sicilian grand prix attack by James Plaskett EVERYMAN CHESS Published by Everyman Publishers plo Lon \donFirst published in 2000 by Everyman Publishers ple, formerly Cadogan Books ple, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD Copyright © 2000 James Plaskett The right of James Plaskett to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Al 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, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 291 1 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. 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 email: dan@everyman.uk.com website: www.everyman.uk.com ‘The Everyman Chess Opening Guides were designed and developed by First Rank Publishing. EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Advisory Panel: Andrew Kinsman and Byron Jacobs Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Production by Book Production Services. Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge, Wiltshire.1e4c5 Bibliography Introduction Part One: 2 c3 1 2..0e6 3 £4 964 DES p75 b5 2 2..De6 3 f4 96 4 DE 2g7 5 Let 3 2...Be6 3 £4 &6 4 Other Lines Part Two: 2 f4 5 2...d5 3 exd5 Dfe 6 2...d5 3 exd5 Wxd5 7 2...d5 3 De3 8 Other Lines Index of Complete Games 24 65 82 99 114 127 142BIBLIOGRAPHY Books The Grand Prix Attack, Gary Lane (Batsford 1997) Beating the Anti-Sicilians, Joe Gallagher (Batsford 1994) Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume B (Sahovski Informator 1997) Nunn’s Chess Openings, John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms and Joe Gallagher (Everyman 1999) Periodicals Informator New in Chess Yearbook British Chess Magazine CHESS MonthlyINTRODUCTION The idea of meeting the Sicilian with an early {2-f4 has acquired various names over the years including the Larsen- Santasiere and the Grand Prix Attack. Statistically it remains one of the most successful methods of combating the Sicilian, other than the main lines involv- ing d2-d4 and xd4, with many of the world’s top players prepared to try it out. This book is concerned with set-ups where White develops his king’s bishop in a way other than on g? because that development will most probably take us into a standard Closed Sicilian formation. Broadly speaking when White plays &c4 it is more likely to lead to middlegames where he engages in attack than in those which derive from his playing &b5. 1 e4c5 2 f4 is a natural continuation and has the advantage of avoiding the thickets of main line Sicilian theory. However, unlike some theory avoidance systems it is actually quite a good move! Early on White already signals that he has kingside aspirations, and you will be seeing many examples of attacks against the black king amongst these pages. Move Orders In this book we will examine two differ- ents ways by which White attempts to implement an 2-f4 strategy. He can push forward with 2 f4, or he can first develop with 2 @c3, intending to con- tinue with 3 f4 next move. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages and a knowledge of these will be a useful aid to understanding the following material. ‘As White it is a tricky decision as to whether you should start off with 2 f4 or 2.8c3 and your choice may well depend on which systems you feel most com- fortable with, or which move orders are most likely to confuse your opponent. Since Black has, principally, two main methods of countering the Grand Prix Attack — systems with ...g7-g6 and sys- tems with ...e7-e6 and ...d7-d5 - we will consider each in turn. Fianchetto Systems against 2 £4 Many Black players meet all sorts of Closed Sicilian systems with an auto- matic fianchetto of the king’s bishop. If White opens 1 e4 cS 2 f4 and Black isSicilian Grand Prix Attack determined upon a fianchetto then he can either play 2...96 or 2...Ac6é 3 AL g6. If he plays 2...g6 then White can of course play 3 Af3 but after 3...2g7 he has little better then 4 “c3, which rather defeats the object of avoiding 2 Ac3 in the first place. So White may well opt for 3 d4!? - acomplex move which is exam- ined in detail in Chapter 8. If Black is concerned about this then he may choose instead 2 f4 Aco 3 AF3 g6, but now White can play 4 S265 and there is no simple way to meet the threat of cap- turing on c6. Fianchetto Systems against 2 Ac3 After 1 e4 c5 2 &c3 whether Black fi- anchettoes immediately or not is of little consequence. The most common se- quence is 2...Ac6 3 £4 g6 4 Df 2g7. However, if Black tries to be subtle and play 2...g6 3 £4 &g7 he does not really get anywhere after 4 2)f3 as he now has little better than 4...2c6. For example, 4...c6 is well met by 5 d4 while 4...d6 allows both 5 &c4 and 5 &b5+. How- ever, the sequence 1 e4 c5 2 Dc3 Acb 3 £4 g6 4 Df3 287 is not a problem for Black. 5 Sc4 is well met by 5...e6 (see Chapter 2), while 5 &b5 can be coun- tered by 5...d4 (see Chapter 1). This last variation shows why White does not really want his knight on c3. After 6 4\xd4 cxd4, he has to waste time moving his knight again. Compare this with 1 e4 5 2 £4 Ac6 3 Af3 7 4 &b5. Now 4...d4 lacks some point as 5 Dxd4 cxd4 does not hit a white knight on c3. Other Systems against 2 4 ‘When the Grand Prix Attack was being moulded into a potent weapon in the late 70s and early 80s, the most popular way to start out was with 2 f4. However, over a period of time, the gambit lines with 2...d5 3 exd5 Df6 (see Chapter 5) were shown to be, at the very least, fine for Black. Even if Black is loathe to sacrifice a pawn in such a fashion then the simple continuation 2...e6 3 Af3 d5 leaves Black, theoretically at least, with a per- fectly reasonable game. White’s only real opportunity to maintain a complex posi- tion without being worse is to meet 2...d5 with 3 2c3 (see Chapter 7). Allin all 2...d5 is a nuisance for 2 f4 players. Other Systems against 2 Ac3 If Black is not going to meet the Grand Prix Attack with a fianchetto, then 2 Dc3 has a lot going for it. It is possible for Black to play 2...e6, intending the simple equalising manoeuvre with ..d7- d5, but many Black players would be reluctant to do so. The reason is that White might suddenly change tack after 2 Ac3 e6 and play 3 Df3 or 3 Dge?2, intending to continue with 4 d4, steering the game into an Open Sicilian where Black is committed to ...e7-e6. For play- ers specialising in, say, the Scheveningen or Taimanov this would not be a prob- lem, but Najdorf or Dragon experts may well find themselves in unfamiliar sur- roundings if they continue along Open Sicilian lines. White’s potential switch with 3 Age? is also an occasional deter- rent to 2...c6. For example, Najdorf players who lack another string to their bow pretty much have to play 2...d6 in reply to 2 &c3 and this usually helps White. The point is that ...d7-d5 is often the break Black is angling for and, having. already gone ...d7-d6, he is losing time.CHAPTER ONE 1 e4c5 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 O83 297 5 2b5 DRE oe W 1 e4 cB 2 Ac3 Ac 3 £4 g6 4 Af3 g7 5 &b5 Tn this chapter we deal with lines in which Black fianchettoes and White places his bishop on b5. The b5-square is very probably the best square for the bishop if White does not fianchetto. We shall be seeing 2c set-ups running into some difficulties in the next chapter, but the positional sense of doubling Black’s c-pawns cannot be argued with. Games 1-3 see Black allowing the doubling of the c-pawns, while Games 4- 6 concentrate on the sequence 5...d4 6 0-0 Axb5. Games 7 witnesses Polagr trying the unusual 6 &d3, Another way for Black to avoid doubled pawns is to arrange to meet 2b5 with ...s2d7 and we see examples of this plan in Games 8-11. Game 1 Plaskett-J.Polgar Hastings 1988 1 e4 cB 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 14 g6 4 ANB 2g7 5 &b5 e6?! Certainly unwise. 5...d6 also allows White the opportunity to take on c6 (see Games 2 and 3) so Black’s most well regarded move is 5...d4, as in Games 47, One relatively unexplored alternative that will suit Dragon players is 5...\a5!2, when after 6 d4 a6 7 Le2 cxd4 8 Axd4 d6 9 &e3 Af 10 0-0 0-0 Black had reached a very satisfactory Classical Dragomtype position in Pinto-Gufeld, US open 1998. 6 &xc6! bxc6 ‘The alternative recapture 6...dxc6 was tried in Moutosis-Erdogan, Turkey 1992, but White was better after 7 We2 @e7 8 0-0 0-09 d3 b6 10 Adi ab 11 AL2. 7 eS! The dé-square looks inviting already. Black committed the same structural lapse in Sveshnikov-Remis, Oviedo (rapidplay) 1992, where White had played £2-f4 at move two and substituted 0-0 for Ac3. That game went 7 c4!? Ae7 8 d3.0-09 c3 d5 10 We2 Hb8 11 We2 when Black had a grotty position. 7...d5 Ridding herself of that weakness but isolating the twin c-pawns.Sicilian Grand Prix Attack 8 exd6 In Hebbinghaus-Kraenzle, German Bundesliga 1995, White passed over this golden opportunity and played 8 432, going on to only draw the game. Serves him right. 8...Wxd6 9 d3 DFE Black attempted to offload the weak- ling in Honfi-Czebe, Budapest 1995, with 9...c4. However, Honfi kept the bishops quiet with 10 d4 and held a big strategical superiority after 10...De7 11 We2 0-0 12 Aes Wd5 13 c3. 10 0-0 £a6 11 b3 0-0 12 We1 Structurally Black is up the creek and there is no natural strategy for her to pursue (note the moribund bishop on a6). White has only to stop any tactical tricks to ensure victory. 12...Ad5 13 2d2 Bad8 14 De4 Wc7 15 Ded &b7 On 15..&xe5 16 fxeS Wxe5? 17 6+ wins. 16 W2 £6 17 2c4 e5 17...5 does not help either because of 18 AxcS Bxal 19 Axeb and 20 Axd8. 18 fxe5 fxeS 19 Uxc5 Now the black cause has become hopeless. 19...Wd7 20 295 Hb8 21 Wxa7 Ata 22 WeS WIS 23 De3 Wd7 24 g3 he 25 gxf4 hxg5 26 fxg5 1-0 Game 2 Hebden-Fedorowicz Lewisham 1981 1 4 c5 2 Dc3 Ac6 3 £4 g6 4 D3 g7 5 2b5 d6 6 Axc6+ bxc6 7 d3 The actual move order of the game was 2 f4 Deb 3 DP g6 4 BbS 2e7 5 &xc6 bxc6 6 dB dé 7 Ac3. 7...Dn6 7...2\6 is probably a better move and would take us into the next example. 80-0 f5 Black must blockade on the kingside or he is in danger of being overrun, e.g. 8...0-0 9 0-0 &g4?! 10 £5 &xf3 11 Bxf3 e6 12 {6 and White picked up a piece in Weeramantry-Bolden, US open 1994. 9 Wel 0-0 10 ed! see following diagram 10...Wc7 11 Wg3 Bb8 12 Bet Af7 13 b3 AdB 14 Dad! Deé Transferring the knight to its most ac- tive place, an idea we shall see again later. But the truth is that in this structure 81 e4 c5 2 Bc3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 Af3 2g7 5 BbS Black’s bishops have no scope and he is stuck for anything to do. 15 &b2 d5?! 16 c4! The Nimzowitschian clamp goes up and the c5-pawn is targeted. 16...2d8 17 Zad1 2a6 18 Sci Wad 19 &d2 We7 20 Wi2 20 @g5 was also crushing as it re- moves the c-pawn’s defender. 20...d4 21 Wh4 218 22 h3 Wd7 He can only wait for the end. 23 a5 Hdce8 24 Dg5 1-0 Game 3 Plaskett-Tiviakov Dhaka 1997 1 e4.c5 2 De3 Ac6 3 2b5 g6 Afterwards Sergei Tiviakov stated that he already disliked this move. 3...2d4 is the standard response. 4 &xc6 bxc6 5 f4 297 6 D3 DG 7 43 d6 Through an unusual move order we have reached a position that would usu- ally arise after 2 Ac3 Acé 3 £4 g6 4 DL 2975 2b5 d6 6 2xc6+ bxe6 7 d3 Af. 8 0-0 0-0 9 Wel DeB A standard re-routing. A few yards away Ludalchev-Nguyen Anh Dung was going 9...5b8 10 b3 Ae8 11 &d2 Ac7 12 Wh4 Ab5 13 e5! Ad4 14 Axd4 cxd4 15 @e4 and White went on to win. 10 &d2 I was unsure just where I wanted my pieces, so for the time being I carried on developing. 10...15 The immediate 10...Ae6 invites f4-f5 in reply. 11 e5 Dc7 ‘Yy Yi jj, Over dinner that same evening Grandmasters Tiviakov and Malisauskas stated that Black is strategically lost here! My reluctance to accept that stemmed partly from comparisons with lines of the English Opening where Black plays +€7-€5, ...S.b4 and ...x(A)c3. If those 9Sicilian Grand Prix Attack are alright for White then why should Black be in trouble here? Still, if we look at how stymied Fedorowicz became in the last game then it is clear that we are dealing with avery similar structure; the bishop pair have nothing to do. Tiviakov proposed 12 4a4!? and then to clamp up the queenside with stuff like c2-c4, b2-b3 and a5. Although this is not as bad for Black as when he has played ...d6-d5, after which the c5-pawn falls off, it is still pretty dismal. 12 We2?! ‘An inaccuracy prompted by a wrong assessment of the position which we will reach at move 17. Instead Hodgson-De Firmian, Wijk aan Zee 1986, went 12 Wh4 Deb 13 Bael Ad4 14 Axd4 cxd4 15 exd6 exd6 16 Wxd8 Bxd8 17 “a4 {7 when Black had done pretty well for himself, but he still went on to lose. Tivi- akov now grabs his chance to get some play. 12...2e6 13 Hae c4! Of course Black does not hesitate to get this one in. 14 d4 There are some tricks White can look at after 14 dxc4 Wh6+ 15 h1 Wxb2 16 bi Wa3 17 Eb3 Wad but they do not favour him. 14...d5 15 Dad £a6 Black hastens to contest the queen- side. 16 Dc5 Axc5 17 dxc5 d4 If not this then 18 &c3 will establish a winning bind. 18 c3.d3 19 WF2 It emerged in the post-mortem that each side thought that he had a strategi- cally won game here! This is very unusual occurrence in a game between grandmas- ters. Later we concluded that we were both wrong. 19...Bb8 20 2e3 e6 21 Bd1 Wd5 22 h3 Af7 23 Ed2 2f8 24 Sh2 Hs Here I started to crack up as I saw that it is certainly not just a case of White opening the game up on the kingside to reveal that Black’s awful light-squared bishop renders him in effect a piece down. 25 Dd4? We analysed 25 Dg5! as the best. Any .-h7-hé6 will leave the black king position severely weakened after a later g2-4 advance and meantime the loss of the c5-pawn is not so serious. Indeed, for the moment it would not be en prise since the e6-pawn hangs. 25...2a5!? 26 b3 2xc5!? 27 bxc4 Time pressure did not help either. White's position rapidly deteriorates, but I spotted a trick. 27...2xc4 28 Bb1 Exa2? Falling for it! .— b mie Yi mi 29 Dxe6! Hxd2 30 &xd2?? Crazy! When taking on c4 had seen that here I have 30 &xc5!, but I then persuaded myself not to play it in the belief that the text could prove better still! After 30 &xc5! best play would be 101 04 c5 2 De3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 Af3 Rg7 5 BS 30...2b5! 31 Wxd2 Wxe6 32 We3 with White retaining good compensation fora pawn. 30...Wxg2+? is not so good for Black because after 31 xg? Hxf2+ 32 xf2 Bxeb 33 He3 Bct 34 Gd4 and 35 c4 the d-pawn falls. 30...2b7! Cooking White’s goose. 31 @xc5 Exb1 32 £e3 d2 0-1 Game 4 Hodgson-Rowson Rotherham (2nd match game) 1997 1 e4 c5 2 £4 g6 3 A3 Bg7 4 Ac3 Ac6 5 2b5 Ada ‘This move, avoiding doubled pawns, looks like the smartest idea, and the theoretical status of Black’s position here is very good. The three previous games ought to have communicated what can befall Black if his opponent gets in Bxcb. 60-0 After 6 2a4 Wa5 7 &b3 b5 or 6 Axd4 cxd4 7 De2 Wh6 8 Ld3 di! 9 e5 fo! White is struggling to even equalise. However, 6 a4? has been tried by Mi- chael Adams (among others). Black normally plays 6...e6 (there is nothing wrong with 6...Dxb5 7 axb5 d6 8 0-0 )f6 either) and then: a) 7 0-0 e7 8 e5 (if White intends to play this way then the immediate 7 e5 was surely preferable) 8...a6 9 sc4 after 9 43 Axf3-+ 10 Wxt3 d5! White was all tangled up in Adams-Morovic, Las Pal- mas 1993) 9...45 10 exd6 and now both 10...Wxd6 and 10...Aef5 followed by .Dxd6 are perfectly satisfactory for Black. b) 7 51? 26 8 Sc4 d59 exd6 Wxd6 10 3 De7 11 De We7 123 with acom- plicated game in prospect in Ekebjaerg- Jezek, correspondence 1992-94. For 6 &d3 see Game 7. 6...Dxb5 After 6...a6 7 &d3 White has a supe- rior version of Game 7 in which Black has expended atempo on the not terribly useful ...a7-a6. However, Black still man- aged to equalise in Adams-Anand, Gron- ingen 1997, after 7...d6 8 Dxd4 cxd4 9 De2 Ako 10 Bh! (10 c3 dxc3 11 bxc3 0-0 12 8c2 bS is also nothing for White) 10...A\d7 11 b4 0-0 12 &b2 Whe. 7 Axb5 d5 The most critical move. The quieter 7..d6 is the subject of the next two main games. 8 e5!? White hopes to suppress the bishop pair. This looks like a better try for the advantage than 8 exd5 a6 9 Dc3 AG where the influence of his fianchettoed bishop is of some significance for Black, e.g. 10 d4 c4! (10...xd5 11 dxc5! Axc3 12 Wxd8+ xd8 13 bxc3 &xc3 14 Hb1 offers White good attacking chances in the endgame) 11 De5 Ads 12 WA eb! with an unclear position in Hodgson- Rowson Rotherham (4th match game) 1Sicilian Grand Prix Attack 1997. 8 d3 has also been tried but Black ought not to lose sleep over it, eg. 8...2d7 9 Ac3 Bxc3 10 dxc3 dxet 11 dxe4 2b5 12 Wxd8+ Hxd8 13 Kel Dfo with a promising ending for Black in H.Hunt-Rowson, Varsity match 1999. 8...a6 Both 8...d4!? and 8...b6!? are also worth exploring for Black. 9 Dc3 gd Here too 9...d4 is playable, e.g, 10e4 Wd5 11 d3 Aho 12 Wel 0-0 13 a4, as in Reinderman-Alterman, Wijk aan Zee 1998, and now Alterman recommends 13...a5 with equality. 10 d4 cxd4 In Hebden-Koshy, Dhaka 1995, Black tried 10...c42f, but after 11 b3! Kc8 12 Dad White was able to make use of his lead in development. 11 Wxd4 e6 12 Whal? axf3?! In OJackson-Gallagher, British Championship, Scarborough 1999, Black improved with 12...b5!, when after 13 Re3 GF8 14 Bc5 Axc5 15 Wxc5 He8 16 Wa7 Ha8 Black had equalised. 13 Exf3 We7? 13...b5 was still playable, though not quite as good as on the previous move. 14 Wad+ Wd7 15 Wxd7+ &xd7 This all looks safe enough, but Hodg- son whips up an attack from nowhere. 16 Dad! Bb8 17 2e3 De7 18 La7! This is remarkably hard to counter. 18.,.be8 19 Zb3 b5 Or 19...8e8 20 Ac5 b5 21 a4 and itall falls down, 20 Ac5+ &c8 21 Bad And clearly Black is quite lost. 21...95 22 Bxa6 gxf4 23 a4 bxad 24 Dd3 Sb7 25 A1xad Bas 26 Bd6 5 27 Ded+ Sc7 28 AbE+ Lbs 29 Bxa8+ Sxa8 30 Ed7 &bs 31 Ec7 1-0 It is mate in two. Game 5 Hebden-Ftacnik Hastings 1983/84 1 e4 c5 2 £4 g6 3 D3 Ag7 4 Ac3 Ac6 5 &b5 Add 6 0-0 Axb5 7 @xb5 dé This move indicates that Black is planning a quieter treatment than 7...d5. Black aims to gradually make something of his bishop pair and meanwhile retains avery solid position. However, he must be careful not to let White build up a powerful kingside attack.1 e4 cB 2 Ac3 Dc6 3 f4 g6 4 Af3 Bg7 5 BLS 8 a4 To stop Black expanding on the queenside with ...a7-26 and ...b7-b5. 8 3 is considered in the next main game. 8...a6 Black can also delay this move, e.g. 8..Af6 9 d3 0-0 10 Wel e6!? 11 Wh4 and now 11...a6 was met by 12 Axd6!? Wrd6 13 e5 Wa8 14 £5 with a very messy position in Hracek-Alterman, European Team Championship, Pula 1997. 9 Dc3 D6 10 Wei 0-0 11 d3 e6 12 geht White opts foraslow build-up, but 12 €5!? was also possible. 12...b6 13 2d2 2d7 14 Ad1 b5 15 axb5 axb5 16 Exa8 Wxa8. Richard Réti once said that this was the best square forthe queen, but maybe he was not being attacked at the time. 17 Wh4 &c6 18 Af2 Was! Anticipating 19 £5. 19 £5? exf5 20 2g5 h6! 21 &xh6 see following diagram 21...2xe4! This simple but clever combination quite refutes Hebden’s play. 22 Sig5 Axf2+ 23 Wxf2 Wd7 Fracnik now only needs to show allt tle care to score the point. 24 b3 He8 25 h4 He6 26 &f4 We7 27 Wg3 Sxf3 28 gxf3 2f6 29 hd uh4 30 Wh3 g5 31 293 2xg3 32 Wxg3 %g7 33 d4 cxd4 34 Bd1 £4 35 Wr 35...£h6 36 Ef1 He3 37 Wa2 Wie 38 Wa5 94 39 Wa8 gxf3 0-1 Plaskett-Schmidt Trnava 1984 1 ef cB 2 14 g6 3 AFB 97 4 D3 Dc6 5 Abd Ada 6 0-0 Axb5 7 Dxb5 d6 8 d3 fe Black can also try 8...a6 9 Dc3 b5!? 13Sicilian Grand Prix Attack here, seizing space on the queenside, although his lack of kingside develop- ment is a worry. 9 e5!? An interesting alternative the routine 9 at or9 Wel. 9...dxe5 10 fxe5 Ads At home I had looked at 10...A\g4 11 Qf4 a6 12 Ac3 Axed 13 Axes Wd4+ 14 Bhi Bxe5 15 &xe5 Wxed 16 WES 0-0 17 Kael and remember convincing myself that White had good play for the pawn, e.g. 17...Wd6 18 We3 threatening to regain it on 7 or 5 (19 Ae4), but I suppose that objectively it is doubtful that Black could be worse here. 11 Wel 0-0 12 Wh4 Wd7 13 c3 par Wandering away from the king does not look apposite. 14 Dea Tam not certain what I was thinking about here, and if I had this position again I would play the simple 14 Ef2. 14...2xc2 Inflicting some structural damage. 15 &h6 16 On 15...Axal? 16 &xg7 Sxg7 17 DG! exf6 18 exfo+ Gh8 19 Whé Hg8 20 g5 wins, and the reply to 15...Wg4 is 16 Wxe7! Axal? 17 Afo+ and wins. 16 Bact Dd4 17 &xg7 wxg7 18 Exc5 De6 19 Bcd b6 20 exf6+ exf6 21 Ada! Introducing utter chaos. 21...Dxd4 22 Dxf6 De2+ 23 Hh1 h6 24 He4 &b7 25 Exe2 Wd6 26 Eef2! Concentrating force like this makes life very hard for Black, particularly in view of his time shortage. 26...Wxd3 27 Dnd+ &g8 28 DAfe+ &g7 29 Dh5+ dg8 30 AFa! Winning an important pawn. 30...Wed 31 Wxh6 Zad8 32 ¢g1 2f6 33 DhS BF7 34 Ag3 Wee Here Black lost on time. A most scrappy game.1 e4c5 2 Dc3 Dc6 3 £4 g6 4 Df3 g7 5 &bS Game 7 J.Polgar-Topalov Dortmund 1996 1 e4 c5 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 Af3 2g7 5 2b5 DAd4 6 2d3!? This tricky move has not been so highly regarded by theory. 6...d6 6...e6 allows White the opportunity of 7 Bxd4 cxd4 8 Abs dé 9 c3! and if 9...dxc3 10 dxc3, when Black will have problems with his vulnerable d-pawn, e.g. 10...e7 11 Dxd6+! or 10...a6 11 Was. 7 Dxd4 cxd4 8 De2 DS In Dzhindzihasvili-Hiibner, Tilburg 1985, Black kept a closer eye on his d4- pawn by developing the knight with 8...Ah6!? and play was equal after 9 c3 dxc3 10 dxe3 0-0 11 0-0 d5 12 e5 Who+ 13 bhi DES. 9 0-0 0-0 10 We1!? 10 3 was a usual move (but not 10 @xd4? Who 11 c3 e5) when Basman- Adorjan, London 1975, was not a great success for White: 10...e5!? 11 cxd4 exd4 12 b3 He8 13 Ags h5! 14 f5 h4 15 De2 Dxe4 16 Lxe4 Exe 17 d3 Hed 18 fxge 0-1. Black has also done well with 10...dxe3 11 bxc3 (hoping to make some- thing of his central pawns; 11 dxc3 promises nothing) 11...b6, as in, e.g. Hodgson-Petursson, Reykjavik 1989. ‘The impression is that after 10.3 White has some difficulties in rearranging his/her minor pieces and that Black’s is the more comfortable development, so Polgar tries a different arrangement. 10...Ad7 11 2c4 Intending d2-d3, etc. 11 W£2 would have avoided the fracas that follows, but after Topalov’s 11...2c5 12 Axd4 Axd3 13 cxd3 &d7 14 b3 &b5 Black has excellent compensation for the pawn. a af on 11,..d5!? Wow! 11...We7 12 d3 Db6 13 &b3 Re6!? was well worth a go, eg. 14 £5 Axb3 15 cxb3 We2, 12 exdS 12 &xd5 is met by 12...Af6. 12...Db6 13 d3 Axc4!? One surprise after another. 13...Axd5 was okay but Topalov stirs things up further. 14 dxc4 b5 15 Wf2 Returning the pawn. On 15 cxb5 Wxd5 16 g3 £7 Black has a splendid initiative for it.Sicilian Grand Prix Attack 15...bxc4 16 Dxd4 Wxd5 17 Be3 a5!l? 18 c3 White crafts her game around the knight at d4. 18...2d8 19 We2 e6 20 Had1 Wh5? This is purposeless. He should just have played 20...2b7. 21 De6 Bxd1 22 Exd1 2b7 23 &e7+ Bh8 24 Bd7 Wbd 25 Wd2 Black’s inaccuracy has allowed Judit to seize the d-line and thereby cause prob- lems. 25...2d5 26 Uc7 Red A better chance might have been the ending after 26...2d8 27 Axd5 Wxd5 28 Wxd5 exd5 29 Bxf7 Bbs. 27 Ac8! A nasty knight. 27...Wd5 28 Ad6 Sg8 29 Axc4 Ebs 30 Wxd5 exd5 31 2a7! BaB 32 Ad6 White has a pawn more and the more active pieces. This is an exceptional posi- tion where the bishop pair has little scope. 32...2b1 33 Axf7 &xa2 34 Ags Be8 35 &d4 2h6?? A gross blunder in a bad position, but 35...8xd4+ 36 cxd4 hS 37 a7 would have left White well on top. 36 4)\xh7 1-0 An imaginative game, but not one that alters the excellent theoretical status that 5...Dd4 enjoys. Game 8 Rogers-Smyslov Manila Interzonal 1990 1 e4 c5 2 Dc3 Ac6 3 £4 g6 4 AB d6 5 &b5 2d7 The actual move order of the game was 1 e4 dé 2 £4 c5 3 DB Ac 4 Ac3 g6 5 Bb5 Bd7. 6 d3 2g7 7 0-0 a6! In fact it seems that this was the first significant occasion on which this natural and good move was played. The prob- lem is that 7...e6 can be met by 8 £5! exf5 9 exf5 &xf5 10 &g5 with a strong at- tack, as in Sutovsky-Kempinski, Polanica Zdroj 1999, while 7...Af6 8 &h1 0-09 &xc6 &xc6 was also promising for White in Epishin-A.Petrosian, Gronin- gen open 1990. 8 Axc6 2xc6 9 Wel See Game 11 for the alternative de- velopment scheme involving the se- quence 9 &h1 Wd7 10 We2!? 9.,.Wd7! The most flexible. 161 e4c5 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 Af3 Ag7 5 &2b5 10 &h1 If 10 Wh4 then 10...f5! is a good reply. 10 a4 is seen in Games 9 and 10. 10...2)n6!? Black thus reserves the option of ...f7- £5, but there is probably not a great deal wrong with 10...A\f6 either, so long as Black does not rush headlong into a kingside attack by castling too quickly. 11 &d2 Rogers thought this a little too passive (he likes to keep busy) and suggested the gambit 11 f5!? instead, meeting 11...gxf5 with 12 Dh4 fxe4 13 Axed. Maybe. 11...b5! In Baker-King, 4NCL 1997, Black rushed to block on the kingside with 11...f5, but after 12 Ad5!? fxe4 13 Wxe4 M7 14 Bael White quickly established a grip on the position. 12 Eb1 b4 13 Ad1 f5! 14 Ags Af7! 15 exf5 gxf5 16 Af3 On 16 Deb &f6 Black already pre- pares the eviction with 17...$.d5. 16...0-0 17 De3 Hae8 18 Wg3 &hs 19 Wh3 e6 20 Ac4 Bgs8 Black has similar assets to Game 9, Ljubojevic-Kasparov, with the significant difference that his king is not as secure. This makes opening up the game a little trickier. 21 ZgS DxgS 22 fxg5 LB 23 c3 Eig6 24 cxb4 cxb4 25 Bbc1 25 &xb4 xg5 would be atrade very much to Black’s liking. 25...e7 26 WhS e5 27 h4 f4 28 4f2! Bbs8 Or 28...Wh3+ 29 deg] Wxd3 30. &xb4 and White is alright. 29 @h2 28? ‘The bishop re-routes to g7, but it was far better to shift it to c7 with 29...2c7, when Black is doing very well. Smyslov starts to lose the thread. 30 b3 Sg7 31 d4! If you are not making a nice centre work for you then it can just become a liability. Rogers fights back. 31...2e6 32 Ed1 Wes? Black should have kept the queens on with 32...We7! (33 dS &e8) when he is more apt to make something of his piece ae 33 Wxe8+ Axe8 34 d5 Zg6 35 g3! fxg3+ 36 xg3 h5 37 Le3 Now only White has any winning chances, and he tacks around looking for them. 37...€g8 38 &b6 2b7 39 2e3 2f7 40 DaS Ec7 41 Aca Af8 42 Baf1 17Sicilian Grand Prix Attack Bg7 43 2d2 Eb7 44 De3 aS 45 &h2 Bb8 46 AS Bg6 47 De3 Bg7 48 D15 Xg6 49 Dhe+ Smyslov has stayed alert so Rogers ex- changes off a pair of minor pieces and gets a rook to the seventh. 49...2xh6 50 Sxf7 Efe 51 Bxf8+ Axf8 52 dg2 ) Mee wp oa 52...0g7 53 £e3 ed! He must go active to have any hope. The bishop ending after 53...2ic7 54 Eel is dead lost. 54 244? Rogers later preferred 54 wf2. 54.217 55 sig3 Hb7 56 Ef6 Bb5! 57 &xd6 2g7 58 Bf5 Lh7 59 g6+! A necessary trick since the line 59 Lc7 Sg6 60 do SxfS 61 d7 Bd5 62 d8W Hxd8 63 2xd8 de4 produces a drawn ending because the black king is so active. 59...exg6 60 Hg5+ 2t7 61 Exh5? Missing a pretty coup. 61 &e7!! wins as 61...2xe7 62 d6+ picks up the rook. 61...216 62 214 &g6? Blundering back; 62...5c5! 63 sg3 a4! would have drawn. Now, with aseries of accurate moves, Rogers clinches victory. 63 Bh6+ 15 64 dg3! cS The bishop ending after 64...xd5 65 Bh5+ deb 66 Exd5 dexd5 67 Re3 is lost. 65 Bh5+ dg6 66 &g4 2d4 67 Hg5+ #7 68 Zf5+ Se8 69 d6 1-0 A tremendous struggle. Game 9 Ljubojevic-Kasparov Linares 1991 1 e4 c5 2 Dc3 dé 3 £4 Ac6 4 DF3 g6 5 2b5 2d7 6 0-0 297 7 d3 a6 8 &xc6 2xc6 9 Wel Wd7!? 10 a4!? This was new, previous games having seen 10 hi. 10...b6. Black often castles long in this line, but in Hebden-Summerscale, British Championship, Norwich 1994, where bh1 had been substituted for a2-a4, he took a radically different path of hitting the white centre straight away with ...f7- 5 and no subsequent ...0-0-0, ie. 10.6 11 2.d2 Dh5!? 12 Hbi £51? 13 @d5 fxe4 14 dxe4 Hb8 and the game was later drawn. 11b3 Two other early ...f7-f5s came in Jansa-Stohl, Prague 1992: 11 h3 £5!? 12 Bd2 Df6 13 e5 AhS 14 exdo Wxdo 15 181 e4 cS 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 DF3 Bg7 5 BLS De5 Bb7 16 wh2 0-0 17 We2 Haes 18 Hael 4-4, and when the same players met again three years later with 11 2.d2 Dhol? 12 h3 £51? 13 Ad5 fxe4 14 dxe4 &xd5 15 exd5 &xb2 16 Hb1 Qf 17 Exb6 AF5 18 c3 h5!? with an unclear situation which Black ended up winning at move 32. 11...Af6 12 h3 Dhd 13 Ld2 £5 Hence Black takes the sting out of any white build-up on the kingside... 14 exf5 gxf5 15 Wh4 Of6 16 Eae1 0-0-0 ..and then makes a home for his maj- esty elsewhere. 17 a5 bS 18 b4 cxb4 19 Da2 Dds 20 Axb4 AG 21 Wi2 Dxb4 22 &xb4 Zhg8 23 Ee2 Bg6 24 Wet Sdg8 Simple chess. Kasparov doubles along the g-file and then opens things up for his bishops. In this opposite-side castling scenario White is under by farthe greater pressure, 25 @h2 e5 26 fxe5 Rxe5+ 27 Gh1 Wb7 27.,.Wig7! (Kasparov) would have been simpler. 28 d4! A terrible blunder. Instead 28...g7 29 Wf2 24 would maintained a strong attack according to Kasparov. 29 Exg2 Exg2 Kasparov must have missed that 29...8.xf3 30 Hxf3 Wxf3 is met by 31 We3+! Wxc3 32 Exg8+ and Black can resign. 30 &xg2 Wg7+ 31 ht Now it should be all over. 31...214 32 We6+ 32 d5 &xd5 33 We3+ would have forced instant resignation. 32...2d7 33 Wd5 Wg3 34 Wa8+?! Whilst not throwing away the win, this isa decentralisation that will necessitate further exact play to ensure victory. 34 Hel! was simpler. 34...2c7 35 Het? But this costs half a point. White could have threaded his way to a win with the sequence 35 Wa7+ dd8 36 Wh8+ e7 37 Hel+ {7 38 Wh7 Wrh3 + 39 Sgt (Kasparov). 35...Wxh3+ 36 &g1 Wg3+ 37 &f1 Wh3+ 38 Se2 38 dg] We3+ would have been a per- petual. 38...2c6 39 Wa7+ Sc8B 28...2xg2?? 40 3f1??Sicilian Grand Prix Attack As is so often the case, it is the last move of the time control that is the deci- sive error. One of many ways to draw was 40 Ad2 Wg4+ 41 2d3 Wg3+ etc. 40...Wg2+ 41 &e1 &g3+ 42 bd1 Wxf1+ 43 Dei Axe 0-1 On two other occasions Kasparov has succeeded in salvaging a draw against a world-class opponent when arook down for next to nothing: against Timman at Bugojno 1982 and versus Korchnoi at Brussels 1986. Here he actually won such agame. As Hungarian IM Tibor Karolyi observed of the world’s greatest talents: ‘They are also lucky.” Game 10 Ljubojevic-Portisch Reykjavik 1991 1 e4 cB 2 Dc3 d6 3 £4 Ac6 4 A g6 5 2b5 £d7 6 0-0 297 7d3 a6 8 &xc6 &xc6 9 Wel Wd7 10 a4 b6 11 h3. Attempting to profit from his experi- ence in the previous game. He will now react to ...h5 with an immediate g?-g4. 11...26 12 2d2 hS move like this. 12...b5 is to be consid- ered. 13 e5 Dh7 On 13...d5 14 Ag5 is strong. 14 exd6 Wxd6 Also after 14...2xf3 15 Bxf3 Wxd6 16 £5 the weakening of the black kingside gives White the edge. 15 De5 &xe5?! A better defence was 15...Sb7 16 a5 b5 17 De4 We7 18 Be3 Bxe5 19 fxed xed 20 dxet Wes 21 Wi2 Afe 22 Bxcd Df. 16 fxe5 Wd4+ 17 W2! Wxf2+ 18 Exf2 DfB 19 Zafl Zh7 20 a5! Queenside softening operations now commence. 20...b5 21 b4! cxb4 22 Da2 b3 Even though this splits up White’s pawns, it creates serious problems down the newly opened c-line. Better was 22...8b7. 23 Db4 2b7 24 cxb3 De6 25 Ect Bas On 25...Bc8 26 Hxc8+ &xc8 27 Be3 Black’s queenside problems persist. 26 2e3 Bd7 27 Hd2 16? Overlooking something, 27...2d4 was a tougher defence when 28 @xd4 Bxd4 Such a classical player as Portisch can- not have been happy with a weakening 201 e4c8 2 Ac3 Dc6 3 f4 g6 4 Af3 B97 5 &bS 29 @c6 keeps an edge, or White could pursue a more tactical line with 29 &c7!? Exb4 30 Exb7 Exb3 31 Bc2 &d8 32 %c6 Exd3 33 Hxa6 with a probably deci- sive advantage because of the dead rook on h7. But Black might be a spoilsport and simply retreat with 29...2d7. Le Ot ae wae 28 Dxaé! Ljubo rarely misses a trick. 28...fxe5 Or 28....xa6 29 Heb and White is al- ways going to be better because he is essentially playing with an extra rook,eg. 29...Dc7 30 e6 Axe6 31 Hxe6 Sc8 32 a6! Exxd3? 33 a7 etc. 29 Dc5 Dxc5 30 Exc5 £a6 31 Bxe5 Ef7 32 2c5 Bf5 33 Ede2 Exe5 34 Exe5 &f7 Or 34...Exd3 35 Hxe7+ Yd8 36 b4 &c8 37 Hg7 and the combination of White's aggressively placed pieces and passed a-pawn give Black, with his king stranded on the back rank, no chance to survive, e.g. 37.815 38 a6 Bed 39 a7 Ha3 40 2b6+ We8 41 25 and wins. 35 d4 e6 36 Ze3 Hd5 37 b4 Ef5 38 Rd6 Ed5 39 Ef3+ te8 40 Hfe+ $d7 41 2e5 Black resigned, as the advance of the passed a-pawn will prove decisive, Game 11 Plaskett-Shipov Hastings 1998/99 1 e4 c5 2 Dc3 dé 3 £4 Ac6 4 AF3 g6 5 2b5 &d7 6 0-0 &g7 7 d3 a6 8 Axc6 &xc6 9 h1 Hd7 10 We2 A new move, attempting to improve upon the usual 10 Wel. However, in many ways 10 We2 is a more logical move. As Black players become more clued in, White is increasingly unlikely to get away with a crude mating attack based on Wel-h4 and f4-f5. Therefore the idea of placing the queen on a differ- ent colour complex to the dark-squared bishop, is logical and constitutes good positional play. 10...f5? This is often a good method of blunt- ing the power of a white kingside attack, but here the move is inappropriate. Black weakens the light squares in general and the e6-square in particular and does nothing for his development. 11 AdS With the threat of Ab6. 11...2d8? After this Black is almost lost. The 21Sicilian Grand Prix Attack best try was 11...fxe4 12 dxe4 &xd5 13 exd5 4)f6 but after 14 c4 White has a clear advantage. 12 2g5! Now the white knights run riot. 12...2f6 13 Db6 White’s knights are fantastic pieces and he is not about to trade them in for modest material gains. 13 Ae6 2\xd5 14 exd5 &xd5 15 Axd8 gives White aclear advantage, but I wanted to play for the attack. 13...We7 14 2c4 fxed 15 De6 Wes 16 f5! Opening further lines against the stranded black king. 16...2g8 17 Db6 exd3 18 cxd3 Wb8 19 fxg6 2h8 20 g7 &xg7 21 &g5 Neatly combining attack and defence. White shields the g2-square whilst bring- ing his remaining pieces into play. 21.,..2h8 22 Hae Hd7 23 Exf6! Ttis rather ironic that White has been declining to accept the advantage of the exchange over the past few moves and now chooses to sacrifice rook for knight himself. 23...exf6 Or 23...2xf6 24 Wh5+ Ego 25 Af4 2x5 26 Dxg6 hxgs 27 Wh8+ f7 28 Wxb8 and White has a winning material advantage. 24 Dxc5+ dB 25 Dcxd7 Axd7 26 We7+ bc7 27 Ad5+ 1-0 221 e4c5 2 Dc3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 D3 Bg7 5 A2bS Summary The main lesson from this chapter is that Black should not allow his c-pawns to be doubled (see Games 1-3). The resulting positions are almost always bad and, even when they are playable, they are very difficult to handle. Meanwhile White’s game plays itself. Arranging to meet .2b5 with .....d7 (Games 8-11) is perfectly okay for Black and leads to balanced positions. The lines with 5 &b5 \d4 should also be fine for Black and 7...d5 8 e5 is quite playable for the second player despite the out- come of Game 4. 1e4c5 2 Ac3 2...0c6 2...d6 3 £4 Acé 4 Ai 965 Bb5 Bd7 6 d3 &g7 7 0-0 a6 8 &xcb &xcb (D) 9 Wel Wd7 10 ®h1 - Game 8 10 a4 b6 11.b3 - Game 9 11 h3 - Game 10 9 We2 - Game 11 3 14 g6 4 2f3 2g7 5 2b5 (D) Ada 5...e6 - Game 1 5..d6 6 &xc6 bxeb 7 d3 7..\h6 - Game 2 7.6 - Game 3 60-0 6 2d3 - Game 7 6...2xb5 7 Axb5 (D) d5 7.646 8 ad - Game 5 8 d3 - Game 6 8 e5 - Game 4 23CHAPTER TWO 1 e4c5 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 AF3 297 5 2c4 1 e4 c5 2 Dc3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 A g7 5 204 In the 1970s there were few published works on this line and several profes- sional or semi-professionals in England were able to exploit this to rack upase- ries of victories on the UK tournament circuit. Since then though the theoreti- cians have moved in to give the ground a thorough reconnaissance and hence the system is now no longer so feared, at least not at grandmaster level. By contrast with &b5 systems, where White may consider playing a middle- game with positional aspirations, perhaps against weakened black pawns, in this line it is rare for him not to pursue direct attacking play, and often with the aid of sacrifices. One of the problems though is that these motifs are limited and thus easier to anticipate, hence the assimila- tion of black antidotes. More successful modern exponents of £c4 are tending to hang back on sacrificing with £4-£5. Paradoxically one of the earliest games to draw attention to this set-up, espe- cially in conjunction with the gambit of the fpawn, was not a Sicilian but an English Opening: Saidy-Fischer, USA 1969, went 1 c4 e5 2 Dc3 Acé 3 g3 £54 Bg2 Dfo 5 d3 Bcd 6 €3 £41? 7 exf4 0-08 Deed We8 9 0-0 dé 10 Dat dé! 11 yxd4 exd4 12 h3 h5 13.23 a5 14 b3 Weo 15 Ab2 B£5 16 We2 Ad7 17 Bel Ac5 18 Ql Ha6! 19 Bd2 Hb6 20 &xad Hxb3 21 2d? Ra8 22 a4 Hab 23 a5 Gh7 24 Hed1 b6 25 Sel bxaS 26 Dat Bxd3! 27 Sxd3 &xd3 28 Wa2 Db4 29 Was c2 30 Wh2 Dxal 31 Hxal Axat 32 Exat Wet 33 &xa5 Hxad 34 BxaS Wel + 35 d2h2 Wxa5 0-1. Splendid stuff, and notable particularly for Fischer's prosecution of astrategical plus and not, as so often in this line, a kingside attack. These lines are much more attractive for White when Black is already commit- ted to ...d7-d6. If he can play ...d7-d5 in one go, as seen in Games 12-13, White has less than nothing. Black has various ways to combat White's intended adverntues on the king- side: 241 04 c& 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 Df3 Ag? 5 Ac4 a) Accepting White’s gambit with .-g6xf5 (Game 14). b) Accepting White’s gambit with ..e6xf5 (Games 15-17). ¢) Countering in the centre with ...d6- d5 (Games 18-19). d) Countering in the centre with ..Dd4 (Games 20-21). Game 12 Wedberg-Kharlov Haninge 1992 1 e4 cB 2 A\c3 Ac6 3 £4 g6 4 AS 2g7 5 2c4 e665 ‘After 6 e5 d6 7 exd6 2\f6, as in Barle- Ribli, Bled 1979, Black is fine. If White wishes to play an early e4-e5 he can also try 6 0-0 Age7 and now 7 e5 (7 d3 d58 £23 0-0 is unpromising for White, since he is basically just a whole tempo down on Games 19-22) when the safest route to equality is 7...d6! 8 exd6 Wxd6 9 Ded We7 10 d3 b6, and here Black followed up with ....&b7 and ...0-0-0!? in Perez- Tukmakoy, Cordoba 1991. After 6...exf52! 7 d3 Age7 8 0-00-09 Wel White develops a ferocious kingside initiative, and although 6...gxf5 and 6...e5 are playable, the text move has been so successful for Black in practice that there is no need to be greedy. 7 fxe6 fxe6 The other recapture is perfectly feasi- ble and has often been seen. Here we consider the more critical consequences of recapturing towards the centre as we were taught in our first chess lessons. 8d3 After 8 0-0 d5 9 &b5 (or 9 2b3 c4) 9...0-0 Black has at least equalised. 8...d5 9 2b3 9 exd5 exd5 10 &b3 b5! transposes to the main game, while 9 2b5 0-0 is simi- lar to the previous game. 9...b5! Natural enough. Black will swamp the bishop. 10 exd5 After 10 0-0 Wh6! 11 exd5 c4+ 12 hI cxb3 13 dxc6 dxc2 14 Wxc2 0-0 Black was able to take advantage of the two bishops in Anjuhin-Yudasin, Finland 1997. Instead White can guaran- tee the bishop's preservation with 10 a3 (10 a4?! is probably inferior and Black quickly got the upper hand in A.Stein- Liberzon, Israel 1978, after 10...b4 11 e2 a5), but, as you might imagine, 25Sicilian Grand Prix Attack taking time out for such a measure in such a sharp position does not trouble Black at all. Minasian-Tiviakov, Kherson, 1991, continued 10...c4 11 @a2 a6 120-0 0-0 13 &95 £7 14 Wd2 &b7 with equal chances. The current theoretical evalua- tion is that that may be White’s only ob- jective route to equality from here, be- cause the romantic sacrificial lines have been refuted. 10...exd5 11 0-0 This had been thought the better way to give up the piece. 11 Axb5 Wa5+ 12 DNc3 is refuted by 12...c4! (this move, giving up another pawn, is best because it stifles the bishop on b3) 13 dxc4 d4 14 0-0 dxc3 and White does not have enough, e.g. Weinzettl-Ziiger, Vienna open 1986, went 15 c5 cxb2 16 Ags bxalW 17 217+ Sf8 18 2b3+ 2f6 19 Det Wda+ and Black won in a few more moves. 11...c4! 12 dxc4 dxc4 13 Wxd8+ Dxd8! Strangely enough, this obvious recap- ture was a novelty. On 13...dexd8 14 Hdi+ White can make an awful mess. 14 Axb5 exb3 15 Ac7+ White goes fort. After 15 axb3 0-016 Bixa7 Bxa7 17 Dxa7 .b7 he did not have enough for the piece in Rossen- Coleman, Copenhagen 1996. 15...8d7 16 Axa8 bxc2 Vy 4 £7] wt mt wae nomena 17 Ba? This is the decisive mistake. 17 Bf2 2b7 18 Bxc2 &xa8 19 2e3 was better, and not too far from equal. 17...0f8! 18 De5+ Lxe5 19 BxedS Exf1+ 20 Bxf1 DAde6 21 2c3 La6! The knight’s corpse can be collected later. First Kharlov ensures that he will keep his decisive asset on c2. 22 Hel &d3 23 $f2 Ddd 24 2d2 Deb4!? 25 a3 Dc6 Now there is a weakness at b3. Subtle guys, these Russians. 26 Hel 2f5 27 h3 hS 28 bg3 Ada 29 &h4 Db3 30 Ag5 Ad3 31 dg3 Ac5 32 &F3 Ae6 33 2c1 h4 34 2 2f5 35 g3 Or 35 Ee5 Adf4. 35...2c5 36 Sf3 Dd3 37 Bg1 Axc1 38 Bxc1 hxg3 39 éxg3 He3 0-1 Game 13 Hebden-Speelman British Ch, Torquay 1982 1 e4 cS 2 £4 g6 3 D3 2g7 4 D3 Dc 5 Lcd e6 6 15 DAge7 7 fxe6 261 e4c5 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 £4 g6 4 Af3 Bg7 5 acd fxe6 8 d3 0-0 More restrained than 8...d5. 9 295 After 9 0-0 d5 Black has again equal- ised. 9...h6 10 &h4 Now Black bursts out all over. 10 &xe7 would avoid that, but with his bishop pair and central control Black is still doing very nicely. 10...g5 11 £f2 d5 12 &b3 g4!? Black handled it quite differently in Veltkamp-Gorbatov, Decin 1996, with 12...d4 13 De2 Dad 14 0-0 Axb3 15 axb3 Dgé and stood comfortably, whereas in Knezevic-Smejkal, Smeder- evska Palanka 1971, play became com- plex after 12...Ad4 13 Bxd4 cxd4 14 De2 Wh6 15 0-0 dxe4 16 Ad? Bxfl+ 17 Wexfl 3 18 Des Ads 19 h4 gxh4 20 4, though Black emerged the winner in the end. Jonathan had a brainstorm. 13 Dd2 c4!? 14 dxc4 d4 15 Dad 15...xf2!? The Speelman cometh! 16 &xf2 Wad White has the exchange and a pawn more, but his game is all over the place and Black has terrific activity. 17 Bf1 2d7 18 Sgi De5 19 c3 &xad 20 cxd4 Or 20 Saxa4 dxc3 and ...d8 when White is under terrific pressure. 20...0d3 21 Wxg4?? Now Speelman quickly puts him away. 21 @xa4 was far more testing, 21.,.Wxd2 22 Wxe6+ h8 23 2xad Wxb2 24 Zad1 Wxd4+ 25 h1 Acé 26 Hd2 We3 27 2xc6 Wxd2 0-1 Highly original play by Black. The problem with £c4 in the preced- ing two games is that Black has not yet committed himself to ...d7-d6 and can therefore make the ...d7-d5 break in one move. In the remaining games of this chapter White delays committing his bishop until Black has played ...d7-d6 and this makes the whole 2c4 idea far more viable. Game 14 Chandler-Arnason Moscow 1990 1 e4 c5 2 Dc3 dé 3 f4 Dc6 4 AfZ g6 5 2c4 £97 60-0 e6 Recent practice has seen a great pref erence for this move over 6...\f6 and PigSicilian Grand Prix Attack now: a) Plaskett-Byrne, London 1990, con- tinued 7 d3 0-0 8 Wel e6 9 e5!? Ae8 9 Abd? Bd7 11 Det We7 12 Wh4 £5 13 Lxce Wxc6 14 Degs h6 15 2d2! with the advantage. b) White managed a standard kingside hack in Sorokin-Baburin, Voronezh 1988, with 8 f5!? gxfS (Weinzertl Szalanczy, Oberwart 1991, varied with 8...2a5 9 Wel Axc4 10 dxc4 e6 11 Wh4 Ad7 12 Bg5 f6 13 fxge hxg6 14 e3 We7 and the game was swiftly drawn) 9 Wel fxe4 10 dxe4 Sg4 11 24 Qxf3 12 Exf3 DAhS 13 Bes DeS 14 Eh3 Dxc4 15 Wh4 &d4+ 16 @h1 f6 17 Wxhs Bf7 18 Bh6 Ae5 19 Dd5 c4 20 c3 Bcd 21 Sl @h8 22 Hf5 e6 23 Bg5! 1-0. 75 7 dB is the subject of Games 18-22. 7...9xf5 Here Black is obliged to accept the pawn sacrifice with either 7...gxf5 or 7..exf5 (Games 15-17) as 7...Age7?! 8 fxe6 fxe6 (or 8...2xe6 9 Bxeb fxeb 10 Dg5) 9 Ags is troublesome and 7.246 8 d3 0-09 fxe6 fxe6 10 25 gives White the kind of attacking position on the kingside that he is striving for. 8 d3 Af6 9 exf5 0-0 10 a3 Chandler settles back into a middle- game where he is happy enough to have parted with his f-pawn in order to smash up the black kingside. 10...d5 11 Ra2 exf5 12 295 2e6 13 Wd2 De7 Extra padding for his king. 14 De2 An extra attacker for the opponent’s king. 14..2g6 15 Dg3 Wd 16 &xfé x6 17 Bhd Thus the knight arrives at its most menacing post, but to get it there White has had to give up his excellent dark- squared bishop. 17...2h8 18 Wh6 f6 19 Zae1 Zae8 281 e4 c5 2 Dc3 Dc6 3 f4 g6 4 Df3 Bg7 5 acd 20 c3 Zf7 21 d4 c4 22 2b1 Ws 23 Wd2 297 24 Wi2 %-% This game is perhaps not unrepresen- tative of the state of the gambit lines with Sc4 against the fianchetto in that Black, with accurate play, is not too seri- ously troubled. Game 15 Abramovic-Kozul Yugoslavia 1985 1 e4 c5 2 Dc3 Ac6 3 #4 dé 4 ALS g6 5 2c4 2g7 6 0-0 e6 7 £5 exf5 8 Wel Age7 9 d3 hé Castling lines his king up into the crossfire of the rook along the F-file, the queen, soon to arrive at h4, the one bishop down the a2-g8 diagonal and the other poised to join the attack at g5 or h6. Considering that the knight may also be arriving at d5 in some variations, one can understand Black’s reluctance to go that way, but not connecting your rooks has its problems too. One example of the perils of 9...0-0?! is Tarjan-Rattinger, Mayaguez 1971: 10 Wh4 Wd7 11 2h6 fxed 12 Dg5 We4?? 13 Ext? Wxh4 14 Bxg7+ Gh8 15 Bxh7 mate. 10 exf5 is seen in Game 17. 10...e5 11 &b5+? 11 Axe5 was better, as in the next main game. 11...2d7 12 Sf4 Kozul now hits upon an exchanging sequence that more than solves any problems he has. 12...0xf3+ 13 Exf3 fxc3 14 &xd7+ Wxd7 15 bxc3 g5! 16 242 £417 Wel 0-0-0 Of course this is by far the safest spot for the black king, 18 g3 fxg3 19 hxg3 Ac6 20 BS De5 21 We2 Ede8 22 d4 Ac6 23 Wd3 EHe7 24 dxe5 dxc5 25 Uxc5 Wg4 26 Bf1 Wxe4 27 Wxe4 Exe4 28 Exf7 Eds Nominally White has material equality but structurally he is very badly off in- deed. 29 3f2 &c7 30 c4 b6 31 EcfS Ded 32 cB Dg4 33 cxb6+ axb6 34 Xg2 Bed4 35 Hf7+ dc6 36 el Me8 0-1 Game 16 Hodgson-Malisauskas St Petersburg 1984 1 e4 c5 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 AZ 29Sicilian Grand Prix Attack Sig7 5 cd d6 6 d3 e6 7 15 exf5 8 0-0 Age7 9 We1 h6 10 Wg3 Bed 11 Axe5!? Another interesting idea. 11...2xe5 12 £4 &xf4 13 Bxta g5 14 Exf5!? Axf5 15 exf5 0-0 16 Ef1 Black has major, and possibly insuper- able problems. 16...WI6 17 Ded Wes 18 Wh3 dg7 19 f6+ &h7 20 WhS Ke6 21 Lxe6 fxe6 22 £7 Wdd+ 23 &h1 &g7 24 D6 Now the attack will be decisive. 24...Wh4 25 De8+ Lh7 26 We2 e5 27 g4 d5 28 Wxe5 Haxe8 29 Wi5+ 1-0 A game very much in the Hodgson style. Game 17 Hellers-Gelfand Novt Sad Olympiad 1990 1 e4 c5 2 Ac3 dé 3 £4 Ac6 4 AFB g6 5 &c4 2g7 6 0-0 eG 7 £5 exf5 8 d3 Dge7 9 Wet h6 10 exf5 Another weapon in the white arsenal, though not one that has enjoyed much success. 10..,2xf5 11 g4 Sxg4! 12 &xf7+ bxt7 13 De5+ bg8 14 Axgd 14...Dda! A stomping move! 14...A\f5? is obvi- ously met by 15 Bixf5! gxf5 16 Web+ @h7 17 Wxf5+ es 18 Ads Ad4 19 We6 with a vicious attack. However, 14...De5!? might also be worth a go. 15 We2 15 Wes Wd7 16 Ads Axd5 17 Wxd5+ We6 is no use. 15... Qdf5 Another minor piece nearer to the king is always a help when the opponent has a glimmer of attacking play. 16 Wg2 Wd7 17 Ded On 17 &f4 Black might try 17...h5!? 17...0f8 18 c3 b6 19 2f4 d5 20 Dd2 d4 21 Ded g5 22 Le xed 301 e4 c5 2 Ac3 Dc6 3 f4 g6 4 Af3 Bg7 5 Ac4 23 DxedS Web 24 Ag4 dxc3 Despite his extra pawn Gelfand strives not for simplicity but for the very sharp- est lines almost every time. 25 Hae1 Wc6 26 bxc3 &g7 Gelfand carefully sidesteps any poten- tially embarrassing knight checks on the f6-square. 27 d4 Dg6 28 dxc5 bxc5 29 W2 Dd4 30 Deté Both 30 We3 Ac2 and 30 Agfo Af4 are decisive. 30...h5! Wrapping it up. 31 cxd4 Alternatively, 31 He7+ Dxe7 32 Axh5+ Sg6 33 AeS+ BxhS and wins, or 31 Axh5+ Bxh5 32 Be7+ kegs 33 Wxf8+ Axf8 34 Afo+ Bh wins, or in this line if 33 Dfo+ Bh8 34 cxd4 Af4 wins. 31...hxg4 32 Ae8+ Wxe8 0-1 Theoretically this was an important game and the imaginative manner of Black’s victory also tells you why Kas- parov predicted before the 1991-1993 World Championship cycle that Gelfand would be his challenger. But Nigel Short eliminated him, in part due to the Grand Prix Attack (see Game 20)! Game 18 Spangenberg-Ftacnik Moscow Olympiad 1994 1 e4 cB 2 Dc3 dé Fracnik readies his standard Najdorf. Preparing for him is simple because you can always be sure what he is going to do. 3 f4 g6 4 Df3 &g7 5 cd e6 6 0-0 De7 7 d3 Abc 8 £5 dS 8...exf5 9 Wel transposes back to Games 15-17 and 8...gx{5 is risky be- cause of 9 g5, while in the recent rapidplay game Rogers-Ftacnik, Znojmo 1999, Black experimented with 8...0-09 fxe6 (perhaps 9 fxg6l?) 9...Axe6 10 xeb fxe6 and was ultimately victorious. 9 2b3 dxed 9...gxf5 10 exd5 &xc3 11 bxc3 Axd5 12 Wel yields White fine play and in Kraus-Pick, Dortmund 1993, he went on to win after 12...h6 13 De5 Axed 14 Wre5 Whe 15 Exf5! Wxe5 16 Exe5 {6 17 Eh5 Axc3 18 Hf2 Bd7 19 Bxcd etc. 10 fxg6!? A startling novelty! 10 {6 &xf6 11 Axet Be7 12 Bg5 5 13 AQ OO 14 Wel, as in SilvaHar Zvi, Barcelona 37Sicilian Grand Prix Attack 1993, should be good for Black. 10...exf3_ 11 gxf7+ Sf8 12 Wxt3 Wad4a+ After 12...d4 13 Wh5 Aef5 14 Aes White has good compensation. Ftacnik sends the queen off to sort things out via recurrent exchanging opportunities. 13 &h1 Ded 14 We2 On 14 Wh5 Wed is irritating. 14...Wg4 Or 14...0f5 15 Db5 and the band plays on. 15 Wf2 b6 16 h3 Wg6 17 2f4 &b7 Sensibly developing another piece (17...A\xf7?? loses to 18 Wf3!). 18 Hael c4 Yet another example of this blocking sacrifice against the bishop on b3. eT a. i a Bi PS 19 dxc4 I am intrigued by 19 Exe5!? when 19...&.xe5? 20 &xe5 picks up the rook at +8. Ftacnik gave reams of analysis here- abouts and suggested 19...cxb3 20 axb3 £5, but I would then like to follow up with 21 Ae4!? with great complications. 19...2Dxf7 Black must have been very glad to see the back of that guy. 20 bs?! A mistaken escapade, but that is ob- served very much in retrospect. On 20 c5!? the defence 20...3.d4!? 21 &h6+! (a very useful finesse for it makes the king occupy the g8-square and thus prevents the rook from going there) 21...2g8 22 Be3 Qxc3 23 bxc3 AS 24 Qt4 Hes was proposed, but I am far from con- vinced that White is worse were he to substitute 24 cxb6!? in this line. 20...2f5!! Whilst organising his defences, Ftac- nik cunningly weaves a counterattack. 21 Dc7 Bes! I should think that this came as a sur- prise. 22 Dxe8 Too late to back out. On 22 c3 He7 23 24 e5 wins. 22...2d4! Suddenly it becomes clear who is the attacker, 23 Wd2 On 23 We2 Sg8 the attack on g2 will decide, viz. 24 @c7 Bxg2+ 25 dh? e5! 26 cS Axft 27 Hxfl Be3! 28 Axed @xe5 and Black wins. 23...0g8 24 He2 Wg3!! 0-1 Yj @ ont peste a oe jad Now 25 &xg3 Axg3+ 26 dh? xf + 27 Gh1 ADxd?2 28 Bxd? Hixg?! 29 Exg2 Gxe8; or 25 Wh4+ cS 26 321 e4 c5 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 t4 g6 4 Af3 Ag7 5 Ac4 Wxe5+ bxc5 27 Axg3 Axg3+ 28 eh? Axfl+ 29 Sgt Sxe8; or 25 Wxd4 Wxh3+ 26 Bh2 Bxg?+; or 25 Bho+ exe8 26 B.a4+ Be7 all win for Black. A stunning finale. Game 19 Short-Oll Tallinn/Parnu 1998 1 e4 c5 2 Dc3 dé 3 £4 Ac6 4 AFB 96 5 2c4 &g7 6 0-0 e6 7 d3 Age7 8 Wel 0-07! It is risky for Black to castle too early in this line. For 8...0d4 see Game 20 and for 8...h6 see Games 21 and 22. 9 £5 d5 9...exf5? 10 Wh4 is suicidal. 10 &b3 c4 After 10...dxe4 11 dxe4 gxf5 12 Wh4 White gets his standard kingside attack. 11 dxc4 11...d4 Or 11...dxc4 dxe4 12 f6 &xfo 13 Axed Qg7 14 c5 We7 15 Wh4 f6 16 Sf Wa5 17 &d2 with a very active po- sition for White in Hracek-Wahls, Ger- man Bundesliga 1996. 12 6 &xf6 13 e5 White clears the e4-square with gain of tempo and now hasa very dangerous attack. 13...5ig7 Understandably, Black wishes to keep the dark-squared bishop. 13...2.xe5 leaves White with all the chances. He has good attacking chances against Black’s weakened kingside and if that doesn’t come off, he has a back-up plan of using the bishop pair in the endgame. Practice has seen 14 ADxe5 dxc3 15 Wxc3 Axe5 16 Wxe5 DES 17 c3 (this move, prevent- ing the exchange of queens with ..Wid4+, seems best) 17...{6 and now: a) 18 We2 e5 19 c5+ sg7 20 WK2 Wc7 21 h3 b6 22 24 De7 White now founda beautiful finish: 23 Bh6 +! doxh6 24 p54 dexg5 (24...997 25 gxfo+ dh8 26 fxe7 wins and so the black king is lured to its doom) 25 We3-+ wh4 26 Wh6+ seg3 27 Kael 1-0 Berz- insh-Jaracz, Swidnica 199. 27...265 is met by 28 Sxf5 and mate quickly fol- lows. b) 18 Wed Who+ 19 Hf2 &g7 20 gt Ddé 21 We3 Web 22 g5 15 23 Wes+ sbg8 24 @e3 AM 25 Wh5 and White had all the chances in Macieja-Ftacnik, Krynica 1998. 14 Ded AxeS5 15 Axe5 Axe5 16 33Sicilian Grand Prix Attack gs White has a terrifying attack. 16...15 17 Wha Bf7 18 Dte+ This leads to a clear plus for White but in his notes to this game Short indi- cates that 18 ¢5!? was also very promis- ing. 18...2xf6 Black must eliminate one of White’s attacking units. 18...h8 turned out badly in the encounter Mitkov- Stefansson, Hartberg 1991, e.g. 19 Lael Wa5? (this loses a piece; Black had to try 19..,S2d6) 20 Aga! @g7 21 &xe7 We7 22 Bd8 Wed 23 Ale h6 24 Des WHS 25 DeS Afo 26 c5 Bd7 27 Bc7 Wxcd 28 B05 1-0. 19 Axfé WI8 20 2xd4 Ac6 21 2e3 We7 22 Wxe7 Bxe7 Thanks to his accurate defence Black has avoided immediate loss but still has a very poor endgame in which White’s bishop pair and active position give him all the play. 23 c5? see following diagram ‘As Short points out, White's best plan was 23 &p5 He8 24 Badl 05 25 c+ Seb 26 Bd7. oe Beat bs Hota” fem get ‘aoe as 23...2g7? Oll misses his chance. With 23...2a5, eliminating White's bishop pair, he would have obtained good drawing chances, e.g. 24 Bad1 @xb3 25 Hd8+ {7 26 cxb3 Hd7 27 Edi Bxdi+ 28 Exd1 &e8 and White’s initiative is fiz- zling out. 24 2g5 He8 25 Had1 h6 26 2d2 e5 27 &c3 Now White is back on track. 27...2e6 28 &xe6 Exe6 29 Ed7+ He7 30 Xxe7+ Axe7 31 2xe5+ Lf7 32 Hd1 Ac6 33 &c7 ae a Ee as PRig ‘es ie White is a good pawn up and Short does not allow his opponent any further chances. 33...Be8 34 &f2 He7 35 £d6 Bea 341 e4 c5 2 Bc3 Ac6 3 f4 g6 4 Df3 hg7 5 Ac4 36 c3 a5 37 b3 a4 38 &c7 He7 39 b6 axb3 40 axb3 £4 41 b4 Ae5 42 &d8 He8 43 Sc7 &f6 44 &xe5+ Bxe5 45 EHd7 He3 46 c4 Ec3 47 Exb7 Exc4 48 e2 Hc2+ 49 dd3 Hxg2 50 c6 #e6 51 bd f3 52 c7 &d7 53 b6 1-0 Inthe remaining games of this chapter we see White refraining from an early f4- £5 gambit, preferring a slower build-up. Game 20 Short-Gelfand Brussels Candidates Quarter-Final 1991 1 ed cS 2 Ac3 d6 3 f4 Acé6 4 AB 96 5 aca Never before seen in such a high-level event. 5...297 6 0-0 e6 7 d3 Dge7 8 Wel Ada This treatment has become quite popular. 9 Axd4 cxd4 10 De2 10...0-0 Now itis safe for Black to castle. Note that 10...d5?! is premature because of 11 Sb5+, as after 11..2d7 12 Qxd7+ Wxd7 13 e5 Dc6 14 bé! Black cannot hang on to the advanced d-pawn for long, 11 &b3 So that ...d6-d5 does not arrive with tempo and can thus be met by e4-e5. 11...Dc6 Aiming to knock out the bishop from a5. In his notes Short suggests 11...f5!? with similar play to Game 22. 12 &d2 d5 12....$d7 13 @h1 also slightly favours White, while after 12...a5 13 a4 Wb6 14 Wh4 White can prepare the usual assault. 13 e5! £6 14 exf6 2xf6 15 eh! Vacating gl so that the knight can head for e5. 15...a5 An annoying little move which de- mands an accurate response. 16 a4 Precise. On 16 a3 a4 17 S.a2 Wb6! 18 Eb1 Wc5 19 Hcl Wb6, so you see the problem. 16...Wd6 The latent dangers for Black are re- vealed in a line like 16...Wb6 (a bit fur- ther away from the king) 17 {5! when either 17...gxf5 18 Af4 or 17...exf5 18 We3 exposes him to a powerful white 35Sicilian Grand Prix Attack initiative. Boris sensibly stays more cen- tral. 17 Dgi! Bd7 18 Af3 Dba Gelfand banks on a queenside counter demonstration, as per usual in the Sicil- ian, but he would probably have done better to try to challenge in the centre with 18...Eae8. After the game move Short manoeuvres adroitly to defend the queen’s flank whilst building up for an attacking breakthrough. 19 W2! We5 20 2c3! Acé 21 Haet b6 22 &d2 Ab4? Quite wrong. Black underestimates the threats and takes away an important defender. 22...Kae8 was called for. 23 Wg3! Gelfand’s idea is perhaps revealed in the line 23 Ae5? Bxe5 24 Exe5 Axc2! 25 Hcl Wdé, threatening to take on e5. 23...b5 24 £5! exf5 Or 24...bxa4 25 fxg6 axb3 26 gxh7+ and the attack is decisive after either 26...€2h8 27 De5 or 26...dexh7 27 DeS+ Sixes 28 Wxp5. 25 Ded 2e8 On 25...S.xe5 26 WxeS Eae8 White knocks the props out of Black’s game with 27 &.xb4, but the best defence was 25..Ja7! when White would retain a big plus with 26 D\xd7 Bxd7 27 Bxf5. 26 axb5 Wxb5 27 ExfS Ghs 28 Exf6! Smashing his way in, 28...2xf6 29 Dg4 Ef5 30 Ah6 Sh5 31 Wf4 1-0 A very fine game by Short. Game 21 Anand-Gelfand Reggio Emilia 1991/92 1 e4 cB 2 Dc3 d6 3 £4 Ac6 4 AFZ g6 5 S8c4 &g7 6 0-0 6 7 d3 Age7 8 Wet hé!? A novelty. One glance at the white formation reveals where he has ambi- tions, so Gelfand does not castle yet. But the question now arises as to how safe his short castled king could ever be!? 9 &b3 The following year at Wijk aan Zee Sax chose 9 Wg3 against Gelfand but after 9...d5 10 &b3 0-0 he was too pre- cipitate in throwing in 11 f5 (11 Wh4 £5 would have been about equal) and after 11...dxe4 12 dxe4 exf5 13 Wh4 fxe4 14 Dxe4 Af5 Black came out on top. Soon afterwards, at Linares 1992, Short tried 9 S.d2 0-0 10 2b3 d5 11 Edi £5 12 exfs exfS 13 @h1 a6 14 @e2, but he did not obtain much from the opening either. Boris obviously believes in this forma- tion for Black. 9...a6! see following diagram 9...0-0 would allow the usual 10 £5! exf5 11 Wh4 with strong attack, while 9...2\d4 is considered in the next main game. 361 e4c8 2 Ac3 DAc6 3 f4 96 4 At3 2g7 5 acd 10 a4!? It is a moot point whether White should take time out to clamp down on Black’s queenside aspirations or just get on with it on the kingside. There are wo ways for White to attack: a) 10 e5!? 4MF5 (it is risky to accept the pawn sacrifice with 10..dxe5 11 fxe5 @xe5 12 DxeS Wd4+ 13 Bh1 Wxes because of Anand’s 14 Wf2!) 11 @hi and now the safest way for Black to play is to close the position with 11...d5 (after 11...Mfd4 12 Ae4 Dxf3+ 13 Hxf3 ded 14 fxe5 Axe5 15 Hfl White had good attacking chances for the pawn in An- and-Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee 1996) 12 e2 h5 13 c3 b6 with equality in Khalifman-Van Wely, European Club Cup 1999. b) 10 Sd? b5 11 f5!? gxf5 12 h4 and now the game Sutovsky-Psakhis, Tel Aviv 1999, went 12...f4 13 &xf4 Des 14 We3 eS 15 Bhi We7 16 Al3 Bhs 17 Wh3 with a promising position for White. Perhaps either 12...fxe4 or 12...b4 would have been more of a test of White’s idea. Shortly after that game Sutovsky varied with 11 @h4 b4 12 Ad1 against Gelfand at Tel Aviv, but this en- counter does not tell us much as the players agreed a draw here! 10...2b8 11 Wg3 After 11 Ad1 b5 12 axb5 axb5 13 @f2 0-0 14c3 b4 Black quickly got going on the queenside in J.Polgar-Gelfand, Pamplona 1999/2000. 11...2d4 Structurally this does compromise Black a little. The immediate 11...b5! was probably better and this idea received a practical test in the game Belotti- Novikov, St Vincent open 1998, which continued 12 axb5 axb5 13 £5?! exf5 14 8.4 c4! and Black quickly assumed the initiative. 12 Dxd4 cxd4 13 De2 bS 14 axbd axb5 15 Wt2 Some restraint is required. 15 £53! is over the top and the line 15...exf5 16 &.f4 Bb6 17 5 only blows up in White’s face after 17...5! 18 h4 Dgé 19 hxgs dxe5. 15...Wb6 16 £5 Now he kicks off. 16...exf5 17 exf5 gxf5 18 2g3?! Anand seems unsure of which specific targets he is going after over the next few moves. 18 Z\f4 was better. 18...i€5 19 2f4 2e6 20 Bae1 Wc7 21 Dhs? 37Sicilian Grand Prix Attack Probably missing the efficacy of the reply. 22 We2! was simpler and stronger with Black having dismal prospects whichever way he chooses to give back the central pawn, e.g, 21...<8d7 22 @xe5 dxe5 23 Wxe5 Wxe5 24 Hixe5 and he still has lots of weaknesses. 21...d7! Necessity is the mother of invention! Atany rate the knight on h5 is not at its most dangerous post, so Black at least has a prayer. 22 He2 Sbf8! On 22.,.g6?! 23 We3 is awkward. 23 2xe6+?! But this is not the right way to pursue the advantage. 23 Efel! was correct after which Black cannot reach equality, e.g. 23...2e6 24 Ag3 with a powerful attack, or 23...Dg6 24 Wes Dxf4 25 Dxfs Hhgs 26 Wha! Hed 27 Wxh6 Bh8 28 Sxeb+ ded8 29 Wxh8+ 2xh8 30 &xf5 Eg8 31 Ad5 with pressure. 23...fxe6 24 c3 Axf4 25 Dxf4 e5! Gelfand fights him off with fierce in- genuity. 26 Hfe1 Ef7 27 AhS dxe3 28 d4 Wb6! 29 bxc3 HcB 30 dxe5 Wxf2+ 31 cxf2 dxe5 32 Hd1+ %e6 33 Ath+ S16 34 Ed6+ Sg7 35 Exe5 35...Ag8! One final moment of accuracy secures the draw. Instead 35...&xc3? would have lost to 36 Ah5 +, e.g, 36...82g8 37 Hd8-+ Hf8 38 Afo+ ef7 39 Hxf8+ exf8 40 Exe7! or 36...2h7 37 Bd7 Hg6 38 Df4+ bys 39 Ads! Hc2+ 40 Gg3 Dc6 41 Eixf7 Dxed 42 Bg7+ Gh5 43 Afo mate. 36 ExbS Df6 37 &f1 Axc3 38 Bxf5 4c1+ 39 be2 He7+ 40 De6+ &g6 Not 40...c#f7? 41 dd2 winning. 41 Be5 Bc8 42 Be3 Bce8 43 &d3 Hd7 44 Bg3+ &h7 %-% Game 22 Topalov-Van Wely Wijk aan Zee 1996 1 e4 c5 2 De3 d6 3 £4 Ac6 4 AZ 96 5 2c4 2g7 6 0-0 e6 7 d3 Age7 8 Wel h6 9 &b3 Dd4 Something of a blend of the last two examples. 10 Dxd4 cxd4 11 De2 0-0 12 Sh1 Amongst other purposes this move vacates g1 for the knight. 12...f5 This is by no means forced, and in- deed constitutes a weakening, but it does have the virtue of holding things up fora 381 e4c5 2 Bc3 Ac6 3 f4 96 4 AF3 &g7 5 &c4 while on the kingside. The alternative 12...d5 13 e5 leads to very similar play to Game 20. 13 Dg1 Bh8 14 Af3 d7 15 2d2 Hc8 16 Wg3 fxe4 17 dxe4 d5 Had he not played the earlier ...£7-£5 then some such resolution of the central tension might have worked out, but as it is Van Wely’s position is soon riddled with vulnerable points. 18 exd5 exdS 19 Dh4 £6 20 Af3 tS 21 W2 2b5 22 Bfet 2c4 23 Axd4 Wb6 24 c3 Dxd4 25 2e3 Ht7 26 &xc4 dxc4 27 Had1 4e8 28 &xd4 Exe1+ 29 Wxel &xd4 30 Bxd4 see following diagram ‘As mentioned, the weak spots in Black's camp prevent him from reaching equality, and even in this simplified set- ting his king is not safe. 30...lWixb2 31 h3 Luft. 31...Wb5 32 We6 &g7 33 Axc4 h5 34 a4 Wb1+ 35 &h2 Wc1 36 We5+ &h7 37 Wd5 He7 38 Wd4 27 39 Wxa7! Wet 40 Wg1 We2 41 Waa Wil 42 Eb4 Be7 43 We Zg7 44 Bea Wt2 45 Wd4 Wc2 46 Ke5 Wa2 47 We4 &h6 48 He8 &h7 49 Zits 547 50 Bb8 1-0 39Sicilian Grand Prix Attack Summary White’s rather crude attack based on &c4 has been causing problems for Black for many years. Although this plan is frowned upon at the highest levels there are nu- merous examples of Black being obliterated on the kingside in under 30 moves. Even players as strong as Boris Gelfand have succumbed to White’s onslaught. Having said that, the most promising version of this attack by far is when Black commits himself to ...d6 at an early stage (this is something that diehard Najdorf players often do when meeting 2 c3, as 2...’c6 3 DF3 - intending 3 d4— can em- barrass them). The lines where Black plays ...e7-e6, and then ...d7-d5 in one go (Games 12-13) are more than satisfactory for the second player. 1e4c5 2 Ac3 2...d6 2...c6 3 £4 26 4 DE3 Bg7 5 Bcd eb 6 £5 Dge? 7 fxeb fxe6 8 d3 (D) 8...d5 - Game 12; 8...0-0 - Game 13 3 £4 Dc6 4 Df3 g6 5 Bcd 2g7 6 0-0 e6 7 d3 7 £5 (D) 7...xt5 - Game 14 7..exf5 8 Wel Age7 9 d3 ho 10 We3 Ded 11 Bb5+ - Game 15; 11 Axe5 - Game 16 10 exf5- Game 17 7...ge7 8 Wet (D) 8 £5 - Game 18 8...n6 8...0-0 - Game 19 8...Dd4 - Game 20 9 2b3 a6 9...Dd4 - Game 22 10 a4 - Game 21 40CHAPTER THREE 1 e4 c5 2 Ac3 Acé 3 £4 e6 4 Af3 WD OO! 1 e4.c5 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 f4 e6 4 DIB If as Black you are happy with White taking play into a Sicilian Taimanov via an early d2-d4, then this is a quite repu- table response to the Grand Prix Attack. Most obviously if Black springloads his d-pawn with ...e7-e6 then there is a natu- ral deterrence to White developing his bishop on one of its most threatening squares, c4, because of being straight- away hit with ...d7-d5 in response. The material in this chapter breaks down as follows: 4...d5 5 &b5 and now 5...Af6 is seen in Games 23-26 while 5...De7 is the subject of Games 27-31. ‘The more circumspect 4...\ge7 is seen in Games 32-36 and, finally, the unusual 4.,.2M6 is tried in Game 37. Game 23 Plaskett-Velimirovic Belgrade 1988 1 e4 c5 2 Ac3 Dc 3 f4 e6 4 DNB d5 4..Dge7 is seen in Games 32-36, while 4...Af6 is Game 37. After 4...06 White’s best choice is probably to trans- pose to a Closed Sicilian in which the move ...a7-a6 is not particularly useful for Black with 5 g3 as 5 a4 dS is harm- less. 4..Wc7!? is rarely seen, but White would probably have nothing beter than transposition to an Open Sicilian with 5 4. 5 2bd ATE 5,..A\e7 is the subject of Games 27-31. The alternatives are: 4) 5...a6 provokes amove White wants to play anyway and Black fell well short of equality in Portisch-Pomar, Malaga 41Sicilian Grand Prix Attack 1961, after 6 2xc6+ bxe6 7 d3 Dfe 8 0-0 2e7 9 Wel 0-0 10 b3 We7 11 “a4, b) 5...dxe4 6 2xc6+ bxc6 7 Axet )f6 8 We2, as in Maahs-Bach, Hamburg 1994, is better for White. 6) 5..d4 6 &xc6+ bxc6 7 Abi 2a6 8 d3 c4 9 0-0 Df6, as in G.Ginsburg- V.Baklan, Cappelle la Grande 1997, when White could have maintained a slight edge with 10 b3 c3 11 Hel accord- ing to Baklan. 6 We2 White has a wide choice here between the game move, 6 Ae5 (Game 24), 6 d3 (Game 25) and 6 e5 (Game 26). Finally, in Sarapu-Helmers, from the New Zea- land-Norway match of the 1984 Olym- piad, White took straightaway on c6 and after 6 &xc6+ bxc6 7 We2 Be7 8 0-0 0.0 9 Sh1 (9 d3 is more natural) 9...c4 10 e5 Dd7 11 b3 Db6l? 12 WA2 c5 13 Sa} Bab 14 bxc4 Hc8 they split the point. 6...2.e7 70-0 White has two main alternatives here: a) Things rapidly came to the boil in Storm-Bern, Biel open 1989, after 7 Lxc6+ bxc6 8 d3 B.a6 9 &5 Ad7 100-0 We7 11 f5!? exf5 12 e6 fxe6 13 Wxe6 MB 14 Wxf5 Qc8 15 Wh5+ 26 16 Whé, but Black scrambled out to an eventual draw. b) In Hebden-Franco, Calella open 1985, White did not time things quite right and he was repulsed after 7 ‘Ae5 Wc7 8 &xc6+ bxcb 9 b3 c4! 100-0 Ba6 11 bxc4 &.b4! 12 BF3? (12 exd5 was bet- ter, but Black is doing fine) 12...0-0 13 Eb1 and here 13...8xc3 was good. Franco chose 13...ab8 instead, but won, at move 33. 7...0-0 8 &xc6 bxc6 9 d3 Y Ws logy Uy 9...a51? A novelty - and an interesting one too. In Bilek-Stein, Kecskemet 1968, Black flicked in 9...c4! and soon stood better after 10 d4 Axe4 11 Axe4 dxe4 12 Wxe4 Wd5. Since 10 dxc4 26 11 b3 S.b4 is also satisfactory, this is probably Black’s best line. 10 &d2 a4 11 DeS We7 12 =f3 De8!? 13 Ze1 Adé A noteworthy regrouping. 14 Bh3 g6 Thad assumed that this sort of mid- dlegame was just worse for Black with his cumbersome c-pawns, but Velimi- rovic changed my mind that afternoon as I realised that Black might have a com- pletely viable game. Eventually I hit 42upon a retreat of the well placed knight at e5 as the best way forward. 15 Agal? £51? I was under the impression that my last move had prevented this. 16 Ah6+ &g7 17 exd5 2f6!? By unpinning the e-pawn he now threatens to take back on d5, and I real- ised how the knight on hé is a bit out of it. 18 dxe6 Sxe6!? 19 Wxe6 Zae8 20 Ad5S No choice. I was still bewildered as to what he was up to. 20...2d4+ On 20...Wd8 White bails out with 21 Axo! Bxfo 22 23. 21 of1 21,..Wd8?7 So this was his idea. There is a rather large hole in it. However, after 21...cxd5 22 Wxd5 &xb2 he would have had some compensation due to the awkward knight at h6. 22 De7 "There was a notable change in my op- ponent’s demeanour after this move ap- peared on the board, since now he is clearly busted. 22...216 23 We2 &xb2 24 c3 c4 25 1 e4 c5 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 f4 e€6 4 AZ We5 Ded 26 Sxed fxed 27 Aga Wxe7 28 Exh7+ 1-0 Game 24 Watson-Kupreichik Hastings 1984/85 1 e4 c5 2 Dc3 e6 3 f4 dd 4 ATS Dc6 5 2b5 AE 6 Ded 6...c7 6..d7 was played in Nun- Morawietz, Oberwart open 1992, when after 7 2xc6 Oxc6 8 Dxc6 bxeb 9 d3 Who 10 We2 Se7 11 b3 00 12 Dat We7 White ought to have kept a small edge with 13 c4, 7 WE Or7 We2 Be7 8 0-00-09 &xcb bxc6 and now: a) 10 d3 and: al) 10...2a6 occurred in Villareal- Miola, Lucerne Olympiad 1982, and Black ingeniously liquidated his weak pawns after 11 b3 &d6 12 83 Hfds 13 Dg Axed! 14 Axes dxet 15 Wre4 c4! with approximate equality, since 16 &xd6 Exd6 threatens 17...f5 and hence White has no time to take on c4. a2) In Safranska-Kruppa, Berlin 1994, Black varied by starting the transfer of 43Sicilian Grand Prix Attack his knight, 10...e8 11 &d2 Ado 12 Eael f6 13 Df3 Bd7 14 b3 Abs 15 Dat @d4 16 Wdi Ead8 with chances for both sides. b) In Watson-Spraggett, Common- wealth Championship 1995, White played 10 b3 but Kevin Spraggett turned in a marvellous performance to extract the maximum from the latent potential of his pieces: 10...c4!? 11 bxc4 &b4 12 exd5 cxd5 13 exd5 exd5 14 @b2 He8 15 Gh Bb7 16 a3 Bc5 17 Wd3 Bad8 18 Eab1 Wc8!? 19 Abs d4!? 20 Axd4 Was and Black went on to win. 7...a6 8 2xc6+ bxc6 9 0-0 2d6 10 d3!? In Tseshkovsky-Sveshnikov, Sochi 1980, White chose the quite unnatural 10 Dd3?! and after 10...04 11 Det 0-0 12 d3 cxd3 13 cxd3 &e7 Black’s problems were behind him. But to avoid such a positionally undesirable retreat White has to allow, for a couple of moves, a gam- bit. In my opinion Kupreichik ought to have grabbed it and tried to weather the storm of his queen being kicked around, but ceding the opponent the initiative is not to his taste. 10...0-0 11 @h1 a5 12 2d2 £a6 13 Afet Now the pawn is no longer there for the winning. 13,..Bad8 14 Bad1 c4 Trying to do something. 15 dxc4 dxe4 16 Wg3 Watson, whose style of play was once described by Spassky as that of ‘a drunk machine gunner’, lines up an attack. 16...@h8 17 Df3! An excellent stratagem, made all the more admirable because it involves the retreat of a well-placed piece. 17.,.Sb4 Grabbing a pawn here fails to 17...2h5? 18 Wh4 xf4? 19 Ags h6 20 Axf4 Qxf4 21 Axi7+. 18 Dgs5 Eda Kupreichik flails around in search of active play, but the long-term strategical factors are against him, and, as so often in these lines, his queen bishop is dread- ful. 19 e5 Dg8 20 Wi2 Bd7 21f5 Here we go. 21...h6 22 £6! g6 On 22...hxg5 23 &xg5 the attack crashes through. Kupreichik does his best to keep White’s pieces away from his king for as long as possible, but Wil- 44liam gets it in the end. 23 Wh4 Bfd8 24 Df3 Ate In addition to his space advantage and attack White also has a big strategical plus. 25 Ded c3 The only hope is to get the light- squared bishop working. 26 bxe3 c5 27 Eb1! 2b7 It will enjoy only a brief influence upon events. 28 Exb7! Wxb7 29 Dxc5! Wd5 On 29.,.2xe5 30 &xh6 does him in. 30 Axd7 Hxd7 31 64 Now Watson makes no mistake in winning this won game. 31...WeS 32 a4 h5 33 Hb1 2h6 34 Axh6 Axh6 35 Wa Dgs 36 h3 We 37 cS He7 38 DgS Dn6 39 Dea &g8 40 g4 Wa8 41 Sh2 &h7 42 DgS+ &g8 43 Ded &h7 44 gxhd 245 45 hxg6+ fxg6 46 Ag5+ ehs 47 2xe6 3c6 48 Wed Wc8 49 Wxc6! Wxc6 50 Bb8+ 1-0 Game 25 Adams-Lautier Chalkidiki 1992 1 e4 cS 2 Dc3 e6 3 £4 dd 4 AB 1 e4 c5 2 Ac3 cb 3 4 06 4 AF3 D6 5 2b5+ Ac6 6 d3 A relatively rare move. 6...50e7 In Langner-Polasek, Czech Champi- onship 1995, Black replied 6...2.d7!? and after 7 0-0 d4!? 8 Ae? 7 had interest- ing prospects. 7 Sxc6+ bxc6 8 0-0 2a6 Lautier attempts a finesse to assist with the dissolution of his two c-pawns. After 8...0-0 9 b3 White stands well. In- stead he played 9 &d2 in Hug-Gligoric, Skopje 1972, and after 9...2a6 10 €5 Dd? 11 Wel d4 12 Ae4 c4 13 Ba5 Ab 14 dxc4 &xc4 Black was better. In Nar- cisco-Ochoa de Echaguen, Spanish Championship 1993, 9 “e5 was played and following 9...Wc7 10 Wel De8! 11 45Sicilian Grand Prix Attack BEB f6 12 Ded c4!? 13 Bh3 £5 14 Ded cxd3 15 cxd3 £f6 play was obscure, but White delivered later mate on g7. 905 9 We2 is another approach. 9...Ad7 10 b3 c4 11 dxc4 dxc4 12 Bel The doubled pawns have gone, but not all of Black’s headaches have gone with them. He still has anumber of weak squares in his camp. 12...Ab6 13 He4 0-0 14 Re3 Add 15 Wd2 Dxe3 16 Wxe3 Whe 17 Had1 The d6-square is weak. 17...Bfd8 18 Ad6 cxb3 19 axb3 h6 20 Ed2 c5 Electing to pursue equality in a mid- dlegame. 21 Hed1 2b7 22 &h1 With his monster knight at dé White is always going to be better. 22...206 23 Bd3 2b5 Forcing a slight weakening of b3, but this does not matter much. 24 c4 2a6 25 f5! Michael gets on with it. 25...exf5 26 Axf5 Web On 26...S2f8 27 Bxd8 Bxd8 28 Bxd8 Wxd8 29 e6 White’s domination and absence of pawn weaknesses cede him the advantage. 27 Dd6 &e7 Or 27...Rxd6 28 Exd6 Hxd6 29 Sxd6 Wc8 30 HS and the weak c-pawn falls anyway. 28 Wxc5 2b7 29 WF2 Bad8 30 Dd4! This tactic is decisive. 30...Wxe5 Or 30...Wg6 31 Wxf7+! Wxf7 32 Dxf7 Gexf7 33 e6+ and wins. 31 Axf7 &xg2+ Desperation. 32 Wxg2 &xf7 33 Acé Web 34 Dxd8+ ExdB 35 Wi2+ 1-0 Game 26 Bangiev-Tukmakov Ukraine 1979 1 04 c5 2 f4 Ac6 3 D3 e6 4 Dc3 d5 5 &b5 D6 6 e5 Also not so common although, natu- rally, viable. 6...Dd7 Or 6...Dg8 7 &xc6+ bxc6 and now: a) Play became very sharp in Kosten- Gurgenidze, Palma 1989, 8 d3 Ah6 9 0-0 F510 Ae2 c4 11 g4 exd3 12 cxd3 Dh4 13 Dg3 Who+ 14 Shi Axf3 15 Wxh3 h5P 16 gxhS c5 but Kosten weathered the storm to emerge victori- ous in the end, b) Mitkov-Velimirovic, Venjacka Banja 1991, varied with 8 b3 2a6 9 d3 Dh 10 0-0 c4 and was later drawn. The game Horvath-Jovanovic, Budapest 1996, might have thrown more light on this line had the players not agreed to a draw here. 7 &xc6 461 e4 c5 2 Bc3 Dc6 3 f4 e6 4 D3 This has to be the most consequent move. In Rumens-Denman, British Championship 1980, White castled and went on to standa little better after 7 0-0 Re7 8 Wel (not 8 e2?! Wh6 9 Bxc6 4+! 10 &h1 bxc6 and Black stood fine in Lindberg-Karlsson, Stockholm 1992) 8...0-0 9 We3 Wh8 (9...Ab4!?) 10 d3 Db4 11 Hf2 a6 12 Qxd7 Bxd7 13 b3, but since he parted with the bishop any- way it must make more sense for the bishop to double Black’s pawns as it goes. But in J.Martin-Lobron, Gran Ca- naria 1990, Black avoided the doubling of his pawns and started active opera- tions immediately with 7..Ad4 8 2a4 Wa5. After 9 &xd7+ 2xd7 10 eh1 DFS 11 d3 h5 12 Ae? h4 13 c3 @bS 14 We2 Wa 15 Bdi d4! 16 cxd4 Bc6!? 17 dxc5 0-0-0!? he had seized the initiative. 7...bxe6 8 0-0!? Interesting. White permits the undou- bling of the pawns by ...c5-c4 but hopes to make something of a general loose- ness in the black camp, plus the space advantage that the e5-pawn confers, to generate attacking play. In Nordstrom- L.A.Schneider, Stockholm 1988, the game was unclear after 8 d3 @e7 9 b3 0-0 10 0-0 {6 11 2b2 fxe5 12 fxeS We8!? 13 Wd2 Ba6 14 Bhi WhS 15 De2 Hab8. CamporaSahovic, Panchevo 1985, varied with 10...f5 when Sahovie manoewvred skilfully in the middlegame, advancing his a-pawn to exchange it off at b3 and also swivelling his bishop via 8 to h5, as ina Dutch Defence. But the rigidity of the structure meant that the man with the knight pair was always likely to stand better and White won in the end. Something similar occurred in Keitlinghaus-Pekarek, Prague 1992, with 9 0-0 0-0 10 Wel Kb8 11 b3 f5 12 2a3 E713 Dad h6 14 4 g5, but that time Black managed to draw. 8...c4 9 b3 Ra 10 bxc4 Sxc4 11 d3 2a6 12 De2 g6 13 2e3 Wad 14 h3 hS 15 Gh2 we7 16 2f2 ha Thus Tukmakov not only suppresses the g2-g4 break but also stops a swap of dark-squared bishops via 2h4, 17 Ded4 Bc8 18 Ab3 Wad 19 Wd2 c5 20 c3 c4 21 dxc4 Hxc4 22 2d4! Superficially one might have thought it more natural for one of the knights to occupy this spot, but Bangiev sees that this is the right minor piece to sit here. 22...0-0? Now Bangiev takes his chance to ex- ploit the weaknesses around the black 47Sicilian Grand Prix Attack king created by the advance of the h- pawn. 22...