EVERYMAN CHESS

featuring the Richter-Rauzer and Sozin Attacks

First published in 2000 by Everyman Publishers pic, formerly Cadogan Books
pic, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD, in
association with Gambit Publications Ltd, 69 Masbro Road, London W 14 OLS.

Copyright © 2000 Jouni Yrjola

The right of Jouni Yrjola to be identified as the author of this work has been as­
serted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a re­
trieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electro­
static, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 85744 524 4

Distributed in North America by Globe Pequot, 246 Goose Lane, P.O. Box 480,
Guilford, CT 06437-0480
Telephone 1-800 243 0495 (toll free)

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester

Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD.
tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060

E v e r y m a n C h e s s S e r ie s (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparov
Series Editor: Murray Chandler

Edited by Graham Burgess and typeset by John Nunn for Gambit Publications
Ltd.

Printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts.

Contents

Symbols 4
Foreword 5

1 Introduction 6
2 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 10
3 The Dragon Position-Type 32
4 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 42
5 The Rauzer with 8...h6 79
6 The Rauzer with 8...Ad7 96
7 The Richter-Rauzer: Others 119
8 Other Variations 123

Index of Variations 127

Symbols

+ check
++ double check
# checkmate
;j brilliant move
1 good move
!? interesting move
?! dubious move
? bad move
?? blunder
+- White is winning
± White is much better
± White is slightly better
= equal position
¥ Black is slightly better
T Black is much better
—i- Black is winning
Ch championship
Chi team championship
Wch world championship
Ct candidates event
IZ interzonal event
Z zonal event
OL olympiad
Ech European championship
ECC European Clubs Cup
qual qualifying event
tt team tournament
jr junior event
worn women’s event
mem memorial event
rpd rapidplay game
corr. correspondence game
1-0 the game ends in a win for White
V2 -V2 the game ends in a draw
0-1 the game ends in a win for Black
(«) nth match game
w see next diagram
Foreword

The Classical is one of the most interesting, traditional and reliable of Open Si­
cilians. I have aimed in this book to give the black-player a solid grounding in the
theory and ideas behind the Classical. In these pages you will also find some
valuable ideas for the white side, since the suggestions for Black are mostly the
hardest nuts to beat.
I have sought to provide at least one sound and interesting line for Black
against each of White’s responses to the Classical Sicilian. The basic aim of this
book is to cover the Classical Sicilian from Black’s point of view, giving him a
complete repertoire. In the most important lines, such as the Rauzer and the
Velimirovic Attack, I have offered a wider choice of systems for Black. However,
I have not covered every important option for Black - in any case it would not be
possible to cover the whole of such a large subject in only 128 pages.
This is my first book, and as a true Classical Sicilian adherent it has been a
most pleasant task, even though it was unbelievably laborious. I shudder to think
how difficult it must have been to write an opening theory book before the time
of computer programs. Their assistance with checking the lines, finding sources
and storing analysis seem irreplaceable. The Classical Sicilian is an especially
pleasant and instructive subject because of the rich set of different position-types
to be discussed. Many of the typical Sicilian position-types are covered: Bole-
slavsky, Dragon, Sozin/Velimirovic and the Rauzer.
Most chapters begin with a long introductory section in which the main ideas
for both sides are discussed, using schematic diagrams with arrows and high­
lighted squares, etc. I like this kind of format for modern opening theory books,
as these features make the book more readable and more interesting. I feel that
without innovations of this kind, the popularity of opening theory books might
have suffered in favour of studying from databases.
I received valuable help in my work from several people. I would like to thank
Jussi Telia, Veijo Maki and Ville Lehto for invaluable help with analysing and
checking ideas. Without my employer’s flexibility, it might have been impossi­
ble to keep to the tight schedule. I would also like to thank the Gambit editorial
team for the painstaking job of hunting down mistakes and improving what
might otherwise have been clumsy sentences.

Jouni Yrjola
Helsinki, Finland
May 2000
1 Introduction

The Classical Sicilian starts with the start of the 1930s by Sozin. The most
moves 1 e4 c5 2 £sf3 d6 (or 2...£ic6 3 popular move 6 Jig5 started to attract
d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4 £if6 5 £>c3 d6) 3 d4 top players like Alekhine and Keres
cxd4 4 £)xd4 £)f6 5 ®c3 £lc6 (D). later in the 1930s but the line was
named the Richter-Rauzer Attack (gen­
erally abbreviated to Rauzer in this
book). The line was developed by these
two gentlemen themselves. However,
on my database there are few games
involving either of these players. Nev­
ertheless, it was Rauzer (in his analy­
sis and writings) who proposed the
white set-up that has been the founda­
tion of the line’s enduring popularity.
The Classical was the height of
fashion in the 1950s and the 1960s. At
that time, many o f the world’s top
The reason for the name is the fact players at least occasionally employed
that Black develops his knights in clas­ the system; one may mention Taima-
sical fashion, distinguishing it from nov, Geller, Tal, Euwe, Botvinnik,
5...a6 (Najdorf), 5...g6 (Dragon) and Smyslov, Stein, Bronstein, Petrosian
5...e6 (Scheveningen). and Spassky. Its popularity has re­
mained steady since then, although it
A Little H istory seems that Kasparov’s favourite, the
The line was already known at the end Najdorf Variation, has replaced the
of 19th century, with the leading Amer­ Classical as the ‘normal’ Sicilian.
ican masters Paulsen and Pillsbury of­ The games of the modern players
ten employing ...£>c6. However, the are the most interesting from the theo­
play was very monotonous until the retical point of view, because they
1930s since the only reply taken seri­ know largest amount of theory and
ously was 6 $Le2. Even that usually plans. Among the super-grandmasters
transposed to the Dragon or Scheven­ of today, the greatest adherents are
ingen as Paulsen was the only one who Kramnik, Anand, Khalifman, Svidler
liked the formation with 6...e5, later to and Ivanchuk. There are also many
be named after Boleslavsky. The move specialists at lower levels from which
6 iLc4 was seriously investigated at the we can learn a great deal; in particular,
 Introduction 7

Tukmakov, Lerner, Aseev, Csom, What can we conclude from this ta­
Groszpeter, Yermolinsky, Van der ble? We should note that among the
Wiel and many GMs from the former less common lines, the move 6 f3
Yugoslav area like Kozul, Damljano- should be taken seriously; moreover, it
vid and Popovid. In addition, you will is getting more and more popular. The
see many examples in this book of line 6 $Le2 is far more venomous than
players even at lower levels with great it looks: the rather innocuous sub-
understanding of the Classical. variation 6...e5 7 £ib3 is the reason for
the bad statistics. With the line 7 £>f3.
The Variations White scores positively.
The Rauzer is by far the most impor­ If we take statistics only from the
tant. You can expect to meet that in last few years, things change a little
40-50 percent of your games. It has a bit. The move 6 .&c4 is scoring ex­
reputation as a sound line by which tremely poorly. Maybe the Velimiro-
White can play for a win. The Sozin is vid Attack is not perfectly sound and
also quite popular (about 25% of Black is learning how to meet it. The
games), especially in the hands of at­ moves 6 f3 and 6 f4 are scoring even
tacking players, who usually aim for better but, fortunately, they are still
the hyper-aggressive line known as rare.
the Velimirovic Attack. The common
choice of a cautious player is 6 $Le2, T ra nsp ositio ns
where a classical Classical player Transpositions from one line to an­
chooses the Boleslavsky. The impor­ other are very common between Sicil­
tance of the other lines is rather mar­ ian lines, and are an important part of
ginal though, like in Najdorf, there is a the arsenal of many Sicilian players.
growing tendency from White to strive This is especially true with the Classi­
for positions akin to the English At­ cal. You can often move into another
tack with 6 f3 or 6 A e3. The same at­ line, if the independent Classical line
tacking plan of f3, g4, h4 and g5 is also doesn’t inspire you. Especially at
getting more popular in the Rauzer. higher levels, it is a good policy to be
Below is a table of variations, unpredictable. The closest cousin is
where the numbers are from a data­ the Dragon and often the Scheven-
base with 20,794 games from the posi­ ingen is at Black’s disposal, too. For
tion on the previous page. example, after 6 J&e2,6 f4, 6 $Le3 and

Variation Games W’s score (%) W ’s ratine Performance

6 &g5 8444 53 2411 2439
6 J£.c4 5437 50 2361 2388
6 i.e 2 3898 47 2340 2350
6 i.e 3 1104 48 2338 2345
6g3 693 51 2378 2413
6f4 434 52 2379 2403
6f3 349 59 2376 2453
8 E asy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

6 D, Black can play 6...g6, and even the golden middle course. You can
after 6 ^.c4 the idea 6...JLd7, with more often play with general princi­
7...g6 to follow, is not unplayable. Af­ ples and plans in mind without being
ter 6 f3 or 6 $Le2 Black can even play afraid of losing in one move. Besides,
6...£lxd4 7 Wxd4 g6 to avoid the theo­ in many games I could still transpose
retical Dragon lines. Only the Rauzer to those Dragon lines I liked.
stops such transpositions. As you will see from many exam­
In some cases, you can also trans­ ples in this book, counterplay in the
pose to the Classical from other varia­ centre with the move ...d5 is a regular
tions. In particular, the Sozin lines weapon in most lines to free Black’s
discussed in this book are available af­ game. Also, many times when White
ter 5...a6 6 Ac4 or 5...e6 6 &.c4. Also, castles queenside, as in the Rauzer or
one can also try to transpose from the in the Velimirovi6 Attack, there are
6 J«Lg5 Najdorf to the Rauzer. good chances to develop counterplay
against the white king by advancing
W h y Play the C lassical Sicilian ? the a- and b-pawns or via the semi­
First you have to ask yourself why one open c-file. In those lines, you also
should play the Sicilian. The Sicilian have to decide carefully what to do
is a good opening for everyone who with your own king. The timing of
wants to play for a win with Black. castling is very important; in particular,
You should not be afraid of your king before castling kingside, one should
coming under attack and you should have secured enough counterplay on
love the word counterplay. If you meet the queenside or in the centre.
this description, then the Classical is
suitable for you. It is the soundest of The Specialists
all the Sicilian lines - look up in your I believe in specialists. It is a very
database the position before the move good idea to start learning a new open­
5...£k:6. This is the move with the best ing or variation by getting acquainted
score. with the ideas of a specialist of the
About 15 years ago I played three line. They are usually devoted to their
Sicilian lines: the Najdorf, Classical favourite lines and put a lot of effort
and Dragon. I found that was too into keeping them alive. Good exam­
much - there was too much theory to ples of specialists are Polugaevsky or
study. Later I employed the others Kveinys in their respected Sicilian
only occasionally when I had a partic­ variations, or Malaniuk in the Lenin­
ular target in mind, and the Classical grad Dutch. In the Classical, we have a
became my main weapon. I found number of them, the greatest example
many Najdorf variations too obscure being Koiul in the Rauzer line
in nature, and the risk to the black king 8....&d7,9...b5. Also, Aseev is doing a
is even greater. On the other hand, the good job in the Boleslavsky, Dam-
Dragon is very concrete. Sometimes ljanovid in the 6...'S,b6 Sozin and
you have to study 25-move-long varia­ Rauzers with doubled f-pawns, Maki
tions move by move. The Classical is in the 8...£d7, 9....&e7 Rauzer and
 Introduction 9

Lemer in the 8...h6 Rauzer. Personally, section, there is a strategic introduc­

I have learned a lot from the games of tion to that position-type before the
those players. theoretical lines are discussed in de­
tail. The lines are organized around
H o w th is book has been base games, which usually represent a
organized main line in this book. The main lines
The lines have been arranged accord­ do not always coincide with those ac­
ing to position-types. In the Classical, cepted by theory as the principal vari­
we encounter the following basic po- ation, but are those that I regard as
sition-types: Boleslavsky, Dragon, Vel- important and playable. For example,
imirovid, Sozin, Rauzer without dou­ the main line I have selected against
bled f-pawns and Rauzer with doubled the Velimirovic is the one that is doing
f-pawns. This is also the order they are best in practice, but is not the most
introduced in this book. In every popular by any means.
2 The Boleslavsky
Position-Type

Strategic Introduction to other hand. Black has a potentially

the Boleslavsky Position- weak pawn on d6 and more impor­
tantly, the weak d5-square is at White’s
Type disposal. Sometimes White can also
make use of the f5-square. The biggest
From the Classical, the Boleslavsky potential nightmare for Black is that
position-type can arise after the moves White will get an eternal, dominating
6 £.e2, 6 £ .e3 ,6 f3 and 6 f4 following piece on d5, especially a knight. For­
the characteristic reply 6...e5. tunately for Black, that nightmare
rarely comes true, but here is a posi­
Type-1 paw n-form ation tion-type with a strong knight against
Here is a typical Boleslavsky position a bad bishop to avoid:
with the most characteristic pawn-
structure.

Valenta - M e issn e r
Black has good piece development. Passan 1995
He can freely develop his light-squared
bishop, which is often a problem in The need to keep a close guard on
various Sicilian lines. The pawn on e5 the d5-square always exists. Even if the
controls the squares d4 and f4, which white piece on d5 can be exchanged,
restrains White from activity in the some other deficiencies might follow,
centre and on the kingside. On the as in the following diagram:
 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 11

C . Bauer - Degraeve Lastin - Zontakh

French Ch (Auxerre) 1996 Yugoslav Cht 1999

In this position things have gone b6-square. If the pawn were on a7.
terribly wrong for Black because the Black would be fine.
d5-knight is just too dominant, and ex­
changing it off would allow White to Type-2 paw n-form ation
activate his rooks with a subsequent f4 Quite often, if White plays £\d5 to
advance. stop ...d5, Black will exchange on d5.
If White has to take with the e-pawn,
On the other hand, if Black man­ the pawn-formation and nature of play
ages to play the freeing move ...d5 will change. The diagram below fea­
himself, he has got rid of his main tures a typical position, though in this
problem and the central pawn on e5 case Black has exchanged his light-
might support Black’s activity. In squared bishop. The result is that the
Game 2, you will see an excellent ex­ light squares in Black’s camp are
ample, though things were not so clear weak. It follows that it is generally
in that case. Still, there are cases preferable to use a knight to make the
where the freeing move should be exchange on d5.
considered carefully. If White is better
developed, the opening of the position
might be to his advantage. In addition,
the move ...d5 weakens the e-pawn
and the square c5. If ...d5 would land
Black in trouble due to these weak­
nesses, he should wait for a better op­
portunity. There might also be some
other weaknesses.
In the following diagram. Black has
just played ...d5, but he still has prob­
lems with the weak a4-pawn and the
12 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

White has majority of pawns on the d5-square: $Lg5, .fi.xf6 and £kl5. This
queenside and will naturally try to is not fatal as Black can still exchange
push them. Black should make White’s the knight with ...Jie6 and ...Axd5,
plan more difficult with moves like but this brings the white queen or
...a5 and ...b6. He should also prepare bishop to the outpost.
counterplay on the other wing with
...£tti7 and In Game 1, we will 2. Attack on the queenside with the
see a position where activation of the pawns
knight with ...e4 and ...<£te5 is a stron­ See the above type-2 pawn-formation
ger plan: and position 8 of Black’s methods.

3. Play on the light squares

See Barua-Khalifman (Game 1), where
White forced light-square weaknesses
in the black camp to crawl into.

Typical M e th o d s for W hite

1. Occupy the d5-square (sometimes

f5)
G e lle r - A m . R odriguez
Amsterdam 1987

Here, the light squares in the black

position look terribly weak. White
benefited from this by 21 fxe5! $Lxe5
(21...dxe5 22 c5) 22 £>d4 # f 6 23 £>e6
±.

4. Manoeuvre the knight from f3 to

e3
The aim is to control the squares d5
and f5 to stop Black’s counterplay. See
Here White can get some advantage Game 2, where this was White’s basic
by eliminating one defender of the aim.
 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 13

5. Advance the f-pawn

This might be combined with the ad­
vance of the g-pawn, though in many
cases Black’s central counter ...d5 is
even stronger than usual.

Typical M e th o d s for Black

1. Advance the d-pawn if an oppor­

tunity presents itself

Szn a p ik - Hort
Lucerne OL 1982

White would be fine if he had time

for the moves h3 and g4, but Black
struck immediately by 14...d5! 15 sL)g5
(15 exd5 e4!) 15...SM4 16 h3 3Lc5\,
with a strong attack. In this type of po­
sition Black might also get into trou­
ble if White had time for ^.g5, Ji.xf6
and £>d5.

6. Keep the pawn-formation solid M o lv ig - T horsteins

and watertight Copenhagen 1989
White will try to benefit from Black’s
weaknesses (d5, d6, f5 and sometimes Here, the well-prepared 14...d5 came
b5) and to prevent all counterplay. with great effect. Black is well devel­
This is in fact the biggest danger for oped and the white queen is on the
Black in Boleslavsky. There is some same file as the black rook.
danger of drifting into a lifeless posi­
tion with some fatally weak squares. 2. Fight against the white outpost d5
In the following diagram, White In the diagram overleaf, after 13...'5ib4!
avoids weakening his pawn-formation (13...£>e7 14 Wd3) 14 ®e2 £)xd5
with a2-a4 and stops the a-pawn with White will, either here or next move,
10 .&b5 instead. have to recapture with the pawn on d5.
 14 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

with the manoeuvre ...h6, ...£>h7 and

-JLg5.

4. Advance the a-pawn if a white

piece is on b3

Lengyel - Feher
Budapest 1995

3. Exchange of the dark-squared

bishop
This is often logical in the position-
type after exchanges on d5 since the This is a strong plan if White has
e7-bishop is passive and the d6-pawn played the knight to b3. If White re­
is not so weak any more. The plan is plies a4, the black knight can sit se­
even more tempting if White has the curely on b4 to support the move ...d5
bishop-pair but he has weakened the and to bind White to protecting the
dark squares in his camp. c2-pawn. If White allows ...a4-a3, his
queenside pawn-structure breaks into
pieces. Sometimes White plays a3.
Then Black can gain space with ...a4,
but he should watch out that the pawn
doesn’t become weak.

5. Play on the c-file

M alinin - G olovin
Voronezh 1991

Here the plan 18.. JLd8 19 a3 .&b6

was strong. The most typical way to try
for exchanges is via g5, for example
 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 15

In this position, the pressure against

c2 is the main motif to hamper White’s
play. If White plays the awkward move
S c l, he must take into consideration
the exchange sacrifice on c3, as there
is a nice hook on a2.

6. Take space on the queenside with

...b5
This is not as common in the Boleslav­
sky as in many other Classical lines,
because White often is quicker with
a2-a4. However, it is sometimes the ...Wh4+, White can only concentrate
only way to get counterchances. on developing pieces. After 9 &.e2
£sxe5, Black has a dominant piece on
e5. If White exchanged his dark-
squared bishop for this knight, he
would be left with terribly weak dark
squares.

8. Play on the kingside with ...f5

This is quite a typical counterplay idea
in the above type-2 formation or in a
Pelikan position-type.

Rantanen - M ak i
Helsinki 1990

Here ...d5 has been firmly prevented

and White is about to tighten the grip
with £)e3. Black gained counterplay
by 15...Wd7 16 <S?h2 b5! 17 a3 a5.

7. Occupy the e5-square with the

knight
This is effective if White has no f- In this position, ...f5-f4 is a natural
pawn left. plan, though Black must take into ac­
In the theoretical position in the fol­ count White’s counterplay with c5.
lowing diagram, Black should play After 16...f5!? 17 c5 f4! 18 cxd6
8...£lg4!. Because 9 exd6 .&xd6 is too JLf6!? the position is unclear accord­
dangerous in view of the threatened ing to Lagunov.
16 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

9. If White plays .&c4, Black can

usually reply with ...jie6
Normally there is no need to fear the
doubled e-pawns that result if White
exchanges on e6.

In this case, when the knight is on

f3, Black gets a somewhat cramped
position if he allows &.g5, iLxf6 and
<&d5. After 7...£e7 8 £ g 5 0-0 9 0-0
l e 6 10 £ x f6 &xf6 11 £>d5 White is
slightly better, due to the d5 outpost.
The black pawns control the central Examples:
squares and Black can make use of the a) H...i.xd5 12'B'xd5lfb6 13Wb3
f-file. The exchange ,&xe6 is justified «xb3 14 axb3 £ld4 15 £>xd4 exd4 16
only if White can immediately benefit .&c4 ± Galkin-Vydeslaver, Groningen
from the weaknesses. open 1997.
b) 11...2c8 12 c3 £ g 5 13 £>xg5
# x g 5 14 Wd3 £ie7?? 15 Wg3 1-0
Boleslavsky 6 iLe2 e5 7 King-Frias, London WFW 1990.
W hite plays £>d5 c) 1l...^.g5!? (maybe Black’s best
is to play like in the Sveshnikov Varia­
Game 1 tion) 12 Wd3 Ah6 13 fifdl Sc8 14 c3
Barua - Khalifm an f5 15 £ld2 &e7 16 £>xe7+ Wxe7 17
Las Vegas FIDE KO 1999 exf5 &xf5 18 £te4 W fl 19 Af3 Scd8
20 Kd5 ± Seret-Gulko, Cannes 1987.
1 e4 c5 2 £*f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4 d) U ...Q d4 12 £>xf6+ tfxf6 13
£sf6 5 £ic3 5 k 6 6 $Le2 e5 £)xd4 exd4 14 f4 Sac8 15 b3 = Illes-
Instead of this move, the Boleslav­ cas-Zaltsman, New York Open 1987.
sky Variation, Black can choose a 8 0-0 &e7 9H;el
Dragon (6...g6) or a Scheveningen This move became popular in the
(6...e6). Also, the new idea 6...£ixd4 7 1980s and increased the popularity of
Wxd4 g6 is an interesting way to turn 7 £)f3 compared to 7 ^ b 3 . The older
the game into an untheoretical type of move 9 b3, these days a favourite of
Dragon. See Chapter 3 for details. Vasily Emelin, often leads to the main
7 ®tf3 (D) line, but White has some ways to try to
7...h6 avoid this. In particular, he can try to
 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 17

do without the h3 move. 9...0-0 10 £lg4 (22 Sd 1!? would have made the
&b2 a6 (or 10..± c 6 11 2 e l 2c8 12 freeing move more difficult) 22...d5 23
£ f l £ g 4 !?) 11 a4 ile 6 12 2 e l 2c8 exd5 «fxdS 24 Wxd5 2xd5 = G.Kuz-
13 .fi.fl (13 h3 £>b8 14 J t f l leads to min-Kosten, Bratislava ECC 1997.
the main line) 13...#d7!? (the idea is Allowing the nasty pin after 10 jLf 1
to activate the bishop with ....&d8-a5) fi.g4 gives Black more chances than
14 ^ d 2 £>a5! 15 £scbl &d8 16 £la3 the main line, since the compromising
.£Lb6 17 h3 <£}c6 18 £lac4 Ji.c5 and move g4 is more or less obligatory: 11
Black was fine in Drozdov-Sakaev, h3 £.h5 12 g4 (12 i.e 2 £ g 6 13 Ac4
Kazan 1995. 2c8 is good for Black) 12...iLg6. White
9...0-0 (D) has now tried:
a) 13 £)h4!? £ x e4 (13...£>h7 14
£sf5 Axf5 15 exf5 £ g5 16 £ e 3 Ji.xe3
17 2xe3 Sc8 18 Ag2 t ) 14 £>xe4
£\xe4 15 <SM"5 with some positional
compensation for the pawn.
b) 13£c4?!£ia5 14Ab3£>xb3 15
axb3 a6 and White’s light squares are
weak, Holzl-Lobron, Graz Z 1993.
c) 1 3 £ g 2 2c8 14a3£>a5 15SM2
a6 16 £ \fl £\ c4 and Black is active,
Vazquez-Aguilar, Santiago Z 1989
10...±e6 11 £ .fl £)b8 (D)
This prophylactic move is Black’s
10 h3 most popular way to play for a win.
Black would be happy after 10 ii.c4 Black is prepared to take with the
,&e6 if White didn’t have the move ex­ knight after White plays £}d5, which
perimented with mostly by G.Kuzmin: is a strong answer to natural moves
11 £)d5!. For example, 1l...Sc8 12 c3 like 11...2c8 or 1l...a6.
£&5 13 £*xf6+ £lxf6 14 ,&d5 and now: The following is a nice example of
a) 14...1ic7 15 b3!? Wxc3 16 £ a 3 the dangers for Black arising from the
£)c6 17 Ji.xe6 fxe6 18 W \d6 2fe8 19 queenside pawns and weakness of the
Wd7?! (19 S acI) l9..W d5 20 £ b 2 light squares: ll...Ec8?! 12<SM5!^.xd5
Wb6 and Black’s active piece-play 13 exd5 £>b8 14 c4 £)bd7 15 £ e 3 b6
more than compensates for the dou­ 16 b4 £>h7 17 2 c 1 £»g5 18 £>d2! f5 19
bled pawns, Yakovich-Khasin, Kursk f4 4&f7 20 £\f3 A f6 21 fxe5 £ x e5
1987. (21...dxe5 22 c5) 22 &d4 Wf6 23 £>e6
b) 14...£}c4 (fighting against the ± Geller-Am.Rodriguez, Amsterdam
d5 outpost) 15 h3 Wc7 16 £ih2 ^.xd5 1987.
17 # x d 5 Efd8 (threatening to push The other popular line is 1l...Wa5
the d-pawn after ...ftb6) 18 ® dl b5 19 12.&d2(12£>b5!? intends a bind with
^ f 3 -fi.g5! (getting rid of the bad c4: 12...a6 13£>xd6*c5 (13.,.2fd8?
bishop) 20 fi.xg5 hxg5 21 2e2 Wd7 22 14 £)xb7 2 x d l 15 <£ixa5 2 x el 16
18 E asy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

£lxc6 + -} 14 £)f5 {14 &xb7? Wb4) a) 12 £kl5 seems to be too straight­

14...1xf5 15 &e3! WbA 16 exf5 forward. Practice favours Black, who
Wxb2 17 S b l Wxa2 18 2xb7 with an continues ]2...£ixd5 (12...JLxd5 13
unclear position that might slightly fa­ exd5 £ibd7 14 c4 weakens the light
vour White, Xie Jun-Chiburdanidze, squares and gives away the bishop-
KuaJa Lumpur 1994) 12...#d8. Now: pair too easily, though Black has a log­
a) 13 £ c l Wa5 is a draw offer ical plan: 14...a5 15 .&e3 <£ih7) 13
which doesn’t guarantee the draw, be­ exd5 JiLf5 14 c4 £kl7 and now:
cause White still has the option of 14 al) 15 b4 would be answered by
£ib5, as in the Xie Jun game above. 15.. .a5.
b) Another way for White to play a2) 15a3£ f6 (1 5 ...a5 ) 1 6 £ e 3 a 6
foraw inis 1 3 ^ a4 d 5 (13...£lh7 14c4 17 b4 e4! 18 £id4 £ g 6 19 Wb3 S c 8
{the bind again} 14...£}g5 15 £fc3 20 Eacl <ae5! 21 c5 £)d3 22 &xd3
£>xf3+ 16 Wxf3 Ag5 17 S adi ±, exd3 23 &f3 (23 c6? £ x d 4 ) 23...He8
which is another game Barua-Khalif- 24 5id2 ^.g5!, Illescas-Yudasin, Gro­
man. Las Vegas FIDE KO 1999) 14 ningen PCA qual 1993, is a beautiful
exd5 and now: example of Black’s general plan in ac­
b l) 14...#xd5 15c4W d7 1 6 £ e 3 tion.
(16 jk.c3 causes more trouble for Black) a3) 15 JLc3 &.g6 (in this case ...f5-
16...e4 17 £id2 <£ie5 with counterplay f4 looks like a more promising plan, as
was a suggestion of Psakhis. in the main line; also, White must take
b2) 14...£>xd5 15 £\xe5 £*xe5 16 into account the move JLhS - a good
Sxe5 i.f 6 17 ZLel Sc8 18 B el and idea might be first to prevent White’s
Black’s compensation was not con­ queenside counterplay: 15...a5!? 16
vincing in Psakhis-Greenfeld, Israeli b3 &g6 17 a3 f5 18 b4 Af6 19 <&h2 f4
Ch 1996. 20 -&d2 e4 with serious counterplay,
Lopez-Garcia Ilundain, Leon 1998)
16 b4 a5 (16...f5!? 17 c5 f4! 18 cxd6
m mm Af6!? 19 A c l Wb6 20 &b2 Wxd6
W k m . m m was given by Lagunov as an unclear
m xm possibility) 17 a3 f5 18 S c l axb4 19
axb4 Af6 20 c5 f4 21 £ d 2 e4 22 £ih2
^.h4, as in Mencinger-Koiul, Ptuj
1989, where Black had played 15...&.W1
instead of the more logical 15...JLg6.
The position is complicated, but I like
Black. In fact Black won easily after
8 23 c6? &xf2+!.
b) 12 J&.e3?! is a natural develop­
12 a4 ing move but still rather pointless, be­
This is today the main line, but cause e4 is protected only by the
there are also many other possibilities knight and thus White doesn’t have
for White: the £ld5 option for a while. 12...a6 13
 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 19

a4 £>bd7 14 g3 2c8 15 £ld2?! (15 16...£ic6 17 £>d3 A xb2 18 <&xb2 2fd8

£ g 2 # a 5 16 Wd2 &h7 17 <&h4 Wb4 19 Wcl £}f4 Black's compensation is
18 S eb l £)b6 is more unclear but still not quite convincing, Eismont-Aseev,
good for Black, Garcia Gomez-Zar- Russian Chi 1995. In spite of his pas­
nicki, Linares open 1995) 15...d5! 16 sive pieces. White’s solid pawn-
exd5 £>xd5 17 £lxd5 Jixd5 18 &b3 formation makes attacking difficult.
£tf6 19 a5 ^ d 7 20 £ b 6 «T5 and The other possibility is 16...Ed8 17 c4
Black won quickly with active piece- (17 .&d3 £ k 6 18 £lc4 £}cb4!? is un­
play in Rhodin-Vai'sser, Bern 1992. clear, but after 17 We2\ £>c6 18 £la3!
c) There is a lot more point in the White seems to have chances to freeze
following plan to manoeuvre the Black’s activity) 17...£sc6! (17...£kl7?!
knight towards e3 via fl: 12 g3 £tod7 Galkin-Grigoriants, Serpukhov 1999)
13 £ g 2 2 c8 14 £ld2!? £>c5 15 £>fl 18 £ixc6 £ x b 2 19 <&xd8 Sxd8 20
m i 16 <£>h2 b5! 17 a3 a5 18 £ie3 cxd5 2xd5 21 £sd2jLxal 2 2 fi.c4 Sd6
Wb7 19 £>ed5 (19 £>f5!?) 19...£>xd5 with an equal position (analysis by
20 &xd5 i.xd5 21 »xd5?! (21 exd5) Galkin).
21.. .Wxd5 22 exd5 & g5! 23 f4 exf4 24 12...6bd7 13 a5 a6 14 £id5
gxf4 ji.f6 though Black could equalize 14 b3 leads to a different position-
with his queenside counterplay in type, covered in Game 2.
Rantanen-Maki, Helsinki 1990. 14...<&xd5 15 exd5 £.f5 16 c4 (D)
d) There is also the very surprising
retreat - even more surprising than
Black’s previous move: 12 £ )b l!? with
the idea of setting up a bind with c4.
After \2 ..M c l 13 b3, the following
possibilities are most critical:
d l) 13...Wc6 14 We2 and now if
Black allows White to create the bind
with c4, he is likely to suffer a little
bit, as in Zeldic-Kozul, Zadar 1995:
14...£>bd7 15 c4 ^.d8 16 Ad2 Se8 17
£ k 3 fi.a5 18 £\d5. The line was later
improved by an active counterpfay
idea: 14...Hc8! 15 c4 b5! 16 £ a 3 (16 16...jLg6!?
cxb5 # x e4 ; 16 £>bd2 bxc4 17 £)xc4 In this position the plan ...e4 and
£)bd7 =) 16...bxc4 17 £sxe5 dxe5 18 ...£se5-d3 is much more effective than
JLxe7 £>fd7 = Zel£ic-Gabriel, Makar- pushing ...f5. The text-move is also a
ska 1996. preparation for ...e4, since it avoids
d2) The tempting but unclear pawn the bishop being hit by the reply £ld4.
sacrifice 13...d5!? has some practical 16...3e8 17 b4 e4 18 £kl4 ^.g6 with
value even though at this moment it the same plan (,..£>e5-d3) is logical.
doesn't look perfectly correct: 14 exd5 Of course moves like 16,..iLh7 and
£lxd5 15 £)xe5 fi.f6 16 £Lb2 and after 16...5c8 are sensible as well.
20 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

17£>d2!? 33 Wdl We4 34 Wg4 WfS 35 # d l

This move makes Black’s standard We4 36 b3 2cc7 37 f3 Wf5 38 Wei
plan more difficult to realize. It must ,i ,h6 39 We4 Wxe4 40 fxe4 g4 41
be noted that Barua himself considers hxg4 ^ g 5 42 <£>f2 £xg4 43 c5 g5 44
this move suspicious, but very often c6 2h 7 45 b4 2cf7 46 2 f3 2c7 47
moves like this have a psychological 2b3 bxc6 48 dxc6 2 h l 49 2c3 2 b l
effect. The normal plan studied from 50 2c2 2b3 51 b5 axb5 52 2b7 2c8
earlier games doesn’t work any more. 53 c7 f3 54 gxf3+ 2xf3+ 55 <£>e2 2h3
More popular in practice is 17 b4, 56 a6 b4 57 2b8 2h2+ 58 * f l 2 h l+
which Black can answer with the ac­ 59 &g2 b3 60 2c3 1-0
tive 17...e4!?:
a) 18 £}d4 £>e5 (18...iLf6 19 £.b2 Conclusion: Even though White won
£le5 20 Wb3 2c8 21 Sac 1 2e8 Kos- this game, with accurate moves Black
ashvili-Kotronias, Rishon le Zion 1996) should get enough counterplay against
19 $Le3 2c8 20 S c l 2e8 with equal­ the £}d5 ideas in the line ll...£jb8.
ity. Black can play 11 ...®a5 if he is happy
b) 18 ®Sd2 fi.f6 19 2a3 2e8 with with a draw, but this move doesn’t
an unclear position. guarantee a draw.
17...6f6?!
17...2e8, intending ...Ag5 and ...e4,
looks better; for example, 18 2a3 (18 Boleslavsky 6 Jie2 e5 7
b4 Jig5) 18...fi.g5 19 b4 e4. In addi­ W hite plays b3
tion, the move 17...2c8 is very often
useful in this type of position. Barua’s Game 2
recommendation is the immediate G olo d - A se e v
17...^.g5. Indeed, the exchange of the Beersheba - St Petersburg 1998
dark-squared bishops is almost always
favourable for Black. 1 e4 c5 2 ^ f 3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £*xd4
18 2a3! 2e8 19 <£)e4 £.xe4 20 2xe4 £)f6 5 5 k 3 £>c6 6 £ e 2 e5 7 £if3 h6 8
Ag5 0-0 £ e 7 9 2 e l 0-0 10 h3 i.e 6 11 A n
Usually this exchange is in Black’s fob* 12 b3 (D)
favour, but in this position White’s
rooks are ideally placed to put pres­
sure on the kingside. 20...£>c5 was an
option, but b4 will come later with
gain of tempo.
21 &xg5 hxg5 22 2g4! f5 23 2gg3
g6 24 Wd2 f4
Now the weak light squares leave
open paths for the bishop.
25 2gb3 2b8 26 Jie 21 <4>g7 27 & g4
± 2e7 28 £ x d 7 2xd7 29 2b6 2c8 30
0 d 3 Wf6 31 2ab3 W f7 32 2c3 WfS
 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 21

This is a very positional plan. White attempt to tie Black up) 16...d5 17
aims to prevent all counterplay and exd5 £lxd5 18 ^ x d 5 Axd5 19 £sc416
manoeuvre the knight from f3 to e3 20 £>e3 A e6 = Sagalchik-Aseev, Kem­
via (12 and c4 to control the light erovo 1995. Black’s pieces stand har­
squares and to prevent the standard moniously.
...d5 break. This plan is probably the 15...2ac8 (D)
toughest nut for Black to crack in the
Boleslavsky.
12...a6 13 a4 £>bd7 14 Ab2 Wc7
The other popular move is 14...2c8. W
Now:
a) White can lead the game along
an independent route only with 15
£ki2!? Wa5!? (a direct attempt to in­
terfere with the white plan) 16 <S)c4
Axc4 17 Axc4 £ib6 18 A fl 2xc3!?
(18...2fd8 19 Wf3 is not a draw, as in
Cigan-Grosar, Maribor 1990, because
White was slightly better in Spasov-
Damljanovic, Yugoslav Ch 1996 after 16 ®d2
19...d5 20 £}xd5 £)bxd5 21 exd5 White is now about to play £lc4, #13
2xc2 22 Axe 5 Wxd5 23 Wf5) 19 # d 2 and £te3 to control the vital squares d5
Sfc8 20 2e3 £>xe4!? (20...23c5 21 b4 and f5. Rather inoffensive is 16 g3
2xc2 22 Wxc2 2xc2 23 bxa5 2xb2 24 2fd8 17 Ag2 <&b8 18 # d 2 d5 V2 -V2
axb6 2xb6 25 2c 1 ±) 21 2xe4 Wd5 22 Yuldachev-Grosar, Elista OL 1998.
Wxd5 £)xd5 23 Axc3 £>xc3 24 2c4 16...d5!
2xc4 25 bxc4, Drozdov-Koiul, Gron­ The other way to achieve the ...d5
ingen 1994. This position should be a break, 16...2le8 17 &c4 # c 6 18 HPf3
draw with the knight coming to stay d5 19 exd5 £)xd5 20 £>xd5 Axd5 21
on c5. Wg3 ± Apicella-Lutz, Cap d’Agde
b) After 15 a5 Black can transpose 1994, is slightly troublesome for Black.
to the main game with 15...#c7 or try With passive play Black could eas­
the interesting plan 15...2e8 16£id2 ily get into a cramped, planless posi­
2 c 5 !? 17 b4 (17 £>a2 2xa5 18 £)c4 tion, as in Galkin-Abashev, Russia Cup
2c5 19 Aa3 Axc4 20 Axc4 2c8 21 (Moscow) 1998: 16...#b8?! 17 £lc4
Axd6 Axd6 2 2 1B,xd6 £>c5 with equal­ 2fd8 18 » f 3 A f8 19 2 e d l 2 c6 20
ity, Apel-Reeh, Bundesliga 1997/8) £>d5!? (20 £ie3) 20...£>h7?! 21 h4
17...2c8 and Black has eliminated the 2e8 22 £>ce3 # d 8 23 g3 g6 24 c4.
strongpoint c4. 17 exd5 £}xd5 18 £}xd5
15 a5 Black had some attacking chances
Or 15 £>d2 Wc6 16 a5 (16 £)c4!? after 18 Ac4 £\f4!? 19 A xe6 fxe6 20
2fe8!? 17 # f 3 ^ c 5 , Prada-Rivera, La £hc4 2 f6 in Payen-Loncar, Cannes
Coruna 1995, 18 a5 may be a better 1994.
22 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

18...fi.xd5 (D) 33.. JLxe5 34 2xe5 Wdl+ 35 * h 2

Wxc2 36 2e8 Wc7+ 37 & gl Wd7 38
2a8 2g7 39 Wf6 W tl 40 # d 6 W ei 41
Wd5+ 2 f7 42 2b8 Wd7 43 WcS ® dl+
44 &h2 Wxb3 45 Wd6 Wc3 46 2e8
Wf6 47 WcS &g7 48 2 e3 <&g6 49
WdS 2e7 50 2g3 We5 51 Wd2 * h 7
52 WgS 2g7 53 Wh5+ * g 8 54 sfchl
Wel+ 55 * h 2 WeS 56 & hl £>f4 57
W dl Wd5 58 Wf3 Wxf 3 59 2xf3
&xg2 60 2xf5 £ih4 61 2f4 £>g6 0-1

Conclusion: Black has good chances

to prevent the white knight manoeuvre
19 £lc4 with activity at the right moment.
After the other natural option, 19 Even though Aseev seems to have an
JLc4, Aseev made a draw without trou­ almost watertight programme for
ble in Yagupov-Aseev, St Petersburg Black, the line is very solid for White,
Chigorin mem 1999 after 19...fi.c6!? who has hardly said the last word yet.
(19...& X C 4 20 &xc4 A f6 21 £ a3
2fd8 22 Wd6 looks slightly better for
White, Drozdov-Shmuter, Kharkov Boleslavsky 6 Jie2 e5 7
1988) 20 Wfe4 SceH 21 £lf3 £ f6 . £ib3 and others
19...£e6 20 « h 5 f6 21 £>e3 JicS!
22 fog4'.? 2 f7 23 2a4! Game 3
It seems White has good attacking S zn a p ik - L. Schneider
chances. Still, Black’s pieces stand Eksjo 1980
harmoniously behind the protective
pawn-chain and White is almost 1 e4 c5 2 £lf3 £)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4
obliged to sacrifice something. £>f6 5 £)c3 d6 6 £ e 2 e5 7 £)b3
23...£if8 24 &c4 This is the old line, which is not
24 £ c l fi.d4 25 2xd4 exd4 26 very popular nowadays at top level. It
2xe6 ^ x e 6 27 .&c4 was a suspicious is considered rather inoffensive be­
sacrifice in Zagrebelny-Aseev, St Pe­ cause Black gets good counterplay
tersburg Chigorin mem 1997, which with the knight on the strong square b4
continued 27...2e8?! 28 Axh6 f5 29 after forcing White to play a4. From
fi.xg7 4 ^ 7 , with complications. b4 the knight controls the d5-square as
2 4 ...5 .8 25 iLxe6 2xe6 26 *15 well as attacking c2. Quite often Black
2d6 27 ^ .cl 2d4 28 2xd4 £ x d 4 29 can carry out the standard ...d5 ad­
£ x h 6 0 d 7 ! 30 Wh5 f5 31 fi.xg7 vance with considerable force. Other
&xg7 32 Wh6+ &g8 33 £ x e5 possibilities:
33 £>f6+ 2xf6 34 Wxf6 is an im­ a) Rather pointless is 7 £ldb5 a6 8
provement, although Black is fine. £ia3 b5 9 <&d5 £>xd5 10 Wxd5 Wc7.
 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 23

b) 7 £ixc6 (rarely the choice of a £.c6 11 f4 £>b4 transposes to the main

strong player) 7...bxc6 and now: line.
bl) 8 # d 3 £ e 7 9 W gl (Black c) White’s attempts to avoid weak­
should not panic after this manoeuvre) ening the b4-square have not been
9...0-0 10 0-0 £ld7 (10...2b8!?) 11 f4 very successful: 9 &e3 a5 10 £id2!?
(11 £ .h 6 £ f6 12 S adi 4>h8) ll...exf4 (another attempt to avoid a4 is 10 a3
12 Juxf4 £le5! = Lanc-Tischbierek, £.e6 11 f4 a4 12 £ lcl exf4 13 Sxf4
Rostock 1984. £>d7 14 flfl £\de5 but Black is solid
b2) 8 0 -0 £ e 7 9f4 0-0(9...£sd7!?) and active with the nice knight square,
10'4’hl Sb8 11 b3 exf4 12 £xf4 Wcl Mangini-Panno, Mar del Plata 1957)
13 Wei £id7 14 S d l £le5 Orlov- 10..A e6 11 £>c4 b5! 12 £>xb5 £>xe4
Scherbakov, Russian Ch 1994. This is 13 f3 £>f6 (13...flb8!? 14 fxe4 Sxb5
typical: Black often occupies the e5- 15 £*xd6?! 2xb2 Galego-Gulko, Se­
square without a problem. ville 1992) 14 £lcxd6 £>d5 15 £ c 5
7...Ae7 8 0-0 0-0 (D) £>d4 16 Axd4 exd4 17 £k:4 £if4 with
active play for the pawn, Westerinen-
Hjartarson, Gausdal Z 1986.
9...a5! 10a4£)b4 11 i>hl
After 11 &e3 -S.e6 12 * h 1 (12 £.f3 ?
is a natural move but a big tactical
mistake: 12...exf4 13 jLxf4 £lxc2!)
12...5.c7! (even stronger than the
other natural move, 12...Sc8) White
has not found a very satisfactory way
to stop the plan ...2fd8 and ...d5:
a) After 13 £ki2 Black should play
immediately 13...d5 but not 13...2fd8?
14 f5 &d7 15 ®c4.
9f4 b) After 13 f5 ^Ldl and 14....&c6
Or: Black will play ...d5 even more effec­
a) 9 $Lg5 is not so nasty in this tively.
variation, because the knight stands c) 13 iLG Sfd8 14 S l2 d5 15 exd5
poorly at b3 after 9...Jie6 10 .&xf6 £tfxd5 16 £ixd5 5ixd5 17 .SLxd5 ^.xd5
,&xf6 11 ^ d 5 JLg5, with a nice Peli- 18 # g 4 exf4 19 jLxf4 ’iSfc4 ? Molvig-
kan-type position where Black can try Thorsteins, Copenhagen 1989.
to challenge the d5-knight with ...£le7 d) 13B clflfd8 14£>d2d5 15£fo5
or even start the typical Pelikan king- Wb8 16 Ab6 Sc8 17 c3 £ia6 18 fxe5
side advance with ...g6 and ...f5. (Crepan-Pavasovi6, Portoroz 1997)
b) 9 ‘i ’h l a5! (this is an effective 18...^xe4 is level.
plan against almost everything; White 11...£le6
is almost obliged to weaken the b4- Black could also organize his pieces
square, from where the black knight by means of the moves ...b6, ....&d7,
will control d5 and threaten c2) 10 a4 ..'Wc7, ..A c 6 , ..M VJ and ...Sfd8.
24 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

This peaceful but quite playable plan White can try 18 c3!? Se8 19 Wc2,
can be started with moves like 1l...b6 when after 19...Se5 (19...e3 20 £\c4
or ll....&d7. For example, 11_&.d7 # c 7 21 «tf3 Wc5 22 Bf3 £ g 5 looks
12 Ae3 Ac6 13 Af3 Wc7 14 Wd2 b6 better) 20 focA Sxf5 21 tx e 4 S xfl+ 22
15 » f2 5ab8 16 fxe5 dxe5 17 g4 &e8 S xfl £.xa4 23 £ d 3 g6 24 Wf4 White
18 £ k l £}d6 19 £id3 £>c4 with a very is better, Ipavec-Grosar, Slovenian
nice position with Black, Polovodin- girls Ch 1994.
Goldin, Russian Cht 1994. 18...£.xb2 19 S b l £ e 5
12 f5 Ad7 13 Ag5 Ac6 What a nice square for the bishop,
13...5c8!? avoids the wild posi­ which is ready to support the a-pawn
tions that we see in the main game, in its efforts to queen.
and I have no idea why it is less popu­ 20 f6
lar. Black can play ...&.c6 on the next White needs counterplay on the
move, when £)d5 is not possible. If kingside.
White protects the c-pawn with 14 20...gxf6 21 £ g 4 f5! 22 £ x f5 Axf5
S c l, Black should consider 14...fixc3 23 Sxf5 Wh4
15 bxc3 £ia2. In Brooks-Gabriel, New But now he has to be worried about
York 1995, Black was fine after 14 the a-pawn.
<&d2 (14 JLf3 ± c 6 15 We2 b6 16 24 <&g3 Wxa4 25 Sh5 # d 7 26 <Stf5
S fd l h6 17 Ah4 £}d7 18 Axe7 #xe7 f6 27 Sb3 ihX 28 Sbh3 Sf7 29 £>h6
19 Sd2 £tf6 20 S ad i Sfd8 ? Froey- 3g7 30 Qf5 S f7 31 £ih6 Sg7 32 £sf5
man-Cherevatenko, Rotterdam 1998) Sg5 33 Sxh7+ «xh 7 34 Sxh7+ &xh7
14...Ac6 15 Axf6 Axf6 16 Ac4 d5. 35 Wd3 &g8 36 h4?
14 Axf6 &xf6 15 fodS foxdS 16 36 g4 a4 37 Wb5 looks good enough
exd5 JLd7 17 £)d2 for a draw.
The next move is forced because 3 6 ...5 .5 37 g4 Sh7 38 <&g2 a4 39
Black cannot allow the knight to oc­ g5 fxg5 40 hxg5 a3 0-1
cupy e4.
17...e4 (D) Conclusion: In this line, White is
fighting for equality and Black doesn’t
usually have to trouble his head with
unthematic moves. The ...a5 plan is
W strong in most cases.

Boleslavsky-type: 6 f3 e5
With the move 6 f3, White aims for
positions like in the English Attack.
*! a m & m a h Here again Black has ...a5 ideas, as in
the previous game, but White doesn't
liP H f iH * have to play a4. He can stop the flank
attack by playing Ab5, avoiding
18 £lxe4 weakening the b4-square. The white
 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 25

pawn-formation remains more solid Here Black doesn’t have to worry

and flexible. about the move 8 iLg5 because of the
dark-squared weaknesses in the white
Game 4 camp.
S ve tu sh k in - Atalik 7...jLe6 8 £>d5 (better than allow­
Alushta 1999 ing Black to play ...d5) 8...ii.xd5 9
exd5 £)b8 is rather passive for Black.
1 e4 c5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4 8 £e3 0-0
£)f6 5 *hc3 £ k 6 6 f3 e5 The other possibility, 8....&e6 9
If someone really dislikes the posi­ £)d5 iLxd5 10 exd5 £>b4 11 c4 a5, is
tions arising in this line, there is an playable and rather solid, but the weak­
'advantageous' way to reach a Dragon- ness of the light squares might count
type position: 6...£lxd4!? 7 # x d 4 g6. later after long manoeuvring. Here is a
See Chapter 3 for details. logical example: 12 ^ 2 b6 13 JLe2
In addition, transposing into the 0-0 14 0-0 &a6 15 2 ae l £>d7 16 £ d 3
Scheveningen with 6...e6 is not a bad £lac5 17 k c 2 &h4 18 g3 &f6 19 & cl
option. g6 20 £>e2 Ag7 21 £ic3 f5 Seeman-
7£sb 3(D) Rotlagov, Helsinki 1996.
Other moves are just too unnatural. 9m i a5 10 £b5
For example: Now White is not forced to weaken
a) 7 £\f5 £ x f5 (7...d5) 8 exf5 d5 the b4-square. As we saw in the previ­
has even never been tried. ous chapter, Black was very happy to
b) 7 £ide2 £ e 6 8 £ e 3 # a 5 (stop­ occupy b4 with the knight so Black is
ping £k!5) 9 a3 a6 10 g4 2d8 11 g5 just fine after 10 a4?! £ib4.
£)h5 12 Wd2 £le7! 13 2 d l d5 14 10...£la7
£>xd5 # xd2+ 15 2xd2 £ixd5 16 exd5 This move has been popular in the
2xd5 and Black is already slightly last two years. The older line, 10...Ae6,
better, G.Mohr-Lanka, Croatia Cup is safe and by no means worse:
(Pula) 1993. a) 11 a3 invites 11 ...d5!?.
b) After the risky 11 0-0-0 the move
11...£>b4!? looks interesting; for ex­
ample, 12 a3 * c 7 13 <£>bl d5 14 axb4
d4 with promising counterplay.
c) 11 £id5 iLxdS 12 exd5 <&a7
(12...£sb8 13 a4 £ibd7 is playable but
slightly passive) 13 $Le2 a4 14 £lcl
£ic8 15c4?!(150-0isam ore accurate
move, but even then the same idea
with l5..W c7 16 c4 b5! looks good)
15...b5! 16&d3 bxc4 1 7 © b4lfa5 18
0-0 .&d8! (activating the passive bishop
in an instructive way) 19 a3 Ab6
7...£e7 Malinin-Golovin, Voronezh 1991.
26 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

d) H B d l^ la 7 12fi.e2(12fi.d3!?) solve this problem completely: 15 exd5

12...£k8 13 £ld5 (13 a3 is similar to &xd5 16& xd5#xd5 17£>c3Wa5 18
the main line) 13....&xd5 14 cxd5 Wc7 Wt2 Qd4 19 0-0 Sfd8 ± Lasiin-Zon-
15 c4 a4 16 £ lcl b5! (in this line, we takh, Yugoslav Cht 1999.
have several examples where Black b2) Black can continue with the
manages to realize this plan of under­ same plan, viz. activating the knight
mining the d5-pawn) 17 0-0 (after 17 via c8-b6. 11 ...JLe6 12 Sd 1 £>c8 13 a3
cxb5 ®b6 18 fi.xb6 W \b6 the dark l£)b6 is in accordance with the stan­
squares are terribly weak) 17...bxc4 dard plan, but it has not yet been tested
18 Wb4 Sh8 and Black is fine, Garcia in practice. A natural continuation is
Panizo-Ubilava, Spanish Cht 1993. 14 Wf2 £tfd7 15 0-0 &c4 16 -&xc4
e) 11 0-0 (the most natural move) j L xc4 17 S fel Sc8, when White may
11 ...£ia7 12 Ae2 4&c8 (if he is happy still have a small plus.
with a draw. Black can also play ll...A e6 12 S d l £k 8 (D)
12...£>c6 13 £>d5 a4!? 14 £b6?!
(tempting, but White should play 14
£lcl} 14...Wd7 15 £)xe7+ £lxe7 16
£)cl d5 ? Salmensuu-Yrjola, Jyvas-
kyla 1999) 13 &d5 (13 S adi should
be compared with the main line)
13...1.xd5 24 exd5 £ib6 15 c4 £>bd7
16 Sabi £)e8 17 S fdl b6 Salmensuu-
Lugovoi, Jyvaskyla 1999, when it is
not easy for White to benefit from the
light squares.
11 £ e 2
Or:
a) 11 Aa4?! £.c6 12 fi.xa7 Bxa7 13£b5
13 Wf2 Sa8 14 0-0-0 Wb8 15 Ab5 13 Well? £lb6 14 0-0 £>c4 15 Axc4
S c 8 16 £)a4 d5! 17& b6a4 18 &xa4 £ x c4 16 Sf2 a4 (16...b5 17 £>d2) 17
Wa7 19 exd5 Ad8 was a brave, com­ £>c5 a3 18 b3 # a 5 19 £>5a4 (White
plicated but not loo successful attempt could consider 19 Wd2 dxc5 20 bxc4)
from White in Anand-Kramnik, Mo­ 19...fi.e6 20 Sd3 3a6 doesn’t look
naco Amber blindfold 1999. dangerous for Black, even though
b) 11 jLd3 has been recommended; White won in Conquest-Sorin, French
ihen: Cht 1999.
bl) ll...£>c6 12 a3 a4 (in Ivan­ 13...£>b6 14 «Tf2 £)fd7
chuk-Khalifman, Elista 1998, Black 14...£lc4!? 15 £ x c4 &xc4 16 £ b 6
quickly got into a lifeless position af­ Wc8 17 <£lxa5 A a6 gives Black com­
ter 12...Ae6 13 S d l h6 14 0-0) 13 pensation according to Atalik.
£icl jLe6 14 <£>le2 is slightly better 15 0 e 2 a4! 16 & cl a3 17 b3 ®c7
for White because of the weakness of The queenside pawn-formation guar­
the a4-pawn. Even 14...d5 doesn’t antees counterplay for Black.
 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 27

18 £>d5 jLxd5 19 £ xd 7 good chances to avoid the best-known

19 exd5?! «fc3+. theory. Perhaps some white players
19...£)xd7 20 2xd5 £>f6 21 Sd3 don’t like the fact that Black has the
21 2b5 2a5. option of transposing to a very unclear
21...2.c8 Dragon line (aLevenfish) with 6...g6.
Possible is 21...2ac8!? 22 c3 2fd8 In this line, the position-type is a lit­
23 H'dl. tle different from the standard Bole­
22 c3 Wa5 23 b4?! slavsky since White has already played
Belter is 23 Wd2 d5 24 exd5 e4 25 f4 and develops his king’s bishop to a
b4 Wb5 26 2d4 exf3 27 gxf3 A.d6 more active square (c4 or d3). Usually
with good compensation. Black wants to punish White for the
23...Wb5 24 Ag5 2a6 early f4 and the position becomes
24...^xe4 25 JLxe7 £ixc3 looks rather tactical, and of a unique nature.
promising.
25 Jk.xf6 £ x f6 26 0-0? Game 5
26 Wd2 h6 27 h4 Wc4 28 £)e2 =. Pyhala - M an n in e n
26...11.5 27 <&b3 h6 28 ® d l 2ac6 Finnish Ch 1993
T 29 f4 £.xf4?!
29...exf4! 30 <&d4 Wb6 31 2ff3 1 e4 c5 2 £sf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £sxd4
£ f6 -+ . £if6 5 £\c3 £>c6 6 f4 e5 (D)
30 Wf3 Wb6+ 31 i ' h l Wc7 32 g3
&g5 33 h4?
33 £ia5 2a6 34 2d5 T.
33...1.f6 34 2 c l 2 c4 35 b5 Wd7
36 £>d2 2 b 4 37 cxb4 Wh3+ 38 * g l
2 x cl+ 39 £>fl iLd8 40 Wt2 0-1

Conclusion: White has ‘found’ this

line only very recently and the theory
is developing rapidly. White has some
chances for a slight advantage, but
most lines lead to an unclear positional
fight. In practice, White has done
quite well. The 10th move choices for 7 £ tf3
Black have about equal merit. In fact, 7 £ib3 can transpose to the 6 $Le2
both can transpose to note ‘b’ to e5 7 £>b3 line, while 7 £\xc6 bxc6 8
White’s 11th move, where an equal­ fxe5 (8 &c4 £ e 7 9 0-0 £ e 6 10 ffe2
izer is needed. £ x c 4 11 Wxc4 Wb6+ 12 & hl 0-0 =
Mrva-Epishin, Cappelle la Grande
Boleslavsky-type: 6 f4 e5 1997) 8...£)g4! 9 £.e2 (9 exd6?! &xd6
is too brave) 9...£)xe5 10 0-0 $Lcl gives
This line is surprisingly unpopular al­ Black a very solid position-type famil­
though it is very ambitious and offers iar from the line 6 &.e2 e5 7 £)xc6.
28 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

7...£.e7 After 9 f5 0-0 we end up at the same

Dlugy has successfully tried 7...'Sfa5 position, but 9 Ji.b3 0-0 10 Wd3 is
a couple of times, which shows how more logical.
many unexplored possibilities exist in
this variation.
8 J».c4
8 fi.d3 is less ambitious but play­
able:
a) 8...0-0 9 0-0 exf4 10 £ x f4 (10
* h l £ e 6 11 £ x f4 d5 =) 10...Wb6+
11 <i?hl Wxb2 leads to complications
after 12 Wd2 or 12£id5.
b) 8...Wb6!? is the most testing: 9
We2 0-0 10 S b l (10 f5 Oe8 11 S bl
d5! 12 i f l ? ,&xf5 13 exf5 e4 Louis-
Veingold, Andorra 1994) 10...iLg4 11
fi.e3 Wa5 with a roughly equal posi­ 9 0-0
tion. In both examples from this posi­ White has two main alternatives:
tion Black got soon good counterplay a) 9 f5 (this calls for vigorous ac­
with the ...d5 break: tion by Black) 9...£)a5 (9...Wb6 and
b l) 1 2 h 3 £ x f3 13Wxf3d5!.Now 9...Wa5 are playable, while the old
Cabrilo-Am.Rodriguez, PanCevo 1987 9...a6 seems too slow) 10 JLd5 Wb6
continued 14 JLd2 (14 exd5 e4! 15 (the white bishop takes the strongpoint
Axe4 £>xe4 16 Wxe4 fi.c5! guaran­ d5 from the knight while the black
tees a strong attack according to Rod­ queen disrupts White's development)
riguez) 14...<£id4 15 Wf2 dxe4 16 11 Wd3 (11 We2 £lc6) ll...fi.d7 12
£>xe4 Wxa2 with a slight advantage S bl £\g4! 13 S fl (13 We2 2ac8)
for Black. 13...£>c6 14 ^.b3 £ib4 15 We2 Jic6
b2) 12 Ad2 Sfe8 13 f5 Wc7 14 Iff2 Kupreichik-Lucko, Belarus Ch 1997.
d5! 15 £lg5 £sd4 16 h3 £c5! 17 Wh4 This position is hard to assess, but
.&xf5 with a strong attack, Sznapik- White can hardly feel comfortable with
Hort, Lucerne OL 1982. the king in the centre. On the other
b3) 12 0-0 is apparently White’s hand, he still has d5 under control and
best, when Black can play 12...exf4 13 the option of advancing the g-pawn.
.&xf4 )Sfe8, for example, but 13...£te5 b) 9 £ b 3 a5! 10 0-0 (10 a4 £ e6 )
and exchanging on f3 is hardly a good 10...a4 11 fi.d5 £>xd5!? 12£)xd5 (12
idea, because it strengthens the 64- exd5 £}d4! 13 £lxd4 exd4 14 Wxd4
pawn and White can sometimes use $Lf6 15 Wb4 a3 gives Black nice com­
the g-file. pensation) 12...^b4'. 13£>xe7+Wxe7
8...0.0 (D) 14 c3 £ k 6 15 f5 f6 with equality (ac­
8...Wb6!? has been successful in cording to Spasov), Delchev-V.Spa-
some games, but it is hardly any better sov, Bulgarian Ch 1996.
than in note ‘a’ to White’s 9th move. 9...exf4
 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 29

The thematic 9..~&e6!? 10 iLb3 c2) I3...^a5 14 JLd3 could be tried

b5»? 11 Wd3\ b4 12 &d5 &c8 doesn’t but the knight is not well placed on a5.
equalize completely, Yakovich-Oll, St c3) Possibly Black should play
Petersburg 1993. 13...#c3, as recommended by Kuprei-
10 Ji.b3 chik, but after 14 '^e2 £ia5 15 Ad3
With this move. White protects the W cl the compensation is obvious
bishop as well as the b2-pawn. It is since some black pieces will not par­
surprising how unwilling White has ticipate in the game for a while.
been to sacrifice the ‘poisoned’ pawn, c4) RotSagov’s idea 13...#b4!? 14
viz. 10 ^.xf4 and now: We2 £>a5 15 £Ld3 Af6 16 £lg5 Jixg5
a) Moves such as 10...£)a5 and 17 AxgS is slightly better for White.
10....6e6 are more or less playable, I0...£ig4!? (D)
but they involve some kind of conces­ This is the most critical move. For a
sion. tame player, the same options as men­
b) Instead of taking the pawn, a tioned in the previous note are avail­
typical bishop manoeuvre in the corre­ able, with 10...Ag4 being a safe one.
sponding Najdorf variation was shown Another example: 10...£)a5 11 ^.xf4
in Salmensuu-Atalik, Groningen 1999: &xb3 12 axb3 &e6 (12...fie8 13 Wd4
10...1Lg4 11 Wd2 Ah5 12 ttael &g6 b6 14 ^>h I $Lb7 = Sulipa-Kaplun,
13 & hl fie8 14 £ b 3 a6 15 £>d4 £>a5 Yalta 1995) 13 &d4 a6 14 &xe6 fxe6
16 £tf5?! (16 iLd5!?) 16...£ixb3 17 15 Wd3 Wb6+ 16 * h l Sad8 with
axb3 l£ixe4! 18<£)h6+gxh6 19fixe4l? equality, Lahtinen-Maki, Finnish Ch
and White could generate complica' 1990.
tions that were eventually enough for a
draw, but clearly the opening phase
was nothing special for him. This im­
plies that 10....&g4 may be a good
move.
c) 10...®fb6+ 11 * h l Wxb2(inthe
only example of this line in my data­
base Black played 1 l.-.i^cS, which is
not a test of White’s play: 12 JLd5
£}g4 13 Wd2 £>ge5 14 &e2 £ g 4
N.Hpiberg-Demina, Debrecen worn
Echt 1992) 12£)d5 £)xd5 (12...£Ue4?
13 We2 £ f5 14 fiabl Wa3 15 &d3 ±)
13 exd5 and now Black has the follow­ I l£ x f4
ing possibilities, none of which is After 11 &d5, ll.J L f 6 12 c3 £ e5
completely satisfactory: is equal as Black secures the e5-square
c l) 13...£}e5?! 14 ,&xe5 dxe5 15 as compensation for the d5-square,
d6& f6 16d7e4(16...Wc3 17 &xf7+) while Black can even try the brave
17 fib 1 Wc3 18 £ x f7 + ! and White tri­ 11 ...g5!? or 12...g5!?. Now there fol­
umphs. lows a series of forced moves.
30 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

11...Wb6+ 12 <4>hl £lf2+ 13 2xf2 Conclusion: This line often leads to

Wxf2 14 £sd5 Jtg4 quite obscure tactical play. As Black, I
White has enough compensation would be worried only about the pawn
for the sacrificed exchange but noth­ sacrifice (10 fi.xf4), which is fortu­
ing more. nately condemned by most theory
15 £ g 3 £ x f3 16 gxf3 Wc5 17 books, so nobody has the courage to
£lxe7+ <&xe7 18 iLxd6 Wg5 19 f4 try it. The bishop manoeuvre demon­
The position is complicated but even strated by Atalik may be a solid option.
the logical 19 Wd4 2fd8!? 20 2 g l Black has many rather unexplored
Wh6 doesn’t favour White: 21 Wc4 early alternatives.
2xd6 22 Wxf7+ 'A’hS 23 Wxe7 2d2
24 h4 2d7! 25 Wxd7 Wxh4+ 26 <£>g2
2d8. Boleslavsky-type:
19...Wh4 (D) 6 A e 3 e5
Here, the basic difference from the
standard Boleslavsky is that White
plays the bishop to b3. White has more
control over the d5-square but he must
often concede the bishop-pair or else
Black is able to exploit the c4-square.
Black also has the more active but
riskier possibility 6...£}g4, introduced
in Chapter 8.

Game 6
Eism o nt - R. S ch e rb a kov
20 Wei! Wxel+ 21 2 x e l 2fe8 Cappelle la Grande 1996
One might think that in the ending
Black can start to play for a win but the 1 e4 c5 2 ^ c 3 <&c6 3 Q f3 d6 4 d4
two bishops seem to secure enough cxd4 5 &xd4 £}f6 6 £ e 3 e5 (D)
counter-chances for ‘Finland’s Tal’,
who at this point was certainly playing
for a win.
22 &a4 £sc6 23 e5 2ad8 24 2 d l
24 2 g 1!? stops Black’s attempt to
free himself, but after 24...2e6 25 2d 1
£>a5 26 b4 b5! 27 Ji.xb5 £)b7 Black is
better.
24...g5!? 25 2 g l f6 26 c4 <4*7 27
c5 fxe5 28 fxeS foxe5 29 £.xe8+ 2xe8
30 2xg5 -■ c4 31 2f5+ 4 ^ 6 32 2f2
2 e l+ V2-V2
 The Boleslavsky Position-Type 31

7 £ if3 a) 13. ..h6 (stopping ^ g 5 ) 14 £ih4!

The alternatives are not critical: Wc5 15 #f3!! was a good example of
a) After 7 £sde2?! fi.e7 8 g3 there Tal’s ability to do magic apparently
is the surprising but thematic strike from nothing. This time the idea seems
8...£*xe4! 9 £>xe4 d5. perfectly correct: 15..JLg4?! (15...d5!?)
b) 7 £ib3 and now: 16W g3£.xdl 1 7 ^ f5 ^ .g 4 18£ixe7+
bl) 7...fi.e7 8 f3 transposes to the 6 * h 7 19 Wh4 £lb6 20 £ x h 6 gxh6 21
f3 line (Game 4) and 8 k.&2 to Game Wxf6 £ld7 22 Wh4 Jic6 23 <&cd5
3. Sae8 24 Ed 1 Wa5 25 £>f6+ &xf6 26
b2) 7....&e6, with ...d5 coming next, Wxf6 d5 27 exd5 1-0 Tal-Beliavsky,
is a good chance to equalize. Aker Brygge 1989.
7 ..± e 7 8 £ c 4 0-0 9 0-0 £ e 6 b) 13.. .a6!? (deciding to support the
This a typical situation where Black knight) 14 £\g5 b5 15 a4! (15 <S}xe6
doesn’t have to worry about the ex­ fxe6 16 a4 £la5! 17 axb5 £ixb3 18
change on e6, which is only correct cxb3 axb5 19 Exa8 WxaS =) 15....&g4
when White quickly gets pressure on 16 4}f3! (after 16 f3?! £ d 7 17 axb5
the e6-pawn. Wc5+ 18 i h l axb5, the g5-knight is
Another method, 9...£\a5 10 poorly placed) 16...b4 17 £>d5 (17
h6 11 We2 a6 12 S fd l £)xb3 13 axb3 £xc4!?) 17...£>xd5 18 Sxd5 £\b6 19
&d7, is also a rather solid way to de­ S d l was unclear in Sherzer-Sakaev,
velop the pieces though the bishop- Budapest ECC 1996. Black should
pair is not a big factor in these posi­ now play 19...a5 20 jLe3 Wc7.
tions as long as White doesn’t allow Less dangerous is 12 B adl £ixb3
Black to open the position with ...d5 or 13 axb3 h6 =.
in some cases with ...f5. White usually 12...£>c4 13 S ab i Sb8
manoeuvres the 13-knight towards the The black knight is trapped after
f5- and d5-squares. 13...£>xb2? 14 «M5.
10&b3 £)a5 11 We2 Wc8 14 ± xf6 £ x f6 15 Wd3 b5 16 fodS
The knight comes to c4, where it at­ i.d8!
tacks the bishop and the b2-pawn, and Black can also ignore the d5 strong-
is ready to control d5 from b6. It was point and attack it later.
also a good time to move the queen 17 <£id2 £sa5 18 c3 £)xb3 19 axb3
away from the d-file. a5!
The other line, ll...h6 12 S fdl &xb3 Preventing b4, fixing the a6-pawn.
13 axb3 Wb8, seeking to control d5, 20 Ebd 1 Sb7 21 b4 axb4 22 £>xb4
has an equally good reputation; for ex­ Wc5 23 E al £ b 6 24 & hl g6 25 £ia6
ample, 14 fod2 Ec8 15 a6 16 f3 Wc6 26 fob4 Wc5 27 £ia6 Wc6 28
b5 17 Af2 b4 18 <&a4 Wb5! Har-Zvi - £ib4 Wc5 Vi-Vt
Dorfman, Barcelona ECC 1993
1 2 i.g 5 Conclusion: The Boleslavsky ap­
12 S fd l £sc4 13 fi.cl looks passive proach is a rather safe but not very ac­
but the c4-knight must be supported. tive way to counter 6 3. There aie
Black has tried two moves: several ways to strive for equality.
3 The Dragon Position-Type

Strategic Introduction well protected. On the other hand.

to the Dragon Position- White’s attacking options are mini­
mal. He usually attempts to build some
Type kind of positional grip on the queen­
side or with the knight on d5. There­
The Dragon position-type introduced fore, the line has a solid but somewhat
in this book will arise after the moves passive reputation.
6 g3 g6. This is a regular choice for a We also have some other recom­
Classical player since there is not much mendations in this book to reach
choice after 6 g3. The Boleslavsky- Dragon-style positions in other lines,
style 6...e5 doesn’t look very good although we avoid the main theoreti­
when the bishop on g2 already con­ cal lines of the Dragon. In the section
trols the d5-square. ‘Sozin with ...'B,b6’ we see several
cases where fianchettoing the bishop
makes sense. Learning the general
principles of the Dragon is really use­
W ful for a Classical player.

Typical M e th o d s for W hite

1. Play £>d5, c3 and &g5

The idea is to create pressure against
e7 and to neutralize the pressure of the
g7-bishop and the rook on the c-file.

In this Dragon position, reached

after 7 &.g2 ilg 7 , the g7-bishop is w
strong, while the g2-bishop is blocked
by its own pawn. One might think that
this is worse for White than the normal
Dragon lines but things are not so
clear. The g2-bishop has some long­
distance effect on the long diagonal
since White always has the e5 push at
his disposal. Moreover, the e4-pawn is
 The D ragon Position-Type 33

2. Exchange of the dark-squared

bishop I B H H *fe i
lAJMI UlUl
I A * « - l* .
m m a m w
• AH ■

Popovic - W irthe nsoh n

Mitropa Cup (Brno) 1991

Here White threatens Ah6 to ex­ Later, in the Sozin section, we will
change the bishops, which Black can see the push with a completely differ­
and should neutralize with ...2e8. The ent motif:
g7rbishop puts strong pressure on the
long diagonal and exchanges would
expose Black’s king position a little
bit.

3. Advance on the queenside with

a4-a5 and pressurize b7
Sometimes White is able to push e4-
e5 advantageously. See the main line
of Game 7 and the next position.

4. Push e4-e5 at a suitable moment

In the following diagram, White con­
tinued 12 e5!? dxe5 13 Wxb7 Wxb7 Here 9 e5!? is most popular. White
14 &xb7 5ab8 15 a6 to attack the 37- wants to break up Black’s pawns and
pawn with Jie3 and to make a very create a weakness on e7. The problem
strong passed pawn but things were is that after 9...dxe5 10 We2 Wd4!?
not so clear following 15....&c8! 16 White cannot easily regain the pawn.
&xc8 2fxc8 17 0-0 e6 18 Ea5!. After
18...£kl7?! 19 £ib5 Sxc2 20 £>xa7 Typical M e th o d s for Black
^.f8 21 £.e3 White's a-pawn decided
the game, but 18...e4! is more logical. 1. Advance on the queenside with
The additional benefit of the operation ...b5-b4
is that Black’s strong g7-bishop is out The main idea is to emphasize the
of play for a while. power of the g7-bishop.
34 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

seen many limes in the notes to Game

8.

3. The central advance with ...e6

and ...d5
Or even better, first put pressure on the
e4-pawn to force the move f3, which
buries the g2-bishop. After this, the
central strike ...d5 might be very pow­
erful.

Yakovich - Lerner
Kharkov 1985 B

Black continued in a typical Dragon

way: l3-..b5! 14 E el a5 15 c3 b4.
Also, see Black’s plans in Game 8.

2. Activate pieces and drive away

the knight on d5 with ...e6
Although the d6-pawn is weakened by
this, it is rarely a harmful weakness
and Black may be able to push ...d5 M estel - Kudrin
later. Hastings 1983/4

Black had manoeuvred his knight

to d7 via e5. Now he got a fine position
after 17...£ic5 18 We3 Wa8! 19 f3.

4. Play on the c-file

The c2-pawn is often a weakness in
White's camp. If White has played c3,
pushing ...b5-b4 may open the c-file
for the black major pieces.
In the following diagram, Black
played 12...Wc4! 13 a4 Eac8 to put
pressure on the c-file and to stop the
S iv o k h o - Sakaev move £\d5. After 14 a5 £)d7 15 Ea3
St Petersburg 1996 Wc7 16 f4 jl x c 3 17 Exc3 (17 bxc3
looks awkward) 17...Wxa5 White’s
Black got an active position with compensation for the pawn was inade­
14...e6 15 £se3 £k5. The same idea is quate.
 The Dragon Position-Type 35

double-edged idea. White’s chances

to open the position for his bishops,
especially the dark-squared one, should
be evaluated carefully.

M akarych e v - Svidle r
Russian Ch 1996

5. Develop the pieces harmoniously

with ...Ae6, ..Ma5 and ...Sfc8
This increases the pressure against In this position, 13....£.xc3 14 bxc3
White’s queenside. » c 7 is good since there is the nice
square c4 for Black’s pieces, the white
pawns are weak. White doesn’t get
much play against the black king and
B most importantly, White’s dark-squared
bishop isn’t functioning.

Dragon-type: 6 g3 g6 7
.&g2 £>xd4
Black takes on d4 at the first possible
moment, so as to gain a tempo on the
queen. White can avoid this line by re­
H olm sten - M ak a ro v treating his knight on the 7th move,
Elista OL 1998 which is discussed in Game 8.

The game continued 10...fi.e6 11 Game 7

fi.h6 Wa5 12 a3 2fc8 and Black could Tisdall - Petursson
support ...b5 with ...Eab8. Gausdal 1987

6. Exchange the g7-bishop for the 1 e4 c5 2 <£)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4

c3-knight &C6 5 £sc3 £>c6 6 g3 g6
The aim is to compromise White’s There is no recommendable alter­
pawn-structure, but this is often a native to this Dragon move, unless
36 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

Black is ready to play the Schevenin- c) 9 a4 0-0 10 # b 4 (10 a5 £ e 6 11

gen (6...e6). The line 6....&g4 7 O i d 7 #134 £>d7! = Marinkovic-Tiviakov,
8 JLe3 has proved unsuccessful in CaCak 1996) 10...*^7 (10...a5!?) 11
practice. a5 £ e 6 12 e5!? dxe5 13 W xbl Wxb7
7 £ g 2 £ixd4 14 i.xb7 Hab8 15 a6 &c8! 16 £ x c8
It may be possible to play 7...Ag7 8 Efxc8 17 0-0 e6 18 Oa5! (Popovi6-
5ixc6 (8 5kle2) 8...bxc6 9 e5 dxe5 10 Wirthensohn, Brno 1991) 18...e4 is
# x d 8 + * x d 8 11 £ x c 6 Sb8 12 £ e 3 unclear.
2xb2! 13 0-0-0+ <4>c7 14^.b5llb4 15 9...0-0 (D)
a3 2xb5 16 £\xb5+ 4 ^ 7 , as in Ad-
ams-Dreev, Linares 1997, with com­
pensation for the exchange, but few
players want to take the risk, as the ex­ w
change of knights is thought safer.
8 # x d 4 £ g 7 (D)

10tfb4
There are some important alterna­
tives:
a) 10 h3 ji.e6 11 ® dl and now:
al) 1l...# c7 is playable.
a2) ll...W c8!? 12 * h 2 # c 4 is an
9 0-0 ingenious way to activate the queen.
There are several attempts to bene­ 13 a4 Sac 8 14 a5 £>d7 15 2a3 Wc7 16
fit from a delay in castling: f4 jLxc3 17 Hxc3 Wxa5 was better for
a) 9 A.g5 h6 10 £ e 3 0-0 11 «fd2 Black in Makarychev-Svidler, Rus­
£ig4 12 Ji.d4 £>e5 13 b3 iLe6 (in a sian Ch (Elista) 1995, but 13 f4 is
solid position there is no point risking more critical.
13...i.h3?! 14 £ x e5 ) 14 £}d5 £xd 5 a3) ll...fic& (this is the normal
'/j-V2 Terentiev-Shirov, Latvia 1990. move) 12 2 e l (or 12£id5 Be8 13Sel
b) 9 ± c 3 0-0 10 Wd2 £\g4 is al­ £>d7 14 c3 £>c5 15 ± e 3 « d 7 16 * h 2
most the same as line ‘a’ after 11 ,&d4, # b 5 = Inkiov-B.Ivanovid, Skopje
but 11 £f4?'. £>e5 12 £>d5 £ g 4 13 0-0 1991) 12...Wc7 13 £ e 3 £>d7 14 £ d 4
e6 14 £>e3 £ f3 + 15 &xf3 £ x f3 16 ^.xd4 15 Wxd4 Wb6 with very com­
iLxd6 b5 gave Black nice compensa­ fortable equality in a typical Dragon-
tion for the pawn in Ivanchuk-Kaspa­ type ending after the queen exchange,
rov, Moscow OL 1994. Sanz-Mestel, Marbella Z 1982.
 The Dragon Position-Type 37

b) 10 Wd3 JLc6 11 £id5 Bc8 12 c3

Se8. Black is solid even though White
has managed to realize his most basic
plan. Black can activate his queen, ad­
vance the b-pawn and wait for the
right time to eliminate the knight. 13
fi.e3 (or 13 h3 Wa5 14 fi.g5 fi.xd5 15
exd5 e5! 16 E fel £kl7 ? Vuli£evi6-
Benjamin, New York 1992) 13...Wa5
14 h3 Wa4!? 15 Efel b5! and White’s
queenside soon collapsed in Teschner-
Tal, Vienna Echt 1957.
c) Perhaps 10 a4 fi.e6 11 Wb4 is a pressure on the queenside against b7
more accurate move-order to reach the and a7 but Black has active pieces, a
lines considered in the main game, as strong bishop on g7, the c4-square and
ll...a5 12 # x b 7 £ki7 13 Wb5 Bc8 the c-file.
(13-.fi.xc3!? 14 bxc3 # c 7 ) 14 S dl 13.fi.e3
doesn’t seem to give as much compen­ The other moves have not proved
sation as the analogous idea in the main successful for White:
line. Instead, ll...# c 7 transposes. a) 13 fi.g5 2fe8 14 B fcl £>e5 15
10...Wc7 £>d5 # d 7 16 Wa4 fi.xd5 17 exd5 Wf5
When White chooses this move- with active play, Milo5evi£-Petursson,
order, there is a very notable pawn sac­ Lugano 1989.
rifice alternative: 10...a5 11 ^ 3 fi.e6 b) 13 £>d5?! fi.xd5 14 exd5 Wxc2
12 Wxb7. Now: 15 fi.g5 Wxb2 16 Wxb2 fi.xb2 17 fi.xe7
a) 12-.fi.c4 13 e5 (13 E el is also (17 S abi) 17...fi.xal 18Bxal Bfe8 +
possible) 13.-A.xfl 14 # x a8 Vi/xa& 15 Reinderman-Wojtldewicz, Wijk aan
fi.xa8 dxe5 16 'i&xfl Exa8 17 a4 was Zee 1994.
slightly better for White in Nevo- 13...£>e5
struev-Scherbakov, Russia 1998. More risky is I3....fi.xc3?! 14 bxc3
b) 12-.£ki7! 13W b5(13<^d5Sb8 £>e5 15 f4 <£>c4 16 fi.d4 f6, Popovi6-
14 Wa6 £>c5 15 We2 fi.xd5 16 exd5 Ki.Georgiev, Sarajevo 1985, because
fi.xb2 t ) 13...i.xc3 14 bxc3 Wc7 is White defends his pawns and weak
fine for Black according to Kramnik. points easily, while Black has to watch
11 a4 fi.e6 12 a5 out for the breakthrough with e5.
Somewhat troublesome for White 14 h3 Sac8
is 12 fi.g5 Bac8 13 B fcl a5! 14 Wa3 14...Bfc8!? 15 4 )h2 £lc4 looks ac­
£>g4 15 £>dl foe5 16 foe3 h6, Spang- curate. Now things get sharper.
enberg-Leko, Buenos Aires tt 1994. 15 * h 2 £ c 4 16 fob5 Wd7 17
12...6d7 (D) fi.xa7 fi.xb218 Babl fi.g7 19 f4 Wd8!
This position is worth studying, es­ In this complex position, Black is
pecially as it can be reached by many no worse; the two sides’ weaknesses
different move-orders. White has some counterbalance each other.
38 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

20 <&d4 £ d 7 21 £)b3 Wc7 22 e5?! 7...£g7

dxe5 23 # x b 7 £ f 5 24 2f2 exf4 25 Another rather new and interesting
gxf4 ®xa5 26 £)xa5 # x a 5 27 # x e7 plan is to develop the queenside quickly
Sfe8 2 8 £ b 6 # x b 6 0-1 by 7...b6 8 &.g2 ,&a6. Now:
a) 9 b3 £ g 7 1 0 £ b 2 0-0 11 Wd2
Conclusion: In this line. White has 2c8 12 0-0 (12 0-0-0 looks risky, e.g.
plenty of different set-ups and move- 12...£>g4 13 £)f4 e6, Matulovi6-Miles,
orders to confuse his opponent but Belgrade 1988, when 14 h3 is met by
none of them promises any advantage. 14...£>b4). Here the most often adopted
The relauve activity of Black’s pieces plan is ...e6, ...Wc7, ...Sfd8 (and maybe
compared with their counterparts and ...£>e7) to prepare ...d5. Soltis-Yur-
the soundness of his pawn-formation taev, Moscow GMA 1989 went on
usually count. 12...W cl 13S fd l e6 14 2 a c l 2fd8 15
a4 d5!? (15...£>e7) 16 exd5 exd5 17
Dragon-type: W hite £)b5 &xb5 18 £ x f6 &xf6 19 axb5
£\e7 with about an equal position.
retreats the knight b) After 9 0-0 iLg7 10 S e l 2c8
by 6 g3 g6 7 ^ d e 2 both sides have tried a wealth of dif­
ferent plans. White can play a4 and
With this retreat, White avoids losing £lb5; h3 and Jk.g5; or b3, JLb2 and
a tempo with his queen. Besides, the # d 2 or 5if4 and £k:d5. After castling.
old strategy books say that the one Black can prepare ...e6 and ...d5 or
with more space should avoid ex­ pressurize e4 with the manoeuvre
changes. ...£le5-d7, ...iLb7 and ...£>c5 or push
...b5 or play solid regrouping moves
Game 8 like ...Se8 and ...<2^17-05. The bishop
J an sa - Thorhallsson often returns to b7 to put pressure on
Gausdal Eikrem mem 1996 the long diagonal. In this example
Black activated his pieces in an in­
1 e4 c5 2 £}f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £\xd4 structive way: 11 a4 (11 £}f4 0-0 12
£sf6 5 &c3 £>c6 6 g3 g6 7 £ide2 (D) £>cd5 £ld7 13 a4 £ k 5 14 2a3 £ie5 =
Brenke-Lau, Lippstadt 1993) 11...0-0
12 h3 &b4 13 £id4 £)d7 14 £ldb5
£ c 6 15 Jk.fl?! $Lb7 16 5}d5 a6 17
B £>a3 e6! 18 £lf4 Wc7 19 £ ic4 £>de5!
20£te3?! £}d4! Innala-Pyhala, Finn­
ish Cht 1994.
8 £.g2 0-0 9 0-0 2b8
This is much more logical than the
old 9..Jk.d7. Black has a clear-cut plan
with the ‘minority attack’ ...b5-b4,
which emphasizes the power of the
g7-bishop. The rook is taken away
 The Dragon Position-Type 39

from the long diagonal dominated by b) There is a more ambitious alter­

the g2-bishop. native: 13 A.g5 <&d7 14 Wcl b4 15
10 a4 a6 11 h3 £>d5 £ k 5 (1 prefer 15...Se8 in order to
11 5M5 is natural and thematic but avoid the exchange of the dark-squared
has not been very successful in prac­ bishops) 16 fi.h6 fi.a6 17 A.xg7 4 ’xg7
tice: 11...b5 (ll...& d 7 12 c3 b5 13 18 Wd2 e6 19 £le3 We7 ± Kudrin-
axb5 axb5 14 £>d4 £}de5 is solid Ki.Georgiev, Wijk aan Zee 1985.
enough) 12 axb5 axb5 13 fi.g5 (a less 13...b4 14 £ld5 £>d7 15 Ea2
ambitious line is 13 c3 b4 14 ^ d 4 15 Wcl e6! (once again this idea
£>xd4 15 £\xf6+ exf6 16 cxd4 f5 17 gives activity) 16 i£\df4 Wc7 17 Sa2
exf5 fi.xf5 V2 -V2 1.Kopylov-Nesis.corr £>f6 (17...£ide5!? 18 £)d3 b3!) 18
1992-4, while 13 i e 3 b4 14 Sa2 £>g4 £sd3 Ed8 19 c4! £.b7 20 b3 (Mala-
15 £ g 5 h6 16 jLcl e6 17 &e3 b3! 18 khov-Svidler, Russian Ch 1997) and
cxb3 £>ge5 19 Ad2 # b 6 20 £ c 3 fi.a6 now 20...£>a5 21 <£sd4 fi.xe4 22 J&.xe4
gave Black active play in Ivanchuk- <£)xe4 23 £}b5 £>xb3 24 £*xc7 £ixcl
Kramnik, Horgen 1995) I3...£)d7 14 with unclear complications - Svidler.
Wcl Se8! 15 S d l £>c5 16 £ h 6 £ h 8 15...e6 16 <&df4 Wc7 17 b3 A.b7 18
17 b4?! (not a convincing exchange Wd2 Sfd8
sacrifice, though Black was already Black can equalize even more con­
fine) 17..JLxal lSl^xal &e6 19£\df4 vincingly with l8...Sa8 19 Sxa8 Sxa8
foe5 20 £>xe6 £ x e 6 21 f4 Wb6+ 22 20 S d l S a l 21 £scl Ab2 22 £\fe2
* h l Sa8 23 Wc3 Sec8 24 Wd2 £lg4 fi.a6, Jansa-Maki, Pula Echt 1997.
—h A.Ivanov-Emst, Gausdal 1991. 19 £ d 3 Aa8 20 £ g 5 Sdc8 21 fi.h6
Il...b5 12 axb5 axb5 (D) £ h 8 22 S d l £>c5 23 We3 £se5 24
<&xc5 dxc5 25 f4 £>d7 26 e5 f i x g2 27
&xg2 ®b6 28 c4 bxc3 29 £>xc3 c4 30
b4 £}d5 31 <Sixd5 exd5 32 Sxd5 c3 33
Sc5 Wb7+ 34 Wf3 Wxb4 35 Sxc8+
Sxc8 36 Sc2 Wd4 37 h4 £ g 7 38
£ x g 7 * x g 7 39 * h 2 Sc7 40 * g 2 h5
41 * h 2 &h7 42 <£g2 Sc5 43 * h 2
4>g7 44 * g 2 V2-V2

Conclusion: Black has an easy plan to

follow. He should be prepared to
weaken the d6-pawn with the move
...e6 at the right moment to drive the
13 A.e3 knight away and to activate his pieces.
a) Again 13 £ki5 £>d7 14 c3 (14
Ba2 e6) is not dangerous because of So m e Dragon-like surprise
14...e6! 15 £se3 foc5 16 £>d4 &d7 17 w eapons
foec2 £lxd4 18 £*xd4 b4 %Sivokho- Transposing to the Dragon is very
Sakaev, St Petersburg 1996. common in many Classical lines. In
40 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

most cases we end up in a theoretical £\xd5 17 exd5 ,&d7 with easy equality,
Dragon line, which demands studying Holmsten-Makarov, Elista OL 1998.
the lines from a database or from a b) 8e5dxe5 9 'tx e 5 (9 i.b 5 + A d 7
Dragon book. Here I would like to in­ 10 #xe5 Ag7 11 JLg5 ±xb5 12 Wxb5+
troduce two possibilities to transpose ffd7 13 #xd7+ <4>xd7 14 0-0-0+ 3?c6
to a rather untheoretical type of Dragon. 15 Bhel Bhe8 = Browne-Robatsch,
In fact, the arising position-type re­ Amsterdam IBM 1972) 9....£.g7 10
sembles more closely some lines of 0-0 0-0 11 Sd 1 Wb6 12 # b 5 VHxbS 13
the Accelerated Dragon. In the Dragon £*xb5 SLdl with equality, Glek-Man-
line 1 e4 c5 2 £lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tovani, Liechtenstein 1998.
£)xd4 £tf6 5 £k:3 g6 6 .&e2 £*c6 c) 8 g4!? h6 9 JLb5+ £ d 7 10
White usually continues 7 £*b3 to £xd 7 + # x d 7 11 f3 £ g 7 12 £.e3 0-0
avoid these kind of possibilities. 13 Wd2 * h 7 ( 13...h5!?) 14 h4 Sfc8 15
1 e4 c5 2 3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4 0-0-0 Bxc3 (lS...V e6 16 g5 £>h5 17
£)f6 5 £ic3 Qc6 6 £ e 2 £xd 4!? 7 £)d5 ±; 15...Qe8!?) 16 »xc3 £>xg4
#xd 4 g6 (D) 17 &d4 &f2 18 £ x g 7 £>xdl 19 Sxdl
This is Black’s idea. 5c 8 20 ttti4 Wc7 21 c3 e5 22 £.xe5
dxe5 23 Wxa7 and White is a pawn up
but the position is hard to win, Eme-
lin-Makarychev, Russian Ch 1995.
W if A 11 1 8...£g7 9 <&d5
With this move, White aims to pun­
ish Black quickly, but it doesn’t seem
to succeed. On the other hand, more
peaceful approaches let Black develop
up
his pieces harmoniously:
a) 9 0-0 0-0 10 Sad i &e6 11 # b 4
m m m m » c 7 12 £ d 3 Bfc8 13 £>b5 Wb8 14
m m m
&d4 Ad7 15 c4 h6 16 Ah4 a5 17 m i
18 £>f3 iLg4 19 * h l Wc5 gives
8 i.g 5 Black a nice position, Ibragimov-
This is the most popular move. Makarov, Russia Cup (Omsk) 1996.
Other possibilities: b) 9 Sd 1 0-0 1 0 tfd 2 Ae6 11 0-0
a) 8 jk.e3 ,&g7 and now White can a6 12 a4 Wb6 13 S b l VHb4 14 f3 Sfe8
castle either side: gives Black an active position, Besh-
al) 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 # b 4 » c 7 11 a4 ukov-Petrov, Russian Cht 1997.
&e6 12 a5 d5!? (12...Sfc8) 13 exd5 9...0-0 10 £ x f6 exf6 (D)
£>xd5 14 £)xd5 £ x d 5 15 c3 5fd8 16 The bishop-pair and open lines for
S fd l e6 = Barua-Lopushnoi, Linares Black’s active pieces compensate for
open 1998. the weakness of the d6-pawn.
a2) 9 m i 0-0 10 0-0-0 &c6 11 11 Wd2
l h 6 Wa5 12 a3 5fc8 13 £ xg7 <&xg7 After 11 0-0-0 f5 12 Wd3 fxe4 13
14 f3 Eab8 15 &d5 # x d 2 + 16 Bxd2 # x e4 S c 8 14 «T3 Se5 15 £ c 4 £ e 6
 The Dragon Position-Type 41

Efc8 13 i b l , Salmensuu-Maki, Finn­

ish Ch 1999, 13...£ld7 =) ll...fxe6 12
w £)d7 13 £>d4 Wc8! 14 h4 (14
£lxe6? ilxb2 15 ®xf8? i.c3) 14...^e5
15 b3 £)f7, with the idea of answering
h5 with ...g5, is unclear, Nikitin'Lop-
ushnoi, Russian Cht 1997.
b) 8 b3?! £ g 7 9 £ b 2 0-0 10 tfd2
£ e 6 11 0-0-0 Ec8 12 * b l a6 13 JLd3
2c5! 14 £ie2 b5 15 E hel # b 8 16 g4
Bfc8 17 £)f4 fi.c4! ? Thorhallsson-
D .Gurevich, New York Open 1997.
16 fi.b3 a5! Black had a strong attack c) 8 A.g5 fi.g7 and now:
in Moskvitin-Lopushnoi, St Peters­ c l) 9 £>d5 0-0 10 Axf6 exf6 11
burg Chigorin mem 1997. 0-0-0 f5 12 Wa4 fxe4 13 Wxe4 Ae6 =
Il...f5 12 exf5 JLxtS 13 c3 £ e 4 14 Spangenberg-Sorokin, La Plata 1997.
0-0 Se8 15 B fel Wa5 16 £ c 4 Wc5 17 c2) 9i.b5+ A .d7 10 &xd7+Wxd7
fi.b3 a5 18 a4 Se5 19 £>e3 Sg5 11 £>d5 foh5 (forced) 12 Wb4 e6 13
The activity of Black’s pieces com­ &c3 (after 13 £ie3 a5 14 Wd2 h6 15
pensates for the pawn weaknesses, Ah4 Axb2 16 S bl i.g 7 1 7 £ c 4 0-0I
Yu.Hernandez-Demina, Batumi worn would prefer Black, Wallace-Bagatu-
Echt 1999. rov, Linares open 1998) 13...a5! 14
The only move that has caused Wb3 a4 15 # b 4 a3 with good coun­
problems for Black is the irritating 8 terplay for Black, Kriventsov-Karklins,
g4!?. More tests are needed with that USA 1999.
move. On the whole, the idea makes a c3) 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 Wb4 (10 e5 ffc5
solid impression. 11 fi.xf6dxe5 =; 1 0 ^ 2 is playable of
course) 10...h6 11 £ h 4 a5 ( ll.J tb 6 ! ?
A similar idea is applicable against may be good enough for equality) 12
the dangerous 6 f3 too. It is hard to say Wb5 J id l (12...a4 13 e5) 13 Wxb7
which move (6 fi.e2 or 6 f3) is more Bb8 offers Black some attacking pros­
useful for White here, but after 6 f3 it pects for the pawn, Romero-Cifuen-
makes sense to try to use the bishop tes, Wijk aan Zee 1991. However, in
with fi.b5+ or with fi.c4. One thing is the game it soon became desperate af­
sure: there is more need to find alter­ ter 14 Wa7 £>h5? 15 Exd6.
natives to the Boleslavsky-type re­
sponse (...e5) after 6 f3. Conclusion: These lines look like
1 e4 c5 2 £lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £lxd4 solid alternatives to the standard Bole­
£sf6 5 £)c3 foc6 6 f3 £)xd4!? 7 Wxd4 slavsky response, though there are not
g6 enough examples to say anything defi­
Now. nite. In any case, there is no reason to
a) 8 A e3A g7 9 A c 4 !?0 -0 1 0 # d 2 suppose that White can punish Black
i.e 6 11 Axe6 (11 £ b 3 Wa5 12 0-0-0 directly.
4 The Sozin and Velimirovic
Attacks

Strategic Introduction this strategy can always claim that the

pawn-formation on the kingside is
to the Velimirovic very solid, and not so easy break down.
The choice of strategy always remains
The Velimirovic Attack is a subvaria­ as a matter of taste, but in this book we
tion of the Sozin, where after 6 fi.c4 concentrate on the other strategy,
White develops his queenside with which is based on quicker counter-
$Le3, We2 and 0-0-0, and strives for an play.
attack against the black king with a When the king stays in the centre,
pawn-storm on the kingside or with Black can choose a better lime to cas­
some kind of brutal piece sacrifice in tle, if this ever proves necessary. The
the centre. time gained can be used to generate
counterplay on the queenside.

Black has two principal strategies.

He can quickly develop his kingside, An effective method of counterplay
castle and then seek counterplay. The is based on the plan ...£}a5, ...b5 and
drawback of this strategy is that White ...b4. The subsequent plan depends on
then knows exactly where his target White’s response, but often moves like
lies. When Black has castled, there is ...2b8 and the manoeuvre ...£>d7-c5
no easy way back for the king to the are appropriate. The move ...$Lel can
centre, if the king’s position becomes be played if there is nothing more use­
too hectic. Of course, the adherents of ful to do, if the king position in the
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 43

centre is becoming vulnerable, or if This is a theoretical position, where

some tactics are threatened on the e- White can sacrifice a piece with 14
file. Castling demands even more exfS 15 £>d5 Wd8 16 exf5 A.b7
careful thought. If the continuation of 17 f6, obtaining enough compensa­
one’s own plans demand it, and the tion.
white attack doesn’t look too threaten­
ing, it is a good time to castle. After 3. Sacrifice a piece on d5 to open the
all, the rooks will then be connected. e-file
This sometimes happens if Black to­
Typical M e th o d s for W hite tally ignores his kingside develop­
ment.
1. Castle queenside and attack on
the kingside
White typically plays g4-g5 and f4-f5
or h4-h5.

'I B A ' *-■; •

W H « m i
4 H 4 1 Bit it
lii M:: f ••
■ BAili
Black has just played ll...b 4 in­
stead of the safer 1l...ie 7 . White gets
definite compensation after 12 £id5!?
exd5 13 exd5+ $Le7 14 jLxf6. In the
2. Sacrifice a knight on f5 resulting posilion-type, there is no
The aim is to open lines for the attack safety anywhere for the black king and
and to secure d5 for the other knight. it is difficult to neutralize White’s ini­
tiative.

4. Sacrifice a piece on e6
W W ft i. A In the diagram overleaf. Black has for­
gotten to eliminate the b3-bishop in
time and now he will be punished with
the sacrifice 13 iLxe6 fxe6 14 ®xe6
Wc4 (14...#b7? 15 £>xg7+ gives White
three pawns and a decisive attack for
the piece) 15 £)xg7+ * f 8 16 Wh5!
&xg7 17 lfh6+ &g8 18 fodS with a
very strong attack.
44 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

However, there are also positions though in this position Black gets good
where the sacrifice is more unclear. counterplay after 24...fxg6 25 hxg7
2 f7 26 Wxb4 Eb8.

Typical M e th o d s for Black

1. Strike a balance between queen­

side counterplay and securing the
black king’s defences

In this position, both 12 .&xe6 and

12 <£}xe6 are possible, but not even
close to lethal. See note ‘c’ to White’s
9th move in Game 9. As compensa­
tion, White gets two pawns, the d5-
square and some inconvenience to the
black king.
In this position, there is no quick
5. Break open the black kingside white attack in sight. White’s own ob­
This is achieved by advancing the g- structive bishops stop him opening
and h-pawns in parallel. the position with any piece sacrifice.
In the following diagram, White Black can safely continue his own
wouldn’t make even a scratch in the attack with ll...Sb8! to play ...b4 at a
black king position with 24 gxh7+ suitable moment. It must be noted,
‘i ’xh? 25 h6 g6. This is why the only however, that playing ...b4 too early
way to continue the attack is 24 h6!. can sometimes run into Jk.\a6.
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 45

2. Play a knight to the good square

c4
This is often stronger than exchanging B
the b3-bishop. Sometimes there is even
time to manoeuvre both knights to­
wards c4.

4. If the white knight is on a4, chal­

lenge it with ...£sd7-c5 and ... JLd7

Since the bishop has withdrawn to

the inactive square d3, there is time for
...£>d7-e5(b6) followed by ...£lec4 (or
...£}bc4) to threaten White’s king po­
sition and dark-squared bishop. After
that the attack can be continued with
...b4. If Black instead plays the imme­
diate 12...£>c4, White takes on c4 with
the bishop and Black’s attack will re­ Here, challenging the a4-knight
main solely dependent on his chances with 16_fi.d7! is definitely stronger
on the b-file. than 16....&b7. White then faces an
unpleasant problem, because 17 £>xc5
3. Attack in the centre with ...e5 or dxc5 is simply bad for him, not least
...d5 because of the plan ...a5-a4. In addi­
If the white bishop is on d3, ...e5 is of­ tion, Black is immediately threatening
ten a conceivable move. 17...£lxb3+. White’s best is to give up
In the following diagram, both a pawn with 17 ' i ’bl and rely on his
12...e5 13 £>f5 £ e 6 and 12...£b7 13 own counterplay with g5-g6. Note that
£kl2 d5 are good ideas. In the former taking on e4 is generally very risky.
case the knight can be driven away
from f5 with ...g6 and the black king is 5. If White plays g6, playing the
quite happy in the centre. The latter bishop to f6 is often strong
idea is more risky but also more typi­ Here 16....&f6 is the strongest move,
cal to the Classical Sicilian style. both attacking on the long diagonal
46 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

and defending g7 after the obvious W edberg - Yrjola

break h5-h6, thus enabling Black to Finland - Sweden 1988
take on g6.
White has played his knight to a2,
6. Sometimes advancing the a-pawn which is generally a worse square than
comes into consideration a4. White is already worse, but here he
played carelessly 17 W ei? and was
lost after 17...Sc8!. 18...e5 is threat­
ened and 18 Bd2 £>c5 doesn’t help
much.

The Velimirovic Attack

Game 9
K obas - Ivanovic
Yugoslav Ch (Novi Sad) 1985

1 e4 c5 2 £\f3 £lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £}xd4

£lf6 5 £)c3 d6 6 jLc4 e6 7 £ e 3 a6 8
Zapata - Am. Rodriguez We2
Cienfuegos Capablanca mem 1997 This move is almost always a firm
sign that White wants to play the Vel-
Here, this was a decisive plan. The imirovid, the most aggressive line
advance of the a-pawn is often a good against the Classical Sicilian.
idea if White plays the knight some­ 8...#c7
where other than a4 after ...b4. Black is ready to create immediate
counterplay if While castles queen-
7. Play on the c-file is typical for side, which is now critical. Castling
most Sicilian lines kingside doesn’t fit very well with the
Sometimes, this may also be effective move 8 We2. Also, I personally don’t
in the Velimirovic. like to castle too early as Black, as
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 47

White then gets a stationary target for Note that 18 f6?! -&f8 gives White
his heavy artillery. nothing.
1 would like to present as an alterna­ c) 10 a4!? b4 11 £>bl (11 £)a2 e5
tive an interesting surprise weapon un­ 12 £>b3 £ixb3 13 cxb3 d5!) 1 L ..±c7
derestimated by many theory books. 12 fod2 0-0 13 0-0 £>d7l? 14 f4 £ f 6 =
Black can immediately start his queen­ A.Sokolov-Aseev, USSR Ch (Odessa)
side counterplay by 8...£la5 9 fi.d3 b5 1989.
(D), with the following possibilities: d) 10 0-0 iLb7 11 a3 12 Bad 1
Wc7 13 f4 0-0 14 <S?hl Bac8 15 i .c l
Bfd8 (I5...£ic4) and suddenly White
got a strong attack in a seemingly level
position with 16 e5! dxe5 17 £lxe6
fxe6 18 fxe5 Bxd3 19 exf6 B xdl 20
Wxe6+ ^Ph8 21 fxg7+ 4'xg7 in Min-
asian-Epishin, Minsk 1990. White
should now have continued 22 B xdl!
±.
e) 10 b4!? (usually recommended
as the best) 10...£>c4 11 fi.xc4 bxc4
gives Black counterplay against e4
and the break with ...d5 can come. If
a) 10 g4 Wc7 11 g5 fo d l 12 f4 &c5 White takes the c-pawn, he has weak­
13 f5 b4 14 £)dl e5 15 &b3 &axb3 16 nesses on c2, c3, c4 and b4. Now:
axb3 £ixd3+ 17 cxd3 g6!? 18 Bel Wb7 e l) 12 # x c 4 (critical of course)
and the bishop-pair guarantees Black 12...£b7 13 0-0(13 f3?! d5) l3...Bc8
at least equal chances, Gdanski-Epi- 14 ®b3 (14 # d 3 !? d5 15 e5 fo d l 16
shin, Warsaw 1990. This line, like the £ f 4 A.xb4 17 £ c e 2 &e7 18 Wg3 ± is
next one, can easily transpose to the somewhat unpleasant, but Black has
main line. some positional advantages too, de
b) 10 0-0-0 b4 11 £lbl (11 £\a4?! Firmian-Zaltsman, Lone Pine 1997)
iLd7 12 b3 fi.xa4 13 bxa4 jLe7 14 g4 14...Wc7 15 i.d 2 (15 Wa4+ Wd7 16
0-0 15 Bhgl fo d l 16 g5 foc5 T Hai- Wxd7+ £>xd7 17 £>de2 £tf6 18 G d5
nac-Aseev, Dresden 1987) ll...W c7 =)l5...e5 16^f5^xe4(16...fi.xe4!?)
(ll...A b 7 12& d2fi.e7 13g4£)c614 17 <£sxe4 fi.xe4 18 £ie3 fi.e7 19 c4
g5 £)d7 15 £)xc6 ii.xc6 16 f4 e5! 17 .&g5 is unclear, Brodsky-Kovaliov,
Bhgl exf4 18 JLxf4 £ie5 = Prid- Bela Crkva 1990.
Kovaliov, Clichy 1991) 12 fo d l £-<il e2) 12 0-0 J ib l 13 fi.g5 (consid­
( 12...e5!?) 13 g4 £)d7 14 f4 foc5 15 ered strong in NCO, which only dis­
$ b l JLdl 16 g5 0-0 17 f5 Bfc8 and cusses 13...Sc8? in reply) 13...iLe7!
now, instead of 18 fxe6?! (Brunner- 14 Badl (after 14 1Bfxc4 Bc8 15 ^ 3
Epishin, Maringa 1991), according to h6 16 £.xf6 ji.xf6 Black has quite ac­
Epishin White should play 18 B el or ceptable compensation for the pawn in
18 £>2f3 with chances for both sides. the form of his bishop-pair, active
48 E asy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

pieces and superior pawn-structure) a) 10 0-0-0 transposes to the note

14...Wc7 15 <4>hl 0-0 16 f4 h6 17 to White’s 10th move.
iLxf6 (17 JLh4 <£sxe4! Seitz-Kovaliov, b) The surprising 10 a4!? leads the
Passau 1995) 17...Axf6 18a3Sfe8 19 game along a completely different
Wd2 V2 -V2 Bruslkern-Rossmann, Ger­ track: 10...£e7 11 0-00-0(11 ...£>xb3?!
many 1997/8. 12 cxb3 opens the c-file for White) 12
This line has been employed by the JLa2 J&.d7 13Uadi 2fc8 14<*hl Hab8
strong GMs Epishin and Aseev from 15 f4 b5 16 axb5 axb5 17 e5! dxe5 18
time to time as a winning attempt. £kxb5 iLxb5 19 £ k b 5 Wxc2 and the
White can get only a small advantage position was about level in Lukin-
at best. Many of the lines are very Morozevich, Ukrainian Cht 1994.
complicated and it is hard to say who c) 10 g4! b5 11 g5 £)d7. Now,
is better. The line might be of great among others, there are two slightly
practical value for three reasons: it is suspicious sacrificial possibilities,
underestimated, it is not very well which give White unclear compensa­
known, and, most importantly of all, tion:
in the main option (line ‘e’) Black of­ c l) 12 ^.xe6 fxe6 13 £lxe6 Wc4!
fers a pawn to take the initiative. This 14 £>d5! (14 Wxc4 &xc4 15 £lc7+
might be poisonous for Velimirovic <S?d8 16 £\xa8 £lxe3 17 fxe3 J ib l 18
players, who thrive on the initiative a4 b4 19 £)d5 £ x a8 20 0-0-0 % V2 -V2
themselves. The drawback is that White Ardeleanu-Wang Lei, Ubeda 1998)
can very easily by-pass it with the 14...Wxe2+ 15 <4>xe2 * f 7 16 £>d8+
move-order we see in Game 10. * e 8 17 £>e6 Eb8 18 f4 £lc6 19 2adl
We now return to the position after * f 7 20 f5 £)de5 21 fade! i.e 7 22 h4
8...Wc7 (D): Nijboer-Hellers, Leeuwarden 1994.
c2) 12 £>xe6 fxe6 13 Axe6 £>b6!
(better than 13...£}e5 14 £>d5!) 14
£ x b 6 Wxb6 15 £>d5 Wc6!? 16 &f6+
W gxf6 17 £ d 5 Wc5 18 Wh5+ (18 &xa8
¥) 18...*d8 19 1TF7 Wd4 (19...i.e7)
20 ,&xa8 fxg5 21 0-0 J ic l T Milos-
Lima, Brazilian Ch 1995.
c3) 12 a3 (a recommendation of
the Kasparov/Nikitin book) 12...£>b6
(12...£>xb3 13cxb3i.b7 14 5clW d8
is too passive) 13 0-0-0 2b8 14 f4
<£lbc4 15 f5 £}xa3!? 16 fxe6 £\xb3+
17 cxb3 and now 17...b4 led quickly to
9 0-0-0 a murky position in Velimirovic-Ivano-
If White really wants to keep his viC, Yugoslav Ch 1982 but I would be
bishop on b3, it is better to put it there curious about the value of 17...fxe6.
now to have the option ‘c’ after 9 Ab3 c4) 12 f4 (the most popular move)
£sa5: 12...b4 13 £ia4 (safer is 13 £>dl J&.b7
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 49

14 fon. foc5 15.4.d2 d5 16 exd5 5^axb3 a) 14 h4 b4 15 £>a4 (the a2-square

17 axb3 ,fi.xd5 = Farago-Grabics, Bu­ is worse for the knight: 15 ®a2?! a5!,
dapest 1997) 13...fi.b7 and now: since the critical attempt 16 £)b5 {16
c41) 14 f5?! e5 15 fi.xf7+?! (15 h5 £ a 6 ) 16...Wb8 17 Wd3 Sa6 18
£>e6 fxe6 16 fxe6 foe 5 17 <£ixc5 dxc5 Wc4foc5 1 9 * b l (19 £lxd6+? 2xd6
18 fi.d5 is a suggestion of the old Kas­ 20 fi.xc5 2 c 6 21 fi.a7 W cl 22 Wb5
parov/Nikitin book which has never 0-0} 19.,.^.b7 doesn’t lead White any­
been tried in practice) 15...Sfexf7 16 where) 15...£k:5 16 h5 fi.d7! (safer
Wh5+ * g 8 17 f6 Wc4 18 S fl #17 is than 16...£ixe4!?). Now White has the
too aggressive, Ardeleanu-Istralescu, difficult problem with the knight men­
Romanian Ch 1996. tioned earlier in the strategy section.
c42) 14 fi.d2 e5! (this looks risky, Since exchanging the knights is bad,
but the b3-bishop is about to disappear White has the following options:
from the board) 15 £if5 g6 16 £ig3 al) The aggressive move 17 g6
exf4 17 fi.xf4 £>xb3 18 axb3 fi.e7 ? leads to crazy complications, which
Gdanski-lstratescu, Manila OL 1992. tend to favour Black after 17...£)xb3+:
White’s knights aie poorly placed. al 1) The craziest of all is the line
9...&a5! 18 * b l £>xd4 19 fi.xd4 fi.xa4 20
This is more active than the line fi.xg7 &d7! 21 fi.xh8 2xh8 22 g7
better known to theory: 9...fi.e7 10 2c8. Now:
fi.b3 £la5 11 g4 b5 12 g5 £ixb3+ (a al 11) 23 b3?! fi.b5 24 Wd2 fi.f6
common mistake is 12...fodll, allow­ 25 S hgl fi.e2! 26 Wxe2 * c 3 27 e5
ing 13 fi.xe6!) 13 axb3 (13 £ixb3?! fi.xe5 28 #xe5 Wxe5 29 g8W 2xg8 30
permits strong counterplay immedi­ 2xg8 # s h 5 - + de Firmian-D.Gure­
ately: 13...£)d7 14h4b4 15&bl a5 16 vich, Chicago 1994.
f4.fi.b7 +) 13...^d7 (D). al 12) 23 2d2 fi.f6 (23...b3!? may
be stronger) 24 Bgl 2g8 25 # x a6
fi.c6 26 2 g d l $Le5 27 h6 is harder to
assess, N.Rogers-Rao, Philadelphia
1993.
a 12) The typical pawn-storm 18
<£)xb3 fi.xa4 19 h6 fxg6 doesn’t seem
to favour White either:
al21) 20 hxg7?! 2g8 21 <&d4 e5
22 £>e6 Wc8! (22..M c6) 23 Qf8 b3
looks just bad for White.
al22) 20 ^ d 4 ! (accurate) 20...e5
21 £>e6 Wc6 22 hxg7 2g8 23 2xh7
fi.b3! 24 2d5 (24 £lc5 fi.f7 25 £ld3
Now White can continue the nor­ Wxe4 + Brunner-Van der Wiel, Lu­
mal Velimirovic plan by advancing his cerne Wcht 1989) 24...2c8 25 2h8
kingside pawns (line ‘a') or by sacri­ <4 >17 26 foc5 dxc5 27 cxb3 c4 + Rech-
ficing a piece (line ‘b’). lis-Piket, Gausdal jr Wch 1986.
50 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

a2) The main line is the more

peaceful 17 'i ’bl JLxa4 18 bxa4 2c8!
(practice has shown this to be better,
or at least safer, than the older alterna­
tive 18...Wb7 but 18...£ixa4!? 19 g6
£ f6 2 0 g x f7 + 'tx f7 21 Wc4 (21 h6!?}
21...0-0, Wang Pin-Chiburdanidze,
Shanghai worn Ct 1992, is not out of
question) 19 f3 (19 g6 ^.f6! 20 gxf7+
* x fl< ?2 1 # c 4 # d 7 {21...Bhd8} 22
£>f5 £>xa4 23 Wb3?!, Bellin-Skodvin,
Gausdal Troll 1990, and now 23...d5!
is strong) 19...£>xa4 20 Wxa6 £>c5 21 bl) 17..Jk.xd5?! (this seems to give
Wb5+ £>d7 (21...#d7 22 b3 e5 23 White considerably more chances than
Wxd7+ sfcxd? 24 ^ f 5 £te6 was also line ‘b2') 18 fxg7 2g8 19 2xd5 2xg7
very close to equality in RotSagov- 20 f4 * f8 21 h4 Wa5 (21...2c8!? 22
Veingold, Finnish Cht 1996). Now £ d 4 ) 22 2 c 1 2e8 23 &d4 2g6 24
White has three possibilities, of which 3ic3 Wd8 25 Wh5 with tremendous
the rook moves are risky ways to play compensation, Zapata-Leitao, Amer­
for a win and the third one allows icana 1997.1 wonder how many times
Black to force a draw: this line has occurred because of a
a21) 22 2h2 0-0 23 g6 S k5 24 h6 memory lapse.
fxg6 25 Bdhl 217 26 hxg7 2xg7 27 b2) 17...gxf6 and then:
Wxb4 2b8 gave Black enough coun­ b21) 18 gxf6 ± xd5 (18...£>xf6?!
terplay in Santos-Estremera Panos, 19 &.b6 jL,xd5 20 Ji.xd8 2xd8 is also
Pula Echt 1997. interesting, although three pieces of­
a22) 22 2d2 0-0 23 g6 (23 f4?! ten beat a queen, HamaJainen-Lehto,
£>c5 24 f5 Wa7!) 23...£>c5 24 h6 fxg6 Finnish Cht 1996) 19 fxe7?! (19 2xd5
25 hxg7 2 f7 26 Wxb4 2b8 27 Wc4 £ixf6 transposes into line ‘b223’)
d5! 28 exd5 exd5 29 Wa2 (29 Wxd5 19...Wa5 20 £ d 4 2g8 21 2 h el (Bel-
2xb2+!) 29...Wb7 gives Black good iavsky-Radulovic, USSR-Yugoslavia
play against the white king, Oni- (Erevan) 1971) is suspicious after
shchuk-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 21..A e6.
1996. b22) 18 2 h el &xd5 192xd5 2g8.
a23) 22 g6 e5 (this forces a perpet­ It seems White’s initiative is enough
ual check but 22...fxg6 23 2h2! was for a draw but playing for more is
less convincing in Hector-Rotsagov, risky. There are many lines where the
Gothenburg 1997) 23 gxf7+ &xf7 24 amount of compensation is hard to
Wd5+ <£>e8 25 £\e6 Wxc2+ with a evaluate. Typically, Black is theoreti­
draw, Nunn-Estremera Panos, Leon cally fine, but the practical problems
1997. are great. White now has three lines:
b) 14 £>f5 exf5 15 £)d5 Wd8 16 b221) 20 h4?! 2c8 21 Af4 (follow­
exf5 $Lb7 17 {6(D) and now. ing 21 f4 ^ 8 22 i ’bl 2g6 White’s
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 51

compensation is less concrete, Ehl- Still, this line may be a good choice
vest-Tischbierek, Leningrad 1984) against a stronger player, because
21...*f8 22 Axd6 Axd6 23 5xd6 White has to take risks to play for a
# c 7 seems unplayable for White. win. There is another good reason to
b222) 20 A.f4?! * f 8 21 Wh5 (21 study this line. Black has more options
Wd2 2xg5 22 Axg5 fxg5 23 h4 a5!, in the normal Sozin (discussed in
Hector-Fishbein, Stavanger 1991) Game 10), if he doesn’t have to worry
21...#35! 22 * e 2 (22 * d 1?! I f a l+23 about the Velimirovic with the bishop
<&>d2 Wxb2 24 Wh6+ 2g7 25 2xe7, developed on e7. There are of course
Kaeser-Polajzer, Baden-Baden 1988, many different move-orders to reach
25...5.8! -+ ) 22...£)e5!? (22...*^8 this line.
repeats) 23 gxl'6 Axf6 24 sfc’bl with Now we return to 9...£ia5 (D):
‘practical compensation’, Silva-Tuk-
makov, Odessa 1976.
b223) 20 gxf6 £>xf6 21 2f5 £}g4
(Black can also take a risk with either
21...*d7!? 22 Ab6 Wf8 or 21...2b8
22 Ad4! * d 7 23 Wf3 2g6 24 c3, Zap-
ata-Becerra Rivelo, Matanzas Capa-
blanca mem 1994, where White’s
compensation is very real, but not with
2 1 ...2 .6 ? 22 Ab6 Wd7 23 # f3 ) 22
Ad4!? is a risky way to play for a win
(White has decided to make a draw in
several games with 22 Ag5 £ie5 23
Axe7 «fxe7 24 f4 £>d3+ 25 cxd3 Wxe2 10£d3
26 2xe2+ * f 8 27 2g5 2g6 28 h4 =). Here the bishop is not very well
Now Black has tried: placed with respect to the kingside or
b2231) 22...2g6!? 23 Wf3 <&e5 24 central attack but 10 Ab3?! b5 11 g4
Axe5 dxe5 25 2x17 Bf6? (25...2a7 T) (against the slow 11 f3 the most active
26 2xf6 Axf6 27 2 d l + - Rogid- answer is H...£>d7, planning ...&c5
Lysenko, Croatian Cht 1994. and ...b4, and 11 A.g5 Ae7 12 f4
b2232) 22...2c8 23 h3 £>h6 24 £lxb3+ 13 axb3 b4 14 <£\a4 Ab7 is
2h5 2g 6 25 # d 3 * f 8 26 &e3 &g7 27 fine for Black) ll.,.b 4 12 g5 £>d7 13
2d5 Af6 28 ^ b l with compensation £te4 £>xb3+ 14 axb3 foc5 gives Black
that is not so easy to neutralize, Seitz- a strong attack after 15 foxcS (15 Wc4
Wells, Regensburg 1996. Wb7!? 16 e5 &xa4 17 bxa4 dxe5 18
Conclusion (to this note): After a £lc6 A.d7 19^a5 # c 8 Hansson-Wahl-
careful study of the lines, we may con­ bom, Swedish Ch 1976) 15...dxc5 16
clude that Black has excellent chances £lf3 Ae7 17 £>d2 a5 18 £)c4 a4, Zap­
for at least a draw, though in practice ata-Am.Rodriguez, Cienfuegos Capa-
the main line, where Black strives for blanca mem 1997. Otherwise, if White
an initiative, has been more favourable. doesn’t take on c5. Black threatens the
52 E asy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

knight with ...jLd7 next move. Black grip) 17...Wxd5 18Wxf6Bg8 19£ f5
has saved the tempo of the move ...iLe7 .£.e6 —(- Milu-Nevednichy, Bucharest
for attack compared with note *a' to 1994.
Black’s 9th move. a212) 13...*d8 14^.xf6+gxf6 15
10...b5 (D) Bhel £ h 6 + 1 6 * b l Ba7 17 Wh5 with
enduring compensation, Milu-Arvinti,
Romania 1993.
a22) 12 £>bl &e7 13 £\d2 e5 14
£if5?! (14 <SMb3) 14...±xf5 15 exf5
d5 16 Bhel Q,c6 ¥ and Black has a
nice pawn-centre, Kiik-Yrjola, Tallinn
1985.
b) 11 g4 b4 and now:
bl) 12 £ia4 and then:
b ll) I must warn from my own ex­
periences that the tempting 12..JLd7?!
13 g5 Jk.xa4 14 gxf6 is dangerous after
14...gxf6 (14...b3?! 15 axb3 <5}xb3+
11 a3 16 £>xb3 £xb 3 17 i.d 4 e5? 18 £xe5!
Although this move weakens the is even winning for White, Maki-
king position, allowing ...b4 has some Yrjola, Helsinki 1995) 15 Wf3.
drawbacks too: b l2) 12...£)d7 is simplest, with the
a) Less critical but quite popular is familiar plan ...£k:5. It is surprising
11 iLg5, with these options: that only one example of this move
a l) The solid move 1 l...^.e7 usu­ can be found: 13 b3 Ab7 14 f4 £lc5 15
ally transposes to the main line after £}xc5 dxc5 16 <S^f3 c4 17 bxc4 Bc8 18
12 a3 but the independent try 12 Bhel £kl2 JLc5 19 B hfl e5 is unclear, Kil-
b4 13 £>bl e5! 14 &b3 £)xb3+ 15 ian-S.Andresen, Bundesliga 1994/5.
axb3 0-0 16 £ x f6 £ x f6 17 £id2 a5! b2) 12 £)bl with two options:
18 .&b5 Ac6 ¥ gave Black a nice posi­ b21) The thematic idea with the
tion in A.Sokolov-Popovid, Novi Sad central strike similar to some Rauzer
1984. lines: 12....&b7 13 <£ld2 d5. This looks
a2) The riskier ll...b4 allows a fairly attractive; for example: 14 f3
piece sacrifice: dxe4 15 fxe4 Jic5 (15...g6!? 16 i ’bl
a21) 12 £ld5!? is certainly a good £.g7 17 Bhgl £id7 is slightly untypi­
idea in practice, as it leads to a posi­ cal but interesting, Dunhaupt-Kujala,
tion-type typical to many Najdorf and corr 1991) 16 g5 £id7 17<±>bl £>e5 18
some Classical Sicilian lines where £l2f3 £)xf3 19 £>xf3 £.xe3 20 Wxe3
White has compensation for the piece. 0-0 21 h4 £ c 4 22 We2 Bac8 looks
12...exd5 13 exd5+ and now: solid enough, Perovic-Kosten, Paris
a211) 13...i.e7 14 £ x f6 gxf6 15 1988.
Bhel Ba7 16 Wh5 Wc5 17 Wh6? (17 b22) 12...e5 (this move should al­
£.f5! Bc7 18 Be2 doesn’t loosen the ways be considered seriously in the
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 53

Velimirovic when White's bishop has Ac 1 # c 5 19 Wh5 led to an unclear po­

gone to d3) 13 £M’5 Ae6 (13...g6?! 14 sition with attacking possibilities for
Ag5 £>d7 15 £ e 3 focS 16 b3 Ae6 17 both sides in Konguveel-Krokopchuk,
Af6 gave White some play in Ago- Koszalin 1998.
pov-Veingold, Vantaa 1999) 14 b3 g6 b) The prophylactic 12...£sd7!? is
15 g5 (15 Ag5 fo d l 16 foe3 f6 f) successful because it is more effective
15...£ld7 16 £ h 6 Ag7 17 h4 foc5 18 to occupy the c4-square with the
£ld2 Sc8 = Nunn-Salov, Wijk aan Zee knight than to allow its exchange for
1992. the bishop. The passive bishop on d3
ll...S b 8 (D) gives Black time to manoeuvre: 13
11 ...Ab7 went out of fashion, per­ S hel (even the more natural 13 f4
haps unduly so, after Nunn-Sosonko, £ib6 14 f5 £>bc4 15 g5 b4 16 axb4
Thessaloniki OL 1984: 12 g4 d5 13 Sxb4 was fine for Black in Forster-
exd5 £\xd5 14 £klxb5 axb5 (14...Wb8 Madl, PortoroZ 1998) 13...£te5 14 f4
15 £Sxd5 Axd5 16 ^ c 3 A xhl looks £tec4 15 f5 Ae7 16 g5 b4 17 axb4Sxb4
risky) 15 Axb5+ S&dS 16 £)xd5 exd5 18 £sb3 £ixb3+ 19 cxb3 fo xel 20
17 Sd3 £>c4 18 Sc 3 Ab4? (18...Axa3! # xe3 Sxb3 + Reeve-I. Ivanov, Canada
is OK for Black - Nunn) 19 Sxc4. 1986.1 suspect these lines should not
The text-move is more logical, and be so bad for White as these examples
gives Black better counter-attacking indicate.
chances. 12...Ae7 13 f4
It is better to try to stop ...b4 though
White’s game is in any case suspect:
13 # e l foc4 (Black has a choice of at­
W tractive possibilities; e.g., 13...h6 14
A h4g5! 15 A g3e5 16£sf5 Axf5 17
exf5 b4 18 axb4 Sxb4 Dimitrov-Zvia-
gintsev, Barberadel Valles 1996) 14 f4
Ab7 15 S fl 'il,b6! (an improvement
over 15...Sc8 16 Axc4 # x c 4 17 e5!
dxe5 18 fxe5 £>e4 19 Axe7 fo\c3 20
#12 ± A.Sokolov-Tukmakov, USSR
Ch 1984) 16 Axc4 bxc4 17 e5'.? dxe5
18 fxe5 fo65 19 A xe7 fo x e l 20 # f 2
12Ag5 0-0 21 fof5 # c 7 22 foxel+ # x e7 *
The normal plan is 12 g4: Dimitrov-Inkiov, Sofia 1989.
a) The natural \2...foc4 13 g5 £k!7 13...b4 14 axb4 Sxb4 15 Axa6
14 Axc4 bxc4 15 f4 Ae7 (15...#b7?! Black also got the upper hand in
16 # x c 4 # x b 2 + 17 &d2 #xa3?! 18 Ehlvest-Lerner, Tallinn 1986: 15£)f3
£\ c6 Sa8, Ghizdavu-Ghinda, Bucha­ &c4 16 b3 foa5 17 * b 2 Ab7 18 foa2
rest 1971, and now White wins on the Sb6 19 S h fl Wc5!? 20 f5 £>g4! 21
spot by 19 S a l ! d5 20 exd5 Wd6 21 Axe7 <4xe7 22 Sde 1 £ k 5 T.
£)b5!) 16 S hel Ad8 17 * b l 0-0 18 15...0.0 (D)
54 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

\v w

Black has fine compensation in the The play takes on quite a different
form of open files against the white nature if White adopts the aggressive
king. It is no surprise the game didn't Velimirovic approach, which includes
last long. the queen development on e2, long
16 £ x c 8 Exc8 17 £ d b 5 Wc5 18 e5 castling and usually a pawn-push on
dxe5 19 fxe5 £ k 4 20 b3 Sxb5 21 the kingside. White can instead play
&xb5 Wxb5 22 bxc4 Wa5 0-1 more quietly and positionally with
,&b3, f4 and Wf3, castle either side
Conclusion: This is a good way for and play f5 to attack the e6-pawn. If
Black to meet the Velimirovic Attack. Black has to play ...e5, there is a po­
Black has strong counterplay or at tentially weak spot on d5. This plan is
least equality. The sidelines are play­ discussed in the next game.
able too. White can also castle kingside at an
early stage. In that case. Black doesn't
Strategic Introduction have worry about the Velimirovic At­
tack any more and he has more options.
to the Sozin Position- In addition, White can experiment
Type with different plans. The options after
early castling are considered in Game
The white bishop development to c4 U.
on the sixth move is characteristic for The play will take a somewhat dif­
the Sozin. Usually Black adopts the ferent direction if Black plays the dis­
typical Sicilian small centre set-up ruptive 6...®b6. The position-type
with ...d6 and ...e6, when the bishop varies depending on how White an­
doesn’t look very good. On the other swers, but usually the game will take
hand, the bishop on c4 or b3 doesn’t more peaceful paths than the Velim­
block White’s other pieces, as it might irovic. The active knight is expelled
on e2, and White can try to make it from d4. Often the positions resemble
look better. After the moves 6 ilc4 e6 more closely the variation 1 e4 c5 2
7 Ji.e3 a6 (D) the following position £if3 £ k 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4 Wb6 or
arises: the Scheveningen. Sometimes Black
 The Sozin and Velimirovic A ttacks 55

fianchettoes the bishop in a Dragon rather dangerous for the black king
style. position and Black is bound to keep an
eye on the f5-f6 advance. Besides, f~7
becomes more vulnerable

2. Strike in the centre with e5

This needs a tactical justification since
it is generally positionally doubtful; a
white pawn on e5 might be weak and
the b3-bishop might bite on concrete if
there are no sacrificial possibilities.

This is a standard position in this

type of Sozin.

Typical M e th o d s for W hite

1. Play f4-f5 to make the bishop look

better
After that White can try to make use
of the d5-square a la Boleslavsky if
Black plays ...e5. Here the justification is Black’s bad
piece development. After 10 e5 dxe5
11 fxe5 £)xb3 12 axb3 £)d5 13 Wf3
$Lbl 14 0-0 Wc7 15 £ixd5 £ x d 5 16
Wf2 Black has some problems with
f7.

If Black plays ...e5. White can try to

use the d5-square by exchanging the
f6-knight or sometimes pushing the g-
pawn. If White manages to exchange
the f6-knight, the f-pawn might be
56 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

In this well-known line. White can

activate his knight via e4 after 12 e5.
The knight goes to d6 and White gets a
passed pawn. There are also cases in
the next game where the queen is on
f3, with ideas of taking the a8-rook af­
ter an e4-e5 thrust. These cases should
be evaluated separately. Black’s com­
pensation may take the form of a
strong minor piece, or else the white
queen might get into trouble.

3. Start attacking on the kingside S a x - M o vse sia n

with g2-g4 Bundesliga 1997/8
This is more typical in the 6...#b6
Sozin. and 14...2fe8 are better tries) 15 g5
£)d7 16 £id5! White took the upper
hand.

4. Keep the bishop on the board

with a3 and Aa2
After this, Black has no possibility of
exchanging the light-squared bishop
with ...4ha5.

Kupreichik - Lopushnoi
Perm 1998

In this position, the direct 12 g4!

was very strong. Black was crushed
after 12...£texg4 13 Axg4 £ixg4 14
S h g l <£f6 15 e5!.

Sometimes g4 is possible even if In this position, this has been the

White has castled kingside and the only successful plan in practice. White
centre is not closed. wants to continue with i h 1, f4, f5 and
In the following diagram, 14 g4!, £)f4, or alternatively 'S’h l, £}g3 and
threatening 15 e5 dxe5 16 g5, seems £ih5. White has some hope of making
dangerous. After 14...b4? (14...^d7 the bishop look good.
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 57

Typical M e th o d s for Black

1. Keep the formation with pawns

on d6 and e6 as long as possible
Playing ...e5 makes the white bishop
better, while playing ...d5, if this is
possible at all, usually just creates a
weak pawn. If White plays f5, the
standard reply is ...e5 if the d5-square
doesn’t look too painful. Exchanging
on f5 wins a tempo but leaves the d4-
and f4-squares available to White.
Letting White exchange on e6 might for Black. Here after 11 f5 Black
lead to a weak pawn. should play either 1 l...£ k 4 or 1l...e5
12£>de2&c4.

3. Advance the queenside pawns

This is especially urgent if White cas­
tles queenside.

In this position, it is difficult to

choose between 14,..e5 and 14,..exf5.
If Black plays the latter, we end up in
position-type 3.

2. Attack the white bishop with the Istratescu - A. S o k o lo v

knight or pawns Groningen FIDE KO 1997
It should be exchanged or blocked with
the knight if it’s getting too strong. 16...a5! 17 Sc4 Wd7 18 Sh4 a4
In the following diagram. Black can gave Black nice counterplay.
and probably should play 10...£sa5 be­ Also, the advance of the b-pawn
fore White plays f5. Quite often, it is can be used to drive away the knight
better for Black to let the knight be ex­ from c3 before compromising the d5-
changed on c4 than to exchange on b3. square with ...e5. The timing is good if
Sometimes the opening of the c-file White just played f4-f5 before this op­
after the recapture cxb3 is unpleasant eration.
58 E asy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

5. If White plays £>g3 (intending

<£\h5), ...h5 might be a strong answer
if Black hasn’t castled yet B

In this position the motif of 13...h5!?

is to make a strongpoint for the f6-
knight and to stop White playing g4.
Of course, Black has no intention of
Ehlvest - Yrjola castling kingside after such a move.
Jyvaskyla 1998
6. Make use of the weak light squares
Black stopped £lh5 and got good in White’s camp
play with 15...h5! 16 h3 h4. The plan This idea becomes relevant when
continued with ...b5, ...Ac6 and ...d5. White’s light-squared bishop has been
exchanged.
Playing ...h5 may involve a sacrifice:

B
B

ffl
aaa
M acieja - Dam ljanovic
K asp a rov - Tim m an Belgrade 1999
Manila OL 1992
Black got good compensation for a
Black got good compensation after pawn in the form of excellent light-
12...h5 13 ± x f6 gxf6 14 £>xh5 £ b 7 square control after 15...d5! 16 e5 d4!
15 £)g3 0-0-0. 17 £x d 4 Sd8.
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 59

7. A central breakthrough with ...d5 of the Sozin, where the light-squared

This is sometimes effective when bishops were exchanged after JLb5+.
White’s light-squared bishop has ei­ If White could advance to f5, Black’s
ther been exchanged or driven away light squares would be very weak.
from the a2-g8 diagonal. Besides the
previous example, this is typical:
Sozin with 8 ilb 3 and
9 f4
This game introduces a way to play
the Sozin more positionally without the
aggressive Velimirovic ideas. White
opts for the plan f4, # f 3 and f5.

Game 10
Balashov - Khalifm an
Russia Cup (Samara) 1998

1 e4 c5 2 &f3 £ic6 3 foc3 d6 4 d4

In this position, Black gets at least cxd4 5 £sxd4 fot6 6 JLc4 e6 7 ii.e3 a6
equality after 14...d5!. 8£b3
With this Fischer-like prophylactic
8. Sometimes the move ...g5 can be move, White sometimes hopes to
used to secure a strongpoint on e5 reach the Velimirovic in better circum­
stances, but in fact he might be forced
to abandon the whole plan. However,
the alternative plan with f4-f5 doesn’t
look bad.
8...Wc7
If Black plays the normal develop­
ing move 8...Ae7 he must be prepared
to play a sharp line of the Vclimirovic
Attack: 9 We2 W cl 10 0-0-0 trans­
poses to the note to Black’s 9th move
in Game 9.
The line 8...£>a5 9 f4 b5 (9...#c7!?
10 f5) 10 e5 dxe5 11 fxe5 £ x b 3 12
Milos - Yermolinsky axb3 &d5 13 Wf3 £ b 7 14 0-0 is risk­
Groningen 1996 ier due to Black's kingside develop­
ment problems.
Play continued 14...g5! 15 “4 h l 9f4
h5'., to stop the f-pawn and to secure With 9 # e 2 £>a5 we end up in the
e5. This is a rather abnormal version already familiar Velimirovic line.
60 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

9 0-0 £ia5 10 f4 b5! 11 f5 e5 12 a l ) 11...& C 4 12 Axc4 Wxc4 13

£ide2 $Lbl seems quite good for Black, Wf3 0 -0 is q u ite play ab le, but the c o m ­
who has enough control over the c4- p e n sa tio n in Kaidanov-Smirin, Gro­
and d5-squares: 13 £>d5 (13 £}g3 £lc4 n in g e n PCA qual 1993 w a sn ’t really
14 Axc4 Wxc4 15 Wd3 2c8 16 a3 h5! c o n v in c in g a fte r 14 f i a d l b5?! (b e tte r
Vavra-Istratescu, Mamaia U-16 Wch is 1 4 ...£ k l7 !? or 1 4 ...e5 ) 15 e5! dxe5
1991) 13...£ixd5 14 £ x d 5 £>c4 15 16 WxaS exd4 17 .&xd4 ,&c5 18 .£.xc5
£ c l (15 Wcl?! £ xd5 16 exd5 Sc8 17 ’Sfxc5+ 19 * h l exf5 20 Wf3.
b3 £>xe3 18 Wxe3 Wc5 with a better a2) 1l...e5 12 £)de2 £ d 7 !? (after
ending for Black, Scholl-Polugaevsky, 12...£>xb3?! 13 cxb3 the c-file is
Amsterdam 1970) 15...Wc5+ 1 6 $ h l opened for White’s rooks) 13 £>g3 (13
i.xd5 17 exd5 &b6 18 £)c3 &e7 and .&g5!? WC5+ 14 i h l jLc6 is certainly
now A.Kovaievid- Popovid, Yugoslav critical) 13...£ ic4 14 ^.c 1?! (I had
Ch (Nik5i6) 1997 saw an interesting planned to answer 14 Jk.xc4 Wxc4 15
pawn sacrifice: 19 f6!? (but in de Fir- <5}h5 with I5....&c6! 16 5}xg7+ 'i ’d?,
mian-Salov, New York 1996, White’s with an unclear position) 14...Wc5+
tactics failed: 19 <£le4? # x d 5 20 Wf3 15 'i h l h5! with promising counter­
Sc8 21 &e3 £ d 7 !; 19 Wf3 is a more play, Ehlvest-Yrjola, Jyvaskyla 1998.
standard move recommended by Salov) b) The ambitious and logical 10 f5
19...gxf6!? 20 W{3 £>d7 21 £)e4 Wc7 has been very rare for some reason.
22 & e3. Black could answer with 10...<£lxd4
9...&e7 (D) 11 A.xd4b5 120-0(12 fxe6!?) 12...e5;
for example:
bl) 13 £ e3 !? £ b 7 14 &g5? (14
i i. m m t £}d5) 14...£>xe4 15 £ixe4 ,&xe4 16
W ■ i n i i a i Wg4 d5 17 jLxe7 sfcxe?! T Veroci-Liu
A■ M A H ■ Shilan, Thessaloniki worn OL 1984.
b2) 13 ± f2 JLVJ 14 a3 (14 &d5
£>xd5 15£xd5 0 -0 l6 c3 Hab8 17Scl
"■ B a n WM Sfc8 18 b3 * a 5 19 & el Wb6+ V2 -V2
Morovic-Serper, Las Vegas 1997)
A&A s m ii 14...0-0 15 W(3 Sac8 prepares a sacri­
fice on c3 if White pushes the g-pawn,
Ivanchuk-Anand, Linares (3) 1992.
10...0-0
10 Wf3 10...£ixd4!? 11 .SLxd4 b5 can also
This move, which keeps options be played because 12 e5 (12 f5 e5 13
open of castling on either side, is most &f2 £ b 7 14 0-0-0 b4 15 &d5 £>xd5
popular. Others: 16 ^.xd5 0-0 17 h4 a5 gives Black
a) 10 0-0 £ia5 (not forced but a counterplay, Blees-Lanka, Ljubljana
logical move, since the bishop grows 1994) 12...£b7 13 % 3 dxe5 14 fxe5
in value after White plays f5) 11 f5 £lh5 15 Wg4 g6 is not clear. Both sides
and now: have misplaced pieces (the b3-bishop
 The Sozin and Velimirovic A ttacks 61

and ihe h5-knight). The position is hard

to evaluate. In fact, 12 a3 is a practical
choice, returning to the main line.
With this move-order. Black can how­
ever avoid the more complicated vari­
ations in the next note.
11 0-0
This is safer than 11 0-0-0 b5!?.
Then:
a) 12 g4 b4 13 £ k e2 £ixd4 14
JLxd4 a5 with counterplay.
b) 12 e5'.? £lxd4 13 #x a8 (13
JLxd4 dxe5 14 fi.xe5 Wb7 is harmless) and now perhaps instead of 17,..fi.xf8
13...dxe5 14 fxe5 £ixb3+ (14...£b7!? 18 # e 8 Wc6 19 * f2 Wxg2+ 20 &e 1 ±
15 # a 7 £ic6 16 # b 6 ifxb6 17 £x b 6 Black should choose 17...£*xft$ 18'#e8
£>xe5) 15 axb3 &b7 16 Wa7 £id7 or i.c 5 19 £)e2 Wxe5 20 S f 1 £xd4+ 21
16...<5^g4 with definite compensation. £)xd4 Wxd4+ 22 * h l Axg2+ 23
c) 12 f5 b4 13 £>ce2 £>xd4 14 <4>xg2 # d2+ , when White can hardly
Sxd4 exf5 (14...e5!? 15 Ec4 « b 8 16 escape the checks.
g4 is unclear according to Sokolov, 13...£b7 14 f5
and indeed the obvious 16...d5 17 With this popular plan, White wants
exd5 JLb7 can be met by 18 Sc6!) 15 to occupy the d5-square with a piece.
exf5 £ b 7 16 Wh3? (16 Wg3 is more If he doesn’t manage to do so, Black is
dangerous) 16...a5 + Istratescu-A.Sok- fine with the c-file and queenside pawn
olov, Groningen FIDE KO 1997. advance. The standard plan is ...iLc6,
On the other hand, 11 f5 £)xd4 12 ..M b l, ...a5 and ...b4. A strange posi-
£ x d 4 b5 13 0-0-0!? b4 14 £sa4 £ b 7 vion-type and complications arose in
(14...e5!? remains untried; e.g., 15 Gdanski-Yrjola, Vantaa 1999: 14 i>hl
.&f2 iLb7 16 S hel £\d7!?, trying to a5!? (14...fi.c6) 15 <&xb5 # c 6 16 a4
make trouble for the poor a4-knight Wxe4 17 # h 3 . In fact the black centre
with ...#a5 and ...fi.c6) 15 fxe6 has is quite weak and inflexible so I had to
been successful for White, the latest go into 17...£)h5 18 S a e l £>xf4 19
example being 15...fi.xe4 (15...fxe6 Sxe4 £ixh3 20 Sg4 e5 21 £ e 3 h5!?
1 6 # h 3 {16% 3!} 16...*h8 17#xe6 22 Sc4! fi.d5 (almost forced) 23 Ec7
■5)xe4 18 # g 4 Af6 = Yakovich-Aseev, £x b 3 24 Sxe7 £ c 4 25 S d l £>f4 26
USSR Ch (Moscow) 1991) 16 exf7+ £ixd6 £>g6 27 Ba7 Ae6 =.
&h8 17 iT 4 Eac8 18 Sd2 Wc6 19 ®b6 14 S ael is quite a natural move; for
Ecd8 ± Freitag-Loginov, Graz 1998. example, 14...Sac8?! (according to
Il...£>xd4 12fi.xd4 b5 (D) Anand the right move is 14..JLc6,
13 a3 with the plan ...a5 and ...b4) 15 # g 3
Alternatively, there is a long forced &h8? 16<&>hl # c 6 17 Sf3! with good
variation: 13 e5 dxe5 14 fxe5 fo d l 15 attacking chances, Ljubojevi6-Anand,
fi.xe6 fxe6 16 # x a 8 &.b7 17 Sxf8+ Buenos Aires 1994.
62 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

14...e5 15 £ e 3 £.c6 Sxb5 Sxa3 37 £ x f7 + S±?xf7 38 Sxf5

With the threat ...Wb7. Also, Black 5a2?
would like to play ...a5 and ...b4. 38...5a6! and 39...5x16! draws.
16 $L&(D) 39 h3 h6 40 &h2 Sa3 41 g4 Sa2+
42 S^?g3 Sa3+ 43 &h4 Eb3 44 Sh5
&g6 45 f l 5b8 46 Eb5 5a8 47 5b6+
In 1-0
■ « i l l l
ABA.il « Conclusion: This is sounder for White
than the Velimirovic lines introduced
A AAA earlier in the chapter. White has some
chances to fight for a small plus, but
m im * Black can try different move-orders to
H a * I confuse White.

Sozin with 7 0-0

This is according to plan, but Black Here we discuss lines resulting from
has an interesting tactical reply, which White castling kingside at an early
is forced on positional grounds. If stage in the Sozin.
White can exchange on f6 and play
.&d5, the nightmare discussed in the Game 11
Boleslavsky chapter comes true. S h o rt - K asp a rov
16...£sxe4! 17 £ x e7 £tf6 London PCA Wch (14) 1993
Not 17...£)d2? 18 % 4 Wxe7 19 f6
# a 7 + 20 ff f2 g6 21 Wg5 + -. 1 e4 c5 2 <£}f3 £ic6 3 £)c3 d6 4 d4
18 <&d5 cxd4 5 £sxd4 £sf6 6 Ac4 e6 7 0-0
18 JLd5!? £lxd5 19 £ x f8 -S^f4 20 After 7 ^.b3 a6 8 f4 £ .e l, the very
Wg4 'S’xfS 21 g3 £>d5 is unclear but straightforward attempt 9 f57! runs
White’s king position looks shaky. into 9...Wb6! ¥ 10 .&e3? e5, and other
18...£sxd5 19 jLxf8 £tf4 20 ®e3 sensible moves transpose.
More aggressive is 20 Wg4 Wb6+ 7...jLe7
21 Sf2 Hxf8 22 f6 g6, with a compli­ Now that there is no danger of a
cated position. Velimirovic, those players who meet
2 0 ...5 .f8 21 Sxf4 exf4 22 ®xf4 the Velimirovid by avoiding an early
W ei ...0-0 can safely opt to castle here.
After the natural 22...Se8, things 8 Ji.b3
can’t be so bad for Black Other systems:
23 S f l Wf6 24 S d l ± Wxb2?! 25 a) 8 f4 is premature due to 8...d5.
^xd6 « c 3 26 '&el Wf6 27 Wxf6 gxf6 b) Similarly 8 ‘i ’hl 0-0 9 f4 can be
28 Sd6 Ec8 29 Sxf6 Sc7 30 Ed6 met by 9...d5! (good enough for a
&g7 31 c4 £ e 4 32 f6+ <&g6 33 Bd4 draw is 9...£lxe4 10 £)xe4 d5 11 £)xc6
£ f 5 34 cxb5 axb5 35 Sd5 Sa7 36 bxc6 12 ,&d3 dxe4 13 .&xe4 ^.a6 14
 The Sozin and Velimirovic A ttacks 63

S el # x d l 15 S x d l Sad8 16 jfc.e3 c5 fxe6 15 e5? dxe5 16 # x e 5 £)g4!)

V2 -V2 SaltaeV'Atalik, Katerini 1993) 14...fi.d7 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 £ f 4 b4 17
10£)xc6 bxc6 11 i.d3 c5 12 e5 £ld7 13 axb4 axb4 18 foe2 sfehS! = Minasian-
fi.xh7+ (almost forced for positional Serper, Kstovo 1994.
reasons) 13...&xh7 14 #115+ &g8 15 9...a6 10 f4 £ixd4
S O f5 16 Hh3 £lf6!? (no draw!) 17 10...#c7?! 11 f5 is a line to avoid.
exf6 Axf6 18 fi.d2 d4 19 foe2 i.b 7 is 11 £xd4 b5 (D)
a fierce way to play for a win, Jaz-
binzek-Cebalo, Nova Gorica 1997.
c) White can safeguard the bishop
with 8 a3 0-0 9 &a2 but 9...£kd4 10
# x d 4 b6! is a good, solid answer for
this rare system. 11 # d 3 (or 11 fi.g5
&a6 12 S fel # c 7 13 S adi Sfd8 14
1 # c5, with very comfortable equal­
ity, Sigurjonsson-Tukmakov, Reykja­
vik 1976) ll...£ .b 7 12 £ f 4 # c 8 13
S fel Sd8 14 S adi # c 5 (14...a6 15 a4
b5! = Dvoirys-Zviagintsev, Samara
1998) 15 ± e 3 Wh5 16 £ d 4 £sg4 17
h3 foc5 = Dvoirys-Scherbakov, St Pe­ 12 e5
tersburg 1998. Now 12 f5 b4 13 foa.4 e5 is good for
8...0-0 Black.
8...a6 9 JLe3 # c 7 will transpose to 12 a3 £ b 7 13 # d 3 a5! 14 e5 dxe5
lines discussed in Game 10, and is 15 fxe5 fo d l 16 foxbS £lc5 17 £x c5
probably the preferable course. (17 # e 3 £>xb3 18 # x b 3 a4 19 # d 3
9fi.e3 Wd5 20 Sf2 Sfd8 21 Sd 1 i.a 6 22 fo ci
There is yet another attempt based jLxd3 23 ^ x d 5 Sxd5 24 Sxd3 Sad8
on pushing the f-pawn: 9 f4 a6 10 ^ h 1 25 Sf4 £ g 5 26 Sg4 Sxd4 27 Sxg5
foxd4 11 # x d 4 b5 12 f5. Now: led to what should have been a level
a) Here 12...e5?! 13 # d 3 £ b 7 14 ending in Moutousis-Tukmakov, Haifa
,&g5 simply lets White occupy the Echt 1989) 17...&xc5+ 18<&hl # g 5
d5-square. was the famous game Fischer-Spas-
b) Black can try to ‘punish’ White sky, Reykjavik Wch (4) 1972, which
with the very interesting I2...£\g4!?. gave Black a strong initiative with the
The critical reply is 13 fi.f4!? to keep bishop-pair.
the e5-square. Then 13...b4 (13...e5?! 12...dxe5 13 fxe5 fodl 14 foe4
14 # d l ) 14 fos4 e5 15 # d l fof6 was 14 # f 3 £)c5! is nothing for White,
OK for Black in Dekic-Sax, Budapest but 14 # g 4 is an aggressive move
1996 but I have no idea why White which should be taken seriously:
didn’t take the b-pawn. 14...£>c5 (14...jLb7?! 15 Sxf7) 15
c) Safer is 12...Sb8 13 a3 (13 fxe6 i.e3!? (15 foe2 £ixb3 16 axb3 # d 5
£xe6!?) 13...a5 14 # d 3 !? (14 fxe6 was equal in Yuneev- Aseev, Daugavpils
64 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

1989) 15...#c7?! (maybe I5...&xb3 29 We2! is unclear according to Van

16axb3«c7 17 £ixb5 « xc2) 16 Sael der Wiel.
<£lxb3 17 fi.h6! was strong in I.Kuz- b) 18 a4 b4 (this is the most often
netsov-Yaludin, Russia 1993. tested move; 18..Ba6!7 is possible but
14...fi.b7 15 £ d 6 18...e5?! 19 # e 2 exd4 20 # e 7 cannot
15 Wg4 fi.xe4 16 Wxe4 £)c5 offers be recommended for Black) with these
nothing for White. options:
15-.fi.xd6 16 exd6 # g 5 (D) bl) 19 W t2 Ea6 (19...fi.d5 might
also be good because of the trick 20
Wb5 Sfb8!) 20 t b 5 # xb5 21 axb5
Sxd6 22 .fie3 Sa8 23 fi.f4 Sd4 24
fi.e3 = Winants-Tukmakov, Wijk aan
Zee 1993.
b2) 1 9 W elid5!?20fiL xd5'txd5
21 S d l e5 22 fi.e3 Wc6 23 b3 f5,
Osterman-Yrjola, Helsinki 1990, and
now White can complicate the issue
with 24 fi.g5! f4 25 Ae7.
b3) 19 tfd2 Wxd2 20 Sxd2. In this
complicated ending Black should try
to exchange the light-squared bishops:
This is a well-known position, in 20...5ac8 21 Be 1 fi.a6 22 c3 fi.c4 = 23
which the battle centres around the fi.xc4 (Black built an ingenious block­
d6-pawn. Black tries to prove it is a ade in Bosch-Reeh, Amstelveen 1994
weakness rather than a strongpoint for after 23 fi.dl b3 24 fi.f3 f6 25 fi.a7
supporting White’s activity and bishop- * f 7 26 fi.b7 e5) 23...Sxc4 24 cxb4
pair. Naturally, Black is usually happy Bxb4 25 S c 1 Bxa4 26 Sc7 Bd8 and
if he can exchange a pair of bishops, W hite’s initiative was enough for a
despite the fact that his bishop is a draw in Oll-Loginov, Sverdlovsk 1987.
strong piece. Black's most vulnerable 17...e5
spots are e6 and f7, but those pawns Now this is better than 17...a5!? 18
are also his most important potential c3 Sa6 19 Sad 1 Sxd6 20 fi.xg7! Sxd 1
source of counterplay. 21 Bxdl <£>xg7 22 Sxd7 fi.c6 23 Sd4
17 # e 2 'A'hS 24 Wf2, which was slightly more
The other possibility is 17 Sf2 a5!. comfortable for White in de Firmian-
Now: Fishbein, Philadelphia 1997.
a) 18 «fe2 Ea6! 19 £ c3 ! (19 A new idea is 1 7 ...^ 8 18 S adi
fi.xe6?!Sxd6) 19...b4 20fi.d2Wc5 21 # g 6 , so as to start pushing the pawns.
iLf4 Saa8! (21...e5 22 fi.g5) 22 S dl In Illescas-J.Polgar, Dos Hermanas
(22 c3!?) 22...fi.a6 23 l^el fi.b5 24 c3 1997, Black got a promising attack af­
bxc3 25 S c l a4!? (25...e5) 26 Sxc3 ter 19 c4 bxc4 20 fi.xc4 f5 21 fi.c3?!
axb3! 27 Bxc5 £}xc5 28 a3 £\d3 (Van f4.
der Wiel-Leitao, Wijk aan Zee 1999) 18 fi.c3!
 The Sozin and Velimirovic A ttacks 65

This is probably a better place for 24 a4!? bxa4 25 We4 should be an­
the bishop than e3, where it may soon swered by 25...Wg6!.
come under attack from the f-pawn; 24...5.c8 25 £ c 7 Se8?!
for example, 18 jLe3 # g 6 19 S adi Kasparov gives the variation 25...f5
^h S (with the plan ...f5-f4) 20 c3 (20 26 c4 bxc4 27 bxc4 e4 28 B fl Sf8 29
h4l?) 20...£e4! 21 ttf2 f5 Hamann- g4! f4! 30 Sd4 &c5 31 d7 £>xd7 32
GligoriC, Skopje OL 1972. Sxe4 Wg6 33 Axf4 h6, with some un­
18...Wg6 19 S a d i &h8 clear counterplay in compensation for
Preparing counterplay with ...f5. the pawn.
The following move is rather surpris­ 26 c4 bxc4 27 bxc4 f5
ing, but otherwise Black’s pawn ad­ 27...e4!.
vance supported by the b7-bishop 28 h3 h6 29 Wc2
would be highly dangerous. 29 a4!?, intending a5 and .&b6,
20 £ d 5 ! £ x d 5 21 Sxd5 We6 22 would have given White a plus.
S fd l (D) 29...e4 30 Wa4 Sc5 31 Sxc5 £>xc5
32 Wc6 £id7 33 Wd5 Wg6 34 Wd2?!
Se5 35 We3 We6 36 B el Bc5 37 Bc2
i'g8 38 a4 39 tff2 e3 V2-V2

Conclusion: Here too White has some

initiative in the main line, though Black
is not without counterplay. There are
some obscure sidelines.

Sozin with 6...Wb6

This modern and popular move is the
safest move that still leads to a fight. It
22...Sfc8 is a regular choice of many leading
This looks like a rather strange de­ Classical players, such as Kramnik
cision, but the natural 22...f5 seems to and Svidler. Black is not as vulnerable
be premature because of 23 a4 bxa4 24 to attacks against the king as in the
Sa5! f4 25 Sxa4 # g 6 26 & hl Sae8 Velimirovic. The less pleasant side of
27 Exa6e4 28 S g l, when Black didn’t the move is that White has a rather
have enough play in A.Pachmann- wide choice of variations available,
Jedlicka, Czech Cht 1995. making a thorough move-by-move
23 £ a 5 Sc6 study more difficult. Besides, the vari­
White is somewhat better in this ations are generally less concrete than
complicated position. He can now cre­ in the Velimirovic. On the plus side,
ate two connected passed pawns, while chances to lose because of one care­
Black has counter-chances on the less or slow move are smaller, because
kingside with his f- and e-pawns. the game usually takes on a more posi­
24 b3 tional nature.
66 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

Game 12 a2) 9...£)xe4!? is the most critical:

Topalov - K ram nik a21) 10fi.d4!?£lxd4 (10...f5!?is
Novgorod 1997 an idea, while 10..,fi.f5!? might be
better: 11 a3 ^ x d 4 12 axb4 £>xe2 13
1 e4 c5 2 £lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4 £)xe4 2Lc81 14 fi.d3 £lf4! 15 £texd6+
5 S k3 £ic6 6 iLc4 Wb6 (D) exd6 16 fi.xf5 Sc4 ?) 11 WxcA ?ixc2+!
12 * d 1 £ f5 13 &xf7+! &d8 14 ®xf5
£lxal 15 £ e 8 * x e8 16 £ k 7 + £ ^ 8 17
£*e6+ leads to a draw (Pinski).
a22) 1 0 fi.x n + * x l7 11 S bl Wa5
12 Wc4+ e6 13 Wxe4 d5! 14 Wf3+
<&>g8 15 0-0! a6 (15...Wd8 16 £ f4 e5
17 £lxd5 exf4 18 £)dc7 h6 19 £>xa8
+ - Dubinsky-Kiselev, Moscow 1998;
15...d4 16 £le4) 16 &xd5 axb5 17
£)b6 and the position is still impossi­
ble to evaluate.
b) 7 £ide2 is more poisonous than
it looks. White’s plan is to exchange
7 £>xc6!? the defender with £\g3-h5. Black can
This unpositional move is becom­ counter this with ...h5, if he doesn’t
ing more and more popular. Black gets casde too early. Also, the queen trans­
a large pawn-centre, which White tries fer into the attack with ’i 'd3-g3 often
to break up later with the move e5. occurs. Black must try to make While’s
Modern chess-players continuously plans and pieces look clumsy. 7...e6
seek to make unorthodox ideas work, and now:
and this is one such case. bl) 8 Ji.b3 is rather passive. The
White has a wide choice of alterna­ main problem for White is that here
tives. The historically most popular the bishop bites on concrete. White
move, 7 £}b3, is discussed in Game has the plan 0-0, <4>h 1 and f4-f5 but in
13. Other ideas: that case Black has a lot of time to ex­
a) 7 JLe3?! is a risky move that can change the bishop with ...£>a5. Rein-
at best be regarded as a good practical derman-Svidler, Wijk aan Zee 1999
try. After the obvious continuation continued 8...a6 9 0-0 $Le7 10 ^ 3
7.'..Wxb2 8 £>db5 Wb4 9 lfe2, it is (10fi.g5) 10...£d7 11 & hl Wc7 12
hardly possible to lead the game into Wg3 b5 13 a3 0-0 14 fi.h6 £se8 15 f4
peaceful paths. Black should bravely &a5 16 f5 £lxb3 17 cxb3 Wd8 18 b4
jump into complications: Sc8 19 fxe6 fi.xe6 20 fi.f4 £tf6 21
al) 9...£.g4!? 10 f3 £>xe4 11 fi.d2 i.e 3 £>g4 22 iLd4 &h4 23 Wf4 &g5
(11 id 4 !? ) ll,..£Sxd2 seems to be 24 Wg3 iLh4 'h-'h.
fine for Black, e.g. 12 £lc7+?! &d8 13 b2) 8 0-0 a6. What can White do
■&xd2 £le5 —f Miserendino-Zarnicki, about Black’s 64% score on the data­
Villa Martelli 1998. base? The answer is the old plan 9 a3!;
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 67

the bishop can still be made to look

good (the alternatives are not very
dangerous: 9 ^.b3 JLe7 10 Jig5 Wcl B
11 £>g3 b5 12 * h l h5! 13 jLxf6 gxf6
14 £>xh5 £ b 7 15 £>g3 0-0-0 16 a4 b4
17 £lce2 &b8 18 E el Wa5 with com­
pensation and later V2 -V2 in Kaspa-
rov-Timman, Manila OL 1992; 9 Ji.g5
Wc5 10 £ x f6 Wxc4 11 ± h 4 £ e 5 12
a4 b6 13 f4 £)g4 14 S O £ b 7 15 h3 h5
16 Sd3 Wc5+ 17 Sd4 &f6 18 * h l
£ e 7 19 Wd3 S c 8 20 £ x f6 gxf6 21 b3
h4 22 Be 1 Sg8 23 f5 Wc5 V2 -V2 Ljubo- e l l ) 8 £kl5 (taking the bishop-pair
jevid-Ribli, Las Palmas 1974). 9..JLe7 looks natural but Black is left with a
and now: solid and dynamic pawn-formation)
b21) 1 0 i a 2 0-0 11 & hl Bd8 (the 8...£xd5 9 1fxg4 $}f6 10 We2 e6 11
alternative ll...JLd7, with the same JLe3 Wa5+ 12 ±d2 Wd8 13 f4?! a6 14
plan, may be even better; Losev-Beli- foc3Wcl 1 5 i.d 3 g 6 1 6 0 -0 i.g 7 with
kov, Moscow 1996 went on 12 .&e3 a dynamic Pirc-type position, Velim-
!Tc7 13 f4 <&a5 14 Wd3 b5 15 S adi irovic-Goldin, Yugoslavia 1996.
£ic4 16 JLcl SadB 17 £)g3 Bfe8 with cl2) 8 f3 i d 7 9 # e 2 a6 10 i e 3
a draw shortly) 12 ,&e3 (12 £\g3 d5'.? Wa5 11 £>d4, with the following ex­
13 exd5 exd5 14 <&h5 £ e 6 15 £if4 = amples:
Kasparov-Teplitsky, Israel sim 1994) cl21) ll...e6 1 2 ib 3 b 5 1 3 a 3 ie 7
12...Wc7 13 f4 b5 14 f5 £ie5 15 fxe6 14 0-0 W cl 15 £)xc6 i x c 6 16 S adi
fxe6 16 £>f4 £>c4 17 i.d 4 is quite un­ 0-0 with a normal sound position,
clear though I would be somewhat Sax-Csom, Budapest 1976.
worried with Black, Losev-Notkin, cl 22) 1l...Sc8 12 £>b3 W cl 13 0-0
Moscow 1991. e6 14 i d 3 £ie5 15 S ael b5 16 i.g 5
b22) 10 ■ihl and then: A.e7 17 f4 £ x d 3 18 cxd3 b4 19 £>dl
b221) 10...#c7?! (Black should re­ i.b 5 and Black is fine, Reichmann-
tain the chance of counterplay with Rabiega, Bremen 1998.
...£)g4) 11 f4 0-0 12 £ a 2 b5 13 f5 Ad7 cl23) 1 l...b5 (the most active) 12
14 £)f4 # c 8 15 Wei exf5 16 £sfd5 .&b3 e6 13 0-0-0 b4 14 £sbl (there are
.&d8 1 7 ^ 3 £ie5 (17...£lxe4 18£)xe4 also two sacrificial possibilities: 14
fxe4 19 jLh6) 18 £.g5 £)xe4 19 £)xe4 £>x c 6 i.x c 6 15 £>d5 exd5 16 exd5
fxe4 20 ii.e7 ± Saltaev-Ginting. Sin­ £ b 5 17 # e l A e l 18 i d 4 4>f8 19 a3
gapore 1995. Sc8 20 axb4 W cl 21 £ c 3 & e8 22
b222) Preferable is 10...0-0, when 'BfeS i.f6 , when White doesn’t have
11 JLa2 transposes to line ‘b21 ’ above, enough compensation, Onoprienko-
c) 7 £ldb5 (D) and then: Khasin, Kazan 1995; 14 £ld5!? exd5
c l) 7...^.g4!? is a rare continua­ 15 exd5 <Sxd4 16 i.xd4+ sfcdS, with
tion, which looks very playable. unclear play, is an idea of Kramnik’s,
68 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

though I am not sure how convincing c211) 12 0-0 Wd4!? 13 We2 (13
this is) 14-.fi.e7 15 g4 (15 £>d2) fi.b3 We5; 13 fi.e 2 h5) 13...<&e5 (there
15 £ixd4 (15...0-0!? 16 g5 £ixd4 17 is also a possibility based on a typical
Hxd4 fi.b5 18 Wd2 £sd7 19 a3 £se5 Paulsen idea: 13...We5!? 14 f4 Wh5
with counter-chances) 16 Sxd4 e5 17 15 h3 1 ^ 5 + 16 &I1 I h5! with a com­
S d d l £ e 6 (17...1fc7! 18 £ld2 a5 is plicated position) 14 fi.b3 fi.g4 15
better according to Kramnik) 18 £>d2!? Wei g5!? 16 fi.e3 Wb4 17 f3 (17 a3
fi.xb3 (18...0-0 (Azmaiparashvili} is Wa5!) 17...fi.h5! 18 Wf2! (18 fi.xg5
playable because Black needn’t be Sg8 19 f4 h6 20 fxe5 Sxg5 is unclear)
worried about 19 fi.xe6 fxe6 20 ^ 4 18...h6 19 foe.2 e6 20 S ad i, Ehlvest-
* f7 ) 19cxb3d5?!(19...*xa2 20£>c4 Tella, Jyvaskyla 1998, and now 20...c5!
# x b 3 is better according to Azmai­ with complicated play, would have
parashvili) 20 exd5 Wxa2 21 £ k 4 been critical.
®xb3 22 * b l Sc8? (22...£sd7) 23 c212) 12 We2 £ie5! (12...'txb2 13
Sd3 Wxc4 24 S c l W xcl+ 25 A xel S bl # a 3 is risky; e.g., 14 ^d5!? cxd5
fi.d6 26 f4 e4 27 g5 0-0 28 S d l £>d7 15 fi.xd5 Sa7 16Sb8 Bc7?! 17Wxg4)
± Topalov-Kramnik, Dos Hermanas 13£sa4(13fi.b3a5! 14 0-0-0 fi.a6 15
1996, but Black should have done Wei £ k 4 16 £>a4 Wc7 17 fi.c3 e5 is
better in the complications. unclear, because White has the break
c2) 7...a6 8 fi.e3 Wa5 9 £>d4 (D). f4; otherwise Black would be just fine)
13...Wc7 14 Ab3 c5! (14...a5 15 f4
jLa6 16 c4 ±) 15 f4! £ic6 16 fi.c3! e6
(16...fi.d7!? is unclear: White has only
one problem, the a4-knight; otherwise
his development is superb) 17 f5! e5
18 # c 4 ? (18 fi.d5 Sb8 19 b3 ±) 18...a5
19 0-0-0 fi.a6 20 Wd5 Sb8 21 fi.c4?
£>b4 22 fi.xb4 fi.xc4 23 Wxc4 Sxb4
24 Wd5 Sxa4 25 c3! fi.e7 26 * b l 0-0
27 b3 Sb8 28 * a l Sa3 29 <&b2 Sa4
30 ^ a l V2 - 1/:2 de Firmian-Tella, Tuk-
holma 1998.
c22) 9...e6 (the normal move but I
Here Black has a very sharp possibil­ prefer the next line {‘c23’}) 10 0-0
ity and two solid alternatives: fi.e7 (10...Wc7 11 fi.b3 fi.e7 12 f4
c21) 9...£lg4!? is very sharp and transposes to note ‘a’ to White’s 10th
interesting, but the other options are move in Game 10) 11 A.b3 0-0 12 f4
more reliable. This move is suitable fi.d7 13 f5 <&xd4 14 fi.xd4 exf5 15
for adventurous players. 10£)xc6! (10 exf5 fi.c6 (Black has the typical Rauzer
0-0 &ce5 11 £>b3 # d 8 12 # d 4 £ixe3 bishop though White’s bishops are not
13 fxe3 e6 gave Black a dominating bad either) 16 ^ 3 Sae8 17 S adi
knight in Tate-Lugovoi, Budapest 1997) £>d7! 18W g3fi.f619«xd6fi.xd4+20
10...bxc6 11 fi.d2 ®b6 and now: Wxd4 £>f6 (active pieces compensate
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 69

for the pawn) 21 £kl5 (21 id 5 !? ) c232) After 10 JLd3 Black has an
21.. JLxd5 22 £ x d 5 Sd8 23 c4 V1-V2 interesting Dragon-type possibility:
Short-Kramnik, Novgorod 1996. 10...£teg4!7 (before this game, the less
c23) 9..,£le5 (D) has the best repu­ critical moves 10...?}fg4 and 10...e6
tation and score in practice: were popular) II i c l g6 (1 l...Wb6?
120-0)12£>b3(12f4e5 13&b3 # b 6
14 Wc2 exf4 15 £ x f4 £ g 7 =; 12 h3
£>e5 13 0-0 £ g 7 14 i.e 3 0-0 =)
12...#b6 13 Wcl & gl 14 f4 £ih5 (this
move was forced according to Kram­
nik; Black’s play is rather original, and
he gets a good position when the
clouds disappear) 15 £>d5 (15 i.d 2
£.xc3) 15...Wd8 16 &d2 e6 17 i a 5
Wh4+ 18 g3 £)xg3 19 £ ic 7 + (19 hxg3
Wxg3+ 20 * d 2 exd5 21 S afi £>f6 22
exd5+ * f 8 looks good for Black)
19...*e7 20 hxg3 Wxg3+ 21 £>dl
c231) 10<&b3 Wcl 11 & e2e6 12 &f2+ 22 * d 2 £>xhl 23 £lxa8 (23
f4 £lc4 (12...&c6!?) 13 £ x c4 tfxc4 Sxh 1 Wxf4+ 24 <&d1 Sb8 25 i.d 2 Wg3
14 Wf3 is an important position be­ 26 £ e l =) 23...Wxf4+ 24 Wc3 Wbl+
cause it can also be reached from the 15 Wcl # f4 + 26 We3 Wh2+ 27 Wcl
variation 7 £)b3 e6 8 Af4. Now Black £ h 6 + 28 &c3 We5+ 29 * b 4 £)g3 30
has the following options: Wc 1 fLgl 31 £)b6? (31 S b l ! is better)
c2312) 14...£d7 15 0-0-0 Sc8 16 31...d5 32 <&a4 £.d7+ 33 £lxd7 b5+ 34
ii.d4!? (Black was fine after 16 Sd2 * b 4 &xd7 35 Ab6 Wxb2 (35...£lxe4!
W cl 17 S hdl (17 g4 b5 18 g5 b4} 36 &xe4 Wxb2! is a clearer win) 36
17...b5 18 e5 Jic6 19 We2 dxe5 20 exd5 Sc8 37 dxe6+ 'ie S 38 i.c 5 ?
fxe5 ?}d5 in Losev-Belikov, Moscow £.c3+ 39 W xc3 a5+ 40 <S?xb5 Wxc3
1998) 16...b5 17 a3 Jicl (there is surely 0-1 Topalov-Kramnik, Belgrade 1995.
some compensation after 17...e5!? 18 7...bxc6 8 0-0 (D)
fxe5 dxe5 19 $Lxe5 i g 4 ) 18 jLxf6
gxf6 19 f5 h5 20 Wg3 b4 21 axb4
Wxb4 22 Sd4 Wb6 23 S hdl with a
Rauzer position-type where White has
the initiative, Ivanchuk-Kramnik, Paris
1995.
c2311) The best might be 14...Wc7
15 0-0-0 (15 g4!?) 15...b5 16 a3 $Lbl
17 f5 Sc8 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 <&d4 # d 7
20 Wh3 e5 21 £ie6 Sxc3! 22 bxc3
i.xe4 with good compensation, Cela-
Kotronias, Ano Liosia 1997.
70 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

8...g6 (D) 15 & hl c5 (15...g6 16 e5 fo d l 17 f5!;

This seems to be theoretically 15...Sad8 16 e5 £id7 17£>dl!) 16 e5
soundest, although White gets some £k!7 17f5!exf5 18e6!+—Shaposhni-
nasty activity. The alternative plan, kov-Lugovoi, St Petersburg 1999.
8...e6, is easier for White to meet.
Black has an impressive centre, but
While has an easy plan (b3, £.b2. We2,
f4 and jLd3) and free hands to develop
a kingside attack, as the following
lines indicate:
a) 9 We2 and then:
a l) 9...fi.e7 10 b3 (maybe White
should push in the centre when he has
the chance, viz.: 10 e5 dxe5 11 Wxe5
0-0 12 Ab3 £>d5 13 £\e4 ±) 10...0-0
11 Ab2e5! 12 £)a4 Wc7 13 f4 (safer is
13i.d3)13...exf4 14e5 (14Sxf4d5!)
14...£g4?! (14...dxe5 15 fi.xe5 fi.d6 9e5!?
16 JLxf6 gxf6 17 Wh5 * h 8 18 £ d 3 f5 Breaking up Black’s solid forma­
19 £ x f5 £ x f5 20 Wxf5 £ e 5 21 Sael tion. If White regains the pawn, he
m ) 15 Wei £lh5 (15...dxe5!?) 16h3! will be positionally better. Other pos­
jL dl 17 exd6! fi.xd6 is unclear, Tryg- sibilities:
stad-Tella, Stockholm 1998. a) After9.£.e3lhcsafestis9...W c7
a2) 9...£id7 IQ b3 Ae7 11 £ b 2 0-0 = l0f4fi.g7 Il£ .d 4 0-012h3£>d7 13
12£la4Wc7 13f4(13&d3!?)13...±b7 £x g 7 &xg7 14 & hl Sb8 15 b3 e5
(13...£lb6 14 £)xb6 axb6 15 a4 ±; Emms-Garcia Ilundain, Escaldes Z
13...1.f6?! 14 Axf6 £>xf6 15 e5) 14 1998.
S ad i 5ae8? (14...Sad8 15 Sd3 d5!?) b) 9 We2!? is a new try. Black
15 Sd3! c5 (15...d5 16Sh3!) 16fi.b5! should still carefully stop the move e5:
$Lc6 17 fi.xc6 Wxc6 18 c4 with a 9...£>g4 (9...<£>d7 also seems safe, but
space advantage, Topalov-Kramnik, not 9...£g7?! 10 e5 dxe5 11 Wxe5
Novgorod 1996. £ih5 {11...0-0 12Wxe7} 12We2Wc7
b) 9 b3 £ e 7 (9...d5 10 exd5 cxd5 13 Bel e6 14 Wf3 ± Dervishi-Maka-
11 Ab5+ £ d 7 12 £ x d 7 + &xd7 13 rov, Elista OL 1998), e.g. 10 b3 Jig !
£ixd5exd5 1 4 S el+ ± ) 1 0 £ b 2 0 -0 11 11 Ab2Wa5! 12Wd2We5 13g3Wh5
We2 is a typical position in this line. 14 f3 Wc5+ 15 * h l We3 16 Wei
White has developed harmoniously Wxel 17 Sfxel £le5 with very com­
and he can start a kingside attack by fortable equality, Giaccio-Zarnicki,
pushing his f-pawn: 1l...Wc7 (11...5M7 Villa Gisell 1998 or 10 A e3 Wc7 11
12 £>a4 Wc7 13 f4 fi.b7 14 S adi ±; fi.d4 e5 12 fi.e3 fi.g7 = De Vreugt-
11...d5? doesn’t work because of 12 Blehm, Erevan U-20 Wch 1999.
exd5 cxd5 13 Axd5! exd5 14 Wxe7 ±) c) The historically most common
12 f4 d5 13 £ d 3 A.b7 14 S ael Sfe8 move, 9 Ab3, doesn’t trouble Black:
 The Sozin and Velimirovic A ttacks 71

9...& g7 10 £ f 4 £sd7 11 # 1 3 (11 Bg8 15 Ag5 Ad7 16 B fel e4 17 O

£ g 5 !?) 11 ...0-0 = 12 £ g 5 » c 7 13 # g 3 Wc5+ 18 i ’hl Black has several de­
® c5 Kindermann-Pelletier, Portoro2 fensive resources, including 18...We?,
1998. 18...Ae6 and 18...£f5) 14 b3 We6 15
9...dxe5 10 We2 (D) S d l + (4 ’c7 16£te4±. Maybe this idea
needs more tests.
11 £ e 3 Wd6
1 l...Wh4!? is riskier but might also
be playable: 12 g3 (12 f4! is strong ac­
cording to Gofshtein) 12...Wh5 13 f3
± g 7 14 Jic5 <&d7 15 Aa3 £to6 16
&b3 0-0 17 £ x e7 Be8 18 g4 Wh3 19
.£.g5 h5 20 £>e4 hxg4 21 .&xf7+ ‘i ’xfZ
22 £M6+ * g 8 23 &xe8 £ a 6 24 Wxa6
gxf3 led to an unclear position after
horrible complications in Toloza-Ri-
cardi, Mar del Plata 1997.
12 S a d i Wc7
10...Wd4! It is strange that Black can spend so
This move looks very courageous, many tempi with his queen, but how
but so far it has worked well. Now 11 can White regain the e-pawn?
Sd 1 is clearly bad due to 11 ....&g4. Of 13 f4
course, Black can try to protect the 13 S d e l!? £ g 7 14 f4 Af5 15 fxe5
pawn in other ways: Wxe5 16 h3 0-0 17 # f2 Wb8 18 £ d 4
a) 10..M c l is probably not active Wb4 19 b3 Sad8 looks like insuffi­
enough, and gives White some small cient compensation, although White
chances to play for a win: 11 f4 e4 12 went on to win in Dervishi-Kotronias,
£ixe4 £lxe4 13 # x e4 £ g 7 14 c3 0-0 Ano Liosia 1998. Equally insufficient
15 &e3 Af5 (15...Sb8 16 Wc2 a5 17 is 13 &c5 14 f4 <5M7! 15 £ a3 £lb6
a4 Wb7 18 Bf2 £ f5 19 We2 h5 20 h3 16 fxe5 £>xc4 17 » x c4 Ae6 18 Wh4
i Morovic-Gi.Hernandez, Cienfuegos iLxe5, Kornev-Akhmadeed, Kstovo
Capablanca mem 1996) 16 #13 Sad8 1998.
17 S ad i h5 18 W fl £ g 4 19 Sxd8 13...6g4 14 Wt2
Sxd8 20 £.xa7 c5 21 i.x c5 Bd2 22 14 £ib5? runs into 14...Wb7!.
We3 Bxb2 23 Wxe7 Wxe7 24 Axe7 14...e4
^.xc3 25 &c5 ± Morovi6-Kotronias, Black should not be too greedy.
Buenos Aires 1997. White seems to get very good chances
b) 10...#a5!? was a novelty in the after 14...Axdl?! 15 fxe5 Wxe5 16
game Nouro-Mishchenko, St Peters­ A d 4 # c 7 (1 6 ...'tg 5 17^.xf6W xf6 18
burg Chigorin mem 1999: 11 # f3 Wc5 e5 19 £ x f7 + ±; 16...Wd6 17
Wc5 12 £le4!? (12 .&b3.iLg7 promises £xf6exf6 18£le4±; 16...tff5 17 We3
Black an easier life) 12...'Hfxc4 13 ±) 17 £ x f6 exf6 18 E e l+ &e7 19
£>xf6+*d8?! (after 13...exf6 14 Wxf6 Wxf6 0-0-0 20 Bxe7 Wb6+ 21 * h 1 ±.
72 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

15 S del (D) four main options on the 7th move, but

in my opinion 7 £)de2 has been under­
estimated. In the main line (7 £>xc6)
White needs something new against
8...g6. After 7 £>db5. Black has sev­
eral playable options.

Sozin with 6...^b6 7 £ b 3

This is historically the most popular
7th move for White and remains the
main line. Although in the last few
years the other possibilities have
gained popularity, there are some new
15...£f5 ideas worthy of theoretical discussion
Black can play for a win, but only at in this line too.
a considerable risk: 15...fi.g7!? 16 h3!
(16fi.d4fi.f5 17 .fi.xf6fi.xf6 18£>xe4 Game 13
fi.xb2 19 &g5 e6 20 Wh4 We7 21 Ivanovic - Dam ljanovic
fi.b3 h6 22 £>f3 fi.f6 T Borozs-Atalik, Yugoslav Cht (Vrnjacka Banja) 1999
Budapest 1998) 16...fi.f5 17 g4 fi.xg4
(17...fi.c8 18 Ac5 ±) 18 hxg4 £)xg4 1 e4 c5 2 £if3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4
19 We2 f5 is unclear, though White’s £if6 5 £ic3 £sc6 6 ilc4 Wb6 7 £sb3 e6
piece-play should be respected after (D)
20 fi.c5.
16 h3 h5 17 fi.d4 fi.g7 18 b3
18 fi.xf6 fi.xf6 19 <&xe4!? fi.xe4
(19...fi.xb2!?) 20 Sxe4 Wb6 21 b3 h4 W
is no problem for Black either.
18...0.0 19 fi.xf6 fi.xf6 20 £ixe4
fi.xe4 21 Sxe4
White can finally regain the pawn,
but Black has defended e7 and there is
nothing to play for with opposite-
coloured bishops.
21...Wb6 V2 -V2
Conclusion: This line is sound for 8fi.f4
Black. If White finds something new, This is the modern approach, which
a playable reply for Black is usually became popular in the 1990s. Other
found quite quickly by the line’s top- possibilities:
level adherents. It is very difficult to a) 8 fi.g5 fi.d7!? (this may lead to a
assess the relative value of White’s Rauzer position-type or transpose to
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 73

line ‘c2‘; 8...Jk.e7 9 Axf6 gxf6 is a up when he ends up in positions of that

slightly worse Rauzer type, but 8...a6 type. 8...fi.e7 (D) and now:
is also a good choice) 9 jlxf6?! (9 0-0
<5}e5 10 jLe2 JLe7 transposes to line
‘c2’) 9...gxf6 (Black must start to
think he is playing a Rauzer) 10 Wh5
(fortunately, the queen is not the best
blockader; 10 0-0 h5! 11 * h l £le5 12
&d3 Sc8 13 We2 Ah6 14 a4 £sxd3 15
#xd3 <iiz7 was Young-Waitzkin, New
York Marshall CC 1993) 10...2g8 11
0-0 2g6 Hmadi-Dlugy, Tunis IZ 1985.
These lines look like quite a good
form of Rauzer.
b) A rare but rather dangerous plan
for White is to castle queenside arid c l) The popular choice 9 Ae3 is a
start pushing the g-pawn: 8 fi.e3 W cl natural move, but maybe d2 is a better
9 f4 a6 10 iLd3 b5 11 We2 (11 Wf3 square for the bishop; look at the line
might be a better square for the queen: 4c4’. Black has no better plan than
11...Ab7 120-0-0 k e l 1 3 $blS la5!? ...#c7, ...a6 and ...b5 any case. 9...'Bfc7
14<£)d4£sc4 I5.fi.cl b4 16£lce2d5!? 10 f4 a6 11 fi.d3 (after 11 a4 b6 Black
17 e5 £)e4 18 <2>g3 £ic5 with sharp will put his knight on the weakened
play, Olivier-Grabics, Portoroz 1998) b4-square) ll...b5 12 Wf3 Ab7 is a
11...Ae7 12 0-0-0 fi.b7 H '& b l £)b4 very typical position from this line.
(another successful plan was 13...0-0 Black has to be careful with his king
14 g4 £)d7 15 g5 b4 16 ©a4 ^ a 7 ! and he should consider exchanging
(trouble for the a4-knight) 17 £>d4 the d3-bishop in time if he is going to
Wa5 18 b3 2fc8 19 fix 1 £lc5, Ilindic- castle. Typically White forces ...£)b4
Koiul, Yugoslav Ch 1990) 14 g4 <£kl7 and ...£ixd3 by means ofW h3 and e5
15 Shgl £>c5 16 fi.xb5+?! (16 2 c 1) threats, which strengthens White’s
16...axb5 17 Wxb5+ £te6 18 foxcS pawn-centre. Still, Black will have the
dxc5 19 fi.xc5 0-0 20 fi.xe7 Wxe7 21 bishop-pair... 13 Wh3 (the other popu­
e5 2ab8 T R.Leyva-Vera, Cuban Ch lar move, 13 2 a e l, is likely to trans­
(Las Tunas) 1996. pose) and now:
c) 8 0-0 is the old main line, lead­ cl 1) 13...h5!? is a very serious
ing to a Scheveningen-type position. idea to play with the strong knight on
Both sides seem to lose tempi but if we g4; for example, 14 a4 (14 i h l £}g4
compare with the rather popular varia­ 15 fi.gl g5!?, with the idea 16 fi.e2
tion 1 e4 c5 2 £>f3 £ic6 3 d4 cxd4 4 0-0-0, looks interesting) 14,..b4 15
<£xd4 Wh6 5 £)b3 £sf6 6 £>c3 e6 7 £ d l£ sg 4 16fi.d2£)a5 17£)xa5 Wxa5
fi.d3, the bishop stands worse on c4 18 * h l 2 c 8 19 £se3 Q f6 20 &c4
than on d3, where it usually goes here 2xc4 21 fi.xc4 £>xe4 Naumann-Ger-
too. This is why Black is often a tempo shon, Erevan U-20 Wch 1999.
74 E asy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

c l2 ) Of course 13...®b4 can be 14...a5! is an interesting way to seek

played, so as to transpose after 14 compensation, Rublevsky-Goldin, St
Sael 0-0, but White can take the c-file Petersburg 1993.
with 14 a3 £)xd3 15 cxd3 0-0 16 Sac 1 c22) 9...£>e5 10 £.e2 &d7! (there
Wd8. In this case. White does not have are more useful things to do than cas­
much attack left, but Black remains tling and allowing f4-f5; 10...0-0 11
passive. * h l a6 12 f4 £)g6 13 f5 £>e5 14 Wd2
cl3 ) 13...0-0 involves some risk. Wc7 15 S adi is more troublesome for
Fortunately 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5 £*xe5 Black, Galdunts-Serper, Kherson 1991)
16 Sxf6 £)xd3 doesn’t work and 14 a3 11 * h l £ig6! 12 £ e 3 (12 f4 h6)
can be answered with 14...b4. 12...Wc7 13 f4 0-0 =. Both sides have
cl31) 14 g4! is very menacing; for a solid position without major weak­
example, 14...b4? (after L4...Sfe8 or nesses.
14...£)d7 the position may still be c3) 9 a4 0-0 10 a5 Wc7 11 Ad3
playable) 15 g5 £>d7 16£kl5!exd5 17 (the same plan starting with 11_fiLd7
exd5 g6 18 dxc6 Wxc6 19 £>a5 is an is OK after 11 iLe2; following, say, 11
idea to be afraid of, Sax-Movsesian, .&e3 Black has tricks with ...£ke4
Bundesliga 1997/8. and/or ...d5) ll...£ lb 4 12 f4 -S.d7 =
c l 32) 14 S ael is the most natural Hamdouchi-Kramnik, France 1993.
but maybe not the best. This position Black can play ...e5, put his bishop on
can be reached via various move- c6 and bring his rooks to the central
orders. After 14...£)b4 (14...Sfe8 15 files. He can also exchange on d3 and
g4 £)b4 16 g5 £>d7 17 £ld4 £.f8, Uly- play on the queenside with ...b5.
bin-Popovid, Moscow 1989, is also c4) The move 9 sfchl is often called
very natural) 15 £>d4 (15 a3 £>xd3 16 ‘the move of an experienced player’
cxd3 Sac8 17 S cl Wd7 18 £>a5 &a8 in Sicilian positions, as is i ’bl after
19 Ad4 Sfe8 20 b4 iLdS ? Espig- castling on the other wing. 9..M c7 10
Hort, Polanica Zdroj 1997) 15...Sae8 f4 a6 11 jLd3 b5 (D) and then:
16 g4!? (another familiar but risky at­
tacking plan in these position-types is
Sf3-g3) 16...£sd7 17 g5 £>xd3 18 cxd3
£ic5 Black has good counter-chances,
especially on the light squares, Mala-
khov-Svidler, Elista 1997.
c2) 9 iLg5 was popular at the be­
ginning of the 1990s. Black can choose
between a pawn sacrifice and a solid
continuation:
c21) 9...0-0 10 ± x f6 jLxf6 11
Wxd6 Sd8 12 « g 3 Jic5 13 Wh3 £ d 7
14 S ad i (or 14 * h l lfb 4 15 £ d 3
$Lxc3 16 a3 We 7 17 bxc3 e5 = Brun- c41) 12 # e l 0-0 13 £ d 2 Sb8
ner-Khalifman, Lucerne Wcht 1993) (13...£>b4 is now prevented due to 14
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 75

<£}xb5 but there is the natural 13...fi.b7, 13 A xl b5 14 f4 £ic4 15 Sd3 l e i 16

after which Black was probably afraid 0-0 g6?! (I6 ...£ f6 ) 17 * h l h5 18
of the plan 14 a4!? b4 15 £)a2 a5 16 £)d4 £)f6 19 f5 gxf5 20 exf5 e5 21
c3) 1 4 # g 3 b 4 I5& e2d5! 16e5& e4 k g 5 £>b6 22 £}dxb5! axb5 23 £ x b 5
17 Wh3 f5 18 fi.e3 a5 with an inter­ Wb8 24 £ x f6 &xf6 25 Bxd6 £ e7 ? 26
esting but rather untypical position, Wxe5 f6 27 We6 &c8 28 Sfd I &f8 29
ToSi£-Damljanovi6, Belgrade 1999. Sd8+ * g 7 30 Exc8 We5 31 Sc7 1-0
c42) 12 WfS, with the option of Milos-Filgueira, Buenos Aires 1998.
playing # h 3 , is more typical and leads 9...£d7 (D)
to position-types examined in line A reasonable but less popular choice
‘c l ’. 12...fi.b7 13 £ d 2 0-0 14 Sael is 9...a6, with the following possibili­
£>b4!? (l4...Sad8 15 # h 3 b4 16 £le2 ties:
a5 looks like a fairly logical plan) 15 a) 10 0-0 £ e 7 11 £ e 3 Wc7 =.
<£)xb5 axb5 16 Axb4 Sxa2 17 e5 b) 10 jLg3!? h5! 11 h3 (11 f4
= Klundt-tabrilo, 2nd Bundesliga £>eg4; 11 f3 Wc7 12 # d 4 h4 13 Af2
1991/2. b5 14a4£ic6 15 Wd2b4 1 6 ^ d l d 5 ?)
8...£)e5 (D) U ...'tc 7 I2 f4 £ k 4 13 jLxc4Wxc4 14
Wf3 h4! and this dynamic position fa­
voured Black in Ivanchuk-Kramnik,
Linares 1993.
c) 10 £ e 3 Wc7 11 f4 £)c4 12
£ x c4 # x c 4 13 #13 (13 # d 3 b5 14 a4
is better for White according to Rech-
lis, but hardly anybody plays in that
way; Valerga-Braga, Villa Gesell 1997
went on without big troubles in sight:
14...'ttxd3 15 cxd3 b4 16 foe2 e5 17
h3 a5 18 * f2 Ae7) 13...#c7 trans­
poses to a solid position discussed in
Game 12, note ‘c231’ to White’s 7th
9 le 2 move.
9 JLb5-H? is a move experimented
with mostly by Milos. Black is proba­
bly happy to exchange a pair of bish­
ops. 9...&d7 10 Axd7+ £ifxd7 11
# e 2 a6 12 S d l (Black’s plan was im­
pressive in Milos-Yermolinsky, Gro­
ningen 1996: 12 0-0 Wc7 13 S ael
£ e 7 14 & cl g5! 15 * h l h5! 16 £)d4
0-0-0 17 f37! h4) 12...«fc7 (more criti­
cal looks 12...fi.e7 13 A cl g5!?; Black
always seems to have problems when
White can freely advance the f-pawn)
76 E asy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

10Wd2 c) The move 10 0-0 looks rather

This is one of the ideas that is cur­ harmless, but... 10 ..^.e7 11 ji.e3 Wc7
rently undergoing a theoretical discus­ 12 f4 (12 £id2 0-0 13 f4 £tg6 14 * h l
sion. White’s basic plan is still to £.c6 with a very solid position, Smi-
advance his kingside pawns after cas­ rin-Khalifman, Ischia 1996) 12...£k4
tling queenside. White has a wide (D) and now:
range of alternatives:
a) 10 &e3 Wc7 11 f4 (11 &b5
£ xb5 12 £ x b 5 + £)c6 13 Wf3 a6 14
£ d 3 d5! ?) 11.. ,£ ic4 12 i.xc4 Wxc4,
with the possibilities:
al) 1 3 # f 3 ^ c 6 1 4 ^ d 4 (1 4 ^ .d 4
Jie7 15 0-0-0 0-0 16 S hel a5!? M ot-
tensen-Cu.Hansen, Esbjerg 1996 is
evaluated as slightly better for White
by the players themselves after 17
Sd3!) 14...d5 (14...^.e7 15 0-0-0d5 16
e5 £)e4 might be even better, Saulin-
Dragomaretsky, Moscow 1995) 15 e5
£id7 = Kolev-Delchev, Sofia 1996. c l) 13 JLxc4 Wxc4 14 e5 £)e4 15
a2) 13 Wd3 Wxd3 14 cxd3 h5!? exd6 £>xd6 16 $Lc5 (16 £kJ4?! 0-0 is
(there is hardly anything wrong with very comfortable for Black, D.Schnei-
14...^.e7 15 a4 0-0; in Bruzon-Pupo, der-Yermolinsky, USA 1998) 16...£tf5
Havana Capablanca mem 1998, Black 17 £ x e7 £ x e7 18 Wd6 £lf5 19 Wa3
demonstrated a nice plan: 16h3h5! 17 b5 20 Wc5 = Velimirovi6-Damljano-
£ld2 h4 18 0-0 £lh5 19 H a d 2fc8, vic, VrSac 1989.
and had no problems at all) 15 a4 h4 c2) 13 ^.d4! 0-0 (13...£xb2? 14
(15...a6) 16 ©b5 Sc8! with counter­ £sb5) 14 ^.xc4 Wxc4 15 e5! £)e8!?
play (Atalik). (15...dxe5 16 fxe5 £ld5 17 £te4 £ b 5
b) The ambitious 10 g4 allows looks like the best, though Black must
Black an immediate break in the cen­ take care of the attacking possibilities
tre: 10....&C6 and now: with Wg4 and £tf6) 16 exd6 .&xd6 17
b l) 11 £e3!?W c7 12 f3h6 (there <£)e4. White has some initiative and
is also a tempting sacrifice mentioned Black should choose between the
by Polgar: 12...d5!? 13 g5 dxe4 14 moves 17....&b5,17...Ji.c7 and 17...^.e7
gxf6 exf3) 13 £ld4 a6 14 # f2 !? d5 instead of the losing 17....&c6? 18
(14...g5!?) 15 f4 5ic4 16 iLxc4 dxc4 <£>xd6, as in Golubev-Lerner, Senden
17 £)xc6 W \c6 18 e5 £ k 4 + = Ninov- 1996.
Chernishov, Djuni 1996. 10...iLe7
b2) 11 f3 £)g6 12 £ g 3 d5 13 exd5 There is an interesting alternative:
£ixd5 14 £>xd5 £ x d 5 15 Wd4 (J.Pol- 10...2c8!?. Now:
gar-Short, Novgorod 1996) 15...jLb4+! a) 11 £ e 3 Wc7 12 £ib5 &xb5 13
16 c3 Wxd4 =. £ x b 5 + £)ed7 14 0-0 (14 0-0-0!?)
 The Sozin and Velimirovic Attacks 77

14...£e7 (14...£ixe4?! 15 Wd4 £iec5 After the logical 14 g5!? £ifd7 15

16 £)xc5 dxc5 17 % 4 ) 15 &d3 d5! A.e3 b5 16 f4 £ k 4 17 -&xc4 bxc4 18
(this seems to be a regular equalizer m ■Sk!4, it is hard to say whether the ad­
this type of position) 16 exd5 £)xd5 vance of the f-pawn is more dangerous
17 fi.d4 0-0 = Onishchuk-Tukmakov, than Black’s chances on the b-fde.
Biel 1996. 14...b5 15 a3 Bb8 16 g5
b) After 11 0-0-0!? Black shouldn’t 16 £)xc6?! W \c6 17 Axe5 dxe5 18
play the tempting 11...2xc3?! 12 Wxc3 Wg5 tfcS! is fine for Black.
£lxe4 13 Wd4 but rather 11 ...£lc7 ac­ "l6...£>fd7 17 h4 A.a8 18 h5 <Sk4 19
cording to Tukmakov; for example, 12 iLxc4 Wxc4
£ e 3 Wc7 13 f4 (13 &d4!?) I3...£lc4 19...bxc4!? looks good since 20
14 £ x c4 Wxc4 15 e5?! (15 -&d4!?) £>de2 Wb7 21 £>a4 £>c5! 22 £)ec3 e5
15...dxe5 16 fxe5 £>d5 17 £lxd5 exd5 23 Ae3 £>xa4 24 £)xa4 Wb5 25 Wb4
18 2 h fl 0-0 (18...d4!?) Agopov-Tella, # x b 4 26 axb4 2xb4 loses a pawn.
Helsinki 2000 and after 19 'ifc’bl the 20 g6 b4 21 axb4 #xb4 22 <&b3
position is almost level in spite of 22 gxf7+!? & x n 23 £ib3 is possi­
Black's bishop-pair. ble, as 23...£>e5 can be countered by
110-0-0 (D) 24 &g5!.
22...hxg6 23 hxg6 2xhl 24 gxf7+
<£>xf7 25 Sxhl a5 26 Wh2 £)f6 27 e5
dxe5 28 £xe5 2c8 29 Wg3 a4? 30
2gl
30 2 h4 is still about equal.
30...g5! 31 &d4 a3 32 £>b3 £>h5
33 Wh3 Wh4 34 Wfl Wc4 35 Wh3
Wh4 36 Wg2 £>f4 37 Wfl Wh2 38
Sg4 &d3+ 39 Wxd3 Wxe5 40 * b l
axb2 41 0h7+ Wg7 42 Wxg7+ *xg7
43 £>e4 Axe4 44 Sxe4 A.f6 45 £id4
&xd4 46 2xd4 2b8 47 2d3 &f6 48
c4 2b6 49 c5 2c6 50 2c3 & e 5 51
11...JLc6 &xb2 i d 4 52 &c2 2xc5 53 2xc5
Better than 11...0-0?! 12g4!£texg4 4>xc5 54 £>c3 £d5 55 *d3 *e5 56
13 A.xg4 £>xg4 14 2 h g l £}f6 15 e5! *e3 &f5 57 *e2 *f4 58 *f2 e5 59
^ e 8 16 exd6 ± Kupreichik-Lopush- l4,e2 e4 60 fxe4 <&xe4 0-1
noi, Perm 1998.
No one has yet dared ll...# x f2 12 Conclusion: The theory of the new
S h fl Wxg2, with the idea 13 JLxe5?! main line is not yet stable, but Black
dxe5 14 2xf6 0-0-0!. usually finds playable ways very soon
12 f3 after White has found something new
12 fi.e3!? Wc7 13 ^ b 5 is worth to try. The older lines are not big trou­
analysing. ble for Black, though there are plenty
12...a6 13 g4 Wc7 14 ®d4 of different plans to be prepared for.
78 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

W hich line to ch o o se in the Game 11. Option B has been by far

S o z in ? the most successful. It also looks theo­
Black has a basic choice between retically good. The drawback is that
6...e6 and 6...Wb6. Both of them have Black has to be careful not to play
achieved a positive score at top level ...&.e7 too early. The choice of Sozin
during the last few years, which is line is usually restricted to the one dis­
highly unusual. 6 ...# b 6 is more solid cussed in Game 11. Option C seems to
in nature and Black doesn’t have to be theoretically sound, but Black’s
worry about such violent kingside at­ score practice is much worse here, be­
tacks as in the Velimirovid, though cause White has the initiative. How­
there are some quite sharp lines too. In ever, C allows Black a wider choice in
the 6...Wb6 lines. Black has better the Sozin lines, and Black doesn’t
chances to survive without exact theo­ have to take care about playing ...Jie7
retical knowledge. On the other hand, too early. C might be a good line
there is a greater variety of position- against a stronger opponent, because
types to study. Black should be ready there are very long theoretical lines
to play even Dragon position-types in and White has to take risks to play for
some cases. In the line 7 £}xc6, this is a win. I cannot say much about D, but
the best choice. There are still some it is no more successful in practice
lines where new theory is rapidly de­ than C.
veloping. Personally, I have always In the Sozin with 6...e6, White has
played 6...e6, but the more I look at the choice between the main line of
6...Wb6, the more I like it. Game 10 and the main line of Game
If Black chooses 6...e6, there are 11. They lead to quite different posi-
still some choices to be made to build tion-types but seem to be about equal
a watertight repertoire. The Velimiro­ in value. White has some changes to
vic lines and the Sozin lines are get a small advantage, though in both
closely connected to each other. In the cases things are not very clear. Black
Velimirovic, Black can choose be­ can avoid the line of Game 11 by tak­
tween: ing on the lines discussed in the note
A) The surprise weapon 8...£>a5; to Black’s 10th move in Game 10.
B) The main line of Game 10 with Black has also a chance to avoid the
9...£>a5!; line of Game 10 by taking on Option
C) The very theoretical line with D in the Velimirovi6. This is how it
an early ...&.c7 and 10...^a5; happens: 6 iLc4 e6 7 jLe3 £.e7 8 ^.b3
D) The lines with early castling 0-0 9 f4 (9 We2 leads to D) 9...£>xd4
not introduced here. 10 ji.xd4 b5!, which seems to be a
Option A should be considered good line for Black. Things are very
only as a surprise weapon, even though complicated in the Sozin/Velimirovid
it doesn’t look bad. White can easily jungle. It is much simpler to choose
bypass the line with the move-order of 6..Wb6.
5 The Rauzer with 8...h6

Strategic Introduction
to the Rauzer without
■ i f l i f A i i
doubled f-paw ns A lft lA l
m m m m
To be accurate, the move 6 JLg5 is Hi wm mm
W ......... B
called the Richter-Rauzer Attack. If
White continues after 6...e6 with the m so m m
most popular response 7 Wd2 (D) fol­
lowed by castling queenside, we are in
A'fiAf A AH
the Rauzer. Moves other than 7 ^ 1 2
are covered in Chapter 7.
d6 (9...e5 is impossible owing to 10
£lxc6 bxc6 11 Jk.xe5).
m r n + m u However, the most natural and flex­
All Bill ible reply is 9 iLe3 (D).
A * In
■ ■ 1! If i B J . n r * '* : ■
m m i n
A B *B A B ■

& Wi
In many typical Rauzer lines White
intends to exchange the dark-squared
AHAH H A S
bishop on f6 at a moment when it is
!A « s
not good for Black to take back with a
piece. This leads to a quite different Then the play diverges according to
position-type from a strategic point of whether White continues with f4 (type
view. In the most popular Rauzer line, 1 below) or the English Attack set-up
7...a6 8 0-0-0 h6, there is not much with f3 (type 2). With f4, White has
point in taking on f6 and the bishop more chances to strike in the centre,
must withdraw. One possibility is 9 whereas f3 protects the weak point e4
.&f4 (D), exerting some pressure on and so gives Black less counterplay.
80 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

Typical M e th o d s for W hite Black’s king position. This idea is

usual in position-type 1.
1. Attack on the kingside with h3
and g4-g5 or f3, g4, h4 and g5
Position-type 1;

Black should put pressure on the

e5-pawn (...S}d7) or try to exchange
some of the attacking pieces (...^d5-
Position-type 2: b4). The right counter-method depends
on the position, but here the latter op­
tion is safer: 15 e5 dxe5 16 fxe5 £)d5!
17 £ie4 £>b4, exchanging both the
d3-bishop and the e4-knight.

4. Try to benefit from the semi-open

d-file

2. Defend the queenside with &bl

This protects against tricks based on
the weakness of a2 and the c-fde. In
position-type 1, White’s best move is
the cautious 12 & bl to protect a2. In
almost all Rauzer lines, an early ' i ’bl
is recommended for White.
White has some tactical ideas based
3. Play in the centre with e5 on the black queen being on the d-file
The knight may come into the attack and the weakness of the d-pawn. After
via e4. The f6-square is vulnerable in 11 Wei, White has the threat e5.
 The Rauzer with 8...h6 81

5. Watch for tactical ideas based on Typical M e th o d s for Black

the move £>d5
In the position above (position-type 4) 1. Counter-attack in the centre with
after 11 Wei Wc7 White has 12 £ld5!?. ...b4 and ...d5
Look at position 3 of Black’s methods
too.

Here Black’s standard strike is

12...b4 13 £ k e2 d5. It looks double-
Here the black king is in big danger edged because Black’s kingside devel­
because of the idea ®d5, which comes opment is bad, but Black needs
after almost everything. See the note counterplay against White’s kingside
to White's 9th move in Game 14. attack.

6. If Black has castled, watch for a 2. Counter-attack in the centre with

chance to sacrifice on h6 ...b4, ...e5 and ...d5

B B

In this position-type, the sacrificial Black becomes active with the help
possibility is very real. The fi.xh6 idea of the unprotected a2-pawn after 13...b4
may well be linked with the moves e5 14 &e2 e5! 15 £ e 3 Wa5, followed by a
and 2h3, intending 2g3. later ...$Lc6 and ...d5. It is not possible
82 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

to take on e5 because of the a2-pawn:

15 dxe5 dxe5 16 fi.xe5? Wa5 followed
by ...18,xa2.

3. Pressurize White’s e-pawn with a

bishop on c6
This may cause some confusion in the
white camp. Look at the positions 3
and 4 of White’s methods.

5. Before castling kingside, secure

counterplay on the queenside
Or else open lines in the centre with
the intention of exchanging pieces to
reduce White’s attacking power.

W. W a tso n - Yrjola
Gijon rpd 1988

Here White has some problems with

the e-pawn after 15...b4 though he
could try 16 fi.xf6 fi.xf6 17 £id5 in­
stead of losing a pawn after 16 e5 dxe5
17 fxe5 £>d7.
18 -.b4 19 £se2Ji.b5! eliminates the
4. Strive for the ending potential attacker, the d3-bishop. Of­
Reduction to an ending usually fa­ ten exchanging rooks on the open
vours Black as long as his position is d-file has the same aim.
still fundamentally solid.
In the following diagram, the end­ 6. If White advances his kingside
ing is very good for Black, who can pawns, play ...h5 to stop them
push the kingside majority (...g5, ...h5 In the following diagram, the game
and ...g4) with the help of the bishop’s continued 11...H5!? 12 £>b3 b5 13
pressure on the long diagonal. Gen­ Wf2 Wc7. This idea to stop White’s
erally, Black has much better chances kingside potential is a modern ap­
to use his pawn-majority than White proach and it’s getting popular even in
does. some Najdorf lines.
 The Rauzer with 8...h6 83

d4-square and a lot of kingside poten­

tial.

Sometimes White gets a lot of pres­

sure on the central lines. The ...d5 idea
usually works best when White has
weakened his pawn-structure with g4.

S h iro v - Dam ljanovic

Batumi Echt 1999

7. Black can often play in the centre

with ...d5 in position-type 2, where
White has exchanged on c6
A warning is needed though: there are
many examples where this is jusi bad.
If White can answer e4-e5 based on Leko - Korchnoi
J.f4 tactics, he might be positionally Dortmund 1994
better.
Here Black has a tactical justifica­
tion (the hi-rook is hanging): 15...d5!
16 Ab6 Wb7 17 e5 £ixg4! 18 Wd4
foxeS, although the position remains
unclear.

8. Black plays a knight to e5 in posi­

tion-type 2

w
Adam s - Beilin
Kilkenny 1999

13...d5 14 e5! £ld7 15 f4 b4 16

£>d4 gave White the upper hand. The
resulting type of closed position is
often better for White, who has the
84 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

This is a dominating square and White

rarely wants to play f4, which weak­
ens both e4 and g4. From e5, the W
knight can jump to c4 if necessary.

9. Place the dark squares under con­

trol
There are good examples in Game 17,
including the main game itself. This is
quite typical for position-type 2, where
White creates dark-square weaknesses
in his camp.
13 Wxc6+ -&d7 14 # 6 4 Sb8, though
after the manoeuvre 15 fi.c4, followed
Rauzer with 8...h6: White by jLb3, White is slightly better) 11
plays 9 £>xc6 or 9 jth4 foxc6 bxc6 12 Wa4 Wb6. Now;
a) There is a dangerous attacking
Here we discuss the less popular alter­ idea first played by Planinc and re­
natives to 9 $Le3 and 9 A.f4. cently revived by I.Almasi: 13 fi.d3
Sb8 14 f4 <&h7 (14...d5!? 15 * d 2
Game 14 £lh7 16 S hel j£.d7 17 f5 is unclear,
N isip eanu - Ivanchuk Solak-Zontakh, Sabak 1998, while
Las Vegas FIDE KO 1999 14...#xb2+?! 15 <S?d2 # b 4 16 Ebl is
better for White) 15 S h el. Here the
I e4 c5 2 £)f3 £ k 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4 move £>d5 comes after almost every­
Gtf6 5 £>c3 d6 6 £ g 5 e6 7 Wd2 a6 8 thing. White’s practical chances should
0-0-0 not be underestimated even though
There is not enough reason to give Black may be able to equalize. Snap­
up the bishop-pair: 8 f4?! h6! 9 fi.xf6 ping off the b2-pawn is usually dan­
(9 £ h 4 ? £lxe4) 9...Wxf6 10 <Qf3 Wd8 gerous owing to the b-file. 15...fi.e7?!
II 0-0-0 &e7 =. (better though very complicated is
8...h6 (D) 15...£)f6!? 16 £ x f6 gxf6 17 £>d5
9 <2ixc6 Wxb2+ 18 <&d2 *d 7 ! 19 Ebl Wxbl
This is a brand new idea and the 20 Bxbl Sxbl 21 £}xf6+ '&e7, which
theory is developing rapidly. is probably equal, while 15...jLd7? 16
The complicated line 9 fi.h4 is £)d5! ± I.Almasi-Cao Sang, Budapest
rather rare but dangerous and should 1997, cannot be recommended due to
be studied carefully by Black even if 16...!rxb2+ 17 * d 2 g5 18 Bxe6+ fxe6
the statistics look very favourable for 19 Ag6+ * d 8 20 # a 5 + Bb6 21 Af2)
his side: 9...£>xe4 10 Wl'4 (10 ®xe4 16 ©d5! # x b 2 + 17 * d 2 &xh4 18
Wxh4 11 £ixc6 # xe4) 10...£ig5 (the Wxc6+ fi.d7 19 Sxe6+ fxe6 20 j£.g6+
alternative is unpopular but playable: 21 Wxd7 and Black was crushed
10...g5 11 Wxe4 gxh4 12 £sxc6 bxc6 in T.Hemandez-Pina, Camaguey 1998.
 The Rauzer with 8...h6 85

b) 13 f4 £lh7 and now: Black’s weapons? Attacking on the b-

bl) The obscure line 14 iLc4 Sb8 file doesn’t look realistic. Also, there
15 Shel can be met by 15...g5 (instead never seems to be time for the obvious
of the messy 15...Wxb2+ 16'4>d 2 1H,b4 ...c5 and ...d4. One plan is to attack the
17 Wxc6+ &d7 18 Wxa6 2c8 19 Se4 e4-pawn to force it advance or ex­
Westerinen-Schiissler, Gjovik 1985) change on d5, which both seem to
16 fxg5 #xb2+ 17 * d 2 &g7 T. benefit Black.
b2) 14 Af2 Wc7 15 g4 (15 f5!?) 11..JU 7
15...Ae7 16 h4 looks less critical. This This is the most popular move and a
was tried successfully in Moen-Grenn, favourite of strong players. One ques­
Norwegian Ch 1992. tion is whether it is useful first to play
b3) 14 jLd3! Sb8 leads to line 'a', 11_Si.b4 and only after 12 a3 the
giving Black even fewer options than move 12.,.$Le7. This weakens White’s
one move earlier. king position slightly but the b4-
b4) In what used to be the main square is not at Black’s disposal any
line, Black has no problems: 14 f5 more.
2b8 15 fxe6 £ x e6 16 £ c 4 £.e7 17 On the other hand, ll...Wa5 is more
£ x e 6 fxe6 18 £ x e7 <£xe7 19 Wg4 active and most interesting:
We3+ (19...£\g5!?) 20 Bd2 Bhf8 (or a) 12 exd5 cxd5 13 &e2 Jk.b7 looks
20...£>g5 21 <bdl We4 22® g 3 lc 5 =) positionally fine for Black, who has
21 Wxg7+ B n 22 Wd4 Wxd4 23 the central pawns. Still, Black has
Sxd4 <Sf6 with an equal ending, Ziat- some problems with his king and de­
dinov-Lerner, Bern 1994. velopment. 14 ^.e5 (after 14 Wg3 Bc8
9...bxc6 10 i.f4 d5 11 We3 (D) White has to take ...axc3 seriously)
1 4 ...^ 7 15 .&d4 Jic5 is comfortable
for Black however, Neron de Surgy-
Touzane, Paris 1998.
B b) 12 JLe2! and then:
bl) 12...dxe4!? is an interesting
idea, e.g. 13 Wg3 (13 £ c 4 Wf5!; 13
£}xe4!7 £}d5 14 2xd5 cxd5 15 £>d6+
.&.xd6 16 Axd6 with compensation,
Gershon-Lerner, Graz 1997) 13...£kl5
14 £ixd5 cxd5 15 i ’bl and White will
play f3 soon and Black’s problems
with his kingside development will
give White enough compensation,
The positional factors and plans which is of rather an unpleasant nature
don’t seem so obvious here. White’s in practice.
play is based on the pressure on the b2) 12.. JLb4 13 Jic5 Axc3 is more
kingside. He can disturb Black’s de­ natural:
velopment (Wg3) or he can attack the b21) Critical might be the rather
king if Black castles. But what are untested line 14 iLxc3!? Wxa2 15 f3!
86 Easy G uide to the C lassical Sicilian

(15fi.xf6gxf6 1 6»c3 2b8 ?) 15...0-0 weakness of the king position and the
(I5...£b7?! 16Wb6) 16£xf6gxf6 17 bishop sacrifice on h6 are Black’s
« x h 6 W al+ 18 * d 2 Wxb2 19 h4! f5 main worries in this rather untested
(19...dxe4 20 2h3 2d8+ 21 * e l line. This position demonstrates the
'Brb4+ 22 c3 2 x d l+ 23 A xdl Wxc3+ dangers of castling kingside in the
24 * f l Wd3+ 25 * g l ! W xdl+ 26 Rauzer with ...h6.
&h2 Wei 27 2g3+ # x g 3 + 28 *xg 3 f) 13...2e8 is a recommendation of
+—) 20 exf5 <1^4+ (maybe Black Nisipeanu and Stoica. They give the
should take the ending: 20..M g l 21 continuation 14 Wg3 ‘i ’hS 15 Ac7
Wxg7+ &xg7 22 fxe6 fi.xe6 23 g4 ±) Wd7 16 &c5 with a small plus for
21 c3 Wb2+ 22 &d3! Wb5+ (22...a5 White.
23 f6 Aa6+ 24 -&e3 lfxe2+ 25 * f4 13...<4?h8 14 £ c 7 Wd7 15 £ e 5 Wb7
+ -) 23 * e 3 Wb6+ 24 2d4 exf5 25 16 exd5 cxd5 17 2d 4 £>e8! (D)
Wg5+ * h 7 26 £ d 3 t Se8+ 27 &d2
Wb2+ 28 $Lc2. This analysis of ihis
obscure line indicates that White has
chances for some advantage. I await
practical tests with interest.
b22) 14 Wxc3 Wxc3 15 Axc3
£)xe4 16 JLxg7 2g8 17 JLd4 e5 18
£.e3 Sxg2 leads to a complex ending
that is not worse for Black.
12&e20-0 13#g3
Black still faces the problem of
finding a strong answer to 13 h4!
(note that 13 g4 is nothing because of
13...£>d7 or 13...£>h7 with a block­ Black is defending successfully
ade), when White has the sacrifice on with the exchange of the dark-squared
h6 against almost everything: bishops.
a) The trick 13...d4 is looming but 18 &d3 £ d 7 19 2 e l £ f 6 20 2g4
at this moment 14 Wxd4 Wxd4 15 In the following complications White
2xd4 £.c5 16 2c4 gives White a better has to do his best to get the draw. Ac­
ending. cording to Nisipeanu and Stoica, 20
b) 13...fi.b4?! 14 e5 l x c 3 (after a3! a5 21 a4 2b8 22 £lb5 is better.
14...£ld7 White can play 15 Ji.xh6) 15 20...fi.xe5 21 2xe5 2b 8 22 b3
Wxc3 £le4 16 Wc3 f6 17 f3 ± Gof- 2c8! 23 Wh4 f5! 24 We7 >&>g8 25 2b4
shtein-Khasin, Rishon le Zion 1997. Wc7 26 2xe6 2 f7 27 foxdS 2xe7 28
c) 13...Wa5?! 14e5£ld7 I5&xh6!. foxc7 jk.xe6 29 £>xe6 2xe6 30 jLxf5
d) 13...c5 14 Axh6. 2cc6 31 iLxe6+ 2xe6
e) 13...fi.b7 looks to some extent The ending is equal.
playable, but after 14 g4 or 14 Sh3 32 2d 4 <&f7 33 <&d2 £ld6 34 2f4+
Black still has problems. On c8, the * e 7 35 c4 a5 36 f3 2e5 37 a3 2c5 38
bishop at least prevents 2h3. The &d3 2e5 39 b4 g5 40 2d 4 2 e l 41
 The Rauzer with 8...h6 87

bxa5 S a l 42 &c3 Bxa3+ 43 &b4 Sa2 d5 with complex play, Kosashvili-

44 g4 &e6 45 h3 Sb2+ 46 * c 3 S b l Rechlis, Israeli Ch 1986.
47 f4 S c l+ 48 &d2 S a l 49 f5+ &e7 b) 10 Jig3 ± e 7 11 £>b3 b5 12
50 c5 vib5 51 Se4+ <£f7 52 Se6 .&xd6 b4 13 £}a4 .£.xd6 14 Wxd6
Sxa5 53 Sxh6 £>d4 54 £ c 3 &xf5 55 £lxe4 15 Wf4 Wg5 = Filipenko-Eme-
gxf5 V2-V2 lin, Pardubice 1997.
10...£.xc6 (D)
Conclusion: These sidelines are dan­
gerous for Black. There is a novel idea
in the old mess 9 Ji.h4 and Black has
not yet found a sure equalizer against
the new line 9 £>xc6 despite Ivan­
chuk’s fine defence. Fortunately for
...h6 adherents, these lines are not yet
very popular.

Rauzer with 8...h6:

W hite plays 9 ^.f4
Historically, this has been the second 11 f3
most popular move. Its popularity at Taking the pawn is not a reliable
top level compared with 9 £.e3 always way to force a draw: 11 ,&xd6 ^.xd6
awakens when there is an important 12 Wxd6 Wxd6 13 Bxd6 A.xe4 14
new idea or something to discuss theo­ Sd4 £ c 6 15 f3 &e7 16 £ e 2 g5 f
retically. At this moment, there is Berend-Jansa, Bonnevole 1999, with a
none. White’s play is based on piece- typical ending in this line where Black
play and immediate threats more than can generate play with his kingside
attacking potential with pawn ad­ majority.
vances like in the 9 &.e3 lines. The main alternative to the text-
move is II Wei, with the idea e4-e5
Game 15 and sometimes £ld5:
K arpov - Salo v a) The natural move ll...W c7 usu­
Buenos Aires 1994 ally transposes to ‘b’, but might lead
to a different track after 12 e5 (or 12
1 e4 c5 2 £>f3 £)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £ixd4 £>d5!? ii.xd5 13 exd5 Sc8 14 c3 e5)
5 £>c3 d6 6 £ g 5 e6 7 Wd2 a6 812,..dxe5 (12...d5!? 13 * b l ) 13 £xe5
0-0-0 h6 9 i.t'4 £ d 7 10 £>xc6 Wc8.
The alternatives are dangerous only b) The main move is 11_&.e7 be­
as surprises: lieving that e5 is no threat. If White
a) 10 £>b3 £>e5 (10...b5!? 11 f3 continues with slow moves like 'S’bl
<5^e5 is less sharp) 11 $Lg3 b5 12 f4 b4! and f3, etc., Black has time for ...Wc7
13 fxe5 bxc3 14 Wxc3 £ k e4 15 Wf3 and ...b5, so the following are critical:
88 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

b l) 12 h4 (sometimes the rook can 2xd6 2xd6 doesn’t give much in spite
come into play via h3) 12...Wc7 (Black of the pin: 19 We3 2g8 20 i.xd6
keeps options open of castling either Wxd6 21 Bdl l fxh2 22 g3 Wg2 ?
side) 13 e5 and now: Thorsteins-Balashov, Reykjavik 1984)
bl 1) 13...dxe5 14£xe5W b6 15 O 17...£.g5(17...2hg8 18We2 Ag5 19
(15 S h 3 !?) 15...0-0 16 Ad3 2fd8 is .&xg5 hxg5 = Adams-Timman, Am­
rather solid but the queen doesn’t want sterdam 1994) 18 .&xg5 hxg5 (the
to block the b-pawn, Psakhis-Ivan- pawn-formation is repaired) 19 Wg3
chuk, Moscow 1990. dxe5 20 Bxd8+ Wxd8 21 Wxe5 2g8
b l2) Black can also opt for a 22 £)e4 £ x e4 23 Wxe4 Wd6 = Kar-
closed position: 13...d5 14 2h3 (14 pov-Shirov, Buenos Aires 1994.
£te2 £id7 15 &d4 £ f 6 16 £if3 Ae7 11...d5 12 Wei
17 £>d4 £ b 5 18 * b l £ x f l 19 Wxfl The ending after 12 exd5 £}xd5 13
0-0-0 = Cuijpers-Tukmakov, Eindho­ £>xd5 Wxd5 14 Wxd5 Axd5 offers
ven 1986) 14...£>d7 15 <4?bl £ic5 16 Black some chances to play for a win
h5 0-0-0 17 £ie2 .£.b5! = (the exchange with his kingside majority; nor is it the
of the light-squared bishops is a good right time to play 12 e5? £}d7 13 £ie2
policy) Kotronias-Shirov, Khalkidhiki Wc7.
1993. In this case, White managed to 12...£b4 13 a3 4.a5 (D)
gain some space on the kingside.
Black is happier, of course, if he has
time to play ...h5 himself.
b2) The obvious 12 e5 forces the
following continuation: 12...^h5 13
£ e 3 Wc7 14 £ e 2 g6 15 &xh5 (the ex­
change sacrifice doesn’t look justi­
fied: 15 g4?! £ x h l 16 Wxhl £>g7 17
exd6 Ji.xd6 18 &b5+!? <4>f8 19 £>e4
axb5 20 2xd6 2xa2 Gild.Garcia-Stef-
ansson, Elista OL 1998) 15...gxh5.
There is no proof White has any ad­
vantage in this position. Although
Black’s kingside pawn-structure is not 14 JLd2
perfect, he has active pieces and the There are two major alternatives, a
famous Rauzer bishop on c6 puts pres­ safe one and a risky one:
sure on the diagonal. Quite often a) 14 b4 ,&b6 15 exd5 ,&xd5 (not
Black manages to repair his pawn- 15...£>xd5? losing to 16 £)xd5 ^.xd5
structure like Shirov and Timman be­ 17 c4) and now:
low. Examples: 16 A f4 (16 ^.d4 2g8 a l) A drawish line is 16 £>xd5
17 We3 0-0-0!? 18 Ab6 £ g 5 19 f4 £ixd5 17 c4 Wf6 18 Ae5 i.e3 + (if
£ x f4 20 Wxf4 Wxb6 21 2xd6 2xg2 18...Wg5+!?, then 19 * b l £ e 3 20 f4)
¥ Hodgson-Tukmakov, Sochi 1987) 19 Wxe3 £>xe3 20 £ x f6 £>xdl 21
16...0-0-0 17 f3 (17 exd6 £.xd6 18 £xg7 2g8 22 £.xh6 Qf2 =.
 The Rauzer with 8...h6 89

a2) 16 &e5 0-0 17 Wh4 Ae3+ 19...2fe8!? 20 g4 fod5 21 &xd5 exd5

(17...a5!? 18 £ x f6 Wxf6 19 Wxf6 gxf6 22 Wd2 ji.b6 23 g5 fi.e3 with active
20 £>xd5 exd5 looks good enough for play for Black, Sammalvuo-Lehto,
a draw) 18 <S?b2 jLg5 19 Wd4 &.c6 was Helsinki 1996.
popular for a couple of years but now 14...2c8 (D)
everyone seems to agree that there is There are many playable moves in
not much life in the resulting ending. this position but this natural one has
Black has no weaknesses and White is been the most popular in recent years.
playing only with his queenside ma­ The main alternative, 14.. W ei 15 e5
jority. 20 a4 (both 20 Ad3 Wxd4 21 fodl, usually leads to a closed position
&xd4 2fd8 22 £ie2 £ld5 23 h4 Af6 reminiscent of some lines of the French
24 Axf6 gxf6, V2 -V2 Tiviakov-Shirov, Defence. A typical example: 16 ‘i ’bl
Frunze 1989, and 20 # x d 8 2fxd8 21 A b617f4h5 1 8 $ fe2g619g3ttc3 20
Ad3 £>d5 22 £>xd5 2xd5 23 JLe3 &c3 W(2 21 Wxf2 &xf2 22 Ad4
2ad8 24 2 d el A.b5 f , Tiviakov-Shi­ fi.xd4 23 £)xd4 2c8 Topalov-Salov,
rov, Wijk aan Zee 1996, are very com­ Madrid 1993. Another story is 14...d4
fortable for Black) 20...Wxd4 21 JLxd4 15 e5 W cl 16 £>e2 Axd2+ 17 # x d 2
2fc8 22 * b 3 £>d7 (22,..a5!? 23 b5 W\e5, which should also be OK. Lanka
£ d 5 + 24 &xd5 £)xd5 25 c4 £le3 26 has even played the move 14...fi.b6 a
2 e l £)f5 27 fi.b6 Ad8 = Nijboer- couple of times without any problems.
Meins, Bundesliga 1997/8) 23 fi.c4
(23 b5?! axb5 24 axb5 Ad5+) 23...b6
24 2 h e l a5 25 2xe6! (White saves
his position with tactics) 25...fxe6 26
£ x e6 + * f 8 27 b5 Axf3 28 gxf3
foc5+29 £ xc5+ 2xc5 30 2d7 2d8 31
2xd8+ fi.xd8 32 £kl5 2xd5 V2 -V2
Rogers-Greenfeld, Hoogeveen 1997.
b) 14 exd5 £lxd5 15 b4 £ M 4 ! (this
queen sacrifice is practically forced,
but it has a good reputation) 16 2xd8+
A.xd8 17 h4 0-0 and now:
bl) 18 2h2!? b5?! (maybe 18...£c7
19 g3 2fd8) 19 We3 A f6 20 Wxf4 15 Wg3
iLxc3 21 We3 ± is the latest idea, Other possibilities:
Ninov-Zontakh, Lazarevac 1999. a) 15*bldxe4(15...d4!?)16fxe4
b2) After 18 We3 Ac7!, Black’s (16 £ixe4?! jLxe4 17 fxe4 JLxd2 18
active pieces, dark squares and the 2xd2 Wa5 19 Ad3 We5 ¥ M.Muller-
weakness of White’s king position Reeh, Bundesliga 1994/5) 16..M e l 17
guarantee Black enough compensa­ e5 fodl 18 Wg3 I d 19 Wxgl i.xe5
tion; for example: 19 i ’bl (19 2 g l 20 Wg4 £tf6 21 Wh3 '/2 -V2 Topalov-
2fd8 20 g3 fod5 21 &xd5 exd5 22 Ad3 San Segundo, Madrid 1993. The nice
2e8 Kaminski-Serper, Wisla 1992) bishops more than compensate for the
90 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

slight inconvenience of the black king Rauzer with 8...h6: White

position.
b) 15 exd5 £ixd5 16 £lxd5 ,&xd2+ plays 9 $Le3 and f4
17 2xd2 £ x d 5 18 A d3 0-0 19 £ e 4
Sc5 20 fff2 Wa5 21 £ x d 5 2xd5 22 Game 16
Sxd5 Wxd5 = Thorhallsson-Peturs- Sp ra g ge tt - Veingold
son, Icelandic Ch 1996 should be a Saragossa 1995
draw but surprisingly Black went on to
win. 1 e4 c5 2 4bf3 £sc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4
15...d4 16 £ e 3 &c7'. £>f6 5 £>c3 d6 6 JigS e6 7 Wd2 a6 8
17 Wxg7?? 2h7 is a typical tactical 0-0-0 h6 9 £ e 3 £ d 7 10 f4
trick in this line. This is the most natural continua­
17 f4?! tion: White plays in the centre by pre­
Better is 17 e5 £tfi5 18 Wg4 jLxc5 paring the e5 push. Also, if Black
19 Ji.xd4 =. castles kingside at an early stage,
17...£lh5 18 Wg4 Wt6 19 2xd4 White can start rolling the pawns with
£ x f4 20 £ x f4 Wxf4+ 21 Wxf4 £>xf4 h3 and g4.
The result is a typically better end­ 10...b5 11 £ d 3 (D)
ing for Black. He has the e5-square for
his knight and potential play with his
kingside majority.
22 g3 £ g 6 23 &d2 £>e5 24 Ae2 B
&e7 25 * e 3 g5 26 h4 2cg8 27 hxgS
Exg5 28 Sh5 Bxg3+ 29 * f4 Egl 30
£}d5+ icxd? 31 exd5 <5ig6+ 32 l£ ,e3
Sg3+ 33 * f 2 Eg5 34 Eb4 b5 35 a4
Bc8 36 axb5 axb5 37 dxe6 Exh5 38
£ x h 5 Bxc2+ 39 <4>e3 Bc5 40 Ae2
Be5+ 41 * f 2 fxe6 42 £ x b 5 <&f6 43
.&d3 h5 44 Ee4 Ec5 45 &e3 Sg5 46
£>f2 2f5+ 47 * e 3 2g5 48 * f2 2f5+
49 * e 3 £ie7 50 2h4 2e5+ 51 <&f2 ll..JL e7
2d 5 52 £ c 4 2f5+ 53 &gl 2g5+ 54 This is the most popular move and
<&f2 Sf5+ 55 * g l £)g6 56 2e4 &f4 brings about one of the most important
57 b4 2g5+ 58 & fl e5 59 £ a 6 Sg3 60 positions in the whole ...h6 Rauzer.
Sc4 Bb3 61 b5 h4 62 2c6+ &g5 63 Black is ready to castle at a suitable
b6 2 b l+ 64 * f2 h3 65 <&g3 2 g l+ 66 moment.
&h2 2g2+ 67 <£hl <5Mi5 0-1 There is a straightforward attempt
to carry out the normal trick immedi­
Conclusion: The line now seems to­ ately. It is almost untried, risky but
tally equal; the proportion of draws at also very interesting: ll...£>xd4!? 12
top level is high. The onus is on White £ x d 4 b4 13 £>e2 e5 14 fxe5 (14 iLe3
to find something new. Wa5 will lead to the main line with
 The Rauzer with 8...h6 91

Black having avoided the more dan­

gerous 12 i b l lines) 14...dxe5 15
fi.xe5 Wa5 16 ± x f6 Wxa2 17 We3 B
(the tempting 17 1B,f4 gxf6 18 # x f6
Sg8 is good for Black) 17...gxf6 18
Wd4 W al+ 19 * d 2 # a 5 20 Wxf6 (20
# d5!?) 20...1tg 5 + 21 Wxg5 hxg5.
Black has some compensation for the
pawn: bishop-pair, dark squares, h-
fde and counterplay with the a-pawn.
This is something that can be analysed
as a practical surprise weapon. Many
GMs have for sure analysed this idea, bl) The calm 13...Wc7!? should be
but no one has tried it. taken seriously: 14 g4 £>xd4 15 fi.xd4
12 h3 b4 16 £)e2 e5 17 fi.e3 (17 fxe5 dxe5
12 ' i ’bl looks slow but also stops 18 fi.e3 fi.c5 19 £>g3 fi.xe3 20 # x e3
the most effective counter-idea by a5 21 S dfl £}h7 was fine for Black in
protecting the a-pawn: the game Van der Wiel-Gross, Bun­
a) 12...£>xd4!? is one of the most desliga 1997/8) 17...fi.c6 18 £>g3 (18
solid ideas. 13 fi.xd4 fix6 and then: fxe5 £)xe4!) 18...d5! 19 fxe5 £)xe4 20
a l) 14 S h el b4 (14...Sc8!? 15 g4 fi.xe4 dxe4 21 £tf5 Sfd8 and Black
b4 16 fi.xf6 £ x f6 17 £sd5 fi.h4 J.Pol- was not worse in Santo-Roman -
gar-Karpov, Buenos Aires 1994) 15 P.Garcia, Linares Z 1995 after 22 Wt2
!fixf6 fi.xf6 16 £}d5 a5 =. but what about 22 £id6!? instead?
a2) 14 We3! b4 (14...»c7 15 e5 b2) After 13...‘£ixd4 14fi.xd4ii.c6,
dxe5 16 fxe5 £kl5 17 Wg3 t Adams- White has two ways to react against
Garcia Ilundain, Terrassa 1991 leads the threat ...b4:
to a position-type to avoid with Black) b21) 15 e5 dxe5 16 fxe5 £>d7 (it is
15 fi.xf6 gxf6 16 £ e 2 Wa5 17 S hfl probably better to exchange one at­
Wc5 18 % 3 * f8 19 £5 e5 with a play­ tacking piece with 16...^d5! 17 ®e4
able type of doubled f-pawn Rauzer, <£)b4) 17 Wc3 (more dangerous is 17
Kruppa-Shmuter, Kherson 1990. Black &e4!? tfc7!7 18 £lf6+ <&h8 19 #e3,
is coming with the a-pawn. when it is hard to find constructive
b) 12...0-0 13 h3 (D) (the straight­ moves for Black) 17...Wb8 (Black
forward attacking idea 13 g4 ®xg4 14 should prevent <£)e4 followed by £sf6+
Bhgl £lxe3 15 W \c3 is danger- by pressing against the e5-pawn) 18
ous-looking but hardly justified; after foe2 fi.d8 19 £>g3 fi.g5 20 W f2 fi.h4
16 £>f3 the move 16...e5!? has been eliminates the dangerous knight, 111-
recommended to stop White’s e5 and escas-Salov, Oviedo rpd 1993.
was tested in Xie Jun-Galliamova, b22) 15 We3 (almost invariably
Erevan worn OL 1996: 17 £}d5 Bg8 played) 15...#c7 16 e5 dxe5 17 fi.xe5
18 S d fl fi.f8 19 Eg3 exf4 20 Wxf4 (17 fxe5 <&d5 =) 17...#b7 looks quite
fi.e6 f ) and now: equal; still. White can create some
92 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

play with f5 or g4, h4 and g5. Black easy points from it with Black. The
usually attempts to exchange pieces, less natural 19 b3!? d5 20 e5 £te4 21
...b4 and ,...&b5 being a common ma­ &xe4 dxe4 22 ftd4 Jic5! 23 We2 (what
noeuvre. 18 B hfl (or 18 Bhel 2ad8 about 23 £>xe6!? fxe6 24 ,&xh6!? in­
19g4b4 20£>e2 &d5 2 lW g l£ .b 5 22 stead?) 23...i.xd4 24 Exd4 Wc5 25
g5 hxg5 23 fxg5 b3! 24 axb3 £lb4 Wxe4 a5 permitted Black fair com­
with good counterplay, Yudasin-Oll, pensation in Yudasin-Rechlis, Israel
Pamplona 1991/2) 18...b4 19 ,&xf6 1995.
(19 Qe2 Ab5! 20 f5 £.xd3 21 3xd3 19...d5 20 £>b3
exf5 22 £ld4 £)e4 23 £ix£5 i.g 5 is 2 0 e5?! £ie4 21 £xe4 dxe4 22 Wg2
very double-edged, Oll-Yrjola, Esto- Sfd8 23 g5 hxg5 24 Bdgl (24 .&xg5
nia-Finland 1991) 19....&xf6 20 £te4, Axg5 25 Wxg5 f6) 24...£f5! 25 £xg5
Nijboer-Wells, Antwerp 1996, and Jk.xg5 26 Wxg5 Wxe5 + Sorsa-Vein-
now 20...^.xe4 21 .&xe4 Wa7 would gold, Jyvaskyla 1997.
have equalized. 20...Wb6 21 ile3
12...£>xd4 13 &xd4 b4 14 £se2 (D) More critical is 21 exd5 £>xd5 22
£xh6! a5! 23 Ag5 f6 24 Ah4 (24
S hel?! fxg5 25 Sxe6 Wxe6 26 Jic4
£lc3+ 27 Wxc3 bxc3 28 &xe6+ ?
Brankovi6-Nevednichy, Yugoslav Ch
1996) 24...a4 25 Af2 Wb7 26 Wei!
jLf7 27 £ld4, but Black has good at­
tacking chances after, say, 27...a3.
21...Wb7
21...«fc7 22 e5 &e4 23 Wg2 Wxe5
T Lehto-Veingold, Vantaa 1997.
22 exd5 i.x d 5 23 S h el £)e4 24
We2 Sfe8 ? 25 i.xa6?! Exa6 26 Sxd5
Exa2 27 Wb5 Wa8! 28 Wxe8+ Wxe8
14...e5! 29 * x a 2 Wc6? 30 Be5 iLf6 0-1
The standard counter-strike in the
centre. Now it is unhealthy for sure to Conclusion: White is doing better in
take the pawn because of ...Wa5. practice with the cautious 12 &bl than
15 £ e 3 Wa5 16 * b l 0-0 17 g4 exf4 with 12 h3. Black has many different
If Black doesn’t like the variation in possibilities that bring him close to
the next comment, he can consider a equality.
different move-order: 17...iLe6 18 b3
d5! 19 f5 dxe4 20 fxe6 exd3 21 exf7+
* x f7 22 Wxd3 Wb5! = Yudasin-Svid- Rauzer with 8...h6: White
ler. Pula Echt 1997. plays 9 & e3 and f3
18 £ x f4 Ae6 19 Q cl
This must be a favourite position of This line is important in practice be­
IM Veingold, who has scored several cause there is also the transpositional
 The Rauzer with 8...h6 93

possibility 8...fi.d7 9 f3 h6 10 fi.e3. 18 £sxe6 fxe6 19 f4 £>xd3 20 2xd3

Usually White aims for English At­ Wc7 21 Wb6 S d8 22 S h d l Wc7 23
tack ideas, advancing h4, g4 and g5 on Wxa6 &e7 %.
the kingside. a2) \2..M c7 is a useful move, with
the following possibilities:
Game 17 a21) 13 S h el b4 (13...£lc4!? 14
A rn a so n - Yrjola fi.xc4 Wxc4 looks solid) 14 £>ce2 d5
Gausdal Z 1987 15 exd5 £>xd5 16 £lf4 £lxe3 17 # xe3
fi.d6 18 £ifxe6!? (here the sacrifice
1 e4 c5 2 £)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4 works better because White has played
fof6 5 £lc3 £>c6 6 £ g 5 e6 7 Wd2 a6 8 S h el) 18...fxe6 19 f4 £)xd3 20 £>xe6
0-0-0 h6 9 fi.e3 fi.d7 10 f3 b5 (D) fi.xe6 21 Wxe6+ fi.e7 22 Bxd3 Sd8 23
Sde3 Sd7 24 ^ 6 + * f 8 25 # f5 +
with a draw, Am.Rodriguez-Delchev,
Olot 1996.
w a22) 1 3 h 4 b 4 1 4 ^ c e 2 d 5 15exd5
(15fi.f4fi.d6 16exd5 £lxd5 17.fi.e4?!
£ic4 18 W cl £>xf4 19 A xa8 £>xe2 20
£)xe2 fi.e5 gave Black strong counter­
play in Kostin-Grabics, Balatonber-
eny 1994) 15...£lxd5 16£tf4£lxe3 17
# x e 3 fi.d6 18 We4! (preventing cas­

11 s tling for a while and setting a problem

for Black: should he be more worried
about losing the a-pawn or about his
Like in many other lines, I recom­ king and piece activity?) 18...Sd8!?
mend seeking counterplay before even (18...Sa7 19 £>h5) 19 fi.xa6! 0-0 20
thinking of castling. Wb7! Wxb7 21 fi.xb7 £ic4 22 £>d3
11 g4 fi.e7 23 5}c6 fi.xc6 24 fi.xc6 foe3 25
Or: 3 d 2 S d 4 with certain compensation,
a) As in lines with f4, a sensible Pirttimaki-Yrjola, Helsinki 1989.
move is 11 <&bl, after which Black a23) After 13 g4 Black should an­
plays 1 l...£ie5, forcing 12 fi.d3 with swer in the same manner.
the following possibilities: b) 11 £)xc6 is quite a different
al) I don’t know why the natural story. White doesn’t wan! to allow
12...b4!? 13 £ice2 d5 has only been Black to strike in the centre with ...d5
tried in Shabalov-Ashley, New York and develops his pieces before ad­
Open 1997: 14 exd5 £>xd5 15 £>f4 vancing his h- and g-pawns. This is a
£sxe3 16 Wxe3 fi.d6 17 £>fxe6?! favourite plan of Leko and Dolmatov.
(probably too straightforward though 1l...fi.xc6 (D) and now:
logical since White is better devel­ bl) 12 £te2 (this plan, though not
oped; possible is 17 # e 4 as in the sim­ very dangerous-looking, has been dif­
ilar position in line *a22’) 17....fi.xe6 ficult to counter even for the most
94 E asy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

but practice favours White. I suppose

the reason is it is much more difficult
to find a concrete plan for Black when
While refuses to create weaknesses.
b2) 12 * b l Wc7 13 Wt2 £ e 7 14
-&d3 £\d7 and then:
b21) 15 2 h e l (Leko’s plan: White
creates no pawn weaknesses whatso­
ever) 15...2c8 (15...£>e5) 16Wg3 b4
(not 16...£f6? 17 &d5<) 17 £)e2 £ f6
18 £ d 4 0-0 19 ± x f6 £)xf6 20 £»d4
&b7 21 h4 Wb6 22 £ f l (Leko-Grosz-
solid Classical player Lerner, who has peter, Hungarian Cht 1995) and now
specialized in the 8...h6 line) 12..,Wc7 2 2 ..M c 5 is equal. Black is ready to
(more impressive was Black’s plan in start counterplay with ...a5-a4; the ex­
Mrdja-Ashley, Cannes 1998: 12....&e7 change of the dark-squared bishops
13 * b l Bc8 14 £>d4 Ab7 15 g4 £>d7 has decreased W hite’s attacking po­
16 &e2 # c 7 17 h4 h5! 18 gxh5 Sxh5 tential and the d6-pawn is not seri­
19 jS.g5 « b 6 20 Shg 1 &xg5 21 2xg5 ously weak.
2xg5 22 Wxg5 * c 5 ! =) 13 * b l (13 b22) 15 h4 £>e5 16 £ b 6 !? (16 g4
£>d4 ± d 7 14 g4 g6!? 15 * h l 2c8 16 allows the typical counter 16...b4 17
£lb3e5 1 7 W l2i.e618^.d3d5!,G ip- £le2d5!) 16...Wb7 17 £ d 4 Af6 18 g4
slis-Veingold, USSR Spartakiad 1979, 0-0-0 19 a3 g5 20 h5 * b 8 21 Ae2 2c8
demonstrates an interesting counter­ 22 2d2 <&a8 23 2 h d l 2b8 is roughly
plan with ...d5, but I cannot promise it level, Dolmatov-Tukmakov, Gronin­
works against every move-order of gen PCA qual 1993 and Am.Rodri-
White) I3 ...± e7 14 h4 i.b 7 15 £id4 guez-Delchev, Manresa 1996. In this
£)d7 16 g4 £>e5 17 $Le2 2 c8 18 b3 line Black has good dark-square con­
Wc3(maybe 18...d5!? 19f4 {19exd5!? trol and some counter-threats on the
£ x d 5 20 £ f4 ) 19...£id7 20 e5 £lc5 queenside.
21 $Lf3 £te4 22 iLxe4 dxe4) 19 W\c3 Il...£>e5 (D)
Sxc3 20 ± d 2 2c8 21 h5 d5 22 f4 £ic6
23 £>xc6 Ji.xc6 24 e5 with a slightly
better ending for White, Lanka-Ler-
ner, Bundesliga 1997/8, These exam­
ples demonstrated the three typical
counter-ideas for Black in these posi-
tion-types: pushing ...d5 at a right mo­
ment, countering with ...h6-h5 and
manoeuvring the knight to e5. Note
that there are also many examples of
bad timing with ...d5. One cannot give
an overall evaluation of these positions.
 The Rauzer with 8...h6 95

12 A.d3 15 &bl 4te4 16 We2

This move is usually considered Understandably, 16 fi.xc4 dxc4
necessary because Black was threat­ doesn’t appeal to White.
ening 12...b4 13 <£}ce2 £k4. However, 16...&xe3 17 Wxe3 Ad6 (D)
12 h4 b4 13 £lbl d5 14 Af4 £.d6 (the
murky 14...£sc4 15 # e l 2c8 16 b3
#a5 ! is suggested by Wells) 15 exd5
£>xd5 16 £ h 2 iLc7 17 2 e l £>g6 18
3ic4 led to some problems for Black in
Lobzhanidze-Bagaturov, Georgian Ch
(Tbilisi) 1996.
12...b4!
12...Wc7 13 <S?bl b4 14£ke2d5 15
exd5 £\xd5 16 £)f4!?. White is not
afraid of losing his bishops, because
the knights remain active. In particu­
lar, a knight on h5 would be nasty.
This is why Black prefers exchanging Black takes advantage of W hite’s
the knight: 16...£ixf4 17 fi.xf4 A.d6 dark-square weaknesses, and also stops
18 JLe4 foc4 19 We2 Oll-Lerner, h4 for a while.
Podolsk 1993. Indeed, the position is 18 £>de2 2c8 19 Wd2 a5 20 S hgl
very equal after 19...2c8. dxe4!?
13 £ ce2 d5! 14 £lg3 An unforced but appealing ex­
Generally 14 exd5!? ©xd5 15 £)f4 change sacrifice. Black gets a pawn
is a more active and dangerous idea, and a strong bishop on e5.
but 15...Qxe3 16 # x e3 Ad6 17 £ih5 21 £ a 6 * e 7 22 Axc8 2xc8 23
(17 ^0 4 !? should once again trouble £ixe4 £}xe4 24 fxe4 iLxh2 25 2 g fl
Black more) 17...g6 18 £lg3 Wg5! was &e5 26 &f4 £ a 4 27 2 c 1 2d 8 V2-V2
pleasant for Black in Romero-Yrjola, Black’s compensation is sufficient
Gijon rpd 1988. to make White’s attempts risky.
14...Wc7
14...£>xd3+?! 15 cxd3? (15 Wxd3 Conclusion: There are plenty of trans­
e5 16 S h el! exd4 17 exd5 Kuprei- positions to similar position-types
chik-Tseshkovsky, USSR Ch 1976) where Black strikes in the centre with
15...e5 16 &b3 d4 17 Af2 a5 18 <£>bl ...b4 and ...d5. It is worth studying the
a4 19 <£lxd4 exd4 20 fi.xd4 6 21 nuances. In practice, it may be more
®e3 # a 5 with insufficient compensa­ difficult to counter the positional 11
tion, Van der Sterren-Van der Wiel, £ixc6, which radically changes the
Wijk aan Zee 1981. position-type.
6 The Rauzer with 8...Jk,d7

Strategic Introduction to based on some unpleasant experiences.

the Rauzer with doubled There are some lines, not introduced
here, where Black casdes kingside and
f-paw ns doesn’t care if White takes on f6.

In the most characteristic Rauzer lines. Typical M e th o d s for W hite

White exchanges his bishop for the
f6-knight in order to compromise 1. Try to force weaknesses on the
Black’s pawn-structure. There is some light squares and try to benefit from
similarity with the Nimzo-Indian De­ them
fence, where Black is often happy to
exchange his bishop for the c3-knight
to make White’s pawn-structure less
flexible and weaker. In the Rauzer, the
weakest point tends to be e6.

W. W a tso n - Yrjola
Kecskemet 1988

A typical position has arisen, where

White has play on the light squares
On the contrary to the Nimzo, in the and Black on the dark squares. Here
Rauzer Black can in many cases use White sacrificed a pawn with 21 £le3!
the pawn-mass to protect his king. It is Sc8 22 Shel £xe4 23 £d5 £xd5 24
quite common to leave the king in the Sxd5 to get excellent light-square
centre. Also, castling queenside is not control. There are some other similar
uncommon, but casding kingside with examples in the game sections. In this
doubled f-pawns is almost always sus­ type of closed position, White usually
picious. This is jusl a personal opinion strives to get the bishop on the a2-g8
 The Rauzer with 8...$Ld7 97

diagonal and to occupy the important

d5-square.
W
2. Attack the pawns, especially e6;
sometimes the h-pawn and f6-pawn
are also weak
Typically, White advances with his f-
pawn to f5, exchanges on e6 and starts
pressurizing the black pawns. It must
be noted that exchanging the f-pawns
makes the black pawn-structure also
somehow more flexible and the dan­
ger from Black’s bishop-pair grows. A different tactical motif arises in
Black may be able to open up the posi­ the next diagram:
tion with some tactical trick.

mxmi i W
W ■ M Jft
A tftiQ Q i

Here White has the tactical device

White’s pieces (the h3-bishop and 19 e5! dxe5 20 £>xe5 because of the
the f4-knight) are on their optimal hanging piece on d7 and because after
squares and Black is tied to defending 20...fxe5 White has the move 21 c3.
e6.
5. Try to block the h-pawn with a
3. Try to restrain Black’s activity piece
and especially stop ...d5 There are some lines where the bishop
Look at the position 2 above: playing is nasty on h5, blocking the h-pawn
...d5 means getting a weak isolated d- and pressurizing the f7-pawn at the
pawn. same time. After that, the advance f4-
f5 may be strong. A knight may be a
4. Watch out for an opportunity for good blockading piece too. From the
tactics with £sd5 or a break with e5 diagram overleaf, 12...b4 13 £>e2 #'b6
In the following diagram, 14 £id5! is 14 f4 a5 15 * b l a4 16 £>bd4 Wc5 17
strong as the e7-bishop would hang. f5 0-0 18 £.xf7+! * x f7 19 fxe6+ ±xe6
98 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

U...£)xd4 12 Wxd4 i.h 6+ 13 £ b l

.£.f4! and we can reach position-type 4
of White’s methods.

2. Watch for a chance to push ...d5,

especially when Black has castled
queenside
Opening up the position often favours
Black, who has the bishop-pair. On the
other hand, White may be able to ex­
change light-squared bishops and
Black’s king is sometimes vulnerable.
K ivisto - M aki
Finnish Ch 1985

20 l£ >xe6 21 Wd5+! gave White

a big plus. The most important func­
tion of the bishop was to stop Black
castling queenside.

Typical M e th o d s for Black

1. Play on the dark squares, and try

to activate the dark-squared bishop
Look at Oll-Maki (Game 19) where
Black activated the bishop by means Here Black frees his game with the
of the move ...f6-f5, with devastating trick 17...d5! 18 exd5 e5.
effect.
There is also a well-known varia­ 3. Strive for an ending where Black
tion where Black activates his bishop has the bishop-pair and the king
on e5 via f4: still in the centre
 The Rauzer with 8...£Ld7 99

This is an excellent type of ending

for Black. The king is optimally placed
on e7 protecting all the pawns. B

4. Attack with the queenside pawns

especially if the black king has re­
mained in the centre

6. Take some space on the kingside

with ...h5
Often ...h4 is also useful, because it
takes the g3-square away from the
white pieces.

7. Sometimes the pressure of the

black major pieces along the c-file
Black has good counterplay; poten­ ties White down
tially both ...a3 and ...b3 may be dan­
gerous for White. The biggest problem The following little game demon­
is to make the choice. The former is strates many of Black’s ideas listed
good, if Black can attack the vulnera­ here.
ble point b2. Sometimes the hook on
a3 can be beneficial later in an ending. S a m m a lv u o - Yrjola
After ...b3 White usually has to take Finnish Ch (Helsinki) 1995
with the c-pawn and play a3. The
points e4, c2 and a3 may be vulnerable 1 e4 c5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £ixd4
but White has the c-file for his rooks. ^ 6 5 £ k 3 £>c6 6 £ g 5 e6 7 Wd2 a6 8
0-0-0 £ d 7 9 f4 b5 10 &xf6 gxf6 11
5. Keep the queen active * b l Wb6 12 £lce2 2c8 13 g3 b4!?
b6 and c5 are almost always good Black leaves his king in the centre,
squares for the queen. Usually the and immediately advances his queen-
queen belongs on the gl-a7 diagonal, side pawns.
and leaving it may let the white queen 14 $Lgl a5 15 £)xc6 Wxc6 16 i5id4
intrude effectively. Wc5 17 f5?!
Here Black can activate his queen In the resulting closed position, the
on the a7-gl diagonal in an instructive g2-bishop is not well placed. Better,
way, parrying the threat £\d5 at the though somewhat untypical, was 17
same time: 12../te7! 13 £.d3 ^ 3 7 14 S hel to push e5,
Wh3 b4 15 £se2 Wc5. I7...e5 18 £)b3 # c 7 (D)
100 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

line with 11 £i.xf6 is featured in Game

19.
W
Game 18
A d a m s - C hristiansen
Biel 1991

1 e4 c5 2 <£f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £ixd4

£if6 5 £>c3 ^ c 6 6 £ g 5 e6 7 Wd2 a6 8
0-0-0 &d7 (D)

19 Wd3!?
The idea is to build a blockade on W
c4. Against passive play, Black could
continue with ...h5, ...&e7 and ...jLh6.
19...a4 20 £ld2 £ h 6 21 b3 0-0
Now this is safe. Black heads for
the resulting ending.
22 £k 4 j£Lb5 23 Wxd6
23 ^ .fl!? is more in accordance
with the blocking idea.
23....£.xc4 24 Wxc7 Exc7 25 bxc4
j».e3! 26 Sd6! 9 f4
Too passive is 26 jfc.fl .&d4. Other moves:
26...Exc4 27 B el? a) 9 f3. This move, with English
The last chance was 27 S hdl Attack ideas, became very popular a
28 Ed8 Sxd8 29 Sxd8 £ g l 30 h3 couple of years ago, when everyone
£ d 4 31 & fl Sc3 32 i.d 3 b3, when saw from their database that White
Black has some chances to win. had scored extremely well. The reason
27...£d4 28 & fl Sc3 29 £ b 5 seems to be that no one playing Black
29 Sa6 b3 -+ . had any idea how to benefit from the
29...b3! 30 cxb3 axb3 31 Sa6 fact that Black has not weakened his
31 Ec6 bxa2+ 32 4>xa2 Sa8+ 33 kingside with ...h6 and that the bishop
Sa6 Sc2+ -+ . on g5 is blocking the g-pawn. My ad­
31...5.c8 0-1 vice is not even to try that and to return
to the perfectly playable line in the
previous chapter with 9...h6 10 iLe3
Rauzer with 8...Ad7 and b5. Another approach has been dem­
9..JLe7: 11 e5 and others onstrated in some of Ko2ul’s and
Damljanovic’s games. Black counters
All the sidelines for White following with the move ...h5 either before White
8...jLd7 are covered here. The main plays g4 or even after that: 9...jLc7 (a
 The Rauzer with 8..,&.d7 101

fresh example with the same theme: ^ x d 6 15 Wxd6 fi.xd6 16 2xd6 &e7
9...2c8 10 h4 h6 11 fi.e3 h5 12 £ib3 17 2 h d l fi.e8 18 a3 g5! with a typical
b5 13 Wf2 Wc7 doesn’t look bad, Shi- favourable ending for Black, Deichev-
rov-Damljanovid, Batumi Echt 1999) Ko2ul, Pula 1999) 14...Wd8 (14,..d5?
10 h4 2c8 (Black is ready to take on 15 2xd5 exd5 16 £>d6+) 15 £)xd6+
c6 with the rook) and now: jLxd6 16 2xd6 leads to an exciting po­
al) 11 g4 h5! 12 gxh5 &xh5 13 sition, where one thing is sure: Black
S g l 5)xd4 14 Wxd4 2 c6 15 Wd2 g6 is no worse. M.Hoffmann-Tukmakov,
16&e2e5 17£>c3fi.e6 18<&d5.ixd5 Biel 1991 continued in spectacular
19 « x d 5 £ x g 5 + 20 hxg5 £)f4 and in fashion: 16...£>b4!? (or 16...Wc7!? 17
Yilmaz-Ko2ul, Pula Echt 1997 Black 2 h d l £>d4! 18 £>xd4 Wxd6 19 foi5
was already better because of the good Wc5) 17 c3 Wa5 18 Wb6 (18 Wd4??,
knight vs bad bishop; the king is often Gavrikov-Veingold, Jyvaskyla 1999,
comfortable at e7 after the exchange is refuted by 18..2xc3+!) I8...£lxa2+?!
of the dark-squared bishops. (18...Wa4 19 £ d l Wb5 =) 19 * d 2
a2) l l * b l h5!?12£)xc62xc613 WtS 20 Wd4 (20 2 a 1! # x f4 + 21 * e 1
g3 (1 3 fi.d 3 # a5 14f4& g8 15 f5 Af6 £ c 6 22 2d4 ±) 20...Ab5 21 £ x b 5 +
16 fi.xf6 £\xf6 17 Wg5 We5! Shirov- Wxb5 22 2 b6 Wa5 23 2 a l? ? 2d8 24
Kozul, Budapest ECC 1996) 13...b5 2d6 * e 7 0-1.
14 JLg2 b4 15 £)e2 a5 and Black is not 9...fi.e7 (D)
without play, Lanka-KoZul, Pula Echt This is the old line, which has re­
1997. tained a solid reputation for decades.
b) 9 l e 2 is not a bad move, be­ The more popular line 9...b5 is also
cause it develops a piece, but Black more complicated and harder to study,
can try to benefit from ...£lxe4 tactics: the most critical line currently being
9...h6 (9...b5 10 £>xc6 £ x c 6 11 We3 10 l x f 6 gxf6 11 * b l # b 6 12 &xc6
£ e 7 12 e5 £\d5 13 £ixd5 £ x g 5 14 3Lxc6 13 Wei - see Game 20.
foc7+ Wxc7 15 Wxg5 dxe5 16 Wxg7
Bf8 17 Wxh7 JLxg2 18 Bhgl &d5 19
2g7 e4 is also playable, Dimitrov-
Granda, Gausdal jr Wch 1986) 10
fi.h4 (10 Jie3 b5 doesn’t look logical,
because the bishop is not usually well
placed on e2 in ...h6 lines) 10..2c8
(now ...£ixe4 is some kind of threat;
the immediate 10...£)xe4? 11 fi.xd8
£lxd2 12 fi.b6 doesn’t work) 11 f4 (11
.SLg3 b5 doesn’t look very critical; 11
2 h e l !? £lxe4 12 «Tf4 g5 13 Wxe4
gxh4 14 f4 Jie7 15 £lb3 d5 was com­
plicated in Westerinen-Maki, Finnish 10£)f3
Ch 1986) ll...£ixe4 12 £)xe4 # x h 4 This move, which threatens both e5
13 £>f3 We7 14 lfe3! (14 £lxd6+?! and JLxf6, is generally considered the
 102 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

only way to fight for the advantage. Axa2 Wxc3 + Sanchez Almeyra-Tuk-
Others: makov, Palma de Mallorca 1992.
a) 10 f5 £>e5 doesn’t look position­ 10...b5 (D)
ally right; for example: 11 fxe6 fxe6
12 £)f3 Wc7 13 3ic2 2d8 14 £>xe5
dxe5 15 iLh5+ g6 16 JLe2 0-0 17 Wei
b5 Hort-Mecking, San Antonio 1972.
b) After 10'i b l Black can happily
play the normal 10...b5 11 £)xc6
ii.xc6 12 Axf6 (12 We3 Wc7 13 £ x f6
&xf6 14 ®d5 ^.xd5 15 exd5 e5 =)
12...£xl'6 13 Wxd6 Wxd6 14 Sxd6
2c8 15 e5 J iel. In this ending. Black
has good compensation for the pawn:
the dark squares and especially f4 are
weak in White’s camp.
c) 10 .&e2 is a bit more dangerous: 11 e5
c l) The natural 10...b5 11 jLf3 This straightforward approach leads
Sc8 leaves Black with certain prob­ to a rather unusual position-type com­
lems after 12 Bhel or 12 jLxf6 gxf6 pared with other Rauzer lines. Quite
13 £)xc6 Axc6 14 f5. popular but less logical is 11 Ad3,
c2) 10...?ixd4 11 Wxd4 Jic6 is a when White doesn’t have pressure on
solid idea here, as it was in line ‘b’; a the d-file and Black is always ready to
GM example: 12 jfc.f3 Sc8 13 S hel take back with the bishop on f6. Black
0-0 14 Wf2 Wc7 15 & bl Efd8 should advance on the queenside and
Delchev-Epishin, Nova Gorica 1997. castle kingside. Here is an example of
c3) 10...0-0 and then: what could happen: ll...b4 1 2 ^ e 2 a 5
c31) 11 £ f 3 h 6 1 2 £ h 4 (1 2 i.x f6 13 f5?! (13 e5l? dxe5 14 &xe5 =)
£ x f6 13 £)xc6 Axc6 14 Wxd6 Wa5 13...0-0 14 Bhgl Wc7 15g4b3! 16 a3
15 e5 Bfd8 16 Wa3 Wxa3 17 bxa3 Ae7 bxc2 17 Wxc2 Sfc8 18 * b l Sab8 T
18(i ’b2Axf3 19 gxf3 = Santo-Roman Nevanlinna-Yrjola, Finnish Cht 1993.
-Thorsteins, Lyons 1990) 12...^xe4 Il...b4 12 exf6 bxc3 13 Wxc3 gxf6
13 i.xe7 £>xd2 14 Axd8 £>xf3 15 1 4 ih 4
£lxf3 Bfxd8 16 Sxd6 * f 8 17 Bhdl 14 Sxd67? &xd6 15 £ x f6 £ b 4 is
&e7 = Fischer-Spassky, Reykjavik trap number 1, which has given a
Wch (20) 1972. pleasant gift to me, among many oth­
c32) 11 ^ f 3 Wa5! is strong, be­ ers.
cause taking the piece gives Black 14 f5 e5 15 £ e 3 Sc8! (15...d5!? 16
plenty of play: 12 e5 dxe5 13 Axf6 Sxd5 &b4) 16 £ x a6 ? (16 Wd2 d5!)
(13 Wei!? is untested) I3....£xf6 14 16...£kl4 17 A.xd4 Sxc3 18 &xc3
Wxd7 exf4 15 Wd2 (15 Wd6 £>b4) Wb6 19 Jk.c4 ^.xf5 T Pakkanen-
15...£ib4! 16 £ c 4 Sac 8 17 £ b 3 Sxc3! Yrjola, Finnish Cht 1991, is trap num­
18 bxc3 £.xc3 19 Wxc3 £\xa2+ 20 ber 2.
 The R auzer with 8...$Ld7 103

14...d5 15 &bl (D) queenside compensate for the incon­

This is generally considered a nec­ venience of having the king in the cen­
essary safety precaution (though White tre. It is hard for either side to make
can transpose by 1 5 ^ d 4 S c 8 16 ^ b l ) progress. Tseshkovsky-Lukin, Telavi
since 15/5?£>b4 16<4?bl Ec8 I7 # b 3 1982 continued 21 Shel Eg8 (21...h5!7
Wa5 18 c3 &.a4 19 cxb4 jk.xb4 + is 22 2e3 a5, Sorri-Svensson, corr 1990,
trap number 3, Arnason-Yrjola, Espoo and the position remains level after 23
Z 1989. S c3 Wa6) 22 h3 Bb8 23 * a l h5 24 g3
Sg6 25 Se3 a5 26 b3 Wa6 (26...Wc7)
27 c4 a4 28 Wc2 * f7 ? ! (28...Bg7) 29
<&e5+ fxe5 30 S f l+ * g 7 31 l x e 7
axb3? 32 Sxb3 Bxb3? 33 £ f8 + 1-0.
16£)d4
So far this has always been played.
However, 16 fi.xa6 is more critical:
a) I6...Bb8 (this was recommended
by Wells) 17 £ e 2 <Sb4 18 £id4 Sc8
19 Wg3 ±. It is not obvious to me
where the compensation lies.
b) 16...Sc7!? looks more interest­
ing. 17 fi.b5 (it is hard to find a good
This is the basic position of the 11 ‘normal’move for White since 17 We3
e5 variation. Black naturally strives £ib4 18 jLd3 Eb7 gives Black very
for counterpiay on the open lines on promising pressure on the open lines)
the queenside, but he has an inferior I7...£lb4 18 &xd7+ Wxd7 19 Wb3
pawn-structure and his king is in the foxc2 20 S c l £sa3+ 21 & al £lc4 22
centre. Wc3 Sg8 with a very complicated po­
15...Sc8!? sition. Probably White’s best move is
This has been the recent choice of 23 g3.
strong players. Interestingly, no one as 16...Wb6
White has had the courage to snap off The other approach is 16...^e5!?
the a-pawn. In the most popular line, 17 Wg3 £}g6 18 f5 £>xh4 19 fxe6 fxe6
15...£>b4 16 £ki4, Black has suffered 20 Wxh4 Wb6 21 Wh5+ *d 8 . Now:
many defeats though it is maybe not a) 22 g3 Aa3 23 £>b3 £ d 6 24 £ h 3
theoretically so bad. The old but un­ JLe5 (this position with the nice bishop
popular line 15...£)a5 16 f5 Ec8 17 on e5 should be OK for Black) 25
Wd2 # c 7 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 £ d 3 (19 S hel Wc.7 (25...Sc7) 26 c3 £ e 8 27
Jk.xa6?! Ba8 20 JLe2 foc4 21 JLxc4 Wc2 &e7 28 £>d4 Bb8 29 fi.xe6 Wxc3
'®'xc4 gave Black good compensation 30 £ x d 5 fi.h5 31 £)c6+ Wxc6 32
on open lines in Kestier-Spassky, Dort­ jLxc6 fi.xe2 33 Bxe2 and BJack got a
mund 1973) 19...£k4 20 l x c 4 Wxc4 draw in this ending after slight suffer­
looks quite playable. The pawn-centre, ing in Holzke-Tischbierek, Bundes-
two bishops and open lines on the liga 1998/9.
 104 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

b) 22 £ e 2 J».a3 23 &b3 £.d6 24 to see any clear advantage for White,

# h 4 JLe5 (what a nice bishop again, so no wonder the focus has turned to 9
but White gets enough counterplay f3, which is best met by 9.,.h6, and a
with his next move) 25 c4! dxc4 26 transposition to Game 17.
£ x c4 2c7 27 «fg4 2e8 28 # g 7 * c8
29 2 c 1 <&b8 30 # x h 7 Eec8 with com­ Rauzer w ith 8....&d7 and
pensation, Smikovsky-Lukin, St Pe­
tersburg 1995. 9...6.e7: the old main
17 £ixc6 # x c 6 18 Wd2 2b8 (D) line with 11 A x f6
Game 19
Oil - M a k i
Helsinki 1989

1 e4 c5 2 £>f3 <£>c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £)xd4

£tf6 5 £>c3 d6 6 £ g5 e6 7 Wd2 a6 8
0-0-0 £ d 7 9 f4 &e7 10 <&f3 b5 11
.&xf6 gxf6 (D)
The motif of the pawn sacrifice with
11...1,xf6?! 12W xd6^.e7 13 Wd2 is
harder to understand.

19&al?!
Now Black gets unpleasant pres­
sure. According to Wells, better is 19
c4! dxc4 20 £ x c 4 # x c 4 (20...£.c8!?
21 2 c 1 .£.b7 looks equal to me) 21
Wxd7+ * f 8 22 Wd4 Wxd4 23 2xd4
f5 24 A.xe7+ * xe7 25 2 c l ±
19...Wa4 20 b3 Wa3 21 £ d 3 a5 22
Wc3 a4 23 2 b l 2g8 24 g3 e5! 25 ^ b 2
Wxb2+ 26 * x b 2 a3+ 27 * c l e4 28
i.e 2 d4 29 2 d l d3 30 cxd3 e3 31 2 0
£ b 4 32 * d l * e 7 33 f5 2gc8 34 2f4
£ d 2 35 g4 £ c 6 36 2d4 £ g 2 37 2a4 Black has a long plan, which works
2a8 38 2c4 l d 5 39 # c 2 i_xc4 40 almost against everything: ...Wb6,
dxc4 2d 8 41 g5 fxg5 42 JLxg5+ f6 43 ...0-0-0, ...,4 ’b8 and ...jfc.c8, after which
&f4 2a5 44 Ac7 2xf5 45 £xd 8+ he starts to wait for an opportunity for
*xd 8 46 * d 3 2f4 V2-V2 a central break, usually with ...d5,
sometimes ...f6-f5. This is an ideal
Conclusion: The 11 e5 line is com­ line for players who want to play as
plex and forces Black to play actively. many easy moves as possible in the
There are many good traps. It is hard opening to avoid time-trouble later on.
 The Rauzer with 8...$Ld7 105

The most natural plan for White in­ c) An example of how the general
volves pressing against the e6-point plan works: 12 g4!? # b 6 13 h4 h6 14
with f5, g3, JLh3, £te2-f4 and trying to 2h2 0-0-0 15 * b l * b 8 16 2g2 &c8
create light-square weaknesses in the 17 Wei 2he8 18Wd2?!b4 19£ie2d5
black camp. ¥ Nikolaidis-Yrjola, Katerini 1992.
12& bl d) The idea of stopping Black’s
A useful and flexible move played plan with 12 WeS!? doesn’t succeed
by most strong players. Other possi­ very well because of 12...Wa5 13 <S?bl
bilities: b4 (13...0-0-0?! runs into 14 £>d5!?)
a) 12 f5 # b 6 is likely to transpose, 14 £>e2 Wc5 15 Wxc5 dxc5 16 £id2
but there is an independent try: 13 <5ia5 17 £)cl fi.b5 with a level ending,
g3?! (13 * b l ) 13...b4 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 Arnason-Maki, Nordic Ch (Torshavn)
£>e2 #12! 16 £ih4 (or 16 £>fd4 £>xd4 1987. There is a weakness on c4, how­
17 6)xd4 Wxd2+ 18 *x d 2 * f 7 19 ever, and this makes the ending ac­
JLc4 2hc8 20 b3 i.f8 21 Hhfl 4>e7 ¥ ceptable for White.
Nokso-Koivisto-Maki, Tampere 1997 12...Wb6 (D)
- the king is optimally placed on e7)
16...a5 17 £>f4 (17 £ h 3 a4 18 Hhfl
Wc5 19 ^?bl is unclear according to
Sakaev) 17...Wxd2+ 18 2xd2 * f 7 19
fi.h3 Sab8 20 2 f l £)e5 is a very nice
ending for Black, Tiviakov-Sakaev, St
Petersburg 1993.
b) 12 fi.d3 Wa5 (now a different
approach is healthy, since 1 2 ...^ 6 13
S hel 0-0-0 14 £ki5! exd5 15 exd5
£ie5 16 fxe5 fxe5 17 Wh6! leads to
trouble) 13 ‘i 'b l b4 (Black opts for
queenside counterplay, leaving the
king behind the central pawns) 14 13 f5
Wc5 15 f5 a5 16 £>f4 a4 17 13 fi.d3 b4 (13...0-0-0 is playable
£)h5!?(17 2 c l Eb8 18 c3 b3!? {after now: 14 Hhfl * b 8 15 Wei Wc5 16
this there is no counter-attack but 2 £kl4 = Anand-Timman, Am­
White must always worry about his sterdam 1992) 14 £ie2 a5 15 f5 a4
back rank when lines open up} 19 a3 (15...Wc5 transposes to note ‘b’ to
£ie5 20 Hhfl £ic4 21 j£.xc4 Wxc4 = White's 12th move) 16 fxe6 fxe6 17
Fischer-Spassky, Reykjavik Wch (18) Wh6!?Wc5 18 Hhfl £>d8!? 19 c3 2b8
1972) I7...a3! 18 Wh6 (18 b3 £>e5) 20 2 c 1 b3?! (Black should probably
18...axb2 19 &xf6+ &d8 20 Wg7 (20 play 20...bxc3 21 £)xc3 Wb4 22 2c2
£>g5? b3!) 20...Axf6 21 Wxf6+ $ c7 a3 23 b3 Wb6) 21 a3 &c7 22 £tfd4
22 Wxb2 2hg8 23 g3 2a3 with good 2bg8 23 £tf4 i was interesting in Ye
counterplay, Luther-Tukmakov, Lenk Jiangchuan-Yijola, Helsinki 1992.
1992. 13...0-0-0 14 g3
106 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

The following variation shows the continue his plan £>e2-f4 but the hasty
power of the central breakthrough: 14 17 £te2 allows the immediate 17...d5.
£>e2 * b 8 15 £tf4 Ac8 16 fxe6 (16 The real alternative is 17 Wh6!?,
g3?! d5! 17 exd5 e5) 16...fxe6 17 g3 which is always irritating, but Black
(17 Wei! is likely to transpose to the should try to benefit from the weak­
main line) 17...d5! (17...]2he8?! 18 ened protection of the white king and
^.h3 ^.f8 19 £ih5 ± Lanka-L.Schnei- the back rank: H.-.WcS!. Here White
der, Gausdal Peer Gynt 1991) 18 exd5 has tried the following moves:
e5 19£h3!?(19£le2£ib4) 19...i.xh3 a) 18Ehelb4!? 19&e2d5 20exd5
20 £)xh3 £ib4 =. Sxd5 21 Exd5 Wxd5 22 j&.g2 is unclear.
14...56b8 15 fxe6 b) 18£>e2d5 19exd5£)b4 20£ic3
This is the right time to exchange, &xd5 21 £\xd5 Bxd5 22 Bxd5 Wxd5
because 15 Ji.h3?! b4! 16£te2e5 leads 23 S fl Ed8 24 a3 a5 (24...We4!) 25
to a typical closed Rauzer position, ffxh7 Ed7 26 Wh6 b4 27 We3 Sb7 28
where White’s pieces (especially the axb4 Exb4 29 E el Wb5 V2 -V2 Joviic-
h3-bishop) are not well placed. After P.Kovaievic, Yugoslav Cht 1990.
17 £>cl (17 c4?! £\a5 18 b3 £ c 6 19 c) 18 flhfl a5 19 £ie2 d5!7 20 exd5
®d3 £ib7 gives Black a beautiful po­ £\b4 21 £ied4? (necessary is 21 £>c3
sition, Boleslavsky-Taimanov, USSR £>xd5 22 £)xd5 Exd5 23 Sxd5 Wxd5
Cht 1969) 17...£>a5 18 £>d3 d5! 19 24 a3; in this position, which is almost
exd5 £ ic4 20 # e 2 £ b 5 21 S hel the same as Jov£ic-Kova£evic above,
2xd5, Black had a slightly more com­ Black has active pieces but White is
fortable position in I.AImasi-Grosz- going to snatch the h7-pawn; Black
peter, Kecskemet 1993. After 22 $Lg2 can also get counterplay with the move
Bc8 23 £}d2?! he got the opportunity ...b4) 21...Wxd5 22 b3 e5 23 ^ e 6 lf c 6
for 23...Bxd3 24 cxd3 £)xb2!. 24 c3 0-1 Beliavsky-Tal, Leningrad
15...fxe6 16 £ h 3 (D) 1977.
d) 18 a3 a5 19 S h el b4 20 axb4
axb4 21 £>a4 # a 7 22 b3 £ d 7 23 Wd2
<±>c7 24 Ee3 (24 <&d4!?) 24...Ba8 25
Wcl?! (25 Ed3!7) 25...&e5 26 £>xe5
fxe5 27 Ef3 Bhf8 28 Exf8 Bxf8 29
S fl Wd4 ? Dolmatov-Maki, Sofia
1985.
17..Ji.f8!?
This usually transposes to the same
position as the more natural 17...Ehe8.
The bishop belongs on g7, where it is
ready for breakthroughs by ...f5 or
...d5. In addition, the rook is ready to
17 Wei protect e6 from e8.
This was first played by Karpov Instead, 17...Ehe8 18 £ k 2 £\e5!?
against Liberzon. White would like to (18_&.f8 usually leads to the main
 The R auzer with 8...jLd7 107

line, but White can try 19 Wc3!? fi.g7

20 £tfd4 ± Mokry-Deze, Tmava 1982)
is a promising idea first played by
Arnason. Black is still about to break
in the centre and sometimes the knight
can come to c4. White has the follow­
ing possibilities:
a) 19 2 fl? ! £ k 4 20 2d3 d5! 21
exd5 e5 22 $Lxc& e4! is complicated
but probably better for Black, Lau-
Arnason, Palma de Mallorca 1989.
b) 19£>fd4d5!20£if4!?.£.c5 21
£sdxe6 Jixe6 22 £>xe6 2xe6 23 .&xe6 21 2 0 ! ? 2e7?! (Black should play
Wxe6 24 exd5 2xd5 25 We4 is un­ 21...b4 22 2fd2 a5, when it is difficult
clear, Holzke-Groszpeter, Budapest for either side to do anything construc­
1993. tive without taking a risk) 22 c3!
c) 19 £*ed4 hasn’t yet been tried, (threatening £ld4) 22...d5 23 ?M4!
but even then 19...d5 looks OK; for ex­ £}xd4 24 cxd4 Wd6 25 exd5 exd5 26
ample, 20 £>xe5 fxe5 21 £>f3 JLf6 22 2e2 2de8 27 Axc8 2xe2 28 £>xe2
211 I b l. 2xc8, Leko-Timman, Wijk aan Zee
d) 19W c3!?£b7?! (19...£ixf3 20 1995, and now White could have
Wxf3 f5 looks good enough) 20 fi.xe6 gained a definite plus with the ma­
£.xe4 21 i.d 5 2 c8 22 £xe4! 2xc3 23 noeuvre £>cl-b3.
£ixc3 £ixf3 24 £ x f3 £ d 8 25 <S^d5 The question arises: what happens
and in this position only White can if White plays the untried 21 c3!?,
play for the win, Leko-Groszpeter, with Leko’s plan, but not giving Black
Bucharest 1993. time for ...b4?
So it seems White has trouble get­ 21...&c7 22 2d 3 Wxf2 23 2xf2
ting any advantage against this idea. If £ h 8 24 a3 &e5! (D)
Black prefers the main line, 17...fi.f8
is the safer move according to Maki, a
specialist in this position-type.
18 foe 2 Igl 19 £if4
19 2 f l 2he8 20 £>fd4?! £)xd4 21
£}xd4 d5! allowed Black to free him­
self once again with at least equality in
Ernst-Maki, Sweden-Finland 1988.
Now 19 Wc3 could be answered by
19...b4.
19...2he8 20 2fl Wc5 (D)
21 Wf2?!
Exchanging queens helps Black,
though the queen on c5 is active. The plan looks risky but works!
108 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

25 Bc3+?
After the dishonourable but wise
retreat 25 Bd 1 £ic6, Black is passive
but solid.
25...£>c4! 26 £)d4 f5 27 £>fe2 fxe4
28 b3 e5 29 £»f5
29 £>xb5+ axb5 30 £ x c 8 d5 31
bxc4 d4 T.
29...d5! 30 bxc4 bxc4 T 31 g4 Ae6
32 £ g 2 Bb8+ 33 * c l Af6 34 h4 Ef8
35 B n d4 36 Bh3 e3 37 g5 i.xl'5 38
Bxf5 Ae7 0-1
The lines where White avoids pro­
Conclusion: The line is easy to play ducing doubled f-pawns include some
and study for Black. It is also hard for attacking ideas but have not proved
White to find any definite advantage. very dangerous for Black. Usually the
There is no good reason why this line battle concentrates around the ques­
is unpopular at the moment. Perhaps tion of whether the e-pawn is mainly a
the game Leko-Timman (see the note to weakness after the inevitable advance
White’s 21st move) is frightening the or if it can support White’s pressure on
top players, but Black has alternatives. the kingside. We consider:
a) The risky attempt 10 e5?! dxe5
11 fxe5 £)xe5 12 Wei is best met by
Rauzer with 8...Ad7 and 12...Wb8! 13 * b l b4! 14 £se4 £ld5,
9...b5 when Black is a pawn up, VitolinS-
R.Scherbakov, USSR Cht (Podolsk)
The idea of gaining immediate coun­ 1990.
terplay on the queenside and leaving b) The very innocuous-looking 10
the bishop on f8, where it is ready to a3 has been surprisingly popular. Then
be activated via h6, has been more the most active counter is 10...Wb6
popular recently than 9...$Le7. There (10....&e7 is more solid):
is more space for innovations and the bl) 11 £ib3 (too tame) ll...b4 12
line is ideal for a player who wants to axb4 £sxb4 13 £ e 2 (13 e5?! £tfd5 14
play for a win. £ixd5 £)xd5 15 .6x4 £te3 Caruso-
Ghitescu, Cappelle la Grande 1994)
Game 20 13...Bb8 14 Wd4 Wxd4 15 Bxd4 i.c 6
Palac - Kozul Kane-Mednis, USA Ch 1972.
Croatian Cht (Medulin) 1997 b2) The critical-looking 11 e5 is
best answered by ll...W xd4 (but not
1 e4 c5 2 Qf3 £>c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 11 ...^ixd4?! 12 exf6! Shabalov-Waitz-
£)xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 d6 6 i . g5 e6 7 Wd2 kin, New York 1993) 12 Wxd4 (12
a6 8 0-0-0 & d7 9 f4 b5 (D) W ei!? Wa7 13 exf6 g6 14 £id5 * d 8
10 £xf6 15 £le7 is messy, Inarkiev-C.Balogh,
 The Rauzer with 8...$Ld7 109

ArtekjrOL 1999) 12...£>xd4 13 Sxd4

h6 14 fi.h4 (14 fi.xf6 gxf6 15 exf6
fi.c6 is a typical pawn sacrifice to ex­
ert pressure on the long diagonal and
gain the bishop-pair) 14..,dxe5 15
fxe5 fi.c5 with an active position.
c) After 10 f o \ c t fi.xc6 there are
the following options:
c l) 11 We 1 fi.e7 and now:
c l ! ) 12 fi.d3 f o i l (12...b4!7 13
fi.xf6 gxf6 14 foe.2 Wb6 leads to a
more typical set-up for this line, but
the bishop is passive on e7) 13 fi.xe7 fi.xf6 ± x f6 16 fxe5 fi.h4 17 g3 fi.g5+
Wxe7 = Zaichik-Yermolinsky, Phila­ 18 ' i ’bl Wc7 ¥; the aggressive try 15
delphia 1993. Wh4 hxg5 16 fxg5 Wd4 17 foe4 fo h ll
cl2) 12e5£sd5 13fi.xe7Wxe7 14 18 c3 .fixe4 19 cxd4 .fi.xg5+ was ef­
£te4 dxe5 15 fxe5 0-0 16 fi.d3 (better fectively repulsed in Varavin-Filipenko,
than l6W g3f5! 17exf6&xf6 18®g5 Smolensk 1991) ^ . . . ^ x h ? 16 5xd8
e5 ¥ with a strong passed pawn, Mith- 3axd8 17 .fi.xf6 fi.xf6 18 fxe5 Ji.g5+.
rakanth-Scherbakov, Calcutta 1996) A similar queen sacrifice, based on the
16...&f4 17 flfl fog6 18 Wg3 Wh4 19 domination of the bishop-pair, active
Wxh4 £\xh4 with comfortable equal­ rooks and solid pawn-form ation, can
ity, Leko-Scherbakov, Ljubljana ECC be found in the 8...h6 9 .fi.f4 line.
1995. c32) 12 e5 dxe5 13 fxe5 fo d l\
c2) 11 e5?! dxe5 12 Wxd8+ Sxd8 (putting pressure on e5 seems to be the
13 Bxd8+ &xd8 14 fxe5 h6 is a dream stronger response this time; 13...£)d5
for Black, of a type which can usually I4.fi.xe7 Wxe7 15£>e4 0-0 1 6 S h fl f5
only come true in blitz games. The {forced because of the f6-square) 17
black bishop-pair dominates the board; exf6 £)xf6 18 5ixf6+ S x f6 19 5 x f6
for example, 15 fi.xf6+ (15 fi.h4 g5 16 Wxf6 20 B f l We7 21 We3 left White
exf6 gxh4 17 Ae2 fi.xg2 18 Bdl-t- slightly better in J.Polgar-Dreev, Lin­
i4 ’c7 19 fi.h5 jid 6 + Spirakopoulos- ares 1997, because o f her healthier
Atalik, Ikaria 1994) 15...gxf6 16exf6 pawn-structure) 14 A xe7 Wxe7 15
Eg8 17 foc2 Sg6 18 £>d4 fi.d5 19 £lf3 fi.e4 Wc5 (this seems to be the safest
fi.d6 T Antoniou-Damljanovid, Elista move as 15...£)xe5 16 Wd4 .fi.xe4 17
OL 1998. £>xe4 f6 18 £>d6+ * f 8 19 S h fl <$g8
c3) 11 fi.d3 fi.e7 (D) with two lines: 20 g4 h6 21 h4 gave White enough
c31) 12 S h el 0-0 13 e5 dxe5 14 compensation in Kasparov-A.N.Pan-
Wf2 h6! has been considered an excel­ chenko, Daugavpils 1978) and the
lent queen sacrifice: 15 fi.h7+ (in fact weakness of the e5-paw n seems to
in the stem game Karpov-Tal, USSR trouble White so much that he cannot
Ch 1976, White continued very cau­ draw any advantage from the activity
tiously when hit by the surprise: 15 of his pieces and better development:
110 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

c321) 16 S hel 2a7 (16...2c8!? 17 This precautionary move proves

Se2 Bc7 18 $Lxc6 Wxc6 19 Wd6 Wxd6 good in many Rauzer lines. White has
20 exd6 2c6 21 a4 bxa4 22 5ixa4 e5 the following main alternatives:
23 2e3 V2 -V2 Delchev-Kutuzovic, a) The more straightforward 11 f5
Bled 1998, this position-type can eas­ is an important line. Now:
ily turn out to be good for Black, who al) The practical but rather rare
will play his king to e6, starting with choice is Il...Wb6 1 2 £ ixc6 .& xc6 13
23...f5) with two possibilities: fxe6 (13 Wei 2a7 14 * b l h5 15 £ d 3
c3211) 17 £ x c 6 Wxc6 18 *T2 transposes to the main line) 13...fxe6
Wc5 19 2e3 0-0 ? Kasparov-Ermolin- 14 Wf4 h5! 15 * b l (15 Wxf6?! We3+
sky, Leningrad jr qual 1977. 16 &bl 2h6 17 Wf3 Wxf3 18 gxf3
c3212) 17 b4!? Wb6 18 Wg5 (18 2 f6 19 Ag2 <4’e7 gave Black nice
Wd6!?) 18...0-0 19 2d6 Wf2 20 Ee2 compensation for the pawn in Xie
W gl+ = Salov-Ermolinsky, Jurmala Jun-Galliamova, Groningen worn Ct
1983. 1997) 15...£e7 16 &d3 (16 g3 b4 17
c322) 16 JLxc6 Wxc6 17 Wg5 0-0 £le2 f5! 18 &g2 Wb7 is unclear)
18 2 h e l(o r l8 2d6W c7 I9 2 h d l£ ib 6 16...0-0-0 17 2 h el (threatening 5kl5)
20 £ie4 2ac8 with enough counterp­ 17...JLd7 1 8 ^ 2 ^ 8 19W fl £ c 8 20
lay) 18...2ac8 19 2d6 Wc7 20 Sd4 £tf4 2dg8 21 c3! should cause some
£)b6 21 Rg4 g6 22 2e2 Wc5 23 Wh4 problems for Black with the e6-point,
W gl+24 2 c 1 Wc5 V2 -V2 Kiss-Balogh, Dvoirys-A.N.Panchenko, Cheliabinsk
Budapest 1999. 1989.
10...gxf6 (D) a2) Usually Black likes to activate
The following variation is a good the dark-squared bishop to the very at-
reason not to play 10...Wxf6: 11 e5 tractive-iooking square e5 by 1l...^xd4
dxe5 12 £idxb5 Wd8 13 £>d6+£xd6 12 Wxd4 £ h 6 + 13 * b l £.f4. Then
14 Wxd6 exf4 15 Axa6! 2xa6 16 £lb5 White has a choice:
2a7 17 £sxa7 £ x a7 18 Wd4 and White a21) Giving up the f5-pawn might
has a clear advantage. afford Black some kind of relief: 14
&e2&e5 15 Wd2exf5!? 16exf5.fc.xf5
1 7 £ if4 (1 7 £ )d 4 !?£ e 6 18£sf3f5 19
Jid3 Wf6! is at least equal) 17...Wb6
18 JLd3 £ e 6 19 4 2c8 2 0 2 h el
2c4 gives White some compensation
for the pawn but no more than that
thanks to the strong e5-bishop, Tal-
Kozul, Marseilles 1989.
a22) More dangerous for Black is
14 fxe6 fxe6 15 £\e2 &.e5. Now it is
important where White places his
queen:
a221) 16 Wd3 has some disadvan­
11 * b l tages: it takes the knight’s square and
 The Rauzer with 8...$Ld7 ill

makes the queen Jess active. For ex­ necessarily lost after 2I...Shf8; still,
ample: 16...Wb6 17 g3 a5! 18 £>f4 a4 this is hardly worth trying) 19 fi.e2!
(I8...b4, with the same idea as in the (19 g3 2ab8 20 £ g 2 b4 21 Wh6 2bg8
main line, is safer) 19 &.h3 & e l 20 22 £)xe5 Wxe5 23 2d2 2g6 24 # e 3
Wf3 # c 7 t? (Wg4 with £ki5+ was a 2 c8 25 Shd 1 2c6 is not so dangerous,
threat) 21 £ld3 a3 22 £lxe5 dxe5 23 Siklosi-Grosar, Austrian Cht 1994)
Hhfl 2hf8 24 bxa3 2a4! 25 Sf2 &c6 19...2ab8 2 0 # h 6 2 b g 8 21 £ f3 b 4 22
and Black had enough counterplay in Sd2 2g6 23 ^ x e5 Wxe5 24 Wh4 Wg5
Hartman-Yrjola, Stockholm Rilton (24...iLb5 25 2 h d l Wg5 26 Wf2 2d8
Cup 1996. 27 ttd 4 ±) 25 I T 2 Wc5 26 e5! fxe5 27
a222) 16 Wd2 Wb6 17 &f4 (D) Wh4+ 2f6 28 2hd 1 favoured White in
reaches the basic position of this im­ Palac-Grosar, Formia 1994.
portant subvariation. a2222) 17...a5! is even more logi­
cal; Black wants to secure the bishop
on the squares e5 and d4. After 18 g3
(Black’s position seems to be OK after
18 £id3!? £ d 4 19 Wh6»? b4 20 fi.e2
0-0-0 but this has not yet been tested in
top-level practice) 18...b4 (suggested
by Bonsch; it is important where to put
the king: 18...0-0?.' 19 ilh 3 2ae8 20
£sd3 &d4 21 2 h e l b4? (21...fi.c8 22
c3 Ji.e5 ±) 22 £)xb4! £ f2 23 2 f 1 £ c 5
24 &d5! was miserable in Hjartar-
son-Koiul, Biel IZ 1993; this implies
the king belongs in the centre) 19 fi.h3
Black has some positional advan­ 20 2 h fl seems to be quite bal­
tages, including the bishop-pair and anced. Black has to take into con­
the pawn-centre, but he has to worry sideration the plan £id3 and queen in­
about many tactical issues: the central trusion via h6, which restricts his own
break with e5, a queen intrusion via activity. On the other hand, Black has
h6, the d-fxJe if White can exchange secured the d4-square for the bishop
the dark-squared bishop and some­ after £}d3, because by stopping the
times tactics with £>d5. There are now move c3 Black has prevented e5 tac­
two logical options for Black (the tics. In addition, Black should seek an
move 17...Bc8 has also been tried but 1 opportunity to gain counterplay with
don’t see the point). the typical pawn sacrifice ...b3 and
a2221) 17...tf?e7 puts the king on ...a4. However, the safest option is
the best square and connects the rooks. 20...2ag8 21 £>d3 .&d4 with the plan
18?)d3!Wd4(18...fi.d4?! 19e5!dxe5 ...h5-h4. There is also the possibility
20£sxe5fxe5 (20...£e8 21 £>f3±} 21 21...ji.b5!?.
c3 is a typical tactical strike in this b) 11 £*xc6 -$.xc6 (D) is another
position-type although Black is not possibility.
 112 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

S c2 b3 T Rogers-Cabrilo, Manila IZ
1990.
b l222) 17 f5 e5 18 B h fl (White
seems to suffer from a lack of con­
structive plans; 18 Wh5 a4 19 B hel h6
20 B el Bg8 21 Wf3 h5! 22 c3 Bb8 23
c4 .£.h6 24 B cd l h4 + Krakops-Bec-
erra Rivero, Elista OL 1998) 18...h5
19 Wh4 * e 7 ! 20 £>g3 £ h 6 Wu Xibin-
Ye Jiangchuan, Beijing 1996, is very
good for Biack since after 21 £lxh5
.&g5 22 Wg4 a4 he has huge compen­
White can now continue in various sation.
ways: b2) The routine developing move
bi) 12 We3?! We7! (parrying £>d5 12 $Ld3 is best met by 12...b4! 13 <£>e2
and coming to the optimal square c5 Wb6, when 14 ‘i ’bl transposes to the
via a7) 13 .&d3 Wa7 and because the note to White's 13th move, but White
ending is not appealing for White, the has some independent attempts:
main options are: b21) The try 14 £>g3 h5 15 We2
bl 1) 14 Wei h5! (14...Wc5?! 15 Wc5 1 6 * b l (16f5?!h4 17 £)h5 *e7!
£)d5!; 14...0-0-0!? 15 s&’bl h5 is play­ 18 ^ b l a5 T Prokopchuk-Filipenko,
able) 15 £sd5!? 0-0-0 16 £>b4 (16 Russia 1999) 16...h4 17 £>fl a5 does
£ixf6!? Ag7) 16...£b7 17 c3 d5! 18 look good for Black at this point,
£ic2 dxe4 19 .&xe4 B xdl+ 20 i ’xdl P.Schlosser-Dreev, Frankfurt rpd 1996.
&.c5 Liss-Rechlis, Israeli Ch 1994. b22) 14 f5 should not be met by
b l2) 14 Wh3 and now: 14...e5?!, which gives White excellent
bl21) The instructive game Sax- light-square control after 15 .4x4!
Damljanovifi, Manila IZ 1990 shows .fi.xe4 16 £>g3 &.bl 17 £.d5 ±, but
White’s basic ideas in this variation: 14...h5 15 * b l £ h 6 16 Wei e5 17 h4
14...h5 15 fihel i.c'7 1 6 f5 b 4 17£ie2 &Z7 18 £}g3 .£f4, Tseshkovsky-Dam-
e5 18 Ac4! 3Sc8 (1 8...ixe4 19 $}g3 ljanovi6, VrSac 1987, which looks
ji.b7 20 £ie4 gives White domination much better.
of the light squares) 19 Wb3 ,&f8 20 b3) 12 Wei (this stops ...Wb6 due
.&d5 a5 21 * b l with domination. to the reply £ld5) 12...b4! 13 £id5 a5
bl22) 14...b4! 15&e2Wc5 I 6 * b l (D).
a5! is a plan that has been very suc­ Now there is also no threat to take
cessful for Black: the knight but the knight is not yet
b l221) 17 S hel Bb8(17...h5 18 f5 threatening anything. Both sides have
e5 19 £lg3 h4 20 £tfl 4>e7 21 £>d2 a4 some problems doing anything con­
22 .&c4 j&.h6 and Black has got every­ structive. White has two options:
thing he wants, Lobzhanidze-Yermo- b31) 14 Bd4 is a very tactical vari­
linsky, Bad Zwesten 1997) 18 f5 e5 19 ation but practice has shown that
B c l? !(1 9 ^ g 3 )I9 ...h 5 !2 0 c 3 i.h 6 2 1 Black gets a lot of play on the dark
 The Rauzer with 8...&.d7 113

following options:
b321) 15 g4h5! 16 £>e3 (16 gxh5
f5!) 16...hxg4 17 f5 (17 £>xg4 f5 18
exf5 fi.xhl 19 Wxhl gives White some
obscure compensation) 17....&h6 18
*t>l £ x e3 19 Wxe3 e5f? 20 2d g l
2h3 21 Wc2 (21 «ff2!? 2 f3 22 ffh4)
21...'&e7 was level in Short-Grosar,
Manila OL 1992.
b322) 15 £>e3 f5!16 exf5 Wf6 17
c3 (17 &c4 £ d 5 ) 17...bxc3 18 Jic2
cxb2+ 1 9 * b l 0-0(19...2d8) 2 0 2xd6
squares with 14...f5! (14...2a7!? is 2ac8 with a messy position, MChess
Kozui’s favourite here) and now White Pro-Yermolinsky, Boston 1994.
has tried: b323) 15 f5 JLxd5 16 exd5 e5. The
b311) I5 e x f5 i.g 7 16f6& xf6 17 black king feels now very comfortable
£>xf6+ Wxf6 18 # d 2 &e7 looks good on e7. It is very important who will get
for Black though White can take the more play on the colour of his own
pawn: 19 2xd6!? Shd8 (I9...fi.d5!?) bishop. The chances should be as­
20 2xd8 2xd8 21 i.d 3 2d4 22 211 sessed as about equal at this point. 17
fi.e4 23 g3 jk.xd3 24 cxd3 Wf5 and the ii.b5+ (White’s feeble play in
dominating pieces provide compensa­ Holmsten-Yrjola, Helsinki 1995 gave
tion. Black the initiative after 17 2 fl?! Wb6
b312) 15 &e3 Wb6 16 Wd2 £.xe4 18 2f3 &e7 19 fi.c4 h5 20 a4 bxa3 21
17 £ sc4 Wc5 18 £ e 2 d5 19 £)e5 a4? 2xa3 a4 22 <&bl 2hb8) 17...*e7 18
(19...fi.d6 T) 20 2c4! gave White tac­ £ c 6 2b8 19 f h 4 Wb6 20 2he 1 h5 21
tical chances in Herrera-Abreu, Ha­ &bl 2bg8 22 2d3 £ h 6 23 a3 Wc5 24
vana Capablanca mem 1998. 2 e2 2g4! and Black was already more
b313) 15 2c4 (White continues the active in Short-Damljanovic, Manila
original rook adventure) 15...fi.xd5 IZ 1990.
(15...*d7!?) 16 exd5 Wf6 17 dxe6 ll...Wb6 (D)
fxe6 18 2 c7 &d8 19 2b7 (19 2c6?!
&g7 20 2xd6+ 21 We5 Wxe5 22
fxe5 fi.xe5 gave Black a fine ending in
Ulfarsson-Waitzkin, Szeged U-18
Wch 1994) 19...'4’c8 20 2b5 fi.g7 21
c3 bxc3 22 (22 fi.c4!? has been
suggested as unclear) 2 2 ...^ 4 23
Wxe6+? (23 Wxc3+) 23...*d8 24 2d5
Wxf4+ 25 * c 2 £ e 5 - + Zontakh-
Poluliakhov, Belgrade 1993.
b32) After the natural developing
moves 14 fi.d3 fi.g7, White has the
114 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

12 £>xc6
A couple of decades ago, 12 £if3
0-0-0 13 g3 ^ 8 was popular; this re­
sembles the positions of the previous
variation, but the bishop is better on
f8.
Nobody has dared to experiment
with the fierce sacrifice mentioned by
Wolff: 12 £>f5?! exf5 13 £>d5 ffd8 14
e x f5 £ g 7 15 2 e l+ * f 8 .
The main alternative is 12 £ice2,
which was very popular at the begin­
ning of the 1990s. White likes to keep bl 1) Black gets a strong initiative
a knight on d4 and develop the bishop after 18 £e2?! £ h 6 19 Wd5 2c5 20
at g2 to control the long diagonal. Wb3 2hc8 21 £ d 3 ? (21 £ x h 5 2c4)
Black now has several possibilities, 21...'B'a5 - + Petrushin-Tukmakov,
such as 12...h5, 12...£ia5 and 12..2c8, Baku 1977.
but only two basic approaches. He can bl2) 18£d3!a5 19 We2 a4 20.fc.c4
either start generating weaknesses in (20 £>xh5 b3) 20....fc.h6!? 21 £)xh5
White’s queenside with knight ma­ 2xc4!? (21...2hg8! is better accord­
noeuvres or he can start pushing his ing to Ko2ul though 22 g4 2xg4, as
queenside pawns. proposed by him, doesn’t look totally
a) The following game demon­ convincing because of 23 .fc.xf7) 22
strates the former aggressive approach Wxc4 2c8 23 Wd5 Jib5 24 g4 £ c 4 25
for Black: 12...h5 13 g3 £la5 14 b3 £>xf6! Wa6 26 <$ig8+! with complica­
£Lb8 15 JLg2 (15 c3) 15...£>c4! 16 tions favouring White, Matulovic-
Wd3 £>a3+ 17 <&>b2 b4 18 c4 £ g 7 19 Kozul, Yugoslav Ch (Banja Vrucica)
4}f3 (19 f5?! e5 20 £ic2 £lxc2 21 1991.
* x c2 * e 7) 19...0-0 20 Wxd6 Wf2! 21 b2) 13 g3 and now:
Wxd7 Sbd8 22 Wxd8 2xd8 23 2xd8+ b21) An example of how to pro­
* h 7 24 S e l Wxg2 25 2d3 V f2 (a voke weaknesses on the queenside:
funny bind!) 26 * c l i.f 8 27 3?d2 13.J2Sa5 14 b3 £>c6 (14...£>b7) 15
JLc5 28 2 c 1 & jp 29 h3 'h-'h Nunn- £ g 2 ,fc.e7 16 2 h el Wa5 17 c3 £sxd4
Damljanovi6, Belgrade 1991. 18 Wxd4 Wc7 19 Wd3 h5 = Waitzkin-
b) 12...Sc8 (D). The rook move is Yermolinsky, New York Open 1992.
useful any case since Black is not go­ b22) Here is another example, al­
ing to castle queenside with the bishop beit less correct, to demonstrate the
coming to g2, which is the obvious former approach: 13...h5 14 ,fc.g2 £sa5
plan for White. Now: 15 b3 £ic6!? 16 2 h fl Wa5 (this looks
bl) The line 13 f5 £lxd4 14 £>xd4 strange but at the end the weakness of
e5 15 £ie2 b4 might be better for the c3-pawn will decide) 17 c3 Wb6?!
White than its reputation: 16 ^ g 3 h5 (17...£lxd4 18 Wxd4 J ie l is about the
17 h4 &e7 and now: same as line lb21’) 18 f5 .fc.h6 19 Wei
 The Rauzer with 8...$Ld7 115

£}xd4 20 £)xd4 e5 21 £ic2 a5 22 h4 problems for Black, and allows him to

Sc5 23 Ef3 * e 7 24 Sfd3 2hc8 25 carry out his plans. 13...b4 14 £ie2 h5
fi.13?! (25 * b 2 ) 25...d5! 26 Exd5 and now:
Sxd5 27 Exd5 fi.c6 28 Bd3 Bd8 29 a) 15 S h fl a5 16 c4 (16 E el!?
Sxd8 Wxd8 with a very instructive KoZul; 16 f5?! e5 17 £igl Wc5 ¥ Short-
way to achieve compensation, Hjar- Koiul, Belgrade 1989) 16...Wc5 17
tarson-Yermolinsky, Erevan OL 1996. Sf3 Eg8 18 g3 Ed8 ¥ Enders-Baklan,
b23) 13...b4 14 fi.g2 a5 15 &xc6 Bundesliga 1999/00.
Wxc6 16 £ld4 Wc5. What should b) 15 f5 fi.h6 16 Wei e5 17 fi.c4
White do? The fact that Black has ig­ * e 7 18 b3 Sag8! 19 £lg3 h4 20 £>h5
nored the kingside invites a break­ .fig5 21 g4 Ec8 22 We2 .fi.b5 23 .fi.xb5
through in the centre, but then the axb5 + Morovid-Kozul, Solana 1999.
dark-squared bishop awakes from the c) 15 Wei h4! (taking the g3-
grave. 17 S h el (17 f5?! e5 18 &b3 square from the knight, which is an
Wc7 ¥ Sammalvuo-Yrjola, Finnish Ch improvement over 15...a5 16 Wh4
1995) 17...a4 18 e5 (untypical, unpo- .fie7 17 f5 e5 18 £>g3 0-0-0 19 fi.c4 ±
sitional, but what else?) 18...fxe5 19 Adams-Koiul, Wijk aan Zee 1991) 16
fxe5 d5 20 S f l (20 Wg5!?) 20...a3!? S fl a5 and here White has tried:
21 Wf4 We7 22 Sf2 fi.g7 23 fi.fl 0-0 c l) 17 f5?! e5 18 fi.c4 We3! 19
24 fi.d3 f5! ¥ Pulkkinen-Ermolinsky, fi.d5 fi.xd5 20 exd5 Bg8 + Am.Rodri-
Moscow ECC 1986. guez-Koiul, Lucerne Wcht 1997.
12...fi.xc6 (D) c2) Better is 17 £ k l a4 18 fi.c4
Ba5!? 19 £>d3 d5 20 exd5 fi.xd5 21
fi.xd5 Bxd5 22 f5 e5 (22...fi.e7) 23
We4 Wd4 24 5)12 = Holmsten-Vein-
gold, Helsinki 1998.
13...Ea7'?
Black really wants to get his bishop
to h6 in the forthcoming almost inevi­
table closed position-type. Now 14
£id5? is met by 14...exd5 15 exd5+
Ee7 of course.
Black has alternatives; the first one
is rare but promising, the other one
popular but miserable in practice:
13 We 1 a) 13...0-0-0!? is not typical for
Once again playing for the £)d5 this variation but after 14 fi.d3, line
trick and trying to provoke Black into ‘a2’ looks quite promising as an equal­
playing the passive 13...fi.e7, which izer:
isn’t one of Black’s (read: Kozul’s) fa­ al) 14...h5 15 S fl * b 8 16 a3! fi.b7
vourite moves in this line. 17 f5 Wc5 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 Sxf6 We5
Generally the move 13 fi.d3 here or 20 Sf7 fi.h6?! (20...fi.g7 is relatively
on the 12th move doesn’t pose enough better, although after 21 We3! Black
116 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

must spend time exchanging all the M-.WcS 15 £ d 3 a5!? 16 £>e2 (why
rooks due to the threat of Wb6) 21 a4! not 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 Wfl instead?)
± with a typical strike on the queen­ 16....&h6 17 S fl (another possibility
side, Lali6-Kozul, Croatian Cht 1997. is 17 fxe6 {Gofshtein’s recommenda­
a2) 14...b4 15 d5! (the central tion} 17...fxe6 18 S fl t ) 17...e5 18
strike seems to be close to equalizing &g3 * e 7 19 Ef3 Sg8! 20 We2 a4
even here) 16 £}g3 dxe4 17 £}xe4 $Ltl with good chances, Benjamin-Koiul,
18 We2 <4>b8 19 £>d2 (19 S hel!?) Lucerne Wcht 1997, is apparently a
19...rthg8 20£if3 i.b5! 21 £.xb5 (21 better idea.
g3) 21...'»xb5 22 Wxb5+ axb5 and 15 ^.d3 (D)
Black is slightly better in this ending, 15 fxe6?! fxe6 16 ,&d3 Sg7! (a jus­
Belotti-Tukmakov, Ticino 1999. tification for ...Sa7 has been found!)
b) 13....SLe7 is a very natural move 17 S f l k . t l 18 £>e2 h4 19 Sf2 Sh5!
that has scored miserably: 20 Se5 with a very nice position,
b l) 14 JLd3 h5 (14...a5 15f5b4 16 Palac-Koiul, Croatian Cht 1999.
£)e2 e5 17 £lg3 * c 5 18 We2 Sc8 19
b3 0-0 20 .&c4 ± Adams-Koiul, Bel­
grade 1999, shows all the signs of big
trouble: White has the h5-square and a
bishop on c4, while Black has castled
kingside) 15 f5 Wc5 16 S fl <4>d7!? 17
Sf3 Sag 8 18 fxe6+ fxe6 19 £ld5!
Sxg2? (19...exd5 20 b4 Wb6 21 exd5
$Lbl 22 We6+ with a strong attack) 20
b4 Wa7 21 £>xe7 * x e7 22 Wc3 dem­
onstrates the dangers in this line,
Short-Torre, Manila IZ 1990.
b2) 14 f5 Wc5 (in the line 14...b4?!
15 ®e2 e5 16 £>g3 Black is likely to 15...Wc5
suffer on the light squares) 15 fxe6 15...h4!? looks like a viable alterna­
fxe6 16 &d3 <4?f7 17 S fl Sag8 is tive: 16 S fl b4 17 £te2 e5 18 £ k l
somewhat playable but doesn’t inspire Wb7 (stopping .&c4 for a while) 19 Sf2
everyone. 18 Sd2 b4 19 £kll a5 20 £.h6 20 Se2 £ g 5 21 Jic4 4>e7 22 Jid5
Sdf2, Hra£ek-Popovic, Brno 1992, is 3c8 23 JLxc6 Bxc6 holds on, Mir-
equal according to Baburin and Gof- anovic-Scherbakov, Novi Sad 1989.
shtein. Koiul’s latest idea is a genuine sac­
It is no wonder Koiul is working rifice: 15...b4 16 £>e2 e5 17 Wh4 * e 7
hard to keep 13...2a7 alive! 18 £)g3 &h6 19 Wxh5 Wc5 20 Shel
14 f5 h5 a5 21 b3 fc.b5 (a surprise, but 21...a4
14...b4?! 15 £)e2 e5 (15...£xe4 16 22 ,&c4 doesn’t look tempting) 22
fxe6 fxe6 17 &g3) 16 £ig3 h5?! 17 £xb5 Wxb5 23 £ if l!? a4 24 £>e3 i.xe3
Jie2\ was another failure for Black in 25 Wxh8 axb3 26 cxb3 (Tiviakov-
I.Gurevich-Koiul, Biel IZ 1993. K oM , Bugojno ECC 1999) and now
 The Rauzer with 8...£i.d7 117

26...Wc6, with the idea of ...2xa2, 35...Wb6 36 Wd3 Sg2 37 Wd5

draws. £ h 6 38 c5 Wxc5 39 Wxc5 dxc5 40
16 Sfl S h i I3?f841 S d l & g742S h i £ e 3 43
After 16 fxe6 fxe6, 17 S fl is no S d l * h 6 44 S el Sh2 45 S d l *xh5
better, although Black has no time to 46 S fl &g5 47 S el Sf2 48 S h i Sg2
get his rook to g7. 17 £\d5!? is inter­ 49 Sfl &h6 50 S h l + &g7 51 S el
esting, though. &f8 52 S d l * e 7 53 Eel * d 6 54
16...e5 17 Wh4 S d l+ * c7 55 Eel &c6 56 S d l c4! 57
The idea was to stop <£kJ5 with the bxc4 b3 58 axb3 a2+ 59 ■4>xa2 Sxc2+
pressure on c2 after 17 Jie2 Sc7. 0-1
17...*e7?.'
Positionally this move is right but... Conclusion: There doesn’t seem to be
18 £>e2?! a totally convincing route to equality
Now 18 fi.e2! Sc7? 19 Ed5! is win­ in the main line, though there are
ning, because 19...We3 is met by 20 many interesting tries. The other im­
Sxd6!. portant line, 11 f5 (note ‘a’ to White’s
18...a5 19 Sf3 &h6 20 Wxh5 a4 21 II th move), looks less awkward for
Wh4 b4 22 Wei iLg5 23 h3 Sc7 24 c4 Black, but there are practical problems
a3 25 b3 Bcc8 (D) for both sides. The other lines seem
more modest and do not offer any
noteworthy advantage for White.

Which line to c h o o s e a g a in st
t h e Rauzer?
Black has a wide choice of lines in the
Rauzer:
A) The 8...h6 line
B) 8...£d7 with 9...fi.e7
C) 8...fi.d7 with 9...b5
D) The new fashion line 8...£>xd4 9
Wxd4 &e7 10 f4 b5
E) The variations with 7.. JLe7 and
Black’s compensation is based on 8...0-0
the passivity of White's pieces, weak
dark squares and the potentially very Besides these there are some minor
unpleasant thorn on a3. possibilities. Options A-D have scored
26 £ c 2 Sh4 27 <&gl Sf4 28 g3 almost equally well in practice. D is
Sxf3 29 <£ixf3 fi.e3 30 We2 Sh8 31 not discussed in this book; it is very in­
h4 Sg8 32 g4 Sxg4 33 £>d4 Sg3 34 teresting but there are some ultra-
<&xc6+ Wxc6 35 h5 sharp positions. E leads to quite differ­
35 Wei Sh3 36 Wxb4 £ c 5 37 Wei ent position-types, but early castling is
Wb6 is better but doesn’t solve the ba­ not so risky in the Rauzer as in the
sic problem. Velimirovifi.
118 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

Option A has been the most popu­ central break ...d5. Playing for a win
lar. It was extremely popular in the might be more difficult. The line is
early 1990s. Now there is a sign that long, systematic and easy to study,
Black is seeking alternatives. 1 feel and thus suitable for a lazy player. The
some crises for A are arising with the most important subvariation with 11
new line 9 £lxc6. Option A is suitable e5 is sharper but stili long and easy to
for a player who doesn’t like pawn learn. This was the main line during
weaknesses but is not afraid of taking the golden age of the Classical Sicilian
some chances with his king. There is and there is not very much space for
not a big chance of getting doubled f- innovations any more - but who
pawns. The line can be described with knows what would happen if the top
the words solid and cool. Black’s modern grandmasters became inter­
pawn-structure remains solid and ested in it? The overall score of the
many endgames turn out to be good line is much worse than within the last
for Black. However, Black has to be five years.
prepared to face some attacks and he C is sharper, riskier, and more ob­
has to be ready to balance well be­ scure, and there is still a lot of unex­
tween defence and counterattack. plored pasture. Computer programs
In B and C, Black is likely to get don’t seem to understand the posi-
doubled f-pawns. They are still quite tion-type at all. This is an ideal line to
different lines in nature. In the main play for a win. No wonder C seems to
line of B, Black castles queenside and be more popular at top level than B. It
has good changes to equalize with the is scoring quite well also.
7 The Richter-Rauzer:
Others

Richter-Rauzer Attack: a) Maybe the Keres variation 7

W hite's 7th move Wd3, which is unpopular but Black
can easily get into trouble if he is un­
alternatives prepared, as Tibor Tolnai has shown
several times. 7...a6 8 0-0-0 .&d7
All the important alternatives to the (8...h6 9 £)xc6!? bxc6 10 £ f 4 d5 11
Rauzer move 7 Wd2 are covered here. fi.e2 leads to a similar position to that
examined in the line 7 tfd2 a6 8 0-0-0
Game 21 h6 9 £ixc6) and now:
Yudasin - Khalifman al) Tolnai has lately preferred 9
Tilburg 1994 le.2, but after the natural moves 9...h6
(9...Wa5 10 £.xf6 gxf6 11 * b l £>xd4
1 e4 c5 2 £)f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £lxd4 12 Wxd4 l e i 13 f4 0-0-0 14 l g 4 ±
£>f6 5 5k3 £ic6 6 £.g5 e6 (D) Tolnai-Groszpeter, Hungarian Ch
1993) 1 0 ^x c6 (1 0 fi.h 4 5ie5 11 We3
g5!?) 10...Axc6 II £ h 4 l e i 12 f4
W cl 13 l f 3 0-0 the position should
be OK for Black as 14 fi.xf6?! fi.xf6
15'B,xd6Wa5 16 e5 Sfd8 doesn’t work
for White.
a2) After 9 f4 h6 10 &h4 g5 11
fxg5 5ig4 Black will get the strong­
point e5 and regain the g5-pawn. For
example: 12 £)xc6 (12 J.e2 £lge5 13
We3 l e i 14 i b l hxg5 was equal in
Thorhallsson-Siefansson, Reykjavik
1995) 12...fi.xc6 13 l e 2 £ie5 14 Wd4
1 Ib S hxg5 15 l g 3 W cl = Tolnai-Van der
This has been a rather popular but Wiel, Katerini 1992.
risky way to avoid the most up-to-date b) The line originally played by
theory. However, it’s becoming a re­ Richter, 7 £>xc6 bxc6 8 e5, is safely
spected theoretical line in its own met by 8...dxe5 (S.-.WaS!? 9 ii.xf6 gxf6
right. What can the adherents of this 10 exd6 We5+) 9 Wf3 l e i 10 l x ( 6
iine play now? 1 \1 6 11 Wxc6+ I d l 12 Wc5 W ei ?.
 120 E asy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

c) 7 Jie2 £ .e l 8 0-0. There are two kingside operations and the push e4-
types of players who can play like this. e5 at a suitable moment. Nevertheless,
One type is trying to avoid theory. with the natural moves ll...b5 12 a3
They usually want a draw, but this is J ib l 13 Ad3 b4 14 &e2 h6 15 Ah4
not an easy way to get it. The other bxa3 16 bxa3?[ (16 Sxa3 d5!? is criti­
type, like GM Rantanen, have an orig­ cal) 16...£>a5 17 e5 dxe5 18 fxe5 £>d5
inal idea. Also, some players have a Black got a fine position in Rantanen-
natural dislike of castiing queenside. Balashov, Helsinki 1984.
8...0-0 (D) (the sharp plan 8...a6 9 7...'i'b 6
* h l £ d 7 10 f4 » c 7 11 £>f3 h6 12 This was first played in 1994. If the
£ h 4 g5!? 13 fxg5 hxg5 14 £x g 5 complex variation with the piece sac­
0-0-0, with faint compensation, was a rifice is not to everyone’s taste, Black
well-prepared secret weapon against can still play the old line with confi­
the white plan {‘c2’ } in Rantanen- dence: 7.. A d i 8 &xc6 (8 0-0 £ e 7 9
Yrjoia, Helsinki 1984) and now: £lb3 Wc7 10a4 a6 11 i.e 2 0-0 12 Vd2
h6 13 .&f4 £te5 = Lengyel-Grosar,
Budapest 1994) 8...bxc6 9 Wf3 h6
(9...«a5 10 £ x f6 gxf6 11 « x f6 2g8
12 Wf3 Sb8 13 £>b3 Wg5 14 0-0 ffg4
15 Wxg4 Sxg4 with compensation,
Shtyrenko-Shmuter, Volgograd 1994)
10 iLh4 and now:
a) 10...c5 11 <&b3 £ e 7 12 0-0-0 c4
13 *hd2 Sc8 14 e5 dxe5 15 .&xf6 jLxf6
16 £sde4 A c7 17 £)d6+ &xd6 18
Exd6 » c 7 19 S h d l &c6 20 Wg3 0-0
21 Wxe5 ± Tiviakov-San Segundo,
Madrid 1994.
c l) 9 #d2a6(9...£ixe4!?) lOSadl b) 10...!rb61lSM >3&e712e5(12
is typical, with the intention of press­ 0-0-0!?) 12...dxe5 13 0-0-0 Wb4 14
ing against d6. Now 10...Wb6 (after £ g 3 e4 15 W e 2 c5 16 a3 * b 6 17
10...Ad7 11 ^ b 3 b5 12 £ x f6 gxf6 13 £lxe4 (17 £id2 0-0 18 £sc4 Wa6 19
1H,h6 sfehS 14 Sd3, Akopian-Dzindzi- S hel £M5 20 £>xe4 Ab5 + Joshi-
chashvili, Krasnodar 1966, the king­ Tilak, Indian Ch 1994) I7...Ab5 18
side weakness is nasty for Black even £)xf6+ Axf6 19 Wh5 0-0 20 Wxc5
though the position is not completely # a 6 with compensation, Tiviakov-
clear; Black has queenside chances) Tilak, Calcutta 1994.
11 £>b3 Sd8 12 * h l Wc7 13 a4 b6, c) 10...e5 (this is Jess ambitious but
Keres-Bronstein, Parnu 1947, looks more solid than the alternatives) 11
like a sensible plan as Black has man­ £>f5 £ x f5 12 # x f5 Wd7 (or 12...Ae7
aged to avoid doubled f-pawns. 13 0-0 # d 7 ) 13 Wf3 (13 #xd7+ £lxd7
c2) 9 * h 1 a6 10 f4 Wc7 11 £}f3 is 14 f3 fc.e7 15 & f2 is equal) 13. .A e 7
Rantanen’s set-up. While aims for (1 3...#g4?! 1 4 # x g 4 £ > x g 4 1 5 h 3 ^ f 6
 The Richter-Rauzer: Others 121

16 fi.xf6 gxf6 17 0-0 ± Tiviakov- 5fc616Wf2.fi.b7 17.fif3 5>d7 1 8 * h l

Leko, Wijk aan Zee 1994) and it seems 5ic5 ? Lengyel-Videki, Budapest 1995.
White is struggling to maintain equal­ The most critical variation is 8
ity: fi.xf6!? gxf6 9 5)d5 (too passive is 9
cl) 14 0-0-00-0 15 fi.xf6 (15 Bd3!? <&b3?! a6 10 fi.e2 Wc7 11 a4 b6 12
comes into mind, but there is a danger 5)d4 fi.b7 13 5lxc6 Wxc6 14 Wd4
Black will keep the knight and bring it Bg8 15 filf3 Wc5 T Kamsky-Kram-
towards e6) 15....fixf6 16 h4 W cl 17 nik, Monaco Amber blindfold 1994)
Wh3 (17 g3 Eab8 18 Ed3 Sfd8 19 9...exd5 10 exd5 a6. White has sacri­
S el d5! 20 exd5 Wb4 + Marusenko- ficed a piece but Black has tedious
Goldin, Novgorod 1997) 17...Bfd8 18 work to rise from the difficulties by
<^bl We6 19 # x e 6 fxe6 and Black is activating his pieces and defending his
fine in the ending, Berzinsh-Veingold, king at the same time.
Vantaa 1997. a) 11 We2+ <&d8 12 £}xc6+ bxc6
c2) 14 0-0 g5! 15 fi.g3 h5 16 h4 13 fi.xc6 Sa7 has been very unsuc­
# g 4 17 Wxg4 hxg4 18 hxg5 £>h5 19 cessful for White in practice: 14 0-0
g6 fxg6 20 £>e2 0-0-0 ? Tiviakov- (14 # 68+ & c7 15 0-0 * b 8 16 Bfel
Tseshkovsky, Russian Ch 1994. fi.g7 17 We4 f5 18 Wf4 Bd8 19 Be3
We now return to 7...#b6 (D): Wd4 is unclear, Rosito-Zarnicki, Ar­
gentine Ch 1995; 14 0-0-0 Be7 15
Wf3 f5 16 Wg3 Wb4 17 a3 f4 18 Wh4
We4 19 Bhel Wf5 Sutovsky-Vouldis,
W Szeged U-18 Wch 1994) 14...Be7 15
Wf3 f5 16 Bael Bg8 17 h3 Wb4 18 c3
Wxb2 - + L.Milov-Wells, Bad Woris-
hofen 1997.
b) The more dangerous 11 fi.xc6+
bxc6 12 We2+ is gaining popularity:
bl) 12...fi.e7 13 5 ixc6 Wc7 14 0-0-0
fi.b7 15 S h el fi.xc6 16 dxc6 Bg8?
(16...*f8 17 Sd3 f5) 17 Sd3 Sa7 18
Sb3 ± and Black couldn’t break the
8fi.e3 bind in Groszpeter-Galianina, Pardu­
With more peaceful moves White bice 1999.
simply tends to lose a tempo com­ b2) 12. ..“4 ^7 is untested but proba­
pared with the Scheveningen; e.g.: 8 bly quite good.
0-0 fi.e7 9 £ e 3 # c 7 10 a4 0-0 11 b3) 12...*d8 13 5lxc6+ ^ c 7 14
<&xc6?!(ll fi.d3) ll...bxc6 12fi.d3 c5 0-0-0 (14 We8.fi.g7 1 5 « ,xf7+.fi.d716
13 JtW c4 14 fi.e2 a6 15 Jtl3 Bb8 16 0-0 Bhg8 V2 -V2 J.Gonzalez-Garcia
Wcl £)d7 f Tuomala-Yrjola, Jyvas- Ilundain, Mondariz 1996) 14...fi.b7
kyla 1996; 8 £>b3?! fi.e7 (8...£)xe4!?) 15 Sd3 fi.xc6 16 Bc3 Wa5 17 Wc4! (in
9 0-0 0-0 10 a4 # c 7 11 fi.e2 Bd8 12 Lehto-Nevanlinna, Finnish Ch 1999,
fi.f4 £le5 13 fi.g3 a6 14 Wd4 b6 15 f4 White squandered his initiative with
 122 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

two careless moves: 17 Hxc6+?! ^ 7 17...C4!! 18 £ e 2

18 tfh5? S c 8 +) 17...#b5 18 # d 4 After 18 jLxc4?? '§fb4 Black wins
jLe7 19 Sxc6+ 4>d8 20 S e 1 and B lack at once.
is still a piece up but he has still a long 18...cxb3 19 cxb3 Wb4 20 i.d 2
way to go for freedom. thc5 21 *b 2 £sxb3! -+ 22 £ld5 Wd4+
b4) 12_&.e6!? 13 £>xe6?! (better 23 jLc3 exd5! 24 axb3 # a 4 25 £ d 4
is 13 0-0-0 cxd5 14 £*xe6 fxe6 15 dxe4 26 f5 d5 27 Wc3 Wa3+ 28 * c2
Wxe6+ Jic7 16 S h el Sa7 17 Sxd5, (D)
with typical compensation but as­
sessed as slightly better for Black by
Yermolinsky) 13...fxe6 14 Wxe6+
£ e 7 15 0-0 (15 0-0-0!?) 15...*f8 16
S fel Se8 17 Se3 Sg8 and the com­
pensation was insufficient in Marcel
Martinez-Yermolinsky, Chicago 1999.
8...«c7 9 f4 &e7 10 Wf3 0-0 II
0-0-0!? a6 (D)

28...JLb4
28..,f6l -+ .
29 ®b2 Wxb2+ 30 &xb2 £ b 7 31
g5 Sbc8 32 h4 £ c 5 33 f6 Sfd8 34
AeS Se8 35 &f4 £ b 4 36 £ d 2 £ d 6
37 fxg7 £e5+ 38 * b l &xg7 39 S hfl
Se7 40 h5 Sec7 41 £ g 4 Se8 42 i.a5
3ce7 43 h6 fcLf8 44 Sf6 e3 45 2d4 e2
46 &el Sc7 47 &b2 a5 0-1
12 £sxc6?!
This time the b-file and the c-pawn Conclusion: None of White’s 7th
will become dangerous. Safer is 12 move alternatives are very dangerous
fc.d3 £>xd4 13 .&xd4 e5 14 fxe5 dxe5 for Black. Against 7 Ab5, Black has
15 ^.d6 with equality. several playable alternatives to choose
12...bxc6 13 £ d 3 Sb8 14 g4 Wb7 from according to his taste. The value
15 b3 £>d7 16 & bl c5 17 ttfh3? of the promising 7...®b6 depends of
17 fc.cl would have stopped the fol­ the practical value of the piece sacri­
lowing blow. fice.
8 Other Variations

6 i.e 3 £\g4 gets active piece-play as compensa­

tion for his somewhat compromised
This is the most active and critical an­ kingside pawn-structure. 10 £ib3 (10
swer to 6 J&e3 but demands more £}f5? jfc.xf5 11 exf5 Wa5) and now:
learning than 6...e5. White must choose a) 10....&xc3+!? 11 bxc3 £>ge5 is
between the more positional approach playable here or next move though
where he preserves his bishop from many fiancheUo fanatics hate to give
exchange, and the line where he al­ up the dark-squared bishop. The g3-
lows the exchange and tries to use his bishop is out of play and Black doesn’t
lead in development. In the former have to castle. After 12 h4 Eg 8 the sit­
case, the position will resemble the uation is hard to assess. Black can try
Dragon. In the latter case, the game is to use the c4-square in front of the
of a most unusual character. doubled pawns.
b) 10...jLe6 11 l e 2 (White can opt
Game 22 to castle queenside, though this has its
Hector - L agu now risks: 11 Wd2 2c8 12 f3 &ge5 13 &d5
2nd Bundesliga 1994/5 £ig6 14 0-0-0 a5 15 £ b 5 0-0 16 * b l
5ia7 17 £.c2 a4 with counterplay, Tem-
1 e4 c5 2 £if3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £}xd4 pone-Soppe, Cordoba 1990) ll...h5
£>f6 5 £>c3 £ sc6 6 &e3 £}g4 (D) 12h4gxh4 13fi.xh4fic8 14 0-0 (safer
is 1 4 # d 2 1 tb 6 15£id5.fi.xd5 16exd5
^ c e 5 17 c3 fi.f6 18 Wf4 = Raaste-
i i L t * * * m Yrjola, Finnish Ch 1996) 14...£f6! 15
W I I B A -&xf6 (15 fi.g3, Adams-Kramnik, Bel­
grade 1995, and now Black missed
15...h4! 16 Af4 Sg8 1) 15...Qxf6 is
unclear according to Kramnik. Black
■ e j a m p gets some pressure against the white
■ B O B king with moves like ...h4 and ...2g8.
ABAB B A B Both sides have problems finding a
good spot for their king in this line.
This line can be compared with the
currently popular Najdorf line (5...a6
7£b5 6 $Le3 £ig4). ...£>c6 should be more
These days 7 fi.g5 h6 8 fi.h4 g5 9 useful than ...a6.
$Lg3 3Lg7 is quite popular, when Black 7...©xe3 8 fxe3
124 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

After 8 £lxc6 £ixd 1 9 £sxd8+ ' i ’xdS al) 12...#e7?! 13 b4! g6 14 b5

10 S x d l a6 White can only hope that .£g7!? (14...c5 15 e4! leads to compli­
his more active position compensates cations, which have been favourable
for the bishop-pair; for example, 11 for White in practice) 15 bxc6 Jk.c8 16
j».c4 e6 12 a4 i.d 7 13 0-0 £ e 7 14 f4 e4 (16 Wg3) 16...&xe5 17 Badl 0-0
* c 7 15 2 0 Had8 16 Hfd3 Ehe8 V2-V2 ( 17...f5!? 18 exd5 Wh4) 18 exd5 exd5
Zso.Polgar-Aseev, Brno 1991. 19 £>xd5 was favourable for White in
8...6d7 9 0-0 Gipslis-Inkiov, Jurmala 1985.
The premature exchange 9 fc.xc6?! a2) 12...f5!? 13 exf6 Wxf6 14
bxc6 10 0-0 e5! 11 Wf3 f6 12 £>de2 ^ 5 + (1 4 1'xf6gxf6 15 Exf6 l g 7 16
$Le7 gives Black a very solid position, Sf3 c5 17 €ide2 Eb8 gave Black fine
Bauer-Dorfman, France 1993. compensation for the pawn in the game
9...e6 Hoelscher-Shulskis, Gausdal 1995 but
Neither 9...g6?! 10 $Lxc6 bxc6 11 the critical 14 Wg3 Wg6 15 W cl is un­
*ff3 f6 12 e5! nor 9...£te5?! 10 &f3 tested) 1 4 ...^ 6 15 We5 i.e 7 16 Ef3
can be recommended for Black. Sc8 17 E af 1 wg5 was fine for Black
10 ,&xc6 bxc6 (D) in Schumi-Thorhallsson, Oberwart
1991.
b) ll...^.e7! 12exd6± xd613»h5
0-0 and now White has two natural
moves, of which the former may be
more accurate:
bl) 14 Hadl Wc7 15 Hd3 (15 £sf3
f5 16 ®h4 Hf6 17 # c 4 Hb8 18 e4 Hb4
19 Wd3 e5 20 b3, Kupreichik-Peek,
Groningen open 1997,20.. JLc8 is OK
for Black) 15...fiad8 16 E fdl f5!?
(moves like 16.. ..&c8 or 16...^.e7 may
be more solid) 17 'B,h4 jLc8 18 £)f3 f4
(stopping # c 4 ) 19 exf4 ,&e7 20 'B,f2
This is positionally very bad for Exf4 21 Exd8+ Axd8 and the bishop-
White so he has to play actively to pair compensated for the ugly pawn-
benefit from his lead in development structure in Berg-R5t5agov, Stock­
and the open lines. Black has a bishop- holm 1998.
pair and a massive centre. White has b2) 14 £se4 £.e7 15 Hadl and
the potential break e4-e5 and some now:
pressure along the f- and d-files. b21) Perfectly playable and per­
11 # f 3 haps safest is 1 5 ...^ ? 16 £>g5 (16
11 e5 !? is even more aggressive and Bf3!?) 16...^.xg5 17 Wxg5 c5 18 <&b3
committal. Then: £ b 5 19 Ef2 Eac8 20 Efd2 a5! Haik-
a) There is probably still much un­ Lemer, Metz 1998.
explored territory in the line 1l...d5!? b22) l S . . . * ^ 16 Ef3 c5 17 Eh3
121T3: h6 18 Sg3 ,Sfh8. Black is fine but he
 Other Variations 125

still has lo defend very accurately. j£.g4 20 Sg5 Wb4 ?. White’s position
Gipslis-Edelman, Biel 1994 continued is suspicious because of the extraordi­
in Black’s favour: 19 £if3 (19 £lb3 is nary location of the rook. In Fedorov-
slightly better) 19.-fi.e8 20 Wg4 Wxb2 Tukmakov, Nikolaev Z 1993 White
21 c3 Sg8 +. managed to save himself with tactics:
11...Wf6 12®e2 21 S b l f5 (21...h6!? was played in
Of course 12 Wxf6 gxf6 13 Sxf6 Ptacnikova-Grosar, Mitropa Cup (Mon-
fi.g7 is dream compensation for Black, tecatini Terme) 1997) 22 a3 Wc5?!
who often has trouble activating his (22...Wb6) 23 Sxg4! fxg4 24 £>g5 e4
dark-squared bishop in many Classi­ 25 £lcxe4 We5 26 Wc4+ * h 8 27
cal lines. £)xd6.
12...% 5 14...0-0 15 £ixc6
If a draw is enough. Black can play 15 W bl Sfd8 doesn’t make much
12...1rd8. difference.
13 2 f3 (D) 15...fi.xc6 16 Wxc6 S ab8 17 £>dl
Sfc8 18 Wa4 Wb5
After the forced exchange, Black
regains the pawn, with comfortable
equality.
19 Wxb5
It is dangerous for White to try 19
Wxa7 Af6.
19...2xb5 20 c3 3c4 21 b3 Sxe4
22 c4 Sb7 23 <&c3 Se5 24 S d l f5 25
Sd3 h5 26 Sf2 Sa5?!
Black is slightly better after the log­
ical 26...g5 27 Sfd2 * f 7 , since 28
£>b5? is met by 28...d5.
13...fi.e7! 27 Sfd2 fi.f6 28 £se2 fi.e5 29 £>f4
It’s time to make a developing move. * f 7 30 £lxh5 g5 31 £)g3 Sa3 32 £ie2
The old way to play, 13...Wc5 14 Sai l a5 33 £>d4 fi.xd4 34 Sxd4 a4 35
f6 15 Sg3 &eJ, is harder to under­ Sxd6 axb3 36 axb3 Sbxb3 37 c5
stand and more difficult to play though Sxe3 38 c6 Sac3 39 * f2 Se5 40 S2d3
there is no evidence this is bad. Some­ Sc2+ 41 S d2 Sec5 42 Sxc2 Sxc2+
times White gets chances with the 43 4>e3 &e7 44 Sd7+ * e 8 45 Sd6
central break e5. Vj -‘/2
14Wa6
White should not be too adventur­ Conclusion: This line is not theoreti­
ous with his rook: 14 Sg3 Wc5 15 £}f3 cally dangerous for Black, but he has
Wa5 16 e5 (Black has very nice com­ to be ready to defend accurately. On
pensation after 16 Sxg7?! fi.f6 17 Sg3 the other hand, there are several op­
Sb8) 16...0-0 17 exd6 (17 S dl'.? d5 is portunities for White to outplay him­
unclear) 17...fi.xd6 18 Sh3 e5 19 Sh5 self.
126 Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian

O d d s and Ends 8 g4 and many other moves are met

by 8...d5.
There are also many alternatives for
White on the sixth move that are very
unpopular in practice.

Game 23
M ovsesian - C. Peptan
Groningen open 1997

1 e4 c5 2 £ sc3 £ k 6 3 £>f3 d6 4 d4
cxd4 5 £>xd4 £if6 6 h3
This is hardly the most dangerous
move, but if White manages to play
g4, £sde2, Jig2 and £)g3 without dis­
turbance, he may be quite happy. Other 8...<&h5! 9 g3 exf4 10 £ x f4 £ e 7 11
odd moves: Wd2 £ « 5
a) 6 £>xc6 (this exchange gener­ Castling would have been safer,
ally strengthens Black’s centre and is when Black has nothing to worry about.
normally not advisable without any 12 £sd4 £sxf4 13 &b5+ £ d 7 14
special benefits) 6...bxc6 7 jLd3 (7 gxf4 £ h 4 + 15 <£>e2 £)c6 16 £>f3 0-0
£ c 4 e6) 7.,.g6 8 0-0 Ag7 9 f4 (9 &g5 17 S ad i &e7
Sb8 lO fibl 0-0 11 Wd2 Se8 1 2 * h l This position is difficult to assess.
Wa5 Schmid-Barbero, Zurich 1990) White has the d5-square as compensa­
9...0-0 10 <±>hl Sb8 11 Wei d5!? 12 tion for slight troubles with his maj­
3 b 1 dxe4 13 £>xe4 £sd5 with an equal esty.
position, Karasev-Lagunov, Novosi­ 18 £>d5 Se8 19 * f l i.f 8 20 Jk.d3
birsk 1989. Wc8 21 Wg2 S e6 22 f5 Sh6 23 S g l
b) 6 jfc.b5 (here White usually has WdS 24 Wg3 £>e5 25 &xe5 dxe5 26
to exchange on c6 or lose a tempo) Wxe5 Sxh3 27 Ed2 Sf3+ 28 4>e2
6...£d7 7 0-0 g6 (7...e6 8 S el £ e 7 is Sh3 29 * d l 4 h 8 30 £ c 4 Sc8 31
not bad either) 8 £ x c6 !? bxc6 9 £tf3 £>f4 Sh4 32 £ x f7 Wb6 33 S e l &a4
Wc7 10S el JLg4 11 h3 Axf3 12 Wxf3 34 ,£b3 2e8 35 £>e6 ,4.xb3 36 axb3
&g7 13 -£.f4 <Sid7 Samwel-Afifi, Cairo Wa6 37 Sd3 Sg4 38 &d2 h6 39 Wd4
1996. Sg2+ 40 Se2 Wa5+ 41 b4 £.xb4+ 42
c) After 6 £\b3, 6...e6 leads to a c3 Sxe2+ 43 &xe2 £ f 8 44 # d 7 Sb8
Scheveningen where the early £\b3 is 45 tT 7 Wa2 46 f6 &xb2+ 47 * f 3 g5
not the most active approach but Black 48 £sxf8 g4+ 49 * g 3 1-0
can choose 6...e5 with a likely trans­
position to the line 6 £.e2 e5 7 £>b3 Conclusion: These lines are not criti­
studied earlier, because 7 $Lc4 j Lc6 is cal, but especially 6 h3 can turn such
hardly anything to worry about. for Black if he has no knowledge of an
6...e5 7 &de2 £e6! 8 f4 (D) exact reply.
Index of Variations

1 e4 c5 2 £if3 d6 3 d4 c\d 4 4 £)xd4 7 £)db5 22

£sf6 5 £>c3 £>c6 (D) 7 £lxc6 25
7 £>b3 22 7....fc.e7 8 0-0 0-0 25
7...h6 8 0-0 ± e7 9 S e l 76 9...0-0 10
h3.fc.e6 11 fc.fl /711...£)b8 12 a4
18
12 b3 20 12...a6 13 a4 £>bd7 14 ,fc.b2
27
12...£bd7 13 a5 a6 14 <&d5 79

B) Sozin and Velimirovic

6 .fc.c4 e6 (D)
6..Wb6:
a) 7 .fc.e3 66
b) 7£\de2 66
Now: c) 7£klb5 67
A: Alternatives to 6 fc.c4 and 6 .fc.g5 d) 7 <&xc6 66 7...bxc6 8 0-0 69
B: 6 J».c4 e) 7 &b3 72 7...e6 8 £.f4 (8 i.g 5 72;
C: 6 JLg5 8 fc.e3 75; 8 0-0 75) 8...£>e5 75

A) Neither Sozin nor Rauzer

6£e2
6 f4 e5 27
6 h3 726
6 <£)xc6 726
6 A.b5 726
6 £)b3 126
6 f3 e5 25 (6...£)xd4 7 Wxd4 g6 47)
6 .fc.e3 e5 30 (6...&g4 725)
6 g3 g6 55 7 fc.g2 56 (7 £>de2 55
7...fc.g7 8 £.g2 0-0 9 0-0 Sb8 10
a4 a6 59) 7...£>xd4 8 Wxd4 ,fc.g7
56 7.fc.e3
6...e5 16 7 £ b 3 62
6...<S}xd4 7 Wxd4 g6 40 7 0-0 62 8 .fc.b3 (other moves
7 £if3 76 62-5) 8...0-0 (8...a6 65) 9 ± e 3 (9
128 Easy Guide to the C lassical Sicilian

f4 63) 9...a6 10 f4 £)xd4 1 i &xd4 I £e2 120

b5 63 7 Ab5 779 7 ...« rb6 (7...i.d7 120) 8
7...a6 8 We2 46 £ e 3 (8 £ x f6 727) 8...Wc7 722
8 Ab3 59 8...1^7 9 f4 (9 0-0 60) 7...a6 8 0-0-0
9.. A d 60 Now:
8...Wc7 46 C l : 8...£.d7
8...®a5 47 C2: 8...H6
9 0-0-0
9 £ b 3 48 C l ) Rauzer w ith 8... jLd7
9...thaS 8...£.d7 100 9 f4
9.. A d 1 0 £ b 3 £>a5 49 9 f t 100
10£.d3 9 . . A d 101
10 l b 3 57 9...b5 108 10 Jii.xf6 (10 £>xc6 109)
10...b5 52 10...gxf6 110 11 4-bl (11 f5 770;
11 £ixc6 111) ll...W b6 113
C) Richter-Rauzer Attack 10 £)f3 b5 102 11 &xf6 104
6 £-gS e6 (D) II e5 b4 12 exf6 bxc3 13 Wxc3 gxf6
102
11...gxf6 12 &bl Wb6 104

C2) Rauzer w ith 8...h6

8...h6 84 9 £ e 3
9 jLh4 84
9 £ixc6 bxc6 10 £ f4 d5 11 We3 85
9 i.f4 £ d 7 87
9...£d7 10 f3
10 f4 90 10...b5 11 &d3 I d 12 h3
(12 4-bl 91) 12...£>xd4 13 Axd4
b4 14 £le2 e5 92
10...b5 93 11 g4
7 Wd2 11 * b l 93
7 Wd3 779 11 £\xc6 93
7 ^ x c 6 bxc6 8 e5 119 11...£>e5 94