Sicilian.

So0zin
A life-long Sozin devotee explains the subtleties of this aggressive
system for White
Mikhail Golubev
.
- = EJ
The Sicilian Sozin

Mikhail Golubev

AMBEHT
First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 2001

Copyright © Mikhail Golubev 2001

The right of Mikhail Golubev to be identified as the author of this work has been
asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by
way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in
any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a
similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent pur-
chaser.
A copy of the British Library Cataloguing in Publication data is available from
the British Library.

ISBN 1 901983 38 2

DISTRIBUTION:
Worldwide (except USA): Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN.
Tel +44 (0)20 8986 4854 Fax +44 (0)20 8533 5821.
E-mail: orders @Centralbooks.com
USA: BHB International, Inc., 41 Monroe Turnpike, Trumbull, CT 06611, USA.

For all other enquiries (including a full list of all Gambit Chess titles) please con-
tact the publishers, Gambit Publications Ltd, P.O. Box 32640, London W14 OJN.
E-mail Murray @ gambitchess.freeserve.co.uk
Or visit the GAMBIT web site at http://www.gambitbooks.com

Edited by Graham Burgess and Helen Milligan

Typeset by John Nunn
Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press, Wiltshire.

10987654321

Gambit Publications Ltd

Managing Director: GM Murray Chandler
Chess Director: GM John Nunn
Editorial Director: FM Graham Burgess
German Editor: WFM Petra Nunn
Contents

Symbols

IAWNB
Bibliography
Foreword
Introduction

6 &.c4 Scheveningen
1 5...c6 6 &c4 Re7 22

Fischer Attack
2 5.. .a6 6 &.¢4: Introduction to the Fischer Attack 27
..a6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0 33
HB W

MN

..26 6 2c4 e6 7 &b3: 7...Re7 and 7...07 40

AYN

..a6 6 204 e6 7 &b3 b5: Sidelines 44

M

PAM

..6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 b5 8 0-0 Re7 9 WF3! 60

..a6 6 Bc4 e6 7 2b3 Dbd7! 95

Sozin and Velimirovié Attack

8 5.. Nc6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 a6 118
9 .Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 a6 8 Re3 Re7 without 9 We2 132
nnA A

10 .Ac6 6 S04 e6 7 &b3 a6 8 Be3 Be7 9 We2 152

11 .Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 Be3 a6 without 2b3 190
12 .Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0 a6 without 2£b3 199
13 .Ac6 6 &.c4 e6: Sozin and Velimirovié without ...a6 206

Anti-Sozin Lines
14. Anti-Sozin: 5...Ac6 6 &c4 Wbé6 and 6...2.d7 224

Index of Variations 270

Symbols

check zonal event

double check Cht team championship
checkmate Wceh world championship
brilliant move Weht world team championship
good move Ech European championship
interesting move Echt European team championship
dubious move ECC European Clubs Cup
bad move OL olympiad
blunder jr junior event
White is winning wom women’s event
+:

White is much better mem memorial event

iti

White is slightly better rapidplay game

equal position simul game from simultaneous display
il

unclear position corr. correspondence game

8

Black is slightly better 1-0 the game ends in a win for White
++i

Black is much better VYo-'Yy the game ends in a draw

Black is winning 0-1 the game ends in a win for Black
championship nth match game
NOOl

(n)
candidates event (D) see next diagram
interzonal event
—

Transpositions are sometimes displayed by a dash followed by the moves (in

italic) of the variation to which the transposition occurs. The moves start with the
first one that deviates from the line under discussion. All the moves to bring
about the transposition are given. Thus, after 1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4
AF6 5 Dco3 Ac6 6 &c4 Wh6 7 Adb5 a6 8 Re3 Was 9 Ad4 e6 10 0-0 the com-
ment “10...Wc7!? 11 2b3 —6...e6 7 2b3 a6 8 2e3 Wc7 9 0-0” signifies that the
reader should locate material on 1 e4 c5 2 Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 Af6 5 Ac3
Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 Rb3 a6 8 Re3 We7 9 0-0, to which play has transposed.
Bibliography

Books
Koblenc, Sitsilianskaya Zashchita, Moscow 1955
Boleslawski, Skandinavisch bis Sizilianisch, Sportverlag Berlin 1971
Zak, Puti Sovershenstvovaniya, Moscow 1981
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (Volume B, 2nd edition), Sahovski
Informator 1984
Kasparov and Nikitin, Sitsilianskaya Zashchita: Scheveningen, Moscow 1984
Lepeshkin, Sitsilianskaya Zashchita: Variant Najdorfa, Moscow 1985
Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, B86-87, Sahovski Informator 1995
Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, B88, Sahovski Informator 1995
Akopian, B89, Sahovski Informator 1996
Nunn and Gallagher, The Complete Najdorf: Modern Lines, Batsford 1998
Nunn, Burgess, Emms and Gallagher, Nunn’s Chess Openings,
Gambit/Everyman 1999
Kosten, Easy Guide to the Najdorf, Gambit/Everyman 1999
Yrj6la, Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian, Gambiv/Everyman 2000
and various other chess books

Periodicals
Informator (1-81)
New in Chess Yearbook (1-60)
and various other chess magazines

Electronic
Sicilian in The Nineties CD-ROM (Interchess BV 1999)
ChessBase Mega Database 2001
ChessBase Magazine 80-83
Chess Assistant HugeBase 2000
TWIC (up to number 361)
and others
Foreword

It would probably not be an easy task to find a chess-player who had never heard
of the Sicilian Sozin — the famous attacking system for White associated with the
move 4. It has been many decades since club players as well as top grand-
masters started playing it, so you should not be surprised to see this book,
wherein your obedient servant has aspired to consolidate the entirety of the vast
amount of material accumulated on this issue.
Before you there is a standard openings book which has been written with a
view to combining the functions of a textbook and a handbook, presenting the
necessary theoretical basis for all interested chess-players. The book’s format is
more or less typical and the only thing requiring clarification is the author’s un-
derstanding of the generally accepted chess assessments. Like many others, I use
the term ‘unclear’ to describe something like ‘a complicated position with proba-
bly approximately equal chances’. In addition, the assessment ‘+’ is intended to
mean something closer to ‘+—’ than to ‘£’ (and, respectively, ‘F’ is closer to ‘—+’
than to ‘}’).
The author has collected together all the essentials that he has managed to dis-
cover and establish on the subject, both during 18 years of practice and in the
course of writing this book, and hopes that this work will help players seeking
landmarks in the hazardous territory of the Sozin Attack.
The accuracy of the assessments and variations was one of my main priorities,
but only one who knows very little about chess could aspire to write a Sozin book
free from inaccuracies. I would be grateful for any messages about possible er-
rors (addressed to gmi@europe.com) and hope these errors will not be too nu-
merous.
All in all, it is simpler and more intriguing to play the Sozin than to present
this system from a theoretical viewpoint, and J] am looking forward to successful
Sozin games played by my readers!

Mikhail Golubev
Odessa, Ukraine
October, 2001
Introduction

My serious acquaintance with the Si-
cilian Sozin began in 1982 when I
chanced upon an interesting though
still largely unknown article by the
master Mochalov, published in the
magazine Shakhmaty, Shashki v BSSR
(1980).
The article contained plenty of in-
teresting games and lines where White
attacked desperately and Black de-
fended doggedly, but the following
piece of analysis constituted the main
topic:
1e4c5 2 Af3 d6 34 cxd4 4 *xd4
AM6 5 Dc3 Acb 6 Lc4 e6 7 Ke3 Le7
8 We2 a6 9 2b3 0-0 10 0-0-0 We7 11
24 Ad7!? 12 g5 Ac5 13 Hhgl b5 14
WhS b4!? 15 Axc6 Axb3+ 16 axb3
Wxc6 17 2d4! (D)
Wed! 21 Rxed 2xe4d, when Black
has an advantage.
It is not easy to improve on White’s
play. This was confirmed both by the
subsidiary lines in the article (the
most important being 18 &f6 bxc3 19
Wh6 cxb2+ 20 &xb2 Wxc2+!! and
21...8fc8+ followed by 22...gxh6,
Rudnev-Mochalov, USSR 1976) and
by the game Chandler-Yudasin, Minsk
1982, where White could not find any-
thing better than the 21...$xe4 line.
Nevertheless, I managed to find a not-
so-complicated solution that had
evaded the attention of others: 18 Ad5!
exd5 19 Hd3! with a strong attack (in-
stead of 19 Wh6 Wxc2+! as indicated
by Mochalov). I was very happy with
this finding at the time because it was
the first time I had managed to find

xa) ke something of importance to theory.

Baa
Since that time I have played about
eighty serious games with the move
ewan &c4; as it happens, four of them re-
ate

a a sulted in the position shown in the dia-

Al” @ gram, and they brought me 3'/ points.

_

as @ a.
1 do not mean to say that events always
_

evolved happily on the board but the

As Wa wy ratio of wins to defeats (45-8) proves

that my choice was correct. Here is
@ S:e8 one of my pleasant reminiscences:

17...2.b7! Golubev — Mantovani

This was Mochalov’s main idea Biel open 1992
(not 17...bxc3? 18 Wh6! e5 19 &xe5!
+—). His main line now continued 18 1 e4 c5 2 “Af3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 Dxd4
He4 bxc3! 19 Hh4 cxb2+ 20 2xb2 M6 5 Ac3 a6 6 Bc4 e6 7 2b3 bS 8
8 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

0-0 &b7 9 Hel Abd7 10 Bes Wbé6 11 more — the defence is not easy but it is
a4 b4 (D) certainly not hopeless and J shall try to
be objective throughout.

io Vekams&
isla
Een

Theoretical Basis
su ka 7%
a a a Conceptually, the Sicilian Sozin is not

At OSA i a a single opening but three opening

oe a
systems. This generic name describes
the entire range of opening lines that
BAw Ban arise when, after 1 e4 c5 2 AF3 d6 3

2 owes d4 cxd4 4 ®xd4 Af6 5 Ac3, White

plays 6 &c4 in response to 5...e6,
5...26 or 5...A\c6. Despite the obvious
12 “Ad5! exdS 13 exd5+ @d8 14 possibilities for these three lines to
c6+ Sc7 15 a5 Bhs 16 Ad4 BWe5 transpose, each of them has its own
17 Re3 Axd5 18 c4! bxc3 19 Eel reputation and occupies its own place
Wxa5 20 Hxc3+ Dec5 21 2xd5 AxdS in opening theory.
(D)
6 &c4 against the Scheveningen
Variation

5...e6 6 &c4 (D)

2a. iee
aa sms
Vi Wa
a

e868 @
MSA Wi Ua
22 WF3! Axc3 23 We64+ Lb8 24
Va, WS TO,
AFG&F Y, Y
bxc3 a7 25 Ebl Hb8 26 Wxc5+!
Who 27 Ac6+ La8 28 Bxb6 1-0 a owe 7s
Actually, the Sicilian Sozin and At least half of all games starting
also this book are intended primarily this way result in positions from the
for those chess-players who, like me, Fischer Attack or the Sozin/Velimiro-
enjoy attacking without a backward vié Attack because Black plays ...a6 or
glance. Nevertheless, I do not wish to ...2)c6. However, a stronger plan for
discourage the supporters of Black still Black is 6...$e7! with a quick transfer
 INTRODUCTION
of the knight to c5 if White plays 7 &b3
(e.g., 7...4a6!). Due to this, and also
because White has the dangerous
Keres Attack (6 g4) in his arsenal, the
move 6 &c4 is not in the list of main
responses to 5...e6.
6 &c4 against the Najdorf
Variation (or Fischer Attack)
5...a6 6 24 (D)
rr
» eal awa
AW
se & BA By
ts
Fe, ‘me
~
ee tO” Yi
-
PA gaa Via
_
ABAD BA
XH Bwes "an
This is the version of 6 &c4 that is
most difficult to assess. Black does not
often take the opportunity to transpose
to the lines with ...2\c6 and White has
to struggle in double-edged lines such
as 6...e6 7 2b3 b5 or 6...e6 7 &b3
4\bd7 8 £4 @c5 where Black has less
direct control over the centre but more
chances to devalue the bishop on b3
and to organize counterplay quickly
through ...b5 and ...b4.
If Black does play ...A\c6, he often
does not do it at once (6...e6
7...2c6). In such lines as 6...e6 7 &b3
Re7 and 6...e6 7 0-0 &e7 the idea
...2\c6 remains in reserve.
6 &c4 is one of the four main an-
swers to the Najdorf (the others are 6
&5, 6 Re3 and 6 Re2).
9
The Classical Sozin and
Velimirovié Attack
5...Dc6 6 &.c4 (D)
x 2Wee thy tg
a kaka
‘ha Ca an
400
BIAS
Se
Ij, jee
\
BRAT BAB
a\\
ee D>
an
‘ewe 773.
Now, after 6...e6, we get the starting
position of the Sozin/Velimirovié com-
plex. White’s most aggressive plan,
connected with 7 2e3, 8 We2 and 9
0-0-0 (often with the inclusion of £.b3)
is traditionally called the Velimirovié
Attack, while the other plans, usually
involving 0-0 and f4, are called the
Classical Sozin Attack.
It is important to know that both
Velimirovié Attack and Classical Sozin
Attack mean not a single specific posi-
tion but a multiplicity of similar varia-
tions. White may aspire to the arrays
of the Velimirovi¢ Attack by starting
from 7 2e3 or 7 &b3, while to prepare
the Classical Sozin Attack at least three
moves are suitable: 7 2e3, 7 2b3 and
7 0-0. In all instances the lines with a
and further ...a6 for Black comprise the
majority of the accumulated theoreti-
cal material.
Besides 6...e6, Black has a rather
popular opportunity to make the game
atypical for the Sicilian Sozin by play-
ing 6...4b6!? (or, also, 6...2.d7!?).
10 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
6 &c4 is the second most important
answer to 5...Ac6 (after the Richter-
Rauzer Attack, 6 2g5).
So, the Sicilian Sozin exists in three
different versions. Theoretically, the
most dangerous of them is 5...Ac6 6
&c4, and the least dangerous is 5...e6
6 &.c4. However, all such assessments
are made within the range of ‘=’ to ‘2’
and supported by thousands of games,
while the outcome of an individual
game is decided by quite different fac-
tors.
Strategic Features
Even just a quick glance at the Sicilian
Sozin shows that the sides do not ma-
noeuvre at all, or at least very seldom.
The pieces retreat, as a rule, only if the
adversary attacks them with pawns and
even that happens quite infrequently.
The struggle may often become aggra-
vated to such an extent that strategy
ceases to exist as an independent cate-
gory and completely gives way to tac-
tics or, more precisely, fuses with
tactics.
Nevertheless, the initial reasons that
oblige the sides to struggle in precisely
such a manner are found in a purely
strategic domain.
Having played 6 &.c4 and then 2b3,
White has transferred the bishop to a
position where it will, from a certain
viewpoint, exert pressure on the centre
and, from another viewpoint, be aim-
lessly set against the defended e6-pawn.
It is this contradiction that forms the
basis for the strategic conflict. White
takes on an obligation to create dy-
namic threats rapidly in the centre and
on the kingside. If he succeeds, the
value of the active bishop on the a2-g8
diagonal may be exceedingly high (a
simple example: 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0
&bd7 8 &xe6!? with an attack). In the
opposite case, the potential of the b3-
bishop will not be used and this piece
may become a useless extra or a target
for Black’s attack through ...b5, ...a5
and ...a4. Therefore, the result of the
opening struggle is reduced to the
question of whether White succeeds in
using the bishop in his operations.
Given the above, it is not surprising,
for instance, that White’s plan con-
nected with f3, ¢4 and gS, which is not
bad in other varieties of the Sicilian, is
usually too slow and unsuccessful here
as it fails to generate a rapid threat to
e6 and makes no use of the b3-bishop.
If the f-pawn is to be moved, it should
go not to f3 but to f4 followed by f5 or
e5 — such a scheme corresponds to the
classical concept of the Sicilian Sozin.
More advanced schemes envisage
the attack without the participation of
the f-pawn, by means of a quick g4
and g5 and, in individual cases, e.g., in
the line 5...a6 6 &.c4 e6 7 2.b3 b5 8 0-0
Re7 9 WE3, by piece activity only,
without the participation of pawns.
Still, use of the b3-bishop remains an
important component of White’s idea
(e.g., 9...2b7 10 &xe6! in the line I
have just mentioned).
Black’s success depends on how he
prepares for his opponent’s activity.
He has a standard set of ideas of which
we mention here just three:
a) Ideally, the best way to neutral-
ize the bishop on b3 is to transfer one
of the black knights to c5, where it de-
fends the e6-pawn, attacks the e4-pawn
 INTRODUCTION
and is ready to exchange itself for the
bishop when necessary. However, in
practice White quickly mobilizes his
forces and often Black cannot afford to
lose time with the knight manoeuvre.
b) The other typical manoeuvre for
the Sozin, ...Ac6, ...2a5 and ...Axb3,
is generally less dangerous for White,
who can count on preserving his ad-
vantage in the centre.
c) Black’s universal resource and a
component of almost all his plans is
the advance of the b-pawn to b4 witha
threat to the c3-knight and the e4-pawn.
Having spent some time on the trans-
fer of the bishop to b3, White (as a
rule!) cannot afford a further loss of
time to make defensive moves after
..b5 and has to react by creating
threats in another area of the board.
The above explains the strategic
predetermination of the rapid aggrava-
tion of the struggle in the Sicilian Sozin.
An example:
1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4
EMf6 5 2\c3 a6 6 2.c4 e6 7 2b3 Be7 8
f4 b5 (D)
\
SEY
a) 9a3?!0-0 100-0 2b7 11 We2?!
(White should try 11 £5!) 11...Abd7!
Il
and Black is already better: 12 e5 (too
late) 12...dxe5 13 fxe5 2c5! 14 Be3
Wb6! F. White should not play like
that. The long-term factors favour Black
and slow play is disastrous for White —
at least until the first manifestation of
his activity and the appearance of
weak points in his opponent’s centre.
b) The active 9 f5 does not work
properly here due to 9...e5 or maybe
9...b4!?, but in other cases (for exam-
ple, 8...Wc7 instead of 8...b5) f5 will
probably be the strongest move, while
a3 almost never is.
c) 9 e5! dxe5 10 fxeS Afd7 11
S&xe6 AxeS 12 Bxc8 Wxc8 13 Ads
with quite a promising position. An
example of strategically correct play
by White with the bishop on b3 — not a
single ‘preventive’ move was made!
It appears to me that White’s play is
in practice reduced to a choice of ac-
tive continuations and is psychologi-
cally easier than the task facing Black,
who has to maintain a delicate balance
between defensive and counter-attack-
ing actions. Be that as it may, it is high
time to start telling you about this
practice in more detail.
Historical Background
The Story Begins: Veniamin Sozin
A participant in four USSR champion-
ships, master Veniamin Sozin (1896-
1956) was not the first to develop the
bishop on c4 in the Sicilian, but the
system 1s rightfully named after him.
Sozin was the first to link the bishop’s
manoeuvre with an orderly system of
attack in the centre and on the kingside.
12 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Sozin — !lyin-Zhenevsky
USSR Ch (Moscow) 1931
Ww
1 e4 c5 2 Af3 Deb 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4
AMt6 5 Ac3 d6 6 &c4 6 7 0-0 Le7 8
&e3 a6 (D)

GY
pe Koo
\N
NN
\ de
\

that, Sozin’s plan only came into fash-

Oa

ion in the 1950s...

S
ww

BX, Zi,
1950
mii
\\

This was an important year. White

won several spectacular games and the
9f4 move 6 &c4 (primarily as an answer
That is the beginning of the story of to the plan with ...A\c6) was acclaimed
the Sozin Attack. White prepares fur- among Soviet masters.
ther assaults that can be associated with
three different ideas: eS, £5 or g4. Geller — Vatnikov
9... We7 Kiev 1950
9...d5!? is also possible. Modern
chess-players prevent this by playing 1 e4.c5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4
9 &b3! first, and only then 10 f4. ENf6 5 Ac3 d6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0 Be7 8
10 &b3 Aas 11 WE3! Axb3 12 Re3 0-0 9 2b3 Aa5 10 £4 b6 (D)
axb3 0-0 13 24! Eb8
Not 13.:.65? 14 Acxb5.
14 g5 Ad7 (D)
White has a substantial advantage. A 4 ®awa Vj
yy, Y
x

Sozin continued with 15 Wh5 26 16 , yS & OR2

ee
yy, Zh We
Wh6 and his follower, Fischer (in
CN

Fischer-Cardoso, New York (2) 1957)

Lay BG
preferred 15 £5 Ae5 16 Wg3, but prob-
NG

ably the most precise line of all is 15

Wh3 He8 16 Bf3! 2f8 17 Wh4 b5 18
£h3 h6 19 gxh6 g6 20 f5 b4 21 Efi! ABA be
(Suetin/Boleslavsky).
Ilyin-Zhenevsky won the game
eventually and, possibly because of 11 e5! Aes
 INTRODUCTION 13

Possibly better is 11...dxe5 12 fxe5 WY Ge GY Ge

ASV
He8 (but not 12...A\d7? 13 Bxf7!).
12 £5! dxe5 w a bh
Or: 12...exf5 13 e6!; 12...Axb3 13
Ac6!.
13 fxe6! £6? 14 DFS Axb3 15 dS!
&)d4 16 Ddxe7+ Gh8 17 Dg6+! 1-0
In the 1950s heated discussions be-
8 Bala
gan on the Sozin Attack. It was at this
time that Fischer appeared on the
BRAT, 77
scene... BB Gwe 78
Fischer
Fischer
— Dely
The eleventh World Champion, Bobby Skopje 1967
Fischer, used 6 24 from the very mo-
ment he appeared on the international 1 e4 c5 2 AF3 dé 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4
stage in 1957 until he left it in 1972. 46 5 Dc3 Ac6 6 2.4 e6 7 2b3 a6 8
His contribution to the development of f4 Wa5 9 0-0 Axd4 10 Wxd4 d5? 11
the system cannot be overestimated. Re3 DAxe4 12 Axed dxe4 13 £5 Wh4
He used all the basic varieties of the 14 fxe6 2xe6 15 2xe6 fxe6 (D)
Sicilian Sozin when playing White,
and contested one of them (5...a6 6
1” See &
&c4), which deservedly bears his name,
a eae
oe
when playing both colours.
Some of his victories:

7 2 im
Fischer — Bednarski
ate Me
a eo aft,
Havana OL 1966

1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4

B65 Dc3 a6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3 Abd7
8 £4 Ac5 9 £5 Dfxe4? (D)
10 fxe6! Wh4+
The alternatives are also very bad
for Black: 10...2xe6 11 Axe4 Axe4
12 Axe6 fxe6 13 Wed; 10...fxe6 11
Bxed4 4 xe4 12 0-0.
11 g3 Axg3 12 Af3! Wh 13 exf7+
Sd8 14 Het AS 15 Ad5! Wxf7 16
&g5+ Se8 17 We2+ 26 18 Afd Sd7
19 0-0-0 We8 20 2xe6+ Axe6
Wed! 26 22 Axe6 1-0
ABA MARY
2 0 ese.
16 Bxf8+! Wxf8 17 Wad+! b5 18
Wxed Bd8 19 Yc6+ Bd7 20 Bd1 We7
21 Hd3 1-0
Fischer — Rubinetti
Palma de Mallorca IZ 1970
21 1 e4 c5 2 Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4
AE6 5 Ac3 e6 6 2c4 a6 7 2b3 bS 8
14 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

0-0 2b7 9 Hel Abd7 10 2g5 h6 11 Velimirovic — Sofrevski

&h4 Wc5? (D) Yugoslavia 1965

1e4.c5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4

ane Or
Af6 5 Ac3 d6 6 2c4 e6 7 Le3 Re7 8
We2 a6 9 0-0-0 We7 10 2b3 (D)
a0 Waa
J,& a « a. a &
“a Jat @ahs
amE
Ug g se aw ae
Y
“6 @

8s
@ Comm
a
“20 2 a
NS
Ah A mWE AR
Y
—
12 2d5! exd5 13 exd5+ Sd7 14
b4! Aad 15 Axad bxad 16 c4! Sc8
17 Wxa4 +— Bd7 18 Bb3 2519 23 @ G26 @2
Ah5 20 c5 dxe5 21 bxc5 Wxd5 22
He8+ Ld7 23 Wad+ 2c6 24 Axcé This has been the most important
1-0 line of the Velimirovié Attack. One
possibility here is 10...0-0, after which
Wonderful games! The 1960s were White plays 11 g4 or 11 Bhgt. Alter-
the heyday of the Sicilian Sozin, due natively, Black can start counterplay,
not only to the American champion... while leaving his king in the centre:
10...Aa5 11 g4 b5 12 g5 Axb3+
The Velimirovie Attack Not 12...A\d7? 13 &xe6!.
13 axb3 Ad7 (D)
The Yugoslav grandmaster Dragoljub
Velimirovic was the second outstand-
ing follower of Sozin. Starting in 1965,
Velimirovié put into practice a most
dangerous attacking scheme against
the 5...2\c6 system. It featured the de-
velopment of the queen on e2 and
queenside castling, substituting a quick
g4 and g5 for Sozin’s basic idea (£4),
when the forced retreat of the knight
from f6 to d7 nourished White’s mind
with various tactical ideas. The con-
cept was taken on at once by a number
of chess-players, including Fischer 14 DF5!? exf5 15 Ad5 Wd8 16
himself. exf5 0-0? 17 f6! gxf6 18 2d4 AeS 19
 INTRODUCTION 15

exf6 &xf6 20 Ehgi+ 2g7 21 Rxe5

Y

aN
dxe5 22 Wxe5 f6 23 Ae7+ Sf7 24

\\ bet
e

eG
we x
Wh5+ 1-0

FN
bo
&

\
Rit,

WS
&
The game attracted the glare of pub-

»s S
licity in the chess world and some de-

\rs
WY
WN

\
cades passed before the theoreticians

NY

WS
came to a more-or-less definite opinion

\
to»
that 16...2b7! (instead of 16...0-07)

WY
enables Black to equalize.

SS
W
MfRe DSD>

XA
WA

NES
Recoil

Fischer is linked to the sharp tumble of The reputation of the Velimirovi¢é

popularity of the Sicilian Sozin in the
1970s, as well as its previous peak. The
games Fischer-Larsen and Fischer-
Spassky (given below) administered a
blow to White’s position and raised a
lot of questions. Fischer ceased to play
chess and the questions remained un-
answered. However, the first blow was
delivered by Fischer himself in 1967
and it fell upon the system 5...a6 6 2c4.
R. Byrne — Fischer
Sousse IZ 1967
Attack suffered seriously from an in-
novation by Bent Larsen.
Fischer — Larsen
Palma de Mallorca IZ 1970
1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4
AE6 5 4\c3 Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3 Re7
8 2e3 0-0 9 We2 a6 10 0-0-0 We7 11
g4(D)

1 e4 c5 2 Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4

AEG 5 A\c3 a6 6 2.04 e67 &b3 b5 8 £4
A popular plan at the time. The ex-
tremely important idea 8 0-0 &e7 9
sec

WF3!, used by Fischer against Olafs-

bale

.
oe

son in 1960, ironically, was not devel-

oped at all in the 1960s.
8...2b7 9 £5 e5 10 Ade2 “Abd7 11
&g5 Re7 12 Ag3 Hc8 13 0-0 (D)
White is ready to use the resource
@®h5 to develop his initiative but he
will face a great disappointment.
13...h5! 144 b4 15 2xf6 2xf6 16
Ads &xh4 17 Axh5 Weg5
Now it is Black who attacks on the
kingside and has an advantage.
gogeee eo
11...Ad7
This manoeuvre was carried out for
the first time in this game and it still
remains an important tool for Black
against the Velimirovi¢ Attack. The im-
mediate 11...b5 is unsuccessful because
of 12 g5 Ad7? 13 Ad5! +-, so Black
16 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
transfers the knight to c5 in advance.
After that, ...b5 and ...b4 will become
a very serious threat.
12 h4?
Even Fischer’s brilliance was not
enough to reject this enticing but ut-
terly inefficient move.
12...Ac5 13 g5 b5! 14 £3 2d7 15
We2 b4 16 Ace2 Axb3+ 17 axb3 a5
18 g6 fxg6 19 h5 @xd4 20 Axd4
20 Exd4 g5! 21 &xg5 Rxg5+ 22
Wxg5 a4.
20...g5 21 2xg5 Lxe5+ 22 Wxe5
h6! 23 We4 Er7!
Later Black energetically made use
of his advantage and won.
In the 1971 match against Larsen,
Fischer managed to take his revenge
by turning back to the Classical Sozin
with 0-0 and winning twice. And yet,
in the 1972 World Championship match
~Fischer’s last contest until 1992 — the
last word was Black’s.
Fischer — Spassky
Reykjavik Wch (4) 1972
1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4
EM6 5 Ac3 DAc6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3 Be7
8 £3 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10 £4 Axd4 11
&xd4 bS (D)
xi SO Ae
v oe A, oe
Ia. a.
Baa ae
This plan, rare at the time, was spe-
cially prepared by Spassky.
12 a3 2b7 13 Wad3 a5!
The point.
14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5 Ad7 16 Axb5
“\c5 17 &xc5 &xc5+ 18 Shi Wg5!?
Black’s chances are somewhat su-
perior. The game ended in a draw on
the 41st move, but on the way Spassky
missed a good opportunity to pose se-
rious problems for his opponent.
Certainly, the development of ideas
in the 1970s did not stop at that.
White’s adherents went on with their
search. Still, in the absence of Fischer
these attempts did not bring the de-
sired results. The Classical Sozin was
committed to oblivion. The Velimiro-
vié Attack preserved more followers
but all attempts in Larsen’s variation
11 g4 S\d7 were stuck because of the
line 12 g5 Dc5 13 Hhgt 2d7!, which
was very thoroughly analysed by the
Soviet theoretician Nikitin. Finally, in
the Fischer Attack, 5...a6 6 2c4 e6 7
&b3 b5, White persisted with the line
8 0-0 Re7 9 £4 although practice
proved that Black had no real problems
after 9...2b7!. “Currently Sozin’s At-
tack has been completely ousted by
Rauzer’s Attack [i.e. the Richter-Rau-
zer Attack]” wrote Mochalov in his ar-
ticle (1980).
Still, White’s resources were far
from being exhausted and the proof
appeared quite soon.
Revival
It was the game Sax-Timman, London
1980 that indicated where it was pos-
sible to strengthen White’s play in the
game Fischer-Spassky. Instead of the
 INTRODUCTION 17

sluggish continuation 12 a3, White

should go in for the following forcing
variation: vw ~ah Baka
12 e5! dxe5 13 fxe5 Ad7 14 Ae4
a7 akay 7
Rb7 15 Ad6! 2xd6 16 exd6 (D)
Vi, fe
15
Wi Men YAeten
B 8 /* mil |
a7 ie
a7] ae
13...b5 14 2d5 2b7 15 g5 exf5?
aaa" 16 g6 hxg6 17 Hxg6 DeS 18 Exg7+!
bY YAR +— Sxg7 19 Bg1+ Ag6 20 exf5 Zh8
21 2d4+ 2f6 22 fxg6 fxg6 23 Wed
JMG Le Eh6 24 &xf6+ Gh7 25 Hel 2xd5 26
®xd5 We8 27 He7+ Se8 28 He7+
This position is of paramount im- HFS 29 BeS+ Lxg8 30 De7+ 1-0
portance for the entire Classical Sozin.
The play is complicated and White In neither the 1980s nor the 1990s
possesses resources to fight for an ad- could Black find complete security in
vantage after 16...Wg5 17 Hf2 (or 17 the Classical Sozin and Velimirovi¢
We2). The final verdict has not yet Attack. It is not by accident that one of
been declared. the chess world leaders of the 1990s,
Vladimir Kramnik, invariably avoids
The Velimirovié Attack was invigo- these positions by playing 6...8/b6.
rated by a brilliant win by Andrei Sok-
olov. Development of the Fischer Attack

A. Sokolov — Salov Of all the subsystems of the Sozin, the

Nikolaev 1983
1e4c5 2 Df3 Dc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Dxd4
A6 5 c3 d6 6 Rc4 e6 7 Le3 a6 8
We2 We7 9 0-0-0 2e7 10 2b3 0-0 11
Ehegl Ad7 12 g4 Ac5 (D)
13 AEs!
This knight sacrifice had not previ-
ously attracted serious theoretical at-
tention. Sokolov and his coach Yurkov
did a great job that was fully reflected
in this game.
greatest change and commotion in the
last 15-20 years of the 20th century
were seen in the theory of 6 &.c4 in the
Najdorf system.
First of all, by about 1985 it finally
became evident that in the main varia-
tion 1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4
4\xd4 Dl6 5 Dc3 a6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3
b5 White can still fight for the initia-
tive by making use of an old idea of
Fischer’s:
$ 0-0 2e7 9 WF3! (D)
18 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

wel
Baka
® Black. The earliest game that ended
thus was Gurieli-G.Sakhatova, USSR

am
wom Ch (Erevan) 1985.
Although Black can avoid fatal con-
sequences if he defends accurately, and
although 7...b65 has many followers
(the most important of them being
Boris Gelfand), Black’s chances after
9 WF3 are overall a little worse. In the
1980s the question of whether 7...b5
‘stops’ the Fischer Attack was an-
swered.
Black’s early advance on the queen- Black also has at his disposal a
side has somewhat weakened his posi- powerful resource, quite logical and
tion and this allows White to alter his undeservedly rejected after the game
plan completely. In contrast to other Fischer-Bednarski, i.e. 7...abd7!. The
lines of the Sicilian Sozin, White is year 1989 witnessed a real burst of
able to create serious threats without popularity for this forgotten variation,
any pawn moves. for two reasons. First, 7...Abd7 was
An example: played by Kasparov. In Ehlvest-Kas-
9... Wb6 parov, Skelleftea World Cup 1989,
This and 9...Wc7 are the main con- Black had no problems at all after 8
tinuations. S25 h6 9 2h4 Was 10 0-0 Wh5! =
10 2e3 Wb7 11 Wg3 0-0 12 2h6 Second, at the same time Ashot Anas-
4\e8 13 Bfel 2d7 14 Hadi (D) tasian demonstrated to the chess com-
munity how it is possible to fight
against Fischer’s recipe 8 f4 @c5 9
f5:
1e4c5 2 Af3 d6
3 d4 cxd4
4 Axd4
Y egaka Af6 5 Dc3 a6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 Abd7
A a a 8 £4 DAc5 9£5 Le7 10 WF3 0-0 11 Red

Vath
ie A7, In his book My 60 Memorable
Games, Fischer assessed this position
as advantageous for White.
AFLOAT, BOAR 11...e5!? 12 Ade2 Axb3 13 axb3
b5! (D)
7 Ye & Now both 14 @xb5? d5 15 exd5
@&xd5 16 @Ag3 &b7, Akopian-Anas-
14...Ac6? 15 Ad5! 2d8 16 “fs! tasian, Tbilisi jr 1989, and 14 R257!
exf5 17 exfS Ae5 18 Hxe5! dxe5 19 2b7 15 Bxf6 2xf6 16 0-0-0? b4 17
£6 26 20 Ae7+ 4\d5 a5 18 Sbl a4, Kruppa-Anastas-
The two lines 20...2xe7 21 fxe7 ian, USSR Cht (Podolsk) 1989, give
and 20...8h8 21 2&xf8 are dismal for Black a big advantage.
 INTRODUCTION 19

RLhne
a CMe
ee Va py jie, ‘2
Va, “ely
Am A

yok \
Via

WAS
D>

ace
SS

WY

SN
SQV

N
KX
SS
AW
PV

WS

i=
YX

The boom for the move 7...A\bd7
was assured and from the beginning of
the 1990s this continuation became the
main tool against the Fischer Attack.
Both White and Black were finding
new ideas and the Sicilian Sozin en-
tered a period of active development.
The match between Short and Kaspa-
rov turned out to be the climax of this
period.
Short — Kasparov
The 1993 world championship match
did not promise any news for the Sicil-
ian Sozin. Short did not use this sys-
tem at all and the spectacular win by
Kasparov when playing White against
Gelfand at Linares 1993 (in the line
5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 b5 8 0-0 Re7 9
Wr W7 10 Wg3 0-0 11 Bh6 Aes 12
Hadi 2d7 13 Af3!?) was clearly just
an episode in his openings research.
A great surprise followed: in Short’s
games with White — from the sixth
game to the twentieth — the same posi-
tion emerged:
1e4c5 2 Af3 d63 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4
AT6 5 Dc3 a6 6 Bcd e6 7 &b3 (D)
Kasparov now tried three different
moves.
pre
F
In the first three games (6, 8 and 10)
he played 7...A\bd7 8 f4 “@c5 and each
time Short reacted differently. Three
draws followed and the openings were
always favourable for Kasparov who,
nevertheless, should have lost at least
two of these games due to later mis-
takes.
There followed 7...A\c6 in the next
two games. After 8 f4 &e7 9 Re3 0-0,
Kasparov managed to strike a blow
against one of the popular lines in the
12th game (10 WF3!? Axd4! 11 Rxd4
b5 12 Rxf6 Bxf6 13 eS Bh4+ 14 g3
Hb8) but when in game 14 Short chose
the classical 10 0-0, Kasparov faced
some problems. These two games also
ended in draws.
In al] three remaining games Kas-
parov resorted to 7...b5 8 0-0 Se7 9
Wf3 We7 and Short never managed
to obtain an appreciable advantage,
though he won one of the games.
Generally speaking, the Short-Kas-
parov match proved that defence is not
the strongest side of Kasparov’s talent
since he clearly underperformed when
under attack in these Sozin middle-
games. However, from the theoretical
viewpoint these games did not yield
many answers.
20 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
The most significant were the games
with 7...2\bd7 8 f4 AcS. The move 9
e5 was successfully neutralized in the
8th game (9...dxe5 10 fxeS Afd7 11
&f4 b5!) and Kasparov’s deep con-
cept from the 10th game (9 W3 b5! 10
£5 2d7!2) was developed by Short him-
self later — 9 £5 b5(!) (instead of the
very playable 9...2¢7, as in Short-Kas-
parov, 6th game) 10 0-0 d7, Istra-
tescu-Short, Erevan OL 1996.
Kasparov probably avoided 7...A\bd7
in the course of the match not because
of the results of the opening fight but
due to the very fact that White has a
wide choice. Later he came back to
this move and the discussion was re-
sumed in the 1996 Amsterdam tourna-
ment: 9 0-0!? Afxe4!? 10 Axed Axe4
11 £5 e5 12 Wh5 with an extremely
sharp game (12...We7!?, Topalov-Kas-
parov; 12...d5!?, Topalov-Short).
To all appearances, by about 1996/7
the leading players of the world had
decided that Black is close to equality
in the line 7 &.b3 Abd7 and it is not by
accident that during their two post-
match games, Short selected another
(quite rare) sequence of moves when
playing against Kasparov — 7 0-0!?
(D).
This devalues 7...4\bd7?!, which
can be answered by 8 &xe6, 8 Hel or
8 2g5.
After 7...2e7 8 &b3 0-0 9 £4 (D),
the two Short-Kasparov games went:
a
tee
a) 9...A\c6 10 &e3 (the game has
moved into Classical Sozin territory)
10...Axd4 11 &xd4 b5 12 e5 dxeS 13
fxe5 De8!? 14 Hed Bb7 15 Wd3 +
Short-Kasparov, Amsterdam 1996.
b) 9...b5! (on this occasion Kaspa-
rov avoids the Classical Sozin; there
appears on the board a double-edged
variation, well known as a result of the
‘wrong’ but once popular move-order
7...b5 8 &b3 2e7 9 f4 {instead of 9
WF3!} 9...0-0—instead of 9...2b7!) 10
e5 dxe5 11 fxe5 Afd7 12 Re3! AxeS!
13 Wh5 Abc6 14 Axc6 Dxc6 15 Bf3
b4!? 16 £h3 h6 17 Bdl Wa 18 Ad5
exd5 19 Hg3 d4 20 2d5 2g5 21 Axg5
Wxd5 22 2f6 Wxh5 23 Hxg7+ Gh8
24 Bg6+ Gh7 25 Hg7+ 2-1/2 Short-
Kasparov, Novgorod 1997.
Perpetual check is quite a logical
outcome of the 9...b5 line. Such a re-
sult can hardly suit White in the
Fischer Attack, so the ball is in his
court! One of the interesting ideas is to
play 7 0-0 &e7 anyway, and now the
 INTRODUCTION 21

rare 8 a4!?, as in Emms-Shipov,

Hastings 1998/9: 8...Ac6 9 Re3 0-0
10 @h1 2d7 11 £4 Bc8 12 Ra2 We7
13 We2 Ba5 14 Hadi Ac4 15 Rcl
Hfd8 16 g4 Wc5 (D)

nae Bel
RBS AA BARS
a # a a G mwe me
a a g4!? Dxd4 10 Wxd4 e5 11 Wd3 ‘with
unclear play’. History never ends!
2 ne We are about to enter the main theo-
retical part of this book. I have to ad-
mit that the work on this theoretical
17 g5 De8 18 £5 e5 19 Ads KF8 20 coverage turned out to have some pit-
b4 Wa7 21 &xc4 exd4 22 26 Gh8 23 falls, and it might be useful to indicate
gxf7 Ac7 24 Af 1-0. what these pitfalls (i.e. the peculiar
features of the Sicilian Sozin) mean
History Never Ends! for the reader. Briefly, Sozin theory is
a limited set of critical trunk variations
With so many games and so much de- and a huge number of theoretically
tailed analysis having been performed, secondary but practically very playable
it sometimes appears impossible that lines (particularly in the move range
anything new could be invented. For- 7-11) which are very difficult for a
tunately, the complexity of chess is theoretician to describe and almost
vast, as was demonstrated by the lesson impossible for a player to memorize
that all sceptics received from Drago- completely. Additionally, the Sozin
Ijub Velimirovié in 1997: features an abundance of possible
transpositions — practically all the
Velimirovic — Popovic main lines and plenty of the secondary
Bar 1997 variations may arise by various routes.
Therefore, choose several main varia-
1 e4 c5 2 Df3 dé 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 tions that you are ready to play, and
Al6 5 De3 Ac6 6 Kc4 e6 7 Le3 a6 8 don’t limit your attention to the main
&b3 Re7 (D) lines as given in the book. Then you
This position has occurred hundreds, will know ways to punish your oppo-
if not thousands, of times in practice, nents if they make an unusual move,
but nobody chanced to make the fol- and how you can use move-order tricks
lowing interesting pawn sacrifice: 9 to lure them into lines that you like!
1 5...e6 6 &2c4 2e7

1 e4 c5 2 AF3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 b) Interestingly, 6...Abd7!? has al-

{66 5 Dc3 e6 6 &c4 (D) most never occurred. This can be as-
cribed only to an irrational fear of 7
Rxe6. In fact, 7 &xe6?! is no better
here than in the variation 6...a6 7 $2b3
&Nbd7 8 &xe67!.
7 &b3 (D)

| ‘e Aa If White delays £b3, the effective-

ness of the plan with ...2c5 is less, but
BEART with the bishop on c4 Black has some
(ae e extra possibilities in the centre (...d5 or
A ae ...4yxe4) and ideas involving a quick

a” ewe 7 ...a6 and ...b5 at a favourable moment:

a) 7 We2 has no real independent
value since after 7...0-0 (7...a6) White
6...2.e7! plays 8 2e3 or 8 2b3.
In this chapter our main focus is on b) 7 a3!? is likely to transpose to
the plan associated with this move and the variations with ...a6 or ...A\c6 and
the further rapid transfer of the knight Ra2.
from b8 to c5, if White plays 7 £b3. c) 7 g4 0-0!? (7...Ac6?! can be
According to everything that is cur- met by 8 g5, with the point 8...Ad7 9
rently known, after 6...2e7 White has &xe6) 8 g5 (8 2b3 — 7 2b3 0-0 8 g4)
fewer chances for an advantage than 8...Axed! 9 Axed d5 10 Af6+ Bxf6!
after 6...a6 or 6...A\c6. 11 gxf6 dxc4 12 fxg7 Be8 with a good
Two other moves need to be men- game for Black, Svistunov-Kharito-
tioned: nov, Pinsk 1993.
a) 6...2\a6!? is a less successful d) 70-0 0-0 8 £4 d5 (or 8...Axe4 9
version of the same idea. Until White &xe4 d5) 9 exd5 exd5 10 2b3 Ac6
has played $.b3, it is somewhat pre- and Bjack stands at least no worse;
mature to transfer the knight, and thus e.g., 11 @hl He8 12 Be3 Ra3!, Sal-
White can fight for the initiative: taev-Lutsko, Minsk 1994.
al) 7 &g5!? Ac5 8 We2 Be7 (8...a6 e) 7 £4 0-0! 8 WF3. Now normal
9 0-0-0 b5 10 &d5 exd5? 11 Ac6!) 9 variations for White arise following
0-0-0 Afxe4 (9...0-0 10 Adb5!?) 10 8...Ac6 9 Re3 or 8...26 9 Be3! Ac6
Sb5+. (9...b5? 10 e5) 10 0-0-0, so Black
a2) 7 We2!? is also of some inter- should choose between 8...Axe4!?
est. and 8...d5!? — in both cases White will
 5.06 6 &c4 Be7
be in great danger if he accepts the
pawn sacrifice.
f) 7 &e3!? and now:
fl) 7...a6 and then:
f11) White can play 8 a4!?, with a
probable transposition to the positions
of Chapter 12 after ...A\c6.
f12) Sometimes White is prepared
to transpose to a risky side-variation of
the Fischer Attack: the position result-
ing from 8 We2 b5 9 23 will be dis-
cussed in Line B of Chapter 5 (5...a6 6
Rc4 e67 &b3 bS 8 We2 Be7!9 2e3).
f2) 7...0-0 and then:
£21) 8 We2 and now:
f211) 8...a6 9 0-0-0 b5 10 2b3 is
again the risky line discussed in Line
B of Chapter 5 (5...a6 6 8.04 e6 7 2b3
b5 8 We2 2e7! 9 2e3 0-0 10 0-0-0).
f212) There is also 8...d5!? 9 exd5
exd5 10 2b3. It is likely that chances
are equal; for example, 10...2b4 11
0-0-0 &xc3 12 bxc3 (Nisipeanu-Suba,
Romanian Cht 1997) 12...We7!? (Nisi-
peanu/Stoica) or 10...2c6 11 0-0 He8
12 Wb5 Ab4 13 Bg5 Rd7 14 Wxb7
b8 15 Wxa7 Ha8 with a repetition of
moves, Zamora-Yermolinsky, USA Ch
(Chandler) 1997.
£22) Another concept for White is
8 &b3 ~ see 7 £53 0-0 8 Be3 (White
has avoided 7 &b3 Dab 8 f4 AcS 9
Wf a5!?).
7...2a6
Or:
a) 7...Abd7?! looks dubious be-
cause of 8 2xe6.
b) After 7...0-0 the play generally
transposes to the lines with ...2)a6, but
there are some independent possibili-
ties:
bl) 8 Be3 Dab 9 f4 — 7...Da6 8 f4
0-09 Re3.
23
Be ae PA. 7 J
b2) 8 £4 Aa6 — 7...Aa6 8 f4 0-0.
b3) 8 g4. Now not bad is 8...d5!?
(less convincing are the lines 8...A\c6 9
25 Axd4 10 Wxd4 Ad7 and 8...g6 9
&h6 He8) 9 exd5 Axd5 10 Axd5
exd5 with sufficient counterplay for
Black; for example, 11 2e3 Ac6 12
h3 $g5, Shaplyko-Kraschl, Zagan jr
Ech 1995,
b4) 8 We2 a6! (8...Aa6 involves
some risk in view of 9 ¢4 @c5 10 g5
and 11 Bgl) 9 Re3 (9 g4 Ac6! and
now 10 2e3?! Axd4! 11 &xd4 e5 or
10 Axc6 bxc6 11 g5 Ad7, and Black
is at least no worse, Minasian-Sakaev,
Frunze 1989) 9...b5 10 0-0-0. If White
agrees (or aspires) to play this posi-
tion, he should start with 7 2e3 (or
with 7 We2) — see above.
8 f4 (D)
After other moves, Black has few
problems:
a) 8 0-0?! Ac5! deprives White of
activity.
b) 8 We2 Ac5 9 g4 g6! (threaten-
ing 10...e5!) 10 g5 (alternatively, 10
h3 h5) 10...Ah5 gives Black a good
game. 11 gl can be met by 11...a6!?
12 £4 (12 2e3 is more circumspect)
12...0-0 13 2e3 (Kiefer-Bischoff, Bun-
desliga 1985/6) 13...e5! or 11...0-0 12
24 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

e3 a6 13 0-0-0 (Golubev-Suba, Ro- 8...0-0 (D)

manian Cht 1996) 13...2d7!.
c) 8 Be3 Dc5 9 WF3 0-0. White’s
arrangement is somewhat artificial and
Black’s chances are in no way worse.
Several examples:
cl) 104 a5! (10...2d7 11 g5 Ae8
12 Bgl g6!? 13 0-0-0 Ag7, Al.Soko-
lov-V.Neverov, Kstovo 1997) 11
(11 g5 @fd7 F) 11...d5! with an excel-
lent game for Black, Bokan-R6tSagov,
Tallinn 1989.
c2) 10 0-0-0 &d7!? (10...a5?! 11
e5!; however, 10...Wc7 is not bad; e.g.,
11 g4 a6 12 g5 Afd7 13 Bhgl b5S 14
Wh5 26 15 Wh6 He8 16 He3 2f8 17
Wh4 227 with double-edged play,
Rublevsky-Sergienko, Podolsk 1992)
11 g4 We8!? (11...a5!?; 11...b5!2) 12
Ehgl Ac7 13 g5?! (13 AFS!? is a
better try) 13...b5 14 Wh5 26 15 Wh6
He8 16 He3 2f8 17 Wh4 a5 F Golu-
bev-Cools, Belgian Cht 1995/6. Black’s
attack is faster than White’s.
eae
.
SO
Or 8...c5, and then:
a) 9 Wf3. Now 9...0-0 — 8...0-0 9
Wy3 Dc5. Possibly even more precise
is 9...a5!? 10 0-0 0-0 with roughly
equal play after 11 a4 e5 12 “@db5
Axb3!? 13 cxb3 Re6 or 11 Be3 a4 12
&c4 Acxe4, Kreiman-Ehlvest, New
a4 York 1993.
b) 9 e5!? dxe5 (9...Afe4 10 Axed
4)xeA4 11 0-0 0-0 12 c3 £ Skrobek-
Pedzich, Warsaw 1989) 10 fxe5 Afd7
11 &£4 and then:
bl) 11...0-07! 12 Wg4 Axb3 (or
12...8h8 13 0-0-0 a6 14 Khel We7 15
He3 + Golubev-Barsky, Ukrainian open
Ch (Yalta) 1996) 13 axb3 f5 14 We2
&c5 15 0-0-0 + Bednarski-Ornstein,
1976.
b2) 11...a6 transposes to a line of
the Fischer Attack that is dangerous
for Black (see 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3
Dbd7 8 f4 AcS 9 eS dxeS 10 fre5
&fd7 11 &f4 &e7?! in Line B21 of
Chapter 7).
b3) 11...Af8! 12 AdbS Ag6 13

Wxd8+ &xd8 probably leads to equal-

a

Ma] Baha ity.

AT £:K 7
a feeUy x0iw Xen
YW a » wav Wade
© xia @
Z

U2ti GY] 7
ene

LAOaT Ja Vi Fw bus
XH Bws 7k AAR
a

—Y és
Ea J,
Again Black has to choose between
two continuations of almost equal
&BAT, 7&2
value: 8...Ac5 and 8...0-0. The differ- HZ owe 78
ence between them is about the same as
the difference between the lines 8...2\c5 9 Wr
9 &5 and 8...0-0 9 0-0 Ac5 10 e5. Other possibilities:
 5...06 6 Bc4
a) 9 e5?! Ad7 F.
b) 9 Be3 Ac5 10 WF3 -— 9 WP Acs
10 Re3.
c) 9 £5 Ac5 (or 9...e5!? 10 Ade2
4\c5 11 Ag3 b5) 10 WF3 e5 (10...2.d7;
interesting is 10...d5!? 11 exd5 e5 12
Sde2 e4, Hendriks-Pliester, Dutch
Cht 1994) 11 Ade2 b5 12 Rg5 Axb3
(12...b4 13 Ad5!) 13 cxb3 (Hendriks-
Timman, Dutch Ch (Amsterdam) 1996)
13...b4 14 &xf6 bxc3 15 &xe7 cxb2
16 Bb1 Wxe7 17 Bxb2 with equality —
Timman.
d) 90-0 @c5 10 5 (10 WF3 is not
dangerous — see 9 Wf3 Ac5 10 0-0)
10...dxe5 (10...Afe4 11 Axe4 Axe4 ~
8...Ac5 9 e5!? Dfed 10 Dxe4 Dred 11
0-0 0-0 £) 11 fxe5 @xb3! (11... Afd7?!
12 Rf4 a6 — 5...a6 6 2c4 e6 7 Bb3
“bd7 8 f4 BS 9 eS dxeS 10 freS
Dfd7 11 &.f4 &.e7 12 0-0.0-0) 12 axb3
&c5 (12...Ad5 could be considered)
13 &e3 and now:
dl) 13..@d5 14 &f2. Compared
with the position from the Fischer At-
tack, Black has made the more useful
move ...0-0 instead of ...a6. Still, he has
some problems; for example, 14...Axc3
15 bxc3 Wc7 16 We2 2d7 17 Hadi
Had8 (17...a5!7) 18 Hd3 &c6 19 Hh3,
K.Miiller-Stohl, Munich 1992.
d2) Therefore, 13...A\d7!? deserves
attention.
9...Ac5 10 2e3 (D)
10 £5 is considered under 9 f5 Ac5
100-0.
After 10 0-0 the most precise is
10...a5!-8...Ac59 Wf a5 100-0 0-0.
Less convincing is 10...e5!? 11 fxe5
dxe5 12 AS Axf5 13 exf5 e4 14 We2,
Liukin-V.Neverov, Ukrainian open Ch
(Yalta) 1996.
Now Black faces a major decision.
Re7 25
10...a5
This move seems to be the most
critical. Others:
a) 10...a6 transposes to the posi-
tions of the Fischer Attack (see Line A
of Chapter 3 for 11 0-0, and Line B42
of Chapter 7 for the other moves).
b) 10...d5 11 exd5 exd5 12 f5! =
(Beliavsky/Mikhalchishin).
c) 10...e5 remains difficult to as-
sess. 11 @F5 (11 fxe5 dxeS 12 AfS
Rxf5 13 Bxf5 Axb3! 14 axb3 We8!
=) 11...&xf5 12 exf5 and then:
cl) 12...Axb3 13 axb3 We8 14
0-0-0! Wxf5 15 Wxb7 exf4 16 Hhfl
gives White the better chances, Mor-
aru-Dumitrescu, Romanian Cht 1994.
c2) 12...e4 and now:
c21) 13 We2 d5 (other ideas are
13...Was 14 &xc5!? and 13...Axb3!)
140-0-0 (14 &xc5! is equal — Quinte-
ros) 14...Axb3+ 15 axb3 Wa5 16 g4
Eac8 17 g5 &b4! brings Black real
counterplay, Garcia Toledo-Donoso,
Fortaleza Z 1975.
622) 13 Wh3 Axb3 14 axb3 d5 15
0-0-0, and now 15...Wa5!? is better
than 15...h5 16 2d4 Wa5 17 bl
Hfd8 18 g4! + Ankerst-Vogt, Baden-
Baden 1993.
11 0-0-0
26 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

11 e5? dxe5 12 fxe5 Afd7 13 Rf4 13...Acxe4

a4 14 2c4 Abb -+. Or:
If 11 a4 then 11...e5! 12 AS Vxf5 a) 13...Afxe4 comes to the same
13 exf5 @Axb3 (13...e4!7) 14 cxb3 thing.
exf4, followed by ...d5, gives Black an b) 13...2d7!? requires investiga-
excellent position, Poutiainen-Bala- tion.
shov, Teesside students Wch 1974. c) 13...Wa5 and now:
11 a3 is no better. cl) 14 AdbS 2d7 15 e5 dxe5 (not
11...24 (D) 15...2c06?! 16 exf6!, Istratescu-Suba,
11...2d7!? 12 Bcd (12 5?! Des) Romanian Cht 1992) 16 fxe5 “d5
12...\e7 (12...a4!7) 13 Adb5 BxbS, leads to complications that are satis-
Golubev-V.Neverov, Ukrainian open factory for Black:
Ch (Yalta) 1996, and now 14 4)xb5, cll) 17 &d4 Ab6! 18 Be2 Bc!
with the point 14...Wc6 15 Axd6 &xd6 and 19...@\bd7.
16 e5 Ace4 17 &d3!, looks dangerous c12) 17 Bxd5 &.c6! @ (17...exd5?!
for Black. 18 Axd5 Rxb5 19 b4!!; 17...Axb5 18
Rxc5 Bxc4 19 Rxe7 Rxd5 20 Axd5
exd5 21 Hf1 +) and now 18 Bfl Gh8!
X 2W Ae
y lb Wawa
or 18 Hhd1 Gh8!?.
c13) 17 Rxd5 Bxb5 18 Bxc5 Bxc5
7Y eae 19 2xb7 Had8 20 Axb5 ('/-'/ Istra-
a. a tescu-Golubev, Romanian Cht 1996;

hg WAn @ 20 Ded Rd4 21 c4 Be8!) 20...Wxb5

ree i.

V7 BGS a c2) However, 14 &d2!? may pres-
ABAT 7, AR
@ S18 7),
12 2c4 a3 13 b3
Black is better after 13 @db5?!
axb2+ 14 &bl Wa5 15 e5 dxe5 16
fxe5 Afd7 17 Wg3 Gh8 (Istratescu-
Stohl, Budapest Z 1993): 18 Hd4 f6!
or 18 &g5 f6!.
13 e5 also brings no success to
White; e.g., 13...axb2+ 14 @bl dxe5
15 Ac6 We7 16 Axe7+ Wxe7 17 fxe5
Sfd7 18 We3 Ph8 19 Hd4 Bad, Shty-
renkov-Kharitonov, Smolensk 1986.
with compensation.
ent some danger for Black; for exam-
ple, 14...Wb6 (14...We7 15 Bhel) 15
e5 d5 16 2d3 Afed 17 Rxe4 Axe4 18
Bxe4 Wxd4 19 Af6o+! + Moraru-Par-
ligras, Romanian Cht 2001.
14 Axed Dxed 15 Wxed d5 16
&xd5
16 WF39! dxc4 17 Axe6 Bxe6 18
&xd8 Hfxd8 gives Black more than
enough compensation, D.Gross-Orsag,
Czech Cht 1993/4.
16...exd5 17 Wf3 He8!?
It appears that Black should have
sufficient counter-chances; for exam-
ple, 18 AbS RFS 19 Bxd5 We8.
2 5...a6 6 &c4: Introduction to
the Fischer Attack

1 e4 c5 2 Df3 dé 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 f4, Minasian-Trifunov, Novi Sad 1988,

46 5 Ac3 a6 6 Red (D) but in any case the moves 7 “@de2 and
7 Sf3 are sufficient for an untroubled
advantage.
RA2Weke
Z c) 6...Ac6. As compared with 6...e6
Zi
yo and 7...Ac6, this does not have any ad-
vantages, only disadvantages, because
7 &xc6! bxc6 8 e5 Ad7 9 e6 promises
CNA il ey G White a sustained initiative.
d) 6...Wc7!? 7 &b3 e6 — 6...e6 7
&b3 Wec7.
@ Aan A)
@ 74 6...b5 7 &b3
White may attempt to punish his
Now 6...e6 is, of course, the main opponent by playing 7 2d5!?. Then
move. 6...e6 7 0-0 will be discussed in 7...Axd5 8 exd5! appears to be in
the next chapter, and then we shall dis- White’s favour but 7...2a7 8 2e3 Hc7
cuss 6...e6 7 2&b3. Here we consider is stronger. As I see no evident bene-
rare answers to 6 &c4 and the side- fits for White there, I advise him to re-
lines for White after 6 24 e6. main unprovoked.
A: 6...b5 27 7...5b7
B: 6...Abd7 28 Black should play 7...e6 and be sat-
C: 6...e6 29 isfied that he has avoided lines like
In Line C, we only discuss lines 6...e6 7 a3 and 6...e6 7 a4. Further
without 7 0-0 or 7 2&b3. avoidance of ...e6 is unjustified.
8 0-0! Abd7 9 Hel
Other moves: Now:
a) 6...g6?! transposes to a dubious a) 9...e6 leads to a promising varia-
variation of the Dragon after 7 f3!, fol- tion for White (Line El of Chapter 5).
lowed by 2e3 and Wd2. b) 9...Ac5 can be answered with
b) 6...e5?! is strategically dubious. the unpleasant 10 &g5!.
Now of interest is 7 AF5!? Bxf5 8 c) 9...g6 10 a4 b4 11 Ad5 Rg7 12
exf5 Wc8 9 2b3 Wxf5 10 0-0 Ac6 11 4\xb4! Wb6 13 c3 also favours White.
28 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

d) 9...2c8 10 a4! bxa4 11 2xa4 e6 0-0 10 f4 is less convincing; then

12 @d5! also clearly favours White, 10...b6 11 e5!? Rg4 12 Af3 might
Kindermann-Ho6lzl, Haifa Echt 1989. favour White, but 10...Wc7!? looks
stronger) 8...&2g7 9 £3 h6 10 Re3 b5
B) 11 &b3 &b7 (Howell-Hodgson, Brit-
6...Abd7 (D) ish Ch (Plymouth) 1992) 12 0-0-0.
d) 7...Wa5 8 Wd2 e6 has been the
KX 2Wee & most frequent choice for Black. Here,
either 9 0-0 (see 7...e6 8 0-0 Wa5 9
W ms BA Wa2) or 9 0-0-0 b5 10 £b3 is possible
(not 10 $.d5?! in view of 10...b4! 11
a a a a &xa8 bxc3 12 bxc3 Ab6,
discovered by Spassky
which was
and Rovner)
10...2b7 11 Bhel 0-0-0 12 a3 +. 1
think the text-move (7...e6) offers
White less choice.

a eve “@i 8 0-0

A rare move. The idea can be linked
to 7 2b3?! @c5! or 7 0-0 We7!?
(7...Ac5 8 Bel!) 8 We2 b5.
However, a good continuation for
White is:
7 Rg5
This transposes to a rare line of the 6
&95 Najdorf, i.e. 5...a6 6 225 Dbd7
7 &c4!. In the 1960s this line was of-
ten played at high level but later it was
discarded by Black in favour of the
more reliable 5...a6 6 2g5 e6.
7.06
Black should play extremely cau-
tiously as his adversary’s mobilization
permanently threatens to become a de-
cisive factor. Otherwise:
a) 7...h6 8 &xf6 Axf6 9 We2 and
0-0-0! gives White a huge advantage
in development.
b) 7...b5 8 &d5! is also dangerous
for Black.
c) 7...g6 does not give Black equal-
ity; e.g., 8 Wd2 (8 We2 &g7 9 0-0-0
The immediate 8 2xe6?! is dubi-
ous, so White prepares a better version
of this blow. Instead, 8 £4!9 leads to
another rare line of the 6 &g5 Najdorf
(5...a6 6 &g5 e6 7 f4 Wbd7 8 Bc4)
where it is very doubtful that White
has any advantage after, for instance,
8... Wb6.
8...Was
Otherwise:
a) 8...b5? is bad due to 9 &xe6
fxe6 10 Axe6 Wh6 11 AdS Axd5 12
Wxd5 +-.
b) 8...Re7 9 Bxe6 gives White a
powerful attack
c) 8...We7 9 Bxe6! fxe6 10 Axe6
Wce4 11 AdS assures a strong attack
for White, Keres-Sajtar, Amsterdam
OL 1954.
d) After 8...h6, a good reply is 9
&xf6 Axf6 10 &b3 + Stean-Browne,
Nice OL 1974.
e) Maybe attention should be paid
to 8...2c5!? with the point that 9 b4
can be met by 9...8b6.
9 Wd2 Re7 (D)
 5...a6 6 &c4: INTRODUCTION TO THE FISCHER ATTACK 29

9...b57! 10 Rd5! exd5 11 Ac6 Wh6 Waka Faia

Em sles
Ge
12 exd5 De5 13 Kael Bb7 14 Re3 Y

We7 15 £4 with an initiative, Mnatsa- w ee [aha

kanian-Zurakhov, USSR 1958. “The
fatal deficiency of the entire system is
ay xanA 7MV
that Black is constantly exposed to Fi we age
danger from one of the typical sacri- Up RAR Ue

N
fices!” — Shamkovich in 1971. OS Tia
A woe
agave”& GMS 72
Aer
a0 kaa 7 the black knight on b8, this looks rather
ae

ve 8 @ adventurous. As a rule, play now de-

208 @ velops along the lines 7...b5 8 2b3,

OM
7...2€7 8 £.e3 b5 9 Rb3 or 7...2e7 8
\

2b3 0-0 9 e3 bS (all these will be

discussed under 7 &b3 b5 8 We2).
YES One more option for Black is 7...4b6!?.
b) 7 &e3 is another risky move:
bl) 7...&e7 is quite normal, but if
10 Had1 h6 White plays 8 £b3, Black should de-
10...0-0 11 @d5!. lay 8...b5 no further. Instead, 8...0-0 9
11 2h4 f4 (or 9 g4) and 8...Abd7 9 f4!? Ac5
After 11 8e3, 11...Ac5 12 Ab3! 10 Wf3 are perilous for Black.
gave White an advantage in Ivanchuk- b2) The main continuation is 7...b5!
Ehlvest, Elista 1998, but 11...A\g4!? 8 2b3 — 7 £b3 b5 8 Re3.
(Ivanchuk) 12 &f4 AgeS is less clear. c) 7 &g5 (here this move is harm-
11...Ae5 12 Re2 g5 13 2g3 less as Black is neither weaker nor be-
White continues f4, with the better hind in development) 7...$e7!. Black
prospects. wishes to play, primarily, ...2\c6 so as
to exert pressure on the centre. He also
C) has the idea of ...b5 and, if possible,
6...e6 (D) the blow ...xe4. The g5-bishop is
Out of the secondary moves for misplaced and Black has no problems.
White, five deserve to be mentioned, For instance, after 8 2.b3 @c6 9 f4 not
and two are significant enough to de- bad are 9...Wb6!? and 9...0-0 10 Af3
serve their own section: (10 Wd2 h6 11 &h4? Axe4) 10...h6 11
Cl: 7 a4 29 Sh4 d5 12 eS De4 13 Bxe7 Wxe7,
C2: 7 a3 30 Soloviov-Simagin, Gorky 1954.
The other three are:
a) After 7 We2, White’s priorities Cl)
are 8 Re3 (8 &g5) and 9 0-0-0. With 7a4(D)
30 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

An atypical idea for the Sicilian 10 Ded2 dxc4 11 Axc4 Wxdl+ 12

Sozin. White nips ...b5 in the bud, but Sxdl Rc5 13 Re} Rxe3 14 fxe3 a5
weakens the b4-square and sharply re- 15 c3 £6 16 Ab6 Ha6 17 Axc8 Hd7 is
duces his own capacity for active play. equal, V.Gurevich-Dvoirys, Le Tou-
quet 1997.
White can try to avoid the last line
EA 2Wee by playing 7 0-0, and if 7...8&e7 (or
5 (oh ae 7...4)c6), then 8 a4. Of course, he needs
a heh to be ready for 7...b5 8 $b3 in this
Lee ne case.

sees. C2)
Yi Y ee 7a3(D)

eae Bw, Z Bae

y
EASWese
Y Y Cx
&
R a / A
a) 7...Ac6 8 0-0 (or 8 Be3 and 9
0-0) will be discussed in Line B of
DS
Chapter 12. Vay flay lly 3
b) 7...&e7 8 0-0 0-0 often also leads yy ROSA
to Line B of Chapter 12 because Black MU YU, |
plays ...@c6 next move. The most com-
mon continuation is 9 2e3 Ac6 10
"RA yA
Hm gwes 7k
ON

hl (or 9 Sh! Ac6 10 Re3).

c) 7...Wc7 is also linked to ...Ac6
after 8 We2 or 8 2a2.
d) 7...Axe4!? 8 Axe4 d5 is another
solution for Black. It might be enough
to equalize. Now:
dl) 9 243 dxe4 10 &xe4 Dd7 11
0-0 2e7 12.3 Ac5 13 Rc2 e5 = Kav-
alek-Tarjan, USA Ch (South Bend)
1981.
d2) 9 Ad2 dxc4 10 Axc4 We7 11
We2 = Galdunts-Allwermann, Boblin-
gen 1998.
d3) 9 &g5 Be7! and now 10 &xe7
Wxe7 11 &d3 dxe4 12 &xe4 e5 and
...Wb4+, or 10 We4 Rxg5 11 Axg5s
Wa5+!? 12 ¢3 dxc4.
d4) 9 D3 Ac6! (better than 9...dxe4
10 Wxd8+ &xd8 11 Aes or 11 Ags)
In the usual lines of the Fischer At-
tack with 2£.b3, there is no advantage
at all for White in playing a3 at an
early stage. Here this move is more ap-
propriate as White desires to compen-
sate for the time loss by shifting the
bishop to a less vulnerable position on
a2 (the difference is quite important in
some variations).
7...b5
Other possibilities:
a) 7...Ac6 8 0-0 (or 8 a2 and 9
0-0) will be considered in Chapter 12.
b) 7...2e7 8 a2 0-0 9 0-0 and
then:
b1) 9...Ac6 ~ 7...Ac6 8 0-0 &e7 9
&a2 0-0.
 5...a6 6 &c4: INTRODUCTION TO THE FISCHER ATTACK 31

b2) The position resulting from C21)

9...b5 will be discussed under 7...b5 8 8...2e7 9 0-0 2b7
Ra2 Be7 9 0-0 0-0. The alternative is 9...0-0 (D):
b3) 9...We7 keeps ...b5 and ...Ac6
in reserve. However, after 10 f4!, the
xm ee
variation 10...b5 11 £5 e5 12 Ade2 2b7
13 Ag3 Dbd7 14 &g5, as in Babula- , a me we
Dabrowski, Koszalin 1998,
better for White and it is safer for
appears
sa am C
Black to play 10...A\c6, thereby mean- VW A W hua jj
ing that this is no improvement for oe pe ag
Black over ...@\c6 at an earlier stage. ‘Mm UW 77
c) 7...Axe4 8 Axe4 d5 9 Rg5 Le7
SHAG RAN
and now:
cl) After 10 &2xe7 Wxe7 11 23 A eu7es

|
|
dxe4 12 &xe4 0-0 (Saltaev-Roshch-
ina, Moscow 1996) White scarcely a) 10 We2 2b7 — 9...2b7 10 We2
has any real advantage. 0-0.
c2) 10 We4!? 2xg5 11 Axg5 dxc4 b) 10 f4 &b7 and now:
12 0-0-0 therefore deserves attention. b1) 11 We2 - 9...2b7 10 We2 0-0
White has the initiative for a pawn; 11 fA.
e.g., 12... WE 13 h4! 0-0 14 Wed!, b2) White gains nothing by 11 f5,
Petrushin-Zhelnin, Sverdlovsk 1985. in view of 11...e5 12 Ade2 Abd7!
12...We7 is a better method of defence: (12...Axe4?! 13 Axed Rxed 14 Ag3)
13 Bhel 0-0! 14 AfS Wee! or 13 Whs 13 Dg3 He8 14 Be5 (14 Dhs AxhS
26 14 Who Wrs!? 15 Wh4 We7. 15 WxhS Exc3! followed by 16...Af6)
8 2a2(D) 14..Hxc3 (Fischer’s 14...0b6 is not
bad) 15 bxc3 @xe4 16 Axe4 Bxe4 17
ts %
S&xe7 Wxe7 18 c4 Hc8! with great
xm a play for Black, Ermenkov-Portisch,
a. mt er Skara Echt 1980.
47 M7 b3) No better for White is 11 Wf3
ans‘a @bd7 12 f5 e5 13 Ade2
Orendy-Szabo, Hungarian Ch (Buda-
a5!, as in

eG af pest) 1959, and other games.

em

a i c) 10 WF3 &b7 11 We3 “\h5!?

OA AA (11...Axe4 12 Axed Bxed is unsuc-

eS

cessful due to 13 2xe6! 2f6 14 £5,

y=
BY
Ze BNE On but Black can try 11...Ac6 12 Axc6
&xc6 13 Bh6 Ae8, as in Belikov-
We now discuss: V.Neverov, Odessa 1990) 12 Wh3 Af6
C21: 8..2e7 31 13 Hel Abd7 14 Rgs Hc8 15 Had
C22: 8...2b7 32 (Korchnoi-Ribli, Reykjavik 1988) and
32 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
now 15...A\e5! (Korchnoi) gives Black
good play.
10 Be2
10 £4 @bd7 11 £5 e5 12 Ade2 Hc8!
13 %g3 h5! is favourable for Black,
Westerinen-Lehmann, Palma de Mall-
orca 1968.
10...0-0
Or:
a) 10...Abd7?! is risky in view of
11 &xe6!.
b) 10...Ac6 is an alternative. After
11 Axc6 Rxc6 12 £4 0-0 13 £5, Black
can choose between 13...e5!? (with the
point that 14 2.95? runs into 14...A\xe4)
and 13...exf5 14 Bxf5 2d7 followed
by 15...2e6, Smailbegovié-Bobotsov,
Sarajevo 1962.
11 £4 Abd7
11..Ac6!? 12 Axc6 Bxc6
10...Ac6 11 Dxc6 Bxc6 12 f4 0-0.
12 e5! dxe5 13 fxe5 2c5 14 2e3
4\xe5
The variation 14...Wb6? 15 Had1
&xe5 16 b4! is a good illustration of
the benefits of the a2-square for the
bishop. If the bishop is on b3, 16 b4 is
impossible and the assessment is radi-
cally altered.
15 Dxe6 2xe3+ 16 Wxe3 fxe6 17
Wxe5 Wb6+ 18 Lh1
White has a slight positional ad-
vantage, Kupreichik-Shipov, Aalborg
1997,
C22)
8...2.b7 9 0-0
9 We2!? Abd7 10 g4 (Giaccio-
Sunye, Villa Gesell 1998) is interest-
ing.
9...A\bd7! (D)
There is no need to hurry with
...&.e7. 9...2\c6 is also possible, but
9...Axe4?! 10 Axed xed 11 Hel! is
risky for Black.
X77, Wee &
ree
WY Wi
OG a Man
10 We2
After 10 f4 it is normal to proceed
- with 10...2e7 or 10...2c8, but proba-
bly it is better still to grab the pawn
with 10...Axe4!.
Complications with roughly equal
chances can be obtained after 10
Hel!? Hc8 11 WF3 (after 11 £4, both
11...Ab6 and 11...A\c5!? are good for
Black) 11...Ae5 12 Wg3 Ac4 13 Sh
Wb6 14 Df3 h5!? (Lepeshkin).
10...c8 11 2¢5
11 f3 = Kavalek-Ree, Eersel (9)
1969.
11...h6 12 2h4 Wh6 13 Bad1 2e7
White has no advantage; e.g., 14
4\xe6 fxe6 15 &xe6 Bxc3 16 bxc3 g5
Kupreichik-Akesson, Mariehamn 1997,
or 14 @h1 g5 15 2.23 (Cirié-Velimiro-
vic, Yugoslavia 1964) 15...Bxc3!? 16
bxc3 Axed.
To avoid the line with 8...2b7 and
9...A\bd7, White may try to start with
7 0-0 (7...2e7 8 a3 or 7...Ac6 8 a3).
3 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0
1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ®xd4
Af6 5 Nc3 a6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0 (D)
XA2Wee&
Bobby Fischer almost exclusively
preferred 7 £.b3 in his games, and the
same choice was made by the majority
of his followers. It is therefore logical
to compare 7 0-0 with the main contin-
uation.
Given that the white bishop is almost
certain to move to b3, it is clear that
White cuts down his further choices
by playing 7 0-0 — this is noticeable in
the variations with ...A\c6 and ...2e7.
However, 7 0-0 is advantageous be-
cause it renders 7...@bd7 dubious (see
below), so 7 0-0 should be viewed as
narrowing the choice for both sides. In
Fischer’s time ...Abd7 was not con-
sidered a serious idea for Black and
White saw no benefits in 7 0-0 at all...
As a follow-up: White can start with
7 0-0 if he desires to play a3 or a4 and
avoid variations such as 7 a3 b5 8 2a2
2b7 or 7 a4 Axed.
7.4.27
This is one of three critical replies
to 7 0-0 which are stronger now than
after 7 b3. The other good replies
(7...Ac6 and 7...8c7!?) tend to trans-
pose to a Classical Sozin.
a) 7...@xe4? 8 Dxe4 d5 9 Qg5!.
b) 7...Ac6 — 5...Ac6 6 Bc4 e6 7
0-0 a6.
c) 7...b65 8 £2b3 is the same as 7
&.b3 b5 8 0-0 (there 8 0-0 is not forced
but it is still the main move, so for ad-
herents of 7...b5 systems there is little
difference between 7 0-0 and 7 2b3).
d) 7...8c7!? 8 &b3 and now:
dl) 8...Ac6 — 5...Ac6 6 Bc4 e6 7
0-0 a6 8 &b3 We7. This move-order
makes some sense as it avoids the lines
7...Ac6 8 a3 and 7...Ac6 8 ad.
d2) 8...2e7 (see 7...2e7 8 Bb3
Wc7) is also possible.
d3) 8...Abd7 is risky in view of 9
Rxe6 (9 £4 is best answered by 9...b5!,
rather than 9...A\c5 — 7 $63 Dbd7 8
0-0 Bec5S 9 f4 We7 in Chapter 7)
9...fxe6 10 Axe6 We4 11 AdS Axd5
12 exd5 Sf7 13 b3 with serious com-
pensation, Milu-Vajda, Bucharest 1999.
e) 7...A\bd7?! is very risky:
el) 8 &¢5 — 6...Abd7 7 2.25 e6 8
0-0.
e2) 8 Hel is good; e.g., 8...8e7 9
Rxe6, 8...4c7 9 Bxe6! or 8...Ac5 9
b4 Acxe4 10 Axe4 Axed 11 Hxe4 d5
12 Axe6!.
e3) 8 &xe6 fxe6 9 Axe6 is also
very dangerous: 9...Wb6 (9...Wa5 10
34 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

“d5!? @xd5 11 exd5 Yf7 also does

not guarantee safety; e.g., 12 @d2!?
Oo
or
Wad 13 Bel) 10 Ad5 Axd5 11 exd5
a eans

as
@&c5 (11...Df67 12 Re3 Wa5 13 b4;
11...8f7 12 e3!7) 12 Axf8! Sxf8
oo
(12...Axf8 13 Wh5+!) 13 Wr3+ &8
AND
Iae a
14 Bel 2d7 (14...Hd8 15 2e5 Ws
16 Wxf8+ &xf8 17 2e7+ +) 15 He7
Hf8 (15...2e8? 16 2h6!) 16 We3 H7
& Am Ars
17 Bxt7 Sxf7 18 W4t+ Yg8 19 Re3!
with an advantage for White, Istra- a were
tescu-Badea, Romanian Ch (Bucha-
rest) 1994, A: 9...Abd7 34
8 &b3 B: 9...b5! 36
After 8 a3!?, 8...A\xe4?! 9 Axed d5
is dubious because of 10 We4 g6 11 Other alternatives are dubious; e.g.,
Hdl; e.g., 11..f5 12 Axe6 Bxe6 13 9...Wc7 10 £5! e5 11 Ade2 b5 12 Rg5
Wh3 2d7 (13...8b6 14 &xd5!) 14 @&bd7 13 Ag3 &b7 14 Dh5 with better
&\d6+!, and Black would be better to chances for White, Gligori¢-Attard,
transpose to normal variations with Madrid 1960.
8...b5 9 2a2 (Chapter 2) or 8...Ac6 Note: the plan with f5 and meeting
(Chapter 12). ...e5 with Dde2 works better for White
One more option for White is 8 if the black queen is on c7 and Black
a4!?. has castled as then Black lacks the re-
8...0-0 sources ...s4xc3 and ...h5.
8...\c6 and 8...b5 9 WF3 lead to the
other main lines. 8...Abd7?! fails to 9 A)
Rxe6!. 9...Abd7 10 2.e3
After 8...Wc7 9 f4, it is again normal Or:
to play 9...@\c6. However, the much a) After 10 f5, there is 10...e5!? as
less studied 9...b5!? is interesting. Then well as 10...Ac5.
10 WF3, 10 @h1 0-0 11 We2 (Golu- b) 10 #h1!? has been tried, with
bev-Alterman, Yaroslav] jr 1983) and the idea of meeting 10...@c5 with 11
10 £5 b4 (10...e5!9) 11 fxe6 (11 Aad e5!; for example, 11...dxe5 12 fxe5
e5! 12 Ae2 &b7) 11...bxc3 12 exf7+ Bfd7 (12..Ad5 +) 13 Bf4 Ags 14
&f8, Fischer-Blackstone, USA simul Wh5!, K.Miiller-Heinemann, Hamburg
1964, are all unclear. 1997. However, 10...¥4/c7!? is interest-
9 f4 (D) ing, as in Ciocaltea-Gheorghiu, Bu-
Other moves don’t make much sense. charest 1961.
Here, Black has a ‘last chance’ to c) 10 Wf3 is acommon alternative.
transpose to the Classical Sozin (with Black can choose to delay ...Ac5 by
9...A\c6). We shall discuss the other means of 10...%c7!?, or else settle for
two continuations: 10...Ac5, when 11 £5 and 11 g4 will
 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0 35

be discussed in Chapter 7, while 11 Chapter 9) 13 axb3, 13...b5 is impossi-

e3 is the same as 10 2e3 Wc5 1]
WP.
10...Ac5
Here too, Black can delay this move
by playing 10...Wc7!?, but it is not
clear whether he benefits from this.
11 Br3
11 e5!2 dxe5 12 fxe5 Afd7 13 Whs
g6 14 Wh3 DxeS 15 Bad] We7
£4 doesn’t promise much for White,
Kaidanov-Wojtkiewicz, New York
1994.
The position after 11 Wf3 is found
at the crossroads of three variations
(10...a6 11 0-0 in the main line of
Chapter 1, 10...0-0 11 0-0 in Line B42
of Chapter 7, and the present line).
11...8e7 (D)
Maybe 11... fd7!? 12 g4 He8 13
g5 &f8 is playable, as in D.Frolov-
Dvoirys, Russian Ch (Samara) 2000.
Another little-studied move is 11...2.d7.
zeus
ance
ble.
13 g5 Afxe4
13...Afd7!? 14 £5 (14 @AE5?! exf5
15 Ad5 Wd8) 14...Ae5 deserves seri-
ous attention:
a) 15 Wh5 b4 16 Ace2 Axb3 17
axb3 g6! 18 Wh4 exf5 19 exf5 He8 +
I.Markovié-Dobes, Czech Cht 1995/6.
16 b) 15 Wh3 b4 16 Ace2 Axed and
now 17 fxe6 @xg5! or 17 £6 gxf6! 18
gxf6 Axf6 F.
c) 15 Wg2!, with the point 15...b4
16 Ace2 Axb3 17 axb3 exf5 18 Axf5
&xf5 19 exf5 Wxc2 20 6, is probably
best.
14 Dxe4 2b7 15 Axe!
After 15 @xc5, Black may either
get an acceptable endgame through
15...dxc5 16 Axe6 We8! 17 Bd5 Rxd5
18 Wxd5 Wxe6 19 Wxe6 fxe6 (Golu-
bev-Mowsziszian, Berlin 1993) or oc-
cupy the b7-square with the queen:
15... 2xf3 16 Acxe6 Wb7!? 17 Hxf3
fxe6 (as in Vasiukov-Aronin, Riga
1954).
15...fxe6

be
“

\
mi
aé

15...Axe6 16 Had! Bfd8!? 17 2d5!

Rxd5 18 Bxd5 Wxc2 19 Hd2 with an
initiative for the pawn.
16 Axc5!
16 &xc5?! dxc5 17 Rxe6+ Gh8
suits Black.
16...2.xf3 17 Axe6 Wc8
Not: 17...8b7? 18 Ac5+; 17...8b8?
18 Bxf3 Bc8 19 Sd5! + Golubev-
12 g4!? V1.Belov, Alushta 1999.
12 f5 transposes to 7 &b3 Abd7 8 18 Exf3
f4 Dc5 9 f5 Be7 10 Wf3 0-0 11 0-0 White has more than adequate com-
We7 12 Re3. pensation for the sacrificed material:
12...b5 a) 18..Hf5 19 Ad4+!? (19 2d4!?
After 12...Axb3 (see note ‘b24’ to d5 20 Hel &f8 21 Hfe3 (Stoica)
Black’s 11th move in Line C221 of 21...Wd7 22 He5 Bxe5 23 Hxe5 @h8
36 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

24 £5 He8 25 Bxd5 We8) 19...d5 20 Bc8! 16 2g5 Acd7 17 Vxf6 Axf6 18

4d1!, Florean-C.Popescu, Romanian Ace Hc4!, Kotkov-Polugaevsky, Rus-
Cht 1994. sian Ch 1959) 14 &g5, and rough
b) 18...d5 19 &xd5 (19 £5!? is equality is achieved by both 14...Ab6
possible) 19...Wd7 20 &b3 Ef7 21 26 15 Bxf6 (15 Ah5 Ac4) 15...2xf6 16
(21 £5!?) 21...hxg6 22 Hafl Shs 23 Hf3 and 14...Bxc3!? 15 bxc3 Axed 16
Eh3+ Sg8 = Velker-Vitolin’, corr. &xe7 Wxe7 17 Dxed Bxed 18 c4,
1996. while Gutman’s 14...a5 is also playable.
c) 10 &e3!? and now:
B) cl) 10...2b7?! 11 e5!.
9...b5! (D) c2) 10...b4 11 Aa4 2b7 (the alter-
ch iw-%
KA ow UY
native 11...Axe4!?
fxe6 14 “FS Lg5
12 £5 d5 13 fxe6
is interesting,

m0 a Valvo-Browne, San Mateo rpd 1989)

N

YG Ga

wan
LE, 12 e5 dxe5 13 Axe6! (13 fxe5 Ad5 14
\\>

&f2 Ad7 with good prospects for

i, Cz
be

Foe ag Black, Golubev-Kadyrov, Baku jr

\ Be»

1984) 13...fxe6 14 2xe6+ Ph8, and in

1 ADRS this complicated line, White possibly
Os y Ta ly has no advantage: 15 Wxd8 (15 fxe5
ke

Yor
&
Ho

4fd7 16 Bxf8+ Axf8 17 Wxd8 Bxd8

SS

mW Be
WS

18 2b3 Ac6 19 Ac5 2b6 20 Hel with

TET: compensation, Finarsson-Lautier, Rey-
kjavik 1988) 15..Bxd8 16 fxe5 Ags
10 5 (16...4e4!?) 17 Ab6 Ha7, Kaidanov-
Risky, but otherwise Black has noth- de Firmian, Las Vegas 1994.
ing to worry about: c3) 10...c7 is more reliable; e.£.,
a) 10 £5? b4! 11 a4 (after 11 11 a3 (or 11 £5 b4! 12 a4 &5 13 Ae2
“ce2 e5 12 Af3, Fischer-Smyslov, 4\bd7 = Yakovich-Novikov, Uzhgorod
Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade Ct 1959, Black 1987) 11...2b7 (or 11...Ac6!?, when
can play 12...@xe4! 13 &d5 2b7 F after 12 @xc6 Wxc6 13 £5, there is
Mednis) 11...e5 12 Ae2 &b7 13 Ag3 13...Axe4; instead, 12 f5 Axd4 13
&bd7 14 Wel a5 with better chances, &xd4 = leads to a position of the Clas-
Anand-Ivanchuk, Linares 1991. sical Sozin) 12 £5 (12 Wf3 Abd7 13 £5
b) 10 a3 (no better than 8 a3 and e5 14 Ade2 Ac5 — 7 2b3 Abd7 8 f4
a2) 10...2b7 (even 10...Abd7 11 £5 De5 9f5 Be7 10 Wf3 0-011 Be3 We7
“c5!? is not bad) 11 f5 (11 WF3 12 0-0 bS! 13 a3 e5 14 Dde2 Zb7,
4\bd7!; 11 We2 Abd7! and here, with which is approximately equal) 12...e5
the bishop on b3, 12 e5 dxe5 13 fxe5 13 Ade2 Abd7 (13...Ag4 14 Sf2;
Sc5 14 2e3 Wh6 F is bad for White) 13...2)xe4?! 14 Dxed4 and 15 Ag3) 14
L1..e5 12 Ade2 Abd7 (12...Axe4?! Be3 Ac5 15 2d5 Ba4!, D.Hansson-
13 Axe4 Bxe4 14 Ag3) 13 Ag3 Bc8 Fridh, Swedish Ch (Skelleftea) 1972.
(13...Ac5!? 14 2d5! Bxd5 15 exd5 10...dxe5 11 fxe5 Afd7!
 5...a6 6 2c4 e6 7 0-0 37

11...2057! 12 2e3! Ac67! 13 Axc6! now 19...e5? failed to 20 @xg6!! in

&xe3+ 14 Shi +. Anand-Kasparov, Moscow rpd 1996.
12 2e3! Instead Black should try 19...A\c5!? or
Otherwise: Vaisser’s 19...@f6!?.
a) Not 12 Wf3? AxeS! 13 Wxa8 12...Axe5!
Wxd4+ 14 Bh1 Abcé. It is too late for Black to opt for a
b) 12 &f4 Ac5! 13 Dce2 Lb7 is quiet life, as we can see from the fol-
good for Black. lowing lines:
c) After 12 Wh5, it appears that a) 12..2g57 13 Qxg5 Wxgs 14
White risks even more than Black: &\xe6! is much better for White, Chris-
cl) 12...Ac6 13 Axc6 (the alterna- tiansen-Andersson, Hastings 1981/2.
tive 13 2e3 gives Black a choice be- b) 12...Wc7? 13 Bxf7! Bxf7 14
tween 13...A\dxe5, transposing to Line 4\xe6 WxeS 15 2d4 WS 16 Axg7
B2, and 13...Axd4! 14 &xd4, which is Wid 17 De2 Wes (17...We4 18 Wi
note ‘b’ to White’s 14th move in Line {6 19 45! +— Rosenberger-Barta,
C222 of Chapter 9) 13...Wb6+ 14 2e3 corr. 1983) 18 WF1!? +.
Wxc6 15 Hf3 2b7, and now: c) 12...Ac5 13 We4!, Golubev-Al-
cll) Not 16 @h1? b4 17 2a4 We7 iev, Baku jr 1984.
18 Bh3 h6 (Levy) 19 2xh6 Wxe5 20 d) 12..2c5 13 Ded Bxd4 14
Rg5 Rxg2+. Wxd4! (14 Bxd4 Ac6 15 Be3 (15
c12) 16 Hafl g6!? (16...2c5 17 c3!7} 15...AcxeS 16 Whs — 12 Whs
X1f2 Rxe3 18 Bxe3 ~) 17 Hg3 b4. Rc5 13 Re3 Axd4 14 Bxd4 Dc6 15
c13) 16 Hg3 g6 (16...2c5 17 Hel Be Acxe5 16 De4) 14...c6 15 We3
Had8 {17...26 18 We5!7} 18 Wh6 6 19 and now:
2d5 exd5 20 Hh3 Hfe8 21 Wxh7+ = dl) 15...Adxe5 16 &c5!.
Howell-D.Hansson, Reykjavik 1990) d2) 15...2b7 16 Ad6 (16 Had1!?
17 Wh6 &c5! 18 Bel Bfd8 with good Gallagher) 16...64 and now White
chances for Black, Milu-Navrotescu, should play 17 Wel!, Bouaziz-Psa-
Bucharest 1999. khis, Las Palmas IZ 1982, but not 17
c2) After 12...2c5 13 2e3 Bxd4 Wed Ddxe5!.
14 Rxd4 Ac6 15 2e3 (15 Had] Axd4 d3) 15...Acxe5 16 2d4 b4 17
16 Bxd4 Wb6! 17 Bf4 Wes 18 Add We3!? (Gallagher) 17...Ag6 18 Ad6
Ha7! 19 Hh4 h6 20 Af6+ Lh8 is much gives White the initiative.
better for Black, Bareiss-G.Miiller, e) 12...b7 13 WhS (not 13 Hxf7?
corr. 1986) 15...A\cxe5, White’s attack- Extf7 14 @xe6 We8 15 Ad5, Bosch-
ing prospects are unconvincing: Golod, Hoogeveen 1998, 15...Axe5!
c21) 16 Ae4 We7 17 Had! 2b7 18 +) and here:
4d6 2c6 19 Bd4 (or 19 225 £6 20 el) Not 13...2c5? 14 Bxf7! +-.
@i5 We8, Ostojic-Minié, Vinjatka e2) 13...We7 14 Bxf7 Bxf7 15 Rxe6
Banja 1970) 19... Ag6 20 2g5 Jf6, Bxe5 16 2£4 and now 16...A\f3+ 17
Stisis-Gutman, Biel 1994. Wxf3 Qxf3 18 Rxc7 Rc5 19 Vxf7+
c22) 16 Had] &b7 17 Bd4 De6 18 &xf7 20 Bfl + (Nunn) or 16...2.d6 17
Be2 We7 (18...Wc7!2) 19 Af4 and Rxe5 Rxe5 18 Vxf7+.
38 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

e3) After 13...2c5!? White can try B1)

14 Had1 Ac6 15 Vhl, as in Zviag-
intsev-Mitenkov, Moscow 1989 or 14
$h1, but not 14 Bxf7? Bxd4!.
e4) 13...96 14 Wh3 5 (14...Dc5
15 Bxf7! +; 14...AxeS5 15 4xe6!) 15
Exf7 2xe3+ 16 Wxe3 Bxf7 17 Bxe6
(17 Axe6 Wb6!) 17...Af8 18 Vxf7+
Bxf7 19 e6+ Be8 (Shipov) 20 Hel !?
We7 21 Hf1, with an attack.
13 WhS (D)
13...Ac4 14 &xc4 bxc4 15 Zad1
Or:
a) 15 £3? g6! 16 Bg3 (16 Who
e5! 17 Hdl exd4 18 &xd4 f6 is much
better for Black) 16...2d6 17 Bg5 ££4!
—+ Tarjan-Byrne, USA Ch (South
Bend) 1981.
b) 15 Wr3 Ha7! 16 AS Hd7 17
A\xe7+ Wxe7 18 W2!? He8 19 2c5
with compensation — Gallagher.
15...We7 16 Ef3 26 17 Whe fo!

xa2W Xe 17...f5 18 &f4! + (suggested by de

Firmian).
(i, ea 18 Ded
es 18 Hdfl e5 19 Hg3 2d8 20 Af3

ne iY 4\c6 21 B2c5 Re7 22 Hxg6+ hxg6 23

Wxe6+ @h8 '2-% de Firmian-Ivan-
nae A chuk, Amsterdam 1996 (here there are
SD Ie more chances to improve Black’s play
oa

aes ao than White’s). 18 @de2 does not look

too convincing either; e.g., 18...Ac6!2.
a

18...e5 19 Bg3 248 20 DE3

20 De6? Rxe6 (Bouaziz-de Fir-
The critical position, in which Black mian, Tunis IZ 1985) 21 Bxd8 Bxd8
can fight back by two methods. 22 Exg6+ Gh8 is much better for
Bl: 13..ac4 38 Black.
B2: 13..Aabc6 38 20...2.£5!
20... We7 21 Wh4 Ac6 22 2h6 Wa7+
Other moves: 23 Sf1! £5 24 Bxd8 gives White an at-
a) 13...Abd7? is unsuccessful in tack.
view of 14 2xe6!. 21 Ac5S
b) 13...2f6 14 Hed Agd 15 Had1!! Now 21...We7 22 Dh4! Wxh6 23
4\xe3 16 Axe6 (Sokrustov-Sozinov, &xh6 is probably better for White, but
corr. 1988) also favours White. after 21...We7!? 22 Dh4 Bxc2 or
c) 13...Ag6 is not so easy to refute. 21...e7 the chances are equal.
After 14 Bf3 (14 Bxf7 and 14 Had]
We7 are unclear), 14...A\d7? is weak B2)
in view of 15 Hxf7 Exf7 16 Axe6 13...Abc6 (D)
Was 17 Wd5 Db6 18 Wc6, but there 14 Axc6
are 14...Wd6, 14...b4 and even 14...e5 After 14 Had1 We8 (14...Wc7!2) 15
(e.g., 15 Bxf7 Bxf7 16 Bfl Af6 17 4)xc6 (15 Ae4 2b7!) 15..Axc6 16
S\f3 We8) to consider. Ded Da5!? (16...f6!2) 17 Af6+ Vxf6
 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0 39

ios kee Ukrainian

Hxd5! +.
jr Ch (Lutsk) 1987) 24

y 2S mama b2) After 16...f6! Black retains de-

aaa V, fensive resources:
b21) 17 Bd1 We8 and now:

8 Agi
Y | eee Y ou
A YA,
ARAB othe
ZY 72s
18 Bxf6 Axb3 19 axb3 (Golubev-Shu-
shkovsky, Donetsk 1984) 19...%b7 (or
19...We7!) Black has excellent pros-
pects.
14...Axc6 15 Bf3 Wd6!?
After this move, White has not yet
managed to prove any meaningful ad-
vantage. Other moves:
a) 15...b4 16 Bh3 h6 and then:
al) 17 Hdi Wa5 18 Dd5 exd5 19
Xg3 d4 20 Bxg7+ (or 20 2d5 &g5 21
&xg5 Wxd5 22 2f6! = Short-Kas-
parov, Novgorod 1997) 20...8xg7 21
Sxh6+ (21 Wxh6+ =) 21...2h7 22
&g5+ = (not 22 2d5? Wxd5!).
a2) 17 Ded Wad 18 Ac5 Bhs 19
Hg3 295 20 Hel De7 21 Bxgs (Nisi-
peanu/Stoica) has not been tested.
a3) 17 &xh6!? g6 (17...gxh6 18
Hd1! Wb6+ 19 Shl Bg5 20 Hed +-)
18 WF3 bxc3 19 Wxc6 cxb2 20 Hfl
&.d7 21 Wc3 26 22 Bxf6 bl W+ 23
Ef Wb6+ 24 He3 Wxfl+ 25 Vxfl £6
is slightly better for White, as in the
computer game MChess8-Nimzo99,
SSDF 1999.
b) 15...¢6 16 Wh6 and now:
bl) 16...f5?! 17 Hdl We8 18 Ad5!
BDe5 (18...WE7 19 Bh3) 19 Bh3 W7
20 &d4 Ac6 21 RF6 Vc5+ 22 Phi
Ha7 23 2c3 exdS (Golubev-Golod,
b211) 18 Kh3 is best answered by
18...27! (Kengis), rather than 18...8£7
19 Ad5! Dad (19...4d8!7) 20 Hf
@Axb3 21 Axf6+ Vxf6 22 Exf6.
b212) 18 Ae4 AeS5 (18...Aa5?! 19
2d4! Axb3 20 &xf6 + J.Todorovic-
D.Lazié, Belgrade 1988) 19 Hh3 (19
Hg3 Wc6 Nickoloff) 19...2£7.
b22) 17 Hg3!? is also very unclear;
e.g., 17...We8 18 Hfl WET 19 Ae2 AaS
20 Afa &d6 21 Ah5 (Soderberg-Del-
abie, corr. 1990) and now 21...2xg3.
16 Bh3 h6 17 Bdl
Or:
a) 17 &xh6 We5+ F.
b) 17 Hg3 Wes! 18 WF3?! (18 Wxes
&xe5 19 &xh6 is better) 18...8.05! F
Kulaots-Nisipeanu, Medellin jr Wch
1996.
c) 17 Wf3 2b7 and now White can
play 18 Hdl We7 or 18 Hg3 2h4!
(Nisipeanu/Stoica).
17...We5 18 WF3 2c5! 19 Sxc5
Wxc5+ 20 Phil 2b7!
20...f57! 21 Ad5.
21 Ded
Not 21 Bd7? Ae5! —+.
Now, Golubev-Vit.Scherbakov, Nov-
aya Kachovka 1988 ended peacefully
after 21... We7 22 Hd7! Wxd7 23 Afe+.
21...We5 22 Ad6! Ad4 23 Wxb7 Had8!
is no real improvement, but 21...W5!
22 Wxf5 exfS5 23 Ad6 Aas = forces
White to seek a draw with 24 Axf5!?.
It is not a good idea to make hasty
conclusions, but if there is a deadlock,
White will have to recollect, for exam-
ple, 8 a3!? or 8 a4!? after 7 0-0 2e7.
4 5...a6 6 2c4 e6 7 &b3:
7...8.e7 and 7...8%c7

1 e4 c5 2 Df3 dé 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 c) After 7...2d7, White may well

A665 Dec3 a6 6 Bcd e6 7 Rb3 (D) transpose to the Classical Sozin via 8
£4 \c6 9 2e3. 8 g4 is also interesting.
ea, a RE TRE.

(Au awa A)
Pe) a,
one

Y Y YG
7...c7!?
Now:

on a) 8 0-0 is the most common but

a

@ Aan not the most critical move. This posi-

mon eB
tion was mentioned in connection with
7 0-0'Hc78 &.b3; 8...2\c6 and 8...Re7!?
Am wan are the normal replies for Black.
ae

The interesting reply 8...b5 may be

5 We 78 used when responding to other moves:
b) 8 &e3 bS!7.
Black enjoys a wide choice here. c) 8 f4b5 (8...A\c6 9 £5!) with the
Current theory has three main contin- idea of meeting 9 f5 with 9...b4 10
uations: 7...b5, 7...Abd7 and 7...Ac6 R.a4+ Be7!.
— these were selected by Kasparov in d) 8 g4 b5 9 g5 can be met by
the 1993 World Championship match. 9...b4!? 10 gxf6 bxc3 or 9...Afd7!?.
We shall discuss these topics in suc- 7...Wc7 still awaits a serious test.
cession in the chapters to follow and By the way, 6...Wc7 7 2b3 e6 is one
here we concentrate on less current more path via which to achieve this
but still interesting directions: position.
A: 7..We7!? 40
B: 7...2e7 40 B)
70.27
We can dispose of other moves: Now:
a) 7...d5? 8 exd5 @Axd5 9 Axd5 Bl: 8 f4 41
exd5 10 0-0 2e7 11 WF3 Ac6 12 B2: 8 g4!? 42
&xd5! +— Golubev-D.Miroshnich-
enko, Yalta open 1995. Instead, 8 &e3 bS! promises little
b) 7...26? 8 &e3 &g7 9 f3! + Ziane- for White, while 8 0-0 was studied in
Brooks, New York 1993. the previous chapter.
 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3:
8...0-0
Otherwise:
a) 8...2\c6!? transposes to the Clas-
sical Sozin.
b) 8...Wc7?! 9 £5! (9 g4!? Ac6 10
g5 Ad7? 11 &xe6! + Stein-Chistia-
kov, Leningrad 1960) and then:
bl) 9...e5 10 Ade2 h6 (10...Abd7
11 &g5!) 11 Ag3!, and White wins
the fight for the d5-square.
b2) After 9...exf5 White’s chances
are better, as with the queen on c7 it is
hard for Black to arrange ...d5.
c) 8...b5 9 e5! dxe5 10 fxeS Afd7
11 &xe6! AxeS (11...0-07! 12 2d5
Ha7 is insufficient in view of 13 Af3!)
12 2xc8 (12 &f4 fxe6 13 Bxe5 0-0
14 We2 b4 15 Ded Wd5 F Nunn)
12...Wxc8 13 Ad5! (13 Rf4 Abc6 =
Sax-Nunn, London 1980) 13...&c5
(13...2a7 14 Wh5!) 14 b4 and now:
cl) 14...2xb4+? 15 Axb4 We3+
16 Wd2 Bxal 17 0-0.
c2) 14..\d7 15 Af3 2d6 16 0-0
Abc6 17 Ab6 Wa7 18 Re3 Hd8 19
“Ac4 We7 20 Axd6+ Hxd6 21 Wel
with an initiative, Yagupov-Moiseev,
Podolsk 1992.
7...2e7 AND 7...4c7 41
c3) 14...2a7 15 R£4 Wd7 16 Rxe5
(16 Af3 Abc6! 17 Bxe5 0-0-0 Moro-
zevich/Yurkov) 16...Wxd5 17 &xg7
(17 We2? 0-0 18 0-0-0 f6!) 17... Wxg2
18 We2+ Wxe2+ 19 &xe2 (Moroze-
vich-Agrest, St Petersburg Z 1993)
19...g8 20 AfF5 Ac6 21 Had1! +.
9 Be3!?
Other moves:
a) 90-0 is Chapter 3.
b) 924!? has not been studied at all.
c) 9 Wf3 allows Black to transpose
to satisfactory lines with ...A\c6:
cl) 9...8c7!? 10 £5 (10 £e3?! bS!;
10 24 Ac6 11 Axc6 bxc6 12 g5 Ad7
« Ciocaltea-Jansa, Bad Liebenstein
1963) 10...A\c6! (10...e57! 11 Ade2
b5 12 g4! b4 13 g5 bxc3 14 Axc3!,
Soltis-Maeder, Dresden 1969) 11 Re3
transposes to note ‘c’ to White’s 11th
move in Line C211 of Chapter 9.
c2) 9...Ac6!? 10 Re3 transposes
to Line C21 of Chapter 9.
d) 9 f5 exf5 10 exf5 (10 Axf5
&xf5 11 exf5 Wb6!, Ehlvest-Portisch,
Rotterdam 1989) 10...Ac6 11 0-0 d5
and Black is close to equality; e.g.:
dl) 12 Re3 He8 13 Bhi Aad
(13...Ae5 14 Bg5 +; 13...2a3!7) 14
W3 b5! = Balashov-Chistiakov, USSR
1969.
d2) 12 Bhi &c5 (12...Be8!?) 13
&e3 2a7 14 2g1 + Lombardy-Béék,
Munich OL 1958.
d3) 12 2g5!? Lepeshkin.
9...b5
Or:
a) 9...Wc7 10 g4! is probably un-
safe for Black.
b) 9...Ac6 is the main line of the
Classical Sozin.
10 e5 dxe5 11 fxe5 Afd7
Now:
42 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

a) 12 0-0 transposes to Line B of 12 gxf5 favours White; e.g., 12...d4 13

Chapter 3. White is not doing so well Bel 2f6 14 Whs + Istratescu-Arso-
there, and it is worthwhile to look for vic, Belgrade 1994.
an alternative. c) 8...Wa5!? is possible, and if 9
b) 12 Wg4?! Dxe5 13 Wed We7 We2, then 9...b4!, T.Horvath-Gut-
14 Wxa8 Aec6, Podgaets-Tukmakoy, man, Schoneck 1988. Instead, White
USSR 1975. should play 9 f3 or 9 Wf3.
c) 12 Wh5?! We7!?.
d) 12 Axe6 fxe6 13 Rxe6+ Gh8 B21)
14 2d5 Ab6!. 8...Ac6 9 95 Axd4
e) Interesting is 12 WF3!? Ha7, and Not 9...Ad7? 10 &xe6!.
then 13 0-0 is better than 13 Af5 10 Wxd4 Ah5 11 Eg b5 12 Le3
&c5!? or 13 0-0-0 Bc7 14 Wh3 Bxc3. 0-0
12...2.d7!? 13 0-0-0 a5 14 a3 (the
B2) alternative 14 e5!? deserves serious at-
8 g4!? (D) tention) 14...b8(7!) 15 e5 d5 16 Axd5
exd5 17 Wxd5 Hf8 18 e6! (18 Wed
We8! 19 Wxh7 2£5!) 18...fxe6 (K.Miil-
ler-Kempinski, Hamburg 1999) 19
We5! HFS 20 Wed e5 21 Wd5 We7 22
Wo8+ Hfs 23 Wxh7 Afd 24 2xf4 Bxf4
25 Wxg7 with an attack — K.Miiller.
Z 13 0-0-0
White’s chances are probably better.
However, if Black does not permit the
strike in the centre (13...2b8 14 5! d5
15 Wh4 g6 16 Ae4 + Yakovich-Zil-
ewe mz bershtein, USSR 1987), but plays
13... Wc7 (as in Zapata-Sunye, Linares
This is a complicated variation, and {Mexico} 1992), he preserves re-
with only a couple of dozen serious sources for counterplay.
games to work with, it is impossible to
do more than outline the theory. B22)
Let us discuss the following: 8...0-0!? (D)
B21: 8..Ac6 42 9 g5
B22: 8...0-0 42 9 Re3 d5!? (9...Ac6 10 g5 Ad7 11
B23: 8...h6 43 {g1!? is risky for Black) 10 exd5 exd5
11 &gi (11 £3 Be8 and now rather
Other moves: than 12 Wd3 2xg4!, White can try 12
a) 8...65? 9 g5 Afd7 10 Bxe6 is 0-0!?) 11...2b4 = Chepurnoi-Pisarev,
bad for Black. corr. 1992.
b) 8...d5?! 9 exd5 @xd5 (9...exd5 9...2fd7
10 25) 10 Axd5 exdS 11 AS! Kxf5 9...2\e8 looks suspicious.
 5...a6 6 S.c4 e6 7 &b3: 7...2.e7 AND 7...8c7 43

aX SAREE

"(i at's ‘a
© AAgse
mi i
AB AZ
A Swe. ‘pa w 3 Ae
10 Bgl (Chuprov-Zagrebelny, Akmola 1995)
10 h4!? (as in the game Djurhuus- 12 @xc6!? Wxc6 13 We2 Zagrebelny.
Van Wely, Gausdal 1994) and espe- 9...Ac6
cially 10 $xe6!? are interesting here. The line 9...Wc7 10 £4 Ac6 11 £5 e5
10...Ac5 11 Re3 12 Axc6 bxc6 13 WF3 (de Firmian-
11 Wh5!? g6 (11...b5 12 &e3) 12 D.Thorhalisson, Reykjavik 1994) is in
Wh6 He8 13 23 bS transposes to the White’s favour. Instead, 9...b5 and
main line. 9... Wa5!? have hardly been tested.
11...b5 10 Zg1 Was
Or: 10...g5 11 We2 We7 12 0-0-0 Hgs
a) 11...g6!712h4 b5 13 hS 2d7 14 favours White after both 13 h3 2d7 14
hxg6 fxg6 15 Axe6!?. f4, Zapata-Martin de] Campo, Linares
b) 11...8a5!? is also interesting, {Mexico} 1994, and 13 Axc6!? bxc6
Nikolenko-V.Neverov, USSR Ch (Mos- 14 f4 exf4 15 2xf4 e5 16 g5! Gavrikov.
cow) 1991. After 10...2a5, the line 11 We2 b5
12 Wh5 26 12 0-0-0, Stoica-Ghitescu, Timisoara
12...b4 13 Aad Axb3 14 axb3 &b7?! 1987, leaves White’s prospects uncer-
15 Hg4 + He8 16 Hh4 h6 17 0-0-0!, tain (e.g., 12...b4!? 13 Dad Axed).
Golubev-Watzke, Chemnitz 1998. Therefore, 11 f4 deserves attention.
13 Wh6 He8 14 0-0-0 28 15 Wh4 11 Axc6
“\bd7 It appears that both 11 £3 @\d7, with
Black has good counterplay, Sofro- the idea of ...2h4+, and 11 Wd2 g5 12
nie-Navrotescu, Romanian Cht 1998. £3 AeS5 13 0-0-0 Bd7 14 h4 Bg8! 15
&b1 Dh7, Wells-Loginov, Hungarian
B23) Cht 1993, are acceptable for Black.
8...h6 (D) 11...bxc6 12 WF3 Ad7 13 0-0-0
This is the most frequently chosen Eb8 14 h4 g5
continuation for Black. 14... 2.xh4!? 15 Exd6 2e7 (Loginov).
9 Re3 15 hxg5 hxg5 16 Bh1 Hg8 17 Bh5 c5
9 Bgl Wa5!? (9...Ac6 10 Re3) 10 The game is complicated, Emelin-
&d2 We7 114 (11 2e3 b5!?) 11..Ac6 Loginov, St Petersburg 1998.
5 5...a6 6 &2c4 e6 7 2b3 b5:
Sidelines

1 e4 c5 2 AF3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 A)

ALG 5 Dc3 a6 6 &.c4 e6 7 2b3 b5 (D) 8 f4
Fischer played this at the beginning
a Lege OG of his career, but he later cast doubt on
Em
SO

q
this move when playing Black against
ae “ark
» oe "TAK Byrne (1967). Now 8 f4 is obsolete.
a7 a 8...2b7!
4

8...Abd7 is less accurate — see

Galt 2
A
7...2\bd7 8 f4 bS.
bee

&J] After 8...b4!? 9 4a4 there are no

fol A. clear assessments of these two lines:
BER BRE a) 9...2b7!? 10 e5! (10 0-0 Rxe4!

a Swe favours Black — see note ‘a3’ to White’s

10th move in Line E23) 10...dxe5
(10...2\d5 11 0-0 Wc7?! 12 £5 dxe5 13
Historically, 7...b65 was Black’s dom- fxe6 £6 14 AfS We6 15 Axg7+! +—) 11
inant reply and the vast supply of ma- fxe5 Ad5 12 0-0 Ac6!? (12...Wh4).
terial defined the main sequence of b) 9...Axe4!? 10 0-0 and now:
moves: 8 0-0 &e7 9 Wf3. The position bL) 10...d5?! 11 f5!.
after 9 W3 will be discussed in Chap- b2) After 10...2b7 both 11 £5 and
ter 6 and the remaining material is the 11 &e3 are dangerous.
subject of this chapter. We consider b3) 10...Af6!? might be worth in-
the following lines: vestigating.
A: 8 f4 44 b4) 10...26 11 £5 gxf5 12 Axf5
B: 8 We2 45 (Fischer-Tal, Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade Ct
C: 8 Bf3!? 47 1959) and now 12...8b7 (or 12...d5
D: 8 &g5!? 48 Fischer).
E: 80-0 51 9 £5
Or:
After 8 £3, the strongest answer is a) After 9 0-0, both 9...2e7 (see 8
8...&b7!. Then: 9 f3 is very unambi- 0-0 8.e7 9 f4 2b7!) and 9...Abd7 (see
tious; 9 f4- 8 f4 2b7! 9 Be3?!,9 0-0 7... Abd7 8 f4 b5 9 0-0 8.b7) are good
4bd7! 10 f4 — 8 f4 Bb7! 9 Be3?! replies. Less convincing is 9...b4 10
Bbd7 10 0-0. e5!, Dely-Szabo, Budapest 1962.
 5...a6 6 Sc4
b) 9 2e3?! is dubious:
bl) 9...b4 10 Aa4 2xe4! is proba-
bly good for Black.
b2) 9...Abd7 10 0-0 Hc8!?
are some alternatives: 10...&e7!? — 8
0-0 Be7 9 f4 2b7 10 Be3 Dbd7;
10...b4 is less precise in view of 11
4a4 with the point 11...&xe4 12 £5 e5
13 Ae6!, Velimirovié-Suba, Pinerolo
1987, or 11...8e7 12 c3!? bxc3
£5!, M.Pavlovié-Rashkovsky, Vrnjatéka
Banja 1988) 11 We2 (11 £5 e5 F 12
Ae6? fxe6 13 fxe6 AcS —+ Vel-
imirovi¢-Portisch, Szirak IZ
11...b4 12 Aa4 (12 e5 dxeS 13 fxeS
&\xe5 14 Had, Velimirovié-Vaulin,
Belgrade 1993, 14...bxc3! 15 Axe6
fxe6 16 Hxd8+ Exd8 17 2f4 &c5+!
wins for Black) 12...Axe4 (12...Wa5?!
13 a3 bxa3 14 Bxa3 Wh5 15 Wxh5
&xh5 16 f5 e5 17 Ae6!, Velimirovic-
Gutman, Metz 1988) 13 f5 e5 14 Ae6
We7!? seems to be in Black’s favour,
Feletar-Palac, Pula 1999.
c) 9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5 Ae4!? is fine
for Black.
9...e5 10 Ade2 Abd7
10...Axe4 is little-studied; e.g., 11
Rd5 Axc3 12 Axc3 Rxd5 and now
13 Axd5 Wh4+ 14 Sf1 We4+ 15 Sf2
(Boleslavsky) or 13 Wxd5 @d7 14 225!
We8 15 0-0-0 (Averbakh/Beilin).
11 225
Or 11 Dg3 Be8.
11...2e7
In the 1960s it became clear that
Black has at least equal chances here.
12 &xf6
12 Dg3 Be8 (12...h5!7) 13 Axf6
(13 0-0?! h5! + Byrne-Fischer, Sousse
IZ 1967; 13 Ah5 AxhS 14 Wxh5 0-0
=) 13...Axf6 14 AhS (or 14 Bd3 h5!)
14...Bxc3! (14...Axe4!? is less strong,
e6 7 Q2b3 b5: SIDELINES 45
Shmit-Ma.Tseitlin, USSR 1968) and
if 15 bxc3, then 15...Axe4!.
After 12 0-0, good is 12...Axe4 13
(there @xe4 &xe4 with the idea of meeting
14 Dg3 with 14...2xc2.
12...Axf6 13 Wd3 Woe!
This is more precise than 13...4c8
14 0-0 (14 0-0-0!? Wb6 15 h3 b4 =
Platonov-Polugaevsky, USSR Ch (Le-
13 ningrad) 1971) 14...Bc5 15 Ad5 Rxd5
16 &xd5 0-0 17 c3 £ Platonov-Tal,
USSR Ch (Moscow) 1969.
After the text-move (13...8b6), 14
1987) h3 0-0 15 0-0-0 a5 16 AdS Rxd5 17
&xd5 Hac8 18 &b1 Hc5! 19 24 Bfc8
is in Black’s favour, Suetin-Platonov,
USSR 1971. In the case of other re-
plies he also has nothing to worry
about: 14 0-0-0 Ag4!? 15 We3 We3+
or 14 Dd5 &xd5 15 Rxd5 Hc8.
B)
8 We2 2e7!
Or:
a) 8...b49 Aa4 Rb7 10 gS is the
same as 8...&b7 9 &25 b4 10 Dad.
b) 8...2b7!79 Rg5 Qbd7 (9...2.e7?
10 &xe6 0-0 11 &b3 +; 9...b4 10 Aad
&\bd7 11 0-0-0 Wad 12 &xf6 Axf6 13
f3 © Radulov-Garcia Martinez, Ha-
vana 1969) 10 0-0-0 (10 &xe6?! fxe6
11 Axe6 Was5 Schach-Archiv) and
now:
bl) Not 10...Ac5? 11 €5.
b2) 10...b42! 11 Ad5! exd5 12
exd5+ and now 12...8e7 13 Af5 Sf8
14 Bhel AeS 15 Wd2 or 12...We7 13
Wed.
b3) 10...Wb6is best met by 11 f4!.
b4) 10...c8 and then:
b41) 11 Bhel Bxc3! (11...h6 12
&h4 25 13 Rg3 Bxc3 14 bxc3 Wad
15 £3 d5?!, Rossetto-Panno, Buenos
46 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
Aires 1968, 16 Axe6!) 12 bxc3 Was
with good compensation, Hendriks-
Mirumian, Groningen 1997.
b42) 11 @d5 exd5 and rather than
12 exd5+ We7!? F, White could try 12
QNF5!2,
9 2e3
A risky plan. The assessment varies
from ‘unclear’ to ‘better for Black’.
Instead, 9 g4 b4! is good for Black,
while 9 £25 will be examined via the
more logical sequence 8 &g5 2e7 9
We2.
9...0-0!
Or:
a) 9...2b7 10 Rxe6 fxe6 11 Axe6
gives White compensation for the sac-
rificed piece.
b) 9...b4 10 Aa4 2d7 (10...Axe4
11 Axe6 Bxe6 12 Lb6; 10...8b7!?)
11 0-0-0 Wa5 12 “Ab6! is unsafe for
Black, Sandrin-Labin, Ermelo
Wch 1987.
c) 9...Wc7 10 0-0-0 (10 £3 Ac6!?
=) 10...0-0 — 9...0-0! 10 0-0-0 Wc7.
10 0-0-0 (D)
The disadvantages of 10 f3 are
stressed not by 10...$2b7 11 0-0-0 Abd7
12 24 Ac5 13 g5 with double-edged
play, but 10...8d7! 11 g4 b4!, Heuer-
Mikhalchishin, Riga 1975.
10...b4
Black envisages 11 “a4 Wa5S, plan-
ning 12...2d7. Other tries with the same
idea are 10...8d7!? and 10...Wa5!?.
Otherwise:
a) 10...2b7?! is doubtful because
of 11 e5!.
b) 10...87 11 24 (11 £3 Ac6!7 isa
‘good Velimirovié’ for Black) 11...b4
(11...Ac6? is the ‘bad Velimirovié’ ~
see note ‘b’ to Black’s 11th move in
Line B21 of Chapter 10), and now:
bl) 12 g5?! bxc3 13 pxf6 &xf6 14
WF3 (or 14 Bhgl g6) 14...4d7.
b2) 12 Aad Dxe4 13 Abb! Wxb6
— 10...b4 11 Dad Wa5 12 g4!? Dxe4
13 DG! Wxb6.
11 Da4 Was
Black plans 12...$2d7. Other moves:
a) 11...2d7 12 e5! suits White.
b) 11...2)xe4 and then:
blind bl) 12 Axe6? Rxe6 13 2b6 We8!
14 Wxe4 &xb3 15 axb3 Bg5+.
b2) 12 f4 d5 (12...2d7 13 Axe6!;
12...2b7!? Stoica) 13 £5 © Cozianu-
Suba, Romania 1998.
b3) 12 Ab6 Wxb6 13 Axe6 Ac5 14
Rxc5 dxc5 15 Axf8 Sxf8 (15...4a7!?
16 Axh7! Veliékovic) 16 2xf7 Sxf7!
17 WF3+ 2£6 18 Wxa8 Wb7 ~ Stoica.
c) 11...We7 12 £4 (12 g4!7 is possi-
ble) 12...Axe4 13 Ab6 (13 f5 &5!)
13...Wxb6 14 Axe6 is unclear again,
Goossens-Vetemaa, Belgian Ch 1996.
After the text-move, White faces a
difficult choice.
12 g4!?
Other moves are unpromising for
White:
a) 12 Af3 Abd7!, Ljubojevié-Pol-
ugaevsky, Amsterdam 1972.
b) 12¢3 bxc3 13 Axc3 &b7! 14 f3
4\c6, Bonsch-Adamski, Detin 1976.
 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 bS: SIDELINES 47

c) 12 Ab6 Wxb6 13 Axe6 Wc6, proposal 9...%bd7) 9...A\c6?! (9...2b7

Boiko-Gozman, corr. 1992.
d) 12 £3 &d7 13 Ab6 Wxb6 14
@xe6 2b5!7 15 Wr2 Wb7, Wirth-
M.L6ffler, Germany tt 1992.
e) 12 £4 Rd7 (12...Axe4 13 Ab6
Wrxb6 — 11...We7 12 f4 Axed 13 DbG
Wxb6) 13 Ab6 Wxb6 14 Axe6 Wh7
15 Axf8 Bxf8 (or 15...%24!7 first) 16
e5 &g4 17 Wd3 Bxd1 18 Bxd1 doesn’t
give White serious compensation.
12...2d7
12...Axe4 13 Ab6! Wxb6 14 Axe6
Wb5 15 Wxb5 axb5 16 Axf8 ~.
13 Ab6 Wxb6 14 Axeb
Now 14...Wb7 15 Axf8 Rxf8 16 £3
&b5 17 Weg2 gave chances for both
sides in N.Rogers-Byrne, Philadelphia
1992. Possibly 14...Wb5! is stronger.
C)
8 Wf3!? (D)
This is better than 8 We2. Neverthe-
less, White can hardly hope for an ad-
vantage.
xraswes x (Lerch-Dydyshko, Czech Cht 1994/5)
YW Bem e
‘ae
10 Hel!; 9...2e7! is Line B of Chapter
6; 9...b4!2) 10 Axc6 Wxc6 11 Ags
Re7 12 Ad5! exd5 13 Bxf6 dxe4 14
Wh5 &xf6 15 Wxf7+ Sd8 16 Bd5 +
Cheremisin-Makarov, Moscow 1957.
b) 8...Wb6!? 9 2e3 Wb7 supplies
plenty of chances for both sides:
bl) 100-0 and now:
blt) 10...8e7 is Line A2 of Chap-
ter 6.
b12) 10...Abd7!? is little-investi-
gated. After 11 EBfel b4 (11...Ac5!?
has the point 12 2g5 Re7 13 Afs
exf5 14 2xf6 Axb3!) 12 Dad (12
4\d57! exd5) 12...Axe4 13 Axe6 fxe6
14 2d4 d5 (Kengis-Oll, Pinsk 1986),
Kengis gives 15 c4!.
b2) 10 0-0-0 and then:
b21) 10...b4 11 Aad Abd7 12 hel
Re7 13 We3!, Velimirovié-Ilincéié,
Yugoslav Cht 2001.
b22) 10...@e7 11 g4 (11 Wg3!?)
1L...b4 12 Aa4 AWbd7 (12...Axe4? 13
&b6!) 13 g5 Axed 14 Rxe6 fxe6 (not
14...Axg5? 15 2xd7+) 15 Axe6 Axg5
(15...Dec5!?) 16 Axg7+ Sd8 17 Wg3
17...Ae4 18 WF4 ~,

4&7, ka} b23) 10...Abd7 and now:

b231) 11 Shel Se7 12 Wg3 b4?!
Ysa77, 7 ‘an (12...Ac5!?) 13 ALS!!, Doghri-Ilin-
YU B&F
2\

Ci¢, Istanbul OL 2000.

3%YY KF
77487
BE &
b232) 11 Wh3 Ac5! (11...Axe4? 12
Rxe6; 11...b4 12 Aad Wxe4 13 Bhel

‘oo Ge
X =

Wed 14 Wxed Axed 15 25 Emelin)

12 £3 2d7!? with good play for Black:
13 g4 a5 14 g5 Dg8 (or 14...a4!?) 15
8...2.b7 g6 (Emelin-Biriukov, St Petersburg
Other moves: Russia 1998) 15...2)f6! © Emelin.
a) 8...Wc7 9 0-0 (9 &g5!? gives 9 0-0
Black a choice between 9...2e7 — 8 Or:
S25 &e7 9 Wyf3 Wc7 and Lepeshkin’s a) 9 a3 Abd7!? =.
48 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

KARWee
b) 9 &g5 b4!? (9...Abd7 =; 9...h6!2
10 &xf6 Wxf6) 10 Aa4 Abd7 with the
idea 11...Wa5, R.Byrne-Evans, USA B a A
Ch (New York) 1966.
a7 waa i
9...A\bd7
Otherwise: (a io
a) Not 9...2e7? 10 &xe6. og, CA
b) 9...b4 (this is risky) 10 $.a4+ (10
&d5 exd5 11 2a4+! “d7!2) 10...Abd7
(10...2\fd7!7) 11 Dd5! exd5 (11... Axd5
12 exd5 2xd5 13 Wxd5! exd5 14 Hel+ a| ous a
&e7 15 Ac6 with compensation — Bez-
godov) 12 exd5 Se7 (12...2xd5 13 Other moves are less reliable:
Hel+ Re7 14 Wg3! Lepeshkin) 13 Ac6 a) 8...h69 Qxf6! Wxf6 10 0-0.
We7 14 Bel &xc6 15 Rxc6 + (Bezgo- b) 8...b49 Aa4 (9 2xf6!? Wxf6 10
dov-Vaulin, Petropavlovsk 1999) and Dad Ad7 11 Wd2 Bb8 12 0-0 2b7 13
if 15...&b8 then 16 &h6! — Lepeshkin. f4!, Meister-Dvoirys, Voronezh 1988)
c) 9...Ac6!? 10 Axc6 &xc6 11 Hel 9...2e7 10 WE3 &b7 (10....Wa5!7) 11
Re7 12 We3 0-0 13 Bh6 Ae8 14 Had1 &xe6! is better for White, Meister-
We7 (Tal-Browne, San Francisco 1989) Dydyshko, Hlovonec 1994.
transposes to note ‘d3’ to White’s 13th c) 8...Abd7 and now:
move in Line B21 of Chapter 6, which cl) 9 We2 2b7! (not 9...b4? 10
is approximately equal. Dd5!) — 8 We2 Bb7 9 Bes Dba7.
10 Hel Ac5 c2) 9 Rxe6 fxe6 10 Axe6 Wad
It is unsafe to play 10...Bc8 11 (10...4b67! 11 Ad5!) 11 0-0 LF7 12
&95!? or 10...Wb6 11 Be3!, Mowszi- Rxf6 Axf6 13 Ag5+ o K.Miiller-
szian-Enders, German Ch (Binz) 1994, Mirumian, Lippstadt 1999.
but 10...2e7!? 11 &xe6 fxe6 12 Axe6 c3) 90-0! (with the idea of 10 Hel)
&He5! deserves attention, as in Lanc- ~ 80-0 Abd7 9 Re5.
Van Oosterom, corr. 1994. d) 8...2b7!? and now: 9 We2 - 8
11 2d5 We2 2b79 &25;90-0! - 80-0 &b79
After 11 &g5 e7! Black is OK. Rg5,
Now (after 11 25), 11...exd5? is 9 WE3! (D)
weak in view of 12 exd5+ @d7 13 b4 9 0-07! 0-0 10 WF3 2b7!.
Bad 14 Dxa4 bxa4 15 c4 + Meister- 9 We2 is not very dangerous:
Svirin, USSR 1987, but after 11...8c7! a) 9...b4 10 Aa4 2d7 11 £4 Was?!
or 11...b6!, Black has good play. (11...0-0 12 0-0-0!) 12 e5! dxe5 (or
12...8xa4 13 exd6!, T.Horvath-Vegh,
D) Hungary 1986) 13 Wxe5!, Donchev-
$ 2g5!? (D) Savon, Varna 1982.
This is possibly the most interest- b) 9...c7 and now: 10 0-0-0 0-0 —
ing alternative to 8 0-0. 9...0-0 10 0-0-0 Wc7; 10 0-0 - 8 0-0
8...2e7! 267 9 Wf3 We7 10 B85.
 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 Bb3 b5: SIDELINES 49

c) 9...Wa5!? 10 £4 (10 2d2 We7 = 10 &g5) or 10 0-0-0 &b7 11 Bhel!?

Donchev-Dorfman, Lvov 1983)
now 10...h6 11 $h4 g5 (Dorfman) or
10...2b7.
d) 9...h6!?.
e) 9...0-0 and then:
el) 10 f4 can be met by 10...b4 11
Bad &b7 = Vasiukov-Gligorié, Bel-
grade 1961 or 10...h6!? 11 &xf6 2xf6
12 0-0-0 b4 13 Dad Was 14 Wd2 2b7,
Radulov-O.Jakobsen, Forssa/Helsinki
Z 1972.
e2) 10 0-0-0 Axe4 (10...We7 11
£4!; 10...b4 11 Aa4 Wad 12 £4! Bd7 13
e5, Romanovich-Vaulin, De¢in
10...Afd7!? 11 e3 b4 12 Aad, Ep-
pinger-Chandler, Bundesliga 1986/7,
12...2b7) 11 Wxe4 &xg5+ 12 £4 d5
13 @xd5 exd5 14 Bxd5 Bxf4+
(14...2.a7!?; 14...He8!7 15 &xf7+) 15
&bl Ha7 16 Wxf4 Wxd5 17 Wxb8
Hd7 = Radulov-Padevsky, Sofia 1970.
EatWe = &
Maha
ao
and 4\c6 (11...0-0 12 Wh3) 12 Wg3.
D1)
9... 8b6!? 10 0-0-0!
10 0-0!? leads to Line Al of Chap-
ter 6.
10...Abd7
Or:
a) 10..0-0 11 23 (11 24!?; 11 Bhel
oo) 11... Wb7 (11...8e7!2) 12 g4!? and
then:
al) 12...A\c6? 13 g5 Axd4 14 Bxd4
+ Emelin-Nepomnishay, St Petersburg
1996; 1996.
a2) 12...b4 13 g5 Afd7 14 Ad5.
a3) 12...Abd7 can be met by 13
4f5!? or 13 g5 De5 14 gxf6 Axf3 15
fxe7 Wxe7 16 Axf3.
b) 10...8b7 11 Bhel (11 Wg3 0-0
12 2h6 Ae8 13 a3!?, K.Miiller-Kem-
pinski, Hamburg 1998) 11...0-0 (not
11...b4? 12 AF5 + Lazarev-Moiseev,
USSR 1985) 12 a3 @bd7 «© Yako-
vich/Lazarev.
c) 10...b4 11 A517 © exf5 12 Rxf6

aF lal No Y Rxf6 13 Ads Was.

a7] 7 we 11 Ehel
a

11 2e3 Wb7 12 We3 b4 (more reli-

7 "A Me Y able is 12...0-0!7 13 @Ad5 Ac5 14
22h MT
yo

“\xe7+ Wxe7, Trapl-Stohl, Czecho-

on N

ABARAT FAR slovak Ch (Prague) 1986) 13 @d5 exd5

14 Sf5! gives White a serious initia-
HO 6 78 tive for the piece, K.Miiller-Lutz, Ger-
man Ch (Gladenbach) 1997.
Now: 11...0-0
D1: 9...8%b6!? 49 11...2b7!2; 11...b4!12 12 Dad We7
D2: 9...We7 50 13 Wg3 0-0, Bereziuk-Mirumian, Par-
dubice 2000, with a possible idea be-
Or: ing 14 &xe6 fxe6 15 Axe6 Wa5!.
a) 9...2b7? is met by 10 &xe6 +. 12 Wg3
b) If 9...Wd7!?, then White can 12 Wh3!? Olthof/Hendriks.
play 10 0-0 (see 8 0-0 &e7 9 Wf3 Wa7 12...Ac5 13 2h6
50 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Now: Wxa8 + Meister-Kuporosov, USSR

a) 13...De82! 14 DFS! (14 2d5!? 1986.
Bangiev) 14...exf5 15 exf5 Wd8 16 If 10...@\c6, then not 11 e5 @xd4!
Exe7 Wxe7 17 Ad5 Wd8 18 Bel Ae6 or 11 Axc6 Wxc6 12 Rxf6 Axf6 13
19 fxe6 fxe6 20 &g5 + Hendriks-Van Ad5 2e5!, but 11 Rxf6! Vxf6 12
Wely, Dutch Cht 1999. Bd5! +.
b) 13...2h5!? 14 Wed Shs 15 Wxhd 11 Shel
gxh6 16 Wxh6 Bg8 with compensa- Alternatively:
tion for Black, Meister-K.Grigorian, a) 11 Wg3?! Ac5! 12 Bd5 Hb8! 13
Togliatti 1985. 2c6+ Sf8 F Illescas-Gelfand, Linares
1990.
D2) b) 11 &xf6 Axf6! 12 e5? Bb7 13
9...Wc7 10 0-0-0 Wh3 dxe5 14 Axe6 fxe6 —+.
Or: c) J think that Bangiev’s advice to
a) 10 &xf67! Bxf6 11 e5 Qxe5! play 11 eS 2b7 12 Wg3 Axe5 (or
Lepeshkin. 12...dxe5 13 2xe6) 13 Rxe6 fxe6 14
b) 10 e5!? (a new idea) 10...2b7 f4 is quite doubtful.
11 exd6 &xd6 12 We3 and then: 11...0-0
bl) 12...Abd7 13 Axe6!. Or:
b2) 12...0-0 13 0-0-0! h6 14 Adxb5! a) 11...b42! 12 2xf6! 2xf6 (or
Wahls. 12...Axf6 13 Ba4+ Ad7 14 Ad5! +)
b3) 12...8e5!7 13 0-0-0 Abd7 and 13 e5 Rb7 14 Ad5 Bg5+ 15 Sbl +
now, rather than 14 &xe6?! fxe6 15 Bangiev.
xe6 Wb6! 16 Wh3 Yf7 17 &xf6 b) 11...Ac5?! 12 Af5! exf5 13 Bxf6
@xf6 18 Ag5+ Sg6 19 Wd3+ Sxgs gxf6 14 Ad5.
20 h4+ @h6 21 WES 6 22 Wxe5 Hhds c) 11...Ae5!?.
¥ Jose-Gual, Badalona 2001, White 12 Wh3
should play 14 f4!. 12 We3 Ac5 13 Rh6 (13 £4? b4!)
b4) 12...2c5 13 0-0-0 (13 &xf6 13...Ae8 14 2d5 b4 (14...2b8!7) 15
gxf6 F) 13...Ac6! (13...Abd7 14 &xe6! cb5 axb5 16 &xa8 2d7 17 e5 dxe5
0-0 15 &b3 + K.Miiller-Wahls, Ger- offers Black good compensation, Gar-
man Ch (Gladenbach) 1997) 14 &xf6 cia Martinez-Pigusov, Havana 1986.
gxf6 15 Ae4? (15 DdS Wd8 16 c3 12...Ac5
Wahls) 15...2.xd4! (15...2e7? 16 Af5! Not very good is 12...b4 13 Axe6
+-) 16 Bxd4 Axd4 17 Axf6+ Ss! (13 @a4 @c5! Bangiev) 13...fxe6 14
18 Wxd4 Hd8! + Lobron-Novikov, Wxe6+ Bh8 15 Wxe7 bxc3 16 Wxd6!
Bad Wiessee 1999. or 12...Ae5 13 f4.
10...Abd7 13 f4
10...0-07! 11 e5 dxe5 (11...2b7 12 Now:
exf6! +) 12 &xf6! (12 Adxb5 Web! = a) 13...b4 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5 bxc3
Bakhmatov-Bangiev, Simferopol 1986) 16 exf6 Axb3+!? (16...2.xf6 17 2xf6
12...exd4 (or 12...2xf6 13 Axe6!, W4+ 18 &b1 Wxf6 19 Wxc3 + Tim-
12...gxf6 13 DF5!) 13 Rxe7 Wxe7 14 merman-Wojtkiewicz, Antwerp 1994)
 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3
17 Axb3! Bxf6 18 Vxf6 Wia+ 19 He
Wxf6 20 Bxc3 2b7 is complicated,
Timmerman-Soltau, corr. 1988-91.
b) 13...2b7 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5
&fe4!? Schach-Archiv.
E)
8 0-0 (D)
» AU Vbaha
aT. A Ya
Now:
E1: 8....b7 51
E2: 8...b4!? 53
E3: 8...2e7 58
In Line E3, we only discuss the al-
ternatives to 9 Wf3.
Or:
a) 8...Wc7 is rare. Then 9 Wf3!? (-
8 Wyf3 Wc7 9 0-0) is probably best.
b) 8...2d7 is also unusual. Ideas
for White then include 9 a3 and 9 f4!
b4, when White can play 10 e5!? (or
10 Aa4 - 8...b4!? 9 Dad Bd7 10fA).
c) 8...Abd7 should lead to the same
positions as 8...&b7. Flinching will
bring no advantage to Black:
cl) 9 Sg5 Ac5 (9...2b7 10 Hel —
8...&b7 9 Bel Abd7 10 &g5) 10 Bel
4\xb3 (10...h6 11 2&d5!) 11 cxb3! &b7
(11...2.d7 12 AF5! Bc6 13 AdS! exf5?
14 e5! +-) 12 a4!? bxa4 13 Ad5 with
b5: SIDELINES 51
an initiative for White, Golubev-Gohil,
Schwabisch Gmiind 1994.
c2) 9 Hel, and if 9...Ac5 (better is
9... 2b7 - 8...2b7 9 Hel Abd7), then
there is 10 &d5!, besides 10 2g5.
E1)
8...2b7 (D)
24 Wee @
» ase. awa
a0 waa ©
a.ie
Y
ey ates
AS
<s «
D>
a gwgee
9 Hel!
Black must now be constantly on
the alert to the ideas @d5 and £5, as
he lacks the time to hide his king away
(see the next note for, e.g., the conse-
quences of 9...§.e7?). Other moves:
a) The immediate 9 2&.xe6 fxe6 10
4\xe6 is too unclear; e.g., 10...Wd7
(10...Wc8 is also possible) 11 Ad5
BET!7 12 Ag+ Sg8 13 Abo Web 14
&xa8 h6!, Volchok-Kopylov, corr.
1984.
b) 9 &g5!? and then:
bl) Not 9...h6 10 &xf6 Wxf6 11 £4
g6 12 £5 &g7 13 Acxb5 + Ivanchuk-
Ljubojevic, Moscow blitz 1993.
b2) If 9...b4, then 10 Ad5!? is in-
teresting.
b3) 9...Abd7 10 Hel! — 9 Hel!
@bd7! 10 Rg5!.
b4) 9...Ac6!? is stronger, when
Black has chances for equality.
52 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

9...bd7! (Baku) 1972 or I1...exd5 12 exd5+

Other moves do not promise equal- Sd7 13 b4 Dad 14 Axad bxad 15 c4
ity: +) 12 &xf6 gxf6 13 b4! 4\d7 14 &xb7
a) 9...4c7? 10 Rxe6! fxe6 11 Axe6 Wxb7 15 Wh5 with an initiative, Pal-
+
ermo-Najdorf, Mar del Plata 1965.
b) 9...b4? 10 Ad5 +. e) 10...Wb6 11 a4! b4 12 Ads (12
c) 9...2€7? 10 Rxe6!; e.g., 10...fxe6 a5!?) 12...exd5 13 exdS+ &d8 (or
11 DAxe6 Wd7 12 Axg7+ Sd8 13 13...He5 14 a5 We5 15 Be3! + Ad-
Ad5! Bxd5 14 exdS Wed 15 Wxg4 ams-Sadler, Dublin Z 1993) 14 a5!
4\xg4 16 Af5 + Golubev-Kottke, Dei- (14 @c6+!?, Golubev-Mantovani, Biel
zisau 1997. open 1992, 14...2xc6! 15 dxc6 Wxc6
d) 9...2\c6 and now 10 Axc6 2xc6 co) and now 14...Wc7 15 c3 with an at-
11 @dS5! or 10 a4 b4 11 Axc6 Bxc6 tack (Adams) or 14...We5 15 c4!.
12 AdS!. f) After 10...Wc7!?, it appears to
e) 9...h6 can be met by 10 WF3 + or me that 11 &xe6 fxe6 12 Axe6 We4
10 a4!?. 13 Axf8 Bxf8 14 Wxd6 0-0-0 15 Ad5
10 25! (Nei-Tolush, Riga 1959) 15...2.xd5!
Other moves: 16 exd5 Ab8 and 11 a4!? b4 12 Ad5
a) 10 &xe6 fxe6 11 Axe6 Wc8 12 (Nei) 12...exd5! are not clear.
2f4 Sf7! = Barden-Kottnauer, Hel- 11 Qxf6!
sinki OL 1952. 11 &h4 go!12 &g3 He5 13 We2 (13
b) 10 @d5 leads to unclear play Bxe6?! fxe6 14 Axe6 Wd7 15 Dds
after 10...2e7!?, 10..Ac5!? 11 Rg5 SE7!; 13 AF3 We7) 13...2e7 14 Bad
exd5 12 exd5+ &d7 and maybe also Wb6 15 Af3 We7 is satisfactory for
10...exd5!?. Black, Ferrera-Sunye, Mexico 1991.
c) 10 a4 b4 11 @d5 and now 11...A)xf6
11...Wa5?! 12 &g5! gives White the 11...Wxf6 12 a4 b4 13 Aa2 AcS
initiative, Cukier-Sunye, Brazilian Ch (13...a5 14 c3! + Boleslavsky) 14
1995. 11...2)c5 is better though, with &®xb4 a5 15 Abc6 (15 Ba2!? Bxe4 16
unclear play. We2 0-0-0!7 17 We4+ Ac5) 15...e5 16
10...h6 &d5 exd4 (Golubev-Zagorskis, Kar-
Other moves: vina 1992/3) 17 Ha3! with an attack
a) 10...b4? 11 Ad5 +. for White.
b) 10...2e7 11 Rxe6! fxe6 12 Axe6 12 Wad3
WaS is dangerous for Black though Or:
not completely clear. a) 12 WF3 Who! 13 Had1 0-0-0 14
c) 10...8c8 11 a4 bxa4 (11...b4 12 a4 b4 15 Ba2 Ed7!, as Dvoirys has
@d5) 12 Rxf6! Wxf6 13 Bxa4 Bc7 played as Black three times, is unclear.
14 AF3 Be7 15 e5 + del Rio-Shirov, b) One dangerous idea is 12 a4!?
Madrid rpd 2000. b4 13 Ad5 exd5 14 exd5+ Gd7 15 a5
d) 10...Ac5 11 245! We7 (11...b4 (15.¢3!? bxc3 16.5) 15... We7 (15...2e7
12 &xb7 Axb7 13 Ad5 exd5 14 exd5+ 16 2a4+ &c7 17 &.c6 — del Rio) and
@d7 15 c3! + Tal-Mukhin, USSR Ch now 16 c3 (del Rio-Aranda Martin,
 5...a6 6 $c4 e6 7 2b3 b5: SIDELINES 53

Madrid 1995) or 16 2a4+ &c8 17 E23: 9..2b7 54

&c6 (del Rio). E24: 9..2d7 56
12...Ad7
12...Ag4 13 We2 +. In all these lines (except 9...2)xe4?)
13 Wh3 Ac5 14 2d5 We7 15 &xb7 no orderly theory exists as many
Wxb7 16 b4 promising continuations around the
+ de Firmian-Ehlvest, Polanica 10th and 11th moves have not been ac-
Zdroj 1995. tually tested as yet.

E2) E21)
8...b4!? 9...A\xe4? 10 Eel! d5
This move has recently come into Or:
fashion. a) 10..Ac5? 11 Axc5 dxc5 12
9 Bad (D) Ra4+ 2d7 13 Axe6 fxe6 14 Bxe6+
Other moves are seldom played. Just wins for White, Soltis-T.Miiller, New
an example: 9 “ce2 ®xe4 10 Af4 York 1965.
“\c5 11 Hel Ha7!? 12 Rxe6 Rxeb6 13 b) 10...2b7 11 £3! AFG (11...Ac5
“dxe6 Axe6 14 Axe6 fxe6 15 Bxe6+ 12 @xc5 dxc5 13 £444 Ad7 14 Axe6
&d7! 16 Wg4 Sc7 F Brenjo-llinéié, fxe6 15 Hxe6+ Sf7 16 &xd7) 12
Vrnjatka Banja 1998. Bxe6 fxe6? 13 Axe6 Was 14 Axf8+!
Sf7 15 Wxd6 +-.
c) 10...Df6 11 Bg5 Be7 12 ADEs!
LG see + Jovéié-Slatau, corr. 1957.
(ame 11 2f4!
a bite Another known idea is 11 c4!?, but
ae a

on then 11...bxc3 12 Axc3 &b4 13 2a4+

X

Rd7 14 Axed dxeé is not so clear.

at sa
11...2e7
ee

om Rar
Or:
noe

a) 11...0d7? 12 &xd5 exd5 13

Bc6 +-.
b) 11...W£6? 12 Axe6 fxe6 13 Bxd5
+— d’Amore-Bonatti, corr. 1978.
This position is very unbalanced. c) 11...8b7 12 Axe6 (or 12 Wh5!
White should try to arrange an attack + Suetin) 12...fxe6 13 Wh5+ (13 Bxe4
in the centre before Black completes dxe4 14 Wh5+ g6 15 Wes Wd6!)
his development or, at least, to clear 13...26 14 We5 Wd6 15 f3! + Pieretti-
the air on the queenside by playing a3 La Rosa, corr. 1972.
or c3 while preserving possibilities for d) 11...2d6 12 Exe4! (12 2xd6
exerting some pressure. We shall con- Wxd6 13 AfS {not 13 £37 Af6 14 Af5s
sider: Wd8!} 13..exf5 14 Wxds Wxd5 15
E21: 9...xe4? 53 &xd5 +) 12...dxe4 13 Axe6 Rxe6 14
E22: 9..2e7 54 &xd6 + Boleslavsky.
54 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

e) 11...2d7 12 c4! and now: 1997) 12 Axf5 Rxf5 13 BxfS Afo 14

el) 12...dxc4 13 &xc4 Af6 (alter- &xf7+! is much better for White, Lar-
natively, 13...Ac5 14 AxcS Rxc5 15 sen-Olsen, corr. 1983.
A&xe6 +-) 14 Rxe6 fxe6 15 Axe6 b) 10...b7 11 e5! Ad5 12 AF5!2.
&xe6 16 Bxe6+ 2e7 17 Wxd8+ Sxd8 c) 10...0-0 11 e5! ed (11...dxe5?
18 Abb +-. 12 fxeS Ded 13 Re3 We7 14 We
e2) 12...bxc3 13 Axc3 Axc3 (or Wxe5 15 Af3 + Giles-Gratz, USA
13...2e7 14 Axd5 +—-) 14 bxc3 Be7 1982) 12 ®e3 We7 (12...2b77! 13
15 2xd5! (even 15 Af5 0-0 16 Bxd5 Wed + Ili¢), and now 13 Wh5 Ad7 14
is much better for White, Nei-Chu- Hael 26 15 Wh6 (Mirumian-Dao, Ere-
kaev, USSR Cht 1955) 15...exd5 16 van OL 1996) 15...dxe5! 16 fxe5 2&.b7
Rd6 Be6 17 Axe6 fxe6 18 Hxe6 and is unclear, but 13 Wg4! @h8 (Galla-
White wins, Schindler-Schulz, Ger- gher-V.Atlas, Wohlen 1993) 14 Had1!
many 1981. (V.Atlas) favours White.
e3) 12... WE6 13 2e3 dxc4 14 Bc2! The position occurring after the
@Ac5 15 Ab6 Ba7 16 Axc4 Hc7 17 text-move (10...c7) requires serious
“£3 Wd8 18 Ags + Guaimare-Simon, testing:
corr. 1997. a) 11 Shi, 11 We2 and 11 c3 have
12 2xb8 not been investigated at all.
12 A512? exf5 13 Wxd5! is also b) 11 &e3 0-0!? (11...Axe4? 12 £5
good. wins for White; 11...Abd7 12 c3 bxc3
12...xb8 13 Ac6é We7 14 Axb8 13 Axc3 Ac5 14 Bc2 0-0 15 eS! with
Wxb8 15 c4 an advantage, de Firmian-Van Wely,
White has a large advantage. Buenos Aires 1995), and now 12 f5
leads to a good position for Black (7
E22) 0-0 Re7 8 2b3 0-0 9 f4 b5 10 Be3
9,...e7 10 f4 We7 11 f5 b4! 12 Daa).
With the knight on a4, after e5 and c) The main line runs 11 e5 dxe5
the exchange of pawns, Black has no (11...Afd7? 12 Bxe6!; 11...Ae4?! 12
..4.c5 resource, and White wants to £5!) 12 fxe5 Wxe5, when 13 Ab6 Bc5
make use of this... looks quite satisfactory for Black and
Black experiences no problems af- 13 2f4 We 14 Wd2 0-0!? (or 14...Ac6
ter 10 Hel 0-0!? and 10 2e3 0-0 11 f3 15 c3 Ovseevich) is very unclear.
&.b7, while 10 Wf3 &b7! 11 Hel Ac6
12 &e3 0-0 13 Hadl De5 14 Wh3 E23)
Rxed 15 Dxe6 fxe6 16 Ac5 Hh8 left 9...2.b7 (D)
Black better in Magomedov-Kuprei- 10 Hel
chik, Daugavpils 1989. The other possibilities include two
10...We7!? moves that offer White little and sev-
Or: eral interesting but under-explored
a) 10...Axe4? 11 £5 exf5 (11...d5 12 ideas:
fxe6 fxe6 13 Axe6! Vxe6 14 Wh5+ a) 10 f4 has not justified White’s
+— Delanoy-Touzane, Montpellier hopes:
 5...46 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 b5: SIDELINES 55

15 fxe6 Ab8 and White’s chances are

W ih
xe
bas
ee zx questionable, Kaps-Novak, Ljubljana

se
*mim Va
1999.
b) 10 Re3 Rxe4 11 Hel is also un-
convincing:
Wa a a. bl) 11...Abd7!?.
Nhe OAT b2) 11...2e7!? and now 12 &xe6
Nhe O geanee fxe6 13 Axe6 Wd7! or 12 Ab6 Ha7!?
13 2xe6?! Bb7!.
b3) 11...d5 12 f3 226 13 f4 (13
z sumre
a

&f4!?) 13...2d6 with good chances

for Black, Olesen-Astrém, Stockholm
al) 10...A\xe4? 11 £5! (11 2e3!? 1994.
AAT 12 £5 e5 13 He6!) 11...e5 12 eb! c) 10c¢3 bxc3 (10...e7 11 Bxe6!?)
+
11 Axc3 Abd7 12 Ba4 Be7!? =.
a2) 10...Ac6!? could be consid- d) 10£3 @bd7 11 Wel!? has hardly
ered. been investigated.
a3) 10...&xe4! and then: e) 10 Wel!? (also rare) 10...a5 11 e5
a31) 11 Se3 d5!? 12 £5 (12 c3 eo Gurieli-Smagin, Bad Wiessee 1999.
bxc3 13 Axc3 Sc5 F Couso-Astrém, f) 10 &g5!? deserves serious atten-
Stockholm 1994) 12...e5 13 Af3 Abd7 tion: 10...Abd7 (10...2e7 11 &xe6)
14 Ags We7! (14...Re7?! 15 Axed 11 Hel 2e7 12 a3 (12 ¢3!? bxc3 13
dxe4 16 Hf2 We7 17 g4! h6 18 h4, &xe6, Borik-Bouaziz, Dortmund 1979)
Velimirovié-Ilinéi¢é, Jagodina 1993) 12...bxa3 13 Hxa3 0-0 14 &xe6! fxe6
15 Dxed (15 c3 h6! Ilingié) 15...dxe4 15 Axe6 We8 16 Hg3 with an advan-
— 11 f5 e5 12 Df3 Dbd7!? 13 Des d5 tage for White, Short-Van Wely, Gar-
14 ®Dxe4 dxe4 15 Be3 We7! F. misch rpd 1994.
a32) 11 f5 e5 and now: 10...Abd7
a321) 12 Hel 2e7!?. It is likely that there is a better move
a322) 12 Af3 Dbd7!? 13 435 d5 here:
14 @xe4 dxe4 15 2e3 We7! 16 We2 a) 10...Ac6 11 ¢3 (11 Axc6!? Rxc6
(16 g4?! h6 ¥ Todorovié-Marjanovic, —~9...2.d7 10 Bel Ac6 11 Axc6 2xc6)
Kavala 1998) 16...h6!? 17 Hacl 2e7 11...8e7!? 12 cxb4 Axb4 13 Ac3 0-0
18 c3 Wb7 19 c4 0-0 F Sofronie-Mar- (13...Ac6!2) 14 2a4!? and now
Janovic, Bucharest 1998. 14...Bc8 15 Wb3 d5 16 Hdl &c5 17 a3
a323) 12 &g5! Abd7 (12...2e7!? dxe4 18 Axe6 Vxf2+ 19 Sf1 Wad 20
13 Rxf6 Rxf6! {13...¢xf6?? 14 &xf7+ Wxb4 WS 21 Df4 may favour White,
+— Thc} 14 Wel d5 15 Ae2 Ac6 16 Shtyrenkov-Dvoirys, Kursk 1987.
&d1 0-0 17 c4 © Browne-Saidy, At- b) 10...2e7 113 (11 a3!? is possi-
lanta 1967) 13 Hel (13 Ae6? fxe6 14 ble) 11...bxc3 (11...0-0 12 cxb4 Axe4
fxe6 Ab6!) 13...2b7! (13...2e77 14 13 £3 Af6 14 Bxe6! + Virostko-Para-
2xf6 Axf6 15 Bxed4!; 13...W7? 14 monov, Plzen 1998) 12 Axc3 0-0 13
Eixe4! Axe4 15 AbS! +-) 14 Ae fxe6 f4 “Abd7 (13...Ac6!7) 14 &5 dxe5 15
56 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

fxe5 Ae8 16 Axe6 fxe6 17 Bxe6+ This continuation was introduced

Yh8, and, instead of 18 Wxd7 2c5+ by Dvoirys in 1987, and has become
19 Se3 Wb6 with a draw, Yakovich- very popular recently.
Dvoirys, Kursk 1987, itis worth study- 10 f4
ing 18 &xd7 &c5+ 19 Re3 We5 20 Or:
Wa2 Bf3 21 Ad. a) 10 &g5 Be7 (10... Wa5!? Mid),
11¢3 and now 11 “5?! is dubious in view
Otherwise: of 11...exf5 12 2xf6 &xf6 13 Wds
a) 11 £49! Qxed4!. 0-0 (or 13...4c7) 14 Bxa8 Wes!.
b) 11 a3 bxa3 (11...Axe4 12 Axe6 There are three other, more serious,
fxe6 13 Rxe6 Adf6 14 f3 d5 15 fxe4 + alternatives:
de Firmian-Hort, Baden-Baden 1981) b) 10 2e3 Ac6 (10...Axe4?! 11 £4
12 &xe6 fxe6 13 Axe6 is exceedingly 46 12 £5 e5 13 Ae6 fxe6 14 Ab6
unclear. Rc6 15 fxe6 Re7 16 Bxf6!, Velim-
c) 11 &g5 - 10 Rg5!? Abd7 11 irovié-lingié, Cetinje 1991; 10...2e7
Hel. 11 Ab6!?) 11 Hel (11 £3 Me7 12 Bel
d) 11 2d2 also deserves attention. Hb8 13 c4 bxc3 14 Bxc3 Aad 15 Vc2
11...bxe3 e5 = Lautier-Sadler, Tilburg 1998; 11
11...Axe4 12 £3 AecS 13 Axcd £41? — 10 f4 Bc6 1] Be3) 11..Bb8
“xc5 14 Qa4+!! + Savon-Simovié, (11...2e7 12 Ab6 Wxb6 13 Axe6
Lvov 1961. Was 14 Axge7+ Sf8 15 Bh6 gs 16
12 Axc3 Acs Rd5 Axd5 17 exd5 AeS5 18 Ae6 +
12...2e77! 13 Bxe6 fxe6 14 Axe6 Caminade-Boudre, Creon 1998) 12 c3
We8 15 Dxg7+ BET 16 ALS Dc5 17 and here Black should play 12...bxc3
Dxe7 Bxe7 18 Bg5 +. 13 Axc3 Re7 =.
13 2d5! We7 14 2g5 Ve7 15 b! c) 10 el and then:
White is better, Istratescu- Van Wely, cl) 10...Ac6 11 Axc6!? (11 c3 -
Moscow OL 1994. 10 c3 Bc6 1] Bel; 11 2e3 — 10 Re3
BHc6 11 Bel) 11...2xc6 12 Wd4 Kb8
£24) with a possible continuation 13 225
9...2.47 (D) Re7 14 Had1 Wa5 15 5 dxe5 16 Bxe5
b5 =.
c2) 10...%e7 and now:
ESN
Spy

c21) 11¢3 a5 12 Bf3 Ac6 13 We3

eo
RDBe |
.

0-0 14 2h6 De8 is slightly better for

WY

SS

Black, Juviéek-Jaworski, Moravian

HN

be
WS

Cht 1998/9.
W

c22) 11 £4 Ac6 12 e5 dxe5 13 fxe5

\N

4&\xd4 14 Wxd4 Ad5 and Black is OK,

D>
5

Cetkovié-Dinéi¢é, Becici 1993.

c23) 11 a3 a5 12 axb4 axb4 13
&d2 Dab = Dekié-Ilinti¢, Yugoslav
Cht 1992.
 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 b5: SIDELINES 57

c24) 11 2d2 Ac6?! (11...a5 is

better) 12 Axc6 &xc6 13 Rxb4 Bxed xe aL
Yi Z|

14 Wd4 with an advantage, Golubev- Me

B Y Y gee yy
Balcerak, Bundesliga 1996/7.
d) 10 c3 and then:
dl) 10...Axe4? 11 Wf3 d5 12 c4! YU...
y & ZY
UW UG;
WY
WF6 (or 12...Ac6 13 Axe6! +-) 13

ao
cxd5 Wxd4 14 2e3 Wes 15 2f4 WES
16 Hfel +— Lautier-Sadler, Enghien- (2 A, a

les-Bains 1999. ZY ABA OA

BM
7 2S
Z

d2) 10...a5 11 2e3!? Re7 12 Ab6 a

Wxb6 13 Axe6 with compensation,

Nijboer-Janssen, Dutch Cht 2000/1.
d3) 10...bxc3 is probably a bit pre-
mature: 11 @xc3 #.
d4) 10...Aac6 11 Hel (11 Axc6
&xc6 12 £3 d5 13 exd5 Axd5 = Pok-
orna-Lakos, Ostrava 1999; 11 cxb4!?
&xb4 12 &g5, Schwartz-Gorissen,
Dutch jr Ch (Nijmegen) 2001) 11...24b8
(11...2e7 12 cxb4 Axb4 13 Re3 0-0
14 Hcl! £ Berzinsh-Kulaots, Latvia-
Estonia 2000; 11...bxc3!? 12
&e7) and here:
d41) 12.cxb4 Bxb4 13 Axc6 &xc6
14 4\c3 Re7 is equal, Sieiro-Gonzalez
— Ortega, Holguin 1989.
d42) 12 £3 Be7 (12...4a5!7) 13
Bxc6 &xc6 14 cxb4 Bxb4 15 2e3 0-0
16 Hci! = Rogié-Pavasovié,
Z 1998.
d43) 12 £4 bxc3!? (12...2e7? 13 e5
dxe5 14 fxeS @d5 15 We4 + Badii-
Relange, Villecresnes 1998) 13 Axc3
&\xd4 14 Wxd4 2e7 15 Re3 0-0 16
&h1 &c6 with an acceptable position,
Malakhov-Berezin, Ukrainian Ch (Al-
ushta) 1999.
We now return to 10 f4 (D):
10...Ac6
10...Wa5 11 c3 is risky for Black.
11 2e3
Others:
a) 11 e5?! dxe5 12 fxeS Axe5 13
We2 Dg6!?.
b) 11.¢3!?.
c) 11 f5 is quite dangerous, but it
looks like Black holds on: 11...e5!
(11...Axd4?! 12 Wxd4 e5 13 Wxb4!)
12 Ae6 (12 Ae2 Re7 13 Re3 Hb8 14
4\g3 0-0 15 AhS Ad4! with a slight
advantage for Black, West-Blumen-
feld, New York 1989; 12 @3!? h6 13
@xc3 Wel 2e7 14 We3 Sf8 15 Wel Bb is
slightly better for Black, Reinderman-
Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1999) 12...fxe6
13 fxe6 $c8, and here White has
tested two possibilities:
cl) 14 Bxf6?! Wxf6 15 Wd5 and
then:
Dresden cl1) After 15...Ad4 16 2e3 Hb8
17 &xd4 (Ardeleanu-Marjanovié, Pre-
deal 1999) Black can, at least, rely on
a draw: 17...exd4!? 18 Wc6+ 2d8 19
Efl Wes 20 2d5 Re7 21 Ab6 Hs!
(21...8xe6 22 Aa8!) 22 Bxf8+ Lxf8
23 Dxc8 We3+ =.
c12) 15...2b7 16 Ac5 Re7! (not
16...Ad4? 17 2a4+ Sd8 18 Axb7+
Bc7 19 2e3 Wxe6 20 Wa5+ Sxb7 21
c3!!; 16...0-0-0? 17 Axb7 &xb7 18
e3 followed by 19 a3!! — Ardeleanu)
17 Re3 0-0 18 Axb7 Ad4 with the
following possibilities:
58 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

cl121) 19 &xd4 exd4 20 &c4 (20 b) 12 c3 and then:

h3 Wr2+ 21 hl We3 22 Aa5, Echa- bl) 12...bxc3 13 Axc3 Re7 14 We2
varria-Borges, Cali 2000, 22...2¢51! (14 Bcl 0-0 15 We2 +; 14 BF3 0-0 15
—+ Uribe) 20...d3! = Echavarria. e5?! Axd4 16 Bxd4 dxe5 17 fxeS
c122) 19h3 @e2+ and again Black 2c6!) 14...Was 15 f5 (15 Hacl +)
has good chances. 15...Axd4 16 &xd4 Hb4! = Gormally-
c2) 14 &g5 and then: Rowson, British Ch (Scarborough)
c21) 14...2e7 15 Bxf6 2xf6 16 1999,
Exf6! Wxf6 17 Wxd6 Ad4 18 Ab6 b2) 12...2e7 13 e5?! (13 cxb4 Bxb4
gives Black problems: 14 &c3 0-0 = Anand; 13 Zic1!? 0-0!)
e211) 18...2xe6 19 Bxe6! (19 13...dxe5! 14 fxe5 Axe5 15 2f4 Ag6!
“xa8 Ge2+ 20 Sh Ag3+ 21 hxg3 with the better chances for Black,
Wh6+ 22 Sg1 We3+ = {Kalegin- Lautier-Anand, Biel 1997.
Dvoirys, USSR 1988} 23 &f1? Hf8+ 12...Ye7
24 Wxf8+ &xf8 25 Bxe6 Whé!) Otherwise:
19...Wxe6 (19...£d8 20 2d7+ Sf7 21 a) Not 12...Wa5? 13 e5!.
Wd5+! del Rio) 20 Wxe6+ Axe6 21 b) 12...Axd4 13 &xd4 2c6 14
Axa8 +. Rxf6! Bxf6 15 c3 (15 We3 Be7; 15
c212) 18...Ae2+ 19 Sh1 Ag3+ 20 Hael!? Bruzon/Y.Gonzalez) 15...26 16
hxg3 Wh6+ 21 gi We3+ 22 Sf! Kael bxc3 17 Axc3 is slightly better
Hf8+ 23 Wxf8+ Sxf8 24 e7+ Ve8 25 for White, Y.Gonzalez-Lesiége, Ha-
Radt+ 2d7 26 Bxd7+ SF7 27 Axa8 vana 1999.
&xe7 28 Hdl! Wxe4 29 Abb Wxc2 30 13 Zael
Sa4 (Kalegin/Dvoirys). Now, instead of 13...Axd4 14 &xd4
¢22) 14..h5(!) 15 Bxf6 gxf6 16 &c6 15 c3 Re7 16 We3 0-017 e5 +
&d5 2b7 17 c3 (Anand is sceptical Y.Gonzalez-Borges, Cuban Ch (Santa
about White’s chances here) 17...2b8 Clara) 2000, 13...e7 deserves atten-
1-1/2 Mailu-Marjanovic, Bucharest tion.
1999, Summing up: currently, 9...2d7
11...8b8! looks playable while 9...2b7 is more
Not: 11...Axe4? 12 £5; 11...2e7? risky, and 9...2e7 should be checked
12 £5! eS (12...Aaxd4 13 Wxd4 e5 14 very thoroughly.
Wxb4 d5 15 Wel! + Anand) 13 De6!
+ Ciocaltea-Creculescu, Romanian Ch E3)
(Bucharest) 1955. 8...2.e7 (D)
12 We3 Now there is currently no serious
Or: alternative to 9 Wf3 (see the next
a) 12 eS dxe5 13 fxe5 AxeS 14 chapter), so in this section we are just
&f4 and now, instead of 14...We7 15 tying up a few loose ends.
c4 bxc3 16 Hel 2d6 17 Bxc3 Wa7 18 9 f4
Hh1 0-0 19 Axe6! = (A.Kovaéevic- White gains nothing by 9 &e3 0-0
Ilincié, Arandjelovac 1993), Black 10 f4 (see note ‘c’ to White’s 10th
should play 14...Ag6!. move in Line B of Chapter 3).
 5...a6 6 &c4
9 a4!? b4 10 Ba? is playable but it
is hardly possible to talk about an ad-
vantage for White; e.g., 10...0-0
&xb4 &b7 12 c3 Axed (or 12...a5 13
Ad3 Bxe4 14 Hel Aa6 15 Rg5 Qxd3
16 Wxd3 @c5 = Kavalek-Andersson,
Tilburg 1980) 13 a5 d5 14 &c2 R2d6
15 Wh5 Ad7 16 £3 Aefo 17 Wh4 Hc8
18 Ha4 He8 with a good position for
Black, Velimirovié-M.Pavlovié,
goslav Ch (Belgrade) 1999.
9...2b7!
Or:
a) 9...b4 10 a4!? transposes to
Line E22.
b) 9...0-0!? transposes to Line B of
Chapter 3.
10 e5?!
10 £5 is harmless in view of 10...e5
11 Ade2 Abd7 12 Be5 — 8 f4 Bb7 9
f5 e5 10 Dde2 Dbd7 11 Bg5 Be7 12
0-0.
10 &e3 is the main alternative, but
Black has a variety of good replies:
a) 10...0-0?! is weak in view of 11
e5! (here this move is good).
b) 10...Ac6 is, on the whole, satis-
factory for Black.
c) 10...b4!7 11 e5 (11 Aad Rxe4!)
11...bxc3 12 exf6 &xf6 leads to quite
e6 7 2b3 b5: SIDELINES 59
unclear play. In his Easy Guide to the
Najdorf, Kosten assesses the lines 13
8.a4+?! Dd7 14 £5 0-0!, 13 bxc3 0-0
14 Wd2 Wc7 15 Had1 d5! and 13 £5 e5
14 2a4+ Se7! as in Black’s favour.
d) 10...Abd7 appears simpler, with
the idea 11 &xe6 fxe6 12 Axe6 Wc8
13 Axg7+ Sf7 14 DFS b4! (14... 28
is not bad either) 15 Axe7 &xe7 16 e5
Wc6!, Galla-Cordara, Turin 1984.
10...dxe5 11 fxe5 2c5! 12 2e3
&\c6
12...2xd4!? (recommended by Kos-
ten) is good enough; e.g., 13 Wxd4
11 Wxd4 14 Bxd4 Ac6 15 Bc5 Ad7!
(Kosten) or 13 &.xd4 Ac6 14 Bf4 (14
2c5 “Axe5!, Sus-Kaluza, corr. 1994)
14...We7 15 We2 0-0-0 16 Re3 Wxe5
17 Wf2 h5 18 2b6 Agd 19 We3 Hd7!?.
13 exf6 &xd4! 14 fxg7
Even if the sacrifice is incorrect, it
Yu- is at least dangerous in practice. After
the timid 14 Wel &xe3+!? 15 Wxe3
Wd4 (as in Stein-Bobotsov, Bulgaria-
Ukraine 1965 and other games) Black
has no problems at all.
14...2xe3+ 15 Gh1 Hg8 16 Lxe6
16 Wf3 Bxg7 17 Rxe6 (17 Wxe3
Wd4!) 17...We7 18 Rd5 Ad4 19 Wh3
&d2!! and Black wins, Inkiov-Ribli,
Plovdiv 1986.
16...2xg¢7
The position has been assessed in
Black’s favour many times, although it
is not so easy to prove it exhaustively.
The variations are:
a) 17 Wh5 DeS! 18 Ad5 Hgs F
(Nunn).
b) 17 &xf7+ Bxf7 18 Whs Wd7
19 Ded SF8 20 Wxh7 (20 Ad6 Hf2!
Nunn) 20...2.d4.
c) 17 &d5!? 2d4 18 Wh5 Wa7!.
6 5...a6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3 b5
8 0-0 2e7 9 Yf3!
1 e4 c5 2 Df3 dé 3 d4 exd4 4 Dxd4
26 5 Ac3 a6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3 b5 8
0-0 2e7 9 WF3! (D)
xa iies
pg te ah
BS
4 44 a a Ws
WRT) Uh
BOA @
be
Ww Ran
&
xX
iw ae
@ wie
This is a strong move associated
with a plan which involves pieces only.
By preventing 9...0-0? (in view of 10
e5!) and 9...2b7?! (which allows 10
&xe6!), White gains time for Wg3 with
the idea of answering ...0-0 with 2h6!
and obtaining an advantage in devel-
opment after the forced ...Ae8. The
threats of various strikes in the centre
(A\d5, ®F5) and the possibility of de-
ploying the rooks (Had1, Bfel) make
Black proceed very cautiously.
Within White’s concept, the future
of the f{2-pawn is an indefinite factor:
in the variations with ...A\c6 and an
exchange on c6, it is often necessary
to play f3, while in other variations
White may prepare f4.
Main Lines
Currently, 9...Wc7 and 9...Wb6 are of
about equal importance. 9...We7 with
the main variations 10 Wg3 0-0 and 10
Weg3 Ac6 is considered more reliable
and 9...4/b6 braver, as it leaves Black
the chance to continue with ...Abd7
(with the queen on c7 this is precluded
by the threat of &xe6!). After 9...Wb6,
the main continuation is 10 2e3 Wb7
11 Wg3, when Black has a choice of
several lines, the main one being 11...b4
12 “a4 Abd7. Lately, 10 &g5!? has
become popular instead of 10 2e3.
Transpositions
9 WF3 is a genuine subsystem that is
almost unconnected by transposition
to other lines of the Sozin. However, it
is inherently somewhat entangled as
the sides have many standard moves.
The greatest number of transpositions
occur in the positions with ...A\c6, Axc6
Wxc6, that arise, as a rule, in various
lines after 9...Wc7 but may sometimes
be obtained even after 9...4/b6 10 &e3
Wb7 (if Black rejects ...Abd7 in favour
of ...4\c6).
General Assessment
Black’s delay in development pre-
cludes him from organizing quick
counterplay and his real strategic aim
is to neutralize his adversary’s activity
 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 b5 8 0-0 Be7 9 WF! 61

gradually. If Black defends accurately, (12...Ac6 13 Abo! Axd4 14 Wdl

he may get an acceptable game. The Bangiev), and now 13 3d1!?.
chances of the sides in the position af-
ter 9 WF3 may be assessed as in the ini- A)
tial position: somewhere between ‘=’ 9...Wb6 (D)
and ‘2’.
As usual in the Sozin, in the varia-
tions with ...Wb6 and ...A\bd7, White RMS 77
bears relatively greater strategic risk a oe wa
than in the variations with ...Wc7 and

\ be
..4\c6, and, at the same time, the
ever-increasing lag in Black’s mobili-
zation makes his own risk no less. Ze _AAT
We shall discuss:
A: 9...8b6 61
aan ae
B: 9...We7 73
Sometimes, two other moves by
Black occur: Now:
a) 9...a7 10 a4!? (the alternative Al: 10 2g5!? 61
is 10 Wg3 0-0 11 &h6 Ae8 12 Re3 A2: 10 2e3 74
Hc7 13 a4 b4 14 Da2, Mukhutdinov-
Agrest, Budapest 1991) 10...b4 11 “a2 Al)
Eb7 (in White’s favour is 11...d5 12 10 &g5!?
exd5 @xd5 13 @f5 Gallagher, or This interesting move attracted at-
11...a5 12 c3!) 12 Rd2 e5 13 AS + tention only after the game Ivanchuk-
Sion Castro-Vera, Mondariz 1995. Kamsky, Monaco Amber rpd 1996,
b) 9...Wd7 and now: but it was first played by Brooks in
bl) 10 Wg3 does not reveal the 1982 (by the way, the position after 10
drawbacks of Black’s idea since after &g5 may also arise via 8 &g5 Re79
10...Ac6!?, 11 Axc6 Wxc6 transposes Wy3 Wb6 10 0-0).
to Line B22, while 11 23 is hardly Let us consider:
stronger. All: 10...Abd7 62
b2) 10 &g5!? 2b7 11 Hadi Ac6 12 Al2: 10...0-0 63
We3 enables White to hope for a small
advantage, Lerch-Ftaénik, Czechoslo- Other moves:
vak Cht 1988. a) 10...Wxd4? 11 e5 +.
b3) A similar assessment applies to b) 10...b47! 11 e5 Qb7 12 Aad!
10 Hdl!? Wb7 (10...2b7 11 Wh3!?) We7 (12...Wa7 13 Wdl dxe5 14 Axe6!
11 Wg3, Zapata-Infante, San Salvador +-) 13 exd6 2xd6 14 Wh3 with an
Z 1998. initiative, Alvim-Valiente, corr. 1989.
b4) Possibly the main continuation c) 10...2b7 11 &e3! Was (but not
here is 10 a4 b4 11 a5 0-0 12 Aa4 Bd8 11...We7?! 12 Bxe6!) 12 a3 Ac6 13
62 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

We3 0-0 14 f4 + Ganguly-Farkas, Sze- d) 11...b67!? is another relatively

ged 1998. rare option; e.g., 12 Hfel (both 12
d) 10...h6. Now White can play 11 &xe6 and 12 2e3 should be investi-
Se3 W7 12 Weg3 or 11 Rxf6!? Rxf6 gated) 12...Ac5 (12...0-0!? — 10...0-0
12 e5 &b7 13 AdS exd5 14 exf6 Wxd4 1] Had1 &b7 12 Bfel Dbd7) 13 Weg3
15 Efet+ (Alvim) 15...2d8 16 fxg7 (13 Wh3!?), and now:
Wxe7 17 Rxd5 2xd5 18 Wxd5 fol- dl) 13...0-0-07! 14 &e3, Jaracz-
lowed by a4, with compensation. Smirin, Groningen 1996.
e) 10...Wb7!? is playable: d2) 13...0-0! - /0...0-0 11 Hadl
el) 11 a3 0-0 (11...bd7) 12 We3 Qb7 12 Bfel Dba7 13 We3 Dc5!.
Abd7 13 Bfel AeS (13...8h8!?) 14 e) 11...b4 12 Aa4 Wb7 13 Hel —
Hadl &d7 15 f4 £ Ciemniak-Kem- 11..8b7 12 Bfel b4 13 Dad.
pinski, Polish jr Ch (Czestochowa) 12 Efel (D)
1992.
e2) 11 Bfel and now:
R72 #7) &
0-0
e21) 11...Abd7 and then: 12 Wg3
13 &h6 Ah5 14 Wh3 Anf6 15 , eeawawa
&g5 Ac5 = Alvim-Vujanovié, corr. a7 aim 7
1999; 12 Had1!? transposes to Line
All. CT Fae
e22) 11...0-0 12 Weg3 (12 Had1!? YU BEG ZF
b4 13 Aad - 10...0-0 1] Bad] b4 12 I20 Tus
Dad Wh7 13 Bfel) 12...b4 13 e5 (13
Bad? Gxe4) 13...dxe5 14 &xf6 Rxf6
SEAT BAR
15 Ded BRe7 (15...exd4!? 16 Axf6+ 772k S|
@h8 Van der Weide) 16 Wxe5 Ac6 17
4)xc6 Wxc6 = Mirumian-A.Petrosian, 12...b4
Armenian Ch (Erevan) 1996. Or 12...0-0 13 Wg3 Ghs:
a) 14 a3 and now:
All) al) 14..Ac5 15 &xf6 gxf6 16
10...Abd7 11 Had1 Wb7 4d5!? £ Lang-Kask, corr. 1994.
Or: a2) 14...h6!? 15 Wh4 Bes 16 f4
a) 11...0-0- 10...0-0 11 HadI Dbd7. 4\g6 17 Wh3 e5 18 DLS Axf4 = Snar-
b) 11..Ac5?! 12 Rxf6! gxf6 13 heim-Leskiewicz, Gausdal] 2000.
Hfel (Nunn recommended 13 e5 &b7 b) 14 He3 b4 15 Ace2 (15 Ad5?!
14 Dd5! exd5 15 exf6) 13...Ha7 (Ivan- exd5 16 @f5 Ah5 17 Wh4 Axes 18
chuk-Kamsky, Monaco Amber rpd Wxg5 Adf6) 15...Axe4 16 Hxed Qxg5,
1996; 13..Wb7 14 AfS +) 14 Wed! and Black has at least equality; e.g., 17
Nunn. &xe6 (Nunn-Ftatnik, British League
c) 11...Ae5 12 Wg3 b4 13 Aad Wb7 (4NCL) 1999/00) 17...Af6! or 17 He4
and now both 14 fel (Nijboer-Tim- Re7!? 18 Bxg7 Ato! F Van der Weide.
man, Amsterdam 2000) and 14 &xf6 c) Interesting is 14 @d5!? exd5 15
are dangerous for Black. AES Ah5 16 Wh4 2xgs 17 Wxhs.
 5.46 6 &c4 e6 7 Rb3 b5 8 0-0 Re7 9 Wf! 63

13 Dad 0-0 a) 11...Ac6 12 Axc6 Wxc6 13 Ad5

Two other ways to reach this posi-
tion are /0...Wb7 1] Bfel 0-0 12 Bad!
b4 13 Dad and 10...0-0 11 Bad] b4 12
a4 Wb7 13 Bfel Dbd7.
14 Wg3
Or:
a) 14 Wh3 He8 15 £4? Axed F Pe-
ter-Amigues, Bescanon 1999.
b) 143!? He5 (14...bxc3 15 Axc3
4c5 16 e5!! +; 14...a5!) 15 We2 bxc3
16 4xc3 with an advantage, Srebrnié-
Gruskovnjak, Ljubljana 2000.
14... e8
14...A\xe4? fails to 15 Bxe4 &xp5 16
Exe6! Af6 17 Heel — Van der Weide.
14... 2h8 15 c3 (15 Af3!? We7 16
Hd4 a5 17 &xf6 gxf6, Prokopchuk-
Kempinski, Koszalin 1997, 18 c3!?)
15...a5 (15...Axe4!?) 16 &c2 Ae5S 17
f4 Ag6 (Nijboer-Van Wely, Dutch Ch
(Rotterdam) 2000) 18 e5 (Van Wely) +.
15 f3 Gh8 16 Vh1
+ Reinderman-Danailov, Wijk
Zee 2000.
A12)
10...0-0 11 Hadi (D)
Not 11 e5? dxe5!.
xmas Be
\
(13 Hfel &b7 14 a3 transposes to note
‘cll’ to White’s 11th move in Line
Bl) 13...exd5 14 &xf6 dxe4 15 We2
&xf6 16 2d5 Be4 17 Wxed We8 18
Wxe4 Ha7 (Ryvlin-Ar.Karpov, corr.
1991) 19 c3 with a minimal advantage
for White.
b) 11...b4 12 Aa4 Wb7 and now:
bl) 13 Bfel He8 (13...Abd7 trans-
poses to Line Al1) 14 c3 a5 15 &c2
@bd7 16 We3 2f8 17 f4 e5 18 fxe5
dxe5 19 “5 + Reinderman-Bosboom,
Hoogeveen 1999.
b2) 13 c3 a5 14 c4 Abd7 15 Abs
Wb8 16 We2 2b7 17 £3 Rc6 18 Ad4
Bc8 19 Bd2 h6 20 &h4 Ae5 21 Axc6
Exc6 (21...Axc6!?) 22 £4 Ag6 23 £93
We7 24 £5 + Emms-Van den Doel, Isle
of Man 1997.
Two other moves can be linked to
one and the same development pattern:
c) 11...2b7 and then:
aan cl) 12 Wh3!2 dhs 13 Ha3 (13 Bfel
looks more natural) 13...Abd7 14 Bfd1
b4 15 Dad Was 16 £4 Ac5 17 Axc5
Wxc5 18 He3 2d8! with counterplay,
del Rio-Gallagher, Lugano 1999.
c2) After 12 Wg3!?, 12...Abd7?!
is dubious in view of 13 &e3!. Galla-
gher analysed 12...b4 13 Aad Was
(13...4c7 14 Bh6 DeB 15 Vxe6!) 14

V/A he
NU

2xf6 2xf6 15 Wxd6 Hd8 16 Wec5!,

AW ke 7
Bae

and recommended 12...Ac6.

WaT 7 a
cee a

c3) 12 Bfel Abd7 (12...b4 13 Aad

Wa5 14 2d2! Abd7 15 a3 Wd8 16
a WaT 7 &xb4 Ae5 17 We3 Axed 18 f3 is
a mwa better for White, Alvim-Ma.Adams,
ss

corr. 1999) 13 We3 (13 Wh3!? is pos-

sible) 13...Ac5! (after 13...b4 14 Aad
Y Bae
rt res BAe
We7, 15 Bh6 Ae8B 16 Bxe6 fxe6 17
&xe6 is suspicious due to 17...Wxc2!
Here Black faces a crucial choice: 18 Axg7 Bf6 19 Af5+ Yf7; however,
64 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

15 c3 {Alvim} is not bad) 14 &h6 A2)

He8 15 Shi Ph8 16 Bes xgs 17 10 2e3 Wh7 11 Wg3 (D)
Wxg5 Df6 = M.Sorin-Lefebvre, French Other moves are quite harmless;
Cht 1999. e.g., 11 a3 0-0 12 Bfel Abd7 and now:
d) 11...@bd7 and now: a) 13 &g5 Dc5 14 a2 We7 15
dl) 12 Wg3 Ac5 (12...8h8) and Had! &b7 16 b4 Acd7 17 Wh3 AeS
then: 18 f4 “c4 with counterplay, Mowszi-
dil) 13 Bfel Ah5 (13...&b7! trans- szian-Gelfand, Minsk 1986.
poses to line ‘c3’) 14 Wh4 &xg5 15 b) 13 Wg3 Ac5 (13..Gh8 =) 14
Wxe5 4\f6 16 Be3 h6 17 Wh4 2b7 18 Bh6 Ae8 15 Ad5 (15 AF5?! can be
a3 £ del Rio-Gyimesi, Siofok jr Ech met by 15...2f6 16 Had1 {Gobet-
1996. Ftaénik, Biel 1984} 16...$2e5! or even
d12) 13 Bh6!? Ae8 14 2d5!?2 exd5 15...exf5!?) 15...Axb3 = G.Kuzmin-
15 AxdS Wd8 (15...Wb7!2 16 Dc6 Perun, Ukrainian Ch (Alushta) 1997.
Bh8 17 Acxe7 gxh6 18 W4 Van der
Weide) 16 Ac6 Sh4! 17 Ade7+! Wxe7
18 Axe7+ 2xe7 (Brooks-Browne, KA # 2
USA 1982) 19 Efel
d2) 12 Bfel and here:
d21) 12...De5 13 We3 (Robovic-
B
1
_
waa
& Li y

Danner, Oberwart 1996) and now both isl, 7

13...8h8!? and 13...A\g6!? are possi- ABU
ble.
d22) 12...8b7 transposes to the note
“20 2 yw
to Black’s 12th move in Line A11. Baan BAR
d23) 12...&b7!? transposes to line BB 7 73S
‘c3’.
d24) 12...A\c5 13 Wh3!? 2b7 14.43 We shall consider:
(14 Be3 b4!) 14...Wc7 15 Wh4 Bfe8 16 A21: 11...Ac6?! 65
He3 offers White the better chances, A22: 11...0-0 65
del Rio-R.Fernandez, Leon 1997. A23: 11...Abd7!? 67
Summary: Apart from 10...0-0 11 A24: 11...b4! 69
Had1 4c6, Black’s possibilities may
be subdivided into: Other moves:
1) Variations with ...Wb7 (here a) 11...h5? 12 @£5! is much better
White has had some success). for White.
2) The arrangement ...2.b7, ...Abd7, b) 11...2d7? 12 Af5! exf5 (12...b4
...0-0. In this case there exist three 13 Wxg7 Hg8 14 Wxf6!) 13 Wxg7 Bes
ways to proceed: 10...Abd7 11 Had] 14 295! + Ivanchuk-Shakhvorostov,
2b7!?, 10...0-0 11 Hadl &b7 and USSR jr Ch Jurmala) 1985.
10...0-0 11 Bad] Abd7/10...A\bd7 11 c) 11...g6 12 £3!? Abd7 13 Bad
Had1 0-0. It is not yet clear which is with a slight advantage for White,
best. Zaid-Anikaev, Lvov 1978.
 5.06 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3
A21)
11...Ac6?!
This move is inconsequential — if
Black wants to play this way, then why
not 9...We7 10 Wg3 Ac6, when the
white bishop is still on cl? Now:
a) 12 Af5 exf5 13 Wxg7 HF is un-
clear.
b) 12 Had1 0-0 13 Axc6 Wxc6 14
&h6 Ae8 and now there are various
transpositions to Line B2:
bl) 15 @d5?! 2d8 16 HBfel
9... ic7 10 Be3 Ac6 11 Axc6 Wxc6
12 Hel 0-0 13 &h6! De8 14 Dds
&d8 15 Hadi!?.
b2) 15 Bfel — 9...Wc7 10 We3 Dc6
11 Dxc6 Wxc6 12 Hel 0-0 13 &h6!
B&e8 14 Had!!?.
b3) 15 a3 —9...We7 10 We3 0-0 11
Bh6 De8 12 a3 Dc6 13 Axc6 Wxcb
14 Bad.
c) 12 Hfel 2d7 (12...0-0 13 Axc6
Wxc6 14 2h6 — 9... Wc7 10 We3 Ac6
11 @xc6 Wxc6 12 Bel 0-0 13 2h6) 13
Had1 (13 a3 0-0 gives Black satisfac-
tory play, while after 13 £4 b4!,
sacrifice 14 d5 exd5 15 e5 is very in-
conclusive) 13...b4 (Black can con-
sider 13...A\a5!?, but he should avoid
13...0-0? 14 2h6 Ae8, transposing to
note ‘b’ to Black’s 14th move in Line
A22) 14 @ce2 0-0 15 &h6 Ae8 with a
defensible position, Bouaziz-Marin,
Szirak IZ 1987.
d) 12 Hael!? 2d7 (12...0-0 13 Axc6
Wxc6 14 Bh6 Ae8 15 Ad5 2d8 de-
serves attention) 13 f4 b4?! (13...¢6!?
Beliavsky/Mikhalchishin) 14 @d5!
exd5 15 e5!, and, with the rooks on el
and f1, White’s initiative is very dan-
gerous, A.Sokolov-Armas, Wijk
Zee 1993.
e) 12 Axc6!? Wxc6 and now:
bS 8 0-0 Be7 9 Wy! 65
el) 13 Hfel is inaccurate in view of
13...2b7! (13...0-0 14 &h6 — 9... We7
10 Wg3 Dc6 11 Axc6 Wxc6 12 Hel
0-0 13 Sh6!) 14 Hadi (14 £3!?)
14...Axe4! 15 Axed Wed 16 2F4 (16
Wxe7 We6!) 16...2h4!? (16...We6 17
Wh3!?) 17 Wed h5 18 Bxe4 hxg4 19
Heel = (Armas).
e2) White should prefer 13 £3! 0-0
14 “e2 with some advantage, Hiibner-
Armas, Bundesliga 1989/90.
— f) 12 £417 0-0 (12...Axd4 13 Bxd4
b4 14 e5!, Anand-Badea, Manchester
1990, and 12...Aa5 13 e5 Ah5 14 Wh3
4xb3 15 Axb3 g6 16 Kad1!? are both
dangerous for Black) 13 a3 (13 e5! is
critical) 13...Aa5 14 e5 He4 15 Axe4
Wxe4 16 f5 (Mirumian-Movsesian,
Tbilisi 1993) 16...WxeS! with good
play (Mirumian/Nadanian).
A22)
11...0-0
Here, the knight also usually goes
to c6, but only after &h6 and ...Ae8
the (by which White ‘returns’ the tempo
gained by 10 23).
12 2h6
After 12 £3, 12...Ac6 13 Axc6 Wxc6
transposes to //...Ac6?! 12 Axc6!?
Wxc6 13 f3! 0-0 £, but 12...8h8!? and
12...2d7!? are both possible.
12...Ae8 (D)
The same position, but with Black’s
queen on c7, results from the impor-
tant variation 9...Wc7 10 We3 0-0 11
&h6 De8. With the queen on b7,
White has to defend the e4-pawn more,
carefully, but Black needs to supervise
his d6-pawn. My general appraisal is
aan that Black has slightly fewer resources
with the queen on b7.
13 Zadl!
66 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

YY “\bd7, and instead of 18 £3 @e5! 19

<8]
s|
SS
AHe22! Wa7+! 20 Bh1? HAeg4!! —+
b> bet

\\ bw Dat
\
to
>
Kudrin-Hellers, New York 1993, 18

AW
fo be 4)f3!? Axed 19 We7! is enticing (+).
=

SWE

WN
AS

Cor}
14 Hfel
Come. sy \ Or:
SNRK

\W
a) 14 a3 Dc6 15 Bg5 Rxg5 16
Wxg5 Axd4 17 Bxd4 2c6 = Tisdall-
y

SO BAR
NEE Co

oe
Browne, Lone Pine 1976.
x
WS
XQ

>»

b) 14 £4!? is a double-edged alter-

Y GAs |
VY

native:
bl) 14... @2h8 15 &g5 (15 £5?! gxh6)
Other moves: 15...2xg5 (15...f6!? is more demand-
a) 13 Ad5 &d8!, with the possibil- ing) 16 fxg5! with better chances for
ity of 14 Af4 Bh8 15 Axe6 fxe6 16 White, Reefat-Malishauskas, Dhaka
“Adxe6 &xe6 and 17...gxh6, is good 1997.
for Black. b2) 14...b4 15 £5 bxc3 16 fxe6 fxe6
b) 13 Hfel 26! (an important idea; 17 Dxe6 Bxe6 (17...Wxb3? 18 Axg7
13...8@h8 is weaker owing to 14 25) +—) 18 2xe6+ Gh8 with unclear play;
14 Af3 (14 Re3 b4!; 14 Had1? BeS!) e.g., 19 Bxf8+ (19 Wxc3!?) 19... 2xf8
14...Ad7 15 Had1 a5 and Black has 20 2d5!? (20 Bf1? Ad7! F).
strong counterplay, Gdanski-Kempin- b3) 14..Ac6 15 £517 (15 Axc6
ski, Polish Ch playoff (Warsaw) 1997. &xc6 16 £5 Gh8 17 £6 (17 Bg5 b4!}
c) If 13 Hael, then 13...2f6! is 17...2xf6 18 Bxf6 Hg8 19 Bf4 gxh6
again possible. 20 Wr3 Ha7 21 Hfl, Najer-Biriukov,
d) After 13 a3 &.f6, there is 14 2e3 St Petersburg 1998, 21...a5!? with
but, on the whole, 13 a3 does not make counterplay) 15...Axd4 16 Bxd4 2f6
much sense as 13 Had! also prevents (16...2h8?! 17 £6!) 17 Bd3 (17 Hdd1!?)
13...b4 (albeit indirectly). 17...b4 (17...@h8!?) 18 fxe6 fxe6 19
13...2.d7 Ad5 &b5! 20 e5 (20 Re3! is better),
Or: and now 20...dxe5? 21 @xf6+ +— Gol-
a) 13...b4 14 Ad5! Qd8 15 Hfel ubev-Lambert, Bundesliga 1997/8 is
with an unpleasant initiative, Arde- wrong, but 20...2xd3! F is very strong,
leanu-Florean, Romanian Cht 1999. with the point that 21 exf6 can be met
b) 13...8h8 14 &g5! (more logical by 21...2b5!!.
than 14 &c1 = or 14 2e3 Ad7!? 15 £3 14...$h8
Bc5 16 a3 Axb3! = A.Ivanov-Kam- Not:
sky, USA Ch (Los Angeles) 1991) a) 14...b47!15 AFS!.
14...&xg5 (14...Af6 is answered by b) 14...Ac6? 15 AdS! Bd8 16 AfS!
15 &xf6!) 15 Wxgs Af (Gallagher exf5 17 exf5 Ae5 18 HxeS! dxe5 19
proposed 15...h6) 16 Hfei (16 £4!? f6! +— Gurieli-G.Sakhatova, USSR
A®xe4 17 Axed Wxed 18 £5, Palac- wom Ch (Erevan) 1985.
Beran, Toulouse 1990) 16...b4 17 Aa4 15 &g5! Ac6!?
 5.26 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 bS 8 0-0 Re7 9 WF! 67

15... &xg5 16 Wxg5 Ac6 17 He3! is —+ Boudy-Novikov, Villa Clara 1987

also slightly better for White, Snape- as more of a problem.
Twitchell, corr. 1995. b) 12 f4!? and then:
16 Axc6 b1) 12...Axe4 13 Axed Wxed 14
16 He3?! £6!. Kael! 2b7 15 f5 Bh4 16 Wh3 Lxel
16...2.xc6 17 &xe7 Wxe7 17 fxe6 0-0, Golubev-Kruppa, Kiev
White has a slight advantage, Auer- 1995. After several weeks of analysis
V.Neverov, Porz 1993. of the game I came to the conclusion
that it is only 18 Hf4! that gives a
A23) chance for an advantage.
11...Abd7!? (D) b2) 12...b4 13 Ad5!? (as far as I
The most critical move and a risky can determine, other moves promise
one at the same time. Attempts to re- White nothing: after 13 £5, 13...bxc3
fute it lead to utterly mad positions. 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 Axe6 AeS is possibly
satisfactory for Black, but 13...Ac5! is
even stronger; 13 “a4 allows Black an
a7uae tt gy excellent game — //...b4! 12 Dad
7M / me aha
aeUhhh 7
Whd7 13 f4?!) 13...exd5 14e5 dxe5 15
fxeS5 Axe5 16 2a4+ (it was not worth
mae oe starting all that just to settle for 16

fl, Al Wxe5 0-0 ) 16...2.d7 (16... Ned7 17

Cin ow
&AAR ZONK
m7] YES
12 Bfel
Frankly speaking, I find it hard to
state the strongest move for White,
and I have defined the main line in
accordance with the amount of accu-
mulated material — at least it is conve-
nient to read it this way...
a) 12 Af5 exf5 13 Wxg7 Hrs 14
4\d5 is recommended by Gallagher in
view of 14...Axd5 15 &xd5 Wb8 16
Hfel!? 2b7 17 Rh6! f4 18 Wxh7 Af6
(alternatively, 18...Ae5 19 &xf4!?) 19
Wrs Hes 20 &g5 Hg6 21 h4 +
Firnhaber-Eliseev, corr. 1994. 1 would
regard 14...fxe4 15 Axe7 Bxe7 16
Had] Wc6 17 25 2b7 18 Bfel WeS
Hael!) 17 Wxe5 &xa4 (17...0-0 18
Wxe7 Hfe8 19 Wd6 2xa4 20 Exf6!)
18 @f5 with the point 18...ed8 19
&d4. This line awaits testing.
c) 12 £3!? and then:
cl) 12...b4 13 Ace2! 0-0 14 Bh6
4e8 15 2a4 £ Semeniuk-Moiseev,
USSR 1987.
c2) 12...0-0 13 Ad5 (with the pawn
on f3, 13 $&h6? is bad in view of
13...Dh5!, though 13 a4!? b4 14 AdS
is possible) 13...Axd5 (no better is
13...82d8 14 Axf6+ 2xf6 15 Had or
13...Ae5) 14 exdS Ac5 15 Ach +
Repkova-Novikov, Cairo 1997.
¢3) 12...Ac5!? 13 Bfdl (13 Wxg7
8 14 Who is important; then 14.226
15 Wh3 2d7 {Seirawan} seems to be
stronger than the alternative 14...e5 15
Af5 Bxf5 16 exf5 Axb3 17 axb3
Exg2+ 18 &xe2 Ded 19 Wxh7 Axe3+
20 @h1) 13...2d7 14 Phi (14 Wxg7
68 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Hes 15 Wh6 b4 16 Ace2 Axb3!) Therefore, it is very important to ex-

14...b4 15 Ace2 0-0 with roughly equal amine the alternatives:
chances, Milos-J.Polgar, Bali 2000. a) 12...Axe4? 13 Axe4 Wxe4 14
d) 12 Hael is hardly a critical 4)xe6 fxe6 15 2g5 We6 16 Hxe6 Af6
move: 17 Bxe7+!.
di) 12...axe4? is bad for the same b) 12...0-0 13 Ad5 + (13 &h6 — 10
reason as after /2 Hfel. &25 Wh7 11 Bfel Dbd7 12 Wg3 0-0
d2) After 12..@c5 13 Af5, the 13 Sh).
rook is no longer on al and there is no c) 12...¢6 13 &h6!? +.
chance for 13...2\xb3. However, White d) 12...b4!? is possibly critical:
is deprived of the Had1 resource, and dl) The unpretentious 13 “a4
after 13...exf5 Black has some chances transposes to 11...b4 12 Da4 Abd7 13
to hold on. Fel.
d3) 12...0-0 13 Ad5 &d8 seems d2) After 13 A@f5(?) bxc3, Grile-
satisfactory as the white rooks are not Gruskovnjak, Ljubljana 2000, I see
best placed. nothing good for White.
d4) 12...b4!?. Now the sacrifice 13 d3) Only 13 @d5 exd5 remains. As
4d5 exd5 14 “FS AeS (Yurtaev-Nov- of now, Lassess 14 @f5 Ae5 15 Axg7+
ikov, Tashkent 1986) 15 Axg7+!? &d8 &d8! more likely to be in Black’s fa-
16 exd5 (Novikov) has not found fol- vour, and the same assessment applies
lowers. 13 Aad - J]...b4 12 Dad to 14 2g5 dxe4!?, Roese-Neurohr,
&\bd7 13 Hae/ (1 should mention that Bundesliga 1988/9. 14 2a4 appears to
after 1/...b4 12 Aa4 Dbd7 White, as a be more dangerous, however.
rule, plays neither 1/3 Hae/ nor J3 13 DFS Axb3
Hyfe!). 13...exf5 14 &xc5 dxc5 15 Wxg7
We now return to the position after EBf8 16 Vd5! (16 exf5 Re6!) 16...Axd5
12 Bfel (D): 17 exd5 +.
14 Axe7+!
14 @xe7 @xal! 15 Wxg7 Bs (or
E7h/e7]) & 15...Axc2!? 16 Rg5 Axel 17 Wxf6
pwoaRawa $d7 18 Wxh8 b4) 16 eS Axc2 (not
a7 ik iG 16...dxe5? 17 &c5 Ad7, Ki.Georgiev-
WsrG FY 7
Zaichik, Palma de Mallorca 1989, 18
AFS!! +; 16... Ah5!? 17 Wxh7 Wxe7 18
he RY Bed Dxc2 19 Axd6+ Wxd6 20 exd6
Va @ &xel 21 Wed! followed by Wh4 —
ARAM WAN Ki.Georgiev) 17 2h6 Axel 18 Wxf8+
d7 19 Aed5! = Ki.Georgiev.
Ye Ss 14...38
14...d7 15 Had1!! (di Luca; after
12...Ac5 this move White is much better)
If my further analysis is correct, 15... g8 (15...Axe4 16 Axed Wxed
this move leads to problems for Black. 17 &f4; 15...Aa5 16 e5 Ad5 17 exd6
 5.06 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3
Rxd6 18 Rf4!) 16 axb3 De8!?
A\xe6! Exg3 18 Ac5+ Sc7 19 Axb7
Hxe3 20 @d5+.
15 2hé!
15 axb3? hé!.
15...Axal! 16 e5! DAxc2
Or:
a) 16...Ag8 17 Axe6++ GSe8 18
Ag7+ Sd8 19 exd6 Rf6 20 Be8+
Sd7 21 Wh3+ Sc6 22 Wr3+ Sd7 23
W5+ Bc6 24 We4+ Sd7 25 Hd8+!
+-.
b) 16...dxe5 17 Hdl! 27 (17...Dd7
18 Afs+! Se8 19 We7 BFS 20 Axe7
Axc2 21 Ag8! Ad4 22 Af6+ Ve7 23
Bce4) 18 Dh5+ &e8 19 We7 Hes! 20
Axf6+ 2xf6 21 Wxg8+ Be7 22 Wed
and White is better!
17 Hdl Ad7 18 Axe6+ Se8
“\g7+ Sd8
19... 2f8 20 Af5+ Se8 21 exd6 +.
20 exd6 2f6 21 225 Kes
Or: 21...2xg5? 22 Wxg5+ winning
for White; 21...h6 22 &xf6+ Axf6 23
Wh4 2d7 24 Wxf6+ &c8 25 Bel;
21...Wc6!? 22 Ad5!.
22 Sh4t! +
22 Wid Wxg2+!! © di Luca-Kin-
nunen, corr. 1991.
A24)
11...b4! (D)
Nowadays this is the main move.
12 Dad
Otherwise:
a) 12 Ace2 is suspicious in view of
12...Wrxed4.
b) Zapolskis has tried 12 @f5 here:
12...bxc3 13 Axg7+ Sd7 14 eS Dd5
15 bxc3 and now 15...Axc3 16 Efel
d5 17 &d2 “bS5 (Zapolskis-Ki.Geor-
giev, Batumi Echt 1999) can hardly be
considered as a refutation, but possibly
bS 8 0-0 Re7 9 Wp! 69
17
tase &
y wel wale
An Waal i
a7
a a A a
ncnen 2 ie
6°27 o2¢
stronger is 15...g8 (as in Zapolskis-
Vokler, Cuxhaven 2000).
12...Abd7
Or:
a) 12...Axe4 13 Wxg7 gives White
a development advantage.
19 b) 12...8d7 13 Ab6 (after 13 £3,
Black should try 13...0-0!? rather than
13...Ac6 14 Axc6 Rxc6 15 Ab6 Hbs
16 Ac4 +) 13...Wxb6 14 Axe6 with a
dangerous attack for White, Krueger-
Penna, corr. 2000.
c) 12.,..0-0!? is seldom played: 13
Sh6 (after 13 £3, 13...Abd7 transposes
to the main line, while 13...A\c6!? is
possible) 13...Ae8 14 Had1 (14 Bfel
and now there is 14...h8?! 15 2254,
14...2£6! or 14...Ad7 - 12...Abd7 13
fel 0-0 14 2h6 De8) 14...Ad7 (or
14...2h8 15 2g5 with a slight advan-
tage for White) 15 Hfel — /2...Abd7
13 Bfel 0-0 14 Bh6 De8 15 Had.
13 f3
Other moves are rare:
a) 13 £49! 0-0! +4 Giaccio-Quin-
teros, Trelew 1995.
b) 13 Wxg7!? deserves attention.
c) 13 Hael (this and, to a greater
extent, 13 Hfel are interesting in
view of the move-order /J...Abd7 12
Bfel/12 Hael b4 13 Dad) 13...0-0
70 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

(13...Wxe4 14 £4, Kudrin-Yedidia, This is one of the key positions for

Maryland 1993, and 13...Axe4 14
Wxg7 2f6 15 We4, Kudrin-Freeman,
Philadelphia 1991, are dangerous for
Black) 14 &h6 Ae8 with good play
(15 £42 Wa7).
d) 13 fel and then:
di) 13...A\xe4?! is met by 14 Wxg7.
d2) 13...Wxe4!?. Now, instead of
14 Dxe6?! fxe6 15 Bf4 We6 16 WH
Eb8 17 Bxe6 HeS 18 RxeS dxe5 19
Exe5 = Tabatadze-Gelfand, Leningrad
1985, I suggest 14 Had1!? with the
point 14...We4 15 Wxe4 Axed 16 Rd2
+
9,..Wb6 and the entire 9 WF3 system.
The struggle is above all strategic.
Black’s plan consists not of 14...Ac5
(following which 15 @xc5 dxc5 16
4e2 gives White a structural advan-
tage), but of 14...A\e5! and 15...2d7.
After ...Ae5 Black will be ready to
counter White’s @\b6 not only with
...ab8 but also with ...Ah5!. The de-
velopment of White’s play should be
linked to c3, or c4 in the advantageous
version, sooner or later.
14 Efdl
White enjoys a very wide choice:

d3) 13...0-0 14 2h6 Ae8 (another a) 14 2h6? Ah5! 15 Wh3 gxh6 16

idea is 14...AhS!2) 15 Bad] (15 Axe6!? Wxh5 Wa7 F J.Polgar-Gelfand, Dos
2 Byrne/Mednis). Now 15...Ac5? is Hermanas 1994.
weak due to 16 @xc5 dxc5 17 Rad. b) 14 c3 (this is a bit premature)
15...@b8 16 Be5 Sxe5 17 Wxes 14...bxc3 15 bxc3!? (15 Axc3 Ac5! =;
4\ef6 transposes to note ‘b’ to Black’s 15 Habl Ae5! =) 15...Ae5 (15...c5
13th move in Line A22. 15...Ae5!? is 16 @xc5 dxe5 17 “Ac2 £ Morozevich-
critical and unclear; e.g., 16 £4 Ag6 17 Nevostruev, Orel 1992; not wholly
&g5 2xg5 18 fxg5, Borge-Djurhuus, clear is 15...\Wc7 16 &xe6 Ah5) 16
Gausdal 1995. Habl Wc7 17 Db6 (17 £47! Axed 18
d4) Strangely, nobody has yet tried Wh3, Chapman-Freeman, Melbourne
13...Ae5!?. 1996, 18...Ag6!) 17..Hb8 18 Axc8
13...0-0 (D) Wxc8!, and Black is no worse.
13...Ae5?! is dubious; e.g., 14 Wxg7 c) 14 &hl (1 do not see any real
Hg8 15 Wh6 Axe4 16 Ab6 (Emms) advantage in such a preventive step)
16...Yxb6 17 Axe6. 14... 2h8 (14...a57! 15.c4; 14...He5 15
4\b6 Xb8 leads to unclear play, for in-
stance, 16 a3 Wxb6!?) 15 Hacl (no ad-
E727] Bey vantage is gained by 15 c4 bxc3 16
(me aha
oe

bxc3, when Black can choose between

W
ay bah FY 16...Ae5 or 16...84c7!9) 15...Ae5 16
c3 bxc3 (16...Ad3 17 Bcd1 DAhS 18
UU, UY
\S

Wed Anf4? 19 Rxf4 e5 20 2d5! does

a WAT not work for Black) 17 Hxc3 2d7.
a

Y2h, Bre Now after 18 “b6 there is the reply

ROAM BA 18...8xb6!? 19 Axe6 (by the way,
with the kings on gl and g8, Af5! is
4 winning) 19...2h5!.
 5.06 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 bS 8 0-0 Be7 9 Wy! 71

d) 14 Hacl!? (straightforward and e2) 14...Ae5 15 Ab6!? (15 Hadl —

interesting) 14..Ae5! (14..@c5 15
&\xc5 dxc5 16 Ae2, 14...a5 15 c4 and
14..8h8 15 c3 bxc3 16 Hxc3 are
somewhat better for White) and then:
dl) 15 Ab6 Hb8 (15...Hh5!7 16
Wh3 Af4 17 Bxf4 Wxb6 18 Be3 2f6
19 Efd1 “c6! Gallagher) 16 @xc8
Ebxc8 17 Axe6 fxe6 18 Rxe6+ Vh8
19 &xc8 Wxc8 gives Black good play,
Ayapbergenov-Ki.Georgiev,
tini 1993.
d2) 15 Hfd1 is not dangerous for
Black; see 14 Bfd] De5 15 Hac.
d3) 15 c3!? and now:
d31) 15...243 16 Hed] Ans 17 Wed
(with the point 17...Ahf4 18 2xf4 e5 19
“ES Bxf5 20 exf5 Axf4 21 f6 Bxf6
22 Hxd6) somewhat favours White.
14 BadI De5 15 De?2).
e3) 14...a5!7 15 c4 bxc3 (15...Ha6!?
Gallagher) 16 Aexc3 (16 Aaxc3!?),
and now 16...%b8 (Gallagher) seems
quite playable for Black.
e4) The immediate 14... b8!? is
interesting (generally, this is a typical
answer to an early “e2); for example,
15 c4 bxc3 16 Dexc3 2b7!? with
Komo- equality, Macieja-Vasilchenko, Zlin
1995,
f) 14 Hadi!? (D) (White refuses to
attack solely along the c-file but in-
stead amasses his forces across the en-
tire board). Now:
17a! ee
, Wawaw

a0 kaa
d32) 15...bxc3 16 Hxc3 2d7 17
Bb6 AhS (17... xb6? 18 ALS) 18
Wh3 Af4 19 2xf4 Wxb6 20 2e3 Wb7
ae a we
21 f4 is also quite good for White,
Gi.Hernandez-Morovi¢, Havana 1997.
d33) 15...2d7! probably equalizes;
a 6
g., 16 Sb6 AhS5 17 Wh3 Wxbé!
(17...Af4 18 Rxf4 Wxb6 19 Be3 Ad3
20 AF5 exf5 21 Bxb6 Af4 22 cxb4)
18 Wxh5 Ad3 19 Af5 exf5 20 Bxb6
“4 21 &a4 Axh5 22 Vxd7 bxc3, or fl) 14...a5?!15 c4!.
16 cxb4 Wxb4 17 Ac2 Wb7, German- f2) 14...e5 and then:
Spangenberg, Villa Martelli 1997. f21) Black experiences no prob-
d4) 15c4!? Ad3 (15...bxe3 — 15 c3 lems after 15 Bfel &2d7 16 Ab6 Ah5
bxc3) 16 Bcdl DhS5 17 Wed Dnf4 18 17 Wh3 Af4 18 Vxf4 Wxb6 19 Be3
&xf4 e5 19 AS Bxf5 20 exfS5 Axf4 We7 20 f4 4\c4, Petelin-Galkin, St Pe-
21 £6! &xf6 22 Hxd6 deserves to be tersburg 1993.
investigated. £22) 15 Hd2 is also answered by
e) 14 %e2!? (so as to ensure ...Ae5 15,..2d7!, with the same ideas.
can be met by “b6): £23) 15 Ab6 AhS 16 Wh3 Af4
el) 14...2b8 15 c4 bxc3 16 Aexc3 (16...8xb6!?) 17 &xf4 Wxb6 with
+, e.g., 16...Wa8 17 Hfdl a5 18 Bhi good chances for equality: 18 Wg3
a6 19 Bh6!, Istratescu-Réder, Gro- We7 19 &g5 (19 &e3 can be met by
ningen open 1997. 19...2f6 or 19...Ac4) 19..2xg5 20
72 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Wxe5 Dc4!? 21 Bxc4 Wxed 22 We7 We now retum to 14 Bfd1 (D):

Wrxa2.
£24) 15 De2!? Bd7 (15...a5 16 c4
bxc3 17 Dexc3 is slightly better for 1028 Ken

Sen
XS soi
On NS
White) 16 Ab6 2b5 17 Hfel (17
Hd2!? Zapolskis; 17 Axa8 Bxe2 18
s iw a

WS
4\b6 Hb8! is good for Black, Pokorna-
Bojkovié, Batumi wom Echt 1999)

BCRCH
17...fab8 18 c4 Be8 (18...bxc3!7), and
instead of 19 Hd2 with sharp play,

Zapolskis-Lalié, Olomouc ECC
also interesting is 19 @\f4!? with the
point 19...Wc6 (19...We7 205!) 205
dxc5 21 Ac4 Axc4 22 Rxc4 Bd6 23
Wh.
f3) 14...8h8 is the most frequent
answer:
£31) 15 Wf2 Ae5!? with a normal
game.
£32) 15 Bfel Hb8 (15...Ae5!?) 16
Bhi (16 c3 bxc3 17 Axc3 Ac5!7)
16...De5 17 Ae2 We7 18 c3 2d7 and
Black stands at least no worse, Short- -
Kasparov, London rpd (2) 1993.
£33) 15 @h1 AeS (15...4b8!? 16
Wel Wa8 17 c4 bxc3 18 Wxc3 2b7
gave Black a good game
douchi-Topalov, Cap d’ Agde 1994) 16
&\b6 DAhS 17 Wh3 Af4 18 2xf4 Wxb6
19 2e3 We7 followed by ...Ac4 =.
£34) 15 Ae2 and then:
£341) After 15...a5 16.c4 (16 Bd2!?
is also interesting) 16...bxc3 White has
17 Aaxc3 (17 Dexc3 Wh8 transposes
to line ‘f342’) 17...2b8 18 4d4!?.
£342) 15...Wb8! 16 c3 bxc3 17
exc3 a5 18 Hf2 2a6 19 Wh3 De5
20 &d4 Ac6 21 Be3 HDeS = Mitkov-
Gelfand, Moscow OL 1994.
£35) 15 Hd2 AeS 16 Ae2 (16 Ab6
Eb8 17 Ae2 Wc6 =) 16...a5 17 Bfdi
&d7 is possibly also satisfactory for
Black, Pinus-D.Popovic¢, corr. 1999.
c>
SN
XN
1996,
14...Ae5!
Other moves:
a) 14..He8 15 Hacl 2f8 16 c4 +
Mikhalchishin-A.Petrosian, Lviv 1994,
b) 14...a5 15 c4 bxc3 16 bxc3 Wa6é
17 c4 £ Bouaziz-Ady, Erevan OL
1996.
c) 14..8b8 15 Bacl Ae5 16 c4! (16
c3 &d7! = Firnhaber-Schmidt, corr.
1996) 16...bxc3 17 Axc3 (17 Bxc3
&d7 18 Ab6 Wxb6!? 19 Axe6 Wxe3+
20 Exe3 &xe6 is a less convincing
in Ham- line) 17...2d7 18 f4 with an initiative,
Veréci-Farkas, Hungarian Cht 1997.
d) 14...8h8 15 acl (15 Ae2 Ws!
16 Hacl a5 17 c4 bxc3 18 Exc3 &.b7
2-1/2 [stratescu-A.Petrosian, Berlin
1996; 15 Hd2!?) 15...Ae5 (15...Ac5
16 Axc5 dxc5 17 Ae2 +) and now:
di) 16 He2 a5 (16...2b8!? Fritz6-
Van Wely, Eindhoven rpd 2000) 17 c4
bxc3 18 Bxc3 (18 Aexc3!? Hab 19 f4
Ae6 20 &c4 Hc6 21 Bd3 Ws 22 Wr3
with a complicated game and possibly
some advantage for White, Zapata-
Morovié, Yopal 1997) 18...2.d7 (Gal-
lagher suggests 18...4a6!?, with the
point 19 Hdcl 2d7:20 Bc7 Wb4) 19
406 Haé 20 Axd7 Aexd7 21 Hdel a4
 5...€6 6 8.04 e6 7 2b3 b5 8 0-0 Re7 9 Wf! 73

22 &c2 t Zapata-Morovi¢, Havana 17 £42 Axed 18 Axed Wxed 19

1997. acl 2h4 F.
d2) 16 c4!?. 17...2.d7 18 He2 Hfc8 19 We2 He7
d3) 16 c3 2d7 17 Ab6 AhS 18 20 Bdel Hac8
Wh3 Wxb6 19 Wxh5 Wb7 20 225 is The chances are equal, Kobaliya-
slightly better for White, Neelakan- Gallagher, Biel 1997.
tan-King, Calcutta 1993. Therefore, after 9...Wb6 10 23
15 c4 Wb7 11 Wg3, both the extremely risky
Or: 11...Abd7!? and the reliable 11...b4!
a) 15 Hacl &d7! gives Black good appear to be viable. As regards 10
play: 16 c4 bxc3 17 Bxc3 &xa4 225!?, Black has to work out the most
(17...Bfc8!9) 18 2xa4 Wxb2 19 Wel precise move-order.
Wb4 or 16 Ab6 AhS 17 Wh3 (Emms-
Gallagher, Bundesliga 1996/7) and now B)
Gallagher gives 17...Wxb6 18 Wxh5 9...We7 (D)
Wo7!.
b) 15 a3 bxa3 16 Kxa3 2d7 17 Ae2
(17 @b6 AhS5) 17...2b5 18 Aec3 Aed7 K&t @ &
and Black is OK, K.Miiller-Wahls,
Ww A) Fy An aa A
Hamburg 1995.
sy £1% 7
c) 15 Be2 Hb8 (Gallagher’s idea
15...a5!? is better; e.g., 16 a3 Ha6 ~) a GY Ua
16 Abo BWe7 17 Axc8 Hfxc8 18 c4 G WAZ 7
(18 c3 Ac4!) 18...bxc3 (18...Axc4 19 SG OMT
acl! £) 19 Hacl £ Zapata-Herrera,
AR AT BAR wa
Santa Clara 1996.
d) 15 Ab6 Ah5 (15...2b8!7) 16 Wh3 so as
AE4 (16... 8xb6!?) 17 Rxf4 Wxb6 18
&e3 Wc7 with roughly equal chances: Now, after 10 Wg3, Black has two
19 c3 Ac4!? (19...bxc3 20 acl Wb7 main possibilities. The first is 10...0-0
21 Hxc3 Rd7 22 £4) 20 Bxc4 Wxc4 11 2h6 Ac8, and then 12 Had1 2d7.
21 cxb4 &f6!, Vujadinovié-Schoon- The second is 10...@c6 11 Axc6 Wxc6
hoven, corr. 2000. 12 Hel £b7!.
e) 15 c3 bxc3 transposes to the The tricky move 10 Hel!? slightly
main line. devalues the early ...2\c6 but provides
15...bxc3 Black with other good possibilities, such
15...2d7 16 c5!?. as 10...0-0 11 Wg3 @h8 (or 11...b4).
16 Axc3 Thus, we shall discuss:
16 bxc3 (Hakki-Gallagher, Istanbul Bl: 10el!? = 74
OL 2000) 16...We7!?. B2: 10 Wg3 76
16...Dg6!
16...2d7 17 f4 £. White’s alternatives are less inter-
17 Hacl esting:
74 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
a) 10 e5?! 2b7! (10...dxe5? is met
by 11 AdxbS!) 11 exd6 2xd6 12 Wh3
0-0.
b) 10 a3 allows Black to play
10...Abd7! 11 Wg3 Ac5 = in addition
to the standard 10...Ac6 and 10...0-0.
c) 10 &g5 Abd7! = Lutikov-Polu-
gaevsky, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1960.
Now 11 #fel 0-0 - /0 Bel 0-0 11
&g5 Abd7.
B1)
10 Hel!? 0-0
Other moves:
a) 10...8b7? 11 &xe6 fxe6 12 Axe6
Wd7 13 Axg7+ YE7 14 AES +.
b) 10...Abd7 11 Wg3 Ac5? (Black
should try 11...b4!?) 12 Af5! + Emms-
Rashkovsky, Hastings 1995/6.
c) 10...Ac6 11 Axc6 (11 5?! Axd4
12 Wxa8 dxeS 13 2g5 0-0, Vink-Najer,
Groningen 1999) 11...8xc6 and then:
cl) 12 Wg3 transposes to Line B22.
c2) 12 a3 &£b7! (12...0-0 transposes
to note ‘cl’ to White’s 11th move) 13
We3 again transposes to Line B22.
c3) 12 &¢5! and now:
c31) 12...0-0? 13 AdS! exdd5 14
Bxd5! +.
c32) 12...2b7 13 &xf6! exf6 14
¥e3!? We5 looks dubious though there
is no straightforward win. 15 &d5 and
15 Ad5 are both answered by 15...exd5
16 exd5 @d8, while 15 a4 Hg8 (or
15...£5!?, but not 15...b4? 16 @d5 exd5
17 exd5 @d8 18 Hael He8 19 Exe7
Bxe7 20 Wxfo We7 21 a5 +-) isn’t
clear-cut either.
c33) 12..b8 13 Had1 is slightly
better for White.
c34) 12...a7!? 13 a4 b4 14 a5 0-0
15 &a2, followed by 16 &d2, gives
White slightly the better chances.
d) 10...b4 11 Aa4 0-0 12 c3 (12
We3/12 225 transposes to 10...0-0 11
We3/1] &g5 b4 12 Dad but 12 &5!?
appears interesting) 12...bxc3 13 @xc3
Bbd7 14 We3 De5 15 Bes Qd7 =
K.Miiller-Lutz, Berlin 1989.
e) 10...&d7 is interesting; e.g., 11
Ad5? exd5 12 exd5 &g4; 11 a3 Ac6
12 Axc6 Bxc6 =; 11 e5!? dxe5 12
&.£4; or 11 Wg3 Ac6!?.
11 Weg3
Otherwise:
a) 11 a4 b4 12 ®a2 2b7 13 Rd2
Wb6 14 c3 with roughly equal chances,
Bronstein-Slutsky, Moscow 1979.
b) 11 &g5 is not strong here:
bl) 11...b4 12 Aad Acé6 (Black can
investigate 12...8d7!? and 12...Abd7!?
with the point 13 e5 dxe5 14 Axe6
fxe6 15 Wxa8 2b7 16 Wa7 2c5!) 13
&xc6 Wxc6 14 c3 + del Rio-Van Zyl,
Medellin jr Wch 1996.
b2) 11...Abd7 is enough for equal-
ity: 12 e5? dxeS 13 Axe6 fxe6 14 Wxa8
2b7 —+; 12 Had1 Ae5 (12...Ac5!9);
12 Wg3 De5 13 Had! b4!?, Ma.Ank-
erst-Shneider, Pula 1994.
c) 11 a3 gives Black a satisfactory
choice:
cl) 11..Ac6 12 Axc6 Wxc6 and
then:
cll) 13 &g5 2b7 14 Had1 Efds
15 We3 a5 16 Lh6 V8 17 Rg5 Re7
= Vasiukov-Polugaevsky, USSR Ch
(Moscow) 1969.
c12) 13 We3 Bhs (13...Hh5?! 14
Wh3 Af6 15 25 2b7 16 He3!, Short-
Ehlvest, Moscow rpd 1994) — 1/ We3
BAB 12 a3 Ac6 13 Axc6 Wxeo.
c2) 11...8d7!? 12 Wg3 DAc6 13
Dxc6 Bxc6 14 Bh6 Ae8 - 10 We3
0-0 11 &h6 De8 12 a3 Bd7 13 Byfel
Bc6 14 Axc6 Bxc6 =.
 5...a6 6 2c4 e6 7 Bb3 bS 8 0-0 Be7 9 WF! 75

c3) 11...8b7!? 12 Wh3 Ac6 =. f) 11...b4!? is probably a good op-

c4) 11...Abd7!? 12 We3 Ae5 with
good play after 13 f4 (or 13 2h6 AhS
14 Wh3 Affe 15 We3 Ag6!?, Emms-
Lutz, Hamburg 1995) 13...@\c4 14
2xc4 Wxc4 15 Be3 2b7, Ardian-
syah-Ljubojevié, Manila 1973.
We now return to the position after
11 Wg3 (D):
tion: 12 Aa4 (12 Ad1 Ac6 13 Axc6
Wxc6 14 Bh6 Ae8 15 c3 Ph8 = Rep-
kova-Vasilchenko, Zlin 1995) 12...8d7
(12..Ac6 13 Axc6 Wxc6 14 Bh6
4&e8 15 c3 = Riegler-Grosar, Maribor
1993; 12...e5 13 AF5 £) 13. c3 (13 Bh6
@h5!; 13 a3!9) 13...Wad 14 cxb4 Wxb4
and Black is no worse, Van Riems-
dijk-Mecking, Sao Paulo Z 1993.

xmas ks 12 225
12 f4?! is weaker in view of 12...b4
2 ~~ 13 Da4 Ac6!.
Ae a" h8. * 12 a3 is not bad, however:
a) 12...Ac6 13 Axc6 Wxc6 14
&g5 DhS (14...2b7!? 15 Hadi Had8
“a J aan ” is roughly equal) 15 Wh4 &xg5 16
V2 0 te Wxg5 Ao 17 Had! &b7 transposes to
note ‘d’ to Black’s 15th move in Line
AAGAT] - B221.
a & os b) 12...2d7 13 &g5 Ac6 14 Axc6
(14 Had1!? — J2 &g5 Bd7 13 Had!
11...2h8 4\c6 14 a3) 14,..8xc6 15 Had1 and
Or: there followed 15...Afd8!? 16 Hd3 a5
a) 11...Ac6 12 Axc6 Wxcé6 trans- 17 Wh4 4g8 with sharp play in Dab-
poses to 1/0 Wg3 Ac6 11 Axc6 Wxc6 rowska-Mukhutdinov, Cappelle la
12 Hel 0-0 (White avoids /2...2b7!). Grande 1995.
b) 11...2d7 12 2h6 Ae8 trans- 12...b4
poses to 10 We3 0-0 11 2h6 De8 12 Alternatively:
Efe] &d7 (White avoids /2...2,f6!). a) 12...Ac6? 13 Axc6 Wxc6 14
c) 11..2d8 12 2h6 Ae8 13 Had1 @Ad5 +.
(13 “F529! exf5 14 Ad5 £4!) 13...Ac6? b) 12...h6 13 Wh4 b4 14 Aad Was
14 AdS +— Emms-Glenne, Gausdal (14...8d7!?; 14...@g98!? 15 2xh6 gxh6
1995. 16 Wxh6 Ag4 17 Wh5 AL6) 15 f4 eS
d) 11...Be8 12 a3! Ac6 13 Axc6 (15..4g8 16 @xh6 gxh6 17 e5!) 16
Wxc6 14 Bh6 VF8 15 Had] Bb7 16 “5 with an initiative, Gi.Hernan-
Hd3 Bh8 17 Wh4 Ad7 18 Sc with an dez-Pigusov, Santa Clara 1991.
advantage for White, Ehlvest-H.Olafs- c) 12..2d7 13 Wh4!? (13 Had]
son, St John 1988. &\c6 14 a3 brought White success in
e) 11..h5 12 Wh3 Af6 13 a3 He8 one game: 14...\a5 15 He3 DhS 16
14 f4 (14 2g5!) 14..Ac6 15 Axc6 Wh4 &xg5 17 Wxg5 Afé 18 He3 Begs
Wxc6 16 Shl 2d8 © Oim-Hertel, 19 Bh3 Wc5?! 20 Af3 Axb3 21 e5! +
corr. 1988. Motylev-Leitao, Guarapuava jr Wch
76 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

1995) 13..Ac6 14 Ace2 (14 Axc6 c) 10...2b7 11 &xe6! (11 Hel

2xc6 15 He3 Ags 16 Bxe7 Axe7 17
Hdl a5 is unclear, Liepold-Kuczynski,
Erlangen 1990) 14...h6 (14...Ae5!?
Mikhalchishin) 15 Had1 @e5 16 £4!
“4\g6 17 Wh3 gives White the initia-
tive, Minasian-Zagorskis, Frunze 1989.
13 Aad 2d7
13...Ac6 14 Axc6 Wxc6 15 c3 (or
15 Wh4!?) is insufficient for equality,
but 13...2b7!? is interesting.
14 c3 Acé!
Black has good play, Drozdov-
Shneider, Voroshilovgrad 1987.
B2)
10 Wg3 (D)
4c6! =; 11 £3 Ac6 12 Axc6 Bxc6 13
Wxg7 Hg8 14 Wh6 0-0-0 © A.Soko-
lov-Renet, Clichy 1993) 11...fxe6 12
&xe6, and Black has problems:
cl) 12...We4 13 Dxg7+ Sd8 14
S95 Abd7 15 Hadl Hg8 (15...c7?
16 &xf6 Axf6 17 e5) 16 AS +.
c2) 12...Wd7 13 Axg7+ Bd8 (or
13... 2f8 14 DES Bes 15 2e5!2 b4 16
&xe7 Wxe7 17 Ad5) 14 2g5! (but not
14 5?! Bg8!).
d) 10...b4!? and now:
dl) 11 Ace2 and then:
dll) 11...Axe4 12 Wxg7 2f6 13
Wh6!? is good for White.
d12) 11...8b7 12 £3 g6 13 Rg5! is
also better for White, Mitkov-Sorena,

ow Rana Olot 1993.

d13) 11...0-0 12 &h6 De8 13 c3
Ce soe

aaa ie
bxc3 14 Axc3 Rf6 (14...Ad7? 15
Rxe6! fxe6 16 Axe6 Wed 17 DAxg7
oan aw +-) 15 Re3 +,

af Arig og
d14) 11...g6 12 &h6! (Fischer; 12

£0)
03? Zxe4 13 We3 Af6!? 14 cxb4 0-0
na" = Fischer-F.Olafsson, Buenos Aires

iN A fan 1960; 12 £3? e5 +; not wholly clear is

Be g2e 12 We3 0-0 13 c3 a5 14 cxb4 axb4 15

&.d2 Wb7 16 Dg3, Pikula-Kuczynski,
Katowice 1991) 12...Axe4 (or 12...e5
Now: 13 2g7 Hes 14 Bxf6 Qxfo 15 DES
B21: 10...0-0 77 Mikhalchishin) 13 We3 “c5 (13...d5
B22: 10..Ac6 85 14 c4!) 14 2p7 Bes 15 Who 28 16
&xf8 Hxf8 17 Af4 with an initiative,
Other moves seldom occur: Dementiev-Mukhin, USSR 1974.
a) After 10...2d7, it is necessary to d15) 11...c6!? appears quite play-
take into account not only 11 Wxg7 able.
but also 11 Zf5!? exf5 12 Wxg7 Hrs d2) 11 Aa4 and now:
13 &g5 Wd8 14 exf5. d21) 11...Axe4 12 Wxe7 2f6 13
b) 10...g6 11 Hel (11 &h6!? is pos- Wed d5 (13...8b7 14 Axe6! fxe6 15
sible) 11...2d7 12 Wf3!? gives White Hel) 14 2e3 h5 (14...2d7 15 c4! bxc3
the better chances, Mortensen-Frick, 16 Axc3 Axc3 17 Hacl + M.Hoff-
Manila OL 1992. mann-Rechel, Bochum jr 1989) 15 We2
 5...6 6 S04 e6 7 2b3 b5 8 0-0 Be7 9 Wf! 77

with an advantage, Jaracz-Van der 11...e8 (D)

Stricht, Armhem jr Ech 1990.
d22) 11...¢6 12 £3 Ac6 13 Axc6
Wxc6 14 2e3 is clearly better for xa sae se
W 1d fae

so
White, Kapi¢-Klaié, corr. 1996.

a
d23) 11...0-0 12 2h6 Ac8 13 c3 (13

Ww
Re3 Bd7!? 14 Ab6 Wxb6 15 Axe6
747 7 JG
se
: as Ui,

0) 13...2.f6 (13...bxc3 14 Axc3 — J

&\ce2 0-0 12 2h6 De8 13 c3 bxe3 14 ag aig

=a
4xc3 £; 13...Ac6 14 Axc6!? Wxc6 15 Yi 2G vowel
fel +) 14 2e3 Bb7
d24) 11..Ac6 12 Axc6 (12 3
15 f3 +.
SSS ROAR
should be met not by 12...2d7 13 Hel BJ] Yas.
bxc3 14 Axc6! £, but 12...2b7! with
good play; e.g., 13 Hel @xd4 14 cxd4 Many grandmasters, headed by Gel-
Rxe4 15 Ac5 LF5 16 2ad+ V8, Bos- fand, prefer this line where Black has a
boom-Vanheste, Dutch Ch (Hilver- very compact position and plans, above
sum) 1988) 12...8xc6 13 £3 (13 Hel all, to complete his mobilization (e.g.,
Ehlvest) 13...0-0 14 @h6 (14 23!) 12...2d7 and 13...@\c6).
14..Ah5 (14...Ae8 15 Re3 Bb8 16 12 Hadi
Wf2 2d8, Ehlvest-Timman, Reykja- White has made plenty of other at-
vik 1988, 17 Hadi f5 18 e5!? +) 15 tempts to maintain the initiative:
Wed 26 16 2xf8 &xfB 17 5! dxe5 18 a) 12 &e3 retreats the bishop pre-
Efel + (Nikitin). maturely; e.g., 12...2b7 (12...Ad7!7)
13 £3 Ac6 14 Had1 Ba5 with good
B21) play for Black.
10...0-0 11 2h6 b) 12 &g5 = is also premature.
Or: c) 12 a4 Qf6!? (12...b4) 13 Bfdl
a) 11 Hel — /0 He/ 0-0 1] We3. b4 14 Dce2 Ph8 15 Re3 Ad7 16 c3
b) 11 a3 is seldom played. Then: bxc3 17 @xc3 (Donges-Davis, corr.
bl) 11...Ac6 12 Axc6 Wxc6 13 1995) 17...4b8 with counterplay.
Bh6 De8 — 1] RAG De8 12 a3 Dc6 d) 12 @hl is Morozevich’s move;
13 @xc6 Gxc6. the idea is f4. Then:
b2) 11...2d7 12 Bh6 Hes — 11 di) After 12...8f6, 13 Hadl is a
BAG De8 12 a3 Rd7. logical reply, with the point 13...2e5
b3) 11...8h8!? is one more option; 14 f4.
e.g., 12 2e3 (12 Hel — 10 Hel 0-0 1] d2) 12...Ac6 and now neither 13
We3 Gh8 12 a3) 12...Ac6 13 Axc6 (13 4xc6 Wxc6 14 a4 b4 15 Ad5 Rd8 16
f4 transposes to note ‘b2’ to White’s a5 Wb7 nor 13 @d5 exd5 14 Axc6
10th move in Line B3 of Chapter 14) dxe4 15 @xe7+ Wxe7 16 a4 is wholly
13... Wxc6 14 2d4 with double-edged clear.
play, Waitzkin-Fedorowicz, New York d3) 12...b4!? is an interesting pos-
1992. sibility.
78 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
d4) 12...2b7!? has the point 13
Rxe6?! 26! 14 Ads Was.
d5) 12...2d7 13 f4 Ac6 and now:
d51) 14 Axc6 Sxc6 15 f5!72 Bhs
16 fxe6 gxh6 17 Bxf7 Exf7 18 exf7
Morozevich.
d52) 14 Had! Axd4!? (14...b4) 15
Exd4 and now Black should continue
15...a5! 16 £5 2f6. Weaker is 15...2.6
16 Hd3!; e.g., 16...8h8 (16...b4
e5!; 16...a5 17 e5!) 17 &g5 b4 (or
17...2xg5 18 fxg5! b4 19 Hdf3!)
Rxf6 Axf6 19 e5!.
d53) 14 Af3 b4 (or 14...4)a5!? 15
e5 &c6 16 £5 dxe5 17 Axe5 Axb3 18
cxb3 exf5 19 Bxf5 £b7 with good play,
Kobaliya-Vaulin, Krasnodar 1997) 15
Be2 Da (15...a5!7) 16 Hed4 (16 e5
Axb3 17 cxb3 We2 18 Ded4 We
Morozevich) 16...8b7 (16...Axb3 17
cxb3 Gh8 18 Rg5 f6 19 Bh4 e5 w
Morozevich) 17 e5 £ Morozevich-
Gelfand, Madrid 1996.
d4) 14 Ace2 Gh8 15 Bg5 Af6 16
Wh4 Hae8 17 £5 Axd4 18 Axd4 exf5
19 Hael 2d8 20 Axf5 Qxf5 21 Bxf5
Ee5 = Morozevich-Vaulin, Krasnodar
1997.
e) 12 a3 (D) (this has no advan-
tages over 12 Had] &.d7 13 a3), and
now:
ae
a em A
el) Inexact is 12...@h8 13 2e3 (13
225!) 13...Ac6 (13...Af6 14 f4 and
now 14...A\c6 15 £5 £ or 14...Wb7 15
£5!) 14 Axc6 (14 Ad5?? Axd4!; 14 f4
&a5!9) 14...8xc6 15 f4! with better
chances for White.
e2) 12..Ac6 13 Axc6 Wxc6 14
Zad1 (14 Ad5 &d8! suits Black; in-
stead, 14 Bfel £b7 transposes to Line
17 B221) 14...a5 (14...2b7 is better; then
15 fel again transposes to Line
18 B221) 15 Bfel a4 16 Ra2 Hb8 17 Hd4
+ 2f67! 18 e5!, Mowsziszian-Ban-
giev, Simferopol 1985.
e3) 12...2.f6!? 13 Be3 Ac6 is play-
able, since Black need not worry about
14 Axc6 Wxc6 15 Ad5 Bd8 16 Bb6
Wd7.
e4) 12...8d7 13 Bfel (13 £4? We5
—+; the main move 13 Had1 trans-
poses to Line B211) 13...Ac6 (also
good here is 13...8f6) 14 Axc6 (14
Had1 — 12 Had] 2d7 13 a3 Dc6 14
Hfel =) 14...2xc6 15 He3?! (Ariz-
mendi-Pelletier, Bermuda 1999; {5
Ead1 transposes to note ‘c’ to White’s
15th move in Line B211; 15 &g5 =)
15... 8h8! 16 2g5 f6 Ftaénik.
It remains only to discuss the moves
of the rooks:
f) 12 Hael @h8 (12...2f6!2) 13
Re3 2d7 (13...b4!2) 14 f4 (14 a3!)
14...b4 15 Ace2 Ac6 16 £5 e5 17 Axc6
&xc6 18 WE AFG 19 Ag3 (Baciu-
Vasiesiu, Bucharest 1998) 19...Y%b7
with unclear play.
g) 12 Bfd1 &d7 and then:
gl) 13 DF3 Acé (13...b4!? is play-
able) 14 Ae2 Ae5!? (14... hd8 15 Af4
@h8 16 Rg5 + Waitzkin-Lesiége,
Bermuda 1995) 15 Afd4 @Gh8 16 Vc
4\f6 17 £3 Ac4 with good play, Ash-
ley-Wojtkiewicz, New York 1994.
 5.06 6 &c4 e6 7 B2b3 b5 8 0-0 Be7 9 Wf3! 79

g2) 13 Ace2 Wh7 14 f3 a5 15 a3 h56) 13 a4!? b4 (13...2f6!? is an-

“Ac6 16 Axc6 Kxc6 17 c3 (Zapata- other idea) 14 Ace2 Ac6 (14...Wb7
Paramos Dominguez, Varadero 2000) 15 Had1!; 14...h8 15 25 &xes 16
and I see no advantage for White after Wxg5 AS 17 Ag3 Aco 18 Axc6
17...b4!?, &xc6 19 Had1 £ Kasparov-Gelfand,
h) 12 Bfel (Kasparov played this Paris rpd 1991) 15 Axc6 &xc6 16
in the first of his games against Gel- &\d4 $.b7 17 Had1 and now, instead of
fand but in the next two he chose the 17...&.f69! 18 &cl! with an advantage,
more useful 12 Kad1). Now: Magomedov-Vaulin, Cheliabinsk 1990,
hl) 12...Ac6?! can be countered better is 17..@h8 18 &g5 2xg5 19
by 13 Ad5!. Wxg5 Df6 (Magomedov).
h2) 12...8b7 appears risky but no h6) 12...2f6(!) and now:
direct refutation can be found; e.g., 13 h61) 13 Had1? Re5! is most likely
Rxe6 R614 Ads Wd8 15 e5 Bh4!. winning for Black; e.g., 14 We4 &xd4
h3) 12...b4 has not yet been played. (14...8h8!?) 15 Bxd4 e5 16 We5 exd4
h4) 12...@h8 13 225 (13 Re3 Af6 17 Ad5 We5 18 e5 (18 Af6+ Vh8 19
=) 13... D6 (13...2xg5 14 Wxegs and Rxg7+ Axg7 20 Wh6 Bf5 wins for
now, rather than 14...h6 15 Wh4 Ac6 Black) 18...@h8! 19 He4 (Gdanski-
16 Axc6 Wxc6 17 a4 b4 18 AdS! £ Kempinski, Polish Ch (Gdansk) 1994)
T.Thorhallsson-Arnason, Hafnarfirdi and now 19...gxh6!? 20 Wxh6 Hg8 21
1992, 14...We5!? gives Black chances 6 &£5! or 19... 2e6!.
of equalizing, Coleman-Arnason, Phi- h62) 13 &e3 leads to approxi-
ladelphia 1993) 14 Hadl + (14 £4? mately equal play.
Wa7) transposes to 12 Kad] &h8 13 h63) If 13 @f3, then Black should
&e5 Df6 14 Hfel. avoid 13...&xc3 14 bxc3 Wxc3 15
h5) 12...d7 (we were interested Hadl &b7 16 Hd3 We7 17 AgS! +
in this position in connection with /0 Vavra-Lesiége, Parana jr Wch 1991.
Hel 0-0 1] Wg3 &d7) and now: Instead, 13...Ad7 or 13...b4!? gives
h51) 13. a3 -12 a3 Rd7 13 Bfel. Black good chances.
h52) 13 Had] — J2 Hadl &d7 13 We now return to the position after
fel. 12 Had1 (D):
h53) 13 @f5 is at best unclear:
13...exf5 14 Ad5 Wd8 15 exf5, and
now Black can play 15...8.f6!?. Eas ake
h54) No advantage is achieved af- . » ai ¥ah a
ter 13 Bg5 Bxg5 14 Wxg5 Ac6 15
4)xc6 &xc6 16 a3 Af6 17 Had1 Had8
a7 he
=, as in Kutuzovi¢-Wojtkiewicz, Nova WaT
Gorica 1997, ae ay
h55) 13 Ace2 Ac6 14 Axc6 Wxc6 YG Ti
15 Df4 Ph8 16 Ves Vxgs 17 Wxes
4)f6 = Minasian-Am.Rodriguez, Lu- & fue”
cerne Wcht 1993.
80 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

12...207 15 c3 bxc3 16 @xc3 (Macieja-War-

Other moves have occurred much szawski, Brzeg Dolny 1995) 16...A\a5!?
less frequently: is unclear.
a) 12...2b7?! 13 &xe6! +. e2) 13 Bad and now:
b) 12...Ac6 13 AdS! Axdé4 (alter- e21) 13...Ac6 14 2e3 (14 Axc6!?
natively, 13...exd5 14 Axc6 dxe4 15 Wxc6 15 Bfel) 14...Bb8 (14...Af6 is
&xe7+ Wxe7 16 285 Wd7 17 Wha!) well answered by 15 Ab6!; 14...2d7
14 Dxe7+ Wxe7 15 Hxdé is slightly — 13...2d7 14 2e3 Bc6) 15 Axc6
better for White, Veli¢ka-Hybl, Pardu- Wxc6 16 £3 + Tokmachev-Ottenburg,
bice 1995. corr. 1999.
c) 12...2f6 13 2g5 (13 £4? Rxd44! e22) 13..2d7 14 2e3 Ac6 and
14 Bxd4 Wa7; 13 Ace2!? Ac6 14 3 now nothing is gained by 15 @f3 Bb8!
h8 15 Bes Bb7 16 Bfel Bxg5 17 (15...A£6 16 Ab6! +). Instead, 15 c4!?
Wxg5 Af6 is satisfactory for Black, deserves attention.
Macieja-Kempinski, Warsaw 1995; We now return to the position after
13 &e3!? could be tried) 13...&xg5 14 12...2.d7 (D):
Wxg5 We5 15 Wd2 (15 We3!? Ehl-
vest) 15...8.d7 16 Hfel with a slight
advantage for White, Ehlvest-Gavri-
kov, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1988.
d) 12..8h8 13 R25 (13 2e3!? is
an idea) 13...A6 (13...&2xg5 14 Wxg5
+: 13...b4 14 2xe7 Wxe7 15 Aad, and
now 15...#a7 16 fel + or 15...2b7
16 Abo Ba7 17 We3 Ale 18 Ads +)
and now:
dl) 14 Wh4 is unclear; for exam-
No Y

tN
ple, 14... He8 (14...b4!?) 15 Hd3 Abd7, J Vagis
and now 16 f4 b4! was good for Black
in Rudensky-Cabarkapa, blind 1980. We have reached another important
d2) Calmer is 14 Bfel b4 (14...Be8 crossroads. We shall discuss these
15 a3!?) 15 Wa4 with some advantage. three moves separately:
d3) Or 14 a3 £; e.g., 14...abd7?! B211: 13 a3 81
15 Bxe6; 14...Ac6?! 15 Axc6 Wxc6 B212: 13 f4 82
16 &xf6!, K.Grosar-Stiri, Wuppertal B213: 13 Af3 84
wom ECC 1998.
e) 12...b4!? has not been suffi- There remain:
ciently studied: a) 13 h4 (Lepeshkin) does not ap-
el) 13 Ace2 Ac6 (13...26!7; pear very logical.
13...a5 is weaker in view of 14 Af4!, b) 13 &e3 Ac6! (13...b4 14 Aad -
Bennedik-Cijs, corr. 1999) 14 Af3 (14 12...b4 13 Da4 Bd7 14 Qe3), and af-
Efel AeS!? and 14 Axc6 Wxc6 15 ter 14 f4 b4! Black takes over the ini-
4\d4 Wxe4 are both unclear) 14...2.6 tiative.
 5...a6 6 &.c4 e6 7 &b3 bS 8 0-0 Be7 9 Wr! 81

c) 13 @hl Ac6 14 £4 — 12 Bh]

8d7 13 f4 &\c6 14 Bad. 1a Sak e®

enn
d) 13 Bfel Ac6 (13...h8 14 295!; 7, ¢a@as
13...b4!?), and now:
dl) 14 @ht?! Aas 15 f4 Axb3 16
a7 £aZy ‘S
axb3?! b4 + Ruisinger-de Firmian, Yr JF
Ticino 1993. ve ne cai
d2) 14a3 — 13 a3 Dc6 14 fel. Hoh ZF]

IK
lf U TE
d3) 14 Axc6 &xc6 15 Vg5 (15 a3
— 13 a3 Dc6 14 Axc6 Bxc6 15 Hfel) B&G Ban
15...&xg5! (less convincing is 15...b4 Ya W277 aS

16 Ad5) 16 Wxg5 b4!? = Verdci-Ruck,
Hungary 1993.
d4) 14 225 Rxg5 15 Wxgs b4
(15...h6 has also occurred) 16 Aa4 (16
&\ce2 Axd4 and 17...a5) 16... £b8 17
c3 “xd4 18 Hxd4 Qxa4 19 Qxa4
bxc3 20 b3 with approximately equal
play, Oli-Gelfand, Sverdlovsk 1987.
d5) 14 Dce2!? AeS (14...2h8 15
S25 gives White some advantage;
14...Aa5 15 Af4; 14...Aaxd4 15 Axd4
a5 16 a3; 14...b4!9) 15 c3 © Collas-
Das, Calcutta 2000.
e) 13 Ace2!? (this is little studied,
like line ‘d5’) 13...0c6 (13...@h8 14
Be5 Bxgs 15 Wxgs5 Af6 16 Dg3
4\c6 17 c3 was the actual move-order
of Lautier-Gelfand) 14 c3 (14 Af3 -
13 DB Wc6 14 We2; 14 Hfel — 13 Bfel
Ac6 14 Be2) 14...Bh8 (14...De5!2)
15 B95 Qxgs 16 Wxgs Df 17 Dg3
a5 (17...Had8 18 f4 £; 17..Ae5 18
Hfel! Had8 19 AhS Lautier) 18 Hfel
(18 £4 We5! leads to equality — Lau-
tier) 18...b6?! (18...Had8 Lautier)
19 Af3! + Lautier-Gelfand, Las Vegas
FIDE 1999.
B211)
13 a3 (D)
13...Ac6 14 Axc6
Otherwise:
\
a) Not 14 £4? Wb6 —+.
b) 14 &g5 is best met by 14...Af6
= (rather than 14...2xg5 15 Wxg5,
and now 15...Ae5 16 £4 Ac4 17 Bxc4
followed by 18 Ef3, or 15...Aa5 16
Kd3 Ac4 17 Bh3 Axb2? 18 ALS +—
Lepeshkin).
c) 14 Hfel promises White little
after 14...2f6!7, 14...Aa5 15 f4!? or
14...Axd4!? 15 Bxd4 2f6 16 Hd3 a5
17 225 bd.
d) 14 Be3 2£6 (14...Da5! 15 DES!;
14...Axd4 15 &xd4 a5 16 e5 2c6 17
Eifel £Emms-Coleman, Gausdal 1996;
14...Af6!9) 15 Axc6 Bxc6 16 2d4
Hd8 17 We3 2xd4 18 Hxd4 Af6 19
fd1 gives White a small advantage,
Emms-Lutz, Bundesliga 1995/6.
14...2xc6 15 24
First used by Short against Kas-
parov. Other possibilities:
a) 15 Rg5 Rxgs 16 Wxgs Af =.
b) 15 £4 Bh8 (15...2f6!7 16 £5 {16
&g5 is answered by 16...Wa7+! and
17...8.xc3} 16...We7 17 Wed Shs 18
&d2, Shtyrenkov-Vaulin, Budapest
1991, 18...8d4+!? 19 Bhi Df6 ~) 16
&g5 and then:
bl) 16...2xg5?! 17 fxgs.
b2) After 16...Af6 White can try
17 Wh4!?, rather than 17 £5 Axe4 =
82 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Cabello-Roiz, Asturia 1995 or 17 e5 Wc6 24 Wc3 + Short) 20 Bxd8 2xd8

dxe5 18 fxe5 &c5+ =. 21 ADe2! a4 (21...2.f6!7) 22 a2 b4 23
b3) 16...a5 17 £5 b4 18 axb4 axb4 axb4 (23 @d4!? 2d5? 24 &xd5 Wxd5
19 He2 (19 fxe6? bxc3 20 exf7 Rxg5! 25 axb4 f6 26 Wh3) 23..Wxb4 24
21 Wxg5 cxb2 F Istratescu-Kuczyn- &c3 £ Short-Kasparov, London PCA
ski, Budapest Z 1993). Now 19...2xg5 Wch (20) 1993.
20 Wxe5 Af6 21 fxe6, Skrobek-Engel, 16 e5 dxe5 17 2xe5 Wh7 18 Exd8
corr. 1990-1, is slightly better for White, &xd8 19 Hdl 2e7
and 19...@xe4 is not wholly clear. In- 19...2£6 is also possible.
stead, 19...@£6! gives Black good play. 20 Ae2 Afo 21 Af4 Has
c) An important position arises af- = Mirumian-Vaulin, Minsk 1997.
ter 15 Bfel a5: It might be concluded that Black
cl) 16 f3 £6 17 Rg5 Bxgs 18 can reach equality after 13 a3, if he
Wxg5 Af6 = Martin del Campo-Sunye, proceeds accurately.
Merida 1993.
c2) 16 He3 b4 17 axb4 axb4 18 B212)
&e2 Ha5 = Macieja-Vaulin, Warsaw 13 £4 (D)
1992. Most likely, this interesting contin-
c3) 16 Hd3 b4 (16...2.f6!7) 17 axb4 uation is not stronger than 13 a3.
axb4 18 “a2 + J.Polgar-Csonkics,
Hungarian Ch 1988.
c4) 16 &f4 b4! is probably good x8 Pawel
for Black.
c5) 16 &g5 &xg5 17 Wxg5 and oe aia
now 17.,.&b8 is roughly equal, Gobet-
Pinter, Thessaloniki OL 1984, whereas WAT FD
17...b4 18 axb4 axb4 19 Aa2 Bad 20 Va oh
We3!, Alvim-Weber, corr. 1999, and moe oars
17...Wb7 18 Hd4 Afé 19 Bxd6!? are
less convincing.
ARAT ZAR
15...2d8 A We ae |
This is the latest attempt to improve
Black’s play. The previous main line 13...Ac6
ran: 15...Wb7 (15...a5 16 e5!) 16 Or:
fel! (16 e5 dxe5 17 &xe5 Hd8 trans- a) 13...b4 14 Ace2 (14 £5? bxc3 15
poses to the main line) 16...a5 (not fxe6 fxe6 16 Axe6 Rxe6 17 Bxe6+
16...2d8?! 17 Ad5!) 17 &5 (17 Ad5? Gh8 18 Bxf8+ Vxf8 19 fl Ad7! 20
2d8) 17...dxe5 (17...d5 +) 18 2xe5 &xd7 Af6 21 Be6 cxb2! —+ Olivier-
£6 (18...b4 19 axb4 axb4 20 Ae? =; Dunis, Monaco 2000) 14...@h8 15
18... Af6 19 Hd4; 18...a4 19 Ba2 b4 &g5 Ac6 16 £5!? (16 Kd3 2f6 =; 16
20 axb4 and 21 Hd4!; 18...2d8!?) 19 &xe7 Axe7 is unclear) 16...Axd4
Hd4! Ed8 (19...b4 20 axb4 axb4 21 (16...e5!?) 17 Dxd4 Qxgs (17...Df6
BHa2 Bxe5 22 WxeS Bxg2 23 Exb4 18 Wh4!, Almasi-Vaulin, Kecskemet
 5...a6 6 &.c4 e6 7 2b3 bS 8 0-0 Be7 9 Wy! 83

1993, with the point 18...e5? 19 Hf3) 48 24 Edf3? f5 Kasparov) 23 &hl

18 fxe6 2f6 19 exd7 Wxd7 20 Shi + \)xf6 24 Wh6+ Be7 gave Black good
Voitsekhovsky-Vaulin, Kstovo 1994, compensation in Morozevich-Kaspa-
b) 13...@h8!? 14 25 Ac6 (the in- rov, Astana 2001.
ferior 14...&xg5?! should be met by c23) 16...b4!? 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 e5
15 fxg5! rather than 15 Wxg5?! Ac6 (18 e2!?) 18...2xe5 (18...We54+!?
16 Axc6 Rxc6 17 f5 transposing to 19 He3 Rxe5 20 Hxf8+ &xf8 and
note ‘c’ to White’s 16th move) 15 now 21 Wf2+ Sg8! or 21 WF3+ Be7!
Rxe7 Axe7 16 £5 (16 a3 a5) 16...e5 17 — Morozevich) 19 Hxf8+ &xf8 20
Aec6 fxe6 18 fxe6 Hxfl+ 19 Exfl W3+ (20 Hr3+ He7!) 20..2f6 21
“6! = Tischbierek-H.Griinberg, East Bed (21 Dd57! exd5 22 Wxd5 26!
German Ch (Zittau) 1989. 23 We8+ Ye7 24 &£4!2 Morozevich)
14 Axc6 21...$2.c6 © Kasparov.
Or: 14... 2xc6
a) 14 @hl -— 12 Sh] Bd7 13 j4 14...Wxc6? 15 f5 +.
&\c6 14 Had]. 15 £5
b) 14 2g5 Bxgs 15 fxgs Axd4 16 15 a3 — 13 a3 De6 14 Axc6 Bxc6
Hxd4 We5 (Morozevich-Gelfand, Is- 15 fA.
tanbul OL 2000) is good for Black. 15...2h8 16 2e3
c) 14£5!9 Axd4 15 Bxd4 and now: Or:
cl) 15...b4 should be met by Kas- a) 16 f6 &xf6 (16...gxh6!?) 17
parov’s 16 5! (instead of 16 fxe6 fxe6 Exf6 b4!? «© Manker-Golmon, theme
17 Bxf8+? Sxf8! or 16 Ae2 exf5!? 17 corr. 1994,
exf5 &f6 © Hage-Alvebring, corr. b) 16 fxe6!? gxh6 17 Exf7 (17 exf7
1999). &f6!?) 17...2xf7 18 exf7 Ag7 is prob-
c2) 15...2£6 16 Hd3 and then: ably satisfactory for Black, Kelleher-
c21) 16...8h8 17 fxe6 (17 &f41? de Firmian, Woburn 1994.
Shipov) 17...fxe6 18 @e3 (18 e5?! dxeS c) 16 &g5 Rxg5 (16...b4!2) 17
19 295 b4!) 18...b4 19 Ae2 (Macieja- Wxg5 Alo 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 Rxe6
Wojtkiewicz, Warsaw 1995) 19...Wc6! Wa7+ 20 Ghl Axed 21 Axed Rxe4
o Nisipeanu/Stoica. = Sieiro-Gonzalez — Vera, Cuban Ch
c22) 16...2e5 17 Wed (17 Weg5?! (Sagua la Grande) 1981/2.
b4! 18 £6 We5+ 19 Bh] Bxf6 F; 17 16...b4 17 Aad
S&.f4 G6! «©; very interesting is 17 17 Ae27! e5!.
fxe6!? &xg3 and now 18 exf7+ or 17...Af6!
possibly even 18 e7 — Morozevich) The simplest. 17...2b8?! 18 fxe6
17...b4 18 £6! g6! 19 Ae2 (19 Ad1!? fxe6 19 Kxf8+ 2xf8 20 Bf! We7 (not
Shipov) 19...a5! 20 &xf8 (20 Wh4 a4 20...Af6 21 Ac5!) 21 e5 with an ad-
21 &g5 h5! 22 g4 { Kasparov} vantage, A.Sokolov-Gelfand, USSR
22...hxg4!! 23 Wxg4 2&b5! Moroze- Ch (Odessa) 1989. Not quite clear are
vich) 20...@xf8 21 Wh4 (21 c3!? Shi- 17...e5 18 Ab6 Af6!? and 17...&xe4.
pov) 21...a4 22 Wxh7 Wa7+ (the 18 fxe6 Axed 19 Wh3 fxe6 20
alternative is 22...Axf6!? 23 Wh8+ Wxeb 26
84 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

20...8f6 21 Exf6 &xf6 is possibly instead of 17...8b5? 18 @d4! +-

satisfactory, since 22 Ab6 He8 23 Ad5 Kasparov-Gelfand, Linares 1993 or
seems suspicious. 17...a4?! 18 @Ah5! +, Black should try
21 Ab6 17...Ac6 with the idea 18 AhS Axh5
Or 21 Wc4 Wb7 22 Ab6 Hae8 23 19 2xe7 Dxe7 20 Wxe7 Hae8! 21
Wxb4 2xb2 = Damaso-Amason, Novi Wxd6 Wxd6 22 Bxd6 &b5 (Bonsch)
Sad OL 1990. or 17...2.d8!? (Nikitin).
21...ae8 22 Ads Was 23 Wed c) 13...a5 is a major alternative:
2d7 24 We2 cl) 14 e5?! gives White a draw at
= Olivier-Polak, Baden 1999. the most: 14...a4 15 Hd4 axb3 (Black
may try to improve via 15...¢6!? 16 $2.d5
B213) Had or 15...8h8!?, but not 15...dxe5
13 Df3!? (D) 16 Bg4 2f6 17 Des 26 18 Rxf8!) 16
This was introduced by Kasparov &xg7 @Axg7 17 Bg4 bxa2 18 Bxg7+
against Gelfand (1993) where White Gh8 19 Ae4!? (19 Bxh7+ =), and now
achieved a spectacular win. After a 19...Wxc2! = is simpler than 19...a1W
small boom, the fashion for playing 13 20 Hxh7+ &xh7 21 Aegs5+ Vxgs 22
4)f3 shrank by the end of the 1990s. Axg5+ Sg6 23 Axe6+!? SF5 24
®xc7.
c2) 14.43 b4 (14...2f6 15 e5!2) 15
im ake axb4 axb4 16 Ae2 2f6 (or 16...Ac6
, 0 ie A & 17 “f4 Ha5! Makarychev) 17 &g5
47 &:Z &@ &b5! is good for Black, Zapata-Ren-
AWS

teria, Bogota 1995.

ms @VW W 3) 14 a4 b4 15 De2 (15 Dbl
pig UY 4a6!? 16 e5 Zc5 with counterplay,
pat (De Gelashvili-Banikas,
1995) 15...Ac6
Zagan jr
(Black has several
Ech
ARLAT, BAR
SW

7 E7 ES risky but interesting alternatives:

15...Aa6!?, 15...2c6!? or 15...2£6!?
_

with the point 16 &g5 &xb2 17 Re7

13...Ac6 &b5 18 Rxf8 Rxe2 19 2xd6 Axd6 20
Or: Wxd6 Da6) 16 Af4 (16 Ded4 Axd4
a) 13...&c6 has not yet been tested. 17 Axd4 =; 16 Rg5 Vxgs 17 Axg5s
b) 13...b4 14 Ae2 a5?! (14...2c6 h6 18 @f3 Hd8 = Berndt-Jacoby,
15 Af4!? Gh8 16 Vg5 gives White Hamburg 1997) 16...2f6 (16...2h8
an advantage, Abashev-Kostin, Russia 17 &g5 gives White the initiative) 17
1996; 14...2b5 15 Afd4!; 14...eh8!?) 4d3! (17 Ah5? Rxb2 18 e5? Axe5!;
15 Af4! Bhs (not 15...a4? 16 Vxg7 17 Dg5? DeT!? F; 17.37! Ph 18 Bes
+-) 16 225 Afe (16...f6? 17 Bxe6 bxc3) 17...e5! 18 @e3, Short-Kas-
+—; 16...2xg5 17 Axg5 + a4 18 Wh4 parov, London PCA Wch (18) 1993.
{alternatively, 18 Wh3)} 18...Af6 19 The knight on d3 looks strange, but
&xe6!) 17 What (17 e5? Hed), and White still might have a slight plus.
 5...€6 6 &.c4 e6 7 2b3
14 2f4
Or:
a) 14 fel b4!? (14...2£6) 15 De2
2f6 with counterplay, Hamdouchi-
A.Luft, Sitges 1995.
b) 14. B95 Rxg5 (14...2c8 15 Bf4!?
Gallagher) 15 Axg5 Hd8 (15...h6 16
&h3!9 Bangiev) 16 £4?! (16 Hd2!?
Shipov) 16...h6 17 @f3 b4 18 Ae2
Qf6 19 e5 Ded F Sax-Wojtkiewicz,
Budapest Z 1993.
c) 14 e2, and now Black can play
14...a5 15 c3 (15 a4!) 15...a4 16 Rc2
e5 17 Ad2 2e6 = Ashley-Arnason, St
Martin 1993, or 14..e5 15 Ded4
@&xf3+ 16 Axf3 2c6 17 Bfel Wb7 =
Rublevsky-Vaulin, Kurgan 1993.
14...2d8
Otherwise:
a) 14...b4 15 eS! dxe5 16 AxeS
(Nijboer-Pelletier, Istanbul OL 2000)
16...2.d6 17 Bxd6 Wxd6 18 Bdi! Ad4
19 We3 bxc3 20 bxc3 &bS 21 cxd4
with compensation — Nijboer.
b) 14..8b7!? 15 Bfel (15 @g5!?
Beliavsky/Mikhalchishin; 15 e5 dxe5
16 AxeS Axe5 17 RxeS Bc6 =)
15...b4 (15...Aa5 16 e5!) 16 He2 (16
Had a5! Shipov) 16...e5 (16...2.£6!?
17 &xd6 Axd6 18 Wxd6 Zfd8 19 eS!
&xe5 20 AxeS Be8! 21 Wes Bxdi 22
Eixd1 Wed or 16...Aa5 17 e5 dxeS 18
Bxe5 265 19 Ad4 Axb3 20 axb3 f6!
Nikitin) 17 &g5 Re6 (17...2xg5 18
Wxg5 2e6 19 Ag3 + Shipov) 18 And!
+ Kasparov-Gelfand, Moscow OL
1994.
15 e5!
15 Hfel 2c8 16 e5 dxe5 17 Axe5S
xd (17...2d6 = Lamoureux-Wojt-
kiewicz, Cannes 1998) 18 Hxd1 @xe5
19 &xe5 Web = Winants-Wojtkiewicz,
Wijk aan Zee 1994.
b5 8 0-0 Re7 9 Wf! 85
After the text-move (15 e5), Black
has some problems:
a) 15...dxe5 16 @xe5 is risky for
Black:
al) 16...2d6 17 Bxd6! @xd6 and
now rather than 18 @g4 e5 19 Ad5
Wb7 20 Agf6+ Bh8 21 Wh4 RFS 22
@xh7 &xh7 23 Afo = or 18 Axc6
&xc6 19 Hdl b4! - Istratescu-Wojt-
kiewicz, Odorheiu Secuiesc Z 1995,
Istratescu recommends 18 Hdl! b4
19 Dxf7! Hxf7 20 2xd6 Wa7 21 Ded
+
a2) 16..Axe5 17 &xe5 Wh7 18
Hd4 2c6 (or 18...Af6 19 Ae4 Ah5 20
Wh3 2c6 21 Dd6) 19 Hed Shs (or
19...26 20 &xe6 fxe6 21 Bxg6+ SF7
22 Hhé Hes 23 Wr4+ Afe 24 Bxf6+
Be8 25 £3) 20 Exg7 f6 21 Bxh7+
&xh7 22 Wh3+ e7 23 Wed h7
24 Wh5+ Sg7 25 &f4! with a strong
attack for White.
b) 15...2c8 16 exd6 (16 Ae4 dxe5
17 AxeS Ad4!7) 16... 2xd6 17 Bxd6
(17 Bxd6 Axd6 18 Hdl b4! is much
better for Black) 17...Bxd6 18 Ae4
gives White some advantage.
On the whole, the line 10 Wg3 0-0
11 &h6 “e8 remains interesting for
both sides.
B22)
10...A\c6 (D)
Another major option. Black wishes
to simplify the position.
11 “Axc6
Otherwise:
a) 11 @de2 (nothing is gained by
retreating the knight) 11...0-0 12 2h6
#&e8 13 Had1 “a5 (Kosten).
b) 11 Af3 0-0 12 Bh6 Ae8 13
Had1 2b7, Vavra-Neumann, Bundes-
liga 1998/9.
86 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

better) 14 2e3 Be6 15 Rg5 with an

xueen zz advantage for White, Raud-Ili¢, Bela
W ies wW ea Crkva 1990.
A cak Ae UY d3) 11...b7!?.
d4) 11...0-0 (now &h6 will lose a
VW Y tempo) 12 Axc6 (12 a3 =) 12...Wxc6
j , |] 13 Bh6 (13 Bd4 2b7 = 14 Bad1?!
V)
& “ZO
we66
b4!, V.Ivanov-Zhidkov,
13...Ae8 14.04 (14 Bfel &b7 15 Hadl
USSR 1977)

— 11 ®xc6 Wxc6 12 Bg5 Bb7 13

x gases Had! 0-0 14 &h6 De8 15 Bfel; 14
i.

Had] 2b7 — 11 Axc6 Wxc6 12 Be5

c) 11 Af5 (this sacrifice is not con- 2b7 13 Bad] 0-0 14 &h6 De8; White
sidered to work here) 11...exf5 12 achieves nothing by 14 ®d5 2d8!)
Wxe7 Efs and then: and now:
cl) 13 &g5 b4!? (13... Wd8!? is an d41) 14...b4 15 Ad5 Bd8 16 a5
alternative; 13...Axe4 14 Ad5 is un- (16 Bfel!?) 16..Wb7 17 2d2 exd5
clear) 14 AdS Axd5 15 Rxd5 (or 15 (17...2.d7 18 Axb4 £) 18 &xd5 Wa7 19
exd5 Ae5 16 Bxe7 Wxe7 17 f4 £6! &xa8 Wxa8 20 e5!, J.Polgar-H.Olafs-
Kosten) 15...&xg5 16 Wxg5 f4 + Gu- son, Egilsstadir 1988.
seinov-Magerramov, Baku 1986. d42) 14...9d7!?,
c2) 13 exf5 &xf5 (13..Ae5 14 d43) 14...2b7 is probably best: 15
d5!; 13...b4!?) 14 2g5 b4 15 Axf6 axb5 axb5 16 Bxa8 2xa8 followed by
bxc3 16 Zael 0-0-0!? 17 &xe7 Axe7 17...2.f6 = Nikolenko-Yuferov, Mos-
18 He3 cxb2 19 We (19 Wxb2!7) cow 1990.
19...e6 Mukhutdinov-Shneider, St 11...8xc6 (D)
Petersburg 1993.
d) 11 2e3 gives Black a choice:
dl) 11...Da5 12 Wxe7 (12 E52!) as a #
12...8g8 13 Wh6 Axb3
15 £3 b4 16 Aa4 He6 17 Wh3
14 axb3 2b7
d5 18
couata*s
a 4 a” Y
f4!, Alvim-Kiese, corr. 1999,
d2) 11...Axd4 12 &xd4 0-0 (alter- Or Ya,
natively, 12...2b7 13 Had1!? b4 14 a
ARAM WAR
Sad+, and instead of 14...f8 15 e5 GBs Y7 sea e s
@®h5 16 We3! with a dangerous initia-
tive, Ivanovié-Marjanovic, Yugoslav
Ch (Subotica) 1984, Black shouid Bg 72g"
play 14...&c6—Marjanovié) 13 a3 (13
e5 dxe5 14 Sxe5 We6 15 Hfel 2b7 12 Hel
16 @e4 Bh8 with a defensible posi- Other moves:
tion, Gara-Khukhashvili, Oropesa del a) 12 Wxg7? Bes 13 Who @xe4
Mar jr Wch 1999) 13...e5 (13...2.b7 is 14 xed Wxed F.
 5...€6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 b5 8 0-0 Re7 9 Wy!
b) 12 a3 Dxe4!?.
c) 12 &g5 (asin the case of 11 &e3,
£h6 will now lose a tempo) 12...2b7
(12...0-0? 13 Ad5!) and then:
cl) 13 Bfel 0-0 (13...0-0-0?! 14
a4) and now:
cll) 14 a3 gives Black a choice of
transpositions: 14...42ad8 — 12 He] 2b7
13 a3 Bd8 14 225 0-0; 14...B£d8!? 15
Had! transposes to note ‘cll’ to
White’s 11th move in Line B1, which
is equal.
c12) 14 Had] — 13 Had! 0-0 14
fel.
c13) 14 2h6 Ae8 = gives Black an
extra tempo compared to Line B221.
c2) 13 Had] 0-0! (13...2d8 14 Efel
0-0, transposing to line ‘c241’, has its
disadvantages) and then:
c21) 14 a3 =.
622) 14 &xf6 &xf6 15 Bxd6 We5!
gives Black compensation.
c23) After 14 2h6 Ae8 15 Bfel, a
good reply is 15...@h8! (less convinc-
ing is 15...2f6 16 295 &xg5— 12 Kel
0-0 13 Bh6 De& 14 Bad] &b7 15
Re5 Bxg5) 16 B2g5 Bxgs 17 Wxgs
46 = 18 Hd3? b4!, Moutousis-Cvet-
kovié, Vrnjatéka Banja 1990.
c24) 14 Bfel and here:
0241) 14...Had8 is well met by 15
£d3! (nothing is gained by 15 &d5 Wec7
=). Then Black must avoid 15...2h8?
16 Wh4 +-, 15...Dh5? 16 Wh4 2xg5
17 Bxg5 Df 18 Bg3 +-, 15...b4? 16
&d5 exd5 17 exdS We7 18 Hxe7! and
15...a5 16 a4!? b4 17 @d5. There re-
mains only 15...8c5, when 16 Wh4
(Pawlak-Ferens, corr. 1996) is not
convincing in view of 16...h6!, so 16
&e3!? deserves attention.
0242) 14..Bfd8!. Now 15 Hd3?!
does not work because of 15...b4! 16
87
&d5 exd5 17 exd5 Wd7! 18 Bxe7 (18
Hde3 He8) 18...Wxe7 19 He3 Ws!
(the difference!) 20 &xf6 He8. Also
dubious is 15 £4?! (G.Kuzmin-Poluga-
evsky, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1977),
when Black can play, e.g., 15...b4!?
(Kosten). Better is 15 f3 or 15 a3,
transposing to note ‘cl1’ to White’s
11th move in Line B1 (=).
d) 12 £3!? (this occurs much more
seldom than 12 Hel &b7 13 £3), and
now:
d1) 12...Wc5+!? 13 hl 0-0.
d2) 12...0-0 13 &.h6 (13 Gh1!?; 13
Re3!? Bb7 - 12...2b7 13 Be3 0-0)
13..De8 (13...Ah5! =) 14 Qe3 (14
Ae2 We5+ 15 Sh Lh8 = Labuckas-
Zagorskis, Lithuanian Ch (Vilnius)
1994; 14 Bh1!?) 14...Af6 15 Shl Bb7
16 a4 Hfd8 17 Ae2 e5 18 eS b4 19
Wel! with an advantage for White,
Gdanski-Brustman, Aegina 1993.
d3) 12...2b7 13 Be3 0-0 (13.228
14 a4 b4 15 a5 +) with a complicated
game after both 14 Hfd1 Hfd8 15 Hd2
&\d7 16 De2 (Bereziuk-Kalod, Czech
Cht 1998) and 14 a4 Bfd8 (14...b4!7)
15 De2 e5 16 Ac3 b4 17 Ad5 Axd5
18 exd5 Wd7 19 a5!, Morozevich-
Hohn, Moscow 1991.
We now return to 12 Hel (D):
re a
jae
88 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

12...&b7! kingside; e.g., 17 He3 h6 18 Wr4 Had8

There is at least one important al- 19 Hdd3 b4? 20 Hg3 +- or 17 Hd3 h6
ternative, but the majority of the rare 18 Wh4 Hfds 19 He3 &f8 (Mariano-
continuations look dubious: Browne, Las Vegas blitz 1995) 20
a) 12...a5? 13 a4 b4 14 Ad5 exd5 Hee3!,
15 Wxe7 Hfs 16 exd5 Axd5 17 Rg5 f3) 14 a4!? ensures a slight advan-
+, tage: 14...2b7 (or 14...@h8 15 axb5!?
b) 12...67! 13 2g5!?. axb5 16 Hxa8 Wxa8 17 ¢5 +) 15 axb5
c) 12...Wc52!13 2e3 Wh5 14 RF4 axb5 16 Hxa8 &xa8 (J.Polgar-Schan-
e5 15 AdS5 +. dorff, Abenra rpd 1989) 17 @a2!?.
d) After 12...2d7?! White is able Practice has shown that White is of-
to choose between 13 225 Wc5 +, 13 ten tempted to advance the knight:
Wxe7 He8 14 Wh6 b4? 15 Ads and £4) 14Ad5 2d8! and, so far, Black
13 Ad5!? exd5 14 Wxg7 0-0-0 15 exd5 has managed to defend very success-
4)xd5 16 Wxf7 Afe 17 He3 Hhgs 18 fully in this position:
g3. £41) 15 Rg5?! Axes 16 Wxgs
e) 12...Wc7!? is interesting; e.g., exd5 17 &xd5 We5! 18 b4 Wa7.
13 a4 b4 14 a2 Wh7 © Mirumian- £42) 15 c3 Rd7! (15...2b7!2 16
Mozny, Czech Cht 1996/7. Af4 Bh8 17 2g5 Rxe5 18 Wxe5 Dfo)
f) 12...0-0 13 2h6! He8 has oc- 16 a4 Wb7 = Zso.Polgar-Browne, New
curred rather frequently. Now: York 1989.
fl) 14 a3 &b7 transposes to Line £43) 15 Re3 Rd7 16 Rd4 Wo7! =
B22}. Bach-Szuhanek, Timisoara 1993.
f2) 14 Had1!? and then: £44) 15 a3 &b7 16 Had Bhs 17
f21) 14..We7 15 a3 26 16 Bd3 Ab4 We7 18 RKF4 aS 19 Ad3 e5! was
&b7 transposes to note ‘a’ to Black’s good for Black in Brooks-Kraai, Los
15th move in Line B221 (+). Angeles 1991.
£22) 14...Wb7 15 a3 +. f45) 15 Had1 and then:
£23) 14...2h8 15 2&5 (or 15 2e3!?) £451) 15...2b7 and now: 16 a3 —
15....Af6? 16 $2xf6 is much better for 15 a3 2b7 16 Bad]; 16 Df4 Sh8 17
White, H.Olafsson-Teitsson, Icelandic &95—15...8h8 16 Bg5 Bb7
17 Df4.
Cht 1995. £452) 15...2h8 16 25 (16 Rcl is
£24) 14...2b7 and then: equal) 16...2b7 17 Af4 (17 Rxd8
f241) 15 a3 again transposes to Xxd8 18 Wh4 Ed7 = Browne-Ghit-
Line B221. escu, Rovinj/Zagreb 1970) 17...8.xg5
£242) 15 Hd3 Bh8!? (15...Bd8 16 18 Wxg5 46, and there is nothing
2g5 We7 17 Bxe7 Wxe7 18 f3 = special for White.
Canda-Vera, Bayamo 1989) 16 &g5 £453) 15...a5!? is possibly even
&xg5 17 Wxg5 b4 and 18...Af6 ~, stronger; e.g., 16 Af4? Vh8! + Raud-
Yurtaev-Rashkovsky, USSR 1985. Zagrebelny, Tallinn 1988, with the
£243) 15 &g5!? Rxgs 16 Wxg5 point 17 &d5 exd5 18 exd5 Wxc2! -+.
4\f6 (16...b4 17 Aad Af6 18 Hd4 4) £46) 15 a4 Bh8 (15...2b7 16 axb5
gives White some chances on the axb5 17 Hxa8 2xa8 18 @b4! +
 5...46 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 b5 8 0-0 Be7 9 Wf3! 89

Mikhalchishin; 15...8b7 16 axb5!?; We now return to 12...2b7! (D):

15...Wd7!? is playable) 16 2f4 (16
axb5? axb5 ¥; 16 Ab4!?; 16 2g5!?) Z ep
16...8d7 17 Ac3 b4 18 Aa2 + Tom- xe 7/7),
ee PS,
escu-Minasian, Decin 1996.
f47) 15 “fa 2f6 (not 15...eh8?
16 2d5!; 15..Ha7 16 Ah5!? £6 +;
aeaeae‘.
15...We5 16 Ad3 Whs +) 16 Ad3 (16
Ad5 &.d8 is a repetition; after 16 c3,
instead of 16...@h8 17 &g5 ¥, 16...Re5!
is strong, Macieja-Kempinski, Poland
1991) 16...a5!? (16...2b7 17 a4! +
Firnhaber-Schwierzy, corr. 1992).
£48) 15 He3 is popular though very
unclear:
£481) 15...8b7? is bad in view of 13 a4? b4 14 a5 0-0 is bad for White
16 Hc3! Wd7 17 Hc7!. and 13 &g5 has already been dis-
£482) 15...Wb7 16 Af4 Bhs 17 cussed under 12 &25 &b7 13 fel.
25 2b6?! (17...2xg5 18 Wxg5 h6é There are two more options for
19 2h3?! Wxed = Hislop-Hughson, White:
corr. 1995) 18 Bf3 Wxe4 19 SFl! + a) 13 f3 (not very dangerous for
de Firmian-Browne, USA Ch (Long Black) 13...0-0 (both 13...£¢8!7 and
Beach) 1989. 13...h5!? are interesting) 14 2h6 (14
£483) 15...Wd7 16 DAf4 We7 (not &e3 =) 14...He8 and here:
16...2f62 17 AhS! +) 17 AhS f6 + al) In the case of 15 &h1, instead
Gdanski-Jasnikowski, Polish Ch (Cet- of 15...8h8 16 gS Bxgs5 17 Wxgs
niewo) 1991. 46 18 a4 b4 19 De2 with a slight ad-
£484) 15..2h8 16 225 f6!? (other vantage to White, Movsesian-Jirov-
ideas are 16...2xg5 17 Wxg5 + and sky, Mlada Boleslav 1993, 15...2f6
16...8d7 17 Af4 Ha7!?, Love-Kask, is interesting; e.g., 16 Hadl a5! =
corr. 1995), and instead of 17 Hf3?! Sluka-Jirovsky, Plzen 1996 or 16 225
Rd7 (17...a5!7) 18 Af4 (or 18 Wha &xc3 17 bxc3 We7!?.
exd5 19 24?! 2e6! 20 Hh3 2g8) a2) 15 Rg5 Bxg5 16 Wxg5 is ade-
18...Ac7! (Szuhanek), the correct move quately met by 16...Wc5+!? 17 We3
is 17 Wf3 ~, 4\c7, Bielczyk-Kuczynski, Bydgoszcz
£485) 15...Ba7!? 16 Af4 26 17 1990.
@h5? (17 Ad3) 17...2.xb2 18 c3 £6 F a3) 15 Had] and then:
Voitsekhovsky-Minasian, Kstovo 1994. a31) 15...b4 16 De2 (16 Aad! +
£486) 15...Wc5!? is important; for Magerramov) 16...Wce5+ 17 @hl &f6
example, 16 @f4? Gh8 or 16 Hael = Rublevsky-Magerramov, USSR Ch
@h8 17 Hc3 Wd4, and there seems (Moscow) 1991.
nothing concrete for White, Korneev- a32) 15...2h8 16 Bf4 (16 Bg5!2)
Karpman, Smolensk 1991. 16...4d8 17 a3 AL6 18 Be3 Ad7 (not
90 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

obligatory) 19 &d4! &f6 20 2xf6 Hg6) 16... Hdg8 (16...b4!2) 17 He2 2d8
&\xf6 + Gormally-Kosten, British Ch (17... Wic5+!? 18 We3 Wh5) 18 Wd3 hs
(Scarborough) 1999. 19 &f4 2c7 © Vavra-Kalod, Prague
a33) Interesting is 15...2f6!7 16 1995,
&g5 (16 Hd3 b4 17 Aad a5 with b3) 15 Wh3 Bb8 (15...Ag47! 16
strong counterplay, Boll-Van Ooster- &.d5! Sutovsky) and then:
om, corr. 1991) 16...2xc3 17 bxc3 a5 b31) 16 a3 and now 16..g6 17
with unclear consequences, Y.Hernan- He2 Hdg8 18 f3 transposes to line
dez-Martin de] Campo, Havana 1993. ‘b32’, while 16...h5!? is also possible.
a34) 15..8d8 16 Bhi (16 Bd3 b32) If 16 Wd3 Hg6 17 £3 Bdgs t8
@h8 =) and then: He2, then Black can play 18...A\d7!?
a341) 16..@h8 17 &2g5 Bxg5 18 or 18...h5 19 2f4 h4 20 Bdl AhS!,
Wxg5 Df6 and now: Lupkowski-Warszawski, Brzeg Dolny
a3411) 19 e5?! is met by 19...dxe5 1995.
with the point 20 Hxd8 Hxd8 21 Ae4 b33) 16 f3 Bg6 and now:
h6 22 Wh4 We7! 23 Axf6 We7. 6331) 17 a3 Bdg8 18 He2 h5 and
a3412) 19 a3 transposes to note ‘b’ then:
to White’s 16th move in Line B222 b3311) 19 Se3 -— 17 Re3 Bdg8 18
(=). He2 h5 19 a3.
a3413) 19 a4!?h6 20 Wd2 b4 (Mag- b3312) 19 &d2 can be met by
omedov-Magerramov, USSR 1991) 19...Ad7!?, intending ...Ae5, Wanke-
21 De2. Hodges, corr. 1992. If instead 19...h4,
a3414) 19 Wd2!? Magerramov. 20 Wxh4!? is interesting.
a3415) 19 Hdd! Hd7 20 a4 £ Mag- b3313) 19 &h1 We7 and now, in-
omedov-Isaev, Dushanbe 1999. stead of 20 Ad1? h4 21 Ae3 Ah5 22
a342) 16...2f6 17 &g5 Bd7 (or Ded Wd8 23 2d2 Bes 24 3 f5 F
17...&xg5 18 Wxg5 Af6 19 e5! +) 18 Ki.Georgiev-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1993,
&.d5!?. Now both 18...Wc8 19 &xb7 Boénsch recommends 20 &f4 or 20
Wxb7 20 &xf6 Axf6 21 Bxd6 Ans 22 Re3.
Wes Wc7 23 Hed] b4, Magomedov- b332) 17 Se3 Hdg8 (17...h5 al-
Magerramov, USSR Cht 1991, and lows 18 a4!?2 b4 19 Ae? Hdg8 20 Af4,
18...exd5(!) are probably satisfactory Klauner-Koeneke, corr. 1991) 18 He2
for Black. h5 (18...Ad7? 19 @Ad5! + Ivanchuk-
b) 13 Wxg7!? Be8 14 Whé 0-0-0. Polugaevsky, Monaco blindfold 1993;
Black has acquired a sustainable ini- 18...b4!?; 18...2d8!? 19 a4 b4 20 Ad!
tiative on the kingside for the pawn. gives Black a choice between 20...d5
Some variations: 21 &f4+ Ba 22 eS Ad7 © Krueger-
bl) 15 a3? d5!. Kissinger, corr. 1999, and 20...&a8!?)
b2) 15 £3 Hg6 (15...b4!?) 16 Wd2 19 Hdl (19 a4!? b4 20 Aa2 Psakhis;
(16 Wh4?! Ag4! 17 Wxe7 We5+ 18 after 19 a3 Black can play either
&e3 Axe3 19 Shi Hd7 20 Wes8+ Sc7 19...Wc7 or 19...2d8 20 Yh1 h4 21
+ A.Pachmann-Cermak, corr. 1995; Eel We8!?, Kalod-Jirovsky, Czech
16 Wh3 &b8 — 15 Wh3 Sb8 163 U-16 Ch (Svetla) 1994) and now:
 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 b5 8 0-0 Be7 9 Wf! 91

b3321) 19...Ad7? fails to 20 Ad5!, B221)

Nijboer-Shneider, Ohrid Ech 2001.
b3322) 19...We7 can be met by 20 a4
b4 21 Aa2 d5 22 e5 Dh7!? 23 Wxhs
4\g5 with compensation or 20 @h1 h4
21 Hed2 Ah5 (Olivier-V.Gurevich,
Cappelle la Grande 1999) 22 24 @f6
23 a3 with chances for both sides.
b3323) 19...We8!? 20 a4 b4
a2 e5! 22 Axb4 (22 Bcl a5! Sutov-
sky; 22 Hed2 &c8 23 Wh4 ~ Psakhis)
22...a5 23 AdS5! (23 Ad3 Bc8 24 Wh4
4\g4 $ Nijboer-Sutovsky, Essen 2001)
23..,2.08 (23...Axd5!? 24 2xd5 2c8
25 Wxh5 Bh8! 26 @xf7 Wxf7 27
Wxh8 2f6 28 Wh6 « Ftatnik) 24 “xf6
Sxf6 25 Wxh5 Hh8 26 Wxg6 fxg6 27
Hxd6 2d8 28 Hed2 ~ Psakhis.
We now return to 13 a3 (D):
13...0-0 14 2h6 Aes
14...h57! 15 We4 Wes 16 Bad 1!?.
15 Zad1
15 2e¢5 &xgs5 16 Wxg5 ADfe (or
16...h6!? 17 We3 Af6 18 Had1 Hfds =
Matsuura-Mecking, Americana 1994)
17 Xad1 Hfd8 and ...We5 = (17... Bad8
21 transposes to note “d2’ to White’s 14th
move in Line B222, which is equal).
15...2d8
Other moves:
a) 15..\We7 16 Hd3 2f6 17 Vg5
Had8 (17... We7 18 &xf6 Wxf6 19 £4!)
18 Hed] &xg5 19 Wxg5 h6 20 Wd2 +
Shtyrenkov-A.Petrosian, Sevastopol
1986.
b) 15...8f6 16 Hd3 (16 Bf4 Bxc3
17 bxc3 4) 16...R2e5 17 4 (17 &f4)
17... 4ic5+ 18 Bhi Bd4 19 Adil is

tae. slightly better for White, Macieja-

720 awa
Mikulcik, Zlin 1995.
c) 15...a5 16 a4 b4 17 Ab5 £ de la
so waa © Riva-Lesiége, Parana jr Wch 1991.
d) 15...@h8 (slightly less reliable
Wal Fo 7 than 15...4d8) 16 @g5 (16 &f4 Has
mS se Ya and now 17 £d3 @f6 18 &g¢5 Ah5!?
A 7-_" 19 Wh4 &xg5 20 Wxg5 Afe trans-
AAG BAR
GRU.
poses to 15...2d8 16 Bd3 Bh8 17 2e5
Rxg5 18 Wrxgs Df6, while 17 We3
zB a Ss
ge
can be met by 17...£d7 = or 17...c7)
16...2xg5 (16...We7 17 B2xe7 Wxe7
The last big crossroad: 18 Hd3 Bc8 19 Hedi = Macieja-
B221: 13...0-0 91 Stypka, Polish Cht 1995) 17 Wxg5
B222: 13..2d8!? 93 4f6 (17...c8 can be met by 18 a4 b4
19 Da2 (19 De2!2} 19.6 or 18
Other moves: We41? +) and now:
a) 13...Wc5 14 Be3 Wh5 15 £3 (15 dl) 18 Hd3 is the most popular
Rf4 We5) 15...0-0 16 Had1 (or 16 move:
Be2) 16...had8 17 Ae2 We5 18 Wxe5 d11) 18...We5 19 Wd2! +.
dxe5 19 “cl + Vrenegoor-Van der d12) 18...Bac8 19 Wd2 Hfd8 20 f3
Stricht, Dutch Cht 1996. h6 (20...4d7 transposes to the note
b) 13...8c7!? has not been tested. to White’s 20th move) 21 @hi Wb6?
92 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

22 Hd1 with an advantage for White,

Sulskis-Nordahl, Gausdal 1995. aes aS ~
d13) 18...h6 19 Wd2 (19 Wr4 Bads v Oo eeA am &
20 £3 Hd7) 19...hfd8 20 f3 Bd7 21
a7 hae 7
Hdl Had8 22 Bh1 (22 Wf2!7 Wc5 23
&\e2 with a minimal advantage for .e ow
YD 7
Asnee m
White, Emms-H.Olafsson, Hillered
1995) 22... We7 (22...$28 23 He2 We7
24 We3 + Dembo-Carstensen, Buda-
pest 1999) and now, instead of playing
A “a
23 Ge2?! d5!, as in Shtyrenkov-Tit-
lianov, USSR 1987, 23 Wf4 2c6 24
We3 a5 25 Hd4 (@ Dembo) or 23 c) 19 We3 a5 (19...Ad7 is A.Soko-
Wel!? is interesting. lov’s suggestion; Black should avoid
d14) 18...ad8 transposes to the 19..We5 20 Hedl! and 19...2d7 20
main line. @d5!) 20 £3 Ad7 21 Bedi “cS 22
d2) 18 4e3!? has the point that Ed4 and White’s chances are possibly
18...ad8? is bad in view of 19 Kg3! better, Vavra-Anapolsky, 1991.
Eg8 20 e5 Ae4 (20...h6? 21 exf6 +) d) 19 Wh4 We5 20 Hedi (20
21 Axe4 Wxe4 22 He3. Hee3!?) 20...a5 21 Wd b4 22 Da4
d3) 18 Hd4!? +. Wce7 23 £3 &c6 = Halwick-Reichardt,
16 Hd3 corr. 1999.
Or: 16 De2!? Bh8 17 Ad4 We8 18 e) 19 Hee3!? We5 20 Wh4 (20 e5
&g5 &xg5 19 Wxg5 Df6 with an ac- h6!).
ceptable game, Garber-Freeman, Phil- f) 19 Bg3 Hg8 and now:
adelphia 1991; 16 f3 transposes to fl) 20 Bf3 We5 21 Ad5?! Axed!
Line B222. 22 Bxe4 &xd5 is much better for
16...2h8 Black.
16... 26!7 17 &g5 Bd7 (17...2xg5 £2) 20 Hh3 Wc5 and now 21 Wh4
18 Wxg5 Af? 19 Hg3 +-) 18 Rxf6 a5!? (21...25!2) or 21 W4 We5!? with
Sxf6 19 £3 (19 Bf3!?; 19 Wh4!?) a good game for Black.
19...Hfd8 20 Hedi We5+ = Ciem- £3) 20 Wh4 a5 (20...We5 21 Bgs
niak-Skalik, Polish Ch (Bielsko-Biala) Wh6 22 He3!?) 21 Hg5 (21 Hee3 b4
1991. 22 Ae2 bxa3 23 bxa3 a4 + Mowszi-
17 2g5 &xg5 18 Wxg5 Af6 (D) szian-Shneider, Tallinn 1988) 21...b4
19 Wd2 (21...a4!? 22 Ba2 b4; 21...8a6!7) 22
Other attempts: axb4 axb4 23 “a2 Wb6 (Hamdouchi-
a) 19 Bf3 Wed 20 Ad57! exd5 21 James, Moscow OL 1994) 24 e5!.
Exf6 dxe4! + Velimirovic-Tukmakov, g) 19 Bd4!?.
Amsterdam 1974. 19...2d7
b) 19£3 and now 19...4c5+ 20 We3 19...Wb6?! 20 Hdl, Ki.Georgiev-
Hd7 21 Hed1 Hfd8 transposes to Line Ftatnik, Budapest Z 1993.
B222. The alternative is 19...2\d7!?. 20 Hdl
 5...€6 6 Bcd e6 7 2b3 bS 8 0-0 Be7 9 Wy! 93

20 £3 Hc8!? (20...hfd8! 21 Hdl — 14 f3

20 Hdl Hfd8 21 f3) 21 Bdl Ac8 22 Other possibilities:
Wr2 + Dolmatov-Polugaevsky, Mos- a) 14 Wxe7? Hes 15 Who d5! 16
cow TV 1987. f3 dxe4 F.
20...Efd8 b) After 14 @d5 exd5 15 exd5
20...Axe4 21 Axe4 Wxe4 22 f3 #. Axd5 16 Wxg7 Sd7 17 We4+ (17
21 £3 Wxf7? Bde8) 17...8c7 (17...2e87! 18
White has some advantage: &h6) 18 Bxd5 Wxd5 19 Bxe7+ Yb8
a) 21...We7 (with the idea of 22...d5) 20 Wf3, White gets no more than a
22 Wel (22 We3 Wc5 transposes to draw.
Line B222) 22...g8 23 Ghl We5 24 c) 14 a4!? b4 15 Ad5 exdS 16
a4 (Golubev-Jirovsky, Hamburg 1999; Wxg7 Sd7! (D) doesn’t promise White
24 Be2!7) 24...b4 25 Ae2 a5 26 Ad4 any advantage either:
We5 27 He3.
b) 21...We5+ 22 Wr2 (22 &hi!?
with the idea of Hd4) 22... 2g8 23 Ae2
Wxf2+ (23...Wes 24 Wd4 + A.Sok- w Re .
a
olov-Portisch, Rotterdam
&xf2 £ Golubev-Zagorskis,
1994,
1989)
Senden
24
awe
Pa
c) 21...8g8 yields equality after 22 BR TAT
De2 Wc5+ = or 22 Wr2 Wc7 =, but
White can try 22 Bd4!? or 22 @h1!?.

B222)
13...2.d8!? (D)

a ee x
cl) 17 Wxf7?! Axe4!.
c2) 17 exdS Axd5 18 Wg4+ (18
Wxf7? Hde8! 19 a5 Ac7) 18...8c7 19
vw ot wae 2xd5 Wxd5 20 Kxe7+ Sb8 21 WF37!
| A a Wxf3 22 gxf3 Bhg8+ 23 Gf a5}.
a 7 c3) 17.a5 Wc5 18 exd5 and then:
031) 18...Axd5 19 We4+ &c7! 20
he ye care
ae
Sxd5 Wxd5 21 Hxe7+ Sb8 22 Bxb7+
(not 22 W£3? Wxf3 23 gxf3 Hhe8+ 24
GA] nae Sit Rc6!; 22 c4 bxc3 23 bxc3 Hhgs
24 c4 Wc6!9) 22... Wxb7 23 Wd4! with
Zoe S compensation.
c32) 18...Bhg8!? 19 Wxf7 Bde8 20
This move of Magerramov’s is aimed We6+ (20 2e3? Wxd5!; 20 2a4+?
at transposing to positions similar to &c8!) 20...8c7 21 Be3 Wh5 22 Bb6+
but slightly safer than the previous &b8 23 Bad Wxd5 (23...We4!2) 24
line. Wxd5 &xd5 25 Qxe8 Vxg2! =
94 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

d) 14 g5 0-0 and then: B\d4 oo Shtyrenkov-Magerramov, Smo-

di) 15 2h6 Ae8 16 Had] (this is lensk 1991.
Line B221 but with White a tempo b) 16 &h] wh8 (Short’s 16.216
down) 16...8h8 17 2g5 (17 &ct Af is simpler) 17 &g5 &xg5 18 Wxg5
18 Hd3 a5!) 17... 2xg5 18 Wxg5 Af6, 46 19 Had! (19 a4!? b4 20 Ad1)
etc. 19...2d7 (19...We5!?) 20 Bd3 Hfd8 21
d2) 15 Had! @h5 (15...a5!? 16 Qh6 Hed1 (21 a4!?) 21...We5 22 We3 (22
Ae8 17 Hd3 Ph8 18 Red Axgs 19 Wd2!9) 22...8g8! with an equal posi-
Wxg5 Df6 has also been played) 16 tion, Short-Kasparov, London PCA
Wh4 2xg5 17 Wxg5 Af6 18 Bd3 h6 Wch (16) 1993.
(18...@h8 transposes to Line B22]; 16...2h8
18...Wc5!?) 19 Wh4 (19 Wd2!? is an- 16...2f6 17 &2g5 (more interesting
other idea) 19...Wc5 20 Wr4 (20 Hg3 is 17 Hd3! a5 18 &g5, Kissinger-Krue-
@h7!) 20...2d7 = Kudrin-Browne, ger, corr. 1999) 17...&xg5 18 Wxg5
USA Ch (Modesto) 1995. 46 19 Ed3 We5+ 20 We3 (Zapata-
14...0-0 (D) Mecking, San Jose do Rio Preto 1995)
20...2hd7 =.
17 2g5 &xg5
i ee 17..Af6 18 Shi Ahs 19 Wh4
vw “27 Bama &x25 20 Wxg5 Af6 21 Hdd h6 (Van
Ama e tia Blitterswijk-Rowson, Wijk aan
2000) 22 Wd2 is slightly better for
Zee

White.
as en Va 18 Wxg5 Ato
Now Mirumian-Kaufman, Olomouc
1999 continued 19 We3 Hd7 (alterna-
tively, 19... Wc5 20 Bd3) 20 Bd3 fds
21 Bed] We5 22 De2! Wxe3+ 23
Hxe3 &g8 24 a4, and Black still had
15 2h6 some problems.
15 &e3 Ad7 16 2d4 V6 17 Axf6
“xf6 18 Had1 Hd7 19 Hd2 Brads 20 Generally speaking, White defi-
Hed] Wc5+ 21 Wr2 Sf8 = Lamour- nitely appears to be more comfortable
eux-Renet, French Ch (Nantes) 1993. after 10 Wg3 Ac6 11 Axc6 Wxc6 12
15...Ae8 16 Hadt el &b7! 13 a3 but Black’s position
Or: has a reasonable safety margin. Alter-
a) 16 Ae2 Wc5+ 17 Hhi Rf6 natively, 13 Wxg7!? still seems to be
(17...2h8!7) 18 c3 Be5 19 £4 VL6 20 risky for White.
7 5...a6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3 Abd7!

1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 exd4d 4 Dxd4 Here, I do not see any difficulties for

AT6 5 Ac3 a6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 Abd7! Black after, for instance, 9...b5.
(D) d) 8 0-0!? c5 and then:
dl) 9 Hel?! Se7! (it is extremely
important for Black to hide the king)
a7 2Weke @ 10 Wf3 (after 10 £4 0-0 11 WF3, one of
W mae 2h the good ideas is 11...Wc7 12 2e3 b5
A] &aH%e WY, — Gallagher) 10...0-0 11 Wg3 @h8 (or
Mo nea” 11...2d7!?
@xb3
12 Bh6 Ae8 13 Hadi?
14 axb3 &h4 —+ Gallagher) 12
e YAS 7 2g5 (12 £32! Ad5!!, Re.Gonzalez-
aoe YG, Wire| Herrera, Cuban Ch (Matanzas) 1997)

JARAU BA 12...h6 (de Firmian-Ivanchuk, Lucerne

Weht 1989) 13 Wh3 &e8 14 Qh4 We7
& @ws 78 (Ivanchuk) with a good game.
d2) 9 WF3?! &e7 10 Weg3 0-0 11
Having played 7 $b3, White not &h6 Ae8, and bad is 12 Had1? Axb3
only ensures a wide choice of further 13 axb3 &h4 14 Wed f5, Magome-
plans but, at the same time, introduces dov-Dvoirys, Cheliabinsk 1991.
a certain delay, so that after 7...Abd7 d3) 9 f4(!) will be discussed under
his most aggressive ideas do not work 8 f4 Dc5 9 0-0 (note that the move-
very effectively. Surely, 7...Abd7 is order here, 8 0-0 @Ac5 9 f4, makes it
the most important move. possible to avoid the line 8 f4 b5!?).
We shall discuss the following sep- e) 8 &g5 and then:
arately: el) 8...h6!? 9 @h4 (9 &xf6!?)
A: 8 We2 96 9...Wa5 10 0-0 (10 Wd2 2e7! or 10 £3
B: 8 f4 97 Se7 11 We2 Ac5 12 0-0 Rd7 13
Had1 b5 14 e5 dxe5 15 Wxe5 b4 =
Other moves: Ehlvest-Tal, Skelleftea World Cup
a) 8 &xe6?! fxe6 9 Axe6 is dubi- 1989) 10...Wh5! = Ehlvest-Kasparov,
ous; e.g., 9... Wb6 10 2e3 Ac5 11 Axf8 Skelleftea World Cup 1989.
Exfs. e2) 8...A\c5 and now:
b) 8 g4 Ac5 9 WF3? b5 10 25? e21) 9 We2— 8 We2 Ac5 9 Re5.
@fxe4! 11 Axed Lb7 12 Ac6 Wa7! e22) After 9 WF3 2e7, Black gets
—+. a good game; e.g., 10 0-0-0 &d7 and
c) 8 Se3 Ac5 9 £3. I do not like now 11 h4 Hc8 12 &b1 b5, Gdanski-
this interpretation of the Sozin at all. Adorjan, Polanica Zdroj 1991, or 11
96 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Ehel Wc7 12 Sb1 0-0 13 24 bS, Ivan- compensation, Rigo-Balinov, Austrian

ovi¢-Rashkovsky, Skopje 1991. Cht 1995/6) 11...exd5! (less convinc-
e23) 9 £4 Be7 (9...b5!? 10 e5 dxe5 ing is 11...b7 12 &xb7 Axb7 13 a4)
11 fxe5 We7, L.Steiner-Najdorf, War- 12 Ac6 Wh6 13 exd5+ AeS 14 f4
saw 1937). Now 10 We2 transposes to S24 15 We3 (Fierro-Bruzon, Havana °
Line A, and the idea 10 Wf3 We7 11 1997) and now 15...2cd3+!? is at
0-0-0 b5 12 &xf6 2xf6 13 AF5 Axb3+ least sufficient.
14 axb3 exf5 15 Ad5 Wb7 16 exf5 0-0 9,..2.e7
(Istratescu-Akopian, Mamaia jr Wch 9...h6!?; 9...b5 10 2.d5!?, Velimiro-
1991) 17 Axf6+ gxf6 18 We4t+ Vhs vi¢-Bertok, Yugoslavia 1974.
19 Wha We7 20 Hhel Wd 21 24 10 f4
(Stoica/Istratescu) has not found fol- 10 0-0-0 Afxe4! 11 Bxe7 Axc3
lowers. 12 @xd8 Axe2+ 13 Axe2 Sxd8 14
Exd6+ is slightly better for Black.
A) 10...h6
8 We2 Ac5 (D) This is still the main move but it is
8...b5 9 Bg5 Bc5 —8...Ac5 9 Re5 not necessary to create weaknesses in
bS. the kingside. After 10...0-0 11 0-0-0
We7 Black is OK in the following ex-
amples:
a) 12 bl! bS (12...h6 13 h4) 13
e5 dxe5 14 fxe5 Ae8 15 Vd5 2b7,
Dobos-Baburin, Gyor 1990.
b) 12 g4 b5 13 &xf6 Rxf6 14 g5
Re7, Verdci-Wang Pin, Subotica wom
IZ 1991.
c) 12h4 He8 (12...b5!? 13 e5 Ae8)
13 24 b5 145 (14 &xf6 Rxf6 15 g5
&d8!?, Boros-Purtov, Zalakaros 1992)
14...dxe5 15 fxe5 Afd7 16 Bxe7 Bxe7,
Sax-Dao, Balatonbereny 1996.
9 295 11 2xf6
9 g4 is worth mentioning: Not 11 2£h4? Afxe4!.
a) It is probably premature to play 11...2.xf6 12 0-0-0 We7
9...d5 in view of 10 &2g5!, Borkow- Or:
ski-Kr.Georgiev, St John 1988. a) 12...@xb3+ 13 axb3 Was 14
b) 9...g6!? (Marin/Stoica) is quite &bl 2d7 15 g4 (15 Ehel!? 0-0-0 16
good. e5 dxe5! 17 fxe5 &e7) 15...0-0-0 16
c) Also good is 9...b5 10 g5 Afd7 h4 @b8 with chances for both sides,
(10...b4!2); e.g., 11 @2d5 (11 AdS5?! S.Farago-Mas, Budapest 1997.
&b7!?; 11 f4 2b7!; 11 £3 &b7 12 h4 b) 12...8d7 and now:
b4 13 Ad1 We7 14 Ae3 Axb3 15 axb3 bl) 13 &b1 We7 — 12...We7 13
d5 16 exd5 &c5 17 dxe6 Ae5 with &b1 2d7.
 5...46 6 &c4
- b2) Interesting is 13 e5 dxe5
fxe5 Be5+ 15 Sbi We7 16 He4!? (16
h4 2f4!; 16 Bhfl!?) 16...\8xe5!? 17
&xc5 Wxc5 18 Bxe6! Bxe6 19 Axe6
fxe6 20 Wxe6+ We7 21 WES WET 22
Wc5 Re7 23 Hhel V8
Krogh-Hutters, Denmark 1992.
13 Ehel
Other moves:
a) 13 &bl 2d7 (not 13...b5?!
&dxb5! axb5 15 Axb5 WaS 16 Axd6+
e7 17 c4!, Balinov-Nagel, Austria
1993) and then:
al) 14 Hhel 0-0-0! (unsafe
Black is 14...0-0 15 g4!, as in Pilnik-
Rubinetti, Argentine Ch (Buenos Ai-
res) 1972) 15 e5 2e7 = Palac-Badea,
Khania 1989.
a2) 1484. Now 14...b5?! is inaccu-
rate due to 15 a3 @xb3 (15...0-0-0 16
a2) 16 cxb3 Hc8 17 h4 + Istratescu-
Votava, Rishon-le-Zion 1991. Black
should play 14...g5!? or 14...0-0-0,
when White can choose between 15
£5!? and 15 h4 (Marin/Stoica).
b) 13 g4!? &d7 14 h4 0-0-0 15
We2 (15 Bbl!? Marin/Stoica; 15 WF3
Bb8 16 g5 Rxd4 17 Bxd4 &c6 gives
Black a satisfactory game, S.Farago-
Roehrich, Budapest 1995)
g5 Re7 17 a3 Wh6 18 a2 a5 witha
good game for Black, A.Kovatevic-
Tringov, Arandjelovac 1993.
13...0-0
13...8.d7 is more cautious. For ex-
ample, 14 &bl transposes to /3 &b/
&d7 14 Bhel.
14 g4
After 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5, 15... 2e7!
gives Black a good game, Medvegy-
Zhu Chen, Erevan wom OL 1996.
Less convincing is 15...2g25+ 16 &bl
b5 17 h4!? Sxh4 18
e6 7 &b3 Dbd7! 97
14 compensation, Golubev-Serebrjanik,
Novy Beéej 1991.
14...b5 15 g5!? hxg5 16 e5 dxe5 17
fxe5 S2e7 18 Wh5 Hd8
Possibly Black can maintain the
24 We7 o balance after 19 “e4 (or 19 He3!? 26
20 Wh6 28! 21 Wxg5 2b7 Sereb-
rjanik) 19...A\xe4 20 Exe4 26 21 Wh6
a5 22 Hd3 &f8, Mitkov-Serebrjanik,
14 Vrnjacka Banja 1991.
B)
8 f4
for This is White’s main choice.
8...2¢5 (D)
Black usually plays this. Alterna-
tively:
a) 8...We7!? is possible:
al) 9 £5 &c5 — 8...Dc5 9 f5 We7.
a2) 90-0 and then: 9...b5 —8...b5 9
0-0 Wc7,9...25 —8...Nc5 9 0-0 Wc7.
b) 8...b5!? is possibly no worse
than the main continuation:
bl) 9 f5 “c5! transposes to Line
B32 (9...e5 is weaker in view of 10
“\c6! — Fischer).
b2) After 9 2e3, itis a good idea to
play 9...2b7! (see 7...b5 8 f4 2b7! 9
23 Dbd7!).
15...b5 16 b3) 9 0-0 and then:
b31) 9...Ac5 — 8...Ac5 9 0-0 bS.
b32) 9...b4 10 Dad (10 Ad5S?! exd5
11 exdS Re7 12 Bel Ab8) 10...2b7
(10...Axe4 11 £5!), and now:
b321) 11 £5 e5 12 He6 fxe6 13
fxe6 Ab8 is hard to assess.
6322) 11 Re3!?-7...b5 8/4 2b79
2e3 Dbd7 10 0-0 b4 11 Dad.
b33) 9...We7 is less logical than
9...%b67. White may proceed with 10
Hel Ac5 11 5 or 10 £5 e5 11 Ade?.
b34) 9...2b7! 10 Hel!? (10 f5 e5!
Hhl with and 10 &e3 Hc8! result in lines that
 98 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

are advantageous for Black) 10...@c5
11 Qd5 and here 11...c8, or even
11...exd5 12 exd5+ Gd7 13 b4 Sc8!,
as in the game Hoogendoorn-Bosch,
Dutch Cht 2000/1, appears satisfac-
tory for Black.
E7tWee @
w a ke
a0 kaa
c) The likelihood is that the simple
9...Afxe4! 10 Axe4 Dxe4 favours
Black; e.g., 11 0-0 @f6!? or 11 WF3
&\c5!?. The optimistic recommenda-
tion of Mikhalchishin (1991), 11 f5!?,
with the ideas 11...e5 12 Wh5 Wf6 (7!)
13 Wed and 11...Wh4+ 12 Sf1 Ag3+
13 $g1, has not yet found followers.
B1)
9 0-0

A ag Mo Now:

We AR 7
B11: 9...2e7 99
B12: 9...Afxe4d 100
720 7 7
ABA a8 There are two other possibilities:
a) 9...b5 10 e5! (10 £57! - 9 f5 bS
a Gwe 7s 10 0-0) 10...dxe5 11 fxe5 Axb3 (this
position may also arise from the
At this point there are four interest- Classical Sozin) 12 axb3 &c5 13 &e3
Ad5 14 W3! 0-0 15 Axd5 Wxd5 (not
Bl: 90-0 98 15...exd5? 16 ®c6 + Gheorghiu-Bas-
B2: 9e5 101 man, Hastings 1967) 16 Wxd5 exd5
B3: 9 £5 105 17 b4 + Mikhalchishin-Ubilava, Kui-
B4: 9 Wf3 114 byshev 1986. I am not sure that White
has serious winning chances.
9 Re3 has also occurred: b) 9...Wc7!? and now:
a) 9...b5 10 e5 dxe5S 11 fxe5 Afd7 bl) 10 £5?! eS.
(11...Axb3 transposes to the Classical b2) 10 &e3?! can be answered by
Sozin — Line C2 of Chapter 8) 12 0-0 10...Acxe4!? or 10...b5!2.
(12 Wf3 2b7 13 We3 © Jaracz-Jas- b3) 10 57! dxe5 11 fxe5 Wxe5 12
nikowski, Polish Ch (Cetniewo) 1991; Hel We7 (12...Wd6!?) 13 2g5 Axb3!
after 12 We2, 12...2b7 13 0-0-0 Wc7 (and not 13...2e7? 14 @f5!, as in
is good for Black) 12...&b7 13 Wh5 Vavra- Votava, Czech Ch (Luhaéovice)
(13 Exf7 &xf7 14 Wrl+ Se8 looks 1993).
dubious for White) 13...26 14 Wh3 b4) 10 WF3 — 9 Wy3 We7 10 0-0.
We7! Schach-Archiv. b5) 10 We2!? 2e7 (10...b5? 11 5)
b) 9...2e7 105 dxe5 11 fxe5 Afd7 11 e5 (11 Bh1 0-0 12 eS Afd7!; 11
12 Wh 0-0 (12...267! 13 We2 Axes g4!?), and then 11...Axb3 12 axb3
14 0-0-0 Wc7 15 £h6!, Velimirovié- dxe5 13 fxe5 &c5 14 exf6 &xd4+ 15
Wojtkiewicz, Palma de Mallorca 1989) @h1 with compensation, Caruso-Pent-
13 0-0-0 Wa5 14 &f4 © Lejlié-Grilc, tinen, Tallinn 1991, or I1...dxe5 12
Bled 1993. fxe5 Dfd7 13 &f4 0-0, when White
 5...€6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 Dbd7! 99

may play 14 Yh1 or 14 Hf3 (14 Had1 Sandler-Danailov, Adelaide 1990. In-
b5 15 Ad5 exd5 16 &xd5 He6! is very stead, both 13 exf6 Wxd4+ 14 &hl
unclear, Tkaczyk-Rogaliewicz, corr. gxf6! (Sandler) and 13 Bxf6 Wxd4+!?
1994). 14 Hf2 0-0 15 2f4 Axb3 16 Hdl
Wb4! are unconvincing for White.
B11) c) 12 He2!7.
9...2e7 (D) d) 12 2f4!? transposes to note ‘al’
to Black’s 11th move in Line B21.

xeieex 12 axb3 2c5 13 2e3 Ad5 14 2f2!

14 WF3 0-0 15 Axd5 Wxd5 16 Wxd5
re exd5 = Kunze-Stohl, Munich 1992.
Aa Aime Vi After the text-move (14 &f2), White
On om enjoys some advantage:

WAN @ a) 14...0-0 15 De4 Re7 16 c4 (16

O28 7-2
oe eweYU X49
aca ee
10 e
Or:
a) 10 WE3!?- 9 WP Be7 100-0.
b) 10 £5-9f5 Re7 10 0-0.
c) 10 2e3 We7 (10...Afxe4!?) 11 e5
(11 WF3 — 9 Wf Be7 10 Be3 We7!?
11 0-0?!) 11...dxe5 12 fxe5 Wxe5 13
4)f5 (a beautiful but dubious idea)
13... Ag4! 14 Ad6+ Wxd6 (14...2xd6!?
15 2f4 Ad3!) 15 Wxg4 0-0 16 Bh6
(better is 16 Had1!? — Peng Zhaogin)
16...We5 17 Hael £5! = Velimirovié-
Peng Zhaogin, Pozarevac 1995.
10...dxe5
10...Afe4 11 Axed Axe4 123! £.
11 fxe5 Axb3
11...Afd7 and then:
a) 12 Bxf7? Sxf7 13 Axe6 Axe6
14 &xe6+ BYe8 —+ Sandler.
b) 12 Whs Dfo! (12...26 13 We2t
Gi.Hernandez-Browne, Linares (Mex-
ico) 1994; 12...0-0 13 Hf3!? Minas-
ian) and now 13 Wd1 @fd7 repeats,
WF3 £6 = Rogers-Dao, Erevan OL 1996;
16 We4 £5 Shipov) 16...Af4 17 We4
&g6 (17...Ad3 18 Df3!? Shipov), and
now:
al) 18 Bad] AxeS 19 We3 (19 Whs5
WaS 20 Rel Wc7 21 Rg3 f6 22 Shl
b5! Shipov) 19...Wc7 (19...Ad7!7) 20
Re3 £6 21 Bh6 HF7 22 Rf4 Qd7 =
Velimirovi¢é-Shipov, Belgrade-Mos-
cow 1998.
a2) An attempt to improve is 18
AF3!'9 We7 (18...£5!12) 19 Hadl Axes
20 AxeS Wxe5 21 2d4 h5 (or 21...f5
22 RxeS fxe4 23 Bxf8+) 22 We2 Was
23 2c3 Wh6+ 24 Phi e5 25 Wxh5 f6
(Shipov) 26 &xe5!.
b) 14...Axc3 15 bxc3 and then:
bl) 15...8c7 and here:
bl1) 16 WhS 0-0 (or 16...2d7 17
@h4!) 17 Hael (17 2h4!2) 17...2d7
18 He4 f5! with a good game, Arakh-
amia-Ftaénik, Sydney 1991.
b12) 16 We4 0-0 17 &h4 (17
Hael!? is better) 17...Wxe5 18 Hael
&xd4+ 19 cxd4 f5!, and Black holds
on, Velimirovic-Aleksi¢, Yugoslav Cht
1992.
b2) 15...0-0 16 Wh5 (other possi-
bilities are 16 b4!? {Ftaténik} and 16
100 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Wed) 16...2e7 17 Had] Wc7 18 Hd3 W6 15 c3 Sc5 and Black wins, Astra-
26 19 We2 with a slight advantage for hantsev-Stoica, Romanian Cht 1970)
White, Gdanski-R6tSagov, Manila OL 13...2c5! 14 Bxe4, and then:
1992. a) 14...0-0 15 Hed! (15 Bh4? &xf5!
¥; 15 25 Wh6!) 15...2xd4+ 16 Ghl
B12) offers substantial compensation for
9...Afxe4 White:
Or 9... Acxe4. al) 16...@h8 17 &xd5! Wxd5 18
10 Axed “xed 11 £5 e5! 12 Wh! Bh4 2xf5 19 Wxf5 26 20 Wi6+ Sg8
(D) 21 Bxd4 +-.
Other moves are dubious for White: a2) 16...g6 and now, rather than 17
12 We2 Ase; 12 AF3 DL6!?; 12 Aeb fxg6 fxg6 18 Exg6+ hxg6 =, maybe
Wb6+! 13 Shi fxe6! 14 Wh5+ Ld8 17 c3 is stronger.
15 2g5+ Sc7! 16 fxe6 Af2+ (or a3) 16...e4 17 &g5 is dangerous
16...2xe6! 17 Rxe6 DAf2+ 18 Bxf2 for Black according to Stoica’s analy-
Wxf2 Marin/Stoica) 17 Hxf2 Wxf2 18 sis; e.g., 17...Wd7 (17...2.£6 18 Who!
We8 (18 e7 2d7), and White cannot +) 18 Hfl Wb (18...26 19 Bg3! Wb5
get rea] compensation after, for exam- 20 Wd1l) 19 Bgf4 g6 (19...f6 20 a4!
ple, 18...W£5!?. We5 21 Hh4!; 19...2xb2 20 a4 Wc6
21 £6) 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 Wdl Re5 22
Rxd5!.
x 2Wee
Ge

, aaa oama b) 14...2xd4+ and then:

ae

bl) 15h] Wf6! (15...0-0

16 Bh4!
si &xf5 17 Bxd4!? 96 18 Bg4) 16 Hel
(not 16 &xd5?! Axf5 17 Re5 We6!)
se mae
art

16... xf5 (16... 2xf5 17 c3 is unclear)

as “o"

ae 17 Wxf5 2xf5 18 c3 =.
Pt 8
are

: b2) 15 Re3 0-0 (15...Rxb2 is haz-

a ace”
This is an amazingly rich and very
unclear position.
12... e7
The most uncompromising contin-
uation, but nobody knows whether it is
the best. 12...Wb6?! 13 Wxf7+ Sd8 14
c3! exd4 15 Hel (Stoica) and 12...Wc7?
13 Ae6 have been unsuccessful.
The alternative is 12...d5!? 13 Hel!
(13 Af3?! Af6!?; 13 Ae6?! Rxe6 14
fxe6 Wbh6+!; 13 Bf47! exf4! 14 Hael
ardous for Black) 16 Hxd4 (16 &xd4?
dxe4 17 &xe5 Wb6+ 18 &h1 Whé)
16...exd4 17 &xd4. Black is no worse:
17...£6 (17...%e8!? {Short} 18 £6 He4
19 c3 Hxd4!?) 18 2c5 (18 Hdl Bhs
L.Rogers; 18 Wf3 Gh8 19 Vxd5 We7!
Kavalek) 18...He8! 19 Hdi @h8, Top-
alov-Short, Amsterdam 1996.
b3) 15 Hxd4!? Wb6! (15...exd4?
16 £g5) 16 c3! (16 We5? 0-0 17 £6
Wxd4+ 18 2e3 Wed; 16 Bad+? SFB
17 £6 Wxd4+ 18 Shi h6) 16...exd4
(16...0-0 17 &e3 exd4 18 &xd4 Who
19 Wxh6! gxh6 20 Hfl Stoica) 17
We2+. White has compensation:
 5...€6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3
b31) 17...&d8 18 WeS dxe3+ (al-
ternatively, 18...2d7 19 Wxg7 dxc3+
20 Sh] He8 21 2e5+ Sc8 22 Wxc3+
We7 23 Wd2 &c6 24 Hcl) 19 Re3
Wce6!? 20 Rxd5 He8 (20...W6 21
&.g5!!) 21 Wd is analysis by Stoica.
b32) 17...8f8 18 We5!! (Stoica and
Stanciu) 18...W£6 (another possibility
is 18...2d7 19 cxd4! Hd8 20 &£4 with
compensation) 19 Wxd5 (or maybe 19
Wxf6!?) 19...h6! 20 2f4 2xf5 with
very unclear play (Stoica).
13 Wr3!
13 2e3 Af6 14 WE3 We7 F.
13...Ac5
If 13...A£6, then 14 2g5! (rather
than 14 2a4+?! Sd8 15 Qd2 We7).
Stoica and Marin suggested 13...Wh4!?
14 Ba4+ Sd8 15 Dc6+ Bc7 16 Db4
QNf6.
14 Dc6
14 £6? exf6 15 Ac6 We7 16 Wxf6
&xb3 17 Wxh8 Axcl!.
14...We7 15 2d5
15 Db4 Axb3 16 Wxb3 b5 17 Ad5
Wc6 18 £6 &b7! F is given by Topalov.
After the text-move (15 2d5) the
situation is rather complex:
a) 15...2d7 16 Ab4 Re7 (16...a5?
17 &xf7+! Sxf7 18 Ad5 +— Kaspa-
rov), and now attention should be paid
to 17 2xf7+!? Sxf7 18 Ads Wd8 19
b4 a4 (19...2.b5 20 Wh5+ and 21 f6)
20 Wh5+ Sg8 21 16 Vxf6 (21...2xf6
22 &g5!) 22 Qp5 Be8 23 Wh3! —
Stoica/Marin.
b) 15...2e7!? and now 16 &xf7+?!
Bxf7 17 Whs+ Sg8! 18 We8+ (18 £6
gxf6 19 We8+ Sg7!) 18...2f8 19 £6
e6! favours Black, but 16 Axe7 Wxe7
17 &e3!? is better.
c) 15...a5 16 &g5 (16 Re3 Hab 17
\d4 is dubious, TV viewers-Kasparov,
Dbd7! 101
Spain 1991 — although the game later
turned in the viewers’ favour) 16...2.d7
(16...2a6? 17 @d8! + Topalov-Kas-
parov, Amsterdam 1996) 17 ®e7 (17
{6!? g6 18 Be7 demands attention,
Areshchenko-Averianov, Ukrainian jr
Ch (Kiev) 1999), and Stoica gives
17...2xe7! (17...f67! 18 Wh5+! ds!
19 De6 Ke8 20 Re3! with an initia-
tive) 18 &xe7 (18 £6 Axf6! 19 Bxf6
Re6! 20 &xe7 Hg8) 18...f6! 19 We
&e6!, with unclear play.
B2)
9 e5 (D)
x sWee &
nr Nm
Aa Mm“ ase
Yi” Y
7
a
a “wang
mn RTA A
ARR TAR
a ‘ewe ie
This thrust can give Black practical
worries but, generally speaking, it ap-
pears to be poorly prepared.
B21: 9...dxe5 101
B22: 9...Afd7!? 104
The only other possibility is 9...A\fe4
10 Axe4 Axe4 11 0-0 +.
B21)
9,..dxe5 10 fxe5 Dfd7!
A weaker line is 10...xb3 11 axb3:
11...Ad5 12 0-0 (12 Wg4!? Pugachov)
12...Axc3 (12...Re7 13 Wed g6 14
&h6 + Rublevsky — Har-Zvi, Oakham
102 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
1992) 13 bxc3 Wd5 14 Wel + or
11...2c5 12 2e3 Ad5 13 Axe6! +
Pugachov-Boger, USSR 1991.
11 2f4
11 We2? Wh4+.
11...b5!
Other moves:
a) 11...&e77! is risky for Black:
al) 12 0-0 with chances for both
sides:
all) 12...0-07! 13 Wg4 Af6 14 exf6
Wxd4+ 15 @hi 2xf6 16 Hadi is
much better for White, Mowsziszian-
Anastasian, Erevan 1987.
al2) 12...b5!? is an interesting idea,
Gdanski-Pieniazek, Slupsk 1992. The
point is 13 Ac6 Wh6 14 Axe7 Axb3+.
al3) 12...Af8 13 Wt3 Agé (but
not 13...Wxd4+?! 14 2e3 Wxe5 15
Wxf7+ &d8 16 Hadi+ Afd7 17 2d4)
14 Had] We7 15 De4 ~ Borulia-Yez-
ersky, Karvina 1992/3.
a2) 12 Wh5 should probably be met
by 12...g6!2, since 12...Af8!? (Velim-
irovié-Ninov, Ulcinj 1998) 13 @f5!
(Burgess) is good for White.
a3) 12We2 295 13 2xe5 Wxgs 14
AF3 W4 15 Hdl b5 16 Hd4 + Gi.Her-
nandez-Nedobora, Benasque 1993.
a4) 12 We4!? g5 (12...26 looks
good for White) 13 Axe6! (13 &g3 h5
14 We2 h4 is unclear) 13...Axe6 (or
13...fxe6 14 Wh5+ Sf8 15 0-0 &g7 16
&xg5 Rxg5 17 Bf7+ Sg8 18 RFS!)
14 2xe6, with an advantage after both
14...gxf4 15 &xf7+! (Vavra-Golod,
Ostrava 1993) and 14...fxe6 15 Wh5+
Sf8 16 0-0 Be7 17 Axes Bxgs 18
Ef7+ Sg8 19 Hafl AxeS 20 Ae4 h6
21 Afe+ Vxf6 22 Hixf6.
b) 11...g5 and now:
bl) 12 Axe6 Axeb 13 Bxe6 ext 14
Rxf7+ (14 Bhs AxesS 15 Wxe5 Bxe6
16 Wxh8 £3! Sokolov) 14...&xf7 15
Wh5+ Yg7 ensures Black a draw,
A.Sokolov — Har-Zvi, Biel open 1992.
b2) Therefore, 12 2g3! h5 13 h4
S27 14 We2 gxh4 15 2f4 is stronger,
Zontakh-Taborov, Kiev rpd 1994.
c) 11...Axb3 12 axb3 &c5 13 Hed
+ Mikhalchishin-Stangl, Dortmund
1991.
d) 11...26 12 We2 227 13 0-0-0!?
&xe5 (13...Wc7 14 Bhel 0-0 15 h4!
has also occurred) 14 2h6! gives
White a serious initiative for the pawn;
e.g., 14...b5 15 Ac6 Wh4 16 We3 2xc3
17 bxc3 &b7 18 Bd4 Whs 19 2d5!,
Vavra-Wojtkiewicz, Pardubice 1995.
12 We2
12 Weg4 h5! (12...2b7 13 0-0-0 is
unclear) 13 Wg3 h4 14 We4, and now:
a) 14...g5!? 15 0-0-0!, and now both
15...We7 16 Ac6! “xb3+ 17 axb3
We5 18 Des! Wxc6 19 2xg5 2b7 20
Hd6!, Short-Kasparov, London PCA
Wch (8) 1993, and 15...gxf4 16 Axe6
(for example, 16...A\xe6 17 &xe6 We7
18 &xd7+ &xd7 19 Wf3 Ba7 20
hel) are dangerous for Black. After
15...2£h6 (Kasparov) 16 $e3! White
also preserves his attacking chances:
16...A\xe5 17 Dc6 or 16...&b7 17 D3
(P.H.Nielsen).
b) 14...h3!? (Short) has not been
tested.
c) 14...Df6 15 exf6 Wxd4 16 fxg7
Wxg7 17 We2 (+ Hiibner) 17...2e7 18
Se5 £6 19 Bd4 Axb3 20 axb3 e5 21
Wr3 Hb8 22 Re3 Rb7 23 Ads Sf7
gave Black a slight plus in P.H.Niel-
sen-The World, Internet 2000.
12...2b7
Possibly 12...8h4+ 13 g3 Wh3 (as
in Figlio-Frost, corr. 2000) deserves
some attention.
 5...46 6 &c4 e6 7 &2b3 Dbd7! 103

13 0-0-0 (D) b4}) 14...82e77! 15 Wed

g6 (15...25
13 0-0!? b4 14 Bad Axb3 15 axb3 16 &xg5 and now either 16...Axe5 17
4\c5 16 Had] ®xa4 17 bxa4 Bc5 Wid 2x5 18 Wxes b4 19 Dd5! or
(Zapolskis-Slekys, Mariampole 1992) 16...ig8 17 Axe6!) 16 Lh6! (16 Bg3
18 Bhi (Zapolskis). Wb6 is unclear) 16...Axe5 (16...b4 is
risky due to 17 Hxf7!?; e.g., 17... Bxf7

xe wee & 18 Qxe6+ Se8 19 Rxd7+!

Ae6 or 17...bxc3 18 Hxe7+ Bxe7 19
Axd7 20

Wava@a &xe6 with the point 19..Wb6 20

Vee &95+ Be8 21 Bxd7+ Axd7 22 Abs
Akal A" a Bxe5 23 Wbh4 +-) 17 We4 b4 (Vavra-

sgt
Ftaénik, Czech Cht 1994/5) and now
Ftatnik gives 18 @cb5! Aed3+ 19
YOR @ cxd3 @Axb3+ 20 Axb3 Wxb5 21
ASA Wi A ES Wxf7+ Sd7 22 d4 with an attack.

@ S20 g2 b42) 14..Axb3+!? 15 Axb3

cxb3 — Gallagher; 15 axb3!?) 15...Wc7
16 Dd4 (16 Ae) 16...De5 = Motwani-
(15

This position is hard to play for Pigott, British Ch (Plymouth) 1989.

both sides. The white pieces are con- b43) 14...b4!? is interesting; e.g.,
centrated in the centre and Black should 15 AdS Bxd5 16 Bxd5 exd5 17 e6
be very careful. However, if Black 46 18 e7 “Ace4!, Vavra-V.Popov,
manages to squirm out of his adver- Pardubice 2000.
sary’s threats, then in five to ten moves c) 13...8e7 14 Hhfl b4 and now
the e5-pawn might develop into a real 15 a4 xb3+ 16 axb3 transposes to
weakness. line ‘d’, while 15 Ad5 Axb3+ 16
13... 8b6 &xb3 &xd5 17 Bxd5 exd5 18 e6 2d6
Or: 19 exd7+ Sf8 20 We is not clear.
a) 13...2e7?! 14 Wed 96 15 2h6!. d) 13...b4!7 14 Da4 Axb3+ 15 axb3
b) 13...Wa5 is a risky but interest- We7 16 Bhfl (16 Bhel!?) and now:
ing move: dl) 16...2e77! 17 Af.
bl) 1443 Axb3+ 15 Axb3 We7 16 d2) 16...262? 17 2g5!, Kobaliya-
Bhfl is equal, Reefat-Wojtkiewicz, Verner, Moscow 1995.
Dhaka 1999. d3) 16...8c8!? and then: 17 Af5
b2) 14 Hhel leads to unclear play exf5 18 e6 Wxc2+!; 17 Hd2 Ac5 18
after 14...&c8 or even 14...b4!?. Axc5 &xc5 19 AES? exf5 20 e6 We7
b3) Schach-Archiv suggests 14 21 Bd7 Wxe6; 17 &b1 Ac5 - 16...Ac5
&g5!? b4 (or 14...h6 15 Axe6 hxg5 16 17 Sb1 Bc8!?.
4)xg5) 15 a4 with the variations d4) 16...Ac5 and here:
15...Axa4 16 Axe6 fxe6 17 Rxe6 d41) 17 @f5?! exf5 18 e6 Axb3+
&ac5 18 Wed! +— and 15...Axb3+ 16 19 Sb1 Wc6 20 Ab6?! (Emms-A.Pe-
axb3 Wxe5 17 Wd2 followed by Zhel. trosian, London 1991) 20...fxe6!? +
b4) 14 Xhf1 and here: A.Petrosian.
104 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

d42) 17 Bg5 Ded!?.

d43) 17 Sb1 Bc8!? (17...Dxad 18
bxa4 &c5 19 We4 0-0-0 and now 20
&.g3 was unclear in Riegler-Osterman,
Slovenian Ch 1992, but maybe 20
4b3!? is stronger still) 18 Af5 exf5
(18...Axa4!?) 19 e6 We7!? (19...Wc6
20 exf7+ Sxf7 21 Axc5 RxcS 22
Wed4+) 20 Axc5S Exc5 21 Hd7 Wxe6
22 Wxe6+ fxe6 23 Hxb7 25. Y
14 Shfl
Other options are:
a) 14 Sbi Be7 15 h4 and now: 10 exd6
al) 15...0-0-0 16 a3 (according to Scarcely justified is 10 2e3 dxe5
Ftaénik, the line 16 Bhfl b4 17 Aa4 11 fxe5 AxeS 12 Wh5 2d6!? or 10 f5
Wxad 18 Bxa4 Ac5 19 &2b3 Bxd4 20 &xe5 11 0-0 (11 fxe6 Wh4+!) 11...2€7
Exd4 &xb3 21 Hc4+ “cS is unclear) (11...exf5!?) 12 fxe6 fxe6.
16...Ab8 17 Re3 Ac6 18 Ba2 Axd4 10... Af6! 11 2e3
19 &xd4 Wce6 was roughly equal in 11 We2 2xd6 12 Af5 0-0 13 Axd6
Topalov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1996. Wxd6 is good for Black, Velimirovié-
a2) 15...0-0! and now Topalov as- Popovi¢, Belgrade 1998.
sesses both 16 &g5 Hae8 and 16 We4 11...2xd6! 12 WF3 0-0
@h8 as ‘Ff’. 12...c7 13 0-0-0 2.47 (or 12...2.d7
b) 14 Bhel!? Se7 15 We4 g5 (or 13 0-0-0 Wc7), and then:
15...26 16 &h6) 16 &g3 h5 17 We2 a) An approximately equal game
with very unclear play, Macieja-Kam- can be obtained after 14 Hhel 0-0-0
inski, Polish Cht (Lubniewice) 1994. (14...Axb3+ 15 axb3 0-0-0 16 bi
14...2e7 15 Wed 96 e5!? Moiseev) 15 h3 &b8 16 Bb h5!,
The alternative 15...25 16 &xg5 Hg8 Vavra-Timoshenko, Topolcianky 1994.
17 h4 @xe5 18 WE4 gives White an ad- b) 14 Sbl 0-0!? (14...0-0-0 15 24
vantage, Oral-Tkebuchava, Mlada Bol- Axb3 16 cxb3 &c6 17 Axc6 Wxc6 18
eslav 1994. We2 {Gallagher} 18...8b8!9) 15 g4
16 &h6!? 4)xb3 (Saulin-Shipov, Moscow 1995)
Topalov gave this as unclear. For 16 axb3 Hfe8! = 17 g5 @d5 (Shipov).
example, 16...Axe5 17 Wf4 f6 18 227 c) 14 g4!? 0-0-0 15 g5 Dxb3+ 16
0-0-0 (Yu Ting-Wang Pin, Hei Bei axb3 Ad5 17 Axd5 exd5, and now 18
wom Z 2001) 19 &xf6. #d3, as in Florean-Bekker Jensen,
Hallsberg 1997, preserves a slight ad-
B22) vantage for White.
9...A\fd7!? (D) 13 0-0-0 We7
This move differs in principle from Otherwise:
9...dxe5. Black endeavours to obtain a a) 13...e52 14 fxe5 Qe4 15 We3
position with a greater safety margin. +-.
 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 Dbd7! 105

b) 13...Axb3+ 14 axb3 (14 Axb3

We7 15 Bxd6 Wxd6 16 &c5 We7 17 xis 3 Wl se
Rxf8 Sxf8 18 Hd! 2d7 = Moroze- 7&7 ma
vich-Mukhutdinov,
14...Wc7 (14...Wa5!?
Moscow
15 Ybl
1992)
Rb4
10 waa
T.Thorhallsson-Van Wely, Akureyri Ve Wj TA
Eyes
key WY
1994) and now:
bl) Nothing is achieved by contin- ASM
uing 15 £5 exf5 16 Axf5 Red 17 Rd4
aoe
&xd4! 18 Exd4 WeS, Lopez-Gongora,
Cuba 1996. _ BS 7
b2) 15 Gbl is better.
b3) 15 g4!7 is interesting: 15...b5!? 7...2bd7 owing to the game Fischer-
16 Wxa8 &b7 17 Wa7 25 (17...ha8? Bednarski (9...Afxe4?) and the varia-
18 Axe6) 18 Axe6 &xa7 19 Axc7 tion suggested by Fischer (9...2e7 10
&xe3+ 20 Sbi Rxhl 21 Hxhl Vxf4 W3 0-0 11 2e3 d5 12 exd5 Axb3 13
22 Dxa6 Axg4 23 h3 (Kobaliya-Sad- 4)xb3 exd5 14 0-0-0 +—). Nowadays it
vakasov, Gala Galdana jr Wch 1996) is clear that Black has a great number
23...Af2 24 Bfl Axh3 25 Hf3 Ba8 26 of sufficiently reliable alternatives.
Ac5 2d6 27 ASe4 Ag] 28 Bfl Rh2 B31: 9..2e7 106
(Gallagher) 29 “xb5S. B32: 9...b5!? 112
14 g4?
Probably 14 &b!1 is better as it pre- The other continuations are:
vents 14...b5? in view of 15 Wxa8 a) 9...afxe4? 10 fxe6! + Fischer-
&b7 16 Wa7 Ba8 17 Adxb5 +-. In- Bednarski, Havana OL 1966.
stead, 14...8&d7 transposes to note ‘b’ b) 9...exf5?! has not been played.
to Black’s 12th move. c) 9...e5 (this is probably prema-
14...b5! ture) 10 Ade2! and then:
14...2d7 15 g5 =. cl) 10...h6 11 Bg3! 2d7 12 Ans
15 Bhfl + Cirié-Bogdanovié, Kraljevo 1967.
15 Wxa8 £b7 16 Wa7 a8 F. c2) 10...b5 11 &g5!.
15...2b7 16 Wh3 Afc8 c3) After 10...$2e7!?, 11 0-0 trans-
After 17 25 Dfe4 18 £5 (Bezgodov- poses to 9...2e7 10 0-0 e5 11 Bde?2,
Solodovnichenko, Ukrainian open Ch while 11 @g3 h5 and 11 &e3 Axb3,
(Alushta) 1999), Black’s position followed by 12...b5, are unclear.
must be close to winning; for example, c4) 10...Axb3 11 axb3 and then:
18...Axb3+!2 19 axb3 exf5 20 Dxf5 c41) 11...2e7 12 &g5!.
4\xc3 21 Hxd6 Red. c42) 11...h6 12 Ag3! 2d7 13 AhS
@#xh5 14 Wxh5 &c6 15 Le3 + Zap-
B3) ata-Fedorowicz, Philadelphia 1993.
9 f5 (D) 043) 11...b5 12 &g5 2b7 £. Now 13
For a long time it was believed that 0-0?! is inaccurate due to 13...Wb6+!.
9 f5 discredited the entire plan of 13 Ag3 and 13 &xf6!? are better.
106 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
c44) 11...d5 12 &g5 (12 Axd5!2)
12...d4 13 Rxf6 gxf6 14 Ads 2d7
(Sieiro-Gonzalez — Vilela, Santa Clara
1983) 15 Dg3! &c6 16 c4 + Poluga-
evsky.
d) 9...We7!? occurs very rarely, al-
though 10 0-0 (~ 9 0-0!? We7!? 10 f5)
and 10 Wf3 (— 9 Wf3 We7 10 f5) both
appear quite good for Black. 10 fxe6
fxe6 doesn’t seem bad for Black ei-
ther; e.g., 11 0-0 2e7 or 11 WF3 Le7.
e) 9...2d7!? is another interesting
move. 10 fxe6 fxe6 11 0-0 e7 is
good for Black. After 10 Wf3, 10...b5
transposes to Line B41 and 10...e5 11
&de2 2c6 deserves attention. After
10 0-0, besides 10...b5 and 10...2e7,
there is also 10...e5!? followed by
11...2c6.
B31)
9...2e7 10 Wr3
Instead:
a) 10 fxe6 proves premature. After
10...fxe6 11 0-0, Black has a pleasant
choice between 11...Axb3! 12 axb3
0-0, Akopian-Ivanchuk, Erevan 1989,
and 11...8d7!? with good play for
Black, Griinfeld-Wojtkiewicz,
de Mallorca 1989.
b) 10 0-0 is quite popular
harmless!):
b1) 10...Axb3?! 11 axb3 0-0 (11...e5
12 Ade2 b5 13 Rg5! - 10...e5 11
“de2 b5 12 &g5 Axb3 13 axb3) 12
W3! (not wholly clear is 12 We2 2d7
13 g4e5 14 Af3 Axg4 15 Ad5, Shty-
renkov-Dvoirys, Budapest 1991) — 10
WP 0-0 11 0-0 @xb3 12 axb3.
b2) 10...8d7!? is an good option:
b21) 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 &g5
transposes to note ‘b3’ to White’s 11th
move in Line B32 (=).
b22) 11 S&g5 b5!? (11...0-0 is also
satisfactory) 12 Wf3 transposes to note
‘b’ to White’s 12th move in Line B41.
b23) 11 We20-0-/0...0-0 11 We2
&d7.
b24) 11 Wf3 and now: 11...b5 -
9...b5 10f5 &d7 11 0-0 2e7; 11...0-0
~ 10 Wf3 0-0 11 0-0 8d7!?; 11...e5!9
12 Ade2 2c6 13 Rd5 is unclear.
b3) 10...e5 11 Ade2 and then:
b31) 11...h6 12 2e3!? Axb3 13
axb3 0-0 14 Ag3 b5 15 AhS5 with an
advantage for White, Anand-King,
Calcutta 1992.
b32) 11...2d7!? 12 “g3? (White
should try 12 8e3!7) 12...h5! 13 Rg5
h4 14 &xf6 (Sluka-Shtyrenkov, Pardu-
bice 1997) 14...hxg3! F (e.g., 15 2xe7
Wb6 16 AdS Dxe4+! and mate in
two).
b33) 11...b5 12 &g5 b4!? (12...Axb3
13 axb3 2b7 14 &xf6 2xf6 15 Ad5
0-0 16 b4!, Istratescu-Vasiesiu, Roma-
nian Ch (Bucharest) 1994, and 12...0-0
13 &xf6, Istratescu-Genov, Mangalia
1992, both favour White} 13 &xf6
2xf6 14 Qxf7+ (14 2d5 Bb8 15 2c6+
Sf8 16 AdS Dxe4 F Ninov/Kostak-
Palma iev; 14 Ad5!1? Axe4 15 Ad4 is inter-
esting; for example, 15...2d7 16 Ae6)
(and 14...$xf7 15 Wd5+ Ye8 16 Bxa8
bxc3 (Telbis-Ninov, corr. 1994) 17 b4!
a4 18 &xc3 with unclear play (Gal-
lagher).
b4) 10...0-0 11 fxe6 (11 WF3!? -
10 Wf3 0-0 11 0-0; 11 We2 is inaccu-
rate; e.g., 11...e5!? 12 Af3 Axb3! 13
axb3 h6, Ciri¢-Bogdanovi¢, Titograd
1965, or 11...2d7 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 AF5
b5 14 a3 Axb3, etc., J.Polgar-Wojt-
b5 kiewicz, Budapest Z 1993) 11...fxe6
12 @f5 (otherwise Black has not a
shadow of a problem), and then:
 5...a6 6 &c4
b41) 12...Afxe4?! 13 Wed Exf5 14
Wxf5 Axc3? 15 WE7+ Gh8 16 2e5
+-,
b42) 12...Axb3 13 Axe7+ Wxe7
14 axb3 and then:
b421) 14...2d7 15 BF4! (15 Bes
&c6 =) 15...e5 (15...d5!?) 16 Bg5 £
Istratescu-Gutkin, Biel open 1993,
with the point 16...2e6 17 Ad5! &xd5
18 &xf6.
b422) 14...h6 15 Wd3 2d7 (another
idea is 15...e5!?) 16 2f4 e5 17 Bp3
Rc6 18 Hadi Had8 19 2h4!
better chances for White,
ras, Bucharest 1992.
b423) 14...b5 15 &f4 (15 &g5 may
come to the same thing after 15...2b7
16 Wd4 e5!? 17 Wd3) 15...e5 16 Rg5
Rb7 17 Wd3 Web 18 Rxf6 Bxf6 19
Bxf6 Wxf6 20 Ad5 Wh4 with good
chances for a draw, German-Kaspa-
rov, Buenos Aires simul 1997.
b43) 12...b5 and then:
b431) 13 Rf42! Afxe4!
(14 Wed is met by 14...2Axf5! 15 Wxf5
4)xc3) 14...Axf5! — Gallagher.
b432) 13 Sg5 b4!? (13...Axb3 is
liable to transpose to line ‘b423’) 14
Bxe7+ Wxe7 15 AdS (15 &2xf6 Hxf6
16 Bxf6 Wxf6 17 AdS Wd8! © Topa-
lov) 15...exd5 16 &xf6 gxf6 17 &xd5+
Reb 18 2xa8 Hxa8 19 Wd4 Be8! with
chances for both sides,
Topalov, Sumen 1991.
b5) 10...b5!? is an interesting pos-
sibility.
We now return to 10 WF3 (D):
10...0-0
This is logical, but nevertheless
Black has several alternatives:
a) 10...Wa5 is interesting.
b) 10...2d7!? 11 2e3! (11 0-0- 10
0-0 2d7 11 8f3), with interesting play:
e6 7 &b3 Dbd7! 107
ave
L a.e
Wee
with bl) 11...65?! 12 fxe6 fxe6 trans-
Vlad-Cete- poses to note ‘el’ after Black’s 11th
move in Line B32.
b2) 11...Bc8 12 g4!?.
b3) 11...0-0—/0...0-0 1] 2e3 2d7.
b4) 11...80c7 12 g4!? e5 (Black can
also continue 12...Axb3!?) 13 Ade2
4)xb3 14 axb3 (14 cxb3!?) 14...2c6!
15 0-0 (Vombek-Balinov, Austrian Cht
1995/6) 15...h6! — Gallagher.
b5) 11...e5 12 Ade2 Axb3 (12...2c6
14 Axe4 13 &xc5!) 13 axb3 Bc6 14 0-0-0 (14
0-0 h5!?) 14...h6!? 15 g4 _b5 with great
complications, Anka-Purtov, Budapest
1993.
c) 10...8c7 and then:
cl) 1] g4d5!?.
c2) 11 &g5 Gallagher.
c3) 11 0-0 e5!? 12 Ade2 Axb3 13
axb3 b5 14 225 2b7!?.
S.Nikolov- c4) 11 Be3 e5?! (11...b5? 12 fxe6
fxe6 13 e5! &2b7 14 Wh3 + Golo-
schapov-Zso.Polgar, Pardubice 1995;
better is 11...2d7—10...2d7!? 1] 2e3!
We7, or 11...0-0 - 10...0-0 1] Be3
We7) 12 Ade2 Axb3 13 axb3 (13 cxb3
b5 14 Hcl Wh7 15 2g5 Rd7 16 Vxf6
&xf6 17 0-0 £ Martens-Boriss, Santi-
ago jr Wch 1990) 13....d7 (or 13...h6
14 24!) 14 225 with an advantage,
Magomedov-Mahmud, Doha 1992.
108 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
d) 10...e5 11 Ade2 and then:
dl) 11...Wa5 12 2d2 (12 Bd5 Axd5
13 exd5 b5 ~) 12...Axb3 13 cxb3 b5
14 DdS (14 g4 b4 15 g5 ~) 14...Wd8
15 @xe7 Wxe7 16 225 2b7 17 Ag3
h6 18 &xf6?! (18 Qh4! is stronger)
18...Wxf6 is fine for Black, Votava-
Serebrjanik, Rishon-le-Zion 1992.
d2) 11...2d7 and now 12 &g5!?
(Veliékovi¢) or 12 &e3 ~ 10...2d7 11
Re3 e5 12 Dde?2.
d3) 11...Axb3 12 axb3 bS 13 Rg5
&b7 14 2xf6 &xf6 15 0-0-0!7 (15 0-0
0-0 transposes to note ‘b21’ to White’s
11th move) 15...0-0 16 @d5 a5 17
&ec3 a4 18 b4 a3 19 b3 turned out to
be better for White in Mortensen-
Browne, Reykjavik 1990.
11 &e3
11 24 is quite well met by 11...Afd7
followed by ...We5, while 11...d5 12
exd5 e5! might be even stronger.
The better-known alternative is 11
0-0, and then:
a) After 11..@h8, 12 g4 Afd7 13
&.e3 De5 afforded Black good coun-
terplay in Honfi-Vogt, Trnava 1982,
but 12 &e3 and 12 &g5 are probably
stronger.
b) 11...e5 12 Ade2 and then:
bl) 12...b5!? and then: 13 &g5
&xb3 14 axb3 — 12...Axb3 13 axb3 b5
14 25; 13 g4 Rb7!; 13 Bd5!?.
b2) 12...Axb3 13 axb3 (13 cxb3!?)
13...b5 and here:
b21) 14 2g5 2b7 is OK for Black;
e.g., 15 &xf6 2xf6 16 Ag3 Hc8!.
b22) 14 2e3- 1] Qe3 e5 12 Ade2
Axb3 13 axb3 b5! 14 0-0 ~.
b23) 14 g4!? b4 (14...h6! Vera) 15
g5 bxc3 (15...Ae8 16 AdS Axg5 17
&xg5 Wxg5+ 18 Ghl with compen-
sation, Istratescu-Olimid, Romanian
Cht 1993) 16 gxf6 2xf6 (16...cxb2 17
fxe7 bxalW 18 exd8W Hxd8 19 2h6
or 19 Wg3 +) 17 Axc3 Bb7 18 Be3
c8 19 Hadi with an advantage, Zap-
ata-Vera, Matanzas 1993.
c) 11...Axb3 12 axb3 e5 (12...2.d7?!
13 g4! — 11...2d7 12 g4 ‘\xb3? 13
axb3 £; 12... ¥4c7 13 e3 transposes to
note ‘b12’ to Black’s 11th move in
Line C221 of Chapter 9, where White
is a little better) 13 Ade2 — 7/...e5 12
de2 Axb3 13 axb3.
d) 11...Wc7 and now:
dl) 12 2e3-11 Re3 We7 120-0.
d2) 12 &g5 b5 13 a3 Axb3 14 cxb3
h6 15 &e3 (15 &h4!? may also be
tried) 15...e5 (15...2d7! 16 Zacl Wb7
Beliavsky/Mikhalchishin) 16 @de2
b4 (16...a5!2) 17 axb4 Wb7 18 DNg3 +
Mortensen-H6lzl, Novi Sad OL 1990,
with the point 18...Wxb4 19 4h5!.
d3) Critical is 12 g4!? Axb3
(12...d5 13 exd5 e5 14 Ade2 Axb3 15
axb3 &c5+ 16 @h1; 12...h6 13 g5 hxgs
14 2xg5 + Honfi-Cirié, Catak 1969)
13 axb3 d5 14 exd5 &c5 15 2e3, when
15...e5 16 @Adb5 (16 Ade2?! e4!)
16...8b6 17 &xc5 Wxc5+ 18 Yh
probably favours White, Christoffel-
Herschel, corr. 1991. After 15...We5,
White has, for example, 16 @h1!?.
e) 11...$.d7!? seems to be the most
reliable:
el) 12 &g5 4)xb3 (or 12...b5) 13
axb3 b5 creates no problems for Black.
e2) 12 2e3-11 Re3 Qd7 120-0.
e3) 12 g4?! e5! (12...Axb3? 13
axb3 + h6 14 g5!, Istratescu-Ghitescu,
Romanian Cht 1992) 13 Ade2 2c6!
gives Black excellent play; e.g., 14
2d5 Acxe4! 15 Qxe4 d5, R.Pert-
Bates, London 1997.
We now return to 11 2e3 (D):
 5...€6 6 &c4
x7 aW Bev
B
a
ae
he
WY & yf
o «636
moo wie
At AM i 5 ey
me U7 SE 7 &xg5 14 0-0-0 Yudasin) 13...b5 gives
11...e5
Other possibilities:
a) 11...d5 12 exd5 e5 13 Ade2 e4 14
Wh3 (14 Weg3 is unclear) 14...Axb3
(14...g6 15 0-0!, Matulovi¢-Bogdano-
vic, Yugoslavia 1969) 15 axb3 “xd5
(15...65 16 Hd1 + Yakovich-Vaulin,
Kursk 1987). Now, instead of 16
0-0-0?! &xf5!, Romanishin-Dorfman,
USSR Ch (Moscow) 1976, Black ex-
periences some problems after 16 0-0!
(Dorfman) or 16 @xd5!? Wxd5
0-0, Badii-Dorfman, French Cht 1995.
b) 11...Axb3 12 axb3 and new:
b]) 12...Ad7 is somewhat better for
White after 13 0-0 AeS 14 Wh3 or 13
0-0-0 Aes 14 Wh3.
b2) 12...2d7 13 g4!e5 14 Ade2—
11...8d7 12 94 e5 13 Dde2 Dxb3 14
axb3.
b3) 12...e5! 13 Ade2 — I1...e5 12
Wde2 Axb3 13 axb3.
c) 11...2d7 12 g4! (12 0-0 b5!
gives Black a good game, as 13 a3 is
forced; 12 0-0-0!7). Now:
cl) 12...Wa5 13 0-0-0 e5 14 Ade2
4\xb3+ 15 cxb3 &c6 16 Ag3 is much
better for White, Winants-Christian-
sen, Wijk aan Zee 1993.
c2) 12...b5 13 g5 He8 14 Bgl b4
(Kuksov-Yudasin, USSR 1989) 15
e6 7 2b3 Dbd7! 109
4\ce2! 4 xb3 16 axb3 e5 17 6 exd4 18
&xd4 gives White an advantage.
c3) 12...e5 13 Ade2 Axb3 14 axb3
d5 (14...2c6 15 g5! {15 0-0-0 Has}
15...Axe4 16 Dxe4 d5 17 £6 &b44+ 18
c3 dxe4 19 W2 + Tomescu-Ungu-
reanu, Wattens 1997) 15 exd5 e4 16
We2 + Fischer-Bielicki, Mar del Plata
1960.
c4) 12...De8!? 13 0-0-0 (13 g5!?
Black counterplay.
c5) 12...d5!? is possibly playable:
13 exd5 “xb3 14 axb3 @xd5 15 Axd5
&h4+ » Infante-H.Leyva, San Salva-
dor 1997.
d) 11...8c7 is a very important al-
ternative, especially due to transposi-
tions from other lines:
dl) 12 g4 bS5! 13 g5 Afxed 14
&\xe4 2b7 15 fxe6 (both 15 £6!? Rxed4
16 fxe7 Wxe7 17 WF and 15 Axe6!?
fxe6 16 Rxc5 dxc5 17 Rxe6+ Ph8 18
17 0-0! &xg5 19 Hael are unclear — Shi-
pov) 15...2xe4 16 exf7+ Gh8. Now,
instead of 17 Wh3? &xg5! + Bezgo-
dov-Shipov, Russian Ch (Elista) 1994,
17 Wh5 is better. However, Black is no
worse in any case.
d2) Of possible interest is 12 0-0-0!?
b5 13 fxe6 fxe6 14 Wh3 Axb3+ 15
axb3 e5 16 “e6, as in Hendriks-Van
Blitterswijk, Netherlands 1994.
d3) 12 0-0 and now:
d31) 12...2d7 13 g4!,
d32) 12..@h8 13 g4 bS 14 g5
@fxe4 (I.Rogers-Baburin, Erevan OL
1996) 15 fxe6! &b7 (15...Axc3 16
Wrxa8 2b7 17 Wxf8+!) 16 Ads Bxd5
17 &xd5 fxe6 18 @xe6 — Baburin.
d33) 12...e5 13 Ade2 “xb3 trans-
poses to note ‘b13’ to Black’s 11th
move in Line C221 of Chapter 9.
110 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

d34) 12...@xb3 transposes to note 12...Axb3

“b12’ to Black’s 11th move in Line
C221 of Chapter 9.
d35) 12...b5! is the most precise
move:
d351) 13 fxe6 fxe6 and now one
possibility is 14 @F5 Axb3 15 Axe7+
Wxe7 16 axb3 2b7 = Istratescu-Cete-
ras, Bucharest 1992. There has
occurred 14 Wh3 Axb3 15 axb3 (or 15
cxb3) 15...e5! 16 Af5 b4, when Black
stands at least no worse.
d352) 13 a3 is playable, given the
position of the black queen. Then:
d3521) 13...e5!2 14 @de2 (also
possible is 14 A\d5!?) 14...2b7 15 Ag3
4)xb3 (Black can deviate with 15...2c6
16 2d5 “a4, Verici-Kotronias, Greece
1985) 16 cxb3 — J3...Axb3 14 cxb3 e5
15 Qde2 2b7 16 Dg.
d3522) 13...Axb3 14 cxb3 e5 15
“\de2 &b7 16 Ag3 (16 Hac! Wd7 17
4\g3 Hac8 18 &g5? Axe4! Moutou-
sis-Stangl, Tunja jr Wch 1989) with
chances for both sides; e.g., 16...Rac8
(16...2c6; 16...d5!?) 17 Hadi and
now 17...2fd8 18 Ah5 &c6 19 Hd3 +
Velimirovié-Aleksi¢é, Svetozarevo 1990
or 17...Wd7 (Mirallés-Khuzman, Lux-
embourg ECC 1998) 18 @h5!?.
12 Ade2 (D)
2eaw
1W Kee
It is well-known that in his 1993
match Kasparov played 12...b5!? here
only after long thought. Other players
have also hesitated to play it, as there is
almost no fresh material on this topic
at ail:
a) Nothing is gained by 13 ®d5
also 4xb3 14 @xf6+ Bxf6 and 15...d5!,
Bogdanovi¢é-Matulovi¢, Sarajevo 1960.
b) 13 g4 2b7 (13...b4!1? 14 Add
Bfxed; 13...4\xb3) 14 &xc5 dxc5 15
g5c4! 16 gxf6 &xf6 (unclear, Kaspa-
rov).
c) 13 0-0-0 Axb3+! 14 cxb3. Now,
instead of 14...2b7 15 &b] (Mikhal-
chishin), 14...a5! is stronger.
d) 13 &d5 Hb8 and then:
dl) 14 &xc5 dxc5 15 0-0-0 and
now 15...Wb6 gives Black counterplay
— Kasparov. Instead, 15...Wa5 16 24
b4 17 g5 is unclear.
d2) 14 b4 @cd7 (14...2a4!9) 15
0-0 &xd5 (15...Ab6! = Kasparov) 16
4xd5 &b7 17 Dec3 with complica-
tions and roughly equal chances,
Short-Kasparov, London PCA Wch
(6) 1993.
d3) 1443 a5 15 b4 (15 &xc5?! dxc5
16 &c6 b4!) 15...Aa4 16 0-0 (Mun-
teanu-Tugui, Romania 1995) 16...A\b6
(Stoica) with unclear play.
13 axb3 b5!

Waka
Or 13...d5, and now:
a) 14 @)xd5 is possible.
B
sa
63
x oo
iG

Vi fe BAT)
Led Y
b) 14 0-0-0!? (Dorfman/Perelshtein).
c) 14 exdS e4 and now 15 Wh3
Vs transposes to note ‘a’ to Black’s 11th
enh Gi UY move, while 15 Wg3!? and 15 @xe4!?
724 B87) are also possible.
SAS MeN 8 14 g4
—

XW

This sharp idea of Mikhalchishin’s

. UW S&S 7
ie

(2a (linked with 14...b4 15 @a4) might

 5...a6 6 &c4
possibly allow Black to obtain a better
endgame by force. Let us see what
else there is:
a) 14 &xb5?! d5!, Akopian-Anas-
tasian, Tbilisi 1989.
b) 14 2g5?! 2b7! (14...b4!2) 15
Rxf6 2xf6 16 0-0-0? b4 17 Ad5 a5 F
Kruppa-Anastasian, Podolsk 1989.
c) 140-0-0?! b4! 15 AdS (15 Aad
&b7!) 15...Axd5 16 exd5 a5!.
d) 14 “d5!? @xd5 15 exd5 e4!? 16
W2 2617 c3 Qb7 18 Hf? (18 Hdl!)
18...We8 Lastin-Loskutov, Moscow
1995.
e) 14 Hdl 2b7 (14...b4!? 15 Ad5
@Axd5 16 Bxd5 2b7 17 Hd2 2h4+!?
18 g3 Re7; 14...Wa5!?) and now:
el) 15 0-0— /4 0-0 2b7 15 Kad1.
e2) 15 %g3 b4!? with good coun-
terplay, Kuczynski-Stempin, Polish
Cht 1989.
f) 14 0-0 2b7 15 Had1 Bc8 (or
15...b4!2 16 Ad5 Rxd5 17 exd5 Ab8,
Bakhmatov-Kabatiansky, USSR 1991)
16 Hd2 WaS (16...b4 17 Ad5 and now,
rather than 17...Axd5 18 exd5 £ Golu-
bev-G.Ginsburg, Ukrainian Ch (Sim-
feropol) 1992, Black could try instead
17...8.xd5!?2) 17 g4 (17 Dg3 b4 @
Somborski-Timm, corr. 1998-2000)
17...Wb4! (17...b4 18 g5 bxc3 19 gxf6
cxd2 20 fxe7 Bfe8 21 £6 + Gudmuns-
son; 17...d5!?) 18 Ag3 d5 19 @xd5
&xd5 20 exd5 &c5 © Gudmunsson-
Gislason, corr. 1990-2.
14...b4 (D)
15 Aad
Neither 15 @d5 @Axd5 16 exd5
&h4+ nor 15 g5 bxc3 is much good
for White.
15...&b7
Or 15...d5!? 16 Ag3 (16 0-0-0!7)
16...Axe4 (16...dxe4?! 17 We2) 17
e6 7 &b3 Dbd7! i
xe ti
ae
\
47, &
Vi a.
a
mn
BAGO
BT
0-0-0 Ad6 (17...Axg3 18 hxg3!?) 18
f6!, with an utterly unclear position:
a) 18...2xf6 19 Wxd5 &xg4 20
Wxd6 &xd1 (Zapata-Van Wely, Wijk
aan Zee 1995) 21 Wxd1!? (Zapata).
b) 18...gxf6 19 AF5!? (there are five
or six other ideas as well) 19...b7 20
hel d4 (20...Gh8? 21 2b6!) 21 Wh3
Bh8 (21...dxe3?? 22 Hxd6 +— Ank-
erst-Wojtkiewicz, Amsterdam 1994)
and now 22 Hg3 is met by 22...2e4!,
but 22 4c5!? is interesting.
16 Ag3 We7!
A better-known continuation for
Black is 16...d5 17 0-0-0 (17 g5 dxe4
18 We2 Ad5 19 £6 gxf6 20 exf6 2xf6
21 0-0-0 &g5 22 AfS5 Axe3 23 Hxd8
4xf5+ 24 Sb1 Haxd8 25 Wed £6! 26
Wxf5 e3 27 Hel is unclear according
to Veli¢kovié), and then:
a) 17...Axe4? 18 Axed dxe4 19
Hxd8 exf3 20 Hd7 +-.
b) 17...dxe4? 18 We2 Wa5 19 95+.
c) 17...d47! 18 @d2 (18 g5? Axed
19 Axe4 Wd5 —+ Winants) 18...8c8
19 Sb Ad7 (19... We7 20 Rc) 20 h4,
Yedidia-Akopian, Las Vegas 1994, fa-
vours White according to Akopian.
d) 17..We7!? 18 g5 (18 Abo d4!?
19 “@xa8 Hxa8, Sluka-Vasilchenko,
Zlin 1995). Now 18...f¢ac8 19 Hd2
112 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
transposes to note ‘a’ after White’s
18th move. Alternatively, Nedobora
recommended the immediate 18...@xe4
19 Dxe4 dxe4.
e) 17...8c8!? 18 g5 (Velitkovié
gave the line 18 Ab6 We7! 19 Axc8
Xxc8, with the point 20 Hd2 d4 21
Rf2 ADxe4!! 22 Dxe4 Rg5 -+; fol-
lowing 20 We2 Black has 20...Axg4
or 20...d4) 18...We7 and now:
el) 19 We2 Axe4 20 Axe4 is bad
in view of 20...d4!! 21 2f2 Wxc2+!! —
Velitkovié.
e2) 19 Hd2 transposes to note ‘a’
after White’s 18th move.
17 0-0-0
17 25? Dxe4 18 Axe4 We6 19 £6
2d8.
17...2ac8!
Better than 17...Axe4 18 Zxe4
Wc67! 19 £6.
18 Bd2
Black now has two options:
a) 18..d5 19 g5, and now
19...d4? 20 gxf6 dxe3 21 Wxe3 &xf6
22 AhS5 We7 23 Kgl + Vega-Lopez
Gomez, corr. 1995-7, but 19...Axe4!
20 Axe4 dxe4 with a little-studied po-
sition, Barr-Russell, corr. 2000. If the
next variation is correct, however, it
will not be necessary to study it!
b) 18...Axe4 19 Axe4 We6 20 Ab6
(20 £6 gxf6 seems dubious for White)
20...Wxe4 21 Wxed xed 22 Axc8
Hxc8 23 Hel d5 with a better ending
for Black, Kobaliya-Sotnikov, Moscow
1995.
B32)
9...b5!? (D)
Short played this move against Is-
tratescu at the Erevan Olympiad in
1996, probably based on analysis of a
similar variation, 9 Wf3 b5 10 f5 (Line
B41), that occurred in his 1993 match
versus Kasparov.
10 fxe6
Otherwise:
a) The main alternative is 10 Wf3 —
9 Wy b5 10 f5; see Line B41.
b) 10 &g5 is not a very good idea;
for example, 10...b4!? 11 @a4 (11
fxe6?! Axb3!) 11...Axb3 12 axb3 e5!,
Tomescu-Vajda, Bucharest 1995.
not c) 100-0 is rather harmless:
c1) 10...Axb3!? - 5..Ac6 6 Bc4
e6 7 &b3 ab 8 0-0 Dad 9 f4 b5 10 f5
Axb3.
c2) 10...8d7!? and then:
c21) 11 fxe6 fxe6 — 10 fre6 fxe6 11
0-0 &d7.
c22) 11 Wf3- 10 WYf3 2d7 11 0-0.
c3) 10...2e7!7.
c4) 10...e5(!) 11 AF3 (11 Ade2
&b7!) 11...Axb3 12 axb3 2b7 with a
good game for Black, Vink-Lautier,
Antwerp 1998.
10...fxe6 11 WE3
Or:
a) 11 &g5 can be well answered by
11...b4!?.
b) 11 0-0 and now:
bl) 11...d7?! 12 Wr3 - 77 WB
Wd7?! 12 0-0.
 5...€6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 Dbd7! 113

b2) 11...2d7 is possible: 12 2g5 (13 &5 dxe5 14 Ac6 Bxc6 15 Wxc6+
(12 We3 — 17 WS Bd7 12 0-0) 12... Re7 &f7! F; 13 0-0 transposes to note ‘b3’
~11...Re7 12 Rg5 Rd7. to White’s 11th move) 13...0-0! (the
b3) After 11...8e7!? 12 2g5 2d7 alternative 13...Wc8 is unclear) 14 e5
Black suffers no problems: Ad5! (14...Afe4? 15 &xe7 Wxe7 16
b31) 13 Bhi b4 14 Aad xb3, Bxe4!! Bxf3 17 exd6, Short-Kaspa-
Hendriks-Hoeksema, Enschede 1993. rov, London PCA Wch (10) 1993) 15
b32) 13 Wf3 Axb3! 14 axb3 0-0, 2xe7 Axe7! and 16...d5! with an ad-
Hamdouchi-Hellers, Biel IZ 1993. vantage for Black, Doghri-Dao, Buda-
11...2d7! (D) pest 1996.
Or: 11...c7?! 12 &g5 (12 Axe6!? c) After 12 Hfl, good enough is
is interesting) 12...2e7 13 e5! 2b7 14 12...b4! (12...2e77! 13 e5!) 13 a4?!
Wh3; 11...d7?! 12 0-0 2b7 (12...b4 4xa4 14 &2g5 Wc5 15 e5 dxe5 16
13 Aad! 12...2e7 13 Axe6!?) 13 Wh3 &xf6 gxf6 17 Rdi 227! 18 Afs 0-0
e5 14 Ae6 + Balashov-Zlotnik, Mos- 19 Wed BE7 =.
cow 1969; 11...e5, 11...Axb3 and d) 12 0-0!? and then:
11...b4 have not been tested. dl) 12...b4!? 13 BDce2 and now
13...Axb3 14 axb3 e5 15 ALS Bxf5
ZZ eS 16 Wxf5 Wd7 17 Wr3 seems promis-

ae wae aa
ing for White, Repkova-Chilingrova,
Chrudim 1994, but Black may try to
Ae improve via, for example, 13...e5 or

216 2 = 13...2e7.

Ose mi d2) 12...2e7 and now:

d21) 13 We3 b4 (13....xb3 is OK)
mo wie 14 Dce2 Acxe4!? 15 Wxg7 Hes 16
ania a Wh6 d5 © Waitzkin-Jaracz, Matinhos
jr Weh 1994,
@ 2 a: d22) 13 e5 dxe5 14 Ac6 Bxc6 15
Wxc6+ Sf7 16 Ded! (16 Re3 We8 F
This is the critical position. Should Istratescu-Short, Erevan OL 1996;
Black manage to complete his devel- after 16 &g5 possibilities include
opment without trouble (12...2e7, 16...Wd4+! 17 Gh We4 F Istratescu)
13...0-0), his chances may improve. 16...Wd4+ 17 Bhl Bxe4 18 2xe6+
White should look for active possibili- Bg6 19 2f54+ Wxf5 20 Bxf5 &xf5 21
ties connected, first of all, with the ad- g4+ 26 22 g5. All this was forced.
vance e5. After 22...Hac8 (or 22...2hc8) 23 Wg2
It is difficult to single out a main and 24 b4! White might have good
line as yet: chances.
a) 12 Wh3? e5 13 DFS Axb3 14 d3) 12...We8 13 g4 is unstudied.
axb3 b4 —+. d4) 12...c8 is also worth investi-
b) 12 &g5 Re7! (12...b4? 13 e5! gating.
dxe5 14 &xf6 gxf6 15 Hd1!) 13 0-0-0 e) 12 2e3 and then:
114 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

el) 12...2e77! 13 e5! Axb3 (after

13...dxe5 White continues 14 Ac6) 14
exf6!? @xd4 15 &xd4 is much better
for White, Ardeleanu-Badea, Roma-
nian Ch (Bucharest) 1994.
e2) 12...b4 and here:
e21) 13 e5? dxe5 14 Ac6 We8 and
Black wins.
e22) 13 4ce2 opens up good pos-
J fort So OA ag j
sibilities for Black; for example, g
13...Axb3; 13...e5; 13...2e7 14 0-0 a a VE
0-0 (14...2)xb3!) 15 Af4 (Kotsur-Nev-
erovsky, Smolensk 1997) 15...d5!?; or 10...0-0, White can transpose to the in-
13...We8 14 Dg3 Re7 15 0-0 Axb3 teresting Line A of Chapter 3.
16 axb3 0-0 = Macieja-Spisak, Brzeg We shall discuss the following sep-
Dolny 1995. arately:
e23) 13 Da4!? Dxa4 (13...Rxa4? B41: 9...b5 115
14 2xa4+ Axa4 15 e5!; playable is B42: 9...2e7 117
13...Axb3!? 14 axb3 &e7) 14 Dxe6! The first move is critical, beyond all
Rxe6 (14...8c87! 15 e5 +) 15 Rxe6, doubt, while the second is the most re-
and Black must defend with 15...2c8. liable.
e3) 12...8c8!? 13 0-0 b4!? 14 Ace2
&)xb3 followed by 15...e5 with a dou- Black has two other possibilities:
ble-edged game, Meister-Golod, Hlov- a) 9...Wd7. Generally speaking, it
enec 1994. seems almost impossible that such a
e4) 12...We8! 13 g4 (13 a3 &)xb3! move could be the strongest, but the
{13...2e7? 14 a2!, Macieja-Dao, verdict has not yet been returned:
Budapest 1996} 14 cxb3 @e7 15 Bcl al) 10 &e3 b5 11 e5 &b7 is good
Wb7 = Macieja) 13...h5!? (another un- for Black.
clear possibility here is 13...h6 14 h4 a2) 10 0-0 b5! 11 £5! (11 e5 &b7,
b4 15 Ace2 Wb7 16 Ag3 e5 17 Adf5 Ciri¢é-Bogdanovié, Novi Sad 1965)
4\xb3, Garcia Martinez-Zhang Zhong, 11...e5! (11...b4? 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 Aad)
Linares open 2001) 14 h3 (14 gxh5 12 Ade2 has not yet been studied.
Bxh5 F; 14 g5 DAg4 @ Vera) 14...hxg4 a3) 10 £5!?2 e5 11 Ade2 Axb3 12
15 hxg4 Exhi+ 16 Wxhi b4 with a axb3 d5, and 13 Axd5 @Axd5 14 exd5
complicated game, Re.Gonzalez-Vera, Wxf5 tumed out to be good for Black
Cuban Ch (Matanzas) 1997. in Jansa-Ciri¢é, Sochi 1965. White
would do better to choose 13 Wg3 or
B4) 13 0-0 d4 14 Ad5 Axd5 15 exd5, Ree-
9 Wr3 (D) fat-Alzate, Erevan OL 1996.
Quite often the game transposes to b) 9...Wc7 is quite a playable alter-
variations with f5, but if Black devel- native:
ops straightforwardly via 9...2e7 and bl) 10 237! b5.
 5...€6 6 S&c4 e6 7 2b3 Dbd7! 115

b2) 10 £5 e5!? (10...b5?! — 9...b5 10 This is similar to Line B32. How-

f5 We7 71; 10...2.d77! 11 g4!; 10...2e7 ever, with the pawns on f5 and f7,
— 9...8e7 10 Wf3 We7; 10...2xb3!?) Black enjoys a much more interesting
11 Ade2 Axb3 (11...b57! 12 AdS)), choice. First, two unsuccessful lines:
and now: a) 10...W07?! 11 fxe6 fxe6 — 9 f5
b21) 12 axb3 b5! 13 Axb5!? (13 b5 10 fxe6 fre6 11 Wf3 We7?!.
8.957! b4!) 13...Wxc2 14 Aec3. Now b) 10...Wd7?! 11 fxe6 (11 2g5 and
the continuation 14...axb5!? (which is now 11...b4 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 Aad!
not necessary at all) 15 Hxa8 Wxcl+ Stoica, or 11...8e7!?, PAndersen-Psa-
16 Sf2 Wxhi! (16...8xb2+?! 17 Ae2, khis, Copenhagen 2000) 11...fxe6 — 9
H.Olafsson-Gislason, Icelandic Cht 5 b5 10 fre fre 11 Wf3 Wa7?.
1995; 16.,.We2+ 17 We2) 17 Bxc8+ Three other moves are very inter-
Bd7 18 AxbS Wh 19 Bc7+ Ld8 20 esting and barely investigated:
&c8+ looks like a draw. c) 10...b4!? and now:
b22) Better is 12 cxb3!? b5 13 Bg5 cl) 11 ®aé4 and then:
b4 «© (Beliavsky/Mikhalchishin). cll) 11...e5 12 Ac6 (12 Axc5!?
b3) 10 0-0 b5 (10...&e7 — 9... 2e7 dxc5 13 Ae2) 12...We7 13 Axb4 Was!?
10 0-01? Wc7!?) 11 £5! e5!9 (11...b4?! (13...Acxe4!? 14 Ad5!; 13...2b7 14
12 fxe6 fxe6 13 e5!; 11...Axb3 12 &xc5 Wxc5 15 Ad5) 14 Rd2 Acxe4
axb3 b4 13 Acb5!7) 12 Ad5 Axd5 13 15 0-0-0 Wb5!? (15...2b77! 16 Ad5)
Rxd5 Bb7 14 De2 Bxd5 15 exd5 is difficult to assess.
with good prospects for White, Kim- c12) 11...Axb3 and then:
elfeld-Chistiakov, Moscow 1966. e121) 12 axb3 e5! 13 Ac6 We7 14
4\xb4 a5 doesn’t seem bad for Black:
B41) 15 Wc3 Wb7 or 15 Ac3 axb4 16 Bxa8
9...b5 10 £5 (D) bxc3 17 Wxc3 dd7.
c122) 12 cxb3 £.b7?! (12...e57! 13
4c6; 12...8d7! is playable) 13 fxe6
fxe6 14 295 h6 15 Wh3 + Golubev-
Shevchenko, Ukrainian Ch (Alushta)
1997).
c2) 11 fxe6!? Axb3! (11...fxe6 12
“\a4) 12 axb3 bxc3 13 e5 dxe5 14
We6+ 2d7 15 exd7+ Axd7 16 AfS
Hc8 17 Wxa6 cxb2 18 &xb2 Hxc2 19
$.a3!? is very unclear.
d) 10...Axb3!? 11 axb3 (11 cxb3
e5!) 11...b4. Now 12 a4 transposes
to line ‘c121’ while 12 fxe6 transposes
Forced! This position also arises af- to line ‘c2’.
ter 9 f5 b5 10 Wf3, but there White e) 10...e5!9 11 Acé6 (better than 11
may choose another 10th move. &\de2?! 2b7) 11...d7! (11...477!
10...2d7 12 Ad5!9) 12 @b4 and then:
116 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
el) 12...Axb3 13 axb3 2b7 14
Re3!? (not 14 25? Axed!, Bebchuk-
Kalinsky, USSR 1966; 14 @Abd5 is
possible, however) 14...a5?! 15 Abd5
Sxd5 16 Axd5 Axd5 17 exd5 Be7 18
0-0 0-0 19 Wh5!? favours White, Gol-
ubev-Bliumberg, Odessa 1995.
e2) 12...2b7! and now:
e21) 13 2d5 is bad in view
13...Acxe4! 14 2xb7 Wxb7 15 Rg5
Hb8 16 2xf6 Axc3!.
e22) After 13 Acd5 Acxe4/Afxe4
14 Db6 Wd8 15 Axa8 Wxa8! Black
has menacing compensation.
e23) Instead, 13 Abd5 Acxe4!? 14
B®xe4 (14 Ab6 Axc3!) 14...Axd5 15
&g5!7 (15 Ags Af4! 16 Bxf7+ Ye7!?,
15 £6?! Axf6 16 Axf6+ gxf6 17 Wxf6
&xg2!) 15...Ab6 16 0-0-0 is critical.
Possibly White has compensation. If
not, and if 12...2b7 favours Black,
then both 9 Wf3 and 9 f5 b5 10 WF3
may not be playable!
11 2g5!?
Or:
a) 11 fxe6 fxe6 transposes to Line
B32.
b) 11 a3?! e5 (or 11...Axb3!) 12
@de2 Axb3!.
c) 11 2e3 can be met by 11...e5!?
or 11...We8!? 12 a3 (12 fxe6 fxe6
transposes to Line B32) 12...A0xb3 13
cxb3 Wb7 = Reefat-Short, Dhaka
1999.
d) 11 0-0 and then:
dl) After 11...2e7, 12 &g5 trans-
poses to 1] S&g5 2e7 12 0-0. More
interesting is 12 fxe6(!) fxe6,
posing to note ‘d2’ to White’s
move in Line B32.
d2) 11...b4!? 12 fxe6 fxe6 trans-
poses to note ‘dl’ to White’s LOth
move in Line B32.
d3) 11...e5 12 Ade2 can be met by
12...b4!?, winning the pawn (rather
than 12...4)xb3 13 axb3 b4 14 AdS +
D.Frolov-V.Popov, St Petersburg 1995).
11...2.e7
11...b4? 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 e5!.
12 e5!?
I found this idea over the board in
of 1995 but later discovered that Crouch
had recommended it as early as 1993.
The alternatives are:
a) 12 fxe6?! fxe6 transposes to note
“‘b’ to White’s 10th move in Line B32.
b) 120-0 Axb3 (12...0-0!9) 13 axb3.
Here both 13...0-0 (Istratescu-Jaracz,
Duisburg jr Wch 1992) and 13...b4 14
a4 e5 (Istratescu-Timoshenko, Cali-
manesti 1992) are not bad for Black.
12...dxe5 13 Ac6! 2xcé!
13...e4!7 14 Axed We7 (14...Wb6 15
Axf6+!? 2xf6 16 AeS &c6 17 Axc6
&xg5 18 fxe6 +) 15 Axe7! Dfxed!
(15...We5? 16 &xf6 gxf6 17 fxe6 fxe6
18 0-0 @xe4 19 Hael f5 20 2xe6 +—;
15...Acxe4? 16 2xf6 +) 16 0-0-0! (16
fxe6? Axg5 17 Wxa8+ Sxe7 18 Wxh8
We5+ —+), and Black is in danger.
14 Wxc6+
Here, Black does not have the usual
f7-square for the king...
14... $f8
14...Afd7? 15 &xe7 Sxe7 16 fxe6
fxe6 17 2xe6! Axe6 18 0-0-0 + Golu-
bev-Borié, Kiev 1995.
15 fxe6 b4!
... instead, there is time to drive back
the white knight (15...Wc8?! 16 Wr3!
trans- e4 17 We2, Istratescu-Badea, Bucha-
10th rest 1997).
16 Ae2
Not 16 @d5? Hc8! —+.
The text-move (16 Ae2), gives White
an opportunity to fight (for example,
 5...06 6 &c4
16... Wc8 17 WP e4 18 We3 or 16...2c8
17 Wt Axe6 18 &xf6) but we can
hardly talk about an advantage.
B42)
9...2e7 (D)
x7 3 fae z b5!; 12 f5!? transposes to note ‘d2’ to
aa Am Wi
0 Sa J WA,
Li MAES Us
BBAT, TR
10 &e3
Otherwise:
a) 10 g4d5!? 11 e5 (11 exd5 exd5
12 £5 “fed! Akopian) 11...Afe4 12
0-0 Wc7! is satisfactory for Black,
Filipenko-Akopian, Rostov 1993.
b) 10 0-0!7 0-0 11 &e3 transposes
to Line A of Chapter 3. An alternative
for Black is 10...Wce7!? (10...b5? 11
4c6! and 10...e5 11 fxe5 dxe5 12 “FS
are weaker) and now 11 f5 transposes
to note ‘c3’ to Black’s 10th move in
Line B31 (where 11...e5 is possibly
more precise than 11...0-0 12 g4!?). 11
&e3?! is dubious because of 11...b5
and 11 g4 should be verified; e.g.,
11...b5 12 g5 Afxed 13 Axed Bb7 14
Hel or 11...A0fd7!?.
10...We7!?
10...0-0 and then:
a) 11 f5 transposes to Line B31.
b) 11 g4d5 (11...b5!? 12 Ac6 We7
13 Axe7+ Wxe7 is an interesting idea,
e6 7 &2b3 Dbd7! 17
Grilc-A.Pachmann, Stockerau jr 1991)
12 exd5 (12 e5 Afe4 13 Axed dxe4 14
Wh3 Wa5+!, Bednarski-Malich, Skopje
OL 1972) 12...Axb3 13 Axb3 exd5
14 f5 (14 g5 Ded =) 14...2b4 with
chances for both sides, Kakabadze-
Nasybullin, Moscow 1991. .
c) 11 0-0-0 We7 12 Sb (12 24?!
Black’s 11th move in Line B31) 12...b5
13 e5 Sb7! (13...dxe57! 14 Ac6! £
Golubev-Zagrebelny, Pavlikeni 1990)
14 exf6 &xf3 15 fxe7 Rxdl 16 exf8W+
Hxf8 17 Hxd1 Wb7, with good pros-
pects for Black, Panchenko-Suba,
Sochi 1977.
d) 11 0-0 transposes to Line A of
Chapter 3 (11...Wc7 12 g4!?, etc.).
11 0-0?!
11 g4?! b5 12 g5 Afxed 13 Axed
&b7 favours Black, Wagner-H.Schuh,
Walldorf 1986. Better is 11 f5()),
transposing to note ‘c4’ to Black’s
10th move in Line B31.
11...b5! 12 e5
12 £5 e5 (12...Axb3 13 axb3 e5? 14
&dxb5) 13 Ade? (difficult to assess is
13 Ad5 Axd5 14 Rxd5 exd4 15 Rxd4
Shipov) 13...Axb3 14 cxb3 &b7 F
Shipov; e.g., 15 a3 Bc8!?.
12...2b7 13 We3 dxe5!
Better than 13...A\xb3?! or 13...Ah5
14 Wed! (14 We2 0-0 15 exd6 {15 24?
@xf4!} 15...Wxd6 16 Had1 We7 =)
14...g6 15 £5 — Shipov.
14 fxe5 Ah5 15 We2 0-0 16 g4 b4!
This recommendation of Shipov’s
gives Black a very good game. Instead,
16...Axb3!? (Emms-Shipov, Thessa-
loniki 1996) transposes to the Classi-
cal Sozin (note ‘b342’ to Black’s 10th
move in Line C12 of Chapter 9).
8 5...Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 &b3 a6

1 e4 c5 2 Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 Note that with the Classical Sicilian

AM6 5 Ae3 Ac6 6 Bcd e6 7 2b3 a6 move-order, 5...Ac6 6 Sc4 e6, the
(D) continuation 7 2.b3 a6 is no more than
one of the possible set-ups. We shall

Luswek have a chance to discuss all the associ-

Ue rr
ated nuances in the introductions to
on

sTamee, e
Chapters 11, 12 and 13.
So:

4 VagAA
A: 8 f4!? 118
B: 80-0 119
a

C: 8 Re3 121
(Bm
| a30 oepan
=o oy Yj A)
8 f4!?
WS

Hi GWS 78 This works successfully against the

plan with 8...8c7. However, we shall
Now we Start discussing the lines of see that Black gets an additional possi-
the Classical Sozin and the Velimiro- bility...
vic Attack, continuing the theme of a) 8...Se7. Here it is normal to play
the Fischer Attack. It is obvious that 9 2e3 or 9 0-0 with the usual varia-
the position in the diagram can also be tions. The only line of note is 9 f5. Af-
achieved after 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 ter 9...2\xd4 (9...Wb6!? 10 2e3? e5)
4\c6. The most important lines of the 10 Wxd4 exf5 11 exf5 &xf5 12 0-0
Sozin and Velimirovié can originate &e6 White has a certain amount of
from that position, and we shall start compensation for the pawn; e.g., 13
their discussion in this chapter (in- S95 Was 14 2xe6 fxe6 15 Axf6 Qxf6
cluding the plan 8...Wce7 and 9...A\a5 16 Wxd6 Wes © Korzubov-Kovaliov,
for Black, and other lines). We will Byelorussia 1987.
continue our discussion of these sys- b) 8...Wa5 9 0-0, and instead of
tems in two separate chapters to fol- 9...Aaxd4 10 Wxd4 d5 11 &e3! +
low: Fischer-Dely, Skopje 1967, Fischer
Chapter 9: 8 &e3 2e7 (including 9 recommended 9...d5 10 4xc6 (I pro-
0-0 and the main lines of the Classical pose 10 2a4!?) 10...bxc6 11 £5 &c5+
Sozin); 12 Bhi 0-0.
Chapter 10: 8 2e3 2e7 9 We2 (in- c) 8...Aa5 9 £5!9 (9 2e3 — 8 ReF
cluding the main lines of the Velimiro- Ba 9 f4; 9 0-0 — 8 0-0 Da 9 fA)
vic Attack). 9...\xb3, and we transpose to the
 5..A\c6 6 B&c4
variations that have been described
earlier in Line B3 of Chapter 7; e.g.,
10 axb3 Se7 11 WF3 0-0 and now 12
Re3 e5 13 Ade2 b5 or 12 0-0.
d) 8...$2d7 and now:
dl) 9 £5 @xe4! 10 fxe6 fxe6 11
Axe6 S&xe6 12 Axe4 Bxb3 and then
13...Wh4+! = (Donaldson/Tangborn).
d2) 9 2e3! transposes to Line Cl.
e) 8.../c7 9 £5! (Fischer’s idea, and
the main point of the move-order 8 f4)
9...Axd4 (here 9... Wb6 is clearly worse
than in line ‘a’) 10 Wxd4 and now:
el) 10...8d7 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 2g5
Se7 13 0-0-0 + Golubev-Gutkin, Biel
1994.
e2) After 10...exf5, White is able
to choose between 11 exf5 &xf5 12
0-0 with an attack (Fischer), and 11
0-0!? (Schach-Archiy), when 11...d5 12
&)xd5 Axd5 13 Wxd5 £ does not solve
all Black’s problems.
e3) 10...2e7 and now:
e31) 11 g4 Axg4!? 12 Wxe7 2f6
appears inconclusive.
e32) 11 &e3 exf5!? leads to noth-
ing obvious for White either.
e33) 11 fxe6 fxe6 (11...2xe6 12
$95) 12 &g5 (12 0-0!? We5 13 Wxc5
dxc5 14 a4), and Black must defend
by 12...h6! (12...b5?! 13 a4!, Dvoirys-
Lesiége, Koszalin 1999; 12...Wce5 13
Wd2 Ag4?! 14 Bxe7 Bxe7 15 0-0-0!
+ Golubev-Istratescu, Romanian Cht
1996) 13 &h4 We5!, as 14 Wd2?! can
be answered either with 14...Ag4 or
with 14...Axe4!7.
e34) 11 0-0 0-0 (11...5!9 and
maybe also 11...d5!? deserve attention)
12 Wd3 (12 Sh — 8 0-0 We7 9 Sal
S&.e7 10 f4 0-0 11 f5 Dxd4 12 Wxd4)
12...b5 13 fxe6 &xe6 14 24 favours
White, Stoica-Redlich, Warsaw 1970.
€6 7 Bb3 ab 119
e35) 11 Wd3!?.
f) 8...d5!?. It is possible that this
unusual move exploits the drawbacks
of 8 £4. After 9 exd5 exd5 10 Re3
2b4! Black stands well. After 9 e5,
Black may play 9...Ad7 10 Re3 2c5
11 Wd2 Axd4 12 &xd4 b5 = Mikh-
alchishin-Lerner, Leningrad 1983. In-
stead, a tense game may result after
9...Axd4 10 Wxd4 Ad7 11 £5!; e.g.,
11... We7 12 RF4 Bc5 13 Wd2 Bb4 14
0-0-0 &xc3 15 bxc3 Ac5 16 Wd4 Was
17 £6, Mortensen-Van der Wiel, Arhus
1983,
B)
8 0-0 (D)
Having played this, White will have
less choice (as compared to 8 e3) af-
ter both 8...We7 and 8...$e7. Still, this
does not have any fatal consequences,
and besides, the position is important
for the line 5...a6 6 2c4 e6 7 0-0 Ac6
(or 7...Wc7!? 8 &b3 Ac6) 8 &b3.
SQA“
B3: 8..8e7 «121
Other moves:
120 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
a) 8...Axd4 9 Wxd4 2e7 10 &95!?
+ (10 f4—8...Re7 94 Dxd4 10 Wxd4).
b) After 8...2.d7!?, White may play
9 Re3 b5 10 £4, which transposes to
note ‘a’ to White’s 10th move in Line
Cl, or 9 f4. Probably the latter is more
precise; e.g., 9...b5 10 £5! £ (10 Axc6
&xc6 11 £5, Fischer-Gadia, Mar del
Plata 1960, 11...b4!9).
B1)
8...Aa5 9 £4
Now:
a) 9...b5 and then:
al) 10 &e3 transposes to note ‘b’
to White’s 10th move in Line C2.
a2) 10 £5 e5 11 Ade2 Axb3 12 axb3
Bb7 (12...b4 13 AdS Axed 14 Be3
Hb8 15 Wd3 with an initiative, Daum-
Morlo, Bundesliga 1995/6; 12...Wb6+
13 @hl Bb7 14 Ad5 Vxd5 {14...Axd5
15 exd5 + Vasiukov-Kotov, Erevan
1955} 15 exd5 We5 {15...2e7!7) 16.04
bxc4 17 Ac3 2e7 18 2g5 with com-
pensation, Suetin-[livitsky, Erevan
1955) and here:
a21) 13 @g3?! can be answered by
13...h5! (Boleslavsky) or 13...b4!?.
a22) 13 Wd3 Wb6+ 14 Shi Wc6!
15 “g3 h5! (Boleslavsky).
a23) 13 295 Wh6+ 14 Bh Axed}.
a24) 13 &d5 Wxe4 (for the contin-
uations 13...2/Axd5 14 exd5 Wb6+
see 12...Wb6+), and now 14 Def!
(Nunn) gives White more hope than
14 2e3 Hc8 (Kasparov/Nikitin).
a3) 10 e5 dxe5 11 fxe5 &c5 12
&e3 Axb3 (12...Ac6 is well met by
13 Wf3 or 13 Axc6!) 13 axb3 trans-
poses to note ‘a’ to Black’s 9th move
in Line B1 of Chapter 7 (+).
b) 9...Wc7 is more precise. Then
10 2e3 transposes to Line C32, while
10 £5!? e5 11 Ade2 Axb3 12 axb3 b5
has not been studied.
B2)
8...We7 9 Shi!?
This particular idea of 8 0-0 hardly
promises anything. Otherwise:
a) The main move 9 2e3 will be
examined under 8 2e3 Wc7 9 0-0
(Line C3).
b) White seldom plays 9 £4 because
of the hazard of 9...d5!?; e.g., 10 Axc6
bxc6 11 £5 (11 e5?! Ad7, Suetin-Tal,
USSR Cht 1953) 11...2d6 12 fxe6
fxe6 13 Gh1 0-0 14 Bg5 Ph8 15 exdd
exd5 16 Wd4 2e5 17 Wh4 (Parma-
FOlafsson, Bled 1961) 17...2e6 =.
There are many other little-studied
variations (9...2a5 transposes to Line
B1; 9...b5!?; 9... Axd4 10 Wxd4 d5 11
Re3! dxe4 12 Axe4 Be7; 9...2.d7!9).
9...2e7
Or:
a) 9...b5!? is a good possibility for
Black.
b) 9...4a5!? is more critical:
b1) 10 f4 b5 and now:
b11) 11 e5 dxe5 12 fxe5 Wxe5 13
&£4 and now 13...Wh5 14 A\d5!? exd5
15 Hel+ Re6 16 g4 led to unclear play
in Tal-Gurgenidze, Poti 1970. It is also
not obvious how Tal would have at-
tacked after 13...Wc5.
b12) It appears dubious to follow
11 £5 Axb3 (11...e5 12 Ad5!) 12 axb3
b4 13 AcbS?! Wb7.
b2) White may try 10 &a4+!?.
10 f4 0-0
10...4a5 is not very logical here;
e.g. 11 £5 Axb3 (1L..e5 12 Ade2
4xb3 13 axb3 +) 12 cxb3!?b5 13 Re3
e5 (13...b4 14 a4 Wb7 15 Bel 2d7
16 fxe6 fxe6 17 Ab6! Wxb6 18 FS,
 5..Nc6 6 &c4 e6 7 Bb3 ab 21

Langner-Donéevi¢c, Prague 1986) 14 (12..."Wc7 transposes to Line B2, while

Bc2 WoT (14...&b7 15 Ab4!) 15 Bg5!, 12...Ag4, 12...b4 and 12...Hb8 are all
Langner-Bartak, corr. 1987. playable) 13 exf5 2b7 = Honfi-Spas-
11 £5 Dxd4 12 Wxd4 bs! sov, Vinjacka Banja 1976.
12...8d7 13 &g¢5 £ Sidorov-Ban- 9...0-0
nik, USSR Cht 1952. Or:
Now (after 12...b5): a) 9...Wco7 10 Re3 transposes to
a) 13 a4?! b4! | Ivanchuk-Salov, Line C12 of Chapter 9 (10 £5? Woé!;
Linares 1991. 10 #h1 transposes to Line B2).
b) 13 2e3 exf5 14 Ad5 (or 14 exf5 b) 9..Axd4 10 Wxd4 0-0 11 £5
&b7! = Minasian-Akopian, Erevan Bhs (11... Wc7 — 8 f4 We7 9 f5 Axd4
1996) 14...Axd5 15 2xd5 2f6 16 Wb6 10 Wxd4 2e7 11 0-0 0-0; 11...b5!9)
Wxb6 17 &xb6 &b7! — Ivanchuk. 12 Bhi Rd7 13 Bg5 = Mlescas-An-
c) Ivanchuk recommended the line dersson, Ubeda 1997.
13 2g5!7h6 14 Bh4 exfS 15 Wd3! (15 c) 9...2d7 10 £5!? (10 &e3 trans-
Kad1 Hb8! =) as the only attempt to poses to note ‘c2’ to Black’s 9th move
fight for the advantage. in Line C of Chapter 9) 10...Axd4
(10...b6?! 11 fxe6) 11 Wxd4 exf5 12
B3) exf5 0-0 13 2g5 &c6 + Medina Gar-
8...2e7 (D) cia-Gligori¢, Hastings 1969/70.
d) 9...a5. Now, apart from 10 S23,
White has 10 £5!? Axb3 11 axb3, trans-
4X7 2We7
, ae eae posing to note ‘bl’ to White’s
move in Line B31 of Chapter 7, and 10
10th

47 ahaa 7 e5!? “Axb3 11 axb3 dxe5 12 fxe5,

transposing to Line B11 of Chapter 7.
Wa. oe e) 9...d5 10 exd5 (10 €5!? is a seri-
Ga As Wa Va ous alternative) 10...exd5 11 f5 0-0
Yat J 7 transposes to note ‘d’ to White’s 9th
BOOT ear move in Line B1 of Chapter 4.
10 &e3
He Ou7as Play has transposed to a main line
of the Classical Sozin (Line C22 of
9 4 Chapter 9).
Or: Otherwise: 10 £5? Wb6 —+; 10 &h1
a) 9 2e3, followed by 10 f4, is the -9 Shl 0-0 10 f4 =.
most popular move-order — see Line B
of Chapter 9. C)
b) Quite harmless here is 9 &hl 8 2e3 (D)
0-0 10 f4 Axd4 (10...2d7 11 £5; The most flexible continuation.
10... 7 —8...We7 9 Bh1!? Re7 10 f4 White has in mind both Sozin’s plan
0-0) 11 Wxd4 b5!; for example, 12 f5 with 9 f4 and Velimirovic’s 9 We2, fol-
(12 a4 &b7!?; 12 a3 Ad7!) 12...exf5!? lowed by 10 0-0-0.
122 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

9...Wc7 — 8...Wc7 9 f4 Bd7 +; the

A x alternative 9...2e7 transposes to note
5 ak V7rha c’ to Black’s 9th move in Line C of
b7akae 7 Chapter 9.
10 f5!
a. YUTJF Otherwise:
he a) 100-0 and then:
DS AP AWN UY, al) 10...h5!? 11 £5 Wc8 12 fxe6 fxe6
AKRY BAW +; then 13 Bxf6 gxf6 14 WF3 Be7 is
hardly dangerous for Black, Brenjo-
a 7wWe Jf Tlinci¢, Yugoslav Cht 2000.
a2) 10...b4 11 a4 Bb8! transposes
To my mind, 9 We2 is sound after to a variation of the Fischer Attack
8...2e7 (and, additionally, after the (Chapter 5, Line E24) that is difficult
untried 8...Axd4 9 @xd4 b5, when 10 to assess.
We2!? transposes to note ‘a’ to White’s b) 10 WE Axd4 (10...Wc8!? 11
8th move in Chapter 11), but not in 0-0 &e7 12 Hael 0-0 13 a3 Hb8, Hen-
other lines. driks-Kupreichik, Groningen 1995;
We consider: 10...2c8!?) 11 &xd4 2c6 (11...b4!?
C1: 8...2d7 122 has been played) 12 0-0-0 b4 (Mikhal-
C2: 8..Aa5 122 chishin) is unclear.
C3: 8...We7 124 10...Axd4
The main continuation, 8...£2e7, 10...b4 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 Axc6!?
will be discussed in Chapters 9 and 10. &xc6 13 He?2.
10...Wc8!? 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 0-0, and
C1) now 12...8e7 — 8...Re7 9 f4 Rd7 10
8...2.d7 9 f4! 0-0 bS 11 f5 We8 12 fre6 fre6 +
9 We? and here: 12..h5 — 10 0-0 h5!? 1] f5 We8 12
a) 9...2%c8!? and then: fxe6 fxe6 t.
al) 100-0-0 Aa5! 11 &g5 Re7 12 11 Wxd4 Re7 12 fxe6
£4 0-0, Timmermann-S.Larsen, Copen- 12 g4!? Mikhalchishin.
hagen 1995. 12...2xe6
a2) 10 f4 bS! 11 0-0-0 Aa5 12 e5 12...fxe6 13 e5!?.
&xc3, Istratescu-Porper, Rishon-le- 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 2xe6 fxe6 15 e5
Zion 1990. + Mikhalchishin-Saltaev, Gronin-
a3) 100-0! b5 11 Axc6!?. gen 1992.
b) 9...b5! 10 0-0-0 and now with
10...Aa5! Black quickly organizes C2)
counterplay, Ricardi-I.Rogers, Span- 8...2a5 9 f4!
ish Cht 1999. 10...b4 is less accurate 9 0-0 b5 10 £4 — 9 f4 b5 10 0-0.
because of 11 Aad Axed 12 Axc6 Not clear is 9 g4; e.g., 9...h5 10 g5
2xc6 13 Abé. e411 96 fxg6 12 Rxe6.
9...b5 9...b5 (D)
 5...c6 6 S.c4 e6 7 Bb3 a6 123

More reliable is 9...Wc7! (Line b311) 13...2Dd7 14 Whs 26 15 Wh3

C32). We7 16 Had! (16 Hael!? is similar to
line ‘b3214’) 16...&¢7 17 2g5 Wxg5s
F 18 Bxf7? (18 Axe6! fxe6 19 Hxd7

PSE

SS
&xd7 20 Hf7+ 4d8 21 Wd3+ 2d5 22

le eg
Dr we
BN
BWxd5 Ve8 23 Af6+ =) 18...exf7 19

XK
“
\

\ be
¥
Wxe6+ Yf8 # Damjanovic-Krogius,
=

NS
aS
Sochi 1967.
b312) 13..Ad5 14 Wr3 Wd7 15
a

\WK
Wy

Ae4?! (15 Dxd5) 15...Axe3 16 Wxe3

RAN

Wd5 (possibly better is the alternative

NSS
:

o>HS ~
X

16...4d8!7) 17 W2 0-0-0 18 Bacl+

SW
D>
p>
YA

te \

\
WN

&b8 19 Bfdl (Voigt-Wahls, Hamburg

Sy

LW
WY

foe
wN

1993) 19...4d7! with unclear play.

MY

632) 11 axb3 2&b7 (11...b4?! 12

10 e5 4c6!) 12 e5! (12 £5 can be met by
Or: Nunn’s 12...b4! or 12...e5) 12...dxe5
a) 10£5e5 11 Dde2 Axb3 12 axb3 (12...Ad5 13 Axd5 Bxd5 14 c4!) 13
(12 cxb3 d5!) and then: fxe5 and then:
al) 12...2b7 can be met by 13 b321) 13...Ad7 14 Wh5 (14 Bxf7?
&g5 + (Schach-Archiv) or 13 @d5!?. &xf7 15 Axe6 We7!?) 14...26 15 Wh3
a2) 12...Wce7!? transposes to note We7 (15...Axe5 16 Had] Wc7 looks
“c32’ to White’s 10th move in Line risky, but should be checked) and now:
C32. b3211) 16 Adxb5? axbS 17 Axb5
a3) 12...b4 13 Ad5 @xd5 14 Wxd5 does not work because of 17...Axe5!
Hb8 15 0-0 2e7 (Parma-Tukmakov, 18 Hadl 227 19 Ad6+ Sf8 20 Rc5
Moscow 1971) and now Kasparov and Bg8.
Nikitin’s suggestion 16 c4! is unclear. 63212) 16 Had! 29717 &e5 Wxg5
b) 10 0-0 is important: 18 Axe6 fxe6 19 Hxd7 &xd7 20 Bf7+
bl) 10...b4 11 e5! is another line Bd8 21 Wd3+ 2.d5 22 Axd5 leads to
from Kasparov and Nikitin. a draw.
b2) 10...We7! transposes to Line b3213) 16 AF3 227 and then:
C32. b32131) 17 AgS Axe5 18 Ace4
b3) 10...Axb3 (or 10...b7 11 e5, (18 @ge4 0-0!) and now Black should
and then 11...4\xb3) is sharp and dan- avoid 18...h6? 19 Axe6! (Kotov), and
gerous for Black: play 18...2c8!?.
b31) 11 cxb3!? (less studied than 632132) 17 Bh6 0-0!7 18 Ags?
White’s alternative recapture 11 axb3) (18 Bael) 18...2xh6 19 Wxh6 f6 is
11...2b7 12 e5 dxe5 (the continua- slightly better for Black, Kakabadze-
tion 12...A\d5 13 Dxd5 Bxd5 14 £5}, Dzhandzhgava, Tbilisi 1992.
Fershter-Osnos, Leningrad 1972, has b3214) The last word is 16 Hael!
the point 14...dxe5 15 Axe6 fxe6 16 &g7 17 Bh6 Bxe5 (17...0-0 18 2xg7
Wh5+) 13 fxe5 and then: &xg7 19 Ded!) 18 Bxe5 AxeS 19
124 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

&g7 Wc5 20 Be3! (20 Rxh8 Wxd4+ a) 16xb5? is bad due to 16...Wd7.
= Jovcié-Hybl, corr. 1971) 20...ag4 b) 16 Wr2 Wb7? (16...b4 Sokolov;
21 Wr4 + Kasparov/Nikitin. 16...2e4!7) 17 AxbS +— A.Sokolov-
b322) 13...Ad5!? 14 Wf3 is an in- Timoshenko, Moscow 1990.
teresting transposition to the main line. b) 16 We3 hS (16...g6 17 c4!, Bed-
10...dxe5 11 fxe5 Axb3 narski-Gromek, Poland 1970; 16...4b7
11...A\d7? 12 2xe6! +. 17 W2!, Bednarski-Mititelu, Varna
12 axb3 Ad5 1972) 17 c4 bxc4 18 bxc4 Wxc4 19
12...Ad7 13 Wf3!? is better for Hacl Wd3 20 Bc7 h4 21 W2 £5 22
White. exf6 gxf6 (de Firmian-D.Gurevich,
13 Wf3 2b7 San Francisco 1987), and it is likely
13...A)xe3!? 14 Wxa8 is very com- that 23 2g5! wins; e.g., 23..R¢8 24
plicated but should end, in the long &xe6! (but not 24 Wxf6? We3+! =), or
run, in White’s favour: 23...2.d6 24 Wxf6! &xh2+ 25 Yh,
a) 14...Axg2+ 15 Sfl De3+ 16 etc.
Be2 +-.
b) 14...Wd7 15 Acxb5 &b4+ (the C3)
alternatives are 15...axb5 16 Ha7 + 8...We7 (D)
and 15...Axg2+?! 16 Wxg2 2b7 17
Wl axb5 18 0-0-0 +— Ehlvest-Smi-
rin, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1990) 16 Ea #1 Ly
c3 with an advantage; e.g., 16...0-0 17 w aw a ea
We6 (17 We4!?) 17...Ac2+ 18 Ye2
@®xal 19 Hxal!?.
aah
c) 14...2b4!? 15 Be2 Rxc3 16 Wa. aU. a
We6+!? (16 bxc3 Ad5) 16...2d7 17 m oe YW
Wxc3 Axg2 18 Weg3.
14 0-0 We7
14... Wd7 15 Axd5 Rxd5 16 Wyg3 hS eo WAR
(16...g6 17 Bad] + Kasparov/Nikitin) Bote es
17 Bf4 We7 18 c4 + Mezsaros-Titz,
Eger 1990. This is the most popular alternative
15 &xd5 to 8...2e7. It has independent value,
15 Acxb5 axb5 16 @xbS Wd7 17 since Black is not obliged to follow up
Hxa8+ 2xa8 18 c4 &c6! (and not with 9...2e7. Now:
18...Ab6? 19 Wr2 Ac8 20 Bb6! + C31: 9 We2 125
Kozlov-Petrushin, Penza 1972, but C32: 9 f4 127
18...2.b4!? is interesting) with the point
19 exd5 &xb5 20 Hal Wxd5 21 Ha8+ Or:
d7 22 Wxf7+ Be7 23 Ha7+ Sc8. a) 9 0-0 is possible, but it has no
15...2xd5 advantages compared to 9 f4, and only
Now White has two lines that give narrows the choice for White on move
Black problems: 10:
 5..4\c6 6 2c4
al) 9...He5 10 We2 Aeg4 11 4
and rather than 11...Aaxe3 12 Wxe3
We5 13 Had] Re7 14 eS! + Liberzon-
Portisch, Erevan 1965, Black could try
11...b5!?.
a2) 9...b5!? 10 f4 — 9 f4 b5 10 0-0.
a3) 9...Aa5 10 £4 (10 2a4+!? 2d7!
11 S&xd7+ Wxd7! 12 We2, Adams-
Wolff, Biel IZ 1993, 12...8e7 = Wolff)
10...b5 transposes to Line C32.
b) Maybe 9 g4 @xd4 10 &xd4 e5
11 Re3 Rxg4 12 Dd5!? deserves at-
tention.
C31)
9 We2 a5!
One of the variations that might be
called ‘Anti-Velimirovi¢’. Other moves:
a) 9...2e7 transposes to Line B of
Chapter 10.
b) 9...Ad7 is unsafe in view of 10
&xe6!? fxe6 11 Axe6 Wad 12 0-0-0.
c) 9...b5 is suspect; e.g., 10 Axc6
Wxc6 11 Rd4 (11 gs Vb7 12 Ad5
{12 &xf6!?} 12...Ad7 13 0-0-0 hé!?,
A.Frolov-Ryskin, Budapest rpd 1992)
11...&e7 (11...b7 can be met by 12
S&xf6!?, 12 Dd5!? or 12 0-0-0!? Axed
13 Xhel!), and White has two promis-
ing possibilities: 12 @d5 (when Black
must play 12...8b7, since 12...exd5?
fails to 13 &xf6 dxe4 14 0-0-0!), and
12 0-0-0 -— 8..Re7 9 We2 We7 10
0-0-0 b5?! 11 Dxc6! Wxc6 12 2d4.
d) 9...2d7!? 10 0-0-0 (I am not
sure whether the pawn sacrifice 10 ¢4
4)xd4 11 &xd4e5 12 Re3 Rxg4 13 f3
&e6 14 Xgl is correct), is interesting:
dl) 10...A\a5 11 24! b5 12 g5 and
here:
dll) 12...b4 and now: 13 gxf6 is
liable to transpose to ‘d12’; 13 &d5
“xd5 14 exd5 e5 15 f4 exd4 16
e6 7 Bb3 ab 125
&xd4+ Hintié-Madl, Balatonbereny
1988.
d12) 12...Axb3+ 13 axb3 b4 14
gxf6 bxc3 15 fxg7 &xg7 16 hg] 2f6
(16...cxb2+ 17 @xb2 £6 18 2g5!)
17 bxc3 (17 &g5? Was —+; 17 Hd3!)
17...8xc3 18 Sb1 a5 19 Bg3 (19 Rcl
2xd4!?) 19...Wb4 20 Rcl a4 21 Bb2
(Velimirovi¢-Ivanovic, Vrbas 1980)
21...8e5! © Krnié.
d2) 10...b5 and now:
d21) Black need not fear 11 Khel
Re7!.
d22) 11 Rg5 Re7 12 f4 (12 Axf6
gxf6!) 12...0-0 13 £5 Da5 is also fine
for Black, Ulybin-Sher, Smolensk 1987.
d23) Probably White should go
down the road of unclear sacrifices;
e.g., 11 Axc6 &xc6 12 Ad5 exd5 13
exd5 &b7 14 24+.
d24) 11 g4!? is another such idea,
with variations like 11...b4 12 Aa4
(12 4d5?! exd5 13 g5) 12...b8!? or
11...Axd4 12 &xd4 (12 Hxd4?! e5 13
25 exd4 14 Rxd4) 12...e5 13 Re3 (13
@d5 Bxd5 14 Bxd57! Bc8 15 Bc3
b4!; 13 25?! exd4) 13...2xe4 14 Ad5S
@xd5 15 Wxe4.
10 g4!
Or:
a) 100-0-0?! transposes to the note
to White’s 10th move in Line B of
Chapter 11, which is good for Black.
b) 10 2a4+ 2d7 11 &xd7+ Axd7!
12 0-0 &c4 = Rogié-Sax, Bled 1994.
c) 10 a4 Se7 11 0-0 0-0 = Liu-
kin-Morozevich, Ukrainian Cht (Al-
ushta) 1994.
10...b5
Or:
a) 10...h6 is inaccurate: 11 0-0-0
b5 12 f3 = Velimirovié-Stein, Kapfen-
berg Echt 1970.
126 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

b) 10...A\xb3?! 11 axb3 2e7 (11...h5S

S|

ae
12 g5 Ded 13 2d2 We5 14 h3!, Vavra-

as

AW,
Borik, Czech Cht 1994/5) 12 g5 Qd7

\\ SSX>
3
13 h4!, Planinc-Ungureanu, Bucha-

We

N
\
QS
rest 1970.

\ deWX

SS
c) After 10...h5!? 11 g5 Dg, 12

SN
=

X
.
26 4)xe3 is OK for Black, while White
may consider 12 0-0-0 or 12 &d2!?.

WY
d) 10...g6!2 11 g5 Dh5 12 f4 Bg7 | we

WK
W o>)

WS
Sr
WK
13 £5 Axb3 14 axb3 Be5 is unclear,

x
:
Mikhalchishin-Kapengut, USSR 1982.

:
11 g5 Dd7 (D)
11...0xb3?! 12 axb3 b4 (otherwise b) 12 h4 £b7 (unclear is 12...Ac5
13 Acxb5) 13 gxf6 bxc3 14 AbS!. 13 f3 b4 14 “dl; 12...b4179 13 Aad
11...b4?! and now: &b7 14 £3 Axb3 15 cxb3 d5) 13 £3
a) 12 Acb5?! axb5 13 gxf6 Axb3 Ac4 14 &xcd Wxed 15 Wxe4 bxe4
14 cxb3 2d7. with an acceptable position for Black,
b) 12 Ad5 “Axd5 leads to unclear Ljubojevi¢-Ivanchuk, Monaco Amber
play: blindfold 1994.
bl) 13 2a4+ 8d7 14 2xd7+ Wxd7 c) 12 &xe6 fxe6 13 Axe6 Wed! 14
15 exd5 and now 15...e5 (Kupreichik- Wxed Axc4 15 Ac7+ Sd8 16 Axa
Anikaev, Kiev 1970) or 15...Wb7. 4xe3 17 fxe3 &b7 with a good end-
b2) 13 exd5 and then 13...Axb3 14 ing.
cxb3!? &b7 15 Ac6 (Tatai-Belotti, d) 12 f4 and now:
Reggio Emilia 1996/7) or 13...e5 14 dt) 12...xb3!2.
Ac6!? Axc6 15 dxc6 Wxc6 16 0-0-0, d2) 12...Ac5 13 £5 b4 (13...2.d7!7)
Moraru-Burnoi, Bucharest 1998. 14 Da4 Daxb3 15 cxb3 Wh7 16 fxe6
c) 12 gxf6! bxc3 (12...Axb3 13 fxe6 17 Axc5S dxc5 18 Af3, and now
4\d5! exd5 14 axb3 dxe4 15 0-0-0 18...Wxe4 19 0-0-0 is unclear, while
Ribli) 13 2a4+ 2d7 14 2xd7+ Wxd7 18...2e7 is sufficient for equality, Lju-
15 fxg7 (15 b3!? gxf6 16 0-0-0 Ribli) bojevic-Salov, Belgrade 1987.
15...2xg7 16 b3 + Korchnoi-Ribli, d3) 12...b4 13 Dad (13 Ad5?!
Skelleftea World Cup 1989. exd5 14 exdS Ac5 15 Ac6 Axc6 16
The text-move (11...d7) brings us &xc5+ Le7 17 Bad BdA7! 18 dxc6
to the critical position. &xc6 19 WE 2xa4! 20 Wxa8+ d7
12 &xe6!? Kasparov/Nikitin) and here:
This is very unclear, but in the other d31) 13...Ac5?! 14 AxcS dxc5 15
lines White has not achieved much: Radt +.
a) 12 a3 Ab6 13 0-0-0, and instead d32) 13...Axb3 14 cxb3 and then:
of 13...&b8 14 £4 Abc4 15 £5 Axa3 16 d321) 14...8b7 15 £5 e5 16 Hcl is
fxe6 @xb3+ 17 cxb3, Velimirovié- good for White after 16...\Wa5?! 17
Ivanovic, Yugoslav Ch (Vrbas) 1982, 4e6!, Vlad-Istratescu, Bucharest 1992,
stronger is 13...@\bc4! (Nunn). or 16...Ac5 17 Af3.
 5...Nc6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 a6 127

d322) 14...Wb7 15 We2 Ac5 16 (Arakhamia-Lerner, Helsinki 1992)

&xc5 dxc5 17 @f3 £ Baimuratov-Ser-
per, Bishkek Z 1993.
d33) 13...2b7! and now:
d331) 14 2d2e5 15 Df5 g6 16 Dg3
and rather than 16...exf4
4xb3 18 axb3 &e7 19 0-0-0 0-0 20 h4
4\c5 « Gdanski-Istratescu, Manila OL
1992, probably stronger is 16...Axb3 17
axb3 Wxc2 18 £5 gxf5 19 0-0 Rxe4!?.
d332) 14 £5 e5 15 De6 (15 Rxf7+
&xf7 16 Wh5+ Sg8 17 £6 We!? {or
17...¢6} 18 Bfl WE7 ¥ Ardeleanu-Is-
tratescu, Romanian Ch (Herculane)
1996) 15...fxe6 16 fxe6 Ac5 17 Axc5
dxc5 18 2d5 0-0-0 19 0-0-0 (Kaspa-
rov)—I am not sure that White has real
compensation here.
e) 12 0-0-0 and then:
el) 12...Axb3+ 13 axb3 &e7 trans-
poses to Line B of Chapter 10 (an al-
ternative is 13...%b7!? 14 £3 g6).
e2) 12..2b7 13 &xe6 fxe6
4)xe6 Wc4 15 We4 gives White com-
pensation, Smagacz-Sher, Koszalin
1999.
e3) 12...b4!9 13 Aad Axb3+ 14
axb3 Ac5 15 Axc5 (15 We4 2d7!? 16
Wxb4 Hb8 17 We3 Qxad 18 bxad
Wb7) 15...dxc5 16 DF3 (16 DES exf5
17 exf5 &xf5 18 Wf3 Wc8 19 Bhet
Re6 —+ Maric) 16...2e7 17 Ad2 (17
Wd2 a5!? 18 &f4 Wh7;
Juarez-Polugaevsky, Mar
1971, 18 Ae5 0-0! 19
17...a5 18 Dc4 a4 19 Sb1 a6
0-0 21 h4 &a7 with strong counter-
play, Zapata-Am.Rodriguez, Cienfue-
gos 1997.
e4) 12...Ac5 and here:
e41) Not 13 £3? b4 4.
e42) 13 a3 2b7 (13...2b8!? — Ler-
ner; 13...Aaxb3+!?) 14 a2
15 Axe4 Rxe4 16 Bhel d5 17 f3 2g6
18 &xd5 Hc8 with counterplay.
e43) 13 Ehel b4 14 Ad5 exd5
(14...Acxb3+!?) 15 exd5 (15 &xd5!7)
17 &xf4 15...8%e7 (A.Frolov-Lerner, Simfer-
opol/Alushta 1992) 16 &f4! Ba7 17
Wrxe7+ Bxe7 18 &xd6 ~.
e44) 13 2d5 exd5 (13...2b8!? 14 b4
and now Black should play 14...@d7!,
but not 14...4\a4? 15 Axa4 bxa4 16
bxa5 exd5 17 exd5 &e7 18 Ac6 0-0
19 £4!, Rechel-Lerner, Metz 1998) 14
A&xd5 Wh7 15 b4 (15 DAf5 Ac6 16 h4
Re6 F Minasian-Lerner, USSR Cht
1991) 15...Axe4 (15...Ac4 16 bxe5
dxc5 17 45 &.e6 © Maksimenko) 16
&)xb5 axb5 17 £.b6 Ac4 (I don’t see
why Black should avoid 17...2e6!? 18
Wrxed Dc6) 18 Wxed+ © Kozakov-
Maksimenko, Lviv 1991.
12...fxe6 13 2xe6
14 The position remains difficult to as-
sess. For instance:
a) 13..Ab6 14 2xb6 Wxb6 15 Ad5
(15 We4! Milos) 15...Wc6 16 Dfo+
(16 Wed d8! F Lima) 16...gxf6 17
2d5 Wc5 18 Whs+ Sd8 19 BF7 Wa!
+ Milos-Lima, Brazilian Ch 1995.
b) 13...Ae5 14 AdS Wc6 (14... Wb7
15 Wh5+ g6 16 Wh3, Kozakov-Nev-
ednichy, France 1999) 15 &xc8 Hxc8
17 h4 a5}, 16 Wh5+! with compensation (Koza-
del Plata kov; 16 0-0-0 We4!).
Bf4 2d6)
20 f3 C32)
9 £4 (D)
Now, after 9...2e7, the ‘Velimiro-
vic’ can no longer be obtained, but
White may play, besides 10 0-0 (the
‘normal’ Classical Sozin), also 10
WF3!? and 11 0-0-0 — both of which
Axed will be discussed in Chapter 9.
128
9...Da5
Or:
a) 9...$d7 is inaccurate, as White
can reply with 10 £5! + (or 10 0-0 b5?!
11 £5).
b) 9...b5 is the favourite move of
GM Serper:
bl) 10 Axc6!? Wxc6 11 £5! is not
bad, and 11...Axe4 (after 11...2e7, 12
0-0 transposes to Line C12 of Chapter
9, while White could try 12 fxe6!?) 12
fxe6 Axc3 13 exf7+ Gd8 14 bxc3
Wxc3+ 15 Sf2 favours White.
b2) 10 £5 b4!? (10...Axd4 11 Wxd4
allows White to struggle for an advan-
tage) 11 Aa4?! (11 fxe6 bxc3 12 exf7+
@d8 «© Tkachev-Babula, Calicut jr
Wch 1993; NCO suggests 11 “@ce2!?
e5 12 Axc6 Wxc6 13 Bg5 4) 11...e5
12 AF3 (12 Axc6 Wxc6 13 Wd3 Bbs8
+ Willemze-Cvek, Cala Galdana jr Wch
1996, and 12 Ae2 Hb8!,
Granda, Moscow OL 1994,
better) 12..Hb8 13 Wd3 &e7 14
0-0-0!? Aa5 15 Beds Agd! 16 Wd2
4)xb3+ 17 axb3 h6! with good play
for Black, Gi.Hernandez-Serper,
Angeles 1996.
b3) 10 0-0 b4!? (10...&b7 11 £5
4xd4 12 Wxd4 e5 13 Wd3 Be7 14
&g5 + Lukin-Serper, St Petersburg
THE SICILIAN SOZIN
1995; instead, 10...Aa5 is normal —
see 9...Aa5 10 0-0 bS!) 11 Dad (11
“ce2 Le7!? 12 Ag3 0-0 13 £5 Axd4
14 2xd4 e5 15 Re3 Rb7 16 Ags
Axed is good for Black, Nenashev-
Dautov, Frunze 1988) 11...&b8 12 c3
&a5 (12...Axe4 13 cxb4! Serper) 13
cxb4 Axb3 14 Wxb3 Wb7! 15 e5 dxe5
16 fxe5 Aga 17 a3 (possibly better is
17 h3!? — de Firmian) 17...We4 18
Hael &b7 19 Af3 Axed 20 Ac5 Axc5
21 RxcS Axf3+ 22 gxf3 Wd5 and
Black holds the position, de Firmian-
Serper, New York 1996.
10 0-0
It is a big question whether White
should really play this. He has a num-
ber of alternatives:
a) 10 Wf3 b5! has been studied Jit-
tle. It seems that Black has good
chances.
b) 10 g4!? Acé4 (also of interest are
10...d5 and 10...b5 11 g5 b4 12 gxf6
bxc3 13 &a4+ Rd7 14 fxg7 &xg7 15
&\xe6? fxe6 16 Wh5+ Ye7 and Black
wins, Miiller-Mantovani, Montecatini
Terme 1993) 11 &xc4 Wxe4 12 25 (12
W3!1? Re7 —8...2e7 9 f4 We7 10 WP
a5 11 g4 Wed 12 Bxc4 Wx)
12...Ad7 13 Wd3 Wc7 14 0-0-0 b5 15
hel with double-edged play, Canda-
Am.Rodriguez, Bayamo 1989.
c) 10 f5 is rather important:
Mitkov- cl) 10...2)c4!? and here:
are no cll) 11 &xc4 Wxc4 12 WF3 Be7
(or 12...e5!2) 13 0-0-0 e5 14 Ade2 b5
15 b3 Wce6 16 Bg5 Rb7 17 Rxf6
Rxf6 18 AdS Hc8! © Reinderman-
Los Van der Weide, Hoogeveen 1999.
c12) 11 fxe6 Axe3 12 We2 Deg4
13 exf7+ Sd8 14 h3 (Shtyrenkov-Pet-
rushin, Russia 1984) 14...4e5 deserves
attention.
 5...Ac6 6 &c4 06 7 &b3 ab 129

c2) 10...e5 11 Ade2. Now, instead Or:

of 11...Ac4 12 &xc4 Wxc4 13 b3 Web
14 Wd3, 11...b5 12 AdS Axd5 13
&xd5 2b7 14 b3 b4 15 c3 Ac6 16 a3
(Schach-Archiv) or 11,..2d7?! 12 &g5,
it is better to play 11...Axb3: 12 axb3
— 10...42\xb3 11 axb3 e5 12 Dde2; 12
cxb3 — 10...A\xb3 11 cxb3 e5 12 Dde2.
c3) 10...Axb3 and now:
ce31) 11 cxb3 and then:
e311) 11...8e7 12 Hcl Wa5
I+
a) 10...2e7 transposes to note ‘b’
to Black’s 10th move in Line C12 of
Chapter 9 (4).
b) 10...Ac4 11 2xc4 Wxc4 12 We!
with an advantage for White, Kiroski-
Abramovi¢, Skopje 1994.
c) 10...Axb3 11 cxb3 b5 12 Hel
Wb7 13 e5 Ads 14 AxdS Wxd5 15
exd6 &.b7 (15...2xd6 16 AF5) 16 d7+
130-0 Wxd7 17 £5 &5 (17...Wd5 18 We2 e5
19 Hfdi) 18 Ae6 + Pelikan-Marini,

¢312) 11...b5 12 Hcl! (12 0-0- 10 Argentina 1985.

0-0 bS 1] f5 Axb3 12 cxb3). 11 £5 (D)
0313) It...e5 12 Ade2 (12 Ac2 11 WFr3?! 2b7!.
d5!?) 12...b5! (12...8d7 13 Bg5 Be7
14 &xf6 Bxf6 15 Ads + Morovicé-
KE 2 es &

SSS
Am.Rodriguez, Cienfuegos 1997;
12...Wa5 13 0-0 h5 14 @d5 + Mikhal- ou
Yj was
Pes Vy;
chishin-Chechelian, Moscow 1979)
"3g Am
13 Hcl (13 0-0!? — 10 0-0 bS! 11 f5 eS
12 Dde2 Axb3 13 cxb3) 13..Was 14
a0 oe
0-0 (very unclear is 14 b4!? Wxb4 15 eae Ase
a3 Wa5 16 b4 Wd8 17 225, as I ana- nie UY
lysed with Istratescu) 14...2b7 — 10
0-0 b5 11 f5 eS 12 Bde2 Axb3 13
A 8.8
cxb3 2b7 14 Hcl Wa5! ~,
c32) 11 axb3 e5! (11...exf5 12 0-0!
+ Ehlvest-Rashkovsky, USSR 1986; One more important position for the
11...2e77! 12 WE3!) 12 Ade2 b5S! and plan with ...We7 and ...@a5.
now: 11...Axb3!?
€321) 13 Axb5? fails to 13...We6. Obliging White to take with the c-
e322) 13 &g5? b4 is bad for pawn. Otherwise:
White. a) 11...b4is risky due to 12 $.a4+.
0323) 13 AdS Axd5 14 Wxd5 2b7 b) 11...Ac4?! 12 Sxc4 Wxc4 13
15 Wd3 and now 15...b4 and 15...&c8 fxe6 fxe6 14 Bxf6 gxf6 15 Wh5+ (Cio-
are both quite reasonable for Black. caltea-Soos, Romania 1954) 15...8d8
324) 13 0-0!?-—100-0b5 11 f5 e5 16 WE3!? Be7 17 65 d5 18 exf6 is also
12 ®de2 Axb3 13 axb3. treacherous for Black.
c325) Another try is 13 Wd3 2b7 c) Black’s alternative is 11...e5 12
(h-'2 Golubev-Istratescu, Bucharest &\de2, and now:
1996), with a complicated game. cl) 12...Ac4!? 13 Bg5 Bb7 (Black
10...b5! should avoid 13...A\g4?! 14 &xc4 Wxc4
130 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

15 Wd5!, A-Kuzmin-K.Orlov, Panéevo ¢322) 19 Wd3!? Wed 20 Re3 is

1989; 13...b4!? Lalié) 14 &xf6 gxf6 also possible.
15 &xc4 Wxc4 16 Ads (Palac-Kozul, ©323) 19 £6 gxf6 20 WF3 Ad7 21
Slovenian Cht 2000) 16...2xd5 17 Ded We7 22 Re3 Hg8 23 Hacl Hc8
exd5 Hc8 = Lalié. 24 c4 bxc4 25 b3 Wad 26 bxc4 Wxa2
c2) 12...Axb3, and again it is not 27 Hal with a draw, A.Kovaéevié-
clear how to recapture: Popovié, Yugoslav Ch (Niksi¢) 1997.
c21) 13 cxb3 &b7 14 Hcl Was! ¢324) Instead, 19 Wf3! (Salov) ap-
(14...Wd8 15 2g5!?) with an impor- pears to be very strong.
tant and unclear position; e.g., 15 a3 We now return to 11...Axb3 (D):
(15 &g3 h5!2) 15...2e7 16 Dg3 (16
&g5!?) 16...h5 17 b4 Wd8 18 W3,
T.Horvath-Zeller, Bundesliga 1992/3.
¢22) 13 axb3 &b7 14 Ad5 (14 BDg3 De has
h5! 15 Ad5 Rxd5 16 exd5 h4 17 Ahl a7 hse 7
Re7 18 Af2 Wh7 19 c4 28 is good
for Black, Ghizdavu-Honfi, Timisoara ZV
1972) 14...2xd5 15 exd5 Re7 16 an EL” WET,
es Uy YY
7
&\c3!? 0-0 17 225 We5+ (17...b4! 18
2xf6 bxc3 19 Bxe7 cxb2 20 Hbl
Hon ae
ye2
tr a

Wxe7 21 f6!? is probably critical) 18

:

Shi Axd5 19 Bxe7 Axe7 20 f6 with

an advantage for White, Lali¢-S.Ped-
ersen, London 1997.
c3) 12...&b7 13 AdS (13 Bg3 BA!
= Bena-Mir.Pavlov, Bucharest 1969;
13 &g57! 4xb3) 13...Axd5 (13...2xd5
14 &xd5 Bc8 15 b3! + Palac-Kozul,
Croatian Cht 2000, with the point
15...Wxce2?! 16 Hel! +) 14 Rxd5 Dc4
and here:
031) 15 Wel 2xd5 16 exdS Hc8!
17 &£2 Qe7! (17...h5?! 18 b3 Abs 19
di + Honfi-Tarjan, Majdanpek 1976)
18 b3 Ab6 ~ Pelletier.
632) 15 Bcl We5+ 16 Shi Vxd5
17 exd5 Ab6 18 Ac3 (18 £61? Wxd5 19
&e3 with compensation, Palac-KoZul,
Croatian Ch (Pula) 2001) 18...2e7
and now:
c321) 19 Ae4? is weak: 19... Wxd5
20 WF3 Hc8 21 Re3 Ad7! F de Fir-
mian-Salov, New York 1996.
12 cxb3
12 axb3?! b4! 13 Aad (13 AchS
Wb7! + Boleslavsky) 13...e5 14 Ae2
Eb8 15 Ag3 h5! + Onoprienko-Van
Laatum, Groningen open 1993.
12...b4!?
Or:
a) 12...e5 and then:
al) 13 @de2 — /1...e5 12 Ade2
“xb3 13 cxb3 ~.
a2) White can try 13 @c2!? (mak-
ing use of the fact that he had to play
12 cxb3) 13...2b7 (13...8b7 14 Ab4
4xe4 15 Acd5) 14 Ab4 Axed 15
“cd5.
b) 12...2e7?! has a long history:
bl) 13 WF3 b4 (Black should try
13...e5!? or 13...Wb7!?) 14 Aad Wb7
15 Hacl! +.
b2) 13 Hcl! (4) (D) and now:
 5...A\c6 6 2c4 06 7 Bb3 ab 131

2b7 17 WhS + Vasiukov-Veiland,

XS Lyons 1955; 15...b4 16 Aad Wb7 17

eB
oi "3 gee 4\c6 + Onishchuk) and now Khenkin

BSA
bf \ \\ > a Be
aU OA recommends 16 “@de2! (instead of 16
Svc"

\
4

mam Xx
es 4\c6?! Wxc6 17 g5, Geller-Taimanov,
USSR Ch (Kiev) 1954).

BY
WS

13 Aad e5! (D)

“So

\
i

Yt , & Z 13...Axe4 can be met by 14 Hcl +

DOA (Koblenc) or 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 Wh5+ 26
“,
me

SSS
16 Wr3 + (Nunn).
Bue
b21) 13...Wb7 14 fxe6 (14 WF3 x 2 Lek he
2d7 15 g4 b4!, Khenkin-Fridshtein,
USSR Cht 1954) 14...fxe6 15 b4 0-0
16 Wb3 d5 (Tolush-Taimanov, USSR
Ch (Moscow) 1952; 16...Wd7!? is
better) 17 Ac6! + Koblenc.
b22) 13...Wd7 and then:
b221) 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 Ac6 (15 b4
0-0 16 Wb3 Lh8 17 h3 5! = Keres-
Taimanov, Zurich Ct 1953) 15...4xc6!
16 Ads Dxd5 (maybe 16...b7 is
possible) 17 Bxc6 Axe3 18 Wel 2d7 Now:
« Ekstrém-Roos, corr. 1964. a) 14 Bel Wb7 15 AF3 (15 Dc6?
b222) 14 Wf3! and then: Rd7 F) 15.. Wxe4!? (S.. Dxe4 16
b2221) 14...e5 15 Ac6! 2b7 16 4\b6 Af6! 17 Dxa8 Wxa8 + Serper;
&a5 + Boleslavsky. 15...8e7 16 Ab6 Bb8 17 Hc4! + de
b2222) 14...2b7!? 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 Firmian-Serper, Los Angeles 1997) 16
Wh3 2c8 17 Hed1!? (17 AF3 0-0 18 Wd2 and now 16...A\d5? 17 Bfel 2b7
e5 dxe5 19 Axe5 Wd6 20 Wg3 = Oni- 18 Ac5!! dxc5 19 Qxc5 and 16... Wb7
shchuk) 17...0-0 18 b4 = FOlafsson- 17 Ab6 Hb8 18 Wxb4 (Serper) both
Johansson, Reykjavik (2) 1959. favour White, but I hesitate to recom-
2223) 14...0-0 15 g4 (or 15 e5! mend this for White due to 16... .xf5!?.
Rb7 16 exf6 2xf3 17 fxe7 Wxe7 18 b) 14 43!?, with a tense game, is
Exf3 Suetin) 15...e5 (15...Ae8 16 95 worthy of attention.
9 5...Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 &b3 a6
8 £e3 2e7 without 9 We2

1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 Bar 1997) 17 Wg4! with compensa-

A655 Ac3 Ac6 6 24 e6 7 2b3 a68 tion — Popovicé.
Re3 &e7 (D) a2) 10...0-0!? 11 Bgl (not 11 g5?
4g4) 11...b5 12 g5 Ad7 13 0-0-0 Bb8
(13...Ac5?! 14 e5!) 14 £4 a5 15 a4 (15
x iWe
\\ bet

a3 4c5! 16 e5 b4 Sokolov) 15...bxa4

Bas
el

16 Wxad Hb4 17 Wa2 a4! 18 Rxad

en

GY
ly je Wy We7 19 £5 Ac5 20 f6 Ad8 offers
NY
\\oe

WS

compensation for Black, Velimirovic-

A.Sokolov, Yugoslavia 1998.
b) 9...Wa5!? 10 £3 Ad7 (similar po-
“
ws

me:
aa 1 Lag
WS

sitions may arise in the variation 5...a6

BRAT, BAR 6 8.04 e6 7 &b3 Be7

8 24), and now:

wm 7wWSE 7k
bl) 11 Wd2 Ac5 12 0-0-0 0-0 13
Sbl Axd4 14 Bxd4 We7 (14...b5 15
4d5!) 15 g5 b5 16 h4, Velimirovié-
9 We2 is considered in Chapter 10, Popovié, Yugoslav Ch (play-off) 1997
so we are left with these three moves: (+ Informator).
A: 9 g4!? 132 b2) 11 h4 0-0 (11..Ac5 12 Wd2
B: 90-0 132 0-0 13 0-0-0 Axd4 14 Bxd4 b5 15
C: 9f4 133 bl b4 16 De2 Axb3 @~ Ivanovié-
Popovié, Bar 1997) 12 We2 Ac5 13
A) 0-0-0 Axd4 14 &xd4 b5 15 e5 We7 16
9 gal? f4 'h-' Velimirovié-Popovié, Yugo-
A curious and fresh idea. There are slav Cht 1999.
not many examples of it as yet: We see that 9 g4 has not as yet ac-
a) 9...Axd4 10 Wxd4 and then: quired any followers outside Yugosla-
al) 10...e5 (certainly, this is the via, as the new variations are very
most critical) 11 Wd3 (11 We4 2e6 unclear while the old continuations
should be good for Black) 11...2xg4 are still attractive for White. Neverthe-
(11...Axg4!?) 12 Bgl 0-0 13 &g5 (13 less, it is one more worry for Black.
&\d5!? Popovié) 13...2h5 14 Wh3
96 15 Bxf6 (15 Wh4!?) 15..2xf6 B)
16 0-0-0 Hc8 (Velimirovié-Popovié, 9 0-0
 5..A\c6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 ab 8 Be3 Re7 wiTHOUT 9 We2 133

White has to continue 10 f4 after all Other moves:

Black’s main answers, so the immedi- a) 9...d57! 10 eS Ad7 11 0-017 2c5
ate 9 f4, preserving the possibility of 12 &h1 gives White the better pros-
10 Wf3!?, is more flexible. Still I have pects, Mini¢-Klemens, Oberhausen
no great objections to 9 0-0; for exam- Echt 1961.
ple, Black can gain no benefit from b) 9...4\a5. Now 10 e5 is uncon-
9...2a5 10 £4 @xb3 (10...b5? 11 5; vincing in view of 10...dxe5 11 fxe5
10...Wc7 transposes to note ‘b’ to Ad7 12 Bxe6 Axe5 13 Wh5 Dac!
Black’s 10th move in Line C12) 11 (Therrell-Melvin, Alabama 1995) but
axb3 0-0 12 Wf3! and White achieves 10 0-0 is normal, or maybe 10 Wf3!?
the optimal arrangement of pieces. b5 11 e5 &b7 12 exf6, as in Estrin-
The difference between 9 f4 and 9 Kletsel, Moscow 1962.
0-0 may, however, be of importance c) 9...2d7 contains few notewor-
after: thy ideas:
9...2)xd4!? 10 &xd4 b5 cl) 10 Wf3 and now:
Usually this follows one move later cll) 10.:.b5? is weak due to 11 e5.
(after 9...0-0 10 £4). One possible idea c12) After 10...@xd4 11 2&xd4
in playing the move here is that after &c6, both 12 g4 and 12 f5 e5 13 Rf2
11 f4 (-— 9 f4 Dxd4!? 10 Qxd4 b5 11 seem good.
0-0), Black can play 11...2b7!?. With c13) 10...0-0 transposes to note ‘c
the pawn on f2, 11 a4!? is possible, to Black’s 10th move in Line C21.
when 11...64 12 a5 0-0! (not 12...bxc3? c2) 100-0 b5!? (10... We7 — 9... We7
13 &b6! +—) seems satisfactory for 10 0-0 &d7;, 10...0-0 -— 9...0-0 10 0-0
Black. &d7; 10...%c87! 11 £5!) 11 £5 (11 a3
has fewer pretensions) 11...Wc8 12
C) fxe6 (12 WE3 DAxd4 13 Rxd4 0-0 14
9 £4 (D) a3 '/-'» de Firmian-Ftaénik, Polanica
Zdroj 1995) 12...fxe6 13 Axc6 Wxcé.
Now, instead of 14 Wd4 0-0! = Kai-
|
|i
|
|

|
1

s
i.

danov-Ehlvest, New York 1994, White

A
eee
#,
aa

should try something else; for exam-

RN

ple, 14 Wd3!? (14 @h1!? or even 14

x
Sx

pe
\
WS

4) 14...b4 15 Aad Dxe4 16 Sh.

c3) 10 f5!?.
SS

d) 9...A\xd4!? (continuing the theme

ae i

of 9 0-0 @xd4!?), and then:

SS
Boo

dl) 10 &xd4 b5 and now:

ie

G
d11) 110-0 can be met
by 11...0-0,
transposing to Line C222, or 11...2b7!?
12 e5 dxeS 13 fxe5 Ad7!? - I] eS
The two main moves here are: dxe5 12 freS Dd7 13 0-0 &.b7!?.
C1: 9...87!? 134 d12) 11 eS dxe5 12 fxe5 @d7 13
C2: 9...0-0 137 0-0 (13 WF3!? Bb8; 13 We4 0-0), and
134 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
instead of 13...0-0 (which transposes
to Line C222), 13...$b7!? (preventing
14 {e4) is interesting. Surprisingly, I
do not see anything for White:
d121) After 14 Wh5, possible is
14... AF6 15 exf6 Wxd4+ 16 Ghi 2xf6
17 &xe6 0-0 or 14...0-0 with the point
15 Exf7 (15 Had! 4c5) 15...Exf7 16
Rxe6 Dxe5 17 Wxe5 26 18 2xf7+
Bhs! +.
d122) Or 14 We4 0-0! (14...Ac5
15 Se3!), and after 15 Bxf7 Bxf7 16
2xe6+ Se8, the known continuation
is 17 Wh5+(?) g6 18 Wxh7 Axe5 —+.
Better but still not convincing is 17
“He4!? Rxed 18 Wxed 96 (possibly
even stronger is 18...2c8; e.g., 19 Wxh7
&\xe5!) 19 2xd7+ Yxd7 20 e6+ Sc7
21 Bdl Bf5 22 Be5+ BxeS 23 Wxe5+
2d6 =.
d2) After 10 Wxd4! 0-0 11 0-0-0
Black has suffered difficulties: 11...8c7
(11...b5 12 e5 dxe5 13 Wxe5 £ Vara-
vin-Zagrebelny, Alma-Ata 1995) 12
Hhfl (or 12 Wb6!? Wb8 13 Hhfl Ad7
14 Wd4 Sc5 15 £5 with an advantage,
Varga-Meissner, Altensteig 1993)
12...b5 13 £5 £ Kindermann-H.Schuh,
Bundesliga 1993/4.
C1)
9... We7!? (D)
By playing this, Black rejects the
popular plan of 9...0-0 10 0-0 Axd4
but keeps the possibility of 10 0-0 0-0
(— 9...0-0 10 0-0 We7). Here it is im-
portant which of the moves (9...c7
or 9...0-0) works better against 10 Wf3
— the question still remains unan-
swered!
In addition, the position is impor-
tant due to the move-order 8...We7 9
f4 Re7.
‘YW
a
bai
.
As in the main variation 9...0-0, here
White has two main moves:
C11: 10 Wr 134
C12: 100-0 135
Other ideas:
a) 10 We2 (a rare hybrid of Sozin
and Velimirovié) 10...b5!? (10...0-0 —
9...0-0: 10 We2 Wc7; 10...2a5!2) 11 £5
(11 0-0- 100-0 b5 1] We2; 11 0-0-0!?
is unclear) 11...Axd4 12 &xd4 b4 13
e5 with complications where White
has no apparent advantage, Nijboer-
Garcia Hundain, Groningen 1991.
b) 10 f5!? has not been played at a
serious level.
C11)
10 Bf3 Axd4!?
Other moves:
a) 10...0-0 11 0-0-0, transposing to
Line C211, might represent a micro-
concession by Black.
b) 10...b5 11 e5 2b7 (11...Axd4?!
12 Wxa8) 12 Axe6 fxe6 13 exf6 Bxf6
14 Wh3 is better for White, Khasi-
dovsky-Siddikov, Uzbekistan 1969.
c) 10...8d7 11 0-0-0 (11 f5 is also
good; e.g., 11...Axd4 12 2xd4 e5 13
Be3 2c6 14 g4 bS 15 g5 Axed 16
Axed Wb7 17 £6! +— Plaskett-Krush,
 5..A\c6 6 &c4 e6 7 Bb3 ab 8 Be3 Be7 wiTHOoUT 9 We2 135
Hampstead 2001) 11...2c8 (11...0-0 —
10...0-0 11 0-0-0 &.d7) 12 g4! with an
advantage, Howell-Bologan, Biel open
1993.
d) 10...Aa5 11 g4!? (11 0-0 - 10
0-0 DaS 1] Wf3; 11 0-0-0 b5!? 12 eS
&b7 13 Wed dxeS 14 fxeS AhS; 11
&a4+!?; 11 £5!?) with somewhat su-
perior chances for White:
dl) 11...h6 12 0-0-0 b5 13 g5
4\xb3+ 14 axb3 hxg5 15 fxg5 Ad7 16
g6 + Istratescu-Nevednichy, Bucha-
rest 1994,
d2) 11...d5 12 exdS Axb3 13 Axb3
“\xd5 14 @xd5 exd5 15 0-0-0 + Os-
toji¢-Parma, Yugoslav Ch (Umag)
1972.
d3) 11...Ac4 12 &xc4 Wxc4, and
now 13 0-0-0!? bS 14 e5 is possibly
more accurate than 13 g5 @d7.
d4) 11...0-0 12 g5 (12 0-0-0 —
9...0-0 10 Hf3 We7 11 0-0-0 Da5 12
g4) 12...Ad7 13 0-0-0 (13 &xe6 HeS5!
Kasparov/Nikitin) 13...xb3+ (alter-
natively, 13...b5 — 9...0-0 10 Wy3 We7
11 0-0-0 a5 12 g4 b5 13 g5 Bd7) 14
axb3 b5 — 9...0-0 10 Wf3 Wc7 11 0-0-0
Bas 12 94 b5 13 g5 Axb3+ 14 axb3
Bd7 t.
11 &xd4 b5 12 a3
Other moves are:
a) 12 0-0-0 &b7 with strong coun-
terplay.
b) 12 e5 dxe5 13 fxe5 &b7 14 We3
4 e4! 15 Wxe7? 0-0-0 16 Hfl (16 0-0-0
Edg8 —+; 16 Axe4 2xe4 17 Hfl 226)
16...hhg8 17 Wxf7 Bxg2 18 Wxe6+
¥b8 19 0-0-0 &g5+ 20 bl Ad2+ 21
Exd2 Bxd2 22 2b6 Wxc3!! 23 Rxd8
W3!! ~+ Madl-Chiburdanidze, Bat-
umi wom Echt 2000.
c) 12 f5!?, and now 12...0-0 trans-
poses to note ‘c’ to White’s 11th move
in Line C211. Black has two unclear
alternatives: 12...b4 and 12...e5 13
Rf2 (13 2e3!?) 13...2.b7 14 0-0-0 b4
15 Ad5 Axd5 16 Bxd5 (16 Bxd5!9;
16 $a4+!?) 16...0-0, Blees-Lanka,
Ljubljana 1994.
12...0-0
12...2b7 13 0-0 (13 0-0-0!7) 13...0-0
transposes to note ‘c’ to White’s 13th
move in Line C221.
13 0-0-0
13 0-0- 9...0-0 10 0-0 Wc7 11 Wf3
Axd4 12 Bxd4 b5 13 a3!? =.
13...2.d7!?
According to Stoica and Istratescu,
both 13...$2b7 14 5! and 13...4b8 14
e5! favour White.
After the text-move (13...2.d7!2), 14
Wd37! is dubious in view of 14...2c6
(14... fd8!? Kupreichik) 15 £5 e5 16
e3 and now either 16...2£fc8 = Schan-
dorff-Kupreichik, Copenhagen 1993
or 16...a5!? (Kupreichik). White should
choose among 14 f5, 14 e5!? dxe5S 15
fxe5 2.6 16 exf6 and 14 24!7e5 15 g5.
C12)
10 0-0 (D)
ruaem
» _sW Ba
BD Be
BER AB
Now 10...0-0 is the main move; see
9...0-0 10 0-0 We7 (Line C221).
136 THE SICILIAN
10...b5
Played by Larsen, Tal and Anand.
The other options are:
a) 10...8d7 does not contain any
meaningful ideas (besides 11...0-0):
al) 11 WF3 Axd4?! 12 2xd4 2c6
13 £5 e5 14 Re3 b5 15 Bg5 Axed 16
®xe4 B2xg5 17 Rxf7+!, Benderac-
Gnjatovi¢c, Yugoslavia 1996.
a2) 11 £5 @xd4 (11...e5? 12 Ae6!
fxe6 13 fxe6 2c8 14 Hxf6 +-) 12
&xd4 (12 Wxd4!?) 12...65 (12...0-0 -
9...0-0 10 0-0 We7 II f5 Axd4 12
&xd4 2d7 +) 13 a3 (13 fxe6!?). Now,
13...0-0!? transposes to note ‘b12 to
White’s 11th move in Line C221. In-
stead, 13...e5 14 2e3 Rc6 15 Ags!
(after 15 “Ad5, rather than 15...&2xd5
16 &xd5 + Fischer-Cardoso, New York
(4) 1957, Black should play 15...8b7!,
as in Golubev-Liubarsky, Ukrainian
jr Cht (Evpatoria) 1984) 15...A\xe4 16
&xe7! favours White.
b) 10...A\a5 contains ideas, but they
work rather poorly:
bl) 11 2a4+ 2d7 12 2xd7+ Wxd7!
13 5?! dxeS 14 fxe5 Dc4! =.
b2) 11 We2 b5 (11...0-0!2 =) 12 £5
Axb3 (12...e5) 13 cxb3 (13 axb3 b4! F
Lipnitsky-Taimanov, USSR Ch (Mos-
cow) 1951) 13...e5 14 Ac2 + Ivano-
vié-Cebalo, Pula 1991.
b3) 11 Wf3 b5! on the whole suits
Black:
b31) 12.3 can be met by 12...Axb3
or 12...2b7 =.
b32) Unclear
is 12 g4 b4!? (12...h5
13 g5 Dg 14 g6! Khenkin) 13 Ace2
@xb3 14 axb3 &b7 15 Ag3 Ad7
Boleslavsky.
b33) 12 £5!?2 e5 (12...Axb3!? 13
axb3 b4 14 e5? 2b7) 13 AdS Axd5 14
&xd5 exd4 15 xd4 V6 (15...2b7 is
SOZIN
critical) 16 &xf6 gxf6 17 &xa8 Wa7+
18 Hf2 Wxa8 19 We3 + Adorjan-Ribli,
Hungary 1969.
b34) 12 e5 &b7 13 We3 dxe5!
(13...Axb3 14: cxb3; 13...Ah5 14 Wh3
&xb3 15 cxb3 g6 16 Hacl! Boleslav-
sky) 14 fxe5 AhS5 (14...Axb3!2) and
now:
b341) 15 Wh3 Axb3 (15...Wxe5?
16 &xe6!, Averbakh-Taimanov, Zu-
rich Ct 1953) 16 Axb3 Wxe5 17 Aad
b4! is good for Black, Bannik-Tai-
manov, USSR Ch (Kiev) 1954.
b342) Double-edged play results
after 15 Wf2 0-0 16 94 Axb3; e.g., 17
axb3 f6!? (17...WxeS 18 gxhS Wxh5
19 ce2!) 18 gxh5 fxe5 19 We3 Bc5
20 h6 g6 21 Xxf8+ Exf8 = Emms-
Shipov, Thessaloniki 1996.
b343) 15 &xe6 Axg3 (15...fxe6?
16 Wh3 +) 16 Rxf7+ Sd7 17 Reb+
Se8 (17...4d8? 18 Had1!) is a draw.
b4) 11 g4!?.
b5) 11 £5! and then:
b51) 11...e5 12 Ade2 Ac4 (12...b5
13 Bg5!; 12..R2d7 13 Bhi!?) 13
4d5!? (13 &xc4 Wxe4 and now 14
b3!? Schach-Archiv or 14 $g5!?)
13...Axd5 14 Wxd5 Axe3 15 Wxf7+
Yd8 16 Wxg7 Be8 17 Hf3 Who 18
@h1 dS (Akhmadeev-Ragozin, Rus-
sian Ch (Elista) 1994) 19 &xd5 with an
advantage — Cu.Hansen.
b52) 11...Ac4 12 &xc4 Wxc4 13
WF3 0-0 (13...e5 can be answered by
Kaidanov’s 14 Ab3! b5 15 Ad2 or 14
&de2 b5 15 b3! We6 16 Ad5!, Cio-
caltea-Hali¢é, Romanian Ch (Bucha-
rest) 1954) 14 Had] b5?! (14... Bb8 15
g4!; 14...e5 £; 14...4\d7!?
— Kaidanov)
15 fxe6 fxe6 16 e5 + Kaidanov-Smi-
rin, Groningen PCA qual 1993.
We now return to 10...b5 (D):
 5..Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 a6 8 Re3 Re7 witHouT 9 We2 137

w
xuswen
wa y Raha
16 Wed dS 17 Wxg7 0-0-0
counterplay — Anand) 14...0-0 15 Wrf3
transposes to note ‘c31’ to White’s
with

sas A a WY 13th move in Line C221

11...8xc6 12 £5! 0-0
(=).

12...&d7 13 fxe6 fxe6 transposes to

Mb eA
BS Ui note ‘c2’ to Black’s 9th move in Line
V2 & 7 C.
13 fxe6 2xe6
ARLAT YAR
a were || 13...fxe6 14 @dS5!.
14 Ad5 &xd5 15 exd5 Wd7 16 Hf4
+ Golubev-Belotti, Grichen 1999.
11 Axc6
Otherwise: C2)
a) 11 We2 can be answered by 9...0-0 (D)
11...2)xd4!? = (Akopian) or 11...Aa5
x72 @iol
—10...Ba5 11 We2 b5.
b) 11 Wf3 gives Black a choice
between 11...8b7!? and 11..0a5 -
10...2\a5 11 Wf3 b5!.
» oe ey
c) After 11 a3, 11...0-0 (11...2b7 Taha 7
12 £5 e5 13 Axc6 Rxc6— 10...2d7 11 a wens
A oa ae

a,
f Axd4 12 Bxd4 b5 13 a3 e5 14 Be3
&c6 £; 11...8a5!9) is OK; e.g., 12 £5 20 8 7
Axd4 13 Qxd4 — 9...0-0 10 0-0 Wc7
ARAG OAn
11 f5 Dxd4 12 Rxd4 b5 13 a3.
d) 11 f5 is popular: 11...A\xd4! (WS 78) X

(11...b4? 12 2a4 2b7 13 fxe6 bxc3

14 exf7+), and now:
dl) 12 Wxd4!? 0-0 and now, rather
than 13 fxe6 2xe6! (13...fxe6? 14 Ad5
&xd5 15 exd5! +) 14 Hadi Hac8 =
Ab.Khasin-Tal, USSR Ch (Leningrad)
1956, Tal recommended 13 Had1!.
d2) 12 &xd4 e5!? (12...b4!12 13 Aad
Hb8 ~ Bitansky-Lemer, Tel-Aviv 2001;
12...0-0 — 9...0-0 10 0-0 We7 11 f5
“xd4 12 &xd4 b5) 13 Bf2 (13 Re3
Rb7 14 Bes (14 Dd5!2} 14... Axed
15 Dxe4 Bxe4 16 Wed d5 with a dou-
ble-edged game, Verdci-Liu Shilan,
Thessaloniki wom OL 1984) 13...82.b7
14 a3 (14 Bh4 Axe4 15 Axed Bxed
Now:
C21: 10 Wr3 138
C22: 100-0 142
10 We2!? continues the topic of hy-
brids:
a) 10...Axd4 11 &xd4 b5 12 0-0-0
b4 (12...2.b7 can be met by 13 e5 or 13
£5!2 £ Nikitin) 13 Aa4 2b7 (13...e5
14 &xe5 Bg4 15 We3!? Qxd1 16 Rxf6
&xf6 17 xd] We7 18 Ab6 Hae8 19
e5! with an advantage, Klimov-Eriks-
son, Stockholm 1998; 13...Ad7!?) 14
Rxf6!? 2xf6 15 Ac5 2c6 (15... 2c8!?
Lepeshkin) 16 e5 &xe5! 17 Axe6! =
138 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Sigurjonsson-Ligterink, Wijk aan Zee C211: 10...We7 138

1980.
b) 10...Aa5 11 g4!? gives White
attacking chances.
c) 10...Ad7 11 £5 (11 0-0-0 trans-
poses to note ‘b’ to White’s 11th move
in Line Al of Chapter 10; 11 0-0)
11...Axd4 12 &xd4 exf5 13 0-0 fxe4
14 Axe4 De5 15 Axd6 = Kovaliov-
Filipenko, USSR 1986.
d) 10...84c7 11 £5!? (11 0-0-0 trans-
poses to note ‘b’ to White’s 11th move
in Line B2 of Chapter 10) 11...@\xd4
(11...exf5 12 Axf5 Bxf5 13 exf5 d5
14 0-0-0 £ A.Ivanov-Kovaliov, USSR
1986) 12 &xd4 b5 (12...exf5 13 0-0!
is slightly better for White, Mikhal-
chishin-Tukmakov, Rostov 1980) 13
fxe6 fxe6 (13...&xe6!?) 14 0-0 Ph8
(14...b42! 15 Da4 Bb8 16 5 Belikov)
15 a3 2d7 (15...e5 16 Re3 £) 16 e5
with a slight advantage for White,
Belikov-Maki, Dresden 2000.
C21)
10 Wr3 (D)
This concept, connected with 0-0-0,
partially lost its appeal after the 1993
Kasparov-Short match.
C212: 10...Axd4 141
Other moves:
a) 10...Wa5 11 0-0-0 Axd4 12 Bxd4
272! (12....Dd7!2) 13 24! e5 14 DdS
(14 Bd5 Wd8! Yakovich) 14...exd4
15 Axe7+ Gh8 16 Axd4 + Mitkov-
KoZul, Skopje open 1991.
b) 10...4d7 11 0-0-0 (11 0-0!7)
11...Ac5 12 ¢4 Bd7 13 g5 bS 14 Sbl
&xb3 15 axb3 Axd4 16 &xd4 b4 17
4\a4 £ Kupreichik-Mukhin, USSR
1973.
c) 10...8d7 11 0-0-0! (11 0-0 - 10
0-0 &d7 1] Wf3), and Black faces
problems: 11...W07 — /0...Wc7 11 0-0-0
&d7; 11...0xd4 12 Bxd4 Bc6 13 24
or 13 £5! with an advantage; 11...Wb8
12 g4 @xd4 13 Qxd4 e5 14 g5 Bgd
15 We3 +; 11...Aa5 12 g4! with an ini-
tiative; 11...c8 12 94! (12 £5?! Bxd4!
13 &xd4 e5 ~ J.Polgar-I Ivanov, New
York 1989).
d) 10...8a5 11 0-0-0 (11 g4 b5 12
g5 \d7 is unclear; e.g., 13 Bg] b4 14
B®ce2 Axb3 15 axb3 £b7 16 £5, Ata-
nasov-Suba, 1978, 16...e5) 11...b5!?
(11..We7 — 10..We7 1 0-0-0 Das;
11...A\xb3+ 12 axb3 Was 13 Sb1 Whs

263i Ba
14 Wf2 + Enders-Vogt, East German

» ok ake
Ch (Nordhausen) 1986) 12 e5 &b7 13
exf6 &xf3-14 fxe7 Wxe7 with a com-
sae am plicated game, Filipowicz-Gromek,

Oo oD Polish Ch (Rzeszow) 1966.

7a PAS Ry Ga
mau awe C211)

ADS Am A By
10...8c7 11 0-0-0
Otherwise:

a 6 oo: a) 11 g4? @xd4 12 Rxd4 eS.

b) 11 0-0- 10 0-0 Wc7 11 Wy.
c) 11 £5!7 Axd4! (11...d5? 12 fxe6
Now: fxe6 13 exd5 +; 11...8h87! 12 0-0-0;
 5..A\c6 6 &c4 e6 7 Bb3 ab 8 Be3 Be7 witHouT 9 We2 139

11...e5 12 Ade2 {possibly 12 Axc6!?} may be happy with 15 f6 bxc3 16 fxe7

12...b5 13 94 b4 14 Dad Dd7 15 g5 Wxe7, as in Minié-Jansa, Budva 1963,
with an attack, Cheremisin-Bakulin, and other games, but 15 @\d5!? exd5
Moscow 1957; 11...Ae5 12 We2 exf5 16 Wh5 (Baljon) deserves serious at-
13 Axf5 and now 13...8.xf5 14 exf5 + tention.
Zuckerman-Schon, New York 1987, c3) 13 0-0-0!? b4 14 Aa4. Now
or 13...d5 14 Axe7+ Wxe7 15 Bg5 + 14...exf5 15 exfS &b7 16 Weg3, Soffer-
Stefansson-Shirov, Reykjavik 1992) Loginov, Budapest 1994, and 14...2b8
12 &xd4 b5 (12...e5 13 2e3 bS 14 15 g4e5 16 2f2 2b7 17 Hhel 2c6 18
a3!?), and now: g5, A-Ivanov-Wessman, Reykjavik tt
cl) 13 a3 and then: 1990, do not yield equality. Also dubi-
cll) 13...exf52! 14 exf5 2b7 £. ous seems 14...8b7 15 fxe6 fxe6 (Yak-
c12) 13...2d7 is well met by 14 ovich-Aseev, USSR Ch (Moscow)
gat. 1991; hardly sufficient is 15...&xe4
c13) 13...e5 and then: 16 exf7+), and now 16 Wg3!. There
c131) 14 &f2 2b7 15 0-0 trans- remains 14...e5!? with unclear play;
poses to note ‘c31’ to White’s 13th e.g., 15 Sf2 &2b7 16 Hhel 2c6 17
move in Line C221. 4\b6 Hab8 18 Ad5 Axd5 19 &xd5 a5.
c132) 14 2e3 &b7 and now 15 0-0 We now return to 11 0-0-0 (D):
transposes to note ‘c32’ to White’s 13th

X72 |
move in Line C221, but 15 0-0-0!? is eas YY, p WH Ta, 7

interesting, Zeller-Haist, Wiirttem- y Se iL Y ts

berg Ch 1995. Za
c14) 13...8b8! and now:
c141) 14 0-0-0 b4 15 axb4 Bxb4
16 94 — 14 g4 b4 15 axb4 Exb4 16
0-0-0.
c142) Black has good play after 14
0-0 b4! 15 axb4 Hxb4 16 &e3 exf5 17
exf5 &b7, del Rio-Lerner, Metz 1998.
c143) 14 fxe6 Rxe6 15 Ad5 Bxd5
16 exd5 Ad7 is also fine for Black,
Apicella-Avrukh, Albufeira ECC 1999. 11...b5(!)
144) 14 g4 b4 15 g5 (or 15 axb4 Others:
Exb4 16 0-0-0 e5 17 &f2 2b7 18 Bhe} a) 11...Axd4?! is hardly success-
£b8!, Bednarski-Lombard, Skopje ful:
OL 1972, with the point 19 g5 Axe4 al) 12 Hxd4 b5 and then:
—+) 15...Ae8! 16 axb4 2xg5 17 0-0 all) 13 £5 &d7!? (13...exf5 14 exf5
&f6 favours Black, Vera-Lechtinsky, &b7 15 Wf2 probably favours White,
Bratislava 1983. J.Polgar-Maxwell, Weimar 1989, as
c2) 13 g4!? b4 (13...2b77! 14 95 does 13...b4 14 Bxb4 d5 15 Hd4 dxe4
+; 13...e5!7 14 2f2 b4 15 AdS Axd5 16 @xe4 exf5 17 Ag5!?) 14 g4 a5 15
16 &xd5 &b7) 14 g5 Ae8. Here, Black g5 a4 16 gxf6 &xf6 17 2d5 Hac8
140 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Medvegy-Somogyi, Hungarian Cht (15...2.d6 16 2e3 Bc6 17 WF +) 16

1992/3, and it appears that Black is @d5 with a strong initiative, Trepp-
ready for complications; e.g., 18 Wg2 Kaenel, Biel 1989.
a3 19 Sb1 axb2 20 fxe6 fxe6 21 Axb5 c2) 13 Bxd4!? e5 14 Hd2! with an
We. advantage, Ni¢evski-Lombard, Polan-
al2) 13 g4e5 (13...b4 14 Bxb4 d5 ica Zdroj 1974.
15 Bd4 dxe4 16 We2 + Anand-Piket, d) 11...Ad7!? (e.g. 12 £5 Ac5 13
Amsterdam 1990) 14 @d5 (14 g5!? We3 Ph8) is worthy of attention.
exd4 15 &xd4 Ad7 16 AdS Wa8 17 1265
gi Kasparov) 14...Axd5 15 Bxd5 12 £5 b4 13 Ace2 Axd4 14 Hxd4
b4! (15...2e6? 16 £5! +; 15...exf4 16 exf5!? (unclear is 14...e5 15 Bc4 Wb8
Rxf4 Re6 17 Hd2 £ Anand) 16 f5! 16 g4 Sokolov) 15 exf5 &b7 16 Wh3?
(16 fxe5 Be6!? (or 16...dxe5 17 Wg3 (16 We3!, Sokolov, is unclear again)
&b7} 17 exd6 Bxd6 18 Hd2 &xb3 19 16...a5 ¥ Istratescu-A.Sokolov, Gron-
axb3 a5 with an initiative — Kasparov) ingen FIDE 1997.
16...a5 17 Rad! Vb7 18 g5 (18 We2!? 12 g4 Axd4 (possibly 12...b4! is
Kasparov) 18...fc8! 19 We2 &xd5 even stronger) 13 &xd4 (13 Hxd4 —
20 exd5 We4 21 Sb1 Wh4! with ap- 11,..Axd4 12 Bxd4 bS 13 g4) 13...b4!
proximately equal chances, Reinder- with counterplay, Perez-Smyslov, Ha-
man-Kasparov, Wijk aan Zee 1999, vana 1962.
a2) 12 &xd4! b5 (12...e5 13 fxe5 12...Axd4
dxe5 14 Wg3 2d6 15 Re3 + Khen- 12...2b7? 13 Axe6.
kin-Zlotnik, Moscow 1965; 12...2d7 13 &xd4
13 Wg3 2f6 14 Bhel +) 13 2xf6! 13 Bxd4? dxe5 14 fxe5 Wxe5 15
2xf6 (13...gxf6 14 Hd3 + Rublev- Wxa8 Wxe3+ 16 Hd2 Ag4 + A.Soko-
sky-Ionov, Russian Ch (Elista) 1994) lov.
14 e5 &b7 15 &d5! + Votava-Baga- 13 Wxa8 dxe5 (13...A\c6!?, as sug-
turov, Brno 1991. gested by Kasparov/Nikitin, is unclear)
b) 11...Aa5 12 g4! (12 £5!9) 12...b5 14 fxe5 Axb3+ (14...2b7 15 Wa7 Ac6
(12...Axb3+ 13 axb3 b5 will come to 16 Wb6 +) 15 axb3 2b7! (15...Wxe5?!
the same thing; 12...A\c4 13 g5 ®d7 16 Wa7 + Yakovich-Ionov, St Peters-
14 Af5! + Tringov-Letelier, Havana burg 1995) 16 Wa7 “\g4 (or 16...2\d7)
1971) 13 g5 @xb3+ (13...Ad7 14 with compensation — Jonov.
&xe6!? Ae5 15 fxe5 fxe6 16 Wh3) 14 13...dxe5!
axb3 Ad7 15 £5 b4 (15...Ae5 16 Wg3!9 13...Ad7 14 Wxa8!? &b7 15 Axb5
is given by Kasparov and Nikitin) 16 axbS 16 Wa3 +.
Had! (16 Ace2 e5 is unclear) 16...Ae5 14 &xe5
17 We2 + Yakovich-Ionov, USSR Ch After 14 fxe5, the reply 14...2d7 is
(Moscow) 1991. sufficient.
c) 11...8d7 12 g4! @xd4 and then: 14...Wb7 15 Wg3 b4 16 De2
cl) 13 &xd4 e5 (13...2.067! 14 £5!; 16 Aa4 Web 17 Hd4 2b7 18 Hed
13...b5!? 14 £5 b4 15 g5 Ae8 16 £6 Wb5 19 Hc7 2d8 is OK for Black,
&.d8) 14 fxe5 dxeS 15 We3! Axgd A.Kovaéevié-Arsovic, Ulcinj 1988.
 5...Nc6 6 &2c4 06 7 Bb3 a6 8 Be3 Be7
16...a5 17 2a4
White keeps some initiative, Voit-
sekhovsky-Loginov, Novgorod 1999.
C212)
10...xd4 11 2xd4 b5 (D)
This move is better than 11...e5 = or
11...WaS 12 £5 exf5 13 0-0!, Velim-
irovic-Popovi¢, Yugoslav Ch (Budva)
1986.
17 8w Rs
a.a a Re3 Exc3 21 bxc3 Wxc3 (21... Wxed
Ba an
in oy
The line with 10...A\xd4 and 11...b5
was recognized as the strongest after
Short-Kasparov (1993). It is easy to
understand why in 1999 Kasparov did
not play like this against Reinderman:
in the main line White has a simple
draw and various other tries.
12 &xf6
Or:
a) 125?! dxe5 13 Rxe5 (13 fxe5
Wxd4 14 exf6 2c5!, Hermlin-Sham-
kovich, Viljandi 1972) 13...a7! (but
not 13...Wb6? 14 Wxa8 2b7 15 Bd4
Wc6 16 Wa7 Ad7 17 Ke3! Ac5 18
0-0-0 Ha8 19 £45 +-).
b) 12 0-0-0!? 2b7 13 Bhel is un-
clear; e.g., 13...b4!? 14 Aad Bc,
Honfi-Wells, Budapest 1995.
c) 12 a3 &b7 (12...2b8!? 13 0-0-0
b4 14 axb4 Exb4 15 e5 dxe5 16 &c5
WITHOUT 9 We2 141
We7 17 &xb4 2xb4 with compensa-
tion, Istratescu-Milu, Romanian Ch
(Bucharest) 1992) 13 0-0-0 (13 0-0
transposes to note ‘c2’ to White’s 12th
move in Line C222) has frequently oc-
curred:
cl) 13...2c8 14 Bhel (14 £5 Bxc3!)
14...Wa5 15 &bl b4 16 axb4 Wxb4 17
24 Ad7 18 £5 Sh8 (18...&h4 19 fxe6
fxe6 20 &xe6+ Ph8 21 Wh3 Bxel 22
&xd7 &xc3 23 Bxc3 Exc3 24 Wxc3
Wxc3 25 bxc3 Hd8 + Istratescu-Pan-
chenko, Bucharest 1994) 19 g5! e5 20
22 Wxe4 2xe4 23 £6! Istratescu) 22
Wed Bb8 23 a7 Axed 24 Wxed
Hixb3+ 25 cxb3 Wxb3+ 26 Scl Bxg5+
27 He3! + Istratescu-Murugan, Lin-
ares open 1998.
c2) 13...a5! 14 &xf6 Rxf6 15 AxbS
a4 16 &c4! (16 Bxd6 We8! 17 Qa2
We5! 18 Wd3, Istratescu-Buturin, Bu-
charest 1992, 18...8c6! with the point
19 Ac7 Rxed 20 Wxed Rxb2+ —+
Stoica/Istratescu) 16...d5! (possibly
best) 17 e5 (17 exdS5 Wb6! 18 We2
exd5 19 2xd5 Hae8 Stoica/Istratescu)
17...2e7 18 &d3 Wb6 with serious
compensation; e.g., 19 Hd2 Hab8 20
Ac3 d4 21 Wh3 Wxb2+! F.
12...2xf6 13 e5 &2h4+ 14 g3 bs!
15 gxh4
Or:
a) 15 exd6 &b7 16 Ae4 f5 17
Rxe6+ Gh8 18 &xf5 EBxf5 19 0-0-0
Was!?.
b) 15 Bfl Qe7 16 0-0-0 a5!? (also
possible is’ 16...Wc7) 17 exd6 &xd6
18 £52 (18 Wd3 Be7 19 Wxb5 We7 20
Wes Wb6 21 Aa4 Wa7 with compen-
sation, San Segundo) 18...a4 # Moro-
zevich-San Segundo, Madrid 1996.
c) 15 0-0-0!? and then:
142 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

cl) 15...2b7 16 Ae4 and now: d) Probably 18 £f1!? is more inter-

cll) 16...2xe4 17 Wxe4 d5 18 Wd3 esting; e.g., 18...f5 19 2xe6+ Sg7!?
(18 Wf3 &e7 19 f5 a5! 20 c3 a4 21 (19...2h8 20 We3) 20 Hdl (20 We3
Rc2 b4 22 £6 exf6 23 &xh7+ = Ehl- Rxe4 21 Wxe5+ Gh6!) 20...fxe4 21
vest-Mednis, Las Vegas 1998) 18...2e7 We We 22 Hd7+ Gh8 23 f5 3 24
19 h4 Wa5 (19...a5 20 c3 b4 21 Bc2 h5.
26 22 h5 bxc3 23 hxg6 hxg6 24 Hh6
+— Russian Chess Review) 20 f5 + C22)
Morozevich-Mitenkov, Moscow 1991. 10 0-0 (D)
c12) 16..2e7 17 exd6 (17 f5! +
Borkowski-J.Adamski, Polish Ch 1983)
17..2xd6 18 Hhel a5 with a good x 2 Be
game for Black, Hmadi-de Firmian, U7 ‘im
Tunis IZ 1985.
c2) 15...2e7! 16 Hhel? (16 exd6
Na
&xd6 17 Ae4 2b7 transposes to line
‘cl2’) 16...d5 + Morozevich-de Fir-
mian, Amsterdam 1996.
15...&b7 16 Aed
16 Wg3?! 2xhl1 17 0-0-0 b4!?.
16...dxe5 Giom
e mon
16...Wxh4+ 17 Wg3 (17 Sf dxe5
0) 17...Wxg3+ 18 Axg3 Rxhl 19 Via a long winding road, we have
4\xh1 £ Kasparov. reached the Classical Sozin main line.
17 Bgi g6! The principal continuations are:
Other moves are poor; for example: C221: 10...We7 143
17...&xe47 18 Wxe4 Wxh4+ 19 Sf C222: 10...Axd4 147
exf4 20 Hg2 + Kasparov; 17...Wxh4+?
18 We3 Wxg3+ 19 Axg3 exf4 20 Ah5 Other moves:
+— Shamkovich; 17...Wd4? 18 Af6+ a) 10...d5?! 11 e5 @d7 is hardly
Bhs 19 We3 +. sufficient (here it is worth mentioning
After the text-move (17...g6!), the 12 Wh5 He8? 13 Axd5!! exd5 14
critical position arises: Wxf7+!! +— Troinov-L.Popov, Bul-
a) 18 Hdl &xe4 19 Wxed Wxh4+ garia 1962).
and Black stands no worse, Short-Kas- b) 10...A\a5, and then:
parov, London PCA Wch (12) 1993. bl) 11 WF3 b5?! (better is 11...We7
b) 18 Bg5 Wd4 19 BxeS (or 19 — 10..3c7 11 Wf3 Da5) 12 eS Bb7
466+ Sg7 20 c3 &xf3 21 cxd4 &xf6) 13 exf6! 2xf3 14 fxe7 Wxe7 15 Exf3
19...Wg1+ with perpetual check — Kas- (Suetin) is dangerous for Black.
parov. b2) 11 £5 Axb3 12 axb3 Bd7 13
What else? WF3 (13 g4!7 05 14 95 exd4 15 &xd4!)
c) 18 &f1 £5!? does not seem con- 13...b5!= Ki.Georgiev-Xu Jun, Mos-
vincing. cow OL 1994.
 5.06 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 a6 8 Be3 &e7 witHoUT 9 We2 143

sm sree
b3) 11 e5! De8 (11...dxe5 12 fxe5
+ Ad7? 13 Bxf7!), and both 12 Whs xm ST
and 12 We4 preserve the initiative.
c) 10...2d7 requires a precise re-
aoaaaa a
action:
cl) 11 We2 b5! = 12 e5 dxe5 13 ae
Axc6 Bxc6 14 fxe5 Ded! 15 WF3?
We7! —+ Padevsky-Larsen, Moscow aoe a"
OL 1956.
Bee GAB
c2) 11 Wf3 bS! = (Pritchett-Larsen,
Dundee 1967) 12 e5 Axd4 13 2xd4 if owes
dxe5 14 fxe5 2c6!.
c3) 11 £5! Axd4 (11...8c8? 12 fxe6 Psakhis) 13 £5 transposes to note ‘b’
+ 2xe6? 13 Axe6 fxe6 14 Aad +— after Black’s 12th move in Line B2 of
Fischer-Larsen, Denver Ct (3) 1971; Chapter 8.
11...e5 12 Ade2 +) 12 &xd4 (12 Wxd4 b) A worthy alternative is 11 f5
&\g4 =) 12...exf5 (12...Wc7 transposes Axd4 (11...e5 12 Ade2! +) 12 Rxd4
to note ‘b’ to White’s I1th move in (12 Wxd4 b5 transposes to note ‘dl’
Line C221; 12...e5 13 2e3 2c6 14 to White’s Lith move in Line C12)
Wr3 bS 15 Rg5 +t; 12...b5 13 Vxf6!, 12...b5 (12...e57! 13 Re3 b5 14 Rg5s
K.Miiller-Heinemann, German Ch b4 15 &xf6 bxc3 16 Bxe7 cxb2 17
(Altenkirchen) 1999) 13 exf5 Wa5 (or Rxf8 bxalBW 18 Wxal &xf8 19 Wd
13...2c6 14 Wel b5 15 Wg3 Hc8 16 + Sax-Muhtarov, Bled 1994; 12...2d7
Kael b4 17 Da4 Bb5, Motousis- + gives White a good choice among 13
Greenfeld, Novi Sad OL 1990, 18 WE3 — 11 Wf3 Bd7 12 f5 Dxd4 13
SHb6! +) 14 Wd3 (14 Bel!) 14..2c6 Si.xd4, 13 g4!?, 13 Wd3 exf5 14 exf5
15 Hael Hae8 with the idea of ...2.d8 £06 15 Hael, Aseev-Ionov, St Peters-
gives Black a defensible position, burg 1996, and 13 fxe6 fxe6 14 Wad3),
Lendwai-Brunner, Graz 1991. when White has two tries:
bl) 13 a3 and then:
C221) b11) 13...exf5?! is answered by 14
10...We7 (D) @d5!.
This occurs two or three times less b12) 13...8d7 14 4 (14 Wd3 Hac8
frequently than 10...@\xd4, but a com- 15 @hl Wb7 = Gorelov-Serper, Rus-
parable amount of material has been sian Cht 1994; 14 We2!?; 14 WF3!? -
accumulated as a consequence of trans- 11 Wf3 &d7 12 f5 Dxd4 13 Bxd4 b5
positions from an early ...\Wc7. 14 a3!?) 14...h6 (14...e5!? 15 2e3 Rc6
11 W3 16 WF3 Wb7 17 Bd5 ~) 15 h4 Dh7
Otherwise: (Hartston-Suetin, Hastings 1967/8) 16
a) 11 Shi Axd4 (11...A4a5!7) 12 g5! with a dangerous attack.
Wxd4 b5 (12...0d7?! 13 Hadl Ac5 b13) 13...e5!? and now White faces
14 £5! + de Firmian-Stefansson, Mos- a typical decision:
cow OL 1996; 12..Ag4 13 Wb6 + b131) 14 2e3 2b7 and now:
144 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
b1311) 15 Wf3 — 11 WS Axd4 12
Rxd4 b5 13 a3 2b7 14 f5 e5 15 Re3.
b1312) 15 Wd3 h6!? = Cochrane-
Mateus, Dubai OL 1996.
b1313) 15 &g5 Axe is satisfac-
tory for Black, Kaminski-Kempinski,
Polish Ch (Brzeg Dolny) 1996.
b1314) A curious and risky possi-
bility is 15 g4!? Axed 16 Ad5 Wd8 17
Wf3 Ac5 18 f6, Roiz-Ahmed, Asturia
1996.
b132) 14 &f2 &b7 and then: 15
Wr3 — 11 Wyf3 Dxd4 12 &xd4 b5 13 a3
&b7 14 f5 e5 15 &f2. However, 15
We2!? de Firmian-Wharton, Ashville
1990 (15 Hel!? is proposed by Bel-
iavsky and Mikhalchishin) leaves more
hope for an advantage.
b14) 13...2b8!?. Now both 14 Yh1
a5 15 a4 bxa4 16 Bxa4 Ebd4!, Brenjo-
Arsovi¢, Yugoslav Cht 1994, and
Wd3 b4 15 axb4 Exb4 16 fxe6 fxe6 17
@h1 Lh8, Lukin-Aseev, St Petersburg
1996 appear good for Black, though
14 g4!? is not wholly clear.
b2) 13 fxe6 seems most important:
b21) 13...2xe6 and now:
b211) After 14 Ad5 &xd5 15 exd5
Dd7 16 Wed De5 17 We3 Hae8, 183
(Bezgodov-Lutsko, Kstovo 1994)
superior to 18 a4 b4 19 a5 2d8! (Ill-
escas-Salov, Linares 1990), but hardly
gives any real advantage.
b212) Therefore, 14 Wd3! is better:
14...2047! 15 We3!; 14... Bae8 15 Sh
(15 @d5!?) 15...A\d7 16 a4 + Morten-
sen-Radulov, Copenhagen 1991; 14...b4
15 Dd5 Rxd5 16 exd5 Ad7 17 a3 is
slightly better for White, Berzinsh-
Veingold, Tallinn Z 1998.
b22) 13...fxe6 has not been used
by grandmasters but still deserves at-
tention:
b221) 14 Ad5?! exd5 15 Qxf6 gxf6!
is unsuccessful for White.
b222) 14 Qxf6 Bxf6 15 Ad5 Wa7+!
also looks unconvincing for White.
b223) 14 a4!? b4 15 De2 Ph8 16
a5 and now rather than 16...2b7 17
Rb6 Wc6 18 Ad4 Wxe4 19 Wd2 Ad5
20 Hxf8+ Bxf8 21 Bel We47! 22
Axe6 Bh4 23 He2 + Golubev-Haist,
Biel open 1994, Black may be able to
improve with 16...8d7!7.
b224) 14 We2!? transposes to note
‘d’ to White’s 10th move in Line C2.
We now return to 11 Wf3 (D):
E787 a ase
Tati Wa
7’
° 0am aa ‘a
YW W440.
14
i A a
Ss GY
2 om U8
792s
11...Axd4
Let us assume, provisionally, that
is this is the main line. The same positions
can be achieved through 11...b5!? af-
ter 12 e5 Axd4 (12...2b7? 13 Dxe6)
13 &xd4, as well as after 12 a3 Axd4
(or 12...8.b7 13 £5 Axd4 14 Rxd4) 13
&xd4.
The other lines are:
a) 11..Ad7 12 £5 Ac5 13 Wg3
gives White a small advantage.
b) 11...Aa5. Now, White has two
tries (and both allow possible transpo-
sitions into the ...Abd7, ...A\c5 and
...xb3 lines of the Fischer Attack):
bl) 12 £5 and then:
 5...Ac6 6 &c4 06 7 &b3 a6 8 Be3 Be7 WITHOUT 9 We2 145
bl1) 12...Ac4 13 &xc4 (13 fxe6!?)
13... Wxc4 transposes to note ‘b52’ to
Black’s 10th move in Line C12.
b12) 12...Axb3 13 axb3 Rd7 (or
13...exf5 14 Axf5 £ Yurtaev-Lerner,
Frunze 1989) 14 g4! with an initiative,
Morozevich-Dragomaretsky, Alushta
1993,
b13) 12...e5 13 Ade2 Axb3 14 axb3
(14 cxb3 b5 15 Zacl and now either
15...Wd7 = Shipov or 15...Wa5!?)
14...b5 15 g4 b4 (15...h6!?) 16 g5 bxc3
17 gxf6 &xf6 18 bxc3! + Fischer-
Hamann, Netanya 1968.
b2) 12 g4 and then:
b21) 12...d5 13 e5 and then either
13...Ad7 14 2xd5! exd5 15 Axd5
Wad8 16 AS + (Kimelfeld) or 13...De4
14 Axd5 +.
b22) 12...Ac4 13 g5 Ad7 (13...Ae8
14 £5!7) 14 Af5! + Golubev-Zahn,
Bad Wiessee 1999.
b23) 12...b5 13 g5 Ad7? (13...De8
14 £5) 14 Axe6! fxe6 15 Rxe6+ Sh8
16 Ad5 Wd8 17 WhS +— Boleslavsky-
Aronin, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1949.
b24) 12...2xb3 (the main continu-
ation) 13 axb3 (13 cxb3!? e5 14 Af5
Rxf5 15 exf5 We6 16 g5 Wxf3 17
Exf3 Ad7 18 Ad5 &d8 19 Hel f6 and
Black may hold on, Filipowicz-Savon,
Moscow 1964) and now:
b241) 13...4b8 is too slow: 14 g5+
Sozin — Ilyin-Zhenevsky, USSR Ch
(Moscow) 1931.
b242) 13...Ad7 14 g5 He8 15 £5
De5 16 Wh3 g6 17 Hf2 2d7 18 Hafl
&f8 19 Hf4 + Yurtaev-Prasad, Cal-
cutta 1998.
b243) 13...e5 is not the most effec-
tive way to land a blow in the centre:
14 Af5 (14 fxe5!? Axgd 15 AdS Was
16 e6) 14..2xf5 15 exf5 (15 gxf5!?
b5 16 Bf2 b4 17 Dd5-Axd5 18 exd5
&f6, Golubev-Kudriavtsev, Izhevsk
1997, 19 @h1!9) 15...Wc6 16 5 Wxf3
17 &xf3 is slightly better for White,
Honfi-Szily, Budapest 1956.
b244) 13...d5!? 14 e5 (alternatively,
14 exd5 Axd5 15 Axd5 exd5 16 £5
He8) 14...Ae4! (14...0d7 15 25 Ac5
16 Wh5 + Vasiukov-Gurgenidze, USSR
Ch (Kharkov) 1967) 15 Axe4 dxe4 16
Wxe4 &c5 (Suetin) is not wholly clear.
c) 11...2d7 is rather a popular plan.
Black’s relative inactivity makes it
possible for White to consider a wide
variety of aggressive continuations, but
few of them are at all convincing:
cl) 12 24?! Axd4! 13 Qxd4 e5 is
unsuccessful for White; e.g., 14 fxe5
dxe5 15 25?! (15 Wg3 &c6!? Khen-
kin) 15...exd4 16 gxf6 dxc3 17 fxe7
We5+ F.
c2) 12 Hadl b5! 13 a3 Dxd4 14
&xd4 2c6 = Boleslavsky.
c3) 12 Hael is well met by 12...b5!.
c4) 12 Bh1 b5 13 a3 “a5 (another
line is 13...Axd4!? 14 2xd4 2c6) 14
a2 Ac4 15 Bxc4 Wxc4 (15...bxc4!7)
16 e5 Ad5 17 AS + Dembo-Hu Yi,
Budapest 1999.
c5) 12 Ade2!? AaS 13 ¢4 is inter-
esting.
c6) The main move is 12 f5:
c61) 12...8h8!? (consistent!). Now,
instead of 13 Had1 bS 14 a3 AeS =
Slobodjan-Reddmann, Hamburg 1998,
or 13 Axc6 Rxc6!? 14 Kael b5! =
Golubev-Reddmann, Hamburg 1999,
it is worth investigating 13 Wh3!?
4xd4 14 &xd4 e5 15 Bf2 Bc6 16
Hael b5 17 2h4.
c62) 12...Axd4 13 &xd4 b5 (better
than 13...e5?! 14 2e3 and now 14...b5
15 &g5 or 14...&c6 15 g4) and then:
146 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
c621) 14 fxe6!? fxe6 (14...2xe6!?
15 Ads Bxd5 16 exd5 Ad7 17 We3
Be5) 15 WF5!7 (15 Wh3 Wc8 16 Kael
is also not bad) 15...Wc8 16 e5 Hf7 17
Wr4 dxe5 18 WxeS We6 19 Hael +
Hartley-Bartsch, corr. 1994-6.
c622) 14 g4, and now not 14...h6
15 h4!? @h7 16 g5 with a dangerous
attack, Bauza Mercere-Moulain, New
York 1995, but 14...b4! 15 g5 bxc3 16
gxf6 2xf6 17 &xf6 gxf6 with good
play.
c623) 14 a3!? (a rare case where I
find this move interesting — for the ex-
planation see Khenkin’s line below)
14...a5 (14...e5 15 23/15 Rf2 Bc6-
11...Axd4 12 &xd4 b5 13 a3 2b7 14
f5 e5 15 263/15 Bf2 Bc6?!) 15 gd!
h6 (15...b4 16 axb4 axb4 17 Hxa8
Exa8 18 g5 bxc3 19 gxf6 &xf6 20
&xf6 gxf6 21 fxe6 Rxe6 22 bxc3 +
Khenkin) 16 h4 (both 16 Hael
and 16 Had1 b4 17 axb4 axb4 18 fxe6
are unclear) 16...Ah7, and now
We3 Wd8 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 25 hxg5 20
Wed is not clear, V.Nikitin-Smekalin,
corr. 1996, but again 17 g5!? looks
promising.
12 2xd4 b5 (D)
aarti
[ij Pe, ne te
" 230 818 7 4xe4) 17...2c6 18 Wd3 (42-2 Ivan-
DG Bik ZF
13 £57! b4 14 fxe6 bxc3 15 exf7+
Ph8, followed by ...224, Swan-Muir,
St Andrews 1989.
13 a3!? and then:
a) 13...Wb7. There is only one ex-
ample here: 14 £5 Bh8 15 fxe6 fxe6 16
We3 2d7 17 e5 dxe5 18 &xe5 (Rub-
levsky-Aseev, St Petersburg 1995)
18...&£7!? = Aseev.
b) 13...2b8!? (also rarely played)
14 Hael (14 f5 transposes to note
*c142’ to White’s 11th move in Line
C211) 14...b4 15 e5 bxc3 16 exf6 Rxf6
17 &xf6 gxf6 18 He3 We5 19 Shi 2b7
(Richardson-Neishtadt, corr. 1990-2)
20 Wh3!? is all rather unclear.
c) 13...8b7 is the predominant
choice:
cl) 14 Bael Hac8 (14...2c6 Anand)
15 We3 Hh8?! 16 Vh1 Web 17 HE3!
gives White the initiative, Ljubojevic-
e5!? Anand, Buenos Aires (Sicilian theme)
1994.
17 c2) 1494 d5 15 e5 &c5 with coun-
terplay, Bosch-R6tSagov, Dieren 1997.
c3) 14f5 e5 is especially important
due to transpositions to the following
lines:
c31) 15 &f2 Bac8! (15...806?! ap-
pears hazardous for Black after either
16 2h4 or 16 g4) 16 Bfel (16 Hadl
Wb8!7 17 Bfel Wa8; 16 24 Wb8!?; 16
&h4? Axed) 16...h6 17 h3 (17 Rh4?
chuk-Anand, Linares (3) 1992) 18...4{b7
19 2h4 Dh7! 20 SF2 Af6 with a rep-
etition — Anand.
c32) 15 Re3 Rc6 (15...Bac8! ap-
pears better, and similar to line ‘c31’;
15...h6!? Schach-Archiv) and now:
e321) 164-11 f5 Axd4 12 Qxd4
b5 13 a3 Bd7 14 94 e5 15 Re3 Bc6
16 WP.
 5..Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 &2b3 a6 8 Be3 Be7 witHoUuT 9 We2 147

c322) 16 Had1?! gives Black an Or 19... Wxe5 20 Bfl! &xd4+ 21

agreeable choice between 16...a5 17 &)\xd4 Wxd4+ 22 Gh, etc.
g4 b4, Mini¢-JanoSevic, Yugoslav Ch 20 Axd4 Wxe5 21 Hf!
(Ljubljana) 1960, and 16...Hab8 17 24 21 c3 Wed =; 21 Af3 We3+ = Oni-
b4!, shchuk-Bologan, Biel 1999.
e323) 16 Rg5! Ae8 (16...Axe4? 21...Wxd4+ 22 Gh1 2xg2+ 23
17 &xe7 Af6 18 Ad5! + Honfi-Blu- &xg2 Wd2+
baum, Baden-Baden 1979; 16...a5 17 Now:
Rxf6 Bxf6 18 2d5 b4 19 Vxc6 Wxc6 a) The stem game, Golubev-Brod-
20 @d5! + Honfi) 17 &xe7 Wxe7 18 sky, Simferopol 1989, continued 24
&.d5 gives White the initiative. Bg3 We5+ 25 Gh3 We3+ =.
13...dxe5 b) 24 &f3! £ Mowsziszian-Lerner,
Or: 13...8b7 14 exf6! +; 13...Ad7 Bad Worishofen 1997. Black is obliged
should, rather than 14 £5 &b7 15 Wp3 to fight for a draw, since 24...Wxh2?
dxe5 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 2xe6+ Lh8 ~, 25 Be3! +— and 24...Wxc2? 25 &g3!
be met by 14 exd6 =. +— are bad for him.
14 fxe5 Ad7!
Not: 14...2b7?! 15 exf6!; 14...22057 C222)
15 &xc5 Wxc5+ 16 Bf2 + Onishchuk- 10...Axd4 11 &xd4 b5 (D)
Lerner, Bad Zwesten 1997.
15 2xe6!
Not: 15 Be4? 2b7 F Verdci-losel- AA Be
iani, Donji Milanovac wom Ct (5) a 7 eh
1980; 15 Wxa8? $2b7 is also slightly
a7 oh Am UW
better for Black.
Wah Ji.
was AS ie
15...fxe6 16 Wxa8 2&b7 17 Bxf8+
Axf8
17...&xf8 is well met by 18 We8! Wat 7 7
Wc6 19 Sf2 Wxg2+ 20 Sel!. Then AB AT/
there is 20...b4 21 Wxe6+ Gh8 22 Ae2
2f3 23 BNeg3 (23 Wxa6!?) 23...Wxh2 # 772s
24 RF2 2c5 25 Rxc5! Wxg3+ 26 Vf2
Wxe5+ 27 Wxe5 Axe5 28 a3 +, while 12e5
20...\4c6 21 Hdl AxeS and 20... 8hi+ With other continuations White can
21 Sd2 Wxh2+ 22 Ae2 AxeS 23 scarcely gain an advantage:
Wxe6+ Af7 are also insufficient for a) 12 Wel 2b7 13 Hdl We7 (or
Black. 13...b4 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5 Ad7 16
18 We8 2c5! 19 Ae2! “e4 xed 17 Wxe4 Ac5 18 Rxc5!?)
This is better than 19 Bd1?! 2xd4+ 14 a3 e5 15 fxe5 dxe5 16 Wg3 2c5
20 Hxd4 Wxe5 21 Hdl We or 19 with equality, G.Kuzmin-Kaplun, Yalta
&xc5 Wxc5+ 20 Bhi (20 SF17! Wxe5) open 1995.
20... 42 =. b) 12 Wd3 2b7 13 Kael b4 14 5
19...2xd4+ bxc3 15 exf6 2xf6 16 Wxc3 a5 =
148 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Kr.Georgiev-Donchev, Bulgarian Ch al) 14...2b7!? transposes to note

(Pernik) 1975. ‘d122’ to Black’s 9th move in Line C.
c) 12 a3 &b7 and then: a2) 14...2c5!? also seems satisfac-
cl) 13 Wel a5!? (or 13...We7 =) 14 tory.
&d1 b4 = Klovsky-Tavadian, Erevan a3) 14...A\c5 and here:
1981. a31) 15 De2 Axb3 (after 15...2b7,
c2) 13 WF3 a5!? 14 Hael b4 15 16 4g3 is well met by 16...2e4!, but
axb4 axb4 16 Adi We7 = Gironella- White can try 16 Hadi!?) 16 axb3
Pogorelov, St Cugat 1993. Wd5 17 Ac3 Wd7 18 Be3 We7 19
c3) 13 Wd3 a5! (13...We7 can be We3 &c5 = Yuneev-Aseev, Daugav-
met by 14 Hael!? or 14 f5 e5 15 2e3 pils 1989.
h6!? =) and here: a32) 15 2e3 Axb3 16 axb3 We7 —
c31) 14 WxbS!? 2a6 15 We5 (15 15 De2 Axb3 16 axb3 Wd5 17 Dc3
Wa4!?) 15...&xfl 16 Bxfl We7 17 Wad7 18 2e3 We7.
We3 Bfc8 18 Sh1?! a4! is much better a33) 15 Had] 2b7 16 @h1 Axb3
for Black, J.Adams-Thompson, corr. (possibly 16...W0c7! is simpler) 17 axb3
1985. We7 18 Hd3 and now 18...8fd8!?
c32) 14 Hael b4 15 “Ab5 a4 16 (Hort) is good.
&a2 bxa3 17 Axa3 d5 18 e5 Ae4 with b) Nothing is gained by 14 Wh5 ei-
counterplay, K.Miiller-D.Gurevich, ther:
Bermuda 1998. bl) 14..2b7!2-9...Axd4 10 Bxd4
c33) 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5 Ad7 16 b5 11 eS dxe5 12 fxeS &d7 13 0-0
@xb5 (16 Hxf7? Bxf7 17 Bxe6 Axe5! 2b7!? 14 Whs 0-0.
—+; 16 We3!? b4 17 AbS is unclear, b2) 14..@c5 15 Hadl 2b7 16
Voitsekhovsky-Ulybin, Kstovo 1997) R&xc5 (16 Bf4 F) 16...2xc5+ 17 Shi
16...Ac5 17 We3 (17 &xc5 Bxc5+ F We7 18 Hd3 Hfd8 19 Bh3 h6 20 Hg3
Fischer-Spassky, Reykjavik Wch (4) Hd2! 21 De2 Had8 22 Af4 Hf2 +
1972) 17...Axb3 18 Wxb3 a4! with G.Kuzmin-Ermenkov, Varna 1976.
compensation, Moutousis-Tukmakov, 14...2b7 15 Ad6
Haifa Echt 1989. 15 We4 &xed4! is good for Black.
12...dxeS 15...2xd6 16 exd6 Weg5 (D)
12...Ae8!?.
13 fxe5 Ad7
EZ 7 Bez
13...Ae8 14 Ae4 2b7 15 Wd3 Bxed
(15...4c7 16c3 Hd8 17 2c2 Bxe4 18 esa Aas
Wxe4 96 19 b4 + Short-Kasparov, Am-
4A Rae
wl

sterdam 1996) 16 Wxe4 Hc8 (16...26!?,

Ehlvest-Dlugy, Mazatlan rpd 1988) 17 Ge Ge
c3 &c5 £ Short. UV so Ai
14 Bed! As OU
An attack on the kingside does not
BBA YW UR
aS

Le

work here:
U7 2S
WO

a) 14 We4 and then:

 5..Ac6 6 2c4 06 7 Bb3 ab 8 Be3 Be7 wiTHOUT 9 We2 149
The key position. The white pawn
on d6 is as difficult for White to ad-
vance as it is for Black to take scot-
free — I would call such a situation
‘strategically tense’. After the Fischer-
Spassky match, the position was con-
sidered advantageous for Black. Re-
cently, White has achieved serious
progress but nobody can say that the
sides have exhausted their resources...
17 Hf2
This move became the main one
primarily as a result of Bangiev’s ef-
forts. Nevertheless, 17 We2 still repre-
sents a serious alternative:
a) 17...2d5 18 Bad1 2xb3 19 axb3,
followed by c4, is assessed in White’s
favour.
b) 17...a5?! is not enough:
bl) 18 Hf2-— 17 Bf2 a5!? 18 We2.
b2) 18 a4 b4 19 &c4 (19 c4 bxc3
20 bxc3 Ha6 21 Hf2 Hxd6 22 Ws
with compensation, Riemersma-Van
der Wiel, Dutch Ch (Amsterdam)
1995; 19 Hf2 —- 17 Hf2 a5!? 18 a4 b4
19 We2) 19...e5 20 Re3 We6 21 b5
Hac8 22 Hf2 Rc6 23 Hdl £5?! 24
Wce4+ + Bezemer-Van der Heijden,
Dutch Cht 1996/7.
b3) 18 c3 Ha6 and now:
b31) 19 Hfdl!? and now Black
must avoid 19...2d8? 20 Hd3 e5 21
%e3 Who 22 Efl +— Hiibner-Tisch-
bierek, Bundesliga 1996/7. 19...2xd6
is met by 20 &e3!, while Byrne and
Mednis suggest 19...e5.
b32) 19 Had] Bxd6 (19...a4 20
&c2 Bxd6 21 2e3 Wed 22 Hxd6
Wxd6 23 Wxb5 2a6 24 WhS g6 25
Edi + Sax-Jasnikowski, Nestved
1988) 20 &xg7 Hxd1 21 Hxd1 &xg7
22 Bxd7 &c6 23 Hd4 = de Firmian-
Fishbein, Philadelphia 1997.
c) 17...8h8!? 18 Had1 (18 Bf2 e5
19 2e3 We6 20 a4 £5!, Stratil-Lanc,
Prague 1985; 18 c4 bxc4 19 &xc4 e5
20 &c3 £5 with counterplay, del Rio-
Villavicencio, Spanish Ch (Linares)
1993; 18 a4!7e5 19 2c3 We6 20 axb5
axbS 21 Hxa8 &xa8 22 Bf2 + Vreneg-
oor-Cifuentes, Antwerp 1993) 18... 826
(18...f5 19 h4! We6 20 hS We5 21 h6
J.Polgar) 19 c4 (19 Hd3!? e5 20 Bg3
Wxd6 21 203 £5 « J.Polgar; 19 a4!?)
19...bxc4 20 &xc4 £5 21 2c3 f4! with
strong counterplay, Illescas-J.Polgar,
Dos Hermanas 1997.
d) 17...e5 and then:
dl) 18 Re3 Wg6 19 Had Gh8! 20
h4 (20 c3 &e4!, Hamann-Gligorié,
Skopje OL 1972) 20...f5 (20...Af6? 21
d7! We3 22 Hxf6! + Zapata-Am.Rod-
riguez, Bucaramanga 1992) 21 h5
W6 22 a4 (Browne-Donner, Wijk aan
Zee 1974) 22...2c6!? ~,
d2) 18 2c3 We6 (18...Ac5?!_ 19
Hadi @xb3 20 axb3 +; 18...a5 19
Had1 b4 20 2d2 Wg6 21 Hf2 Afo 22
Wxe5 Ae4, Bezemer-Van der Heij-
den, Dutch Cht 1995/6, 23 Bf3!? gives
White an advantage) 19 Had! #h8 20
Rd5 (20 a4 bxa4 21 Rxa4 Ac5 22 b3
Had8 23 d7 “@xa4 24 bxad Bc6!)
20...2xd5 21 BxdS We6 (21...Hac8!?
with the point 22 a4 b4!, Hendriks-
Wells, Antwerp 1994) 22 Hfdl Bfc8
(22...£5 23 a4 bxa4 24 Ha5! Kasparov)
and then:
d21) 23 a4 bxa4 24 We4 (24 Has
&c4!) 24..Hab8 with counterplay —
Kasparov.
d22) 23 2a5 Hc6 (Short-Kaspa-
rov, London PCA Wch (14) 1993) 24
a4 bxa4 25 Wed We6 26 Hxe5 Axe5
27 Wxe5 Bxc?2 (27...We4 28 Bd2!) 28
Wad5 &e8 29 d7 h6 30 dgW Exd8 31
150 THE
Wxd8+ @h7 32 Hd2 Hcl+ 33 Edi
&c2 (Kasparov) and Black probably
survives.
We now return to the position after
17 Bf2 (D):
ete
Sie
oe
a
pe
Ase ia 4 by
B 7X7
17...a5!?
This active attempt occurs most fre-
quently. The other continuations are:
a) 17...e5?! (here 17 Hf2 works es-
pecially well) 18 &c3 Af6 (or 18...e4
19 Wri! Wg6 20 Hel + Bangiev-
Shmirin, Volgograd 1973) 19 Wl b4
20 &xb4 Wh4 21 Ra5 Apg4 22 h3
4)xf2 23 Wxf2 + Kudrin-Dahlberg,
Lone Pine 1981.
b) 17...2d5 (this move is natural
but probably unsuccessful) 18 Xd2 (18
2.031? Abb 19 Ba5 Ac4 20 Bxc4 bxe4
21 &c7 + Beliavsky/Mikhalchishin)
18...2.xb3 (18...&c4!2— ‘64’) 19 axb3
e5 20 &f2 Hfc8 (Bangiev’s 20...Bfe8
21 We2!? e4 22 Re3 We6 23 c4 Des
is insufficient because of 24 Hd5 We6
25 &d4 Ad3 26 Hfl) 21 We2 Hc6?!
(21...b4!?) 22 $e3!? (22 c4, Bangiev-
Chernikov, Cheliabinsk 1975) 22...W26
23 WxbS! Bangiev.
c) 17..Hae8 18 Wd2 +.
d) 17...8h8 18 Wd? is also slightly
better for White,
SICILIAN SOZIN
e) 17...Ae5!? (Leluashvili-Rogo-
zenko, corr. 1988-92), with the point
18 Wcl Af3+! 19 Bxf3 Wed, deserves
at least some attention.
f) 17...Bac8 and then:
fl) 18 a4 Bd5 19 Sxd5 Wxd5 20
axb5 e5!? 21 &c3 Wxb5 © Kreiman-
I.Ivanov, USA Ch (Key West) 1994.
£2) 18 We2 Ac5 (18...2d5!2 19
Hdl 2xb3 20 axb3 e5 21 Re3 We6 22
c4 Wed!) 19 h4 (19 Hdl Bfds 20 h4!?
We6! © Bangiev-Shakarov, Grozny
1974; 19 Hafl!?) 19...Wg3!? with a
complicated game (19...Wxh4 20 &xc5
Exc5 21 Bxe6 Be4 22 Hafl!).
£3) 18 Wd2! Wxd2 19 Bxd2 Ac5 20
&xc5! Hxc5 21 a4 with an advantage.
g) 17...ad8 and then:
gl) 18 Wd2 Wxd2 19 Bxd2 Af6 20
&xf6 gxf6 21 a4 (also after 21 c4!?
bxc4 22 &xc4 Hd7, it is not easy for
White to make progress) 21...2d5 22
&xd5 (or 22 axb5 axb5 23 Ha5 2xb3
24 cxb3 Hb8) 22...8xd6 = Kaminski-
Kacheishvili, Guarapuava jr Wch 1995.
22) 18 We2 2d5 (18...Af6 19 &xf6
gxf6 20 Hdl +) 19 Hdl 2xb3 20 axb3
e5 21 &c3! (Galdunts-Lauber, Pardu-
bice 1996), and White is probably
better.
18 We2
This is the latest height of fashion.
Otherwise:
a) 18 c4?! is unsuccessful:
al) 18..Ha6 19 c5 a4 (19...e57!
can be met by 20 Wfl or 20 We2!?)
20 &c2 Axc5 21 h4 (21 We2 Ad7!)
21...Wd5 22 Wed 96 23 Hdl Exd6!
with a good game, Vujadinovié-Stoica,
Bela Crkva 1986.
a2) 18...a4 19 &c2 bxc4 20 Bxa4
Kfd8! (20...Ac5?! 21 Bc2 Hed 22
&xe4 &xe4 23 d7!, Sax-Timman,
 5..2\c6 6 &c4 €6 7 Bb3 a6 8 Be3 Be7 WITHOUT 9 We2 151

London 1980, with the point 23...Wd5 cxb4 axb4 23 Had] with compensa-
24 2b6 Bxa2 25 Hd2 +—-) 21 Rxd7 tion) 21 Hel 2a6 22 c3 Rc4 23 Axc4
(21 &c2 Ba6) 21...2xd7 22 2b6 Hc8 (23 2d1!?, Bosch-Reeh, Amstelveen
+ Kasparov/Nikitin. 1994) 23...Bxc4 24 cxb4 Bxb4 25 Hcl
b) Earlier, 18 a4 was commonly Hxa4 26 Hc7 Hd8 = Oll-Loginov,
played: Sverdlovsk 1987.
bl) 18...e57! 19 We2! (19 203? b4 b35) 19 Wel Ha6!?.
is good for Black: 20 Rel Af6! 21 18...Ha6
Wd3 Ded F Bangiev-Kaplun, Ukrai- 18...a47? 19 &xe6! + Sulskis-Pies-
nian Ch 1974 or 20 &d2 We6 21 c3 ina, Riga Z 1995.
AWe5 22 Rc2 Me4!, Yilmaz-Pan- 18...2c6 19 c3 a4 20 c2 e5 21
chenko, Cheliabinsk 1991) 19...exd4 Re3 with an initiative, Renet-Garcia
20 We7 + Yrjola. Paolochi, Linares Z 1995.
b2) 18...8a6 19 axb5 (19 We2 - 18 19 2c3
We2 Ha6 19 a4) 19...Bxd6 20 Wd2 Or: 19 &xe6 Hxd6 20 Rxd7 Exd7
Wxb5 (20...We4 21 Ha4!, Ciri¢-Sura- 21c3 =; 19 a4 bxa4 (19...b4— 18 a4 b4
diradja, Belgrade 1977; 20...Wh5 21 19 We2 Ha6) 20 Bxa4 Exd6 21 &xg7
We3! + Mortensen-Tischbierek, Le- a6! (Bangiev) is good for Black.
ningrad 1984) 21 HxaS We6 22 Wr4 The position after the text-move
f6! with an acceptable position. (19 &c3) remains difficult to assess:
b3) 18...b4 and then: a) 19...2xd6?! 20 2xa5, and White
b31) 19 Wl Ha6 20 Hel Bxd6 21 is better.
Re3 Wh5 22 Rcd 2d5 is good for b) 19...We5!? 20 a3 (20 &xe6?
Black, J.Polgar-Lutz, Frankfurt rpd fxe6 21 Wxe6+ Vh8; 20 Bhi?! b4;
1999. 20 Wed Ae5 21 We3 Ag6) 20...c57!
b32) 19 Wd3 2c6 20 We2 2d5 21 (20...b4! is critical) 21 Bd1 h6 22 2d2
Wb5 Bfb8 22 Wl &xb3 23 cxb3 We6 Hxd6 23 &xa5 with an advantage for
24 Bel e5 25 &e3 with a double- White, Fritz5-Junior5, Riga 1999.
edged game, Kindermann-Reeh, Bad c) 19...b4 20 2d2 We5 21 4 and
Worishofen 1990. then:
b33) 19 We2 Ha6 (19...2.d5!2 — 19 cl) 21...Haa8 22 Bdl (22 &c4!?;
Wa3 26 20 We2 &d5) 20 2e3!? (20 22 ¢3? bxc3 23 Hel a4! 24 Bxc3
&xe6 Bxd6 21 Re3 Wes 22 2c4 Wxb2 axb3!) 22...$.a6, and White has an ad-
23 Hel WeS = Morovié-Milos, Yopal vantage: 23 Wel &b5 24 c3 bxc3 (Van
1997; 20 Wb5 Wxb5 21 axb5 Hxd6 22 der Wiel-Leitéo, Wijk aan Zee 1999)
Re3 Ha8 23 &f4 = Winants-Tukma- 25 Re3!, or 23 WE3! a4! 24 Qxad Qe?
kov, Wijk aan Zee 1993) 20...We5, 25 Wxe2 Bxa4 ~ Leitio.
with double-edged play after 21 Wb5S c2) 21...Af6 and now 22 Hdl Ae4
or 21 &f4 Wxb2 22 Hdl - Bangiev. 23 d7 Bd8 24 2e3 We6! 25 Hf4 Baas!
b34) 19 Wd2 Wxd2 20 Hxd2 Hac8 is probably better for Black, Kudrin-
(20... fd8!? 2-1/2 de Firmian-Tringov, Vigorito, Harvard 2000. White could
NiS 1981; 20...2a6 21 c3 Hxd6 22 try 22 &c4!?, followed by &d3.
10 5...Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3
a6 8 2e3 Be7 9 We2

1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 A: 9...0-0 152

A655 DAc3 Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 a6 8 B: 9...We7 159
Re3 Re7 9 We2 (D) Here we shall consider 9...Wc7 to be
‘the main line’, where after 10 0-0-0

Xx ie” x
Black will have to make a critical
choice between 10...4a5 and 10...0-0.
ems At the same time, the line 9...0-0 10
0-0-0 We7 is equivalent to 9...Wc7 10
a6 ee
Wy" 4yy’ 4 0-0-0 0-0, so there is no single main
move here.

Continuations such as 9...Axd4 10

&xd4 b5 11 0-0-0! and 9...2d7 10
0-0-0 (or 10 Hg1!?) are somewhat sec-
oan ond-rate. 9...4a5 is of some interest,
though White can simply reply 10
This is the basic starting position 0-0-0 (rather than 10 4 @)xb3 11 axb3
for the Velimirovié Attack. Its peculiar h5).
features were aptly described by GM
Genna Sosonko: “The price for each A)
and every move in attack and counter- 9...0-0 10 0-0-0 (D)
attack is so high that one small inaccu- It doesn’t look promising to play
racy can change the verdict of any 10 Hgl here. For instance: 10...0xd4
position from +— to —+” (New in (10...We7 — 9...We7 10 Bgl 0-0;
Chess Yearbook). So, how should we 10...Ad7!9; 10...d5!?) 11 &xd4 b5 12
study such uncertain material? It is 0-0-0 (12 g4 b4! = Krnié-Spassov,
worthwhile to recollect an observation Athens 1981) 12...b4 (12...2b7!? 13
made by André Gide — one should be- e5 dxe5 14 &xe5 Wb6, Rantanen-Un-
lieve only those who seek truth and zicker, Nice OL 1974) 13 a4 2d7
doubt those who claim to have found it. (13...Ad7!? Ryskin) 14 e5 (14 Ab6
White’s basic plan is 0-0-0, g4, g5, &b5 with counterplay, J.Diaz-Spas-
Ehgl, Wh5, Hg3, Hh3 followed by sov, Vmjatka Banja 1976) 14...2b5!
Wxh7#, and a critical decision for Black (Vaulin-Panchenko, USSR 1987) 15
is whether he should castle quickly: We3!? =.
 5...A\c6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 a6 8 Be3 Be7 9 We2 153

&f6 (Rublevsky-Panchenko, Chelia-

binsk 1991) 21 f4 Ac5 22 Bxe5 +, it
would be interesting to investigate the
B

ATahse7
7 i Zo a yk y
risky 14...Axe4 15 Wxe4 2g5+ 16 f4
(16 Sb! &b7 17 We4 Bh6) 16...2b7
i 17 We2 2h6, Panbukchian-Ermen-
he Oe kov, Bulgarian Ch 1988, with the
W265 ater point 18 d6 We5 19 Bhdl a5.
AOS
A WEY A 0 Al)
YU @E7 7a 10...Ad7!?
The drawbacks of this move may be
Certainly, the main continuation emphasized only by rejecting the plan
here is 10...8c7 (Line B2). Two of with g4, as we shall see in the next
Black’s remaining ideas may be sin- note.
gled out: 11 Sbl!?
Al: 10...Ad7!? 153 Preventing 11...Ac5??, since this
A2: 10...We8 = 154 would fail to 12 Axc6 +-.
Otherwise:
Other continuations are hard to rec- a) 11 g4 “”c5 12 Ehgl and now:
ommend: al) 12...8c7 transposes to Line
a) 10...2a5 11 g4 (or 11 £4). B23. Black has alternatives though:
b) 10...2d7 11 f4!(11 Hhgl?! b5!; a2) 12...Axb34+!? 13 axb3 Db4 14
11 g4!?) 11...Weo7 (11...b5 12 e5) 12 2931? Wa5 15 Sb1 (Korneev-Shipov,
24 Axd4 13 Bxd4, Planinc-Musil, Moscow 1985) 15...4e8! Nikitin.
Ljubljana 1969. a3) 12...8d7 13 g5?! (13 Bbl!?
c) 10...Wa5?! almost never fits to- &)xb3 14 cxb3 b5 15 AF5, Ardeleanu-
gether well with ...a6. Navrotescu, Romanian Cht 1997; 13
d) 10...Axd4 11 &xd4 b5 is also a 2f5!?, Sion Castro-Ragozin, Oviedo
concession of sorts. For instance: rpd 1993) 13...b5! 14 Wh5 b4 is much
dh) 12 g4 b4! (12...e5? 13 Bxe5 better for Black, Ginsburg-Ryskin,
&xg4 14 £3 Re6 15 Rxd6 +) 13 Had Nikolaev Z 1993.
S&b7 = Rivera-Cifuentes, Villa Gesell b) 11 £4 Ac5 and then:
1985. bl) 12 &b1 is not entirely logical
d2) 12 f4!? transposes to note ‘a’ here.
to White’s 10th move in Line C2 of b2) 12 Axc6 Axb3+ 13 cxb3 bxc6
Chapter 9. 14 e5 is of interest; e.g., 14...d5 15
d3) 12 e5 dxe5 13 &xe5 Wh6 14 Sad or 14...Wc7 15 exd6 2xd6 16
Bed (14 24 Ad7!?). Now, instead of W2, Bosch-Lauber, Schoneck 1996.
14...Ad7 15 2d4 (15 2d6 is slightly b3) 12 Hhfl is a serious option.
better for White) 15...8c7 16 Hhel (16 12...2d7 13 £5 AeS (13...Axb3+ 14
@b1!? Panchenko) 16...2b8 17 Wg4 axb3 Ae5 15 fxe6?! fxe6 16 AF3 Was!
e5 18 Weg3 2b7 19 Bc3 Bxe4 20 Bxed = Emms-Kovaliov, Eupen ECC 1994;
154 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
then 17 2b1? fails to 17...2b5!) 14 Af3
(14 &b1 b5!? Yakovich) 14...A\xb3+
15 axb3 Ag! 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 Bd4 +
Yakovich-Filipenko, Belgorod 1989.
11...We7
Otherwise:
a) 11...We8 12 f4 “cS does not
solve Black’s problems in view of 13
Ehfl &d7 14 f5, Kupreichik-Savon,
Odessa 1974.
b) 11...Wa5 12 £4 Ac5 is likewise
not ideal for Black.
c) 11...Axd4 12 2xd4 b5 13 f4(13
e5 dxe5 14 &xe5 Wh6 =) 13...b4 14
Dad Qb7 (14...Wa5 15 Bd3 &b7 16
Bg3 2f6 17 e5! dxe5 18 fxeS Bxe5 19
Heg5 + Chuprov-Mochalov, Kurgan
1994) 15 We4 2f6, and instead of 16
e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 &xe5! = M.Pavlovié-
R.Scherbakov, Linares open 1996, 16
hel! is stronger.
12 f4!
Or: 12 Whs Af6!? =; 12 Bhgl —
9...We7 10 0-0-0 0-0 11 Ehg] ®ad7 12
Bb.
12...Ac5 13 £5
Instead, White gains nothing by 13
Ehfl A@Axb3 = Cvetkovié, but 13
4\xc6!? is worth considering.
After the text-move (13 £5), White
is a little better:
a) After 13...Axb3 14 axb3 2d7,
besides 15 Hhfl “eS (15...2.f6!7) 16
&Nf3 (16 g4!?) 16...2c6 (16...2b5!7)
17 @xe5 dxeS 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 Wed
with an advantage, de Firmian-Ivan-
chuk, Biel 1989, it is worthwhile to
note 15 @\xc6, as in Reeh-Borik, Bun-
desliga 1984/5.
b) 13...Ae5 is unsuccessful: 14 Af3
2d7 15 Axe5 dxeS 16 f6! and White
is much better, Zapolskis-R.Scherba-
kov, Warsaw 1991.
c) 13...Aa5!? 14 EBhfl 2f6 15 g4
also seems promising for White.
12 0wke®
al Rake
AGAw aa
ooo @
aa, “
This move was successfully intro-
duced by Beliavsky in 1971/2. Like
10...2\d7, it appears somewhat artifi-
cial. The idea is that after 11 g4 @xd4!
Black wins a pawn.
11 Bhgi
This is the main line, which has
been well developed. White also has
the plans 11 f4!? @xd4 12 Bxd4 and
11 4xc6!?, which have so far rarely
been played.
11...0d7
- Here, dubious is 11...Axd4 12 &xd4
d7 13 4 @c5 14 g5 b5 (14...2.d7 is
scarcely better) 15 WhS @xb3+ 16
axb3 e5 (16...b4? 17 2f6 +—) 17 Ad5S
Bh8 (M.Lazié-Kosié, Yugoslav Ch
(Kladovo) 1990) 18 &c3!? +. How-
ever, of some interest is 11...b5 12 g4
b4, similar to Line B222.
12 g4
Not much is promised by 12 Wh5
Bc5 13 g4 Axb3+ 14 axb3 £6, Wahls-
Hausner, Bundesliga 1990/1, nor by
12 Axc6 bxc6 13 g4 d5 14 g5 AcS,
 5..2c6 6 &c4 e6 7 Bb3 a6 8 Re3 Re7 9 We2 155

G.Todorovié-Kosié, Yugoslav Ch (Kla- Moreover, in playing 14 4)xc6, White

dovo) 1990.
12...Ac5 13 g5 b5 (D)
13...2d7 is rare. Then:
a) 14 Bg3!?.
b) 14 f4b5 15 £5 b4 16 f6 bxc3 17
Wh5 cxb2+ (17...Axd4 18 &xd4
4)xb3+ 19 axb3 cxb2+ 20 &xb2 e5 21
a3! Hc8 22 Hd3 Bruzon/Gongora)
18 &xb2 Axb3 (18...Axe4? 19 Bdfl!
+ Velimirovié-Vuckovic, Belgrade
2000) is interesting though unclear.
c) 14 Wh5 is also interesting; e.g.:
cl) 14...b5!2- 13...b5 14 Wh5 d7.
c2) 14...Axb3+ 15 axb3 and now
15...Axd4 16 &xd4 f5 17 g6 or 15...£5
16 g6 hxg6 17 Bxg6 ®e5 18 Exg7+
&xg7 19 Wh6+ Sg8 20 Bel1+ Ag4 21
&d5!.
ee non
i/o
ayaway ‘e
is guided by the position that may also
arise after 14 Wh5 b4 15 Axc6 Axb3+
16 axb3 Wxc6 17 2d4!.
A21)
14 @Axc6 Axb3+
14...Wxc6!? occurs seldom, so the
variations without ...2\xb3+ are given
here to a limited extent:
a) 15 &d5 exd5 16 Axd5 looks du-
bious to me.
b) 15 Wh5. Now Black can choose
between:
bl) 15...Axe4? 16 AdS Wb7 (or
16...2d8 17 Wf3) and now:
bl1) 17 8d4? exd5 18 &xg7 © (or
18 g6 hxg6 19 &xd5 Bg5+ F).
b12) 17 £3! +— (Burgess).
b2) 15...b4 transposes to note ‘b’ to
Black’s 15th move in Line A22.
b3) 15...Aaxb3+!? 16 axb3 -
14... Axb34 15 axb3 Yxc6 16 YAS.
c) 15 2d4(!) b4 (15...A0xb34+ 16

Jiao 8 1, axb3 — /4...Axb3+ 15 axb3 Wxc6 16

A OA “ te
Vi

Vs. © we
Rd4;15...2d7 16 &d5 exd5 17 Axd5
Hfe8 18 Wh5 Hac8 19 c3 De6 20

ASIN
&xg7 +— Anand-Wegner, London
Lloyds Bank 1987; 15...26!2) 16 2d5!?
(16 Wh5!? — 14 Wh5S b4 15 Dxc6!
ee Wxc6!? 16 2.d4!?) and then:
cl) 16...8c7 can be met by 17
The same position though with the S&xa8!? or 17 Wh5 — 14 Whs b4 15
queen on c7 arises after 9...Wc7 10 Axc6! Wxc6!? 16 Bd5 We7 17 &.d4.
0-0-0 0-0 11 Bhgl Bd7 12 g4 Wc5 13 c2) 16...exd5 17 Axd5 gives White
g5 bS in Line B2311. Both there and compensation.
here White has two possible lines: 15 axb3 Wxc6 16 2d4!
A21: 14@xc6 = 155 Or 16 Wh5S, and then:
A22: 14Wh5 = 156 a) 16...b4?!-— 14 Wh5 b4 15 Axc6!
Axb3+ 16 axb3 Wxc6.
Naturally, after 14 Axc6 Wxc6, and b) 16...g6!717 Wh6 He8 18 2d4 —
after 14 Wh5 b4 15 Axc6 Wxc6, these 16 &d4 He8!? 17 WhS 26 18 Who.
variations come to the same thing. c) 16...%d7!? is interesting; e.g.:
 156 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

cl) 17 Sd4 HBfc8! 18 Hd2 (18 23 h7+ Bh8 24 6+ 2e7 25 Wxf7

_ &xg7? Sxg7 19 Wh6+ Bhs F; 18 Re6 26 Wxg6 Ha7 +; 23 Hf3 2e6?
Hd3 e5!; 18 Rf6 b4!; 18 Hed e5 19 (23.,.8a7 ¥ Liberzon) 24 Exg6+! +-
Eh4 h6 F; 18 Bg3 e5 19 Hd2 and now Sharif-Radashkovich, Netanya 1977.
19...exd4 looks best) 18...b4! 19 Aad 23...d3!
e5 + Vaerynen-Portilho, corr. 1990. Not: 23...Wb5 24 Bg5!? +— A.Per-
c2) 17 Hg4 Bac8 (17...b4?! 18 2d4 eira; 23...2e6 24 Exg6+ fxg6 25
transposes to note ‘e’ to Black’s 17th Exg6+ Bh7 26 We5! +-; 23...ha7 24
move in Line A22) 18 Hh4 h6 19 Hg1 46+ Bh8 25 Exg6 fxg6 26 Bxg6
Re8 20 Sbl (20 gxh6 f5!; 20 2d4 SRe6 27 We5 Be7 28 h7! 1-0 A.Per-
e5!) 20...b4 21 2d4 £5! F Guyot- eira- Varabiescu, corr. 1981.
Kozul, Graz 1987. After the text-move (23...d3!), White
c3) 17 Hg3!? Bac8!?. can force a draw by 24 Exg6+ fxg6 25
16...e8!? Hxg6+ Gh7 26 £74, etc. Instead, 24
Or: &xd3 is unlikely to prove stronger.
a) 16...2d7 17 2f6 Hfe8 18 Bd3!?
b4 19 Hh3 with an attack. A22)
b) 16...b4 17 2f6?! (White should 14 WhS (D)
of course play 17 Wh5!) 17...He8 18
“a4 (18 Hd3 bxc3 19 Kh3 Rf8!,
Bonin-Shamkovich, USA 1976) 18...e5 xis wR ee
19 &xe7 Exe7 with good play, Voit- » 0.0. waha
oo

sech-Mochalov, Minsk 1976.

17 Whs
Amag Ac o
Both 17 £6 &.f8 (Kasparov/Nikitin) Ur 7
and 17 Bd3 e5 18 Re3 a5 (18...2e6) VY, Am oo
19 Ad5 Le6 20 Hc3 Rxd5 21 Exc6 none @ ‘.
&xc6, Skrobek-Weglarz, Polish Cht
eats a,
R

(Mikolajki) 1991, are unclear.

17...26
Not: 17...b4? transposes to note ‘b’
to Black’s 17th move in Line A22;
17...e5? 18 Ad5 exd4 19 Af6+ +-.
18 Wh6 2f8 19 Wh4 b4!
This is far better than: 19...2e7? 20
{6 +— Balashov; 19...e5? 20 Ad5
Re7 21 Af6+ (21 Wh6! is even better)
21...2xf6 22 gxf6 Vh8 23 Hxg6 (23
Hd3!? exd4 24 Heg3! Wd7 25 £4)
23...fxg6 24 £7 + Comu-Heine,
1992.
20 Hd3 h5 21 gxh6 e5! 22 Ad5
exd4 23 Hdg3
As in the position with the queen on
c7, this is the most popular move.
14...b4
14...2d7!?, with the point 15 Bg3
&®xd4 16 &xd4 £5 (S.Soloviov-Log-
inov, St Petersburg 2001), deserves se-
rious study.
15 Axc6! Axb3+
corr. Instead:
a) It is hardly any better to play
15...bxc3 16 Axe7+ (16 Rd4 Axb3+
17 axb3 — 15...A\xb3+ 16 axb3 bxc3!?
 5..Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 a6 8 Bei Re7 9 We2 157

17 &d4) 16...\Wxe7 17 Bxc5 dxc5 18 b3) 16 2d4!? @xe4 (Nikitin; in-

4g4! Baljon. stead 16...4\xb3+!? 17 axb3 transposes
b) However, 15...8xc6!? is inter- to the main line) 17 Ad5! (17 &d5?
_esting: exd5 18 Axed VS! -+; 17 Bad?!
bl) 16 Hg4? bxc3 17 Bh4 cxb2+ Wb7 18 Axe4 Wxe4 19 Hed Wr3!? 20
18 Yb h6 Nikitin. Bd3 Ws) 17...exd5 18 g6! (18 &xg7!?)
b2) 16 2d5 We7 (16...exd5 17 18...225+ 19 Exes hxg6 20 Exg6
ADxd5 Qd8 18 Df6+ Vxf6 19 gxf6 g6 fxg6 21 &xd5+ Bf7 22 Rxc6 gxh5 23
20 &xc5 dxc5 21 e5 Bh8 22 Whé Hg8 &xa8 with an advantage for White.
23 Hd8 +— Tisdall) 17 £4 (17 Bg4? 16 axb3 Wxc6
bxc3 18 Hh4 h6 19 gxh6 26 —+ Plas- 16...bxc3!? 17 &d4 cxb2+ (White
kett; 17 2xa8 bxc3 18 Bg4 96 19 Who wins after 17...8xc6 18 Wh6) 18 &xb2
f5 «© Nikitin) and then: e5 19 Axe7+ Wxe7 (again, there is a
b21) It is not easy to prove White’s transposition to the system involving
advantage after 17...g6!? 18 Wh6 eS ...Wc7), and the following continua-
19 &xa8 bxc3 20 Rxc3 Aad 21 Bg3 tions are known: 20 2.a3 Hd8 21 Bd3
4\xc3 (or the immediate 21...Wa7) 22 a5 (21...$b7 22 Bh3! Bxe4 23 6) 22
Exc3 Wa7, Berndt-Hausner, Bundes- Wad1 Ha6 23 Wad2 (+ according to Bal-
liga 1993/4. jon, but I am not sure), and also 20 f4
b22) 17...bxc3 18 Wh6 f6 (18...e5? a5 (20...$b7!?) 21 £5 £6 (21...a4!?) 22
19 g6! +— Kobaliya-L.Guliev, Mos- 2d3 with the initiative, Voss-Kinds-
cow 1996) and here: vogel, corr. 1986.
b221) 19 gxf6 Axf6 20 2xa8 (20 17 &d4! (D)
&xf6? Bxf6 21 Wxf6 cxb2+! # Hec- Not: 17 Bg4? bxc3 18 Hh4 h6 -+
tor-Plaskett, London 1991) and now: 19 Hel We8! 20 Bhed £5, loffe-Puk-
20...cxb2+ 21 Ybl &xd4 22 Exd4 sansky, USSR 1980; 17 Hd4? bxc3 18
Exf2 23 We3 Hf7 24 Weg3 + loffe- e5 &b7! (18...8d7!?) 19 Hh4 h6 20
Liubin, USSR 1969; 20...@h8 -— 19 exd6 cxb2+!! —+ Donchev- Yudasin,
# xa8! Bh8! 20 exf6!? Bxf6. Lvov 1983; 17 @d5? exd5 18 2d4
b222) 19 &xa8! Bh8! (19...cxb2+ &.d7!? ¥ (18...Wd7!? 19 26! hxg6 20
20 Sb1 gxh6 21 gxf6+ Sf7 22 Be7+ Wxd5 @h7 21 Wxa8 2b7 gives Black
Be8 23 Bxe7+ Wxe7 24 fxe7 Bxe7 25 the initiative, Panchenko-Beliavsky,
e5 + Plaskett; 19...Wb6 20 &xc3 gxh6 Sukhumi 1971; 18..He8 19 &xg7
21 gxf6+ +). Now 20 Wxg7+ Sxg7 Wd7! Ciocaltea).
21 gxf6++ @h6 22 Re3+ Vh5 23 White’s successes in the important
He5+ Gh4 will bring White a draw af- position after the text-move (17 2d4)
ter 24 Hdgl, but hardly more than that. have led to the loss of popularity of
Instead, 20 gxf6!? 2xf6 21 2xf6 Hxf6 10... We8 and ...4c7/13...b5.
22 We3 cxb2+ 23 &b1 Da is not en- 17...2.b7
tirely clear, Baermann-Montalta, corr. This is Mochalov’s move. There is
1998. only one serious alternative:
b23) 17...2b7!? is possibly stron- a) 17...bxc3? 18 Wh6! e5 19 2xe5!
ger. +— Baljon-Boersma, Dutch Cht 1974.
158 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
1010 Meu
aoe ors
AmwaAe&
ew
_o.e@
mA
Ag we
eo S18
b) 17...fe8?2 18 &xg7! &xg7 (or
18...bxc3 19 g6! +— Ermenkov-Triana,
Cienfuegos 1975) 19 Wh6+ Yh8 (al-
ternatively, 19...@g8 20 g6 fxg6 21
Hxe6+ hxg6 22 Wxe6+ &f8 23 Wh6+
&t7 24 Wh7+ Sf6 25 Bgl +— Moch-
alov) 20 g6 fxg6 21 Exg6 Hes (or
21...2f8 22 Bg8+! +— Balashov) 22
dg! &b7 23 Bg7 +-.
c) 17..2d8? 18 Hd3 bxc3 19 Bf3
e5 20 Wxf7+ Gh8 21 Wxe7 Hg8 22
g6 Wxe4 (Grigorov-Spassov, Pernik
1975) 23 Wxg7+! +-.
d) 17...£5 18 gxf6 2xf6 19 2xf6
Hxf6 20 e5 + Nikitin.
e) 17..Rd7!? 18 Bed (18 &xg7
&xg7 19 Bd3 bxc3 20 Wh6+ Bh8 21
EBh3 Wxe4 22 96 &g5+! —+) and then:
el) 18..2fc8? 19 Hh4 and here:
19...2xg5+ 20 Wxg5 e5 21 Hel g6 22
Wf6 +- Golubev-KoZul, Skopje open
1991; 19...h6 20 gxh6 &xh4 21 We4
+—; 19...$f8 20 Wxh7 2xg5+ 21 f4
with a decisive advantage; e.g., 21...e5
22 fxg5! exd4 23 Wh8+ Se7 24 Wxe7
Re6 25 Hfl!.
e2) 18...bxc3 19 Hh4 &xg5+ 20
Wxg5 and then:
e21) 20...f621 WhS cxb2+ (21...e5
22 2x3 +) 22 @xb2 h6 (22... Bfc8 23
c4 + Plaskett) 23 He] EBf7 24 Wxh6
&f8 25 Bxg7 1-0 Plaskett-Wahls, Has-
tings 1989/90.
e22) After 20...cxb2+! 21 &xb2 e5
White has not yet demonstrated an ad-
vantage: 22 Bgl 26 23 Wh6 Efc8 24
c4 Re6 25 Wxh7+ &f8 with counter-
play, Roth-Stanec, Austria 1994, or 22
Wh5!? Hfc8 23 c4 We5! with the point
24 Hd5 Wxf2! 25 Wxh7+ Sf8 = 26
Bxd6? Qad!.
18 Ad5!
Not:
a) 18 2£6? bxc3 (18... fc8! Moch-
alov) 19 Wh6 cxb2+ 20 &xb2 Wxc2+!
+ Rudnev-Mochalov, USSR 1976.
b) 18 &xg7? &xg7 19 Wh6+ Bhs
20 g6 fxg6 21 Bxg6 Hg8 —+ Moch-
alov.
c) 18 Bg4?! bxc3 19 Bh4 cxb2+
20 &xb2 Wxe4! + Chandler-Yudasin,
Minsk 1982.
18...exd5 19 Hd3!
This is the only move again. Other-
wise: 19 Wh6? Wxc2+! (a typical
counter-sacrifice!) 20 @xc2 Bfc8+ +
Mochalov; 19 c3?! bxc3! 20 bxc3 (20
Wh6? cxb2+4+ 21 &xb2 We2+! 22
Ba3 We5+ —+ Baljon) 20...f6!?.
19...Bfc8 20 3 bxc3
Or:
a) 20...8f87!21 Bf3 Ye8 22 Bxf7!.
b) 20...dxe4?! 21 Hh3 Sf8 22 96 h6
(Pote-Penquite, corr. 1996-7; 22...fxg6?!
23 Wxh7 Se8 24 Exg6 +—- Howell-
Wahls, Gausdal
jr Wch 1986) 23 gxf7!
£6, and now 24 &xf6 gxf6 25 Wg6
Se7 26 Rxh6 d5 27 f8W+! +— (Pen-
quite) or 24 Exg7 Rxg7 (24...2xd4 25
h7 +—) 25 2xe7+ Se7 26 WES! +.
21 Hf3!?
Alternatively:
a) 21 bxc3 dxe4 (21... Wb5 22 Bf3
++ Baljon) 22 Bh3 @f8 23 g6 ho!
 5...Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 B2b3 a6 8 Bei Be7 9 We2 159

(23...fxg6? 24 Wxh7 Be8 25 Bxg6 12 g5 (12 0-0-0; 12 Af5) 12...Ac5 13

Wd5 26 Bxg7 1-0 Hadraba-Necesany, Ho3 (13 Whs!?) 13...Dxb3!? (13...¢6
corr. 1984), and Black has a chance to 14 h4!?, Camacho-N.Gonzalez, Cu-
protect himself; e.g., 24 gxf7 &f6 25 ban Ch 1987) 14 axb3 f5 (Hector-Shi-
&xg7? &xd4 26 Bh7 &xc3 -+. rov, Val Maubuée 1989) 15 Wc4 Bhs
b) 21 Hh3 cxb2++ 22 Gxb2 fs 16 Axe6 &xe6 17 Wxe6 Ad8! turns
(22...Wc2+ 23 a3 Wed? 24 26) and out well for him.
now 23 Hf3?! Be8 24 Wxf7+ Ld8 is c) 10...b5 11 g4(11 0-0-0 Aa5!; 11
satisfactory for Black, Golubev-Sha- &xc6 Wxc6 12 0-0-0 Axe4!?) 11...b4
piro, Odessa rpd 1983, but 23 g6!? is with almost unstudied complications
interesting. arising after 12 @xc6!? bxc3 13 Axe7
21...cxb2++ 22 &xb2 We2+ or 12 a4, Lamoureux-Lanka, Paris
22...8f8?! 23 Bh3 (or 23 Wxf7+ 1990.
@h8 24 g6! We2+ 25 Ba3 We7 26 d) 10...e5!? makes sense, Qi Jing-
gxh7! +) 23...We2+ 24 Ba3 Wxe4 (or xuan-G.Kuzmin, Bled/Portoroz 1979.
24...h6 25 gxh6 +—) 25 g6 fxg6 26 e) 10...@\xd4!? = Akopian.
Wxh7+ Sf7 27 He3! Ws 28 Bxe6 We now return to 10 0-0-0 (D):
+-.
23 a3 Es 24 Hh3! Wxed 25 26
fxg6 26 Wxh7+ Sf7 27 &xg7! xis \ je &
This is better than 27 He3? Wxd4 CAV
—+ or 27 Wxg7+ Se8 28 He3 Hf7 =.
After the text-move (27 2&xg7!)
ail UY),
Black can reach an endgame a pawn Y), ae
down but with some drawing chances: arte?
27...25 28 Bxf8+ Wxh7 (28... 2xf8 29
Wh6+ +-) 29 Bxh7+ Sxf8 30 Ecl
(30 h4!?) 30...d4 31 Hc7 d3 32 Hcxe7
d2 33 Exb7 g8 34 Bbe7+ SF8 35
Hd7 Ss.
Black must now make a fundamen-
B) tal decision:
9...Wce7 10 0-0-0 B1: 10...Aa5 160
10 f4 transposes to note ‘a’ to B2: 10...0-0 167
White’s 10th move in Line C1 of
Chapter 9. 10...b5?! is unsuccessful because of
10 Hgl!? does not promise an ad- 11 Axc6! (11 g4 Da5 transposes to
vantage here either, though it carries Line B1) 11...8xc6 12 2d4; for in-
some poison: stance, 12...&b7 (12...0-0 13 Ad5! +)
a) 10...Aa5 11 g4 xb3 12 axb3 13 Hhei Hc8 14 f4 0-0 15 Ad5 +
Bd7 13 g5 +. Hiibner-Hort, Bamberg 1972.
b) 10...0-0 11 g4! is unsafe for Also better for White is 10...2d7
Black, even though the line 11...d7 L1 94! Dxd4 12 Bxad.
160 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Bl) This is the key position for 10...A\a5,

10...Aa5 and White has two well-known moves
From now on Black is obliged to at his disposal:
play with his king in the centre in al- B1i: 14 Df5 160
most all variations, and not many B12: 14h4 163
‘Classical Sicilian’ players like it.
Nevertheless, the line remains very Rare tries for White:
playable. a) 14 b4? a5! 15 DdxbS Wb8 16
11 g4b5 bxa5 Exa5 ¥ (Velimirovi¢).
Or 11...2\xb3+ 12 axb3, and now: b) 14 Hhgl b4 (14...0-0?! trans-
a) 12...b5 13 g5 — J1...b5 12 g5 poses to Line B221; 14...2b7!2) 15
@xb3+ 13 axb3. 4\a4 and now both 15...Ac5 and
b) A rare deviation is 12...26 13 g5 15...2b7 are satisfactory, Pukulev-Ly-
@hS 14 f4 (14 AS exfS5 15 Dd5S senko, Cheliabinsk 1974.
Wc6! 16 Bd4 Rxg5+ 17 Sbl Hes! c) 14 Bb1 b4 (14...Dc57! 15 DES!;
Kasparov/Nikitin; 14 Wd2 b5 15 @de2 unclear is 14..2b7 15 Wh5 g6 16
&b7 16 Dg3 0-0! 17 AxhS gxh5 18 f3, Wh6 2f8 17 Wh3 — Velimirovic) 15
Van Riemsdijk-Carlier, Dieren 1989, Dad Ac5 16 We4 (16 h4 — 14 h4 b4!
18...b4! Akopian) 14...b5 (14...8d7 15 15 Da4 DcS! 16 Bh1) 16...2d7 17
£5 0-0-0 16 W2 + Quinteros-Gligorié, Wxb4 @xa4!? 18 bxa4 Hb8 with good
Manila 1974; there has also occurred play for Black, Noetzel-Eber, Elb 1987.
14...0-0 15 f5 He8 16 WF3 Qf8 17 d) 14 £419 b4! 15 Da4 2b7 (after
&de2 b5 18 “g3 b4 which appears 15...Ac5!? 16 £5 e5 17 Axc5 exd4 18
dangerous for Black, because of, for &xd4 dxc5 19 &xg7 White has com-
example, 19 @xhS gxh5 20 g6) 15 f5 pensation, Freise-Rossmann, Rostock
b4 16 “a4 0-0. Now 17 We4 is one in- 1983) 16 &d2 a5 17 Hhel 0-0 18 &bl
teresting idea. Efc8 19 Acl Dc5 20 Wg2 (Ham-
12 5 Axb3+ douchi-A.Sokolov, French Cht 1999)
12...2d7?! 13 Rxe6 fxe6 14 Axe6 20...g6!? with adequate counterplay.
We4 15 Axg7+ +. e) 14 Wh g6! (14...0-07 15 Ehgl
13 axb3 @d7 (D) + is unsuccessful and 14...Ac5 15 b4
“\a4 16 Hd3 © Honfi-Donner, The
Hague Z 1966, deserves particular at-
xa sees a tention) 15 Wh6 2f8 16 Wh4 b4 17
een aa a4, and now, for example, 17...2g7,
se Bal 7 Mason-Howell, British Ch (Swansea)

Vs Ome 1995, and 17...8.b7!? seem very good.

‘a Bee B11)
AGS wn 14 AES
The positional sacrifice developed
by Velimirovi¢.
14...exf5
 5..Nc6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3 a6 8 Be3 Be7 9 We2 161

14...b4 appears dubious but has not ixg7 20 f4 &f8, when both 21 Hel
yet been refuted: and 21 h4 give White very strong pres-
a) 15 Axg7+ Sf8 16 Whs (16 Bd4 sure.
He8!?) 16...exg7 17 Rd4+ Yg8! 18 Zhel
(17...Ae5 18 f4 +) 18 AdS (18 Bxh8 18 gxf6 &xd5 (18...Axf67! 19 &b6
&xh8 19 Wxf7 Af8 -+; 18 Khel Aes Rxd5 20 &xd8 Hxd8 21 Bhel seems
19 f4 Ago 20 Rxh8 Sxh8 21 He2 to be better for White) 19 Bxd5 (19
&b7 F Wahls-Rechlis, Berne 1990) fxe7? Wa5!) 19...Axf6 20 Hfs Bgs8
18...exd5 19 g6 fxg6 20 Wxd5+ SF8 F (20...Wd7!7 21 WE3 Bc8 22 Bd4 Web
Furhoff-Sanden, Salogernas 1994. = Reinaldo-Campos, Mondariz 1996)
b) 15 2d4!? &xg5+?! (15...bxc3) 21 2d4 (21 Hel - 18 Bhel &xd5! 19
16 Sb1 2£6? 17 Rxf6 Axf6 18 Axd6+ Exd5 Eg8 20 gxf6 Axf6 21 Bfs)
+— Prié-Muir, Novi Sad OL 1990. 21...2f8 22 WF3 Hg6 23 h4 h5 and
c) 15 Axe7 bxc3 (15...&xe7!? is Black defends successfully.
recommended by Rechlis) 16 Axc8 18...2xd5!
cxb2+ 17 &xb2 Hxc8 18 Hd4 (or 18 18...0-0? 19 gxf6 &xf6 20 Wed+
d2 Boleslavsky) with a slight advan- Ph8 21 Axf6 Axf6 22 Vd4 Bgs 23
tage for White. EHe8!! Hxe8 24 Wes He6 25 Bel +-
15 Ads Wd8 Velimirovié.
Possibly attention should be paid to 19 Exd5 Hg8 (D)
15...Wa5; e.g., 16 exf5 (16 Axe7!?) Black’s alternatives are inferior:
16...&b7 17 Axe7 (17 &b6 Wal+!). 19...8f8?! 20 gxf6 Axf6 21 &Lh6+
Now bad is 17...&xh1? 18 &b6! Wal+ Be8 22 Hd3 Sd7 23 WF; 19...He57!
(18...2f3 19 Wxf3 Axb6 20 We6+ 20 gxf6 &xf6 21 £4; 19...0-0? 20 gxf6
Sxe7 21 Wxd6+ Ye8 22 Sb1! +-) 19 2xf6 21 Bgi+ Bh8 22 Bh5 Lp7 23
Bd2 Wxb2 20 Ac6+ +, but 17...Wal+ Exg7 &xg7 24 We4+ +-.
18 Sd2 Wa5+! and 17...Ae5!? are
sufficient.
16 exf5 2b7! xe 4
16...0-0? 17 f6! + Velimirovié-So- y a
frevski, Titograd 1965.
17 £6
After 17 Zhel &xd5 18 Bxd5 0-0!

sts ae.
19 £6 Axf6 20 gxf6 &.xf6 Black stands
at least no worse. Y"aa GY
WY

SWE
D>

17...gxf6!
Gc

If 17...&xd5, it is bad to play 18

fxe7? because of 18...Wa5!. Interest-
ing is 18 Bxd5 gxf6 19 &d4 (19 Bel —
17...@xf6! 18 Bhel &xd5! 19 Bxd5) By making a series of accurate
19... &f8 20 Wh5S, as in Gusev-Zotkin, moves, Black has achieved a position
Leningrad 1968, but the most accurate where his extra knight is worth no less
continuation is 18 fxg7 Hg8 19 Hxd5 than White’s activity.
162 THE SICILIAN
20 gxf6
Or:
a) 20 HFS fxg5!? 21 &xg5 Hed —
20 gxf6 Arxf6 21 BfS De4!? 22 Res
DeS.
b) 20 &d2 Sf8! 21 Bas (21 Whs
2p7!) 21...Wxa5 22 Wxe7+ &7 is
much better for Black, Goljak-Petru-
shin, USSR 1971.
c) 20h4 Hc8 (20...fxg5!? 21 Bxg5
Be5) 21 Sf4 (21 £47! &F8, Ehlvest-
Tischbierek, Leningrad 1984) 21...2f8
22 Rxd6 2xd6 23 Bxd6 fxg5 (Yrjola
suggests 23...We7) 24 Wd2 Hc7 25
Wb4 &e7 26 Wd4+ SF8 = Dashko-
Tseshkovsky, Novorossiysk 1995.
d) 20 &£4 Sf8 (20...Ae5? 21 gxf6
Rxf6 22 Bxe5 Lxe5 23 f4 + Golubev-
Konarev, Ukrainian jr Ch (Alexan-
dria) 1984) and then:
dl) 21 Wd2 Bxg5! (21...fxg5? 22
Rxd6 2xd6 23 Bxd6- 2) Bxd6 Rxd6
22 Exd6 frg5? 23 Wd2 +) 22 &xg5s
fxg5 23 h4 a5!, Hector-Fishbein, Sta-
vanger 1991, with the point 24 Hxb5
Ac5! F,
d2) 21 Wh5 Wa5!.
d3) 21 &xd6 &xd6 22 Hxd6 Exes
(22...fxg5? 23 Wd2 Ha7 24 Wh4! a5
25 Exd7+ axb4 26 Hxd8+ &g7 27
Exg8+ @xg8 28 HeS + A.Koroliov;
22...Ha7?! 23 gxf6 Be6 24 We3 Bc7
25 Wh3; 22...c8!? — Kasparov/Nikitin)
23 £4 (23 Wd2 Ha7 24 f4 Heo - 23 f4
£26 24 Wd2 Ba7) 23...2g6 and here:
d31) 24 £5 Hg5 25 Wd2 (25 h4?!
Bxf5 26 Wd2 He5!) 25..Ha7 -— 24
Wa2 Ha7 25 f5 Bes.
d32) 24 Wd2 Ba7 25 £5 (25 Hdl £5
$) 25...Bg5 26 h4 Hed (26...227!2) 27
Hid4 (27 Wh6+ dg8 28 Badd He7!? 29
Wd2 Wc8 F Moraru-Ardeleanu, Ro-
manian Cht 1998) 27...h5!? 28 Wh6+
SOZIN
Bg8 29 Bxge4+ hxg4 30 Hed Ae5 31
Hxe5! = Nisipeanu/Stoica.
20...Axf6 21 BF5 Ag4t?
This is sufficient, but is not the only
move:
a) 21...226? 22 &b6 Wd7 23 Wr3
Ab8 24 Bxf6 Exb6 25 Wa8+ Wd8 26
&xe7+ + Kupreichik-Beliavsky, USSR
1974.
b) 21...Bb8 22 h4 (A.Frolov-Baga-
turov, Biel IZ 1993; 22 2a7?! Bb7 23
Rd4 Ag4 24 Wr3 We8 F Taborov-
Korsunsky, Tallinn 1976; 22 2d4!?)
22...ADg4 23 &g5 Ae5 24 f4 with un-
clear play.
c) 21...Ad7!? 22 Rg5 (it is un-
known whether White gets compensa-
tion after 22 Wh5; e.g., 22..2g6 23
Wxh7 and now 23...Ae5 {Schach-
Archiv} or 23...f6), and now, apart
from 22...Ae5 (see 21...Ag4 22 225
4 \e5), Black should consider the idea
22...Axg5!? 23 Hxgs &f8.
22 295
Black achieves the advantage after
other moves:
a) 22 WF3 Bc8 23 2d4 De5!, Zap-
ata-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1995.
b) 22 Hg5 Hxg5 23 Bxg5 He5 24
&xe7 Wxe7, Howell-Lysenko, Cap-
pelle la Grande 1995.
c) 22 Hg] Ah6! (22...h5? 23 BxhS
Af6 24 Bxg8+ Axgs8 25 Wed Df 26
Eh8+ 2f8 27 Wr3) 23 Bigs? Rxg5!
—+.
d) 22 &d4 He6!? 23 WE3 Des 24
&xe5 dxe5 25 Hxf7 Ha7!.
22...Ae5 23 2xe7 Wxe7 24 f4
A probable draw can be achieved
either through 24...&g2, as in the game
Soloviov-Lysenko, Sverdlovsk 1978,
or 24...Ad3+ and 24...We6 25 Wed
4\d3+, which were played later.
 5..4\c6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3
B12)
14h4 (D)
x fe & cl) 15 h5 b4 and then:
i aan
The most popular plan for White —
he intends 15 h5 and 16 g6.
14...b4!
The other possibilities are:
a) Unsuccessful is 14...0-07! 15 g6!
4\c5 (15...hxg6 16 h5 +), when White
has two promising roads: 16 b4 a4 17
&xa4 (17 8d3!? Velimirovic) 17...6xa4
(Romanishin-Vaiser, USSR 1972) 18
h5!, or 16 gxh7+ Gh8 17 Hhegl £6
18 &g5 with an advantage.
b) 14...2\c5!? and now:
bl) 15 @f5?! exf5 16 AdS Axb3+
17 Sbi Bb7.
b2) After 15 b4 a4 16 Bd3, we
have:
b21) 16...We4 17 Abi! Wxb4 18
c3 Was 19 Ac6 We7 20 Axe7 Wxe7 21
Xhd1 favours White, Radulov-Ham-
ann, Lugano OL 1968.
b22) 16...2d7 can be met by 17
“F512 exf5 18 Ad5 Wd8 19 2d4 —
Velimirovié.
b23) 16...8&b7!? is more reliable for
Black.
b24) 16...Axc3 17 Hxc3 Wd7, as
given by Kasparov and Nikitin, also
looks safer for Black.
ab 8 Be3 Be7 9 We2 163
b3) 15 h5 b4 16 Wad — 14...b4/ 15
Bad We5! 16 hS.
c) 14...2b7 is a natural but some-
what inaccurate continuation:
cll) 16 Da4 &xe4 17 £3 and here:
e111) 17...2b7?! 18 96 hxg6 19
hxg6 Exhl1 20 &xh1 and now, rather
than 20...2f6? 21 Axe6! +— M.Gure-
vich-Ehlvest, USSR 1978 or 20...2\c5?!
21 Axc5 dxc5 22 gxf7+ &xf7 23
4)xe6! +— Podgaets-Butnorius, Odessa
1975, Black should try 20...2£8!?.
€112) 17...2d5! 18 bl AeS (the
alternatives for Black are 18...Hc8!?
19 DFS We6 and 18...8b7!?) 19 Bh3
0-0! (Livshits/Lukin) gives Black good
chances.
c12) 16 a2! and then:
6121) 16.5 17 Axb4 Bxe4 18
£3 2b7 19 g6.
c122) 16...2xe4!? 17 f3 &b7 18
&xb4 (18 26 © Akopian) 18...a5!?.
e123) 16...Wa5 17 Sb1 Bxed (after
17...2.xg5 18 Rxg5 Wxgs 19 DAxb4
White has the initiative, de Firmian-
Busquesto, New York 1989) 18 £3 2£5
(18...2d5 19 2d2! + Ulybin/Volovik),
and now White has an interesting
choice:
c1231) 19 Hh4 h6 20 “@xb4 (20
4\c6!?) 20...&2xg5 21 Abc6 Wd5 22
&xg5 hxg5 23 Xhhi © Ljubojevic-
Beliavsky, Las Palmas 1974.
¢1232) 19 Ac6!? Sahovié.
c1233) 19 Axb4 Wxb4 20 Axf5
exf5 21 2d4 Ac5 (21...Wb5!? Minié,
21...8d8 22 h6 +) 22 h6 Ae6 23 hxg7
Hg8 24 2f6 with compensation, Lju-
bojevi¢é-Hamann, Amsterdam 1975.
c2) 15 f3 and now:
c21) 15...Wa5 16 Sbl b4 17 Da2!?
d5 18 h5 dxe4 19 g6, Lerner-Petrushin,
164 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Minsk 1971, has been evaluated in c254) 16...g6!? and then:

White’s favour.
c22) 15...Hc8 16 h5 b4 17 Dad d5
18 g6 hxg6 19 hxg6 Exh] 20 Exhl
dxe4 21 £4 with the initiative, Radu-
lov-Shamkovich, Varna 1970.
c23) 15...g6 should probably trans-
pose to line ‘c254’ as after 16 h5 b4,
17 hxg6 bxc3 18 Bxh7 Bxh7 19 gxh7
0-0-0 20 26 &f6 seems satisfactory
for Black.
c24) 15...2c5!? 16 Sb1 0-0-0 was
suggested by Nisipeanu and Stoica.
c25) 15...b4 16 Aad and then:
e251) 16...d5?! 17 exd5 2xd5
AES +.
e252) 16..Wa5 17 Bb] Ac5S
16...AcS 17 &b1 Was.
0253) 16...2\c5 and here:
c2531) 17 hS5 @xa4 (17... Had 18
&bl — 17 Sb1 Wa5 18 h5) 18 bxa4
Hc8 and now, rather than 19 96 2f6!,
c2541) 17 WF2!?.
©2542) 17 Wd2!? Was (17...d5!2)
18 h5 0-0-0 19 &b1, and now not
19...$b8? 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 Exh8 Exh8
22 Ac6+!! Rxc6 23 Wd4 +— Nunn-
Nokes, Ramsgate 1981, but 19...d5 20
e5!? “xe5, with complications.
c2543) 17 h5! enables White to
fight for the initiative; e.g., 17...e5 18
hxg6 fxg6 19 Ae6; 17...0-0-0 18 Wr2
Was 19 Sb Rxg5 (19..:d5 20 e5!) 20
&f5!, Parligras-Ardeleanu, Romanian
Cht 2000; 17...2f8 18 Wd2 d5 19 e5!?,
18 P.Petursson-Nykopp, Reykjavik 1984;
17...Hg8 18 Wr2 Bc8 19 hxg6 hxg6 20
—- Hd2 + Lukin-Liavdansky, Leningrad
1969.
We now return to 14...b4 (D):
R78 @7
7, MaG ak

oe
as in Wedberg-Shamkovich, Reykja-
vik 1982, Nunn recommends 19 &b1!
+ AZ hay 7
Av, A ag
oS

i
c2532) 17 Sbl and now: WY

¢25321) 17...Aaxa4 18 bxa4 Hc8 19

cl! + Nunn.
c25322) 17..Hc8 18 h5 Axa4
an e YU
(18...0-0 19 ¢6 &f6 20 Wh2 Hfe8 21
BRUM 7
Hdgi!? with an attack; 18...Wa5!? — Y 627 FE
17...a5 18 hS5 Bc8!?) 19 bxa4 d5 20
g6 2f6 21 gxf7+ &xf7 (Razuvaev- 15 “a4
Shamkovich, USSR Ch (Baku) 1972) 15 Ba2 a5! (15...2b7 16 hd! -
22 £4 dxe4 23 f5 +. 14...2b7 15 hS5 b4 16 Da2!. 15...Dc5
c25323) 17...WaS 18 h5 (18 57! 16 @xb4 xed Kasparov/Nikitin) 16
&xa4!?) 18...Axa4 (18...c8!? 19 26 4b5?! (a game with chances for both
Sf6) 19 bxa4 Wxa4 (19...2xg5 20 sides can be obtained through 16 bt
4\b3 and 19...&c8 20 g6 favour White) or 16 h5 a6, followed by ...Bc8, Wed-
20 26 Hc8 (20...2f6 21 We4 +) 21 h6! berg-Yrj6la, Finland-Sweden 1988)
hxg6 22 hxg7 Hg8 23 Hh8 @d7 24 16... b8 (or 16...84c6 17 Wed Ac5 18
4\b3 + Nunn-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Exd6 &xd6 19 Axd6+ Wxd6 20 Rxc5
Zee 1982. We7! Kasparov/Nikitin) 17 Wd3 Ha6
 5..Nc6 6 &c4 e6 7 Bb3
(17...0-0 18 Axd6 Ae5!? 19 Wd4 a4)
18 Wc4 Dc5 19 bl (de Firmian-
Hellers, Reykjavik 1990) 19...b7!.
15...Ac5!
15...&b7 and then: 16 f3 — /4...2b7
15 f3 b4 16 Dad; 16h5 — 14...2b7 15
hS b4 16 Bad.
16 h5
The remaining continuations are:
a) 16 @xc5?! dxc5 17 Af3 — 8...We7
9 We2 Da5 10 g4 b5 11 g5 Bd7 12
0-0-0 b4 13 Da4 Axb3+ 14 axb3 AcS
15 AxcS dxc5 16 Df3 Be7 17 hA.
b) 16 We4 2d7 (16...Wb7 17 e5
&xa4 18 bxa4 dxe5 19 Ac6 We7 20
@xe5 Wxc4 21 Axc4 &b7 = Matano-
vi¢é-Hamann, Vrnjatka Banja 1966)
17 Wxb4 &xa4! 18 bxa4 0-0 with an
excellent position.
c) 16 Sbt Axe4 (16...2d7 can be
met by 17 f4!? or 17 h5 — 16 h5 2d7
17 &b1) 17 &f4 and now Schach-
Archiv gives 17...e5! + (rather than
17...Ac5 18 DFS + Raigevic).
d) 16£3 2d7! 17 Sb1 (17 hS?! can
be met by 17...e5!? or 17...Axb3+ 18
@Axb3 &xa4 F) 17...Aaxa4! (17...2xa4
18 bxa4 4xa4 19 hS “Ac5 © Yudasin-
Sion Castro, Leon 1993) 18 bxa4 &xa4
19 h5 &d7 20 g6 and it is not clear
whether White has real compensation.
Black can choose between 20...2f6
and 20...fxg6!? 21 hxg6 h6, Dervishi-
{.Nikolaidis, Erevan Z 2000.
16...2.d7
Otherwise:
a) 16...2b7?! is well met by 17
g6!, as in Gufeld-Tukmakov, Moscow
1975, or 17 £3!2 — 14...2b7 15 f3 b4
16 Da4 Dc5 17 hS.
b) 16...2xa4?! 17 bxa4 WaS 18 26
+ Hartston-Mestel, British Ch (East-
bourne) 1973.
a6 8 Rei Re7 9 We2 165
c) 16...e57! 17 AS £ Nunn-Mur-
shed, Commonwealth Ch (London)
1985.
d) Serious attention should be paid
to 16...Aaxe4!? 17 26 2f6 (17...f5 18
hé! + I.Zaitsev-Utemov, USSR 1983;
17...Df67! 18 h6 hxg6 19 hxg7 Hes
20 Hh8 2b7 21 Rg5 Bd7 22 AbS
axb5 23 Wxb5+ 2c6 24 Ac5+! +-;
17...d8!?) 18 gxf7+ (18 Weg4 d5 19
gxf7+ @xf7 20 £3 Wg3! with an ad-
vantage, Chuprov-Kalugin, St Peters-
burg 1999; 18 &f47! e5 19 Wxe4 2b7;
18 h6 hxg6 19 hxg7 &xg7 20 Bxh8+
&xh8 also looks dubious; e.g., 21 Bh
Rf6 22 Bh7 Ags or 21 We4 2b7!)
18...8xf7 19 Hhgl © Emms-Henni-
gan, British Ch (Dundee) 1993.
17 Sbl
17 @xc5?7! dxc5 18 DF3 Rb5S with
strong counterplay.
17 g6 Axb3+! (17...216? 18 e5!!+
Benjamin-Taborov, Schilde 1976) and
then:
a) 18 bl Axd4! (18...Ac5 19 h6!
gives White sufficient compensation,
Renet-Am.Rodriguez, Pantevo 1985)
19 &xd4 &xa4 20 &xg7 and now
20...2c8 + Hector-Am.Rodriguez, Se-
ville 1986, or 20...4d7.
b) 18 Axb3 2xa4 19 h6!? (this
does not give an advantage but nobody
knows whether there is compensation
after 19 gxf7+ &xf7 or 19 Ad4 2f6
20 gxf7+ &xf7; e.g., 21 h6 g6 22 b3
Rd7! 23 f4) 19...fxg6 20 hxg7 (20
&\d4 e5!? may well come to the same
thing) 20...g8 21 Ad4 e5 (21...2c8!?;
e.g., 22 Bxh7? 2xc2! 23 Axc2 b3 F
K.Berg-Trepp, Zug 1985, or 22 b3 $.b5
23 Wd2 2d7 24 Bxh7 2f6, Lange-
veld-De Koning, corr. 1991) 22 Ae6
We6 (22...We8!? 23 Af8 Hxe7 24
166 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
@Axh7 We6 25 Ags Wa2! Akopian)
23 Bxh7 2.b3! (23...Hc8? 24 2c5! +
dxc5? 25 We4 +—-) 24 Hd5! (24 Ac5
R£7 25 Ad3 Wxe4 F Brunner-Van der
Wiel, Lucerne Wcht 1989) 24...2c8
25 EBh8 Wxe2+ (25...8f7 26 Ac5!
dxc5! 27 cxb3 c4! 28 bxc4 Wxc4+ =
Rechlis-Piket, Gausdal jr Wch 1986) 26
Wxe2 Hxc2+ 27 Sbl Sf7 28 Hd3(!)
with a roughly equal endgame accord-
ing to Akopian.
17...2xa4
The prevailing practical choice, al-
though there are some other interest-
ing moves:
a) 17...Axe4? 18 96 £5 19 h6! hxg6
20 £3! Ac5 21 Axc5 dxe5 22 Rl4! +
Wolff-D.Gurevich, Los Angeles 1991.
b) 17...8c8?! 18 26 2f6 19 gxf7+
Sxf7 20 e5 Bxe5 21 Axc5 dxc5 22
AE3 Rf6 23 Rf4 + Wolff-Masculo,
Philadelphia 1990.
c) 17...b7 and now:
cl) 18 g6 &xa4 (18...2f67! 19
gxf7+ &xf7 20 h6!, Pugachov-Feher,
Budapest 1992; 18...hxg6?! 19 hxg6
Exhl 20 Sxhl is much better for
White — Wedberg; 18...A\xa4!?) 19
bxa4 —/7...&.xa4 18 bxa4d Wh7 19 26.
c2) 18 e5 Dxa4 19 exd6 Rxd6 20
bxa4 2xa4!? © (20...0-0-0 21 Ab3
Rxa4 22 Aas Wh5 23 Ac4).
d) 17...Axa4!? 18 bxa4d 2xa4 (or
18...g6!? Kasparov/Nikitin), and in-
stead of 19 26 Rf6, 19 £4!7 deserves
attention (e.g. 19...e5 20 fxe5 dxe5 21
45 b3 22 cxb3 &xb3 23 Hd3).
e) 17...g6!7.
18 bxad4 (D)
Here, Black has several possibili-
ties:
a) 18...Axa4 19 96 (19 f4! Kuczyn-
ski) 19...2f6 (19...Ac5 20 e5!? with
EZ Bee -
2
am wae oe
2
“ a
Rh AAT) ‘a
OU ee
Bun 7
Ve7a7 7
the initiative) 20 gxf7+ (20 £4?! 0-0!
21 gxf7+ Bxf7 22 Axe6? Wb7 -+)
20...Wxf7 (20...8xf7?! 21 h6! 6 22
Wr3 + Planinc-Beliavsky, Hastings
1974/5) 21 We4 (21 h6!? 26 22 Wed
0-0 =; 21 £47! 0-0 22 h6 g6 23 f5 exf5
24 exf5 Hae8) 21...0-0 22 Wxe6 Wxe6
23 Dxe6 AF7 (Wang Pin-Chiburdan-
idze, Shanghai wom Ct 1992; 23...Axb2
=) 24 &cl Ac5 =.
b) 18...c8 and then:
bl) 19 Ab3?7! Axa4 20 Hd4 and
now 20...Wc3! is even better than
20...Ac5 ¥ Hector-Cebalo, Montpel-
lier 1985.
b2) 19 26 &£6 20 gxf7+ is best met
by 20...Wxf7!. 20...@xf7 is weaker in
view of 21 £4!? or 21 We4 b3 22 Axb3
Bxa4 23 Wxe7+ Hxc7 24 Hxd6 +.
b3) 19 f4!? is worth considering.
b4) 19 £3 Dxad 20 Wxa6 (20 26
2f6 21 Wxa6 Axb2! Cu.Hansen)
20...Ac5 21 Wb5+ Ad7! (21...d7 is
best met by 22 b3! = R6tSagov-Vein-
gold, Finnish Cht 1996, rather than 22
h6 g6 23 Wxb4 0-0 ©) and then:
b41) 22 Hd2 0-0 23 g6 (23 f4 Ac5
24 £5 Axed 25 Hg? Ha8 26 Ac6 Hfc8
F) 23...Ac5 (23...De5 24 gxf7+ Exf7
25 Dxe6 We4 = Akopian) 24 h6é (24
Wxb4!? Van der Wiel) 24...fxg6 25
 5..Dc6 6 &c4 e6 7 Bb3 a6 8 Be3 Be7 9 We2 167

hxg7 Sf7 $ Onishchuk-Van der Wiel, Ehd8; 21 Hhg1!? is interesting) and

Wijk aan Zee 1996.
b42) 22 96 5! (22...fxg6? 23 Bh2 +
Hector-R6tSagov, Gothenburg 1997),
and here Black has a guaranteed draw:
23 h6 (or 23 gxf7+ Bxf7 24 Wd5+
Ye8 25 Heb Wxc2+, Nunn-Estremera
Panos, Leon 1997) 23...exd4 24 gxf7+
xf7 (24...2d8 25 Bh2 26 26 Bxd4
Hf8 27 e5 ~) 25 Wd5+ Se8 26 hxg7
Wxc2+ = Cu.Hansen.
c) 18...Wb7 and here:
cl) 19 eS dxe5 20 Ab3 Axb3 21
cxb3 0-0 22 a2 Had8 23 Hdgl e4 24
g6 2f6! + Nieuwenhuis-Am.Rodri-
guez, Dieren 1987.
c2) 19 £3!? Fxa4 20 g6 f6 and
now:
c21) 21 gxf7+ and now: 21...Wxf7
22 We4 0-0 - 21 Wed 0-0 22 gxf7+
Waf7; 21...@xf7!? transposes to line
“¢323’.
c22) 21 Wed 0-0 22 gxf7+ Wxf7
23 Wxe6 (23 Wc6!2) 23...Wxe6 24
Bxe6 Axb2 25 Axf8 Axd1 26 xd
&xf8 27 Bxd6 = de Firmian-D.Gure-
then:
¢321) 21...b3 22 cxb3 Axb3 gives
White a choice between 23 Af5!? exf5
24 Wed+ (Schach-Archiv) and 23 h6!
26 24 Axb3 Wxb3 25 2d4 + (Kuczyn-
ski).
c322) 21..Bac8 22 b3 is slightly
better for White, Kuczynski-Am.Rod-
riguez, Camaguey 1987.
0323) 21...Axa4! 22 Wed (22 AF5?
4\c3+ 23 Sal We6 wins for Black)
22... Wad7 (22...d5 23 Wa2! Kuczynski)
gives Black an extra pawn and good
counterplay, Wolff-Piket, Baguio jr
Wch 1987.
I dare to conclude that after 14 £5
White is in deadlock and the line 14
h4 remains difficult to assess since
White is yet to prove his case not only
in our main line, but also after devia-
tions such as 16...@xe4 or 17...Axa4.
B2)
10...0-0 (D)

1727 4&@
vich, Philadelphia 1995.
c3) 19 g6 £f6 (19...hxg6 20 hxg6
Exhl 21 Bxh1!) and then: aw Bae
\
D

c31) 20 f3 and here: 47 ah 6%

Za
e311) 20..Hc8 21 b3! hxg6 22
Mi, Ga.
WS

hxg6 Exhl 23 gxf7+ Sxf7 24 Exh

BDI
Gemedy

(Wolff-D.Gurevich, New York 1994)

24...d5! (Wolff) gives White good
possibilities such as 25 #h5!?.
c312) Stronger is 20...Aaxa4! — 19
31? Dxad 20 £6 Bf.
c32) 20 gxf7+ &xf7 (20...Wxf7?!
21 e5! and now 21...&xe5 22 Ac6 or Another very important crossroad.
21...dxe5 22 “b5 — Kuczynski) 21 f3 We shall consider:
(21 h6 g6; 21 e5 dxe5 22 AfS5 De! B21: 11 g4 168
23 Wc4 Hhd8 ¥ Kolomiets-Tsvetkov, B22: 11 Ehgl 175
corr. 1991; 21 Af5?! Axe4!? 22 Wed B23: 11 Shgl Ad7 12 g4 179
168
The last line is a common direction
for 11 Bhgl and 11 g4.
Other moves are not considered as
dangerous for Black and are played
surprisingly seldom:
a) 11 @bl bS (11...8d7 12 g4!
@xd4 13 Bxd4; 11...Ad7 transposes
to Line A1, which is a Jittle better for
White; 11...Aa5!? 12 g4 Axb3 13
axb3 b5 =; e.g., 14.95 Ad7 15 h4 b4 16
a2 2b7, Kengis-Lukin, Sverdlovsk
1984) 12 Axc6 Wxc6 13 2d4 2b7
(13...4b8!? 14 Bhel a5) 14
Now, instead of 14...b42 15 @d5,
14... Bfe8?! 15 f4 2d8 16 Bd3!? (16
e5!? dxe5 17 Wxe5!) 16...e5 17 fxe5
dxe5 18 2e3 Axe4 19 Axed Wxe4 20
Wl + or 14..2d8 15 e5!? dxeS 16
Wrxe5, Nunn’s 14...We7! 15 a3 Ad7!?
appears good.
b) 11 f4 is another hybrid of the
Velimirovié Attack and the Classical
Sozin. Now:
b1) 11...Aa5 (not the best) 12 g4!
b5 13 g5 Axb3+ (13...Ae8 should be
in White’s favour) 14 axb3 @d7 and
now:
bl1) 15 h4 is well met by 15...b4!.
b12) 15 f5 is best answered by
15...Ae5!, Timman-Langeweg, Am-
sterdam 1973, rather than 15...b4?! 16
Wad Ac5 17 £6! Bd8 18 e5!?, Pablo
Marin-Cuadras, Roses 1992,
15...Ac5!? is interesting.
b13) White should play 15 Hhg1!,
transposing to Line B221.
b2) 11...Axd4 12 Hxd4 leads to
play with chances for both sides:
b21) 12...Ad7 13 Hfl (13 Hdd b5
14 £5 Ac5 15 Bd4 Axb3+ 16 axb3
b4!? 17 Da4 Bb8, Kaminski-Av.Bykh-
ovsky, Katowice 1992; 13 g4— J] g4
THE SICILIAN SOZIN
“\xd4 12 Exd4 @d7 13 f4) 13...b5
(13...Ac5! is slightly better for Black
— Akopian) 14 f5 De5 (14...Ac5? 15
f6!) 15 g4 with the initiative, Kor-
neev-Tourneur, Paris 1991.
b22) 12...b5 13 £5! (13 Bf Bb8!
14 £5 b4 15 Ba4 eS 16 He4 Was 17
3c6? 2b7 18 &b6 WhS is given by
Kasparov and Nikitin; 13 g4!?— // 94
“xd4 12 Hxd4 b5 13 f4) leads to a
tough and very unclear struggle:
b221) 13...exf5 14 exf5 2xf5 15 24
Re6 16 g5 Ad7 17 Whd5 (17 Ad5!?)
Rhel. 17...2£5? (17...Ae5!? Lukin) 18 Bf1
&26 19 Wdl Ac5 20 2d5 Habs 21 h4
b4 22 h5!! + Lukin-Shirov, Daugav-
pils 1989.
b222) 13...Wb7 14 fxe6!?.
b223) 13...2b8 14 94 b4 15 Dad,
and instead of 15...Wb7 16 g5!? Axe4
17 f6 @xf6 18 gxf6 Wxhi+ 19 Bd
Wb7 (Lukin), I like 15...d5, as in
Silva-Paoli, Odessa 1976.
b3) 11...b5 appears to be at least an
equal alternative:
b31) 12 g4 b4 13 Axc6 bxc3!?
with strong counterplay, Radev-Spas-
sov, Albena 1970.
b32) 12 f5 Aad (12...Axd4 13
Bxd4 — 11...Axd4 12 Bxd4 b5 13 f5,
12...b4 13 Wc!) 13 fxe6 Axb3+ 14
axb3 fxe6 15 225 b4 16 Da4 Ld7 and
Black has no problems, Suetin-T.Pet-
though rosian, USSR 1971.
b33) 12 Axc6 Wxc6 13 e5 (13 24
b4 14 Ad5 exd5 15 g5 24 F Ako-
pian) 13...dxe5 14 fxe5 Ad7 15 Ad5,
and, quite apart from 15...2c5 16
Khel, Black also has the promising
option 15...d8!? (Nunn).
B21)
11 g4 (D)
 5..Ac6 6 &c4 06 7 Bb3
The choice between this move and
11 Hhg] is mostly a matter of taste.
eee ce
11..Axd4!
This is the most important move —
White must now recapture on d4 with
the rook. Otherwise:
a) 11...2a5?! 12 g5 Axb3+ 13 axb3
BDd7 14 hd (14 £4 b5 — 11 f4 DaS 12
g4! bS 13 g5 Dxb3+ 14 axb3 Dd7; 14
Ehgl b5 transposes to Line B221)
14...b5 15 g6!.
b) 11...b5?! 12 Axc6 (or 12 g5!)
12... xc6 13 Ad5 (Nunn).
c) 11...d7 is the popular alterna-
tive:
cl) 12 Axe6?! fxe6 13 Bxe6+ Lh8
14 Dds Was.
c2) 12 Hhgt is Line B23.
c3) After 12 g5 @c5, 13 Hhgl
transposes to Line B231. White hardly
has anything better: 13 h4 bS! 14 h5
(14 £3 2d7 is slightly better for Black,
Fischer-Larsen, Palma de Mallorca IZ
1970) 14...b4! (14...Axd4!?) 15 Dad
4\xd4 16 Hxd4 2£d7 Kasparov/Nikitin;
13 £4 b5! 14 £5 b4 F; 13 Sbl Ld7 =
(or 13...Aaxb3); 13 Wh5 2d7!,
White is obliged to play 14 hel
the same, which transposes to Line
B2312.
a6 8 Be3 Be7 9 We2 169
c4) 12 £419 Dc5 13 £5 (13 Sbl
b5!) 13...b5 14 &b1 leads to a double-
edged game; e.g., 14...8.d7 (14...Axb3
15 axb3 b4 16 Aad Axd4 17 Rxd4
Hb8 18 f6!2 Ghizdavu) 15 @xc6 (15
fxe6 fxe6 16 AS =) 15...8xc6 16 25
(16 8.d5? exd5 17 exd5 We8 18 &xc5
dxc5 19 Wxe7 b4) 16...Axb3 17 axb3
(17 £6!2) 17...b4 18 £6 bxc3! = White-
Butze, corr. 1986.
c5) 12 Sf5!? is very interesting
(and probably strong):
c51) 12...Ac5 13 Axe7+ (the al-
ternatives are 13 Axg7!? &xg7 14 g5
Nikitin and 13 Hhg1!?, transposing to
Line B232) and now:
e511) 13...Axe7 14 Wd2 results in
a better game for White after 14..2d8
15 2f4! (15 e5!? Axb3+ 16 axb3 Ad5
+) 15...Ag6 (15...Axb3+ 16 axb3 eS
17 2xe5 Bxg4 18 Rxg7! +-) 16
2xd6 Wc6 17 £4 Anand-Salov, Dos
Hermanas 1997 or 14...Axb3+ 15
axb3 e5 (Anand recommends 15...d5!,
which restricts White to a small ad-
vantage) 16 Hhgl + Nunn-Spassov,
Buenos Aires OL 1978.
c512) 13...\8xe7 and then:
c5121) 14 Wd2 Hd8 15 &g5 (15
£417 b5 16 Wf2 2b7 17 Zhel, Sahno-
Novogrudsky, corr. 1991) 15...f6 16
hd (16 Be3 b5 17 g5 b4!) 16... Wes
17 g5 WhS is unclear.
c5122) 14 Hd2!? b5 15 Bhdl 2d8
16 &f4 @xb3+ 17 axb3 e5 (Lind-Deg-
erman, Swedish Ch (Borlange) 1992)
18 Ad5!? Wh4 19 Le3 is another try
for White.
5123) 14 f4 + Anand.
and c52) 12...exf5 13 Ad5 Wd8 14 gxf5
all is critical. Now:
e521) 14...8g5 15 Bhel 2xe3+ 16
Wxe3 Gh8 (16...Wh4 17 He3) 17 We3
170 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
Begs 18 Af4 AdeS 19 Ah3 + Wed-
berg-Schutz, Enkéoping 1991.
e522) 14...Aa5 15 Hhgi! (15 Axe7+
Wxe7 16 d5 Gh8 17 Ehel Af6 18
Wr3 Dxd5 19 Hxd5, Velimirovic-
Bukal, Yugoslav Ch (Portoroz) 1971,
and now Nunn gives 19...@\c6!, which
looks unclear) 15...Axb3+ 16 axb3
(Velimirovi¢) seems extremely dan-
gerous for Black, although he can try
16...g6!?.
c523) Possibly critical is 14...Af6
15 Ehgl (15 &.b6 Wd7 16 Bhel Axd5
17 exd5 26! was equal in Nunn-Lib-
erzon, Hastings 1979/80) 15...Axd5
(after 15...8h8!?, Nikitin’s suggestion
16 &b6 Wd7 17 Ac7 Hb8 18 f4 is un-
successful in view of 18...8d8) 16
Rxd5 26 17 WhsS (Yakovich-Yuda-
sin, Leipzig 1986), and now 17...We7!?
18 Hp3 Ab4 or 17...A0b4!? 18 2b3
We7.
It is clear that there is not enough
information to draw a definite conclu-
sion on the important line 11...A\d7 12
AES.
12 Exd4 (D)
12 &xd4 e5 is ‘F’ according to
Akopian.
Or:
a) 12...b5 13 g5 (13 f4!2 Ad7 (the
alternative 13...&b8!? is interesting}
14 £5!? Ac5 15 g5 — 12...0d7 13 25
b5 14 fal? De5 15 f5!) 13...Dd7 —
12... Dd7 13 95 bS.
b) 12...e57! 13 He4! (13 Ad5? can
be met by 13...Axd5 14 Bxd5 Re6 F
or 13...2xg4!?) 13...Wd8 14 g5 fa-
vours White:
bl) 14...Ag4? 15 Bxc8!.
b2) 14..Ae8 15 Bel (15 Bxc8!?;
15 Ad5!? Qxges 16 Hel Qxe3+ 17
Wxe3 2e6 18 Hc3; 15 h4!? Reb)
15...2d7 (15...8e6 16 Ad5) 16 Ad5
&b5 17 Weg4!, Fiala-Badura, corr. 1988.
b3) 14...A\d7 and now:
b31) 15 Bgl b5 16 Hxc8 Hxc8 17
Whs5 — 15 Wh5 bS 16 Bxc8 Hxc8 17
Bgl.
b32) 15 Wh5 b5 (15...Ac5 16 Bxc5!
dxc5 17 Hdl + Boleslavsky) 16 Hxc8
Exc8 17 Hel (17 g6 hxg6 18 Wxg6
“Ac5 19 V2d5 Vh4!) 17...Ac5 18 d5
4e6 19 96 hxg6 20 Exg6 Af4! =
Kuczynski-Staniszewski, Polish Cht
1995.
b33) 15 Bxc8!? Wxc8 16 Ad5 Bd8
17 h4 (Nikitin) appears good, as do the
next two possibilities.
b34) 15 Ad5!7 Qxg5 16 Hel.
b35) 15 h4!? b5 16 Bxc8.
13 g5
13 £4 Ac5 14 £57! R615 g5 Bxd4
16 &xd4 b5 17 Hel &b7 F de Fir-
mian-Shirov, Tilburg 1993.
13...b5
13...A\c5!? is a serious alternative
here:
a) 14h4 b5 — 13...b5 14 h4 DcS.
b) 14 £4 f5! (this is a typical idea in
all variations with 11 g4 4)xd4) and
then:
 5..ANc6 6 2c4 06 7 2b3 a6 8 Bei Be7 9 We2 171

bl) 15 gxf6 &xf6 16 e5 dxe5 17
Hc4 Axb3+ 18 axb3 WE7! and now 19
&c5 b5! | Wedberg-Mednis, Copen-
hagen 1991, or 19 Hed b5!.
b2) 15 exf5 &xf5 is satisfactory for
Black.
b3) 15 Wh5!? fxe4 16 Axed Axed
17 Bxe4 d5 18 Hd4 &c5 19 Efl o
Sergeev-Veingold, Estonian Cht 1998.
c) 14 e5 (a typical idea for White)
14...dxe5 (14...d5!? Nikitin) 15 Hh4
g6 (15...f5? 16 Wh5 h6 17 gi), and
then:
cl) 16 Bgl £5 (16...b5? — 13...b5
14 Bgl Bc5 15 e5!? dxe5? 16 Bhd
g6; 16...Hd8!? Nikitin) 17 gxf6 &xf6
(17...A\xb3+!?) 18 Bhg4 (Aseev-Ara-
khamia, London Lloyds Bank
18 &xc5!?) 18...Axb3+ 19 axb3 Rp7
oo Aseev.
c2) 16 2h6 and here:
c21) 16...f5 17 h4 Axb3+ 18 axb3
f4 (Bronstein-Lein, USSR Ch (Lenin-
grad) 1971) 19 2d2! is unsafe for
Black.
c22) 16...Axb3+ 17 axb3 Hd8 18
Wed BF8 19 Ded Bxh6 20 AfG6t! is
also perilous for Black, Quadri-
Leiros, corr. 1999,
c23) 16...b5! 17 &xc5 (or 17 h4
&b7 18 £3 e4!) 17... Bxc5 18 Ae4 Web!
19 h4 2b7 20 £3 Wd7 — Nikitin.
d) 14 Wh5 g6!? and then:
&b7 20 Bh3 2f8 gives Black quite a
solid position, Timoshchenko-L.Gri-
gorian, Kiev 1970.
e) 14 Hgi and then:
el) 14...b5 — 13...b5 14 Bg] DcS.
e2) 14..f5 15 exf5 Bxf5 16 Hh4
(16 Bb1 d5 17 Hh4 g6 18 2d4 Axb3
19 axb3 © Doghri-Mednis, Cannes
1998) 16...Axb3+ 17 axb3 g6 18 Hg3
2.477! (18...2f7!? Ugrinovid) 19 Bgh3
Hf7 20 Wd3! + Szmetan-Liberzon,
Buenos Aires 1979.
e3) 14...2d7!? and now:
e31) 15 £4 f5 appears satisfactory
for Black.
e32) 15 Hg3 g6 16 h4 (16 e5 &
Nikitin) 16...f5! is again OK for Black,
1994; Koyias-Atalik, Katerini 1993.
e33) 15 Wh5 Hfc8 (15...g6) 16
e5!? g6 17 Wh3 dxe5 18 Hh4 Axb3+
19 axb3 h5 20 Bxh5 gxh5 21 Wxhs
Re8 22 96 = Delgado-Estremera, Lalin
1994,
€34) 15 e5 is interesting: 15...dxe5
(15...d5!?) 16 Bh4 @xb3+ 17 axb3 g6
18 Hed £5 19 gxf6 Vxf6 20 Bxh7!! +
Agopov-Veingold, Finnish Cht 1999.
We now return to 13...b5 (D):
xs wel
| Wagan
1 waa @
ae ee
Hie

di) 15 Wh6 f5 (the reliability of

15...4d8 and 15...Be8 16 e5!? &f8 17
Oe A
a2 2 6
Wh3, Nikitin, is unknown) 16 gxf6
re >
eis

(16 f4 We6!? 17 h4? He8 wins for

Black) 16...8xf6 17 Hdd1 Axb3+ 18
SA hm ey
@ @ @:
N

oe

axb3 2d7 and Black is OK, Simié-

ae

Lanka, Budapest 1991.

d2) 15 We2 £5 (15...b5!? — 13...b5
14 Whs g6!? 15 We2!? Dc5) 16 exf5 From here, it is difficult to single
Hxf5 17 h4 b5 18 h5 Axb3+ 19 axb3 out the main line.
172 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

14 &e1 17...2.f8 18 Hf1 26 19 Wh3 d5 20 exd5

Others: exf5 21 &f4, de Firmian-D.Gurevich,
a) 14 e57! dxe5 (14...d5?! 15 Hh4;, USA Ch (Estes Park) 1987, favour
14...Axe5!? 15 Wh5 Ag6 Nikitin) 15 White.
En4 Hd8! 16 Bgl (16 Ad5S exdS 17 c442) 15...g6 leads to unclear play:
S&xd5 AFB! 18 Bxa8 Age F was first 04421) 16 Wh6 Bb8 17 Hd3!? SF8
found by Cvetkovi¢/Krnié; 16 Wh5 - 18 Wh4 @c5 19 Ehdi?! Axd3+ 20
14 Wh5 Bd8 15 e5? dxe5! 16 Bh4 F) Hxd3 (Valenti-A.Schneider, Reggio
16...2b7 (16...g6 is simpler) 17 Bxh7 Emilia 1975) 20...h5! ~.
g6! (Vagner; 17...&xh7? 18 g6+ fxg6 64422) 16 We2 Ac5 17 h4 2b7 18
19 Bxg6 +-). h5 &f8 © Minasian-Akopian, Erevan
b) 14h4 @&c5 15h5 (15 £4 £5! §; af- 1990.
ter 15 bl or 15 £3, 15...4b8 is strong, 04423) 16 Wh3 Ac5 17 £5 Hb8 18
with the idea of 16...a5! ¥) 15...f5! (this e5 © Hawelko-Miaki, Thessaloniki OL
is probably most precise; 15..2b8 16 1988.
g6!?) 16 exf5 Bxf5 is equal, Dely- c5) 14...g6!? and then:
Paoli, Szombathely 1966. 051) 15 We2!? Ac5 16 h4 leads to
c) 14 WhS and then: unclear play after 16...h5!?, Ulybin-
cl) 14.405?! 15 e5! +. R.Scherbakov, Borzhomi 1988, or
c2) 14...Ae57! 15 £4! +. 16...8b8, Yakovich-Panchenko, Sochi
c3) 14...2b7 is also unreliable in 1989.
view of 15 Bgl g6 (15... fc8? 16 26!) c52) 15 Wh6é He8 (possibly stron-
16 Wh3! Hfc8 17 £4, Rogi¢-Taggatz, ger than 15..Hd8 16 Hgl — /4 Bg]
Passau 1999. Hd8 15 WhS 26! 16 Who) 16 f4 (other
c4) 14...d8 is good enough: attempts: 16 e5 &f8 17 Wh3 and 16
c41) 15 Hel -—14 Bg] Bd8 15 Whs. Hel 2f8 17 Wh4 Bb8 18 He3 27,
c42) 15 e5? dxe5! (15...Axe5!? Vetemaa-Panchenko, USSR Cht 1979,
Zak) 16 Hh4 DF8 17 Ded Bb7 18 19 £419) 16..2f8 17 Wh4 Ac5 (the
Af6+ Rxf6! (18...gxf6? 19 Hel £5 20 other possibilities are 17...&g7 18 £5!?
g6 +—-) 19 gxf6 &xhl 20 fxg7 &xg7 and 17...4b8!? R.Scherbakov) 18 Hg]
21 We5+ (21 Bh6+ bg8 22 Wes+ Eb8 19 Hg3 b4 and now Scherbakov
“g6 23 We Hd1+ 24 &xd1 Wd8+ —+ assesses both 20 Aa4 @xb3+ and 20
Velimirovi¢) 21...Ag6! 22 Wh6+ &g8 “Ae? e5 (Fedulov-R.Scherbakov, Rus-
23 Wxh7+ Sf8 24 Sxe6 Bdi+! F. sian Cht 2000) in Black’s favour.
c43) 15 Ad5? exd5 16 Rxd5 HeS d) 14 f4!? looks critical: 14...Ac5
17 f4 (Dvoirys-Vainshtein {Kaspa- (14...2b8!? is interesting) 15 f5! (15
rov}, USSR jr Ch (Vilnius) 1975) Efl b4! 16 Bxb4 a5 «© Yuneev-Lukin,
17...&94! 18 Wh4 (18 &xf7+!? Zak) USSR 1984; 15 Wf2 £5! © Planinc-
18...Hac8 19 c3 h5!? 20 fxe5 dxeS 21 Langeweg, Wijk aan Zee 1974; 15 Hg
fl Bxd5 22 Bxd5 b4 F. Hb8 16 bl a5! «© de Firmian-Lein,
c44) 15 f4!? and now: New York 1990, with the typical point
c441) After 15...Ac5 16 £5 Axb3+ 17 Axb5? Hxb5 18 Wxb5 a6 —+)
17 axb3, both 17...exf5?! 18 Ad5 and and then:
 5..Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3
dl) 15...b47! 16 Bxb4 d5 17 2xd5!
+— Gik-Krichevsky, USSR 1968.
d2) 15...4d8 16 Hg1!?.
d3) 15...Axb3+ 16 axb3 exf5 17
ZAd5 Wd8 (17...8b7? fails to 18 Eel:
18...2e6 19 Af6+ Ph8 20 Axh7! +—
or 18...fxe4 19 Af6+ Bh8 20 Whs!
wins for White) 18 Hg! (18 Wh5!?)
18...He8 (18...g6 does not equalize in
view of 19 h4!, Klundt-Weindl, Bod-
ensee 1995) 19 Wf2 (19 h4 fxe4!?
Nikitin) and here:
d31) After 19...fxe4, 20 Hxe4 2b7
21 &b6 Rxd5 22 RxdB Vxe4 23
Sxe7 Bxe7 looks like a draw, but in-
teresting is 20 Wf4 96 21 Bfl 2f5 22
Hxe4 Hc8 23 c3 with the initiative,
Mallee-Dunhaupt, corr. 1992.
d32) 19...g6 20 exf5 &xf5 21 Hh4
(21 Hf4!?) 21...Bc8 22 Wxf5 gxf5 23
56+ &g7 24 Exh7+ g6 25 Lho+
&g7 (Wedberg-L.Schneider, Eksjé
1980). Now White has the draw in his
pocket, but 26 @xe8+!? is interesting.
d4) 15...exf5 16 &d5 (no stronger
are 16 Ad5 Wd8 17 5?! dxe5! and 16
exf5 &xf5) 16...2b8 17 exf5 b4 (fol-
lowing 17...&xf5 18 Hfl!, as in Wed-
berg-Trincardi, Eksjé 1979, Black has
not yet found any acceptable recipe)
18 6 (18 Ae4? Rxf5 19 Ag3 Reb F
Hiibner) 18...hxg6 (18...bxc3? 19 Whs
+—) 19 fxg6 &e6 and then:
d41) 20 Ae4 2xd5!? (20...b3!7) 21
Whs fxg6 22 Wxd5+ Gh7.
d42) 20 Bc4!? Wd7 21 gxf7+ Bxf7
22 &xcS5.
d43) 20 2xe6 Axeb 21 AdS Axd4
22 Rxd4 225+ 23 Sbi W7 24 Whs
Bh6 25 Af6+ gxf6 26 Bgl fxg6 27
Wxh6 Hf7 and Black has achieved
approximate equality, Wahls-Hiibner,
Bundesliga 1989/90.
a6 8 Be3 Be7 9 We2 173
We now return to 14 Hg (D):
--
a Vis
Again, this is just one of the possi-
ble options. The rare cases include
14...Be8 (it is then worthwhile to in-
vestigate 15 g6 hxg6 16 Hxg6) and
14...b4?!. Others are:
a) 14...2b7 15 f4 (15 Wh5!? - 14
Wh5 2b7 15 Bgl) 15...Ac5 (15... Bfe8
16 f5 £8, Cebalo, seems to be too
passive) 16 f5 Bfc8 17 £6 (17 g6!?; 17
&b1 Axb3 18 axb3 KF8 19 Hg3 g6 20
£6 206 21 e5!? b4! 22 Hxb4 Was 23
Enh4 Wxe5 24 Egh3 h6, and it appears
that Black has successfully defended,
de Firmian-Gomez Esteban, New York
1989) 17...2£8 18 e5 d5 (a possible
improvement here is 18...dxe5 19 Hh4
26!? 20 Be3 Wc6) 19 Hh4 Wxe5 20
He3 g6 21 Wr2 b4 22 2d4 Wd6 23
Eph3 h5 24 ExhS +— Har-Even —
Markland, corr. 1987-92.
b) 14...2b8!2 15 Whs (15 Hg3 g6!,
Zuev-Panchenko, Rostov 1985; 15 f4
A\c51? — 14 f4 cS 15 Hel Hb8), and
then:
bl) 15...2d8? 16 g6! is much better
for White — Parma.
b2) 15...b4 16 e5 (16 De2 g6 17
Who Hd8 18 Hg3 2f8 19 Wh4 297
174 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
20 £4 Bb5!? © Shulga-Serov, corr.
1993-4) and then:
b21) 16...bxc3 17 Hh4 h6 18 gxh6
g6 19 Bxg6+ Gh8 20 exd6 Wxd6!
(20...&xd6? 21 Bgl! +-) 21 @d4+
Wxd4 22 Bxd4 fxg6 23 Wxg6 Hes 24
WE7! gives White compensation.
b22) 16...Axe5 17 Bh4 h6 18 Ae4
Hb5 (18...Dg6 19 Df6+ Bxf6 20 exfo
EbS— 18...2b5 19 DYj6+ 2x6 20 exfo
5\g6) 19 Dfo+ (19 We2!? Dg6!)
19...2xf6 (19...8h8 20 f4 +) 20 gxf6
4)g6 21 We2 (Wang Zili’s 21 fxg7!?
is probably stronger) 21...Axh4 22
Lixe7+ Ph8 23 Wed Dgo! 24 Sxh6
W7 25 Wh3 Whi+ 26 ed2 Hd5+ =.
b3) 15...26!7 16 Wh6 Hd8 deserves
attention; e.g., 17 e5 d5 18 Bxd5 and
now 18...b4 19 Hxd7 &xd7 20 We4
Wrxe5 21 205 Wxc5!?, while 18...2£8!
is maybe even stronger.
c) 14...g6!7 15 h4 (15 f4 Ac5 16
£5 exf5 17 AdS Wd8 18 e5?! dxe5!
Gufeld) 15...Ac5 16 h5 (16 f4? Bbs
17 h5 b4) 16...Be8 17 e5 (17 Hhi!?
&b7 18 We4 RFs 19 £3 and here,
rather than 19...Had8 20 Hd2 + Due-
ball-G.Kuzmin, Nice OL 1974, Black
should continue 19...&c6! — Baljon)
17...dxe5 18 Hh4 2b7 19 £3 Axb3+
20 axb3 2d6 21 Hghl He7 22 Wd3
(22 @d1!? Baljon) 22...2f8! 23 2d2
Ed7 24 Wfl 2a3! = Engel-Sanakoey,
corr. 1976-9.
d) 14...2d8 with the following
possibilities:
dl) 15 g6 hxg6 16 Exg6 fxg6 17
Rxe6+ SF8 18 AdS W8 possibly fa-
vours Black but is still interesting.
d2) 15 h4!? Hb8 16 hS Ac5 17 g6
fxg6 18 hxg6 h6 © Dominguez-Cam-
illeri, Dubai OL 1986.
d3) 15 £4!? deserves attention.
d4) 15 Hg3!? with little-studied
complications; for example, 15...Ac5
(15...g6!2 16 h4 Hb8 17 h5 a5 Polu-
gaevsky) 16 Hh3 (16 e5 d5 17 Hh4
4)xb3+ 18 axb3 Wxe5 19 Wd3 Ws!
Nikitin) 16...Axb3+ (16...g6!? with a
possible idea being 17 e5 &b7 18 Hdh4
&xb3+ 19 axb3 2&2) 17 axb3 e5!718
Ad5 Wd7 (18...8b7!2) 19 Bh4 exd4
20 Wh h6 21 gxh6 &xh4 22 hxg7 f6
23 Wh8+ &f7 (Bielak-Abramowicz,
corr. 1992-4) 24 Wxh4!?.
d5) 15 Wh5 is not too promising:
d51) 15...Ac5 165 (16 £4 2b7!?;
16 Hg3 96 17 Who 2f8 18 Wha —
15...6! 16 Wh6 28 17 Wh4 Dc5 18
Hpe3) 16...g6, and then:
d511) 17 Wh6 2f8 18 Wh3 227
(18...d5 19 Bh4 Wxe5!? 20 2d4 WES
21 Wg3 gives White compensation:
21...2d6 22 f4 2b7 23 Sbl h5 24
gxh6 @h7 25 We3, Kang-Grishchuk,
Oropesa del Mar jr Wch 1998) 19
Eh4! (19 Bxd6?! &b7! F de Firmian-
Shirov, Biel 1995) 19...d5! (19...h5?!
20 gxh6 &xe5 21 &g5!) 20 Hgg4!?
Shirov.
d512) 17 Wh3 d5 (17...2b7? 18
Hh4 4xb3+ 19 axb3 h5 20 Bxh5!
gxhS 21 WxhS +) 18 Eh4 Wxe5 19
2d4 Axb3+7! (19... WES is similar to
17 BWh6 Bf8 18 Bh3 d5 19 Bh
Wre5!? 20 2.d4 Wf5) 20 axb3 Ws 21
We3!? 2b7 22 Sbl! (22 Bh6? Ld6
23 Hxh7 W4+!) 22...2d6 23 f4 (23
Hxh7!?) 23...h5 24 gxh6 @h7 25 Adi
with an attack, V.Pavlov-Kharitonov,
corr. 1986.
d52) 15...g6! 16 Wh6 (16 Wh4?!
&c5 17 f4 Hb8 18 £5 a5 + Radulov-
Ribli, Kecskemet 1972) and here:
d521) 16...2b8!?— 14... Bb8 15 Wh
26!? 16 Who Bds.
 5..Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 Bb3 a6 8 Be3 Re7 9 We2 175

d522) 16...A\c5 and now: 17 Bg3 dl) 15...dxe5? 16 Hh4 @xb3+ (or
Rf8 18 Wh4 — 16...2f8 17 Wh4 De5 16...26 17 &xc5! Wxc5 18 Ded We7
18 Hg3; 17 e5 -— 15...Ac5 16 e5 g6 17 19 @f6+ +— Aseev) 17 axb3 g6 18
Wh3. Hed (18 W3 e4! is just slightly better
d523) 16...2f8 leads to unclear for White) 18...f5 19 gxf6 &xf6 20
play: 17 Wh4 (17 Wh3!? 2g7 18 e5 Ehe4 297 21 h4 BFS 22 h5 Bxh5 23
eo V.Pavlov-Poletukhin, corr. 1998) 4)f6+! +- Grechikhyn-Glek, Kuiby-
17...e5 (17...2e7!% 17...287!2) 18 shev 1981.
&e3 (18 f4!? Lysenko) and now d2) 15...Dxb3+ 16 axb3 d5 17 Hh4
18...2b8 19 Hh3 h5! 20 gxh6 Gh7 26 (17...Wxe5 18 Wd3 g6 can be met
(Nikitin), or 18...2e7 19 £4 Hb8 20 f5 by 19 2d4 Wxg5+ 20 Hxg5 Rxg5+
a5!? (20...h5) 21 £6 $f8 22 Wxh7+ 21 Re3 Rxh4 22 Wd4 Le7 23 Vh6 or
&xh7 23 Hh3+ 2h6! 24 Bxh6+ g8 19 £417) 18 £4 (18 Bg3!? Wxe5 19 f4)
25 e5 Axb3+ 26 axb3 We5. 18...2b7 (18...b4!7) 19 Be3 &g7 20
We now return to 14...@\c5 (D): £5!? exf5 21 e6 with an attack, Carr-
Markland, corr. 1978.
d3) 15...g6 16 exd6!? (16 Bh4 2b7
qua se 17 Hg3 Axb3+!? 18 axb3 dxe5 19
Ww Oe Egh3 292) 16...2xd6 17 Bxd6 Wxd6
io fateen
a
” 18 Hd1 with compensation, Bérécz-
Szilardfy, Budapest 1993.
d4) 15...d5!? 16 Hh4 (1 do not
think White achieves anything better
ees.

by 16 f4, 16 WhS Wxe5!?, 16 2xd5

ae
\ER

exd5 17 Axd5 Wxe5! 18 f4 Web 19 £5

383ena:
NS
WS
RS WS

ZY 4
WS

“y Us, We5 20 £6 2d8!? or 16 Rd2 Rb7 17

Eh4 g6 18 Hg3 Hfc8!) 16...Wxe5 17
Hp3, and besides 17...Wf5 18 Bgh3
Now: with the point 18...Axb3+ 19 axb3
a) 15 f4—14f4 Dc5 15 Bgl. &xg5 20 Bxh7 2xe3+ 21 Wxe3 Wxh7
b) After 15 WhS g6 16 Wh6, both 22 Hxh7 @xh7 23 De4, it is worth
16...£5 17 Bb (17 gxf6 &xf6 F Nunn- studying 17...b4!?.
Langeweg, Malta OL 1980) 17...2b8!? Conclusion: as of now, 13...b5 14
and 16...d8 (see /4...Hd8 15 WAS 26 f4 is interesting for White. Therefore,
16 Wh6 Dc5) are satisfactory. 13...2\c5!? (with possibly 14 f4 £5! or
c) 15 Bg3 96 (15...f5 16 Bh3 £4!? 14 Bgl b5) deserves attention.
17 Wh5 ~) 16 5 (16 h4!?; 16 £41? -
Lanka) 16...dxe5 (16...d5 Nikitin) 17 B22)
Hh4 f5 18 gxf6 Axb3+ 19 axb3 Rxf6 11 Ehegl (D)
20 Ehe4 2b7!? 21 h4 @Gh8 22 Lh6 Now, White can always take on d4
Ef7 23 Ae4 = Boleslavsky. with the bishop. However, 11 Zhgl
d) 15 e5!? leads to a very tough certainly has definite drawbacks as
struggle: well...
176 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

c) 15 ®FS exf5 16 AdS Wd8 17

exf5 He8 (17...2b7 18 f6 &xd5 19
fxe7 Wxe7 20 Bxd5 +) 18 Wf3 (18
26!?; 18 £6 Bf8 19 fxg7 &xg7 20 Whs
2b7 —4+) 18... 2b8 (18...2f8 19 Af6+
4)xf6 20 gxf6 with compensation —
Shakarov) 19 £6 &f8 20 fxg7 (20 g6
hxg6 21 Exg6 “Ae5 22 Exg7+ &xg7
23 We3 Dg6 —+) 20...2xg7 21 Af6+,
Trabattoni-Grimaldi, Tripoli 1976.
d) 15 Hg3 and then:
dl) 15..2b7 16 f4 b4 17 @d5!
B221: 11...Aa5 176 exd5 18 AfS Ac5!? 19 Bd4 Aeb 20
B222: 11...b5!? 177 exd5 &xd5 21 2b6 Wbh7 22 Axe7+
B223: 11...Ad7 179 Wrxe7 23 Bxd5 +.
d2) 15...b4!2 16 AS (16 Dad!)
11...Axd4 12 &xd4 b5 (or 12...Ad7 16...exf5 17 Ad5 Wd8 18 exf5 He8 19
13 94 -J1...Ad7 12 g4 Dxd4 13 Qxd4) W3 (19 £6 RF8 20 fxg7 &xg7 21 Wh5
13 g4 followed by 14 g5 will transpose Hxe3!?; 19 g6!2) 19... 2f8 20 Af6+
to the variations with 1/...Ad7 12 g4 “xf6 21 gxf6 Hb8! 22 fxg7 (22 2d4
“xd4 13 &xd4 b5, which are very 26 23 fxg6 Rh6+! F Stean) 22...Re7
risky for Black. 23 Wr4 Wa5!? 24 £6 25! F.
d3) 15...Be8 16 £4 (16 h4!?; 16 Whs
B221) 26 17 Who — 15 WhS 26 16 Who Bes
11...Aa5 12 24 b5 13 g5 Axb3+ 17 Bg3) 16...b4 is unclear.
13...4d7 is worth trying; for exam- 15...b4
ple, 14 &d5 &b7!? 15 Axe6 (15 26 Or:
exd5!) 15...fxe6 16 Rxe6+ Vhs. a) 15...Ac5 16 AF5!2 Axb3+ 17
14 axb3 Ad7 15 f4! Sbl! exf5 18 Ads Wh7 19 &5! dxe5
Other moves seem unclear: 20 “f6+! +— Hoffer-Johnson, corr.
a) 15 h4 b4 16 Dad 2b7!? (or 1989.
16...Ac5 17 hS &2d7 18 Sb] Hac8 19 b) 15...2b7 16 £5 (16 Bg3!? — 15
26 &.f6!?, Ehlvest-Yudasin, Kuibyshev He3 2b7 16 f4) 16...b4 17 Dad —
1986) 17 £3 (17 g6?! hxg6 18 h5 e5!) 15...b4 16 Dad Bb7 17 fs.
17...Ac5!?. c) 15...He8 16 £5 (16 Hg3—
15 Be3
b) 15 Wh5 g6 (15...b4!? 16 AFS He8 16 f4) 16..Ae5 17 h4!? gives
Se5, Velimirovié-Cebalo, Titograd White the initiative.
1984; 15...2b7!7) 16 Wh6 He8 (after d) 15...Ab6!? 16 £5 b4 Nikitin.
16...2b7 17 He3 Bfc8 18 Hh3 Afs 16 ATs!
19 Af5 exf5 20 Bd4 f6 21 exf5 2d8 This is better than:
22 gxf6! White is winning, Berlin- a) 16 Aa2 2b7 17 f5 e5 is slightly
Sokolov, Jurmala 1977) 17 Bg3 2f8 better for Black, Van der Wiel-Lig-
18 Wh4 b4!. terink, Wijk aan Zee 1985.
 5...ANc6 6 &c4 e6 7 B2b3 a6 8 Bei Re7 9 We2 177

b) 16 Da4 2b7 (16...Ac5!? 17 £5 c) 19...2b7 loses to 20 g6: 20...hxg6

with complications; 16...e8 17 £5 e5?! (20...fxg6 21 We6+ Bh8 22 &2xg7+!;
18 g6!; e.g., 18...fxg6 19 fxg6 exd4 20 20...f6 21 gxh7+ @h8 22 Hxg7 &xd5
gxh7+ @h8 2] Bxg7 Af6?! 22 Bxd4! 23 Hdgl!; 20...2f6 21 exf7+ &xf7 22
&xg7 23 Wh5 +—-) 17 £5 e5 18 £6 exd4 Wh5+) 21 fxg6 APG 22 Axf6+ (22
19 fxe7 Bfe8 20 Hxd4 Exe7 = Vel- We2!?) 22...2xf6 23 gxf7+ Yxf7 24
imirovi¢-Ivanovic, Yugoslav Ch (Bel- Wh5+ Sg8 25 Exg7+ 2xg7 26 2xg7
grade) 1978. 2£3 27 We6!.
16...exf5? 20 Wh Hed 21 2£6
The knight cannot be captured here This position arose in the game
but it seems Black faces problems e1- Wolff-L. Sokolov, Baguio jr Wch 1987.
ther way: Now 21...Wa5 22 g6 fxg6 23 fxg6 h6
a) 16...d8 17 Ad5! (17 Dh6+ 24 &xg7 (Nikitin) is much better for
@h8! 18 Whs g6!; 17 Wh5 bxc3!; 17 White.
4\xg7 bxc3! 18 Wh5 @xg7!?) 17...exd5
18 Wh5 Zc5 19 @xg7 d4 20 Hxd4 B222)
&xg7 21 Wh6+ Sg8 22 £5 Dxb3+ 23 11...b5!? (D)
$d1!, with a probable win. This is the critical and biting reply
b) 16...bxc3 17 Axe7+ Ph8 18 £5!. to 11 Hhg1. Virtually no clear-cut as-
c) 16...Re8 17 Ah6+ with the ini- sessments have been made here.
tiative.
d) 16...0c5 17 @xe7+ (17 Ah6+?!
@h8!) 17...Wxe7 18 e5! (18 &xc5?! rer
dxc5 19 4\a4 2d7 is slightly better for
Black) 18...bxc3 (18...dxe5? 19 &xc5
Wxc5 20 Ae4; 18...45 19 WF2, Nunn-
v 4AJakae 7
Arakhamia, British League (4NCL) Gar 7.
1996/7, 19...Axb3+!?) 19 exd6 cxb2+ AY FY
20 Sxb2 (20 Sb1?? Wd8 21 Axc5 U2 & 7
Wa5) 20...Aa4+ (20...Wa7 21 2d4! +)
21 @a3! (21 bxa4?! Wb7+ 22 Scl
ABABWE AR
Eb8 Nunn) 21...We8 (21...Wd7 22 7 S27 FB
Wed) 22 2d4 Wb5 23 We5 — da Costa
Junior. We shall proceed with our discussion
17 Dd5 Wad8 18 exf5 He8 19 2d4!! along the historical main line, bearing
Otherwise, the problems are all in mind that both sides have signifi-
White’s. cant alternatives at almost every move.
19...2£8 12 g4
Or: 12 Axc6!? Wxc6 13 g4 Axed 14
a) 19...26 20 Hgel!? +-. “d5.
b) 19...2f6 20 Wxe8+ Wxe8 21 12...b4(!)
gxf6 g6 (Nijboer-Winants, Wijk aan 12...Aa5 and 12...Axd4 are less
Zee 1988) 22 Hdel +. important.
178 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
13 Axc6
Other possibilities:
a) 13 Dad?! Axed 14 Axe6 2xe6!
+.
b) 13 g5!? bxc3 14 gxf6 is very un-
clear:
bl) 14...cxb2+ 15 @bl 2xf6 16
4\xc6 (16 WE3 2e5 17 Lh6— 14... Bf!
15 Wf3 2e5 16 Bh6 cxb2+ 17 Sbl)
16...Wxc6 17 £h6 and now 17...26 18
£4!? or 17...@h8 18 e5 gxh6 19 exf6
2b7 20 Bhs.
b2) 14...2xf6! is more accurate:
15 WF3 (15 Axc6 Wxc6 16 Bh6 can
be met by 16...g6 or 16...Wb5!?)
15...@e5 16 Bh6 cxb2+ 17 Sb1 g6 18
We3 (Matulovic-Nikitin, Kislovodsk
1966; 18 Axc6!7 Wxc6 19 2xf8 x8
20 We3) 18...8b7!2 19 f4 2£6 20 2xf8
Exf8 21 &a4 Wa5! — Kasparov/Nikitin.
c) 13 Ad5 Axd5 (13...exd5 14
Axc6 Wxc6 — 13 Axc6 Wxc6 14 AdS5
exd5) 14 4xc6 (scarcely any better for
White is 14 exd5 @xd4 15 Bxd4 a5 16
Hic4 Wb8 17 dxe6 Bxe6 18 Bc6 d5,
Ljubojevi¢-Korchnoi, Tilburg 1985)
14...Axe3!? 15 Axe7+ Wxe7 16 Wxe3
a5 with good play for Black, Stean-
Velimirovi¢é, Nice OL 1974.
13...8xc6 (D)
Or 13...bxc3!? 14 Axe7+ Wxe7 15
2d4 2b7! 16 £3 cxb2+ 17 2xb2 Hfds,
Hamdouchi-Dorfman, French Cht
1996.
14 Ad5 exd5
Or:
a) 14...2d8?! 15 g5!, Matulovié-
Simagin, Kislovodsk 1966.
b) 14..Axd5!7 15 exd5 Wb7 is in-
teresting and quite reliable. For in-
stance, 16 f4 (16 g5!?; 16 dxe6!? fxe6
17 &d4 d5 18 g5 &d6, Lyly-Karpati,
corr. 1987), and now:
bl) After 16...a5, 17 dxe6 fxe6 18
£5?! a4! favours Black, but 17 2d4 a4
18 &c4 is stronger, Jovicic-Pesl, corr.
1985.
b2) 16...he8 17 Wd3 2f8 18 dxe6
Bxe6 19 xe6 Exe6 seems satisfac-
tory for Black, Kobaliya-Panchenko,
Moscow 1996.
15 g5 Dxe4
15...dxe4? 16 gxf6 Rxf6 17 2d5
Wad 18 Wh5! Re6 19 Bxg7+! Rxe7 20
Hel Bfc8 21 Bxg7+ Sxg7 22 Wh6t
&g8 23 Rxe4 +— Ostapenko-Yartsev,
corr. 1969.
16 2xd5 Wa4
16...Ac37! 17 bxc3 Wad 18 2b3!+
with the point 18...Wa3+ 19 2b1 bxc3
20 &c1 — Nikitin.
17 &xe4!?
Otherwise:
a) 17 &d4 is not much good in
view of 17...2f5! 18 Bxe4 Sxed4 19
Wxed Wxa2!? 20 Wxe7 Bae8! 21 Wc7!
Hed! 22 2e3 Bcd 23 Wxd6 b3, Arwed-
son-Wikstr6m, corr. 1979.
b) 17 &xa8 gives White no advan-
tage: 17...ac3 18 bxc3 Re6 (18...bxc3?
19 Bd4 Wxa2 20 di +—; 18...\Wa3+?!
19 &b1 Be6! 20 Bd5 Bxd5 21 c4!)
19 2d4 (19 Rd5 Rxd5! 20 Hxd5?!
Wxa2 21 2d4 He8! F; 19 2e4 Wa3+
 5...ANc6 6 2c4 06 7 B2b3 a6 8 Be3 Re7 9 We2 179

=) 19...bxc3 (19...8xa8? 20 g6! +—) Nikitin: 14...2d7 15 g4 @xd4 16 Bxd4

20 &xc3 Hxa8 21 g6 hxg6 22 Hxg6 f6, which seems somewhat passive),
W4+ 23 2d2 (23 Hd2 fxg6 24 Wxe6+ 13...Aaxd4!? 14 Q2xd4 Wa5, Kengis-
WE7 =) 23...Wd4 (23...WES 24 Bg Lerner, Jurmala 1983, or 13...Wa5!?
£b8!? Nikitin) 24 c3 We5 (24... We57!) 14 @xc6 bxc6 15 Bxc5 g6! 16 Rxd6!
25 Hdg! Wa3+ 26 &d1 2b3+! 27 Sel Wxh5 17 2xe7 He8 18 26 © Tabo-
fxg6 28 axb3 Wxb3 29 Wxe7 Wb1+ 30 rov-Salov, Nikolaev 1983.
Be2 Wxgl 31 We6+ = Nadenié-Sar- b) 12 Wh5 also intends g4, Bg3,
enac, corr. 1989. Hh3, but Black has two good replies:
17...8.e6 18 2d4 bl) Not 12...Axd4 13 &xd4 bS 14
After 18 &xh7+?! &xh7 19 Wh5+ Hid3! (Larsen).
&g8 20 6 fxg6 21 Wxg6 £6 22 2d4 b2) 12...Wa5! = Jokki¢-Langeweg,
b3!! (Nikitin) 23 axb3 Wal+ 24 @d2 Plovdiv 1975.
Wa5+ 25 &cl Black can choose be- b3) 12...Af6!? 13 Wr3 Dd7 14 g4
tween 25...Wal+ = and 25...2xd4!?. &de5 15 Wh3 ®xd4 with complica-
18...26! tions, Velimirovicé-Kelecevi¢, Yugo-
The critical position. Now: slav Ch (Herceg Novi) 1983.
a) 19 f4 gives both sides chances.
b) 19 h4 likewise. B23)
c) 19 &xa8 Hxa8 20 b3 Wxa2 11 Bhgl Ad7 12 g4 (D)
(Stean-Dueball, Nice OL 1974) is un-
clear; e.g., 21 &b2 Hc8 22 Kd2 Wxb3
X030 Xen
23 Wxa6 WF3.
7. wae
maw Al
d) 19 b3!? is interesting. After
19...Wxa2 20 &d2 Wad 21 Bal Was
22 &xa8 Wxa8 (Tabatadze-Akopian,
USSR 1985) and now, e.g., 23 Hxa6, 2marge a
the onus is on Black to prove his com- wat
pensation.

B223)
11...Ad7
This is the main line.
12 g4 12...Ac5
The same position also arises from The only alternative worth mention-
11 g4 Qd7 12 Bhg/ and deserves spe- ing is the risky 12...Axd4 13 &xd4b5
cial attention — see Line B23. White (13..Ac5 14 g5! — 12..Hc5 13 g5
has nothing better than this move, as &\xd4 14 &xd4) 14 g5!, and then:
we can see from examining the alter- a) 14...A\c5 — 12...Ac5 13 95 Axd4
natives: 14 2xd4 bS.
a) After 12 &bi Ac5 13 Whs, | b) 14...8d8 15 Wh5!? 26 16 Who
propose 13...Axb3 14 cxb3 Wa5 (in- &f8 17 Wh4 + Nunn-Podzielny, Gro-
stead of the line recommended by ningen jr Ech 1974/5.
180 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

c) After 14..He8, 15 @d5?! exd5 Akopian or 16...Axe4 17 Wf3 +) 17

16 g6 hxg6 17 &xd5 2b7 18 Hxe6 Wh5 Axe4 18 Hd +.
26! (Vaulin-Poluliakhov, Sochi 1988) b2) 15...a7 16 g5 exd5 17 &xd5
is probably in Black’s favour, but We8 18 26 26 19 f4 Axe4 20 Whs
White could play 15 Hd3 or 15 Wh5S. hxg6 21 Hxg6 Re6!? 22 Rxe4 Qxa2+
d) 14...b4 15 Wh5! (15 Ad5? exd5 23 &xa2 Wxe4 24 Exf6 Wxe3 (M.Pav-
16 &xd5 2b7 17 g6 Rf6! 18 Whs lovié-Krakops, Ubeda 1997) 25 Weg4
Efc8! 19 Wxh7+ Sf8 20 2b3 Ac5 21 with compensation.
&c4 @d3+! F de Zeeuw; 15 g6!? hxg6 c) 13...Be8 14 25 2d7 15 £4 b5 16
16 AdS Wd8! Zak) 15...Ae5 (15...bxc3 £5 Axb3 (16...64 17 g6 fxg6 18 Ad5!)
16 Hd3! with an attack which is diffi- 17 axb3 b4 (17...Axd4 18 &xd4 b4
cult to refute, Bosch-D.Gross, Scho- 19 6 fxg6 20 fxg6 h6 21 a4 t;
neck 1996) and now 16 S&xe5!? dxe5 17...Ae5!? 18 Af3 g6! — Brunner) 18
17 Hd3 or Bosch’s 16 f4!? is more g6! fxg6 19 fxg6 + (Brunner-Hiibner,
promising than 16 @a4 2b7!?. Bundesliga 1989/90) 19...h6 20 Wh5
e) 14..2b7 15 Wh5 (15 Bd3!? R621 Bxh6 gxh6 22 Wxh6 He7 23
Zak) 15...4\c5! transposes to note ‘d3’ FS Be8 24 Dxe7+ Wxe7 (Brunner)
to Black’s 14th move in Line B2311 25 Hdfl! +— Burgess.
(Black must avoid 15...b4? 16 g6 +— d) 13...Axd4 14 &xd4 b5 15 g5
and 15...26? 16 Wh6 e5 17 Hd3 +-). gives White chances but no real ad-
f) 14...g6!7 15 h4 Ac5 — 12...c5 vantage:
13 g5 Wxd4 14 Bxd4! g6!? 15 h4 bS. dl) 15..He8 16 Wh5 26 17 Who
Now (after 12...@c5): Sf8 18 Wh4 with a slight advantage
B231: 13 g5 180 for White, M.Pavlovié-Arakhamia,
B232: 13 Df5! 186 Greek Cht 1996.
d2) 15...b4 16 WhS bxc3? (Black
There are almost no examples of 13 should try 16...Axb3!?) 17 Wh6! +—
f4. One of them is: 13...b5 14 £5 b4 15 M.Pavlovié-Atalik, Ilioupolis 1995
&a4 2.d7!? 16 Axc6 Axb3+ 17 axb3 (17...e5 18 g6!).
&xc6, and Black stands no worse, d3) 15...2xb3 16 axb3 b4 17 2f6
Lukin-N.Popov, Daugavpils 1974. bxc3 (17...&b7!) 18 Wh5 with an at-
13 &b1!? is not a very strong move tack, Ochoa-Pablo Marin, Almeria
but it carries a lot of poison: 1989.
a) 13...2d7 14 Df5 exf5 15 gxf5 d4) 15...2b7!? 16 Whs Axb3 17
Wd8?! 16 &h6 leads to an attack for axb3 b4 seems adequate, Strauts-Sha-
White. balov, Latvian Ch (Riga) 1987.
b) 13...b5 14 Axc6! (better than 14
AES “xb3!? 15 cxb3 b4 Gagarin; 14 B231)
g5 — 13 95 bS 14 &b1) 14...Wxc6 15 13 g5 (D)
4d5 and then: A standard scheme of attack.
bl) 15...2d8?! 16 g5 @h8 (alter- Now:
natively, 16...Axb3 17 Af6+ gxf6 18 B2311: 13...b5 181
gxf6+ Gh8 19 Wed 2xf6 20 2h6 +— B2312: 13...2d7! 183
 5..Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 Bb3 a6 8 Be3 Re7 9 We2 181

14 Whs!?
E747 xen This is the most popular. Instead:
miei a) 14 Hg3?! b4! (Nunn) favours
{mene ae Black.
b) 14 bi is harmless; for exam-
ple, 14...Axb3 (14...2d7 — 13...2d7
7 Asm ‘ 14 &b1 b5) 15 axb3 2d7 (15...b4 16
U2 & “a4 2d7 = Danner/Polajzer) 16 f4
AAA mee a b4 17 Aad Axd4 18 Bxd4 Rxad 19

9 S27 bxa4 e5 = Ljubojevi¢-Korchnoi, Lu-

cere Wcht 1989.
c) 14 &d5 is unconvincing:
Few other moves have been played cl) 14...exd5(?) 15 Axd5 Dxd4 16
here. Exchanges are rather premature: &xd4 Wb7, and now 17 Afot+ Shs!?
a) 13...Axd4 14 &2xd4! and now: (17...2xf6 18 exf6 Wrxe4 19 Bxg7+
al) 14...b5 15 Wh5 (15 2d5 - Ph8 20 Wxed Axed 21 £3 £) 18 Whs
13...b5 14 Bd5 BDxd4 15 Qxd4; 15 &xf6 19 gxf6 26 20 Wh6 Hg8! 21
£6 2b7; 15 £412) — 13...b5 14 Whs &xc5 Le6 is not so clear. However, 17
@xd4 15 Bxd4!. Wh5(!) and 17 8&6 are possible.
a2) 14..He8 15 Hg3 (15 Wh5!) c2) 14...Axd4!? 15 &xd4 is possi-
15...Axb3+ 16 axb3 Wa5 (16...g6!) 17 ble, and now Black may not venture
&b1 e5 18 b4! + Hellers-Cebalo, Her- upon 15...exd5(?) 16 @xd5. Instead,
ning 1991. 15...b4 transposes to note ‘cl’ to
a3) 14...26!7 15 h4 (15 e5!? b5) Black’s 14th move in Line A21.
15...b5 16 hS Axb3+ 17 axb3 b4 18 c3) 14...2b7 and now: 15 AfFS!? —
4\a4 e5 with counter-chances, Tobyas- 13 BfS bS 14 Bd5 Bb7 15 g5; 15
Orsag, Czech Ch (Prague) 1992. Axc6 &xc6 — 14...2d7 15 Axc6!?
b) 13...Axb3+ 14 axb3 (14 cxb3!?) 2x6.
and now: c4) 14..2d7 15 AS (15 Axc6!?
bl) 14...b5 and now 15 @xc6 and Rxc6 16 Bxc5 dxc5 17 Rxc6 Wxc6
15 Wh5 are both stronger than 15 Bg3 18 e5 Gufeld) 15...exf5 16 g6 2e6 17
b4 16 Wc4!? (Parma), which is unclear. exfS &xf5 18 gxf7+ Bxf7 19 Qxf7+
b2) 14...g6!? is possible. &xf7 and Black is OK, Gdanski-
b3) 14...2d7! is again the most re- H.Griinberg, Stara Zagora Z 1990.
liable continuation. d) 14 @xc6!? Wxc6 transposes to
the note to Black’s 14th move in Line
B2311) A21.
13...b5 We now return to 14 Wh5 (D):
This move is difficult to assess. 14...b4
Many of the most important lines from This is the ‘main’ move, but ts also
here lead to positions that have already extremely risky. Other ideas:
been considered via 9...0-0 10 0-0-0 a) 14,..8d7?! 15 Bg3 — 13...2d7
We8 in Line A2. 14 Be3 b5?!15 Wh.
182 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

B
rar atts
1%

Se
by le

2 Vary
G
"Y

Vj
d33)

Hel
16 Bg4 Axb3+
17 Bh4! h6 18 Hel +-) 17 axb3 e5 18
&e3 (scarcely better is 18 Bh4 h6 19
exd4, Nedev-Relange, Pula Echt
1997) 18...Hac8 19 Hd2 26 20 Wh6 £5
(16...Hfc8?

21 gxf6 &xf6 = J.R.Koch-Relange,

ge Be French Ch (Chambéry) 1994.
Uj, S.A
ABAGY Gad ‘ay Us“9¢ d34) 16 &g3 and now:
d341) 16...Axe4?! 17 g6! hxg6 18
Y “J / py Me supe,
Exg6 fxg6 19 Bxe6+ Bf7 20 Wxg6
5+ 21 Sb1 SF8! 22 Axed Axed 23
Wrxed He8 24 Wo6 Bfe7 25 Wh7 Exe6
b) 14...2%d8?! 15 Axc6 Wxc67! 16 26 Wh8+ Se7 27 Wxg7+ Hd8 28
&d5!, Djurhuus-Kaspersen, Copen- Wxe5t +.
hagen 1988. d342) 16...&fc8 17 £3 Axb3+ 18
c) 14...8e8 15 Axc6 (other ideas axb3 e5 19 Bh3 favours White, Val-
are 15 2d5!? g6 16 Wh6 2d7 17 Hg3 enti-Toth, Reggio Emilia 1975.
S83 18 Wh4, Renet-Piket, Groningen d343) 16...fac8! (Paoli) deserves
1984 and 15 @f5!2) 15..Axb3+ 16 attention.
axb3 Wxc6 17 24 transposes to Line In conclusion: although things are
A2l. far from clear, 14...A\xd4 can hardly
d) 14...Axd4 (also risky) 15 &xd4! be recommended.
and then: e) 14...g6!? (this still seems play-
di) 15...b4? allows both 16 Wh6!? able) 15 Wh6 and then:
+ and 16 &f6! He8 17 Hg3 bxc3 18 el) 15...Axb3+ 16 axb3 f6 17 £4
£h3 h6 19 Wxhé!! +-. fxg5 18 f5! + Gheorghescu-Tratato-
d2) 15...Axb3+?! 16 axb3 is diffi- vici, Romania 1977.
cult for Black: 16...b4 17 Wh6 e5 18 e2) 15...Hd8 16 He3 (16 2d5?! 2f8
Ad5 +—-; 16...2b7 17 Hd3; or 16...26 17 Wh4 b4!, Stukaturkin-Goichman,
17 Wh6 f6 18 f4 + C.Hansson-Tim- Krasnoiarsk 1974) 16...2f8 17 Wh4
merman, corr. 1982. b4?! (Black should try 17...8e7!?) 18
d3) 15...8b7! and now: Axc6 Wxc6 19 @d4 + J.Hartston-
d31) 16 &f6 Bfc8! 17 Hed (17 Bd4 Alexandria, Menorca wom IZ 1973.
4xb3+ 18 axb3 e5 19 Hd2 b4 20 Ad5 e3) 15...Be8! 16 Hg (16 2d5!2 —
&xd5 21 exd5 a5!) 17...b4! 18 Bh4 14..8e8 15 &d5!? g6 16 Who)
Rxe4 19 Hxed bxc3 20 Hh4 Axb3+ 16...8f8 17 Wh4 b4 (17...2e7!? is
21 &bl Ad2+ 22 Bxd2 h6 23 Hdl possible; then 18 AfF5 Axb3+ 19 axb3
(Bordonada-Mir.Pavlov, Nice OL 1974) exf5 20 Ad5 WaS is unconvincing for
23...cxb2 24 c4 Wa5! is much better White) and now:
for Black — Akopian. e31) 18 Aa4!? is unclear.
d32) 16 £3 @xb3+ 17 axb3 e5 18 e32) 18 Axc6!? Axb3+ 19 axb3
&e3 Hfc8 «© Hodges-Malevich, corr. Wxc6 (19...bxc3 20 $2.4 e5 21 Ab4 +)
1995. 20 &d4 (20 Hh3!? h5 21 gxh6 eS!
 5.6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3
A.Pereira) 20...h5! (20...e5 21 Ad5 +)
21 gxh6 e5 22 Ad5 exd4 23 Hdgi
transposes to Line A21.
e33) 18 £h3!? h5 (18...2g77! 19
Wxh7+ Sf8 20 DF5!2) 19 gxh6 bxc3
20 Axc6 (better than 20 Wf67! Lh7,
Magerramov-Tal, Moscow simul 1974)
20...Axb3+ 21 axb3 e5! (21...2b7 22
We Sh7 23 2b6! +-) 22 Hf3 (22
Ab4 Wa5!) 22... 2e6 23 Ad4!? cxb2+
24 &xb2 @h7! = V.Khenkin.
Now (after 14...b4):
a) 15 Bg4? bxc3 16 Bh4 Axb3+
17 axb3 h6 18 Axc6 (18 Bg] Wa5!)
18... Wxc6 —+.
b) 15 Eg3? bxc3 16 Hh3 h6 (or
16...Axb3+ first) 17 Bgi Axb3+ 18
cxb3 “Axd4 (or 18...2h8) 19 @xd4
cxb2++ 20 @xb2 e5 F Sideif-Zade —
Mochalov, USSR 1974.
c) 15 Da4?! Rd7 (15...Axd4 16
&xd4 Axb3+ 17 axb3 e5 F Gufeld;
15...Axb3+ 16 axb3 2d7!? 17 Kg3
Xfc8 18 Hh3 h6 Mochalov) 16 Axc5
4)xd4 (16...dxc5? 17 @f5!) 17 Bxd4
(17 @xd7 Axb3+ 18 axb3 Hfc8 F)
17...dxc5 18 &f6 (18 &xg7 Sxg7 19
Hp4 Hg8 + Sanz-Gheorghiu, Torre-
molinos 1974) 18...2b5 19 e5 Hfd8
20 Bxd8+ Exd8 21 g6 fxg6! 22 Bxg6
&xf6 23 exf6 Wi4+! 24 Sb1 WES.
d) 15 Ace2 Axb3+ 16 axb3 Axd4
(V.Pavlov) gives Black counterplay.
e) White should play 15 Axc6!:
el) 15...8xc6 transposes to note
‘b’ to Black’s 15th move in Line A272.
e2) 15...Axb3+ 16 axb3 Wxc6
transposes to Line A272.
B2312)
13...2d7! (D)
This is the most reliable move.
14 Whs
a6 8 Bei Be7 9 We2 183
Or:
a) 14 Hg3 and then:
al) 14...b5?! 15 WhS b4 16 Sf5!
exf5 17 Ad5 +— Cappello-Hulak, Rov-
igo 1972.
a2) 14...Bfd8?! 15 Bb1!? b5 16
4\f5!, Z.Nagy-Apro, Hungary 1994.
a3) 14..Axb3+ 15 axb3 Hac8
(other moves are 15...b5?! 16 Wh5 b4
17 AF5! and 15... fc8!) 16 Wh5 g6 17
Who f6 18 £4 Hf7 (Soltis-Trincardi,
Reggio Emilia 1971) 19 f5! Soltis.
a4) 14...g6!? is interesting.
a5) 14...&fc8 and then:
a51) 15 £49! b5! (15...Axd4 16
&xd4 Axb3+ 17 axb3 Bc6 18 £5!7)
16 £5 Axb3+ (16...b4!2 0) 17 axb3
“e5 = Seeliger-Kauranen, corr. 1978.
a52) 15 &bl bS! — 14 Sbl b5 15
Ee? Hyc8.
a53) 15 Whs ~ 14 Was Bfc8! 15
He3.
b) 14 £4?! does not work out well
here. 14...b5! (14... fc8? 15 £5 +) and
then:
bl) 15 £5?! b4! 16 96 (16 Axc6
&xc6 F; 16 Rxe6 Rxe6 17 6 bxc3 18
gxh7+ @h8 19 Bxg7 cxb2+ —+ A.Fro-
lov-Krakops, Berlin 1994; 16 f6 bxc3
+ Ermenkov-Mednis, Palma de Mall-
orca 1989; 16 fxe6 can be answered
184 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

by 16...fxe6 or 16...bxc3!?; 16 Wh is White a dangerous attack, Panchenko-

also inadequate) and then: Shestoperov, Cheliabinsk 1977.
b11) 16...hxg6!? and then: c23) 15 AF5!? leads to unclear
bli) 17 fxg6 should be met not play.
by 17...bxc3 18 Wh5 fxg6 19 Bxg6 = c3) 14...g6!? 15 £4 b5 is satisfac-
Golubev-Grasis, USSR jr Cht 1988, tory for Black, Vasiukov-Lukin, Uzh-
but 17...Ae5! F. gorod 1972.
bl12) After 17 &xe6!?, rather than c4) 14...2)xb3 15 cxb3 bS 16 Wh5
17...bxc3 18 Bxg6 or 17...2xe6 18 b4 17 @ce2 © Shamkovich.
&\xe6, Salov-Slesarev, USSR 1974, c5) 14...b5 and here:
Black should prefer 17...Axd4! 18 c51) 15 Hg3 Hfc8 (15...g6!7) 16
Rxf7+ &Sxf7 19 2xd4 bxc3, when 4)f5 and now:
White’s prospects are doubtful. e511) 16...exf5 17 &xf7+ (White
b12) 16...fxg6!?. can also consider 17 @\d5!?) 17...&xf7
b13) 16...Axb3+ 17 axb3 fxg6 18 18 Wh5+ Sg8 19 26 hxg6 20 Exg6
fxg6 bxc3 19 Wh5 (19 gxh7+ @h8 20 Deb6!.
&xg7 WaS! —+) and now, instead of e512) 16...Axb3 17 Axe7+ Axe7
19..hxg6 20 Bxg6 Hf7 (20...2f6 21 18 axb3 b4 F Tobyas-Slezka, Czech
Eh6 is equal) 21 Hh6 (21 Xdg1 WaS!) Cht 1994/5.
21...gxh6 (Benjamin-Liberzon, Lone c52) 15 WhS and then:
Pine 1980) 22 &xh6! =, 19...h6 proba- e521) 15...Bfc8 16 AfS g6 (but not
bly wins. 16...Axb3? 17 Ah6+ gxh6 18 g6 Sh8
b2) 15 Wh5 Efc8 and here: 19 gxf7 +) and now, rather than 17
b21) 16 £5 g6! (16...Dxd4 17 Bxd4 Axe7+? Dxe7 18 Wh6 Axb3 F Lie-
&xb3+ 18 axb3 exf5 19 e5) 17 Wh6 pold-Oberst, Bundesliga 1990/1, White
Rf8 18 Wh4 b4 19 fxe6 Dxb3+ is should play 17 Ah6+!?.
much better for Black, Salgado-Fow- c522) 15...26 16 Wh6 Bfc8 17 Bg3
ell, corr. 1979. 2f8 18 Wh4 Axb3 19 axb3 Le7 (=
b22) 16 &b1 Axb3 17 cxb3 b4 F. Danner/Polajzer) 20 @de2!?.
b23) 16 Hg3 g6!? 17 Who — 14 We now return to the position after
Whs Byfc8! 15 Bg3 26 16 Who 248 17 14 Wh5 (D):
Wh4 Se7 18 f4 bS5 19 Who.
c) 14 8b1!? probably does not con-
stitute a real threat for Black: x ae
c1) 14...Bfe8(?!) — 13 Sb/ Hes 14
gS Rd7.
» |, SwaE Aw
acaba “VY
c2) 14...Bfc8 and then:
Mi L
Ae

7, FS
tt

c21) 15 &g3 can be answered by

15...0xb3!? or 15...b5 - 14...b5 15 ft, km Y
Bo3 Bycd. 2h 8.
ae K

622) 15 £4 Axd4 (15...b5!7) 16 SEAT BB

&xd4 b5 17 £5 Axb3 18 axb3 b4?! 19
26 fxg6 20 fxg6 h6 21 &xg7! gives GH Ff
 5...4\c6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 a6 8 Be3 Be7 9 We2 185

14...2fc8! 21 Sb1 Bxc3 Nikitin)21 &b1 (21 Bh3!

14...26 15 Wh6 Efc8 is also possi- h5 22 gxh6 @h7 23 Bf3 Mir.Mar-
ble. kovié) 21...b5 22 f4 227 (Velimiro-
15 Eg3 26 16 Wh6 2f8 17 Bh4 vi¢-Mir.Markovié, Vrnjatka Banja
In this critical position 17...Axd4!? 1992) 23 fxe5! £ Mir.Markovié.
leads to unclear play, and it brings no c12) 18...b5 19 £417 (19 Bh3 h5! F
benefits for White to decline a draw Verdci-Alexandria, Menorca wom IZ
after 17...2e7. 1973) 19...2g7 (19...a5!? 20 Hd2 «
17...2e7 Rogaliewicz-Capuano, corr. 1995) 20
Or: Eh3 @xb3+ 21 axb3 e5 22 Wxh7+
a) 17...b5?! 18 Axc6 (or 18 £h3!) Sf8 23 Bh4 exd4 24 Wxg7+ =.
18...Axb3+ 19 axb3 &xc6 20 Hh3 c2) 18 &xd4 Axb3+! 19 axb3 e5
&g7 21 e5! (Glenn) +. 20 Re3 (20 &b6 Web 21 Bd2 Reb 22
b) 17...xb3+!? 18 axb3 (18 Axb3 &e3 a5! Noetzel-Lanka, Bundesliga
&Re7!?) and now: 1991/2) 20...b5 21 Hd2 2e6 22 Hh3
bl) 18...65?! 19 £h3 297 20 Wxh7+ (or 22 AdS Bxd5 23 exd5 a5 24 Hh3
f8 21 £4 + Donchev-Semkov, Varna &g7!, Cheah-Garcia Paolochi, Novi
1978. Sad OL 1990). Now, instead of play-
b2) 18...2)xd4!? transposes to other ing 22...2g7, it is simpler to proceed
lines: 19 Bxd4 — 17...Axd4 18 Bxd4 with 22...h5! 23 gxh6 @h7 (Schumi-
“Axb3+ 19 axb3; 19 Bxd4— 17...Axd4 Wittmann, Austrian Ch (Gamlitz)
18 &xd4 Axb3+ 19 axb3. 1993), with acceptable play.
b3) Following 18...8e7, White has Now we return to the position after
scarcely any more chances than after 17...8e7 (D):
17...2e7.
c) 17...Axd4!? (D) and then:
E7%7 Je
“x0 Bee ron
| MAWAG@AllA
a7], Ba7ay
one 8
© ase w
meAi
0gG omaa a”
a oo8 18 Wh6
It appears wisest to take the draw by
cl) 18 &xd4!? makes sense here: repetition with the text-move. Other-
c11) 18...Axb3+ 19 axb3 e5 (or wise:
19...8.e7!? 20 £4 h5 21 £5 b5 22 Hd2 a5 a) 18 &h3h5 19 f4 Axd4 20 Rxd4
Mir.Markovié) 20 Bd2 Se6 (20...a5!? 4xb3+ 21 axb3 e5 ¥ Nikitin.
186 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

b) 18 Af5? Axb3+ 19 axb3 exf5 e2) However, 18...Axb3+ 19 axb3

20 AdS Wad8! (20...WaS5 21 Axe7+ Bb4! (19...h5 20 Af4!? Ab4 21 Vd4
4)xe7 22 &d4 Wal+! = Panchenko- e5 22 Axh5 exd4 23 Hxd4) appears
Kochiev, Riga 1972) 21 Af6+ &xf6 good for Black though the play is
22 gxf6 Ae5 23 Rd4 fxed 24 Rxe5 rather crazy; e.g., 20 @bl a5!2 21 Af4
dxe5 25 Hxd7 Bxc2+! -+ Zak. a4 (21...e5) 22 Hh3 h5 23 Axh5 axb3
c) 18 &c4 h5 (18...b5?! 19 AF5!) 24 cxb3 Hal+! —+; 20 f4 Wa5 (or
19 AES b5! (19...exf5 20 Bxc5 dxc5 20...a5) 21 d2?! eS 22 £5 2b5!? 23
21 Ad5) 20 Ah6+ 7 is probably in Eh3 h5 24 g3 (Ilintié-Zelié, Yugo-
Black’s favour, Guseinov-Uusi, USSR slav Cht 1989) 24...4\a2!.
Cht 1979.
d) 18 £4.65 (18...@xb34!? 19 axb3 B232)
b5; 18...0b4!? 19 £5 Axb3+ 20 axb3 13 DF5! (D)
e5 Nikitin) and then:
dl) 19 Ade2? Axb3+ 20 axb3 b4
21 Hh3 h5 22 A\g3 bxc3 23 Axh5
Ab4 —+. 5 aw Rae:
aT aka 7
im ie
d2) 19 £5? @xb3+ 20 axb3 b4! —+
Zak.
d3) 19 Wh6 2f8 20 Wh4 b4!? (or
20...2e7) 21 AES (21 Hh3 h5 22 exh6 _ MRT RT
Re7! —+ Ftaénik) 21...Axb3+ 22 axb3 V2 & 7
bxc3 ¥ Pinski-Pedzich, Koszalin 1999.
ASS WE Bs
d4) 19 Axc6 Wxc6 (19...Axb3+!?;
19...2xc6!2) 20 Bd4 (20 &xc5!?)
20...hS (20...Axb3+ 21 axb3 e5!7) 21
a oxg 3”
Hd2? (21 £5 Axb3+!? 22 axb3 b4 F; Following A.Sokolov’s win over
21 &xc5!) 21...b4 22 Bd5 bxe3! —+ Salov in 1983, this move became more
Zhiltsova-Lysenko — Ioseliani, USSR topical than 13 g5.
1976. 13...b5
d5) 19 AfS Axb3+ 20 axb3, and Others:
now 20...h5 21 Ah6+ Bh7 22 f5 b4!? a) 13...exf5?! 14 gxf5 Ae5 (or
is interesting. Moreover, it is likely 14...2d7 15 Ad5 Wd8 16 Whs5 Lhs8
that the continuation 20...exf5 21 Ad5 17 Hxg7! +— S.Sokolov-K.Grigorian,
(NCO) 21...8d8! 22 e5 also does not USSR 1978) 15 AdS Wd8 16 Bxc5!?
promise White anything after 22...2e6 dxc5 17 f4 +.
or 22...dxe5. b) 13...Axb3+ 14 axb3 and then:
e) 18 Ade2 and then: bl) 14...exf5?! 15 Ad5 (the imme-
el) 18...h5 19 f4 (or 19 &f4!?) diate 15 gxf5! is more precise since
19...b5 20 £5 Axb3+ 21 axb3 b4 22 then 15...Ab4? fails to 16 Bxg7+! +—)
4\f4 bxc3 23 bxc3 WaS 24 fxg6 fxg6 15...Wd8 (15... Wa5!? Nikitin) 16 gxf5
25 @xg6 Sg7 (Ostapenko/Nikitin) is, £6 (16... @h8 17 Wh5 f6 18 Af4 +—) 17
to my mind, not quite convincing. He3!? Bf7 18 Wh5 2f8 19 Hdegl wins
 5..Nc6 6 &c4 €6 7 B2b3 a6 8 Be3 Re7 9 We2 187

for White, Coleman-Bologan, Biel 1989) 16...Axb3+ (16...d5!? 17 £4;

rpd 1993.
b2) 14...b5 15 Axe7+ Axe7 (after
15...Wxe7 16 g5!? White is slightly
better). Now White has a small advan-
tage after 16 Wd2 d5 (16...4d8 17 &£4
b4 18 Da4 e5 19 Rxe5 + Johansson-
Eriksson, Uppsala 1986) 17 exdS (17
&f4!? offers White a slight advantage)
17...Axd5 (17...b4 Ulybin/Volovik)
18 &xd5 exd5 19 2d4 (Shirov), or af-
ter 16 Wd3 b4 (16...d5 17 exd5 Axd5
18 4xd5 exd5 £) 17 a4 d5 (17... 2b7
18 Wxd6 +) 18 &c5 t;e.¢., 18...dxe4?
19 We3 +— Ulybin-Ermolinsky, Sim-
feropol 1988.
c) 13...2d8!? (a recent idea)
Bxe7+ (14 g5 Axb3+!? 15 axb3 exf5
16 Dds Was 17 Rb6 Wal+ 18 Sd2
Wxb2 19 Axe7+ Axe7 20 &xd8 Ac6
Yudasin) 14...Wxe7 (14...Axe7! Yuda-
sin) 15 g5 bS 16 Wh5 (16 h4!? Yuda-
sin) 16...2b7? (16...2b8! 17 Bg3 26
18 Who Ws 19 Wh4 a5 Notkin) 17
Bg3 96 18 Who Ws 19 Wh4 + Yuda-
sin-Sher, St Petersburg 1996.
14 2d5!? (D)
14 Dxe7+ is less ambitious but also
16...b4 17 &xc5! Wxc5 18 Aed Wxe5
19 Axd6 ~ G.Todorovié) 17 axb3 b4
18 a4 “Ad5 19 exd6, G.Todorovié-
KoZul, Brezovica 1988 — in all in-
stances White has some advantage.
b) 14...\Wxe7 and then:
bl) 15 &f4 Hd8 16 We3 2b7 17
&g5 £6 © Shirov.
b2) 15 g5 2b7 (15...b4 16 Dad
&b7?! 17 Axc5 dxc5 18 We4) 16 f3
(16 Wh5!? b4 17 Aad Axe4 18 £3)
16...Hac8 (16... fc8!? 17 Yb1 Habs —
Shirov) 17 &bl Bc7 18 Hd2 Ae5!
with an acceptable position for Black,
R6tSagov-Shirov, USSR 1990.
14 b3) 15 Wd2 Bd8 16 225 £617 V4
Be5 (17...b4 18 Ad5!) 18 g5 (unclear
is 18 We3 &b7 19 ¢5 Bh8 - Shirov)
18...Af3 19 gxf6 Wxf6 20 &g5 (20
We3 DAxgl 21 Rg5 WE3! F Hector-
Shirov, Torcy 1990) and, instead of
20...Axd2 21 &xf6 Adxb3+ 22 axb3
Hd7 23 b4! + (Shirov), 20... WE7!? 21
We3 Hf8 deserves attention.
1018 Kee
ow waka@

sgagal
less risky:
ear

a) 14...2xe7 and now:

al) 15 Rf£4 Axb3+ (15...e5!7) 16
Bam LAoe
axb3 e5 17 225 f6 (17...2e6 18 Sb
EKad8 19 &xe7 Wxe7 20 Ad5 gives
Y
Be HS aAY
White a slight advantage) 18 2e3 b4 Vj
(18...2e6!7) 19 Aa4 Be6 20 Sbl
ANA WH A
a

(Peelen-Jasnikowski, Bielsko Biala

1986) 20...d5! with unclear play — UY, G27
variations given by Shirov.
a2) 15 Wd2! Bd8 (15...64 16 Aad 14...2b7
@®xe4 17 Wxb4 d5 18 £3 Ad6 19 Bf4 Otherwise:
Hd8 20 Sbl — G. Todorovic) 16 e5 (16 a) 14...&e8? 15 Axe7+ Hxe7 16e5
&.£4!? Wc6 17 2xd6 Ag6 18 Wd4 Ab7 + Nijboer-Hon, London Lloyds Bank
19 e5, Brunner-Hiibner, Haifa Echt 1992.
188 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

b) The rare 14...exd5!? 15 Axd5 exf5 £6 (18...bxc3 19 g6 +— Sion Cas-

Wh7 16 e5 De6 deserves attention: tro-Rivera, Cordoba 1991; 18...2fc8!?,
bl) 17 g5?! dxe5 18 Wh5 Af4!? Walsh-Raffaele, corr. 1999) 19 fxg6
(or 18...8h8!? 19 Af6 2xf6 20 gxf6 hxg6 20 Wh6 +— Shirov.
26) 19 Afxe7+ Axe7 20 Af6+ gxf6
21 gxf6+ Aeg6! 22 Wh6 Ac6 23 Bg3
Wed! 24 Hh3 Agfa 25 He3+ Wo!
(25...g6 =).
b2) 17 exd6 2.8 and then:
b21) 18 £4 f6 19 W2 HF7!2 and
now 20 Hgel (F Shirov) should be
preferred to 20 &b6 @xf4 21 Afe7+
Axe7 22 dxe7 Hxe7 23 &xd8 Axd5 F
Hellers-Mednis, Copenhagen 1991.
b22) 18 g5 Bh8! (18...2d7 19 Whs
Bh8 20 He4 offers compensation, Ws
Hjorth-Andersen, corr. 1984) 19 Wd3
(19 8g37! Af4! +) 19...He5 with good The games that have been played
prospects for Black; e.g., 20 Wed Ac4 indicate that Black faces serious dan-
21 Hg4 Axe3 22 Wxe3 Wa7 23 We3 ger here.
BWc5!2. 16 Hg3
b3) 17 Adxe7+!? Axe7 18 Axd6, We cannot rule out the possibility
followed by 19 £4, gives White com- that 16 Wh5 is stronger:
pensation. a) 16...b4 17 &xe6 Axe6 (17...fxe6?
c) Another little-studied option for 18 g6) 18 @d5 with an attack.
Black is 14...#a7 with the point 15 g5 b) 16...Ae5 17 £4 Ag6é 18 Hg3! (18
(15 &xc6 Wxc6 16 Axe7+ Hxe7 17 &\xg7?! can be countered by Lanka’s
Hd4 €5!?) 15...exf5 16 g6 DeS. 18...b4!? or 18...xg7 19 £5 exd5 20
15 25 Hfc8 (D) &g3!?) 18...b4 19 Bh3 Als (19... Sf8
Or:
20 Wxh7 Se8 21 Bxc5 dxc5 22 Rxe6
a) 15...exf5 16 26! hxg6 (16...De5 +— Ginsburg) 20 24! exd5 (20...2d8
17 exf5 hxg6 18 fxg6 Acd3+ 19 Bxd3! 21 Wh6 £6 22 gxf6! +-) 21 &xg7 +—
+ Kobaliya/Cherny) 17 Exg6 (17 exf5!? Ginsburg-Lanka, Cappelle la Grande
4e5 — 16...0e5 17 exfS hxg6 +) 1997.
17...Ae5 18 Bxg7+ leads to a terrific c) 16...g6 17 Ah6+ also looks haz-
attack for White, A.Sokolov-Salov, ardous for Black; e.g., 17...@g7 18
Nikolaev 1983. W£3!? DeS 19 Ld4 exdS 20 Wxf7+
b) 15...b4 16 Wh5 We5 (16...26 17 @Bh8 21 £4.
Who gxf5 18 Bg3!? +-; 16...bxc3 17 16.,.2.£8!?
Ke3 Wh6 18 bxc3 exf5 19 Hh3 +— First suggested by Romero. Other
A.Sokolov; 16...@h8 17 Hg3 exf5 18 attempts:
g6 fxg6 19 Wxh7+ +-; 16..Hfc8 — a) 16...26 17 Ab6+!? with the ini-
15...Bfc8 16 Whs b4) 17 Bg3 exf5 18 tiative.
 5.406 6 &c4 e6 7 Bb3 ab 8 Be3 Re7 9 We2 189

b) 16...@e5 and then: explored position: 21 f4 A.Fedorov;

bl) 17 £4 Ag6 (both the following 21 Af6 G8 22 f4 Kodinets; 21 &b6
favour White: 17...b4 18 $&xc5! and Notkin.
17...exf5 18 &xc5 Ag6 19 Re3! - d) 16...exf5 17 g6 has not yet been
Shirov) 18 @xg7 b4!? (18...8xg7 19 verified either.
f5 exd5!?) 19 &xc5 Axf4 20 Wr2 Now we return to 16... 2£8 (D):
dxc5 21 &xb7 Wxb7 22 Ad5S exd5
(Mezhebitsky-Kirilko, corr.
23 Wxf4!? =.
1996-7)
xk) he
b2) 17 &xb7 and here: , Oe Wawa
b21) 17...\Wxb7 18 Axe7+ Wxe7 AT agay 7
19 £4 Aed7! (19...2\c4?! 20 Bd4 Ad7
21 Hh3 b4 22 WhS AF8 23 &xg7! VAM OR
&xg7 24 £5! Shirov) 20 a3! + Bonsch. AR
b22) 17...Axb7 18 Axe7+ (18 &.b6!
aseun fw
Les; GM,
Wd7 19 &d4 Shirov) 18...\8xe7 with
roughly equal play, Sion Castro-Shi-
rov, Leon 1995. a!

b3) 17 £h3 Ag6? 18 Wh5 Afs 19

xg7!! +— Bxd5 (19...&xg7 20 2d4+ 17 Wh5 26 18 Ah6+
&g8 21 Wh6) 20 Wh6 e5 21 AhS +- 18 Wh4 is a possible attempt to im-
A.Fedorov-Lanka, Pula Echt 1998. prove.
c) 16...b4 and then: 18...2h8 19 Wh4 b4 20 Zh3
cl) 17 2h3(2) g6 (17...bxc3 18 Whs Not 20 &xc6? bxc3! + Onishchuk-
F819 Axg7! LEfimov) 18 &xc6 (al- Shirov, Bundesliga 1996/7. Instead,
ternatively, 18 Ah6+ Bg7 19 Rxc6 20 Ag4 bxc3 21 Hh3 (not 21 Af? h6é
&xc6!) 18...2xc6 19 Dh6+ &g7 20 22 Ag4 h5 23 Af6 cxb2+ 24 Wbl
W3 Be8 21 Agd bxc3 22 Af6 Axf6 &g7 25 Hh3 “a4 —+ Shirov) trans-
23 gxf6+ Yg8 —+ Kobaliya-Prokop- poses to the main line.
chuk, Kolontaevo 1997. 20...bxe3 21 DAg4 f5!
c2) 17 Axg7!? &xg7 (17...bxc3 18 21...h5? 22 Df6.
Wh5 +— A.Fedorov) 18 Wh5 Hg8! 22 Af6 h6 23 Wxh6+
(18...2h8? can be met by A.Fedorov’s with perpetual check, I.Rogers-
19 &xc5, or 19 Wh6+ Sg8 20 Rxe6! Lanka, Linz 1997.
Rf8 21 g6!! +— Lukacs) 19 &xe6! White can try to improve on this in-
4xe6 (19...bxc3? 20 &xf7 +— A.Fed- credible line, but Black still has in re-
orov-Kobaliya, Russian Cht 1998) 20 serve, at least, 11 g4 @xd4! and 11
4d5 Wd8 leads to an insufficiently Hhgl b5!?.
11 5...Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 Se3
a6 without £.b3
1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4
IMf6 5 Ac3 Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 2e3 ab
(D)
22Wee &
A ahah 7
Ui a Black is 8 a3 Wce7 9 2a2
NY
ASMAAT
A th, me ow
ABAZ BA
TS. "§e
Z
YYZ
With the move-order of the Sozin,
5...Ac6 6 &c4, the set-up 6...e6 7 2e3
a6, is, undoubtedly, one of the most
important. In this chapter we must
leave aside the lines with 2b3 because
8 &b3 was completely covered in
Chapters 8-10. Nevertheless, this cir-
cumstance does not preclude a discus-
sion of the nuances of the position in
the diagram (and we should note, first
of all, that normally this position
should not arise out of the Fischer At-
tack, since 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 Be3?!
4\c6?! is quite a hypothetical move-
order).
Usually, White wishes to play the
Velimirovié Attack and to this he has
two possible introductions: 8 &b3 and
8 We2. Other moves are rare, although
8 0-0 (see 7 0-0 a6 8 &e3 in Chapter
12) is quite normal and usually leads
to Classical Sozin positions.
Sometimes, White plays 8 a4 and 8
a3, after which the play usually trans-
poses to the positions of Chapter 12
(one of the few additional ideas for
Ae5!?,
Mini¢-Timman, Sombor 1974, and
this is interesting).
So, 8 2b3 or 8 We2: this is the heart
of the matter. If 8...2e7 is played, it
makes no particular difference, but a
difference does occur in the ‘Anti-Vel-
imirovic’ lines. After 8 2b3, it is
8...Wc7!?, with the point 9 We2 (9 £4
transposes to the Classical Sozin)
9...Aa5!. After 8 We2 there are both
8...Aa5 and 8...8c7 9 0-0-0 Aa5!?,
which makes it almost imperative for
White to reply 2d3. Personally, I would
prefer 8 &b3 (all the more because the
Fischer Attack move-order 5...a6 6 &.c4
€6 7 2b3 Wc6 8 Ze3 does not leave
White any such choice). Objectively,
in any case I advise White to arrange
We2 and 2b3 only in the case where
the black bishop has already been
placed on e7. Therefore, choose be-
tween 8 2b3 Wc7 9 £4 and 8 We2 We7
(8...Aa5 9 2£d3) 9 0-0-0 Aa5 10 2d3.
We pass on to the theoretical part
of this chapter, consisting of the lines
 5..Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 Be3 ab WITHOUT &b3
that could not have been discussed
earlier. These include, apart from the
lines with an early ...4\a5, White’s at-
tempts to save on $b3 (with an early
EXhg1) in the main lines with ...&e7.
8 We2
Now:
A: 8...Aa5 191
B: 8...We7 (9 0-0-0 Aa5!?) 192
C: 8...We7 9 0-0-0 2e7 196
D: 8...2e7 9 0-0-0 0-0 197
We should not forget to mention
first two other rare continuations for
Black:
a) 8...Axd4 9 2xd4 b5 does not
work well here. 10 $2b3 2e7 11 0-0-0
0-0-7 &b3 a6 8 &e3 2e7 9 We2 0-0
10 0-0-0 Axd4 11 &xd4 bS t.
b) 8...8d7!? is not played at grand-
master level for some reason. Then:
bl) The position after 9 &b3 (— 7
Rb3 a6 8 Re3 Rd7 9 We2) was as-
sessed in Chapter 8 (the note to White’s
9th move of Line Cl) as not very
promising for White (9...b5 10 0-0-0
a5! or 9...2%c8!? 10 0-0-0 Aa5!).
b2) However, even after 9 0-0-0! it
is not easy to avoid such positions:
after 9...b5 10 @xc6!? &xc6 White
must sacrifice something; 9...&c8 10
Axc6!?; 9...Aa5 10 2d3!? Hc8 11
Ehegl bS (11...8xc3?! 12 bxc3, Ljubo-
jevic-Spassky, Turin 1982) 12 ¢4. All
this is not wholly clear and deserves
further study.
A)
8...Aa5 (D)
9 243!
Or:
a) 9 0-0-0 Axc4 10 Wxc4 Rd7! =
Karasev- Yudasin, USSR 1984.
191
b) 9 2b3 and now:
b1) 9...Wc7 (followed by 10...b5)
transposes to Line C31 of Chapter 8,
which suits Black.
b2) 9...b5!? is at least no weaker.
9...b5
Consistent but risky. Others:
a) 9...We7 and now:
al) 10 0-0-0 simply transposes to
Line B, so it is unclear what Black
hopes to gain by giving White some
additional possibilities.
a2) 10 ¢4_b5 11 5 Ad7 12 f4 b4 0
Hartston-Liberzon, Reykjavik Z 1975.
a3) 10 0-0 e7 11 f4 should be
compared with 10 f4.
a4) 10 f4 b5 11 0-0 (11 a4!? b4 12
4\b1) 11...2b7 12 Hael!? Re7 13
hi enables White to fight for the ad-
vantage, Link-Kovaliov, Schwabisch
Gmiind 1994.
b) The rare 9...2e7 makes a fair
amount of sense. For instance:
bl) 10 0-0-0 0-0 (10...b5 11 g4 b4
12 Abi Yudasin) 11 g4 (or 11 Ab3!?,
de Firmian-I. Ivanov, USA Ch (Long
Beach) 1989) 11...b5 12 g5 Ad7 13 f4
@&c5 14 h4 b4 15 Abl BWc7 16 Ad2
&xd3+ 17 Wxd3 2d7 18 Sb1 Bfc8 19
Bcl 2f8 with mutual chances, Yuda-
sin-Garcia Ilundain, Pamplona 1992/3.
192 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
b2) The other line is 10 f4 We7 11
0-0, which is similar to line ‘a4’, and
looks like a promising version of the
Scheveningen for White.
10 a4!?
As of now, no recognized main
move has been defined.
a) Black’s idea is not questioned
by 10 0-0 2b7 11 a3 &e7, Minasian-
Epishin, Minsk 1990.
b) 10 g4 does not appear logical to
me.
c) 10 f4 can be met by 10...b4!? or
10...Wc7 - 9... Wec7 10 f4 bS.
d) 10 0-0-0 b4!? (10...We7 trans-
poses to Line B) 11 @bi1 (11 a4?!
&.d7!) is quite interesting and playable
for both sides; for example, 11...8c7
(11...2b7!9) 12 Ad2 Re7 13 g4 Ad7
14 f4 Ac5 15 Sb] 2d7 16 g5 0-0 17
f5 Hfc8 (Brunner-Epishin, Maringa
1991) and now 18 Bc1!? or 18 A2f3!?
— Epishin.
e) 10b4!? Ac4! (10...Ab7 11 0-0 +
MeStrovic-Polugaevsky, Varna 1972)
11 &xc4 bxc4 12 Wxc4 (a slight ad-
vantage might be obtained by continu-
ing 12 a3!? 2b7 13 £3 We7 14 0-0
Re7 15 &f2, A.Fedorov-Kovalioy,
Minsk 1997) 12...2b7 13 0-0 (13 a3
should be met not by 13...Axe4 14
&\xe4 d5 15 Wb3 dxe4 16 Hdl +, but
13...Hc8!) 13...Bc8 14 Wb3 (14 Wd3!?
d5 15 e5 Ad7 16 Rf4 Axb4 17 Ace2
is interesting, de Firmian-Zaltsman,
Lone Pine 1979) 14...Wc7 15 Wa4+
Wd7 16 Wxd7+ Axd7 17 Ade? He4
18 £3 2e7! with compensation, Solo-
zhenkin-Ionov, St Petersburg Ch 2000.
10...b4 11 Aa2
This move was recommended by
Aseev. 11 “bl Be7 12 Ad2 0-0 13
0-0 Ad7!? 14 f4 &£6 is satisfactory
for Black, A.Sokolov-Aseev, USSR
Ch (Odessa) 1989.
11...e5
After 11...d5 12 e5, Black must
avoid 12...4\d7? 13 @xe6! +—, while
after 12...A\e4, White can continue 13
f3 Wh4+ 14 Sd1 Ag3 15 Wel +.
12 Afs
The game Lutovinov-Stepanov,
corr. 1994, appeared to favour White
after 12...d5 13 &g¢5 2b7 (13...2xf5
14 exf5 2d6 15 &xa6; 13...h6 14
S.xf6 Wxf6 15 Ae3) 14 Hdl d4 15 c3.
Certainly, Black has other ideas (e.g.
12...63) which await investigation.
B)
8...We7
This is the most popular continua-
tion as Black keeps both 9...$e7 and
9...A\a5 in reserve.
9 0-0-0
Other moves are less important:
a) 9 Hpi?! runs up against 9...b5!
10 Axc6 bxc4 11 Wxc4 2b7 12 Hes
Wxc4 13 Axcd Axe4, Vujadinovié-
Lerner, Bela Crkva 1988.
b) 9 2b3 transposes to Line C31 of
Chapter 8.
c) 9 a3 and 9 f4 are possible here
though this version is clearly far from
being optimal.
d) 9 a4!? has been played by Kuz-
min and a number of other famous
players. The usual continuation is
9...2e7 10 0-0, transposing to note
*b2’ to Black’s 9th move of Line B in
Chapter 12.
9...A\a5!? (D)
Otherwise:
a) Fortunately for White, 9...b5?
does not work because of 10 Axc6!
Wxc6 (or 10...bxc4 11 Wxc4 2b7 12
 5..Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 2e3 ab WITHOUT &.b3
AeS Wxc4 13 Axc4, attacking the d6-
pawn) 11 AxbS Axe4 12 a7 +.
b) 9...2d7!? 10 &b3 transposes to
note ‘d’ to Black’s 9th move in Line
C31 of Chapter 8.
c) The main continuation here is
still 9...@e7 — see Line C.
10 &d3!
White should always try to avoid
the position after 10 2b3?! b5!, where
Black has gained the initiative:
a) 11 £3. Now Black often plays
11...8e7 12 g4 0-0 with a double-
edged position, but at least no weaker
is 11...Ad7!? 12 &xe6 (12 24 Bb8
13 g5 “c5 favours Black, Golubev-
V.Neverov, Kharkov 1984) 12...fxe6
13 Axe6 We4 14 Wxc4 Dxc4, as in the
game Gormally-S.Pedersen, Hamp-
stead 1998.
b) 11 ¢4b4!? (11...2e7 transposes
to Line B1 of Chapter 10; 11...8xb3+
leads, as a rule, to various transposi-
tions; 11...8b7!? 12 f3 Hc8 13 g5
4\d7 14 hd4 is double-edged, Golu-
bev-Borodach, Odessa Ch 1984), and
then:
bl) 12 g5 and now:
bl1) 12...bxc3!? is interesting:
gxf6 cxb2+ 14 @xb2 Bb8 (14...gxf6!?
193
Akopian) 15 &cl gxf6 16 Gal with
compensation, Parligras-Raceanu, Ro-
mania 1999.
b12) 12...Ad7 transposes to note
“e3’ to White’s 12th move in Line C31
of Chapter 8, which is fully satisfac-
tory for Black.
b2) 12 Dad!? Axb3+ (12...Axe4!?)
13 axb3 Axed (the less consistent
move 13...2b7 is answered by 14 f3
wo) 14 Qf4 (scarcely better is 14 f4
&b7 15 £5 e5!, Eames-Hennigan,
British League (4NCL) 2000/1) with a
complicated position in which Black’s
chances are no worse:
b21) 14...A6 15 Bhel eS (15...26!?
16 &g5 Re7 Polugaevsky) 16 g5 @d7
17 &d2 Hb8 18 £4 26 19 Wed Wxc4 20
bxc4 8&.b7 21 fxe5 dxe5 22 c5 Bc8 23
&f4 and after 23...227 24 Ab6 Axb6
25 &xe5 (LZaitsev & Zlotnik — Polu-
gaevsky & Gulko, Moscow 1968)
25...2xe5 26 Hxe5+ Sf8 27 cxb6 h6
or 23...$2xc5!? Black holds on.
b22) 14...Ac5!? 15 DF5 (15 Bhel
1.Zaitsev) 15...e5, Cherkasov-Lysenko,
Krasnodar 1983.
b23) 14...2b7!? 15 f3 and now
15...e5! was given by Schach-Archiv,
while Zaitsev recommended 15...Af6,
not fearing 16 @\c5!? or 16 Abé6!?.
10...b5! (D)
10...&e7 11 g4! (11 Sg5 b5! —
10...b5! 11 &g5 &e7!) and then:
a) 11...4\d7 can be met by 12 f4 b5
13 g5!? — 11...b5 12 95 Qd7 13 fa!?.
b) 11...b5 12 g5 Ad7 13 £41? (13
AALS! exf5 14 Ad5 Wd8 15 2.d4 2b7!;
13 h4!?) 13...b4 14 Abl Ac5 15 Ad2
4\xd3+ 16 Wxd3 + Kupreichik-G.Kuz-
min, Moscow 1972.
13 c) 11...0-0 12 g5 Ad7 13 £4 He8 14
h4 b5. Black is in danger following
194 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
the immediate 15 e5, when instead of
15..Ac5 16 &xh7+! @xh7 17 AfS
exf5 18 Ad5 Wc6 (Brinck-Claussen ~
Sher, Copenhagen 1993) 19 &xc5! +
it is better to play 15...dxe5 16 Axe6
fxe6, with the point 17 Wh5 Afs.
x 2 of &
a oi hee
pe
Ae ‘a a 15 &xc4 Wxc4 16 Wel 0-0, Rublev-
a VW BAY, 7)
y
Ae
Boe Se
7 Sa 78
This position is hard to assess and is
interesting for both sides. With the
bishop on d3, the strategic pattern
looks, in many ways, like the Scheven-
ingen Variation. Black may consider
that he is playing a Scheveningen with
the extra tempo ...2a5, but in reality
the knight being on a5 can prove either
an advantage or a problem for Black.
11 a3
The main move. Others:
a) 11 Ab3 b4 12 Ab! with approx-
imate equality.
b) 11 £4b4!? (or 11...2b7: 12 a3 —
1] a3 &b7 12 f4; 12 Bf2 is scarcely
stronger) 12 Abi (12 a4?! 2d7 13
b3 &xa4 14 bxa4 Se7) 12...e5! with
good counterplay, Ljubojevié-Musil,
Yugoslavia 1975.
c) 11 &g5 Re7! (11...b4 is risky in
view of 12 @d5 exd5 13 exd5+; e.g.,
13...2e7 14 &xf6 gxf6 15 Bhel Ha7
16 Wh5 We5, Milu-Nevednichy, Bu-
charest 1994, 17 &f5! Hc7 18 He2
Stoica) 12 a3 (12 £4?! b4 13 Abl e5! =
Rantanen-Reshevsky, Nice OL 1974;
12 hel b4 13 Ab] 5! 14 Ab3 Axb3+
15 axb3, A.Sokolov-Popovié, Novi Sad
1984, and now 15...axe4 16 &xe7
&\c5! is enticing) and here:
cl) Possibly it is satisfactory for
Black to continue with 12...8.d7 13 f4
Ac4 (13...8c8!?) 14 Bhfl (14 Wel
0-0 15 &xc4 Wxc4 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5
@®d5 18 &xe7 Axe7 Rublevsky)
14...Bc8 (14...Axa3 15 e5!; 14...0-0!7)
sky-Salov, Oviedo rpd 1992.
c2) 12...8b7, with the point 13 f4
0-0, also looks playable, as after 13
&xf6 Black can play 13...2xf6 14
&xb5+ axb5 15 Adxb5 We5!.
c3) 12..8b8 13 £4 (13 Wel h6! 14
&h4 25 15 Bg3 eS 16 DFS Vxf5 17
exf5 b4 18 axb4 Hxb4 19 h4 g4 20
We3 0-0!! gives Black an advantage,
Dimitrov-Zviagintsev, Barbera 1996)
13...b4 14 axb4 Exb4 with adequate
counterplay, Ehlvest-Lerner, Tallinn
1986.
d) 11 g4 is the most interesting al-
ternative:
dl) 11...2b7 can be met by 12 g5
4d7 13 £4 £ (NCO) or 12 a3 - 11 a3
b7 12 24!.
d2) 11...2e7-10...2e7 1] g4!b5.
d3) After 11...Ad7!? there is 12
&f5, Kauppila-Kononen, Oulu 2000.
d4) 11...b4 and then:
d41) 12 g5!? and now:
d411) 12...Aad7 13 Abl Ac5 14
4d2 &b7 15 £4 d5 16 e5 @xd3+ 17
Wxd3 Ac4 (17...g6!2 Akopian) 18 f5!
is much better for White, Ghizdavu-
Ungureanu, Romania 1971.
d412) 12...bxc3! is critical.
d42) 12 “bl and then:
 5..Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 Be3 ab WITHOUT &b3 195

d421) After 12...2b7 13 @Ad2 d5

(or 13...&e7 14 g5 Ad7 15 f4!) 14
2g5!? Axed 15 Axed dxe4 16 Bxe4 ae m
Re7 (not 16...Wes? 17 Axe6! +) 17
&xe7 Black still has some problems,
Bokan-Lysenko, Sverdlovsk 1989. sau Ae
d422) 12...e5! 13 A@f5, and Black YB GZ
Yy

stands no worse after 13...26 14 &g5
Bd7 (14...Axg4!2) 15 De3 2b7!, Gir-
kyan-Madl, Moscow wom OL 1994,
or after 13...2e6 14 b3 g6 15 g5 Ad7
16 Ah6 7 17 h4 Bc5, Nunn-Salov,
Wijk aan Zee 1992.
d43) 12 “a4 might lead to serious
complications:
d431) 12..2d7 13 g5! Rxa4 14
gxf6 gxf6, and White may choose be-
tween 15 @bl!? (Vasiesiu-Tomescu,
Bucharest 1998), 15 S&xa6 (£ NCO)
and 15 W£3 (Lerner).
d432) 12...2b7 13 Axe6! (13 Sbl
can be answered by either 13...2xe4!?
or 13...4\d7!) 13...fxe6 14 2b6 Wd7
(14...Wc6!? 15 b3! Axb3+ 16 axb3
&e7) 15 b3 Ac6 (15...206!? 16 g5
4g8 17 Rxa5 &xa4 18 bxa4 Wxad 19
&b6 Wxa2 and now 20 We4 h5!? or
20 £2.d4!? b3!) 16 g5 Ag8 17 £4 Age7
18 &c4 and White gets a dangerous
attack for the piece, Zaichik-Kovaliov,
Borzhomi 1984.
d433) A calm and satisfactory line
for Black is 12...Ad7!? 13 Ab3 (13
b3 &b7!?) 13...Axb3+ 14 axb3 2b7,
Stellwagen-Dgebuadze, Wijk aan Zee
2000.
We now return to 11 a3 (D):
11...2b7
Other moves:
a) The idea 11...8d7 12 ¢4 Dc4 13
g5 Dg8 (as played once by Gaprin-
dashvili) looks suspicious.
b) 11...2b8!? and then:
Wee J]
wPBamwe
Soe an
mt
bl) 12 Rg5 Re7 — 11 Rg5S Be7!
12 a3 bs.
b2) 12 Hhel 4\c4!? 13 25 Re7
14 f4 0-0 15 e5 dxe5 16 fxe5 @d5 17
&xe7 “xe7 with an acceptable posi-
tion, Kaidanov-Ubilava, Kuibyshev
1986.
b3) 12 g4 and here:
b31) 12...2e7 — 11...R2e7 12 g4!
Eb8.
b32) 12...Ac4 13 &xc4 (13 g5 Ad7
14 Hhel!?) 13...bxc4 14 g5 @d7 15
f4, and now playable is 15...&e7 or
maybe 15...Wb7 16 Wxc4 Wxb2+ 17
@d2 d5!? 18 exd5 Abo.
b33) Quite interesting for Black is
12...Ad7!? 13 £4 Db6 14 £5 Abe 15
g5 b4 16 axb4 Bxb4, Forster-Madl,
Portoroz 1998.
b4) The almost untested 12 £4! is
probably the best response for White.
c) 11...@e7 12 g4! (12 f4 &b7 -
11...&.b7 12f4 2e7;12 25-11 Bg5
Se7 12 a3) and then:
cl) 12..4b8 13 Bhel!? Ac4 (if
13...Ad7 then 14 DFS! Nunn) 14 g5
&xe3 (14...Ad7 15 Af5 exf5 16 Ad5
Wd8 17 exf5 0-0 18 Wh5 + Nunn-
Pritchett, Bundesliga 1985/6) 15 Wxe3
“ed 16 We3 2xe5+ 17 £4e5 18 Ads!
+ (Akopian).
196
c2) 12...&b7 13 25 @d7 14 f4 (also
promising is 14 h4!? @e5 15 f4 {or 15
h5!? NCO} 15...Aec4 16 &xc4 Wxc4
17 Bd3 b4 18 b3 Axb3+ 19 cxb3 We7
20 axb4 &xe4 21 Hel, Nunn-Arakha-
mia, Hastings 1994/5) and now:
c21) 14...Ac4? 15 AdxbS.
€22) 14..Ac5 15 Bb1! (15 £5!? e5
16 &xb5+ axb5 17 Adxb5 Wh8 18 £6,
Tachilin-Ronin, Riga 1988) 15...2\c6
16 £5 + Cosulich-Ungureanu, Siegen
OL 1970.
c23) 14...Ab6!? deserves investi-
gation.
c24) 14...Hc8 15 Wh5 (15 f5 e5 and
...2)0c4 — Conquest) 15...26 16 Wh6
Rf8!? (16...Ac4 17 Bxcd4 Wxc4
We7 Ef8 19 Hhel Ac5 20 AdxbS! +
Conquest-Serper, Dhaka 1995) 17 Wh3
&27, and now, instead of 18 &xb5
0-0! (Conquest), White could
Ehel 0-0 19 f5 (with an attack —
A.Fedorov) or maybe even 18 f5!?.
12 g4!
Or:
a) 12 &g5 is harmless: 12...2e7!?
~11 2g5 Be7! 12 a3 &b7.
b) 12 f4 Re7 (12...Bc8!7)
d5! 14 exd5 (14 2d2 dxe4 15 Axe4
0-0-0! + Nunn-Van der Wiel, Leiden
1982) 14...Axd5 15 Axd5 Axd5
Bhel “c4 17 f5 e5! 18 @F3, and, be-
sides 18...0-0, which gave Black good
play in Markland-Lamford, corr. 1981,
18...Axb2!? 19 @xb2 2xa3+ 20 Sbl
We3 21 2d4 Wh4+ 22 Lal 0-0-0!
(Akopian) is interesting.
After the text-move (12 24!), Black
still has some problems:
a) 12...2e7—11...Re7 12 4! Bb7.
b) 12...d5 13 exd5 Axd5 14 Adxb5
is not wholly clear but very dangerous
for Black:
THE SICILIAN SOZIN
bl) 14...We5? 15 AxdS Axd5 16
Rb6! +.
b2) 14..8b8 15 Axd5 Bxd5 16
Ac3 &xhl 17 Bxhl 7?! (17... Wc8!?
Akopian, or maybe 17...Wb7 18 2e4
4c6) 18 Ad5S!! Wc6 19 Bxa6 Bxaé
(19...%xd5 20 Hdl) 20 Wxa6 Ab3+
21 bl Wxd5 (Hawelko-Gaprindash-
vili, Polanica Zdroj 1986) 22 Wc8+
Be7 23 Kel +-.
b3) 14...axb5 15 &xb5+ Sd8 16
Axd5 exd5 (16...&xd5 17 Bxd5+ exd5
18 Hdl 2d6 19 Bxd5 Ab7 20 Ra6!
+) 17 Hd3 gives White very serious
compensation, Nunn-Sosonko, Thes-
saloniki OL 1984.
18 c) 12...Hc8!? 13 g5 @d7 and then:
cl) 14 Bhel 2e7 15 Wh5 g6 (not
15...0-07! 16 Axe6!) 16 Wh6 Hes
17 We7 EBfs 18 f4 Dec4 leads to an
try 18 extremely unclear game, A.Fedorov-
Kasimdzhanov, Moscow 1996.
c2) 14 £4 @cd4!? (a speciality of
Inkiov; 14...%e7 transposes to note
‘c24’ to Black’s 11th move; 14...Ac5
15 Bb1! 4) 15 Adxb5 axb5 16 Axb5
Wb8 17 &xc4 Bxed 18 Bhel d5 19
13 g4 2d3 &xd3 20 Wxd3, and the assess-
ment by NCO (£) awaits verification.
d) 12...d7!? 13 £4 Ab6 (13... Bc8!?
16 14 g5 — 12...Bc8!? 13 95 Dd7 14 f4)
14 £5 e5 15 Ab3 Aaé4 (15...Aac4?! 16
Bxc4! Axc4 17 AdS, Howell-Madl,
Hastings 1994/5) 16 &d2. Probably
White’s chances are a bit better.
Thus, the early ...2\a5!? is met with
&2d3! and is no better for Black than
the conventional variations. Now, we
move on to lines with ...2e7 for Black
and an early Hhg1 for White.
C)
8...c7 9 0-0-0 2e7 (D)
 5..A\c6 6 &c4 e6
10 Shgl
Otherwise:
a) 10 &b3 transposes to Line B of
Chapter 10. Other alternatives are less
significant:
b) 10 g4 “eS! 11 &b3 Dexg4 12
Ehgl Axe3 13 Wxe3 96 14 f4 2d7 15
£5 e5 16 Df3 Bf8 17 fxg6 (17 Ags!?)
17...fxg6 18 bi 0-0-0 + Velimiro-
vi¢-Cebalo, Kavala 1985.
c) 10 £4 0-0 (10...4a5!?) 11 £5 (11
§.b3 transposes to note ‘b’ to White’s
11th move in Line B2 of Chapter 10)
11...Axd4 (11...Aa5!? =) 12 Bxd4
exf5 13 Hhfl 2e6 © Kaidanov-Ermo-
linsky, Kuibyshev 1986.
10...Aa5!
White’s main hope is that Black
plays 10...0-0, transposing to Line D1
(where 11 g4! is attractive for White).
However, I am not quite sure that
10...b5!? is any weaker than the text-
move: 11 Axc6 Wxc6 12 Axb5, and,
in addition to 12...Axe4 13 Aa7 Wh7
14 Dxc8 Wxc8 (Alburt-Vaiser, Kiev
1970), 12...0-0 and 12...2d7 are also
interesting.
11 2d3
11 2b3?! b5 12 g4 Dxb3+ 13 axb3
b4 14 Dad Dxe4.
11...b5!
7 Be3 ab WITHOUT &b3 197
As compared to Line C, here ...&e7
and Hhg] are included, and this circum-
stance does not allow White to count
on any real advantage. For instance:
12 g4
12 a3 Bb8 (12...e5 13 AfS Bxf5 14
exf5 d5 15 &g5 0-0-0!?, Zvonitsky-
Kulinsky, Kharkov 1984) 13 g4 @c4!?
14 2xc4 bxc4 15 g5 Ad7 16 £4 Wb7
17 Wxc4 (Kholmov-Zurakhov, USSR
Ch (Kharkov) 1967) 17...8xb2+ 18
&d2 d5!.
12...b4
Well grounded are 12...2b7 and,
particularly, 12...2\d7!? as 13 @5 exf5
14 Ad5 Wd8 15 gxf5 2f6 (Svesh-
nikov-Popovi¢, Novi Sad 1979), looks
suspicious, and otherwise White is not
getting much use out of the gl-rook.
13 Ab1
Or 13 Aa4 Ad7! (but not 13...2d7?
14 Ab6!, Sax-Bellin, Teesside 1972).
13...2b7
Less consistent here is 13...A\d7 14
4\d2 Ac5 15 Vbl.
14 Fd2 d5 15 £3 dxe4 16 fxe4 Ad7
Black stands no worse, Shvidenko-
Kurass, Kiev 1970.
D)
8...2e7 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 EZhgi
10 f4 is no better here than in Line
C.
10 g4 is possible, and then:
a) 10...Axd4 11 &xd4 b5 12 &b3
transposes to note ‘d1’ to Black’s 10th
move in Line A of Chapter 10, which
is satisfactory for Black.
b) 10...Ae5 is even more impor-
tant. It has the point 11 g5 Afg4! =.
Now:
D1: 10..8%c7 198
D2: 10...Axd4! 198
198 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
D1)
10...We7 11 ga!
An attack that saves the tempo 2b3
may readily become killing here.
11...Axe4!?
Or:
a) 11...2Dd7 12 g5 Ac5 13 Whs 26
14 Who He8 15 Be3 &F8 16 Wh4 bS?!
17 2d5! Bb7 18 Axc6 Rxc6 19 Rd4
+— Krivov-Upart, Minsk 1977. This is
how the early Hhg1 works against ste-
reotyped play by Black!
b) After 11...a5, 12 2b3 trans-
poses to Line B221 of Chapter 10,
which appears promising for White.
12 2d3!? is also of interest.
c) 11...b5 12 g5! (12 2b3 transposes
to Line B222 of Chapter 10) and then:
cl) 12...Ad7? 13 Ad5! +.
c2) 12...bxc4 13 gxf6 &xf6 14
Wxc4 (14 Axc6 Wxc6 15 2d4 Vxd4!
16 Bxd4 Eb8 is unclear) 14...b7
(14...2d7 is equivalent) and now:
c21) 15 AES exf5 16 Ads Wd8 17
&b6 &xb2+! 18 Sxb2 Wh4 promises
little for White, Mariasin-Zborovsky,
corr. 1971-2.
¢22) Black can probably hold on
after 15 Axc6 Rxc6! (e.g. 16 2d4
Re5 Veliékovié) as well.
c23) 15 4d5 is interesting; for ex-
ample, 15...exd5 16 exd5 Hac8 17 dxc6
&xc6 18 AfS dS 19 Hxg7+!? Qxg7
20 Wed £6 21 Hel &h8 22 Wxe7+
Wxeg7 23 Bxg7 d4?! 24 2h6 +.
c3) 12...Axd4 13 &xd4 Ad7 and
then:
c31) 14 Ad5 exd5 (14...8d8!? is
another idea) 15 &xd5 &b7 16 26
£6 17 Wh5 (Mir.Pavlov-Barbulescu,
Romanian Ch 1985) 17...8fc8 de-
serves detailed analysis.
c32) 14 g6 hxg6 15 Bxg6 fxg6 16
2xe6+ (Shadrina-Prudnikova, Rus-
sian wom Ch (Elista) 1995) 16...@h7!
is also very interesting.
c33) 14 £b3 transposes to the note
to Black’s 12th move in Line B23 of
Chapter 10, where White has a dan-
gerous initiative.
d) 11...Axd4 12 2xd4 b5 and now:
13 g5 —J1...b5 12 g5! Dxd4 13 Bxd4:
13 &b3 4d7 again transposes to the
note to Black’s 12th move in Line B23
of Chapter 10; 13 2d3!? is possible.
12 Axed d5
Now Black can scarcely get full
equality after 13 &d3 dxe4 14 Rxe4
e5 15 Af5 Reb 16 WF3 (not 16 Axg7?
&xg7 17 g5 Hh8!, Sax-Ermenkov,
Vraca Z 1975) 16...Bfd8 or after 13
Bxd5!2 exd5 14 Ac3.
D2)
10...2xd4!
It is difficult to recommend either
10...Ad7 11 g4!, or 10...We8 11 g4!
®d7 (or 11...b5 12 g5) 12 g5 We5 13
Wh5!, Aleksandrov-Hausner, Mlada
Boleslav 1974.
Little studied is 10...2d7!? with the
point 11 g4 b5 12 &b3 b4!, I.Zaitsev-
Buki¢, USSR- Yugoslavia 1968.
11 &xd4 b5!
Now:
a) 12 2b3 transposes to the note to
White’s 10th move in Line A of Chap-
ter 10, which is satisfactory for Black.
b) No better for White is 12 e5 dxe5
13 &xe5 Was! 14 2b3 2b7, L-Zait-
sev-Grishchuk, St Petersburg 1999.
Conclusion: by responding cor-
rectly to 10 Hhgl, Black solves his
problems. Nevertheless, when played
against an unprepared opponent, this
idea can have an impressive effect.
12 5...Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0 a6
without 2.b3
1 e4 c5 2 Df3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4
AL6 5 Ac3 Ac6 6 Bc4 e6 7 0-0.a6 (D)
x sweRa &
a7 7ahba
sae 8 Yi
i, UU
oe
VBAAY 77
A ein ul hn
AMA A alee ¢ loses an important tempo for prepar-
A @w7is
We have already discussed the main
positions with 8 &b3 in Chapters 8
and 9. In practice, White slightly more
frequently plays first 8 2e3, and only
then 9 $&b3. The difference is very
small here, but one nuance should be
mentioned. White can also play 8 &e3
intending a3 or a4 — for example, in
order to avoid 8 a4 Wb6!?. However,
after 8...Wc7 (with the idea of 9...Axd4
10 Wxd4 4)g4!) he either has to put
the bishop on b3 or proceed with 9
We2, after which it appears that 9...b5!
equalizes immediately.
Actually, both plans connected with
the reluctance of White to station the
bishop on b3 form the subject of this
chapter (this is all that remains from
the huge number of lines with ...a6).
A: 8a3 200
B: 8 a4 202
Although the difference in the char-
acter of the struggle after a3 or a4 is
quite evident, these atypical Sozin lines
still have much in common. In either
case White provides for a sustainable
future of the c4-bishop, thereby con-
siderably reducing his strategic risk.
Black’s risk is also reduced as White
ing his assault. Comparatively slow
plans with an early advance of the a-
pawn have not attracted wide attention
as yet, but one can hardly miss the
growing interest in, primarily, the con-
cept with a4 that was first adopted by
Kuzmin and V.Gurevich, and then by
Emms.
It is worth noting that the lines de-
scribed in this chapter may arise out of
various lines:
5...c6 6 &c4 Re7 7 a3!? Dc6 and
..46;
5...26 6 8.04 e6 7 a3 (7 a4) 7...Ac6;
5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0 Re7 8 a3 (8
a4) 8...Ac6;
5...Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 Re3 a6 8 a3 (8
a4);
5...Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 &e3 a6 8 We2
We7 9 a4 Be7 10 0-0;
5...Ac6 6 Sc4 e6 7 Re3 Re7 8 0-0
0-0 9 &h1 (9 a3 a6) 9...a6 10 a4.
200 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Moreover, it should be added that b) 10...Axd4!? 11 Wxd4 b5 12 f4

the position in the previous diagram
may also arise from the Fischer Attack
move-order: 5...26 6 24 e6 7 0-0 Ac6.
We might say that the position in
the diagram makes a convenient start-
ing point for us to discuss the entire
range of positions with 0-0, a3 (a4) for
White and ...a6, ...Ac6 for Black. Let
us advance from that starting point on-
wards.
A)
8 a3 2e7 9 Ra2 0-0 (D)
(12 &g5!? is another idea) 12...8b7
13 £5 e5 14 Wad3, and both the follow-
ing lines are double-edged: 14...%c8
15 &g5 Hxc3, Stanec-Lerner, Vienna
1994, and 14...h6 15 &d2 a5 16 Wxb5
a6 17 Wc6 &xfl 18 Bxfl, Dvoirys-
Cifuentes, Hoogeveen 2000.
c) 10...2d7!? 11 £4. Now, besides
11...We8!? and 11...b5 12 £5 (12 Re3
Bc8 — 10 2e3 Bd7 11 f4 Kc8 12 Ghl
b5), Black has 11...&c8! with the point
12 £57! Axd4 13 Wxd4 exf5 14 exf5
Hc5! = Darga-Marthaler, Graz 1961.
White should instead respond with 12

xX 2W Be
&e3- 10 2e3 2d7 11 f4 Bc8 12 BhI.
A peculiar way to provoke ...Wc7
W ale Wage was introduced by Saltaev against
A7abae 7 Torre: 8 @h1!? We7 9 a3 Re7 10 Ba2.
Ma. a...
11 f4 2d7
11...65 12 £5 @xd4 13 Wxd4 exf5
i. ee. YW (13...e57! 14 Wd3 h6 15 Ad5! Axd5
16 S2xd5 2b7 17 2xb7 Wxb7 18 f6!

Sg x anwae +— Saltaev; 13...2b8!?) 14 exf5 $.b7

15 &g5 h6! 16 Bh4 Web with good
BZ GM7LS chances for equalizing, Puc-Nedeljko-
vié, Yugoslav Ch (Sombor) 1957.
As arule, White makes a choice be- 12 f5
tween two options here: 12 “Af3!? (in variations with the
Al: 10 &hi 200 bishop on b3, this idea as a rule works
A2: 10 &e3 201 badly, because of ...A\a5!) and now
12..hac8 13 Wel Was 14 2e3 Whs
10 f4 is also possible on the basis of 15 Hdi + Saltaev-Torre, Erevan OL
10... Wb6?! (10...d5!2) 11 2e3 Wxb2 1996 or 12...b5 13 Wel b4 14 axb4
12 Wad3 +. 4\xb4 15 &b3 a5 16 Ad4 Wb7 17 e5 +
Saltaev-Yudasin, St Petersburg 1997.
Al) 12...Axd4 13 Wxd4
10 hi We7 Now instead of 13...Ag4 14 2f4!
This is a convenient but possibly not or 13...e5 14 Wd3 2c6? 15 2g5, Black
ideal method of development under should look for equality in variations
the circumstances. of the type 13...Hac8 14 &g5 h6 15
a) 10...Wb6?! 11 @e3!, Teschner- Bh4 exf5 16 exf5 2c6 17 Hael Hce8!?
Smyslov, Dortmund 1961. and 13...8h8 14 225 h6 15 Bh4 exf5
 5..4\c6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0 a6 WITHOUT &b3 201

16 exf5 2c6 17 Hael (17 Had1!? Tol- Bronstein-Najdorf, Argentina-USSR

ush) 17...Bae8 18 He2 2d8!, Kliav- 1954.
insh-Tolush, Riga 1959. Therefore, it b2) 11 f4 Hc8 12 Phi (scarcely
makes sense to play 13...exf5 at once, stronger is 12 Axc6 bxc6 13 &c4 Bb8,
when 14 &g5!? is no stronger than 14 del Rio-Bruzon, Linares open 2001,
exf5 2c6. but 12 Wf3 seems logical) 12...b5 13
Wr3 Axd4 14 Rxd4 a5 15 Rb3 Rc6
A2) 16 Hael b4 17 axb4 axb4 18 Ab] with
10 2e3 (D) chances for both sides, Saltaev-Er-
molinsky, Tashkent 1987.
11 We2
If 11 £4, then instead of 11...2d7 12
teeth
mo £5 (12 WF3!2) 12...Axd4 13 &xd4 and
teats 11..Axd4 12 Rxd4 e5 13 Re3 exf4
14 Bxf4 26, which do not resolve all

“a Ae Black’s problems, it seems

play 11...b5!? 12 £5 (12 Wf3 2b7 13
better to
ee

oleae
a

£5 Axd4! 14 Bxd4 e5) 12...Axd4 13

WN

i a &xd4, and, after comparing the posi-

SQV

tion with the similar line where the

a TMT
=
a
gan
ee

bishop is on b3, it is difficult to explain

10...We7
Or:
a) 10...Axd4 11 &xd4b5 12 £4 (12
We2 &b7 13 Had We7 14 £3 Hac8 is
not too ambitious, Alexander-Unzicker,
Munich OL 1958) 12...8b7 makes it
possible for White to take advantage
of the bishop on a2, as compared to
Fischer-Spassky, Reykjavik Wch (4)
1972, where the bishop stayed on b3:
13 Wd3! (13 We2 a5!) 13...Bc8 (not
13...a5? 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5 Ad7 16
4)xb5, and 16...Ac5 hits nothing) 14
Hadi Exc3 15 Wxc3 &xe4 16 2b!
Wa8 17 We3 and 18 c3, with an advan-
tage, Petrushin-Pigusov, Rostov 1981.
b) 10...2d7 and then:
b1) 11 We2 Hc8 12 Hadi We7 13
Bhi (13 £412 Axd4 14 Bxd4) 13...Ae5
14 Bcl Dc4 15 Bd3 Wh6 16 2b3
We5 17 Hfd1 b5 with counterplay,
why altering the bishop’s position by
one square improves White’s chances.
11...b5
11...2d7 12 £4 bS 13 £5 £ Osnos-
Udovéié, Leningrad 1967.
Now (after 11...b5) Saltaev has
twice gained some advantage against
the world chess grandees:
a) 12 Gh1 &b7 13 £3 Bfe8?! (this
move is appropriate in the Sozin only
when White threatens Wh5 and 2h3
with mate on h7) 14 Had1 2f8 15
Axc6 Wxc6 16 &d4 Ad7 (Saltaev-
Shirov, Erevan OL 1996) 17 f4! Ac5
18 Edel (Saltaev).
b) 12 Hadi Bb8 13 £3 Aa5 14 cl
b4 (weakening himself rather than his
opponent) 15 axb4 Hxb4 16 Ghl, Sal-
taev-Topalov, Erevan OL 1996.
Playing against those rated 2750,
one has nothing to lose, but the plan
with f3 seems quite harmless.
202 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

B) 2d7 (Savon-Poluliakhov, Volgograd

8 a4 (D) 1994) 16 Hael! is slightly better for
White — Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin.

182s a
a ae 7
a7 to A yf
Seve
w gw7ie
White’s strategic task is to create
pressure against Black’s position, pro-
ceeding step by step while preserving
a territorial advantage. To achieve this,
he has to be ready to meet ...d5.
8...2.e7
Or:
a) 8...Wc7 9 Ba2 (9 Re3 He5!7)
9...Re7 10 Re3 - 8...2e7 9 Rei We7
10 &a2.
b) 8...8b6 is akin to the Benko
Variation (i.e. Line B of Chapter 14):
bl) 9 2e3 Wxb2 is not correct for
White here.
b2) 9 4b3! transposes to the note
to Black’s 8th move in Line B52 of
Chapter 14, which is a little better for
White.
9 Re3
Or:
a) 9 Vh1 0-0 (9...Wb6!9), and if 10
£4?!, then 10...d5! with good play.
b) 9 2a2 0-0 10 Sh1 and now:
bl) 10...We7 11 f4 Axd4 12 Wxd4
4\d7 (Saltaev-Savon, Alushta 1992) 13
£51? £6 14 Wee.
b2) 10...Ab4 11 2b3 d5 12 e5
“\d7 13 £4 Ac5 14 Re3 We7 15 Wd2
b3) 10...W8b6 11 Ade2 Hd8 (the al-
ternative 11...2d7 is less flexible) 12
Re3 WaS 13 2d2 We7 is roughly equal,
Saltaev-Dvoirys, Groningen 1992.
9...0-0 (D)
Alternatively:
a) 9...Ab4 10 2b3 e5 and now 11
Bde2 Le6 12 Rg5 Ad7! turned out
to be satisfactory for Black in Emms-
Rowson, Port Erin 1999, but 11 @£5!?
is interesting; e.g., 11...2xf5 12 exf5
Wad7 13 Rg5 Wxf5 14 Rxf6.
b) 9...Wc7 is not very logical be-
cause it weakens the idea of ...d5.
However, it is difficult at this stage to
say whether this factor brings actual
benefits to White:
bl) 10 a2 0-0 11 f4 2d7 12 £5
(12 We2!?) 12...e5 13 Axc67! Bxc6
14 Wd3 bS!, Lutikov-Suetin, Minsk
1952.
b2) 10 We2 (this position arises
from the move-order 7 &e3 a6 8 We2
We7 9 a4 2e7 10 0-0) 10...0-0 and
then:
b21) 11 @h1 —9...0-0 10 Sh1 Wc7
11 We2.
b22) 11 £4 @xd4 (11...2d7 12 £5
Hac8 13 2b3 +; 11...e5!?; 11... Axe4!?)
12 &xd4 e5 13 Re3 Ve6! 14 Rxeb
fxe6 and Black had extricated himself
very cleverly in Conquest-Tukmakov,
Iraklion 1992, as 15 £57 d5! 16 fxe6 d4
17 Bxf6 2xf6 18 Ads We6 favours
him.
b23) 11 Hadi ®e5!? (11...2d7!?
12 f4 Axd4) 12 2b3 Aegd 13 Bcl
d5, deserves attention, as in Rachela-
Stefan, Slovakian Cht 1994/5.
10 @hi
 5..Ac6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0 a6 WITHOUT &.b3 203

1020 Rell c) 10...8e8 and now:

a Wawa
cl) 11 &a2 Ab4 (11...d5!7) 12 2b3

swage ©
e5 13 Ade2 Seb 14 AdS Abxd5 15
exd5 2f5 16 a5 + Kudrin-Browne,
USA Ch (Greenville) 1983.
c2) 11 &b3 (the plan with ...2d7,
..c8, ...Aa5, ...Ac4 is already a bit
late here) 11...@d7 12 f4 Bc8 13 £5 (13
Wr3 Wad 14 £5 Axd4 15 Bxd4 Wh4
16 Bad! e5 17 Da2 Was 18 &c3 We7
19 @b4 + V.Gurevich-Felsberger,
Bratislava ECC 1996) 13...axd4 14
The main continuation. This pre- &xd4 e5 15 Be3 &c6? (not wholly
ventive move is explained by the lines clear is 15...&xc3 16 bxc3 2c6!) 16
10 £47! d5! and 10 We2 d5! (10... We7 Wd3 b5 17 axbS axb5 18 2g5 +
— 9..We7 10 We2 0-0) 11 Bfdi G1 Emms-Fressinet, Istanbul OL, 2000.
exd5 exd5 12 &b3 He8 13 h3 Bc5 d) 10...We7. This move is very of-
with strong counterplay, Emms-Anas- ten combined with a later ...2d7 anda
tasian, Batumi Echt 1999) 11...2d6 12 transposition to 10...8d7, which we
exd5 exd5 13 Axd5 Axd5 14 Rxd5 (very arbitrarily) have called the main
Rxh2+ and 15...Wxd5 = Ivanovié- line. Then:
Kasparov, Bugojno 1982. dl) 11 £47! d5! 12 exd5 “b4, Stef-
After 10 2&b3, Black generates ansson-Arnason, Oakham 1988.
counterplay by way of 10...2d7, and d2) 11 Qa2 2d7 (11...Ab4 12 2b3
then ...Aa5!. b6 13 £4 2b7 14 Wr3 Had8 15 Bael +
However, it makes sense to play 10 G.Kuzmin-D.Gurevich, Moscow 1992;
&a2!?; e.g., 10...8d7 (10...Ab4 11 11...b6 12 f4 2b7 13 Wel Axd4 14
2b3) 11 £4 (11 We2 Bc8 12 £4 Was &xd4 e5 15 fxe5 dxe5 16 Wg3 Ad7 +
with the curious repetition 13 “@b3 Galdunts-Nikolaev, St Petersburg 1992)
We7 14 Ad4 Wa5 occurred in Don- 12 f4- 10...2d7 1] f4 We7 12 Za?2.
chev-Ribli, Thessaloniki OL 1988) d3) 11 We2 and now Black has
11...Axd4 12 &xd4 2c6 13 Wd3. tried various moves:
10...2.d7 d31) 11...Axd4 12 2xd4 e5 13 Be3
Other moves: Re6 14 2b3 h6 15 a5+ Kudrin-King,
a) 10...Axd4 11 &xd4 e5 12 Be3 Berne 1988.
Be6 13 Wd3 Bc8 14 2b3 = V.Gure- d32) 1 1...Ae5 12 2b3 Deg 13 f4!
vich-Sher, Berlin 1993. &xe3 14 Wxe3 We5 15 Wd3!? 2d7
b) 10...d5 11 exd5 exd5, and White 16 Had1 Had8 17 We2 + G Kuzmin-
can fight for an advantage with 12 Ftaénik, Dortmund 1981.
Re2 as well as 12 2b3 He8 13 h3 Bebé 33) 11...0Ab4 12 2b3 (12 f4 d5!
14 WE Aes 15 We2 Qb4 16 Axe6 13 exdS Abxd5) 12...c5 13 Af3 h6
fxe6 17 $.d2, Emms-Krush, Hastings (13...224 14 2g5 is slightly better for
2000. White) 14 a5 &24 15 2b6 We8 16
204
Ha4 with an advantage for White,
V.Gurevich-Istratescu, Wattens 1993.
d34) 11..He8 12 &2b3 2d7
a5 14 a2 Hac8 15 Kael Ac4 16
Rcl Wb6 17 Bxc4 Wxd4 18 2b3
.c6 £ G.Kuzmin-Lermer, St Peters-
burg 1992.
d35) 11...Aa5 12 2a2 b6 13 Had!
&b7 14 Bcl Hac8 15 £4 Ac4 16 e5
(16 Hf3!? NCO) 16...dxe5 17 fxe5
@d5 18 Axd5 Bxd5 19 AS Vxg2+
20 Wxg2 exf5 21 HxfS + Emms-Su-
tovsky, Harplinge 1998.
d36) 11...b6!? 12 f4 &b7 13 Hael
(13 £5 d5 14 exd5 exd5 15 2b3 Bc5
with sufficient counterplay, V.Gure-
vich-Ionov, Uzhgorod 1988; 13 Had]
®xd4 14 Rxd4 Axed 15 Axed Rxe4
16 &xe6 d5!) 13...Ab4 (13...Axe4!?;
13...xd4!? 14 Bxd4 A@xe4) 14 Bgl t
Emms-de Firmian, Bundesliga 2000/1.
d37) 11...2d8!? with the idea of
..d5 was played by GM Browne in the
USA in 1994.
d38) 11...8d7 12 f4-10...2d7 11
(f4 Wic7!? 12 Whe2.
11 f4
11 2a2 Bc8 12 £4 - 11 f4 Bc8
Ra2.
11 We2 Hc8 (11...We7 can be met
by 12 Had1!? or 12 f4 — 11 f4 We7!?
12 We2) and then:
a) 12 f4—J]1] f4 Bc8 12 We2.
b) 12 &b3 Aa5!?.
c) 12 2d3 Axd4 13 Qxd4 e5 (an-
other idea is 13...Wa5!?) 14 2e3 2e6
15 f4 exf4 16 &xf4 Wa5 = Nijboer-
Dorfman, Hilversum ECC 1993.
d) 12 Had1 Wc7 13 &b3 (13 &a2
&xd4!? 14 &xd4 Was 15 2b3 &5 16
e3 h6, Kudrin-de Firmian, USA Ch
(Long Beach) 1989) 13...WaS
not 13...A\a5 here?) 14 f4 Axd4
THE SICILIAN SOZIN
Exd4 (15 &xd4!? e5 16 fxe5 dxe5 17
&d5) 15...2.06 16 2d2 Wh5 17 Wxhs
13 f4 4xh5 18 f5 with some advantage,
Emms-Lutz, Istanbul OL 2000.
11...2c8 (D)
Or:
a) 11...Axe4 12 “xe4 d5 and now:
al) 13 £5 and here Black should
avoid 13...exf5 14 &xd5 fxe4 15 Wh5
2f6 16 Axc6 &xc6 17 Rxc6 bxc6 18
Hadi We8 19 Bxf6 exf6 (G.Kuzmin-
Ree, Bangalore 1981) 20 Wg4+ @h8
21 2d4 +—. Instead, 13...dxc4!? 14 f6
gxf6 does not appear bad for Black.
a2) Better is 13 &xd5 exd5 14 Ac3
“xd4 15 Qxd4 V5 16 Wr3 + Gal-
dunts-Zilbershtein, Moscow 1991.
b) 11...c7!? is no worse than the
text-move:
bl) 12 We2 and then:
b11) 12...Axe4 13 Axe4 d5 14
2d3 dxe4 15 Qxe4 26 16 Hadi +
V.Gurevich-Feher, Eger 1989.
b12) 12...Bfc8 13 2d3!? £ V.Gure-
vich-Palatnik, Kherson 1991.
b13) 12...Bfe8!? was tried in Pan-
bukchian-Inkiov, Sofia 1989.
12 b14) 12...Hac8 - //...%c8 12 We2
We7.
b2) 12 2a2 and now:
b21) 12...Bac8 - 7/...c8 12 2a2
We7.
b22) 12...Axd4 13 &xd4 2c6 14
We2 is more pleasant for White.
b23) Very interesting is 12...A\a5
13 We2 Hfc8!? (13...Bac8 - 1/...8c8
12 We2 We7 13 Ba2 Da5) 14 Hadi
bS 15 axb5 axb5 16 £5 e5 17 AdxbS
&xb5 18 Wxb5 Hab8 19 Wd3 Bxb2
with chances for both sides, Kamin-
ski-Filipenko, Pardubice 1996.
(why 12 We2
15 Or:
 5...2\c6 6 &c4 e6 7 0-0 a6 WITHOUT &b3 205

with an advantage for White, V.Gure-

vich-Petitcunot, Le Touquet 2000) 16

iioie
Rxf4 Bfe8 17 Bg5!? Re6 18 Rxf6
NY

&xf6 19 Bxf6 gxf6 20 Wh5 with com-

ko i
\\ Co \ be

pensation, Azari¢-Djukanovi¢, Budva

WS

1996.
ws
13...A\xd4

\\
SCS:

AWW

WS
&
13...Ab4 14 2b3 d5 15 e5 Hed was
WS

é |
BY 7 suggested by Greengard.
SS

D>
MA

Lia ‘yy a os
ZH 7M
a) 12 &b3 a5 is probably satis-
factory for Black.
b) 12 Sa2 and then:
bl) 12...Wa5!?.
b2) 12...Wc7 13 We2 (13 WF3 Axd4
14 2xd4 e5 15 Re3 exf4 16 Axf4
&e6 = Galdunts-K.Grigorian, Belgo-
rod 1989) — 12 We2 Wc7 13 2a2.
b3) 12...A\xd4 13 &xd4 (13 Wxd4?
4\g4!, Ree-Wittmann, Holzoster 1981)
13...8.c6 14 We2 b5 = Wittmann.
12...We7
12...Aa5 13 2d3! (13 Ba2 Bxc3)
13...We7 — 12...We7 13 2d3 Dad.
13 Ra2
White has two serious alternatives:
a) 13 Axc6 Rxc6 14 Bd3 Ad7
and now rather than 15 2d4 2f6 =
Chiburdanidze-Popovi¢, Subotica (3)
1986. Chiburdanidze suggested 15 Wh5
+ and Popovié 15 b4!7.
b) 13 &d3 Axd4 (or: 13...Ab4 14
&f3, V.Gurevich-Ganin, Ukrainian Cht
1998; 13...Aa5 14 Bael Ac4 15 Bcl
is slightly better for White, V.Gure-
vich-V.Neverov, Kherson 1988) 14
&xd4 e5 15 Qe3 exf4 (15... Bfe8 16
W3!? exf4 17 Wxf4!
13...Aa5 14 Had1 (also possible is
ae 14 Bael !?) 14...Ac4 15 cl and then:
a) 15...He8 16 AfS 216 17 Axd6
Dexd6 18 e5 “e8 (if my source is cor-
rect, this happened in Mikhalchishin-
Polajzer, Ptuj 1995) 19 &xc4 +-.
b) 15...Hfe8 16 Hd3 RF8 17 Rxc4
Wxc4 18 e5 AdS 19 Ae4! + Kudrin-
Chandler, Hastings 1986/7.
c) 15...WcS (recommended by Sad-
ler in BCM) 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 Ae8
18 AFS 1-0 Emms-Joachim, Bundes-
liga 2000/1.
d) 15...h5!? is an unverified recom-
mendation of Sadler.
e) 15..Bfd8 16 g4! (16 e5 Ae8 17
exd6 2xd6! 18 f5 e5 © G.Kuzmin-
Savon, Moscow 1982), and now, in-
stead of 16...Wc5? 17 g5 De8 18 f5 e5
(18...2f8 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 b3! and b4
+-) 19 Dds Rf8 20 b4 +- Emms-
Shipov, Hastings 1998/9, 16...e5 en-
ables Black to continue the struggle.
14 2xd4 e5
This idea of Dorfman’s made it pos-
sible for Black to equalize in G.Kuz-
min-Shneider, Enakievo 1997 (and
later in Emms-Grishchuk, Esbjerg
2000) after 15 $e3 exf4 16 Rxf4 2e6
17 a5 &xa2 18 Hxa2 Wed 19 WE3 Wes
2e6 18 Ad5! 20 Had Ec4 =.
13 5...Ac6 6 2c4 e6: Sozin
and Velimirovic without ...a6

1 e4 c5 2 ADf3 dé 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 occurs much more often than any of

AM6 5 Ac3 Ac6 6 Ved e6 (D) the others, is 7. 2e3 (planning to meet
7...8e7 with 8 We2).

rsWee x Still, Fischer preferred the second

most popular move 7 &b3 as he liked
vw wa 7b aa
_ a aR
the idea discussed in Chapter 8: 7...a6
8 f4!? (however, it only occurred a few

Ga a a, a times in his games because his oppo-

nents usually answered 7 2b3 with
jie md Va, Ua 7...82.€7).
a O TW It is possible to begin with 7 0-0 (re-
ANAM WAR jecting the Velimirovi¢ at once), but

@ oS 78 this does not make any particular sense

—unless White intends to continue with
a3 (e.g., 7...8€7 8 a3 0-0 9 a2, as
This is the basic starting point for played by GM Dvoirys several times
the Sozin & Velimirovié complex. recently).
We have already discussed all] lines Let us discuss all this in detail and
with 7...a6 and noticed that in them in order:
Black has the plan of ...Wc7, ...Aa5 A: 70-0 206
and ...b5, which makes White seri- B: 7 2b3 207
ously consider dropping the Velimiro- C: 7 Re3 208
vié scheme of We2 and 0-0-0 in favour
of Classical Sozin positions with f4. After 7 a3!?, 7...2e7 8 2a2 0-09
On the other hand, if Black plays 0-0 transposes to Line A.
7...&e7 and 8...0-0 (the main topic of
this chapter), everything looks differ- A)
ent: if White plays f4 and 0-0, Black 70-0 2e7
can use his omission of ...a6 more ef- For 7...a6, see Chapter 12.
fectively, and has more additional ideas 8 a3
than in the case where White plays There is no sense in 8 @ht 0-0 9 £4
&e3 and We2. because of 9...d5!.
Therefore, it is quite logical that 8...0-0 9 2a2 Axd4!?
the main introductory move, which Otherwise:
 5...A\c6 6 &c4 e6: SOZIN AND VELIMIROVIC WITHOUT ...a6 207

a) 9...a6 is also normal, and trans-

poses to Line A of Chapter 12. x 2We” 8
b) 9...8d7 10 2e3 and then: yw we Bake
bl) 10...Axd4 11 &xd4 2c6 (not
Lakhs 7
11...b5?! 12 2xf6!) 12 Was +.
2.2 6 @
b2) 10...Ae5 is probably playable:
11 We2 Aeg4 (11...Bc8 12 Hadl, in i, OS
i
preparation of &cl) 12 2d2 Wb6 13 Ao ae
“b3 EHfc8 (Medina Garcia-Polugaev-
AAA ev Ary
sky, Las Palmas 1974) 14 h3! Ae5 15
&e3 Wa6! Polugaevsky. “Gwe #2
10 Wxd4 b6é!
This is not an infrequent idea in po- The main continuation here is 8
sitions with the pawn on a7. &e3, which transposes to Line C2.
11 Yd3 8 £4 is less sensible here than after
Or: 7...6. Black has the idea of 8...Axd4!?
a) 11 &g5 2a6!7 12 Bfel We7 13 9 Wxd4 0-0, when 10 0-0 transposes to
Hadi Hfd8 = Sigurjonsson-Tukmakov, the note to Black’s 8th move, and
Reykjavik 1976. maybe also 8...d5!?, and 8...Wa5 9 0-0
b) 11 b4 2a6 12 Hel We7, Smir- (better is 9 Wd3 0-0 10 2d2, with un-
nov-Nikitin, Moscow 1966. clear play) 9...d5! = Nitevski-Korch-
11...2b7 12 &f4 Wes! noi, Rovinj/Zagreb 1970.
The queen is less useful on c7 under 8...0-0
the circumstances. It is possible to play 8...A\xd4!? 9
13 Bfel Hd8 14 Had] a6 15 a4 b5! Wxd4 0-0 10 £4 (10 Shi — 8..0-0 9
16 axb5 axb5 17 Wxb5 hl Dxd4 10 Wxd4) 10...b6 11 Wa3
Now both 17...Axe4 (Dvoirys-Zvi- (11 Sh1 transposes to note ‘a’ after
agintsev, Samara 1998) and 17...S.xe4!? Black’s 10th move, and was the move-
lead to an equal game. order used in Fischer-Geller) 11...Ad7
12 £5 Ac5 13 We3, and after 13...8h8
B) 14 Se3 Bh4 15 Wh3 Axb3 16 axb3
7 2b3 Re7 (D) exf5 17 exf5 &£6 (Lanka) or 13...$h4
Or: 14 We4 2f6 (Kiik-Veingold, Finnish
a) 7...a6 is the subject of Chapters Cht 1999/00) Black’s position appears
8-10. satisfactory.
b) 7...Aa5 8 f4 Axb3 (8...a6 trans- 9 Shl
poses to note ‘c’ after White’s 8th Again, the main move is 9 £3,
move in Line A of Chapter 8) 9 axb3 which transposes to Line C22.
b6 10 f5 Wd7 11 Bg5 Re7 12 We2 9 f4 is unsuccessful in view of
0-0 13 0-0-0 Ad5 14 We4 Axc3 15 9...d5! 10 e5 Axd4 11 Wxd4 “gd 12
f6! + Ivkov-Vasiukov, USSR-Yugo- h3 (12 £5? Wb6!, Estrin-Taimanov,
slavia 1962. Leningrad 1954) 12...b6 13 a4 Ah6
8 0-0 (13...2d7?! 14 £5! Boleslavsky) 14 24
208 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
£5 15 5 DF7 16 Re3 Ba6 with coun-
terplay, L_Novikov-Boleslavsky, Minsk
1955.
9...xd4!?
Or:
a) 9...a6 transposes to note ‘b’ to
White’s 9th move in Line B3 of Chap-
ter 8.
b) Another good alternative for
Black is 9...2a5!? 10 £4 (10 Wd3 a6
11 &g5 b5 = Kruppa-R.Scherbakov,
USSR Cht 1988) 10...b6; e.g., 11 e5
He8 12 £5 (12 BF3 Axb3 13 Ac6 Wd7
14 Axe7+ Wxe7 15 axb3 £6 F Neik-
irkh-Botvinnik, Leipzig OL 1960), and
now Geller recommended 12...dxe5
13 fxe6 exd4 14 exf7+ Gh8 15 fxesW
Wxe8, which looks sufficient, while
Black should have other ideas as well.
10 Bxd4 b6
White now has the following tries
at his disposal:
a) 11 f4 2a6! 12 Bf3 d5 13 exd5
Rc5 14 Wat Bb7 15 Be3 exd5 16
&.d4 (Fischer-Geller, Curacao Ct 1962)
and now 16...a6 gives Black excellent
chances; e.g., 17 &xf6 gxf6 18 Bd bS
19 Axb5 axb5 20 Wxb5 We7.
b) 11 £3 2b7 12 Be3 d5 (12...We7!
Atalik) 13 exd5 Axd5 14 @xd5 2xd5
15 &xd5 2c5 16 Wc3 with a small ad-
vantage for White, Mirumian-Atalik,
Ankara Z 1995.
c) 11 &g5 Vb7 12 f4 Bc8 is as-
sessed as promising for Black in view
of 13 £5 Hc5!, Jezek-Boleslavsky, Vi-
enna Echt 1957.
Overall, the line with 9 @h1 should
be placed in the category ‘mostly
harmless’.
C)
7 2£e3 2e7
Or:
a) 7...a6 is the subject of Chapter
M1.
b) 7...Aa5 8 2d3!? (after 8 2b3
Black may try something with ...b6)
8...a6. Now 9 We2 transposes to Line
A of Chapter 11. Not quite clear is 9
£4!? b5!? 10 e5 dxe5 11 fxe5 Ad5 12
Wr3 Axe3 13 Wxa8 e7, Yudasin-
Rashkovsky, Kuibyshev 1986.
c) Incidentally, the early 7...8d7!?
has not been studied enough. Briefly:
cl) 8 We2 Hc8 (GM Enders played
8...Da5 9 2d3 a6 several times; an-
other possibility is 8...a6!?, transpos-
ing to note ‘b’ to Black’s 8th move in
Chapter 11) 9 2b3 (after 9 0-0-0,
9...4\a5! 10 2d3 e5!?, Brunner-Reeh,
Gausdal 1991 is interesting) and now:
cll) 9...Axd4 10 &xd4 bS5 is un-
convincing, Milu-Nisipeanu, Odorhieu
Secuiesc 1993,
c12) 9...Aa5 10 £4!2 (10 0-0 Re7
11 Hadi 0-0 =) 10...Axc3 (10...e5! ©
Akopian) 11 bxc3 @xe4 12 0-0 &e7?!
13 £5! + (followed by Ae6!), Palkovi-
Tischbierek, Budapest 1986.
c13) 9...a6 is quite good, and trans-
poses to note ‘a’ to White’s 9th move
in Line C1 of Chapter 8.
c2) 8 f4 Axed4!9.
c3) 8 0-0 makes sense in connec-
tion with a3 or a4, if Black replies
8...a6.
c4) 8 2b3! is my recommendation.
White takes note of 8...a6 9 £4! b5 10
f5!, transposing to Line C1 of Chapter
8 (2).
We now return to 7...2e7 (D), after
which White has these options:
C1: 8 f4 209
C2: 8 2b3 210
C3: 8 We2 216
 5...4\c6 6 &.c4 e6: SOZIN AND VELIMIROVIC WITHOUT ...a6 209

This gives independent value to the

7 atin) & move 8 f4. The best response has not
a ay ems yet been defined. Certainly, Black has
W
Y some ideas here...
9...e5!?
“_atta Do Other moves:
, at Y a) 9...a6 10 0-0-0! (avoiding 10
KN 2b3 Dxd4) 10...We7 (10...Axd4 11

WN
ogeny
NOAG
e 7we 7s
The last of these (Line C3) is by far
the most important.
It is also necessary to mention 8 0-0
0-0:
a) 9 £b3 transposes to Line C22.
b) 9 £4?! is unsuccessful due to the
typical answer 9...d5!.
c) 9 a3 gives Black a choice be-
tween 9...a6 10 2a2, transposing to
Line A2 of Chapter 12, and Nunn’s
suggestion 9...Wc7!? 10 2a2 Aes.
d) 9 We2 is inaccurate due to 9...a6
10 a4 d5!=
e) Atonce 9 a4 is of some interest.
f) 9 Bh1!? a6 (other possibilities
are rarely tested) 10 a4 is a fairly inter-
esting move-order, which transposes to
Line B of Chapter 12.
C1)
8 f4 0-0
8...d5?! is dubious owing to 9 &b5!
&d7 1065.
After 8...a6, the simplest way for
White to proceed is 9 &b3, transpos-
ing to Line C of Chapter 9. In the case
of 9 Wf3, he should be prepared for
9...Wc7!? 10 2b3 Axd4 11 &xd4 b5
as well as 9...2\xd4!? 10 &xd4 b5.
9 Wr3!?
&xd4 b5? 12 e5) 11 &b3 transposes
to Line C211 of Chapter 9.
b) 9...We7 10 &b3 a6 is probably
no more precise than 9...a6.
c) 9...d5 needs substantiation — pri-
marily after 10 exd5 exd5 11 Axd5.
d) 9...Wa5!? seems interesting:
dl) 10 0-0-0 Axd4 11 Bxd4 (11
2xd4?! e5!) 11...2d7 (with the idea of
12...b5!), Repkova-Galliamova, Ere-
van wom OL 1996.
d2) After 10 0-0, apart from the
transpositional 10...Axd4 11 &xd4 -
9...Axd4 10 &.xd4 Wa5 11 0-0, Black
may also try 10...Wb4.
e) 9...A\xd4 (this has occurred most
frequently) 10 &xd4 and then:
el) 10...e5 11 fxe5! (11 &e3 exf4
12 &xf4 WaS 13 2b3 Rg4 and now
rather than 14 Wd3 d5!, Ankerst-Pan-
chenko, Bled 1992, White could try 14
We3!?) 11...dxe5 12 Bxe5 Agd 13
&f4 Wd4 14 2b3 Rb4 15 Hdl.
e2) 10...Wa5 110-0 (11 2b3 e5 12
Re3 Rgd 13 We3 Be6 = Howell-
Krakops, Senden 1994) 11...e5 12 2e3
exf4 13 Wxf4 2e6 14 &b3 Wh5!? 15
h3 Weg6 16 WF3. Instead of 16...a6 17
e5 £, Onishchuk-Avrukh, Biel 1999,
Avrukh recommended 16...2fe8!? with
good chances of equalizing.
10 Axc6
10 DFS Axf5 11 exf5 exf4 12 Rxf4
&e5 = Votava-Greenfeld, Rishon-le-
Zion 1992.
210 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
10...bxc6 11 £5 Wa5 12 0-0-0
Now:
a) 12...&b8 and here 13 £b3 Exb3!
followed by 14...d5 (as in Borkowski-
Tupek, Slupsk 1992) appears to me a
very promising sacrifice that White
should avoid with 13 2d2!?.
b) 12..2b7 13 2b3 d5 14 exd5
cxd5 15 Axd5 Bxd5 16 Rxd5 e4 17
Rxe4 Hab8 18 2d5 Bxb2 19 Yxb2
4\xd5 and now, instead of 20 Wxd5
(where Black has at least a draw:
20...2a3+ 21 Sbl Wxd5 22 Exd5
Hb8+ = de Firmian-Grishchuk, Es-
bjerg 2000), White should investigate
20 &d4.
C2)
8 2b3
7 &b3 2e7 8 Re3 is another way to
reach this position.
8...0-0 (D)
Or:
a) 8...a6 transposes to Chapters 9
and 10.
b) 8...2d7 9 £4 (9 We2 - 8 We2
&d7!? 9 2b3; in that line, 9 2b3 is
hardly the best move; 9 g4!? Axd4 10
Wxd4, De Vreugt-Bosboom, Wijk aan
Zee 2001; 9 0-0 0-0 transposes to Line
C221 of Chapter 13) 9...Axd4 (9...0-0
— 8..0-0 9 f4 2d7) 10 &xd4 2c6 11
We2 b5 12 0-0-0 b4 13 2xf6!? favours
White.
Now (after 8...0-0):
C21: 9 f4 210
C22: 90-0 212
C23: 9 We2 215
A good response to 9 Hgl?! is
9...Wa5! 10 £3 e5 11 Ade2 Re6 12
g4?! dS + Suetin-Galliamova, Naber-
ezhnye Chelny 1993.
C21)
9 £4 Dxd4
The most critical. Other moves are
no more than playable:
a) 9...e5 10 Af3 (10 AFS!? Axed
11 Dh6+ gxh6 12 Axe4; 10 fxe5!?)
10...Ag4 11 2d2 Re6 12 We2 2xb3
13 cxb3 Hc8 140-0 Af6 15 Shi Ada!
with counterplay for Black, Sigurjons-
son-G.Kuzmin, Reykjavik 1978.
b) 9...Aa5 10 WF3!? (10 0-0 trans-
poses to Line C222) 10...e5 (10...b6
11 0-0-0 &b7 12 g4 Axb3+ 13 axb3
Hc8 14 g5 Ad7 15 Bhgl £ Kundin-
Chovnik, Israeli Cht 1998) 11 @f5
&xf5 12 exf5 Axb3 transposes to note
‘cl’ to Black’s 10th move in Chapter 1.
c) 9...2d7 10 WF3 (10 0-0 - 9 0-0
&d7 10 f4; 10 We2!? — 9 We2 2d7 10
fA) 10...Axd4! 11 &xd4 2c6 (11...b5!?
12 e5 dxe5 13 fxe5 Ae8 14 Ded Vc6
15 c3 b4, Stefansson-Dlugy, London
Lloyds Bank 1987) 12 f5 (12 0-0-0
bS!; 12 g4e5!; 12 a4!?, Plaskett-Ash-
ley, Mermaid Beach 1998; 12 0-0-9
0-0 &.d7 10 f4 Axd4 11 &xd4 Qc6 12
WP3) 12...e5 (12...exf5?! 13 Wxfs Wc8
14 Wr3 +) 13 Re3 b5 14 0-0-0 We7 15
g4 b4 probably gives Black adequate
counterplay, Tatai-Huguet, Reggio
Emilia 1967/8.
 5...2c6 6 B.c4 e6: SOZIN AND
10 &xd4
As of now it is hard to say if 10
Wxd4!? can revive this old variation.
10...A¢4 (10...b6 11 0-0-0 2b7 12
Shel Bc8 13 e5 Agd 14 exd6 2£6 15
Wd3 + Mikhalchishin-Kiss, Balaton-
bereny 1988; 10...2d7 11 0-0-0 &c6
12 &b1 Was 13 Hhfl b5 14 a3! Habs
15 e5 dxe5 16 fxe5 Ad7 17 Hxf7! +
Istratescu-Hratek, Krynica Z 1998) 11
&d2 (11 &g1!?) 11...d5!? (calmer is
11...e5 12 Wd3 exf4 13 &xf4 2e6!?,
as GM Lanka has played twice) 12
exd5 (or 12 e5 b6 with strong counter-
play) 12...2£6 13 Wgl exdS 14 0-0-0
d4 and Black has hardly any problems,
Gi.Hernandez-Vera, Cienfuegos 1996.
10...b5!
10...e5 was suggested by Euwe.
Then:
a) 11 fxe5 dxe5 and now:
al) 12 &e3 Wxdl+ (less precise
are 12...Ag4 13 Wxd8! Hxd8 14 &d2
and 12...Wa5 13 0-0 with the point
13...Ag4 14 Wd5!) 13 Bxdl &b4 14
0-0 &xc3 15 bxc3 Red 16 Bdel Axed
17 Rcl Ac5 = 18 Ka3 Axb3 19 Vxf8
&d2 and 20...Ac4 — Velitkovié.
a2) 12 Bxe5 Wa5 13 2xfo Bxf6
14 0-0, and Black can avoid the idea
of 14...2e6 15 Ad5!? Rxb2 16 bl
with a certain initiative (Votava-Sto-
cek, Czech Ch (Lazne Bohdanec)
1999) through 14...2xc3!? 15 bxc3
Reb.
b) 11 Re3 Aga 12 Rc (after 12
Rd2 Bh4+! 13 g3 Axh2 14 Sf2 exf4
15 &xf4 Agd+ 16 Sg2 Rf6 17 Ad5
&e6, Black has an extra pawn and
enough defensive resources, Mitkov-
R.Scherbakov, Belorechensk 1992)
12...exf4 13 &xf4 Ae5 (13...2f6 can
be met by 14 Wd2 + or 14 Wxd6!?) 14
VELIMIROVIC WITHOUT ...a6 211
0-0 &e6 15 Sh! with some advantage
for White, Lastin-Scherbakov, Russian
Ch (Elista) 1995.
11 e5 dxe5 12 fxe5 Ad7
In this position White has failed for
many years to demonstrate anything
substantial:
a) After 13 We2, it seems sufficient
to play 13...8c5!?.
b) 13 0-0 and then:
bl) 13...a6 transposes to Line C222
of Chapter 9.
b2) 13...b4!2 14 Aed 2b7 15 Ad6
&xd6 16 exd6 We5 17 We2 and now
not 17...$2d5?! 18 Had1, as in Fischer-
F.Olafsson, Stockholm IZ 1962, but
17...a5 = Stoica-Tischbierek, Caliman-
esti 1992.
b3) 13...2c5 14 Rxc5 Axc5 15
Wxd8 Bxd8 16 Axb5 Rab 17 Rcd
Hab8 (alternatively, 17...&xb5!? 18
&xb5 Hab8, Perez-Geller, Havana
1965) 18 a4 “xa4 = Fischer-Geller,
Curacao Ct 1962.
c) 13 Weg4 Bc5 (13...b4!2 14 Ded
&b7 15 Ad6 Rxd6 16 exd6 Af6,
Stein-Gheorghiu, Reykjavik 1972, is an
important alternative) 14 0-0-0 &xd4
(14...Wb6?! 15 Aes! Bxd4 16 Bxd4,
Barle-Beliavsky, USSR-Yugoslavia
1971, 16...8h8 17 Ags + Nunn) 15
Wxd4 We5+ 16 &b1 and now Razu-
vaev suggests 16...2b8!? rather than
16...Wxe5 17 Wxe5 AxeS 18 Dxb5 +
Alexander-Hollis, Hastings 1962/3.
d) 13 Wf3 Hb8 14 0-0-0 (14
&xa7?! 2h4+!, Ehlvest-Milos, Bali
2000; 14 Ae4 2b7!) and now, instead
of 14...2b7 15 We4 b4 16 2xa7 Ha8
(Tatai-Zuckerman, Wijk aan Zee 1968)
17 Ab5! with the point 17...AxeS 18
We WaS 19 Wxe5 Hxa7 20 Hd7 +,
Black solves his problems by means of
212 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

14...4c7!, as has been shown in prac- 13 Rc2 2b7 14 Ac3 + K.Miiller-Cul-

tice in a number of games. lip, Oakham jr 1992) 12 a4 (no advan-
tage is gained by 12 c4 &xb5! 13 cxb5
C22) Axe4 14 Wed Af6 15 We2, Fischer-
90-0 (D) Korchnoi, Rovinj/Zagreb 1970, 15...d5
This is a more popular move-order Korchnoi) 12...Axe4 13 c4! £ (Nunn).
than 9 f4 (in Fischer’s games and in
general). C221)
9...5.d7 10 £4!

rw
Bsa], 2 (Aas
Be
If 10 We2, then 10...Axd4 11 2xd4
Rc6 (or 11...b5 12 Axb5 Rxb5
Wxb5 Axed 14 Had1) 12 Had !? Was
13

Thhrt 7 13 £4 e5 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 Bf5 &c5 16

&f2 may give White some hope for
a a” ratent
SS

an advantage, Gligori¢-Pomar, Malaga

1961. It is simpler to proceed with
10...a6! 11 £4, transposing to note ‘cl’
to Black’s 10th move in Line C22 of
Chapter 9 (=).
10...Axd4!
Or:
After 1972, 9...a6 and later 10 f4 a) 10...&c8 is poor in view of 11
&)xd4 (see Chapter 9) came to the fore. &db5!.
The old continuations have now al- b) 10...Wc8 is well met by 11 £5!,
most disappeared, although this may Fischer-Larsen, Denver Ct (5) 1971.
be rather undeserved. c) 10...a6 transposes to note ‘c’ to
C221: 9...2d7 212 Black’s 10th move in Line C22 of
C222: 9..Aa5 214 Chapter 9.
d) 10...Aa5 11 Wf3 Hc8 and now,
Other moves: rather than 12 24 “c4 13 g5 De8 14
a) 9...We7 10 f4 Da5 11 WF3 (or &xc4 Exc4 15 h4 g6! 16 £5 gxf5 17
11 £5!?) is promising for White. exf5 e5 © Rittner-Simagin, corr. 1968,
b) 9...Wa5 10 f4 (10 Shi Axd4 11 Nunn suggests 12 Had1!? Ac4 13
Wxd4 b5 12 a3 &a6 © Brunner-Kor- &cl £.
chnoi, Zurich (1) 1996) 10...axd4 11 2xd4 (D)
(10...WhS 11 Wxhs AxhS 12 f5 +) 11 11...2c6
&xd4 e5 12 RF2 (12 Re3!? Aga 13 Or 11...b5, and then:
We2) 12...exf4 13 &d4 2g4 14 Wel is a) After 12 e5 the game seems
slightly better for White, Ciri¢-Korch- about equal.
noi, Yugoslavia-USSR 1965. b) 12 £5 b4 (12...e5 13 Re3 b4 14
c) 9...Dxd4 10 &xd4 b5 (10...b6 £) Bd5 Axe4!?) 13 fxe6 (Stoica-Atalik,
11 Axb5 La6 (after 11...Axe4, apart Romanian Cht 1996) 13...fxe6 14 Ae2
from 12 @xa7, also good is 12 c4!? a6 @#h8! is also satisfactory for Black.
 5...2\c6 6 &c4 e6: SOZIN AND
if WwW Kel
, Malewawa
Seami
a 1954) and if 18 £5, then 18...We7!.
@ oan
2"
@20 @ a
ARAMAS
|
a Gwess
c) After 12 2xf6!?, I am unsure
whether Black obtains full compensa-
tion for the two pawns in the variation
12...2.xf6 13 Wxd6 b4 14 Wxb4 a5 15
Wd6 Bxc3 16 bxc3 BbS 17 Wxd8
Bfxd8 18 Bfbl 2cé6.
12 We2
Other continuations lead to chances
for both sides:
a) 12 Wf3 b5! 13 Bael b4 14 Ad1
We7 15 We3 (Zso.Polgar-Ashley, New
York 1989) 15...a5!?.
b) 12 Wd3 bS 13 AxbS5 (13 e5 dxe5
14 fxe5 Dd7 and now 15 We3 a5,
Lutikov-Tukmakov, Odessa 1976,
15 De4 Bxe4 16 Wxed 4c5, Chris-
ttansen- Yermolinsky, USA Ch (Seat-
tle) 2000) 13...2xe4!, Szabo-Benko,
Hungarian Ch (Budapest) 1951.
c) 12 Wel b5 13 Hdl We7!= (rather
than 13...b4 14 e5! £) Benjamin-Krei-
man, Connecticut 2000.
12...b5
Not 12...Wa5? 13 f5 e5 14 2f2 +
(Fischer-Pilnik, Santiago 1959) 14...b5
15 a3!.
12...Wc7 13 £5 (better is 13 Had!
or 13 Hael) 13...e5 14 2f2 b5! with
counterplay, M.Kiselev-Bologan,
Petersburg 1996.
13 Axb5
VELIMIROVIC WITHOUT ...a6 213
There is no danger for Black in 13
Had1 b4 14 e5 bxc3 15 exf6 Rxf6 16
&xf6 Wxf6 (16...gxf6 is risky) 17 Bxd6
Hac8 (Nezhmetdinov-Geller, Gorky
13...2.xb5
13...2xe4? 14 @xa7 + Fischer-
Saidy, New Jersey 1957.
13...e5? 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 2e3 a6 16
4\c3 &xe4 17 Exf7 + Fischer-Niever-
gelt, Zurich 1959.
14 Wxb5 Axed
In 1972 Fischer probably was ready
to defend this position as White against
Spassky, but we can only guess what
he had in mind at the time...
15 £5
15 Wd3 d5 16 c4 dxc4 17 Bxc4
“\d6 = Bannik-Boleslavsky, USSR
Cht 1955.
15...e5
15...d5?! 16 fxe6 fxe6 is not suffi-
cient in view of 17 Wc6!.
15...&£6 has occurred rather often:
a) 16 Had] &xd4+ 17 Bxd4 d5 =
Yudovich-Geller, Gorky 1954.
or b) 16 Wd3 and now:
bl) 16...d5 17 &xf6 (17 Kad1!?)
17...Axf6 18 c4 (Fischer-R. Weinstein,
USA Ch (New York) 1958/9) 18...8b6+
19 Bh dxc4 20 Wxc4 = Nunn.
b2) Black can possibly equalize by
playing 16...2xd4+!? 17 Wxd4 “cS,
as in the game Winants-Gershon, Ant-
werp 1994.
c) 16 &xf6!? Wxf6 17 Had! looks
promising for White.
16 2e3
16 Wd3!?.
16...8.¢5 17 We2 2xe3+ 18 Wxe3
St ONt6
The game is equal, Chandler-Rach-
els, Manila IZ 1990.
214 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
C222)
9,..Aa5 10 f4 b6 (D)
10...A)xb3 11 axb3 e5 12 Af5 Vxf5
13 exf5 exf4 14 Bxf4 d5 15 Wf3 witha
slight advantage for White, Milos-
Limp, S4o Paulo Z 1998.
R72 Be
ae
a 9 Wan.
am
i Lm
a “AL. W)
a
V2 08 eal
SAS MOA
a ‘avacs”
Lately, GM Ruslan Scherbakov has
been trying to revive a rather forgotten
plan with ...b6 and has achieved some
success. Black wishes to maintain a
strong defensive position and gradu-
ally to make use of the beneficial posi-
tion of the bishop on b7.
11 e5
Or:
a) 11 Wf3 2b7 12 g4 Hc8 13 g5
xc3! gave Black good play in Padev-
sky-Botvinnik, Moscow 1956. Never-
theless, Botvinnik was sceptical of the
plan with ...b6.
b) 11 Wd3 &b7 12 Bfel Bc8 13 £5
e5 14 Af3 Axb3 15 axb3 Hd8 16 BF2
d5 17 exd5 Axd5 18 Hxe5 with accept-
able play for Black, Kotsur-R.Scher-
bakov, Tula 1999. Now 18...Axc3!?
19 Wxc3 2£6 = is sufficient.
c) 11 We2 2b7 12 &f2 (Gochev-
R.Scherbakov, Plovdiv 1990) 12...2c8!?
R.Scherbakov.
11...dxe5
In the 1950s and 1960s, 11...Ae8
12 £5! was studied in detail: 12...dxe5
(12...Axb3 13 Ac6! We7 14 Axe7+
Wrxe7 15 f6 Geller; 12...exf5 can be
met by 13 e6! or 13 2d5!?) 13 fxe6
and now:
a) 13...f6? 14 APS Axb3 15 Ad5!
+— Geller-Vatnikov, Kiev 1950.
b) 13...exd4?! 14 exf7+ Bhs 15
fxe8W Wxe8 16 &xd4, Romanovsky-
Shamkovich, USSR 1956.
c) 13...fxe6!? should be met by 14
Hxf8+! + (but not 14 Axe6?! Wxd1 15
@Axf8+ Axb3 16 Haxdi Ad4).
d) 13..Axb3 14 Ac6! Wd6! 15
Wxd6 (15 Ad5? Bh4! is much better
for Black, Bilek-T.Petrosian,
hausen Echt 1961) 15...&xd6 16 axb3
Ober-
&xe6 17 Axa7!? with a better ending
for White, Fischer-Korchnoi, Curacao
Ct 1962.
12 fxe5 De8!
The lines 12...Ad7 13 Bxf7 Axe5 14
Rxf8+ Vxf8 15 Rxe6+ and 12...Ad5
13 Axd5 exd5 14 WE3 clearly favour
White.
After the text-move, the initial posi-
tion of Scherbakov’s variation arises.
Up to now he has managed to obtain
positions with chances for both sides
where Black has cards up his sleeve.
13 Wh5!?
Black’s only weakness is the h7-
pawn, so it is necessary to check
whether it could withstand a direct as-
sault. Other moves are less testing:
a) 13 Wed Wc7 14 Af3 Axb3 15
cxb3 a6 16 Bfd1 Hd8 17 Hxd8 Wxd8
18 Hdl We8 19 Ad4 1-1 Bezgodov-
R.Scherbakov, Petropavlovsk 1999.
b) 13 WF3 &b7 14 Weg3 (14 Axe6?
We8) 14...Axb3 15 axb3 a6, with a
long manoeuvring game ahead.
 5...2\c6 6 2c4 e6: SOZIN AND VELIMIROVIC WITHOUT ...a6 215

13...26 This position often arises after 7

Or:
a) 13...2b7? 14 Dxe6 +-.
b) After 13...c7, I propose 14
4d5!? exd5 15 &xd5 g6 16 Wh6 Ag7
17 &xa8 2a6 18 Wr.
c) 13...Axb3 14 Ac6 We7 15 Axe7+
Wxe7 16 axb3 is somewhat better for
White, Sale-Dizdarevi¢, Osijek 1993.
14 Who
Alternatively:
a) 14 Wg4 Wc7 15 Bh6 Dg7 16
Xael Axb3 17 axb3 $2b7 18 Yh (or
18 &xg7 Sxe7 19 Wxe6 Had8!? 20
Acb5 We5 Cherny) 18...had8 19 Af3
Ed7 20 Ags Hd2 21 Ace4 Exc2 22
&xg7 h5! is at least no worse for
Black, Kotsur-R.Scherbakov, Ekater-
inburg 1999.
b) White’s advantage is not felt ei-
ther after 14 We2 Wc7 15 Bh6 Ag7 16
hi a6 17 Had] Axb3 18 axb3 &b7,
Anisimov-R.Scherbakov, Cheliabinsk
1984.
14...We7 15 Af3
After 15...2b7 16 AgS Qxg5 17
&xg5 Wxe5 18 2e7, Black’s compen-
sation has to be proven.
C23)
9 We2 (D)
x 2 ke
2 “Gawaa.
2b3 Re7 8 Re3 0-0 9 He2, and to
make a general assessment of 7 2b3,
it is important to know whether Black
has important additional ideas (advan-
tages) here as compared with 7 2e3
&e7 8 We2 0-0 9 0-0-0 (Line C3).
We start with the variations where
there is little or no difference:
a) More than half of the games
simply transpose to the main lines of
the Velimirovié Attack via 9...a6 (Line
A, Chapter 10) or via 9...8c7 10 0-0-0
a6 (Line B2, Chapter 10).
b) 9...d5 10 0-0-0 — Line C32.
c) 9...axd4 10 &xd4 Wa5 (10...e5
11 &e3 £) 11 0-0-0 — Line C34.
d) 9...Wa5 10.0-0-0 (10 0-0!7 Axd4
11 &xd4 b6 12 a4 + de Firmian-Sos-
onko, Polanica Zdroj 1995) transposes
to Line C34.
Then, two ideas for Black that have
not been verified properly:
e) 9...Ad7!? 10 0-0-0 Ac5.
f) 9...e5!7.
Finally, two rather well-known con-
tinuations that are claimed to reveal
the drawbacks of an early 2b3:
g) 9...4a5!? and now:
gl) 10 0-0-0 - 7 2e3 2e7 8 We2
0-0 9 0-0-0 DaS 10 &b3.
g2) 10 g4 Axb3 11 axb3 d5! 12 e5
BHe4 13 0-0 (13 Axed dxe4 14 AbS
{14 0-0-0? Wa5 +} 14...a6 15 0-0 2d7
16 Ac3 2c6 17 Bfd1 We7, Motylev-
Panchenko, Kazan 1995, 18 2£d4 2.25!?
19 “xe4 &f4 with compensation)

mam
13...Axc3 (13...2d7!?) 14 bxc3 We7
15 2d2 2d7 16 Bael a5!? 17 Wd3 a4
8

18 He3 a3!? 19 Hh3 96 (19...h6!?) 20

K
ate

R4AaTE
A a
BR
Z We3 £6 21 Hxh7 &xh7 22 Wh6+ Sg8
23 Wxg6+ Bh8 24 Hel (Golubev-
VS 7x
Xx
OX.

Weiler, Leuven 1994) 24...Wxe5! =

a
216 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

g3) 10 f4 e5!? 11 Af3 Axb3 12 &xd4) 10 0-0-0 (10 £4 +) 10...a5?

axb3 224 13 0-0-0 Was 14 &b1 Hac8
with counterplay, A.Ivanov-Mochalov,
Minsk 1985.
h) 9...8.d7!? and then:
hi) 10 0-0-0, transposing to Line
C351, may be considered an achieve-
ment for Black (in the variation 7 2e3
Se7 8 We2 0-0 9 0-0-0 &d7, instead
of 10 &b3, 10 f4! is stronger).
h2) 100-0 transposes to the note to
White’s 10th move in Line C221 (=).
h3) 10 £417 @xd4 11 Rxd4 b5 (or
11...Wa5) has hardly been tried at all.
C3)
8 We2 (D)
EZ 2@e7 2
, Mao Bam
(10...2c8 11 &xa7!?) 11 Ab5! 0-0
(11...2xb5 12 &xb5+ Sf8 13 Bc4
We5+ 14 b1 Wxg2 15 Bhg] Wh3 16
f4, Nunn, looks hopeless for Black)
12 Axd6 + Nunn-Korchnoi, Brussels
World Cup 1988.
d) 8...Aa5 9 2d3 (9 &b3 2d7!? —
8...8.d7 9 2b3 a5; interesting is 9
2b5+!? Ad7 10 b4 We7 11 Rxd7+
&xd7 12 Adb5) 9...0-0 (9...a6 trans-
poses to note ‘b’ to Black’s 9th move
in Line A of Chapter 11, which is a lit-
tle better for White; 9...e5 10 2b5+
Sf8 11 Db3 a6 12 2d3, Ehlvest-
I.Ivanov, New York 1990). Now after
10 f4.e5 11 Af3 exf4 12 Bxf4 Rebs 13
0-0-0 (13 4d4!9) 13...28c8, Black ob-
tains an acceptable position, Golubev-
Lutsko, Kiev 1997, so it is worth con-

eaKaa
sidering 10 0-0, 10 g4, and in particu-
lar 10 0-0-0 — 8...0-0 9 0-0-0 DaS5 10

a Yi Ua Rd3.

an
Vi
a
& a, |
e) 8...e5 should perhaps be met by
9 &f3 + rather than 9 AF5 Bxf5 10
exf5 Ad4 11 Rxd4 (11 Wd3 d5! 12
Rxd5 Dxd5 13 Rxd4 Ab4! is much
SiS A MAWES aA better for Black) 11...exd4 (Emst-
a Y eS "Oe Kouatly, Manila OL 1992) 12 “Ab5!?
d5 13 2b3 Wa5+ 14 Sf.
8...0-0 f) 8...2d7!? gained the support of
The other main line is 8...a6 (or, several grandmasters in the 1990s, and
first, 8...Wc7 and then ...a6; e.g., 9 for a while White had trouble getting
0-0-0 a6 transposes to Line C of Chap- to grips with it:
ter 11) which transposes to Line D of f1) 9 2b3 Da5!? (9...0-0 trans-
Chapter 11. poses to Line C23; 9...&c8 10 £4 0-0
Auxiliary possibilities are: 11 0-0 Aa5 12 e5 De8 13 Whs +
a) 8...d5 9 0-0-0 0-0 — 8..0-0 9 Vouldis-Atalik, Karditsa 1996) 10 24
0-0-0 d5. (maybe something else?) 10...Axb3 11
b) 8...Wa5 9 0-0-0 0-0 - 8..0-09 axb3 h5 with counterplay, A.Ivanov-
0-0-0 Wa5S. Atalik, Chicago 1997.
c) 8...Axd4 9 &xd4 Rd7 (9...0-0 £2) 9 0-0-0 Bc8 (9...0-0 — 8...0-09
10 0-0-0 — 8...0-0 9 0-0-0 @Axd4 10 0-0-0 2.d7), and then:
 5...2\c6 6 &c4 e6: SOZIN AND VELIMIROVIC WITHOUT ...a6 217

£21) 10 Adb5 a5! 11 2b3 -— 10 £3) Given that f4 is, as a rule, a

2b3 Da5 11 BDdb5S. good response to ...2d7, it is strange
£22) 10 £4 Aa5 (10...0-0 —8...0-09 that almost nobody has yet played 9
0-0-0 &d7 10 f4 Bc8) 11 &d3 Bxc3
12 bxc3 We7 deserves checking.
£23) 10 @xc6 bxc6! (10...2xc6?
11 e5; 10...Bxc6 11 £3 a6 12 24 b5 13
&b3 Lukacs) 11 24 (11 f4 Wa5 «
x
Avrukh) 11...0-0 (11...d5 12 g5! @xe4
, wae3 Bey
eaMaw eY

*
Sag
13 Axe4 dxe4, D.Frolov-Ma. Tseitlin,
St Petersburg 1997, 14 We4! 0-0 15 h4

Sy

I
WS
+ Avrukh) 12 g5 @e8, and now both

SS
13h4 d5 14 2b3 @b4! 15 h5 &xc3 16
bxc3 Ad6 17 h6 g6 18 £3 c5, A.Sok-
olov-Zviagintsev, Russian Ch (St Pe- a8 oe
ARYA ues
tersburg) 1998, and 13 f4 d5 14 &d3
3

2m
&b4 (Rechlis-Avrukh, Israeli Cht
Y BAZ Jet

X
2000) 15 “bl! (Avrukh) seem dou-
ble-edged.
£24) 10 £3 0-0 (10...Aa5!? can be Should Black not wish to play the
met by 11 2d3!? or 11 £263 — 10 2b3 main variations of the Velimirovié
“a5 11 f3) 11 g4 (11 @xc6 is recom- (9...a6 or 9...Wc7 10 &b3 a6 — in the
mended by Tsesarsky) 11...@xd4 12 latter case, however, 10 Khgt!? is in-
&xd4 Wa5 13 £2b3 bS 145 is slightly teresting), then he has the following at
better for White, Rogi¢-Greenfeld, his disposal:
Pardubice 1995. C31: 9..Aa5 9217
£25) 10 2b3 Aad (10...Axd4 11 C32: 9...d5 218
&2xd4!? with the point 11...e5 12 &xa7 C33: 9...Axd4 219
Wa5 13 2e3 Bxc3 14 Qd2; 10...0-0 C34: 9...WaS 219
transposes to Line C351) 11 £3 (11 g4? C35: 9..2d7 221
&xc3!; White gains nothing through
11 AdbS Axb3+ 12 axb3 Wa5!) C31)
11...Dxb3+ (11...0-0 12 g4 Dxb3+ 9,..Aa5
will most likely come to the same Now:
thing) 12 axb3 (12 @xb3 a5!? 13 W2 a) 10 2b3 and then:
Hxc3 14 bxc3 a4 gives Black compen- al) 10...Axb3+ 11 axb3 WaS 12
sation, Mortensen-Greenfeld, Moscow @b1 2d7 13 g4 transposes to note
OL 1994; 12 cxb3!? Mortensen) “d3’ to Black’s 10th move in Line
12...0-0 13 24 Wa5!? 14 Sb1 Ae8 15 C351.
Wd2 Bh8! (avoiding Ad5) 16 h4 Ac7 a2) 10...2d7 — 9...2d7 10 &b3
with the ideas of ...d5 or ...@\a6 and Das.
...2\b4, Menoni-Greenfeld, Montecat- b) 10 &£d3 is probably more accu-
ini Terme 1997. trate. Now 10...a6 transposes to 7...a6 8
218 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

We2 Das 9 2d3! Re7 10 0-0-0 0-0 c) 10 Af3 Axe4!? (10...Ab4 11

(note ‘b1’ to Black’s 9th move in Line exd5 Abxd5 12 &d4 £ Ostojié-Hart-
A of Chapter 11). ston, Hastings 1967/8) 11 Axe4, and
Black can proceed either by playing
C32) 11...WaS 12 2d2 Wad (12...2b4 13
9...d5 (D) &xb4 +; 12...8b6!7) 13 2d3 Wxa2!?
(13...dxe4 14 Wxe4 Wxe4d 15 Bxe4 +
Boleslavsky) 14 @c3 Wal+ 15 Ab1
e5! with compensation, or by 11...Wc7

Calan@
12 2d3 (12 Hegs dxc4 =) 12...dxe4
13 &xe4 e5! (= Nunn).
d) After 10 “@b3, 10...Axe4 11

mary &\xe4 Wc7 is probably again the most

accurate and sufficient to equalize.
10...Aa5
a as, Be After 10...2b4 11 Adb5!, 10...He8
11 @f3 or 10...WaS 11 exd5 exd5 12
7 S87 7k
BE oon y

Wb5!, Garibian- Yudovich, USSR 1968,

White’s chances are better.
This move (suggested by Konstan- 11 e5
tinopolsky in 1966) does not quite 11 Hhel e5 12 Af3 Axb3+ 13 axb3
equalize. Wa5 14 exd5 2b4 15 Hbl (15 AxeS?
10 &b3 &xc3 16 bxc3 Ae4!! —+; 15 Rd2!7)
The other ideas are: 15.,.8xc3 16 bxc3 AxdS 17 Rd2
a) 10 @xe6!? (the only way to foist @#xc3+?! (17...f6 18 Axe5 fxe5 19
a tactical struggle on Black) 10...fxe6 Wxe5 HFS =; 17...Wxc3!?) 18 Bxc3
11 exd5 “a5 12 dxe6, and now both Wxc3 19 Wxe5! gives White a slight
12...We8 13 2b5 Ac6 (13...We6!?) advantage, Wedberg-Sosonko, Am-
14 Bhel a6 15 &c4 bS, L.Zaitsev-Bit- sterdam 1984.
man, Moscow 1967, and 12...Wc7 13 11...0d7 12 f4
Rd5 (I.Zaitsev-Gik, Moscow 1967) White has a small advantage. Now
13...A\c6 14 We4!? lead to a chaotic the following continuations have been
game. seen:
b) 10 exd5 exd5 is hardly danger- a) 12...Ab6 13 Sbl (13 g4!? NCO)
ous for Black. Approximate varia- 13...Axb3 14 cxb3 £6 15 exf6 (15 h4!?)
tions: 11 Af3 @e6; 11 Adb5 Re6; 11 15...2.xf6 16 Zhel (16 Af3!?) 16... Wes!
&b3 He8 (11...2.b4172 12 AdbS {12 = Hiibner-Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee
Wb5!?} 12...2e6 13 &g5 He8; Kon- 1984,
stantinopolsky suggested 11...4a5) b) 12...a6 13 Hhfl Axb3+ (13...b5
12 Wb5 (12 Af3 Be6 13 h3 Was 14 is met by 14 &xd5!) 14 axb3, Ahlan-
&b1 a6 Nunn) 12...Ab4 (12...Aa5? der-L. Schneider, Stockholm 1986.
13 @xd5) 13 a3 a6 14 We2 Ac6 15 c) 12...8b4 13 Bd2 Ac5 14 Hhfl
hel 2c5 Akopian. Saxb3+ 15 axb3 a5 16 Sb1 &xc3 17
 5...Ac6 6 Sc4 e6: SOZIN AND VELIMIROVIC WITHOUT ...a6 219

Rxc3 De4 18 Hf3, de Firmian-Soson-

102 wen
ko, Lucerne Wcht 1989.
, Rae Wawa
C33)
Home V
9... Axd4
This is similar to the line 9...Wa5 10 wy ae A
&b3 “xd4, but White has some addi-
tional ideas.
10 &xd4
10 Bxd4!?.
10...Was ZF Gum ‘AE
Now:
a) 11 2b3-9...Wa5 10 2b3 Axd4 Anti-Sozin (see the note to White’s
11 &xd4 (Line C34). 8th move in Line B5 of Chapter 14).
b) 11 £47! e5! = Yurtaev-Zhidkov, c) 10 £412 Axd4 (10...2d7 can be
USSR 1978. met by 11 Ab3!? or 11 g4!? Axd4 12
c) 11 e5!? dxe5 12 &xe5 b6 Bxd4 e5 13 Hd5) 11 Bxd4 a6 (11...e5
(12...2d7!2) 13 Bd4 (13 DbS Bab 14 12 Ad5!? £) 12 Bb3 (12 a37! d5! 13
&c3 Wa4 15 Sb1 Nunn) 13...8b7 and exd5 &xa3, A.Ivanov-Dlugy, USA Ch
now Geller recommended 14 Hhdl! (Jacksonville) 1990).
(instead of 14 8b5 a6, Velimirovié- d) 10 Shgl!? is of particular inter-
Geller, Budapest 1973, 15 Ha4 axb5 est: 10...Axd4 11 &xd4 2d7 trans-
16 Bxa5 Hxa5). poses to Line C33, and if 10...8d7,
d) 11 Bhgi!? Qd7 12 g4!? Hfcs then 11 Ab3!?.
(12...b5? 13 25 Axed 14 2d3!! Wolff) 10...Axd4
13 g5 (13 &b3 transposes to note ‘b’ 10...2d7!? is possibly better than
to Black’s 12th move in Line C34) its reputation: 11 @db5 (11 g4!?
13...Ae8 and now 14 &b1! is Christi- &xd4 12 Bxd4e5 13 Ad5 Yudasin; 11
ansen’s improvement over 14 f4 Exc4!! Ehegl!?; 11 ¥b1!?) £1...d5 (11...De8
15 ¥xc4 b5 with an unclear position, 12 £4 clearly favours White) is very
Brunner-Christiansen, Novi Sad OL interesting. For instance, 12 exd5 (un-
1990. successful is 12 225?! a6; 12 2d2 2b4
{12...dxe4!2} 13 e5 AxeS 14 Wxed
C34) Rxb5 15 a3 Bxc3 {15..2c4!?} 16
9...WaS (D) &xc3 ©) 12...exd5, and as yet White
10 &b3 has not shown anything:
Otherwise: a) 13 Dxd5 Axd5 14 Bxd5 Db4
a) 10 g4?! is dubious because of 15 Ac3 Sf5 16 2b3 Hac8 with the
10...Ae5!, Sahovié-Geller, Belgrade initiative for the pawn, Turlej-Gertz,
1969, while 10...d5!? and 10...@xd4!? corr. 1999.
are also interesting. b) 13 Rd2 &b4! 14.23 (or 14 Dxd5
b) 10 Ab3 We7 11 £4 a6 12 24 b5 “\xd5 15 @xd5 Hae8!) 14...Bfe8 15
13 &d3 is a double-edged form of the Wl a6! — Sek.
220
c) 13 @xa7 &xa7 14 Axd5 Haa8
15 2b6 (15 @Axf6+ Axf6 16 Bxd7
Ab4!) 15...Ha6 16 &c4 Wad 17 2b3
Wa6 with a repetition, Hunter-Diin-
haupt, corr. 1970-1.
11 2xd4
11 Bxd4!? 2d7 and then: 12 Bd3
&c6 13 2d2 We7 14 94 b5 15 g5 Ad7
16 Bh3 Hfc8 is OK for Black, Dauga-
Prieditis, corr. 1974; 12 g4!?
&d5 Geller; 12 Hhdl1!? 2c6 13 f4,
London-Dlugy, USA (4) 1986.
11...2d7
11...8g5+? 12 Sbl e5 (12...Wxg2
13 Bhgi Wxh2 14 Bhi Wr4 15 Hdgl!)
13 h4 Wxp2 14 Bdgl 24
&xe2 16 Axe2 exd4 17 Axd4 is much
better for White — Fischer.
12 Ehg1
There are some rare alternatives: 12
Rxf6?! Rxf6 13 Bxd6 &c6;
e5!; little studied are 12 f3
£d3!? 2c6 13 £4, Sveshnikov-Kogan,
Lvov 1973.
The known alternative is 12 @bl,
with the following continuations:
a) 12...b5?! 13 &xf6 +.
b) 12...Had8?! 13 We3! b6? (13...b5
14 a3 + Fischer; 13...2c6 14 &xa7
‘d7 15 Bd4! e5 16 AdS Qxd5
Rc3 +-) 14 Bxf6 gxf6 15 Dd5! and
White is winning, Fischer-Sofrevski,
Skopje/KruSevo/Ohrid 1967.
c) 12...8c6 13 f4 and now:
cl) 13...e5 14 8e3! favours White.
c2) 13...b5 14 e5! dxe5 15 Wxe5 +
Fischer.
c3) 13...Bfe8 14 Bhfl
Sosonko) 14...fad8 — 13...Had8 14
Hafl! Byes.
c4) 13...ad8 14 Bhfl! (14 f5 exf5
15 exf5 Hd7 16 Hhfl 2d8! Shamko-
vich; 14 g4 d5) and now:
THE SICILIAN SOZIN
c41) 14... fe8 can be met by 15
g4!? (Sosonko), or 15 e5 dxe5 16 fxe5
4\d5 17 Ded with a perceptible advan-
tage for White, Rogi¢é-Sosonko, Bitik-
fiirdo 1995.
c42) 14...b5 15 £5! (15 &5!? is also
good) 15...b4 16 fxe6 bxc3 17 exf7+
(Murey and Boleslavsky suggested 17
Hxf6!? with the point 17...gxf6 18
e5 13 exf7+ @h8 19 Wed Hb8 20 Web Was
21 Bfl Hb4 22 2xc3 Exed 23 Hxf6
Hel+ 24 &xel xf6 25 Ba5!! +-)
17... Gh8 18 Hf5 Wb4 19 Wri! Axed,
and Fischer proved a win for White af-
ter 20 W4!! (20 a3? Wbh7 21 Wra
15 Exg2 a4!! wins for Black, Fischer-Geller,
Skopje/Krugevo/Ohrid 1967).
d) 12...2fd8 Geller.
e) 12..Hfc8 13 f4 e5 14 @d5
&®xd5 15 exd5 &b5 16 We3 exd4 17
12 £47! Wxe7 d3! 18 cxd3 Wb6 = Franzen-
and 12 Stern, corr. 1994.
f) 12..Bac8 13 £4 (13 Wel!?, Mor-
ozevich-Dlugy, ICC blitz 1999) 13...e5
14 @d5 @Axd5 15 exdS Rf6 16 fxe5
&xe5 17 BxeS Hfe8 = de Firmian-
Dlugy, USA Ch (Estes Park) 1987.
12...2¢6
Or:
17 a) 12...b5? 13 e5 dxeS5 14 Wxe5
Bfc8 (14...2c6 15 Rxe6 +-) 15 g4
We7 (15...2c6 16 g5 He8 17 g6 +-)
16 g5 De8 17 Ad5! + Yudasin-Fed-
orowicz, Novi Sad OL 1990.
b) 12...Bfc8 13 g4 e5 (13...b5 14
e5! He8 15 exd6 favours White, Rom-
anishin-Zakharov, USSR 1974) 14 g5!
(14 241? (14 Re3 Hxc3 15 Rd2 is less convinc-
ing) 14...exd4 15 gxf6 2xf6 16 Ad5
with an attack (Yudasin).
c) 12... Hac8 13 g4e5 14 £e3 (14 95
is a serious alternative here) 14...Bxc3
15 &d2 &b5 16 Wel Hxc2+ 17 Bxc2
 5...2\c6 6 &c4 e6: SOZIN AND VELIMIROVIC WITHOUT ...a6 221

Wao (17...We7+ 18 Sb!) 18 Rg5 W Ke

4\d5 + A.Ivanov-Dlugy, Philadelphia ze ae)
1989 (18...&e2!7). W se@ada
13 g4 Ad7
13...e5 can be answered by 14 £e3!
my a Ga
Wa Ula, Wa
“xe4? 15 Axed Lxed 16 Ad2 +-
MLA
mS i
(Geller) or 14 g5!?.

Aas
Ai
14 Sbl1
14.95 &xg5+! 15 Sbl V6 = Plan-

inc-Bertok, Novi Sad 1965; 14 f4!7.
14...Bfe8
Or: 14...65 15 Ad5! (or 15 g5 b4 16
4d5) Bosch; 14...Ac5 15 g5 b5 16
6! + Bednarski-Kramer, Wijk aan
Zee 1969.
15 g5
Black now finds himself in danger.
We have to mention:
a) 15...b5 and then:
al) 16 £417 b4 (16...Ac5 17 £5 RB
18 g6 +) 17 f5 bxc3 18 fxe6 fxe6 19
Rxe6+ Gh8 20 &xc3 Bosch.
a2) 16 g6 hxg6 17 Exg6 fxg6 (not
17...2£6?, Bosch-Sosonko, Dutch Ch
(Amsterdam) 1996, 18 Exf6 gxf6 19
Wd2 +) 18 Rxe6+ VF8 19 Wes V6
20 &xd7 &xd7 21 Wxd7 Had8 and
Black just about remains in the game.
b) 15...Ac5 16 Hg3 2f8 17 Bh3
4xb3 18 axb3 Wxg5 (18...26!7) 19 £4!
with an attack, Van der Wiel-Sosonko,
Dutch Ch (Rotterdam) 1998.
C35)
9...2d7 (D)
Together with its improved version,
8...2d7!?, the ...8.d7 theme is rather
topical nowadays. We shall discuss:
C351: 10 2b3 221
C352: 10 f4! 223
Otherwise:
a) 10 g4?! Gxd4.
A B20 ge
b) 10 Bhgl is not recommended ei-
ther: 10...c8! 11 24 (11 2b3 a5 12
f3 is the least of all the evils) 11...Ae5
(11...Axd4!?) 12 2d3 d5! ¥ Olesen-
Dlugy, Philadelphia 1994.
c) 10 £3 Bc8 (10...Aa5!?; 10...a6)
transposes to note ‘f24’ to Black’s 8th
move in Line C3.
C351)
10 2b3 He8
Or:
a) 10...Axd4 11 S2xd4 (11 Bxd4!?
Wa5) and here:
al) 11...8c6 12 £41? Wa5 13 Bhfl
b5 14 e5!, Tukmakov-Minkov, USSR
1967.
a2) 11...b5 12 e5! dxe5 13 &xe5
We8 14 Ded.
a3) 11...Wa5 transposes to Line
C34.
b) 10...a6 transposes to note ‘b’ to
Black’s 10th move in Line A of Chap-
ter 10.
c) 10...b8!? seems playable as of
now:
cl) 11 £4 Axd4! 12 &xd4 (scarcely
better is 12 Hxd4 b5 13 £5 b4 14 fxe6
fxe6, Kholmov-Lein, USSR Ch (Kiev)
1964/5) 12...e5 = Balashov-Bykov,
USSR 1965.
222 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
c2) 114 &bi (or 11 Bhel) 11...Axd4
12 Rxd4 b5 13 e5 dxe5 14 Bxe5 Wh7
hardly promises anything for White.
c3) 11 g4 Axd4 12 Rxd4 b5
(12...e5!? might be OK: 13 g5 exd4 14
gxf6 dxc3 or 13 Rxe5 Bxg4) 13 g5
(13 e5!? Ae8) 13...DAe8 14 Whd (14
Ehegl!?b4—/1 Bhgl!? Axd4 12 RBxd4
b5 13 4 b4 14 95 De&: 14 Bdgl!?)
14...b4 15 Bd3 bxc3! and now both 16
Eh3 &xg5+ 17 Wxg5 e5, Espig-Kirov,
Timisoara 1972, and 16 f4 &c6!?
Hel Wb7 are likely to be in Black’s fa-
vour.
c4) 11 Bhgl!? Axd4 12 Bxd4 b5
13 g4 (13 e5 dxe5 14 2xe5 Wb7 15 24
2c6 16 g5 Dd7) 13...b4 14 g5 Des,
and instead of 15 4\d5?! exd5 16 &.xd5
g6! (T.Petrosian), White should test
15 Abi or 15 Dad.
d) 10...4a5!? (there is insufficient
material to assess this plan) 11
4\xb3+ 12 axb3 and then:
dl) 12...d5!?.
d2) 12...a5!? 13 g5 De8 and now,
rather than 14 Bhg] a4 15 bxa4 &.xa4
16 £4 £.d7 © Golubev-L. Sokolov, Mos-
cow rpd 1994, 14 f4!? is interesting.
d3) 12...Wa5 13 Sb (Nunn pro-
poses 13 g5!?) and now:
d31) 13...Bfc8 14 g5 Ae8 15 f4
B\c7!9 (15...b5 16 Wed b4 17 Dd5 Bd8
18 h4 with an attack, Soltis-I. Ivanov,
Boston 1988) 16 £5 exf5 17 exf5 &xf5
18 Axf5 Wxf5 19 Hhfl with some
compensation, Ribeiro-Khuzman, Ben-
asque 1993.
d32) 13...Bfb8 14 95 (14 f4 b5 15
e5 De8, Velimirovié-Van der Wiel,
Reggio Emilia 1986/7) 14...Ae8 15 f4
b5 16 Wed b4 17 Ad5, Nelson-Fre-
deric, corr. 1997.
We now return to 10...&c8 (D):
17
11 f4
11 £3 Aa5 (11...Axd4!? 12 Bxd4)—
8...2d7 9 0-0-0 Bc8 10 &b3 Da5 11
0-0.
11 Adb5S Ac8 and then:
a) It appears that 12 @xa7 @xa7 13
&xa7 b6 14 Wa6 Hc6 15 Rad Bxc3!
16 bxc3 (16 2xd7 Hc7 17 &xe8 Wxes8
18 &xb6 We6 —+) 16...Ac7 17 Wb7
g4 &xa4 18 2xb6 225+! favours Black.
b) 12 24 a6 13 Ad4 b5 14 h4 Dads
15 g5 Axb3+ 16 axb3 b4 with strong
counterplay, Franzen-Kochiev, Stary
Smokovec 1982.
c) 12 £426 13 Ad4 a5 14 g4 (Zap-
ata-Limp, S40 Paulo 1997) 14...b5,
and Black stands no worse.
11...a5
11...Wa5!? and then:
a) 125 Axd4 13 Bxd4 (13 &xd47!
is met by 13...e5!) 13...exf5 (13...e5
14 Ad5!; 13... Bxc3 14 d2 Bxc2+ 15
Sxc2 Hc8+ 16 bl Wed 17 Rc3 +)
14 Dd5 Wd8 15 exfS (15 Dxe7+!?
Wrxe7 16 exf5) 15...2xf5 (15...Axd5
16 Bxd5 = Khachian-Mirumian, Ar-
menia 1993) 16 Axe7+ Wxe7 17 WE3
with compensation, Khachian.
b) 12 AdbS5 d5 (12...Ae8!7 13 5 d5
Anand) 13 f5 dxe4 (13...a6 14 exd5!?)
14 4xe4 (as an improvement, Nunn
 5...A\c6 6 &c4 e6: SOZIN AND VELIMIROVIC WITHOUT ...a6 223

proposed 14 Hxd7!? “xd7 15 fxe6) exf5 13 exf5 d5!? (13...2e8) 14 2xf6

14...Axe4 15 Bxd7 exf5 16 Axa7 Hc7 Bxf6 15 Axd5 Rxd5 16 Bxd5 We7 t
and Black has sufficient resources, Yudasin.
Nunn-Dlugy, Wijk aan Zee 1990.
12 e5 Axb3+
aw

ArNS
12...2\e8!? deserves some attention.
Now (after 12...A\xb3+): meme
a) 13 @xb3 dxe5 14 fxe5 Ad5! 15 Sadan

-s
4\xd5 exd5 16 Hxd5 We7 (Boleslav-
sky), and Black should equalize step by Saanan
step. “1
b) 13 axb3 Ae8 (13...dxe5 14 fxe5

WE

“
and now 14...Ad5 15 Axd5 exd5 £ or ESE WRU AES

WW
14...He8 15 Adb5 a6 16 Bxd7! Wxd7
] E27 7

we
17 Hdi — Boleslavsky) 14 @b1 Wa5 15
cl dxe5 16 fxe5 Ao7 17 Hd3 Hfds X

18 Hh3 Se8 19 Wed £5! 20 exf6 R26 11e5

with sufficient counterplay, Szuk-Feher, Or:
Budapest 1994. a) 11 &b3- /0 2b3 Bc8 11 f4.
b) 11 4b3!? is curious, Borocz-
C352) Feher, Hungarian Cht 1989.
10 £4! Hc8 (D) c) 11 £5 a5 (11...Axd4!? 12 Bxd4
Or: exf5 13 exf5 Rxf5 14 94) 12 2d3 (12
a) 10...Wb8?! 11 £5 Axd4 12 Bxd4 fxe6!? Axc4 13 exd7 Wxd7 14 Bg5
(12 Bxd4 + Nunn) 12...b5 13 fxe6 +. Kholmov) 12...e5 13 @b3 b5! with a
b) 10...Wc8 11 DAF3!1? We7 (11...a6 good game for Black, Kholmov-Tal,
12 e5 Ae8 13 h4!, Peters-Dlugy, Los Riga (1) 1968.
Angeles 1988) 12 &b1 a6 13 2d3 e5 d) 11 Axc6!? bxc6 (11...2xc6 12
(13...b5 14 e5!) 14 £5 Ab4 (Wolff- &xa7!?) 12 e5 (12 g4!9) 12..Ad5 13
Dlugy, Toronto 1989) 15 &c4!? is exd6 2xd6 14 Wd3 with some advan-
slightly better for White. tage for White, Ashley-Avrukh, Wijk
c) 10...We7 11 £5!? (11 Bb3!? aan Zee 2000.
@xd4 12 Hxd4; 11 Adb5!? Wb8 12 11...He8
Wd2; 11 Bhfl) 11...axd4 12 Rxd4 11...dxe5 12 Axc6 bxc6 13 fxe5
exf5 13 exf5 &xf5 14 Bdel with com- Ad5 14 Ded +.
pensation, Severodvinsk-Prokopievsk, 12 Axc6 Axc6 13 f5 exf5 14 e6
telegraph game between towns, 1967. Gh8 15 exf7 ALG 16 Re6 2d7 17
d) 10...a6 11 e5 dxe5 12 @xc6 bxc6 &.b3! £418 2xf4 294 19 We3 2xd1
13 fxe5 Ad5 14 Ded + Timman-Lju- 20 Exd1
bojevic, Novi Sad OL 1990, White has more than adequate com-
e) 10..Axd4 11 Rxd4 2c6 (not pensation, Topalov-Leko, Dortmund
11...e5? 12 fxe5 Se4 13 exf6!) 12 £5 1996.
14 Anti-Sozin: 5...Ac6 6 &c4
Wb6 and 6...2.d7

1 e4 c5 2 Af3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 Berlin Wch (7) 1910) is not clear, but
AE6 5 Ac3 Ac6 6 &c4 (D) 9 exd6 provides White with better
chances, and 9 &f4, with the point
x 2Wee a
9...d5 10 Axd5! +, is even more criti-
cal.
Ah haha c) 6...Axd4?! 7 Wxd4 e5 (7...e6 8
eh S85! is a Richter-Rauzer with an extra
We, Va, Yy ‘We we tempo for White due to the difference
between Wd1xd4 and Wdl-d2xd4) 8
VBBAW, 7
a e

Wd3 with an obvious advantage for

\

ly, a Z White.

SO NE ag ae
a YW
"UY,
d) 6...e5 is not entirely logical ei-

B GwWS 78
In the previous chapters (1-13) we
described a whole range of positions
with an early ...e6 (5...e6 6 2c4; 5...a6
6 &c4 e6; 5...Ac6 6 2c4 e6) and di-
gressed from this topic just once in
Chapter 2 when we considered some
rare ideas for Black after 5...a6 6 &c4.
Now it is time to talk about the avoid-
ance of 6...e6 in the position shown in
the diagram.
Two lines are of particular interest:
A: 6...9.d7 225
B: 6...Wb6 229
The other moves are:
a) 6...a6 — 5...a6 6 &c4 Ac6 (note
c’ to Black’s 6th move in Chapter 2).
b) 6...67! 7 Axc6! bxc6 8 e5 Aga.
Now 9 e6?! £5 (Schlechter-Em.Lasker,
ther:
dl) 7 Af5 is interesting but not
too convincing. For instance: 7...&xf5
(7...%€6 8 Ae3!?) 8 exf5 Re7 9 gs
0-0 10 &xf6 Bxf6 11 0-0 Ad4 12 24
Hc8 13 2b3, Morovié-Mohamed, Cap
d’ Agde rpd 1998.
d2) White gains some advantage
through 7 @de2 2e6 8 2b3 2e7 90-0
0-0 10 £4 (or 10 Bh).
d3) 7 Af3 h6 8 0-0 2e7 9 Hel 0-0
10 AdS Re6 11 2b3 +.
e) 6...Aa5!? (this is at least better
than 6...@e5?, after which the black
knight will inevitably be attacked later
by f4) 7 &b5+!2 (7 2d3 26! =; 7 Re2!?
e6 8 0-0 yields a little-studied posi-
tion; 7 2b3 e6 transposes to note ‘b’ to
Black’s 7th move in Line B of Chapter
13) 7...8.d7 8 We2 e6 9 Rg5 Re7 10
0-0-0 a6 11 &xd7+ Axd7 12 Rxe7
Wxe7 13 Ab3!? Axb3+ 14 axb3 Hc8
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &.c4 Wb6 AND 6...8.d7 225

15 Wd2 Bc6 16 Bhel 0-0 17 He3 + dl) 7...Axe4? 8 Axed Wa5+ 9 63

Hraéek-Chernyshov, Czech Cht 2000. Wes 10 2d3 d5 11 £4 +—.
d2) 7...Wb6 8 Ab3 e6 transposes
A) to Line B531.
6...2.d7 (D) d3) 7...e6!7 8 AdbS (8 2xf6? Wxf6
This continuation has not received 9 Gdb5 0-0-0! Koblenc), and Black
much attention for a long time though can continue with 8...Wb8 (which ap-
it still occurs occasionally in grand- pears most reliable) or maybe 8... Wb6.
master play. By playing 6...2.d7, Black d4) 7...Wa5 8 2xf6 gxf6 leads to
preserves the possibility of ...e6 (with a positions with chances for both sides:
transposition to some lines with 6...c6 d41) 9 &d5 (Bronstein) 9...Axd4!
and ...$.d7) or ...g6 (if he wishes to ob- 10 Wxd4 297.
tain Dragon positions). Black used to d42) 9 @b3 We5, and now 10 0-0
link 6...%d7 mainly with the latter Bes 11 g3h5 12 Ad5 Hc8 (12...0-0-0!9
plan, but it gradually became clear that Nunn) 13 £4, Geller-Averbakh, Zurich
he encounters some problems there. Ct 1953, or 10 g3 h5!? (10...f5 11 e5!?,
Kruppa-Sorokin, Kherson 1991) 11 £4
Wed 12 Be2 We6 13 Wa2 f5 14 2f3
xz Wee & fxe4 15 Rxed S&f5, Brodsky-Neved-
AA S4adS nichy, Bucharest 1994.
Ww
a Yieuy, Y
e) 7 &e3!? Aga (it is not consis-
tent to play 7...e6 or 7...g6 8 £3!;
Via, U0.
os 7...Hc8 8 2b3 Ag4 9 0-0!? Axe3 10
fxe3 e6 deserves attention) 8 Axc6 (8
Pgh a 0-07! Ace5! 9 &b3 Axe3 10 fxe3 e6
oN ig Bn is clearly harmless for Black) 8...bxc6
(8...A\xe3? 9 &xf7+! +) with a little-
A GMS 72 studied position; e.g., 9 &f4 (9 225?!
Wb6; 9 Bcl!?) 9...e5 10 &g3 (10
Now: 2d2!? Gofshtein) 10...2e7 11 h3!?
Al: 7 2b3 226 (avoiding ideas like 11 We2 0-0 12 0-0
A2: 70-0 227 h5!, Gdanski-Nevednichy, Krynica Z
1998) 11...Af6 12 0-0 with the idea of
The other continuations are rare al- hl and f4.
though at least two of them (7 &e3 f) 7 &xc6!? and then:
and 7 “xc6) are of some interest: fl) 7...2xc6 8 We2, and White can
a) 7 £4 g6! = Lipnitsky-Boleslav- struggle for the initiative after 8...26 9
sky, Moscow 1950. B95 2p7 10 0-0-0 Was 11 h4!? (11
b) After 7 £3, Black can happily 4\d5) 11...0-0 12 &bi, Gi. Hemandez-
choose between 7...Wb6! or any stan- J.Armas, Cuba 1992, or 8...c6 9 24},
dard set-up with ...e6. Lein-Averbakh, USSR Ch (Baku) 1961,
c) If 7 h3, the simplest is 7...e6!. but 8...2xe4!? (Gofshtein) deserves at-
d) 7 &g5 should not worry Black: tention.
226 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

f2) After 7...bxc6!? 8 0-0 e6 9 We2 dl) 9 0-0!? @xe3 10 fxe3 e6 11

Re7 10 b3 d5 11 2d3 (Gi.Hernan- “Axc6 bxc6 12 e5 d5 (Berzinsh-An-
dez-Korchnoi, Moscow OL 1994) I toniewski, Czech Cht 1998) 13 We4!
would prefer to be White. Berzinsh.
d2) 9 @xc6 bxc6 10 WF3 Ae 11
Al) e5 (Kasparov/Nikitin) looks danger-
7 &b3 (D) ous for Black.
e) 7..2a5, with the point 8 f4
xei 4)xb3 9 axb3 e5, is of some interest.

, magskama
f) 7...e6!? is likely to transpose to
\

lines discussed in Chapter 13, but the

So

oak mo
i

moves ...&d7 and £b3 restrict the

oe

“@e @ possibilities of both Black and White.

"0

eA @ 8 Re3 Re7 transposes to note ‘b’ to

On @ s
Black’s 8th move in Line C2 of Chap-
\\
es

ter 13.
ARAM EAR
X

m Owe 72
7.26
This is the standard response, al-
though Black enjoys a wide choice:
a) 7...axd4 8 Wxd4 g6 is unpleas-
antly met by 9 Wc4!, Mad]-Gaprin-
dashvili, Kishinev 1998.
b) 7...Wa5 8 0-0 is slightly better
for White (e.g. 8...26 9 h3 2g7 10
e3 transposing to a Dragon).
c) 7...8c8 and now:
cl) 8 &g5 Was 9 Axf6 gxf6 100-0
is unclear; then 10...¥4c5! was recom-
mended by Bednarski.
c2) 8 £3!7 a6 (8...26 9 Be3!; 8...c67!
9 Adb5!) 9 Re3 e6 10 g4 ~.
c3) 80-0! is simplest~ 7 0-0 Xc8 8
&.b3.
d) 7...a6 8 Qe3 (8 f3 e6!; after 8
&95!?, Taimanov’s 8...Wa5 is not en-
tirely convincing; 8 0-0!? — 7 0-0 a6 8
&b3 +) 8...Ag4 (8...Aa5!? 9 £4 Axb3
10 axb3 e5 may be playable, Bogdano-
vi¢-Taimanov, Budva 1967) and now:
8 £3 (D)
With the idea of transposing to the
Yugoslav Attack through 9 2e3.
Using the same idea, it is possible
to play 8 &e3!? (Fischer) 8...Ag4 9
4\xc6 bxc6 10 WF3 (10 Bd4 e5! is sat-
isfactory for Black, Velimirovié-Ivan-
isevic, Yugoslav Ch (Subotica) 2000;
10 Wd4!? eS 11 Wed We7 12 2d2
&97 13 £3 Af6 14 0-0-0 0-0 15 &g5,
Smejkal-Hora, Pardubice 1965), and
now:
a) 10...Ae5 11 We2 2g7 12 £4 (12
h3 c5!) 12...0g4 13 Rd2 0-0 14 0-0
Hb8 15 Lh, Ehlvest-de la Riva, Dos
Hermanas open 1998, appears more
promising for White.
b) Black can obtain a good game
by 10...Af6!? 11 Bg5 Ve7 12 e5 dxe5
13 0-0-0 0-0 14 &xf6 exf6!.
Other continuations (i.e. anything
except 8 f3 and 8 23) allow Black to
transpose to Dragon lines that are at
least satisfactory for him; e.g., 8 h3
S97 (8...Axd4!?) 9 Be3 0-0 10 0-0
Hes.
8...Axd4
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...A\c6 6 &.c4 Wb6 AND 6...8.d7 227

S&xf7+ Bxf7 16 Wd5+ £ Makarychev)

14 Sbi (14 &5!7) 14... Be8 (14... 2e6!?
15 2h6 Makarychev) 15 &2h6 &xh6
16 Wxh6 Wxc3 17 Wd2 + de Firmian-
Makarychev, Oslo 1984.
11 0-0-0!
Black again has adequate counter-
chances after 11 Wd2 b5!.
Aa Gar Or 11 We3 b5! 12 h4 b4 (12...a5 13

Sowa ya a4 bxa4 14 4 xa4 Bb8 15 h5 AxhS5 16

24 D6 17 Bh6 Bxa4 18 Rxg7 Sxg7
19 Bxa4 Eb5 Ciocaltea-Stein, Cara-
8...a5 9 e517 Be7 10 Wd2 h6 cas 1970, is probably also satisfactory)
11 Re3 Hc8 12 0-0-0 with an advan- 13 He2 a5 14 Bh6 Hc8 (14... 2xh6!?
tage for White, Fischer-Gligori¢, Yu- and 14...a4!? are other ideas for Black)
goslavia Ct 1959. 15 h5 2xh6 16 Wxh6 (Saren-Ro-
8...&27!79 Be3 0-0 leads to a posi- batsch, Forssa/Helsinki Z 1972), and
tion that results both from the Dragon Black holds on due to 16...a4! with the
and the Accelerated Dragon. Due to point 17 hxg6 axb3 18 g7 He8 19 94
the early &b3, Black has the resource Wb6! 20 g5 We3 (Florian).
10 Wd2 Axd4!? 11 &xd4 b5, and the 11...h6
attempt 10 h4!? has its disadvantages Or: L1...b5 12 e5!; 11... Bas 12 Ba2!,
(as in the case of 10 Wd2 Hc8 11 0-0-0 11...2e6 12 Wd2 + Wa5 13 Sb1 Bfc8
%4e5, the main move for White nowa- 14 h4 b5 15 h5 2xb3 16 cxb3 b4 17
days is not 12 h4 but 12 &b1!). @&d5 @xd5 18 exd5 and White pos-
9 Wxd4 297 10 2g5 sesses the initiative, Parma-Averbakh,
10 &e3 0-0 11 Wd2 bS! gives Black Titovo UZice 1965.
good counterplay. 12 2h4 2c6 13 We3 Ad7?!
10...0-0 13...Wa5 + T.Petrosian.
An unclear alternative is 10...Wa5!? 14 Exde! g5 15 Ego! e6 16 Exg7+
11 Wd2 Hc8, and then: &xp7 17 2f2
a) 12 h4 Re6 13 AdS Wxd2+ 14 The position favours White, Tal-
&xd2 2xd5 15 exd5 h6 is not danger- Stein, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1969.
ous for Black, Kudriashov-Averbakh,
USSR Cht 1968. A2)
b) 12 0-0 Be6 (12...Ah5 Makary- 70-0 (D)
chev) 13 &h6 with some initiative for 7.26
White, Renet-Korchnoi, Swiss Cht This is more dubious here than after
1995. 7 &b3 (Line A1). Other ideas:
c) 12 0-0-0 Bxc3 13 bxc3 0-0 (the a) 7...a6 8 &b3! (8 Bp5!? €6; 8
alternatives are 13...h6 14 2e3! Axe4 Axc6!? &xc6 9 Hel e6 10 Ad5, Jok-
15 fxe4d 2xc3 16 Wxc3 Wxc3 17 2d4 8i¢-Shirazi, New York 1982) 8...e6
+— and 13...Axe4d 14 fxed &xc3 15 (8...g6 9 A\xc6!) transposes to note ‘b’
228 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
“,
SB. RAR
XZ BwM7/ 2S
to Black’s 8th move in Line B of Chap-
ter 8 (4).
b) 7...Hc8 8 &b3 (8 &g5!?) and
then 8...a6 9 2e3! + (less convincing
is 9 Axc6!? 2xc6 10 Hel e6, Soltis-
Shirazi, New York 1987) or 8...g6 9
A#xc6! &xc6 (9...bxc6 10 £4!) 10 Bel
(or 10 2g5 Bg7 11 Ad5) 10...Rg7 11
A&d5 0-0 12 Rg5 Axd5 13 exd5 —
7...6 8 Axc6! Bxc6 9 Re5 Bg7 10
Ad5 Bxd5 1] exd5 0-0 12 Hel Bc8 13
RbZx.
c) 7...e6 is more reliable. For in-
stance, 8 2b3 2e7 9 Be3 0-0 trans-
poses to Line C221 of Chapter 13.
8 Axc6! 2xc6
After 8...bxc6 9 f4! Black has some
difficulties with his development:
a) 9...Wc7? 10 e5! dxeS 11 fxe5
Wrxe5 12 &xf7+! &xf7 13 Wxd7 (Bole-
slavsky).
b) 9..Ag4 10 We2!? is better for
White, Koopman-Makarychev, Gron-
ingen jr Ech 1973/4.
c) 9...Was 10 Shl 2g7 (Black
should consider 10...47h5!?) It e5! +.
d) 9..2¢4 10 Wd3 (10 Wel!? d5
11 £3 dxe4 12 Axe4 Bp7 13 Dxf6+
&xf6 14 £5 gives White a slight advan-
tage, A.Sokolov-Sax, Brussels 1988)
10...2g7 11 h3 (not wholly clear is 11
e5 ®d7 12 exd6 Abb 13 Bab 0-0,
Nunn-Balashov, Toluca IZ 1982)
11...&c8 12 e5 Ad7 13 exd6 Ab6 14
dxe7 Wrxe7 (14...Wd4+? 15 2e3 Wxc4
16 Wd8#) 15 2b3 0-0 16 Re3 Hs
17 We2 (Chandler-Kupreichik, Minsk
1982) and now 17...2xc3 18 bxc3 2a6
(Chandler) does not promise Black
equality.
9 295
9 Dd5 2g7 10 &g5 comes to the
same thing.
A less consistent line is 9 We2 227
10 &g5 (10 Hdl 0-0!? 11 e5 De8)
10...0-0 11 Bad Wa5 12 AdS Rxd5 13
exd5 e5!, A.Sokolov-Korchnoi, Reyk-
javik World Cup 1988.
9...227 10 Ad5 &xd5
10...e6? 11 Axf6+ Rxf6 12 Rxf6
Wxf6 13 Wxd6 Hd8 (13...Wxb2 14
abt +—) 14 Wa3 +.
10...0-0!? 11 &xf6 gives White some
advantage after any recapture on f6
(weaker is 11 Hel e6!, when White has
nothing better than 12 “xf6+ &xf6 13
2xf6 =).
11 exd5 0-0
11...Ae4!? 12 2b5+ SF8 13 Rc
h5, Lendwai-Robatsch, Austrian Cht
1995.
12 Hel
Practice has shown that White en-
joys a small advantage here. After
12...c8 13 &b3 Wd7 or 12...d7 fol-
lowed by ...Efc8, Black preserves great
defensive resources but it is hardly
possible to talk about equality.
Summing up: the rare ideas for
White on move 7 require more testing.
The main continuations, 7 2b3 and 7
0-0, make Black choose between 7...e6
and 7...g6. 7...e6 is satisfactory, but it
is hard to say whether it is worthwhile
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 S.c4 Wbh6 AND 6...2d7 229

to begin with 6...8.d7. As regards 7...g6, compensation in the game Velimiro-

this move probably works better after vic-Valvo, Krakow 1964.
7 &b3 than it does after 7 0-0.

B)
6...Wb6 (D)
UY

yw wea
" Lei a YW

7 D O

Black now has a number of promis-

ing possibilities:
a) 9...2e6 10 &xe6 fxe6 11 0-0 is
unclear, Polzin-Martinovic, Austrian
This currently popular line was in- Cht 2000/1.
troduced by Pal Benko at the end of b) 9...Ae5 10 £b3 (10 Ebi !? Wxc4
the 1950s. It is clear that the queen 11 Wxc4 Axc4 12 Ac7+ Yds 13
will not stay on b6 for long but Black @xa8 Dxe3 14 fxe3 b6 15 0-0 2b7 16
is ready to lose a tempo in order to dis- &xb6 axb6 17 Bxb6 © I.Zaitsev-Mak-
rupt White’s attacking scheme. arov, St Petersburg 1997) 10...a6 11
White has to determine the charac- &c7+ (11 2d2 axb5 12 Axb5 We5 13
ter of further play by choosing be- Se3 and now 13...8b4+ offers equal-
tween the main move 7 “b3, three ity, while 13...Wce6!? 14 2d5 Wd7 15
topical alternatives (7 Axc6, 7 Ade2 &b6 e6 is also possible) 11...8d8 12
and 7 4\db5) and the speculative gam- 2d2 &xc7 13 Ad5+ Axd5 14 Rxb4
bit idea of 7 Re3. &)xb4 (Pinski) — Black’s chances are
B1: 7 2e3?! 229 hardly worse.
B2: 7 Adb5!? 230 c) 9...&g4!2 10 £3 Axed (Miseren-
B3: 7 @de2!? = 235 dino-Zarnicki, Villa Martelli 1998) 11
B4: 7 xc6!? 241 2d4! (Olthof), with uncertain conse-
B5: 7 Ab3 247 quences.
d) 9...Axe4 and then:
B1) dl) 10 £4 gives Black a good
7 2037! Wxb2 8 AdbS Wh4! 9 choice:
We2 (D) dil) 10...2f5 11 a3 Axd4 (11...Was
After 9 &d3 Wa5 10 &d2 Wd8 11 12 0-0-0! Axd4 13 Exd4 Axc3 14
&d5 Axd5 12 exd5 He5 13 Re2 a6 14 Sxd6+ @d8 15 Axb74++ Bc7 16
4\d4 Wc7 White obtained no genuine &xa5 Axe2+ 17 &xe2 + Dubinski) 12
230
axb4 4)xe2 13 Dxe4 Hc8 with a good
game (Lepeshkin).
di2) 10...Axd4 11 Wxed Axc2+!
(11...Ac6 is risky in view of 12 Hbl,
Maslennikov-Kremenetsky,
1996, as is 11...e5 due to
Wxc4 13 Hxd4 Wc6 14 Ad5, Dubin-
sky-Grachev, Moscow 1996) 12 @d1
RES! (12...f5 13 Ac7+ Sd8 14 Wxc2!
Wxc4 15 4xa8 2d7 is possibly over-
optimistic) 13 &xf7+ d8! 14 Wxfs
(14 Wxb7!? Bc8 15 Wxa7) 14...Axal
15 Re8& Sxe8 16 Ac7+ Sd8 17 Aeb+
= Pinski.
d2) 10 2xf7+!? Sxf7 11 Bb1 Was
12 We4+ e6 (12...2e6 13 Wxed 26 14
0-0 827? 15 Axd6+ exd6 16 Exb7+
+ Lepeshkin) 13 Wxe4 and now:
d21) 13...Wd8 can be met by 14
0-0 d5 15 Wr3+ Sg8 16 24.
d22) 13...d5 14 Wf3+ Sg8 15 0-0
Wa8 16 2f4 (Dubinski-S.Kiselev, Mos-
cow 1998) 16...a6 17 Ac7 Ha7 18
Xfel W6 19 Aa4! (Dubinski) is un-
clear.
d23) Balinov recommended
line 13...8¢8 14 &d2 a6 with an ad-
vantage.
e) 9...Wa5 (the most solid reply) 10
Sd2 Wd8 11 Ad5 Axd5 12 exd5 He5
13 &b3 (13 f4 Bg4 14 Axd6+ exd6
15 &b5+ &d7 16 fxe5 dxe5 17 Wxe5+
We7 = Pinski-P. Varga, Budapest 1997;
13 4a3!? L.Zaitsev) 13...a6 14 f4 (14
4\a3!? 6 15 f4 Dd7 16 Ac4 Lepesh-
kin; 14 Dd4 g6 15 f4 Ad7
leanu-Nevednichy, Romanian Cht
1997) 14...Ag4! 15 Aa3 (15 Ad4 96
16 &.a4+ @d7 17 De6 fxe6 18 xd7+
Wxd7 19 dxe6 +) and now:
el) 15...65 16 c4! @d7
axb5 18 “xb5 Wb6 19 &c4 is difficult
for Black.
THE SICILIAN SOZIN
e2) 15...\We7 16 Ac4 bS 17 Bad
We5 18 Ab6 Hb8 19 Axc8 Wxc8 20
c4! also gives Black problems, Pinski-
Galliamova, Koszalin 1997.
Moscow e3) 15...26 16 &c3 Hg8 17 Ac4 bS
12 0-0-0 18 h3! bxc4 19 Ba4+ Rd7 20 Bxd7+
Wxd7 21 hxg4 (Pinski-Shishkin, Nad-
ole 1997) 21...$.g¢7 leads to double-
edged play.
e4) 15...2\f6 may be even stronger,
Rosabal-B.Martinez, Placetas 2000.
On the whole, after 7 2e3 it is Black
rather than White who is fighting for
the advantage.
B2)
7 Ddb5!? (D)
ek
am
oh
the
Though it is not a critical response
to 6... Wb6, this move gives White good
chances of obtaining a position in the
usual spirit of the Sozin, and does not
give Black relief from some objective
F Arde- opening problems.
Black faces a curious choice:
a) To transpose to a starting posi-
tion of our Chapter 11 via 7...a6 8 #e3
Wad8 9 A\d4 e6 with a possible 10 We2
17 cxb5 and the Velimirovi¢ Attack.
b) To transpose to the Classical
Sozin with an early ...Wc7: 7...a6 8
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &c4 Wb6 AND 6...2.d7
Re3 Was 9 Ad4 e6 10 0-0 We7!7 11
&b3. This is probably the best deci-
sion, although not very popular among
the advocates of 6...Wb6.
c) To leave the queen on a5, thus
reaching the Classical Sozin with an
extra tempo of doubtful value: 7...a6 8
&e3 Was 9 Ad4 e6 10 0-0 Re7 Ih
2b3 0-0 — here, this will be our main
line.
d) Not to agree to the Sozin struc-
ture (7...a6 8 2e3 Was 9 Ad4 e6) and
to seek his fortune by deviating with
9... Ded, 9...Ne5, 8...Wd8 9 Add Agd
or 7...2.24.
7...a6
Or 7...$224, and then:
a) 8 £3 2d7 9 We2 a6 10 Re3 Was
11 Ad4 b5 12 &b3 e6 with a double-
edged game; e.g., 13 0-0-0 (13 a3; 13
Wf2) 13...b4! (Velimirovi¢é) 14 Ab!
(14 @d5!? exd5 15 exdS Axd4 16
&xd4+ Sd8 Kramnik) 14...2e7 15 ¢4
(15 Ad2? We7 F Kramnik) 15...Axd4
(15...0-017 16 g5 Dxd4 17 Bxd4 Bb5
18 Wd2 Ad7 Kramnik) 16 Hxd4 e5 17
Edd1 (Topalov-Kramnik, Dos Herma-
nas 1996) 17...Wc7 18 Ad2 a5 Kram-
nik.
b) 8 Ad5! Axd5 9 Wxed Af (a
better idea than 9...A\db4?! 10 We2
B#e5 11 &b3 Abd3+ 12 cxd3 Wxb5
13 d4! + Macieja-Krush, Presov 2000)
10 We2 + Velimirovié-Goldin, Yugo-
slav Cht 1996.
8 2e3 Wad
Or 8...Wd8 9 Ad4 Aga!? (9...c6
transposes to Chapter 11) 10 @xc6
(10 0-0 Ace5 11 2b3 Axe3 12 fxe3
e6!, M.Schlosser-Goldin, Sochi 1989)
10...bxc6, and now:
a) 11 &d2 96! (11...Af6 12 0-0 e6
13 2d3 = Velimirovié-Barlov, Cetinje
231
1992) 12 h3 @f6 (12...Ae5!? 13 Bb3
&27) 13 &g5 Be7 14 Wd2 0-0 15
0-0-0 (de Firmian-Zso.Polgar, Ber-
muda 1995) 15...%e6!? (Cu.Hansen)
with good chances for Black.
b) 11 &f4 eS 12 Bg3 Re7 13 h3
46 14 0-0 0-0 15 Shi g6 16 Rh2
4&\h5 = Blasek-Khalifman, Bad Mer-
gentheim 1989.
c) 11 &g5!2 Wb6 (or 11...h6 12
&.d2!?) 12 Wd2 h6 13 Qh4 Wxb2
(13...g5!? 14 2g3 2g7) 14 Bb1 Wa3
15 Ad5 cxd5 16 Rxd5 Ha7 17 Bb3
Wad 18 Wc3 Sd8 19 &c6 Wxa?2 20 £3
Hc7 21 fxg4 &b7 22 Axb7 with a dan-
gerous initiative, Tompa-Csom, Hun-
garian Ch (Budapest) 1976.
d) 11 Wf3 Ae5 12 We2 6 (12...26
13 f4 Axc4 14 Wxc4 Re7 15 Rd4 +
G.Todorovié-Z. Vukovié, Yugoslav Ch
(Kladovo) 1990) 13 0-0-0 (13 &b3
Re7 14 £4 Ad7 15 g4?! Bh44+!, Oni-
shchuk-Sulypa, Donetsk Z 1998)
13...2e7 (13...Axc4 14 Wxc4 We7!?
Ivanchuk) 14 &d4 (14 &b3 a5!? 15 f4
&.a6 16 Wd2 Ad7 Gofshtein) 14...We7
(14...Axc4 15 Wxc4 We7 16 &xg7
Ee8 17 2h6 Exg2 18 Ehgl Bg6 ~
Ivanchuk) 15 &xe5 dxe5 16 Dad 0-0
17 Hd3! (17 b3?! &d7!, Macieja-Ivan-
chuk, Polanica Zdroj 1998) 17...WaS
18 b3 Hb8 19 Wd2 Wxd2+ 20 Sxd2 t
Ivanchuk-Kramnik, Linares 1998. As
the game against Macieja was played
later, we may assume that Ivanchuk
had something in reserve.
9 Dd4 (D)
Black has won a tempo, but as a rule
...a6 and ...Wa5 combine poorly in the
Sicilian, and the value of this tempo is
therefore rather unclear.
9...e6
The alternative tries are:
232
a) 9...2xe4?! 10 WF3! and then:
al) 10...Axc3? 11 Axcé
Wxf5 &xf5 13 Ad4 +.
a2) 10...Ae5 can be answered by
11 &xf7+ or 11 Wxe4! Axc4 12 Ab3
We7 13 Ads We6 14 Ad4
0-0-0 Boleslavsky.
a3) 10..0f6 11 Axc6
4\xe7!? gives White a clear advantage.
a4) 10...f5 11 Axc6 bxc6 12 0-0-0
d5 13 @xe4 (less convincing is 13
&xd5!?) 13...fxe4 (13...dxe4 14 Weg3
e5 15 Bg5 +—) 14 Wh5+ 6 15 Wes
He8 16 Bxd5 cxd5 17 &xd5 Ws
Wxed &£5 19 2c6+ +— Kindermann-
Ziiger, Mendoza tt 1985.
b) 9...g6 10 0-0 (10 f3!? is possi-
ble; e.g., 10...2¢7 11 2b3 0-0 12 Wd2
&d7 13 0-0-0 Hfc8 14h4 Ae5 15 Bbl
bS5 16 Bh6) 10...227 11 Ad5! Axd5S
12 exd5 Ae5 13 Rb3 0-0 14 h3 +
Vladimirov-Zaichik, USSR 1979.
c) 9...A\xd4 and then:
cl) 10 $xd4!? e5 (10...Axe4
0-0 Axc3 12 &xc3 We7 13 Wd3 gives
White compensation — Onishchuk) 11
Se3 Re6 12 Wd3 + Onishchuk- Yer-
molinsky, Wijk aan Zee 1997.
c2) 10 Wxd4 e6 11 &b3 Be7 12
0-0 (12 0-0-0 0-0 13 £4 Ad7 14 24
&c5 «© Gi.Hernandez-Damijanovié,
THE SICILIAN SOZIN
Lyons 1990) 12...0-0 13 f4 Ag4 14
2d2 Wc7 (14...2£67! 15 e5!) 15 Shi
b5 (de Firmian-Damljanovi¢, Erevan
OL 1996) 16 a4 (Damljanovi¢) with
the point 16...&f6 17 e5!.
d) 9...@\g4!? and now:
di) 10 0-0!? Ace5! (10...Axe3 11
fxe3 Ded 12 Wh5! +) 11 2b3 Axe3
12 fxe3 e6 13 Wh5 g6 14 Wh3 and
now Black should play 14...Wd8!?
rather than 14...We7?! 15 Sa4+! +
Balzar-Dinstuhl, Bundesliga 2000/1.
d2) 10 Axc6 bxc6 11 &d2 (11 0-0
WES 12 &xe3 12 fxe3 e6 13 WF3 Ka7 14 Hadl
We5 15 Aad4!? with a sharp game,
Ginsburg-Shmuter, Nikolaev Z 1993)
11...g6 (11...Axf2?! can be met by
Wd7 15 Bilek’s 12 W£3! or Sax’s 12 &xf7+
Sxf7 13 0-0!; 11...Wb6 deserves at-
We7 12 tention: 12 0-0 Wd4!?, Ehivest-Tella,
Jyvaskyla 1998, or 12 We2 De5 13
Had We7 14 2b3 c5, de Firmian-Tella,
Stockholm 1998) and now:
d21) 12 0-0? We5! F Sax.
d22) 12 Re2 Ded 13 f4 (13 AdS
18 Wd8 14 Ae3 2g7 15 Rc3 0-0 16 £4
Wb6! 17 Wd2 Ad7 18 Ac4, Atalik-
Kotronias, Greece 1998, 18...Wce5 Ata-
lik) 13...0d7 14 Dd5 Wd8 15 Bc3 e5
16 De3 Ac5!2 17 Vl3 Aad! 18 Wa2
Wb6 (Atalik) appears satisfactory for
Black.
d23) 12 We2 R27 (12...e5?! 13
&b3 2g7 14 £4 Ad7 15 Wed!) and
here:
11 d231) 13 h3 Aes 14 Vb3 We7 15
f4 Dd7 16 Be3 0-0 17 0-0 a5 ~ de
Firmian-Smirin, New York rpd 1995.
d232) 13 £40-0 14.0-0-0 Wb6 15 h3
46 16 2b3 BLe6 (16...a5 17 e5!, de
Firmian-D.Gurevich, USA Ch (Estes
Park) 1986) 17 eS @d5 = de Firmian-
Rachels, USA Ch (Long Beach) 1989.
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...A\c6 6 &.c4 Wb6 AND 6...8.d7
d233) 13 &b3 0-0 14 0-0 Ae5 15
£4 Dd7 16 e5!? dxe5 17 £5 Af 18 fxg6
hxg6 19 “Ae4 is awkward for Black,
Sax-Radulov, Vrnjatka Banja 1974.
d234) 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 2b3 We7
15 h4 h5!? 16 £3 He5 17 24 Axed 18
fxg4 &xg4 and again Black’s pros-
pects are vague, M.Pavlovi¢-Zaichik,
Protvino 1988.
e) 9...Ae5!? and now:
el) 10 2b3? Axe4.
e2) 10 Ab3 We7 11 2d3 (11 Re2
e6 transposes to Line B542) 11...c6
(11...g6 12 &g5!) and then:
e21) 120-0 b5!? =.
e22) 12 a4 2d7! 13 Ad2 (13 We2
Hc8!) 13...2c6 14 £4 Axd3+ 15 cxd3
d5 16 e5 d4! 17 &xd4 Bd8, Macieja-
Damljanovié, Belgrade 1999.
e23) 12 £4 Ac4 13 Bcl!?(13 Rxc4
again transposes to Line B542) 13...b5
14 We2 2b7 15 a4 b4 followed by
16...d5 17 e5 Be4 gives Black suffi-
cient counterchances.
e3) 10 2d3 Aeg4!? (10...c6 11 f4!?
&xd3+ 12 cxd3 + Kramnik; 10...26!?;
10...Afe4!?) 11 Aci (11 &d2? Woe!
F) 11...g6 (11...8b6 12 0-0! Wxd4?
13 &b5+) 12 Ab3! (12 £4 e5! 13 Ab3
Wb6 14 We2 exf4 Kramnik) 12... Wb6
13 We2!? (13 0-0 &g7 14 h3 eS)
13...%g7 14 f4 AhS! (“There is noth-
ing else” — Kramnik) 15 @d5 (15
W3? Axh2!; 15 2d2!? 2xc3 16 bxc3
0-0 17 c4 Kramnik) 15...Wd8 16 &d2
(16 0-0 0-0 17 h3 Agf6 18 Axf6+
@xf6 = Kramnik) 16...e6! 17 2a5
(17 Wxg4 exd5 18 Wf3 0-0! Bonsch)
17...Wh4+ 18 ¢3 Axg3 19 Ac7+ (19
hxg3 Wxg3+ 20 Sd2 exd5 and now
21 exd5+ @d7! or 21 Hafl! Are 22
exd5+ Sf8 23 &b4 &g4! — Kramnik)
19...8e7 20 hxg3 Wxg3+ 21 dl
233
“f2+ = Topalov-Kramnik, Belgrade
1995.
10 0-0 2e7
Or:
a) 10...We7!? 11 &b3 — 6...e6 7
Rb3 a6 8 &e3 Wc7 9 0-0 (note ‘a’ to
White’s 9th move in Line C3 of Chap-
ter 8).
b) 10...Ae5 11 Re2 +.
c) 10...8d7!? 11 &b3 Bc8 (alter-
natively, 11...b5!?) 12 £4 Wh 13 Wxh5
Axh5 14 £5 Axd4 15 2xd4 eS, Kon-
ti¢-Simonovi¢é, Yugoslav Cht 1996.
11 2b3
11 f4 0-0 12 Bhi (12 £57 We5)
12... Wo7! (12... Axd4 13 Qxd4 e5 14
8e3 £ Varavin-Kharlov, Russian Ch
(Elista) 1996) and now:
a) 13a4-6...e6 70-0 a6 8 a4 2e7
9 &e3 0-0 10 Bh1 We7 11 f4?! (note
‘dl’ to Black’s 10th move in Line B of
Chapter 12).
b) 13 2b3-6...e6 7 2.b3 a6 8 Be3
e794 0-0 100-0 Wc7 11 Sh] (note
a’ to White’s 1 1th move in Line C221
of Chapter 9).
11...0-0
Ricardi’s 11..2d7 12 f4 Bc8!?,
with the point 13 f5 Axd4 14 &xd4 e5
and 15...Hxc3, deserves attention.
12 f4 (D)
234 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Black still has an extra tempo but the Velimirovi¢-Drasko, Vrnjacka Banja
question remains whether the queen 1985; 13...b5!? 14.3 We7 15 £5 Axd4,
stands better on a5 than on d8. Ivanovié-Cabrilo, Cetinje 1992) 14
12...2d7 Wr! (14 £5 Axd4 15 Bxd4 exf5 16
12..Axd4 13 &xd4 (13 Wxda! exf5 &c6 17 Wd3 transposes to note
transposes to note ‘c2’ to Black’s 9th ‘c’ to White’s 17th move) 14...We7 15
move) 13...e5! (13...b5? does not work £5, Ilvanovié-Levin, Podebrady 1993.
with the queen on a5: 14 e5 dxe5 15 13...Axd4
fxe5 Ad7 16 Ae4 2b7? 17 Af6+ +— 13...e5 14 Af3! Aga 15 2d2 We5+
Smirin) and then: 16 Sh Af2+ 17 Bxf2 Wxf2 18 AdsS
a) 14 fxe5 dxeS 15 Re3 Ag? + (Smirin).
(15...2e6 =) 16 Wd5! + Gobet-Hort, 14 2xd4 exf5
Biel 1982. Otherwise:
b) 14 &f2 exf4 15 2d4 Weg5!? = a) 14...b5? 15 &xf6! + Kengis-
Soltis-Whitehead, USA Ch (Green- Lukin, USSR Cht 1990.
ville) 1983. b) 14...e57! 15 @£2!? Rc6 16 Vh4,
c) 14 Be3 Dg (14...exf4 15 Bxf4 Felsberger-Videki, Vienna 1990.
Re6 16 2d4! t Velimirovié-M.Mihalj- c) 14,..2h8 15 g4!.
éi8in, Banja Luka 1981) 15 Wel (15 d) 14...Had8 15 Wf3 b5?! 16 fxe6!
4d5 can be met by 15...Axe3, with fxe6 17 Wh3 d5 18 exd5 e5! (Kor-
the point 16 Axe7+ Yh 17 Wxd6 neev-Verat, Paris 1991) 19 d6+ @h8
Hd8 18 Wxe5?! Wd2! —+) 15...Axe3 20 dxe7 2xh3 21 &c5! +.
16 Wxe3 exf4 17 Wxf4 Re6 'h-'h e) 14...Bac8 and now:
Sax-Dueball, Reggio Emilia 1973. el) 15 fxe6!? &xe6 (Bilek-Hort,
13 £5 Gothenburg 1971) 16 Wd3 + Bilek.
Otherwise: e2) 15 Wel We7 (15... fe8!?) 16
a) 13 Wel is met by 13...Ag4!?. Gh (16 fxe6!?) 16...b5 (Kindermann-
b) 13 WF3 and now: Hjartarson, Thessaloniki OL 1984) 17
bl) 13...Wh5 14 Wxh5 AxhS 15 5 fxe6 £ Kindermann.
Axd4 16 &xd4 Af6 17 Had £ KodZul. e3) 15 WF3 Bhs (15...e57! 16 RF2
b2) 13...Hae8 14 Ade2!? and now &c6 17 Bad1!; 15...exf5!?) 16 Had
rather than 14...@h8 15 24 25 16 e5! (16 g4! Smirin) 16...b5! 17 &xf6 &xf6
+ Velimirovié-Kozul, Yugoslav Ch 18 Hxd6 Rc6 19 fxe6 b4 20 Hxc6
(Banja Vrucica) 1991, Black should Exc6 21 e5 We5+ 22 Bh bxc3 23
try 14...h6!?, as in Korneev-Dokhoian, exf6 fxe6 24 fxg7+ Sxg7 25 We3+ =
Berlin 1992. de Firmian-Smirin, Antwerp 1994.
b3) 13..Axd4 14 Rxd4 Bc6 15 15 exf5
Hael (alternatively, 15 £5 exf5 = 16 15 AdS5 Axd5 16 Bxd5 Habs 17
We3 AhS 17 Wh3 &£6!, Golubev-Tuk- &c3 We5+ 18 &d4 = Gulko.
makov, Odessa blitz 2000) 15...fae8 15...2c6 16 Bd3
with the idea of ...&d8 — KoZul. Or:
c) 13 Sh! Hae8 (13...We7 14 £5; a) 16 Wel Hae8 (16...2d8 17 Gh1!)
13...Axd4 14 &xd4 2c6 15 Wa3 + 17 We3 — 16 Wd3 Bae8 17 We3.
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...A\c6 6 &.c4 Wb6 AND 6...8.d7
b) 16 Wd2 Hae8 17 Kad] 2d8 18
Shi (18 Wa?! 2b6!) 18...Ad7 19
W4 ££6 20 &xf6 Axf6 21 Exd6 He7
with compensation, Kengis-Kalinin,
Wiirzburg 1994.
16...2ae8
Alternatively:
a) 16...Hac8?! 17 Hae] Wd8? 18
We3 He8 19 2b6 Wd7 20 Reb! +-.
b) 16...A0d7!? 17 Wg3 (17 Hadi
can be met by 17...8.6!? or 17...Hae8
— 16...Bae8 17 Had] ®d7) 17...82.£6
18 Wxd6 (18 Had1!?) 18...2xd4+ 19
Wxd4 4)f6, and now one possibility is
20 Hadl Hae8 — 16...Hae8 17 Had!
Dd7 18 W23 Bf6 19 Wxd6 2xd4+ 20
Wrd4 “fo.
17 Had1
Instead:
a) 17 Hael?! 2d8 =.
b) 17 Wg3 &d8!? (other ideas are
17...0h5!? and 17...d5!?7) 18 Shi (18
Wxd6 2b6!) 18...d5 (with the idea of
19...%.c7) gives Black an acceptable
position, Gi. Hernandez-Ivanovié¢, Novi
Sad OL 1990.
c) 17 Bhi bS (17...2d8 18 Had1!
-— 17 Bad] &d8 18 @hI; 17...d5 +;
17...Ad7!) 18 a3! (better than 18 Wg3
b4!) 18...Wc7 (Kobaliya-Gonzalez Gar-
cia, Linares 1998) 19 We3! Wb7 20
Had1 2d8 21 Ad5 Gh8 22 Ab4! Ved
23 &d5 with an advantage for White —
Gonzalez Garcia.
17...Ad7
Or:
a) 17...b5? 18 Wg3! An5 (18...b4
19 Ad5!) 19 We2 Wd8 20 2d5 + Ehl-
vest-Ye Jiangchuan, Beijing 1998.
b) 17...d5!2 18 @hl =.
c) 17...8d8 18 Bh! (18 We3 2b6!
| Gulko) 18...Ad7 (18...h8 19 Wg3!)
19 We3 2f6 20 2d5! (stronger than
235
the alternative 20 Wxd6 2xd4 21
Wxd4 Af6, Kindermann-Gulko, Mu-
nich 1990) 20...Wb4 (20...2xd5 21
Dxd5 Rxd4 22 Bxd4 Wh5 23 c4 Wxb2
24 £6 g6 25 Wxd6 +-; 20...We7 21
&xc6 Wxc6 22 Ad5 + de Firmian) 21
Rxf6 Axf6 22 Bxc6 bxc6 23 Bxd6 +
de Firmian-Kramnik, Erevan OL 1996.
18 Wg3
18 De4!? Bxed (18...De5 19 We3
Wxce3 20 Axc3 + Renet-Wang Zili,
Geneva 1997) 19 Wxe4 We7, and Black
organizes a defence through ...@e5 and
..&f6, Grigoriants-S.Kiselev, Mos-
cow 1999.
18...2.£6 19 Wxd6 2xd4+ 20 Wxd4
4f6 21 h3
21 Ad5 Bxd5 22 Bxd5 Hd8 23 c4 =
‘2-1 Short-Kramnik, Novgorod 1996.
21...He5 22 Wf2 Efe8 23 Edel
In the game Onishchuk-Svidler,
Groningen FIDE 1997 there followed
23..h5 24 Hxe5 Hxe5 25 a3 2d7 (it is
possibly better not to hurry winning
back the pawn) 26 Wd4 Bxf5 27 Bxf5
+
B3)
7 Dde2!?
In many ways this is quite a sensi-
ble continuation. White preserves the
bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal and his
e2-knight is placed somewhat pas-
sively but not badly — it may be acti-
vated later via “\g3.
7...e6 (D)
Development in the spirit of the
Dragon (7...26 8 &b3 2279 2e3 Was
10 f3 0-0 11 Wd2 b5) seems to be less
logical here.
8 0-0
8 a3 Re7 9 Ba2 0-0 100-0 - 8 0-0
&e7 9 a3 0-0 10 2a2.
236 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

a) 9 2b3 Re7-8...2e79 2b3 ab.

Y Y)

ECO\N he \“
Mh

SN
b) 9.a3!? Qe7 — 8...Re7 9 a3 ab.

\N

a he
ANN
c) 9 B57! Wc5! 10 Rxf6 Wxcd

S .
XX

eae
WN

RSS
11 &h4 De5, Ljubojevic-Ribli, Las
S

XSS
Ree
oy

WA
Palmas 1974.
GY d) 9 &f4 AeS5 10 2b3 Re7 (Van
Vdd Vi Riemsdijk-Hort, Bonn 1979; another
possibility is 10...4c7!?), and now the
Boe
risky 11 4a4!? (Cvetkovi¢) or 11 &h1
with unclear play.
Cow
.

el
S

e) 9 Gh1 Be7 10 Dg3!? (10 £417

Or 8 2b3 2e7 (more precise than
8...a6 9 &g5! Re7 10 Rxf6, Velimir-
ovic-Radulov, Vrsac 1973), and then:
a) Usually White proceeds with 9
0-0, which is equivalent to 8 0-0 2e7
9 2b3.
b) 9 &g5? Ag4, Velimirovic-Popo-
vic, Zenica 1989.
c) 9 &e3 (taken together with Ade2,
this is a bit out of place) 9...Wc7 10 f4
(10 Af4 a6 11 g4 h6 12 We2 b5 13
0-0-0 Ae5 14 f3 g5 with counterplay,
Tlinéi¢-Damljanovi¢, Yugoslav
1990) 10...a6 (10...0-0!?) 11 Ag3 b5,
and Black has no problems.
d) 9 Wd3 a6 (9...0-0 10 f4 2d7 11
WF3!?2 DadS 12 e5?! Bc6, Velimiro-
vi¢-Komljenovié, Umag 1972) 10 Wg3
We7 11 0-0 - 8 0-0 2e7 9 &b3 a6 10
Wd3 Wc7 11 We3.
e) 9 Dg3!? (a fresh idea) 9...h5
(9...a6!?; 9...0-0) 10 Re3 Wad 11 f3
Rd7 (11...g5!? Gulko) 12 Wd2 DeS 13
0-0 Hc8 14 Wr2 £ De Vreugt-Gulko,
Wijk aan Zee 2001.
8...2.e7 (D)
There is not much sense in keeping
the bishop on f8 any longer. However,
Black frequently commences with
8...a6, which is less flexible under the
circumstances:
0-0 11 Wei We7 12 a4, Ljubisavljevic-
Radulov, Smederevska Palanka 1979)
10...0-0 11 £4 We7 12 a4 2d7 13 £5
Ae5 14 2b3 Ac4 15 Bxc4 Wxc4 16
B25 exf5? (16...h6!) 17 e5! +— Dvoi-
rys-Andrianov, Ordzhonikidze 1978.
i .
Cht
9 2b3
Here there is a choice. First, we
mention several rare moves before
moving on to better-established ideas:
a) 9 2d3!?.
b) 9 a4!?.
c) 9 Wd3!? Aes 10 &b5+ (Tuk-
makov).
d) 9 &g5 We5 10 Rxf6 Bxf6 11
&b3 0-0 12 ht bS 13 f4 © Velim-
irovic-Al.Khasin, Belgrade 1988.
e) No advantage is gained through
9 Re3 We7!. For instance: 10 Ag3 (10
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &c4 Yb6 AND 6...8.d7
@h1 Ag4!?) 10...a6 11 £4 (11 &b3-9
&.b3 a6!? 10 2e3 We7 11 Dg3; 11 a4
0-0 12 We2 2d7 13 f4 Bac8 14 2d3
4\a5, Zhang Pengxiang-Gershon, Ere-
van jr Wch 1999) 11...b5 (11...h5 12
Re2! 26 13 RF3) 12 Rb3 HaS 13 £5
and now:
el) 13...Axb3 is imprecise: 14 cxb3
0-0 15 Hcl Wb7 16 b4 a5 17 a3, Ivan-
ovi¢-Fedorowicz, Lone Pine 1981.
e2) 13...0-0! — 9 &b3 0-0 10 Re3
We7 11 Deg3 a6 12 f4 bS 13 f5 DaS =.
f) Of some interest is 9 Yhl 0-0
10 &e3 (10 a3 — 9 a3 0-0 10 Shl)
10...We7 (10...Wxb2? 11 a3 Aga 12
&b3) 11 £4 Hd8 (11...a6!2) 12 2d3 a6
13 Wel b5 14 Wg3, Saltaev-Belikov,
Moscow 1998.
g) 9 Ag3 is quite possible; e.g.,
9...0-0 10 a3!? — 9 a3 0-0 10 Dg3.
h) 93 (the main alternative) 9...0-0
(9...a6 10 Ba2 0-0 — 9...0-0 10 Ba2
a6) and now:
hl) 10 Ag3 a6 11 Bhi HAeS 12
Re2 We6 13 f4 Apo 14 2d3 bS 15
@h5 (15 We2!? 2b7 16 &d2 is a little
better for White ~ Dvoirys) 15...2b7
16 f5 (Dvoirys-Lugovoi, Russian Ch
(Elista) 1995) and now 16...exf5!? 17
Bxf5 Axh5 18 Wxh5 DAeS 19 AdS
&d8 (Dvoirys) looks sufficient to
reach equality.
h2) 10 Bhl A@xe4!? (10...a6 11
a2 - 10 2a2 a6 1] BhI) 11 Axe4
d5 12 &xd5 exd5 13 Wxd5 Re6 14
WhS 2c4 15 b3 g6 16 WF3 Ad4 17
“\xd4 &xfl 18 2e3 with compensa-
tion (Christiansen).
h3) 10 &a2 and here:
h31) 10...a6 11 Shi (11 Ag3 Hd8
12 Bhi — 11 Sh) Bda8 12 Dg3; 11
Wd3!?, A.Sokolov-Petrov, Ohrid Ech
2001) 11...We7 (11...8d8 12 Ag3 +
237
Kasparov-Teplitsky, Israel simul 1994;
11...2d7 doesn’t quite equalize ei-
ther) 12 Ag3 (12 f4 b5 13 f5! is possi-
bly stronger, Kreiman-Waitzkin, USA
jr Ch (New York) 1993) 12...b5 13 £4
Ha5 14 £5 Acd 15 Bxc4 Wxc4 16
&g5 (Christiansen-Gulko, USA Ch
(Salt Lake City) 1999) 16...h6! 17 2xf6
2xf6 18 Wxd6 exf5 (18...4d8!?) 19
exf5 2b7 with compensation — Chris-
tiansen.
h32) 10...2d7 and now:
h321) 11 Bh1 can be answered by
either 11...ag4!? (Lalié) or 11...0e5
— 10...e5 11 Bh Bd7.
h322) 11 Wd3 De5! 12 Wg3 Hac8
13 Gh1 (Saltaev-Riemersma, Agios
Nikolaos 1995) 13...&b5 gives Black
strong counterplay.
h323) 11 Ag3 Hac8 12 Ghl Ded
13 £4 (13 We2 Wa6! Lalié) 13...Ac4 14
We2 Wa6 (14...\We6!? Timman) 15 e5
De8 16 a4 Bh4 17 Szed d5 18 Hdl!
with somewhat the better chances for
White, Lali¢é-Timman, Kilkenny 1999.
h33) 10...Ae5 11 Gh (11 h3 2d7
12 2e3 We7 13 £4 Ac4 14 Rxc4 Wxc4
15 e5 ®e4!, Honfi-Drimer, Wijk aan
Zee 1970) 11...2d7 (11...Aed7 12 Ag3
We6 13 £44 A.Sokolov-Ruban, St Pe-
tersburg Z 1993) 12 f4 Aeg4 13 Wel!?
(13 Wd4 Wxd4 14 Axd4 2d8!! = Gul-
laksen-Yakovich, Gothenburg 2001)
13...Ae3 14 Bxe3 Wxe3 15 Hdl Wb6
16 e5 Dg 17 exd6 Rf6 © Gofshtein.
9...0-0
9...2d7 10 R25 We5 11 Re3 (11
Wd2!) 11...Wa5 12 Ad4!? (Hector-
Damljanovi¢, Palma de Mallorca
1989) 12...0-0! =.
Recently, 9...a6!? (preserving the
possibility of ...h5) has received atten-
tion:
238 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

a) 10 Ag3 h5!? 11 h3 h4 12 Age2 1993; e.g., 20...exf5 21 axb3, when

Wa5 13 Shi We7 14 a4 b6 15 Be3 21...2e4 22 Ads Wa7+ 23 Hf2! £6 24
&b7 16 Wd4 d5 17 exd5 &c5 gives Hg3+ Bh8 25 Af is a possible con-
Black sufficient resources, Ki.Geor- tinuation.
giev-Topalov, Las Palmas 1993. We now return to the position after
b) 10 Se3 We7 11 Ag3 h5!? 9...0-0 (D):
(11...0-0- 9...0-0 10 e3 Wc7 11 Dg3
a6) 12 h3 h4 13 Age2 b5 14 a3 2b7
Be,
with double-edged play, R.Gonzalez-
Vera, Cienfuegos 1997.
c) 10 @hl We7 (10...0-0 — 9...0-0
Rae i be
wae
ra
WY

Ss
10 &hI a6) 11 £4 (11 &g5 b5!; 11
Wa ‘a UW Ui
WY i i
4g3 h5!?) 11...Aa5 12 £5 0-0 13 DAf4

Sin 6 se
4)xb3 14 axb3 with a roughly equal

game, Scholl-Csom, Amsterdam 1969.
d) 10 Wd3 and then:
dl) 10...8d7 11 Yh1 (11 Wg3 0-0
12 Bh6 Ae8 13 Had1 AeS = Kelleher-
Lazetié, New York 1993) 11... We7 12
We3 bS 13 a3 0-0 14 Bh6 De8 15 f4
&a5 16 £5 Dxb3 17 cxb3 Wd8 with
an acceptable position, Reinderman-
Svidler, Wijk aan Zee 1999.
d2) 10...We7 11 Wg3. This posi-
tion occurred in two Ljubojevic-
Kramnik blindfold games: 11...b5 12
a3 &b7 13 Wxe7 Begs 14 Who 0-0-0
15 £3 (Monaco 1996) seems unclear
while 11...g6 12 2h6 b5 13 a3 2b7 14
Wh3 @a5! 15 227 Axb3 (Monaco
1998) gave Black a good game.
e) 10 2g5 We7 (10...2d7 11 Ag3
0-0-0?! 12 Re3 and 13 Aad + Pla-
chetka-Kolesar, Pardubice 2000)
4)g3 (11 Wd2 0-0 - 9...0-0 10 295
We7 11 Wd2 a6) 11...b65 12 AhS (12
Bhi? h5! 13 Qxf6 gxf6 14 AxhS
$.b7 = Kasparov-Timman, Manila OL
1992; 12 f4 and 12 Wd2 h5!? are un-
clear) 12...Axh5 13 2xe7 Wxe7
Wxh5 0-0 15 Hadl &b7 16 f4 Da5 17
£5 @Axb3 18 £6 gxf6 19 Kd3 f5 20 exf5
~ Arencibia-Becerra Rivero, Havana
<n a
Ses ee BAR
EZ Sw7ee|
IN ~
The key position emerges. Here,
both sides may play flexibly and, so
far, the accumulated material proves
only that there is room for further im-
provements.
10 2g5
The other continuations are:
a) 10 Re3 We7 11 Dg3 (11 £4 may
be met by 11...Ag4!) with roughly
equal chances; for example:
al) 11..Aa5 12 We2 (12 f4!? is
possible) 12...a6 13 f4 b5 14 f5 (14
Kadl 2b7 15 &d4 @xb3 16 axb3
Hac8 17 Sf2, Espig-Pietzsch, Zinno-
11 witz 1967, 17...b4!) 14...Axb3, Filip-
owicz-Vasiukov, Moscow 1964.
a2) 11...a6 12 £4 bS (12...Aa5 13
£5 Axb3 14 axb3 2d7) 13 £5 Aas 14
fxe6 fxe6 15 AS Axb3 is equal, Oral-
Gabriel, Halle jr Wch 1995.
14 b) 10 ¥d3!? and then:
bl) 10...2d8 11 We3 Was (11...2.d7
12 Bh6 &f8 13 Had! £ Vasiukov-
S.Kiselev, Moscow 1987) 12 &e3 b5
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &c4 Wb6 AND 6...2.d7
13 a3 DeS 14 Bd4 Ac4 15 a4 Ad?!
16 axb5 @xfl 17 Bxa5 Axg3 18 hxg3
« Soltis-Arnason, New York 1989.
b2) 10...a6 11 We3 Gh8 12 gs
We5 13 2e3 Was 14 £4 bS 15 a3 We7
16 @d4 with chances for both sides,
Bronstein-Gulko, Kishinev 1976 (this
position can arise from Chapter 6 via
the move-order 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3
b5 80-0 Re7 9 Wh! We7 10 B23 0-0
11 a3 @h8!? 12 Be3 Ac6 13 fA).
b3) 10..Aa5 11 Re3 (11 We3!?
Bh8 12 Le3) 11...Wo7 12 Abs Ws
(12...Wc6!? 13 Hfdt a6) 13 &f4 Bas
14 Hadl ®e8 15 e5 + Ljubojevic-
Benko, New York 1985.
b4) 10...2d7 11 Wg3 and here:
b41) 11..@h8 12 Shi (12 Re3
Wa6! 13 Hfd1 Hac8 14 225 He5, Sol-
tis-KoZul, Palma de Mallorca 1989)
12...Wa6! 13 &¢5 Bad8 © Kozul.
b42) 11...Ae5!? 12 Be3 Wa6! 13
&d4 (13 Hael!? b5 is an alternative)
13...b5!? (13...Axe4 14 Dxed Wxe2
15 Bfel Wa6 16 Axd6 +) 14 a3 Wb7
(Ljubicié-Tukmakov, Pula 1994) 15 f4
Ac6 16 Be3 Aad 17 e5 AhS 18 Wh3
g6 © Tukmakov.
c) 10 Sh] and then:
cl) 10...a6 11 &g5 (11 Wd3 We7
12 We3 Gh8 = Soltis-Waitzkin, New
York 1992; 11 Wel!?) 11...We7 12 f4
b5 13 Ag3 a5 ~ 10 Ag3 a6 11 Sh
Had 12 2g5 Wc7 13 f4 bd.
c2) 10...Aa5 and then: 11 Ag3 -
10 De3 DaS 1] BhI; 11 gs — 10
R25 DaS 11 Shi.
c3) 10...Hd8 11 £4 d5 12 e5 Agd
13 Wel with chances for both sides,
Zinn-Malich, East German Ch (Mag-
deburg) 1964.
d) 10 “\g3 is another attractive op-
tion:
239
dl) 10...a6 and then:
dll) 11 &e3 We7 — 10 2e3 We7
11 Dg3 ao.
d12) 11 Rg5 Bd8 (11...We5s 12
Wd2 Wd4 13 We2 Wc5 14 e3 + Sem-
eniuk-Levin, USSR 1989; 11...Wc7 -
10 &.25 We7 11 Dg3 a6) 12 Sh We7
13 £4 b5 (13..h6 14 Qxf6 Bxf6 15
‘h5) 14 Bxf6!? (14 £5 b4 leads to an
unclear position, Lamoureux-M.Sorin,
French Cht 1998) 14...2xf6 15 Ah5,
with attacking chances.
di3) 11 Bhi Aas 12 Rg5 (12 f4
We7 13 £5 Axb3 14 axb3 2d7 is equal,
Ma.Ankerst-Mini¢é, Novi Sad 1965)
and here:
d131) 12...We7 13 £4 b5 14 We2
gives White some advantage, since af-
ter 14...b4, 15 e5! is strong, Donchev-
Ziiger, Lucerne OL 1982.
d132) 12...h6!? 13 @e3 (13 &xf6!)
13... Wc6 14 f4 b5 15 eS Bb7 16 Hf2
4e8 favours Black, D.Schneider-Gol-
din, Connecticut 2000.
d2) 10..4d8 11 @hl (11 &g5- 10
&Rg5 Hd8 11 We3) 11...0a5 12 £4
Wa6!? (also playable is 12...axb3 13
axb3 Wc6 14 We2 a6 15 e5 He8, Gdan-
ski-Kotronias, Moscow OL 1994) 13
Be3 b5 14 £5 Axb3 15 axb3 We6 16
& 5 (Ki.Georgiev-Arnason, Palma de
Mallorca 1989) 16...b4 17 Ace2 e5 =
Arnason.
d3) 10..8d7 11 Bhi Bas -
10...Ba5 11 Bh &d7.
d4) 10...Aa5 11 hl (11 Be3 Web
12 f4 Ac4 = Nunn; 11 Ah5!? Axh5
12 Wxh5 Wc5 13 Wed Ac4 14 We2
4 a5 15 $e3 + K.Miiller-Wahls, Ham-
burg 1991) 11...Axb3(11...a6 - 10...a6
11 Sh] DaS; 11...4c7 12 £4 Bd7 13
We2 2c6 14 e5 with some initiative,
Gdanski-Kalinin, Bundesliga 1994/5;
240 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

following 11...2d7, it is possible to d13) 14...Aa5 ~ 10...Da5 11 Dg3

play 12 f4 or 12 &g5 h6 13 Re3 We7 We7 12 Wd2 a6 13 Had] Hd8 14 fel
14 f4 b5 15 e5!?, when White defi- b5!.
nitely has the initiative, Neukirkh-Pie- d2) 11 Dg3.a6 (11...Da5 — 10...Da5
trusiak, Rostock 1981) 12 axb3 Wc6!? 11 &g3 a6) 12 @bh5 with a slight ad-
13 2g5 h6 14 &xf6 2xf6 15 Dhs vantage (or maybe 12 £417).
8e7!? 16 Bxa7 Hxa7 17 Wd4 e5 18 e) 10...Hd8 and then:
Wxa7 &e6 with compensation, Hec- el) 11 @hl De52! (11...Da5 +
tor-Plachetka, Copenhagen 1990. Anand) 12 f4 Aeg4 13 Wel We5 14
We now return to 10 &g5 (D): &\cl! + Wahls-Mirallés, Lucerne Wcht
1989.

xual Role e2) 11 Ag3 and here:

, AE awa e21) 11...Wa5 12 £4! h6 (12...b5 13

a3!?, G.Kuzmin-Furman, Minsk 1976)
13 Bxf6 2xf6 14 Ah5 Vxc3 15 bxc3
\

Wxc3 16 Wed with the initiative —

ae Dokhoian.
YG9OUoOGOZe e22) 11...d5 12 exd5 Axd5 13 Axd5
BRN TF ae exd5 14 Hel! £ Ribli.
e23) 11...h6 12 2e3 (after 12 &.xf6
BRAT AE AR &xf6 13 Ah5, Dokhoian gives the
e euars” lines 13...&xc3 14 bxc3 We5 15 #hl
d5!? 16 exd5 exd5 17 f4 Wxc3 18 £5
10...Aa5 with compensation and 13...2e7 14
The other possibilities are: We4 2f8 with unclear play) 12...Wa5
a) 10...a6?! 11 &xf6!, Chandler- (12...We7 can be met by Dokhoian’s
Rivas, Minsk 1982. 13 f4 or 13 Ah5 2d7 14 £4 Aad 15
b) 10...We5 11 Re3 (Saidy) +. &d4! + De Vreugt-Gulko, Esbjerg
c) 10..Ae5 11 Ag3 h6 12 Rxf6 2000) and now 13 h3!? gives White
&xf6 13 Dh5 Ad7 14 Axf6+ Axf6 15 slightly the better chances, Levin-
Wad3 + M.Ankerst-KozZul, Bled 1993. Dokhoian, Berlin 1992, and is better
d) 10...We7 and here: than 13 £4.d5! 14 e5 Ae8 15 Ace2 d4!
di) 11 Wd2 a6 (11...Aa5!? 12 Hadi = or 13 We2 d5! (Dokhoian).
4\xb3 13 axb3 Hd8, Wedberg-Fedor- 11 Ag3
owicz, New York 1990) 12 Had1 2d8 Or:
13 Ag3 b5 (13...Aa5 — 10...Aa5 11 a) 11 Wd3 Wc5 =.
“\g3 We7 12 Wd2 a6 13 Bad] Has) b) 11 Wd2 Wa6!? (11...axb3 12
14 Bfel (14 f4 b4!?) and then: axb3 a6 13 Hfd1 Hd8 14 &e3 We7 15
dll) After 14..2b7 15 &xf6!? &f4 is slightly better for White — Mir-
&xf6 16 Ah5 Qe7 17 He3 Gh8, Quin- allés) 12 Had1 @c4?! (12...Gh8 13
teros-Radulov, Wijk aan Zee 1974, 18 &xf6 gxf6 14 Wh6 Axb3 15 axb3
4)xg7!? looks dangerous for Black. Be8 16 Af4 Bd7 © Mirallés) 13 2xc4
d12) 14...b4!?. Wxe4 14 2xf6 exf6 15 Wh6 Vhs 16
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &c4 Wh6 AND 6...2.d7 241

“\f4 Be8 17 Hxd6 e5 (Wedberg-Mir- 14 &e3 (14 Ah5!? is also possible)

allés, Haifa Echt 1989) 18 @cd5! + 14... Wc6 (14...2)xb3!?) 15 Ad5! with
(Mirajlés). the advantage, Mini¢ recommended
c) 11 @h1 We5 (11...a6 12 £4 Be7 13...b4 14 Aa4 Wb5 with a compli-
13 Ag3 — 10 Dg3 a6 11 ShI Das 12 cated game.
8.25 We7 13 f4) 12 £4 (12 2e3 We7 =; We may conclude that 7 “\de2 is a
12 &f4 b5S -'2 Wahls-Franco, Lu- good choice for the player who is not
cerne Wcht 1989) 12...b5 13 Ag3, and well enough prepared for more forc-
here instead of 13...b4?, which is met ing lines.
by 14 e5! dxe5 15 &xf6! with an ex-
tremely dangerous attack for White, B4)
Fischer-Benko, Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade 7 Yxc6!? bxc6 8 0-0 (D)
Ct 1959, Black must play 13...@xb3
14 axb3 &.b7 (14...b4!?) 15 AhS Gh8
= (Fischer), or, at once, 13...2b7 14 E787 @#ek@
R if awa

ae.
4h5 (14 f5!?) 14...8h8 (Kasparov
and Nikitin’s suggestion 14...b4!? is iY

Jess convincing) with chances for both

sides, Scholl-Langeweg, Amsterdam ao oo

~.
_ (a Yi

*.
1970.

\S
11...Wes Fie onla.
The following have been tested as
AeA i

2"
well:
a) 11...h6 12 2e3 (unclear is 12 4 Sveza”
&xf6 2xf6 13 AbS Dorfman) 12...Wc6
13 We2 (13 f4 Ac4 = Nunn; probably Like the other responses to 6...
8 b6,
stronger is 13 @h5!7) 13...xb3 14 7 &xc6 has its own pros and cons.
axb3 a6 15 £4 b5 16 e5 He8! with a Having improved his opponent’s
good game for Black, Thipsay-Dorf- pawn-structure, White is ahead in de-
man, New Delhi 1982. velopment. Black urgently needs to
b) 11...We7 12 Wd2 a6 13 Hadi develop the f8-bishop by choosing
Bd8 14 Bfel b5! 15 DES (15 £3 2b7 F one of three options:
Ribli) 15...exf5 16 &xf6 @xb3 17 axb3 B41: 8...e5 241
&xf6 18 Ads Wd7! 19 Axf6+ (19 B42: 8...e6 242
4b6? Wc6 20 Axa8 &b7) 19...2xf6 B43: 8...26 244
20 Wh6 2b7!? 21 Hd3 £4 22 Wxf4
Sf8 23 Wxf6 Web 24 Whs8+ Ye7 25 B41)
Wxh7 = Ljubojevié-Ribli, Skopje OL 8...e5
1972. Quite unpopular due to White’s
12 Wd2 b5 13 Bad1 next move:
Now, instead of 13...xb3?! 14 cxb3 9 2¢5!
&b7 15 Hcl Wb6 16 Ah5 + Ljuboje- Quiet development does not bring
vic-Ree, Amsterdam 1975, or 13...2.b7 great advantage to White. For instance:
242 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

a) 9 Wd3 2e7 10 R25 0-0 11 b3 The retreat of the knight to e3 or b4

(11 &xf6 &xf6 12 Wxd6 Wxb2 = Sion also preserves the initiative.
Castro-Gi.Hernandez, Cordoba 1995) 14...&xe7
11...d8 12 Hadi &g4 13 Be3 We7 Now:
14 Hd2?! @h5!, Neelakantan-Anna- a) White performed ineffectively in
geldiev, Calcutta 1996. Ashley-Waitzkin, Bermuda 1997: 15
b) 9 @hi Be7 10 f4 0-0 11 Wa3 f4 WaS 16 Shl Bg8 17 &xf7? (17
(S.B.Hansen-Mortensen, Danish Ch f5!? Rechlis) 17...&xf7 18 Wxd6 Wd8
(Esbjerg) 1997) 11...exf4 12 &xf4 Agd 19 Wxc6 Wd2!, etc.
13 We3 Wc5 14 2b3 He5 followed by b) Instead, I recommend 15 Wa3 +
...&e6 (Mortensen). so as not to let the queen go to a5.
c) 9 2e3 Wxb2 10 Wd3 deserves a
certain amount of attention. B42)
9... 8xb2 8...e6 (D)
9...2e7 10 &xf6 gxf6 11 b3 2a6
12 Da4 Wad 13 Qxa6 Wxa6 14 c4+
xuiis
£

Bangiev. Probably the least of all evils > bat

here is 9...4c5!? £ with the idea of ok
10...2e7, as in Tompa-Cserna, Hun-
ya taiY aeo
garian Ch (Budapest) 1975.
mee
10 Wa3 Boe
aca .e wy
Ae
10...2e7 11 &xf6 exf6 (11...2xf6?
a

12 Wxd6) 12 2b3 Leb (12...a5? 13

Habl Wa3 14 Ab5 +— Vasiukov-Piet-
BAe Ars
rusiak, Polanica Zdroj 1965) 13 &xe6
Swers
a

fxe6 14 Hab1 Wa3 15 b3 is much

A

better for White.

11 &xf6 gxf6 12 “\d5 Wd8 The game Topalov-Kramnik, Nov-
12...cxd5 13 Wxd5 Wb7 14 Hfbl! gorod 1996 spoiled the reputation of
+-. this continuation.
13 Habl! 9 We2
13 Ae3 Vh6 (13...2g8!? Bologan) Otherwise:
14 Bad1 Se7 15 &b3 (15 We2!? Bol- a) 9 2957! is well met by 9... We5!,
ogan) and now, instead of 15...2e6?! Stanciu-Mititelu, Romania 1966.
16 Ac4 d5? 17 2a4! +— Topalov- b) 9 &b3?! Be7 10 Re3 We7 11 £4
Gavrikov, Geneva rpd 1996, 15...&xe3 0-0 followed by ...d5!.
% i§ Correct. c) 9 Rd3!? Re7 10 Aad We7 11 c4
13...2e7 is worth considering.
Or: 13...cxd5? 14 Wxd5 @e6 15 d) 9 b3 involves the same plan as
2b5+; 13...20c6? 14 Bb7!; 13...2h6 the text-move, but it may be less accu-
14 Ab4! + K.Miiller-Gabriel, Bundes- rate: 9...2e7 (9...d5 10 exd5 cxd5 11
liga 1997/8. Rb5+ Bd7 12 2xd7+ Axd7 13 Axd5
14 4 xe7 exd5 14 Hel+ with an attack — New in
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &.c4 Wb6 AND 6...8.d7 243

Chess) 10 &b2 0-0 11 We2 with sev- 13 2xa6 Wxa6 14 25? Ad7 15 Wxe7
eral possibilities for Black: 216 16 Wh6 &xc3) 12 Aad (12 We2
dl) 11...d5? 12 exd5 cxd5 13 &xd5 &.b7 13 b3 Had8 14 &b2 c5 = B.Knez-
+
evi¢é-Damljanovi¢, Belgrade 1998; 12
d2) 11...Ad7 — 9 We2 Bd7 10 b3 &b3?! 2a6!) 12...8b4 13 b3 with
Re7 11 2b2 0-0. somewhat better chances for White,
d3) 11...2b7 12 e5!2. Nedev-Dorié, Plovdiv 1991.
d4) 11...We7 12 £4! d5 13 2d3. 10 b3
d5) 11...Wa5 12 Da4 d5 13 e5 10 Aad Was (10...We7) 11 b3 AeS
Ad7 14 &d3 Abo 15 &c3 Bb4 16 12 &d2 We7 13 Ba6 + Gi.Hernan-
S.xb4 Wxb4 17 c3! £ De Vreugt-Van dez-Yermolinsky, Chicago 1997.
der Wiel, Amsterdam 1996. 10...2e7 11 2b2
d6) 11...e5!7 12 hl (12 Aa4!? We7 Or 11 Aa4 We7 12 &b2 0-0.
13 £4 exf4 14 e5 &g4 15 Wel, Tell- 11...0-0 12 Aad We7 13 £4 2b7
Trygstad, Stockholm 1998) 12...c7 Or:
13 Hael (13 £4? exf4 14 Exf4 d5) a) 13...Ab6 14 Axb6 axb6 15 a4
13...Ad7 (13...g6!? New in Chess) 14 (15 Hf3! Krnié) 15...2e8 and White
4yad and here, instead of 14...2b7 15 only succeeded in drawing in Krni¢-
Rd3 BfeS 16 c4 Bg5 17 We2 + Kar- Radulov, Vrgac 1973 after 16 Bf3 b5
pov-Stein, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1971, 17 Bg3 26 18 WhS (18 £5 bxc4 19 Whs
Karpov recommended 14...2.f6!. e5!, Kmi¢, also looks like a draw)
e) 9 &f4!? is interesting: 18...2f8 19 £5 &¢7 20 &xg7 exhd.
el) 9...d5? 10 exd5 exd5 11 Axd5! b) 13...d5 14 &d3 (14 exd5 cxd5
+
15 &xd5? Rc5+) 14...26 15 c4 26
e2) 9...Wc5 10 We2 +. (Prié-Mirallés, French Cht 1989) 16
e3) 9...\8xb2 10 Wd3 Wb4 (10...e5 Hacl with an advantage for White —
11 &g5 transposes to Line B41) 11 Mirallés.
Habl Wc5 12 Sfdl with compensa- c) 13...e5!?.
tion, Fischer-Byrne, New York blitz 14 Had1
1971. This is possibly stronger than the
e4) 9...Wc7 10 Bd3 (10 We2 e5 11 previously played 14 Bf3 and 14 Hael.
&g5 Be7 = Minev) 10...Ah5!? (not 14...Bae8
all problems are solved by 10...&e7 11 Unsuccessful are 14...c5 15 f5 +
Hadi e5 12 &g5, Britton-Speelman, (Khuzman) and 14...d5 15 &d3 2f6
London 1978, or 10...Ad7 11 Wg3, (15...c5 16 exdS &xd5 17 £5 +) 16 e5
Winants-Levin, Bundesliga 1996/7) with an attack. Comparatively better
11 &e3 Re7 12 £4 Afo 13 Hael 0-0 continuations have been proposed:
gives Black an acceptable position, 14... Hfe8 £ (Kramnik) with the point
Honfi-Cabrilo, Belgrade 1977. 15 £5 e5, or 14...Had8 15 Bd3 d5 (Top-
9...d7 alov).
9...2e7 10 e5 (10 b3 0-0 11 2b2-9 15 Ed3! c5
b3 &.e7 10 &.b2 0-0 11 We2) 10...dxe5 Insufficient is 15...82f6 16 &xf6 (16
11 Wxe5 0-0 (11...2.a6!? 12 2e3 Wh7 e5! dxe5 17 fxe5 AxeS 18 Exf6 gxf6
244 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
19 Hh3 + Har-Zvi) 16...Axf6 17 e5
dxe5 18 Wxe5 (Kramnik) or 15...d5 16
Hh3! Af6 17 €5!? (17 Rd3 dxe4 18
&xe4 g6 is much better for White —
Topalov) 17...Ae4 18 2d3 c5 19 Ac3
£5 20 Wh5! h6 21 Weg6.
15...26 16 Bh3! + (16 Wh5 26! «;
16 f5 exf5! «© Golubev-Kuznetsov,
Ukrainian Ch (Ordzhonikidze) 2001).
16 &b5! 2c6
16...H%d8 17 2xd7! Exd7 18 Wed!
g6 19 f5.
17 &xc6 Wxc6 18 ¢4
White is much better, Topalov-
Kramnik, Novgorod 1996.
B43)
8...g6 (D)
The topical continuation.
9 e5!?
Less radical attempts are:
a) 9 b3 &g7 10 &b2 0-0 with an
equal position.
b) 9. &d3 &g7 10 Aad!? We7 11 £4
(11 c4e5!? {11...0-0 12 f4) 12 £4 exf4
JokSi¢) 11...0-0 12 c4 gives both sides
chances; for example, 12...e5 (12...2b8
13 We2 @d7, Gara-Jovanovié, Buda-
pest 1996; 12...Ag4!?, Velimirovié-
Damljanovié, Ulcinj 1998) 13 f5 (13
fxe5?! Ag!) 13...d5, A.Kovaéevic-
B.KneZevic, Yugoslav Ch (Belgrade)
1998.
c) 9 &b3 Be7 10 Lf4 (after 10
Se3, 10...Wa5!? 11 £4 0-0 is good
enough) 10...4d7 (10...0-0 11 eS dxe5
12 S&xeS £ Prié-Mirallés, Chanac
1989; 10...\We7 11 Hel Ae4 12 Wd2
h6 13 Had! with the better chances for
White, del Rio-Kozul, Ubeda 1996;
10... Wa5!9; 10...2a6) 11 2g5 (11 BB
0-0 12 &g5 We7! = Kindermann-Pel-
letier, PortoroZ 1998) 11...2\c5!? (or
11...a5 12 WE3 Ae5 13 Wg3 Ba6 14
Bfel Wc7 15 Hadi and now, rather
than 15...2)d7? 16 eS! + Prié-Tukma-
kov, Aix-les-Bains 1991, Black should
play 15...0-0 or 15...4c4!?) 12 Hel
We7 = del Rio-Pelletier, Medellin jr
Wch 1996.
d) 9 &e3 and then:
dl) 9...4xb2?! 10 24 e5 (and not
10...Wb4? 11 &xf6 exf6 12 Wd4! +
Bosch-Kharlov, Leeuwarden 1993;
10...Wb7 11 e5 gives White compen-
sation) 11 Hbl (11 @b5!? should
probably be met by 11...exd4!? rather
than 11...Wb4 12 4c7+ Se7 13 Axa8
Wxc4 14 2xa7 Wa6 15 2b8! Axe4 16
@c7) 11...Wa3 12 Hb3 Was 13 Re3
We7 (13...Re7 14 2g5 We5 15 &xf6
Rxf6 16 WF3 Wxc4 17 Wxf6 0-0 18
Wxd6 + M Berkovich-Petrienko, USSR
1980) 14 25 Bp7 15 Vxf6 Vxf6 16
Wf3 (Arizmendi-Waitzkin, Bermuda
1999) 16...2g27! 17 Ad5! cxd5 18
Rxd5 Re6 19 Sxa8 2xb3 20 cxb3
0-0 21 2d5 + Gofshtein.
d2) 9...\We7 10 f4 227 11 2d4 (11
e5 Ded 12 2d4 0-0 - 11 2d4 0-0 12
es “g4) 11...0-0 12 Shi (12 &5 Dga
13 exd6 Wxd6! 14 &xg7 Bxg7 15
Wxd6 exd6 16 Hael Af6 17 He7 2.d7
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &c4 Wh6 AND 6...2d7
= de] Rio-Gonzalez Garcia, Linares
1998; 12 h3 @®d7 = Emms-Garcia
Ilundain, Escaldes Z 1998) 12...8b8
(12...e5 13 fxe5 dxe5 14 &c5 gives
White a slight advantage, G.Todoro-
vi¢-Damljanovi¢, Yugoslav Cht 1999)
13 2b3 2a6 with an equal game.
d3) 9...Wa5!? also seems to be sat-
isfactory: 10 f4 &g7 11 e5 (11 h3 0-0
12 &b3 Ad7 = Viasov-Akhmadeev,
St Petersburg 1999) 11...Ag4 12 &d4
c5!, Berndt-Popovié, Austrian Cht
2000/1, with the point 13 &b5+ Sfs.
e) 9 We2 Aga (9...2g77! 10 e5
dxe5 11 Wxe5 gives White an advan-
tage; e.g., 11...0-0 12 Wxe7 2f5 13
&b3 Hae8 14 Wd6 Ag 15 Rf4 Vxc3
16 bxc3 He2 17 Habi! +—- Morovié-
Becerra Rivero, Cienfuegos 1996;
9...Ad7!7 10 Re3 Wxb2 11 2d4 e5 12
Habi Wa3 13 Hb3 Wa5 14 Re3 with
compensation, Al Awadhi-Spraggett,
Dubai OL 1986; 9...224 10 Wel!,
MadI-P. Varga, Budapest 1997). Now:
el) 10b3 &g7 11 &b2 WaS witha
good game, Giaccio-Zarnicki, Villa
Gesell 1998.
e2) 10h3 Ae5 11 Le3 (11 2b3 is
better) 11...8xb2 12 2d4 Wb4! (Gof-
shtein) favours Black.
e3) 10 2h1 2g7 11 £40-0 12 2d3
(12 h3? Af6 13 e5 dxe5 14 fxe5 Dh5
15 Bf3 Wd4! 16 g4 &xg4 17 hxg4
Wxe4 18 Ded Bxe5 is much better
for Black — Gershon) 12...a5 (12...2b8
Gershon) 13 Aa4 Wd8!? with chances
for both sides, De Vreugt-Gershon,
Tel-Aviv 2000. Black intends ...e5 and
he.
e4) 10 8e3!? We7 (10...Axe3!? 11
fxe3 {6 Tyomkin) 11 2d4 e5 12 Re3
&97 13 Hadi 0-0 14 Wd3 d5 15 exd5
e4 16 d6 exd3 17 dxc7 dxc2 and it
245
looks like Black is equal, De Vreugt-
Blehm, Erevan jr Wch 1999.
e5) 10 2b3 7 and then:
e51) 11 h3 Ae5 12 Re3 Wa6!?
(12...WaS 13 f4 2a6 14 Wd2 Ac4,
Vasiukov-Mititelu, Budapest 1967, and
12...8.a6!? are also good) 13 f4 (13
Wd2 Ac4 14 Rxc4 Wxcd F Tyomkin)
13...Wxe2 14 Axe2 Ad7 = Dervishi-
Tyomkin, Verona 2000.
e52) 11 Aad Wa6 (11...Wb5!? is
critical, with the point 12 c4 We5! —
Tyomkin) 12 c4 Hb8 13 2d2 with
some pressure, T.Thorhallsson-Tyom-
kin, Paget Parish 2001.
f) 9 Wel!? Aged 10h3 DeS 11 Aad
We7 (11...Wd4 12 2b3 with the point
12...2a6? 13 Rd2! Axfl 14 2c3 and
White wins) 12 Wc3!, Scheipl-Freise,
Menden 1974.
9...dxe5 10 We2 (D)
10...Wd4
Or:
a) 10.2977!— 9 We2 277! 10
eS dxe5.
b) 10...d77! 11 Ae4 &g7 12 Be3
+ (Morovi¢).
c) 10...Wa5?! 11 £4 + (Kantsler).
d) 10...Wc5!? 11 2e3 and now
11...Wa5 is a playable alternative to
246 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
11...8d6, which transposes to the main
line.
e) 10...Weo7
11 £4 (11 Hel!?) 11.64
(11...exf4? 12 &xf4 Wh6+ 13 Re3
&g4 14 Wel with a decisive advan-
tage) 12 Axe4 Axe4 13 Wxe4 Rp7 14
c3 0-0 15 &e3. This position has been
tested in a number of games. White
probably has a small advantage; for
example, 15...2b8 16 Hf2 2£5 17 WF3
K.Miiller-Csom, Lippstadt 1999.
11 2e3
Not 11 Bdl? &g4!, Stocek-Golo-
shchapov, Mlada Boleslav 1995.
11...8d6!
11...Wh4 12 f4! e4 (Nedev-Kotro-
nias, Korinthos 1997; 12...Ag4 13 g3;
12...2¢4 13 Wel Wxel 14 Baxel exf4
15 2d4 + Tsesarsky) 13 2f2!2 Wh5
14 Dxe4 Wxe2 15 Axf6+ exf6 16
&xe2 and White has an advantage.
12 Kad1
12 W£3?! is unsuccessful in view
of 12...2g4! 13 Wg3 297, Jackova-
Cmilyte, Erevan girls Wch 1999.
12 £4 contains a trap:
a) 12...e4? 13 Hfd1! (better than 13
Had1?! 294 14 Axed Wxd1!) 13... 294
(13...We7 14 Axe4 Axe4 15 Ad4 +)
14 Hxd6 2xe2 15 Exc6 (or 15 Bxf6)
15...2xc4 16 Hxc4 + Tsesarsky.
b) However, 12...$7! is good (this
was also pointed out by Tsesarsky): 13
fxe5 (13 Hadl? 294; 13 Bfdl Wc7!?
14 fxe5 gd) 13... Wxe5 14 W2 0-0,
ete.
12...We7 13 4
Or:
a) 13 Bfel Rg7 14 2g5 (14 Bc5—
13 2c5 Bg7 14 Bfel) 14...h6 15 Bh4
@®h5 16 Ab5 cxb5 17 Rxb5+ V8 18
Wed Who 19 2xe7+ Yg8 20 Hdo
&e6 21 Wed Wxb5 22 Wxa8+ Gh7 —+
Florescu-Nevednichy, Miercirea Ciuc
1999.
b) 13 &c5!? R97 (13...2.£5!7) and
now:
bl) After 14 Bfel, both 14...0-0 15
Wxe5 Wxe5 16 Bxe5 Ad7 17 Bxd7
(Kramnik) and 14...Ah5!? should suit
Black.
b2) 14 £4 Ad7 (14...2247! 15 Wxe5
+ Hamdouchi-M.Sorin, Montpellier
1999; 14...e4?! is also dubious in view
of 15 @xe4) and now 15 2a3 Ab6 is
good for Black, Kornev-Akhmadeevy,
Russia 1998, so White should try 15
&xe7 Sxe7 16 fxeS Bf8 17 Wed.
13...224
13...2g7? 14 fxeS Wxe5 15 &b6
Wxe2 16 Rd8#.
13...e4 14 Axe4 Rg7 (14...Axe4
15 2d4 +) 15 Bd4 0-0 16 Axf6+ +
Lakos-Pelletier, Portoroz 1998.
14 Wr
14 Ab5 Wh7! F Gofshtein.
14...e4
After 14..2xd1?! 15 fxeS Wxe5
(15...2xc2 16 exf6 R£5 17 24!) 16 Bd4
Black lacks a satisfactory defence:
a) 16..Wd6 17 &xf6 Wxf6 (alter-
natively, 17...exf6 18 ®e4 Wes 19
‘\xf6+ @d8 20 Hxd1+ 2d6 21 Ae4!
+—) 18 We5 e5 19 Rxf7+ +— Tsesar-
sky.
b) 16...We7 17 &xf6 exf6 18 Hel+
2e7 19 Wxf6 0-0-0 20 Bxe7 Wb6+ 21
@hi + Mitenkov.
c) 16...£5 17 We3.
d) 16...Wg5 17 &xf6 exf6 18 Ae4
2c5 19 Axc5 0-0-0 20 Ad3 Yb8 21
Exdl Wed 22 We3+ +.
15 Edel 2f5!
15...227 16h3! 2£5 17 g4 cB 18
&c5 + Kramnik.
16 h3 h5 17 2d4 297 18 b3 0-0
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &.c4 Wb6 AND 6...8.d7 247

18...h4 19 &xf6 &xf6 20 Axed positions may arise on the board. We

&xe4 21 Hxe4 Bh5 (Schumi-Atalik, shall quite briefly consider the contin-
Bled 2001) 22 2d3!? is less convinc- uations 8 2e3 and 8 0-0, which often
ing. lead to Scheveningen lines, and, in
19 2xf6 &xf6 20 Axed 2xe4 21 greater detail, more concrete varia-
Exed Whe tions with 8 &g5 and 8 2f4.
-'/2 Topalov-Kramnik, Novgorod So:
1997. B51: 8 2e3 247
B52: 8 0-0 248
B5) B53: 8 2g5 253
7 Db3 B54: 8 Qf4 261
This move is played more frequently
than all the other moves put together. Out of the other options it is neces-
Whether it is good or bad, the b2-pawn sary to mention 8 We2. Usually, this
is completely safe now and White is move is linked with the idea of cas-
guaranteed a wide choice of continua- tling long: after, for example, 8...a6 9
tions as the cl-bishop is free. £4 Wc7 10 Re3 b5 11 2d3 followed
7...e6 (D) by 0-0-0, or first 24, an intricate game
Or: commences that gives chances for both
a) 7...g6 gives White at least a pos- sides.
sibility to transpose to the position that
usually arises out of the Accelerated B51)
Dragon through 8 &e3 Wc7 9 Re2 8 Re3
227 100-0 0-0 +. 8 0-0, followed by e3, &2d3 and
b) 7...a6!? (avoiding 7...e6 8 &f4) f4, is the other possible introduction to
8 0-0 e6 transposes to the note to the same arrangement (see Line B52).
Black’s 8th move in Line B52. As compared to 8 0-0 2e7 9 Re3,
with the present move-order 8 2e3 the
sides have certain additional possibili-
ties. White has ideas with 0-0-0 or an
early g4, and Black could try to do
without ...2e7; we shall see these ideas
in the notes below.
8...We7 9 2d3
9 f4 a6 10 2d3 comes to the same
thing.
9...a6 10 f4 (D)
According to the widely adopted
classification, this position and all its
‘derivatives’ are referred to as the
When the c4-bishop and the black Scheveningen. However, in practice
queen have moved to more convenient they most often arise, as in our case,
squares, a huge range of Scheveningen from the Sozin or from the Taimanov
248 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

x Y
1i20ee &
[aka
am
GY2GiGg FO
LDA
LAOAGY a,
HAA W
a

Variation. Also, it is curious to note
that one may find a couple of hun-
dred games that began | e4 c5 2 ®f3
4c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 &xd4 Wh6, where
the position in the diagram arose with
White to move. In many such in-
stances Black, whose statistics are far
from being catastrophic, was a famous
grandmaster.
The most popular continuation is:
10...b5 11 B£3
White can play 11 g4!? or 11 We2,
which should be compared with 8 We2.
11...2b7 12 0-0
12 g4!? is an alternative.
Now (after 12 0-0):
a) 12...g6!? with a possible ...&297.
b) Black could also try 12...d5 13
exd5 “b4.
c) 12...&e7 brings us to an impor-
tant theoretical position, which we
discuss in Line B52.
B52)
8 0-0 (D)
The flexible move. White holds in
reserve the plans 295 and &e3, 243,
f4 (allowing ...b5) in addition to the
opportunity to make an early a4 ad-
vance.
8...2e7
& GY ES
Very infrequently does Black play
8...a6, because in this instance 9 a4!
gives White somewhat better chances:
9... We7 (9...Na5 10 &e3 We7 11 Axas
WrxaS 12 Wd2 2e7 13 Bfdi with pres-
sure, Mikhalchishin-KoZul, Slovenian
Cht 1999; 9...Ae5 10 Re2 +; 9...2e7
10 a5 We7 — 9...We7 10 a5! 2e7) 10
a5! (10 2e3 b6), and now:
a) It is very risky for Black to play
10...Axa5 11 AxaS b6 12 e5 bxa5
(12...dxe5?! 13 WF3!) 13 exf6 (13
&xe6 dxe5!) 13...Wxc4 14 fxg7 (14
WF3!? is quite unclear, Vasiesiu-Solak,
Bucharest 1997) 14...2xg7 15 Wxd6
2b7 (15...Ba7 16 Bxa5 + Nunn-Van
der Wiel, Baden 1980), and now:
al) 16 Bxa5 &£6!2.
a2) 16 Hdl Wc6! 17 Wxc6+ &xc6
18 Hd6 Hc8!? 19 Hxa5 &xc3 and now
20 Hc5 (Franco-Marcussi, Los Polvo-
rines 1980) 20...2b4! 21 Bcxc6! 0-0!
22 Exc8 Bxc8 23 Hdd Hxc2 24 Bh6
&e7 = Nisipeanu/Stoica, or 20 bxc3
&g8 with the point 21 Hc5 Hxg2+ 22
Sfi Bxh2 =.
a3) 16 &g5!? (+ Nunn) 16...Wb4
17 We3 Hc8 (17...Wxb2? 18 2d2;
17...0-07 18 &f6; 17..Hg8 18 Ha4
Wxb2 19 Bc7 2f6 20 Zbl Wxc3 21
Wxb7 Hd8 22 He4! Wes 23 Wc6+ +)
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &c4 Wb6 AND 6...8.d7 249

18 Efd1 with the initiative, Pan- b) The more typical 14 Wh3!? de-
chenko-Zhidkov, Daugavpils 1974. serves attention; e.g., 14... Hfe8 15 Hf3
b) 10...2e7 11 @e3 and then: A\b4 16 Bg3 Axd3 17 cxd3 Sh8, and
bl) 11...Axa5?! 12 Axa5 b6 13 e5! a draw was rather charitably accepted
dxe5 14 Wf3 bxa5 15 Wxa8 Wxc4 16 by White in V.Gurevich-Sakaev, Cap-
&xa5 + Pinter-Cserna, Hungarian Ch pelle la Grande 1997.
(Budapest) 1975. 10...a6 11 243
b2) 11...Ae5?! 12 Re2 Ac4 13 Again, 11 a4!? is a serious alterna-
Sxc4 Wxc4 14 Bc5! Axed 15 We tive here:
(15 Axe4 Wxe4 16 2xd6 seems not a) After 11...b6, 12 2d3 transposes
bad) 15...£5 (15...dxc5!2) 16 Wxg7 26 to 10 &2d3 a6 11 a4!? b6 12 fA. In-
17 Dxe4 Wxfl+ 18 Sxfl 2xg7 19 stead, the other version of Schevenin-
“Axd6+ Yd7 20 Hdl + Sofieva-Sau- gen, 12 2e2 2b7 13 2£3 0-0 = (as in
nina, USSR wom Ch (Erevan) 1985. Ilyin-Zhenevsky — Rokhlin, Leningrad
b3) 11...Ad7 12 2d3 0-0 13 a4 1926) appears to be less promising for
+ Nisipeanu/Stoica. White.
b4) 11...Ab4 12 Re2 Rd7 13 f4 b) Black may deviate by playing
0-0 14 2f3 e5 (14...Hac8 transposes 11...d5!? 12 exd5 Ab4 13 2d3 (after
to line ‘c’) 15 Hf2 exf4 16 2xf4 Had8 13 d6, 13...2xd6 14 2b5+ Rd7 15
17 Hd2 £ Nunn-Csom, Moscow Echt &xd7+ Wxd7 is sufficient for Black)
1977. 13...A\bxd5 (also possible is 13...exd5!?
c) 10...2d7 11 2e2 Bc8 12 4 Ab4 14 2d4 0-0, de Firmian-Csom, Nis
13 2f3 Re7 14 Le3 0-0 15 Hf2 is 1981) 14 Axd5 Axd5 15 2d4 (curi-
slightly better for White, Kuczynski- ous is 15 &d2 2f6 16 c4 Wh6+? 17
KoZzul, Ohrid Ech 2001. Bhi De3? 18 Bxe3 Wxe3 19 c5!! 1-0
9 23 Elseth-Grenn, Oslo 1991) 15...2f6
9 2g5!? transposes to Line B532. (after 15...0-0!?, the double sacrifice
9 a4 is less sensible here than in the 16 @xh7+ &xh7 17 Wh5+ Sg8 18
case of 8...a6. After 9...0-0 10 a5 Wc7, &xg7 &xg7 19 We4+ yields merely a
Black plans 11...2d7 and does not draw) 16 2e4!? 2xd4+ (16...Axf4 is
have, as a rule, any real difficulties. critical) 17 Wxd4 £ Nijboer-Mirallés,
9...We7 10 £4 Lucerne Wcht 1989.
An important but not adequately 11...b5 12 B£3 2b7 (D)
studied position arises after 10 &d3 Black preserves possibilities of ac-
a6 11 a4!? b6 12 f4. After 12...0-0 13 tive struggle all over the board, includ-
WF3 (13 94. d5!? 14 e5 Ad7 with coun- ing the kingside. 12...0-0 is considered
terplay, Marusenko-Zontakh, Kiev to be a less flexible continuation here.
1994) 13...22b7 we have: This is a standard position that has
a) 14 Wg3 Hfe8 15 Kael (15 £5 occurred in hundreds of games. Now:
De5 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 Ad4 Rd8 18 B521: 13 a3 250
Wh3 Wd7 Smirin) 15...Ad7 16 e5? B522: 13 a4 250
\b4! with better chances for Black, B523: 13 Hael 251
Nijboer-Smirin, Tilburg 1993. B524: 13 Wh3 252
250 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

14...b4!9.
15 Wh3 b4
Ww 5 aw Baka Black has sufficient counterplay,
ac akaa © Kupreichik-Tal, USSR 1970.

N
Vi Ts WW

\
>a
B522)
wrttee 13 a4 (D)

\
OW wee
ie 7)
ae 7 &
Hz 7 7s
SY

If 13 Bh1, itis not bad to reply with

13...£c8!?, and 13 g4 allows Black to
start counterplay by means of 13...h6
or 13...g5!2.

B521)
13 a3 Bc8
13...0-0 14 Wh3 and now:
a) The known line 14...b4 15 axb4 13...b4 14 De2
(or 15 Aad bxa3 16 Bxa3 Ab4!?) 14 Ab] e5!7 15 Dld2 exf4 16 Wxf4
15...Axb4 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxeS Wxe5 &e5 17 @d4 g6 with chances for both
18 Ha5 2d5 (18...Axd3 19 Bxe5 AxeS sides, Morozevich-Ruban, St Peters-
20 “a5 + Diickstein-Mikenda, Aus- burg Z 1993.
tria 1981), is, to my mind, dubious in 14...Da5
view of 19 Hxd5 (19 Axd5 exd5 20 White has slightly the better pros-
2d4 Wh5 21 Wxh5 Axh5 = Minev- pects in the variations 14...a5 15 c4!
Polugaevsky, Moscow 1960) 19...exd5 (Gutman), 14...d5 15 e5, 14...e5 15
20 Exf6 Axd3 21 Hs Whs8 22 Axd5 4\g3 (Spassky-Marshalek, Leningrad
He8 23 2d4 Ab4 24 BhS Wc8 25 1960), 14...h5 15 a5! (Ghizdavu-Ba-
We3 £6 26 2xf6 2c5+ 27 Ad4 Ha7 dilles, Skopje OL 1972) and 14...0-0
28 Hg5. 15 a5 (as in Ghizdavu-Carp, Romania
b) 14...g6 15 £5! £ Hector-Hjartar- 1972).
son, Malmo 1995. 15 Axa5 Wxa5 16 94
c) Black should probably proceed Not dangerous for Black is 16 2.44
with the typical Scheveningen move e5 (16...0-0 17 g4 e5!, A.Sokolov-
14... Bfe8, as in Zso.Polgar-Damljano- Ionov, Russian Ch (Elista) 1995) 17
vic, Wijk aan Zee 1990. fxe5 dxe5 18 WS 0-0!, Bogdanovié-
14 Hael Szabo, Sarajevo 1972.
Or 14 Wh3 h5!?, Georgadze-Cvet- 16...0-0
kovié, Sukhumi 1966. Otherwise:
14...0-0 a) 16...h6? 17 2g3 + Tregubov.
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...A\c6 6 &.c4 Wb6 AND 6...2d7
b) 16...d5?! 17 e5 Ae4 18 £5 was
given by Bénsch.
c) 16...Ad7!? 17 g5 AcS, Ghiz-
davu-Szabo, Romania 1972.
d) 16...Wc7!? 17 g5 @d7 18 2d4?!
(18 @d4 g6 © Gutman) 18...0-0 19
Wh5 e5! 20 f5 exd4 21 £6 Ae5 22 Hf4
HBfe8 23 Hh4 h6 24 Ag3 Was 25 Hf
Rf8 26 ALS Heb 27 Hf2 d5 28 He2
(J.Polgar-Damljanovi¢é, Wijk aan Zee
1990) 28...dxe4! with a winning posi-
tion for Black.
e) 16...c8!2 17 g5 Ad7 18 Ag3
0-0 (18...26!? Tregubov) 19 f5 AeS 20
W4 exf5 21 Axf5 Hfe8 22 Bd4 AF8
with chances for both sides, Moro-
zevich-Tregubov, Alushta 1994.
17 g5 Ad7 18 Ad4
18 Wh3!? Ruban.
18...26
18...8fe8 is more reliable. For in-
stance, 19 £5 AeS 20 Wh3 exf5 21
&)xf5 (Garbett-Jansa, Nice OL 1974)
21... 2f8!.
19 Wh3 Ac5 20 £5
Now, after 20...exf5 (20...Axd3!?
has the point 21 f6 Efe8 22 @xe6
&c5) 21 Axf5 gxf5 22 Bxf5 We7 (or
22...2c8 23 Wh6!) 23 Wh6, Black may
play 23...Wd7!? (instead of 23...d5 24
2d4 De6 25 e5 &05, Mortensen-Tuk-
makov, Reykjavik 1990, 26 Bf6! +—
or 23...4)xd3 24 cxd3 + Zakhartsov-
Ruban, Smolensk 1991), when I do
not see anything better for White than
24 2d4 Deb 25 Le3.
B523)
13 Hael (D)
13...Ab4
Or:
a) 13...h5 14h3 h4 15 W2 Dh5 16
Hdl Ag3 17 Bb6 We8 18 Bfel Vf6
251
iw 4
Dk se
i
19 e5! dxe5 20 Ae4 Dxe4 21 Rxe4 +
Ghizdavu-Buza, Bucharest 1970.
b) 13...8c8 14 Wh3 Ab4 15 Ada!
(15 a3 @xd3 16 cxd3 e5!? 17 We3 0-0
= Gheorghiu-Stein, Moscow 1971)
15...Axd3 (15...0-0 16 ¢4 A.Frolov;
15...g6 16 Sh! hS 17 Rel Axd3 18
cxd3 Ag 19 f5 gxf5 20 exf5 e5 21
f6!; 15...Wd7 16 a3 Axd3 17 cxd3 g6
18 Af3! d5 19 £5! — Gutman) 16 cxd3
b4 (16...0-0!? 17 g4) 17 Ace2 Was 18
g4! h5 19 g5 Ag4 20 g6 with an ad-
vantage for White, A.Frolov-Fine-
gold, Groningen open 1993.
c) The popular alternative here is
13...0-0 14 Wh3 (after 14 g4 Db4 15
g5 Ad7 16 Wh5, apart from Gutman’s
idea 16... Xfe8 17 Bf3 DF8 18 Bh3 d5,
16...f5! is good, Berndt-Klebel, Bun-
desliga 1997/8), and then:
cl) 14...26 — 13 Wh3 g6 14 Hael
0-0.
c2) 14...b4 15 De2! Gutman.
c3) 14...Bfd8?! 15 g4 b4 16 g5!
bxc3 17 gxf6 gxf6 (Ciocaltea-Tal, Ha-
vana OL 1966) 18 @f2! cxb2 19 Xg1+
@h8 20 Bg3 — Gutman.
c4) 14...Had8?! 15 94 Ab4 (15...b4
16 g5 Ad7 17 Ad5!) 16 g5 Bd7 17
Bd4! (17 £5 Axd3 18 cxd3 exf5 19 exf5
Hfe8!) 17...Bfe8 18 Hf3! — Gutman.
252 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

c5) 14...Bfe8!? 15 4 Ab4 16 g5 19 Wf2 £5, Brenjo-Damljanovié, Yu-

4\d7 with a complicated game, Uly- goslav Cht 2001) 17...h5 18 h3 with
bin-Popovic, Moscow 1989. some advantage for White, Ivanovic-
c6) 14...Ab4 and then: Gulko, Novi Sad OL 1990.
c61) 15 g4 can be met by 15...d5!? 14...Axd3 15 cxd3 d5!?
16 e5 Ae4, Parr-Torre, Australia 1975, Or:
or 15... Bfe8 — 14... Bfe8 15 g4 Db. a) 15...Bc8 16 f5! e5 17 g4!- Gut-
c62) 15 Ad4 Bae8!? 16 g4 Ad7 17 man.
257! Axd3 18 cxd3 Ac5 19 Hdl b4 20 b) 15...0-0 16 Bei (16 Ad4 Hfes!
&\ce2 £5!, Malakhov-Svidler, Russian Gutman; 16 Wh3 —- /3...0-0 14 Wh3
Ch (Elista) 1997. Ab4 15 a3 BDxd3 16 cxd3) 16...8d8
c63) 15.a3 @xd3 16 cxd3 and then: 17 Ad4 Ad7 18 b4 Hc8 19 Ace2 with
c631) 16...Bac8 17 Ad4! + Biiner- some advantage, Ciocaltea-Bobotsov,
mann-Szymcezak, Hamburg 1993. Bucharest 1973.
c632) 16...Bfe8 17 £5! e5 18 g4 d5 16 Hel
19 Hcl Wd8 20 g5 — Gutman. 16 2d4 dxe4 17 Axe4 Ad5! =
c633) 16...e5!? transposes to note Kasparov/Nikitin.
‘b’ to White’s 14th move. 16...dxe4 17 xed Q2xed 18 dxe4
14.a3 Wb7
Or: = Gutman.
a) 14 Wg3 96 (14...0-0 15 £5 Es-
pig-Cobo, Timisoara 1972) 15 a3 (15 B524)
$2.4 «© Apicella-Mirallés, French Ch 13 Wh3 (D)
(Angers) 1990) 15...A\xd3 16 cxd3 Hc8
17 Hcl Wd7 18 Ad4 Ah5! 19 Wh3 f5
x? ie z
, 6 eae
= Tringov-Gheorghiu, Teesside 1972.
b) 14 Wh3 e5!? (14...d5 15 e5 Ded
16 f5! + Baklan-Kveinys, Bundesliga
h Awa C Wa
1999/00; 14..@\d7 15 a3 @Axd3 16
cxd3 Ac5 17 Axc5 dxc5 18 f5 e5 19 o am on s
We3 26 20 Xcl Hd8 21 d4! cxd4 22
Ad5 Wd6 23 Axf6+ gxf6 24 Vd2 + mnt ‘ew
Ciocaltea-Darga, Germany 1971)
a3 4)xd3 16 cxd3 0-0 17 Hcl Wa8 with
15
AAT 7 ae
an acceptable position for Black, & 7 7Ss
Mini¢-Csom, Siegen OL 1970.
c) 14 Bd4!? Bc8 (14...26 15 a3 13...0b4
&xd3 16 cxd3 Hc8 17 Wh3 and now Other possibilities:
17...Wd7 18 @f3!, Ulybin-Petrienko, a) 13...e5!7.
Voronezh 1987, or 17...h5 18 @h1 Wd7 b) 13...b4 14 We2 +.
19 AF3 +) 15 a3 Axd3 16 cxd3 Wd7 c) 13...8b8 14 Bhi b4 15 He2 e5
(16...26 — 14...g6 15 a3 Axd3 16 cxd3 16 Hael! £ Yudasin-Garcia Ilundain,
c8) 17 Be2!? (17 We3 26 18h3 AhS! Leon 1992.
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...c6 6 3.c4 Wb6 AND 6...8.d7 253

d) 13...h5 14 a4 (14 Gh Aga 15 the note to Black’s 15th move, 14...0-0

&gl g5!?, Mrdja-Zsu.Polgar, Rome is more reliable.
1989) 14...b4 15 Ad1 Aa5 (15...d5!? 14...Axd3 15 cxd3 0-0
16 exdS Axd5 17 £5! £ Sax) 16 AxaS 15...e5 16 acl Wd8 17 Ad2!? (17
Wxa5 17 @f2 £ A.Sokolov-Makary- fxe5 dxe5 18 Wg3 0-0 19 “c5 + Tal;
chev, Sochi 1983. 17 d4!? A.Frolov) 17...0-0 18 d4 i
e) 13...8c8 14 a4 (14 Hael! — 13 A.Frolov-Shmuter, Nikolaev Z 1993.
Bael Bc8 14 Wh3) 14...b4 15 Abl 16 Ad4
Ha5! = 16 AxaS Wxad 17 Ad2 Whs This position occurred in Hartston-
18 Wxh5 AxhS5 19 e5 g5 Gutman. R.Byrme, Hastings 1971/2 and Beli-
f) 13...26 14 Rael 0-0 15 f5!? exf5 kov-Goldin, Russian Ch (Elista) 1995.
16 exf5 Ae5 17 Rg5 Bae8 18 Wh4 White, who has active plans with g4 or
(A.Sokolov-Utasi, Moscow 1983) &f3, Bg3 and Hfl, enjoys somewhat
18...Wd8 19 Ad4 with an unclear po- the better chances.
sition — Sokolov.
g) 13...0-0 and then: B53)
gl) 14.a3!?- 13 a3 0-0 14 Wh3. 8 295 (D)
g2) A fresh idea is 14 Hf3!? b4 15 This popular idea has been moder-
&a4 a5 16 Sg3 Gh8 17 Hl a6 18 ately successful. Note also the move-
&d2, Ye Jiangchuan-Gulko, US-China order 8 0-0 Re7 9 Rg5.
(3) 2001.
g3) 14 94 Dd7 (14...b4 15 25 Dd7
16 @d5! exd5 17 exd5 g6 18 dxc6 ei Gee a
Wxc6 19 a5! + Sax-Movsesian, Bun- mie ms
desliga 1997/8) 15 g5 Ab4 16 Ad4
Efe8 17 Hf3 (17 £5 exf5!) 17...e5 18
“£5 exf4 19 Axf4 2xg5 20 We3 with Jy, 0a a ‘a
\

JaUrg
‘"
a dangerous initiative, Kozakov-Ata-
lik, Lviv 2000. BOC 7
14 a3
2B 2 7 Boe
eS

Or:
a) 14 Hael - /3 Hael Ab4 14 7S 7/8
Wh3.
b) 14 4d4 0-0 (14...Axd3 15 cxd3 Let us discuss:
26 16.43 Wd7 17 Af3 + Belikov-S.Kis- B531: 8...2d7!? 254
elev, Moscow 1995) 15 a3 Axd3 16 B532: 8...$.e7 254
cxd3 transposes to the main line. B533: 8...a6 257
c) After 14 Hacl, instead of either
14...Ad7 15 a3 (15 £5!2 e5 16 a3 If 8...Ae5, then instead of 9 2b5+
Baklan) 15...Axd3 16 cxd3 Wd8 17 f5 2d7 10 &xf6 Bxb5! 11 VxeS dxe5
e5?! 18 @d5! + Baklan-Delchev, Is- 12 AxbS Wxb5 13 We2 Wad 14 0-0
tanbul OL 2000, or 14...e5 15 a3 Se7 with an acceptable position for
4xd3 16 cxd3, which transposes to Black (Lukin-Oll, St Petersburg 1993),
254 THE
9 Se2! is probably stronger. Then, in
the case of 9...2e7, 10 2e3! trans-
poses to Line B541, which is advanta-
geous for White.
B531)
8...2.d7!2 9 0-0
Others:
a) 9 a4 We5 10 Re2 Be7 11 f4
4\g6 12 £5 AeS 13 a5 We7 14 0-0 0-0
15 Wel with chances for both sides,
Velimirovic-Sedlak, Subotica 2000.
b) 9 We2 @e7 (9...Hc8!? 10 £4?!
Ad4! 11 Axd4 Wxb2! 12 &d2 B4,
Savon-Stein, USSR Ch (Leningrad)
1971) 10 0-0-0 AeS 11 Bb5 a6 12
&xd7+ Aexd7 13 £4 We7 14 Hhel 0-0
= Armas-Kotronias, Wijk aan
1995.
c) 9 Rxf6 gxf6 10 Wh5 Hg8! (or
10...a6 — 8...a6 9 Bxf6 exf6 10 WhS
Rd7; 10...%c8 11 0-0-9 0-0 Bc8 10
Qxf6! exf6 11 WhS) 11 0-0 Bg6
(11...Ae5 12 Re2 Be6 13 Wh4 e717
142h1 £5 15 Wxh7 £4 16 B2hS Bp5 17
h4 Exh5 18 Wxh5, Feigelson-Maka-
rov, USSR 1988, 18...0-0-0 gives Black
compensation — Makarov) 12 Wh4
0-0-0 13 Bh &e7 with good chances
for Black, Hmadi-Dlugy, Tunis
1985.
9...Ae5
Or:
a) 9...2e7 — 8... 2e7 9 0-0 2d7.
b) 9...a6 —8...a6 9 0-0 &d7.
c) 9...c8 (Agopov-Gavrikov, Fin-
nish Cht 1998) 10 &.xf6! gxf6 11 Whs
&d4 12 2d3 Axb3 13 axb3 Hc5!?
(13...a6 14 @h1 transposes to note
‘b23’ to White’s 9th move in Line
B533) 14 Wf3!? &e5 15 Hfel Hhes
16 &f1! Be7 17 b4!? £5 18 b5 fxe4 19
&)xe4 He5 and now V.Fedorov gives
SICILIAN SOZIN
20 Af6+ Vxf6 21 Bxf6 Exel 22 Exel
&xb5 23 Bxe6+ = and 20 c4!7.
10 2e2
Now:
a) 10...2c8!? 11 &xf6 gxf6 12 Zhi
h5 13 f4 Ac4 14 Bxc4 Bxc4 15 Wd3
(Wolff-Shamkovich, New York 1992)
15...28c8 (Wolff).
b) 10...Re7 — 8...Re7 9 0-0 Des
10 Se2 2d7.
B532)
8...2e7 9 0-0
This move is of particular interest
because of the move-order 8 0-0 e7
9 Bg5.
However, in this specific position it
Zee is more relevant to play 9 &xf6! gxf6:
a) 100-0 and now:
al) 10...a6 — 8&..a6 9 0-0 Be7 10
RE exfo.
a2) 10...0-0 11 @h1 (11 Wh5 - 70
Wh5 0-0 11 0-0) 11...Ae5 (11...2h8
12 £4 Bg8 13 a4 a6 14 Wh5 Bp7 15 a5
Wd8 16 “a4 + Brunner-Benjamin,
Buenos Aires 1992) 12 2e2 @h8 13
£4 Dg6 14 a4 Be8?! (14...2d7 Dlugy)
15 a5 We7 16 Wd2 &d7 17 g3 t de
Firmian-Rachels, USA Ch (Jackson-
IZ ville) 1990.
a3) 10...2d7 11 2h (11 Bhs -/0
Wh5 &d7 11 0-0) 11...0-0-0 (11...0-07!
12 £4 Gh8 13 WhS + Fedorowicz) 12
a4 a6 13 WhS Ae5 14 Le? transposes
to note ‘c22’ to Black’s 9th move in
Line B533 (+).
b) 10 Wh5 and then:
bl) 10...a6 11 0-0 - 8&..a6 9 0-0
Re7 10 Rxf6 gxf6 11 Bhs.
b2) 10...8d7 11 0-0 Ae5 (alterna-
tively, 11...0-0-0, Anti¢-Timoshch-
enko, Belgrade GMA 1988, 12 a4!7?)
12 Qe2 0-0-0 13 Shi Hhgs 14 f4
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 S.c4 Wb6 AND 6...2d7 255

4\g6 15 g3 t Emms-Beckhuis, Miinster b) 9...2d7 10 Gh1 (10 Rxf6 gxf6

1995. ~ 9 &xf6 gxf6 10 0-0 8.7) 10...2c8!
b3) 10...0-0 11 0-0 @h8 (11...Ae5 (10...h6 11 &xf6 gxf6, Ma.Tseitlin-
12 Re2 Sh8 13 Gh transposes to Stein, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1971, 12
line ‘b32’) 12 Ghl and now: Whs5 £ Nunn) 11 f4 (11 &xf6 2xf6!?
b31) 12...2d7 13 £4 Hg8 (13...%e8 12 Wxd6 Ab4) 11...0-0 12 Wel (12
14 Wh3! Lukin) 14 Wxf7 Bg6 15 f5 e5? dxe5 13 &xf6 2xf6 14 Wxd7
Eh6 16 2xe6 Hf8 17 Wxf8+ Vxf8 18 Hed8; 12 &xf6!?) 12...h6! 13 Sh4
&xd7 (4-1/2 Howell-Arlandi, Gronin- 4\b4 14 2d3 Axd3 15 cxd3 Hfe8 16
gen jr Ech 1985) with good prospects €5?! Ad5 17 Hed dxe5 18 fxe5 We3 F
for White; e.g., 18...Ae5 19 AdS Wa6 Minasian-Khachian, Armenian Ch
20 Re6 Deg 21 h3 We2 22 Hf3. 1993.
b32) 12...Ae5 13 Re2 (13 2d3 c) 9...0-0 is another worthy try:
Hg8 14 £4 Dg6 15 De2 + Fedorowicz) cl) 10 a4 AeS!? 11 Be2 a6 12
13...2%g8 (13...2d7 14 a4 a6 transposes hl transposes to note ‘a’ to White’s
to note ‘c24’ to Black’s 9th move in 12th move in Line B533.
Line B533) 14 f4 Ag6 15 Wa5!? (a c2) 10 2h! Hd8 (after 10...We7 or
fresh idea; 15 Had] 2d7 16 Bd3 Bac8 10...a6, White can play 11 £4 at once)
17 £5 De5 18 Bh3 Bg7 is unclear, Van 11 We2 (11 f4 d5!, Wang Pin-Wang
Riemsdijk-Rachels, Manila IZ 1990) Zili, Beijing 1993; 11 Wel h6 12 2h4
15...8xa5 16 Axa5 b6 17 Ac6 2b7 De5 13 2d3 Ag6 14 Bg3 e5 = Kin-
(17...2£8 18 Ad8! He7 19 Had1 a6 20 dermann-Lobron, Dortmund 1990; 11
&h5 Gofshtein) 18 Axe7 Axe7 19 2d3 d5 12 exd5 Axd5 13 Axd5 Bxd5
Had! Had8 20 &h5 &g7 + Kaidanov- 14 &xe7 Axe7 = Rublevsky-S.Kise-
Fedorowicz, USA Ch (Seattle) 2000. lev, St Petersburg Z 1993) 11...807
We now return to 9 0-0 (D): (11...82d7!9; 11...a6!9; 11...Axe4?! 12
Rxe7 Dxe7 13 Wxe4 d5 14 Axd5
®xd5 15 Axd5 Exd5 16 Bfdl +
fiaadatt Kiselev/Gagarin) 12 f4 h6 13 &h4 a6
14 2d3 b5 15 Kael 2b7 16 e5 Ae8 17
&g3 + Ivanovié-Damljanovié, VrSac
1989.
c3) The critical line is 10 &xf6!?
Rxf6 (10...gxf6 — 9 Rxf6 gxf6 10 0-0
0-0) 11 Wxd6 Hd8. The pawn sacrifice
should be correct, but some questions
still remain here: 12 Wg3 (12 Wc5?!
Wxc5 13 Axc5 b6 favours Black), and
now:
9...De5 c31) 12...a5 13 a4 Be5 14 Wh3
The other continuations are: b4 15 Wh5! We7 16 Abs Wxc4 (an-
a) 9...a6 transposes to note ‘c’ to other idea is 16...2xh2+!?) 17 Wxe5
Black’s 9th move in Line B533. &)\xc2 (17...Wxe2!?) 18 Hadi 2d7 19
256 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
&xa5! + Sax-Nitevski, Porto San
Giorgio 1992.
032) 12...Wb4 13 Be2 (13 2d3!?
Rxc3 14 bxc3 Wxc3 15 £4 Gorelov)
13...2xc3 14 Wxc3 Wxe4 15 Efel
and then:
e311) 15...8b8 16 2f3 Wb4 17
Wxb4 Axb4 18 Had! He8 19 He4 +
A.Kuzmin-S.Kiselev, Moscow 1988.
c312) 15...Wes 16 Wxe5 Axe5 17
Had Rd7 18 f4 Ag6 19 AaS Bc6 20
&xc6 bxc6 21 2F3 Ae7 £ Nunn-Sax,
Wijk aan Zee 1992.
c313) 15...2d7 16 Had1 (16 Ac5
Wb4!) 16... Wes (16...8b4 17 Wxb4
4\xb4 18 c3 Ad5 19 2f3 = A.Kuz-
min-Baikov, Moscow 1988) 17 Wxe5
&xe5 transposes to line ‘c312’.
c33) 12...2e5 13 BWh3 2d7 (13...a5
14 a4 - 12...a5 13 a4 Be5 14 Wh3,
13...2\b4!?) and now:
c331) 14 Had] a5! (14...0b4 15
&d2!? Axc2 16 Bb3 Ad4 17 Ac4
Wce7 18 Wh5S is not so clear) 15 a4 Ab4
with excellent compensation, Rublev-
sky-Goldin, St Petersburg Z 1993.
c332) 14 Bhi Wb4 (14...Ab4 15 £4
+ Kindermann-Gomez Esteban, Palma
de Mallorca 1989) 15 2d3 (15 Re2!
&xc3 16 bxc3 We7 17 £4 {+ Bonsch}
is not verified) 15...&xc3 16 a3 (al-
ternatively, 16 bxc3 Wxc3 17 e5 g6 18
f4 @b4, Soltis-Lombardy, New York
1987) 16...We7 17 bxc3 05 18 We3
&e6 = Brunner-Khalifman, Lucerne
Weht 1993.
10 &e2 (D)
A game with chances for both sides
can be obtained through 10 243 0-0
11 We2 2d7 12 Re3 We7 13 £4 Axd3
14 cxd3 b5, Kovaliov-Ruban, Buda-
pest 1989, or 10 &b5+!? Rd7 11
&xd7+ (11 a4 a6 12 a5 We7 13 2d3
0-0 = Kontié-Levin, Podgorica 1993)
11...Aexd7 and then, for instance, 12
Be3 Wc7 13 £4 a6 (13...0-0 14 Be2
4\b6, Golubev-Serper, Leningrad 1989,
15 2d4!?) 14 WF 0-0 15 g4 g6, Van
der Wiel-Van Delft, Vlissingen 1998.
een zx
ims
10...0-0
Or:
a) 10...a6 transposes to Line B533.
b) 10...8d7!? and here:
bl) 11 8e3!? transposes to note
“b2’ to White’s 10th move in Line
B543.
b2) 11 a4 0-0 12 a5 We7 13 Wd4
Hfd8 14h3 Re8 15 Vl4 Rc6 16 Rg3
4g6 = A.Ivanov-Gi.Hernandez, Lin-
ares (Mexico) 19972.
b3) 11 Wd2 0-0 12 Hadi Hac8 13
&e3 We7 14 f4 Degd 15 Rxg4 Axed
16 &2d4 2c6 17 We2 Af6 18 e5 and
here, rather than 18...dxe5 (Velimiro-
vié-Popovié, Vr8ac 1989), 18...Ae8!
= was recommended.
b4) 11 Sh1 Agé6 (11...0-0— 10...0-0
11 ShI 2d7;11...Hc8!? 12 2e3 We7
13 Ad2 0-0 14 f4 Ag6 = Dimitrov-
Kotronias, Athens 1989) 12 2e3 (12
£4? h6 Nunn) 12...c7 13 £4 0-0 14
Wel (14 a4 2c6 15 2d3 Dd7 16 Ad4
&f6 = Amason-Stefansson, Kopavogur
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...A\c6 6 &.c4 Wh6 AND 6...8.d7
1994; 14 Ad4!9) 14...Bfe8 (possibly
stronger is 14...d5!?, as in Delacroix-
Lucchini, corr. 1989) 15 Hdl 2c6?!
16 2£3 d5 17e5 He4 18 Ad4! with an
advantage for White, Nunn-Tukma-
kov, Lugano 1986.
11 @h1 2d7
Otherwise:
a) 11...a6 again transposes to Line
B533.
b) 11...Ag6!? 12 Re3 (12 a4 Rd7
13 Be3 We7 14 f4-10...2d7 11 Bh]
Dg6 12 Re3 Wc7 13 f4 0-0 14 a4 =)
12...Wc7 13 £4 b6!? (or 13..2d7 -
10...2.d7 11 &h1 Dg6 12 Bei We7
13 f4 0-0) 14 g3 2b7 15 RF3 Bfd8 16
We2 Hac8 and Black will obtain a
good game by the manoeuvre ...Wb8-
a8, de Firmian-Waitzkin, Las Vegas
1995.
12 f4
12 Be3 We7 13 f4 Ac4!? = Dimi-
trov-Atalik, Mangalia 1992.
12...Ag6
White now has a wide choice, but
he has not demonstrated an advantage
as yet:
a) 13 &xf6 Rxf6 14 e5 Re7 15
exd6 &xd6! 16 Ae4 Bc6 17 Axd6
Efd8 = Yudasin-Al.Khasin, Kostroma
1985.
b) 13e5 De8 (13...dxe5? 14 2xf6)
14 &xe7 Axe7 15 Rd3 (15 Wd2!9)
15...2c6 16 Wh5?! (16 We2 = NCO)
16...26 followed by 17...A£5! ¥, Min-
asian-Ruban, USSR Ch (Moscow)
1991.
c) 13 Bh5 AxhS (13...had8!? 14
&xg6 fxg6! 15 We2 Hfe8! 16 e5 Ad5
17 &xe7 Exe7 = Lukin-Lugovoi, St
Petersburg 1994) 14 &xe7 and then:
cl) 14..Ag3+ 15 hxg3 ADxe7 16
g4!? and now 16...f5 17 exf5 exf5 18
257
25 2c6 19 Wd4 Ad5 20 Axd5 Wxd4
21 De7+ SF7 22 Axd4 Sxe7 gives
White a slight advantage, Rublevsky-
Ruban, Smolensk 1991, or 16...Bad8
17 Wd2 + Rublevsky-Lukin, St Peters-
burg 1994.
c2) 14...Axe7! 15 Wxh5 f5 with a
good game for Black, Panbukchian-
Ruban, Anapa 1992.
d) 13 Wd2 2c6 = Kindermann-
Brenke, Lippstadt 1993.
e) 13 &d3 Had8! 14 We2 (not 14
e5? dxe5 15 &xg6 fxg6 16 fxe5 &bS5)
14...h6 15 £5?! hxg5 16 fxg6 fxg6 17
e5 h5! with better chances, Pruess-
Atalik, Los Angeles 2000.
f) 13 Wd3 2c6! (13...h6? 14 Bxf6
&xf6 15 e5; 13...Had8?! 14 £5 AeS 15
We3 Bh8 16 Hf4!, Wahls-Wirthen-
sohn, Hamburg 1991) 14 f5 (14 Hael
d5!?, Lapshin-Lagoisky, corr. 1989-
90) 14...exf5!? 15 exf5 (15 Bxf5 Hae8
= Serper) 15...Ae5 16 Wg3 Bfe8 17
Eadl « Paronian-Serper, Tashkent
1992.
g) 13 £512 DeS 14 Wd2 (Serper)
14...ad8 and Black has quite a solid
position.
B533)
8...a6 (D)
The most frequent answer to 8 225
— in playing this, Black assumes that
now 9 &.xf6 will be less effective than
in the case of 8...2e7.
9 0-0
Alternatively:
a) 9 We2 2e7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Bhi
We7 12 £4 h6 (12...b5 =) 13 &h4 Axed!
is slightly better for Black, Parma-
Saidy, Tel-Aviv OL 1964.
b) 9 2xf6!? gxf6 has not been de-
veloped adequately. Some lines:
258 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
gas
Biter!sa
bl) 10 2e2!? 2d7 (10...7 might
be better) 11 0-0 2e7 12 @hi (12
&h5 De5 © Gulko) 12...h5 13 £4 and
now 13...0-0-0 14 a4 Hbs8 15 a5 We7
16 Wd2, Soltis-Cabrilo, New York
1988, or 13...h4 14 Wd2 Aad 15 Dxa5
Wxa5 16 Habl1! + Fedorowicz-Gulko,
USA Ch (Salt Lake City) 1999.
b2) 10 Wh5 2d7 11 0-0 (here 11
Hf1!? deserves attention; e.g., 11...Ae5
12 Re2 0-0-0 13 0-0-0 Re7 14 f4 D6
15 Sb1 Sb8 16 g3 = Anka-Gonzalez
Garcia, Budapest 1993 or 11...Hc8!?
12 2d3 Wa7 13 0-0-0 bS, Killti-Kiik,
Hyvinkaa 1996) and now:
b21) 11...Wc7 = Kupreichik.
b22) 11...Ad4 12 Hadl Axc2?! 13
a3 Hc8 14 We2 a5 15 Ad5 + Sutov-
sky-Shrentzel, Tel-Aviv 1993.
b23) 11...Bc8 12 Pht Ad4 13 2d3
4)xb3 14 axb3 We5 15 Wh3! h5 16 f4
h4 (16...2e7 17 £5 Gd8 18 Ae2! Wes
19 “£4, V.Fedorov-Ermolinsky, Le-
ningrad 1980) 17 £5 2e7 (17...8e7 18
fxe6 fxe6 19 e5! + or 17...We5!? 18
4&d1! — V.Fedorov) 18 Bf4 + V.Fedo-
rov-Kozlov, Erevan 1983.
b24) 11...Ae5 12 &e2 and then:
b241) 12...Ag6 13 g3 and here, in-
stead of 13...0-0-0?! (V.Fedorov-Lukin,
Leningrad 1983) 14 a4! + (Lukin),
Black should play 13...8.g7!? with the
idea of ...0-0, as in V.Fedorov-Kuli-
kov, Leningrad 1980.
b242) 12..Hg8 13 @hl Bg6 14
Wh4 (14 2d3?! Ag4! 15 Sg] Bes 16
Wxh7 #e7!, Ehlvest-Salov, Leningrad
1984) with the point 14..2h6 15 Wf4
26 16 Wd2 (Nepomnishay).
9...Ae5
Or: ;
a) 9...2d7 10 Bhi (10 Rxf6 gxf6
11 Wh5-—9 Bxf6 gxf6 10 Wh5 2d7 11
0-0) 10...2e7 (10...We7 11 Bxf6 gxf6
12 Wh5 Bg8 {12...Ae5 13 Re2 +} 13
f4 Bg7 14 £5 + A.Ivanov-Gulko, Mos-
cow rpd 1992) 11 2xf6! (11 £4 We7
= Hermansen-Yermolinsky, Chicago
1994) 11...gxf6 12 Wh5 - 9...2e7 10
Sxf6 exf6 11 WhS Rd7 12 Sh.
b) 9...Wc7 10 &xf6 (10 a4 2e7 has
occurred, with roughly equal play)
10...gxf6 11 Wh5 Bg8!? (11...2.d7!?;
after 11...b5 12 &d3 2b7 Black has
experienced difficulties; e.g., 13 f4
0-0-0 14 £5 We7 15 We2 d5 16 a4},
Wahls-Lobron, Baden-Baden 1992) 12
f4 Ee6 13 Bhl (Emms-Atalik, Hast-
ings 1995) 13...2d7 14 a4 © NCO.
c) 9...2e7 and now:
cl) 10 Gh] We7 (10...Ae5 11 Be2
-9..De5 10 Re2 Be7 11 Sh1) with
roughly equal play:
cl1) 11 2d3 and then:
e111) 11...0-0 12 f4 (12 We2 =)
12...h6 (Ostoji¢-Polugaevsky, Skopje
1971) 13 Rh4 Axe4 14 BVxe7 Axc3
15 &xd6 Axd1 16 &xc7 Axb2 17 Red
with compensation — Polugaevsky.
c112) 11...b5 12 f4 gives Black a
choice between 12...2b7 = Drimer-
Csom, Lugano OL 1968 and 12...h6!?
13 2xf6 2xf6 14 2xb5 Bxc3 (Polu-
gaevsky).
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &.c4 Wb6 AND 6...2.d7 259

c12) 11 We2 b5 12 2d3 2b7 13 £4
(13 a3 0-0 14 f4 b4 15 axb4 Axb4 16
e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 Afd5 18 Axd5 &xd5
19 &xe7 Wxe7 = Ivanovié-Cabrilo,
Yugoslav Ch (Kladovo) 1990) 13...b4!?,
but not 13..h6 14 2h4 @xe4?! 15
Wxe4! 2xh4 16 £5! (Cabrilo).
c2) 10 &xf6 gxf6 11 Wh5 (11 a4!?
Wa5 12 Axa5 Wxasd 13 Sh hs 14 f4
Rd7 15 Wd3 h4 16 Hf3 Bc8 17 2b3
Hc5! 18 £5 He5 with counterplay, de
Firmian-Smirin, New York rpd 1995)
with the following possibilities:
c21) 11...d4 12 #h1! (12 Dxd4?!
Wxd4 13 2b3 bS5, Kindermann-Lob-
ron, Munich 1987; 12 Bfd] Axb3 13
axb3 Eb8! 14 Who Wc5 15 We7 Hs
16 Wxh7 b5 17 2d3 2b7 with com-
pensation, Nunn-Martinovi¢, Amster-
dam 1985) 12...Axb3 (12...Axc2 13
Hacl “Ab4 14 £4) 13 axb3 We5 (or
13..Hb8 14 f4 Wc5 15 £5) 14 2b5+
2d7 15 2xd7+ &xd7 (Arkhangel-
sky-S.Kiselev, USSR 1987) 16 Wh3!
+ Arkhangelsky.
c22) 11...8.d7 12 Yh] (another line
is 12 a4 Ad4!?) 12...He5 (12...Bf8!7
13 f4 0-0-0 Kupreichik; 12...0-0-0 13
£4 Bdf8 14.04 We7 15.a5 Abd 16 We2
£ Sveshnikov-Vaiser, Volgodonsk 1983)
13 Re2 0-0-0 14 a4 (14 f4 is the alter-
£h3 Bg7 18 Hfl Wd8 turned out to
be unclear in Topolowski-A.1I.Frolov,
corr. 1990) 14...2d7 15 a5 We7 16
&\d2 “\g6 (16...b5 17 axb6 Wxb6 18
Ha2 + Kupreichik; 16...2g8!?) 17 Ac4
Had8 18 f4 (Kupreichik-Radulov,
Plovdiv 1980) 18...2g8! with the point
19 £5 Ae5 20 Axe5 dxeS 21 Wxf7
Ep7 22 Wh exf5 — Kupreichik.
10 2e2
10 2.d3!? Be7 (10...2.d7!?) 11 Shl
h6?! 12 2e3 We7 13 £4 is slightly
better for White, S.Gross-Csom, Bu-
dapest 1993.
10...2e7 11 hl (D)
Alternatively:
a) 11 2e3!? transposes to note ‘a’
to White’s 11th move in Line B542.
b) 11 a4 0-0 12 a5 (12 @hl - 1]
hl 0-0 12 a4) 12..%c7 13 f4 (13
Hd2 2.7 14 £4 4\g6 15 Ac4 Qrc6 16
£5 Axe4 17 Axed Bxed 18 Rxe7
4\xe7 19 fxe6 = M.Schlosser-Goldin,
Trnava 1989) 13...Ag6 (13...Aed7 14
Yh h6 15 Bh4 Ac5 16 Axcd5 Wxc5
17 &f3 £ Tolnai-Gosti§a, Maribor
1993) 14 2d3 h6 15 £5 © Van Riems-
dijk-Franco, Havana 1991.
rei tee &
ae wah
—.

native for White) 14...8b8 15 a5 (15

f4 Ag6 16 Zad1, Kupreichik-Kovacs,
oa

Stary Smokovec 1975, 16...We7 -

Banas) 15...Wc7 16 f4 Ag6 17 g3 + an a @
X

Fedorowicz-Rachels, USA Ch (Long Zi ha al WY

Beach) 1989. DOS
c23) 11...0-0 12 @hi Ae5 13 Be2
Bae yeeos
HB 7Mw7t7e
—1]...He5 12 Be2 0-0 13 Shi.
024) 11...Ae5 12 Be2 (12 2d3!7)
12...0-0 13 Bhl Bh8 14 a4 (14 £4
4\g6 15 Hf3 was given as ‘+’ by Mar- 11...0-0
tinovié, but 15.228 16 £5 &e5 17 Or:
260 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
a) 11...h6?! 12 2e3 We7 13 £4 with
the initiative, Rublevsky-Baikov, USSR
Cht 1991,
b) 11...h5 (Brunner-Lobron, Berne
Z 1990) 12 &e3!? We7 13 £4 is also
promising for White.
c) 11.7 12 f4 Ded7 (12...Ag67!
13 £5 AeS 14 fxe6 + Soylu-Radulov,
Athens 1981; 12...Ac4?! 13 S&xc4
Wxc4 14 e5 +; 12...Ac6!? is playable,
as in Pablo Marin-Spraggett, Roses
1992) 13 a4 (in Pablo Marin-Garcia
Ilundain, Manresa 1995, White did not
manage to make progress after 13 f5
0-0 14 Wel b5 15 a3 e5 16 We3 Hhs
17 Wh4 267 18 Bf3 Hac8 19 Kh3
Wad8 20 2£3 Hg8 21 4 Af8) 13...b6
14 2d3 2b7 15 We2 h6 16 Bh4 +
Minasian-Serper, Kherson 1991.
d) 11...Ag6!? 12 a4 (12 f4 hé!, Il-
escas-Franco, Leon 1989; 12 2e3!?)
12...We7 13 Re3 0-0 14 f4 Bd7 15
Wel b5! deserves attention, Burden-
Stefansson, Reykjavik 1996.
12 £4
Or:
a) 12 a4 We7 and then:
al) 13 Ad2 b6 = 14 Re3 Vb7 15
f4 Aed7 16 R£3 Hac8 17 We2 Hfes
18 g4? d5!, Kovaliov-Lerner, Simfer-
opol 1988.
a2) 13 £4 Aed7!? 14.5 b5 15 axb6
Axb6 16 Wd3 h6 17 Bh4 Bb8 with
good counterplay, D.Rodriguez-Ser-
per, Tunja jr Wch 1989.
a3) 13 a5 h6 14 Re3 Qd7 (better
than 14...4\c4?! 15 &xc4 Wxc4 16
Dc5 Wh4 17 Ha4!?) 15 2b6 We8 16
&d4 2c6 = Stefansson-Serper, Arn-
hem jr Ech 1989.
b) 12 Wel!? We7 (12...Ag6!?) 13 f4
4\g6 14 We3 Bh8 15 Had! b5 (15...h6
16 Wh3 Sg8 seems risky in view of 17
&xh6) 16 a3 Bb7 17 £5 exf5 18 exf5
He5 19 Hf4 Hfe8 20 Bh4 Aed7 21
A\d4 £8 22 R£3 with a slight advan-
tage for White, Ehlvest-Popovic, Bel-
grade 1989.
12...Ag6 13 f5
Otherwise:
a) 13 2d3 h6 14 f5 De5 15 Bh4
&d7 16 fxe6 (16 We2!? was suggested
in Chess in the USSR) 16...fxe6 17
We2 Hf7 18 2f2 Wc7 19 Agi Hafs
20 Ad4 'h-'2 A.Sokolov-Tukmakov,
USSR Ch (Odessa) 1989.
b) Probably 13 Wel h6!? 14 f5
hxg5 15 fxg6 fxg6 should suit Black.
c) 13 &h5 (Sveshnikov) 13...7
(13...Axh5 14 &xe7 + Brunner-Gulko,
Munich 1990; 13...h6?! 14 &xg6 hxg5
15 Rxf7+! Bxf7 16 fxg5 Ld7 17 €5!
dxe5 18 gxf6 &xf6 19 Ae4 Bc6 20
We4 + Lukin/Sakaev) 14 &xg6 hxg6
(14...fxg6!? is more reliable, Tonning-
Tukmakov, Copenhagen 1996) 15 Wel
(15 We2 b5 16 e5 Ae8 {16...b4!} 17
&xe7 Wxe7 18 Had! &b7 19 a5 +
A.Ivanov- Yermolinsky, USA Ch (Los
Angeles) 1993) 15...b5 16 e5 (Lukin-
Lerner, Kiev 1984; 16 Wh4?! is met
by 16...b4 with the point 17 Hf3 bxc3
18 Bxc3 Wd7 19 Hh3 Ah5 20 Lxe7
He8 21 g4 e5 $ Lukin/Sakaev) 16...b4!
17 exf6 gxf6 (A.Neverov-Lukin, Bla-
goveshensk 1988) 18 \d5!? exd5 19
Sh6 He8 20 £5! Rxf5 21 Axf5 V8 22
Se3 gxf5 23 Wg3+ Bh7 24 Dda!?
(24 Wh3+ =) leads to unclear play —
Lukin/Sakaev.
13...De5 14 Wd2
The other possible development is
14 Wei!? 2d7 15 We3 #h8 16 Hadl
(16 Hael!? Spraggett; 16 Hf4!? leads
toa tense game) 16... Hae8 (16...Lac8!?)
17 Wh3 exf5 18 exf5 &c6!? 19 Bd4
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 Sc4 Wb6 AND 6...2.d7 261

“ed7 20 Bh4 d5!? (20...2.d8!? Sprag- 8...Ae5 9 Re2

gett) 21 2e3 We7 22 2d4 2d6, Pablo
Marin-Spraggett, Barcelona 1993.
14...\8e7
14...8d7 15 Had1 (15 fxe6!? fxe6
16 Had1) 15...exf5 16 Ad4 Hac8 17
Rxf6 2xf6 18 AdS Wd8 with equal-
ity, Emms-H.Jonsson, London Lloyds
Bank 1994.
15 Had1
Now:
a) 15...A\c4?! 16 &xc4 Wxc4 17
Rxf6 Rxf6 18 Wxd6 with a danger-
ous initiative.
b) 15...8h8 16 &xf6 gxf6 17 Ad4
Hg8 (17...2d7 18 2h5! with the idea
of 19 &xf7!, Galdunts-Serper, Kher-
son 1991) 18 &h5 with better chances
for White.
c) 15..8d8 16 Ad4!? £ Grabics-
K.Grosar, Bled wom 1994.
d) 15...b5!? is worth investigating:
16 Rxf6 2xf6 (16...gxf6 17 Kh5 Gh8
18 4\d4 + Gicev-KoZul, Skopje open
1991) 17 Wxd6 Wxd6
(18...#a7!?) 19 Hddl Ha7 with com-
pensation (Galdunts).
B54)
8 2f4 (D)
The hit of the 1990s.
x
E727 #e @
9 £b5+!? has attracted some atten-
tion due to the efforts of GM Milos:
9...2d7 (9...Afd7!? is possibly play-
able) 10 &xd7+ (Black gets a good
game after 10 &xe5?! dxe5 11 &xd7+
4&xd7 12 Wd3 a6 13 0-0-0 Wc7, Is-
tratescu-Arsovi¢, Belgrade 1994, or 10
a4 a6 11 &xd7+ Afxd7 12 We2 2e7
13 0-0 0-0 14 aS We7 15 Bcl Ac4,
Bischoff-Lau, Bundesliga 1992/3)
10...Afxd7 (10...Aexd7!? 11 0-0 a6
12 Be3 We7 13 f4 Be7 = An.Rodri-
guez-Ricardi, Cordoba Z 1998) 11 We2
a6 (11...2c8 12 Hd1 2e7 13 0-00-0 14
Bhi Wa6 (14...a6 is met by 15 cl
with the idea of f4 and Bd3 — Milos}
15 Wxa6 bxa6 16 &cl £ Milos-J.Pol-
gar, Sao Paulo (2) 1996) and now:
a) 12 0-0-0 &e7 13 h4 We7?! 14
&g5 DAf6 15 f4 Ac6 16h5 h6 17 Bh4
bS 18 &bl b4 19 Aad 0-0 20 g4 +
Milos-Zarnicki, San Luis 1995.
b) 12 Hdl We7 (12...8e7 13 &cl
18 Hxd6 2e7 25!? Yrjola) 13 &cl b5 14 f4 Ac4 15
Hd3 Re7 16 0-0 (Milos-Filgueira,
Buenos Aires 1998) 16...2.f6!? Yrjola
(16...0-0!? 17 @h1 transposes to line
‘cl’).
c) 12 0-0 and then:
cl) 12...2e7 13 Had! 0-0 (13...Wc7
14 Bcl Af6 15 f4 Hed7 16 Sh Hc8
17 Hd3 b5 18 a3 £ Milos-Fiorito, Mar
p> ie

del Plata 1996) 14 @h1 We7 15 &cl

D> b> be

a j b5 16 £4 Ac4 17 Hd3 (Milos-Wang

: aPaeme
ae

Zili, Groningen 1996) + (Milos).

ss"
RG

c2) 12...8c7 13 Hael (13 Bad1 b5

S

NY
NS

has the point 14 2c1 b4! =) 13...2e7

\
NN

(13...b5 14 &cl b4 15 Ad1!) 14 Bc

\
Som

g5!? (Milos-Yermolinsky, Groningen

WS

“Lk
1996) 15 f4! (Yermolinsky) is critical.
TE

D>
NS b>

&

We now return to the position after

pees

Ve
te ~

9 Re2 (D):
\
262 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

Wy 4\c3 0-0 14 24 d5! 15 exdS Hd8 Nik-

SS
Nw
fo
itin.

\
\N 11...Ac4

aN
De
x
WS

WS
Or:

So
EN
WW
a) 11...A\c6 (this is a Scheveningen
NS

\ NY
\NG
W

a tempo down for Black — the aim of

Oo 8 &f4 is completely achieved!) 12
“
&.£3 a6 13 0-0 0-0 14 a4 b6 15 94 with
A
—

Bem
an advantage for White, Kasparov-
ho
oe

a t ave
ws

Anand, Linares 1994.

At first, White plans to attack the
knight through 2e3 and f4.
We shall consider:
B541: 9...2e7 262
B542: 9...a6 263
B543: 9..2d7 265
B541)
9...2.e7
Anand selected this move
Kasparov in 1994. Recently 9...$e7
has not been played in any top-level
games.
10 2e3!
10 Wd2 0-0! 11 0-0-0 a6 (the alter-
native 11... Wxf2!? 12 2e3 Wh4 13
&g5 leads to a draw by repetition) 12
Ehg! We7 13 24 bS with a good game,
Zhao-Gabrielsen, Istanbul OL 2000.
10 24 h6 (10...a6!) 11 h4!? (11 Be3
We7 12 f4 Ac4 13 Rxc4 Wxcd 14
Wr3 e5 15 Bgl d5 » Bach-Neved-
nichy, Romania 1995) 11...&d7 12 Bgl
&.c6 13 Re3 We7 14 Wd4 Dfd7 15
0-0-0! &xh4 16 f4 Ag6 17 AbS with
the initiative, Kupreichik-Drollinger,
Bundesliga 1998/9.
10...We7 11 £4
Unclear is 11 4b5; e.g., 11... 8b8
(11...%c6!? Dolmatov) 12 f4 Ac6
(12...Ag6 13 Ac3 0-0 14 0-0 2d7) 13
b) 11...Ag6!? =.
12 2xa7!
White has mostly tested two other
lines, though without particular suc-
cess:
a) 12 &xc4 Wxc4 13 WF3 e5!?
(13...0-0 14 0-0-0 2d7 15 e5 &c6 16
exf6 2xf3 17 fxe7 Bxd1 18 exf8W+
@xf8 19 Bxd1 We6 is given by Dol-
matov; 13...a5!?) 14 £5 bS 15 @d2 (15
$257! b4!) 15...Wc6 16 &2g5!? b4
against (16...2b7 17 Rxf6 Rxf6 18 Wd3!) 17
“dS Axd5 18 exdS Wxc2 19 Rxe7
&xe7 20 0-0 f6 (Rublevsky-Svidler,
Yugoslav Cht 1995; 20...\xd2? 21 f6+)
21 “e4!? with compensation.
b) 12 AbS Wc6 13 &xc4 Wxc4 14
Wd3 Wc6 and here:
bl) 15 a5?! Wd7 and then 16 e5
Ad5 17 exd6?! Rd8 18 Rd2 a6 F
(Kasparov) or 16 “c4 @xe4!? 17 @yxa7
b5!, Klimov-Lukin, St Petersburg 1995.
b2) 15 0-0-0 0-0 and now 16 Axd6
&xd6 17 Wxd6 Wxd6 18 Bxd6 Axe4
= Lukin-Dranov, St Petersburg 1993,
or 16 “c3 a6!?.
b3) 15 A3d4 Wd7 16 0-0-0 0-0
(16...a6 also proved satisfactory for
Black in the game Lastin-Lukin, Rus-
sian Ch (Elista) 1995) 17 e5 dxe5 18
fxe5 Aga 19 We2 Axe3 (19...Axe5?
20 “Af3) 20 Wxe3 = Rublevsky-Nev-
ednichy, Yugoslav Cht 1995.
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...Ac6 6 S.c4 Wb6 AND 6...2.d7 263

After the text-move (12 2xa7!) 13 fxeS5 Axe5 14 Wd4 Afd7 15 0-0-0
Black has problems: 12...A\xb2 13 @b5 + Kramnik.
We6 14 Wd! or 12...e5 13 Abs We6 c2) 10...Ag6 11 f4 2d7 12 Wd2
14 &xc4 Wxc4 15 Wd3! + Vorobiov- &c6 13 2f3 Hd8 14 0-0-0 Be7 15
Bakre, Moscow 1999. Ad4 0-0 16 &f2 We7 17 £5 with a
slight advantage for White, Howell-
B542) KoZul, Bled 1995.
9...a6 (D) c3) 10...2e7 11 f4 Ac6 12 Wd2
Wce7 13 0-0-0 b5 14 e5! (Gdanski-
Blehm, Warsaw 2001) 14...dxe5!? 15
Ete b -
fxe5 Ad7.
vy wa 7 ame c4) 10...n5 11 h3 (11 £4? Deg4; 11
£3 Wc7 12 Wd4 h4 13 &£2 b5 Kram-
nik) 11...We7 12 f4 (12 a4 2d7 13
Wd4 Bc8 = or 12 Wd4 b5 13 a4 Ac6
Y
UU
BY, W, Y
FD 14 We3 Ab4! 15 Rd3 bxa4 16 Bxad
Hb8 = Kramnik) 12...Ac4 13 &xc4
NA
4 yy erEAE Yi “yy TTY:
(13 Wd4 bS5 and now 14 a4 e5! or 145
dxe5 15 fxe5 &b7! Kramnik) 13...¥xc4
g VALE iy Yj 14 Wf3 h4 15 Qh2 (15 Rf2 b5! 16 e5
“\d5 =) 15...8&d7 16 0-0-0 Bc8 with
Kramnik successfully played this adequate counterplay, Ivanchuk-Kram-
move in 1993 (against Ivanchuk) but nik, Linares 1993.
later preferred 9...2.d7. d) 10 0-0 and then:
10 2e3 dl) 10...2e7 can be met by 11 a4
Others: 0-0 = Hamdouchi-Annageldiev, Mos-
a) 10 g4 Wc7 11 g5 Afd7 12 Wd4 cow OL 1994 or 11 Re3 We7 - 10
b5 13 0-0-0 EKb8 14 &g3 b4 F Cela- &e3 We7 11 0-0 Re7.
Kotronias, Athens 1996. d2) 10...We7 11 a4 (11 &e3 - 10
b) 10.a4 2d7!? (10...8c7 11 a5 2e7 Re3 We7 11 0-0) 11...2.d7 (11...b6 12
12 0-0 2d7 — 10...2d7 11 a5 Wc7 12 Ad2 &b7 13 Re Re7 14 £4 Aed7
0-0 2e7; 10...2e7 11 a5 Yc6!?, Mil- has also been played here) 12 4\d2
avsky-Vovsha, Petach Tikva 1996) 11 Re7 13. a5 2c6 (13...Bc8 14 Re3 Vc6
a5 (11 0-0 — 9...2d7 10 0-0 a6 11 a4 15 £4 Ded7 16 23 0-0 17 g4 d5 18 e5
=; 11 2e3 We7 12 £4 Ac4 13 Bxc4 Ae8 19 Db3 g6 20 Rd4 f6 is not bad
Wxc4 14 Wd3 Bc8! ¥ Dervishi-Kotro- either, Sion Castro-Gulko, Leon 1992)
nias, Istanbul OL 2000) 11...Wce7 12 14 Re3 Aed7 15 f4 Ac5 16 BF3 0-0
0-0 $.e7 with chances for both sides, 17 b4 Wcd7 18 g4 d5! Nikitin.
Verduga-Martin del Campo, Merida 10...We7 (D)
1997. 11 f4
c) 10 &g3!? and then: This position may also arise from
cl) 10...We7 11 £4 Ac4 12 eS! and Line B2.
now 12...Axb2 13 Wd4 + or 12...dxe5 11 0-0 is the alternative:
264 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

c) 13...Wxd3 14 cxd3 2d7 £.

WS
mig: \
N
d) Possibly critical is 13...W0c7!?
Det

WEES
WS
\ de

NNe
(this can arise from Line B2) 14 0-0-0
K

SV

\\ b>
pe
(14 &d4 b5! 15 e5 dxe5 16 2xe5 Wd7)
=

x
\\ de

»~

14...b5 (14...2e7 15 2d4!, Mikhal-

t
S

WS
\N

etz-Privalov, Galychyna 1997) 15 &d4

\
N

a.
APS AM 2 2.09 m8 BN
&b7 — Kotronias/Papatryfonos.
\
“
“
\
13...We7
There is definitely a choice here:

a ewe o2 a) 13...d5?! 14 e5 Ded 15 Axed

Wxe4 16 Wxe4 dxe4 17 0-0-0 with an
advantage, I.Zaitsev-Serper, Moscow
a) 11...2e7 12 f4 Ac4 13 Bxc4 1991.
(again, this position can arise by trans- b) 13...e5 14 Hf1! (Mortensen; 14
position from Line B2) 13...Wxc4 14 fxe5!7 dxeS 15 We3; 14 £57! b5 w
WE3 (14 e517 De4 15 Qd4 Axc3 16 Solozhenkin-Lugovoi, St Petersburg
bxc3, Brunner-Verat, Clichy 1991) 1995) 14...2e6 (14...8e7 15 fxe5 dxeS
14...0-0 15 Had1 ¢5?! (15...c7!?) 16 16 Ad5; 14...exf4 15 Wxf4 Be6 16
£5 b5 17 &g5 + de Firmian-Sherzer, Rd4) 15 £5!.
USA Ch (Jacksonville) 1990. c) 13...2d7 14 0-0-0 and then:
b) 11...b5!? 12 f4 (Pinski-Banas, cl) 14...b5?15e5! &c6 16 Wh3 +.
Bojnice 1994) 12...A\c4!?, and now c2) 14...Wc7 15 g4 &c6 16 g5 and
the continuation 13 &xc4 bxc4 14 e5 now, rather than 16...Ad7 17 Khel (17
dxe5 15 fxe5 WxeS 16 WE3 cxb3 17 Xhf1!? Istratescu) 17...2e7 18 Wh3!
Wxa8 Wxe3+ 18 hl Wc5 19 Dad 0-0 19 f5 + Istratescu-Pelletier, Ere-
Wce7 20 Ab6 (Pinski/Umansky) seems van OL 1996, Black could try instead
dubious because of 20....2.c5!. 16...Axe4!? 17 Axe4 d5.
11...A\¢4 c3) 14...3c8 and here:
11...4c6?! (as happened in Chris- c31) 15 &d4 can be met by 15...b5
tiansen- Yermolinsky, USA Ch (Chan- 16 a3 (Ivanchuk-Kramnik, Paris rpd
dler) 1997) leads to a position that 1995) 16...e5!? or the immediate
usually occurs with Black to move (for 15...e5!?.
example, Tate-Yermolinsky, Chicago c32) 15 Hd2 should be answered
1994), by 15...c7, with a rather unclear po-
12 2xc4 Wxc4 13 BF3 sition, Losev-Belikov, Moscow 1998,
Or 13 ¥d3!2, and then: rather than 15...b5 16 &b6! Wc6 17
a) 13...d5? 14 eS @d7 15 Wxc4 Ra5 Wa8 18 Hel Be7 19 Qb4 + Sax-
dxc4 16 “a5, Galdunts-Wiemer, St Tratar, Feldbach 1997.
Ingbert 1994. d) A double-edged continuation is
b) 13...b5 14 a4 (14 0-0!? 2b7 15 13...2e7 14 0-0-0 0-0 (14...We7!? 15
a4 Rechlis) 14...Wxd3 15 cxd3 b4 16 24 b5) 15 g4 Ad7 (15...a5?! 16 g5
4e2 with a slight advantage for White, &d7 17 a4! was played in Mortensen-
Valerga-Braga, Villa Gesell 1997. Zavoronkov, Erevan OL 1996) 16 g5,
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &.c4 Wb6 AND 6...8.d7
when 16...b5!? 17 e5 dS could be con-
sidered.
14 0-0-0
Or:
a) 14 g47!b5 15 a3 (15 g5 b4!) and
now 15...d5! is Rublevsky’s recommen-
dation, while 15...2.b7 is also not bad.
b) 14 We3 bS 15 e5 dxe5 16 fxe5
b4!, J.R.Koch-Gi.Hernandez, Tunja jr
Wch 1989.
c) 14 £5!? Bb8!? (14...b5 15 fxe6
fxe6 16 eS &b7 17 Wh3 dxe5 18
Wxe6+ We7 19 Wh3) 15 2a7 Ha8 16
8.4 e5 17 Be3 b5 18 a3 Bb7 19 Ags
Ad7 20 0-0 h6 21 &h4 Re7 22 Rxe7
@&xe7 © Nijboer-Van der Wiel, Wijk
aan Zee 1996.
14...b5 15 a3 2b7 16 £5
Both sides have chances in this com-
plicated position. Instead of 16...exf5
17 Wxf5 Re7 18 &d4 0-0 19 Hd3 +, as
in Rublevsky-Levin, Novgorod open
1995, it is better to proceed
16...e5!79 17 &g5 Hc8 18 Wd3 @Ad7
(Velimirovi¢-Damljanovi¢, Yugoslav
Cht 1998) or to choose the sharp
16...Hc8 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 Ad4 (18 Wh3
e5), when Black can continue 18...4d7
(Cela-Kotronias, Ano Liosia 1997),
18...e5!? or maybe even 18...We4 19
&g5 Be7 20 Wh3 Axed.
B543)
9...2d7 (D)
This move is somewhat passive but
quite reliable and (thanks to Kramnik)
the most popular up to now. Note that
plans with g4-g5 now make sense as an
alternative to f4, since the d7-bishop
blocks the retreat of the f6-knight.
10 &e3
Otherwise:
a) 10 2g3 Hc8! 11 £4 Ac4.
265
12 Gee@
y Was
Yy
See:
aw a7
(am
Y Y Y
AT
gee: ‘az
b) 100-0 Se7 (10...Wc7!?; 10...a6
should be answered not by 11 a4 Hc8
{11.7} 12 a5 We7 13 Bg3 Ac4
14 Bxc4 Wxce4 15 Bxd6 Axe4 16
“xe4 Wxe4 17 2xf8 Bxf8 18 Ad4
&c6 = Jazbinsek-KoZul, Pula open
1997, but 11 &e3! We7 12 f4 +) is in-
teresting:
bl) 11 a4 0-0 (11...a6 12 a5 We7
13 Ad2 0-0 14 Re3 Rc 15 f4 Aed7
with 16 &f3 e5 17 £5 bS 18 axb6 Axb6 =
Svidler-Ruban, Novosibirsk 1995) 12
a5 We7 13 a6 Bfb8 (42-1! Kasparov-
Kramnik, Horgen 1995; 13...8c6 14
Wd4 b6 15 We3! Ag6 16 2g3 e5 17
Had! Had8 18 f4 exf4 19 &xf4 “Axf4
20 Wxf4 b5! = Rublevsky-Svidler,
Novosibirsk 1995) 14 axb7 Exb7 15
&e3 Hb4 16 £3 a5 with a good game
for Black, J.Polgar-Timman, Wijk aan
Zee 2000.
b2) 11 &e3 We7 and then:
b21) 12 @b5!? Wb8 13 £4 Ac6!?
14 Ac3 0-0 15 g4 d5 16 exd5 Abd!
with compensation for Black, Novgor-
odsky-Kupreichik, Nizhny Novgorod
1998,
b22) 12 @d2 and now Black has
two satisfactory options:
b221) 12...2c6 13 a4 Aed7 14 f4
0-0 15 &f3 Hfd8 and now 16 We?2, as
266 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

played in Smirin-Ruban, Tilburg 1994, e5 (15 2xf6?! Qxf6! 16 e5 Be7 17

can be met by 16...Ae8! followed by exd6 2.f6) 15...Ae8 (difficult to assess
...&f6 (Ruban). Alternatively, 16 Ab5 are 15...Ad5!? and 15...dxe5 16 fxe5
&xb5 17 axb5 d5 18 e5 &c5 19 We2 “Ad5 17 Ae4!?, after which 17...Ae3?!
4)e8 20 c3 Wb6 is possible, Smirin- is unsuccessful in view of 18 @f6+!
Yermolinsky, Philadelphia 1996. gxf6 19 &xe3 +) 16 exd6 (hardly ad-
b222) 12...0-0 13 f4 Ag6 (another vantageous are 16 Xf3 £6 17 Hh3 fxe5
idea is 13...Ac6!?) 14 a4 (14 Ph1 2c6 18 fxe5 Hf5, Velimirovic-Popovié,
15 Wel d5 16 e5 Ae4 17 Acxe4 dxe4 Novi Sad 2000, and 16 &c5!? &c6!
18 Ab3 Ah4 = Smirin-Khalifman, 17 exd6 2xd6 18 &2xd6 Hd8 Lerner)
Ischia 1996; 14 2d3 Ruban) 14...b6 16...2xd6 (16...Axd6? 17 &c5 Wab
(14...206 15 Ab5!?, Hamdouchi-Api- 18 2xd6! +) 17 Ae4 and, instead of
cella, Tunis 1997) 15 2d3 2c6 16 17...2c6? 18 Axd6 Axd6 19 Bc5 +
We2 Hfe8 17 Ab3 a6 18 Kael 2b7 19 Golubev-Lerner, Senden 1996, the
We2 Ad7 20 WF3 2f6 21 2d2 Ac5 22 most precise is probably 17...2c7! 18
Wh3 12-12 Rublevsky-Makarov, Novo- 2c5 Wxe4 19 Wxd7 2.b6 =.
sibirsk 1995. c) 10 g4 (see comment to Black’s
b23) 12 £4 Ac4 and now: 9th move):
b231) 13 &d4!? and now Black “cl) 10...h6 11 Bgl (11 £3!9 Be8
should avoid 13...e5? 14 &xc4, Golu- 12 Wd2 a6 13 0-0-0 Wc7 14 h4 bS 15
bev-Mukhametov, Alushta 1997, and g5 DhS 16 Rh2 hxg5 17 hxg5 g6,
13...Axb2?! 14 Ab5 Rxb5 15 Bxb5+ An.Rodriguez-Ricardi, Villa Gesell
Sf8 16 Q2xb2 Wh6+ 17 Ad4 a6 18 e5. 1997, 18 a3 Rechlis) 11...g5 (Atalik
Not so clear is 13...b5 14 Wel!? b4 gives 11...a6 12 2e3 We7 13 f4 Ac4
(14...0-0 15 e5 dxe5 16 fxe5 AxeS 17 14 &xc4 Wxc4 15 WE3 We7 16 0-0-0
We3 2d6 18 Bxf6 Dg6 19 Hxg6) 15 &c8 17 g5 with an attack and 11...c7
e5 dxe5 16 fxeS5 Axe5 17 Weg3 bxc3 12h4 2c6 13 £3 Ag6 14 23 W6 15
18 &xe5 Wb6+ 19 2d4 Wd6 20 Bxc3 £2 Be7 =) 12 2e3 We7 13 h4! (Cela-
Ec8. However, after 13...0-0 White Atalik, Ikaria 1996) 13...2c6! with
has nothing better than 14 &xc4 Wxc4 counterplay — Atalik.
~— 13 &xc4 Wxe4 14 &d4 0-0. c2) 10...8c6! and then:
b232) 13 &xc4 Wxc4 and then: ¢21) 11 2e3 We7 12 £3 h6 (better
b2321) 14 e5 Aed4! 15 exd6 Axd6 than 12...d5?! 13 g5 dxe4 14 f4! Ata-
16 &c5 AfS 17 Bxe7 Sxe7!? (Dam- lik) 13 @d4 and now Black should
Ijanovié; 17...Axe7 18 Wd6 AfS 19 play 13...a6! with chances for both
Wa3 b5 20 We5 Wxc5+ 21 Axc5 Rc6 sides, Ninov-Chernyshov, Djuni 1996
22 b4 = Velimirovi¢-Damljanovié, (rather than 13...d5?! 14 exdS Axd5
Vr8ac 1989) 18 Hel Bhd8 19 Wh5 96 15 Dxd5 Bxd5 16 &b5+ + Kosta-
= Yermolinsky. kiev/Ninov).
b2322) 14 &d4 0-0 (14...8c8!?; c22) 11£3 Ag6 12 &g3 d5 13 exd5
the fact that Black has the untested (13 g5 Ah5 14 exd5 Axg3 15 hxg3
14...8.c6!? may justify, to some ex- Hd8) 13..Axd5 14 Axd5 Bxd5 15
tent, the move-order with 13 &d4) 15 Wadd Wxd4! (15...2b4+! 16.03 Wxd4
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &c4 Wb6 AND 6...2.d7
Short) 16 &b5+! + J.Polgar-Short,
Novgorod 1996.
d) 10 Wd2 is more topical:
dl) 10...a6!? 11 &g5 (critical is 11
0-0-0 Wce7) 11...8e7 12 0-0 b5 13 a3
Re7 14 Had1 Ac4 = Ivanovi¢-Dam-
ljanovic, Vinjacka Banja 1999.
d2) 10...8c8 and now:
d21) 11 2e3 We7 12 AbS5 (consis-
tent, but it does not give White an ad-
vantage) 12...2xb5 13 &xb5+ Ded7!
= Onishchuk-Tukmakoy, Biel 1996.
d22) 11 £312.
d23) 11 0-0-0!? Se7 (11...xc3? 12
Wxc3 Axed 13 Wd4 Wxd4 14 Bxd4
Axf2 15 Bfl Dfg4 16 Rxg4 Axg 17
&xd6 Tukmakov) 12 f3 (or 12 2e3!7)
deserves attention.
d3) 10...2e7 11 0-0-0 (11
looks promising: 11...0-0 12 g4 &c6
13 Re3 We7 14 g5 Dfd7 15 f4 Ags
16 h4 + Balashov-Lopushnoy,
sian Cht 1998, or 11...Wc7 12 Abs
Rxb5 13 Bxb5+ Ac6 14 Hdl Bd8 15
Wa5 Wd7 + Gofshtein) and here:
d31) 11...Wxf2 12 Hhfl Wxg2 13
Eel (13 Rxe5? dxe5 14 Bxf6 0-0-0!!
—+ Balashov) 13...Wf2 14 Hxg7 with
compensation — Kupreichik.
d32) Gofshtein recommended
continuation 11...4c7!? 12 Abs &xb5
13 &xb5+ YF8 but I am not sure
whether he would play something like
that in a tournament.
d33) 11...0-0 12 g4 (12 Re3 We7
13 £4 Ac4 14 Bxc4 Wxed 15 e5 dxe5
16 fxe5 Ad5 17 Axd5 exd5 18 Wxd5 +
Kupreichik) 12...8.c6 (12...Aexg4 13
&xg4 Dxg4 14 Hhgl favours White;
e.g., 14...A\f6 15 e5!, Kupreichik-Lop-
ushnoy, Russia Cup (Perm) 1998,
14...e5 15 AdS Wd8 16 Axe7+ Wxe7
17 2g3!—Kupreichik) 13 f3 and here:
267
d331) 13...Bfd8 14 h4 We7 15 95
Afd7 (15...Dh5? 16 Lh2) 16 Dd! a6
17 h5 b5 18 Hdgi, A.Fedorov-Lopush-
noy, St Petersburg 1997.
d332) 13...a5 14 a4 Wb4 15 Wel!
Gofshtein.
333) 13...We7 14 Ad4 (14 h4!?)
14...a6 15 g5 Afd7 16 h4 b5 17 a3 (17
Hdg1!? b4 18 Ad! &b5 A.Fedorov)
17...Ac5 18 h5 Hfc8, and, as A.Fed-
orov asserts, both 19 2e3!? Hab8 20
g6 and 19 g6 (A.Fedorov-Gershon, St
Vincent Ech 2000) 19...8d7 20 gxf7+
@xf7 are unclear.
d34) 11...a6 12 g4 &c6 (Black
should avoid 12...Afxg4?! 13 Hhgl!)
13 £3 We7 (13...h6?! 14 h4) 14 95 (14
4\d4 b5 @ Ivanovié-Damljanovié, Yu-
£3!? goslav Cht 1999) 14...Afd7 15 £e3
b5 16 £4 © Ag6!? (Konguvel-Bakre,
Calcutta 1999) 17 h4!.
Rus- d35) 11...2c6 12 2e3!? (12 f3 a6
13 94 — 11...a6 12 24 &c6 13 f3)
12...We7 13 DbS is interesting.
10...7 (D)
x. ee
Yo7
the
11 f4
Or:
or a) 11 g4 d5! 12 exd5 2b4 with
compensation, Movsesian-Lagunov,
Bundesliga 1996/7.
268 THE SICILIAN SOZIN

x ah &
b) 11 Wd4 Se7 12 f4 Dg6 (the al-
ternative 12...A\c6 is also playable, as
in the game Klimov-Makarov, St Pe- w a AS 8
tersburg 1999) 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 24 e5
‘. ase

me
15 Wd2 exf4 16 &xf4 Bfc8 17 Ad4
i
aw
Wa5 18 Ab3 We7 = J.Polgar-Kram-
nik, Novgorod 1996.
c) 11 Db5 and now: DES Ba
cl) 11...8b8 12 f4 enables White
ARAM MAR
A TMS "OE
to keep an edge:
cll) 12...Ag6 13 £5!? exf5 (13...Ae5
140-0 Re7 15 &g5 0-0 16 Rxf6 gxf6
17 Wd2 + Vereshagin-Makarov, Rus- 13 Wd3
sian Cht 1997) 14 exf5 Ae5 15 Wd4 Nothing is gained by 13 Wd4 Wxd4
a6 16 Ac3 &xf5 17 0-0 Re6 18 Bxf6! 14 &xd4 2c6 15 Aa5 2e7, Losev-
gxf6 19 Ad5 with compensation for Iskusnykh, Moscow 2001.
White, A.Sokolov-Nevednichy, Yugo- Or 13 Wf3, and now:
slav Cht 1995. a) 13...e5?! can be countered in
c12) 12..Heg4 13 Rxg4 (not 13 three ways: 14 Hfl!? Mortensen; 14
Axd6+? Bxd6 14 &xg4 in view of £5!? Pupo; or 14 fxe5!? dxe5 15 We3,
14...2xf4) 13... 2xb5 (13...Axg4? 14 Blees-Pupo, Cienfuegos 1997.
@®xd6+ Rxd6 15 Wxg4) 14 2f3 5 b) 13...206 14 2d4 (14 Ad4 Re7
(14...2e7 15 Ad4 2d7 16 Wd3 We7 15 0-0-07 d5 16e5 Ae4 17 Axed dxe4
17 0-0 a6 18 c4 + A.Sokolov-Al.Kha- 18 We3 Wxa2 19 Wxe7 Bf8 20 Axc6
sin, Russian Ch (Elista) 1994) 15 a4 bxc6 21 Wxh7 2b4! —+ Saulin-Dra-
(15 £5?! We7 16 Hct d5 17 exd5 &c4, gomaretsky, Moscow 1995) 14...2e7
Ermekov-Al.Khasin, Omsk 1996; 15 (14...axe4? 15 Axed £5 16 Wh5+!
Wd2 Re7 16 24!? Rechlis) 15...2c6 wins for White) 15 0-0-0 0-0 16 Khel
16 Wd3 Re7 17 c4 0-0 (17...exf4!?) 18 a5 (16...Bkfc8 Cu.Hansen) 17 Hd3!
f5 = Lastin-Dragomaretsky, Moscow with the better chances for White,
1995. Mortensen-Cu.Hansen, Esbjerg 1997.
c2) 11...2xb5! 12 &xb5+ Ac6 c) 13...b5!?.
equalizes: d) 13...8c7! 14 0-0-0 Bc8 with the
c21) 13 Ad2 can be answered by initiative — Atalik.
13...d5 = A.Sokolov-Belikov, Russian 13...Wxd3
Ch (Elista) 1995, or 13...a6 14 2d3 Or 13...\4c7?! 14 0-0-0 Hc8 15 2d4!
d5. + Istratescu; 13...b5 14 Wxc4 bxc4 15
c22) 13 Wf3 a6 14 2d3 d5 =J_.Pol- &d2 d5 16 &d4 (+) Atalik.
gar-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996. 14 exd3
c23) 13 2d3 d5 14 exd5 Axd5 15 In the resulting ending White has a
&d2 Re7 = Velimirovi¢-Damljanovié, certain, though hardly significant, ad-
Vmjatka Banja 1999. vantage.
11...Dc4 12 &xc4 Wxe4 (D) 14...2e7
 ANTI-SOZIN: 5...2\c6 6 &.c4 Wh6 AND 6...2d7
14...h5!? 15 a4 h4 16 h3 a6 (or
16...2h5 17 0-0 Re7 18 Hfcl $8 19
Ad2! b6 20 AfF3 Hc8 21 Ad4 a6 22
b4 + Istratescu-Atalik, Kastoria 1996)
17 0-0 2e7 18 Aa5 Bh5 19 Ac4 and
White has some advantage, Stoica-
Gabriel, Romanian Cht 1998.
15 a4
15 Hcl 0-0 16 h3 Efc8 (16...h5!2)
17 g4! 2c6 18 Hh2 (18 Be2 d5 19 e5
Ad7 20 Ad4 g5 Atalik) 18...e5! 19
Ehc2 exf4 20 &xf4 He8 21 Ad4 d5
with an equal position, Istratescu-Ata-
lik, Aegina 1996.
15...0-0 16 h3
Now:
a) 16...e5?! is well met by 17 0-0
Be6 18 Wa5!, Istratescu-S.Kiselev,
Bucharest 1998.
b) After 16...2fc8 17 0-0 Black can
choose between 17...2h6, as in Der-
vishi-Efimov, St Vincent Ech 2000,
and Stoica’s 17...2d8!?.
c) 16...h5 17 Ad2 h4 18 0-0 (Bru-
zon-Pupo, Havana 1998) 18...d5 19 e5
&\h5 Pupo.
Summing up: Black does not en-
counter great problems in the varia-
tion 6...Wb6, but he has plenty of
small ones and it is high time White
learned how to turn them to good ac-
count. I believe that the quite favour-
able statistics for Black in the Benko
Variation are due to the fact that
‘White’ Sozin players pay, as a rule,
much more (if not all!) of their atten-
tion to more fascinating variations
with ...e6, and in practical 6...Wb6
games Black is often better prepared.
269
To conclude the theme of the queen
advance and the book as a whole, I of-
fer a statistical sample of the best per-
formances in Sozin games (source:
games from the period 1990-2000 taken
from the ChessBase Mega Database
2001; the performances achieved by
Topalov and Gelfand, who played a
small number of games, are shown as
an exception).
White
Topalov (10 games) 2796; Short
(15) 2781; Rublevsky (22) 2627; de
Firmian (39) 2617; Gi. Hernandez (30)
2595; Zapata (35) 2587; Galdunts (15)
2577; Golubev (27) 2575; Rogié (17)
2573; Milos (16) 2553; K.Miiller (44)
2545; Saltaev (36) 2544; Mitkov (20)
2544; Emms (41) 2500; Istratescu (43)
2498 ... Velimirovié (30) 2463
Black
Kramnik (15) 2765; Kasparov (16)
2675; Gelfand (9) 2629; Damljanovié
(19) 2612; Dvoirys (16) 2584; Lerner
(14) 2552; Makarov (17) 2542; Atalik
(15) 2530; Nevednichy (16) 2499; Ko-
Zul (25) 2487; Scherbakov (15) 2487;
S.Kiselev (15) 2480; Yermolinsky (15)
2463; Vaulin (19) 2454; D.Gurevich
(20) 2450; Cebalo (15) 2448
Though this study is somewhat ar-
bitrary, it is hard to miss the fact that
the list of the best performers as Black
contains the names of at least eight
adepts of 6...Wb6. Well... I don’t think
that the originator of the attack,
Veniamin Sozin, would have been dis-
appointed by such a circumstance.
Index of Variations

Chapter Guide 23 8 £4 0-0 24 9 WF3 Ac5 10 Be3

a5 25
1 e4 c5 2 Af3 dé 3 d4 exd4d 4 Axd4
4Mf6 5 Ac3 2: 5.,.a6 6 2&4: Introduction to
Now: the Fischer Attack
A: 5...a6 6 2c4 5...26 6 2.c4 27

a
B: 5...Ac6 6 &c4
Or: 5...e6 6 &c4 — Chapter 1

A)
5...26 6 Lcd e6
al
Aa.
aawa
Other moves — Chapter 2
7 &b3
7 0-0 — Chapter 3
Other moves — Chapter 2
Now (after 7 2.b3):
7...2e7 and 7...We7 — Chapter 4
7...b5: Sidelines — Chapter 5
7...b5 8 0-0 2e7 9 WF3! — Chapter 6
7...4\bd7! — Chapter 7

B)
5...A\c6 6 2c4 e6
6...Wb6 and others — Chapter 14
7 £b3
7 &e3 or 7 0-0 without . ..a6 —
Chapter 13
7 Se3 a6 without b3 — Chapter 11
7 0-0 a6 without &b3 — Chapter 12
7.06
Lines without ...a6 — Chapter 13
Now (after 7...a6):
8 &e3 2e7 without 9 We2 — Chapter 9
8 &e3 Re7 9 We2 — Chapter 10
Other lines — Chapter 8
1; 5...e6 6 2c4 2e7
5...06 6 &c4 22 6...R2e7! 7 Rb3 Hab
Cl: 7429
C2: 7 a3 30 7..b5 8 2a2 31: 8...Re7
31; 8...2b7 32
3: 5...a6 6 2c4 e6 7 0-0
5...26 6 &2c4 e6 7 0-0 33 7...2e7 8
2b3 0-0 9 £4 34
A: 9...Abd7 34
B: 9...b5! 36 10 e5 dxe5 11 fxe5
OMd7! 12 Be3! AxeS! 13 Wh5
38: 13...A\c4 38; 13...Abc6 38
4: 5...a6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3:
7...2e7 and 7...We7
5...a6 6 24 e6 7 2b3 40
A: 7...84¢7!2 40
 INDEX OF VARIATIONS 271

B: 7...2e7 40 B: 8 f4 97 8...Ac5 97
B1:8f44/ B1: 90-0 98: 9...Re7 99; 9... Afxe4
B2: 8 g4!? 42: 8...Ac6 42; 8...0-0 42; 100
8...h6 43 B2: 9 e5 10/: 9...dxe5 101;
9...Afd7!? 104
5: 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 b5: B3: 9 £5 105: 9...2e7 106; 9...b5 112
Sidelines B4: 9 W3 174: 9...b5 115; 9...2e7 117
5...26 6 2.c4 e6 7 2b3 b5 44
A: 8 f4 44 8: 5...Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3 a6
B: 8 We2 45 5...Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 &b3 a6 1/8
C: 8 W£3!? 47
D: 8 2g5!? 48 8...2e7! 9 WE! 48:
9... 4b6!? 49; 9... We7 50 x swe x
E: 80-0 5/ rer bhe
47 ak se

a
E1: 8...2b7 5/
E2: 8...b4!? 53 9 Dad 53: 9...Axe4?
4, UG ‘n
53:9... 2e7 54: 9...2b7 54;
9...2.d7 56 I), Asm ™
non A
E3: 8...2e7 58 Y
6: 5...a6 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 b5 J IS
8 0-0 &e7 9 WH! ‘ewe We
5...26 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 b5 8 0-0 Be7
9 WE3! 60 A: 8 f£4!? 118
A: 9...8b6 61 B: 8 0-0 719: 8...2a5 120; 8...%8c7
Al: 10 £g5!? 61: 10...Abd7 62; 120; 8...2e7 121
10...0-0 63 C: 8 2e3 121
A2: 10 23 64 10...Wb7 11 Wg3 64: C1: 8...2d7 122
11...2\067! 65; 11...0-0 65; C2: 8...Aa5 122
11... bd 7!? 67; 11...b4! 69 C3: 8...We7 124: 9 We2 125; 9 £4 127
B: 9...We7 73
BI: 10 Hel!? 74 9: 5...Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3 a6
B2: 10 Weg3 76 8 2e3 £e7 without 9 We2
B21: 10...0-0 77 11 &h6 Ae8 12 Had1 5...c6 6 &c4 e6 7 &b3 a6 8 Be3
RAT 80: 13 a3 81; 13 £4 82; 13 Re7 132
BF3 84 A: 9 g4!? 132
B22: 10...Ac6 85 11 Axc6 Wxe6 12 B: 90-0 732
Hel 2b7! 13 a3 89: 13...0-0 91; C: 9 f4 133
13...8d8!? 93 C1: 9...We7!? 134: 10 WF3 134; 10
0-0 135
7: 5...a6 6 2c4 e6 7 &2b3 Abd7! C2: 9...0-0 137
5...26 6 &c4 e6 7 2b3 Abd7! 95 C21: 10 W3 138: 10...Wo7 138;
A: 8 We2 96 10...Axd4 14]
272 THE SICILIAN SOZIN
C22: 10 0-0 142: 10...\8c7 143;
10...Axd4 147
10: 5...Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 2b3 a6
8 2e3 2e7 9 We2
5..Dc6 6 2&4 e6 7 2b3 a6 8 2e3
Re7 9 We2 152
A: 9...0-0 752 10 0-0-0 152
Al: 10...Ad7!? 153
A2: 10...We8 154 11 Ehgl 4d7
£4 Ac5 13 g5 b5 155: 14 Axc6
155; 14 Wh5 156
B: 9...We7 159 10 0-0-0 159
B1: 10...Aa5 160 11 g4bS5 12 g5
4)xb3+ 13 axb3 Ad7 160: 14 AFS
160; 14h4 163
B2: 10...0-0 167
B21: 11 g4 168 (11...Dd7 12 Bhgl 179)
B22: 11 Zhel 775: 11...Aa5 176;
11...b5!? 777; 11...Ad7 179 (12
g4 179)
B23: 11 Khg1 Ad7 12 g4 179
12...Ac5 179
B231: 13 g5 /80: 13...b5 /8/;
13...2d7! 183
B232: 13 AS! 186
11: 5...Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 2e3 a6
without 2.b3
5...2\c6 6 &.c4 e6 7 Be3 a6 1908
We2 191
A: 8...Aa5 19]
B: 8...We7 192 9 0-0-0 Aa5!? 192
C: 8...8c7 9 0-0-0 2e7 196
D: 8...2e7 9 0-0-0 0-0 197 10 Hhg1
197: 10... We7 198; 10...Axd4! 198
12: 5...Ac6 6 2c4 e6 7 0-0 a6
without &.b3
5...Ac6 6 &.c4 e6 7 0-0 a6 199
A: 8 a3 200 8...2.e7 9 2.a2 0-0 200:
10 Bhi 200; 10 2e3 201
B: 8 a4 202
13: 5...Ac6 6 &c4 e6: Sozin and
Velimirovié without ...a6
5...Ac6 6 &c4 e6 206
A: 7 0-0 206
B: 7 &b3 207
C: 7 Se3 208 7...8e7 208
C1: 8 £4 209
C2: 8 2b3 2/0 8...0-0 2/0
C21: 9 f4 210
12 C22: 9 0-0 212: 9...2d7 212; 9...Aa5
214
C23: 9 We2 215
C3: 8 We2 2/6 8...0-0 9 0-0-0 2/7
C31: 9...Da5 217
C32: 9...d5 218
C33: 9...A\xd4 219
C34: 9...Wa5 219
C35: 9...2d7 22]: 10 &b3 22/1; 10 f4
223
14: Anti-Sozin: 5...Ac6 6 &c4
Wb6 and 6...2d7
5...Dc6 6 &c4 224
A: 6...2.d7 225: 7 2.b3 226; 7 0-0
227
B: 6... b6 229
B1: 7 2e3?! 229
B2: 7 AdbS5!? 230
B3: 7 Ade2!? 235
B4: 7 Axc6!? 24/ 7...bxc6 8 0-0
241: 8...e5 241; 8...c6 242; 8...26
244
BS: 7 Db3 247 7...e6 247
B51: 8 2e3 247
B52: 8 0-0 248 8...2e7 9 2e3 We7
10 £4 a6 11 203 bS 12 WF3 2b7
249: 13 a3 250; 13 a4 250; 13
Hael 25/7; 13 Wh3 252
B53: 8 Rg5 253: 8...8.d7!? 254;
8...2.e7 254; 8...a6 257
B54: 8 &£4 26] 8...Ae5 9 Be2 26/:
9... 2e7 262: 9...a6 263; 9...2.d7
265
The Sozin Attack is White’s most overtly aggressive counter to the Sicilian. White
puts his bishop on c4, and often follows up with direct play against the black
king. Unless Black defends with the utmost precision, the bishop’s influence often
fuels a deadly attack leading to a cascade of sacrifices and a brutal king-hunt.

The Sozin set-up can be employed against the Classical Sicilian, the Najdorf and
even the Scheveningen. Mikhail Golubev is a young grandmaster who has employed
the Sozin with devastating effect throughout the whole of his adult chess career.
Here he explains how White carries out the attack in its various forms (including
some relatively positional lines), and presents in detail the theory of all its variations,
including the razor-sharp Velimirovi¢ Attack.

Mikhail Golubev is a grandmaster from Odessa, Ukraine, who plays regularly in

tournaments in eastern and central Europe. He is a noted expert in several sharp
and aggressive opening systems, including the King’s Indian and the Dragon. His
first book, Easy Guide to the Dragon, has been praised for the quantity and
quality of its original analysis, and for Golubev’s objectivity in identifying the
critical lines.

Other titles from Gambit Publications include:

Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy The Road to Chess Improvement
John Watson Alex Yermolinsky
Understanding the Grunfeld 101 Attacking ideas in Chess
Jonathan Rowson Joe Gallagher
The Gambit Guide to the English Storming the Barricades
Opening: 1...e5 Larry Christiansen
Carsten Hansen The Meran System
101 Winning Chess Strategies Steffen Pedersen
Angus Dunnington

Gambit Publications Ltd is: oe 99 $22.95

Managing Director: Murray Chandler GM BN 1 901983 38 2
Chess Director: Dr John Nunn GM
Editorial Director: Graham Burgess FM iit
For further information about Gambit Publications, write to us at:
Gambit Publications Ltd
P.O. Box 32640, London, W14 OJUN, England.
Or send an e-mail to: 100617.2702 @compuserve.com
http://www.gambitbooks.com 901