Sveshnikov/Kalashnikov [B32−33]

Written by GM John Fedorowicz & GM Tony Kosten

Last updated Tuesday, 9 January 2007

The Sveshnikov
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvl-tr0
9zpp+p+pzpp0
9-+n+-sn-+0
9+-+-zp-+-0
9-+-sNP+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

T he Lasker/Pelikan/Sveshnikov is one of Black's sharpest choices but White can

sidestep the wild tactical lines with the positional choice by not doubling Black's f−
pawns.
The LPS is for players with nerves of steel and an attraction to piece play.

The Kalashnikov
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvlntr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+nzp-+-+0
9+N+-zp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The Kalashnikov Variation has become very popular of late. I think White should
retain some advantage with patient play. The d5 square and the d6 pawn should be what he
looks to.

All the games given in blue can be accessed via ChessPub.exe, simply head for their
respective ECO code.

2
 Contents

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6

4...e5 5 ¤b5 d6 (6...a6 Kalashnikov−Other 6th & Lowenthal [B32])
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvlntr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+nzp-+-+0
9+N+-zp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

6 c4 (6 ¤1c3 Kalashnikov−Other 6th & Lowenthal [B32]) 6...¥e7 7 ¤1c3 (7 b3

Kalashnikov−Positional line − other 7th [B32]) 7...a6 8 ¤a3 Kalashnikov−Positional
Mainline [B32]

5 ¤c3 e5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvl-tr0
9zpp+p+pzpp0
9-+n+-sn-+0
9+-+-zp-+-0
9-+-sNP+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

6 ¤db5 d6 7 ¥g5
7 ¤d5 Sveshnikov 7 Nd5 & sidelines [B33]
7 a4 Sveshnikov 7 Nd5 & sidelines [B33]

7...a6 8 ¤a3 b5
8...¥e6 Sveshnikov/Pelikan 8...Be6 [B33]

3
9 ¥xf6
9 ¤d5 ¥e7 10 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 Sveshnikov−9 Nd5 Positional Line [B33]

9...gxf6 10 ¤d5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvl-tr0
9+-+-+p+p0
9p+nzp-zp-+0
9+p+Nzp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9sN-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

10...f5 Sveshnikov with ...gxf6 − 10...f5 [B33]

10...¥g7 Sveshnikov with ...gxf6 − 10...Bg7 [B33]

Press F4 or click on 'Bookmarks' (F5 in older versions) to toggle the Navigation Pane,
then click on the appropriate bookmark to go straight to that section.
Ctrl + 2 resizes the page to fit the window.

All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd

4
 Kalashnikov − Other 6th & Lowenthal

[B32]

Last updated: 10/12/05 by TonyK

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 e5

Other moves:
4...£b6!? This is a decent side line for players who want to avoid serious theory, 5 ¤b3
¤f6 6 ¥d3 d5!? this break looks very premature to me, Dervishi,E−Sax,G/Bratto
ITA 2004.
4...£c7!? 5 c4!? the most ambitious reply, 5...¤f6 6 ¤c3 ¤xe4!? the point, 7 ¤xe4 £e5
regaining the piece, but getting behind in development, Ivanchuk,V−
Movsesian,S/Warsaw POL 2005.

5 ¤b5 d6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvlntr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+nzp-+-+0
9+N+-zp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

I'm sorry, maybe it's just me (Fed), but the Kalashnikov seems like a positional atrocity.
Doesn't Black get better play from the Sveshnikov?
5...a6 the rare Lowenthal Variation, why anyone would play such a line is beyond me
(Fed)! 6 ¤d6+ (6 ¤5c3 aims for a Kalashnikov, but Black can try 6...¥c5!? as in
Djukic,N−Todorovic,G/Kopaonik SCG 2005.) 6...¥xd6 7 £xd6 £f6 8 £xf6 Fed
always thought that this was the easiest road to an advantage, (8 £d1 £g6 9 ¤c3 ¤ge7
10 h4 h5 11 ¥g5 is the traditional mainline, see Efimenko,Z−Vallejo Pons,F/Khanty
Mansyisk RUS 2005) 8...¤xf6 9 ¤c3 (9 f3?! Berenguer Martinez,J−Sarmiento

5
 Alfonso,S/Las Palmas ESP 1999) 9...d5 (9...¤b4 10 ¢d2 see Kotronias,V−
Stankovic,M/Kavala GRE 2002) 10 exd5 ¤b4 11 ¥d3 ¤fxd5 (11...¤xd3+ 12 cxd3 ¥f5
13 0-0 0-0 14 ¥g5 ¥xd3 15 ¦fd1 ¥f5 16 ¥xf6 gxf6 favours White, Ilfeld,E−
McCollum,P/San Francisco USA 2000) 12 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 13 ¥d2 White has the bishop
pair and the queenside majority, Videki,S−Giordanengo,O/Lenk SUI 2000.

6 ¤1c3
This is totally the opposite of the positional 6 c4. It leads to wild positions, but I prefer
White.
6 ¥c4 This provides Black with a target. 6...a6 7 ¤5c3 ¤f6 8 0-0 ¥e7 9 ¥g5 0-0 10 ¥b3
¥g4 11 £d3 ¦c8 12 ¤d2 ¤d4 13 ¦fe1 ¤h5 14 ¥e3 ¥g5 15 ¥xd4 ¤f4∓ Joecks,C−
Shabalov,A/Hamburg GER 1999.
6 a4 a6 (6...¤f6 7 ¤1c3 ¥g4! Is best) 7 ¤5a3?! Losing control of the center. 7...f5 8 ¤c3 fxe4
9 ¤xe4 d5 10 ¤g3 ¤f6 11 c3 ¥e7 12 ¥d3 0-0 13 0-0 ¤g4 14 h3 ¤xf2 15 ¦xf2 ¥c5-
+ Isaza,Y−Gamboa,N/Cali COL 2001.

6...a6 7 ¤a3 b5!?

If Black doesn't play this the knight on a3 returns to play immediately.
7...¤f6?! I don't trust black's position after this. 8 ¤c4! b5 9 ¤e3 White has control of the
important central light squares. 9...¥e7 10 g3 h5?! A terrible waste of time. 11 ¥g2
h4 12 0-0 ¤d4 Wasting even more time. 13 ¤cd5 ¤xd5 14 ¤xd5 ¥e6 15 ¤e3 hxg3
16 hxg3 £d7 Black is hoping for a miracle mate on the h file. 17 c3 ¤c6 18 ¦e1 ¦b8
19 a4± Anand,V−Radjabov,T/Linares ESP 2003

8 ¤d5 ¤ce7
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvlntr0
9+-+-snpzpp0
9p+-zp-+-+0
9+p+Nzp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9sN-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

8...¤ge7 9 c4 ¤xd5 10 cxd5!? This looks like a good positional alternative to 10ed5
10...¤e7 11 ¤c2 ¥d7 12 ¥d3 g6 13 0-0 ¥g7 Now play resembles a Kings Indian
defense with black's queenside weakened for no good reason. 14 ¥e3 0-0 15 ¦c1 f5
16 f3 f4 17 ¥f2 g5 18 ¤b4 ¤g6 19 ¥e2 h5 20 ¢h1 ¦f7 21 a4! Completely
exploding the queenside while on the other flank black hasn't started. 21...bxa4 22

6
 ¤xa6 ¤f8 23 ¦c6!+− Kasparov,G−Lautier,J/Moscow RUS 2002 A very rude way of
winning the a4 pawn.

9 c4
This leads to very sharp situations.
Ivanchuk's move 9 ¤b4!? has been catching on recently, 9...¤f6 10 c4! ¤xe4 11 cxb5 £a5
12 ¥d2 with unclear play, Abrahamyan,T−Hahn,A/San Diego USA 2004.

9...¤xd5 10 exd5
10 cxd5 ¤f6 Black can look forward to good counterplay on the dark squares.

10...bxc4 11 ¤xc4 ¤f6

11...¥e7 12 ¥e3 (12 ¥d2 a5 13 £b3 also worked well in Karjakin,S−Kosteniuk,A/Lausanne
SUI 2003) 12...¦b8 13 a4 f5 14 a5 ¤f6 15 ¥a7 ¦b7 16 ¥b6 £d7
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+l+k+-tr0
9+r+qvl-zpp0
9pvL-zp-sn-+0
9zP-+Pzpp+-0
9-+N+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-zP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

Black's Q−side is blown out. 17 ¥e2 0-0 18 0-0 f4 19 f3 £f5 20 ¦c1 ¢h8 21 ¦e1 £g6 22
¥d3 £f7 23 ¥f2 ¤xd5 24 ¥e4 ¥e6 25 ¤b6 ¦c7 26 ¥xd5 ¦xc1 27 £xc1 ¥xd5 28
£c7± Ivanov,A−Fedorov,A/New Delhi IND 2000.

12 ¥e3 ¦b8 13 ¥e2

13 a4 ¤g4 14 ¥d2 £d7 15 ¥e2 ¥e7 16 0-0 0-0 17 a5 ¤f6 18 ¤b6 £f5 19 f4 ¥d8 20 fxe5
¥xb6+ 21 axb6 £xe5 22 ¥f4 £e7 23 ¥g5 ¦xb6 24 £d4 ¦b8 25 ¥xa6 £e5=
Svetushkin,D−Fedorov,A/Istanbul TUR 2000.

13...¥e7 14 a4 0-0
14...£d7 15 0-0 ¥b7 16 ¥a7 ¦d8 17 ¤b6 £f5 18 ¦c1 e4 19 ¦c7!

7
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-trk+-tr0
9vLltR-vlpzpp0
9psN-zp-sn-+0
9+-+P+q+-0
9P+-+p+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-zP-+LzPPzP0
9+-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

19...¥xd5 20 ¥xa6 ¥e6 21 £c2 h5 22 ¦d1 ¤g4 23 h3 ¤e5 24 ¤c8+− Shirov,A−

Fedorov,A/Istanbul TUR 2000.

15 0-0
These positions look like real suffering for Black and the results prove it.
15 ¦c1 a5 16 ¥d2 ¦a8 17 ¤xa5 ¦xa5 18 ¦xc8 £xc8 19 ¥xa5 £c5 20 b4 £xd5 21 £xd5
¤xd5 22 ¥f3 ¤c3 23 ¢d2 ¤xa4 24 ¦a1+− Bauer,C−Nataf,I/Clichy FRA 2001.

15...¥b7 16 ¤b6 ¤d7 17 a5 ¤xb6

17...¤xb6 fared little better in Karjakin−Kosteniuk/Dannemann Match 2003
17...f5 18 f3 ¤xb6 19 ¥xb6 £d7 20 £d2 (20 b4 ¥d8 21 ¥xd8 ¦fxd8 22 ¥c4 ¥c8 23 ¦b1² Van
den Doel,E−Nataf,I/Esbjerg DEN 2001.) 20...¥d8 21 ¥f2 h6 22 ¥e3! Black is too
passive, Pavlovic,M−Kosteniuk,A/Biel SUI 2003.

18 ¥xb6 £d7 19 b4 ¥d8 20 ¥e3 f5 21 f3 ¥f6 22 ¦b1 £f7 23 ¥c4 ¦fc8 24

£d3²
Karjakin−Kosteniuk/Dannemann Match 2003 White was carrying the play while Black's
counterplay was bottled up.

8
 Kalashnikov − Positional line − other 7th

[B32]

Last updated: 01/06/04 by Fed

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 e5 5 ¤b5 d6 6 c4!? ¥e7 7 b3

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+ntr0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+nzp-+-+0
9+N+-zp-+-0
9-+P+P+-+0
9+P+-+-+-0
9P+-+-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

At first sight these b3 lines look good for White, but Black manages to get his share of the
play.
Other alternatives to 7 ¤1c3:
7 ¥d3 ¤f6 (7...¥e6 8 0-0 ¦c8 9 b3 ¤f6 10 ¤1c3 a6 11 ¤a3 0-0 12 ¤c2 b5 13 cxb5 ¤a7 14 ¥b2 ¤xb5
15 ¤xb5 axb5 16 £e2 £b6 17 ¢h1 ¦fd8 18 ¤e3 £b7 19 f3 ¦b8= Lutz,C−
Kaeser,U/Altenkirchen GER 1999. 7...a6 8 ¤5c3 ¥g5 is seen in Jobava,B−
Kotanjian,T/Batumi GEO 2003) 8 0-0 0-0 (8...¥e6 9 ¤1c3 a6 10 ¤a3 0-0 11 ¤d5 ¦c8 12
¥e3 ¤d7 13 ¤xe7+ ¤xe7 14 f3 f5 15 exf5 ¥xf5 16 ¥e2 ¤c5 17 £d2 £c7 18 ¦fd1²
Bezgodov,A−Nilssen,J/Aars DEN 1999.) 9 ¤1c3 (9 ¤5c3 ¤d7 10 b3 ¥g5 11 ¥b2 ¤c5 12
¤d5 ¥h6 13 ¤bc3 ¥e6 14 ¦e1 ¤e7 15 ¥c2 ¦c8 16 ¤xe7+ £xe7 17 ¤b5± Yagupov,I−
Nilssen,J/Aars DEN 1999.) 9...a6 10 ¤a3 ¥g4 11 f3 ¥e6 12 ¥e3 ¦c8 13 £d2 ¤e8
14 ¤d5 h6 15 ¥b6 £d7 16 ¥e3 £d8 17 ¥b6 £d7 18 ¤b1 ¥g5 19 £e1 ¥d8 20 ¤bc3
¤b4 21 £e3² Jedryczka,K−Nataf,I/Cappelle La Grande FRA 2000, Black has
trouble breaking White's grip.
7 ¥e2 ¤f6 8 ¤1c3 a6 9 ¤a3 0-0 10 0-0 ¥e6 11 ¤c2 ¦c8 (11...£b8 12 ¥g5 h6 13 ¥e3 ¦c8 14 f3
¤a7 15 ¤d5 ¤xd5 16 cxd5 ¥d7 17 £d2 ¤b5 18 a4 ¤c7 19 ¥d3 ¤e8 20 £f2 ¤f6 21 ¢h1²
Rocha,W−D'Israel,D/Sao Paulo BRA 1999.) 12 ¤e3 (12 b3 Luther,T−
Atarov,E/playchess.com INT 2004) 12...¤d4 13 ¤ed5 ¥xd5 14 cxd5 ¤xe2+ 15

9
 £xe2 ¤d7 16 ¥e3 f5 17 f3 f4 18 ¥f2 ¥h4 19 ¦fc1 ¥xf2+ 20 £xf2 £a5 21 a3 ¦c4
22 ¤a2 ¦fc8 23 ¦xc4 ¦xc4 24 ¦c1 ¦xc1+ 25 ¤xc1 h6= Haznedaroglu,K−
Nataf,I/Batumi GEO 1999.

7...f5
7...¤f6 8 ¥d3 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10 ¤5c3 ¥e6 11 ¤a3 ¤d7 12 ¤c2 ¦c8 13 ¦e1 ¤c5 14 ¥f1 f5
15 exf5 ¥xf5 16 ¥e3 ¤e6 17 ¥d3 ¢h8 18 ¥xf5 ¦xf5 19 £d5 £d7 20 ¤a4 ¤c7 21
£d3 ¦cf8 22 ¤c5 £c8 23 ¤e4² Aseev,K−Ivanov,V/St Petersburg RUS 1999.

8 ¥a3
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+ntr0
9zpp+-vl-zpp0
9-+nzp-+-+0
9+N+-zpp+-0
9-+P+P+-+0
9vLP+-+-+-0
9P+-+-zPPzP0
9tRN+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

On first sight this looks great for White, but I've seen Shabalov win easily from this
position more than once.
8 exf5 ¤f6 9 ¥d3!? Provoking e4 giving white d4. 9...e4 10 ¥e2 ¥xf5 11 0-0 a6 12 ¤d4
¤xd4 13 £xd4 0-0 14 ¤c3 £e8 15 ¥f4 ¦d8 16 ¦ad1 ¢h8 17 f3 £g6 18 fxe4 ¤xe4
19 ¤d5² Ponomariov,R−Zubarev,A/Kharkov RUS 2001.

8...¤f6 9 ¤1c3
9 ¥xd6 ¤xe4 10 ¥xe7 £xd1+ 11 ¢xd1 ¢xe7 12 ¢e1 ¥e6 13 ¤1c3 ¤xc3 14 ¤xc3 ¦hd8
15 ¥e2 e4³ Schneider,D−Shabalov,A/Philadelphia USA 1999.

9...0-0 10 ¥xd6 a6 11 ¥xe7 £xe7 12 ¤d6 fxe4 13 c5 ¥e6 14 ¥c4 ¦ad8 15 0-

0 b6 16 ¥xe6+ £xe6 17 £b1 e3 18 fxe3 bxc5 19 ¤b7 ¦c8 20 ¤xc5 £e7 21
¤5e4 ¤b4 22 a3 ¤xe4 23 ¦xf8+ £xf8 24 £xe4 ¦xc3 25 axb4 h6 26 ¦f1
£d6 27 h4 £d3=
Gelfand,B−Tregubov,P/Shenyang CHN 2000.

10
 Kalashnikov − Positional Mainline [B32]

Last updated: 09/01/07 by TonyK

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 e5 5 ¤b5 d6

The Kalashnikov aims to create an imbalance similar to the Sveshnikov.

6 c4!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvlntr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+nzp-+-+0
9+N+-zp-+-0
9-+P+P+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This is the positional method. White wants to pound on the backward d6 pawn.

6...¥e7 7 ¤1c3 a6 8 ¤a3

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+ntr0
9+p+-vlpzpp0
9p+nzp-+-+0
9+-+-zp-+-0
9-+P+P+-+0
9sN-sN-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

11
8...f5!?
This move gives me the creeps, but isn't easy to refute.
8...¥e6 9 ¥d3
a) 9 ¥e2 ¥g5 10 0-0 h6 (10...¥xc1 11 ¦xc1 ¤f6 12 £d2 0-0 13 ¦fd1 ¤d4 14 ¤c2
¤xc2 15 ¦xc2 ¦c8 16 £xd6 (after 16 b3 White has pressure on d6. What does black
have?) 16...£xd6 17 ¦xd6 ¥xc4 Tselutin,E−Annageldyev,O/Ashgabat TKM 2000.)
11 ¤c2 ¤ge7 12 ¥e3 (12 ¥xg5 hxg5 13 £d2 ¤g6 14 ¦fd1 looks pretty good.) 12...¥xe3
13 ¤xe3 0-0 14 £d2 ¤d4 15 ¤c2 ¤xc2 16 £xc2 Anisimov,P−Eljanov,P/St
Petersburg RUS 1999.
b) 9 ¥e3?! Losing time. Black was going Bg5 anyway. 9...¥g5 10 £d2 ¥xe3 11
fxe3 ¤f6 12 ¥e2 0-0 13 0-0-0 £b6 14 ¢b1 £a7 15 h3 ¦fb8 16 g4 b5 17 g5 ¤e8 18
cxb5 axb5 19 ¥xb5 ¤b4 20 ¥xe8 ¤xa2∓ Baczynskyj,B−Stripunsky,A/Hatfield, PA
USA 1999.
c) 9 ¤c2 ¥g5 10 ¥e2 ¥xc1 11 £xc1 ¤f6 12 0-0 0-0 13 ¦d1 ¦c8 14 £e3 Black is
very passive. Gofshtein,L−Fernandez Alonso,M/Salou ESP 2000.
9...¥g5 10 0-0 (10 ¤c2 ¥xc1 11 ¦xc1 £g5 12 ¤e3 ¤ge7 13 ¤cd5 0-0 14 h4 £g6 15 ¥b1 ¦ad8 16 0-0
¢h8 17 ¦c3 f6 18 ¤xe7 ¤xe7 19 ¦d3± Nijboer,F−Ikonnikov,V/Vlissingen NED 2001.)
10...¥xc1 11 ¦xc1 ¤ge7 12 ¤c2 0-0 13 £d2 White has a nice grip on the position
with control of d5 and play vs d6. 13...f5 14 exf5 ¤xf5 15 ¥xf5 ¦xf5 16 ¤e3 ¦h5 17
f4 Black's pieces are scattered. 17...¤d4 18 ¤e4 d5 19 ¤g3 dxc4 20 ¦cd1 ¦xh2 21
¢xh2 £h4+ 22 ¢g1 £xg3 23 fxe5± Arakhamia,K−Gohil,H/Amsterdam NED 2001.

9 exf5
9 ¤c2 ¤f6 10 exf5 ¥xf5 transposes.
9 ¥d3 f4 10 ¤c2 ¤f6 11 ¤d5 0-0 12 b4 ¢h8 13 a4 £e8 14 f3 ¥d8 15 ¥a3 ¤e7 16 0-0?
White's king was safer in the wide open spaces. 16...¤exd5 17 exd5 b5 18 c5 ¤xd5
19 ¥e4 ¤c3 20 £xd6 ¤xe4 21 fxe4 ¥b7³ Stearns,A−Shabalov,A/San Francisco
USA 2000.

9...¥xf5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+ntr0
9+p+-vl-zpp0
9p+nzp-+-+0
9+-+-zpl+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9sN-sN-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

12
10 ¤c2!
The knight comes to control the key light squares immediately.
10 ¥d3 also fighting for control of the light squares, 10...¥e6 11 0-0 ¤f6 12 ¥g5 0-0 13
£b1 ¢h8 14 ¤c2 ¤h5 15 ¥d2 ¤f4 16 ¥xf4 ¦xf4 17 ¤e3 ¦h4 18 ¥e4 ¥g5 19 £d3
£c7 20 ¤cd5 £f7 21 g3 ¦h6 22 f4 exf4 23 ¤xf4 ¥xf4 24 ¦xf4 £h5 25 ¦h4²
Wedberg,T−Nataf,I/Hasselbacken SWE 2001.
10 ¥e2 ¤f6 11 ¤c2 0-0 12 0-0 ¦c8 (12...£d7 13 ¤e3 ¥e6 14 ¥f3 ¤d4 15 ¥d5 ¤xd5 16 ¤cxd5 ¥d8
Improving over the above game. 17 b3 b5 18 ¥b2 ¤f5 19 ¤xf5 ¦xf5 20 ¥a3 bxc4 21 bxc4
e4„ Meijers,V−Shabalov,A/Istanbul TUR 2000, Black's position has good
prospects.) 13 ¥e3 (13 ¤e3 ¥e6 14 ¥f3 ¢h8 15 ¥d5 ¥d7 16 b3 b5?! Loosening the Q−side
for no real gain. 17 ¥b2 ¤b4 18 £e2 £e8 19 ¦ad1 £g6 20 ¥a3 a5 21 ¥xb4 axb4 22 ¤xb5
¤h5 23 £d3 £g5 24 ¥e4± Vokarev,S−Shabalov,A/Linares ESP 2000.) 13...b5!?
Hoping to clear out the center. 14 ¤d5!? White's safe move keeps things from
getting out of control. (14 cxb5 axb5 15 ¥xb5 ¥xc2? (15...d5!? Black's center has
good creeping chances.) 16 £xc2 ¤d4 17 ¥xd4 exd4 18 £b3++−) 14...¥xc2 15
¤xf6+ ¦xf6 16 £xc2 ¤a5 17 b3 d5 18 ¥g5 ¦f7 19 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 20 ¥g4 ¦c6=
Dominguez,L−Fedorov,A/Linares ESP 2002, Black's opening looked shaky, but
now it's around equal.

10...¤f6 11 ¤e3
11 ¥d3 ¥e6 12 0-0 0-0 13 ¥g5 (13 b3 £d7 14 ¥b2 ¥d8 15 ¤e4 ¤xe4 16 ¥xe4 ¥b6 17 £d3 ¥f5 18
¦ad1 ¦ad8 19 ¥c1 ¥xe4 20 £xe4 White has a nice positional edge. 20...£f5 21 £xf5 ¦xf5
22 ¥e3 ¥xe3 23 ¤xe3 ¦f4 24 ¦d5² Leitao,R−Nataf,I/New Delhi IND 2000.) 13...¤g4 14
¥xe7 £xe7 15 ¤e3 £h4 16 ¤xg4 ¥xg4 17 f3 ¥e6 18 £e2 ¤d4 19 £e4 £h6 20
¦ae1 ¦f7 21 £e3 £xe3+ 22 ¦xe3 ¦c8 23 ¤e4² Dvoirys,S−Nataf,I/Koszalin POL
1999, White can play for f4.

11...¥e6 12 g3 ¦c8 13 ¥g2 ¤a5 14 0-0!?

White offers the c−pawn, Leko,P−Shirov,A/Monte Carlo MNC 2004.

13
 Sveshnikov 7 Nd5 & sidelines [B33]

Last updated: 20/07/05 by TonyK

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 e5 6 ¤db5

6 ¤b3?! ¥b4 7 ¥d3 d5 8 exd5 ¤xd5 9 0-0 ¤xc3 10 bxc3 ¥xc3 11 ¥a3 I don't believe this
for a second. Black's king might be in the middle for a short time, but in no danger
and that's alot of material. For this and other 6th moves see Crepan,M−
Sveshnikov,E/Celje SLO 2003.

6...d6 7 ¤d5!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvl-tr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+nzp-sn-+0
9+N+Nzp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

White looks for a mobile queenside majority. With White searching for some way to play
for advantage this move could be on it's way back.
7 a4 Aiming to retard Black's queenside expansion. 7...a6 8 ¤a3 ¥g4!

14
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqkvl-tr0
9+p+-+pzpp0
9p+nzp-sn-+0
9+-+-zp-+-0
9P+-+P+l+0
9sN-sN-+-+-0
9-zPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This discovery equalizes on the spot. GM Alexander Ivanov specializes in this line from
White's point of view. (8...¥e6 9 ¥g5 ¦c8 10 ¥c4 ¤b4 11 ¥xf6 £xf6 12 ¥b3 £g6 13 0-0 ¦c5
14 f4 exf4 15 ¤e2² Ivanov,A−Hossain,E/Stratton Mountain USA 2000., 8...¥e7 9 f3 ¥e6
10 ¥c4 ¦c8 11 ¤d5 0-0 12 ¥e3 ¥xd5 13 ¥xd5 £a5+ 14 c3 ¤xd5 15 exd5 ¤b8 16 £b3 £c7 17
¥b6 £d7 18 0-0 ¥d8 19 ¥e3 £c7 20 ¦ac1 ¤d7 21 c4 ¤c5³ Tomic,B−
Kanellopoulos,G/Patras GRE 1999.) 9 f3 ¥e6 Now White has been weakened on the
a7−g1 diagonal. 10 ¥g5 (10 ¥c4 ¦c8 11 0-0 ¤b4 Black keeps d5 under control with a
comfortable game, 12 ¤d5 ¤bxd5 13 ¥xd5 ¤xd5 14 exd5 ¥d7 and Black had no problems
in Ivanov,A−Parligras, Bled Ol 2002) 10...¥e7 11 ¥c4 0-0 12 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 13 ¤d5
¥h4+ 14 g3 ¥g5 15 0-0 ¢h8 16 ¢g2 f5 17 exf5 ¥xf5 18 ¥d3 ¥e6 19 ¥e4 ¦c8 20 c3
¤a5³ Vescovi,G−Shabalov,A/Paget Parish BER 2001.

7...¤xd5 8 exd5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvl-tr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+nzp-+-+0
9+N+Pzp-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

8...¤b8!?
I prefer this to the alternative:
8...¤e7!? as Black must be on alert for a variety of pitfalls in the early going, 9 c4 (9 c3 ¤f5
10 a4 ¥e7 11 ¥d3 0-0 12 0-0 a6 13 ¤a3 ¥g5?! I understand this positionally motivated

15
 move, but it leads to a very passive game, Naumann,A−Babula,V/Graz AUT 2003)
9...¤g6 (9...¤f5! 10 ¥d3 ¥e7 11 0-0 0-0 The knight is better placed on f5 than g6.) 10
£a4!? (10 ¥e2 ¥e7 Laurin,E−Sevillano,E/Los Angeles USA 2003) 10...¥d7 11 £b4
£b8 12 h4! I was impressed with the way White handled the position. 12...h5 An
ugly move to have to play, but the g6−knight is in trouble. 13 ¥g5 f6 Black's
kingside is full of holes. 14 ¥e3 a6 15 ¤c3 White can consider Na4 to b6. 15...f5 16
g3 ¥e7 17 ¥e2 f4 18 gxf4 exf4 19 ¥d4 0-0 20 ¥xh5 ¤xh4 21 0-0-0+− Bhat,V−
Wang,P/Dallas USA 2002 Black's king is sitting on 2 very open files. It reminds me
of castling queenside in a Benko Gambit.

9 c4
9 £f3!? The beginning of an incredible idea that to me looks artificial. I can't see why
though! 9...a6 10 £a3 ¥e7 11 ¥g5!? f6 (11...¥xg5? 12 ¤xd6+ ¢f8 13 ¤xc8+ ¢g8 14 ¤d6
¥e7 15 ¤xb7± The tactics work nicely for White.) 12 ¥d2 a5? Amazing enough this
loses a pawn for nothing. (12...b6 13 ¥b4 Other moves allow Bb7 unraveling. 13...0-0 14
¥xd6 axb5 15 ¥xe7 £xd5 16 £d3 £xd3 17 ¥xd3² The entire thing is amazing.) 13 £c3!
¤a6 14 £xa5 b6 15 £a4 0-0 16 c4 ¥f5 17 £d1!+− Iordachescu,V−
Genocchio,D/Lido Estensi ITA 2002 The troublemaking queen returns to homebase
after snatching a pawn.
9 a4 aims to fix a weakness on b6, 9...¥e7 10 ¥e3 a6 11 ¤a3 ¥f5 12 ¤c4 ¤d7 13 a5
Ganguly,S−Ris,R/Amsterdam NED 2004.

9...¥e7
9...f5!? This may transpose to the main line, but it looks premature, 10 f3?! a very strange
looking move, I guess it's meant to prevent Black's e4 push, see Dutreeuw,M−
Daels,M/Eupen BEL 2003.

10 ¥d3
10 ¥e2 0-0 (10...a6 11 ¤c3 f5 12 0-0 0-0 13 f3 ¥g5 14 ¥xg5 £xg5 15 £c1 £h4 (15...£d8!?
Black should blockade with ...a5 and Na6 to c5) 16 £e1 £e7 17 £f2 ¤d7 18 b4 a5
19 a3 e4 20 £e3 £e5 21 f4 £e7 22 ¤b5± Mezentsev,V−Keatinge Clay,A/San
Francisco USA 2000.) 11 0-0 a6 12 ¤c3 ¤d7 (12...¥f5 Black develops, but without
a point. Organizing counterplay is crucial. 13 b4 I think this is premature. 13...¤d7
(13...a5!? Securing the c5 square looks best.) 14 a4 ¦c8?! Black misses the boat.
(14...a5 was Black's last chance,) 15 a5! Now Black's queenside is in terrible shape.
15...e4 16 ¤a4 ¥f6 17 ¦a3 ¤e5 18 c5 dxc5 19 ¤xc5± Paragua,M−
Harikrishna,P/Heraklio GRE 2002 White has all the play.) 13 ¢h1 f5 (13...a5!?) 14 f4
¥f6 15 £c2 g6 16 ¦b1 (16 ¥d2 ¦e8 17 ¦fe1 ¤c5 18 b4 ¤e4 19 ¤xe4 fxe4 20 ¦ad1 ¥f5 21 g4
¥d7 22 c5 £c8 23 g5 ¥g7∓ Bronnikova,E−Rybenko,K, Essentuki RUS 2003) 16...£e7
17 ¤a4 a5 18 ¦e1 b6 19 ¥f1 ¦b8 20 b4 axb4 21 ¦xb4± Apicella,M−
Tirard,H/Cappelle La Grande FRA 2000.

10...a6

16
Black should kick the knight.
10...0-0 11 0-0 ¥d7 (11...¤d7 12 ¢h1 (12 £c2?! g6 Seems to help Black.) 12...f5 13 f3 ¤c5
14 ¥e3 (14 ¥c2!? White should keep the bishop pair.) 14...¤xd3 15 £xd3 b6 16 b4 f4
17 ¥g1 ¥f5 Stellwagen,D−Van Wely,L/Leeuwarden NED 2003 With balanced
play.) 12 a4 f5 13 c5!? Black let the knight hang around on b5 a little too long.
13...¥xb5 14 axb5 e4 15 c6 ¤d7 16 ¥e2 ¤e5 17 f4 exf3 18 gxf3 ¥f6 19 ¢h1 b6 20
¦a2 £c7 21 f4 ¤g6 22 b3± Anand,V−Topalov,V, Monte Carlo MNC 2003.

11 ¤c3 0-0 12 0-0 f5

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9+p+-vl-zpp0
9p+-zp-+-+0
9+-+Pzpp+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-sNL+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

13 f3!?
White takes it slow, keeping Black's center under control and looking for queenside
expansion.
13 f4 ¤d7 14 ¥e3 exf4 Releasing the tension gives Black the e5 point immediately, and as
White is getting the b4 stuff going I agree with this decision, Prathamesh,S−
Sharma,V/Mumbai IND 2004.

13...¥g5
13...¤d7!? 14 ¥e3 (14 ¢h1 ¤c5 15 ¥c2 a5 When White will have to work to get in b4., 14 b4?!
a5! Secures c5 for the Nd7.) 14...¥g5 (or: 14...¤c5 15 b4 ¤xd3 16 £xd3² Black has the
bishop pair, but White's c5 looks fast,, 14...£e8 15 b4 Black's queenside pieces are
unlikely to see the light of day, Cerda,G−Plazaola,M/Buenos Aires ARG 2003) 15
¥f2 £f6 Preventing b4 while developing, Matulovic,M−Milanovic,D/Belgrade
YUG 2002.
13...£e8 14 ¥e3 f4 15 ¥f2 ¦f6 play resembles a Kings Indian Defense, Leenhouts,K−
Zhigalko,S/Hengelo NED 2004.

14 ¢h1 ¤d7 15 b4!

This well−timed and well−prepared push keeps Black's queenside under control.

17
15...a5
Alternatively:
15...¥xc1 this is similar to Leko−Krasenkov, but Black has problems nevertheless, 16 ¦xc1
(16 £xc1 Rodriguez Guerrero,E−Ramirez,A/Havana CUB 2003) 16...b6 (16...£h4 17
£e1! £xe1 after the queen swap Black's hope is grim defense, Matsuura,E−
Zambrana,O/Sao Paulo BRA 2003) 17 a3 (17 £b3 ¢h8 18 ¤a4 Wojtazek,R−Poobesh
Anand,S/41st World Junior 2002) 17...¢h8 18 £d2 ¥b7 19 ¦c2 ¦c8 20 ¦fc1 £h4 21
g3 £e7 22 f4± Ivanchuk,V−Babula,V/Bled SLO 2002, Black's Bishop on b7 isn't
functioning and Black's counterplay is non−existent.
15...b6!? slows down White's c5 stuff, but is mighty passive.

16 a3 axb4 17 ¥xg5 £xg5 18 axb4 ¦xa1 19 £xa1 £e3 20 ¥e2 b5!?

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+l+-trk+0
9+-+n+-zpp0
9-+-zp-+-+0
9+p+Pzpp+-0
9-zPP+-+-+0
9+-sN-wqP+-0
9-+-+L+PzP0
9wQ-+-+R+K0
xiiiiiiiiy

An interesting attempt at activity and the best idea I've seen so far. Espinoza's idea keeps
Black in the game.
20...e4?! 21 £c1± Leko,P−Krasenkow,M/Essen GER 2002 White's space, control of b5,
and structure give him a nice edge.
20...¤b8!? 21 £b2 ¤a6 worked well for Black in Svidler,P−Timofeev,A/Moscow RUS
2004.

21 £c1
21 cxb5 ¤b6 followed by Bb7 or Bd7 looks decent. Black can follow up with Rc8 getting
pressure on d5.

21...£xc1 22 ¦xc1 bxc4 23 ¤b5 ¥b7 24 ¤xd6

24 ¥xc4 ¦f6 was also insufficient in Kasimdzhanov,R−Smirnov,P/Rethymnon GRE 2003.

24...¥xd5 25 ¥xc4 ¥xc4 26 ¦xc4 e4 27 fxe4 fxe4

27...¤e5 Kovacevic−Espinoza, Bled Ol 2002.

18
28 ¢g1=
Leko,P−Kramnik,V/Monte Carlo MNC 2003.

19
 Sveshnikov/Pelikan − 8...Be6 & 8...Be7

[B33]

Last updated: 08/01/06 by TonyK

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 e5 6 ¤db5 d6 7 ¥g5 a6 8

¤a3 ¥e6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqkvl-tr0
9+p+-+pzpp0
9p+nzplsn-+0
9+-+-zp-vL-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9sN-sN-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

Bird's Variation. Black lets the offside knight on a3 back into the game. This variation,
while being tricky, should be easy for White to handle.
8...¥e7!? is a speciality of Roeder, it is very rare but perhaps not so bad, 9 ¤c4 0-0 10 ¥xf6
¥xf6 11 £xd6 ¤d4!? Korneev,O−Maze,S/Elgoibar ESP 2005. (11...£xd6 12 ¤xd6 ¥e6
is the main continuation here.)

9 ¤c4 ¦c8 10 ¤d5 ¥xd5 11 ¥xf6 gxf6 12 £xd5

20
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-+rwqkvl-tr0
9+p+-+p+p0
9p+nzp-zp-+0
9+-+Qzp-+-0
9-+N+P+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

12...¤d4
12...¤b4 13 £d2 d5 14 exd5 £xd5 (14...¤xc2+ 15 £xc2 ¥b4+ 16 ¢d1 £xd5+ 17 ¢c1 is good
for White) 15 £xd5 ¤xd5 16 0-0-0 ¤b4 17 a3 (17 c3 ¤c6 18 ¥d3 is a nice edge)
17...¤c6 18 ¤b6 ¦d8 19 ¦xd8+ ¢xd8 20 ¥c4 ¥c5 21 ¦d1+ ¢e8 22 ¤d5 ¥xf2 23
¤xf6+ ¢e7 24 ¤d5+ ¢f8 25 ¦f1 ¥h4 26 ¤b6² Sameeh,H−Elgabry,M/Cairo EGY
2000.

13 0-0-0!?
13 ¥d3 is better, 13...£e7 14 £a5! ¦xc4 15 ¥xc4 ¤xc2+ 16 ¢e2 ¤xa1 17 ¦c1! is very
strong.

13...£e7 14 ¢b1 ¦c5 15 ¤xd6+ £xd6 16 £xd6 ¥xd6 17 c3 ¢e7 18 cxd4

exd4 19 g3 ¦d8 20 ¥d3
Rantanen,Y−Cifuentes Parada,R/Hoogeveen NED 1999.

21
Sveshnikov 9 Nd5 − Positional Line [B33]

Last updated: 09/01/07 by TonyK

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 e5

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvl-tr0
9zpp+p+pzpp0
9-+n+-sn-+0
9+-+-zp-+-0
9-+-sNP+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This dynamic move creates an unbalanced situation. Black accepts a backward pawn and
gives White control of d5. In return Black pushes White's knight to a3 and can
contest the d5 point.

6 ¤db5 d6 7 ¥g5 a6 8 ¤a3 b5 9 ¤d5

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvl-tr0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+nzp-sn-+0
9+p+Nzp-vL-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9sN-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This is a quiet line, White abstains from giving Black doubled f−pawns, and tries to keep a
small plus due to his control of d5.

22
9...¥e7
9...£a5+ 10 ¥d2 £d8 11 ¤xf6+ (11 ¥g5 £a5+ is a common way of making a quick draw, 11
c4 is critical) 11...£xf6 12 ¥d3 £g6 13 0-0 ¥e7 14 c4 with a plus, Tiviakov,S−
Reinderman,D/Rotterdam NED 2000.

10 ¥xf6
The Positional line.
10 ¤xe7!? was played a lot over twenty years ago: 10...¤xe7 11 ¥d3 (11 f3 is slow,
Petrov,M−Ravagnani,T/Padova ITA 1999) 11...¥b7 (11...d5 is also popular, 12 ¥xf6
gxf6 13 c3 ¦g8 Grosar,A−Podlesnik,B/Bled SLO 1999) 12 ¥xf6 gxf6 13 £h5!? (13 c4
bxc4 14 ¤xc4 d5 has been seen a lot) 13...d5 14 0-0-0 with sharp play in Naiditsch,A−
Sutovsky,E/Dortmund GER 2005.

10...¥xf6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+-tr0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+nzp-vl-+0
9+p+Nzp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9sN-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

11 c3
11 c4!? aims for a more closed position, 11...b4 12 ¤c2 ¦b8 13 b3 ¥g5 14 g3 0-0 15 h4
¥h6 16 ¥h3 but White has no real advantage, Morozevich,A−Leko,P/San Luis ARG
2005.

11...0-0
Black can also delay this obvious move:
11...¥g5 This idea looks best either now or after ...0-0. Black prepares ...f5 and might have
...¥xe3 later. The advantage of playing it immediately is to avoid castling too soon.
12 ¤c2 ¤e7 challenging the pride of White's position immediately, (Alternatively,
12...¦b8 tries to hinder White on the queenside, 13 a4 this move is "the only way to
fight for an advantage" according to Rogozenko,

23
 a) 13 ¥e2 0-0 14 0-0 a5 15 £d3 (15 b4 ¤e7 16 ¤xe7+ £xe7 17 bxa5 £c7 18 a4 bxa4 19
¦xa4 £xc3 20 a6 ¥e6 21 a7 ¦a8 22 £d3± Vescovi,G−Matsuura,E/Brasilia BRA 2000,
White's guy on a7 is alive and well.) 15...¤e7 16 ¤ce3 ¥xe3 17 ¤xe3 £c7 18 ¦fd1
¦d8 19 ¦d2 ¥e6 20 ¥g4² Almasi,Z−Illescas Cordoba,M/Pamplona ESP 1999.
b) 13 a3 a5 14 ¥d3 ¤e7 15 ¤xe7 £xe7 16 £e2 0-0 (16...£b7 17 0-0 0-0 18 b4 a4 19 c4±
De Firmian,N−Sutovsky,E/Julian Borowski GM 1999, Black's a4 is gonna need
attention.) 17 0-0 ¥d7 18 b4 axb4 19 ¤xb4 ¦fc8= White controls d5, but has targets
on a3 and c3, Kasparov,G−Kramnik,V/Frankfurt GER 2000
13...bxa4 (13...0-0?! 14 axb5 axb5² Shivaji,S−Delaune,R/Philadelphia USA 2001 − Black
should avoid this type of thing as b5 is a permanent target.) 14 ¤cb4 ¥d7 15 ¥xa6
¤xb4 16 ¤xb4 £a5 17 £xd6! but Black might be OK here, see Volokitin,A−Van
Wely,L/Merida ESP 2005.) 13 a4 (13 h4!? ¥h6 14 a4 bxa4 15 ¤cb4! looks strong, see the
brilliant Karjakin,S−Radjabov,T/Warsaw POL 2005, 13 ¤cb4 0-0 14 a4 bxa4 15 ¦xa4
transposes) 13...bxa4 14 ¤cb4 (14 ¤xe7 £xe7 15 ¦xa4 ¥b7 16 ¥d3 0-0 17 0-0 £d7 18 £a1
£c7 19 £a2 a5 20 ¦a1 ¥d8 21 ¤e3 ¥c6 22 ¦a3² Ivanovic,B−Shariyazdanov,A/Budapest
HUN 1999.) 14...0-0 15 ¦xa4 (15 £xa4 ¤xd5 16 ¤xd5 ¥d7 17 £a2 a5 18 ¥c4² Zapata,A−
Echavarria,J/Cali COL 2000) 15...a5 16 ¥b5 ¥e6 (16...¤xd5 17 ¤xd5 f5 18 exf5 ¥xf5 19
0-0 ¦c8 20 c4 ¦c5 21 £e2 ¥e6 22 ¤c3² Tiviakov,S−Haag,M/Bergen NOR 2000.,
16...¥d7! should equalise) 17 ¤xe7+ £xe7 18 ¥c6 ¦ab8 19 ¦xa5 £c7 20 ¦b5±
Maiorov,O−Beshukov,S/Krasnodar RUS 1999.
11...¦b8 Unusual, these days, but gives White the 'problem' of committing himself 12 ¤c2
0-0 13 h4 ¥e7 (13...¤e7 14 ¤xf6+ gxf6 15 ¥d3 d5 16 exd5 £xd5 17 ¤e3 £e6 18 ¥c2 f5 19
£h5 £g6= Solozhenkin−Sitnikov,D/RUS−chT Saint Peterburg 1999.) 14 ¤ce3 (14 a3
¢h8 15 ¤ce3 ¥e6 16 ¥d3 £d7 17 g3 ¥d8 18 £h5 ¤e7 19 0-0-0 ¥b6 20 ¤xb6 ¦xb6³
Cioara,A−Jianu,V/Bucharest ROM 2000., 14 g3 ¥e6 15 ¥g2 £d7 16 ¤ce3 ¥d8 17 0-0 ¤e7
18 ¤xe7+ £xe7 19 ¤f5 £d7 20 £d2 d5 21 ¦ad1 £a7= Mueller,K−Khalifman,A/Porz GER
2000.) 14...¥e6 15 £f3 £d7 16 ¦d1 (16 g4 with sharp play, Motylev,A−
Filippov,V/Sochi RUS 2005.) 16...¥d8! 17 ¥d3!? Karjakin,S−Eljanov,P/Warsaw
POL 2005.
11...¤e7 12 ¤xf6+ (12 ¤xe7 ¥xe7 13 ¤c2 ¥b7 14 £d3 d5 15 exd5 £xd5 16 £xd5 ¥xd5 17 ¤e3 ¥c6
18 ¤f5 ¥f6 19 0-0-0 ¦d8 20 ¦xd8+ ¢xd8= Werle,J−Bosch,J/Hoogeveen NED 1999., 12
¤c2 ¤xd5 13 £xd5 ¦b8 14 ¤b4 ¥b7 15 £d3 0-0 16 a3 ¥g5 17 ¥e2 f5 18 ¥f3 g6 19 0-0 a5 20
¤d5 ¥a8 21 b4 ¢h8 22 ¦ad1 ¥h6 23 ¦fe1 ¥g7 24 ¦e2 ¦c8 25 £xb5± Van den Doel,E−
Wiersma,E/Groningen NED 1999.) 12...gxf6 13 £f3 (13 ¥d3 d5 14 ¤c2 ¥b7 15
exd5 £xd5 16 ¤e3 £e6 17 £h5 (17 a4 ¦d8 18 £c2 b4 19 ¥c4 £b6 20 a5 £c6 21 £b3 0-0
22 £xb4+− Shabalov,A−Gamboa,N/New York USA 2000.) 17...0-0-0 18 ¥c2 f5 19
¤xf5 ¤g6 20 ¤e3 ¢b8 21 £f5 £e7„ Stefansson,H−Shabalov,A/Paget Parish BER
2001.) 13...f5 14 exf5 ¥xf5 15 ¥d3 ¥e6 16 0-0 0-0 17 ¦fe1 f5 18 ¥f1 f4 19 c4 ¤f5
20 ¦ad1 £b6 21 cxb5 axb5 22 ¤xb5 ¦xa2 23 £g4+² Tiviakov,S−Bosch,J/Hengelo
NED 2000.
11...¥b7 In my opinion this is an inferior way to fight for the d5 point. 12 ¤c2 ¤b8
(12...¤e7 13 ¤cb4 0-0 14 a4 a5 15 ¤xe7+ ¥xe7 16 ¤d5 bxa4 17 ¦xa4 ¦c8 18 ¥c4 ¦c5 19 £d3²
Sibarevic,M−Sermek,D/Ljubljana SLO 1999, White's control of d5 gives a slight
pull. ) 13 g3

24
 a) 13 ¤ce3 ¤d7 14 ¥d3 0-0 15 0-0 ¥g5 16 a4 bxa4 17 £xa4 ¤c5 18 £c2 a5
(18...¥xe3 19 ¤xe3 g6!?) 19 ¦fe1 g6 20 ¥c4 a4 21 ¦ad1² Ehlvest,J−Hossain,E/Dhaka
BAN 2001.
b) 13 a4 bxa4 14 ¦xa4 0-0 15 ¤ce3 ¤d7 16 b4 ¥g5 17 ¤c4 ¤f6 18 ¤xf6+ £xf6 19
¥d3 d5³ Brinck Claussen,B−McShane,L/Copenhagen DEN 2000, Black won the
fight over the d5 point.
13...¤d7 (13...¥g5 14 h4 ¥h6 15 a4 bxa4 16 ¦xa4 ¤d7 17 ¥g2 a5 18 0-0 0-0 19 ¦a2 ¤c5 20 b4 axb4 21
¦xa8 ¥xa8 22 cxb4 ¤e6 23 £d3 ¥xd5 24 exd5± Suba,M−Rodriguez Vinueza,A/Malaga
ESP 2001 − White has a dangerous passed pawn while Black lacks active play.) 14
h4 0-0 15 ¤ce3 ¤b6 16 ¥g2 ¦c8 17 0-0 ¤xd5 18 ¤xd5 ¥xd5 19 £xd5 £b6 20
¦fd1 ¥e7 21 ¥f1 ¦c5 22 £b3 £c6 23 a4± Ashley,M−Casella,M/Los Angeles USA
2000, White's light−squared−bishop is stronger than Black's bishop.

12 ¤c2
The knight heads for e3 or b4 to bolster d5.
12 ¥e2 ¥g5 13 ¤c2 ¥e6 14 0-0 ¤e7 15 ¤cb4 ¢h8 16 a4 bxa4 17 ¦xa4 a5 18 ¤xe7 £xe7
19 ¤d5 £b7 20 b4 f5 21 bxa5 fxe4 22 ¤b6 ¦ad8 23 ¦b4 d5 24 a6 £a7 25 £a4 ¥e7
26 ¦b5 e3³ Fedorov,A−Grishin,E/St Petersburg RUS 2000, White's a7−pawn is
halted and the white king looks very exposed.

12...¥g5
12...¥b7 13 h4 ¤e7 14 ¤xf6+ gxf6 15 ¥d3 ¢h8 16 ¤e3 f5 17 exf5 f6 18 £b3 d5 19 0-0-0
£c7 20 ¢b1 £c5÷ Shabalov,A−Halkias,S/Linares ESP 2000.

13 a4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9p+nzp-+-+0
9+p+Nzp-vl-0
9P+-+P+-+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9-zPN+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

With this move White can force concessions on the queenside.

13 g3 ¤e7 14 ¤cb4 ¥e6 15 ¥g2 a5 16 ¤xe7+ £xe7 17 ¤d5 £b7 18 0-0 b4 19 c4 ¦fc8 20
£d3 a4 21 ¦fd1 ¥xd5 22 exd5 g6³ Xie Jun−Galliamova,A/Kazan RUS 1999 −
White has nothing to do.

25
13...bxa4 14 ¦xa4 a5
This is Black's best vs the positional line. Black avoids weak pawns and has the ...f5 break.
14...¢h8 15 ¤ce3 ¥xe3 16 ¤xe3 a5 17 ¥c4 ¤e7 18 0-0 f5 19 exf5 ¤xf5 20 £d2 ¤xe3 21
fxe3 ¦xf1+= Tiviakov,S−Van der Wiel,J/Rotterdam NED 2000.

15 ¥c4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9-+nzp-+-+0
9zp-+Nzp-vl-0
9R+L+P+-+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9-zPN+-zPPzP0
9+-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

15 ¥b5 is Smyslov's line, 15...¤e7 (15...¥b7 16 0-0 ¤e7 17 ¥c4 ¢h8 (17...¦b8 18 ¤xe7+
£xe7 19 £d3 £c7 20 ¦a2 ¥c6 21 b4 axb4 22 ¤xb4 ¦a8 23 ¦xa8 ¥xa8 24 ¥d5 ¥xd5 25 ¤xd5
£c5 26 g3² Asrian,K−Pridorozhni,A/Yerevan ARM 2000.) 18 b4 f5 19 ¤xe7 £xe7
20 ¥d5 axb4 21 ¦xa8 ¥xa8 22 ¥xa8 ¦xa8 23 ¤xb4= Palac,M−Nedev,T/Pula CRO
2000, White's c3 pawn offsets his control of d5.) 16 ¤xe7+ (16 ¤cb4 is possibly the
most precise, but should transpose) 16...£xe7 17 ¤b4 ¥h3!? Adorjan's surprising
idea, Black hopes to open up White's king for the duration, but White will get light−
squared control, 18 ¥c6 ¦ac8 19 ¦xa5 (19 ¤d5!?) 19...¥xg2 20 ¦g1 ¥h3 21 £h5 (21
¦a6 Zapata,A−Ramirez,A/Decameron DOM 2003) 21...¥h4 was the impressive
game Korneev,O−Shirov,A/Pamplona ESP 2006, but I think White should play 22
¤d5 £d8 23 £h6 here.

15...¦b8
The most natural, attacking b2, but Black has been investigating other possibilities:
15...¤e7 16 0-0 ¤xd5 17 ¥xd5 ¥d7 18 ¦a2 ¦c8 19 ¤a3 ¥e6 20 £d3 ¥xd5 21 £xd5 ¦c5=
Vescovi,G−Mecking,H/Sao Paulo BRA 2000, White's knight can't get to d5.
15...¥b7 16 0-0 ¤b8 17 b4 ¤d7 18 £d3 axb4 19 ¦xa8 ¥xa8 20 cxb4 ¤b6 21 ¤xb6 £xb6
22 ¦a1² Dervishi,E−Cacco,C/Padova ITA 1999, White's passed pawn and control of
d5 make Black's life difficult.
15...¥d7!? is an old suggestion of Sveshnikov, intending ...£b8, and ...¥d8−b6, 16 0-0
¤b4!? (16...¤e7 looks better) 17 ¦a3 ¦c8 with complications that may slightly favour
White, Volokitin,A−Radjabov,T/Biel SUI 2006.

16 b3

26
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-trlwq-trk+0
9+-+-+pzpp0
9-+nzp-+-+0
9zp-+Nzp-vl-0
9R+L+P+-+0
9+PzP-+-+-0
9-+N+-zPPzP0
9+-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This and 16 ¦a2 can transpose, but the rook move gives White the extra option of playing
b4 in one go. 16...¢h8 Black clears the a2−g8 diagonal ready for ...f5. (16...g6!? can
be played too, 17 0-0 (17 ¤ce3 ¢g7 is the point) 17...¢h8 18 b4! ¥d7! (18...axb4 19 cxb4
¥e6 20 b5 with some advantage, Anand,V−Leko,P, San Luis ARG 2005) 19 £e2 axb4
20 ¤cxb4 ¤a5 21 ¦fa1!? with an edge playing with two knights against two
bishops, Kasimdzhanov,R−Leko,P/San Luis ARG 2005.) 17 ¤ce3 (17 0-0 f5 18
exf5 ¥xf5 19 ¤ce3 ¥g6 20 f3 (20 £a4 £c8 21 ¦d1 e4 22 b3 ¥f7 23 £a3 £d7 24 ¤f1 ¤e5³
Socko,B−Krasenkow,M/Plock POL 2000. The Polish GM is a Sveshnikov expert.
Here Black has good attacking chances.) 20...¥f7 21 £e2 ¥xe3+ 22 ¤xe3 d5 23 ¦d1
£b6 24 ¥xd5 ¦bd8 25 ¢f1 e4© Blehm,P−Cyborowski,L/Warsaw POL 2001.)
17...g6
XIIIIIIIIY
9-trlwq-tr-mk0
9+-+-+p+p0
9-+nzp-+p+0
9zp-+Nzp-vl-0
9-+L+P+-+0
9+-zP-sN-+-0
9RzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

Black wants to support ...f5 with his g−pawn.

a) 17...¥e6!? has been tried a few times recently, 18 b3!? (18 £a4 ¥d7! 19 ¥b5?! ¤b4!
was soon catastrophic for White, Nepomniachtchi,I−Zhigalko,S/Kirishi RUS 2005)
18...¥xe3 19 ¤xe3 £b6 20 0-0 Ganguly,S−Al Sayed,M/Abu Dhabi UAE 2005,
when 20...¥xc4 is simplest.
b) 17...¥xe3 18 ¤xe3 ¤e7 is a solid alternative, and may be best, 19 b3!? f5 20 exf5
¤xf5 21 ¤d5 (21 ¤xf5 ¥xf5 22 0-0 was equal in Carlsen,M−Van Wely,L/Schagen
NED 2006) 21...¥b7 22 0-0 ¦c8 and White only had a small edge in Karjakin,S−
Topalov,V/Wijk aan Zee NED 2006.

27
18 h4! This is the most dangerous for Black. (18 0-0 f5 19 £a4!? gave Black problems in
Anand,V−Kasparov,G/Linares ESP 2005.) 18...¥xh4 19 g3 ¥g5 20 f4 with sharp
play in Kramnik,V−Van Wely,L/Monte Carlo MNC 2005.

16...¢h8 17 ¤ce3
17 0-0 f5 18 exf5 ¥xf5 19 ¤ce3 ¥g6 (19...¥e6 is worse, 20 £d3 ¥xe3 21 ¤xe3 ¥xc4 22
£xc4 (22 bxc4!) 22...¤e7= Vescovi,G−Mecking,H/Sao Paulo BRA 2000.) 20 ¥e2 (20
¥d3 ¥f7!? (20...¥xd3 21 £xd3 ¥xe3 22 fxe3 ¦xf1+ 23 £xf1 ¦xb3 is fairly equal) 21 ¥e4
¤e7 22 ¤xe7 £xe7 23 ¤d5 £b7 24 b4 axb4 25 ¤f6!± Konguvel,P−
Harikrishna,P/New Delhi IND 2001.) 20...¥f7 21 ¤c4 ¥g8 22 ¥f3 ¦b5 23 ¥e4 ¤e7
24 ¤xe7 ¥xe7 25 ¥c2 ¦c5 26 ¦e1 e4 27 ¤e3 d5³ Rodriguez,A−San Segundo
Carrillo,P/Cala Galdana ESP 1999.

17...g6 18 h4!? ¥xh4 19 g3 ¥g5 20 f4!?

XIIIIIIIIY
9-trlwq-tr-mk0
9+-+-+p+p0
9-+nzp-+p+0
9zp-+Nzp-vl-0
9R+L+PzP-+0
9+PzP-sN-zP-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This is a highly committal move of Topalov's.

Instead, with 20 ¦a2 White opens the h−file and hopes to swing his rook to h2, this was the
actual move order of Topalov,V−Leko,P/Linares ESP 2005.

20...exf4 21 gxf4 ¥h4+ 22 ¢d2

22 ¢f1 f5 23 exf5 led to a quick disaster for White in Delchev,A−Kotanjian,T/Kusadasi
TUR 2006.

22...¤e7
Leko's choice.
22...f5!? is riskier, 23 ¥d3 Ponomariov,R−Van Wely,L/San Sebastian ESP 2006, but White
has other, more dangerous alternatives, see the notes.

23 ¢c1 ¤xd5 24 ¤xd5 ¥e6 25 £d4+ ¢g8 26 ¦a2 ¥xd5 27 £xd5 £f6 28
£d2 ¥g3 29 ¦f1

28
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-+-trk+0
9+-+-+p+p0
9-+-zp-wqp+0
9zp-+-+-+-0
9-+L+PzP-+0
9+PzP-+-vl-0
9R+-wQ-+-+0
9+-mK-+R+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

29...d5!
This is Rogozenko's strong suggestion that either deflects White's bishop from the defence
of f1, or closes the a2−g8 diagonal.
29...h5?! is worse, see Topalov,V−Leko,P/Linares ESP 2005 in the archives.

30 ¥xd5!? g5!
This attack on the dark squares is possible now that the f1-rook is loose, see Korneev,O−
Devereaux,M/Port Erin IOM 2006.

29
 Sveshnikov with ...gxf6 − 10...Bg7 [B33]

Last updated: 09/01/07 by TonyK

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 e5 6 ¤db5 d6 7 ¥g5 a6 8

¤a3 b5 9 ¥xf6 gxf6 10 ¤d5 ¥g7
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+-tr0
9+-+-+pvlp0
9p+nzp-zp-+0
9+p+Nzp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9sN-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

Black protects the f−pawn so as to be able to exchange the d5−knight without allowing
mate in 1 (!) This is sometimes called the Novosibirsk Variation, and tends to
become more popular whenever the mainline is having problems.

11 ¥d3
11 g3 f5 12 exf5 ¥xf5 13 ¥g2 ¥e6 14 c3 Leko,P−Kramnik,V/Linares ESP 2000. (27)
11 c3 is a good alternative for White, when Black should return to the mainlines with
11...f5 as 11...¤e7 is not so good now, because of 12 ¤c2 f5 13 ¤xe7 £xe7 14 exf5
when 14...¥xf5?? is impossible, 15 £f3 hitting f5 and a8 and Black can resign.

11...¤e7 12 ¤xe7 £xe7 13 0-0 0-0 14 c4

30
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+-+-wqpvlp0
9p+-zp-zp-+0
9+p+-zp-+-0
9-+P+P+-+0
9sN-+L+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

This is critical, but double−edged.

14 c3 is the quieter move, although Rogozenko feels that this is "a promising way to meet
the 10...Bg7 system." 14...f5 15 ¤c2 ¦b8 The mainline, dissuading White from
playing a4. (15...f4 is a dangerous alternative, planning a kingside attack, and was
chosen by Kasparov, 16 £h5! White should stop Black from playing ...£g5 (16 a4
bxa4 17 ¦xa4 £g5 18 f3 ¥f6 19 ¥c4 ¢h8 was unclear in Polgar,J−Kasparov,G, Prague
2002) 16...¢h8 17 ¤b4 ¥e6 18 a4 bxa4 19 ¦xa4 a5 20 ¦fa1 White is clearly on top
on the queenside, and Black's kingside attack has failed to materialise, Nolte,R−
Isaev,J, Calcutta 2001.) 16 exf5 e4 17 ¦e1 (17 ¥e2 ¥xf5 18 ¤b4 £g5 19 ¢h1 ¥e5
Adams,M−Kramnik,V/Wijk aan Zee NED 2001. (33)) 17...¥xf5 18 ¤e3 ¥g6 19
¤d5 £e5 20 ¥c2 a5 21 f4 £e6 22 £d2 ¢h8 A useful move that avoids any potential
problems along the a2−g8 diagonal, Anand,V−Radjabov,T/Mainz GER 2006, where
Black was soon in total control.

14...f5 15 £f3
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+-+-wqpvlp0
9p+-zp-+-+0
9+p+-zpp+-0
9-+P+P+-+0
9sN-+L+Q+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The most popular reply here.

15 £h5 is the older line, 15...¦b8! best (15...£b7 16 ¦fe1 bxc4 17 ¤xc4 d5 18 exd5 £xd5 19 ¥xf5
¥xf5 20 ¤e3 ¥g6 21 £xg6 hxg6 22 ¤xd5 ¦fb8 23 b3 a5 24 ¦ac1 a4 25 b4± Chandler,M−
Darnstaedt,F/Solingen GER 2000.) 16 exf5 e4 17 ¦ae1 The only move to counter

31
 both the threats of ...¥xb2 and ...exd3. 17...¥b7 Black does well here, see
Horvath,T−Nedev,T/Feugen AUT 2006.
15 cxb5!? is met by 15...d5 16 exd5 e4 17 £e2 and now 17...¦b8 18 ¦ab1 ¦b6!? led to a
brilliant Black win in Cheparinov,I−Carlsen,M/Wijk aan Zee NED 2005

15...£b7!?
The queen moves off the e−file to unpin the e−pawn.
Alternatives:
15...¦e8 stopping exf5, 16 ¦fe1 b4! 17 ¤c2 f4! subtle constraining strategy, Black stops the
white knight from landing on d5, 18 ¥e2 ¦b8 19 b3 ¢h8 20 £h5 d5! freeing the
sixth rank, Shirov,A−Kramnik,V/Linares ESP 2000.
15...bxc4 used to be the favourite move here, but after 16 ¤xc4 d5 17 exd5 e4 18 £e3 ¥b7
19 d6 £f6 (19...£h4!? 20 g3 £h3 21 ¥e2 ¥h6 is interesting, Kotsur,P−Sharbaf,M,
Hyderabad 2005) 20 ¥c2 f4 21 £h3 ¦ac8 22 b3 £g5 23 d7! ¦c6 24 ¥xe4 ¦h6 25
£f5 £h4 (25...£xf5! 26 ¥xf5 ¥xa1 27 ¦xa1 ¦d8 is the best chance, and Black managed to
draw in Ceteras,M−Serradimigni,R, Coppa Latina VI B1 corr 2003) 26 h3 ¦h5
(26...¦f6? 27 d8£ wins, Anand,V−Kasimdzhanov,R, Hyderabad 2002) 27 £g4 ¥xe4
28 £xh4 ¦xh4 29 ¦ad1 ¦d8 30 ¦fe1 Black is in trouble, Yagupov,I−Ataman,A,
Istanbul 2003.

16 £e2!
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+q+-+pvlp0
9p+-zp-+-+0
9+p+-zpp+-0
9-+P+P+-+0
9sN-+L+-+-0
9PzP-+QzPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

16 exf5 £xf3 17 gxf3 e4! 18 ¥xe4 d5! 19 ¥xd5 ¥xf5 20 ¥xa8 ¦xa8 21 ¦ae1 ¥d3 and
practice has shown that Black has no problems to draw, despite the apparent material
deficit, Filip−Madan, Iasi 2003.
16 cxb5?! is doubtful: 16...d5 17 exf5 e4 (the point of removing the black queen from e7)
18 £f4 £e7 19 ¥e2 ¥xb2 White was in trouble, and went on to lose, Shirov,A−
Gullaksen,E, Bergen 2001.

16...bxc4 17 ¤xc4 fxe4 18 £xe4 £xe4 19 ¥xe4 ¦b8 20 ¦ad1!?

Instead, Rogozenko mentioned 20 ¦fd1 ¥e6 21 ¥d5 with a plus.

32
20...¥e6 21 ¥d5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pvlp0
9p+-zpl+-+0
9+-+Lzp-+-0
9-+N+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+R+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

21...¦fd8 22 b3
with an edge for White who has two strongly placed minor pieces and a queenside pawn
majority. Black's centre and bishop pair are not to be underestimated, though,
Oleksienko,M−Zherebukh,Y/Lviv UKR 2006.

33
 Sveshnikov with ...gxf6 − 10...f5 [B33]

Last updated: 09/01/07 by TonyK

1 e4 c5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6
There is an alternative move−order: 2...e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 ¤c6 6 ¤db5 d6 7
¥f4 e5 8 ¥g5 Reaching the same position with an extra move.

3 d4 cxd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 e5 6 ¤db5 d6

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvl-tr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+nzp-sn-+0
9+N+-zp-+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

7 ¥g5 a6 8 ¤a3
8 ¥xf6 gxf6 9 ¤a3 f5!? (9...b5 will transpose to the mainline) 10 ¥d3 (10 £h5 is more
critical) 10...f4 (10...¥g7) 11 ¤d5 b5 12 c3 ¥e7 13 ¤c2 ¥e6 14 g3 fxg3 15 hxg3 ¤a5
16 ¤ce3 ¤b7 17 b4± Rocha,W−Arruda,W/Sao Paulo BRA 1999 − Black's play
made no sense.

8...b5 9 ¥xf6 gxf6 10 ¤d5 f5

34
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvl-tr0
9+-+-+p+p0
9p+nzp-+-+0
9+p+Nzpp+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9sN-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The sharpest and most popular move.

11 c3
11 ¥d3 is the main alternative: 11...¥e6 12 0-0 (12 £h5 ¦g8 (12...¦b8 13 0-0 ¦g8 14 £xh7 ¦g6
15 g3 ¦h6 16 £g8 fxe4 17 ¥xe4 f5 Walsh,H−Van Riemsdijk,H/Mar del Plata Open,
Argen 2000.) 13 g3 ¦g5 14 £d1 ¦g4 15 f3 ¦g8 16 £d2 ¦c8 17 c3 h5 18 ¤c2 h4 19
a4 ¤a5 20 £e2 ¥h6 21 axb5 ¢f8 22 bxa6 ¤b3÷ Vallejo Pons,F−Moreno,J/Cala
Galdana ESP 1999.) 12...¥xd5 (12...¥g7 13 £h5 f4 (13...¦c8 14 c3 h6 15 ¤c2 f4 16 ¢h1
0-0 17 g3 £g5 18 £xg5 hxg5 19 a4 bxa4 20 ¦xa4 a5 21 ¤a3² Walsh,H−Idigoras,A/Buenos
Aires ARG 1999.) 14 c4 bxc4 15 ¥xc4 0-0 16 ¦ac1 ¤d4 17 ¤c2 ¤xc2 18 ¦xc2 ¦c8
19 ¦fc1 ¢h8 20 g4 ¦c5 21 f3² Acs,P−Gagunashvili,M/Athens GRE 2001 − this
could be White's best in the ...gxf6 lines.) 13 exd5 ¤e7 14 c3 (14 c4?! This gives up
too many dark squares. 14...¥g7 15 £d2 e4 16 ¥e2 b4 17 £xb4 ¦b8 18 £a4+ ¢f8 19 ¦ab1
¦g8 20 £c2 ¤g6 21 c5 ¥d4 22 ¢h1 dxc5 23 f3 ¤f4 24 fxe4 ¦xg2 25 ¦xf4 £g5 26 ¦g4 ¦xg4 27
¥xg4 £xg4 28 ¤c4 £f3+ 29 £g2 £d3³ Rodriguez,A−Moreno,J/Cala Galdana ESP
1999., 14 ¤xb5?! e4 15 ¥e2 ¥g7³) 14...¥g7 15 £h5 e4 16 ¥c2 0-0 17 ¦ae1 (17 ¦ad1
£c8 18 ¦fe1 b4 19 cxb4 ¥xb2 20 ¦e3 ¥xa3?? (20...¥g7!? Looks very reasonable.) 21
¦h3+− Geirnaert−Aksay 41st World Junior Goa 2002) 17...£c8 18 ¢h1 (18 f3!? is
more direct, see Nataf,I−Spasov,V/Calvia ESP 2004) 18...¤g6 19 ¥b1 (19 f4 exf3 20
¦xf3 ¦e8 21 ¦ef1 ¦e5 22 ¥xf5 £e8 23 ¤c2± Singh,G−Harikrishna,P/Calcutta IND 2001.)
19...b4 20 cxb4 ¥xb2 21 ¤c2 ¥c3 22 ¦e2 (22 ¦c1 ¥b2 '=' ' Galkin,A−
Krasenkow,M/Saint Vincent ITA 2000.' '=' ' Galkin,A−Krasenkow,M/Saint Vincent
ITA 2000.' 23 ¦ce1 ¥c3 24 ¦c1 ¥b2= Galkin,A−Krasenkow,M/Saint Vincent ITA
2000.) 22...¥g7 23 f4 exf3 24 £xf3 f4 25 ¤e1 £c4 26 £e4 ¦fc8 27 ¤d3 a5 28 bxa5
£xe4 29 ¦xe4² Leko,P−Krasenkow,M/Batumi GEO 1999.
11 ¥xb5!? this piece sacrifice was popular many years ago, 11...axb5 12 ¤xb5 ¦a4 13 b4
¦xb4 (13...£h4!? This looks like Kasparov preparation. The threat of Qe4+ forces
White to castle, 14 0-0 ¦g8 White is down a piece and completely lost. 15 f4 ¢d8 16 c3
¦a6 17 a4 In many cases White's knight on d5 gets in the way, 17...fxe4 18 f5 ¥b7 19 ¦a2
e3!

35
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-mk-vlr+0
9+l+-+p+p0
9r+nzp-+-+0
9+N+NzpP+-0
9PzP-+-+-wq0
9+-zP-zp-+-0
9R+-+-+PzP0
9+-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The Rg8 and Bb7 form a murderous duo from long distance! 20 ¤xe3 £e4 21 ¦e1 ¤xb4!-+
Breaking what was left of White's resistance, Shirov,A−Kasparov,G/Linares ESP
2002.) 14 ¤bc7+ ¢d7 15 0-0 ¦b7 16 £h5 ¤e7 17 £xf7 ¢c6 18 ¦ab1 fxe4 19 ¦xb7
¢xb7 20 ¦b1+ ¢c6 21 ¦b6+ ¢c5 22 ¦b3+− Shirov,A−Lautier,J/Monaco MNC
2000 − keep in mind this was a blindfold game.
11 g3 fxe4 12 ¥g2 ¥g7 13 ¥xe4 ¥e6 14 £h5 ¦c8 15 c3 ¤e7 16 ¦d1 ¦c5 17 ¤b4 £b6 18
£g5 ¢f8 19 £e3 f5 20 ¥g2 e4 21 ¤ac2 ¢f7 22 ¤d4² Sax,G−Shariazdanov,A/Bihac
BIH 1999.

11...¥g7 12 exf5
12 ¥d3!? this might be White's most aggressive course of action. Most of the time White
gets a safe king, while Black's is a bit drafty, 12...¥e6 13 £h5 (13 ¤xb5!? axb5 14
¥xb5 is dangerous for Black, 14...¥d7 (14...¦c8 see Almasi,Z−Sutovsky,E/Paks HUN
2005) 15 exf5 0-0 16 0-0 ¦b8 17 a4 ¦e8 18 £g4 ¢h8 19 £e4! the queen eyes the
knight on c6, Almasi,Z−Wang Yue/Paks HUN 2006) 13...0-0 14 0-0 f4 15 ¦ad1
¢h8 16 g3 ¦g8 17 ¢h1 ¥f8 18 ¥e2 ¦g5 19 £f3 f5 20 gxf4 (20 exf5 ¥xf5 21 ¤xf4!? led
to sharp play in Svidler,P−Van Wely,L/Wijk aan Zee NED 2004) 20...exf4 (20...fxe4
21 £xe4 ¥f5 22 £e3 exf4 23 ¤xf4 ¤e5 24 ¤d5 ¤g4 25 ¥xg4 ¦xg4 26 ¦g1 ¥g7= Anand,V−
Leko,P/Wijk aan Zee NED 2001. ) 21 ¤xf4 ¥xa2 22 exf5 ¦xf5 23 £e4 ¦f7 24 ¥h5
¦f6 25 c4 ¤e5= Anand,V−Topalov,V/Monaco MNC 2001, with equal chances in a
sharp position.

12...¥xf5

36
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0
9+-+-+pvlp0
9p+nzp-+-+0
9+p+Nzpl+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9sN-zP-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

13 ¤c2 0-0
13...¥e6 14 a4
a) 14 g3 This line is no problem for Black. 14...0-0 15 ¥g2 f5 16 0-0 a5 17 ¦e1
a1) 17 £h5 ¦a7 (17...¦b8!?) 18 a4! bxa4 19 ¦xa4 ¤e7 20 ¤ce3 ¤xd5 21 ¥xd5 ¥xd5
22 ¤xd5 ¦b7 23 ¦h4! ¥f6 24 ¦c4 £d7 (24...¥g7 25 b4±) 25 ¦a1 ¥d8 26 b4 ¦b5 27
¦d1± Nunn,J−Delaney,P/Bunratty IRL 2000, Black's K is wide open.
a2) 17 £e2 ¦b8 18 ¦fd1 £d7 19 ¤a3 ¤a7 20 ¦d2 £f7 21 ¦ad1 ¢h8 22 f4 b4 23
¤c4 ¤b5 24 fxe5 bxc3 25 bxc3 ¤xc3 26 ¤xc3 ¥xc4 27 £e3 dxe5 28 ¥d5 ¥xd5 29
¦xd5 f4∓ Mohr,G−Jelen,I/Bled SLO 1999.
17...¦c8 18 ¤a3 ¤a7 19 £d2 e4 20 ¦ad1 ¥e5 This unopposed B defends d6 and could do
serious damage on the dark squares. 21 ¤c2 ¢h8 22 £h6 £e8 23 ¤ce3 ¤c6 24 a3
£g6 25 £h4 £f7 26 ¦d2 ¦b8 27 ¦ed1 ¥xd5 28 ¦xd5 ¤e7 29 ¦5d2 ¦g8 30 ¢h1
¦g6 31 f4 exf3 32 ¥xf3 £g7∓ Ivanchuk,V−Leko,P/Monaco MNC 2001, Black has
good attacking chances.
b) 14 ¤ce3 ¤e7 15 g3 ¤xd5 16 ¤xd5 0-0 17 ¥g2 f5 18 0-0 a5 19 £d2 ¦b8 20 ¦ad1
¢h8 Sometimes white's Nd5 gets in the way. 21 ¢h1 £d7 22 f4 e4 23 ¤e3 ¥xa2 24
¦a1 ¥c4 25 ¤xc4 bxc4 26 ¦xa5 ¦b3 27 ¦fa1 £b7 28 £xd6 ¦xb2³ Wang Pin−
Krasenkow,M/Shanghai CHN 2000.
14...0-0 (14...¦b8 15 axb5 axb5 16 ¦a6 (16 ¤cb4!?) 16...£c8 17 ¤cb4 ¤xb4 18 ¤xb4 d5!
With the B pair and a formidable center Black gets good play. 19 ¦a5 0-0 20 ¦xb5
d4 21 ¦xb8 £xb8 22 ¥e2 e4³ Borriss,M−McShane,L/Dresden GER 2000.) 15 axb5
axb5 16 ¦xa8 £xa8 17 ¤ce3 £b7 18 g4 White clamps down on Black's f5 break,
but is lagging in development. 18...¤e7 19 ¥g2 ¤xd5 20 ¥xd5 £e7 21 h4 ¦c8 22
g5 ¦c5 23 ¥e4 d5

37
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+k+0
9+-+-wqpvlp0
9-+-+l+-+0
9+ptrpzp-zP-0
9-+-+L+-zP0
9+-zP-sN-+-0
9-zP-+-zP-+0
9+-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

24 ¤xd5 ¥xd5 25 ¥xd5 e4 26 ¢e2 £e5 27 ¥b3 £c7 28 £g1 b4 29 g6 hxg6 30 £xg6 ¢f8=
Kasparov,G−Leko,P/Wijk aan Zee NED 2000.

14 ¤ce3 ¥e6
Returning to survey d5.
14...¥g6 15 h4 ¥e4 16 h5 (16 a4 ¥xd5 17 ¤xd5 b4 18 cxb4 ¢h8 19 ¦c1 ¤e7 20 ¥c4 f5 21 ¦h3 e4 22
£d2 ¥e5 23 £g5 ¤xd5 24 £xd8 ¦axd8 25 ¥xd5 ¥xb2 26 ¦c6 ¦c8 27 ¦b3 ¦xc6 28 ¥xc6 ¥d4 29
¥b7 ¦b8 30 ¥xa6 ¦xb4= Ponomariov,R−Rogozenko,D/Istanbul TUR 2000.) 16...£g5
17 ¥e2 (17 ¦h3 ¢h8 18 ¦g3 (18 g4!? White plays for a kingside light square bind.
18...f5! It's now or never.. White had the strong positional threat of ¥d3. 19 gxf5 ¥xf5 20
¦g3 £h6 21 ¤xf5 ¦xf5„ Sadykov−Ni Hua 41st World Junior Goa 2002 White's king is
in bad shape.) 18...£h6 19 ¥d3 ¥xd5 20 ¤f5 £f6 21 ¥c2 ¥e6 22 ¤xg7 d5 23 £d2
b4 24 h6 e4 25 ¤h5 £e5 26 ¦g5 f5 27 f4 exf3+ 28 ¢f2 bxc3 29 bxc3 £e2+=
Timman−Leko/Sarajevo 1999.) 17...¦a7 18 ¥f3 ¥xf3 19 £xf3 f5 20 h6 ¥xh6 21
¦h5 £g6 22 ¦xf5 ¦af7 23 ¦xf7 ¦xf7 24 £g4 ¥xe3 25 ¤xe3 £xg4 26 ¤xg4 ¢f8 27
¢e2 b4= Polgar,J−Leko,P/Wijk aan Zee NED 2000.

15 ¥d3 f5 16 £h5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9+-+-+-vlp0
9p+nzpl+-+0
9+p+Nzpp+Q0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-zPLsN-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

38
16 a4 b4 17 0-0 bxc3 18 bxc3 ¢h8 19 ¦b1 e4 20 ¤f4 ¥d7 21 ¥c4 ¥e5 22 ¤e6 ¥xe6 23
¥xe6 £g5 24 ¥d5 ¦ac8 25 ¤c4 ¤e7 26 ¤xe5 dxe5 27 c4 ¤g6 28 ¢h1 ¦cd8 29
¦b6± Leko,P−Kramnik,V/Frankfurt GER 2000.
16 0-0 ¦a7! (16...¤e7 17 ¤xe7+ £xe7 18 ¥xf5! Aronian,L−Harikrishna,P/Lausanne SUI 2001.
(31)) 17 a4 ¤e7 18 ¤xe7+ ¦xe7 19 axb5 axb5 20 ¥xb5 d5 gave Black reasonable
compensation for the pawn in Anand,V−Leko,P/Wijk aan Zee NED 2005.

16...e4 17 ¥c2 ¤e7 18 ¦d1

18 ¤f4 ¥f7 19 ¥b3 d5 20 £g5 ¤g6 21 £xd8 ¦axd8 22 ¤exd5 ¤xf4 23 ¤xf4 b4 24 ¤e6
¥xe6 25 ¥xe6+= Anand,V−Kramnik,V/Frankfurt GER 2000.

18...¤g6 19 f4 exf3 20 gxf3 £d7 21 0-0 £f7

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+qvlp0
9p+-zpl+n+0
9+p+N+p+Q0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-zP-sNP+-0
9PzPL+-+-zP0
9+-+R+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

22 f4 ¦ac8 23 ¦f3 ¦c5 24 ¦h3 h6 25 ¦g3 ¢h7 26 b4 ¦cc8 27 ¦d2±

Ponomariov,R−Eljanov,P/Kharkov RUS 2001.

39