Dorian Rogozenko The Reloaded QUALITY CHESS § §The Sveshnikov Reloaded Dorian RogozenkoFirst published in Sweden 2005 by Quality Chess Europe AB Copyright © Dorian Rogozenko 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in ar trieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostati magnetic tape, photo coping, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 91-975243 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess Europe 18, SE-413 09 Gothenbu: tel: +46-31-24 47 90 fax: +46-31-24 47 e-mail: info@qual website: www.qualitychessbooks.com ‘chessbooks.com ard Edited by John Shaw & Jacob A ‘Typeset: Ari Ziegler Janny Kristiansen and Colin McNab role Dunlop Drawing: Claus Quist Jessen Printed in Estonia by ‘lallinna Raamatutriikikoja LLCCONTENTS Bibliography Introduction Part I: Early Deviations oF ions at Move 6 2. the 7.e3 Line 3. The Tat Line 4. The 7.2.45 Line Part Il: ~ 9,2d5 — The Positional Line 6, Introduction @ 9.2.45 ~. The Silene Draw Offer: 9...2a 8.9.,.507 10.2.ne7 9. Introduction to 1 10.11 ee 12,1. 13.11 14th 15.11 ‘ds 10.22 H6 Axio 13 0-0 12.9 2 Ebs Part Ill: 9.2xf6 gxfo 10.25 — The Main Line 16, Introduction to the Main Line 17, Ineroduction to the 10. 18. The Quiet 13.03 19, ‘The Sharp 13.ct Section 1: The 10...f5 System 20, Introduction to 10,..95 21, The Bishop Sacrifice 112xb5 axb5 12.1 sb5 2. 113 gr System Section 2: The 10...f5 System met by 1L.c3 23. Introduction t@ 11.3 2A. Incrod) 25. 12085 En Section 3: The 10...f5 System met by 11.3d3 26. Introduction to the Modern Main Line 11.23 26 27, Introduction to the Aggressive 12.2h5 28, ‘The Variation with 12... 29, The Variacion with the Acti 30. ‘The Modeselooking 13.¢3 31, Introduction to 12.0-0 (72. 32.147 xb5 33. L4.c4 34, 14 35. 14.c3 36. The Variation with 1 3°. The Variation with | 38. 14 Index of variations on to 12d 3 hs 9 13 i a 23 29 31 4 & 49 37 59 63 81 103 105) 17, legBibliography Sicilian: Sveshnikow Variation, A. Adorjan, T. Horvath (Pergamon 1987 Sitzilianskaja Zashita, Systema 5...e5, E. Sweshnikov (Fizkulura i Sport 1988) The Sveshnikov Sicitian, M. Krasenkov (Cadogan 1996) New Ideas I The Sveshnikow Sicilian, VW. Neverov, P. Macusenko (Bacsford 1996) ‘The Sveshnikov Sicilian, N. McDonald (Batsford 1999) Easy Guide To The Sveshnikov Sicilian, J. Aagaard (Everyman Chess 2000) ‘The Sveshnikov Sicilian, D. Rogozenko (CD-ROM, ChessBase 2000) The Complete Svestmikov Sicilian, Y. Yakovich (Gambit 2002) The Sicilian With e5 In Tournament Practice, T. Horvath (Caissa Chess Books 2003) Periodicals Mega Database 2005 (ChessBase} Corr. Database 2004 (ChessBase) Informant 1-91 (Sahovski) w In Chess Yearbook 1-73 (Interchess) The Week: hy Chess 1-548 (London Chess Centre} List of symbols + Check ! A strong move " A brilliant move 2 An interesting move A dubious move A mistake A blunder White has a winning position White is better White is slightly better The position is equal The position is unclear + + t Compensation for the sacrificed material Black tly better Black is better Black has a winning position 448i 8 1-0 Whice won YY The game was drawn 0-1 Black won (x) sth march game corr. Cortespondence gameIntroduction 5 ntroduction ‘The Sveshnikov There is litle doubr that the Sicilian Sveshnikov is one of che most popular opening systems in modern chess. Hundreds of articles and dozens of books have been written about this opening. Asa result of the fact that almost every top player included the Sveshnikov in his opening repertoire, its theory has advanced incredibly deeply in the past few years, Nowadays practically every major top tournament inevitably contributes to the theory of the Sveshnikow. will not try to explain here the reasons for its popularity: I believe the readers can find those for themselves. The main task of this book is to have an inside look and to analyse the present state of the Sveshnikov’s theory. It is conccived as an extensive up-to-date theoretical work, including shore explanations about the historical development of the most fashionable variations. In my opinion the Sveshnikov isa very complex opening and using ie well in practice involves two aspects: 1 — good understanding of characteristic positional factors. 2 — concrete knowledge of complicated theoretical variations. Top GMs like Leko or Kramnik, who are the best connoisseurs of the Sveshnikov, combine these factors very well and they feel comfortable against any opponents, with either White or Black, Many young grandmasters have learned the theory of the Sveshnikov overnight and do not really feel the importance of strategic factors. Instead of The 9.2xf6 gxf 10.245 line going deep into the strategy of the opening, they are content with memorizing concrete variations. In practice this leads to a lack of creativity and depth. For instance, Evgeny Sveshnikov always evaluates any variation in this opening by first considering the fight for the d5-square, Thanks to his great experience he simply feels how every move contributes to the fight for d5, or how it influences other major strategic factors of the Sveshnikov (such as “the problem of the a3-knight”, favourable trade of minor pieces, changing the pawn formation, or prospects of counterplay), The Russian grandmaster also knows very well all typical fighting methods in standard positions. However, dueto the increasing amount of theory in the Sveshnikov Sicilian, the very concrete knowledge of variations became no less important than general understanding. This book tries to combine both mentioned aspects: concrete theory with general explanations Thave been playing the Sveshnikoy for about 15 years and all this time I have worked on its theory oneway oranother. Ithappened that Ihelped other grandmasters to unravel the labyrinth of multiple variations. Besides, I commented on hundreds of games and wrote numerous articles for different ess publications. In 2000 I also wrote a CD- ROM on the Sveshnikov. Inevitably time has corrected some of my previous assessments. New ideas have been introduced that have changed6 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded many conclusions of other Sveshnikov specialises and authors of different books as well. I am happy to have the opportunity now to present a completely upgraded material of the previous works in the field. A few words about the structure of the book. ‘There are three parts: Part 1 deals with the early deviations, Pare 2 with 9.2d5 and Pare 3 with 9.8xf6 gxfi 10.815. Pare 3 is divided into the .g7 System and the 10...f5 System. ‘The latter contains the largest amount of theory and therefore needs more explanation about its structure, I have divided the 10...5 System into three Sections. Section 1 includes chapters with the bishop sacrifice 11.&xb5 and 11.g3. Section 2 includes all those variations where White plays an early c2-c3. I think this represents the easiest way for the reader to find quickly the desired opening variation: if White plays a quick c2 3 (usually on moves 11, 12, or 13), then the variation is included in Section 2, otherwise (if White delays the advance of the ¢-pawn for a while) the positions can be found in Section 3, which deals with 11.243 £e6 and no c2-c3 yer. As usual in complex openings there ate also many possible transpositions. Each time in the book when there are possible transpositions to other variations, I indicate the page number of those variations, so that the reader can find them quickly. It must be said chat the main positions of the Sveshnikov can be reached via two move orders ed c5 2.063 Deb 3.d4 cxdd 4.Dxd4 DMG 5.213 5 6.2db5 d6 7.2g5, and 1.c4 c5 2.4)f3 e6 3.44 oxd4 4,Axd4 O16 5.23 De6 6.AdbS d6 7.24 5 8.895. We have the same position, but in the second case it took one more move to reach it. In order to avoid confusion with the numbering of the moves, the traditional move order (the first ‘one mentioned) is widely accepted and all the games in the present book are also standardized to it. T hope that the book will provide readers with a clear view of the current state of theory in the Sicilian Sveshnikov and will also help them better understand this interesting and highly popular opening variation. Dorian Rogozenko Romania May 2005Part I Early DeviationsChapter 1 Deviations at Move 6 1.e4 5 2.063 Deb 3.d4 cxd4 4.Dxd4 ALG 5.23 €5 Before continuing with the standard 6.2db5 we need a brief examination of the alternatives. Ac this stage when White deviates from the main line Black usually has several perfectly playable options. The simplest method for Black to avoid learning unnecessary variations isto remember the following: when the d4-knight goes backwards, Black plays 6...2b4. When the white knight gocs forwards, Black advances the d-pawn. Due to Whites problems in gaining an advantage in the main lines of the Sveshnikov, sometimes White players deviate very early, even at the cop level, hoping to catch their opponents unprepared. ‘Therefore knowing the basic theory is essential even here. ‘The relevant options here are 1) 6.4£3, 2) 6.2de2, 3) 6.Ab3 and 4) 6.6. Besides this 6.2xc6 is completely harmless. After 6...bx06 Black has a good Sicilian position and later can develop the bishop either to b4 or €7. A few examples: 7.£c4 (7.2d3 Qe7 8.0-0 0-0 9.sthi d5 10.h3 &b8 11.8b1 £6 and Black can hardly hope for more than this when playing L...c5, Berndsen - Lautier, Reykjavik 2003) 7onb4 (7...Ske7 8.0-0 0-0 9.8b3 d6 10.¥d3 d7 11.Be3 Wa5 with equal prospects, Zabaleta — Komaroy, Cali 2000) 8.0-0 (8.22¢5 h6 9.2xF6 Wf 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 0-0 12.8b1 dé 13,.Wd2 Be6 14,8b3 Bfd8? Speck — Cuebe, Winterthur 2001) 8...0-0 9.8g5 h6 10.8h4 8b7 11.23 Be7 12.3 d6 13.b4 We7 14.Me2 HfdsT Kandic- McShane, Kuppenheim (blitz) 2003. 1) 6.23 8647.24 “This pawn sacrifice is practically forced, since both 7.243 d5 and 7.2g5 h6 8.2xf6 Bxc3t 9.bxc3 Wxf6 are obviously great for Black. 70-0 7...€)xe4 is a possible alternative. As the Dutch IM Jeroen Bosch pointed out, after 8.l%d5 2d6 9.2b3 Yas 10.0-0! White has enough compensation for the pawn, For instance: 10...Wxd5 11.0xd5 a5 12.8d1 (Bosch), or 10...0-0 11.8d1, The chances are balanced. 8.0-0 8.8d3 d5 9.8xd5 AxdS 10.Hxds Dd4 11.Wxd8 Bxd8 12.Dxd4 exd4 13.03 Sxc3t 14.bxc3 dxc3 was slightly better for Black in Meijers - Schmircdiel, Leinfelden 2000, 8...Qxc3 9.bxc3 Axe4 10.823 d6 11.Wel 265! 12.841 12.8b1 WaS 13.\h4 Qe6! with the point 14.Bxe4 d5, or 14.8b4 Dxb4 15.cxb4 Ye7 16.8xe6 fxe6 17.Wxed Bf4 with advantage to Black in both cases.10 The Sveshnikov Reloaded 12...Wa5 13.2b4 Axb4 Ldcxb4 We7 15.243 d53 Bosch — Rogers, Hertogenbosch 1999. 2) 6.Bde2 Bb4 6.85 is a good alternative, but ic makes perfect sense to pin the knight even here. In order to escape the pin White must weaken the queenside, 7.03 BaS Now: 8.b4 2b6 9.e3 (9.2g5? runs into 9...2x24 10.cbxf2 Dg4+ winning) 9...2xe3 10.fxe3 0-0 11.Wd2 d6 12.43 Dg4 13.065 26 14.2xd6 Dxe3 15.Axc8 Dxfl 16.Hxfl Hxc8 17.Hxd8 #fcd8? Rodriguez — Llorens, Santiago 2004. 8.63 h6 9.b4 Bb6 10.Ba4 d5 11.Qxb6 axb6 12.82 0-0 13.g3 dxe4 14.fxe4 and now in Morozevich — Gelfand, Monaco (blindfold) 2003, Gelfand headed for an equal endgame with 14..xdIf. Black could try to set more problems by playing 14....g4, after which White still must be careful to keep the balance. 8.£d2 0-0 9.493 d5 10.exd5 Bxd5 11.xd5 Wad5 12.8xa5 WxaSt 13.b4 Me7 14.843 65 Black’s position was preferable in Petrov ~ Krasenkow, Plovdiv 2003 3) 6.b3 6 .8b4 7.204 Other options are: a) 7.2g5 h6 8.2xf6 Sxc3t 9.bxc3 Wxf6 10.8c4 0-0 11.0-0 d6 12.845 Be7 13.c4 AxdS, L.cxd5 Bg6 15.83 5 16.63 Bd7 17.04 DOF Rudareanu ~ Azarov, Las Palmas 2003. b) 7.2d3 d5 8.cxd5 Oxd5 9.Ld2 Bxc3 (9...8\xc3 10.bxc3 Bd6 11.8hS g6 12.!h6 &£8 13.¥e3 297 is, of course, also no problem for Black) 10.bxc3 0-0 11.0-0 b6 (11...f5 is a good alternative, with slightly better prospects) 12.04 Ade7 13.c5 Be6 14.cxb6 axb6 White has the bishop pair, Black has a better pawn formation. The position was balanced in Mladenovic — Zonulia, Budva 2003. 700 a) 7...d6 is a worthy alternative: 8.0-0 &xc3 9.bxc3 0-0 10.Yd3 Be6 11.8xe6 (11.803 Bxc4 12.Mxc4 Wc7 13,8fdl fd8 14.8d2 b5! 15.Ye2 a5 16.Bad1 b4 17.2b2 bxc3 18.8xc3 Qb4t Crepan — Dobrov, Nova Gorica 2004. Or 11.841 Bxcd 12.Yxcd Bc8 13.Wd3 Ba5 14.8b1 Ded 15.8g5 h6 16.8xf6 Wxf6 17.2d2 Db6 18.061 Dad 19.c4 V5 20.Me3 b6 21.2.g3 Ae6F Crepan — Grosar, Celje 2003.) 11...fxe6 12.833 57 13.c4 2d7 14.Badl b6 15.2d2 We8 16.Bfd1 Bad8 17.We2 We7 For the moment White has pressure on the d-file, but Black can be rather optimistic about the future. He can transfer a knight to ¢5 and later use White’s pawn weaknesses. In Forgach — Luther, Bad Zwesten 1999, after 18.F42! Be8 19.4h5 WE7F White suffered because of his pawn structure in the endgame. b) Rather dangerous for Black is 7...2xe4 8.2xf74 (8.0-0 Axc3 9.bxc3 Be7 is no problem for Black) 8...2xf7 9.Wd5t Gf8 10.Wxe4 d5 11. WE3t gS 12.0-0 Be6 13.8d1 &xc3 14.Yxc3, and in this double-edged position White has the initiative, Romero Holmes — Bewersdorff, Groningen 1988. 8.0-0 White is worse after 8.4d3 d5! 9.exd5 (or 9.dindS Dxd5 10.exd5 De7F) 9...04 10.Mg3 De7 11.0-0 Af. 8...2xc3 9.bxc3 Axed 10.823 d6 11.Hel. 11.43 @c5 (Black has at least equal chancesChapter 1: Deviations at Move 6 Ml after 11...Df6 12.8xd6 BFS!) 12.2xc5 dxc5 13.Bxc5 Wad3 14.cxd3 Hd8- 15.Hfel b6 16.2b5 £d7 17.83 aS 18.226 fc8 19.865 2d7 20.826 &c8 21.8b5 Bd7 YM Miralles — Vaisser, Meribel 1998. Avoiding the draw is unwise for both sides. 11...De5 12.8d1 After 12.2\xc5 dxc5 13.2xc5 He8 the position is about equal. Again the future belongs rather to Black, who after ...22e6, ...W!a5 and ...Hac8 can pur pressure on White's weaknesses 12... We7 13.£4 At most White's compensation is cnough to keep the chances level. Gelfand — van Wely, Monaco (blindfold) 2004, continued 13...L6 14.2b5 ext 15.8xf4 Bad8 (White also has insufficient compensation for the pawn after 15...ac8 16.82 De5) 16.Wf2 and now instead of 16...8e5, which was unclear, Black has better chances after 16...!c7! 17.Ef1 b6 18.2d4 Bes. 4) 6.5, ‘An apparently logical continuation: White threatens a check on d6 and at the same time is preparing co transfer the knight to d5 via ¢3. However, this move has a major drawback, since it allows Black to advance ...d5 right away. 6.265 is the only one of White's 6" move alternatives that contains a relatively significant amount of theory and requires precise knowledge from Black. 6.45, The next sequence of moves is more or less forced. 7.exd5 Bxf5 8.dxc6 bxc6 The Sveshnikov is generally a very ambitious opening. If White is not ready for a principled battle and instead goes for a sideline, then it is advisable for Black to choose the most ambitious continuations and not allow the opponent “to get away” with that attitude. After 8.../xd1+ 9.Bxd1 bxc6 White can be happy to play the arising endgame with a superior pawn formation, even if Black’ slight development advantage compensates for that factor. 10.¢3 2e6 (10...8g6 is about equal) 11.Dc4 Bd7 (11...04%) 12.23 Be7 13.0-0-0 0-0 14.0a5t ‘Zhang Pengxiang ~ Wang Yu, Mumbai 2003. 9.3 Now the endgame after 9.8xd8} Sixd8 is better for Black, who quickly activates all his forces. Besides, White has problems with the c2- pawn, 9.7 10.225 10.84 8xc? (10...e4!? 11.843 2g6 was about equal in J. Rogers ~ McShane, West Bromwich 2004. Now White went astray and resigned soon after: 12.45? cxb5 13.WeSt dB 14.2xb5 2d6 15.Hd4 We7 16.86 De8 17.0-0-0 e7 18.2xe8 gxh6 19.Yxh8e320.hb1 Bxc2#21.hal Sxd1 22.Bxd1 Bxe8-+) 11.8g5 fe7 12.0-0 0-0 and the most White can hope for is to equalise the position. 10...e4 Again the most ambitious move. If 10....2b4 11.Qxf6 gxf6 12.8d3 (12.Bd1? Bed! 13.Exd7 x63 favours Black) 12...8xd3 13.cxd3 (13.Waf6 0-0 14.cxd3=) 13...8xc3t 14.bxc3 He6 15.0-0 0-0 the position is very close to equal, but Black’s pawn formation is slightly inferior and only White can try for the advantage. 10...267 offers equal prospects: a) 11.8xf6 Bxf6 12.Be4 Be7 13.2c4 0-0 14,0-0 &g6 15.Had1 Yb7 16.b3 Wh8 17.Dd6 We7 18.465 Sc5 19.h4 with mutual chances, Potapov ~ Zhigalko, Budva 2003. b) 11.8c4 0-0 12.8d1 Wc8 13.Me2 ef 14.h312 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded He8 15.0-0 Wc7 16.e3 Qg6 17.2f4 Wb6- Campora ~ Dvoirys, Izmir 2004. 11.Be2 11.¥e3 Ded 12.Md2 (12.3 cS) 12..Wixd2¢ 13.axd2 BS 14.0d1 Axf2? 15.Dxf2 €3 16.8xe3 Bxe3 17.8d3 Be6 18.82 Sd4 19.c3 &b6 20.{thd1 0-0-0 Thanks to the bishop pair Black’s chances are preferable, Teske ~ Krasenkow, Germany 2003. 11.8g3 Bd6 12.84 BSF 11...2¢7 11...Rb4 12.2xf6 gxfo 13.We3 is unclear. 11...He6 12.0-0-0 Be7 (12...2b4 13.2xf6 axf6 14.Dxc4 Wred 15.xedt fixed 16.2d4+ Kosztolanczi — Kiss, Eger 1987) 13.¥c4 Wxe4 ic — Raab, Kaufungen In this position White can justify his previous play only by winning che pawn on e4, but analysis shows that Black has strong compensation after that. This means that White's entire opening. strategy starting with 6.2\f5 is not correct. 12.8xf6 ‘This over-ambitious move hands Black the advantage. White must play strictly for a draw with 12.8d1 We6 13.8e4 Bb8 14.b3 (14.8xe6 fxe6! 15.b3 Ad5 16.8xe7 xe7 17.Ba4 3 was better for Black in Akopian - Yakovich, Rostov- on-Don 1993) 14...Wxce4 15.8xc4 Bb4 16.242 €3 17.fxe3 xc? 18.Bcl Ag6= 12..Axf6 13.2xe4 0-0! 14.Dxf6t gxf6 15.8d2 15.Wed Hfe8t 16.8e2 Sed! with an obvious initiative for Black (Markauss). 15...8fe8t 16.8241 White is also under great pressure after 16.82 Web 17.chf1 Had8. 16..We7t Just one pawn compensation for White's misery. 17.243 17.cl_ 5 20.sbb1 BeS= 17...Bad8 18.21 is obviously insufficient 18.8b5 Had8 19.83 Wt 18...e5 also looks very strong, with the idea ..c5. For instance, after 19.8b1 &xd3 20.cxd3 Wc5t 21.Mc2 Black has a pleasant choice between 21...Wg5t 22.4d2 Be2 and 21...Wh5. In both cases White will struggle co escape Afier 18...5 Black has a clear advantage 19.Hel Exel 20.Wxel Bxd3 21.cxd3 4 22.44 Wxch2F Faisst — Hohm, corr. 1993. 19.b3 WeS 20.8b1 c4 21.bxc4 Eb8 22.8xb8 2xb8 23.Ye3 Wh2t 24.hd1 Se4t 25.3 Walt 26.%d2 WxhI—+ I. Rogers — Volzhin, Valle d'Aosta 2002.Chapter 2 The 7.2e3 Line Led c5 2.D63 Acb 3.d4 cxd4 4.Oxd4 DEG 5.Dc3 £5 6.2db5 d6 6...h6 offers White a pleasant endgame: 7.Dd6+ 7.Od5 Oxd5 8.exd5 a6 9.dxc6 axb5 10.cxd7+ Bxd7 11.8d3 Bc6 12.0-0 Wd5 13.We4 hS 14.83 7 has been known to be acceptable for Black since the old game Vitolinsh — Lutikoy, Beltsy 1970. Time has nor changed that evaluation, 7...xd6 8.¥89xd6 We7 9.8 xe74 ‘The other possibility 9.Db5 leads to more complicated positions: 9...8b8! 10.Hxe7# Pxe7 11.3 (or 11.e3 Dxed 12.F3 a6 13.fxed axb5 14.8xb5 d6=) 11...Dxe4 12.834 d6 13.0-0-0 Bd8 14.3.6 15.fred axb5 16.8xb5~ Zilberstein — Lakdawala, San Diego 2004. 9..S82X€7 ‘The bishop pair secures White the advantage, although winning such positions requires a long and precise effort, 10.83 d6 11.f3 Be6 12.0-0-0 Bac8 12...—Bhd8 13.g4 Zac8 14.h4 e8?! 15.2h2 a6 16.g5 hxg5 17.hxg5 b5 18.266 Hd7 19.2d5+ Sxd5 20.exd5 Sb7 21.23 D8 22.F4+ Stein — Myagmarsuren, Sousse 1967. However, as, indicated by the Dutch GM Reinderman, Black could play 13...d5! not fearing 14.2c5+ Le8 15.Ab5 Lack! 16.Dd6+ Bxd6 17.Bxd6 dxed with good compensation for the exchange, Therefore, instead of 13.g4, Reinderman indicates that White keeps the advantage with the precise 13.c2b1, followed by 14.2457. 13.a3 Temakes Black’s knij ¢ to take away the b4-square from 13..a6 14.eb1 ‘The immediate 14.¢4 looks more to the point, even though after 14..25 Black still keeps good chances to neutralise White’ initiative. 14,,.Da5 15.g4 Ded 16.8xc4 Exe 17.h4 hs! 18.g5 Bd7 19.g6 £6 20.8d2 Ehe8 21.Be2 b5 22.8)g3 8h8 23,8hd1 Hcé Hamdouchi ~ Shaw, Gibraltar 2004. White failed to break through Black’s defence in a game that lasted another 30 moves. As we can see, the main drawback of 6...h6 is that Black is playing exclusively for a draw. 7.23 ‘This move has disappeared from high-level practice. White's idea is to try to use the future weakness of the b6-square, but long ago Black found several ways to achieve good play. 7...a6 8.23 Bb8 “This has established itself as the most precise. ‘The idea is to meet 9.2c4 with 9...b5 after which b6 will be protected. I must mention14 The Sveshnikov Reloaded that the forced variations starting with 8...b5 9.Dd5 Oxd5 10.exd5 De7 11.4 DFS are, in my, opinion, by no means bad for Black either. 9.Qd5 Dxd5 10.exd5 De7 11.c4 Or 11.c3 GPS 12.8d2 Be7 13.g3 (13.2d3 0-0 14.0-0 h4 followed by ...f5 with equality) 13...0-0 14.222 2d7 15.0-0 g6 16.2e1 h5! and Black has good play. 11.b4 ‘The idea of this move is, at least for a while, to keep the c4-square available for the knight. 11..0f5 12.8d2 Ge7 13.2d3 (13.3 AS!) 13...0-0 14.0-0 Bhd followed by ...f5 with typical double-edged play in which Black’s chances are somewhat preferable. For instance: 15.A)e4 5 16.f4 Bg6 17.g3 exfd 18.gxh4 B16 19.8b1 b5 20.85 Wb6t 21.ceh1 Wd4 22.8c2 ®h4F Szalanczy - P. Horvath, Hungary 1993. 11...Af5 12.2d2 Se7 12...g6= 13.243 2g5 14.22 14.2c3 0-0 15.0-0 Dh4F 16.c5 Axg2t 17.Saxg2 BF4 18.h4 dxc5 Black has a powerful initiative for the piece. In Perenyi — T. Horvath, Budapest 1982, White collapsed quickly after 19.2e4 b5 20.b4 £5 21.863 a5!, bur even the best option 19.¥#f3 after 19...b5 followed by ...f5 or ..8b7 leaves Black with excellent compensation. 14...0-0 15.0-0 He8 16.f4 04 17.8c2 816 18.8b1 g6 19.2h1 h5 20.b4 Sax — Adorjan, Hungary 1981, reached this position and now according to Adorjan Black could have kept the advantage with 20...e3 21.81 &d7.Chapter 3 The 7.a4 Line Led cS 2.063 Dc6 3.44 cxdd 4.xd4 DIG 5.23 €5 6.Ddb5 d6 7.04 ‘This flank pawn advance is a very old method of preventing ...b7-b5. It is mainly designed to secure the c4-square for White’ pieces. es drawback is that it represents a fairly slow method of development. Black can use the offered time by starting active play immediately. 7.06 8.223 2g4 Black’s plan involves fighting for the d5-square with ...206, ...8c8, ...Db4. The preliminary sortie with the bishop to gé is designed to provoke the answer £2-f3, after which the a7-gl diagonal becomes weak. ‘This will be an important trump for Black in various tactical complications. 8...Be4 was used for the first time in the practice by Pelikan back in 1956 (!). Later it was overshadowed by 8...266, but in the mid 90's 8...8¢4 became popular again and nowadays it is considered as good as to play is a matter of taste: both of them secure pleasant play. 9.202 After 9.3 &e6 it is White who must think about keeping the game level: a) 10,863?! Ob4! 11.Dc4 (11.4 A5F) 11...d5 12.866 We7! After this unusual move White is in serious trouble. He is unable to hold the position in the centre: 13.exd5 (13.xe5 Wd6 14.244 dxe4#) 13...Dbxd5 14.2xd5 Bxd5 15.22 Bds 16.842 (no better is 16.8cl Ye7 17.03 BS 18.b4 &xf2t 19.d¢xf2 0-0 with a big advantage for Black, K. Mueller ~ Babula, Germany 1998) 16...2b4 17.Wc3 Bgs (also strong is 17...8c8) 18.Bd1 Axc2# 19.Mxc2 Bb4y 20.Dd2 AES 21,8cl Hc8 and White soon resigned in De Firmian — Vallejo Pons, Selfoss 2003. b) 10.8g5 Be7 11.8c4 0-0 12.8xf6 Sxf6 13.Ad5 &h4i! 14.g3 Be5 15.0-0 Pht 16,hg2 65 17.cxf5 Bxf5 18.843 26 19.8e4 Ec8 20.c3 ®a5 21.We2 We8! 0-1 Vescovi ~ Shabalov, Paget Parish 2001. ©) 10.804 WbOP (10.88 11.263 Abs 12.Bxe6 fre6 13.Me2 Be7 14.0-0 0-0 was a slight plus for Black in Reinhardt — Pelikan, Mar del Plata 1956) 11.Bd5 (11.b3 Be7 12.2xe6 feb 13.2c4 Wd4 14.8d2 d5 15.He2 Wa7 16.83 Ac5¥ Stambulian — Tiegubov, Krasnodar 2001) 11...8xd5 12.8xd5 Ab4 13.Lb3 d5 14.exd5, Abxd5 15.2c4 We7 16.0-0 &e5t 17.0eh1 0-0= Tomescu - Vlad, Calarasi 1995, d) 10.Ach eB 11.43 Abs 12.843 ds L3.exd5 Dfed5 14.Bexd5 Oxd5 15.Axd5 &xd5 16.0-0 &c5# 17.dohI 0-0= S. Farago - Wende, Budapest 2003.16 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded 9...Sxe2 10.xe2 d5 11.2g5! L1exdS Bxd5 12.Oxd5 Wad5 is at least equal for Black. Due to White's somewhat slow opening plan Black succeeded in advancing ...d5. However, with 11.2g5 White still shows ambitions in the centre, 11..0d4 This new active move has brought Black excellent results. Ic looks very natural to centralise the knight with tempo. Alternatives are: a) 11,,.2b4 12.8xf6 Wxf6 13.exd5 Bd4 is a somewhat inferior version of 11...Aid4, since besides 14.84d3 White also has 14.8e4. b) LLudxed 12.Axe4 Be7 13.8xf6 &xf6 14.8d1 Ye7 15.0-0 0-0 16.Ac4 Rad8 17.Be3 We6 18.Dxi6t Wxf6 19.c3 Heb was equal in Christiansen — Rogozenko, Internet (rapid) 2001. More dangerous is 15.AdGt #f8 16.264 and Black still has problems to solve. c) After 11..d4 12.8d5 Black can check ‘White’ intentions with 12...WaSt 13.2d2 Wd8. ‘Then 14.Dxf6t Wxk6 offers approximately equal prospects. If White is ready for a quick draw and repeats the position with 14.g5, then Black can either accept it with 14...!4a5¢, or play the more ambitious 14...2)b4, Efimenko — Smirnov, Rethymnon 2003, continued 15.8xf6 gxf6 16.863 Dxd5 17.exd5 Mast 18.21 0-0-0 19.2\c4 Mc5 20.63 &e7 with a double-edged position, Rejecting the repetition by playing 14...e7 is inferior for Black. Then 15.2xf6 &xf6 16.84 a5 (or 16...b8 17.05 De7 18.Axf6F gxf6 17.0-0 Aig6 18.g3 Timofeev— Ni Hua, Goa 2002) 17.0-0 0-0 and now in Arzumanian ~ ‘Smirnov, Nefteyugansk 2002, White could have demonstrated the weakness of Black's queenside with the strong 18.223!, intending 19.2b3 with a clear strategic advantage 12.83 12.8xf6? Dxe2 13.8xd8 Axc3 14.8c7 Dad 15.8xe5 (15.exd5 would have offered more chances to escape) 15...f6 16.844 0-0-0 17.b1 bS 18.exd5 Bxd5 19.2¢3 Dxb2 20.ke2 &b7 and Black won soon in Hector ~ San Segundo, Lanzarote 2003. ‘After 12.8443 Black has two playable options: 12...dxe4 13,xe4 Be7 14.2xf6 gxf6 (14...2xf6 15.c3 followed by 16.d6+ favours White) 15.0-0 We7 16.c3 Be6 17.863 0-0-0 18.2 EBhg8 19.De3 D4 20.Dg3 Hd2 was double- edged in Felgaer ~ Halkias, Yerevan 2000. 12...8b4 13.Rxf6 (13.0-0 Bxc3 14.bxc3 dxe4 15.We3 DFS 16.Wh3 Be7 17.2xf6 gxf6 led to a complicated position in De Blauwe — Vidalina, e-mail 2003. White failed to prove compensation for the pawn: 18.Hab] We7 19.Bfd1 £5 20.83 Dg6 21.g3 0-0F) 13...¥xf6 14.0-0 (Black has the advantage after 14.exd5 Bc8 15.0-0 &xc3 16.bxc3 Exc3, or 15,Dc4 Axc2+ 16.€xc2 fixed) 14...8xc3 15.bxc3 dred 16.Wxed WE! The position is equal. Black’s idea is obviously to answer 17.!xf4 with 17...Ae2Chapter 4 The 7.4)d5 Line Led 5 2.063 De6 3.44 cxd4 4.2xd4 D6 5.Ac3 €5 6.db5 d67.2d5 This is the only worthy alternative to the main lines. White abandons the idea of fighting for the d5-square and therefore, strictly speaking, the attempt to fight for an opening advantage as well. Instead he hopes to ourplay his opponent in a complicated, double-edged middlegame. ‘The main advantage of 7.2d5 is that White avoids the usual Sveshnikoy problems connected with the knight on a3, since here the knight usually retreats to 3. Jun @xd5 8.exd5 ¢ arising pawn structure defines the plans. White will try to make use of his queenside majority, while Black will seek counterplay in the centre and on the kingside. Black has two possible retreats for the knight: 8...2e7 or 8...2e7. 1) 8...De7 “This natural continuation plans ...\g6, ...e7, 0-0, ...f5 etc. Unfortunately for Black, White can use the temporary disharmony of Black’s pieces to prevent thi 9.3 ‘The established best move, keeping the c4- square available for White's pieces. After 9.c4 \g6 the position is double-edged: a) 10.Wad 2d7 11.4 Ws 12.2c3 b6 13.h4 hS 14.g3 Be7% b) Or 10.h4 a6 11.h5 axbS 12.hxg6 fxg6 13.cxb5 Be? 14.263 Bg5 15.Bd2 Bxe3 16. Yxe3 0-0F 17.2c4 Bad! 18.83 We5t Merz - Steiger, Germany 2003. ©) 10,82 a6 11.Ac3 Le7 12.0-0 0-0 13.a3 {the immediate 13.b4 allows 13...a5, which rather favours Black) 13... f5 14.b4 e4 with mutual chances, Korelov — Novik, Leningrad 1990. 9. DES18 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded 9...€g6 runs into 10.Ma4 &d7 11.¥c4 (or 11.Wb4) and Black is forced to play an inferior endgame after 11.,..2xb5 (11...8c8 12,Wb4 cS 13.83 also favours White) 12.8xb5+ Wd7. Besides the fact that White has two bishops, Black cannot achieve good coordination. 13.g3!? De7 14.863 WxbS 15.hxb5F hd8 16.0-0-0 c7 17.04 a5 18.Bhel + Lima - Prior, Sao Paulo 2004. 9...a6? loses immediately to 10.¥a4. 10.a4 Be7 10...g6 is another possible way to develop pieces. Then 11,2d3 (better than 11.2) 11...8g7 12.0-0 0-0 13.8b3 Be8 (13...06 14.823 Wh4 15.c4 Bb8 16.Hel bS 17.2a5+ Lima ~ Navarro, Brasilia 2000) 14.Bel 14...8d7 (14...b6 15.a5 a6 16.axb6 Bxb6 (16..8b8 17.23 Bxb6 18.Wa4 De7 19.Dc4 Eb5 20.854 Yudasin — Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 1994) 17.Bd4 We7 18.26 Be7 19.4a5! Bd7 20.8d2 Beb8 21.Wa2 5 22.b4 eh8 23.Bacl White's chances are preferable, Moreno Carnero — Vasquez, Calvia 2004) 15.Wb4 28 16.a5% Balogh — P. Horvath, Budapest 2003. 11.243 0-0 Black can transfer the knight to g6 with 11...Bh4 120-0 Ag6. However, the loss of two tempos (Ac7-f5-h4-g6) certainly plays a role: 13.8h1 (or 13.2¢3 a6 14.423 (14...2g5 15.Dc4#) 14...0-0 15.8c4 f5 16.f3 Bh8 17.05, Qd7 18.2b6 8b8 19.We2 with advantage for White, Grigoriants ~ Cheparinoy, Pancevo 2003) 13...a6 14.243 £5 15.Ac4 0-0 16.a5 2h8 17.Bb6 Bb8 18.4 Axf4 19,.SxF4 ext 20.2xf4 96 21.Wa4# Apicella — Nataf, Val d’'Isere 2004. 12.0-0 Db4 12.06 13.8a3 gS 14.8xg5 (14.24 &xcl 15.8xcl is another good possibility for White) 14...Hxg5 15.2xf5 Bxf5 16.8c4 Weds?! (16...2ad8! looks more natural) 17.a3 Bc8 18,.b6 Bc7 19.Wd2 Naumann — Babula, Austria 2003. In such positions it is extremely difficult for Black to create any councerplay, while White has a clear plan to advance the queenside pawns. 13.f4l a6 14.823 exfd Worse is 14...f5 15.004 e4 16.2624. 15.xf4 Dg6 16.2xg6 This secures White a pleasant advantage in a simple position, On the other hand 16.2g3 Bh4 17.Sxh4 Axh4 18.204 a5 19.Wd2 was also slightly better for White in And. Rodriguez — Kramnik, Guarapuava 1991. 16...hxg6 17.2.4 White's better pawn structure secures him better prospects: 17..1e7 18.b3 Bf5 (18...b6 19.Kel Zd8 20.23 Gb8 21.a5t) 19.a5 Bfe8 20.Hel g5 21.23 LAB 22.Yd4 296 23.86 Wxb6t 24.axb6 Sed 25.adi Bad8 26.0a5 Bd7 27.c4t Popovic ~ Simic, Igalo 1994. 17...2f5 18.5 Be8 19.Bel AFB 20.8xe8 (also strong is 20.6 Eb8 (20...fixel} 21.Bxel Zb8 22.MF2+) 21.8xc8 Wxe8 22.Wd2+) 20...Wxc8 Now in Zelcic ~ Illescas, Plovdiv 2003, insteadChapter 4: The 7.05 Line 19 of 21.xd6? Bxd6 22.8xd6 Ye3t 23.21 WA, which allowed Black to activate his pieces, White could have kepe the advantage by playing 21.21b6 Bd8 22.12 followed by fel. 2) 8...Db8 The most popular move and traditionally considered the best by theory. From d7 the knight can both fight against White's c4-c5 and at the same time be efficiently included into Black's own play on the opposite wing. 04 a) 9.43 a6 10.1443 £e7 (also good is 10...b6-) 11.2g5 (or 11.2d2 0-0 12.8b4 Wd7) 11...f6 12.842 0-0 13.8b4 Bd7! Now 14.8xd6 runs into 14...a5, while 14.£xd6 loses 10 14...axb5. Solleveld — Alekseev, Santo Domingo 2003, continued 14.c4 b6 15.2c3 f5 16.82 &b7 17.863 We7 18.0-0 d7 and Black’s chances are by no means worse. b) 9.83 a6 10.4a3 Qd7 11.Wd2 (The immediate 11.2c4?! b5 favours Black since the knight cannot go to a5) 11...2e7 12.Ac4 a5! (12...0-0 13.Le2 £5 14.f4 exfé 15.8xf4 De5 is another double-edged position) 13.24 0-0 14.8¢2 b6 15.0-0 a6 16.Hael 8c5% Arizmendi Martinez - Shariyazdanoy, Biel 2003. c) 9.04 Be7 10.B¢2 (10.83 Bd7 11.82 a6 12.23 5 13.f3 0-0 14.2\c4 b6 15.25 bS 16.2b6 Axb6 17.axb6 Hb8 18.4 bxc4 19.8xc4 Exb6! White needs to be very accurate to keep the balance, Borisek — Wang Yue, Calvia 2004) 10...0-0 11.0-0 &d7 12.h1 (12.4 a6 13.023 b5 was equal in the first game of the match Rowson ~ Adams, London 1998. Or 12.23 a6 13.803 £5 14.3 (14.4 Bf6*) 14... f& 15.262 Rowson — Adams, London (5) 1998. Now after Adams’ suggestion 15...Bf6 Black is at least not worse.) 12...f5 13.4 a6 14.23 8f6 15.04 DbG 16.fre5 dueS 17.De3 Bg5 18.c4 a5 (or 18... £4 19.a5 Bd7 20.8c2 e4 Zelcic ~ Sutovsky, Struga 1995) 19.46 Se6 20.c5 f4 21.Be4 DAT 22.b4 axb4 23.Xb1 Be8! with mutual chances in a sharp position, Hedman — E. Berg, Stockholm 2004. 9...L€7 Here White has two main continuations: 2a) 10.82 and 2b) 10.23. Weaker is 10.%¢3 0-0 11.84¢2, for instance: 11.26 12.03 £5 13.6 Bd7 14.862 6! 15.8cl £8 16.b4 a5 17.43 axb4 18.axb4 Be 19.3 £4! 20.gxf4 &h4f 21.chdl exf4 22.8xF4 Be? 23.Be4 Og6 24.8xd6 BFS and Black's initiative is decisive, Perez Candelario — Moiseenko, Sanxenxo 2004. Also inferior is 10.c5, which is answered by the simple 10...0-0 and White will soon have problems with his d5-pawn. 2a) 10.262 gt! we 10...0-0 11.0-0 a6 12.4c3 £5 13.64 13.@h1 @d7 is usually just a transposition,20 The Sveshnikov Reloaded but 13.f3 is an important alternative. Then: 13...d7 13...2g5 14.8xg5 Wxgs 15.Hcl Wh4 16.b4 Dd? 17.Mel Wd4t 18.8h1 bS 19.8d1 W6 20.cxb5 axb5 21.8xb5 Ba3 22.806 was better for White in Bacrot — Skripchenko, Aix les Bains 2003. 14.£2c3 14.@h1 b6!? with the idea ...£b7 and ...Hac8 leads to typical double-edged positions. The move ...b6 makes sense especially after White's king leaves the a7-g1 diagonal. 14.895 15.8d2 15.2f2 Hf6 offers Black good attacking prospects, Belotserkovsky—Volzhin, Krasnodar 1997. Now after 15..h6! the position is complicated. In Gunnarsson — San Segundo, Ohrid 2001, White was in trouble after: 16.b4 a5 17.3 axb4 18.065 18.axb4 Exal 19.8xal Wb6F 18.05 Another possibility for White is to prepare the advance of the queenside pawns with 13.a3. Then 13...0)d7 14.b4 04 15,23 2f6 16.844 Be51is ac least equal for Black, Yudasin — Kharlov, Moscow 1991 13.26 14.2h1 14.g3 Dd7 15.Bc2 exf4 16.gxf4 DcS (The transfer of the bishop to thea7-g1 diagonal, which starts with 16..2d4+ 17.h1, has been played in several games and is completely acceptable for Black. However, I find the bishop useful on che long diagonal as well.) 17.63 (17.¢3 He8 is uncomfortable for White) 17...b5! In my view after this strong move Black’ prospects are at least equal. 18.b4 Ded 19.2b2 bxcd 20.Axe4 fred 21.fkxe4 Sxb2 22.!xb2 2d7 23,Wd4 WHE with advantage for Black, Erwich ~ Kuljasevic, Hengelo 2002. 14,..0d7 Practice has demonstrated more than once that Black’s chances are by no means worse. The latest ‘examples are: 15.a4 exf4 16.8xf4 (16.8c2 g5 17.8a3 Aes 18.a5 £d7¥ Sofronie — Parligras, Sovata 2003) 16...8e5 17.8c3 Dg6 18.c5 BeS 19.2d4 dxc5 20.2xe5 Axe5 21.d6 BAG 22.!d5t AFT 23.Wxc5 ‘Wxd6F Bologan — Hamdouchi, Belfort 2002. 15.2€3 exf4 16.8xf4 De5 17.Hcl Dg6 18.2c3 Qe5 19.8d4 BF4 20.82 Wh4 21.21 Bd7 22.263 Bae8 with equal chances, Tishin — Alekseev, St Petersburg 2004. 15.Wc2 exf4 16.2xf4 25 16...2e5 17.2e3 &d7 18.83 We7 19.Bael Efc8 20.24 a5 21.2g1 Sh4 22.8d1 Gh8 23.Ab5 Dgd 24.kxgd fxg 25.c5 dxcS 26.46 Wes~ Apicella — Lautier, Senat 2003. 17.243 Also approximately equal is 17.Bad1 &xf4 18.8xf4 De5 19.b4 a5 20.23 axb4 21.axb4 2d7 22.Wid2 Wb6 23.8b1 Hfe8 24.h3 Hh8 Spraggete ~ Yakovich, Santo Antonio 2001. 17.816 18.Bael Sxf4 19.Bxf4 De5 20.23 Qd7 21.Befl We7 22.Re2 Bac8 23.8b3 cB 24.4b6 Od7 25.482 g6= Arakhamia Grant — Eckhardt, Gibraltar 2004, 2b) 10.243 10...0-0 11.0-0 a6 11.847 is Topalov’s recent idea. Leko considers it to be a strong move, although it doesChapter 4: The 7.45 Line 21 not look so impressive placing the bishop on the square designed for the knight. 12.a4 (12.03 65 13.c5 Se8! 14.He2 eh8 15.8b5 Bxb5 16.2)xb5, a6 17.cxd6 &xd6 18.4\xd6 In this equal position a draw was agreed in Anand — Leko, Dortmund 2004) 12...f5 13.c5 Bxb5 14.axb5 e4 (Critical is 14...dxc5. Then 15.d6! followed by &c4-d5 offers White enough compensation.) 15.06 (15.84 looks good as well) 15...2d7 (15...bxc6 16.dxc6 exd3 17.Yxd3 White has only one pawn for the piece, but it is Black who must try to equalise here) 16.8e2 Anand — Topalov, Monaco (blindfold) 2003. 12.03 FS 13.63 13.f4 ®d7 14.M8c2 g6 15.2h1 Sf6- 16.04 Ac5 17.23 BAT 18.a5 BcB 19.b32! He8 20.243 bS! 21.Bxc5? (21axb6F) 21...bxc4 22.2xc4 ExcSF Stanojoski — Nijboer, Plovdiv 2003. 13...fg5 13...2d7 isa possible alternative: 14.8h1 @h8 (14....g5 transposes to the main line) 15.23 Bg5 16.Wd2 Sxe3 17.Wxe3 AG 18.b4 2d7 19.23 8c8 20.Hacl Dh5 21.He2 AFG 22.23 Dh5 23.Be2 Alo %-% Fressinet — Tregubov, Belfore 2003, 14.¢h1 ‘the relatively new 14.2xg5 Wxgs 15.f4 exf4 16.We2 is, in my view, by no means worse. White's control over the e-file secures good compensation. Black has the following options: a) 16...g6 17.Hael WG 18.842 (interesting is 18.8xf4 Qd7 19.8c2 De5 20.Me7 with an initiative for White) 18...f3 19.gxf3 Qd7 20.f4 Dc5 21,.8c2 Bd7 22.Be3 %-% Milos ~ Mecking, Sao Paulo 2003. b) 16...2h8 17.Bael 2Qd7 18.8e6 HG (18...3 19.2 19.Wxf6 Dxf6 20.8x64 (In Naiditsch — Nijboer, Wijk aan Zee 2003, White played 20.204 after which Black had good chances to equalise completely with 20...b5 21.Db6 (After 21.cxb5 Axd5 it is White who must look for equality) 21...b8 22.2xc8 Bfxc8 23.cxb5 axb5.) 20...2d7 21.He7 Sack 22.8xe8 Dxe8 23.HFl g6 24.94 hg7 25.gxf5 Bxf5 26.8xf5 Exf5 27.Helt Balogh — Sprenger, Balatonlelle 2003. ©) 16...¥h6 17.Bad1 (17.Bael DBd7 18.4 6+ Hxe6 19.dxe6 De5 20.e7 He8 21.22 b6 22.45 Ea7 23.8xf4 Se6 24.2xf5 Qxd5 25.cxd5 Haxe7 is about equal too) 17...g5 (17...d7 18.8e6+ Wre6 19.dxe6 De5 20.e7 Be8 21.Ad5 Oxd3 22.fxd3 Be6=) 18.224 DAd7 19.We6t seg7 20.Wxh6t Bxh6 21.Bfel bg6 22.Be6¢ 4-4 Schuster ~ Zpevakova, e-mail 2000. 14...2d7 15.b4 a5 Also playable is 15...b6. Short — Ni Hua, Beijing 2003, continued 16.a3 deh8 17.2 ‘846 wich mutual chances in a typical position, 16.a3 axb4 17.fxg5 Wxg5 18.axb4 Bxal 19.¥xal We3 20.Le2 Leko’s move prepares Wel and gave Black players a headache for a while, Later two playable answers were found: 20...e42 is not good in view of 21,¥cl!, Then 21...89b6 22.feed fred 23.ExfBF Axl 24.Ab5 led to a clear endgame advantage in Leko — Krasenkow, Essen 2002. 20...b5 The arising endgame after this move is very close to a draw: 21.Mcl (21.cxb5% 2b7 22.fid1 Hc8 23.843 WA offers Black good compensation) 21...Wxcl 22.8xcl bxe4 23.0b5 &b7 24.2xd6 (or 24.8xc4 BF6 25.07 ®b6 26.2b5 Bf7= Kasimdzhanov — Smirnov, Rethymnon 2003) 24...2xd5 25.2x04 Sxc422 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded 26.8xc4 e4 27.fxed fred 28.shg1 €3 29.4 DFG 30.Hxe3 Hd8 31.8e6 Sb8 32.8e7 Exb4 4-4 Leko — Kramnik, Monaco (blindfold) 2003, 20...Db8! This ambitious continuation of GM Filippov shows that Black can keep the tension and eventually hope for more than a draw. The knight goes to a6, where it will attack b4 and prevent the advance c4-c5, 21.842 21,Wa3 DaG 22.c5 dxc5 23.2xa6 docs not work because of the intermediate 23...cxb4. In Belozerov — Filippov, Tomsk 2004, Black achieved an advantage after 21.Wcl Wb6 22.1423 a6 23.8b1 WE2 24.82 Sd7 25.21 Wadd. 21,..0a6 22.2b1 847 23.2d1 Hd4t? An interesting decision to play against the knight on dl. Also possible was 23...8b6 with approximate equality. 24.Wixd4 exd4 25.21 Again White has no time for 25.c5 due to 25...He8 winning. In case of 25.0£2 Be8 26.2f1 BSP? 27.cxb5 Dc7 28.6 Ards 29.84 Leb Black has at least equal prospects. 25,..8b8! A strong prophylactic move against the advance c4-c5. At the same time Black wants to play ...b5. 26.b5 White defends against ...b5, but now Black has a strategic advantage. 26.c5? does not work in view of 26...dxc5 27.2xa6 bxa6 and the b- pawn is pinned. 26..Be5 Black has a pleasant advantage. In Svidler — Timofeev, Moscow 2004, White made several inaccuracies and eventually lost.Chapter 5 8...2e6 — The Bird Variation Led c5 2.063 Ac6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Dxd4 D6 5.Dc3 &5 6.2db5 dé 7.2g5 With this move White starts the fight for the d5-square, which is the most important strategic task for both sides in the Sveshnikov. 7onsa6 Driving away the knight to a3. In the late 1950s the Moldavian master V. Chebanenko, my former coach, popularised the system starting with 7...8¢6, but later theory established its verdict: Black is in trouble after B.AdS Bc8 (8...Bxd5 9exd5 De7 10.c3! a6 11.824 chd7 12.Da3+ b5 13.34) 9.3 a6 10.8a3 Sxd5 11.2xf6! followed by 12.8xd5 with a clear strategic advantage for White 8.203 “Theearly 8.2xf6iscertainly notanimprovement for the simple reason that after 8...gxf6 9.823 Black can transpose to the main lines with 9...b5. Moreover, Black can attack White's centre immediately with 9...f5: which gives Black at least equal prospects. (Worse is 9...d52! 10.xd5 Bxa3. 11.bxa3 £06 12.24 WaSt 13.Md2 Wxd2t 14.bxd2 0-0-0 15.8ad1. Then after the best line 15...f5 16.63 Hhg8 17.g3 fred 18.fke4 Ba5 19.23 Axb3t 20.axb3 Bxd5 21.exd5 Exd5+ 22.che3 White's better pawn structure and more active king secure the advantage, although Black certainly has drawing chances.) After 9...£5 White has the following options: a) 10.84 Bg5 11g3 fees (11...86=) 12.Oxe4 We6 13.245 £6 In my opinion Black's chances are slightly preferable. Robitsch — Gindl, corr. 1991, continued: 14.3 (14.c3 Hd8!? 15.De4 Dd4!F) 14...2xd5 15.Hxd5 65 16.d2 (if 16.8c3 Sc8!, with the idea ...b5 followed by ..De7 and ...d5, and White still has to struggle in order to keep the balance) 16...!¥g8!? 17.8xg8 Exg8 18.acd d5 19.2e3 De7 20.c3 Bh6F b) 10.exf5 Bxf5 11.Ac4 Be6 (11..d4 12.D¢3 Be6=) 12.De3 Lh6 13.Ded5 (13.Ded5 Qxe3 14.Axe3 d5 15.Be2 0-0 16.0-0 1 Volke ~ Babula, Germany 1998) 13...0-0 14.93 (14.8c4 b5 15.8b3 Bd4 16.0-0 beh8 17.22 ®xb3 18.axb3 5 19.f4 We8! and the bishops are stronger than the knights, I. Herrera - P. Cramling, Malaga 2003) 14...f5 15.8g2 Shs 16.0-0 Bc8 17.eh1 Qd4 18.f4 &g7 In this typical Sveshnikov position the fact that the pawn is on b7 instead of b5 favours Black, since White does not have the standard activity with a2-a4, Spraggett — Shulman, New York 1998. ©) 10.85 bS 11.Baxb5 This forced sacrifice leads to a drawish endgame. (11.0d5 fed) 11...axb5.12.2xb5 Bb7 13.84 WA 14.045 We6 15.Wxg6 fxg6 16.2c7t kd7 17.Axa8 Bxa8 18.245 2h6 19.c3 fred 20.8.xe4 Hb8 21.b3 Ob424 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded 22.8xa8 De2t 23.tod1 Dxal 24.04 heb 25.c4 @xb3 26.axb3 Exb3 27.2 Ba3 28.492 Ba7 and a draw was agreed in Sjoman — Jokelainen, Finland 1999. d) 10.2c4 bS 11.Ae3 b4 12.Bcd5 fred 13.03 bxa3 14.8xa3 2g7 15.c3 0-0 16.Ma4 Walter Kroenauer, corr 1988. Now, as correctly pointed ‘out by Yakovich, Black achieves good play with 16...8d7 17.Wxed 5. ¢) 10.2d3 Sg8 (10...b5 11.4\d5 Be6 transposes to page 151) 11.g3 d5!? An interesting pawn sacrifice, trying to fight for the initiative. The alternative is 11...2d4 12.d5 fred 13.Bxe4 B04 14.43 (14.8 266 15.c3 £5 16.cxd4 fred leads to complications that are favourable for Black) 14..f5 15.8g2 with unclear play. 12.0xd5 (weaker is 12.exd5 Sxa3_13.bxa3 @d4 with advantage to Black) 12...8xa3 13.bxa3. Seb ‘This position requires practical tests before a reliable final conclusion can be drawn. After 8.223 the best continuation for Black is undoubtedly 8...b5. In the present chapter we will examine the old 8...2e6, since in order to counter efficiently this move precise knowledge is required from White. If 8...d5% Black has a tough fight for a draw after 9.Dxd5 &xa3_ 10.bxa3_ Yast 11.82 Wxd2t 12.8xd2 AxdS 13.exd5 Ad4 14.0-0-0 265 15.c3. 8.26 This continuation was introduced in 1883 by Henry Bird. From the point of view of modern theory it isa rather closed subject, since White has demonstrated clear ways to obtain an advantage. ‘Therefore 8...2e6 can be regarded nowadays mainly as an attempt to confuse an unprepared opponent. 9.c4 BB 7 10.2x66 gxf6 11.23 9. 10.245 10.8xf6 Yxf6 11.2b6 is onlya slight advantage for White. 10...2xd5 11.2xf6 gxf6 11...Yxf6 12d B07 (12...Ab4 13.Yxb7 Dxe2} 14.sbd1 Bxcd 15.Bxc4 Axal 1648+ Se7 17.d5 is correctly pointed out by Yakovich as completely winning for White) 13.c3 0-0 14,Qb6 Sed8 (14...8c7 15.Ge2+) 15.8xa6 Dd4 16.83 Be6 17.85 AF4 and now in Womacka — P. Horvath, Seefeld 2001, White could have achieved a huge advantage with 18.2d5 since 18...2xg2# is not possible in view of 19.f1 WE 20.Hg1 DF4 21.Axe7t Gh8 22.82 Wh3t 23.bel Wxh2 24.8f1 and White has an extra piece. 12.Bxd5 In search of counterplay Black has tried various moves in this position, but everywhere White succeeds in keeping better prospects. The lines covered here are: 1) 12...b5, 2) 12...2b4, 3) and 4) 12...d4Chapter 5: 1) 12...b5 13.2e3 De7 13..8h6 14.05 Db4 15.Axd6+ ed 16.xf7t Bo 17. b74 kecS 18.Bdl Axc2t 19.82 Ad4t 20.8xd4 exdd 218d5t Lb 22.Dxc8t Wxc8 23.Wxd4t ba5 24.23 White has a winning position, Smagin — Kharlov, Cheliabinsk 1991 14.Wd3 Bh6 15.%c2 Axed 16.fxe3 dS 17.0-0-0 Wd6 18.exd5 0-0 19.Bhf1 Hc5 20.e4 Bfc8 21.8d2 f5 22.83 Korneev ~ Hernandez Montalvo, Padron 2002. 2) 12...2b4 13,Wd2 d5 14.exd5 Dxc2t 14..Wxd515,.Wxd5 Axd5 16.0-0-0 “Black can often reach this kind of endgame right from the opening. ‘The right attitude towards this kind of chess is simply co win these endgames.” (Aagaard) 16...b4 17.c3 De6 18.8d3 BcS 19.Bed Bc7 20.Dd6F Lxd6 21.Fxd6£ Kurnosov — Zhang Pengxiang, Cappelle la Grande 2002. Later on in the game White showed the right attitude. 15.Wixc2 Bb4t 16.8d1 Wxd5t 16...b5.17.Wed bxc4 18.8xc4 Wh6 19.che2 2d6 20.b3 Bg8 21.Haclt Yastreb - Moskovers, Alushta 2002. 17.21 0-0 17..b5 18.a3 Be7 19.Bd6+ d7 20.Axc8 Bxc8 21.8xb5¢ WxbS 22.8d1F Bd6 23.xdor Stxd6 24.Yxc8+— Berndt — Thiel, Germany 1998, 18.03 &c5 19.d3 White has a large advantage, Sudakova — Zimina, St Petersburg 2001 3) 12...f5 13.0-0-0 b5 14.23 2h6 15.2b1 Gxe3 16.fxe3 fred 17.Yxed We7 18.93 De7 19.2h3 Hd8 20.Mg4 Hg8 21.8hS Bg7 22,Bhfl# Al Sayed — Sveshnikov, Dubai 2004. eG — The Bird Variation 25 4) 12...Ad4 13.243 13.0-0-0 b5 makes Black’ struggle easi 13...8e7 Black is strategically lost after 13...b5 14.¢3 Wast 15.81 Wb6 16.c3 Ae6 17.g3 h5 18.h4 ih6 19.25 Dvoirys ~ Chekhov, USSR 1980, 14.a5t 14...Bxed Black’s relatively best chance is 14...8¢5 15.Wid2 We? 16.c3 De6 17.41e3 Bh6. In Varavin Kharloy, Elista 1994, Black fought hard for another 80 moves before he could finally reach the draw, starting with 18.0-0 Wb6 19.g3 Be6 20.Hael Hg8 21.dh1 Sxe3 22.Bxe3 te7 23.b3 Bgc8 24.84 WaS 25.2d5 (25.8d1 2+) 25...Bxc3 26.84 B8xc4 27.bxc4 Ha3 28.Wd5. 14..d5 loses to 15.Qb6 eS (15...1e7 L6.exd5 &c5 17.Ma4t Bd8 18.Axc8+~ I. Almasi ~ Rovid, Hungary 2003) 16.Yxe3 Bxc5 17.c3 dxe4 18.8xe4 Bc6 19.0-0-0 Lh6+ 20.eb1+— Balinoy — Hausrath, Budapest 1999. 15.2xe4 Dxc2t 16.22 Dxal 17.8cl! Bh6 18.2xf74! Bxf7 19.87 White has a technically winning position, Yemelin ~ Kharloy, St Peterburg 1998.Part I 9.4\d5 — The Positional LineChapter 6 Introduction to 9.Ad5 Led c5 2.013 Dc 3.d4 cxd4 4.0xd4 DEG 5.Qc3 «5 6.2db5 d6 7.825 a6 8.023 bS 9.045 This is the positional approach to meeting the Sveshnikov. White's aim here is to get a slight but stable advantage with limited possibilities for counterplay by Black. Nevertheless, this system can sometimes lead to extremely sharp play: one thinks of Kasparov's brilliant wins in the mid 90s. The recent spectacular encounter between Ponomariov and Kramnik (analysed on page 67) also comes to mind. In many theoretical sources a big argument given in favour of 9.2d5 is that this move has been preferred by Karpov and Kasparov. On the other hand, nowadays many other top GMs (for instance Anand, Leko, Topalov and Shirov to name just the most prominent of them) usually prefer 9.£2xf6, The latter three are great Sveshnikov specialists with the Black pieces as well, which certainly says a lor. The main problem with using 9.8d5 at the highest level is that against a strong opponent it is extremely difficult to emerge with any sensible advantage, especially if White does not have any original ideas prepared. Maybe White can get a slight plus, bur the positions are often such that Black can hold them rather easily. ‘Therefore, 9.€d5 is traditionally regarded as safe, but hardly the most principled method of fighting against the Sveshnikey. However, as a result of White’ difficulty in finding an advantage after 9.fxf6, the present system will remain popular at all levels. It is perfectly suited for active positional players, who first of all want to ourplay their opponents thanks to their better (strategic) understanding, often without being too concerned by the fact that, according to theory, Black has several ways to achieve acceptable positions. It must be added that lately White players have also found very aggressive ideas in this line (the latest example being Ponomariov-Kramnik), which, in my opinion, will increase the popularity of 9.8d5 at the highest levels. Before examining Black’s options in the above diagram position, we need to take a brief look at: 9.Qab1 This knight retreat was popularised in the mid 70s by Savon and Mnatsakanian, but nowadays is rarely seen in practice. ‘The idea is to play a quick a2-a4 and secure c4 for White's pieces. However, it is a rather awkward attempt to solve the problems of the a3-knight: Making a fifth move with the same piece in the opening only to land it on another starting square is hardly inspiring.30 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded 9...Lte7 10.2xf6 itschew: 1 13.a2 Dxe7 14.8xb2 Le6F 10...2xf6 11.24 b4 12.2d5 0-0 ‘The position is equal: x3! 12. xe7 cxb2 13.204 2g5 14.0-0 eh8 15.3 f5 16.0d2 a5 17.exf5 (17.3 De7=) 17...Axf5 18.64 Dd4 19.63 #b8 2-4 Rhodin — Bhend, Switzerland 1995, 13.0d2 Bg5 14.0c4 After 14.263 £h6 15.c4 Black has a pleasant choice between 15...22h8 followed by ...f5, or 15...a5 16.143 De7, in both cases with at least equality. It is amazing that the poor knight has made 7 moves only to come back to £3 where, by the way, it has no prospects. 14.806 Also perfectly playable are 14...22h8 15.Be2 Bxd5 16.8xd5 Dd4 17.8d3 BB 18.0-0 Now in Ivanov ~ Kravtsoy, St Petersburg 2002, instead of 18...2e72! Black could have obtained good play with: 18...8c5 19.8xd6 xd6 20.0xd6 Dxc2 14..8b8 orChapter 7 The Silent Draw Offer: 9... Wa5t 10.2d2 d8 let cS 2.0 Acé 3.44 axd4 4.0xd4 DM 5.23 5 6Adbs d6 7.825 a6 8.223 b5 9.0d5 Hast 10.2d2 Bds Many Black players do not like this system because it is equivalent to a silent draw offer. OF course, if White repeats the position with 11.8g5 then Black can always return to 11....8e7, but then it is not entirely clear why Black gave White additional possibilities. Instead of 10.842, the rare 10.c3 is also possible. ‘Then Black has a choice between a double-edged position after 10...4xd5 1 1.exd5 2Dc7,0r 10... xe4. In the latter case the following drawish variation appears to be best play for both sides: 11-b4 (11.3 Bb8 12.2c2 26) 11...Wxa3 12.2cl Oxc3 13.Wd2 Ded 14.82 Dd4 15. xed Wad 16.266 Hed 17.8xa8 We3t 18.ed1 We2t 19,bel = (Yakovich). In the diagram position White has three ways to fight for the advantage: 1) 11.843, 2) 11-Dxf6t and 3) 11.04. 1) 11.243 Oxd5 12.exd5 De7 12... b8? 13.4 bxed 14,Dxc4t 13.04 g6 “This is a forced pawn sacrifice, since 13...bxe4? 14.8xc4 is bad due to White's threats 15.a5 and 15.8a4t 14.cxb5 &g7 In this double-edged position Black has typical good compensation for the pawn. A healthy structure on the kingside and in the centre, a fianchettoed bishop, open files on the queenside, pressure on the d5-pawn ~ all this provides Black with enough play. ‘Ihe following examples show that Black's prospects are by no means bad:32 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded 15.bxa6 0-0 16.Qb5 Bxa6_ 17.04 Bc8 (also possible is 17...8b7 18.0-0 &xd5 with mutual chances, Barten ~ Dudyev, corr. 1998) 18,0-0 Axd5 19.Wb3 Dh 20.BEd1 Dxd3 21.Wxd3 Wh4 22.8xd6 2b7 23.846 Ba8 (23..8b8 24.Me3 Sc6=) 24.h3 Hic? 25.3 Exb2 26.07 Bb7 27.a5 £5 (27...8c8 28.a6 Exc7 29.axb7 Hexb7 30.8c3 82b3 31.2a8t Eb8 32.¥a7 HB 33.Exf8t SxfB 34.8xe5 We7=) 28.26 f4 29.45 Qxg2 30.2xg2 Bt 31.bh2 Hc2 32.86 ef 33.8e3? (33.27 leads to a draw) J. Polgar — San Segundo, Madrid 1994. Here Black could win with the elementary 33..2xf2t 34.8xf2 Bc5t 35.1 Wy5t 36.2F1 Wg2t 37.hel Bc3t. 15.b6 Wxb6 16.2e4 Wb8 17. Wadi &d7 18.Wa5 0-0 19.864 Bb5 20.8xd6 Wb7 21.8d1 ef 22.fte2 Nisipeanu — Reinderman, Wijk aan Zee 2000, Here, as indicated by Nisipeanu, Black could achieve good play with 22...xd5. Then 23.8xf8 SxfB 24.23 OF offers Black a huge advantage, so instead White must play 23.24 Bfd8 24.0-0 Lc6 with complicated play. 15.0-0 0-0 16.8b4 (This is a very recent attempt by Ivanchuk to improve for White in this variation. In Korneev - Sriram, Ubeda 2001, Black was victorious after 16.04 £5 17.We2 Fat 18.63 DFS 19.82? Dg3!.) 16..a5 (16..Axd5 17 £04 Oxb4 18.2xa8 d5z) 17.8c3 Oxd5 (Black can also play for long-term compensation with 17...f5) 18.83 (18.264 Axc3 19.bxc3 Bb8e) 18...2b7 (Weaker is 18...Ab6 19.2\c4! attacking the a5-pawn and using the fact that the a8-rook needs protection from the knight. ‘The concrete variations here favour White, Ivanchuk ~ Ni Hua, Moscow 2005. But deserving of Blacks attention is 18...8c6 19.2e4 @xc3 20.2xa8 Yxa8 21.Bxc3 d5 with compensation for the exchange.) 19.2e4 Bxc3 2 .Axb7 ef 21He3 (21.xe4? Axed 22.Wxe4 Bxb2-+) 21...8b8 22.bxc3_ Exb7 23.l4xe4 (23.Bad1 Be8! 24.c4 We7 25.8d5 £5 26.Hfd1 BeSsz) 23...d5 24.863 We7 25.8xd5 fb8 Black will win back one pawn and, chanks to the activity of his pieces, will have sufficient compensation for the second sacrificed pawn. 2) 11. Dxfot Bxf6 12.843 12.c4 Wg6 13.63 Be7 leads to a position where Black has a development advantage. After 14cxb5 both 14...d4 and 14...2h4t are okay for Black. In the latter case Black can achieve a draw by force: 14..Sh4¥ 15.93 Sxg3t 16.hxg3 Wxg3t 17.e2 Se4t? (17...Dd44 18.23! is less clear) 18.823 @d4 19.82 (5 20.8g1 Wh2 With the king on e3 White took the reasonable decision to make a draw by repetition in Kukk — Demian, e-mail 2001: 21.2h1 Wg3 22.21 Wh2 23.Eh1 Playing for a win is not justified: 21.exf5 &h3! and Black will always have at least a perpetual (weaker is 21...WE4} 22.sbf2! Wh2+ 23.8g2 and White defends). Yin One of the main positions of the 9...WaSt line. With accurate play Black is able to achieve complete equality. 12...Wg6 Alternatives are: a) 12..d5% 13.exd5 Db4 (preferable is 13...2xa3 14.bxa3. De7 15.0-0 0-0 16.Bel and Black is only slightly worse) 14.2¢4 Wh4 15.963 &g4 16.Me3 Sd8 17.3 Oxd5 18.g3! (after 18.8xd5 fxd5 19.He4 Bd4 20.Ba8t Hd8 21.!xa6 &d7 22.0-0 Wad Black has compensation for the pawn) 18...2xe3 19.gxh4 Bxa3 20.fre3 (not 20.bxa3? AF3 21.2xf3 Dxc2+ 22.she2 Dd4y! 23.the3 Dxf3 24.8a5 Add 25.8xd8 thxd8!z) 20,..Rxb2 21.8b1 and White wins a piece, Pecis — Novoa, e-mail 2001.Chapter 7: The Silent Draw offer: 9...Ma5+ 10.8d2 Wd8 33 b) 12...id8 13.04 b4 14.8\c2 Hb8 15.0-0 Be7 16.a3 bxa3 (16...b3 17.Db4+ or 16...a5 17.axb4 axb4 18.Ha4 b3 19.0b4 Axb4 20.8xb4 Exb4 21.2xb4 and White wins the b3-pawn) 17.b4! Ghinda — Quendro, Thessaloniki 1984. ©) 12...8e7 13.0-0 0-0 (13...8%26 transposes to the main line) 14.4 Ad4 (14...b4 15.82 is slightly better for White, bur 14...!4g6 again leads to the main line. See 14...0-0 instead of 14...8g4 below.) 15.2e3 b4 16.81c2 Axc2 17.4 xc2 Hb8 18.f4 White has a slight initiative, Shirov ~ Amura, Benidorm (rapid) 2002. 13.0-0 £e7 a) 13...€\d4 14.f4! Be4 (14...8h3 15.22 Se4 16.6546) 15.Wel ext 16.8xf4 De6 17.Dxb5! WS (or 17...Dxf4 18.2c7¢ ted? 19.Dxa8 23 20.g3 Dh3t 21.hFl+-) 18.065 xf 19.exf5 axb5 20.We4+- Petrushin — Maksiutov, Orel 1992. b) 13...8h3 14.83 Be6 15.c3 h5 16.2c2 Be7 17.2 h4 18.24 Jansa — Radojevic, Sombor 1970. ©) 13..Ag4 14.8 2h3 15.We2 Be7 16.8h1 Se6 17.3 0-0 18.2c2 Hab8 19.He3 Sg5 20.b4!t Wh6 21.23! 2h3 22.8f2 Ae7 23.f4 B£6 24.De4 Ye6 25.Dxf6+ Wafo 26.65 with a large advantage for White, Lie ~ Stokke, Molde 2004. ring, ivan This is the best set-up against the 11.2xf6+ variation. Black combines kingside development with activity against the white king, 14.c4 a) 14.64 exfa 15.05 BFS 16.863 Be8 17.8x65 WxfS 18.exd6 Sxd6 19.Baelt Se7 20.x64 Wsf4 21.8xf4 0-0 22.Ob1 Bfd8F 1. Gurevich ~ Granda Zuniga, New York 1992. b) 14.@2h1 0-0 15.Wel Bb8 16.b4 f5 17.3 f4 18,.Yf2 Bd8 19.c4 bxc4 20.8xc4t Gh8 21.845 2b6 22.8h4 2d7 was at least equal for Black in Inarkiev - McShane, Goa 2002. ©) 14.c3 d5! 15.Be2 Bed 16.3 dees 17 Axed Bf5 18,Ac2 0-0 19.24 Bxe4 20.fxed b4 (after 20...Zad8 as in Wahls — Kasparov, Hamburg (simul) 1987, best for White is 21.b4!) 21.2h1 (2Lexcb4 Axbd 22.Axb4 Bxb4 23.2xb4 WEF is equal) 21...b3 22.Del We6 23.03 Ba5 anda draw was agreed in De Firmian ~ San Segundo, Buenos Aires 1995, although Black’s chances are preferable. 14.84 ‘The immediate 14...£h3 allows 15.83 and Black achieves nothing: 15..2g4 16.Me3 b4 17.Bc2 Bb8, Del Rio Angelis — Ilescas, Burgos 2003, and now 18.23 leads to an advantage for White. If 18...bxa3 then 19.b4. A perfectly playable alternative is 14...0-0 and Black’s chances are by no means worse after 15.3 &h3! (Aagaard) 16.8783 &g4 17.8g3 Ob4, or 15.cxb5 Ad4 16.8h1 axbS. | believe White should play 15.¢¢h1 in order to meet 15...2d4 with 16.2¢3. However, here White is only marginally better and Black has reasonable play. 15.22 15.f3? Bh3 16.82 Bh4 17.He2 Dd4 18.cxbS (18.@h1 Bd7¥) 18...Dxf3t! 19.8h1 Bede Maiorov ~ Krohaley, corr. 2000. 15...2h3, 15...8xe2 16.!xe2 0-0 (16...2\d4 17.Wd3 0-0 18.23 was slightly better for White in Oim — Demian, corr 1998) 17.8c2 Bfc8 18.cxb5 axb5 Chekmasov — Krohalev, corr. 2000. Now White could claim some advantage with the precise 19.Hacl!. 16.263 Dd4! 17.23 17.cxb5 axbS 18.8c2 Oxf3t 19.WxB Le6 20.Be3 0-0 21.8b4 HaG (21...Fxa2? 22.Bxa2 Sxa2 23.b3!+-) 22.065 Oxf5 23.exf5 Wes 24.Hacl Bxa2 25.843 b4 26.Wb3 bxa3 27.Hxa234 The Sveshnikov Reloaded axb2 28.4xb2 Wxf5 and soon a draw was agreed in Hage ~ Bartsch, e-mail 1999. 17... Dxf34 ‘The simplest. Black gains only problems with 17...b42 18.8xb4 d5_19.4c2, Tiviakov — Reinderman, Rotterdam 2000. The position is still very complicated, but concrete analysis has shown that White's chances are preferable. 18.Wxf3 £d7 19.8d3 Hb8 20.cxbS axb5 21.Bc2 After 21.2b4 in R. Ward ~ Rosello Padron, e-mail 2001, Black could have achieved an advantage: 21...f5! 22.63 0-0. White's problem is his poorly placed a3-Knight. 23.8c2 fails to 23... Fred 24.fred £ic6 winning the e4-pawn. 21.206 ‘The position is about equal. 3) Lcd A TES This is the real test of 9...a5t, 11...Dxe4 Black does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn after 11...2xd5 12.exd5 Qd4 13.cxb5 Re7 14.bxa6 0-0 15.2c3 (but not 15.Ac2 Bg4! and White is in trouble). 12.cxb5 Le6 12...Be7 13.83 Bb8 14.84 Be6 15.0-0 (15.Bc12 WaSt 16.F1 transposes to 3a — Nevednichy) 15...axb5 16.21xb5 Oxd5 17 Bxd5 Qxd5 (17...8ixbS 18. Mad 2d7 19.8xe4+-) 18.Wxds DFG 19.Wcd Be7 20.Bc7F hfs 21.Bfd1 h5 22.h3 Hxb2 23.24 We8 24.05 De8 25,.Mcl Eb8 26.8d5+- Petrushin — Timoshenko, ‘Tbilisi 1974. 13.24 De7 14.8c3 For a while 14.0-0 Kupreichik’s move from 1992, seemed to refute the entire 9...Wa5 system, but then Black players found the right reaction to it. 14,..8xd5 14,.xd5 15.fxd5 Bxd5 16.805! was bad for Black in Kupreichik ~ Nikcevic, Cattolica 1992. 15.8xd5 Black is also not worse after 15.245 WxaS 16.8xd5 Sd8! 17.8xe4 d5 18.2c2 Ag6 19.bxa6 Bxa3 20.84 e7 21.bxa3 Hd6 Womacka ~ Souleidis, Berlin 1998, 15...2xd5 16.805 @de3! Practice has shown that Black is doing okay afer this precise move. For instance: 17.2xc3 Axc3 18.bxc3 d5!19.¢b3 19.bxa6 2xa3 20.Wadt Be7 21. Ya: Feygin — Reinderman, Germany 2000. 19...8xa3 20,Wxa3 axb5 21.Yc5 He8 22.Mxb5t Wd7 23,Hb4 £6 24.5fdl BE7 25.24 Bhd8 26.a5 Wo and a draw was agreed in Vazquez ~ Zambrana, Santa Clara 2002. ‘This messy position is critical for the 11.c4 variation. Black used to check with 3a) 14...WaStChapter 7: The Silent Draw offer: 9...!a5+ 10.2d2 Wd8 35 and was walking on a knife-edge until 1987, when Kasparov introduced 3b) 14...88. We need to examine both, 14...2b8 is weaker and leaves White with a pleasant choice between 15.Bcl, and 15,0-0 transposing to the game Petrushin Timoshenko, see 12...e7 above, 3a) 14...WaSt 15.2612 ‘The main continuation is 15.%e2, which is best met by Aagaard’s suggestion 15... 2b8! (15... Be8 16.b6! favours White). Then 16.Ec1 Axd5 17.2xd5 M6 18.2064 BA7 (18. ) A (19.8a7 Bxc6 20.8xb8? Sxb5t and White is in trouble because of his king on ¢2) 19..ic? 20.8xd7+ Wxd7 21.bxa6 Le7 22.07 Ha8 leads to complicated play. White's chances may be better here, but everything looks far from easy. In my opinion both 15.®f1 and 15.e2 are of approximately equal value. 15...8b8 With the king on fl this move is less justified. The explanation is that if in the tactical complications Black takes on 2 it will not be check, while sacrifices on b5 are no longer dangerous for White. Therefore, it is worth considering 15...2c8 16.Bicl Dxd5! (16... 65 17.82! Aixe3t 18.2)xe3 Exc4t 19.Dexcd Wd8 20.Wd5 BiG 21.87 Se7 22.ixa6 and the b-pawn decides) 17.8xd5 Excl 18.xcl c5 with unclear play. interesting is 16.%2g1, avoiding the exchange of rooks and keeping many threats. 16.8c1 Dxd5 White has a large advantage after other moves: 16...8xd5 17.2xd5 ALG 18.2b3, Kacheishvili = Stajkov, Stockerau 1993. Or 16...\5 17.83 Dxe3+ 18.Wxe3 Ad2t 19.skg1 (also possible is 19.2 Dxc4 20.Asxc4 Wd8 21 Aicb6) 19...Dxc4 20.Dxc4 Wd8 21.Acb6! 17.Bxd5 216 18.2064 47 After 18..d7 19.8a7 (or 19.24 We7 20.2xd7+ Wxd7 21.bxaG+) 19...0xc6 (19...8d8 20.Dc4 Wra2 21.8b6 axbS 22.Dxd6F Bxd6 23,.Wxd6+-) 20.8xb8 Sxb5+ 21.2g1 White is close to winning, ee) = This position was reached in Nevednichy — Croenne, La Fere 2003. With his king in the centre it is obvious that Black’s set-up is very shaky. ‘The game continued: 19.827 Bc8 (the only move was 19...8d8, keeping some chances to survive) and here, instead of 20.b6 which would have been unclear had Black replied 20...84641, White could have won with 20.2c4! when both 20...!87 21.Ab6! and 20...dxc4¥ 21.xe4 are hopeless for Black. In the diagram position even stronger is 19.2c4! aiming at 19...¥4c7 20,®xe5! dxe5 21 bxa6+- 3b) 14...Bc836 ‘The Sveshnikoy Reloaded Kasparov introduced this move in a simultaneous game in Zurich 1987. The idea is after 15.Db6 to sacrifice the exchange with 15..d5!. Then 16.@xc8 @xc8 17.2d3 (17.0-0? 2xa3! 18.bxa3 dxc4 was bad for White in Gobet ~ Kasparov, Zurich (simul) 1987) 17...!a5t 18.%ef1 &xa3 19.bxa3 0-0 offers Black enough compensation, For instance: 20.bxaG £5 21. 3 d4 22.Rg1 Ded6 23.he2 Ach, Emeste - Sorokina, Calvia 2004. Or 20.83 axb5 21.8xb5 An. Rodriguez ~ Llorens, Santiago 2005, and now correct was 21...Hxb5! 22.xb5 d4 23.8c1 Dcd6 with good play for Black. Black is also doing fine after 16.W!a4 dxed 17.Hd1 Ad5 18.bxaGt Ld7 19.Axd7 Abst 20.2 f1 Wrd7 21.Yxd7t dexd7 22.8xd5t heb, which was played in Yudasin - Vyzmanavin, Lvov 1987, and then checked again last year in Dominguez - Radjabov, Tripoli (blitz playoff) 2004. 15.266 ‘This principled move was suggested by Sveshnikov almost two decades ago. White also has chances to fight for the advantage in a double- edged position after 15.Axe7 &xe7 16.2xe6 fre 17.0-0, as in Toth - Ladanyi, Hungary 1995. 15...Wd7 16.bxa6! Bxc4 16..Axd5 17.Axd5 Sxd5 18.8xd5 DF 19.825! followed by 20.0-0 should be better for White ~ Da Costa Junior. 17.07 Bxd5 18.Dxc4 Clearly worse is 18. 8xd5? Dxd5 19.a88+ He8 20.8xd5 D6, 18...2a8! 19.63 d5 20.AxeS We6 21.fc7! aS 21...De6 22. fred favours White After a series of forced moves we have the following position, reached in Zurita — Da Costa Junior, corr. 2003. j, eat i os Now instead of 22.0-0 a6! 23.268 f61, which was unclear in the above-mentioned game, Da Costa indicates that White has the advantage after 22.We2. Indeed, 23.88b5+ and appears strong for White. All of Black's possibilities look very risky: this move threatens He can go for a dangerous endgame with 22...Wa6 23.8c1!? Wxe2t 24.drxe2 eb 25.2d6 26. Or play even more riskily with the queens on the board with 22...€c6, although after 23.¥4b5 a6 (23...Qd7? 24.0-0-0 Bxa7 25.Wad+-) 24,Wxab (6 25.0-0-0 fre5 26.2xe5! (26.85 SBE7 27.Mxd5 &e7 is more or less acceptable for Black) 26...2¢7 27.8xg7 Bg5+ 28.seb1 Wgot 29.hal Wxg7 30.Zhelt White has a powerful attack. Maybe those willing to defend such shaky positions will find more defensive resources for Black, but in my opinion White has the better prospects. This means that 11.c4 is the most unpleasant variation for Black after 9...a5#.Chapter 8 9...2e7 10.Axe7 Led c5 2.063 Dc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Oxd4 ALG 5.Dc3 ¢5 6.Ddb5 d6 7.2g5 a6 8.223 bS 9.2d5 &e7 10.2xe7 ‘The capture on ¢7 has always represented an important option for White, but it has never succeeded in setting real problems for Black. ‘Therefore, at the top level 10.@xe7 has been tried only occasionally. Atthe beginning of 2004 Anand introduced a new idea for White and then several strong young players followed in his footsteps. However, I believe this popularity will only be brief because, generally speaking, by taking on €7 White contradicts the main strategic principle of the Sveshnikov: the fight for the d5-square. White gives up his powerful knight (by making the third move with it in the opening, while the other white knight has made four moves to end up on a3) in order to take the traditionally weak bishop, which cannot control d5. Of course, these are all general considerations and they need to be supported by concrete variations. 10...2)xe7 10...!¥xe7 leads to slightly inferior positions: 1.c4 Ad4 12.22 Axc2t (12...Wb7? 13.0xd4 Dxe4 14.63 bxc4 15.23 Wxb2 16.8cl Le6 17.Bxc4 Bxc4 18,Bxc4 Dc3 19.8d2 is winning for White) 13.Wxc2 2d7 14.cxb5 axb5 15.243 h6 16.8d2 0-0 17.0-0 EFS 18.8d1 with a plus for White thanks to the bishop pair, Socko — Nataf, Calvia 2004, 11 Bxf6 a) 11. d5 12exd5 @fd5 13.c4 xed 14.Bxc4 {6 15.842 0-0 16.22 (more realistic is 16.8d3 &f5=) 16,..8e6 17.0-0 Abs! 18.2e3 Wd4 and White started to have problems in Petrov ~ Dobroy, Athens 2003. b) 11.88 &d7! Black also has other acceptable continuations, but the knight retreat is simple and strong. Ie prepares ...f6 and ...£2b7, when all Black’s pieces will be very well placed. 12.b4 This is an old idea of Yudasin to prepare c2- 4 (the immediate 12.c4 b4 13.22 a5 14.23 &b7! 15.2d3 £6 16.842 f5 allows Black to take over the initiative). 12...f6 13.8d2 £7 14.4 5 15.cxb538 ‘The Sveshnil 15...8xe4 15...f%e4 16.¥4g4 0-0 also gives Black good play, which has been confirmed in practice. bxa6 F4 18.8b3+ Yakovich’s opinion this position I think Black has excellent compensation. For instance: 18...8d5 Or 18...d5 19.2b5 Bf6 20.83 Deb. 19.84 Probably better is 19.¥h3, although Black has wonderful play after 19...5f6. 19...8xc4 20.Bxc4t d5 21.143 Bxa6 This is anything but good for White. ©) 11.843 8b7 12.Me2 Ad7 Black has good play. The latest example is Alekseev — Avrukh, Biel 2004, which continued 13.b4 (6 14.842 5! (this is more attractive than 14...0-0 15.0-0 £5 16.3 Ac6 17.c4 Ad4 18.We3 with approximate equality) 15.c4 (15.£32% fixed 16.fse4 0-0F and White cannot castle) 15...fre4 16.2ixe4 fixed 17.8xe4 0-0 18.cxb5 (18.0-0 bxc4 19.Bxcdt 5 is at least equal for Black) 18...axb5 19.2)xb5 W6 20.We2 BAB 21.03 Yxb4 22.0-0 Acs 23.Babl (23.Bfdl O65: Wd4 24.8fd1 Bxb1 25Sxb1 Dd5 26.0b5 and a draw was agreed ‘The position is equal after 26...We4 27.Yxe4 xed 28.21 Bxa2 29.63. d) 11,843 d5 12.exd5 (12.2x16 exf6 13.0-0-0 d4 14.c3 We7 15.2c2 dxc3 16.¥4xc3 Yxc3 17.bxc3. fS= Kupreichik — Gorelov, Minsk 1985) 12...8f5 13.8b3 Wrd5 14.Wxd5 Bexds (14...Dfxd5 is of course not bad either) 15.c4 bxc4 16.8xc4 (16.2xc4 0-0 (or 16...De4 17.Bh4 Db4) 17.Hdl Bfd8 18.8c2 h6=) 16...0-0 17.0-0 Ab4 18.8fel Efe8 White is marginally better, but Black quickly achieved complete equality in Anand ~ Leko, Linares 2005: 19.Zad1 Ded 20.063 Bac8 21.63 DFG 22.82 Be6 23.b3 ef 24,8dd2 and the players agreed a draw. L1..gxf6 12.04 12.1321 f5 13.exf5 Oxf5 14.2d3 Le6 15.0-0 leaves Black witha pleasant choice between 15...d5 and 15...0-0 16.4 £5, In both cases it is White who must be careful to keep the game level. 12.8d3 2b7 13.2 d5= w Reloaded This position has been the starting point of some theoretical encounters in 2004. 1) 12...8b7 Anand — van Wely Monaco (rapid) 2004 Traditionally the Black accepts the challenge and is ready to sactifice a pawn for the initiative. The alternative 12..HaSt — 13.8%d2_ Wxd2+ 14.texd2.b4 15.c2 Bb8 16.8d3 leads to a slight plus for White in the endgame: 16...65 IeexfS xf 18.2xf5 Dxf5 19.b3 Eg8 20.g3 sbe7 21. Bhd! Sgc8 22.23! and Black started to face problems in Asrian — Nedey, Antalya 2004. 13.843 13.cxbS &xe4 14.bxaG (14.8a4 d515.bxaGt £8 followed by 16...2g8 offers Black excellent prospects) 14.,.0-0 15.22 d5 (15...22h8 16.0-0 Hg8 17.3 2c6 18.8cl d5 19.s¢h1 Wd6 20.2c4, Balzar — Nunn, Germany 2001. Now 20...8b8! 21.23 offers Black a pleasant choice between 21..Hxb2= oF 21..d4 22.8c4 ODd5 with compensation for the pawn.) 16.0-0 d#h8 17.22h1 d4 18.243 £96 19.8cl Hg8 20.84 Bd5 21.43 Af4 22.93, Asian — Arakisi, Antalya 2004, Here Black keeps good prospects with 22...2e6, and if 23.8xe6 then 23...fxe6 24.Wxe6 2d3 25.2fd1 Sixa6 with advantage to Black. 13..bxe4 Black has two reasonable alternatives: a) 13...5 14.exf5 Eg8 15.2igl e4 16.8c2 Oxf. main continuation.Chapter 8: 9...£e7 10.Dxe7 39 (not 16...b4? 17.2a4+ SPB 18.4\c2 and White successfully activated the knight in Moryley — Greenfeld, Izmir 2004) 17.8d2 d5 Black's chances are not worse. b) 13..lg8 Chekhov's old move is, in my opinion, the most attractive option. Then: b1) 14.0-0 bxc4 15.Axcd d5 16,exd5 Wxd5 17.f3 Bd8 18.22 e4! was much better for Black in Kupreichik — Chekhov, Minsk 1976. b2) 14.cxb5 xg? 15.bxa6 Bxa6 16.8xa6 Sab 17.8d3 3c6 was double-edged in Kharloy - Khairullin, Tomsk 2004, In playing 17...8c6 Black must have rejected 17...81b6 because of 18.8b5t. ‘Nevertheless, his chances would have been by no means worse in the arising endgame: 18...!4%xb5 19.xb5 ded7 White has two passed pawns, but his king feels uncomfortable. Besides, the black rooks are much more active. For instance, after 20.%be2 F5 21exfS AxfS 22.24 Hg4 23.63 Hb4 24.Eab1 Bc6 25.262 g7! Black is clearly better. b3) 14.52g1!? bxo4 15.2ixc4 d5 16.exd5 Yxd5 17.adt FB 18.0-0-0 leads to the position from our main game with the inclusion of the moves Hig and Hg8, which favours Black. In Motylev ~ Shirov, Bastia (rapid) 2004, Black achieved good play with 18...g4 19.82 Hd4. There was nothing wrong with the simple 18...2xg2 either, and in this double-edged position Black has reasonable prospects. 14.Axc4 d5 15.exd5 Wxd5 ‘This position had been considered harmless for Black, based on several games from the late 70s. ‘As usual in the Sveshnikoy, the old evaluations are roughly accurate, which does not exclude the possibility of finding new ideas. Anand showed one such idea. 16.Wast ‘A fresh discovery by Anand. The intention is to start a sharp battle where Black can often have problems with the vulnerable position of his king, Previously White played 16.2.d6* d2f8 17.Le4 Was} 18.8d2 Wxd24 19.cbxd2 Bd8 20.2xb7 Sxd6+. This endgame was checked in the games Smyslov ~ Sveshnikov, Lvov 1978 and Ljubojevic — Tseshkovsky, Riga 1979. In both, cases after 21.%%c2 2b6 Black easily proved that he has nothing to fear. A new attempt was tried recently by A. Sokolov. He played 21.3 &65 22.Hadl, but this changed nothing. Black was not worse after 22..,Ad4 23.b3 We7 24.b2 a5 and, after a long battle, the game A. Sokolov van Wely, Germany 2004, ended in a draw. 16...2f8 16...86 17.!4a3 Bd8 18.0-0-0 offers White the initiative. 17.0-0-0 Wxg2 A later attempt to improve on van Wely’s play with 17...c5 18.f3 t2g7 19.!a5 Bac8 20.b1 Ehd8 was not completely successful, since after 21.Yixc5 Bxc5 22,43 White had better chances in the endgame, Zhang Pengxiang ~ Shirov, Bastia (rapid) 2004. 18.2hgl40 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded 18... Bixf 2?! Thisis careless. Opening files for the opponent’ rooks is obviously too risky. In Timofeev ~ Haznedaroglu, Abu Dhabi 2004, Black played 18...8c6 19.83 Hc8 20.2b1 WS 21.YxcS, Bxc5 22.4b6 dHe8 and White had compensation for the pawn in the endgame, but hardly more than that. A possible improvement for White is 19.8b4, keeping an eye on the b7-bishop. ‘Then after 19...a5 20.42 (20.43 2a6 offers Black counterplay) 20...h5 the position remains double-edged. 19.8b4 263 After 19...!4¢ 20.b1 8d5 21.8d6 2e6 22.b6 He8 Black's position looks anything but healthy. No better is 20..8f3 21.86 (QL.Egl2) 21...exd1 22.46 Wd2 23.Dxa8+ (White achieves only a draw after 23.2d7+ 28 24.Dxf6+ bf). 20.2gf1t Now Blacks position is highly dangerous. In such situations any mistake is usually fatal. 20... g2 21.2e: Correct was 21.2d2! We4 22.Wd6 Sc8 23. xt Hig8 24.dvb1 with a large advantage. 21,..Wh3 22.865 Bh 23.8d7 Be8 24.8c2 4 25.chb1 Ws 26.8d6 Wes 27.Wd2 Wea? 27...8g8 would have put up greater resistance 28.224 Dg6 29.8b3 29.8d5 wins at once, e.g. 29... 29.5 If 29...e7 White can either return to the previous winning variation with 30.824 Dg6 31.8d5, or win the endgame after 30.Sxe7 Eixe7 31.Wd8t Be8 32.Wd7 Be7 33.tMxe7t hxe7 34.2d5¢ Bd6 35.Axl4 hres 36.2d3t. 30.8d6+ hg7 31.Exf7t hg6 32.Rgit PhS 33.806 Wxe3 34.265 thd 35.8 6+ bh3 36.8g3t 10 This game gave a fresh impetus to the 10.2xe7 variation in 2004, even if Black had various acceptable alternatives along the way (as mentioned, I believe Chekhovsold move 13...2g8 offers Black good prospects). Generally, this is typical of any development in the Sveshnikov's theory in the past few years: Any new and interesting idea discovered for White (especially if implemented at a high level) is quickly noticed and then used by many other players. ‘The next game also shows that Black has other good possibilities. This interesting idea to ignore White's queenside activity belongs to Yurtaev. With similar intentions Black can also start with 12...65, which has the advantage of keeping some additional possibilities in case of 13.2d3, after which Black can continue 13..!Ma5t+ 14.8d2 Wad2t 15.cbxd2 fred 16.2xe4 d5! 17.cxd5 8b7 and Black is obviously doing well. White should probably avoid the endgame and play 14.Qf1 with a complicated position, Instead of 13...!a5¢ Black has several additional options such as 13...fke4 14.2xe4 Gb8, 13...g8!2, or 13...8:67, the latter transposing into the previous variation 12...2b7 13.2d3 £5. After 12...f5 the greedy answer 13.cxb5 can hardly represent a problem for Black. Black gains good compensation by continuing 13...fxe4 14.bxa6 0-0. If after 12... White plays 13.exf5 then 13...2xf5 14.cxb5 0-0 transposes to our mainChapter 8: 9...8e7 10.2xe7 41 game, after move 14. This move order was used in the game Socko ~ Radjabov, mentioned below. In this case I would like to mention an additional possibility 14,&d3 instead of 14.cxb5. Then Black answers 14...d4 with double-edged play. All these move-order subtleties may appear confusing, but one should not expect everything to be crystal clear without making an effort to understand wha it is happening. 13.cxb5 13.8d3 is worth considering. Valerga — Zambrana, Vicente Lopez 2004, continued 13.5 (I3.ubxe4 14. xc4 d5 15.exd5. Baxd5 16.0-0 was slightly better for White in Kupreichik —Yurtaev, Frunze 1985) 14.exf5 Sxf5 (14...Ox65 is perfectly playable too, since the direct attempt 15.¥h5 brings nothing in view of 15...!h4=. Even worse is 15.WE3?! 2d4 16.!xa8? Wash 17.2f1 £65 and Black wins. Instead White should play 15.0-0, which offers mutual chances after 15...Hg5.) 15.2xf5 Dxf5 16.Mg4t 2e7 17.0-0 Eb8 18.Bad1 @h8 19.cxb5 axb5 20.8464 with advantage to White. As indicated by Valerga, instead of 15...2xf5 Black could equalise with 15...Wa5#! 16.842 (after 16.2F1 Dxf5 17.84 g4+ ¢7 only White can have problems) 16...€4xd2+ 17.xd2 Dxf5 18.cxb5 Bfbs!. 13.65 14.0x£5 14.843 fred 15.8xe4 dS 14...Dxf5 15.bxa6 White goes all the way with his pawn. The present game shows very well Black’s potential in such positions. Black also has compensation after 15.8d3 d5, bur not 15...e4% when White plays 16.Sxe4 8e8 17.0-0 Bxed 18.¥4d5 winning back the piece and remaining with at least one extra pawn. 15...Wh4 The ambitious continuation. In Socko — Radjabov, Izmir 2004, the players made a draw after 15...8xa6 16.fxa6 WaSt 17.!d2 (17.2F1 Wrabt 18.bg1 Adds) 17...Wxa6 18.h4 Bhs 19.¥4%g5 4d4 and to avoid problems White must give checks from £6 and g5. 16.2 d5 16...2xa6?2 allows an unexpected double attack: 17.2xa6 Bxa6 18.Wd3+- 17.8xd5 Highly risky, but in the spirit of the chosen system. On the other hand, if White does not take on d5 Black will build a strong initiative thanks to his central pawns: 17.04 d4 18.8d3 (18.2b5 4 19.0-0 d3 20.4¢3 Dd4 with compensation) 18...c4 19.g3 WH 20.Bxe4 He8 Or 17.2c2 Bd8 18.0-0 £d6!. 17.806 18.Yxe5 18.2483 e4 also gives Black clear compensation. [Editor's note: Volokitin gives 19.93! in Informant 92.) 18,..Bad8! A powerful move, although I would not say that White is completely out of danger after 18...8fe8 19.0-0-0. White is no fewer than four(!) pawns up, but the king being on e1 makes his position highly dangerous. Ic is White who must try 10 escape with a draw. 19.265 ‘With this logical move the talented Ukrainian GM takes away the e8-square from Black's tooks. However, it is the first step in the wrong direction. In such a position and with limited time it is practically impossible to find the best moves. a) 19.8c3 Dxe3 20.Wxe3 Bfe8—+42 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded b) 19.Be2 Bd5 20.Ye7 (20.83 Bc8 21.63 Bxc2 22.07 Wh4t 23.001 WaS—+) 20.88 21.87 Exc2 22.0-0 Bd4 23.8d1 (Forced as 23.8d3 Bh5 24.Wb8+ sbg7 25.a7 Bd5 wins for Black, and even worse is 23.a7 Dxe2t 24.2h1 ‘Wah2t 25.2xh2 Zh5E. Also 23.Wb8t Sd8 24.27 Dxe2t 25.2h1 2d5—+ is unappealing.) 23...Hc8 24.07 HdsF <) 19.g3 Analysis shows that this move offers ‘White the best chances to escape. The idea is to prepare Se3 under better circumstances. ‘The 19...4ad is only a draw: 20.21e3 Ad4 21.West hs 22. Mot hgs 23.2¢2 What 24.1 Wxb2 25.Hel Bh3+ 26.0g2 Hfes 27.854 Possibly Black can play for more with 19...8h6 20.2e3 Dxe3 21. Wxe3 WAS 22.Bc? (22.892 &c4t) 22.,.2h3 and White still must suffer for his extra material. 19.24! Te turns out that White cannot take the unprotected knight. Now he faces serious problems. 19...2d5 20.!e2 W4 also looks good, but the game continuation is stronger. 20.206? ‘This is a serious mistake. Leaving the black bishop on the a6-fl diagonal with the king on el cannot be good. J believe Black is winning after this. Instead of the game continuation White again had a wide choice: a) 20.xf52? loses at once: 20...Me7# 21.23 what b) 20.a4 Bd5 21.Me3 We7t 22.3 Axed 23.fre3 Wht 24.3 Wed 25.Wxcd Yxhlt 26.81 Weh2 27.2 Whit 28.4A1 and White keeps chances to escape. ©) 20.8xc4! Giving up the queen for rook and bishop seems to be best. 20...fe8 21.We! (21.Yxc8} Hxe8t 22.8c2 Wed 23.3 Wb4t 24.bf) Wxb2F) 21...Bxe2t (21... Wxc4 22.8e3 Whit 23.1 Dxe3t 24.fxe3 Hd2 25.813 Wrxb2 26.8el Wxa2 27.h4 WxaGt 28.2g1 and a draw is the most Black can achieve) 22.£xe2 Wed 23.Hd1 Hc8 (23...e8!? 24.8d2 Wxg2 25.Hf1 Wxh2~) 24.2e3 Axed 25.fre3 Wxe3 26.8f1 Sc2 27.8f2 Bxb2 28.cf1 Sxa2 must be good enough for a draw. 20...Wh6? This allows White to escape. Afier the simple 20...82xa6 White is in trouble: a) 21.8d1 Wed—+ b) 21.b3 Wh6—+ c) 21.Yxf5 Bfe8# (21...8e7t 22.24) 22.Bxe8 We7t 23.03 What d) 21.2c3 Wb4t 22.Wc3 Dxe3 23.fre3 Wh4t 24.g3 Wh5 25.2 BcB—+ ©) 21.b4 2d3 22.8c1 Wed must be an easy win: the king remains in the centre and Black wins a piece. f) 21.2b5 Qxb5 22.Wxb5 Stet 23.chA1 Bd6 24.We6 Ae4 25.g3 Wh5 (or 25...Wh3t 26.2¢1 xf2 with the idea 27.chxf2 WPSt 28.1 Be2 1g) 26.shg2 Be6 27.We7 Hd2 28.EhFl BAG. and again Black wins. 21,De31 Axed 22.4g3t! Hhs 23.He5t Les 24.Wg3t Bhs 25.He5t £6 The attempt to play for a win fails, since now the bishop on c6 is no longer under attack and White can take the knight. 26.¥ixe3 Wh5 27.27! Hast 28.Wc3 fest 29.Sxe8 Bxe8t 30.bd1 30.h2d2 Wg5t 31.ibd1 Le2t 32.he2 WHT is the same draw. 30... Re2t 31.2 WES 32.263 WS t 33. b4 Wd3t 34.Wc3 Wb5t 35.22 Or 35.823 Wat also drawing. 35... EST 36.0263 HbSt YateChapter 9 Introduction to 10.2xf6 &xf6 11.c3 Led c5 2.063 De 3.4 cxd4 4.Dxd4 DG 5.Dc3 5 6.AdbS dé 7.2g5 a6 8.223 bS 9.Dd5 27 10.2xf6 Bxf6 11.c3 The best and by far the most popular continuation. Black’s task is much easier after other moves: a) 11.c4 has a similar idea to 11.c3: to bring the knight from a3 quickly into play. White can choose this move if he wants to get a solid position, where it is difficult for either side to create activity. The main drawback of 11.c4 is that White remains with a passive bishop and also might have some problems in the future with the dark squares. 11...b4 The approved method of play. 12.@c2 a5 And now: 13.2xf6¢ Wxf6 14.82 0-0 15.0-0 £b7 16.8f3 Db8= 17.23?! b3! 18.e3 a4 is better for Black, Witemann ~ Timoshenko, Bratislava 1996. 13.g3 2g5 14.222 0-0 15.0-0 De7 16.Axe7+ Wac7 17.8d3 We7 18.b3 We5 19.Radl Bds 20.s@h1 &b7= Berndt — Kalinitschew, Germany 2004. 13.62 0-0 14.0-0 Bg5 15.83 Eb8 16.3 266 ‘The position is equal. b) 11.AbI1 is a worse version of 9.Dabl (see page 29), since here Black can prevent a2-a4 with 11...8b8. Then: bl) 12.g3 Bc6 13.8g2 Sxd5 14.exd5 (14.8%xd52! 41d4 is very problematic for White) 14...Qe7 (even better is 14...8a5! followed by «0-0, £95, £5 and Black's position is preferable) 15.Dd2 g6 16.hd! &g7 (after 16...h52% 17.804 favours White due co the weakness of the g5- square) 17.h5 f5 18.g4 (18.013 4 19.344 Wh6T) 18...04 was double-edged in Tseshkovsky — Rogozenko, Calimanesti 1993. 2) 12.b4 White wants to play a2-a4 only after long and carefull preparation, but such intentions rarely work out in the Sveshnikov due to Black’s many tactical possibilities. 12.26 13.bc3 0-0 14.24 @xb4! The refutation of White's idea. 15.Axb4 WaS 16.ca2 2xa2 17.c3 In Motylev — Rogozenko, Bucharest 1998, we were both shore of time already and agreed a draw. The subsequent analysis showed that with precise play only Black can have better prospects due to White's problems with development: 17...2¢6 18.axb5 Wc7 19.c4 axb5! (19...19b72! 20.243 axb5 21.cxb5%) 20.226 W7 21.Axb8 Exbs! with good compensation for the exchange.44 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded Returning to 11.c3, White prepares @a3-c2 and then he will be ready for a2-a4. This advance of the wing pawn is an important part of White's strategy and is designed to either createa weakness on b5, or to open the fl-a6 diagonal for the bishop. Eliminating the b5-pawn will also secure the cA-squate for White’ bishop. Nevertheless, after a2-a4 Black must avoid remaining with an isolated pawn on b5. Such a weakness would permanently be a target for attack and would also allow White to use the perfect square b4 for a knight. Therefore, Black must either try to prevent a2-a4 by playing ..2b8, or meet a2-a4 with b5xa4 followed by ...a6-a5. The bishop pair in such positions is only a formal advantage for Black, since his dark-squared bishop usually has no targets for attack. For White the ideal situation is to havea knight on d5 against the dark-squared bishop. Therefore, while Black should generally avoid che exchange of light-squared bishops, he is usually happy to trade his dark-squared bishop fora knight. With a knight on €3, the manoeuvre «£if6-g5xe3 is often an achievement for Black. ‘That is why in such positions White often advances the h-pawn. White uses h2-h4 cither to prevent the opponent's bishop from reaching the cI-h6 diagonal or, when che bishop is already on g5, to chase it to h6, thus cutting off its way back to €7 or d8, from where it could eventually switch to the ideal a7-gl diagonal. The final important point to know about such positions is that White must always try to recapture with a piece on d5. If Black can force his opponent to take on d5 with a pawn (e4xd5), then usually Black's chances become instantly preferable. After 11.c3 Black has the following plans: 11...8b7 (chapter 10, page 45), 11...2e7 (chapter 11, page 49), 11..2g5 12.0c2 De7 (chapter 12, page 57), 11...8b8 12.2c2 &g5 (chapter 13 page 59) 11..0-0 12.0c2 &g5 (chapter 14, page 63) and 11...0-0 12.02 Bb8. (chapter 15, page 81).Chapter 10 11...2b7 Let c5 2.063 Deb 3.d4 cxd4 4.Dxd4 D6 5.Qc3 5 6.Adb5 d6 7.25 26 8.203 b5 9.25 Se7 10.8x66 Bxf6 11.c3 2b7 This interesting line was popular about a decade ago, but went out of fashion because Black found clearer ways to equalise, Black's intention after 11...2b7 is usually to transfer the knight via b8 and d7 to 5, or sometimes if necessary to £6 or bG. The idea of such a knight transfer was developed by GM Bukhuri Gurgenidze in the early 1980s, except that he used to play 11...0-0 12,4\¢2 &b7. Developing the bishop on b7 onc move earlier (11.,.2b7) is an improvement over Gurgenidze’s plan introduced by the Bulgarian GM Donchev in 1984. In my opinion, a serious drawback of this line is that it offers White a choice between several good plans, 12.22 bs “The logical follow-up of the previous move. a) 12...8g5 13.24! bxa4 14.Sxa4 AS (14...0-0 15.8c4 transposes to page 66) 15.2c4¢ Dd7 16.¥e2 (16.b4 is interesting, although it has the drawback of prematurely weakening the pawn on c3. Black must seek counterplay on the ¢-file.) 16...0-0 17.0-0 a5 (17...8xd5 18.8xd5 b6 19.2a5+) 18.8fal DcS 19.8442 a4 20.Acb4 Bb8. 21.8d1 @h8 22.205 5 23.cxf5 ExfS 24.8xa4 White is simply a pawn up, Kudrin - Ochoa de Echaguen, New York 1992. 1b) 12.,.Be7 13.Aich4 (13.2xf6t gxf6 transposes to page 53) 13..Axd5 14.Oxd5 0-0 15.4b3!? (the usual move is 15.24, which secures a slight advantage) 15...8g5 16.£e2 &h8 17.0-0 Bb8 18.2ad1 2c6 19.8g4 White is clearly better, Ivanchuk ~ Frolyanoy, Yerevan (rapid) 2004. In this position White has rather pleasant choice between four (!) possible plans. 1) 13.0482, 2) 13.g3, 3) 13.2\ce3 and 4) 13.24.‘This rare move deserves some attention. Of course, White loses time by playing c4 after having already played €3, but Black has retreated the knight and White's advance exploits this factor. 13...0-0 13...bxe4? 14.8xc4 hands White a clear positional advantage. L4scxbS 14.b4!? 14...axb5 15.2xb5 ‘Other moves are completely harmless: 15.22 @d7 16.0-0 Ac5 17.263 Bg5 18.Acb4 g6 19.2\c3 2h8= Brodsky - Rogozenko, Nikolaev, 1993. Or 15.b4 &xd5 16.Wxd5 We7 17.243 We34 18.52 Ac6 and White must play very precisely to keep the balance, Sanchez Almeyra ~ Krasenkow, Paris 1990. 15...Wa5t 16.3 Bxed 16...d5 17.exd5 e4 18.04 Bixc3# 19.bxc3 Wxc34 20,8d2 Wrxd2+ 21.dox« is slightly better, Bernabe Duran ~ Hamdouchi, Malaga 1998. 17.0-0 867 White must try to combine the advance of his queenside pawns with blockading the opponent's centre. ‘The position is double-edged and has not been tested in practice yet. A very solid plan designed to restrict the activity of Black's dark-squared bishop with the help of h2-h4, 13...0d7 13...8g5 14.h4 2h6 15.g4 (The following game shows the danger of leaving the bishop out of play on h6: 15.a4 bxa4 16.8xa4 Bd7 17.8g2 a5 18,0-0 0-0 19.8a2 &c52! 20.b4! axb4 21 Bxa8 22.cxb4 DeG 23.Wd3 Sxd5 24,exd5 Nore that White no longer plays for supremacy over the d5-square, Much more important is that from h6 the bishop cannot fight against the advance of the b-pawn. 24...2c7 25.b5 with a clear advantage for White, Suba — Rodriguez Vinuesa, Malaga 2001.) 15...B4 16.2)xf4 exf4 17.3 De6 18.%4d2 M6 19.0-0-0E J. Polgar — Illescas, Dos Hermanas 1994. 14.h4 0-0 15.Ace3 g6 a) 15..Dc5 16.8d3! g6 17.Ac2 a5 18.23 2g7 19.h5 SB 20.hxg6 frg6 21.!e2+ Anand — Kramnik, Monaco (blindfold) 1994 b) 15..Ab6 16.8h3! (16.8g2 Be8 17.0-0 Alxd5 18.Axd5 Sc5=) 16.24 17.Axc4 bred 18.0-0 b8 19.b4 and, in my opinion, Black has not achieved full equality. 16.2h3!? Black has better chances to equalise after 16.g4 Sg7 17.h5 Df 18.2)xf6t Wxf6 19.8d1 Bac8 20.2g2 Bfd8 21.0-0 Hc5 22.8d3 Shot, Mortensen — Nunn, Vejle 1994.Chapter 10: 11...8b7 7 16...2g7 17.h5 Df6 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.4d3 Axd5 20.Oxd5 Bh6 21.81 White has firm control over d5 and therefore slightly better chances, Anand ~ Nunn, Monaco (blindfold) 1994. 3) 13.Dce3 In connection with the next move, this is another good, solid plan, White's aim here is to increase his control of the centre as much as possible. 13...0d7 13...0-0 14.863 Qg5 15.8d1 g6 16.h4 &xe3 17.¥xe3é Stanojoski - Todorovic, Pancevo 2003. 14,863 14.25 0-0! 15.2xd6 (15.3! is an attempt to improve. 1 think White can claim an edge, but this needs practical tests.) 15...8xd5 16.Wxd5 Wc7 is known to be good for Black. In Ehlvest ~ Hossain, Dhaka 2001, White eventually achieved a big advantage despite playing rather feebly: 14.2d3 0-0 15.0-0 295 16.a4 bxa4 17.8xad Ac5 18.Mc2 a5 19.Eifel 26 (19...8xe3 20.xe3 af 21.13 Oxd3 22.Yxd3 W6=) 20.Rc4! a4 21.Bad1 EbS 22.63 wh8 23.a2 Bixe34 (better was 23...f51 24.exf5 Bxd5 25.Qxd5 gxf5 with mutual chances) 24.x We72t 25.h1 FS? 2G.exfS ef 27.Qd5 Oxd5 28.2xd5 14...0-0 15.h4 &e7 White achieved a large advantage after 15...g6 162d] Bc8 17.d3 Bg7 18.82 &xd5 19.2xd5 DAG 20.8b3 aS 21.DAxfoF Bxf6 22.h5 in Rytshagov — Holmsten, ‘Tampere 1999. 16.243 Df6 17.Oxf6¢ Ax 18.8d1 Wb6 19.22 Again Black has not achieved full equality yee, Tiviakov — Yakovich, Elista 1997. 4) 13.04 ‘The most principled continuation. xa4 14.ce3 14.Bxa4 d7 15.864 Eb8 is about equal. Weaker is 15...€¢5, which allowed Kasparov to play a beautiful positional exchange sacrifice: 16,Exb7! Dxb?7 17.b4 Bg5 18.423 0-0 19.2c4 35 20.8.d3 axbd 21.exb4 and the game Kasparov = Shirov, Horgen 1994, proved that Black faces serious problems because of the total lack of coordination between his minor pieces. 4a) 14...0-0 In view of the fact that Black is facing problems afier the generally approved 14...Ad7 (see the next variation), castling short immediately deserves more attention. 15.Bxa4 Qd7 15..dbgS 16.065! 16.h4! Black has little to worry about after 16.b4 &g5. Instead, worth considering is 16.2b4 Eb848 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded (16...c5 17.Exb7 Dxb7 18.b4 Bg5 19.De4 teansposes to Kasparov ~ Shirov, see 14.Exa4 above) 17.h4 with an unclear position. 16...Dc5 16...a5 17.Za2 g6 18.63 Sg7 19.h5 Bxd5 20.Dxd5 DbG 21.Dxb6 Wxb6 22.8c4 gave White a huge positional advantage in Korneev ~ Arizmendi Martinez, Albacete 2001 17.Bc4 Interesting is 17.2a3 Oxe4 18.863 Bc5 19.b4 &xd5 20.4xd3_ with good positional compensation for the pawn: 20...fe6 (or 20..Ad7 21.2d3%) 21.62 (21.803 Of 22.Re4~) 21..e4 (21.8 22.8d3 BB 23.2043) 22.Dxf6t Wxl6 23. Wil6 gxfo 24.cod2 Ac7 25.He2 followed by Shal, with better prospects for White. 17..a5 18.b4 axb4 19.cb4 De6 20.g3 Ads 21.203! a3 22.8c3 Exc3 23.0xc3 Wd7 24.Bcd5 Ads In this complicated position Black’s counterplay must be connected with ...f7-f5. In Zagrebelny ~ Gagarin, Moscow 1995, Black failed to find a convincing plan: 25.2c4 ®h8 26.8d3 ches 27.Shf1 gO? 28.h5! &g7 29.Md2 HF3 30.Hd1 Ad4 31.Wel Bg5 32.4! Bc8 33.1 Ads 34 hxg6 fxg6 35.5 Bxd5 36.Axd5 WE7 37.cteg2 Dxf5 38.863! Dh6 39.b5 Mxf3t 40.cexf3 Des 41.b6 and White went on to win the endgame. 4b) 14...Dd7 15.Dxf6f! The only move capable of setting problems for Black, 15.¥xa4 0-0 16.8d1 &g5 leads to equal play. 15...Wixf6 In the endgame arising after 15...2xf6 16.¥xadt Wd7 (or 16...2f8 17.6+, while 16...0d7 17.Qf5 transposes to the main line) 17.8ixd7+ dexd? (17...2xd7? 18.065 and White wins a pawn) 18.63 Black has a tough fight for the draw. 16.xa4 Hd8 16...8d8 17.8xa6 Ha8 18.84 We6 19.2d5 0-0 20.0-0 is simply a pawn up for White. 17.365 0-0 18.4)xd6 2b8 After 18...8c7 19.Wa3 BcS 20.Axb7 Dxb7 21.Gc2 Hfd8 22.0-0 Bd2 23.8fel Black is basically struggling to escape 19.Wa3 We7 20.2c4 xed 21.0-0 Tordachescu indicated that White could also achieve a slight advantage with 212x175 Bxf7 22,Oxe4 Wb7 23.63 Wxb2 24.0-0. 21 ha8 22.8fd1 Bb6 23.Ha5. White has better prospects. He possesses the initiative while Black has permanent problems with the weak pawn on a6, Iordachescu — Timoshenko, Tusnad 2004.Chapter 11 11...2e7 Led 5 2.063 Acé 3.4 add 4.Oxd4 DFG 5.2c3 €5 6.2db5 d6 7.2g5 a6 8.423 b5 9.2d5 Be7 10.2xf6 2xf6 11.c3 De7 ‘This line against the 9.2d5 system has always been (successfully) advocated by Krasenkow. Black is ready to spoil his pawn structure in order to neutralise his opponent's control over the d5- square and to attack White's centre later with the - or Epawns. 12.Dxf6t The only principled way to fight for the advantage. 12.2c2 leads to equal positions: 12...2xd5.13.Wxd5 Hb8 14.0b4 (14.2d1 2b7 15.Wd3 0-0 16.g3 Be7 17.Rg2 f5 18.0-0 4 was also about equal in a more complicated position, Dominguez — Krasenkow, Esbjerg 2003) 14...8b7 15.843 0-0 16.62 a5 17.0d5 b4 18.c4 (18.Dxf6+ Wxf6 19.c4 Wh4! offered Black the initiative in Meijers — I. Schneider, Boeblingen 2003) 18...L2xd5 19.Wxd5 Wb6= It is well-known that this position is similar to the one from the line 10.2)xe7 Dxe7 11.2xf6 exf (page 37), except that here, with the pawn on c3 instead of c2, White has an extra tempo, Of course this helps White, but it should not be overestimated or considered to secure White an. advantage automatically. In the above-mentioned line White's plans involve c2-c4, while here playing for c4 would be an unwise decision to throw away the extra tempo and go for a line which is completely acceptable for Black. Therefore, in the diagram position White must use his extra tempo by conducting other plans. An interesting detail about this position is that it is reminiscent of those from the 9.2xf6 gxf6 system, except without White's powerful knight on d5 and Black's dark-squared bishop. Ac first sighe this favours Black, but things are not that simple.50 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded In such a pawn structure (with doubled pawns on f7 and f6) Black usually plays for the advance .f5, trying to open up the centre. For this a dark-squared bishop would be most welcome, which means that now White has no fewer arguments than Black to open the position. ‘To put it differently: With the doubled pawns on £7 and f6 Black’s dark-squared bishop cannot be considered a bad piece. With the normal pawn structure on the kingside (with pawns on g7 and £7), the dark-squared bishop has fewer prospects Another drawback for Black here is that without a dark-squared bishop on g7, castling kingside can curn out co be dangerous, since the king will lack an important defender. ‘Therefore, in contrast to most other lines of the Sveshnikov, in many cases Black feels safer with his king on the queenside, especially when White has already castled long, All this means that the absence of Black’s dark-squared bishop and White's knight from d5_ cannot be regarded as favouring only Black. ‘These general considerations should help the reader to sce the various different kinds of positions in their entire complexity. White has a large choice of possible plans. The main continuations are 1) 13.g3, 2) 13.22, 3) 13.Ac2 and 4) 13.83. Other moves are harmless: 13.82 &b7 14.0-0-0 Sxe4 15,Hxd6 Bxd6 16.2xd6 f5= In addition, Black can also consider a pawn sacrifice: 16...4c6 17.2xf6 be7 18.2h6 ac8!? with compensation 13.43 £5 14.exf5 BxfS 15.2d3 Le6 16.0-0 0-0 is equal. For instance, 17.2c2 Hb8 18.2b3 b4 19.2xe6 bxa3 20.8b3 axb2 21.Babl gz 22.8xb2 £5 23.Ed2 Hf6= Popovic — Vukic, Zlatibor 1989, or 17.Bfel f 18.8f1 ft and Black started to develop an initiative in Tiviakov ~ Bosch, Hengelo 2000. 1) 13.3 ‘The relative drawback of this plan is that it allows many simplifications and therefore it has drawish tendencies. 13.867 ‘This continuation is most popular and leads to positions where White can claim a slight advantage. Double-edged play results after 13... £5 14.2g2 fred 15.Bxe4 d5 16.82 Se6 17.Ac2 0-0 18.8e2 Wc7 19.£4 £6 Blehm — Ji. Novorny, Czech Republic 2001 14.0g2 5 A playable alternative is 14...d5 15.exd5 @xd5 16.2xd5 Yxd5 17.Wxd5 @xd5 18.0-0-0 0-0-0 and White is only marginally better. 15.Be2 HG Icis safer for Black to wait for a while with his king in the centre and then castle on the same side as his opponent, Immediately castling short leads to sharp positions where, in my opinion, White's chances are preferable: 15..0-0 16.82 fred (16...8b6 17.0-0-0 Sac8 18.ceb1 Sc4? 19.d2 and Black started to feel uncomfortable because of the weaknesses on the kingside in Dervishi ~ Atakisi, Yerevan 2000) 17.Sxe4 &xe4 18.Wxe4 £5 19.@e2 Wb6 20.4 Qgo (Whites chances also look preferable after 20...e5 21.0-0-0 a5 22.Zhel 4g6 23.h4!) 21.0-0-0 Hac8 22.82 a5 23.h4 b4 24.h5 bxc3 25.Wd5+ PhS 26.b3 De7 27.4e6 Deb 28.Exd6+ Korneev — Holmsten, Reykjavik 2002. A reasonable alternative to 15...8b6 is 15...Me7. Then 16.82 h5 17.0-0-0 0-0-0 18.f4 We6 transposes to the main line. In Kaminski - Zezulkin, Wisla 1998, Black made use of his queen on c7 by playing 18...fxe4Chapter 11: 11...2e7 51 19.2xe4 d5 20.863 exfa. However, White kept a slight advantage after 21.fhel Ag6 22.xh5 fxg3 23.2xg6 Wht 24.8d2 Wxd2t 25.Exd2 fxg6 26.hxg3 Hh3 27.e3 Bh1F 28.Hd1 Hh2 29.8d2 Sh1} 30.1 h2 although a draw was agreed. Black has a poor bishop on b7, so White could play on without any risk. 31.2f1, in order to prevent 31...2f8, looks good and then Black would still have to play precisely in order to achieve the draw. 16.22 White's edge is insignificant after 16.0-0-0 0-0-0 17.4 (17.Ac2 h5 18.f4 transposes to the main line) 17...Wo6 18.8hel fred 19.8xe4 Wed 20.Mixe4d Sxe4 21 Fixed £5 22.Feel e4 23.42 d5 24,213 Bd6 Socko — Sermek, Valle d'Aosta 2001. 16...h5 16..§e6 17.0-0-0 a5 secured White an initiative in A. Sokolov — Zsu. Polgar, Bilbao 1987, after 18,¥d2 0-0-0 19.2hel 28 20.8g5 Bd7 21.46. 17.0-0-0 0-0-0 m8 A AS OBwAS A Z gx Zi 18.64! Worse is 18.h4 d2b8 19.2d2 since it allows a promising pawn sacrifice: 19...f4! 20.gxf4 Dg6 21.f5 (Black also has good compensation after 21 fxe5 dxe5) 21.24 22. Dxg2 (22...8c822 with the idea ...2e4 looks strong too) 23.Wxg2 Ehg8 24.873 Hg4 25.Bel a5 26.Wh1 Edgs For the pawn Black has very active pieces, Kutuzovic = Babula, Pula 2001 18...He6 Black’s play in Kaminski — Krasenkow, Shupsk 1992, was not very convincing: 18...fxe4 19.2xe4 d5 20.863 4 21.2xh5 f5 22.4 b4 23.Me3! xe3t 24.Bxe3 bxc3 25.bxc3 Wb8 26.h3 ad and a draw was agreed, but the only question is how big Whites advantage is. For instance, after 27.8d4 Black can hardly do anything, since he must keep the rook on the h-file to prevent g4- 8 19.Shel fred 19...h4 does not achieve the desired counterplay in view of 20.2b4! and Black must struggle after 20...Se4 21 exf5 Wxe2 22.8xb7+ Lxb7 23.Bxe2 hxg3 24.hxg3 Dxf5 25.fkeS Axg3 26.83 DFS 27.88. 20.24 Hed 21.Wxcdt 21.8xe4 Wxe2 22.8xb7+ coxb7 23.Bxe2 £6 24Hed2 5 is about equal. 21...bxc4 22.2.xe4 £6 23.2xb7+ thxb7 24.b3 Thanks to his pressure on the central files White's chances are slightly preferable. 2) 13.Le2 Ivanchuk - Leko Batumi 1999 ‘This sound idea to transfer the bishop to £3 is advocated by the Latvian grandmaster Lanka. 13...8b7 A playable alternative is 13...f5 with the intention of placing the bishop on e6 from where52 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded it will control important squares on the kingside, such as f5 and g4. IdexfS (worse is 14.863 fied 15.&xe4 d5 and, unlike the 13.g3 variation, White cannot retreat the bishop to g2) 14...2xf5 15,22 (15.0-0 0-0 16.14d2 Be6 17.c4 bxc4 18.Axc4 DES 19.2d3 Dd4 20.14 Sxed 21.8xc4 d5 22.863 Ye-¥ Oll — Krasenkow, Vilnius 1997) 15...2e6 (worth considering is 15...d5 16.e3 2e6 with the idea 17.a4 b4! 18.cxb4 0-0 19.0-0 d4 20.2g4 Og 21.213 Hb8 and Black is not worse) 16.0-0 (16.8¢4 Wd7=) 16...0-0 Here White can choose between 17.Wd2 or 17.24. In both cases his chances are slightly preferable, but Black has sufficient resources to hold the position. 14.263 Bb6 This is Krasenkow’s idea to prepare ...d5 with the help of the rook. Other options: a) 14.65 15.exf5 d5 16.2c2! (16.g4 h5 is good for Black) 16...@xf5 17.g3 0-0 18.0~0 a5 19.822 Wd6 20.Bel! and, because of his many pawn weaknesses, (b5, d5 and e5) Blac Lanka ~ M. Muse, Germany 1994, b) 14...d5 15.exd5 Sxd5 16.0-0 Hg8! (weaker is 16...04% 17.82 Bg8 18.c4 bxc4 19.2xc4 Eb8 20.We2 and White has a big advantage thanks to the insecure position of Black’s king, Blimke ~ Zawadzka, Czestochowa 1998) 17.He1 (17.2c2!? e4 18.8e2 £5 leads to complicated play) 17...8xf3 18.863 Wd5 19.%xd5 Bxd5= Morris ~ Gomez Jurado, Andorra 1991. 15.0-0 Also possible is 15.0c2 d5 16.We2! (16.exd5 Hd8 17.4e2 Bxd5 was no problem for Black in Illescas — Krasenkow, Pamplona 1999) 16...2d8 (Black has an interesting pawn sacrifice in 16...f5!2 17.exf5 e4 18.8g4 h5 19.8h3 with unclear play, Enneste ~ Lianeza Vega, Calvia 2004) 17.0-0 h5 and now, instead of 18.8fd1 £5 19.cxf5 e4 20.8xh5 Wh6 21.g4 which led to a double-edged position in Xie Jun — Ye Jiangchuan, Shanghai 2000, White could keep the advantage after 18.exd5 Bxd5 19.8xd5 Dxd5 20.Had1. However, 15.0-0 is the most precise continuation avoiding, for instance, the above- mentioned pawn sacrifice, 15.848 worse, 5 is dubious on account of 16.exd5 Bd8 17.044. If 15..0-0 White has better chances after cither 16.04 or 16.2c2. In Lanka—R. Ris, Groningen 2002, Black tried 15...0-0-0, but after 16.c4 b8 17.cxb5 axb5, 18.8b3 found himself in a difficult position. 16.04 A principled continuation, trying to prevent the advance ...d5. On the other hand, White also has other good moves. For instance, 16.2c2 5 17.84e2 transposes to the game Xie Jun — Ye Jiangchuan mentioned above (see 15.8c2). Another option is 16.Se1 d5 17.exd5 &xd5 (after 17...Bxd5 White has the strong reply 18.¥4d4! with advantage) 18.8xd5 Bxd5 (18...Axd5 19,3 0-0 20.22) 19.We2 0-0 20.c4 bred 21.Dxc4 Ye6 with a balanced position. Black compensates for his worse pawn structure with his centralised pieces. 16...65! 17.8d3 Again White has several attractive options. The most important is 17.exf5 @xf5 (17...c4 18.f6! favours White) 18.cxb5 axb5 19.2xb7 (19.c2~) 19...8xb7 20.83 (20.Wg4 d4 21.8g7 dee7 22. gS} eG 23.Mh6t FG) 20...0d4 21.4 with the initiative, 17..fxed Trying to limit the opponent's knight with 17...b4 18.82 £4 is not good because White can quickly create activity on the queenside with 19.843 a5 20.23.Chapter 11: 11...2e7 53 18.Bxe4 d5 19.cxd5 Sxd5 20.8fd1 Now the players suddenly agreed to share the point. This draw does not indicate that Black hhas easy and clear equality in this variation. ‘As mentioned, White can try various possible improvements. Unfortunately, the position after 15...f4d8 has not reappeared in practice since. 3) 13.2c2 &b7 7) b) 15...Axd5 16.fe4 £5 (16...!Ad7? loses to 17.843) 17.2xf5 @F4 18.¢3 Bxg2 (White also has the advantage after 18...Axg2+ 19.Axg2 xg2 20.8g1) 19.Bg] &c6 20.Mc2 White is slightly better. 16.2¢3 Heb 16...1906 17.24 0-0 18.4h5 Bg6 19.4h6 ths 20.h4 e4 21.5 Df (21...De5? 22.8xe4! Bred 23.Wxf6+ sog8 24.8h4 We 25.Hxe5+- Pecrik ~ Salai, Slovakia 2003) 22.22 Dd3t 23.8xd3 exd3 24.0-0-0 Bad8 25.8ixd3 White is a pawn up in a better position. 17.04 a) 17.8e2 e4 18.8¢2 £5 19.g3 Dg6 20.¥b3 (20.04 De5 2axbS Qd3i! 22.00f1 Papista — Halasz, Hungary 1997, and now Yakovich indicated that Black is much better after 22...f4) 20...8xb3 21 axb3 £4 22.65 0-0-0 is better for Black, Borys — Morchat, corr. 1992. b) 17.8h5 is the main alternative. 17...0-0-0 18.22 &b8 19.8b3 This position can also arise via the move order 11,..8b7 12.402 Ble7 13.Oxf6+ gxfo. 14.843 d5 14...f5 15.exf5! undoubtedly favours White: 15...xg2 (15...Bg8 16.23 d5 17.Me2 Wdo 18.63 0-0-0 19.0-0-0 gave White a clearly better position in Sax — Tatar Kis, Balatonlelle 2004) 16.2g1 &b7 17.24 bxa4 18.43 Sco 19.82 (19.6 Ag6 20.204 eT 21.2xc6+ Wxc6 22.M8 xa Wrad 23.8xa4 ed7 24.8242 is good as well) 19...8b8 20.f6 Bg8 21.8g3! with a large advantage for White, Berzinsh — Kretek, Mlada Boleslav 1992 15.exd5 15.822! allows Black to use the fact that the bishop has no possible retreat from d3: 15...f5! and Black's chances are at least equal after 16.f3 dxe4 17. Fred £4. 15...Yxd5 a) 15...f5? is just bad, since after 16.d6 the pawn is taboo in view of 17.2xb5+ winning the queen. Practice has proved more than once that in this position Black's chances are not worse. With his next move White will take the f7-pawn, but in recurn Black will develop a strong initiative thanks to his lead in development and possibility of advancing his remaining pawn. Black can choose between two reasonable options of approximately similar value: 19...8!6 or 19...!c6, in both cases with compensation after either 20,Wxf7 DgG, or 20.2xf7 £5.54 ‘The Sveshnikov Reloaded 17.88, Weaker is 17...f5 18.axb5 4 19.bxa6 &c6 20.84 (20.8c4 also secures an advantage) 20...¥g6 21.Dg4 £6 22.Be2 h5 23.Axe5 freS 24,Wxe5. Four pawns and an attack for the piece make this position close to winning for White, Bauer ~ Nataf, Marseille 2001 18.82 ef 18...Bd5 19.axb5 @xe3 20.fxe3 axb5 21.24 (21.&xb5t £8 22.0-0% is worth considering) 21...8xe4 22. xed 0-0 23.0-0 Fd2 24.863 with a slightly better position for White, Stefansson — Lalic, Aarhus 2003. 19,2¢2 £5 20.g3 20.axb5 f4 21.bxa6 Lc6 22.0d1 Bg8 23.Egl (bad is 23.g3? €3 24.f3 8d2 25.Wxh7 Wd5 and White resigned in Ayza Leon — Llaneza Vega, Lorca 2004, since he is helpless against 26...2xe2t followed by 27...4d2+ and then mate on f2) 23...g6, followed by 24.,.0h4 or 24...Be5, offers Black sufficient compensation. In this double-edged position Black can choose between two possibilities: a) 20...2c6 21.axb5 axb5 22.Ha5 fal? 23.gxf4 @d5 and here, instead of 24.83 which after 24,,.B\xf4 25.Wxe6t fxe6 26.8xb5 2xb5 27. Hixb5, Dd3+ 28.he2 EAB 29.Dd1 AMF 30.3 Dg2t 31.che2 DF4t 32.%e3 led to a draw in Antoniewski—_De Vreugt, Menorca 1996, critical is 24.Dxd5. More cautious for Black is co play 22.,.Hd7 with approximate equality. b) 20...0-0 21.axb5 axb5 22.8xb5 2g6 Black always has some compensation for the pawn due to White's problems with the king. Stefansson — Mamedyarov, Antalya 2004, continued: 23.£¢4 (dangerous is 23.0-0 f4 24.gxf4 Oxf4 25.eh1 Oh8 268g] Bd3 with a strong initiative) 23...Mc8 (23... 24.8a5 BeS is a reasonable alternative) 24.3a5 (24.0-0! £4 25.gx4 Oxf 26.sth1 Gah is unclear) 24...f4 25.gxf4 Anh 26.Bglt @h8 27.265 Now the best was 27...!c7! with multiple ideas (such as ...2d3* followed by ...¥xh2, or by ...£e8, ...8a8 etc) and Black’s chances are by no means worse. The conclusion in this variation is that Black must often be ready co sacrifice a pawn. In most cases he gains reasonable counter-chances. 4) 13.843 This variation prepares a flexible set-up for White's pieces and is currently considered the most unpleasant for Black. White's obvious idea is to fortify e4 by preparing afer which he will be able co choose which side co castle. ‘The main problem for Black is his king. Black’s ideal plan, in order to avoid possible attacks from White, is to hide his king on the same side as his opponent but, as we will see, this is not an easy task. Black can play 4a) 13...d5, or try to postpone this advance for awhile with 4b) 13...267.Chapter 11: 11...2e7 55 4a) 13...d5 14.42 14.2c2. 8b7 transposes to 13.8c2.2b7 14.243 5, see the previous variation. After other moves Black has no problems. 14.exd5 Wrd5 15.%e2 &b7 16.83 0-0-0, or 14.84h5 2b° 14...2b7, ‘This position can obviously also arise if Black plays first 13...2b7 14.!e2 d5. Instead of 14...8b7 Black also has: a) 14.65 15.exf5 e4 16.22 Sxf5 17.63! Florescu ~ Moraru, Curtea de Arges 200. b) 14..d4 This is an interesting idea of Krasenkow to avoid the typical positions which arise in this variation. In Socko - Krasenkow, Germany 2003, after 15.cxd4 Wxd4 16.0-0-0 (16.0-0 Bg8 offers Black sufficient counterplay according to Krasenkow) 16...!4b6 White unexpectedly decided to trade queens with 17.84¢32!, which allowed the Polish GM to enter a pleasant endgame with 17...Wxe3} 18.fe3 Bg8. As indicated by Krasenkow, critical for the evaluation of 14...d4 are 17.2b1 and 17,Ac2. In both cases the position offers mutual chances. 15.0-0-0 Hb6 a) 15... 452 16.exd5 Oxd5 (16...8xd5 17.264 xed 18, Yxed4 Be8 19.