Beating the Sicilian 2

Beating the Sicilian 2 JOHNNUNN

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1990 ©John Nunn 1990

ISBN 0 7134 6445 3 A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without the prior permission of the publisher Typeset by Latimer Trend Co Ltd, Plymouth, Devon and printed in Great Britain by Dotesios (Printers) Ltd, Trowbridge, Wilts for the publishers, B. T. Batsford Ltd,

4 Fitzhardinge Street, London WIH OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK Adviser: R. D. Keene GM, OBE Technical Editor: lan Kingston

Contents Preface 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

V

Najdorf Variation Scheveningen Variation Classical Variation Pelikan Variation Dragon Variation Kan Variation Maroczy Bind Taimanov System Sicilian Four Knights Lowenthal Variation

l l Pin Variation
(1 ) 8 . . . �fd7 9 itg3 �c6 1 0 j_e3 a6 1 1 0-0-0 'Wfc7, Ljubojevic-

Scheveningen Variation 21 Timman, Brussels SWIFT 1 986, and now Ljubojevic recommends 12 J..e2 as slightly better for White. (2) 8 . . . g6!? 9 g5 hxg5 1 0 j_xg5 a6 l l 0-0-0 e5 1 2 �de2 J,.g4 1 3 titg3 <E:�bd7 14 f3 j_e6 15 J,.h3 J..xh3 1 6 K xh3 !! c8 1 7 f4 was unclear in De Wit-0 11, Groningen 1984/5. This interesting idea does not seem to have been repeated. Perhaps 1 4 f4 is better, hoping to prove that the exposed position of the g4 bishop is a liability. (3) 8 . . . h5 9 gxh5 and now: (3a) 9 <E:�c6 1 0 j_b5 (an attempt to exploit Black's move order; 10 <E:�xc6 bxc6 l l J,.g5 may be better, when Black has to prove that he has something better than l l <El xh5 transpos­ ing to line 3b) j_d7 l l j_xc6 bxc6 1 2 e5 <E:�d5?! (1 2 . . . dxe5 1 3 <E:�xc6 j_xc6 1 4 titxc6+ 'ltff8 15 h6 gxh6 1 6 j_d2 �b8 17 0-0-0 titb6 1 8 titxb6 K xb6 is equal according to Ljubojevic) 1 3 exd6 j_xd6 1 4 J..g5 titb6 1 5 0-0-0 j_ e5 16 <El xd5 cxd5 17 c3 with an edge for White, Ljubojevic-Timman, Bugojno 1 986. (3b) 9 <E:� xh5 1 0 J,.g5 (1 0 j_e3!? is an interesting untested idea, offering the h-pawn in return for a quick attack with 0-0-0) <E:�c6 ll <E:�xc6!? bxc6 1 2 0-0-0 j_xg5+ ?! (accepting the sacrifice turns out to be too risky; Black should develop by 1 2 . . . K b8) 1 3 hxg5 titxg5+ 1 4 'ltfbl f1Je7 (not 14 d5? 1 5 exd5 cxd5 1 6 <E:�xd5 exd5 1 7 H xd5 nor 14 . titc5? 1 5

e5! and White wins in both cases, while 14 tite5 15 j_e2 g6 1 6 tite3 intending f4 gives White a dangerous initiative) 1 5 J..e2 g6 1 6 �xd6! f'lxd6 17 titxf7! (some­ what surprisingly Black has no defence) a5 1 8 �d l + 'ltfe5 1 9 j_xh5 �xh5 20 f4+ titxf4 2 1 titg7+ Resigns, Sobura-Pienia­ zek, Poland 1988. 8 J..g 2 White abandons his plan to play ii£ gl and g5 because after 8 Kgl d5 9 exd5 <E:�xd5 1 0 <E:�xd5 'l!ltxd5 l l J..g 2 titc4 12 c3 j_e7 1 3 g5 <E:�d7 1 4 tite2 titxe2+ 1 5 'ltfxe2 <El b6 White had no advantage in Karpov-Kindermann, Vienna 1 986. 8 <E:�c6 Or: ( I ) 8 . . . g6 9 g5 hxg5 10 J..xg5 j_e7 l l *d2 e5 1 2 <E:�de2 j_e6 13 0-0-0 .ebd7 1 4 f4 tita5 (or 1 4 titc7?! 1 5 fxe5! dxe5 1 6 <E:�d5 J..xd5 17 exd5 !I c8 1 8 K hf l ! with advantage for White, Ghinda­ Bonsch, Halle 1 987) 1 5 '\tfb l <E:�b6 16 b3 with some advantage for White, Gufeld-Georgadze, USSR 1 981 . (2) 8 . . . d5 9 exd5 <E:�xd5 10 <E�xd5 exd5 is given as unclear by ECO. However in distinction to 8 I;Igl d5, White's rook is still defending the h-pawn, so White might consider 9 e5 �fd7 10 f4, when 1 0 . . j_e7 l l h5 and 10 . . . h5 l l gxh5 look good for White, so the critical reply is probably 1 0 d5 9 g5 is also titb6. 8 interesting.

22 Scheveningen Variation 9 g5 hxg5 10 hxg5 �xh1 + 1 1 J,.xh1 f8 ( 1 4 . . . jtd7 1 5 J.. xd7 + * xd7 1 6 �d2 is good for White) 1 5 �xb6 axb6 1 6 0-0-0 e5 was unclear i n Ljuboje­ vic-Adorjan, Linares I 985, but it is hard to believe that there is no way White can exploit the weak b­ pawns. Perhaps 1 6 � a4! is best. (2) l l . �b6 1 2 � b3 a6 1 3 h5 �c7 (or I 3 . . . JJ.. d 7 1 4 h6 K h7 1 5 �d2 �g8 1 6 jte3 �c7 I 7 hxg7 .1. xg7 I 8 0-0-0 with a plus for White, Alzate-Frias, Dubai 01 1 986) 1 4 h6 �d7 I 5 hxg7 jt xg7 1 6 �d2 JJ.. f8 17 0-0-0 b5 1 8 a3 Ab 7 19 � h I K xh I 20 K xh I � ce5, Hellers-Sax, New York Open I 987, and now 2 I .1, h8! � g6 22 1!1 h7 would have given White a very dangerous attack. 12 �d2 JJ.. d7 Playing for b5 is a new idea, but the critical continuation is 'lt b6 1 3 probably he older 1 2 � b3 (25) and now: . .

( l ) 13 . . . 'ltc7 (this doesn't make much sense; Black may as well keep his queen on b6 and dare White to offer his f-pawn) 1 4 h5 � xh5 ( 1 4 . . . b 5 1 5 a 3 jt b7 I 6

30 Scheveningen Variation O-O-O b4 1 7 axb4 � xb4 1 8 tr d4 d 5 1 9 h6! !;l xh6 2 0 jt xh6 e5 2 1 .zt f4! won for White in Luthar-Bonsch, East German Ch. 1 989) 1 5 � h i g6 1 6 .ztxh5 gxh5 1 7 "i!i!(e2 b5 1 8 ». xh5 K xh5 1 9 trxh5 .zt b7 20 0-0-0 b4 2 1 � e2 � c8! 22 � d2 f2 34 �g l + w f3 35 i1H1 mate) 29 �h5 + J. h4 30 H e3 + l;l, f3 (30 . . . ltrg2 3 1 "�t xh4 or 30 . . . J. f3 3 1 H h 1 + 1trg2 32 �xh4) 3 1 � h 1 + wg2 32 *xh4 etc., but there is nothing wrong with winning Black's queen (and having his king on h2). 28 H g8 29 � d2 + jtg2 30 jtf4 + Ji;i g3 31 J.e4 �xe4 Resigns 32 'i!lj'xe4

Game 13 Kupreichik-Kuzmin Minsk 1982 1 e4 c5 �c6 2 ragon, since success or failure is determined by tactical considera­ tions.

Game 18 Kroncke-Schroder Correspondence, 1987 c5 1 e4 d6 2 � f3 3 d4 cxd4 <E)f6 4 � xd4 5 � c3 g6 6 J._e3 If White intends castling queen­ side this move is the most usual. 6 J._e2 only fits in with 0-0, since the bishop is usually better placed at fl or c4 in the more aggressive lines resulting from castling on opposite wings. J._g7 6 The Dragon differs from many other Sicilian systems in that Black often omits the typical move a6. Time is of particular importance in the Dragon and Black simply cannot afford the tempo spent on preparing b5, which can often be played without . . . a6 in case White castles queen­ side. The idea of playing a6 and b5 before castling has been tried, but after 6 a6 (6 . . . Q) g4? loses material after 7 J. b5 + ) 7 f3 ..f} bd7 8 'i'itd2 b5 9 a4! bxa4 (9 b4 1 0 ..f}d5 is also very good for White) 10 � xa4 J.g7 l l J._e2 0-0 1 2 0-0 Qlc5 1 3 � a3 J._b7 1 4 � fa ! �c8 15 Ql b3 White had strong queenside pressure in Kavalek-Bilek, Sousse IZ 1 967.

7 f3 (66) This is more or less forced as 7 J._c4 and 7 'if(d2 can both be met by 7 ..f} g4. 66 B

7 0-0 Or: (I) 7 . . . a6 (7 Q� bd7 exerts no pressure on d4 so simply 8 'if(d2 followed by 0-0-0, J. c4 and J._h6 gives White a strong attack) 8 �d2 Ql bd7 (8 b5 9 a4! is similar to Kavalek-Bilek above) 9 J.h6 (9 0-0-0 is also good) J._ xh6 (9 0-0 is suicidal since White's h4-h5 attack is much stronger than usual) I0 'if(xh6 b5 1 1 0-0-0 J. b7 1 2 h l . After 1 0 b3 jl_ b7 1 1 jt b2 (88) there are two lines: 88 B

.!£) xb5 li;l xa2 20 jl_ xg7 !HaS 2 1 i!i xa2 !!! xa2 22 jL d4 e5, Hellers­ Adamski, Eeklo l 9S5, and now 23 Jtc3 gives White a won ending. ( l e) 13 � ael !i!, eS 14 f4 g6 1 5 e5! dxe5 1 6 fxe5 jl_c5 + 1 7 * h l .!£)g4 I S jl_ e4! .!£) xe5 1 9 jl_ xc6 .!£) xc6 20 )'tf1 again with a tre­ mendous attack for White, Prague Ermenkov-Gheorghiu, 1 9S5. .!E\ bd7 12 !!! ad l ( 1 2 f4 (2) 11 >�tc7 is also playable) � eS ( 1 2 1 3 jl_ b l li;l feS 14 f4 � acS 1 5 221 0 jl_ f8 1 6 * h i Jtc6 was less accur­ ate and after 1 7 e5! jl_ xf3 I S !il, xf1 dxe5 1 9 fxe5 .!£) g4 20 !il, xf7! White had a very dangerous attack in Plachetka-Ravikumar, Copenha­ gen 1 9SO) 1 3 Jt b l >�tbS 14 f4 A f8 1 5 * h l !il, a7 1 6 .!£) f3 ;l aS with a double-edged position, Akesson­ 1 9SO, Copenhagen Mestel, although I still favour White. jl_ b7 10 1 1 * h l (89) . . .

.:'£\ c6 (as the earlier (1) 11 explanation makes clear, this move plays into White's hands since we reach positions similar to the main line below, but with White having saved about half a tempo by missing out * h 1 ) 1 2 .!£) xc6 jl_ xc6 and Black has been highly unsuccessful from this position: ( l a) 13 ,g adl )'tbS?! 14 a3 (what on earth is this for?) � dS? (it doesn't matter about the tempo spent on a3 in view of the way Black plays) 1 5 f4 .!£) d7 1 6 e,d5! jl_ f8 17 B. f3! li eS IS li h3! g6 1 9 )'tg4 )'tdS 20 lil fl jl_ g7 2 1 J_ xg7 * xg7 22 f5! with a massive at­ tack, lvanovic-Ermenkov, Plov­ div 1 9S3. ( l b) 13 f4 .!£l d7 14 14, ad l b5? 1 5 cxb5! axb5 1 6 jl_ xb5 11t b6 + 1 7 J!l f2! jl_xb5 I S 'ilfxb5 >�txb5 1 9

ll Or: (1) 11 � ac l ( 1 3

.!£)c6

. • .

.:'£\ bd7 1 2 Jtd2 >�tc7 1 3 1 4 � f1 g6

l!l ae l l!l feS

Kan Variation 105 � xe5) 1 8 gxf5 exf5 1 9 j)_ d5 + 1 5 K g3 ! flh8 1 6 K h3 e5 1 7 � f3 ff h8 20 �xe5 are all good for exf4 1 8 J.. x f4 J.. f8 1 9 'ltf2 � c5 20 White. jtc2 was also good for White in jtxc6 12 � xc6 I vanovic-Peev, Ba1asiha 1 977) g6 13 b3 1 4 b4 )l ac8 1 5 a3 'ltb8 (the ad­ <E)d7 Or 1 3 'ltc7 1 4 J.. b2 .i! ad8 vantage of playing f4 is that the weakening of c4 created by White and now: ( I ) 1 5 � adl g6 1 6 J.. b l � h5 1 7 playing b4 cannot be exploited by K d3 ( 1 7 g4 �g7 1 8 f5! exf5 1 9 . . . � e5) 1 6 �f3 )l fe8 1 7 B, ce 1 J.. f8 1 8 �g5 h 6 ( 1 8 e 5 1 9 f5 gxf5 was probably better) e5! 1 8 gave White a strong attack at no fxe5 dxe5 1 9 M xd8 K xd8 20 �d5 material cost in Commons-Naj­ with just an edge for White, Matulovic-Tringov, dorf, Lone Pine 1 9 76) 19 � xf7! Vrnjacka flxf7 20 e5 �g8 21 'ltg4 �e7 22 Banja 1 986. J.. xg6 + ! � xg6 23 f5 � dxe5 24 (2) 15 K ael (intending � d5) fxe6 + ! (24 fxg6 + ff g8 is unclear) J.. b7 1 6 J.. b 1 � d7? ( 1 6 g6 is ffe7 (24 . . . * g7 25 !! xe5 dxe5 26 probably better, when 1 7 'ltd3 is only a slight plus for White) and I, f7 + mates) 25 'ltxg6! (the cli­ now 1 7 'lth5 H fe8 1 8 li, e3 � f6 1 9 max of a magnificent combi­ 'lth3 g6 20 f5! gave White a deci­ nation) ff d8 26 l;i xe5 dxe5 27 sive attack in Nunn-Gheorghiu, J.. x h6 11 xc4 (27 J.. x h6 28 Biel 1 983, which is annotated in H d 1 + mates) 28 'ltxe8 + (White gives up his queen after all) ff xe8 detail in Secrets of Grandmaster Play by Peter Griffiths and the 29 )l xf8 + fj e7 30 )l xb8 jtc6 3 1 � d 1 b5 32 * g l •xe6 33 K b6 present author. For some reason Resigns, Commons-Peev, P1ovdiv Gheorghiu repeated the whole line in the game Mokry-Gheorg­ 1 976. hiu, Prague 1 985. That game con­ (2) 1 1 l;l e8 (dubious as it allows White to play for e5 with­ tinued 1 7 'i'lf'g4 J.. f6 1 8 � e3 g6 1 9 K h3 * h8?? 20 � d5 ! winning, as out delay) 1 2 � f3 g6 (12 . . . � bd7 1 3 e5 dxe5 1 4 fxe5 xfl 22 � g5 + 'l\> f8 23 � f5 + 'l;e7 24 'i>'\' fl + wd6 25 §1.[4 + g3 lll._ d6 + 1 7 g f4! .§J.. e6 18 fj xe6 � xe6 19 'ii'i xd6 ·� g6 + 20 8 g4 � e3 + 21 .Jl.xe3 ·if( xd6 + 22 w f2 l;t\ e8 23 � f4 � e7 24 J[. b3 ·i>�i e5 25 8 e l g5 26 � f3 'it;g7 27 � d l f6 28 g8 22 ,k f4 liquidates to an ending in which White has a clear extra pawn) 20 '!!!1 f7 + '\fih8 2 l ll!f f4 and now: ( 1 ) 21 � cS 22 j_e3 'i!l!Jh5 + (22 j}_g4 + 23 '\fid2 � a5 + 24 . •

. • .

2

W6 153

After this move White can gain a clear endgame advantage with no risk. The critical move is 22 . �xg2! 23 'lth5! ( 131) (I gave 23 ll f2 in the first edition, but 23 �g4 + 24 'iti'd2 'i!tb4 + 25 rfi d l � g5! i s good for Black) and now:

130 B

b4 �h5 25 �g5 exchanges queens) 23 *d2 ;l e6 24 �g5 (24 ;1 d4! looks very good to me since 24 . . � g6 allows 25 jl xg7 + fl/xg7 26 �f6 + and 24 �dS 25 �e5! �xg2 + 26 � f2 �g4 27 h3! is a disaster) �e8, A. Rodri­ guez-Diaz, Cuba Ch. 1 983, and now 25 � f4 intending J.. d4 gives White a clear advantage. (2) 21 . . . �e7 22 �g5 �e8, Short-Minic, Banja Luka 1 985, and now Minic gives the line 23 J.. d2 J.. e6 (23 � a4 24 ;lc3! lt;l xd3 + 25 f#j c l � g6 26 ll;! f8 + mates) 24 ;lc3 �g6 2 5 fl/ d2 l! d5 26 �g3 �d7 27 g ae l , assessing the final position as slightly better for White. I suspect that White's advantage is considerably greater than this; he is a pawn up with the two bishops, and if he consoli­ dates with f#j c l he must be win­ ning. Therefore Black should play 27 J.. f5, but after 28 .i, e3 followed by * c l White is a pawn up for nothing. fl/hS 20 �ti + 21 J.. gS � gS � dS 22 J.. e3! .

. . .

( I ) 23 � f8?! 24 � f4! (intending !;:;\ h4 and mate on h7) �h3 (seemingly forced) 25 i\!i xh3 ..@_xh3, Odeev-Varlamov, corr. 1 987, and now 26 *d2 il. g2 (26 � d8 27 i:i h l JL.g2 28 i;i. h2 J.. c6 29 Ji;\ fh4 h6 30 .i.d4 wins the exchange) 27 g g 1 .ll c6 28 � h4 (intending i;i. g3-h3) i;i. d8 29 i;i. g3 J.. d7 30 J..d4 and White has a large advantage. (2) 23 . . . g6 24 'i'li h4! (24 ,@. d4 + c3 8 d8 + ! (25 we5 + 27 _:&d4 �a5 + 28 l\> xc4 _&e6 + 29 l\>d3 and White evades the checks) 26 iL.d3 -2) xd3 27 cxd3 �d6 28 ·i"f h4 + l\> g8 29 #e4 leaves White with some advan­ tage, but in view of the opposite coloured bishops it isn't clear how many winning chances he has.

25 J1! hl h6 26 _lieS! ( 132) White's ambition is to gain f4 for his queen, when a sacrifice on h6 will be inevitable.

26 "¥ d5 26 'I!J!ic7 is spectacularly refuted by 27 ·;i1 f6! 26 . . . )ii e5 27 � ae l ·�g5 + 28 JL.e3 followed by .;i xh6 also loses quickly. 27 '1%'f4 � d8 27 ¥·xg2 + 28 'ltfc3 doesn't help Black in his efforts to combat Jiit xh6 + 28 Jiit xh6 + '!fi g8 29 � h8 + ! w xh8 30 i$'h4 + '\ff g8 31 �h7 + f;; f7 32 �g6 + f;; g8 33 �h7 + fr f7 34 �n + .ars 34 'l; e6/e8 35 � g6 + ltrd7 36 li;\ f7 + mates. 35 .!;;:. xf5 + !ii xf5 36 �xf5 + fr g8 37 ft'cl Resigns Quite apart from his material disadvantage there is no defence to the threat of � c4 + .

13

2

a6

This is often called the O'Kelly Variation after the late Belgian Grandmaster who played it with some regularity. Since a6 is almost universal in the Sicilian Black gets it over with as soon a � possible, reserving his options as to which Sicilian system to adopt. White should not play 3 d4? cxd4 4 � xd4 � f6 5 � c3 e5 when Black has a favourable version of the Najdorf in which his king's bishop can emerge actively at c5 or b4. 3 c3 is a sensible reply, which tends to lead to 2 c3 Sicilian positions in which Black has played the unusual move a6 which is perhaps not the best wa to spend a tempo. H owever the strongest reply of all is 3 c4, which either leads to Maroczy Bind positions or to a sort of hedgehog. In view of the rare occurrence of 2 a6 in practice, it perhaps does not rate a chapter of its own, but this did give me the excuse to include another of my own games in the book!

;

Game 30 Nunn--Surtees Basingstoke Open 1977 1 2 3

e4 �f3 c4 ( 133)

c5 a6

3 .dc6 Or: ( ! ) 3 . . . d6 (this may lead to a type of hedgehog) 4 d4 cxd4 (4 1t g4 is an interesting move, since 5 dxc5 1l._xf3 6 'ii-1 Xf3 dxc5 leaves Black with a grip on d4 to com­ pensate for the two bishops; 6 gxf3! dxc5 7 �xd8 + lf!> xd8 8 2J c3 is possible, but the simplest line is 5 d5 with a positional edge for White) 5 ,f) xd4 2J f6. 6 -?Jc3 b6 (6 e6 7 j_d3 leads to positions from Chapter 6, so we concen­ trate here on Black's attempt to develop early pressure against e4 which is unique to 2 . a6) 7 k d 3 lt b7 8 0-0 (it is more accurate to play 8 *" e2 :£J bd7 9 b3-see next -?Je5 ?� te) -?J bd7 9 i't\' e2 e6 (9 ts Interesting since I 0 lL c2 ;:; c8 1 1 k a4 + -2l fd7 is unclear, so White would have to allow Black to take on d3) 1 0 b3 ( 1 0 f4 l\'t c7 1 1 lf!> h l

156 2

a6

§J_e7 1 2 §J_d2 is also good, when Nunn-Franklin, London 1 985, continued 12 . . h5 13 � ae 1 h4 14 f5 '-i:lf8 1 5 fxe6 fxe6 16 '-i:l d5! �d8 17 e5 dxe5 18 "tl!l' xe5 �xd5 1 9 �xe6 �d6 20 �xd6 .ZL xd6 2 1 cxd5 Resigns) l¥fc7 1 1 §J_ b2 "*c5?! (Black plays too ambitiously with his king stuck in the centre- I ! .ZLe7 followed by . 0-0 is better) 1 2 � ae l ! (exploiting the tactical point 1 2 . l¥fxd4 13 '-2l a4 White prepares a breakthrough by '-i:l d5) b5 ( 1 2 �h5 1 3 'i'l!fd2 g6 14 f4 §J_h6 1 5 '!Wf2 g5 16 j}_e2 g4 1 7 �g3 M g8 1 8 §J_ d l ! was also good for White in Nunn-Frank­ lin, London 1 977, since e5 is imminent, while Franklin's later suggestion of 1 3 g5 allows 1 4 �d5! with added effect a s the 15 square is now available) 1 3 cxb5! �xd4 14 bxa6 j}_ c6 1 5 '-21 b5 1¥1 b6 16 §J_d4 'l'l!fb8 1 7 � c l '-i:lc5 18 a4! (this nullifies the threat of � xd3 and prepares to break open the c-file by b4) e5 1 9 §J_e3 Ae7 20 b4 '-i:l xd3 2 1 li xc6 � xb4 22 a7 'll!( b7 23 � b6 (heading for b8) � xe4 24 '-i:l c7 + '1t>d7 25 l¥t b5 + 'f:;xc7 26 li e ! + '-i:l c2 27 M xc2 + Resigns, Nunn-Franklin, Not­ tingham 1 979, as 27 *'xc2 28 li b7 + 'it' d8 29 li b8 + 'f:;c7 30 §L b6 is mate. (2) 3 . . . e6 4 '-i:lc3 � c6 5 d4 cxd4 6 � xd4 A b9 (6 '-21 f6 7 � c2! is good for White) reaching an unusual position which does not seem to be considered by theory. 7 '-i:l c2 j}_xc3 + 8 bxc3 is one possibility, but I like 7 '-i:l xc6.

Then 7 bxc6 8 "iii" d4 looks very awkward since 8 . . . � f6 and 8 . . . "iii" f6 are both met by e5, so 7 . . . dxc6 8 "iii" xd8 + '1J xd8 is best. Then White plays 9 jl_ f4, intend­ ing 0-0-0 + and � a4 with good play against the weak black squares at c5 and b6. If Black exchanges at c3 White had the dream square d6 for his bishop . cxd4 4 d4 '-21 f6 5 �xd4 Or 5 . . e5 (5 . . . e6 6 '-i:lc2 is still good for White, and 5 . . . g6 allows 6 '-i:l xc6 and 7 l¥td4) 6 '-i:l f5 d5 (6 � f6 7 '-i:lc3 transposes to Nunn-Surtees) 7 cxd5 A xf5 8 exf5 '-i:ld4 9 '-i:l c3 �e7 (again 9 .:£) f6 transposes) 10 .ztd3 ( 1 0 f6 is also promising) � exf5 1 1 0-0 jl_d6 1 2 f4 with a dangerous initiative for White. e5 6 '-i:l c3 7 '-i:l f5 d5 After 7 . . . d6 8 §J_g5 (8 '-i:l e3 controlling d5 is also good) ll_ xf5 9 exf5 �d4 1 0 ll_d3 White's con­ trol of e4 and d5 gives him an excellent position. 8 cxd5 jl_ xf5 9 exf5 �d4 � xd5 10 jl_ d3 1 1 0-0 ( 134) jl_b4 Black has tried a variety of moves in this position, but with­ out coming close to equality, for example 1 1 . . � xc3 1 2 bxc3 '-i:l c6 (once the knight has to move from d4 the only asset of Black's position vanishes) 13 � b l � b8 14 "it f3 fl!c7 15 jl_ e4, Ravinsky­ Kliascicki, U SS R 1 966, 1 1 . . . . . •

.

2 134 B

'-E.) f6 1 2 � e 1 '-E.)c6 1 3 � b3 Ji. b4 14 l! d 1 �e7 15 Ji.g5, Rogacovski­ Konova1ov, corr. 1 972 or 1 1 . . . !tJ... e7 1 2 !tJ... e4 �xc3 1 3 bxc3 '-2\c6 1 4 � b 1 �c8 1 5 'I'Mg4, Matano­ vic-Perez, Belgrade 1 96 1 with a clear plus for White in every case. 12 !tJ... e4! '-2\ xc3 13 bxc3 jj_ xc3 14 � b1 0-0 In Altshuler-Fink, corr. 1 960 Black tried to hold on to the pawn but after 14 . . � b8 1 5 �g4 g6 1 6 !tJ... g5 gxf5 1 7 A xf5 f6 1 8 �h5 + White had a winning position. 15 � xb7 This simple move was sug­ gested by Gligoric and Sokolov as an improvement over the unclear continuation 1 5 �g4 �d6 1 6 � d l � ac8 (but not 1 6 )g. ad8? 1 7 � d3 A b4 1 8 f6!) 1 7 � d3 � c4 in which White lacks a knock-out blow. � d6 ( 135) 15 White's main threat was 1 6 jj_a3, driving the rook away from the defence of f7, followed by � h5 and if Black manages to defend f7 White still has the crushing blow f6 in reserve.

a6 157

Black's �d6 is of course designed to prevent jj_ a3, but un­ fortunately the move loses by force. He had to try 1 5 � b8 although 16 � xb8 �xb8 1 7 f6 gives White a strong attack with no material investment.

16 ;,:, b3! White utilizes the undefended queen to threaten li.xa8, � xc3 and i_a3. Black's reply is forced. 16 . . . i,f ac8 17 ,& a3 �d8 If the queen moves anywhere else 1 8 j}_ xf8 .f) xb3 1 9 j}_ xg7 wins a pawn and demolishes Black's kingside. ,g e8 ( 136) 18 � b7

158 2

a6

Ji!\ xti 19 A piece of rather unnecessary flashiness since 1 9 �h5 ·£ f6 (or 19 '8. c7 20 f6) 20 R_d5 wins quite easily. 19 -;n g5 19 l!txf7 20 ·i'ti" h5 + f6 2 1 iYi' Xh7 � f7 22 i\-f h5 + forces the king to g8 in any case) 2 1 f6 g6 22 1/. xg6 'i'ii' d7 23 f7 + wins, but Black can hardly hope to survive long after losing the vital f7 pawn. 'it;h8 20 jtd5

21 21 ial.

g6 f6 gxf6 22 !1J..e7 costs mater-

e4 22 � a4 Losing at once, but Black's king would have succumbed soon m any case. 23 if:\ xh7 + Resigns After 23 lfr xh7 24 � d7 + lt>h6 25 "!Wg7 + * h5 26 'i'l!/h7 + lfrg4 (26 'ii\' h6 27 g4 + lti> g5 28 f4 + exf3 29 .& c l + ) 27 ·ll'f h3 + ltr f4 28 ..&. d6 + Ji!\ e5 29 "i'rl xc8 the position speaks for itself.

14

Unusual Lines

The material in the first 1 3 chapters will be sufficient to pre­ pare the reader for the vast majority of the games he will have as White against the Sicilian, but there remain a substantial number of unusual variations which Black players might adopt. Only a few have any pretentions to respecta­ bility and we concentrate on these few in this chapter. Wilder eccen­ tricities are usually best dealt with by an application of common sense and straightforward de­ velopment. The following break­ down of lines considered in this chapter will aid the reader in locating the variation he is looking for. A

B

C

D

The pseudo-Dragon 1 e4 c5 2 .S f3 � c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 � xd4 cEJ f6 5 � c3 g6. Unusual lines involving 2 � c6 apart from the pseudo­ Dragon: I e4 c5 2 � f3 � c6 3 d4 cxd4 (3 d5) 4 � xd4 � f6 (4 a6, 4 d5, 4 fif c7, 4 . 'i!ii' b6) 5 � c3 l'l!b6. Unusual lines involving 2 d6: 1 e4 c5 2 �f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 3 � f6) 4 � xd4 � f6 5 �bd7) 6 � c3 e5 (5 lt.. b5 + Unusual lines involving 2 e6: I e4 c5 2 � f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4

(3

E

d5) 4 � xd4 iJ.. c5 or 4 j_b4 + Unusual Black second moves: I e4 c5 2 �f3 g6 (2 ·liif c 7, 2 b6). A 1 2 3 4 5

e4 � f3 d4 �xd4 � c3

c5 �c6 cxd4 � f6 g6 (137)

137 w

This is an attempt by Black to reach accelerated Dragon posi­ tions without allow White the op­ tion of playing the Maroczy bind. It has been played a few times in Grandmaster chess, but White can obtain a clear advantage with accurate play. 6 � xc6 bxc6 Or 6 dxc6 7 �xd8 + * xd8 8 .f,tc4 *e8 (not 8 b5? 9 JJ.. xf7 e6 1 0 JJ.. g5 J.... e 7 1 1 0-0-0 + win. . .

1 60 Unusual Lines ning, while 8 . . . f;J_ g7 9 JL. f4 * e8 1 0 0-0-0 l£!d7 1 1 A c7 ! is good for White since Black is not allowed to castle) 9 e5 .!E) g4 1 0 f4 h5 (after 10 . . . A f5 1 1 h3 .'£!h6 1 2 g4 Black has to go back since 1 2 jL xc2 13 H h2 j_a4 14 � xa4 b5 1 5 jlb3 bxa4 1 6 f;J_ xa4 K c8 17 )ii c2 *d7 1 8 Ae3 is winning for White) 1 1 Ad2 h4 (or 1 1 JL.f5 1 2 h3 €:) h6 1 3 0-0-0 Ag7 1 4 K he l with ad­ vantage to White) 1 2 � e4 �h6 1 3 j_c3 h3 1 4 e 6 K g8 1 5 ex£7 + l£l xf7 1 6 0-0-0! with a clear plus for White, M aus-Schlick, B un­ desliga 1 987. l£! g8 7 eS After 7 . . . � d5 8 l£! xd5 cxd5 9 �xd5 K b8 1 0 e6! (with 'il!J'e5 if the pawn is taken) f6 1 1 JL.f4 li b4 1 2 Ad2 � b6 1 3 11.b5 K d6 1 4 "�tc4 White has a winning position. 8 jt c4 ( 138) 138 B

8 jt g7 Other moves are no better: ( I ) 8 . . . dS 9 exd6 �xd6 (9 exd6 10 i!ff3 d5 1 1 � xd5 cxd5 1 2 JL.xd5 �e7 + 1 3 j_e3 � b8 1 4 0-0 jtg7 1 5 A f4 with a decisive at-

tack) 10 0-0 'l'!fxd 1 1 1 l{ xd 1 A h6 1 2 Axh6 �xh6 1 3 K d2 � f5 1 4 �e4 i s very pleasant for White, Geller-Stein, USSR Ch. 1 966--7. (2) 8 . . . 'l'!fa5 9 0-0 and now: (2a) 9 . . . 'i'!fxeS 10 K e 1 'l'!f a5 (or 10 . . . 'l'!fb8 1 1 "ijd4 f6 1 2 � e4 11.g7 1 3 Af4 'l'!tb6 1 4 l£!d6 + * f8 1 5 'l'!td3 A b7 1 6 f;J_ xg8 K xg8 1 7 'l'!fc4 Resigns, Tiviakov-Muger­ man, Pinsk 1 989) 1 1 b4 'l'!td8 leaves Black in a dreadful mess. In Karaklajic-Ivanovic, Yugoslavia 1 974, White won Black's queen by 1 2 l£l e4 e6 1 3 ll_ b2 f6 1 4 ll_ xe6 dxe6 1 5 � xf6 + i!fxf6 1 6 ll_xf6 l£! xf6, which proved sufficient in the end, but I would not be sur­ prised if White had an even stronger continuation. (2b) 9 . . . jj_ g7 10 !#f3 f5 ( 10 . . . e6 1 1 1L.f4 and 10 . . . f6 1 1 g e l are also good for White) 1 1 it. f4 leads to the note to Black's I Oth move below. 9 'i\'r f3 fS Relatively best, for example 9 e6 10 ]L f4 %'a5 1 1 0-0! J..xe5 1 2 b4 "ijc7 1 3 � b5 i!f b8 1 4 JJ.. xe5 �xe5 1 5 H ad 1 d5 1 6 H fe 1 'l'!tb8 1 7 ll.. xd5 cxd5 1 8 'il!J'xd5 *f8 1 9 iird8 + *g7 20 � c7 � f6 2 1 'W!e7 and White wins. e6 10 J1.f4 Or 1 0 H b8 ( 1 0 'W!a5 1 1 0-0 Jl. xe5 1 2 b4 i!fc7 1 3 l£! b5 �b8 14 J.. xe5 'l'!fxe5 1 5 � fe 1 'il!J'b8 1 6 'l!lfc3 is now instantly decisive) 1 1 0-0 e6 1 2 � ad 1 followed by K fe 1 and j ust a s i n the main line White has an unpleasant bind, Anders­ son-Bilek, Teeside 1 972. Black

Unusual Lines 161 has no way to solve the problem of his backward d-pawn and the g7 bishop is inactive . White players must be on the lookout for the exchange sacrifice . � b4xf4, which can be good for B lack if he can get the e5 pawn, but provided White keeps his bind on Black's position he can be op­ timistic about the future . 11 0-0 The correct choice; in other games White played 0-0-0, but this gives Black counterplay down the b-file. -2) h6 11 We give the rest of the game Short-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1 986, which is a model example of how to play such positions. Black is never allowed to free himself and is finally overcome by the problems resulting from the back­ ward d-pawn: 1 2 � ad l 1/ic7 1 3 � fe l � f7 1 4 �g3 0-0 1 5 h4 l:fr h8 1 6 � a4 a5 1 7 b3 � e8 1 8 '!We3 h6 1 9 g4! � g8 20 J,.g3 J.. f8 2 1 Ytib6 )!! a7 22 f3 1/ixb6 + 23 � xb6 j_c5 + 24 J.. f2 J,. xf2 + 25 fr xf2 fxg4 26 fxg4 * g7 27 -2) a4 g5 28 h5 l!! f8 29 * g3 � d8 30 � c5 � f4 3 1 a4 * f8 3 2 J.. d3 *e7 3 3 j_ g6 l!! a8 34 � e3 .1ii( b8 35 � ed3 � bb4 36 � xd7 + j_ xd7 37 .lii( xd7 + Resigns. c5 l e4 B � c6 2 � f3 cxd4 3 d4 3 d5 4 exd5 \ltxd5 5 � c3 �e6 + (or 5 1/ih5 6 d5) 6 J.. e3 cxd4 7 � xd4 �d7 8 � d b5 .1ii( b8 9 �e2 and White is probably win-

ning already, Boleslavsky-Gurge­ nidze, USSR 1 960. 4 �xd4 1/ib6 4 . . . a6 c4 transposes to Chapter 1 3 , 4 . . . d5 5 -2)c3 dxe4 6 � xc6 �xd l + 7 * xd l bxc6 8 � xe4 j}_ f5 9 J.d3 0-0-0 10 *e2 e6 1 1 J.. f4 *b7 1 2 .lii( ad l isjust good for White and 4 . . . � f6 5 ,.£) c3 )li!J b6 transposes to the main line. That leaves 4 tfHc7, which can be met by 5 ,.£) b5 � b8 6 c4 � f6 7 2\ 5c3 e6 8 f4 (8 j}_ e3 allows either 8 . . . j_d6!? or 8 . . . b6 followed by .A_c5) d6 (8 1J.. c5 9 e5 -2:J g8 I 0 2le4) 9 J\i_ e2 1J.. e7 10 ..! e3 0-0 1 1 0-0 b6 (White has a favour­ able version of Chapter 8 in which Black has lost time with his queen) 1 2 -E:� d2 j_b7 1 3 j_O � d8 14 a3 (better than 1 4 � c l i f8 1 5 ·¥' e2 d5!? with unclear play, Chandler-Barlov, Haninge 1 988) 1J.. f8 15 j}_f2 -E:�d7 16 b4 with advantage to White, Karpov­ Kurajica, Hastings 1 97 1 /2. 5 -E:� b3 ,.£)f6 6 -E:� c3 e6 7 J.. e3 'it!J c7 8 j}_d3 ( 139)

162 Unusual Lines 8 'ke7 a6 (8 ,k b4 9 0-0 0-0 Or 8 10 2:!b5 io� b8 1 1 f4 was good for White in Gheorghiu-Forintos, Monte Carlo 1 968) 9 f4 d6 I 0 � f3 (10 � e2 is also possible, as in some examples below, while White may start his kingside pawn advance immediately, e.g. 10 g4 b5 1 1 g5 2:!d7 12 M- d2 ii_b7 1 3 0-0-0 -2:)c5 14 '!r,) f2! with some advantage to White, Belyavsky­ Gufeld, Suhumi 1 972) b5 (if Black k_e7 we transpose to the plays main line below) 1 1 0-0-0 ii_ b7 1 2 'i11i> b l 2\a5 1 3 2\ xa5 ii'fxa5 14 g4 0-0-0 1 5 g5 2\ d7 1 6 a3 lfi b8 1 7 !l'i f2 1i.e7 1 8 k d4 e 5 1 9 fxe5 dxe5 20 .Jo. a7 + 1Wa8 21 2:!d5 with a clear plus for White, King-Wirth­ ensohn, Berne 1 988. 9 f4 d6 10 f'>'if3 It is useful for White to delay committing his king, since he can reasonably castle on either side. However, there is an argument for developing the queen to e2, for example 1 0 ·ri'i e2 a6 and now l 1 0-0-0 0-0 1 2 g4 ii;; e8 1 3 g 5 � d 7 1 4 ld f3 g6 1 5 )"( afl b5 1 6 8 h 3 b4 1 7 Rodriguez-Carlier, A. -2:\ d I , Amsterdam 1 987 or l 1 0-0-0 b5 1 2 1W b l 2:! b4 1 3 g4 2:!d7 14 g5 .Ja b7 15 a3 2\ xd3 16 cxd3 g6 1 7 ;,;; c l .2J c5 1 8 2l d4 ·M d8 1 9 h4, Todorovic-Bosic, Novi Sad Open attacking good with 1988, chances for White in both cases. In Wedberg-Benko, New York Open 1989, the continuation I 0 0-0 0-0?! (castling into the storm is

a6 was better) 1 1 g4 wrong; 1 0 (White is even better off than in the main line, as his queen may go directly to h5) �d7 12 g5 ii;;� e8 1 3 ii;;l f3 a6 14 ii;;� h3 gave White a massive attack; the finish was 1 4 � f8 1 5 'i'i1h5 � b4 1 6 ii;;l fl jj_ d8 17 a3 � xd3 18 cxd3 b5 1 9 f5 exf5 20 Qjd5 �d7 2 1 ji_d4 fxe4 22 ii;;� h4 e3 23 � xe3 :g e6 24 � hf4 � g6 25 � xf7 'tl!f xf7 26 :g xf7 � xg5 + 27 !¥'xg5 jL xg5 28 lll: xg7 + Resigns. 10 a6 ( 140) Black also delays castling since 0-0 1 1 g4 l;:;! e8 1 2 g5 .z:,d7 10 13 h4 � b4 14 h5 jLf8 1 5 0-0-0 a6 1 6 g6 gave White an immense Jansa-Martinovic, in attack Vrnjacka Banja 1 982.

l 1 g4 White has a choice of good lines. After 1 1 0-0 0-0 (not 11 . . . b5 1 2 e5, but castling invites the kingside pawn storm, so 1 1 .�d7 may be best) 1 2 g4 (in some games White played ii;;\ ae l , but this preparation is not necessary) Black has fared very badly in practice, for example 12 . . . lli\ e8

Unusual Lines 163 1 3 g5 �d7 1 4 �h5 � f8 1 5 f5 �e5 1 6 f6 �d8 1 7 � d4 b5 1 8 � £2 l.:. b7 1 9 � afl b4 20 � ce2 � fg6 21 .£l g3, Hawelko-Sznapik, Slupsk 1 988 or 12 . . . � b4 1 3 g5 -2)d7 1 4 'i>jh5 g6 1 5 �- h6 � e8 1 6 � ad l b 5 1 7 a 3 � xd3 1 8 � xd3 1.:. f8 19 �h4 lt_b7 20 j;_ d4, G. Mainka-Martinovic, Dortmund 11 1 988, and White's attack I S overwhelming in both cases. b6 11 This rather odd move is designed to support c5 in anti­ cipation of the manoeuvre � d7--c5. 1 1 . . . h6 1 2 0-0-0 b5 1 3 � hg l '-2\ d 7 1 4 w f2! (this possi­ bility explains Black's preference for b6 in the main line, since once he has played b5 the knight on d7 is hard to redeploy) l.:. b7 1 5