C3-SICILIAN

Part VII

The pedigree of the author speaks volumes about what the reader is to expect from these articles: apart from being a
very strong and successful active player, GM Vassilios Kotronias is a highly esteemed author and chess analyst, well
known for his deep analytical approach to the opening, who has worked with several top grandmasters, such as Veselin
Topalov, Alexei Shirov and Nigel Short, as well as a trainer for the Greek national team. His name is associated with
deep opening research, inventive new ideas and an unceasing quest for the absolute truth, as can be evidenced from his
various highly regarded opening works to date. Additionally, he is well known for his uncompromising style and
fighting spirit.
Vassilios’ competitive successes include ten gold medals in the Greek Championships and first places, clear or shared,
in several strong tournaments all over the world, while he has been a member of the Greek national team for three
decades. Most recently he won the gold medal on his board in the 2013 European Team Championships in Warsaw. He
certainly knows what he’s writing about, too: Vassilios has been a lifelong Sicilian player, and has clearly spent endless
hours throughout his career racking his brains over how to meet the 2.c3 Sicilian in a dynamic and ambitious way. This
series of articles represents the result of his most recent efforts to deal with this problem.

CHAPTER 20

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.d4 cd4 6.Bc4

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.d4 cd4 6.Bc4

This old favourite of Sveshnikov’s leads to balanced positions once Black survives the tense opening skirmishes.

6...Nb6 7.Bb3 d5 8.ed6 Qd6

A tabiya for the c3 Sicilian; the main issue here is whether Black can bring his king to safety without any unpleasant
happenings, as he is presently lagging in development.

9.0-0
The most straightforward and critical move.

[Premature is 9.Na3, trying to take advantage of the queen’s position on d6 by an early Nb5. After 9...dc3! White is
struggling to equalize, as the following lines indicate:
A) An inferior version of the endgame is 10.Nb5?! Qd1 11.Kd1 Rb8!
A1) 12.Bf4? cb2 13.Rb1 Bf5 14.Nc7 Kd7 15.Rb2 Rd8 (15...Bg4!µ is even better) 16.Rd2 Kc8 17.Rd8 Kd8 18.Bf7 e5
19.Ne5 Bd6 20.Nc6 Kc7 21.Bd6 Kd6 22.Nd4 Bd7 23.Ke2 Nd5 24.Rc1 Rf8 25.Bd5 Kd5³ saw Black winning in the
end in Rabiega 2477 – Van Wely 2646, Frankfurt (rapid) 2000;
A2) 12.bc3 a6
A2a) 13.Nc7 Kd7 14.Nd5™ (14.Bf4? e5! 15.Ne5 Ne5 16.Be5 Bd6 –+) 14...Nd5 15.Bd5 f6! 16.Be3 e5 17.Rb1 b5
18.a4 Kc7µ;
A2b) 13.Be3 ab5 14.Bb6 e6 15.Ke2 Ra8 16.Rhd1 Ra6 17.Bc7 Be7³;

B) 10.Qe2 is an attempt to keep queens on the board...

...but Black seems to be doing more than fine: 10...Bf5 11.Nb5 Qd7 12.Ne5 Ne5 13.Qe5 Rc8 14.0-0 (14.Na7? f6!
15.Qa5 cb2 16.Bb2 Nc4 –+; 14.Nc3 Nc4!) 14...Nc4! (14...Bd3 15.Na7!÷) 15.Bc4 Rc4 In this position Black’s two
bishops and compact kingside pawn structure more than outweigh White’s slight lead in development:
B1) Dismal is 16.b3? f6! 17.Nd6 (17.Qg3? Rg4 18.Qb8 Kf7 19.Nc3 Rg2 20.Kg2 Bh3 21.Kg1 e5 –+) 17...Qd6 18.Qd6
ed6 19.bc4 c2µ when the ending is close to lost for White;
B2) 16.Bf4? led to a disaster after 16...f6 17.Qb8 Rc8 18.Nc7 Kf7 19.Qb7 e5 20.Qb3 Kg6 21.Nd5 ef4 22.Nf4 Kh6 –+
in Palkovi 2420 – Pe. Wells 2495, Budapest 1997 – 77/(128);
B3) White has to play 16.Nc3, after which follows 16...e6

Rogozenko gives an excellent description of the situation on the board: “White is a pawn down, but he has an advantage
in development, which is probably enough to keep the balance. Black has no problems at all, but I am not sure he can
achieve more than a drawish endgame. On the other hand, playing like this with White in general means playing for a
draw”.
17.Re1 17.Be3 a6µ) 17...Rc5 18.Qg3 (18.Qb8 Rc8 19.Qa7 Bc5 20.Qa4 Qa4 21.Na4 Bb4³) 18...f6 19.Bf4 (19.Be3
Bd6!µ) 19...Kf7 20.Rad1 Qc6 21.Bd6 (21.Rd8 Rg8 22.Red1 Be7 23.Rg8 Kg8 24.Bh6 Bg6µ) 21...Rc4
B3a) 22.Bf8? Rg4! 23.Rd6 (23.Qh3 Rg6–+) 23...Rg3 24.Rc6 bc6 25.hg3 Rf8µ;
B3b) 22.h3 e5 23.Bf8 (23.Be5 fe5 24.Qe5 Rc5! –+) 23...Rf8 24.Qe3 a6 25.Rd2° White’s compensation lies in his
excellent control of the d-file and he went on to draw in Le. Vajda 2459 – D. Rogozenco 2562, Bucuresti 2000 –
78/(137);
C) 10.Qd6 Hoping that his initiative in the ending will compensate for the missing pawn.

10...ed6 11.Nb5 Rb8 12.bc3 a6! 13.Be3 ab5 14.Bb6 Be6 A rather forced sequence of moves has led to a position with
an extra pawn for Black where White enjoys a slight advantage in development. The first player should now decide
which way to castle.
C1) Inferior is 15.0-0-0?! Ra8!? (15...Be7 16.Rhe1 Kd7 17.Nd4 Nd4 18.Bd4 Rhg8³) 16.Rhe1 Kd7 17.Ng5 Bb3 18.ab3
Be7 19.Ne4 Ra1 20.Kb2 Rd1 21.Rd1 Ke6 22.Re1 f5³ and White does not seem to have full compensation for the
pawn;
C2) 15.0-0!
C2a) Fixing the opponent’s pawn structure by 15...Bb3 may seem a little absurd but there is a certain logic to it: Black
wants to prevent White from exerting pressure on b5. A sample line goes 16.ab3 Kd7 17.Rad1!? (17.Nd4 Nd4 18.Bd4
d5 19.Rfd1 Kc6 20.Rd3 f6 21.Rg3 transposes to 15...Kd7) 17...Be7 18.Rd5 b4 19.cb4 Nb4 20.Rb5 Nc6 21.Rd1 Rhe8
22.Nd2!° with approximately equal chances;
C2b) 15...Kd7 The most natural. Play can proceed 16.Rfb1 (After 16.Nd4 Nd4 17.Bd4 Bb3 18.ab3 d5 19.Rfd1 Kc6
20.Rd3 f6 21.Rg3 h5 22.h4 Rh7 23.Re3 Bd6 24.b4 Rhh8 25.Rae1 Kd7 26.Rd1 Rbe8 27.Red3 Kc6 28.Be3 Rd8 29.Kf1 it
is obviously very hard to break through White’s fortress, but Black has a right to press.) 16...Be7 17.Be6 fe6 18.Rb5
Bf6 19.Rd1 Bc3 20.Be3! Bf6 (20...Rhf8? 21.Bc5) 21.Bf4 Be7 22.Ng5! Rhf8 (Unclear is 22...e5!? 23.Be5 Ne5 24.Re5
Ra8 25.Rb5 Rhb8 26.Nh7 Ra2 27.g3 Kc6 28.Rf5! b5 29.Rf7 Rb7 30.Rg7 b4 31.Rc1!„) 23.Bd6 Bd6 24.Ne4=]
Now we return to our main line 9.0-0:

9...Be6!
The standard recipe, blunting the attacking force by exchanging the Bb3. What Black needs to do from now on is bring
his king to safety by castling, but in some cases he can employ other means as well.
10.Be6
[10.Na3 can be met in two or three satisfactory ways, but I like most...

10...dc3!? which is natural and strong. Black is two pawns up at the moment and is threatening to exchange queens.
A) After 11.Nb5 Qd1 12.Rd1 the threat of mate by Nc7 means that Black’s pawn structure will be ruined, but in an
endgame with an extra pawn that is not of major importance. The following analysis shows how Black should handle
the situation: 12...Rc8 13.Be6 fe6
A1) Unimpressive is 14.Nc3 g6 15.Ng5 Nd8 (15...e5!?) 16.Be3 (16.Nb5 a6 17.Nd4 Bg7 18.Nde6 Ne6 19.Ne6 Bf6
20.Bh6 Bb2 21.Rab1 Na4 22.Rd3 b5 23.Re1 Bf6 24.h4 Nc5 25.Rde3 Ne6 26.Re6 Kf7 27.Bg5 Rhe8 28.Ra6 Ra8= is not
dangerous for Black either.) 16...Bh6! 17.Bb6 (17.Bd4 0-0=) 17...ab6 18.Nge4 (18.Nf3 Bg7 19.Rd3 Rf8!?³) 18...Nc6
19.Rab1 Bg7 20.Nb5 0-0 21.Rd7 Rb8 and Black is at least equal;
A2) 14.bc3 Nc4 (With his knight impressively placed on c4, Black plans ...e5, possibly followed by ...a6, seriously
reducing the scope of the white knights.) 15.Ng5 (15.Re1 e5 16.Na3 is a logical continuation, but after 16...Na3 17.Ba3
g6 18.Ne5 Ne5 19.Re5 Rc3³ Black retains the somewhat better chances.) 15...e5 (15...a6 16.Na3 Na3 17.Ba3 e5
18.Rab1 b5 19.Bc5 g6 20.a4 ba4 21.Rb6 a5 22.Ne4= is close to equal; the a4 pawn will fall and then White’s pieces are
excellently placed overall to cope with Black’s remaining passed pawn.)
A2a) 16.f4? a6 (16...ef4!? 17.Ne6 g5! 18.Nbc7 Rc7µ) 17.Na3 Na3 18.Ba3 ef4 19.Ne6 Nd8 20.Nf4 Rc3 21.Bb2 Rc2
22.Rab1 e6 23.Nh5 Bc5 24.Kh1 Rf8 25.Ng7 Kf7µ leads to insurmountable difficulties for White;
A2b) 16.Ne6 Kf7
A2b1) After 17.Ng5 Kf6! (17...Ke8=; 17...Kg6!? 18.Ne6 h6 is also possible.) 18.Rd3! a6 19.Na3 Nd6 20.Rf3 Kg6
21.h4 h6 22.Ne6, the idea of ...e4 is annoying for White: 22...Kh7 23.Be3 e4 24.Rf4 Ne5 25.h5 Rg8 26.c4 g5 27.hg6
Ng6 28.Rg4 Bg7 29.Ng7 Rg7 30.c5 Nf5³;
A2b2) 17.Nbc7 g6 18.f4 Bg7 Black develops his last minor piece and it is by now evident that the Nc4 severely cramps
White’s movements. 19.fe5 (19.Ng7?? Rc7 –+) 19...N4e5! The best move, keeping e7 protected. Black now plans to
follow up with ...Bf6 and ...g5, freeing g6 for his king. 20.Rf1 Bf6

A2b21) 21.Ng5 Kg8 22.Nd5 h6! 23.Ne4 (23.Nf6?! ef6 24.Ne4 f5µ) 23...Bg7³ is excellent for Black who is ready to
connect rooks by ...Kh7. If 24.Nc5, then simplest is 24...Rh7! 25.Ne6 Bh8³;
A2b22) 21.Bh6 is met by the brilliant retort 21...g5!! (21...Nd8? 22.Ng5 Kg8 23.Nd5ƒ is better for White.) 22.Bg5™
22...Nd8! 23.Nd8 (23.Bf6 ef6 24.Ng5 Kg6 25.Nge6 Ne6 26.Ne6 Rc3µ) 23...Rhd8 24.Rae1!? Rc7 25.Re5 Rd3!³ and
Black had the better chances in Brauning 2290 – Yuri Yakovich 2560, Munich 1991 – 54/153;

B) 11.Qe2 It is only natural that White wishes to evade the exchange.

11...Bb3 12.Nb5 (12.ab3 will transpose) 12...Qb8 13.ab3 g6!? My pet line, which guarantees at least equal play for
Black.
B1) Clearly bad is 14.g3? Bg7 15.Bf4 e5µ and Black is about to castle and retain a good extra pawn;
B2) 14.bc3?! Bg7³ is also inadequate;
B3) 14.Rd1 Bg7! 15.Nd6 Kf8 leads to a position where Black has forfeited castling rights but is catching up in
development and has two extra pawns.

B3a) 16.Nf7? Kf7! (16...cb2 17.Bb2 Bb2 18.Qb2 Kf7 19.b4µ/³ is less clear.) 17.Ng5 Kf8! (17...Ke8?! 18.Qe6 Nd8
19.Rd8‚ Kochyev, S. N. Soloviov) 18.Qf3 (18.Qe6 Qe8 –+) 18...Bf6 –+ looks completely winning for Black;
B3b) 16.Ne4™ 16...cb2! (16...h6?! 17.bc3 Kg8 18.h4!° gives White good play for a pawn.) 17.Bb2 Qf4³ White has a
degree of compensation but no more than that. This is how play might go on: 18.b4 a6 19.Nc5 (19.b5?! ab5 20.Ra8
Na8µ) 19...Kg8 20.Nb7 Qc4! 21.Qc4 Nc4 22.Bg7 Kg7 23.Rdc1 N4e5 24.Ne5 Ne5 25.Nc5 Rhb8!³;
B4) 14.Be3! Developing with gain of tempo is the way to create the most difficulties for the second player.
Now 14...Nc8! is the best move, securing a7 and d6. (Instead, 14...Nd5?! 15.Ba7!ƒ is clearly dangerous for Black.)
B4a) 15.Qc4? Bg7 16.Bf4 Nb6!! 17.Bb8 Nc4 18.bc3 (18.Bf4 Nb2 19.Nc7 Kd7 20.Na8 Ra8 –+) 18...Rb8 19.bc4 a6µ
gives Black a large advantage;
B4b) 15.bc3 Bg7 16.Bd4!? (16.Rfd1 a6! 17.Nbd4 N8a7! 18.Ng5 0-0³ 19.Qg4?! Nb5! 20.Nb5 ab5 21.Rac1 Rd8 22.Rd8
Qd8 23.Qf3 Qe8µ was much better for Black in Ge. Gonzalez – Rook, corr. 2010) 16...Nd4 17.cd4 a6 18.Rfc1! 0-0
19.Nc7 Ra7 20.Ne5 Nb6÷ 21.Ra2 Qd8 (21...Na8!?) 22.Qe4 e6 23.Re2 Qd6 24.h4! Na8 25.Nf7! Rf7 26.Ne6 Nb6
27.h5 Ra8 28.hg6 Re7 29.gh7 Kh8 30.Rce1 Rae8 31.Qf5 Nd5 32.b4 b6 33.g3 Qd7 34.Qg6 Nb4 35.Re4 Qc6 36.Qf5
Nd3 37.R1e3 Qc8 38.Qd5 Qc1 39.Kg2 was agreed drawn in Grippo – Beth, corr. 2011, probably in view of 39...Qd2
40.Qf5 Nf2 41.Qf2 Qf2 42.Kf2 Bd4 43.Rd4 Re6 44.Re6 Re6 45.Rd7 a5 46.Ra7 Rh6 47.Rb7=;
B4c) 15.Ra4! Thanks to this powerful move, intending Bf4, White should be able to maintain level chances. 15...Bg7
16.Bf4! e5 17.Ne5! The point, leading to a more or less equal game. (17.Re4 0-0 18.Ne5 Ne5 19.Re5? Be5 20.Be5
fails to the obvious 20...Re8 21.f4 Nb6µ, e.g. 22.Nc3 Qc8 23.Ne4 Qc6 24.Rd1 f5 and White has no compensation for
the sacrificed material.) 17...Ne5
B4c1) After 18.Re4 0-0 19.Be5 Be5 20.Re5 cb2 it’s not clear that White has adequate compensation for the pawn. For
example, 21.Re8!? (21.Qb2 a6 22.Na3 Na7! 23.Nc4 Nc6µ) 21...Re8 (21...Qf4!? 22.Rf8 Kf8 23.Qb2 Ne7³) 22.Qe8
Kg7 23.Qe2 (23.Qe4? Nb6 24.Qd4 Kg8 25.Qb2 Qd8µ) 23...Qf4 24.Qb2 Qf6 25.Qf6 Kf6 26.Re1 (26.Rd1 Nb6
27.Nd6 Rd8 28.Ne4 Ke7µ) 26...Ne7! 27.Nd6 b6 28.g4 Nc6 (28...h6 29.h4 Rd8 30.g5 hg5 31.hg5 Kg7 32.Re7 Rd6
33.Ra7 Rd5 34.f4 Rb5 35.Kf2 Rb3 36.Rb7=) 29.f4 Kg7 30.Rc1 Nd4 31.Rc7 a5 32.Nf7 Rf8 33.Ng5 Kg8 34.Nh7 Rf4
35.g5 Rf7 36.Nf6 Kg7 37.Rc8 Nf3 38.Kg2 Ng5 and Black is still struggling to make something out of it;
B4c2) 18.Be5! Be5 19.f4! In this way White opens the f-file and eyes the d6 square which might later on be used by his
knight. A complicated fight arises now. 19...0-0 20.fe5 Nb6

We are at an important crossroads here:

B4c21) After 21.Rh4 I favour 21...c2!! 22.Qe3 (22.e6? Qc8! –+) 22...f5!! when Black stands excellently as the
following sub-division shows:
B4c211) 23.e6? fails to 23...Nd5 24.Qh6 Nf6µ;
B4c212) 23.Nd6?! Qc7 24.Rc1 Rad8 25.Rd4 Nc8!³ leaves White struggling to equalise;
B4c213) 23.ef6 Rf7 is complicated, with White having to avoid several pitfalls in order to draw: 24.Nc3! (24.Nd4 Qc7
25.Rc1 Nd5 26.Qd2 Re8³; 24.Rd4 Qf8³) 24...Qd6

B4c2131) 25.Rhf4 Nd7! (25...Raf8 26.Qc1 Rf6 27.Rf6 Rf6 28.Rf6 Qf6 29.Qc2=) 26.Ne4 (26.Qc1?! Rf6 27.Rf6 Nf6µ
…28.Qc2?? Ng4 –+; 26.R4f2 Raf8³) 26...Qe5!ƒ …27.Qc3 Qc3 28.bc3 Ne5;
B4c2132) 25.Rd4! Qc6 26.Rd2 Qf6 27.Rdf2! Qe7 28.Qe7 Re7 29.Rc2 Rd8 30.Rff2=;
B4c214) 23.Rd4!? Trying to make use of the passed e-pawn in conjunction with the d6 base for the knight. After
23.Rd4!? play is likely to continue 23...Qc8 24.Rc1 Qc5 25.Nd6 Nd5 26.Qd2 (26.Qf2? Nb4µ) 26...Ne7 27.Rc2 Qe5
28.Nb7 (28.Rc7 Rac8=) 28...f4 29.Rc3 Rae8 30.Nd6 Nf5=;
B4c22) 21.Raf4 targets f7 but Black has an adequate reply: 21...c2! (21...Qc8!? should also be sufficient for equality.)

B4c221) 22.e6?? Qf4 –+ and;

B4c222) 22.Nd6?! Qc7 23.Rc1 Nd5 24.Rc4! (24.Rd4? happened in Vysochin 2545 – Halkias 2566, Tanta 2002 – 84/91,
when Black would have been close to winning after 24...Nb4! 25.e6 Qc5 26.Qc4 Qc4 27.Rc4 Rad8 28.Rb4 Rd6 29.Rc2
fe6µ) 24...Qb6 25.Qf2 f6 26.Qb6 ab6 27.e6 Rad8 28.Nb7 Rb8 29.Nd6 Rfd8³;
B4c223) 22.R4f2 The best method of dealing with the monstrous pawn. After 22.R4f2 best play for both sides is as
follows: 22...Nd7 (22...Rc8 23.Rc1÷) 23.e6 (23.Nd6 Qc7) 23...Ne5 24.ef7 (24.e7? Re8 25.Nc3 Qc7 26.Rc1 f5µ)
24...Rf7 25.Rf7 Nf7 26.Qc2 Qe5 27.Qc4! (27.Qf2 Nh6 28.Nc3 Re8=) 27...Rf8 28.h3 Qe3 29.Kh1 Kg7 30.Qc3
(30.Nc7 Ng5=) 30...Qc3 31.bc3 a6 32.Nc7 Rc8 33.Ne6 Kg8 34.c4 a5=;
B4c23) 21.Re4 It makes sense to safeguard the precious e5 pawn.

21...cb2 22.Qb2 (22.Nd6 Qc7 23.Qb2 f6 24.Qd4 fe5 25.Qe5 Rf1 26.Kf1 Rf8 27.Kg1 Nc8=) 22...Qd8! The queen must
be brought to the defence.
B4c231) 23.Ref4?! Nd5! (23...Qe7? 24.Nd6 Nd7 25.Nf7 Qe6 happened in Kryvoruchko 2413 – G. Matjushin 2408,
Ukraine 2004, but here 26.Kh1!! Rae8 27.Qf2!‚ would have brought Black to the verge of disaster.) 24.Rd4 Qb6
25.Nd6 f6µ is better for Black, e.g. 26.Nc4 Qc5 27.ef6 Rf6 28.Rf6 Nf6 29.b4 Qe7 30.Qd2 Ne4 31.Qe3 Re8 and White
is essentially a clear pawn down;
B4c232) 23.Nd6! The right choice.
B4c2321) 23...f6?! 24.Qd4! fe5?? 25.Rf8 Qf8 26.Qe5 is completely lost for Black as his queenside forces can’t
participate in the defence;
B4c2322) I like more the human 23...f5!? ; after 24.Re3 (24.Rb4 Qe7 25.Rb5 Qe6!÷) 24...Qe7 25.h4!? Qh4 26.e6 Nd5
27.Nf7? (27.Rd3! Nc7 28.Nf5!! gf5 29.Qe5 Ne6 30.Qe6 Kh8 31.Rd7=) 27...Qf6! –+ Black went on to win in
Kislinsky 2445 – Alexikov 2404, Ukraine 2006;
B4c2323) 23...Nc8 The computer’s choice. 24.Nc4!? (24.Qd4 Qb6 25.Qb6 ab6 26.Rb4 Nd6= is totally equal.)
24...Nb6 25.Ne3!? h5! Preventing the dangerous Ng4. 26.Qf2!? (26.e6 fe6 27.Rf8 Qf8 28.Re6 Qf7 29.Qe5 Rc8=)
26...Qd3! 27.Qh4 (27.Rf4 Nd5 28.Nd5 Qd5 29.Rf6 Qe5 30.Rf7 Qe8 31.Rf8 Qf8 32.Qd4 Qg7=) 27...Qd8! Not
allowing White any respite to build up an attack. 28.Qg3 (28.Qf2 Qd3=) 28...Qd3™ 29.Rh4 Nd5 30.Nd5 Qd5 31.Rh5
Rad8 32.h4 Qe4„]

Now we resume the old main line 10.Be6:

10...Qe6
11.Nd4 The logical recapture.
[11.cd4 Rd8 (11...Qd7!? 12.Nc3 e6 13.Qe2 Be7 14.Rd1 0-0 15.Ne5 Ne5 16.de5 Qc6 17.Bf4 Rfd8 18.g3 Rac8=)
12.Nc3 (12.Bf4 Qd7! 13.Nc3 e6= is excellent for Black.) 12...Qc4!? 13.Bf4!? (13.Be3 e6 14.Rc1 Be7³ has been tested
in several games, the verdict being that Black is at least equal.) 13...Nd5 (13...Nd4 14.Ne5°) 14.Be5 f6 15.Bg3 Nc3
16.bc3 Qc3 17.Rc1 Qa5 18.Rb1!? (18.Qb3 Qd5) 18...Rd7 19.Qb3 Nd4 20.Nd4 Rd4 21.Qb7 Kf7= (…...g6, ...h5) looks
at least equal for Black because White has no effective way to attack the black king.]

11...Nd4 12.Qd4
The queen joins the action, exerting annoying influence on both sides of the board, but she is not going to stay on d4 for
long.
[12.cd4!? vacates c3 for the knight, but, with so many pieces exchanged, accepting an isolated pawn cannot offer White
any advantage. The best reaction seems to be 12...Rd8 13.Nc3 g6 with very few chances for either side to disturb the
equilibrium:
A) 14.Re1 Rd4! 15.Re6 Rd1 16.Nd1 fe6 17.Be3 Bg7 18.Rc1 Kd7 19.Bb6 ab6 20.Kf1 Ra8 21.a3 Ra5! 22.Nc3 Bd4³ was
slightly better for Black in Sveshnikov 2520 – Dvoirys 2555, Moscow 1990;

B) 14.Qf3 should be answered by 14...Qc6 15.Qc6 (15.Qg3 Bg7 16.Bg5?! Rd4 17.Rfe1 Nc8! 18.Bh6 0-0 19.Bg7 Kg7
20.Qe5 Qf6 21.Qc7 Qb6µ left White without serious compensation for the pawn in R. Bergstrom – Yuri Yakovich
2560, Gausdal 1991) 15...bc6 16.Ne2 Bg7 17.Be3 Nd5 when the ending holds good prospects for Black. After 18.Rfc1
the most human method of playing is:

B1) 18...Kd7 when the logical continuation 19.Rc4 Rb8 20.b3 Rb5 21.Rac1 Rc8= left the game level in Kharlov 2425 –
Doroshkievich 2360, Russia 1990;
B2) But there are a couple of other viable possibilities as well: 18...Rd6!? 19.Bd2 Kd7 20.Rc2 (20.Rc4?! Rb8 21.b3 Nb6
22.Rc2 Bd4³) 20...Rb8 21.b3 Re6 22.Kf1 h5÷;
B3) and 18...Ne3 19.fe3 Rd6 20.Rc4 e5 21.Rac1 ed4 22.Nd4 Bd4 23.ed4 0-0=;
C) 14.d5!? This dynamic attempt seems best, getting rid of the isolani.

14...Nd5 15.Qd4 The point, winning the pawn back, by hitting simultaneously the rook and a7. 15...Qf6 16.Qa7 Nc3
17.bc3

C1) 17...Qa6! looks like the best way of equalising, by avoiding giving up a pawn. 18.Qa6 ba6 19.Rb1 Bg7 20.c4 Rc8
21.Be3 Thus far we have followed O. Lemmers 2365 – Nijboer 2580, Netherlands 1998. At this point, simple and best
is 21...Rc4 22.Rb8 Kd7 23.Rb7 Rc7 24.Rd1 Kc8 25.Rb6 Rd8 26.Rd8 Kd8 27.Kf1 (27.Ra6 Bd4) 27...Rc4 28.Ra6 Bd4=
with complete equality.;
C2) Also possible is 17...Bg7 18.Qb7 0-0 19.Ba3 (19.Be3 Qc3 20.Qe7 Qa5=) 19...Rb8 20.Qe7 Qc3 21.Qe3 (21.Rae1!?
keeps some fight in the position by denying Black an immediate recovery of his pawn.) 21...Qe3 22.fe3 Rfe8 23.Rab1
Bh6= Doncevic 2340 – D. Komljenovic 2440, Bad Woerishofen 1985 – 39/(191)]

12...Rd8
Developing with gain of time and expelling the white queen from her hegemonic position.
13.Qh4 The best square for the queen.
[13.Qf4 is a bit artificial and after the logical 13...g6! Black seems to be at least equal.
A) Now 14.Na3 Bg7 leads to worse positions for White. For example:

A1) 15.Nb5?! 0-0! 16.Nd4 (16.Na7? Qe2! 17.Be3 Nd5 18.Qf3 Qb2 19.Rab1 Qa2 20.Rb7 Qa6 21.Rbb1 Nc3 22.Qb7
Qd3 –+ was completely losing for White in S. Janovsky 2400 – S. Kiselev 2380, USSR 1988 – 45/(169).) 16...Bd4
17.cd4 Nd5³ …...Rd8–c8, is slightly better for Black according to Piskov and Yanovsky;
A2) 15.Qf3 Rd7 16.Bg5 Qd5! 17.Qd5 Rd5 18.Be3 Na4 19.Rab1 (19.Rfd1?! led to a very difficult ending for White
after 19...Rd1 20.Rd1 Nb2 21.Rb1 Bc3 22.Nb5 Bf6 23.Bd4 Nd3 24.Nd6 Kd7 25.Nf7 Rc8 26.Bf6 ef6 27.Rb7 Rc7
28.Rc7 Kc7µ in G. Dyson – Kuosa, corr 2007) 19...b6 20.Nc2 0-0 21.g3 e5³ can hardly be recommended for White;
A3) 15.Qc7!? This was played in T. O'Donnell 2415 – Tukmakov 2565, Canada 1989 – 48/218. Other moves seem no
better. Instead of 15...Qd5= as played in the game, I like very much the engine’s recommendation of 15...Qe2! 16.g3 0-
0! 17.Qb7 Rd7 18.Qg2 (18.Qc6 Rd5 19.Rb1 Rc8 20.Qb7 Rd7 21.Qg2 Qe6³) 18...Rfd8 19.f3 Qe6° with a very difficult
game for White;
B) After 14.Be3 Bg7 Black is ready to castle so White has to make a crucial decision.
B1) 15.Bb6 Qb6 16.Qa4 Kf8 has been played in a bunch of games but White seems already to be struggling a bit no
matter how he continues:

B1a) After 17.Na3?! Black should take on b2 without hesitation: 17...Qb2! (17...Bf6 18.Nc4 Qc5 19.Qb3 Kg7÷ was
just unclear in Sveshnikov 2535 – Vyzmanavin 2485, Moscow (ch) 1987) 18.Nc4 Qc3 19.Rac1 b5! 20.Qb5 Qd3
21.Qa4 Qd7³ and it is clear that White does not have full compensation for the pawn;
B1b) 17.Rd1 Rd1 18.Qd1 was White’s choice in N. Bouchet 2316 – Karr 2409, France 2007; it seems to me that Black
should have now chosen 18...Be5! 19.Qb3 (19.Qe2 Bf6 20.Na3 Kg7 21.Rd1 Rc8³) 19...Qc7 20.h3 Kg7 21.Nd2 Rd8
22.Nf3 Bf6 23.Rd1 Rd1 24.Qd1 Qc4³ with slightly the better game;
B1c) 17.Qb3 Best. White should be able to equalise provided he exercises some care. A correspondence game
continued 17...Qc7 18.Na3 Bf6 19.Rad1 Kg7 20.Nc4 e6 21.Ne3 h5 22.Qb4 a6 23.h3 b5 24.Qe4 Rd1 25.Rd1 Rd8
(25...Rb8!?³ looks preferable.) 26.Rd8 Qd8 27.Kf1 Qd2 28.Qc2 Qd6 29.Qe4 and White eventually held in Pattrick –
V. Florea, corr. 2008;
B2) 15.Qb4!?

The idea of this move is take on b6 and force doubled pawns, but as we shall see, Black can prevent this without even
entering an ending.
B2a) 15...0-0 16.Bb6 Qb6 17.Qb6 ab6 18.a4 (18.Na3 Rd5 19.Rfd1 Rfd8 20.Rd5 Rd5 21.g3 b5 22.Rb1 e6 23.Kf1 Kf8
24.Nc2 Ke7 25.Ke2 Kd7 26.Rd1 Kd6 27.Rd3 e5 28.f3 f5 29.Na3 Rd3 30.Kd3 Kc6 31.c4 bc4 32.Nc4 Kc5 33.b3 b5
34.Na3 Bh6 ½ : ½ Ra. Wegner – Frank Mueller, corr. 1989) 18...Ra8 19.Ra3 Rfd8 20.Re1 Be5 21.g3 f6 22.Kg2 Kf7
23.Re2 Rd1= was level in Sveshnikov 2535 – Vasiukov 2510, Moscow 1987;
B2b) A good reply is 15...Nd5!? 16.Qa4 (½ : ½ Joh. Engelen – K. Gavranovic, corr. 2003) 16...Rd7!?

B2b1) 17.Ba7?! 0-0 18.Bd4 Bd4 19.Qd4 Qe2 20.Qd2 (20.c4 e5 21.Qd2 Qc4³) 20...Qg4° leads to dangerous
compensation for Black;
B2b2) 17.Re1 Ne3 18.Re3 Qd5 19.Na3 0-0 20.Ree1 b5! (Also possible is 20...Qf5 21.g4 b5 22.gf5 ba4 23.fg6 hg6
24.Rad1 Rb7 25.Rd2 Rfb8 26.Ree2 Bh6 27.Rc2÷ with an unclear ending where Black’s chances are slightly preferable
from a human perspective; 20...Rfd8 21.Qa7 b5 22.Qa5 b4! 23.Qb4 Rb7 24.Qc4 Rb2 25.Qd5 Rd5 26.Nc4 Rb7=)
21.Qb4!? (21.Qb5 Qb5 22.Nb5 Rb8µ; 21.Nb5 Qc6µ) 21...Rfd8 22.Nc2 e6³ and the onus to prove equality is once
more on White;
13.Qb4 is another rather artificial way of stepping out of the attack from the rook. Black should have no problems at all:
13...Qc6!
A) The less incisive 14.Nd2 e6

A1) 15.Qe4 Qd5!

A1a) 16.b3 h6!? 17.Qg4!? (17.c4 Qe4 18.Ne4 f5„ ”…...Be7–f6 looks just fine for Black as well.) 17...h5 18.Qe4 Nc8
19.c4 Qe4 20.Ne4 Nd6=;
A1b) 16.a4 Be7 17.a5 Qe4 18.Ne4 Nd5= was okay for Black in Vorotnikov 2475 – Salov 2440, Leningrad 1984 –
37/(163);
A2) 15.Qg4 g6 (15...h5 16.Qg3 h4÷, as played in Hresc 2375 – Vaisser 2505, Cappelle-la-Grande 1987 – 43/185,
would have been unclear after 17.Qh3! according to Psakhis and Vaisser.) 16.Nf3 Bg7 should offer White nothing
special, too; a recent example went 17.Bg5 Rc8 18.Qb4 Nd5 19.Qa3 Qc5 20.Qc5 Rc5 21.Rad1 h6 22.Be3?! (22.Bc1=
looks better) 22...Ne3 23.fe3 Ke7 24.e4 b5 25.a3 a5 26.Rf2 Rhc8 27.Rfd2 R8c7 28.Nd4 b4ƒ with a Black initiative in
Coyne – Jo. De Jong, corr. 2012;
B) 14.a4!? A logical move, creating the idea of Qb5 and intending to evict the knight from b6 according to
circumstances.
B1) 14...e6 15.Qb5 occured in Fanouraki – Kasioura 2005, Greece (ch) 1995, when 15...Rd5!? 16.Qc6 bc6 17.a5
(17.Nd2 a5÷) 17...Nd7 18.b4 (18.a6 Nc5 19.Be3 Nb3 20.Ra4 Bc5 21.Na3 Ke7=) 18...a6 19.Na3 Nf6÷ would have
led to a totally unclear ending;
B2) 14...Rd5÷ has been played by Nakamura and deserves analysis;
B3) 14...a6!? stopping once and for all any ideas of Qb5.

B3a) 15.Be3?! Nd5 16.Qc5 Qd7! 17.Qd4 Ne3 18.fe3 Qc7 19.Qg4 e6 (19...g6! 20.Qf3 f5 21.Na3 Bh6³ would have
questioned the correctness of White’s play) 20.Na3 f5 21.Qc4= as played in Sveshnikov 2515 – Pigusov 2545, USSR
1990, is totally harmless.;
B3b) More logical is 15.Nd2 e6 16.Qg4 h5 17.Qe4 Qe4 18.Ne4 f6 19.a5 Nd5 20.Rd1 Be7= and in this equal position
the players agreed to a draw in Cherniaev 2509 – Huzman 2591, Biel 2002;
B3c) 15.Qb3 e6 16.Nd2 Be7 17.Nf3 0-0 18.Re1 Nc4 19.Qc2! h6 20.b3 Na5 21.Be3 Bf6 22.Rac1 Qc7!= was level in
Blatny 2510 – Stohl 2545, Pardubice 1993;
B3d) 14...a6!? seems to be more flexible and thematic than the above continuations and it is not clear how White should
proceed. 15.a5 is a natural continuation, but it offers White no advantage. A typical example of how things can go
wrong for White is 15...Nd5 16.Qa4 Qa4 17.Ra4 e5

B3d1) 18.Re1! f6 (18...Bd6 19.Rd4 Ne7 20.Rdd1=) 19.Rd4 Be7 20.Rdd1 Kf7=;
B3d2) 18.Nd2?! Nf4! 19.Nf3 Ne2 20.Kh1 Nc1 21.Rc1 f6 22.Kg1 Bc5 23.Rc4 Rc8 24.Kf1 Ke7 25.Ke2 Ke6 26.Nd2
h5³ and Black had an edge in Nepomniachtchi 2483 – Arty. Timofeev 2619, Russia 2005, which he eventually
converted into a win;

Finally, another move deserving mention is 13.Qe3

...but it should lead to at least equality for Black after 13...Qe3! (13...Qc6 14.Nd2÷) 14.Be3 Nc4, e.g. 15.Ba7 (15.Bc1
e6 16.b3 Ne5 17.Be3 a6³) 15...Nb2 16.Na3 e6

A) 17.Nc2 Na4! (17...Rd2 18.Nd4 Ba3 19.Rfb1 Na4 20.Rb7 0-0 21.Nf3 Rc2 22.Nd4 Rd2= ½ : ½ A. Mikhalchisin 2505
– Ki. Georgiev 2535, Sarajevo 1985 – 39/(191)) 18.Bd4 f6³;
B) 17.Nb5 Rd7 18.Bd4! (18.Rab1 Nc4³) 18...f6 19.Rae1 Kf7 20.Re2 Nc4 21.f4=]
Returning to 13.Qh4:

13...Qe2!
With this move Black impedes White’s development and obtains equal chances.

14.Bd2 Planning to evict the queen by Re1. Other moves are examined just below:

[14.b3?! is too slow and after

A) 14...g6!? 15.Bg5?! White suffered a catastrophe: 15...Rd1 16.Nd2 Ra1 17.Ra1 Bg7 18.Ne4 0-0 19.Be7 Re8 20.Rf1??
(20.f3!=) 20...g5! –+ in M. Morvay 2215 – E. Vegh 2225, Budapest 1982 – 33/(210), but obviously his play could have
been improved at several points;
B) 14...e6! 15.Bg5 f6 16.Be3 Kf7 17.Qe4 Nd5ƒ and Black has an initiative.;
14.a4?! is a rather pointless move that was used against Sveshnikov himself; this is how the maestro reacted: 14...Nc4!

A powerful move, threatening ...Rd1.

A) 15.b3?? Rd1 –+;

B) 15.Qf4 f6µ;

C) Perhaps 15.h3 might be a better chance, although after 15...e6 16.Bg5 f6! 17.Na3 Ba3 18.Rae1 Qd3! 19.Qh5 (19.Re6
Kf7 20.Bf6 Ke6 21.Bd8 Rd8 –+) 19...Ke7 20.Qg4 e5 21.Bc1 g5 22.ba3 h5µ White should lose all the same;

D) Therefore White has only a choice of evils. After 15.Qg5 Sveshnikov continued efficiently by 15...a6! 16.Qg3 e6µ
17.Bf4?? Rd3 18.Be3 Ne3 (18...Bd6 –+ would have been even more crushing.) 19.fe3 Bc5 –+ and White’s position
was already ripe for resignation in Al. Delorme 2251 – Sveshnikov 2535, Cappelle-la-Grande 2009;

14.Qg3?! is time consuming.

The idea is to play Nd2, having secured in advance the entrance of the queen to c7 or b8 in case Black wins the two
pieces for his rook, but the plan will never materialise: 14...e5! 15.Be3 (15.Nd2 f6! 16.Qf3 Qf3 17.Nf3 Na4³ gives
Black a better ending) 15...f6 16.Bb6 ab6 17.Na3 Qb2 18.Nc4 Qe2 (18...Qb5!?³)

A) 19.Nb6 Kf7 20.Rab1 (20.Rae1 Qd3³) 20...Be7 21.Rfe1 Qd3 22.a4 Qg3 23.hg3 Rd3 24.c4 Bc5 25.Rb5 Bd4 26.Nd5
b6 27.Nb6 Rd2 28.Rf1 Ke6 29.a5 h5! 30.a6 Ra2³;

B) 19.Ne3 Kf7 20.Qh3 So far we have been following Menendez Rodriguez – Castellanos Salinas, corr. 2007; here the
obvious 20...Bc5³ gives Black a solid edge;

14.Be3!? is interesting and double edged; Black has two ways to cope with it:

A) Black may try to take all the material thrown at him by 14...Qb2!?
A1) The rare 15.Qe4!? seems to lead to a draw after 15...f5!? (15...Qa1 16.Bb6 Rd7 17.Qc2! ab6 18.Nd2 Qf1 19.Kf1°
is not worse for White; 15...f6 16.Nd2! Rd2 17.Bd2 Qd2 18.Rfd1 Qc3 19.Rac1 Qe5 20.Qb7 Qa5 21.Rc7 was at least
equal for White in White in Gunkel – M. Chiricuta, corr. 2008; 15...Nd5!? 16.Qa4! Rd7! 17.Na3 Nc3 18.Qa7 e6
19.Nc4 Qb5 20.Nb6 Bc5 21.Bc5 Qc5 22.Qa8 Rd8 23.Qb7 0-0 24.Nd7 Qe7 25.Qf3 Qd7 26.Qc3= looks drawish.)
16.Qf5 Nd5

A1a) 17.Na3 Qa3 18.Rad1 g6 19.Qe5 Qc3 20.Bd4? (20.Rd4 Rg8 21.Rd5 Qe5 22.Re5 b6³ is the lesser evil.) fails to the
brilliant 20...Qc6!! 21.Qh8 Nf4 22.f3 Qc2 –+;
A1b) 17.Nd2!! Ne3 18.fe3 Rd2 19.Qc8 Rd8 20.Qc4 Rd2 21.Qc8=;
A2) 15.Nd2 Rd2 when White has the following options:
A2a) After 16.Bd2 Qd2

A2a1) Too slow is 17.a4?! g5! 18.Qb4 Qd5 19.Rfd1 (19.a5 e6 –+) 19...e6 20.Qb2 Qa5 21.c4 Rg8µ;
A2a2) 17.Rfd1 Qh6 18.Qg3 Qc6 Black is more than okay. For example, 19.Qb8™ (19.Rab1? Nd7 –+; 19.Rd3? f6!
20.Qb8 Kf7 21.Qa7 Nd5 22.Qd4 e6 23.c4 Nb6 24.Rc1 Bc5 –+ A. Bonatti – M. Chiricuta, corr. 2008) 19...Nc8
20.Qa8™ (20.Rab1?! b6 21.Rd3 e6 22.Qg3 g6 23.Qe5 Rg8 24.Rbd1 Be7µ was close to winning for Black in J. Algaba
– Th. Hynes, corr. 1998) 20...g6 21.Rab1 Bh6 22.Qb7 Qc3 23.Rb3 Qc2 24.Qd7 Kf8 25.Qd4 e5! 26.Qa1 (J.
Skonieczny – Makarczuk, corr. 2000) and here most accurate seems 26...Bg5 27.Rd7 Kg7 28.Rbb7 Rf8 29.Qe5 Bf6
30.Qd5 Ne7 31.Qd3 Qd3 32.Rd3 Rc8 33.g3 a5 34.Rdd7 Rc2³ with the better chances for Black;
A2b) 16.Rab1 It looks more natural to accelerate things by giving up a second pawn. 16...Qa2! The right move,
avoiding opening the c-file. 17.Bd2 (17.Ra1? Qc4 –+ is just lost for White.) 17...Qd2 18.Rfd1 In this position Black has
two good moves, 18...Qc2!?³ and (18...Qe2!?³). In either case White does not have full compensation for the pawn, a
typical example being 19.Qg3 f6 20.Qb8 Kf7 21.Qa7 Nc4 22.Re1 Qd3 23.Qb7 Nd6 24.Qd7 h5 25.Rb8 Kg6 26.Qc6
Qd2 27.Kf1 Nf5µ and Black won in Dainauskas – Proof, corr. 2006);

B) 14...e6 This is the safe method, but I am not sure it is the best.

B1) After 15.Qg3?! Nc4! 16.Na3

B1a) I had only analysed the exceedingly cautious 16...Bd6?! 17.Qg7 (17.Bf4?! Bf4 18.Qf4 Na3 19.Qa4 Nb5 20.c4 0-0
21.Qb5 b6³) 17...Be5 18.Qh6 (18.Qg5 Rd5!°) 18...Rg8 (…...Rg2) 19.g3 Ne3 20.Qe3 Qe3 21.fe3 h5° with balanced
play;
B1b) The computer likes 16...Nb2!µ and it can’t be wrong;
B2) 15.Nd2 allows Black to complete his development by 15...Be7 16.Qg3 0-0 when it is clear that he stands no worse.
For example:
B2a) 17.Rfe1 Qd3 18.Bb6 (18.Ne4?! Nc4ƒ; 18.Nf3 Bf6= M. Prizant – Williams, corr. 1992) 18...Qg3 19.hg3 Rd2
20.Ba7 Ra8 21.Be3 Rb2 22.Reb1 Ba3!? 23.c4 h6 24.Rb2 Bb2 25.Rd1 e5= was level in Haba 2370 – Stohl 2465, CSSR
1987 – 43/(185).;
B2b) 17.Bh6 Bf6 18.Rfe1 Qh5 19.Be3 Rd3 20.Qf3 Qf3 21.Nf3= and ½ : ½ Sveshnikov 2535 – S. Kiselev 2395,
Moscow (ch) 1987;
B3) Let’s return to 14...e6. White must act quickly by 15.Bb6!, after which play should continue 15...ab6 16.Na3! Ba3!
17.Qa4 Ke7! 18.Qa3 (18.Qh4!? f6 19.ba3 Rd6 20.Rfe1 Qd2=) 18...Rd6! when Black is not worse in spite of having his
king in the centre. For example:
B3a) 19.c4 Rhd8÷ 20.Rad1?! (20.Rfd1? Qb2! –+; 20.c5? Rd1) 20...Qc4 21.Rc1 Qb5 22.Rc7 R8d7 23.Rd1? Qc5!! –+;
B3b) 19.Rad1 Rhd8 20.Rd4 Qa6 21.Qb4 Qa5 22.Rd6 Rd6 (22...Qb4 23.Re6! fe6 24.cb4 Rd2 25.Rb1 g5 26.h3²) 23.Qh4
g5 24.Qh7 Rd2 25.h4 Rb2 26.Qg8 Qf5 27.Qg5 Qg5 28.hg5 b5= Black should have no difficulty in holding the ending;
We will now move on to another main option, namely 14.Nd2

A) I don’t like so much 14...e6

A1) 15.Ne4 Rd1! 16.Ng3 Rf1 17.Nf1 Be7 18.Qg3 0-0 19.Bd2! (19.Bh6 Bf6µ) 19...Rd8 20.Re1 Qa6 21.Bg5 Bg5
22.Qg5 Rc8 23.Ng3 h6„ is at least equal for Black;
A2) 15.Qg3! f6 16.a4! (16.Qc7 Rd7 17.Qb8 Kf7 18.Qa7? Bc5 19.Qa5 Rd5 –+) 16...Kf7 17.a5 Nd5 18.Nf3 when
White may have chances of a small edge;
B) 14...h5!? is possible, when the best White reaction seems to be 15.a4. However...

B1) Weaker is instead 15.h3 g5! 16.Qg3 (16.Qg5?? Bh6 –+) 16...g4„ …17.Nb3 gh3 18.Nd4 Qg4 19.gh3 when an
unclear position arises after either 19...Qe4÷ (or 19...Qg3 20.fg3 e6 21.Bg5 Rd5÷) ;
B2) 15.Ne4 Qg4! (15...Rd1 16.Ng3 Rf1 17.Nf1²) 16.Qg4 hg4 is an ending that shouldn’t be worse for Black; for
example, 17.Be3 (17.Nc5?! Rh5! 18.b4 Nd5³; 17.Bf4 Nd5 18.Bg3 f6 19.Rad1 e5=) 17...Rd5!? (17...Nc4?! 18.Ba7;
17...Nc8!? 18.Rad1 Rd1 19.Rd1 e6 20.Bf4 Rh5= V. Rozenzweich)
B2a) 18.Rfd1 Rdh5 19.Ng3 (19.h3 gh3 20.g3 Nc4 21.Ba7 Ra5 22.b3 Ra7 23.bc4 e6 24.a4 Rh5„; 19.Nc5 e5! 20.Nb7
Rh2 21.Kf1 f5ƒ) 19...Rh2 20.Rd4 (20.Bb6 ab6 21.Rd4 f5 22.Re1 g5‚) 20...e5 21.Re4 Bd6 22.Rd1 f5 23.Rd6 fe4
24.Bb6 ab6 25.Rb6 R2h6 26.Rb7 Rd6 27.Kf1 e3 28.fe3 0-0ƒ;
B2b) 18.Bb6 ab6 19.Rad1! (19.Rfd1 Rdh5 20.h3 gh3 21.g3 R8h6³) 19...Rdh5 20.f3! gf3 21.Rf3 Rh2 22.Kf2 f6 23.Rfd3
R2h4÷;
B3) Therefore, as stated above, White can continue 15.a4!?, resorting to immediate queenside play in anticipation of the
queen exchange on g4. Then the game might continue 15...Qg4 16.Qg4 hg4 17.a5 Nd7! whereupon Black should be
able to attain equality:
B3a) 18.a6 b6 19.Nc4 e6 20.Bf4 Rc8 21.Ne5 Ne5 22.Be5 Rc6 23.Rfd1 (23.Bb8 Bd6!) 23...Rh5!! 24.Bb8 Rb5! 25.Rd2
Rc8 26.Bf4 e5 27.Be3 Be7 28.Kf1 f5 29.f4 gf3 30.gf3 Rc4„ was at least equal for Black in Jo. Peres – Csjernyik, corr.
2004;
B3b) 18.Nc4 e6 19.Bf4 should be no problem either after something like 19...Rh5 20.Rfd1 Rc5 21.Nd6 Bd6 22.Bd6
Rc6=;
B3c) 18.Ne4! Rh5 19.Be3 Re5!? 20.Ra4 g6! 21.Rd1 (21.Ba7 Ra8) 21...f5 22.Ng5 Bh6 23.h4 Bg5 24.Bg5 Nc5= with
equality;

C) 14...e5!? appears to be Black’s best move here, intending to reduce the radius of White’s minor pieces by setting up
the structure f6–e5.
C1) 15.Qg3 f6! 16.f4 (16.Qf3 Qf3 17.Nf3 Na4³) 16...ef4 17.Qf4 Bc5 18.Kh1 0-0 19.Ne4 Nd5 20.Qf5 g6 21.Ng3 Qc4
22.Qe4 Qa6 23.Bh6 Rfe8 24.Qf3 Be3 25.Rae1 Bh6 26.Re8 Re8 27.Qd5 Qe6 28.Qb7 f5ƒ gave Black a strong initiative
in Gio. Grasso – Toenisson, corr. 2012;
C2) 15.Ne4 Rd1 16.Ng3 Rf1 17.Nf1 Be7 18.Qg3 0-0 with equality. After the further moves 19.Bd2 f6 20.Re1 Qa6
21.Ne3 Qd3 22.Bc1 Qe4 23.b3 Rd8 24.Qh3 Bc5 25.Qe6 Kf8 a draw was agreed in Myakutin – Dushkin, corr. 2012]

Now back to our main line 14.Bd2:

14...h5!?

15.Re1
Acquiescing to playing the endgame looks like the lesser evil.
[After 15.Qg5?! h4 16.Re1 Qh5³ Black stood slightly better in Sveshnikov 2515 – Tukmakov 2550, USSR 1984 –
37/162;
15.h3?! is designed to avoid the queen exchange, but Black thereby obtains an initiative:

A) Equality results from 15...e6!? 16.Re1 Qd3 17.Bg5 f6!? 18.Bf6 (18.Re6 Kf7 19.Bf6 Qd1 20.Kh2 Bd6!µ; 18.Bc1
g5!µ; 18.Be3 Nc4÷) 18...gf6 19.Qf6 Rh6 20.Re6 Kd7 21.Qf7 Kc8 22.Rh6 Qd1! (22...Bh6 23.Qe6 Kb8°) 23.Kh2
Bd6=;

B) But 15...Nc4! 16.Re1 Qd3 17.Bc1 e6! (17...a6 18.b3 Nd6 19.Qa4 Qb5 20.Qb5= was Sveshnikov 2515 – Salov 2440,
Leningrad 1984 – 38/192) 18.b3 Ne5!

B1) 19.Be3? Be7 20.Qg3 was seen in Sebag 2394 – Cmilyte 2430, Silivri 2003, when 20...Qf5!! 21.Bd4 Nd3 22.Rd1
Nf4 23.Qf3 Rh6!! (23...Nh3!? 24.Qh3 Qh3 25.gh3 e5 26.Rd3 Rh6 27.Nd2 ed4 28.cd4 Rhd6 29.Nf3 f6³) 24.Nd2 Rg6µ
would have been a bonecrusher;
B2) 19.Qf4™ 19...Bd6 20.Ba3 Nc6 (20...Qd5!? 21.Bd6 Nd3ƒ is an alternative) 21.Bd6 Qd6 22.Qd6 (22.Qg5 g6³)
22...Rd6 23.Na3 Ke7³ White’s weakness on c3 makes this ending slightly preferable for Black.]
15...Qg4 16.Qg4 hg4 17.Bf4 Nd5 18.Bg3 f6 19.Na3 Kf7 20.Rad1 e5 21.Nc4 Be7 22.a4 g5³/=
This position was a little better for Black in Hayes – Ilyasov, corr. 2012; White managed to draw, but only with very
careful play. The passive Bg3 is the cause of White’s difficulties.
Vassilios Kotronias

THE END