Neo-Sveshnikov

The Neo-Sveshnikov By Jeremy B. Silman, IM Chess Enterprises, Inc., Coroapolis PA 15108 © by Jeremy B. Silman. All ...

Author: Jeremy Silman

230 downloads 1481 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Neo-Sveshnikov

By Jeremy B. Silman, IM

Chess Enterprises, Inc., Coroapolis PA 15108

© by Jeremy B. Silman. All rights reserved.

Published 1991

Printed in the United States of America

95 94 93 92 91

5 4 3 2 1

ISBN: (}..-94547(}..-13-4

Editor: B.G. Dudley Proofreader: Thomas Magar Typesetting: M.L. Rantala Cover Design: E.F. Witalis Jr.

Table Of Contents

Key of S)'lllbols.......................................................................... 1 Intro duction

................................................................................

2

Key Strategic Plans .................................................................. 4

Analysis Of Neo-Sveshnikov: Chapter One 5.Nf5 ................................................................. 10 Chapter Two 5.Ne2 .............................................................. 15 Chapter Three 5.Nf3 ............................................................. 19 Chapter Four 5.Nb3 .............................................................. 24 Chapter Five 5.Nxc6 ............................................................. 34 Chapter Six 5.Nb5 ................................................................ 41

Index of Variations .......... ............ .......... ..................... . ... . Ill .

.

.

.

.

.

Bibliography............................................................................ 113

Key Of Symbols

+= ..

. . ........ .. .. . .

.

.

=+...

.

.

.........

.. . ........ . White is slightly better .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . .

..

+-. .. .

.

...

.

. . . ..

...

.

..

.......

.

.

..

....

. . . Black is slightly better ..

.. ..... . . .. .... .. ..White has a clear advantage .

.

.

.

.

-+..............................................Black ++-

-++ =

has a clear advantage

.......... . . .... . ... . ........ ..... White has a winning advantage

.

......

.

.

.

..

.

..

.. . . .. . . .. .. .... . . . ...... .

..

.

.

.

.

.

Black has a winning advantage

....

equal chances

...............................................

Introduction When I first saw the variation that comes about after l .e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5 .Nb5 d6 I was intrigued but skeptical. Such lines don't usually last in the top levels of chess so I suspected it would fade rather quickly. However the variation refused to die! Not only did it have a small but faithful following but even world class players such as Short, Van der Wiel and Sveshnikov took it up. I decided that I should take a look at the analysis and perhaps give it a try myself. At this point a problem reared its ugly head: There were no articles or books on this subject! Well, if I wanted to study it I was was forced to do some work and put together some information. Now, after having played this opening for over a year, I feel compelled to offer up the first book ever written on this subject. Having di spensed with that, we now come to a funny dilemma: What to call this variation? Van der Wiel called the line after 5.Nb5 d6 the Kalashnikov. On the other hand, the line with l .e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 is usually called the La Bourdonnais Variation since it was extensively used by La Bourdonnais (France) way back in 1 835. After Las Bourdonnais both Louis Paulsen (Germany) and Howard Staunton (England) took up the line and won nice games with it. Next was Mir Sultan Khan (India) who tried it in 1 930, winning all four games in which it was played. Though nobody played the critical 5.Nb5 ! in the 1 800s the line never found a great deal of support, even though Black usually did very well in the opening. In the 1 900s 5.Nb5 was only played once versus Sultan Khan and when Kuzminikh of the USSR took up the variation most players still shied away from 5.Nb5. It is interesting to note that both these players answered 5.Nb5 with . . . d6, even though 5 . . . a6 was thought to be the main line (inferior as it was). So, with this history behind us, do we call it the La Bourdonnais Variation? How about the La Bourdonnais-Kalashnikov Variation? After pondering this critically important question I came to the conclusion that the simple Neo-Sveshnikov was best. The reasons for this: 1) Sveshnikov has taken it up and used it extensively in the last few years.

Introduction

3

2) It bears a resemblance to the Sveshnikov Variation ( l .e4 c5

2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5) and can transpose into this

line in some instances. 3) Neo-Sveshnikov is less effort to say than La Bourdonnais Kalashnikov. While writing this book I wanted to stay away from actual Sveshnikov lines. However, this was not always possible and in most cases moves other than 5 .Nb5 are best answered by going into promising Sveshnikov transpositions. Due to this I have given these lines in full since I can 't bring myself to force the poorer student to buy several more books on this and similar openings. One easy to follow book is quite adequate! One final bit of information. lbis is not a Black to play sort of thing! I try to be impartial and give all available lines for both Sides. Because of this the present work is suitable for those who play l .e4 and wish to prepare against this line and also for Sicilian players who want to learn this very interesting way of generating counterplay for Black.

Key Strategic Plans White ideas White has two basic ideas in this opening: 1 ) Achieve complete control of the dS square. White ' s dream is to end u p with a powerful Knight on d5 v s . a n ineffectual Black Bishop.

The diagram shows a worse case scenario. Black 's Bishop is completely entombed while the White Knight dominates the position. What makes matters worse is that White 's pawn on f5 takes away Black's counterplay based on his . . . f7-f5 advance. Because of this, White will be able to build up a decisive Kingside attack with an eventual g2-g4, h2-h4 and g4-g5. What this example shows us is that White would love to trade minor pieces if he can end up with this type of Knight vs. B ishop situation. 2) White wants to start a Queenside attack . Quite o ften, White will play Nd5 and after a capture there, a White pawn will take the place of the Knight. Though this gets rid of Black's weakness on d5 (and also frees Black of his backward pawn on d6) White does gain an edge in space on the Queenside. If Black is slow in generating Kingside counterplay, then White will be able to break through on the other side with decisive results.

5

J.Peters-Silman, Pacific Southwest Open 1 990. In this position White has a majority of pawn on the Queenside and his natural plan is to play for an expansion there via b2-b4 and c4-<;5 . The continuation was:

17.Ne3

Nd7

Black keeps an eye on c5 and prepares to start countenneasures on the Kingside with . . . t7-f5.

t8.b4

rs

1 9.f4 ! Nipping Black's plans i n the bud. Now 1 9 . . . e4 leaves B lack 's Knights without good squares and the Black anny without an effective breakthrough. White would then be able to calmly increase his buildup on the Queenside.

19

•.•

20.fxe5

b6 NxeS

2 l .c 5 ! Now 2 1 . . .bxc5 22.bxc5 dxc5 23.d6 activates all the White pieces and leaves Black in great difficulties.

21 ...

g6

2 2 .c6. This powerful passed pawn is a winning advantage and White should have won this game. Notice how Black never came close to starting up his counterattack on the Kingside.

Black Ideas I won't beat around the bush: Black's position takes more energy to play than White 's. However, if you are aware of the different str ategies associated with this defense you should find yourself richly

6

The Neo-Sveshnikov

rewarded for the efforts you put out. The first problem we will address is what happens when White sticks a Knight on d5? Should Black go into a mindless panic?

Zhelnin-Shcherbak:ov, Yurmala 1 980. This diagram shows us a case in which White is playing to dominate the d5 square. He has gone out of his way to play Bcl-g5xf6 and it seems clear that White will get what he wants.

9.Nd5

0-0

10.Nec3

a6

l l .B d3 White has achieved his immediate aim but this does not mean that he will obtain the advantage. This is due to the countermeasures that Black will now employ. First he will place his dark-squared Bishop on the active g5 post and bring a piece or two to bear on d5. The final bit of the puzzle is to prepare to play . . . f7-f5. What this does is to worry White about the Kingside and put him off balance. A combination of these things serves to slowly undermine White 's d5 control.

1 1 ...

Be6

12.0-0

B gS

1 3.a4

ReS

14.Khl

g6

1 5.g3

Ne7

All of a sudden it becomes apparent that White will not be able to retain a piece on d5.

16.f4

BxdS

17.Nxd5

NxdS

1 8.exd5

exf4

Key Strategic Plans

19.gxf4

B f6

20.c3

ReS

2 1 .Qd2

QaS

7

Black no longer has any problems. He has completely solved the of the d5 square. ilemma d Another useful idea for Black in this opening comes about after l .e4

c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4

Notice how Black 's dark-squared Bishop is blocked in by its own pawns. With this in mind Black comes upon a plan to trade off this 'bad ' Bishop for White' s active (unblocked) piece on ct .

6 ...

Be7

7.Nlc3

a6

8.Na3

Be6

9.Be2

BgS!

and White is unable to prevent the exchange of Bishops. Black 's most important counterattacking idea involves the . . . n-f5 advance. After l .e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 Be6 7.Nl c3 a6 8.Na3 ReS 9.Be3 Be? 10.Be2 Nf6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12.Qd2 we get the position in the diagram.

8

The Neo-Sveshnikov

Black now prepares to trade off his dark-squared Bishop.

1 2 . ..

h6

13.Racl

Ne8

Now the d6 pawn is well defended and Black threatens . . . Be7-g5.

14.g3 ! ?

N f6

White has made Black think twice about . . . Bg5 due to f2-f4. However, Black sees that White has created some holes in his Kingsidc with g2-g3 so he switches to a counterattack against the Kingside based on . . . n-f5. With 14 . . . Nf6 he intends to redirect his Knight to h7 where it will threaten to play to g5 and h3.

15.f3

Nh7

16.Nd5

fS

The storm-clouds start to form on the Kingside.

1 7.Bb6

Qd7

1 8.exf5

BxfS

1 9 .Nxe7 +

Nxe7

20.Rfdl

Rf6

21 .Be3

Bg6!

Now . . . Nf5 has become a possibility for Black.

22.Nbl

B xb l !

Black must stop the Knight from getting

to

23.Rxbl

N fS

24.c5

Kh8

25.Bf2?

NgS !

c3 and d5.

Now ideas like . . . Nh3 or . . . e4 will really hurt White.

26.Kg2 One sample tine that demonstrates White problems is 26.Kh 1 e4 ! 27.f4 e3 28.Qd5 Ne6 29.Be 1 Rxc5 with a win.

26...

e4 !

27.Khl

exf3

28.c6

Rxc6

Key Strategic Plans

29.Bd3

dS

30.Rel

Nd6

31 .ReS

Qn

32.QaS

Nge4

33.Bd4

f2

9

Also winning is 33 . . . Rf5 34.Qd8+ Qg8.

34.Kg2

fl=Q + !

3S.Bxn

Rc2+

36.Kgl Dolmatov-Guseinov, Klaipeda 1988, and now 36 . . . Nd2 37.Qd8+ Qf8 wins immediately for Black. It's clear that Black's attacking chances on the Kingside are not to

be underestimated.

Analysis Of Neo-Sveshnikov Chapter One l.e4

cS

2.Nf3

Nc6

3.d4

cxd4

4.Nxd4

eS

S.NfS!?

Hardly threatening since White allows Black to play the freeing . . . d?--<15.

5

•.•

Nf6!

This transposition into the Sveshnikov is most likely best. The immedi ate 5 . . . d5 suggests itself but things are not as easy for Black as one might expect:

1) 6.Ng3 [Harmless] 6 . . . d4 [6 . . . dxe4 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8, =, is a simple solution] 7.f4 Bd6? ! [7 . . . exf4 8.Bxf4 Bd6 is fine for Black] 8.f5 ! [Now

11

Chapter 1

White 's space advantage gives him some chances on the Kingside, ho wever, Black should still be alright] 8 . . . Nf6 9.a3 Qc7 10.Bd3 Bd7 t l .0-0 0-0 1 2.Nd2 Rac8 1 3 .Nh5 Nxh5? 14.Qxh5 Kh8? 1 5.f6 g6 1 6.Qh6 Rg8 1 7 .Nf3 Bf8 1 8.Ng5 ! , 1 -0, Krstens-Frizike, 1 937. Very weak play by Black. 2) 6.exd5 Bxf5 7.dxc6 Qxd 1 + 8.Kxd 1 bxc6, =. 3) 6.Qxd5 ! Qxd5 7.exd5 Bxf5 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Bd3! [9.c3 Rb8 10.Nd2 Bc5 1 1 .Nb3 Bb6 1 2.Bc4 Ne7 1 3.0-0 0-0 is equal according to Uhlmann] 9 . . . B xd3 1 0.cxd3 0-0-0 1 1 .Ke2 Ne7 1 2.Be3 Kb7 1 3.Nd2 Nd5 ( 1 3 . . . Nf5 ! ?] 1 4.Rhc 1 , +=, Jakovic-J.Stojnov, Sofia 1 988. This last line should not put B lack in a panic but there is no reason to be uncomfortable when you have an option as good as 5 . . . Nf6.

6.Nc3 There doesn't appear to be anything better. The natural 6.Bg5 i s well met by 6 . . . Qa5+ [Even 6 . . . d5 ! ? 7.Bxf6 gxf6 is adequate] 7.Bd2 Qd8 [7 . . . Qb6 ! ? 8.Nc3 d5 is sharper] and now 8.Bg5 is just a draw by repetition.

6 ...

dS

7 .exd5 7.Nxd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 B xf5 9.dxc6 bxc6 10.Qf3 Qd7 1 1 .Bc4 Bd6 1 2.0-0 e4 1 3.Re1 0-0 gives Black an edge.

7 8.dxc6 .••

BxfS bxc6!

Not quite as good [but still very playable] is 8 . . . Qxd 1 + 9.Nxd 1 [9. Kxd 1 bxc6 1 0.Ba6 Rb8 1 1 .Bd3 Bg6 is nothing for White, Filipov Ganchev, Sofia 1 950] 9 . . . bxc6 1 0.Ne 3 Be6 [Untested is 10 . . . Be4 ! ? 1 I .f3 Bg6--Chekov. Also possible i s 1 0 . . . Bg6 1 1 .Ba6 (Easy for Black is 1 1 .Be2 Bc5 12.Bf3 Be4 {Or 12 . . . Rc8 1 3.0-0 0-0 14.Rd 1 Be4 with cquality-Uhlmann) 1 3.Bxe4 Nxe4 1 4.0-0 0-0 15.Rd1 Rad8 and Black h as a very comfortable position) 1 1 . . . Rb8 1 2.0-0 Bc5 1 3.Nc4 0-0 14.Nxe5 Bxc2 1 5.Bg5 Rxb2 1 6.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Nd7 Bd4 1 8.Nxf8 Kxf8 1 9.Rae 1 Rxa2 20.Re2 Rxa6 2 1 .Rxc2 c5 22.Rb 1 Rb6 and Black m anaged to draw, Blodstein-Milov, Kirovobad 1 984] 1 1 .Nc4 [ 1 1 .Ba6 Rb8 1 2.0-0 Nd5 1 3.b3 Bc5 14.Nxd5?! cxd5 is good for Black, Elfimov I<.ozyrev, Chelyabinsk 1 975] 1 1 . . . Nd7 1 2. Be3 f6 1 3 .0-0-0 Bc5. According to Sveshnikov, Black has a slightly inferior, but quite safe, en ding . For example: 14.Be2 Bxe3+ 1 5.Nxe3 Ke7 1 6. B f3 Rac8 , Gcnkin-Plisctsky, Moscow 1 975.

12

The Neo-Sveshnikov

9.Qf3 9.Qxd8+ Rxd8 is hannless: 1 0.Be3 Rb8 1 1 .0-0-0 Bb4 1 2.Bc4 a5 1 3.f3 0-0 14.Na4 e4! 1 5.a3 Be7 1 6.Rhe l exf3 17.gxf3 Nd7 1 8.Bf4 Rbe8 1 9.Bc7 Bh4 20.Rxe8 Rxe8 2 l .B xa5 Re3 22.Nb6 Ne5 23.f4 Nxc4 24.Nxc4 Re2 25.Rd2 Re l + 26.Rd 1 Re2, Shabanov-Kim, Kemerovo 1 979. Also comfortable for Black is 9.Bd3 e4 1 0.Be2 Bd6 [ 1 0 . . . Qc7 ! ? Sveshnikov ] l l . Bg5 [ 1 l .g4 ! ?-Sveshnikov ] 1 1 . . . h6 1 2.Bh4 0-0 [ 1 2 . . . Bf4 and 12 . . . g5 1 3 .Bg3 B f4 both deserve attention-Sveshnikov. One source gives this last possibility as being favorable for Black] 1 3.Qc l g5 14.Bg3 Nd5 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 1 6.Qd2 Rb8 [ 1 6 . . . Qe5 ! is a little better for Black] 1 7 .Nxd5 cxd5 1 8.c3 Rfd8 1 9.Rd 1 Be6 20.b3 Rbc8 2 1 .0-0 Qe5 22.Rc 1 d4 23.cxd4 Qxd4 24.Qxd4 Rxd4 25.Rxc8+ B xc8 26.Rd l Rxd 1 + 27.Bxd 1 , 1 {1.-1{2, Lutikov-Sveshnikov, Rostov-on-Don 1976.

9 ...

Qd7

The accurate move. Mistaken is 9 . . . Qc8? ! 1 0.Ba6! Qxa6 l l . Qxf5 Bd6 12.Bh6! [White's Bishop's make a funny impression by sacrificing themselves on a6 and h6. Less spectacular but also promising is 12.Bg5 Nd5 1 3.Rd l 0-0! 14.Rd3 Rae8? 15.Nxd5 cxd5 1 6.Rh3! which led to a winning attack in Shakarov-Mekhtiev, B aku 1 982. However, 14 . . . Rfe8 or 14 . . . g6 offered hope for defense according to Sveshnikov] 1 2 . . . Nd5 1 3.Ne4 [The immediate 1 3.Bxg7! ? is also possible] 1 3 . . . Be7 14.Bxg7 and Black had nothing for the sacrificed pawn, Savpansky Izotov, correspondence 1 9 84-85 .

l O . BgS The usual move. However B .Ivanovic recently introduced a new move: 10.Bc4 ! ? [This offers the c-pawn as a sacrifice. White hopes to get a lead in development when Black takes the time to capture it] 10 . . . Be7 l l .Bg5 Bxc2 ! ? 1 2.Qe2? [White had to play 1 2.0-0 with some compensation for the sacrificed pawn, though I would prefer B lack] 1 2 . . . Qg4! [A very strong answer! White must now trade off into a pawn down ending or stay in the middlegame and allow his position to deteriorate further] 1 3.Qxc2 [The endings after 1 3.Qxg4 Nxg4 14.Bxe7 Kxe7 and 1 3.Bxf6 Qxe2+ are quite miserable for White] 1 3 . . . Qxg2 ! [It's good to be greedy! Black could have settled for 'just' an advantage with either 1 3 . . . Qxc4 14.0-0-0 or 1 3 . . . Qxg5 1 4.0-0] 14.0-0-0 [White would lose after 14.Bxf6 Qxh 1 + 1 5.Ke2 Qxal 1 6.Bxg7 Qg l ! 1 7.Bxh8 Qg4+ followed by . . . Qxc4] 14 . . . Qxg5+ 1 5.Kb 1 0 -0

Chapter 1

13

[ Black's material advantage should lead to victory] 1 6.Rhg1 Qh4 J7.Bb3 Rad8 1 8.Rde 1 Bc5 ! 1 9.Rg2 Qf4 20.Reg 1 Kh8 2 1 .Rxg7 Bxf2 22.R 1 g2 Rd2 23.Ne2 Qe3 24.Rxf7 ! [A good try in a lost position] 24 .. . Rxf7 25.Qf5 ! , B.Ivanovic-Chandler, Manila (izt) 1 990, now Black could win with 25 . . . Rd8 ! 26.Bxf7 Rd l + 27.Kc2 Qxe2+ 28.Kb3. All Chandler's analysis so far, but here he gives 28 . . . Qe3+ [28 . . . Rd3+ 29.Ka4 Qc2+ is much easier] as leading to the victory. He 's right, but Black has to see 29.Ka4 ! Rd4+ 30.b4 Rxb4+! 3 1 .Kxb4 Bel + 32.Ka4 Qd4+ 33.Kb3 Qc3+ 34.Ka4 Qb4 mate.

1 0 ...

e4

This popular move leads to the critical position in the 5 .Nf5 line. However, IO . . . Bb4!? is also worthy of attention: 1 1 .Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bd3 Bxc3+ 1 3.bxc3 Bxd3 14.cxd3 [ 14.Qxf6 Qf5 ! 1 5.Qxh8+ Kd7 leads to a disaster for White] 14 . . . Qe6 1 5.0-0 0-0 1 6.Rae1 Kh8 1 7.Re4 f5 1 8 .Rh4 Rad8! 1 9.Qh3 Qg6 20.f4 f6 2 1 .Rf3? [Better is 2 1 .fxe5 fxe5 22.d4 exd4 23.cxd4 Rd5, =] 2 l . . . Rb8 ! 22.Rfl [22.Rg3 Rb1 + 23.Kf2 Qf7 24.Qxf5 Qxa2+ 25.Kf3 Rf1 + is not to be recommended] 22 . . . Rb2 23.Kh 1 Rxa2 24 .fxe5 fxe5 25.Rh6 Qg7 26.Rxc6 Rg8 27.Rg 1 a5 28.Qf3 [28.Qxf5?? Qxg2+! leads to mate] 28 . . . a4 29.Ra6 a3 30.Qd5? Rd2 3 1 .Rxa3 e4 ! 32. Ra8?? [Missing the real point of Black's play. He had to try 32.Qd4, ==+] 32 . . . Qxg2+ ! , 0- 1 , Sax-Fedorowicz, Dubai ol 1 986.

l l .Qe2 1 1 .Qe3 ! ? i s an untried suggestion o f Sveshnikov. 1 1 .Qg3 Bd6 1 2.Qh4 Be5 ! 1 3 .Bc4 Qd4 [ 1 3 . . . 0-0 followed by 1 4 . . . Qc7 gives Black more chances of coming away with an opening adv antage] 14.Bb3 0-0 1 5 .0-0 QcS 1 6.Bxf6 ! Bxf6 1 7.Nxe4 Bxe4 1 8. Qxe4 Bxb2 1 9.Rad l and White made a draw, Han Bon Din Sveshnikov, Ka1uga 1 966.

1 1 ...

Be7

Kmic has recommended l l . . . Qe6 1 2.0-0-0 Be7 1 3.h3 Nd5, =+.

The Neo-Sveshnikov

14

1 2.B xf6 Or 12.Rd 1 Qe6 [Also adequate is 12 . . . Qb7 1 3.Qa6 Rab8 14.Qxb7 Rxb7 1 5.Bc 1 0-0 1 6.Ba6 Rb6, =, Goldi�Lipman, Moscow 1 978-79.] 1 3 . Qc4 Rb8 14.Qxe6 Bxe6 1 5 .b3 Bb4! 1 6.Bd2 0-0 1 7.Be2 Rfd8 ! and White is under pressure, Parutenko-Markauss, corr. 1 988-89.

1 2 ...

Bxf6

1 3.Nxe4

0-0! gxf6

14.Nxf6+ 15.Qd2 Other defences are even worse:

1 ) 1 5.Qf3? Rfe8+ 1 6.Be2 Bg4 and Black wins. 2) 15.Qc4? Rfe8+ 1 6.Be2 Re4 17.Qa6 Rae8 and once again White is a goner. 3) 15.Rd 1 ? Qb7 1 6.Qf3 Qxb2 ! 1 7.Qxf5 Qc3+ 1 8.Rd2 Rfe8+ 1 9.Be2 Rad8 and the duel threats of . . . Qxd2+ and . . . Qa1 + force White to resign. Analysis by Markauss.

15 ... 1 6.Kd1

Rfe8+

Stronger is 1 6.Be2 ! ? Qe7 1 7.Qe3 Qb4+ 1 8.Qd2 Qb5 ! ? 19.a4 ! ? Qxb2 20.0-0 Qxc2 2 1 .Qxc2 Bxc2 22.Bf3 Be4 23.Bxe4 Rxe4 24.Rfc 1 Rae8 25.Kfl R8e6, =+. Analysis by Markauss.

1 6 .. .

Qb7

17.b3

Rad8

18.Bd3

cS

19.f3

c4!

20.bxc4

Qb6!

21 .Kcl 22.Kd1

Rb8 Bxd3

23.cxd3 24.Rcl

Q d4 Re3

0- 1 , Caturj�Markauss, corr. 1 988-89.

Con clus ion Black gains excellent play vs. 5.Nf5.

Chapter Two l.e4

cS

2.Nf3

Nc6

3.d4

cxd4

4.Nxd4

eS

5.Ne2

Not wishing to test Black with the critical 5.Nb5 , White plays a 'safe' move. Now he can play either Knight to c3 and in the event of . Bb4 White does not have to worry about the doubling of his pawns by . . . Bxc3 because the Knights support each other. . .

5 ...

N f6

6.Nbc3 Natural and best. Others: I ) 6.Bg5?! Bc5 threatens 7 . . . Bxf2+ and 7.Bh4 Nxe4 ! is certainly no help! 2) 6.Nec3 Bc5 7.Bc4 d6 8. a3? [A mindless move that gets i mmediately punished. He should play 8.Bg5 though 8 . . . Be6 is safe enough for Black] 8 . . . Ng4 9.Be3 [Miserable, but 9.0-0? Qh4 i s even Worse] 9 . . . Nxe3 I O. fxe3 Qg5 [ I O . . . Bxe3 l l .Qf3 ] l l .Qf3 Qxe3+ 1 2. Qxe3 Bxe3 1 3.Nd5 Bb6, Black's extra pawn led to a victory in 46 moves, Weenink-Sultan Khan, Hamburg 1 930.

6 ...

B cS

This is considered to be the main line but several other moves have

been tried:

16

The Neo-Sveshnikov

1 ) 6 . . . d5? ! is dubious because of 7.exd5 Nb4 8.Bg5 Bc5 9.Ng3, +=, but not 9.a3? ! Ng4! 10.Bxd8 Bxf2+ with perpetual check. 2) 6 . . . Bb4 (!) [One might think that this is not particularly good since the c3 Knight is well protected. However the pin on the Knight makes the freeing . . . d7-d5 a very real threat and 6 . . . Bb4 may well tum out to be Black's most reliable move] 7.a3 [7.Bd2 0-0 8 .a3? (8.Ng3=) 8 . . . Bc5 9.Ng3 Qb6 10.Qe2 Nd4 1 1 .Qd3 Qxb2 1 2.Ra2 Qb6 1 3.Be2 d6 14.0-0 Be6 and Black went on to win, Hoyt-Rossetto, Lugano 1 968] 7 . . . Ba5 8.Bd2 [Useless is 8.b4 Bb6 with the threat of . . . Nf6--g4 and if 9.Ng3 then 9 . . . Nd4 (Euwe) or 9 . . . Bd4 (Gligoric and Sokolov) and . . . d7-d5 ! are both quite satisfactory for Black] 8 . . . d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxd5 Qxd5 1 1 .Bxa5 Qxa5+ 1 2.b4? [ 1 2.Qd2] 12 . . . Qc7 1 3.Ng3 Nd4 14.Bd3 Qc3+ 1 5 .Kfl 0-0 1 6.Ne4 Qc6 1 7.b5 Nxb5 1 8.Qh5 f5 1 9.Re1 g6 20.Qh6 fxe4 2 1 .Rxe4 Bf5 22.Bc4+ Be6 23.Bd3, and White resigned without waiting for Black's reply, 0- 1 , Gomez-Ochoa, Spain 1977. 3) 6 . . . h6! ? 7.g3 d5 ! 8.exd5 Nb4 , =, Kagan-Ruderfer, USSR 1 966. 4) 6 . . . d6 7.Bg5 [7.g3 is harmless: 7 . . . Bg4 8.Bg2 Be7 9.Be3 a6 10.Qd2 ReS 1 1 .h3 Be6 12.Rd 1 Na5 1 3.b3 0-0 14.0-0 Qc7 1 5.f4 b5 1 6.f5 Bd7 1 7.g4 b4 1 8.Nd5 Nxd5 19.exd5 Qxc2 20.Rc1 Qxd2, and Black won on the 42nd move, Freitas-Rossetto, Sao Paulo 1 957] 7 . . . Be7 8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.Nd5 0-0 10.Nec3 a6 1 1 .Bd3 Be6 1 2.0 -0 Bg5 1 3.a4 Rc8 14.Kh l g6 15.g3 Ne7 1 6.f4 Bxd5 1 7.Nxd5 Nxd5 1 8.exd5 exf4 1 9.gxf4 Bf6 20.c3 Re8 2 1 .Qd2 Qa5 with good play for Black, Zhelnin--Shcherbakov, Yurmala 1 9 80.

7 .Ng3 7.Be3? is a rather fatalistic move: 7 . . . Bxe3 8.fxe3 d5 9.exd5 Nb4 10.e4 Ng4 1 1 .Qd2 Ne3! 12.Rc 1 Nc4 1 3.Qd 1 Nxb2 14.Qd2 Nc4 1 5.Qd 1 Bg4, Black has excellent play, Bezyuk-Fatalibckova, Moscow 1 982.

7

...

d6

According to Sveshnikov, Black should give serious attention to 7 . . . Qb6!?.

Chapter 2

17

It seems that Black gets a good position after 8 . Qd2 [ 8.Qe2 or 8.Qf3 runs into 8 . . . Nd4 ! ] 8 . . . Ng4 ! [According to Euwe, White is happy with 8 . . . d6 9.Na4 Qc7 1 0.Nxc5 dxc5 1 1 .Be2 Nd4 1 2.Bd l ! and 1 3.c3, +=] 9.Nd 1 0-0 1 0.h3 [Avoiding 1 0.Bc4? Nxf2! 1 1 .Nxf2 Bxf2+ 1 2.Qxf2 Qb4+ and . . . Qxc4] 10 . . . Nf6 with a big advantage in development with can be exploited by . . . Rfd8 and . . . d7--d5 ! .

8.Be2

Be6

The alternatives have given Black some bad moments: 1 ) 8 . . . h5? ! is too sharp. In the game Teschner-K. Richter, Berlin 1 945, there followed 9.Bg5 [not 9.Bxh5? Nxh5 I O.Nxh5 Qh4 l l .Ng3 Bg4 12.f3? Qxg3+ ! which wins for Black] 9 . . . Qb6 1 0.Bxf6! B xf2+ l l .Kfl Bxg3 1 2.hxg3 gxf6 1 3.Qxd6 Nd4 [ 1 3 . . . Qxb2? 14.Nb5] 14.Qxb6 axb6 15 .Nd5 Nxe2 1 6. Kxe2 Ra4 1 7.Nxf6+ Ke7 1 8.Nd5+ Kd6 1 9.Ke3 and Black's pawn minus mixed with weak pawns on h5, f7 and b6 combine to give White a considerable endgame advantage. 2) 8 . . . 0-0 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 1 1 .0-0 Be6 12.Nd5 Qd8 1 3.Bc4 Rc8 14.c3 a6 1 5.a4 Ba7 1 6.Qd3 and White has central pressure, Eskhimo--Bimboim, 22nd Olympiad, Haifa 1 976.

9.0-0 Ineffective i s 9.Nd5? Bxd5 I O.exd5 Ne7 1 1 .0-0 Nfxd5 12.Bb5+ K f8 and White does not have enough for the pawn, Kadiri-Tsinn, Lugano 1968.

9 ...

a6

According to Evans 9 . . . d5? ! gives White a superior endgame after l O.Nh5 ! Nxh5 1 1 .exd5 Bxd5 1 2.Qxd5 Qxd5 1 3.Nxd5 Rd8 14.Nc7+ Kd7 l 5.Na6! bxa6 1 6.Bxh5.

l O . BgS I O.Kh l leads to a double edged game after 1 0 . . . Nd4 l l .f4!? Nxe2

The Neo-Sveshnikov

18

1 2.Qxe2 Ng4 1 3.f5 Qh4 14.h3 h5 1 5.Rf3 Bd7 1 6.Bd2, Fletser-Benner, 1953.

1 0 ...

h6

l l .Bxf6

Qxf6

1 2.Nd5

Qd8

1 3 .c3 White has a very slight edge though Black's two Bishops should give him adequate counterplay, Nikolov-Pantaleyev, Primorsko 1 970.

Con clusion Black has several good ways to play against 5 .Ne2. Of panicular interest is 6 . . . Bb4, while the more commonly seen 6 . . . Bc5 is most attractive if used in conjunction with 7 . Qb6! . . .

Chapter Three l.e4

cS

2.Nf3

Nc6

3.d4

cxd4

4.Nxd4

eS

S.Nf3

According to Gligoric and Sokolov this was first played in a St. Amant-Staunton encounter. However subsequent researchers have been unable to find any such game. Since Staunton did play the Black side of this line [it was very popular in London during the 1 840s], it is likely that they got confused as to who his opponent was.

5

...

Nf6

5 . . . Bc5 6.Bc4 d6 comes into consideration according to Gligoric and Sokolov.

6 .Nc3 Transposing into the Sveshnikov. White has a wide choice of alternatives though: 1) 6.Bc4 and now Black has: l .a.) 6 . . . Nxe4 ! ? is usually given a question mark due to 7.Bxfl+ Kxn 8.Qd5+ but 8 . . . Ke8 9.Qxe4 d5 is not completely clear. Now I O.Qa4 Bd7 l l .Qb3? e4! is unpleasant for White so he should play the more restrained 1 0.Qe2 when 1 0 . . . e4! ? leads to a very sharp struggle, i. e. l l .Nfd2 Qg5 ! or 1 1 .0 -0 Bg4. Other l Oth moves such as 10 . . . Qf6 1 I .Bg5 Qf5 , 1 0 . . . Qd6, and I O . . . Bd6 are also possible but run the risk

20

The Neo-Sveshnikov

of Black eventually having problems with his centralized King [though it is not yet clear to me just how large those problems will be] . It appears that 6 . . . Nxe4 may deserve a second look. l .b.) 6 . . . Be7 [An interesting move. Black allows White freedom to do whatever he likes, secure in the knowledge that his position is sound enough to withstand any assault] 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Bg5 [Or 8.0-0 d6 9.Qe2 Bd7 1 0.Be3 Rc8 1 1 .Rfd 1 Kh8 1 2.a3 Qe8 1 3.Qfl a6 14.Rd2 b5, +, Turchaninov-Kuzminikh, 1947. White 's play was rather feeble here] 8 . . . d6 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 0.h3 Be6 l l .Bb3 Qd7 12.0 -0 Bd8 1 3.Qd3 Bxb3 14.axb3 [ 14.cxb3 ! ?-Gligoric] 14 . . . Nb4 1 5.Qd2 Qc6, =, Konayev Kuzminikh, 1940.

I.e.) 6 . . . Bc5 7.0-0 0-0 8.Nc3 h6 9.a3 a6 gave Black a perfectly playable position in Cochrane-Staunton, London 1 843 [0- 1 in 26] . l .d.) 6 . . . h6! ? is also reasonable. 2) 6.Bg5 ! ? [A logical move. White grabs the pin before the posc;ibility goes away] 6 . . . Bb4+ ! ? [A new try. Playable is 6 . . . B e7 7.Nc3 d6 while 6 . . . Bc5 7.Bxf6 is also alright for Black as long as he recaptures with the Queen via 7 . . . Qxf6. In Euwe-Chepumov, The Hague 1 928 Black mistakenly played 7 . . . gxf6? when 8. Bc4 led to a clear advantage for White. The idea behind 6 . . . Bb4+ is to make the d5 square less accessable to the White Knight' s by forcing him to block off the c3 square] 7.c3 Be7 [7 . . . Bc5, with the threat of 8 . . . Bxf2+ 9.Kxf2 Nxe4+, is more aggressive: 8.Nbd2 (8.Qd3 Qb6! 9.b4 Bxf2+ 10.Ke2 d5 !) 8 . . . d5 9.b4 Be7 ! 10.b5 Nxe4 ! , -+] 8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.Be2 [ H e should play 9.Na3 ! ] 9 . . . 0-0 [ 9 . . . d6 i s more accurate] 10.0 -0? ! [Last chance for 10.Na3 ! d6 1 1 .Nc4 Be7 12.Ne3 when he can still make use of the d5 square] 10 . . . d6 l l .Na3 Be6 12.Nc2 d5 1 3.exd5 Bxd5 14.Ne3 Be6 1 5.Qa4 Qb6 1 6.Rab 1 Rfd8 1 7.Ng4 Bf5 1 8 .Nxf6+ gxf6 19.Rac 1 Qxb2 20.Nh4 Bg6 and 0- 1 in 40, E.Youngquist-Silman, Los Angeles 1 990 . 3 ) 6.Bd3 Bc5 7.0-0 d 6 and now both 8.h3 h6 and 8.Bg5 Bg4 were tried in a couple of Cochrane-Staunton games.

6 ...

Bb4

The most logical move. For the playable 6 . . . Be7 see note to White 's 6th move, line l .b. Also reasonable is 6 . . . h6! ? 7.Bc4 [Or 7.a3 Be7 8.Bc4 0-0 9.0-0 d6 10.h3 Be6, =] 7 . . . Bb4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 l O.Re l Qa5 followed by . . . Rd8 and . . . d5.

Chapter 3

21

7.Bc4 !

White's sharpest response. Two alternatives: 1 ) 7.Bd3 d5 ! 8.Nd2 Bxc3 9.bxc3 0 -0, =+, Atanasov-Hubner, Ybbs 1 968; 2) 7.Bg5 h6 [Also good is 7 . . . d5 ! ? 8.exd5 Qxd5 9.Nd2 Bxc3 1 0.bxc3 Be6 l l .Rb l 0-0-0 with active play for Black, Bronstein-Faibisovich, Telex Match, Moscow-Leningrad 1 977] 8.Bxf6 Bxc3+! 9.bxc3 Qxf6 I O .Nd2 Qg6 1 1 .Qf3 d6 1 2.Bc4 0 -0, Bordyansky-Goryelov, Moscow 1 974. Black has the initiative.

7 ...

0-0

Deserving serious attention i s 7 . . . Nxe4 ! ? 8.0-0 [Muller says that 8.Qd5 Nd6 9.Bb3 gives White a dangerous initiative but just how dangerous is it? Black seems to be alright after either 9 . . . 0-0 or 9 . . . Qa5 ! ?. Another attempt at refutation is 8.Bxn+ Kxn 9.Qd5+ when Sveshnikov says that 9 . . . Kf8 1 0.Qxe4 d5 leads to sharp play in which Black' s chances are no worse. He intends artificial castling with . .. Kf8-g8, . . . h7-h6, . . . Kg8--h7, . . . Rh-f8] 8 . . . Nxc3 [Bad is 8 . . . B xc3 9.bx c3 Nxc3 l O.Qe l d5 l l .Nxe5, +-] 9.bxc3 Be7 ! [9 . . . Bxc3? 10.Qd5 0-0 l l .Ng5 Qf6 1 2 . Qd3 is a disaster for Black-Ochoa de Echaguen] IO.Ng5?! Bxg5 1 1 .Qh5 d5 ! 1 2.Bxg5 Qa5 l 3.Bb3 0-0, -+, London-Ochoa de Echaguen, New York 1 989. Quiet play with 7 . . . d6 is, as usual, perfectly playable: 8.0-0 Be6 ! [ Not as good is 8 . . . 0-0 9.Bg5 and 8 . . . Bg4 9 .Nd5 Nxd5 (9 . . . Nxe4?? lo ses to 1 0.Nxb4 Nxb4 1 1 .Qe 1 !) 1 0.exd5 Ne7 ! ( 1 0 . . . Nd4? loses material to 1 1 .c3 !) 1 1 .h3 Bd7 1 2.Be3 f5 l 3.c3 BaS 14.Ng5 f4 1 5.Ne4 Nf5 1 6 .Bd2, +=. Analysis by Uhlmann] 9.Qd3 B xc4 ! 10.Qxc4 Bxc3 1 I .bxc3 [After 1 1 .Qxc3 Nxe4 White has nothing for the pawn] 1 1 . . . d5 1 2 . Qb5 0-0 1 3.Qxb7 Qc8 and White's extra pawn has no importance as his doubled c-pawns are weak. Analysis by Sveshnikov.

22

The Neo-Sveshnikov

For those that fear Bg5, the preventive 7 . . . h6 is also possible: 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Qa5 !? intending ... 0-0, . . . Rfd8, . . . d7-d5-Sveshnikov. Heres one example for those that want to see White prevail: 7 . . . Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qa5 9.Qd3 0-0 10.0-0 Ne7 1 1 .Bb3 d5 1 2.Nxe5 Nxe4 1 3.c4 ! Nc5 14.Qe2 Be6 1 5.Bg5 f6 1 6.Nd3 and White is better since 1 6 . . . Bn? loses to 1 7.Bd2 Qc7 1 8.Bf4 Qc8 1 9.Qxe7 Nxd3 20.cxd3, Reinhardt-Pelikan, Buenos Aires 1955.

8.0-0 8.Qd3?! fails to 8 . . . d5 ! when Black obtains a powerful initiative after 9.Bxd5 Nxd5 1 0.Qxd5 Qxd5 1 1 .exd5 Nd4 1 2.Nxd4 exd4 1 3.a3 BaS! 14.b4 ReS+ 1 5.Kd1 dxc3 1 6.bxa5 Bg4+ 17.f3 Rad8 1 8.Bf4 Rxd5+ 19.Kc l Bf5, -+. Analysis by Gligoric and Sokolov. Reasonable is 8.Bg5 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 !? [Less committal is 9 . . . d6 followed by . . . Bc8-e6] I O.Bxf6 Qxc3+ l l .Nd2 gxf6 1 2.Rb l and White's initiative compensates for the sacrificed pawn-Ragozin. Black should now continue with 12 . . . Nd4! 1 3.Qg4+ [ 1 3.0-0 d5 ! , =] 13 . . . Kh8 14.Qh4 Kg7 and White has nothing better than a draw.

8 . ..

d6

8 . . . Bxc3 9.bxc3 Nxe4!? is interesting: 10.Ba3 d6 1 1 .Qe l B f5 1 2.Rbl Qa5 1 3.Nh4! Qxa3! [Bad is 1 3 . . . Bc8?? 14.Bb4 as in Domnitz-Knaak, Varna 1962] 14.Nxf5 Nf6 with a fair position for Black.

9.Nd5 ! Threatening Bg5. The immedi ate 9.Bg5 allows Black to snap the Knight off with 9 . . . Bxc3. Mukhin-Tseitlin, Leningrad 1 978, continued 10.bxc3 h6 l l .Bh4 Be6 12.Bb3 g5 1 3.Nxg5! ? hxg5 14.Bxg5 Kg7 1 5.Kh1 Bxb3 1 6.axb3 Qd7 17.Qd3 Nh7 1 8.Bh4 Qg4 and Black has repelled the opponent' s attack.

9 ...

h6

Playing into White's hands is 9 . . . Nxe4? ! 1 0.Nxb4 Nxb4 1 1 .Qel d5 1 2 . Qxb4 dxc4 1 3.Qxc4, +-, and 9 . . . Nxd5 1 0. Bxd5 Be6 l l .c3 B c5 1 2.Ng5! Qd7 1 3.b4 Bb6 14.a4 a5 1 5 .b5 Ne7 1 6.Bxe6 fxe6 1 7.Ba3 Rad8 1 8.Qb3, +=, Preissman-Kouatly, France 1976.

1 0.Nxb4

Nxb4

l l.c3

Nc6

1 2 .Qd3

Chapter 3

23

12.Qe2 with the idea of a later Rfd l is an untested idea of Minev.

12...

Qc7

13.Bb3

NaS

14.Bc2

dS!

15.Qe2

B g4

1 6.h3 Not 1 6.exd5?? e4 1 7 .Bxe4 Rfe8.

1 6 .. .

Bxf3

1 7 . Q x f3 and now according to Uhlmann , 1 7 . . . dxe4! 1 8 . Qf5 Qe7 leads to equality.

Con clusion 5.Nf3 gives White no chance of gaining an opening advantage.

Chapter Four l.e4

cS

2.Nf3

Nc6

3.d4

cxd4

4.Nxd4

eS

5.Nb3

Suggested by Staunton in The Chess Player's Handbook. Though the Knight has little to do on this square [aside from keeping Black 's Bishop off of c5]. surprised White's often tend to fall back on this move.

S .. .

Nf6

As is usual with moves other than Nb5 , Black now does best to transpose into the Sveshnikov. Of course, this does not mean that other moves are bad. A good alternative is 5 . . . Bb4 ! ?+ 6.c3 [Gligoric and Sokolov prefer 6.Bd2, but after 6 . . . Be7 ! 7.Nc3 Nf6 Black can answer 8.Bc4 or 8.Bg5 with 8 . . . Nxe4 ! when his problems are solved] 6 . . . Be7 7.c4 [7.Bc4 Nf6 8.Qd3 0-0 9.0-0 d6 IO.Na3 Be6 1 l .Rd l a6 1 2.Bg5 Ne8 1 3.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Bxe6 fxe6 15 .Nc4 Ng6! , =, Bannik Kuzminikh, Leningrad 1946. Note that White should avoid 1 6.Nxd6? due to 16 . . . Nf4 17.Qd2 Qg5 ] 7 . . . Nf6 8.Bd3 0-0 9.0-0 d6 1 0.Nc3 Be6 1 l .Bg5 h6 1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3.Nd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 Nd4, =, Muhin-Buslaev, USSR 1963.

6.Nc3 Two other moves are also possible: 1) 6.Bc4 d6 [6 . . . Nxe4 !? 7.Bxn+ (7.Qd5 Nd6) 7 . . . Kxf7 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.Qxe4 d5 is worth a look] 7.Nc3 Be6 8.Bd5 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 IO.Be3 Qd7

Chapter 4

25

t t . Qd2 Nb4 1 2.f3 Rfc8 1 3.a3 Nbxd5 14.exd5 Bf5 1 5.Rac1 Bg6 1 6.Qe2 Ne8 1 7.g4? ! f5 1 8.Nd2 Nf6, -+, Golmayo-Sultan Khan, Hamburg 1 930. 2) 6.Bg5 ! ? Bb4+ 7.c3 Be7 8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.Bc4 0-0 1 0.Qd3 d6 1 1 .N 1 d2 Be7 [ 1 1 . . . Be6!?] 1 2.0-0 Kh8 [ 1 2 . . . Be6 !?] 1 3.Rad l f5 [ 1 3 . . . Be6 ! ? ] t4.Bd5 Qc7? [ 14 . . . f4 1 5.f3 Qe8 i s much better. Black would then have real chances on the Kingside] 1 5.Nc4 Rf6 1 6.Nbd2 f4 17.f3 Bd7 1 8 .b4, +-, Mate-Turi, Hungarian corr. ch. 1 964---65 . It's obvious that Black 's Queen is needed on the Kingside. Though White did well here, there are so many improvements that Black should not fear 6.Bg5.

6 . ..

Bb4

After 6 . . . B b4 White has tried several moves: A. 7.Qf3? !; B. 7.Bd3; C. 7.Bg5; D. 7.Bc4.

A.

7.Qf3?!

This move defends e4 and c3 but does nothing to hinder Black's freeing . . . d7-d5 advance.

7...

dS

7 . . . Bxc3+ [There is no reason to part with this Bishop but 7 . . . Bxc3+ still suffices to give Black a good game] 8.Qxc3 0-0 [8 . . . Nxe4!?] 9.Bd3 d5 I O.exd5 Nxd5 1 1 .Qd2 Nf4 12.Be4 Qe7 1 3.0-0 Be6, =, Henry-Gourra, Nice 1 974.

8.exd5

QxdS

9.Qxd5 White quickly found himself in a lost position after 9.Qe3? Bxc3+ 1 0.Qxc3 Bf5 1 1 .f3 b5 1 2.Be3 ReS 1 3.Bc5 Nd4 14.Rd 1 Nd7! , Poborsk.i Polak, corr. 1 977.

9 . ..

NxdS

l O.Bdl

Nxc3

26

The Neo-Sveshnikov

l l .Bxc3

Bxc3+

1 2. bxc3 White has no compensation for his weakened pawn structure.

B.

7.Bd3

White develops and defends the e4 pawn but once again allows Black a quick and easy . . . d7-d5 advance.

7

•.•

dS

Unclear is 7 . . . 0-0 8.Bd2!? Bxc3 9.Bxc3 d5 I O.exd5 Qxd5 1 1 .0-0 e4 12.Be2 Qg5 1 3.Kh 1 , Reissman-Lkhagva, Lugano 1 968. Usually Black will only take on c3 if he can double White 's c-pawns or gain a large lead in development. Without these things, the loss of the two Bishops might come back to haunt him.

8.exd5 8 .0-0? Bxc3 9.bxc3 dxe4 1 0.Be2 Qxd1 1 l .Rxd 1 0-0 just leaves White a pawn down for nothing, Pak-Dzhushayev, Bukhara 1 979.

8 ...

NxdS

Also good is 8 . . . Qxd5 9.0-0 Bxc3 I O.bxc3 0-0 l l .Bg5 e4 1 2.Bxf6 exd3 1 3.Bd4 dxc2 14.Qxc2 Bf5, Zhdanov-Kozyrev, Chelyabinsk 1 978. Black's superior pawn structure and his ability to chop off White's Bishop at will gives Black all the chances.

9.Bd2

Bxc3 ! ?

With no loss o f time, Black gives u p the two Bishops in order to ruin White ' s pawn structure. At the cost of a tempo, Black can split White's pawn and retain his dark-squared Bishop: 9 . . . Nxc3 I O.bxc3 Bd6 [ 1 0 . . . Be7? 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.f4! favored White in Mitrev-Ilkov, Sofia 1 973] I I .Qh5 [Prevents Black from castling. If l l .c4 0-0 1 2 . Qh5 f5

Chapter 4

27

t3.c5 Bc7 14.Bc4+ Kh8 1 5.0-0-0 Qe8 1 6.Qh4 Be6 1 7.Be2 a5 ! (It's clear that Black has taken over the initiative) 1 8.Kbl a4 1 9.Nc l Nd4! 20.a3 Nxe2 2 l .Nxe2 Qb5+ 22.Bb4 Qxe2 23.Qe7 Qc4 24.Qxc7 Qa2+ 25.Kc l Bb3, 0- 1 , Timoshchenko-Burdman, Yurmala 1 977] l l . . . Qc7 1 2.0-0 Bc6 1 3.Bg5 and White's active pieces gave him some compensation for the weaknesses in his camp, Schlechter-Lasker, World Champion ship Match, Berlin 1 9 1 0. This historic [and very exciting] game continued: 13 . . . h6 14.f4 exf4 15.Rae l Kd7! 1 6.Bf5 ! Raf8 ! 17.Bxf4 B xf4 t 8 .Nc5+ Kc8 1 9.Bxe6+ fxe6 20.Nxe6 Bxh2+ 2 1 .Qxh2 Rxfl+ 22.Rxfl Qd7 23.Nc5 Qe7 24.Qh3+ Kb8 25.Ne6 Ka8 26.Nd4 Qc7 27.Qf5 Rc8 28.Qc5? ! Nb8 29.Qxc7 Rxc7 30.Rf3 a6 3 l .Kf2 Nc6 32.Ne6 Re7 33.Re3 Kb8 34.Nd4 Rf7+ 35.Rf3 Rc7 36.Ne6 Re7 37.Re3 Kc8 [-+] 38.Ke2 Nd8 39.Nd4 Rf7 40.Rf3 Kd7 4 l .Rd3 Ke7 42.Re3+ Kd6 43.Rd3 Ne6 44.Nf3+ Kc5 45 .g3 Nc7 46.Nd2 Kc6 47.Nf3 Kb5 48.Rd4 Kc5 49.Nd2 Nb5 50.Nb3+ Kb6 5 l .Rd3 Rc7 52.Kd2 Rc4 53.Rd7 Rg4 54.c4 Kc6 55.Rd3 Nd6 5 6.Nd4+ Kc7? [56 . . . Kb6 is winning for Black] 57.Ne6+ Kc6 58.Nd8+ Kc7 59.Ne6+ Kd7? 60.Nxg7! Ke7 6 l .Nh5 Rxc4 62.Re3+ Kf7 63.Rf3+ Kg6 64.Rf6+ Kxh5 65.Rxd6, l/2-l/2. Tarrasch has recommended Lhe untested 9 . . . 0-0!? and I see no reason why this shouldn 't lead to an equal game. However, since 9 . . . Bxc3 seems to favor Black, moves that offer simple equality just aren't good enough!

10.bxc3

0-0

tt.o-o

rs

12.Bc4

Kh8

It 's not easy for White to find adequate compensation for his structual deficiencies.

1 3.Qh5 Simply bad is 1 3. B xd5 Qxd5 14.Be3 Qc4 1 5 .Qd3 Be6, -+,

28

The Neo-Sveshnikov

Rezendeh-Tsin, Siegen 1 970. However 1 3.Qe2 ! ? is possible when 1 3 . . . Nb6 14.Bb5 Qf6 15 . Rae l Be6 16.Nc5 Bxa2 1 7.Nxb7 actually favored White in Shtunn-Nikulshin, Moscow 1974. After 1 3.Qe2 Black does best to play 1 3 . . . Nf6! when Sveshnikov feels that Black has a small edge.

13...

Nf6

14.Qe2

Qe8

1 4 . . . f4! ? 15.f3 Qc7 1 6. Rae l Bf5 also proved strong for Black in Mendez-Goldenberg, Haifa 1 976.

lS.NcS

b6

16.Nd3

B b7

17.Rfel

Qg6

18.f3

Rae8

Stockwell-Povah, England 1 976. Black is better.

C.

7.Bg5

The logical part of this move is that he is fighting for d5. It's unfortunate aspects revolve around the fact that he will end up with weak doubled pawns without the compensating factors of time or the two Bishops. It seems that without a Knight on c3, control of d5 just isn't very impressive.

7

..•

h6

8.Bxf6

Bxc3 + !

9.bxc3

Qxf6

1 0.Bd3 White's chances aren't improved by IO.Be2 d6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12.Qd3 Rd8 1 3.Rfd l Qe7 [or 1 3 . . . Be6 14.Bf3 Rac8, Koshlyak-Panchenko,

Chapter 4

29

Chclyabinsk 1 969] 14.Qe3 Be6 1 5 .c4 Qc7 1 6.c5 d5 1 7.exd5 Rxd5 I 8 .Bf3 Rxd 1 + 19.Rxd1 Rd8 20.Rxd8+ Qxd8 and White will be lucky to draw, Boyarinov-Sveshnikov, Chelyabinsk 1 968. Also uninspiring is 1 0.Bc4 0-0 1 1 .0-0 d6 12.Bd5 Qe7 1 3.Qe2 Be6 t4.Rfd 1 Nd8 1 5 .Qb5 ReS, Letzelter-Birtenson, Vrshats 1 975 .

Ne7

1 0 ...

The simple 1 0 . . . 0-0, followed by . . . d6 and . . . Be6 is also excellent.

l l .Nd2

0-0

1 2.c4

d6

1 3 .Nfl Heading for d5.

Be6!

1 3 ...

Also possible is 1 3 . . . b5 ! ? 14.cxb5 d 5 1 5 .Ng3 Bb7 1 6.0-0 Rad8 1 7.Qg4 with a sharp game, Marjanovich-Urzika, Groningen 1 972. However, why resort to tactics when you have a positional advantage?

Rac8

14.Ne3

Black is a little better because after 1 5 .Nd5 Bxd5 [ 1 5 . . . Nxd5 is also good] 1 6.cxd5 White is left with an inactive Bishop on d3 and a backward pawn on c2.

D.

7.Bc4

By sacrificing a pawn White starts a fight for the initiative. Now B lack has: 0.1. 7 ... Nxe4!; 0.2. 7 d6; 0.3. 7 . . . 0-0. .•.

D.t.

7 ...

N x e4 !

An important response. Black tells White to "prove it".

8.0-0

30

The Neo-Sveshnikov

White finishes his development before he commences his attack. Since 8.Qd5 fails to 8 . . . Nd6! , the only alternative worth considering is 8 .Bxf7+ ! ? . After 8 . . . Kxf7 9.Qd5+ Kf8 ! [9 . . . Ke8 is less safe but playable: 1 0.Qxe4 d5 1 1 .Qe2 d4 ( 1 1 . . . Rf8 as in Herzog-Kempennan, Grcifcnzee 1975 led to a quick disaster: 1 2.Bd2 Be6 1 3.0-0 a6? 14.f4 e4 1 5 .Nxe4 dxe4 1 6.Bxb4 Nxb4 1 7.Qxe4 Qe7 1 8 .Rae 1 , 1 -0) 1 2.a3 Be7 13.Nc4 Qd5 14.0-0 Bf5 , Dukas-Engels, San Paulo 1 957] 1 0.Qxe4 d5 Sveshnikov says that Black will castle artificially by . . . . h6, . . . Kf8-g8h7 and . . . Rhl?r-f8. Instead of 8 . . . Kxn the surprising 8 . . . Kf8 ! ? is possible. For example 9.0-0 Nxc3 1 0.bxc3 Bxc3 1 1 .Rbl Kxf7 12.Qf3+ Qf6 1 3.Qxc3 d5 with a double-edged position. Analysis by Sveshnikov.

8 ...

Nxc3

9.bxc3

Be7

Returning material by 9 . . . Bxc3 ! ? 10.Qf3 d5 1 1 .Bxd5 0-0 1 2.Bxn+ [ 12.Rd1 ? is surprised by 12 . . . Nd4 ! ] 12 . . . Rxf7 1 3.Qxc3 Bf5 14.Bb2 ReS U.Rad l Rd7 with the aim of . . . Nc6--d4 ! is a recommendation of Spassky's. This gives Black a fully acceptable position and seems to be superior to 9 . . . Be7.

10.f4!

0-0?

A mistake. Correct is 1 0 . . . d6! 1 1 .Qh5 [ 1 1 .f5 !?] when 1 1 . . . 0-0 and . . . g6 1 2.Qh6 [ 1 2.Qf3 Be6! ] 12 . . . Bf8 with 1 3 . . . Bg7 to follow, both give Black good defensive possibilities. ll

l l.fS

bS?

Black should strive for freedom with 1 1 . . .d5 ! ? though it's still good for White after 12.Bxd5 Nd4 1 3.Be4 Nxb3 14.cxb3, +-.

1 2.Bd5

B b7

13.Qh5

NaS

14.Bxb7

Nxb7

1 5.Rf3 White has a decisive attack, Spassky-Kaj an, Student Olympiad 1 955 . The finish was 15 . . . g6 1 6.Qh6 Qb6+ 1 7.Be3 Qf6 1 8.fxg6 Qg7 1 9.gx.n+ Kh8 20.Qh5 Rfc8 2 1 .Bh6, 1-0.

0.2.

7

•••

d6

Chapter 4

31

A rather uninspiring, but adequate, continuation.

Be6

8.0-0 9.Bd5

9.Nd5 i s bad due to 9 . Nxe4. However consideration. . .

9

9.Qd3 ! ? deserves

0-0

•••

Better is 9 . . . Bxc3 with reasonable play.

1 0.Ne2

BxdS

l l.exdS

Ne7

1 2.c3

BaS ?

13.Bg5

+-

Ivanka-Belarnarich, Hungary-Yugoslavia 1 976.

0 .3.

7 ...

0-0 ? !

Theory frowns on this move.

8.0-0 Not very dangerous is 8 .Qd3 d 6 [8 . . . d5 !? 9.exd5 e4 1 0.Qg3 Bd6 l l .Qh4 Ne5 1 2.Be2 Ng6 gives Black good chances, Matanovich Po rreka, Zagreb 1 955 ] 9.Bg5 h6 I O.Bh4 Be6 1 1 .0-0 B xc4 1 2 .Qxc4

32

The Neo-Sveshnikov

Bxc3 or 1 2 . . . g5 1 3.Nd5 BaS with an unclear position, Pazos-Kouatly, World Junior Championship 1 977. The sharp 8.Bg5 h6 9.h4!? should be calmly answered by 9 . . . d6! [He must not take the Bishop on g5] 10.Bxf6? ! [Better is 1 0.a3 Bxc3+ 1 1 .bxc3 Be6 1 2.Bd5, but Black still gets good counterplay after 12 . . . Bxd5 1 3.exd5 Nb8 14.Nd2 Nbd7 1 5 .Ne4 Qe7 1 6.Rb1 b6 1 7 .Rb3 Rfc8, Vetter-Knishevsky, East Germany 1 95 1 . Since Black stands alright here, it comes as a surprise that he loses in just a few more moves: 1 8.Qe2 Kf8 19.c4 hxg5 20.hxg5 Ng8 2 1 .Rh8 Nc5 22.Qh5 Nxe4 23.Rxg8+ Kxg8 24.Rh3, 1 -0] 1 0 . . . Qxf6 [I would prefer 1 0 . . . Bxc3+ 1 1 .bxc3 Qxf6 followed by . . . Be6 with advantage to Black] 1 1 .Qd3 a5 1 2.a3 Bxc3+ 1 3.bxc3 Be6 1 4.Nd2 Rac8 1 5 .Rb1 Qe7 1 6.Bd5 Bxd5 17.Qxd5 Qc7 1 8.Rh3 Rfd8 1 9.Rf3 Rd7 20.Rb5 Rf8, with approximately equal chances, Holman-Engels, Sao Paulo 1957.

8

•..

Bxc3

Sveshnikov says that its not good to give up the Bishop here . Perhaps the retreat via 8 . . . Be7 [embarrassing but solid] 9.Bg5 d 6 followed b y . . . Be6 i s preferable.

9.bxc3

Nxe4

Challenging White. Just bad i s 9 . . . Na5?! 10.Bd5 d6 1 1 .Bg5 , +-, Zakharicv-Daskalu, Junior Match Bulgari�Romania 1 956.

10.Ba3

d6

10 . . . Re8 is met by l l .Bxf7+!.

1 1 .Qe1 O r 1 1 .Qd3 Bf5 1 2.Rae 1 Qh4 13.f4 Qg4 14.Rxe4 Qg6 1 5 .Rfe 1 Rad8 16.Bd5 with a decisive advantage, Kopayev-Korchnoi, 1 952.

1 1 ...

Qh4

12.f4!

Qxe1

13.Raxe1

Nxc3

1 4.Bxd6

bS

15.Bxf8

bxc4

16.Na5 !

Nd4

17.Bc5

Nde2+

18.Kh1

exf4

19.Rxf4

Chapter 4

33

and White won, Bruycker-Seret, Ostend 1975. Conclusion 5 .Nb3 is not dangerous provided Black answers the tricky 7 .Bc4 ! with 7 . . . Nxe4 ! , though 7 d6 should also prove adequate. . . .

Chapter Five l.e4

c5

2.Nf3

Nc6

3.d4

cxd4

4.Nxd4

e5

5.Nxc6

First tried in the 1 9th century the move went out of fashion when players realized that this strengthening of Black 's center was merely helping the opponent.

S

...

bxc6

5 . . . dxc6 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 should also equalize.

6 . B c4 Playing to stop Black from advancing his d-pawn to d5. Two other ways to do this: 1 ) 6.c4 Nf6 7.Bg5 [Or 7.Nc3 Bb4] 7 . . . Qa5+ 8.Bd2 Qb6 and after the forced pawn sacrificed 9.Nc3 Qxb2 I O.Rbl Qa3 White finds himself with inadequate compensation. 2) 6.Nc3 Nf6 7. Bg5 [7.Bc4 is our main column] 7 . . . Rb8 ! [Less accurate but also playable is 7 . . . h6 8.Bh4 Bb4 9.Qf3 Qa5 1 0.Bxf6 Bxc3+ l l .bxc3 gxf6 12.Bc4 Ke7 1 3.0 -0 Qc5 with sharp play, Kudrin Koziryov, Bryansk 1 976] 8.Bxf6 [Poor is 8.Rb 1 Qa5 ! 9.Bd3? Rxb2 10.Bd2 Rxb1 l l .Qxb1 Bb4, -++, Mesh-Sveshnikov, Chelyabinsk 1 966. More interesting but also inadequate is 8.Bc4 Rxb2 9.Bb3 Bb4 10.Bd2 Qa5 l l .Na4 ( 1 1 .Qf3 B a6 ! ) 12 . . . Nxe4. Analysis by Dvoretsky] 8 . . . Qxf6 9.Bc4 Rxb2 1 0.Bb3 Bb4, -+, Mahlgren-Alekhine, Erebro

Chapter 5

35

1935.

6 .. .

Nf6

Most common. However, also good i s 6 . . . Ba6 7.Qd3 with equal la p y. One other possibility is 6 . . . Bc5? ! , a move that has more historical than practical interest: 7.0-0 Ne7 8.Qh5 Ng6 9.Nc3 d6 1 0.Ne2 [Linder recommends 1 0.Na4] 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .Bb3 a5 1 2.c3 Ba6 1 3.Re 1 Qb6 14.Qf3, Petroff-Shurnov, St. Petersburg 1 853. 1 -0 in 67. Though White won this game, I must admit to not liking his play . . .it all seemed very ani ficial! After 6

.•.

Nf6 White has tried four moves: A. 7.Qe2; B. 7.Nc3;

C. 7 .0-0; D. 7 .BgS.

A.

7.Qe2

Be7

8.Nc3

0-0

9.Bg5

Nxe4 !

10.Bxe7

Nxc3

l l .QxeS!

Re8

12.0-0

Qxe7

13.Qxc3

dS

=

MacDonnell-La Bourdonnais, 1 835. Not important from the point of theory, but interesting when you consider the date of play.

B.

7.Nc3

White shows that he is not afraid of the pin via . . . Bb4.

36

The Neo-Sveshnikov

7 ...

B b4

8.Bg5 ? ! This is dubious. Better is 8.0-0 with the following possibilities : 1 ) 8 . . . 0-0 9.Bg5 is unpleasant for Black: 9 . . . h6 10.Bh4 Qe7 l l .Qe2 g5 ! ? [Weakening the King but the pin was making life difficult] 1 2.Bg3 d6 1 3.Rad l Ba5? ! [Better is 13 . . . Bg4 14.f3 Bc5+ 1 5 .Kh l Be6] 14.Rd2 Kg7 15 .Rfd 1 Bc7 1 6. b4! Ne8 17 .b5 [Grabbing control of the d5 square] 1 7 . . . Ba5 1 8.Rd3 f5 1 9.f3 when White has pressure on the Q-side and in the center, Kirilov-Lisitsin, 7th USSR Championship 1 93 1 . 2) 8 . . . Bxc3 9.bxc3 Nxe4 10.Qg4 [More dangerous is 1 0. Qh5 ! ? or 1 0.Ba3 ! ?] 10 . . . d5 1 1 .Qxg7 Qf6 1 2.Qxf6 Nxf6 with a comfortable game for Black. 3) 8 . . . h6! 9.f4? ! Qe7 10.fxe5 Qxe5 1 1 .Bb3 0-0 1 2.Kh1 Bxc3 1 3.bxc3 Nxe4 with advantage to Black, Tansky-Sveshnikov, Chelyabinsk 1966.

8 ...

h6? !

Gligoric and Sokolov's suggestion of 8 . . . Bxc3 !+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 is much stronger. White is suffering badly after 1 0.Qd3 Nxe4 ! 1 1 .Qxe4 Qxc3+ 12.Ke2 d5 since 1 3.Bxd5 cxd5 1 4.Qxd5 loses outright to 14 . . . Ba6+.

9.B d2

An admission of failure. 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 1 0.Qd3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 d6 1 2.a3 Bc5 is assessed by Uhlmann as clearly better for Black. Certainly he has a comfortable game, but I don't see any big edge for Black after 1 3.Na4. Another possibility is 9.Bh4 g5 10.Bg3 Nxe4 [ 1 0 . . . d6! ? ] l l .Bxe5 Qe7 1 2.0-0 [and not 12.Qd4? Nxc3 1 3 .bxc3 Bc5 14.Qe4 d5 ] 1 2 . . . Bxc3, =. This is adequate for Black, but attention needs to be given to Uhlmann's suggestion of 9 . . . Qa5 !?.

Chapter 5

37

After 1 0.Qd3? Bxc3+ l l .bxc3 Nxe4 ! 1 2.Qxe4 Qxc3+ 1 3.Ke2 d5 t4.Qd3 Qxc4 1 5 .Qxc4 dxc4 Black has great winning chances [As in the note to Black's main column move 8 . . . h6? ! ] . The critical test of 9 . . Qa5 ! ? is 1 0.0-0! . Now 10 . . . g5 is well answered by l l .Qf3 ! and 1 0 . . . Nxe4 runs into the irritating l l .Qg4 ! . It appears that Black has to try 10 . . . Bxc3 l l .Bxf6 gxf6 1 2.bxc3 Qxc3 1 3.Bb3 Ke7 when everything revolves around White 's compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Does he have enough? .

9

•••

Bxc3

9 . . . 0-0!? gives Black an easy and safe game.

10.Bxc3

Nxe4

l l .Q g4 l l .Bxe5?? loses to l l . . . Qa5+, Weiss-Grunfeld, 1 946.

1 1 ...

0- 0

1 2.Qxe4

dS

13.Qe2

dxc4

Black has a comfortable position.

c.

7. 0 - 0

Better than 7 .Nc3. White gets his King to safety and allows Black some leeway for error.

7 ...

Nxe 4 ! ?

Risky but perhaps good ! ? A solid and safe method i s 7 . . . Be7 8.Nc3

d6,

=.

A good example of suicide is 7 . . . d5? [It's rarely a good idea to open

38

The Neo-Sveshnikov

the center when your own King is sitting there] 8 . exd5 cxd5 9.Bb5+ Bd7 1 0.Bxd7+ Qxd7 l l .Re l Bd6 1 2.Nc3 e4 1 3.Bg5 Ng4 14.QxdS Bxh2+ 15.Kh l , Black is lost, Morphy-Lowenthal, Paris 195 8 . The: continuation was 1 5 . . . Qxd5 1 6.Nxd5 0-0? 1 7.f3 exf3 1 8.gxf3 NeSj 19.Re3 f6 20.Kxh2 Rad8 2 l .Rxe5 fxg5 22.Kg3 h6 23.c4 Rf7 24.Rae l Kf8 ' 25.c5 g6 26.c6 ReS 27.c7 Rcxc7 28.Re8+ Kg? 29.Nxc7, 1 -0.

8.Rel

dS! ?

On 8 . . . Nf6 9.Rxe5+ Be? 1 0.Qd6 Black will lose his right to castle.

9.Rxe4 ! The books say that White is winning this position. This is based on 9 . . . dxe4?? 1 0.Bxf7+ Ke7 1 l .Bg5+. However, what if Black keeps his wits and calmly plays . . .

9

.••

f6!

Ugly, but I can't find a refutation. Worse is 9 . . . Be6? 10.Bxd5 ! which would leave White with an extra pawn.

l O .Q h S + Trying to change the move order by 1 0.Rxe5+ fxe5 l l .Qh5+ fails to l l . . . Kd7 when Black should win.

1 0 ...

g6

l l .RxeS+

Be7!

It's easy for Black to g o wrong: 1 1 . . . Kf7?? [ 1 1 . . . fxe5? 1 2 . Qxe5+ Qe7 1 3.Qxh8 Qe l + 14.Bf1 Ba6 1 5.Nd2 is also inadequate for Black] 1 2.Rxd5 ! ! cxd5 1 3.Qxd5+ Qxd5 14.Bxd5+ leaves White with a decisive advantage in material.

l l.RxdS ! Making the most of a bad situation. 1 2 . Qe2 fxe5 1 3.Qxe5 0-0

Chapter 5

39

t 4 .Bh6 Bf6 is worse.

1 2 ...

gxhS

1 3.Rxd8+

Bxd8

with an exchange for a pawn, Black has all the winning chances.

D.

7.Bg5

DeS

Also playable is 7 . . . Be7 8.Qe2 [On 8.Nc3 Bb7 9.Qe2 d5 1 0.Rad 1 Black gets a good game with 1 0 . . . d4] 8 . . . d5 [ 8 . . . 0-0!?] 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Bb3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 a5 ! 1 2.exd5 cxd5 1 3.Rd 1 d4 1 4.c4 Qb6 with a comfortable position for Black. MacDonnell-La Bourdonnais, Match 1 835 , continued in exciting fashion: 1 5.Bc2 Bb7 1 6.Nd2 Rae8 1 7.Ne4 Bd8 1 8.c5 Qc6 19.f3 Be7 20.Rac 1 f5 ! 2 1 .Qc4+ Kh8 22.Ba4 Qh6 23.Bxe8 fxe4 24.c6 exf3 25.Rc2 Qe3+ 26. Kh 1 Bc8 27.Bd7 f2 28.Rfl [28.Bxc8 fails to 28 . . . d3! ] 28 . . . d3 29.Rc3 Bxd7 30.cxd7 e4 3 1 .Qc8 Bd8 [Another way is 3 1 . . . Rd8! 32.Rcc 1 d2 33.Rcd 1 Qe 1 34.Qc3 e3 35.Rdxe1 dxe 1 =Q 36.Rxe 1 B b4 ! ] 32. Qc4 [ 32.Rcc 1 d2 33.Rcd l Qf4!-Romanovsky] 32 . . . Qe 1 33.Rc 1 d2 34.Qc5 Rg8 ! 35.Rd1 e3 36.Qc3 Qxd 1 37.Rxd 1 e2, 0- 1 . The final position deserves a diagram.

8.0-0

h6

9.Bxf6

Qxf6

1 0.Nc3

aS

l l .Khl

d6

12.Qd2

gS !

Black has decided to place his King on e7 where it will help defend the d6 pawn. To make this a safer proposition, Black first prevents White from opening the center up with a later f2-f4 advance.

The Neo-Sveshnikov

40

13.Radl

Ke7

14.Na4

B d4

Macdonnell-Labourdounais, Match 1 839. The final position unclear and offers chances to both sides.

C o n cl usion 5.Nxc6 is completely without sting and is not seen at all in mod tournament play.

Chapter Six l.e4 2.Nf3 3.d4 4.Nxd4 S.NbS!

cS Nc6 cxd4 eS

If White is going to come away with an opening advantage, then this is the only way to go about it.

5

.••

d6!

The start of the Kalashnikov [Neo-Sveshnikov] Variation. Now White has many moves to choose from: A. 6.Bc4; B. 6 . N l c3 ; C. 6.N5c3; D. 6.Nd2; E. 6.a4; F. 6.g3; G. 6.Be2; H . 9.Bd3; I. 6.c4; J. 6.Bg5.

A.

6 .Bc4

An extremely logical move. White develops a piece to a good square and adds to his control of the important d5 point.

6 ...

N f6

Other tries are: 1 ) 6 . . . a6 7.N5c3 Nf6 [7 . . . f5? ! is bad because 8.exf5 Bxf5 9.Bd3 B xd3 1 0.Qxd3 leaves Black weak on the light squares: After 10 . . Nb4 1 I .Qe2 Nf6 12.0-0 Be7 13.f4, White had achieved a certain advantage, Averbach-Kuzminikh, USSR 1947] 8 .Be3 ? ! Be7 [ 8 . . . b5 ! ? is a su ggestion of Tiviakov and Postovski ] 9.Nd5 Nxd5 1 0.Bxd5 0-0 1 I .Qd2 Be6 1 2 .Nc3 Rc8 1 3.0-0 b5 , =, Frolov-Tiviakov, USSR 1988. l'his all seemed to be easy for Black, but 8.Be3? ! is pointless. White .

42

The Neo-Sveshnikov

can improve with 8.Bg5 ! when play can transpose to the main column. 2) 6 . . . Be6 7.Nl a3 a6 9.Nc3 Nf6 9.Be3?! [9.Bg5 ! ] 9 . . . b5 IO.Bd5 Rc8 l l .Ne2 b4 1 2.Nc4 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Bb6 Qd7 1 5 .b3 Nexd5 1 6.a3? Rxc4 1 7.bxc4 Nxb6, 0-1 in 44, Apscheneek-Sultan Khan, Hamburg 1930. Another easy time for Black but White can do better with 7.Bxe6! fxe6 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qh3 with some advantage to White because Black' s King position is insecure. Aside from this, 7.Bb3 ! ? [as in the main column] is also not easy for Black. 3) 6 . . . Be7 7.0-0 a6 8.N5c3 Nf6 9.a4 [9.Bg5 0 -0 I O.Bxf6 Bxf6 l l .Nd5 Bg5 12.a4 Kh8 1 3.Nbc3 Be6 was Beilin-Kopaev, Lvov 1 95 1 . The main column will discuss these positions in more detail] 9 . . . Be6 IO.Bd5 0-0 l l .Na3, +=, Hector-Kotronias, Debrecen 1 989.

7.0-0! Avoiding the tempting 7.Bg5 after which 7 . . . Qa5+! 8 . Bd2 Qd8 9.Bg5 Qa5 is nothing more than a draw by repetition.

7

•••

a6

h may be more accurate to play 7 . . . Be6 since 8.Bxe6 fxe6 9.Bg5 a6 1 0.Bxf6 gxf6 l l .Qh5+ Ke7 1 2.N5c3 Qe8 is perfectly fine for Black. After 7 . . . Be6, White must try 8.Qd3! threatening 9.Bxe6 and l O.Rd l . After 8 . . . a6 9.N5c3 Be7 10.Bg5 we get play identical to 7 . . . a6 except Black has forced White into an early Qd3.

8.N5c3 9.Bb3 l O.BgS

Be6 Be7 0-0

Threatening l l . . .Nxe4, a move that lost right away to 1 0 . . . Nxe4?? l l .Nxe4 Bxg5 1 2.Bxe6 fxe6 1 3.Qh5+. Throwing in 1 0 . . . Bxb3 is no help: l l .axb3 Nxe4? 1 2.Nxe4 B xg5 1 3.Nxd6+ Ke7 14.Nxb7 Qb6 1 5.Nd6 Rhd8 and now both 1 6.Nc4 and 1 6.Qh5 are quite strong.

l l.Bxf6

Bxf6

1 2.Nd5 White has played in a very logical manner. His pieces stand on good squares and he has d5 under a firm grip.

1 2 ...

Nd4

Black grabs the two Bishops but this just accelerates White 's Queenside breakthrough. To make matters worse, the two Bishops are not worth much here since the White Knights are quite happy in

Chapter 6

43

the resulting closed position. Better is 1 2 . . . Bg5 1 3.a4 g6 when t 4.Nbc3 Kh8 1 5.Qd3 ReS gives Black adequate chances due to his play on the c-file, upcoming . . . f7-f5 advance, and landing spot for his Knight on d4. White could also consider 14.Na3 ! ? followed by 1 5 .c3 and and eventual Nc4 or Nc2. In this case Black would have to play . . . f7-f5 and hope that the Knight's journey away from e4 gives this advance more sting. Can Black equalize? Only more tests will tell.

13.c3

Nxb3

1 4.axb3

B gS g6 fS

1 S.c4 1 6.Nbc3 17.Qd3

Rti!

1 8.b4 I.Ivanov-Silrnan, Los Angeles 1990, now Black has to try 1 8 . . . Bh6 followed by . . . f4, . . . g5 and . . . Bf8 with a do-or-die assault on White's King. Though he would have some practical chances with this plan, I can't help but believe that White' s play against the Queenside and the backward d6 pawn should crash through first.

Conclusion 5 . Nb5 d6 6.Bc4 is one of White ' s better plans against the Kalashnikov. Since 6.Bc4 has been played so seldomly, it is not clear if Black can equalize with the ease that some annotators claim. Tests would certainly be welcome here!

B.

6 .Nlc3

Though the young Russian Tiviakov has stated his preference for this move, it seems hard to believe that White's offside Knight [after B lack plays 7 . . . b7-b5] gives White any real chance for an opening

44

The Neo-Sveshnikov

advantage. However, it is this very pawn move [7 . . . b5-b5] that gives White the play he wants. A later c2-c4 will challenge this pawn chain and give Black some problems to solve on the Queenside. Sharp, interesting pos itions result. It's clear that there are plenty of new ideas waiting for both sides to find discover and the last word here will not be heard for a long time to come.

6 ...

a6

6 . . . Nf6 transposes into the main lines of the Sveshnikov.

7.Na3

bS

Most logical. Other moves are also played but why should B lack allow White 's Knight on a3 to effortlessly re-enter the game? White 's other choices are: 1 ) 7 . . . Be6 S.Be3 [It ' s probably more accurate to play the immediate S.Nc4 ReS 9.Nd5 Bxd5 10.exd5 NbS 1 1 .Be2 Nd7 1 2.0-0 Ngf6 1 3.a4 Be7 1 4.Be3 0-0 1 5.a5 ! , +-, Matanovic-Larsen, Beverwijk 1960] S . . . Nf6 [S . . . b5 ! keeps the Knight at a3 for awhile] 9.Nc4 b5 1 0.Nb6 RbS l l .Nbd5 Be7 1 2.a4 bxa4 1 3.Rxa4 0-0 1 4.b3 a5 15.Bc4, Matanovic-Pils, Graz 1 9S4. White has the better chances. 2) 7 . . . h6? ! [a waste of time] S.Nc4 [White also gains an excellent position by S.Nd5 Nf6 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 1 0.Nc4 Qh4 1 1 .Bd3 Bg4 1 2.Qd2 Be7 1 3.0-0 0-0 14.Nb6, Karasev-Klaman, Kronstadt 1 975] S . . . b5 9.Ne3 Nf6 1 0.Ncd5 Be7 1 1 .Be3 0-0 [ 1 1 . . . RbS ! ?-Uhlmann.] 1 2.a4 b4 1 3.Bb6 Qd7 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 1 5 .Nd5, +-, Aronin-Kuzminikh, USSR 1 94S. 3) 7 . . . Be7 S.Nc4 b5 9.Ne3 Nf6 1 0.Bd3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 RbS 1 2.Ncd5 Nxd5 1 3.Nxd5 Bg5 14.c3 Be6 1 5.Be2 Bxc 1 1 6.Rxc1 a5, Unzicker-Pils, Graz 1 9S4. Black has a reasonable position.

8.Nd5

Nge7 ! ?

Chapter 6

45

It's not yet clear what Black' s best move is. He has several mpting choices: te I ) 8 . . . Be7. This solid move is one of Black's best choices. After

8 . . . Be7 White has two very different ways to play:

l .a.) 9.c3 Nf6 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 1 1 .Nc2 0-0 12.Be2 [ 1 2.a4 ! ?] 12 . . . Ne7 lack now starts a battle for the d5 and e4 squares. Naturally, if he [B play . . . d6-d5 he will solve all of his opening problems] 1 3.Bf3 Bb7 ! can [ 1 3 . . . Be6 i s also possible but Black wants to eventually play . . . n-f5 and answer exf5 with . . . e5-e4. This is why Black has played his Bishop to b7 . . . it aims at both d5 and e4] 14.Ne3 g6 1 5.0-0 Bg7 1 6.a4 ! [ 1 6.Qd3 f5 1 7.Rd l ? looks reasonable but it actually loses to 1 7 . . . d5 ! when it doesn't matter if White captures on f5 or d5, he will drop a piece to . . . e5-e4] 1 6 . . . f5? ! ? Macho (risky) chess but not at all necessary. Simply 1 6 . . . bxa4! ? or 1 6 . . . Qc7 ! ? give Black a comfortable game. The important . . . n-f5 advance will come at a more appropri ate time] 17.axb5 [White didn't like 1 7 .exf5 e4 1 8.Be2 gxf5 because of the threat of . . . f5-f4 with a strong attack. However 19.f4 ! is critical for the assessment of 16 . . . 5 and may well favor White because of the positional threat of Nc2 followed by Be3 with a strong blockade on e3 and d4] 1 7 . . . axb5 [Black rejected 1 7 . . . fxe4 1 8.bxa6 Rxa6 19.Rxa6 Bxa6 20.Be2 Bxe2 2 1 .Qxe2 because he wanted this postion with the light-squared Bishops still on the board] 1 8.Rxa8 Bxa8 19.Qb3?+ [After this White 's game slides downhill. He still had to try 1 9.exf5 e4 20.Be2 gxf5 2 1 .f4 ! ] 19 . . . Kh8 20.Qxb5 fxe4 2 1 . Bg4 Bc6! [Preventing White from trading Queens with Qd7] 22.Qb3 d5 [The mobile mass of central pawns give Black a clear advantage] 23.Nc2 Nf5 24.Be3? [White is lured into this by the promise of a tactical trick but Black is well ahead of him. Possible was 24.Rd l when 24 . . . d4? 25.cxd4 exd4 26.Bxf5 gxf5 27.Nxd4 ! Bxd4 28.Be3 wins for White. However, 24.Rd 1 is strongly met by 24 . . . Qh4 or by 24 . . . Qf6 when 25.Nb4? falls to 25 . . . Nd4 ! 26.cxd4 Qxf2+] 24 . . . d4 25.cxd4 [Avoiding 25.Bxf5 gxf5 26.cxd4 f4 ! and White is getting crushed] 25 . . . exd4 26.Bxf5 dxe3 ! [White was hoping for 26 . . . gxf5?? 27.Nxd4 ! Bxd4 28.Rd l ] 27.Bg4 exf2+ [The tempting 27 . . . h5 28.Be2 Qd2 is foiled by 29.fxe3! Qxe2 30.Rxf8+ Bxf8 3 1 .Qc3+ Kh7 32.Qxc6] 28.Rxf2 Rxf2 29.Kxf2 Qh4 !+ [29 . . . h5 followed by 30 . . . Qf6+ and 3 1 . . . Qxb2 is also possible but Black didn't want an ending where White's King was centralized. The text is much stronger since it also wins a pawn but keeps the Queens on. This leaves White's King in grave danger] 30.Qg3 [Seeing that 30.Kg 1 ? runs into 30 . . . Bd4!+ when

46

The Neo-Sveshnikov

3 l .Nxd4 Qe 1 is mate and 3 l .Kh 1 Qf2 is also the end. Also bad is 30.Kfl Qxh2! since Black not only grubs on a pawn but also prevents White 's threatened Qb8+] 30 . . . Qf6+ 3 l .Kg1 Qxb2 32.Ne 1 [Worse is 32.Qc7? Qc1 + but 32.Qd6! puts up a better fight though Black would still be in complete control after 32 . . . Qc 1 + 33.Bd1 h5] 32 . . . Bd4+ 33.Kh 1 Qf2! [Now, with White's King out of the game, this ending is an easy win] 34.Qxf2 Bxf2 35.Nc2 Kg7 36.Be2 Kf6 [White is powerless to prevent the Black Kings entry into the game] 37.g3?? [Time pressure] 37 . . . e3+, 0- 1 , Hughes-Silman, Los Angeles 1 990. l .b.) 9.c4

[The most common move. White attacks Black' s pawn chain and prepares to move his Knight to c2] 9 . . . b4 [The wild at heart might consider 9 . . . Nf6!? 1 0.cxb5 Nd4 1 l .Nxf6+ Bxf6 1 2.bxa6 0-0 1 3.Bc4 Bxa6 14.0-0 Bb7 1 5 .Re1 d5 ! ? and Black has some compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Arrnas-Dumitrache, Predeal 1 988] 1 0.Nc2 [The greedy 10.Nxb4! ? is possible but so far nobody has had the nerve to try it. After 10 . . . Nxb4 1 1 .Qa4+ Bd7 1 2.Qxb4 d5 Black should be doing very well] 1 0 . . . a5? ! [In Sveshnikov 's opinion, 1 0 . . . Rb8 ! is more accurate: 1 1 .Qd3 Nf6 1 2.Nxf6+ Bxf6 1 3.Be2 0-0 14.0-0 Be6 1 5 .b3 a5 1 6.a3 a4! ? with an excellent position for Black, Bokan-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1 989. However in Perenyi-Holzl, Budapest 1 988, White played the sensible 1 l .Bd3 (instead of 1 1 .Qd3) and could have gained some advantage after 1 1 . . . Nf6 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.a3 bxa3, with 14.Rxa3. Instead the mistaken 1 4.b4?! was played and after 14 . . . Nxd5 1 5 .cxd5 Nxb4 1 6.Nxb4 Rxb4, Black had all the chances] 1 l .Be3 Rb8 1 2.Be2 Nf6 1 3.Qd3 Nd7 [ 1 3 . . . Ng4 ! ? deserves a look] 14.Nxe7 Kxe7 1 5 .Rd l Qc7! [And not 1 5 . . . Nc5? 1 6.Bxc5 dxc5 1 7.Qg3 when Black's poor King location will come back to haunt him] 1 6.Bg4 Rd8 17.Bxd7 B xd7 1 8 .c5? ! [White logically tries to open up the position and get to Black's King but Black finds a good reply. Sveshnikov recommends 1 8.0-0 followed by f4, +=] 1 8 . . . Bg4 ! 19.f3 dxc5 20.Bxc5+ Ke8 2 l .Bd6? ! [He should have played 2 1 .Qe2 when Black Sveshnikov thinks that Black

Chapter 6

47 would only be slightly superior] 2 1 . . .Qb6 22.fxg4 Rxd6! 23.Qxd6 Rd8 2 4.Qd5 ! Rxd5 25.exd5 and now instead of 25 . . . b3? ! 26.axb3 Nb4 27.Rd2! Qg6 28.Nxb4 Qe4+ 29.Kf2 Qf4+ 30.Ke2 Qxg4+ 3 1 .Kd3 axb4 when Black was just a little better and White managed to hold the draw, Geo. Timoschenko-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1 989, Sveshnikov gives 25 . . . Ne7 26.d6 Qc5 ! 27.Rd2 Nd5 ! , -+, as the correct plan. 2) 8 . . . Rb8 !?. This can transpose to 8 . . . Be7 lines after 9.c4 b4 10.Nc2 Be? 1 1 .Bd3 Nf6 etc. 3) 8 . . . Nce7! ?

[An interesting move. Black wants to use both Knights i n th e fight for d5. It's important to mention that Sveshnikov, after having played 8 . . . Be? in two games, laid the Bishop move aside and gave this a go. Did he think that 8 . . . Be? was inferior or was he just in the mood for a change?] 9.c4 ! ? [The usual formula in the positions. Exciting but probably nothing for Black to worry about is 9.Bg5 h6 1 0.Bxb5 ! ? axb5 1 l .Nxb5 Ra6 ( 1 1 . . . Ra7 ! ? might be even stronger since 1 2.Nxa7 Qa5+ favors Black) 1 2.Nbc7+ Kd7 1 3.Qg4+ f5 14.exf5 Nf6! 1 5.Bxf6 gxf6 1 6.0-0 Nxd5 1 7.Nxd5 Bb7, unclear, Kindermann-B ischoff, Munich 1 987] 9 . . . Nxd5 1 0.exd5 bxc4 [ 1 0 . . . b4? 1 1 .Qa4+] 1 1 .Nxc4 Nf6 [ 1 1 . . . f5 !? followed by 1 2 . . . Nf6 may be worth a try] 1 2.Be3 Rb8 1 3.a4 Bc7 [ 1 3 . . . Ng4 14.Bd2 f5 1 5.Be2 Nf6 1 6.Ba5 Qe7 1 7.Nb6 Bb7 1 8 .0 -0 Qfl 1 9.Bc4 Be? 20.Qe2 0-0 2 l .Rfd 1 , +=. Analysis by Grosar] 14.Be2 0-0 1 5.0-0 Bb7 [Grosar says that 1 5 . . . aS ! leads to an unclear postion afte r 1 6.Bd2 Ra8 1 7.Qe l Bb7 ( 1 7 . . . Nxd5 fails to 1 8 .Bf3 Bb7 19.Bxa5 { 1 9.Nxa5 looks even better} 1 9 . . . Qd7 20.Bxd5 Bxd5 2 1 .Nb6 Qb7 2 2 .Nxa8 Rxa8 23.Qb4 ! and Black doesn't have enough for the sacrificed exchange) 1 8.Bxa5 Qb8. Black will win the d5 pawn and re establish material equality when the fight will then center around the question: whose pawns are stronger. . . the Black central pawns or the White Quecnside passers? I 'll allow his 'unclear' verdict to stand. 1 5 . . a5 certainly seems like Black 's best chance but watch out! .

48

The Neo-Sveshnikov

'·�

Something about this analysis (or is it just Black' s position?) gives '1 • me an uneasy feeling] 1 6.Nb6 Ne4 1 7.a5 f5 1 8 .f3 f4? [Black tries to drown hi� sorrows in complications but things just don ' t work out.,(. ..

Better was 1 8 . . . Nf6 but White ' s domination of the Queenside :A ' guarentees him the superior game] 19.fxe4 fxe3 20.Qd3! Bg5 2 1 .Rxf8+ . !; Qxf8 22.Rfl Qc7 23.Bg4 Kh8 24.g3 Bh6 25 .Be6 g6 26.Rf7, Black is ): busted . The finish was 2 6 . . . Qg5 27.Qe2 [ Avoiding 27. Qc4? e2 ;:: 28.Qxe2 Qc l + 29.Kg2 Be3] 27 . . . Bg7 28 .Kg2 h5 29.h4 Qh6 30.Kf3 g5 .,: 3 1 . Qxe3 g4+ 32. Ke2 Qg6 3 3 .Kd3 Bc8 [Also hopeless was 3 3 . . . Rf8 : 34.Rxb7 Rf3 35 .Rb8+ Bf8 36.Qxf3 gxf3 37. Rxf8+] 34 .Rxg7 Kxg7 . 35.Bxc8 Qf6 36.Qg5+ Qxg5 37.hxg5 Kg6 3 8 .Ke3 Kxg5 39. Kf2 h4 40.gxh4+ Kf4 [After 40 . . . Kxh4 4 1 .Kg2 g3 42.b3 Black has to part with his g3 pawn because all his other pieces are unable to move] 4 l .h5 , t

O.

4) 8 . . . Nf6 9.Nxf6+ [This gives White chances for an advantage. Rather lame is 9.Be3 Nxd5 1 0.Qxd5 Qc7 1 1 .c4 Be6 1 2.Qd3 b4 1 3.Nc2 Be7, =, Lokvenc-Padcvsky, Dcbrccen 196 1 . White could also consider 9 . B g5 but since this is a direct transposition into the Sveshnikov I musl refer the reader to some book on that subject] 9 . . . Qxf6 1 0.c4 Qg6! ? [ Starting to stir the pot of complications. In Vitolins Ambarcumjan, USSR 1 988, Black tried 10 . . . b4 but White m anaged to obtain a bind on the Queenside with l l .Nc2 Bb7 1 2.Bd3 Qd8 1 3. 0 -0 Be7 1 4. a3 bxa3 1 5.b4 0-0 1 6 .Rxa3 Bg5 1 7 . Bxg5 Qxg5 1 8 .Qc l . One source calls this position, +=. Perhaps, but this position looks like a depressing defensive chore to me] l l .Qd5 Bb7 1 2.cxb5 Nd 8 1 3. Qc4 axb5 14.Nxb5 ReS 1 5.Qa4 Bc6 1 6.Qc2 Qxe4+ 17.Qxe4 Bxe4, Nijboer Van der Wiel, Hilversum 1 989. This final position is unclear, but f Black can 't do something with his small lead in development, then White ' s Queenside pawns will probably tum out to be a little more dangerous than Black ' s central rollers. All these lines are very interesting but now we ' re back to 8 . . . Nge7.

position after 8 . . . Nge7

·

49

Chapter 6 White has tried three moves from this position:

B.l. 9.Bg5; B.2.

9.c3; B.3. 9 c4!. .

B .l.

9 . B g5

An aggressive move but Black has achieved some nice victories aga inst it.

9

.••

h6

10.Qh5

I n Sofieva-Arakhamia, Tbilisi 1 987, White sacrificed the other Bishop by 1 0.Bxb5? ! and was rewarded with a winning position after 10 . . . hxg5?? 1 1 .Nxe7 axb5 1 2.Nxc6 Qb6 1 3.Nb4. Instead of blundering with 1 0 . . . hxg5??, Black should play 1 0 . . . axb5 when 1 1 .Nxb5 reaches an interesting position. Since 1 1 . . .hxg5?? still loses to 1 2.Ndc7+ Black must try 1 1 . . . Ra7. [Trying to hold onto everything with 1 1 . . . Kd7 !? may also be possible] when 1 2.Nxa7? Qa5+ followed by . . . Qxa7 is just good for Black and 1 2 .Nf6+?? gxf6 1 3.Nxd6+ Qxd6 14.Qxd6 hxg5 is completely hopeless for White. White ' s best appears to be 1 2.Be3 but even then 1 2 . . . Nxd5 1 3 .Qxd5 Ra6 1 4 . 0 -0-0 Be6 1 5 . Nxd6+ Bxd6 1 6.Qxd6 Qxd6 1 7.Rxd6 Rxa2 ! is in Black's favor.

1 0 ...

Be6

B y no means the only move. Black has also had success with: 1) 1 0 . . . Qa5+ 1 1 . Bd2 Qd8 1 2.Bg5 Qa5+ 1 3.Bd2, 1{2-1/2, Lputian Sv eshnikov, Sochi 1 987. Not very exciting but an easy draw with B l ack in G randmaster play is always acceptable. 2) 1 0 . . . hxg5 ! ? 1 1 . Qxh8 Nxd5 1 2 .exd5 Qa5+ 1 3 .c3 b4 1 4.Nc4 Qxd5 is an untried suggestion of Sveshnikov . B lack has serious compensation for the exchange.

l l.Bd3

Rb8!

50

The Neo-Sveshnikov

B y stopping a possible Knight fork on b6 Black is now able to unravel by 1 2 . . . Qd7 followed by 1 3 . . . Ng6.

1 2 . c4 White decides to mix things up so as to prevent Black from getting a good game with simple development. The result though, is that White goads Black into destroying him ! Black gets easy equality against quiet play: 1 2.0-0 Qd7 1 3.Nxe7 Nxe7 1 4.Be3 Bg4 [ 14 . . . Ng6 ! ?-Alonso] 1 5. Qh4 Ng6 1 6.Qg3 Be7 1 7.h3 Be6 1 8 .c3 0-0 1 9.Nc2 a5 ! 20.Rfd 1 Rfc8, Huergo-Alonso, Cuba 1 988. Now White should play 2 1 .Bc 1 [=] intending Ne3-f5.

1 2 ... 1 3 .cxb5 ?

Nd4!

He had to play 1 3 .Bxe7.

1 3 ...

hxgS !

This gives Black a strong attack.

1 4.Qxh8

NxdS !

1 S.exd5 1 6.Kd1

QaS+

On 1 6.Kfl Black gets to execute the old smother mate theme with 1 6 . . . Qd2 ! 1 7.Bc4 Bxd5 1 8.Bxd5 Qd3+ 1 9.Kg 1 Ne2+ 20.Kfl Ng3+ 2 1 .Kg1 Qfl+ 22.Rxfl Ne2 mate.

1 6 ... 1 7 . f3

B g4 ! +

No better is 1 7.Kc1 ReS+ 1 8.Kb1 [or 1 8.Nc4 axb5] 1 8 . . . Qd2 1 9.Be4 Bd 1 and White is dead.

1 7 ...

Nxf3 !

Chapter

1 8.gxf3

6

51

B x f3 +

1 9.Kc2 1 9.Be2 loses to 19 . . . Qa4!+ 20.b3 Qd4+.

1 9 ... 20.Bc4 !

Rc8+

B .Jonsson-Z.Polgar, Egilsstadir 1 988. Worse i s 20.Kb3 B xd5+ 2l .Nc4 axb5 with an immediate win. Now [after 20.Bc4 ! ] Black can finish the game off with 20 . . . axb5! 2 1 .Rhf1 [2 1 .Qh3 g4 is no help to White] 2 1 . . . Be4+ 22.Kc 1 bxc4 when the threat o f . . . c4--c3 is devastating. Instead of this, B lack played the mistaken 20 . . . B xh 1 ?. I feel compelled to give you this exciting game in full : 2 1 .Rxh1 axb5 22.Qh3 Qa6? [22 . . . Rc7 is much stronger. Now White somehow manages to generate a counterattack! ] 23.Rfl [Threatening 24.Rxn ! Kxn 25.Qe6 mate] 23 . . . f6 [23 . . . Rc7 still runs intc;> 24.Rxfl! since 24 . . . Rxn loses lhe Queen to 25.Bxb5+. Funnily enough 23 . . . Qb7 also fails to stop 24.Rxfl ! when White is the one who is winning. If Black wanted a draw she could have played 23 . . . Be7 when 24.Qh8+ Bf8 25.Qh3 Be7 26.Qh8+ Kd7 27.Qh3+ is a perpetual] 24.Qe6+ Kd8 25.Qfl [25.Qg8 is a draw but White started having visions of victory at this point] 25 . . . Be7 26.Qg8+ Kd7 27.Qe6+ Kd8 28.Rf3 [Playing for the win. 28.Qg8 is a perpetual] 28 . . . bxc4 29.Rh3 Qa4+ 30.Kc 1 Qe8 [Avoiding 30 . . . Qd7? 3 1 .Rh8+ Kc7 32.Nb5 !+ when White wins the game] 3 1 .Rc3 Bf8 32.Qh3?! [Alarmed that his attack has stalled, White starts to go wrong. With 32.Qxe8+ Kxe8 33.Rxc4 Rxc4+ 34.Nxc4 an unclear endgame could have been reached] 32 . . . Qd7 33.Qh8?? [He still had to try 33.Qxd7+ Kxd7 34.Rxc4 Rxc4+ 35.Nxc4. Now Black is back on the winning track] 33 . . . Ke7 34.Nxc4 Qg4 35.Ne3 Rxc3+ 36.bxc3 Qf3 ! 37. Kd2 f5 38.Qg8 Qf2+ 39.Kd3 e4+ 40.Kc4 Qxe3 4 1 .Qe6+ Kd8 42.Qxf5 Qf4, � 1 .

B .2.

9 .c3

52

The Neo-Sveshnikov

This quiet move doesn 't make much sense here. Since White 's main source of counterplay is usually based on a c2--c4 advance, he will have to lose a tempo by advancing this pawn a second time.

9 ... 1 0 .exdS

NxdS

1 0. Qxd5 is met b y 1 0 . . . Bb7 o r 1 0 . . . Qc7 followed b y l l . . . Be6.

1 0 ... 1 1 .c4

N e7 g6

Black is willing to give up a pawn on the Queenside in exchange for development and open lines for his pieces.

12.cxbS

Bg7

13.bxa6

0-0

1 4.Nc2? I t ' s suicide t o move an already developed piece when your already behind in development. He had to play 1 4.Bc4 Bxa6 1 5.0-0 when Black has compensation for the sacrificed pawn but the meat of the battle is still ahead.

1 4 ...

QaS+

1S.b4

Qa4

1 6.bS So White has held onto his ill-gotten gains. However, Black's attack now starts i n earnest.

1 6 ... 17.Rb1 White is already in terrible trouble.

18.f3

e4 B g4

53

Chapter 6 No better is 1 8. Be2 Bxe2 1 9.Qxe2 Nxd5.

1 8 .. . 1 9.gxf3 20.Rb3 2 1 .Ke2

exf3 Bf5 ! Q h4 +

G arci a Martinez-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1 987. Now 2 1 . . . B xc2 22. Qxc2 Rac8 23.Qd l Nf5 would give Black a crushing attack. Instead Black played 2 1 . . . R fe8? and White managed to hold body and soul together after 2 2 . Ne3 ! Bd7 2 3 . Qd3 Nf5 24.Kd l Nd4 25.Be2 Nxb3 26.axb3 Rab8 27.Qc4 Qd4 28.Qxd4 Bxd4 29.Nc2 Bb6 30.Nb4 Rxe2 ! [The threat of Nc6 forced this return of the exchange] 3 l . Kxe2 Bxb5+ 32.Kd l Bc5 33.Nc6 Ra8 34.b4 Bf2 35.Bf4 Rxa6 36.Kc2 Bc4? [36 . . . Be2 is strong] 3 7 . Kc3 Bb5 [Black suddenly realized that the intended 37 . . . B xd5?? lost to 3 8 .Ne7+. All this looks like the result of time pressure] 3 8.Nd4 Ra3+ 39.Kb2 Ra4 40.Nc2 Bc4 4 l .Bxd6 Bxd5 42.Rd l Bxf3?? 43 .Rfl [Poor Sveshnikov was having a bad day] 43 . . . Bd5 44.Rxf2 f5 45 .Rd2 Be4 46.b5 g5 47.b6 Ra6 4 8.Bc5 Ra8 49.Rd7 f4 50.Rc7 Rb8 5 l .Nd4 g4 52.Ne6 f3 53.Rg7+, 1 -0.

B.3.

9.c4!

This is clearly White ' s best plan. He goes for immediate play on the Queenside.

9 .. . 1 0. B e 3

N d4

54

The Neo-Sveshnikov

The most sensible move. White intends to simply chop the Knight offl Others: 1 ) 1 0.Nc2 [This is hannless] 10 . . . Nxd5 1 l .cxd5 [ 1 l .Nxd4 gives Black good play after either 1 1 . . .Nf6 12.Nb3! Bb7 or 1 1 . . . Nb6 1 2.Nc6 Qh4 ! ] l l . . . Bg4 ! 12.Qd2 [ 1 2.f3? Qh4+ 1 3.g3 Nxf3+ is a disaster for White] 12 . . . Nxc2+ 1 3.Qxc2 Be7 14.Bd3 0-0 1 5 .0-0 Rc8 1 6.Qb3 Bg5 [Black is already a bit better] 1 7.Bxg5 Qxg5 1 8 .Rfe l f5 1 9.exf5 Bxf5 20.Re3 Bxd3 2 1 .Qxd3 Qh4 22.Rfl Qc4 23.Qxc4 Rxc4 [White is worse because the d5 pawn is weak and Black controls the important open c file] 24.Ra3 Ra8 25.Rd l Rc2 26.Rb3 Rac8 27.h3 h5 28.Rdd3 h4 29.Rb4 R8c4 30.Rdb3 Kf7 3 1 .Rx.c4 Rxc4 32.Kfl Ra4! [The d5 pawn is immune: 32 . . . Rd4? 33.Ra3] 33 .Rc3 [33.a3 Rd4 picks up the d5 pawn because the a3 square is no longer available to White 's Rook] 33 . . . Rxa2 34.Rc7+ Kf6 35.Rd7 e4 36.Rxd6+ Ke5 37.Rd8 Rxb2 38.d6 Ra2 39.d7 Ke6 40.Ke l Ke7 4 l .Rh8 Kxd7 42.Rxh4 b4 43.Rxe4 a5 44.Kd 1 Kc6 45.Rg4 b3 46.Kcl Kb5 47.f4 Rc2+ 48.Kbl a4 49.Rxg7 a3 50.Rb7+ Kc4, 0- 1 , Hodgson--Lputian, Soci 1 987. 2) 10.cxb5 ! ? Nxd5 l l .exd5 challanges the validity of Black's setllp. Black now has the following possibilities: 2.a.) l l . . .Be7 1 2.Bc4 [ 1 2.bxa6? Qa5+ 1 3.Bd2 Qxd5 is in Black's favor] 12 . . . axb5 1 3.Nxb5 Ba6 14.Na3 [ 1 4.Qd3 Qb6 ( 1 4 . . . Rc8? ! 1 5.Nxd6+ Bxd6 1 6.Bxa6 Nc2+ 1 7. Kd 1 Nxa 1 1 8 .Bxc8 ,+=) 1 5 .Nxd4 Qb4+ 1 6.Bd2 Qxc4 1 7.Qxc4 Bxc4 1 8.Nf5 Bxd5 , =+. Analysis by Klovans] 14 . . . 0-0 1 5 .0-0 Bf6 1 6.Be3, +-, Klovans-Kiselev, Frunze 1988. 2.b.) l l . . . Qh4!? 1 2.Be3 Nf5 1 3.Nc2 Be7 14.Be2 Nxc3 15.Nxe3 0 -0 1 6.0-0 f5, Black has some compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Hellers-Cramling, Haninge 1 989.

Chapter

55

6

2.c.) l l . . . Bd7 1 2.Be3 [ 1 2.bxa6? Qa5+ allows Black to pick u p the awn on d5] 1 2 . . . Nxb5 1 3.Nc4 f5 14.a4 Na7 1 5.Rc 1 [ 15.Nb6 f4! (Bad p 1 5 . . . Rb8 1 6.Nxd7 Qxd7 1 7 .Bxa6 Rxb2 1 8.0-0, +-) 1 6.Nxd7 is ( 1 6.Nxa8 fxe3 is also in Black's favor) 1 6 . . . fxe3 1 7.Nxf8 exf2+ is clearly better for Black] 15 . . . f4 1 6.Bd2 [ 1 6.Bb6 Qb8 ! ] 1 6 . . . Nc8 1 7.Qb3 [Black's position looks terrible and most sources assess it as, +-. But just how bad is it? Black's game is surprisingly hard to crack and in this game White is unable to break down B lack' s resistance ! No matter how you look at it, Black is going to get a lot of counterplay] 1 7 . . . Kn 1 8.Qb7 Ra7 1 9.Qb8 Be7 20.Ba5 Qe8 2 l .Bb6 [2 l .b3 e4 is far from clear] 2 1 . . .Nxb6 22.Qxa7 [White has won material but Black's counterplay is not to be underestimated] 22 . . . Nxa4 23.Be2 Nc5 ! 24.b4 Nb3 25.Rc3 Nd4 26.Qxa6 Qb8 27.Nb6 Bd8 ! 28.Bh5+ g6 29.Nxd7 Qxb4 30.0-0! [White wisely gets his King to safety. 30.Qc4 B aS ! is a good excuse for White to do this] 30 . . . Qxc3 3 1 .Qxd6 gxh5 32.Nxe5+ Kg7 33.Qd7+ Kf6 34.Qd6+ Kg7 35.Qd7+ Kf6, 1 /2-1 /2, Smirin-Shirov, Klaipeda 1 988.

1 0 . .. l l .e x dS

NxdS

This is no threat to Black. White must play 1 1 .cxd5 ! if he is to have any chance for an advantage. Am.Rodriguez-Estevez, Camaguey 1 988 continued [after l l .cxd5] 1 1 . . . Be7 1 2.Bd3! [ 1 2.Bxd4 exd4 1 3.Qxd4 0-0 gives Black good compensation due to his play on the dark squares] 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3.0-0 f5? [Things go sour after this. He had to play solidly With 1 3 . . . Bf6 followed by 14 . . . Qb6 and . . . Bd7. In that case White's advantage would be very slight] 14.Bxd4 exd4 1 5.exf5 Bxf5 1 6.Nc2 ! [+-] 1 6 . . . Bd7 1 7.Be4 ! Bf6 1 8.Qd3 g6 1 9.Nxd4 [White is now a pawn ah ead with the better position. The win is just a matter of time] 1 9 . . Qb6 20.Rad l Rac8 2 l .Nc6! Rce8 22.b3 Rn 23.Khl Bg7 24.f3 Bf6 25 .a4 Bg7 26.Rdel Rff8 27.Re2 Rn 28 .Rfe l Kf8 29.Rd l Kg8 30.Ra2 ! .

56

The Neo-Sveshnikov

Bf5 3 1 .Bxf5 Rxf5 32.Re2 Rff8 33.Ne7+! Kh8 34.Rde1 , 1 -0 on time.

1 1 ... 1 2.Bd2 1 3.Bd3 14.Rb1

NfS Be7 B f6

Worse i s 14.Qb 1 ? Bg5 ! 15.Bc3 Nh4 1 6.0-0 Bf4 followed b y . . . Qg5 with advantage to Black-Lputian.

14...

0-0

15.0-0

g6

Also possible is 15 . . . Ne7 1 6.cxb5 axb5 with an unclear position.

16.cxbS

axbS

1 7.NxbS Or 1 7.Bxb5 Bb7 1 8.Bc4 e4 followed by . . . Be5 with plenty of play for the pawn-Lputian.

17 ...

Rxa2

18.Na3

e4

19.Bxe4

Rxb2

20.Rxb2

Bxb2

2 1 .Nc4

Qh4!

The game is equal.

According to Lputian, this is stronger than 2 1 . . . Be5 22.Bxf5 gxf5 23.Nxe5 dxe5 25.Bc3, +=.

22.Qf3 Or 22.Qc2 Bg7, =.

22 . . .

Nd4

23.Qe3 24.Nxd6

ReS N fS

2S.NxfS

BxfS BeS Bxh2+ Qxh6 Bxe4 Bg3 =

26.f3 27.Qh6 28.Kh1 29.Bxh6 30.fxe4

57

Chapter 6

G.Garcia-Lputian, Saint John Open II 1 988. Black actually went on win this ending: 3 1 .Ra 1 f6 32.Ra3 Bb8 33.Ra8 Kf7 34.Bd2 h5 35.Ra4 o t h4 36.Kg 1 Bg3 37.Ra7+ Kg8 38.Ra4 Kf7 39.Kf1 g5 40.Be1 Be5 4 l .Bt2 Rb8 42.Bd4 Bxd4 43.Rxd4 Ke7 44.Ra4 Rb6 45.Kt2? ! Kd6 46.Kf3 Ke5 47.Ra3 Rb4 48. Ra6 Rb3+ 49.Kf2 g4 50.Re6+ Kd4 5 l .Rxf6 g3+ 52.Ke2?? [52.Kg 1 Kxe4 53.Rfl Kxd5, =] 52 . . . Rb2+ 53.Kf l Rb 1 + 54.Ke2 h3 55.d6 Rb2+ 56.Kfl h2 , 0- 1 .

C o n cl usion 6.N1 c3 is one of White's more exciting possibilities . . . perfect for the attacking or tactically oriented player. Theoretically White can't count on more than a very small edge, but this is often more than he gets in the other lines.

c.

6.N5c3

A logical move. Since White will have to move this Knight anyway, he does so immediately and herds it towards the tempting d5 outpost. Funnily enough, this will often transpose into lines from 6.Bc4 [Chapter Six, Variation A] . . . a move that I also feel is promising for the first player. It's somewhat surprising that this has not been tried more often.

6 ...

Nf6

Forcing White to get rid of his Q-Bishop, since 6 . . . Be7 allows White instant access to d5 : 7.Nd5 Nf6 8.Nbc3.

7.Bg5 8.Bxf6 9.Nd5

Be7 Bxf6 0-0

The immediate 9 . . . Bg5 i s also possible: I O.g3 [ I O.Bc4 or 1 0.Nbc3

is our main column] 10 . . . 0-0 1 l .Bg2 [I would prefer 1 1 .Nbc3, when

The Neo-Sveshnikov

58

1 I . . .Nd4 1 2.Bg2 Be6, as recommended by Tiviakov, can be met with 13.f4 (or first 1 3.0-0) when the unstable position of the Knight on d4 might cause Black some problems] l l . . .b5 ! [Black is now ready to chase away the b l Knight once it goes to c3] 1 2.0-0 Be6 1 3.c3 Ne7 14.Nxe7+ Qxe7 [ 1 4 . . . Bxe7 allows the m anoeuvre Nb l-a3-c2-e3] 15.Na3 Rfd8 1 6.Nc2 [If 1 6.Nxb5 then 1 6 . . . Rab8 (not 1 6 . . . Bc4 1 7.Na3 Bxfl 1 8 .Bxfl with excellent compensation in the form of play on the light squares-Tiviakov) 17.Qe2 Qb7 1 8.a4 a6 1 9.Na3 Qxb2 20.Qxa6 Qxc3 and Black has the advantage due to his Bishop pair] . After 1 6.Nc2, Anand-Tiviakov, Oakham 1 990 was agreed drawn. Play might have continued 1 6 . . . Qb7 [The immediate 1 6 . . . a5 allows 1 7 .Rel Qb7 1 8.Ne3 B xe3 1 9.Rxe3 when 19 . . . d5 is strongly answered by 20.Rd3] 1 7.Nb4 a5 1 8.Nd5 B xd5 1 9.exd5 with a completely equal position. Analysis by Tiviakov.

1 0.Bc4

B gS

l l.Nbc3

Kh8

1 1 . . . Be6!? is possible.

12.h4 ! ? 1 2.0-0 g6 i s often quoted as equal and though I am not denying it here, I would love to see this assessment proved in actual play.

1 1 ... 1 3.g4

Bh6 Bf4 ? !

V an der Wiel gives 1 3 . . . f6! as best when 14.Rg 1 Bd7 1 5.Qd3 Nd4 [or 1 5 . . . a6] leads to an unclear position.

14.Be2!

Be6

According to Van der Wiel, 1 4 . . . a6! ? 1 5 . Nxf4 [ 15 .Qd3 b5 gives Black play] 15 . . . exf4 1 6.Qd2 f3 ! 1 7.Bxf3 Ne5 leads to unclear play. ·

1S.Qd3

Rc8

Intending to answer 1 6.Nxf4 exf4 1 7.0-0-0 with 17 . . Nb4 . .

16.a3 17.Nxd5 1 8.Nxf4 19.0-0-0 20.Qd4!

BxdS Ne7 exf4 Qb6

A strong idea. The endgame is unpleasant for Black due to hi S weak pawn on d6.

Chapter

59

6

20 ... 2l.Bd3

Qb3 Qe6 !

22.Qxa7 23.Qxb7

Qxg4

24.Qb4!

Nc6

2S.Qc4

Q f6

26.QdS

NeS

Qe6 !

Short-Van der Wiel, Thessaloniki 1988. Now 27.Qd4 ! [ Stopping . . . Ng4 and intending to continue with Kbl , c3, a4, and Bb5] would have given White a great advantage. Instead White played 27.c3? and all of a sudden Black was right back in the game after 27 . . . Ng4! 28.e5 [This method of closing the h8-a 1 diagonal is an extreme reaction but 28.Rd2 Rxc3+! 29.bxc3 Qxc3+ 30.Bc2 Qxa3+! is strong for Black and 28.Rhfl ReS also gives Black plenty of play] 28 . . . dxe5 29.Rd2 Qe7 ! [Intending to play . . . f7-f5] 30.Bf5?! [Better is 30.Qf3 f5 3 1 .Bxf5 Nxf2 with complications] 30 . . . Rcd8 3 1 .Qf3 Rxd2 32.Kxd2 Nh6! 33.Bc2 f5 34.Kcl Qc7 35.Qe2 Ng4! 36.Bxf5?. Here the players agreed to a draw but Black could have taken a clear advantage with 36 . . . f3 ! [Pointed out by Kasparov] 37.Qc2 [37.Qxf3? Nh6] 37 . . . Nxf2 3 8.Qxf2 R xf5 and Black's pawns are extremely dangerous.

C o n cl us i on Nobody seems to take 6.N5c3 too seriously but surely the move deserves a better fate then that. Personally I feel that 6.Bc4, 6.N5c3, and 6.c4 are White's best positional remedies to Black's system.

D.

6.Nd2

Completely innocuous. This puts the Knight on a passive square, blocks the Q-Bishop, and allows Black to play the important . . . d�5

The Neo-Sveshnikov

60

advance.

6 ...

N f6

7.Nc3

dS

8.Bd3

B g4

9.0

Be6

10.0-0

B e7

l l.exdS

NxdS

1 2.Nxd5

B xdS

Velimirovic-Holzl, Dubai 1 986. Black has no problems at all.

C o n c l us i o n 6.Nd2 is useless. I t ' s surpnsmg that a strong and aggressive Grandmaster like Velimirovic would play it.

E.

6.a 4

White wishes to stop Black from expanding on the Queenside by . . . a7-a6 and . . . b7-b5. Though not at all bad, Black should come out of the opening with equality since 6.a4 wastes a bit of time and weakens the b4 square.

6 ...

Nf6

What is best? Black has tried: 1) 6 . . . f5? ! [This weakens the light-squares and cannot be recommended] 7.N l c3 a6 [White threatened 8.Nd5 so the b5 Knight must be told to leave] 8.Bg5 ! Qxg5 [If Black plays 8 . . . Qd7 then White might wish to avoid the complications of 9.Nd5 axb5 1 0.Nb6 Qc7 l l .Nxa8 Qa5+ 12.b4 ( 1 2.c3 b4) 1 2 . . . Qxb4+ 1 3.c3 and instead try the simple 9.Na3 with an edge-analysis by A.Ivanov] 9.Nc7+ Kd8 1 0.Nxa8 Nf6 l l .Nb6 fxe4 12.Nxc8 Kxc8 [White also gets a cle ar

Chapter 6

61

ad vantage after 1 2 . . . e 3 1 3.Nxd6 exf2+ 14.Kxf2 Ng4+ 1 5 . Ke l Qe3+ t 6. Qe2 Bxd6 1 7.Nd5, +-] 1 3.Nd5 [And not 1 3 .g3? e3 14.Bh3+ Kb8 1 5 .0-0 d5 with compensation-A.Ivanov] 13 . . . Nxd5 14.Qxd5 Nd4 t 5.Qxe4 d5 1 6.Qd3 Bc5 1 7.Qc3 Kb8 1 8.Qxc5 Rc8 1 9.Qd6+ Ka7 20.Bd3 Qxg 2 2 1 .0-0-0 Qxf2 22.Kb1 Rxc2 23.Qa3 Rc6 24.Rc 1 Rb6? [Black could put up better resistance with 24 . . . e4 25.Rxc6 Nxc6 but things would still be grim] 25.Rhfl Qe3 26.a5 Rc6 27.Rxc6 Nxc6 28.Bxh7 Qd4 29.Qc3, 1 -0, A.lvanov-Makarov, USSR 1 987. 2) 6 . . . Be7 7.Bc4 [7.N1 c3 a6 8.Na3 will go into our main lines] 7 . . Be6 [7 . . . a6 is a better idea when 8.Na3 Nf6 9.Nc3 Be6 is fine for Black and 8.N5c3 Nf6 is similar to the 6.Bc4 lines (Chapter Six, Variation A.) except White has played an early (and most likely superfluous) a4. This difference should grant Black an easy game] 8.Bxe6 fxe6 9.Qg4 [9.Qh5+! g6 10.Qh3 is a stronger idea since now Black' s dark squares are weakened and Black's upcoming . . . Ng8-f6 won't win a tempo with an attack on White 's Queen. After 9.Qh5+ I would prefer the White position] 9 . . . Kf7 1 0.0-0 Nf6 1 1 .Qf3 a6 1 2.N5c3 Nd4 1 3.Qd3 b5, Lanka-Sveshnikov, Riga (blitz) 1 987. Black has good play here but White wasted alot of time with several uneconomical Queen moves. .

7 . N l c3

Transposing into the Schlechter Variation of the Sveshnikov. However, White's other options don't seem to offer anything better: 7 .Bg5 a6 [7 . . . Be6 is also reasonable] 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.N5c3 [9.N5a3 goes into a known Sveshnikov line in which White has traded the unimportant a2-a4 for N l c3. Black would surely have a good game in this case] After 9.N5c3 Black can choose from a host of moves, 9 . . . Be6, 9 . . . Bg7 followed by . . . 0-0, 9 . . . Nb4! ?, 9 . . . f5. All untested but i t leads to complicated positions that should be alright for Black. Another satisfactory reply to 7.Bg5 is 7 . . . Qa5+!?.

62

The Neo-Sveshnikov

Now 8.Bd2 Qd8 leaves White with nothing better than 9.Bg5 with a repetition. Other replies to 7 . . . Qa5+! ? should not prove too horrifying for Black: 8.Qd2? [ 8 .c3 is most likely the best alternative when 8 . . . Nxe4 9.b4 Qb6 survives due to the threatened mate on f2] 8 . . . Nxe4 ! 9.Qxa5 Nxa5 1 0.Nc7+ Kd7 l l .Nxa8 Nxg5 and the White Knight on a8 will never get out alive. After 6 . . . Nf6 White's can also consider 7.N5c3 when 7 . . . Be7 and 7 . . . Be6 8. Bg5 Be7 are both perfectly playable. After 7 . . . Be7 Black threatens to play 8 . . . Be6 and 9 . . . d5 with complete freedom. White might now play 8.Bg5 [8.Bc4 Be6 is comfortable for Black] when 8 . . Nxe4? ! leads to some interesting complications after 9.Bxe7 [9.Nxe4? Bxg5 1 0.Nxd6+ Ke7 is very comfortable for Black] 9 . . . Nxc3 10.Bxd8 [ 1 0.Qxd6? Qxe7 is easy for Black] I O . . . Nxd l l l .Bg5 ! [ l l .Bc7?? Nxf2 ! 1 2.Kxf2 Kd7 would win a pawn for Black] 1 1 . . . Nxb2 12.Ra2 Nxa4 1 3.Rxa4 and though Black has 3 pawns for the piece, I feel that White's chances are far superior. Due to this it seems better for Black to answer 8.Bg5 with 8 . . . 0-0 [intending either . . . Be6 or even . . . Nb4 ! ?] 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 0.Nd5 Bg5 l l .N l c3 g6 with chances for both side:; [see Variation F.3 for a comparison]. Black can continue with either a quick . . . f7-f5 or he can complete his development first by . . . Be6 and . . . ReS. .

After 7 .Nlc3 Black has several possibilities: E.l. 7 . . . h6?!; E.2. 7 . . . N b4 ! ? ; E.3. 7 Be7; E.4. 7 Be6; E.S. 7 a6!. ..•

E.l.

•..

7

••.

.••

h6? !

Black hopes to forever prevent the possibility of an annoying Bcl g5xf6. However I consider this move to be dubious because, aside from the fact that . . . h7-h6 is unnecessary, it can also lead to a Sveshnikov line in which White gains a useful tempo.

Chapter

6

63

8 . B c4 A good move though several others have also been tried: 1 ) 8 .Na3?! Be6 9.Bc4 Bxc4 [ 9 . . . Rc8 !? is also fine] 1 0.Nxc4 Nxe4 t l .Nxe4 d5 [White docs not have Bg5 ] 1 2.Nxe5 Nxe5 1 3.Ng3 Bc5 14.0-0 0-0 1 5.Qh5 Re8 1 6.Bd2 Qb6 1 7.b3 Re6 1 8.Rad 1 Rc8 1 9.Nf5 d4, and Black had the initiative, Ljubojevic-Tal, Wijk aan Zee 1 976. 2) 8.Be2 [Somewhat passive]

8 . . . a6 [8 . . . Be7 9.Be3 0-0 1 0.0-0

Bc6 l l .Bf3 a6 1 2.Na3 Nb4 1 3.Qe2 Rc8 14.Rfd l Qa5 1 5.g3 Rfd8 1 6.Bd2

Qc7 1 7.Rac 1 d5 1 8.exd5 Nbxd5 1 9.Nxd5 Nxd5 20. Nb 1 f5 , =+, Lcminski-Schubert, W.German Junior ch. 1 977] 9.Na3 Be6 10.0-0 [Or I O.Be3 Rc8 1 1 .0-0 Be7 1 2.Nc4 Nd4 1 3.Bxd4 Bxc4 14.Be3 0-0 1 5.a5 Qd7 1 6.Re 1 Be6 1 7.Bf3 Rc4 1 8.Re2 Rfc8 and Black's pressure on the c-file gives him an excellent game, Duckstein-Nunn, Kapfenberg 1 976] I O . . . d5 l l .exd5 Nxd5 1 2.Nxd5 Qxd5 1 3.Be3 Qxd 1 14.Rfxd 1 Bxa3 1 5 .Rxa3 0-0 1 6.Bb6 Rfe8 1 7.Re3 Rac8 1 8.c3 Bb3 1 9.Rel f5, Black has a good position, Szabo-Nunn, Kapfenberg 1 976. 3) 8.Nd5 !

In my opinion this should give White some advantage. Compare it to the position that arises after 1 .e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5. Here White often wants to play a2-a4 anyway since this helps him in his play on the Q ueenside. However Black has no need to play . . . h7-h6 so this amounts to a gain of a useful tempo for White. In fact, . . . h7-h6 can actually interfere with one of Black's major ideas, i.e. The positioning of a Rook on h6 to aid in an attack on White 's King. After 8 . . . Nxd5 9 . exd5 Black has two choices: 3.a.) 9 . . . Nb8 [This is probably the best way for Black to play this Position but White should still walk away with a little something] l O .Be3 [ 1 0.c4 ! ? can be considered but 1 0.a5 ? ! a6 l l .Na3? fails to 1 I . . . Qxa5+ ] 10 . . . a6! ? [ 1 0 . . . Nd7 ! ? l l .Be2 ( l l .a5? ! a6 1 2.Nc3 and

64

The Neo-Sveshnikov

White has slightly misplaced his Knight) 1 1 . . . Be7 1 2.0-0 a6 1 3.Na3 Bg5 14.Nc4 Qe7 leads to an interesting position. An improvement is 1 1 .Qd2 !? (Stopping any checks on a5 and actually threatening the a7 pawn. This forces . . . a7-a6 and a subsequent weakening of the b6 square) 1 1 . . .a6 12.Na3 when White will follow with a5 and Nc4 with the more comfortable position] 1 1 .Na3 Be7 1 2.Nc4 Nd7 1 3.Be2 0-0 14.0-0 f5 1 5. f4 with a complicated position that should offer White slightly the better chances. 3.b.) 9 . . . Ne7 1 0.Be2 ! ? [The immediate 1 0 . a5 is also possible: 1 0 . . . a6 ( 1 0 . . . Nf5 ! ?) 1 1 .Nc3 Nf5 1 2.Bd3 g6 1 3.0-0 Bg7 1 4 . Bd2 (Indirectly defending the a5 pawn and intending 1 5 .Na4) 14 . . . b5 1 5 . axb6 Qxb6 1 6.Bb5+ Ke7 1 7.Bc6 Bb 7 1 8.Na4 Qc7 1 9.Bxb7 Qxb7 20.Ba5, +-, Lombardy-Aaronson, Reykjavik 1 97 8 ] 1 0 . . . B f5 ! ? [ 10 . . . Ng6, 1 0 . . . Nf5 and 1 0 . . . a6 all come into consideration] l l .Be3 a6!? 1 2.Nc3 g5? 13.a5 Nc8 14.0 -0 Bg7 1 5.Bd3 Bd7 1 6.Qh5 Kf8 1 7.f4! gxf4 1 8.Bxf4 exf4 1 9.Rxf4 Be8 20.Rafl and White has a very strong attack. I don't remember where I found this game but Black's play was quite terrible. 4) 8.Be3! ? . This is a tricky move that calls for a good deal of care on Black's part.

4.a.) 8 . . . Be7? ! 9.Nd5 ! Nxd5 [Or 9 . . . Rb8 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 1 1 .Bc4 a6 1 2.Nc3 Rg8 1 3.0-0 Qd7 14.Qh5 , +-, L.Kovacs-Gesosz, Budapest 1 97 1 ] 1 O.exd5 Nb8 1 1 .a5 [The a7 pawn is stuck since 1 1 . . . a6?? is crushed by 1 2.Bb6] 1 1 . .. 0-0 12.Nxa7 Nd7 1 3.Qd2 Bg5 14.Bxg5 hxg5 1 5.Nxc8 Rxc8 1 6.Be2 f5 1 7 .0-0 g4 1 8. a6, +-, Georgiev-Aaronson, European Junior Championship 1 977-78. 4.b.) 8 . . . Be6?! 9.Nd5 ! Bxd5 [9 . . . Rc8 1 0.Nxf6+ gxf6 1 1 .Nc3 is alsO good for White] 1 0.exd5 Ne7 1 1 .a5 Nexd5 [The passive 1 1 . . . Qb8 runs into 1 2.Nxa7! Rxa7 1 3.Bb5+ Nd7 14.Bxd7+ Kxd7 1 5.Qg4+ f5 1 6.Qa4+ b5 1 7 .Bxa7 Qxa7 1 8.Qxb5+ when Black is hopelessly lost] 1 2.Bxa7

Chapter

6

65

Qd7 1 3.c4 Nf4 [ 1 3 . . . Nc7 1 4 . Qb3 Be7 (An instant loss follows t4 . . . Nxb5? 1 5.cxb5 Rxa7?? 1 6.b6 with duel threats of 1 7.bxa7 and t7.B b5) 1 5 . Be2 0-0 16.Nxc7 Qxc7 1 7.Bb6 Qd7 1 8.0-0, +-] 14.g3 d5 t 5.Qa4 ! [ 1 5.gxf4? Bb4+ 1 6.Ke2 Nh5 or 1 6 . . . exf4 leads to unnecessary complications] 1 5 . . . Ne6 1 6.Bg2 [ 1 6.cxd5 Nxd5 1 7.Nd6+ Kd8 ! is unclear] 16 . . . Rc8 1 7.cxd5 Nc5 1 8.Bxc5 Bxc5 1 9.0-0 0-0 20.d6 Ng4 2 l .Na7! Bxf2+ 22.Rxf2 Rc1 +. 23.Bfl Qxa4 24.Rxa4 Nxf2 25.Kxf2 and White has a winning endgame, Chekhov-Panchenko, Leningrad 1 976. 4.c.) 8 . . . a6 [The best move. It's a good idea to get rid of the Knight before it causes harm] 9.Na3 Be6 [Another idea is 9 . . . Rb8! ? 1 0.Bc4 (10.Nc4 ! ? b5 1 1 .axb5 axb5 1 2.Nxb5 Rxb5 1 3.Nxd6+ Bxd6 14.Bxb5 Bb7 is unclear) 1 0 . . . Be7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.Nd5 Nxd5 1 3.exd5 Nd4 ! 14.Bd3 (14.Bxd4 exd4 1 5.Bd3 ! ? deserves consideration) 14 . . . Nf5 1 5.Bd2 Bg5 16. a5 Nh4 17.Nc4 Bxd2 1 8.Qxd2 Bh3 1 9.Be4 f5 and Black had seized the initiative, Akhmylovskaya-Van Der Miye, Rosendal 1 976. The end was 20.gxh3? fxe4 2 1 .Kh1 Nf3 22.Qe3 Qh4 23.Nd2 Rf4 24.Qa7 Qxh3! , 0- 1 ] 1 0.Nc4 Nxe4! l l .Nxe4 d 5 1 2.Nb6 [ 1 2.Nxe5 Nxe5 1 3.Ng3 Bd6 i s slightly better for Black, Zhelnin-Schneider, Moscow 1 976] 1 2 . . . dxe4! [Also deserving serious consideration is 1 2 . . . Rb8 ! ? 1 3.Nc5 d4 14.Nxe6 Qxb6 1 5.Nxf8 dxe3 1 6.Nd7 Qb4+! and Black is in the driver's seat since 1 7.Ke2 Rd8 picks up the floating Knight with great advantage] 1 3.Nxa8 Qxa8 1 4.Bb5 Be7 1 5.0-0 0-0, Black has a pawn and the initiative for the exchange. Lutikov-Gurgenidze, Thilisi 1 976 continued 1 6.Bxc6 bxc6 1 7.Qd2 f5 1 8 .Qc3 B f6 1 9.Bc5 ReS 20.Bd6 Bd5 2 1 .Qc5 f4 and White was on the defensive.

8 ...

a6

8 . . . Be6 9.Nd5 ! , +=, is uncomfortable for Black.

9.Na3

Be6

There is also nothing wrong with 9 . . . Be7 10.0-0 [Poor i s 10.f3 ? ! 0-0 1 I . Be3 Nb4 1 2.Qd2 Bd7 1 3.g4? b5 ! 14.axb5 axb5 1 5 .Bb3 Be6 1 6.Ncxb5 d5 1 7.exd5 Nfxd5 1 8.Rd 1 e4 1 9.fxe4 Nxe3 20.Qxd8 (20.Qxe3 Bh4+ is als o hopeless) 20 . . . Bxd8 2 1 .Rd4 Bxb3, 0- 1 , Nizhnik-Kavasev, leningrad 1976] 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .f3? ! [This move does not fit in well with the 6.a4 system. Better is 1 1 .Bd5 or l l .b3 ! ? followed by 1 2 . Bb2] 1 I . . . Nh5 ! ? 1 2.Be3 B g5 1 3.Qd2 Bxe3 1 4.Qxe3 Nf4 1 5 .Nd5 Nxd5 1 6.B xd5 Ne7 1 7.Rfd 1 Nxd5 1 8.Rxd5 Be6 19.Rd2 Qc7 20.Rad 1 Rad8 2 I .Nb 1 ! f5 22.Nc3 f4 23.Qf2 Rd7 24.Nd5 Bxd5 25.Rxd5 Rf6, 1{}.-1{}., Sposhru-Day, Haifa 1 976.

10.0-0

ReS

66

The Neo-Sveshnikov

Sveshnikov says that 10 . . . Nxe4 fails to l l .Bxe6 Nxc3 1 2.bxc3 !. 1 suppose the idea is that 12 . . . fxe6 1 3.Qh5+ Kd7 14.Rbl followed by Nc4 gives White a strong initiative for the pawn. Another way to try the same forking idea is 1 0 . . . Bxc4 but White retains the better chances after l l .Nxc4 Nxe4 1 2.Nxe4 d5 1 3.Nxe5, +-.

l l . Re l !

White chooses a plan of central restraint. Other ideas have also been tried: 1 ) 1 1 .Be3 Nb4 12.Bxe6! ? fxe6 1 3.f4 exf4 1 4.Rxf4 e5 1 5 .Rf2 Qd7 16.h3 d5 1 7.exd5 Nbxd5 1 8.Nxd5 Qxd5 1 9.Rd2 Qc6 20.c3 Bc5 2 1 .Nc4 0-0 gives Black the more comfonable game, Crnic-Jamieson, Wijk aan Zee 1 977. After the further 22.Qb3 Kh8 23.Re 1 Ne4 24.Rd3 Nf2 25.Rd2 Nxh3+ 26.gxf3 Qe4 27.Rde2 Rf3, Black gained a very strong attack. 2) l l .Bd5 ! ? Bxd5 [Or l l . . . Be7 when 1 2.Be3? ! 0-0 1 3.Nc4 Bxd5 14.exd5 Nd4 1 5 .Bxd4 Rxc4 gave Black good play, Lederman-Tatai, Beersheba 1 976] 1 2.Nxd5!? [After 1 2.exd5 Nb4 Black threatens the thematic 1 3 . . . Rxc3 ! followed by 14 . . . Nbxd5] 12 . . . Nxe4! ?

Chapter 6

67

Does White have enough for the pawn? The following examples int to the view that Black's chances are to be preferred: po 2.a.) 1 3.f4 Nf6 14.Nc4 [ 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.fxe5 Qg6 16.exd6 Bxd6 wins the pawn back but helps Black to get his pieces out] 14 . . . Nxd5 1 5 . Qxd5 Nb4! 1 6.Qe4 Qc7 [ 1 6 . . . Be7 is also alright since 1 7 . fxe5 is answered by 1 7 . . . d5 ] 1 7.Ne3 d5 1 8.Nxd5 Nxd5 19.Qxd5 Qc5+ 20.Qxc5 Bxc5+ 2 1 .Kh 1 e4 22.f5 e3 23.Bxe3 Bxe3 24.Rae1 0-0 25.Rxe3 Rxc2 26.Rb3 Rd8 ! 27.Rxb7 Rdd2 28.Rg 1 Rxb2 and Black had the better endgame, Semenyuk-Sveshnikov, Odessa 1 975. 2.b.) 1 3.Nc4 Nf6 [Black probably has the better chances after 1 3 . . . Ne7 ! ? or 1 3 . . . Nd4] 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 1 5.Nb6 Rb8 1 6.Nd5 Qd8 1 7.Be3? [ 1 7.Ra3 ! Be7 1 8.Rg3 Bg5 1 9.f4 exf4 20.Bxf4 gives White serious threats on the Kingside] 1 7 . . . Be7 1 8.b4 Bg5 1 9.b5 axb5 20.axb5 Ne7 2 1 .Bb6 Qd7 22.Nc7+ Kf8 23.c4 g6 24.Qd3 Kg7 25.Rfd 1 Nf5 and White's pressure gives him adequate compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Gips1is-Timoschenko, Moscow 1975.

1 1 ... 12.b3 13.Bb2 14.Qe2

Nb4 Be7 0-0 Qc7

1 S .h3 White is a little better, Radulov-Netskarzh, Vrshats 1 975. The further course of the game saw White increase that edge: 1 5 . . . Rfe8 1 6.Rad 1 Qc5 1 7 .Rd2 Kh7 1 8.Red 1 g6 [While White improves his position with each move, Black doesn't do much of anything. It's obvious that Black is playing without a plan] 1 9.Kh2 Nc6 [White threatened to go after Black's d6-pawn with 20.Bxe6 fxe6 2 1 .Nc4 and 2 2 . B a3] 20.Nd5 B xd5 2 1 . Bxd5 Nd4 22.Rxd4 exd4 23.Bxb7 Rc7 24.Bxa6 d5 25.e5 Ne4 26.Bb5 Rd8 27.Rxd4.

E.2.

7 ...

Nb4 ! ?

68

The Neo-Sveshnikov

This never gained much popularity but the idea to control the crucial

d5 square is a logical one.

8.Na3 8.Bg5 ! ? deserves serious consideration.

8 . .. 9.Bb5+

B e7 Nd7 !

9 . Bd7 would allow White to trade the light-squared Bishops. This would favor White because Black's Bishop is one of the important guardians of the d5 square. . .

1 0.Nc4

0-0 N f6

1 1 .0-0 12.Ne3

Be6

1 3.Qe2

Rc8

14.Rdl

a6

1 S.Bd3 16.Qf3

Qc7 R fe8

17.Nf5

Nxd3

18.cxd3

B d8

19.Bg5

Qd7

20.Ne3 Threatening 2 1 .Bxf6 Bxf6 22.Ned5 with advantage.

20...

Ng4 !

Initiating an excellent series of trades. Black is very happy to change off the dark-squared Bishops and the exchange of Knights also is fme since they were both fighting for d5.

21 .Bxd8

Nxe3

Chapter

22.Qxe3

69

6 Qxd8

Now the d5 square is adequately defended and White has no chance for any advantage.

23.Rd2 24.d4

dS exd4

1/2-l/2, Matanovic-Lombard, Biel 1976.

E.3.

7 ...

Be7

Another 'normal ' looking move that has rarely been seen in practice.

8.Bg5 ! The critical response. Quiet moves don't put any pressure on Black: 8.Be2 0-0 9.Be3 Be6 1 0.Nd5? [An error. After 1 0.0-0 the chances are equal] 1 0 . . . Nxe4! l l .Nxe7+ Qxe7 1 2.f3 a6 1 3.fxe5 axb5 14.axb5 Rxa l 15.Qxa l Nb4!? 1 6.Qa4 Qh4+, Grigoriev-Nyenarkov, Moscow 1 92 1 .

8 . .. 9.Bxf6 10.Na3 l l .Bd3

a6 gxf6 fS Nb4 ! ?

l l . . . fxe4!? 1 2.Bxe4 0-0 followed b y . . . f7-f5 i s also interesting according to N.Andrianov.

1 2.exf5 13.Qh5

dS Qb6

14.0-0 lS.Rfel 1 6. Q e 2

Qf6 B d7

The Neo-Sveshnikov

70

Temkin-Andrianov, Bukhara 1 98 1 . Now 1 6 . . . Bd6! leads to a very sharp struggle: 17.f4 e4 1 8.Bxe4 0-0-0 19.Bxd5 Qd4+ 20.Kh1 Nxd5 2 1 .Qc4+ Qxc4 22.Nxc4 Bb4 23.Nxd5 B xe 1 24.Rxe 1 Kb8 with an unclear endgame.

E.4.

7.

. .

Be6

Black tries to do without . . . a7-a6. However the Knight's strong presence on b5 gives White some added possibilities.

8 . B g5 Also seen is: 1) 8 .Be2 [Slow] 8 . . . a6 9.Na3 Nd4 1 0.0-0 Rc8 l l .Be3 Nxe2+ 1 2.Qxe2 Be7 1 3.Rfd l 0-0 14.Rd2 Rxc3 ! 1 5 .bxc3 Nxe4 1 6.Rd3 Qa5 1 7.f3 Nc5 1 8.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 19.Qf2 Qc7 20.Nb1 d5 2 1 .Qe 1 Bc5+ 22.Kh l Rd8 23.Rd2 f5 24.Re2 e4, White 's pawn weaknesses and Black's strong pawn center and two Bishops give Black a strong initiative, Lutikov-Yefimov, Yerevan 1 977. 2) 8.Nd5 ! ? [Very logical. White grabs space and the two Bishops] 8 . . . Bxd5 [According to Sveshnikov, Black should give 8 . . . Rc8 9.Nbc3 Be7 ! ? serious consideration. Instead of this, Mednis-Fedorowicz , New York 1 977 went 8 . . . Rc8 9.Nbc3 Qa5 ? ! and after 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 1 1 .Bd3 Rg8 1 2.0-0 Bh3 1 3.g3 Bxfl 14.Kxf1 Rg6 1 5.Nd5 Qd8 1 6.Qh5 , White had more than enough compensation for the sacrificed exchange] 9.exd5 Nb4! ? [Or 9 . . . Ne7 1 0.g3 ( 1 0.Nc3 and 1 0.c4 are logical alternatives and probably should be given precedence over 10.g3) 10 . . . g6 1 1 .Bg2 a6 12.Nc3 Bg7 1 3.0-0 0-0 14.a5 Nf5 1 5.Ne2 ReS 1 6.c3 Rc5 17.b4 Rc4 with good play for Black] 1 0.Nc3 [ 1 0.c4 seem s stronger since it cuts the b4 Knight off from the rest of the board and finn1y defends the d5 pawn] 1 0 . . . a6 l l .a5 Rc8 1 2.Ra4 [ 1 2.Bg5 ! ? ] 1 2 . . . Rxc3 1 3.bxc3 [ 1 3.Rxb4 Rc7 14.Be3 Nd7 is also fine for Black] 1 3 . . . Nbxd5 1 4.Bd2 Be7 gives Black adequate compensation for the

Chapter

6

71

e xchange : 1 5.Be2 Qd7 1 6.Qal Nc7 1 7.0-0 Ne6 1 S.Be3 0-0 1 9.c4 Ne4 zo. Ra3 N4c5 2 1 .f4 exf4 22.Bxf4 B f6 23.Qd l Nxf4 24.Rxf4 Be5 25.Rfl Ne4 26.Kh l Qe7, 1/2-l/2, Filipowicz-Lombard, Budapest 1976.

8 ...

Nb4

Other possibilities: 1 ) S . . . a6 transposes into lines from E.5.e. 2) S . . . Be7? 9.Bxf6 gxf6 1 0.Nd5 ReS 1 1 .c3 a6 1 2.Na3 f5 1 3.exf5 Bxf5 14.Nc4, Black has lots of weaknesses and nothing to show for them, Hennings-Lorentz, Leipzig 197 1 . 3 ) S . . . RcS 9.Bxf6 gxf6 1 0.Nd5 Bxd5 1 1 .exd5 Ne7 1 2 .Nc3, White has the better position.

9.Be2 A calm move. A sharper attempt i s 9.Bxf6 ! ? gxf6 10.Nd5 [ 1 0.Na3 !?] 10 . . . Nxd5 1 1 .exd5 with a complicated game, Vogt-Wirthensohn, Vrshats 1 975. Other tries have not done well for White: 1) 9.f4?! exf4 10.Bxf6 gxf6 1 l .Nd4 Qb6 threatens 12 . . . Qxd4 ! . 2 ) 9.Na3? ! B e 7 1 0.Bb5+ [ 1 0.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 1 .Nc4 d5 ! poses no problems to Black] 10 . . . Nd7 1 l .Bxe7 [White tried 1 l .Be3 on one occasion but this created a sour memory for him: 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2.Nd5 B xd5 1 3.cxd5 Nf6 14.c4 e4 1 5.a5 Nd3+ 1 6.Ke2 a6 17.Ba4 Qxa5 and Black went on to win, Matanovic-Wirthensohn, Vrshats 1 975] 1 1 . . . Qxe7 [ l l . . . Kxe7 ! ? is also adequate: 12.0-0 Nf6 1 3.Qd2 Qc7 14.Rae 1 a6 1 5.Be2 Rhe8 1 6.f4 exf4 1 7.Rxf4 Qc5+ 1 8.Kh 1 Nc6 1 9.Nc4 Ne5 20.Ne3 Ned? 2 l .Refl Kf8 22.Ned5 Bxd5 23.Nxd5 Rxe4 24.Nxf6 Nxf6 25.Rxf6!? gxf6 26.Qh6+ KeS 27.Qxf6 Rxe2 28.QhS+ Ke7 29.Qxa8 Qd5 30.QgS Q f5 3 1 .Kg1 Qc5+ 32.Kh1 Qf5 33.Kg1 Qc5+, 1/2-l/2, Silva-Wirthenson, Haifa 1 976] 1 2.Nc4 Bxc4 [ 1 2 . . . 0-0!? 1 3.Nxd6 Nxc2+ 14.Qxc2 Qxd6 is also possible] 1 3.Bxc4 ReS 14.Bb3 0-0 15.Nd5 [ 1 5.0-0 followed by a4a5 is stronger] 1 5 . . . Nxd5 1 6.Bxd5 Nb6 1 7.Bb3 KhS 1 S.Qg4 d5 ! 1 9.exd5 f5 20.Qe2 Qb4+ and Black had a strong initiative, Isegkeit Coldwell, England 1976.

9 .. .

a6!

It's time to get rid of the pesky Knight. In Radulov-Bhend, Stockholm 1976-77, 9 . . . Be7? ! took a drubbing after 1 0.Bxf6 gxf6 l l .Nd5 Nxd5 12.exd5 Bd7 1 3.0-0 f5 14.f4 a6 1 5.Na3 e4 1 6.Kh1 RgS

72

The Neo-Sveshnikov

17.Nc4 Rg6 1 8.a5 ReS 1 9.Ra3 Rh6 20.Rg3 Kf8 2 1 . Qd2 Rc7 22.Nb6 Be8 23.c4 Bf6 24.b4 Bg7 25.Rd l Re7 26.c5! and White 's attack on the Queenside proved decisive.

1 0. N a 3 1 0.Bxf6 gxf6 l l .Na3 is better according to Sveshnikov. However, Sveshnikov himself points out that Black can then play l l . . .d5 ! ? , and this seems to me to be quite comfortable for the second player.

1 0 ... 1 1 .0-0

ReS

12.Bxf6

Bxf6

1 3.Bg4

0-0

14.Bxe6

fx e6

1 5.Ne2

dS

Be7

=

Ciric-Wirthensohn, Switzerland 1 977. The rather boring finish was 1 6.c3 Nc6 1 7.Qb3 Qd7 1 8.Rad l Rfd8 1 9.Rd3 Na5 20.Qb4 Nc6 2 1 .Qb3 Na5 22.Qb4, tn.-tn..

E.S.

7

a6!

•.•

This logical move gets rid of the annoying Knight on b5 and allows Black to develop without fear of surprises. After the forced 8.Na3, Black has the following choices: E.S.a . 8 . d 5 ; E.S.b. 8 . . . Bg4; E.S.c. 8 Be6; E.S.d. 8 ... Be7. .

.

E.S.a.

.•.

8 ...

dS! ?/? !

Very forcing. Theory looks upon this move with disfavor but nobody has managed to demonstrate a clear refutation.

9.exd5 9.Bg5 is hannless: 9 . . . d4 1 0.Nd5 Be6 l l .Bc4 Bxd5 1 2.exd5 Bb4+

Chapter

73

6

1 3.Kf1 Na5 14.Qe2 Qd6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 1 6.Bb5+ Kf8 1 7.Bd3 g6 1 8.Nc4 Nxc4 19.Bxc4 Rc8, = , Letelier-Rossetto, Mar del Plata 1 958.

9 ...

Nd4

1 0. B e 3 I t may be preferable

to

play 10.Bc4 Bf5 1 1 .0-0.

1 0 ...

Bb4

On 1 0 . . . Nxd5?! White should avoid the greedy 1 1 .Nxd5 Qxd5 1 2.c3 Bc5 when White will win a piece but B lack will get some compensation for it. Much safer is 1 1 .Bxd4 exd4 1 2.Qxd4 when White is a clear pawn up with nothing much to worry about. If 1 0 . . . Bc5!? White should develop as quickly as possible by 1 l .Bc4 Bf5 1 2.0-0 when 1 2 . . . Bxa3 is possible but the complications should favor White. A completely mistaken answer to 1 0 . . . Bc5 is l l .h3? since Black can sacrifice a piece by l l . . . Nxd5 1 2.Nxd5 Qxd5 1 3.c3 0-0! with a strong attack, Filipowicz-Baudi, Lublin 1 976. The conclusion of this game was 14.b4 Ba7 1 5.cxd4 exd4 1 6.Be2 Qe4! 1 7.Bf3 Qe7 1 8.0-0 dxe3 1 9 . fxe3 Qxe3+ 20.Kh l Bb8 2 1 .Qe2 Qh6 22.Racl Bxh3 ! 23.gxh3 Qxh3+ 24.Kg l Ba7+ 25.Rc5 Rac8 26.Qf2 Rxc5 ! 27.bxc5 Qf5 28.Kg2 Bxc5 29.Qh4 Qg6+ 30.Kh l Qd3 ! 3 1 .Kg2 Qxa3 32.Be4 g6 33.Bd5 Qb2+ 34.Khl Kg7, 0- 1 .

l l .Bxd4

exd4

1 2.Qxd4 1 3.Be2

Qe7+ 0-0

Does Black have enough for his sacrificed pawns? I n Kovac Skrobak, Decin 1 978, Black managed to generate enough counterplay to draw after 1 4.Nc4 Bg4 1 5 . Ne3 Bxe2 1 6.Kxe2 Rfe8 1 7.Rhd l Qd6 l 8 . K ft Bxc3 1 9.bxc3 Re4 20.Qd3 Qxh2 2 1 .d6 Rae8 22.d7 Nxd7 2 3 .Qxd7 Qh l + 24.Ke2 Rxe3+ 25.fxe3 Qxg2+ 26.Kd3 Qe4+ 27.Ke2

74

The Neo-Sveshnikov

Qg2+ with a perpetual check.

E.S.b.

8 ...

Bg4 ! ?

A personal favorite ! The idea is to force f2-f3 when play is similar to lines with 8 . . . Be6 except that White has weakened the a7-gl diagonal.

9 .f3 The natural 9.Be2 gives Black easy equality: 9 . . . Bxe2 1 0.Qxe2 d5 [ 1 0 . . . Nd4 ! ? may be more precise : l l .Qd3 d5 1 2.exd5 ( 1 2.Bg5! ?) 1 2 . . . Nxd5 1 3.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.0-0 0-0-0 1 5 . Nc4 and now 1 5 . . . Bc5 or 15 . . . Kb8 both give Black a good game. Analysis by Arkhipov] 1 1 .exd5 [ 1 1 .Bg5 !?] l l . . .Nxd5 1 2.Nc4 Nxc3 1 3.bxc3 Qd5 1 4.0-0 Bc5 1 5.Rd l Qe6 1 6.Be3 Be7 1 7.Rabl Rb8 1 8.Nb6 Rd8 1 9.c4 Rxd l + 20.Qxd 1 ().{), l/2-1/2, Dvoiris-Arkhipov, Tashkent 1 978.

9 ... 1 0.Bc4 ? !

Be6

1 0.Bg5 !? i s worth investigation but 1 0.Nc4 should not cause Black any anxiety: 10 . . . Rc8 1 1 .Be3 Nd4 12.Bxd4 Bxc4 1 3.Bxc4 Rxc4 14.Be3 d5!? [This pawn sacrifice seems to lead to a forced draw. If Black wishes to play for a win he must try 14 . . . Be7 1 5.0-0 0-0 followed by doubling or tripling up on the c-file with pressure. IM Jack Peters was of the opinion that Black would have an excellent game after 14 . . . Be7] 1 5 .Nxd5 Nxd5 1 6.exd5 Qc7 ! [The immediate 1 6 . . . Bc5 is well answered by 1 7.Qd3] 1 7.c3 Bc5 1 8.Qe2 Bxe3 1 9.Qxe3 0-0 20.0-0 Rd8 [Black will now surround White's extra pawn on d5] 2 1 .Rad 1 ! Qc5 ! [Not falling for 2 1 . . . Rxa4?? 22.d6! Rxd6 23.Qxe5 Qb6+ 24.Khl Rd8 25. Qe7 Rf8 26.Rd7 Qf2 27.Re l and threats such as 28.Qxf8+ ! , 28.Rd8 , and 28.Rxb7 leave Black helpless] 22.Rfe 1 f6 23.Qxc5 [No better i s 23.b4? Qxe3 24.Rxe3 aS ! when White's pawns will fall] 23 . . . RxcS 24.d6 Kn 25.Rd3 Ke6, 1(2-1(2, Pcters-Silman, Los Angeles 1 990.

75

Chapter 6

1 0 ...

ReS

Black can also prevent White from castling with 10 . . . Qb6 ! ? . One ex ample: l l .Nd5 [White gets nowhere after l l .Bxe6 fxe6 1 2.Nc4 Qb4 t 3.Ne3 0-0-0] l l . . . Bxd5 1 2.Bxd5 Nxd5 1 3.Qxd5 Qb4+ 14.Kf2 Qxa4 J 5.Rd l Qa5 1 6.Qxa5 Nxa5 17.Nb5 axb5 1 8.b4 d5 1 9.bxa5 Bc5+ 20.Be3 d4 2 1 .Bd2 Kd7 22.Ke2 Kc6 23.Rab l b6 24.axb6 Ra2 and Black went on to win the game, Lazarichev-Arkhipov, Moscow 1 977.

1 1 .Be3? ! Both 1 1 .Bg5 and 1 1 .0-0 make more sense.

1 1 ...

Nb4!

All of a sudden Black is about to completely free himself with 7 . . . d5

1 2.Bxe6

fxe6

13.Qe2

Be7

14.0-0

0-0

1S.f4

exf4

16.Rxf4

eS

17.Rf3

dS

1 8.exd5

NbxdS

1 9.Nxd5

QxdS

B lack has excellent play, Reinhardt-Pelikan, Argentine Championship 1 955. The continuation was 20.Bf2 e4 2 1 .Rh3 Rfd8 22.Bb6 Rd6 23.a5 Rdc6 24.c4 Qe5 25.Rc3 Bb4 26.Rb3 Bd6 27.g3 Bxa3 28.Raxa3 Rxc4 29.Bf2 Rc2 and Black won.

E.S.c.

8 .. .

Be6

Along with 8 . . . Be7, this is Black's most commonly played move. In thi s case, Black intends to quickly develop his Queenside.

76

The Neo-Sveshnikov

9 . B g5 The alternatives are also important: 1 ) 9. Be2? ! [Passive] 9 . . . d5 1 0.exd5 Nxd5 l l .Nxd5 B xds [ l l . . . Qxd5 ! ? ] 12.0-0 Bc5 1 3.Nc4 0-0 14.Be3 Bxe3 1 5 .Nxe3 B e 6 1 6.QxdS RaxdS 1 7.Bf3 f5 1 S.Bxc6 bxc6 1 9.Rfe l Rd7, =, Vataka Lombard, Kapfenberg 1 976. 2) 9.Be3 ReS [9 . . . Be7, 9 . . . RbS !?, and 9 . . . d5 ! ? are all possible] 10.Nc4 Nd4 l l .Bxd4 Bxc4 1 2.Bxc4 Rxc4 1 3.Be3 QcS [ 1 3 . . . Qc7 !?] 14.Qd3 h6 with a comfortable game for Black. 3) 9.Nc4 ReS [9 . . . Be7 ! ? ] 1 0.Bd3? ! Nb4 1 1 .Ne3 Be7 1 2 .0-0 0-0 1 3.Re1 Qc7 14.Be2 Qc5 15.Bf3 g6 1 6.Ra3 Rfd8 17.Ned5 Nfxd5 1 8.exd5 Bf5 1 9.Be4 Bxe4 20.Rxe4 f5 2 1 .Re2 B f6, =+, Gufeld-Filipenko, Ordzhonikidze 1 978. 4) 9.Bc4 Rc8 [Black can trap himself with 9 . . . Bxc4? 10.Nxc4 Nxe4 l l .Nxe4 d5 1 2.Bg5 ! f6 1 3.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Qxd5 ! Nd4 1 5.0-0-0 and White win�. Galia-Grunfeld, Vienna 1 946 and Gaprindashvili-Polihroniade, Medelin 1 974. Who says lightning doesn't strike twice? A legitimate thought is 9 . . . Nb4 though White might achieve a small edge with 10.b3 Be7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.Bb2 due to his enduring control of d5] 1 0.0-0 [ I O.Bg5 Nb4 ! ? (Inferior is 10 . . . Nd4? ! l l .Nd5 ! Bxd5 1 2.Bxd5 Qa5+ 1 3.Bd2, +-. Playable but somewhat passive is 1 0 . . . Be7 since it gives White too free a hand after 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3 .Nd5 Bg5 1 4.c3 KhS 1 5.Qd3 f5 1 6.Ne3, +=, Wolff-Tisdall, London 1 990) l l .b3 Be7 1 2.Bxf6 B xf6 1 3.0-0 0-0 14.Nd5 Nc6 (Also possible is 14 . . . Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Qe7 1 6.c4 Qd7 1 7.Qd2 Bd8 1 8.Bxe6? fxe6 1 9.Rfd l Bb6! with the initiative for Black, Price-Speelman, Israel 1 977) 1 5. Qd3 Bg5 16.Rad l Kh8 1 7.c3 f5 1 8 .Ne3 fxe4 1 9.Qxd6 Bxe3 ! 20.Qxd 8 ! RcxdS 2 1 .Rxd8 RxdS 22.fxe3, Filipowicz-Nichevsky Polanica Zdroj 1 974. Now Black must avoid 22 . . . Bxc4? 23.Nxc4 Kg8 because of 24.a5 and instead play 22 . . . BgS 23.BxgS Kxg8 with an excellent endgame for Black] 1 0 . . . Nb4 ! ? [ 10 . . . Bxc4?! l l .Nxc4 Nd4 1 2.Qd3 Nxc2 1 3.Qxc2 Rxc4 14.Bg5 Be7 15.Qb3 Qc8 1 6.Rac l gives White strong pressure for the pawn. After 1 6 . . . Rc6 1 7.Rcdl 0-0 1 8.Rd3 h6 1 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Rfd l Rfd8 2 1 .Rf3 ReS 22.h3 Re6 23.Nd5 Bd8 24.Qb4 ! Rg6 25.Kh2 Rc2 26.Rd2 Rxd2 27.Qxd2 Qc4 28.Qb4 Qxb4 29.Nxb4 d5 30.Nxd5 R c6 3 1 .Rb3 b6 32.Rd3 White had a clear advantage in the endgame and went on to win, Radulov-F.Portisch, Belgrade 1 977] l l .B xe6 [ l l .b3 can be met by l l . . . Be7, l l . . . b5 ! ?, or l l . . . d5 ! ? ] l l . . . fxe6 1 2.f4 Be7 [ 1 2 . . . exf4!?] 1 3.Qe2 Qc7 14.Be3, =, Drimer-Gorensen, Denmark 1 967 .

Chapter

9 ...

6

77

ReS

It's not clear what Black's best course is. The alternatives deserve close examination: 1 ) 9 . . . Be7 10.Nc4 0-0 1 1 .Bxf6 Bxf6 1 2.Qxd6 [ 1 2.Nxd6 Qb6! doesn't seem like a good idea for White since 1 3 . Qc 1 is answered by 13 . . . Bg5 ! . Also dubious is 1 2.Bd3?! Ne7 1 3.Ne3 Bg5 1 4.Qe2 Bxe3 1 5.Qxe3 f5 1 6.f3 fxe4 1 7.fxe4 Nc6 1 8.Rfl Qh4+ 1 9. Qg3 Qh6, -+, Goudi-Ochoa, Haifa 1 976] 12 . . . Qe8 1 3.Qd2 Rd8 14.Nd5 Bxd5 1 5 .exd5 Nd4 1 6.Ne3 Bg5 1 7.h4 Bh6 1 8.Bc4 Qe7 1 9.c3 Qc5 20.Qd3 B xe3 2 1 .fxe3 Nf5 22.Qxf5 Qxc4 23.e4 g6 24.Qf3 f5 25.Qe2 Qc5 26.0-0-0 b5 27.exf5 Rxf5 28.g4 Qf2 29.Rh2 Qf4+ 30.Kbt Rn 3 1 .axb5 axb5 32.h5 g5, Unclear, Hedman-Menville, Cienfuegos 1 977. White's a pawn ahead, but White's weakened King combined with Black's pressure on g4 and down the f-file give the second player adequate compensation. 2) 9 . . . Nb4 ! ? 1 0.Nc4 [Or 1 0.Bxf6 gxf6 1 1 .Bc4 ReS 1 2.Nd5 f5 ! 1 3.0-0 Rg8 1 4.exf5 Qg5 15.Qf3 e4 1 6.Qxe4 Rxc4 1 7.Nxc4 Qxg2+ 1 8.Qxg2 Rxg2+ 1 9.Kxg2 Bxd5+ 20.Kg3 Bxc4 wth good prospects for Black, Ivanov-Khasanov, Minsk 1 985] 10 . . . Rc8 1 1 .Ne3 Be7 1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3 .Be2 0-0 14.0-0 Bg5 1 5 .Ned5 Bxd5 1 6.exd5 Qa5 1 7.Ne4 Be7 1 8.c4 f5 1 9.Nd2 Qc7 20.a5 [White keeps trying to trap the Knight but it always seems to get away] 20 . . . b6 2 1 .Nb3 Rb8 22.Qd2 bxa5 23.Nxa5 Rb6 24.Ra4 Rfb8 25.g3 g6 with good play for Black, Fichtl-Novak, Rinavska Sobota 1 977. 3) 9 . . . Qb6 ! ? is a recommendation of English players. If 1 0.Rb 1 [ 10.Bxf6? ! Qxb2 or 1 0.b3 Qb4 are both bad for White] 1 0 . . . Qb4 ! ? [ 10 . . . d5 !?] 1 1 .Bxf6 [ l l .Bd3 d5] 1 1 . . . gxf6. Some practical tests would shed a lot of light on this line.

1 0. B xf6 Three other choices:

78

The Neo-Sveshnikov

1 ) 1 0.Be2 Bc7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3.Nc4 Nd4 14.Ne3 Bg5, =+, Pioch-Grachats, Hastings 1977-78. 2) 1 0.Bd3 Be7 l l .Bxf6 Bxf6 12.0-0 0-0 1 3.Nc4 Bg5 1 4.Nd5 BxdS 15 .cxd5 Ne7 1 6.Qg4 Bh6 1 7.Ne3 g6 1 8.Qh3 Bxe3 1 9.fxe3 Nxd5, =+, Prizant-Povah, London 1 976. 3) 1 0.Nc4 Nd4 [ 1 0 . . . Nb4 ! is also easy for Black: 1 1 .Ne3 Be7 1 2.Be2 0-0 1 3.0-0 h6 1 4. Bxf6 Bxf6 1 5 .Ncd5 , l /2- 1/2, Geller Sveshnikov, Yerevan 1982] l l .Bxf6 [ l l .Nc3 Be7 1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3.Bd3 Bg5 14.Ned5 0-0 followed by . . . g7-g6 and . . . f7-f5 gives mutual chances. If 1 1 .Nd5 Be7 1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3.c3 Bxd5 14.exd5 Nf5 15 .Qb3 Black gets excellent play with 15 . . . Rc7] 1 1 . . .gxf6 [ 1 1 . . . Qxf6 is also possible] 1 2.Ne3 f5 [ 1 2 . . . Bh6!?] 1 3.cxf5 Nxf5 14.Nxf5 Bxf5 15 .Bd3 Bc6 1 6.Be4 Rxc3 1 7.bxc3 d5 1 8.Bf3 e4 19.Bg4 Bg7 20.0-0, Enncnkov Antonov, Albena 1 977, now 20 . . . f5 ! 2 1 .Bh5+ Kd7 gives Black lots of play for the sacrificed exchange.

10 ...

Qxf6

Even more imbalanced positions can be reached by 1 0 . . . gxf6 ! ? . After 1 l .Bc4 Nb4 1 2.Nd5 f5, both sides would have chances.

l l . B c4 It seems to me that 1 1 .Nc4 offers White some chances of gaining a small edge:

1 1 . . .Nd4 [ 1 1 . . .Nb4 ! ? 1 2.Ne3 Qg6 1 3 .Be2 Be7 1 4.0-0 0-0 1 5 .Bf3 Nc6 1 6.Ncd5 Bg5 1 7.c3 Bxe3 1 8.Nxe3 RedS 19.Qe2 Ne7 20.Rfd l Rd7 2 1 .Nc4 Qf6 22.Nb6 Rdd8 23.Rd2 Ng6 24.g3 Qe7 25.Rad 1 Bb3, +=/= , 1 /2- l/2, Semenyuk-Timoshchenko, Novosibirsk 1 976] 1 2.Ne3 d5 [Black tries to break out! A calmer approach is 1 2 . . . g6! ? intending . . . B f8-h6 and . . . 0-0. Another natural move is 1 2 . . . Qg6 though White's position is easier to play: 1 3.Bd3 Be7 14.0-0 0-0 1 5.Ncd5 Bg5

Chapter 6

79

I 6.c3 Nc6 1 7.Nf5 Bxf5 1 8.exf5 Qh6 1 9.Be4 Kh8 20.Qd3 Na5 2 1 .Nb6 Rc7 22.Bd5 g6 23.b4 Nc6 24.Bxc6 Rxc6 25.Nd5, +=, Durr-Chandler, World Junior Championship 1 977] 1 3.exd5 Bb4 14.Bd3 [Plain bad is I4.dxe6? Rxc3 ! . Black gets active play after 14.Bc4 Bf5 1 5 .0-0 Bg6 I 6.Ng4 Qf4 1 7.Ne3 Bxc3 1 8.bxc3 Nxc2! 1 9.Nxc2 Bxc2 20.Qxc2 Qxc4, Savon-Tseshkovsky, Sochi 1975] 14 . . . Rxc3 ! ? 15.bxc3 Bxc3+ 1 6.Kfl Bd7 1 7.Rb1 0-0 1 8.Rxb7 Bxa4 19.g3 e4 20.Bxe4 ReS 2 1 .Qd3 ! g6 22.Kg2, Velikov-Syenkov, Sofia 1 976. Black has not managed to prove that his sacrifice [beginning with 12 . . . d5?! ] was sound.

1 1 ...

N d4

l l . . . Nb4 1 2.Nd5 Qg6 1 3.0-0 Qxe4 14 .Re l Qh4 1 5.g3 Qd8 1 6.Nxb4 B xc4 1 7.Nxc4 Rxc4 1 8.c3 and White 's iron control of d5 [which will become the home of a monster Knight] compensates for the lost pawn.

l l .Qd3 1 2.Bd5 Qg6 1 3.Qd3 Bxd5 14.Nxd5 Qxg2 1 5.0-0-0 Qxf2 1 6.Rdfl Qe2 and White does not have enough compensation for the sacrificed material , Kaizon-Pope, Haifa 1976.

1 2 ...

dS!

Greedy play by 12 . . . Bxc4 1 3.Nxc4 Nxc2+ 14.Qxc2 Rxc4 15.0-0 d5 1 6.Qe2 leaves White with a strong Knight vs. an inferior Bishop.

13.Bxd5

Bxa3

14.Rxa3

BxdS

Playing to get his wood back. However, 1 4 . . . b5 ! ? is very interesting si nce after 1 5.axb5 axb5 it is not easy for White to find a good plan: 1 6.0-0 [ 1 6.Ra6 b4 1 7.Bxe6 fxe6 1 8.Nd5 Qg5 ! 1 9.Ne3 0-0 with good play] 1 6 . . . b4 1 7 .Ra8 Rxa8! 1 8.Bxa8 bxc3 19.bxc3 0-0 20.Ra1 Nf5 2 I .exf5 Bxf5, =+.

15.Nxd5

Nxc2+

80

The Neo-Sveshnikov

1 5 . . . Qg5?! 1 6.0-0 Rxc2 1 7 .Rc3 ! Rxc3 1 8.bxc3 Ne6 1 9.Qb1 0-() 20.Qxb7 a5 2 1 .Qb5 is winning for White, Ivanov-Mayarov, Pyamu 1982.

1 6.Kdl 1 6.Kf1 ? Qg5 threatens a nasty check on c 1 .

1 6 ...

Qe6 ! ?

Now 1 6 . . . Qg5? i s bad: 1 7.Rc3 Rxc3 1 8 . Qxc3 Nd4 1 9 . Qc8+ Qd8 20.Nc7+ Ke7 2 1 .Qxb7, +-. Worth consideration is 1 6 . . . Qd8 1 7.Rc3 Nd4 1 8.Qg3 Ne6 1 9.Qxe5 Rxc3 20.Qxc3 0-0 2 1 . Kc2 and White has won a pawn but the unfortunate placement of his King makes things unclear.

N d4

17.Rc3 1 8.Nc7 +

Rxc7

19.Rxc7

0-0

r lack h as an attack for the sacrificed exchange but tests are needed to detennine how dangerous this attack is. E.S.d.

8 ...

Be7

A different approach to 8 . . . Be6. Black gives himself the option of getting his King to safety before any counterattacking ideas are tried. Another point of 8 . . . Be7 is that 9.Bg5 has been rendered impotent. This is explained in the next note.

9 . B c4 Alternatives: 1) 9.Bg5? ! [This looks natural enough but it has a flaw] 9 . . . Nxe4! [Solving Black 's problems in one stroke] 10.Nxe4 [ I O.Bxe7 Nxc3 1 1 .Bxd8 Nxd l is equal] 10 . . . Bxg5 l l .Nxd6+ Ke7 1 2.Nac4 Be6 1 3.Bd3

Chapter 6

81

[ On 1 3.Qh5 Black can equalize right away with the surpnsmg 1 3 . . . Bd2+! ( 1 3 . . . h6 ! ? is a winning attempt) 14.Kxd2 Bxc4, = . ] 1 3 . . . Qc7 14.0-0 RadS 1 5.Ne4 Bxc4 1 6.Nxg5 Bxd3 1 7.cxd3 h6 1 S .Ne4 RheS 1 9.Qb3 Kf8 [=+] 20.Rac l KgS 2 1 .Kh 1 Re7 22.Qa3 Rd5 23.Rfd 1 a5 24.h3 QdS 25.Rc3 Nb4 26.Qb3 Rc7 27.Rxc7 Qxc7 2S.f3 Qd7 29.Nf2 Rc5 and Black is winning easily, Wolski-Silman, Oxnard 1 990. 2) 9.Nc4 Nxe4 ! ? [Another trick that makes Black's life easy] 10.Nxe4 d5 and now White has: 2.a.) 1 1 .Nxe5 Nxe5 ( l l . . . dxe4 ! ? 1 2.QxdS+ NxdS 1 3.Bc4 Be6) 1 2.Ng3 is best according to Sveshnikov, but I don't see why Black has any problems in this position. His active pieces should offset the potential weakness of his isolated d-pawn. 2.b.) 1 1 .Ng3 dxc4 1 2.QxdS+ BxdS 1 3.Bxc4 Nd4 14.Kd 1 Be6 15.Bxe6 Nxe6 1 6.c3 g6 1 7.Re 1 Bc7 [=+] 1 S.Kc2 f5 1 9.f3 Kn 20.Nfl RadS 2 1 .Be3 h5 22.Rad 1 g5 23.Bg1 Nf4 24.Ne3 Ke6 25.h3 h4 26.b4 Rxd 1 27.Rxd 1 ReS 2S.Bh2 Bb6 29.Bxf4 gxf4 30.Nd5 Be3 3 1 .Nxe3 fxe3 32 .Re 1 f4 33.a5 e4 34. fxe4 RgS 35.Re2 Ke5 36.c4 Kxe4, 0- 1 , Formanek-Benjamin, World Open, Philadelphia 1 990. 2.c.) 1 1 .Nc3 dxc4 1 2.QxdS+ BxdS 1 3 .Bxc4 Nb4 14.Bd3 Nxd3+ [=+] 15.cxd3 Bf5 1 6.Ne4 Be7 1 7.Bd2 0-0 1 S.Bc3 f6 1 9. Ke2 RfdS 20.Rhd 1 RacS 2 1 .a5 Bd7 22.f3 Bb5 23.g4, tn.-In., Kamshilaitye-Fatalibekova, USSR 1 975. 3) 9.Be3 Be6 [Inferior is 9 . . . RbS ? ! 1 0.Nc4 b5 (Even worse is I O . . . Nxe4? l l .Nxe4 d5 1 2.Bb6 Qd7 1 3.Nc5 Bxc5 14.Bxc5 dxc4 1 5.Bxc4) l l .axb5 axb5 1 2.Nd2 b4 1 3.Nd5 0-0 14.Bc4 Be6 1 5.0-0 Bxd5 1 6.Bxd5 Nxd5 1 7.exd5 Nd4 1 S.Bxd4 exd4 1 9 . Nb3, +=, Ivanov Andrianov, Vilnius 1 9S3] 1 0.Nc4 [Or 1 0.Be2 ReS 1 1 .0 -0 Nb4 1 2.Bf3 0-0 1 3.Qe2 d5 14.exd5 Nbxd5 1 5.Nxd5 Bxd5 1 6.Bxd5 Qxd5 1 7.c4 Qe6 1 S.b3 Ne4 1 9.Nc2 b5, -+, Bebchuk-Goryelov, Moscow 1 97 1 ] 1 0. . . Nxe4 ! [This typical trick crops up again. A 'normal' plan like 10 . . . 0-0 l l .Nb6 RbS 1 2.Be2 is a little better for White but 1 1 .f3? ! is just bad: l l . . .b5 12.Nb6 RbS 1 3.Nbd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 Nd4 15.axb5 axb5 1 6.Bxd4 exd4 1 7.Qxd4 b4 l S .Nd l Nd7 19.Bd3 Bf6 20.Qa7 ReS+ 2 1 .Kf2 Nc5 22.Kfl Rb7 23.Qa5 Qe7 24.Kf2 Bh4+ 25.g3 Nxd3+ 26.cxd3 Qe2+ 27.Kg l BdS, 0- 1 , Kovac-Adorjan, Hungary 1 97S] l l .Nxe4 d5 1 2.Nb6 dxe4 [According to Andrianov, 1 2 . . . RbS 1 3.Nc5 d4 1 4.Nxe6 fxe6 1 5.Nc4 dxe3 1 6.QxdS+ RxdS 17.Nxe3 leads to a favorable endgame for White] 1 3.NxaS QxaS 14.c3 0-0 1 5.a5 f5 1 6.Qa4 KhS 1 7.Bc4 Bd7,

82

The Neo-Sveshnikov

[Black has sufficient compensation for the small m aterial investment] 1 S.Qb3 [ 1 S.Qd 1 QeS 19.Bb6 f4 20.Qd5 Bf5 2 l .Bc5 QcS 22 . B xe7 Nxe7 2 3 . Qd6 Qxc4 24. Qxe7 Kg S , =, Zakharov Timoshchenko, Ordzhonikidze 1 97S] 1S . . . f4 1 9.Bb6 QeS 20.0-0-0 Bg4 2 l .Rde 1 Qg6 22.Rhg1 e3 ! 23.f3? [He had to play 23.fxe3 fxe3 24.Bxe3! Nxa5 25.Qa2 Nxc4 26.Qxc4 ReS or 26 . . . Be6 with a complicated game-Andrianov] 23 . . . Bf5 24.g4?! Bd3 25.Bxd3 Qxd3 26.Rd 1 Qg6! 27.Qd5 e4, -+, Ivanov-Andrianov, Vilns 1 9S4.

9 .. . 1 0.0-0

Be6

White alternatives are not very threatening: 1 ) 1 0.Bg5 0-0 1 l .Bxf6 Bxf6 1 2.Bd5 Qb6 1 3.0-0 Nb4 14.Nc4 Qc5 15.Ne3 Bg5, Plisetsky-Kolbanov, Moscow 1 975, gives White nothing since 1 6.Bxe6 fxe6 1 7.Qg4? runs into 1 7 . . . Bxe3 1 S.Qxe6+ KhS 1 9.fxe3 Nxc2. 2) 1 0.Be3 0-0 1 l .f3?! Nb4 1 2.Bd5 Nbxd5 1 3.exd5 Bf5 14.Nc4 Nd7 15.a5 Bg6 1 6.0-0 f5 1 7.Ra4 Qc7 1 S .Rb4 RaeS 1 9.Na4 BdS gives Black very good play, Filipowicz-Peterson, Poland vs. Latvia.

1 0 ... 1 1 .Bg5

ReS

Others: 1) 1 l .Re 1 0-0 1 2.b3 Nd4 1 3.Nd5? ! [ 1 3.Bb2 is correct with a complicated game] 1 3 . . . Nxd5 14.exd5 Bf5 1 5.c3 b5 1 6.cxd4 bxc4 1 7 .Nxc4 exd4 and Black had the initiative, Gipslis-Gurgenidze , Goglidze Memorial 1977. 2) 1 l .Be3 0-0 1 2.Qe2 Nb4 ! 1 3 .Rfd 1 ? ! Bxc4 14.Nxc4 Nxc2 15.Qxc2 Rxc4 1 6.Qb3 Qc7 1 7.Bg5 Qc6 1 S.Rd3 ReS 1 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 and White did not manage to prove his sacrifice correct, Rytov-Klaman, Sebastopol

Chapter 6

83

1973. 3) 1 1 .Kh 1 Nd4 1 2.Bd5 Nxd5 1 3.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 Nf5 15.f4 g6 t 6.Qe 1 f6 1 7.Qb4 Qc7 1 8.c4 h5! 1 9.b3 h4 20.Nc2 b5 ! ? with mutual chances, Frank-Gamer, Canada 1 976.

1 1 ...

0-0

12.Bxf6

Bxf6 B gS

1 3.Nd5

Or 1 3 . . . Bxd5 14.Bxd5 Qc7 1 5 .c3 Ne7 1 6.Nc2, +=, de Grieff-Sanz, Cienfuegos 1 977.

14.c3

Ne7

Unnecessary i s 1 4 . . . Kh8?! 1 5.Qe2 Ne7 1 6.Nxe7 Qxe7 1 7.Rad 1 Rfd8 1 8.Bxe6 fxe6 1 9.c4, +=, Hennings-Pavlov, Bucharest 1 97 1 .

1S.Qb3

BxdS

1 6.Bxd5 1 7.Qxd5

NxdS

18.Rfdl 1 9.Nc2

Rfd8

Qc7 g6

Balinas-Ciocaltea, Nice 1 974. Black is solid, but the backward d pawn and the weakened d5 square mean that he will have to defend a cheerless position for a long time.

C o n cl usi on Lines with 6.a4 are no threat to Black's opening. Best play seems to be 6 . . . Nf6 7.Nt c3 a6 8.Na3 when 8 . . . Bg4 ! ? is very interesting and 8 . . . Be6 also seems to offer Black active play. Also adequate is 8 . . . Be7, though if White sidesteps the various positional traps Black may end up with a solid but somewhat passive position.

F.

6.g3

84

The Neo-Sveshnikov

This is unlikely to instill fear into Black ' s hean. However, as unassuming as it looks, it does contain enough poison to sting unwary players.

6 ...

Be7

Most natural. Some alternatives: 1) 6 . . . h5 ! ?n ! [A fun looking move but perhaps it should not be taken too seriously] 7.N l c3 a6 8.Na3 h4 9.Bg2 h3 [Perhaps 9 . . . b5 10.Nd5 Nge7! ? or 10 . . . Be? ! ?] l O.Bfl b5 l l .Nd5 Nee? 12.Bg5 f6 1 3.Be3 Nxd5 14.Qxd5 and the many weaknesses in Black's camp gives White a clear advantage, Nunn-Shon, Wijk aan Zee 1 990. 2) 6 . . . a6 7.N5c3 Nge7! ? 8.Bg2 Be6 is untried. 3) 6 . . . g6 ! ? 7.Bg2 a6 8.N5c3 Nge7 9.Bg5 Bg7 1 0.Nd5 h6 l l .Bxe7 [ l l .Bf6 0-0 and l l .Nf6?+ Kf8 are not threatening to Black] l l . . . Nxe7 1 2.Nl c3 Be6 1 3.0-0 0-0. Black will capture everything on d5 via . . . Nxd5 and . . . Bxd5 with equality. Analysis by the author.

7.Bg2

a6

8.N5c3

Be6

9.0-0

hS? !

Too frisky. The simple 9 . . . Nf6 1 0.Bg5 0-0 leaves White with just a tiny edge.

l O.NdS l l.Nbc3 1 2.Nxd5 1 3.Qxd5

N f6 BxdS NxdS N d4

Black is going all out for complications but such practices rarely work when you stan out with a positional disadvantage.

1 4.Qxb7

h4

Chapter 6

lS.Rdl

85

16.Rd2

0-0 h3

17.c3 !

B gS

18.f4

hxg2

19.cxd4

ex f4

20.gxf4

Bxf4

2l.Rxg2

Qh4

22.Bxf4

Qxf4

23.QdS Rogers-Kuijf, Wijk aan Zee II 1 989. The smoke has cleared and White has ended up with a sound extra pawn and excellent chances to win the game. Strangely enough, it was Black who ended up scoring the victory after 23 . . . Rab8 24.e5 Rb5 25.Qxd6 Qe3+ 26. Kh l Qe4 27.b3 Rd5 28.Qxa6 Rxd4 29. Qe2 Qd5 30.Re 1 ReS 3 l .h3 f5 32.Qh5 Rxe5 33.Rc l Qe6 34.Rcg l Rd7 35.Qg6 Qd5 36.Rc l Ree7 37.Qa6 Rc7 38.Qfl Rxcl 39.Qxc l Kh7 40.Qc3 Qdl + 4 l .Kh2 Qd6+ 42.Qg3 f4 43.Qh4+ Kg8 44.Rf2 Re4 45.Qg4 Qe5 46.a4 g5 47.a5 Re t 48.Qf3 Re3 49.Qa8+ Kg7 50.Qb7+ Kh6 5 l .Qc6+ Kh5 52.Qg2 Rg3 53.Qb7 Qf5 54.Khl Qbl +, 0- 1 .

G.

6 .Be2

Black should not experience any real difficulties after this passive move.

6 . ..

a6

6 . . . Be7 and 6 . . . Be6 are also perfectly reasonable.

7.NSc3 8 . B e3

N f6

It seems more logical to contest d5 by playing Bg5. In this case though, White 's Bishop would be happier on c4.

86

The Neo-Sveshnikov

8 .. . 9.0-0 10.Bf3 l l .Qd2

Be6 Rc8 h6 Ne7 ! ?

Theres nothing wrong with the mundane l l . . . Be7 either.

12.Rdl

Ng6

Chandler-Spraggett, Hastings 1 989/90. Both sides have chances.

H.

6.Bd3

White gives the e-pawn some support but also weakens his own control of d5. It's almost as if White is saying, "Anything is good enough ! "

6 .. .

B e7

6 . . . a6 might also be considered.

7.0-0

Be6

I would prefer 7 . . . a6 8.N5c3 Nf6 intending . . . d6--<15 and meeting 9.Bg5 with 9 . . . Nxe4! 10.Bxe7 Nxc3 l l .Bxd8 Nxd l .

8.c4 All o f a sudden w e have transposed to lines found in ' I ' (next variation).

8 ... 9.NSc3

a6 B gS

The usual plan but 9 . . . Nf6 followed by I O . . . Nd7 and . . . Nc5 deserved strong consideration.

l O.BxgS l l.NdS

QxgS Rc8

Chapter 6

12.Nbc3

87

Nge7

1 2 . . . Nf6 ! ? keeps the option o f . . . Nd7-c5.

13.Rel Chandler-Tisdall, London 1 990. White may have a very tiny edge but Black's game is quite playable.

I.

6 .c4

By gaining lots of space and clamping down on d5, White hopes to refute Black's opening variation. However, matters are not as simple as they may appear. First of all , White has weakened the d4 square and must exchange pieces with care. With this in mind Black will often trade his bad Bishop for White's good one by . . . Bf8-e7-g5xcl . By doing this White will have one less defender of the d4 square. As far as active pawn breaks go, Black has two to choose from. He can try the Queenside with . . . b7-b5 or the Kingside [ far more common] with . . . n-f5. After 6.c4 Black has: 1.1. 6

1.1.

.•.

6 .. .

Be7 and 1.2. 6 . . . Be6. Be7

7 . N l c3 The usual move. The threat of 8.Nd5 forces a reaction from Black. Also seen on occasion are: 1 ) 7 .Be2 ! ? Be6 [Also good is 7 . . . a6 8.N5c3 Bg5 9.Nd2 Nf6 (9 . . . Nd4 1 0.Nf3 Bxc l l l .Rxc l Nxf3+ 1 2.Bxf3 Ne7 1 3.0-0, +=, Geller Wirthensohn, Bern 1 988) 10.0-0 0-0 1 1 .Nb3 Bxc l 1 2.Rxc1 Be6 1 3.Qd2 Q b8 1 4.Rfd 1 Rd8 1 5.Qe3 Qa7 1 6.Qxa7 Nxa7 1 7.Rd2 b5, Mannion Kuijf, Thessaloniki 1988. Black has good counterplay] 8.Be3 [Or 8.0-0 a6 9.N5c3 Nd4 (9 . . . Bg5 10.Nd2 Nd4 l l .Nb3 Nxe2+ 1 2.Qxe2 ReS 1 3.Nd5 Bxc l 14.Raxc 1 Ne7 1 5 .Rfd l , +=, Anand-Fauland, Moscow

88

The Neo-Sveshnikov

19S9.) IO.Bc3 Nxe2+ 1 l .Qxe2 Nf6 1 2.Nd5 Bxd5 1 3.exd5 0-0 14.Nc3 Nd7 15.Rac 1 f5 1 6.f4, 1/2-1/2, Cuijpers-Kuijf, Hilversum 19SS] S . . . a6 9.N5c3 Bg5 1 0.0-0 Bxe3 1 l .fxe3 Nf6 1 2.Na3 0-0 1 3.Qd2 ReS 1 4.Rad l Qb6 1 5.Nc2 Ne7 1 6.b3 RfdS, =, Shon-Van der Wiel, Tilburg 19SS. 2) 7.Bd3 a6 [Black can also play 7 . . . Be6 S.0-0 a6 (S . . . h6! ? also appears to be playable: 9.b3 Nf6 1 0.Nd2 0-0 1 l .Re 1 QbS 1 2.Nfl a6 1 3.Nc3 BdS 14.Nd5 Bxd5 1 5.exd5 Nd4 1 6.Ng3 b5 1 7.Be3 Ba5 1 S.Rfl Bb6 1 9 . Kh 1 ReS 20.f4 e4 2 1 .Bxe4 Nxb3 22.axb3 B xe3 , 1/2-l/2, Kholmov-Guseinov, Kleipeda 1 9SS) 9.N5c3 Bg5 1 0.Nd2 Nf6 l l .b3 0 -0 ( 1 l . . . Nd7 ! ? deserves attention) 1 2.Bb2 Bg4 (Both 1 2 . . . Nd4 and 1 2 . . . Nd7 are interesting) 1 3.Be2 Bxe2 1 4 .Qxe2 Nd4 1 5.Qd3 B xd2 1 6.Qxd2 b5 1 7.cxb5 axb5 , =, Anand-Arakhamia, Oakham 1 990] S.N5c3 Bg5 [Black might as well activate this Bishop. Less commendable is S . . . Nf6 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.Re 1 h6 1 1 .Nd2 Bg4 1 2.f3 Bd7 1 3.Nb3 Be6 1 4.Bc3, Radulov-S.Nikolic, Smederevska Palanka 19S2] 9.Nd2 Nf6 1 0.0-0 [ 1 0.Nd5 0-0 1 1 .0-0 Nxd5? (This terrible move frees White 's d3 Bishop and d2 Knight and allows White to build up a strong Quecnside attack. Much better is 1 1 . . .Nd7 ! followed by . . . Nc5 with a good game for Black) 12.cxd5 Ne7 1 3 . Qb3 b5? (Playing on White 's side of the board is not a good idea. Black had to try to drum up Kingside counterplay with 1 3 . . . g6 and 14 . . . f5) 14.a4 Bd7 1 5 . ax.b5 axb5 1 6.RxaS QxaS 1 7.Nb 1 Bxc t 1 S.Rxc 1 Qa5 1 9.Qc3 Qa4 20.Qa3 ReS 2 l .RxcS+ NxcS 22.Nc3 Qxa3 23.bxa3 Na7 24.Kfl , Black's bad Bishop, weak b5-pawn and passive Knight give White a winning endgame, J.Peters-Silman, S.Cal. Closed Ch. 1 990.] 10 . . . Nd7 ! 1 1 .Re1 Nc5 [Black is already equal] 1 2.Bfl 0-0 1 3.Nd5 Be6 14.Nf3? ! Bxc1 1 5.Rxc 1 Bg4, =+, A.Sokolov-Van der Wiel, Rotterdam 1 9S9. Black will conquer the d4 square.

7

. . .

8.Na3

a6 Be6

Accepted as the main line. Other moves are not as promising: 1) S . . . Nf6 9.Be2 0-0 I O.Be3 Be6 1 1 .0-0 ReS 1 2.Qd2 Na5?! [ 1 2 . . . h6 with the idea of . . . NeS and . . . Bg5 should be tried] 1 3.Nd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 b6 1 5 .Rac 1 Nb7 1 6.f4 Nd7 1 7 .Nc2 a5 1 S.Na3, +=, Dolmatov Minasjan, USSR 1 9SS. 2) S . . . h6 [If White plays accurately this will probably tum out to be just a wasted tempo] 9.Be2 [Another good method is 9.Nc2 B e 6 IO.Nd5 Bg5 1 1 .g3 Bxc1 1 2.Rxc1 ReS 1 3.Bg2 Nf6 1 4.0-0 0-0 1 5.Qd2 Bxd5 1 6.exd5 Ne7 1 7.Ne3 Nd7 1 S.b4 f5 1 9.f4 b6 20.fxe5 Nxe5 21 .c5 g6

Chapter 6

89

22.c6, J.Peters-Silman, Pacific Southwest Open 1 990. White has a completely dominating position but 0- 1 in 67! ] 9 . . . Be6 10.0-0 [ 1 0.Bg4? ! Nf6 1 1 .Bxe6 fxe6 just helps Black to defend the d5 square] 1 0 . . . Bg5 l l .Nc2 [Much better than 1 1 .Bg4? ! Nf6 1 2.Bxe6 fxe6 1 3.Bxg5 hxg5 14.Nc2 Kf7 ! (=+) 15.Qd3 Qc7 1 6.Rfd 1 Rad8 1 7.Ne2 Ne7 1 8.Ne3 Ng6, + , Nikolenko-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1 987] After 1 1 .Nc2 Black can try two Knight moves:

2.a.) 1 1 . . . Nf6 12.Qd3 Bxc 1 ! [ 1 2 . . . Qc7 1 3.Rd 1 Rd8 14.Bxg5 hxg5 1 5.Rac 1 Qb6 1 6.b3 Rh4 1 7.Rd2, +=] 1 3.Raxc 1 0 -0 14.Rfd 1 ? ! Qb6! 1 5.Qxd6! ? [ 1 5 .a3? ! Na5 ! 16.Qxd6 Nxc4 17.Bxc4 Qxd6 1 8.Rxd6 Bxc4 1 9.Rb6 Rab8 20.Ne3 Be6 2 1 .Rd 1 Rfe8 !? 22.b3 Kf8 , =, Dvojris Tiviakov, USSR 1988] 15 . . . Qxb2 1 6.Qd3 Qb6 1 7.Rb1 Qa7 1 8.Nd5 Nd7 1 9.Nc7 Nc5 20.Qe3 Rab8 is unclear according to Tiviakov and Postovski. After this analysis was published Tiviakov showed how White could improve on it: 14.b4! [instead of 14.Rfd 1 ] 14 . . . Qb6 1 5 . a3 and White has a clear advantage. 2.b.) 1 1 . . . Nge7 1 2.b3 [ 1 2.Qd3 Ng6 1 3.g3 Bxc 1 1 4.Raxc 1 Qg5 15.Nd5 Bxd5 1 6.cxd5 Nf4 17.Qe3 Ne7 1 8.Bf3 is also good for White, Geller-Lputian, Moscow 1 987] 12 . . . Bxc 1 1 3.Rxc 1 Ng6 14.Bg4 0-0 1 5.Ne3 Nd4 1 6.Ne2 Qf6 ! ? 1 7.Nxd4 exd4 1 8.Nf5 Ne5 1 9.Be2 Bxf5 20.exf5 b5? ! [20 . . . Rfe8 followed by . . . Nc6 leaves White with just a small edge. Now things get bad for Black] 2 1 .f4 Nd7 22.cxb5 axb5 23.Bxb5 Nc5 24. a4 d3 25 . Kh 1 Qd4 26.Rc4 Qd5 , A. Kuzmin Sveshnikov, Moscow 1 987. Now instead of the mistaken 27.Rc3? Rfe8 ! ! 28.Rxc5 [28.Bxe8 Rxe8 followed by . . . Re2 is in Black's favor] 28 . . . dxc5 29.Qxd3 Qxd3 30.Bxd3 which led to an unclear situation that was eventually drawn, correct was either 27.f6 gxf6 30.Qf3 Qxf3 3 1 .Rxf3 ! or 27.Qf3 ! ? Qxf5 28.Rd4 Nxb3 29.Rxd3, in both cases with a clear advantage for White according to Kuzmin and Kimelfeld. 3) 8 . . . f5 ! ? is an untried suggestion of Mokry. I don't like it! After

The Neo-Sveshnikov

90

9.exf5 B xf5 1 0.Bd3 Black will find that his light squares have been weakened. Back to our main move: S . . . Be6.

Now White usually tries one of three lines: I.l.a. 9.Nc2; I . l .b. 9.Be2; I.l .c. 9.Nd5. A new fourth possibility is 9.Bd3!? Bg5 10.Nc2 Bxc l l l .Rxc l Nf6 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.b4 ReS 14.Nd5, +=, Novik-Milov, USSR 1 990. This �;.;. m ple method of play will certainly get more tests in the future. ! .1 . ? .

9 . Nc2

Loglcal. White brings the offside Knight back into play where it keeps creatures out of d4 and threatens to continue its journey onto e3 and d5.

9 ...

B gS

More promising is 9 . . . ReS 1 0.b3 Nf6 1 l .Be2 0-0 12.0-0 b5 ! 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Bf3 Nb4 1 5.Nxb4 Rxc3, =, Timman-N.Short, Beograd 19S9. This game explains why 9.Nc2 is no longer very popular.

1 0.Ne3 I think i t ' s better t o play 1 0.Be2 B xc l [ 10 . . . h6 ! ? has been recommended by some sources. This would transpose into lines from S . . . h6] 1 1 .Rxc1 Nf6 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.Qd2 with a small edge for White, Mokry-Holzl, Wien 1989.

10

•••

N ge 7

l l .Bd3

0-0

12.0-0

ReS

91

Chapter 6

According to Sveshnikov, Black has already obtained equality. Another possiblility is 12 . . . Nd4 1 3.b3 b5 14.Ncd5 Nxd5 1 5 .cxd5, Lau Holzl, Budapest 1987.

13.Ncd5

N d4

1 4.Bd2

NxdS

lS.cxdS

B d7

1 6.Bb4

B bS

1 7.Bxb5 18.a4

NxbS B x e3

1 9.axb5

Bb6

20.bxa6

bxa6

21.Rxa6

rs

Dvoiris-Sveshnikov, Budapest 1989. Black has compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

l.l.b.

9.Be2

se at This flexible move has become White 's most common respon for better little a be to sed this point. Since 9 . . . Nf6 1 0.Be3 is suppo b.2. . l . I or White, B lack will usually play either I.t.b.l. 9 N d4 9 . . . Bg5. ..•

92

I.l.b.l.

The Neo-Sveshnikov

9 ...

Nd4

1 0 . Nc2 Timman mentions that 1 0.Bg4 is premature due to 10 . . . B xg4 I l .Qxg4 d5 ! threatening . . . Bxa3 followed by . . . Nc2+. Recently Timman gave 1 0.0-0 a try: 1 0 . . . Rc8?! [Timman says this is probably the source of Black's later problems. 10 . . . Nf6 is preferable . I should also mention that 1 0 . . . Bg5 is also worthy of a look] l l .Bg4 ! [already += according to Timman] l l . . .Nf6 12.Bxe6 fxe6 1 3.Be3 Qb6 ["Black must try and maintain his d4 Knight since after 1 3 . . . Nc6 14.Qb3 White holds all the trumps."-Timman] 14.Nc2! [White plays with a lot of energy. This temporary pawn sacrifice eliminates Black's outpost on d4] 14 . . . Rxc4 [Horrible is 14 . . . Qxb2?? 1 5 .Bxd4 exd4 16.Na4 winning the Black Queen] 15.Qd3 Qc7 [ 1 5 . . . Qxb2? is still bad if White doesn't fall for 1 6.Qxc4? Qxc3 ! 1 7.Qxc3 Ne2+ and instead plays 1 6.Bxd4 exd4 1 7.Qxc4 Qxc3 1 8.Qxe6 with a winning position] 16.Bxd4 exd4 1 7.Nxd4 Kf7 1 8.Rad l ? ! [A natural but lazy move that gives away White's advantage. 1 8.Kh 1 ! aiming for a quick f2-f4 and an attack was correct. White would then have a slight advantage] 1 8 . . . Re8 ! [By guarding the e6 pawn with his Rook, Black is able to get his King to safety on g8. The game is now equal] 1 9.Khl [ 1 9.f4 d5 ! gives Black adequate counterplay since the threat is 20 . . . Rxd4 followed by . . . Bc5] 19 . . . Bf8 20.f4 Kg8 2 1 .f5 exf5 22.exfS [22.RxfS ReS 23.Rxf6 gxf6 24.Nd5 Rxd5 24.exd5 Re i 25.Ne6 Qc2 ! reaches an, endgame that offers White no advantage while 22.Nxf5 ReS gives Black an acceptable position since 23.Nh6+ Kh8 is safe. Analysis by Timman] 22 . . . Re5 ! 23.Nf3 [23.Ne6 Qc6 24.Nxf8 Kxf8 25.Qxd6+ Qxd6 26.Rxd6 R f4 gives White nothing according to Timman] 23 . . . Rec5 24.Nd2 [24.NgS Qc6] 24 . . . Rh4 [On 24 . . . Rg4 25.Nde4 is a strong reply] 25.Qg3 [25.Nde4 is impossible now due to 25 . . . Nxe4 26.Nxe4 dS ! ] 25 . . . Rb4 [The beginning of a bad idea. 25 . . . Rg4 26.Qf3 Qc6 prevents a White Knight from landing on e4 and equalizes the position] 26.a3 Rxb2? [Swallowing the bait. 26 . . . Rg4 was still best. Now White reaches a favorable endgame by force] 27.Na4 Rxd2 28.Rxd2 Rc4 29.Qb3 Kh8? ! [Short intended 29 . . . d5 ! but then saw that 30.Nb6 Ng4 (Better is 30 . . . Rc3 3 l .Nxd5 Rxb3 32.Nxc7 Bxa3 33.Nd5 which is good for White but Black can put up a tough fight. So 29 . . . d5 is best after all!-Timman) 3 l .g3 Re i 32.Kg2 Rxfl 33.Kxfl Qc l + 34.Ke2 gives White an initiative] 30.Nb6 Rc3 3 l .Nd5 ! Rxb3 32.Nxc7 Rxa3 33.Ne6 Be7 34.Rc2 [Materially Black is alright but White' s Rooks are now able to penetrate and this gives White a strong attack]

Chapter 6

93

34 . . . h5 35.Rc8+ Ng8 [Not 35 . . . K.h7 36.Ng5+ K.h6 37.Nf7+ and mate follows] 36.Nf4 K.h7 37.Ng6 Re3 [Black might have considered 37 . . . B f6 hoping for 38.Re 1 Ra5 39.Rxg8 Rxf5 ! . However 38.h4 intending 39.Nf8 should win] 38.g3 d5 39.Rb8 b5 40.Rc1 Rf3 4 l .Rxg8 Kxg8 42.Rc8+ Kf7 43.Ne5+ Kf6 44.Nxf3 Kxf5 45.Kg2 Bf6 46.Ra8 Ke4 47.Rxa6 b4 48.Kf2 Kd3 49.Ne 1 + Kd2 50.Ra5 d4 5 1 .Ra2+, 1 -0, Timman-Short, VSB Euwe Memorial 1 990.

1 0 ...

Nxe2

1 1 .Qxe2 1 2 .0-0

N f6

1 2.Ne3 ReS 1 3.Bd2 0-0 14.b3 [ 14.Ned5 !?] is comfortably met by 14 . . . Qe8 followed by . . . Bd8, =, Filipenko-Sveshnikov, Kiev 1 988. As good as 14 . . . Qe8 is, Sveshnikov feels that 14 . . . b5 ! is even stronger. He then claims a slight edge for Black.

1 2 ...

ReS

Black has a good position.

1 3.Ne3 Worse i s 1 3.b3? b5 with advantage to Black.

1 3 ... 14.Rd1

0-0

14.Bd2 is the Filipenko-Sveshnikov, Kiev 1 988 game mentioned earlier. Black could then play either 14 . . . Qe8, =, or 14 . . . b5! , =+.

1 4 . .. 1S.b3 1 6.Ned5 Or 1 6.Ncd5 Nxd5 1 7.cxd5 Bd7, =+.

Qc7 bS

The Neo-Sveshnikov

94

1 6 ... 17.Nxd5 18.cxd5

N x d5 Bxd5 Qc2

19 .Qg4 ? ? A bad mistake that loses quickly. All the other possibilities are better: 1) 1 9.Rd2 Qc5, =+. 2) 1 9.Bd2!? Bg5 [ 19 . . . f5 ! gives Black a good game] 20.Rac1 Qxd2 [20 . . . Qxa2?? 2 1 .Rxc8 Rxc8 22.Qg4 wins for White] 2 1 .Rxd2 Rxc 1 + 22.Rd 1 Rfc8 23.f4 Bxf4 24.Rxc1 Rxc1 + 25.Kf2 Bxh2 26.Qd2 i s given by Sveshnikov as unclear. However, Black's Queenside pawns can easily become weak here. 3) 1 9.Qxc2 Rxc2 20.Be3 Rfc8 2 1 .Rdc 1 g6 22.a4 b4 23.Rxc2 Rxc2 24.Rc l Rb2 is nice for Black.

19 ... 20.exf5

fS! h5!

21.Qf3

e4

22.Qxh5

Rxf5

0- 1 , Ulibin-Sveshnikov, Naberezhnie Chelni 1 988.

l.l .b.2.

9 . ..

B g5

One of the main ideas of this system . . . B lack trades his 'bad ' Bishop for White's good one. The down side of this plan is that it consumes a couple of tempi and it leaves the d6 pawn somewhat tender.

1 0. B x g 5 Taking the bull b y the horns and asking Black if his Queen is well

Chapter 6

95

p laced o r mi splaced o n g 5 . White can also ignore B lack 's demonstration and just get his King to safety by 1 0.0-0. After this, Black has tried three moves:

1) l O . . . RcS? ! [It is not clear if this is necessary at this stage so the time lost in playing it may be critical] l l .Nd5 Bxd5 1 2.exd5 Nd4 13.Bg4 Bxc l 14.BxcS Bxb2 1 5.Qa4+ b5 1 6.Qxa6 Bxa3 1 7.Qxa3 QxcS 1 S.Qxd6, Black is in grave difficulties, Silva-Klinger, Bern 1 9S9. 2) l O . . . Bxc l l l .Rxc l Nf6 [It may be preferable to play l l . . . Nge7 followed by . . . 0 -0, . . . g6, . . . f5 with counterchances] 1 2.Nc2 0-0 1 3.Qd2 [+=] 1 3 . . . RcS 1 4 . Rfd l Qb6 ! 1 5 .b3 RfdS 1 6. B f3 ! Qa7 [Threatening to play 17 . . . b5 ! ] 1 7.Qd3 h6 1 S.Qe3 Qxe3 1 9.fxe3 ! Kf8 20.Rd2 Ke7 2 1 .Rcd 1 NbS 22.Rd3 Rd7 23.Nb4 Nc6?? [A blunder, but 23 . . . g6 24.Na4 leaves Black with a very passive position] 24.Nbd5+ Bxd5 25.Nxd5+ Nxd5 26.exd5 NbS [26 . . . Nb4 is met by 27.R3d2 threatening both 2S.Bg4 and 2S.a3] 27.Bg4, P.Hardicsay-J.Klinger, Hallein-Werfen Open 1 9S9. Black lost the exchange and resigned the game on the 5 1 st move. 3) 1 0 . . . Nd4! [The simplest solution] l l .Nc2 Nxc2 12.Qxc2 B xc l 1 3 .Rax c l Ne7 ! , = , Mokry-Holzl, Dubai 1 9S6. The d 5 square is adequately protected and White must watch out for . . . Nc6--d4. Because of this third possibility White might wish to consider 1 0.Nc2 !?, keeping Black's Knight out of d4. This would transpose to lines from 9.Nc2 [F.9.a. l .].

10 . . . 1 1 .0-0

QxgS Rd8

Better than 1 1 . . .Nge7 1 2.f4! exf4 1 3.Qxd6, +=.

1 2 .Nd5 In Am.Rodriguez-Remon, Havana 1 990, White tried a different

96

The Neo-Sveshnikov

method with 12.Nc2. At first, the continuation of the game went well for the White: 1 2 . . . Nf6 1 3.Qd3 h5 [Am. Rodriguez recommend s 1 3 . . . Nh5 !? as a possible improvement] 14.Nd5 h4 1 5.Bf3 [According to Am. Rodriguez, this position is a little better for White] 1 5 . . . Bxd5? [Opening up lines on the Queenside is not a good idea. Ideas that need looking into are 1 5 . . . g6!? followed by 1 6 . . . Kf8 and 1 7 . . . Kg7, 15 . . . 0-0!?, and even the immediate 15 . . . Ne7! ? followed by 1 6 . . . Ng6 comes into consideration since 16.Nxe7 Kxe7 seems alright for Black] 1 6.cxd5 Ne7 [Hoping to play . . . Ng6-f4. However, he will never get the time to do this] 1 7.Qe3! Qg6 1 8.Rac l 0-0 1 9.Na3 [Am .Rodriguez mentions 1 9.Nb4 ! ? Rd7 20.Rc4 and Rfc 1 as being a good alternative] 1 9 . . . b5 ! ? 20.Nb 1 [20.Rc7 ? ! runs into 20 . . . Nexd5 ! 2 1 .exd5 e4 threatening the f3 Bishop and a fork by . . . Nxd5. Very promising though is 20.Nc2! ? intending Nb4 with pressure on a6 and control of c6] 20 . . . Rc8 2 l .Nd2 [Now that e4 is well defended White 's Queen is free to go on a destructive rampage via Qb6] 2 1 . . . Nh7 [Starting Kings ide counter measures before he gets over run on the Queens ide] 22.h3 ! ? [22.Qa7 Qg5 23.Nb3 h3 24.g3 f5 is not clear] 22 . . . f5 23.exf5 Nxf5 24.Qd3 Nf6 25.Rc6 Qg5 26.Ne4? ! [Finally going wrong. 26.Rfc 1 Rx:;6 27.dxc6 gets clobbered by 27 . . . e4 ! , but the simple 26.Rxa6! Nd4 27.Nb3 ! would have been very good for White] 26 . . . Nxe4 27.Bxe4 Nd4 ! 28.f4 Qh6 [28 . . . Qg3 !?] 29.Rc3 b4? ! [29 . . . Rcc8 or 29 . . . Qh5 were better choices] 30.Rxc8 Rxc8 3 1 .Qxa6 Rf8 32.Kh2 ! exf4 33.Qd3 Qf6 34.Rd l Nf5 35.Bxf5 Qxf5 36.Qxf5 Rxf5 37.Rd4 b3 38.a4!? [38.axb3, =] 38 . . . f3 39.gxf3? [39.Kgl Rg5 40.Rd2 fxg2 4 l .Rd3! was much more interesting] 39 . . . Rxf3 40.Kg2 Rg3+ 4 l .Kh2 Re3 42.Rd2?? [Cracking up completely. 42.Rxh4 Re2+ 43.Kg3 Rxb2 44.Rb4 was an easy draw] 42 . . . Re4, Black now has excellent chances to win but the game was eventually drawn in 61 moves.

1 2 . ..

N f6

Theory says that this gives Black good play but neither Timman o r

97

Chapter 6

Short seem to agree with this [Shown by Timman's willingness to go into it and Short 's avoidence of 1 2 . . . Nf6 ] . In Timman-Short , Hilversum Match (game #5) 1 989, Black unleashed 1 2 . . . h5 ! ?. The continuation was 1 3.Nc2 h4 14.Qd3 Bxd5? ! [As stated in the note to White 1 2th move, Black should not be in a hurry to open up the c-file for White. 14 . . . Nf6 is a sound alternative and transposes to the Am .Rodriguez-Remon, Havana 1 990 game given above] 1 5.exd5? [Timman criticized this and gave 15.cxd5 Ne7 1 6.Qb3 ! , +-. In another source Timman gives 1 6.Qe3 ! , +-. Both seem better for White] 15 . . . Nce7 1 6.Qe3 Qxe3 17.Nxe3 Nh6 1 8.f4 [ 1 8.b4 ! ?] 18 . . . exf4 1 9.Rxf4 Ng6 20.Re4+ Kd7 2 l . Bg4+? [Now the advantage passes to Black. 2 1 .Bh5 Rde8 22.Bxg6 hxg6 23.Rxe8 Rxe8 24.Kf2 Nf5 25.Re 1 Re4 is equal according to Timman] 2 1 . . . N xg4 22.Rxg4 Rde8 23.Nf5 Re2 [ =+] 24.b4 h3 25.c5 Ne5 26.Rxg7 dxc5 27.bxc5 hxg2 28.Rxg2 Nf3+ 29.Kfl ReS 30.Nd6 Rxd5 3 1 .Nxb7 Nxh2+ 32.Kg l Nf3+ 33.Kf2 Rh3 34.Rg7? [34.Rg8, =+] 34 . . . Ng5 35.Rg l Rd2+ 36.Kfl Rc3, 0- 1 .

13.Nc7+

Kf8

Better than 1 3 . . . Ke7 14.Nd5+ ! Bxd5 1 5.exd5, +=.

14.Qd3

hS

According to Hardicsay, Black is a little better.

1S.Nc2

Ne7?

V an der Wiel says that 1 5 . . . Qf4 1 6.f3 h4 with an edge for Black is the correct continuation. I don't know if I can agree with such an assessment though. Perhaps 'unclear' is the safest way to label this position.

16.Radl

Ng6

1 7.Nxe6+

fxe6

Perhaps White's chances are a shade better in this double-edged situation. We are following Anand-Van der Wicl, Wijk aan Zee 1 989. The continuation was: 1 8.Qa3! Nxe4 1 9.Bd3 Nc5 [Both 19 . . . Nd2? 20.f4 and 19 . . . Nf6 20.Bxg6 Qxg6 2 1 .Rxd6 are bad for Black] 20.Bxg6 Qxg6 2 l .Ne3 ! [2 l .Rxd6? ! Rxd6 22.Qxc5 Ke7 is in Black 's favor and 2 1 . Qxc5 dxc5 22.Rxd8+ Kf7 23.Rxh8 Qxc2 is =+] 2 1 . . . Ke7? ! [According to van der Wiel Black should play 2 1 . . . Kg8 when White 's chances are just slightly more promising. Now the King's position in the center is a source of concern for Black] 22.b4 Ne4 23.c5 ! [Tring to get to the royalty] 23 . . . d5 [Or 23 . . . dxc5 24.bxc5 Kf7 25.Qb4, +-] 24.b5 Kf7 25.bxa6 bxa6 26. Qxa6? [26.c6 ! , +-] 26 . . . Nxc5 27. Qa7+ Nd7

98

The Neo-Sveshnikov

28.Qc7 [28.Nxd5 exd5 29.Rxd5 Ke8 30.Rfd l fails to 30 . . . Qf5 ! followed by . . . Rh-f8-f7] 28 . . . Rhf8 ! [=+] 29.Nc4 dxc4 [29 . . . Kg8 30.Nxe5 Nxe5 3 1 .Qxe5 was equal but Black now wants more] 30.Rxd7+ Rxd7 3 1 .Qxd7+ Kg8 32.Qc6 Qg4 ! 33.h3 Qd4 34.Qxe6+ Kh7 35.Qe7 Rf6 36.Qe8 Rf5 37.Qe6 Rf6 38.Qe8 Rf5 39.Qe6 g6 40.Qe7+ Kh6 4 1 .Qa3 c3 42.Qcl + Kh7 43.Qc2 e4 44.Re l Rd5 ! 45.Rc l e3! 46.Qe2 Re5 47.fxe3 Rxe3 48.Qf2 h4! 49.Qf7+ Kh6 50.Kh l c2 5 1 .R f t Rc3 52.Qf8+ Kh5 53.Rc 1 Rd3, 0- 1 .

I.l .c.

9.NdS

A very straightforward move. White puts the Knight o n its best post and immediately starts eyeing the potentially weak b6 square. The problem with 9.Nd5 is that it moves an already developed piece and leaves the e4 pawn undefended. After 9 . N d S , Black has tried: I . l .c . l . 9 . . . R c8 ; l.l .c.3. 9 ... BxdS.

I.l.c.l .

9

•••

9 ... N f6 ;

I . l .c . 2 .

N f6

I don't think Black can equalize after this. One problem with the move is that it blocks out the possibility of the important . . . Be7-g5 maneuver.

1 0.Bd3 Other moves also deserve consideration: 1 ) 1 0.Nxe7 [White has no reason to rush this capture] 10 . . . Nxe7 [ 1 0 . . . Qxe7!?] 1 1 .Bd3 0-0 12.0-0 Ng6 1 3.Be3 Ng4 14.Qd2 Qh4 1 5 .h3 Nxe3 1 6.fxe3, =, Van der Wiel-Holzl, Baden 1 980. 2) 1 0.Be3 [Sensible. Black immediately eyes b6 and threatens to win the exchange by Bb6 followed by Nc7+] 1 0 . . . 0 -0 1 1 . f3 ! [A good , solid move. Not so good is l l .Nxe7+ Qxe7 12.f3 b5 1 3 .cxb5 Nb4

Chapter 6

99

followed by 1 4 . . . d5 with interesting complications. However, White seems to get some advantage with l l .Bd3 ! ? Nd7 1 2. Qd2 ! h6 1 3.Nxe7+ ! Qxe7 14.0-0 Nc5 1 5.Rfd l Rfd8 1 6.f3, +=, Wedberg-Klinger, Lugano 1 989] l l . . . Bxd5 1 2.cxd5 Nd4 1 3.Bd3 ! [White doesn't bite. Taking the offered pawn by 1 3.Bxd4 exd4 14.Qxd4 Nd7 would give Black good compensation in the form of play on the dark squares] 1 3 . . . Nd7 14.0-0 f5 1 5.exf5 Nxf5 1 6.Bxf5 Rxf5 1 7.Qd3 [According to Efimov, White is a little better] Rf8 1 8 .Nc4 ReS? ! [White didn't want to play 1 8 . . . b7-b5 because it would create a weakness on c6. Nevertheless, Efimov feels that Black should have given it a try since 1 8 . . . b5 ! ? 1 9.Nd2 Qc7! 20.Rfc l Qb7 2 l .Rc6 Rac8 22.Rac l Nb8 is just a bit better for White] 1 9.b4!. Now White has a clear advantage due to his space advantage on the Queenside, Efimov-Starosek, USSR 1 988. The conclusion is instructive from White's point of view: 1 9 . . . Rc7 20.Racl Qb8 2 l .a4 Bd8 22.a5 Rc8 23.Rfd l g6 24.Rc2 b6 25.axb6 Nxb6 26.Na5 Rxc2 27.Qxc2 Nc8 28.Nc6 Qb7 29.Kh l Bb6 30.Bg5 Rf5 3 l .h4 h6 32.Bc l ! [Efimov gives 32.Bxh6? Qh7 33.Nd4 Rf8 ! 34.Bxf8 Qxh4+ 35.Kg l Bxd4+ 36.Rxd4 Qxd4+, =] 32 . . . Qf7 33.Qe4 ! Kh7 34.Rd3 Qf6 35.g3 Ne7 36.Kg2 Rh5 37.Nxe7 Qxe7 38.Rc3 Bd4 39.Rc6 Rf5 40.Bd2 h5 4 l .Rxa6 Rf8 42.Rc6 Ra8 43.Qc2 Ral 44.Rc7, 1 -0.

1 0 ...

0-0

1 1 .0-0? !

According to Am.Rodriguez, White can obtain some advantage with l l .Be3 ! Nd7 1 2.Qd2 followed by Rd l . This plan doubles on the d-file and prevents Black from playing . . . Bg5 .

1 1 .. . .

Nd7 !

Now White can't stop Black from getting rid of his 'bad' Bishop by . . . Bg5.

l 2. B e 3

1 00

The Neo-Sveshnikov

Black is alright after 1 2.Nxe7+ Qxe7 1 3 .Be3 Nc5 14. Bc2 Rab8 followed by . . . b7-b5.

1 2 ... 13.QhS!?

B gS Bxe3

14.fxe3

NcS

1S.Bc2

BxdS

16.exdS

g6

1/2- 1/2, Am . Rodriguez-Wittmann, Dubai 1 986. According to Am.Rodriguez, the continuation might have been 1 7.Qh6 Nb4 1 8.Bf5 Qf6! 19.Nc2 a5 20.a3 Nxc2 21 .Bxc2 Qe7!? 22.b4 Nd7 23.e4, =.

I.l .c.2.

9

• • •

ReS ! ?

More sensible than 9 . . . Nf6. The idea i s to take c 7 under control and trade the 'bad ' Bishop with . . . Bg5. Tiviakov likes to adorn this move with an ' ! ' .

1 0. B e 3 Two harmless possibilities: 1) 1 0.Nc2 Bg5 1 1 .Nce3 Nge7 1 2.Bd3 0-0 1 3.0-0 Nd4 14.Bd2 f5 15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 1 6.exf5 Bxe3 1 7.fxe3 Bxf5, =, Dvoiris-Shcherbakov, USSR 1988. 2) 1 0.Be2 Bg5 1 1 .0-0 Bxcl 12.Rxc l Nd4 1 3.Nc2 Nxc2 14.Rxc2 Ne7= .

10... 1 1 .Bb6 1 2.Be2

B gS Qd7

This doesn't lead to anything so White should play the sharper

1 01

Chapter 6

1 2.b4 Bd8 13.Be3 f5 with unclear play according to Tiviakov.

1 2 . ..

B d8

Inferior is 1 2 . . . Nge7? 13.h4! Bh6 14.g4 Bf4 15.Nxf4 exf4 16.f3, +-.

1 3 .0-0 Avoiding lame lines such as 1 3.Be3 Ba5+ and 1 3.Bxd8 Rxd8, =.

13 ...

Nge7 ? !

Better is 1 3 . . . Nf6 ! ? when 14.Nxf6+ [ 14.Bxd8 Rxd8 1 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 1 6.f4 ! Qc7 ( 1 6 . . . f5? 1 7.g4! Rg8 18.Kh1 is just bad) 1 7.f5 Bd7 is unclear. Analysis by Tiviakov] 14 . . . Bxf6 1 5.Qd3 Bd8 1 6.Be3 Be7 1 7.b3 f5 1 8.exf5 Bxf5 led to an unclear game in Tiviakov-V.Scerbadov, USSR 1988. Note that 13 . . . Bxd5? 14.cxd5 Bxb6 loses an exchange to 1 5.Bg4.

1 4.Be3 Other moves promise less: 1) 14.Qb3 Bxd5 1 5.cxd5 Bxb6 1 6.Qxb6 Nd4, =+. 2) 14.Bxd8 Rxd8 1 5.Nc2 f5, =. 3) 14.Nxe7 Nxe7! ? 1 5.Qe3 f5, =.

14 ... 1 S.Nb6? !

0-0

Tiviakov says that 1 5.Qd2 f5 1 6.f3 f4 ! 1 7.Bf2 Bxd5 1 8.cxd5 Nd4 ! ? 1 9 .Bxd4 exd4 20.Qxd4 Ng6 gives Black good play for the sacrificed pawn. He says that White's best is 1 5.Qd3 ! f5 1 6.f3, +=, intending to answer 1 6 . . . f4 with 1 7.Nb6 ! .

1 5 ... 16.Bxb6

Bxb6 fS

1 02

The Neo-Sveshnikov

1 7 .exf5 ? ! White starts to drift. Tiviakov says that 1 7 . f3 Ng6 is correct with about equal chances.

1 7 ...

NxfS

Black's game is now preferable.

1 8 . Nc2 Trying to keep Black out of d4.

18

. .•

19.b3

Nce7 ! dS

20.cxd5 ? ! According to Tiviakov, 20.Nb4 Qd6 ! ? 2 1 .c5 Qd7 is very good for Black, but 20.Ba5 d4! ? might succeed in keeping Black's advantage down to manageable levels.

20... 2l.Ba5 2 2 .Ne3

NxdS Nf4!

O r 22.Bc4 Qc6 23.Bxe6+ Qxe6 24.Ne3 Nd4 25.Qg4 Qc6, -+.

22...

Nd4

Ulybin-Tiviakov, USSR 1989. Black's active pieces give him a clear superiority. The conclusion was 23.Bg4 Bxg4 24.Qxg4 Qb5 ! 25.Bd2 h5 26.Qdl RedS 27.Kh l h4!? 28.Qg4 h3 29.Rad l Rf6 30.g3 Qc6+ 3 1 .f3 Nd3 32.Qxh3 Rxf3 33.Ng2 Nf2+ 34.Rxf2 Rxf2 35.Be3 Re2 36.Rc l Qf3 37.Bgl Rf8 38.Rc7 Ret , 0-1 .

I.l.c.3.

9

•••

BxdS ! ?

This seems to lead to a solid game for Black. It's definitely worth another try or two.

Chapter 6

1 03

10.cxd5 l l.g3

NbS

12.Bh3 1 3.Qe2

Ngf6

N d7

1 3 . f3 ! ? can be considered.

1 3 ...

h5

Van der Wiel-Kuijf, Hilversum 19SS. This position offers chances for both sides.

1.2.

6

.••

Be6

This will usually transpose to the previous lines i f Black plays . . . Be7 in the next move or two. Here we will examine independent variations in which Black avoids . . . Be7 for as long as possible.

7. N lc3 In Cuijpers-Perez Garcia, The Hague 1 9SS, White tried the quiet 7.Be2 but achieved nothing at all after 7 . . . a6 S.N5c3 [S.Na3 !?] S . . . Nd4 9.Nd5 Bxd5 1 0.cxd5 Nxe2 1 1 .Qxe2 Be7 1 2.0-0 Nf6 1 3.Nc3 0-0 1 4.Be3 ReS 1 5 .Rac 1 Nd7 1 6.Qg4 KhS. White 's play was completely uninspiring.

7

•••

a6

Getting rid of the annoying b 5 Knight is a good idea when White threatens to add to its effect with Nd5. The attempt to ignore White's plans with 7 . . . ReS ended poorly for Black in Ivanovic-Gostisa, Beograd 19SS: 8.Nd5 Nf6 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 10.Be3 QdS 1 1 .Qd2 a6 1 2.Nc3 Qa5 1 3.Be2 Be7 1 4 .0-0 0 -0 1 5 .Rac l Nd4 [Making a bid for counterplay] 1 6.Bxd4 exd4 1 7.Qxd4 B f6 1 8.Qe3 Bxc4 1 9.Bxc4 Rxc4 20.Nd5 Bd4? [Black's game was already very bad but this just loses material] 2 1 .Nf6+! and Black lost the exchange and the game.

1 04

The Neo-Sveshnikov

8.Na3 9 . B e3

ReS

The unassuming 9.Be2 does not lead to any difficulties for Black: 9 . . . Nd4 1 0.Be3 Nxe2 1 1 .Qxe2 Be7 1 2.0-0 Nf6 1 3 . f3 0-0 1 4.Nd5 h6 1 5 . Rfd 1 Nxd5 1 6.cxd5 Bd7 1 7.Nc4 Bb5 1 8.Rdc 1 Bg5 1 9.b3 B xc4 20.bxc4 Bxe3+ 2 1 .Qxe3 Rc5 22.a4 Qc7 23.a5 f5 24.Qb3 fxe4 25.fxe4 Rxa5 26.Rxa5 Qxa5 27.Rb 1 Qd2 28.h3 Qd4+ 29.Kh1 Qxe4 30.Qxb7 Qxc4, 0- 1 , Mainka-Lputian, Dortmund 1 988. We can see that Black will generally be happy to play . . . Nd4 and . . . Nxe2 if allowed, so White' s playing 9.Be3 to prevent this m akes alot of sense.

9 ...

N f6

Another plan is 9 . . . Be7 1 0.Qd2 h6 1 1 .Rd 1 Nf6 ! ? followed by . . . 0-0, . . . Ne8, and . . . Bg5.

1 0. B e 2 1 0.f3 is a little passive: 1 0 . . . Be7 1 1 .Be2 0-0 1 2.0-0 Nh5 1 3.Nd5 Bg5 14.Bb6 Qd7 1 5 .g3 Bd8 1 6.Be3 g6 1 7 . Qd2 f5 with good countcrchanccs on the Kingside, Filipenk�Sveshnikov, USSR 1 9 87.

1 0 ... 1 1 .0-0

Be7 0-0

Now White has tried two moves: 1.2.a. 12-Rcll.l.b. 12.Qd2.

1.2.a.

1 2 .Rcl

1 2 ...

N e8

Defends the d-pawn and prepares . . . Be7-g5.

1 3.NdS 1 4.Bb6

B gS Qd7

1 05

Chapter 6

1S.Rc3

Kh8

Also possible is 1 5 . . . Nf6 when Krasenkov says that 1 6.f3 Nh5 1 7 .Nc2 f5 1 8.Bd3 is clearly better for White. Instead, Krasenkov Sveshnikov, Norilsk 1 987 went 1 6.Nxf6+? ! Bxf6 1 7.Rd3 [ 1 7.Nc2 Bd8 1 8.Be3 Ba5 1 9.Ra3 Qc7 followed by . . . Bb6, =] 17 . . . Qe7 [ 1 7 . . . Nd4!? 1 8.Bxd4 exd4 1 9.b3 b5 20.cxb5 axb5 2 1 .Nc2 Qa7 22.Nxd4 Bxd4 23.Rxd4 Qxa2 with the idea of 24.b4 Bc4 also gives Black reasonable play according to Krasenkov] 1 8.Rxd6 [Avoiding 1 8.b3? Nb4 1 9.Rxd6 Nxa2] 1 8 . . . Nd4 1 9.c5 Nxe2+ 20.Qxe2 Qe8 [20 . . . Bxa2 2 1 .Rfd 1 Bb3 22.R 1 d3 is a little better for White] 2 1 .b4 Qa4 [Better is 2 1 . . . Be7 22.Rd5? ! Qa4 23.Qb2 a5 ! . White should try 22.Rxe6 ! ? with reasonable compensation] 22.Qb2 Be? 23.Rxe6! fxe6 24.Nc4 with good compensation for the sacrificed exchange. After 24 . . . Rf6 [24 . . . B f6 is better] 25.Nxe5 a5 26.Bxa5 Bxc5 27.bxc5 Qxa5 28.Nd7 Rn 29.Qxb7 Qc7? 30.Qxc7 Rxc7 3 1 .c6! Rf4 32.f3 g5 [32 . . . Rxc6? 33.g3 Rn 34.Ne5 wins] and now Krasenkov gives 33.Ne5 followed by Rd l -d7 as winning for White.

16.Nc2

g6

17.f4 ! ? 1 7.Nce3 is a calmer move when 17 . . . f5 1 8.exf5 gxf5 1 9.f4 i s very nice for White.

17 1 8.Nce3 •••

B d8

Inferior is 1 8.f5 gxf5 19.exf5 Bxd5 ! 20.Bxd8 Bxe4, but 1 8.Be3! may give White a little something.

18

•••

exf4

19.Rxf4

B gS

20.Rfi

Bh6!

21 .b4

B g7

22.Rcl

NeS

23.Kh1 24.Nxd5

BxdS ! Qe6

2S.Bd4 26.Nxf6

N f6 Bxf6

Intending 25 . . . Nf6.

Santo Rornan-Z.Po1gar, Roy an 1 9 8 8 . Black 's control of the e5

1 06

The Neo-Sveshnikov

square gives her some advantage. The continuation was 27.Bxe5? Qxe5 [ And not 27 . . . Bxe5? 28.Bg4] 28.Qd5 Qe7 29.Rf3 Be5 30.Rcfl Rc7 3 l .Bd3 Kg7 32.g3? ! h5 ! 33.h4 Qd7 34.Kg2, and now Z.Polgar gives 34 . . . Qa4 35.c5 Qxb4 36.Bc4 f6 37.Rb3 Qxc5 38.Rxb7 Rxb7 39.Qxb7+ Kh6 as winning for Black.

1.2.b.

12.Qd2

1 2 ... 13.Racl 1 4.g3 ! ?

h6 Ne8

B y making 1 5 . f4 exf4 1 6.gxf4 a possibility, White hopes to scare Black out of his planned . . . B g5. Other moves also seem to promise White chances for an advantage: 1 ) 14.Nc2 Bg5 1 5.Rfd l Bxe3 1 6.Qxe3 Qg5 1 7.Qg3 ! [ 1 7.Qb6 Rc7 followed by . . . f5 gives Black reasonable counterchances] 1 7 . . . Qxg3? ! [Better is 1 7 . . . g6 followed by . . . Kg7 though White would still retain the more comfortable position] 1 8.hxg3 g6 1 9.Nd5 Kg7 20.Rd2 [Other promising ideas are 20.Nb6! ? Rd8 2 l .Rd2 followed by Rcd l , and 20.f3, +=] 20 . . . f5? ! [Black should have played 20 . . . Bxd5 ! 2 1 .exd5 , +=] 2 1 .exf5 gxf5 22.Rcd l Na5 ? ! 23.b3 Nc6 24. f4 ! Kh7?! 25.Kh2 Kg7 26.Nde3 h5 27.Rfl Ne7 28.Nb4 e4? [28 . . . Ng6 29.Nbd5 ! , +-] 29.Rh l ! Rh8 30.Kgl Bf7 3 l .Kf2 [Black's weak pawns on h5, f5, and d6 leave Black with a hopeless position] 3 1 . . . ReS 32.Nbc2 Bg6 33.Nd4 Kf7 34.g4! fxg4 35.Bxg4 Ng7 36.Bh3 h4 37.Ne2 Ne8 38.Bg4 Bh5? 39.Rxh4 Ng6 40.Rhl Nf6 4 l .Bxh5 Rcxh5 42.Rxh5 Nxh5 43.g3 Ke7 44.Nf5+, 1 -0, P.Popovic-B.Ivanovic, Vrsac 1 989. 2) 14.Rfd l Bg5 1 5.Nc2 Bxe3 1 6.Qxe3 Qg5 1 7.Qxg5 hxg5 1 8.b4 g6 1 9 .Nd5 Kg7 20.Nb6 Rd8 2 1 .b5 NbS 22.Nb4, + - , Zapata Gaprindashvili, Biel II 1988.

1 4 .. .

N f6

1 07

Chapter 6

The tempting 14 . . . Bh3 1 5 .Rfd 1 Bg5? fails to 1 6.Bxg5 ! hxg5 [ 1 6 . . . Qxg5 1 7.Qxg5 hxg5 1 8.g4 Nf6 19.f3 is no better] 1 7.g4 ! when Black's Bishop on h3 is trapped. However Black might wish to call White 's bluff with 14 . . . Bg5 ! ? : 15.f4 exf4 1 6.gxf4 Bh4 threatens . . . f5 and if White tries to stop this by 17.f5?! then 1 7 . . . Bd7 1 8.Nd5 Bg5 is adequate. Analysis by Krasenkov.

15.f3 16.Nd5

Nh7 fS

1 6 . . . Bg5 now gives White the superior game after 1 7 .f4 exf4 1 8.gxf4 Bh4 19.Rfd l , +-.

17.Bb6

Q d7

18.exf5

BxfS

1 9 .Nxe7 + 1 9.h4 ! ? Nf6! leads to a complicated battle with chances for both sides .

1 9 ...

Nxe7

20.Rfdl ? ! Better i s 20.Nb l ! [heading for c 3 and d5] 20 . . . Bxb l 2 1 .Rxbl followed by Rbd 1 , +=.

2 0 ...

Rf6

21 .Be3

Bg6!

Now . . . Nf5 has become a possibility for Black.

22.Nbl

Bxb l !

Black must stop the Knight from getting

23.Rxbl 24.c5 ? !

to

c3 and d5.

NfS

24.Rbc1 ! ? followed by Rc3 is unclear.

2 4 . .. 25.Bf2?

Kh8 NgS !

Now ideas like . . . Nh3 or . . . e4 will really hun White.

26.Kg2 One sample line that demonstrates White problems is 26. Kh l e4 ! 27. f4 e3 28.Qd5 Ne6 29.Be l Rxc5 with a win.

1 08

The Neo-Sveshnikov

26 ... 27.Khl

e4 ! exf3

28.c6

Rxc6

29.Bd3

dS

30.Rel

Nd6

31 .Re5

Qn

32.Qa5

Nge4 f2

33.Bd4

Also winning is 33 . . . Rf5 34.Qd8+ Qg8.

34.Kg2 35.Bxfl

fl = Q + ! Rc2+

36.Kgl Dolmatov-Guseinov, Klaipeda 1 988, and now 36 . . . Nd2 37.Qd8+ Qf8 wins immediately for Black. Instead Black made a horrendous blunder with 36 . . . Ng5?? and actually lost after 37.Rxg5 ! hxg5 38.Qd8+ Qf8 39.Bxf6 Qxd8 40.Bxd8, 1 -0.

C o n c l u s i on Grabbing a r.pace advantage with 6.c4 is White 's one true try at refuting Black's opening system. If Black doesn't react in an active and imaginati·-·e way he can easily find himself crushed to death on the Queenside. However, there is no need for Black to get depressed ! So far his position has held up fairly well and White has yet to demonstrate a definite advantage.

J.

6.Bg5!?

I 've saved this line for last because I felt it would be a fun way to end the book. White throws his Bishop to the winds. Why? Of course

Chapter 6

1 09

he will win Black's Rook but it is also obvious that the Knight will never get out alive. The idea is that Black's King will be stuck in the center and while he is busy winning the White Knight White might be able to whip up an attack.

6 ... 7.Nc7+

QxgS

8.Nxa8

Be6!

Kd8

Best according to Sveshnikov. The idea is to ignore the Knight on a8 and instead play for a counterattack. The materialistic approach is 8 . . . b6 9.Nd2 Bb7 10.Nxb6 axb6 l l .c3 when Black can try: 1 ) l l . . .Nf6 1 2 . Qb3 Kc7 1 3.Qxn+ [Or 1 3.Nc4 Nd7 14.Ne3 Qg6 1 5.Nd5+ (better is 1 5.f3, +=) 15 . . . Kb8 16.f3 f5 with an unclear position according to Dvoiris] 1 3 . . . Be7 14.Qc4. White 's plan of a4 and b4 should give him the better chances. 2) l l . . . Qe7 1 2.Qb3 Qc7 1 3.Nc4 Nf6 14.f3 Nd7, I.Kuznecov Bezgodov, USSR 1 990. Now 1 5.Be2 Na7 [ 1 5 . . . g6 1 6.0-0 Bg7 1 7.Rad 1 , +=] 1 6.a4 f5 1 7.Nd2 Nc5 1 8.Qc2 leads to a complicated game with mutual chances.

9.Nc3

N f6

9 . . . Kd7? is a disaster: 10.Nb5 Qd8 1 1 .Nac7 a6 1 2.Nxe6.

l O.NbS

1 10

The Neo-Sveshnikov

According to I.Kuznecov, White should play 1 0.h4! with an unclear.

1 0... l l .f3

Nxe4 Qh4+ N x g3

1 2.g3 13.hxg3

Qxhl

1 4.Nxd6

Nd4!

Black is winning.

C o n c l u s i on The sharp 6.Bg5 is new and interesting but I'm afraid ideas like this are usually doomed to obscurity once the novelty fades.

Index Of Variations l .e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d 4 cxd 4 4.Nxd 4 e5 Chapter One

5.NfS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

Chapter Two

5.Ne2 ............................................. ................... ...................................... 1 5 Chapter Three

5.Nf3............................................................... .......... ................ ............... 19 Chapter Four

5.Nb3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 . ..................................................... ....................... 25 7.Qf3 ............................................... ..................... 25 7.Bd3 ......... ..... .......... ................... ........................ 26 7.Bg5 .............. ..................................................... 28 7.Bc4 ......................... . . . . . . ......... .......... ................. 29 7 . . . Nxe4.......................... .......................... 29 7 . . . d6 . . . . ..... ................................................ 30 7

. . .

0-0

. ..........

.... ... .

....

..

.....

.

............

.

...........

31

Chapter Five

5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Bc4 Nf6 ...................................... ........................... .......... 35 7.Qe2 .......... .......... .............................................. 35 7.Nc3 ................................................................... 35 7.0-0 ........................... ......................................... 37 7.Bg5 ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................................. 39 Chapter Six

5.Nb5 d6 ............................................................ ...... . . . . . . ....... .................. 4 1 6.Bc4 .............................................................. ...................... 4 1 6.Nl c3 a6 7.Na3 b5 8.Nd5 Nge7 ......... ................. ............. 43 9.Bg5 .......................... 49 9.c3 ............................. 5 1

The Neo-Sveshnikov

112

9.c4 ............................. 53 6.N5c3 .................................... ...... . . . . ....... ....... ....... .............. 57 6.Nd2........................ ........................................................... 59 6.a4 Nf6 7.N1c3

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

.......

.

.............. ..........

... .. 60 .

7 . . . h6 . ...... ............................. ..................... 62 7

. . .

Nb4 .. .. . .

..

. . . ...

.. . ..

.....

.

. . . . .. .

.

.........

..

.....

. . 67 ...

7 . . . Be7 .... ........................... ......... .............. 69 7 . . . Be6 .... ... ......... .................... . . . . .............. 70 7 . . . a6 8.Na3 ......... .......... .. ............. ............ 72 8 . . . d5 .............. ........ ............... 72 8 . . . Bg4................................... 74 8 . . . Be6 ......................... .......... 75 8 . . . Be7 ..... .............................. 80 6.g3

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

6.Be2 ................................................ ........... ........... ............. 85 6.Bd3 ..................... .. ......... ................................................... 86 6.c4 ...................... ................................................................ 87 6 . . . Be7 7.N 1 c3 a6 8.Na3 Be6 .................................... 87 9.Nc2 .......................... 90 9.Be2 .......................... 9 1 9 . . . Nd4 ............... 92 9 . . . Bg5

...

. . . . . 94 ..

.

...

.

9.Nd5 ........................ .. 98 9 . . .Nf6 .. ............. 98 9 . . .Rc8 .............. 100 9 . . . Bxd5 ............ 102 6 Be6 7Nlc3 a6 8Na3 Rc8 9 .Be3 Nf6 10.Be2 Be7 I I .().() ()..()...................... 103 . . .

12.Rcl..... 104 12.Qd2 _ 1()6

Bibliography

B ook s

Tournament Chess #1 3-32 Infonnants # l-49 New In Chess Annuals # 1- 1 6 The Sicilian Pelikan b y Sveshnikov Sicilian: Lines With . . . e5 by T.D. Harding and P.R.Markland Encyclopedia of Chess Openings Volume B , 2nd Edition M a g a zines

New In Chess Inside Chess

Recommend Documents