Silman Neo Sveshnikov (1991)

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 •.• b6
20.fxe5 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 7
19.gxf4 B f6
20.c3 ReS
2 1 .Qd2 QaS
Black no longer has any problems. He has completely solved the
d ilemma of the d5 square.
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.
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 c3 and d5.
23.Rxbl N fS
24.c5 Kh8
25.Bf2? NgS !
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 9
29.Bd3 dS
30.Rel Nd6
31 .ReS Qn
32.QaS Nge4
33.Bd4 f2
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
Chapter 1 11
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 .•• BxfS
8.dxc6 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.
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, =+.
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!
14.Nxf6+ gxf6
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 ... Rfe8+
1 6.Kd1
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 Rb8
22.Kd1 Bxd3
23.cxd3 Q d4
24.Rcl 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:
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
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
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.
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
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, -+,
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 .
1 0 ... Ne7
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.
1 3 ... Be6!
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?
14.Ne3 Rac8
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
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-g8-
h7 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
ll . . . g6 1 2.Qh6 [ 1 2.Qf3 Be6! ] 12 . . . Bf8 with 1 3 . . . Bg7 to follow, both
give Black good defensive possibilities.
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.

8.0-0 Be6
9.Bd5
9.Nd5 i s bad due to 9 . Nxe4. However
. . 9.Qd3 ! ? deserves
consideration.
9 ••• 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
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
p y.
la
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.

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

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.
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 cS
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 eS
S.NbS!
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
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 Be6
9.Bb3 Be7
l O.BgS 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
1 S.c4 g6
1 6.Nbc3 fS
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
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
te mpting choices:
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
[B lack now starts a battle for the d5 and e4 squares. Naturally, if he
can play . . . d6-d5 he will solve all of his opening problems] 1 3.Bf3 Bb7 !
[ 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
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!
.
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

Chapter 6 49
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!
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 ... Nd4!
1 3 .cxb5 ?
He had to play 1 3 .Bxe7.
1 3 ... hxgS !
This gives Black a strong attack.

1 4.Qxh8 NxdS !
1 S.exd5 QaS+
1 6.Kd1
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 ... B g4 ! +
1 7 . f3
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 6 51
1 8.gxf3 B x f3 +
1 9.Kc2
1 9.Be2 loses to 19 . . . Qa4!+ 20.b3 Qd4+.
1 9 ... Rc8+
20.Bc4 !
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
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 ... NxdS
1 0 .exdS
1 0. Qxd5 is met b y 1 0 . . . Bb7 o r 1 0 . . . Qc7 followed b y l l . . . Be6.
1 0 ... N e7
1 1 .c4 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 ... e4
17.Rb1 B g4
White is already in terrible trouble.
18.f3
Chapter 6 53
No better is 1 8. Be2 Bxe2 1 9.Qxe2 Nxd5.

1 8 .. . exf3
1 9.gxf3 Bf5 !
20.Rb3 Q h4 +
2 1 .Ke2
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 .. . N d4
1 0. B e 3
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 6 55
2.c.) l l . . . Bd7 1 2.Be3 [ 1 2.bxa6? Qa5+ allows Black to pick u p the

p awn on d5] 1 2 . . . Nxb5 1 3.Nc4 f5 14.a4 Na7 1 5.Rc 1 [ 15.Nb6 f4! (Bad
is 1 5 . . . Rb8 1 6.Nxd7 Qxd7 1 7 .Bxa6 Rxb2 1 8.0-0, +-) 1 6.Nxd7
( 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 . .. NxdS
l l .e x dS
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 !
Bf5 3 1 .Bxf5 Rxf5 32.Re2 Rff8 33.Ne7+! Kh8 34.Rde1 , 1 -0 on time.
1 1 ... NfS
1 2.Bd2 Be7
1 3.Bd3 B f6
14.Rb1
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
The game is equal.
19.Bxe4 Rxb2
20.Rxb2 Bxb2
2 1 .Nc4 Qh4!
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 ReS
24.Nxd6 N fS
2S.NxfS BxfS
26.f3 BeS
27.Qh6 Bxh2+
28.Kh1 Qxh6
29.Bxh6 Bxe4
30.fxe4 Bg3 =
Chapter 6 57
G.Garcia-Lputian, Saint John Open II 1 988. Black actually went on
to win this ending: 3 1 .Ra 1 f6 32.Ra3 Bb8 33.Ra8 Kf7 34.Bd2 h5 35.Ra4
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 Be7
8.Bxf6 Bxf6
9.Nd5 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
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 ... Bh6
1 3.g4 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 BxdS
17.Nxd5 Ne7
1 8.Nxf4 exf4
19.0-0-0 Qb6
20.Qd4!
A strong idea. The endgame is unpleasant for Black due to hi S
weak pawn on d6.
Chapter 6 59
20 ... Qb3
2l.Bd3 Qe6 !
22.Qxa7 Qxg4
23.Qxb7 Qe6 !
24.Qb4! Nc6
2S.Qc4 Q f6
26.QdS NeS
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
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+!?.
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
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
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
po int to the view that Black's chances are to be preferred:
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 ... Nb4
12.b3 Be7
13.Bb2 0-0
14.Qe2 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 ! ?
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 . .. B e7
9.Bb5+ 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
1 1 .0-0 N f6
12.Ne3 Be6
1 3.Qe2 Rc8
14.Rdl a6
1 S.Bd3 Qc7
16.Qf3 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 6 69
22.Qxe3 Qxd8
Now the d5 square is adequately defended and White has no
chance for any advantage.
23.Rd2 dS
24.d4 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 . .. a6
9.Bxf6 gxf6
10.Na3 fS
l l .Bd3 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 dS
13.Qh5 Qb6
14.0-0 Qf6
lS.Rfel B d7
1 6. Q e 2
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 a4-
a5 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
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 ... ReS
1 1 .0-0 Be7
12.Bxf6 Bxf6
1 3.Bg4 0-0
14.Bxe6 fx e6
1 5.Ne2 dS =
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 6 73
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 Qe7+
1 3.Be2 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
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 ... Be6
1 0.Bc4 ? !
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.
Chapter 6 75
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.
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 6 77
9 ... 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:
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+
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.
17.Rc3 N d4
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,
[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 .. . Be6
1 0.0-0
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 ... ReS
1 1 .Bg5
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
1 3.Nd5 B gS
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 NxdS
1 7.Qxd5 Qc7
18.Rfdl Rfd8
1 9.Nc2 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
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 N f6
l l.Nbc3 BxdS
1 2.Nxd5 NxdS
1 3.Qxd5 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 85
lS.Rdl 0-0
16.Rd2 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 N f6
8 . B e3
It seems more logical to contest d5 by playing Bg5. In this case
though, White 's Bishop would be happier on c4.
8 .. . Be6
9.0-0 Rc8
10.Bf3 h6
l l .Qd2 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 ... a6
9.NSc3 B gS
The usual plan but 9 . . . Nf6 followed by I O . . . Nd7 and . . . Nc5
deserved strong consideration.
l O.BxgS QxgS
l l.NdS Rc8
Chapter 6 87
12.Nbc3 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 .•. Be7 and 1.2. 6 . . . Be6.
1.1. 6 .. . 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
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 . . . a6
8.Na3 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
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
Chapter 6 91
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 NxbS
18.a4 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
to be a little better for
this point. Since 9 . . . Nf6 1 0.Be3 is suppo sed
White, B lack will usually play either I.t.b.l. 9 N d4 ..• or I . l . b.2.
9 . . . Bg5.
I.l.b.l. 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 N f6
1 2 .0-0
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 ... 0-0
14.Rd1
14.Bd2 is the Filipenko-Sveshnikov, Kiev 1 988 game mentioned
earlier. Black could then play either 14 . . . Qe8, =, or 14 . . . b5! , =+.
1 4 . .. Qc7
1S.b3 bS
1 6.Ned5
Or 1 6.Ncd5 Nxd5 1 7.cxd5 Bd7, =+.
1 6 ... N x d5
17.Nxd5 Bxd5
18.cxd5 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 ... fS!
20.exf5 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 . . . QxgS
1 1 .0-0 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
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
Chapter 6 97
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
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 ... N f6 ; I . l .c . 2 .
9 . . . R c8 ; l.l .c.3. 9 ... BxdS.
I.l.c.l . 9 ••• 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 ... B gS
13.QhS!? 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... B gS
1 1 .Bb6 Qd7
1 2.Be2
This doesn't lead to anything so White should play the sharper
Chapter 6 1 01
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 ... 0-0
1 S.Nb6? !
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 ... Bxb6
16.Bxb6 fS
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 . .• Nce7 !
19.b3 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... NxdS
2l.Ba5 Nf4!
2 2 .Ne3
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 NbS
l l.g3 N d7
12.Bh3 Ngf6
1 3.Qe2
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.
8.Na3 ReS
9 . B e3
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 ... Be7
1 1 .0-0 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 B gS
1 4.Bb6 Qd7
Chapter 6 1 05
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 •••
B d8
1 8.Nce3
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 BxdS !
24.Nxd5 Qe6
Intending 25 . . . Nf6.
2S.Bd4 N f6
26.Nxf6 Bxf6
Santo Rornan-Z.Po1gar, Roy an 1 9 8 8 . Black 's control of the e5
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 ... h6
13.Racl Ne8
1 4.g3 ! ?
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
Chapter 6 1 07
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 Nh7
16.Nd5 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 to c3 and d5.
23.Rxbl NfS
24.c5 ? !
24.Rbc1 ! ? followed by Rc3 is unclear.
2 4 . .. Kh8
25.Bf2? 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.
26 ... e4 !
27.Khl exf3
28.c6 Rxc6
29.Bd3 dS
30.Rel Nd6
31 .Re5 Qn
32.Qa5 Nge4
33.Bd4 f2
Also winning is 33 . . . Rf5 34.Qd8+ Qg8.
34.Kg2 fl = Q + !
35.Bxfl 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 ... QxgS
7.Nc7+ Kd8
8.Nxa8 Be6!
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
According to I.Kuznecov, White should play 1 0.h4! with an unclear.

1 0... Nxe4
l l .f3 Qh4+
1 2.g3 N x 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
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

Silman Neo Sveshnikov (1991)

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

Silman Neo Sveshnikov (1991)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The

© by Jeremy B. Silman. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Editor: B.G. Dudley

Proofreader: Thomas Magar

Typesetting: M.L. Rantala

Cover Design: E.F. Witalis Jr.

Intro duction ................................................................................ 2

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

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

-+..............................................Black has a clear advantage

-++ ...... .. . . .. . . .. .. .... . . . ......

= ............................................... equal chances

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

The diagram shows a worse case scenario. Black 's Bishop is

J.Peters-Silman, Pacific Southwest Open 1 990.

Zhelnin-Shcherbak:ov, Yurmala 1 980.

Notice how Black 's dark-squared Bishop is blocked in by its own

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

Hardly threatening since White allows Black to play the freeing

1) 6.Ng3 [Harmless] 6 . . . d4 [6 . . . dxe4 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8, =, is a simple

by . . . Bxc3 because the Knights support each other.

1 ) 6 . . . d5? ! is dubious because of 7.exd5 Nb4 8.Bg5 Bc5 9.Ng3, +=,

It seems that Black gets a good position after 8 . Qd2 [ 8.Qe2 or

According to Gligoric and Sokolov this was first played in a St.

White's sharpest response. Two alternatives:

Quiet play with 7 . . . d6 is, as usual, perfectly playable: 8.0-0 Be6 !

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

Suggested by Staunton in The Chess Player's Handbook. Though

2) 6.Bg5 ! ? Bb4+ 7.c3 Be7 8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.Bc4 0-0 1 0.Qd3 d6 1 1 .N 1 d2

This move defends e4 and c3 but does nothing to hinder Black's

By sacrificing a pawn White starts a fight for the initiative. Now

White finishes his development before he commences his attack.

A rather uninspiring, but adequate, continuation.

Ivanka-Belarnarich, Hungary-Yugoslavia 1 976.

Theory frowns on this move.

and White won, Bruycker-Seret, Ostend 1975.

MacDonnell-La Bourdonnais, 1 835. Not important from the point of

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

An admission of failure. 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 1 0.Qd3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 d6 1 2.a3 Bc5

Uhlmann's suggestion of 9 . . . Qa5 !?.

After 1 0.Qd3? Bxc3+ l l .bxc3 Nxe4 ! 1 2.Qxe4 Qxc3+ 1 3.Ke2 d5

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

Ugly, but I can't find a refutation. Worse is 9 . . . Be6? 10.Bxd5 ! which

The start of the Kalashnikov [Neo-Sveshnikov] Variation.

[An interesting move. Black wants to use both Knights i n th e fight

Better was 1 8 . . . Nf6 but White ' s domination of the Queenside :A

4) 8 . . . Nf6 9.Nxf6+ [This gives White chances for an advantage.

position after 8 . . . Nge7

I n Sofieva-Arakhamia, Tbilisi 1 987, White sacrificed the other

1) 1 0 . . . Qa5+ 1 1 . Bd2 Qd8 1 2.Bg5 Qa5+ 1 3.Bd2, 1{2-1/2, Lputian­

2) 1 0 . . . hxg5 ! ? 1 1 . Qxh8 Nxd5 1 2 .exd5 Qa5+ 1 3 .c3 b4 1 4.Nc4 Qxd5

B y stopping a possible Knight fork on b6 Black is now able to

This gives Black a strong attack.

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

2.c.) l l . . . Bd7 1 2.Be3 [ 1 2.bxa6? Qa5+ allows Black to pick u p the

This is no threat to Black. White must play 1 1 .cxd5 ! if he is to have

1) 1 0 . . . Qa5+ 1 1 . Bd2 Qd8 1 2.Bg5 Qa5+ 1 3.Bd2, 1{2-1/2, Lputian

Black hopes to forever prevent the possibility of an annoying Bcl