B 22

1 . e4 cS 2. c3 ltJf6 3. eS ltJdS
4 5 6 7
1 ttJf3 b4 *
e6 *
2 c4

3 ttJa3

4 g3

5 j,c4

6 d4 j,c4 *
cd4 *
7 �d4

8 cd4 �c4
d6
9 ttJf3

10 ttJf3
d6
11 cd4 �g5 *
e6 b6 *
12 ttJbd2

13 a3

14 �c4

15 Jtd3

16 ttJc3

1. e4 cS 2. ltJf3 ltJc6 3. c3 ltJf6*

4 5 6 7
17 e5 ttJ a3 *
ttJd5 a6
18 j,c4

19 d4 cd4
cd4
20 j,c4

1 74
 M USC LE U P
By
_____----.: B
:... .;; I L
U:..;,.; ;;.;: IN
D:..;,.;
�G A RE P E RTO I RE , B22 S I C ! LlAN D E F E N,;;,.;
S E;;..:=;;;;;;;;
;;; ;;;;
;;; ;;;
;;;; ;;;

SICILIAN WITH 2 .C3

Part Y

�e fifth installment in Vassilios Kotronias ' six-part series on the 2.c3

• Sicilian moves into less explored territory, as the author examines a couple
of systems where White delays (or completely omits) the d2-d4 advance in
favor of piece development. The greater part of this article is devoted to the
move 5 . �c4, which has long been a popular and successful alternative to the
standard d2-d4 push. Admittedly, this idea was mainly conceived as a way

1 75
Kotronias

to avoid the sterile main-line theory o f the . . . lZ:Jc6/ . . . lZ:Jb6 lines; however,
even against . . . e6 systems (such as the one Vassilios is proposing) it has
been shown to contain some venom. Thus, it is essential for Black players
to be well prepared against this line.

This is also the proper moment to draw the reader' s attention to a little
move order detail : White often starts with the move 2.lZ:Jf3 and follows
with 3 .c3, trying to trick Black out of certain systems. Such would be the
case here as well, if B lack ' s Sicilian of choice starts with 2 . . . lZ:Jc6; 2 . . .
e 6 3 .c3 lZ:Jf6 would simply transpose to the lines examined i n previous
volumes, but the knight move is a different story altogether, ruling out
all such transpositions. It is against this move order trickery that the last
two parts of Vassilios' effort are directed. True, Black no longer has the
option of playing the . . . e6/ . . . b6 system
that this series is based upon, but the early
Lifelong Sicilian Player inclusion of 2 .lZ:Jf3 lZ:Jc6 opens up new
options - to both players. Of course, 2 . . .
The pedigree of the author speaks volumes d 6 rules out all such concerns altogether,
about what the reader is to expect from these with 3 .c3 lZ:Jf6 being a completely
articles: apart from being a very strong independent system.
and successful active player, GM Vassilios
Kotronias is a highly esteemed author and Before diving into the intricacies of
chess analyst, well known for his deep S . �c4, Kotronias takes a quick look
analytical approach to the opening, who at the rare move S .lZ:Ja3 . White intends
has worked with several top grandmasters, to challenge the lZ:JdS by means of the
such as Veselin Topalov, Alexei Shirov and slow manoeuvre lZ:Ja3 -c4-�3, but a3 is
Nigel Short, as well as a trainer for the not an optimal square for the knight's
Greek national team. His name is associated development. Black' s suggested reaction
with deep opening research, inventive is the prophylactic S . . . a6, intending to
new ideas and an unceasing quest for the gain queenside space with . . . bS and
absolute truth, as can be evidenced from his sideline the knight on a3 ; but the simple
various highly regarded opening works to central counter . . . d6 remains a valid
date. Additionally, he is well known for his option as well. White must proceed with
uncompromising style and fighting spirit. his intended plan without delay, but is
hardly able to trouble Black; simple and
Vassilios' competitive successes include ten direct central play ensures the second
gold medals in the Greek Championships player full equality.
and first places, clear or shared, in several
strong tournaments all over the world, while The move S . ..tc4 has become a major
he has been a member of the Greek national line in its own right, and quite justifiably
team for three decades. Most recently he so; it is an interesting possibility that
won the gold medal on his board in the 20 1 3 leads to dynamic play. Black replies with
European Team Championships i n Warsaw. S . . . lZ:Jb6, when White does best to retreat
He certainly knows what he ' s writing about, to b3 ; the alternative, 6 . ..te2 d6 7.ed6
too: Vassilios has been a lifelong Sicilian eS ! , leads to lines where only Black can
player, and has clearly spent endless hours be better. Black should then play 6 . . . c4,
throughout his career racking his brains over isolating the eS-pawn from the rest of
how to meet the 2.c3 Sicilian in a dynamic its army, and follow up with 7 . ..tc2 g6,
and ambitious way. This series of articles preparing to attack it. Such direct play
represents the result of his most recent forces White to react promptly, so as
efforts on this problem. not to be left behind in the fight for the
initiative. This is best served by playing

1 76
 C h ess Informant 123
b2-b3 , either immediately or a bit later; some very fine move order nuances
are explained in the notes. B lack proceeds to liquidate the eS-pawn with
. . . d6 or . . . dS , opening up the centre.

The critical position of this article arises after 8 .b3 dS 9.ed6 '&Id6 1 0.0-0
ilg7 1 1 .lZ:Ja3 cb3 12.ab3 0-0 1 3 .d4 �g4 ! (preparing . . . eS) 14.h3 (netting the
bishop-pair, though other moves are also examined) 14 . . . �f3 I S .'&If3 eS !
1 6.lZ:JbS (the most energetic attempt) 1 6 . . . '&Id7 ! . Black has given up his light­
squared bishop to accelerate his development and engage in battle against
White ' s pawn centre. Pavasovic ' s 17 . .§.d l ! is the only way for the first
player to put any pressure on Black, but after 17 . . . ed4 1 8 . lZ:Jd4 lZ:Jd4 19.cd4
the simple novelty 19 . . . .§.fe8 ! should equalize without undue effort. Overall,
provided that Black is satisfied with sound equality and is not entirely averse
to exchanges and a draw, he faces no theoretical problems whatsoever.

CHAPTER 1 7
Vassilios Kotronias

l .e4 cS 2.lZ:Jf3 lZ:Jc6 3 .c3 lZ:Jf6 4.eS lZ:JdS • Country: G reece

S .lZ:Ja3
• Born : 1 9 64

l .e4 cS 2.lZ:Jf3 lZ:Jc6 3.c3 • Rati n g : 2 5 7 0

• Pea k rati n g : 2 6 2 8 �
---

• Title : G ra nd m a ster s i nce 1 99 0

In this manner, White side-steps the c3

Sicilian variations where Black plays an early
. . . b6. Now Black has to change his strategy.

3 ...lZ:Jf6 This move is good, solid, and reliable.
I have used it over the years with success and
it is by no means inferior to 3 . . . dS , in fact I
am inclined to describe it as more intriguing.
The white e-pawn is tempted to advance, but
in return Black will gain the excellent dS
square for his knight.
4.eS lZ:JdS S.lZ:Ja3 ! ?
In the present chapter we are going to examine
this rather weird-looking move. However,
apart from its surprise value, it is not really
dangerous.
S ... a6! Taking bS under control and preparing
to gain space on the queenside.
[RR S . . . d6 6.ed6 ! Smagin 260S - I . -A. Nataf
2S26, Deutschland 200 1 - 8 1 1 107]

177
Kotronias
6.ttJc4 The knight is heading towards e3 in order
to challenge the ttJdS. Alternatively, there is:
[6.d4? ! cd4 7 .cd4 d6 !
A) 8.Ac4, as played in Sanchez Segura -
Deforel, corr. 1994, is best met by 8 ... Ag4!,
highlighting one of the disadvantages of having
the knight on a3 . After 9.h3 (9.Ad5? WtJa5+;
9.0-0?1 de5 10.de5 e6+) AD IO.WtJD e6 1 1 .AdS
WtJaS 12.ild2 WtJdS 13.WtJdS edS 14.ed6 Ad6
IS.ttJc2 0-0-0 Black has a tiny plus in the ending;
B) 8 . Ae2 deS 9 . deS Ag4 ! ? (9 . . . e6=)
1 O . ttJc4 e6 1 1 .0-0 ile7 1 2 . ttJe3 ttJe3
1 3 .Ae3 WtJd l + is slightly better for B lack,
as the eS pawn is vulnerable.
6.ttJc2 ! ? i s logical, trying to bring the knight
to the centre before resorting to d2-d4. Play
could continue 6 . . . d6 7.ed6 ! ? ( 7.d4 cd4
8.ed6 e51 9.ilc4 is just a transposition.) eS !
8 . d4 cd4 9.ilc4 ! (9.cd4 e4+) Ae6 ! 10.0-0
(J0.t2Jg5 Ad6 11 .ttJe6Je6+) Ad6 I I .cd4 0-0
A) 1 2 .ttJgS �c8 1 3 .WtJd3 (J3.ttJe6 Je6+) g6
14.ttJe6 fe6 slightly favours B lack because
1 78
of his piece activity;
B) 12.deS ileS ! 1 3 . ttJcd4 (J3.t2Jg5 ttJJ4= is
equal, e.g. 14.ttJe6 ttJe6 15.ile6Je6 16.WtJe2
�c8 1 7.�bl WtJd5 18.b3 �Jd8 19.ile3 WtJd3;
13.ttJe5 ttJe5 14.ilb3 ttJc 7=) ttJd4 14.ttJeS
ttJb4 I S . ile6 ttJe6 16.WtJb3 WtJdS 17.WtJb4
WtJeS 1 8 . WtJb7 ttJd4 with a completely equal
position, a logical conclusion being 1 9.'i!i'h l
�fb8 20.WtJd7 ttJc2 2 1 .�b l ttJa3=;
Finally, 6 . .tc4 e6 7.0-0 also leads to an
approximately balanced game after either
7 . . . ile7= or 7 . . . d6]
6 ... bS
Black should of course grab the offered space.
7.ttJe3 e6! ? [7 . . . ttJe3 8 . fe3 ! oo is also possible,
reaching a peculiar structure where the
chances seem even.]
8.ttJdS [8.a4 �b8 9.abS abS 1O.ttJdS edS I l .d4
c4 1 2 . ile2 d6 1 3 . 0-0 deS 14.ttJeS ttJeS I S .deS
ilcSoo looks excellent for Black, too.]
8 ... edS 9.d4 d6
lO.ild3 The most logical move, depriving the
Ac8 of the nice fS square. Other moves fail to
achieve anything:
[ 1O .a4 b4oo; lO.ile3 c4 ! 1 1 .ile2 ilfS=;
1O.ed6 ! ? i.d6 l 1 .dcS i.cS 1 2 . ild3 WtJe7 !
1 3 .WtJe2 WtJe2 14.'i!i'e2 occurred in Baklan
2SS2 - Degraeve 2S36, France 1 999, when
best was 14 . . . 0-0 ! l S .�d l h6 16.b4 (J6.ilc2
�e8 1 7.'i!i'Jl ile6=) i.e7 17.a4 i.f6 1 8 . ild2
�b8 19.'i!i'fl ( J9.h3 d4=) i.g4 20 . .te2 �fd8
 C h ess Informant 123

2 1 .abS abS 22.§ac 1 d4 2 3 . cd4 (23.tiJd4 tiJd4
24.�g4 tiJb3=) tiJd4 24.tiJd4 §d4 2 S . �g4
§g4 26.f4 i/.. e 7 27.g3 §g6 28 .§c7 �f8
29.�c3 §a6 30.1 ldd7 §a2=]
After 1O.i/.. d3 Black can borrow a theme from
the Open Spanish by quickly developing his
queenside:
10 ... c4 1l.i/.. c 2 �g4 12.0-0 deS 13.deS �e7
14.�f4 'l?Sfd7! IS.h3 i/.. h S 16.§el §d8! =
I like this move more than S . . . e6 because it gains
time and avoids the shutting in of the �c8.
6.�b3 Allowing . . . c4 with gain of tempo, but
nevertheless the most critical continuation.
White plans to liquidate the black pawn once
it reaches c4 and subsequently obtain a strong
pawn centre.
[The alternative retreat 6.�e2 is harmless for
B lack due to 6 . . . d6 7.ed6 eS !

CONCLUSION
S.tiJa3 is a choice of development that should
not worry Black as White' s plan to challenge
the tiJdS involves the time-consuming
manoeuvre tiJc2(c4)-e3 ; A good reaction to it is
the prophylactic S . . . a6, intending to gain space
on the queenside by . . . bS or simply to play . . . d6,
according to circumstances. In this chapter
Black achieves full equality by adhering fIrst
and foremost to the theme of centralisation.
Kotronias
. . . when he effortlessly obtains good control
of the centre and at least equal chances. Then:
CHAPTER 1 8
A) The restrained 8 . d3 is hardly the type of
l .e4 cS 2 .tiJf3 tiJc6 3 .c3 tiJf6 4.eS tiJdS move that will secure an edge for White; after
S . �c4 8 . . . �d6 9.0-0 0-0 1 O . a4 tiJdS I l .tiJa3 b6
12.§e l (I2.tiJc4 �c 7+) §e8 he is actually
struggling to equalise:
l .e4 cS 2.tiJf3 tiJc6 3.c3 tiJf6 4.eS tiJdS S.�c4
This is the main alternative to the more
natural S . d4; before initiating action in the
centre White forces his opponent to make up
his mind regarding the future of the tiJdS .

S ... tiJb6

i AI) White gets the inferior game after

i 1 3 .'l?Sfb3 ? ! �f8
: A l a) 14.tiJc4 §b8 ! I S .tiJgS h6 1 6 . tiJe4
: �e6 1 7.�f3 (I 7.'l?Sfb5 ? tiJcb4! 18.cb4
: tiJb4 - +) 'l?Sfc7 1 8 . 'l?Sfc2 §bd8'+;
: A l b) 14.tiJgS tiJaS I S .'l?Sfa2 h6 1 6 . �f3
: �b7 1 7 . tiJe4 tiJc7'+ in Hj artarson 2S9S -
: H. Olafsson 2 S 3 S , Iceland 1 994;

179
 Kotronias
: A2) The best thing I can see for White is i This
1 l3 .tbgS ! ? .te7 14 . .tf3 ! .tgS IS . .tgS, at
I least obtaining something concrete in the
: form of the bishop pair; however, after I S . . . f6
I 1 6 . .td2 .te6= Black' s light square control
: and strong pawn centre outweigh this factor.
I
B) �fter ? d4 cd4 9 .cd4 Black has two good
contmuatlOns:
: Bl) 9 . . . e4 is also good enough. After
1 1 O . tbgS (J O.tbe5 .td6 1 l . tbc6 bc6 12.tbc3
: Wie7°o is more interesting; each side has
1 its trumps in this approximately level
I position.) .td6 I l .tbe4 .tb4 1 2 . tbbc3 Wid4
: 1 3 . 0-0 a draw was agreed in Adams 26SS
1 - Khalifman 263 S , Wij k aan Zee 1 995 -
1 62/( 1 46), as the position is rather sterile.
For example, 13 . . . 0-0 1 4 . .1e3 (J4.a3 �c3
15.tbc3 Wie5=) WieS I S .Wic l ! (J5 . .tb6?!
ab6+) �d8 1 6 . �e 1 ! ? (J6.a3 .tc3 1 7.tbc3
ile6 18.�el tbd4=) h6 ! 1 7.a3 .tf8=;
B2) 9 . . . ed4 After this move the computers
prefer Black (if only minimally), in spite
of his acceptance of a slight weakening in
his pawn structure. Let us now see what
happens after 9 . . . ed4: 1O.tbd4 .td6 ! I l .tbc6
bc6 1 2 . tbc3 0-0 l 3 . 0-0 iHS !
180
is the star move, taking away the c2
1 square from the white queen. Now White has
tried several moves in his effort to complete
his development but the evaluation remains
unshakable: Black is at least equal.
: B2a) 14.�d2 Wic7 IS .g3 �ad8 16.Wic 1
: �fe8 17.ilgS happened in Morales Pecino
: - Asturiano Molina, COrT. 2007, and here
: both 17 . . . �b8+ and the game's 17 ... �d7+
: give Black a slight advantage; it is difficult
: for White to coordinate his forces and if he
: drops his bishop back to fl then Black may
: contemplate an advance of his h-pawn to h4
: to weaken the white king's defences;
: B2b) 14 . ..ta6?! Wic7 IS .g3 �ad8 16.Wif3
: .1e6 17.ilgS f6 18.i.e3 �fe8 19.�ac 1 tbd7 !
: 20.Wie2? (20.tbb5 tbe5 21 .tbc7 W3 22.�g2
: was probably the only way.) tbeS 21 .Wic2
: ilh3 22.�fdl tbf3 23.�hl WiaS !+ 24.ilc4
: �h8 2S . ..tt7 �e7 26.Wib3 g6 27.i.c4 WihS !
: 28.�d6 �de8 ! 29.tbe2 �e3 30Je3 tbd2
: 3 1 .�f6 tbb3 32.ab3 WieS and 0 : 1 , was a
: catastrophic loss for White in Morales Pecino
: - Aguiar Garcia, COrT. 2008;
: B2c) After 14.i.f3 Wic7 IS .g3 �ad8 16.Wie2
�fe8 White is forced to interpose the bishop
on e3 and this results in a weakening of his
pawn structure: 17.ile3 �cS 18.�adl �e3
19.fe3 .te6 20.b3 (Gerard - Schwarz, COrT.
2012) 20 . . . tbd7 !?+;
B2d) 14.ilg4!? seeks to trade pieces and
create breathing space for the white queen, but
Black should not agree to it. Best is 14 ... �g6!
B2dl) I S .Wif3? ! fS ! 16.ilh3 occurred in
Saulespurens 2384 - Matlakov 2487, Riga
2009, when the engines like 16 . . . Wih4!?
(J6. . . Wic 7 1 7.g3 was unclear in the game.)
17.Wic6 �f6 with pressure for the pawn. A
sample variation is 18.Wif3 �e8 19.ild2

! ilhS 20.'lIUd3 .§d8 2 1 .'lIUe3 (21 .0,d5? .§j7!+)
: .§g6 22.f4 0,c4 23 .iLe l 0,e3 24.iLh4 .§b8
: 2S . .§f2 0,g4 26 . .§c2 i.f4 27.i.g4 .§g4
: 28.ilf2= but it is quite likely there is some
: improvement for Black along the way;
: B2d2) I S .g3 ! 'lIUc7 16 . .§e l (l6.i.h5!?=)
: .§ad8 17.'lIUe2 fS 18.iLhS .§de8 19.i.e3
: .§e3 20.fe3 ilg3 2 1 ..§fl ilh2 22.'lIUh2 'lIUh2
23.Wh2 ilhSoo with an unclear ending; this
is probably the best option for White;
B2e) 14.g3 The first choice of the engines,
but I prefer the previous line for White.
After 14.g3 a logical continuation for Black
is 14 . . . il.eS !
lS . .§e l 'lIUf6 16.il.fl .§fe8 17.iLe3 .§ad8 1 8 .'lIUD
0,d7 ! 19 . .§ac 1 i.c7 20.i.f4 0,eS 2 UteS .§eS+
obtaining very good play due to the bishop pair.
White's defence is difficult and after committing
several inaccuracies he was gradually worn
down in a recent correspondence game: 22.ilg2
i.b6 23 .'lIUc6 i.e6 24 . .§fl g6 2S.a3 .§fS 26 . .§c2
'lIUd4 27.i.D .§cS 28 . .§d l 'lIUd l 29.0,d l .§c6
30 . .§c6 i.b3 3 1 ..§c 1 .§d2 32.Wg2 hS 33.h4
Wg7 34.g4 hg4 3S.il.g4 fS 36.il.D Wf6 37.Wfl
ildl 38.ild l .§f2 39.We l .§h2 40 . .§c6 Wg7
41 ..§c4 il.d8 42.i.c2 .§h4 43 .b3 .§c4 44.bc4
il.e7 4S .a4 Wf6 46.Wf2 gS 47.WD g4 48.Wg2
f4 and 0 : 1 Benetti - Zilian, corr. 2012]
C h ess Informant 123
6 c4 Thematic, trying to isolate the eS pawn
...
from the rest of the white army.
7 ilc2 g6 Preparing to pile up on the target.
.
S.b3 A radical attempt to get rid of the c4
pawn, so as to allow his own d-pawn to march
forwards and occupy the centre.
[� dS 9.ed6 'lIUd6 1 O . 0,a3 is j ust a
transposition to the following line;
8 .0,a3 ! ? d S 9.ed6 'lIUd6
. . . gives rise to a position where B lack enj oys
free play and has enough resources to support
his c-pawn. For example:
A) 10.0-0 ilg7 shouldn't pe problematic for
Black, as White ' s pressure against c4 will
: At) 1 1 .d3 cd3 l 2 . ild3 0-0 (l2 . . . ilg4=)
not pay any dividends:
I l 3 .'lIUe2 .§d8 l 4 .ile4 ile6= is just level;
: and may in fact be the best way to reach it;
I A2) l 1 .b3 ! transposes to our 8 .b3 main line
: be answered in typical fashion. 1 1 . . . 'lIUe �
I A3) 1 1 . 'lIUe2 This threat to the c4 pawn will
I Again this move. l 2 . 'lIUe6 ile6 l 3 .b3 0-0+
: has the superior pawn structure and better
I and likely B lack will soon be better here; he
I development;
I
B) Liquidating the c4 pawn by 1 O . d3 cd3
1 1 .0,bS (l1 . 'lIUd3 'lIUd3 12.ild3 ilg4=) 'lIUb8
1 2 .ild3 ilg7 1 3 .0-0 0-0= is also excellent
for B lack, his kingside pawn maj ority being
an important asset;
C) 1 O . 'lIUe2 A direct attacking try, trying to
catch B lack off guard, but I think he can
easily cope with it. 1 O . . . 'lIUe6 ! ?=
181
Kotronias
This is the strongest move, equalising
without difficulty; for example, 1 1 . ct:Jb 5
� e 2 1 2 . �e2 .§.b8 ! 1 3 . ct:J c 7 ( J 3 . b3 a 6)
�d7 ! 1 4 . ct:Jb 5 e 5 1 5 . b 3 f5 ! 1 6 .bc4
a6 1 7 . ct:Ja3 e4i and B lack even has a
slight initiative. 8 . 0-0 �g7 9 . He l d6
l O . ed6 �d6 1 1 . ct:Ja3 0-0 looks inferior
comp ared to the main line, because it' s
not c lear what i s the role o f an early He l
in White ' s set-up. After 1 2 .b 3 ( J 2 . �e2
iLe6 1 3 . b 3 ct:Jb4!�) � e 6 1 3 . ct:Jg 5 ( J 3 . bc4
ct:Jc4 14.He6 � e 6 1 5 . iL b 3 ct:J 6a 5 1 6. ct:Jc4
ct:Jc4 1 7. d3 Hfd8!oo) �d5 1 4 . � g4 (Nunn
2 6 0 5 - Kramnik 2 7 1 0 , Monte Carlo
(rapid) 1 9 94) B l ack should have p l ayed
14 . . . ct:Jb4 ! � with at least equal p l ay. ]
8 ... d5 ! ? [Not bad, but 8 . . . �g7 ! could well
be an argument in favour of the 8 . ct:Ja3
move order; as far as I can see White has
nothing better than 9 .bc4 (9.�e2 d5 1 0 . ed6
ct:Jb4 does look like an issue for White. )
ct:Jc4 l O . d4 0-0 I l . iLd3 ct:J6a5 1 2 . 0-0 d6�
and B lack does not look at all worse to me.]
9.ed6 �d6 10.0-0 iLg7 1 l .ct:Ja3 ! Now
B lack is forced to relinquish his hold over
1 82
the c4 square, but the pawn centre White
obtains as a result of this concession is
rather loose and by no means any guarantee
of an advantage.
1l ... cb3 12.ab3 0-0
13.d4 The logical consequence of White' s
play. Initially, the computers are enthusiastic
about the first player' s chances here, but fail
to evaluate properly Black' s capacity to strike
at the enemy centre. '
[An alternative is 1 3 .ct:Jc4 ! ? ct:Jc4 14.bc4, as
occurred in Vysochin 2558 - A. Bodnaruk
241 7 , Saint Petersburg 20 1 1 .
A) That game continued 1 4 . . . �c7 1 5 . d4
ct:Ja5 1 6 . c 5 b6 when, instead of the
impulsive 1 7 .Ha5 ? ! oo which rendered
the p osition unclear, White could have
retained the advantage by 17 .He I ! bc5
1 8 .ct:Je5 cd4 1 9 . iL f4 ! i ;
B) After 1 4 . . . iLe6 ! 1 5 . �e2 �c5 ! ?
(Another possibility i s 15 . . . ct:Je5 16.ct:Je5
�e5 1 7. �e5 iLe5 18.d4oo/± but White
 C h ess Informant 1 23

I may have a slight initiative in this ending. )

1 6 . laa4 cuaS
Bl) Unclear positions arise after 1 7 . d4
Jtc4 ! 1 8 . dO'S ..te2 1 9 .1aaS iLc3 : For
example, 2 0 . laa2 (20.laa3 ..tb4�;
20.laa4 b5�) iL f1 2 1 . � f1 la fc 8 2 2 . J.. e 3
lac7 2 3 . iLe4 aS� and B lack ' s a-pawn i s
a force that yields g o o d counterplay;
B2) 1 7 . J.. a 3 Wic7 1 8 . c S J.. d S � It is
hard to make a concrete evaluation but
I believe the chances to be dynamically
balanced. ]
A) Bad is I S . . . Wid8? 1 6 . deS Widl 17.Jtdl
cueS 1 8 .CUeS J.. d l 1 9.cug6± and Black will
not have compensation for the pawn;

B) I S . . . Wif6 ! ? can be answered by

I Bl) 16.iLe4 ed4 1 7 . CUbd4 lafd8 1 8 .iLgS
: (J8.iLb2 cud4 19.cd4 cud5oo) WigS 19.cugS
I Jtd l 20.iLc6 bc6 2 1 .laed l cS 22.CUc6 lad l
: 23 .lad l as (23 . . . J.. c 3 24.CUe4oo) 24. c4 a4
I 2S .ba4 h6 26.CUe4 laa4 27.CUe7 �h7 and
I Yz : Yz , is Henris - Cummings, COIT. 2002;
: B2) 1 6 . dS ! iLf3 (J6 . . . laad8!? 1 7.J.. e 4!?
I a6!? requires examination here and could
: well be Black ' s chance to improve.) 1 7.gf3

13 . . . J.. g 4 ! The obvious point, preparing to

strike at the centre by means of . . . e S .

14.h3 This has long been the main line, in

order to gain the always useful bishop pair.
[Alternatively, 1 4 .CUc4 WidS ! does not
offer White anything special, the point
being I S . CUe3 ( I 5 . lae l J..j3 1 6 . Wij3 Wij3
1 7.gf3 cud5 18. J.. d2 lafd8 19. J.. e 4 e 6=
looks quite okay for B lack in view of his
great pawn structure. ) ..t f3 1 6 .cudS ? J.. d l
1 7 . cub6 J.. c 2+;
Rozentalis once surprised me with
1 4 .lae l ! ? to which I replied with the meek
1 4 . . . lafd8? and soon got the worse position.
Correct is the thematic 1 4 . . . e S ! (I4 . . . lafd8 ?
15. CUc4 Wif6 1 6 . ..te4 cud5 (Rozentalis
25 64 - Kotronias 2 5 7 8 , Montreal 2002)
1 7. iLd2± is simply better for White as
Black has lost his chance to attack the
enemy centre. ) I S .cubS ! ? ( I 5 . de5 Widl
16 . ..tdl cue5 1 7. CUe5 iLdl = is of course
completely leve l . ) and now B lack must
choose carefully where to place his queen :
: . . .andWhite ' s queenside pawn mass
I outweighs his kingside weaknesses.
I Certainly the ensuing positions are obscure,
: and a great deal of research is needed to
I establish the truth, so for the moment I will
I just present my oid analysis:
I
B2a) After 1 7 . . . laad8 ! ? 1 8 .J.. e4 a6
U8 . . . CUe 7 19.c4±; 18 . . . cud5 19.iLd5
a6 20.CUa3 cue 7 21 .c4 cud5 22.cd5 e4
23.laa2±; 18 . . . Wih4 19.J.. a 3±) 19.CUa3
cue7 20.c4 Black should centre his research
on 20 . . . Wih4 ! ?, planning to run wild with

183
 Kotronias
. . . fS , (as 20 . . . l2lj5 is better for White after
21 .l2lc2;;!;);
B2b) 1 7 . . . �fdS 1 S .j.e4 ! a6 1 9 . 12la3 !
(J9.l2lc 7 �acB 20.l2leB �e8 21 .dc6 bc6
22.�a6 �ed8 23.YJUc2 l2ld5�) l2le7
(J9 . . . YJUd6 20.l2lc4! l2lc4 21 .bc4;;!;) 20.c4
: l2lfS (20 . . . YJUd6 21 .l2lc2t) 2 1 .l2lc2 l2ld7
: 22 .b4i;
I C) We 'll now focus on IS . . . YJUd7 ! :
A strong retort, avoiding tactics and stopping
White from obtaining a dangerously mobile
pawn centre.
C l ) The weaker 1 6.Aa3 ? ! �fdS 1 7 . deS
( J 7. ..tc5 ? ! l2ld5!+) l2leS I S .l2leS (J8.YJUd7?
l2l13 19.9f3 Ad7+-) Ad l 1 9 . 12ld7 Ac2
20.l2lb6 ab6+ leads to a position where
Black ' s bishop-pair might prove to be of
maj or significance;
C2) 16.deS ! Deprived of the possibility
of dS, White should content himself with
equality. 1 6 . . . Af3 !
14 . . il.f3 15. YJUf3 e5
C2a) 1 7.YJUd7? ! l2ld7 I S .gf3 l2ldeS 19.Ae4
(J9.�g2 �jd8 20.Ag5 l2ld3 21 .Ad3
�d3+) �fdS+;
1S4
,
: C2b) 17.'�f3 l2leS 1S.'�e2 a6 19.12ld4 l2ldS
: Black has reached his optimum position. Now
: the weakness of the c3 pawn forces White to
: navigate with care: 20 . .1b2 ! (Weaker are both
: 20.j.d2?! �acB 21 .c4 CiJg4!+; and 20.YJUd2?!
: l2lc3 21 .YJUc3 l2lc6+) l2lc6 (There is probably
: nothing better.) 2 1 .l2lc6 YJUc6 22 . .1e4 l2lc3
: 23 . .1c3 YJUc3 24 . ..tb7 �a7 2S . .1a6 YJUb3
:
,
,
26 . .1c4 YJUbS 27.�a7 YJUa7=;
: 14.Ae4 was once played by Sveshnikov
: and never repeated.
,
: I think the reason lies in 14 . . . fS !
: (J4 . . . �ad8?! 15.h3 .1e6 [6.�el Ad5
: E. Sveshnikov 2S70 - Rytshagov 2S2S,
: Stockholm 1 997, looks a bit better for
: White after 1 7.l2lc4!?;;!;) 1 S . .1d3 (J5.Ac2
: l2ld5 16 . ..td2 e5 1 7.l2lc4 YJUc 7i) eS 16.l2lc4
: (J6.Ae2 e4 1 7.l2lc4 l2lc4 18 . ..tc4 �h8
: 19.h3 .1h5 20 . .1a3 YJUd7 21 .j.j8 �j8
: 22.Ae2 e13 23 . .113 .113 24·YJU13 a6+) YJUc7
: 1 7 . l2lb6 ab6 1S . .1c4 �hS 19.�aS �aS as
i only White can be worse here.]
.
 C h ess Informant 123

It is important that Black keeps an eye on the

tUb5 . Now we have reached a critical crossroads:

17 .�d l ! An invention of Pavasovic and the

most annoying move to face. White also has
the following choices:
,

[l7.de5? ! surrenders time and space without

getting anything in return; after 17 . . . tUe5 1 8.W/e2
a6 19.tUd4 �fe8+ Black has the initiative.

1 7.ila3 was the main line for a long time

until 1 7 . �d l ! was found. '

Dusko Pavasovic © Harald Fi etz

16.tUbS! White continues energetically.

[ 16.tUc4? ! is , weak due to 1 6 . . . tUc4 1 7.bc4
ed4 1 8 .Aa3 W/c7 19.iH8 �f8+ and Black has
more than enough for the exchange;
16.de5 W/e5 (6 . . .�d8, tUd5) looks more
comfortable for Black. For example, 17.Ab2
�ad8 18.�ad 1 tUd5 (J8 .. .'il/e8!?) 19.�fe 1 W/f4
20.W/f4 tUf4 2 1 .�fl tUb4 ! 22.�d8 �d8 23 .�d l
(\11 : \11 Kunte 2460 - NeeJotpal, 2370, India
(ch) 1998) �d1 24.Ad 1 tUa2 ! ? 25.tUb 1 b5+ and
White still has to struggle to achieve the draw.]
16 ... W/d7!
A) Possible is 1 7 . . . �fd8 ! ? 1 8 . de5 (I8.'il/dl
ed4 19.tUd4 tUd4 20.cd4 tUd5oo; 18.i.c5
tUd4! 19.tUd4 ed4 20.cd4 tUd5 21 . i.e4=)
tUe5 1 9 . W/e2 a6 ! 20.tUd6 (20.tUd4 ? ! tUd5!i
Xc3, b3, is better for Black.) tUd5 ! (RR
20 . . . W/c 7?! Dolmatov 2605 - Yudasin 2 6 1 5 ,
Haifa 1 9 9 5 - 631 1 24)
: AI) 2 1 .c4? ! tUc3 22.W/e3 (22.W/d2 tUc6
1 23.�ael b5j) tUc6 ! i (L,23 . . . b5, 23 . . . W/c 7,
I 23 . . . tUd4) gives B lack a strong initiative;
: A2) 2 1 .W/d2 ! tUc7 ! (622 . . . tUb5 , 22 . . . tUe8,
I 22 . . . W/h3 ! ?)

i adventures by 22.c4? ! W/h3 !

: A2a) Instead, White got himself into

185
Kotronias

A2 a l ) The correct 2 3 . �gS ! �g4

(23 . . . �c3 24. ile4 li:Je6 25.�h4 �b3
26. fl.jb 1 �c3 2 7.li:Jb 7 fl.d4 28. �b2
�c4 29. ild4 �d4 3 0 . li:Jd6 fl.d8 3 1 . fl.dl
�b6oo) 24 . �g4 li:Jg4 2 S . fl.ad l b6
2 6 . fl.fe l il f8 + would have been only
slightly worse for him;
A2a2) But after 2 3 . f4? he eventually lost
after 23 . . . �h6 ! 24.�e2
A2a21) 24 . . . li:Jf3 ! ! 2S.gf3 (25.�.f3 1i.d4
26.fl.J2 1i.al +; � 1i.al- +) ild4
26.fl.f2 (26.rJiig2 li:Je6 - +) 1i.a l - + would ... when White' s initiative offers him good
have been an immediate crusher; chances to obtain an advantage as the
A2a22) 24 . . . li:Jc6 2S .fl.ad l li:Je6+ in following lines illustrate:
Pavasovic 2S04 M . Tratar 2420, Radenci
-

1998; A) 18 . . . li:Je7? is clearly out of the question in

A2b) 22 .�e2 ! = with equality; view of 19.1i:Jc7 ! �c7 20.d6±;

B) However 17 . . . fl.fc 8 ! is the cleanest B) 18 . . . abS 19.dc6 �c6 (J9 . . . �dl ? 20.�dl
equaliser: fl.al 21 .cb 7 1i.h6 22.1i.h6 fl.dl 23.�dl
fl.b8 24.1i.j3 J5 25.1i.c6 J4 26.g3+ should
-

eventually win for White.) 20.Ji.e4 �c7

2 1 .fl.a8 fl.a8 22.Ji.e3 ! (22.J.. b 7!? fl.an is
less convincing.) fl.b8 (22 .. f5 ?! 23.�b 7
e4? 24.ile4! Je4 25.�e4+ -) 23.�b6 �b6
24.fl.d7± gives White a clear a�vantage;

C) 1 8 . . . li:Jb4 ! This computer suggestion is the

: : B I ) 1 8 . dS � dS ! ? (J8 . . . li:Jd5 1 9 . fl.Jdl li:Jd4
1 1 20.cd4 �b5 21 .de5 li:JJ4!=) 1 9 . �e2 �e6
I : 2 0 . fl.ad l li:JdS 2 1 . � f3 li:Jc3 ! ! 2 2 . �c 3 a6
1 1 2 3 . li:Jd6 li:Jd4 24 . li:J c 8 li:Je2 2 S . Wh2 li:Jc3
: : 2 6 . fl.d8 ilf8 2 7 . li:Je 7 Wg7 2 8 . li:J fS ! Wf6
1 1 2 9 . ilf8 fl.d8 3 0 . ilg7 WgS 3 1 . ilh6 Wf6
: check;
1 1 3 2 . ilg7= produces a dream p erpetual
best option available to Black, but still not
good enough to free him from his troubles.
1 C l ) 19.cb4? �bS ! and Black is close to
1
1 equa1·Ity, e.g.
: C I a) 20.fl.a2 fS 2 1 .�d3 (21 .d6? e4
: 22.�g3 li:Jd7+) e4 22.�bS abS+;
: C l b) 20.fl.aS �b4 2 1 .1i.d2 �d6 22.�e4
: li:Jd7 2 3 . 1i.b4 �b6 24.Ji.f8 J.. f8 oo;
:C2) Rather than ruin his pawn formation
1 like this, White can retreat with 19.1tJa3 ! ,
1 obtaining excellent long term chances in
:
view of his mobile queenside pawn mass.

1 B2) 1 8 . deS li:JeS 1 9 . �e2 a6 20.li:Jd6 fl.c3

B2a) 2 1 .fl.fd l �e6 (21 . . . li:Jc6!?) 22.1i.e4
(Rozentalis 2 S 8 8 - eu. Hansen 2626,
Esbj erg 200 1 ) fl.b3 23 .li:Jb7 �c4+;
B2b) 2 1 .li:Je4 ! fl.cc8 22.fl.ad l �bS = when
White ' s bishop pair compensates for the
pawn but nothing more than that.]

17 ed4! It is imperative that Black closes the

••.

d-file in order to equalise.

[Far riskier is 17 . . . a6 ! ? 1 8 .dS !

186

: In spite of lengthy analysis I could not
I find equality for Black here. The critical
I line goes 19 . . . ttJc2 ! (J9 . . . e4? ! 20.iJ.. e 4
: f5!? 21 .�dY! �c3 22."il.b1± leaves Black
I exposed to the powerful white bishops.)
I 20.ttJc2
I
C2a) 20 . . . e4? ! 2 1 .�e3 ! (21 .�e4 �c3
22. "il.b 1 00)
C2al) 2 1 . . .ttJd5 22.�c5 ! "il.ac8 (22 . . . "il.ad8
23.ttJe3 �c6 24."il.d5 "il.d5 25.�d5 �c3
26."il.b1±) 23.�d5 �d5 24."il.d5 "il.c3
25 .ttJd4 "il.d3 26.iJ..b 2 ! (26.�e3 ? f5 2 7.g3
g5=» "il.cK 27.Wfl "il.d2 28."il.b l ±;
C2a2) 2 1 . . .�c7 22.�b2± is clearly better
for White;
C2b) 20 . . . "il.ac8 ! ?
C2b l) I had originally analysed only
2 1 .�e3 ? ! ttJd5 22.ttJb4 (22.�d3 ? "il.fd8+)
ttJe3 23."il.d7 ttJf5+';
C2b2) and 2 1 ."il.a2 e4 ! 22.�e3 (22.�e4
"il.c3+')
C2b21) 22 . . . ttJd5 ? ! 23 .�g5 "il.c3 (23 .. /5
24.c4+ -) 24.�d5 �c8 (24 . . . �d5 25."il.d5
"il.b3;;!;) 25.iLa3 ! "il.c2 26."il.c2 �c2 27.iLf8
iJ.. f8 28."il.d2;;!;;
C2b22) 22 . . . "il.c3 ! ! 2 3 . �b6 "il.fc8 when
, Black would stand well no matter how
: White reacted, as shown by the following
: lines:
: C2b221) 24."il.d2? ! "il.d3 ! ! 25 .f3 (25.d6
"il.c6! 26.�a 7 iLd4!! 2 7.ttJd4 "il.c1 28.Wh2
�d6 29.g3 �d5! 30."il.d3 ed3 31 j3 Wg7+)
�d5 26.fe4 �e4 27."il.d3 �d3 28.�e3
(28.�e3 �d1- +) �d l 29.Wh2 h5+;
C2b222) 24.iLe3 "il.c2 25."il.c2 "il.c2+';
C2b223) 24.�b4 ! "il.d3 ! (24 . . . "il.c2 25."il.c2
"il.c2 26.�e4±; 24 . . .f5!?) 25 ."il.fl �d5
26.ttJe3 �b3 27.�b3 "il.b3oo;
: C2b3) 2 1 .c4 ! ! This very strong exchange
C h ess Informant 1 23
sacrifice brought me back to harsh reality
and shook my confidence in the line :
I have found nothing better than 2 1 . . .e4 !
C2b31) 22.�e3 ? ! iJ.. a l 23 .ttJa l �d6
does not even equalise for White as the
line 24.�d4 (24.iJ.. b2 ttJd7 25.�e4 "il.fe8
26.�d4 �e5 2 7.�d2 �e2+') "il.fe8 25 .iJ.. b 2
(25.ttJc2 ttJd7 26.ttJe3 f5 2 7.iJ.. b 2 ttJe5+')
f6 26.�f6 �f6 27.iJ.. f6 ttJd7 28.iJ.. d4 b5 ! +'
shows;
C2b32) but then the crude 22.�e4 ! "il.fe8 !
C2b321) 2 3 . �d3 iJ.. a l 24.ttJa l �e7 ! is
hardly worse for Black as he will manage
to continually annoy his opponent: For
example 2 5 .iJ.. b 2 (25.�d4 ttJd7 26.�b2 ? !
�e5 2 7.�d2 �e2 28.�d4 f6+) ttJd7
26.ttJc2 �e2 27.�d4 �e5 28 .�e5 ttJe5oo ;
C2b322) 23 .�f3 iJ.. a l 24.ttJa l oo �e7 !
. . . allows Black to arrange his forces just in
time for defensive purposes. The following
analysis demonstrates tricks and devices
that are useful for one ' s defensive chess
skills but unfortunately no longer so from
the viewpoint of our repertoire:
C2b3221) Both 2 5 . d6? ! �e2+;
C2b3222) and 2 5 .iJ.. h 6 ttJd7°o should
1 87
Kotronias
make B lack happy, while
C2b3223) 2 5 . iJ.e3 CiJd7 26.CiJc2 b5 !
: C2b32231) 27 .d6? ! WJe4 28.WJe4 Jae4
: 29.c5
: C2b322311) 29 ... f5
: C2b3223111) 30.h4 Jac4 ! 3 1 .Jad2 (31 .CiJd4
: Jab4 32.c6 Jad4 - +) f4 32.iJ.d4 �t7+;
: C2b32231 12) 30.£3 ! Jae3 3 1 .CiJe3 Jac5
32.b4 Jac6 3 3 .CiJd5 �f7 34.CiJc7 f4;t;
C2b322312) 29 ... a5 ! ? 30.CiJa3 Jae3 3 1 .fe3
Jac5+;
C2b32232) 27.Jad4 bc4 28.bc4 CiJe5 !
(2B . . . JabB 29.WJdl Jab3oo) 29.WJe2 WJd6
3 0 . iJ.f4 a5 3 1 .Jae4 (31 .CiJe3 ! ?f6) f6 32.iJ.g3
WJf800 also looks too slow as Black has
: managed to defend against the threats and
: create a dangerous passed pawn;
: C2b3224) 25 .iJ.b2 ! Clearly, White can
: only pose problems for his opponent by
: threatening to mate him down the long
: diagonal. However B lack is still in time
: to put up a sufficient defence: 25 . . . CiJd7
: 26.WJc3 ! (26.CiJc2 WJe2+) WJe5 (after 26 . . .
: f6!? 2 7.CiJc2 WJe5, the typical 2B.Jad4!
: avoids a queen exchange.)
C2b32241) 27.WJc2? ! WJe2 28.Jad2
188
(2B.WJcl b5+) WJe l 29.'�h2 WJe4 30.WJc3
(30.Jad3 CiJc5! 3 1 . WJc3 WJe5 32.WJe5 Jae5
33.iJ.e5 CiJd3 34.iJ..f6 �j8+) WJe5 3 1 .WJe5
CiJe5+ is better for Black;
C2b32242) 27.WJc l ! WJf5 ! 28.WJd2 WJh5 !
(2B . . . b5 29.CiJc2 bc4 30.bc4 Jac4 31 .CiJe3±)
C2b322421) 29.Jae l Jae l 30.WJe l WJf5 !
, 3 1 .WJe2 CiJc5 32.CiJc2 a5°o (32 . . . WJe4
: 33.WJd2 f6 3413 WJd3 35.WJd3 CiJd3
: 36.iLf6oo);
: C2b322422) 29.CiJc2
C2b3224221) 29 . . . WJe2 30.WJc l CiJc5
3 1 .CiJd4 WJe4 32.CiJ£3 (32.d6 f6) CiJd3
3 3 .WJc3 CiJb2 34.WJb2 b5oo;
C2b3224222) 29 ... Jae2 ! 30.WJc3 f6 !
(30 . . . WJe5? 31 .CiJd4 Jae4 3213 Jae3 33.WJd2
WJe7 34.iLa3 WJeB 35.�J2+ -)
C2b32242221) 3 1 .Jae 1 Jace8 ;
C2b32242222) 3 1 .CiJd4 ! ? Jab2 32.g4 !
C2b322422221) 32 . . . WJh4 3 3 . WJb2 WJh3
34.£3 CiJe5 3 5 . WJg2 ! (35.WJJ2 tiJg4!) WJh6
3 6.Jae l WJf4 37.Jae4 WJc l 3 8 . �h2 WJh6
3 9.�g3;t;
C2b322422222) 32 . . . WJd5 ! 3 3 .WJb2
C2b3224222221) 33 . . . WJe4 ! ? 34.WJe2
WJe2 3 5 .CiJe2 CiJc5 3 6.b4 CiJe6 37.Jad6
CiJg5 ! 3 8 . f4 (3B.c5 a5 39.c6 bc6 40.ba5
JaaB 41 .Jaf6 Jaa5 42.h4 CiJf7 43.Jac6 CiJe5
44.JacB �g7=) CiJe4 39.Jad4 f5=;
C2b3224222222) 3 3 ... WJt7 34.CiJ£3 CiJc5
3 5 . Jad5 WJe7=;
C2b32242223) 3 1 .Jaf1 ! ? In this position
I have been unable to find an advantage
for White as all the entrances to Black' s
camp are well guarded: There might
follow 3 1 . . .WJd5 ! ? 32.CiJd4 ! (32.cd5 Jac3
33.iJ.c3 Jac2+) Jab2 3 3 . WJb2 WJd6 ! 34.Jad l
(34.CiJc2 WJd2; 34.WJc2 !? JadB!; 34.CiJj3
JaeB; 34.CiJe2 b5) Jad8 ! 3 5 .Jad2 CiJc5

36.ltJD (36.h4 ltJe6 3 7.c5 V/tie5 38.'Be2
V/tid4 39. V/tia2 V/tid5 40.V/tid5 'Bd5 41 .'Be6
�j7 42.'Bb6 'Bd7 43f4 h5 44.�j2 'Be 7
45.g4 hg4 46.hg4 �g7=) V/tif8 ! 37.'Be2
(37.h4 ltJe4 38.'Bd4 ltJg5 39.ltJg5 'Bd4
40.V/tid4 fg5=) as= and Black secures the
position of his knight on cS, with equal
chances;
C2b323) 23 .V/tif4 ! � leads to a very
dangerous attacking position for White
, who can apply long term pressure on the
: dark squares. For the sake of completeness
: it is important to note that 23 .V/tif4 ! is in
: fact the only way to maintain an edge for
: White in this position, as against other
: moves Black manages to hold his own. But
: now if 2 3 " . .teS
,
: 24.V/tid2 .tal 2S .ltJa l V/tid6 26.ltJc2 ltJd7
: 27 . .tb2 bS 28.ltJe3 f6± leaves Black with
: a laborious defence ahead of him after
: either 29 . .td4 or 29.V/tiaS .]
,
,
lS.ltJd4 ltJd4 19.cd4
19 ... 'BfeS! I give an exclamation mark merely
C h ess Informant 123
because it takes the computer a relatively long
time to spot this simple equalising move.
[Instead weak is 19" .ltJdS? ! 2 0 . .te4 ! 'Bfd8
2 1 ..tgS ! f6 22.'BaS ! bS? 2 3 . 'Be l ! + -;
1 9 " . fS opens up the king and is tantamount to
positional suicide; after 20.b4 ! �h8 2 1 .'BaS
'Bac8 22 . .tb3± a6? ! 23 . .tf4 ltJc4 24.'BcS bS
2S .dS+ - Black ' s position was collapsing in
Pavasovic 2S68 - Grosar 2470, Bled 2002]
20 . .te4 'Be6! One should always remember
that rooks can sometimes be doubled!
2 1 ..tf4 !
[2 1 . .tb7 'Bae8 i s already better for Black.]
2 1 ...'BaeS 22 . .teS ! .teS 23.deS V/tic7 24 . .tb7
'BSe7 2S . .ta6 V/tieS 26.'Bac1 �g7 27 . .tfl
as=
Black ' s centralisation coupled with the
pending possibility of " . a4 ensure that this
position is dead level.
CONCLUSION
S . iLc4 is an interesting possibility that
leads to dynamic play. After S " . ltJb6 White
should rather retreat his bishop to b3 as the
alternative 6 . .te2 d6 7 . ed6 eS ! leads to lines
that can only be better for B lack. The critical
position of this chapter arises after 6 . Ji.b3
c4 7 . .tc2 g6 8 .b3 dS 9 . ed6 V/tid6 1 0 . 0-0
Ji.g7 I l . lLla3 cb3 1 2 . ab3 0-0 1 3 . d4 .tg4 !
1 4.h3 .t D l S .V/tif3 eS ! 1 6 . lLlbS V/tid7 when
B lack has given up his light-squared bishop
to accelerate his development and battle
against the white pawn centre. Pavasovic ' s
1 7 . 'Bd l ! i s the only way to put pressure
on B lack, but after 1 7 " . ed4 1 8 . lLld4 ltJd4
1 9 .cd4 the simple novelty 1 9 " . 'Bfe8 ! should
equalise rather easily. Overall, I don' t see the
slightest problem for Black in this chapter,
provided he is satisfied with sound equality,
exchanges and a draw.
Kotronias
END OF PART V
189
B 22
1 . e4 c5 2 . c3 l'bf6 3 . e5 l'bd5

4 5 6 7
1 'Llf3 b4 * I. I.ii ..t it' • ..t I.
e6 * l .t. .t. .t. l .t.
2 c4 .t.
j"ljj ,Q,
3 'Lla3

4 g3

5 Jtc4

6 Jtc4 * I. I.ii ..t � • ..t

d4
cd4 *
:!
• .t. .t. • .t. • .t.
7 �d4
IJJ 8
8 cd4 Jtc4 •
d6 8
9 'Llf3 is /Ii
q
tr !=\

10 'Llf3
d6
11 Jtg5 * :i IJJ ..t �· ..t
cd4
I.
b6 *
.t. . .t. .t. .t.
e6
•
12 'Llbd2 j. .t.
IJJ 8
13 a3 8
14 Jtc4 /\ [\, 8
1]
15 Jtd3

16 'Llc3

1 . e4 c 5 2. l'b f3 l'bc6 3. c3 Cbf6 *

---..-�·----...

4 5 6 7
17 e5 'Lla3 * I. / ..t � • ..t I.
'Lld5 a6 l .t. . .t. .... .t. .t. .t.
. .·

18 Jtc4 ljj ljj

1
19 d4 cd4 'J"\
cd4
20 Jtc4
- -- -- -

1 76
By
BU I LD I N G A R E P E RTO I RE , 822 S I C I LIAN D E F E N S E

C3·SICILIAN
Part VI

T he pedigree of the author speaks volumes about what the reader is to

expect from these articles: apart from being a very strong and successful
active player, GM Vassilios Kotronias is a highly esteemed author and chess
analyst, well known for his deep analytical approach to the opening, who has
worked with several top grandmasters, such as Veselin Topalov, Alexei Shirov

1 77
 and Nigel Short, as well as a trainer for the Greek national team. His
name is associated with deep opening research, inventive new ideas and
an unceasing quest for the absolute truth, as can be evidenced from his
various highly regarded opening works to date. Additionally, he is well
known for his uncompromising style and fighting spirit.

Vassilios ' competitive successes include ten gold medals in the Greek
Championships and first places, clear or shared, in several strong
tournaments all over the world, while he has been a member of the Greek
national team for three decades. Most recently he won the gold medal
on his board in the 2 0 1 3 European Team Championships in Warsaw. He
certainly knows what he' s writing about, too: Vassilios has been a lifelong
Sicilian player, and has clearly spent endless hours throughout his career
racking his brains over how to meet the 2.c3 Sicilian in a dynamic and
ambitious way. This series of articles represents the result of his most
recent efforts to deal with this problem.

CHAPTER 1 9
Vassilios Kotronias
l.e4 c5 2.tl:lf3 tl:lc6 3 .c3 tl:lf6 4.e5 tl:ld5
• Country: Greece
5 . d4.cd4 6.cd4
• Born: 1 964

1 .e4 cs 2.tl:lf3 tl:lc6 3.c3 tl:lf6 4.eS tl:ldS 5.d4 • Rating:

• Peak rating:
i. .t. "i' • ..t. i. • Title:
i i i .i i • . •
l.i\ 6 ... d6 Black should lose no time in challenging

& l.i\ � the enemy centre and freeing his pieces.

/8
� ltJ
� £\ ��
ll'l .Ji ii·•� ib
The most natural move, giving White a
temporary space advantage and open lines for
his pieces. B lack has in return a good square
on d5 and the option of undermining White' s
centre b y . . . d6.

5 ... cd4 6.cd4 This recapture is more popular

nowadays than 6 .Ac4, Evgeny Sveshnikov' s
specialty, which i s examined i n the next
chapter. to castle.
[7.�c2 is relatively passive, allowing Black on c4. Black should still go for a kingside
to put e5 under pressure by means of 7 . . . g6 ! : fianchetto: 7 . . . �d6 8 . tt:Jc3 g6
8.0-0 i.Lg7;
.! .i. 9 .i. .!
.! .i. '1lV •
.

.! i i i i i
i i i i .i. i I.ii '1lV i
I.i i i I.ii
I.ii fj

A) After 9 . �b3 ! ? i.Le6 ! 1 0 . i.Lc4 (JO.�b 7

A) 9.ed6 �d6 10.tt:Jc3 0-0 l l .i.Lg5 i.Le6 §.b8 JJ .�a6 tt.Jdb4 12.�a4 ilf5 13.ilb5
12.�d2 .§Jd8 13 . .§.fd l §.ac8 14.tt:Je4? ! (14. ilg7+ is better for B lack as White lags too
h3 f6 15.i.Lh4 tt.Jc3 16.bc3 tt.Ja5+ was the much in development.);
lesser evil) 14 . . . �b8 1 5 .i.Lh6 i.Lg4 ! 1 6 . i.Lg7 I Al) 1 0 . . .0-0-0 l l .tt:Je4 as played in Reefat
�g7+ left Black clearly better in De Dovitiis 2465 Miladinovic 2 5 3 5 , Yerevan (ol)
- Delgado, Villa Martelli 2010; 1 996 (1 1 . 0-0 tt.Ja5 12.�a4 tt.Jc4 13.�c4
�c6=; I J .i.Ld2 tt.Ja5 12.tt.Jb5 tt.Jb3 13.tt.Jd6
B) 9.�b3 ! 'ff.d 6 14.i.Lb3 ilg7=), the logical 1 1 . . .�b4
12 .i.Ld2 �b3 1 3 . ab3 i.Lg7 14.tt:Jeg5 tt:Jd4
1 5 . §.a7 tt:Jf3 1 6.tt:Jf3 i.Lb2 1 7 . 0-0 i.Lf6
.! .i. '1lV • .! yields an unclear position;
i i i i .i. i A2) Safer is 10 . . . §.d8 ! ? 1 1 .0-0 ( J J . tt.Je4
I.i i i �b4 12.i.Ld2 �b3 13.ab3 ilg7 14.tt.Jc5
I.ii tt.Jd4+) ilg7 1 2 . tt:Je4 �c7 1 3 .tt:Jc5 0-0
14.tt:Je6 fe6oo;

B) 9 . i.Lc4 tt:Jb6 1 0.i.Lb3 i.Lg7 1 1 .0-0 0-0

1 2 . d5 (the typical Tarrasch move) tt:Ja5
1 3 . i.Lg5 tt:Jb3 1 4 .�b3 ilg4

Bl) 9 ... tt:Jb6 ! ? 10.§.d l 0-0 l I .tt:Jc3 i.Lg4 .! .! •

I 12 .i.Lf4 (12.h3 il,/3 13.il,/3 de5 14 . ilc6 bc6 i i i i .i. i
1
l 5.de5 �c800 is also excellent for Black I.ii '1lV i
as 16f4 §.b8 l 7.i.Le3 g5 !=; reveals) i.Lf3 !
I 1 3 .i.Lf3 de5=;, intending . . . tt:Jd4, is at least
equal for Black;
B2) 9 . . . de5 1 0.de5 0-0 1 1 .§. d l e6 if l;lj
: (Jl . . . ile6!?= is even better) 1 2.tt:Jc3 tt:Je5 /\
1 1 3 .tt:Jd5 ed5 14.§.d5 tt:Jf3 1 5 .i.L f3 (Alburt -
I Sosonko, USSR (ch) 1 967 - 5/342) �e8 !
1 1 6.§.d l �e5= the chances are about level
1 in this symmetrical position; : Bl) 1 5 .tt:Jd2?! i.Lc3 ! (15 . . . §.ac8 16.tt.Jde4 �d7
! 1 7.h3 il,/5 18.§.adl tt.Jc4= Sznapik 2405 -
: ].edi;i is an attempt to reach a reversed : Kuligovski 2325, Poland (ch-playoff-m/3 )
Tarrasch with the j/JJ placed more actively i 1 978) 1 6.�c3 (16.bc3 �d5) §.fc8+;

1 79
 B2) 1 5 .El.fe l El.fe8 1 6 .El.adl '!Wd7+;
: 7.ffill_
!. .i. � · .i. !.
i i i i i i
I.ii i
I.ii /\
is the main alternative to the bishop move,
in order to contest the d5 square; after 7 . . .
de5 8 . de5 there are several continuations
, worth examining. I have chosen to present
1 the following two to the readers:
A) 8 . . . �e6 ! ? is another very logical move
supporting the knight on d5 ; there is a
variety of replies at White' s disposal but I
can ' t see any advantage for White. I present
a brief survey of the possibilities with some
analysis:
!. � · .i. !.
i i i i i i
I.ii .i.
I.ii
Al) 9 . l'Llb5 ! ? '!Wb6 (9 . . . l'Lldb400) 10.l'Llbd4
�d7 l l .l'Llc6 (I l .e6 fe6 l 2.l'Llc6 �c6
l 3.l'Lle5 g6 14.l'Llc6 bc6 l 5.�e2 �g7 1 6. 0-0
o-o+) �c6 1 2 . a3 :§d8 1 3 . �d3 e6 14.0-0 h6
1 5 .'!Wc2 �e7oo;
A2) 9.l't.Je4 l't.Jdb4 1 0 . �d2 '!Wd5 ! 1 1 .l'Llc3
l'Lld3 1 2 . �d3 '!Wd3+;
A 3 ) 9 .l't.Jd4 l't.Jc3 ! 1 0.bc3 '!Wa5 ! l l .l'Lle6
'!We5 1 2 . �e2 '!We6 1 3 . 0-0 :§d8 14.'!Wc2 g6
15 . :§b l should rather be met by 15 . . . :§d7 ! oo
(Instead, 1 5. . . '!Wc8 1 6.'!Wb3 �g7 1 7.'!Wb 7
1 80
0-0, as played in Afek 2395 Shmuter
I 2490, Tel-Aviv 1 996, looks a bit better
for White after 18.�e3!± in spite of his
inferior pawn structure; the pair of bishops
is strong.) A likely continuation is then
16 .:§e l �g7 1 7 .�g5 0-0 1 8.�b5 '!Wd6
19 .:§bd l '!Wc7 20.:§d7 '!Wd7 2 1 .:§e7 '!Wd5
22.�c6 '!Wc6 23 .h4 a6 24.c4 h6 with a tiny
plus for Black;
A4) 9.�b5 l't.Jc3 10.'!Wd8 Sd8 l l .bc3 can be
answered in more than one way:
!. .) .i. !.
i ii i
.i.
'I
A4a) l l . . .a6 ! ? does not look inferior for
Black; a likely continuation is 1 2 .�c6 !
(I 2. �e2 g6+: l 2.�a4 (Lars A Nielsen
2265 - lb Skovgaard 2036, Helsingor
2 0 1 3 ) �d5 13.0-0 e6 14.l'Lld4 b5 15.l'Llc6
�c6+) bc6 1 3 . 0-0 �c4 14.Se l e6 15 .Sb l
�e7 1 6 . a4 c5 1 7. :§b6 0-0=;
A4b) l l . . .�d5 This logical move is
Houdini ' s choice.
A4b l ) 12.0-0 a6 1 3.�c6 �c6 14.e6
(14.l'Lld4 �d5 15.�a3 e6 16.�f8 ctif8+)
14 . . . �f3 1 5 .gf3 fe6 1 6.:§b l :§d7 17 .:§e l
ctif7 is slightly better for Black;
, A4b2) As Black is ready to play . . . a6 or
. . . e6, 1 2 .c4 ! seems critical, after which
best play seems to be 12 . . . �e4 13 .e6 !
�f3 14.gf3 fe6 1 5 . �e3 ctif7 16.�c6 bc6
1 7 . ctle2 ( 1 7.�a 7 :§a8 18.�e3 :§a4!+)
g6 18 .Sab l �g7 19 .Bb7 �d4= with
equality;
: AS) 9 . �e2 l't.Jc3 10.'!Wd8 :§d8 l l .bc3 f6 ! ?
I ( JJ . . . �d5) 1 2 . :§b l :§d7 1 3 . l't.Jd4 l't.Jd4 14.cd4
ctif7= Adamski 2275 R. Milovanovic
241 5 , Warsaw 1988;
I A6) 9. l't.Jg5 l't.Jc3 10. '!W d8 :§d8 1 1 .bc3 �f5
: 1 2.e6 fe6 1 3 . �c4 g6 14.l't.Je6 �e6 1 5 . �e6
I �g7 1 6 .�d2 :§d6 1 7 . �b3 :§f8 ! 1;
I A7) 9.'!Wa4 ! ? ct.Jc3 10.bc3 �d5 I l .�c4 �f3
 12 .gD e6 13 . .§.b l \J/!Jc7 14.Ae3 Ae7 1 5 .0-0 very difficult for either side to play for a win.
0-0 16.f4 b6oo; [After the extravagant 8.Af7? ! a good and
safe line for Black is 8 . . . 'iif7 9.e6 'iig8 IO.d5
B) 8 . . . Cbc3 (JO.{Ljg5? Cbd5 - +) Cbd5 l l .\J/!Jd5 \J/!Ja5 12.Cbc3
(12.\J/!Ja5 Cba5 13.Cbd4 Cbc6+) \J/!Jd5 13.Cbd5 .§.b8
14.Cbf4 Cbd8 1 5.Ae3 Cbe6 16.Aa7 Ba8 17.Ae3
.i .t "i' • .t .i Cbf4 18.Af4 h6 19.o-o gs 20.Ae3 Ag7+;
.t. .t. .t. .t. .t. .t.
� 8 .�b3 !? is more interesting and dynamic than
8 .Ab5 ; the critical position arises after 8 . . . de5
9.d5 ! Cba5 1 0 . Cbc3 Cbb3 l l .\J/!Jb3 e6 !

.i .t "i' •..t .i
.t. .t. .t. .t. .t.
� .t.
The most natural choice. We now turn to the
ci .t.
examination of 9.\J/!Jd8 Cbd8 1 0.bc3 where
Black has the better pawn structure and 'i1 ClJ ClJ
e6 well covered, so he need not be afraid /� /� /�, /\ /\
of ideas involving e5-e6. Now 10 . . . Ad7 ! ,
stopping checks on b 5 and preparing . . . sc8, cb.
is of course very logical and sound; after
1 I .Cbd4 scs 1 2 . Ae3 g6 ! U2 . . . sc3 13.Cbb51) A) In case of 1 2 . 0-0
1 3 . .§.c l Ag7 14.f4 Sf8 ! ? 1 5 . Ae2 f6 ! 1 6.ef6 A l ) 1 2 . . . ed5 1 3 .Cbe5 Ae7 (13 . . . Ad6 14.\J/!Jb5
sf6 17.0-0 Ah6 ! 1 8. sf2 e5 1 9 . .:LJD CZJf7! '=; $f8 15f4 'iig8 1 6.Ae3 Ae6 17 . .§.adloo is
Black had an excellent game i n Ikarus - typically unclear, with White enj oying some
Zappa, Torino (WCCC) 2006] compensation for the material.)

Let's now go back to our main line, namely

7.Ac4: .i .t ii • .i
.t. .t. ... .t. .t. .t.
.i �
.i ��· �
ii iiii
"i
... ()
'r.Al { _J A /\ /\
bl <;ti
_

/\
C!\ A l a) 14.\J/!Jb5 ! ? Ad7 1 5 .Cbd7 \J/!Jd7
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ A l a l ) 1 6.\J/!Jd7 'ii d 7 1 7.Ae3 Af6 1 8 . Ab6

lJ 4_)
7 ... Cbb6 [The knight retreats with tempo,
preparing the capture . . . de5]
8.Ab5 This move is the most popular and
safe for White, leading to positions where it is
Ac3 1 9 .bc3? ( 19.Ae3 ! ?) ab6+ was better
for B lack in Novak 2200 - J. Plachetka
2370, Novy Smokovec 1 97 1 ;
A l a2) 1 6 . Ae3 ! \J/!Jb5 1 7.CbbS 0-0 1 8 .Cbc7
.§.ads 1 9 . sad l Cbc4 20.Cbd5 Ad6= is
. level too;
• A l b) 1 4 . Ae3 should lead to equality in
multiple ways, e.g. 14 . . . 0-0 ! (14 . . . Ae6?!

181
 : 15.'W!ib5 @j8 16."§.adl±) I S . �b6 ab6
: Al b l ) 1 6.tl:idS �cs 1 7."§.ad l ( 1 7.tbd3
: �e6 18.tb3f4 �d7 19.'W!ig3 �c600) �e6oo;
: A l b2) 1 6 . 'W!idS �f6 1 7 ."§.fe l "§.aS 1 8.'W!id8
: "§.d8 1 9 . tl:ic4 "§.cS 20.tl:ib6 �e6=;
I A2) 12 . . . tl:idS ! ? is well worth trying and
I could be a winning attempt.
.i A � fl .A .i
ii iii
i by l S . . . � e S ! 1 6 . tlJdS �d6 ! ( / 6 . . . & )d 7
'.& i
CiJ
bb
h�
• A2a) 1 3 . tl:idS? 'W!idS+ is bad for White;
A2b) 1 3 ."§. d l ! ? should be met by
• 1 3 . . . 'W!ib6 ! 14.tl:ieS (1 4. tbd5 ed5 15.'W!id5 f6
• 1 6.�e3 �e6! seems to deny White serious
. compensation.) 'W!ib3 I S . ab3 f6 1 6 . tl:ic4
: (16.tbd5 ed5 1 7.tbd3 g5! 18.�e3 @j7+.)
• tl:ic3 1 7 . bc3 a6 ! and to achieve full equality
• White needs to struggle in the line l 8 .tl:ib6
"§.b8 1 9 . �e3 eS 20.f4 ! �e6 2 1 .feS fe5
: 22."§.aS "§.d8 ! 2 3 . "§.d8 (23."§.e l �d6) @d8
. 24.b4 �d6 2S.bS ! @c7 26.ba6 ba6 2 7."§.a6
• @b7
: A2c) 1 3 .tl:ieS was played in a correspondence
! game, mentioned above, and which
: continued 13 . . . tl:ic3 14.'W!ic3 (14.bc3 V$d5!)
: f6 ! I S .tl:id3 eS 16.�e3 'W!idS 1 7 ."§.fd l �g4
: 1 8 . f3 �fS 19.tbcS 'W!ic6 20."§.ac l �cs+,
: S icker - Guenschmann, corr. 2003;
I B) 1 2 .tl:ieS ! edS 1 3 . �e3 �d6 1 4.'W!ibS @f8
.i A � • .i
i i i i i
'.& .A
'ii i CZJ
182
B lack has forfeited t h e right to castle, but
in return has an extra pawn and a pair of
b ishops. In a fe w positions Black will have
to play incisively and without the services
o f the "§.h8 as it i s obstructed by the king;
in some of these positions he will try to
castle artificially by . . . h6 and . . . @g8-h7,
in others he will push his pawn to h4 and
try to activate the rook via h S . Here are
the fruits of my analysis:
I B l ) I S . "§.d l ?! is convincingly answered
I
1 7. 'W!ib4 @ e 8 1 8 . 0- 0-"; 1 6 . . . �\;J, d 7 1 7. 'W!ic5
@e8 18.tbb6 + -) 1 7 . tl:ib6 ( 1 7. 0-0 �d7
1 8 . 'W!i d3 tbc8+) ab6 1 8 . 0-0 �e6 ! 1 9 . � f4
( 1 9. � b 6 �c4!!+ leads to a winning
endgame for B l ac k . ) � f4 2 0 . "§.d8 "§.d8
2 I .'W!ib6 �gs+ (21 . . . "f:dd5+);
B 2 ) I S . 0-0-0 �e6 1 6. tl:i f3 (Black stood
optimally after 1 6f4 �e5 1 7fe5 h 6+. in
Van Der Werf 24 1 S Van Wely 2 S 7 S ,
W ij k a a n Zee (open) 1 99 S 62/( 1 48))
"§. c 8 1 7 . @b l tl:ic4 ! 1 8 . tl:idS a6 leads t o
a tense situation where B l a c k i s doing
extremely okay :
/ '
: B 2 a) 1 9 . 'W!ib 7 ? "§.b8 2 0 . 'W!ia6 tl:ib2
2 1 . "§.d4 tl:ic4
B 2 a l ) 2 2 . @c2 tl:ia3 ! 2 3 . @d3 (23 . @d l
tbbS - + ) tbbS - + ;
B 2 a 2 ) 2 2 .@a l tl:i e 3 2 3 . fe 3 (23.tbe3
�e5 + ) � c s + i s c learly bad for
White;
B2b) 1 9 . 'W!ia4? ! � fS ! 2 0 . @a l �c2
leads to a good version o f the variation
1 9 . 'W!ib3 � fS seen below, as the queen
c annot take on b 7 ;
B 2 c ) 1 9 . 'W!ib3 looks like the best
possibility for White.
 contrast to the above lines, after 19 . . . �a5 !
there is no draw for White; the best I could
: find for him is 20.�b6D lZ:Jb6 2 1 . �b6
�c5 ! + B . Rechel 2369 - Kragelj 2225,
Kecskemet 1 999 - 74/( 1 5 7) (more exact
: than 21 . . . �b6 22.lZJb6 2.c6+! ) the point
: being that 22.�b7?? fails to 22 . . . Bb8 - +;
I B3) 1 5 .lZ:Jf3 !

.i .i. � • .i
B2cl) 19 . . . �f5 20.@a l �c2 ! i i i & i
B2cll) 2 1 .�c2?! CZJe3 22.�c8 �c8
23 .lZ:Je3 �b8 ! (1:, . . .g6, . . . @gl) looks better
� .i. .

for Black, e.g. 24.Bc I (24.2.d5 g6 25.2.hdl Vj!j i

@gl 26.2.dl h 6+) �e8 ! 25.Bhe l g6+;
B2c12) 2 1 .�b7 ! �d l 22.Bd l lZ:Je3
(22 . . . 2.b8 ? ! 23.�a6 lZJh2? 24.2.d4! + -)
23.fe3 ! (23.lZJe3 �cl! 24.�c l Be l 25.0/5
�e l+)

I consider this retreat as the most pressing

move for Black. The knight controls d4,
1 and White has kept open the option of

. castling either side. We will now focus on

15 . . . �d7 ! ? j ust one of several interesting
1 moves. White has a choice of retreats and
we will deal carefully with each of them:
B3a) 16.�b6? �e8 1 7 . �e2 ab6+ is out of
the question for White as Black' s bishops
are very powerful and after the exchange of
queens they will dominate the whole board;
B3b) 1 6 . �d3 �g4 ! is excellent for Black.
B2c121) 23 . . . g6 ! ? 24.lZ:Jg5 For example:
B2c122) . . . and 23 .. . �e8 ! ? 24. lZ:Je5 !
(24.�.5_ 2.b8 25.�a6 �e5i; :J./._\V"}ao �c6
25.�c6 Bc600) Bd8 25 .lZ:Jc6 Bd7 26.�a6
do not offer Black realistic chances to play
for a win in any case;
B2c 123) 23 . . . Bb8 ! presents Black with a
difficult choice. In the end I concluded that
23 . . . Bb8 ! is safer and clear-cut, as after this
move there can follow 24.�a6 h5 ! 2 5 .lZ:Jf4
Bh6 26.lZ:Je5 @g8 27.lZ:Jf7 ! (2 l.lZJc6 �e8
28.lZJb8 Af4 29.�a5 2.d6! 30.2.d6 �d6
31 .lZJa6 �e3+) @f7 28.�c4 @e7 29.�e4
@f7 30.�c4=;
B2c2) The refined move 19 . . . �a5 ! B3b l ) 1 7 . lZ:Jd4 lZ:Jc4 ! ? 1 8 . 0-0 �h4 ! leads
. . .is best here, but I had to go through a to a weakening of White' s kingside, a fact
lot of variations after dealing with the that keeps him occupied with defending the
alternative 1 9 . . . �f5 in order to understand light squares around his king; after 19 .g3
it. I present a summary of my analysis: In • (19.h3? �h3+) �h5 20.b3 CZJe5 2 1 .�b5

183
 Clif3 22.Clif3 ..\lf3 2 3 . 1&d7 (23.1&b 7?
£d8 - +) @g8 ! 24.Clib5 (24. ..\ld4 ? ! h 6
2 5.'f4f'el @h 7 26.Be3 Bad8 2 7.1&b 7
Bhe8 gives Black the better chances.)
..\le5 2 5 . ..\ld4 ..\lf4 ! 26 . ..\lb2 h6 27.Clid4
..\lg4 28.1&b7 @h7 29 .Bfe 1 ..\ld6= Black
has carried out artificial castling and the
chances are even;
B3b2) 17 . 0-0-0
B3b21 ) Laborious is 17 . . . Bc8 1 8 .@b l 1&f6 !
B3b211) Easy equality results from 1 9 . @ a l
..\lf3 20.gf3 ..\le5 2 1 .Clid5 Clid5 22.1&d5
..tb2 2 3 . @b l 1&g6 24.@b2 (24 . .8'.d3 Af6+.)
1&c2 2 5 . @a l 1&c3=;
B3b212) 19.Clid5 ! Clid5 20.1&d5 1&f5
2 1 .@a l 1&d5 22 . Bd5 ..\lb8 ! but the
computer insists the Black should be
able to equalise even here, e.g. 23 .Clid4 ! ?
(23.Bhdl f6!=) Be8 ! 24. Bc l (24.h3 llc8
25 . .8'.cl a 6=; 24.0/5 j6= 625 . ..\lc5 @j7
26.Bdl? @e6 - +; 24.Clib5 a6! 25.Bel
j6=) a6 25 .h3 ..\lc8 26.Clif5 f6 27.Bc8 !
Bc8 28 . Bd7 h5 ! = and in spite of his
impressive looking invasion on the 7' h rank
White lacks a finishing blow;
B3b22) 17 . . . 1&c8! is a clear-cut solution,
preventing the white king from escaping to b l
184
B3b2 2 1 ) Black has no problems after
1 8 . 1&d4 1&f5 ! ? (18 . . . 1&c4=) 1 9 .h3 ..\lf3
20.gf3 .8'.c8=;
B3b222) 18 ...\lb6 ab6 19.1&d5 ..\le7 20.Clie5
..\le6 2 1 .Clid7 @e8 22.Clib6 ..\ld5 23 .Clic8
..\lg2 24.Bhg l Bc8 25.Bg2 g6 = and an
approximately equal ending has been reached;
B3c) 1 6.1&e2 ! ? is a reserved course; White
intends to castle short and apply central
pressure. After 16 . . . 1&f6 ! (16 ... Clia4 1 7.Clia4
..\la4 18.0-0±; 16. . . Clic4!?)
j_
j_
i
B3c l ) Black is slightly better in case of
1 7 . ..\lb6 ab6 1 8 .0-0 (18.Clid5 1&e6! 19.1&e6
..\le6+. 620.Clib6?? Ba6) ..\lc6 ! 19 .Bad l
.8'.d8 ! +.;
B3c2) 1 7 . 0-0 !
B3c2 1 ) Now 1 7 . . . ..\lg4? ! 1 8 . ..\lb6 ab6
1 9 . Clid5 ..\lf3 ! 20.1&f3 1&f3 2 1 .gf3 leads to
an ending where Black is suffering a little
bit, a sample line being 2 1 . . .b5 ! ? (21 . . . .8'.a6!
22.a4!±) 22.Bfd l ! Ba6 ! ? (22 . . .g 6 23.Clib6
£d8 24.£d5±) 2 3 . Bac l !? (23.Clib4 .8'.b6
24.Clid5 Ba6 25.Clib4=) g6 24.Clic7±;
B3c22) I like the energetic 17 . . . Be8 ! ,
mobilising a s many pieces as possible.
This is how play might continue:
B3c221) After 1 8 . Bad l
i. *' i.
j_ i i i
j_ if
i
B3c2211) . . . the prophylactic 1 8 . . . h6? !
allows 1 9.�d3 ! �c6 (19 ... �g4 20.C[Jd5
C[Jd5 21.�ct5 Be6 22.�b 7±) 20.C[Jb5 �b8
2 1 .C[Ja7 ! �a7 22.�a3 @g8 2 3 . �a7± with
an edge for White;
B3c2212) 18 . . . �c6 ! is called for, with
a good game, e.g. 19.�d3 (19.C[Jb5 �b8
20.�d2 @g8+) �g6 !
B3c22121) 20.�b6? ! ab6 2 1 .�g6 (2J .C[Jd5?
�d3 22.Bd3 �b5+) hg6 22.CfJd5 Bh5+;
B3c22122) 20.�d4 ! @g8 2 1 .b3 h6
22.Bfe I Be6 23 .h3 @h7 24.C[Jh4 �e5=;
B3c222) 18.Bfd l
.i . .i
i i j_ i i i
IJl j_ �
i
1 8 . . . �c6 ! Again this move is required.
(18 . . . h6?! 19.�d3!± is better for White)
19.�d3 �g6 ! 20.�b6 ab6 2 1 .C[Jd5 b5 ! oo
and i n this unclear position the chances
should be dynamically balanced. We can
add a few more possible moves: 22.�d2
(22.�b3 h6 23.CfJh4 �g400) h6 2 3 .CfJf4
�f4 24.�f4 @g8 25.Bd6 Be4=;
B3d) 16.�b3 ! looks best, maintaining
pressure on d5 and b6 while avoiding
shielding the d-file.
We now turn our attention to the main line,
with the reply 16 . . . �g4 !
.i � . .i
, )
ii i i i
"' j_
i
j_
B3dl) After 1 7 . 0-0-0 ! ? I like the
"geometric" 17 . . . �c8 ! ? pinning the C[Jc3
and obtaining access to both c4 and f5 . The
following analysis confirmed my initial
feeling that B lack is j ust fine here:
B3d l l ) 1 8 .@b l ! ? is best answered by
1 8 . . . �c4 ! = making good use of the C[Jb6.
• .i
i i i
B3d l l l ) Keeping queens on by 1 9 . �c2 ! ?
i s well met by 1 9 . . . �h5 ! ( 1 9. . . Af3 ? !
20.gf3 �e5 2 1 .C[Jd5 �c2 22.@c2±)
20.�d2 ! ? (20.@al Af3 ! ? 2 1 .gf3 �e500)
�b4 2 1 .Bc l f6 ! ? (21 . . . CfJa4? ! 22.�d4
�g6 23. @a l ±) 22.C[Jd4 �g6 2 3 . @a l @f7
24.h4 h5 2 5 . a3 �a6 26.C[Jdb5 Bad8oo and
Black is certainly not worse;
B3d112) After 1 9.�c4 ! C[Jc4 20.C[Jd5 the
most accurate way to handle the ending is
probably. . .
B3d 1 1 2 1 ) 2 0 . . . h5 ! givmg the &h8
breathing space and creating the option of
taking on e3 .
.i • .i
i i i i
j_
Now White has nothing better than 2 l .h3
but then 2 l . . .C[Je3 22.CfJe3 �f3 23 .gf3
�c5 24. Bd7 b6= reveals an important
difference, as the rook is ready to spring
to life via h6, rendering the position
185
 completely equal;
B3d1122) Also possible 1s
2 1 .@a l Ae4 ! but then
i. • i.
i i i i i
.i.
l;l_J
IJl .i.
t2J
£z1
B3dll221) 22 . .§.d4 Ad5 2 3 . .§.d5 Qie3
24 . .§.d6 (24fe3 @e l+) @e7 ! is at least
equal for B lack;
B3d1 1222) However 22.Qic3 ! Af3 !
: (22 . . . Ac6 23.Ild6! l{Jd6 24. Ac5 'ild8
25.Ildl is not easy to meet as 25 . . . @e7?!
: fails to 26.Qid4±) 23 .gf3 Ae5 24.Ild7±
could be a trifling edge for White; I see no
reason to allow it;
B3dl2) 1 8. Ab6 Apparently risky, but
in reality not so much, as Black remains
undeveloped. After the forced recapture
1 8 . . . ab6 White has two or three options to
choose from, but Black stands excellently
regardless of his choice:
B3dl21) 19.'flhe l h5 ! + is very fine for
Black;
B3d122) 19 . �d5 ! ? is convincingly
answered by 19 . . . Ab4 ! 20.Qig5 Ah5 !
2 1 .'fld4 Ac3 22.'flc4 Ab2 23.@b2 �d8
24.�d8 'fld8 25.'flc7 h6 26.Qie4 g5 ! ?
(26 . . . Ag6 27.Qid6 .§.d6 28 . .§.c8 @e 7
29.Ilel \£?f6 30.'flh8 Ild2=) 27.Ilb7 Ag6+;
186
B3dl23) 19.@b l Creating the possibility
20 . . . Afs of taking with the knight on d5 . In reply
to 1 9 . @b l , Black should play 19 . . . d4 ! ?
20.'fld4 Ae6 ! and I can't see how White
can do anything of substance after it:
The best I could find is 2 l .Qid5 ! ( :: I . \1\Y h5
Ac5 22.'fJ,/4 g6 23.Qid4 \£?g7+:::::;; ��
Ae7 22.'flel h5! 23.Qie5 'flh600) h6 22.'fle l
( ll.fiJhn:F) Ab3 23.Qic8 Aa2 - +; :::;Jjc"1
Ac5) @g8 ! 2 3 . g4 ! ? (23.�b6?! Ac5
24.�b5 Ad4 25.Qie7 @h 7 26.Qic8 Aa2
2 7. @c2 'flhc8 28.@dl il,/2+) Ag4 24.Qif6
' gf6 25 . .§.g l (25.Ilg4 �g4 26.Ilgl �gl
: 2 7.Qigl @g700) h5 26.'fld6 �f5 27.@al
: @f8 28.�b4 (28.Qid4 \1&,/2 29 . .§.bl \1&,/4
: 30.Ild5 �h2+) @g7 29.h3 �f3 30.hg4
: �f2 3 1 . 'fldd l 'fla5 32.gh5 Ilg5 3 3 . 'flgfl
' �c5 34.�f4 'flh6 3 5 .�b8 �b5 36.'flfe l
.§.g2 3 7 . .§.b l �h5 3 8 . .§.e8 .§.h8 39 . .§.h8
�h8 40.�b7 �h2 41 .�b6 �e5 42 . .§.h l
f5 43 .a4 f4 44.�h6 @g8 45.�h7 @f8
46.�h8 �h8 47.'flh8 @g7 48.'flh4 f3
49.Ilf4 f2 50.@a2 @g6=;
B3d2) l 7 . Qid4 ! After this White normally
waves goodbye to the attractive idea of
castling long, but it is nevertheless the best
: move.
 B3d21) 1 7 . . . tt:lc4? 1 8 . 'Mfb7 tt:le3 1 9 . fe3± 6
0-0, is clearly better for White;
B3d22) Also bad is 17 . . . 'Mfh4? ! 1 8 . tt:lcb5 !
(l 8.tt:ldb5 ? :§e8 - + would have been ideal
for Black) 18 . . . .il.e5? 19.'Mfb4 ! c;i?g8
20.tt:lf3 + -;
B3d23) For a while I toyed with the
idea 1 7 . . . 'Mff6 ! ?, until I had made other
discoveries:
i. • i.
i i i i i
� .i. 'ii'
i
\ .i.
B3d231) I had originally only looked at
1 8 .h3 Be8 ! 19 . tt:lcb5 ! (19.tt:ldb5 .8'.e3 - +;
19.hg4 'Mfd4+)
B3d2311) 19 . . . tt:lc4? ! 20.hg4 (20.tt:ld6??
.8'.e3 2l fe3 'Mfh4 22.$(1 tt:ld2 - +) Be3
2 1 .fe3 .il.g3 22.c;i?d l 'Mff2 23 .c;i?c l ! ± ;
B3d2312) 1 9 . . . .il.d7 ! 20.tt:ld6 'Mfd6 2 1 .0-0
c;i?g8 22.tt:lb5 (22.fi.fel h6 23.tt:lj3 c;i?h 7=)
'Mfg6 23 . .il.d4 C3 .'i!Jh I tt:lc4 24.tt:lc l .ii. h 3!
25.gh3 'Mfe4=; 23.{5/iJ tt:lc4)
i. • i.
i i .i. i i i
� 'ii'
i �
B3d23121) 23 . . . .8'.e4 ! ? 24 . .8'.fe l (24 . .8'.adl
h6 25.tt:la l tt:lc4 26 . .8'.d3 .ii. h 3!! 27.Bg3
.il.g4 28.'Mfc3 tt:ld6 29f3 .8'.d4 30.'Mfd4 ti:Jf5
31 . .8'.g4 tt:ld4 32 . .8'.g6.fg6+) h6 25 . .8'.e4 de4
26.tt:la7 tt:lc8 ! 27.tt:lc8 .il.c8 28 . .8'.e l c;i?h7
29.:§e3 'Mfe6 30.'Mfc3 f6= (30 . . .:§g8 31 .a4
.ii.d 7=);
'
B3d23122) 23 . . . h5 ! 24.:§ad l :§h6 ! !::; when
Black seems to be at least equal;
B3d232) Also 1 8.0-0 'Mfg6 !
1 9 . f3 ( 19.!?lceJ h5 20f3 .ii.h 3 21 .:§j2
.ii. d 7 22.tt:lb5 .ii. b 5 23.'Mfb5 h4!:;; / 9.g3
h5 20.ttJdb5 h4 2J .ttJd6 'Mfd600; /9.cJ;;r/i J
c;i?g800) .il.h3 20 . Bf2 Be8 2 1 . Be l c;i?g8
(21 . . .tt:lc4 22.tt:ld5 tt:le3 23 . .8'.e3±) 22.tt:ld5
tt:ld5 2 3 . 'Mfd5 h6 24.'Mfb7 c;i?h7 2 5 . 'Mfb3
.il.f4 26.tt:lc2 .il.b8 27.Bfe2 .il.e6 28.'Mfa4
.il.d5 29.tt:ld4 Be5oo when the Bh8 has
finally been brought into play and the two
bishops give B lack excellent compensation
for the pawn.
However Houdini ' s discovery of l 8.tt:ldb5 !
forced me to change my plans . . .
B3d233) Indeed 1 8 .tt:ldb5 ! 1' i s better for
White;
i. • i.
i i i i i
.i. 'ii'
i
.i.
� q_j
The main point of l 8. tt:ldb5 ! is that Black
can ' t play 18 . . . .il.e5 because after 1 9 . 'Mfb4
he loses his bishop, and unfortunately
the clever 18 . . . d4 ! ? 1 9 . tt:le4 'Mfe7 (After
19 . . . 'Mfe6 20.tt:lbd6 'Mfb3 21 .ab3 de3 22fe3
c;i?e 7 2 3. 0-0 .ii. e 6 24 .tt:lb 7 .ii. b 3 the peculiar
1 87
 25.{jjed6!! iLe6 26.'Bac l ± gives White a as his rook on h8 has freedom to operate
big advantage.) 20.{jjb d6 de3 is worse for via h5 or h6.) @g8, Black seems to have
Black for a variety of reasons. One of them done everything correctly and the position
is 2 l .�e3 (21 . 0-0 e2 22.'fi.fel fid8 23f3 is equal. I analysed several moves at this
ile6 24.�a3 {jj c 4 25.{jjc 4 iLc4 26.�a l± point:
is another idea.) 2 1 . . .{jj d 5 (2 J . . . 'Bd8
22.0-0! 'Bd6 23.{jjd6 �d6 24.Bfel iLe6
25.'Badl±; 21 . . . f5 22.h3! fe4 23.�f4 @g8
24.hg4 {jjd5 25.�d2 �d6 26.'Bh5!!±)
22.�c5 iLe6 (22 . . . {jjf6 23f3 {jje 4 24fe4±
produces a surprisingly stable knight on
d6. ) 2 3 . 'Bd l ! ? f5 24.{jj f5 ! iLf5 25 .'Bd5
iLe4 26.�e7 @e7 27.Be5 @f6 28.Be4
Bac8 29.0-0 Bc2 30.b3 Ba2 3 1 .'Bfe l l and
drawing this ending won't be a piece of
cake as the black king is exposed;
B3d24) After 17 .{jj d4 ! Black needs to be
precise and play 17 . . . h5 ! An important
move, gaining space and preparing . . . h4 to B3d2431 ) A typical blunder would be
free the 'Bh8. 20.{jj d 5?? iLa4 - + and White loses a
piece;
B3d2432) 20.{jj f3 h4! 2 1 .'Bad l 'Bh5
:i 'it' • :i 22.Bfe 1 .iLe6 looks safe and solid for
i i i i Black;
'il .a B3d2433) 20.{jjd b5 iLc6 2 1 .{jj d6
i i (21 .'Badl iLe5) �d6 22.'Bad l is a logical
continuation, when B lack should take care
cb .a not to weaken his h-pawn by pushing it
further.
B3d24331) 22 . . . h4? ! 23.'Bd4 ! 'Bh5
24.�dl ! �g6 25.Bg4 ! 1 gives White a
strong initiative;
B3d24332) 22 . . . 'Be8 ! ?
B3d241) 1 8 .{jj d b5 would b e now met by
1 8 . . . .iLeS+ as the .iLg4 is protected .. .
B3d242) . . . while 1 8 .0-0 allows 1 8 . . . �h4
1 9 . f4 Be8 and B lack has mobilised his
forces successfully. Some further moves:
20.{jj d 5 (20.'Bael !Af4! 21 . Ci)/3 ! iLe3
22.'Be3 �d8 23.{jj e 5 f6 24.{jjg 6 @g8
25.'Be8 �e8 26.{jj h 8 �e3 2 7.@hl @h8=
is approximately equal.) {jj d 5 2 1 .�d5 �f6
22.iLf2 (22.'Bael ? ! ilb4) iLf4 2 3 . Bae 1
'Bd8 24.�b7 'Bd4 2 5 . .iLd4 �d4 26.@h l
g5 27.g3 iLe6 28.'Be6 fe 6 29.gf4 gf4
30.'Bc l �d5 3 1 .�d5 ed5 3 2 .'Bc7 'Bh6
3 3 . Ba7 Bc6=; B3d243321) 2 3 .'Bd4 �g6 24.'Bfdl
B3d243) So White has to weaken (24.{jj e 2 {jj c 4i) @h7 25.{jj e'2 {jjc 4 26.{jj f4
himself by 1 8 .h3 in order to castle, and �f5 27.{jjd 5 {jje3 28.{jje 3 �g6=;
this weakness will be exploited later on. B3d243322) 2 3 .{jj b 5 ! �g6 24.{jj a 7 {jjc4
Then, after 18 . . . .iLd7 19.0-0 (19. 0-0-0 h4! 25 . .iLd4 @h7 26.�d3± looks like a better
produces a n excellent position for Black ending for White;

188
B3d24333) 22 . . . �g6 ! = feels like the right
move.
The point being that it has prevented Qib5
and Black is ready to follow up with . . . .§.e8
and . . . @h7 . If 2 3 . ild4, then 23 . . . Qic4
24.Qie2 h4 25 . .§fe l .§h6 26.Qif4 �f5=
and Black has coordinated everything,
obtaining fully equal play;
B3d2434) 20.Bad l looks best and in reply
Black should carve a slightly different
path: 20 . . . �c8 ! ? Suddenly the threat of
taking on h3 is very real;
B3d24341) 2 1 .Bc I? il,h3+ is good for
Black;
B3d24342) 2 1 .Qidb5 ilh3 ! 22 . .§.d5 ilh2 !
23.@h2 (23.@h l ? ? �g4 - +) ilg2 !
24 . .§d8 �d8 25.@g2 �h4 26.f3 Qic4
27.ilc l .§h6 ! ! 28.ilh6 gh6 29.Qie4 Qid2 !
30.Qid2 �g5 produces a wonderful draw
by perpetual check;
B3d24343) 2 1 .Qicb5 ilb8 22 . .§.c I Qic4
23 .Qif3 ilh3 24.gh3 �h3 25.Qibd4 Qie3
26.fe3 .§.h6 27.@f2 .§.b6 28.�d5 .§.b2
29 . .§.c2 ilg3 30.@g l .§.c2 3 1 .Qic2 �g4oo
is unclear, the most likely result being a
draw;
B3d24344) 2 1 .�c2 Apparently the only
way of stopping the sac. Now a good way
of continuing is 2 1 . . .h4 (21 . . . ilh3 ? ! 22.gh3
�h3 23,13 .§.e8 24.fi,fel±; 21 . . . ilb4!?)
22.Bfe I .§h5 2 3 . �e2 g6oo with an
unclear position; White has satisfactory
compensation for the pawn due to his
control over d4, but no more than that.]
We'll now move on with an examination
of 8 . ilb5 :
!. .a � · .a !.
ii iiii
IJ\ IJ\ i
� C�
b
�b bbb
g ctJ � iV �
8 ... deS 9.QieS ild7 10.Qid7 This has been the
most popular move in practice.
[ I O.'t_ld has long been known to lead to
drawish positions.
.i � • .t .i
i i .t i .I. i i
I.ii I.ii
A) Quite clear-cut is 10 . . . Qie5 l l . de5 ilb5
1 2.Qib5 �d i 1 3 . @d l Qid5 14.@e2 a6
1 5 . .§ d l 0-0-0
Al) 1 6 .Qid4 e6 1 7 . ilg5 Bd7 ( 1 7. . . ile7=)
18 .Bac l @b8 1 9 . Qib3 h6 20.ile3 ile7=
was equal in G . Borg 2200 - Ki. Georgiev
25 1 5 , Thessaloniki (ol) 1 984 - 3 8/ 1 94;
A2) 1 6 . Qia3 e6 1 7 . Qic4 ile7 1 8 . ild2 b6
1 9 . g3 @b7 20.Qie3 Qic7 and B lack had
189
 . easily equalised in the stem game of this has drawing tendencies, but i t is rather
variation, Sveshnikov 2545 - Kasparov I White who has to be the more careful:
1 2545, U S SR (ch) 1 979 - 2 8/32 1 , and went
I on to win;

I B)intrigue
10 . . . e6 ! ? is designed to
in the position;
retain more

I B l ) Then l l .�c6 �c6 1 2 . tbc6 bc6 1 3 . l/:ifg4

is an attempt to impede the development
of B lack ' s kingside and this should be met
l by 13 . . . h5 ! . Then 14.'l:iff3 sc8 leads to a
position where B lack ' s control over d5 and
slightly better bishop nullify the weakened
i kingside.

B2a) A bad mistake is 14.lbd6? �d6

' sc8 18.�e1 '/:ifg6 19.'/:ifd4 tbb6+. left
For example:
B l a) 1 5 . �e 3 was the continuation in
Rai. Kleeschaetzky 2 3 1 8 - L. Gutman
248 8, Germany (ch) 2 00 1 , where I
prefer 1 5 . . . l/:if f6 ! ? , directly challenging
the white queen ' s good p o s ition o n f3 .
A fter 1 6 . l/:ife2 ( 1 6. '/:iff6 gf6 1 7. rtie2 f5
18.'§.ac1 rtid7=:; looks great for B lack
. who, in addition to excellent l ight square
• control, has obtained the g-file for
. h i s roo k . ) l/:if f5 ! 1 7 . 0-0 ( 1 7 . '/:if a 6 s c 7)
• �d6=:; and the second player controls
a l o t o f important s quares and h a s the
easier game;
B l b) 1 5 . 0-0 l/:ifd4 1 6 . �f4 (16.sdl ? !
'/:ifg4+) � e 7 1 7.sfe l l/:iff6 ! ? ( 1 7. . . tbd5 ? !
18.�e5 '/:ifg4 19.'/:ifg 4 hg4 20.�g700 led to
an unclear ending in Sveshnikov 2545 -
Browne 2540, Novi Sad 1 979 28/320)
1 8 . '/:if g3 ! ? U1_'l_];!,c,_,2;� tbd5+;
'l:iff5+.) 0-0 19.tbe4 l/:ifh4 ! and it is not clear
whether White has enough compensation
for the sacrificed pawn;
B2) l l . l/:ifg4 l2Je5 12.de5 �b5 1 3 . l2Jb5 l/:ifd7 !
1 5 .ed6 0-0 1 6 . �h6 (16.fl,[4 '/:ifa4+) f5
1 7 . l/:ifg3 e5+ ( 1 7. . . 'fi,/6+);
B2b) After 14.tbc3 l/:ifd3 ! the untried
1 5 .l/:ife2 ! ? (15.'/:ife4 '/:ifc4! 16.fl,/4 �b4+.;
15.�d2 tbc4 16.0-0-0 h5! 1 7.W!f.[4
White struggling in Sveshnikov 2565 -
Polugaevsky 2620, USSR (ch) 1 978 -
26/(3 4 1 )) should maintain equal chances,
e.g. 15 . . . l/:ifc4 ! ? 1 6.�e3 �b4 1 7.sc l �c3
1 8.sc3 l/:ife2 1 9 . rtie2 l2Jd5 20.sc4 h5=;
B3) White can now choose to castle,
which may appear logical, but it removes
the king from the centre, a factor that
could tip the scales in Black ' s favour in
some endgames.
We' ll now concentrate on 1 1 .0-0 e5 1 2 .de5
�b5 1 3 . lbb5 a6 !
B3a) The ending arising after 14.l/:ifd8?!
sd8
i: • .t i:
.& & .i i
i 'ii .&

190
 'l:le5 ! 1 8 . .§Jd l (18.ilb6 ild6+) ild6+;
B3a2) 1 5 .'l:lc3 'l:lc4 1 6 . f4 ilb4 1 7 . 'l:le4
:9'.d4 1 8 . 'l:lg 5 we7 1 9 .b3 'Lld2 2 0 . ilb2
B d 7i was worse for White in Gurgenidze
2505 Sturua 24 1 0 , USSR 1 9 8 0 ;
B3b) 1 4 . 'l:ld6 .il d 6 1 5 . ed6 i s double­
edged b u t not worse for B lack as the
pawn on d6 c an easily turn out to be a
weakness : the sequel 1 5 . . . 'l:ld5 1 6 . �g4
' ( 1 6 . ilf4 0-0 1 7. ilg3 �d7 18. �d3
Sac8 19 . 'Sacl El.cl 2 0 . 'S c l Sc800) 0-0
1 7 . �g3 �d7 1 8 . ilh 6 f6 19 . B fe l ct;h8
f
(19 . . . 'S 7 ! ?) 2 0 . Bad l s fe 8 2 1 . il e 3
'Sac8=!+ proved B lack ' s chances t o
be quite good i n Hasche - Postier, corr.
1 994;
B3c) 1 4 . 'l:ld4 ! , evading t h e exchange of
queens, looks like the best option for
White here. Then play should c ontinue
as follows: 14 . . . Bc8 1 5 . il e 3 'Lld5
1 6 . �b3 Bc7 ! 1 7 . Bac l Sd7 ! 1 8 . il g 5 !
ile7 1 9 . ile 7 'l:le7 2 0 . 'l:l f3 0-0 2 1 . 'S fd l
'l:ld5 2 2. 'Sd4 h 6 2 3 . h 3 �b8 24. a 3 = w ith
an equal game, Seitaj 2395 - Kotronias
2520, Chania 1 99 1 ;
1 0 . ii.c6 i s another line with drawing
tendencies, leading to a position with
three pawn islands for each side.
Play usually continues 1 O ... J.c6
A) 1 1 .0-0 g6= (JJ . . . ild5!? ) ;
B t a) 1 6 . . . sfe8 ! ? 1 7.�f3 �d7
( 1 7. . . 'bc4!?=::; ) 1 8 . .ilf6 ! Be l 19 .Be l �d2
:
20.wfl ! ilf6 2 1 .�f6 1&h2 22 .1*1c6= is
another way that leads
: Blb) 16 . . . �dl 17.Sau
:
(18.ilg5 'bc4 19.ilcl 'Se1
slightly more pleasant for Black.
f5= was completely level in K. k�
Adorjan 2515, Budapest 1978 - 261.
1 8 2 ) 1 6.�d4 ! ? The idea of this m (
I develop the knight t o the better sc
: and subsequently try t o pressurize L
1 on c6. This is how matters could evL
I the sequel 16 . . . ild4 1 7 .'l:ld2 ! '?
I
'
.,
..t
l� � 8 l1
: : �
: B2a) Possible, but less good is 1 7 . . . sfe8 ! ?
1 8 .ila3 ( 18.'Sabl 'bd5 + ) ilg7 1 9 . wfl !
(19.'Sacl ? ! ilh 6) Sed8 20. Se2 'Sd3
(20 . . . Sd2 ? ! 21 .'Sd2 'bc4 22.'Sadl ±; 20 . . .
c5!?) 2 1 .'Sae l h6 ! ? 2 2.Se8 (22.g3! ?±)
'Se8 2 3 . 'Se8 wh7 24. we2 'Sd7 25 .g3 ! (25.
b3 'bd5 26.'be4 f5 2 7. 'bc5 'bc3 28.wf3
'Sd2=::;) 'Sb7 26 .'Se4 ! ±;
B2 b) 1 7 . . . Stb8! 1 8. 'Sab l ( 18.Sacl ilb2
19.Sc6 'bd5 =) 'l:ld5 ! (18 . . . 'ba4? 19.'Se4!
c5? 1 20.ilc5!±) 19.'l:lb3 (19.'bc4 c500;
19.ila3 a51') ilg7 U9 . . . ilb6!?) 20.ild6
sb6 (20 . . . sb5! ? 2 1 .'Secl00)
191
 B2b l ) After 2 1 .�c5 Ba6 22.a3 B lack has
a choice between the "pass" 22 . . . h6 and
the direct 22 . . . tl:if4;
accelerate his development.
[A terrible mistake would be 14 . .<iiJ16') �d4
and White has lost a pawn for nothing. After
1 5 .�f4 �d6 16.tl:ie2 �b4 17 .�c6 bc6 1 8 .a3
�e4 1 9.�g3 �f4 20.tl:if4 'fi.fd8 2 1 .Bac l
'fi.ac8 22.tl:ih5 �g6 2 3 .�h4 e5 24. 'fi.c3 'fi.d4
25.�h3 �d6 26.�f3 tl:id5 27 . 'fi.b3 g6 28 . 'fi.b7
�e6 29.tl:ig3 e4 30.�b3 h5+ I went on to win
in Kazakov 245 7 Kotronias 2610, France
2009; 14.Bd l is committal, as the f-rook is
not surely the one White wants to bring to
d i ; After 14,_,"Efdfil 1 5 . �h6 g6 ! ? (15 . . . il,f8
16.�g5 �e 7 1 7.�h6 il,/8=) 16.'fi.ac l Bac8

B2bll) 22 ... h6 23.�d4 (23.tl:id4? Ba5 24.Becl

sc5 25.sc5 �d4 26.Bc6+) �d4 (23 ...sb8
24.tl:ic5 Ba5 25.�g7 @g7=) 24.tl:id4 c5
25.tl:if3 Bb6 26.tl:ie5 Be8 27.tl:ic4 Be l 28.Be l
Bb3 29.Be2 tl:ib6 30.tl:ib6 ab6 3 1 .@fl b5
32.@e l c4 33.Bc2 @g7 34.a4= will do;
B2b l2) 22 . . . tl:if4 ! ?=;
B2b2) 2 1 .Be2 a5 ! ? (21 ... 'fi.a6 22.a3 'fi.b6
23.'fi.bel ! h5 24.tl:ia5 'fi.b2 25.'fi.b2 �b2
26.tl:ic6 a6=) 22.'fi.be I h6 23 .�c5 'fi.b5
24.�d4 tl:if4 ! (24 . . . a4 25. �g 7 ab3 26.�d4) A) Best is 1 7.�f3 tl:id5 ( 1 7. . .a 6 18.tl:ie4 tl:id4
25 .'fi.e8 'fi.e8 26 . 'fi.e8 @h7 27. �g7 @g7 19.tl:ij6 @h8 20.tl:id7 013 21 .g/3 'fl.cl 22.'fi.cl
, 28.'fi.a8 tl:id3 29.'fi.a5 tl:ib2 30.@fl tl:id l =] tl:id7 23.�d7 'fi.d7 24.'fi.c8 'Sd8 25.'fi.c 7
}l,f8= should lead to a draw too.) 1 8.h3 a6
Now it' s time to return to our main line 1 9 . �fl �f8 20. �gS �e7 2 1 .�h6= with a
10.tl:id7: draw by repetition;

10 ... �d7 1 1 .0-0 e6 12.tl:ic3 � e 7 13.�g4 B) After 1 7 .�g3 ? ! a6 1 8 .�c6 Bc6 1 9.�e5 f6
0-0 20.�e2 @f7 ! 2 1 .h4 tl:id5+ Black had taken
over the initiative and eventually converted
his slight edge to a full point in Kouvatsou
2 1 6 1 - Kotronias 2593, Peristeri 20 10]

b Vjij
ctJ
('
cs b b b
.� bi'. �
14.�c6 ! ? With this capture White relieves
the pressure on the d4 pawn and can now

192
14 ... bc6!= This recapture is safe and
strong, giving Black equal chances. I have
experimented in the past with 14 . . . llj.ljc6? ! but
it is very dangerous and I don 't recommend it.
15. .,th6 .tf6 Now White must decide which
way he is going to defend his d-pawn.
16 . .§.fd l This has been the most common
choice in practice; if the game goes to an
ending it is better for White to have his rooks
on dl and c l .
lI 6. :{_ic4 '! is of course a mistake due to
16 . . . llj.ljd4 and White has no compensation for
his pawn; With I <i.lla d I ! ? White signals his
intention to attack rather than go to an ending;
Black should continue 1 6 . . . @h8 1 7 . GZ:le4 llj.!je7
A) 18 . .tgS makes no sense with this
rook configuration, and after 18 . . . .tgS
19.llj.ljg5 llj.!jg5 20.l{JgS .§.ad8 (Also possible
is 20 . . . @g8=) 2 1 .l{Jf3 f6 22 . .§.c l .§.d6
(intending . . . g5) 23.h4 l{Jd5= Black has an
excellent game;
B) 1 8 . .tf4 .§.fd8
B l ) Equality anses after 1 9 . .teS .t e 5
2 0 . de 5 .§.d5 ! 2 l . f4 GZ:lc4 2 2 . llj.!je2 .§.ad8
I 2 3 . b 3 l{Je3 ! 24 . .§.dS cd5 2 5 . llj.!je 3 de4
' 2 6 . h 3 (26. llj.!je4 llj.!j c 5 2 7. @ h l llj.!jf2 28.llj.!jc4
· llj.!ja2=) g 6 2 7 . .§.c l ( 2 7 . llj.!je4 .§.d2 28.a4
llj.!jc5 29.@h2 @g7oo) llj.lj h 4 2 8 . llj.!ja7 .§.d2
2 9 . llj.!je 3 .§. a2 3 0 . llj.!je4 llj.!jg3 = ;
B 2 ) 1 9 . l{J f6 llj.!j f6 2 0 . .t e S llj.!j g 6 reaches
a position that computers actuall y don ' t
seem t o understand. From a human
perspective it is B lack who is the one
w i th the superior minor piece here, yet
engines evaluate the position as far as
+ 0 . 3 0 i n White ' s favour, which in my
opinion is completely absurd. L et ' s take
a look at some lines : 2 1 .llj.lje2 ( 2 /.11/'J gQ.
hg6+. is c learly good for B lack; J l . !/J0ff3
l{Jd5 22 . .§.cl .§.ac8 2 3 . .§.fel l{J e 7 24 . .§.c4
.§.d7 2 5 . b3 .§.cd8 26.h3 h5 2 7 . .§.a4 @ h 7 !
2 8 . @ h 2 .f6 2 9 . .tf4 GZ:lf5 3 0 . .te3 l{J h 4
1 3 J . llj.!jg3 llj.!jg3 3 2 . @g3 GZ:l/5 00 i s certainly
annoying for White. ) l{Jd5 22 . .§.c 1 GZ:le7
2 3 . .§.c4 .§.d5
B2a) 24 . .§.fc I .§.ad8 2 5 . .§.a4 c 5 ! 2 6 . .§.a7
(26.dc5 ? ? .§.e5! 2 7. llj.!je5 llj.!jc2 - +) l{Jc6
2 7 . .§.c7 l{Jd4 28 . .t d4 c d4 2 9 . llj.!jd2 d3
3 0 . a4 h6+.;
B 2 b ) 24 . .§. e l .§. a d 8 2 5 . f3 h5 2 6 . llj.!je4
@ h 700 In all these variations i t is apparent
that the c omputers c annot evaluate the
merits of the manoeuvre . . . GZ:ld5-e7-f5
which, coupled w ith . . . f6, renders the d4
pawn practically indefensible. I would
even go as far as to say that i t i s B lack
who has the b etter chances but that could
b e an exaggeration too, obj e ctively the
position is probably equal. ]
.i .
.i
/i � iii
4ll i i .·-*- '�
1 6 . .. @ h S T h i s forces matters, b u t a t the
193
same time the king i s far away from the
principal action should an ending now
I £cc5
arise. Nevertheless I consider it the best
course as it does not give White time to
make decisions about h i s a-rook, already
placed on c 1 .
[A more intriguing way is 1 6 . . . gfd8 1 7 . CL:le4
\lj!je7 1 8 .Yac l £ac8 keeping the king on g8
j ust in case White goes for an ending by
exchanging bishops on g5 .
26.£d5 £d5=) CL:lg4 2 5 . .1J, e 7 CL:lh6
26 . .1J, c 5 CL:l f5 27 . £gd3
Cl) 27 . . . e5 28.hg6 hg6 29.b4 £cd8 30 . .1J,a7
. £a8 3 1 . .1J,c5 CL:ld4 32 . .1J,d4 £d4 3 3 . £d4 ed4
34.£d4 (34.Yal £a3 35.�fl �f6) £a2=;
C2) 27 . . . gh5 28 . .1J,a7 £a8 29.£a3 CL:ld6
30 . .1J,b6 £a3 3 1 .ba3 e5 32.�fl CL:ic4
' (32 . . . CL:lb5 33.Ycl ed4 34.£c6 CL:la3=)
33 . .1J,c5=]
We' ll now revert to 1 6 . . . �h8 :

0
( J r1
c\
A) The rook lift 1 9 .£c3 �h8 20.gf] can be
answered by 20 . . . £d4 ! (20 . . . .1J,d4 21 .£d4 @
f5 22 . .1J,g7 \lj!jg7 23.\lj!jg 7 �g7 24.£g3 �j8
25.CL:lc5 �j7 26.£d8 £d8 2 7.£d3 £d5 17.CL:le4 \lj!jd8 ! ?
28.£d5 cd5= was equal in Kosteniuk 25 1 6 [Compared to 1 4 . . . \lj!jc6? ! , from d7 the queen
- Tregubov 2607, Kazan 2005) 2 1 . £d4 .1J,d4 can contribute effectively to the defence of
22.CL:lg5 f6 2 3 . \lj!jd4 gh6 24.£f6 e5 25 .\lj!je4 the kingside.]
hg5 26.\lj!jf5 (a surprising position as White is [More natural appears 1 7 ... \lj!je7, keeping the
a piece down, yet the annoying threat gf7 is rooks connected. But the text move has a very
hard to parry.) �g8 ! ? (26 . . . £d8 2 7.g3 gd7? special idea behind it.]
loses to 28.£e6 + -) 27.\lj!jg5 \lj!jg7 28.\lj!je5
CL:ld7 29.lljlje6 �h8 3 0.£f7 \lj!je5 3 1 .\lj!je5 CL:le5
32.£a7oo with an unclear ending that should
probably be drawn;

B) 1 9.£d3 ! is the reason I don' t l ike 16 . . . £fd8

so much for B lack. After 1 9 . . . �h8 20 . .1J,e3±
White' s plus has somehow stabilized, as he
controls c5 with his knight and has clear
targets on the queenside. As for Black, he
seems to have no clear plan;

C) A fter 1 9 . h4 ! ? White does get some

attack, but things are not clear. The line
j ust referred to seems to make further
analysis of 1 9 . h4 ! ? irrelevant, but I will go
on for the sake of completeness: 19 . . . £d5
2 0 . £c3 CL:ld7 2 l . £g3 g6 22 . .1J,g5 �g7
2 3 . CL:l f6 CL:lf6 24.h5 (24. llJIJ./3 c5 25.dc5
18 . .iJ,gS The standard choice in such positions.
[ 18.l�Jf<:i \lj!jf6 1 9 . .1J,f4 ( 1 9. .1J,g5 \lj!jg6=) CL:ld5
20 . .1J,e5 \lj!jg6 does not offer White much
either:

194
 After 2 1 . \Jj/jh5 CiJf4 22.\Jj!jg5 CiJg6 23 . .§'.d2 h6
24.\Jj!jg3 \Jj!je5 25 .\Jj!je5 CiJe5+ it is questionable
whether White has enough compensation;
18 .�e3 doesn' t quite work with the rook still
on al due to 18 . . . CiJd5 19 . .§'.ac l ( 19.vcJc5 .§'.c8
20 . .§'.acl e5 2 1 . CiJd7 {jj e 3 22fe3 ed4 23.�(6
\Jj!jf6 24.\Jj!jd4 \Jj!jg6 25 . .§'.c3 h 6=; 12..JbfQ. \Jj!jf6
20 . .§'.acl .§'.jb8 21 .\Jj!je2 .§'.b6 22.b3 h 6 23 . .§'.c5
a5 24.\Jj!jc2 a4 25.ba4 {iJb4 26.\Jj!jb3 {iJd5=)
\Jj/ja5 ! 20.a3 \Jj/jb5 2 1 ..§'.d2 �e7=]

18 �gS 1 9 CiJgS
... .

A) 2 1 .\Jj/jg6 hg6 22 . .8.ac l .8.ac8 23 .�d6! (23. It seems that with the queen on d8 this is the
a3 'fJ,fd8 24.b4 j6 25.�g3 tJJg8= was fine only move to have any meaning.
for Black in Cornejo 2383 - L. Coelho 2389, [ 1 9.\Jj/jg5 was played by Eva Moser against
Asuncion 2009) .§'.fd8 24.�a3 g5 ! is a typical me . . . (Eva Moser 2 3 8 3 - Kotronias 2574,
ending where the d5 knight is not inferior to Liverpool 2008)
the white bishop. After 25 . .§'.c5 f6 26 . .§'.e l (2JL
gJ_ {iJb6 27 . .§'.el .§'.d4 28. .§'.e6 CiJc4 29. .§'.ec6
.§'.c6 30. .§'.c6 CiJa3 31 .ba3 .§'.a4=; 26. .§'.a5 CiJc7!
27. .§'.cl {iJb5 28.�c5 CiJd4 29.tJJJJ tJJh 7 30 . .§'.a 7
e5 31 .�b6 .§'.d5 32.a4 {iJb3:::::.) CiJb6 (26. . . ti'if4!?
27. .§'.c4 e5 28.g3 0g6 29.�c5 .§'.d7 30. .§'.a4
.§'.cd800) 27 . .§'.e6 .§'.d4 28.h3 CiJc4 29 . .§'.cc6 .§'.c6
30 . .§'.c6 CiJa3 3 1 .ba3 .§'.a4 32 . .§'.c3 g4= in spite
of White's best efforts the result is a draw;
/\ /\
B) A sample line illustrating Black 's potential
with queens on the board is 2 1 .\Jj/je2 .§'.ad8 �
22.\Jj!jc4 (22 . .§'.acl CiJe 700) CiJe7 23 .\Jj!jc5 .§'.fe8
24.\Jj/ja7 f6 25.�g3 {jj f5 26 . .§'.ac l h5oo and . . .and now instead of taking on g5 I had two
suddenly the over-optimistic engines say it' s other good moves :
equal, which i s good news for us.
A) 19 . . . \Jj/jd5 ! ? 20.\Jj/jd5 (J0.\Jj!jf4 a500; 20.VJ!ih4
h6 21.b3 .§'.ad800) cd5 2 1 .{iJc5 CiJc4 22.b3 {iJd6
23.g4 ! ? with an unclear ending;

B) 19 . . . CiJc4 ! may well be the best. If Black

manages to trade the knights then he has no
problems at all.

18 . . . CiJd5 19.�e5 allows Black to illustrate

a very fine point of having the queen on
d8: 19 . . . �e5 20.de5 \Jj/jb8 ! and suddenly
White is under a double attack on b2 and e5 .

1 95
 B l ) 20.V/!Jc l V/!Jd5 2 1 .l2:Jc3 (21 .tZ'lc5 lZ'ld6�) [22.£d3 cd4 2 3.V/!Jf4 lZ'ld7 24.l2:Jd7 V/!Jd7]
V/!Ja5 22.b3 lZ'ld6 23.tZ'la4 Bac8 (23 . . . V/!Jd5!?)
24.tZ'lc5 (24.V/!Jc5 V/!Jc7! 25.Bacl Bfd8 26.d5 22 ... £ad8 23.Bd3 ! ?
lZJe4 2 7.V/!Jc6 V/!Jb8 28.V/!Ja6 Bel 2 9. Bcl V/!Jf4 [23 .Bac l @g8 24.h3 c4oo L . . . f6]
30. £c2 h 6� is not worse for Black.) gfd8
25.V/!Jf4 @g8= is a finely balanced position; 23 ... cd4
B2) 20.b3 lZ'ld6 2 1 .V/!Jf4 (21 . V/!Jd8 £fd8

.i •
22.tZ'ld6 £d6 23.Bacl £ad8=) tZ'le4
22.V/!Je4 V/!Jd5 (22 . . . V/!Jd6 23.Bacl) 2 3 . V/!Jd5 .i
cd5 24.Bac l (24.Bdcl g5 25.Bc 7 a5
26. Bacl @g7 27. Blc6 @g6) a5 2 5 . Bc7
i ii
I
g5= with a balanced ending. ] '.&\ i i
19 ... h6 20.tZ'lf3 A t this point, a draw was �
agreed in Maksimenko 2505 - Kotronias i �
2614, Germany 2007.

.i .�. .i. •
·� i ···a;
·
1.1·· i i; i 24.Badl
[24.l2:Jf7 @g8 2 5 . tZ'lh6 @h7

A) 26.V/!Jh4 gh6 27.V/!Je7 @h8 28.Bh3 V/!Jf5

29 . £h6 (29.£f3 lZJd5!) @gs 30.V/!Jh4 @g7
3 l .£h5 V/!Jf6D+;

B) 26.l2:Jf7 @g8 27 . l2:Jh6=]

24 ... @h7 25.h4

Correct is now: [25 .ild4 V/!Ja2 ! ; 2 5 .L".ig3 tZ'lc4 ! ]

20 ... V/!JdS! 2 1 .tZ'leS 2 5... V/!Jb7 26.ild4

[2 1 .b3 l2:Jd7 22.Bac l a5 ! 2 3 .V/!Jf4 a4 24.l2:Je5 [26.ilg3 lZ'ld5 27. V/!Jg4 f5 28. V/!Jg6 @h8oo]
ab3 25.tZ'ld7 V/!Jd7 26.ab3 £a5+]
26 ... ildS=
2 1 . .. cS= 22.V/!Jf4 Kotronias

END OF PART VI

196