Easy Guide to the

Svesh n i kov Sic ilia n

Jacob Aagaard

EVERYMAN CHESS
Published by Everyman Publishers, London
First published in 2000 by Everyman Publishers plc, formerly Cadogan Books
plc, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD, in
association with Gambit Publications Ltd, 69 Masbro Road, London W 1 4 OLS .

Copyright © 2000 Jacob Aagaard

The right of Jacob Aagaard to be identified as the author of this work has been
asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1 988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electro­
static, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, with­
out prior permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

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

ISBN 1 85744 280 6

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, 6 Business Park Road,
P.D. Box 833, Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-0833
Telephone 1-800 243 0495 (toll free)

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

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

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparov
Series Editor: Murray Chandler

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

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

Contents

Foreword and Bibliography 4

Symbols 4

Part 1: Strategic Introduction and Sidelines

1 How to Play the Sveshnikov 5
2 Silly 6th Moves 24
3 7 a4 and 7 .te3 26
4 7 tLJd5 28
5 The LarsenlBird Variation (8 ...�e6) 44
6 White Plays .txf6: The Abandoned Lines 46

Part 2: The Sveshnikov with 9 tLJdS

7 9 tLJd5 'it'a5+ 53
8 9 tLJd5 .te7 10 tLJxe7 59
9 Oddities after 9 tLJd5 �e7 1 0 .txf6 .txf6 63
10 1 1 c3 tLJe7 65
11 1 1 c3 .tg5 1 2 tLJc2 :b8 72
12 1 1 c3 0 -0 12 tLJc2':b8 74
13 1 1 c 3 0 -0 1 2 tLJc2 �g5 81

Part 3: The Sveshnikov with 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 tLJdS

14 The Novosibirsk Variation ( 1 O ...�g7) without 1 1 .td3 92
15 The Novosibirsk Variation with 1 1 .td3 95
16 10 ...f5 1 1 �d3 1 09
17 1 0 . ..f5 1 1 exf5 1 29

Index of Variations 143

Foreword and Bibliography

This book would not have been written without the encouragement and help from
Mark Turner, Ivo Timmermans, Per Aage Brandt, Saren Dalsberg, Peter Kurti and
more than anyone Donald Holmes, who supported me in more ways than I can possi­
bly account for here. The scrutiny performed by my presumably never sleeping edi­
tor Graham Burgess helped to avoid a lot of mistakes. If any remain, I am solely
responsible. Also discussions with Or John Nunn concerning evaluations of certain
positions have done nothing but good to the final book. I would like to thank all of
you. Please take a look at my website http://www.gmaagaard.com. where, from
around May 1st 2000, it will be possible to pose questions to me about the book via
e-mail.

Material f(I this book was drawn D:9m many sources, most notably:
M.Krasenkov: The Sveshnikov Sicilian. Cadogan 1996
ECO B, 3rd edition, Sahovski Inf!IlIlator, 1997
A.AdOljan and THot'Vath : Sicilian: Sveslmikov Variation. Pergamon 1 987
E.Sveshnikov: The Sicilian Pelikan. Batsford 1989
lnformator 1-75
The Week In Chess 1-251

Symbols
+ check Wch world championship
++ double check Ct candidates event
# checkmate IZ interzonal event
I! brilliant move Z zonal event
! good move OL olympiad
!? interesting move Ech European championship
?! dubious move ECC European Clubs Cup
? bad move qual qualifying event
?? blunder tt team tournament
+- White is winning jr junior event
± White is much better wom women 's event
i White is slightly better mem memlIial event
= equal position rpd rapidplay game
... unclear position corr. correspondence game
+ Black is slightly better 1 -0 the game ends in a w in for White
+ Black is much better 1/2-112 the game ends in a draw
-+ B lack is winning 0-1 the game ends in a win for Black
Ch championship (n) nth match game
Cht team championship (D) see next diagram
1 How to Play the
Sveshnikov
The Sveshnikov Variation of the Sicil­
ian Defence is characterized by the
following moves:
1 e4 c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 e5 6 �db5 d6 7
.i.g5 a6 8 �3 b5 (D)
The aim of this book is to equip you
to play the Sveshnikov, and also to
face the various alternative options at
White's disposal on moves 6, 7 and S.
However, I have not for the most part
adopted a narrow 'repertoire' ap­
proach, so the book should be useful
to those who face the Sveshnikov as
White, and for those who like to re­
search their openings deeply.
This initial chapter is not so much
concerned with the theory of the
Sveshnikov as with explaining some
of its underlying concepts. Of course
you cannot learn the deep secrets of
the Sveshnikov by reading some
twenty pages, but you can improve
considerably! I have structured this
chapter with first an abstract explana­
tion and then some illustrative games .
Typical Plans and
Structures
This is the basic pawn-structure in
the Sveshnikov, which appears after S
moves. As in most positions, both
players' plans are based on altering the
pawn-structure. Also the fight for d5 is
very important.
Black has the following basic plans
at his disposal in this structure:
a) a6-a5. This is often played in
•..
connection with ... :as-bS. One idea is
to prevent '!oc2-b4-d5 (a path White
 6 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
often chooses to avoid the possibility
of ... -t gSxe3), and another is to sup­
port a minority attack with ...bS-b4.
White normally plays c2-c3 to bring
the a3-knight back into play and to in­
crease his control over d4, but this
pawn proves a convenient target for
Black's counterplay. If White takes on
b4 Black almost always recaptures
with the a-pawn, after which the a-file
is opened for an attack against a2.
b) ••• d6-d5. This happens occa­
sionally when Black has gained full
control over dS. The problem with this
pawn-push is that it makes the 'c,5-
pawn more vulnerable and also liqui­
dates the position to a great extent. Of­
ten games end in draws after this
exchange of weaknesses.
c) ••• f7-f5. This is sometimes pre­
pared with ...g7-g6, after which it is
often unattractive for White to capture
on fS (I will return to this pawn­
structure later). When Black is unable
to recapture with his g-pawn, White
often takes the pawn. Black is then
disadvantaged by having three pawn­
islands against White's two, but Black
should not automatically avoid this
structure on reasons of principle, as
the weaknes s of dS and d6 0ften proves
manageable. First of all the backward
pawn is hard for White to attack, and
secondly Black gains a lot of counter­
play due to the open f-fiIe. In this
structure White would want to attack
the black queenside with a2-a4 and
thereby open a second front. If Black
does not keep his pieces active this can
prove disastrous for him.
The main plans available to White
are as follows:
a) First of all there is a2-a4 aiming
to leave Black with a major weakness
on bS after 1...%lb8 2 axbS axbS. Black
should not allow this unless there is
no alternative. The traditional way of
meeting a2-a4 is L.bxa4 2 lha4 as
followed by ... J:.a8-b8 with pressure
against b2. This occurs frequently in
theSveshnikov. However, Black has a
third, albeit rarer, option at his dis­
posal: he can play L.b4. If this move
is possible, it should be considered
carefully, as it might well be strong: c2
can turn out to be weak. As a2-a4 al­
most always poses Black problems he
would rather be without, he often
plays the prophylactic ... t:ta8-b8 indi­
rectly attacking b2.
b) White also has a different way
of attacking bS, namely via c2-c4.
This is strong on the occasions when
the white knight on a3 comes into play
after 1 ...bxc4. Black often wants to
avoid this happening. He either plays
L.b4, closing the queenside and se­
curing cS for the knight (this can be
rather static, but should normally be
OK), or leaves the pawn hanging, of­
ten by responding with ...f7-fS or
some other activity in the centre of the
board.
c) White can also try to put pres­
sure on the black position via the d·fiIe
or by active piece-play. Obviously,
this can take many forms; I can only
say that I do not fear it at all.
d) In some recent games White has
tried gaining some space on the king­
side with h2·h4 followed by g3, but
with -t e 2 and not -tg2. This is a fresh
approach which does not seem bad.
Still, there is no reason for Black to be
overly worried.
 How to Play the Sveshnikov 7

In this structure Black wants to play
... f6-fS and transform the structure, so
that he can put his central majority to
use. Often Black sacrifices a pawn by
this break, but in return Black gains
aggressive possibilities such as ... d6-
dS. White frequently captures on fS
and allows Black to get the desired
structure. Instead, White may reinforce
e4 by playing .td3 or (less often) t2-
f3. White would love to prevent ... fS !
If he could gain control over both dS
and fS, few things could stop him win­
ning the game.
It is rare for Black to play ... d6-dS
instead of ... f6-fS. This leaves fS
weakened, but when control over this
square can be maintained he normally
does all right.
and the a I-rook to d I, if he has aban­
doned ideas of a2-a4. White can play
his bishop to c2 via d3 to challenge the
black centre, or play g2-g3 and .t fl -g2
to safeguard his king and strengthen
his control over dS.
Black often plays . .. eS-e4, which
leaves his structure vulnerable to
breaks with g2-g4 or t2 -f3, but at the
same time opens the long diagonal for
the dark-squared bishop, and creates
possibilities of . .. fS-f4 followed by
... e4-e3, which normally is extremely
dangerous for White.

The structure in the following dia­

gram is both promising and risky for
Black. On the one hand the pawns can
be very useful in a direct attack in the
centre and on the kingside, but on the
other hand they can be very weak if
White succeeds in taming the black
forces. For White it is absolutely es­
sential to keep his pieces active in this This structure is often unsafe for
structure if he does not wish to be White. Usually he wants his knights to
squashed. Often the queen goes to hS be at dS and e3, but, as is often the case
8 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
with knights, they may not be so effec­
tive while protecting each other. Also
...b5-b4 will come, challenging c3 with
the help of the dark-squared bishop.
White's thematic pawn-break is the
double-edged g2-g4, which under­
mines e4 but exposes his king.
This structure can be very awkward
for Black. If Black is forced (normally
by pressure against f5) to play ...e5-e4
without being truly prepared for it,
White can often break up the black
centre with f2-f3. Also White occa­
sionally plays f2-f4 (either to force
... e5-e4 or else after it has been
played) to attack f5 with the knight af­
ter a manoeuvre from a3 to e3. Often
Black will create counterplay against
c3 by ... a6-a5, ...b5-b4, bringing a ma­
jor piece to the c-file, and ...e5-e4, or
attacking d5 by transferring a rook or
the queen to c5. If Black ever succeeds
in playing both ... f5- f4 and ... n-f5 he
will have a very dangerous attacking
formation. but also some weaknesses
on the light squares in his own camp.
In particular, e6 and the 7th rank are
likely to be exposed, leading to highly
double-edged positions.
Sometimes Black chooses the above
structure voluntarily, but more often
he opts for the .. . f5-f4 push in an at­
tempt to stay out of more direct danger.
White's game is usually preferable in
such positions because of the breaks
g2-g3 and c2-c4. Black 's main prob­
lem is his king's bishop, which often is
needed on g7 to protect the king, but
could only find active possibilities on
the a7-g1 diagonal.
Piece Placement
The black knight usually goes from
c6 to e7 to fight for control of d5, but
in some cases it can also go to e5 to en­
ter the white position via d3 or f3.
However, Black should be certain that
this will actually achieve something
before jumping in.
Black's dark-squared bishop usu­
ally comes to g5 to find some kind of
activity and not to be in the way of the
f-pawn. This is the only way the
bishop can join in the battle for d5. If a
knight comes to e3 Black should nor­
mally not hesitate to exchange his
bishop for it (one major exception is
when Black has two bishops against
two knights; then ... g7-g6 followed by
 How to Play the Sveshnikov
... f7-fS is usually very strong). Nor­
mally this is followed by . JiJe7 and
... i.e6. Another way of activating Ihe
bishop is the manoeuvre ... i.f6-d8-b6,
from where the bishop can exert pres­
sure on f2. In some positions the bishop
goes to h6 and then to g7, where it can
also be effective. In the positions aris­
ing from 9 i.xf6 gxffi, the bishop
should normally be on g7.
Black's tight-squared bishop nor­
mally belongs on e6, but on some oc­
casions it is also well placed at b7.
Often when Black plays ...fS it is wilh
the intention of re capturing with the
bishop. From fS it normally goes back
to e6, but in recent times some top
players such as Leko have b een inves­
tigating the manoeuvre ... i.c8xfS­
g6-(f1) . Black normally does not want
to exchange this bishop without get­
ting something in return. The compen­
sating factor is typically a saving of
time, or a pawn on e6 to protect the
dS-square, but if the exchange should
happen wilhout any gain for Black, he
might be unhappy but still in Ihe game.
The black rooks should normally
be at b8 and fS. The queen's rook can
at times be better place d on Ihe c-fiJe
(the king's rook too) and even go to cS
to put pressure on dS. The king's rook
can be very aggressive when it enters
an open g-file, but naturally this also
depends on circumstances.
The black queen's favourite squares
are b7, d7 and f1 - all light squares
please note (Black has supremacy on
the dark squares thanks to his bishop).
At times she is also happy at b6, from
where she has exerts strong pressure
on both the centre and (in case of a
half-open f-file ) the weak f2�pawn.
9
The white bishop sometimes goes
to e2 or d3, but these are not the most
attractive squares for the bishop. Of­
ten one of the main reasons for White
to push a2-a4 as ear ly as possib le is to
get c4 or bS for his bishop. Here it can
actually do some good. However, if
White must choose between e 2 and d3,
then e2 is normally preferable unless it
has a specific role on d3 . An altogelher
different set-up includes putting the
bishop on g2. From here it would of­
ten li1:.e to go to dS and be ex changed
for Black's light-square d bishop to in­
crease White's dominance on the light
squares.
The white knights are usually put
to use in the battle for control of dS. If
Black has moved his central pawns
forward, then f4 and e3 often become
excellent b lockading squares, but also
d4 and c6 can be a route for a very am­
bitious knight. After White has playe d
a2-a4, his knights may gain access to
c4 and even bS. From here they can
prove to be very dangerous and put
heavy pressure on d6. Since knights
are fantastic b lockaders and White's
primary am bition in the Sveshnikov is
to keep the black pawns under control,
White would like to avoid an ex­
change of a knight for Black's dark­
squared bishop.
The white rooks are normally best
place d on the a-file or d-fiIe. They are
not normally very active, but rather
provide back-up for the minor pie ces
in most positions. To put pressure on
the d- or a-file against a weak pawn is
all that can be aske d from them early
in the game, while only imagination
puts a limit to what they can do later
when the game opens up.
 10 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
The white queen normally has two
main options. In positions where Black
wants to push ... fS or if Black's light
squares on the kingside are weak, the
queen belongs on hS, where it can ex­
ert pressure on the black position .
Otherwise the queen can be developed
on e2, d2 or d3, from where it has a lot
of influence over the whole board, and
is out of the way of the rooks. This
normally includes some sort of pres­
sure against d6 and a6, but does not hit
fS for the time being. White almost al­
ways desires an exchange of queens.
Black's score in Sveshnikov endg�es
where he has not managed to improv e
his structure is miser}lble. If Black has
solved the problems concerning dS
and d6, then he can consider going
into an ending, though the queen side
structure of a6 and bS is not very solid
and may be undermined by a4.
Practical Examples
The first game illustrates very well
how Black must be careful to keep his
pieces active.
B w
Topaloy - Kasparoy
Leon Advanced Chess ( 1) 1998
The a-pawn is doomed, so Black
must get counterplay immediately.
25 ... �xdS 26 �xdS fxe4 27 1Wxe4
1i'xe4 28 fxe4 :6f7 29 :xaS � g4 30
l:tdal �e6
Threatening the not so obvious
3 1 ...�xdS followed by 32.. . l:txfl+ 3 3
l:txfl �e3+, winning. White decides
to activate the passive knight.
31 �fe3 �xe3+ 32 �xe3 �xb3?
After this the bishop is in trouble .
Much better is 32 ... :f4 !, keeping his
pieces fully active ; Black should then
be no more than slightly worse.
33 c4 :c8 34 :c1 :b7 35 :a6
:b4?
This is too active. Better is 3S ...:d7
36 :c3 :b8 37 �dS , though this is
still very unpleasant for Black.
36 :xd6 �a4 37 :e6 :b3 38 �dS
� bS 39 :e7!
Threatening �f6.
39 ... �a6 40 cS :f8 41 c6 :b2 42
h4 �d3 43 :xeS 1-0
In the following game Black does
not get sufficient counterplay and White
wins by positional means.
Ye Jiangchuan - Filippoy
Elista OL 1998
 How to Play the Sveshnikov
This is an example of how White
can keep the tension in the centre
without letting Black take over com­
pletely, while at the same time attack­
ing the a5-pawn .
22 f3! Wh4 23 tLlde3 fxe4
As suggested in Chapter 1 3, Black
can play 23 . JU6 here, with an unclear
. tion, where the exchange of the d5-
game.
24 fxe4 :f6 25 :f1! ?
White makes use of the open f-file
for the purpose that benefits him the
most: exchanges ! With the weakness
on d6 and a5, Black will not be well
off in the endgame.
25 ... :bf8?
25 ... .i.f4 ! 26 g3 .i.xg3 27 hxg3
'iWxg3+ 28 tLlg2'iWxd3 29 .i.xd3 l:txfl +
30 :xfl :xb3 is OK for Black.
26 :xf6 ':xf6 27 g31i'g5 281i'd5!
Winning a pawn.
28 tLle7 29 1i'xaS .i.c6 30 .i.d3 d5
•••
31 :f1!
White is winning due to his passed
pawns on the queenside.
The next two games show how the
position can go wrong for White.
w After 39 hxg5, Baburin gives 39 ... a3
J. Polgar - Kramnik
Wijk aan Zee 1998
11
The right move in this position is 2 1
f3 ! to restrain Black's central pawns.
21 exf5 gxf5 22 f4 .i.g7 23 :adl
liJe7 24liJce3 tLlg6!
Normally Black would like to ex­
change the knights as they are White's
strongest blockaders. But in this posi­
knight would lead to it being replaced
by another knight, Kramnik prefers to
keep the pressure on the dark squares.
25 1i'h5 1i'e8 26 fxe5 1i'xe5 27 .i.e2
f4!
Black forces White to position her
pieces on less natural squares. The
black bishops are really coming alive
now.
28 tLlc4 1i'xhS 29 .i.xh5 .i.b5 30
hg6 hxg6 31 :13
After 3 1 l:txf4? l:xf4 32 tLlxf4 .i.xc4
33 bxc4 .i.xc3 White cannot hold the
endgame. This game is a rare case of
the a-pawn being dangerous.
31 .i.e5 32 tLlxe5 dxe5 33 c4 .i.c6
•••
A new pin is established.
34 ':el :fe8 35 g3 g5 36 gxf4 exf4
37 :xe8+ :Xe8 38 h4?
38 �g l ! , to get out of the pin, is
necessary. Now Black undermines the
knight on d5 .
38 a4! 39 bxa4
•••
40 l:t12 f3 ! 4 1 tLlb4 :e2 42 �g l l:tb2
as winning for Black.
39.H:e4 40 <oti>gl
40 l:tc3 loses straight away after
40. . . :xc4!.
40.H:Xc4 4 1 :d3 g4
Now the two connected passed
pawns, supported by the rook and
bishop, are monsters.
42 as g3 43 :dl f3 44 tLle7 12+ 45
<oti>f1 .i.b5 46 <oti>g2 :c2 0-1
12 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
w 2S cxb4 f4!
Lutz Kramnik
- lines Kramnik sees it as White's best
Bundesliga 1994/5
This is one of the classics of recent
years. It illustrates with vivid clarity
the danger and the method of the black
kingside attack. White has played the
slightly odd g3 but there is no reason
why he should be worse. Kramnik
thinks that 2 1 b4 leads to even chances
after 21 ...axb4 22 �cxb4.
21 exfS ? !
This i s generally too risky, and here
the weakening of the kingside makes
it even more dangerous. After .. . gxf5
and ... e4 Black will try to transfer his
knight to f3, from where it will cause
much grief and suffering.
21 ...gxfS 22 b4 e4!
Offering the a-pawn. Black wishes
to waste no time defending, and pro­
ceeds with a kingside attack straight
away without giving White a chance
to mobilize his queenside. Also the
rooks will be very inactive behind the
pawn, so White should now play 23
l:xa5 ! , getting a pawn and the later so
glorious knight for a rook.
23 bxaS? �eS 24 l: b4 :txb4
The fact that the pawns now get con­
nected does not trouble Black. They
are far from promotion, and that is
what counts.
The knight is in no hurry to get to f3
- it is fine on e5 for now. Breaking up
the white kingside is the primary goal
of this phase of the black attack. I will
in the rest of the game support my an­
notations with concrete lines sug­
gested by Kramnik in his analysis in
lnformator which clearly illustrates
the black strategy. Note that in some
chance to give up a piece to plug the
holes in the dykes.
26 �d4
After 26 �xf4 Black can tear open
the white kingside: 26 ... .i.xf4 27 gxf4
�f3+ 28 q"g2 "h4 and threats like
. . ... xh2 and . . ... h3 decide the game
immediately. Kramnik instead sug­
gests 26 "xe4 .i.f5 27 "e2 f3 28 .. n
.i.xc2 +.
26. e3!
••
This is the thematic break. 26 . . .f3
might be tempting for some, but how
would you continue? It will be hard, if
not impossible, to get the queen to g2,
and other attacks have been prevented.
27 fxe3
27 f3 fxg3 28 hxg3 .. g5 leaves the
g-pawn terminally ill . 27 gxf4 exf2+
28 �hl (28 'l'xt2 �xc4 is relatively
better, but Black still holds all the
trumps) 28 . . . �xc4 29 "xc4 .i.h3 and
White is dead.
27...f3!
Another attacking plan is to take on
g3 and then attack e3 and g3 with the
queen, rook and bishop.
28 'ifa2
28 �xf3!? is an idea to be investi­
gated according to Kramnik.
 How to Play the Sveshnikov
28 n+ 29�g2
••
29 �h 1 lLlxc4 30 1i'xc4 �h3 3 1
lLlf4 1i'a8+ wins quickly for Black.
29 :iVe8!
•.
From here the queen can go to both
g6 and h5 to attack on the light squares
or, as in the game, penetrate via the e­
file.
30 �e2
30 lLlf4 lLlxc4 31 "xc4 "xe3 is
nasty for White.
30 lLlg4 31 �f3
•••
3 1 1i'c2 was better according to
Kramnik, but I do not believe that
White can hold the position anyway.
3 1 �xg4 �xg4 3 2 lLlf41i'xe3 33 "xf2
�h3+ 34 � g 1 �xf4 35 gxf4 l:lg8+
wins.
31 lLlxe3+ 32 lLlxe3 "xe3! 33
•••
1i'xf2 �h3+ 34�gl "c3
Intending ...�e3.
35 :el .i.d2! 0-1
There follows either ...�e3 or some
nasty check on the back rank.
In the next game Black never gets to
play ...f5, and is forced to defend pas­
sively.
w :b8 33 :a7 �f8 34 :d7 lLlc8 35
Kasparov - Van Wely
Wijk aan Zee 1999
13
White has a small advantage. He
has control over d5 for the moment
(Black cannot play ...d5 because of the
devastating pin he soon would end up
in) and the a5-pawn is under pressure.
Also f7 is potentially weak. However,
White's own pawns are not so safe.in
the long run and it will be difficult to
keep the pressure for all eternity.
24 h4!
Black now faces a difficult deci­
sion: how far shall he allow the h­
pawn to advance? Definitely not to h6,
where it would force him to weaken
his king position severely.
24 h6?!
•••
It is better to stop the pawn immedi­
ate
y by 24 ...h5 ! , after which White
holds only a small advantage.
25 h5 �b7 26 :dl �c6 27 :dal
�b7 28 �d5! �xd5
28... lLlxd5 29 exd5 is not a better
choice, as White's e3-knight has ideas
of going to f5. Note that Kasparov is
not that interested in the d5-square,
but rather wants a structure where he
can attack a5.
29 exd5 :dc8 30 b4!
Now the rooks will invade Black 's
second rank.
30 1Wxc3 31 "xc3 :xc3 32 :xa5
..•
:d8+ �e7 36 :g8
White went on to win even though
the last moves before the time-control
weren't convincing.
In the next two games we shall in­
vestigate positions where Black has
played ... e4.
In the following diagram, White has
strong pressure on the black centre.
while Black has the traditional plans.
 14 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian

25'" g5 �h8 26 �hll:g8 27 "'e3

"'g7 28 .in l:bf8
B 28 . . . l:be8 ! is in Kramnik's opinion
a stronger move I believe this might
-

be because of the support it provides

for the e-pawn and the pieces placed
on the e-file.
29 .ie2l:e8 30 "'b6?
The queen goes astray, and Black
exploits this immediately. 30 .ih5
.ic8 ! ? is only slightly better for Black.
30 ... tDf4! 31 tDxf4 .ixf4
Short -Kramnik Black has succeeded in removing
Novgorod 1994 the blockade of the d-pawn and weak­
ening the white king's defences.
including . . . b4 to open the b-file and to 32l:d4 d5 33l:xd5? !
expand the scope. of the g7-bishop, This desperate sacrifice i s brutally
and ideas of advancing his f-pawn. refuted.
2O tDe5 21 l:e2 tDg6!
... 33 .ixd5 34 l:xd5 .ic7 35 "'c6
•.

Covering f 4 and so protecting the f4! 36 tDd6l:e6 37 .ic4 "'e7!

e6-bishop from exchange. This secures Not 37 . . . l:d8??, when 38 tDf7+ !
the light squares in the centre. 'tWxf7 39 'tWxe6 Wxe6 40 l:xd8+ .ixd8
22l:ed2 4 1 .ixe6 draws - Kramnik.
22 f3 exf3 23 Wxf3 .ie5 24 tDf4 38l:e5 ! ? l:xd6! 39l:xe7l:xc6 40
.ixa2 25 l:al .if7 26 l:xa5 is sug­ .ixg8 �xg8 41 l:xe4 a3 0-1
gested by Kramnik as unclear. This The a-pawn will become an unstop­
line illustrates how the central situa­ pable monster.
tion can change when White is making
the f3 break.
22 ... .ie5 23 a4?!
2 3 a3 ! was the right move in order
to anticipate Black's . . . b4 break. In­ w
stead Short sacrifices a pawn to oc­
cupy the f4-square, but this strategy
proves not to be sound. Opening the
b-file is to Black's benefit, especially
with the b2-pawn remaining a target.
23 ... bxa4 24ltJc4 "'f7!
A key square for the black queen.
Since Black has a strong hold on the
dark squares in most Sveshnikov posi­
tions, the queen is needed for support Topaloy -Krasenkoy
on the light squares. PolanicaZdroj 1995
 How to Play the Sveshnikov 15

White is exerting pressure 0 n f 5 and Black is a pawn up and went on to

along the d-file. Meanwhile, Black has win.
opened the b-file and is ready to chal­
lenge White's supremacy in the cen­ In the following game White also
tre. decides to put pressure on the black
22 f4! ? centre with f2-f4, this time with an
White decides to fix the black pawns. even more disastrous result.
This gives Black a passed pawn on e4,
but this is only useful if he can break
the blockade of either d5 or e3. How­
ever, Black has no reason to be un­
happy, as the c3-pawn is chronically
weak and has to remain so to protect
the d4-square from invasion.
22 e4
•••

Here this is forced due to the weak­

ness of f5 . However, if White had not
guarded his f-pawn by playing g3,
Black could consider taking on f4 fol­
lowed by . . . itJe5.
23 �hl?
Krasenkov thinks White should have
protected his second rank, after which
the chances are unclear. This might be
true, but this is one of those unclear
positions where I'd rather be Black.
23 l:b2 24 itJe4?
.••
This pawn sacrifice does not provide
enough compensation. White should
play 24 a4 with only a slightly worse
position.
24 l:xa2 25 itJde3
•.•
After 25 itJxd6, 25 . . . itJd4. ! 26 itJe3
(26 cxd4 .i.xd5 wins) 26 . . . 00 is very
good for Black. Perhaps this is what
Topalov missed. 25 itJdb6 'fIc7 26
l:xd6 .i.xc4 27 itJxc4 itJe7 28 l:e6
'fId7 ! 29 l:d6 'fIc8 30 itJe3 'fIxc3 3 1
.i.xf5 itJxf5 3 2 itJxf5 'fIc5 3 3 g4 e3 is
also winning for Black.
25 .i.f7!
•••
A key zwischenzug.
26 1i'g5 .i.xe4 27 ttJxe4 d5
8.B. Hansen - 8chando rff
Copenhagen 1996
This is a less usual structure in the
Sveshnikov, but it does arise from time
to time. In this position White would
do best to prevent ... e4 with 1 8 f3. In­
stead he plays ambitiously, and look
what happens !
18 f4? e4 19 .i.e2l:e5!
Putting immediate pressure on the
d5-pawn.
20 itJe3 "a7 21 �hl l:xe3 ! ! 22
bxe3 1i'xe3 23 e4 b4
The black position is clearly supe­
rior and he went on to win a nice
game. The white rooks have no files to
play on, but the black a-pawn is a
mighty candidate !
Now we turn our attention to posi­
tions containing opposite-coloured
bishops.
 16 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
w B
Oi Jingxuan - Vyzhmanavin
Beijing 1991
If White castles queenside then
Black should lose �o time in attacking
with his pawns :
23 0-0-0?
23 0-0 is more natural.
23 ... b4 24 c4 b3! 2S axb3 as 26 g4
a4
Black's attack is clearly the more
dangerous.
As mentioned earlier in this chap­
ter, Black should not go into positions
with opposite-coloured bishops with­
out getting something in return. The
next two games will illustrate why.
The position in the following dia­
gram is better for White. His bishop is
exerting pressure on f7 and can poten­
tially help in a combined attack against
h1. Remember that in positions in­
volving attack, opposite-coloured
bishops are not a weapon for drawing,
but one for mating. However, Black
has some hope, as White has not yet
mobilized his forces and the black
bishop can also hope to generate play
against f2 (or g3 after a pawn attack) .
Short - Kramnik
Novgorod 1995
21 aS 22 1We2 e4
•••
Black frees the bishop, but now he
must carefully protect his e-pawn.
23 lIadl .. e7 24 .i.c4!
Shutting out the black rook from
any influence in the centre and freeing
d5 for the white rook, from where it
can both attack a5 and d6 and swing to
the kingside.
24 .'�h8!
••
Black is forced to reinforce his cen­
tre.
2S lIdS fS
Short now illustrates a simple but
beautiful way for White to gain a win­
ning position: 26 f4 ! "ikc1 21 lIfd l
lIf6 28 "ikh5, when all the light-square
weaknesses will tell. Instead, he played
differently, and won eventually.
The following diagram is a standard
position where nothing is really going
on. Black is not under any pressure
and White has no major weaknesses.
19 .i.xdS?
•••
After this Black is worse. The ex­
change of minor pieces does not help
him to generate any counterplay so it
 How to Play the Sveshnikov
B be forced to do.
VoitsekhoYsky - Grebionkin
Novgorod 1998
is a straight misunderstanding of the
position. When I first learned to play
the Sveshnikov I was told that these
exchanges were good for B lack, and
that the opposite-coloured bishops
benefit him. Nothing could be further
from the truth ! My first doubt arose
when a year ago I searched the data­
base for Sveshnikov positions with
opposite-coloured bishops, and found
that Black had lost a lot of games but
won none! I investigated the position
and came to the conclusion that the
weakness of h7 and Black's problems
defending his second rank make this
kind of exchange beneficial for White.
20 .i.xdS+ �h8 21 0-0 e4 22 1We2!
Preventing counterplay is the first
step for White. Both ... b4 and . . . f4 are
stopped by this move.
22 l:tcS?
••.
Since Black has no minor pieces
that can help challenge White's con­
trol of d5, this just misplaces the rook.
23 l:tadl .i.eS 24 �hl 1i'g7 2S C3!
Breaking up the black centre and
thereby exposing his weaknesses on
the light squares.
17
2SM.exC3 26 l:txf31i'h6 271i'd3 C4
This 5 a very sad thing for Black to
28 g4! l:tc7 29 l:tgl 'it'h4 30 gS!
1WhS 31 l:th3 1i'e8 32 l:tg4 1i'd7 33
l:tgh4 l:tCS 34 g6 hS 3S 1WxfS! 1WxfS 36
l:txhS+ 1-0
In the next two games Black man­
ages to solve his problems by reaching
an opposite-coloured bishop position
in which he has secured active coun­
terplay.
B
Dolmatoy - Topaloy
Groningen peA qual 1993
In this position White has closed
the kingside and Black has to find
counterplay and activity for his pieces
on the queenside. The natural way is
to transfer the bishop from g7 to b6,
but right now this is not going to hap­
pen.
18 b4!
.•.
Black improves his structure before
exchanging on d5.
19 c4 .i.xdS!
Now White cannot take on d5 with
the e-pawn without allowing a lot of
counterplay.
 18 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
20 cxd5
20 exd5 ! ? e4 ! 2 1 .i.xe4 .i.xb2 22
l:tbI .i.e5 23 c5 Wb5 24 c6 .i.c3+ 25
�dI l:tfe8 leads to a very complicated
game where Black should not have the
worse prospects.
20 ... .i.f6 21 g5 .i.d8 22 .i.n!
Both bishops are going where the
grass is greener. The game ended in a
draw after a long struggle.
Kasparov - Kramnik
Moscow peA rpd 1994
Thus far Black has some achieve­
ments to his credit: he has exchanged
one pair of knights, which makes it
easier to break the blockade, and has
prepared his counterplay on the queen­
side. The only remaining problem is
the f6-bishop, for which Kramnik in­
tends a useful regrouping manoeuvre.
16 ... .i.e6 17 g3 1Wd7! 18 .i.g2 .i.d8
19 0 -0 .i.b6
The bishop has now found an excel­
lent diagonal.
20 1Wd2 l:tfc8 21 J:tfdl .i.xd5!
This exchange is part of a plan to
generate counterplay.
22 1Wxd5 b4
The game soon ended in a draw.
The white c-pawn is too weak to be of
any use.
We now take a look at two games
where White exchanged on f5 and
Black recaptured with his g-pawn.
w
J. Polgar -lIIescas
Dos Hermanas 1999
The position is not very clear. White
should probably develop her last piece,
the aI -rook, or play 20 �h 1 , preparing
the f3 break. Black would then try to
break open the queenside with ... a5
and ... b4 to create weaknesses for his
bishops to attack. After White's actual
choice, Black seizes the initiative with
an intriguing queen manoeuvre.
20 f3? exf3 21 gxf3 .i.xd5! 22
ltJxd5 1Wg5+ 23 �hl 1Wd2 24 .i.b3
White's position is on the verge of
collapse.
24 ...ltJd3 25 1Wh5?
The immediate 25 Wh4 is much
better.
25 ... :ae8 26 1Wh4 1Wxb2 27 l:tadl
1We2 28 ltJf4ltJxf4 29 1Wxf4 .i.xc3 30
1Wg3 .i.e5 31 1Wh3 1We3
Black went on to win.
 How to Play the Sveshnikov
w black army can handle.
Topalov - lIIescas
Alcobendas (1) 1994
Here White can launch a fast attack
on f5 and e4.
19 "hS! e4 20 f3!
Attacking the light squares.
20 .....aS
20 . . :iWeS 2 1 'iWh4 'iWdS 22 'iWh3 ! ?
and White continues the attack.
21 fxe4 .i.xc3
2 l ...f4 22lLxil is good for White as
f4 is exposed.
22 Aabl !
Black cannot prevent the white
rook from invading the position.
22....i.g7?
22 . . . fxe4 23 AxfS+ AxfS 24 'iWh6
Ae8 25 It:)f6 .i.xf6 26 'iWxf6+ �gS 27
Ab7 'iWel + 2S It:)f1 is no better, but
Black should have played 22 . . . .i.f7,
leaving White with a very strong, but
not yet decisive attack.
23 exfS! .i.g8
23 . . . .i.xd5 24 f6 .i.gS 25 fxg7+
<i>xg7 26 Ab7+ is easy for White.
24 f6! .i.xf6 25 :xf6!
Not 25 It:)xf6? Axf6 ! .
2S Axf6 26 It:)xf6 'ifxhS 27 It:)xhS
•..
.i.xa2 28 Ab7 Aa7 29 Ab6 .i.f7 30
Axc6 1-0
19
In the next three games White's
knight proves to be stronger than the
Anand - Lobron
Dortmund 1996
In this position Black wants to free
his position by pushing his central
pawns, but this is instructively pre­
vented by Anand. In positions like
this, White is generally better if he
succeeds in blockading the position on
the light squares.
19 .i.e4! .i.xe4 20 Axe4 'ifxfS 21
"dS!
White is much better. Black is now
forced to let the white knight into play
via c4 or close the queenside at the
cost of putting yet another pawn on the
bishop's colour. He chooses to do the
latter.
21 b4 22lt:)c2 as 23 Adl 'ifg6
•••
Black is positionally busted, so his
only chance is to create some tactical
chaos.
24lt:)e3
24 Ae2 is a safer way to keep the
game under control, but on h4 the rook
will contribute fully to the white
cause.
20 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
24...'�h8 25 :g4 "'hS 26 :h4 "'gS
27 "'f3 fS!
Black's only chance is active coun-
terplay so he gives up a pawn.
28 :xd6 e4 29 "'dl f4 30 :g4!
An important intermediate move.
30......eS 31 gxf4 :xf4 32 :d2
l:txg4+ 33 lLlxg4 "'gS 34 �hl
White is a pawn up and should win
after normal play, although this is not
an easy task. However, Black's next
move allows a quick finish.
34 hS? 35 :dS "'h4 36lLlf6! 1-0
...
Short -lIIescas
Madrid 1995
White is much better here. The black
rook on b6 is awkwardly placed and he
hasn' t generated any kind of counter­
play yet.
19 f4!
With the threat f5 .
19... fS 20 �dS!
This is the ideal exchange.
20... aS 21 �xe6+ 'ii'x e6 22 lLldS
:b7 23 'ii'd 2 'iio>h8 24 a3!
A good move, preventing . . . b4 for
some time at least.
24 ......c8 25 :adl 'Wc4 26 l:tf2!
Keeping control over the second
rank and with some ideas of coming to
the d-file.
26... �h6 27 lLle3 "'e4 28 "'xd6!
"'xe3 29 "'xh6 :g7 30 "'d6
White converted his extra pawn into
a full point.
w
Adams -Salov
Dortmund 1992
This game is included to show why
Black should not allow a simple ex­
change on b5 with the a-pawn.
20 axbS axbS?
A positional mistake. 20 . . . �xe3 !
2 1 fxe3 �xd5 22 "xd5 :xb5 23 "d2
a5 is only slightly worse for Black.
Now he has major problems on the
light squares.
21 lLlc2!
From b4 the knight will put pres­
sure on both d5 and c6.
21......d7 22 :a6 �h3 23 :el �gS
24 lLlb4 �d8 25 �e4! �b6 26 lLldS fS
27 lLlxb6 "'d8 28lLld7! "'xd7 29 l:[xd6
White went on to win.
In this discussion, it should not be
forgotten that Black actually has the
 How to Play the Sveshnikov
bishop-pair, and used correctly they
can be deadly.
Tong Yuanming - Yakovich
Beijing 1997
This is an example of how the black
bishops and the traditional attack with
the f-pawn can be totally irresistible.
25 �a4!
•••
Gaining a tempo.
26 :bl 'iWc5 27 1ft3 f5
With f2 vulnerable, White has no
choice but to take.
2S exf5 gxf5 29 �e6 e4 30 "g3 f4
The rolling pawns are monsters.
31 'iWh3 'iWg5 32 :el e3!
This is the right way to use the
pawns. The e-pawn is almost always
the front man.
33 'iWf3 'iWe5 34 �d5 "xc3 35 ':bl
l:tbS 0-1
Finally we have three games that
do not really fit into any standard pat­
tern, but still illustrate a lot of useful
themes.
The following position is an exam­
ple of a knight not being very useful
and the black pieces developing and
combining their forces naturally.
21
w
Lau -Muse
German Ch (Bad Neuenahr) 1991
22 :e2
22 'il'b3 ! seems better, since White
need not fear 22 . . .�xb2 23 'il'xb2 'ifxd5
24 :ad l , when he has compensation.
22 :bcS 23 "b3 �hS 24 :dl
•••
:c5!
From here the rook fulfils all its du­
ties: it fights against the blockade of
his passed pawn, protects the b-pawn
and is ready to swing to the kingside
for an attack.
25 g3?
White takes control over f4, but se­
verely weakens the squares around his
king. Better is 25 l:ted2! .
25 :fcS 26 �g2 f5 27 :ed2 �e5
•••
2S "e3 :fS!
Like footsteps in the sand. The rook
is no longer needed on c8.
2 9 b3 "g6 30 �4?
This just loses time. He should play
30 �h l planning f4 .
30.....h6
With the idea of . . . :c3. Maybe this
is what White overlooked.
31 tDd5 f4! 32 'it'xe4
32 gxf4 :Xf4 33 tDxf4 �xf4 34
'ifd4+ �g8 ! 3 5 �fl (this seems forced;
22 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
35 Wxe4 ltg5 + ! 36 <it.>f3 {or 36 <it.>f)
Wh3+ } 36 .. :tfh3+ and Black wins
easily after either 37 'it>e2 lIe5 or 37
�xf4l:[g4+ 3S �f5l:[h4 +) 35 ... 1Wh3+
36 �e 1 Wxh2 and the black attack de­
cides.
32 .. .f3+ 33 �n
33 �h l Wxd2 ! .
33. .:ifxh2 34 'ifh4 1i'g2+ 0-1
w 2 1 Wxe4 ltabS ! ? 22 b3 c2 23 ltd4
Ljubojevic - Kramnik
Belgrade 1995
This position is an example of wild
complications arising straight out of
the opening. In this position White can
keep the balance, but underestimates
the force of the black . . . b4 thrust. This
game shows some of the potential
Black has if White does not take care
of his king's safety.
16 c3?
16 .i.g2 Wxb2 17 0-0 .i.b7 IS .i.xe4
lLldS 1 9 Wg5+ Wg7 =.
16 ... b4! 17 lLlc4
White is in deep trouble however he
plays. 1 7 'ii' xc6 bxa3 1 S bxa3 .i.b7 ! 1 9
'ii'c 4 e 3 and 1 7 lLlc2 bxc3 I S Wxc6
cxb2 19 ltbl .i.e6 20 'ii' x d6 lU'dS 2 1
'ifa3 ltd2 ! 2 2 �xd2 Wxf2+ 2 3 .i.e2
:ldS+ 24 �c3 Wf6+ 25 �b4 ltbS+ 26
.i.b5 ltxb5+ 27 �a4 We5 both win for
B lack, while 1 7 cxb4 ! ? Wxb2 I S ltbl
Wc3+ 19 Wd2 'ii'x d2+ 20 �xd2 d5
gives Black an overwhelming posi­
tion.
17M.bxc3 18 'ifxd6 .i.e6!
Black avoids exchanging queens,
and develops a piece.
19 'iff4 'ifg7! 20 0-0-0
20 b3 lLlb4 21 lt c l lLld3+ 22 .i.xd3
exd3 is just dead lost for White.
20 lLlb4 21 'ifeS
.•.
.i.f5 ! 24 'ii' xf5 'ii' xd4 and Black wins.
21 1VxeS 22 lLlxeS lLlxa2+ 23
•••
�bl .i.b3 0-1
The thought of ... c2+ was too pain­
ful for White to play on.
Brodsky -Kramnik
USSR U-26 Ch (Kherson) 1991
This is in my view the most fantastic
game ever played in the S veshnikov.
Any book on the Sveshnikov without
it would be a poor book.
I e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 S lLlc3 eS 6 lLldbS d6 7
.i.gS a6 8 lLla3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10
lLldS fS I I .i.d3 .i.e6 12 'ifhS lt g8 ! ?
1 3 0-0-0 ltxg2 1 4 f4?
Opening up the position in the cen­
tre, when it turns out that White's king
is the one in greater danger. 14 Wf3 ! is
better, with unclear consequences.
14 lLld4 IS lLle3
•••
15 c3 .i.xd5 16 exd5 b4 ! is the­
matic, blowing up the white king's po­
sition.
IS lt f2!
•••
The rook remains menacingly on
White 's second rank.
 How to Play the Sveshnikov
16 exfS
16 l:thfl ! ? l:txfl 17 l:txfl l:tc8 is
also very promising for Black.
16... .txa2 17 fxeS
17 tOg4 is well met by 1 7 . . . l:tc8 ! ,
intending . . .tOb3.
17 dxeS 18 tOxbS (D)
•••
B
Now follows one of the most aston-
ishing moves of the 1 990s.
18 ... .th6 ! ! 19 l:thel
19 'tIt'xh6 l:txc2+ mates.
19 ... axbS 20 .txbS+
20 "xh6 .tc4 21 b4 l:tal + 22 '1f;b2
l:ta2+ 23 �b l 'tIt'a8 is mate in five
moves at most.
20 ... �e7 21 ft4+
21 'tIt'xh6 l:txc2+! and 2 1 f6+ l:txf6
22 "xe5+ l:te6 23 "cS+ "d6 are both
hopeless for White.
21 ... f6 22 1i'xf2 .tf7
23
Black has consolidated his king's
position. He has lost an exchange, but
the fragility of the white king decides
matters.
23 .td3 (D)
23 b3 'tIt'aS 24 .ta4 'iWc3 ! 25 �bl
(25 l:td3 tOxb3+ 26 �d l .th5+! mates)
25 . . . l:txa4 26 bxa4 'tIt' b4+ 27 �c l
'tIt'a3+ 28 �d2 .th5 and . . . tOf3+ will
decide the game.
23 ... 'it'b6 24 .te4
24 c3 l:tal+ 25 .t bl .ta2 ! is a
prophecy of pain and suffering.
24... l:ta2 2S c4 .txc4 26 �bl 1i'aS
27 tOdS+
27 tOc2 l:tal + 28 tOxal .ta2#.
27 ....txdS 28 1Wxd4 l:tal+ 29 �c2
l:txd1 30 1i'xdl 1i'a4+ 31 � 0 -1
White resigned before Black could
deliver the mate.
2 Silly 6th Moves
1 e 4 c S 2 lLln lLlc6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4
lLlC6 5 lLlc3 eS (D)
w lLlxc5 9 lLlc3 0-0 10 .i.e3 lLle6 1 1 'Wd6
Besides the standard 6 lLldb5, which
will be investigated in the rest of this
book, White has tried quite a few other
possibilities. However, only 6 lLlf5
even qualifies as a subvariation; the
others are just moves someone played
once or twice, and won ' t do anyone
any harm.
6 lLlcs
Less common are:
a) 6 lLlb3 .i.b4 7 .i.c4 (7 .i.d3 d5 is
almost better for Black) 7 . . . d6 8 0-0
.i.e6=.
b) 6 lLlf3 .i.b4 7 .i.c4 0-0 (7 . . . d6 8
0-0 .i.e6 9 lLld5 h6 is perhaps more ac­
curate) 8 0-0 d6 (8 . . . .i.xc3 9 bxc3
lLlxe4 10 .i.a3 lLlxc3 1 1 'Wd3 looks un­
satisfactory for Black) 9 lLld5 h6 1 0
lLlxb4 lLlxb4 1 1 c 3 lLlc6 1 2 'Wd3 ilc7
13 .i.b3 lLla5 14 .i.c2 d5 = Ortega­
Zinn, Berlin 1968.
c) 6 lLlde2 .i.c5 (6 ... .i.b4 7 lLlg3 d5
8 exd5 lLlxd5 9 .i.d2 .i.e6, as in
Miolo-Ochoa, Lucerne OL 1 982, also
looks nice) 7 .i.e3 (no strong alterna­
tive exists; 7 lLla4 ?! lLlxe4 8 lLlxc5
lLled4 1 2 .i.d3 :e8 1 3 0-0-0 :e6 1 4
'Wa3 d5 didn' t provide sufficient com­
pensation in Alborta Tito-Szmetan,
Buenos Aires 1 978; 7 lLlg3 d6 8 .i.e2
.i.e6 is no worse for Black, Tisch­
bierek-Piihtz, Rostock 1 982; 7 f3 'Wb6
8 'Wd2 d5 and White is about to get
blown away, Moskvitin-Schukin, Nov­
gorod 1 997) 7 . . . .i.xe3 8 fxe3 d6 ! (or
8 . . . 0-0 9 lLlg3 d6 10 ild2 ilb6 1 1
0-0-0 .i.e6 12 lLld5 ? ! { 1 2 .i.d3 with the
idea of :hfl xf6 was played against
me by a computer several times on
ICe; I kept losing badly, which is why
I would recommend to use the black
set-up in this line without castling
only - there will be plenty of fun start­
ing the attack one move earlier }
1 2 . . . .i.xd5 13 exd5 lLlb4 14 .i.c4 :fc8
15 'We2 lLlxc 2 ! and Black won in
An.Rodriguez-V. Spasov, Tunja U-20
W ch 1989, even though White avoided
1 6 �xc2 ilb4 1 7 b3 b5, when he is
truly suffering) 9 'ii'd2 .i.e6 10 :dl ( 1 0
0-0-0 ilb6 i s fine for Black) 1 0 . . . 0- 0
1 1 lLlg3 g6 12 .i.e2 lLlg4 13 lLld5'Wh4
1 4 .i.f3 l:.ac8 15 'ii'e2 h5 16 c3 f5 and
Black has taken over the initiative,
Hase-Pelikan, Santa Fe 1 973.
••6 .dS 7 exdS
 Silly 6th Moves
7 tbxd5 tbxd5 ( 7 ... tbxe4 ! ? 8 tille3
.i.e6 9 .i.c4 .i.c5, Krasenkow, is inter­
esting) 8 exd5 .i.xf5 9 dxc6 "'xd 1 + 10
�xdl bxc6=.
7 .i.xfS 8 dxc6 bxc6 (D)
•••
8 . . .... xd 1 + 9 tbxdl bxc6 10 tbe3
.i.g6 1 1 .i.a6 :b8 1 2 0-0 .i.e7 1 3 :el
0-0 14 a3 Itfd8 15 b4 tbd5 16 .i.b2 f6
with equality, Campora-Braga, Sara­
gossa 1 992.
9 1i'f3 1i'd7
9 . . ....c8 is weaker due to 10 .i.a6!.
10 .i.gS
1 0 .i.c4 .i.e7 1 1 .i.g5 .i.xc2 12 0-0
( 1 2 "'e2? "'g4 ! ! was very good for
Black in Ivanovi�-Chandler, Manila
IZ 1 990) 12 . . . 0-0 13 "'e2 .i.g6 14
1Wxe5 .i.d6 is fine for Black - Krasen­
kow.
10 .i.b4 (D)
...
Solid. Also possible is 10 ... e4 ! ?:
a) 1 1 "'e3 .i.b4 12 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 3
.i.c4 :g8 14 :d l ? ! ( 1 4 0-000) 1 4 ......e7
25
1 5 "'f4 "'c5 and White is in trouble,
Nagy-Nemeth, Kaposvar 1 987.
b) 1 1 "'g3 .i.d6 1 2 "'h4 .i.e5 is not
what White wants either, Kahn-Svesh­
nikov, Kaluga 1 966.
c) 1 1 "'e2 ! .i.b4 ! ( 1 1 . . . .i.e7 1 2
.i.xf6 { 1 2 : d l "'e6 1 3 "'c4 :b8 1 4
"'xe6 fxe6 1 5 b 3 tbd5 + Akopian-Yak­
ovich, Rostov-on-Don 1 99 3 } 1 2....i.xf6
1 3 tbxe4 0-0 1 4 tbxf6+ gxf6 1 5 "'d2
:fe8+ 16 �d l "'b7 17 �c l ! :ad8 1 8
'it'c3 "'b6 1 9 .i.c4 "'xf2 20 :f1 "'d4
21 "'xd4 :xd4 22 b3 is minimally
better for White, Camilleri-Komarov,
Qawra 1 998) 1 2 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 3 :dl
"'e6 14 "'c4 :b8 1 5 a3 "'xc4 16
.i.xc4 .i.xc3+ 17 bxc3 :b2 and Black
stands well, Trifunovi�-Muse, Banja
Vrucica 1 987.
11 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 2 .i.d3 .i.xc3+ 13
bxc3 .i.xd3 14 cxd3 'ii'e6 15 0·00·0
16 :ael �h8
= Sax-Fedorowicz, Dubai OL 1986.
3 7 a4 and 7 ..te3
I e4 cS 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4
lDf6 S lDc3 eS 6 lDdbS d6
Here we look at two miscellaneous
7th move options for White:
A: 7 a4 26
B: 7 i.e3 27
A)
7 a4 (D)
B 9 . ':c8
This is truly harmless, but Black
should know what to do about it.
7 . a6! 8 lDa3 i.e6 9 i.c4
. .
Or:
a) 9 i.e2 l:tc8 10 i.e3 lDb4 ! 1 1 0-0
d5 is slightly better for Black, Sousa­
Doghri, Algarve 1995.
b) 9 i.d3 d5 is completely equal,
Guid-Ig.Jelen, Ljubljana 1 994.
c) 9 i.g5 'iWb6 ! 10 :bl ( 1 0 i.xf6
'iWxb2 1 1 lDd5 i.xd5 12 exd5 'iWc3+
1 3 �e2 lDd4+ 0- 1 Kos-Ig.Jelen, Slo­
venian Cht 1 995) 10 . . ...b4 1 1 i.xf6
gxf6 1 2 i.d3 d5 1 3 exd5 i.xd5 14 0-0
i.e6 15 lDe4 0-0-0 16 c3 "e7 17 'iWe2
f5 and Black deserves to win, which
he did in Haba-Reinderman, Pardu­
bice 1993.
d) 9 lDc4 :c8 1 0 i.e3 ( 1 0 lDe3
h6 ! ? is not clear) 1O ... lDb4 1 1 lDb6 :c6
12 as lDxe4 ! is dangerous for White,
Nilsson-Danielsen, Copenhagen 1 997.
e) 9 i.e3 i.e7 10 lDc4 lD xe4 1 1
lDxe4 d5 1 2 i.b6 'iWd7 was roughly
equal in Joentausta-Pihlajasalo, Hyvin­
kaa 1 993.
.
9 . . . i.e7 ! ? 10 i.g5 ( l 0 0-0 :c8 1 1
:e 1 lDb4 1 2 b3 0-0 1 3 i.b2 "d7 1 4
'iWd2 lDh5 1 5 lDe2 lDc6 and Black is
not worse, Kholmov-Belikov, Moscow
1 992) 10 . . . 0-0 ( l o ... lDxe4 1 1 lDxe4 d5
1 2 i.xe7 �xe7 1 3 "h5 proved to be
very dangerous for Black in Rudolf­
Heuer, 2nd Bundesliga 1 99617) 1 1
i.xf6 i.xf6 1 2 lDd5 i.g5 1 3 c3 �h8
14 0-0 lDe7 15 "b3 :b8 and Black is
not worse, Sion Castro-Cardenas Val­
ero, Linares 1 998. The a3-knight is
not playing.
10 0 -0
Alternatives : 10 i.g5 'iWb6 1 1 0-0
'iWxb2 1 2 "d2 'iWb4 1 3 :fb1 'iWc5 and
White has nothing for the pawn, De
Jong-De Vreugt, Wijk aan Zee 1 997;
1 0 i.d5 h6 1 1 0-0 i.xd5 12 exd5 lDb4
1 3 f4 i.e7 1 4 :e1 "c7 1 5 'iWe2 0-0
and Black is for preference, Rotten­
born-Swol, Moravka 1 994.
10 ... lDb4 ! ?
 7 a4 and 7 i.e 3
10 . . . .i.xc4 1 1 �xc4 �d4 12 'iVd3
�xc2 1 3 'iVxc2 :xc4 14 .i.g5 .i.e7 1 5
'iVb3 'iVc8 1 6 :ac l :c6 1 7 :fd l 0-0
gives White compensation for the pawn,
Radulov-Portisch, Belgrade 1 977.
ll1We2
l l .i.b3 .i.e7 1 2 .i.g5 �7 1 3 .i.xe7
'fIxe7 14 .i.xe6 fxe6 and Black must be
happy here, Pierrot-Munoz Pantoja,
Villa Martelli 1 998.
11 :it'c7 12 b3 .i.e7 13 :dl 0-0
.•
An interesting game lies ahead,
Plasman-Gershon, Dieren 1999.
B)
7 .i.e3 a6 8 �a3 :b8 (D)
w 10 exd5 �7 11 c3
9 �d5
Or:
a) 9 f3 b5 10 �5 �xd5 l l 1Wxd5
1Wc7 12 .i.e2 .i.e6 1 3 'it'd2 .i.e7 14 0-0
0-0 15 �bl :fd8 16 �c3 d5 17 exd5
�b4 and Black is more than equal,
Voicu-Kragelj, Stockerau 1 993.
b) 9 .i.g5, as in Aronin-Taimanov,
USSR 1 962, should be met by 9 . . . b5 !
when the rook is on b8 instead of a8 as
normal, which is a big improvement.
c) 9 �c4 b5 10 �d2 .i.e6 1 1 .i.e2
.i.e7 is also good for Black, De Vos­
Lopeper, corr 1 984.
27
9 ... �xd5
The old safe standard, but also the
main alternative, 9 . . . b5 ! ?, is sound:
a) I O c3? �xe4 ! 1 1 'iVf3 f5 1 2 .i.d3
�e7 1 3 �xe7 .i.xe7 14 .i.xe4 fxe4 1 5
'it'xe4 0-0 1 6 0-0 .i.b7 1 7 'it'd3 'it'd7 1 8
f3 'iVe6 + Cid-Etchegaray, Saragossa
1992.
b) 1 0�6t 'iVxf6 1 1 c4 b4 1 2 �bl
a5 00 Szalanczy-Dokhoian, Cattolica
1 993.
c) 10 c4 b4 1 1 �c2 ( 1 1 �xf6+ is
necessary) 1 l . . .�xe4 ! 12 'it'f3 (J.Pol­
gar-Va'isser, Oviedorpd 1 993) 12 ... �5
and Black is much better.
d) 1 0 .i.d3 .i.e7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 c4
bxc4 1 3 �xc4 �xd5 14 exd5 �b4 1 5
.i.e2 .i.f5 and Black i s happy, Sza­
lanczy-Csom, Graz 1 987.
Other moves:
a) 1 1 f3? 1Wa5+ 12 c3 �xd5 ! 1 3
.i.b5+ axb5 1 4 'it'xd5 .i.d7 doesn't
give White compensation for the little
guy, Barmbabe-Franzen, corr 1 973.
b) 1 1 c 4 �f5 1 2 .i.d2 .i.e7 13 .i.d3
0-0 14 0-0 .i.g5 15 �c2 :e8 + Sax­
Adorjan, Hungary 198 1 .
c ) 1 1 1Wd2 �5 1 2 �c4 ( 1 2 .i.e2
.i.e7 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 c4 �xe3 15 'i'xe3
.i.g5 16 'it'c3 1We7 17 :Cd l e4 + Bab­
its-Muellner, corr 1988; 1 2 f4 �xe3
13 'it'xe3 .i.e7 14 .i.d3 0-0 15 0-0 exf4
1 6 'iVxf4 b5 also favours Black, Mes­
tel-Law, London 1 978) 1 2 . . . �xe3 1 3
�xe3 .i.e7 1 4 g 3 0-0 1 5 0-0-0 .i.g5 16
h4 .i.h6 1 7 �bl b5 18 'it'e2 f5 and
Black is no worse, Barczay-Korchnoi,
Sarajevo 1969.
11 . �g6 1 2 .i.e2 .i.e7 13 0-0 0-0
..
14 c4 f5
Black has a good version of the 7
�d5 line, Cid-Braga, Saragossa 1 992.
4 7 ttJd5
1 e4 cS 2t'Llf3t'Llc6 3 d4 cxd4 4t'Llxd4
t'Llf6 S t'Llc3 eS 6 t'LldbS d6 7 t'LldS (D)
B extra pawn. Black's chances lie in the
This variation has never been con­
sidered critical, but becomes popular
every now and then. The structure is
not like the rest of the Sveshnikov and
is therefore considered separately here
in this chapter.
Actually I think 7 t'Lld5 is as strong
as 7 .i.g5 at least in practical terms.
For this reason this chapter is loaded
with theory. I suggest that you go
through all the variations offered here.
They are very much alike in themes
and my annotations strive not just to­
wards a good theoretical understand­
ing of the line, but also towards pattern
recognition. You will play any line
better if you know all the standard
themes. In particular, it is helpful to
know the various methods by which
White can use his queenside maj ority,
and Black's possible responses.
White's ambition: breaking with
cS-c6
White's play in this variation is obvi­
ously on the queenside - and most pre­
cisely on the c- file, where he has an
centre and on the kingside, where he
has the majority. Here is an example of
successful queenside expansion by
White.
Adams - Amura
Buenos Aires 1991
Black has swapped the dark-squared
bishops, which is often a good idea,
because White's kingside is most likely
to suffer from dark-square weaknesses.
The black knight is strong on f4, but
her queenside is sleeping.
I S g3 l:th6
Black goes for an attack. Any other
plan would be meaningless.
19 c6! 'iVgS 20 .i.f3
 7 0d5
20 liJa4? would only give White
problems after 20 . . . l:lh3 ! .
20 ... e4 2 1 .i.g2 liJd3 22 l:lc2 liJeS
23 �gl
Matters are rather unclear here.
White is under attack, but he has al­
ready won the battle for the queenside.
I suspect that the pawn on c6 limits
Black's possibilities so much that
White must have the better game.
23 ... liJg4?
This is some kind of miscalcula­
tion, after which the black attack is
stopped.
24 h3 liJeS 25 h4 'it'g6 26 liJa4!
A standard manoeuvre towards the
weak spot in the black camp.
26 ... bS 27 liJb6 l:lb8 28 "d4 'l'g4
29 l:lc3 gS 30 hxgS 'it'xgS 31 l:lfd!
Preparing an escape route for the
king.
31 ... liJf3+ 32 .i.xf3 exf3 33 l:tel
White has a decisive advantage,
which he converted into victory.
Campora - Aranaz
Seville 1990
This example might seem a little
stupid due to the large difference
29
between the strength of the two play­
ers, but this lets us see White's strategy
carried out unhindered.
26 b4 .i.f6 27 cS liJf7? 28 c6!
This forces Black to make a diffi­
cult choice: either to allow White two
connected passed pawns, or to be
pushed backwards. He chooses the lat­
ter.
28 ... .i.c8 29 bS!
Putting the black queenside under
further pressure. Now he collapses.
29 ... .i.eS 30 cxb7 .i.xb7 31 bxa6
.i.a8 32 .i.bS l:lc8 33 a4
White has a winning position.
There are other plans for White.
The most important can be seen in the
following position.
This is from the game Emelin­
Nedev, Elista OL 1 998. The game can
be found in Line B2 of this chapter.
White's strategy was first to force
Black to weaken b6 by playing . . . a6
(this has been accomplished), and
then to transfer the knight, or as in the
game the bishop, to b6, before pro­
ceeding along the c4-c5-c6 track.
One way to prevent White's c6 plan
is ... .i.d7 and ... l:lc8 to control the c-file.
30 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
Sometimes Black even lets White take
on d6 without being able to recapture,
provided he has secured sufficient
counterpla y.
Another way is for Black to play
. . . b6 to prevent c5. This is sometimes a
good idea, but often it ties the black
knight to d7, where it is not only pas­
sive, but also prevents the rest of his
queenside becoming active.
Black attacks The brutal rook
- ical move - an objectively wise deci­
Normally the game is centred around
the squares e5, d6 and c6 in this line,
but occasionally Black gets the chance
to initiate a direct attack along the h­
file.
w 22 �d3 e4 ! does not achieve any­
Rowson - Adams
London (5) 1 998
The position is interesting. The best
move is probably 14 f4, but all in all it
is hard to see what the white bishop is
doing on e3.
14 f3 f4! ?
Black fixes the structure in a way
that is very unfortunate for White. The
black attack on the h-file threatens to
become deadly immediately.
IS �f2 'ii'e8 16 �4
The knight would have been of more
use on e4, from where it could prevent
. . . :i6.
16M.1WhS 17 �hl :16
The heavy artillery is coming. White
is now forced to make some conces­
sions.
18 g4 fxg3 19 �xg3 :g6
With the simple threat of .. . :xg3.
Now White could play 20 :gl and try
to defend. Instead he plays a more crit­
sion, but in practice the complications
he enters grant him no relief.
20 f4! 1Wh6 21 1Wel
2 1 �h5? :xg 3 ! 22 hxg3 �6 and
2 1 �g4? lDf6 22 �xc8 :xc8 23 fxe5
m are proof of how bad things can
turn.
21 ... lDf6 22 fxeS
thing.
22 ... lDe4 23 :l:a3 :xg3 ! ?
The start o f a combination where
White is tied up completely and Black
gets all his pieces into play.
24 :xg3 �h4 25 :gf3?
A miscalculation. White is not do­
in'g badly after 25 �gl ! . Black's idea
must have been 25 ... �h3 !? (25 ... �xg3
26 hxg3 dxe5 27 �d3 is good for
White), but after 26 :xh3 'it'g5+ 27
:g3 lDxg3 28 hxg3 �xg3 29 'it'd 1 !
Black is in deep trouble. The main line
is 29 . . . �xe5+ 30 �g4 h5 3 1 :i5
'it'xg4+ 32 'it'xg4 hxg4 33 lDxe5 dxe5
34 :xe5 with a more or less winning
ending.
2S ... �g4 26 :3f2
26 'it'c 1 �xf3+ 27 � xf3 lDg3+!
wins the exchange and the game.
26 ... lDxf2+ 27 :xf2 �xf2 28 'it'xf2
:f8 29 'it'el 'iWh3! 0-1
 7 liJd5
The following game is, like the
Campora game, not an equal match.
Black is a strong grandmaster and
White is obviously not aware of what
is happening, but since it illustrates
some of the dangers White must face,
I kind of like the game.
B ever the right thing to do. I consider
Gordillo - Kharlov
Saragossa 1 994
White's pieces are not well placed.
His attack on d6 is pointless and no
other strategy is apparent in his play.
After kicking the white pieces away,
Black conducts a superb kingside at­
tack.
13 ... :t'6!
Both supporting d6, and furthering
his kingside play.
14 'Wd2 a6 1S ttJa3 as 16 .i.c3 ttJcS
17 ttJbS :h6 18 .i.c4
This does not make sense as Black
can easily prevent .i.xe5 .
18 .i.f8 19 g3 f4!
.••
Black opens lines for an invasion on
the light squares.
20 'We2 e4!
White cannot allow 2 1 . . .f3.
21 f3 fxg3 22 hxg3 'ii' gS 23 .i.el
'ii'h S 24 �f2 exf3 0-1
31
The love story between the eS-square
and the black knight
After seeing loads of games I have
come to the conclusion that Black
should place his knight on e5, and not
the bishop. Some grandmasters be­
lieve that Black should put the bishop
on e5 in order to exchange it before
bringing the knight to this square, but
my conclusion is that this is hardly
the next game a model example of
how to develop the queenside.
Stanojoski - Sutovsky
Struga Z 1995
Black's next three moves are very
standard. They appear in a large num­
ber of games in the line.
IS exf4! 16 .i.xf4 ttJeS 17 :ael?!
•••
1 7 :ac I ! is better. The rook is not
doing much on el in this position.
17 .i.d7
•••
Black plans . . . :cS.
18 .i.d3?!
This yields nothing. Better is IS b4
:Cs 1 9 'iWb3.
18 g6!
•••
I S . . . g5? is well met by 19 .i.cl f4
20 ttJe4! with the plan b3 and .i.b2.
32 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian

When playing . . . g5, Black should al­

ways be careful about the f-pawn and
the weakness of the e4-square. B
19 cS! ?
White does not have time for slow
play. Look at this variation: 1 9 b4 l:tc8
20 c5 tOxd3 2 1 'it'xd3 dxc5 22 .i.d6
cxb4 ! and Black wins.
19 tOxd3!
•••

This exchange sacrifice gives Black

a good game. The two bishops are
clearly superior to rook and knight in
this position. The control over d4 is
also not insignificant.
20 "xd3 dxcS 21 .i.d6 'ifb6 22
.i.xf8 l:txf8 23 "d2 .i.d4 24 l:t13
It is hard for White to find a plan.
24 :ii'f6 25 "f4?!
••
2 5 b3 i s better, with the basic idea
Packalen -Schandorff
Stockholm Ri/ton Cup 199819
21 tOd4 f4 22 gxf4 gxf4 23 .i.xf4!
The best chance. After 23 .i.gl Black
has a very strong attacking position.
23 .i.h3 24 lU2?
•.•

of tOe2-f4-e6. Now the white pieces White should play 24 .i.xd6! .i.xfl
are misplaced and the pressure along 25 .i.xfl with the point 25 . . . .i.e7 ? ! 26
the long diagonal is harder to stop. .i.h3 ! .
2S l:tc8 26 tOe4??
••• 24 ....i.eS
The losing move. Better is some­ Now Black's plan works like clock­
thing careful like 26 h3. work.
26 .....e7 27 "d6 l:te8 28 l:tefi 25 .i.g3 _xf2! 26 .i.xf2 l:txf2 27
.i.bS! tOf3?
This must be what White over­ More resistance is offered by 27
looked. Now he has to give up the ex­ tOe6 l:txh2+ 28 �gl l:tg2+ 29 �h l
change, and Black went on to win. although Black must be completely
winning.
In the following position White has 27 tOf4 0-1
•..

not been doing much right so Black
gets the chance to develop an initiative
without White ever becoming active.
This is one of the positions, unlike the
previous one, where Black can seize
space on the kingside by . . . g5.
IS exf4! 16 .i.xf4 gS 17 .i.e3 tOes
•.•
18 tOc2 .i.f6 19 g3 _£7 20 c4 tOg6?!
This forces through the ... f4 ad­
Black threatens ....i.g2+ and ...tOh3#
besides the more prosaic . . . l:txe2 and
. . . tOxe2.
In the following diagram Black
launches an aggressive kingside attack
and soon has a position similar to the
previous game.
14 gS! ? 15 .i.e2?!
•••

vance, but 20 . . . .i.d7 is better, in order 15 'it' c2 is the main move here.
to finish development. IS e4! 16 .i.d4
••
 7 tiJd5 33

T h e T heory of 7 lbd5
B 1 e4 cS 2 tQf3 tQc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tQxd4
tQf6 5 tQc3 e5 6 tQdb5 d6 7 tQd5
tQxd5 8 exd5 (D)

Rowson - Sutovsky
Hoion jr Ech 1995

White wisely declines the sacrifice.

After 1 6 fxe4 f4 ! 17 .i.d4 .i.f6 1 8 .i.g4
( 1 8 .i.xf6 1i'xf6 19 .i.g4 lOeS 20 .i.xc8
llaxc8 and the c-pawn falls) 1 8 . . . tQeS
19 .i.xc8 l:txc8 20 .i.xeS .i.xeS 21 1i'd3
g4 Black is surely to be preferred
16... exf3 17 .i.xf3
1 7 gxf3 ! ? looks unnatural, but is
likely to be the better choice.
17 ... .i.f6 18 l:tc1 'ike7 19 b4 tQe5 20
cS lWg7!
The black attack is very fast now.
21 'i!i>hl g4 22 .i.e2 g3! 23 hxg3?
23 h3 is necessary.
23._ 'ikxg3 24 .i.f2 'ikg6 25 c6
White is just too late now.
25 ... f4 ! 26 cxb7 .i.xb7 27 .i.d4 f3!
28 pf3
28 .i.xf3 1i'h6+! 29 .i.h5 (only
move) 29 . . . .i.g7 is very good for Black.
28 ...'ikh6+ 29 <li>g2 'ikg5+ 30 'i!i>hl
30 'i!i>f2 '6'h4+ 31 'i!i>e3 .i.gS+ is no
solution.
Here Black has a choice:
A : 8 tQe7
••. 33
B : 8 tQb8!
••• 36
The latter is in fashion and for good
reason. It's much harder to adminis­
trate the white pieces after 8 . . . tQb8,
which is the reason for its popularity.
A second is that the black knight from
d7 can go either to eS or, if prevented,
to e4 via f6 or cS.
8 ... tQb4 9 c3 tQa6 1 0 .i.e3 fS 1 1
tQxa7 f4 1 2 tQxc8 fxe3 1 3 .i.bS+ 'i!i>f7
1 4 fxe3 'iWxc8 I S 0-0+ �g8 1 6 'iWf3
1i'c7 17 l:tf2 'iWe7 1 8 l:tafl and White's
attack is winning, Mestel-Delaney,
Bath Z 1 987.
A)
8 tQe7
•••

30 ... 'ikh4+ 31 'i!i>g2 'i!i>h8 32 l:tgl White has played various moves
.i.c8! here, but only two are to be taken seri­
The bishop returns with decisive ously:
power. A I : 9 c4 34
0-1 A2: 9 c3! 3S
 34 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
Otherwise 9 . . . a6 would be unpleas­
ant.
A 1)
9 e4 tO g 6! (D)
The most natural square for the
knight. From here it fights for control
over f4. Other tries have been.
a) 9 . . . .i.d7?? 10 tOxd6# ( 1 -0) Rid­
inger-Eggers, Pinneberg 1994. If Black
is the famous Danish stripper Kira
Eggers I would not be surprised.
b) 9 . . . a6?? 10 "a4 ! (someone - I
won't say their name - actually played
10 tOc3 here ! ) 10 . . . axb5 1 1 "xa8 and
White wins, Djurhuus-El Kher, Co­
penhagen 1 998.
c) 9 ... g6? 10 "a4.
d) 9 . . . f5 ! ? has been tried but after
1 0 "a4 �f7 1 1 "a3 tOg6 1 2 .i.d2
with the threat 13 .i.b4 White seems to
have a large plus.
e) 9 . . .tOf5 is less natural. In most
games with this variation Black plays
. . . tOh4-g6 without in any way having
made sense of the position of the
knight on f5 . 1 0 .i.d3 .i.e7 1 1 0-0 0-0
12 a4 a6 13 tOc3 a5 14 tOb5 tOh4 15 f4
f5 1 6 .i.e3 exf4 17 .i. xf4 tOg6 with
more or less equal chances, Jurcisin­
Fiala, Tren�in 199 1 .
10 .i. e2
a) 10 "a4 .i.d7 1 1 "b4. In this po­
sition various attempts has been made,
but none successful. I can ' t see any
problems for Black after 1 1 . . . .i.c8 1 2
.i.e3 a5 1 3 "a3 b6 followed b y . . . .i.e7
and . . . f5-f4.
b) 1 0 h4? ! a6 1 1 h5 axb5 1 2 hxg6
fxg6 13 cxb5 .i.e7 14 .i.e3 .i.g5 1 5
"d2 .i.xe3 1 6 fxe3 ? ( 1 6 "xe3 i s nec­
essary, even though Black is still
better) 16 . . . 0-0 17 a3 .i.g4 ! 1 8 .i.e2
.i.xe2 19 "xe2 "a5+ and Black is on
the verge of winning, Zhuravliov­
Sveshnikov, Jurmala 1 995.
c) 10 .i.e3 a6 1 1 tOc3 .i.e7 12 f3
0-0 1 3 .i.d3 .i.h4+?! ( l 3 . . . .i.g5 1 4
"d2 .i.xe3 1 5 "xe3 f5 i s the right
path, leading to a fine fighting posi­
tion) 14 g3 .i.g5 15 "d2 .i.xe3 1 6
"xe3 .i.h3 ? ! 1 7 O-O-O! .i.d7 1 8 �bl
f5 19 c5 and White is better, Taulbut­
Wirthensohn, Bern 1977.
d) 10 .i.d3 .i.e7 1 1 0-0 (presum­
ably the best; 1 1 .i.e3 a6 1 2 tOc3 0-0
13 "b3 .i.g5 14 .i.b6 "e7 15 c5 e4 !
16 cxd6 "e5 17 .i.c2 f5 1 8 ..-b4 tOh4
1 9 �fl .i.d7 20 a4 l:ae8 with a crush­
ing position for Black, M.Schlosser­
Borik, Vienna 1 986) 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 :el
f5 13 .i.e3 a6 14 tOc3 .i.f6 1 5 f3 e4 16
fxe4 f4 gives Black a strong initiative,
Coudari-Rohland, Montreal 1 980.
10 ... .i.e7 11 0-0 0-0 12 .i.e3 a6 13
tOe3 .i. g 5 14 'it'd2
14 .i.xg5 "xg5 1 5 �4 "d8 1 6
'il'd2 tOf4 1 7 g3 f5 ! 18 gxf4 fxe4 1 9
fxe5 dxe5 2 0 'ife3 l:f4 led to a victori­
ous attack in Pekacki-Zeziulkin, War­
saw 1992.
14 .i.xe3 15 fxe3
•••
Now 15 ..... b6? 1 6 �h l f5 17 tOa4
"a7 1 8 "b4 ! "xe3 1 9 :ael :r6 20
 7 ttJd5
c 5 gave White a good game in Obli­
tas-Gretarsson, Elista OL 1 998, but
15 . . . f5 ! is the right move. White must
then decide whether he wants to face a
black knight on e5 or to be subjected
to a vicious kingside attack. Also he
has to find a future for his bishop.
Probably 16 �h5 !? 'i!fh4 17 �xg6
hxg6 is the critical test of the idea.
A2)
9 c3! (D)
B Other tries:
As far as 1 know, this is an idea from
Yudasin and certainly the only move
to present Black with any problems.
The key idea is to keep c4 vacant for
the queen.
9 tDfS
...
Other tries:
a) 9 . . . f5? (I don't understand why
this horrible move has been played
several times, but it has) 10 'i!fa4 c;Pf7
1 1 'i!fb4 (this seems to be the refuta­
tion) l l ...tDg8 ( l l ...tDxd5 12 �c4 �e6
1 3 'i!fb3 tDf4 14 �xf4 d5 1 5 0-0-0
dxc4 16 l:txd8 cxb3 17 l:txa8 bxa2 1 8
'it?c2 exf4 1 9 b3 ± Priepke-Weber,
corr. 1 986) 1 2 �e3 f4 13 �d2 a6 1 4
tDa3 tDf6 1 5 g3 fxg3 1 6 hxg3 �f5 17
�g5 b5 1 8 �g2 �e7 1 9 c4 'i!fd7 20
35
0- 0 l:tab8 2 1 cxb5 axb5 22 l:tac 1 l:tb7
23 l:tc6 with an overwhelming advan­
tage for White, Htibner-Garcia Pal­
ermo, Bundesliga 1989/90.
b) 9 . . . tDg6? 10 'i!fa4 �d7 1 1 'i!fc4 !
l:tc8 ( 1 1 ... �xb5 is necessary, but White
should be enjoying the ending after 1 2
'i!fxb5+ 'i!fd7 1 3 a4 a6 1 4 'i!fxd7+ c;Pxd7
15 a5, Ermenkov-Suradiradja, Albena
1 977) 1 2 'i!fb4 l:tc5 (what else?) 1 3
�e3 l:txd5 1 4 tDxa7 e4 1 5 'i!fxb7 1 -0
Wedberg-Lyrberg, Stockholm 1 995 .
Black just never got going in this
game.
10 a4
a) 10 �d3 �e7 1 1 0-0 a6 12 tDa3
0-0 13 tDc4 b5 14 tDe3 tDxe3 15 �xe3
f5 16 f4 �f6 1/2-1/2 Cuijpers-Ikonni­
kov, Clichy 1 993.
b) 1 0 'i!fa4 ? ! �d7 1 1 'i!fb4 ( 1 1 �d3
g6 ! does not give White anything)
1 1 . . .a6 1 2 tDa3 'i!fc7 1 3 �d3 �e7 14
0-0 0-0 and Black is doing fine, Ma­
rino-Griffa, Corsico 1 992.
10 ..�e7 11 �d3
.
1 1 �e2 0-0 12 0-0 tDh4 13 c;Ph 1 f5
1 4 f4 00 1 5 tDa3 exf4 1 6 �xf4 tDg6 is
hardly any better for White, Ghinda­
King, Dortmund 1 986.
11 ... 0-0 12 0-0 tDh4
1 2 . . . a6 would be wrong. The white
knight has no better future than going
to c4 via a3.
13 f4!
a) 1 3 �e3 (provoking 1 3 . . . a6, but
maybe the bishop is not well placed
here) 1 3 . . . a6 14 tDa3 f5 15 f3 �g5
( l 5 . . . g5 ! ? with the idea of 16 . . . e4 ! 1 7
fxe4 f4 1 8 �f2 tDg6 i s a try) 1 6 'i!fd2
�xe3+ 17 'i!fxe3 f4 1 8 'i!fe2 'i!fg5 1 9
tDc 4 l:tf6 with a dangerous attack in
Soloviov-Gagarin, Smolensk 1 99 1 .
36 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
b) 1 3 "c2 f5 14 f4 lOg6 15 fxe5
dxe5 ! ? (normal is 1 5 . . . ibxe5 but Black
wants it all ! ) 1 6 .i.xf5 .i.c5+ 1 7 �h l
.i.xf5 1 8 :xf5 "d7 1 9 :xf8+ :xf8 20
"e2? (the necessary 20 "d 1 1i'g4 2 1
.i.d2 "e4 would also give White a se­
rious headache) 20 . . ...g4 ! 0- 1 Perez
Pardo-Hamdouchi, Ceuta 1 992.
13 ...a6
1 3 . . .exf4 14 .i.xf4 lOg6 15 .i.g3
lOe5 16 a5 a6 17 1Od4 .i.f6 1 8 .i.e2 g6
1 9 h3 .i.g7 with very little if any ad­
vantage for White, Matulovie-Moutou­
sis, Vrnja�ka Banja 1 990.
14 1Oa3 exf4
14 . . . f5 1 5 lbc4 1Og6 1 6 g3 ( 1 6 a5? !
ibxf4 1 7 .i. xf4 exf4 1 8 :xf4 g 6 1 9
: n .i.d7 2 0 lOb6 :b8 2 1 1Oxd7 "xd7
22 "a4 "c7 23 :ael .i.f6 with an in­
teresting position where Black is no
worse) 16 ... exf4 17 gxf4 .i.d7 18 a5
.i.b5 1 9 1Ob6 .i.xd3 20 "xd3 :b8 2 1
.i.d2 gives White a n advantage, Kuz­
netsov-Pronitsin, Russia 1 992. Black
has obvious problems with the coordi­
nation of his pieces: look at the g6-
knight!
IS .i.xf4 CS
1 5 . . . lOg6 1 6 .i.xg6 ! hxg6 1 7 lbc4
"c7 ( l 7 . . . b6? ! 1 8 :el gives White
nothing but j oy; 17 . . . .i.f5? 1 8 :el :c8
1 9 "b3 .i.d3 20 1Ob6 and White's po­
sitional advantage is almost decisive)
1 8 b3 .i.f5 1 9 a5 .i.e4 20 :e l f5 2 1
"d2 l:lae8 2 2 :ad l "d8 and although
Black created enough counterplay to
draw in Ye Jiangchuan-Novik, Mos­
cow 1 992, he shouldn't try this again.
16 tbc4 1Og6 17 .i.e3 1Oes 18 .i.b6
1We8 19 .i.d4
White has an advantage, Narciso
Dublan-Gonzalez Velez, Barcelona
1 995.
B)
8 ... lOb8! (D)
w
Here White has two main options:
B l : 9 c4 37
B2: 9 a4!? 42
9 .i.e3 .i.e7 10 "d2 a6 1 1 lOa3
lOd7 ! 1 2 lOc4 0-0 1 3 .i.e2 f5 14 f4
exf4 1 5 .i.xf4 lOc5 and Black is doing
fine, Oll-Jamieson, Adelaide 1 990.
9 "f3 ! ? seems like someone com­
bining the Scholar's Mate with In/or­
mator! The idea of attacking d6 has
enj oyed some success, but I doubt
whether it is sound. 9 . . . .i.e7 1 0 .i.d2
( 1 0 "c 3 ! ? lOa6 1 1 .i.e3 f5 1 2 .i.xa7
0-0 gives Black good play for the
pawn) 10 ...ibd7 ( l 0 ... a6 1 1 1Wa3 ! helps
White; 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 "a3 .i.f5 12 c4 lba6
1 3 .i.e2 also seems better for White)
1 1 .i.b4 ibf6 12 "a3 ! 0-0 and now:
a) 1 3 c4 ! ?
b) 1 3 .i.xd6 (possibly not the best)
1 3 . . . .i.xd6 14 lOxd6 lOxd5 1 5 :d l
lOf4 and now instead of 1 6 .i.c4??
(Nyffenegger-Molet, Zurich 1 992)
White can get a clear edge with 16 g3
lOe6 17 c3.
c) 13 .i.c4 ! seems very strong.
13 . . ...b6 14 0-0 a5 ( l 4 .. ..i.i5 15 .i.xd6
 7 liJd5
.i.xd6 16 "xd6 is also much better for
White) 1 5 .i.xd6 .i.xd6 l 6 "xd6 "xd6
l 7 lZ'lxd6 AdS 18 lZ'lb5 .i.f5 1 9 Aae l !
is very good for White.
B1)
9 c4
The standard move here, but cer­
tainly not a successful one.
9 .i.e7 (DJ
•••
a) 9 ... lZ'la6? 10 .i.e3 b6 1 1 "a4 'ii'd7
1 2 c5 1-0 Ridameya-Otazu, Saragossa
1992.
b) 9 . . . a6? ! (this move is recom­
mended in several places, but no de­
fence for the following manoeuvre is
suggested; anyway, the best Black can
ever hope to obtain is a transposition
to 9 . . . .i.e7) 10 "a4 lZ'ld7 ( 1 0 . . . .i.d7 1 1
'ii'a3 .i.xb5 { not better is 1 1 . . ..i.f5 1 2
.i.d2 .i.e7 1 3 .i.b4 0-0 14 lZ'lxd6 a5 1 5
.i.c5 b6 16 lZ'lxf5 .i.xc5 17 "b3 .i.b4+
1 8 <iPdl ..g5 19 lZ'le3 and White con­
verted his material advantage in
Nurkiewicz-larowski, Mamaia U- 12
Wch 1 99 1 } 1 2 cxb5 lZ'ld7 1 3 bxa6
bxa6 14 .i.e3 a5 15 .i.b5 led to victory
for White in Wienkamp-Wantscher,
Dortmund 1 990) 1 1 'ii'a3 ! ( 1 1 c5 has
also been played, but this is the critical
test) 1 1 . . .lZ'lc5 ( 1 l . . .lZ'lb6 12 .i.e3 ! .i.e7
{ 12 . . . axb5 1 3 .i.xb6 Axa3 14 .i.xd8
lta4 15 b3 Aa3 16 .i.b6 bxc4 17 .i.xc4
is better for White as wel l } 13 lZ'lc3
0-0 gives White a slight edge, but
maybe it's Black's best option) 12 b4
lZ'le4 ( 1 2 . . . .i.f5 1 3 "f3 .i.e4 1 4 'ii'e3
axb5 15 bxc5 is rather complicated but
seems to favour White) 1 3 .i.d3 .i.f5
14 lZ'lc3 lZ'lxf2 15 .i.xf5 lZ'lxhl and now,
rather than 1 6 .i.e3 (Genduso-Hofene,
Bad Worishofen 1 988) 1 6 . . ...h4+ 17
g3 'ii'x h2 1 8 "a4+ b5 1 9 lZ'lxb5, which
37
is unclear after 1 9 . . . .i.e7 or 19 . . /J;e7 ! ?
(with the point 20 lZ'lxd6 �f6 ! ), 1 6
'ii'a 4+! b5 ( 1 6 . . . <iPe7 17 .i.g5+ f6 1 8
.i.e3 i s bad for Black too) 17 cxb5
should win for White .
c) 9 . . . lZ'ld7 and now:
c l ) 10 b4? a6 1 1 'ii'a 4 .i.e7 12 c5
0-0 13 cxd6 .i.f6 14 .i.e3 lZ'lb6 15 "a5
lZ'lxd5 1 6 lZ'lc7 lZ'lxe3 1 7 fxe3 'ii' xd6 1 8
lZ'lxa8 e4 and Black obtained a win­
ning attack in Kiselev-Ivanov, USSR
1986.
c2) 10 .i.e2 .i.e7 1 1 0-0 a6 1 2 lZ'lc3
0-0 is likely to transpose to Line B 14.
w
White now has the following op­
tions:
8 1 1 : 10 cS? ! 38
8 1 2 : 1 0 .i.d3 38
813: 10 .i.e3 39
814: 10 .i.e2 39
10 f4? ! seems very risky. 1 0 . . . exf4
1 1 .i.xf4 0-0 and now:
a) 12 "c2 ? ! is reckless and care­
less. Black should now play the obvi­
ous 1 2 . . . a6, giving him a far better
position. Instead 1 2 . . . .i.h4+? starts an
enterprise that seems promising, but
should lead to damnation: 1 3 g3 Ae8+
14 �f2 'ii' f6 15 �g2 g5 ! ? (the basic
38 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
idea here must be to generate confu­
sion; 15 . . . �f5 16 �d3 �xd3 17 .xd3
.xb2+ 18 �h3 benefits White) 1 6
�xd6 ! ? (here White can also grab
material directly with 16 liJc7 gxf4
1 7 liJxe8, which looks rather good, as
does the similar 1 6 liJxd6, but he in­
stead chooses the more practical so­
lution of keeping the bishop) 16 . . . a 6
1 7 liJc7 l:te3 ! (still trying hard) . Now :
a l ) 1 8 liJxa8? leads t o a draw after
the following complications: I 8 . . .•xd6
1 9 � g l ! ( 1 9 gxh4? 'i'f4 20 ..sgl l:tf3
2 1 h3 ( the only move ) 2 1 . . .�f5 ! 22
'i'e2 'i'd4+ 23 Wg2 �xh 3+! 24 l:txh3
'i'g4+ 25 Whl l:txh3+ 26 �xh3 'i'xe2
and Black must be winning due to the
discoordination of the white pieces)
19 .. . :xg3+! 20 hxg3 .xg3+ 21 �g2
.e 3+ 22 �fl .f4+ 23 �gl 'i'd4+
w ith perpetual (and not 23 . . . �f5 24
l:txh4 !).
a2) 1 8 .f2 ! �h3+ 1 9 � g l l:tf3 20
•e2?? (20 �e7 ! ! +-) 20 . . .. d4+ 0- 1
Luett-Petri , Dortmund 1 987 .
b) Much better is 12 �e2, trying to
find the way back to the standard lines.
StilI, Black must be able to exploit the
move-order with an early . . .f5 and
. . . g5.
B11)
10 cS?!
This i s not very strong. White im­
mediately gets into difficulties over
the d5-pawn.
10 0-0 11 �e2
•••
Or:
a) 1 1 cxd6 �xd6 12 liJxd6 'i'xd6
1 3 �e2 �f5 14 0-0 �e4 gives White
nothing but problems.
b) 1 1 �c4 a6 1 2 liJxd6 �xd6 1 3
cxd6 .xd6 1 4 0-0 b5 1 5 �b3 �b7 1 6
�d2 a5 1 7 a3 liJd7 1 8 l:tc 1 liJc5 1 9
� a2 liJd3 2 0 l:t c3 e 4 with the better
game for Black, Dj uric-S aez, Andorra
1 997 .
c) 1 1 �e3 liJa6 12 cxd6 �xd6 1 3
liJxd6 'i'xd6 1 4 .d2 l:td8 1 5 �c4 liJc7
1 6 0-0 (Blehm- Degraeve, Cappelle la
Grande 1 995) 1 6 ... b5 ! ? gives White
severe problems: 17 �e2 ( 1 7 �d3 �b7
makes no sense for White, and 1 7 �b3
liJxd5 18 l:tfd I �e6 19 l:tac I 'i'e7 just
leaves him a pawn down) 17 . . . �b7
w ith an initiative.
11 liJa6 12 cxd6 �xd6 13 0-0
••
!iJc7 14 'i'b3?!
1 4 liJxd6 ? ! .xd6 gives White noth­
ing, but 14 �g5 f6 15 �e3 is equal.
14 liJxbS 15 WxbS fS 16 f4 "e7
•••
17 �h1 �d7 18 Wb3 �h8 19 �d3 b6
20 fxeS �xeS 21 �f4 �xf4 22 l:txf4
Wd6
Black is preferable, Berelovich­
Shariyazdanov, Sw idnica 1 997 .
B12)
1 0 �d3 86 11 !iJc3 0-0 12 0-0 fS 13
f3
The most popular, but maybe not
best. Other s:
a) 1 3 'iif h l liJd7 14 �c2 �g5 1 5
b 4 �xc 1 1 6 l:t xcl 'i'h4 1 7 'i'e2 b5 and
Black is doing fine, Soltis-Kudrin.
Lone Pine 1 98 1 .
b ) 1 3 f4 liJd7 1 4 Wh l e4 1 5 �e2
�6 16 �e3 lOc5 1 7 �d4 �d7 18 'i'd2
as with more or less equal chances,
Lopez-Muii.oz, Peru 1 994.
13...liJd7 14 �e3 gS 15 "c2 (D)
15 �e2?! e4 ! 16 �d4 ( 1 6 fxe4 f4 1 7
�f2 lOe5 guarantees Black a good
game) 16 . . .exf3 17 �xf3 � f6 1 8 nc I
We7 1 9 b4 toe5 and Black later con­
ver ted his advantage into a ful l poi nt
 7 fiJd5
in Rowson-Sutovsky, Holon U-20 Ech
1 995 (see p.33).
B The alternative 1 5 g3 ! would keep the
IS e4! 16 fxe4 f4 17 eSt
••.
Strictly necessary if White does not
want his pieces to stand in the way of
each other.
17."lLlxeS 18 Axh7+ �h8 19 Ad4
Af6 20 lLle2 lLlg4 21 Ae4 Axd4+ 22
lLlxd4 lLle3 23 "cl "f6 24 :reI Ad7
2S l:tac1 l:tfe8
The chances are roughly equal,
Chandler-Zsu.Polgar, Bie1 1 987.
8 1 3)
10 Ae3 a6 l l lLlcl 0-0 1 2 Ae2
12 Ad3 f5 1 3 f4 ! ( 1 3 f3 e4 ! ? 14
fxe4 f4 1 5 Af2 lLld7 16 1i'c2 lLle5 with
compensation, Feibert-Heckler, Witt­
lich 1983) 13 . . . lLld7 14 0-0 with an in­
teresting game ahead.
12 1i'd2 (the beginning of a mis­
taken plan) 12 . . . f5 1 3 g3 lLld7 14 Ae2
( 1 4 f4? exf4 15 gxf4 Ah4+ 1 6 �dl
Af6 1 7 �c2 lLlc5 1 8 b4 lLle4 1 9 lLlxe4
fxe4 ! { the simplest } 20 l:tc l Af5 and
Black is on the verge of winning, Arba­
kov-Gorelov, Uzhgorod 1 988) 14 . . . g5
15 1i'c2 e4 leads to a very unclear
struggle which is very hard to evalu­
ate. I would instinctively prefer Black.
39
12 fS 13 f4 Af6 14 'ili'd2 lLld7
•••
Now 1 5 O-O?! exf4 16 Axf4 g5 ! 1 7
Axd6 1i'b6+ 1 8 c 5 lLlxc5 1 9 Axc5
1i'xc5+ gave Black the advantage in
Righi-Fulton, Thessaloniki OL 1 984.
game level.
814)
10 Ae2 a6
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 0-0 f5 gives White the
extra possibility 1 2 c5, but it is not
very strong. The only real argument for
playing . . a6 is to prevent the knight
.
from going to d4 later, or snatching the
a7-pawn following Ae3. 12 . . .lLla6! 1 3
f4 (also not very good, but Black is
fine in any case) 13 ... e4 14 lLlxd6
Axd6 15 cxd6 1i'xd6 16 b3 l:td8 17
Ab2 lLlc7 18 Ac4 b5 19 Ae5 1i'b6+
20 Ad4 1i'b7 ! -+ Bokelbrink-Scher­
mer, Pinneberg 1 996.
l l lLlc3 0-0 12 0-0 fS (D)
Obviously the most natural move.
Others:
a) 12 . . . Af5 ? ! (why? The bishop is
not doing any good here) 1 3 f4 ( 1 3
1i'b3 1i'c7 1 4 Ae3 lLld7 1 5 lLla4 b 6 1 6
Axb6 lLlxb6 1 7 1i'xb6 1i'xb6 1 8 lLlxb6
l:tab8 19 c5 dxc5 20 lLlc4 assures White
the better game, Rigo-Gueci, Chianci­
ano 1 989) 1 3 . . .exf4 14 l:txf4 Ag6 1 5
J:. n Ag5 16 Axg5 1i'xg5 1 7 1i'd4 lLld7
1 8 b4 ;!; Anglada-Otazu, Saragossa
1 992.
b) 12 . . . lLld7 ! ? is an alternative
way. The logical move for White here
is 1 3 a3 to continue with his queen­
side expansion, when it is not clear
whether Black has anything better
than returning to the main lines with
l3 . . . f5 . Instead 1 3 Ae3 gives Black a
chance to try out his idea: 1 3 . . . Ag5 1 4
40 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
'iWd2 i.xe3 1 5 fxe3 f5 1 6 b4 b6 17
:ac l g6 1 8 :c2 h5 ! ? leading to a dou­
ble-edged game, Chevaldonnet-Simic,
Pemik 198 1 .
w with 14 i.e3 f4 15 i.d4 trying to pro­
White now has a great variety of
options:
B14 1 : 13 £3 40
B142: 13 £4 41
B143: 1 3 a3 42
Or:
a) 1 3 b4 lLld7 14 i.b2 b6 15 'iWb3
�h8 16 :adl i.f6 17 :fe l 'iWe7 1 8
i. n g 5 1 9 lLle2 'iW g7 i s very promising
for Black, but White also has played
very slowly, Florjancic-Podlesnik,
Bled 1 992.
b) 13 :el !? is not a bad idea, but it
should be rather harmless. 13 ... lLld7
14 i.n i.g5 1 5 b4 e4 1 6 i.b2 lLle5
looks more or less 0 K for Black, but a
new path is needed, Jukic-Zelenika,
Tucepi 1 996.
c) 13 a4 lLld7 1 4 a5 i. f6 15 :a3 e4
16 b4 i.e5 17 'iWd2 :b8 (too slow;
Black should try to develop a kingside
attack at once) 1 8 :el ! ? (with a com­
binational idea; Bjarke Kristensen is
known for this kind of edgy chess)
18 . . .lLlf6 19 f4 exf3 20 i. xf3 lLlg4 2 1
i.xg4 fxg4 22 :xe5 ! ? dxe5 2 3 c 5 with
an complicated struggle ahead, which
White won in Kristensen-Borge, Tors­
havn 1 997.
d) 13 :bl lLld7 ( 1 3 . . . e4? ! , as in
Dewenter-Reinderman, Cappelle la
Grande 1 996, should be put to the test
voke Black into 15 . . . f3, which cannot
be completely sound; Black has not
developed at all ! 15 . . . i.f5 16 i.g4 !
'iWc8 17 i.xf5 'iWxf5 1 8 :e 1 is virtu­
ally winning for White) 14 b4 and
then:
dl) 14 ... e4 15 i.e3 i.f6 16 i.d4 i.e5
1 7 c5 'iWf6 1 8 i.xe5 'iWxe5 ( 1 8 . . . lLlxe5?
19 c6 ! lLlf3+ ! ? 20 gxf3 'iWxc3 2 1 'iWcl
'iWf6 22 f4 'iWh4 23 � h l :r6, Ye Jiang­
chuan-Chekhov, Beijing 1 99 1 , 24 :b3 !
±) 1 9 lLla4 :b8 20 'iWd2?! (20 c 6 !
looks like a n obvious improvement,
ensuring White a good game) 20 .. .f4
2 1 :re 1 b5 22 cxb6 lLlf6 ! with a prom­
ising position for Black, Short-Van der
Wiel, Brussels 1987.
d2) 1 4 ... i.f6 15 i.e3 b6 16 f3 :b8
and Black enters the middlegame with
a fine position, Agopov-Pihlajasalo,
Turku 1 993.
8141)
1 3 £3
Even though this move is not di­
rectly bad, it cannot be recommended.
Sure, it prevents . . . e4, but the weaken­
ing of the kingside is too great. Black
just goes for another strategy.
13 lLld7 14 :bl
••
1 4 i.e3 ? ! :r6 1 5 'iWc2 f4 1 6 i.f2
: h 6 ( Black's attack is already very
strong - and White has not started at­
tacking on the queenside yet!) 1 7 :rd l
'iWe8 1 8 lLle4 'iWh5 1 9 h3 lLlf6 20 �f1
 7 tiJd5
l:tg6 2 1 lL1xf6+ gxf6 22 i.d3 l:txg2! 23
<;Pxg2 i.xh3+ 24 <;Ph2 <;Ph8 25 i.g6
hxg6 26 'ifb3 <;Pg7 27 i.b6 'ifh4 28
l:td2 'if g3+ 29 <;PhI l:th8 0- 1 Ledic­
Ivanovic, Vinkovci 1 982. This game
should be learned by heart - either to
avoid losing like this or to enjoy a sim­
ilar pleasure.
14 i.gS
•.•
14 . . l:tf6 ! ? is an option. I am not
. Normal moves should give Black a
sure that this is equally strong as a re­
sponse as to 14 i.e3, but I find it hard
to believe it is bad.
15 b4 b6 16 i.xgS 'ii' xgS 17 "cl
'ii'h4!
= Popovic-Tzermiadianos, C a�ak
1 995 .
8142)
13 f4 i.f6 (DJ
13 . . . lLId7 14 �hl �h8 15 i.e3 i.f6
1 6 l:tc l exf4 17 i.xf4 i.e5 1 8 b4 as 1 9
a3 axb4 20 axb4 i.xf4 2 1 l:txf4 'ife7
22 i.d3 lL1e5 and in this position Black
is definitely fine, Szonyi-Vigh, Zala­
karos 1 996.
w French Ch 1 996.
Now we consider two possibilities
for White:
B1421: 14 c,i;>hl 4 1
B1422: 14 g3 42
41
8 1 42 1 )
1 4 <;Phl lL1d7 1 S "c2
15 i.e3 exf4 1 6 i.xf4 lL1e5 17 l:tc l
i.d7 1 8 b4 l:tc8 1 9 c5 as 20 a3 axb4 2 1
axb4 'ife8 2 2 'ifb3 �h8 2 3 cxd6 g 5 24
i.d2 'ifg6 with a very promising posi­
tion for Black, Todorovic-V.Spasov,
NilGic 1 99 1 .
1 5 fxe5 doesn' t make much sense.
good game: 15 . . . i.xe5 ( 1 5 . . . ll:\xe5 ! ? ,
followed by . . . i.d7 and . . .l:t c 8 , i s an
idea) 16 i.f4 b6 (this and the follow·
ing rook manoeuvre look too inven­
tive) 17 l:tc l l:ta7 1 8 b4 'iff6 1 9 'ifd2
l:tc7 20 lLIa4 i.xf4 2 1 'ifxf4 with a
better game for White, Adams-Chand­
ler, British Ch (Plymouth) 1 989.
IS...exf4
1 5 . . . �h8 1 6 l:tbl b6 1 7 b4 l:tb8 1 8
i.e3 exf4 1 9 i.xf4 lLIe5 QC) Apicella -
Santo-Roman, Belfort 1995.
15 . . .g6 16 g3 l:te8 17 i.d2 b6 1 8
l:tael i.g7 1 9 b 3 � Tal-Tseshkovsky,
Riga IZ 1 979.
16 hf4 lL1eS
16 . . . i.e5 ?! 17 :ad l i.xf4 18 l:txf4
ll:\e5 1 9 b4 'ifg5 20 l:tdfl 'i!fh6 2 1 c5 is
better for White, Apicella-Degraeve,
17 i.e3 b6
Black would like to play 17 . . .i.d7 !?
( 1 8 b4? lLIxc4), but White can reply 18
'ifb3, targeting b 7 and d6.
18 b4
Now:
a) 18 ... l:te8 deserves attention.
b) 1 8 . . . lLIxc4 was given as 'only
move' by Yudasin, but it just leads to an
inferior position after 1 9 i.xc4 'ifc7
20 lLIa4 b5 2 1 lLIb6 l:tb8 (Yudasin-de
la Villa, Pamplona 1 992/3) 22 l:tac l
with the better game for White.
42 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
c) 1 8 . . . lLlf7 ! ? (an interesting idea)
1 9 c5? (this is the road to hell which
proves that Black has more resources
than Yudasin anticipated) 1 9 . . . bxc5 20
bxc5 l:[e8 21 'Ii'd2 dxc5 22 l:tac I lLld6
and Black later won in Grechikhin­
Ikonnikov, Perm 1 993.
8 1 422)
14 g3
This is probably the best, reinforc­
ing the f4-pawn.
14 ... lLld7 15 'ifcl exf4 16 gxf4
�d4+ ! ?
1 6 . . . lLlc5 1 7 �f3 �d7 (Furhoff­
Aagaard, Sweden 2000) 1 8 l:[bl 'ifb6
19 �h 1 a5 is unclear.
17 �h l lLlc5 18 �f3 �d7 19 :bl
19 �d2?! b5 ! 20 b4 lLle4 21 lLlxe4
fxe4 22 �xe4 �xal 23 �xh7+ �h8
24 l:tx al bxc4 is preferable to Black
according to Yudasin.
19 ... b5! 20 b4 lLle4
The complications eventually led to
a draw in Yudasin-Kramnik, Wijk aan
Zee FIDE Ct (7) 1 994.
8 1 43)
13 a3
This seems to be the critical test of
the 9 c4 line. Still, it is my firm belief
that Black is by no means worse in this
position.
13 . lLld7 14 b4 �f6
..
14 . . . e4? ! is premature. White is
now allowed to transfer the bishop to
d4 with no inconvenience. 1 5 �e3
�f6 ( 1 5 . . . f4 16 �d4 f3? ! 17 gxf3 exf3
1 8 �xf3 �f6 ! 1 9 �g2 gave White a
clear plus in Yudasin-C. Horvath, Le­
ningrad 1 989) 16 �d4 �e5 17 �xe5
lLlxe5 1 8 'ifd4 f4 ! ? 19 lLlxe4 f3 20
gxf3 'ifh4 gives Black compensation -
Yudasin.
14 . . . g5 !? is possibly too aggressive.
I don ' t have much faith in the move,
since White has not yet weakened his
dark squares . However, it cannot be
punished by 15 c5?! dxc5 16 d6 �f6
17 Wd5+ �h8 1 8 bxc5 because of
18 . . . WaS 19 �d2 'ifxc5 20 'ifxc5 lLlxc5
2 1 lLld5 lLlb3 ! (safer than 2 l . .. �d8 22
�3 lLld7 23 l:[ae l , which gives White
fine compensation for the pawn, Guth­
rie-Shaked, Webb 1 989) 22 �c3 (22
lLlxf6 lLlxd2 ! +) 22 . . . lLlxal 23 lLlxf6
l:[xf6 24 �xe5 �g7 25 l:[xal �d7 and
Black is no worse.
15 �b2
15 'ifb3 �h8 16 �h l b6 17 f3 �g5
and Black has a carefree life, Adams­
King, London 1 990.
15 ...e4
Black is fine. 16 lLla4?! (this cannot
be critical) 16 . . .�xb2 17 lLlxb2 lLle5 1 8
'ifd4 'iff6 1 9 l:[adl �d7 2 0 c 5 l:[ac8! +
Gerhold-Chemiaev, Bie1 1 992.
82)
9 a4! ? (D)
B
9 ... �e7 10 �e2
1 0 �e3 a6 I 1 lLla3 lLld7 12 lLlc4 0-0
1 3 a5 f5 14 f3 We8 15 'ifd2 lLlf6 1 6

ttJb6 l:tb8 17 i.d3 e4 = Dvoirys-Besh­
ukov, Novgorod 1999.
10 0-0 11 0-0 !iJd7
•.•
Or 1 1 . . . 5 , and now :
a ) 1 2 iLd2? (a rather nai've plan)
12 . . .ttJ d7 13 i.b4 ':f6 14 1id2 a6 I S
tOa3 as 1 6 i. c3 tOcs 1 7 to bS l:th6 and
Bla ck's attacking chances make his
game preferable, Gor dillo-Kharlov,
Saragossa 1 994.
b) 12 f4 a 6 13 tOa3 and then:
b I) 13 . . . bS ? ! . Black hopes for suf­
ficient counterplay on the queenside
to compensate for the pawn, but I
think White is better after 14 axbS
axbS IS iLxbS 'i'b6+ 16 �h I iLb7
( 1 6 .. . ':xa3? 1 7 l:txa3 1ixbS 1 8 l:tb3 !
+-) 1 7 c4 i.f6 1 8 1ie2 tOa6 1 9 i.e3
'i'c7 (Gaponenko-Kochetkov, Moscow
I 99S) and now the untangling 20 tOc2!
w ith the idea 20 . . . exf4 21 iLxf4 iLxb2
22 1ie6+ +- .
b2) 1 3 ... tOd7 1 4 ttJc4 e4 (l4 . . . i.f6 ! ?
is another idea; the pos ition after the
logical follow-up IS iLe3 exf4 1 6
l:txf4 iLgS 1 7 ':f3 tOes 1 8 tOxeS dxeS
1 9 iLcS ':f6 is very hard to assess
Fritz prefers White, but it's also very
good at avoiding getting mated !) I S
iLe 3 b 6 1 6 1id2 �h8 17 �h l with a
tiny pull for White, Ga lvez-Oliva,
Anda lucia Ch (Granada) 1 99 1 .
c ) 1 2 as a 6 1 3 tOc3 tOd7 1 4 'ii hl
�h8 IS f4 iLf6 16 i.e3 exf4 17 i.xf4
tOeS 1 8 1id2 iLd7 and if anyone is
better, it is White, Ivanov-Dolmatov,
Frunze 1 979.
12 .le3
Other tries in this position have not
yielded anything:
a) 12 f4 ! ? a 6 13 tOa3 bS ! ? 14 �hl
bxa 4 I S tOc4 exf4 (Rowson-Adams,
7 l'iJd5 43
London ( l ) 1 998) 16 i.xf4 tOcs 1 7
'i'd2 gives White compensation since
Black finds it hard to develop. Never­
theless, things are rather unclear.
b) 12 �h l a6 1 3 tOa3 fS 14 f4 iLf6
I S tOc4 tOb6! (this takes advantage of
the fact that b6 is still in his possession
- the obvious difference from 12 i.e3)
16 fxeS ? ! ( 1 6 as tOxc4 17 iLxc4 :.:)
16 . . . dxeS 17 tOe3 iLgS 1 8 c4 f4 and
Black has seized the initiative, Zelcic­
Sutovsky, Struga Z 1 995.
1 2...a6 13 lba3 fS 1 4 f4
For 1 4 f3 f4 ! ? see the Rowson­
Adams game in the introduction to the
chapter.
14 ... exf4 IS iLxf4 gS 16 iLe3 tOes
17 a51 ?
1 7 tOc4 ! tOxc4 ( 1 7 . . .f4 1 8 i.b6 1id7
1 9 tOxeS dxeS 20 c4 must be better for
White) 1 8 iLxc4 iL f6 1 9 iLd4 ;t o
17 .td7?1
•••
17 . . . 1ixaS ! is of course worth con­
sidering. I am not sure of the conse­
quences of 1 8 tOc4 1id8 19 iLb6 (this
must be the idea) 19 . . ..e8 20 tOxeS
- dxeS 21 c4 (2 1 d6 'i'c6 ! gives White
nothing) 21 .. .l:tf6 ! bu t everything seems
to work out. For example, 22 cS Ihb6
23 cxb6 iLcS+ 24 �h l iLxb6 with
equality.
18 .lb6 'i'e8 19 .lhS "cS 20 c4 f4
Now, rather than 2 1 cS ? ! dxcS 22
d6 iLf6 23 l:tc l i.c6 (23 . . . c4 ! leaves
matters undecided) 24 l:txcS 1ifS 2S
tOc4 .e4 26 'i'e2 'i'xe2 27 iLxe2 tOd7
28 l:txc6 bxc6 29 iLc7 l:tae8 30 iLf3
tOes 3 1 tOxeS l:txeS 32 d7 l:te6 33 iLg4
l:te4 34 l:t d l i.d8 3S iLb6 i.xb6+ 36
axb6 l:td8 37 b7 ':b4 38 l:te l +- Eme­
lin- Nedev, Elista OL 1 998, 2 1 'i'd4 !
gives White the better game.
5 The La rsen/ B i rd Variatio n
( S . . . iLe6)
In almost any book published on the
Sveshnikov, a substantial amount of
space has been used on S . . . �e6, also
known as the Larsen or Bird Variation.
I will break with tradition and just
demonstrate why Black refrains from
this line in modern chess (only a few
modern grandmasters play it, and it
seems not with satisfying results). The
die-hard fans will have to do some
work themselves. Yes , both of you
(sorry... ) .
1 e 4 c S 2 lOf3 lOc6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 lOxd4
lOf6 S lOc3 eS 6 lOdbS d6 7 �gS a6 8
lOa) �e6 (DJ
9 lOc4 :c8 10 lOdS!
White wins the dS-square. Other
moves are sometimes played, but are
not as good.
10 ... �xdS 11 hf6! gxf6
1 l . . . .. xf6 1 2 "xdS �e7 1 3 c3 0-0
14 lOb6 :c7 IS "d3 gives Black little
counterplay, Leko-Jamieson, S ydney
1 992.
12 'ir'xdS lOd4 (DJ
The alternatives have all been aban­
doned:
a) 12 . . . bS 1 3 lOe3 lOe7 ( l 3 . . . �h6?
14 lOfs lOb4 IS lOxd6+ �d7 1 6
"xf7+ ! �c6 1 7 "b7+ �cS I S :d l !
lOxc2+ 1 9 �e2 lOd4+ 20 :xd4 exd4
2 1 "dS+ �b6 22 lOxcs+ "xcS 23
"xd4+ �aS 24 �f3 +- Smagin-Khar­
lov, Cheliabinsk ECC 1 99 1 ) 1 4 "b7
"as+ IS c3 :c7 16 b4 :xb7 17 bxaS
�d8 I S a4 bxa4 1 9 :xa4 :bl+ 20
�d2 �6 2 1 :b4 Rohl and de Jesus.
Black must struggle hard to survive
the endgame after 2 1 . . .:xb4 22 cxb4
dS 23 exdS lOxdS 24 �xa6 lOxb4 2S
�c4, as the a-pawn is big.
b) 12 . . . lOb4 13 "d2 dS 14 exdS
lOxc2+ ( l 4 ..... xdS IS "xds lOxdS 16
0-0-0 : d S 1 7 �e2 bS I S lOaS �h6+
19 �bl 0-0 20 lOb7 :bS 2 1 lOcs and
the black position is close to collapse,
Blauert-Kleeschaetzky, 2nd Bundes­
liga 1 99617) IS "xc2 �b4+ 1 6 � d l
"xdS+ ( l 6 ... bS 1 7 "e4 bxc4 I S �xc4
"b6 19 :c 1 �d6 20 :c2 ± Schan­
dorff-Morovic, Copenhagen 1 9S2; re­
member that the opposite-coloured
bishops benefit the attacker, and Black
is most likely to be a victim in these
 The LarsenlBird Variation (8. . . �e6)
positions) 17 �cl ! 0-0 18 <ifib l :tdS
1 9 liJe3 l:txc2 20 liJxd5 ':xf2 2 1 J.c4
J.c5 22 a4 with advantage to White,
Ulybin-Manor, Tunja U-20 Wch 1989.
13 J.d3!
13 0-0-0 was the main line for some
time, but Black found a way out
a) 1 3 . . ...e7 14 c3 ':c5 1 5 liJxd6+
"xd6 16 "xd6 J.xd6 17 �bl �e7 1 8
cxd4 exd4 1 9 J.d3 with a preferable
endgame for White.
b) 1 3. . ...d7 14 ':xd4 exd4 1 5
"xd4 ! ? "e6 1 6 liJb6 ':c5 ( 1 6 . . ... xa2
17 liJxc8 J.h6+ 1 8 f4 J.xf4+ 1 9 �dl
"bl + 20 �e2 "xc2+ 21 �f3 J.e5 22
liJxd6+ �d7 23 "d5 J.xd6 24 "xb7+
tic7 25 tixa6 gives White a clear ad­
vantage) 1 7 liJd5 J.h6+ ( 1 7 . . . J.g7 ? !
1 8 'ifxc5 dxc5 1 9 liJc7+ �e7 2 0 liJxe6
fxe6 21 a4 ':d8 22 J.d3 was advanta­
geous for White in Shavtvaladze-Kun­
din, Mureck U- 1 8 Ech 1 998) 1 8 �bl
tie5 19 liJxf6+ �d8 20 "xe5 with
some advantage for White - Kundin
and Alterman.
c) 1 3 . . . b5 ! (the correct way to
play) 14 liJe3 J.h6 15 �bl J.xe3 1 6
fxe3 ': c 5 ( 1 6 . . . liJxc2? 17 'ifd2 a 5 1 8
':c l liJb4 19 a3 liJc6 20 ':xc6 ':xc6 2 1
J.xb5 1-0 Gross-Kleeschaetzky, Berlin
45
1 997) 1 7 1ib7 liJxc2 18 'ifxa6 �e7 19
J.d3 "c7 20 J.xc2 ':xc2 21 tixd6+
'ifxd6 22 ':xd6 ':xb2+ 23 �xb2 �xd6
24 ':dl + l/z -I/z Luther-Kern, Bundes­
liga 1 99617.
13 1We7
•••
1 3 . . . b5 14 liJe3 'ifa5+ 1 5 � "b6
1 6 c3 liJe6 1 7 g3 h5 1 8 h4 J.h6 1 9 liJf5
':d8 20 �g2 ':g8 2 1 �f3 J.f8 22 ':hdl
liJc7 23 'iVb3 'iVc6 24 a4 gave White an
obvious advantage in Dvoirys-Che­
khov, USSR 1980.
14 'i'aS (D)
B
14 ...':cS
The alternatives are virtually un­
playable:
a) 1 4 . . . ':xc4? 1 5 J.xc4 liJxc2+ 1 6
�e2 liJxal 17 ':c 1 ! J. h 6 1 8 J.xf7+!
gave White an enormous advantage in
Emelin-Kharlov, St Petersburg 1998.
b) 14 ... d5 1 5 liJb6 tic5 16 tixc5
':xc5 1 7 c3 dxe4 1 8 J. xe4 liJc6 1 9
0-0-0 J.h6+ 20 �bl ':b5 2 1 liJc4 0-0
22 liJd6 ':b6 23 liJf5 1 - 0 Balinov­
Hausrath, Budapest 1 999.
15 1M2 1Wc7 16 c3 liJe6 17 liJe3
J.h6 18 0-0 'iWb6 19 g3 ':c6 20 ':ael
':g8 21 �hl
White has some advantage, Vara­
vin-Kharlov, Elista 1994.
6 Wh ite plays �xf6 : The
Aba ndoned Li n es
1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4
�f6 5 �c3 eS 6 �bS d6 7 AgS a6
(D)
w tives :
This chapter contains the lines in­
cluding a white Axf6 followed by
. . . gxf6 which have for one reason or
the other been abandoned. I have not
tried in any way to cover the variations
in full, but have given the reasons why
they are no longer in fashion.
The coverage in this chapter is di­
vided as follows:
A: 8 Axf6?! gxf6 9 lt)a3 fS ! 46
B: 8 �3 bS! 9 Axf6 gxf6 47
In Line B, we only discuss side­
lines; the main variations form the
subject of Part 3 of this book (Chap­
ters 14- 1 7).
A)
8 Axf6?! gxf6 9 �3 CS !
O f course, 9 . . . b5 transposes t o the
Sveshnikov proper, but the text-move
takes advantage of White's sloppy
move-order.
10 exfS
White has a wide range of alterna­
a) 10 g3 fxe4 1 1 Ag2 �d4 ! (the al­
ternative 1 1 . . .Af5 12 �xe4 �d4 1 3
0-0 d5 1 4 �c3 Axa3 1 5 bxa3 Ae6 1 6
f4 "'a5 i s also obviously good, Berta­
Masat, Hungary 1 994) 12 Axe4 Ae6
1 3 �abl d5 14 Ag2 h5 15 0-0 h4 1 6
� 2 hxg3 1 7 hxg3 "'f6 1 8 �b3 "'h6
and Black went on to win in the game
Kirpichnikov-Timoshchenko, USSR
1966.
b) 10 "'h5 b5 1 1 �axb5 axb5 1 2
Axb5 Ab7 1 3 "'xf5 ( 1 3 Ac4 ! ? looks
like an improvement) 1 3 . . . Ag7 1 4
0-0-0 0-0 1 5 Axc6 Axc6 1 6 l:t d 3 Ad7
17 "'h5 Ae6 is better for Black, Lev­
chenkov-Sveshnikov, Jurmala 1 969.
c) 1 0 Ad3 l:tg8 ! 1 1 �c4 l:txg2 1 2
�e3 l:txf2 ! ! 1 3 �xf2 ( 1 3 h4 l:tf4 1 4
"'h5 i s mentioned i n all books a s un­
clear, but this is nonsense, as Black
should now play 14 . . . fxe4 15 Ac4 { 15
Axe4 "'b6 16 �d5 "'xb2 17 l:tdl
Ag4 ! and White can resign } 15 . . ....b6!
16 �d5 "'xb2 1 7 l:td 1 ... a3, when he
is completely winning) 1 3 . . ....h4+ 14
� g l d 5 15 �xd5 f4 1 6 "'el "'g5+ 17
� f2 �d4 18 �5 Axf5 19 exf5 "'h4+
 White plays h,f6: The Abandoned Lines
and White was slaughtered in Sireke­
Burke, corr. 1985.
d) 1 0 .i.c4 "'g5 (10 . . . :a7 !? is rec­
ommended by Sveshnikov, but the
text-move is better) 1 1 g3 ttJd4 ! 1 2
ttJd5 fxe4 1 3 ttJc7+ �d8 14 h4 ( 1 4
ttJxa8 .i.g4 1 5 "'c l "'h5 followed by
. . . .i.h6 and Black must win) 14 .. ....g6
15 h5 ! ( 1 5 ttJxa8? .i.g4 16 .i.xf7 "'f5
1 7 "'c l "'f3 -+ lMartin-Kesmacker,
corr 1 987) 15 . . ....g5 16 ttJxa8 .i.g4 1 7
'ti'c l ttJf3+ leads t o a draw.
e) 1 0 ttJc4 b5 1 1 ttJe3 f4 1 2 ttJed5
:g8 13 g 3 ! ( 1 3 a4 b4 14 ttJa2 Ab8 1 5
ttJc l :g6 1 6 ttJ b 3 .i.h6 1 7 g3 �f8 i s
rather unclear, Garcia Martinez-Espin­
oza, Mexico 1 99 1 ) 1 3 . . . b4 14 ttJe2
seems critical. White has the small
trap 14 . . .f5? 15 ttJexf4 ! +-, but some­
thing like 14 . . . .i.g7 would be more
normal.
10 ... .i.xfS 1 1 tDc4
Or:
a) I I ttJd5 .i.g7 12 c3 0-0 1 3 ttJc2
.i.e6 14 ttJce3 :c8 15 .i.e2 f5 gave
Black an advantage in Kayser-Rosseg,
Haarlem 1 987. Since Black didn't play
. . . b5 White has no initiative on the
queenside.
b) 1 1 .i.d3 .i.e6 12 .i.c4 .i.g7 1 3
.i.xe6 fxe6 and now:
b l ) 14 "'h5+ �d7 15 Adl �c7 16
ttJe4 d5 17 c4 ttJd4 1 8 cxd5 exd5 1 9
ttJc3 "'d7 2 0 0-0 :ad8 and White is
struggling to stay alive, Mayr-Manor,
Berlin 1 995.
b2) 1 4 ttJe4 d5 15 "'h5+ ( 1 5 "'g4?
"'e7 16 ttJg5 .i.f6 17 h4 h6 with a
better game for Black, Minic-Urzica,
Athens 1 976) 15 . . . �f8 1 6 ttJg5 "'e7 is
slightly better for Black, as the centre
should count.
1 1 ....i.e6 12 ttJdS
47
12 ttJe3 .i.h6 1 3 ttJcd5 ( 1 3 .i.d3? !
d5 1 4 ttJf5 .i.f8 15 "'g4 "'b6 1 6 ttJg7+
.i.xg7 17 "'xg7 0-0-0 with a good game
for Black, Torre-Jamieson, Haifa OL
1976) 1 3 . . . .i.xe3 1 4 ttJxe3 d5 1 5 .i.e2
0-0 1 6 0-0 f5 17 c3 f4 18 .i.g4 .i.f7 1 9
ttJc2 "'g5 2 0 .i.h3 �h8 and Black
must be preferred even though he isn't
a whole lot better, Volke-Babula, Bun­
desliga 1 998/9.
12 ... bS 13 ttJce3 .i.h6 14 g3 .i.xe3
IS ttJxe3 dS 16 .i.g2 e4!
16 . . . ttJe7 17 c3 0-0 18 "'h5 gives
White a chance to attack the black
centre.
17 0-0 0-0 18 1i'hS fS 19 a4 b4 20
:adl �h8
There is an unclear game in pros­
pect, Strenzwilk-Klein, New York
1 99 3 .
B)
8 ttJa3 bS! (D)
w
Strictly speaking, it is this move that
characterizes the Sveshnikov Varia­
tion, even though in common parlance
the name is often used to refer to the
whole Lasker-Pelikan (5 . . . e5) com­
plex.
9 .i.xf6 gxf6
48 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
9 . . . 'it'xf6 ? ! has also been played,
but this does n't make a very good im­
pression. 1 0 lLld5 'it'd8 and now:
a) 1 1 �xb5 ! ? axb5 12 lLlxb5 is
tempting. 1 actually played t his in a
game in 1994, but 1 no longer have the
score. The main point is that Black is
forced to play 12 . . . l:ta7 as 12 . . . l:ta4??
1 3 lLlbc7+ �d7 14 'it'g4+ mates.
b) 1 1 c4 ! ? b4? ( 1 1 . . .lLle7 12 cxb5
is awkward for Black as .. .f5 would
now expose his king) 12 'it'a4 ! is an­
other way of punishing Black.
c) 1 1 c3 �e7 12 lLlc2 0-0 gives
White an extra tempo compared to 9
lLld5 lines; he can secure an edge by
1 3 a4.
10 lLld5 (D)
1 0 lLlabl must be considered harm­
less: 1 O . . . �g7 1 1 �d3 f5 1 2 0-0 f4 1 3
lLld5 �e6 1 4 a4 b4 1 5 c3 bxc3 1 6
lLlbxc3 0-0 gave Black a good game in
Ivanovic-Velimirovic, Yugoslav Ch
1 984.
B e) 1 1 g4 (I don't have much faith in
10 £5
••.
1 O . . . �e7? (I put this move here, in­
stead of after 9 lLld5 �e7 1 0 �xf6
gxf6,just to illustrate how ridiculous it
is) 1 1 �d3 f5? (obviously wrong, but
what else? 1 1 . ..0-0 12 c3 �e6 1 3 lLlc2
f5 14 'it'h5 f4 15 g3 with an almost
winning advantage to White) 12 exf5
lLld4 1 3 f6 �xf6 14 c3 and White wins
material.
Now (after 1O . . . f5) White has a
range of possibilities. Note that the
main options, 1 1 exf5, 1 1 c3 and 1 1
�d3, are considered later in the book.
B l : 11 lLlxb5? 49
B2: 11 �xb5 49
B3: 11 g3! ? 52
Or:
a) 1 1 �d3 is the subject of Chapter
16.
b) 1 1 exf5 - see Chapter 17.
c) 1 1 c3 �g7 (not l 1 . . . fxe4? 12
�xb5 ! ±) play transposes t o later
chapters as follows:
c l ) 12 exf5 �xf5 - Chapter 17.
c2) 12 � d 3 and now 12 ... �e6 is
Line A of Chapter 1 6, while 12 . . . lLle7
1 3 lLlxe7 'it'xe7 is Line B of Chapter
15.
d ) 1 1 c 4 'it'a5+ 1 2 'it'd2 'it'xd2+ 1 3
�xd2 �h6+ 1 4 �dl 0-0 with good
counterplay - Krasenkow.
this, even though it is not easy to re­
fute) 1 1 . . .fxe4 1 2 �g2 �g7 1 3 �xe4
0-0 14 lLle3 'it'c7 15 c3 �b7 1 6 'it'd3
lLle7 1 7 �xh7+ �h8 1 8 �e4 �xe4 1 9
'it'xe4 d 5 2 0 lLlxd5 'it'c6 2 1 c4 l:tfdS 22
l:td 1 bxc4 23 lLlc3 l:td4 24 'it' xc6 lLlxc6
gave Black very good compensation
in Strobel-Wiemer, 2nd Bundesliga
1 989/90.
f) 1 1 'it'd3 fxe4 12 'it'xe4 �d7 Gust
as good is 12 . . . �g7 1 3 lLlf6+ �xf6 14
'it'xc6+ �d7 1 5 'it'xd6 'fIe7 1 6 0-0-0
'it'xd6 17 l:txd6 �e7 18 l:td5 f6 19 l:td2
�e6 with good compensation for the
pawn, Muratov-Timoshchenko, Beltsy
 White plays Lf6: The Abandoned Lines
1 977) 1 3 g4 :g8 14 .i.e2 �d4 15 .i.dl
:c8 16 c3 f5 and Black is better,
Durao-Gurgenidze, Biel seniors Wch
1 994. However, White must be able to
improve on this.
81)
1 1 �xbS?
This sacrifice is far too optimistic.
Black can count on a very good game
if he plays correctly.
l 1 ... axbS 12 .i.xbS (D)
1 2 .i.d7
. ••
12 . . . .i.b7 ! ? is probably not as good,
but very safe: 1 3 exf5 :a5 ! (the main
idea) 14 "'d3 ! ( 1 4 a4? lIxb5 15 axb5
�d4 1 6 �e3 .i.h6 17 0-0 :g8 1 8 f4
�f5 gave Black a winning attack in
Heimrath-Goetz, Mittelfranken 1 985)
14 ....i.g7 15 "'c4 :xb5 16 "'xb5 "'a5+
1 7 "'xa5 �xa5 '/2-'/2 Waldmann­
T.Horvath, Hungary 1 982.
13 exfS .i.g7! 14 a4
Following 14 "'g4 �f8 1 5 0-0 &a!7
1 6 .i.xd7 �xd5 1 7 .i.c6 �6 1 8 "'f3
lIc8 1 9 .i.a4 "'a5 20 .i.b3 h5 White 's
compensation for the piece appears in­
adequate, Herbrechtsmeier-King, Bun­
desliga 1 98516.
14 ... �d4 15 .i.xd7+ "'xd7
49
Now White has an unprepossessing
choice:
a) 16 �b6? "'c6 17 �xa8 �xc2+
18 �e2 �xal 19 "'xal "'e4+ is far
better for Black.
b) 16 0-0 "'b7 ! 17 c4 :c8 18 f6
.i.h6 1 9 "'d3 "'b3 is better for Black,
Olthof-Tiagunov, corr. 1 983-4.
c) 16 c3 "'xf5 ! ( 1 6 ...... b7 1 7 �e3
.i.h6 18 cxd4 .i.xe3 1 9 fxe3 "'xg2 20
:n "'xb2 '/2-1/2 Nunn-Adorjan, Skara
Echt 1 980) 1 7 cxd4 "'e4+ 1 8 �e3
exd4 19 "'c2 1i'xc2 20 �xc2 d3 2 1
�e3 .i.xb2 2 2 :a2 .i.c3+ 2 3 �dl :a5
+ (ECO).
82)
11 .i.xbS axbS 12 �xbS :a4! ( D)
This move has proved to be the best
over time and is the reason why almost
no one sacrifices the bishop any more.
Also 12 . . ....a5+ ! ? deserves attention,
but I have decided to concentrate only
on 1 2 .. . :a4, since it is clearly satisfac­
tory for Black, whether he is looking
for safety or wants to try for more.
13 �bc7+
Or:
a) 1 3 b4 ? ! (this is not sufficient)
13 ...:xb4 14 �bc7+ �d7 15 0-0 :g8!
50 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
1 6 lOxb4 ( 1 6 "h5 "g5 1 7 "xf7+
i.e7 and White is in bad shape)
16 . . . lOxb4 17 lOd5 lOxd5 18 "xd5
<ile7 and Black is better, Vitolin�­
Kishnev, lurmala 1984.
b) 1 3 c4 :txc4 and now:
b l ) 14 lObc7+ <ild7 transposes to
note 'c' to White's 14th move.
b2) 14 a-a ! ? has not yet been
tested. After 1 4 . . . i.g7 ( l4 . . . lOd4 1 5
b3 is not bad for White) 1 5 lOb6! :td4
1 6 lOxd4 lOxd4 1 7 lOxc8 1Wxc8 1 8
exf5 0-0 matters are unclear, even
though I would not fear playing the
black position.
13 <ild7 (D)
...
14 0-0
The main line and the only way to
cause Black any possible distress.
Other lines:
a) 14 exf5? lOe7 15 0-0 :td4 1 6
"e2 lOxd5 i s not good for White,
Levchenkov-Gorelov, lurmala 1 977.
b) 1 4 1Ob6+ <ilxc7 15 lOxa4 cannot
be recommended. Black will soon cre­
ate magic with his minor pieces after
1 5 . . . :tg8.
c) 14 c4 is not really dangerous for
Black, as White will run out of ammo
eventually. l 4 . . . :txc4 and now:
c l ) 1 5 1Ob6+ <ilxc7 1 6 1Oxc4 i.h6,
preventing :tc 1 , is much better for
Black, Zimmer-Antoszkiewicz, corr
1 98 1 .
c2) 1 5 "h5 :txe4+ 1 6 <i1fl "h4 1 7
"xf7+ i.e7 1 8 1Oxe7 ( l 8 1Oe6 i.a6+
1 9 <ilgl lOd4 20 lOxd4 :txd4 2 1 g3
:tf8 22 1Ob6+ <ilc6 23 "b3 :tb4 is no
better; Black won in Chiburdanidze­
Maksimovic, Smederevska Palanka
1 983) 1 8 . . . lOxe7 1 9 :tcl "h6 20 :tc2
i.b7 2 1 f3 :tb4. Black is obviously
winning and did so the most brutal
way in Dani-Zila, Hajduboszormeny
1 995 : 22 1Oe6 :tc8 23 :txc8 i.xc8 24
lOf8+ �d8 25 lOxh7 i.a6+ 26 <ilfl
:txb2+ 27 <ilg3 f4+ 0- 1 .
c3) 1 5 0-0 lOd4 1 6 lOa8 i.a6 17
lOab6+ �e8 1 8 lOxc4 i.xc4 1 9 :tel
i.h6 20 lOe3 i.e6 21 exf5 lOxf5 22
lOxf5 i.xf5 23 "f3 i.e6 24 a4 <ile7 25
"h5 i.d2 led to a black victory in
Rai.Garcia-Szmetan, Argentine Ch
(Quilmes) 1 980.
14 :txe4
...
14 . . ...g5 15 c4 :tg8 ! ( 1 5 . . . :txc4 1 6
b 4 i.h6 1 7 1Ob5 :td4 1 8 "a4, Nunn­
F.Portisch, Budapest 1 978, is very
risky for Black; Sveshnikov recom­
mends 1 8 . . . :txe4 without analysis, but
I do not believe this path can be rec­
ommended) 1 6 g3 :ta7 1 7 lOb5 :tb7
1 8 f4 (maybe White should play 1 8 a4
f4 1 9 a5 1Wh4 20 a6 fxg3 2 1 fxg3
:txg3+ 22 hxg3 "xg3+ with perpet­
ual, as given by Sveshnikov, though
Black might look for more) 18 . . ... h4
1 9 "f3 :txb5 20 cxb5 lOd4 2 1 "g2
1Wh6 with unclear consequences, but
Black might very well prove to be
better, Dittmar-Antoszkiewicz, corr
1 98 1 .
1 5 "h5 (D)
 White plays Lf6: The Abandoned Lines
Here Black has a number of possi­
bilities . Since this is the position I con­
sider critical I have decided to include
them all.
B21 : IS .....h4 5 1
B22: 1 S... liJe7 5 1
B23: I S ... liJd4! 5 1
821 )
I S.....h4
This seems very safe.
16 "xf7+ i.e7 17 g3 l:tg4 18 liJbS
f4 19 l:.adl fxg3
After 1 9 . . . l:tf8? ! 20 liJb6+ <it'd8 2 1
l:txd6+ ! ( 2 1 "'d5 fxg3 2 2 hxg3 l:txg3+
23 fxg3 "'xg3+ 24 "'g2 "'e3+ 25 <it'h l
'iWxb6 26 l:txf8+ i.xf8 27 "'g5+ <it'e8
28 "'h5+ �d8 only gives White a draw)
2 1 .. .i.xd6 22 "'d5 "'e7 2 3 "'xc6 (23
liJxc8 ! ?) 23 . . . i.b7 24 "'xd6+ 'iWxd6
25 liJxd6 White has the better ending.
20 fxg3 l:txg3+ 21 hxg3 "xg3+
with a draw, Coco-Pantaleoni, corr.
1983.
822)
IS ...liJe7 16 'lixn <it'c6 17 c4 "d7
Not 1 7 . . . liJxd5? 1 8 cxd5+ <it'b6 1 9
:re l "'d7 2 0 l:tc6+, when T.Horvath­
Jok�ic, Yugoslavia 1978 ended with
mate.
51
18 liJa8!
The only move. 18 "'h5 liJxd5 1 9
liJxd5 l:txc4, 1 8 lLle8 "'e6 1 9 "'h5 "'g6
and 1 8 liJf6 "'xc7 1 9 liJxe4 fxe4 20
:rd l l:tg8 are all good for Black.
18 liJg6!
•••
Again the only move. After 1 8 ...�b7
1 9 liJab6 "'c6 20 liJxc8 White wins.
19 liJb4+ IiPb7 20 "dS+ �b8 21
liJc6+!
White forces a draw. This is better
than 2 1 liJb6, when S veshnikov' s ana­
lysis runs 2 1 . . ....b7 22 "'b5 liJf4 23
liJ4d5 i.e7 24 a4 i.d8 25 a5 (25 liJxc8
�xc8 26 liJxf4 is better, but Black is
no worse) 25 . . . liJxd5 26 cxd5 l:td4 27
:rc 1 i.xb6 28 axb6 "'xd5 and Black
is much better.
21 ... liPxa8 22 "bS "b7
22 . . . "'c7 23 "'a4+ �b7 24 liJa5+
�b8 25 liJc6+ "'xc6?! is suggested by
Sveshnikov, but I think this is too opti­
mistic. White is better after 26 "'xc6
i.b7 27 "'b6 i.e7 28 a4 l:tc8 29 b3
even though it is complicated.
23 "as+ "a6 24 '¥JJc7 "b7 2S
"as+
1/2- 1/2
Griinfeld-Fleck, Lugano 1 980.
823)
IS ... liJd4!
This is a very sharp winning at­
tempt. I consider it the best move,
though it is very risky.
16 c3
An important alternative for White
is 16 "'xf7+ <it'c6 ! (the test of time has
proved that this is the best move) and
now:
a) 17 a4 "'d7 18 'iWh5 liJe2+ 1 9
�hl liJf4 20 liJxf4 'iWxc7 and Black is
better, Bryson-Lawton, Nottingham
1987.
52 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
b) 1 7 lLlb4+ �b7 1 8 lLlbS+ 'ifd7 1 9
'ifdS+ �b6 2 0 lLlxd4 (White's best
chance; 20 a4, Szabo-TRorvath, Ober­
wart 1979, 20 . . . lLlxbS -+) 20 . . . l:xd4
2 1 'ifb3 �a7 and Black is to be pre­
ferred.
16 lLle2+ 17 �hl �c6 18 g3 l:g8
•••
19 "(3 "xc7 !?
1 9 ... .i.e6 2 0 lLlxe6 fxe6 2 1 lLle3 is
also not clear.
20 ti::Jxc7 �xc7 21 "h5 l:g6 22
"xh7 .i.e6 !
22 . . . .i.b7 23 'ifxf7+ �b6 24 f3 !
stops the black attack.
23 l:adl l:eg4 24 'it'h8 l:tg8 25
"h3 f4
Black has a strong attack, but it is
uncertain whether this is enough for
the queen, Perenyi-TRorvath, Zamardi
1 979. Still, I feel it's worth a try.
B3)
11 g3 (D)
B axbS was fine for Black in Zapata­
This is probably the best of all the
secondary options considered in this
chapter.
1 1 fxe4
••.
1 1 . . ..i.g7 can be seen in Line D of
Chapter 14.
12 .i.g2 .i.g7
1 2 . . . ifS ! ? is a reasonable alterna­
tive. After 1 3 0-0 ( 1 3 f3 e3 14 lLlxe3
.i.d7 ! appears fine for Black, e.g. I S
'ifd2 .i.h6 with the threat o f . . . dS)
13 . . . .i.g7 14 l:el 0-0 IS c3 lLle7 16
lLlc2 l:c8 1 7 lLlxe7+ 'ifxe7 18 a4 'ifb7
1 9 axbS 'ifxbS 20 lLlb4 as 2 1 lLldS
l:fe8 22 .i.xe4 .i.e6 23 'ifd2 fS Black
had a good game in Adams-Van Wely,
Tilburg 1 998.
13 .i.xe4 .i.e6 14 cl l:c8 15 'Wh 5!
Clearly the most aggressive plan.
IS lLlc2 0-0 16 a4 bxa4 17 l:xa4 fS 1 8
.i.g2 as 1 9 lLlce3 l: b 8 2 0 lLlc4 e 4 2 1
0-0 lLleS � Lane-Timoshenko, Cap­
pelle la Grande 1 994.
15 ti::J e 7 16 l:dl l:c5
•••
This is the most complicated and
risky approach. S afer is 1 6 . . . lLlxdS 1 7
.i.xdS 'ifd7 1 8 0-0 ( 1 8 .i.xe6 ? ! 'ifxe6
1 9 lLlc2 0-0 20 0-0 fS 2 1 'ifh3 dS is
preferable for Black, Lanka-Vyzhman­
avin, Sverdlovsk 1 987) 1 8 . . . l:cS ! 1 9
.i.xe6 'ifxe6 2 0 lLlc2 0-0 2 1 lLle3 ( 2 1
'ife2 fS 2 2 f4 �h8 2 3 a4 l:c4 24 axbS
Yakovich, Santa Clara 1 990) 2 1 .. .fS
22 'ifh3 d5 23 a3 'iff7 and Black is OK,
though he over-pressed in Smirin­
Palac, Cap d'Agde 1 994.
17 ti::J b4 'Wb6 18 'Wg5 �f8 19 'We3
f5 !
1 9 . . . hS 20 O-O ! ? .i.h6 21 'iff3 �g7
22 lLldS gives Black some problems
according to Salov.
20 .i.g2 e4 21 0-0 a5!
An improvement over 2 1 . ..<;iIf7,
Lanka-Krasenkov, Tbilisi 1 985.
22 ti::J bc2 b4
Black has good prospects, Alek­
sic-Vukic, Cetinje 1 992.
7 9 tZJd5 �a5 +
1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4
lLlf6 S lLlc3 eS 6 lLldbS d6 7 .i.gS a6 8
lLla3 bS 9 lLldS 1i'as+ (DJ
For the last few years 9 . . ...a5+ has
been out of fashion. The game Ku­
preichik-Nikcevic gave the impres­
sion that the move is no good at all,
and I shared this view before I had
looked more deeply into the material.
Now I am not sure there is anything
wrong with 9 . . ...a5+. Of course, there
is the possible practical drawback that
White can repeat moves with 1 0 .i.d2
"d8 1 1 .i.g5, though Black can al­
ways return to the main line with
1 1 . . . .i.e7 ! ?
10 .i. d2
The alternatives cannot be recom­
mended:
a) 10 "d2? "xd2+ 1 1 .i.xd2 ( 1 1
�xd2 lLlxe4+ 1 2 �e3 lDxg5 1 3 lLlc7+
�d8 14 lLlxa8 d5 -+) 1 1 . . .lLlxd5 12
exd5 lLle7 13 c4 ( 1 3 0-0-0 lLlxd5 14 c4
bxc4 1 5 lLlxc4 .i.e7 16 .i.e3 lLlxe3 1 7
fxe3 .i.g4 wins for B lack, Korolev­
Svab, Decin 1997) 13 . . . bxc4 1 4 lLlxc4
lLlxd5 15 .i.e2 .i.e6 1 6 :d 1 .i.e7 1 7
.i.a5 :c8 1 8 b3 0 - 0 1 9 lLlb6 lLlxb6 20
.i.xb6 l:tc2 and White is lost, Mesza­
ros-Dederichs, Balatonbereny 1 995 .
b) 10 c3 lLlxe4 ! ( 1 0 . . . lLlxd5 1 1 exd5
lLle7 1 2 lLlc2 f6 1 3 h3 g6 is given by
ECO as unclear) and now:
b 1 ) 1 1 .i.e3 :b8 12 .i.d3 lLlc5 1 3
.i.c2 "d8 1 4 0-0 .i.e6 1 5 f4 lLle7 !
gives Black the better game.
b2) 1 1 "f3 lLlxg5 1 2 lLlf6+ �d8 !
1 3 Wxc6 l:tb8 14 0-0-0 ( 14 lLld5 .i.d7
is no good, but 14 We8+ �c7 1 5
lLld5+ �b7 ; looks like White's best)
14 . .. gxf6 1 5 :xd6+ �e7 1 6 .i.xb5
axb5 17 :hd l .i.h6 1 8 :d7+ ( 1 8 :xf6
:b6 ! wins on the spot) 1 8 . . . .i.xd7 1 9
:xd7+ �f8 2 0 "xf6 �g8 2 1 "xh6
lLle6 22 Wf6 :f8 and Black is close to
winning.
b3) 1 1 b4 Wxa3 12 .i. c 1 lLlxc3 ! 1 3
"d2 ( 1 3 .i.xa3 lLlxdl 14 :c 1 �d8 ! of­
fers White no compensation for the
pawns) 1 3 ...lbe4 14 "c2 lLld4 15 "xe4
Wa4 1 6 .i.d3 l:a7 17 0-0 (Blodshtein­
Al.Karpov, Tashkent 1 994) 17 . . . .i.e6!
gives White severe problems.
10 1i'd8 (DJ
•..
Here there are three lines for White;
it is not clear which is most critical.
A : 11 c4 54
B: 11 .i.d3!? 56
c : n lLlxf6+ 56
54 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian

but some other grandmasters have

played it from time to time, so maybe
there is more to be found here.
l3 .i.c4
1 3 lLlc3 lLlxc3 14 .i.xc3 axb5 1 5
.i.xb5 "b6 1 6 "e2 d5 1 7 0-0 .i.xa3 1 8
bxa3 0-0 1 9 .i.xc6 "xc6 2 0 "xe5 f6
2 1 "d4 l:txa3 = Nijboer-Koster, Dutch
Cht 1 994/5 .
l3 lLle7 (D)
.•.

Or:
a) 1 3 . . . lLld4 1 4 bxa6 l:tc8 1 5 "a4+
A) .i.d7 1 6 "a5 +- Hellsten-Denayer,
11 c4 lLlxe4 Antwerp 1 994.
Alternatives: : b) 13 . . . lLla5? is suggested by Kra­
a) l 1 . ..bxc4 1 2 lLlxf6+ "xf6 1 3 senkow, but after 14 .i.e3 lLlxc4 1 5
.i.xc4 .i.d7 1 4 l:tc l with a better game lLlxc4 axb5 1 6 .i.b6 "g5 1 7 lLlce3
for White, A.Kuzmin-Marjanov, Pan­ l:tc8 1 8 0-0 .i.e7 19 a4 Black is just
�evo 1 989. busted, Marjanovic-Nathanail, Korin­
b) l 1 .. .b4 1 2 lLlxf6+ "xf6 13 lLlc2 thos 1 999.
"g6 14 f3 l:tb8 1 5 lLle3 .i.e7 16 g3 0-0 c) 13 ... axb5 14 lLlxb5 "h4 (White
1 7 .i.g2 .i.d8 1 8 0-0 ± Petrushin­ is better after 14 . . . l:tc8 1 5 l:tcl ! ) 1 5
Semeniuk, USSR 1 976. "e2 ! ( 1 5 .i.e3 should be good too, de­
c) 1 1 . ..lLlxd5 ! ? 12 exd5 lLld4 1 3 spite Black's eventual victory in Bel­
cxb5 .i.e7 1 4 bxa6 0-0 1 5 .i.c4 f5 gave iavsky-Van der Wiel, Moscow IZ
Black compensation in Martinovic­ 1 982) 15 . . . lLlxd2 16 lLldc7+ �e7 17
Cvitan, Yugoslav Ch 1 98 1 but further .i.xe6 fxe6 1 8 lLlxa8 "b4 19 0-0-0 and
tests are needed before it is possible to White should be winning, although
evaluate this mess. this is really amazing stuff.
12 cxb5 .i.e6!
After 12 . . . lLle7 13 .i.e3 ! l:tb8 14
.i.c4 Black is in trouble: 14 .. ...a5+
( 1 4 . . . .i.e6 15 0-0 axb5 16 lLlxb5 .i.xd5
17 .i.xd5 lLlxd5 1 8 "xd5 lLlf6 19 "c4
h7 20 lLlc7+ �f8 2 1 l:tfd l gives
White the better game, Petrushin­
Timoshchenko, Tbilisi 1 974) 15 b4 !
(winning everything) 15 .....xa3 16 .i.cl
lLlc3 17 "d2 "a4 1 8 .i.b3 lLlexd5 1 9
.i.xa4 lLlxa4 2 0 "xd5 +- Mikhalchi­
shin-Timoshchenko, Tbilisi 1 974. As
far as I know Timoshchenko stopped
playing this line after these two failures, Now White can play:
 9 4:Jd5 'i'a 5+
A I: 14 0-0 SS
A 2: 14 �e3 SS
The alternative 14 .e2 has also
been tr ied: 14 . . . liJxdS I S 'i'xe4 liJf6
16 'i'c6+ �d7 17 'i'f3 dS I S �xdS
liJxdS 19 'it'xdS �xa3 20 bxa3 1/2 -1/2
Mnatsakanian-Nogueiras, Tbilisi 1 9S3.
A1)
1 4 0-0 �xdS
14 . . .liJxdS IS �xdS �xdS 16 �aS !
'i' xaS 17 'i'xdS gives White a clear
edge, Kupreichik-Nik�vic, Cattolica
1 992,
After 14 ... l::t cS IS lOxe7 i.. xe7 1 6
�xe6 fxe6 17 �e3 liJf6 I S bxa6 White
held an obvious advantage in Sanchez
Almeyra-Amura, Buenos Aires 1994.
15 i.. xdS
I S i.. a S 'it'xaS 16 i.. x dS J:[dS ! 17
�xe4 dS I S �d3 ( I S � c2 liJg6 19
bxa6 �xa3 2 0 �a4+ �e7 21 bxa3 l::t d6
co Womacka-Souleidis, Berlin 1 995)
IS . . . liJg6 19 lOc2 (Fernandez Garcia­
A ntunes, Seville 1 992) 1 9 . . . e4 20
'i'e l 'i'b6 2 1 bxa6 i..e7 22 i..e2 'i'xb2
should be OK for Black.
ISM.liJxdS 16 i.. aS liJdc3! 17 i.. x c3
liJxc3 18 bxc3 dS!
I S . . . i..e7 ? ! 1 9 'i'b3 .c.bS 20 c4 dS
21 cxdS 0 - 0 22 l::tf d l i.. x a3 23 'i'xa3
l:txbS 24 d6 gave White a substantial
advantage in the game Leko-San Seg­
undo, Moscow OL 1 994.
19 b6
Or: 19 'i'a4 axbS 20 'i'xbS+ 'i'd7 +;
1 9 lOc2 axbS 20 ttJe3 i.. c S 21 lOxdS
0-0 = ; 1 9 'i'b3 i.. x a3 20 'i'xa3 axbS 2 1
'it'cS ! .c. c S 2 2 'i'xbS+ 'i'd7 2 3 'i'b4
'i'c6 24 rue l f6 and Black is fine.
19 M. l:tb8 20 'i'a4+ 'i'd7 21 'lha6
i.. cS!
55
Not 2 l . ..�xa3?! 22 'it'xa3 J:[xb6 23
J:[abl , w hich gives White definite win­
ning chances.
2 2 11 abl 'i'c6 23 'i'bS "xbS 24 liJxbS
i.. xb6 2S l:.fdl lld8
Black does not seem to be worse.
A2)
14 i..e3 'i'aS+
This seems superior to 14 . . . .c.cS I S
lOb6 ( I S �b6 'i'd7 1 6 'i' d 3 �xdS 1 7
�xdS liJxdS I S 'it'xdS lOf6 1 9 'i'f3
l::tbS leads to a better game for Black)
IS . . . dS 16 'i'a4 ( 1 6 lOxcS ?! lOxcS 1 7
0-0 i.. x a3 I S bxa3 dxc4 1 9 ... xdS+
�xdS 20 bxa6 �c7 wi th advantage for
Black, Gobet-Kasparov, Lucerne simul
1 9S7) 16 . . . dxc4 17 .c.dl ( 1 7 bxa6+ ! ?
i..d7 I S lObS i.. x bS 1 9 'i'xbS+ lOc6 20
.c.d l i.. b 4+ 21 �e2 'i'h4 has been
given as unclear, but this requires fur­
ther investigation: 22 h3 { 22 f3 0-0 23
lOxcS can be met by 23 . . . liJd4+ ! }
22, . . 0-0 23 lOxcS liJd4+ 24 .c.xd4 exd4
2S 'i'xb4 d3+ 26 � d l l::t xcS 27 'i' b7
l::tdS 28 J:[fl ! c3 29 a7 cxb2 30 'i'xb2
with a continuing mess, which proba­
bly favours White) 17 . . .lOdS I S bxa6+
i.. d7 ! 1 9 liJxd7 i.. b4+ 20 �fl 'i'xd7
21 'i'xd7+ �xd7 22 .c.xdS+ �e6 23
.c.bS i.. x a3 24 bxa3 lOc3! 2S .c.b6+
�d7 26 a7 liJdS 27 l:I: b7+ �c6 1/2 -1/2
Yudasin- Vyzhmanavin, Lvov 1 9S7 ,
15 �e2
Now:
a) IS ... J:[cS? (this is the only move
p layed) 16 liJb6! dS (noth ing else
seems to work; for example, 16 . . . J:[dS
17 bxa6 i.. xc4+ I S lOaxc4 'i'xa6 1 9
'i'd 3 and Black fi nds i t hard to make
the next move, as 1 9 . . . 'i' b7 is answer­
ed by 20 liJaS ! +-) 17 lOxcS lOxcS I S
i.. x dS i.. x a3 1 9 i..xe4 'i'xbS+ 20 i.. d 3
56 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
"xb2+ 2 1 "c2 ! (2 1 "d2? e4 ! 22
.i.xa6 "e5 23 f4 exf3+ 24 gxf3 0-0 is
very unclear, Sisniega-Espinoza, Lin­
ares (Mexico) 1 992) 2 l . . .e4 22 .i.xe4
.i.c4+ 23 �f3 "f6+ 24 .i.f4 g5 25
"xc4 "xf4+ 26 �e2 0-0 27 .i.xh7+ !
�xh7 28 "xf4 gxf4 29 �f3 and
White has forced a good endgame, as
pointed out by Sisniega.
b) 15 . . .l:tb8 ! (protecting b6 is cru­
cial) 1 6 l:tc 1 �xd5 1 7 .i.xd5 �6 1 8
.i.xe6 fxe6 1 9 .i.d2 "b6 and Black
does not seem worse. 20 l:tc6 looks
critical, but Black has the effective re­
ply 20 . . ...d4 ! .
B)
l l .i.d3 ! ?
This i s trickier than one would im­
mediately think. Actually White has
done quite well with this since only a
few black-players have adhered to the
following narrow path.
1 1 ... �xdS 12 exdS �e7 13 c4 g6!
Black must give up the b-pawn to
obtain central control and to finish his
development.
14 cxbS
14 0-0 .i.g7 15 "el 0-0 16 .i.a5
"e8 17 cxb5 �xd5 18 .i.e4 .i.e6 1 9
l:t d l �4 2 0 .i.xa8 "xa8 2 1 f3 axb5
22 l:txd6 .i.xa2 (Sharif-Kouatly, Mar­
seilles 1 988) 23 �xb5 .i.c4 24 �c7
"b8 0() Kouatly.
14 ... .i.g7 15 bxa6
1 5 0-0 0-0 1 6 .i.c4 e4! 1 7 l:tbl �5
1 8 .i.f4 l:te8 1 9 �c2 'ft'h4 20 g3 "f6
favours Black, Sanden-Mi.Markovic,
Stockholm Rilton Cup 1 9901 1 .
1 5 0-0 1 6 �bS .i.xa6 1 7 a4 l:tc8
. . .
18 0-0 �xdS 19 1Wb3 �f4
with more or less equality, J.Pol­
gar-San Segundo, Madrid 1 994.
C)
11 �6+ 1Wxf6 (D)
1 l . . . gxf6 1 2 c4 f5 1 3 cxb5 �d4 14
.i.c3 .i.g7 1 5 .i.xd4 exd4 1 6 .i.d3 gave
White a clear edge in Anand-Ochoa,
Thessaloniki OL 1984.
w
Now there are two main continua­
tions for White:
C l : 1 2 c4 56
C2: 12 .i.d3 57
Or: 1 2 .i.e3 "g6 1 3 f3 .i.e7 14 c4
transposes to note 'a' to White's 14th
move in Line C l ; alternatively, after
1 2 c3 "g6 1 3 "f3 .i.e7 1 4 �c2 .i.g4
15 "d3 0-0 Black has nothing to fear,
Noaman-Tonsingh, Dubai OL 1 986.
C1)
1 2 c4 11t'g6
1 2. . . �d4 is possible, when 1 3 cxb5
"g6 1 4 f3 .i.e7 transposes to the main
line.
1 2 . . . .i.e7 1 3 cxb5 �d4 14 .i.e3 0-0
15 bxa6 d5 16 exd5 .i.b4+ 17 .i.d2
.i.xa3 1 8 bxa3 "g6 eventually led to a
draw in Gesos-Dybowski, Naleczow
1 985, but I have the feeling White
could improve his play.
13 f3
 9 tiJd5 'iWa5+
13 cxb5 is harmless: 13 ... 1i'xe4+ 14
.i.e3 ( 1 4 1i'e2 1i'xe2+ 1 5 .i.xe2 �d4
16 .i.c4 .i.e6 17 .i.xe6 fxe6 1 8 bxa6 d5
1 9 .i.c3 .i.xa3 20 .i.xd4 exd4 2 1 bxa3
l:txa6 and Black won in Klundt-Leh­
ner, Aschach 1 996) 14 . . . �d4 15 1i'd3
1i'xd3 16 .i.xd3 �xb5 17 �xb5 axb5
1 8 .i.xb5+ .i.d7 19 .i.xd7+ �xd7 1/2-1/2
Opl-Ochoa, Thessaloniki OL 1 984.
Maybe Black could even try for more.
13 ... .i.e7 14 cxbS
Alternatives:
a) 14 .i.e3 b4 ( 1 4 . . . 0-0 ! ? 15 cxb5
{ 15 1i'd2?? d5 ! 16 cxd5? .i.b4 -+ Col­
las-Redon, French Cht 1996} 15 . . . taI4 !
needs a test) 1 5 �c2 0-0 ( 1 5 . . . .i.e6 16
�xb4 ! gives White a n extra pawn,
Krays-Enoshi, Tel-Aviv 1993) 16 .i.f2
.i.e6 1 7 lLle3 �h8 1 8 .i.d3 �d4 should
be fine for Black even though White's
game is easier to play, Shamkovich­
Stein, Chicago 1986.
b) 14 �f2 f5 ! 15 cxb5 ( 1 5 exf5
.i.xf5 16 cxb5 �d4 17 .i.e3 { 17 .i.c4
d5 ! 18 .i.xd5 l:td8 is very good for
Black} 1 7 . . . 0-0 1 8 .i.xd4 exd4 1 9
1i'xd4 .i.f6 2 0 1i'd5+ �h8 2 1 l:tel
.i.x b2 and Black soon won in Magem­
Espinoza, Novi Sad OL 1 990) 15 . .taI4 .
1 6 .i.e3 ( 1 6 .i.c4 fxe4 1 7 .i.d5 .i.h4+
18 g3 l:tf8 ! 19 .i.xa8 l:txf3+ 20 1i'xf3
�xf3 has been given as unclear)
16 . . . fxe4 17 .i.xd4 exd4 1 8 1i'xd4 0-0
1 9 .i.e2 .i.b7 20 bxa6 exf3 2 1 .i.c4+
d5 22 gxf3 dxc4 23 axb7 l:txf3 +! 24
<iii'x f3 l:tf8+ 25 1i'f4 1i'c6+ 26 �e2
1i'g2+ 27 �dl 1i'xh l + 28 �e2 1i'g2+
0- 1 Khashper-Vlaskov, 1 992.
c) 14 g3 f5 15 .i.d3 ( 1 5 exf5 .i.xf5
1 6 cxb5 �d4 17 bxa6 0-0 1 8 .i.c4+
�h8 1 9 0-0 .i.h3 20 l:tf2 e4 was the
beginning of a vicious and deadly at­
tack in Daly-O' Donovan, Irish Ch
57
1 994) 1 5 .. .f4 16 cxb5 �d4 1 7 .i.c3
fxg3 18 .i.xd4 exd4 ( 1 8 ... g2 ! ? 19 l:tg l
exd4 20 1i'c2 .i.h4+ 2 1 �d l 0-0 22
l:txg2 1i'f6 is also possible, with a very
messy position) 1 9 1i'c2 0-0 20 1i'g2
d5 2 1 �c2 (Druckenthaner-Peterwag­
ner, Austrian Cht 1 990) 2 1 . . .gxh2 22
1i'xg6 hxg6 23 <iii'e 2 (23 l:txh2 l:txf3 is
fine for Black) 23 . . . .i.d6 CZ>.
14...�d4 IS .i.e3 0-0 16 .i.xd4
16 �c2 axb5 17 �xd4 exd4 1 8
.i.xd4 .i.e6 1 9 g 3 f5 gives Black a
good game, Abdennabi-Mateo, Thes­
saloniki OL 1 984.
16 ...exd4 17 "112 dS 18 .i.d3 .i. gS
19 'it'e2 dxe4 20 .i.xe4 .i.fS
Black has compensation, Anand­
Hergott, Thessaloniki OL 1 984 .
C2)
12 .i.d3 (D)
B
Now:
C21: 12 ... .i.e7 58
C22: 12.. 'i'g6
. 58
There are two less important alter­
natives:
a) 12 . . . 1i'd8 13 0-0 .i.e7 14 �bl
l:tb8 15 �c3 0-0 16 �d5 .i.g5 17 c3
.i.xd2 18 'iWxd2 .i.e6 19 �e3 �e7 20
58 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
l:tfd l was better for White in Ivano­
vie-Sax, Montreal 1978.
b) 1 2 ... d5 !1 ( I do n't have perfect
confidence in this move, but it has yet
to be refuted) 1 3 exd5 ( 1 3 0-0 .i.xa3
14 bxa3 0-0 { 14 . . .dxe4 15 .i.xe4 0-0 is
interesting as well } 15 exd5 tOe7
comes to the same thing) 13 . . . .i.xa3 1 4
bxa3 lOe7 1 5 0-0 0-0 1 6 l:tel tOxd5 1 7
�h5 g 6 1 8 .xe5 .i.e6 1 9 c4 .xe5 20
l:txe5 tOb6 2 1 cxb5 l:tfd8 = A . Soko­
lov-Kjeldsen, Cannes 1 995.
C21 )
1 2 �e7 13 0-0
••• , ( 17 g3 .i.xg3 ! is fun only for Black)
1 3 c3 0-0 1 4 tOc2 .g6 15 lOe3
.i.g5 1 6 0-0 i.xe3 (Black should try
16 . . . i.e6 ! 1 1 7 a4 ! oc) 17 i.xe3 l:tb8 1 8
.e2 i.e6 1 9 l:tfd l l:tfd8 ;!; Sanchez Al­
meyra-Remon, Matanzas Capablanca
mem 1992 .
13 0-0 14 c 4 "-g6
•••
Other moves are inferior: 1 4 . . . bxc4
15 tOxc4 l:tb8 16 b3 tOb4 1 7 i.xb4
Axb4 1 8 .e2 �e6 1 9 tOe3 a5 20 .i.c4
with a better game for White, Davies­
Abbasi, Wrexham 1 994; 14 . . . b4 1 5
tOc2 a5 1 6 tOe3 .g6 1 7 tOf5 with a
plus for White, Milos-Granda, Buenos
Aires 1 992.
IS cxbS
15 .i.e3 .i.h3 16 .f3 .i.g4 17 .g3
tOb4 ! leaves Black with the initia ti ve
in a more or less equal position.
IS tDd4 16 13 .i.h3 17 l:tf2 .i.h4
•••
B lack is doing well, Suetin-Kish­
nev, Moscow Ch 1 984.
C22)
12 'i'g6 13 0-0 .i.e7
•••
1 3 . . . i.g4 ! 1 1 4 f3 i.h3 1 5 .e2 i.e7
16 c3 0-0 1 7 tOc2 .:tab8 1 8 lOe3 i.g5
was fine for Black in Mordhorst­
Jantzen, Hamburg Ch 1 99 1 .
1 3 . . .tOd4 !1, with the point 1 4 � hl
i.b7 1 5 c3 tOe6 1 6 f3 d5 ! 17 exd5
.xd3 1 8 dxe6 O-O-O ! +, has been ad­
vocated by Gershkovich.
1 4 "'13
No other move has caused Black
any severe problems:
a) 14 c4 i.g4 ! 15 f3 i.h3 16 Af2
( 1 6 .e2 tOd4 17 'i'f2 i.h4 wins the
exchange as well) 1 6 . . . .i.h4 17 i.fl
17 . . . .i.xf2+ 1 8 �xf2 b4 ! gives White
insufficient play for the exchange,
Byrne-Conq uest, London 1 99 1 .
b) 1 4 c 3 0-0 ( l 4. . . .i.g5 1 5 i.xg5
.xg5 = Kinderma nn-Klinger, Buda­
pest 1 988) 15 tOc2 d5 ! 16 .e2 .i.g4
17 f3 dxe4 18 i.xe4 i.f5 19 a4 i.xe4
20 fxe4 .:tad8 21 i.el b4 and Black
has successfully solved his pr oblems
and i s now fighting for the initiative,
Wahls -Kasparov, Hamburg simul
1 987 .
c) 1 4 f4 exf4 1 5 e5 i.f5 1 6 .f3
l:tc8 17 i.xf5 .xf5 1 8 exd6 i.xd6 1 9
l:tael + .i.e7 = I.Gurevich-Granda, New
York 1 992.
d) 1 4 �h L 0-0 15 tObL .i.b7 1 6 f3
:a dS 1 7 c4 b4 1 8 a3 bxa3 1 9 tOxa3
.i.g5 and Black is no wor se, Acs­
Lehner, Mitropa Cup (Baden) 1 999.
14 .,i,e6 IS c3 .i.gS 16 .i.xgS
••
'i'xgS 17 lDc2 0-0 18 a4 %lab8 19
axbS axbS 20 l:a6 :fc8 21 lDe3 b4
with equality, Findlay-Williams,
Tor onto 1 997 .
8 9 ttJd5 �e7 1 0 ttJxe7

1 e4 cS 2 tDC3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 I S W'a4+ .i.d7 16 W'a3 and White is

tDC6 S tDc3 eS 6 tDdbS d6 7 .i.gS a6 8 close to winning.
tDa3 bS 9 tDdS .i.e7 10 tDxe7 (D) 1 2 tDc2 0-0
12 . . . h6? loses a pawn to 13 .i.xf6
W'xf6 14 tDxb4 ! .
1 3 C3 h 6 1 4 .i.h4 'it'e6 1 5 'it'd2
B � Ajanski-Ornstein, Plovdiv 1 976.

B)
10...tDxe7!
Now there are two popular moves:
B l : 11 'it'C3 60
B2: 11 .i.xf6 60

Other variations:
a) 1 1 c4?? tDxe4 ! 12 .i. xe7 W'a5+
Here Black can try: 13 <i>e2 <i>xe7 and White is busted,
A: 10.. :ifxe7 S9 Kovacs-Boros, Hungarian Cht 1995.
B: 10 ... tDxe7! S9 b) 1 1 W'd3 dS 12 .i. xf6 gxf6 1 3
0-0-0 d4 ( 1 3 . . . .i.b7 ! ? i s also fine for
A) Black: 14 exdS W'xd5 I S W'xdS tDxdS
10.. :ifxe7 and now White should try to improve
This is inferior to 1O . . . lDxe7 for the over 16 c4 tDb4 17 f3 lDxa2+ 1 8 <i>bl
simple reason that the knight almost tDb4 19 cxbS <i>e7 20 .i.c4 .i.c8 2 1
always belongs on e7 in the Svesh­ bxa6 .i.fS + 2 2 <i>al tDxa6, when he
nikov Sicilian. has problems, Vuja�ic-Stankovic, Yu­
1 1 c4! goslav Cht (Cetinje) 1 992) 14 c3 W'c7
The testing move. I S tDc2 dxc3 1 6 W'xc3 W'xc3 1 7 bxc3
1 1 ... b4 fS and Black is fine, Kupreichik-Gor­
Alternatives: elov, Minsk 1 985.
a ) 1 1 . ..h6 1 2 .i.xf6 W'xf6 1 3 W'dS c) 1 1 .i.d3 dS ! (a simple way to
.i.b7 14 cxbS tDd8 (Vouldis-Bousios, equalize) 12 exd5 W'xd5 1 3 f3 .i.fS ! 1 4
Greek Ch 1993) IS W'd3 ±. .i.xfS tDxfS I S W'xdS tDxdS 1 6 0-0-0
b) 1 1 . . .tDd4 12 tDc2 W'b7 1 3 tDxd4 tDc7 17 l:thel f6 18 .i.d2 0-0-0 proba­
tDxe4 1 4 tDf3 ( 1 4 .i.e3? ! bxc4 Ill-Ill bly favours Black, as shown in several
Prie-V:Spasov, Sofia tt 1 990) 14 . . .bxc4 games, including Emelin-Yakovich,
60 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
Russian Ch 1 994 and Emelin-Khar­
lov, Russian Ch 1 995 .
d) 1 1 f3 0-0 ( l l . . . d5 ! ? 1 2 exd5
�exd5 1 3 c4 bxc4 14 �xc4 0-0 1 5
.i.e2 'fIc7 1 6 0-0 .i.e6 1 7 l:t c l a5 1 8
�h 1 a4 is also O K for Black, Soro­
kin-Krasenkov, Norilsk 1 987) 12 'fId2
.i.e6 1 3 c4 'fIb8 ! 14 cxb5 axb5 1 5
�xb5 d 5 with brilliant compensation,
Armas-Nicolaide, Romanian Cht 1 988.
81)
1 1 'fIf3 .i.g4 1 2 'iVg3
Or: 1 2 'fId3 d5 1 3 f3 .i.e6 14 .i.xf6
gxf6 1 5 exd5 �xd5 16 c3 'fIb6 . 1 7
�c2 0-0 1 8 'fId2 :td8 and Black soon
won in Valvo-Ochoa, New York Open
1 987; 1 2 'fIe3 d5 1 3 exd5 �fxd5 1 4
'fIg3 .i.h5 1 5 c 4 bxc4 1 6 .i.xc4 f6 1 7
.i.d2 0-0 1 8 0-0 .i.f7 1 9 l:tfd 1 'fIb6 and
Black is better due to his strong centre
and the misplacement of the white
knight, Planinc-Govedarica, Yugoslav
Ch (Zagreb) 1 977.
12 ie6 13 .i. d3
••
White has not had more success
with 1 3 f3 �g6 14 h4 h6 15 .i.e3 �4
1 6 'fIf2 0-0 17 g3 tMh5 1 8 c4 ( 1 8 .i.g2
'ifa5+ 1 9 c3 b4 is better for Black)
1 8 . . . bxc4 1 9 �xc4 d5 20 l:tdl 'fIb8 2 1
exd5 .i.xd5 2 2 �b6 'fIb7 2 3 �xd5
�xd5 24 .i.c5 l:tfc8 25 .i.c4 �f6 and
Black has a much better game, Innala­
Mustelin, Tampere 1 989.
13 ...�g6
1 3 . . . h6 14 .i.xf6 gxf6 15 0-0 l:tg8
16 'We3 'Wc8 17 g3 �g6 18 c4 b4 1 9
�c2 �4 i s probably OK for Black,
even though he lost quickly in Hra�ek­
Horak, Mlada Boleslav 1992.
14 0-0
Or: 14 h4 h6 15 .i.d2 �h5 16 'Wf3
�f4 17 .i.xf4 �4 1 8 g3 �xd3+ 1 9
'fIxd3 d 5 20 0-0-0 d 4 i s much better
for Black, Cladouras-Danschczyk, 2nd
Bundesliga 1 992/3; 14 'fIf3 'ifa5+ 1 5
.i.d2 'fIc7 1 6 0-0 0-0 1 7 c 3 d 5 and
Black is doing fine, Pierrot-Shariyaz­
danov, Roque Saenz Pena U-26 Wcht
1 997.
14...0-0 IS c4 bxc4 16 lbxc4 .i.xc4!?
17 .hi'6 "'xf6 18 .i.xc4 l:tfc8 19 l:tfcl
�4 20 .i.fl g6
= Ivanovic-Simic, Yugoslav Cht
(Cetinje) 1 990.
82)
11 .i.xf6 gxf6 (D)
Now there are two main variations:
B21 : 1 2 "'13 61
B22: 1 2 c4! 62
Other moves:
a) 1 2 c3? ! leaves Black with all the
play: 12 . . . .i.b7 13 .i.d3 l:tg8 14 0-0 f5
1 5 f3 f4 1 6 'fIb3 �g6 (Black's attack
assures him an advantage) 17 l:tadl
�h4 18 l:ti2 'fIb6 19 �fl �e7 20 c4?
l:txg2! 21 l:txg2 �xg2 22 �c2 l:tg8 23
.i.e2 .i.c8 24 c5 'fIxc5 25 l:td5 'fIxc2 !
0- 1 Vi:ilker-Wege, Hessen 1 994.
b) 12 'fId2 .i.b7 13 0-0-0 .i.xe4 14
'fIxd6 'fIxd6 15 l:txd6 �c6 16 f3 �e7
 9 t[jd5 �e7 10 tbxe7
17 ':d2 i. fS and Black i s certainly
not worse, Chiburdanidze-Alexandria,
Tbilisi worn Ct ( I ) 1 977.
c) 12 i. d 3 dS (l2 . . .i.b7 is also fine,
but less clear-cut) 1 3 exdS ( 1 3 'i'e2?!
'i'aS+ 1 4 �fl i.b7 IS exdS .eJxdS 16
i.e4 'i'b4 1 7 c 4 �4 and White i s in
trouble, Minic-Gavric, Banj a Luka
1 985) 1 3 . . . 'i'xdS 14 'i'e2 ( 1 4 f3 'i'cs is
given by Krasenkow - Black is obvi­
ously not worse) 14 .. ifS ( l 4 . . . i.b7?!
IS f3 'i'e6 1 6 c4 bxc4 17 .eJxc4 .eJc6
{ 17 ... 0-0 t} 1 8 i.fS 1 'i'e7 , Csoke-Boj­
kovic, Marnaia U-20 girls Wch 1 99 1 ,
1 9 .: d I ;t) I S i.xfS .eJxfS 1 6 f3 .eJd4
I7 'ird3 lId8 = R .Evans-Lawton, Brit­
ish Ch (Edinburgh) 1985.
821 )
12 _13 f5
B lack should avoid 1 2 . . . �6 1 3
0-0-0 i.e6 1 4 �bl �e7 I S c4 'i'aS 1 6
': c 1 .: hc8 1 7 g 3 ':cS 1 8 i.d3 ':ac8 1 9
cxbS axbS 2 0 ':xcS ':xcS 2 1 'i'e2,
though one may debate the size of
White's advantage, Gaprindashvili­
Szabo, Leipzig 1977.
13 exf5
1 3 i.d3 i.b7 14 0-0-0 'i'b6 I S lIhel
0-0-0 = Putzbach-Peterwitz, Bargte­
heide 1 988.
13 �xf5
•..
1 3 . . . dS 1 ? 1 4 f6 .eJg6 1 S lI dl i.e6 1 6
g 3 ':c8 1 7 c3 e 4 1 8 'i'e3 'i'xf6 1 9 i.g2
b4 20 .eJbl �S gave Black a good
game in Unni-Prasad, Indian Ch 1 99 1 .
1 4 �d3 �e6!
14 . . . i.xd3 IS 'W'xd3 dS 1 6 c3 'i'b6
17 0-0 0-0 18 ':ael f6 1 9 .eJc2 :ad8 20
lIe3 'irc7 2 1 ':d 1 is equal, but Black
has to be careful, Schlemmermeyer­
Stertenbrink, Bundesliga 1 984/S .
15 0-0 0-0
61
IS . . . ':g8 ? 1 16 i.xh7 lI g7 17 i.d3
fS 18 ':fe l ':c8 1 9 c3 'i'c7 20 ':ad l dS
2 1 i.fl does not offer Black quite
enough for the paw n, Tringov-Hulak,
Osijek 1 978.
16 c4
1 6 ':fel 1 ? is interesting, taking aim
at the e6-bishop . 1 6 . . . fS ( 1 6 . . . f6? ! 1 7
c 4 ! bxc4 1 8 .eJxc4 d S ? i s too artificial:
19 'i'g3+ �f7 20 .eJxeS+ fxeS 2 1
'i'xeS 'i'd7 22 'i'hS+ i s very good for
White after 22 . . .Wg7 23 'i'xh7+ 'it>f6
24 'i'h6+ or 22 . . . � f6 23 'i'h4+ 'irf7
24 'i'xh7+ 'it>e8 25 ne2 !) 17 c4 bxc4
( l 7 . . . b4? only chases the white knight
towards the centre and weakens the b­
pa w n: 1 8 .eJc2 'i'b6 1 9 lIadl .l::.a d8 20
i.fl .eJc6 2 1 b3 ;t Lembeck-Werner,
W.Germany 1 987) 1 8 .eJxc4 e4 1 9
'i'g3+ .eJg6 seems t o equalize.
16'Mf5 17 Ilfdl d5!
This is a simple way to equalize. A
lot of other moves have been tested
over the years:
a) 17 ... �h8?! 1 8 i.fl dS 1 9 'i'e3
..-d6 20 f4 exf4 21 'i'd4+ ± Lanc­
Kouatly, Trnava 1 987.
b) 17 ... .:c8 1? is just a bit too sharp
for me: 1 8 cxbS e4 1 9 'i'e 3 .eJdS 20
'i'g3+ � h8 2 1 i.c4 ':g8 22 'i'h3 (22
'i'b3 1? �4 23 g3 1eaves it up to Black
to prove that he is not just bluffing)
22 . . . �4 23 'i'h6 ':xg2+ 24 �h I ':g6
2S 'i'xf4 i.xc4 26 .eJxc4 lhc4 with a
complex game ahead, Banas-T.Hor­
vath, Trnava 1 98 1 . Krasenkow thinks
White is much better after 27 'i'xfS (as
p layed), but I am not so sure. Still, I
don't trust this line.
c) 17 . . .e4 18 'i'e3 bxc4 1 9 i.xc4
dS 20 .eJc2 f 4 2 1 'i'a3 'i' d7 22 ':d2
:la d8 with unclear prospects, Yudasin­
Gorelov, Ivano-Frankovsk 1 982.
62 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
18 cxdS .i.xdS 19 'ilVg3+ tOg6 20
.i.c2 �h8 21 .i.b3 tOf4
Black has a pleasant game, Lanc­
Priehoda, Trnava 1 988.
822)
12 c4! (D)
As I see it, this is the only genuine
test.
B 15 bxa6+ ? ! (White follows the
12 ... .i.b7
This move appears very natural, but
if the line below really is dangerous
for Black, maybe he should opt for
1 2 . . ... a5+ (it seems unnatural to trade
queens like this, making things sim­
pler for White, but Black should be
equal) 1 3 "d2 "xd2+ 14 �xd2 b4 1 5
tOc2 l:tb8 ( 1 5 ... a5 ! ?) 1 6 .i. d 3 a 5 1 7
l:thfl tOc6?! (17 . . . f5 ! is right) 1 8 tOe3
l:tg8 1 9 f4 and White has the better
game, J .Fries N ielsen- El Kher, Danish
Ch (A rhus) 1 999.
13 cxbS
l 3 .i.d3 is harmless: 1 3 .. . l:lg8 ! 14
a-a?! ( 1 4 cxb5 l:txg2 1 5 bxa6 .i.xa6 1 6
�fl l:lg6 1 7 "a4+ "d7 1 8 "xd7+
�xd7 1/2_ 1/2 Kozyrev-Zeziulkin, USSR
Cht (Podolsk) 1990) 14 . . . bxc4 15 tOxc4
d5 16 exd5 "xd5 (Krasenkow) leaves
White worse. It is worth noting that 17
tOd6+? loses t o 1 7 . . ... xd6 ! 18 .i.b5+
axb5 19 "xd6 l:txg2+ 20 �h 1 l:txf2+
2 1 �gl l:tg2+ 22 �h l l:tg6+, mating.
13 ... .i.xe4 14 .. a4!
14 bxa6 0-0 15 .i.e2 d5 16 0-0 tOc6
17 tOb5 d4 and Black is more than
fine, Hennigan-Nunn, London 1 993.
14...dS 15 b6+!
wrong path) 15 . . . �f8 16 l:tc l l:tg8 1 7
f3 .i.f5 1 8 l:tc5 "d6 1 9 b 4 e4 ! and
Black has the initiative, Putzbach­
T.Horvath, Hamburg 1 99 1 .
1 5 f3 i s less accurate, as Black can
reply 1 5 . . . .i.f5 ! intending . . . .i.d7. In-
stead 15 . . ..i.g6? 16 b6+! �f8 ( 1 6 . . ...d7
loses on the spot to 1 7 .i.b5 !) 17 b7
l:ta7 transposes to the note to White's
17th move, and was in fact the move­
order used in Murey-Birnboim.
IS ... �f8 16 b7 l:ta7 17 .i.xa6!
Not 17 f3?, when 17 . . . .i.f5 intend­
ing . . . .i.d7 gives Black the advantage.
Instead 17 . . . .i.g6? allows White some
advantage after 1 8 .i.xa6 �g7 1 9 tOb5
"d7 20 "a3 l:txb7 21 .i.xb7 "xb7 22
0-0 "xb5 23 "xe7 "xb2 24 l:tac l
l:ta8 25 l:tc6. Murey- Birnboim, Beer­
sheba 1982.
17 ...�g7 18 lObS 'i'd7 ! ? 19 l:tc1
19 "a3 ? l:txa6 20 "xa6 .i.d3 21 a4
"g4 -+.
19 ....i.d3 20 "a3 .i.xbS 21 .i.xbS
'i'xb7 22 "g3+ tOg6 23 a4
White is better.
9 Odd ities after 9 ttJd5 iLe7
1 0 iLxf6 iLxf6
1 e4 cS 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4
lDf6 S lDc3 eS 6 lDdbS d6 7 .i.gS a6 8
lDa3 bS 9 lDdS .i.e7 10 .i.xf6 .i.xf6
(D)
This short chapter is a kind of
wastebasket where the lines I do not
consider important enough (because
they are either harmless or dubious) to
be covered in the ' serious' chapters
can be found.
11 c3
The main line. White has also tried:
a) 1 1 c4 (this is really harmless)
1 1 . ..b4 1 2 lDc2 as 1 3 .i.e2 0-0 14 0-0
.i.g5 15 .i.g4 .i.b7 16 Wd3 lDe7 1 7
lDxe7+ Wxe7 1 S b 3 .i.c6 1 9 l:tfe l Wb7
20 .i.f3 Wb6 2 1 l:tad l AfdS 22 lDe3 a4
and Black is fine, Frolov-Kramnik,
Sochi 1 990.
b) I l lDbl (White's intention is to
play 12 a4 b4 1 3 lDd2 and occupy the
c4-square) 1 1 . . .l:tbS ! (by limiting the
impact of a4 Black equalizes easily)
and now:
b l ) 12 lDd2 .i.g5 13 .i.d3 lDe7 1 4
lDxe7 Wxe7 1 5 0-0 0-0 1 6 We2 g6 1 7
a4 bxa4 I S l:tfbl .i.d7 is n o worse for
Black, Stefansson-Schandorff, Co­
penhagen 1 994.
b2) 12 a4 bxa4 13 l:txa4 l:txb2 14
.i.xa6 lDd4 led to a quick draw in I.AI­
masi-Mrva, Budapest 1 993.
b3) 12 g3 0 - 0 13 .i.g2 .i.e6 14 0-0
.i.xd5 15 exd5 lDa5 16 lDd2 lDc4 17
lDxc4 bxc4 IS b3 'fic7 with an equal
position, M.Hoffmann-Yakovich, Mu­
nich 1 992/3.
Now we consider sidelines starting
with the following moves:
A: 11 0-0
•.• 63
B: 1 1 ... .i.b7!? 64
1 1 . . . .i.g5 12 lDc2 lDe7 ! ? (if you
wish to play an early . . . lDe7, then
1 l . . . lDe7 ( see Chapter 1 0 ) is the natu­
ral move-order since 1 2 lDxf6+ should
not be feared) 1 3 lDcb4 0-0 14 a4 bxa4
15 'fixa4 ! ? lDxd5 ( I 5 . . . a5 16 .i.b5 !
lDxd5 17 exd5 followed by lDc6 ±) 1 6
lDxd5 .i.e6 1 7 .i.c4 ;t Krakops-Shari­
yazdanov, Siofok U-20 Ech 1 996.
A)
11 0-0 1 2 lDc2 .i.gS 13 a4 bxa4
...
14 l:txa4 .i.b7
64 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
The main line is 14 . . . as, which is
discussed in Chapter 1 3 .
1 4 . . . l:tb8 cannot be recommended
at all : 15 h4! (forcing the bishop to
abandon the e7-square) 15 . . . �h6 1 6
�xa6 l:txb2 ( 1 6 . . . �d7 1 7 l:ta2 �e6 1 8
g 3 'iif h 8 1 9 0-0 i s just a pawn i n the
bag, Volzhin-Chevallier, Metz 1 994)
17 �xc8 '-xc8 1 8 l:tc4 1 .b8 19 0-0
�as 20 I:tb4 l:t xb4 21 cxb4 a nd White
is positionally winning, lordachescu­
Sawatzki. Berlin 1 995.
15 �c4!
Thi s move, w ith Lanka's strong fol­
low-up, has put 1 4 . . .�b7 out of busi­
ness.
15 '085
•••
Necessary because now the normal
plan 1 5 . . . �b8? ! 16 0-0 �d7 17 b4 as
18 'i'd3 �b6 ( 1 8 . . .axb4 1 9 I:txa8 '-xa8
20 cxb4 is no better, Korsunsky-Arba­
kov, USS R 1 978) 19 �xb6 "xb6 20
I:tfal axb4 21 l:lxa8 I:txa 8 22 I:txa8+
�xa8 23 cxb4 allows White a substan­
tial advantage in the ending, Kalod­
Pisk, Brno 1 994.
16 �a2 �c6 17 ':a3 �bS
Trying to prevent White from ca s­
tling, but White now starts an attack.
18 h4! �6 19 tOce3 �xe3 20
IOxe3 J:c8 21 'Of5
Now 2 1 . . . �b7 ? 1 22 .g4 .-f6 (not
22 . . . g6? 23 h5) 23 .-g5 1 gave Black
serious problems in Lanka-Krasen­
kov, Moscow 1 989. Better is 2 1 . . .�c4
22 �xc4 I:txc4 23 f3 1 ;t Gorelev. Note
that 23 �xd6 I:td4 1 is not clear.
el
1 1 �b7!?
•••
I do not really trust this move, but
John Nunn sees it as one of Black's
ma in options. The idea is to challenge
d5 by . . . �b8-d7-f6 without allowing
doubled f-paw ns.
12 tOc2 IOb8 13 tOce3
Other options are:
a) 13 g3 �g5 ! 1 4 �g2 ( 1 4 h4 �h6
15 g4 f6 1 ?) 14 . . . 0-0 15 .d3 �d7 1 6
I:t d 1 �b6 17 �xb6 .xb6 1 8 0-0 llfd8
1 9 �b4 l:tac8 = Hiibner-Nunn, San
Francisco 1 995 .
b) 13 a4 bxa4 14 I:txa4 �d7 15 l%b4
I:tb8 1 ( 1 5 . . . �c5 ? 1 1 6 I:txb7 1 �xb7 17
b4 gave White good chances i n Kas­
parov-Shirov, Horgen 1 994) 16 �c4
0-0 17 0-0 �c5 1 8 '-e2 as 1 9 I:tb5 �g5
and B lack should be OK, Zakharov­
THorvath, Pula 1 999.
13 tOd7 14 a4
•••
Or:
a) 14 '-0 0-0 15 I:tdl g6 16 h4 �g7
17 g3 �f6 1 8 �h3 �xd5 19 �xd5
�xd5 20 I:txd5 .b6 and Black is no
worse, Solak-Medvegy, Patras 1 999.
b) 14 �d3 0-0 15 0-0 �g5 1 6 .-e2
�xe3 17 �xe3 �c5 1 8 I:tfd 1 g6 =
Friedrich-Krasenkov, Berlin 1 990.
c) 1 4 �5 0-0 1 15 �xd6 �xd5 16
.xd5 ( 16 exd5 �e7 I ? 1 7 �f5 �c5 18
�d3? 1 e4 1 favoured Black in the game
Jensen-McShane, Copenhagen 1 999)
16 . . ..c7 ! 17 I:t d l ! �b6 1 8 .b7 .c5
with compensation, Morris-Krasen­
kov, Andorra 1 99 1 .
1 4 bxa4 1 5 Wxa4
•••
1 5 �xf6+ �xf6 16 .xa4+ 'iiff8 17
�d3 g6 1 8 0 - 0 '-c7 19 l%fd l 'iif g7 is
n ot a pr oblem for Black, Prota­
ziuk-Swol, Polish U-20 Ch 1 994.
15 0-0 16 .c2 �gS 17 J:dl
•••
17 �c4 �xe3 1 8 �xe3 (Goldblat­
Pankratov, corr 1 994) 1 8 . . .. h41 =.
17 i xe3 18 IOxe3 tOf6 19 �d3
••
'i'c7 20 0-0 lUdS
= Cubero-Ochoa, Spanish Ch 1 993.
 1 0 1 1 c3 tt:Je7
1 e4 c S 2 tOf3 tOc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tOxd4
tOf6 S tOc3 eS 6 tOdbS d6 7 .i.gS a6 8
lOa3 bS 9 tOdS .i.e7 10 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 1
c3 tOe7 (D)
Even though this is not one of the
main lines it is still worth investigat­
ing. First of all most people don't
know it. Secondly it is currently not so
heavily investigated as 1 1 . . .0-0, so
there are loads of new ideas to be found
here.
1 1 . . . .i.b7 12 tOc2 tOe7? ! can trans­
pose to Line C l after 1 3 tOxf6+ (or
Line A after 1 3 tOxe7) 13 . . . gxf6, but
White can instead steer the game to­
wards an advantageous endgame with
opposite-coloured bishops by playing
13 tOcb4.
w
The three main lines for White are
now:
A: 12 tOxe7 65
B: 12 tOc2 65
C: 12 tOxf6+ 67
A)
12 tOxe7
This is not very testing.
1 2... .i.xe7
1 2 . . :ifxe7 ! ? is also possible: 1 3
tOc2 (obviously right; weaker i s 1 3
.i.e2 .i.b7 1 4 .i.f3 :d8 1 5 0-0 0-0 1 6
"'d3 .i.g5 1 7 :tfe 1 d5 ! and Black is on
top, Meijers-De Vreugt, Dieren 1 997)
13 . . . .i.b7 14 .i.d3 .i.g5 15 0-0 0-0 1 6
a4 bxa4 1 7 l:txa4 as and Black i s fine,
Kheir-Riifenacht, Dubai OL 1 986.
13 tOc2 .i.b7 14 .i.d3 dS IS 'ife2
15 exd5 "'xd5 16 tOe3 "'c6 17 "'h5
.i.f6 18 a4 b4 with a better position for
Black, Abdennabi-Tu Hoang Thong,
Manila OL 1 992.
15 0-0 16 :dl .i.cs 17 0-0 'ilc7 18
•••
exdS fS 19 'fIhS e4 20 .i.e2 :f6
Black has sufficient compensation,
Hardicsay-Arkhipov, Harkany 1985.
B)
12 tOc2 tOxdS 13 'ifxdS
13 exd5 does not pose any prob­
lems to Black: 1 3 . . ....b6 14 .i.e2 .i.g5
15 tOb4 0-0 16 a4 bxa4 17 "'xa4 .i.b7
1 8 "'aS .i.d8 19 "'xb6 .i.xb6 20 0-0 as
with complete equality, Inkiov-Benja­
min, Palma de Mallorca 1 989.
13.. ':b8
Or: 1 3 . . . :a7 14 tOb4 0-0 15 "'d3
.i.b7 16 tOd5 .i.g5 was fine for Black
in Shamkovich-Fedorowicz, New York
1 98 1 , but why the rook had to go to a7
is not apparent; 1 3 . . . .i.e6 (even though
66 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
this proved good enough for equality I
find it rather risky. as White' s position
is easier to play) 14 "'c6+ �e7 15
tOb4 "'d7 1 6 a4 "'xc6 1 7 tOxc6+ �d7
1 8 tOb4 �c7 1 9 �d2 .i.b3 20 .i.d3
�b6 2 1 l:ta3 .i.g5+ 22 �e2 bxa4 23
.i.c2 a5 = I.Polgar-Lautier. Las Palmas
1 994.
14 eDb4 (D)
14 "'d3 0-0 15 .i.e2 .i.e6 16 eDe3
.i.g5 17 0-0 "'b6 18 eDd5 .i.xd5 112-112
Prandstetter-li.Nun. Prague 1 990.
B and now White can keep the better po­
14 ....i.b7
Black has an important alternative
here: 14 . . . 0-0! (this is the most precise
way to play this position since Black
now doesn' t have to play . . . .i.b7. but
can consider ... .i.e6 in many positions)
15 l:td l (the only attempt to punish
Black's strategy. but as shall be seen
this fails; 15 eDc6 .i.b7 1 6 tOxd8 .i.xd5
17 exd5 l:tfxd8 18 .i.e2 a5 19 �d2 b4
is better fer Black) 15 . . . .i.b7 16 "'xd6?
( 1 6 "'d3 should be played) 16 . . ....xd6
17 l:txd6 .i.e7 1 8 l:td7 .i.xb4 1 9 cxb4
.i.xe4 20 f3 .i.f5 21 l:td6 l:tbc8 22 .i.e2
l:tfdS and Black went on to win the
endgame in liravorasuk-G.Mohr. Ere­
van OL 1 996.
15 1i'd3 0-0 16 .i.e2
1 6 tOd5 .i.xd5 ( 1 6 . . . .i.g5 = is more
natural) 1 7 "'xd5 "'b6 18 a3 l:tfd8 1 9
.i.e2 l:tbc8 20 l:td l l:tc5 2 1 "'b3 "'c6
22 .i.f3 and White might possess a
faint advantage. Hazai-Rajna. Buda­
pest 1 980 .
16...a5
Other ideas are:
a) 16 . . . g6 17 0-0 .i.g5 1 8 l:tadl a5
19 eDd5 .i.a8 ( 1 9 ... .i.c6 20 b4 ! with the
idea of a3 and c4 gave White a better
game in Edelman-Chandler. London
1989) 20 a3 �h8 (20 .. .f5 is premature
since Black achieves nothing after 2 1
.i.f3 !). Rogers-Chandler. London 1989.
sition with 21 .i.g4 ! ?
b ) 16 . . ....b 6 1 7 0-0 a5 1 8 lild5
.i.xd5 19 "'xd5 l:tfc8 20 l:tfd 1 .i.e7 2 1
a 3 l:tc5 2 2 "'b3 "'c6 112- 112 Sibarevic­
Filipovic. Banja Luka 1 985.
17 lild5 .i.xd5
This is fine but not at all necessary.
After 1 7 . . . b4 ! ? 1 8 0-0 bxc3 1 9 bxc3
.i.g5 I doubt if Black is any worse.
18 1i'xd5 b4 19 0-0 (D)
1 9 c4 "'b6 = Geller-Ivanovic. Vr�c
1 987.
19 ...bxc3 20 bxc3 1i'c7 21 .i.c4
l:tbc8 22 .i.b3
 1 1 c3 4:Je7
Now, rather than the overly passive
22 . . . .i.e7 ? ! 23 l:tac l 'fIa7 24 'iid 3,
when White is better due to his pres­
sure against f7, Korneev-Gonzales,
Manresa 1 995, Black should continue
22 . . . 'ii x c3 = .
C)
l2 liJxf6+ gxf6 (D)
w Less critical are 14 a4? ! .i.xe4 I S
Here there are a number of possibil­
ities:
C l : 13 liJc2 67
C2: 13 .i.e2 69
C3: 13 .i.d3 70
C4: 13 "d2 70
CS: 13 g3 70
Less critical are:
a) 1 3 'fIf3 fS 14 exfS .i.xfS IS .i.d3
.i.xd3 ! ? 16 'ihd3 'fIb6 17 ltJc2 0-0 1 8
ltJe3 l:tad8 1 9 0-0 d S = Blaskowsky­
Firnhaber, corr. 1 992.
b) 1 3 'fId3 .i.b7 14 l:ldl ( 1 4 ltJc2
d5 I S exdS liJxdS 1 6 ltJe3 ltJxe3 17
'fIxe3 'fIdS and Black enjoys a care­
free life, Orel-Sermek, Slovenia 1 995 ;
14 0-0-0 dS I S exdS 'fIxdS 16 'fIxdS
transposes to Line C4) 14 . . . dS IS 'fIf3
'fId6 1 6 exdS .i.xdS 1 7 c4 bxc4 1 8
.i.xc4 ( 1 8 ltJxc4 'fIc6 ! is dangerous for
67
White although he should be OK with
careful play) 1 8 ... iib4+ 19 'fIc3 'fIxc3+
20 bxc3 .i.xg2 2 1 l:tg l l:tg8 22 l:td6
.i.b7 23 l:txg8+ ltJxg8 24 .i. xf7+ led
quickly to a draw in Barua-Chandler,
British Ch (Plymouth) 1 989.
c) The aggressive move 1 3 c4
transposes to Line B22 in Chapter 8
(at move 12).
C1)
l 3 ltJc2 .i.b7 1 4 .i.d3
axbS axbS 1 6 .i.xbS+ �f8 1 7 ltJe3
l:txal 1 8 'ii xal l:tg8 with a good posi­
tion for Black, Bachar-THorvath, Thes­
saloniki 1 984, and 1 4 'fId3? ! dS I S
exdS 'fIxdS 1 6 ltJe3 'fIe6 1 7 .i.e2 l:td8
with a slight advantage for Black,
Zude-Muse, Bundesliga 1 988/9.
l4...d5 (D)
Other moves are:
a) 14 ... fS ? ! IS exfS e4 ( 1 S . . . .i.xg2
16 l:tgl .i.b7 17 a4 ;!;) 16 .i.e2 ltJxfS 1 7
.i.g4 ltJh4 1 8 ltJe3 i s better for White,
Santo-Roman - Toulzac, Chanac 1 989.
b) 14 . . . 'fIb6?! IS ltJe3 dS 16 'fIf3 !
0-0-0 17 exdS ltJxdS 1 8 .i.e4 was better
for White in Sharif-Kouatly, Marseilles
1 986.
c) 14 ... l:tg8 (not the most reliable
line, but practice has not refuted it yet)
IS ltJe3 ( 1 S 'fIf3 did not prove very
dangerous for White in Kalantarian­
Minasian, Paris 1 994: I S .. .fS 1 6 0-0-0
'ifb6 17 ltJe3 f4 1 8 ltJdS .i.xdS 1 9 exdS
fS 20 'iWhS+ l:tg6 2 1 .i.xfS ltJxfS 22
'ii xfS 'fIxf2 112-112) I S . . . dS 1 6 'fIf3 fS !
17 ltJxfS ltJxfS 1 8 'ifxfS 'figS ! (an
effective improvement over the previ­
ously played 1 8 ... l:tgS) 1 9 exdS .i.xdS
20 'fIxgS l:txgS 1/2-1/2 Bricard-Minas­
ian, Paris 1 994.
68 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
w the black king and find it hard to see
Now:
C l l : 15 '6'e2 68
C12: 15 exd5 68
C1 1 )
1 5 '6'e2 f5! ?
Safer i s 1 5 . . .dxe4 1 6 �xe4 �xe4
1 7 'it'xe4 'it'd5 1 8 'it'xd5 tLlxd5 1 9 a4
�e7 and Black is fine, Shirov-Illescas,
Las Palmas 1 994.
16 exf5 e4 17 f6!
1 7 tLld4? exd3 1 8 'i!fe5 �d7 ! ! 1 9
0-0-0 tLlc6 20 tLlxc6 �xc6 2 1 l1xd3
'it'd6 eventually led to a victory for
Black in Alzate-Ochoa, Havana 1 983.
1 7...tLlg6
17 ...tLlf5 1 8 f3 'it'xf6 19 fxe4 'it'h4+!
(not 19 ... dxe4?! 20 0-0, when Van der
Wiel 's suggestion 20 . . . 'it'e6?? loses on
the spot to 2 1 �xb5+ !) 20 g3 (20 'i!ff2
dxe4 2 1 �e2 1:g8 is OK for Black)
20 . . . tLlxg3 2 1 'it'f2 dxe4 22 �xb5+
axb5 23 'i!fxg3 'it'xg3+ 24 hxg3 1:g8 is
quite pleasant for Black.
18 'We3 'i'xf6
This seems [me for Black.
C 1 2)
15 exd5 '6'xd5
1 5 ... tLlxd5 1 6 �e4 f5 17 �xf5 tLlf4
1 8 tZ:le3 tLlxg2+ 19 tLlxg2 �xg2 20
1:g 1 is suggested by Malysev as equal,
but I disagree. I fear for the safety of
how he is going to get fully developed.
16 tLle3 'We6 17 'jih5
17 a4 ! ?, as suggested by Fritz and
Donald Holmes, might turn out to be
the critical line.
17...0-0-0
The alternatives are:
a) 1 7 . . . e4? ! 1 8 �c2 f5 1 9 0-0-0
'i!fxa2 ( 1 9 . . .'i!fg6 20 'it'h4 'i!fc6 21 'i!ff4
�c8 22 lLld5 ! +-; 19 ... f4 20 �b3 'i!fg6
2 1 'it'e5 +-) 20 tLlxf5 tLlxf5 2 1 'i!fxf5 ±
(Petronic ).
b) 17 ... tLld5 18 �f5 'it'b6 19 tLlxd5
�xd5 20 1:dl 1:d8 2 1 0-0 �e7 22 'it'h4
is probably not much worse for Black,
if at all, Dimitrov-Milanovic, Pozare­
vac 1 995.
18 �c2 �b8 19 �b3 'Wb6
19 ... lLld5 ! ? is also possible: 20 0-0-0
tLlf4 2 1 �xe6 ( 2 1 1:xd8+ 1:xd8 22
'i!fxh7 'it'b6 gives good counterplay
against g2 and f2, while 2 1 'it'xf7?
'it'xf7 22 �xf7 tLld3+ 23 �c2 tLlxf2
24 1:xd8+ 1:xd8 25 1:n �e4+ 26 �b3
1:d2, as given by Zontakh, is very
promising for Black) 2 1 . .. tLlxh5 22
�xf7 tLlf4 23 f3 e4 with good coun­
terplay for Black, Zontakh-Manik,
Hlohovec 1 994.
20 �xf7
20 l:td l ?! tLlg6 2 1 0-0 tLlf4 22 'it'xf7
112-112 Ye Jiangchuan-Krasenkow, Shen­
yang 1 999. However, 22 . . . �xg2 ! ! 23
lhd8+ (forced) 23 .. . 1:xd8 24 tLlxg2
tLlh3+ 25 �hl tLlxf2+ 26 1:xf2 (26
�gl tLlh3++ 27 'it>h 1 'it' g 1 + is classic
smothered mate of course) 26 . . . 'it'xf2
would have given Black a very strong
initiative for the sacrificed material.
20...f5
 11 c3 llJe7
Black has full compensation for the
pawn, although White should defi­
nitely be able to improve over 2 1 l:dl
llxd l + 22 �xd l .�xg2 23 llgl �e4
24 l:g7 'i!fd6 2S �b3 �g6 26 l:gS+
lbgS 27 �xgS 'i!fd3 2S 'i!fe2 'i!fdS 0- 1
S.B.Hansen-Koc, Koszalin 1 995.
C2)
13 �e2 (D)
B �c2 (White is slightly better - Lanka)
Now Black can chose between:
C21 : 13 ...fS 69
C22: 13 ... �b7 69
C21 )
13 ... fS 14 exfS �xfS 15 �c2 "it'b6
The main line here, but IS . . . �e6 ! ?
appears a reasonable alternative: 16
�g4 fS ? ! (risky; 1 6 . . . 'i!fd7 1 7 �xe6
'i!fxe6 I S 'i!fd3 dS can hardly be any
worse for Black) 17 �hS+ �g6 I S
'i!fd2 0-0 1 9 h 4 'i!ff6 2 0 �xg6 hxg6 2 1
�b4 f4 2 2 0-0-0 and White has the ad­
vantage, G.Kuzmin-Zeziulkin, Swid­
nica 1 999.
16 0-0
16 �e3 �e6 17 �g4 dS I S �xe6
'i!fxe6 19 a4 l:dS 20 'i!fb3 'i!f g6 21 axbS
d4 and Black is better, Prandstetter­
Mrva, Bratislava 1 99 1 .
69
1 6. . .d S 1 7 a4 0-0 1 8 �b4 "it'cs 19
'ii'd2
White might be slightly better, AI­
masi-Szuk, Hungary 1 995 .
C22)
13 ....�b7 14 �f3 dS
No other move has guaranteed
perfect satisfaction here, and I doubt
whether there is a money-back guar­
antee:
a) 1 4 . . . fS (this cannot be recom­
mended) IS exfS dS 16 g3 �xfS 17
17 . . . 0-0 I S 0-0 as 1 9 �g2 'i!fd6 20 l:el
�c6 21 'i!fhS and White is nearly win­
ning, Lanka-Muse, Bundesliga 1993/4.
b) 14 . . . l:gS ? ! (too slow; with the
bishop on f3 this does n't do much
good) IS �c2 'i!fb6 16 �e3 l:dS 1 7
'i!fb3 fS I S exfS �xf3 1 9 gxf3 d S 20
0-0-0 'i!fh6 21 �bl 'i!ff4 (Laptev-Ikon­
nikov, Budapest 1 99 1 ) 22 �xdS ! �xd5
23 l:xdS 'i!fxf5+ 24 �al and White
deserves preference.
c) 14 . . . 'i!fb6 and now 15 �c2 dS !
16 exdS l:dS 17 0-0 l:gS is fine for
Black, Forster-Sermek, Swiss open
Ch (Lucerne) 1 994, but IS 0-0, with
the idea 16 c4 ! , is suggested by Van
der Wiel. I believe White can count on
a small advantage this way.
15 exdS �xdS 16 0-0
16 �c2 has been suggested as giv­
ing White an edge. A critical line
might be 16 .. .fS 17 �e3 e4 IS 'i!fd4
0-0 19 �e2 �e6 20 'i!fcs l:eS 21 l:d l
(21 _g3 l:cS is no worse for Black after
22 "a3 'i!fb6 ! ) 2 1 . . .'i!fcS, when Black
seems to be all right.
16 . . l:g8 17 l:el �xf3 18 "it'xf3
.
'6'dS 19 "it'xdS �dS 20 �c2 �f4 21
�e3 0-0-0
70 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
Black should be fine in this compli­
cated ending, Morris-Gomez Jurado,
Andorra 1 99 1 .
C3)
13 .i.d3 .i. b7
13 ... f5 14 'ife2 (14 exf5 .i.b7 15
�c2 is suggested by Van der Wiel, and
gives White the better game) 14 . . . fxe4
15 he4 d5 1 6 0-0-0 .i.e6 17 .i.c2 'fIc7
1 8 l%he l cannot be recommended for
Black, Moroz-Frolik, Pardubice 1 997.
14 0-0
14 'ife2 'ifc7 ( 1 4 . . . d5 ! ? 15 0-0-0
'ifb6 ! 16 exd5 { 16 �c2 0-0-0 looks
OK for Black} 16 ... .i.xd5 17 .i.e4 he4
1 8 'ifxe4 0-0, with the point 1 9 f4 'iie6,
is suggested by Van der Wiel as inter­
esting; I agree) 1 5 �c2 f5 1 6 f3 ( 1 6
exf5 looks critical) 1 6 . . . fxe4 1 7 fxe4
d5 1 8 0-0 l%g8 1 9 �h l �g6 20 exd5
0-0-0 2 1 �e3 �f4 22 .i.f5+ �b8 23
'ifc2 �xd5 = Mencinger-Sermek, Bled
1 998.
14 .fS IS exfS l%g8 16 g3
..
16 f3? llXis 1 7 'ifd2 �4 18 g3 'ifh4 !
1 9 .i.e4 d5 20 .i.c2 0-0-0 2 1 'ife l
l%xg3+! 22 hxg3 l%g8 23 g4 l%xg4+ 24
fxg4 'ifxg4+ 25 'iPf2 d4 ! 0- 1 Prasad­
Kouatly, Kolhapur 1987.
16 ...dS 17 WhS!
It looks to me like White is better.
17 �c2 e4 1 8 .i.e2 �xf5 would only
give unclear play.
C4)
13 Wd2
This continuation is a suggestion
by ECO.
13 ... .i.b7 14 0-0-0
14 c4 b4 15 'ifxb4 .i.xe4 1 6 c5 d5
1 7 'ifa4+ �f8 1 8 l%c l l%g8 and Black
is fine, Rigo-Tegzes, Hungary 1994.
14 . .dS IS exdS 'ii'xdS 16 WxdS
.
�xdS!
1 6 . . . .i.xd5 1 7 b3 gave White the
better game in Barua-Sattar, Calcutta
1 995 .
17 c4 �b4
17 . . . bxc4 1 8 �xc4 ±.
18 cxbS �xa2+ 19 �bl �b4 20
bxa6 .i.xa6 21 .i.xa6 l%xa6 22 l%hel
White seems to possess a slight ad­
vantage although nothing is decided
yet.
C5)
13 g3 (D)
B
13....i.b7
A good alternative is 1 3 . . . f5 ! ? 1 4
.i. g 2 fxe4 1 5 .i.xe4 l%b8 ! ( 1 5 . . . d 5 1 6
.i.g2 .i.e6 1 7 'if h 5 'ifc7 1 8 � c 2 0-0
19 0-0 f6 + Gobet-Bhend, Swiss Ch
1988) 16 �c2 0-0 17 'ifd2 f5 ( 1 7 ... d5?
18 'ifg5+ �g6 19 'ifxd8 l%xd8 20
0-0-0 .i.e6 21 .i.xg6 hxg6 22 l%he l f6
23 f4 and White is better Van der -
Wiel) 1 8 .i.g2 f4 1 9 0-0-0 l%b6 20 �b4
f3 ! ? cc Kacheishvili- Kuijf, Debrecen
Echt 1 992.
14 .i.g2 fS
1 4 . . d5 1 5 'ife2 dxe4 1 6 l%d l 'ifb6
.
17 .i. xe4 .i. xe4 18 'ifxe4 is better for
 1 1 c 3 llJe7
White, Hellers-Maksimovic, Berlin
1 988.
IS 1i'e2 (D)
B c2) 16 h4 'ifc7 17 lLlc2 lLlg6 (if
15 ... 0-0
Or:
a) 15 . . . 'ifb6 16 0-0-0 ( l 6 lLlc2 'ifc6
17 0-0-0 a5 18 'ifd2 0-0-0 19 l:the l
�b8 20 'ifg5 l:td7 2 1 'iff6 l:tc8 1/2- 1/2
A.S okolov-Zsu .Polgar, B ilbao 1 987;
chances are even in an unclear posi­
tion) 16 . . . 0-0-0 17 lLlc2 l:the8 18 l:td2
fxe4 19 .i.xe4 d5 20 .i.g2 and White is
preferable, Marjanovic-Kouatly, Clichy
1 986.
b) 15 ... fxe4 16 .i.xe4 .i.xe4 17
'ifxe4 0-0 and now:
b 1 ) Black is definitely OK after the
passive 1 8 l:td 1 f5 1 9 'ife2 f4 20 'ifg4+
�h8 2 1 0-0 lLlf5 22 lLlc2 l:ta7 23 lLlb4
l:tg7 (Black has a very strong initia­
tive) 24 'ifh3 'ifc8 25 'ifh5 l:tfg8 26
lLld5 fxg3 27 fxg3 lLlxg3 ! 28 hxg3
l:txg3+ 29 �h2 l:t3g5 30 'ifh6 l:t5g6
3 1 'ifh5 'ife6 3 2 lLlc7 l:th6 ! 0- 1 Szna­
pik-Ji.Nun, Dortmund 1 989.
b2) 18 0-0-0 f5 19 'ife3 'ifc7 20
�bl f4 is very dynamic and presum­
ably equal, Justin-Sermek, Slovenian
Cht 1 995.
71
c) 15 ... h5? ! seems completely mad,
but Black has done OK in one game at
least:
c l ) 1 6 lLlc2 'ifc7 1 7 0-0-0 0-0-0 1 8
.i.f3 'ifc4 1 9 l:thel 'ifxe2 2 0 l:txe2 h4 =
Susnik-Sermek, Ljubljana 1 992.
17 . . . fxe4 ? ! , then 18 .i.xe4 .i.xe4 1 9
'ifxe4 d 5 20 'ife2 �f8 { 20 . . . l:th6 ! ? } 2 1
0-0-0 followed b y 2 2 f4 ! i s much
better for White) 1 8 lLlb4 f4 19 l:tdl ;t
is a possible line.
d) 15 . . . l:tb8 ! ? has been suggested.
16 lLlc2 fxe4 17 .i.xe4 .i.xe4 18
1i'xe4 fS 19 1i'e2 1i'b6 20 0-0-0
20 f4 'ifc5 2 1 'if£2 'ifd5 22 0-0 'ife6
23 l:tael e4 = Ambro!-Gauglitz, Deb­
recen 1 987.
20... aS 21 lLle3 b4 22 c4 b3 (D)
22 . . . l:tac8 ! ? is an alternative. The
main idea is that after 23 'ifd3 ? ! f4 ! 24
lLld5 lLlxd5 25 'ifxd5+ �h8 Black is
even a little better.
w
23 a3 l:tac8 24 �bl f4! ?
24. . .�h8 deserves attention.
2S 1i'g4+
The position is very complicated,
Stripunsky-Morchat, Polanica Zdroj
1 995.
1 1 1 1 c3 jLg5 1 2 ctJc2 lIb8
1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4
lLlf6 s lLlc3 eS 6 lLldbS d6 7 .i.gS a6 8
lLla3 bS 9 lLldS .i.e7 10 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 1
c 3 .i.gS 12 lLlc2 :b8 (D)
w ing to Line B3 of Chapter 12, is natu­
By playing this move-order Black
tries to avoid the possibility of 1 3 h4 ! ?
that exists against the 1 1 . ..0-0 and
1 2 . . . :b8 move-order, but as can be
seen in Chapter 1 2, this is not actually
critical. I have found no reason why
this is not perfectly playable; even
though I have heard rumours that
White has something strong yet to be
revealed. Still, I would like to see it be­
fore I'd believe it. 1 3 a4 is the only truly
critical line. On most white alterna­
tives, 1 3 . . . 0-0 transposes to Chapter 12.
I have included the variations which
for some reason do not transpose.
13 a4
Or:
a) 13 "'d3 0-0 14 g3 ( 1 4 :d l trans­
poses to Line D of Chapter 1 2) 14 ... a5
15 h4 .i.h6 16 :d l .i.e6 17 .i.h3 b4 1 8
c 4 b 3 ! 1 9 axb3 .i.xd5 2 0 "'xd5 'iVb6
21 "'xd6 "'xb3 22 "'xc6 "'xc2 23 0-0
.i.e3 24 :d7 .i.d4 and B lack is some­
what better, Hector-Krasenkov, Malmo
1995.
b) 1 3 a3 . Now 13 ... 0-0, transpos­
ral, but also there is nothing wrong
with 1 3 . . . lLle7 14 lLlcb4 lLlxd5 15 exd5
"'b6 16 a4 0-0 17 axb5 axb5 1 8 g3 e4
with sufficient counterplay, Lanka­
Iz.Jelen, Ljubljana 1 994.
c) 13 g3 lLle7 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 transposes
to note ' c l ' to Black's 1 3th move in
Chapter 12; the text-move seems fine,
even though the present game doesn' t
reveal a lot) 14 �cb4 lLlxd5 15 exd5
"'b6 Ill - Ill Magem-de la Villa, Pam­
plona 1 997/8.
13 ...bxa4 14 lLlcb4 .i.d7!
14 . . . lLlxb4 ? ! 15 lLlxb4 0-0 1 6 lLlc6
"'b6 17 lLlxb8 "'xb2 1 8 .i.e2 (Black
has the narrow choice of being just
lost or playing as he did) 1 8 . . ....xc3+
19 �fl .i.e6 20 h4 .i.h6 21 lLlxa6 a3
22 g3 and with White a rook up there
is no reason to analyse any further,
Nunn-Borik, Dortmund 1 979.
15 .i.xa6 lLlxb4 16 lLlxb4 (D)
16 cxb4 0-0 and now:
a) 17 b3? :a8 1 8 .i.c4 axb3 1 9
.i.xb3 .i.b5 and with the white king
trapped in the centre White had a hard
time in Shmuter-Sutovsky, Rishon le
Zion 1 994.
 1 1 c3 i.g5 12 liJc2 :b8
b) 17 l:txa4? (losing a vital tempo
compared to 17 0-0) 17 . . . .i.xa4 1 8
'ifxa4 f5 1 9 exf5 l:txf5 20 0-0 e4 2 1
'ifb3 �h8 22 b5 'ifg8 23 l:t d l l:tbf8 and
Black's initiative proved too strong in
Wahls-Schulte, Hamburg 1 986.
c) 17 0-0 .i.c6 18 l:txa4 ( 1 8 b5
.i.xb5 19 .i.xb5 l:txb5 20 'ifc2 { 20
'ifxa4 is better, with total equality }
20 . . . 'ifb8 21 l:tfbl l:tc8 and Black had
some pressure even though he was
never close to winning in Borge-El
Kher, Danish Ch 1999) 1 8 . . . .i.xa4 19
'ifxa4 g6 20 'ifc6 .i.d2 2 1 b5 .i.a5 22
.i.b7 f6 23 b4 .i.b6 ! 24 lDxb6 l:tf7 25
l:td 1 l:tfxb7 26 l:txd6 'ifxd6 27 'ifxd6
l:txb6 and the position is drawn,
Barua-Lalic, Ubeda 1998.
B position voluntarily.
16 .. 1i'aS
. should be avoided) 20 . . . 0-0.
16 ... 0-0 ! ? 17 0-0 .i.e7 1 8 'ife2 'iti>h8
19 'iti>hl g6 20 l:tadl 'ir'e8 t¥;) Chandler­
Simic, Rakovica 1982. As this game
shows, Black has more than one way
to play here.
17 1i'xd6
This is claimed to be critical, and
while there might be a hole in my
analysis, I find the black position no
worse. Other possibilities are: 17 'ifd5
'ifxd5 1 8 exd5 0-0 19 0-0 e4 20 l:ta2
73
l:tb6 2 1 .i.e2 f5 :j: Wallace-Rogozenko,
Budapest 1 995, and 1 7 .i.d3 l:txb4 ! ?
1 8 cxb4 'ifxb4+ 1 9 �e2 d5, which is
known to be fine for Black. A possible
continuation is 20 'ifc2 d4 2 1 l:thdl
0-0 22 �f1 l:tc8 with a double-edged
position. Although the exchange sacri­
fice seems all right I have a bad feeling
about it.
17 ...l:tb6 18 1i'd3 .i.e7!
Better than:
a) 1 8 . . . l:txb4? 19 cxb4 'ifxb4+ 20
�f1 .i.c6 21 h4 and the compensation
is completely insufficient, Aseev-Vol­
zhin, Russian Ch 1996.
b) 18 . . . .i.e6 ? ! 1 9 0-0 0-0 20 .i.c4
l:td8 21 .i.d5 .i.e7 22 'ifd 1 .i.xb4 23
l:txa4 'ifcS 24 cxb4 'ifd6 25 'ifb3 .i.xd5
26 exd5 g6 eventually led to a draw in
Belotti-Komarov, Asti 1 994, but I
guess no one would like to take on this
19 lDdS
This is supposed to be the refuta­
tion in the books I have seen. My pal
has told me he heard that another
problem exists, but I am still waiting
for it to appear.
1 9 l:tdl is not really dangerous. Black
enjoys his position after 1 9 . . . .i.e6 20
0-0 (20 .i.c4? l:txb4 ! 2 1 .i.xe6 l:td4
19 .. ':xb2! 20 0-0
20 lDxe7 �xe7 21 l:td l (21 O-O-O??
wins a piece but loses the game after
2 1 . . .l:thb8 22 'ifxd7+ �f8 23 'ifd6+
�g8 24 'ifd3 a3 ! and so on) 2 1 .. ..i.e6
gives Black a preferable position. The
king is guite safe on f6.
20 1IfcS 21 l:tabl l:txbl 22 l:txbl
••
0-0 23 .i.bS
Black is fine, Leko-Illescas, Madrid
1998.
1 2 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 ttJc2 :b8
1 e4 cS 2 lOo .!Oc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lOxd4
lOf6 S lOc3 eS 6 lOdbS d6 7 -tgS a6 8
lOa3 bS 9 lOds -te7 10 -txf6 -txf6 1 1
c3 0-0 1 2 lOc2 :b8 (D)
w creative player, but I think this is just a
This is one of the two main ways to
play against 9 .!Od5, and I believe it is
probably the best - at least according
to current theory. It's the main choice
of such prominent Sveshnikov players
as Yakovich, Schandorff and Sutov­
sky. I know 1 2 ... -tg5 is in fashion, but
my experience is that fashion in chess
is no different from fashion in clothes
or music. The main lines are:
A: 13 h4! ? 75
B: 13 a3! ? 76
C: 13 -td3 78
D: 13 1Ii'd3 78
E : 13 -te2 78
Other moves are less critical:
a) 1 3 b4? ! (as the following game
shows, this cannot be recommended)
1 3 . . . lOe7 1 4 lOce3 -tg5 1 5 lOxe7+
1Ixe7 16 lOd5 1ib7 17 a4 -te6 1 8 g3
:rc8 19 :a3 -txd5 20 exd5 e4 ! 2 1
-te2 -tf6 and the white position i s al­
ready much inferior, J.Polgar-Kram­
nik, New York PCA rpd 1 994.
b) 13 11f3 ? ! (Conquest is a very
bit too creative) 1 3 . . . -tg5 14 h4 -th6
15 g4 f6 1 6 1Ig2 -te6 17 -td3 -tf4 ! 1 8
:d l a5 1 9 a3 1Id7 and Black has noth­
ing to worry about, Conquest-Povah,
London ECC 1 996.
c) 13 g3 (this move should not be
feared) and now:
c l ) 1 3 . . . -tg5 is playable: 14 h4 ( 14
-tg2 a5 15 0-0 lOe7 1 6 lOce3 -txe3
17 lOxe3 1Ib6 18 1Id2 -te6 19 :fd l
:rd8 = Zapata-Kharlov, Linares open
1 997) 14 . . .-th6 15 -th3 -te6 16 -txe6
fxe6 1 7 lOde3 -txe3 1 8 lOxe3 lOa5 1 9
0-0 lOc4 with a [me game for Black as
long as he doesn't overlook anything,
Ivanchuk-Lautier, Monaco Amber
blindfold 1 999.
c2) 13 . . .-te6 (the most natural) 14
-tg2 -tg5 1 5 0-0 a5 16 1Id3 .!Oe7 17
lOce3 -txe3 18 lOxe3 1Ib6 19 l%fd l
:rdS and Black is slightly better, Wes­
terinen-Schandorff, Reykjavik 1997.
d) 1 3 a4 (after this move White has
no reason ever to hope for an advan­
tage) 1 3 . . . bxa4 14 t'£)cb4 ( 1 4 :xa4
:xb2 15 -txa6 -tg5 16 0-0 -te6 and
Black is more active, Joergens-Rogo­
zenko, Berlin 1995) 14 . . . lOxb4 1 5
 1 1 c3 0-0 12 lLlc2 :t:l.bB
�xb4 ( 1 5 cxb4 .i.d7 16 .i.xa6 .i.c6 17
b5 .i.xb5 18 .i.xb5 l:lxb5 19 l:lxa4 l:lxb2
20 0-0 .i.g5 2 1 "'g4 and neither player
has any reason to play on, Filipenko­
A.N.Panchenko, Kursk 1987) 15 ....i.b7
16 "'xa4 ( 1 6 .i.xa6 .i.xe4 17 0-0 "'c7
1 8 "'xa4 l:lfd8 1 9 l:lfd l .i.a8 20 .i.n
1i'b6 21 "'a2 d5 = Zapata-Schmittdiel,
Dortmund 1 984) 16 . . . a5! 17 "'xa5 ( 1 7
�c6? .i. x c 6 18 "'xc6 l:lxb2 1 9 .i.c4
"'c8 20 "'d5 .i.d8 2 1 0-0 .i.b6 gives
White no real compensation for the
pawn, lanetschek-Van der Wiel, Baden
1 980) 1 7 . . . l:la8 1 8 .i.a6 he4 is not a
position Black should fear, even though
the fmal consequences are uncertain.
A)
1 3 h4!? (D)
B as in Dudas-Priehoda, Slovakian Cht
This is Kasparov's idea, which
briefly made Black abandon this sys­
tem after his impressive wins against
Kramnik and Lautier. However, time
has proved that Black should be fine.
13....i.e7!
This is the right way to respond, as
Yakovich, Schandorff and others have
pointed out. Other moves:
a) 1 3 . . . g6? ! 14 g3 .i.e6 15 h5 .i.g7
1 6 .i.h3 a5 1 7 �ce3 "'g5 1 8 �c7 !
75
.i.xh3 1 9 l:lxh3 l:lfd8 20 �n b4 2 1
�cd5 l:ldc8 2 2 "'a4 bxc3 2 3 bxc3
gave White a very large advantage in
1.Polgar-IIIescas, Leon 1 996. Even
though Black's play can be improved,
1 3 . . . g6 cannot be recommended.
b) 1 3 . . . .i.e6 (I don't think this wait­
ing move improves things a lot com­
pared to 1 3 . . .�e7 - so at least the plan
in this game must be considered the
wrong path) 14 �ce3 �e7?! ( 14 ... a5?!
1 5 "'f3 b4 1 6 .i.c4 bxc3 1 7 bxc3 l:lb2
1 8 g3 a4 1 9 0-0 ± Yurtaev-Holmsten,
Helsinki 1 992; 14 . . . .i.e7 transposes to
the main line) 15 �xf6+ gxf6 1 6 "'f3
( 1 6 .i.d3 ! is much stronger) 1 6 . . . �g7
17 l:ldl b4 was good enough to secure
Black a draw in Vouldis-Sutovsky,
Holon U-20 Ech 1 995. 1 believe that
White's advantage might be entirely
gone here.
c) 1 3 . . . �e7 14 �xf6+ ! ( 1 4 �ce3,
1 995, doesn't make any sense; taking
on f6 is what this is all about) 14 . . . gxf6
and now:
c l ) 15 �e3 is truly harmless:
15 ... f5 1 6 exf5 �xf5 1 7 �xf5 .i.xf5
1 8 .i.d3 .i.e6 19 "'d2 f5 and Black
might even be slightly better, Kristo­
vic-Devide, Zadar 1 997.
c2) 15 "'d2 (Kasparov's original
choice, upon which he later improved)
15 . . . .i.b7 ( 1 5 . . . .i.e6?! 1 6 0-0-0 �c6
17 "'h6 and White went on to win in
Feher-Priehoda, Hungary 1 995) 1 6
.i. d 3 d 5 1 7 exd5 "'xd5 1 8 0-0-0 e4 1 9
.i.e2 "'xa2 2 0 "'h6 "'e6 2 1 �d4 "'e5 !
( 2 1 . . .... b6, Kasparov-Kramnik, Nov­
gorod 1 994, 22 g4 ! �h8 23 �5 �xf5
24 gxf5 l:lfd8 25 .i.h5 e3 ! 26 l:lhgl
l:lxd l + 27 .i.xdl l:lg8 28 l:lxg8+ �xg8
29 "'xe3 gives White an advantage
76 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
according to Kasparov) 22 f 4 exf3 23
.i.d3 �g6 24 g3 .i.e4 and Gild.Gar­
cia-Illescas, Linares (Mexico) 1994
soon ended in a draw.
c3) 1 5 .i.d3 ! d5 ( 1 5 . . . f5 ? ! { a piece
of home preparation that turned out to
be anything but an improvement - one
of the few cases where this has hap­
pened to Schandorff} 1 6 exf5 �xf5 17
"h5 e4 I S .i.e2 �g7 1 9 "h6 l:tb6 20
"d2 f5 2 1 �e3 ± Hjartarson-Schan­
dorff, Reykjavik 1 997) 1 6 exd5 "xd5
17 �e3 "e6 I S "h5 ! (the difference
from line 'c2 ' : the queen is much
better here than on d2) IS . . . e4 {)S . . . f5
1 9 .i.c2 "g6 20 "g5 ! f6 2 1 "xg6+
hxg6 22 0-0-0 rj;g7 23 h5 g5 24 h6+
gives White a strong attack on the
black position, Solozhenkin-Sitnikov,
St Petersburg 1 999) 1 9 .i.c2 b4 20 c4
rj;hS (after 20 . . . f5 Kasparov had in­
tended 2 1 "g5 + ! ? rj;hS 22 "f4) 2 1
0-0-0 f5 2 2 "g5 l:tb6 (22. . ...e5 2 3
�g4 "e6 24 �6 �gS 25 � 5 is just
one of the ways Black can be out­
played) 23 h5 l:tc6 (23 .. .l:tgS 24 "f4
"h6 25 g3 gives White a much better
game : Black's bishop is entirely with­
out scope while White's is waiting for
the right time to go to a4, b3 or sUPl'0rt
a f2-f3 break) 24 rj;bl l:tc5 25 h6 1We5
26 l:th5 l:tgS 27 �g4 ! ! 1 -0 Kasparov­
Lautier, Moscow OL 1 994. Black is
mated after 27 ... l:txg5 2S �xe5 l:txh5
29 l:tdS+ �gS 30 �xf7#.
14 �ce3
The main line so far. White has not
been able to prove anything with any
other moves:
a) 1 4 g3 .i.e6 15 "d3 "d7 16 l:tdl
.i.dS 17 �ce3 �e7 IS .i.g2 �xd5 19
�xd5 b4 ! 2 0 cxb4 a5 and Black is
fine, Vuckovic-S imic, Sabac 1 995.
b) 14 .i.d3 .i.e6 15 �ce3 "d7 16
a4 .i.dS 17 axb5 axb5 I S h5 rj;hS 19
"f3 .i.g5 2 0 "g3 h 6 112- 112 Kengis­
Schandorff, Arhus 1 997.
c ) 14 a3 rj;hS 15 .i.d3 .i.e6 16
�cb4 �xb4 17 axb4 l:taS IS .i.c2 l:ta7
1 9 g3 "d7 20 0-0 .i.dS 2 1 �e3 .i.b6
and Black has no problems, Nisi­
peanu-RogozenkQ, Hamburg 1 995.
14.. ie6 1S a3
1 5 a4 "d7 1 6 b4 .i.dS 1 7 axb5 axb5
I S l:ta6 rj;hS 1 9 .i.e2 112-112 Stefans­
son-Schandorff, Copenhagen 1 995 and
Nunn-Kindermann, Bie1 19S3.
1 5 g3 "d7 1 6 "f3 .i.dS 1 7 h 5 h6 1S
�5 .i.xf5 1 9 "xf5 "xf5 20 exf5
�7 2 1 �xe7+ .i.xe7 22 .i.g2 :rcS 23
0-0 rj;fS with complete equality, Tiv­
iakov-Yakovich, Russian Ch 1 997 .
IS 1i'd7 16 .i.d3 .i.d8 17 hS h6 18
••.
"r3 .i.gS 19 l:tdl as
Black is all right, B arua-Rogo­
zenko, Calcutta 1 999.
B)
13 a3 (D)
This is an original idea by Lanka.
Now the main line is supposed to be
l 3 . . . a5, but I think other moves are
better.
 JJ c3 0-0 12 �c2 :b8
Bl: 13 aS ... 77
B2: 13 tOe7 .•. 77
B3: 13 J.gS ! ? 77
...
But not:
a) 13 ... J.b7 ? ! 14 h4 li:Je7 15 lLlxf6+
gxf6 1 6 .g4+ �h8 1 7 h5 .c8 1 8 .h4
.e6 1 9 J.d3 f5 20 0-0-0 and White is
to be preferred, Heymann-Pramann,
German U-20 girls Ch (Leipzig) 1 995.
b) 13 ... g6 14 lLlcb4 J.b7 1 5 J.e2
J.g7 16 h4 with a small advantage to
White although Black held his own in
Kindermann-Fauland, Austrian Cht
1 994/5.
B1)
1 3 08 5 1 4 J.d3 (D)
. •
14 h4 is interesting, although I doubt
that it's a real improvement over 13 h4.
B 16 lLlxf6+ .xf6 17 .xd6 is not a
14 ... J.e6 15 'ii'e 2 J.xd5 16 exd5
lLle7 17 O-O-O! 'ii' b6 18 �bl g6
1 8 . . .•c5 ! ? 1 9 .f3 , ! planning h4
and g4 with an attack, is also prefera­
ble for White.
19 h4!
Now:
a) 19 . . . J.g7 20 h5 f5 (20 . . . lLlxd5
21 hxg6 hxg6 22 J.xg6 lLlxc3+ 23
bxc3 fxg6 24 .d3 is crushing as well
77
according to Bologan, but maybe it's
not so clear after 24 . . .l:lf6 or 24 ... h4 ! )
2 1 hxg6 hxg6 22 g4 ! leads t o a crush­
ing attack for White, Bologan- Redon,
France 1 994.
b) 1 9 . . . lLlxd5 20 .f3 lLlf4 2 1 g3
lLlxd3 22 :xd3 J.g7 23 :hd l :fdS 24
g4 is maybe the best option for Black,
even though White is still to be pre­
ferred here despite Black's extra pawn.
B2)
13 ... lLle7
I see no reason why this shouldn't
be fine as well.
14 lLlcb4 lLlxd5
14 . . . J.b7 ? ! 15 J.e2 lLlg6 16 g3 ! a5
1 7 lLlc2 J.xd5 1 8 .xd5 li:Je7 1 9 .d3
d5 20 :d l g6 (Karpov-Lautier, Ubeda
1 994) 2 1 exd5 ! .d6 22 lLle3 J.g7 23
a4 ! bxa4 24 lLlc4 .c5 25 d6 lLlf5 26
d7 :t'd8 27 J.f3 ±.
15 lLlxd5 J.e6 16 J.e2
good plan: 17 .. . :fd8 1 8 .c5 :d7 ! 1 9
J.e2 :bd8 2 0 :d l (or 2 0 0-0 :d2)
20 . . . :xdl + 21 J.xdl •g5 22 0-0 J.c4
23 :el .d2 24 .e3 .xdl -+.
16 J.g5 17 0-0 'ii'd7 18 1i'd3 :fc8
•.•
The position seems roughly equal,
Wahls-Lobron, Bundesliga 1 994/5 .
B3)
13 J. gS ! ?
••.
This is a reasonable alternative to
13 . . . a5 and in my mind the future main
line here.
14 lLlcb4
14 g3 (really harmless) 14 ... lLle7 1 5
lLlcb4 a 5 1 6 lLlxe7+ .xe7 1 7 lLld5
.b7 1 8 .d3 J.e6 1 9 : d l b4 ! with
complete equality, Lau-Sareen, Lon­
don Lloyds Bank 1994.
78 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian

14 ... �b7 IS g3 as 16 tbxc6 �xc6 gives White a slight advantage, A.Sok­

17 h4 �h6 18 �h3 b4 19 axb4 axb4 olov- Valsser, Reunion 1 99 1 .
20 c4 :a8 21 0-0 :xal 22 "xal b ) 1 4 . . . a5 1 5 tbde3 'W'b6 "is the
�xdS 23 cxdS 'W'b6 simplest" - Krasenkow. I agree with
Black is better, Xie Jun-Sutovsky, his judgement - Black is fine here.
Pamplona 1 998/9. IS h4 �h6 16 g4 .i.f4 17 �g2 :e8
18 "f3 tbas 19 b3 :c8 20 :h3 �xdS
C) 21 :xdS tDc6 22 �fl b4 23 c4 tbe7
13 �d3 24 :d3 "aS
This is a rather popular alternative Black is certainly no worse, Sha­
to 1 3 �e2 even though Black has no balov-Degraeve, Cappelle la Grande
problems. 1 995.
13 . �e6 14 tbce3
..

14 0-0 �g5 15 a4 ( 1 5 'W'e2 is harm­ E)

less: 1 5 . . . 'W'd7 1 6 :Cd l �xd5 17 exd5 13 �e2 �gS (DJ
�7 1 8 'W'h5 h6 1 9 �fl a5 was fine
for Black in Romanishin-Htibner, West
Germany 1 9 8 1 ) 1 5 . . . bxa4 1 6 tbdb4
tbe7 1 7 �xa6 �b3 1 8 'W'e2 'W'c7 1 9 w
� d 3 :b6 2 0 tba3 d 5 and the compli­
cations eventually ended in a draw in
A.Sokolov-Vaiser, Sochi 1 983.
14 ...�gS I S 0-0 tbe7 16 �c2 �xe3
The classical way.
17 tbxe3 b4
17 . . . d5? loses a pawn: 18 exd5
tbxd5 1 9 'W'h5 ! .
18 �b3
18 'W'd3 '12- '12 Aseev-Yakovich, St Now:
Petersburg 1 993. E l : 14 'W'd3 79
1 8 .....d7 1 9 'W'd3 bxc3 20 bxc3 E2: 14 0-0 79
'W'c6 21 :abl :reS
= Yurtaev-King, Frunze 1 987. Less testing is 14 a4 bxa4 15 tbcb4
tbxb4 16 cxb4 ( 1 6 tbxb4 �b7 1 7
D) 'W'xa4 a5 18 'W'xa5 :a8 1 9 �a6 'W'f6 20
13 .d3 �gS 14 :dl �b7 �xb7 :xa5 21 :xa5 �d2+ ! and Black
Other options: is better although matters are still
a) 14 . . . f5? ! (this cannot be recom­ complicated, Banas-Plachetka, Czech­
mended) 15 tbde3 f4 16 tbf5 hf5 oslovak Ch (Marianske Lazne) 1 978)
( l6 . . . d5 is not much better: after 17 16 ...�b7 17 :xa4 �c6 1 8 :xa6 �xd5
'W'xd5+ 'W'xd5 1 8 :xd5 �xf5 1 9 exf5 19 'W'xd5 :xb4 20 0-0 :xb2 21 :xd6
White is better, even though he lacks '/2-'12 Ulybin-Ikonnikov, Cheliabinsk
development) 17 exf5 'W'b6 1 8 �e2 1 990.
 1 1 c3 0-0 12 tlJc2 1:.b8
E1)
1 4 'fid3 tOe7 (D)
I recommend this move even though
I feel that there is nothing wrong with
14 . . . a5 ! ? 15 :ldl -'.e6 ( 1 5 .. .f5 16 -'.f3
is preferable for White) 1 6 lOce3 ( 1 6
a 3 lOe7 1 7 lOce3 lOxd5 1 8 lOxd5 g6
19 b4 f5 turned out all right for Black
in Brodsky-Beshukov, Helsinki 1 992)
1 6 . . . -'.xe3 ! ? ( 1 6 ... g6? ! { the beginning
of an over-optimistic strategy } 17 0-0
ifd7 1 8 �hl �g7 1 9 a3 b4 20 axb4
axb4 2 1 lOc4 bxc3 22 bxc3 :lfd8 23
ifg3 and White is a little better as
Black hasn't achieved any real coun­
terplay, Lanka-Dvoirys, USSR 1 988)
1 7 lOxe3 ifb6 1 8 lOd5 ifb7 19 0-0
:lfd8 20 ife3 lOe7 with equality, San­
chez Almeyra-Pierrot, Buenos Aires
1 994.
15 lOcb4 lOxd5 16 lOxd5 -'.e6 17
0-0 'fid7 18 :ladl �h8 19 'fig3 h6 20
h3 'fib7
Black's pieces are ideally placed,
Magem-Ochoa, Alicante 1 989.
E2)
14 0-0 a5
1 4 . . . -'.e6 1 5 ifd3 ! ifd7 ! ? ( 1 5 ... a5
transposes to the main line) 16 ifg3 h6
79
17 :tadl �h8 1 8 h3 a5 is probably
fine for Black, though he later freaked
out in Abramovic-Simic, Yugoslav
Ch 1 984.
Black did fine with 14 . . . lOe7 ! ? 1 5
lOcb4 -'.b7 1 6 lOxe7+ ifxe7 1 7 lOd5
ife6 1 8 a4 -'.xd5 19 exd5 ifd7 20
axb5 axb5 2 1 ifb3 :lfc8 22 :la6 b4 23
c4 -'.d8 in Sznapik-Donchev, Bratis­
lava 1 983.
15 ifdJ
Other tries:
a) 15 lOa3? ! b4 ! 1 6 lOb5 bxc3 17
bxc3 lOe7 1 8 a4 (18 c 4 lOxd5 1 9 cxd5
ifb6 20 a4 -'.d7 21 :la3 :lbc8 was
better for Black in Petrushin-Yako­
vich, St Petersburg 1 995) 1 8 . . . lOxd5
19 ifxd5 :lb6 20 -'.c4 iff6 2 1 ifd3
-'.f4 22 l:tabl d5 23 -'.xd5 ifg5 24 g3
l:th6 25 iff3 -'.g4 26 gxf4 exf4 -+
Petrushin-Yurtaev, Tallinn 1983.
b) 1 5 a3 lOe7 1 6 lOce3 -'.xe3 17
lOxe3 -'.e6 gives Black no problems
whatsoever.
c) 15 b4 lOe7 1 6 lOxe7+ -'.xe7 1 7
lOe3 ( 17 a4 bxa4 1 8 b5 -'.e6 1 9 c4 ifd7
gives White nothing, Sokolov-Andri­
anov, Moscow Ch 1 982) 17 . . . -'.e6 1 8
lOd5 ( 1 8 a4 axb4 1 9 cxb4 bxa4 20
:lxa4 if d7 21 b5 :lfc8 is no worse for
Black, Tolnai-Gyorkos, B alatonbereny
1 992) 1 8 ... axb4 1 9 cxb4 ifd7 20 ifd3
-'.d8 2 1 'it'h 1 (21 lOc3 f5 22 exf5 -'.c4
23 ife4 -'.xe2 is no worse for Black ei­
ther) 2 l . ..-'.b6 22 :lac l -'.d4 and
Black has the better chances, Suet in­
Andrianov, Moscow Ch 1 98 1 .
15 ... -'.e6
1 5 ... lOe7 has proved to be fine too:
a) 16 lOde3 Wb6 17 :lfd l :ld8 1 8
a4 bxa4 1 9 :lxa4 -'.e6 20 :ldal ifxb2
21 l:txa5 lOc6 22 :la6 :lbc8 23 lOd 1
ifb7 with a slight advantage for Black,
 80 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
W olff- Yakovich, Palma de Mallorca
1 989.
b) 16 �xe7+ "ilxe7 1 7 l:tfd l l:tb6
1 8 �e3 .i.xe3 1 9 'iWxe3 'iWc7 20 l:td5
"ilb8 2 1 a3 1/2- 1/2 de Firmian-Benja­
min, USA Ch 1 989.
c ) 16 �ce3 .i. xe3 ! (standard) 17
�xe3 "ilb6 18 b4 ( 1 8 l:tfd l l:td8 19
l:td2 h6 20 h3 "ilc5 21 l:tad l .i.e6 22
.i.g4 .i.c4 ! 2 3 "ilc2 l:tb6 = Kamsky­
Illescas, Dos Hermanas 1 996; 1 8 a4
bxa4 1 9 �c4 .i.a6! with good chances
for Black - Sveshnikov) 1 8 . . . axb4 1 9
cxb4 .i.e6 2 0 l:tfbl l:tfc8 = Beliavsky­
Sveshnikov, Tashkent 1 980.
16 l:tfdl (D)
1 6 l:tadl g6 ! 17 a3 �h8 1 8 b4 'iWd7
1 9 "ilg3 .i.d8 20 �h l f5 = Larsen­
Nunn, Nlestved 1 985.
B 19 'iWg3 .i.h6 20 �ce3 .i.xe3 21 �xe3
16 ... g6
The main line. Black has some rea­
sonable alternatives:
a) 16 . . . "ild7?! (not one of them) 1 7
"ilg3 h 6 1 8 h 4 .i.d8 1 9 �ce3 �h8 20
l:td2 gives White a small but definite
edge, Spassky- Vukic, Reggio Emilia
1 983/4 (among others).
b) 16 ... �e7 (also this proved rather
unsuccessful) 1 7 �xe7+ .i.xe7 1 8
�e3 "ilb6 1 9 �f5 ! .i.xf5 2 0 exf5 and
White is better, Sanchez Almeyra-de
las Heras, Mar del Plata 1 994.
c) 16 . . . b4 ! ? 17 �ce3 (the alterna­
tive 1 7 c4 l:tb7 1 8 �de3 "ilb6 1 9 b3
l:td7 is fine for Black, Glatt-Maiorovas,
Hungary 1 984) 1 7 . . . .i.xe3 1 8 �xe3
'iWb6 19 .i.g4 .i.xg4 20 �xg4 bxc3 2 1
bxc3 l:tfd8 22 l:tabl "ilc5 and Black is
fine, Short-Kindermann, Plovdiv 1 984.
d) 16 . . . �h8 (this is to my mind the
main alternative to 1 6 . . . g6, but I also
have a lot of faith in Schandorff's
homework) 17 �de3 ( 17 .i.f3 "ild7 1 8
�ce3 g6 1 9 "ile2 l:tfd8 20 g3 f5 is OK
for Black, Santo-Roman - Chandler,
Cannes 1 992) 17 ... "ilb6 1 8 �d5 'iWb7
l:tfd8 22 .i.g4 b4 and Black has a slight
advantage, Meijers-Schandorff, Stock­
holm Rilton Cup 1 998/9.
17 t003
1 7 �de3 (this plan cannot be rec­
ommended) 1 7 . . . "ilb6 1 8 'iW xd6 l:tfd8
1 9 'iWa3 b4 20 cxb4 �xb4 2 1 �el
.i.xe3 22 'iWxe3 'iWxe3 23 fxe3 �xa2 and
Black is better, Perecz-T.Georgadze,
Dortmund 1 979.
17 �a7 18 �e3 'it'b6 19 �ac2
•••
.i.c4 20 'it'd2 'ii' c6
= Tseshkovsky-T.Georgadze, USSR
Ch (Tbilisi) 1 978.
 1 3 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 ttJc2 clg5
1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4
�f6 5 �c3 e5 6 �db5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8
�3 b5 9 �d5 .i.e7 10 .i.xf6.i.xf6 1 1
c3 0-0 12 �c2 .i.g5 (D)
This is the most popular variation
these days. Its main popularity this
time around began when Kramnik
and Lautier suffered at the hands of
Kasparov in the 1 2 . . . l:tb8 line. I guess
that Kramnik's wins against Lutz and
Polgar also helped the variation's rep­
utation.
For White there are two main ap­
proaches and a large number of not
very significant possibilities. In the
main line ( 1 3 a4 bxa4 14 l:txa4 a5)
only 15 .i.c4 and 1 5 .i.b5 are really
dangerous, while 1 3 h4 !? followed by
14 g3 might surprise the unprepared. I
certainly had not noticed this idea be­
fore I started working on this book.
But the main conclusion must be that
1 2 . . . .i.g5 is OK for Black currently,
and probably will continue to be so for
some time. At the moment only 1 5
.i.b5 gives me any concerns. After 1 5
.i.c4 l:tb8 1 6 b 3 �h8 1 7 0-0 I recom­
mend 17 . . . f5, but 17 . . . g6! ? is also ade­
quate for an even game.
13 a4
This is the only critical line accord­
ing to theory. Of the following devia­
tions I only consider 1 3 h4 followed
by 1 4 g3 as a serious line. The rest
should pose no problems at all.
a) 1 3 .i.e2 and now 1 3 . . . l:tb8 trans­
poses to Line E of Chapter 1 2. Also
Black can play 1 3 . . . �h8 and allow 1 4
a4, which i s n o stronger now.
b) 1 3 .i.d3 �e7 1 4 �ce3 .i.xe3 1 5
�xe3 .i.e6 1 6 0-0 ( 1 6 .i. c 2 sets the
trap 1 6 . . . d5? 17 exd5 �xd5 1 8 'it'h5 e4
19 O-O- O ! and White wins a pawn after
the forced 19 . . . �6; instead, 16 . . .'it'd7
assures equality) 1 6 . . . d5 1 7 exd5
�xd5 1 8 �xd5 'it'xd5 1 9 'it'e2 l:tad8 �
20 :Cd 1 'it'c5 2 1 a3 f5 22 'it'e3? 'it'xe3
0- 1 Waissbluth-Kirton, Manitoba Ch
1 992.
c) 1 3 �ce3 .i.e6 ( 1 3 . . . l:tb8 seems
natural as well; Black should have no
problems here) 14 'it'd3 l:tb8 15 .i.e2
'it'd7 16 0-0 .i.xe3 17 �xe3 �e7 1 8
l:tfd 1 l:tfd8 = Bokan-Goetz, Moscow
1 990.
d) 1 3 g3 l:tb8 transposes to note
'c 1 ' to White 's 1 3th move in Chapter
12.
e ) 13 h4 ! ? .i.h6 (D) and now:
 82 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
w 20 l:tfd 1 l:tfd8 with a favourable posi­
e 1 ) 14 g4? ! (this should really be
avoided) 1 4 . . . .i.f4 ! 1 5 'it'f3 .i.b7 1 6
ltJxf4 "f6 1 7 g 5 "xf4 1 8 'it'x,f4 exf4
1 9 l:td 1 1tJe5 =+= Vella-Mifsud, Maltese
Ch 1 996.
e2) 14 .i.d3 <it.>h8 15 g4? ! (the delay
doesn' t improve this idea) 1 5 . . . .i.f4 !
1 6 "f3 l:tb8 1 7 1tJxf4 exf4 ! ? (an inter­
esting pawn sacrifice; 1 7 "f6 is also
. . .
possible) 1 8 "xf4 b4 1 9 cxb4 1tJe5 20
.i.e2 .i.xg4 ! and Black won in Kris­
tjansson-Lyrberg, Copenhagen 1 998.
e3) 14 �e3 .i.xe3 15 1tJxe3 .i.e6 16
.i.e2 ltJe7 1 7 0-0 "b6 18 'it'd3 l:tac8
1 9 l:tfd1 l:tfd8 20 .i.f3 b4 was good for
Black in Chumfwa-McKenzie, Mos­
cow OL 1 994. I don ' t think the h­
pawn's position makes any difference
from the standard positions.
e4) 14 g3 (really the only move that
makes any impact) 14 . . .l:tb8 ! (14 . . . .i.e6
1 5 a4 bxa4 1 6 l:txa4 as 17 .i.c4 l:tb8 1 8
b4 axb4 1 9 cxb4 �h8 2 0 0-0 .i.d7 2 1
l:ta6 ! Sulskis-Timoshenko, Cappelle
la Grande 1 998) and then:
e4 1 ) 15 .i.h3 .i.e6 16 'it'd3 "d7 17
.i.g2 as 18 0 - 0 tD.e7 is completely
equal, Zapata-Filippov, Linares 1 997.
e42) 15 .i.g2 a5 16 a3 .i.e6 17 0-0
ltJe7 = Stripunsky-Iskusnykh, Russian
Cht (Kazan) 1 995.
e43) 1 5 1tJce3 .i.xe3 16 ltJxe3 ltJe7
17 .i.g2 .i.e6 1 8 0-0 "b6 1 9 'it'd3 a5
tion for Black, Isupov-Yanin, Russian
Cup (Smolensk) 1 997.
e44) 15 a3 as 16 .i.h3 .i.e6 17 "d3
and now, instead of 1 7 . . . .i.xd5 ! Man­
akov-Biriukov, St Petersburg 1 995,
Black should play 17 .....d7 ! with a
fine position,
13 ...bxa4
1 3 .. . l:tb8 ? ! (I have no idea why this
move could attract anyone) 14 axb5
axb5 1 5 .i.d3 .i.e6 ( 1 5 . . . f5 1 6 exf5
.i. xf5 1 7 .i.xf5 l:txf5 1 8 0-0 "c8 1 9
ltJcb4 ltJxb4 2 0 ltJxb4 "e6 2 1 l:ta6
soon turned out to be a complete disas­
ter in Krantz-Wo.Schmidt, Esbjerg
1 976) 16 ltJcb4 ltJxb4 1 7 1tJxb4 l:tb6
1 8 0-0 "b8 1 9 l:ta5 g6 20 "e2 and
Black's position is just too passive to
give him a reasonable game, Wege­
Marth, Wiesbaden 1 992.
14 l:txa4
14 1tJce3 ! ? has also been tried. Even
though this shouldn ' t cause sleepless
nights Black still has to be careful.
14 . . . .i.b7 ( 1 4 . . . l:tb8 1 5 "xa4 1tJe7 1 6
ltJxe7+ "xe7 1 7 ltJd5 "a7 1 8 "c2
.i.d8 19 b4 gave White some advantage
in Loskutov-Filippov, Omsk 1 996) 1 5
'it'xa4 1tJb8 1 6 .i.c4 �7 1 7 'it'c2 .i.xe3 !
(this is the most precise; 17 . . . ltJc5 1 8
f3 ! .i.xe3 1 9 ltJxe3 "b6 20 'it'f2 !
V.Spasov-Dochev, Bulgarian Ch (So­
fia) 1 994) 1 8 1tJxe3 "h4 1 9 .i.d5 ( 1 9
ltJd5 ltJc5 causes problems only for
White) 1 9 . . . .i.xd5 20 exd5 e4 2 1 0-0
f5 22 f4 1tJc5 =+= Gurcan-Tzermiadia­
nos, Ankara 1 995.
14 a5 (D)
•••
For other options here see Line A of
Chapter 9.
 1 1 c3 0-0 12 ll)c2 J.g5
Now there are two main lines:
A: 15 .i.b5 ! ? S3
B : 15 .i.c4 SS
Or:
a) IS .i.e2 fS (there is nothing
wrong with this move as far as I can
tell, but IS .. . l:bS 16 b4 .i.d7, which is
a good version of the IS .i.c4 line, is
also possible) 16 exfS .i.xfS 17 0-0
l:bS I S b4? ! (this proves to be too ag­
gressive) IS . . . .i.xc2 19 1i'xc2 axb4 20
cxb4 lOd4 =+= Ciganikova-Baskovsky,
Slovakian Ch (Presov) 1 997 .
b) IS lOa3 ? ! l:bS 1 6 1i'al fS 17
.i.c4 (when the knight does n't go here,
White 's strategy has failed for sure)
17 . . . �hS I S exfS .i.xfS 1 9 0-0 e4 20
lOc2 lOeS 2 1 lOce3 .i.d7 22 l:xaS
.i.xe3 23 lOxe3 lOxc4 24 lOxc4 .i.bS
was trouble for White in Fichtl-Time­
shchenko, S tary Smokovec 1 972.
c) IS .i.d3 lOe7 16 lOxe7+ 1i'xe7
17 0-0 .i.d7 I S l:a3 .i.c6 1 9 l:el "b7
with equality, Lanc-Chmelik, Slovak­
ian Cht 1 995.
d) IS b4 ! ? l:bS (this line is very
risky, but potentially it could well pay
off; for the coward I recommend
I S . . . lOe7 !?, which is not a bad move,
but I find it hard to imagine that Black
83
could then play for a win) 1 6 bS lOe7
and now:
d l ) 17 1Oce3?! .i.xe3 IS lOxe3 "c7
1 9 c4 fS 20 exfS lLlxfs 2 1 lOxfS l:xfS
22 .i.e2 .i.b7 favours Black, Chan­
dler-Birnboim, Lucerne OL 1 9S2.
d2) 17 .i.c4 1OxdS IS "xdS .i.e6
1 9 "d3 .i. xc4 20 1i'xc4 1i'b6 2 1 1Oa3
.i.c l ! and Black is going to be a pawn
up, Szylar-Etchegaray, Cannes 1 995.
d3) 17 1Oxe7+ "xe7 IS l:xaS 1i'c7
1 9 l:a3 l:aS ! (this is the idea) 20 b6
"cS 2 1 l:xaS (21 "dS "xdS 22 exdS
l:bS 23 l:b3 .i.dS gives Black a small
but significant advantage) 2 1 . . ... xc3+
22 <it.>e2 .i.g4+ 23 f3 l:xaS 24 b7 and
now the extraordinary 24 . . . l:a2 ! ! 2S
bS"+ .i.cs seems to win. After 26
�f2 "e3+ 27 �g3 l:xc2 ! , 2S "xc2?
succumbs to a forced mate (2S . . ... el +
29 "f2 .i.f4+ 30 <it.>h4 "xf2+ 3 1 g3
.i.gS +! 32 <it.>xgS h6+ 33 �h4 gS+ 34
�hS 1i'xf3+ 3S �xh6 1i'f6+ 36 �hS
1i'g6#), while lines involving giving
back the new queen, for example 2S
.i.e2 (2S "e2"cl !) 2S . . . h6! 29 "xc8+,
hold out little hope either.
A)
15 .i.b5 ! ?
This move was popularized by Tiv­
iakov and later used by Kasparov to
crush Van Wely. I believe we are going
to see more of this move in the future.
15 lOe7
...
Probably the best move. Other tries:
a) IS . . . lOa7 1 6 .i.c4 .i.d7 17 l:a2
lOcs I S 0-0 lOb6 1 9 lOxb6 "xb6 20
.i.dS l:acS 2 1 lOa3 with a small edge
for White, Gufeld-Gavrikov, Daugav­
pils 1 975.
b) I s . . id7 (even though this has
proved to be fine in the games played,
84 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
1 do not trust it) 16 0-0 l:tb8 1 7 .!Da3 (it
seems a little odd to go back to a3, but
17 c4 is not really dangerous: 17 ... .!Da7
1 8 .i.xd7 'ff xd7 1 9 l:txa5 l:txb2 20 c5
l:tb7 2 1 'iWh5 .i.d8 is at least OK for
Black, Kapengut-Yusupov, Ashkhabad
1 978) 1 7 . . . �h8 ( l 7 . . . g6 1 8 g3 �h8 1 9
h4 .i.h6 2 0 l:tc4 l:tc8 2 1 'ffa4 and
Black is in trouble, Nisipeanu-J.Iva­
nov, Cappelle la Grande 1 998) 1 8 g3 ! ?
(Nisipeanu' s plan i s i n m y opinion
better than 1 8 l:tc4?! .!De7 1 9 .!Dc7
.!Dc8 ! , when Black is doing all right,
and 1 8 'ffe 2 f5 1 9 f3 fxe4 20 fxe4
l:txfl + 2 1 �xfl 'ffe8 22 �g1. .i.d8 =
Zielinski-Pyda, Gdynia 1 987) 1 8 . . . f5
1 9 h4 .i.h6 20 l:tc4 and 1 believe White
is better, but this still has to be tested.
c) 15 . . . .i.b7 and now:
c l ) 16 .!Dce3 .i.xe3 17 .!Dxe3 ffb6!
(much better than 17 . . . .!De7 ? ! 18 0-0
l:tb8 1 9 'ffd 3 'ffb6 20 .i.c4! ( now Black
cannot grab the b2-pawn) 20 . . . .i.c6 2 1
l:ta2 l:tfd8 22 b3 'ffc5 2 3 l:tfal l:ta8 24
h4 h6 25 h5 and White slowly out­
played his opponent from this superior
position in Kasparov-Van Wely, Wijk
aan Zee 1 999) 1 8 'ffd 3 .!Da7 1 9 .i.c4
'ff xb2 20 0-0 'ffb 6 2 1 l:tfal .!Dc8 22
.i.d5 is fine for Black, El Taher­
Filippov, Dubai 1 999.
c2) 16 0-0 (the only move leading
to an edge) 16 . . . �h8 (maybe Black
should look for another move here) 17
.!Dce3 .!Da7 18 .i.d3 g 6 1 9 .!Dc4 .!Dc6 20
.!Dcb6 l:tb8 2 1 'ffg4 and Black was
soon busted in Tiviakov-S . B . Hansen,
Groningen open 1 997.
We now return to the position after
1 5 . . . .!De7 (D):
16 .!Dcb4
The critical line. Others: 16 0-0
.!Dxd5 17 exd5 'ffb6 1 8 'ffd 3 .i.f5 ! 1 9
w
'ff xf5 'ff xb5 20 :tal .i.d8 2 1 .!Db4
.i.b6 should be fine for Black; 1 6
.!Dxe7+ 'ffxe7 1 7 0-0 ffb7 1 8 'ffd 3
.i.e6 19 c4 .i.d8 is no worse for Black,
Smyslov-Sveshnikov, USSR Ch (Le­
ningrad) 1 977.
16 ie6
.•
1 6 . . . .i.d7 1 7 .!Dxe7+ .i.xe7 1 8 .!Dc6
.i.xc6 19 .i.xc6 l:tb8 20 l:ta2 'ff b6 2 1
.i.d5 g6 2 2 h4 gave White a small but
significant edge in Motylev-Agamal­
iev, Bydgoszcz 1 999.
17 .!Dxe7+ 'ffxe7 1 8 .i.c6 l:ta7!
Less recommendable are:
a) 1 8 ... l:tac8? 1 9 l:txa5 l:txc6 20
.!Dxc6 'ffb7 2 1 h4 and now:
a l ) 2 l . . .'ff xc6 (I suddenly realized
that Krasenkow's book was wrong
about this sacrifice and that 1 was lost)
22 hxg5 'ffxe4+ 23 �fl f6 24 l:ta4
'ffb7 25 'ffd 3 and 1 could have resigned
here in Tiviakov-Aagaard, Breda ECC
1 998 .
a2) 2 l ....i.f6 22 'ffxd6 l:tc8 23 l:ta6!
(the improvement - it is one move
better than 23 l:ta7; previously known
was 23 l:tc5? .i.d7 24 .!De7+ .i.xe7 25
'ffxe7 'ffxe4+ drawing, Raisky-Yako­
vich, Tashkent 1 978) 23 . . . �h8 24 l:ta7
'ffxc6 25 'ff xc6 :Xc6 26 l:ta8+ .i.c8 27
b4 h5 28 b5 l:tc5 29 �d2 and White
 1 1 c3 0-0 12 �c2 Ji.g5
has a winning endgame, Slobodjan­
Loew, German Ch (Bremen) 1 998. I
am sure that after Tiviakov started
playing 1 5 �b5 a lot of grandmasters
put this line into the computer and
came up with the same result. Slobod­
jan was just lucky enough to be al­
lowed to play it too.
b) 18 . . . :ab8? ! (I doubt that this
sacrifice is correct) 19 :xa5 'fic7 20
Ilb5 (20 'fia4 ! ? �c4 21 :a7 'fib6 22
�d5 �xd5 23 exd5 �c l 24 0-0 �xb2
25 1Dc6 also gives White a substantial
advantage) 20 . . . �c4 21 :xb8 :xb8
22 �d5 �b5 23 h4 �f4 24 :b3 and
although White is better, Gavrikov­
Zitin, Tallinn 1 998 ended in a draw.
19 tDd5 �xd5 20 �xd5 :bS 2 1
"cl 'ii'd 7 2 2 0-0 �dS 23 b3 �b6 24
�hl g6 25 f4 exf4 26 :xf4 :CS 27
:al 'fie7 2S :an 'fie5
Black drew this slightly worse posi­
tion rather easily in Tiviakov-Iskus­
nykh, Russian Ch 1 998, but maybe
White can improve somewhere. 1 fear
the worst has yet to come in this line.
B)
15 �c4 :bS! (DJ
This is without doubt the most logi­
cal move. Other tries in this position
normally transpose. The exceptions:
a) 15 . . . �d7 16 b3 �h8 ( 1 6 .. . tDe7
17 :a3 :c8 1 8 'fid3 tDxd5 19 �xd5
1Wb6 20 0-0 with advantage for White,
Jano�evic-Jongsma, Amsterdam 1 970)
17 0-0 f5 18 exf5 tDe7 19 l:ta2 tDxf5
20 1M3 with a distinct plus for White,
Passerotti-Pangrazzi, Rome 1 982.
b) 15 .. . �h8 ! ? 1 6 0-0 f5 17 exf5
�xf5 1 8 tDce3 �e6 1 9 'fid3 :b8 ! 20
:a2 1Wd7 21 b3 (playing both this and
:a2 looks like overkill) 2 1 . . .1Wf7 22
85
'fie4 'ikb7 and was fine in Ebeling­
Nokso Koivisto, Finnish Ch 1 988.
w
Now there are four possibilities for
White. Although 16 b3 has established
itself as the main line by now, the other
three possibilities still demand atten­
tion.
Bl: 16 :a2 85
B2: 16 b4 86
B3: 16 'fial 86
B4: 16 b3 87
B1)
16 :82
This is the suggestion made by
John Nunn in the classic Beating the
Sicilian from 1 984. He says there the
following about the position: "White
has tried virtually every reasonable
method of defending his b-pawn over
the years. Black's counterplay will be
based on . . . f5 opening up the f-file
against the sensitive fl-square. The
pressure may be intensified by . . . 'fid7
and . . . �d8-b6. White, for his part,
aims mainly for exchanges and in par­
ticular he would be very pleased to get
rid of one of Black's bishops. Ulti­
mately White hopes to play b4 creat­
ing a passed pawn which can quickly
86 Easy Guide to the S'Veshniko'V Sicilian
advance since the b4·, b5- and b6-
squares are already covered, but it is
not easy to put this into operation
without allowing a drawish liquida­
tion. Initially white players favoured
1 6 Va l , but this was mainly because
Black's counterplay against f2 was
underestimated. Later 16 b3 became
the most popular, so that a subseq uent
.lh2 would defend the sensitive square
laterally. 1 6 :a2 is probably some·
what more accurate as White can still
p lay b3 later if necessary wh He in fa·
I 24 'We2 (24 b6? :f4 ! ) 2 4. . . l:tc8 25
vourable circumstances he may be
able to save a tempo by playing b4 in
one go. He can also just leave the
pawn on b2 defending c3 and this is
frequently best since it allows �a4 at­
tacking as and c6."
I think 1 6 .lh2 has its drawbacks too.
Firstly the rook is not badly placed at
a4, so the gained tempo in not playing
b3 is just lost in another way. Also the
rook is somew hat out of play on a2
since an attack on as is likely not to
happen. But i t is this way with all
moves in the position: they have ad­
vantages and drawbacks.
16M .�h8 17 0·0
17 �ce3 ! ? should not be so danger­
ous, but Black must still be careful:
1 7 ... g6 (now White launches a very
dangerous attack; 17 . . . iLe6 ! is a good
waiting move) 1 8 h4 ! ? i.xh4 1 9 g3
i.g5 20 f 4 exf4 21 gxf 4 i.h4+ 22 �f I
f5 23 b3 fxe4 24 :ah2 g5 25 tog2 J:b7
26 �xh4 gxh4 27 :xh4 and White has
good compensation, Maus-B irnboim,
Tel-Aviv 1 987.
17 ... g6 18 Ve2
1 8 �h l iLh6 1 9 'i'e2 f5 20 exf5?!
(hardly ever a good decision when
Black can recapture with the g-pawn,
even though there have been such
cases) 20 . . .gxf5 21 'i'h5 i.g7 22 f4
toe7 23 M i.b7 =+= B erescu-Gazarian,
Or opesa del Mar U-1 8 Wch 1 998.
18...f5 19 : d l iL h6 2 0 exf5
20 b4 is premature due to 20 . . . axb4
2 1 cxb4? ! fxe4 22 b5 (22 'i'xe4 i.f5
23 'i'e2 i.xc2 24 'i'xc2 �xb4 is not
what White wanted, although he retains
excellent drawing chances) 22 . . . toa5 !
23 'i'xe4 (23 b6 �xc4 24 'fixc4 i.e6
and b6 eventually will fall) 23 . . . i. b7 !
toce3 :c5 ! and Black is preferable -
Belikov.
20 ... gxf5 21 'i'h5 iLg7 22 like3
iLd7 23 f4 a4 24 iLd3 e4 25 i.c2 toe7
= Kudrin-Belikov, Moscow 1 995.
82)
1 6 b 4 iLd7 17 l b 3 axb4
I must say I prefer to follow Yako­
vich and this move, although there ap­
parently is nothing wrong with the
alternative s: 17 . . . iLe6 1 8 :b3 �h8 1 9
0 - 0 fr'd7 2 0 "d3 1 /2 - 1/2 Shmuter-Cher­
niaev, S ochi 1 993; 17 . . . �h8 !? 1 8 0-0
f5 1 9 exf5 i.xf5 20 bxa5 toxa5 21
i.d3 iLe6 and B l ack is no w orse,
lPolgar-Lautier, Dos Hermanas 1 995 .
18 cxb4 i.e6 19 :b3 "cS 20 h 4
i. d 8 2 1 'fid3 toe7 2 2 toce3 �xd5 2 3
toxd5 �h8
1/2- 1/2 Yurtaev-Yakovich, R ussia
1 997 . Black is fine.
83)
16 'fial � h8!
Preparing . . .f5 is simply correct.
Other tries:
a) 1 6 . . . i.e6 ( I d o n ' t believe this is a
g�od set-up for Black) 17 b 3 g6 1 8 0-0
'W d7 19 :d 1 f5 20 exf5 gxf5 2 1 b4
 1 1 c3 0-0 12 �c2 J.g5
axb4 22 cxb4 �h8 23 bS .i.xdS 24
AxdS with a small edge for White,
Karpov-Sveshnikov, USSR 1 973.
b) 16 ... .i.d7 ! ? 1 7 0-0 �h8 18 b4
Wc8 1 9 .i.d3 axb4 20 .i.a6 "d8 2 1
ttJcxb4 g6 2 2 .i.d3 fS and Black is pos­
sibly a little better, Hartman-Aagaard,
Gothenburg 1 998. This was my first
game with the line since 1 993.
Actually I had been dining out with
my opponent the previous evening and
he complained about how terribly dif­
ficult he had found that day's game in
the Sveshnikov, so I decided to irritate
him a little bit. It succeeded even
though the game was only a draw.
17 0-0 fS
A reasonable alternative is 17 . . . g6
1 8 b4 axb4 1 9 cxb4 ttJe7 20 ttJxe7
.i.xe7 2 1 bS .i.b7 22 :el Wb6 23 Wa2
fS 00 Jansa-Simic, Belgrade 1 977.
18 exfS .i.xfS 19 ttJce3 .i.e6 20
:dl "d7 21 "a2 "f7!
Black has sufficient counterplay,
and might actually be a little better due
to his pressure against f2, S imacek­
Zpevak, Moravia 1 994.
84)
16 b3 �h8
1 6 ... .i.e6 cannot be recommended:
17 0-0 �h8 1 8 ttJa3 ! g6 1 9 ttJbS 'ifd7
20 ttJdc7 ! .i.xc4 2 1 :xc4 :fd8 22
'ifdS with a good position for White,
Petrushin-Belikov, Russian Cht 1 992.
17 0-0 (D)
Now:
B41: 17 g6! ? 87
•••
B42: 17 .. .rS 89
The main difference between B 4 1
and B 4 2 is that White shouldn't take
on fS (when Black does play ... fS) in
the lines after 1 7 . . . g6. On 1 7 . . . fS the
87
B
only natural reply is 1 8 exfS . Black
cannot recapture with his pawn, but on
the other hand he hasn't weakened his
kingside. Also when Black chooses
the 17 . . . g6 strategy and White doesn' t
capture o n fS, Black most often plays
. . . fxe4, which can lead to the same
pawn-structure as after 1 7 . . . fS , but
with the weakening ... g6 played.
My choice is 17 . . . fS, which I con-
sider the most reliable, but objectively
speaking there is probably nothing
wrong with 17 . . . g6. That must be why
Kramnik insists on playing it. ..
1 7 . . . .i.d7 ! ? (this seems a little early,
but I don't wish to be the one to judge
upon the opening play of the World
Champion) 1 8 Wd3 fS 1 9 :a2 g6 20 f3
.i.h6 2 1 :d l Wh4 22 ttJde3 :f6 and
Black seems to be fine here, Topalov­
Kasparov, Leon Advanced Chess ( 1 )
1 998.
841 )
17 g6 •••
This idea has been popularized by
Kramnik in particular. Now:
B41 1 : 18 "e2 88
B412: 18 "d3 88
B413: 18 � h l 88
88 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
Or 1 8 b4 .i.d7 1 9 W'al W'c8 20 .i.d3
axb4 2 1 cxb4 .i.e6 22 b5 .i.xd5 23
exd5 liJe7 (this looks creepy. but with
a few exact moves Black keeps the
balance) 24 liJb4 :b7 ! 25 :d I rj;g7 26
.i.fl W'c5 and Black is fine. B ologan­
Lobron. Bundesliga 1 995/6.
8 41 1 )
18 W'e2 .i.h6
The most precise move-order.
Or 1 8 . . . .i.d7. and now:
a) 1 9 :ta2 f5 20 :tfal .i.h6 2 1 b4
axb4 22 liJcxb4 �th4 23 f3 fxe4 24
W'xe4 �th5? (giving White ail . the ac­
tion; 24 . . . W'xe4 25 fxe4 liJxb4 26 cxb4
.i.e6 followed by . . . .i.xd5 equalizes)
25 :ta6 ! :tbc8 26 liJb6 ± Gaponenko­
Belikov. Moscow 1 995.
b) 1 9 :ral .i.h6 20 g3 (20 b4 axb4
2 1 liJcxb4 { 2 1 cxb4 liJd4 22 liJxd4
.i.xa4 23 :xa4 exd4 24 b5 is equal }
2 1 . . . liJxb4 22 Ilxb4 :ta8 w ould not
give Black any problems) 20 . . . f5 and
now bes t is 2 1 b4 (2 1 exf5 ? ! favours
Black. as in Lutz-Kramnik. Bundesliga
1 99415) 2 1 . . . axb4 22 liJcxb4 (22 cxb4
fxe4 23 'ii' xe4 .i.f5 24 'ii'e2 .i.xc2 ! ?
( 24 . . . e 4 i s a n alternative possibility )
25 W'xc2 liJd4 with unclear conse­
quences) 22 . . . liJxb4 23 :txb4 and the
chances are level after both 23 .. . :ta8 ! ?
and 23 . . . .i.e6.
19 b4
19 :tfal f 5 20 b4 axb4 21 liJcxb4
liJxb4 (better is 2 1 . . . .i.b7 22 liJxc6
.i.xc6 23 :a6 W'd7. equalizing imme­
diately) 22 :txb4 %txb4 23 cxb4 .i.b7
24 b5 ;t B ojkovic-Skripchenko. Bel­
grade worn 1 996.
19 ...axb4 20 ttXxb4 .i. b7 2 1 tLlxc6
.i.xc6 22 J:tb4 f5 23 %txbS W'xb8 24 f3
W'a7+ 25 'itihl 'WcS
112- 112 B ar-El Kher. Mureck U- 1 6
Ech 1 998. Black i s n 0 worse.
84 1 2)
18 'ii'd3 f5! ?
1 8 . . . .i.d7 1 9 %taal f5 2 0 :t fd l .i.h6
21 f3 ! W'h4 22 liJde3 %tf6 (or 22 . . . fxe4.
as in Ye liangchuan-Filippov. Elista
OL 1 998 - see pages I O- l l ) 23 g3
fxe4 24 W'xe4 W'xe4 25 fxe4 :f3 !
seems to keep the balance.
19 %td l
Or:
a) 1 9 f3 .i.d7 20 %taal .i.h6 2 1
:a dl 'ii' h4 22 'ii'e2 'ii' h 5 2 3 liJa3 liJd8 !
gave Black good counterplay in Kalod­
B abula. Czech Ch (Zlin) 1 997.
b) 19 %taal (this seems a little un­
necessary) 19 ... .i.h6 20 %tfe l (20 f3
.i.e6 21 %tad I liJe7 22 liJce3 = Ehl­
vest-Lautier. Tallinn 1 998) 20 . . . fxe4
2 1 'ii'xe4 .i.f5 22 'ii'e2 e4 23 liJd4 112 _ 112
Yermolinsky-Khalifman. Tallinn 1 998.
The game is unclear.
19 ... .i.h6 20 b4?!
20 f3 seems more appropriate.
20 ... fxe4 21 'ihe4 MS 22 We2
.i.xc2 23 Wxc2 axb4 24 tLlxb4 tLlxb4
25 cxb4 W'b6
Black threatens . . . %txf2. Neverthe­
less. White drew the endgame fairly
easily after losing the b4-pawn in Ber­
zinsh-B !ll inov. Olomouc 1 997 .
841 3)
18 'itihl .i.h6
I 8 ... .i. d7 ! ? 19 %ta2 .i.h6 20 b4 axb4
(premature; 20 . . . f5 is more accurate)
2 1 cxb4 f5 22 exf5 gxf5 23 %ta6 .i.g7
24 'ii' d2 e4 25 liJf4 lbe5 is perhaps a
little bit better for White. Krakops­
Skripchenko. Groningen 1 995 .
19 'We2
 1 1 c3 0-0 12 �c2 i.g5
19 "d3 f5 20 exf5 ? ! (20 f3 00 is
preferable) 20 . . . gxf5 21 "h3 J..g7 22
f4 J..d7 23 l:taal e4 24 lbce3 J..e6 25
l:tad l "d7 26 "h4 "a7 27 l:tfe l l:tbe8
28 l:te2 "b7 with a slight advantage
for Black, Shetty-S.B .Hansen, Kosz­
alin 1998.
19 J..d7 20 l:taal fS 21 exfS
•••
This capture cannot be recom­
mended.
21 ... gxfS 22 f4 J..g7 23 l:tadl lbe7
24 lbce3 lbg6 2S "hS "e8 26 fxeS
"xeS 27 J..e2 f4
White has to struggle to keep the
balance, which she failed to do in J.Pol­
gar-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 1 998.
842)
17 ...fS 18 exfS
The only move played at top level.
18'MJ..xfS 19 .!bee3 ( D)
Another less frightening possibility
is 1 9 "e2 "d7 (natural; 1 9 . ....e8 20
lbce3 J..d 7 21 l:td l J..d 8 22 "c2 1/2- 1/2
Ljubojevic-Quinteros, Buenos Aires
1 979) and now Black should play 20
lbce3 transposing to note 'b' to
White's 20th move in Line B422. In­
stead, after 20 lbde3 ?! the knights are
all tangled up and Black is a little
better: 20... J..e6 21 l:tdl J..xe3 22 lbxe3
l:txb3 ! (this forces an endgame where
the a-pawn is a strong factor) 23 J..xe6
"xe6 24 "c4 "xc4 25 l:txc4 lba7 ! 26
l:txd6 lbb5 27 l:tdc6 l:tbl + gives Black
good chances, Nijboer-Van der Wiel,
Dutch Ch 1987.
Now:
B42 1 : 19 ...J.. g 6!? 89
B422: 19...J..e6 90
The former is becoming increas­
ingly popular these days - both Kram­
nik and Gelfand played it in 1 998.
89
B
Still, 1 9 . . . J..e6 must be considered the
main line.
19 . . . J..e4 20 J..e2 J.. g 6 2 1 lbc4, as
in Petschar-Lockl, Austrian Ch 1 990
is just Line B42 1 with a tempo less.
8421 )
19 ... J..g6! ? 20 J.. d 3!
The most obvious move, taking
control over the e4-square, but ihis is
not enough for an advantage. Other
moves:
a) 20 l:ta2 e4 2 1 J..e2 J.. f7 22 lbc4
J..g8 23 l:ta3 l:tb5 24 lbce3 l:tb7 25
lbc4 l:tb5 repeats moves, S ocko-Vol­
zhin, Cappelle la Grande 1 999.
b) 20 J..e2 J..f7 (20 ... e4 21 b4 axb4
22 cxb4, Htibner-Adorjan, Bad Lauter­
berg 1 980, 22 . . . lbe5 is supposed to be
unclear - this is probably true even
though I would choose to follow the
heavy guys) and now:
b l ) 2 1 lbc4 e4 ! ? (2 1 . . .lbd4 ! ? 22
cxd4 J.. x d5 23 dxe5 J.. x c4 24 J.. x c4
dxe5 25 "e2 .. c7 should lead to a
draw. Shirov-Kramnik. Monaco Am­
ber rpd 1 998) 22 �h l J..g8 23 l:ta3
lbe7 24 lbce3 lbxd5 25 lbxd5 l:tf5 is
fine for Black, Leko-Gelfand, Polanica
Zdroj 1 998.
90 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
b2) 2 1 :e4 liJe7 22 .i.f3 .i.e6 23
.i.g4 .i.g8 24 c4 liJc6 25 liJf5 g6 26
liJg3 liJd4 led to a complicated strug­
gle favouring Black in Onishchuk- Ye
Jiangchuan, Elista OL 1 998.
b3) 21 .i.f3 (trying to take control
over the light squares in the centre)
and now:
b3 1 ) 2 l ....i.xe3 22 fxe3 liJe7 23
.i.e4 .i.xd5 24 :xf8+ "'xf8 25 .i.xd5
"'d 8 26 "'d3 "'b6 and Black must be
fine here although White's position is
slightly more pleasant, Kindermann­
Birnboim, Munich 1 987 .
b32) 2 l . . .liJe7 ! is an improv�ment.
The main idea is apparent in the fol­
lowing line: 22 -i.e4 liJxd5 23 liJxd5
(23 .i.xd5 "'b6! leaves White strug­
gling to equalize) 23 . . ....c 8 ! with the
idea . . . .i.d8-b6. After 24 :Xa5 .i.xd5
25 :xd5 "'xc3 26 "'h5 .i.h6 Black is
fine due to the point 27 :xd6 :xf2 ! .
c ) 20 "'e2 e4 and here :
c l ) 21 "'a2 is not advisable; White
has been butchered badly in two games.
21 . . . :b7 22 b4 (22 .i.a6 :bf7 23 .i.b5
liJe5 24 :xa5 .i.h4 25 g3 liJf3+ 26
�g2 liJd2 ! ( White most now repent)
27 "'xd2 "'xa5 28 .i.c4 .i.g5 and
Black later turned his advantageous
position into a win in Petrik-Babula,
Nove Zamky 1 999) 22 . . . axb4 23 cxb4
liJe5 24 :a7 :xa7 25 "'xa7 .i.h5 26
:al .i.xe3 27 liJxe3 "'f6 28 liJd5
"'h4 and Black's attack is very strong,
Kozyrev-Filippov, Russia 1 996.
c2) 21 :fal (the correct square)
2 1 . . ....c8 ! 22 "'g4 "'xg4 23 liJxg4
.i.d8 24 b4 .i.e8 25 bxa5 liJe5 26 liJxe5
.i.xa4 27 :xa4 dxe5 28 a6 gave White
sufficient compensation for the ex­
change to make a draw in Ibragimov­
Filippov, Tomsk 1 997.
20 ....i.xd3
20 . . . .i.f7 cannot be recommended.
White has a better position after 2 1
.i.e4 .i.xe3 2 2 liJxe3 liJe7 2 3 c 4 "'b6
24 :a3 :fc8 25 "'g4 even though it's
not much, Shabalov-Chow, Toronto
1 998.
21 "'xd3 .i.xe3 22 fxe3 :xfl+
This should be fine, but also the
simple 22 . . . h6 ! ? 23 :aal :xfl+ 24
:xfl liJe7 25 liJxe7 "'xe7 26 c4 :f8
27 :xf8+ "'xf8 28 "'d5 "'b8 with a
drawn ending, Xie Jun-Galliamova,
Kazan worn Wch (8) 1 999, can be rec­
ommended.
23 "'xfl :xb3 24 :c4 :b5 25 e4
:c5 26 :xc5 dxc5 27 "a6
White has a minimal edge accord­
ing to Krasenkow. I cannot say that I
agree with this judgement. White has
compensation for his pawn, nothing
more. A.S okolov-Gurgenidze, USSR
Ch (Riga) 1 985 continued 27 . . .... e8 28
liJc7 "'d7 29 "'a8+ liJd8 30 liJd5 h6
3 1 "'xa5 "'d6 32 "'b6 liJf7 and was
soon drawn.
8422)
19 . .i.e6 (D)
. .
w
20 "'d3
 1 1 c3 0·0 12 lLlc2 .tg5
Other tries:
a) 20 .tI:el "d7 2 1 "d 3 "f7 22
':a2 .i.d8 23 "e4 "b7 gives Black a
fine position. Petrushin-L astin. Rus­
sian Ch 1 992.
b) 20 "e2 "d7 21 .tI: d l .i.d8 22
':a2 "f7 23 .. d3 "h5 24 tiJfl '?1 (this
doesn't seem logical) 24 . . .e41 is good
for Black. Geller-Sveshnikov. Tbilisi
1 978.
c) 20 "c2 (this loses control over
d5) 20 . . . .i.xe3 (20 . . . ..d7 1 '? with the
idea of . . . .. f7. is also possible) 2 1
tiJxe3 d 5 22 tiJxd5 .i.xd5 2 3 ': d 1 .i.e4 1
(this looks like a direct way to equal­
ize; instead after 23 . . . tiJd4'?1 24 cxd4
.i.c61 25 :aal exd4 26 "d2 Black had
to draw an endgame a pawn down in
Suetin-Gorelov. Moscow Ch 1 98 1 ) 24
"e2 "b61 (not 24 . . ... h4'? 25 .i.d5.
w hen Black is in trouble) 25 "xe4
':xf2 and Black is in no way worse.
20 'i'd7 21 ': d l
...
The most direct. Other tries:
a) 2 1 .i.b5 (this provides Black with
an opportunity go astray) 2 1 . . . .i.xe3
22 tiJxe3 .i.xb3 23 ':xa5 'irb7 1 (not
23 ... "c7'?1 24 ': a6': b6 25 .: xb6 "xb6
26 ':bl !iJa5 27 c4 and White is on his
way to winning. Grunfeld-Zsu.Polgar.
New York Manhattan 1 985) 24 .i.xc6
"xc6 25 c4 l:b4 26 tiJd5 lIb7 with
equality.
b) 2 1 .tI:aal "f7 22 rlad l .tI: b71'? (a
flexible move w hich is not commonly
p layed here) 23 "c2 .h5 24 .i.e2
" h6 is no worse for Black. Szyszylo­
Sopur. Czestochowa 1 992.
91
c) 2 1 .t1: a2 • f7 22 f3 (22 "e4 'i'b7
23 .tI: d l . Krasenkov-Kalinichev, Tbi­
lisi 1 985. 23 . . . g6 with chances for both
sides - Krasenkow) 22 . . . ..a7 23 ..tt h l
"c5 2 4 .tI:el .i.xe3 2 5 Vxe3 .xe3 2 6
.tI: xe3 !iJe7 = Iedryczka-Agamaliev.
Swidnica 1 999.
2 1 :I'f7 22 11a2 "h5
..
22 ... .i.d8 23 f3 g6 24 'itt h l tiJe7 25
tiJxe7 'i'xe7 26 .i.xe6 "xe6 27 c4 gives
White a large edge here. Popovic-Pili­
povic. Yugoslavia 1 985. 22 . . . nb7 ! '? as
seen above in a similar position. might
be a good move.
23 l:el
After 23 'i'e2. 23 . . ... f7. as in the
game Mokry-Li Zunian. Thessaloniki
OL 1 984. should be no worse for
Black. although 23 . . . "h61'? is also a
move. It's not apparent how White
should improve his position.
23 .i. d8 24 tt:Jn '*f7 25 .tI:e3
•.•
Black can be satisfied w ith the
opening. Now in Cheremkhin-Goldin.
USSR 1 980 he played an interesting
sacrifice which proved to be success­
ful : 25 . . .e4 1 ,? 26 'ifxe4 !iJe5 27 ..tt h l
tiJxc4 (now the a-pawn i s a strong
trump. but also the weak back rank
proves to be important) 28 rlf3 .i.f6 29
bxc4 .i.xd5 30 cxd5 ':fe8 3 1 'ifd3 :el
32 �gl '? (32 .tI:xa5 1 is critical; now
one line is 32 . . ...g6 33 "a6 h6 34 ':al
.tI:xal 35 .xal :bl 36 "a8+ 'itth7 37
�gl .tI:xfl+ with a draw. but I have the
feeling Black could try for more along
the way) 32 .. J:tbbl 33 .tI:xa5 .tI:xfl + 34
.xfl lhfl + 35 �xfl h6 0- 1 .
1 4 The N ovos i b i rsk
Va riation ( 1 0 �g7)
without 1 1 .ltd3
1 e4 cS 2 tllf3 tllc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tllxd4
tllf6 5 tllc3 eS 6 tlldbS d6 7 .i.gS a6 8
tlla3 bS 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10 tlldS' .$.g7 ! ?
(DJ
This is the standard position of the
Novosibirsk variation, which was in­
vented in the 1980s and became popu­
lar when 10 .. .f5 was having a crisis in
the late 1 980s and start of the 1 990s,
until Kramnik and other young play­
ers brought it back to life. The key idea
of 1O . . . .i.g7 is to exchange the d5-
knight by . . . tlle7 before White can re­
place it with the a3-knight, and then
break with . . . f5 . In my opinion this
treatment is no worse than 1 0 .. .f5. In
most top-level games White goes for
1 1 c3, when l 1 ...f5 12 exf5 .i.xf5 is
. . .
considered in Chapter 1 7 . The next
chapter features 1 1 .i.d3; here I con­
sider all the less popular moves :
A: 11 c3 93
B: U 'it' hS 93
C: 11 c4 94
D: 11 g3 94
In Line A we only consider Black's
(minor) alternatives to 1 1 . . . f5, which
transposes to Chapter 17 after 12 exf5
.i.xf5.
Or:
a) 1 1 tllxb5? axb5 1 2 .i.xb5 .i.b7
1 3 a4 0-0 is nonsense, Pyhlilli-Mann­
inen, Finnish Ch 1 992.
b) 1 1 Wd3 tlle7 12 0-0-0 .i.b7 !
(Black is already fine; actually it's
hard for White to keep the position
level) 1 3 tllxe7 Wxe7 14 'it'xd6 Wxd6
15 lhd6 �e7 16 l:d 1 .i.xe4 17 f3 .i.g6
18 c3?? .i.h6+ 0- 1 Lozenko-Malysev,
Pavlodar 1 99 1 .
c ) 1 1 tll e 3 tlle7 1 2 Wh5 f5 ! 1 3 exf5
e4 1 4 0-0-0 0-0 1 5 f3 'it'b6 1 6 Wg5 d5 !
17 tllxd5 tllxd5 1 8 l:xd5 �h8 gave
Black a fantastic attack in Klinger­
Vaiser, Szirak 1 985.
d) 1 1 .i.e2 f5 12 .i.f3 0-0 1 3 0-0
tlld4 14 c3 tllx f3+ 15 Wxf3 fxe4 16
Wxe4 .i.e6 17 l:ad 1 f5 is far superior
 The Novosibirsk Variation (JO. . . �g7) without 1 1 iJl3
for Black, Vavrak-Priehoda, Slovak­
ian Ch (Trencin) 1 995 .
e) 1 1 'ii'f3? ! fS 1 2 exfS �d4 1 3
'ii' g4 �xfS 1 4 �e3 ( 1 4 .i.d3 hS I S
'ii'f3 �d4 1 6 �f6+ 'ii'xf6 17 'ii'xaS 0-0
1 8 0-0 l:td8 gives Black compensation
- ECO) 14 . . . hS ! IS 'ii'e4 �xe3 1 6
'ii'xa8 O-O ! 1 7 'ii'f3 ( 1 7 fxe3 'ii'h 4+ 1 8
g 3 'ii' b 4+ with a winning initiative)
17 . . . �g4 1 8 .i.e2 e4 with an over­
whelming position for Black, Ulybin­
Vaiser, Moscow 1 989.
AI
11 c3 � e7?! (D)
Correct is 1 1 ...fS, transposing to
Chapter 17 after 1 2 exfS .i.xfS .
12 �c2! �xdS
12 .. .fS 1 3 exfS lLlxfS 14 'ii'f3 0-0 I S
lLlf6+ .i.xf6 1 6 'ii' xa8 e 4 1 7 0-0-0
didn't give Black sufficient compen­
sation in Nepeina-Chelushkina, Meli­
topol wom 1 992.
13 'ii'x dS .i.e6
1 3 . . .l:ta7 14 a4 bxa4 1S l:txa4 0-0 1 6
.i.c4 fS 1 7 exfS .i.b7 1 8 'ii'aS 'ii'g S? !
( 1 8 . . .dS ! ?) 1 9 �e3 ± Marcantoni-Kri­
vokapic, Paris 1 994.
14 'ii'c6+ q;e7 IS �e3 'ii'd7 16
�dS+ .i.xdS 17 'ii'xdS
93
White has some advantage, Boudre
- Santo-Roman, French Ch 1 992.
BI
ll 'ii' h5 �7 (D)
Equally good might be 1 1 . . . .i.e6 ! ?
1 2 l:td l �e7 1 3 �e3 'ii'a S+ 1 4 c 3 l:td8
IS .i.e2 dS = Estrin-Arnlind, corr.
1 98 1 , but further tests are needed.
12 �e3
Black also has no problems after:
a) 12 c3 �xdS 1 3 exdS fS 14 g3 0-0
IS �c2 'ii'f6 1 6 a4 (Nagendra-Haag,
German Ch (Bad Wildbad) 1 993) and
now 1 6 ... .i.d7 ! ? = .
b) 12 �xe7 'ii'xe7 13 c4 ( 1 3 .i.d3
d5 ! 14 0-0 b4 was preferable for Black
in Hamilton-Stephens, Australian
open Ch (Melbourne) 1 993) 1 3 .. .fS I4
lLlc2 0-0 I S lLle3 fxe4 16 g4 bxc4 1 7
.i.xc4 .i.e6 1 8 b 3 d S 1 9 lLlxdS .i.xdS
20 .i.xdS l:tad8 21 l:td l e3 with good
compensation, Petrone-Bosch, Arnhem
U-20 Ech 1 989.
12 ...fS 13 exfS dS
The most ambitious. Safer is 13 ... e4
1 4 0-0-0 0-0 I S g4 d5 1 6 c 3 b4 1 7
cxb4 d 4 1 8 q;bl 'ii'd6 1 9 �ec4 'ii'f4
with compensation for Black, Timo­
shenko-Ikonnikov, Cheliabinsk 1 990.
94 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
14 0-0-0 .i.b7 IS h4 1i'b6 16 :"3
e4 17 tOg4 .i.c8 18 f6 .i.xf6 19 lOxf6+
'ifxf6 20 l:lg3 'i'xf2 21 'ifeS f6 22
'ifhS+ 'iPd8 23 l:lg7 'iff4+ 24 �bl
'ifeS
Black is better, Nishimura-APach­
mann, Mlada Boleslav 1 994.
C)
1 1 c4 fS 12 cxbS (D)
1 2 .i.d3 fxe4 ( 1 2 . . . 0-0, with the
point 1 3 exf5? e4 ! , is interesting) 1 3
.i.xe4 0-0 1 4 cxb5 axb5 1 5 tOxb5 l:lb8
16 a4 tOd4 ! 17 0-0 tOxb5 1 8 axb5 fS
1 9 .i.d3 �h8 20 .i.c4 1i'h4 gives Black
sufficient compensation for the pawn,
Unzicker-Strutinskaya, Moscow 1 99 1 .
12 _.tOd4 1 3 .i.d3
13 exf5 .i.xf5 14 tOe3 .i.h6 15 .i.d3
.i.xd3 16 1i'xd3 'i'a5+ 17 �fl axb5 is
good for Black, Ornstein-Angantys­
son, Reykjavik 1 984.
13 0-0
...
1 3 . . . .i.e6 ! is given by Rogozenko
as "an important improvement". His
main idea is 14 tOc2 .i.xd5 15 exd5
e4 ! , when Black has a good game.
14 tOc2
Or:
a) 14 Wd2 fxe4 1 5 .i. xe4 l:lb8 1 6
tOc2 f5 1 7 tOxd4 exd4 1 8 .i.f3 l:le8+
19 'iti>fl l:lxb5 gave Black good win­
ning chances in Golovanov-Malyshev,
USSR 1 985 .
b) 14 0-0 .i.e6 15 tOc2 tOxc2 1 6
.i.xc2 fxe4 and Black is doing all right,
Anand-Lautier, Belgrade 1 997.
14 ... fxe4 IS .i.xe4 l:lb8 16 0-0
l:txbS 17 tOxd4 exd4 18 l:lcl .i.b7
= Herrera-Diaz, Havana 1 993.
D)
11 g3 fS 12 exfS
1 2 .i.g2 fxe4 transposes to Line B3
of Chapter 6.
12... e4! 13 f6
1 3 c3 lLle5 ! 14 1i'h5 ( 14 .i.e2 .i.xfS
1 5 �c2 0-0 16 0-0 l:lb8 17 1i'd2 .i.e6
1 8 l:ladl a5 00 Peptan-Ig.Jelen, Ljub­
ljana 1997) 14 . . . �f3+ 15 �e2 .i.b7 1 6
l:l d l 0 - 0 1 7 .i. h 3 l:le8 is extremely
complicated, Alzate-Ochoa, Bayamo
1 984.
13...U6 14 �xf6+ 'ifxf6 IS 1i'dS
On 15 c3, 15 . . . b4 ! ? is one of several
possibilities.
IS . . 0-0!
.
Now 16 c3? b4 ! 17 tOc4 bxc3 1 8
ii'xd6 .i.e6 ! led to victory for Black in
Ljubojevic-Kramnik, Belgrade 1 995.
Necessary is 1 6 .i.g2 Wxb2 17 0-0
.i.b7 18 .i.xe4 tOd8 19 ii'g5+ 'i'g7 =
Kramnik.
 1 5 The N ovos i b i rs k
Variatio n with 1 1 �d3
I e4 e5 2 tDf3 t'ile6 3 d4 exd4 4 t'ilxd4
t'ilf6 5 t'ile3 e5 6 t'ildb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8
t'ila3 b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10 t'ild5 .i.g7 1 1
.i.d3 (DJ
B t'ilxe7 <i>xe7 1 8 0-0 was a good deal
This is the line I would recommend
for White against 1 0 . . . .i.g7. Although
my analysis suggest that the black po­
sition is playable, I feel insecure about
the whole future of the variation. For
Black this is also one of the critical
lines to investigate. Maybe the main
line (Line C3) after 1 3 c4 ! is just too
risky. If this is so, I suggest 1 5 . . . l:te8 ! ?
as an alternative way of playing. I t is
my belief that this line will be thor­
oughly investigated in the future.
1 1 ... t'il e7!
The only good move in the posi­
tion. Others:
a) 1 1 . ..0-0? 12 0-0 f5 ( 1 2 . . . .i.e6 1 3
"iWh5 f5 ?? 1 4 exf5 .i.xd5 1 5 f6 ! and
White wins, Stefansson-Iz.Jelen, Deb­
recen Echt 1 992) 1 3 exf5 'ifg5 14 f6
.i.xf6 1 5 "iWh5 h6 1 6 .i.e4 ± Raisa­
Paakkonen, Jyviiskylii 1 993.
b) 1 1 . . . .i.e6?! 12 "iWf3 ! (12 c4 ! ?
Krasenkow) 1 2 . . . l:tc8 1 3 c 3 h 5 1 4 h3
l:th6 1 5 t'ilc2 t'ile7 16 t'ilce3 l:tc5 1 7
better for White in Tammela-Kivisto,
Finnish Ch 1 992.
12 t'ilxe7
No other move has been successful
in this position:
a) 12 c4 t'ilxd5 1 3 cxd5 f5 14 f3 0-0
15 0-0 f4 1 6 t'ilc2 <i>h8 17 <i>h1 l:tg8
gave Black a strong attack in Mical­
izzi-Vaiser, Mendrisio 1 989.
b) 12 c 3 t'ilxd5 13 exd5 f5 1 4 t'ilc2
"iWg5 15 0-0 f4 16 <i>h 1 .i.f6 17 a4 l:tg8
gave Black a promising attack in Bry­
son-Satter, Moscow OL 1 994.
c) 12 t'ile3 f5 13 exf5 ( 1 3 t'ilxf5
t'ilxf5 14 exf5 d5 15 c3 e4 11l-1/2 Weis­
Thiel, 2nd Bundesliga 1 99 112; Black
is no worse) 1 3 . . . d5 14 f6 ( 1 4 "iWg4
l:tg8 1 5 "iWh4 "iWd6 1 6 0-0-0 e4 and
Black is better, Andreev-Schipkov,
Magnitogorsk 198 1 ) 14 ....i.xf6 1 5 "iWf3
"iWd6 1 6 t'ilxb5? axb5 1 7 .i.xb5+ <i>f8
did not offer White compensation in
Kondou-Bojkovic, Kavala B alkaniad
1 990.
d) 12 "iWf3 t'ilxd5 13 exd5 "iWd7 !
(forcing through .. .f5) 14 0-0-0 ( 14 c3
 96 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
f5 1 5 "e2 0-0 1 6 l:td l "d8 1 7 .i.bl
"g5 gave Black a promising position
in Ruzicka-Bolacky, Czech Cht 1 99516;
14 g4 "xg4 1 5 "xg4 .i.xg4 1 6 l:tgl f5
1 7 h3 e4 1 8 tLlxb5 exd3 1 9 tLlc7+ q;e7
20 tLlxa8 .i.xb2 obviously didn' t work
out for White in Ruxton-Tzermiadi-
nos, Amhem U-20 Ech 1989) 14 .. .f5 1 5
"h5 e4 and Black is better, Boudre­
Chevallier, Val Maubuee 1 990.
12 'fIxe7
.•.
White now has a rather narrow
choice:
A: 13 0-0 96
B: 13 c3 97
C: 13 c4! 1 03
Line B is the generally recom­
mended positional approach, by which
White aims for a small edge. Line C is
highly aggressive, and I consider it to
be the most dangerous for Black.
However, my analysis suggests that
Black is fine in both lines, but it is a
risky business.
1 3 0-0 often transposes to B or C. In
Line A I have dealt with lines that do
not.
1 3 "d2 f5 14 c4 .i.b7 15 exf5 e4 16
.i.e2 0 - 0 1 7 0 - 0 "e5 gave Black a
good game in Hardicsay-Vaiser, Berlin
1 988.
A)
13 0-0 (D)
1 3 ... 0-0
1 3 . . . f5 ! ? is probably underrated. 14
exf5 ( 1 4 c3 and 14 c4 transpose to
Lines B2 and C respectively) 1 4 . . . d5 !
(critical; less good is 14 . . . .i.b7 1 5 l:tel
"g5 ? ! ( 1 5 . . . d5 is better, although
White can still claim an edge after 1 6
c3 ) 1 6 g 3 0-0 17 c4 l:tae8 1 8 .i.e4 with a
B
promising position for White, Anand­
Lobron, Dortmund 1 996 - see pages
1 9-20) 15 c3 b4 1 6 tLlc2 bxc3 1 7 bxc3
e4 1 8 tLld4 "c5 1 9 .i.c2 "xc3 20
.i.a4+ �f8 2 1 tLlb3 "e5 and Black is
better, Schumi-Volkmann, Austria
1 996. Further tests are needed.
14 'fIr3! ?
Again, 1 4 c 3 and 1 4 c4 will be met
with 14 ... f5 ! transposing to Lines B22
and C respectively. An alternative is
14 "h5 d5 1 5 tLlbl f5 16 f3 fxe4 1 7
fxe4 f5 with a good game for Black,
Sinkevich-Belov, St Petersburg Chi­
gorin mem 1 998.
14.. .fS !
1 4 . . ... b7 ? ! 1 5 c4 f5 1 6 exf5 "xf3
17 gxf3 bxc4 1 8 .i.e4 l:tb8 1 9 tLlxc4
was very good for White in Timmer­
man-Lemmers, Enschede 1 993.
IS exfS dS!
15 . . ..i.b7 1 6 .i.e4 d5 1 7 .i.xd5 e4 18
f6 .i.xf6 19 "g3+ .i.g7 2 0 .i.xb7
"xb7 21 c3 gives White the better
chances.
16 "xdS .i.b7 17 'fIb3 e4
17 . . . l:tfd8 1 8 l:tfdl l:td4 1 9 .i.n l:tb4
20 l:td7 ! and Black is suffering.
18 .i.e2
1 8 l:tael l:tfd8 1 9 l:te3 l:td4 20 c4
l:tad8 2 1 .i.e2 l:td2 22 tLlc2 .i.e5 23
 The Novosibirsk Variation with 1 1 �d3
cxb5 Wc5 24 .i.c4 axb5 25 .i.xf7+
�h8 26 tt)el :xb2 gave Black a very
good game in Wood-Wells, Os tend
1 993.
18 .....gS 1 9 :ad l ! e3 20 f3 .i.e5
21 tt)c4! .i.f4 22 l:[d4
22 tt)d6? is obviously wrong in
view of 22 . . . Wh6 ! '
Now (after 22 :d4) 2 2. . . .i.d5 ! ?
eventually led t o a draw i n Anand­
Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 1 998. Black
could have played the even better
22 . . . :ad8 ! 23 l:fd 1 .i.d5 ! 24 :xd5
:xd5 25 :xd5 'ii'h4 26 g3 .i.xg3 27
"xe3 "xh2+, with perpetual check.
B)
13 c3 fS! (D)
1 3 . .. :b8? 14 �2 .i.b7 15 tt)e3 "e6
1 6 tt)f5 is crushing, de la Villa-Jime­
nez Villena, Saragossa 1 993.
Now:
B l : 14 tt)c2 97
B2: 14 0-0 1 00
The latter i s more natural and also
considered critical.
Other moves:
a) 14 exf5 e4 15 .i.e2 0-0 1 6 tt)c2
.i.xf5 17 0-0 ( 1 7 "d5 'ii'e5 1 8 l:[d 1
97
.i.e6 1 9 "xd6 .i.xa2 20 tt)b4 .i.e6 Ih-lh
Dvoirys-Yakovich, Moscow 1 990)
17 . . . .i.e6 18 tt)d4 .i.d7 19 Wd2 f5 20
f4 �h8 is no worse for Black, Van der
Wiel-Schandorff, Moscow OL 1 994.
b) 14 "h5 d5 ! 15 exd5 e4 16 0-0!
0-0 17 l:ael Wc5 1 8 .i.bl .i.d7 1 9
�h l :ae8 2 0 f4 ! (20 f3 :e5 2 1 fxe4
fxe4 is in Black's favour) 20 . . ...xd5
21 tt)c2 "e6 22 tt)e3 "g6 23 "e2 h5
with equality, Kuklin-Vyzhmanavin,
Budapest 1 989.
B 1)
1 4 tt)c2 Wb7
The main line, but the alternatives
are worth a look:
a) 14 . . . d5? ! 15 exf5 e4 16 .i.e2
"e5 17 tt)e3 .i.b7 1 8 0-0 0-0 1 9 'ii' b3
.i.c6 20 :adl assured White a sub­
stantial advantage in Prasad-Murali­
dharan, Indian Ch 1 994.
b) 14 . . . :b8? 1 5 tt)e3 0-0 16 "h5
f4 17 tt)d5 'ii'e6 18 g3 .i.b7 19 0-0-0
was terrible for Black in Emelin­
Schukin, St Petersburg 1 998.
c) 14 ... 0-0? ! is not recommended.
After 1 5 "h5 ! f4 White achieves a
better position:
c l ) 1 6 g3 f5 1 7 0-0-0 .i.b7 1 8 :hel
fxg3 19 hxg3 ! d5 20 exd5 "f6 21 g4 !
e4 22 .i.n :ac8 23 gxf5 b4 24 :xe4
bxc3 25 b3 :cd8 26 .i.c4 �h8 and
now, rather than 27 :e6? "xf5 28
"xf5 l:[xf5 29 d6 .i.f6 l/z-l/z (with both
players short on time) Dolmatov­
Chandler, Hastings 1989/90, 27 :h4 !
gives White a very promising posi­
tion.
c2) 1 6 0-0-0 "e6 1 7 tt)b4 .i.b7 1 8
tt)d5 .i.xd5 1 9 exd5 'ii' h 6 2 0 "f5 'ii' g6
21 f3 and Black is not doing well,
P.H.Nielsen-Fossan. Stavanger 1 99 1 .
98 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
d) 14 . . . .i.b7 (D) is rightly consid­
ered very risky:
w pieces) 1 9 .i.fl 'it'd7 20 "'g4 .i.cS (with
d l ) 15 1Wf3 f4 16 g4 h5 17 0-0-0
0-0-0 I S lLlb4 hxg4 1 9 "'xg4+ 'it'e6
was no worse for Black in Sax-Ser­
mek, Ljubljana 1 994.
d2) 15 lLle3 fxe4 ! 16 lLli5 1Wf6 17
.i.xe4 d 5 ! IS .i.xd5 :dS 19 'it'g4 :xd5
20 'it'xg7 1Wxg7 2 1 lLlxg7+ <j{e7 22
lLlf5+ <j{e6 23 lLle3 :d7 was good
enough for a draw in Anand-Kramnik,
Moscow 1 994, even though the extra
pawn must give White a small edge.
d3) 15 exf5 and now:
d3 1 ) 15 . . . .i.h6?! 1 6 0-0 1Wh4 1 7 g3
:gS I s 1We2 .i.f4 19 lLlel 'itfS 20 lLlg2!
± Koch-Hamdouchi, Lyons 1993.
d32) 15 ... h5 ? ! 1 6 a4 b4 1 7 lLlxb4
1Wh4 I s 1We2 .i.xg2 (this loses by force,
but alternatives are conspicuous by
their absence) 1 9 :gl 'it'xh2 20 0-0-0
'it'f4+ 21 1Wd2 .i.h6 22 :xg2 1Wf3 23
:g5 f6 24 .i.e2 "'b7 25 :gS+ <j{e7 26
'it'xh6! and Black eventually lost in
Enders-Lobron, German Ch 1995.
d33) 15 ... ...g5 1 6 lLle3 d5 17 0-0
h5 IS 1We2 ! 0-0 19 f6 .i.xf6 20 f4 exf4
2 1 lLli5 gave White a clear edge in the
game Nisipeanu-Genescu, Romanian
Ch 1 992.
d34) 15 . . . 0-0 (currently this looks
like the best try, but I don' t trust it
completely) 1 6 lLle3 d5 1 7 0-0 :adS ! ?
I S :el l:td6! (an interesting and prob­
ably good way of organizing the major
the threat of . . . d4) 2 1 f6 1Wxg4 22
lLlxg4 .i.xg4 23 fxg7 :eS 24 a4 .i.d7
25 axb5 .i.xb5 and Black is doing all
right, Tan Lian Ann-Sevillano, Manila
OL 1992.
e) 14 . . . 1Wg5 ! ? (this would be my
choice ifI turned my back on 14 ... 1Wb7)
and now:
e l ) 1 5 1We2 .i.b7 (the logical move,
but 15 . . . 0-0 ! ? 16 h4 1Wxg2 17 0-0-0
'it'g4 IS f3 1Wf4+ 19 'itbl fxe4 ! 20
.i.xe4 :bS 2 1 :xd6 a5 OD also proved
sufficient in Madl-Korpics, Hungary
1995) 1 6 lLle3 .i.xe4 17 .i. xe4 fxe4 I S
0-0-0 : d S 1 9 <j{ b l h 5 2 0 h 4 1Wg6 2 1
lLld5 :d7 and Black's position offers a
lot of counterpIay, Vehi Bach-Vai'sser,
Groningen open 1 993.
e2) 1 5 0-0 .i.b7 ( 1 5 . .. f4 fails to
generate counterpIay after 16 a4! bxa4
1 7 :xa4 0-0 IS 1We2 .i.b7 19 f3 a5 20
:fal "'dS 2 1 lLla3 f5 22 lLlc4 fxe4 23
fxe4 d5 24 exd5 .i.xd5 25 .i.e4 .i.xe4
26 Wxe4, and White is having all the
fun, Ulybin-Serper, Tunja U-20 Wch
1 9S9) 16 f3 0-0 ( 1 6 . . . fxe4? releases
the tension prematurely: 17 fxe4 0-0
I S :f5 1We7 1 9 lLle3 .i.cS 20 :f3 .i.e6
21 .i.c2 .i.h6 22 lLlf5 with a promising
position for White, Leko-Naumann,
Bratislava 1 993) 17 1Wc l ! ( 1 7 exf5 d5
IS a4 e4 1 9 .i.e2 .i.e5 ! 20 1We l b4 ! 2 1
lLlxb4 d 4 gives Black a good game for
the material investments, Leko-Magem,
Pamplona 1 993/4) 17 . . .1Wxc l I S :fxcl
( 1 S :axc l fxe4 19 .i. xe4 d5 20 .i.f5
:fdS 2 1 :cdl a5 gave rise to an equal
 The Novosibirsk Variation with 1 1 i.d3
position in the game San to-Roman -
Valsser, Narbonne 1 997) 1 8 . . . fxe4 1 9
fxe4 f5 2 0 exf5 e4 2 1 .i.e2 :txf5 is O K
for Black, though rather a struggle,
Moutousis-Andrianov, Athens 1 989.
We now return to 14 . . :Wb7 (D):
w White nothing in Dolmatov-Topalov,
Now:
B 1 1 : 15 "0 99
B 12: 15 0 99
Or:
a) 15 "e2 fxe4 16 "xe4 d5 and
Black has nothing to be afraid of,
Hall-Caselas, La Coruiia 1 993.
b) 15 exf5 ! ? "xg2 1 6 :tf1 .i.b7 17
ltle3 "c6 ! (17 . . ... xh2 is too risky in
view of 1 8 "g4 and 1 9 .i.e4 with a
better game for White) 1 8 Wg4 .i.f6
1 9 Wb4 0-0 20 0-0-0 d5 2 1 �bl :lfd8
22 "g4+ �h8 23 "h5 e4 24 .i.c2 b4
with an unclear position, Koch-Kou­
atly, French Ch 1 99 1 .
B1 1)
1 5 Wo 0-0 1 6 ltle3
1 6 ltlb4? a5 17 lDd5 .i.e6 1 8 lDe3 f4
1 9 ltlf1 f5 is a true catastrophe for
White, G. Kuzmin-Yakovich, Pardu­
bice 1 994.
16... f4 17 ltld5 .i.e6 18 g4
99
18 .i.c2 .i.xd5 19 exd5 f5 20 g4 fxg3
21 hxg3 e4 22 "h5 h6 gave Black a
good game in Qi Jingxuan- Vyzhman­
avin, Beijing 1 99 1 .
18... b4!
Practice has shown that this is the
only move.
19 <ifm
1 9 c4 .i.xd5 20 exd5 (20 cxd5 gave
Groningen PCA qual 1 993 - see pages
1 7- 1 8) 20 . . . e4 ! (20 . . . We7? led to a win
for White in Danailov-Solana, Las
Palm as 1 993) 2 1 .i.xe4 .i.xb2 22 :tbl
.i.e5 2 3 c5 "b5 24 c6 .i.c3+ 25 �d l
:re8 is very unclear.
19 ... bxc3 20 bxc3 �h8 21 :tel
:tab8 22 �g2 'ifd7 23 h3 :tb2 24 :tc2
:ttb8
= Asrian-Volzhin, Moscow 1 996.
B 1 2)
15 f3 f4 16 "e2
Or: 16 ltlb4 .i.f6 1 7 g3 .i.e6 1 8 "e2
:tg8 1 9 0-0-0 fxg3 20 hxg3 :txg3 2 1
:txh7 <l;e7 2 2 .i.c2 a5 is n o worse for
Black, Orlov-Degraeve, Paris 1 996;
1 6 0-0 0-0 17 <l;hl �h8 18 ltlb4 .i.e6
19 We2 :tab8 20 :tfdl a5 21 ltld5
.i.xd5 22 exd5 f5 23 a4 b4 24 .i.b5
bxc3 25 bxc3 = Enders-Rogozenko,
Bundesliga 1 998/9.
16 ... 0-0 17 0-0
1 7 g4 .i.e6 ( 1 7 .. .fxg3 1 8 hxg3 f5 1 9
ltle3 ± ) 1 8 ltlb4 a5 1 9 ltld5 b4 2 0 c4
(Renet-Etchegaray, French Cht 1 99 1 )
20 . . :Wa7 ! i s 0 K for Black. One idea is
that 21 g5 .i.xd5 22 exd5 e4 ! 23 .i.xe4
'ifd4 is better for Black, no matter the
pawn deficit.
17 .i.e6 18 �hl :tabS 19 a4 .i.b3
••.
20 axb5 .i.xc2 21 "xc2 axb5 22 b4
.i.f6 23 "e2 :reS 24 :rel .i.d8
100 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian

Black has a good game, Klovans­ 16 g3

Richter, Berlin 1 998. This is the critical move. The alter­
native is 1 6 f3 .i.h6 ( 1 6 . . . 0-0 ! ? is an­
82) other way of playing the position; I
14 0-0 (DJ can't see why Black should be worse
as long as he looks out for f4 ! followed
by f6 and transferring the knight to fS,
which has happened in some games) 17
B l:f2 ! "h4 ! ( 1 7 . . ... hS? 18 .i.xbS+ ! !
axbS 1 9 "xd6 +- Gi.Hernandez­
Espinoza, San Salvador Z 1 995) 1 8
�c2 l:g8 1 9 .i.n is unclear, according
to Hernandez.
16 h5!
•.•

The idea that has made this line pop­

Now:
B21: 14 ib7 ! ? 100
.•
B22: 14 0-0 100
.•.
82 1 )
14 .i. b7 ! ?
...
A strong German grandmaster said
to me that this was the only way to
play the position. Whether this is right
or not I do not know, but it is interest­
ing.
15 exf5
The alternative is I S l:el fxe4 1 6
.i.xe4 .i.xe4 1 7 l:xe4 0-0 (I don't think
this should be feared by Black) 1 8 c4
fS ( 1 8 . . . bxc4 1 9 �xc4 l:fd8 20 "dS
"e6 2 1 l:dl l:ac8 22 b3 seems to give
White a little something, but also
1 8 .....b7 ! ? is an option) 19 l:e2 b4 ! ?
ular recently. Black wants to attack.
17 h4
17 "e2? ! h4 18 .i.xbS+ �f8 ! gives
Black a very strong attack. He finished
it with confidence in the following
game: 19 .i.a4 "xfS 20 .i.c2? "h3 2 1
f3 hxg3 2 2 "g2 "xh2+ 2 3 "xh2
l:xh2 24 .i.e4 dS 2S .i.fS .i.h6 26 �c2
�g7 0-1 Prie-Vaisser, French Ch 1 996.
17 .....e7
Now 1 8 .i.e2? (presumably the los­
ing mistake) 1 8 . . . e4 ! 1 9 l:el .i.eS 20
.i.n l:g8 2 1 .i.g2 .i.xg3 ! 22 fxg3
l:xg3 23 �c2 0-0-0 24 �e3 "xh4 2S
"d2 l:dg8 led to victory for Black in
Kindermann-Lobron, Nussloch 1 996.
1 8 l:el is necessary; then the position
needs further tests, but White proba­
bly has a small edge.
822)
14 0-0 15 � c2
•••

20 �c2 "e6 2 1 �xb4 "xc4 22 "dS+ IS exfS is not so critical: IS . . . e4 1 6

"xdS 23 �xdS e4 "". .i.e2 .i.xfS 1 7 �c2 "eS 1 8 a4 .i.e6 1 9
15 .....g5 "d2 fS 2 0 axbS axbS 2 1 �d4 b 4 with
I S . . . 0-0? ! 1 6 �c2 transposes to no problems for Black, A.Sokolov­
note 'd' to Black's I S th move in Line Dolmatov, Moscow 1 992.
B22. 15 l:bS!
•••
 The Novosibirsk Variation with 1 1 i.d3
Other moves has been tried, but
none really gives a good impression:
a) 15 .. Ixe4? ! 16 .he4 l:tbS 17 �b4
is awkward.
b) 15 . . .f4 16 �b4 .i.b7 17 .i.c2
�hS IS "h5 f5 1 9 l:tadl :r6 20 �d5
.i.xd5 2 1 l:txd5 fxe4 22 .i. xe4 l:th6 23
"f3 gives Black every reason to cry,
Milov-Jagodzinski, Berlin 1 997.
c) 15 . . . d5 16 exf5 l:dS ( 1 6 . . . e4 17
.i.e2 l:tdS IS �d4 gave White a better
position in Psakhis-Dolmatov, Klai­
peda 1 9S5) 17 a4 bxa4 IS l:txa4 a5 1 9
lDe 3 e4 20 .i.c2 .i.b7 2 1 " h5 and Black
is not happy, V.Gurevich-Manninen,
Jyviiskylii 1 994.
d) 15 . . ..i.b7 16 exf5 ( 1 6 l:te l ? fxe4
17 .i.xe4 d5 I S .i.d3 "g5 + Todoro­
vic-Zakic, Banja Vrucica 1 99 1 ) and
now there is no good line for Black:
d l ) 16 . . . e4? ! 17 l:te l d5 IS .i.fl
"g5 1 9 �d4 .i.xd4 20 "xd4 favours
White, as a4 ! is coming shortly.
d2) 16 ... d5? ! 17 l:tel ( 1 7 a4 ! ? "g5
I S f4 ! exf4 1 9 "f3 .i.e5 20 axb5 axb5
21 .i.xb5 "xf5 22 .i.d3 "g5 23 �d4
h6 24 �e2 was very good for White
in Heinemann-Rogozenko, Hamburg
1997) 17 .....g5 IS g3 ! e4 19 .i.n "xf5
20 a4 bxa4 2 1 l:txa4 .. g6 22 l:tb4 .i.c6
23 �d4 .i.d7 (S.B.Hansen-Schan­
dorff, Danish Ch 1996) 24 �e2 ! gives
White quite a pull.
d3) 16 .....g5 17 �e3 (alternatively,
17 f3 d5 I S a4 e4 ! 1 9 .i.e2 .i.e5 20
"e l b4! 2 1 �xb4, Leko-Magem, Pam­
plona 1 993/4, 2 l . . .'W h 6 ! 22 g3 a5 23
�2 "b6+ 24 �g2 "xb2 25 l:tbl
"xc2 26 l:txb7 .i.xc3 27 "dl is equal)
17 . . . d5 ( 1 7 . . . h5 is too optimistic, as
Black is in dire straits after I S .i.c2!
( intending �d5 ) I S ... d5 1 9 �xd5 !
l:tadS 20 .i.e4 .i.xd5 21 .i.xd5 "xf5 22
101
"b3 ± Am.Rodriguez-Rahal, Terrassa
1 995) I S f4 ! "h6 ( 1 S . . . exf4 1 9 "g4
"xg4 20 �xg4 h5 2 1 f6 hxg4 22 fxg7
:reS 23 l:txf4 l:te3 24 .i.f5 g3 25 l:tg4
l:taeS 26 l:n is just not good enough,
Moiseev-Geisler, Bundesliga 1 994/5)
19 f6 ! "xf6 20 fxe5 "b6 2 1 l:te l !
l:tfeS 22 �h 1 l:txe5 23 �5 ± Mith­
rakanth-Prasad, Indian Ch 1 992.
16 exf5 e4 17 l:tel .i.xf5 (D)
Time has proved 17 . . . d5 ? ! less good:
I S .i.fl "e5 ( l S . . ... c5 1 9 "h5 l:tb6
20 l:tad l b4 2 1 �xb4 .i.b7 22 l:te3 d4
23 l:tg3 �hS 24 l:txg7 ! 1 -0 Gallagher­
Lampe, Hamburg 1 995) 1 9 "d2 l:tb6
(probably not the best, but Black is
worse in any case) 20 l:tad l l:tdS 2 1
�d4 .i.h6 2 2 "e2 "f6 2 3 "h5 �hS
24 g3 b4 25 .i.g2 .i.b7 26 h4 l:tgS 27
g4 .i.f4 2S g5 and White went on to
win in Hellers-Schandorff, Stockholm
Rilton Cup 1 996n.
Now:
B221: 18 �e3 1 02
B222: 18 �b4! 1 03
Or:
a) I S .i.fl a5 1 9 �e3 1/2-1/2 was
Khalifman-Yakovich, Samara 1 995,
but I don't know what to make of that.
 102 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
b) 1 8 ttJd4 �xd4 ! ( 1 8 ... �g6? 1 9
�xe4 ! �xe4 20 f3 d S 2 1 fxe4 dxe4 22
'Wg4 'WcS 23 �h1 l:tb6 24 ttJfs l:tg6 2S
'Wxe4 and White won in Kramnik­
Nunn, Monaco rpd 1 994) 19 cxd4 dS
(Black can also try 1 9 . . . �h8 ! ? 20 'Wd2
�g6 2 1 �f1 fS 22 l:tac 1 f4 23 l:tc6
e3 ! ? 24 fxe3 f3 2S gxf3 l:txf3 26 dS
�e4 with enough compensation, Sion
Castro-Ochoa, Cala Galdana 1 994) 20
'Wd2 l:tb6 2 1 l:tac 1 (21 'Wf4 ? ! �g6 22
�e2 'Wb4 was better for Black in
Magem-San Segundo, Madrid 1994;
21 �f1 has been suggested, with the
idea that White should be bettel' after
2 1 . . .'Wh4 22 l:te3 l:th6 23 l:tg3+ �h8
24 h3 even though it can't be a lot;
Black must be able to improve some­
where) 2 1 . . .l:tg6 22 �f1 'Wh4 23 l:te3
'WgS 24 g3 hS 2S l:tcs �e6 and Black
is certainly no worse, Short-Illescas,
Madrid 1 997.
8221 )
18 ttJe3 �g6 19 tLld5 'We5 (D)
19 . . . 'We8 ! ? 20 �xe4 �xe4 2 1 f3 fS
22 fxe4 fxe4 23 ttJc7 'fie7 24 "ir'dS+
l:tf7 2S ttJe6 �eS was just about 0 K in
Morovic-Illescas, Ponferrada 1 992.
However, I would feel ill at ease tak­
ing the black side of this line.
w Black didn't even play his best to
20 �c2
20 �f1 ? ! (too passive) 20 . . . fS 2 1 f4
'We6 22 tLle3 �h8 23 'fidS 'WxdS 24
ttJxdS as 2S l:adl b4 26 cxb4 axb4 27
l:td2 b3 ! and Black is better, Emelin­
Yakovich, St Petersburg 1 998.
20.. .a5!
The recent choice of the expert in
this line. Alternatives:
a) 20 . . . fS? ! 21 f4 'We8 22 ttJc7 'We7
23 �b3+ �f7 (23 . . . �h8 24 ttJe6 l:tf6
25 ttJxg7 'Wa7+ 26 'Wd4 ! 'Wxd4+ 27
cxd4 'itfxg7 28 l:tac 1 gives White a
promising position) 24 �xf7+ l:txf7
2S ttJdS 'ii'a7+ 26 � h 1 as 27 a3 l:tc8
28 'Wd2 'fib7 29 :ad 1 l:tcS 30 l:te3 and
Black is not happy, Am.Rodriguez­
Guimaraes, Mondariz Balneario 1 995.
b) 20 . . . �h8 ! ? (this should be fine
as well even though 20 ... aS avoids
White's next move) 2 1 a4 ! (probably
the only critical line, but I have faith in
the black position; 2 1 'Wd2 { this re­
sembles 20 . . . aS } 2 1 .. .fS 22 f4 'We8 23
�b3 'fid7 24 'Wf2 as 2S l:tad1 l:tb7 26
l:td2 'Wd8 27 ttJe3 'Wb8 28 �d5 l:te7
29 h3 b4 = Martin Gonzalez-Ochoa,
Spanish Ch 1993) 2 l . . .bxa4 22 f4 'ii'e6
23 l:txa4 l:txb2 24 �xe4 'Wc8 ! 2S �h 1
fS 26 �f3 �f7 27 'ii'd 3 �xdS 28
'it'xdS 'ii' x c3 29 l:td1 l:tb4 30 l:txb4
'fixb4 3 1 'Wxd6 'Wxd6 32 l:txd6 l:tf6
and the endgame is drawn, McShane­
El Kher, Copenhagen 1 999. Probably
reach this position.
21 f 4 \r e8 22 'Wd2 �h8!
An improvement over 22 . . . fS ? 23
ttJc7 'ikd7 24 ttJe6 !, with a better game
for White.
23 a4 bxa4 24 �xa4 'Wc8 25 �hl
\rb7 26 b3 f5 27 l:tac1 �f7 28 c4
�xd5
 The Novosibirsk Variation with ] ] 1u:i3
Black is no worse, Palac-Ochoa,
Toulouse 1 995.
B222)
18 fOb4!
These days considered the critical
line by the players, but not by any
book!
18 .... b7
IS . . . as ! is the only alternative worth
considering. 1 9 �dS ( 1 9 �c6? �7 is
obviously wrong) 1 9 . . ..e5 ( l 9 . . ..eS?
20 (3) 20 �c2 �g6 2 1 f4 iVe6 22 �e3
�hS and I believe Black should be all
right. 23 g4 fS 24 gxfS �xfS 25 fOxfS
iVxfS 26 I:txe4 dS is just one line, lead­
ing to a complicated position where I
feel certain that Black has enough for
his pawn.
19 �c2 a5
Probably the only move. 19 . . . l1bdS
20 �b3 followed by �dS is very un­
pleasant, while 19 . . . �g6 20 iVxd6 as
2 1 �c6 won instantly for White in
Vitolin�-Beshukov, Podolsk 1 990.
20 fOdS :fe8 2 1 'i'd2!
This move has recently been giving
Black a headache. Others :
a ) 2 1 f 3 exf3 2 2 l1xeS+ l1xeS 23
�xfS l:te2 ! 24 �xh7+ 'iif h S 2S �e4
f2+ 26 �fl l1el + 27 iVxel fxe l iV+ 2S
l1xe l �eS leads to an endi ng with
equal chances, even though I think it is
easier to lose this position with White
than with Black.
b) 2 1 fOe3 �e6 !? (2 1 . . . �g6?! gave
White the better game in Sax-S hari­
yazdanov, Croatia 1997) 22 �b3 l1bdS
23 �dS �xdS 24 'i'xdS 'i'xdS 2S
�xdS b4 26 l:tadl bxc3 27 bxc3 l1cS
seems fine for Black.
21 ... b4 22 cxb4 axb4 23 l1adl 'i'a7
23 . . . �g6 24 �b3 favours White.
1 03
24 'i'f4
Am. Rodriguez-Rojo Huerta, Alba­
cete 1 997. Besides the text-move,
White could here have obtained a clear
advantage with 24 �b3 ! �g4 2S I:tcl
.d4 26 iVgS �e6 27 l1xe4 iVxb2 2S
l1ce l .
C)
1 3 c4! fS!
The only way to react is an instant
counterattack on White's centre. Other
moves:
a) 13 . . . bxc4? 1 4 �xc4 0-0 IS 0-0
�e6 16 'i'e2 l1fdS 17 I:tfd l l:t abS I S
b 3 ± dS? 1 9 exdS �xdS 2 0 � xh7+ !
+- Gallagher-Schreiber, Ticino 1 992.
b) 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 0-0 I:tbS ! ? (a rather
controversial idea: Black delays .. .fS
for a while; 1 4 . . . fS transposes to the
main line) IS I:tel �hS and now 1 6
iV hS I:t g S 1 7 cxbS �fS I S � c 2 I:tgS
19 .e2 fS gave Black counterchances
in Liicke-Conquest, Olot 1 994. Never­
theless, I do not trust this approach.
For a start, 16 cxbS followed by �c2-
e3 seems logical.
1 4 0-0
Not recommendable are:
a) 14 'i'hS? dS ! IS cxdS? fxe4 ! 0- 1
Psakhis-Vai'sser, Paris C h 1 990 .
b) 1 4 cxbS ? ! dS ! IS exdS e4 16 0-0
�xb2 led to victory for Bl ack after
both 1 7 'i'c2 'i'xa3 I S 'i'c6+ �d7 1 9
'i' xaS+ 'iife 7 2 0 'i'b7 � x a l 2 1 I:txal
'i' xd3 22 bxa6 'i' bS, Liu Wenzhe­
Morovic, Be lgrade 1 9S5, and 17 �c4
�xal I S .xal 0-0 19 l1el axbS, Wins­
nes-Ikonnikov, Berlin 1 99 1 .
14 ... 0-0 (D)
14 . . . l:tbS? ! IS exfS bxc4 1 6 �xc4
dS 17 �e3 �b7 IS 'i'a4+ 'i'd7 1 9
.g4 f6 2 0 I:tfd l 'i'e7 2 1 �xa6! �xa6
 1 04 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
22 ltJxdS 'iff7 23 l:lac1 hS 24 'ifa4+
( 1 -0 Ernst-L.B.Hansen, Gausda1 1 99 1 )
24 ... �bS 2S 'ifxbS+ ! ! l:txbS 26 l:tc8+
�d7 27 ltJb6++ �e7 28 l:td7#.
Now three queen moves are really
the only interesting possibilities:
Cl: 15 'i'e2 104
C2: 15 'i'h5! ? lOS
C3: 15 'i'f3! 106
White has also tried:
a) IS cxbS ? ! axbS 16 ltJxbS (not 16
exfS? e4 17 'ife2?, Czebe-Zo.Varga,
Budapest 1 997, 17 . . . l:txa3 ! 1 8 bxa3
�xal 19 l:lxal 'iff6 and Black wins a
piece) 16 . . . dS ! 17 exdS e4 gives Black
an active position.
b) IS exfS ? ! e4 16 f6 �xf6 17 l:tel
dS ! 18 cxdS �xb2 19 �xe4 ! ? 'if xa3
20 l:te3 'ifd6 21 �xh7+ �xh7 22
'i'c2+ 'ifg6 ! 23 'i'xb2 l:tg8 24 l:tg3
'ife4 and White doesn't have proper
compensation for the piece, Van der
Wiel-Nunn, Wijk aan Zee 1992.
c) IS l:le l 'ifgS ! ? (1S ... fxe4 16
�xe4 l:tb8 1 7 cxbS axbS 18 'ifd3 fS 1 9
�dS+ �h8 2 0 ltJxbS e4 2 1 'ifb3 �eS
with compensation for Black, Timmer­
man-Yakovich, Os tend 1 993 and Kos­
ten-Chandler, Hastings 1 9901 1 ) 16
exfS � xfS 1 7 �xfS 'i'xfS 1 8 cxbS e4
19 ltJc4 'i'e6 20 ltJb6 l:tab8 2 1 ltJdS
axbS 22 l:te2 l:tbc8 and Black has a
good game, Lau-Muse, German Ch
(Bad Neuenahr) 1 99 1 .
C1)
1 5 Ve2 �b7
More natural seems IS . . . bxc4 ! ? 1 6
ltJxc4 l:lb8 ! ( 1 6 ... �b7?! 1 7 :idl l:lab8
1 8 ltJe3 ! ? gave Black some problems
in Hausner-Pisk, Czech Ch 1 994) 17
exfS (this may be wrong) 1 7 ... dS 1 8
ltJe3 l:ld8 1 9 �xa6? (White i s o n com­
pletely the wrong track) 19 . . . �xa6 20
'ifxa6 e4 21 l:ladl d4 gave Black a
good game in Jonasson-Angantysson,
Reykjavik 1 984.
16 f3
16 l:tad l l:tad8 17 f3 fxe4 ! 18 fxe4
fS 19 ltJc2 fxe4 ! (an improvement over
1 9 . . . �h8, as in Brunner-Chandler,
Bundesliga 1 988/9) 20 l:txf8+ l:txf8
2 1 � xe4 � xe4 22 'ifxe4 'ifa7+ 23
ltJe 3 (23 �hl "'f2 24 h3 bxc4 2S
"'xc4+ �h8 followed by . . . e4 and
. . . �eS is rather scary as well; 23 'ife3
'ifc7 ! is also good for Black) 23 . . . �h6
24 l:lel 'iff7 ! 2S 'i'dS �xe3+ 26 l:lxe3
bxc4 and Black is just a pawn up -
Kiselev.
16 ... fxe4 17 fxe4
1 7 �xe4 dS 1 8 �xdS �xdS 19
cxdS 'ifcS+ 20 �h l 'ifxdS gives Black
a fine position.
17 ... f5! IS l:ladl
1 8 l:lxfS l:lxfS 19 exfS e4 20 l:lel dS
and White's position is destroyed.
IS .. . 'iPhS 19 �hl l:tadS 20 cxb5
fxe4 21 l:lxfS+ '1WxfS 22 �xe4 �xe4
23 'i'xe4 d5
Black is doing rather well, Moi­
seev-Ikonnikov, Podolsk 1 992.
 The Novosibirsk Variation with 1 1 .i.d3
C2)
15 'it'hS ! ? :b8! 16 enS
1 6 :act 1 fxe4 1 7 he4 f5 1 8 �d5+
�h8 19 J:fe l �d7 20 cxb5 axb5 2 1
tbc2 :f6 2 2 tbb4 :bf8 2 3 g 3 �e8 24
'it'e2 f4 25 �e4 'it'a7 26 :n f3 gave
Black a strong attack in Isupov-Yako­
vich, Vladivostok 1990.
16...e4 17 :ael �b7 (D)
18 :e3
A variety of other moves have been
tested:
a) 18 f3? ! bxc4 ! (or 1 8 . . . �xb2 ! ?
1 9 �xe4 'it'f6 2 0 tbc2 bxc4 2 1 �xb7
:xb7 22 :e4 d5 23 llh4 h6 with a
better game for Black, lohansson-Mar­
kovie, Stockholm 1 990) 19 �xe4 'it'f6
20 :dl :fc8 2 1 lbc2 d5 (2 l . . .�xe4 ! ?
22 fxe4 :xb2 gives Black a very
promising position, Petkovski-Nikce­
vie, Arandjelovac 1 990) 22 �xd5
�xd5 23 :xd5 11xb2 24 tbe3 'iWb6 and
White is in trouble, V.Orlov-Tirard,
Paris tt 1 996.
b) 18 Wg4 �h8 ! 19 �xe4 :fe8 20
f3 ! ? (20 :e3 ? ! �xe4 2 1 llfel �f6 22
llxe4 :xe4 23 �xe4 �xb2 24 �d3
�c3 =+ Dvoirys-Nikcevie, Paris 1 993)
20 . . . �xb2 21 tbc2 �c3 yields a very
sharp position.
1 05
c) 1 8 b3 bxc4 19 bxc4 ( 1 9 tbxc4
d5 20 tbe3 �c3 21 tbg4 f6 22 :e3
�d4 23 J:g3 'iPh8 24 �e2 :bc8 25
tbh6 11c7 26 'it'g4 'iWd8 27 'it'h4 �e5
and after White's attack soon stopped,
Black enjoyed an advantage in Pinkas­
Ikonnikov, Katowice 1 992) and now:
c l ) 19 . . . d5? 20 cxd5 (20 tbc2?
'iff6 2 1 �e2 d4 is terrible for White)
20 . . . 'iWxa3 21 f6 �xf6 22 � xe4 :rc8
23 11e3 �b2 24 �xh7+ �g7 25 �g4+
�h8 (Isupov-Yagupov, Moscow 1994)
26 �f5 ! +-. Black's king is exposed
and too many of his pieces are loose.
c2) 1 9 . . . :fe8 20 tbc2 :bc8 2 1 :e3
�e5 is fine for Black, Dvoirys-Vyzh­
manavin, Cheliabinsk 1990.
d) 18 tbc2 bxc4 19 �xc4 d5 20
�xd5 �xd5 2 1 f6 'ifxf6 22 �xd5 :xb2
23 'ifxe4 (23 tbe3 �e6 24 a4 'ifxd5 25
tbxd5 f5 is pleasant for Black, Short­
Illescas, Linares 1 992) 23 . . . 'ifg6 24
tbb4 'ifxe4 25 :xe4 a5 and Black's
chances are preferable because of the
passed pawn, Dvoirys-Yakovich, Mos­
cow 1 992.
18...bxc4
Who am I to argue with the big
Yakovich? Other possibilities:
a) 18 .. J:tfe8 19 b3 ! . Now Black
should be very careful as 19 . . . d5? ! 20
cxd5 'ifxa3 21 f6 ! 'iWd6 22 �xe4 'iWxf6
23 llf3 'ife7 24 �xh7+ �f8 25 �g6
gave White a very strong attack for the
piece in Luther-Nikcevie, Ikaria 1 993.
b) 18 ... 'ife5 19 b3 J:fe8 20 �e2
�c8 21 �g4 'iff6 22 :h3 h6 23 tbc2
bxc4 24 bxc4 :b2 25 tbe3 :xa2 26
:g3 l:tal = Luther-Wu Wenjin, Elista
OL 1 998.
19 �xc4
Maybe it is better to go for a draw
with 1 9 J:h3 h6 20 �xc4 d5 2 1 �xd5
 106 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
.i.xd5 22 f6 "xf6 23 "xd5 l:txb2 24
lOc4 (24 "xe4 l:txa2 25 ltJc4 "e6 26
"d3 "e2 is, if anything, better for
Black, Smagin-Vaiser, S ochi 1988)
24 . . . l:td8 25 "xe4 l:txa2 = Vukovi{:­
V .Spasov, Nik§i{: 1 99 1 .
19.....e5!
I suggest this move as it was Yako­
vich's latest choice in the position. Al­
ternatives:
a) 19 ... d5 20 .i.xd5 .i.xd5 21 f6
"xf6 22 "xd5 "xb2 2 3 lOc4 "xa2 24
l:tg3 l:tbl 25 l:txg7+ �xg7 26 "g5+
�h8 27 "f6+ �g8 Ill-Ill Luther-Deg­
raeve, Arnhem U-20 Ech 1 989. ,
b) 1 9 . . .l:tfd8 ! ? 20 l:th3 (20 f6? "xf6
2 1 .i.d5 .i.xd5 22, "xd5 "xb2 23 h3
"b7 + Geenen-VaYsser, Brussels 1993)
20. . . h6 21 l:tg3 �f8 22 ltJc2 d5 23
.i.b3 d4 24 f6? ! (24 lOe3 ! ) 24 . . ...xf6
25 ltJe3 ! with a very complicated game,
Bosch-Yakovich, Leeuwarden 1 993.
20 l:th3 h6 21 "g4 .i.c8 22 l:th5
l:txb2 23 .i.b3 e3 24 fxe3 "xe3+ 25
�hl l:tf2 26 "dl .i.b7
Black has the better game, Sammal­
vuo- Yakovich, Stockholm Rilton Cup
1 998/9.
C3)
IS "f3! (DJ
B ising attack against h2.
This is now considered to be the
main attempt on Black's life.
15 ...bxc4
The choice of the professionals. Al­
ternatives:
a) 1 5 ... d5 ? 1 6 cxd5 fxe4 17 .i.xe4
"d6 1 8 g4 was a pawn for virtually
nothing in Holmsten-Rotshtein, Hel­
sinki 1 992.
b) 15 ... l:tb8?! 16 exf5 bxc4 1 7 lOxc4
.i.b7 1 8 .i.e4 and White is undoubt­
edly better, Vlad-Itkis, Bucharest 1991.
c) 1 5 . . . l:te8 ! ? 1 6 l:tfel f4 17 cxb5
"g5 18 h3 ( 1 8 ..e2 l:te6 19 bxa6 l:tg6
20 g3 h5 gives Black compensation
according to Ochoa) 18 . . . d5 19 exd5
f5 with compensation, Pons-Vallejo,
Menorca 1 993.
16 lOxc4
16 .i.xc4 fxe4 17 "xe4 l:tb8 1 8
l:tabl "g5 1 9 "e2 .i.b7 2 0 f3 d 5 2 1
.i.xa6 .i.a8 2 2 lOc2 l:tb6 2 3 b 3 f5 24
l:tbdl gives Black a very promising at­
tack in return for the pawn, Klip­
Kharlov, Leeuwarden 1 993.
16 d5!
•••
The most aggressive, but perhaps
the alternative is not that bad: 16 . . . f4 ! ?
(normally I dislike this, but here it
seems OK) 17 lOb6 l:tb8 1 8 lOxc8
l:tfxc8 19 .i.xa6 l:tc6 ;!; as in Payen­
AI. Karpov, Budapest 1993. White can­
not play 20 "e2 because of 20. . .f3 ! 2 1
gxf3 d5, when Black h as a very prom­
17 exd5 e4 18 "e3!
Time has decided on this move. The
key point is where the queen can go af­
ter Black hits it with the f-pawn, and
currently h3 is preferred. The old line
18 "e2 .i.b7 19 d6 ( 1 9 .i.c2 .i.xd5 20
lOb6 l:tad8 21 lOxd5 l:txd5 22 l:tadl
l:tb5 ! :j: Vlad-Gagarin, Turnu Severin
 The Novosibirsk Variation with 1 1 iLd3
1 992) 1 9. . . "e6 20 Ac2 f 4 2 1 Ab3 f3
gives Black sufficient counterplay,
Ernst-Kharlov, Haninge 1 992.
lS Ab7
...
The only active move. Alternatives
are poorer:
a) I S . . . l:tdS 1 9 l:tfdl "f6 20 An
Ab7 21 "b6 "xb6 22 lbxb6 l:tabS 23
d6 was close to winning already in
Fontaine-Tirard, Montpellier 1 995.
b) After IS . . ...f6 White has two
paths to a better position: 19 Ae2 Ab7
20 :tfd l l:tadS 2 1 d6 f4 22 "b6 with a
promising game, and 19 Ac2 l:tbS 20
:ad l Ad7 21 Ab3 with a very strong
position.
19 d6 (D)
Again considered the only critical
line. I also believe that the game
should be a draw after the alternatives,
but I would rather be White than Black
in this draw:
a) 1 9 l:tad l Axd5 ( l 9 ... l:tadS 20 d6
"f6 21 Ac2 f4 22 "b6 100ks good for
White) 20 lbb6 and now:
a l ) 20 . . . Ae6 ! ? (this seems to give
Black a safe draw) 21 lbxaS exd3 22
lbb6 "b4 23 l:txd3 (23 a3? "b5 24 a4
1i'b4 25 a5 "xa5 26 l:tal f4 27 l:txa5
fxe3 2S fxe3 d2 and Black is prefera­
ble - Nunn) 23 . . . f4 ! 24 l:tb3 "xb3 25
"xb3 Axb3 26 axb3 l:tbS 27 lbd5
l:txb3 2S lbxf4 Axb2 29 l:tdl a5 =
Egger-Nunn, Manila OL 1 992.
a2) 20 . . . l:tad S ! 21 lbxd5 l:txd5 22
Axa6 l:txd l 23 l:txdl transposes to
line 'b2 ' .
b ) 1 9 :tfd l Axd5 20 lbb6 l:tadS 2 1
lbxd5 (21 Axa6 Ae6 gives Black
compensation) 2 1 . . .l:txd5 22 Axa6
l:txd l+ 23 l:txdl and now:
b 1 ) 23 .. ...e6 (Psakhis-Greenfeld,
Haifa 1 995) is probably inferior due to
1 07
24 "a3 ! Axb2 (24 ... l:taS 25 Ac4 ! is
not good at all for Black) 25 "xb2
"xa6 26 l:td5 and the white position is
definitely preferable.
b2) 23 . . .Axb2 24 l:td5 (24 Ac4 has
been suggested as giving White a
small pull; this might be right, but it
can't be much) 24 .....f6 25 Ac4 l:tdS
26 l:txdS+ 112-112 Svidler-Kramnik, Til­
burg 1 997.
19 .....f6
Neither 1 9 . . ...e6?! 20 Ae2 Ad5 2 1
lbb6 l:tadS 2 2 lbxd5 "xd5 2 3 :tfd l nor
1 9 _ ."h4? ! 20 g 3 ! "h3 (20 .....f6 ! ? is
better, but still White is happy to have
played g3) 21 Ae2 Ah6 22 "b3 l:tabS
23 lbe3 �hS (23 . . . f4 ? 24 Ag4) 24 d7
± Liss-Kundin, Tel-Aviv 1 994 can be
recommended for Black.
20 Ac2 f4 21 "h3 l:tacS
2 1 . ..Ad5? 22 lbb6 Ae6 23 "h5
+-.
22 Ab3!
My analysis suggests that this is the
main line. The alternative is 22 b3
"g5 (22 . . . l:tc5? 23 :ad l "g6 24 d7
l:th5 25 'ii xh5 "xh5 26 dS'ii l:txdS 27
l:txdS+ AfS 2S lbd6 is not good for
Black) 23 :ad 1 f5 and now White can
try:
108 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
a) 24 b4 �h8 25 i.b3 i.c6! gives
Black sufficient counterplay. 26 d7
(26 :re I i.b5 gives Black compensa­
tion, but is White 's best) 26 . . .J:tcd8 27
l:td6? ! (27 1L1d6 ! 'iig 6 ! 28 toe8 i,xd7
29 tLIxg7 'iixg7 co Gurevich) 27 . . .i.xd7
28 l:tfdl 'iie7 ! 29 1L1b6? (29 l:txa6 i.b5
30 l:tad6 l:tc8 ! 3 I lLlb6 l:tc3 32 'iih 5 e3
+) 29 . . . i.e6 ! 30 l:txd8 l:txd8 3 I lLld5
i,xd5 32 i,xd5 (after the superior 32
l:txd5, White is still in trouble) 32 . . .e3
33 fxe 3 fxe3 34 'iif3 e2 35 l:teI 'iix b4
36 l:txe2 i.d4+ 0- 1 I.Gurevich-Illes ­
cas, B iel IZ 1 99 3 . Whi te is about to
lose a piece. "
, think Black is fine, but practical tests
b) 24 d7 !? l:tcd8 25 l:td6 IIf7 26
J:fd I i.f8 27 lbe5, rl.e7 28 'iic 3 e3 29 f3
l:tg7 ! 30 'i'c4+ �h8 3 1 lLlf7 + l:txf7 32
'iixf7 i. xf 3 and Black won in Hen­
driks-Lemmers, Gent 1 994.
22... I:tc5 23 lladl J:tg5 24 J:td2!
24 d?? ! e3 25 fxe3 i. xg2 26 'i'xg2
:'xg2+ 27 �xg2 'iig6+ 28 �hI 'i'e4+
29 � gl f3 30 �f2 l:td8 (Moraru­
Rogozenko, Bucharest 1 998) 3 I liJd6!
'iih 4+ 32 � xf3 l:txd7 3 3 tLIxf7 l:txf7+
34 �g2 'i'g4+ 35 �h l 'i'e4+ 36 �gI
'iig 6+ 37 �h I 'iic 6+ 38 �gI i.f6 39
l:tf2 draws for White - Rogozenko.
24,. . 'i'g6!
24 . . . i,d5 25 lLlb6! i,xb3 26 lLld7
'iig6 (26 . . . 'iie6 27 'i'xe6 i,xe6 28
tLIxf8 i.xf8 29 d7 wins as well) 27
tLIxf8 i.xf8 28 axb3 i.xd6 29 :c I and
White w on in Khalifman-Lautier, Lin­
ares 1 995. The text-move is suggested
by Rogozenko as an improvement on
this game. My analysis elaborates on
his notes in Informator.
25 d7 i,dS 26 rl.fd l!
Or:
a) 26 tLIe5 is probably the weakest
of the three possibilities. 26 . . . i,xe5 27
i.xd5 (27 l:txd5 l:thS 28 ..-xh5 ..-xh5
29 d8'i' :'xd8 30 l:txd8+ �g7 and
matters are unclear) 27 . . .f3 28 g3 and
the position is rather unclear. B lack
should avoid both 28 . . . Ah 5 29 i,xe4 !
and 28 . . . e3?
b) 26 1L1d6 ! ? 'i'xd6 27 l:tfd I e3 28
fxe3 'iie6 29 'i'xe6 fxe6 30 exf4 l:tgf5
3 1 i.xd5 exd5 32 l:txd5 l:txd5 33 l:txd5
lld8 and I think the endgame should
be a draw, even though Black still has
a little defendinH; to do.
26 .. .i. e 6 27 'tfh4!?
This i s the most complicated. I
are needed.
27 toes forces a draw: 27 . . . i.xh3 28
tLIxg6 l:txg2+ 29 �hI l:txg6 30 d8�
i.g2+ 3 1 � gl and Black should take
the draw, since White is winning after
3 l . . .i,f 3+? 32 �f1 i, xdl 33 i, xf7 + !
q;xf7 34 'i'd5 +.
27 ... I:txg2+ 28 q; h l i.f6! 29 d8..­
I:txd8 ! !
Weaker i s 2 9 . . . i,xh4 3 0 ..-xh4 e 3
3 1 tLIe5 ! (3 1 fxe3 is not enough t o win:
31 ...ltg4 32 'i'xg4 i,xg4 3 3 lbe5 'ilfe4+
34 ltg2 h5 35 exf4 �h8 36 l:tdgI f5 37
tLIg6+ �g7 38 tLIxf8 �xf8 and again
the endgame must be a draw) 3 l . . .'iig7
32 i,xe6 exd2 33 tLIxf7 l:tgI + 34 l:txgI
'fhg I + 35 � xgI d I 'iIf+ 36 �g2 f3+
3 7 �g3 :'xf7 3 8 ..-f4 and White wins,
30 lbd8+ � g7 3 1 'i'xf4 i,xd8 32
tLIeS
32 lLld6 !? l:tg4 33 'i'e5+ �h6 34
i,xe6 fxe6 is unclear even though
White might have the better chances.
32 .. :i'g5 33 'ihgS+ J:txg5 34 tLIrl7
i,xf7 35 i,xf7 i.b6 36 i,dS i,xf2 37
i,xe4 as
B lack will draw rather easily, as the
white king cannot become active ,
 1 6 1 0 . . . f5 1 1 iLd3
1 e4 cS 2 lLlfl lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4
lLlf6 5 lLlc3 e5 6 lLldb5 d6 7 ig5 a6 8
lLlaJ b5 9 ixf6 gxf6 10 lLldS f5 1 1
id3 (D)
In this chapter I will investigate the
main line of 10 . . . fS , viz. 1 1 id3. The
next chapter focuses on 1 1 exfS ixfS
12 c3 ig7, which is probably the
overall main line of the Sveshnikov,
given its relevance also to the Novo­
sibirsk Variation.
My conclusion is that Black is fine
after I I id3. After 1 l . . .ie6 12 'ii'h S,
12 ... ig7 is risky, but 12 .. . l:gS ! is more
dynamic and presumably better. Still,
there are a lot of options for those who
wish to go deeper into the positions.
1 1 ...ie6
The only good move. Alternatives:
a) 1 1 . . . 'ii' gS? 12 g4 ! forces Black
to play something like 12 .. . �dS 1 3
gxfS ixfS 14 lLle3 id7 I S 'ii'd2 ih6
16 0-0-0, with an advantage for White,
Martin Gonzalez-Rivas, Spanish Ch
1 977.
b) 1 l . . .f4? ! 12 c4 ! (the best way to
punish Black for his inaccuracy; 12 g3
fxg3 1 3 hxg3 ie6 14 c3 ig7 IS lLlc2
± Bednarski-Schinzel, Poznan 1 976 is
also possible) 12 . . . ig7 13 cxbs lLld4
14 bxa6 0-0 l S lLlc2! lLle6 1 6 b4 fS 1 7
exfS e4 1 S fxe6 exd3 1 g e 7 and White
went on to win in Nunn-Fedorowicz,
Reykjavik 1 990.
White now has four main paths,
though the first two can be considered
rather harmless.
A: 12 c3 1 09
B: 1 2 c4 1 10
C: 12 0-0 III
D: 1 2 'i!fh5 1 17
A)
12 c3! ? ig7
1 2 . . . ixdS ? ! 1 3 exdS lLle7 14 lLlc2
and a quick a4 would benefit White.
13 'ff h 5 (D)
Or:
a) 1 3 lLlxbS is an unimpressive win
of a pawn. Black is fine after 13 ...ixdS
( l 3 . . . axbS ! ? 14 ixbS id7 I S exfS
0-0 is possible as well, with a compli­
cated game) 14 exdS lLle7 IS lLla3 e4
1 6 ic2 lLlg6 1 7 'ii' h5 'i!ff6 I S h4 ( 1 S
g4 ! ? fxg4 1 9 'ii' xg4 O-O ! gives Black
lasting compensation) l S .. . l:bS 1 9
lLlc4 l:xb2 ! 20 ia4+ �fS 2 1 0-0 lLlf4
22 'i!fgS 'i!fxgS 23 hxgS :bS, G . Kuz­
min-Zeziulkin, Pardubice 1994.
1 10 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
b) 1 3 0-0 and now 13 . . . �xd5 14
exd5 liJe7 transposes to Line C, but
1 3 . . . 0-0 ! ? is interesting.
c) 1 3 liJc2 0-0 and now:
c l ) 14 liJce3 fxe4 15 �xe4 trans­
poses to Line C32 of Chapter 1 7 .
c 2 ) 1 4 0 - 0 f4 1 5 a4 bxa4 1 6 l:Lxa4
as 1 7 b4 f5 1 8 b5 �xd5 1 9 exd5 liJe7
20 f3 'ili'h8 2 1 c4 ':f6 gave Black good
prospects of attacking on the kingside,
Mithrakanth-Vaiser, Delhi 1 987 .
B recommended: 15 liJxe7 'W'xe7 16 liJc2
13 f4! ?
...
1 3 . . . 0-0 i s the right way to trans-
pose to Line 0 if that's what you want:
a) 14 exf5 (in this way White avoids
transposition, but it is not really dan­
gerous for Black) 14 . . . �xd5 15 f6 e4
1 6 fxg7 :e8 1 7 h2 (or 1 7 �c2, but
the bishop does not appear to be better
placed here: 17 . . . :e5 1 8 'W'h3 b4 19
cxb4 liJxb4 2 0 0-0 :c8 21 � b 3 �e6
22 �xe6 :xe6 23 'W'b3 liJd3 24 liJc2
d5 25 liJd4 :b6 with a good game for
Black, Zso.Polgar-Nunn, Oviedo rpd
1 992; of course White could improve,
but the general impression that White
is worse sticks to 17 �c2) 1 7 . . . :e5 1 8
'W'h6 'W'g5 (simple measures; l 8 . . . b4 ! ?
1 9 liJc2 bxc3 20 bxc3 'W'a5 is less
clear, Jo�ansen-King, London 1 982)
19 'W'xg5 :xg5 20 0-0 b4 21 liJc2 bxc3
22 bxc3 �e6 23 l:tfd l :c5 24 l:Lxd6
:xc3 25 liJd4 liJxd4 26 :xd4 e3 is
drawish, Swic-Bie1czyk, Polanica Zdroj
1 978.
b) 1 4 0 - 0 fxe4? ! (14 ... f4 ! trans­
poses to note 'd' to White's 14th move
in Line 0 1 ) 1 5 �xe4 f5 1 6 liJf4 ! exf4
1 7 �xc6 :c8 1 8 'W'e2 h5 1 9 'W'f3
'ili'h8 20 liJc2 'W'h4 2 1 ' liJd4 �f7 22
� b4 23 lhc 1 gave White the better
game in Horer-Muse, France 1 987.
14 g3 O-O!?
Risky, but 14 . . . liJe7 ? ! cannot be
'W'b7 17 :g l �6 18 gxf4 exf4 19 liJd4
'fIe7 20 a4 ! gave Black a big problem
in Groszpeter-Szuk, Hungary 1 995 .
I S :gl
15 gxf4 ! ? exf4 16 l:tgl ( 1 6 e5 h6 17
:gl 'ili'h8 is almost too hot to handle,
but I think Black survives) 16 . . . liJe5
17 �c2 �xd5 18 exd5 liJg6 should be
OK for Black.
IS f3!
.••
Black wisely invests a pawn to
close all the dangerous files and lines.
Now the white king is stuck in the cen­
tre or can go to the even less attractive
queenside.
16 liJc2 liJe7 17 liJde3 :c8 18 'fIxf3
fS 19 exfS dS 20 'fIg4 �d7
The position is complex, Diesen­
Ochoa, Alicante 1 978.
B)
12 c4 'fIaS+ 13 'ili'n liJb4!
This has proved to be the easiest
way to equalize.
14 'iVel
An improvement on 14 exf5 ? ! �xd5
15 cxd5 liJxd3 1 6 'fIxd3 :c8 17 liJc2
�h6 ! 1 8 liJe3 'fIb4 19 :bl �xe3 20
 1 0 .f5 1 1 i.d3
..
fxe3 l:tg8 2 1 �f2 'ifg4, which gave
White too many problems in Adams­
Granda, Buenos Aires 1 99 1 .
1 4... .i.xd5 1 5 exd5 bxc4 1 6 hf5
l:tb8 17 �xc4 'ifxd5 18 b3 l:tg8 19
.i.e4 'ifOO 20 a3 d5 21 axb4 dxc4 22
bxc4 'iWxc4+
'1l.J1l Adams-Fedorowicz, Buenos
Aires 199 1 .
C)
12 0-0 (DJ
B Ch 1994 continued 16 ... .i.h6? 17 'ifhS)
This is not as active as 12 'ifhS, but
it is still a line where Black finds him­
self on shaky ground, if White follows
the main path. My instincts tell me
that Black is OK, but they have been
proven wrong once or twice before .
Still, if you don't feel safe playing the
positions arising after this, then you
should maybe find another opening.
12 .i.xd5
•..
The most natural. Black has also
tried to be creative in this position:
a) 12 . . . f4 ! ? 13 c4 b4 14 QJc2 as I S
b3 l:tg8 1 6 �hl l:tg6 17 1'3 l:th6 t1;Jllled
out to be all right in Topalov-Raab,
Frankfurt simu1 1 997, but further tests
are needed before we can evaluate this
idea.
111
b) 12 . . . l:tg8 (I don't truly trust this,
but if you can improve on Black's
play, then you should go for it) 13 c4
( 1 3 f4 l:ta7 ? ! 14 c4 bxc4 IS �xc4 �d4
16 �cb6 .i.h6 17 exfS �xfS and now
1 8 'ifhS QJe3 ! led to an equal game in
Fogarasi-Schebler, Budapest 1998 but
1 8 .i. xfS .i.xfS 1 9 fxeS looks more
critical) 1 3 . . . f4 14 cxbS ! (the sharp
choice; 14 f3 b4 IS �c2 as 16 b3 .i.e7
17 l:tf2 'Il-'Il Timman-Sokolov, Am­
sterdam 1 994) 1 4 ... QJd4 ( 1 4 . . . .i.h3 ! ?
I S g 3 QJd4 comes to the same thing af­
ter 16 QJc2, while 16 bxa6 is interest­
ing; then Tilak-Muralidharan, Indian
IS QJc2 .i.h3 16 g3 QJxbS 17 l:tel with a
slight advantage for White, Dvoirys­
Ji.Nun, Polanica Zdroj 1 989.
c) 12 ... .i.g7 13 c4 ( 1 3 'ifhS trans­
poses to Line D 1) 1 3 . . . bxc4 14 QJxc4
0-0 and now:
c l ) l S QJcb6 fxe4 16 .i. xe4 l:tb8 17
'ifa4 ( 1 7 .i.xh7+? ! �xh7 1 8 'ifc2+ e4 !
19 'ifxc6 .i.d4 20 l:tad l { 20 QJa4 'ifgS
does not offer White a good game ei­
ther } 20 . . . .i.xb6 2 1 �xb6 'ifxb6 22
'ifxe4+ �g7 23 'iff4 l:tfd8 and Black's
chances are better, Dvoirys-Gorelov,
Aktiubinsk 1 985) 1 7 . . . �d4 1 8 'ifxa6
fS 1 9 .i.d3 e4 20 .i.c4 �h8 2 1 l:tfd 1
'ifh4 and Black won convincingly in
Brownscombe-Sherzer, Philadelphia
1993.
c 2 ) IS QJdb6 l:tb8 ! (the most natu­
ral; IS . . . QJd4 ! ? 16 exfS .i.xc4 17 �xc4
d5 1 8 QJe3 e4 1 9 .i.c2 l:tb8 20 l:tb1
l:tb6, which made a draw in Mali­
shauskas-Minasian, Podo1sk 1 989, is
also good) 16 exfS .i.xc4 17 QJxc4 dS
18 QJe3 e4 19 .i.xa6 �b4 20 .i.e2 d4
gives Black sufficient compensation,
Kuijpers-Ligterink, Leeuwarden 1976.
 1 12 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
13 exdS liJe7 14 c3!
Time has proved this to be the only
good move in the position. Black is
doing OK after the alternatives:
a) 1 4 �xb5? ! J.. g7 15 �c3 e4 1 6
J..c 4 �g6! 17 "'h5? ! ( 1 7 J..b 3 is better,
although White cannot be happy with
the position after 17 . . . 0-0) 17 . . . J.. x c3 !
1 8 bxc3 "'f6 19 f4 0-0 20 J.. b 3 l:lfc8 is
just bad for White, Nunn-Zsu.Polgar,
Munich 1 99 1 .
b) 1 4 "'h5 ? ! e4 1 5 J..e 2 J.. g7 1 6 c3
was played in G . Kuzmin-Dolmatov,
Erevan Z 1 982. Overall 14 "'h5 gives
a bad impression. It leads to·-similar
positions to 14 c3, but Black can be
happy that White has put his bishop on
the silly e2-square instead of c2.
c) 14 c4 J.. g7 and now:
c l ) 15 cxb5 e4 16 J..c 4 J.. x b2 17
bxa6 J.. x al ?! ( 1 7 . . . O-O! is an improve­
ment as 1 8 l:lbl ha3 1 9 l:lb3 J..c 5 20
l:lg3+ �h8 21 "h5 gets nowhere after
2 1 . . .l:lg8) 1 8 "'xal 0-0 1 9 "f6 �g6
20 "'xf5 l:le8 2 1 �c2 l:le5 22 "'h3
with a complicated game where White
is no worse, Brustman-Arakhamia,
Debrecen worn Echt 1 992.
c2) 15 �c2 (Egger-Reinderman,
Buenos Aires 1 992) 15 . . . e4 ! 16 J..e2
bxc4 gives Black good counterplay.
c3) 1 5 l:lbl 0-0 16 cxb5 e4 17 J..c4
axb5 1 8 �b5 �g6 1 9 f4 exf3 20
"xf3 "h4 21 J..b3 J..e5 22 "h3 "xh3
23 gxh3 �h4 24 �h 1 �h8 25 l:lf2 f4
gave Black good compensation in
Enders-Sandner, Bad Zwesten 1 999.
c4) 15 "'d2 e4 16 J.. e 2 bxc4 1 7
�xc4 0-0 1 8 l:lad l ( 1 8 l:lac l l:lb8 1 9
b4 l:lb5 2 0 �e3 f4 2 1 J.. x b5 fxe3 22
"'xe3 axb5 23 "'xe4 �g6 is very dou­
ble-edged, Hubner-Sax, Tilburg 1 979)
18 . . . l:lb8 19 "'f4 l:lb5 20 l:ld2 (the
inferior 20 �e3 gave White no fun in
Novik-Kramnik, Sochi 1 990) 20 .. .l:lxd5
2 1 l:lxd5 �xd5 22 "'xd6 "'a8 23 l:ldl
l:ld8 24 �b6 l:lxd6 25 �xa8 J..e5
eventually led to a draw in Vukovic­
Vukic, Igalo 1 994.
We return to the position after 14 c3
(D):
B
14 J..g 7
...
Or:
a) 1 4 . . . l:lg8 15 �xb5 ! ? �xd5 1 6
"'f3 e 4 1 7 "xf5 exd3 1 8 "'xd5 axb5
(Grunfeld-Birnboim, Rishon le Zion
1 992) 19 l:lfe l + J..e7 20 "'b7 and
White regains the piece with a large
advantage.
b) 14 . . ....c8 should normally just
transpose to the main line. Instead in
Nijboer-Reinderman, Dutch Ch 1 995
White played 1 5 c4, and Black got a
good game after 15 . . . e4 1 6 J.. e 2 J..g7
17 cxb5 0-0 1 8 l:lc l "'b7 1 9 bxa6
"xb2 20 l:lc7 "'xa3 2 1 l:lxe7 "'xa2.
c) 14 . . ...d7 15 "'h5 ( 1 5 J.. b l ? ! ap­
pears odd: 1 5 . . . J.. g 7 16 �2 0-0 1 7 f4
e4 1 8 a3 l:lac8 1 9 �hl a5 20 g4 �h8
2 1 �e3 b4 probably favours Black,
Neverovsky- Sitnikov, Russian Cht
1 999) 1 5 . . . l:lg8 ( 1 5 . . . l:lc8 is not reli­
able: 16 l:ladl l:lc5 17 g3 J..g7 1 8 J.. b l
 10 . .f5 11 i.d3
. 1 13
0-0 1 9 tl)c2 l:txdS 20 l:txdS tl)xdS 2 1
tl)e3 tl)f6 2 2 'iWgS h6 2 3 'iWxfS 'iWxfS
24 tl)xfS l:tdS 2S a3 gives White an
edge in the ending, Nijboer-Reinder­
man, Dutch Ch 1 996) and now:
c l ) 16 �h l ! ? l:tg6 17 l:tadl J.g7
IS J.bl �fS 19 f4! l:th6 20 'iWgS (more
testing is 20 'iWf3 ! tl)g6 2 1 fxeS J.xeS
22 g3, when Black must find some­
thing better than 22 . . . f4? 23 J.xg6
fxg3? 24 J.hS, when Black is just a
piece up) 20 . . . l:tg6 21 'iWhS l:th6 22
'iWgS l:tg6 Ill- Ill Kotronias-Krasenkow,
Pula Echt 1997.
c2) 1 6 l:tae l l:tg6 17 f4 e4 1 S J.xe4?
(this direct assault is less impressive)
IS . . . fxe4 19 fS l:tf6 20 l:txe4 0-0-0 2 1
c4 l:txfS and Black just won in Gross­
Rogozenko, Berlin 1 996.
c3) 16 l:tad l ! (this appears best)
16 . . . l:tg6 17 'iWe2 ! ( 1 7 J.bl J.g7 I S
tl)c2 f4 ! 1 9 tl)b4 l:th6 2 0 'iWe2 �fS 2 1
J.c2 �gS 22 a4 �hS 2 3 axbS axbS 24
tl)c6 J.f6 gives Black a good position,
Hoffmann-Rogozenko, Bundesliga
1 99617; 17 f4 e4 IS J.bl 'iWa7+ 1 9
�h 1 'iWcs 20 tl)c2 l:th6 is close to be­
ing better for Black, so White was not
unhappy to play 21 'iWgS l:tg6 22 WhS
l:th6 23 WgS l:tg6 24 Wh5, with a draw,
in Kerek-Medvegy, Budapest 1 995)
17 ... l:tbS?! (opening up the queenside
is not in Black's interest; 17 . . . e4 I S
J.bl J.g7 1 9 tl)c2 ;; T.Horvath, but
17 . . . J.g7 directly calls for attention)
IS f4 e4 19 J.bl b4 20 cxb4 'iWa7+ 2 1
�hl l:txb4 2 2 tl)c4 l:tbS 2 3 g4 l:tf6 24
gS l:tg6 2S h4 l:txdS 26 J.xe4 and
Black is busted, Efimov-Vuki�, Ljub­
ljana 1 997.
15 Wh5 (D)
An alternative is IS tl)c2 0-0 1 6
WhS ( 1 6 tl)b4 ?! e4 1 7 J.c2 a5 I S tl)c6
tl)xc6 1 9 dxc6 dS 20 'iWhS Wf6 was
preferable for Black in Renet-Shirov,
Reykjavik 1 992) 16 . . . e4 17 J.e2 and
now 17 . . . WcS ! gives Black good coun­
terplay.
B
15 e4
...
Black has tried another strategy :
first overprotecting fS and then trans­
ferring the queen's rook to cS and hit­
ting the dS-pawn. This plan starts with
IS . . . 'iWd7 I ?:
a) 16 l:tadl l:tcS ! ( 1 6 . . . 0-0 17 J.bl
e4 IS tl)c2 is slightly better for White,
Howell-Lawton, British Ch (Swansea)
1 995) and then:
al) 17 tl)c2 (now Black should be
careful) 1 7 . . . 0-0 ! ( 1 7 . . . l:tcS ? ! I S tl)e3
e4 19 J.bl ! 0-0 20 g 3 ! is better for
White, Dolmatov-Chekhov, Bundes­
liga 1 99 112; 17 . . . e4 IS J.e2 0-0 19 f3
is also not good) IS g3 e4 1 9 J.e2 f4 !
(a strong sacrifice winning the f4-
square) 20 gxf4 fS 2 1 � h l tl)g6 22
"gS 'iWdS ! 23 l:tgl 'iWxgS 24 fxgS l:tcS
and Black has compensation, Kotro­
nias-Nijboer, Wijk aan Zee 1 995 .
a2) 1 7 J.bl l:tcS I S tl)c2 f4 (the al­
ternative I S . . . tl)xdS ! ? 1 9 tl)e3 tl)xe3
20 fxe3 e4 has been suggested; Black
seems fine here too) 1 9 g3 l:txdS 20
 1 14 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
gxf4 l:lxd 1 2 1 :xd 1 �g6 22 fxe5
�xe5 23 �e3 �4 24 "'f3 'ii'h 3 gives
Black a very good game, Gild.Gar­
cia-Filippov, Ubeda 1997.
b) 1 6 l:lael (whether the rook is
best on el, attacking the black centre,
or on d 1, protecting the d5-pawn, is yet
to be discovered) 16 . . . 0-0? ! ( 1 6 . . . :cS !
has yet to be tested in this position) 17
�bl h6 (obviously this is not a good
strategy, but Black was afraid of the
advance g4 breaking open his king­
side { viz. 17 . . . l:lacS I S g4 } - this is
the main reason why Black should de­
lay castling if he chooses this line) I S
f4 exf4 1 9 l:l dl ! l:lfe8 2 0 �c2 �g6 2 1
�b4 "'e7 2 2 �xf5 "'g 5 2 3 �xg6
fxg6 24 "'xg5 hxg5 25 a3 ! gave White
a promising position in Sepp-Cheu­
tshenko, Estonian Ch 1997.
16 �c2 "'c8!
The key move for Black. Actually it
could be played after 16 . . . 0-0, but to
play it here is more flexible, as on 17
l:lad l he can decide whether ......c5 or
. . . 0-0 should be played. An interesting
alternative strategy is 1 6 . . . 0-0 17 l:lael
l:leS !? (less good is 17 . . . l:lcS?! IS �b3!
l:lc5 19 �c2 "'d7 { 1 9 ... �xd5 20 �xd5
l:lxd5 2 1 l:lxe4 ! l:ld2 22 l:le2! is not
good at all for Black} 20 f3 ! a5 2 1 a3
exf3 22 "'xf3 �e5 23 g3 ! , when White
has a very strong position, Kovaliov­
Palac, Neu Isenburg 1 992), though it
is probably not quite strong enough to
equalize:
a) I S �b3 (not the best) IS . . . �g6!
19 f4 ( 1 9 "'xf5 ? ! l:le5 20 "'g4 f5 2 1
'Wd l "'g5 gives Black a strong initia­
tive for the pawn) 19 . . . exf3 20 l:lxeS+
(20 "'xf3 "'b6+ 2 1 <;P h I f4 is OK for
Black) 2O . . .... xeS 2 1 "'xf3 f4 22 �c2
a5 23 a3 l:la7 ! 24 l:lel l:le7 with
equality, V. Gurevich-Timoshenko,
Enakievo 1 997.
b) I S f4 �xd5 19 �b3 ( 1 9 �xe4
l:lxe4 20 l:lxe4 fxe4 2 1 "'xd5 "'b6+ 22
<;Ph I l:leS is fine) 1 9 . . .�f6 20 "'xf5
"'b6+ 2 1 �h 1 "'c5 promises Black an
acceptable position - V.Gurevich.
c) IS f3 ! �xd5 19 fxe4 ! ( 1 9 �xe4
fxe4 20 "'xd5 l:le5 2 1 "'d2 d5 ;; 1 9
�b3 �6 ! 20 "'xf5 l:le5 2 1 "'h3 { 2 1
"'f4 "'b6+ 2 2 �h l l:laeS 2 3 fxe4 d5 !
= } 2 1 . .. ... b6+ 22 �hl d5 23 �c2 l:lh5
24 "'g3 l:lh6 followed by . . . :g6 gives
Black a reasonable game) 1 9 . . .... b6+
20 �h l �6 21 "'xf5 l:le5 22 "'f3 l:lae8
23 l:ld l ! (preventing . . . d5) 23 . . . l:lSe7
24 l:ld4 ;t.
We return to the position arising af­
ter 1 6 . . ....cS (D):
At this point White has tried two
rook moves:
C l : 17 l:ladl 1 14
C2: 17 l:lael 1 16
C1)
1 7 l:tadl 'ii'cS
Alternatives:
a) 17 ... b4? IS cxb4 �xb2 1 9 �a4+
�fS 20 "'h6+ <;PgS 2 1 �2 is much
better for White.
 1O . . .j5 11 JLd3
b) 1 7 . . . 0-0 I S .i.bl ( 1 S �h l ? b4
only helps Black) I S . . . ltlg6 ( l S ... 1i'c5
should be met with 1 9 �h l ! and not
19 ltlc2? ltlxd5 ! 20 'iVxf5 ltlxc3 ! , when
Black triumphs) 19 �hl (the only way
to try to make progress) 1 9 . . . l:leS (I
think 19 . . . 1i'c5 is better) 20 f4 ! 'iVc5 ?
(20 . . . exf3 is forced; Black cannot sur­
vive if the knight goes to e3) 2 1 ltlc2 !
e3 22 1i'e2 and in Z.Almasi-Mar­
kowski, Bern 1996 Black soon found
out that he had too many weaknesses.
Now:
C l l : 18 .i.bl ! ? 1 15
C12: 18 .i.b3 1 15
The former is the safer option.
C1 1 }
18 .i.bl ! ? b4 19 exb4 1i'xb4 20
ltle2 'iVxb2 21 ltle3 'iVf6 22 f3! (D)
Once again 1 go for the most ag­
gressive move. 22 f4, as suggested by
Dolmatov, gives White enough com­
pensation for the pawn, but 1 think
that's all it does.
B 18 .i.b3 (D)
22 ...1i'g6!
1 think this is the best way to play
the position. Other moves:
a) 22 . . . 1i'h6? 23 1i'xh6 .i.xh6 24
ltlc4 is not in Black's favour.
1 15
b) 22 . . . .i.h6 ! ? is the main alterna­
tive, and seems to work out all right:
23 l:lfel .i.xe3+ 24 l:lxe3 ltlg6 25 fxe4
(25 1i'h6 �e7 26 l:ln l:labS seems to
offer Black a decent game, Z .Almasi­
Krasenkow, Pula Echt 1 997) 25 .. .f4 26
l:lb3 ltle5 (26 ... l:lgS?! just wastes time:
27 1i'f5 'iVe7 2S �hl �fS 29 l:lh3 l:lg7
30 l:lc3 �gS 3 1 l:lcS+ :XcS 32 1i'xcS+
ltlfS 33 "'xa6 did not please Black in
Klovans-Shariyazdanov, Biel 1 999;
26 ... 0-0 27 'iVf5 1i'e7 2S .i.d3 l:labS is
suggested by Dolmatov as giving Black
counterplay) 27 1i'f5 'iVxf5 2S exf5
�e7 29 l:ld4 f3 30 gxf3 l:labS gives an
ending with such a small advantage
for White that drawn is the more accu­
rate description, Dolmatov-Shariyaz­
danov, Moscow 1 995.
23 'iVh3 l:le8 24 fxe4 fxe4 2S l:tf4
l:te3! 26 l:txe4 'iVgS 27 'iVfS 'iVxfS 28
ltlxrs .i.eS
Even though the a6-pawn will be
lost, Black's strong bishop ensures
him a good game, Hoffmann-Czebe,
Budapest 1 999.
C 1 2)
This continuation is very risky for
White.
18 ... 0-0!
Or IS . . . a5 ! ? ( l S . . . b4? 19 cxb4 1i'xb4
20 ltlc2 1i'b6 2 1 ltle3 is awful for
Black, Pogarasi-Senff, Gyula 1 995)
1 9 1i'e2 a4 20 .i.c2 b4 21 c xb4 1i'xb4
22 f3 1i'c5+ (22. . . l:tcS? 23 fxe4 .i.xb2
24 exf5 is very dangerous for Black,
Hamdouchi-Handke, Purth 1 995) 23
<iii> h l e3 24 l:tc l 0-0 25 .i.bl 1i'xd5 26
1i'xe3 'i'e5 seems fine for Black, Da­
vid-Pierrot, Cappelle la Grande 1999.
19 ltle2 f4 20 ltld4 l:tae8
 1 16 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
B pawn up, but lacks active play, so he
Now 2 1 a4? (this is misdirected)
2 1 . . .b4 22 lUf5 lUxf5 23 "xf5 bxc3 24
bxc3 .xc3 and Black won ill SaI­
mensuu-C.Horvath, Budapest 1 999.
2 1 ..tc2! is the,critical continuation:
2 1 . . .lUg6 (not 2 1 . .. .. xd5? 22 "xd5
lUxd5 23 lUf5 lUf6 24 1hd6) 22 l:tfe1
e3 aQ.
C2)
17 l:tael 0-0
17 . . ...c5 18 �h1 Ab8 19 f3 b4 20
cxb4 l:txb4 2 1 fxe4 f4 22 b3 lUg6 23
lUc4 0-0 24 ..tb1 lUe5 25 l:txf4 is dan­
gerous for Black, Nijboer-Hossain,
Elista OL 1 998.
18 ..t>hl
Or:
a) 18 ..tb3 misplaces the bishop.
Black then has two ways of playing
this position:
a 1 ) 1 8 . . . lUg6 ! ? (the riskier path) 1 9
lUc2 ( 1 9 f4 exf3 2 0 Axf3 f4 2 1 Ah3
h6 22 lUc2 l:te8 was rather unclear in
the game Sznapik-Krasenkov, Slupsk
1 992) 1 9 . . . l:te8 20 f4 exf3 21 "xf3 f4
22 lUb4 "c5+ 23 �h1 l:te3 24 l:txe3
"xe3 and Black is all right, Van den
Doel-De Vreugt, Antwerp 1 998.
a2) 18 ... a5 19 lUxb5 a4 20 ..td1
"c5 and now:
a2 1 ) 2 1 ..te2 f4 22 b4 axb3 23 axb3
f5 24 b4 "b6 25 c4 lUg6 (White is a
now seeks activity by sacrificing a
pawn) 26 c5 ! ? dxc5 27 bxc5 "xc5 28
Ac 1 "b4 29 d6 f3 with complications
that are not unfavourable for Black,
Pilgaard-Bokros, Budapest 1 999.
a22) 21 lUd4 "xd5 22 "g5 "e5 23
f4 "f6 24 g4 d5 and Black is certainly
no worse, Nunn-McShane, Hastings
1 997/8. Whether he is slightly better,
as suggested in the annotations by
Lalic in Informator, is hard to say. I
think it is just equal.
b) 1 8 g4 ! ? (this caveman approach
has not yet given White any success)
1 8 . . . b4 ! (opening up the lines at the
queenside for a small price) 1 9 cxb4
lUxd5 20 "xf5 (20 gxf5 lUf6 2 1 'iWh3
d5 22 �h1 �h8 23 l:tg1 l:tg8 24 ..tb3
"b7 25 lUc2 l:tad8 26 lUd4 lUd7 27
"e3 lUe5 28 l:tg2 ..tf6 aQ Nunn-Rein­
derman, Leeuwarden 1 995) 20 ...'iWxf5
2 1 gxf5 lUxb4 (2 1 . . ...txb2 ! ? 22 ..txe4
..txa3 23 ..txd5 l:tab8 24 l:te7 ..txb4
probably equalizes) 22 l:txe4 l:tab8 23
�h 1 l:tfc8 24 l:tg4 �f8 25 f6! ..txf6 26
..txh7 and White has some advantage
due to his extra pawn, but Black has a
lot of play and made the draw without
too much trouble in Sax-C.Horvath,
Hungarian Ch (Lillafiired) 1 999.
18 lUg6
••.
Alternatives:
a) 1 8 . . . lUxd5? 19 ..txe4 1 -0 Thip­
say-Koshy, S akthi 1 996.
b) 1 8 . . .'iW c5 (this also does not
meet the requirements of the position)
1 9 f3 l:tae8 20 fxe4 fxe4 2 1 l:txe4 lUg6
22 'iWf5 l:txe4 23 'iWxe4 ..txc3 24 h4
winning quickly for White, Thipsay­
Jukic, Linares 1 996.
 10. . ./5 11 JLd3 1 17

c) 18 . . . b4 ?! 19 cxb4 ! .i.xb2 20 :e3 played in Kovaliov-Krasenkov, Aal­

f6! (20 ... .i.xa3? 21 :h3 :d8 22 "xh7+ borg 1 995) 22 . . . b4 23 cxb4 .i.xb2 24
�f8 23 "h6+ �e8 24 h4+ +-) and lbc2 :e8 25 h4 ±.
now: 20 f4 exf3 21 "xf3
c l ) 21 :g3+ lbg6 22 :bl ! .i.xa3 ! 2 1 :xe8+ 'ii' xe8 22 "xf3 f4 23
(22 . . . .i.e5? 23 :xg6+ hxg6 24 'iWxg6+ .i.xg6 hxg6 24 "xf4 .i.e5 with com­
�h8 25 :b3 .i.c3 26 "h6+ �g8 27 pensation - Almasi.
"h4) 23 :xg6+ �h8 ! (not 23 ... hxg6? 21 :xel 22 :xel f4 23 lbc2
•••

24 "xg6+ �h8 25 :b3 f4 26 g4 +-) 23 .i.xg6 hxg6 24 "xf4 .i.e5 re­

with survival chances for Black. sembles the previous note.
c2) 2 1 g4 .i.xa3 22 gxfS :f7 23 23 a5! 24 :dl "cS 2s lbd4
•••

:gl+ :g7 24 :xg7+ �xg7, Tsesh­ Now instead of 2S . . . b4? 26 lbfS !

kovsky-Krasenkov, Voskresensk 1 992, with a very promising game for White,
25 :g3+! �h8 26 'iWf7 'iWf8 27 'iWxf8+ Z.Almasi-Krasenkov, Malmo 1 994,
:xf8 28 :xa3 lbxd5 29 .i.xe4 lbxb4 Black should play 25 ... .i.xd4 26 .i.xg6
30 :a4 d5 3 1 .i.f3 (Krasenkow) is hxg6 27 :xd4 :e8 28 h3 :eS with an
good for White. equal position.
d) 1 8 . . . :e8 ! ? (this is suggested by
Shariyazdanov and Lysenko in Infor­ D)
mator as a line giving a draw) 19 f3 12 'iW h5 (D)
( 1 9 .i.bl ! ? is possible; 1 9 .i.b3 lbg6
Ill- Ill Palac-Shariyazdanov, Zadar
1998) 1 9 . . . b4 20 cxb4 .i.xb2 2 1 fxe4
.i.xa3 22 h4 f4? (22 . . . .i.xb4 ! is a B
clear improvement: 23 .i.xe8 "xe8 24
:e3 with complications) 23 .i.xe8?
(23 :xf4 lbg6 24 :xf7 ! �xf7 25
'ii'x h7+ �f6 26 :fl + �e5 27 "g7+!
just wins) 23 . ....xe8 24 :f3 .i.xb4 25
:b3 lbg6 26 "xh7+ �f8 27 "h6+
�g8. A strong GM once tried to con­
vince me that Informator is just an or­
gan for propaganda - an interesting
theory ! ? Now:
1 9 .i.bl D l : 12 .i. g7
••• 1 18
19 f3? b4 ! is good for Black since D2: 12 :g8! ••• 1 22
White can no longer swing the rook to The former is the old main line,
the kingside. while the latter continuation is more
19 :e8
••. dynamic.
19 ... .i.e5 ? ! is less good: 20 f4 ! lDxf4
(20 . . . .i.xf4 2 1 lbc2 ! and the knight 12 . . . f4? ! 1 3 g3 :g8 transposes to
comes into play with great force) 2 1 note ' a' to Black's 1 3th move in Line
"g5+ lbg6 2 2 :xf5 ! (22 lbc2 was D23.
 1 18 Easy Gu ide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
01 )
1 2.. i.g7 1 3 0-0
. a) 14 �h l ? ! 0,e7 15 c4 bxc4 1 6
Alternati ves :
a) 13 c3 transposes to Line A.
b ) 1 3 O-O - O? ! l:tcS 14 �bl �xdS
IS exdS 0,e7 1 6 f3 0-0 17 Ithe l l:tcS
IS g4 e4 19 fxe4 fxe4 gave Black a
strong attack in Seminiuk-Timoshch­
enko, Novosibirsk 1 976.
13 ... f4
B asically the only move played
The alternatives are :
a) 1 3 . . . 0,aS ?! 14 c3 l:ta7 15 0,c2
0,c4 16 0,db4 fxe4 17 �xe4 dS I S
�fS 'i'd7 1 9 �xe6 �lhe6 20 b3, 0,b6
2 1 !1:Je3 0-0 22 !1:JfS is not good for
Black, Parma-Bhend, Buenos Aires
1 975.
b) 1 3 ... h6? ! (makes no sense) 14
c3 0-0 1 5 0,c2 f4 ( 1 S . . . fxe4 1 6 �xe4
fS 17 !1:Jf4 ! ) 16 a4 bxa4 17 l:txa4 a5 I S
i.c4 i s better for White, Ash-Morgan,
Philadelphia 1992.
c) 13 . . . ItbS 14 f4 ! and White i s
better - Sveshnikov.
d) 1 3 . . . Ita7 ! ? was for some reason
not mentioned in Krasenkow's 1 996
book on the Sveshnikov. It looks O K
judging from th e two games I have
seen, but further tests are required to
judge upon it. 1 4 c3 ( 1 4 c4 bxc4 I S
0,xc4 f4 1 6 g 3 ItgS 1 7 �h l �fS! I S
'i'xh7 l:tg6 1 9 gxf4 i.g4 2 0 f3 l:t h6 2 1
'it'gS l:1g6 2 2 'it'h7 l:th6 2 3 'i'gS 1/2 - 1/2
R.Leyva-A rencibia, Cuban Ch 1 993)
1 4 . . . f4 IS 0,c2 0-0 16 a4 bxa4 17
l:txa4 a5 IS g3 fS 1 9 gxf4 exf4 20 0,xf4
�f7 21 �c4 �xc4 22 l:txc4 0,eS 23
lId4 fxe4 24 !1:Je6 'it'eS 2S 'i'xeS AxeS
26 lhd6 0,c4 with good chances for
Black in the endgame, Thiel-Krasen­
kov, Krumbach 1 99 1 .
1 4 c4!
This is the main line. Alternatives:
0,xe7 cxd3 17 !1:JfS i.xf5 I S 'i'xfS 'i'cs
19 'it'xcS+ l:txcS 20 l:adl dS is favour­
able for Black, Iskov-Yusupov, Esbjerg
1 9S0.
b) 1 4 l:tfd l !1:Je7 ! I S 'it'gS 0,xdS 16
'i'xg7 'i'f6 was O K for B lack in
Borzoy-Prakitsky, corr. 1 975.
c) 1 4 0,bl 0-0 I S 0,d2 (15 a 4 b 4 16
0,d2 fS 17 i.c4 0,a5 I S b3?! 0,xc4 19
bxc4 ItcS 2 0 Itabl as was better for
Black in Ivanovic-Sveshnikov, Sochi
1 979) I S . . . l:bS 16 0,f3 '&'d7 17 0,gS
(this forces a draw, but White was no
wa y near an advantage) 17 . . . h6 I S
0,f6+ i.xf6 1 9 'i'xh6 i.xgS 20 'i'xgS+
with a perpetual, Agnos-Lawton, Brit­
ish C h (Swansea) 1 9S7.
d) 1 4 c3 is not really dangerous for
Black. I would think that 1 4 . . .0,e7 ! ?
s hould also be fine here, b u t every­
body has always played 14 . . . 0-0, when
White has tried:
d l ) IS g4 l:tbS 16 0,c2 as 17 a3
1 /2 -1/2 Stanciu-Gunev, Ruse 1 975. Hav­
ing had positions like this with Black
in many quick games I would say that
he has nothing to fear. White's queen
is not really active on hS.
d2) IS 0,c2 fS 1 6 0,cb4 (not good
is 16 f3 �f7 17 'i'h3 �xdS I S exdS
0,e7 1 9 0,b4 as 20 0,c6 'i'b6+ 2 1
�h l 0,xd5, when Black i s far better,
Liu Dede-Adianto, Jakarta 1 994 ; 1 6
a4? ! �xdS 17 exdS !1:Je7 1 S axbS e4 1 9
� c 4 axbS 20 �xb5 J:[ bS with good
compensation, Lukin-Timoshchenko,
USSR 1 973) 16 . . . 0,xb4 1 7 0,xb4 as
I S exfS ( I S 0,c6 'i'c7 1 9 exfS, Petru­
shin-K arasev, Beltsy 1 977, 19 . . . �c4 !
- + is pointed out b y Sveshnikov; 2 0 f6
�xf6 does not help) I S . . . �f7 1 9 '&'h3
 10 ./5 1 1 i.d3
. .
'it'd7 20 �c2 d5 2 1 l:tad l l:ta6 22 'it'g4
l:th6 23 'it'e2 f3 24 gxf3 'it'e7 gave
White problems in Klovans-Timo­
shchenko, Odessa 1 974.
d3) 15 l:tfd l l:tb8 16 �c2 'it'd7 17
'it'e2 .i. xd5 18 exd5 �e7 19 �b4 a5 20
�c6 �xc6 2 1 'it'h5 h6 22 .i.f5 'it'c7 23
dxc6 'it'xc6 Ih-lh Timman-Parma, Bled
1 979.
d4) 15 l:tad l l:tb8 (15 . . . f5 16 exf5
.i.xd5 17 f6 ± Hartoch-Jamieson, Wijk
aan Zee 1 977) 16 �c2 'it'd7 17 'it'e2
�h8 1 8 l:tfel f5 1 9 �cb4 �b4 20
�xb4 a5 2 1 exf5 .i.g8 22 �c2 .i.xa2
23 l:tal .i.d5 24 l:txa5 f3 is unclear, but
cannot be worse for Black, B yrne­
Timman, Bugojno 1 978.
We return to the position after 14 c4
(D):
14 ... bxc4
Or:
a) 14 . . . b4? (this closes the queen­
side for no reason) 1 5 �c2 l:[b8 1 6
l:tfd l 0-0 1 7 g4 a5 1 8 b 3 'it'd7 1 9 .i.e2
�e7 20 l:td3 followed by l:th3 gave
White a strong attack in Pedzich­
Valet, Berlin 1 99 1 .
b) 1 4 . . .�d4 1 5 cxb5 0-0 1 6 �c2
�xc2 ( 1 6 . . . �xb5 17 a4 �a7 1 8 a5
�c6 1 9 b4 f5 20 �b6 l:ta7 2 1 'it'e2 f3
1 19
22 'it'xf3 d5 23 'it'h3 dxe4 24 .i.xe4
�d4 25 �xd4 'it'xd4 26 .i.d5 .i.xd5 27
l:tadl 'it'xb4 28 l:txd5 ± Makarychev­
Sveshnikov, Tbilisi 1 978) 1 7 .i.xc2
axb5 18 .i.b3 �h8 19 'it'e2 ;t Prand­
stetter-Neckaf, Marianske Lazne 1 978.
15 .i.xc4
This is the main line, but I am not
sure that 15 �xc4 ! ? is as harmless as
Krasenkow seems to think: 1 5 . . . 0-0
16 l:tadl ( 1 6 g3 �d4 17 �cb6 l:tb8
1/2-1/2 Adorjan-Portisch, Budapest
1 977; Black seems fine) 16 . . .�d4 1 7
.i. b l f5 (or 1 7 . . . .i.xd5 1 8 exd5 f5 1 9
l:txd4 exd4 2 0 .i.xf5 h 6 2 1 'it'g6 'it'f6
22 .i.e6+ �h8 23 'it'xf6 l:txf6 24 �xd6
with some advantage for White, al­
though matters are undecided) 1 8
l:txd4 ! exd4 1 9 exf5 .i.f7 2 0 'it'f3 .i.e5
2 1 .i.e4 �h8 22 g3 with compensation
for the exchange, Cao-Fusthy, Buda­
pest 1 996. How this should end is not
certain, but I have faith in White's po­
sition.
15 ... 0-0 16 l:tac1
16 �c2 l:tb8 17 b3 'it'd7 1 8 'it'e2
�h8 1 9 l:tabl f5 was fine for Black in
Prandstetter-T.Horvath, Trnava 1 98 1 .
16 ...l:tbS!
This is actually the only move I can
take seriously; the alternatives are un­
impressive:
a) 16 . . . f5? 17 l:tc3 �a5 1 8 l:th3 +­
Avshalumov-Minasian, USSR 1 97 8 :
1 8 . . .h 6 1 9 'it'g6 .i.f7 20 l:txh6 ! .i.xg6
21 �f6#.
b) 16 ... �7?! gives White, it seems,
two equally good ways of gaining an
advantage, though I would imagine
Kravtsov must have some kind of im­
provement on the Short game:
b l ) 1 7 l:tfd l l:tc8 1 8 �xe7+ 'it'xe7
19 l:tc3 ! �h8 20 b3 f5 (20 ... .i.d7 ! ? 2 1
 1 20 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
�b l ! f5 22 .i.xa6 is good for White)
2 1 l:th3 h6 22 .i.xe6 "xe6 23 l:thd3 ±
Short-Sax, Saint John Ct ( I ) 1 9S5.
b2) 1 7 �c7 ! "xc7 I S .i.xe6 "b7
19 .i.b3 l:tadS 20 l:tfdl d5 2 1 exd5 l:td6
22 �4 l:th6 23 "g4 l:tg6 24 "h3 l:tg5
25 �d6 "b4 26 �xf7 ! +- Asrian­
Kravtsov, Russia 1 997. Notice how
the two knights were sacrificed on c7
and f7 mirroring each other.
c) 1 6 . . . �d4 ? ! 17 �c2 �xc2 I S
l:txc2 .i.xd5 ( l S . . . �hS 1 9 l:tfc l l:tcS
20 b4 a5 21 a3 axb4 22 axb4 l:tbS 23
.i.d3 ! gives White good prospects,
Ulybin-Ji.Nun, Sochi 1 9S9) 1 9 .i.xd5
l:tcS 20 l:tfc 1 l:txc2 2 1 l:txc2 "a5 22
g3 �hS 23 �g2 is better for White,
Adla-Tovillas, Buenos Aires 1 992.
d) 16 ... l:ta7 ? ! 1 7 :Cd l "bS IS b3
�d4 19 �c2 �b5 20 �cb4 ! "b7
(20 . . ...e8 2 1 �xa6 ! .i.xd5 ( 2 l .. .l:txa6
22 a4 .i.xd5 23 .i.xb5 ! ) 22 l:txd5 +­
Am.Rodriguez-Remon, Bayamo 1991)
21 .i.xb5 "xb5 (21 . . . axb5 22 l:tc7
"as 23 l:tdc 1 is positionally winning
for White: the bishops are not playing)
22 �c6 and Black is much worse, Sion
Castro-Remon, Cienfuegos 1 99 1 .
e) 1 6 . . . �hS ! ? 1 7 :Cd l (the strat­
egy chosen by White in the following
game is weaker: 17 l:tc3 �d4 IS l:tfc l
l:tbS 1 9 b 3 f3 ! 20 gxf3 .i.xd5 2 1 exd5
"f6 22 �h 1 .i.h6 with a good game
for Black, Stoica-Li Zunian, Lucerne
OL 1 9S2) 17 . . . �d4 IS �c2 �xc2 1 9
l:txc2 l:tcS 2 0 l:tdcl (20 .i.b3 ! ? Kra­
senkow) 20 . . . a5 2 1 l:tc3 l:tgS 22 l:t l c2
.i.fS 23 �c7 ! l:txc7 24 .i. xe6 l:tg5 25
l:txc7 l:txh5 26 l:txf7, as in Dvoirys­
Kim, Kemerovo 1979, probably bene­
fits White although matters are far
from clear. Still this doesn't seem the
most convincing strategy.
17 b3 (D)
B
17 .....d7!
Time has proved this to be the right
track. The alternatives are:
a) 17 . . . .i.xd5? I S .i.xd5 �b4 1 9
:Cd l �xa2 2 0 l:tc6 "e7 2 1 �c4 has
given White an obvious advantage in
some games, amongst others Stean­
Sax, Las Palmas 1 975.
b ) 17 . . . .i.d7?! I S :Cd l �hS I9 �2
a5 20 �3 "e7 2 1 �b5 was not a suc­
cessful experiment in Fogarasi-Czebe,
ZaIakaros 1 994.
c) 17 . . . �hS ! ? IS l:tfd l ( I S �xf4 ! ?
exf4 1 9 .i.xe6 �d4 2 0 .i.f5 �f5 2 1
"xf5 .i.b2 22 �4 .i.xc 1 2 3 l:txc 1 has
been rumoured to be better for White,
but I do not believe Black has any the
worse prospects here - too much ma­
terial has been exchanged for the
knight to do much good) I S . . ...a5? !
(this i s not the future) 1 9 �b 1 l:tbeS 20
l:td3 ! (20 �bc3 f5, Gyimesi-Czebe,
Budapest 1 995, 2 1 l:td3 ! gives White
an attack, e.g. 2 l .. . fxe4 22 �xe4 .i.f5
23 �f6 ! .i.xf6 24 "xf5 and Black is
busted) 20 . . . f5?? (20 . . . �d4 is the best
move here according to I.Almasi, but
2 1 b4 ! "dS 22 �d2 must give White
a substantial advantage) 2 1 l:th3 .i.gS
 10 .. .j5 1 1 i.d3
22 ltJf6 lhf6 2 3 .i.xg8 1 - 0 Grabics­
Czebe, Zalakaros 1 995 .
d) 17 . . . tlkaS ! ? and now:
d 1 ) 1 8 tOb1 �h8 1 9 a3 tlkd8 ! ? (or
19 . . . tOd4 20 tObc3 fS ? 2 1 tOe7 ! with
advantage to White, Varavin-Cher­
niaev, Moscow 1 992) 20 tOxf4? (20 b4
tOd4 2 1 tOd2 gives White an advan­
tage) 20. . .exf4 2 1 .i.xe6 fxe6 22 :xc6
f3 with complications in Ernst­
Timoshchenko, TaIlinn 1 989.
d2) 18 .i.d3 tOb4 19 tOc4 tlkd8 20
tOxb4 :xb4 21 :rd 1 with advantage to
White, Liss-Tsesarsky, Tel-Aviv 1 99 1
(among others).
We now return to 1 7 ... tlkd7 ( D):
lS :fdl!
Developing the only undeveloped
piece is the only really logical move.
Others:
a) 1 8 :c3 ? ! tOd4 19 tOc2 (already
this is an indication that White is not
on the right track) 19 . . . tOxc2 20 :xc2
�h8 21 .i.xa6 ? ! fS 22 .i.d3 .i.xdS 23
exdS e4 24 .i.a6 .i.d4 2S :rc 1 .i.cs
gave Black too much compensation
for a pawn which will never queen in
Lastin-Shariyazdanov, Russia 1 996.
b) 1 8 tlkgS ? ! .i.xdS ! 19 .i.xdS tOb4
20 :fd 1 tOxa2 2 1 :00 �h8 ! 22 tOc4
121
tOc3 and Black went on to win in
Koch-Podlesnik, Manila OL 1 992.
c) 18 tlkh4 .i.xdS 19 .i.xdS tOb4 20
:cd 1 tOxa2 21 tOc4 tOc3 GO Timo­
shenko-Zeziulkin, Warsaw 1 992.
d) 18 .i.d3 �h8 1 9 tOc4 ( l 9 :c4 fS
20 :rc 1 .i.xdS 2 1 exdS tOb4 22 :c7
tlke8 23 tlkh3 e4 was the path to vic­
tory for Black in Gutierrez-Sveshni­
kov, Cienfuegos 1 979) 1 9 . . . tOd4 20
tOaS :fc8 21 tlkh4 :xc1 22 :xc 1 :c8
23 :xc8+ tlkxc8 24 tOc4 f3 2S �h 1 h6
and Black seems no worse, Kuijf­
King, Amsterdam 1 982.
e) 18 tOc2 ! ? (prophylactic preven­
tion of . . . tOd4 - Black's normal plan)
18 . . . �h8 ! ( l 8 . . . aS 19 :rd 1 seems to
give White an edge) 19 .i.xa6 fS 20
l2Jc3 tOd4 21 .i.c4 .i.xc4 (21 . . . fxe4?
22 tOxd4 ! is not what Black is looking
for; 2 l . . .tOxc2 22 .i.xe6 tlkxe6 23 :xc2
fxe4 24 tOxe4 is also very good for
White because of 24 ... dS? 2S tlkxh7+!
and the material will count in the rook
ending) 22 bxc4 tlkc6? (22 . . . :b2! 23
tlkd 1 fxe4 24 tOxd4 exd4 2S tOxe4 f3 !
leads to complications that are not un­
favourable for Black) 23 exfS tOxc2
24 :xc2 tlkxc4 2S tlkd l ± Wells-Szuk,
Hungary 1995.
18. . .�hS
18 ... .i.g4? 19 tIkgS is not what Black
wants. 1 8 . . . tOd4 19 tOc2 tOxc2 20
:xc2 �h8 2 1 :d3 ! ? (21 h3 fS 22 tOc3
.i.xc4 23 bxc4 :bc8 gave White noth­
ing in Zapata-Li, Mexico 1980; 2 1
tlkh4 ! ? Krasenkow) 2 1 .. ..i.g4 2 2 tlkh4
fS 23 f3 fxe4 24 fxe4 has been sug­
gested with the evaluation ;t.
19 'iVh4
White has a good alternative in 1 9
h3 ! ? tOd4 20 tOc2 tOxc2 2 1 :xc2 fS
22 tOc3 (22 :e2 ! ? fxe4 23 :xe4 .i.fS
1 22 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
24 .id3 .ixe4 25 .ixe4 .i f6 26 :c l
.id8 27 :c6 with compensation -
Klovans; 22 exf5 .ixf5 23 :cd2 'fIa7
24 �hl :be8 25 f3 e4 gave Black
counterplay in Tukmakov-Sveshnikov,
Tbilisi 1 978) 22 . . ..i xc4 23 bxc4 'fIc6
24 'fIe2 :bc8 25 �d5 'fIe8 26 exf5
:xf5 27 'fIe4 'fIh5 28 :cd2, which is
preferable for White, Klovans-Pyda,
Katowice 1 993.
19 f5!
.•.
This pawn sacrifice seems the only
way for Black to fight for the initia­
tive. Others:
a) 19 . . . :g8 20 �2 h6 21 �h 1 $.f8
22 f3 :g5 23 'fIf2 ;t Emst-Krasenkov,
Stockholm 1 989.
b) 19 ... .ixd5 and now:
b l ) 20 ':'xd5 �e7 (20 . . . �b4 2 1
:d2 f5 2 2 exf5 d 5 23 :cd l :bc8 24 h3
:c5 is also not a bad way for Black to
play, Dvoirys-Gorolov, Barnau1 1 984)
2 1 :d2 f5 22 exf5 �xf5 23 'fIh3 e4
with a strong initiative for Black,
Novotny-Mrva, Czech Cht 1 994. In
both these games White can possibly
improve, but to dream about an advan­
tage is useless.
b2) 20 .ixd5 and here:
b2 1 ) 20 . . . �b4 2 1 :c3 ! (instead of
2 1 :d2? ! , as in Ernst-Benjamin, Rey­
kj avik 1 990) 2 1 . . .�xa2 (2 1 . .. f5 22
:h3 .if6 23 .ie6! 'fIe7?! 24 'fIh5 fxe4
25 � d5 26 �d6 +-) 22 :h3 h6 23
�c4 :bd8 24 g4 ! with a very promis­
ing position.
b22) 20 . . . �d4 2 1 :c4 f5 (2 1 . . .f3
22 �c2 �e2+ 23 �fl �f4 24 gxf3
followed by �e3 stops any dreams of
compensation) 22 �c2 :bc8 (22 .. ixe4
23 �xd4 exd4 24 .ixe4 was very good
for White in S veshnikov-Vyzhmana­
vin, Moscow 1 987) 23 �xd4 exd4 24
'fIxf4 fxe4 25 :xc8 'fIxc8 26 'fIxe4
and White went on to win in Ernst­
Bergstrom, Swedish Ch 1 989.
20 �4 exf4 21 .ixe6 'fIxe6 22
:Xc6 fxe4 23 :cxd6 'fIe5!
23 . . . 'fIe8?! 24 'fIg4 ! e3 25 'fIf3 'fIe7
26 �c4 :be8 27 'fIe2 gave White a
large advantage in Ernst-Holmsgaard,
Gausdal 1 993.
24 �c4
24 'fIg4 !?, with the idea of meeting
24 . . . 'fIb2 with 25 :d7 !, looks interest­
ing. Probably Black is on shaky ground
no matter what he does.
24 ..c3 25 h3 ':'be8 26 'fI g4 e3
...
Black has counterplay, Siklosi­
Szuk, Hungary 1 993.
02)
12... :g8! (D)
w
Now:
021 : 13 0-0-0 124
022: 13 c3 124
023: 13 g3 125
There are plenty of other moves:
a) 1 3 c4? ! .ixd5 ! and here:
al) 14 cxd5 �b4 15 .ie2 fxe4 1 6
1Wxh7 :g6 1 7 :d l 'fIg5 1 8 g 3 �d3+!
1 9 .ixd3 exd3 20 0-0 (20 :xd3? 'fIf5
 JO .j5 1 1 i.d3
..
21 �d2 �h6+ 22 �c2 lIcS+ speaks
for itself) and now, instead of 20 . . . e4,
as in Henao-Prasad, Thessaloniki OL
1 9S5, Prasad gives 20 .....f5 ! 21 �hl
(nothing else works) 2 1 . . .�d7 ! ! -+.
White cannot prevent ... �g7 and ... llhS
as 22 "h4 is met by 22 . . . lIh6 23 "b4
"h 3.
a2) 14 exd5 (forced, in view of the
lines we have just seen) 14 . . . itJd4 1 5
0-0 ( 1 5 cxb5 e4 1 6 �e2 "a5+ i s also
not good for White) 15 . . . lIg4! (threat-
ening both . . . lIh4 and . . . itJf3+) 1 6 f4
lIh4 1 7 "d l "b6 1 S �hl e4 1 9 �e2
b4 20 itJc2 itJxc2 2 1 "xc2 "e3 and
White must be very careful not to get
into immediate trouble.
b) 1 3 O-O? ! is just too risky. 13 . . . f4
1 4 c4 (more careful is 1 4 "d l �h3 1 5
g 3 lIg6 1 6 �h l �xfl l7 �xfl lIbS I S
c 3 �h6 1 9 itJc2 �fS but White has a
hard time trying to prove that the light
squares are enough for the exchange,
Biriescu-Ungureanu, Zamardi 1 9S0)
14 . . . b4 ! (Black must should be very
careful: 14 . . . �g4? 15 "xh7 lIg6 1 6
cxb5 lIh6 1 7 "xh6 ! �xh6 I S bxc6
�fS 19 f3 �e6 20 c7 1i'g5 21 itJb6 lieS
22 �xa6 +- Zapata-Fedorowicz, New
York 1 9S0) 1 5 itJc2 �g4 16 "xh7
lIg6 17 h3 ( 1 7 f3 l:lh6 1 S "gS �e6 is
also getting ready for a slaughter)
17 . . . �f3 ! I S "xg6 fxg6 1 9 gxf3 lIa7
20 llfd l a5 2 1 �fl itJe7 22 �e2 "cS
23 h4 itJxd5 24 exd5 e4 ! and White is
in trouble, Smagin-Yurtaev, Hartberg
1 99 1 .
c ) 1 3 lIgl (if I were Black, I would
prefer to have these rook moves, rather
than any others I can think of, thrown
in; still, strangely enough this move
does not seem bad at all) 1 3 . . . lIcS 14
c3 lIg5 15 "e2 fxe4 16 �xe4 f5 17
1 23
�f3 �f7 I S h 4 lIg7 1 9 g3 e4 2 0 �h5
�e7 2 1 lI h l �fS 22 �xf7 l:lxf7 23
itJc2 �f6 24 �fl �e5 25 itJce3 "eS
with an unclear position, Stoinev-Nur­
ki6, Tuzla 1 9S9.
d) 13 f4 lIxg2 1 4 itJe3 (14 O-O-O?
transposes tothe game Brodsky-Kram­
nik, Kherson 1 9 9 1 given in Chapter 1 )
14 . . ...a5+ 1 5 �fl lIg7 1 6 exf5 "b4
17 fxe6 "xf4+ ( 1 7 . . ...xb2 ! ? I S lIbl
"xa3 19 ttJf5 l:lg6 20 exf7+ �d7 21
"xh7 llf6 seems to benefit Black,
though the position demands detailed
analysis) I S �e2 itJd4+ 1 9 �d2 itJf3+
20 �e2 itJd4+ Ill-Ill Hubner-Sax, Rio
de Janeiro IZ 1 979.
e) 13 h3 (even though this gives
the highest percentage score of all
White 's possibilities here, Black has
no reason to be scared) 1 3 . . . lIxg2 14
"xh7 lIcS 15 c3 (D) and now:
B
e l ) 15 . . ...g5 16 �fl lIgl (but not
16 . . . �xd5? 1 7 exd5 itJd4 I S �xg2
"xg2 19 0-0-0 when White had the ad­
vantage in Guliev-Rogozenko, Niko­
laev 1 995) 1 7 lIxgl "xgl I S itJf6+
�e7 1 9 itJd5+ �eS and White may
have to concede a draw, as 20 O-O-O?
loses to 20 . . ...xf2. Further tests are
needed.
1 24 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
e2) Black should investigate the
line 1 5 . . . fxe4 ! ? 16 'ifxe4 ( 1 6 .i.xe4?!
:g7 17 'ifhS b4 ! gives Black the better
chances) 16 . . . :gS 00.
t) 1 3 �fl ! ? (this hardly deserves a
straight ' ! ' , as suggested in lnjorma­
tor) 1 3 . . . h6 14 h3 :g5 15 'ife2 (Black
is fine after 15 'ifd l :cS 16 c4 fxe4 17
.i.xe4 ltld4 IS g3 f5 1/2- 1/2 Orlov-Sin­
kevich, St Petersburg 1 995) 15 . . . ltld4
1 6 'ifd l with a small edge for White
according to Sinkevich. However, I
feel Black is fine here, and that he can
possibly improve on both 1 5 . . . .!Dd4
.
and 1 3 . . . h6.
021 )
1 3 0-0-0 :c8
This is the safe branch. More ambi­
tious is 1 3 . . . :xg2 ! ?, as in Brodsky­
Kramnik, Kherson 1 99 1 . The game
can be found in Chapter 1 . White
should then have played 14 'iff3 ! , after
which matters are terribly unclear.
14 �bl h6
14 . . . f4 ! ? 15 g3 .i.g4 16 'ifxh7 :g6
17 gxf4 :h6 1 S 'ifgS :g6 gives a draw
according to Dvoirys.
15 'ile2 ltld4
15 . . .b4 16 .i.xa6 ! ? bxa3 17 .i.xcs
.i.xcs IS exf5 .i.xf5 19 'iff3 'ifbS 20
'ifxa3 ;!; Morris -D.Cramling, B a:rum
1 980.
16 'ilel .i.xd5!
This was suggested by Dvoirys as
an improvement over 16 . . .fxe4 1 7
.i.xe4 f 5 1 8 :xd4 fxe4 1 9 'ifxe4 :g4
20 f4, which was a disaster for Black
in Dvoirys-Kalinichev, Berlin 1 992.
17 exd5 :xg2 18 f4 .i.g7 19 'if 0
:g4 20 c3 :xt'4 21 'ifg2 :g4 22 'ilh3!?
e4 23 cxd4 exd3 24 'ilxd3 'ild7
The game is unclear.
022)
13 c3 (D)
13 :xg2
•••
My main suggestion, but other
moves are possible:
a) 1 3 . . . .i.xd5? ! (for now this looks
shaky) 14 exd5 :g5 ! ? (an attempted
improvement over 14 . . . ltle7) and now:
a l ) 15 'ifxh7? ltle7 16 g3 ltlxd5 17
ltlc2 .i.g7 1 8 :dl �f8 1 9 'ifh3 e4 20
.i.e2 f4 2 1 'ilh7 'ife7 is winning for
Black, Bosch-Nijboer, Wijk aan Zee
1999.
a2) 15 'ifh4 ! seems to be the criti­
cal test. Then 1 5 . . . :xg2? loses to 1 6
'ilh3 'ilg 5 1 7 dxc6 e4 I S .i.xe4 ! +-.
b) 1 3 . . . :c8 14 g3 fxe4 15 .i.xe4
:g4 16 .i.g2 ( 1 6 'ifxh7 ! ? is extremely
risky, but still it's a pawn; on the other
hand, the day you find you can no lon­
ger give up these pawns as Black, is
the day you should take up the Petroff
or something like that) 16 . . b4 17 ltlc2
.
bxc3 1 8 bxc3 e4 1 9 ltlce3 :g5 20 'ifd 1
:e5 2 1 0-0 .i.g7 22 :bl ltle7 and
Black is certainly no worse, Bosch­
Babula, Bundesliga 1 998/9.
c) 1 3 . . . f4 ! ? 14 ltlc2 ( 1 4 g3 trans­
poses to note 'a2' to White's 1 3th
move in Line D23) 14 ... :xg2 15 a4
 1O . . .j5 1 1 j.d3
bxa4 1 6 l:txa4 J..g7 17 J.. c 4 �fS I S
1Wf3 l:tg6 00 S.Salov-Krokhalev, corr.
1 994.
14 1Wf3 l:tg4 IS exfS J..xdS 16
'ifxdS liJe7 17 'ifb7 J..h 6
The alternatives are:
a) 17 .. .1WbS? IS liJxb5 ! 'ii' xb7 (only
move) 1 9 liJxd6+ �d7 20 liJxb7 liJc6
21 b4 �c7 22 liJc5 J..xc5 23 bxc5 e4
24 J.. c 2 l:te8 25 0-0-0 l:tf4 26 l:td6
gave White a substantial advantage in
Am.Rodriguez-Cherniaev, Manresa
1 997 .
b) 17 . . . 1Wc S ! ? is recommended by
Cherniaev. Now I S liJxb5 won't work.
What should happen is yet to be dis­
covered, but I sense Black can feel
safe here.
Now (after 17 . . . J..h 6):
a) IS f6 ! ? (once thought to be the
critical line, but after this game I think
no one will play it again) I S . . . liJgS 19
J..e4 ( 1 9 l:td l liJxf6 20 J.. e 2 l:te4 ! ? 21
l:txd6 'ii' xd6 22 'ii' xa8+ rj;e7 gives
Black very good play) 1 9 . . . l:tbS 20
'ii' c6+ �fS 21 l:td l 'ii' xf6 and Black
has good prospects. Nevertheless,
White can probably improve over the
following moves: 22 �fl l:tdS 23 liJc2
liJe7 24 1Wc7 liJg6 25 J..b7 e4 26 l:tel
1Wf3 27 1WxdS+ �g7 2S liJd4 1Wh3+
0-1 Am.Rodriguez-Timoshenko, Ubeda
1 995.
b) IS liJc2 �fS 19 liJe3 ! ( 19 l:tdl
l:tbS 20 1Wf3 l:tf4 21 1Wh3 J.. g 5 22
liJe3 e4 00 Luther-Shirov, Bundesliga
1 99 112) 19 . . . J.. xe3 20 fxe3 liJgS 21 f6 !
liJxf6 22 l:tfl l:tbS 23 1Wf3 e4 24 1Wxf6
'ii'xf6 25 l:txf6 exd3 26 0-0-0 with
equality - Shirov.
023)
13 g3 (D)
1 25
Now:
023 1 : 13 h6 ••• 1 26
0232: 13 l:tg4 ! ? 1 27
...
0233: 13 l:tgS! 12S
...
Others:
a) 1 3 . . . f4? ! and now:
al ) 14 c3 and then:
al l ) 14 . . .J..g4 15 1Wxh7 l:tg6 1 6 h3
J.. f3 17 l:tfl liJe7 I S gxf4 l:th6 1 9
fxe5 ! dxe5 ? ( 1 9 . . . liJxd5 20 1Wf5 dxe5
2 1 1Wxf3 J.. x a3 22 exd5 J.. xb2 23 l:tdl
;t) 20 liJxb5 J.. h 5 21 liJf6+ (21 1WhS ! is
even stronger) 2 1 . . .l:txf6 22 1Wxh5
liJc6 23 0-0-0 axb5 24 J..xb5 1Wc7 25
a4 J..h 6+ 26 �bl �fS 27 l:td5 liJa7 2S
1Wxe5 1Wxe5 29 l:txe5 liJxb5 30 axb5
with a clear advantage for White,
Ernst-Bewersdorff, Gausdal 1990.
a 1 2) 14 . . . l:tcS ! and now a draw was
agreed in Naumann-Schebler, Bun­
desliga 199617, which doesn' t tell us
much. 15 gxf4 J..g4 1 6 1Wxh7 is prom­
ising for White.
a2) 14 gxf4 J..g4 1 5 'ii' xh7 l:tg7 1 6
'ii' h S liJd4 1 7 �fl ! ( 17 f5 liJf3+ I S
�fl liJd2+ gives a draw) 1 7 ... l:tg6! I S
h3 ! ! l:th6 ( 1 S . . . J.. f3 1 9 l:t g l l:th6 20
1WgS +-) 1 9 hxg4 l:txhS 20 l:txhS exf4
2 1 c3 ± C .Horvath-P.Horvath, Hun­
gary 1 9S9.
 126 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
b) 1 3 . , , :tc 8?! 14 c3 ':g6 ( l 4 " . fxe4
IS i. xe4 b4 1 6 'Oc4 b xc3 17 bxc3
':gS 18 'i'xh7 fS 19 i.g2 i.f7 20 'i'h4
didn't offer Black sufficient compen­
sation in Er nst- Hanel, Oberwart 1 99 1 )
and now :
bl) IS �c2 a n d then:
b l l ) IS " .':h6? ! 16 'i'e2! i.xdS 17
exdS 'Oe7 1 8 f3 i. g7 19 �e3 and now
rather than 19 . . . f4? ! as in Kasparov­
Sal ov, L inares 1 992, Kasparov indi­
ca tes 19 " .'i'd7 20 a4 �f8 21 axbS
axbS 22 i.xbS 'i'c7 !.
b12) I S " .fxe4 (necessary) 1 6 i.xe4
.i.g4 17 'i'h4 'i'xh4 1 8 gxh4 fS I 9, hS !
%:tgS 20 h4 ':xhS 2 1 f3 (± Kasparov;
2 1 'Oce3 i.e7 22 'Oxg4 fxg4 23 'ii'e2
ctJd8 24 %:tag l �e6 2S ':xg4 ':c4 =
Klovans- Yurtaev, Leningrad 1 989)
2 1 . . .fxe4 22 fxg4 ':h6 23 gS followed
by 24 ctJf6+ gives White the advan­
tage.
b2) White should prefer I S 'Ilff3 !
.i.xdS 1 6 exdS e4 1 7 �xfS ':gS 1 8
'i'f4 ! (the suggested improvement over
1 8 'i'xh7? exd3 19 dxc6 'i'e7+ 20 q;.fl
'i'e2+ 21 '1f;g2 ':hS -+ Glek-Chekhov,
Frunze 1 988) 1 8 " .exd3 19 dxc6 %:teS+
20 '1f;fl 'i'b6 2 1 'i'f3 w ith the better
game for White.
c) 1 3 . . .ctJd4!? and here:
c l ) 14 c3 (Black is probably all
right here) 14 . . .fxe4 IS i.xe4 i.g4 1 6
'i'xh7 %:tg7 1 7 'i'h6 ctJf3+ 1 8 q;.fl ( 1 8
'it>e2! 'OgS+ 1 9 f3 'Oxe4 2 0 fxg4 'i'c8 !
is very unclear, Beliavsky-Shirov,
Gr oningen PCA qual 1 993) 1 8 . . . %:tgS
19 ctJf6+ q;.e7 20 'i'h8 ctJd2+ 2 1 q;.g2
ctJxe4 22 tiJxe4 ':g6 led to a draw in
Magem-Zsu.Polgar, Madrid 1 992.
c2) 14 O-O -O ! (this appears to be
critical; in many of these lines Black
attacks, but in this game White really
gets going) 14 . . . :'c8 IS f4 i.xdS 1 6
exdS 'i'f6 17 c 3 e 4 1 8 %:the l b 4 1 9
i.xa6 ':cS 20 .l:txd4 bxa3 2 1 Ub4 axb2+
22 'itfb l 'i'xc3 (there now follows the
longest real-life checking sequence I
have ever seen) 23 %:tb8+ 'ii'e7 24
'i'h4+ f6? (24 " .:tgS ! ! 2S 'i'xgS+ f6 26
:tb7+ 'ii' d 8 27 %:tb6+ is a draw) 2S
'i'xh7+ :tg7 26 .:txe4+!! fxe4 27 'i'xe4+
'itff7 28 'i'e8+ q;. g8 29 �xf8+ q;.h7 30
�h8+ 'ii' g6 3 1 fS+ �xfS 32 � hS+
:tgS 33 'i'h7+ :tg6 34 'i'd7+ �e4 3S
':e8+ 'ii' f 3 36 'i'f5+ 1 -0 B ar cenilla­
Degraeve, Mamaia U -20 W ch 1 99 1 .
023 1 )
13 ...h6
I don 't really trust this.
14 c3
14 c4? ! (this move is too aggres­
sive; White should think a little inore
about the future of his king) 1 4 " .�d4
IS cxbS i.xdS 16 exdS e4 1 7 i.c4
'i'aS+ 1 8 q;.fl axbS 19 %:td I IlgS 20
�h3 bxc4 2 1 Ilxd4 c 3 22 'Oc4 cxb2
and Black won in Navara-J iNun,
Czech Cht 1 998/9.
14 ...i.xd 5
After 14 . . . b4 ! ?, IS 'Oc2 bxc3 1 6
bxc3 .i.xdS 1 7 exdS 'Oe7 1 8 0-0 e4
was good for Black in Morawietz­
Kalinichev, Porz 1 992, but White
should play I S cxb4 ! , asking to see
what is in Black's bag.
15 exd5 'Oe7 16 0-0
Alternatives:
a) 16 .d l e4 17 .i.e2 .i. g7 1 8 �c2
'W'b6 19 a4 :'c8 20 axbS axbS 2 1 0-0
i.eS 22 'itf h l itb7 23 ctJb4 ':cS GO
Sideif-Zade - Dolmatov, Frunze I fJ79.
b) 16 0-0-0 'i'b6 17 'i'e2 .i.g7 1 8
�bl :'c8 1 9 Il hel q;.f8 2 0 f3 :'cS 2 1
�c2 'i'b7 22 �3 'i'c8 2 3 'i'c2 was
 10 . . .15 1 1 iLd3
better for White in Klovans-Devide,
Werfen 1992.
16 Jtg5 17 'ii'h3 lDxd5 18 �hl
•.
"'cS 19 f4 exf4 20 gxf4 :g4 21 .i.e2
:xr4 22 .i.f3
In this complicated position, White
can claim a slight advantage, Rie­
mersma-Kouatly, Wijk aan Zee 1 988.
0232)
1 3 :g4 ! ? (DJ
•••
w olov, Barcelona 1 992) 1 9 . . . f3 20 "e3
14 f4!
None of the alternatives can be rec­
ommended at all:
a) 14 "'xh7? lDd4 and the queen
has simply gone astray.
b) 1 4 h3? fxe4 15 hxg4 exd3 1 6
lDe3 d S 1 7 cxd3 "a5+ 1 8 � f l "d2 is
also not good for White, as the ex­
change is not going to help him.
c) After 14 lDe3?, Shirov's sugges­
tion 14 . . .fxe4 IS lDxg4 exd3 16 cxd3
lDd4! gives Black a strong position.
d) 14 f3 ? ! :g6 IS f4 ( 1 S "h4?
"xh4 16 gxh4 .i.xdS 17 exdS lDe7 1 8
0-0-0 : c 8 1 9 c 4 bxc4 2 0 .i. xc4 :h6
21 �bl :a8 22 .i.b3 :xh4 23 lDc4
lDg6 24 .i.a4+ �e7 -+ Brustman­
Kramnik, Groningen 1 99 1 ) I S .. . :c8
gives rise to a very tense position
1 27
where it seems like Black is doing
really well.
14 exf4!
•••
The alternatives are less convinc­
ing:
a) 14 . . . lDd4 IS c3 .i.xdS 16 exdS
e4 17 cxd4 exd3 1 8 �d2 "f6 1 9
:hel+ �d8 2 0 �xd3 .i.g7 2 1 lDc2 is
very bad for Black, Magem-Sion Cas­
tro, Leon 1992.
b) 1 4 . . . .i.g7 IS c3 b4 ! ? 1 6 lDc2
bxc3 17 lDxc3 exf4 18 exfS :gS 19
'ii'e 2 ! ( 1 9 "xh7 is less good, but still
did the job for White in Magem-Sok­
�f8 2 1 fxe6 .i.xc3+ 22 bxc3 :eS 23
.i.e4 dS 24 "h6+ gives White a very
promising game, e.g. 24 . . . �e7 2S
0-0-0 :xe4 26 exf7 and it's striptease
time.
15 0-0-0!?
The alternatives are interesting:
a) IS gxf4 .i.g7 16 0-0-0 .i.xdS 1 7
exdS "f6 gives Black good play on
the diagonal.
b) IS lDxf4 :xf4 ! 16 gxf4 "as+
17 �d l ! ? ( 17 �fl "b4 ! gives White
problems with almost all his pieces;
17 c3 b4 18 lDc4 "cS 19 "e2 fxe4 20
.i.xe4 dS 2 1 fS dxe4 22 fxe6 0-0-0
leads to wild complications) 17 ... ..b4
1 8 exfS .i.d5 1 9 :e l + �d7 with an
unclear position.
15 fxe4! ?
•••
IS ... fxg3? ! 16 exfS :h4 ( 1 6 ... .i.xdS?
does not hold water: 17 :he l + lDeS
18 "xg4 .i.xa2 19 b3 ! "as 20 �b2)
17 lDc7+ �d7 1 8 fxe6+ �xc7 1 9
'ii' x f7+ �b6! 2 0 hxg3 "gS+ 2 1 �bl
gives White the better prospects, Zon­
takh-Manik, Bratislava 1 994.
IS . . . .i.xdS 16 exdS lDeS 17 :hel
.i.g7 is not clear.
128 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
16 �xe4 fxg3 17 ltJf4!
1 7 ltJf6+? 'iWxf6 1 8 �xc6+ �e7 !
(much better than 1 8 .. . �d8, when
White wins by 19 �xa8 l:tb4 20 c3
�h6+ 2 1 �b1 'iWxc3 22 l:txd6+ �e7
23 l:txe6+ fxe6 24 ltJc4 ! ! bxc4 25
'iWc5+ with a mating attack) 19 �xa8
l:tb4 20 c3 (20 b3 �h6+ 21 �b1 �g7
22 �c 1 �g4 and White has too many
problems) 20 . . . �h6+ 2 1 �b 1 'iWxc3
22 'iWh4+ f6 gives White a very trou­
bled life after 23 'iWxb4 'iWxb4 24 hxg3
�f5+ 25 �a1 �g5.
17 ...l:txf4!
Essential. After 17 ... �d7? 18 :l,,,c6
�xc6 1 9 l:the 1 + �e7 20 'It'xg4 White
picks up a rook.
18 �xc6+ �e7!
1 8 . . . �d7 19 l:the1 + only benefits
White.
19 hxg3
Not 1 9 'iWg5+ ? ! l:tf6 20 l:thfl ??
�h6 ! '
19 ...l:tf6! 20 �xa8 'it'xa8
Black has two bishops, which are
very powerful, but White also has an
extra exchange. I would say that the
chances are dynamically equal.
0233)
1 3 ... l:tg5 ! (D)
w much better, Pyda-Zeziulkin, Poland
Time has given this the stamp of ap­
proval .
14 'it'xh7
White decides to grab the pawn, at
the cost of some time.
14 'it'd 1 ! ? �xd5 15 exd5 ltJe7 16 c3
�g7 17 h4 l:tg6 1 8 ltJc2 e4 1 9 �e2
'It'c7 20 a4 cc Sideif-Zade - Yurtaev,
Dnepropetrovsk 1980.
14...�xd5
14 . . . l:tc8 ! ? 15 c3 l:tg6 1 6 'iWh5 fxe4
1 7 �xe4 �g4 1 8 'iWh4 (forced; after
1 8 'iWh 8? l:th6 1 9 'it'g8 �e6, 0- 1 Voit­
sekhovsky-Filippov, Sochi 1 997, there
is no defence against . . . f5) 1 8 . . . 'iWxh4
19 gxh4 l:th6 ! ? 20 ltJb6 l:tc7 21 ltJd5 is
a draw.
15 exd5 itJe7
1 5 . . . 'it'<i5+ 1 6 c3 b4 1 7 dxc6! 'it'd5
1 8 �c4 'it'e4+ 1 9 �d2 l:tg7 20 'W'h4 ;t.
16 c3
The alternatives are not inviting:
a) 16 ltJxb5 e4 17 �e2 'iWb6 ! can­
not be recommended for White.
b) 16 h4 l:tg6 17 'It'h5 'iWa5+ 18 c3
b4 19 ltJc4 'it'xd5 20 0-0-0 bxc3 21 b3
e4 and White is finished, Savko­
Rogozenko, Vejen U-20 Ech 1 993.
c) 1 6 0-0-0 'W'b6 ! 17 f4 ( 1 7 l:thfl ! ?
l:tg6 1 8 'it'h3 e4 1 9 �e2 �g7 20 �h5
l:th6 2 1 g4 'It'c5 22 gxf5 { 22 �b1? b4 }
22 . . . b4 23 ltJb1 l:tc8 leaves White
struggling) 1 7 . . . l:tg6 1 8 'It'h3 e4 1 9
�e2 'it'e3+ 2 0 l:td2 �g7 and Black is
1 993.
16 ... ltJxd5 17 ltJc2 ltJf6 18 'it'h3 d5
19 ltJe3 d4 20 cxd4 e4 21 �e2 'it'xd4
22 'ii'h 4 l:tg6 23 ltJxf5 'W'xb2 24 l:tdl
'W'e5
Black is certainly no worse, Klo­
vans-Schandorff, Cappelle la Grande
1 998.
1 7 1 0 f5 1 1 exf5 . . .
1 e4 cS 2 lDf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4
lLlf6 5 lLlc3 e5 6 lLldb5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8
lLlaJ b5 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 10 lLld5 f5 1 1
exf5 .i.xf5 (D)
Now 12 c3 .i.g7 must be considered
the present-day main line of the whole
Sveshnikov. This position can also be
reached by 10 .. .f5 1 1 c3 .i.g7 12 exf5
.i.xf5 or via 1 0 . . . .i.g7 1 1 c3 f5 1 2 exf5
.i.xf5, etc.
12 c3
Or:
a) 12 'Wf3? fails to 12 . . . lLld4! 1 3
lLlc7+ 'Wxc7 1 4 'WxaS+ �e7 15 c 3 b4!
16 cxb4 .i.h6 ! (Adorjan and THorvath)
and now:
a l ) 17 'WxhS 'Wb7 ! wins.
a2) 17 'Wd5 :cS IS .i.c4 ( 1 S f3 ?
'Wb6! -+; I S .i.e2? .i.c l 1 9 .i.xa6
.i.xb2 20 0-0 'Wc6 21 'Wxc6 lIxc6 -+)
IS . . . .i.e6 19 'We4 .i.f4 ! 20 g3 (or 20
.i.e2 'Wb6) 20 . . . d5 ! 21 'Wxh7 dxc4 22
gxf4 c3 -+.
a3) 17 'it'xa6 lIbS I S b5 ( 1 S 'Wc4
'Wb7 1 9 .i.d3 :cS also wins for Black;
IS .i.b5 lIxb5 19 lLlxb5 .i.d2+ ! is
pretty straightforward; IS .i.c4 .i.e4
19 'it'a5 'Wxa5 20 bxa5 .i.xg2 and once
again Black is better) I S . . . .i. c l 19 b6
:xb6 20 'Wc4 :c6 2 1 :xc l :xc4 22
:xc4 'it'b6 and White is seriously be­
hind in development and therefore
cannot protect himself.
b) 12 .i.d3 .i.e6 ! ( 1 2 . . . e4 ! ? 1 3 'We2
lLld4 1 4 'We3 .i.g7 is also OK for
Black, but at the same time more com­
plicated and difficult to remember the
theory on; that's why I stick to the sim­
ple logic here) 1 3 .i.e4 .i.g7 14 'it'h5
( 1 4 0-0 lIcS 15 'Wd3 lLle7 16 lLlxe7
'Wxe7 1 7 c3 'it'd7 and Black is very
comfortable, Rogers-Rosen, corr. 1 980)
14 . . . :CS 15 c3 b4 ! ( 1 5 . . . lLle7 1 6 lLlxe7
'Wxe7 gave Black no problems in
Kakuk-Kiss, Hungary 1 995) 1 6 lLlc2
bxc3 17 bxc3 'Wa5 I S lLlce3 lLle7 1 9
: d l lLlxd5 2 0 lLlxd5 : c 5 with a n ad­
vantage for Black, Matulovic-Binham,
Helsinki 1 9S 1 .
12 .i.g7
.•.
1 2 . . . .i.e6 ! ? 1 3 lLlc2 and now:
a) 1 3 . . . .i.xd5 ? ! 14 'Wxd5 lLle7 1 5
'Wb7 ! .i.g7 1 6 lLlb4 0-0 1 7 lLlxa6 and
White is better, Litvinov-Mochalov,
Minsk 1 976 .
b) 13 . . . .i.h6 is an interesting idea
although the bishop is not as well
placed as it would be on g7 in the long
run. On h6, it helps in the fight for d5
 1 30 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
by being ready to take on e 3 . White
can reply:
b l ) 14 g4 ? ! 0-0 IS .i.g2 Wh4 16
iLlde3 llac8 1 7 .i.e4 dS with a strong
attack, Pinter-Portisch, Hungarian Ch
1 976.
b2) 14 a4 0-0 IS axbS axbS 1 6
llxa8 Wxa8 1 7 .i.xbS ( 1 7 .i.e2 Wa2
gives White no advantage) 17 . . . iLld4
18 iLlf6+ �h8 19 iLlxd4 Wxg2 20 "f3
WgS 2 1 iLle2 e4 22 iLlxe4 'ilVxbS 112-112
Sigurjonsson-Sax, Ljubljana 1 977.
b3) 1 4 g3 0-0 IS .i.g2 llb8 16 0-0
iLle7 17 iLlcb4 .i.xdS 1 8 iLlxdS fS and
White has a very small edge, Hart­
man-Bergstrom, Swedish Ch 1 987.
13 iLlc2
Other possibilities are:
a) 1 3 .i.d3 .i.e6 14 .i.e4 llc8 re­
sembles note ob' to White's 1 2th move
and also Line B3 of Chapter 6, except
for the fact that White lacks the g3
move !
b) 1 3 Wf3 (harmless) 1 3 . . . .i.e6 and
then:
b l ) 14 iLlf4 iLld4 15 cxd4 exf4 16
iLlc2 0-0 17 .i.d3 WgS 1 8 0-0 dS 19 h3
�h8 and Black is no worse, Rogers­
Ivanovic, Vr§ac 1987.
b2) 1 4 .i.d3 .i.xdS I S WxdS iLle7
1 6 Wf3 dS 17 lld l Wb6 and Black is
preferable, Bellon-Lombard, Haifa
OL 1976.
b3) 14 iLlf6+ (this is the main line,
but not dangerous at all for Black: the
king is fine on e7) 1 4 . . . .i.xf6 IS Wxc6+
q;e7 1 6 iLlc2 ( 1 6 .i.e2 d5 1 7 0-0 Wc8
was clearly better for Black in Mir­
cov-Kharlov, Bern 1 992) 16 .. . Wc8 17
"f3 dS 18 iLle3 e4 1 9 Wd l .i.xc3+ ! !
20 bxc3 "xc3+ 2 1 'iife2 d4 and Black
won in N.Rogers-Shaked, Philadel­
phia World Open 1993.
c) 13 .i.e2 0-0 and then:
c l ) 14 iLlc2 .i.e6 IS .i.f3 ? ! (this in­
vites ... fS and . . . e4 - Black should not
decline this invitation) IS . . . !lc8 1 6
iLlde3 iLle7 17 Wd2 dS ! ? ( o n 1 7 . . . fS,
maybe 1 8 .i.b7 was the intention, but
even though the bishop wouldn't be
instantly lost on a6, I cannot take it se­
riously) 18 l:tdl 'iWb6 favours Black,
Barczay-Shankar, Budapest 1 998.
c2) 14 0-0 .i.e6 IS iLlc2 iLld4 (this
is a simple equalizing method; more
play can be achieved with IS . . . fS ! ? 16
a4 bxa4 17 l:txa4 as 1 8 b4 �h8 "" Wag­
man- Wirthensohn, Reggio Emilia
1 977/8) 16 iLlxd4 exd4 1 7 .i.f3 dxc3
18 iLlxc3 = Zeziulkin-Babula, Czech
Cht 1 998/9.
We now return to 1 3 iLlc2 ( D):
B
Now Black has three major possi­
bilities.
A : 13 .i.e6
.•. 131
B: 13 . . iLle7
. 1 34
C : 13 . 0-0
. . 1 37
I believe that 13 . . . 0-0 is the sound­
est, but it is very hard to tell. B asically,
fashion has been following Kramnik's
taste for the last five years in anything
that has to do with the Sveshnikov.
Both 1 3 . . . .i.e6 and 1 3 . . . iLle7 seem to
 10 . . ./5 1 1 exf5
be playable even though White might
get a very slight pull. It is worth men­
tioning that these lines are closely re­
lated, since they can lead to the same
position after 1 3 . . . .!De7 1 4 .!Dce3 .i.e6.
Originally 13 . . . .!De7 was played, but
Ivanchuk won a very convincing game
against Kramnik with 14 .i.d3, which
scared everybody away from that
move-order. The argument against
1 3 . . . .i.e6 is 14 g3 ! . Those interested in
either of these lines should investigate
them both to find the one that is more
to their taste.
We can quickly dismiss another op­
tion, 1 3 . . . :b8? ! , as 14 .!Dce3 .i.e6 I S
.i.d3 .!De7 1 6 .!Dxe7 'fIxe7 1 7 .i.e4 0-0
18 "'d3 gives White overwhelming
light-square control, Fiorito-Tovillas,
Buenos Aires 1 992.
A)
13 ie6 (D)
..
This line is known for its solidity,
but I believe White can claim a tiny
edge.
w "'b7 ! (the traditional way to irritate
1 4 g3!
After this move was played by Short
against Kramnik it instantly became
131
the main line. Other possibilities for
White:
a) 14 .!Dce3 .!De7, which is Black's
main idea, transposes to Line B 1 .
b) 1 4 .i.e2 0-0 I S 0-0 (Adla-Amura,
Argentine Ch 1 992) l S . . . :b8 ! pre­
vents a4 and thereby prepares to fight
for the dS-square or play . . . fS.
c) 14 a4 0-0 and now:
c l ) IS .i.e2 (the bishop would pre­
fer to go to c4) l S . . . bxa4 1 6 l:txa4 as
17 0-O :b8 = Pirisi-Lemmers, Sas van
Gent 1 994.
c2) IS axbS axbS 16 :xa8 "'xa8
17 .!Dce3 ( 1 7 .!Dc1?! "'a2 18 .!Dxe6 fxe6
1 9 .i.xbS "'xb2 was bad for White in
the game Rigo-Sakaev, Dortmund 1 99 1 )
1 7 . . ....b7 1 8 g4 ! ? .!De7 ! 1 9 .i.g2 .!DxdS
20 .i.xdS "'e7 21 h4 :c8 22 gS ! :cS
23 .i.e4 dS ! 24 .!DxdS .i.xdS 2S .i.xdS
e4 26 "'d2 (26 �e2?! "'eS 27 .i.b3
'fIc7 gave Black good counterplay in
Kasparov-Leko, Wijk aan Zee 2000)
26 . . ....eS 27 .i.b3 "'c7 28 0-0 :fS 29
:a1 .i.f8 30 :a8 ( Kasparov) and
Black must fight for a draw.
14 0-0
...
The alternatives cannot be pre­
ferred:
a) 14 . . . .i.xdS ? ! IS "'xdS .!De7 1 6
Black) 1 6 . . . 'ifb8 17 "'xb8+ :xb8 1 8
.!Db4 :b6 1 9 a4! as 2 0 .i.xbS+ :xbS
2 1 axbS axb4 22 :a 7 with a strong po­
sition, Van der Wiel-De Vreugt, Am­
sterdam 1 996.
b) 14 . . . .!De7 IS .i.g2 and now:
b1) lS . . . .!DxdS 16 .i.xdS 0-0 17 0-0
( 1 7 .i.xa8 "'xa8 18 f3 dS 19 0-0 d4 20
cxd4 exd4 2 1 .!Db4 d3 gave Black ex­
cellent compensation in Nevostruev­
A .lvanov, Vladivostok 1 995) 17 ... :b8
18 .!Db4 ! "'b6 19 a4 as 20 .!Dc6 :be8
1 32 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
2 1 b4 with an obvious advantage to
White, Ninov-Volodin, Cappelle la
Grande 1 997.
b2) 15 . . . l:bS 16 tbcb4 tbxd5 17
.i.xd5 1i'b6 IS .i.c6+ gave White some
advantage in Vogt-Fecht, Bundesliga
1990/ 1 .
b3) 1 5 . . . l:cS 1 6 a4 0-0 1 7 axb5
tbxd5 I S .i.xd5 .i.xd5 1 9 1i'xd5 l:c5
20 1i'd2 axb5 2 1 0-0 d5 22 l:fd l d4 23
cxd4 exd4 24 tbel 1i'd5 25 tbd3 was
somewhat better for White in Mois­
eev-Shumiakina, Russia 1992.
15 .i.g2 (D)
B 22 1i'e2 e4 23 l:ad l 1i'e7 24 .i.c4 �hS
15 a5!
••.
The alternatives, of which only
15 .. i5 is respectable, are :
a) 15 . . . l:a7 16 0-0 f5 17 a4 1i'bS ? !
(this cannot be the best option, but I
believe White is better here anyway)
I S tbdb4 ! tbxb4 1 9 tbxb4 l:af7 20
axb5 axb5 2 1 .i.d5 with a large plus
for W hite, Kolev-GIavina, Saragossa
1996.
b) 15 . . . l:bS 16 0-0 1i'd7? ! ( l 6 . . . a5
is better; also not good is 1 6 . . . tbe7? !
1 7 tbxe7+ 1i'xe7 I S tbb4 l:b6 1 9 f4 f5
20 .i.d5 a5 2 1 .i.xe6+ 1i'xe6 22 tbd5
l:b7 23 1i'd2 �hS 24 a3 with a large
plus for White, Short-IIlescas, Madrid
1 995 ) 17 a4 ! and now B lack has three
possible continuations, but none are
satisfactory:
bl) 17 ... a5 1 S tbce3 �hS?! 19 axb5
l:xb5 20 1i'a4 l:fb8 2 1 1i'h4 ! 1i'dS 22
1i'xdS+! tbxdS 23 tbc7 l:xb2 24 tbxe6
tbxe6 25 tbc4 with an obvious advan­
tage to White, A.Sokolov-Lastin, Rus­
sian Ch 1 995 .
b2) 17 . . . bxa4 I S l:xa4 a5 1 9 l:c4
(or 1 9 tbce3 ! l:xb2 20 l:c4 ! l:cS 2 1
1i'h5 with strong compensation for the
pawn) 19 ... l:fcS 20 "al �hS 2 1 tbce3
f5 22 f4 e4 23 l:dl and White is better,
Dvoirys-Kotsur, Russia 1 997.
b3) 17 ... b4 IS tbcxb4 tbxb4 1 9
cxb4 .i.xd5 2 0 .i.xd5 l:xb4 2 1 b 3 a5
25 l:d5 and White is better, Short­
Kramnik, Novgorod 1 995 .
c) 15 . . . f5 ! ? 1 6 0-0 l:cS ( 1 6 . . . �hS
17 tbdb4 tbxb4 I S tbxb4 e4 19 tbd5
.i.xd5 20 1i'xd5 1i'b6 2 1 l:ad 1 .i.e5
and White's advantage is very small,
David-Yakovich, Cappelle la Grande
1 996) 17 1i'h5 ( 1 7 1i'd2 �hS I S l:adl
f4 19 1i'e2 .i.f5 20 .i.e4 tbe7 2 1 tbxe7
1i'xe7 22 tbb4 a5 23 tbd5 1i'g5 24
�h 1 .i.xe4+ 25 1i'xe4 l:c4 gave Black
a strong attack in Mertens-Shovunov,
Elista OL 1 995) 17 . . . �hS I S l:adl
.i.f7 19 1i'e2 "eS 20 f4 e4 21 l:d2
gives White a very small advantage,
Gild.Garcia-Gamboa, Yopal l 997.
16 0-0
This is the natural move. Alterna­
tives:
a) 16 a3 f5 17 0-0 �hS I S 1i'd2 e4
1 9 f3 exf3 20 .i.xf3 tbe5 21 .i.g2 tbc4
and Black is perhaps slightly better,
Bauer-Lautier, Cap d' Agde rpd 1 996.
b) 1 6 1i'h5 f5 17 tbce3 �hS IS 0-0
b4 1/2-1/2 Sulipa-Komarov, French Cht
 10 . . .f5 11 exf5
1 996. This example i s reminiscent of
the positions that arise in Line C3 1 .
16 f5 (D)
" ,
The main line. The alternatives are:
a) 16 . . . :tbS 17 "'hS (not 17 lDf'4 ?
exf4 I S .i.xc6 dS) 17 . . :i'd7 ( l7 . . . lDe7
IS lDce3 lDxdS 1 9 .i.xdS ! ;t Servat­
Pierrot, La Carlota 1995; 1 7 . . . fS I S
l:ladl �hS 1 9 lDce3 lDe7 2 0 l:ld2 is
preferable for White according to Kra­
senkow) I S l:ladl ! ? fS 19 lDce3 "'f7
20 "'xf7+ l:lxf7 21 l:ld2 ;t Ivanchuk­
Illescas, Linares 1995 .
b) 16 . . . �hS 17 "'d2 l:lbS I S a3
"'d7 1 9 l:ladl .i.g4 ( l 9 . . . fS ! 20 lDde3
:tdS 2 1 .i.dS lDe7 ! 22 .i.xe6 "'xe6
would resemble the positions after
1 6 . . . fS more) 20 l:ldel lDe7 2 1 lDxe7
'fIxe7 (Van der Wiel-Kharlov, London
ECC 1 996) 22 lDe3 .i.e6 23 l:ld l :tdS
24 .i.d5 gives White a slight edge.
w tage for White, David-Markowsk�
Now:
A I : 17 'We2 133
A2: 1 7 "'h5! 1 34
Other possibilities:
a) 17 a4 l:lbS ( l7 . . . b4 ! ? ) IS lDa3
bxa4 1 9 lDc4 e4 20 l:lxa4 lDeS and
Black is no worse, Nevostruev-Iskus­
nykh, Vladivostok 1995.
133
b) 17 'fId2 l:lbS IS lDf4 exf4 1 9
.i.xc6 fxg3 2 0 hxg3 f4 2 1 .i.dS "'d7
and again Black is no worse, Adams­
Lautier, Belgrade 1 995.
c) 17 lDf4 exf4 IS .i.xc6 fxg3 1 9
hxg3 f4 2 0 .i.dS (20 .i.xaS ? ! "'xaS 2 1
"'xd6 .i.h3 2 2 f3 l:lf6 gives Black the
attack - T.Horvath) 20 . . . .i.xdS 2 1
"'xdS+ �hS 22 lDd4 (22 l:lfe l "'cS ! is
no worse for Black, Van der Wiel-De
Vreugt, Amsterdam 1 996) 22 . . . fxg3
23 fxg3 .i.eS and Black is OK, Lutz­
T.Horvath, Bundesliga 1 99516.
d) 17 l:lel ! ? (threatening I S lDf4)
17 . . .l:lcS I S 'fId2 ( l S a3 �hS 1 9 "'e2
e4 20 lDce3 b4 was fine for Black in
the game lansa-Gullaksen, Port Erin
1 995) IS . . . �hS ( l S . . . l:lf7 ! ? 19 l:ladl
'iPhS does not seem worse for Black,
but practical tests are needed; IS ... lDe7
1 9 l:lad l :Cs 20 lDxe7+ "'xe7 2 1
lDd4 ! { 2 1 a4 bxa4 2 2 "'xd6 "'xd6 23
l:lxd6 .i.b3 is less clear } 2 1 . . .e4 22
lDxe6 "'xe6 23 "'xd6 with an advan­
Geneva 1 996) 19 l:ladl e4 20 f4 b4 2 1
lDce3 bxc3 2 2 bxc3 a4 gave Black
enough counterplay in S vidler-Filip­
pov, Kazan 1 995 .
A1)
1 7 'We2 l:lb8 1 8 l:ladl
IS l:lfd l �hS 19 l:ld2 ( 1 9 b3 e4 20
l:lac l 'fId7 2 1 'fId2 a4 = Lutz-Nedev,
Dresden Z 1 995; after 1 9 lDa3, Topa­
lov-Lautier, Tilburg 1995, Black should
respond 1 9 . . . lDa7 ! by analogy with
the main line) 19 . . . e4 ( l 9 . . ....d7 20
l:lad l e4 2 1 lDce3 lDeS 22 lDf'4 lDc4 23
lDxe6 "'xe6 24 l:ldS lDxe3 2S "'xe3
'fIf7 26 a3 .i.eS = Cu.Hansen-Schan­
dorff, Arhus 1 997) 20 f 4 b4 2 1 lDce3
"'d7 22 l:ladl "'a7 gave Black good
1 34 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
play in Hendriks-S .B .H ansen, Gron­
ingen open 1 997.
18 . . .'iif h8
1 8 . . . Wd7 ! ? 19 f4 e4 20 it)ce3 it)c7
2 1 .l:td2 it)xdS 22 it)xdS 'fin 23 .l:tfdl
.l:tfc8 with equality, Griinfeld-S utov­
sky. Israel 1 996 .
19 it)a3 it)a7! 20 :ld2 b4 2 1 cxb4
axb4 22 it)c2 1i'sS 23 b3 e4
Black has a fine position. Dvoirys­
Filippov. Russia 1 997.
A2)
17 .-hS!
Here the queen is more active than
anywhere else on the board.
17 ... :lb8
Alternatives:
a) 17 .. . 'iif h 8 1 8 :lad 1 l:lb8 1 9 l:ld2
b4 20 l:lfd I gives White strong pres­
sure, Lobzhanidze-Nikolaidis, Panor­
mo Z 1 998.
b) 17 ... b4?! 18 l:lad l ! ( 1 8 it)ce3
bxc3 1 9 bxc3 'iif h 8 20 :lad 1 J:b8 was
fine for Black in several games. includ­
ing Servat-Pierrot, Pico City 1 996; 1 8
cxb4?! axb4 1 9 it)cxb4 it)xb4 20 �xb4
e4 is a classic example of the two bish­
ops compensating for the pawn defi­
cit) 18 . . . bxc3 1 9 bxc3 l:lb8 20 l:ld2
J:b2 (both 20 . . . it)e7 21 it)ce3 f4 22
.i.e4 and 20 . . . e4 2 1 :Cd 1 .i.eS 22 it)ce3
give White an advantage) 2 1 .l:tfdl
l:lxa2 22 ttJde3 it)e7 (22 . . . e4 23 l:lxd6
'fic8 24 .i.f1 it)eS 25 it)d4 .i.d7 26
it)c4! �xc4 27 l:lxd7 it)eS 28 �xfS !
+- is a nice tactical line) 23 .l:txd6 'i'c8
24 .-gS l:le8 25 .i.b7 ! and White went
on to win in Timoshenko-Kernazhit­
sky. Tatranske Matliare 1 996.
18 tt)ce3
This seems best. 1 8 l:lad 1 'iif h 8 1 9
.l:td2 ( 1 9 �ce3 � 7 20 �xe7 "xe7 2 1
g 4 e4 ! ::: Lj ubojevic-IIIescas. Linares
1 995) 1 9 . . . .i.f7 ( l 9 . . . .i.xdS 20 .i.xdS
it)e7 2 1 �3 l:lf6 22 .i.g2 'i'd7 23
lll d S it)xdS 24 l:lxdS b4 = Dolmatov­
Belikov, Russian Ch 1 995) 20 .h3 ! ?
(20 .d l e 4 2 1 it)de3 .i.xa2 22 l:lxd6
'fic7 23 f3 exf3 24 .i.xf3 �S 2S .i.g2
.cS + Vehi B ach-Oms Pa llise. An­
dorra 1 995) 20 . . .�e7 21 �xe7 (2 1
l:lfd 1 it)xdS 22 �xdS .i.g6 23 .i.f3 f4 !
24 l:lxd6 'figS gives too much compen­
sation for just one pawn) 2 1 . . .'iP xe7
a nd now:
a) 22 l:lfd l ? ! .i.xa2 ! 23 �e3 and
now i nstead of 23 . . . .i.b3? ! . Hellers­
Schandorff. Arhus 1 997, Black should
play 23 . . .. gS ! 24 l:lxd6 .i.b3 2S l:l l d2
e4 with a preferable position.
b) 22 'fixfS ! .i.c4 23 1VhS .i.xfl 24
.i.e4 .i.f6 is the right path. and very
hard to assess. I ' ll take the easy way
out and call it unclear.
18 ... 1Vd7 19 l:ladl
1 9 g4 e4 ! 20 gxfS .i.xdS 21 it)xdS
l:l xfS 22 1Vg4 .n 23 .xe4 l:le8 24
�f6+ l:l xf6 2S .xc6 'iif h 8 26 1VxbS
l:lfS 27 "c6 .i.eS 28 .l:tael l:lg8 with an
unclear position, Lakos-Lehner. Por­
toroz 1998.
19 . . .'i'f7 20 'i'xf7+ l:lxf7 2 1 l:ld2
;t Ivanchuk-IIIescas. Linares 1 995 .
B)
1 3 ... it)e7 (D)
Now:
Bl: 14 tt)ce3 1 3S
B2: 14 .i.d3! 136
1 4 it)xe7 .i.xc2! (only move) I S
.xc2 W'xe7 1 6 l:ldl 0-0 1 7 .5 e 4 1 8
�e2 iVeS ! 1 9 'i'xeS .i.xeS 20 0-0 l:lab8
led to equality in Holzke-Hardicsay •
Budapest 1 992.
 JO. . .j5 1 1 exf5
w The alternatives are not better:
B1)
1 4 tt)ce3 .i.e6
Now:
B 1 1 : 15 tt)xe7 13S
B12: 15 g 3 1 3S
The alternatives are not dangerous:
a) IS .i.e2 tt)xdS 16 tt)xdS 0-0 1 7
0-0 : c 8 1 8 a4 e4 1 9 tt)f4 .i.eS 20
tt)xe6 fxe6 2 1 .i.g4 'ii'f6 = Feher-Gau­
glitz, Zalakaros 1 988.
b) IS g4 tt)xdS 16 tt)xdS 0-0 17
.i.g2 : c 8 18 .i.e4 "h4 1 9 tt)e3 .i.h6
20 tt)fS .i.xfS 21 .i.xfS :c4 22 "f3
:r4 23 "g3 .i.gS is no worse for
Black, Kudrin-Chandler, Thessaloniki
OL 1 988.
c) IS a4 tt)xdS 1 6 tt)xdS 0-0 17
.i.e2 (17 g3 bxa4 1 8 :xa4 as 1 9 .i.g2
:b8 20 b4 axb4 21 cxb4 �h8 GO Jur­
kovic-G.Mohr, Lienz 1 988) 17 . . . bxa4
( 1 7 . . ...gS ! ? 1 8 0-0 e4 GO has been sug­
gested) 1 8 :xa4 as 19 0-0 and now:
c l ) 19 ...�h8 ! ? 20 "d2 :b8 21 .i.c4
( 2 1 b4 axb4 22 cxb4 "h4 ! , Kupor­
osov-Kramnik, USSR 1 989, 23 :a6!
=) 2 1 .. .:c8 22 b3 GO Kuporosov-Vyzh­
manavin, USSR 1 989.
c2) 19 . . . :c8 20 b4 axb4 21 cxb4
�h8 OD Fogarasi-Hardicsay, Budapest
1 992.
1 35
B11)
1 5 tt)xe7 "xe7 16 g3
a) 16 a4 b4 17 �S "b7 1 8 tt)xb4
0-0 1 9 as dS 20 "a4 d4 OD Kosten­
J.Fries Nielsen, Na:stved 1 988.
b) 16 "f3 0-0 17 .i.d3 :ad8 (the
alternative 17 . . . dS ! ? is also tempting :
1 8 tt)xdS .i.xdS 1 9 "xdS :ad8 20
"e4 fS 21 "e2 e4 22 .i.c2 "gS with
good play for the pawn, Kaminski­
Gauglitz, Dresden 1986) 1 8 "hS h6
19 0-0 dS 20 tt)fS "f6 21 tt)xg7 �xg7
22 a4 e4 23 .i.e2 d4 and Black is better,
Fedorchuk-Filippov, Bydgoszcz 1 999.
16 d5! 17 tt)xd5
...
17 .i.g2 seems risky: 1 7 . . . :d8 1 8
"hS (no better i s 1 8 0-0 0 - 0 1 9 :e l
{ 1 9 "e2 fS 20 :fd l e4 21 tt)c2 f4 is
similar, Solodovnichenko-Filippov,
Bydgoszcz 1 999 } 1 9 . . . fS 20 �2 f4
2 1 a4 "cS 22 "e2 e4 with a strong
initiative for Black, Hera-Szuk, Buda­
pest 1 998) 1 8 . . ... f6 1 9 0-0 "g6 20
"e2 0-0 (20 . . . fS ! ? seems to give Black
an initiative) 2 1 f4 exf4 22 gxf4 :fe8
23 "f3 .i.fS is minimally better for
Black, Mnatsakanian-Chekhov, War­
saw 1 989.
17 .....b7
Now 1 8 .i.g2? 0-0-0 1 9 0-0 .i.xdS
20 'ifg4+ fS, as in A.Kuzmin-Gorelov,
Moscow Ch 1 984, is not what White
should be aiming for. Instead, 18 c4
bxc4 19 "a4+ �f8 20 "a3+ �e8 is a
perpetual.
B 1 2)
15 g3 (D)
1 5... tt)xd5!
IS . . . 0-0 is less accurate, as now
White can often get his bishop to dS
instead of the knight, which is what he
 1 36 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
B York 1 990.
wants: 16 .i.g2 l:tbS (l6 ... l:tcS and now
17 "d3 lOxd5 I S .i.xd5 ± is more log­
ical than 17 "h5 f5 I S lOxe7+ 'fIxe7
1 9 lOd5 .i.xd5 20 .i.xd5+ �hS 2 1 0-0
� Voitsekhovsky-Grebionkin, Novgo­
rod 1 995) 1 7 0-0 a5 I S "d3 f5 1 9
l:tad l lOg6 20 f4 �hS 2 1 �h l � Wang
Zili-Schandorff, Moscow 1 994.
16 lOxd5 0-0 17 .i.g2 as
Or 1 7 . . . l:tcS I S 0-0 f5 1 9 a4 bxa4
20 "xa4 l:tc5 2 1 l:tfdl a5 22 b4 is
slightly better for White, Nguyen­
Csiszar, Budapest 1 995. 17 ... l:tbS can­
not be recommended either, in view of
I S lOb4 ! .
18 0-0 f5!
This seems the most convincing.
The alternative is I S ... l:tbS ! ? 19 "h5
f5 ! (best; 19 . . ...d7 20 f4 ! f5 2 1 l:tad l �
PHorvath-Rogozenko, Budapest 1 995;
19 ... �hS, Kotronias-V.Spasov, KavaIa
1 990, should also be met with 20 f4 ! )
2 0 l:tad l �hS (20 . . . b4 2 1 c 4 b 3 22
axb3 l:txb3 23 c5 gives White a clear
edge) 2 1 l:td2 and now:
a) 2 1 . . . "d7 22 l:tfd 1 "f7 (22 . . . b4
23 cxb4 axb4 24 "h4 .i.xd5 25 l:txd5
with a slight advantage for White, Pod­
lesnik-Iz.lelen, Slovenian Ch 1 992)
23 "h4 ! e4 24 1Of4 .i.e5 25 l:txd6!
.i.xd6 26 l:txd6 offers White more
than adequate compensation for the
exchange, Geller-Fedorowicz, New
b) 2 l .. ..i.f7 22 "d 1 with a compli­
cated position, Schafer-Loew, Bundes­
liga 1 993/4 (among others).
19 a4
Or 1 9 "h5 ? ! , and now:
a) 1 9 ... l:ta7 20 l:tad l �hS 21 l:td2
.i.f7 (2 1 . . ...eS ! is better) 22 "e2 "bS
23 l:tfd 1 .i.g6 (23 . . . .i.gS ! ? seems
better - Hellers) 24 f4 � Hellers-Kra­
senkov, Malmo 1 994, but Black has
many improvements.
b) 19 ... b4! 20 l:tadl (20 cxb4?! axb4
2 1 lOxb4 e4 and the black bishops
dominate) 20 . . . bxc3 (20 . . . e4 ! ? is also
possible) 2 1 lOxc3 l:tbS 22 b3 (22 l:td2
e4 :j:) 22 . . . e4 23 lOe2 (23 lOd5? l:tb5
24 1Of4 .i.f7 25 "e2 l:tc5 =+= Hjartar­
son-Krasenkov, Malmo 1 995 ; White's
queenside is very hard to protect)
23 . . . d5 24 lOd4 is complicated.
19 bxa4 20 Wxa4
•••
20 l:txa4 �hS 2 1 "d2 e4 22 l:tfal
.i.xd5 23 "xd5 "b6 24 l:txa5 1/2 _ 1/2
G.Mohr-Podlesnik, Portorof 1996.
20 ...l:tb8 21 l:ttbl e4
= lansa-Hellers, Oslo 1 99 1 .
82)
14 .i.d3! (D)
1 4....i.e6
1 4 . . . lOxd5 ( l 4 . . . e4? 1 5 lOxe7 "xe7
16 .i.xb5+! axb5 1 7 "d5 wins) 1 5
.i.xf5 lOe7 1 6 "g4 ! 0 - 0 ( l 6 ... lOxf5 1 7
"xf5 "d7 I s lOe3 "xf5 1 9 lOxf5 .i.fS
20 a4 ! gives White a clear endgame
advantage - Kramnik; 1 6 . . . �fS 17
"f3 with the plan of .i.e6 would also
not suit Black) 17 l:td l d5 ( 17 . . . lOxf5
I S "xf5 d5 1 9 0-0 l:ta7 20 l:td3 ±
Kramnik) I S lOe3 ( 1 S 0-0 "d6 1 9
 1O . . j5 1 1 exf5
. 1 37
B �h2 .i.h6?! (this seems to be the los­
�e3 l:ad8 20 .i.d3 'iif e6! is less clear,
Dolmatov-Filippov, Russia 1 995)
18 ... d4 19 .i.e4 dxe3 20 l:xd8 exf2+
21 �xf2 l:axd8 22 'iife2 f5 (Ivanchuk­
Kramnik, Novgorod 1 994) 23 .i.c2 ±
- Kramnik.
15 .i.e4
15 �xe7 'fIxe7 16 .i.e4 l:d8 1 7
.i.d5 ( 1 7 �e3 d 5 1 8 .i.xd5 'ii'c5 gives
Black an advantage) 17 ... 0-0 18 a4 e4
1 9 0-0 .i.xd5 20 'ii'xd5 l:c8 2 1 :Cd 1
l:fd8 22 'ii' h 5 l:c5 23 l:d5 'ii' b7 leaves
Black no worse, Timoshchenko-Manik,
Stary Smokovec 1 996.
15 ....i.xd5!
15 . . . l:c8 16 �ce3 �xd5 17 .i.xd5
0-0 18 0-0 leads to an advantage for
White.
16 .i.xd5 l:c8 17 0-0 0-0 18 �e3
1 8 a4 ! ?, as suggested by Dvoirys, is
more critical.
18 �h8 19 a4 fS 20 axb5 f4 21
.•.
bxa6!
2 1 �c2? �xd5 22 'ii' xd5 l:c5 23
'ii'd3 axb5 favours Black.
21 ...fxe3 22 fxe3 'ii' b6 23 l:xf8+
l:xf8 24 h3!?
2 4 a7 �xd5 25 a8'ii' �xe3 ! 26 'ii'df3
�g4+, as indicated by Dvoirys, is an
immediate draw.
24 ... �d5 25 'ii'xd5
Now:
a) 25 . . . 'ii' x b2? 26 l:a2 'ii'c 1 + 27
ing mistake at first sight. but 27 . . . e4 ! ?
fails to 28 'ii' x d6! l:g8 { 28 . . . 'ii'x c3? 29
'ii' x f8+ .i.xf8 30 a7 .i.d6+ 3 1 g3
.i.xg3+ 32 �g2 +- } 29 'ii'd5 ! ! l:f8 30
a7 +-) 28 'fIxd6 'fIxe3 29 'ii'xf8+ .i.xf8
30 a7 1-0 Dvoirys-Nijboer, Leeuw­
arden 1 994.
b) 25 . . . 'ii' xe3+ ! 26 �h 1 'ii'c 5 is not
bad for Black.
Cl
1 3 0-0 1 4 �ce3 (D)
•••
14 a4? ! (this is too hasty) 14 . . . �e7 !
(White cannot open the queenside with
no development anyway) 1 5 .i.d3 .i.e6
16 .i.e4 l:c8 17 0-O :C4 favours Black,
Anand-Khalifman. Belgrade 1999 .
Now:
Cl: 14 .i.d7 ! ? 1 38
•••
C2: 14 ....i.g6 1 38
C3: 14 ... .i.e6 1 39
Less convincing looks 14 . . ..i.e4 1 5
.i.d3 .i.xd5 1 6 �xd5 e 4 1 7 .i.e2 �h8
1 8 0-0 .i.e5 1 9 f4 exf3 20 .i.xf3, when
White is better, Elyoseph-B irnboim,
Tel-Aviv 1987.
 13 8 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
C1)
1 4 ...i. d7 1 ?
This move i s interesting and not yet
refuted, but has been ins ufficiently
tested to judge whether it is depend­
able.
IS i.d3
Alternati ves:
a) 15 'W'h5 ? ! e4 ! 1 6 lili5 i.xf5 17
'ibf5 :te8 18 0-0-0 b4 19 c xb4 :te5 20
'W'h3 'Wg5+ 21 lDe3 liJxb4 + Avgousti­
Soylu, B udva 1 98 1 .
b) 1 5 a4 bxa4 1 6 :c.a2 a3 1 7 .Iha3
a5 1 8 :ta4 'itt h 8 with a complicated
struggle ahead, Kolev-Tzermiadiao,os,
Elista OL 1 998.
c) 1 5 g4 e4 ! 1 6 .ig2 :te8 17 'W'c2
( 17 h3 :tc8 1 8 ..-bl liJe7 1 9 i.xe4
liJxd5 20 i.xd5 'W'g5 21 'W'd3 b4 gives
Black a strong initiative in compensa­
tion for the pawn, Ostojic-Simic, Yu­
goslav Ch 1 977) 1 7 . . . :tc8 1 8 i.xe4
i.xg4 19 :tgl was Barle-Ljubojevic,
Yugoslavia 1 976. Now Boudy gives
1 9 . . . liJd4 ! 20 'i'd3 tof3+ 21 i.xf3
i.xf3 22 'W'f5 i.xd5 23 'W'xd5 'i'f6 24
0-0-0 :t xc3+ with perpetual check.
Black might be tempted to try for more
with 24 . . b4 25 'i'xd6 'i'xd6 26 :c.xg7+!
. 21 a3 i.g5 22 i.e4 lDe7 GO Korneev­
'i5>xg7 27 tof5+ 'i5>g6 28 toxd6 bxc3 29
bxc3 :txc3+ 30 'i5>d2 :tec8 but it is still
a draw.
d) 1 5 g3 ! ?, as suggested by Kra­
senkow, is logica l. Now that Black is
only thinking a bout .. .f5 a nd not get­
ting into trouble with the bishop,
White s hould strengthen his central
control.
IS ... (S 16 '1IVh5
Or:
a) 16 a4 (this is premature) 16 . . .e4
17 axb5 liJe5 18 i.c4 'i5>h8 19 lili4
i.h6 20 liJe6 i.xe6 21 i.xe6 i.xe3 22
fxe3 liJd 3+ 23 'itte2 f4 and B lack later
converted his obvious attack into a full
point in Antal-Kerek, Budapest 1 998.
b) 16 i. c2 e 4 1 7 f4 'itt h 8 18 0-0
liJe7 = A .Kova�evic-Tzermiadianos,
Panormo Z 1998.
16 e4
•••
The main idea. Here White cannot
play liJf4.
17 i.c2 'it'e8 18 'i'h4
1 8 ..xe8 :taxe8 1 9 liJc7 :te5 is in
Black's favour - Krasenkow.
18 ... l:!.d8 19 0-0 toes
Black has an acceptable position,
Ulybin-Chekhov, Pavlodar 1 987.
C2)
14 ... i.g6 1 ? IS h4 i.e41
This is the point behind the last
move. B lack hopes to show up the ad­
vance of the h-pawn as weakening.
Other moves:
a) 15 ... h6 16 h5 i.h7 17 i.d3 seems
critical for Black. He should now play
1 7 . . .e4 ! , and not 17 . . .f5 1 8 g4 e4 1 9
i. c2, when his centre i s collapsing.
b) 15 . . .f5 ! ? 1 6 h5 i.e8 17 g4 ! i. d7 !
1 8 gxf5 'itt h 8 ! 1 9 h6! i.f6 2 0 i.g2 :tb8
Nikrevic, Cattolica 1 992.
16 hS
16 i.d3 i.xd5 17 toxd5 f5 GO Leko.
16 ...'WgS 17 :th3 'i1rh8
Both here and on the previous move
. . . h6 was no good.
18 :tg3 .h6 19 i.d3 i.xdS 20 liJfS
20 liJxd5 f5 looks good for Black.
Now (after 20 lili5) Black can play
20 . . ... f4 ! ? 2 1 :tg4 'i'h2 with a com­
p licated game (Leko), or the even
more complicated 20 . . .'i'f6 21 i.c2 !
i.e6 22 toxg7 d5. as in Timman-Leko,
Sarajevo 1 999.
 10 . . .j5 1 1 exf5
C3)
14 .i.e6 (D)
...
Now White has two main possibili­
ties:
C31 : 15 g3 1 39
C32: 15 .i. d3 140
More obscure are :
a) 15 a4 b4 16 .i.c4 bxc3 17 bxc3
e4 1 8 0-0 �e5 1 9 1We2 1Wg5 gave
Black good counterplay in Gild.Gar­
cia-Gruchacz, Lone Pine 1 978.
b) 15 g4 1Wh4 1 6 .i.d3 .i.xd5 17
�xd5 e4 18 .i.c2 �5 cannot be what
White is looking for, Szmetan-Jamie­
son, Wijk aan Zee 1977.
C31 )
15 g3 %lb8
The alternatives are many and worth
considering:
a) 15 . . . b4 (this seems premature,
as the a4-square helps White) 16 .i.g2
bxc3 17 bxc3 %lc8 18 1Wa4 �e7 19 0-0
and White is better, Kruppa-Fer�ec,
Pula 1 994.
b) 15 ... %la7 16 .i.g2 f5 17 f4 e4 1 8
0-0 %laf7 1 9 � h l �h8 2 0 'it'e2 Was
with an equal position, Rogic-Jukic,
Croatia 1 994.
1 39
c) 15 . . .f5 16 1ih5 (this seems the
critical line - White has still not com­
mitted his bishop, which is helpful; 1 6
.i. h 3 %lb8 1 7 0-0 �e7 1 8 a4 �xd5 1 9
�xd5 a5 was fine for Black i n Kot­
ronias-Dvoirys, Novi Sad 1 98 8 ; 1 6
.i.g2 f4 1 7 �c2 %la7 1 8 .i.e4 %laf7 1 9
'Wd3 .i.h6 20 a4 �a5 2 1 b4 �b3 22
%ldl bxa4 23 .i.xh7+ �h8 112-112 Del­
chev-Timoshenko, Nova Gorica 1 997)
16 . . . b4 17 .i.g2 bxc3 1 8 bxc3 e4 1 9
0-0 �e7 2 0 %lad 1 with a very small ad­
vantage to White, Brunner-Lyrberg,
Budapest 1 993.
d) 1 5 ...%lc8 ( a familiar plan, fight­
ing for d5) 16 .i.g2 f5 17 1Wh5 ! ( 1 7
f4? ! e4 ! 1 8 0-0 �e7 1 9 %lf2 �xd5 20
�xd5 %lc5 21 %ld2 1Wa8 + 22 �b6??
1Wb7 23 %lxd6 %lc6 -+) 17 . . . �e7 1 8
0-0 %lc5 1 9 %lfd l ( 1 9 %lad l ? leaves the
a-pawn hanging after 1 9 . . . e4) 1 9 . . . e4 !
( 1 9 . . . .i.f7? 20 lOxe7+ 'Wxe7 21 �xf5
.i.xh5 22 �xe7+ �f7 23 �5 .i.xdl
24 %lxdl ±; 1 9 ... �xd5 ? ! 20 .i.xd5 1Wf6
2 1 .i.b3 ! is also good for White) 20
�4 (20 �xe7+ 1Wxe7 leaves Black
with a better position) 20 . . . .i.f7 2 1
1Wh4 ( 2 1 'Wg5 ! ?) 2 l . ..a5 and now:
d l ) 22 f3 ? ! 1Wb6! 23 fxe4 %le5 is
better for Black.
d2) 22 g4 �g6 (22 . . . b4 23 cxb4
axb4 24 gxf5 �5 25 1Wxd8 %lxd8 26
.i.xe4 �xe3 27 fxe3 .i.xb2 28 %labl
.i.c3 29 .i.d5 %la5 30 .i.xf7+ �xf7 3 1
�d5 %lg8+ 3 2 �h 1 %lxa2 3 3 �xb4
%lf2 34 �5 %lgg2 35 %lb7+ is a draw)
23 'Wxd8 %lxd8 24 �5 fxg4 25 �xg7
�xg7 26 .i.xe4 .i.e6 leads to an equal
position.
d3) 22 a3 ! ? .i.b3 23 %ld2 �g6 24
'iWxd8 %lxd8 25 �e2! (25 �fd5? .i.h6
26 �f6+ �f7 27 �h5 is the wrong
path for the knight) 25 . . . �e7 with a
140 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
complicated but equal position, Wins­
nes-Aagaard, Swedish League 1 998/9.
16 .i.g2
1 6 "h5 f5 17 .i.g2 b4 ! ( 1 7 . . . �7? !
1 8 :d l lOxd5 1 9 .i.xd5 ± "f6? 20
"xf5 ! +- Kveinys-Bures, Katowice
1 992) 1 8 0-0 bxc3 1 9 bxc3 e4 20 f3
exf3 is not worse for Black at all.
16 ...f5
1 6... �7 17 0-0 lOxd5 1 8 .i.xd5 "d7
1 9 "d3 �h8 20 :ad 1 is preferable for
White, Delchev-Gamundi, Ubeda 1997.
17 0-0
17 "h5 :f7 18 f4 e4 19 0-0 lOe7 20
:ad l lOxd5 21 lOxd5 "c8 22 · ·...e2
"c5+ gives Black a pleasant game,
Kindermann-Lobron, Ptuj Z 1995.
17.. .f4! ?
Sharp. 1 7 . ..�h8 1 8 "h5 b4 19 :ad l
bxc3 20 bxc3 :b2 is probably equal,
Herbrechtsmeier-Antonio, Biel open
1 993. If White had time to play :d2 at
some point, Black would be worse.
Is lOc2 "d7 19 .i.e4 "f7
The position is unclear. Now White
dug his own grave in Fer�ec-Ig.Jelen,
Nova Gorica 1 997 with 20 lOxf4? exf4
2 1 .i.xc6 d5, when Black is close to
winning (no matter what Fritz thinks !).
C32)
15 .i.d3 f5 (D)
Now:
C321: 16 "h5 140
C322: 16 .i.c2 1 4 1
C323: 1 6 0-0 141
C321 )
16 "h5
This is the old main line, but it has
been abandoned in the last few years.
16 ...e4
Or 16 . . ...d7 ! ?, and now:
a) 1 7 lOb6?! "e8 1 8 "xe8 ( 1 8 "h3
:b8 1 9 lObd5 "f7 + Cvijic-Muse,
Banja Vrucica 1 987) 18 ...:axe8 19 a4
e4 20 .i.n :b8 and Black is better,
P.Bauer-Schulte, Bundesliga 1 987/8.
b) 1 7 g4 e4 1 8 .i.c2 .i.f7 ! 1 9 "xf5
( 1 9 "h3? ! .i.xd5 20 lOxd5 fxg4 2 1
"h4 "f5 2 2 0-0-0 �h8 2 3 h 3 "xf2
and Black was better in the game Mar­
tin Gonzalez-San Segundo, Salamanca
1 99 1 ) 1 9 .....xf5 20 gxf5 .i.xd5 2 1
lOxd5 :xf5 with a balanced position ­
Krasenkow.
c) 1 7 O-O! is the most natural and
logical reply. Black should now play
17 . . ...f7 or 17 . . .:ab8 with an unclear
game ahead - Krasenkow.
17 .i.c2 lOe7!
Fighting for d5 as always.
IS :dl
Or:
a) 1 8 lOxe7+? ! "xe7 19 .i.b3 ( 1 9
g4 f4 2 0 lOd5 .i.xd5 2 1 "xd5+ �h8
22 0-0-0 e3 + Yagupov-Minasian,
Moscow 1 992) 19 . . . .i.xb3 20 axb3
"e6 21 0-0 �h8 22 b4 f4 23 "d5 "g6
+ P.Cramling-Fedorowicz, Hastings
198516.
b) 1 8 lOi4 .i.f7 19 .i.b3 "d7 ! (con­
trolling all the important light squares)
20 0-0 .i.e5 2 1 .i.xf7+ :xf7 22 lOfd5
 10 . . .15 1 1 exf5
tl)xd5 2 3 tl)xd5 "e6 and Black i s no
worse, Z.Almasi-Kramnik, Dortmund
1 998.
c) 18 .i.b3 tl)xd5 19 tl)xd5 ( 1 9
.i.xd5 ! ? .i.xd5 2 0 tl)xd5 a 5 2 1 0-0 b4
22 f3 bxc3 23 bxc3 e3 is no worse for
Black) 1 9 . . . a5 20 tl)f4 .i.xb3 2 1 axb3
'fIe7 and Black is fine, Adams-Beliav­
sky, Debrecen Echt 1 992.
18 Jlc8!
••
1 8 . . . b4 ! ? 1 9 cxb4 tl)xd5 20 tl)xd5
.i.xb2 2 1 0-0 .i.e5 gives Black no gen­
uine headaches, Goloshchapov-Vol­
zhin, Moscow 1 999.
19 .i.b3 tl)g6
Now the white pieces controlling
d5 are placed a little awkwardly.
20 g3
20 f4 exf3 2 1 0-0 f4 22 tl)c2 fxg2
speaks for itself, Somlai-Bromberger,
Tavasz 1997 .
20 .i.e5 21 f4 exf3 22 0-0 f4 23
••.
gxf4 tl)xf4 24 �4 .i.xb3 25 axb3
lhf4 26 l::r.xf3 l::r.h4 27 .f7+ � h8 28
h3 b4
:f Kindermann-Van Wely, Bundes­
liga 1998/9.
C322)
16 .i.c2
This has been proved harmless.
16 f4!
•..
16 ... tl)e7? 17 tl)xe7+ 'fixe7 18 .i.xf5
gives White a clear extra pawn, Van
der Wiel-Van Wely, Vlissingen 1 998.
1 6 ... :a7 1 7 'ifh5 l::r.ff7 18 l::r.d l 'ifc8
(1/2- 1/2 Kotek-Salai, Czech Cht 1 997/8)
might be interesting for those who like
to play for a win with Black.
17 .h5
Krasenkow prefers the alternative
17 tl)f1 without any annotations. I
shall provide some markings at least:
141
17 . . . tl)d4 ! ? ( l 7 . . . tl)e7 18 .h5 tl)f5 1 9
0-0-0 l::r. c 8 i s unclear; one idea i s 20 g4
tl)h6 ! ) 1 8 .i.e4 tl)f5 is not clear. One
important idea is 19 tl)b4 ? ! a5 20 .i.d5
.c8 2 1 'ifb3 .i.xd5 22 tl)xd5 �h8
with a good game for Black.
17 l::r. f7 18 .i.xh7+ �f8 19 .i.f5
••.
'We8 20 .i.xe6 'Wxoo 21 'Wg4 .h6 22
tl)f5 Woo 23 tl)fe3 'ifh6
with a draw in many games, includ­
ing Wang Pin-Lalic, Linares 1 998 .
C323)
16 0-0 (D)
B
16 l::r.a7
••.
This is what Kramnik plays these
days, always a good indication that it's
worth playing. The alternatives are :
a) 16 . . . tl)e7? 17 tl)xe7+ 'ifxe7 1 8
.i.xf5 ! Zel<:!ic-Boyd, Baden 1 999.
b) 16 ... �h8 ! ? 17 'fih5 .i.f7 1 8 'ifh3
e4 1 9 .i.c2 tl)e5 20 f3? exf3 2 1 gxf3
.i.xd5 22 tl)xd5 'ifg5+ 23 �h l .d2
was good for Black in lPolgar-Illes­
cas, Dos Hermanas 1999 (see p . l 8).
c ) 1 6 . . . e4 1 7 tl)f4 .i.f7 18 .i.c2
.i.e5 19 tl)fd5 'ifg5 20 f4 exf3 21 l::r.xf3
(2 1 .xf3 .i.h5 22 'ift2 f4 is OK for
Black, Anand-Kramnik, Linares 1 998)
2 1 . . . .i.h5 22 tl)c7 .i.f4 23 'ifd5+ �h8
 142 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian
24 lhf4 'i'xf4 (Topalov-Van Wely,
Wij k aan Zee 1 999) 25 'i'd2 l%ae8 26
tDxe8 l%xe8 27 l:te l !De5 28 i.b3 tiJg4
29 tiJfl is better for White according
to Topalov.
17 a 4!
This is the only way to test the
black position. Other moves:
a) 17 f4 e4 18 i.c2 'itih8 19 'itih I as
20 'i'e2 b4 = Voitsekhovsky-Gelfand,
Belgrade ECC 1 998.
b) 17 'ii' h5 l:taf7 18 g 4 ( 1 8 i.c2
!De7 1 9 tiJxe7+ 'i'xe7 20 :c.a d l <;t>h8 =
Delchev-Lalic, Zadar 1 997; 1 8 f4 !De7
1 9 tiJxe7+ 'i'xe7 20 'it;> h l e4 2 1 i.c2
b4 ga ve Black enough counterplay in
Asrian-Rogozenko, Elista OL 1 998)
18 ...e4 19 i. c2 fxg4 20 i.xe4 i.e5 21
'ii' h 6 'it;> h8 + Svidler-Kramnik, Linares
1 998.
1 7.Ji:Je7!
The alternatives cannot be recom­
mended.
a) 17 . . bxa4 1 8 :c.xa4 (White is ob­
. rank to be weakened or to allow Black
viously better, as Black is not fully co­
ordinated) 1 8 . . . 'i'b8 19 'ii' h 5 e4 20
.i.xa6 f4 2 1 .i.b5 !De5 22 :c.xa7 'i'xa7?
23 tDxf4 and Black is dead meat,
Lapinskaite-Jurkiewicz, Mureck girls
U- 1 6 Ech 1 998. Still, these are not
very strong players.
b) 17 . . . b4? ! 1 8 'l'h5 ( 1 8 cxb4 e4
( 1 8 . . .tiJd4 ! ? is one possible improve­
ment) 1 9 tiJf4 .i.f7 20 i.c4 .i.xc4 2 1
tDxc4 tiJd4 2 2 l:ta3 ! d 5 2 3 !De 3 l:td7
24 l:tc3 i.e5 25 'it;>hl with advantage
to White, S .Pedersen-Aagaard, Arhus
1 999; 1 8 .i.c4 looks good too) 18 . . . e4
1 9 tDf4 .i.f7 20 i.c4 ;t Golubev-Nech­
aev, Donetsk Z 1 998.
18 tiJxe7+ l:txe7
1 8 .. . 'ihe7? ! 1 9 axb5 axb5 20 l:txa7
'ii'xa7 2 1 .i.xb5 'i'c5 22 .i.a4 does not
give Black enough compensation for
the pawn.
19 axb5 axb5 20 i.xb5
The alternatives are not dangerous:
a) 20 .i.c2 d5 21 'i'h5 'ii'e8 22 'i'xe8
:c.exe8 23 l:tfd l d4 1/2- 1/2 Golubev­
Wiersma, Dutch Open 1 999.
b) 20 l:ta 6 d5 2 1 J:f.xe6 ! ? l%xe6 22
tiJxf5 e4 23 tDxg7 <;t>xg7 24 .i. xb5
l:tef6 25 h3 'i'b6 26 'ii' e2 (Zelcic-Ser­
mek, Croatia 1 999) 26 . . . d4 ! 27 cxd4
'i'xd4 equalizes. Amongs t other ideas,
Black threatens to draw at once by
. . .e3 ; what can White do about it?
20 d5 21 tiJc2
•••
2 1 l:ta6 ! ? has been suggested by
Rogozenko, when Black still has to
prove eq uality. After 2 1 . . .f4 22 l:txe6 !
l:txe6 23 'i'xd5 'ii'x d5 24 tiJxd5 White
may be a little better, though Black
should draw without too many prob­
lems. For example, after 24 .. .f3 !? 25
i.c4 'iih8 White has to allow his back
counterplay on the queenside. 26 g3
e4 00 27 b4? i.xc3 ! 28 tiJxc3 :c.c6 even
gives B lack winning chances.
2 1 . ..:tb7 22 i.c6
22 tDa3? ! 'i'c7 !? followed by . . .l:tfb8
gives Black good compensation.
22..Jb: b2
22 . . . l:tb6 ! ? 23 tiJb4 d4 24 l:ta7 e4 25
'i'h5 d3 gave B lack the better game in
Skytte-I g.Jelen, Budapest 1 999, but
whether this is a safer path than Kram­
nik's has yet to be decided.
23 :ta8 'i'd6 24 Da6 l1i'c5 25 tiJ b4
'i'xc3
25 . . . l:td8 ! ? 26 ltJd 3 ....c4 27 l:ta4
'i'xc6 28 tiJxb2 'l'xc3 is unclear.
26 .i.xd5 "xb4 27 .i.xe6+
1/2-'/2 Svidler-Kramnik, Wijk aan
ae 1 999.
 I n d ex of Va r i at i o n s

Chapter Gu ide
1 e 4 c S 2 ltJr3 ltJ c 6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 tUxd4 ltJr6 5 ltJ c 3 e S 6 ltJdbS (other moves - Chapter
2) 6 ... d6 7 �gS (other moves - Chapters 3 and 4) 7 ... a6 S ltJa3 (8 .txf6?! - Chapter
6) 8. . . b5 (8...�e6 - Chapter 5 ) :
a ) 9 ltJdS �e7 (9 •a5+ - Chapter 7 ) 10 .hr6 ( 1 0 �xe7 - Chapter 8) 1 0 . . . �xr6 1 1 c3
...

0 . 0 ( l Lib7 ! ? - Chapter 9; l L.�e7 - Chapter 10; l 1 ..ig5 - Chapter 1 1 ) 12

ltJc2 �gS ( 1 2 .. .ll b8 - Chapter 12) 13 a4 bxa4 14 .I:!:xa4: 14 ... a5 - Chapter 1 3; other
moves - Chapter 9
b) 9 �xr6 gxr6 10 ltJds rs ( 1 O....tg7: 1 1 J.d3 - Chapter 1 5; other moves - Chapter
1 4 ) 1 1 exrs ( 1 1 .td3 - Chapter 16; other moves - Chapter 6) 1 l ...�xr5 12 cl �g7
- Chapter 1 7

1 e 4 c S 2 tiJf3 tiJc6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 tiJxd4 6: Wh ite plays .Lef6:

tl:lf6 5 lbc3 e5 The Aba ndoned lines
6 �b5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6
2: Silly 6th Moves A; 8 .i.xf6?! gxf6 9 �a3 f5 ! 46
All alternatives to 6 �db5 24 B : 8 lt'la3 b5 ! 9 .i.xf6 gxf6 47 1 0 It'ld5 f5
48
3: 7 a4 and 7 .te3 B l : l l lilxb5 ? 49
6 �db5 d6: 7 a4 26; 7 .i.e3 27 B2: 1 1 .txb5 49 1 1 ... axb5 1 2 �xb5 Aa4!
13 �bc7+ �d7 1 4 0-0 Axe4 15 'i'h5:
4: 7 tiJd5 15 ....h4 51 ; 15 ...�e7 51 ; 1 5...�4!
6 �db5 d6 7 �5 �xd5 8 exd5 33: 51
A: 8 .. lt:'le7 33: 9 c4 34; 9 c3 ! 35 B3: 1 1 g3 ! ? 52
B: 8 ... lDb8 ! 36
B l : 9 c4 37 9 ... .te7 6 tl:ldb5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8 tl:la3 b5
B 1 1 : 10 c5?! 38 9 tl:ld5
B 1 2: 10 .i.d3 38
B 1 3: 10 .te3 39 7: 9 tiJd5 'l'a5+
B 14: 10 .te2 39 1O ... a6 1 1 �3 0-0 12 9 . . ..a5+ 53 10 .td2 "d8
0-0 f5 A: 1 1 c4 54 1 L.lt'lxe4 12 cxb5 .i.e6 ! 1 3
B 1 4 1 : 1 3 f3 4() .i.c4 �e7: 1 4 0-0 55; 1 4 .i.e3 55
B 1 42: 1 3 f4 41 13 ....tf6: 1 4 �h l 41 ; 1 4 B : 1 1 .i.d3 ! ? 56
g3 42 C: I I lt'lxf6+ 56 1 L. 'i'xf6 12 .i.d3 57
B 1 43: 1 3 a3 42 (12 c4 56): 12 ... .i.e7 58; 12 ... 'i'g6 58
B2: 9 a4 ! ? 42
8: 9 tiJd5 .te7 10 liJxe7
5: The larsenlBird Variation (8 .ie6) .•. 9 . . ..i.e7 10 �xe7 lt'lxe7 ! 59 ( 1 0.... xe7
6 �b5 d6 7 .i.g5 a6 8 �a3 .te6 44 9 59) 1 1 .txf6 60 ( 1 1 'iVf3 60) l 1 ...gxf6:
It'lc4 :'c8 1 0 It'ld5 ! hd5 1 1 .txf6 ! 44 1 2 11rn 61; 12 c4! 62
 1 44 Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov Sicilian

9: Oddities after 9 �d5 Ji.e7 6 �db5 d6 7 Ji.g5 a6 8 �a3 b5

1 0 iLxf6 .bf6 9 iLxf6 gxf6 10 �d5
9 ... i.e7 1 0 Ji.xf6 Ji.xf6 63 1 1 c3: 1 1 ... 0-0
63; 1 1 ...Ji.b7! 1 64 1 4 : The Novosibirsk Variation
(10 ••. Ji.g7) without 1 1 .ld3
1 0 : 1 1 c3 �e7 10 ... Ji.g7!1: 1 1 c3 93; 1 1 1i'h5 93; 1 1 c4
9 ... Ji.e7 10 Ji.xf6 Ji.xf6 1 1 c3 tti7 65 94; 11 g3 94
A: 12 t'i:Jxe7 65
B : 1 2 t'i:Jc2 65 1 5: The Novosibirsk Variation with
C : 12 �xf6+ 67 12... gxf6 67 1 1 Ji.d3
C l : 1 3 t'i:Jc2 67 1 3 ._ Ji.b7 14 Ji.d3 d5: 15 to .. .J.g7 1 1 Ji.d3 9 5 1 1 ...tti7 ! 12 �xe7
"e2 68; 15 exd5 68 'Ihe7 96
C2: 1 3 Ji.e2 69: 1 3 .. 15 69; 1 3 ... Ji.b7 69 A : 1 3 0-0 96
C3: 1 3 Ji.d3 70 B : 1 3 c3 97 1 3 .. .f5 ! 97
C 4: 1 3 "d2 70 B 1 : 1 4 t'i:Jc2 97 1 4..... b7: 1 5 "f3 99; 1 5
C5: 1 3 g3 70 0 99
B2: 1 4 0-0 100 14 ... 0-0 100 ( 1 4 ... Ji.b7!1
1 1 : 1 1 cl Ji.g5 1 2 �2 Ilb8 100) 15 t'i:Jc2 Ab8 ! 16 exf5 e4 17 Ael
9 ... Ji.e7 10 Ji.xf6 Lf6 1 1 c3 Ji.g5 12 Ji.xf5: 18 t'i:Je3 102; 18 �b4! 103
t'i:Jc2 Ab8 72 C: 1 3 c4! 103 1 3 .. .f5 ! 14 0-0 0-0: 15 "e2
104; 15 "h5 ! 1 105; 1 5 "f3 ! 106
1 2 : 1 1 cl 0-0 1 2 �c2 Il b8
9 ... Ji.e7 to Ji.xf6 Ji.xf6 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 t'i:Jc2 1 6 : 1 0 ...f5 1 1 .id3
Ab8 74 1O _ .f5 1 1 J.d3 109 1 1 ...Ji.e6
A : 1 3 h4 !1 75 A: 12 c3 109
B : 1 3 a3 !1 76 B : 1 2 c4 1 10
B 1 : 1 3. . 15 77
. C: 1 2 0-0 1 1 1 1 2 .. J.xd5 1 3 exd5 tti7 1 4
B2: 1 3... tti7 77 c3! Ji.g7 1 5 1Ih5 e4 1 6 Ji.c2 .c8! 1 1 4
B3: 1 3 ... Ji.g5 ! 1 77 1 7 Aael 116 ( 1 7 Aadl 1 1 4 17 ....c5:
C: 1 3 Ji.d3 78 18 Ji.bl !1 1 15; 18 J.b3 1 1 5)
D: 1 3 "d3 78 D: 12 � 117 1 2 .. .Ag8 ! 122 ( 1 2 ... J.g7
E: 1 3 Ji.e2 78 1 3 ... Ji.g5: 1 4 "d3 79; 1 4 1 18) 1 3 g3 125 ( 1 3 0-0-0 124; 1 3 c3
0-0 79 124): 1 3 ... h6 126; 1 3 ... Ag4!1 127;
13 .. .Ag5 ! 128
1 3 : 1 1 cl 0-0 1 2 �2 Ji.g5
9 ... Ji.e7 1O Ji.xf6 Ji.xf6 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 t'i:Jc2 1 7 : 10'hf5 1 1 exf5
Ji.g5 81 1 3 a4 bxa4 14 Axa4 a5 82 t o.. .f5 1 1 exf5 Ji.xf5 129 1 2 c3 Ji.g7 1 3
A: 1 5 Ji.b5 !1 83 �c2 130
B: 1 5 Ji.c4 85 1 5 ... Ab8! A : 13 _. Ji.e6 131 1 4 g3 ! 0-0 1 5 Ji.g2 a5 !
B l : 16 Aa2 85 16 0-0 f5: 17 "e2 133; 1 7 "h5 ! l34
B2: 1 6 b4 86 B: 13 ... tti7 134 14 Ji.d3 ! 136 ( 1 4 t'i:Jce3
B 3 : 1 6 "a1 86 135 14 ... J.e6: 1 5 t'i:Jxe7 135; 1 5 g3
B 4 : 1 6 b3 87 16 ...Wh8 17 0-0 87 135)
B 4 1 : 17 ... g6!1 87: 1 8 "e2 88; 1 8 "d3 C: 13 ... 0-0 137 1 4 t'i:Jce3 Ji.e6 139
88; 1 8 Wh 1 88 (1 4... J.d7 !1 138; 1 4 ... J.g6 138) 15
B42: 17 _ .f5 89 1 8 exf5 Lf5 1 9 t'i:Jce3: J.d3 140 ( 1 5 g3 139) 1 5 .. .f5: 16 "h5
1 9... Ji.g6 !1 89; 19 . .. Ji.e6 90 140; 16 J.c2 141; 1 6 0-0 141