b22 sicilian alapin by gm sveshnikov

8/10/2019 B22 Sicilian Alapin by Gm Sveshnikov

1/42

Opening Survey

By GM Evgeny Sveshnikov

B22: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 by GM Sveshnikov (Part I)Its history and primary objectives

The move 2.c3 in the Sicilian Defense is quiteyoung. It was mentioned for the first time in the1840s in contrast with the continuations 2.b4 and2.f4 that had already been analyzed by J. Greco in1620; that is, more than two hundred years earlier.

Let us start with the earliest known games.

POPERT - STAUNTONLondon 18411.e4 c5 2.c3 e6?! 3.Nf3 d5 4.e5!? (the transposition

to the French Defence, Advance Variation: 3.e5) 4...Nc6According to modern chess theory, more promising is 4...d4!?5.d4 Qb6 6.Bd3 Bd7 (more exact is 6...cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7) 7.Bc2?! (much stronger

is 7.dxc5! Bxc5 8.0-0, with advantage to White) 7...Rc8?!Correct is 7...cxd4 8.cxd4 Nb4, and 9.Bb3?! is followed by 9Bb5!, hence Whitewould have traded his Bishop off, accepting a slightly worse position after 9.0-0Nxc2 10.Qxc2.8.0-0 (8.dxc5) 8...a5 (8...cxd4) 9.a4

Black to move

9g6?This is a gross positional error. Black must play9...cxd4=.10.dxc5! Bxc5 11.Na3 f6 (what else?) 12.exf6Nxf6 13.Nb5 0-0 14.Bh6 Ng4? Stauntons question mark. Of course, theexchange sacrifice here is not forced. Morestubborn is 14...Rf7, and all the struggle is ahead.15.Bxf8 Bxf2+ 16.Kh1 Rxf8 17.Qe2(threatening 18.h3) 17Bc5 18.Nfd4! (thedecisive maneuver) 18Rxf1 19.Rxf1 e5?!

Active, but not good.20.Qf3! (Stauntons mark) 20...Nd8 21.Qxd5 Be6 22.Nxe6 Nxe6 23.Bb3. Blackresigned.


2/42


3/42

After a few games, the move 2.c3 had been forgotten by the chess elite. The reasonis quite obvious, because in those romantic days the sharp gambit openings werepopular. Tradition demanded that the opponent be crushed, not simply outplayed.Sometimes the advance e2c3 occurred on move 3: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3, which iseven more logical, in my opinion. Here is the first historical example.

SUHLE - ANDERSSEN Berlin 18641.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3 Ne6 4.d4 d5 5.exd5 (better is 5.e5!) 5...exd5 (5...Qxd5?!) 6.Be2 (6.Bb5!?; 6.Be3) 6...Nf6 7.0-0 cxd4 8.cxd4 Be7 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Be3 Bd6 11.Qd2 Be6 12.Ng5 Bf5 13.f4 Re8 14.h3 Rc8

White to move

15.Nf3?! More energetic is 15.g4!? Ne4 16.Ngxe4 Bxe417.Nxe4 Rxe4 18.Bf3, retaining a slight edge.15...Ne4 16.Nxe4 Bxe4 17.a3 Na5 18.Rac1 Nb319.Rxc8 Qxc8 20.Qe1 Bxf3 21.Rxf3 Qc2 22.Bb5 Re7 23.Rf2 Qe4 24.Qc3 g6 25.Re2 Qb1+26.Re1 Qa2 27.Ba4 Na1 28.b4 b5! 29.Rxa1Qc4 30.Qxc4 dxc4 31.Bxb5 Rxe3 32.Bxc4 Bxf433.d5 Kf8 34.Bb5 Bg3! 35.Bc6 Ke7 36.a4 Kd637.b5 Re1+ 38.Rxe1 Bxe1 = with a draw on

move 56.The grandiose tournament in Vienna became the principal one for the system 1.e4e5 2.c3. There, one of its participants had played a couple of interesting games onour subject.ALAPIN - SCHIFFERSVienna 18981.e4 c5 2.c3 e6 3.d4 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nf6?! (better is 5...Nc6) 6.Bb5+ Nc67.0-0 cd 8.Re1+ Be7 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.Qe2 Nxd4 11.cxd4 Bxb5 12.Qxb5+ Qd7 13.Nc3 Qxb5 14.Nxb5 Kd7 15.a3 a6 16.Nc3 Rac8 17.Bg5 Rc4 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.

Nxd5 Rxd4 20.Nxf6+ gxf6 21.Rad1 Rxd1 22.Rxd1 +The opening has transposed directly into an endgame that is favorable for White.Now a precise realization of the advantage follows.


4/42

Black to move

22...Kc6? (more stubborn is 22...Ke6) 23.Rd3!Re8 24.Kf1 Re5 25.Rf3 f5 26.Rh3 a5 27.Rxh7Rb5 28.Rxf7 Rxb2 29.Rf6+! Kb5 30.Rxf5+Ka4 31.g4! Rc2 32.g5 b5 33.g6 Rc8 34.h4 b4 35.axb4 axb4 36.Rf7+- b3 37.Ra7 Kb4 38.Rb7Kc3 39.g7 b2 40.h5 Ra8 41.h6 Ra1 42.Kg2 Ra843.h7 Ra7 44.h8Q. Black resigned.ALAPIN - TARRASCHVienna 18981.e4 c5 2.c3 Qa5? It is striking, but even Tarrasch himself made

such a move! Black cannot even equalize with such lunges, let alone refute thesystem.3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Na3 The game Sveshnikov - Kupreichik (USSR Cup, Kiev 1984) proceeded with: 4.a3!? (even better is 4.Bc4!) 4e6 5.d4 Nxd4! 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.b4 Qc7 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.Bd3 d5 10.e5 Nd7 11.Ra2, with a clear advantage for White.4...e6 5.Nc4Too straightforward. 5.Be2 seems good, followed by 6.0-0 then d2d4 withadvantage for White.5...Qc7 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd47.cxd4 is preferable for White, retaining a slight edge after 7...d5 8.exd5 exd5 9.Nce5.7...a6 8.Bd3 b5 9.Ne3 Nf6 10.0-0 Bb7Black has comfortably deployed his forces, thus solving all his opening problems.Now Tarrasch, the winner of the tournament, skillfully outplays Alapin.11.Nf3 Bd6! 12.Re1 Ne5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Nf1 0-0 15.Qe2 A solid but passive continuation.15...Bc6 16.Bg5 Rfe8 17.Qe3 h6 18.Bh4 Nh5 19.Bg3 Nf4 20.Bc2 g5 21.Nd2 Qd822.Nf3 f6 23.Nxe5 fxe5 24.f3 Kh8! Blacks advantage is growing. He is about to launch the attack on the K-side.

25.Qc5 Qf6 26.Qd6 Rg8 27.a4 Raf8


5/42

White to move

28.Bd3?! White should immediately start the counter playby 28.axb5!? axb5 29.c4!? bxc4 30.Ra5.28...h5! 29.axb5 axb5 30.Rf1?! h4 31.Bxf4 gxf432.Kf2 Rg5 33.Rh1 h3 34.gxh3 Rfg8 35.Ke1Rg2 36.Be2 Bxe4! -+ 37.fxe4 f3 38.Bf1 Rg1. White resigned.

The move 2.c3 in the Sicilian had become associated with the Alapins name.

However, his achievements in this variation were rather modest.


6/42

Opening Survey

By GM Evgeny Sveshnikov

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

Its history and primary objectives

ALAPIN - TARRASCHVienna 18981.e4 c5 2.c3 Qa5? It is striking, but even Tarrasch himself made such a move! Black cannot evenequalize with such lunges, let alone refute the system.

3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Na3 The game Sveshnikov - Kupreichik (USSR Cup, Kiev 1984) proceeded with: 4.a3!? (even better is 4.Bc4!) 4e6 5.d4 Nxd4! 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.b4 Qc7 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.Bd3 d5 10.e5 Nd7 11.Ra2, with a clear advantage for White.4...e6 5.Nc4Too straightforward. 5.Be2 seems good, followed by 6.0-0 then d2d4 withadvantage for White.5...Qc7 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd47.cxd4 is preferable for White, retaining a slight edge after 7...d5 8.exd5 exd5 9.

Nce5.7...a6 8.Bd3 b5 9.Ne3 Nf6 10.0-0 Bb7Black has comfortably deployed his forces, thus solving all his opening problems.Now Tarrasch, the winner of the tournament, skillfully outplays Alapin.11.Nf3 Bd6! 12.Re1 Ne5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Nf1 0-0 15.Qe2 A solid but passive continuation.15...Bc6 16.Bg5 Rfe8 17.Qe3 h6 18.Bh4 Nh5 19.Bg3 Nf4 20.Bc2 g5 21.Nd2 Qd822.Nf3 f6 23.Nxe5 fxe5 24.f3 Kh8! Blacks advantage is growing. He is about to launch the attack on the K-side.25.Qc5 Qf6 26.Qd6 Rg8 27.a4 Raf8


7/42

After 27...Raf8

28.Bd3?! White should immediately start the counter playby 28.axb5!? axb5 29.c4!? bxc4 30.Ra5.28...h5! 29.axb5 axb5 30.Rf1?! h4 31.Bxf4 gxf432.Kf2 Rg5 33.Rh1 h3 34.gxh3 Rfg8 35.Ke1Rg2 36.Be2 Bxe4! -+ 37.fxe4 f3 38.Bf1 Rg1. White resigned.The move 2.c3 in the Sicilian had becomeassociated with the Alapins name. However, hisachievements in this variation were rather modest.

ALAPIN DUS CHOTIMIRSKY St. Petersburg 1905

1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 cxd4 5. Qxd4? (better is 5. cxd4! Nc6 6. Nf3Bg4 7. Nc3!) 5. . . Qxd4 6. cxd4 Nf6 (6Nc6 7. Be3 Bf5 8. Nc3 0-0-0 9. Rc1 e610. Nf3 Bb4= Alapin-Maroczy, Wien 1998) 7. Nc3 Bd7 8. Nf3 e6 9. Bb5 Bb4 10.0-0 Bxc3 11. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 12. bxc3 Rc8 13. Rb1 b6 14. Rb3 0-0 15. Re1 Nd516. Bd2 Rc4.The classical blockade! White resigned on move 48.Nevertheless, it was Simon Alapin (1856-1923), who attracted the attention of thechess world to the system 1. e4 e5 2. c3. He was one of the strongest Russianplayers, who was also famous as a chess theoretician. Being a merchant, he spent alot of time abroad in Paris, Berlin, and Vienna. His best achievements: he sharedthe first and second places with Chigorin in Petersburg (1879/79); he won matchesagainst Bardeleben 3.5:1.5 (1893) and Levitsky 5.5:0.5 (1907) and drew amatch against Schlechter 3:3 (1899), achieved fifth place at Monte Carlo (1901)and won first place in Munich (1911).Following him in influence over the system were Aron Nimzovitch (1886-1935)and Saviely Tartakover (1887-1956). Nimzovich used the system in the notablegames against C Chajes (Carlsbad 1911) and Vidmar (New York 1927). Tartakoverused it against Reti (Baden Baden 1925) and Colle (Paris 1925).These three were the pioneers. Nobody took their ideas about 2. c3 seriously, andthe whole variation was reputed to be drawish.It is interesting that the third and the fourth world champions also contributed to itsdevelopment. The position arising from the 2. c3 variation occurred in the gameCapablanca Cherniak, Buenos Aires (ol) 1939, through by transposition, as wellas in the games of Alekhine with Podgorny and Foltys (Prague 1942). Of course,these games were not enough to create a consistent theory of the system.After World War II, in the 1950s, the Yugoslavian players had attracted attention tothe variation B22 , especially the master (later GM) Milan Matulovic . However, heemployed the following move order: 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd 3. c3!? The sharpcontinuation 3dxc3 4. Nxc3 had been named the Matulovic gambit by chess


8/42

theory, but more often his opponents played 3. . . Nf6, and after 4. e5 Nd5 theposition from the system under question arose. I should point out Matulovicsgames from his early period against Udovcic and Kozomara (Sombor 1957).Subsequently, he chose only the reliable 2. c3 when playing against dangerousopponents such as Larsen (Saraevo 1960), Polugaevsky and Geller (Belgrade

1969).Also notable were Soviet masters Anatoly Bannik from Kiev and Jacob Yukhtmanfrom Odessa, who employed the system 2. c3 in the 1950 and 1960s. The Bulgarianplayers also implemented it, especially their leader Nikola Padevsky , who lostwith it to Taimanov (Moscow 1956), but defeated Karpov with it (Skopje(ol)1972).One of the Western players, the American Arthur Bisguier, had played a gameagainst Fischer (Stockholm(izt) 1962) as follows: 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4.Nf3!? Nc6 5. Na3 g6 6. g3!? (the idea of Eddie Rozentalis?!) 6Bg7 7. Bg2 ,and so on. I invented the variation with 4. Nf3!? independently a quarter of centurylater. Only recently I have found that they played so already against the greatFischer!David Bronstein made his contribution in the 1960s and 1970s, when he played 2.c3 against Vasiukov (Berlin 1968), Hort (Monte Carlo 1969) and Fischer (Herzog-Novi (blitz) 1970). The Hungarian master (later GM) Istvan Csom also added hissubstantial effort: his games against Hennings (Berlin 1968), R. Rodrigues (Lugano(ol) 1968), Matulovic (Athens 1969) and Holler (Vrniacka-Banja 1972) areextremely illustrative.Evgeny Sveshnikov began to play 1. e4 c5 2. c3 in January 1967. Slightly earlier,Valerij Zhuravliov from Latvia (his game against Karpov, Daugavpils 1972comes to mind) and the Lenigrdian Vladislav Vorotnikov had independentlystarted to do so.In 1972 and 1973, I managed to gain several convincing wins, especially over theGMs Taimanov, Gufeld and Tringov. However, the move 2. c3 had not yetreceived broad public recognition. In the USSR, only a few players included it intheir repertoire: Evgeni Vasiukov (who had delivered a crushing blow toPolugaevsky already in 1955: 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 Nc6?! 5. Bc4Nb6?! 6. Bxf7+! Kxf7 7. dxc5 Nc4 8. Qd5+ e6 9. Qxc4 Nxe5 10. Qe2 , and so on),Ratmir Kholmov , Mark Dvoretsky , Sergey Makarychev , and ValeryChekhov The women added it to their repertoires more readily: in general theyare less conservative and accept new ideas more willingly. The male GMs neededmore prodding.Thus, all of us started gradually to promote this system and the theory behind it.The growth of its popularity was reflected in articles by masters A. Kuindzhi andD. Plisetsky titled The Sicilian Defense 2. c3 in Chess Bulletin, 7-8, 1977 .

Paul Keres also tried c2-c3 a couple of times: against Langeweg (Wijk aan Zee1969) and Spassky (Tallinn 1975), and Boris Spassky as well.


9/42

SPASSKY - WESTERMEIERGermany 19811. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5. cxd4 e6 6. Nc3 Nxc3 7. bxc3 Qc7 8.Bd2 d6Pavasovic had played even worse against me (Bled 1998): 8. . . b6 9. f4! Nc6 10.

Bd3 Na5 11. Qe2, with a clear advantage to White.9. f4! (depriving Black of the counterplay against the e5-pawn) 9. . . b6 10. Nf3Be7 11. Bd3 Bb7 12. 0-0 0-0 13. Qe2 Nc6 14. Rae1 dxe5 15. fxe5 Na5

After 15...Na5

16. Ng5! Bxg5 17. Bxg5 Qxc3 18. Rf4! Bd5 19.Rh4 f5 20. exf6 gxf6 21. Rc1! Black resigned.A very pretty miniature, but more often Borisused this system to reach a peaceful draw.SPASSKY - LJUBOEVICLinares 19811. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc6 6. Nf3 e6 7. Nc3 Qd6 8. Bc4 Nf6 9. 0-0 Be7 10. d5 exd5 11. Nxd5 Nxd5 12. Qxd5 0-013. Qxd6 Bxd6 14. Rd1 Ne5. Draw.In the beginning of the 1980s, I wrote a large

chapter B22 for the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings on the

proposal of the Yugoslavian Chess Informant editorial board. The whole worldstarted playing 2. c3 after its release, especially the amateur players.Why? a curious reader may ask. Because, after 2. c3 you dont need to learn thelongest and most sophisticated variations of the Sicilian Defense, which is the mostprincipled Blacks response to 1. e4. It is profitable from the purely practical pointof view. Remember that Black has to attack the e4-pawn immediately by 2Nf6 or2d5 in order not to get an inferior game, but then the forced play starts that mustbe studied beforehand in all the variations. Here White has a slightly better positionand may force a draw practically without any risk.

Gradually, more and more professional players joined our brotherhood. They wereEduardas Rozentalis , Sergey Smagin , then Andrei Kharlov , EldarMukhametov , and Drajen Sermek At the same time, the monograph of Murrey Chandler had been released inEngland (its second edition was published in 1996). Chandler often plays 2. c3. Hedid so from time immemorial as he beat the young Kasparov in the world under-16championship.In the 90s, the mighty group of chess professionals swelled the ranks of thesupporters of the cool c2-c3, and B22 had firmly established itself in opening

fashion. Among those who played so were Karpov, Smyslov, Kramnik, Anand,Judit Polgar, and even the inhuman Deep Blue.I want to add few words about my personal contribution into the development and


10/42

popularization of the system 2. c3. In the beginning of 1967 I, as a 16-year-old boy,had to play in the USSR school championship in Tula. Before playing Whiteagainst Mikhail Shereshevski from Minsk (the future GM and good coach), Iracked my brains over what to play. I knew that ny opponent was an expert in theNajdorf system in the Sicilian Defense, but I did not know how White can obtain an

advantage in that opening. So I put the pieces on the board and made the moves 1.e4 (I always make this move without hesitations) 1c5. Then I asked myself:What does Black want? He prevented the d2-d4 move. What if White resumes thethreat by playing 2. c3!? No Najdorf, no Paulsen, no Dragon! The decisionappealed to me as a practical alternative (and it still does). Since then, I have played408 games with it, according to my database, and collected more than 70 per centof the points, defeating many well known GMs. I daresay that 2. c3 has supportedme and my family for the better part of thirty years!In 1997, Chess Informant had published my monograph on B22, including morethan 2000 games. In addition, my handbooks on this variation of the SicilianDefense are published in many countries.Now that we have conducted a brief digression into history (the database containing400 mentioned games and the other old games before 1985 supplied), let usexamine the main ideas and plans of each side in the system with 1. e4 e5 2. e3.(To be continued)


11/42

Opening Survey

By GM Eugeny Sveshnikov

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

Diagram 1

Thus, with his move 1.e4 White has created thethreat of a total takeover in the center by d2-d4, andBlack prevents this 1c5!

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

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

A comparison with 1.e4 e5 2.c3?! is helpful here it all is much worse, because themove 2...Nf6! attacking the already blocked e4-pawn solves all Blacks opening

problems.See diagram 1

Whites threat is obvious: d2-d4! If Black ignores it by playing 2b6?! or 2g6?!,then, after 3.d4, the white pair of pawns in the center is extremely stable, and

judging by the number of the controlled squares White has a clear advantage.

The game also is not even after 2...e5?! due to the apparent weakening of the d5-square. However, the theory has not yet come to a definite conclusion on thissubject, but I recommend 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4! Qc7 (Black has to make such an uglymove, because 4...d6?! 5.d4 is not to his favor) 5.0-0 Nf6 (or 5...Be7 6.Ng5 Nd8! {6...Bg5?! 7.Qh5 d5 8.exd5, and so on.} 7.f4 exf4 8.Nf3) 6.Ng5 Nd8! 7.f4! h6 8.Nf3 (8.Nh3!? d6 9.Qf3) 8...exf4 9.e5 , with the initiative for White.

More interesting is 2...d6 3.d4 Nf6!? The most simple and reliable answer is 4.Bd3 (not so clear is 4.dxc5 Nc6!) followed by Nf3, 0-0, h3, or by the more active Ne2,f3, Be3 and then, according to how Black plays, White can choose between 0-0 or0-0-0, by analogy with the Saemisch variation in the Kings Indian Defense.Slightly better but also insufficient for equality is 2...e6 3.d4 d5 , due to 4.e5! with atransposition into the Advance Variation of the French Defense C02 .


12/42

Less convincing is 4.exd5?! exd5!= , because in this case it is not obvious if Whiteneeds a rather passive move c2-c3. It is Whites idea to create a pair of pawns in thecenter, while the white e-pawn is getting traded here and the path is opened for theblack c8-bishop. This argumentation is confirmed by the practice (the databasesupplied contains several examples).

Only 4.e5!? poses several serious problems to Black, and some of them are ofpsychological nature: it is not to the Sicilian taste to defend the French bastions.The remaining two moves that attack the e4-pawn and prevent the e4+d4 pawn pairfrom formation are 2d5 and 2Nf6 . Only with their aid can black aspire toequalize (2Qa5? was already rejected in Part I).

1) 2d5 (the most popular response) 3.exd5 Qxd5 (On 3Nf6, White cantranspose by 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 to the Panov attack in the Caro-Kann defense or try

to keep the extra pawn by 4.Qa4 or by 4.Bb5!?, Smagin-Sveshnikov, Amantea1995.) 4.d4 .

Diagram 2

See diagram 24...Nf6. The other, less implementedcontinuations are:4...g6 5.Nf3 (the brave Fritz chooses the sharp 5.dxc5!? Qxc5 6.Be3 Qc7 7.Bxa7!? Rxa7 8.Qd4,winning the exchange and pawn but gettingunder the attack) 5...Bg7 (5...Nf6 6.dxc5 or 6.Na3!) 6.Na3 cxd4 (also playable is 6...Nf6) 7.Bc4Qd8 (7...Qe4?! 8.Be3!) 8.Qb3 e6 9.Nxd4 Ne7 10.Bg5 h6 11.Be3 Nd5 12.Bxd5 exd5 13.0-0 0-0 14.Nac2, with a slight advantage to White,

Sveshnikov Cvitan, Tilburg 1993;4...e5 5.dxe5 Qxe5 (unlikely equalizing is 5...Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1, Smagin Huberty,Eupen 1994; Rozentalis Ftacnik, Germany 1994) 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nf3 Qc7 8.Bb5+

Nc6?! (better is 8...Bd7) 9.Qe2 Be6 10.Ng5 0-0-0 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Nd2 h6 13.0-0-0 a6 14.Ba4 b5 15.Bc2, with the clear advantage for White (Sermek Kgosimure,Parana 1993);4...cxd4 5.cxd4 e5 (dubious is 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 Bg4?! 7.Nc3 Bxf3 8.gxf3 Qxd4 9.Qxd4 Nxd4 10.Nb5 e5 11.Nc7+ Kd7 12.Nxa8 Bb4+ {12...Nf6?! 13.Bh3!} 13.Kd1!)6.Nf3 Nc6 (6exd4 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 a6 9.Nc3 Nf6 10.Bg5, with the endgamefavorable for White) 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 e4 10.Ne5 Nxe5 11.dxe5, andWhite has better chances thanks to his pair of Bishops;4...e6 5.Na3!? cxd4 (5...Qd8 6.Bf4) 6.Nb5 Na6, with some initiative for White

(Sveshnikov Novikov, Tallinn 1988; V.Zhuravliov M.Makarov, Podolsk 1990;Sermek Bukic, Bled 1992; Kharlov Czom, Bern 1992; Mukhametov Kiselec,Orel 1994);


13/42

4...Nc6 5.Nf3 (unclear is 5.dxc5 Qxc5 6.Na3 e5 {6...Qa5?! 7.Nf3 Nf6 8.Bf4} 7.Nb5Qe7 8.Be3 a6! 9.Bc5 Qxc5 10.Nc7+ Ke7 11.Nxa8 Nf6 Chekhov Evans, Algarvi1975, or 5...Qxd1+!? 6.Kxd1 e5! Sveshnikov Rashkovsky, Moscow 1992; worseis 5.Be3?! cxd4 6.cxd4 e5! 7.Nc3 Bb4).

Diagram 3

See diagram 3Here the following continuations occurred:5...e5 6.Nxe5 (6.Nbd2!?) 6...Nxe5 7.dxe5 Qxe5+8.Be3!? (8.Be2 Bg4 9.Be3) 8...Bd7 9.Na3 0-0-010.Qf3 Nf6 11.0-0-0 Be7 12.Bf4 Qh5 (Kramnik J.Polgar, Paris(rapid) 1994; after 12...Qe4 goodis 13.Qxe4 Nxe4 14.Re1 Nxf2 15.Rxe7 thenNc4) 13.g4!! Qg6 (13...Nxg4? 14.Ba6!; 13...Bg4? 14.Qc6+!; 13...Qxg4? 14.Nb5! Bxb5 15.Bh3) 14.Bg2! Bc6 15.Nb5! winning (I.Zajtsev);5...Bg4 6.Be2 e6 (60-0-0!? Strikovic Z.

Ivanovic, Budva 1986; Florean Grigore, Baile Herculane 1994; 6...cxd4!? 7.cxd4e6) 7.h3 Bh5 8.c4!, with the initiative for White (Short J.Polgar, isle of Lewis1995);5...Nf6 6.dxc5 (also playable is 6.Be3) 6...Qxc5 (unclear is 6...Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 e5Schmittdiel Donaldson, Ruggel 1990; Sermek Wirthenson, Mitrope(ch) 1993) 7.

Na3 e5 (not equalizing is 7...Ng4!? 8.Qe2 Bf5 9.h3! Bd3 10.Qxd3 Qxf2+ 11.Kd1Rd8 12.Qxd8+ Kd8 13.hxg4 Blatny Wang Zili, Thessalonici (ol) 1988) 8.Be3,with some advantage to White (Sveshnikov A.Sheneider, Podolsk 1993; Sermek Riegler, Maribor 1993).But let us return to 4Nf6.5.Nf3 (a real rarity is 5.Be3 Bg4 6.f3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7), and now, apart from 5...Nc6 (see 4...Nc6) and the new-fashioned 5...g6 (see 4...g6), Black has a choicebetween 5...Bg4 and 5...e6.

a) 5...Bg4!? Nowadays a popular line, implemented by Kasparov.


14/42

Diagram 4

See diagram 46.Be2. Sometimes the other opportunities aretried:6.Qa4!? Bd7 (to Whites favor is 6...Nc6?! 7.Bc4Qd7 8.dxc5 Bxf3 9.gxf3 e6 10.Be3 Nd5 11.Bxd5Qxd5 12.Qe4 Sveshnikov Neverov, Moscow1989; unclear is 6...Nbd7) 7.Qb3 cxd4 (worse is7...Qxb3?! 8.axb3) 8.Bc4 Qe4 9.Kf1 with thecompensation for the pawn (Kharlov Tukmakov, Biel 1992; Kharlov Hofmann, Koln1993);

6.Nbd2!? Nc6 (or 6...cxd4 7.Bc4 Qd7 8.Qb3 e6, but not 7...Bxf3? 8.Bxd5! Bxd1 9.Bxb7) 7.Bc4 Bxf3 8.gxf3 (8.Qb3!? Shirov J.Polgar, Dos Hermanas 1997) 8...Qd6(8...Qf5!) 9.Qb3 (9.dxc5!?) 9...e6 10.dxc5 (more promising is 10.Qb7!) 10...Qc7!11.Bb5 1/2 (Sveshnikov M.Makarov, Novgorod 1995);6.dxc5, which was responded with 6Qxd1+?! (Khmelnitsky Christiansen, USA(ch) 1996), as well as with 6...Qxc5 (Magomedov Adla, Chapelle le Grande1997).6...e6. This position, encountered in a variety of games (Rozentalis Heissler,Germany 1992; Smagin Reschke, Germany 1993; V.Ivanov Kharlov Kiselev A.Sokolov, Elista 1994; Adams Topalov, Las Palmas 1994, and so on) isextremely difficult for studying and I would recommend the computer move:7.h3! More reserved is 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Be3 cxd4 9.cxd4 Bb4! 10.a3 Ba5 11.Nc3 Qd6=(Deep Blue Kasparov(m/3) 1996).7...Bh5 8.0-0. Not too much promising is 8.Be3 cxd4 9.cxd4 Bb4+ 10.Nc3 0-0 11.0-0 Qa5 Kramnik Kasparov, Paris(rapid) 1994, or 8.c4 Qd8 9.Nc3 (9.Qb3 Qc8) 9cxd4 (Rozentalis Kramnik, Germany 1995).8...Nc6 9.Be3 cxd4 10.cxd4 (10.Nxd4?! Bxe2 11.Qxe2 Bc5=) 10...Bb4! If 10...Be711.Nc3 Qd6, then 12.Qb3! 0-0 13.Rfd1 Rfd8 14.a3 Rac8 (14...Nd5!?) 15.Rac1Qb8 , with a light initiative for White (Nunn Lutz, Germany 1995).11.a3 Ba5! 12.Nc3 Qd6 13.Nb5 (Deep Blue Kasparov(m/1) 1996) 13...Qd5!= .

b) 5...e6 .


15/42

Diagram 5

See diagram 56.Be2. The other ideas:6.Na3 (Barlov Sosonko, Haninge 1988; Blatny Piket, Thessaloniki (ol) 1988; Okhotnik Magerramov, Uzhgorod 1988; Sermek -Andersson and Sermek - Magerramov, Tilburg1994, and so on);6.Bd3 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.c4 Qh5! or 8Qd7!=(Kharlov M.Makarov, Rybinsk 1991; Kiselev -Novikov, Belgorod 1991; Yagupov - Dolmatov,Moscow 1992; Yagupov Tjutiunnikov, Podolsk

1992).6...cxd4. After 6...Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 one should reckon with 8.c4 Qd8 (8Qd7; 8Qf5) 9.dxc5!? (Sveshnikov A.Sokolov, Moscow 1991).7.cxd4 Nc6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Nc3 Qd6. If 9...Qd8 10.Be3 0-0, then 11.Ne5! next Bf3with the position favorable for White (Sveshnikov Adamski, Lvov 1983;Sveshnikov T.Giorgadze, Tashkent 1984; Sveshnikov Andersson, Rio deGeneiro 1985; Sveshnikov J.Polgar, Biel(iz) 1993).10.Nb5!? (possible also is 10.Be3 0-0 11.Rc1, Sveshnikov - Tukmakov, Riga1985) 10...Qd8 (10...Qd7!?) 11.Bf4 Nd5. Interesting is 11...0-0 12.Bc7! Qd7 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Nd5 15.Bd6, with the slightly better chances for White(Sveshnikov Limp, Rio de Geneiro 1985; Meister - Yagupov, Elista 1994).12.Bg3 a6! After 12...0-0 13.Bc4! a6 (but not 13Nb6? 14.Bc7! Qd7 15.Bxb6Sveshnikov Dokhoian, Moscow 1983) 14.Bxd5 exd5 15.Nc7 (Sveshnikov Foisor, Sochi 1985; Sveshnikov Gola, Moscow 1989; Kharlov Roeder, Torcy1991; Lautier J.Polgar, Linares 1994) or 14...axb5 15.Be4 (Sveshnikov Tunik,Primorsko 1988; Sveshnikov Kortschnoj, Biel(iz) 1993; Sveshnikov Bukic,Bled 1994; Kharlov Badea, Berlin 1994) White retains some pressure.13.Nc3 0-0 14.Rc1. The alternative is 14.Qb3, for example: 14Bd6 15.Rac1 Nf416.Rfd1! (Sveshnikov Kajumov, USSR 1983), 14b6 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Rac1Bb7 17.Rfd1 (Sveshnikov Micic, Cheliabinsk 1990) or 14Nxc3 15.bxc3 b5 16.

Rfd1 Bb7 17.a4 (Cherniaev Khenkin, Biel 1994), with a minimal advantage forWhite. However, deserving attention is 14...Nf6!? (14b5!?) 15.Rfd1 b5! 16.d5!?Na5! (Sveshnikov Magerramov, Moscow(rapid) 1994).14...Nxc3!? The way to an equal play is not spread with roses after 14Qa5 15.Qb3 (Doncevic Sosonko, Germany 1983) or 14...Nf6, as it had happened in thegames J.Polgar Tiviakov (Madrid 1994), Cherniaev A.Petrosian (Erevan 1996)and in my encounters with E.Horvath (Sochi 1987), Delchev (Bled 1998) andGrabliauskas (Denmark 1998).15.bxc3. A game Chekhov Korneev (Moscow 1996) continued with 15Bf6 16.

Bd3 b5 17.a4! bxa4 (17b4? 18.Be4!) 18.Qxa4, and White seized the initiative.Still better is 15...b5!? 16.c4 (unclear is 16.a4 bxa4 17.Qxa4 Bd7) 16...bxc4 17.Bxc4 then d4-d5 with the sharp play (Chekhov).


16/42

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

week.

Diagram 6

See diagram 6 Blacks position is much more comfortable thenone from the Alekhine defense: White is notobtaining a pawn pair in the center; he also has tospend a tempo to drive the black Knight awayfrom d5; the e5-pawn is a perfect target for theattack and Nc6 next d7-d6 must lead to an equalplay.4.d4. So far as this natural and strongest movedoes not always bring the advantage, sometimesthe other ideas are being tested:

4.g3 (variation of E.Rozentalis, who implemented it in more than 20 games) 4...d6(4Nc6 Rozentalis Shirov, Manila(ol) 1992) 5.exd6 e6 6.Bg2 Bd6 7.Nf3 Nc68.0-0 (after 8.d4!? cxd4 unclear is 9.cxd4 0-0, as well as 9.Nxd4 Bd7! Rozentalis

Shirov, Tilburg 1993; North Bay 1994) 8...0-0 9.d4 (too passive is 9.d3 b6! 10.Nbd2 Bb7 11.Qe2 Bc7 12.Nc4 Re8! Short Kasparov, London(rapid: m/4) 1993)9...Bd7 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Nbd2 Be7 12.Qe2 Qc7 13.Ne4 Rfe8 14.c4 Nf6 15.Nc3 a616.b3 e5! (an accurate equalization) 17.Bb2 Bg4 18.Nd5 1/2 (Rozentalis -Khalifman, Rakvere 1993). After watching this game and the neighboring ones(and also the games Rozentalis Gelfand, Tilburg 1992), one may come to theconclusion that 4.g3 is not dangerous for Black.4.Nf3!? (White does not hurry with the d4 advance or even restrains himself to thed3 move; sometimes the black c5-pawn becomes a target for the attack: Sveshnikov

King, Bern 1992) 4...Nc6 (in case of 4...e6?! it is more difficult for White toattack the e5-pawn: 5.Bc4 b6 6.0-0 Ba6 7.d3! or 5...Nb6 6.Bb3 with someadvantage to White) 5.Bc4 Nb6!


17/42

Diagram 7

See diagram 7 6.Be2 d6 7.exd5 e5! (not bad also is 7...e6 8.d4Bd6 Adams Tiviakov, New York(m/8; rapid:m/6) 1994, or 7...Qxd6 8.0-0 g6 Kharlov - Ernst,Haninge 1992) 8.d4 (the best continuation) 8...cxd4 9.cxd4 exd4 10.Nxd4 Bd6 11.Nxc6 bxc6,and Whites advantage is purely symbolical. Iwould also advise you to look through the gamesKharlov Visier (Canete 1994), Sveshnikov Orel (Bled 1994), Sveshnikov A.Ivanov(Vladivostok 1994), and Sveshnikov Ragozin

(Elista 1994).6.Bb3!? d5 or 6d6 as the games Ivanchuk Kasparov (Dortmund 1992), Nunn- Anand (Monaco 1994), Dolmatov - Greenfeld (Lyon 1994), Cherniaev -Tischbierek (Biel 1994), Sveshnikov Cherniaev (Erevan 1996) and Sveshnikov Novgorodskij (St. Petersburg 1997) have demonstrated, Black defendssuccessfully. But also possible is 64 7.Bc2 Qc7 8.Qe2 g5!? 9.e6! (Sveshnikov Cherniaev, Erevan 1996; Sveshnikov Sakaev (St.Petersburg 1997).4...cxd4 5.cxd4. Harmless is 5.Qxd4 e6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Qe4 f5 (possible is 7...d6 or7...Qc7 and Nd5-e7-g6) 8.Qe2 (in case of 8.exf6 Nxf6 9.Qh4 d5! White risks toobtain the worse play: Novopashin Sveshnikov, Volgodonsk 1981; Vorotnikov Sveshnikov, Lvov 1983) 8...Qc7 (8b6!? Rogers Shirov, Brno 1991) 9.g3 Nde710.Na3 Ng6 11.Nb5 Qb8 12.Bf4 a6 13.Nbd4 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 b5= (Rozentalis Dvoiris, Kharkov 1985).Having been fashionable for a long time, the variation with 5.Nf3 Nc6 (seldom theyplayed 5...e6 6.cxd4 b6 7.Nc3 or 5...b6) 6.Bc4!? Nb6 7.Bb3 d6 (7...g6!?) 8.exd6Qd6 9.0-0 Be6 10.Bxe6 (or 10.Na3 dxc3) 10...Qxe6 11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Rd813.Qh4 Qe2 is almost vanished from the modern practice because it is thoroughlystudied and distinguished by its drawing tendencies (however, some questions stillare to be answered in case of 9.Na3!?).5...d6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Bc4. Harmless is 7.Nc3 dxe5! 8.dxe5 Nxc3! (but not 8...Ndb4?!

9.a3 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 Na6 11.b4) 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.bxc3 Bd7=.7...Nb6. White has more chances after 7...e6 (7...dxe5!?) 8.0-0 Be7 9.Qe2 0-0 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 dxe5 (11d5?! 12.Bd3 then h2-h4! Sveshnikov Rashkovsky,Sochi; Plisetsky Litvinov, Rostov on Don 1977; 11b6 12.Bd3 Bb7 13.exd6Qxd6 14.Ng5! Sveshnikov Krogius, Sochi 1976) 12.dxe5 b6 13.Qe4! and 14.Bd3,with the initiative on the K-side for White (Sveshnikov Am.Rodriguez,Cienfuegos 1979; Sveshnikov Oll, Kuibyshev 1986).However, stronger is 12Qa5! 13.Rb1 (13.Qe4?! Qa4!) 13Rd8 (Sveshnikov N.Boikovic, Nova Gorica 1997), so I had to invent 10.Re1! (Sveshnikov Kozhul,

Liubliana 1997.8.Bb5. Hardly better is 8.Bb3 dxe5 9.d5 Na5 10.Nc3 Nxb3= (Yagupov Savchenko, St. Petersburg 1993; Sermek Olivier, Cannes 1995; Sermek


18/42

Sveshnikov, Bled 1996).8...dxe5 9.Nxe5 Bd7. Here White has three responses, but none of them promisesadvantage.

Diagram 8

See diagram 8 a) 10.Bxc6. This was played in the gamesKholmov Mnatsakanian (Tbilisi 1977), V.Zhuravliov Podgaets (USSR 1977), Oblamsky Kapengut (Minsk 1978), Malaniuk Rashkovsky (Tashkent 1987), Lein Spasov(Moscow 1989), Nun Kuczynski (Polanica-Zdroi 1989), Macijewski Jakovich (Belgorod1991), Maciejewski Brodsky (Karvina 1992),Dolmatov Alterman (Pardubice 1993),Dolmatov Vajser (Novosibirsk 1993), Smagin

Tischbierek (Germany 1993), S.Lalic Sher (Hastings 1994/95), Zarnicki Alterman (Yerevan(ol) 1996), Rozentalis Shirov (Yerevan(ol) 1996) ..b) 10.Nxd7. This was tested in the games V.Zhuravliov Gutman (Riga 1971),Thipsay Hartston (New Delhi 1982), Howell Rechlis (Groningen 1984),Machulski Tsarev (Kiev 1989), Sveshnikov Kovalev (Budapest 1989),Stripunsky Sveshnikov (Bled 1991), V.Zhuravliov Ionov (St.Petersburg 1992),

and so on.c) 10.Nc3. This happened in my games against T.Petrosian (Leningrad 1977), Tal(Tbilisi 1978; Jurmala 1980), Browne (Novi Sad 1979), Govashelishvili (Moscow1979), Kasparov (Minsk 1979), Andersson (Wijk aan Zee 1981) and Pigusov(Moscow 1987), and also on the games Lerner Gutman (USSR 1979), Novik Maljutin (Jurmala 1989), Tiviakov Korsunsky (Frunze 1989), Rausis Browne(Saint Martin 1991), Garcia Fernandez Baigorri (Saragoza 1992), Rausis Suetin(Moscow 1992), and so on.All listed games and other important encounters (beginning from 1986B) are

listed in the supplied database that contains approximately 1300 games (whilethe old games are available in the database that Part 1 was supplied with).Conclusion: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 is not dangerous for Black, if he responds 2...Nf6! In thiscase, however, Black must know the particular forced variations and White canalways achieve a quick draw But this is the chess!If the stronger player plays with the black pieces, and he wants to win after 2.c3,then he must take the risks of 2...g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.cxd4 d5 5.exd5 Nf6 (the Panovattack!), 2...d6 3.d4 Nf6, 2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 (3...Nf6) 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 g6 or, evenof 2...e6 3.d4 d5, transposing into the Advance Variation of the French Defense

after 4.e5.To be continued


19/42

Opening Survey


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

After 12.Ne4!

Sveshnikov Jurtaev [B22]USSR Team Championship, Riga 1975

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 (This line is similar toAlekhines Defense) 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.cxd4

d6 7.Bc4 Nb6.Another option is 7...e6 (the continuation 7Nc78.0-0 d5 9.Bb3 Bg4 10.Be3 e6 11.Nbd2 Be7 12.Ba4!? b5 13.Rc1 Nb4 14.a3 bxa4 15.axb4 Qd7 16.Ra1 Bxb4 17.Qxa4 Qxa4 18.Rxa4 Be7 19.Bg5Checkhov Khodos, Rostov 1975 is barely

sufficient for equalizing) 8.0-0 Be7 (see my game with Kozul).

8.Bb5 e6.

The mains line starts with 8dxe5! (see the theoretical part of this article) . Thecontinuations 8Bd7 9.exd6!? exd6 10.Nc3 or 8d5 9.Nc3 Bg4 (9Bf5 10.Nh4!? Bd7 11.f4 a6 12.Be2) 10.h3 Bxf3 (dangerous is 10Bh5?! 11.g4 Bg6 12.e6!) 11.Qxf3 e6 12.0-0 Be7 13.Qg3 Kf8 14.Ne2 Rc8 15.Bf4 (Sveshnikov -Palatnik, Odessa 1973) both favor White.

9.Nc3 Bd7.

9Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Qe2 Bd7 (Grosspeter Kir. Georgiev, Insbruk 1977)Adorjan recommended 12.a3!

10.0-0.

The early game Sveshnikov Podgajetz (Moscow 1975) went 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Ne4!Nc8! 12.0-0 (12.exd6?! Bxg5 13.Nfxg5 Qa5+ 14.Nc3 Nxd6) 12Bxg5 13.Nfxg5d5 14.Qh5 Qe7, and here after 15.Nc5 White would have keep some edge. It lookslike Jurtaev knew neither this game nor my encounter with Mishuchkov (which is

given below).

10Nb4?


20/42

Black forgot about development just for a moment. 10a6 11.Bd3 dxe5 12.dxe5Nb4 13.Bg5 Be7 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Be4 Bc6 16.a3! N4d5 17.Qb3 0-0 18.Nd4 Rac819.Nxc6 Rxc6 20.Rad1 (Chekhov Grigorian, Kishinev 1975) does not equalize,though more solid is 10...Be7.

11.Bg5 Be7 12.Ne4!

The signal for an attack. White is aiming at the weak d6-square.

After 20...Rh6

12...dxe5.

This looks like the only move: if 12Nc8 then13.Qa4! is very unpleasant for Black, after 12...

Bxb5 13.Nxd6+ Kf8 14.Bxe7+ Qxe7 15.Nxb5White is pawn up, 12...Bxg5 is met by 13.Nfxg5!Bxb5 14.Nxd6+ and White has winning attack.

13. Nd6+ Kf8 14.Nxe5!?

This leads to a very interesting and sharpposition. Maybe better and simplier was 14.Nxb7

Qc7 15.Bxe7+ Kxe7 16.Qb3! N6d5 17.Bxd7 Qxb7 18.Nxe5 Qb6 19.a3 and White

is a pawn up (Sveshnikov Mishuchkov, Odessa 1972). Spassky and Polugaevsky,my partners on the Russia team, came up to my board at this point. On the spur ofthe moment I got eager to play a la Tal.14...Bxb5!

Losing was 14...Bxg5? in view of 15.Ndxf7 Qe7 (or 15...Qf6 16.Bxd7) 16.Nxh8Kg8 17.Bxd7 Nxd7 18.Nhf7.

15.Ndxf7!? By sacrificing the piece White complicate the issue even more. It was not too lateto wise up and play 15.Bxe7+ Qxe7 16.Nxb5 with a slightly better position.

15...Qd5 16.Qh5.

Threatening 17.Nd6! g6 18.Nxg6+ Kg7 (or 18...hg 19.Qxh8#) 19.Qh6+ Kg8 20.Nxe7#.Though 16.Qg4, in order to build up some pressure on the e6 pawn, also deservedconsideration.

16...Bxg5 17.Nxg5 Be8 18.Qg4 Ke7! Black has played a la Steinitz: the king


21/42

should defend himself.

19.Rae1

(White is threatening 20.Nxe6!) 19...h5.

Bringing the rook into defense with tempo.

20.Qh4 Rh6. On 20...Kd6 very strong is 21.Qf4!

After 36.Qxe8

21.Nxe6+! Kxe6 22.Ng4 +.

A second discovered check! Both knights aresacrificed in order to open up the files and

diagonals for the heavy pieces.

22...Kf7.

Bad is 22...Kd6? in view of 23.Qe7+ Kc6 24.Nxh6 threatening 25.Rc1+ 25.Re6+.

23.Qe7 +.

Insufficient is 23.Nxh6+ gxh6 24.Re7+ Kg8! 25.Qf6 Bf7, and White has noreasonable continuation of his attack.

23...Kg8.

If 23...Kg6, then 24.Re6+ Kh7 25.Rxh6 and White has the advantage.

24.Nxh6+ gxh6 25.Re3 h4 26.Qxh4?!

The simple 26.Qxb4 Bc6 27.f3 with a clear advantage was worth considering, but

in the heat of the battle I became fixated on checkmating my opponent.

26...Qd6.

Black should protect his h6 pawn; otherwise his king will be completely exposed.

27.Rfe1 Bf7 28.Rg3+ Kf8.

On 28...Kh8 White has a beautiful combination in store: 29.Qg4 Rg8 30.Re8!!(distraction) 30...Qg6 31.Qxg6 Bxg6 32.Rxg8+ Kxg8 33.Rxg6+ winning.

29.Qg4 Qf6 30.Rf3 Qg7 (if 30...Qd6, then 31.Qf5 Qd5 32.Qh7 and White wins)


22/42

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

31...Rd8.

On 31...Nc4 very strong is 33.d5! attacking Blacks Knights, which are dozingwhile Whites pawn is rushing to queen.

32.Qc7 Nc6.

In case of 32...Re8 (or 32...Rd7 33.Qb8+) Black is checkmated after 33.Rxe8+Kxe8 34.Re3+ Kf8 35.Qd8+ Be8 36.Qxe8#.

After 10.Rxd1

33.Re7!! Rd7. The only way to protract the

resistance. If 33...Nxe7?, then 34.Qxd8# thisproblem checkmate deserves a diagram: threeblack pieces cant protect his king, but just hinderhim.

34.Rxd7 Nxd7 35.Qxd7 (the rest is an easy ride)

35Qg6 36.Qc8+ Ke7 37.Qc7+ Ke8 38.Qc8+.White is accumulating some time by checking.

38Nd8 39.Re3+ Be6 40.h3 Qb1+ 41.Kh2 Qf542.Qc7 Qxf2 43.Qe5.

Black resigns. There is no defense from 44.d5.

Sveshnikov - Sokolov [B22] Moscow, 1991

1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 (many years of testing showed that safer is 2...Nf6)

3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6.

On 4...e6 unpleasant for Black is 5.Na3; in case of 4...Nc6 Black should reckonwith 5.dxc5.

5.Nf3 e6.

The game Sveshnikov Tunik (Anapa 1991) went 5...Nc6 (5...Bg4 6.Qa4+!?

Sveshnikov - Neverov, Moscow 1990) 6.dxc5 Qxc5 7.Na3 e5 8.Nb5 Qe7 9.b3!?Bg4!, and Black equalized with several precise moves: 10.Ba3 Qd8! 11.Bxf8 Kxf812.Qd6+ Qe7! with a draw.


23/42

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

7.0-0 Be7.

GM Smagin has demonstrated on many occasions Whites advantage after 7...cxd48.Nxd4!? Nxd4 9.cxd4 followed by Be2-f3, but in the game Sveshnikov - Lerner(Podolsk 1993) black managed to equalize.

8.c4 Qd8 (other options are 8...Qd7 and 8...Qf5) 9.dxc5 Qxd1 10.Rxd1

After c20...Kxd8

10...Ne4.

A novelty. 10...Bxc5 was played in the game

Sveshnikov - Serper (Pinsk 1986) (Anothercontinuation is 10...Nd7) 11.Nc3 0-0 12.a3 b6 13.b4 Be7 14.Bf4 with a clear advantage for White.

11.Be3 Bxc5 (11...Nxc5 12.Nc3)

12.Nd4!

Freeing the f3-square for the bishop. If 12.Nbd2,then after Bxe3 13.fxe3 (13.Nxe4 Bf4) 13...Nf6! Black has good counter play dueto the threat Ng4 (14.Nd4 Ne5! with the same idea).

12...Bd7 13.Bf3 Bxd4 14.Bxd4 Nxd4.

If 14...Ng5 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 then 16.b4 or even 16.h4 Ne4 17.Bxg7 Rg8 18.Be5, andthe active 18...Rxg2+ 19.Kxg2 Nc3+ 20.Kf1 Nxd1 does not work in view of 21.Nd2 and the Knight is trapped.

15.Rxd4 Nf6 16.Nc3

(Obviously not 16.Bxb7?! in view of Rb8 17...Rxb2)

16...0-0-0. The move 16...Ke7, deserves consideration. I was going to react with 17.Re1, with a better position. For example: 17...Rhd8 18.Nd5+ Nxd5 19.cxd5 (and19...Bc6 is met by 20.Rdd1!).

17.Rad1 Bc6

(The only move. If 17...e5?! then 18.Rd6!)18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Rxd8+ Rxd8 20.Rxd8+ Kxd8


24/42

After 32.g3

The game transposed into an almost equalknights ending, which my opponent strove forright from the opening. Though there issomething behind this almost. Steinitz saidonce that there was a correlation between class ofthe players and their ability to capitalize even onthe slightest advantage. Whites trumps are thepawn superiority on the queenside and slightspace advantage.

21.f3 Nd7. Bad is 21...c5?! due to 22.Nb5 a6 23.Nd6 Ke7 24.Nb7 Nd7 25.Kf2 followed by a2-a3 and b2-b4.

22.Kf2 f5

(again White would have welcomed 22...c5?! 23.Nb5 a6 24.Nd6 etc.)

23.Ke3 Ke7 24.b4 e5 25.a4 Kd6 26.Kd3 Nf6.

Sokolov made several very logical moves: he advanced his e and f pawns, and tookcontrol over the important central squares. However he spent too much time on thelaborious defense of his worse position. At this point he had only 13 minutes left

till the control move (40), whereas I had 35 at my disposal.

27.c5+ Ke6

Quite possibly more stubborn was 27...Kc7 28.Kc4 (28.b5 Nd5!) 28...a6.

28.b5!

(if 28.Kc4, then 28...Nd5!)

28...Kd7.

On 28...Nd5 I had a pleasant choice between 29.bxc6!? and 29.a5! These variationsrequire further analysis.

29.Kc4 Kc7 (obviously not 29...e4? in view of 30.Kd4 and so on)

30.a5 a6 (the only defense from the threat 31.a6, b5xc6 followed by Nb5xa7)

31.b6+ (Black would be satisfied with 31.bxa6 Kb8 32.Na2 Nd5 and Ka7xa6)


25/42

31...Kb7 32.g3.

Before transferring the knight on d6, it is useful to take control over the f4 square.

32...h5? A decisive mistake in time trouble (Andrey had only one minute left,whereas I had ten). Black devaluated his pawn advantage on the kingside. Whitewould have faced much more serious task after any temporizing move (32...Nd7,for example).

33.h4! (Whites pawn holds two black pawns)

33...Nd7

34.f4! exf4.

After 34...e4 35.Kd4 there is no reasonable defense from Whites forces (eitherking or knight) penetrating to Blacks camp.

35.gxf4 Nf8

(the only way to engineer some counterplay)

36.Ne2 Ng6.

The position that emerges after 36...Ne6 37.Nd4 Nxf4 is analyzed on move 37.

37.Nd4 Nxh4.

If 37...Nxf4, then 38.Nxf5 g6 39.Ne7, and Black is in zugzwang. For example: 39...g5 40.hxg5 h4 41.Nf5 (but not 41.g6? Nxg6) 41...h3 42.Ng3 h2 43.Nh1 Kc8 44.Kc3 Kd7 45.Kd2 Ne6 46.g6 Nxc5 47.g7 Ne4+ 48.Ke3 Nf6 49.Kf3 c5 50.Kg2 c4 51.Nf2 c3 52.Nd3, snatching both opponents passers with the king.

38.Ne6 Kc8

(otherwise White plays 39.Nd8+ followed by 40.Nxc6 with easy win)

39.Nxg7 Ng6 40.Nxh5 (the rest is easy)

40...Kd7 41.Kd3 Kc8 42.Ke3 Ne7 43.Ng7 Nd5 44.Kf3 Ne7 45.Ne6 Nd5 46.Nd4.

Black resigns: On 46...Ne7 White wins by 47.Kg3 and Kh4-g5.

This is one of my three victories in the 2.c3 system over the participant of the super-final Candidate match (1986) Andrey Sokolov.


26/42

Opening Survey

By GM E.Sveshnikov

B22: 1.e4 c5 2.c3Part 5

Sveshnikov, E.-Korchnoi, V. [B22] Biel 1993

1.e4 c5

Victor Lvovich plays 1e6 more often. He might dislike the line I constantly useagainst the French Defense, 2.d4 d5 3.e5!?. Maybe my favorite anti-Sicilian move 2.c3 did not seem dangerous to Korchnoi.

2.c3 From the scientific, mathematical standpoint this move is insufficient forstriving for advantage, but in order to prove that, Black should play 2...Nf6! Othercontinuations are not so strong. Neither Judith Polgar, Korchnoi nor Portishequalized against me in Biel.

2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nf3.

Simpler was 4.d4, but I wanted to make my opponent think for a while (I cantremember the position after 2.c3 in Korchois games).

4...Nc6 5.d4 Nf6.

The move 5...Bg4 also gives some problems for Black.

6.Be2

Another continuation is 6.dc see . theoretical part

6...e6 (6...cxd4!?)

7.0-0 cxd4 8.cxd4

8.Nxd4!? Nxd4 9.cxd4

8Be7 9.Nc3 Qd6.

A few rounds earlier, the game Sveshnikov Polgar went 9...Qd8 10.Be3 0-0 11.Ne5! Nb4 (or 11Nxe5 12.dxe5 Nd7 13.f4 Bc5 14.Bxc5 Nxc5 15.b4! Qb6 16.


27/42

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

10.Nb5!?

10.Be3 0-0 11.Rc1

10Qd8

10...Qb8 11.g3! Nd5 12.Bc4; 10...Qd7!? 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.dxe5 Nd5

11.Bf4 Nd5.

After 11...0-0 12.Bc7! Qd7 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Nd5 15.Bd6 White keeps theinitiative.

12.Bg3 0-0.

More solid is 12...a6! 13.Nc3 0-0 . see my game with Delchev.

13.Bc4 a6. Worse is 13...Nb6? 14.Bc7! Qd7 15.Bxb6 axb 16.Qe2 (Sveshnikov Dokhojan, Moscow 1983), though 13...Qb6!? deserves consideration.

14.Bxd5 axb5!?

The main continuation is 14...exd5 15.Nc7 Rb8 (15...Ra7?! 16.Qb3!) 16.Ne5, andBlack is doomed to fight hard for a draw (Sveshnikov Foishor, Sochi 1985). Themove that was played is not extensively tested in practice.

15.Be4!

The continuation 15.Bb3 Na5 16.Bc2 Bd7 does not promise much for White.

After 15.Be4

15...Ra6?!

After 15h6 16.Re1 (Sveshnikov Tunik,Primorsko 1988), 15...b4 16.Re1 (Sveshnikov Bukic, Bled 1994) or 15Qb6 16.Bf4 Rd8 17.Be3 (Kharlov Badea, Berlin 1994) White keepsa slight edge.

16.Qe2

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

16...f5?!


28/42

More consistent is 16...Nxd4 17.Nxd4 Qxd4 18.Rfd1 Qb6 and White has goodcompensation for a pawn, though only further analysis and practice will showwhether this compensation is more than enough or not.

17.Bd3.White does not want to clarify the situation at the center. Simpler (and probablybetter) was 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Be5 Qd5 19.b3 and White has slight but stableadvantage.

17...Ra5.

Bad is 17...f4? 18.Qe4 fxg3 19.Qxh7+ Kf7 20.Qh5+ dubious is 17...Nxd4? in viewof 18.Nxd4 Qxd4 19.Be5 followed by 20.Bxb5 and 21.a4. But the continuation 17...Nb4!? 18.Bxb5!? f4 19.Bxa6 bxa6 20.Bxf4 Rxf4 21.Rac1 deserves attention. In thiscase a very complicated position emerges. However, Korchnoi did not like this line.

18.Rfd1 Nb4 19.Be5 Nxd3

Otherwise the Bishop might retreat

20.Rxd3 Qd5

After 20...Qd5

21.Ne1!

Planning to transfer the Knight on f4. It is thebest square for this piece.

21...Bd7.

White is clearly better after 21...Rxa2 22.Rg3Bf6 23.Bxf6 Rxf6 24.Rxa2 Qxa2 25.Qxb5.

22.Rg3 Rf7.

If 22...Bf6, then 23.Nd3 Rxa2 24.Rx2 Qx2 25.h3 with even more dangerousinitiative.

23.Nd3!?

I realized that I was playing with Korchnoi, who likes snatching pawns.

Nevertheless I would not forgive myself for the fainthearted 23.b3.23...Rxa2


29/42

Straight off!

24.Rc1.

I was very pleased with my position, because I could not see any reasonablecontinuation for Black. For example the natural 24...Bc6?! fails to 25.Nf4 Qc4? 26.Qe3 Qa4 27.Bxg7.

24...Ra6! 25.Nf4

The mission is completed the knight reached his cherished square

25...Rc6! 26.Qd2.

I though I was winning. Had I foreseen Blacks 27 move, I would have preferred 26.Rf1!? Qe4 27.Qh5. Whites position is better, though it is hard to find a forced win.For example: 27...Bf6! 28.Re3 Qc2 29.Bxf6 (not so good is 29.d5 exd5 30.Nxd5Bxe5 31.Rxe5 Re6) 29...Rxf6 30.d5 Ra6?! (bad is 30...Rd6? 31.dxe6 Bxe6 32.Qe8+ Rf8 33.Qe7) 31.dxe6 Bxe6 32.Qe8+ Rf8 33.Qxb5 Bc4 34.Qxb7 Bxf1 35.Re7Kh8 36.Rxg7 Rh6 37.Qe7 Qc8 38.Rg3! and White wins, but has a strong reply 30...Rb6!I am still under impression (I felt it in the course of the game) that White wins byforce, but I cant prove it by concrete variations. Black holds everywhere.

26...Rxc1+ 27.Qxc1 Qc4!

If 27...Qa2 straight away, then 28.Nh5! So Korchnoi distracts the rook from the g-file.

28.Rc3 Qa2 29.h3.

There is no checkmate in sight, so White secures his King first.

29...Bc6.

Victor Lvovich regretted after the game that he had not played 29...h6?! I thinkGod saved him. Though I would hardly find (but if I did?) the following variationsin the course of the game: 20.Rc7! Bc6 (30...Bg5? 31.Rxd7) 31.d5! deserves adiagram.


30/42

After 29...Bc6

31...exd5 32.Rc8+ Kh7 (bad is 32...Rf8? 33.Ng6or 32...Bf8? 33.Qc5 threatening Ng6) 33.Ne6!Now all the white pieces aim at the black king:

a) 33...Qc4 34.Rh8+! Kxh8 (34...Kg6 35.Nf4+

Kg5 36.Qe3) 35.Qxh6+ Kg8 36.Bxg7 withcheckmating threats;b) 33...d4 34.Qxh6+!! (here the continuation 34.Rh8+ Kxh8 35.Qxh6+ Kg8 36.Bxg7 Qb1+ 37.Kh2 Bd6+! 38.f4 Bxf4+ 39.Qxf4 Rxg7 favorsBlack) 34...gxh6 (34...Kxh6 35.Rh8+ Kg6 36.Nf4

+ Kg5 37.Rh5#) 35.Rh8+ Kg6 36.Nf4+ Kg5 37.Rg8+ Rg7 38.Rxg7+ Kh4 39.g3#;c) 33...Bf6 34.Bxf6 Rxf6 35.Nf8+ Rxf8 36.Rxf8 and White emerges an exchangeup.2) 31...Bxd5 32.Ng6 (In case of 32.Rxe7? Rxe7 33.Ng6 Rf7 34.Qc8+ Kh7 35.Nf8+Kg8 36.Nd7+ Kh7 White should be contended with a draw, because after 37.Qe8?Qb1+ 38.Kh2 Qf1! 39.f3 Bxf3 Black wins the knight), all three the black Bishopsretreats favor White:a) 32...Bg5 33.Rxf7 Kxf7 34.Qc7+ Ke8 (34...Kxg6 35.Qxg7+ Kh5 36.Qf7+ Kh4 37.Bg3#) 35.Qc8+ Bd8 36.Bc7;b) 32...Bd8 33.Rc8 Qa5 (33...Rd7? 34.Rxd8+ Rxd8 35.Qc7+) 34.b4 Qb6 35.h4 andafter 36.h5 and Bd4 Black is completely cramped.c) 32...Bf6 33.Bxf6 Rxf6 (after 33...Rxc7 34.Qxc7 gxf6 35.Qd8+ Kg7 36.Qf8+Kxg6 37.Qg8+ Kh5 38.Qf7+ Black has no defense from the checkmate), and Whitehas a pleasant choice between extra exchange after 34.Rc8+ Kh7 35.Nf8+ Rxf8 36.Rxf8 and the continuation of the attack by 34.Ne5.

30.Rxc6!?

A practical move. White does not gamble, whereas in case of 30.b3 Bg5 any resultwould have been possible. I had no desire to play in time trouble (though I had 20minutes left, whereas my opponent had only 8)

30...bxc6 31.Qxc6 h6.

Losing is 31...Bf6? 32.Bd6! Be7 33.Qe8+ Bf8 34.Nxe6.

32.Qxb5.

After 32.Qe8+ Bf8 33.Nxe6 Qa7!, Black leaves the worst things behind: 34.Bd6Qd7 35.Qxd7 Rxd7 36.Bxf8 Kf7.

32...Bf6 33.Qe8 + Rf8 34.Qc6 Bxe5 35.dxe5 Qxb2!


31/42


32/42

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

4...Nc6.

After 4...e6 5.Bc4 d6 6.d4 cxd4 7.cxd4 or 4...d6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Qxd4!? e6 White has aminimal advantage.

5.Bc4

5.d4

5...Nb6!

Soon after this game, Kozul at Ljubliana played 5...e6 6.0-0 d6, but after 7.d4 cxd4

8.cxd4 did not manage to equalize see the next game.

6.Bb3 c4!?

The alternative is 6...d5 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.Na3 a6 9.0-0 Bf5 10.d4 cxd4 11.Nxd4Nxd4 12.cxd4 e6 13.Qf3 Qd7 14.Re1!? Be7 15.Bg5!? Bxg5 16.Qxf5 Be7! 17.Qe4Rd8 18.d5 Nxd5 19.Rad1 0-0 20.Rxd5 1/2 (Sveshnikov Novgorodsky, St.Petersburg 1997).

7.Bc2 Qc77...d6 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.b3! with slightly better chances

8.Qe2 g5!?

I had analyzed this move five years previously.

After 8...g5

9.e6! dxe6 10.Nxg5 Qe5

The only move. Otherwise White has adangerous attack on the weakened f7 square.

11.Ne4 f5 12.Ng3.

Not so clear is 12.f4!? Qxf4 13.Qh5+ Kd8 14.Ng5.

12...Qxe2+.

Another continuations is 12...Bh6 13.Na3 Qxe2+ 14.Kxe2 0-0 15.b3 cxb3 16.Bxb3Nd5! 17.Re1 Nf4+ 18.Kf1 Nd3 19.Bxe6+ Kg7 and a very complicated position


33/42

arises (Sveshnikov Cherniaev, Yerevan 1996).

13.Nxe2 Bg7! 14.Na3

14.b3?! Nb4!

14...0-0 15.0-0 Bd7.

If 15...e5 then 16.f3 followed by b2b3 and Blacks pawn are stopped andtransformed into targets for attack. Sakaev offered a draw at this point, but theposition and my tournament situation made me play for a win.

16.Rb1 Rac8

16...Rad8!?

17.b3 cxb3 18.axb3 e5 19.f3!

It is important to stop the e-pawn.

After 19.f3

19...a5!?

This move aims to stall b3b4, though the b5square gets loosened. Frankly speaking, Idoubted for a while whether I should haveannotated this game. First, this game is veryimportant for opening theory. There is no reasonto giving my secrets away; second, this encounteris very unconventional. There is no clearevaluation criterion for this position. Even suchcoryphes as Tajmanov and Nikitin evaluated

this position in Blacks favor!

20.Re1.

White does not reveal his plan yet. Whites pawn structure is more flexible. If Imanage to catch up with my opponent in development, and exchange a couple ofpieces, Blacks pawn weakness might be in danger.

20...Nd5 21.Ng3!

Planning Nh5

21...Rcd8 (21...Ncb4? 22.cxb4 axb4 23.Nc4) 22.Bd3!?


34/42

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

22...e6 23.Ra1.

Also good is 23.Bb5!? with the idea of Nc4. One way or another, Blacks pawns

cant advance.23...Nf4 24.Bf1 h5 25.Nc4 h4 26.Nh1!

My opponents temporary activity does not count.

26...Rf6 27.Nf2 Rg6 28.Kh1 Kh7 29.d4!?

I had half an hour left, my opponent had only 10 minutes at this moment. I decidedto force the issue and win a piece. From the practical standpoint, better was 29.Ra2or 29.Rb1, and Black has difficulty finding a reasonable move.

After 29.d4

29...Nxg2.

The only move. If 29...h3?! 30.g3 Ng2 31.Re2!(Not so clear is 31.Rxe5?! Nxe5 32.Nxe5 Bxe533.dxe5 Ne1 34.Nxh3 Nxf3 35.Bg2) 31...exd4 32.Nxh3, with a clear advantage for White.

30.Bxg2 exd4 31.Nh3.

I had conceived this maneuver in advance. If 31.cxd4!? then 31...Nxd4! (threatening Nxb3 andNc2; not so good is 31...Bxd4?! 32.Ra2) 32.Rxa5

Bc6. Although Black threatens Rxg2 and Nxf3, it may be better than the line thatwas played in the game.

31...dxc3 32.Ng5+ Kg8 33.f4.

I though that I had activated my pieces but

33...Nd4!

This knight is worth two pieces!

34.Rb1?!

In case of 34.Rxa5?! b5! and Nxb3 Blacks passers are very dangerous, thoughWhite has some winning chances after 34.Nxa5! Nc2 35.Nxb7 Rb8 36.Be3.


35/42

34...Bc6!

Based on my previous calculations, I thought that Black could not just trade pieces.

35.Nxa5 Bxg2+

36.Kxg2 Ra8 37.b4 b6 38.Nc4.

Whites last chance to strive for victory lay in 38.Nb3!, dislodging the d4-knight:38...Ra2+ 39.Kh3 c2 40.Rb2 Ra3 41.Re3!?

38...Ra2+ 39.Kh3 b5 40.Ne5 Bxe5 41.Rxe5 c2 42.Rb2 Ra1 43.Rc5!

I had been obsessed with the idea that I should have won in the course of the lastseveral moves. On closer examination it turned out that it was no so easy.: 43.Re1?!e5! 44.Kxh4 Rxg5!, and the black knight is very strong.

43Rxg5!

43...Rxc1? leads to checkmate: 44.Rc8+ Kg7 45.Rc7+ Kh8 36.Ra2!44.fxg5 Rxc1 45.Kxh4.

I was still nourishing hopes that my position was better. If 45.Ra2, then 45...Kg7!

46.Ra8 Kg6! 47.Rg8+ Kf7 (47...Kh5? 48.Rc7) 48.Rgc8 Kg6 with a draw.

45...Rg1 46.Rbxc2 Nf3+!

Bad is 46...Nxc2 47.Rxc2 Rg4+? in view of 48.Kh5! Rc4 49.Ra2!, but another wayis 47...Kf7! 48.Kh5 e5 49.g6+ Ke6 50.Kh6 e4 51.g7 f4 52.Rc6+ Kf5 53.Rc5+Kf6=.

47.Kh5 Rxg5 48.Kh6.

One may think that White has good winning chances, but my opponents reply wasa cold shower to me.

48...Kf7! 49.Rf2

After 49.Rxb5? Rg6+! 50.Kh5 Rg4! White can defend himself from checkmateonly at the cost of his Rook.

49...Rg6+ 50.Kh5 Rg5+.

Now Black has to take the perpetual. Draw. The spectators appreciated this tensebattle.


36/42

Opening Survey


Sveshnikovs Six-Part Series on theSveshnikov Sicilian, Concluded!B22: 1.e4 c5 2.c3

Sveshnikov,E. Kozul,Z. [B22] Lubliana, 1997

Zdenko Kozul is a specialist on the 2.c3 system in the Sicilian. Together withOgnen Tsvitan, he elaborated a new original plan of defense. First I faced this plan

in my game with Natasha Boikovich at the tournament in Nova-Goritse (1997) andhardly managed to draw.

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nf3!?

I have dodged this way lately, in order to avoid all other over-analyzedcontinuations.

4...Nc6 5.Bc4 e6 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Be7 9.Qe2 0-0.

This is the opening tabia which I have analyzed and played for 30 years.

After 9...0-0

The theoretical continuations in this position are10.Qe4, 10.Rd1, 10.a3 and 10.Nc3. The lattermove seemed to me to be the strongest one for along time. However, the Croatian players foundan unpleasant variation: 10...Nxc3 11.bxc3 dxe512.dxe5 Qa5!, and if 13.Qe4, then 13...Qa4!, and

Black has equal chances, to say the least.

10.Re1!

The key in using this novelty is to play Nc3 onlyafter 10...b6, and the black queen does not have

access to the a5 square. In case of 10...Qc7 the further queens sortie on a5 willentail spending one more tempo.

10...Bd7.

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


37/42

proponents of this line for Black, I am already analysing the endgame that emergesin this variation!

11.Nc3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 dxe5?!

Kozul is trying to get a familiar pawn structure. In light of the Bd7 insertion, betterwas 12...d5!? 13.Bd3, though White gets the advantage here, too.

13. dxe5 Na5 .

The 13...Qa5 continuation clashes with 10...Bd7. In case of 13...Qc7, White is alsobetter; take my word for it.

14.Bd3 Bc6 15.Nd4 .

White does not allow Black to exchange the f3 knight, because it would be difficultto create an attack without it. Now it turns out that Blacks pieces are firingnowhere.

15...Qd5 16.Qg4 g6?

This is a decisive mistake. 16...Rfc8 was called for.

17.Bh6 Rfc8

The rook has no work on the d file

18.h4 Be8 19.Be4! Qc4.

Another option, 19...Qd8?!, fails to the unpleasant 20.Rad1!

20.h5 Nc6

Bad is 20...Qxc3? in view of 21.hxg6 hxg6 22.Nxe6.

21.hxg6 hxg6


38/42

After 21...hxg6

22.Bxc6!

Exactly! White takes with the bishop, becauseafter this exchange Black cant do much againstthe white knight.

22...bxc6

(22...Bxc6 23.Re3, and checkmate on the h-file isunavoidable

23.Bg5 Bxg5 .

After 23...Bf8 Black has time to put up the defence 24.Re3 c5 25.Bf6 cxd4 26.Rh3Bg7 27.Qh4.

24.Qxg5 c5 25.Nf3!

In case of 25.Re3, White would have won Blacks queen, but the result of the gamewould have been in doubt: 25...cxd4 26.Rh3 Qxc3 with an unclear position,because 27.Rh4? is met by Qxa1+ 28.Kh2 Rc1.

25...Bc6 26.Nh2! Rd8 27.Ng4 Rd3 28.Rad1 Kf8.

On 28...Rad8 I was going to react with 29.Rxd3 Rxd3 (29...Qxd3 30.Qh6 losesimmediately) 30.Rb1! Bb5 31.Rxb5 Qxb5 32.Qh6 f5 33.exf6 with a crushingattack; but not 29.Qxd8+?! with an unclear position.

29.Qh6+ Ke8 30.Qh8+ Kd7 31.Qg7 Rxd1 32.Rxd1+ Kc7 33.Qxf7+.

All White needs is a few accurate moves.

33...Kb6 34.Ne3 Qxa2 35.c4 Re8 36.Qxg6 Kb7 37.Qh7+ Ka8 38.Qc7 Qa4 39.Qd6 Rg8 40.Rc1

40.Qxe6? Rxg2+

40...Re8 41.Qxc5 White wins.

For chess professionals, the most interesting moments of this game are the noveltyon the tenth move and the exchange on move 22.


39/42

Sveshnikov,E. Delchev,A. [B22] Bled, 1998

This game was extremely important for the tournament standing of both opponents.This encounter also turned out to be significant for opening theory.

1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Be2 Nc6.

Let me repeat: more accurate is 6...cxd4, because after 6...Nc6 7.0-0 cxd4 Whitehas an option 8.Nxd4!? Nxd4 9.cxd4 followed 10.Bf3, though after the gameSveshnikov Lerner (Podolsk 1993) I realized that it was not so dangerous forBlack.

7.0-0 cxd4. If 7...Be7 then White has a pleasant choice between 8.Be3 and 8.c4 Qd8 9.dxc5Qxd1 10.Rxd1 with a good endgame.

8.cxd4 Be7

8...Bb4!?

9.Nc3 Qd6

In case of 9...Qd8, strong is 10.Be3 0-0 11.Ne5! Sveshnikov J. Polgar, Biel (int)1993)

10.Nb5!? Qd8 11.Bf4 Nd5.

Another continuation is 11...0-0 12.Bc7! Qd7 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Nd5 15.Bd6.

12.Bg3 a6!

12...0-0 13.Bc4 see my game with Korchnoi

13.Nc3 0-0 14.Rc1 .

I also tested 14.Qb3 (Sveshnikov Kajumov, Moscow 1983; Sveshnikov Micich,Cheliabinsk 1990), but after 14...Nf6!? 15.Rad1 b5! Black has some counterplay(Sveshnikov Magerramov, Moscow (rapid chess) 1994).

14...Nf6 .

Another option is 14...Nxc3 see the theoretical part of this article.


40/42

After 14...Nf6

15.a3!

The game J. Polgar Tiviakov (Madrid 1994)went 15.h3 (defending against 15...Nh5), butafter 15...b5! 16.Nxb5 axb5 17.Rxc6 Rxa2= theweakness of the a2 pawn took its toll.

15...Nh5.

This was a novelty at that time. The gameSveshnikov J. Khorvat (Sochi 1987) was drawnafter 15...b6 16.Qb3 Bb7 17.Rfd1 b5! 18.Qa2

Qb6 because White should get rid of his isolated pawn via 19.d5 Nxd5 20.Nxd5

exd5 21.Rxd5, but after 21...Bf6 Black is even slightly better.

16.Qd3 Nxg3

What else?

17.hxg3 Bd7.

A few month later Black opted for 17Qa5 (17...b6!?) in the game Sveshnikov Graliauskas (Denmark 1998). This game went 18.Rfd1 Rd8 19.Qe3 Bf8 20.Bd3Qh5, and at this point White could have secured a clear edge by the simple 21.Be4!Bd7 22.d5.

18.Rfd1 Rc8 19.Qe3.

White is building up the pressure with natural moves. Black has problems finding agood move; every continuation has its drawbacks.

19...Qb6.

The most natural plan. Black prepares Rfd8, staves off the threat d4d5, the queenavoids an unpleasant opposition with the white rook. Nevertheless

20.Na4!

Gaining a tempo.

20...Qa7 21.Nc5 Rfd8 22.b4 Be8.

One may think that Black did a good job of arranging his pieces, but the blackqueen is too far away from the center and the kingside.


41/42

After 22...Be8

23.Bc4!

Threatening 24.Nxe6.

23Kh8 24.d5.

The opening of lines favors White because he isfully mobilized; his pieces are much more activethan Blacks.

24...exd5 25.Bxd5 b6.

This was played upon long reflection. It turns out that Black has no reasonable

move: 25...Bf6 is met by 26.g4! with the idea of 26g6 27.Qf4, 26...h6 27.g5 or26...Nd4 (26...Ne7) 27.Bxb7; 25...Bxc5 26.bxc5 h6 (no better is 26...f6 27.Qe6 Bh528.Bxc6 bxc6 29.Rxd8+ Rxd8 30.Qxc6) 27.g4! f6 28.g5!? fxg5 29.Nxg5 with astrong attack, or a simple 28.Qe6 with a clear White advantage. The centralizationof the pieces is a very dangerous weapon!

26.Nxa6 Rxd5

Even worse was 26...Qxa6?! 27.Bxc6 Bxc6 28.Rxd8+.

27.Rxd5 Qxa6 28.b5 Qxa3.

On 28...Qa5?! White wins after 29.Nd4! Na7 30.Rxc8 Nxc8 31.Rd8!

29.Rd3.

This is more precise than 29.bxc6?! Qxe3 30.fxe3 Bc5 with some counterplay.

29...Qa8 .

I expected 29...Qb4, which I was going to meet with 30.bxc6 Bc5 31.Nd4! Bxc6 32.Rxc5 Qxc5 33.Rc3 and Nxc6.

30.bxc6 Bc5 31.Rxc5 bxc5


42/42

After 31...bxc5

32.Ne5!

The tempting move 32.Qe7?! was insufficient towin the game in view of Bxc6 33.Ne5 Bd5!

32...f6?!

In the time scramble and worse position Blackmissed his best chance (in my opinion) 32...c4,though even in this case White keeps clearadvantage after the simple 33.Nxc4 Bxc6 (33...Qxc6 34.Nd6 Rb8 35.Qe7 h6 36.Re3 or 34...Qc1

+ 35.Kh2) 34.Nd6 Rf8 35.Qe7 (35...Bxg2? 36.Ra3).

33.Qxc5 h6 34.Ra3 Qb8 35.Ra7 Qb1+(35...Bh5 does not help in view of 36.Qe7)

36.Kh2 Qh7 37.Nd7 Qg8

Bad is 37...Bxd7? 38.cxd7 Rxc5 39.Ra8+

38.g4! Qf7 39.f4 Qg8

40.f5 Qf7 41.Ne5 Qg8 42.Ng6 Bxg6 43.fxg6 Qe8 44.Rf7.

Black resigns. I have scored many points in my favorite variation for 30 years,advancing the theory of this line. I hope this was not my last word!

b22 sicilian alapin by gm sveshnikov

Documents