Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Neo-Sveshnikov
By Jeremy B. Silman, IM
Published 1991
95 94 93 92 91
5 4 3 2 1
ISBN: (}..-94547(}..-13-4
Table Of Contents
Key of S)'lllbols.......................................................................... 1
Intro duction
................................................................................
Analysis Of Neo-Sveshnikov:
Chapter One 5.Nf5 ................................................................. 10
Chapter Two 5.Ne2 .............................................................. 15
Chapter Three 5.Nf3 ............................................................. 19
Chapter Four 5.Nb3 .............................................................. 24
Chapter Five 5.Nxc6 ............................................................. 34
Chapter Six 5.Nb5 ................................................................ 41
Bibliography............................................................................ 113
Key Of Symbols
+= ..
. . ........ .. .. . .
=+...
.........
. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . .
..
+-. .. .
...
. . .
..
...
..
.......
..
....
-+..............................................Black
++-
-++
=
......
..
..
.. . . .. . . .. .. .... . . . ......
.
..
....
equal chances
...............................................
Introduction
When I first saw the variation that comes about after l .e4 c5 2.Nf3
Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5 .Nb5 d6 I was intrigued but skeptical. Such
lines don't usually last in the top levels of chess so I suspected it
would fade rather quickly. However the variation refused to die! Not
only did it have a small but faithful following but even world class
players such as Short, Van der Wiel and Sveshnikov took it up. I
decided that I should take a look at the analysis and perhaps give it a
try myself.
At this point a problem reared its ugly head: There were no articles
or books on this subject! Well, if I wanted to study it I was was forced
to do some work and put together some information.
Now, after having played this opening for over a year, I feel
compelled to offer up the first book ever written on this subject.
Having di spensed with that, we now come to a funny dilemma:
What to call this variation? Van der Wiel called the line after 5.Nb5 d6
the Kalashnikov. On the other hand, the line with l .e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 is usually called the La Bourdonnais Variation
since it was extensively used by La Bourdonnais (France) way back
in 1 835. After Las Bourdonnais both Louis Paulsen (Germany) and
Howard Staunton (England) took up the line and won nice games with
it. Next was Mir Sultan Khan (India) who tried it in 1 930, winning all
four games in which it was played. Though nobody played the critical
5.Nb5 ! in the 1 800s the line never found a great deal of support, even
though Black usually did very well in the opening. In the 1 900s 5.Nb5
was only played once versus Sultan Khan and when Kuzminikh of the
USSR took up the variation most players still shied away from 5.Nb5.
It is interesting to note that both these players answered 5.Nb5 with
. . . d6, even though 5 . . . a6 was thought to be the main line (inferior as it
was).
So, with this history behind us, do we call it the La Bourdonnais
Variation? How about the La Bourdonnais-Kalashnikov Variation?
After pondering this critically important question I came to the
conclusion that the simple Neo-Sveshnikov was best. The reasons for
this:
1) Sveshnikov has taken it up and used it extensively in the last
few years.
Introduction
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5) and can transpose into this
17.Ne3
Nd7
t8.b4
rs
1 9.f4 !
Nipping Black's plans i n the bud. Now 1 9 . . . e4 leaves B lack 's
Knights without good squares and the Black anny without an effective
breakthrough. White would then be able to calmly increase his buildup
on the Queenside.
19
20.fxe5
b6
NxeS
2 l .c 5 !
Now 2 1 . . .bxc5 22.bxc5 dxc5 23.d6 activates all the White pieces
and leaves Black in great difficulties.
21 ...
g6
2 2 .c6.
This powerful passed pawn is a winning advantage and White
should have won this game. Notice how Black never came close to
starting up his counterattack on the Kingside.
Black Ideas
I won't beat around the bush: Black's position takes more energy
to play than White 's. However, if you are aware of the different
str ategies associated with this defense you should find yourself richly
The Neo-Sveshnikov
rewarded for the efforts you put out. The first problem we will address
is what happens when White sticks a Knight on d5? Should Black go
into a mindless panic?
9.Nd5
0-0
10.Nec3
a6
l l .B d3
White has achieved his immediate aim but this does not mean that
he will obtain the advantage. This is due to the countermeasures that
Black will now employ. First he will place his dark-squared Bishop on
the active g5 post and bring a piece or two to bear on d5. The final bit
of the puzzle is to prepare to play . . . f7-f5. What this does is to worry
White about the Kingside and put him off balance. A combination of
these things serves to slowly undermine White 's d5 control.
1 1 ...
Be6
12.0-0
B gS
1 3.a4
ReS
14.Khl
g6
1 5.g3
Ne7
16.f4
BxdS
17.Nxd5
NxdS
1 8.exd5
exf4
19.gxf4
B f6
20.c3
ReS
2 1 .Qd2
QaS
6 ...
Be7
7.Nlc3
a6
8.Na3
Be6
9.Be2
BgS!
The Neo-Sveshnikov
1 2 . ..
h6
13.Racl
Ne8
14.g3 ! ?
N f6
White has made Black think twice about . . . Bg5 due to f2-f4.
However, Black sees that White has created some holes in his
Kingsidc with g2-g3 so he switches to a counterattack against the
Kingside based on . . . n-f5. With 14 . . . Nf6 he intends to redirect his
Knight to h7 where it will threaten to play to g5 and h3.
15.f3
Nh7
16.Nd5
fS
1 7.Bb6
Qd7
1 8.exf5
BxfS
1 9 .Nxe7 +
Nxe7
20.Rfdl
Rf6
21 .Be3
Bg6!
22.Nbl
B xb l !
to
23.Rxbl
N fS
24.c5
Kh8
25.Bf2?
NgS !
c3 and d5.
26.Kg2
One sample tine that demonstrates White problems is 26.Kh 1 e4 !
27.f4 e3 28.Qd5 Ne6 29.Be 1 Rxc5 with a win.
26...
e4 !
27.Khl
exf3
28.c6
Rxc6
29.Bd3
dS
30.Rel
Nd6
31 .ReS
Qn
32.QaS
Nge4
33.Bd4
f2
34.Kg2
fl=Q + !
3S.Bxn
Rc2+
36.Kgl
Dolmatov-Guseinov, Klaipeda 1988, and now 36 . . . Nd2 37.Qd8+
Qf8 wins immediately for Black.
It's clear that Black's attacking chances on the Kingside are not to
be underestimated.
Analysis Of Neo-Sveshnikov
Chapter One
l.e4
cS
2.Nf3
Nc6
3.d4
cxd4
4.Nxd4
eS
S.NfS!?
Nf6!
11
Chapter 1
White 's space advantage gives him some chances on the Kingside,
ho wever, Black should still be alright] 8 . . . Nf6 9.a3 Qc7 10.Bd3 Bd7
t l .0-0 0-0 1 2.Nd2 Rac8 1 3 .Nh5 Nxh5? 14.Qxh5 Kh8? 1 5.f6 g6 1 6.Qh6
Rg8 1 7 .Nf3 Bf8 1 8.Ng5 ! , 1 -0, Krstens-Frizike, 1 937. Very weak play
by Black.
2) 6.exd5 Bxf5 7.dxc6 Qxd 1 + 8.Kxd 1 bxc6, =.
3) 6.Qxd5 ! Qxd5 7.exd5 Bxf5 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Bd3! [9.c3 Rb8 10.Nd2
Bc5 1 1 .Nb3 Bb6 1 2.Bc4 Ne7 1 3.0-0 0-0 is equal according to Uhlmann]
9 . . . B xd3 1 0.cxd3 0-0-0 1 1 .Ke2 Ne7 1 2.Be3 Kb7 1 3.Nd2 Nd5
( 1 3 . . . Nf5 ! ?] 1 4.Rhc 1 , +=, Jakovic-J.Stojnov, Sofia 1 988. This last line
should not put B lack in a panic but there is no reason to be
uncomfortable when you have an option as good as 5 . . . Nf6.
6.Nc3
There doesn't appear to be anything better. The natural 6.Bg5 i s
well met by 6 . . . Qa5+ [Even 6 . . . d5 ! ? 7.Bxf6 gxf6 is adequate] 7.Bd2
Qd8 [7 . . . Qb6 ! ? 8.Nc3 d5 is sharper] and now 8.Bg5 is just a draw by
repetition.
6 ...
dS
7 .exd5
7.Nxd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 B xf5 9.dxc6 bxc6 10.Qf3 Qd7 1 1 .Bc4 Bd6
1 2.0-0 e4 1 3.Re1 0-0 gives Black an edge.
7
8.dxc6
.
BxfS
bxc6!
12
The Neo-Sveshnikov
9.Qf3
9.Qxd8+ Rxd8 is hannless: 1 0.Be3 Rb8 1 1 .0-0-0 Bb4 1 2.Bc4 a5
1 3.f3 0-0 14.Na4 e4! 1 5.a3 Be7 1 6.Rhe l exf3 17.gxf3 Nd7 1 8.Bf4 Rbe8
1 9.Bc7 Bh4 20.Rxe8 Rxe8 2 l .B xa5 Re3 22.Nb6 Ne5 23.f4 Nxc4
24.Nxc4 Re2 25.Rd2 Re l + 26.Rd 1 Re2, Shabanov-Kim, Kemerovo
1 979.
Also comfortable for Black is 9.Bd3 e4 1 0.Be2 Bd6 [ 1 0 . . . Qc7 ! ?
Sveshnikov ] l l . Bg5 [ 1 l .g4 ! ?-Sveshnikov ] 1 1 . . . h6 1 2.Bh4 0-0
[ 1 2 . . . Bf4 and 12 . . . g5 1 3 .Bg3 B f4 both deserve attention-Sveshnikov.
One source gives this last possibility as being favorable for Black]
1 3.Qc l g5 14.Bg3 Nd5 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 1 6.Qd2 Rb8 [ 1 6 . . . Qe5 ! is a little
better for Black] 1 7 .Nxd5 cxd5 1 8.c3 Rfd8 1 9.Rd 1 Be6 20.b3 Rbc8
2 1 .0-0 Qe5 22.Rc 1 d4 23.cxd4 Qxd4 24.Qxd4 Rxd4 25.Rxc8+ B xc8
26.Rd l Rxd 1 + 27.Bxd 1 , 1 {1.-1{2, Lutikov-Sveshnikov, Rostov-on-Don
1976.
9 ...
Qd7
l O . BgS
The usual move. However B .Ivanovic recently introduced a new
move: 10.Bc4 ! ? [This offers the c-pawn as a sacrifice. White hopes to
get a lead in development when Black takes the time to capture it]
10 . . . Be7 l l .Bg5 Bxc2 ! ? 1 2.Qe2? [White had to play 1 2.0-0 with some
compensation for the sacrificed pawn, though I would prefer B lack]
1 2 . . . Qg4! [A very strong answer! White must now trade off into a
pawn down ending or stay in the middlegame and allow his position to
deteriorate further] 1 3.Qxc2 [The endings after 1 3.Qxg4 Nxg4 14.Bxe7
Kxe7 and 1 3.Bxf6 Qxe2+ are quite miserable for White] 1 3 . . . Qxg2 !
[It's good to be greedy! Black could have settled for 'just' an
advantage with either 1 3 . . . Qxc4 14.0-0-0 or 1 3 . . . Qxg5 1 4.0-0]
14.0-0-0 [White would lose after 14.Bxf6 Qxh 1 + 1 5.Ke2 Qxal 1 6.Bxg7
Qg l ! 1 7.Bxh8 Qg4+ followed by . . . Qxc4] 14 . . . Qxg5+ 1 5.Kb 1 0 -0
Chapter 1
13
1 0 ...
e4
This popular move leads to the critical position in the 5 .Nf5 line.
However, IO . . . Bb4!? is also worthy of attention: 1 1 .Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bd3
Bxc3+ 1 3.bxc3 Bxd3 14.cxd3 [ 14.Qxf6 Qf5 ! 1 5.Qxh8+ Kd7 leads to a
disaster for White] 14 . . . Qe6 1 5.0-0 0-0 1 6.Rae1 Kh8 1 7.Re4 f5 1 8 .Rh4
Rad8! 1 9.Qh3 Qg6 20.f4 f6 2 1 .Rf3? [Better is 2 1 .fxe5 fxe5 22.d4 exd4
23.cxd4 Rd5, =] 2 l . . . Rb8 ! 22.Rfl [22.Rg3 Rb1 + 23.Kf2 Qf7 24.Qxf5
Qxa2+ 25.Kf3 Rf1 + is not to be recommended] 22 . . . Rb2 23.Kh 1 Rxa2
24 .fxe5 fxe5 25.Rh6 Qg7 26.Rxc6 Rg8 27.Rg 1 a5 28.Qf3 [28.Qxf5??
Qxg2+! leads to mate] 28 . . . a4 29.Ra6 a3 30.Qd5? Rd2 3 1 .Rxa3 e4 !
32. Ra8?? [Missing the real point of Black's play. He had to try 32.Qd4,
==+] 32 . . . Qxg2+ ! , 0- 1 , Sax-Fedorowicz, Dubai ol 1 986.
l l .Qe2
1 1 .Qe3 ! ? i s an untried suggestion o f Sveshnikov.
1 1 .Qg3 Bd6 1 2.Qh4 Be5 ! 1 3 .Bc4 Qd4 [ 1 3 . . . 0-0 followed by
1 4 . . . Qc7 gives Black more chances of coming away with an opening
adv antage] 14.Bb3 0-0 1 5 .0-0 QcS 1 6.Bxf6 ! Bxf6 1 7.Nxe4 Bxe4
1 8. Qxe4 Bxb2 1 9.Rad l and White made a draw, Han Bon Din
Sveshnikov, Ka1uga 1 966.
1 1 ...
Be7
The Neo-Sveshnikov
14
1 2.B xf6
Or 12.Rd 1 Qe6 [Also adequate is 12 . . . Qb7 1 3.Qa6 Rab8 14.Qxb7
Rxb7 1 5.Bc 1 0-0 1 6.Ba6 Rb6, =, GoldiLipman, Moscow 1 978-79.]
1 3 . Qc4 Rb8 14.Qxe6 Bxe6 1 5 .b3 Bb4! 1 6.Bd2 0-0 1 7.Be2 Rfd8 ! and
White is under pressure, Parutenko-Markauss, corr. 1 988-89.
1 2 ...
Bxf6
1 3.Nxe4
0-0!
gxf6
14.Nxf6+
15.Qd2
Other defences are even worse:
15 ...
1 6.Kd1
Rfe8+
1 6 .. .
Qb7
17.b3
Rad8
18.Bd3
cS
19.f3
c4!
20.bxc4
Qb6!
21 .Kcl
22.Kd1
Rb8
Bxd3
23.cxd3
24.Rcl
Q d4
Re3
Chapter Two
l.e4
cS
2.Nf3
Nc6
3.d4
cxd4
4.Nxd4
eS
5.Ne2
Not wishing to test Black with the critical 5.Nb5 , White plays a
'safe' move. Now he can play either Knight to c3 and in the event of
. Bb4 White does not have to worry about the doubling of his pawns
by . . . Bxc3 because the Knights support each other.
. .
5 ...
N f6
6.Nbc3
Natural and best. Others:
I ) 6.Bg5?! Bc5 threatens 7 . . . Bxf2+ and 7.Bh4 Nxe4 ! is certainly no
help!
2) 6.Nec3 Bc5 7.Bc4 d6 8. a3? [A mindless move that gets
i mmediately punished. He should play 8.Bg5 though 8 . . . Be6 is safe
enough for Black] 8 . . . Ng4 9.Be3 [Miserable, but 9.0-0? Qh4 i s even
Worse] 9 . . . Nxe3 I O. fxe3 Qg5 [ I O . . . Bxe3 l l .Qf3 ] l l .Qf3 Qxe3+
1 2. Qxe3 Bxe3 1 3.Nd5 Bb6, Black's extra pawn led to a victory in 46
moves, Weenink-Sultan Khan, Hamburg 1 930.
6 ...
B cS
This is considered to be the main line but several other moves have
been tried:
16
The Neo-Sveshnikov
7 .Ng3
7.Be3? is a rather fatalistic move: 7 . . . Bxe3 8.fxe3 d5 9.exd5 Nb4
10.e4 Ng4 1 1 .Qd2 Ne3! 12.Rc 1 Nc4 1 3.Qd 1 Nxb2 14.Qd2 Nc4 1 5.Qd 1
Bg4, Black has excellent play, Bezyuk-Fatalibckova, Moscow 1 982.
...
d6
Chapter 2
17
8.Be2
Be6
9.0-0
Ineffective i s 9.Nd5? Bxd5 I O.exd5 Ne7 1 1 .0-0 Nfxd5 12.Bb5+ K f8
and White does not have enough for the pawn, Kadiri-Tsinn, Lugano
1968.
9 ...
a6
l O . BgS
I O.Kh l leads to a double edged game after 1 0 . . . Nd4 l l .f4!? Nxe2
The Neo-Sveshnikov
18
1 0 ...
h6
l l .Bxf6
Qxf6
1 2.Nd5
Qd8
1 3 .c3
White has a very slight edge though Black's two Bishops should
give him adequate counterplay, Nikolov-Pantaleyev, Primorsko 1 970.
Con clusion
Black has several good ways to play against 5 .Ne2. Of panicular
interest is 6 . . . Bb4, while the more commonly seen 6 . . . Bc5 is most
attractive if used in conjunction with 7 . Qb6! .
. .
Chapter Three
l.e4
cS
2.Nf3
Nc6
3.d4
cxd4
4.Nxd4
eS
S.Nf3
...
Nf6
6 .Nc3
Transposing into the Sveshnikov. White has a wide choice of
alternatives though:
1) 6.Bc4 and now Black has:
l .a.) 6 . . . Nxe4 ! ? is usually given a question mark due to 7.Bxfl+
Kxn 8.Qd5+ but 8 . . . Ke8 9.Qxe4 d5 is not completely clear. Now
I O.Qa4 Bd7 l l .Qb3? e4! is unpleasant for White so he should play the
more restrained 1 0.Qe2 when 1 0 . . . e4! ? leads to a very sharp struggle,
i. e. l l .Nfd2 Qg5 ! or 1 1 .0 -0 Bg4. Other l Oth moves such as 10 . . . Qf6
1 I .Bg5 Qf5 , 1 0 . . . Qd6, and I O . . . Bd6 are also possible but run the risk
20
The Neo-Sveshnikov
6 ...
Bb4
The most logical move. For the playable 6 . . . Be7 see note to
White 's 6th move, line l .b.
Also reasonable is 6 . . . h6! ? 7.Bc4 [Or 7.a3 Be7 8.Bc4 0-0 9.0-0 d6
10.h3 Be6, =] 7 . . . Bb4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 l O.Re l Qa5 followed by
. . . Rd8 and . . . d5.
Chapter 3
21
7.Bc4 !
7 ...
0-0
22
The Neo-Sveshnikov
For those that fear Bg5, the preventive 7 . . . h6 is also possible: 8.0-0
Bxc3 9.bxc3 Qa5 !? intending ... 0-0, . . . Rfd8, . . . d7-d5-Sveshnikov.
Heres one example for those that want to see White prevail:
7 . . . Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qa5 9.Qd3 0-0 10.0-0 Ne7 1 1 .Bb3 d5 1 2.Nxe5 Nxe4
1 3.c4 ! Nc5 14.Qe2 Be6 1 5.Bg5 f6 1 6.Nd3 and White is better since
1 6 . . . Bn? loses to 1 7.Bd2 Qc7 1 8.Bf4 Qc8 1 9.Qxe7 Nxd3 20.cxd3,
Reinhardt-Pelikan, Buenos Aires 1955.
8.0-0
8.Qd3?! fails to 8 . . . d5 ! when Black obtains a powerful initiative
after 9.Bxd5 Nxd5 1 0.Qxd5 Qxd5 1 1 .exd5 Nd4 1 2.Nxd4 exd4 1 3.a3
BaS! 14.b4 ReS+ 1 5.Kd1 dxc3 1 6.bxa5 Bg4+ 17.f3 Rad8 1 8.Bf4 Rxd5+
19.Kc l Bf5, -+. Analysis by Gligoric and Sokolov.
Reasonable is 8.Bg5 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 !? [Less committal is 9 . . . d6
followed by . . . Bc8-e6] I O.Bxf6 Qxc3+ l l .Nd2 gxf6 1 2.Rb l and
White's initiative compensates for the sacrificed pawn-Ragozin.
Black should now continue with 12 . . . Nd4! 1 3.Qg4+ [ 1 3.0-0 d5 ! , =]
13 . . . Kh8 14.Qh4 Kg7 and White has nothing better than a draw.
8 . ..
d6
9.Nd5 !
Threatening Bg5. The immedi ate 9.Bg5 allows Black to snap the
Knight off with 9 . . . Bxc3. Mukhin-Tseitlin, Leningrad 1 978, continued
10.bxc3 h6 l l .Bh4 Be6 12.Bb3 g5 1 3.Nxg5! ? hxg5 14.Bxg5 Kg7 1 5.Kh1
Bxb3 1 6.axb3 Qd7 17.Qd3 Nh7 1 8.Bh4 Qg4 and Black has repelled the
opponent' s attack.
9 ...
h6
1 0.Nxb4
Nxb4
l l.c3
Nc6
1 2 .Qd3
Chapter 3
23
12...
Qc7
13.Bb3
NaS
14.Bc2
dS!
15.Qe2
B g4
1 6.h3
Not 1 6.exd5?? e4 1 7 .Bxe4 Rfe8.
1 6 .. .
Bxf3
1 7 . Q x f3
and now according to Uhlmann , 1 7 . . . dxe4! 1 8 . Qf5 Qe7 leads to
equality.
Con clusion
5.Nf3 gives White no chance of gaining an opening advantage.
Chapter Four
l.e4
cS
2.Nf3
Nc6
3.d4
cxd4
4.Nxd4
eS
5.Nb3
S .. .
Nf6
As is usual with moves other than Nb5 , Black now does best to
transpose into the Sveshnikov. Of course, this does not mean that
other moves are bad. A good alternative is 5 . . . Bb4 ! ?+ 6.c3 [Gligoric
and Sokolov prefer 6.Bd2, but after 6 . . . Be7 ! 7.Nc3 Nf6 Black can
answer 8.Bc4 or 8.Bg5 with 8 . . . Nxe4 ! when his problems are solved]
6 . . . Be7 7.c4 [7.Bc4 Nf6 8.Qd3 0-0 9.0-0 d6 IO.Na3 Be6 1 l .Rd l a6
1 2.Bg5 Ne8 1 3.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Bxe6 fxe6 15 .Nc4 Ng6! , =, Bannik
Kuzminikh, Leningrad 1946. Note that White should avoid 1 6.Nxd6?
due to 16 . . . Nf4 17.Qd2 Qg5 ] 7 . . . Nf6 8.Bd3 0-0 9.0-0 d6 1 0.Nc3 Be6
1 l .Bg5 h6 1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3.Nd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 Nd4, =, Muhin-Buslaev,
USSR 1963.
6.Nc3
Two other moves are also possible:
1) 6.Bc4 d6 [6 . . . Nxe4 !? 7.Bxn+ (7.Qd5 Nd6) 7 . . . Kxf7 8.Qd5+ Ke8
9.Qxe4 d5 is worth a look] 7.Nc3 Be6 8.Bd5 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 IO.Be3 Qd7
Chapter 4
25
t t . Qd2 Nb4 1 2.f3 Rfc8 1 3.a3 Nbxd5 14.exd5 Bf5 1 5.Rac1 Bg6 1 6.Qe2
Ne8 1 7.g4? ! f5 1 8.Nd2 Nf6, -+, Golmayo-Sultan Khan, Hamburg 1 930.
2) 6.Bg5 ! ? Bb4+ 7.c3 Be7 8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.Bc4 0-0 1 0.Qd3 d6 1 1 .N 1 d2
Be7 [ 1 1 . . . Be6!?] 1 2.0-0 Kh8 [ 1 2 . . . Be6 !?] 1 3.Rad l f5 [ 1 3 . . . Be6 ! ? ]
t4.Bd5 Qc7? [ 14 . . . f4 1 5.f3 Qe8 i s much better. Black would then have
real chances on the Kingside] 1 5.Nc4 Rf6 1 6.Nbd2 f4 17.f3 Bd7 1 8 .b4,
+-, Mate-Turi, Hungarian corr. ch. 1 964---65 . It's obvious that Black 's
Queen is needed on the Kingside. Though White did well here, there
are so many improvements that Black should not fear 6.Bg5.
6 . ..
Bb4
A.
7.Qf3?!
7...
dS
8.exd5
QxdS
9.Qxd5
White quickly found himself in a lost position after 9.Qe3? Bxc3+
1 0.Qxc3 Bf5 1 1 .f3 b5 1 2.Be3 ReS 1 3.Bc5 Nd4 14.Rd 1 Nd7! , Poborsk.i
Polak, corr. 1 977.
9 . ..
NxdS
l O.Bdl
Nxc3
26
The Neo-Sveshnikov
l l .Bxc3
Bxc3+
1 2. bxc3
White has no compensation for his weakened pawn structure.
B.
7.Bd3
White develops and defends the e4 pawn but once again allows
Black a quick and easy . . . d7-d5 advance.
dS
8.exd5
8 .0-0? Bxc3 9.bxc3 dxe4 1 0.Be2 Qxd1 1 l .Rxd 1 0-0 just leaves
White a pawn down for nothing, Pak-Dzhushayev, Bukhara 1 979.
8 ...
NxdS
9.Bd2
Bxc3 ! ?
Chapter 4
27
t3.c5 Bc7 14.Bc4+ Kh8 1 5.0-0-0 Qe8 1 6.Qh4 Be6 1 7.Be2 a5 ! (It's clear
that Black has taken over the initiative) 1 8.Kbl a4 1 9.Nc l Nd4! 20.a3
Nxe2 2 l .Nxe2 Qb5+ 22.Bb4 Qxe2 23.Qe7 Qc4 24.Qxc7 Qa2+ 25.Kc l
Bb3, 0- 1 , Timoshchenko-Burdman, Yurmala 1 977] l l . . . Qc7 1 2.0-0
Bc6 1 3.Bg5 and White's active pieces gave him some compensation
for the weaknesses in his camp, Schlechter-Lasker, World Champion
ship Match, Berlin 1 9 1 0. This historic [and very exciting] game
continued: 13 . . . h6 14.f4 exf4 15.Rae l Kd7! 1 6.Bf5 ! Raf8 ! 17.Bxf4 B xf4
t 8 .Nc5+ Kc8 1 9.Bxe6+ fxe6 20.Nxe6 Bxh2+ 2 1 .Qxh2 Rxfl+ 22.Rxfl
Qd7 23.Nc5 Qe7 24.Qh3+ Kb8 25.Ne6 Ka8 26.Nd4 Qc7 27.Qf5 Rc8
28.Qc5? ! Nb8 29.Qxc7 Rxc7 30.Rf3 a6 3 l .Kf2 Nc6 32.Ne6 Re7 33.Re3
Kb8 34.Nd4 Rf7+ 35.Rf3 Rc7 36.Ne6 Re7 37.Re3 Kc8 [-+] 38.Ke2 Nd8
39.Nd4 Rf7 40.Rf3 Kd7 4 l .Rd3 Ke7 42.Re3+ Kd6 43.Rd3 Ne6 44.Nf3+
Kc5 45 .g3 Nc7 46.Nd2 Kc6 47.Nf3 Kb5 48.Rd4 Kc5 49.Nd2 Nb5
50.Nb3+ Kb6 5 l .Rd3 Rc7 52.Kd2 Rc4 53.Rd7 Rg4 54.c4 Kc6 55.Rd3
Nd6 5 6.Nd4+ Kc7? [56 . . . Kb6 is winning for Black] 57.Ne6+ Kc6
58.Nd8+ Kc7 59.Ne6+ Kd7? 60.Nxg7! Ke7 6 l .Nh5 Rxc4 62.Re3+ Kf7
63.Rf3+ Kg6 64.Rf6+ Kxh5 65.Rxd6, l/2-l/2.
Tarrasch has recommended Lhe untested 9 . . . 0-0!? and I see no
reason why this shouldn 't lead to an equal game. However, since
9 . . . Bxc3 seems to favor Black, moves that offer simple equality just
aren't good enough!
10.bxc3
0-0
tt.o-o
rs
12.Bc4
Kh8
It 's not easy for White to find adequate compensation for his
structual deficiencies.
1 3.Qh5
Simply bad is 1 3. B xd5 Qxd5 14.Be3 Qc4 1 5 .Qd3 Be6, -+,
28
The Neo-Sveshnikov
13...
Nf6
14.Qe2
Qe8
1 4 . . . f4! ? 15.f3 Qc7 1 6. Rae l Bf5 also proved strong for Black in
Mendez-Goldenberg, Haifa 1 976.
lS.NcS
b6
16.Nd3
B b7
17.Rfel
Qg6
18.f3
Rae8
C.
7.Bg5
The logical part of this move is that he is fighting for d5. It's
unfortunate aspects revolve around the fact that he will end up with
weak doubled pawns without the compensating factors of time or the
two Bishops. It seems that without a Knight on c3, control of d5 just
isn't very impressive.
..
h6
8.Bxf6
Bxc3 + !
9.bxc3
Qxf6
1 0.Bd3
White's chances aren't improved by IO.Be2 d6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12.Qd3
Rd8 1 3.Rfd l Qe7 [or 1 3 . . . Be6 14.Bf3 Rac8, Koshlyak-Panchenko,
Chapter 4
29
Ne7
1 0 ...
l l .Nd2
0-0
1 2.c4
d6
1 3 .Nfl
Heading for d5.
Be6!
1 3 ...
Rac8
14.Ne3
D.
7.Bc4
D.t.
7 ...
N x e4 !
8.0-0
30
The Neo-Sveshnikov
8 ...
Nxc3
9.bxc3
Be7
10.f4!
0-0?
l l.fS
bS?
Black should strive for freedom with 1 1 . . .d5 ! ? though it's still
good for White after 12.Bxd5 Nd4 1 3.Be4 Nxb3 14.cxb3, +-.
1 2.Bd5
B b7
13.Qh5
NaS
14.Bxb7
Nxb7
1 5.Rf3
White has a decisive attack, Spassky-Kaj an, Student Olympiad
1 955 . The finish was 15 . . . g6 1 6.Qh6 Qb6+ 1 7.Be3 Qf6 1 8.fxg6 Qg7
1 9.gx.n+ Kh8 20.Qh5 Rfc8 2 1 .Bh6, 1-0.
0.2.
d6
Chapter 4
31
Be6
8.0-0
9.Bd5
9.Qd3 ! ? deserves
0-0
1 0.Ne2
BxdS
l l.exdS
Ne7
1 2.c3
BaS ?
13.Bg5
+-
0 .3.
7 ...
0-0 ? !
8.0-0
Not very dangerous is 8 .Qd3 d 6 [8 . . . d5 !? 9.exd5 e4 1 0.Qg3 Bd6
l l .Qh4 Ne5 1 2.Be2 Ng6 gives Black good chances, Matanovich
Po rreka, Zagreb 1 955 ] 9.Bg5 h6 I O.Bh4 Be6 1 1 .0-0 B xc4 1 2 .Qxc4
32
The Neo-Sveshnikov
..
Bxc3
Sveshnikov says that its not good to give up the Bishop here .
Perhaps the retreat via 8 . . . Be7 [embarrassing but solid] 9.Bg5 d 6
followed b y . . . Be6 i s preferable.
9.bxc3
Nxe4
10.Ba3
d6
1 1 .Qe1
O r 1 1 .Qd3 Bf5 1 2.Rae 1 Qh4 13.f4 Qg4 14.Rxe4 Qg6 1 5 .Rfe 1 Rad8
16.Bd5 with a decisive advantage, Kopayev-Korchnoi, 1 952.
1 1 ...
Qh4
12.f4!
Qxe1
13.Raxe1
Nxc3
1 4.Bxd6
bS
15.Bxf8
bxc4
16.Na5 !
Nd4
17.Bc5
Nde2+
18.Kh1
exf4
19.Rxf4
Chapter 4
33
Chapter Five
l.e4
c5
2.Nf3
Nc6
3.d4
cxd4
4.Nxd4
e5
5.Nxc6
First tried in the 1 9th century the move went out of fashion when
players realized that this strengthening of Black 's center was merely
helping the opponent.
...
bxc6
6 . B c4
Playing to stop Black from advancing his d-pawn to d5. Two other
ways to do this:
1 ) 6.c4 Nf6 7.Bg5 [Or 7.Nc3 Bb4] 7 . . . Qa5+ 8.Bd2 Qb6 and after the
forced pawn sacrificed 9.Nc3 Qxb2 I O.Rbl Qa3 White finds himself
with inadequate compensation.
2) 6.Nc3 Nf6 7. Bg5 [7.Bc4 is our main column] 7 . . . Rb8 ! [Less
accurate but also playable is 7 . . . h6 8.Bh4 Bb4 9.Qf3 Qa5 1 0.Bxf6
Bxc3+ l l .bxc3 gxf6 12.Bc4 Ke7 1 3.0 -0 Qc5 with sharp play, Kudrin
Koziryov, Bryansk 1 976] 8.Bxf6 [Poor is 8.Rb 1 Qa5 ! 9.Bd3? Rxb2
10.Bd2 Rxb1 l l .Qxb1 Bb4, -++, Mesh-Sveshnikov, Chelyabinsk 1 966.
More interesting but also inadequate is 8.Bc4 Rxb2 9.Bb3 Bb4 10.Bd2
Qa5 l l .Na4 ( 1 1 .Qf3 B a6 ! ) 12 . . . Nxe4. Analysis by Dvoretsky]
8 . . . Qxf6 9.Bc4 Rxb2 1 0.Bb3 Bb4, -+, Mahlgren-Alekhine, Erebro
Chapter 5
35
1935.
6 .. .
Nf6
..
C. 7 .0-0; D. 7 .BgS.
A.
7.Qe2
Be7
8.Nc3
0-0
9.Bg5
Nxe4 !
10.Bxe7
Nxc3
l l .QxeS!
Re8
12.0-0
Qxe7
13.Qxc3
dS
B.
7.Nc3
36
The Neo-Sveshnikov
7 ...
B b4
8.Bg5 ? !
This is dubious. Better is 8.0-0 with the following possibilities :
1 ) 8 . . . 0-0 9.Bg5 is unpleasant for Black: 9 . . . h6 10.Bh4 Qe7 l l .Qe2
g5 ! ? [Weakening the King but the pin was making life difficult] 1 2.Bg3
d6 1 3.Rad l Ba5? ! [Better is 13 . . . Bg4 14.f3 Bc5+ 1 5 .Kh l Be6] 14.Rd2
Kg7 15 .Rfd 1 Bc7 1 6. b4! Ne8 17 .b5 [Grabbing control of the d5 square]
1 7 . . . Ba5 1 8.Rd3 f5 1 9.f3 when White has pressure on the Q-side and
in the center, Kirilov-Lisitsin, 7th USSR Championship 1 93 1 .
2) 8 . . . Bxc3 9.bxc3 Nxe4 10.Qg4 [More dangerous is 1 0. Qh5 ! ? or
1 0.Ba3 ! ?] 10 . . . d5 1 1 .Qxg7 Qf6 1 2.Qxf6 Nxf6 with a comfortable game
for Black.
3) 8 . . . h6! 9.f4? ! Qe7 10.fxe5 Qxe5 1 1 .Bb3 0-0 1 2.Kh1 Bxc3 1 3.bxc3
Nxe4 with advantage to Black, Tansky-Sveshnikov, Chelyabinsk
1966.
8 ...
h6? !
9.B d2
Chapter 5
37
Bxc3
10.Bxc3
Nxe4
l l .Q g4
l l .Bxe5?? loses to l l . . . Qa5+, Weiss-Grunfeld, 1 946.
1 1 ...
0- 0
1 2.Qxe4
dS
13.Qe2
dxc4
c.
7. 0 - 0
Better than 7 .Nc3. White gets his King to safety and allows Black
some leeway for error.
7 ...
Nxe 4 ! ?
Risky but perhaps good ! ? A solid and safe method i s 7 . . . Be7 8.Nc3
d6,
=.
38
The Neo-Sveshnikov
the center when your own King is sitting there] 8 . exd5 cxd5 9.Bb5+
Bd7 1 0.Bxd7+ Qxd7 l l .Re l Bd6 1 2.Nc3 e4 1 3.Bg5 Ng4 14.QxdS
Bxh2+ 15.Kh l , Black is lost, Morphy-Lowenthal, Paris 195 8 . The:
continuation was 1 5 . . . Qxd5 1 6.Nxd5 0-0? 1 7.f3 exf3 1 8.gxf3 NeSj
19.Re3 f6 20.Kxh2 Rad8 2 l .Rxe5 fxg5 22.Kg3 h6 23.c4 Rf7 24.Rae l Kf8
'
25.c5 g6 26.c6 ReS 27.c7 Rcxc7 28.Re8+ Kg? 29.Nxc7, 1 -0.
8.Rel
dS! ?
On 8 . . . Nf6 9.Rxe5+ Be? 1 0.Qd6 Black will lose his right to castle.
9.Rxe4 !
The books say that White is winning this position. This is based on
9 . . . dxe4?? 1 0.Bxf7+ Ke7 1 l .Bg5+. However, what if Black keeps his
wits and calmly plays . . .
f6!
l O .Q h S +
Trying to change the move order by 1 0.Rxe5+ fxe5 l l .Qh5+ fails to
l l . . . Kd7 when Black should win.
1 0 ...
g6
l l .RxeS+
Be7!
l l.RxdS !
Making the most of a bad situation. 1 2 . Qe2 fxe5 1 3.Qxe5 0-0
Chapter 5
39
1 2 ...
gxhS
1 3.Rxd8+
Bxd8
with an exchange for a pawn, Black has all the winning chances.
D.
7.Bg5
DeS
8.0-0
h6
9.Bxf6
Qxf6
1 0.Nc3
aS
l l .Khl
d6
12.Qd2
gS !
Black has decided to place his King on e7 where it will help defend
the d6 pawn. To make this a safer proposition, Black first prevents
White from opening the center up with a later f2-f4 advance.
The Neo-Sveshnikov
40
13.Radl
Ke7
14.Na4
B d4
C o n cl usion
5.Nxc6 is completely without sting and is not seen at all in mod
tournament play.
Chapter Six
l.e4
2.Nf3
3.d4
4.Nxd4
S.NbS!
cS
Nc6
cxd4
eS
d6!
A.
6 .Bc4
6 ...
N f6
42
The Neo-Sveshnikov
can improve with 8.Bg5 ! when play can transpose to the main column.
2) 6 . . . Be6 7.Nl a3 a6 9.Nc3 Nf6 9.Be3?! [9.Bg5 ! ] 9 . . . b5 IO.Bd5 Rc8
l l .Ne2 b4 1 2.Nc4 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Bb6 Qd7 1 5 .b3 Nexd5 1 6.a3?
Rxc4 1 7.bxc4 Nxb6, 0-1 in 44, Apscheneek-Sultan Khan, Hamburg
1930. Another easy time for Black but White can do better with
7.Bxe6! fxe6 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qh3 with some advantage to White because
Black' s King position is insecure. Aside from this, 7.Bb3 ! ? [as in the
main column] is also not easy for Black.
3) 6 . . . Be7 7.0-0 a6 8.N5c3 Nf6 9.a4 [9.Bg5 0 -0 I O.Bxf6 Bxf6
l l .Nd5 Bg5 12.a4 Kh8 1 3.Nbc3 Be6 was Beilin-Kopaev, Lvov 1 95 1 .
The main column will discuss these positions in more detail] 9 . . . Be6
IO.Bd5 0-0 l l .Na3, +=, Hector-Kotronias, Debrecen 1 989.
7.0-0!
Avoiding the tempting 7.Bg5 after which 7 . . . Qa5+! 8 . Bd2 Qd8
9.Bg5 Qa5 is nothing more than a draw by repetition.
a6
8.N5c3
9.Bb3
l O.BgS
Be6
Be7
0-0
l l.Bxf6
Bxf6
1 2.Nd5
White has played in a very logical manner. His pieces stand on
good squares and he has d5 under a firm grip.
1 2 ...
Nd4
Black grabs the two Bishops but this just accelerates White 's
Queenside breakthrough. To make matters worse, the two Bishops
are not worth much here since the White Knights are quite happy in
Chapter 6
43
13.c3
Nxb3
1 4.axb3
B gS
g6
fS
1 S.c4
1 6.Nbc3
17.Qd3
Rti!
1 8.b4
I.Ivanov-Silrnan, Los Angeles 1990, now Black has to try 1 8 . . . Bh6
followed by . . . f4, . . . g5 and . . . Bf8 with a do-or-die assault on White's
King. Though he would have some practical chances with this plan, I
can't help but believe that White' s play against the Queenside and the
backward d6 pawn should crash through first.
Conclusion
5 . Nb5 d6 6.Bc4 is one of White ' s better plans against the
Kalashnikov. Since 6.Bc4 has been played so seldomly, it is not clear if
Black can equalize with the ease that some annotators claim. Tests
would certainly be welcome here!
B.
6 .Nlc3
Though the young Russian Tiviakov has stated his preference for
this move, it seems hard to believe that White's offside Knight [after
B lack plays 7 . . . b7-b5] gives White any real chance for an opening
44
The Neo-Sveshnikov
6 ...
a6
7.Na3
bS
Most logical. Other moves are also played but why should B lack
allow White 's Knight on a3 to effortlessly re-enter the game? White 's
other choices are:
1 ) 7 . . . Be6 S.Be3 [It ' s probably more accurate to play the
immediate S.Nc4 ReS 9.Nd5 Bxd5 10.exd5 NbS 1 1 .Be2 Nd7 1 2.0-0
Ngf6 1 3.a4 Be7 1 4.Be3 0-0 1 5.a5 ! , +-, Matanovic-Larsen, Beverwijk
1960] S . . . Nf6 [S . . . b5 ! keeps the Knight at a3 for awhile] 9.Nc4 b5
1 0.Nb6 RbS l l .Nbd5 Be7 1 2.a4 bxa4 1 3.Rxa4 0-0 1 4.b3 a5 15.Bc4,
Matanovic-Pils, Graz 1 9S4. White has the better chances.
2) 7 . . . h6? ! [a waste of time] S.Nc4 [White also gains an excellent
position by S.Nd5 Nf6 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 1 0.Nc4 Qh4 1 1 .Bd3 Bg4 1 2.Qd2
Be7 1 3.0-0 0-0 14.Nb6, Karasev-Klaman, Kronstadt 1 975] S . . . b5
9.Ne3 Nf6 1 0.Ncd5 Be7 1 1 .Be3 0-0 [ 1 1 . . . RbS ! ?-Uhlmann.] 1 2.a4 b4
1 3.Bb6 Qd7 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 1 5 .Nd5, +-, Aronin-Kuzminikh, USSR
1 94S.
3) 7 . . . Be7 S.Nc4 b5 9.Ne3 Nf6 1 0.Bd3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 RbS 1 2.Ncd5
Nxd5 1 3.Nxd5 Bg5 14.c3 Be6 1 5.Be2 Bxc 1 1 6.Rxc1 a5, Unzicker-Pils,
Graz 1 9S4. Black has a reasonable position.
8.Nd5
Nge7 ! ?
Chapter 6
45
It's not yet clear what Black' s best move is. He has several
mpting
choices:
te
I ) 8 . . . Be7. This solid move is one of Black's best choices. After
l .a.) 9.c3 Nf6 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 1 1 .Nc2 0-0 12.Be2 [ 1 2.a4 ! ?] 12 . . . Ne7
lack
now starts a battle for the d5 and e4 squares. Naturally, if he
[B
play
. . . d6-d5 he will solve all of his opening problems] 1 3.Bf3 Bb7 !
can
[ 1 3 . . . Be6 i s also possible but Black wants to eventually play . . . n-f5
and answer exf5 with . . . e5-e4. This is why Black has played his
Bishop to b7 . . . it aims at both d5 and e4] 14.Ne3 g6 1 5.0-0 Bg7 1 6.a4 !
[ 1 6.Qd3 f5 1 7.Rd l ? looks reasonable but it actually loses to 1 7 . . . d5 !
when it doesn't matter if White captures on f5 or d5, he will drop a
piece to . . . e5-e4] 1 6 . . . f5? ! ?
Macho (risky) chess but not at all necessary. Simply 1 6 . . . bxa4! ? or
1 6 . . . Qc7 ! ? give Black a comfortable game. The important . . . n-f5
advance will come at a more appropri ate time] 17.axb5 [White didn't
like 1 7 .exf5 e4 1 8.Be2 gxf5 because of the threat of . . . f5-f4 with a
strong attack. However 19.f4 ! is critical for the assessment of 16 . . . 5
and may well favor White because of the positional threat of Nc2
followed by Be3 with a strong blockade on e3 and d4] 1 7 . . . axb5 [Black
rejected 1 7 . . . fxe4 1 8.bxa6 Rxa6 19.Rxa6 Bxa6 20.Be2 Bxe2 2 1 .Qxe2
because he wanted this postion with the light-squared Bishops still on
the board] 1 8.Rxa8 Bxa8 19.Qb3?+ [After this White 's game slides
downhill. He still had to try 1 9.exf5 e4 20.Be2 gxf5 2 1 .f4 ! ] 19 . . . Kh8
20.Qxb5 fxe4 2 1 . Bg4 Bc6! [Preventing White from trading Queens
with Qd7] 22.Qb3 d5 [The mobile mass of central pawns give Black a
clear advantage] 23.Nc2 Nf5 24.Be3? [White is lured into this by the
promise of a tactical trick but Black is well ahead of him. Possible was
24.Rd l when 24 . . . d4? 25.cxd4 exd4 26.Bxf5 gxf5 27.Nxd4 ! Bxd4
28.Be3 wins for White. However, 24.Rd 1 is strongly met by 24 . . . Qh4
or by 24 . . . Qf6 when 25.Nb4? falls to 25 . . . Nd4 ! 26.cxd4 Qxf2+] 24 . . . d4
25.cxd4 [Avoiding 25.Bxf5 gxf5 26.cxd4 f4 ! and White is getting
crushed] 25 . . . exd4 26.Bxf5 dxe3 ! [White was hoping for 26 . . . gxf5??
27.Nxd4 ! Bxd4 28.Rd l ] 27.Bg4 exf2+ [The tempting 27 . . . h5 28.Be2
Qd2 is foiled by 29.fxe3! Qxe2 30.Rxf8+ Bxf8 3 1 .Qc3+ Kh7 32.Qxc6]
28.Rxf2 Rxf2 29.Kxf2 Qh4 !+ [29 . . . h5 followed by 30 . . . Qf6+ and
3 1 . . . Qxb2 is also possible but Black didn't want an ending where
White's King was centralized. The text is much stronger since it also
wins a pawn but keeps the Queens on. This leaves White's King in
grave danger] 30.Qg3 [Seeing that 30.Kg 1 ? runs into 30 . . . Bd4!+ when
46
The Neo-Sveshnikov
3 l .Nxd4 Qe 1 is mate and 3 l .Kh 1 Qf2 is also the end. Also bad is
30.Kfl Qxh2! since Black not only grubs on a pawn but also prevents
White 's threatened Qb8+] 30 . . . Qf6+ 3 l .Kg1 Qxb2 32.Ne 1 [Worse is
32.Qc7? Qc1 + but 32.Qd6! puts up a better fight though Black would
still be in complete control after 32 . . . Qc 1 + 33.Bd1 h5] 32 . . . Bd4+
33.Kh 1 Qf2! [Now, with White's King out of the game, this ending is
an easy win] 34.Qxf2 Bxf2 35.Nc2 Kg7 36.Be2 Kf6 [White is
powerless to prevent the Black Kings entry into the game] 37.g3??
[Time pressure] 37 . . . e3+, 0- 1 , Hughes-Silman, Los Angeles 1 990.
l .b.) 9.c4
[The most common move. White attacks Black' s pawn chain and
prepares to move his Knight to c2] 9 . . . b4 [The wild at heart might
consider 9 . . . Nf6!? 1 0.cxb5 Nd4 1 l .Nxf6+ Bxf6 1 2.bxa6 0-0 1 3.Bc4
Bxa6 14.0-0 Bb7 1 5 .Re1 d5 ! ? and Black has some compensation for the
sacrificed pawn, Arrnas-Dumitrache, Predeal 1 988] 1 0.Nc2 [The
greedy 10.Nxb4! ? is possible but so far nobody has had the nerve to
try it. After 10 . . . Nxb4 1 1 .Qa4+ Bd7 1 2.Qxb4 d5 Black should be doing
very well] 1 0 . . . a5? ! [In Sveshnikov 's opinion, 1 0 . . . Rb8 ! is more
accurate: 1 1 .Qd3 Nf6 1 2.Nxf6+ Bxf6 1 3.Be2 0-0 14.0-0 Be6 1 5 .b3 a5
1 6.a3 a4! ? with an excellent position for Black, Bokan-Sveshnikov,
Moscow 1 989. However in Perenyi-Holzl, Budapest 1 988, White
played the sensible 1 l .Bd3 (instead of 1 1 .Qd3) and could have gained
some advantage after 1 1 . . . Nf6 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.a3 bxa3, with 14.Rxa3.
Instead the mistaken 1 4.b4?! was played and after 14 . . . Nxd5 1 5 .cxd5
Nxb4 1 6.Nxb4 Rxb4, Black had all the chances] 1 l .Be3 Rb8 1 2.Be2
Nf6 1 3.Qd3 Nd7 [ 1 3 . . . Ng4 ! ? deserves a look] 14.Nxe7 Kxe7 1 5 .Rd l
Qc7! [And not 1 5 . . . Nc5? 1 6.Bxc5 dxc5 1 7.Qg3 when Black's poor King
location will come back to haunt him] 1 6.Bg4 Rd8 17.Bxd7 B xd7
1 8 .c5? ! [White logically tries to open up the position and get to Black's
King but Black finds a good reply. Sveshnikov recommends 1 8.0-0
followed by f4, +=] 1 8 . . . Bg4 ! 19.f3 dxc5 20.Bxc5+ Ke8 2 l .Bd6? ! [He
should have played 2 1 .Qe2 when Black Sveshnikov thinks that Black
Chapter 6
47
would only be slightly superior] 2 1 . . .Qb6 22.fxg4 Rxd6! 23.Qxd6 Rd8
2 4.Qd5 ! Rxd5 25.exd5 and now instead of 25 . . . b3? ! 26.axb3 Nb4
27.Rd2! Qg6 28.Nxb4 Qe4+ 29.Kf2 Qf4+ 30.Ke2 Qxg4+ 3 1 .Kd3 axb4
when Black was just a little better and White managed to hold the
draw, Geo. Timoschenko-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1 989, Sveshnikov
gives 25 . . . Ne7 26.d6 Qc5 ! 27.Rd2 Nd5 ! , -+, as the correct plan.
2) 8 . . . Rb8 !?. This can transpose to 8 . . . Be7 lines after 9.c4 b4
10.Nc2 Be? 1 1 .Bd3 Nf6 etc.
3) 8 . . . Nce7! ?
48
The Neo-Sveshnikov
'
Something about this analysis (or is it just Black' s position?) gives '1
me an uneasy feeling] 1 6.Nb6 Ne4 1 7.a5 f5 1 8 .f3 f4? [Black tries to
drown hi sorrows in complications but things just don ' t work out.,(.
..
O.
49
Chapter 6
White has tried three moves from this position:
B .l.
9 . B g5
h6
10.Qh5
1 0 ...
Be6
B y no means the only move. Black has also had success with:
1) 1 0 . . . Qa5+ 1 1 . Bd2 Qd8 1 2.Bg5 Qa5+ 1 3.Bd2, 1{2-1/2, Lputian
Sv eshnikov, Sochi 1 987. Not very exciting but an easy draw with
B l ack in G randmaster play is always acceptable.
2) 1 0 . . . hxg5 ! ? 1 1 . Qxh8 Nxd5 1 2 .exd5 Qa5+ 1 3 .c3 b4 1 4.Nc4 Qxd5
is an untried suggestion of Sveshnikov . B lack has serious
compensation for the exchange.
l l.Bd3
Rb8!
50
The Neo-Sveshnikov
1 2 . c4
White decides to mix things up so as to prevent Black from getting
a good game with simple development. The result though, is that
White goads Black into destroying him !
Black gets easy equality against quiet play: 1 2.0-0 Qd7 1 3.Nxe7
Nxe7 1 4.Be3 Bg4 [ 14 . . . Ng6 ! ?-Alonso] 1 5. Qh4 Ng6 1 6.Qg3 Be7
1 7.h3 Be6 1 8 .c3 0-0 1 9.Nc2 a5 ! 20.Rfd 1 Rfc8, Huergo-Alonso, Cuba
1 988. Now White should play 2 1 .Bc 1 [=] intending Ne3-f5.
1 2 ...
1 3 .cxb5 ?
Nd4!
1 3 ...
hxgS !
1 4.Qxh8
NxdS !
1 S.exd5
1 6.Kd1
QaS+
On 1 6.Kfl Black gets to execute the old smother mate theme with
1 6 . . . Qd2 ! 1 7.Bc4 Bxd5 1 8.Bxd5 Qd3+ 1 9.Kg 1 Ne2+ 20.Kfl Ng3+
2 1 .Kg1 Qfl+ 22.Rxfl Ne2 mate.
1 6 ...
1 7 . f3
B g4 ! +
1 7 ...
Nxf3 !
Chapter
1 8.gxf3
51
B x f3 +
1 9.Kc2
1 9.Be2 loses to 19 . . . Qa4!+ 20.b3 Qd4+.
1 9 ...
20.Bc4 !
Rc8+
B .2.
9 .c3
52
The Neo-Sveshnikov
This quiet move doesn 't make much sense here. Since White 's
main source of counterplay is usually based on a c2--c4 advance, he
will have to lose a tempo by advancing this pawn a second time.
9 ...
1 0 .exdS
NxdS
1 0 ...
1 1 .c4
N e7
g6
12.cxbS
Bg7
13.bxa6
0-0
1 4.Nc2?
I t ' s suicide t o move an already developed piece when your already
behind in development. He had to play 1 4.Bc4 Bxa6 1 5.0-0 when Black
has compensation for the sacrificed pawn but the meat of the battle is
still ahead.
1 4 ...
QaS+
1S.b4
Qa4
1 6.bS
So White has held onto his ill-gotten gains. However, Black's
attack now starts i n earnest.
1 6 ...
17.Rb1
White is already in terrible trouble.
18.f3
e4
B g4
53
Chapter 6
No better is 1 8. Be2 Bxe2 1 9.Qxe2 Nxd5.
1 8 .. .
1 9.gxf3
20.Rb3
2 1 .Ke2
exf3
Bf5 !
Q h4 +
B.3.
9.c4!
This is clearly White ' s best plan. He goes for immediate play on
the Queenside.
9 .. .
1 0. B e 3
N d4
54
The Neo-Sveshnikov
The most sensible move. White intends to simply chop the Knight
offl
Others:
1 ) 1 0.Nc2 [This is hannless] 10 . . . Nxd5 1 l .cxd5 [ 1 l .Nxd4 gives
Black good play after either 1 1 . . .Nf6 12.Nb3! Bb7 or 1 1 . . . Nb6 1 2.Nc6
Qh4 ! ] l l . . . Bg4 ! 12.Qd2 [ 1 2.f3? Qh4+ 1 3.g3 Nxf3+ is a disaster for
White] 12 . . . Nxc2+ 1 3.Qxc2 Be7 14.Bd3 0-0 1 5 .0-0 Rc8 1 6.Qb3 Bg5
[Black is already a bit better] 1 7.Bxg5 Qxg5 1 8 .Rfe l f5 1 9.exf5 Bxf5
20.Re3 Bxd3 2 1 .Qxd3 Qh4 22.Rfl Qc4 23.Qxc4 Rxc4 [White is worse
because the d5 pawn is weak and Black controls the important open c
file] 24.Ra3 Ra8 25.Rd l Rc2 26.Rb3 Rac8 27.h3 h5 28.Rdd3 h4 29.Rb4
R8c4 30.Rdb3 Kf7 3 1 .Rx.c4 Rxc4 32.Kfl Ra4! [The d5 pawn is immune:
32 . . . Rd4? 33.Ra3] 33 .Rc3 [33.a3 Rd4 picks up the d5 pawn because
the a3 square is no longer available to White 's Rook] 33 . . . Rxa2
34.Rc7+ Kf6 35.Rd7 e4 36.Rxd6+ Ke5 37.Rd8 Rxb2 38.d6 Ra2 39.d7
Ke6 40.Ke l Ke7 4 l .Rh8 Kxd7 42.Rxh4 b4 43.Rxe4 a5 44.Kd 1 Kc6
45.Rg4 b3 46.Kcl Kb5 47.f4 Rc2+ 48.Kbl a4 49.Rxg7 a3 50.Rb7+ Kc4,
0- 1 , Hodgson--Lputian, Soci 1 987.
2) 10.cxb5 ! ? Nxd5 l l .exd5 challanges the validity of Black's setllp.
Black now has the following possibilities:
2.a.) l l . . .Be7 1 2.Bc4 [ 1 2.bxa6? Qa5+ 1 3.Bd2 Qxd5 is in Black's
favor] 12 . . . axb5 1 3.Nxb5 Ba6 14.Na3 [ 1 4.Qd3 Qb6 ( 1 4 . . . Rc8? !
1 5.Nxd6+ Bxd6 1 6.Bxa6 Nc2+ 1 7. Kd 1 Nxa 1 1 8 .Bxc8 ,+=) 1 5 .Nxd4
Qb4+ 1 6.Bd2 Qxc4 1 7.Qxc4 Bxc4 1 8.Nf5 Bxd5 , =+. Analysis by
Klovans] 14 . . . 0-0 1 5 .0-0 Bf6 1 6.Be3, +-, Klovans-Kiselev, Frunze
1988.
2.b.) l l . . . Qh4!? 1 2.Be3 Nf5 1 3.Nc2 Be7 14.Be2 Nxc3 15.Nxe3 0 -0
1 6.0-0 f5, Black has some compensation for the sacrificed pawn,
Hellers-Cramling, Haninge 1 989.
Chapter
55
1 0 . ..
l l .e x dS
NxdS
56
The Neo-Sveshnikov
1 1 ...
1 2.Bd2
1 3.Bd3
14.Rb1
NfS
Be7
B f6
14...
0-0
15.0-0
g6
16.cxbS
axbS
1 7.NxbS
Or 1 7.Bxb5 Bb7 1 8.Bc4 e4 followed by . . . Be5 with plenty of play for
the pawn-Lputian.
17 ...
Rxa2
18.Na3
e4
19.Bxe4
Rxb2
20.Rxb2
Bxb2
2 1 .Nc4
Qh4!
22.Qf3
Or 22.Qc2 Bg7, =.
22 . . .
Nd4
23.Qe3
24.Nxd6
ReS
N fS
2S.NxfS
BxfS
BeS
Bxh2+
Qxh6
Bxe4
Bg3 =
26.f3
27.Qh6
28.Kh1
29.Bxh6
30.fxe4
57
Chapter 6
C o n cl usion
6.N1 c3 is one of White's more exciting possibilities . . . perfect for the
attacking or tactically oriented player. Theoretically White can't count
on more than a very small edge, but this is often more than he gets in
the other lines.
c.
6.N5c3
A logical move. Since White will have to move this Knight anyway,
he does so immediately and herds it towards the tempting d5 outpost.
Funnily enough, this will often transpose into lines from 6.Bc4
[Chapter Six, Variation A] . . . a move that I also feel is promising for
the first player. It's somewhat surprising that this has not been tried
more often.
6 ...
Nf6
7.Bg5
8.Bxf6
9.Nd5
Be7
Bxf6
0-0
The Neo-Sveshnikov
58
1 0.Bc4
B gS
l l.Nbc3
Kh8
1 1 . . . Be6!? is possible.
12.h4 ! ?
1 2.0-0 g6 i s often quoted as equal and though I am not denying it
here, I would love to see this assessment proved in actual play.
1 1 ...
1 3.g4
Bh6
Bf4 ? !
V an der Wiel gives 1 3 . . . f6! as best when 14.Rg 1 Bd7 1 5.Qd3 Nd4
[or 1 5 . . . a6] leads to an unclear position.
14.Be2!
Be6
1S.Qd3
Rc8
16.a3
17.Nxd5
1 8.Nxf4
19.0-0-0
20.Qd4!
BxdS
Ne7
exf4
Qb6
Chapter
59
20 ...
2l.Bd3
Qb3
Qe6 !
22.Qxa7
23.Qxb7
Qxg4
24.Qb4!
Nc6
2S.Qc4
Q f6
26.QdS
NeS
Qe6 !
C o n cl us i on
Nobody seems to take 6.N5c3 too seriously but surely the move
deserves a better fate then that. Personally I feel that 6.Bc4, 6.N5c3,
and 6.c4 are White's best positional remedies to Black's system.
D.
6.Nd2
The Neo-Sveshnikov
60
advance.
6 ...
N f6
7.Nc3
dS
8.Bd3
B g4
9.0
Be6
10.0-0
B e7
l l.exdS
NxdS
1 2.Nxd5
B xdS
C o n c l us i o n
6.Nd2 is useless. I t ' s surpnsmg that a strong and aggressive
Grandmaster like Velimirovic would play it.
E.
6.a 4
6 ...
Nf6
Chapter 6
61
7 . N l c3
62
The Neo-Sveshnikov
Now 8.Bd2 Qd8 leaves White with nothing better than 9.Bg5 with a
repetition. Other replies to 7 . . . Qa5+! ? should not prove too horrifying
for Black: 8.Qd2? [ 8 .c3 is most likely the best alternative when
8 . . . Nxe4 9.b4 Qb6 survives due to the threatened mate on f2]
8 . . . Nxe4 ! 9.Qxa5 Nxa5 1 0.Nc7+ Kd7 l l .Nxa8 Nxg5 and the White
Knight on a8 will never get out alive.
After 6 . . . Nf6 White's can also consider 7.N5c3 when 7 . . . Be7 and
7 . . . Be6 8. Bg5 Be7 are both perfectly playable. After 7 . . . Be7 Black
threatens to play 8 . . . Be6 and 9 . . . d5 with complete freedom. White
might now play 8.Bg5 [8.Bc4 Be6 is comfortable for Black] when
8 . . Nxe4? ! leads to some interesting complications after 9.Bxe7
[9.Nxe4? Bxg5 1 0.Nxd6+ Ke7 is very comfortable for Black] 9 . . . Nxc3
10.Bxd8 [ 1 0.Qxd6? Qxe7 is easy for Black] I O . . . Nxd l l l .Bg5 !
[ l l .Bc7?? Nxf2 ! 1 2.Kxf2 Kd7 would win a pawn for Black] 1 1 . . . Nxb2
12.Ra2 Nxa4 1 3.Rxa4 and though Black has 3 pawns for the piece, I
feel that White's chances are far superior. Due to this it seems better
for Black to answer 8.Bg5 with 8 . . . 0-0 [intending either . . . Be6 or even
. . . Nb4 ! ?] 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 0.Nd5 Bg5 l l .N l c3 g6 with chances for both
side:; [see Variation F.3 for a comparison]. Black can continue with
either a quick . . . f7-f5 or he can complete his development first by
. . . Be6 and . . . ReS.
.
E.l.
..
h6? !
Chapter
63
8 . B c4
A good move though several others have also been tried:
1 ) 8 .Na3?! Be6 9.Bc4 Bxc4 [ 9 . . . Rc8 !? is also fine] 1 0.Nxc4 Nxe4
t l .Nxe4 d5 [White docs not have Bg5 ] 1 2.Nxe5 Nxe5 1 3.Ng3 Bc5
14.0-0 0-0 1 5.Qh5 Re8 1 6.Bd2 Qb6 1 7.b3 Re6 1 8.Rad 1 Rc8 1 9.Nf5 d4,
and Black had the initiative, Ljubojevic-Tal, Wijk aan Zee 1 976.
2) 8.Be2 [Somewhat passive]
Bc6 l l .Bf3 a6 1 2.Na3 Nb4 1 3.Qe2 Rc8 14.Rfd l Qa5 1 5.g3 Rfd8 1 6.Bd2
64
The Neo-Sveshnikov
Chapter
65
Qd7 1 3.c4 Nf4 [ 1 3 . . . Nc7 1 4 . Qb3 Be7 (An instant loss follows
t4 . . . Nxb5? 1 5.cxb5 Rxa7?? 1 6.b6 with duel threats of 1 7.bxa7 and
t7.B b5) 1 5 . Be2 0-0 16.Nxc7 Qxc7 1 7.Bb6 Qd7 1 8.0-0, +-] 14.g3 d5
t 5.Qa4 ! [ 1 5.gxf4? Bb4+ 1 6.Ke2 Nh5 or 1 6 . . . exf4 leads to unnecessary
complications] 1 5 . . . Ne6 1 6.Bg2 [ 1 6.cxd5 Nxd5 1 7.Nd6+ Kd8 ! is
unclear] 16 . . . Rc8 1 7.cxd5 Nc5 1 8.Bxc5 Bxc5 1 9.0-0 0-0 20.d6 Ng4
2 l .Na7! Bxf2+ 22.Rxf2 Rc1 +. 23.Bfl Qxa4 24.Rxa4 Nxf2 25.Kxf2 and
White has a winning endgame, Chekhov-Panchenko, Leningrad 1 976.
4.c.) 8 . . . a6 [The best move. It's a good idea to get rid of the Knight
before it causes harm] 9.Na3 Be6 [Another idea is 9 . . . Rb8! ? 1 0.Bc4
(10.Nc4 ! ? b5 1 1 .axb5 axb5 1 2.Nxb5 Rxb5 1 3.Nxd6+ Bxd6 14.Bxb5 Bb7
is unclear) 1 0 . . . Be7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.Nd5 Nxd5 1 3.exd5 Nd4 ! 14.Bd3
(14.Bxd4 exd4 1 5.Bd3 ! ? deserves consideration) 14 . . . Nf5 1 5.Bd2 Bg5
16. a5 Nh4 17.Nc4 Bxd2 1 8.Qxd2 Bh3 1 9.Be4 f5 and Black had seized
the initiative, Akhmylovskaya-Van Der Miye, Rosendal 1 976. The end
was 20.gxh3? fxe4 2 1 .Kh1 Nf3 22.Qe3 Qh4 23.Nd2 Rf4 24.Qa7 Qxh3! ,
0- 1 ] 1 0.Nc4 Nxe4! l l .Nxe4 d 5 1 2.Nb6 [ 1 2.Nxe5 Nxe5 1 3.Ng3 Bd6 i s
slightly better for Black, Zhelnin-Schneider, Moscow 1 976] 1 2 . . . dxe4!
[Also deserving serious consideration is 1 2 . . . Rb8 ! ? 1 3.Nc5 d4
14.Nxe6 Qxb6 1 5.Nxf8 dxe3 1 6.Nd7 Qb4+! and Black is in the driver's
seat since 1 7.Ke2 Rd8 picks up the floating Knight with great
advantage] 1 3.Nxa8 Qxa8 1 4.Bb5 Be7 1 5.0-0 0-0, Black has a pawn
and the initiative for the exchange. Lutikov-Gurgenidze, Thilisi 1 976
continued 1 6.Bxc6 bxc6 1 7.Qd2 f5 1 8 .Qc3 B f6 1 9.Bc5 ReS 20.Bd6 Bd5
2 1 .Qc5 f4 and White was on the defensive.
8 ...
a6
9.Na3
Be6
There is also nothing wrong with 9 . . . Be7 10.0-0 [Poor i s 10.f3 ? ! 0-0
1 I . Be3 Nb4 1 2.Qd2 Bd7 1 3.g4? b5 ! 14.axb5 axb5 1 5 .Bb3 Be6 1 6.Ncxb5
d5 1 7.exd5 Nfxd5 1 8.Rd 1 e4 1 9.fxe4 Nxe3 20.Qxd8 (20.Qxe3 Bh4+ is
als o hopeless) 20 . . . Bxd8 2 1 .Rd4 Bxb3, 0- 1 , Nizhnik-Kavasev,
leningrad 1976] 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .f3? ! [This move does not fit in well with
the 6.a4 system. Better is 1 1 .Bd5 or l l .b3 ! ? followed by 1 2 . Bb2]
1 I . . . Nh5 ! ? 1 2.Be3 B g5 1 3.Qd2 Bxe3 1 4.Qxe3 Nf4 1 5 .Nd5 Nxd5
1 6.B xd5 Ne7 1 7.Rfd 1 Nxd5 1 8.Rxd5 Be6 19.Rd2 Qc7 20.Rad 1 Rad8
2 I .Nb 1 ! f5 22.Nc3 f4 23.Qf2 Rd7 24.Nd5 Bxd5 25.Rxd5 Rf6, 1{}.-1{}.,
Sposhru-Day, Haifa 1 976.
10.0-0
ReS
66
The Neo-Sveshnikov
l l . Re l !
Chapter 6
67
Does White have enough for the pawn? The following examples
int
to the view that Black's chances are to be preferred:
po
2.a.) 1 3.f4 Nf6 14.Nc4 [ 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.fxe5 Qg6 16.exd6 Bxd6
wins the pawn back but helps Black to get his pieces out] 14 . . . Nxd5
1 5 . Qxd5 Nb4! 1 6.Qe4 Qc7 [ 1 6 . . . Be7 is also alright since 1 7 . fxe5 is
answered by 1 7 . . . d5 ] 1 7.Ne3 d5 1 8.Nxd5 Nxd5 19.Qxd5 Qc5+
20.Qxc5 Bxc5+ 2 1 .Kh 1 e4 22.f5 e3 23.Bxe3 Bxe3 24.Rae1 0-0 25.Rxe3
Rxc2 26.Rb3 Rd8 ! 27.Rxb7 Rdd2 28.Rg 1 Rxb2 and Black had the better
endgame, Semenyuk-Sveshnikov, Odessa 1 975.
2.b.) 1 3.Nc4 Nf6 [Black probably has the better chances after
1 3 . . . Ne7 ! ? or 1 3 . . . Nd4] 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 1 5.Nb6 Rb8 1 6.Nd5 Qd8
1 7.Be3? [ 1 7.Ra3 ! Be7 1 8.Rg3 Bg5 1 9.f4 exf4 20.Bxf4 gives White
serious threats on the Kingside] 1 7 . . . Be7 1 8.b4 Bg5 1 9.b5 axb5
20.axb5 Ne7 2 1 .Bb6 Qd7 22.Nc7+ Kf8 23.c4 g6 24.Qd3 Kg7 25.Rfd 1
Nf5 and White's pressure gives him adequate compensation for the
sacrificed pawn, Gips1is-Timoschenko, Moscow 1975.
1 1 ...
12.b3
13.Bb2
14.Qe2
Nb4
Be7
0-0
Qc7
1 S .h3
White is a little better, Radulov-Netskarzh, Vrshats 1 975. The
further course of the game saw White increase that edge: 1 5 . . . Rfe8
1 6.Rad 1 Qc5 1 7 .Rd2 Kh7 1 8.Red 1 g6 [While White improves his
position with each move, Black doesn't do much of anything. It's
obvious that Black is playing without a plan] 1 9.Kh2 Nc6 [White
threatened to go after Black's d6-pawn with 20.Bxe6 fxe6 2 1 .Nc4 and
2 2 . B a3] 20.Nd5 B xd5 2 1 . Bxd5 Nd4 22.Rxd4 exd4 23.Bxb7 Rc7
24.Bxa6 d5 25.e5 Ne4 26.Bb5 Rd8 27.Rxd4.
E.2.
7 ...
Nb4 ! ?
68
The Neo-Sveshnikov
This never gained much popularity but the idea to control the crucial
8.Na3
8.Bg5 ! ? deserves serious consideration.
8 . ..
9.Bb5+
B e7
Nd7 !
1 0.Nc4
0-0
N f6
1 1 .0-0
12.Ne3
Be6
1 3.Qe2
Rc8
14.Rdl
a6
1 S.Bd3
16.Qf3
Qc7
R fe8
17.Nf5
Nxd3
18.cxd3
B d8
19.Bg5
Qd7
20.Ne3
Threatening 2 1 .Bxf6 Bxf6 22.Ned5 with advantage.
20...
Ng4 !
21 .Bxd8
Nxe3
Chapter
22.Qxe3
69
6
Qxd8
23.Rd2
24.d4
dS
exd4
E.3.
7 ...
Be7
Another 'normal ' looking move that has rarely been seen in
practice.
8.Bg5 !
The critical response. Quiet moves don't put any pressure on Black:
8.Be2 0-0 9.Be3 Be6 1 0.Nd5? [An error. After 1 0.0-0 the chances are
equal] 1 0 . . . Nxe4! l l .Nxe7+ Qxe7 1 2.f3 a6 1 3.fxe5 axb5 14.axb5 Rxa l
15.Qxa l Nb4!? 1 6.Qa4 Qh4+, Grigoriev-Nyenarkov, Moscow 1 92 1 .
8 . ..
9.Bxf6
10.Na3
l l .Bd3
a6
gxf6
fS
Nb4 ! ?
1 2.exf5
13.Qh5
dS
Qb6
14.0-0
lS.Rfel
1 6. Q e 2
Qf6
B d7
The Neo-Sveshnikov
70
E.4.
7.
. .
Be6
8 . B g5
Also seen is:
1) 8 .Be2 [Slow] 8 . . . a6 9.Na3 Nd4 1 0.0-0 Rc8 l l .Be3 Nxe2+
1 2.Qxe2 Be7 1 3.Rfd l 0-0 14.Rd2 Rxc3 ! 1 5 .bxc3 Nxe4 1 6.Rd3 Qa5
1 7.f3 Nc5 1 8.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 19.Qf2 Qc7 20.Nb1 d5 2 1 .Qe 1 Bc5+ 22.Kh l
Rd8 23.Rd2 f5 24.Re2 e4, White 's pawn weaknesses and Black's
strong pawn center and two Bishops give Black a strong initiative,
Lutikov-Yefimov, Yerevan 1 977.
2) 8.Nd5 ! ? [Very logical. White grabs space and the two Bishops]
8 . . . Bxd5 [According to Sveshnikov, Black should give 8 . . . Rc8 9.Nbc3
Be7 ! ? serious consideration. Instead of this, Mednis-Fedorowicz ,
New York 1 977 went 8 . . . Rc8 9.Nbc3 Qa5 ? ! and after 10.Nxf6+ gxf6
1 1 .Bd3 Rg8 1 2.0-0 Bh3 1 3.g3 Bxfl 14.Kxf1 Rg6 1 5.Nd5 Qd8 1 6.Qh5 ,
White had more than enough compensation for the sacrificed
exchange] 9.exd5 Nb4! ? [Or 9 . . . Ne7 1 0.g3 ( 1 0.Nc3 and 1 0.c4 are
logical alternatives and probably should be given precedence over
10.g3) 10 . . . g6 1 1 .Bg2 a6 12.Nc3 Bg7 1 3.0-0 0-0 14.a5 Nf5 1 5.Ne2 ReS
1 6.c3 Rc5 17.b4 Rc4 with good play for Black] 1 0.Nc3 [ 1 0.c4 seem s
stronger since it cuts the b4 Knight off from the rest of the board and
finn1y defends the d5 pawn] 1 0 . . . a6 l l .a5 Rc8 1 2.Ra4 [ 1 2.Bg5 ! ? ]
1 2 . . . Rxc3 1 3.bxc3 [ 1 3.Rxb4 Rc7 14.Be3 Nd7 is also fine for Black]
1 3 . . . Nbxd5 1 4.Bd2 Be7 gives Black adequate compensation for the
Chapter
71
e xchange : 1 5.Be2 Qd7 1 6.Qal Nc7 1 7.0-0 Ne6 1 S.Be3 0-0 1 9.c4 Ne4
zo. Ra3 N4c5 2 1 .f4 exf4 22.Bxf4 B f6 23.Qd l Nxf4 24.Rxf4 Be5 25.Rfl
Ne4 26.Kh l Qe7, 1/2-l/2, Filipowicz-Lombard, Budapest 1976.
8 ...
Nb4
Other possibilities:
1 ) S . . . a6 transposes into lines from E.5.e.
2) S . . . Be7? 9.Bxf6 gxf6 1 0.Nd5 ReS 1 1 .c3 a6 1 2.Na3 f5 1 3.exf5 Bxf5
14.Nc4, Black has lots of weaknesses and nothing to show for them,
Hennings-Lorentz, Leipzig 197 1 .
3 ) S . . . RcS 9.Bxf6 gxf6 1 0.Nd5 Bxd5 1 1 .exd5 Ne7 1 2 .Nc3, White
has the better position.
9.Be2
A calm move. A sharper attempt i s 9.Bxf6 ! ? gxf6 10.Nd5 [ 1 0.Na3 !?]
10 . . . Nxd5 1 1 .exd5 with a complicated game, Vogt-Wirthensohn,
Vrshats 1 975.
Other tries have not done well for White:
1) 9.f4?! exf4 10.Bxf6 gxf6 1 l .Nd4 Qb6 threatens 12 . . . Qxd4 ! .
2 ) 9.Na3? ! B e 7 1 0.Bb5+ [ 1 0.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 1 .Nc4 d5 ! poses no
problems to Black] 10 . . . Nd7 1 l .Bxe7 [White tried 1 l .Be3 on one
occasion but this created a sour memory for him: 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2.Nd5 B xd5
1 3.cxd5 Nf6 14.c4 e4 1 5.a5 Nd3+ 1 6.Ke2 a6 17.Ba4 Qxa5 and Black
went on to win, Matanovic-Wirthensohn, Vrshats 1 975] 1 1 . . . Qxe7
[ l l . . . Kxe7 ! ? is also adequate: 12.0-0 Nf6 1 3.Qd2 Qc7 14.Rae 1 a6
1 5.Be2 Rhe8 1 6.f4 exf4 1 7.Rxf4 Qc5+ 1 8.Kh 1 Nc6 1 9.Nc4 Ne5 20.Ne3
Ned? 2 l .Refl Kf8 22.Ned5 Bxd5 23.Nxd5 Rxe4 24.Nxf6 Nxf6 25.Rxf6!?
gxf6 26.Qh6+ KeS 27.Qxf6 Rxe2 28.QhS+ Ke7 29.Qxa8 Qd5 30.QgS
Q f5 3 1 .Kg1 Qc5+ 32.Kh1 Qf5 33.Kg1 Qc5+, 1/2-l/2, Silva-Wirthenson,
Haifa 1 976] 1 2.Nc4 Bxc4 [ 1 2 . . . 0-0!? 1 3.Nxd6 Nxc2+ 14.Qxc2 Qxd6 is
also possible] 1 3.Bxc4 ReS 14.Bb3 0-0 15.Nd5 [ 1 5.0-0 followed by a4a5 is stronger] 1 5 . . . Nxd5 1 6.Bxd5 Nb6 1 7.Bb3 KhS 1 S.Qg4 d5 !
1 9.exd5 f5 20.Qe2 Qb4+ and Black had a strong initiative, Isegkeit
Coldwell, England 1976.
9 ..
.
a6!
72
The Neo-Sveshnikov
17.Nc4 Rg6 1 8.a5 ReS 1 9.Ra3 Rh6 20.Rg3 Kf8 2 1 . Qd2 Rc7 22.Nb6 Be8
23.c4 Bf6 24.b4 Bg7 25.Rd l Re7 26.c5! and White 's attack on the
Queenside proved decisive.
1 0. N a 3
1 0.Bxf6 gxf6 l l .Na3 is better according to Sveshnikov. However,
Sveshnikov himself points out that Black can then play l l . . .d5 ! ? , and
this seems to me to be quite comfortable for the second player.
1 0 ...
1 1 .0-0
ReS
12.Bxf6
Bxf6
1 3.Bg4
0-0
14.Bxe6
fx e6
1 5.Ne2
dS
Be7
E.S.
a6!
This logical move gets rid of the annoying Knight on b5 and allows
Black to develop without fear of surprises.
After the forced 8.Na3, Black has the following choices: E.S.a .
8 . d 5 ; E.S.b. 8 . . . Bg4; E.S.c. 8 Be6; E.S.d. 8 ... Be7.
.
E.S.a.
..
8 ...
dS! ?/? !
Very forcing. Theory looks upon this move with disfavor but nobody
has managed to demonstrate a clear refutation.
9.exd5
9.Bg5 is hannless: 9 . . . d4 1 0.Nd5 Be6 l l .Bc4 Bxd5 1 2.exd5 Bb4+
Chapter
73
1 3.Kf1 Na5 14.Qe2 Qd6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 1 6.Bb5+ Kf8 1 7.Bd3 g6 1 8.Nc4
Nxc4 19.Bxc4 Rc8, = , Letelier-Rossetto, Mar del Plata 1 958.
9 ...
Nd4
1 0. B e 3
I t may be preferable
to
1 0 ...
Bb4
l l .Bxd4
exd4
1 2.Qxd4
1 3.Be2
Qe7+
0-0
74
The Neo-Sveshnikov
E.S.b.
8 ...
Bg4 ! ?
9 .f3
The natural 9.Be2 gives Black easy equality: 9 . . . Bxe2 1 0.Qxe2 d5
[ 1 0 . . . Nd4 ! ? may be more precise : l l .Qd3 d5 1 2.exd5 ( 1 2.Bg5! ?)
1 2 . . . Nxd5 1 3.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.0-0 0-0-0 1 5 . Nc4 and now 1 5 . . . Bc5 or
15 . . . Kb8 both give Black a good game. Analysis by Arkhipov] 1 1 .exd5
[ 1 1 .Bg5 !?] l l . . .Nxd5 1 2.Nc4 Nxc3 1 3.bxc3 Qd5 1 4.0-0 Bc5 1 5.Rd l
Qe6 1 6.Be3 Be7 1 7.Rabl Rb8 1 8.Nb6 Rd8 1 9.c4 Rxd l + 20.Qxd 1 ().{),
l/2-1/2, Dvoiris-Arkhipov, Tashkent 1 978.
9 ...
1 0.Bc4 ? !
Be6
75
Chapter 6
1 0 ...
ReS
Black can also prevent White from castling with 10 . . . Qb6 ! ? . One
ex ample: l l .Nd5 [White gets nowhere after l l .Bxe6 fxe6 1 2.Nc4 Qb4
t 3.Ne3 0-0-0] l l . . . Bxd5 1 2.Bxd5 Nxd5 1 3.Qxd5 Qb4+ 14.Kf2 Qxa4
J 5.Rd l Qa5 1 6.Qxa5 Nxa5 17.Nb5 axb5 1 8.b4 d5 1 9.bxa5 Bc5+ 20.Be3
d4 2 1 .Bd2 Kd7 22.Ke2 Kc6 23.Rab l b6 24.axb6 Ra2 and Black went on
to win the game, Lazarichev-Arkhipov, Moscow 1 977.
1 1 .Be3? !
Both 1 1 .Bg5 and 1 1 .0-0 make more sense.
1 1 ...
Nb4!
1 2.Bxe6
fxe6
13.Qe2
Be7
14.0-0
0-0
1S.f4
exf4
16.Rxf4
eS
17.Rf3
dS
1 8.exd5
NbxdS
1 9.Nxd5
QxdS
E.S.c.
8 .. .
Be6
76
The Neo-Sveshnikov
9 . B g5
The alternatives are also important:
1 ) 9. Be2? ! [Passive] 9 . . . d5 1 0.exd5 Nxd5 l l .Nxd5 B xds
[ l l . . . Qxd5 ! ? ] 12.0-0 Bc5 1 3.Nc4 0-0 14.Be3 Bxe3 1 5 .Nxe3 B e 6
1 6.QxdS RaxdS 1 7.Bf3 f5 1 S.Bxc6 bxc6 1 9.Rfe l Rd7, =, Vataka
Lombard, Kapfenberg 1 976.
2) 9.Be3 ReS [9 . . . Be7, 9 . . . RbS !?, and 9 . . . d5 ! ? are all possible]
10.Nc4 Nd4 l l .Bxd4 Bxc4 1 2.Bxc4 Rxc4 1 3.Be3 QcS [ 1 3 . . . Qc7 !?]
14.Qd3 h6 with a comfortable game for Black.
3) 9.Nc4 ReS [9 . . . Be7 ! ? ] 1 0.Bd3? ! Nb4 1 1 .Ne3 Be7 1 2 .0-0 0-0
1 3.Re1 Qc7 14.Be2 Qc5 15.Bf3 g6 1 6.Ra3 Rfd8 17.Ned5 Nfxd5 1 8.exd5
Bf5 1 9.Be4 Bxe4 20.Rxe4 f5 2 1 .Re2 B f6, =+, Gufeld-Filipenko,
Ordzhonikidze 1 978.
4) 9.Bc4 Rc8 [Black can trap himself with 9 . . . Bxc4? 10.Nxc4 Nxe4
l l .Nxe4 d5 1 2.Bg5 ! f6 1 3.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Qxd5 ! Nd4 1 5.0-0-0 and White
win. Galia-Grunfeld, Vienna 1 946 and Gaprindashvili-Polihroniade,
Medelin 1 974. Who says lightning doesn't strike twice? A legitimate
thought is 9 . . . Nb4 though White might achieve a small edge with
10.b3 Be7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.Bb2 due to his enduring control of d5] 1 0.0-0
[ I O.Bg5 Nb4 ! ? (Inferior is 10 . . . Nd4? ! l l .Nd5 ! Bxd5 1 2.Bxd5 Qa5+
1 3.Bd2, +-. Playable but somewhat passive is 1 0 . . . Be7 since it gives
White too free a hand after 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3 .Nd5 Bg5 1 4.c3
KhS 1 5.Qd3 f5 1 6.Ne3, +=, Wolff-Tisdall, London 1 990) l l .b3 Be7
1 2.Bxf6 B xf6 1 3.0-0 0-0 14.Nd5 Nc6 (Also possible is 14 . . . Nxd5
15.Bxd5 Qe7 1 6.c4 Qd7 1 7.Qd2 Bd8 1 8.Bxe6? fxe6 1 9.Rfd l Bb6! with
the initiative for Black, Price-Speelman, Israel 1 977) 1 5. Qd3 Bg5
16.Rad l Kh8 1 7.c3 f5 1 8 .Ne3 fxe4 1 9.Qxd6 Bxe3 ! 20.Qxd 8 ! RcxdS
2 1 .Rxd8 RxdS 22.fxe3, Filipowicz-Nichevsky Polanica Zdroj 1 974.
Now Black must avoid 22 . . . Bxc4? 23.Nxc4 Kg8 because of 24.a5 and
instead play 22 . . . BgS 23.BxgS Kxg8 with an excellent endgame for
Black] 1 0 . . . Nb4 ! ? [ 10 . . . Bxc4?! l l .Nxc4 Nd4 1 2.Qd3 Nxc2 1 3.Qxc2
Rxc4 14.Bg5 Be7 15.Qb3 Qc8 1 6.Rac l gives White strong pressure for
the pawn. After 1 6 . . . Rc6 1 7.Rcdl 0-0 1 8.Rd3 h6 1 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Rfd l
Rfd8 2 1 .Rf3 ReS 22.h3 Re6 23.Nd5 Bd8 24.Qb4 ! Rg6 25.Kh2 Rc2
26.Rd2 Rxd2 27.Qxd2 Qc4 28.Qb4 Qxb4 29.Nxb4 d5 30.Nxd5 R c6
3 1 .Rb3 b6 32.Rd3 White had a clear advantage in the endgame and
went on to win, Radulov-F.Portisch, Belgrade 1 977] l l .B xe6 [ l l .b3
can be met by l l . . . Be7, l l . . . b5 ! ?, or l l . . . d5 ! ? ] l l . . . fxe6 1 2.f4 Be7
[ 1 2 . . . exf4!?] 1 3.Qe2 Qc7 14.Be3, =, Drimer-Gorensen, Denmark 1 967 .
Chapter
9 ...
77
ReS
It's not clear what Black's best course is. The alternatives deserve
close examination:
1 ) 9 . . . Be7 10.Nc4 0-0 1 1 .Bxf6 Bxf6 1 2.Qxd6 [ 1 2.Nxd6 Qb6! doesn't
seem like a good idea for White since 1 3 . Qc 1 is answered by
13 . . . Bg5 ! . Also dubious is 1 2.Bd3?! Ne7 1 3.Ne3 Bg5 1 4.Qe2 Bxe3
1 5.Qxe3 f5 1 6.f3 fxe4 1 7.fxe4 Nc6 1 8.Rfl Qh4+ 1 9. Qg3 Qh6, -+,
Goudi-Ochoa, Haifa 1 976] 12 . . . Qe8 1 3.Qd2 Rd8 14.Nd5 Bxd5 1 5 .exd5
Nd4 1 6.Ne3 Bg5 1 7.h4 Bh6 1 8.Bc4 Qe7 1 9.c3 Qc5 20.Qd3 B xe3
2 1 .fxe3 Nf5 22.Qxf5 Qxc4 23.e4 g6 24.Qf3 f5 25.Qe2 Qc5 26.0-0-0 b5
27.exf5 Rxf5 28.g4 Qf2 29.Rh2 Qf4+ 30.Kbt Rn 3 1 .axb5 axb5 32.h5 g5,
Unclear, Hedman-Menville, Cienfuegos 1 977. White's a pawn ahead,
but White's weakened King combined with Black's pressure on g4 and
down the f-file give the second player adequate compensation.
2) 9 . . . Nb4 ! ? 1 0.Nc4 [Or 1 0.Bxf6 gxf6 1 1 .Bc4 ReS 1 2.Nd5 f5 ! 1 3.0-0
Rg8 1 4.exf5 Qg5 15.Qf3 e4 1 6.Qxe4 Rxc4 1 7.Nxc4 Qxg2+ 1 8.Qxg2
Rxg2+ 1 9.Kxg2 Bxd5+ 20.Kg3 Bxc4 wth good prospects for Black,
Ivanov-Khasanov, Minsk 1 985] 10 . . . Rc8 1 1 .Ne3 Be7 1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6
1 3 .Be2 0-0 14.0-0 Bg5 1 5 .Ned5 Bxd5 1 6.exd5 Qa5 1 7.Ne4 Be7 1 8.c4
f5 1 9.Nd2 Qc7 20.a5 [White keeps trying to trap the Knight but it
always seems to get away] 20 . . . b6 2 1 .Nb3 Rb8 22.Qd2 bxa5 23.Nxa5
Rb6 24.Ra4 Rfb8 25.g3 g6 with good play for Black, Fichtl-Novak,
Rinavska Sobota 1 977.
3) 9 . . . Qb6 ! ? is a recommendation of English players. If 1 0.Rb 1
[ 10.Bxf6? ! Qxb2 or 1 0.b3 Qb4 are both bad for White] 1 0 . . . Qb4 ! ?
[ 10 . . . d5 !?] 1 1 .Bxf6 [ l l .Bd3 d5] 1 1 . . . gxf6. Some practical tests would
shed a lot of light on this line.
1 0. B xf6
Three other choices:
78
The Neo-Sveshnikov
1 ) 1 0.Be2 Bc7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3.Nc4 Nd4 14.Ne3 Bg5, =+,
Pioch-Grachats, Hastings 1977-78.
2) 1 0.Bd3 Be7 l l .Bxf6 Bxf6 12.0-0 0-0 1 3.Nc4 Bg5 1 4.Nd5 BxdS
15 .cxd5 Ne7 1 6.Qg4 Bh6 1 7.Ne3 g6 1 8.Qh3 Bxe3 1 9.fxe3 Nxd5, =+,
Prizant-Povah, London 1 976.
3) 1 0.Nc4 Nd4 [ 1 0 . . . Nb4 ! is also easy for Black: 1 1 .Ne3 Be7
1 2.Be2 0-0 1 3.0-0 h6 1 4. Bxf6 Bxf6 1 5 .Ncd5 , l /2- 1/2, Geller
Sveshnikov, Yerevan 1982] l l .Bxf6 [ l l .Nc3 Be7 1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3.Bd3
Bg5 14.Ned5 0-0 followed by . . . g7-g6 and . . . f7-f5 gives mutual
chances. If 1 1 .Nd5 Be7 1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 1 3.c3 Bxd5 14.exd5 Nf5 15 .Qb3
Black gets excellent play with 15 . . . Rc7] 1 1 . . .gxf6 [ 1 1 . . . Qxf6 is also
possible] 1 2.Ne3 f5 [ 1 2 . . . Bh6!?] 1 3.cxf5 Nxf5 14.Nxf5 Bxf5 15 .Bd3
Bc6 1 6.Be4 Rxc3 1 7.bxc3 d5 1 8.Bf3 e4 19.Bg4 Bg7 20.0-0, Enncnkov
Antonov, Albena 1 977, now 20 . . . f5 ! 2 1 .Bh5+ Kd7 gives Black lots of
play for the sacrificed exchange.
10 ...
Qxf6
l l . B c4
It seems to me that 1 1 .Nc4 offers White some chances of gaining a
small edge:
Chapter 6
79
I 6.c3 Nc6 1 7.Nf5 Bxf5 1 8.exf5 Qh6 1 9.Be4 Kh8 20.Qd3 Na5 2 1 .Nb6
Rc7 22.Bd5 g6 23.b4 Nc6 24.Bxc6 Rxc6 25.Nd5, +=, Durr-Chandler,
World Junior Championship 1 977] 1 3.exd5 Bb4 14.Bd3 [Plain bad is
I4.dxe6? Rxc3 ! . Black gets active play after 14.Bc4 Bf5 1 5 .0-0 Bg6
I 6.Ng4 Qf4 1 7.Ne3 Bxc3 1 8.bxc3 Nxc2! 1 9.Nxc2 Bxc2 20.Qxc2 Qxc4,
Savon-Tseshkovsky, Sochi 1975] 14 . . . Rxc3 ! ? 15.bxc3 Bxc3+ 1 6.Kfl
Bd7 1 7.Rb1 0-0 1 8.Rxb7 Bxa4 19.g3 e4 20.Bxe4 ReS 2 1 .Qd3 ! g6
22.Kg2, Velikov-Syenkov, Sofia 1 976. Black has not managed to prove
that his sacrifice [beginning with 12 . . . d5?! ] was sound.
1 1 ...
N d4
l l . . . Nb4 1 2.Nd5 Qg6 1 3.0-0 Qxe4 14 .Re l Qh4 1 5.g3 Qd8 1 6.Nxb4
B xc4 1 7.Nxc4 Rxc4 1 8.c3 and White 's iron control of d5 [which will
become the home of a monster Knight] compensates for the lost pawn.
l l .Qd3
1 2.Bd5 Qg6 1 3.Qd3 Bxd5 14.Nxd5 Qxg2 1 5.0-0-0 Qxf2 1 6.Rdfl Qe2
and White does not have enough compensation for the sacrificed
material , Kaizon-Pope, Haifa 1976.
1 2 ...
dS!
13.Bxd5
Bxa3
14.Rxa3
BxdS
15.Nxd5
Nxc2+
80
The Neo-Sveshnikov
1 6.Kdl
1 6.Kf1 ? Qg5 threatens a nasty check on c 1 .
1 6 ...
Qe6 ! ?
N d4
17.Rc3
1 8.Nc7 +
Rxc7
19.Rxc7
0-0
r lack h as an attack for the sacrificed exchange but tests are needed
to detennine how dangerous this attack is.
E.S.d.
8 ...
Be7
9 . B c4
Alternatives:
1) 9.Bg5? ! [This looks natural enough but it has a flaw] 9 . . . Nxe4!
[Solving Black 's problems in one stroke] 10.Nxe4 [ I O.Bxe7 Nxc3
1 1 .Bxd8 Nxd l is equal] 10 . . . Bxg5 l l .Nxd6+ Ke7 1 2.Nac4 Be6 1 3.Bd3
Chapter 6
81
82
The Neo-Sveshnikov
9 .. .
1 0.0-0
Be6
1 0 ...
1 1 .Bg5
ReS
Others:
1) 1 l .Re 1 0-0 1 2.b3 Nd4 1 3.Nd5? ! [ 1 3.Bb2 is correct with a
complicated game] 1 3 . . . Nxd5 14.exd5 Bf5 1 5.c3 b5 1 6.cxd4 bxc4
1 7 .Nxc4 exd4 and Black had the initiative, Gipslis-Gurgenidze ,
Goglidze Memorial 1977.
2) 1 l .Be3 0-0 1 2.Qe2 Nb4 ! 1 3 .Rfd 1 ? ! Bxc4 14.Nxc4 Nxc2 15.Qxc2
Rxc4 1 6.Qb3 Qc7 1 7.Bg5 Qc6 1 S.Rd3 ReS 1 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 and White did
not manage to prove his sacrifice correct, Rytov-Klaman, Sebastopol
Chapter 6
83
1973.
3) 1 1 .Kh 1 Nd4 1 2.Bd5 Nxd5 1 3.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.exd5 Nf5 15.f4 g6
t 6.Qe 1 f6 1 7.Qb4 Qc7 1 8.c4 h5! 1 9.b3 h4 20.Nc2 b5 ! ? with mutual
chances, Frank-Gamer, Canada 1 976.
1 1 ...
0-0
12.Bxf6
Bxf6
B gS
1 3.Nd5
14.c3
Ne7
1S.Qb3
BxdS
1 6.Bxd5
1 7.Qxd5
NxdS
18.Rfdl
1 9.Nc2
Rfd8
Qc7
g6
C o n cl usi on
Lines with 6.a4 are no threat to Black's opening. Best play seems
to be 6 . . . Nf6 7.Nt c3 a6 8.Na3 when 8 . . . Bg4 ! ? is very interesting and
8 . . . Be6 also seems to offer Black active play. Also adequate is
8 . . . Be7, though if White sidesteps the various positional traps Black
may end up with a solid but somewhat passive position.
F.
6.g3
84
The Neo-Sveshnikov
6 ...
Be7
7.Bg2
a6
8.N5c3
Be6
9.0-0
hS? !
Too frisky. The simple 9 . . . Nf6 1 0.Bg5 0-0 leaves White with just a
tiny edge.
l O.NdS
l l.Nbc3
1 2.Nxd5
1 3.Qxd5
N f6
BxdS
NxdS
N d4
Black is going all out for complications but such practices rarely
work when you stan out with a positional disadvantage.
1 4.Qxb7
h4
Chapter 6
lS.Rdl
85
16.Rd2
0-0
h3
17.c3 !
B gS
18.f4
hxg2
19.cxd4
ex f4
20.gxf4
Bxf4
2l.Rxg2
Qh4
22.Bxf4
Qxf4
23.QdS
Rogers-Kuijf, Wijk aan Zee II 1 989. The smoke has cleared and
White has ended up with a sound extra pawn and excellent chances to
win the game. Strangely enough, it was Black who ended up scoring
the victory after 23 . . . Rab8 24.e5 Rb5 25.Qxd6 Qe3+ 26. Kh l Qe4 27.b3
Rd5 28.Qxa6 Rxd4 29. Qe2 Qd5 30.Re 1 ReS 3 l .h3 f5 32.Qh5 Rxe5
33.Rc l Qe6 34.Rcg l Rd7 35.Qg6 Qd5 36.Rc l Ree7 37.Qa6 Rc7 38.Qfl
Rxcl 39.Qxc l Kh7 40.Qc3 Qdl + 4 l .Kh2 Qd6+ 42.Qg3 f4 43.Qh4+ Kg8
44.Rf2 Re4 45.Qg4 Qe5 46.a4 g5 47.a5 Re t 48.Qf3 Re3 49.Qa8+ Kg7
50.Qb7+ Kh6 5 l .Qc6+ Kh5 52.Qg2 Rg3 53.Qb7 Qf5 54.Khl Qbl +, 0- 1 .
G.
6 .Be2
Black should not experience any real difficulties after this passive
move.
6 . ..
a6
7.NSc3
8 . B e3
N f6
86
The Neo-Sveshnikov
8 .. .
9.0-0
10.Bf3
l l .Qd2
Be6
Rc8
h6
Ne7 ! ?
12.Rdl
Ng6
H.
6.Bd3
White gives the e-pawn some support but also weakens his own
control of d5. It's almost as if White is saying, "Anything is good
enough ! "
6 .. .
B e7
7.0-0
Be6
8.c4
All o f a sudden w e have transposed to lines found in ' I ' (next
variation).
8 ...
9.NSc3
a6
B gS
l O.BxgS
l l.NdS
QxgS
Rc8
Chapter 6
12.Nbc3
87
Nge7
13.Rel
Chandler-Tisdall, London 1 990. White may have a very tiny edge
but Black's game is quite playable.
I.
6 .c4
1.1.
..
6 .. .
7 . N l c3
The usual move. The threat of 8.Nd5 forces a reaction from Black.
Also seen on occasion are:
1 ) 7 .Be2 ! ? Be6 [Also good is 7 . . . a6 8.N5c3 Bg5 9.Nd2 Nf6
(9 . . . Nd4 1 0.Nf3 Bxc l l l .Rxc l Nxf3+ 1 2.Bxf3 Ne7 1 3.0-0, +=, Geller
Wirthensohn, Bern 1 988) 10.0-0 0-0 1 1 .Nb3 Bxc l 1 2.Rxc1 Be6 1 3.Qd2
Q b8 1 4.Rfd 1 Rd8 1 5.Qe3 Qa7 1 6.Qxa7 Nxa7 1 7.Rd2 b5, Mannion
Kuijf, Thessaloniki 1988. Black has good counterplay] 8.Be3 [Or 8.0-0
a6 9.N5c3 Nd4 (9 . . . Bg5 10.Nd2 Nd4 l l .Nb3 Nxe2+ 1 2.Qxe2 ReS
1 3.Nd5 Bxc l 14.Raxc 1 Ne7 1 5 .Rfd l , +=, Anand-Fauland, Moscow
88
The Neo-Sveshnikov
19S9.) IO.Bc3 Nxe2+ 1 l .Qxe2 Nf6 1 2.Nd5 Bxd5 1 3.exd5 0-0 14.Nc3
Nd7 15.Rac 1 f5 1 6.f4, 1/2-1/2, Cuijpers-Kuijf, Hilversum 19SS] S . . . a6
9.N5c3 Bg5 1 0.0-0 Bxe3 1 l .fxe3 Nf6 1 2.Na3 0-0 1 3.Qd2 ReS 1 4.Rad l
Qb6 1 5.Nc2 Ne7 1 6.b3 RfdS, =, Shon-Van der Wiel, Tilburg 19SS.
2) 7.Bd3 a6 [Black can also play 7 . . . Be6 S.0-0 a6 (S . . . h6! ? also
appears to be playable: 9.b3 Nf6 1 0.Nd2 0-0 1 l .Re 1 QbS 1 2.Nfl a6
1 3.Nc3 BdS 14.Nd5 Bxd5 1 5.exd5 Nd4 1 6.Ng3 b5 1 7.Be3 Ba5 1 S.Rfl
Bb6 1 9 . Kh 1 ReS 20.f4 e4 2 1 .Bxe4 Nxb3 22.axb3 B xe3 , 1/2-l/2,
Kholmov-Guseinov, Kleipeda 1 9SS) 9.N5c3 Bg5 1 0.Nd2 Nf6 l l .b3 0 -0
( 1 l . . . Nd7 ! ? deserves attention) 1 2.Bb2 Bg4 (Both 1 2 . . . Nd4 and
1 2 . . . Nd7 are interesting) 1 3.Be2 Bxe2 1 4 .Qxe2 Nd4 1 5.Qd3 B xd2
1 6.Qxd2 b5 1 7.cxb5 axb5 , =, Anand-Arakhamia, Oakham 1 990]
S.N5c3 Bg5 [Black might as well activate this Bishop. Less
commendable is S . . . Nf6 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.Re 1 h6 1 1 .Nd2 Bg4 1 2.f3 Bd7
1 3.Nb3 Be6 1 4.Bc3, Radulov-S.Nikolic, Smederevska Palanka 19S2]
9.Nd2 Nf6 1 0.0-0 [ 1 0.Nd5 0-0 1 1 .0-0 Nxd5? (This terrible move frees
White 's d3 Bishop and d2 Knight and allows White to build up a
strong Quecnside attack. Much better is 1 1 . . .Nd7 ! followed by . . . Nc5
with a good game for Black) 12.cxd5 Ne7 1 3 . Qb3 b5? (Playing on
White 's side of the board is not a good idea. Black had to try to drum
up Kingside counterplay with 1 3 . . . g6 and 14 . . . f5) 14.a4 Bd7 1 5 . ax.b5
axb5 1 6.RxaS QxaS 1 7.Nb 1 Bxc t 1 S.Rxc 1 Qa5 1 9.Qc3 Qa4 20.Qa3
ReS 2 l .RxcS+ NxcS 22.Nc3 Qxa3 23.bxa3 Na7 24.Kfl , Black's bad
Bishop, weak b5-pawn and passive Knight give White a winning
endgame, J.Peters-Silman, S.Cal. Closed Ch. 1 990.] 10 . . . Nd7 ! 1 1 .Re1
Nc5 [Black is already equal] 1 2.Bfl 0-0 1 3.Nd5 Be6 14.Nf3? ! Bxc1
1 5.Rxc 1 Bg4, =+, A.Sokolov-Van der Wiel, Rotterdam 1 9S9. Black
will conquer the d4 square.
. . .
8.Na3
a6
Be6
Chapter 6
89
The Neo-Sveshnikov
90
9.exf5 B xf5 1 0.Bd3 Black will find that his light squares have been
weakened.
Back to our main move: S . . . Be6.
Now White usually tries one of three lines: I.l.a. 9.Nc2; I . l .b.
9.Be2; I.l .c. 9.Nd5.
A new fourth possibility is 9.Bd3!? Bg5 10.Nc2 Bxc l l l .Rxc l Nf6
1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.b4 ReS 14.Nd5, +=, Novik-Milov, USSR 1 990. This
;.;. m ple method of play will certainly get more tests in the future.
! .1 . ? .
9 . Nc2
Loglcal. White brings the offside Knight back into play where it
keeps creatures out of d4 and threatens to continue its journey onto e3
and d5.
9 ...
B gS
1 0.Ne3
I think i t ' s better t o play 1 0.Be2 B xc l [ 10 . . . h6 ! ? has been
recommended by some sources. This would transpose into lines from
S . . . h6] 1 1 .Rxc1 Nf6 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.Qd2 with a small edge for White,
Mokry-Holzl, Wien 1989.
10
N ge 7
l l .Bd3
0-0
12.0-0
ReS
91
Chapter 6
13.Ncd5
N d4
1 4.Bd2
NxdS
lS.cxdS
B d7
1 6.Bb4
B bS
1 7.Bxb5
18.a4
NxbS
B x e3
1 9.axb5
Bb6
20.bxa6
bxa6
21.Rxa6
rs
l.l.b.
9.Be2
se at
This flexible move has become White 's most common respon
for
better
little
a
be
to
sed
this point. Since 9 . . . Nf6 1 0.Be3 is suppo
b.2.
.
l
.
I
or
White, B lack will usually play either I.t.b.l. 9 N d4
9 . . . Bg5.
..
92
I.l.b.l.
The Neo-Sveshnikov
9 ...
Nd4
1 0 . Nc2
Timman mentions that 1 0.Bg4 is premature due to 10 . . . B xg4
I l .Qxg4 d5 ! threatening . . . Bxa3 followed by . . . Nc2+.
Recently Timman gave 1 0.0-0 a try: 1 0 . . . Rc8?! [Timman says this
is probably the source of Black's later problems. 10 . . . Nf6 is preferable .
I should also mention that 1 0 . . . Bg5 is also worthy of a look] l l .Bg4 !
[already += according to Timman] l l . . .Nf6 12.Bxe6 fxe6 1 3.Be3 Qb6
["Black must try and maintain his d4 Knight since after 1 3 . . . Nc6
14.Qb3 White holds all the trumps."-Timman] 14.Nc2! [White plays
with a lot of energy. This temporary pawn sacrifice eliminates Black's
outpost on d4] 14 . . . Rxc4 [Horrible is 14 . . . Qxb2?? 1 5 .Bxd4 exd4
16.Na4 winning the Black Queen] 15.Qd3 Qc7 [ 1 5 . . . Qxb2? is still bad
if White doesn't fall for 1 6.Qxc4? Qxc3 ! 1 7.Qxc3 Ne2+ and instead
plays 1 6.Bxd4 exd4 1 7.Qxc4 Qxc3 1 8.Qxe6 with a winning position]
16.Bxd4 exd4 1 7.Nxd4 Kf7 1 8.Rad l ? ! [A natural but lazy move that
gives away White's advantage. 1 8.Kh 1 ! aiming for a quick f2-f4 and an
attack was correct. White would then have a slight advantage]
1 8 . . . Re8 ! [By guarding the e6 pawn with his Rook, Black is able to get
his King to safety on g8. The game is now equal] 1 9.Khl [ 1 9.f4 d5 !
gives Black adequate counterplay since the threat is 20 . . . Rxd4
followed by . . . Bc5] 19 . . . Bf8 20.f4 Kg8 2 1 .f5 exf5 22.exfS [22.RxfS ReS
23.Rxf6 gxf6 24.Nd5 Rxd5 24.exd5 Re i 25.Ne6 Qc2 ! reaches an,
endgame that offers White no advantage while 22.Nxf5 ReS gives
Black an acceptable position since 23.Nh6+ Kh8 is safe. Analysis by
Timman] 22 . . . Re5 ! 23.Nf3 [23.Ne6 Qc6 24.Nxf8 Kxf8 25.Qxd6+ Qxd6
26.Rxd6 R f4 gives White nothing according to Timman] 23 . . . Rec5
24.Nd2 [24.NgS Qc6] 24 . . . Rh4 [On 24 . . . Rg4 25.Nde4 is a strong
reply] 25.Qg3 [25.Nde4 is impossible now due to 25 . . . Nxe4 26.Nxe4
dS ! ] 25 . . . Rb4 [The beginning of a bad idea. 25 . . . Rg4 26.Qf3 Qc6
prevents a White Knight from landing on e4 and equalizes the
position] 26.a3 Rxb2? [Swallowing the bait. 26 . . . Rg4 was still best.
Now White reaches a favorable endgame by force] 27.Na4 Rxd2
28.Rxd2 Rc4 29.Qb3 Kh8? ! [Short intended 29 . . . d5 ! but then saw that
30.Nb6 Ng4 (Better is 30 . . . Rc3 3 l .Nxd5 Rxb3 32.Nxc7 Bxa3 33.Nd5
which is good for White but Black can put up a tough fight. So 29 . . . d5
is best after all!-Timman) 3 l .g3 Re i 32.Kg2 Rxfl 33.Kxfl Qc l +
34.Ke2 gives White an initiative] 30.Nb6 Rc3 3 l .Nd5 ! Rxb3 32.Nxc7
Rxa3 33.Ne6 Be7 34.Rc2 [Materially Black is alright but White' s
Rooks are now able to penetrate and this gives White a strong attack]
Chapter 6
93
1 0 ...
Nxe2
1 1 .Qxe2
1 2 .0-0
N f6
1 2 ...
ReS
1 3.Ne3
Worse i s 1 3.b3? b5 with advantage to Black.
1 3 ...
14.Rd1
0-0
1 4 . ..
1S.b3
1 6.Ned5
Or 1 6.Ncd5 Nxd5 1 7.cxd5 Bd7, =+.
Qc7
bS
The Neo-Sveshnikov
94
1 6 ...
17.Nxd5
18.cxd5
N x d5
Bxd5
Qc2
19 .Qg4 ? ?
A bad mistake that loses quickly. All the other possibilities are
better:
1) 1 9.Rd2 Qc5, =+.
2) 1 9.Bd2!? Bg5 [ 19 . . . f5 ! gives Black a good game] 20.Rac1 Qxd2
[20 . . . Qxa2?? 2 1 .Rxc8 Rxc8 22.Qg4 wins for White] 2 1 .Rxd2 Rxc 1 +
22.Rd 1 Rfc8 23.f4 Bxf4 24.Rxc1 Rxc1 + 25.Kf2 Bxh2 26.Qd2 i s given by
Sveshnikov as unclear. However, Black's Queenside pawns can easily
become weak here.
3) 1 9.Qxc2 Rxc2 20.Be3 Rfc8 2 1 .Rdc 1 g6 22.a4 b4 23.Rxc2 Rxc2
24.Rc l Rb2 is nice for Black.
19 ...
20.exf5
fS!
h5!
21.Qf3
e4
22.Qxh5
Rxf5
l.l .b.2.
9 . ..
B g5
One of the main ideas of this system . . . B lack trades his 'bad '
Bishop for White's good one. The down side of this plan is that it
consumes a couple of tempi and it leaves the d6 pawn somewhat
tender.
1 0. B x g 5
Taking the bull b y the horns and asking Black if his Queen is well
Chapter 6
95
10 . . .
1 1 .0-0
QxgS
Rd8
1 2 .Nd5
In Am.Rodriguez-Remon, Havana 1 990, White tried a different
96
The Neo-Sveshnikov
method with 12.Nc2. At first, the continuation of the game went well
for the White: 1 2 . . . Nf6 1 3.Qd3 h5 [Am. Rodriguez recommend s
1 3 . . . Nh5 !? as a possible improvement] 14.Nd5 h4 1 5.Bf3 [According
to Am. Rodriguez, this position is a little better for White] 1 5 . . . Bxd5?
[Opening up lines on the Queenside is not a good idea. Ideas that
need looking into are 1 5 . . . g6!? followed by 1 6 . . . Kf8 and 1 7 . . . Kg7,
15 . . . 0-0!?, and even the immediate 15 . . . Ne7! ? followed by 1 6 . . . Ng6
comes into consideration since 16.Nxe7 Kxe7 seems alright for Black]
1 6.cxd5 Ne7 [Hoping to play . . . Ng6-f4. However, he will never get the
time to do this] 1 7.Qe3! Qg6 1 8.Rac l 0-0 1 9.Na3 [Am .Rodriguez
mentions 1 9.Nb4 ! ? Rd7 20.Rc4 and Rfc 1 as being a good alternative]
1 9 . . . b5 ! ? 20.Nb 1 [20.Rc7 ? ! runs into 20 . . . Nexd5 ! 2 1 .exd5 e4
threatening the f3 Bishop and a fork by . . . Nxd5. Very promising
though is 20.Nc2! ? intending Nb4 with pressure on a6 and control of
c6] 20 . . . Rc8 2 l .Nd2 [Now that e4 is well defended White 's Queen is
free to go on a destructive rampage via Qb6] 2 1 . . . Nh7 [Starting
Kings ide counter measures before he gets over run on the Queens ide]
22.h3 ! ? [22.Qa7 Qg5 23.Nb3 h3 24.g3 f5 is not clear] 22 . . . f5 23.exf5
Nxf5 24.Qd3 Nf6 25.Rc6 Qg5 26.Ne4? ! [Finally going wrong. 26.Rfc 1
Rx:;6 27.dxc6 gets clobbered by 27 . . . e4 ! , but the simple 26.Rxa6! Nd4
27.Nb3 ! would have been very good for White] 26 . . . Nxe4 27.Bxe4
Nd4 ! 28.f4 Qh6 [28 . . . Qg3 !?] 29.Rc3 b4? ! [29 . . . Rcc8 or 29 . . . Qh5 were
better choices] 30.Rxc8 Rxc8 3 1 .Qxa6 Rf8 32.Kh2 ! exf4 33.Qd3 Qf6
34.Rd l Nf5 35.Bxf5 Qxf5 36.Qxf5 Rxf5 37.Rd4 b3 38.a4!? [38.axb3, =]
38 . . . f3 39.gxf3? [39.Kgl Rg5 40.Rd2 fxg2 4 l .Rd3! was much more
interesting] 39 . . . Rxf3 40.Kg2 Rg3+ 4 l .Kh2 Re3 42.Rd2?? [Cracking up
completely. 42.Rxh4 Re2+ 43.Kg3 Rxb2 44.Rb4 was an easy draw]
42 . . . Re4, Black now has excellent chances to win but the game was
eventually drawn in 61 moves.
1 2 . ..
N f6
Theory says that this gives Black good play but neither Timman o r
97
Chapter 6
13.Nc7+
Kf8
14.Qd3
hS
1S.Nc2
Ne7?
V an der Wiel says that 1 5 . . . Qf4 1 6.f3 h4 with an edge for Black is
the correct continuation. I don't know if I can agree with such an
assessment though. Perhaps 'unclear' is the safest way to label this
position.
16.Radl
Ng6
1 7.Nxe6+
fxe6
98
The Neo-Sveshnikov
I.l .c.
9.NdS
I.l.c.l .
9 ... N f6 ;
I . l .c . 2 .
N f6
I don't think Black can equalize after this. One problem with the
move is that it blocks out the possibility of the important . . . Be7-g5
maneuver.
1 0.Bd3
Other moves also deserve consideration:
1 ) 1 0.Nxe7 [White has no reason to rush this capture] 10 . . . Nxe7
[ 1 0 . . . Qxe7!?] 1 1 .Bd3 0-0 12.0-0 Ng6 1 3.Be3 Ng4 14.Qd2 Qh4 1 5 .h3
Nxe3 1 6.fxe3, =, Van der Wiel-Holzl, Baden 1 980.
2) 1 0.Be3 [Sensible. Black immediately eyes b6 and threatens to
win the exchange by Bb6 followed by Nc7+] 1 0 . . . 0 -0 1 1 . f3 ! [A good ,
solid move. Not so good is l l .Nxe7+ Qxe7 12.f3 b5 1 3 .cxb5 Nb4
Chapter 6
99
1 0 ...
0-0
1 1 .0-0? !
1 1 .. . .
Nd7 !
Now White can't stop Black from getting rid of his 'bad' Bishop by
. . . Bg5.
l 2. B e 3
1 00
The Neo-Sveshnikov
Black is alright after 1 2.Nxe7+ Qxe7 1 3 .Be3 Nc5 14. Bc2 Rab8
followed by . . . b7-b5.
1 2 ...
13.QhS!?
B gS
Bxe3
14.fxe3
NcS
1S.Bc2
BxdS
16.exdS
g6
I.l .c.2.
ReS ! ?
More sensible than 9 . . . Nf6. The idea i s to take c 7 under control and
trade the 'bad ' Bishop with . . . Bg5. Tiviakov likes to adorn this move
with an ' ! ' .
1 0. B e 3
Two harmless possibilities:
1) 1 0.Nc2 Bg5 1 1 .Nce3 Nge7 1 2.Bd3 0-0 1 3.0-0 Nd4 14.Bd2 f5
15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 1 6.exf5 Bxe3 1 7.fxe3 Bxf5, =, Dvoiris-Shcherbakov,
USSR 1988.
2) 1 0.Be2 Bg5 1 1 .0-0 Bxcl 12.Rxc l Nd4 1 3.Nc2 Nxc2 14.Rxc2 Ne7= .
10...
1 1 .Bb6
1 2.Be2
B gS
Qd7
1 01
Chapter 6
1 2 . ..
B d8
Inferior is 1 2 . . . Nge7? 13.h4! Bh6 14.g4 Bf4 15.Nxf4 exf4 16.f3, +-.
1 3 .0-0
Avoiding lame lines such as 1 3.Be3 Ba5+ and 1 3.Bxd8 Rxd8, =.
13 ...
Nge7 ? !
1 4.Be3
Other moves promise less:
1) 14.Qb3 Bxd5 1 5.cxd5 Bxb6 1 6.Qxb6 Nd4, =+.
2) 14.Bxd8 Rxd8 1 5.Nc2 f5, =.
3) 14.Nxe7 Nxe7! ? 1 5.Qe3 f5, =.
14 ...
1 S.Nb6? !
0-0
1 5 ...
16.Bxb6
Bxb6
fS
1 02
The Neo-Sveshnikov
1 7 .exf5 ? !
White starts to drift. Tiviakov says that 1 7 . f3 Ng6 is correct with
about equal chances.
1 7 ...
NxfS
1 8 . Nc2
Trying to keep Black out of d4.
18
. .
19.b3
Nce7 !
dS
20.cxd5 ? !
According to Tiviakov, 20.Nb4 Qd6 ! ? 2 1 .c5 Qd7 is very good for
Black, but 20.Ba5 d4! ? might succeed in keeping Black's advantage
down to manageable levels.
20...
2l.Ba5
2 2 .Ne3
NxdS
Nf4!
22...
Nd4
I.l.c.3.
BxdS ! ?
This seems to lead to a solid game for Black. It's definitely worth
another try or two.
Chapter 6
1 03
10.cxd5
l l.g3
NbS
12.Bh3
1 3.Qe2
Ngf6
N d7
1 3 . f3 ! ? can be considered.
1 3 ...
h5
1.2.
Be6
7. N lc3
In Cuijpers-Perez Garcia, The Hague 1 9SS, White tried the quiet
7.Be2 but achieved nothing at all after 7 . . . a6 S.N5c3 [S.Na3 !?] S . . . Nd4
9.Nd5 Bxd5 1 0.cxd5 Nxe2 1 1 .Qxe2 Be7 1 2.0-0 Nf6 1 3.Nc3 0-0 1 4.Be3
ReS 1 5 .Rac 1 Nd7 1 6.Qg4 KhS. White 's play was completely
uninspiring.
a6
1 04
The Neo-Sveshnikov
8.Na3
9 . B e3
ReS
The unassuming 9.Be2 does not lead to any difficulties for Black:
9 . . . Nd4 1 0.Be3 Nxe2 1 1 .Qxe2 Be7 1 2.0-0 Nf6 1 3 . f3 0-0 1 4.Nd5 h6
1 5 . Rfd 1 Nxd5 1 6.cxd5 Bd7 1 7.Nc4 Bb5 1 8.Rdc 1 Bg5 1 9.b3 B xc4
20.bxc4 Bxe3+ 2 1 .Qxe3 Rc5 22.a4 Qc7 23.a5 f5 24.Qb3 fxe4 25.fxe4
Rxa5 26.Rxa5 Qxa5 27.Rb 1 Qd2 28.h3 Qd4+ 29.Kh1 Qxe4 30.Qxb7
Qxc4, 0- 1 , Mainka-Lputian, Dortmund 1 988.
We can see that Black will generally be happy to play . . . Nd4 and
. . . Nxe2 if allowed, so White' s playing 9.Be3 to prevent this m akes
alot of sense.
9 ...
N f6
1 0. B e 2
1 0.f3 is a little passive: 1 0 . . . Be7 1 1 .Be2 0-0 1 2.0-0 Nh5 1 3.Nd5
Bg5 14.Bb6 Qd7 1 5 .g3 Bd8 1 6.Be3 g6 1 7 . Qd2 f5 with good
countcrchanccs on the Kingside, FilipenkSveshnikov, USSR 1 9 87.
1 0 ...
1 1 .0-0
Be7
0-0
1.2.a.
1 2 .Rcl
1 2 ...
N e8
1 3.NdS
1 4.Bb6
B gS
Qd7
1 05
Chapter 6
1S.Rc3
Kh8
16.Nc2
g6
17.f4 ! ?
1 7.Nce3 is a calmer move when 17 . . . f5 1 8.exf5 gxf5 1 9.f4 i s very
nice for White.
17
1 8.Nce3
B d8
Inferior is 1 8.f5 gxf5 19.exf5 Bxd5 ! 20.Bxd8 Bxe4, but 1 8.Be3! may
give White a little something.
18
exf4
19.Rxf4
B gS
20.Rfi
Bh6!
21 .b4
B g7
22.Rcl
NeS
23.Kh1
24.Nxd5
BxdS !
Qe6
2S.Bd4
26.Nxf6
N f6
Bxf6
Intending 25 . . . Nf6.
1 06
The Neo-Sveshnikov
1.2.b.
12.Qd2
1 2 ...
13.Racl
1 4.g3 ! ?
h6
Ne8
1 4 .. .
N f6
1 07
Chapter 6
15.f3
16.Nd5
Nh7
fS
1 6 . . . Bg5 now gives White the superior game after 1 7 .f4 exf4
1 8.gxf4 Bh4 19.Rfd l , +-.
17.Bb6
Q d7
18.exf5
BxfS
1 9 .Nxe7 +
1 9.h4 ! ? Nf6! leads to a complicated battle with chances for both
sides .
1 9 ...
Nxe7
20.Rfdl ? !
Better i s 20.Nb l ! [heading for c 3 and d5] 20 . . . Bxb l 2 1 .Rxbl
followed by Rbd 1 , +=.
2 0 ...
Rf6
21 .Be3
Bg6!
22.Nbl
Bxb l !
23.Rxbl
24.c5 ? !
to
c3 and d5.
NfS
2 4 . ..
25.Bf2?
Kh8
NgS !
26.Kg2
One sample line that demonstrates White problems is 26. Kh l e4 !
27. f4 e3 28.Qd5 Ne6 29.Be l Rxc5 with a win.
1 08
The Neo-Sveshnikov
26 ...
27.Khl
e4 !
exf3
28.c6
Rxc6
29.Bd3
dS
30.Rel
Nd6
31 .Re5
Qn
32.Qa5
Nge4
f2
33.Bd4
34.Kg2
35.Bxfl
fl = Q + !
Rc2+
36.Kgl
Dolmatov-Guseinov, Klaipeda 1 988, and now 36 . . . Nd2 37.Qd8+
Qf8 wins immediately for Black. Instead Black made a horrendous
blunder with 36 . . . Ng5?? and actually lost after 37.Rxg5 ! hxg5 38.Qd8+
Qf8 39.Bxf6 Qxd8 40.Bxd8, 1 -0.
C o n c l u s i on
Grabbing a r.pace advantage with 6.c4 is White 's one true try at
refuting Black's opening system. If Black doesn't react in an active
and imaginati-e way he can easily find himself crushed to death on the
Queenside. However, there is no need for Black to get depressed ! So
far his position has held up fairly well and White has yet to
demonstrate a definite advantage.
J.
6.Bg5!?
I 've saved this line for last because I felt it would be a fun way to
end the book. White throws his Bishop to the winds. Why? Of course
Chapter 6
1 09
he will win Black's Rook but it is also obvious that the Knight will
never get out alive. The idea is that Black's King will be stuck in the
center and while he is busy winning the White Knight White might be
able to whip up an attack.
6 ...
7.Nc7+
QxgS
8.Nxa8
Be6!
Kd8
9.Nc3
N f6
l O.NbS
1 10
The Neo-Sveshnikov
1 0...
l l .f3
Nxe4
Qh4+
N x g3
1 2.g3
13.hxg3
Qxhl
1 4.Nxd6
Nd4!
Black is winning.
C o n c l u s i on
The sharp 6.Bg5 is new and interesting but I'm afraid ideas like this
are usually doomed to obscurity once the novelty fades.
Index Of Variations
l .e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d 4 cxd 4 4.Nxd 4 e5
Chapter One
5.NfS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Chapter Two
. . .
0-0
. ..........
.... ...
.
....
..
.....
............
...........
31
Chapter Five
The Neo-Sveshnikov
112
9.c4 ............................. 53
6.N5c3 .................................... ...... . . . . ....... ....... ....... .............. 57
6.Nd2........................ ........................................................... 59
6.a4 Nf6 7.N1c3
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
.......
.............. ..........
... .. 60
.
. . .
Nb4 .. ..
. .
..
. . . ...
.. .
..
.....
. . . . .. .
.........
..
.....
. . 67
...
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
...
. . . . . 94
..
...
9.Nd5 ........................ .. 98
9 . . .Nf6 .. ............. 98
9 . . .Rc8 .............. 100
9 . . . Bxd5 ............ 102
6 Be6 7Nlc3 a6 8Na3 Rc8 9 .Be3 Nf6 10.Be2 Be7 I I .().() ()..()...................... 103
. . .
12.Rcl..... 104
12.Qd2 _ 1()6
Bibliography
B ook s
New In Chess
Inside Chess