewhat
on White to demonstrate sufficient
compensation, while the latter is some
thing I've dug up for 2 ttJf3 e6 players
(2 ttJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 c3!? being a pos
sible move order) and which also looks
quite promising.
Ai)
1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 ttJxc3 ttJc6
5 ttJf3 d6 6 C4
202
7 0-0
Very much White's most popular
move in practice, but quite possibly
White needs to meet Black's sophisti
cated move order with some sophisti
cation of his own. As such 7 g5!? was
endorsed in Langrock's recent and
generally quite impressive The Modern
Morra Gambit (a work which refers to
6 . . . a6 as 'notorious'; quite wrongly, in
my view) . Following 7... ttJf6 8 xf6 (for
8 0-0 see note 'b' to White's 8th move,
below) 8 ... gxf6 a Rauzer-like situation
Gam bits
has arisen, albeit with Black, of course,
having already banked an extra pawn:
203
All: 8 'iHe2?!
A12: 8 h3
A13: 8 b4!?
A14: 8 ..tf4
Of these options, Line A l l is how
White usually develops in the Morra,
but 8 'iie2 is the exact move which
Black is hoping for: 8 ... .ltg4 is an excel
lent riposte as we will see. White also
has a few less important options:
a) 8 e5?! is another concept which
Black's move order is designed to prevent. After 8 ... dxe5 9 'iVxd8+ ttJxd8 10
ttJxe5 e6 (10 . . . .lte6!? is also quite promising) 1 1 J::td l (or 1 1 ..te3 .ltd6 12 ttJf3 b5
13 .ltd3 .ltb7 14 ttJd4 0-0 15 .l:i.fdl ttJd5
and Black was a pawn up for very little
in N.Matthews-R.Palliser, Horsforth
2001) 1 1 . . .ttJd7 12 ttJf3 .lte7 13 .ltf4 0-0
14 ttJe4 ttJc6 15 .ltd6 ttJb6
...
2 04
G a m b its
counterplay after the queen exchange.
b) 8 .igS isn't such a bad approach,
but unlike after 7 .igS, Black gets to
keep his structure intact:
All)
1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 ttJxC3 ttJc6
5 ttJf3 d6 6 .iC4 a6 7 0-0 ttJf6 8 e2?!
2 05
9 11dl
A set-up White employs in many
main lines of the Morra, but here it
simply fails to convince. However,
White has already gone wrong with
neither 9 'Yid3 iLxf3 10 'i!Vxf3 etJe5 1 1
'Yie2 etJxc4 12 'Yixc4 e6 13 'i!Vb3 'Yib 8 14
iLf4 iLe7 15 llfel etJd7! 16 lladl b5
(M.Zhang-M.Campbell, British League
2006) nor 9 h3 iLxf3 10 'Yixf3 etJe5 1 1
'Yie2 etJxc4 1 2 'Yixc4 e6 1 3 lldl llc8 1 4
'Yib3 'Yic7 1 5 iLf4 iLe7 16 llac1 'Yib8
(Jo.Thomas-RBritton, British Champi
onship, Swansea 2006) being im
provements. Indeed, if anything, they
make matters even easier for Black
who was a clear pawn up in both cases.
9 e6 10 h3
...
206
G a m bits
achieve little here and he is rather weak
on the dark squares) 13 ...0-0
...
...
207
9 i.e7
...
8 e6
...
9 e2
Heading for White's standard
Morra set-up. Only by bringing a rook
to dl can he hope to pose any real
problems, since otherwise Black easily
completes his development in peace:
for example, 9 i.e3?! e7 10 a3 0-0 1 1
c2 i.d7 1 2 l::r a dl bS 1 3 a2?! b4 1 4
ct:le2 bxa3 I S bxa3 'iVaS was excellent for
208
G a m b its
13 ...h6!? (13 ... tLla5! is a simpler ap
proach when neither sacrifice on e6
really works) 14 tLlxe6! fxe6 15 ..txe6
Se7 16 j"f5 f7 17 tLld5 gave White
some play for his piece in G.Williams
J.Anderson, correspondence 1999.
b) 11 Sdl nd7 12 j"f4 j"e7 13 Sael
..tb7 14 tLlg5!? (in this critical position
White has also tried 14 e5?!, but after
14 ... dxeS IS tLlxeS tLlxeS 16 j"xeS 0-0 17
j"c2 .l:!.xdl + 18 .I:i.xdl 'i!Va8 he came up
short in A.Jaumandreu Llopis-R.Schutt,
correspondence 1997) 14 ... 0-0 (14 ...tLlaS?
IS j"xe6! fxe6 16 tLlxe6 'iVa8 17 tLldS
gives White a dangerous initiative for
the piece) IS tLlxe6! fxe6 16 j"xe6+ h8
11 bS!?
...
2 09
210
A13)
1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 dXc3 4 tbxC3 tbc6
G a m b its
5 tzJf3 d6 6 C4 a6 7 0-0 tzJf6 8 b4!?
9 bS xf3
In view of White's options on his
next two turns, Black should give seri
ous thought to preferring 9 ... axb5! ?, as
Tim Taylor has done:
10 gxf3
211
10...axbs!
Prudent, whereas Black must avoid
getting involved in 10 ... lbeS? 1 1 bxa6!
CDxc4 12 axb7! l':ta7 13 CDbS l':txb7 14 'ilUa4
which saw White regain her piece with
advantage in N.Regan-G.Van Beek,
Haarlem 1998.
11 .ixbS
White's main move, but now Black
gets to develop his kingside. Thus
White should probably prefer 1 1
CDxbS!?
212
G a m b its
and it's perpetual after either 16
ttJd4 z::!.xa4 1 7 'ii'xa4 ttJxf3+ 1 8 ttJxf3
g4+ or 16 ttJa7 e6 1 7 l::tc8+ <Jite7 1 8
z::!.c7+ <Jitd8.
11 g6
.
13 0-0!
...
213
A14)
1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 tLixc3 tLic6
5 tLif3 d6 6 iLC4 a6 7 0-0 tLif6 8 iLf4
9 e6 10 tLig5
...
8 ...iLg4!
9 'iVb3
White can also aim for an improved
version of Line All with 9 h3, but after
9 ... iLxf3 (9 ... iLh5!? is far from ridicu
lous; any double-edged g4-advance is
not that scary) 10 'iVxf3 e6 1 1 l:!.fd1 'iVb8!
even the extra tempo isn't all that use
ful since Black is so solid; for example,
12 b4 (or 12 l:i.d2 iLe7 13 l:i.ad1 tLie5)
12 ... tLid7!? (not essential and 12 ... tLie5
13 iLxe5 dxe5 should probably be pre
ferred since 14 'iVg3 iLe7! 15 'iVxg7? .l:!.g8
16 'iVh6 'iVc8 costs White a piece down
the c-file) 13 Mad tLice5 14 'iVe2 iLe7 1 5
iLb3 0-0 16 iLg3 .l:!.e8! 1 7 f4 tLic6 1 8 a3
j,f8 and White's extra space didn't give
214
10 ...tLia5
G a m bits
Black needs to be a little careful
here: 10 ... bS? 1 1 liJxbS! liJaS ( 1 1 . ..axbS
12 iLxbS is even worse since White will
regain his piece on c6) 12 a4 axbS 13
iLxbS+ liJd7 1 4 eS dS IS iLd2 is rather
awkward with a double-attack on g4
and as.
11 a4+ liJd7!
12 f3!?
White is a little short of a good
move here. The text is not ideal, but
even worse is 12 iLe2 iLxe2 13 liJxe2
i.e7 14 liJf3 0-0 with no real play for
the pawn.
12 ...liJxC4
Continuing
in
prudent
vein,
whereas 12 ... bS? 13 iLxbS! axbS 14
liJxbS iLhS I S ac1 6+ 16 \t>hl b8
17 liJc7+ \t>d8 18 fdl gives White good
attacking chances for his piece.
13 xC4
Or 13 fxg4 bS 14 c2 liJceS and
Black covers f7, leaving him with some
advantage.
13 ... iL h5
Black has good long-term chances
here, not just with his extra pawn but
also the bishop-pair. He must still be
A2)
1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 liJxC3 e6 5
liJf3 a6 6 itC4 b5!?
215
216
G a m b its
partly because there isn't anything par
ticularly good for him to do) lS ...tiJf8
16 g3 a7 17 tiJe1 .l::tac8
18 f3 tiJhS 19 f2 8 20 d2 tiJg6
21 tiJc2 h6 22 tiJe3 i.gS saw Black fully
unravel and then begin to increase his
advantage while White could only sit
and wait in O.5cheil-A.Bangiev, corre
spondence 1990.
b) 8 0-0 can be simply met by 8 ... d6,
transposing to our main line after 9
e2, but a more critical continuation is
8 ...b4! and now:
21 7
218
G a m b its
onstrated that bringing the king to g7
does not always solve all Black's prob
lems: 14 ...h5!? 15 i.f4 i.g5 16 'iYd2 i.xf4
1 7 'iYxf4 'iYf6?! 18 'iYe3 i.d7 19 I:!.ac1 g6?!
20 I:!.c7 CDh6 21 CDe6+! and Black came
under huge pressure) 15 CDc6!? (the
only really active try and at least this
way White gets a useful passed pawn
and some pressure on d6; he might
first prefer 15 i.f4, but then Black can
even consider 15 . . . g5! 16 i.e3 g7
when the gash in his kingside does not
really compensate for the piece)
15 ... 'iYc7!? (denting White's hopes,
whereas 15 ...CDxc6 16 dxc6 CDe7 17 i.f4
CDf5 18 g4!? gives him some play, albeit
quite possibly not enough) 16 'iYe2 g6
17 i.f4 g7 18 I:!.ac1 CDxc6 (not essen
tial, but the simplest) 19 dxc6 (or 19
I:!.xc6!? 'iYa7 20 i.xd6 'iYd4 with some
advantage as Black is very close to
completing his development with
... CDh6 and ... i.b7) 19 ... CDe7 20 'iYd2 I:!.d8
and, despite the passed c6-pawn, Black
is a piece up for not very much at all.
Returning to 8 'iYe2:
S d6
...
219
9 0-0 CLJd7!
Black's motto in this variation
should be develop the queenside be
fore the kingside. Here it's important to
avoid the inferior 9 ... CLJf6?! 10 eS! dxeS
1 1 CLJxe5 with the powerful threat of 12
CLJxf7.
220
10 .s.d1
Building up against d6 in thematic
Morra style. White has also tried 10
CLJd4 hoping for the Sozin-like 10 ...i.e7?
1 1 i.xe6!, but after 10 ...b4!? (10 ...CLJgf6 is
a calm and sensible alternative) 1 1
CLJdS? (White has t o try 1 1 CLJa4 CLJgf6 1 2
f3 .i.e7 - 12 .. :iVaS!? 13 ii.d2 CLJcS i s a
forcing and possibly superior option 13 i.d2 still with some play for the
pawn, such as after 13 ... a5 14 .s.ac1 CLJeS
IS 5+ d7 16 .l::i.fdl ) 1 1 .. .exd5 12
exd5+ .i.e7 13 CLJfS 'it>f8 14 i.f4 he surely
didn't have enough for the piece in
G.5pain-M.5ims, Wanganui 200S; for
example, 14 ... CLJcS!? (probably even
more precise than the game's also
promising 14 ...CLJe5) IS .s.adl d7 16
.i.c2 g6 17 CLJxe7 ltlxe7 18 i.h6+ Wg8 19
f3 f5 20 .l:!.fe1 Wf7 and Black wins.
10 .i.e7!?
A more popular option is 10 ... b4 1 1
CLJa4 ( 1 1 CLJd5? exd5 12 exd5+ i.e7 is
rather unconvincing; White wants his
rook on e1 not d1 to try and make any
such sacrifice work) 1 1 . ..ltlgf6 1 2 .l:!.d4
when White has some play for the
pawn. This also seems quite playable
...
G a m b its
for Black, but I prefer the text which
poses White different problems.
11 f4 "iWb6!?
12 es!?
Thematically trying to open the po
sition for his more active pieces, just as
White does after 1 1 . .:ifu8. Alterna
tively:
221
15 'iYe2 tLle7
222
8)
1 e4 (5 2 b4
The Wing Gambit. Compared with
the Morra, White gets a central major
ity instead of a lead in development for
his pawn. Just as there patience is the
key to Black's play, although he will
frequently find White provoking inter
esting complications which can be ac
cepted; returning the extra pawn at a
G a m b its
key moment, as well as its very pres
ence, has helped Black to win many a
game against 2 b4.
2 ... cxb4
Acceptance must be critical and we
will now chiefly focus on:
81: 3 a3
82: 3 d4
83: 3 ttJf3
Lesser options include:
a) 3 b2 ttJf6!? (sensibly luring
White's centre forwards in a bid to
later undermine it, while also blunting
the b2-bishop, and this c3-Sicilian-like
plan is probably best; Black has also
tried 3 ... d5 4 exd5 'iVxd5 when 5 a3
transposes to Line B1, but 5 ttJf3 fol
lowed by 6 c4 may give White some
thing for his pawn) 4 e5 (instead with 4
c4 White hopes to dissuade Black
from capturing on e4 with a little tactic,
but Black should not be dissuaded:
4 ...ttJxe4! 5 xf7+ \txf7 6 'iVh5+ \tg8 7
'iVd5+ e6 8 'iVxe4 ttJc6 9 ttJf3 d5 and not
only was Black a pawn up, but he also
223
clearly
better
in
H.Huenerkopf
M.Chandler, German League 1986.
81)
1 e4 C5 2 b4 cxb4 3 a3
White's main continuation and a
move which may be due for something
of a renaissance, at least at club level,
after being recommended in Nigel Da
vies' recent Gambiteer repertoire.
3 ...d5!?
224
G a m b its
12 b2 lDc5 and Black stood well.
b) 4 xa3 was once employed by
Capablanca, but after 4 ... d6 5 lDf3 (more
usual is the immediate 5 d4 when
5 ... lDf6 6 d3 lDc6 7 c3 gives Black a
reasonable choice between 7...g6 and
7...e6 S lDe2 e7 9 0-0, F.Frink-P.Kubin,
Tatranske Zruby 2006, 9 ... 0-0 10 lDd2 e5
with a good game) 5 ...lDc6 (restricting
White's options with 5 ...lDf6 is probably
a more accurate move order) 6 d4 g6!?
(the fianchetto isn't a bad idea in gen
eral, as we've seen, and here is as good
a way as any to counter White's idea of
7 d5) 7 h4?! g4 S c3 g7 9 lDbd2 lDf6
10 'iWb3 'iWb6 1 1 a2 .i.xf3 12 gxf3 lDh5
Black was doing well and the legendary
Cuban virtually unrecognisable in
J.Capablanca-R.Black, New York 1911.
c) 4 lDxa3 d6
225
4 exds
4..Ji'xds
s es!
...
S lLlf3
White's other method of saving his
rook is 5 .ii.b 2. Black should still fight
for the centre with 5 ... e5 when White's
226
6 axb4
Gam bits
Probably White's best way of gain
ing some play for his pawn is 6 i..b2
ttJc6 7 c4!? This has blown away no
less a player than Malaniuk, although I
think that Black should be able to gain
quite a reasonable game with a little
accuracy:
7 c3
White has ideas of d4 and can also
now meet ...e4 with ttJd4. Alternatively:
a) 7 i..a3 i..xa3 8 .l:txa3 (or 8 ttJxa3
ttJc6 9 ttJbS 'iVd8 when Davies points
out both that White can regain his
pawn with 10 ttJxeS!? ttJxeS 1 1 1We2 and
that this is far from troubling for Black
after 1 1 . ..ttJe7 12 'iVxeS 0-0; continuing
this a little we find 13 i..e2 ttJg6! 14 'iVg3
when White has prevented any king
side activity with .. :iVgS, but Black still
gains the advantage with 14 ... i..d 7 IS
0-0 i..xbS 16 i..xbS 'iVxd2) 8 ... ttJc6 9 ttJc3
"iYd6 10 ttJbS 'iVe7 sees the exchange of
dark-squared bishops only really help
Black develop smoothly: 1 1 'iVaI ttJf6 12
227
7 !fi.e7
8 ttJf6!
...
228
G a m b its
well in C.Langer-M.Dehne, Dortmund
2001) 10 ...exd4 1 1 i.f4 (and not 1 1
cxd4?!, as in A .Selva salvador
F .Bixquert Jimenez, Valencia 1996,
when White will be driven backwards
after 1 1 .. .ebf6, such as with 12 e2 0-0
13 0-0 ..if5 followed by ... a6 with a
sound extra pawn) 1 1 .. .f8 12 0,c7 b8
13 0,b5 a8, as indeed he did in
W.Goebl-F.Krewett,
correspondence
1998.
9 0, b S 'iVd8 10 0,xes
Perhaps White should take the
other pawn and 10 kIxa7!? l:txa7 1 1
0,xa7 e4 1 2 0,d4 i.d7 (U.Neumann
s.Richkov, correspondence 2002) 13
i.e2 'iYb6 14 0,ab5 does, as Davies
points out, give White good squares for
his knights. However, Black remains
slightly the more active here and isn't
worse in the unclear position arising
after 14 ... 0,c6 15 0-0 15 ... 0-0 16 d3 0,xd4
17 0,xd4 i.d6.
10...0,c6
11 0,xc6
As this fails to win a second pawn,
perhaps White should prefer 1 1 d4,
although after 1 1 .. .0-0 12 ..Itd3 0,xe5 13
11...bxc6 12 1Vf3
And not, of course, 12 J::i.xa7? J::i.xa7
13 0,xa7 i.d7 trapping the knight.
12 ... i.d7 13 0,d4 0-0
229
B2)
1 e4 c5 2 b4 cxb4 3 d4
White wastes no time in construct
ing his ideal centre, but as we've al
ready seen, Black too can contest the
centre.
3 d5
...
230
G a m bits
10 .. .'Jd7! 1 1 CLJf3 CLJc5 saw Black play
ing well and instructively against and
around the white centre to gain a clear
advantage in H.Jurkovic-S.Ovoirys,
Oberwart 1999.
b) 5 e5 CLJd5 6 .lte4!? is a try, although
after 6 ...e6 7 CLJf3 (7 .ltxd5?! exd5 8 CLJf3
d6 undoubles the pawns with effect)
7... d6 8 0-0 .lte7 (B.schneider-A.Schenk,
4 eS
Even though this lets Black's light
squared bishop out, White really has to
try it. The alternative 4 exd5 CLJf6 gives
Black a good version of the Scandina
vian:
231
...
5 a3
White usually feels the need to play
this, if only because the b4-pawn exerts
quite a cramping influence on his
queenside. He doesn't have to, though,
and S .te3 is occasionally tried, after
which I like S ...ttJh6!? (bringing the
knight to fS, although the more stan
dard S ....tfS is also quite good: 6 ttJe2 e6
7 ttJg3 is probably White's best when
7....tg6 8 M!? has brought him some
compensation, although I have my
doubts that it's sufficient after 8 .. .f6!;
another option is 7 ... ttJge7 8 ttJd2 6!?
challenging White to find a good move
and after, for example, 9 .te2 .tg6 10 h4
h6 1 1 hS .th7 12 ttJb3 ttJfS 13 ttJxfS .ltxfS
White probably hasn't enough, since
232
G a m b its
'iVxd3 e5! failed to help White in
K.Orienter-E.Gruenfeld, Vienna 1946)
7....i.xd3 S 'iVxd3 e6 9 ttJe2 ttJge7
9 ttJf4
Critical. White needs to at least be
attacking d5, whereas 9 ttJg3 ttJxc2+ 10
ttJxc2 .i.xc2 11 g4 e6 12 .i.e2 .i.b4+ 13
f1 .i.g6 didn't give him anywhere
near enough play for the two pawns in
LAI Hadhrani-H.Hamdouchi, Novi Sad
Olympiad 1990.
9 ttJxc2+!
233
14 b5+ 'it>d8
13 e6!
...
Again 13 ... a6 14 ti'Jb6 is a little awkward since 14 ... Mc6? fails to 15 j,b5.
234
G a m b its
xc8 i.xc8 Black's two minor pieces
for the rook give him all the chances
that are going due to White's numer
ous weak pawns) 20 . . . a6 21 lLlb6 1:tc2 22
a4 1:tc3 and Black's far superior struc
ture carried the day.
The theoretical pendulum has
swung somewhat over 6 ...i.fS, but I find
it hard to believe that White has suffi
cient compensation so long as Black is
accurate in our main line. Those after a
quieter life, as well as those for whom
facing the Wing Gambit is a rare occur
rence, should investigate the simpler
and no less promising 3 .. .l2Jf6.
83)
1 e4 c5 2 b4 cxb4 3 lLlf3
This is actually quite rare here, but
it's still worth considering what fol
lows in some detail, if only so that
Black combines his preparation for the
Wing Gambit with that for the Wing
Gambit Deferred, i.e. 2 lLlf3 before 3 b4.
3 dS
...
235
236
G a m b its
C.Duggan, Stockton 2006. This is
probably White's trickiest try after 8
d5, but it's still hard to believe that
Black isn't doing well. Bringing the
knight to d5 looks like the way to han
dle things: 13 ... e7! (13 ... j,d7?! 14 .l::tb l !
caused Duggan some problems i n the
game) 14 j,e2 (or 14 i.c4 tt'lf6 15 .l::tac1
j,d7 16 tt'le5 .l::thc8 17 j,b3 as!, activat
ing the rook with some advantage)
14 .. .'Jf6 15 tt'le5 tt'ld5 16 l:!.ac1 b6 17 j,f3
j,b7 18 l:!.c4 l:!.ac8 19 .l::thc1 f6 20 tt'ld3
'otd6 and White is struggling with
....l::the8-e7 next up.
b2) 8 i.d2 e6
237
4 exds
The only real try, since 4 e5?! .ig4 is
already quite promising; for example, 5
.ib5+ ctJc6 6 e6?! .ltxe6 7 ctJg5 .id7 8 d4
ctJf6 9 0-0 e6 and White didn't really
have anything for his two pawns in
R.Galleto-LDuarte, Mar del Plata 2006.
4 ctJf6!
...
238
Chapter Nine
Misce l l a neo u s
A: 2 a3
B: 2 ttJa3
C: 2 C4
D: 2 ttJe2
A)
1 e4 c5 2 a3
This attempt to gain a kind of im
proved Wing Gambit has recently
gained some attention, due in no small
part to the games and writings of the
Russian GM, Alexei Bezgodov.
2 g6!
...
239
240
3 b4
Consistent, but quite possibly White
should change approach and indeed he
has resorted to trying all manner of
different set-ups:
a) 3 d4 cxd4 4 c3 (taking play into a
line of the Morra, but with an early a3;
quite possibly, though, this is best since
4 'ti'xd4?! t2Jf6 5 i.b5 a6 6 e5 axb5 7 exf6
t2Jc6 8 'iVe3 e6 gave Black an excellent
version
of
the
hyper-accelerated
Dragon, especially after 9 t2Jc3?! b4!
which neatly exploited the pinned a
pawn in S.Williams-P.Wells, British
Rapidplay Championship, Halifax 2004)
4 ... dxc3!? (I can't see any reason to shy
M iscella n e o u s
away from this, although several alter
natives are quite comfortable for Black:
4 ... d5, 4.. .'Jf6 and Carlsen's 4 ... .i.g7 5
ct:Jf3 d3) 5 ct:Jxc3 .i.g7 6 .i.c4 ct:Jc6
241
242
4 b6
...
M is c e lla n e o us
O.Cvitan, Pula 2006) 5 ... dxc5 6 f4 tDf6 7
.ubI 0-0 8 tDf3 tDc6 9 iLc4 has been sur
prisingly assessed by Bangiev as fa
vouring White, but Black's bind on the
d4-square appears to outweigh the ex
tra central pawn and 9 ...tDd4 10 d3 (or
10 e5 tDh5 1 1 d3 i..g4 with good coun
terplay against f3 and f4) 10 ... iLg4 1 1
0-0 tlJe8!? 1 2 tlJe2 tDd6 was roughly
balanced in S.Gurcan-A.Greenfeld, Iz
mir 2004.
5 g3
5 e5!?
.
B}
1 e4 c5 2 lLla3
This became fashionable after being
used by Vadim Zvjaginsev on no fewer
243
2 b6!?
...
244
M iscella n e o u s
12 ..Ite2, not that this changes the view
that Black has a reasonable version of
the French Tarrasch; for example,
12 ... 0-0 13 h3 ttJxd4 14 cxd4 'ii'g6 15
'ii'd 2 ..ltd7 looks about equal) 1 1 . ..0-0 12
..Itg3 ..Itxg3 13 hxg3 e5! saw Black seize
the initiative in S.Cicak-E.Berg, Malmo
2006.
b) 2 ... d6 has usually been met by 3
c3 ttJf6 4 g3 when Black might be
happy to fight for the centre with the
positionally complex 4 ... g6 (and not
4 ... ttJxe4?? 5 'ii'a4+ ..Itd7 6 'ii'xe4 ..Itc6 due
to 7 i.b5) 5 ..Itg2 i.g7 6 ttJe2 0-0 7 0-0 e5,
as he was happy to in V.Malakhov
L .Nisipeanu, Sarajevo 2006. I also quite
like Rowson's suggestion of 2 ... d6 3 c3
ttJf6 4 g3 ttJc6 5 i.g2 ..Itg4!?
3 g3
Competing on the long diagonal
has been White's main response so far
in practice, but he might also consider:
a) 3 f4 ii.b7 4 d3 g6 5 c3 ..Itg7 6 ttJf3
4 ttJf6
...
245
9 d3 li'lc6 10 c3 a6 1 1 0-0
5 't\e2 e6 6 f4 d5
246
M is c e ll a n e o u s
C)
1 e4 cS 2 c4
4 g3
4... hS!?
3 es!?
...
s h4
247
D)
1 e4 C5 2 lbe2
5 d6 6 .ig2 .i.g4
...
7 f3 .i.e6 8 d3 .i.e7
Vallejo has used this slightly un
usual move a fair amount of late. Usu
ally it transposes to an Open Sicilian,
but there are a few move order points
to be aware of.
2 lbf6!?
248
M is c e lla n eous
2 ... d6 in this position, we should have a
quick look at Black's other two main
options:
a) 2 ...e6 is usually met by 3 CDc3,
transposing to Line B2 of Chapter Five,
or 3 d4. There isn't really a good inde
pendent alternative since 3 g3 d5
vring lines.
b) 2 ...CDc6 tends to immediately
transpose to an Open Sicilian or to Line
A2 of Chapter Five after 3 CDc3. Once
again 3 g3 d5! is an easy equalizer;
249
250
M is cella n e o u s
This way of playing with 5 ... f5 looks
possible, but is a little greedy and so I
imagine that many readers may prefer
5 .. .tLlf6. Overall, the good news for
2 ... d6 fans is that 3 g3 may not be as
awkward as has been feared.
Returning to 2 . . .'Jf6:
3 ttJ bC 3
Probably best since the alternatives
fail to impress:
a) 3 e5 ttJg4! 4 d4 cxd4 5 'iVxd4 d6
(5 ...h5!? also deserves serious consid
eration, targeting e5 and trying to in
duce 6 f4 which is an advance White
would prefer to avoid) 6 exd6 ttJc6!? 7
dxe7 'iVxe7 8 'iVf4 g6 9 Ct:Ja3 i.h6! 10 'iVg3
i.xc1 1 1 :!.xc1 0-0 gave Black plenty of
activity for his pawn in A.Lutikov
D.Bronstein, Parnu 1971 .
b) 3 ttJg3 ttJc6 also leaves White's
king's knight looking a little misplaced
and 4 f4 a6!? 5 d3 g6, intending ... i.g7
and ... d5 (or if e5, ... ttJd5 and ... d6 to
break up White's centre), was quite
reasonable for Black in c.Yurtseven
RCasafus, Dubai Olympiad 1986.
3 ...d6
251
I nd ex of Variations
1 e4 c5 and now:
A: 2 C3
B: 2 tbC3
c: others
A) 2 C3
55
5 tbf3 .i.g4
-
S ... tbf6
38
6 .te2
6 dxcS 28
6 ...cxd4 7 cxd4 e6 8 h3 .th5 9 tbc3 'iNa5
10 0-0 - 16
10 dS - 22
-
252
42; 6 .te2
In dex of Variations
8) 2 .:t:Jc3
2 .:t:Jc6
(5 d4
6 f4
6 .:t:Jge2 - 108
6 .:t:Jh3 - 1 13
6 .:t:Jf3 - 1 1 6
6 e3 llbS (6. . ..:t:Jf6 7 h3 e5 - 93) 7 'iVd2 b5 S .:t:Jge2 ( S f4 - 101) S . . .b 4 9 .:t:Jd1
.:t:Jd4 10 0-0 e5 - 103
253
8 0-0 .l:i.b8 9 h3 bS 10 a3 - 87
10 g4 - 88
C) Others
2 d4
2 a3 - 239
2 lLia3 - 243
2 c4 - 247
2 lLie2 - 246
2 lLif3 e6 3 c3 d5 4 e5 d4 5 d3 - 63 (5 cxd4 - 61)
2 f4 d5 (2 ...e6 - 161) 3 exd5 (3 lLic3 - 152) 3 ...lLif6 4 b5+ (4 c4 - 154)
4 ... lLibd7 5 c4 a6 6 xd7+ - 156 (6 .ia4 - 156)
2 d3 lLic6 3 g3 g6 4 g2 ..tg7 5 f4 d6 6 lLif3 lLif6 7 0-0 0-0 8 c3 - 184 (8 h3 184)
2 g3 d5 3 exd5 'it'xd5 4 lLif3 lLic6 - 187
2 b3 d6 (2 ... lLic6 3 ..tb2 lLif6 - 196) 3 ..tb2 lLif6 4 lLic3 - 190 (4 ..txf6 - 190; 4
..tb5+ - 191)
2 b4 cxb4 3 a3 (3 d4 - 230; 3 lLif3 - 235) 3 ...d5 (3...bxa3 - 224) 4 exd5 'iNxd5 5
lLif3 e5 - 226
254