Sicilian Defense - Grand Prix Attack With f4 + bb5

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic
Inside Chess Online
Sicilian Defense
Grand Prix Attack with f4 + Bb5
Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic
In the era we live in there is an availability of almost all kinds of unlimited
information. This abundance of choice is good but there is also a hidden
danger. Attracted by the vastness of the offered material supplied by
various databases, Internet and encyclopedic editions, it is not only the
beginner but also a more experienced player who easily goes astray in the
superficiality and unnecessary width. Absorbing far too much information,
focusing their attention mostly at openings, many players neglect to
improve on their play in other phases of the game or on eliminating their
psychological and physical abilities. In order to avoid the unnecessary
wandering and the loss of time, an adequate selection of information is
very important. From the practical point of view it is more useful to have
a database of, let's say, 200-300 real games from one's own repertoire
than various editions of databases of a million or more games. Such 'mega'
databases are most helpful for preparation against your opponent during
tournaments.
The above observation is closely connected with the choice, more
precisely the limitation of the repertoire. The modern tempo of life is
such that almost every individual has a problem with lack of time. If you
have no ambition to be among the very top players, you should limit your
repertoire. Go for depth, not width. The precious time you save when you
avoid to memorize various forced variations should be used, as I have
already mentioned, to eliminate your weaknesses in actual playing. Such
an approach will certainly improve your practical results. A quote of
Savielly Tartakower should be remembered: "The real battle begins only in
the middlegame". The topic of this theoretical article "Sicilian f4+Bb5"
nicely illustrates the above observations regarding limited repertoire. To
successfully adopt the positionally motivated 5.Bb5 after either 1.e4 c5 2.
Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 or 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 e6 4.Nf3 d5 it is not
necessary for White to learn reams of analysis. It offers scope for the
creative mind. A purely practical advantage is that it makes booked up
Najdorf, Dragon or Sveshnikov players think for themselves. In the future
more advanced databases could lead to a trend away from sharp
theoretical openings and this line would become even more popular.
The system with 5.Bb5 is part of the complex 2.f4 Sicilian that was
resurrected from the archives by Larsen in the 60s. For the development
of the system a particular credit should be given to the British players
Miles, Hodgson, Hebden, Plaskett Sicilian with 2.f4 or 2.Nc3 and 3.f4 can
lead to a fierce attack on Black's king or it can be combined with purely
http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (1 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36
positional ideas. Black gets fewer counter chances than in various open
Sicilian lines. The lines with 5.Bb5 are less aggressive compared with 5.
Bc4, and are better known as the Grand Prix Attack.
Black has two fundamentally different ways to continue: g6 or e6. Here
we will discuss...
System with g6
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bb5 Nd4
This position is also often reached after the move order 2.Nc3 or 2.f4. In
case of 2.f4 White has to be ready to react to 2d5. Black's most frequent
and best answer is 5Nd4. When Black's pawns are doubled after Bxc6 he
finds it very difficult to generate counterplay. Black's problems stem from
the lack of flexibility in his pawn structure. Strongest is 5Nd4 after which
White has four possible moves to choose from: 6.a4 (A); 6.Nd4 (B); 6.Bd3
(C) and 6.0-0 (D). Most attention will be given to the continuation 6.0-0
which has the best score so far in practice. Other continuations, if Black
plays correctly, don't promise any advantage.
A) 6.a4 does not pose any problems for Black.
6...e6 (Superficial is 6...Nxb5 7.axb5 e6 8.d4 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Qh4+ 10.g3 Qd8
11.Be3 with advantage for White, Oratovsky - Stisis, Tel-Aviv 1996) 7.0-0
(7.d3 Ne7 8.e5 0-0 9.Ne4 d5 10.exd6 Nef5 11.Bc4 Nxd6 12.Nxd6 Qxd6 13.00 Nxf3+ 1/2 Wahls - Lazarev, Hamburg 1993) 7...Ne7 8.e5?! (Better is 8.
Ne2 Nxb5 9.axb5 d5) 8...a6! 9.Bd3 Nxf3+ 10.Qxf3 d5! and White was
outplayed, Adams Morovic Fernandez, Las Palmas 1993. An interesting
attempt to complicate matters with 6...Nf6!? was seen in the game Gulko
- Gomez Esteban, Pamplona 1996. There followed 7.e5 (7.0-0 0-0 8.d3 d5)
7...Nh5 8.d3 0- 0!? 9.Nxd4 [9.g4 a6 10.gxh5 (10.Bc4 d5!) 10...axb5 11.Nxd4
cxd4 12.Nxb5 d6 with counterplay] 9. . .cxd4 10.Ne2 d6 11.exd6 exd6 12.00 Bg4!? with active play for Black. 12...d5 with the idea 13...a6 is also
possible.
B) 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.Ne2
Older ways of treating this variation are not dangerous for Black. Both
replies 7Qb6 and 7Nf6 offer Black good chances. White has to play even
accurately to reach equality.
7...Qb6 8.Bc4 (Or 8.Bd3 d5 9.e5 f6 10.c4 fxe5 and Black was already
better, Romanishin - Sisniega, Taxco 1985) 8e6 9.d3 Ne7 10.Bb3 d5
11.e5 Bd7 12.0-0 h5 with unclear play, Lazic - Damljanovic,
Podgorica 1993.
7...Nf6! 8.Ng3 (Too committal is 8.e5?! Nd5 9.c3 0-0 10.cxd4 d6 11.
Bc4 dxe5 12.fxe5 Bg4 13.d3 b5 with an excellent game for Black,
Sale - Bistric, Zadar 1999. The position after 8.Bd3 d6 9.0-0 0-0 is
discussed in the part C, where it arises after the move order 6.Bd3
d6 7.Nxd4 cxd4 8.Ne2 Nf6 9.0-0 0-0) 8...0-0 9.0-0 Qb6! 10.Bd3 d5!
and Black had more comfortable game, Lazic - Vaulin, Podgorica
1993.
C) 6.Bd3
At first sight this is an illogical move. White returns the bishop at d3 and
closes the way for his d-pawn. But, this is only temporary because after
the exchange Nxd4, White intends to play c3, by which he solves the
problem of his dark-squared bishop and releases the c2 square. Still, it
takes time to carry out this plan, so Black, reacting on time in the center,
achieves a satisfactory game. Between two different plans 6e6 (C1) and
6d6 (C2), the latter is more reliable for Black.
C1) 6...e6 7.Nxd4 cxd4 8.Nb5 d6 9.c3
White's strategy is to open the d-file and exert pressure on d6. Therefore
9dxc3 is not recommendable for Black but 9Nf6 is with the idea to
make use of the awkward position of the white bishop on d3.
9...dxc3 (Bad is 9... Qb6? 10.Nxd4 Bxd4 11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Qxd4 Al

Modiahki - Myo Naing, Yangon 1999) 10.dxc3. Now 10...Nf6?! (10...
Ne7? 11.Nxd6+) forces Black into an inferior endgame after 11.Bc2
Ke7 (11...d5? 12.e5) 12.e5 dxe5 13.Qxd8+ Kxd8 14.fxe5 Nd7 15.Bg5+
f6 16.exf6+ Bxf6 17.Bxf6+ Nxf6 18.0-0 Bangiev - Schenk, Germany
1996. Better is 10...Nh6!? 11.Be2 (11.Bc4!? Ke7) 11...d5 12.e5 (12.
exd5 a6) 12...0-0 13.Be3 a6 14.Nd4 f6 15.exf6 Qxf6 16.0-0 Bd7 17.
Qd2 Rac8 with an unclear game, Emmerich - Nehmert, Hessen 1991.
Although in the last example Black had a playable game, the overall
impression is that 9dxc3 doesn't promise equality.
9...Nf6 (Thanks to this option the continuation 6e6 is still

playable) 10.Nxd4 e5 11.Nf3! (This prevents d5 possibility which
Black successfully carried out after 11.Ne2 0-0 12.0-0 d5! 13.fxe5
Nxe4 14.Bc2 Bxe5 15.d4 Bg7 with an equal game, Benjamin - Geller,
Lone Pine 1980) 11...exf4 12.Bb5+ Bd7 13.Bxd7+ Qxd7 14.d3 Nh5
(14...d5 15.e5 Nh5 16.0-0 0-0 17.d4 f6 18.exf6 Rxf6 19.Qb3 is
slightly better for White, Delacroix - Ackerman, corr 1992) 15.0-0 00 16.Ng5 (Better is 16.Qb3) 16...Qb5! 17.Nh3 f5 18.Nxf4 Nxf4 19.
Rxf4 Bh6 20.Rxf5 gxf5 21.Bxh6 Rf6 22.Qd2 Draw agreed, Tkachiev Chuchelov, Cappelle la Grande 1995.
C2) 6...d6 7.Nxd4 cxd4 8.Ne2
Definitely a more promising position for Black than the one arising in the
variation C1.
8...Nf6 9.0-0 (The move order 9.c3 dxc3 10.dxc3 0-0 11.0-0 doesn't make a
big difference. After 11b5 12.Ng3 a5 13.a3 Bd7 Black was fine in
Campora - Jukic, Bern 1989) 9...0-0
Now with the logical continuation 10.c3 White has encountered unpleasant
experiences both after the sharp 10e5 and after 10dxc3. Black likes to
complete his development and to base his further plans on disturbing the
e4-square.
10...e5 11.cxd4 exd4 12.b3 (12.b4 Re8 13.Ng3 h5 14.f5 h4 15.Ne2 g5

16.Bc2 d3 17.Bxd3 Nxe4 18.Bxe4 Bxa1 and White had inadequate
compensation, Friss - Kristensen, Arhus 1992) 12...Re8 13.Ng3 h5 14.
f5 h4 15.Ne2 Nxe4 16.Bxe4 Rxe4 17.d3 Re5 18.fxg6 Bg4 19.gxf7+ Rh7
20.Rf4 Bxe2 with a winning position for Black, Basman - Adorjan,
London 1975.
10...dxc3 11.bxc3 b6! 12.Bc2 Bb7 13.d3 Qc7 14.Kh1 Rac8 (Better
than 14...e6 15.Bd2 Nd7 16.f5 exf5 17.exf5 Qc6 18.Rf2 Nf6 19.Nd4
Turner - Rowson, Scarborough 1999) 15.f5? (15.Qe1 Nd7 16.Bd2 b5 is
slightly better for Black) 15...d5! 16.Bf4 Qc6! 17.Ba4 (17.e5 d4! 18.
Rf3 Ng4) 17...b5 18.Nd4 Qc5! and Black had a clear advantage,
Hodgson - Petursson, Reykjavik 1989.
These examples clearly demonstrate the drawbacks of 10.c3. Simply,

White is short of time to make the ideal re-grouping of his pieces.
Better is 10.Qe1 with the idea to endanger the d4 pawn with Qf2. But in
that case as well Black achieves good play by playing actively in the
center: 10.Qe1 Nd7 11.Bc4 (11.Qf2 Nc5 12.Nxd4 Nxd3 13.cxd3 Bd7 14.b3
Bb5 is satisfactory for Black according to Topalov) 11...d5! (Black reacts
correctly at once in the center before White consolidates with d3) 12.exd5
(12.Bxd5 Nf6 13.Ng3 Nxd5 14.exd5 d3 seems to be good for Black? 12...Nb6
13.d3 [13.Bb3 a5 (13...d3!? 14.cxd3 Nxd5 is also possible) 14.a4 Nxd5 15.
d3 e6 with equal game, Weeramantry - Lein, Dearborn 1992] 13...Nxc4!

(13...Nxd5 14.Qf2) 14.dxc4 b5 (According to Ftacnik Black is slightly better
after 14...e6!? 15.Qf2 exd5 16.Nxd4 dxc4 17.Be3 Re8 18.Rad1 Qa5) 15.Qf2
bxc4 16.Nxd4 Qxd5 with an equal game, J. Polgar - Topalov, Dortmund
1996
Examples given in C2 clearly show that White cannot count on the
advantage with the continuation 6.Bd3. So there remains the last and best
option 6.0-0!
D) 6.0-0!
A simple and most useful move. White is willing to exchange his bishop
and to put his pawns on the white squares d3 and e4. Later on he may
start a typical 2.f4 Sicilian Attack with Qe1, Qh4, f5, Bh6, Ng5 etc. Now
Black has an option between 6e6 (D1), 6a6 (D2) and 6Nxb5 (D3). At
the moment the most popular continuation is 6Nxb5.
D1) 6...e6
Black ignores the white bishop and plans Ne7 with the later d5. Two
different types of position arise depending on whether White continues
with 7.Nxd4 (D11) or 7.e5 (D12). Premature is 7.f5?! gxf5 8.exf5 Nxf5 9.
d3 a6 10.Bc4 d5 11.Bb3 Nge7 12.Ne2 Ng6 Epishin - Yudasin, Tallinn 1988
D11) 7.Nxd4 cxd4 8.Ne2 Ne7 9.d3
In practice this position arises also after the move order 7.d3 Ne7 8.Nxd4
cxd4 9.Ne2
White's plan is to organize pressure along the e-file. Black's unavoidable
answer will be with f5 which prevents White from doing it. The support
for this plan comes also from the light-squared bishop that is moved to the
a2-g8 diagonal.
9...0-0
The quick a6 and b5 favor White since his bishop is very active on the a2g8 diagonal: 9...a6 10.Ba4 b5 (10... 0-0 11.Bd2 b5 12.Bb3 Bb7 13.Qe1 Nc6
14.f5 Szell - Schoof, Berlin 1987) 11.Bb3 Bb7 12.Bd2 f5 13.e5 Nc6 14.c3
Szell - Rausz, Hungary 1992. In both examples White achieved clear
advantage.
10.Ba4!
10.Bc4?! allows 10d5!. In the game Szell - Kosanovic, Szekszard 1994
Black had a superior game after 11.Bb3 dxe4 12.dxe4 b6 13.Ng3 Ba6 14.Rf2
d3.
10...d6
The following two high level examples pretty clearly demonstrate the
characteristics of the position after 10d6. In the first one GM Short
achieved strong pressure along the e-file with simple moves after which
Black was forced to weaken the e6 square by playing f5. 11.Kh1 (11.c3
b5! 12.Bb3 Nc6 is good for Black, Varga - Schneider, Statisztika 1991) 11...
a6 12.Bd2 b5 13.Bb3 Bb7 14.a4 Qd7 15.Ng3 f5 16.Qe2 Kh8 17.axb5 axb5 18.
exf5 exf5 19.Rxa8 Rxa8 20.Re1 with advantage for White, Short Georgadze, Lvov 1984.
The correct way to treat the position for Black was demonstrated in the
game Moutousis - Topalov, Biel 1993. There followed 11.Bd2 Bd7 12.Bb3
Rc8 13.Qe1 Kh8 14.Kh1 f5 15.Ng3 Nc6! 16.Qf2 Na5 (The exchange of one of
the white bishops is a good strategy for Black) 17.Bxa5 Qxa5 18.exf5 exf5
19.Ne2 Qc5 20.Ng1 Bf6 21.Nf3 Rfe8 and in the further course of the battle
the weakness of the e3-square became prominent.
D12) 7.e5
A more challenging continuation than 7.Nxd4. White emphasizes the

weakness of the d6- square.
7...a6
Inferior is 7...Ne7? 8.Nxd4 cxd4 9.Ne4 0-0 10.b3 Hickl - Michaelsen,
Tyskland 1992, or 7...f5 8.Nxd4 cxd4 9.Ne2 Qb6 10.Bd3 Ne7 11.b3 d6 12.
exd6 Qxd6 13.a4 Rf7 14.Ba3 and Black position is full of weaknesses,
Bisguier - Benko, USA 1980
8.Bd3 Nxf3+
This exchange activates the white queen. 8...d5!? without taking at f3 is
surprisingly inadequately investigated. In the only tournament game
Crawley - Stratmann, Groningen 1988, Black achieved counterplay after 9.
Nxd4 cxd4 10.Ne2 Ne7 11.Qe1 Nc6 12.Qf2 Qb6 13.b3 f6!
9.Qxf3 d5 10.exd6
Harmless is 10.b3 Ne7 11.Qf2 b6 12.a4 a5 13.Bb5+ Bd7 14.Bxd7+ Qxd7 15.
Nb5 0-0 16.d4 f6 1/2 Dely - Kiss, Hungary 1992
10...Qxd6
The postponement of taking the pawn 10...Nf6 11.Be4 Rb8 12.d3 0-0 13.
Kh1 Qxd6 brought Black problems after 14.f5 exf5 15.Bf4 fxe4 16.Nxe4
Nxe4 17.Bxd6 Nxd6 18.Qd5 Rd8 19.Qxc5 Bxb2? (A blunder, but even after a
better continuation white's queen is superior than the non-coordinated
black minor pieces.) 20.Qb6 and White won, Plaskett - Sher, Oviedo 1993.
11.b3 Nf6
The most logical continuation. Also interesting is the following example:
11...Rb8 12.Bb2 Qd8 13.Rae1 Ne7 14.f5 (The aggressive attempt to make
use of the position of the black rook at b8 leads only to a drawish
outcome. With the calm 14.Kh1 White retained a minimal advantage.) 14...
gxf5 15.Qg3 Bd4+ 16.Kh1 Bd7 17.Bxf5 exf5 18.Rxe7+ Kxe7 19.Nd5+ Kf8 20.
Qd6+ Kg7 21.Bxd4+ cxd4 22.Qg3+ Kf8 23.Qd6+ Kg7 1/2 Berg - Ernst,
Helsingborg 1990.
12.Bb2 0-0 13.Na4 Nd7 14.Bxg7 1/2 Plaskett - Pedersen, Hampstead 1998.
D2) 6...a6
Black chases away the white bishop that prevents him from completing his
development with d6 and Nf6. The positions arising after 7.Bd3 are
similar to those discussed in C2. Still, there is a difference. The moves 6.00 a6 have been interpolated, which favors White. 7.Be2 is less ambitious
but also a quite playable continuation. One gets a clear impression about
this type of position from the old game Hebden - Spraggett, New York
1983 in which after 7...d6 8.a4 e6 9.d3 Ne7 10.Bd2 0-0 11.Kh1 b6 12.Nxd4
cxd4 13.Na2 Nc6 14.Nb4 White's position was slightly preferable.
The basic position for the continuation 7.Bd3 arises after 7d6 (Interesting
is 8.Nd5 Bg4 9.Be2 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Nf6 11.Ne3 0-0 12.c3 Nxf3+ 13.Qxf3 Qd7
14.d3 Qc6 15.f5 e6 16.g4 exf5 17.gxf5 Rfe8 Juldashev - Wang Zili, India
2000) 8.Nxd4 cxd4 9.Ne2 Nf6
The continuation 10.Kh1! is critical for the assessment of the variation.

Another option 10.c3 gives Black an easy game: 10dxc3 11.bxc3 0-0
(11... Bd7 12.Bc2 0-0 13.Qe1 Rc8 14.Kh1 Qa5 15.a4 Rfe8 Hickl - Ftacnik,
Altensteig 1987) 12.Bc2 Qc7 13.a4 (White can easily go astray as happened
in the game Plaskett - Trepp, Luzern 1985 where after 13.Kh1 b5 14.d3
Bg4 15.Bd2 b4 he faced serious problems) 13...b6 14.Qe1 Bd7 15.Kh1 b5
and Black obtained a good game, Hickl - Lau, Dortmund 1987.
More dangerous is 10.Kh1! when White after 100-0 forces the game with
11.Nxd4 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Bxd4 13.Qf3 (13.c3?! d5!) 13...Rb8 14.c3 Bg7 15.f5
(15.d4 f5) 15...b5 16.d4 b4 17.Bg5 bxc3 18.bxc3
Practically neither of the players can avoid this position after 10.Kh1 0-0.
The e-file and the pressure on the e7-square are significant factors that
promises an advantage for White. There are two tournament examples:
18...Qc7 19.Qg3 Bb7 20.Rae1 Rfe8 21.Bc2?! Bd5 with an advantage

for Black, Reinderman - Sosonko, Amsterdam 1996. Instead white
should have played 21.Bxb7! Qxb7 22.Qh4 with the initiative.
18...Rb5 19.a4 (19.Rae1!?) 19...Ra5 20.g4 Qc7 21.Rae1 e6 (21...Rxa4

22.Bxe7! Qxe7 23.Bc6 wins material) 22.f6 Rxg5 (White is better
also after 22...Bh8 23.Bd2 Rxa4 24.g5) 23.fxg7 Rd8 24.Qf6 Rxg4 25.
Bf3 with a decisive initiative, Minasian - Arakhamia, Lucerne 1997
If Black doesn't want to enter a forcing variation 10.Kh1 0-0 11.Nxd4 etc
he has at his disposal Anand's 10Nd7 with the idea 11Nc5. In the game
Adams - Anand, Groningen 1997 an extremely complicated battle took
place where White had somewhat better chances after 11.b4!? 0-0 12.Bb2
Qb6 13.Rb1 Nb8!? (13...e5!?) 14.c3 (14.f5!?) 14...Nc6 15.h3 Be6 16.a4 Rac8
17.Qe1!.
D3) 6...Nxb5
The most popular continuation. Black exchanges the unpleasant lightsquared bishop and does not allow the doubling of the pawns on c6.
Decentralization of the white knight 7.Nxb5 gives him the possibility to
react at once in the center with 7d5 (D33). Apart from this fashionable
idea two other continuations are 7Nf6 (D31) and 7d6 (D32). Generally
speaking, with all continuations Black achieves solid positions but his
problem is that it is very difficult for him to organize adequate
counterplay.
D31) 7.Nxb5 Nf6
White can now ignore the provocative 7Nf6 and not play 8.e5 which leads
to unclear complications but slowly carry out the usual plan d3, Qe1, Qh4,
f5 etc. instead. An interesting example with 8.e5 is Crawley - Ravisekhar,
Southampton 1986. The game continued 8Nd5 9.d4 Nc7 (9...Qb6!?) 10.
Nc3! cxd4 (10...d6!?) 11.Qxd4 O-O?! (Carelessly played. Better is 11...d6
with an unclear game) 12.f5! d6 (12...fxe5 13.Qh4) 13.fxg6 hxg6 14.Qh4
with the initiative.
8.d3 0-0
and now:
9.Nc3 d6 10.Qe1 Nd7?! (It is not recommended to close the diagonal

c8 - h3. Better is either 9...e6 or 9...Ne8 with the idea f5) 11.f5 Ne5
12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.Bh6 Bg7 14.Qh4 f6 15.Nd5 was much better for
White in Chaves - Gonzalez, Guarapuava 1992
9.Qe1 d6 10.Qh4 Qd7 (10...Bg4 11.f5 is better for White, LecuyerChabanon, France 1988) 11.Nc3 Qg4 12.Qf2 Qd7 13.Ng5 h6 14.Nh3
Ng4 15.Qh4 Bf6 16.Qg3 Bd4+ 17.Kh1 f5 with unclear play?
Christensen - Andersen, Aarhus 1997
9.a4 d6 10.Qe1 Ne8 [10... e6 11.Qh4 a6 12.Nxd6!? (12.Nc3) 12...

Qxd6 13.e5 Qd8 14.f5 exf5 (Black's position should be defensible
after 14...Nd7) 15.Bg5 Re8 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.exf6 Qd6 18.Ng5 with
the initiative, Hracek - Alterman, Pula 1997] 11.Qh4 f5 12.e5 Bd7 13.
Be3 a6 14.Nc3 Nc7 15.d4! cxd4 16.Bxd4 Ne6 17.Rad1 Bc6 with
chances for both sides? Minasian - Cvitan, Lucerne 1997.
D32) 7...d6 8.d3
The question is: What is the best plan for Black? How to oppose a simple
but efficient scheme of White's play in this type of position Qe1, Qh4, f5
etc?.
8Nf6 is not the best option. Apart from the classical way of playing 9.Qe1
Bd7 10.Nc3 Bc6 11.Bd2 Qc7 12.a4 Hodgson - Murshed, Blackpool 1988,
White also has the sharp possibility 9.e5!? dxe5 10.fxe5 Nd5 11.Qe1 where
Black has to show great skill in defending his position.
The next two examples show that it is not at all easy: 11...0-0 (Weaker is
11...h6?! 12.Qf2 Qb6 13.c4 Nb4 14.Ne1 Be6 15.Be3 Na6 16.b4 Bxe5 17.bxc5
Al Modiahki - A.Georgiev, Andorrala Vella 1999) 12.Qh4 Qd7 (12...f6 13.
exf6 exf6 14.Qc4 b6 15.Nc7 Qxc7 16.Qxd5+ Kh8 17.Qxa8 Bb7 18.Qxa7 Ra8
19.Bf4 Qc6 20.Qxa8+ Bxa8 21.Rae1? Degraeve - Velcheva, Metz 2000) 13.
Nc3 Nb4 (13...Nxc3 14.bxc3 b6 14.Bh6 f6) 14.Ne4! Nxc2 15.Bh6! f6 (15...
Nxa1 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Nf6!) 16.Rac1 Nd4 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Rxc5 Ne6 19.Rc4
b6 20.exf6+ exf6 21.Nd4! Nxd4 22.Nxf6 and White was more successful in
Plaskett - Schmidt, Trnava 1984.
The plan with the active play on the queenside is better but it doesn't
guarantee Black an equal position either: 8...a6 9.Nc3 b5 10.Qe1 Bb7
(Premature is 10...b4 11.Nd1 a5 12.Ne3 Bb7 13.Rb1 Nf6 14.c4! bxc3 15.
bxc3 Rb8 16.c4 Hebden - Hernandez, Havana 1993) 11.Kh1 [11.Bd2 Qd7 12.
Rb1 b4 (12Nf6 13.e5!) 13.Nd1 Nf6 14.Ne3 0-0 15.Qh4 e6! M.Pavlovic Knaak, Erevan 1988] 11Qd7 12.Bd2 Nf6 (12b4!? 13.Nd1 Nf6) 13.e5 Nd5
14.Ne4 f5 15.Neg5 h6 16.Nh3 0-0 17.Qg3! Rh7 18.Rae1 dxe5 19.Nxe5 Qd6
20.a3 Rac8 21.Ng1 and the control of the e5-square gives White a
positional advantage, Hickl - Wahls, Altensteig 1987.
I should mention one insufficiently investigated option for Black 8Nh6

with the idea of f5. The knight transposes to the f7-square where it
controls the e5-square. For example in the game Lein - Shamkovich, New
York 1983 Black had at least equality after 9.Rb1 a6 10.Nc3 f5 11.Qe2 0-0
12.Bd2 Bd7 13.e5 dxe5 14.Nxe5 Nf7.
D33) 7...d5
This radical attempt to break the compactness of White's central pawn

mass after the decentralization of the white knight is the most fashionable
line of the whole system. The types of the position that arise are
completely different from the ones previously discussed. The e4-pawn is
challenged and White is at a crossroads - either to open the position by
playing 8.exd5 (D331) or to create some kind of semi-closed position with
8.e5 (D332).The latter option poses more problems for Black. Let us
mention that it is completely harmless to maintain the tension in the
center with 8.d3 because Black achieves a preferable endgame by force
after 8a6 9.Nc3 Bxc3 10.bxc3 dxe4 11.dxe4 Qxd1 12.Rxd1 Nf6 13.Re1 b5
Kosten - Shirov, Val Maubuee 1989.
D331) 8.exd5 a6! 9.Nc3 Nf6
(9...Bd4+? has no point since after simple moves 10.Kh1 Nf6 11.Ne2 Nxd5
12.Nexd4 cxd4 13.Nxd4 Nb4 14.c3 Nc6 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.d4 White was a
healthy pawn up, Christiansen - Lobron, Essen 1999) 10.d4 c4!
[According to Hodgson 10...Nxd5 11.dxc5! (Better than 11.Nxd5?! Qxd5 12.

dxc5 Qxc5+ 13.Kh1 O-O Bennett - Dzindzichashvili, New York 1993) 11...
Nxc3 12.Qxd8+ Rxd8 13.bxc3 Bxc3 14.Rb1 is better for White] 11.Ne5 Nxd5
12.Qf3 (12.Nxc4?! Nxc3 13.bxc3 Qc7 is fine for Black) 12...e6! (12...Nb4?!
13.Rf2 0-0 14.a3 Nc6 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Be3 Cordts Nen. Ristic, Wildbad
2000) 13.f5! gxf5 14.Nxd5 Qxd5 15.Qxd5 exd5 Hodgson - Rowson,
Rotherham m/4 1997. Now after the correct 16.Bf4 instead of 16.Nf3?! 0-0
17.Re1 f4! White should have adequate compensation.
D332) 8.e5!
After this move a complex positional battle lies ahead. The position is
quite unique in chess literature. It is hard to find some other system
similar to the position that arose. Black really has to know what he is
doing, and even then it is not clear if he can equalize. From the following
examples the reader will notice that the whole board has become a
battlefield. Both sides undertake actions in the center and at both flanks.
In the course of the battle a completely asymmetric pawn structure arises
and one should be prepared to play a really creative chess. From
tournament play Black tried two continuations: 8d4 (a) and 8a6 (b).
a) 8...d4 9.c3 a6 10.Na3
In this line Black has to be prepared to sacrifice his exposed pawn for
active play. The continuation 8d4 prevents the centralization of the
knight on the e4-square as in the variation 8a6 9.Nc3 d4 10.Ne4. In this
case this knight will play an active role as well but now on the e3-square
after Nc2 (c4)-e3, since Black's d pawn has no support to stay on d4 and
must continue bravely forward to the d3-square. From e3 the knight has
excellent control to both flanks and the center as well. The control of the
squares g4 and f5 neutralizes the activity of black minor pieces on the
kingside. In the two examples the white players were more successful with
the complex battle that arose.
10...d3 11.Nc4 b5 12.Ne3 Nh6 13.b3 (Black's c-pawn is the main

target) 13Nf5 14.Qe1 0-0 15.Ba3 b4 (White is practically forced to
sacrifice the pawn because in case of 15...Qc7 unpleasant is 16.Nd5)
16.cxb4 cxb4 17.Bxb4 Qb6 18.Bc3 (18.Ba3!?) 18Bb7 19.Qf2 Nxe3 20.
Qxe3 Qxe3+ 21.dxe3 Rfc8 22.Rac1 and Black had no adequate
compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Hebden - Thorsson,
Kopavogur 1994.
10...b5 11.cxd4 cxd4 12.Nc2 (Again White's provokes the d-pawn. It

is stronger than 12.d3 Nh6 13.Nc2 Nf5 14.g4 Ne3!? 15.Bxe3 dxe3 16.
Nxe3 h5 when Black obtains very active play over the light squares
for the pawn) 12...d3 13.Ne3 Nh6 14.b3 0-0 15.Bb2 f6 [The
alternative is 15...Bb7 16.Qe1 Rc8 (16...Qd7!?) 17.g4!? Qd7 18.Qh4
with an unclear position according to Bangiev] 16.Qc1 with a very
complicated positional struggle, Minasian - Pelletier, Lucerne 1997.
b) 8...a6 9.Nc3
Interesting is the new idea by Bangiev 9.Na3!? with the further plan c3Nc2-d4. The game Bangiev - Lutz, Lippstadt 1998 continued 9Bg4 (If
Black reacts with 9d4 then 10.c3 transposes into 8d4 line) 10.c3 e6 11.
Nc2 (Premature is 11.d4?! cxd4 12.cxd4 Ne7 and Black is slightly better. It
is essential for White to take on d4 with the piece retaining the stronghold
in the center) 11...Ne7 12.d4 cxd4 13.Ncxd4 (13.cxd4 0-0 14.Ne3 Bxf3 15.
Qxf3 Qb6 is also preferable for Black) 13...0-0 14.Be3 Rc8 15.Qd2 (A more
enterprising plan is 15.Qe1!? Bxf3 16.Rxf3 Qd7 17.Rh3) 15...Bxf3 16.Rxf3
Nc6 17.Re1 Qd7 18.Bf2 Nxd4 19.Bxd4 Rc6 with balanced position.
After the more often played 9.Nc3 Black is at a crossroads. The choice is
between the continuations 9d4 (b1) and 9Bg4 (b2) which lead to
completely different types of positions. In both cases Black has still not
demonstrated a clear way to make equality.
b1) 9...d4 10.Ne4 Qd5
The position has a temporarily closed character, so time is an important

factor. Black still has not completed his development and White has to
play enterprisingly in order to make use of it. The dominant position of
Ne4 gets prominent in many variations.
11.d3 (Postponing d3 with the intention to utilize the exposed

position of the black queen seems to be more dangerous for Black.
See the examples below) 11Nh6 (11...Bg4 12.Qe1 Bxf3 13.Rxf3 Nh6
14.Qa5 is clearly in White's favor) 12.Qe1! (From this square the
queen controls both flanks. This is better than 12.a4 0-0 13.a5 f6 14.
exf6 exf6 15.c4 dxc3 16.Nxc3 Qc6 17.d4 cxd4 18.Nxd4 Qc4 19.Na4
Qf7 20.Qb3 Nf5 21.Qxf7+ Kxf7 Al Modiahki - Wiersma, Groningen
1999) 120-0 13.a4 (Now if 13.Qa5?! Black has 13 Bf5! 14.Nxc5 b6
15.Qxb6 Rfb8) 13...b6?! (Allows White to undermine black's central
squares. Black should have played 13...a5! with an equal game) 14.
a5! b5 15.b4!? cxb4 16.Qxb4 Nf5 17.Bb2 Rd8 18.Rf2! h5 19.Ng3 Bf8
20.Nxf5 Bxf5 21.Bxd4 with a clear advantage for White, Reinderman
- Alterman, Wijk aan Zee 1998.
11.Qe1 Nh6 12.Nf6+ Bxf6 13.exf6 Be6 14.fxe7 Nf5 15.d3 Nxe7 (I
don't know how much better this position is for White. He has to
find the most efficient way of activating his bishop) 16.Ng5 (Perhaps
this is not the best plan since Black has no idea how to castle short.
Maybe it was better to open up the queenside immediately) 160-00 17.b4 cxb4 18.a3 bxa3 19.Bxa3 with a very sharp game,
Reinderman - Hoffmann , Groningen 1998.
11.Qe2!? Bg4?! [A logical but suspicious move after which black's

knight remains passive. After the alternative 11Nh6 (What else?
11h5 is too compromising) White can exchange black's darksquared bishop with 12.Nf6+!? entering the similar position as in the
previous example.] 12.d3 Nh6 13.h3 Bxf3 14.Qxf3 Qc6 (Because of
the threat 15.Nf6+ Black is forced to lose an important tempo.) 15.
g4 f5 16.exf6 exf6 17.f5 and White obtained a strategically winning
position, Plaskett - Hodgson, England 1999.
b2) 9...Bg4
(Less ambitious continuation) 10.d4 cxd4 (Closing the position with 10...c4
favors White after 11.b3 Rc8 12.Na4 b6 13.Qe1 Bd7 14.Nc3 Hebden Koshy, Dhaka 1995) 11.Qxd4
(White intends to exploit the absence of black's minor pieces and to

provoke weaknesses on the queenside. Less promising is 11.Ne2 e6 12.
Nexd4 Ne7 13.h3 Bxf3 14.Qxf3 Rc8 15.Be3 Nc6 16.c3 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 h5 with
equal play, Reinderman - Janssen, Dieren 1998) 11...e6 12.Qb4 Bxf3 (Or
12...b5 13.Be3 Bf8 14.Bc5 Bxc5+ 15.Qxc5 Rc8 16.Qa7 Ra8 17.Qf2 Bxf3 18.
Qxf3 when White's advantage has a temporary character, Jackson Gallagher, British ch 1999.) 13.Rxf3 b5 (Bad is 13...Qe7? 14.Qa4+ Qd7 15.
Qxd7+ Rxd7 16.Na4 Rb8 17.Be3 Ne7 18.Ba7 Rbe8 19.Rb3 with a big
advantage for White, Hodgson - Rowson, Rotterdam m/2 1997) 14.a4
(Possible is 14.Be3!?) 14...Bf8 15.Qb3 Cabrera - Camacho, Cuba 1998. All

Black's pieces are back at their original squares after having played 15
moves. Undoubtedly White is better. The maximum that Black can achieve
in this variation is a draw by playing precisely.
Part II
I.C.E. USA
I.C.E. Europe
P.O. Box 19457, Seattle WA 98109,

USA
tel: 1-800-26-CHESS/1-206-286 9764
fax: 1-206-283 4363
e-mail: orders@insidechess.com
P.O. Box 59064, 1040 KB

Amsterdam, Netherlands
tel: 31-(0)20-6850493
fax: 31-(0)20-6891293
e-mail: ice-euro@knoware.nl
Copyright2000-2001 by International Chess Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.

Inside Chess Online is best viewed with Netscape 4+ or IE 5+.
Inside Chess Online is published by International Chess Enterprises, Inc.,
a wholly owned subsidiary of Masterpiece Games, Inc.
Grand Prix Attack Part 2 Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic
Inside Chess Online
Sicilian Defense
Grand Prix Attack with f4 + Bb5 Part II
Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic
The second part of the article dealing with the system 2.f4 + Bb5 covers
the options for both sides in the case when Black plays the continuation ...
e6 instead of ...g6, which was discussed in the previous article. Here too,
as well as with ...g6 it is not enough for Black to rely on countering merely
with "simple development". Black really has to know what he is doing, and
even then it is not clear if he can equalize.
Preparing d5 with 2...e6 is one of the most natural and popular systems at
Black's disposal. The sequence 1.e4 c5 2.f4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Bb5
represents the main line of 2...e6. Two main continuations for Black are
5...Nf6 (C) and 5...Nge7 (D). An early commitment with the d-pawn 5...
dxe4 (A) and 5...d4 (B) has also been played in practice but the prospects
are less promising.
A) 5...dxe4
After this for White it is best to use the chance and spoil Black's pawn
structure at once by playing 6.Bxc6. It is also possible to spoil Black's pawn
structure a move later by going on with 6.Ne5, whereas 6.Nxe4 is not
precise because Black after 6...Bd7 avoids the doubling of the pawns.
a) 6.Nxe4 Bd7 7.0-0
http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043302/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix2.html (1 of 19)06/06/05 18:42:30
White did not carry out the main idea of the variation to create the rigid
pawns structure for Black in the center with the exchange at c6, so Black
easily gets a comfortable game:
7...Nh6!? 8.b3 Be7 9.Bb2 0-0 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 11.d3 Nf5 12.Qe1 b6 13.
Qf2 Rc8 with equal game, Sylvan - Maksimenko, Copenhagen 1994.
7...Nf6 8.d3 Be7 9.c3 0-0 10.Kh1 Qc7 11.Be3 b6 with playable
position for both sides, Johansson - Karlsson, Uppsala 1992.
As it was said earlier, better continuations are 6.Ne5 and 6.Bxc6 and
White achieves perhaps not great but certainly a permanent positional
advantage. Black's chances to complicate the game are reduced to the
minimum.
b) 6.Ne5 Bd7 (6...Qb6 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.Nxe4 is also in White's favor) 7.Bxc6
Bxc6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Nxe4 Nf6 10.Qf3 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Qd5 12.d3 with a slight
advantage, Wedberg - Westin, Stockholm 1993.
c) 6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.Nxe4 Nf6
Black has permanently compromised his queenside and he can hardly

achieve the activity with which he would compensate his positional
weaknesses. White has no reason to avoid further exchanges and the
simplification of the position. The drawbacks of the Black position become
visible in all the possible endgame types.
c1) 8.Qe2 Nxe4 9.Qxe4 Qd5 10.d3
And now:
10...Qxe4+ 11.dxe4 Rb8 12.b3 f6 13.Be3 h6 14.c4 g5 15.0-0-0 with

the advantage for White, Lazic - Brkljaca, Kladovo 1992.
10...Ba6 11.b3 Qxe4+ 12.dxe4 c4 13.Be3 Bb4+ 14.Kf2 0-0 15.Rab1 c5
16.a3 Ba5 17.Bxc5 with advantage, Maahs - Bach, Hamburg 1994.

c2) 8.d3
With further divergence:
8...Nxe4 9.dxe4 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 Ba6 11.Ne5 Rd8+ 12.Bd2 Bb7 13.c4
with a preferaBle position for White, Regan - Johnson, Reno 1991.
8...Be7 9.Ne5 Nxe4 10.dxe4 Qxd1+ 11.Kxd1 Bf6 12.Be3 0-0 13.Bxc5
Rd8+ 14.Ke2 Bxe5 15.fxe5 and White again obtained a much better
endgame, Hickl - Mueske, Germany 1992.
8...Ba6 9.Qe2 Be7 10.0-0 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Qd5 12.Qa4 Bb5 13.Qa5 c4
with an unclear game, Kasparian - Simagin, Parnu 1947.
c3) 8.Nxf6+ gxf6 (8...Qxf6!?) 9.Qe2 a5 10.d3 a4 11.0-0 Be7
12.Kh1 Qd5 13.c4 Qd7 14.Bd2 Bb7 15.Bc3 with a big
advantage, Karakashian - Liu She Lan, Erevan 1990.
B) 5....d4
A seldom played and an uninvestigated continuation. Black runs the risk of
remaining with an unpromising game after the exchange at c6 in the
reached Blocking type of the position. In order to avoid it, he must strive
to carry out c5-c4, even at the cost of sacrificing a pawn.
6.Bxc6+
6.Ne2 Bd7 7.c3 Qb6 8.c4 a6 9.Ba4 d3 10.Nc3 Qc7 with a complex game,
Minasian - Thorhallsson, Cappelle la Grande 1998.
6...bxc6 7.Nb1!
Alternatives are weaker:
7.Na4? Nf6 8.Qe2 (8.e5 Nd5) 8...Qa5 9.b3 Ba6 and Black is better.
7.Ne2 d3 8.Nc3 (Or 8.cxd3 Qxd3 9.Nc3 Bd6 10.Qe2 c4 11.Ne5 Bxe5
12.fxe5 Ne7 13.b3 Ng6 14.bxc4 Nxe5 15.Qxd3 Nxd3+ 16.Ke2 with an
equal game) 8...Bd6 9.e5 Bc7 with chances for both sides.
7...Ba6 8.d3 c4 9.0-0 (Or 9.dxc4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Qb6 11.b3 Nf6 12.Qe2 Ng4 13.
Qd3 Ne3 14.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 15.Kf2 Qb6 with a compensation) 9...Nf6 10.Ne5
(More promising is 10.b3 c3 11.Re1 with the idea Na3-c4) 10...cxd3 11.
cxd3 Nd7 12.Nxd7 Qxd7 13.Qc2 Bb4 14.Bd2 Be7 with an equal game,
Ginsburg - Baklan, Cappelle la Grande 1997.
Now we turn to the two main continuations 5...Nf6 and 5...Nge7.
C) 5...Nf6
In this continuation as well as in the previous two Black's problems stem
from the lack of flexibility in his pawn structure after exchanging on c6.
His doubled pawns on the c-line can become a weakness in their own
right. Black's best hope for the counterplay is to strive playing ...c4 in the
early stage of the game. Perhaps it is not too early even to make a general
statement and say that the outcome of the theoretical duel also depends
on whether Black will successfully carry out c4 or not. If he doesn't
manage to do it, and stays with the fixed pawn formation in the center in
the later stage of the game the drawbacks of his position become evident.
Almost all the examples give below are dominated by this motive.
a) 6.Qe2 Be7
The lines 6...d4 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.Nd1 Qa5 and 6...a6 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 are in
White's favor.
a1) 7.e5 Nd7 8.f5 (An aggressive attempt that is not very promising) 8...
Nd4 (Possible is also 8...0-0 9.0-0 Qc7 10.Bxc6 Qxc6 11.d4 exf5 Tauber Sandor, Munchen 1991) 9.Nxd4 cxd4 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.e6 0-0 12.exd7 Bxd7
13.0-0 Bxb5 14.Qxb5 b6 15.d3 Rc8 and the pressure along the c-file
compensates the pawn weaknesses, Altrichter - Drescher, corr 1989.
a2) 7.0-0 0-0 8.Bxc6 bxc6
One of the mains positions for the continuation 5...Nf6. White should
complete his development by putting into action his dark-squared bishop.
The options are 9.d3 and 9.b3. The latter one is better because it doesn't
allow Black to support the advance c5-c4 with...Ba6.
a21) 9.d3
Now Black can either prepare ...c4 with 9...Ba6 or he can sharpen the
game, entering unclear complications by playing 9...c4 at once.
9...Ba6 10.Ne5 Qc7
And now in two examples Black has achieved an acceptable position:
11.Rf3 Bd6 12.Rg3 Rfd8 (12...Bxe5 13.fxe5 Qxe5 14.Bf4

followed by 15.Bd6) 13.Bd2 c4 with an unclear game, K.
Petrosian - Vasiljevic, Budapest 1993.
11.Ng4 Nxg4 12.Qxg4 dxe4 13.f5 exf5 14.Rxf5 exd3 (14
Bc8) 15.Bh6 g6 16.Bxf8 Rxf8 17.Rf2 c4 with
compensation, Bondar - Vologin, Moscow 1996.
9...c4!? (More ambitious) 10.dxc4 (Superficial is 10.d4?! dxe4 11.

Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 Qd5 13.Qe2 c5 with the advantage for Black,
Bilek - Stein, Kecskemet 1968) 10...Ba6 11.Nd2 dxe4 12.Ncxe4 Qd4+
13.Qf2 Rfd8 14.Qxd4 Rxd4 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.c3 Rd3 with
compensation, Reimer- Schmidt, Munchen 1985.
a22) 9.b3!?
As mentioned above, by playing this move White does not allow ...Ba6 and
this is more precise than 9.d3.
9...a5 10.d3 Ba6 11.Kh1 (11.Bb2 Rb8 12.Rab1 Nd7 13.Nd2 Bf6 14.e5
Be7 15.Rf3 Rf8 16.Rh3 Nf8 unclear, Van Zutphen Koelman,
Haarlem 1998) 11Nd7 12.Bb2 c4?! (12Bf6) 13.bxc4 dxc4 14.d4 a4
15.Rad1 with a better position for White, Hort - Gheorghiu,
Kecskemet 1964.
9...c4 (Now this try is less efficient than after 9.d3. When White has
played b3, then after Black play ...c4 and the exchange bxc4 he can
strengthen the center by playing d3-d4.) 10.bxc4 Ba6 11.d3 dxc4 12.
d4 Qa5 13.Bd2 Qa3 14.Rab1 Rab8 15.Ne5 with the advantage for
White, Lester - Murphy, corr 1972.
a3) 7.Ne5 Qc7 8.Bxc6+ bxc6
With this move order an interesting plan for Black is the active ...c4 (after
White plays d3 or b3) and Bb4 with the pressure at the e4 point. This plan
proved to be efficient in several games.
9.0-0 0-0 10.d3 (10.b3 c4 11.bxc4 Bb4 is unclear, W.Watson Spraggett, Commonweal ch 1985) 10...Ba6 (10...c4 11.dxc4 Ba6 12.
b3 Bb4 13.Rf3 Bxc3 14.Rxc3 Nxe4 15.Rh3 f6 Black is excellent,
Dietze - Schmidt, Polanica Zdroj 1970) 11.Kh1 Rab8 12.a3 c4 13.
dxc4 Nd7 14.exd5 Nxe5 15.fxe5 cxd5 16.b3 dxc4 17.b4 Rbd8 18.Bf4
Qc6 19.Rad1 Draw, Tempone - Soppe, Cordoba 1990.
9.b3 c4! (9...0-0?! 10.Ba3) 10.0-0 Ba6 11.bxc4 Bb4! 12.Rf3? [12.exd5
Bxc3 (12...cxd5) 13.dxc3 cxd5 14.Ba3 Bxc4 15.Nxc4 Qxc4 16.Qe5
Ne4 with counterplay] 12...0-0 13.Rb1 Rab8 (13...Bxc3) 14.Rb3 Bxc3
15.Rfxc3 Nxe4 16.Rxb8 Rxb8 17.Rb3 f6 18.Nf3 Qxf4 with a big
advantage for Black, Hebden - Franco, Calella 1985.
The option with the quick centralization of the knight, refraining from the
Blocking e4-e5 is also noteworthy:
b) 6.Ne5 Qc7
Or 6...Bd7 7.Nxd7 Qxd7 8.Qf3 a6 9.Bxc6 Qxc6 10.d3 Be7 11.Bd2 Rd8 12.e5
Nd7 with an equal game, Keith - Galkin, Metz 2000.
7.Qf3
7.d3 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.b3 c4!? 11.bxc4 Bc5+ 12.Kh1 Bd4 13.Qe1
dxe4 14.Rb1 exd3 15.cxd3 was slightly better for White, Kobalija - Lerner,
St. Petersburg 1997.
7...a6 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.0-0 Bd6 10.d3
10.Nd3 is passive. After 10...c4 11.Ne1 0-0 12.d3 cxd3 13.cxd3 Be7 Black
was better,? Cseshkovsky - Sveshnikov, Sochi 1980.
10...0-0 (Worthy of consideration is 10Bxe5 11.fxe5 Qxe5 12.Bf4 Qh5 13.

Qxh5 Nxh5 14.Bd6) 11.Kh1 a5 12.Bd2 Ba6 13.Rfe1 with slightly better
chances for White, W.Watson - Kupreichik, Hastings 1984.
c) 6.e5 Nd7
6... Ng8 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.d3 (8.b3) 8...Nh6 9.0-0 Nf5 10.Ne2 c4 11.g4 is
better for White, Kosten - Gurgenidze, Palma de Mallorca 1989.
7.Bxc6
Perhaps the only way to achieve the opening advantage. The positions
where White carries out d4 remind of a kind of the French Defense,
favorable for Black.
7.d4?! a6 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.Ne2 cxd4 10.Nexd4 c5 and Black solved all
his problems, Schleifer - Lesiege, Canada 1996.
7.0-0 Qb6 8.Bxc6 Qxc6 9.d4 b6 10.Kh1 Bb7 11.a4 Be7 12.a5 0-0 13.
a6 Bc8 unclear, Lupu - Sveshnikov, Val Maubuee 1990.
7....bxc6
For this position too it is important whether Black can get rid of his
doubled pawns along the c-file or not:
8.0-0 c4! 9.b3 Ba6 10.bxc4 Bxc4 11.d3 Ba6 12.Ne2 (12.Kh1 Qa5 13.
Ne2 g6 14.Bd2 Qc7 15.Qe1 Bg7 Gentilleau - Vaisser, Escaldes 1998)
12...g6 13.Be3 Qa5 14.h3 h5 15.Kh2 Be7 16.Bf2 h4 17.Ned4 Rc8 18.
Nb3 Qa4 19.Qd2 c5 and Black had a good game, Bangiev Tukmakov, Sumi 1979.
8.d3 (More precise. Doesn't allow 8...c4) 8...Be7 9.0-0 0-0 (Better is
9...Ba6!) 10.Ne2 f6 (10...a5 11.c4 a4 12.Rb1 f6 13.Qe1 Qe8 14.Ng3
fxe5 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Qxe5?Hergott - Cifuentes Parada, Cuba 1996)
11.Qe1 Qc7 12.Qg3 Nb6 13.Bd2 c4 14.d4 c5 15.Be3 Ba6 16.c3 Na4?
17.f5 Rab8 18.Nf4 1-0 Dzindzichashvili - Van Riper, Poughkeepsie

1990.
d) 6.d3 Be7 7.0-0
The calmest move order. Before playing the thematic e4-e5 White
completes his development. Also possible is 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.0-0 Ba6! 9.e5
Nd7 10.b3 c4 11.dxc4 dxc4 12.Re1 Nb6 13.Ne4 0-0 14.Be3 Nd5 15.Qd2
Nxe3 16.Qxe3 Qb6 17.Rad1 Rfd8 18.Nd6! with a small advantage for White,
Adams - Lautier, Chalkidiki 1992.
7... 0-0 8.Bxc6 bxc6
In practice there are several examples with this position:
9.Bd2 Ba6 10.e5 Nd7 11.Qe1 d4! (11...c4?! 12.d4) 12.Ne4 c4 and
Black was better,?Hug - Gligoric, Skopje 1972. As soon as Black gets
rid of his c5 pawn without consequences, he can hope for a pleasant
game.
9.Qe1 Ba6 10.e5 Nd7 11.Kh1 Qe8 12.Ne2 f6 13.b3 Rb8 14.Be3 Bd8 15.
c4 with a space advantage, Hickl - Mednis, Graz 1987.
9.b3 Ba6 10.e5 Nd7 11.Ne2 c4!? (11...f5 12.c4 Mueller - Martin,
Nuernberg 1990) 12.d4 c5 13.Be3 Qc7 14.Rf2 cxb3?! (14...f6!?) 15.
axb3 Bxe2 16.Qxe2 Draw, Hickl - Hodgson, Jakarta 1996.
D) 5....Nge7
This continuation with which Black solves the problem of exchanging at c6,
that is, avoids the doubling of the pawns, has its drawbacks as well. Black
will face the problem of completing his development because for the time
being the development of his dark-squared bishop at the a3-f8 diagonal is
not possible. Usually the option of fianchetting this bishop is not
recommended because of the weak c5 point. In order to use these
drawbacks for White it is best to open the position at once by playing 6.
exd5 (e). Other continuations are less enterprising because they allow
Black to Block the position with d4 and at the same time his pawn
structure at the queenside remained compact. Of course, in this type of
the position too there arises a complex battle with mutual chances where
White tries to use his spatial advantage at the kingside.
a) 6.d3 (Not ambitious continuation) 6...a6 (Possible is 6...dxe4 7.dxe4

Qxd1+ 8.Nxd1 a6 9.Be2 Nd4 10.Nxd4 cxd4 11.c3 Nc6 12.cxd4 Nxd4 with
equal game, Van Schaardenburg - Avrukh, Antwerp 1999) 7.Bxc6+ Nxc6 8.00 Be7 9.Kh1 0-0 10.Qe1 b5 11.Bd2 Nd4 with an excellent game for Black,
Cardenas Valero - P.Cramling, Malaga 2000.
b) 6.0-0 d4 (Or 6...dxe4 7.Nxe4 a6 8.Bxc6+ Nxc6 9.d3 Be7 10.Be3 b6 11.
Ne5 Bb7 with equality, Romanishin - Ljubojevic, Tilburg 1985) 7.Nb1
(Maybe the alternative 7.Na4!? a6 8.Bxc6+ Nxc6 9.b3 is a better option) 7...
a6 8.Be2 g6 9.d3 Bg7 10.Nbd2 f5 (10...0-0 11.e5!) 11.e5 b5 12.a4 Rb8 13.
axb5 axb5 14.c4 with an unclear position, I.Zaitsev - Moroz, Moscow 1992.
c) 6.Ne5
This active move doesn't give White an advantage.
6...Bd7 7.Bxc6 Nxc6 8.Nxd7 Qxd7 9.exd5 exd5 10.0-0 0-0-0 11.d3 F.
Andersson - P.Cramling, Stockholm 1999.
6...g6 7.Qe2 Qd6 8.d3 Bg7 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Na4 c4 Senff - Bu
Xiangzhi, Budapest 1999.
6d4!? (Probably best) 7.Bxc6+ (7.Ne2 Bd7 8.Nxd7 Qxd7 9.d3 a6 10.
Bxc6 Nxc6 is good for Black, Durao - Silva, Portugal 1994) 7...Nxc6 8.
Nxc6 bxc6 9.Nb1 d3 10.c4 e5! and Black chances in this original
position were preferable, Bigler - Podgaets, USSR 1971.
d) 6.Qe2
White allows the Blocking of the position. More dynamic positions when a
more detailed theoretical knowledge is needed and where Black has to be
much more careful not to get into difficulties arising after 6.exd5 exd5 7.
Qf3.
6...d4
Now White tried different knight moves:
7.Na4 a6 8.Bxc6+ Nxc6 9.b3 Be7 10.d3 0-0 11.0-0 f5 12.Bd2 b5 13.
Nb2 Qd7 14.Rae1 Bb7 15.Nd1 Rae8 with chances for both sides,
Bangiev - Novikov, Kiev 1978.
7.Nb1 a6 8.Bxc6+ Nxc6 9.d3 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nbd2 b5 12.Ne5 (12.
e5) 12...Nb4 13.Ndf3 f6 14.a3 fxe5 15.Nxe5 Nd5 16.Nc6 Qd6 17.exd5
Bf6 is fine for Black, Panagopoulos - Drazic, Korinthos 1999.
7.Nd1 (The best plans. What White has in mind is the maneuver Nf2Ng4 with the idea to endanger the Black king.) 7...a6 8.Bxc6+ Nxc6
9.d3 f6 (9...Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nf2 f6 12.g4 Van der Veen - Afek,
Dieren 1999) 10.Nf2 Be7 11.g4 Qc7 12.h4 Bd7 13.Rg1 0-0-0 with a
complex game, Van Mil - Lemmers, Rotterdam 2000.
e) 6.exd5 (!)
Opening the position is the most efficient attempt of utilizing the

drawbacks of Black's set up. Now Black is on crossroad - either to allow the
doubling of his c-pawns after 6...Nxd5 (e1) or the opening of the e-file by
choosing 6...exd5 (e2). The choice is partly a matter of taste although my
preference is the later option.
e1) 6...Nxd5
and now:
e11) 7.Bxc6+ bxc6
8.d3 (This allows Black to advance quickly both his c-pawns.) 8

Nxc3 [Better than 8...Bd6 9.Ne4 (9.g3) 9...Bxf4 10.Bxf4 Nxf4 11.0-0
e5 12.Qd2 Ne6 13.Qc3 f6 14.Nxc5 Nxc5 15.Qxc5 Qb6 16.b4 with
better endgame, Eletsky - Jorgensen, Copenhagen 1991] 9.bxc3 c4!
10.d4 c5 11.0-0 cxd4 12.cxd4 Qd5 13.c3 Bd6 14.Qe2 0-0 and Black
obtained a good position, Nun - Golod, Ceske Budejovice 1993.
8.Ne5 (More challenging. Possible is also 8.0-0 c4 9.Ne5 Ba6 Gnauk Kersten, 1994) 8...Bd6 9.d3 (9.0-0 Nxf4!?) 9...Bxe5!? (9...Qc7!?) 10.
fxe5 Qh4+ 11.g3 Qd4 12.Nxd5!? exd5 13.Qe2 0-0 14.c3 Qg4 15.Be3
Qg6 with unclear position, Minasian - Becerra Rivero, Lucerne 1997.
e12) 7.Ne5 Bd7 (7...Nxc3 8.dxc3 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 Bd7 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 11.Nxc6
bxc6 12.Be3 Be7 13.Ke2 h6 14.Rad1 g5 was equal in, W.Watson - Murey,
Brighton 1983, but the alternative 7...bxc3 is slightly better for White) 8.
Bxc6 Bxc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.0-0
The difference with the previous line is that White knight is exchanged for
Black dark- squared bishop. It is not easy to assess who benefits from this
exchange? Perhaps the matters are slightly easier for Black now, but still
there is no a high level example from practice to prove this statement.
Obviously White has at least more pleasant game.
10...Be7 11.Qe2 0-0 12.Ne4 Nb6 13.Rb1 (13.d3 c4!) 13...Re8 14.b3
f5 15.Ng3 Bf6 16.Ba3 is in White favor, Hebden - Hort, London 1982.
10...g6 11.Qe2 Bg7 12.Ne4 Qe7 13.d3 0-0 14.c3 f5 15.Nd2 e5 16.Nc4
Rae8 17.fxe5 Bxe5 18. Qf2 f4 and with an active play Black
compensates the drawbacks of his pawn structure, Kosten Cvetkovic, Belgrade 1988.
Black has to react quickly. If he plays without invention his weakened

pawn structure would become prominent.
e2) 6...exd5 7.Qe2
By playing 6exd5 Black wants to retain compact pawn formation. On the

other side he faces the problem of completing his development. By pinning
Black knight White attempts to hinder Black's development. The position is
sensitive with hidden tactical tricks so Black must know what he is doing.
A possible mistake or even a wrong move order could be punished
severely. In practice it happened that even strong grandmasters faced
serious problems. For example:
7...g6?! 8.Qe5 Rg8 9.0-0 Bg7 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.Qe2 Bf6 12.d3 Bf5 13.
Ne5 Qd6 14.b3 Kf8 15.Ba3 Kg7 16.d4 with a big advantage, Collins Stean, Glasgow 1970.
7...a6?! (Just wasting a time.) 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.d3 g6 10.0-0 Bg7 11.
Qf2 c4 12.dxc4 dxc4 13.Be3 0-0 14.Bb6 Qd6 15.Bc5 Qc7 16.Rae1 Re8
17.Qh4 f6 18.Ne4 and White had an upper hand, Jakubovic - Hulak,
Bihac 1999.
e21) 7...f6!?
An interesting and insufficiently investigated continuation with a clear
idea. Running the risk of giving up the castling, Black prevents White from
playing Ne5. In few practical examples Black achieved quite playable
positions:
8.d4 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Kf7 10.Nf3 Be6 11.0-0 Nf5 12.Bd3 Bc5+ 13.Kh1 Qd7
14.a3 a6 15.Bd2 h5 with a complex game, S.Nikolic - Whitehead,
Lone Pine 1979.
8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.d3 Kf7 10.0-0 Nf5 11.Qf2 h5 12.Nh4 Nxh4 13.Qxh4
Bf5 14.Qf2 h4 15.h3 Qd7 unclear, Nun - Bakalarz, Germany 1993.
8.0-0 Kf7 9.d3 Na5 10.Ba4 a6 11.a3 b5 12.b4 bxa4 13.bxa5 d4 14.
Ne4 Nd5 15.Bd2 Be7 16.Rae1 Draw, Jakubovic - Tratar, Kastav 1999.
e22) 7Qd6
The main continuation. Now White has in his disposal several
continuations. The most enterprising are 8.Ne5 and 8.Bxc6+.
e221) 8.d4 c4?! (The correct reaction is 8...cxd4 9.Nxd4 Bd7) 9.b3 cxb3 10.
axb3 (White has unpleasant pressure along the open lines and the diagonal
a3-f8) 10...Qe6! (Weaker is 10...Bg4 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 0-0-0 13.0-0 Nxd4
14.Qf2 Qc5 15.Bd2 Nec6 16.b4! Qxb4 17.Rfb1 with a clear advantage,
Adamski - Schinzel, Poland 1980) 11.Ne5 Bd7 12.0-0?! (Better is 12.Bxc6)

12...Nxe5 13.Qxe5 Rc8 14.Bd2 a6 15.Bxd7+ Kxd7 16.Rac1 f6 17.Qxe6+
Draw, Oratovsky - Bruk, Tel Aviv 1994.
e222) 8.0-0 Bg4
8...a6?! 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.b3 Qxf4 11.Ne5 Qd4+ 12.Kh1 Be6 13.Bb2 Qb4 14.
Rae1 Qb7 15.Na4 with strong initiative, West - Booth, Melbourne 1993
The position after 8Bg4 has been played relatively often in practice.
There are several interesting examples:
9.b3? 0-0-0 10.Bxc6 Nxc6 11.h3 Nd4 12.Qd3 Bxf3 13.gxf3 Qxf4 14.Rf2
Qg3+ 15.Kf1 Qxh3+ 16.Kg1 Rd6 White resigns, Niebling - Svidler,
Frankfurt 2000.
9.Bxc6+ Qxc6 (9...bxc6 10.d3 g6 11.Qe5 Qxe5 12.Nxe5 Be6 13.Na4
Nf5 14.b3 f6 15.Nf3 Kf7 16.c4 h5 17.Ba3 with the advantage, Nun Blazkova, Ceske Budejovice 1997) 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 d4! (11...0-0-0
12.f5 g6 13.fxg6 fxg6 14.d3 Nf5 15.Bf4 Bg7 16.a4 and White's
advantage is based on the safer position of his king, M.Lazic Molnar, Szekszard 1994) 12.Ne4 f5 13.Ng5 h6 14.Qxc6+ Nxc6 15.Nf3
Bd6 16.d3 Kd7 17.Bd2 Draw, Nun - Efler, CZE-ch 1997.
9.Qe5 Qd7 (9...0-0-0 10.Qxd6 Rxd6 11.Ng5 Nd8 12.h3 Bf5 Soutullo Aguila, Villa Ballester 1992) 10.d4 f6 11.Qe1 c4?! (11...Bxf3!) 12.b3
a6 13.Bxc6 Qxc6 14.Ba3 Kf7 15.Ng5+ Ke8? (15fxg5) 16.f5 fxg5 17.
Qg3 cxb3 18.cxb3 Bh5 19.Rae1 Bf7 20.Qe5 Qf6 21.Qc7 b5 22.Re5 Rd8
23.Bxe7 Bxe7 24.Rfe1 Kf8 25.Rxe7 Re8 26.Nxd5 1-0 Losev Bujakevich, Moscow 1997.
e223) 8.Ne5
A thematic move that increases pressure on Black position. In a few older

examples Black didn't demonstrate a clear road to equality:
8...Bd7?! 9.Bxc6 Bxc6 10.Nb5 Qd8 11.0-0 f6 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Nc3 Kf7
14.f5 with a big advantage, Rogoff - Tukmakov, Graz 1972.
8... a6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.b3 f6 11.Nf3 Kf7 12.Ba3 Nf5 13.g3 and White
position is preferable, King - Podzielny, Tyskland 1985.
8...f6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Nf3 g6 11.b3 Kf7 12.Ba3 Qxf4 13.Bxc5 Nf5 14.
Bxf8 Rxf8 15.0-0 Kg8 is roughly equal, Hebden - Kristensen,
Silkeborg 1983.
e224) 8.Bxc6+!?
There is not a lot of experience with this continuation. The available
evidence is not encouraging from Black's point of view. Now the option 8
bxc6 is more reliable for Black. 8Qxc6 9.Ne5 is not recommendable since
in the dynamic position White gains an important tempo.
8...Qxc6?! 9.Ne5 Qd6 10.0-0 f6 (10...a6 11.d3 f6 12.Qh5+ g6 13.

Nxg6! Nxg6 14.f5 with the initiative, Kosten - Rovid, Budapest 1984)
11.Qh5+ g6 12.Nxg6 Nxg6 13.f5 Qe5 14.d4 Qxd4+ 15.Kh1 Qh4 16.Qe2
+ Kf7 17.Nxd5 Ne5 18.Bf4 Qg4 19.Qd2 Rg8 20.Nc7 Rb8 21.Qd5+ Kg7
22.Ne8+ Kh8 23.Nxf6 and Black resigns, Bricard - Wauters, France
1994.
8... bxc6 9.d3 (9.0-0 g6 10.b3 Bg7 11.Ba3 0-0 12.Rae1 Nf5 13.Na4
Nd4 14.Nxd4 Bxd4+ 15.Kh1 Bd7 16.c3 Rfe8 17.Qf3 Bg7 18.Bxc5 with
decisive advantage, Neumann - Etmans, corr 1985) 9...g6 10.0-0 Bg7
11.Re1 Be6 12.Na4
(12.Ng5!?) 12...0-0 13.Qf2 (The line 13.Ng5 Rfe8 14.Nxe6 Nf5 15.Qf2 Rxe6
16.Rxe6 fxe6 seems to be good for Black) 13...d4 14.Ng5 Bf5 15.b3 Nd5 16.
Ba3 Nb4 with unclear position, Hebden - Yap, Moscow 1986.
I.C.E. USA
I.C.E. Europe
P.O. Box 19457, Seattle WA 98109,

USA
tel: 1-800-26-CHESS/1-206-286 9764
fax: 1-206-283 4363
e-mail: orders@insidechess.com
P.O. Box 59064, 1040 KB

Amsterdam, Netherlands
tel: 31-(0)20-6850493
fax: 31-(0)20-6891293
e-mail: ice-euro@knoware.nl
Copyright2000-2001 by International Chess Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.

Inside Chess Online is best viewed with Netscape 4+ or IE 5+.
Inside Chess Online is published by International Chess Enterprises, Inc.,
a wholly owned subsidiary of Masterpiece Games, Inc.

Sicilian Defense - Grand Prix Attack With f4 + bb5

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sicilian Defense - Grand Prix Attack With f4 + bb5

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

Inside Chess Online

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (1 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (2 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

B) 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.Ne2

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (3 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

9...dxc3 (Bad is 9... Qb6? 10.Nxd4 Bxd4 11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Qxd4 Al

9...Nf6 (Thanks to this option the continuation 6e6 is still

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (4 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

10...e5 11.cxd4 exd4 12.b3 (12.b4 Re8 13.Ng3 h5 14.f5 h4 15.Ne2 g5

These examples clearly demonstrate the drawbacks of 10.c3. Simply,

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (5 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

d3 e6 with equal game, Weeramantry - Lein, Dearborn 1992] 13...Nxc4!

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (6 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (7 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (8 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

A more challenging continuation than 7.Nxd4. White emphasizes the

The most logical continuation. Also interesting is the following example:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (9 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

The continuation 10.Kh1! is critical for the assessment of the variation.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (10 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

18...Qc7 19.Qg3 Bb7 20.Rae1 Rfe8 21.Bc2?! Bd5 with an advantage

18...Rb5 19.a4 (19.Rae1!?) 19...Ra5 20.g4 Qc7 21.Rae1 e6 (21...Rxa4

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (11 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

9.Nc3 d6 10.Qe1 Nd7?! (It is not recommended to close the diagonal

9.a4 d6 10.Qe1 Ne8 [10... e6 11.Qh4 a6 12.Nxd6!? (12.Nc3) 12...

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (12 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (13 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

I should mention one insufficiently investigated option for Black 8Nh6

This radical attempt to break the compactness of White's central pawn

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (14 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

[According to Hodgson 10...Nxd5 11.dxc5! (Better than 11.Nxd5?! Qxd5 12.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (15 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

10...d3 11.Nc4 b5 12.Ne3 Nh6 13.b3 (Black's c-pawn is the main

10...b5 11.cxd4 cxd4 12.Nc2 (Again White's provokes the d-pawn. It

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (16 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

The position has a temporarily closed character, so time is an important

11.d3 (Postponing d3 with the intention to utilize the exposed

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (17 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

11.Qe2!? Bg4?! [A logical but suspicious move after which black's

(White intends to exploit the absence of black's minor pieces and to

http://web.archive.org/web/20010618043227/www.insidechess.com/theoreticals/grandprix.html (18 of 19)06/06/05 18:40:36

Grand Prix Attack Theoreticals by IM Zoran Ilic

(Possible is 14.Be3!?) 14...Bf8 15.Qb3 Cabrera - Camacho, Cuba 1998. All

P.O. Box 19457, Seattle WA 98109,

P.O. Box 59064, 1040 KB