Sicilian Defense - The Chelyabin - Gennadi Timoshchenko

Sicilian Defense: The Chelyabinsk Variation
Its Past, Present & Future
© Copyright 2018 Gennadi Timoshchenko

All Rights Reserved
ISBN: 978-1-941270-53-0
ISBN (eBook): 978-1-941270-54-7
No part of this book maybe used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any manner
or form whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording
or otherwise, without the express written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief
quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Published by:
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 3131
Milford, CT 06460 USA
http://www.russell-enterprises.com
info@russell-enterprises.com
Cover design by Janel Lowrance

Translated by Boris Gleizerov
Editing and proofreading by Chris Chase
Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents
Foreword by Garry Kasparov

From the Author
How I Worked on This Book
Part I
The History of the Variation and Its Development
An Historic Game
Cutting My Teeth
Another 16 Games Which Are Not in Databases
Why I No Longer Play This Variation Anymore
Looking Back
What Statistics Have to Say
About the Name of the Variation
PART II
The Theory of the Chelyabinsk Variation
Section 1
Deviations from the Main Line on Move 6
(1) 6.Nb3
(2) 6.Nxc6
(3) 6.Nf3
(4) 6.Nde2
(5) 6.Nf5 d5 7.exd5 Bxf5 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Qf3 Qd7 without 10.Bc4
(6) 6.Nf5 d5 7.exd5 Bxf5 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Qf3 Qd7 10.Bc4
(7) 6.Ndb5 without 6…d6
Section 2
White’s Moves after 6…d6 (except for 7.Bg5)
(8) 7.Be2, 7.Na3 and 7.Be3

(9) 7.a4 a6 8.Na3 without 8…Be6 or 8…Bg4
(10) 8…Be6 without 9.Bc4
(11) 8…Be6 9.Bc4 without 9…Be7
(12) 8…Be6 9.Bc4 Be7
(13) 8…Bg4
(14) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c4 Nf5
(15) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c4 Ng6
(16) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c3 without 9…Nf5 10.a4 Be7
(17) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c3 Nf5 10.a4 Be7
(18) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 without 9.a4 and 9.c4
(19) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.a4
(20) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 without 9…a6
(21) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 without 10.Nc3
(22) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Bd3 0-0 12.0-0 f5 13.f3
without 13…Nd7 or 11.Be2
Nd7 without 14.Kh1
Nd7 14.Kh1
(25) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 without
12…f5
(26) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 f5
without 13.Kh1 and without 13.f4
(27) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 f5
13.Kh1
(28) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 f5 13.f4
Nd7 14.Kh1 Bf6 15.Qc2 without 15…exf4
(29) 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 f5 13.f4
Nd714.Kh1 Bf6 15.Qc2 exf4
Section 3
7.Bg5 without 7…a6 8.Na3
(30) 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 without 10.Nc4, 10.Bc4, 10.exf5 or

10.Bd3
(31) 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Nc4
(32) 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bc4 without 10…b5
(33) 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bc4 b5
(34) 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 without 10…d5!? or 10…Bxf5
(35) 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 d5!?
(36) 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 Bxf5
(37) 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bd3 without 10…Rg8
(38) 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bd3 Rg8
Section 4
7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 without 8…b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Na3 f5 or 9.Nd5
(39) 8.Na3 e6 9.Nc4 without 9…Rc8 or 8…b5

(40) 8.Na3 Be6 9.Nc4 Rc8 without 10.Bxf6
(41) 8.Na3 Be6 9.Nc4 Rc8 10.Bxf6
(42) 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 without 11.c4, 11.g3, 11.c3 or
11.Bd3
(43) 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.c4
(44) 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.g3
(45) 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.c3
(46) 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 without 11…Ne7 12.Nxe7
Qxe7 13.c3 f5 14.Nc2 Qb7 or 13.0-0
(47) 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.c3 f5
14.Nc2 Qb7
(48) 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.0-0
without 13…0-0
(49) 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.0-0 0-
0 14.c3 f5 15.Nc2 without 15…Rb8 or 14.c4
0 14.c3 f5 15.Nc2 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 without 17.Be2
0 14.c3 f5 15.Nc2 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 17.Be2
0 14.c4 f5 15.Qh5 without 15…Rb8 or 15.Qf3
(53) 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne712.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.0-0 0-0
14.c4 f5 15.Qh5 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 17.Rae1 Bb7 18.Qg4 without 18…Rfe8
0 14.c4 f5 15.Qh5 Rb8 16.exf5 e417.Rae1 Bb7 18.Qg4 Rfe8
0 14.c4 f5 15.Qf3 without 15…Qb7 or 15…d5
0 114.c4 f5 15.Qf3 Qb7
0 14.c4 f5 15.Qf3 d5 16.cxd5 fxe4 17.Bxe4 Rb8 without 18.Rfd1
0 14.c4 f5 15.Qf3 d5 16.cxd5 fxe4 17.Bxe4 Rb8 18.Rfd1 without 18…
Qg5
0 14.c4 f5 15.Qf3 d5 16.cxd5 fxe4 17.Bxe4 Rb8 18.Rfd1Qg5
Section 5
9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 without 11.Bd3
(60) 10…f5 without 11.g3, 11.exf5, 11.Bxb5 and 11.c3

(61) 11.g3
(62) 11.exf5
(63) 11.Bxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 Ra4 13.b4 without 13…Rxb4 or 13.Nbc7
(64) 11.Bxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 Ra4 13.b4 Rxb4
(65) 11.Bxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 Ra4 13.Nbc7
(66) 11.c3 11…Bg712.exf5 Bxf513.Nc2 without 13…Be6 and 13…0-0
(67) 11.c3 Bg712.exf5 Bxf513.Nc2 Be6 without 14.Nce3 and 14.g3
(68) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6 14.Nce3 Ne7 15.g3 Nxd5 16.Nxd5
0-0 17.Bg2 a5 18.0-0 without 18…f5
(69) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6 14.Nce3 Ne7 15.g3 Nxd5 16.Nxd5
0-0 17.Bg2 a5 18.0-0 f5
(70) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6 14.g3 0-0 15.Bg2 a5 16.0-0 without
16…f5
(71) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6 14.g3 0-0 15.Bg2 a5 16.0-0 f5
without 17.Qe2
(72) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6 14.g3 0-0 15.Bg2 a5 16.0-0 f5
17.Qe2
(73) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 without 14…Bd7 and 14…
Be6
(74) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Bd7
(75) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 without 15.g3 and 15.Bd3
(76) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.g3
(77) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 without
16.Qh5 or 16.0-0
(78) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 114.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.Qh5 e4
17.Bc2 Ne7 without 18.Rd1
(79) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.Qh5 e4
17.Bc2 Ne7 18.Rad1
(80) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.0-0
without 16…Ra7 and 16…Kh8
(81) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.0-0 Ra7
without 17.Qh5
(82) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.0-0 Ra7
17.Qh5
(83) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.0-0 Kh8
17.Qh5 e4 18.Bc2 Ne7 19.Rad1without 19…a5
(84) 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.0-0 Kh8
17.Qh5 e4 18.Bc2 Ne7 19.Rad1 a5
Section 6
9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 without 11…Be6 12.0-0
(85) 11.Bd3 Be6 without 12.Qh5, 12.c3 or 12.0-0

(86) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Rg8 without 13.g3
(87) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Rg8 13.g3 without 13…Nd4 or 13…Rg5
(88) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Rg8 13.g3 Nd4
(89) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Rg8 13.g3 Rg5
(90) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 without 14.exf5, 14.0-0 or 13.Nxb5
(91) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.exf5
(92) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-0 f4 without 15.Rad1 or
15.Rfd1
(93) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-0 f4 15.Rad1
(94) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-0 f4 15.Rfd1 without 15…Kh8
(95) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-0 f4 15.Rfd1 Kh8
(96) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Nxb5 13…axb5 14.Bxb5 Bd7 15.exf5 without
15…Nb8 or 15…0-0
(97) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Nxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5 Bd7 15.exf5 Nb8
(98) 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Nxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5 Bd7 15.exf5 0-0 16.0-0
without 16…Re8 or 16…Ra7
Re8
Ra7
Section 7
9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0
(101) 12.0-0 Bg7 13.Qh5 f4 14.c4 bxc4 15.Bxc4 0-0 16.Rac1 Rb8 17.b3
without 17…Qd7 and without 12…Bxd5
(102) 12.0-0 Bg7 13.Qh5 f4 14.c4 bxc4 15.Bxc4 0-0 16.Rac1 Rb8 17.b3 Qd7
(103) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 without 14.c4, 14.Re1, 14.Nxb5 or 14.c3
(104) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c4 1Bg7 without 15.Rb1
(105) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c4 Bg7 15.Rb1
(106) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Re1 Bg7 without 15.c3
(107) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Re1 Bg7 15.c3 0-0 without 16.Qh5
(108) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Re1 Bg7 15.c3 0-0 16.Qh5 16…e4
17.Bf1 Re8 without 18.Rad1
(109) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Re1 Bg7 15.c3 0-0 16.Qh5 e4 17.Bf1 Re8
18.Rad1
(110) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 without 16.Bc4
(111) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 without
16…Ng6 or 16…0-0
(112) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 Ng6 17.Qh5
Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qf6 19.Qh6 Qxc3 20.Be2
(113) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 Ng6 17.Qh5
Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qf6 19.Qh6 Qxc3 20.Be2
(114) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 0-0 without
17.Qd2
(115) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 0-0 17.Qd2
(116) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c3 Bg7 without 15.Qh5
(117) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5 without 15…e4
(118) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5 e4 16.Bc2 without 16…0-
0
(119) 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5 e4 16.Bc2 0-0 17.Rae1
Qc8 18.Bb3 a5 without 19.Nxb5 or 18.Kh1
Qc8 18.Bb3 a5 19.Nxb5
Qc8 18.Kh1 without 18…Ng6
Qc8 18.Kh1 Ng6
Section 8
9.Nd5 without 9…Be7 10.Bxf6
(123) 9.Nd5 9…Qa5 10.Bd2 Qd8 without 11.Bd3 and 11.c4

(124) 9.Nd5 Qa5 10.Bd2 Qd8 11.Bd3
(125) 9.Nd5 Qa5 10.Bd2 Qd8 11.c4 without 11…Nxe4
(126) 9.Nd5 Qa5 10.Bd2 Qd8 11.c4 Nxe4
(127) 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Qxe7 11.c4 without 11…0-0
(128) 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Qxe7 11.c4 0-0
(129) 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bd3 without 11…d5 or 11.Bxf6
(130) 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bd3 d5
(131) 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe77 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 without 12.Qd2 or 12.c4
(132) 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Qd2
(133) 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.c4 without 12…f5
(134) 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.c4 f5
Section 9
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 without 11.c3 0-0
(135) 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c4 without 11…b4 or 11.c3

(136) 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 without 12…a5 or 12…0-0
(137) 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 a5
(138) 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.Be2 a5 14.0-0 Bg5 15.Qd3 Be6 without
16.Rfd1 or 13.g3
(139) 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.Be2 a5 14.0-0 Bg5 15.Qd3 Be6 16.Rfd1
(140) 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.g3 without 13…a5
(141) 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.g3 a5 without 14.Bg2
(142) 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.g3 a5 14.Bg2
(143) 11.c3 without 11…Ne7, 11…Bg5 or 11…0-0
(144) 11.c3 Ne7 without 12.Nxf6 gxf6 13.Nc2 or 13.Bd3
(145) 11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6 gxf6 13.Nc2
(146) 11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6 gxf6 13.Bd3 without 13…d5
(147) 11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6 gxf6 13.Bd3 d5 without 14.Qe2
(148) 11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6 gxf6 13.Bd3 d5 14.Qe2
(149) 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.a4 bxa4 14.Ncb4 Nxb4 without 15.Nxb4 or
12…Ne7
(150) 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.a4 bxa4 14.Ncb4 Nxb4 15.Nxb4
(151) 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7 13.Ncb4 0-0 14.a4 bxa4 without 15.Qxa4
or13.h4
(152) 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7 13.Ncb4 0-0 14.a4 bxa4 15.Qxa4
(153) 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7 13.h4 Bh6 14.a4 bxa4 15.Ncb4 0-0 without
16.Qxa4
(154) 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7 13.h4 Bh6 14.a4 bxa4 15.Ncb4 0-0 16.Qxa4
Section 10
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 without 12.Nc2 Bg5
(155) 11…0-0 without 12.Nc2

(156) 12.Nc2 Rb8 without 13.g3, 13.Be2 or 13.h4
(157) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.g3
(158) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.Be2 Bg5 without 14.0-0
(159) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.Be2 Bg5 14.0-0 without 14…Be6
(160) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.Be2 Bg5 14.0-0 Be6 15.Qd3 a5 without 16.Rfd1
(161) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.Be2 Bg5 14.0-0 Be6 15.Qd3 a5 16.Rfd1
(162) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 13…Ne7 14.Nxf6 gxf6 without 15.Qd2
(163) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Ne7 14.Nxf6 gxf6 15.Qd2 Bb7 without 16.Ne3
(164) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Ne7 14.Nxf6 gxf6 15.Qd2 Bb7 16.Ne3
(165) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Be7 without 14.Nce3
(166) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Be7 14.Nce3 Be6 without 15.Bd3 or 15.a4
(167) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Be7 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3
(168) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Be7 14.Nce3 Be6 15.a4 Qd7 16.axb5 axb5 without
17.Be2
(169) 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Be7 14.Nce3 Be6 15.a4 Qd7 16.axb5 axb5 17.Be2
Section 11
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 without 13.a4 bxa4
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8
(170) 12…Bg5 13.Be2 Ne7 without 14.Ncb4, without 13.h4 or 13.a4

(171) 13.Be2 Ne7 14.Ncb4
(172) 13.h4 Bh6 without 14.g4
(173) 13.h4 Bh6 14.g4
(174) 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 without a14…a5
(175) 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 without 15.Bb5 or 15.Bc4
(176) 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 without 15…Ne7
(177) 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 Ne7 without 16.Ncb4
(178) 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 Ne7 16.Ncb4 without 16…Bh3
(179) 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 Ne7 16.Ncb4 Bh3
(180) 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 without 15…Kh8, 15…Bd7 or 15…Rb8
(181) 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Kh8
(182) 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Bd7 without 16.Nce3
(183) 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Bd7 16.Nce3
Section 12
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4
a5 15.Bc4 Rb8
(184) 15…Rb8 without 16.Ra2 or 16.b3

(185) 16.Ra2 Kh8 17.Nce3 without 17…Ne7 and 17…Bxe3
(186) 16.Ra2 Kh8 17.Nce3 Ne7
(187) 16.Ra2 Kh8 17.Nce3 Bxe3
(188) 16.b3 Kh8 without 17.0-0 or 17.Nce3
(189) 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 17…g6 without 18.Qd3 or 17…f5
(190) 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 g6 18.Qd3
(191) 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 without 19…Bg6
(192) 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 Bg6 without 20.Qe2
(193) 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 Bg6 20.Qe2
(194) 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 g6 without 18.h4 and without 17…Bxe3, 17…Be6
or 17…Ne7
(195) 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 g6 18.h4 Bxh4 19.g3 Bg5 20.f4 exf4 21.gxf4 Bh4
without 22.Kf1
(196) 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 g6 18.h4 Bxh4 19.g3 Bg5 20.f4 exf4 21.gxf4 Bh4
22.Kf1
(197) 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Bxe3
(198) 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Be6
(199) 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Ne7 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nd5 Qd8 20.0-0 f5 21.exf5
Bxf5 22.Qe2 Bd7 23.Ra2 without 23…Bh4
(200) 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Ne7 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nd5 Qd8 20.0-0 f5 21.exf5
Bxf5 22.Qe2 Bd7 23.Ra2 Bh4
Conclusion
Afterword
Foreword
Gennadi Timoshchenko’s book on the Chelyabinsk Variation is both very

interesting and necessary. Behind it lies an enormous amount of work, as will
become evident as you read and especially play through the author’s analysis.
In my book Revolution in the 70s, I have already written about a
surprising metamorphosis of this once rejected and considered “anti-
positional,” variation. From Timoshchenko’s fundamental work, readers will
be able to get a definitive insight into the genesis of the Chelyabinsk
Variation.
The form of the book is unusual for a monograph on an opening, but then
it is not quite an opening manual. In the first, historical, part, the author tells
of the initial stage of development of the variation and supplements it with
his 41 games dating from 1965 to 1979. Those little-known games are
annotated; some of them are of theoretical interest even today.
Along the way, Timoshchenko tells us a little about himself, and this is
also quite interesting. The author carefully examines Sveshnikov’s
fundamental (!) book on the Chelyabinsk Variation, The Sicilian Defense:
The 5…e7-e5 Variation published as far back as 1988, and finds hundreds of
errors in it, some of them blunders. The author’s criticism of Sveshnikov’s
book is perhaps too strict, but it is candid (and only rarely looks like
nitpicking), and his version of the reasons for such a great amount of errors
has its place.
Of course, the main part of the book is the third, analytical one. In its 200
chapters, more or less every important branch of the Chelyabinsk Variation is
examined. It is also unusual as it contains a huge amount of novelties at
various levels of importance. This became possible because of
Timoshchenko’s active employment of modern computers during his work.
It is necessary to mention a certain peculiarity of the author. It is quite
common for Timoshchenko to use the word “novelty” [also indicated by “N”
immediately after a move] in a context that may appear unusual to his
readers. For him, a novelty is any new move at any stage of any game that
has been published by him (and sometimes after the game has been
finished!), and, what is more, not only in the score of a game itself, but also
in other analysts’ comments. However, the author’s Herculean efforts on
improvement/refutation of all kinds of analyses also deserve recognition.
The author examines many well-known games that have become seminal
for the development of a particular variation, and his evaluation is often
different and leads to a reassessment of the variation itself. The examples are,
for instance, Tal-Tseshkovsky, Riga 1979 (chapter 28, variation 7.Nd5) or
Shirov-Topalov, Leon 2001 (chapter 64, variation 11.Bxb5).
In chapter 163, the author analyzes the game Kasparov-Kramnik
(Novgorod 1994) and points out that White’s advantage in a variation
formerly recommended by me is extremely negligible after 24…e3, and, in
the next chapter, considers an important improvement, 16.Ne3!, that casts
doubt on the whole 13…Ne7 branch. However, for some readers, this is not
news as I have also managed to find the same improvement while working on
volume 3 of Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov published in 2014.
Often, the author seems to make two steps forward at once in comparison
with the modern theoretical state of the Chelyabinsk Variation; first, he points
out that the generally accepted way is not quite the best one or it is even
downright erroneous, and then shows how it is necessary to play. For
example, in today’s most popular defensive reaction to 9.Nd5 – …Bxf6 –
(chapters 195-196, the 9…Be7 10.Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4 bxa4
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16. b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 g6 18.h4! Bxh4 19.g3 Bg5 20.f4
exf4 21.gxf4 Bh4 variation),Timoshchenko first shows that the move 22.Kd2,
employed most of the time, leads only to a slight advantage for White, while
the rare move 22.Kf1! is able to create many more problems for Black; what
is more, the usual reply, 22…f5, leads to a significant advantage for White,
and the correct reply is 22…g5! (a novelty).
In chapters 135-142, the move 11.c4 is analyzed. It is very popular now
and brings practical success to White; however, the author shows that by
playing correctly, Black achieves equality, which is certain to greatly lift the
mood of the Chelyabinsk Variation’s advocates greatly. One can also note
that the variation 9.Nd5 Qa5 is exhaustively covered in a new light (chapters
123-126).
The author managed to discover many novelties in positions that are
rather well-known. Here are examples that caught my eye: 16…Qd8!
(chapter 52), 13…Bh6! (chapter 60), 19…a5! (chapter 84), 17…h5! (chapter
99), 15…Rg8! (chapter 148).
It should not come as a surprise that novelties for Black prevail in the
book. The fact of the matter is that novelties for White are sought and found
by “everybody and his uncle,” while the advocates of the variation are much
less in number, so it is more difficult for them.
I believe that Timoshchenko’s book, refining theory as it does in the
Chelyabinsk Variation, should provide a boost to the variation’s popularity.
Garry Kasparov
Acknowledgement
My special thanks to former world champion Garry Kimovich Kasparov,

whom I had the pleasure to help during several important years of his chess
career and who had the kindness to agree to write a small foreword for this
book.
The author with Garry Kasparov in Bratislava, 2011

From the Author
Dear reader!
In this book, we will examine, in detail, the position that arises after 1.e4
c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5.
As of now, no official name has been attached to this variation. In Russia,

it is commonly known as the Chelyabinsk Variation; in older books, you can
find the name the Lasker-Pelikan Variation; and, in the West, it is sometimes
called the Sveshnikov Variation. My own opinion about this problem will be
stated later, in the chapter “About the Name of the Variation.”
The variation used to take a back seat in opening theory until the end of
the 1960s; you will find more information on this in the chapter “What
Statistics Have to Say.” Furthermore, even if the move 5…e5 had been made
in a game, Black would usually play improperly, if not downright badly,
afterwards.
And then, an “explosion” happened. In the 1970s, the popularity of the
variation grew dramatically. It was gradually included in opening repertoires
of the world’s leading chessplayers and became one of the most popular
systems in the theory of openings. From the above-mentioned chapter “What
Statistics Have to Say,” the reader will also learn that the higher the players’
level, the more often they employed the Chelyabinsk Variation. Among its
principal advocates, those who have played most of their games using this
opening, are Kramnik, van Wely, Radjabov, Leko, Shirov, Krasenkov, and
Moiseenko. Such players as Carlsen, Topalov, Gelfand, Lautier, Tregubov,
Wang Yue, Eljanov, Illescas, and McShane have also played many games in
this variation. Kasparov, Grischuk, Ivanchuk, Nakamura, and Khalifman used
to turn to this opening more than once, and Anand has employed it three
times. What other opening, except for the Najdorf Variation, can boast such a
constellation of great names?
It is very pleasant for me to know that I, together with Sveshnikov, was
one of those two young chessplayers who had prepared this explosion. We
refused to believe the old books, found many novel ideas, and started to
employ this variation successfully in tournaments. In other words, we had
revived the move 5…e5 and breathed new life into this variation.
The results of my first practical tests of the variation exceeded all
expectations; in 22 games played in this line from 1966 to 1979, I managed to
score 19½ points (+17 =5). Most of those games did not make it into official
chess databases, but the reader can find them in the chapter “Cutting My
Teeth.” In “Another 16 Games Which Are Not in Databases,” you will find
my games played from 1973 to 1979, and which are also absent from
databases. It should be emphatically mentioned that, during this period,
Sveshnikov was also employing the variation with great success.
Very soon, the adherents appeared, first in the USSR, and then abroad.
The variation attracted their attention with its ingenuity, concreteness, and
rich tactical content, with absolutely novel pawn structures in the ensuing
positions, defying standard concepts usually employed for evaluating those
structures.
We are far from stating that the variation was the harbinger of the 1970s
opening revolution (about which an excellent book by Kasparov has been
written), but it definitely was one of its leaders. The result of this revolution
was a transition from positional schemes and playing methods that had been
typical for “pre-revolutionary” chess to modern play, fighting and full of
dynamics, often from the very first moves of a game.
Later I stopped playing the variation for rather serious reasons which I
will subsequently explain. Sveshnikov also stopped employing it for different
reasons, but, by that time, the system itself had gotten a powerful boost for its
further development, and its popularity had, at the very least, had been stable
for almost four decades, from the initial moment of its breakneck growth
(i.e., approximately 1975-1976) to the present day.
Sveshnikov managed to run rings around me by publishing his book on
the variation as early as 1988. About 20 years, later he delivered a mysterious
statement claiming that he had “exhausted the variation” with it. This, to put
it bluntly, is one bold assertion. I know of no author who has thought so
highly of his/her opus. What did the grandmaster wish to tell us? We are
going to try to solve the mystery in the corresponding chapter of this book.
Of course, Sveshnikov had overestimated the historical role of his book
just a bit. Actually, it was only the first attempt at generalizing the
tournament material that had been accumulated by that time. For now, we
will only briefly mention the fact that the Sveshnikov book contains hundreds
of errors, wrong evaluations, and mistaken recommendations. Many systems
that are popular today are just plain missing from it, so the book could not
have “exhausted the variation,” even in principle.
I regret to say that after the publication of Sveshnikov’s book, many
people, especially in the Western countries, forgot that I was one of the
authors of the variation. Fortunately, they still remember that in Russia. I
received my first offer to write a book on the variation back around 2008, but
then I was still actively playing in tournaments and had no time to work on a
serious text. But, after several years, I decided I had had enough tournaments,
and it was high time for me to begin acting sensibly. So, we returned to the
idea of writing a book. Here, I must point out that I had not been employing
the variation in my tournament games for a long time, either as White or as
Black. So it would be much easier for me to write about openings I had been
playing recently and about which I knew their current situation.
Still, I decided that it would be useful to remind those who liked to play
this variation that I was still around. I have many fond memories and can
relate some interesting things to those who are not that versed in chess
history, or simply ignorant of it. And that is what I am going to do in this
book.
Besides, my interest was additionally piqued by many self-confident
declarations Sveshnikov had been making in recent years. You already know
about “exhausting the variation.” We also happened to hear the following
statement: “I know openings just as well as Kasparov does.” Actually, the
point of all those declarations was that Sveshnikov was positioning himself as
a great opening expert. As I know very well how much time it takes to
become such an expert, it was interesting for me, as a professional, to find out
to what extent those claims were true.
And I have been offered a subject that was perfect for that. In the eyes of
many, Sveshnikov is a “founding father” of the Chelyabinsk Variation, and
so, they, quite naturally, believe that his book on his “own” variation must be
written on the highest possible level. So, I thought that if I were going to
write about this variation, I would have to open this book anyway. But, as I
would have to analyze thousands of lines myself all the same, not excluding
those that Sveshnikov had already written about, why not compare his
analyses with my own?
Naturally, I realized perfectly well that, for some chess lovers, my
searching for mistakes in Sveshnikov’s book would be equal to searching for
errors in the Holy Scriptures, but I gathered my courage and said to myself
the words that trailblazers used to say: “If not I, then who?”
In my work, I used a supercomputer (according to modern standards),
which I am going to talk about in more detail in the next chapter. I have
worked on this book for three years, and I hope that you will find many
interesting things in it. First of all, I would like to note that, in its theoretical
section, you will be able to get acquainted with more than two thousand
novelties of various degrees. You will learn about my opinion about the
correct way of playing this variation. In addition, in the same part of the
book, you are going to find out in which particular lines Sveshnikov has
made errors (and sometimes even blunders) in his book. All those mistakes
will be pointed out and corrected.
Having encountered an incredible amount of errors in the Sveshnikov’s
book in the process, I asked myself a logical question: “How could it happen
that there are so many blunders in a book written by a grandmaster?” To find
the answer, I had to conduct in-depth analysis of the literary style and
defining characteristics of Sveshnikov’s book.
In my book, I write of the history of the variation, its present state, and
also make an attempt to look into the future to understand possible ways that
the variation may develop. This explains the title of the book.
When I decided to write this book, my purposes were quite different from
Sveshnikov’s unachieved ones. On the contrary, I would be happy if it gives
a new impetus to further development of the variation. At first, it was simply
interesting for me to see what would happen if I were to take my own
experience, my own old analyses, and huge practical material of other players
– thousands of grandmasters’ games – and check it all on a supercomputer.
Then, other targets cropped up, and I will discuss them in the next chapter.
In the process of writing the book, I realized that it would be rather useful
for planning my future work to get answers to two questions.
The first one is how much time and effort does it take to write a rather
voluminous book on one of the currently most popular variations on the
highest possible level, taking into account the enormous amount of the
available material? Well, I already know the answer to this question.
The second question is a logical extension of the first. Nobody has ever
used such a powerful computer tool for writing a book on an opening before;
nobody has ever worked on such a book for three years, and arduously at
that, and, consequently, nobody has ever put so much energy into such a
volume. So, in all modesty, I can say that not a single book has ever been
written on such a high level before. In order to avoid doing useless work, I
would like to know if there is any need of writing chess books on the highest
possible level at all. Will such a book meet with a ready market, or, perhaps,
will most readers prefer their books thin and simple, and read them just as
they do fairy tales before going to bed? I do not know the answer to that
question yet, but I will get it shortly.
Certainly, I would like to believe that my work was not in vain and that
this book will be interesting both for chess fans and for experienced masters.
Still, it is you, my respected reader, who will give a final evaluation about
my endeavor.
Gennadi Timoshchenko
November 2017
How I Worked on This Book
So what is opening theory?

When I was a young boy, I could not understand why chess books about
openings were called books on opening theory. There were no theories at all
in them but only practical games, and frequently played by weak players at
that. Only rarely would the author point out that some move or other was
weak and instead of it you should play thus-and-so.
And the same question cropped up once more: so where was theory in the
books on opening theory? Wouldn’t it be more correct to call such books
“books about openings in practice?” If one of the meanings of the word
“theory” is something that has not happened yet, and, instead of it, we are
given lots of games that have been played already, then where is this theory
proper?
A new standard for books on openings

But, then came the time when I decided to write a serious book on
openings, in particular on one of them that I prefer to call the Chelyabinsk
Variation, and not write it in the way that an overwhelming majority of
authors do it, but a little bit differently. Thus, in this book, the reader would
find many of the author’s own analysis that he has conducted with the help of
a supercomputer; a great deal of analysis made by others, checked by the
author and proved to be wrong; and also many important novelties that
change evaluations of well-known positions and variations – in other words,
the very things that have not happened in practice yet.
The theory itself

While working on this book, I felt that I should be able to put in practice
an idea that had stuck in my head a long time ago. I wanted to try to set a new
standard for books on openings, including:
– employment of a powerful computer;
– a great amount of the author’s own analysis conducted with a help of
this computer;
– a great number of novelties that change the valuation of variations;
– the use of a simple and easily understandable method of chapter listings
that would allow simple cross-references to other chapters (instead of
indications like “IIA3b” etc.).
I tried to implement all those innovations while working on my book.
Let’s not repeat the mistakes of others and take responsibility for our own
errors
Still later, I gave thought to the realization of another idea that, in my
opinion, had been knocking (or, should I say, pounding) at the door for a long
time.
Historically, the authors of chess books, even of the ones that are most
unsuccessful, weak, or downright incorrect and harmful by default (of the
“Play 1…g5!” kind), do not bear any liability at all for what they have
written, and this applies to their chess-related errors as well. For example,
they copy, repeatedly and with greatest respect, what their predecessors have
written on the subject, not bothering to give even a couple of minutes of their
time to think whether those predecessors of fifty years ago were right or
wrong. More than that, such references to analysis by famous names even put
a premium on the book itself. Both authors who are unable to think out
anything in principle, and some grandmasters are known to do so.
So, I made up my mind to break with this tradition. Don’t you think that
the level of chess literature would be higher if authors of chess books, instead
of thoughtlessly copying analysis of their predecessors, would check them
first and then, without fear or false modesty, point out errors and name names
of those who have made them?
I suggest that chess authors should be appraised not according to the
amount of books published (which is a direct function of the number of
publishers an author is acquainted with), but in terms of the number of errors
in those books. In doing so, we, the authors, would help our readers to
separate those who write books responsibly from mere hacks who care for
their income only. In this way, any buyer of chess literature could be much
more rational in spending his/her hard-earned money. This suggestion may
look pretty naive, but my genuine desire is to somehow block the stream of
inferior chess literature.
Those were my thoughts during my work on this book. Did I manage to
achieve my purposes? I am anything but sure, so that remains to be seen. It is
not easy to break with a tradition that has been established for many decades.
Well, anyway, I tried, and the reader will find confirmation in this book.
My Loyal Helpers
I have to thank my loyal helpers. Without them this book would never
have been published, at least as it is.
The first of them is the program Chess Assistant 12 Pro, positioned by its
creators as an “information retrieval and analytical play system.” For
analysis, I employed Houdini 2 Pro. These ran on a quad-core engine that
fully met the needs of the age.
The Opening Revolution, Phase 2

I would like to say a few words about the constantly growing importance
of computers in opening theory.
Because of them, opening preparation of practicing chessplayers has
greatly improved, and it is their games that determine the main directions of
opening theory development. Another result of the improvement of computer
efficiency is a great increase in number and quality of correspondence games;
I am going to speak of them in my book very often.
As you know, Kasparov wrote a book called Revolution in the 70s. I
believe that now, after the advent of high-performance computers, we are
witnessing the second phase of this opening revolution. We have an
opportunity to re-check both any book on the openings and any analysis that
has appeared during the pre-computer age. This is especially important for
the sharpest variations that appeared as a result of the first phase of the
opening revolution. From this book, you can learn how unexpected and
interesting the outcome of such re-checks can be.
Limited volume of books vs. enormous amount of practical material

When starting to write this book, I was perfectly aware of how hard it was
going to be. Allowing for various transpositions of moves, we have more
than 6,000 games on our subject in which players with ratings of 2500 or
higher (i.e., of grandmaster level) played with Black. And, in my full
database, there are more than 80,000 games in the Chelyabinsk Variation.
Actually, I had enough material for three books, but had to cram it all into a
single one. Moreover, I had to find space for analysis and for correction of
erroneous recommendations given by some other authors. Because of all that,
I beg of my fellow grandmasters not to take offense at me: to include all
interesting games into my book was physically impossible.
A Great Number of Novelties

You will find more than 2,000 novelties in this book, much more than in
any other book on opening theory. I believe that a novelty is not just a new
move, but a new move that, to some extent, improves a well-known opening
variation. Of course, I cannot guarantee that this move has not been already
mentioned somewhere in some chess magazine. I was guided by my
complete database that had been put together from various chess databases
(in particular, it includes the Chess Assistant database, a database of
correspondence games and some other bases), and also from Sveshnikov’s
book that contains many games that are absent from official game databases.
I think that the value of a book about an opening is determined precisely
by the amount of novelties suggested by its author. Let me explain this idea.
As is well known, there is knowledge which is common and easily
accessible to everyone, and there is another kind of knowledge, secret, and,
therefore, hard-to-get. What everybody knows is worth almost nothing, but
what is known to only a very few is very important.
Now, let us switch to the language of chess. The material that any player
can obtain from easily accessible chess databases by clicking his mouse a
couple of times counts only as a foundation for his work, but the novelties
that you will get to learn from a book offer you a great advantage over those
who have not read it. Let us assume that the circulation of this book is, say,
several thousand copies; then, it practically supplies you with secret
knowledge. More than that, a book that is written, for example, in Russian,
would be practically inaccessible for any person who does not speak this
language, so it becomes even more secret.
Furthermore, it is most important to know where the general knowledge
is wrong, that is, to become aware of unknown errors in well-known games
and recommendations (and also in well-known books, such as, for example,
Sveshnikov’s). Such knowledge would help you win easily against opponents
who blindly follow this erroneous knowledge. That is why I pay particular
attention to errors in Sveshnikov’s book and to opening errors from widely
known games.
Part I
The History of the Variation and Its Development
– What is history, if not legends that we all agree upon?
Napoleon I Bonaparte
An Historic Game
More than a half-century ago, on June 5, 1965, in the city of Chelyabinsk,

an historic event for chess theory transpired. This event, just like the “Big
Bang” for the universe, gave the first primary impetus for the following
explosive development of one of the currently most popular variations of the
Sicilian Defense. An historic game took place in which two future authors of
the variation, Genna Timoshchenko (White) and Zhenya Sveshnikov (Black),
both quite young then, faced each other. Thus, the Chelyabinsk Variation was
born.
Despite being only 16, I was practically a Master of Sports then. In two
months, I would successfully take part in the match-tournament of the Urals
cities, where I would play against the strongest adult masters in the Urals and
take a confident second place. In another two months, while playing in the
All-Russian Qualification Tournament, I would exceed the Master’s norm by
a whole point.
Zhenya was a year younger than I and took up chess a little later, so he
was a noticeably weaker player at first. At the time of this game, he was a
promising first-category player. We were on friendly terms and played
training games from time to time.
So here is this game:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5
In my short note included in Kasparov’s book Revolution in the 70s, I
described this moment in the following way:
“Frankly speaking, I thought it a bit funny when, in the very first game of
the match, I saw the move 5…e5 on the board. What is he thinking of,
weakening the d5-square like that! My opponent probably doesn’t know the
first thing about chess and seems not to read books at all…However, I had
underestimated my opponent, underestimated the variation, made some
concrete errors and lost this game.
The events developed in the following way:
6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5!
Later we will see that this was the very move that breathed new life into
the previously cheerless 5…e5 variation and was later to become an
obviously key move in this position. In those distant times, there were no
computers. The games played about a century ago were published in books
and, as for new games in chess magazines, those were late in coming, and
there were very few of them at that. The 5…e5 variation was little-known and
never enjoyed a good reputation in theory. None of the well-known
chessplayers ever played 5…e5, at least more or less regularly; besides, the
variation used to be played out quite differently in comparison with modern
times. Now we can turn on our computer and find out in a few seconds that,
in this position, the move 8…b5! has occurred in more than 92% of the
games in the database, and, for players with Elo rating of 2600 and higher,
this figure is practically 100%. They had usually played 8…Be6?!, allowing
white knight to go to c4.
Certainly, it would be wrong to say that the move 8…b5 had never
occurred in practice before this game. Sometimes, they played in such a way,
but, as I have already said, the main line was 8…Be6. They would also
employ 8…Be7 and 8…d5. As for 8…b5 (in case of 9. Nd5), it was usually
connected with 9…Be6 or 9…Qa5. I know of only six games, before 1965, in
which the position from the main line, after 10…Bxf6, occurred. Now, these
games are well-known, but a half-century ago, hardly anyone had heard about
them.
The game continued 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Be2 (up to this point,
everything had complied with the best standards of modern theory, but, here,
11.c3 or 11.c4 is more precise).
11…0-0 12.0-0 Nd4 13.c3 Nxe2+ 14.Qxe2 Bg5 15.Rfd1 f5 16.c4 fxe4
17.Qxe4 Rb8 18.cxb5 axb5 19.Qe2 Qd7 20.Nc2 Qf7 21.Nc3 Bh4 22.g3 Be7
23.Nb4 h5 24.Rd5 Bg4 25.Qf1 Rb6 26.Rc1 h4 27.Rxb5 Rxb5 28.Nxb5 Bg5
29.Rc7 Qg6 30.Qd3 e4 31.Qxd6 e3 32.Nd3 exf2+ 33.Nxf2 Qb1+ 34.Kg2 h3+
35.Nxh3 Qf1#
And so youth prevailed. Of course, both opponents’ play in the game
could be stronger. For example, instead of 12…Nd4, the more precise 12…
Bg5!, with equality, should be played; and, instead of 14…Bg5, 14…Rb8,
with an idea of meeting 15.c4 with 15…Bd7.
With 15.Rfd1?!, White threw away his opening advantage. Correct is the
immediate 15.c4!, gaining time and beginning advantageous play on the
queenside. 15…f5?! is much too optimistic; the correct move is 15…Rb8!
16.c4 Bd7, with equality. The move 17.Qxe4?, after which Black seizes the
initiative, is a serious blunder; after the correct 17.cxb5 Bb7 18.b6! Bxd5
19.Rxd5 Qxb6 20.Nc4, White’s position is slightly better.
Instead of 20.Nc2, the move 20.Nb1 is slightly better, having in mind the
transfer of this knight to e4. The provocation 21…Bh4?! is absolutely
unnecessary. The correct move is 21…Bb7!. For example, 22.Rxd6 b4
23.Ncb4 Bxg2!.
22.g3? is an error that seriously weakens the long diagonal; the correct
continuation is 22.f3, with rough equality. And so on and so forth.
Though there had been a lot of tangible errors in this interesting game,
many motifs that would later become classic were already present:
(1) the black bishop’s advance to g5;
(2) undermining the white center with f7-f5, opening the f-file for black
counterplay (as the engine tells us, this plan had never been employed in such
positions until then);
(3) the knight on d5 that has occupied the weak square with flying colors,
takes practically no part in the game and only hampers White’s efforts to put
pressure on the d6-pawn;
(4) the bishop’s maneuver from g5 to h4, with an attack against the f2-
pawn (while not yet classic, it was well in advance of its time) that we are
going to see rather often in the last chapters of the book – that is, in the main
lines; and
(5) Black’s readiness to sacrifice his entire queenside for the sake of an
attack on the opposite flank.
Of course, what is important to us is not the result of this game, but the
encouragement for examining the 5…e7-e5 variation that both opponents
acquired as a consequence of it. (Though it is possible that this impulse was,
in fact, a result of the outcome of the game, and the outcome itself had been
preordained by supreme forces. After all, if the result were “normal,” that is,
if the stronger player won, it is quite possible that we would not witness the
further development of the variation).
Zhenya (Sveshnikov), inspired by his victory over a stronger opponent,
started to investigate the variation with enthusiasm, and I, having experienced
the dynamic possibilities for Black first-hand, also got seriously interested.
Nine days later, the same opponents played another game. Zhenya the
Inquisitive tested 9…Be6?!; that turned out to be unsuccessful, so I gained
my revenge.
But, the impetus was already there. I liked the variation for Black, so I
began to look for any information on it that was available at that time. I will
take the liberty of self-quoting once again:
What little on the variation that was written in the books of this time,
almost invariably turned out to be rubbish after a serious check. It
attracted me with its uncommonness, some kind of audacity. Its being
almost unexplored also appealed to me: practically in every line entire
layers of new ideas were opened, and anyone acquainted with them
obtained great advantage over the board against an opponent who was
playing in accordance with common notions. Soon, first tests of the
variation followed, and the results surpassed all hopes: even masters did
not know how to play for White! (Garry Kasparov, Revolution in the 70s,
cf. p. 14)
It was not long before the first tests had begun…

Cutting My Teeth
In this chapter, I am going to tell you about my first games played in the
Chelyabinsk Variation. First, the reader will understand more fully how low
the theoretical level of the variation had been then, second, almost all of those
games with the exception of three (against Kirpichnikov, Kotkov, and
Podgaets) are absent from the official databases, and games played by one of
the authors of the variation can be of some historical value. Third, many of
those games are very interesting, and, finally, in the annotations the reader
will find many novelties that, even now, remain unknown to chess theory.
In this and subsequent chapters, I sometimes use symbols =, , , , ,
, , etc. for evaluation of the positions. They are usually employed in
comments for the sake of saving space. Let me remind you of their meanings:
= the play is equal

White stands slightly better
Black stands slightly better,
White has an upper hand
Black has an upper hand
White’s position is won
Black’s position is won
the only move
(1) Timoshchenko – Sveshnikov

Chelyabinsk 1965
This game has already been given in Part I, chapter 1.
(2) Timoshchenko – Sveshnikov

Chelyabinsk 1965
It is not easy to be a pioneer. The search for proper paths is not always
successful. This game is a confirmation of that fact.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be6 10.c4 b4 11.Nc2 Qa5 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.b3 f5 14.exf5
Bxf5 15.Bd3 Be6 16.Qf3 Bg7 17.Nf6+ Bxf6 18.Qxc6+ Ke7 19.Qb7+ Bd7
20.Bf5 Rhd8 21.Bxd7 Rab8 22.Qe4 Rxd7 23.Ne3 Kf8 24.0-0 Qd8 25.Rad1
Kg8 26.Rd5 Bg7 27.Rfd1 Qc7 28.Nf5 Rbd8 29.Qg4 f6 30.Nxg7 Rxg7
31.Qe6+ Kh8 32.Qxf6 Rdg8 33.Rxd6 Qb7 34.g3 Qf7 35.Qxe5 Rf8
36.R1d2 1-0
(3) Gutkin – Timoshchenko

Vladimir 1966
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Nf3 Bb4 7.Bd2?!
This was the first time I had encountered this move, and it leads to the
loss of a pawn. The only way to retain normal play is 7.Bc4! (see chapter 3 in
the theoretical section).
7…Bxc3! 8.Bxc3 Nxe4 9.Nxe5 Nxc3
Here, the move 9…Qe7!? is interesting.
10.Nxc6 Nxd1 11.Nxd8 Nxb2 12.Nxb7 Bxb7 13.Rb1 Bxg2 14.Bxg2
Rb8 15.0-0 0-0 16.Rfe1 Na4 17.Rbd1Rfd8 18.Re7 Nb6 19.Rd3 Kf8 20.Re5
Re8 21.Rxe8+ Rxe8 22.f4 Rc8 23.Ra3 Rc7 24.Bf1 Ke7 25.Bd3 Nd5 26.Ra4
Rc5 27.Kf2 a5 28.a3 h6 29.Kf3 Nc3 30.Rd4 d5 31.f5 Kf6 32.Rg4 Ne4
33.Ke3 Rc3 34.Kd4 Rxa3 35.Kxd5 Nf2 36.Rg3 Nxd3 37.cxd3 Rc3 38.Kd4
Rc2 39.h3 a4 40.Kd5 a3 41.d4 a2 42.Ra3 Kxf5 43.Kd6 Ke4 44.d5 Rd2
45.Ra4+ Rd4 and Black won the endgame.
(4) Tsichelashvili – Timoshchenko

Vladimir 1966
This very sharp game was published by the main Soviet chess magazine
Shakhmaty v SSSR (Chess in the USSR) with detailed comments. It was
followed by the editor’s note saying that it was just these kind of games that
we love chess for.
Therefore it is doubly strange that in Sveshnikov’s book (p.75) the moves
in this game are absolutely different, starting from the astonishing 10…Bg7?.
There are other similar “blunders” in his book, and I have a theory that
explains them that I will set forth in “Thou Shalt Not Make unto Thee Any
Graven Image.”
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bc4 b5!? (first occurrence).
In the only game played previously, Broderman-Trifunovic 1963, there
was 10…Qg5.
11.Bd5 Bb7?!
A small inaccuracy. After 11…Qc7!, chances are equal. For details see
chapter 33 in the theoretical section.
12.Qh5
12.Nab1!N is probably more promising.
12…Qc7! 13.exf5
This leads to equal play. Perhaps 13.Rad1N is slightly better.
13…Nd4!
And this is the novelty for our times! 13…b4? is bad in view of 14.Nab5
axb5 15.Nxb5 Qe7 (15…Qd7 16.Be6) 16.Nxd6+ Qxd6 17.Qxf7+ Kd8
18.Rd1 .
14.0-0-0 b4 15.Rxd4! exd4
15…bxc3? 16.Rc4! does not work.
16.Re1+ Kd8 17.Qh4+ Kd7! 18.Qf6 Bh6+?
The cold-blooded 18…Rd8! retains equal chances.

19.Kb1?
The correct move is 19.Kd1!, defending the rook. It could be followed
with 19…Rae8 20.Qxf7+ Kd8 21.Qf6+ Kc8 22.Nab5 axb5 23.Nxb5 Rxe1+
24.Kxe1 Bg7 25.Qe6+ Qd7 26.f6 Re8 27.Nxd6+ Kd8 28.Nxe8 Qxe8+
29.Qxe8 Kxe8 30.Bxb7 Bxf6, and White’s position is won.
19…Rae8! (now Black has the advantage) 20.Qxf7+ Kd8
Black could have breathed freely if not for a new danger, severe mutual
time-trouble that distorts the rest of the game. 21.Qf6 Kc8 22.Be6 Kb8
23.Qxh6?! dxc3 24.Nc4 Qxc4 25.Rd1 Qc7 25…Qe2! is better.
26.b3 Rd8 27.g4 d5 28.f6 d4 29.Qg7 Qa5 30.a4 bxa3 31.Ka2 Qe5
And here the better move is 31…Be4!.
32.Bc4 Rhf8 33.g5 Bd5? 34.f4 Qe6 35.Bxd5 Qxd5 36.Qxh7 Rh8
37.Qd3 Rxh2 38.g6? a5?
The correct move is 38…Qb5!.
39.f5 a4? 40.Qg3+ Ka8 41.Qxh2 axb3+ 42.cxb3 d3 43.f7 c2
It is not often that you can see such a position!

44.Qxc2 dxc2 45.Rxd5 c1Q 46.Rxd8+ Kb7 47.Rb8+ Ka7 48.Ra8+ Kb7
49.Rb8+ and the game ended in a draw.
(5) Slonimsky – Timoshchenko

Kaluga 1966
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Nde2
Chapter 4 of the theoretical section is devoted to this very move.
6…Bb4
This waa the first time this move had been played. Previously, the usual
answers had been 6…d6 or 6…Bc5.
7.Bd2?!
The correct continuation is 7.a3! Ba5 8.b4 Bb6 9.Qd6!N, and White has
no problems.
7…Bc5!?
A novelty even for 2015! Now there arises the threat of b6.
Another good move is 7…0-0!, with the possible continuation 8.Ng3
Bxc3 9.Bxc3 d5 10.Bd3 Bg4.
8.h3?
The unorthodox 8.Nc1! d6 (8…Qb6 9.Nd3) 9.Nb3 Bb6 10.Qf3 Be6, with
a small advantage for Black.
8…Qb6 9.Be3 Bxe3 10.fxe3 Qxe3 11.Qd6?! Nxe4 12.Nxe4 Qxe4 13.0-
0-0 Qb4
13…Qg6!? is also fine.
14.Qd5 0-0 15.Nc3 d6 16.a3 Qf4+ 17.Kb1 Be6 18.Qxd6 Rad8 19.Qc7
Rxd1 20.Nxd1 Qd2 21.Bd3 Qxg2 22.Re1 Nd4 23.Be4 Qd2 24.Qxe5 f6
25.Qd6 Qxe1 and Black won.
(6) Kirpichnikov – Timoshchenko

Moscow 1966
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6
My first experience playing the line with 5…e6.
6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5 a6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Na3 f5 11.g3?! (first
occurrence) 11…fxe4 12.Bg2 Nd4
Another interesting continuation is 12…Be6!? 13.Bxe4 Qb6 (after 13…
Nd4, the play transposes to the text) 14.Nd5 Bxd5 15.Bxd5Qxb2 16.Nc4
Qc3+ 17.Kf1 with complications.
13.Bxe4
Also possible is 13.Nxe4!?N d5 14.Qh5!? (apparently 14.c3 dxe4 15.cxd4
Qa5+ 16.Kf1 Bxa3 17.bxa3 Bf5 is favorable for Black). For example, 14…
Bf5 15.c3 Bxa3 16.bxa3 Nc2+ 17.Kf1 dxe4 18.Qxf5 Qd6 19.Bxe4 (19.Rc1??
Ne3!+ 20.fxe3 Qd3+ 21.Kf2 Qd2+ ) 19…Nxa1 20.Kg2 Qe6 21.Qf3 with
unclear play.
13…Be6
Black already possesses a small advantage.
14.Nab1?!
14.Qh5! Bg7! 15.0-0-0 Rc8! (15…d5 16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Rxd4 exd4
18.Qxd5 Qxd5 19.Bxd5 Rb8, with a slight advantage) 16.Bxb7 Rc7 17.Be4
(17.Bxa6 0-0 ) 17…Rc5! 18.Rhe1! h6 19.f4 exf4 20.Nd5 Qg5, with
advantage for Black is better.
14…d5 15.Bg2 h5! 16.0-0 h4 17.Nd2 hxg3 18.hxg3 Qf6!?
Another interesting move is 18…Bc5!? .
19.Nb3 Qh6 20.Re1 Qh2+ 21.Kf1
21…Bh3?!
A shorter way to the goal is 21…Nc6! 22.Ne2 (or 22.Bxd5 Bh3+ 23.Ke2
Bg4+ 24.Bf3 Bxf3+ 25.Kxf3 Qh5+ 26.Kg2 Qh3+ 27.Kf3 Qf5+ 28.Kg2 Rd8
29.Nd5 Rd6, with the idea of Rh6) 22…0-0-0 23.Ng1 e4 24.Re3 Bg7.
22.Rxe5+ Ne6 23.Bxh3 Qxh3+ 24.Ke1
24.Ke2!? is worth considering.
24…Bg7 25.Qxd5 Bxe5?!
25…Rd8! is better.
26.Qxe5 Rh5 (26…0-0-0!?) 27.Qe4 0-0-0?!
And here, the move 27…f6! is better.
28.Rd1
With his shaky play, Black has wasted away almost all his advantage.
28…Re8 29.Kd2 Nc7 30.Qc4 Rhe5 31.Kc1 Qf5 32.Qf1 Kb8 33.Nd4
Qg6 34.a3 Nd5 35.Qd3 Nxc3 36.Qxc3 Qf6 37.Qd2 Rh5! 38.f3 Qe5 39.g4
Rh2 40.Qd3 Ka8 41.Kb1 Rd8 42.Ka1 Rf2 43.Kb1?
An error. White demonstrates that his position is rock-solid, but this move
creates problems with the defense of the b2-pawn. The correct continuation is
43.c3, to meet 43…Qh2 with 44.Rb1.
43…Qf4! 44.c3?
44.g5! is relatively better.
44…Qh2 45.Ka1?
45.Kc1 Rxb2 46.Rh1! is more stubborn.
45…Rxb2 46.Qc4 Rb6 47.Rb1 Rxb1+ 48.Kxb1 Re8 49.Qf1 Qd2 White
resigned.
(7) Madon – Timoshchenko

Moscow 1966
I would like to share more details about this game or, to be more precise,
some stories related to it.
Madon is an Indian master who had come to Moscow to improve his
ranking, and the game itself was a training one played before my journey to
the Hastings tournament.
Yes, you have read this correctly, to the Hastings tournament. In 1966, in
the harsh Soviet days, it was a real miracle for a 17-year-old provincial player
to be sent to the famous Hastings tournament and in the company of the still
more famous former world champion Mikhail Botvinnik at that! And here is
how this miracle happened.
At the end of 1966, I finished first on the junior board in the USSR Team
Championship and was, therefore, promised participation at the second-level
junior tournament in Groningen. For Botvinnik, a journey with another young
player was planned, but Mikhail Moiseevich quite reasonably said, “I don’t
know this young man, and I, as head of our delegation, will have to bear
responsibility for him. So, I will go not with him, but with Timoshchenko,
whom I know well, as he is a former student of my school.” So, the
“castling” had happened, and I miraculously went to Hastings.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.a4 a6
8.Na3 Be6
Now we know that 8…Bg4! is more precise.
9.Bg5
I will discuss this line in chapter 10.
9…Rc8
A novelty for those days. The usual move is 9…Qb6!?.
10.Nc4 Nd4?!
This trappy move is by far the most popular now. Objectively, 10…Nb4!,
with equal chances is better, but I had a hunch that the Indian master would
not play perfectly.
11.Ne3
11.Nd5!, with a slight white edge is better.
11…Qa5
12.Bxf6??
My hunch had not failed me. The correct move is 12.Bd3!, and now 12…
Rxc3 is useless because of 13.Qd2!N d5 (the reply 13…Rc5? 14.b4 Qc7
15.bxc5 dxc5 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Bc4 Bh6 18.Bxe6 fxe6 19.Rd1 Kf7 20.c3,
with an obvious advantage for White, is weaker, and 13…Nxe4 14.Bxe4 d5
15.bxc3 leads to the main 13…d5 line with a different move order) 14.bxc3
(14.exd5?? Bb4) 14…Nxe4 15.Bxe4 dxe4 16.Rb1 Nc6 17.Rxb7 f6 18.Bh4
Bc8! 19.Rb1 Be6 20.0-0 Bc5, with almost full compensation for the
sacrificed exchange, but no more than that.
12…Rxc3 13.Qd2
13.Bb5!?+ axb5 14.bxc3 does not help either: 14…Qxc3+ 15.Kf1 gxf6
16.axb5 f5 .
13…Rxe3+ 14.fxe3 Nxc2+ 15.Kd1 Qxd2+ 16.Kxd2 Nxa1 White
resigned.
(8) Timoshchenko – Nikitin

Moscow 1966
Another training game played during preparation for the Hastings
tournament. This time, my opponent was an experienced master who would
later become Kasparov’s coach and, as a consequence, an author of many
books.
He probably already knew that I liked to play this strange variation and
wanted to provoke me into showing a good line for White.
The provocation was a brilliant success. I had to come up with a killer
novelty on move 13. The game was not intense, and I had, therefore, lost a
chance to have full-fledged training in the line.
It should be noted that this game is cited on page 112 of Sveshnikov’s
book as Timoshchenko-Aaron, Moscow 1968, which means that both the
date and the name of the second player are wrong.
Understandably, after the Hastings tournament, I, being both older and
more experienced, had shown my five new games (three from the tournament
and two training games) to Evgeny. Surely, he must have written down
something from memory and first forgot all about Nikitin, then got Madon
mixed up with Aaron (both were from India), and, later, the date was also
somehow confused.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5
8.Bg5 a6 9.Na3 b5 10.Bxf6 Qxf6? 11.Nd5 Qd8 12.c4 b4
13.Qa4! (this was a novelty then) 13…Bd7 14.Nb5 axb5 15.Qxa8 Qxa8
16.Nc7+ Kd8 17.Nxa8 Nd4 18.Rc1 Bc6 19.Nb6 Bxe4 20.cxb5 Bb7 21.Nc4
Be7 22.Na5 Be4 23.b6 Kd7 24.Rc7+ Ke6 25.b7 Rb8 26.f3 Bh4+ 27.Kd1
Nxf3 28.Bc4+ d5 29.Be2 Nd4 30.Rc8 Bc2+ 31.Kd2 Black resigned.
(9) Hoogendoorn – Timoshchenko

Hastings 1966/1967
In Hastings, Botvinnik played in the main tournament and I in the second,
so-called “challengers” tournament. The variation found was used as early as
in the first round.
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5
a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7
This move was roughly as popular as 9…Qa5 at the time.
10.Bxf6
According to modern chess databases, by that time, this move, which is
so popular now, had occurred in only nine games. This is difficult even to
believe, as now there are tens of thousands of them!
10…Bxf6 11.c3! Bg5
Almost a novelty. By that time, this position had occurred only once, in
Minic-Langeweg 1963.
12.Nc2 0-0 13.h4
This variation is examined in chapters 172-173.
13…Bh6 14.Nce3
A novelty at last. In the above-mentioned game, there was 14.g4 Bf4,
with good play for Black.
14…Bxe3 15.Nxe3 Ne7 16.Be2 Be6 17.Bf3 Qb6
An interesting line is 17…b4!? 18.cxb4 Nc6 19.h5 (19.Qd2 Nd4 20.Bd1
d5, with a black initiative) 19…h6 20.0-0 Nxb4 21.Bg4, with equal play.
18.Qd2 Rab8 19.0-0 b4 20.c4?!
20.cxb4 Qxb4 21.Qxb4 Rxb4 22.b3 a5, with equal play is better.
20…Nc6! 21.b3
After 21.Qxd6?? Rbd8 22.c5 Qb7, the queen is lost.
21…Nd4 22.Be2 f5! 23.exf5 Bxf5 24.Bd3 Be6!?
24…Bxd3!? is also possible. 25.Qxd3 Qd8 (Black stands slightly better)
26.Nc2!? Nxc2 27.Qxc2 Qxh4 28.Rad1 Rf6 29.Rd3.
25.Be4 Rf4 26.Nd5
Or 26.Bd5 Re8, with a small advantage.
26…Rxe4 27.Nxb6 Ne2+ 28.Qxe2 Rxe2 29.Nd5 Bxd5 30.cxd5 Rb5
31.a3 a5?!
31…bxa3 32.Rxa3 Rxd5 33.Rxa6 Kf7 allows Black to retain a small
advantage.
32.axb4 axb4 33.Rfc1 Kf7 34.Rc7+ Kf6 35.Raa7 e4 36.Rxg7 Rxd5
37.Rae7 h5 38.Rgf7+ Kg6 39.Rg7 Kf6. Here a draw was agreed.
(10) Jahr – Timoshchenko

Hastings 1966/1967
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7
Now, we know that, before 1967, this move had occurred in only three
games.
10…Qxe7
Nowadays, the capture with the knight is much more common, but I
usually preferred to take with the queen (see chapters 127-128).
11.c3 h6 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Be2
And this move had never occurred before. Now the usual continuation is
13.Nc2 0-0 14.Ne3, with equality.
13…0-0 14.Nc2 Bb7 15.Ne3 Ne7 16.Qd3?!
16.Bf3 is more precise. For example, 16…Rad8 17.0-0 Qe6 18.Nd5 Bxd5
19.exd5 Qd7.
16…Rad8 17.0-0
17.Bf3 can be met with 17…Ng6.
17…Qf4!?
And here 17…d5! would be a little better. For example, 18.Nxd5 Nxd5
19.exd5 Rxd5 20.Qe3 Qg6 21.f3 Rfd8 22.a4 Rd2, with a small black
advantage.
18.Nd5
An interesting line is 18.Bf3!? f5 19.Nxf5 Nxf5 20.g3! Nxg3 21.fxg3 Qf7
22.Bg2 Qc7, and Black’s edge is microscopic.
18…Nxd5
Another plan is 18…Bxd5!? 19.exd5 e4.
19.exd5 Rc8
20.b4?!
White is unwilling to allow Rc5, but, at the same time, this weakens the
c3-pawn. After 20.a4! Rc5 21.axb5 axb5 22.Rfd1 Rxd5 23.Qe3! Qxe3
24.fxe3 Rb8 25.Kf2! Rxd1 26.Rxd1, the position is practically equal.
20…e4! 21.Qd4 Qe5 22.Qb6?!
There are better chances for an escape after 22.Qxe5 dxe5 23.a4 Rxc3
24.axb5 axb5 25.Rfd1 Rd8 26.Ra7 Bxd5 27.Ra5.
22…Bxd5 23.Qxa6 Ra8?!
23…Qxc3!? 24.Qxd6 (24.Qxb5 Be6) 24…Rfd8 is better.
24.Qxb5 Rfb8 25.Qd7 f5 26.Rfd1 Kh8
Or 26…Rb7 27.Rxd5 Rxd7 (27…Qxd5? 28.Bc4) 28.Rxe5 dxe5 29.a4,
with unclear play.
27.f4??
An absolutely unexpected move. After 27.a4!, chances are equal. For
example, 27…e3! (27…Rb7?! 28.Rxd5 Qxd5 29.Bc4 Qd1+ 30.Rxd1 Rxd7 )
28.f4 Qxc3 (28…Qxf4 29.Rxd5 f2 30.Kh1Qxe2 31.Rxd6 Qb2 32.Rxh6+
gxh6 33.Qd4+ with perpetual check) 29.Qxf5 Bb3 30.Qd3 Qxb4 31.Rf1!
Bxa4 32.Qxe3 Bc6 33.Rxa8 Rxa8.
27…exf3 28.Bxf3 Qe3 29.Kh1 Bxf3 30.gxf3 Qxf3 31.Kg1 Qg4
31…Re8! is still better.
32.Kf2?!
32.Kh1 Rxa2 etc. is more stubborn.
32…Re8 33.Re1 Qf4+ 34.Kg1 Rxe1+ 35.Rxe1 Rxa2 36.Qe8+ Kh7
37.Qe3
37.Re2 Ra1+ 38.Re1 Qg4+ does not save White either (39.Kf2 Qh4+
40.Kf1 Qh3+ 41.Kg1 Qxc3).
37…Qxh2 White resigned.
(11) Ostojic – Timoshchenko

Hastings 1966/1967
This game was played in the fifth round, on the first day of the New Year,
1967. My opponent was Predrag Ostojic from Yugoslavia, who was then a
well-known international master. He had a half-point lead on me before this
round, so our game was critical in the struggle for the championship. Perhaps,
this was the reason for many errors made at the board both by me, a
greenhorn, and by Ostojic, an experienced player.
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 Nd4
This variation is discussed in the chapter 34. Now 10…Bxf5 is practically
always played. Although an extremely rare move, 10…d5!, with equal play,
is also possible.
11.Nc4! Bxf5 12.Ne3 Be6 13.Bc4 Rc8! 14.Bxe6
This leads to equality. There is no advantage after 14.Bb3 either.
14…fxe6 15.0-0
15.Qh5+ Kd7 16.0-0-0 (or 16.0-0 Qf6!?) 16…Qe8 only plays into
Black’s hands.
15…Qh4! 16.f4
Neither 16.Ne2 Rg8 (16…Rc7!?) 17.Ng3 Rg6 nor 16.g3 Rg8 17.Kh1
Qh6 brings any advantage.
16…Bg7 17.fxe5 Bxe5 18.Ng4 (D)
18…Bg7??
And this natural-looking move turns out to be a real blunder. Black
should play 18…Rc5! with equal play. For example, 19.Re1 (19.Ne4
Bxh2!+) 19…Rg8 20.Nxe5 dxe5 21.Rf1 (or 21.Kh1 Rg6) 21…Rc7.
19.Ne4! Ke7 20.g3?

This throws away a great deal of White’s advantage. After 20.c3!, good
advice is hard for Black to come by. For example, 20…h5 (or 20…d5
21.cxd4 dxe4 22.Ne5) 21.Ngf2 Be5 (21…Nf5 22.g3 ) 22.g3 Rhg8 23.cxd4
Bxg3 24.Nxg3 Rxg3+ 25.Kh1, and Black has no attack.
20…Qh5 21.c3 d5?
Another very bad move. After 21…Qg6! 22.Re1 Nf5 23.Ne3 Kd7 24.Ng2
Be5, White stands slightly better, but Black’s position is quite defensible.
22.Nef6 Bxf6 23.Rxf6!
White has great advantage again; the black king is stuck in the center.
23…Nc6?!
23…Rhg8! gives better chances For example, 24.Qxd4 Rxg4 25.Qf2 Qe8
26.Rh6 Rc7 27.Re1 Rg6 28.Rxh7+ Kd8 29.Qb6 Qc6 30.Rh8+ Kd7 31.Qf2
Qc5.
24.Qe2 Nd8 25.Re1 Rc6 26.Qf3 Qg5
The last chance – Black begins his “counterplay” with a poker face –
which quite surprisingly works.
27.Rf5! Qd2 28.Re2 Qc1 29.Kg2 Rb6
And this is exactly the “counterplay” mentioned above. Ostojic’s time-
trouble nerves snap here.
30.Rxd5??
Both the simple 30.Qf2! and 30.Ne5! Rxb2 31.Rf7+ Ke8 32.Rxb2
Qxb2 33.Kh3 win here.
30…Rf8! 31.Rd7+
31.Rf5! Rxf5 32.Qxf5 Rxb2 33.Qc5+ Ke8 34.Nf6+ Kf7 35.Rf2 retains a
minimal advantage.
31…Kxd7 32.Qxf8 Rxb2= 33.Ne5+ Kc8 34.Qc5+ Nc6 35.Rxb2 Qxb2+
36.Kh3 Qxa2 37.Nxc6 bxc6 38.Qxc6+ Kd8 39.Qa8+ Kc7 40.Qa7+ Kc6
41.Qxh7 a5 42.Qe4+ Qd5 43.Qa4+ Qb5 44.Qe4 Qd5 45.Qa4+ Kb6 46.g4
Qd3+ 47.Kh4 Qxc3 48.g5 Qd3 49.Qe8 Qe4+ 50.Kh5 Qh7+ 51.Kg4 Qe4+
52.Kh5 Qh7+ 53.Kg4 Qf5+ 54.Kh5 and a draw was agreed.
Thus, I miraculously managed to escape. Now I think that the very
important quality that saved me during that game was my ability to put up a
good front and to keep my chin up in every position. It would help me more
than once in the following years.
So, Ostojic scored 8½ points out of 9 and I – 8 out of 9. The third prize-
winner had only 6 points.
The tournament organizers liked my play and invited me to take part in
the following year’s main tournament (although traditionally only the winner
of the challengers’ tournament was entitled to that). But then, a notorious
Soviet chess personality, grandmaster Alexander Kotov, came on the stage.
Shortly before the tournament, he had published an article in the main Soviet
newspaper Pravda in which he stated that “we pamper our young
chessplayers too much.” As a result, instead of my youthful self, a certain
lady went to the main tournament. Admittedly, she was a rather weak player,
but then she definitely was not very young. Her result was, well,
corresponding.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank Mr. Kotov for his great
contribution to the development of chess in the USSR. Just to be fair, I
should add that there was a powerful organization in the USSR that enjoyed
the privilege of vetoing the sending of a person to the same place twice (in
the geographical sense of the word). Those were harsh times.
(12) Kotkov – Timoshchenko

Tyumen 1967
My game against Yu. Kotkov, who was then a well-known master, had a
special psychological context.
Sometime in the spring of 1963, the men’s championship of the USSR
was held in Chelyabinsk. I was only 14 then and had been a first-category
player long enough, and I also took part in the competition. Admittedly, as a
demonstrator only. I should explain to younger readers that, in these times,
neither computers nor electronic boards existed, so they would hang out great
demonstration boards and special demonstrators had to move pieces across
them with long poles.
Once, while demonstrating a Kotkov’s game played with White (I do not
remember the name of his opponent), I was surprised at his tame play against
the Caro-Kann Defense (after all, the Botvinnik-Tal matches had just taken
place, in which Tal used to play much more active systems). So, I asked him
very politely why the maestro had chosen not to play “according to Tal.”
His answer was unexpected and haughty: “Young man, we are masters of
the old school…” and so on and so forth.
In 1967, I was already a much stronger player and looked forward to a
chance to see how a “master of the old school” was going to play against the
“young man” who had become much more mature since then and employed a
little-known variation.
The game was interesting. Black obtained a considerable advantage rather
soon, and, though his further play was far from perfect, the old school that
resisted desperately had to admit its defeat.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5
8.Bg5 a6 9.Na3 b5 10.Nd5 Be7 11.Nxe7 Qxe7!?
As I have already mentioned, the capture with a knight is much more
common here, but the text move is enough to equalize (see chapters 127-
128)..
12.c3
12.c4!? is more ambitious.
12…h6 13.Bh4?!
This move, made after some deliberation, was a novelty then, but its
value turned out to be dubious. In the only previous game, Minic-Gligoric
1959, there followed 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 with equal play.
13…0-0
Probably 13…g5!? is still better. 14.Bg3 0-0!N 15.Bd3 Rd8 16.h4 d5.
14.Nc2 g5 15.Bg3 Nxe4 16.Qd5 Nxg3 17.hxg3 Bb7 18.Qd2
Certainly, 18.Rxh6?? is impossible because of Nd4; nevertheless,
18.Qd3!? Qe6 19.g4 Ne7 is playable.
18…Qe6 19.0-0-0 Rad8 20.Be2
The continuation 20.Bd3!? with the idea of 20…d5?! (the correct reply is
20…f5!) 21.Rh5 Kg7?? 22.Rxg5+ is worth attention.
20…d5 21.Ne3
After 21.Rh5 Kg7 22.Rdh1 Rh8 23.f4 f6 24.Kb1 d4!, Black has a great
advantage.
21…Kg7 22.Ng4?
An obvious error. 22.Nxd5?? is impossible in view of 22…Ne7 23.Nc7
Qc8 ; the best move is 22.g4, but even then Black has great advantage after
22…Ne7.
22…Rh8
Now White’s position is hopeless.
23.f4 d4! 24.fxg5 h5 25.Nh6 dxc3 26.Qxc3 Nd4 27.Qe3 Qc6 28.Kb1
(D)
28…Qe4?+
What a shame! Black had been playing very well, but now he makes a
mistake. Although the ensuing endgame is won, he could have been more
careful in calculating the variation 28…Qc2!+ 29.Ka1 Qxe2 30.Nf5 Kg6
31.Ne7 Kh7, and the h5-pawn is defended.
29.Qxe4 Bxe4+ 30.Bd3 Bxd3
30…Bxg2! 31.Rhe1 f6 32.Nf5 Nxf5 33.Bxf5 fxg5 is simpler.
31.Rxd3 f6
And here a better move is 31…Kg6!, with the idea of 32.Rf1 f5.
32.Rf1 fxg5 33.Nf5 Nxf5 34.Rxd8 Rxd8 35.Rxf5 Kg6 36.Rxe5 Rd2
37.Re6+ Kf5 38.Rxa6 Rxg2 39.Ra5 Rxg3?
Time-trouble. 39…Kg4! is both simpler and better.
40.Rxb5+
White has a chance to play 40.a4!?, but analysis shows that Black wins
anyway.
40…Ke4?!
It looks like both 40…Kg4 and 40…Kf4 are more precise.
41.Rb8 h4 42.a4 h3 43.Rh8 g4 44.a5 Rb3
And here simpler is 44…Rg1!+ 45.Ka2 Rd1 .
45.a6 Rb6 46.a7 Ra6 47.a8Q Rxa8 48.Rxa8 h2 49.Rh8 g3 50.Ka2 Ke3
51.Rh7 (last chance) 51…Kf2!
The hasty 51…g2?? leads to a well-known drawn position after 52.Rh3+
(52.Rxh2 g1Q 53.Rh3+ is also enough for a draw) 52…Ke4 53.Rxh2 g1Q
54.Rh3.
52.b4 Kg1 53.b5 g2 54.b6 h1Q 55.b7 Qxh7 56.b8Q Kh1 57.Qa8 Qc2+
58.Ka1 Qc3+ 59.Ka2 Kh2 60.Qb8+ Kh3 61.Qb6 Qc2+ 62.Ka1 Qc1+
63.Ka2 g1Q 64.Qe6+ Qg4 65.Qb3+ Kh4 66.Qg3+ and White resigned.
(13) Pozharsky – Timoshchenko

Leningrad 1967
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 Bg5 13.c3 Ne7!
This concept, obviously the main one now, occurred in this game for the
first time. White has played the opening inaccurately and left his knight on
a3, so it is too late to take part in the struggle for the d5-square.
14.Nxe7+ Qxe7 15.c4?!
Black is fully equal, and now it is already White’s turn to watch out. It
seems logical for him to bring his knight into play with 15.Nc2, after which
the following variation is possible: 15…Bb7 16.Bf3 d5 17.exd5 Rad8 18.Re1
f5 19.a4 e4 20.axb5 Rxd5 21.Nd4 axb5 22.Qb3 Kh8 23.Ra7 Rxd4 24.cxd4
Bd5 25.Qxd5 Qxa7, with excellent play for Black.
15…Bb7!
Strange as it may seem, even now this move is a novelty; only 15…bxc4
and 15…b4 have occurred.
16.cxb5
A highly risky move; it is more precise to defend the e4-pawn through
either 16.Bd3 or 16.Qd3.
16…Bxe4
This is the first occurrence of the idea of sacrificing the b5- and a6-pawns
in such a position. Later it would become very fashionable, but here it is well
ahead of its time. For example, the first games in the popular variation with
10.Ne7 Ne7 11.Bf6 gf 12.c4 Bb7 13.cb Be4 were not played until 1975
(Izvozchikov-Sveshnikov and Semeniuk-Sveshnikov).
17.Bf3
The idea is to weaken the light squares in the black camp. After 17.bxa6
d5, Black’s initiative is more than adequate compensation for the sacrificed
pawn.
17…Bxf3 18.Qxf3 e4! 19.Qe2
19.Qb3!? is worth attention here.
19…axb5
And here 19…d5 20.bxa6 Rfd8 is interesting.
20.Nxb5 f5?!
Black intends to transfer his bishop to e5, but 20…d5, with a small
advantage, is simpler.
21.Rad1 (21.Rfd1!?) 21…Bf4 (21…Rxa2!?) 22.g3 Be5 23.f4 exf3
24.Qxf3 Kh8
Black is quite obviously unwilling to exchange queens after 24…Rxa2
25.Qb3+.
25.Qd5 Ra5
Unfortunately, 25…f4 would not work because of 26.Nxd6 fxg3??
27.Nf7+.
26.Kh1?
A miscalculation; otherwise, why give up a pawn? The correct answer is
26.b4! Ra6 27.Rd2 f4, with complicated play.
26…Bxb2 27.Rxf5??
Consistent, but it loses for White straightaway. 27.Qxd6 Qe8! 28.Nd4
Qe4+ 29.Nf3 Qa8, with advantage to Black is better.
27…Rxb5! 28.Qxb5
Or 28.Rxf8+ Qxf8 29.Qxb5 Qf3+ .
28…Qe4+ 29.Kg1 Bd4+ 30.Rxd4 Qxd4+ 31.Kf1 Qd1+ and White
resigned.
(14) Agzamov – Timoshchenko

Leningrad 1967
My opponent in this game was Valery Agzamov, brother of the well-
known grandmaster Georgy Agzamov.
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.Bd3
Now everyone knows that the correct move is 13.a4!.
13…Ne7! 14.Nxe7
Probably 14.Nce3 is more precise.
14…Qxe7 15.0-0 Bb7
15…Qb7!? is interesting.
16.Qe2
On 16.a4, there is a possible novelty: 16…d5!?.
16…f5!
With this move, Black securely seizes the initiative.
17.f3
Solid but passive play. 17.Nb4 a5 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 b4 is favorable
for Black.
There is an interesting-looking variation 17.Rae1 fxe4 18.Bxe4 d5
19.Bxd5 Bxd5 20.Qxe5 Bc4 21.Qxe7 Bxe7 22.Rxe7 Bxf1 23.Kxf1 Rad8
24.Nd4 b4, destroying White’s queenside and obtaining a small advantage.
Probably the best move is 17.exf5!?. For example, 18…e4 18.Rae1
Rae8!? (18…exd3 19.Qxe7 Bxe7 20.Rxe7 dxc2 21.Rxb7 Rxf5 22.Rc1 Rd5
23.Re7 Rd1 24.Re1 Rd2 25.Kf1 Rf8 26.Re2 Rd1 27.Re1 Rd2 28.Re2 leads
only to a draw) 19.Qd1! (19.Qg4 Bd2! 20.Re2? Qg5 21.Qxg5 Bxg5
22.Rfe1? exd3 23.Rxe8 dxc2 ) 19…Rxf5 20.Ne3 Bxe3 21.Rxe3 Ref8
22.Bc2 d5 23.Qd4 h5 and Black has some pressure.
17…d5! 18.Rae1
18.exf5?? e4 19.Rae1 Qc5+ results in the loss of a piece.
18…dxe4 19.fxe4 f4 20.Nb4 Bh4 21.Rd1 Rf6 22.Bc2
On 22.Nd5, Black will certainly refuse to grab the knight but continues
with his plan 22…Qc5+ 23.Kh1 Rh6.
22…Raf8 23.Kh1 Rh6 24.Rf3?
A serious blunder. White should have played 24.Nd5 Qe8 25.h3, even
though, after 25…Bc8, Black’s advantage is obvious.
24…Bg3 25.h3 Bc8 26.Rfd3? Bxh3 27.gxh3 Rxh3+ 28.Kg1 Qc5 and
White resigned.
(15) Gulko – Timoshchenko

Kharkov 1967
This game, against the would-be famous grandmaster, is very interesting.
Errors are the evidence of the tenseness of the struggle.
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bc4 Qg5 11.g3
This move, clearly the most fashionable one now, occurs in this game for
the first time. By the way, its popularity is clearly undeserved (see chapter
32).
11…fxe4!
This move is the best one in this position. It would appear in official
databases only 24 years later. 11…Nd4 12.Nd5 fxe4 is common enough.
12.Nd5
Nobody had ever played like this before. White always took the pawn,
but, after 12.Nxe4 Qg6 13.Bd5 Be6 14.c3!?N 0-0-0!? 15.Bxc6 bxc6 16.Qa4
Kb7, Black’s position is slightly better. But the best move here is 12.Bd5!N.
12…Nd4!?
Now the play comes down to a well-known variation with 11…Nd4. The
engine points out the cold-blooded 12…Rb8!, for example, 13.Be2 b5 14.c4
Nd4 15.cxb5 Qd8!? 16.0-0 axb5, and Black has a small edge.
13.f4?!
Highly risky. The usual 13.Nc7+ does not bring any advantage for White.
13…exf3! 14.c3
14…Bg4?!
The correct continuation is 14…f2!+ 15.Kxf2 Ne6, with a slight
advantage for Black.
15.Kf2 (the only move) 15…Ne2?
Both 15…Nc6 and 15…Ne6 lead to equal play.
16.Qa4!+ Bd7 17.Nc7?+
A mistake. The correct move is 17.Bb5!, and White has a serious
advantage in the position which has appeared in the game after move
repetition.
17…Ke7
One possible move is 17…Kd8, for example, 18.Qa5 Ke7 19.Nd5+ Ke8
20.Nb5! Be7 21.Nbc7+ Kf8 22.Bxe2! (22.Nxa8?? Nxg3! 23.hxg3 Qd2+
24.Kxf3 Rg8! 25.Ne3 e4+ 26.Kxe4 Rxg3 27.Rae1 b5!, and Black wins) 22…
fxe2 23.Nxa8 Bc6 24.Nac7 Qf5+ 25.Ke1 Qd3, with unclear play.
18.Nd5+ Ke8?
Black repeats the position, but it would be better to retreat to d8 – 18…
Kd8! 19.Qa5!+ Ke8, and we come to the position that has been analyzed in
the 17…Kd8 variation.
19.Bb5!
Now White possesses great advantage, but the play is sharp.
19…Nxg3! 20.Bxd7+ Kd8
21.Bg4?
And after this we have a draw. 21.hxg3 Qd2+ 22.Kxf3 Qxd5+ also leads
to a draw.
The correct continuation is 21.Rhg1! Nh1!+ 22.Kf1!, for example, 22…
Qd2 23.Qh4!+ Kxd7 24.Qg4+ Kc6 25.Nb4+ Kc5!? 26.Qxf3 Qf2+ 27.Qxf2
Nxf2 28.Kxf2, and Black has no adequate compensation for his piece.
21…Nxh1+ 22.Rxh1
22.Kf1 f5 23.Nb6 (23.Bxf3 Rg8!) 23…Ke7 24.Qd7+ Kf6 25.Bxf3 e4 is
risky. For example, 26.Nd5+ Kg6 (but not 26…Ke5?? 27.Nc4+ Kxd5
28.Qf7+ Kc6 29.Na5+ Kc5 30.b4+ Kb5 31.Qd7+ Kb6 32.Qxb7#) 27.Qe6
Kg7 28.Bxh1 Rg8, and the only one with problems is White.
22…Qd2+
22…f5, with equal chances, is also possible.
23.Kg3 Qg2+ 24.Kh4 Be7+ 25.Nxe7 Kxe7 26.Qd7+ Kf8 27.Bh5
Or 27.Qxd6+ Kg8 28.Qxe5 Qxh1 29.Qg5+ with a draw.
27…Qf2+ 28.Kh3 Qg2+ 29.Kh4 Draw.
(16) Donchenko – Timoshchenko

Chelyabinsk 1967
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Be2 (a
tame move that creates no problems for Black) 7…a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Nxe4!
This move, which is now the main one, occurred for the first time in this
game.
10.c4?!
10.Bf3 f5 11.Be3 Rb8 12.0-0 is better, but even then Black is quite
comfortable.
10…Nd4?!
A novelty even for our times, but not quite a successful one. But here is
already a serious novelty that casts doubts on the move 10.c4 – 10…Qa5!+
11.Bd2 Nxd2 12.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Kd8!, for example, 14.cxb5 Be6
15.Bc4 axb5 16.Nxb5 Na5 17.b3 Rc8 18.Rhc1 Rc5, and White has to fight
for a draw.
11.0-0
It is worth thinking about 11.Be3!?.
11…Bb7 12.f4
Once again, 12.Be3!? is a good move.
12…Bxd5! 13.cxd5 Be7 14.Nc2 Nxe2+ 15.Qxe2 Nf6 16.Nb4 0-0
Complications are over, with an advantage for Black.
17.Nc6?! Qd7 18.fxe5 Nxd5 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7 20.Qd3?!
Another inaccuracy. More stubborn is 20.Rd1, but, after 20…Nf6!
21.Rxd6 Rfe8 22.Kf1 (with the threat of 22…Qd6) 22…Qxe5 23.Qxe5 Rxe5,
Black is a pawn up.
20…Qxe5 21.Bd2 Nc7?!
21…Nf6 is better: 22.Bc3 Qc5+ 23.Bd4 Qd5, and White has no real
threats.
22.Rf5?!
Time trouble. 22.Bc3 Qc5+ 23.Kh1 holds out longer.
22…Qxb2 23.Bc3 Qa3 24.Rh5 f5 25.Qd2 Qc5+ 26.Kh1 Qd5 27.Qf2
Rae8 28.Qg3 Rf7 29.Rc1 Re2 30.Qh3 g6! 31.Rg5 Qe6 32.Qh4 Nd5 33.Bd4
Re7 34.Rg3 Re1+ 35.Rxe1 Qxe1+ 36.Bg1 f4 37.Qg5 fxg3 38.Qxd5+ Qe6
39.Qa8 Re8 40.Qxa6 gxh2 and White resigned.
(17) Belyshev – Timoshchenko

Chelyabinsk 1967
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 Nd4 11.Nc4 Bxf5 12.Ne3 Be6 13.Bc4 Qh4
In search of new paths. This move would only appear in the databases 45
years later. But still, 13…Rc8! is more precise (see game 11, Ostojic-
Timoshchenko).
14.Bxe6? An error, after which the advantage shifts to Black. The correct
continuation is 14.g3!N Qh6 (or 14…Qh3 15.Bf1 Qh6 16.Bg2) 15.0-0 Bg7
16.Ncd5, with advantage for White.
14…fxe6 15.Ne2 Rg8
An error as a result of miscalculation. After 15…d5!, Black’s chances are
better.
16.c3 Bh6?!
Black follows his plan. He should have returned with his knight first
(16…Nc6), and later, after 17.Qb3, with his queen (Qe7), maintaining his
minimal advantage.
17.Nxd4?
Black plan is put in doubt by 17.cxd4! Bxe3 18.g3 Qe4 19.0-0 Bxd4
20.Nxd4 exd4 (20…Qxd4 21.Qh5 ) 21.Qb3 Kd7!? 22.Rad1! Rac8 23.Qa4.
17…Bxe3 A simpler way is 17…exd4 18. Qxd4 Qxd4 19.cxd4 Bxe3
20.fxe3 Rxg2 21.Rc1 Rd8, and Black has a small edge.
18.0-0 Bf4 19.Nf3 Qh3 20.g3 0-0-0 21.Kh1 Bh6 22.b4?! 22.Qe2! is
better. 22…e4 The move 22…Qg4!? with the idea of Rgf8 is worth attention.
23.Ng1 Qf5 24.Qe2 Kb8 25.a4?!
25.b5!? is better, for example, 25…Qxb5 26.Qxe4 with unclear play.
25…Rc8 26.b5 a5 27.c4?!
27.Rad1! d5 28.f3 Rxc3 29.fxe4 Qxe4 30.Qxe4 dxe4 31.Rd7 retains
chances for an escape.
27…d5 28.cxd5 exd5 29.Rad1 Rc4! 30.Qa2 The last chance was 30.f3!
30…Rgc8 31.Qb3 d4 32.Kg2 Rc3 33.Qb1 d3 34.h3 Qd5 35.Kh2 e3
36.fxe3 Rc2 White resigned.
(18) Podgaets – Timoshchenko

Odessa 1968
This game was played at the USSR Student Championship against a
serious opponent, Mikhail Podgaets, who would be, for many years, Anatoly
Karpov’s coach.
Misha was widely known for his continuous smiling, but it was our first
game, so I was really confused. Why does my opponent keep smiling all the
time? Could it be that my play is laughably weak?
In order to even the odds, I also feigned a charming smile and looked at
him with innocent eyes. The effect was most striking; Misha had got terribly
embarrassed and quickly lost the game.
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 Bxf5
This move is rather common now. The variation will be discussed in the
chapter 36.
11.Nd5!
First occurrence of the strongest move.
11…Bg7 12.Nc4 0-0 13.Nce3
The knight’s position on e3 is insecure.
The move 13.c3! is more precise. On 13…Be6, the knight would move to
b6: 14.Ncb6! (but not 14.Nxd6? Nd4! 15.cxd4 exd4, and Black has a great
advantage), and, after 13…b5! 14.Nce3, the play comes down to the variation
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.exf5 Bxf5 12.c3 Bg7 13.Nc2 0-0
14.Nce3, which is well-examined now and in which Black has good chances
for equalizing.
But, I must emphasize that the word “well-examined” refers to our time
only, and the first game with a position after 14.Nce3 really appeared only in
1975.
13…Be6 14.c3 f5 15.Bd3
This configuration of the white pieces occurs for the first time, and Black
finds it difficult to advance his pawns.
15…Rc8
The white pawns get blockaded after 15…e4 16.Nf4! Bf7 17.Bc4.
If 15…f4, then after 16.Qh5 Rf7 17.Bxh7+ Kf8 18.Bf5 Qe8 19.Bxe6
Qxe6 20.Qg4! Qh6 (the position is very similar to one discussed in the main
part of the book, chapter 77 in connection with the line 16.Bc2 f4!, but then
the pawn is already on b5, and here it is still on b7. So, the white knight can
move to c4) 21.Nc4! e4!? (or 21…b5 22.Ncb6 Rd8 23.0-0-0, and Black’s
initiative is not worth a pawn) 22.Ndb6 Re8 23.0-0-0 Re6 24.Rhe1 Kg8
25.Kb1 e3! 26.fxe3 fxe3 27.Nd5 Ne5, White retains a small advantage.
The line 15…Bh6!?, with three ideas at once – e4, f4 or Bxe3 – is looking
good.
If desired, the play could have transposed to the above-mentioned
variation 8.Na3 b5 by way of 15…b5!?.
16.Bc2
On the tempting 16.Qh5!?, I can offer 16…e4 17.Nf4 Bf7 18.Bc4 Bxc4
19.Nxc4 d5!?N 20.Rd1 d4 21.Ne6 Qe7 22.Nxf8 Rxf8 23.cxd4 Qb4+ 24.Nd2
Qxb2 25.d5 Nd4 26.0-0 Qxa2 27.d6 Qe6; however, this variation needs
additional analysis. After that, it is possible to play 28.Kh1 a5! (28…Qxd6
29.Nb3 b5 30.Rxd4 Bxd4 31.Rd1 ) 29.d7 Qxd7 30.Nb3 a4 31.Nxd4 Bxd4
32.Rd2 Qb5, and Black manages to hold out.
16…Qg5!?
Black had an opportunity to equalize easily through 16…Nd4!? 17.cxd4
exd4, but he aims at the more complicated position.
17.h4
17.Nb6 Rce8! is absolutely unpromising. Possibly 17.g3! is stronger as
Black cannot play 17…f4 now because of 18.h4 Qh6 (the variation 18…Qd8
19.Qh5 Rf7 20.Bxh7+ Kf8 21.Bf5 Rxf5 22.Nxf5 Bxd5 23.Rg1 f3 24. 0-0-0 is
advantageous for White) 19.Ng4 Bxg4 20. Qxg4 fxg3 21.fxg3, and White
stands better.
17…Qh6 18.f3?!
18.g4 fxg4 looks tempting. 19.Nxg4 Bxg4 20.Qxg4, but, after 20…e4
21.Qg5 (21.Bxe4 Kh8 22.f3 Ne5 23.Qg2 Rce8 24.Kd1 Qh5 is no better) 21…
Kh8 22.Qxh6 Bxh6 23.Rd1 Ne5 24.Ke2 Rce8, Black has no problems.
18…Kh8!
A calm move that solidifies Black’s advantage (D)
19.Qd2
The best chance is 19.g4!, for example, 19…fxg4 20.fxg4 Bf6! 21.Nf5
(or 21.Qe2 Bxh4 22.Kd1 e4! 23.Qe1 [23.Bxe4 Qg5 ] 23…Bxd5 24.Rxh4
Qe6 25.Qd2 Qf6! 26.Rh3 Bg8 27.Bxe4 d5 28.Bf5 Rcd8, with an advantage
for Black) 21…Bxf5 22.Bxf5 Bxh4+ 23. Kf1 (23.Ke2 Rxf5 24.gxf5
Qh5+ 25.Kd2 Qxf5 with an attack) 23…Ne7 24.Nxe7 Qf4+ 25.Ke2 Rxf5
26.Nxf5 Qxg4+ 27.Kd2 Qxf5 28.Rxh4 Qf2+ 29.Kc1 Qxh4 30.Qxd6, and,
despite Black’s extra pawn, White can put up stubborn resistance.
19…b5
With the idea of opening up the diagonal for his g7-bishop with …b5-b4;
however, that gives White some breathing room. There is a more energetic
move, 19…Nd4!. For example, 20.0-0-0 f4 21.Ng4 Qh5 22.Be4 Rc5! 23.Kb1
Rxd5! (23…Bxd5 ) 24.Bxd5 Bxd5 25.cxd4 e4 26.Qc3 e3 27.Rhe1 Bf7
28.Ka1 a5! 29.Rd3 a4, and Black’s position is practically won in view the
threat of …Qd5.
20.Rd1?!
After this, White’s position swiftly collapses. The move 20.g4! retains
good drawing chances for White. A possible continuation is 20…fxg4
21.fxg4 Nd4!? (in the long variation 21…Bxd5 22.Nxd5 Qxd2+ 23.Kxd2
Rf2+ 24.Kd1 e4! 25.Bxe4 Ne5 26.a4 b4 27.Nxb4 Nc4! 28.Nd3 Nxb2+
29.Nxb2 Bxc3 30.Nd3 Rd2+ 31.Kc1 Re2 32.Bf5 Rc7 33.Nf4 Bxa1+ 34.Kb1
Rf2 35.Nd3, I was unable to find any real advantage for Black) 22.0-0-0
Bxd5 23.Nxd5 Rf2 24.Qxh6 Bxh6+ 25.g5 Rxc2+ 26.Kb1 Bg7 27.cxd4 exd4
28.Nf6 Bxf6 29.gxf6 Rf2 30.Rxd4 Rxf6, and, despite Black’s extra pawn, the
outcome of the game is far from clear.
20…e4! 21.f4 b4! 22.g3?
22.Qe2 is better.
22…bxc3 23.bxc3 Ne7!
Black’s position is winning.
24.Bb3 Nxd5 25.Nxd5 Bxd5 26.Qxd5 Rxc3 27.Kf2 Qh5 28.Rh3 Qg4
29.Kg2 Qe2+ 30.Kg1 Qe3 31.Kg2 Rfc8 32.Rf1 Rd3, and White resigned.
(19) Kadaner – Timoshchenko

Kazan 1968
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.g3 (first
occurrence)
13…Na5
No one had played like this in this position before. It was not until 1982,
in Passerotti-Skembris, that an idea appeared about how to counter g2-g3, but
only after 13.a4 Rb8 14.axb5 axb5 15.g3 Kh8 16.Bg2. The computer states
that the most precise move is 13…Ne7!, and Black does not have the
slightest problem.
14.b4!?
Interesting play. Here the engine recommends 14.h4!? Bh6 15.Ncb4 Bb7
16.a4.
14…Nc4 15.Bxc4 bxc4 16.Nce3
This leads to equality. A sharper continuation is 16.h4!? Bh6 17.Na3, but,
after 17…f5, White’s position becomes unbalanced. For example, 18.Nxc4
fxe4 19.g4! g6 20.Qe2 Bb7 21.Rd1 (21.Ncb6 Rc8) 21…e3!? 22.fxe3 Rc8!,
and Black has full compensation for his pawn.
16…Bxe3 17.Nxe3 Bb7 18.f3.
18.Nxc4?! Qc7 is doubtful.
18…a5! 19.bxa5?!
19.b5 is better. Then, Black can keep on playing for complications with
19…f5!? (19…Qb6 20.Qd2 Qxb5 21.Nf5 Rab8 22.Qg5 g6 23.Ne7+ Kg7
24.Nf5+ Kg8 25.Ne7+ leads only to a draw) 20.Nxf5 d5 21.Rf1 Qb6!.
19…Qxa5
Now Black has a small advantage.
20.Qd2 Qc5?!
An inaccuracy. The correct continuation is 20…Rad8! 21.Rb1 (21.Nf5
f6!, with a clear advantage) 21…Ba8 22.Nf5 Kh8! 23.Rd1 (23.Nxg7? d5 )
23…d5 24.Qg5 Rg8 25.0-0 f6, and Black’s play is obviously better.
21.Ke2?!
White has thrown away his chance. After 21.Nf5! Rfd8 22.Qg5 g6
23.h4!, Black, to avoid the worst, would have to resign himself to a draw
(23.Nh6+ Kf8 24.Qf6?? Qe3+ ).
21…Kh8?!
There is an interesting opportunity: 21…d5!, for example, 22.Rhb1 (or
22.exd5 Rad8 23.Rhd1 f5 24.Rab1 Rd7; or 22.Nxd5 f5 23.Rhf1 Kh8) 22…
Rab8 23.exd5 f5.
22.Rhb1 Bc6 23.Rb4?!
23.a4 is more stubborn. A possible reply is 23…Rad8 24.Rb4 d5.
23…f5! 24.exf5
After 24.Nxf5 d5, Black also has an advantage as 25.Qe3 is bad because
of 25…d4 – the rook on b4 stands badly!
24…d5 25.a4 Rad8 26.Rd1
26…g6
A shorter way to the goal is the tactical variation 26…Qe7! 27. Kf1 d4
28.cxd4 Bxf3 29.Re1 exd4 30.Nxc4 Qc5 31.Ne5 Bb7!! 32.Rxb7 Rxf5+
33.Kg1 d3+ 34.Kh1 Qd5+ 35.Qg2 d2 36.Rd1 Qxe5, and Black’s position is
won.
27.fxg6?
27.Kf1 allows White to hold out longer.
27…d4! 28.Rxc4 Bxf3+ 29.Ke1 Qa7?!
The better continuation is 29…Qe7! 30.cxd4 Bxd1 31.Nxd1 exd4+
32.Qe2 Qg5! .
30.cxd4 Bxd1 31.Kxd1? (31. Nxd1! ) Rxd4 32.Rxd4 exd4 33.Nc2
Rf1+ 34.Ne1 Qxa4+ 35.Ke2 Qc4+ 36.Nd3?! Rh1 37.Kf3 Qc6+ 38.Kg4
Qxg6+ 39.Kf3 Qh5?!+
Time trouble. The correct continuation is 39…Qc6!+ 40.Kg4 Qe6+
41.Kf3 Qd5+ 42.Kg4 h5!+ 43.Kh4 (43.Kf4 Rf1+ 44.Nf2 Rxf2+ 45.Qxf2 Qf7
) 43…Qe6+ 44.Kxh5 Qf5+ 45.Kh4 Rxh2+ 46.Qxh2 Qh7+ .
40.Ke4 Rd1 41.Qf4? (41.Qc2!) 41…Qg6+ and White resigned.
(20) Stukaturkin – Timoshchenko

Rostov-on-Don 1970
1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Qh5?! d5?!
This move had already occurred in several games by this time. Then, it
was thought to be advantageous for Black, but my opponent prepared a
strong novelty that led to equal chances. Thus, it is better to play 10…b5! –
this move will be considered in detail in chapter 30 – with advantage to
Black.
11.0-0-0!
And this is the novelty.
11…Bxa3?!
Here, 11…Nd4! leads to equality.
12.bxa3 fxe4?!
Instead of this weak move, Black should have chosen 12…d4!N, with the
possible continuation 13.exf5 Qa5 14.Ne4 Qxa3+ 15.Kb1 b5, and White has
a slight edge.
As Black has already made three inaccuracies, the game is now of no
theoretical interest at all, so the rest of it does not need any comment. After
the error 13.Rd5, Black’s position is worse, but he managed to hold it without
any particular problems.
13.Rxd5? Qf6 14.Rd2 Qg6 15.Qxg6 hxg6 16.Nxe4 Ke7 17.Bc4 Rh4
18.f3 Bf5 19.Nd6 Nd4 20.Nxf7 Nxf3 21.gxf3 Rxc4 22.Nxe5 Rc3 23.Re1
Rac8 24.Ree2 Kf6 25.f4 Rxa3 26.Rd6+ Kg7 27.Rb6 Rc7 28.c4 Rh3
29.Kb2 Re7 30.Rf2 Re3 31.Rb3 Re1 32.Rg3 Kh7 33.Kc3 Rc7 34.Kb4 b5
35.cxb5 Rb7 36.a4 axb5 37.axb5 Rb1 38.Rb3 and a draw was agreed.
(21) Khe – Timoshchenko

Kiev 1970
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Nb3 Bb4 7.Bc4!?
d6
The most precise continuation is 7…0-0! (see Part I, Chapter 1).
8.0-0 (first occurrence) 8…0-0?!
Black should have damaged White’s pawn structure with 8…Bxc3!.
9.Bg5
Nobody has ever pointed out the correct counter: 9.Nd5! Nxe4 10.Qe2!N
(the “double” blow 10.Nxb4?! Nxb4 11.Qe1 does not help because of 11…d5
12.Qxb4 dxc4 13.Qxc4 Bf5, and Black stands slightly better.) 10…Nc5
(10…Nf6 11.Bg5 ) 11.Rd1! (or 11.c3 Ba5 12.Qh5 Qd7! 13.Bg5! Ne6
14.Nxa5 Nxa5 15.Bd3 Nxg5 16.Qxg5 f6 17.Qh4 h6, and Black manages to
hold out; 14.Nf6+ gxf6 15.Bxf6 does not win because of 15…Ng7!) 11…
Qh4 12.Nxb4 Nxb4 13.c3 Nc6 14.Rxd6, and White has a small positional
advantage.
9…Bxc3 10.bxc3 h6 11.Bxf6
11.Bh4? g5 is weaker.
11…Qxf6
This position usually arises via the move order 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bxf6 Bxc3+
9.bxc3 Qxf6 10.Bc4 0-0 11.0-0 d6. Black has a slight advantage.
12.Qd3
12.Bd5 is more common.
12…Rd8 13.Rad1 Be6 14.Rd2 Ne7! 15.Rfd1 Rac8 16.Bxe6 Qxe6
17.Qe3 b6 18.Rd3
18.a4!, with the idea of a4-a5, is better.
18…Rc4!
Black possesses a clear positional advantage.
19.Re1 Rdc8 20.Qd2 R8c6 21.f4 Kh7
21…Qg4! is stronger.
22.f5 Qf6 23.Rh3 Ra4 24.Nc1 d5! 25.exd5 Rd6 26.c4 Rxc4 27.Qe2
Black’s position is very nearly won, but in severe mutual time trouble he
begins to play for complications – and it almost costs him.
27…Rf4?
Much simpler is 27…Rc7! 28.c4 b5!, ruining White’s pawn structure to
go after the pawns later at leisure. For example, 29.cxb5 Rxd5 30.Nd3 Rxb5
31.Nxe5 Qb6+ 32.Kh1 Nxf5, and White’s position is difficult.
28.Nd3?
After 28.c4! b5! 29.Qxe5 Rxc4 30.Qxe7 Qxe7 31.Rxe7 Rxc1+ 32.Kf2
Rxd5 33.Rxf7 Rd2+ 34.Kf3 Rxa2 35.Rg3, White still has chances to draw.
28…Rxf5?
The only move that is really a blunder, as the advantage is now White’s.
Quite unexpectedly, black pieces start to impede each other. The winning
continuation is 28…Nxd5! 29.Qxe5 Rxf5 30.Qxf6 Nxf6.
29.g4! Rg5 30.Rf1 Nf5!
30…Qg6 31.Nxe5 does not help.
31.Kh1!?
Another strong continuation is 31.Qe4! g6 32.Nxe5.
31…e4?
An attempt to confuse the play under time trouble that turns out to be
successful. Black can see that, with a “normal” course of action, 31…Rxd5
32.Rxf5 Rxf5 33.Qe4! Rd4 34.Qxf5+ Qxf5 35.gxf5 f6, he faces difficult
struggle for a draw in a simple ending, so he decides to take a risk.
32.Qxe4?
32.Nf2! Nd4 33.Qxe4+y is stronger.
32…Qd4 33.Nf2 Rxd5 34.gxf5??
A time-trouble inaccuracy, but try to find the following variation quickly:
34.Rd3! Qxe4+ 35.Nxe4 Rxg4 36.Rxd5 Ne3 37.Rd4! Nxf1 38.Nf6+ gxf6
39.Rxg4 Ne3 40.Rd4 Nxc2 41.Rd7. Although Black is three pawns up,
White’s position is better!
34…Qxf2 35.f6+ g6 36.Qf3 Qxf3+
Enough for a win, but 36…Qxc2! is even better.
37.Rhxf3 Rd2 38.R3f2 Rxf2 39.Rxf2 Rf5 40.Rd2 Rxf6 41.Kg2 g5
42.a4 Kg6 43.Re2 Rc6 44.Rd2 Rc4 White resigned.
(22) Kashljak – Timoshchenko

Kiev 1970
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Nb3 Bb4 7.Bc4 0-0
8.Qd3 d6
First occurrence. Before this game, the move 8…d5!? had been played
once.
9.0-0 Bxc3 10.bxc3 Qe7!?
Even now, this is a novelty.
11.Ba3
11.Bg5 or 11.Rd1 is probably better.
11…Rd8 12.Rfd1 Be6 13.Bxe6
Black has a clear advantage now. The preferable continuation is 13.Bd5
Rac8 14.c4.
13…Qxe6 14.c4 b6 15.Rd2 Rac8 16.Rad1 Ne8
There is the strong reply 16…a5! (with an idea of a5-a4 and then …Na5).
17.Qe2 h6 (17…a5!) 18.h3 Qe7
And here,18…a5! is also stronger.
19.Qg4 Rc7 20.Rd3 Nf6 21.Qh4
21.Qf5!? is more accurate.
21…Rcd7 22.Rg3 Kh7
A natural-looking move, but 22…Kf8! is better: 23.Rgd3 Qe6 24.c5 dxc5
25.Bxc5+ Kg8 26.Ba3 Rxd3 27.Rxd3 Rxd3 28.cxd3 Qd7 29.Qg3 Nh5, with a
clear black advantage.
23.Bc1 Ne8 24.Qxe7
Now the game transposes into an ending that is worse for White. The
alternative is an inferior middle game after 24.Bg5 f6 25.Bc1 Qf7 26.Qg4
Rc7.
24…Nxe7 25.Ba3 Ng6 26.Rgd3 Nf4 27.R3d2 Rc8
28.c5 bxc5 29.Bxc5 Rdc7 30.Bxd6 Nxd6 31.Rxd6 Rxc2
31…Ne2!?+ 32.Kf1 Nc3 33.Re1 Nxa2 is slightly better.
32.R1d2 Rxd2 33.Rxd2 Rc4 34.f3 h5 35.Rd7?!
White should not have let the black pawn go to h4; the correct move is
35.h4!.
35…h4 36.Rd2
Or 36.Rxf7 Rc2, with obvious advantage.
36…f6
Black has a better ending that he manages to turn into a win, but not
without his opponent’s collaboration.
37.Kf2 Rc3 38.Ke1 Kg6 39.Kd1 Kg5 40.Nc1?! a5! 41.Rd7 g6 42.Ne2
Nxe2 43.Kxe2 Rc2+ 44.Rd2 Rxd2+ 45.Kxd2 Kf4 46.Ke2 Kg3 47.Kf1 a4
48.a3 f5 49.exf5 gxf5 50.Kg1 e4 51.fxe4 fxe4 52.Kf1 e3 53.Ke2 Kxg2
54.Kxe3 Kxh3 55.Kf3 Kh2 56.Kf2 h3 White resigned.
(23) Pulkis – Timoshchenko

Liepaja 1970
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Be2
Be6?!
A novelty for its time, but not a very successful one. The correct answer
is 7…a6 – see game 16 in this chapter.
8.Nd5!
Surprise, surprise! This is the only way to struggle for the advantage, but,
curiously enough, no one had ever made this move until then.
8…Rc8 9.Bg5 Bxd5?!
A miscalculation. But, even after the better 9…a6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Nbc3,
White’s advantage is obvious. First, …f6-f5 leads to the loss of tempo after
Bc8-e6xf5, and, second, the b5-knight would not have to retreat to a3.
10.exd5 Ne7?!
Black continues to play for complications against his less experienced

opponent. Objectively, the best move is 10…Nb8, but, after 11.Bxf6 gxf6
12.Bd3 (or 12.Qd3), White has a great positional advantage.
11.c4?
To punish Black for his much too risky strategy, White should have
played 11.c3!, preparing the capture of the a7-pawn. For example, 11…a6
12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qa4! Kd7! (this is probably the best chance. 13…axb5 is
worse: 14.Bxb5+ Nc6 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.Bxc6+ Ke7, and White’s position is
won; 13…Nc6 14.Na7 b5 15.Nxb5 axb5 16.Bxb5 Bg7 17.Bxc6+ is even
worse) 14.Na7+ Kc7 15.Qc4+ Kb8 16.Nxc8 Nxc8, and White is an exchange
ahead.
11…a6 12.Nc3 Nd7 13.0-0
13.Ne4!? Qc7 14.c5 Nxc5 15.Nxc5 Qxc5 16.Qa4+ is also favorable for
White.
13…h6 14.Be3?!
Black manages to make his dreams come true – he now has a complex
position with a “warped” pawn structure (though objectively the position is in
favor of White). But now, the game is of no theoretical interest for us, so I
will simply show the remaining moves without comment.
14…Nf5 15.Rc1?! Be7 16.Bd3?! Nxe3 17.fxe3 0-0 18.Kh1 g6 19.Qg4
h5 20.Qf3 Kg7 21.b3 Bg5 22.Ne4 Qe7 23.Bb1?! f5 24.Nxg5 Qxg5 25.e4?!
fxe4 26.Qxe4 Nf6 27.Qd3 Ng4 28.Qg3? h4 29.Qe1 Rxf1+ 30.Qxf1 Rf8
31.Qe1 Qf4 32.g3 hxg3 33.h3 g2 White resigned.
(24) Zorin – Timoshchenko

Liepaja 1970
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Nd5
Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.f4?!
An unsuccessful novelty. The most beneficial move for White is 9.c3.
9…a6 (no one had ever played this way) 10.Nc3 Ng6
Black has excellent play with fine prospects of an advantage.
11.Bd3!
A good opportunity. 11.fxe5 Nxe5 12.Be3 Be7 13.Be2 Bh4 14.g3 Bg5
15.Qc1 Bxe3 16.Qxe3 0-0 17.0-0-0 b5 leads to a joyless position for White.
11…Nxf4
After 11…f5 12.0-0 e4 13.Bc4 Be7 14.Be3, there is little evidence of any
12.Bxf4 exf4 (D)
13.Qe2?!+
White should have chosen kingside castling. After 13.0-0! Be7 14.Qh5!,
it is very difficult for Black to obtain an advantage, for example, 14…Qb6+
15.Kh1 Qxb2 16.Na4! Qe5! (16…Qb4 17.Rae1 Qxa4 18.Qg5 0-0 19.Rxe7
) 17.Qf3 Qd4
18.Rae1 Qxa4 19.Re4 Qxa2 20.Rfe1 0-0 21.Rxe7, and analysis shows that,
despite being three pawn up, Black has no advantage.
13…Be7 14.0-0-0 0-0 15.g3! f5 16.gxf4
16.Qf2!? Bf6 17.Ne2 looks more interesting. White solves his problems
associated with his c3-knight and retains certain chances (e.g., he can transfer
his knight to e6).
16…Bf6
Black has a clear advantage: he prepares an attack on the white king
while his opponent has absolutely no counterplay. The following transfer of
white bishop to b3 for some hard-to-explain reasons considerably hastens his
defeat.
17.Bc4? b5 18.Bb3? Bd7 19.Qf3 a5 20.a4 bxa4 21.Nxa4?!
21.Bxa4 Bxc3 22.Bxd7 Bxb2+ 23.Kxb2 Qxd7 to hold out a bit longer.
21…Qb8! 22.Nc3 Qb4 23.Na2 Qb6 24.Bc4 Qxb2+ 25.Kd2 Qd4+
26.Bd3 Rac8 27.Rb1 Ba4 28.Rhc1 Rfe8 29.c3 Qc5 30.Rb7 Qa3 31.Bb1
Rb8 32.Rxb8 Rxb8 33.Ke1 Bb3 34.c4 Qb2 35.Qf2 Bxa2 36.Qxb2 Bxb2
White resigned.
(25) Sabitov – Timoshchenko

Sveshnikov 1970
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 Qxf6?!
Objectively, this move is doubtful, but I wanted to test a new idea against
a weaker opponent.
10.Nd5 Qd8 11.c3
Here, I expected 11.c4!? and planned to meet it with 11…Ne7, although
White has an advantage here. 11.Bxb5! is probably still stronger, but this
move was unknown then. The text move throws away almost all the
advantage.
11…Ne7! 12.Bd3?!
An incorrect decision immediately follows. White should have
maintained his pieces’ control over the d5-square with 12.Nc2!. Although,
even in this case, his advantage is next to minimal.
For example, 12…Nxd5 13.Qxd5 Rb8!?.N (in this position, only 13…
Be6 has occurred, after which White has 14.Qb7!N. For example, 14…Be7
15.Nb4! Qc8 16.Qxc8 Bxc8 17.a4 bxa4 18.Rxa4 Bb7 19.Nd5 Bd8 20.Bc4,
with a small but stable advantage)
14.Qc6!?+ (neither 14.Ne3 Be7 15.Be2 0-0, nor 14.Nb4 Bb7 15.Qd3 Be7 is
promising) 14…Qd7 15.Qxd7+ Kxd7 16.Bd3 Bb7 17.a4 bxa4 18.Rxa4 f5
19.exf5 Bxg2 20.Rg1 Bc6 21.Rb4 Rxb4 22.Nxb4 a5 23.Nxc6 Kxc6, and
White’s position is slightly better, although Black’s drawing chances are
excellent.
The evaluation of this variation depends on Black’s attempt to catch the
white queen with 14…Bd7!?, for example, 15.Qxa6 d5!? 16.Rd1 (16.exd5?
Bc5 ) 16…d4 17.cxd4 (17.Be2 h5, with a threat of Rh6) 17…Qc7 18.Bd3
exd4 19.0-0 h5 (here the same threat of Rh6 is also present) 20.b4 Bd6
21.Nxd4 Bxh2+ 22.Kh1 0-0 23.Rc1 Qd6 24.Qxd6 Bxd6 25.a3. White
manages not to lose his queen and to retain his extra pawn at that, but the
variation needs additional checking. But let us return to the game itself.
12…Nxd5 13.exd5 g6
Black has a good play. 13…Be7!? is probably even stronger, as after
14.Nc2 Bd7, the move a2-a4 can be prevented.
14.0-0 Bg7 15.Nc2 0-0 16.a4 bxa4
After 16…Bd7 17.axb5 axb5, Black is quite comfortable.
17.Rxa4 f5?!
A hasty move. 17…a5! is better, for example, 18. Bb5 Bb7 19.c4 Qb6.
18.Nb4 Qb6 19.Qe2 a5 20.Rfa1
After 20.Nc6!, Black could have run into problems.
20…Bb7 21.Nc6 Bxc6 22.dxc6 d5
22…Qxc6!? is also possible.
23.b4?
23.Bb5!? Rfb8 24.c4 leads to sharp play, for example, 24…d4 25.b4 e4
26.Qa2!, which is favorable for White.
23…Qxc6 24.bxa5?! e4 25.Bb5 Qxc3 26.Qf1 Rfc8 27.Qd1 Rc5
28.R1a3 Qc1 29.Qxc1 Rxc1+ 30.Bf1 d4 31.Ra1 Rxa1 32.Rxa1 d3 33.a6
Bxa1 White resigned.
Another 16 Games Which Are Not in Databases
At the very end of 1960s, my life took another twist, one of the many that
would follow in subsequent years. There were many reasons for that, but I
will speak only of two principal ones.
It was clear that I had had serious successes in chess: a master’s norm at
16; first place in the Junior Championship of Russian Soviet Federative
Socialist Republic (RSFSR) in 1966; first place on the junior board of the
USSR Team Championship in the same year; a successful performance at the
Spartakiad of the Peoples of the USSR in 1967, where I struggled for medals
in the last round against Spassky and even had a won position after my
opponent’s incorrect exchange sacrifice but lost because of my own blunder.
Later, I finished third at the USSR Students’ Championship in 1969; in the
same year, I played on first board for the USSR junior team in the four-round
match against team Yugoslavia (and personally against Ljubomir Ljubojevic,
2-2), with Karpov, Vaganian, Romanishin, Kupreichik, and Sveshnikov
taking the other boards. One would think that everything was just excellent
for me.
However, I wanted not just to play chess, but also to make the IM and
GM norms, and, in that regard, I felt like I was bumping into a wall built by
Soviet functionaries. For example, I was refused participation in the Hastings
main tournament of 1967 despite a personal invitation from organizers. You
would not believe it, but never in my chess life had I been included into the
list of participants of the traditional Sochi tournament staged by the Russian
Chess Federation, and it was the only competition, at the time in which a
young Soviet player could achieve those longed-for norms. All my peers used
to play in Sochi time after time and scored their norms there.
On the other hand, I used to study excellently and without effort, first at
school (I graduated from the physical and mathematical school with a gold
medal), and then in college (diploma cum laude from Chelyabinsk
Polytechnic Institute with highest possible average). And so a naive idea
began to grow in my youthful head: if it is difficult for me to fight and win
against chess functionaries, why not turn to pure science where there are no
such officials? Because of this, I quit active chess and started to play in
tournaments much less frequently.
After graduating from the institute, in September 1971, I moved to
Novosibirsk to work there conscientiously for the glory of Soviet science in
the world-famous Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences in
Academgorodok. However, life had quickly shown that the number of
functionaries in the science of those times was even greater than in chess.
First, it turned out that my promised position had already been given to
someone’s son or nephew, so, for a start, I would have to work not in the
Academgorodok, but in Novosibirsk. Then, I found out that they had no
junior research associate position at this new place (I had been promised such
a position which would have given me a chance to get scientific superiority),
so I would have to work as a laboratory engineer – and on a subject that was
of no interest for me at all. Still later, housing problems developed.
I would rough it in good faith for about a year and a half and then began
to think of returning to chess. In 1972, I took part in the RSFSR
championship and, benefiting mostly from my old knowledge, finished
second (after Vitaly Tseshkovsky). This convinced me that all was not lost
for me in chess yet.
And here comes the high point of the whole story. When I submitted my
resignation and told my boss, who was a great fan of chess, that I was going
to return to playing chess, he asked me to wait for a half-hour and went to the
director of the institute and then to the party committee. Having returned, he
dropped a bombshell. Instead of quitting, they offered me to stop showing up
at my workplace altogether and to devote myself to chess calmly and
completely. All I had to do was to represent the institute and the city of
Novosibirsk in chess tournaments in the future. More than that, they offered
me a position of a junior research associate and, quite naturally, a salary raise.
It was a microcosm of the Soviet reality, false and absurd through and
through. While a young man is eager to honestly work for science, everything
is inaccessible to him; but when he states that he does not want to work for
science any more, he, all of a sudden, gets everything he could dream of
(naturally, except for the science itself). Soon, I was given an apartment, so
everything worked out for the best.
In the end of 1973, after my successful performance at the USSR Cup – I
had finished second behind to Oleg Romanishin – I received an offer to
become a military officer in the Novosibirsk Army Sports Club. It was
possible as I had a minor course in military education during my study at the
Polytechnic Institute. I thought about it a little and decided that I had nothing
to lose anyway as I already lived in Siberia and the worst they could do to me
was to make me serve just a bit farther from home. So I accepted and, since
1974, have been a chess pro.
I have to add a few words here lest the reader should fall under
impression that every Soviet functionary of those times was bad and evil.
Among the authorities of every rank, there were many clever and intelligent
people who understood the absurdity of the Soviet system very well. A lot of
them supported sportsmen, and some were chess patrons. And I will be
forever grateful to those who used to help me during my life in the Soviet
Union and later in Russia.
Then, the Soviet Union fell apart, so I took advantage of the situation and
handed in my resignation from the army. Having become a freelancer, I
started to play in tournaments in Europe more or less regularly; it was
extremely difficult to get abroad while wearing shoulder straps.
It so happened that, in 1993, I moved to Slovakia. I certainly disliked the
existing economic situation in Russia and had already thought of permanently
moving to Europe more than once before. The last straw was the tournament
dedicated to the anniversary of Novosibirsk. The newly-fledged Russian
businessmen managed to organize a fine tournament, but, at the instigation of
my haters from the city chess federation, refused to include me on the list of
participants. And that was after I had been living in the city for 22 years and
had become, consequently, the first chess pro, the first international master,
and the first grandmaster of Novosibirsk. For all intents and purposes, I was
simply the founding father of the Novosibirsk chess school!. Later, I was told
that during the opening ceremony some of the supporters asked about the
reasons for Timoshchenko’s absence. The chairman of the Novosibirsk chess
federation answered that, if Timoshchenko were playing, the average rating
of the tournament would decrease by three points, which, in turn, would
result in a lower class of the tournament.
After that, I made a final decision to leave Novosibirsk and nothing could
stop me. And, if it came to all this fuss and bother of moving, it was best to
move directly to Europe and to get rid of all the problems associated with
long flights to international tournaments, jet lag, and six time-zone
differences once and for all. The conditions for chess activities were also
better there. So I acted accordingly.
But, let us return to the main subject of chapter 3. So, I turned pro and
began to play more frequently and in stronger tournaments. The number of
my published games also increased. Many of them were later included in
official chess databases, but a fair amount of my games did not get there. I
thought that it would be too bad if those would eventually slip into obscurity,
so I came to a decision to introduce another 16 games for your consideration.
You will find a lot of novelties both in these games and in the comments to
them.
(26) Palnichenko – Timoshchenko

Novosibirsk 1973
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Qh5 d5?!
As we have already mentioned in the comments to game 20, the correct
move is 10…b5!.
11.Nc4?!
A weak move; 11.0-0-0 leads to equal play.
11…dxc4!?
This move would appear in databases only in 2000. Now, Black has a
slight advantage. The computer is of the opinion that 11…d4!N is even
stronger – now Black cannot get his bishop to c4! – but this move needs
deeper analysis.
12.Bxc4 Qf6
Or 12…Qc7 13.Nd5 Qd6, transposing to the text position.
13.Nd5 Qd6 14.Nb6
It is also possible to play 14.Rd1!?N b5 15.Nb6 Qg6 16.Qxg6 hxg6
17.Bd5 (the variation 17.Nxa8 bxc4 18.Nc7 Ke7 19.Nd5+ Ke6 20.Nc7+ Kf6
does not lead to a draw) 17…Bb7 18.Nxa8 Bxa8 19.exf5 gxf5 20.c3 Be7, and
Black has an undeniable advantage.
14…Qb4+?!
This move had never occurred before. It throws away the advantage, but
trailblazers never have it easy. 14…Nd8! is better: 15 Nxa8 Qb4 16.c3 Qxc4
17.0-0-0 Qc6 18.Rhe1 Qh6 19.Qxh6+ Bxh6+, and Black’s advantage is
indisputable.
15.c3 Qxb6 16.Qxf7 Kd8 17.Qf6+!?
17.0-0-0 Nd4 18.cxd4 exd4 19.Rxd4+ Qxd4 20.Rd1 Qd7!? 21.Rxd7+
Bxd7 22.Qf6+ Kc7 does not bring any advantage as White is unable to take
the rook – 23.Qxh8?? Bh6.
17…Kc7 18.Qxh8 Bd7
18…Qxb2 19.0-0 Qa3 20.Qxh7+ Qe7 21.Qg6 leads to sharp play with
roughly equal chances.
19.Qxh7 fxe4?!
And this move should have resulted in a small white advantage. The
correct move is 19…Ne7!, for example, 20.Rd1 Qc6 21. Bd3 Qf6
(threatening Bh6) 22.Qh5! Bc6, and Black’s chances are in no way inferior.
20. 0-0-0?!
20.Be6! is better. As both opponents have already made many errors, the
rest of the game is of no theoretical interest, so we will give the remaining
moves without comment.
20…Be7 21.Bd5 Rf8 22.Rhf1 Kc8 23.Qg7 Qc7 24.Bxe4 Be6 25.Bd5
Bxd5 26.Rxd5 Kb8 27.Kb1 e4 28.Qg3 e3 29.Qxe3 Qxh2 30.g3 Qg2
31.Rdd1 Rf3 32.Qb6 Rf5 33.Rh1 Rxf2 34.Rh8+ Bf8 35.Rd8+ Nxd8
36.Qxd8+ Ka7 37.Qd4+ Kb8 38.Qd8 and the players agreed to a draw.
(27) Fabrikant – Timoshchenko

Novosibirsk 1973
1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Nde2 Bb4 7.Qd3
Actually, this novelty is not a very successful one.
7…d5
Probably, Black should not have been so hasty with this move. 7…0-0!N
looks stronger, as 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 is unpromising for White because of 9…d5
10.exd5 Qxd5 11.Bxf6 Qxd3 12.cxd3 gxf6 with a clear black advantage.
8. exd5
8.a3 Bxc3 9.Nxc3 does not equalize because of 9…d4! 10.Ne2 0-0, and if
11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4, then simply 12…Be6 (or 12…g5 13.Bg3 Qa5+ 14.c3
Be6) 13.f3 Rc8.
8…Qxd5 9.Qg3??
This was the whole point of the move 7.Qd3, but Black could have
obtained a won position now. White should have transitioned into an ending
by way of 9.Qxd5 Nxd5 10.Bd2 Bxc3 11.Nxc3 (11.Bxc3?! Ndb4 ) 11…
Ndb4 12.0-0-0!N, for example, 12…Bf5 13.Nb5! (there are threats of both
Nd6+ and Nc7+) 13…Ke7 14.Bxb4 Nxb4 15.a3! Nxc2 16.Bd3 Bxd3
17.Rxd3 Rhc8 18.Kb1, and White is practically equal.
9…Bg4?
9…Nd4!N leads to a win, for example:
(a) 10.Kd1 Bf5! 11.Be3 (or 11.Nxd5?? Bxc2#) 11…Qc5 does not help;
(b) After 10.Nxd4 exd4 11.Qxg7, Black has a chance to show off his
skills by way of 11…dxc3 (the simple 11…Qe5+ 12.Be2 Rg8 13.Qh6 dxc3 is
also fine) 12.Qxh8+ Ke7 13.b3 Bg4, and Black wins.
(c) The most stubborn continuation is 10.Bd2!? Nxc2+ 11.Kd1 Qd6!
12.Kxc2 Bf5+. Over the board Black has unduly neglected to calculate
variations in this position, while the analysis gives a quick win to him, for
example, 13.Kc1 0-0-0 14.Qg5 Bg6! (threatening Qd3, but not the immediate
14…Qd3? 15.Nd4 ) 15.f3 Qd3 16.Ne4? Bxe4 17.fxe4 Bxd2+.
10.Bd2
This move was expected, but 10.Bg5!? would be slightly better as, after
10…Bxe2, not promising is 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bxe2 Nd4 13.Bd3 Ke7!? 14.0-
0-0! (14.0-0 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Rhg8 16.Qh3 Ne6 17.c4 Qc6 is weaker) 14…
Bxc3 15.bxc3 Ne6 16.Qg4 Qc5 17.Qb4 b6, and Black’s advantage is rather
small.
The best reply is 10…Qd7!?, possibly followed by 11.Rd1 (or 11.f3 Bf5
12.a3 Be7 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Rd1 Qe6 15.Ne4 Bxe4 16.fxe4 0-0 17.Nc3 Bd8)
11…Ne4 12.Qe3 Qf5 13.Bh4 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Ba5 15.h3 Bxe2 16.Bxe2 Qf4!,
with slight black advantage in both cases.
10…Qxd2+
Black transposes into a better ending. 10…Qe6! is probably even
stronger.
11.Kxd2 Ne4+ 12.Kc1 Nxg3 13.hxg3 0-0 14.f3 Be6 15.g4 Rac8 16.Ne4
f6
There is an interesting alternative in 16…Rfd8!?.
17.N2g3 Be7 18.a3
18.Nf5 Bxf5 19.Bc4+ Kh8 20.gxf5 Nd4 21.Bd3 Nxf5 22.Nc3 Nh6 does
not bring full compensation for the pawn.
18…Nd4 19.Nc3 Rfd8 20.Bd3 Nb3+
Here 20…g6!? 21.Kd2 Bc4 is playable.
21.cxb3 Rxd3 22.Kc2 Rd7 23.Rad1 Rcd8 24.Rxd7 Rxd7 25.Re1 Kf7
26.Rh1 h6 27.Re1 a5 28.Nge4 Rc7 29.a4 g6 30.Rd1 Rc6 31.Re1 f5 32.gxf5
gxf5 33.Ng3? Bh4 White resigned.
(28) Rurov – Timoshchenko

Novosibirsk 1973
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Nb3 Bb4 7.Bd3 d5
8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Bd2 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bd6 11.Qf3
A novelty for those times. 11.Qh5 is more common (see chapter 1).
11…0-0 12.0-0 f5!?
An active move starts the kingside attack. The more cautious 12…Be6
13.Be3 Qe7 14.Rad1 Rac8 15.Qe2 Rfd8 also leads to a small advantage for
Black. (D)
13.Bg5!?
A novelty even for modern times. 13.Bc4+ Kh8 14.Rad1 e4 15.Qh5 could
be a principled counter, but here, Black has an excellent opportunity: 15…f4!
16. Rfe1 (or 16.Qd5 Bg4 17.Rde1 Qc7! 18.Rxe4 Rf5 19.Qd3 Ne5) 16…Rf5!
17.Qe2 e3! 18.fxe3 f3 19.gxf3 Rg5+ 20.Kh1 Bxh2! 21.Qxh2 Qe8, and, to
avoid the worst, White would have to give up his queen after Rh5.
13…Qc7
It was also possible to take the bishop, 13…Qxg5 14.Qd5+ Kh8 15.Qxd6
Rf6, for example, 16.Qc5 Be6 17.Rad1 Rg6 18.g3 Rc8, with a positional
advantage, but Black plays for the attack.
14.Rad1
A more precise continuation, 14.Bc4!+ Kh8 15.Rad1 e4, leads to a
transposition of moves and prevents 14…Be6!, which was possible in the
game.
14…e4
In hindsight, 14…Be6! is a bit more precise. 15.Bb5 Nd8 16.Rfe1 Nf7,
and only then the attack begins.
15.Bc4 Kh8 16.Qh5 Ne5!?
A fine move that retains the advantage. 16…f4!? is also strong, for
example, 17.Bd5 Bf5 18.Rde1 Bg6 19.Qg4 e3! 20.fxe3 fxe3 21.Bxe3 Ne7
22.Be4 Bxh2+ 23.Kh1 Qg3 24.Bf3 Qxg4 25.Bxg4 Bg3 26.Rc1 b6, and the
ending is better for Black.
17.Bd5 Ng4 18.g3
18.h3 Nf6 19.Bxf6 Rxf6 holds out longer, but Black’s advantage is
obvious.
18…Nf6?!
18…Qxc3! is better: 19.Bf7 Qc7 20.Bg6 h6, and White’s attack has been
turned back. As Black has been more than successful in solving his opening
problems in this game, we will give the rest of it without comment.
19.Bxf6 Rxf6 20.Nd4 Bd7 21.Rb1 Qxc3 22.Ne2 Qxc2 23.Rxb7 Qd2
24.Rxd7 Qxd5 25.Qg5 Rf7 26.Rxf7 Qxf7 27.Nd4 Rf8 28.Qd2 Bc5 29.Rc1
Bb6 30.Qb4 Rd8 31.Rc4 Qd5 32.Nc2 Qd1 33.Qe1 h6 34.Kf1 Qf3 35.Rc3
Qh1+ 36.Ke2 Qxh2 37.Qf1 h5 White resigned.
(29) Buchholz – Timoshchenko

Novosibirsk 1973
For the record, let me state that, although my opponent’s last name was
Buchholz, it was not he who had devised the famous scoring system.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Nxc6
This move is examined in details in chapter 2.
6…bxc6 7.Be2
A passive move. 7.Bc4! maintains equality.
7…Bb4 8.Bd2
8.Qd3! 0-0 9.0-0 is more precise

8…Bxc3
This simplifies the position. 8…0-0 9.0-0 Rb8!?N is more promising.
Black refrains from revealing his plans for the time being.
Curiously enough, there seems to be no useful moves for White. For
example, in case of 10.Re1, the rook is pinned in the variation 10…d5
11.exd5 cxd5 12.Bg5?! d4. After 10.Bd3 d5 11.exd5 cxd5 12.Bg5 Be6, there
is no threat to the d5-pawn; if 10.a3, then 10…Be7 followed by d7-d5. In the
variation 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 Ba5!, the natural-looking 12.Rb1 results in the
loss of the exchange after 12…g5 13.Bg3 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Rxb1 15.Qxb1 Nxe4
16.Bxe5 Nd2 17.Qd1 Nxf1 18.Qd6! f6 19.Qd3 Rf7! 20.Bd6 f5.
9.Bxc3 Nxe4 10.Bxe5 Qa5+ 11.Bc3 Nxc3 12.Qd2!
A natural-looking move – and, strange as it may seem, a novelty. In all
three games that are known to me, White played 12.bxc3?
12…Rb8 13.Qxc3
Keeping the queens on the board with 13.bxc3 is a little weaker.
13…Qxc3 14.bxc3 Kd8
In the ending that has arisen, Black has a slight advantage.
15.0-0
It would be better to choose 15.0-0-0, keeping his king closer to the
disconnected queenside pawns.
15…Re8 16.Bd3 h6
Oh, to be young and naive! Now I would prefer 16…Re5!, immediately
transferring my rook for the attack on the queenside pawns, for example,
17.f4 (after 17.Bxh7? g6 18.Rae1 Re8!, White loses his bishop) 17…Rc5
18.Rf3 Rxc3 19.Rh3 h6 20.Rg3 g6 21.f5 gxf5 22.Rg8, Kc7 23.Rf8 Ra3.
17.Rab1?!
It was necessary to play 17.f4!?, preventing the rook transfer.
17…Rxb1 18.Rxb1 Re5!
Black has a clear advantage, so we will not offer comments to the moves
that followed. Let me say only that both opponents’ play in the ending was
far from being perfect, but this is already material for a book on endgames.
19.g3 Rc5 20.Rb3 d6 21.Kf1 Kc7 22.Ke2 Ra5 23.Rb2 Be6 24.c4 Ra4
25.c3 Bxc4 26.Bxc4 Rxc4 27.Kd3 Ra4 28.h3 d5 29.h4 c5 30.Ke3 Ra3
31.Kd2 h5 32.Kc2 Kc6 33.Kd2 g6 34.Kc2 c4 35.Kd2 d4 36.Rc2 Rxc3
37.Rxc3 dxc3+ 38.Kxc3 Kc5 39.f3 f5 White resigned.
(30) Zheliandinov – Timoshchenko

Leningrad 1974
This game is very important for the theory of the variation as it shows the
correct plan for Black in the system that is most unpleasant for him.
Unfortunately, it had never found its way into official databases and was
mentioned in Sveshnikov’s book only in passing.
Viktor Zheliandinov, who played White, was an experienced master,
former champion of the USSR Armed Forces and a well-known coach.
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7
Actually, during the game, Black had initially repeated moves: 9…Qa5+
10.Bd2 Qd8 11.Bg5. This little reconnaissance showed that White is fine
with a draw and does not wish to enter the sharp variation 11.c4 (see chapters
125-126), so Black returned to the main paths after 11…Be7. But, for the
sake of the readers’ convenience, we are going to maintain the move order
used in the rest of the book.
10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4
In the earlier game Fichtl-Timoshchenko, Stary Smokovec 1972, White
chose a weaker continuation: 15.Na3 Rb8 16.Qa1 f5 17.Bc4 Kh8 18.exf5
Bxf5 19.0-0 e4 20.Nc2 Ne5 21.Nce3 Bd7 22.Rxa5 Bxe3 23.Nxe3 Nxc4
24.Nxc4 Bb5 25.Rxb5 Rxb5, and Black won (this game can be found in the
databases).
15…Rb8 16.b3 Kh8!
A novelty that was very important in those days. This move, which
prepares f7-f5, is now absolutely the main one in the given position. It is
examined in the last 13 chapters of the book (chapters 188-200).
In Karpov-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1973, the solid but passive 16…Be6 was
played, after which White’s advantage was not in doubt. And the first game
with 16…Kh8 that appears in the databases is Geller-Sveshnikov, 1978.
Running the risk of pre-empting myself, I want to point out that
Sveshnikov clearly preferred the move 12…Rb8, which, in my opinion, is
passive and does not comply with fighting spirit of the Chelyabinsk
Variation.
17.0-0
As we are going to see a little later, the continuation 17.Nce3!?, which
has become rather popular recently (chapters 194-200), is more precise.
17…f5 18.exf5 Bxf5
So here we are in 1974, and the position that appears on the board seems
to be currently the most popular system in the Chelyabinsk variation.
19.Nce3
The basic move even now.
19…Be6
It was the beginning. Chapter 191 will be devoted to this very move.
Later attention shifted to 19…Bg6 (chapters 192-193).
Frankly speaking, I do not exactly see the weaknesses of 19…Be6. The
readers will find a possible reason in the comments to the next move. In my
opinion, the retreat to e6 is none the worse. Doubters may turn to chapter 191
for explanations.
20.Ra3
Nobody has ever played this way until now, and this move does not spoil
anything. Not for a while yet. The probable reason for decrease in popularity
of 19…Be6 is the little-known fact that, in the main line, after 20.Qd3 Qd7
21.Rd1 Qf7 22.Ra2, Black has 22…a4! – see chapter 191.
20…Qd7
20…e4!? is also playable.
21.Bd3?!
The experienced master does not know what to do in the position that he
is unacquainted with. The correct move is 21.Qd3, with slightly better play
for White.
21…Bxe3 22.Nxe3 d5
Now, it is already Black who possesses a slight advantage.
23.Bc2 Rbd8 24.Qh5 Bg8
24…e4!?, with an idea of …Qc7-e5, exerting pressure upon the c3-pawn,
looks a little better.
25.c4!
Loosening Black’s pawn center.
25…d4 26.Nd5 Nb4
After 26…g6!? 27.Qh4 (27.Qh6 Bxd5 28.cxd5 Nb4 29.Bxg6?? Rf6) 27…
Bxd5 28.cxd5 Qe7! 29.Qxe7 Nxe7 30.Rxa5 Rxd5 (or 30…Nxd5), Black is
able to obtain a slightly better endgame. The question is, how to win it?
27.Be4
A possible continuation is 27.Nxb4 axb4 28.Ra5 d3 29.Bd1 e4 30.Qc5,
and White’s position is quite defensible.
27…Nxd5 28.cxd5 Qc7 29.Raa1!
So the position is fully equal now. Black attempts to forcibly seize the
initiative.
29…Qc3 30.Rac1!
30.Qxe5?? Rde8 31.Qd6 Rf6 loses.
30…Qd2 31.Rc2?
And here is the error. 31.Qxe5?? Rde8 32.Qd6 Rxf2! also loses here.
The correct move is 31.Rc5!, after which, it is already Black who has to be
very cautious. For example, 31…Rxf2?! 32.Rxf2 Qe1+ 33.Rf1 Qe3+ 34.Kh1
Qxe4 35.d6! takes him nowhere; 31…Qf4?! 32.Qe2 also accomplishes
nothing, and on 31…Qb4 32.Rc7 Qd6 33.Rc6, he has to play 33…Qb8!, with
some white advantage (but not 33…Qb4?? 34.Rh6!! or 33…Qe7 34.Re6! ).
The best move is 31…h6!, defending against the mating threat on h7. For
example, 32.Qg6 (or 32.h3 Qb4 33.Rc6 Qe7) 32…Qf4 33.g3 Qf6, and
34.Qxf6?! gxf6 35.Rxa5?! is of no use for White because of 35…f5 36.Bg2?!
e4.
31…Qf4 32.Re2 h6!
Now the d5-pawn is lost.
33.g3 Qf6 34.Bg2 Bxd5 35.Qxe5 Bxb3 36.Qxf6 (36.Qxa5 Bc4) 36…
Rxf6 37.Rd2 a4 38.Ra1 Ra6 39.Bf1 Ra5 40.Rd3 Rc5 41.Be2 Bc4 42.Rd2
Bxe2 43.Rxe2 d3 44.Rd2 Rc2 45.Rdd1 d2 46.f3 a3 47.Kf2 a2 48.Ke2 Rb2
49.h4 Re8+ White resigned.
(31) Adyg-Ool – Timoshchenko

Angarsk 1974
8.Bxf6
As the reader has, in all probability, already noticed, this move used to be
rather common.
8…gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bc4 Ra7
A new move at the time. I made the move without any additional
checking, relying on an old recommendation by the young Karpov.
Objectively, both 10…Qg5 and 10…b5, with equal play, are better (see
chapters 32 and 33)
11.Bd5! Ne7
A slightly better move is 11…Nd4, but, then, White has an interesting
novelty, 12.Nc4!? (another novelty, 12.0-0 f4!?, is less clear). On 12…b5
13.Ne3 f4, White sacrifices a pawn, 14.Nf5 Nxf5 15.exf5 Bxf5 16.Bc6+ Bd7.
In this position, the computer gives preference to White after 17.Qf3 Bxc6
18.Qxc6+ Qd7 19.Qf3 (or 17.Bxd7+ Qxd7 18.Qf3, and the same position
arises).
12.Qd3?!
This hands the initiative to Black. Instead of moving the queen, White
should have played 12.exf5!N Bxf5 13.Nc4. For example, 13…b5 14.Ne3
Bg6 15.Qf3, and White stands noticeably better, as on 15…f5?!, there
follows 16.Be6! with great advantage.
12…b5 13.b4?!
Actually, this move is not necessary here. For example, on 13.Bb3, it is
bad to reply 13…b4? 14.Nc4 Ng6 15.Ba4+. Also, after 13.Rd1, it is not
advantageous to play 13…b4?! in view of the long variation 14.Nc4 bxc3
15.Nxd6+ Qxd6 16.Bxf7+ Kxf7 17.Qxd6 cxb2 18.0-0 Rg8 19.exf5, and
White has a clear advantage.
13…Bg7
Here there is an interesting continuation 13…fxe4!? 14.Qxe4 (14.Nxe4?
is utterly bad: 14…Nxd5 15.Qxd5 Bb7 16.Qd3 Bxe4 17.Qxe4 d5, or 14.Bxe4
d5 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.0-0-0 Qg5+ 17.f4 Qxf4+ 18.Kb2 Rd7, and Black wins)
14…Rg8 15.0-0 Rg6.
14.Rd1 0-0 15.0-0 fxe4 16.Nxe4
On 16.Qxe4, there follows 16…Rc7.
16…Nxd5 17.Qxd5 Be6 18.Qd3
Certainly not 18.Qxd6? Rd7.
18…d5
Even better is 18…Rd7!?, and White cannot take the pawn: 19.Nxd6??
Qe7 20.c4 bxc4 21.Naxc4 Bxc4 22.Qxc4 Rxd6.
19.Nc5 Qb6?!
This retains a small edge, but 19…Qg5! is even stronger.
20.Rfe1 Rc7 21.Qg3 e4 22.c3 a5 (22…Rxc5!?) 23.Nc2
There is no sense in annotating the rest of the game as the opening has
been over for a long time.
23…axb4 24.cxb4 Ra7 25.a3 Kh8 26.Nd4 Rfa8 27.Re3 Rg8 28.Ndxe6
fxe6 29.Qh3 Re7 30.Rg3 Bb2 31.Rxg8+ Kxg8 32.Rd2 Bg7 33.Kf1 Qd6
34.Ke2 Qe5 35.Qg4 Kf7 36.h4 Ra7 37.Qh3 d4 38.Qb3 Qd5 39.Qxd5 exd5
40.Ra2 Bf8 41.Nb3 d3+ 42.Ke3 Bxb4 43.Kd4 Rxa3 44.Rxa3 Bxa3
45.Kxd5 Bc1 46.Kc5 d2 47.Nxd2 Bxd2 48.Kxb5 Be1 White resigned.
32. Naumenko – Timoshchenko

Bryansk 1975
An unexciting game in which the play rapidly transitioned into the
endgame. After White’s inaccuracy on move 11, Black seized the initiative.
Later, White made several other errors and gradually lost.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Nf5
This move clearly does not deserve the “!?” awarded to it by Sveshnikov.
6…d5 7.exd5 Bxf5 8.dxc6 Qxd1+
Enough for equalization, but 8…bxc6 is slightly more precise. After this,
it is already White who must be careful. Usually, here, 9.Qf3 Qd7 occurs, and
now instead of the highly fashionable 10.Bg5, White should play 10.Bc4!
with equal play (see Part I chapters 5-6)
9.Nxd1 bxc6 10.Ne3 Bg6
10…Be6 also leads to equality.
11.Bc4
A first small step leading to trouble. The essential point of the position is
the very awkward white knight on e3. Above all, it hampers the normal
development of the c1-bishop. But, what to do with that knight? The most
natural square for it is c4, but now the bishop has gone to this very square! As
for the knight, it is going to find for itself a miserable place on d1.
I believe that the most precise move here is 11.Ba6. The most common
continuation after that is 11…Rb8 12.0-0. Here, the engine gives preference
to 12…Bd6!N with equality.
11…Bc5
11…0-0-0!?N is none the worse; now Black has a slight edge, for
example, 12.Bd2 Bc5 13.0-0-0 Kb7.
12.c3 a5 13.0-0 0-0
Black has a small edge; White has lost the opening battle. After that,
Black gradually increases his advantage.
14.h3 h5 15.Re1 Rfe8 16.Nd1 Nd5 17.b3 Kh7 18.Bb2 Rad8 19.Bf1 f6
20.a3 Nf4 21.Bc1 Nd3 22.Bxd3 Rxd3 23.b4 Bf8 24.Be3 Ra8 25.Rc1 axb4
26.axb4 Ra3 27.Re2 h4 28.Rb2 Bh5 29.f3 e4 30.Kf2 exf3 31.gxf3 Rd5
32.Kg2 Rf5 33.Rf2 Bd6 34.Rcc2 Ra1 35.Rcd2 Bg3 36.Rf1 Bf7 37.Rd4
Ra2+ 38.Bd2 Bc4 39.Rg1 Be2 40.f4 Rd5 White resigned.
(33) Rusev – Timoshchenko

Odessa 1975
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Na3
Before this game, this move had occurred in only three games. It then
occurred in roughly 150 more, but it was never known to create any problems
for Black.
7…Be7!
A year before, in my game against Govashelishvili (Vilnius 1974, this
game is in the databases), I tested 7…Be6.
8.Bg5
It was a novelty then; now most players employ this move (note that after
8.Nc4 Nxe4! 9.Nxe4 d5, Black has a slight advantage).
Black’s reaction is bold…
8…Nxe4
Nevertheless, 8…Bg4! is even better: 9.Qd2 (or 9.f3 Be6; or 9.Be2 Bxe2
10.Qxe2 Nxe4) 9…0-0 10.Nc4 Nd4 11.Ne3 Be6 12.Bd3 Rc8!N, and the
white queen’s position on d2 creates an opportunity for a shot on e4. So the
best move is 13.Qd1!, with excellent play for Black.
9.Nxe4 Bxg5 10.Nxg5
An inaccuracy. The correct continuation is 10.Nxd6!+ Ke7 11.Nac4 Be6
12.c3! (a novelty even for our time) 12…Bxc4 13.Nxc4 Qxd1+ 14.Rxd1
Rhd8 15.h4, and the ending is slightly better for White.
10…Qxg5 11.Qxd6 a6 12.Nc4?!
12.Bc4 is better. Black’s reply is 12…Qe7, with comfortable play.
12…Be6
Black has a small edge.
13.Qc5 0-0-0 14.Ne3 Kc7 15.Bd3 f5 16.h4 Qh6!
But not 16…Qf6?! 17.0-0-0.
17.Nxf5 Bxf5 18.Bxf5 Qd2 19.Kf1 Qf4!
Black has sacrificed a pawn and gained a formidable initiative for it.
20.Bd3 e4
20…Rhf8 is an inaccuracy because of 21.Re1!.
21.Be2 Rhf8 22.Rh3 Rd4 23.f3 Rd2! 24.Re1 Rf6?
Black gains a solid advantage after 24…Kb8!? 25. Qg5 Rxc2, and, in
case he is not willing to let the white queen go to g5, then there is the fine-
looking continuation 24…Rf5! 25.Qc3 Kb8 26.Qxg7 Nd4 27.Qg3 Nxc2.
25.Kg1! Rg6 26.Qc3!?
White has an opportunity to draw after 26.fxe4!? Qxe4 27.Rf3 Rxe2
28.Rf7+ Kb8 29.Rf8+ Kc7 30.Rf7+, but the move in the text is also good.
26…e3
26…Kb8 is also met with 27.Bf1.
27.Bf1 Re6
28.Qc4?
White should have taken the pawn with 28.Qxg7. For example, 28…Re7
(or 28…Kb6 29.Bd3 Re7 30.Qg5 Qb4 31.c3 Qxb2 32.Be4, and Black’s
attack dies out. For instance, 32…Re2 33.Rxe2 Qxe2 34.Rh1 Rg7 35.Qxg7
Qe1+ 36.Kh2 Qxh4+ with a draw) 29.Qg5 Qb4 30.c3 (30.Rxe3? Qd4
31.Qg3+ Ne5 32.Qg5 Ng6 33.Qg3+ Kb6 ) 30…Qxb2 31.Rxe3 Qb6 32.Qg3+
Ne5 33.Qf4 Rd1! 34.Kf2 Kd8, and Black’s initiative is sufficient only for a
draw.
28…Qd6 (Black regains his great advantage) 29.Bd3 Kb8 30.Qc3! Nd4
31.Rxe3 Rxe3?
When you are pressed for time, it is no easy job to find the variation 31…
Rd1+! 32.Kf2 Qb6! 33.Rxe6 Nxe6 34.Kg3 (34.Ke2 Qg1 35.Qe5+ Ka8 )
34…Qd6+ 35.Kf2 Nf4, with the idea of 36.Rg3 Qb6, and Black wins.
32.Qxd2 Nxc2 33.Qxc2 Rxd3 34.Rg3
34.Qc4! allows White to hold out longer.
34…Qd4+ 35.Kh2 Qxh4+ 36.Kg1 Qd4+ 37.Kh2 Qh4+ 38.Kg1 Rd6
39.Rh3 Qe1+ 40.Kh2 Qe5+ 41.Kg1 Qe3 42.Kh1 Qe1+ 43.Kh2 Qe5+
44.Kh1 h6!
Having accumulated time for consideration by repetition of moves, Black
continues to improve his position, exploiting the unfortunate white rook’s
location on h3.
45.Qc1 Rd4! 46.f4!? Rxf4 47.Re3 Qd4 48.Re8 (48.b3!?) Ka7 49.Qe3
Qxe3 50.Rxe3 Rf2 51.Rb3 a5 52.Kh2 Ka6 53.Kg3 Rc2 54.Kf3 b5 55.a3 a4
56.Rb4 Rc4 57.Rxc4 bxc4 58.Kf4 Kb5 59.Kf5 Kc5 White resigned.
(34) Tseshkovsky – Timoshchenko
Kishinev 1975
This game was played in First League of the USSR Championship, a
rather strong tournament. Grandmaster Vitaly Tseshkovsky needs no
introductions, so it looks a bit strange that this game never made it into
databases.
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 b5
I usually played 9…f5 in this position, but, in this game, I decided to
prepare a little surprise for my opponent. After 9…b5, the game transposes
into a more popular variation in which a capture on f6 happens a move later.
10.Nd5 f5 11.g3
The move 11.g3 appeared in 1975, and this game was one of the first. It
does not bring any advantage for White and will be examined in chapter 61.
11…fxe4 12.Bg2 Be6 13.Bxe4 Rc8 14.c3 Bg7 15.Qd3
15…Ne7!?
This move is now the main one in this position, but it had never occurred
before this game; in the only previous game there was 15…0-0. The knight
move contains two threats, both tactical (…f7-f5) and positional (…Rc8-c5,
driving the knight away from the central square). I would like to note that the
idea of struggling against the d5-knight with …Rc8-c5 that would later
become very popular was introduced into practice by your author in his 1973
game against Zhilin (this game can be found in the databases). Admittedly,
there a pair of knights had already been exchanged, and the position of the
white bishop was bad.
16.Rd1? A tactical error that has never been repeated. Let us examine
White’s resources. The a3-knight is too late to come to the rescue: 16.Nc2??
f5, and Black wins. The cautious 16.Bg2 runs into the “patented” 16…Rc5!.
The correct continuation is 16.Nxe7! Kxe7!, with a small advantage for
White.
16…f5! 17.Bf3
And what else is there to do? 17.Nxe7? fxe4 is bad.
17…Ng6?
The favor is returned. Black gets carried away with implementing his
signature plan with Rc8-c5 and is regretfully careless with the calculation of
the move 17…e4!. And this calculation is not so difficult – 17…e4! 18.Bh5+
Kd7! (I had seen the variation 18…Kf8 19.Nf4 exd3 20.Nxe6+ Kg8
21.Nxd8) 19.Nf6+ Kc6! (I also saw 19…Bxf6?? 20.Qxd6#), but the king’s
advance to c6 looked somewhat suspicious to me – 20.Nxe4 (20.Qd4? Rf8
is bad) 20…fxe4 21.Qxe4+ Bd5 22.Rxd5 Nxd5 23.Bf7 (23.0-0 is more
stubborn, but after 23…Qe7, the white initiative is clearly insufficient), but
there is the move 23…Re8 (23…Kb6 is also fine) 24.Bxe8+ Qxe8
25.Qxe8+ Rxe8, and Black wins.
Why did I miss this opportunity? Vitaly Tseshkovsky was famous for
being a fine tactician and excellent expert on theory, so my brain rejected the
very thought of his blundering in the opening in such a way. After those
mutual blunders, the game loses its theoretical interest, but, in the
middlegame, we are going to meet many ideas that are typical for the
variation, so I decided to continue with my comments.
18.0-0 e4 19.Qe3 0-0 20.Bh5
20.Bg2 is no better: 20…Rc5 21.Nb4 a5 22.Nd3 Rc8 23.f3 b4! 24.cxb4
axb4 25. Nxb4 d5, and Black implements one of the ideas in the Chelyabinsk
Variation – sacrificing queenside pawns for the sake of creating a mobile
pawn center.
20…Rc5
Black has carried out his positional idea: the knight is driven away from
d5. But, he has another and stronger move that allows him to implement the
same plan via tactical means – 20…Ne7!. For example, 21.Nf4 (21.Nb4 d5
22.Nxa6 f4! 23.gxf4 Qd6 24.Nb4 Rxf4 25.Nxb5 Qe5 is favorable for Black)
21…Bxa2 22.f3!? (after 22.c4!? bxc4 23.Ne6 Qd7 24.Nxf8 Rxf8 25.Be2
Rc8, Black has more than adequate compensation for the exchange) 22…
Bb3! 23.fxe4 (or 23.Rd2 d5 24.Ne6 d4 25.Nxd4 Nd5, with great advantage
for Black) 23…fxe4 24.Rd2 d5, with advantage to Black, for example,
25.Ne6 Rxf1 26.Kxf1 Nf5 27.Qf4 Qf6.
21.Nb4!
21…Qb6
This allows White to force a draw. Black has an interesting continuation
in 21…f4!? that leads to complications which are favorable for him. For
example, 22.Qxc5 dxc5 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.Nxa6 b4! 25.cxb4 cxb4 26.Nxb4
f3, and White has to play precisely to defend his position. The correct
continuation is 27.Nac2! Rd2 28.Re1 Bxa2 (or 28…Bf8 29.Rxe4 Bxb4
30.Bxf3 Rxc2 31.Rxb4 Bxa2) 29.Rxe4 Bb1 30.Bxf3 Bxc2 31.Nxc2 Rxc2
32.b4, and Black’s extra piece is not enough to win.
22.Bxg6
22.Nd3 Rc6 23.Nb4 Rc5 24.Nd3 leads to a draw.
22…hxg6 23.Nd5?!
Here White should also continue 23.Nd3 Rc6 24.Nb4, although Black is
able to keep struggling after 24…Qxe3 25.fxe3 Rb6 26.Nd5 Bxd5 27.Rxd5
Be5.
23…Qd8 24.Nf4!
24.Nb4?! is weaker as it allows Black to utilize the dynamic potential of
his position: 24…f4!, and now 25.Qxc5 dxc5 26.Rxd8 Rxd8 27.Nxa6 Bh3! is
bad and Black has a great advantage, for example, 28.Re1?! (28. gxf4) 28…
e3! 29.Nxc5 f3! 30.fxe3 Rd2, and Black wins.
The correct continuation here is 25.Qxe4 Re5! 26.Qd3! (or 26.Qxg6 fxg3
27.hxg3 Rf6 28.Qd3 Bf5! 29.Qd2 Be4 30.Rde1 Qa8!, and it is already time
for White to give up the exchange; or 26.Qc6 Qg5 27.Rxd6 fxg3 28.hxg3
Bh3 29.Rxg6 Qf5 30.f4 Rc5, and good advice is hard for White to come by)
26…fxg3 27.hxg3 Bh3 28.Rfe1 Qb6 29.Re3 Qb7 30.Nd5 Bf5! 31.Qd4
(31.Qd2 Bg4) 31…Qf7!, and Black has a clear edge.
24…Bf7 25.h4 Be5?!
This throws away most of the advantage. Black should have prevented
the return of the a3-knight into play with 25…a5! 26.Qd2 (26.Nc2 b4!) 26…
b4!? 27.cxb4 axb4 28.Qxb4 Qb8!? 29.Qxb8 Rxb8 30.Rxd6 Rxb2 31.Nxg6
Rc3 32.Nb1 Rf3, and Black’s pressure is highly unpleasant.
26.Nc2 g5 27.hxg5 Qxg5 28.Ng2?!
The correct move is 28.Nd4!.
28…Qxe3?!
28…Qh5! is better: 29.Nf4 Qg4 30. Kg2 b4! 31.Nxb4 a5 32.Nc2 Rb8
with a clear advantage for Black.
29.Ncxe3
The rest of the game will be given without comment, although there are
inaccuracies there too.
29…Bh5 30.Rd5 Rc7 31.Nh4 Rcf7 32.f4 exf3 33.Nxf3 Bxf3 34.Rxf3
Kg7 35.a4 and a draw was agreed.
(35) Nunn J. – Timoshchenko

Varna 1977
A boring variation and a boring game that could have been livened up just
a bit with a novelty on move 14.
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Qd2 Bb7 13.0-0-0
The variation 12.Qd2 will be discussed in chapter 132. For now, the more
precise continuation is 13.f3!, with full equalization after 13…d5 14.exd5
Qxd5 (or 14…Bxd5 15.c4; or 14…Nxd5 15.c4, with equality in both cases)
15.Qxd5 Nxd5 16.c4.
13…Bxe4!?
13…d5 14.exd5 Bxd5 (or 14…Qxd5) leads only to equality.
14.Qxd6
14…Qxd6
14…Nc6!N, which had never occurred before (see chapter 132), would
have led to a small advantage for Black. After 15.f3 Qxd6 16.Rxd6, the text
position would arise by transposition, but here, Black avoids 16.Rxf6 that
was possible in the game.
15.Rxd6 Nc6 16.f3
A bolder move is 16.Rxf6!, And, after 16…Ke7 17.Rh6 Rac8, the play is
equal; Black has the initiative, White’s extra pawn and the awkward position
of the rook on h6 offset each other, and fully balance the opponents’ chances.
16…Ke7 17.Rd2 Bf5
This leaves Black with a certain initiative. 17…Bg6!? is possibly a bit
stronger. Although this small black initiative hardly offers winning prospects.
18.c3
The move 18.Bd3!? is worth attention here.
18…b4 19.Nc4 bxc3 20.bxc3 Rhd8
20…Rab8!? 21.Rb2 Rxb2 22.Nxb2 Be6 is somewhat more precise.
21.Rxd8 Rxd8 22.Ne3 Be6 23.Bxa6 Ra8 A draw.
(36) Semeniuk A. – Timoshchenko

Sverdlovsk 1978
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4 bxa4
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8! 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 Be6
20.Qd3!
Another step forward in the development of the variation. As we have

seen in game 30, Zheliandinov-Timoshchenko, Vilnius 1974, where the
position after 19…Be6 occurs for the first time, White could not imagine then
how to play. In that game there was 20.Ra3 Qd7 21.Bd3?!. Russian masters
were aware of the above-mentioned game, and, over three years, a correct
plan for White was found. Note that the game against Semeniuk was the
second one in the history of the variation with 16…Kh8 after the game
against Zheliandinov. A well-known game, Geller-Sveshnikov, would be
played only at the end of 1978, and White chose the move 19.Qe2 there.
20…Qd7 21.Rd1 Qf7 22.f3?!
22…Rfd8
White’s last move is an inaccuracy, but I did not know then that, in this
position, Black has an excellent opportunity to utilize his dynamic potential
through 22…e4! 23.Qxe4 Rbe8!N 24.Qc2 Ne5, with an initiative that fully
balances his sacrificed pawn (see chapter 191).
By then the move 22..e4! had occurred only once in a game between
little-known players (the common continuations are 22…Qa7 or 22…Bd8),
in which Black immediately went awry by choosing 23…Rfe8?!.
23.Kh1
Later, the move 23.Nf1 would also occur.
23…h6 (never occurred before) 24.Nf1
White does not feel the dynamics of the position. The correct moves are
24.Qe4 or 24.h3; in both cases, White gains a small advantage.
24…Nd4!
An excellent move, and the shortest path to equalization. Black exploits
the fact that the knight on d5 is insufficiently defended – and only a move
ago it had been defended by four pieces! – and, simultaneously, disconnects
the white pawns.
25.cxd4 Bxd5 26.Rxa5 Bxc4 27.bxc4 d5?
A disappointing miscalculation! After the simple 27…exd4! 28.Qxd4
Rb4 29.Rd5 (29.Nd2 d5!=) 29…Qc7, the play comes down to a drawn
position. For example, 30.Ne3 (certainly not 30.Rxd6?? Rxd6 31.Qxd6 Qxd6
32.Rxd6 Rb1 33.Kg1 because of 33…Be3+ with mate on the next move)
30…Bxe3 31.Qxe3 Rxc4, and though White retains a theoretical advantage
(the weak pawn on d6), in practice, Black can easily give it up and transpose
the game into a drawn rook ending.
28.cxd5 Rxd5 29.Qc4! Rbd8 30.h4!
Making an escape square for his king with a tempo (30.dxe5? is met by
30…Rxd1).
30…Bf4
31.Rxd5?!
Here the computer points out an absolutely fantastic way to win for White
that begins with 31.Kg1!!, and then: 31…Qd7? 32.Rxd5 Qxd5 33.Qxd5 Rxd5
34.g3 loses immediately. The variation 31…Qg8 is more complicated –
32.Rxd5 Rxd5 33.Qc7!! (now there is a threat of g3, and, after 33.g3? exd4
34.gxf4 Rg5+, Black loses his queen) 33…h5 34.Rb1 Qe6 35.Rb7 Bh6
36.Rb6 Qd7 37.Qxd7 Rxd7 38.dxe5, and White should eventually win.
The best defense is 31…Qe6!?, which can be met with 32.Kf2!! (once
again, 32.g3? exd4 33.gxf4 is bad because of 33…Qg6+ 34.Kh2 Rxa5 ; the
king’s moving to f2 eliminates any chance of giving a check along the g-file)
32…e4 33.Rxd5 Rxd5 (or 33…e3+ 34.Ke2 Rxd5 35.g3) 34.Re1!.
But, do tell, who in his right mind would have thought of moving into the
center with his king while the board is almost completely crammed with
pieces?!
31…Rxd5 32.g3 Bxg3 33.Nxg3 Qxf3+ 34.Kh2 Qxd1 35.Qxd5 exd4
Thus, White has won a piece for two pawns but is left with his last pawn
on h4, so the position should be evaluated as drawn.
36.Qa8+ Kh7 37.Qe4+ Kh8 38.Qe8+ Kh7 39.Qe4+ Kh8 40.Nf5 Qd2??
+
A time-trouble blunder that brings Black within an inch of defeat. The
simple 40…d3 leads to a draw, for example, 41.Qd4 Qe2+ 42.Kg3 Qe1+
43.Kf4 Qf1+ 44.Ke4 Qe2+ 45.Kd5 Qg2 46.Kc5 d2.
41.Kg3 Qc3+ 42.Kg4 d3 43.Ne7! Qb3 44.Ng6+ Kg8 45.h5 Qb8
46.Qd5+ Kh7 47.Qxd3 Qc8+ 48.Qf5 Qc4+ 49.Nf4+ Kh8 50.Qe6 Qa4
51.Qd6 Qa1 52.Kf5 Qb1+ 53.Ke6 Qe4+ 54.Kf7 Qf5+ 55.Ke8 Qb5+
56.Ke7 Qg5 57.Kd7 Qb5 58.Kc8 Qc4 59.Kd8 Qe4 60.Ne6 Kh7 61.Nf8+
Kh8 62.Qg6?
This is an error, but, in any case, it remains unclear whether White should
be able to convert his material advantage into a win or if Black could manage
to hold out his position.
62…Qa8+ 63.Ke7 Qxf8+ Drawn by stalemate after 64.Kxf8.
(37) Soloviev M. – Timoshchenko

Sverdlovsk 1978
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.g3 (following in Tseshkovsky’s steps –
see game 34,) 11…fxe4 12.Bg2 Bg7
Against Tseshkovsky I played 12…Be6.
13.Bxe4 Ra7
Objectively, 13…Be6! followed by Rc8-c5 is a little better, but I wanted
to examine a new plan.
14.Qd3?!
My opponent commits an inaccuracy then and there. So now it is already
Black who has the advantage. The correct move, 14.Qh5!, would only appear
in the databases in 1989.
14…0-0
This move occurred a year before in the game Lanka-Vasiukov.
15.Ne3
The continuation 15.Bxh7+?! had not yet occurred; it is favorable for
Black. After 15…Kh8 16.Bf5 (or 16.Be4 f5 17.Bg2 e4 18.Qd2 Bxb2 19.Rb1
Bxa3 20.Qc3 Nd4 21.Qxd4 Rg7 with advantage to Black) 16…e4! 17.Bxe4
f5 18.Bg2 Bxb2 19.0-0 (19.Rd1? Qa5) 19…Qa5 20.Nf4 Ne5 21.Qxd6 Qxa3
22.Qxa3 Bxa3, Black’s advantage is quite clear.
15…Ne7!
A novelty for those times. In the databases this move would appear only in
1987 (Vitomskis-Baluev). Vasiukov had played 15…Nd4?, which gave
White the opportunity to play 16.c3.
There is another interesting move in this position, 15…Nb4!N, for
example, 16.Qd2 f5 17.Bg2 f4 18.Qxb4 fxe3 19.Bd5+ Kh8 20.fxe3 Bh6 21.0-
0-0 Bxe3+ 22.Kb1 Bc5 23.Qb3 Rf2, and Black’s advantage is roughly the
same as after 15…Ne7.
16.Bxh7?
A blunder that leads to a great advantage for Black. 16.0-0-0!N is much
stronger. After that, Black can gain a small edge with 16…f5!?, for example,
17.Bg2 f4 18.Nd5 Kh8 19.Nxe7 Rxe7, and now the capture on d6 loses:
20.Qxd6? Qxd6 21.Rxd6 f3 22.Bf1 e4 23.c4 e3 24.fxe3 f2 25.Bg2 Bb7.
Black can try for more with 16…d5!. For example, 17.Nxd5 (after
17.Bxd5 Rd7 18.Rhe1 Bh6! 19.f4 Kh8, White also faces problems. For
example, 20.Qe4 f5! 21.Qf3 exf4 22.gxf4 Nxd5 23.Nxd5 Bb7 24.Qh3 Bg7,
and Black’s position is better) 17…Nxd5 18.Qxd5 (18.Bxd5 Rd7 ) 18…
Bh6+ 19.f4 Qxd5 20.Bxd5 Bg4! 21.Rde1 (21.Rdf1 Rd8 22.Bb3 Bh3 23.Rf2
exf4 24.gxf4 Rd4 is in Black’s favor) 21…exf4 22.gxf4 Bxf4+ 23.Kb1 Bh5,
and Black has only a slight advantage.
16…Kh8 17.g4
17.Nf5?? e4! loses immediately: 18.Qxe4 Nxf5 19.Bxf5 Re7.
17.Bf5?? Nxf5 18.Nxf5 e4 is no better. On 17.Be4, one possible line is
17…f5 18.Bg2 f4! (18…e4 19.Qb3 is weaker) 19.Nd1 (or 19.Nd5 e4 with a
great advantage) 19…d5, and White’s position is difficult.
17…d5!?
This looks fine, but 17…b4!? 18.Nac4 d5 19.0-0-0 Qc7 is not weaker.
For example, 20.Nxd5 Nxd5 21.Qh3 Bxg4 22.Qxg4 Nf6 23.Qe2 Nxh7, and
Black is a piece up.
18.Nf5 Nxf5?
And here we have a serious blunder. Much stronger is 18…Ng6!N
19.Bxg6 (the variation 19.Nxg7 Kxh7 20.Nf5 Nf4 21.Qg3 b4 22.Nb1 Rc7
23.c3 Bxf5 24.gxf5 Rg8 leads to a position that is won for Black) 19…fxg6
20.Qh3 Kg8 21.Nxg7 Kxg7, and Black has a great advantage despite White’s
extra pawn. For example, 22.0-0-0 Rc7 (both 22…d4 23.Qg3 Rf4 24.Rhe1
Qd5 25.h3 Rc7 and 22…Qg5+ 23.Qe3 Qxe3 24.fxe3 b4 25.Nb1 Bxg4
26.Rdf1 Bf5 27.h4 Rc7 are also fine) 23.Qg3 Rf4 24.h3 b4 25.Nb1 d4, and
White’s position is hardly enviable.
19.Bxf5 Bxf5 20.Qxf5
This move is even now absent from databases. Nine years after this game,
Vitomskis would manage to improve White’s play a little with 20.gxf5, and,
after 20…Qh4 (20…b4! is still stronger, for example, 21.Qh3+ Kg8 22.Nb1
Qg5 23.Nd2 Rc8 24.c4 bxc3 25.bxc3 Rac7 26.c4 e4 27.Rd1 Re8 28.Qe3
Qg2) 21.Rg1 (21.Rd1 is better) 21…e4 22.Qe3 Rc7 23.Rg3 Qf6 24.Qf4 Rfc8
25.c3 b4 26.Nc2 bxc3 27.b3 d4 28.0-0-0 Qh6 29.Rg5 f6 30.h4 d3 31.Ne3 Bf8
32.b4 c2, White resigned. Both opponents’ play was flawed, but I cannot
deny myself the pleasure of showing the final position to you.
But let us return to our game.

20…b4 21.Nb1 Qc8?!
21…e4! is better, for example, 22.Nd2 Bxb2 23.Rd1 Re8 24.Nc4 Bc3
25.Kf1 Rd7, and White’s advantage is great.
22.a3 e4?!
Another inaccuracy, and Black throws away his advantage once and for
all. The correct move is 22…b3!, with a possible continuation 23.c3 d4
24.Qxc8 Rxc8 25.Ke2 e4 26.h4 Rac7 27.Rh3 e3.
The game lasted another 50 moves, but from the point of view of opening
theory, it has no further interest, so I will give the rest of the moves without
comment.
23.axb4 Qxc2 24.0-0 Qxb2 25.Ra3 Rd8 26.Rh3+ Kg8 27.Nc3 Rad7
28.Nd1 Qxb4 29.Ne3 Qb6 30.Rd1 d4 31.Qh7+ Kf8 32.Nf5 Qg6 33.Nxg7
Qxh7 34.Rxh7 Kg8 35.Rh6 Kxg7 36.Rxa6 Rd6 37.Ra4 Kf6 38.Kg2 Ke5
39.Kg3 Rc6 40.f4+ exf3 41.Re1+ Kf6 42.Kxf3 Rc3+ 43.Kf4 d3 44.Ra6+
Kg7 45.Rd1 d2 46.Ra2 Rd4+ 47.Ke5 Rcd3 48.g5 Kg6 49.Ra3 Rd5+
50.Ke4 R3d4+ 51.Ke3 Kf5 52.Ra7 Re4+ 53.Kf2 Kg6 54.Kf3 Re1 55.Raa1
Rf5+ 56.Kg3 Rxg5+ 57.Kf2 Rf5+ 58.Kg3 Re3+ 59.Kg2 Re2+ 60.Kg3
Rg5+ 61.Kf3 Rxh2 62.Ra2 Rgg2 63.Ra8 Rf2+ 64.Ke3 Re2+ 65.Kd3 f5
66.Rg8+ Kf6 67.Rf8+ Kg5 68.Rg1+ Kf4 69.Rd1 Kg4 70.Rg8+ Kf3
71.Rgg1 f4 72.Rgf1+ Kg3 73.Ra1 Re3+ 74.Kc2 Re1 White resigned.
38. Zakharov A. – Timoshchenko

Ordzhonikidze 1978
8.Na3 Be7
A comparatively rare continuation that is sufficient for equality. I will
speak about it in chapter 9. At the time, the most common move was 8…Be6.
Much later an even more precise move, 8…Bg4, was found.
9.Be3
Intending to exploit weakness of the b6-square.
9…Be6
This move occurred here for the first time, so during the rest of the game
the players were on their own.
10.Nc4 Nxe4!?
A most interesting sacrifice that was found during the preparation for this
game.
11.Nxe4 d5 12.Nb6 dxe4
A bit too reckless. Black could have chosen the solid 12…Rb8! (a novelty
even for our times), and White has no advantage to speak of. For example,
13.Nc5 d4 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Nc4 dxe3 16.Nxe3 Bg5!, and analysis shows that
the static plusses of the White’s position are balanced with Black’s dynamic
opportunities. 17.Qg4 is met with simple 17…0-0.
13.Nxa8 Qxa8 14.c3
Later, many different moves would be tested here, but only 14.a5! creates
certain problems for Black. White intends to develop his queen to a4. For
example, after the usual moves 14…0-0 15.c3 f5 16.Qa4 Kh8 17.Bc4, Black
does not have full compensation for his sacrificed exchange. This position,
with a transposition of moves, occurs in this game.
14…0-0
A playable novelty here is 14…Na5!?, aiming at the weak b3-square and,
simultaneously, impeding a4-a5.
15.a5! f5
This was the most common move in the following years, but 15…Kh8!N
is stronger, for example, 16.Qa4 Qc8!
Now, 17.Bc4 Nb4! does not give any advantage:
(a) 18.Be2?! is doubtful: 18…Nd3+ 19.Bxd3 exd3 20.Qe4 (or 20.0-0 f5 )
20…Rd8, and the e5-pawn is invulnerable. For example, 21.0-0 (or 21.Qxe5?
Bf6 22.Qf4 Bxc3+ ) 21…f5 22.Qxe5? Bd6 23.Qd4 Bxh2+, winning the
queen.
(b) 18.Bxe6 does not promise any advantage: 18…Nd3+ 19.Kf1 fxe6!
20.Ke2!? (20.Kg1 is bad: 20…Nxf2 21.Bxf2 Qc5!! 22.Qc2 e3 23.Qe4 exf2+
24.Kf1, and Black has a really great advantage. 23.Rf1? Bg5 is utterly bad.
However, there is a possibility of 20.Qxe4 Nxf2 21.Bxf2 Bc5, with equal
play) 20…Nb4! 21.Qb3 Nd3, with adequate compensation for the exchange.
On the natural 17.Qxe4 f5 18.Qa4 Bd5! 19.f3 Qe6! 20.c4 Bb4 21.Kf2
Bxf3! 22.gxf3 e4!, Black has a powerful initiative that fully compensates him
for his material losses from the rook sacrifice, for example, 23.f4 g5! 24.Qd1
Qf6.
16.Qa4! Kh8 17.Bc4 Bd7 18.Qd1.
This move occurred here for the first time. In Raisin-Shariyazdanov,
Tomsk 2004, there was 18.0-0 f4 19.Bb6 Qe8 20.Rad1?? (the correct
continuation is 20.Bd5 Nb4 21.Qb3 Nxd5 22.Qxd5, with slight advantage for
White). Here, instead of 20…f3?, Black could have won straight away with
20…Nd4!N, for example, 21.Qa2 Nf3! 22.gxf3 (or 22.Kh1 Qh5 23.h3 Bxh3)
22…Bh3 23.Kh1 Qh5 24.Be2 exf3 25.Rg1 fxe2 26.Qd5 exd1Q.
18…Qe8 19.Bb6 f4 20.Qd5 Bf5 21.Bc5?!
This is an inaccuracy. After 21.0-0-0 Qc8, White has a small advantage,
although the position is very complex. (D)
21…Qc8?
A miscalculation. Black has several moves that allow him to keep on
playing.
There is the sharp 21…e3. For example, 22.fxe3 Bg6 23.Bb6!? (the play
is less clear after 23.Bxe7 Qxe7 24.0-0 Bf7 25.Qe4 Bg6 26.Qf3 e4 27.Qf2
Ne5 28.Bd5 f3 29.Qg3 Rf5 30.h4 Nd3 31.Bc4
Nxb2 32.Be2! Be8 33.gxf3 Rf6) 23…Bf7 24.Qd3 e4 25.Bxf7 Rxf7 26.Qc4
Bh4+ 27.Kd1 fxe3 28.Bxe3 Bf2, but here, White has a clear advantage after
29.Qe2 Bxe3 30.Qxe3.
There is the calm 21…Bg6!?. For example, 22.Bxe7 Qxe7 23.0-0-0 Bh5,
and White has to return the exchange: 24.Qxe4 (24.Rde1? Rd8 25.Qe6 Qc5
is weak; 25.Qxe4 is even worse because of 25…Qd7; after 24.Qd6 Bxd1
25.Qxe7 Nxe7 26.Rxd1 Nc6 27.Bd5 Nxa5 28.Bxe4 Nb3+ 29.Kc2 Nc5, White
has a minimal advantage) 24…Bxd1 25.Rxd1 Nxa5 26.Bd5 Nc6 27.Bxc6
bxc6 28.Qxc6 e4 29.Rd7, and White has a slight edge.
Also possible is 21…f3!?. For example, 22.gxf3 exf3 23.h4 (23.0-0-0? is
worse: 23…Bg5+ 24.Be3 Bxe3 25.fxe3 f2, and now it is Black who has the
advantage) 23…Bc2!? 24.Bxe7 Qxe7 25.Qd2 Bf5 26.0-0-0 e4 27.Qd6 Qxd6
28.Rxd6 Ne5, with complicated endgame that is slightly better for White.
22.Bxe7 Nxe7 23.Qd6?
White should have taken the pawn: 23.Qxe5 Qxc4 24.Qxe7 Kg8 25.Qb4
Qf7 26.0-0 Qg6 27.Rfe1 e3 28.f3, and Black has no compensation for his
sacrificed exchange.
As the game is definitely of no theoretical interest now, I will give the
rest of it without comment.
23…Qxc4 24.Qxe7 Kg8 25.Qb4 Qf7 26.Rd1 Qg6 27.g3 e3 28.0-0 exf2+
29.Rxf2 fxg3 30.hxg3 Qxg3+ 31.Rg2 Qe3+ 32.Rf2 h6 33.Qb6 Qe4
34.Qb3+ Kh7 35.Qd5 Qe3 36.Qf3 Qg5+ 37.Qg2 Qe7 38.Qd5 Rf6 39.Re1
Rg6+ 40.Rg2 Rxg2+ 41.Qxg2 Bd3 42.Qg3 e4 43.Qe3 Qe6 44.Ra1 Qg4+
45.Kf2 Qf5+ 46.Kg1 Qg4+ 47.Kf2 Qf5+ 48.Kg1 Qb5 49.b4 Qc4 50.Qd4
Qe6 51.Qe3 Qg6+ 52.Kh2 Qh5+ 53.Kg1 Qg6+ 54.Kh2 Qf6 55.Rc1 g5
56.Kg1 Qe7 57.Rd1 Qc7 58.Rxd3 exd3 59.Qxd3+ Kg7 60.Qd4+ Kg6
61.Qd3+ Kf6 62.Qd4 Kf5 63.Qd5+ Kg4 64.Qg2+ Qg3 65.Qxg3+ Kxg3
66.c4 Kf4 67.b5 Ke5 68.c5 axb5 69.c6 Kd6 White resigned.
(39) Kalinichev – Timoshchenko

Ordzhonikidze 1978
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5
8.Bg5
As we can see, this game, with a transposition of moves, has arrived at
the tabiya of the Chelyabinsk Variation.
8…a6 9.Na3 b5 10.Nd5 Be7 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.c3 0-0 13.Nc2 Bg5 14.a4
bxa4 15.Rxa4 a5 16.Bb5
As we know now, the move 16.Bb5 first occurred in 1976 in the
correspondence game Lagland-Bouwmeester, and a year later, Vassily
Smyslov repeated it in his game against Sveshnikov (chapters 176-179).
16…Ne7 17.Ncb4!
Here Smyslov played 17.Nxe7+, which did not bring any advantage to
White.
17…Be6
Not the best move, but certainly the most common one. 17…Bd7 is a
little better. The first player to make this move was Agamaliev in 1999 (the
move is examined in chapter 178). The move 17…Bh3!?, first employed by
Peter Leko in 2001, is a bit better still (see chapter 179).
18.Nxe7+ Qxe7
Objectively, taking with bishop 18…Bxe7 is a little stronger as, after it,
White retains only a slight edge, but Black plans a combination.
19.Bc6 Rac8?!
This leads to White’s clear advantage. Now, I know that 19…Rab8! is
better, but, during the game, I had to re-invent the wheel over the board after
17.Ncb4. Then, the variation 20.Rxa5 Qc7 21.Rb5! Rxb5 22.Bxb5 Qc5 is
possible, and Black is left with only a partial compensation for his pawn.
20.Rxa5 Rxc6 21.Nxc6 Qb7
This is just what I have invented.
22.Qxd6?
My opponent, who had never seen this position either, fails to solve its
subtleties. It is very important to drive the g5-bishop from the c1-h6 diagonal
with 22.h4!. For example, 22…Bf6 23.Qxd6 Rc8 24.Ra7! Qxc6 25.Qxc6
Rxc6 26.Ra8+ Rc8 (26…Bc8 27.b4! is weaker) 27.Rxc8 Bxc8+ 28.Kd2, with
a solid advantage for White in the endgame. In chapter 178, I will deal with
move 22.h4! in more detail.
22…Rd8! 23.Ra7
This move had never occurred before. Let us examine White’s choices.
After 23.Nxd8?? he is mated – 23…Qxe4+ 24.Kf1 Bc4+. 23.Rb5 does not
bring him any advantage: 23…Qxb5 24.Nxd8 Bg4 25.f3 Qxb2 26.Qd5
Qxc3+ 27.Ke2 Qc2+ 28.Kf1 Bh5 29.Nxf7 Qb1+ 30.Kf2 Qb6+ 31.Kg3 Bxf7,
and Black is quite comfortable. Garry Kasparov points out the variation
23.Qc5 Bd2+ 24.Kf1 Qxb2 25.Nxd8 Bf4 26.g4 Bxg4 27.Qd5 Bh3+ 28.Ke1
Qb1+ 29.Ke2 Bg4+ 30.f3 Qc2+ 31.Kf1 Bh3+ 32.Ke1 Qxc3+, with a draw.
23…Rxd6?!
Objectively, 23…Qxb2!?, with equal play, is a little better. A possible
continuation is 24.0-0 (24.Nxd8?? loses: 24…Qxc3+ 25.Kd1 Bb3+ 26.Ke2
Bc4+) 24…Rxd6 25.Ra8+ Bd8 26.Nxd8 h5 27.Nb7+ Kh7 28.Nxd6 Qb6
29.Nf5 Qc6!, and White has no advantage. With his text move, Black goes
for a complex endgame, relying on the strength of his bishop pair.
24.Rxb7 (this position, with a transposition of the moves, occurred in
Vaculik-Klima, 2002) 24…Rxc6 25.Rb8+ Bc8 (D)
26.Ke2
Now Black’s plan succeeds rather quickly; by the way, the same natural-
looking move would be made by Vaculik. Instead of the king move, the
engine spits out a long variation: 26.b4!N h5 (26…Rxc3 27.b5 h5 transposes)
27.b5 Rxc3 28.h4 Bh6 29.b6 Kh7 30.0-0 Ba6! 31.Ra1 Be2 32.Re1! (32.b7
Rb3=) 32…Ba6 33.Ra8 Bc8 34.Rb1 Bb7 35.Ra7 Bxe4 36.Rc7 (or 36.b7
Bxb1 37.b8Q Rc1+ 38.Kh2 Bf4+ 39.g3 Be4 40.gxf4 Rh1+ 41.Kg3 Rg1+
42.Kh2 Rh1+ with a draw) 36…Ra3 37.b7 Bxb7 38.Rbxb7 f6, and, although
the computer awards a small advantage to White here, the most probable
outcome is a draw.
26…h5 27.Ra1 Kh7 28.Ra5 f6 29.Rd5 Ba6+ 30.Ke1 Bc4 31.Rdd8 Be6
32.Ke2
32.Rb5! is more precise, but Black has seized the initiative anyway.
32…f5! 33.Rh8+ Kg6 34.exf5+ Bxf5 35.Rb5 Rd6! 36.Rxe5 Bd3+
37.Ke1 Ra6 38.Rxg5+
38.f3? is bad: 38…Bf4 39.Rd5 Ra1 40.Kf2 Rf1#.
38…Kxg5 39.Kd2?!
39.Re8! is more stubborn.
39…Bf1 40.g3 Re6! 41.Rf8 Re2+ 42.Kc1 Bh3 43.Rf3 Bg4 44.h4+ Kg6
45.Rf4 Bf5 46.c4 Rc2+ 47.Kd1 Rxb2 48.c5 Be6 49.Rf3 Bg4 50.Kc1 Bxf3
51.Kxb2 Kf5 52.Kc3 Kg4 53.Kd4 Kh3 White resigned.
(40) Yusupov – Timoshchenko

Krasnodar 1978
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Qe2
This move first occurred in this game; and a few months later, Geller
employed it in his game against Sveshnikov (Tbilisi 1978).
19…Qd7 20.Nce3 Be6 21.Rd1
The most fashionable continuation, though not the best one.
21…Qf7
A topical move, but with correct play, White retains a small advantage.
21…Bd8, which occurred in the above-mentioned game (Geller-Sveshnikov
1978), is weaker. The best move is 21…e4!, with equal play.
22.Ra2?!
An inaccuracy that throws away the advantage that White could have
retained both after 22.f3!N and 22.Nf1!?.
22…e4!
A novelty for the databases. This game is absent from them, but it is
present in Sveshnikov’s book.
Subsequently, the only move that occurred in this position was 22…Bd8
(probably under the influence of both Sveshnikov’s game and his
authoritative recommendation). On page 214 of his book, we read: “22…e4?
is no good” (followed by the moves from my game), and “the correct move is
22…Bd8!, a perfect place for the bishop, from where it can eye both flanks.”
Then, there follows a reference to the game Geller-Sveshnikov that is
separately analyzed in the section “Illustrative Games.” The only thing is
that, under game 22, the other Geller-Sveshnikov game is given (it had been
played in 1977 in Leningrad). The most interesting point is that the position
given in the diagram never occurred in this game at all!
Actually, the opposite is the case. The move 22…e4! is the only one that
equalizes immediately, while the passive 22…Bd8?! leads to a small but
enduring White advantage after 23.Qd3 (the novelty 23.Qc2!? also looks
fine) 23…Qh5 (this is the move that Sveshnikov has made). And now, not
24.Nf1?! (the move chosen by Geller who missed the retort 24…e4!), but the
cautious 24.f3!N, after which the advance …e5-e4 looks rather problematic,
and, without this advance, there is no active counterplay. Later, the white
knight can be transferred to g3 via f1.
23.Nf1
This move cedes the initiative to Black.
The position after 22…e4 occurred with a transposition of moves in the
correspondence game Ventimiglia-Paigney 2005; there White played more
cautiously, 23.Qc2!, and maintained the balance. A good answer to the queen
move for Black is 23…Ne5 (the variation 23…Qg6 24.Nf1 Bg4!?, a novelty,
is also sufficient to maintain equality) 24.Rxa5 (or 24.Qxe4 a4! 25.b4 Rbc8
26.Bd3 g6, with equal play) 24…Qg6, for example, 25.Rf1 Bg8!? 26.Kh1
Nd3 27.Qe2 Rbe8!, with the idea of Re5, and Black has a full compensation
for his sacrificed pawn.
23…Ne5! 24.Qxe4 a4!
Black applies the pressure, and it is no easy task at all for White to hold
out, and he blunders.
25.bxa4?
This move loses at once. White has a joyless choice between two stronger
continuations. After 25.b4 Bf5 26.Qe2 Rfc8 there is the very bad variation
27.Bb5? Bg4 28.f3 Nxf3 29.gxf3 Bxf3 and the suspicious one 27.Ba6 Bg4
28.Qc2 (the line 28.f3? Nxf3 29.gxf3 Bxf3 30.Qf2 Bxd5 31.Rxd5 Qxd5
32.Bxc8 Rxc8 33.Rxa4 Qc6 34.Ra3 Bf6 with a great advantage for Black, is
no good) 28…Bxd1 29.Qxd1 Rf8. The best course of action is to give up the
exchange with 27.Bd3.
And on 25.Nde3 axb3 26.Bxe6 Qxe6 27.Rb2, the far-advanced b3-pawn
secures a small advantage for Black.
Here I let Sveshnikov down a lot by making a hasty move…
25…Rbc8??
In Sveshnikov’s book, this error is left without comment, and, as Black
lost the game, the entire 22…e4 variation was branded as bad.
But if we think it over more seriously (a couple of minutes should be
enough), we will easily find the variation 25…Nxc4! (a novelty that entirely
changes the current assessment of the variation and, consequently, the
evaluation of the Black’s previous play as a whole) 26.Qxc4 Rb1!! 27.Rxb1
(the line 27.Rad2 Rxd1! 28.Rxd1 Qxf2+ 29.Kh1 Bxd5 30.Qxd5 Qxf1 ends
with mate) 27…Bxd5 28.Qd4 Bxa2, and Black wins.
26.Bb5 Bg4 27.f3 Nxf3+ 28.gxf3 Bxf3 29.Qd3 Qa7+ 30.Qd4 Rc5
31.Rf2 Bf6 32.Nxf6 Rxf6 33.Rd3 Rg5+ 34.Ng3 Qf7 35.Qe3 Black resigned.
What a shame, it could have been a fine game with 25…Nxc4. Anyway,
in this game, Black demonstrated the sacrifice of two pawns (…e5-e4 and …
a5-a4) for the first time, something that would occur in similar positions later.
We will also see such motifs in some analysis that are given in the theoretical
section of the book.
(41) Soloviev – Timoshchenko
Chita 1979
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 Be6
20.Qd3 Qd7 21.Rd1 Qf7 22.f3?!
22…Bd8?!
A novelty for those days. As we have already shown in the comments to
game 36, Semeniuk-Timoshchenko, the correct continuation is 22…e4! (see
chapter 191). But, under the influence of Sveshnikov’s “all-triumphant”
ideas, I chose total defense and employed this move. The bishop move to d8
would appear in the databases in 1988.
23.Kh1 Qh5 24.Nf1 Bf5 25.Qd2 Qe8
Here a draw was agreed despite White’s clear advantage. This brings up
the question, whether it is worth the bother to play the Chelyabinsk Variation
to draw such games against weaker opponents? Probably not. And, for better
or worse, this game discouraged me from playing it for many years to come.
So, on that sad note, we will finish this chapter.
Why Don’t I Play This Variation Anymore?
Chess fans put this question to me occasionally. It would be more specific

to ask, why did I take a long break, and why haven’t I been playing the
variation for many years?
It is true that in 1979 I stopped playing it for a long time. As I have
already written, by that time, the novelty effect was completely lost. Some
solid ways to obtain a minimal, but enduring advantage for White had been
found, and even competent candidate masters who knew their theory learned
to fight to the bitter end (I mean, to the draw) against grandmasters. In the
position that arose in the variation, especially after 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6, the
second player’s chances for a win were small – or, at least, smaller than in the
usual variations of the Sicilian Defense. Only years later would new ways of
complicating the struggle for Black be found (for example, Krasenkow’s
move 11…Ne7!?), But, in 1979, it appeared to me that the variation was at
the low ebb, at least temporarily.
Sveshnikov also stopped playing the variation with 5…e7-e5. As I
remarked in my book Opening Repertoire of a Future Master, if, for the past
forty years, Sveshnikov had “improved” the variation by starting to play …
e7-e5 a move earlier, then I managed to solve the problem in a cardinal way
and took to playing …e7-e5 as early as on the first move!
And, joking apart, there was a second – and deeper – reason. In 1978, I
became interested in the Scheveningen formations, primarily, in positions
with Black pawns on d6, e6, and a6 and his b8-knight staying put for a time,
maintaining the dynamics with a view toward a potential opportunity of …
b7-b5. As early as 1979, I had successfully tested the plan with …b7-b5 in
my training game against Geller, who was one of the greatest opening experts
of the time, and after that, shifted my ground. At the same time, I started to
study the Ruy Lopez for Black seriously.
I cannot say whether that change in my opening repertoire was a result of
the intervention of some higher forces, but the fact was that, by the end of
1981, I had already played about 20 games with such an approach to the
Scheveningen variation and accumulated a vast (for that time) selection of
strong players’ games for the treatment of this variation. And, at the end of
1981, I received Garry Kasparov’s offer to become one of his coaches. I must
note that, by that time Garry, in collaboration with Alexander Nikitin, had
already published a book on the Scheveningen Variation, but its main focus
was lines with an early …Nb8-c6 and without …a7-a6 which led to quite
different and clearly less dynamic positions.
It goes without saying that no one in the whole world sensed the
dynamics better than Garry, so when I had shown him opportunities for Black
in this “improved” Scheveningen (without Nc6), it attracted his attention
immediately. As early as game 5 of his first match against Anatoly Karpov,
we were able to see this variation on the board. Immediately after this game,
Karpov gave up playing 1.e4 for a long time and returned to this move only
in game 35 of the match. We could see that he did not like the nature of the
ensuing positions.
In the decisive game 24 of the second match, after serious study of the
variation, Karpov had employed a most active plan with 15.g4!?, but lost
both the game and his title in a very sharp struggle and, after that, quit
playing 1.e2-e4 altogether. I was asked to comment on this game for the
newspaper Sovietsky Sport which had allotted a whole centerfold for this
article. I called it “Energy of the Coiled Spring” since, in my opinion, this
conception fit the core content of the Scheveningen variation perfectly.
However, this variation is a subject for another book.
My knowledge of the Ruy Lopez (Karpov’s favorite opening!) also came
in very handy during my work with Kasparov. I was his chief adviser for this
opening, and, though I finished my time with Garry in 1986, some of my
novelties would “fly” for a long time after (for example, in game 2 of the
1990 match).
During my work with Kasparov, I would play in tournaments only rarely,
as my coaching duties took almost all my time, and, during our work, we
almost never analyzed positions of the Chelyabinsk variation (with the
possible exception of my research on the line 9…Qa5). So, when I returned
to active tournament activities, I was five years behind the latest
developments in this variation but had my head full of various well-analyzed
openings. Thus, my quick return to it never happened. Only lately, when I
played much more rarely, would I occasionally choose the Chelyabinsk
variation.
But I am grateful for it as it was the first opening system I had examined
so thoroughly. Serious work on this variation taught me how openings should
be studied, and those skills would help me more than once, both in my
professional chess life and in my coaching work.
Looking Back
And now let us go back to our roots and try to find out the ideas that were
associated with the move 5…e5 in the past.
It is commonly believed that the first game in which this move was made
was Hannah-Loewe, played in the far-off year of 1857. Now, we cannot
know the reasons that prompted Mr. Loewe to make such an aggressive
move. Maybe it was just a mistake or he had simply had a row with his wife.
I guess that the first suggestion is closer to the truth as in the middle of the
19th century, the variation with the …e7-e5 advance on the previous move
had been highly popular. For example, it had been employed in several
games of the McDonnell-LaBourdonnais match in 1834, and later – and a bit
belatedly – the idea was taken up by Sveshnikov.
Anyway, we know that in reply to 6.Ndb5, Mr. Loewe continued his
aggressive strategy by playing 6…a6 instead of the correct move 6…d6, and
the game lost any theoretical interest for us.
But, the very next game, in which the position shown on the diagram had
arisen again, is worthy of our greatest respect. It was played in 1910 between
Carl Schlechter and Emanuel Lasker, and on the highest possible level too –
in their match for the world championship. This game played an important
part in framing the destiny of the variation that was not a very lucky one in
the beginning. It was important, firstly, because, after this game, the variation
acquired its first name, the Lasker Variation, and, secondly, because the game
had been incorrectly covered by the press, and, as a result of it, the variation
with 5…e5 was to be earmarked as second-rate for years to come.
Having run into a surprising move, Schlechter decided on playing more
solidly and chose 6.Nb3. Now we know that this retreat of the knight is the
poorest of them all and, what is more, the only one that immediately hands
the advantage to Black (of course, we do not speak of the primitive stumble
to e6 here). The next five moves made by Lasker were exemplary, but with
his eleventh move he made a mistake and threw his advantage away. In the
game, there was 6…Bb4 7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Bd2 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bd6
11.Qh5!?, and then instead of the text move, 11…Qc7, Black should have
played 11…g6! with an advantage. After 11…Qc7, the play became equal,
but the error itself went completely unnoticed.
Naturally, the game was commented widely, and by the greatest experts
of those times, too. For example, Tarrasch, notorious for his tendency for
excessively harsh evaluations, branded the move 6.Nb3 as “ugly.”
It is easy to understand the feelings of average chessplayers of these
times, if even an “ugly” move 6.Nb3 had led to an equal game, then what
horrors would lie in wait for Black upon White’s “normal” play? For
example, after 6.Ndb5 Qa5 7.Bc4 Nxe4 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Qd5+
recommended by Capablanca himself (the evaluation belongs to
Capablanca)?
However, let us disbelieve the great Cuban and try to evaluate his whole
“variation” for ourselves. We will easily see that this whole recommendation
of his is practically a continuous set of blunders. Let us start at the end. On
9.Qd5+, Black replies 9…Ke8, and after 10.Qxe4 a6, the symbol gets
immediately replaced with or even (Well, what do you know! And we
are thinking that…). 8.Bxf7?? is a real howler; instead, 8.Qd5! should be
played, with enormous advantage.
Well, let us move on. Instead of 7…Nxe4?, the correct move is 7…a6!,
for example, 8.Nd6+ Bxd6 9.Qxd6 Nxe4 10.Qd5! Qxd5 11.Nxd5, with equal
play; White has adequate compensation for his lost pawn. So, 7.Bc4? is
incorrect, and the sound move here is 7.Bd2!. For example, 7…Qb6 8.Be3
Qa5 9.f3!, and White has a great advantage. Finally, the move 6…Qa5? looks
completely naive. It has been known for a long time that the correct move is
6…d6.
I admit that such a “quality recommendation” from Capablanca himself
was a small shock for me (and what about you?). Then, what can we expect
from recommendations of other not-so-famous players of those days? I have
never trusted the variations cited in the old books, but, after this, I simply
consider it my duty to look for errors in the old analysis if those are cited in
the variations that I personally analyze.
Schlechter himself recommended 6.Ndb5 d6 7.a4. That is quite
acceptable now, and this continuation also made a certain impact on his
impressionable contemporaries.
As a result of all those comments, the variation received a very low
evaluation, and the move 5…e5 was practically forgotten for a long time to
come.
Well, actually Lasker ventured to play 5…e5 once more – in the same
year in a consultation game – but this game did not work out well for him.
So, he never attempted to employ this variation again.
In the 35 years that followed the game between Lasker and Schlechter,
we can find only three games in the chess databases. In 1935, a game by
Alekhine against a little-known opponent flashes before our eyes (White
chose 6.Nxc6), and, only after that game, did White start to play 6.Ndb5
more or less regularly. This is the only move that allows him to continue
struggling for an opening advantage. The logical answer to this knight move
is 6…d6. (D)
The players found out rather quickly that on the move 7 it is best for
White to play 7.Bg5, pinning the black knight and preparing the occupation
of the d5-square with his c3-knight. The move 7.a4, recommended by
Schlechter, also still occurred from time to time. As quickly, it became clear
that the best
answer was 7…a6, the move that forces the knight retreat to a3, either
immediately or after capture on f6 with a bishop.
Here it should be noted that the position after 7.Bg5 can arise after a
variety of other move orders – for example, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 Nc6
4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5 – so do not be surprised if I
soon will be speaking about the game Tarrasch-Janowski, which was played
as early as 1898 (by the way, the above-mentioned move order is taken from
this very game). I would also like to add that, to avoid confusion, all possible
move orders are reduced to the main one, namely to 5…e5.
Thus, after 7.Bg5 a6
White has two choices: either to retreat to a3 immediately (I believe that

this move is the strongest) or to take on f6 first.
Let us begin with the second continuation (by the way, it has occurred
much more rarely than 8.N3). After 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3, the following
position arises: (D)
I know only of eight games played before the end of 1950 in which this
position has occurred and of 41 games played before the end of 1960. If we
look more closely, we will find out that in 19 of those, the move 9…d5
occurs. For this period of
time, this continuation was definitely the main one. It was named the
Argentine Variation, or the Pilnik Variation. This, once so popular variation
has gradually withdrawn into the shadows, and strong players have not been
employing it for a long time now.
The move 9…Be6 occurs comparatively frequently (seven games). The
move 9…b5, which after 10.Nd5 reduces the game to the main line 8.Na3
(the most fashionable one currently), also appears in seven games. Only in
six games did players choose 9…f5!?, as in the above-mentioned game
Tarrasch-Janowski.
Tarrasch sacrificed a piece (10.Qh5?! b5 11.Naxb5 axb5 12.Bxb5) and
then declared that Black’s position was bad; but, actually, it is exactly Black
who has a clear edge (see chapter 30), and the move 9…f5!? is as good as the
popular 9…b5. Moreover, it is much less examined and so leaves much more
potential for creative work.
Now let us proceed to the main move – 8.Na3.
I know of only 17 games with this position that were played before the
end of 1950, and in only three of them do we see 8…b5!, the move which is
currently considered practically the only good move, and is a trademark of
the Chelyabinsk variation. In other games, the moves 8…Be7, 8…Be6 and
8…Nd4 occurred; these almost never appear now.
By the end of 1960, there are already 53 games with this position, and in
17 of those, the move 8…b5! – the move which is of interest to us – occurs.
Admittedly, the variation 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5, which is very popular
now, appeared in only two of them. As for continuation 9.Nd5 Be7, which I
personally consider to be the main line of the variation, it appears in four
games.
As you see, before the end of 1960, there had been several “direct hits”
on key positions of the Chelyabinsk variation, but those clearly were not
main lines then, and these “hits” were, most probably, of a random nature.
Furthermore, we should remember that, in those times, there was not even a
hint of either computers or chess databases, and the accumulation of chess
data was an immeasurably more difficult process. So, it is hard to imagine
someone analyzing the variation in a more or less professional manner then.
As we will see in the chapter “What statistics have to say,” such a static
situation continued roughly to the middle of 1970s, when the move 5…e7-e5
would explode in popularity. From the same chapter, it will become clear
(even for those who did not figure it out for themselves) what the reason for
this popularity growth was.
What Statistics Have to Say
This chapter is intended, first of all, for those who like to think. The
impatient readers that are eager to get to the main part of the book as quickly
as possible are free to skip it.
First, let us see what statistics has to say about the popularity of the
variation. As a reference, the database Huge from Chess Assistant 12 will be
used, in which games played before October 1, 2011 are included. There are
4,720,374 games in this database. Of course, I have a considerably more
extensive database that includes games from other sources as well, such as
correspondence games, but, for the sake of uniformity and also to create for
anyone who feels like it an opportunity to check both my statistical data and
conclusions that follow from those, I must use a public database such as
Huge.
It is well-known that positions of the Chelyabinsk variation can arise
from a variety of move orders, e.g., after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Nf4 e5 8.Bg5, or 2…e6, or 4…e6, or 4…
e5, etc. But, most commonly, the variation is played out precisely with 5…
e5, so, for the sake of simplicity, we will take into account only the data with
this move.
Thus, let us ask the question about the percentage of occurrence of the
Chelyabinsk variation mainline position (with 5…e5) after 1.e4 during
various periods of time. The results are:
1500 to 1940: 9 games out of 24,493; 0.037%

1941 to 1950: 18 games out of 8,480; 0.21%
1951 to 1960: 89 games out of 20,462; 0.43%
1961 to 1970: 149 games out of 46,304; 0.32%
1971 to 1980: 1,233 games out of 68,026; 1.81%
1981 to 1990: 2,650 games out of 158,025;1.68%
1991 to 2000: 13,454 games out of 769,436; 1.75%
2001 to 2010: 22,898 games out of 1,225,473; 1.87%.
There is clearly a great, roughly six-fold leap in the popularity growth of
the variation during the period of time from 1971 to 1980. Since then, its
popularity has remained approximately at the same level.
It would be wrong to think that 1.87% is a very small number. Soon, we
are going to see that it is an outstanding result.
Further, I was interested in whether it was possible to determine a specific
date of the popularity explosion. It turned out that it could be done, and the
results are as follows:
1971: 16 games out of 4,497; 0.36%

1972: 36 games out of 7,371; 0.49%
1973: 40 games out of 5,827; 0.69%
1974: 49 games out of 5,939; 0.83%
1975: 93 games out of 6,223; 1.49%
1976: 200 games out of 6,668; 3.00%
1977: 249 games out of 6,442; 3.87%
1978: 270 games out of 8,697; 3.10%
1979: 126 games out of 7,582; 1.66%
1980: 154 games out of 8,780; 1.75%
We witness a gradual growth of the popularity of the variation before

1974, and then a leap from 1975 to 1977. Let me note parenthetically that the
success of the variation for Black in 1973-1976 period was 54%, which
means that, by that time, White had not been able to obtain solid positions
yet, but, in 1977, this success rate fell to 49% (which is a very fine result per
se!).
So what was the catalyst of such popularity growth for the variation? If
we turn to the Huge database once again, we will find that, by the end of
1974, there already were 13 of my games and 8 of Sveshnikov’s with 5…e5,
and with good results for both of us at that. Of those, my three games against
Petrushin, Mikhalchishin, and Lukin are mistakenly marked in the database
as having been played in 1974; actually, they were played at the end of 1973
in Tbilisi during the USSR Cup, where I managed to finish second after Oleg
Romanishin. This result was a consequence of my two wins with Black
against Andrei Lukin, both of them in the Chelyabinsk variation. As the
USSR Cup was widely covered by the press, all those games were well
known in the chess world even before the end of 1974.
By the end of 1975, 17 games of mine and 13 games of Sveshnikov’s
with 5…e5 were known. It seems to me that it is those successful games of
ours that were the reason for the variation’s popularity explosion in the 1975-
1977 period, which empowers me to state that the variation with 5…e5 had
been revitalized chiefly by me and Sveshnikov. More than that, the impartial
numbers clearly show who had been the leader during the first decade of the
variation development (1965-1975). These results will prove rather useful in
the next chapter, where we are going to deal with the name of variation.
Now, let us analyze the correlation between the popularity of the
Chelyabinsk variation and levels of players. For this analysis, I created four
separate databases for players of different strengths from the original Huge
chess database, to wit:
(a) From 0 to 2300;

(b) From 2301 to 2500;
(c) From 2501 to 2700: and
(d) 2700 and higher.
It should be understood that only the games where the ratings of both
(White and Black) players fall within one of the categories are included in the
analysis. In addition, it was interesting to compare the popularity level of the
Chelyabinsk variation with those for others variations that are most
frequently employed against 1.e4 – the Najdorf, Dragon, Rauzer, and
Scheveningen variations, as well as the Ruy Lopez.
To make the comparisons valid, for every variation the position in the
main line after Black’s fifth move was taken into account, more specifically:
Najdorf variation – 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6;
Rauzer variation – 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6;
Dragon variation – 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6;
Scheveningen variation – 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3
e6;
Chelyabinsk variation – 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3
e5; and
Ruy Lopez – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7
As for the name “the Rauzer Variation,” I understand that the variation
itself develops only after 6.Bg5, but, to be honest, I have no idea what to call
the system in the Sicilian Defense with the moves d6/Nf6/Nc6, and I had to
name it somehow for my statistical research.
Popularity of Variations in Relation to Players’ Strength
I tabulated the results and added another column for the correspondence
database. So, what follows from this table? The conclusion that is most
important for us is that the Chelyabinsk variation is most popular among
players with ratings of 2700 and higher, and, in the given chess database,
trails only “obvious” leaders – the Najdorf variation and Ruy Lopez; in other
words, the strongest players have a rather high appreciation of the solidity of
the variation. The same goes for the correspondence database, and, in
correspondence games bluffing does not work, and so the variation’s solidity
is especially highly valued!
It comes as no surprise that the obvious leader in every rating category is
the Najdorf, the popularity of which, in percentage terms, substantially
increases with the increase in the strength of the players.
Excellent recommendations are given to the main line Ruy Lopez. It is
not very popular among players with ratings under 2300 but increases in
popularity with every subsequent category and even outstrips the Najdorf
variation slightly at the strongest level!
On the contrary, the Dragon variation is rather fashionable at the weakest
level, but its popularity decreases with the increase of players’ strength. The
reason for it is obvious: weaker players are attracted by its romanticism,
while stronger ones know well how to attack in the Dragon and have no
desire to expose themselves to the bullets of home-grown variations.
Popularity of the Scheveningen variation oscillates between fourth and
sixth places, and it is difficult to add anything to this. Apparently, White has
a strong weapon here, the Keres Attack, 6.g4, that decreases the popularity of
the d6/Nf6/e6 formation.
The situation with the formation d6/Nf6/Nc6 that we conditionally call
the Rauzer system is better, but its popularity dramatically decreases at the
strongest levels and even drops to fifth place in the correspondence database.
Thus, the principal conclusion we can draw from this chapter is that the
Chelyabinsk variation occupies a most fitting place in the opening repertoire
of the best players of our times. As a means of struggling against 1.e4, it
enjoys a special popularity among elite players, yielding only to the Ruy
Lopez and the Najdorf, which, without a doubt, is an outstanding
achievement.
About the Name of the Variation
When a well-known Soviet master heard someone calling the system 1…

d6 the “Pirc Defense,” he would usually cry out in anger: “Pirc my ass! The
defense is mine!” I will refrain from cursing in a similar fashion, but still find
it necessary to philosophize a little upon the name of the variation.
As it was already mentioned, in some books and databases, the variation
is called the “Lasker Variation.” But, chess gods strike me if I know, what
does Emanuel Lasker, with all due respect, have to do with the authorship of
this variation?
Yes, certainly, in 1910, he employed it in two games, but, in the first one,
his opponent, Schlechter, had made a second-rate move, 6.Nb3, right away,
and the game practically lost significance from the point of view of modern
theory. In the second game, his little-known opponent, Lynch, had the
courage to play correctly, 6.Ndb5, but immediately after Lasker’s reply, 6…
d6, swerved aside with 7.a4. I mean to say that all Lasker managed to do in
those two games was to show the chess world a single move from main lines
of the modern theory of the variation 5…e5. And, as both games were not
successful for him, Lasker simply forgot about this variation (though had he
been interested in opening doors for it, he should have looked for errors in his
own play and demonstrated some improvements in subsequent games).
Moreover, the reason why Lasker twice obtained positions that were not
very good was his own inaccurate play, but the “theorists” of the time never
bothered to examine the reasons, simply marking the move 5…e5 as dubious.
For a long time after, the variation languished and occurred only rarely, and,
unfortunately, much “credit” for this must go to Lasker.
Let us reason a little. If we take any game of Lasker’s, then, sooner or
later, we will find a move that had never occurred in practice before that day.
Must we call this new move the “Lasker Variation” immediately or would it
be fairer to say that this move had occurred in a Lasker game for the first
time?
It seems to me that it is more correct to name an opening or a variation
after a player (or players) who has been instrumental in the initial
development of the theory of this variation and done much to popularize it.
For example, the Nimzowitsch Defense got its name in appreciation of Aron
Nimzowitsch’s great efforts in the development of this popular opening – in
spite of the fact that the defense itself had already occurred in games of other
players as early as in 1854, 1883, and 1887, and Nimzowitsch employed it
for the first time only in 1914. By the way, the game Rubinstein-Alekhine
was played in the same year.
The situation with the Grünfeld Defense is similar. According to the
Huge database, Grünfeld himself first employed it in 1922, and, though
Alexander Alekhine, a much more famous player, had utilized it twice during
the same year, the opening was named after Grünfeld. And, in my complete
database, there are about two dozen of games played by little-known players
during the period 1879-1918 – and even an exotic game from 1855!
The next question deals with my thoughts on the name “Sveshnikov
Variation” that appeared in the West after Sveshnikov’s book had been
translated into foreign languages. If we go back to the roots, it was Evgeny
who was first to pay attention to the variation in 1965, and, after our training
game, I also got interested in it. I was almost a master then and would score
the norm in October of 1965, and Evgeny was a strong and promising first-
category player. Naturally, I had a liking for him and, being a stronger player,
advised him often enough (a fact that Evgeny himself had emphasized more
than once). That also included the variation with 5…e7-e5. I did not dare to
employ the variation in October 1965 as I was to play in a tournament where
I had to make the master’s norm while playing all 14 games solely against
masters, and, before this tournament, I had had practically no experience of
playing against masters (with the exception of a single game). But after my
goal had been achieved, the variation immediately became one of the
principal openings in my repertoire.
As the reader already knows from “Cutting My Teeth,” in 1966-1967, I
played 17 games in the variation. If we take into account only the games with
5…e5 that have been included in “official” databases, through 1974, I had the
greater number (13 games against Evgeny’s 8). The following year’s picture
was similar – 17 and 13 games respectively (see the chapter on statistics for
more details). From “What Statistics Have to Say,” the reader also knows that
the explosive growth in popularity of the variation began in 1975-1976 as a
result of success by Sveshnikov and me in the previous years. And, if I had
more published games by this time, it seems a bit illogical to consider
Sveshnikov as the only author of the variation. It is more like we are both
equal authors (by the way, Sveshnikov himself is of the same opinion).
But, it is necessary to mention that we had different approaches to the
“protection” of our analysis. I supposed that to spread our knowledge is
wrong in principle. Let others do the same work which I have done, and then
they possibly would obtain the same knowledge. Practicing chessplayers are
almost universally of the same opinion. It is now, when I have sharply
decreased my playing activity, that I am ready to share my analysis openly.
Evgeny, on the other hand, was ever willing to popularize the variation and
relate his ideas to everybody who did not mind listening to him.
Way back then, Boris Gulko, he of the sharp tongue, aptly called this
character trait “an educational itch” (no offense to Sveshnikov is meant).
Anyway, Sveshnikov had, at the first opportunity, written the book on the
variation. It was translated into foreign languages, and, in many Western
countries, the name the “Sveshnikov Variation” had taken hold, although the
author himself believed that is would be more correct to call it the
Chelyabinsk Variation.
It is unfair to take offense at the Western players and publishers; from a
human perspective, it is easy to understand them. They were everyday people
who had not been taught the geography of the USSR at their schools, so what
did they know about Chelyabinsk? Of course, nobody was ever going to learn
this geography by themselves. God forbid! Also, they never read the Soviet
chess press and so knew nothing about the Chelyabinsk chess school where
several grandmasters, the former champion of the world Anatoly Karpov
among them, had grown up. Probably because of all that, they wanted to have
a well-known word or by-line in the name of the variation. Mysterious
Russia, with its geography, was far away, but you could hold the perfectly
real Sveshnikov’s book in your hand, and the author was widely known at
that. So why waste time if they already had a ready name for the variation?
It is clear that they read Sveshnikov’s book in the West a long time ago.
All that is left for me is hope that this book will be read there as carefully.
From “What Statistics Have to Say,” Western readers and experts would,
with probable amazement, learn that there was another player who, by 1975,
had even more published games in the variation than Sveshnikov did. And I
also hope that it will help them to see things in a more realistic light, too.
The more so as the situation has changed by now. It looks like superior
forces have interfered again. In the beginning of 2013, a meteor flew over
Chelyabinsk causing a lot of damage. The newspapers all over the world have
been writing about this event, so now Chelyabinsk is a globally known place.
So it is just the right time to appoint the name “Chelyabinsk” to the variation.
It would be some kind of a quality mark, a hint at the destructive power of the
variation…
Of course, this was only a joke.
So what, in my opinion, is a correct and fair name for the variation would
be? I believe, there are three fine possibilities. The first one is the
“Sveshnikov Variation” which eternalizes the achievements of the
Sveshnikov chess school. Two other possible names are the Sveshnikov-
Timoshchenko variation or the “Timoshchenko-Sveshnikov.” In both those
cases, the efforts of those who have given the variation its fully-fledged life
would be recognized. Admittedly, these two names are a bit long, but it
cannot be helped as we both have not been given a chance to choose our
family names. And there exist some much more serious cases in the opening
nomenclature. For example, what would you say about the
Tartakower/Makogonov/Bondarevsky Variation?
Anyway, I would not advise the Russian-speaking readers to call the
variation “in the Western manner,” as in the society of intelligent persons
who know a bit or two about the history of the Sveshnikov variation, you
could easily be taken for dabblers.
Part II
Theory of the Chelyabinsk Variation
Section 1. Deviations from Main Line on the Move 6
Chapter 1
6.Nb3
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Nb3?!
The only move that leaves White any chance to struggle for an advantage
is the most popular continuation 6.Ndb5, and, according to the database, the
most popular among other retreats of the knight is the move 6.Nb3. It is
usually marked with “?!” as it has been assumed for a long time that this
move leads to a clear black advantage, and strong players practically never
play this way.
The move 6.Nb3 first occurred in Schlechter-Lasker (world championship
match, 1910). It is said that after the game, Tarrasch had even branded this
move as “an ugly one,” (I have already told you about the events associated
with this game in the chapter “Looking Back.” However, as we are going to
see, this move is not so bad. Actually, this continuation is only a little weaker
than other knight retreats, and Black has to try hard to prove his advantage.
6…Bb4
A natural continuation that exploits the benefits of the pawn on d7 (and
not on d6, as, for example, in the Najdorf Variation). The bishop enters the
game very strongly, and Black has already taken over the initiative.
7.Bc4
Here, White has several options. We will choose the move 7.Bc4 as the
main one. It is popular enough, and simultaneously it is the most successful
one in the database.
Let us dwell on other possibilities.
(a) the most popular move is 7.Bd3, which is probably the most natural-
looking one as well. But “the most-natural-looking” does not always mean
“the best.”
Usually there follows 7…d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Bd2 Nxc3! (Here,

Sveshnikov thinks that the best move is taking with the bishop, 9…Bxc3,
followed by 10.bxc3 0-0 11.0-0 f5 12.Bc4 Kh8. However, the correct move is
not 12…Kh8?!, but 12…Be6!, with advantage to Black. And instead of
12.Bc4?!, White should play 12.Qe2!, with equal play. Unfortunately, I lack
the space to show concrete variations that prove my statements) 10.bxc3 Bd6
(10…Be7 is also playable, and, after 11.Qh5 g6 12.Qh6 Bf8, the game may
come down to the variation 10…Bd6)11.Qh5!? g6!.
The move 11…Qc7 that occurred in the above-mentioned game
Schlechter-Lasker for the first time, leads only to equal play. The move 11…
g6! is absent from Sveshnikov’s book, and so he erroneously believes that the
continuation 9…Nxc3 leads to unclear play.
12.Qh6 Bf8 13.Qe3 Bg7 14.Qc5 (after 14.0-0, Black’s advantage is
undeniable) 14…Qe7! 15.Qxe7 Nxe7 16.Nc5 0-0 17.Rd1 Rb8!, and Black
has a stable advantage. The continuation 17…b6 18.Be4 Rb8 19.Bg5! f6
20.Nd7 (this being the whole point of the 17.Rd1) is weaker.
(b) 7.Bg5 is probably a little better,
And after standard moves 7… h6 8.Bxf6 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qxf6, White can
play 10.Nd2! (a more common move is 10.Bc4). The poorly placed knight
goes via c4 to e3, and 10…Na5 11.Nb3!N Qc6 12. Qd3 does not help.
(c) But the best move is 7.Bd2!, which allows White to keep his pawn
chain undamaged.
This is a rare move, and highly unsuccessful at that. For example, in
Sveshnikov’s book, this modest bishop retreat is not even mentioned.
However, as we are going to see, this is the best chance for White in the
present position as every other move leads to undeniable black advantage.
Now Black can take the e4-pawn: 7…Bxc3 8.Bxc3 Nxe4, and the
analysis shows that, after 9.Qg4!, the play is equal.
The most promising move here is 9…Nf6!?, but let us examine other
possibilities first.
(1) The common move 9…Ng5? is weak because of 10.f4! exf4 11.0-0-0
0-0 12.Bc4!N with a clear white advantage.
(2) The variation 9…d5?! looks highly suspicious: 10.Qxg7 Qf6 (or 10…
Ke7N 11.Na5! Nxa5 12.Qxe5+ Be6 13.Bb4+ Kd7 14.0-0-0 Kc6 15.c4!)
11.Qxf6 Nxf6 12.f4!N; the usual continuation is 12.Bb5, with a small
advantage. For example, 12…d4 13.Bd2 e4 14.Bb5 e3 15.Ba5! Bd7 16.0-0-0
Ng4 17. Rhe1, and White has a solid advantage.
(3) Another possible continuation is 9…Nxc3 10.Qxg7 Rf8 (or 10…Ke7
11.Qg5!+N Ke8 12.Qg7 Ke7 13.Qg5+ with a repetition of moves) 11.bxc3
d6! 12.Nd2!?N (both 12.Qxh7 and 12.Rb1 also lead to equality), for example
12…Qa5 13.Ne4.
13…Be6 (this is the best continuation; 13…d5? is bad because of

14.Bb5!, with an advantage, and now 14…dxe4?? loses immediately after
15.Qxe5+. For example, 15…Kd8 16.0-0-0+ Bd7 17.Qd6 (or 17.Rxd7+)
17…Kc8 18.Qxd7+ Kb8 19.Qd6+, and White wins; 13…Bf5?! fails to
equalize after 14.Nxd6+ Kd7 15.Nb5, and White stands slightly better)
14.Nxd6+ Kd7 15.Rd1 Qxc3+ 16.Rd2 Qa1+ 17.Rd1 Qc3+ 18.Rd2, with
repetition of the moves.
(4) But let us return to the move 9…Nf6. There follows 10.Qxg7 Rg8
11.Qh6 d5 12.0-0-0, and a highly complicated position, with roughly equal
chances emerges, in which every opponent may be able to show his strength.
So where is that Black’s advantage after 7.Bd2? Well, he simply should
not grab the pawn on e4. The correct continuation is 8…d5! (instead of 8…
Nxe4). For example, 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qf3 Nxc3 11.Qxc3 0-0, but then
Black’s advantage is only minimal. This is the best chance for White in the
variation 6.Nb3.
Let us return to 7.Bc4.
7…0-0
After 7…d6 8.0-0 Bxc3! (8…Be6? 9.Nd5! Nxe4, recommended by
Sveshnikov, is an error because of 10.Qe2!N. For example, 10…Nc5 11.c3
Nxb3 12.axb3 Ba5 13.b4 Bxd5 14.Bxd5 Bb6 15.b5 Ne7 16.Bxb7 Rb8
17.Be4, with an advantage to White) 9.bxc3 Nxe4 10.Ba3 0-0, the game may
transpose into the main line.
Sveshnikov mistakenly considers 7…Nxe4 to be the principal retort to
7.Bc4.
But this move throws away almost the entire advantage after 8.Bxf7+;
and the variation 8…Kf8? 9.0-0 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bxc3, recommended by
Sveshnikov, is altogether bad because of 11.Bh5!N. For example, 11…Qf6
12.Ba3+ Bb4 13.Bxb4 Nxb4 14.f4!, and Black is only one step from losing.
8.0-0
The move 8.Qd3 is fairly common here. After the energetic retort 8…d5!,
there usually follows 9.Bxd5 (or 9.exd5 e4! 10. Qe3 Nxd5 11. Bxd5 Bxc3 12.
Qxc3 Qxd5) 9…Nxd5 10.exd5 Ne7 11.0-0 Bf5! 12.Qe2 Bxc3 13.bxc3 Qxd5,
and Black has a small, but stable edge.
The move 8.Bg5 is as good as castling, for example, 8…h6 9. Bh4 Bxc3+
10. bxc3 d6, and Black also has a small advantage.
8… Bxc3 9. bxc3 Nxe4
As it is clear from the analysis (and less so from practice), Black can take
this pawn without fear, after which White initiative’s is not even sufficient
for equality. (D)
Sveshnikov evaluates this position as favorable for White, basing his

opinion on the outcomes of three old games, but actually it is Black who has
an advantage.
10.Ba3 d6 11.Qd3
The move 11.Qe1?! that occurred in the blindfold game Gelfand-Leko,

Monte Carlo 2004, is rarer. After 11…Nc5, White chose a risky continuation,
12.Rd1?! (12.Nxc5N dxc5 13.Bxc5, leading to equality. For example, 13…
Re8 14.Qe3 Qf6 15.Rad1 Be6 16.Bb5), and after 12…Qe7?! (12…Be6!?N,
with some advantage to Black, is better) 13.f4 (13.Rxd6?! is favorable for
Black) 13…Be6 14.Bb5?! (after 14.Bxe6 fxe6 15.fxe5, White could have
leveled the game once again) 14…exf4 15.Rxf4, there arose a position with a
small black advantage. Admittedly, Gelfand won the game eventually, but
this outcome has nothing to do with the evaluation of the move 11.Qe1.
The best reply to 11.Qe1?! is 11…Nf6!.
Black defends coolly, and after 12.Rd1 Ne8, White has no adequate
compensation for his sacrificed pawn. The active move 13.f4 gains nothing
after 13…Qb6!+N 14.Kh1 Bf5!. For example, 15.Bxd6 Nxd6 16.Rxd6 exf4
17.Rxf4 Qc7 18.Qd2 Rad8 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.Nd4 Bg6, and Black has a small
advantage (or 20…Nxd4 21.Rxd4 Rxd4 22.Qxd4 b6 with a slightly better
endgame).
11…Nf6!
The variation 11…Bf5?! 12.Rae1 Ne7 13.Rxe4 Bxe4 14.Qxe4 d5
15.Qh4, as in Kosten-King, Torquay 1982, is favorable for White.
In Miralles-Vaisser, Meribel 1998, there was 11…Nc5 12.Nxc5 dxc5
13.Bxc5 Qxd3 14.cxd3 (14.Bxd3, with the idea of f2-f4, is probably more
precise) 14…Rd8 15.Rfe1 b6 (15…Be6! is a little stronger: 16.Bxe6 fxe6
17.d4 b6 18.Ba3 exd4 19.Rxe6 Rac8 20.cxd4 Nxd4 21.Rd6 Rxd6 22.Bxd6
Kf7, with moral advantage to Black) 16.Bb5 Bd7 17.Be3 Na5 18.Ba6 Bc8
19.Bb5 Bd7 20.Ba6 Bc8 21.Bb5 Bd7, and a draw was agreed.
12.Bb5!?N (D)
Here this is the lesser evil.

Both 12.Bxd6 Bf5 13.Qxf5 Qxd6 14.Rad1 Qe7 and 12.Rad1 Bg4 13.Rd2
(13.f3 e4!) 13…Qb6!N are favorable for Black.
12…Ne8! (the only move that maintains the advantage).
13.Rad1 Ne7!?
13…Bg4 14.Rd2 Qb6 is also good.
Chapter 2
6.Nxc6
This capture immediately hands Black a control over the important d5-
square and opens the b-file for the black rook. Obviously, under the influence
of such significant changes in the position, Sveshnikov even marks White’s
move as “dubious” and concludes that, in the end of the main variation,
“White is left with nothing.”
But the whole chapter on the move 6.Nxc6 in Sveshnikov’s book abounds
with blunders. In fact, this exchange is not as catastrophically bad as it may
seem and we will see that it leads to equal play.
6…bxc6 7.Bc4
The move 7.Bg5?! weakens the b2-pawn, and Black can exploit this by
7…Rb8! 8.Rb1 h6! (8…Qa5?!, recommended by Sveshnikov, is senseless as
it runs into a simple retort 9.Bd2, with equality). Now, White has to take on
f6 as 9.Bh4? will be met now with 9…Qa5! 10.Bxf6 Rxb2!. After 9.Bxf6
Qxf6 10.Bc4 Bc5, Black has a small edge.
The continuation 7.Be2 is examined in the comments to Buchholz-
Timoshchenko, 1974 (game 29 in the chapter “Another 16 Games”).
7.Bd3 is a passive but solid continuation that gives Black a very slight
advantage after 7…Bb4 8.Bd2 0-0 9.0-0; it occurs rather frequently.
If Black is careless enough to continue 9…d5 (9…Rb8!? is probably
more precise), then White has a little combination, 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 11.exd5
Bxd2 12.Qxd2 cxd5, and now it is already Black who has to play accurately
to equalize. But everything ends well for him. For example, 13.Rfe1 Re8
14.Bb5 Bd7! (14…Re7N is worse in view of 15.Bc6 Rb8 16.Bxd5, as in the
correspondence game Andersson-Perevertkin, 2005) 15.Qxd5 Bxb5 16.Qxb5
Rb8 17.Qa6 Rxb2 18.Qxa7 Rxc2 19.a4 g6 20.a5 Re6 21.a6 Rc7 22.Qe3 Qa8
23.a7 Ree7, with equal play.
7…Bb4
After 7…Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qd3!?, White shows faint signs of an initiative.
7…Bc5!? 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 a5!?N leads to a very slight black
advantage.
8.0-0
8.Bd2?! is weak because of 8…d5. After 8.Bg5 h6, White will have to
exchange his bishop with 9.Bxf6 as 9.Bh4?! is bad: 9…g5 10.Bg3 Nxe4
11.Bxe5 Qe7! 12.Qd4! (recommended by Sveshnikov; 12.0-0?? immediately
loses to 12…Qxe5 13.Nxe4 Qxe4) 12…f6! (Sveshnikov’s move 12…Nxc3?
is met not with 13.bxc3??, as pointed out by him-in view of 13…Bc5 14.Qe4,
and after 14…Bd6, White simply loses a piece. But, with 13.0-0!N 0-0
14.Bf6!, White obtains a small advantage) 13.Qxe4 Qxe5 14.Qxe5 fxe5, and
Black has an edge.
8…0-0
8…Bxc3 9.bxc3 Nxe4 looks risky (9…0-0 is playable, but 9…d5? is bad
because of 10.exd5 cxd5 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Bxd7+ Qxd7 13.Ba3! Qa4
14.Bd6 e4 15.Rb1!N, with great advantage to White) 10.Ba3 d5 11.Re1,
although I failed to discover any advantage for White during my analysis.
Another opportunity for an attack is 11.Bd3!?N, with the idea of capturing
the knight on e4 with an attack against the king stuck in the center and
bishops of opposite colors.
Sveshnikov opines that Black should play 8…h6, and points out a
variation that allegedly proves Black’s advantage, but actually it is Black who
is going to have firsthand knowledge of White’s initiative (admittedly, a not-
so-strong one) after 9.f4 Qe7 10.fxe5 Qxe5 11.Qd3!N, for example, 11…0-0
12.Bf4 Qc5+ 13.Be3 Qe7 14.Bd4 Bc5 15.h3 Bxd4+ 16.Qxd4 Re8 17.Rad1
Qe5 18.Bb3, and White has a minimal advantage.
9.Bg5 h6
9…Bxc3 10.bxc3 h6 11.Bh4 g5 12.Bg3 leads to a transposition of moves.
10.Bh4
10…g5!?
The calm 10…d6 11.Qd3 g5! is also possible (11…Qe7 12.Rad1 Rd8?! is
weaker in view of a novelty, 13.f4!, and White has the initiative) 12.Bg3 Qe7
N with equal play.
11.Bg3 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Nxe4 13.Bxe5 d5
In this position, White has no advantage, and the game is equal.
Chapter 3
6.Nf3

A retreat to f3 is quite playable, but promises no advantage.
6…Bb4 (D)
7.Bc4
The move 7.Bd2?!, which is very popular among weaker players,
occurred in Gutkin-Timoshchenko, Vladimir 1966. Black’s reaction was
correct:
7…Bxc3 8.Bxc3 Nxe4 9.Nxe5 (9.Bxe5? is bad: 9…Nxe5 10.Qe2 d5 11.Nxe5

0-0!, and Black wins; 10.Nxe5 Qa5 is even worse) 9…Nxc3 10.Nxc6 Nxd1
11.Nxd8 Nxb2 12.Nxb7 Bxb7 13.Rb1 Bxg2 14.Bxg2 Rb8. This forced
variation resulted in an extra pawn for Black. Then, there followed 15.0-0 0-0
16.Rfe1 Na4 17.Rbd1 Rfd8 18.Re7 Nb6 19.Rd3 Kf8 20.Re5 Re8, and Black
eventually won.
On 7.Bg5?!, Black can get a small advantage a number of ways: 7…h6,
7…Bxc3+ or 7…Qa5. But he should not play in accordance with
Sveshnikov’s recommendation, 7…d5?-because White seizes the advantage
after 8.Bxf6! Qxf6 9.exd5, and, if 9…e4?, then 10.Nd2!N, and the advantage
is even greater.
7…0-0
In Sveshnikov’s opinion, “the traditional plan 7…d6 8.0-0 Be6! is quite
possible.” I would replace the exclamation mark with the symbol that means
“a dubious move,” as White gets an excellent chance to develop the initiative
after 9.Nd5 Nxe4 10.Qe2 Bxd5 11.Bxd5 Nf6 12.Bg5 0-0 13.c3!N (13.Rad1,
Radulski-Bae, Batumi 2002, is a little weaker). Then, it is possible to
continue 13…Bc5 14.b4 Bb6 15.a4 a5 16.b5 Ne7 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Bxb7 Rb8
19.Be4, and the analysis shows better chances for White.
It is better to play 8…0-0, taking the game into the variation 7…0-0 8.0-0
d6, where White has only a slight advantage. Curiously enough, Sveshnikov,
in this position recommends the move 9.Bg5 on page 22 but, in the same
position on page 23 (where the order of the moves is 7…0-0 8.0-0 d6),
prefers 9.Nd5!. That means that the author just plain fails to notice that this is
the same position that has arisen with only a minimal transposition of moves!
I have seen such an error in his book more than once.
7…Nxe4!? is quite playable. (D)
Now, 8.Bxf7?!+ Kxf7 9.Qd5+ Kf8 10.Qxe4 d5 11.Qe2 Bg4 leads to a
black advantage.
To equalize it is enough to play 8.0-0. For example, 8…Nxc3 9.bxc3 Be7
(9…Bxc3? is highly
risky because of 10.Bxf7!+ Kxf7 11.Ng5+ Ke8 12.Qh5 g6 13.Qf3 Qe7

14.Qxc3, and White’s initiative is very dangerous) 10.Qd5 0-0 11.Nxe5 Nxe5
12.Qxe5 etc.
8.Qd5 Nd6 9.Bb3 is playable, for example, 9…Qa5 10.Bd2 Qxd5
11.Nxd5 Bxd2 12.Nxd2!N (12.Kxd2 is probably weaker) 12…Kd8 13.0-0-0,
for example, 13…b5 (or 13…f6 14.f4! Re8 15.Rhe1) 14.Nf3 Rf8 15.Ne3 Kc7
16.Nd5+ Kb7 17.Nf6 Kc7 18.Nd5+ Kb7 with a repetition of moves.
8.0-0
Other moves are noticeably weaker.
Let me only note that after 8.Bg5 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3, Sveshnikov’s
recommendation 9…Qa5? is clearly erroneous (by the way, about twenty
gullible players followed it after the publication of his book). After 10.Bxf6
Qxc3+ 11.Nd2 gxf6, White simply plays 12.0-0, and Black is in serious
trouble (Sveshnikov analyzes 12.Rb1). For example, after 12…Nd4 13.Re1
d5 14.Bd3!N, White has a highly dangerous initiative. The correct reply is
9…h6, with slightly better play for Black.
8…Bxc3
In his book, Sveshnikov mistakenly states that the main move is 8…d6?!,
but it runs into a very unpleasant retort, 9.Nd5!. First of all, let us change
Sveshnikov’s recommendation for 9…Nxe4?. He recommends 10.Nxb4
Nxb4 11.Qe1 d5 12.Qxb4 dxc4 13.Qxc4. In his opinion, White has an
advantage here; however, there follows 13…Bf5!N, and Black has a pleasant
game.
Then, 13.Nxe5!N is better, but the main point is that 10.c3!N is a stronger
move. For example, 10…Bc5 11.Qc2! Nf6 (or 11…Bf5? 12.Bd3, and Black
is in a bad way) 12.Ng5 e4 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 14.Nxe4, and White has a clear
advantage.
The only move that Sveshnikov explores as a reply to the discreet 9…h6
is the peculiar 10.Nxb4?! that leads only to equality, with White trading his
beautiful knight for the out-of-play b4-bishop. Instead of all that, White can
retain all the benefits of his position and his advantage with the simple move
10.Qd3!.
9.bxc3 Nxe4
Here the move 9…d6!? is played occasionally; the answer is 10.Qd3!
with equal play, for example, 10…Be6 11.Bxe6N fxe6 12.Ba3 Rf7! 13.Ng5
Rd7 14.Nxe6 Qe8.
10.Ba3
In this position, the continuation 10.Re1 Nxc3 11.Qd6! frequently occurs,
for example, 11…Qf6 12.Ba3 Re8 13.Re3 b5 14.Bb3. In the correspondence
game Gazoli-Balabaev, 2003, there followed 14…a5 15.Rxc3 b4 16.Rxc6
dxc6 17.Qxf6 gxf6 18.Bc1 a4 19.Bc4 Bf5 20.Ne1, and in the complex
endgame, Black’s chances are no worse.
10…d6 (D)
11.Re1
11.Qe1?! is worse because of 11…Bf5!? (11…Nf6! looks even better:
12.Rd1 Ne8, with a small advantage for Black). Now, 12.Rd1?! Re8!N (but
not 12…Qa5?! as in Bosch-Rogers, Hertogenbosch 1999), leads to a solid
black advantage. It is
better to play 12.Bd3!N, but it can be met with 12…Ng5! 13.Nxg5 (13.Bxf5?
is bad because of 13…Nxf3+ 14.gxf3 Qg5+ 15.Bg4 f5, with great advantage
to Black) 13…Qxg5 14.f4 exf4 15.Bxd6 Rfe8 16.Bxf4 Rxe1 17.Bxg5 Rxa1
18.Rxa1 Bxd3 19.cxd3 f6 20.Bf4, and Black’s chances are a little better.
11…Ng5
11…Nc5 is a bit weaker because of 12.Bxc5 dxc5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5
14.Rxe5 Qf6 15.Rxc5 b6 16.Rc7, and White has a small advantage,
A.Rodriguez-J.Rodriguez, La Carlota 1995.
12.Bd5!N
In Mukhin-Minasian, Leningrad 1990, there was 12.Nxg5 Qxg5 13.Bxd6,
and now, after 13…Bg4?!, (the text move), White could have obtained a
small advantage with 14.Qb1!N; however, the correct continuation is 13…
Rd8!N, for example, 14.Qf3 Qf6, and the ending is pleasant for Black.
12…Nxf3+ 13.Bxf3 Bf5 14.Qxd6 Qxd6 15.Bxd6 Rfe8 16.Bxc6 bxc6
17.Rxe5 Rxe5 18.Bxe5 Bxc2 The game is equal.
Chapter 4
6.Nde2
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Nde2
A solid continuation, in which White provides against the unpleasant

move Bf8-b4 beforehand while aiming at a stable position without doubling
his pawns on the c-file (as in chapters 1 and 3) and without improving the
opponent’s pawn structure (as in chapter 2).
This move at least guarantees White a comfortable life and equal chances
in the upcoming game.
6…Bc5
An active position for the bishop, but other continuations are also
possible. The modest 6…d6 is sufficient for equality. The more ambitious
move is 6…Bb4!?, after which Black creates an immediate threat to the e4-
pawn.
Then possible are:
(a) 7.Qd3, as in Fabrikant-Timoshchenko, Novosibirsk 1974 (game 27 in
“Another 16 Games”), is not quite successful.
(b) White often continues 7.Bd2, for which there is an interesting reply
7…Bc5!? (a novelty from 1966 that has not been employed since then) that
has been discussed in the comments to the game Slonimsky-Timoshchenko,
Kaluga 1966 (game 5 in the chapter “Cutting My Teeth”).
(c) 7.a3! (the best move) 7…Ba5. Now White faces a choice. Let us
investigate his options.
(1) In the blindfold game Morozevich-Gelfand, Monte Carlo 2003, White
played 8.f3, and after 8…h6 9.b4N (9.Qd6!? is probably better) 9…Bb6
10.Na4 d5 11.Nxb6 axb6 12.Bb2 0-0 13.Ng3 (13.b5!?) 13…dxe4, made an
error, 14.fxe4?! (14.Qxd8 Rxd8 15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.fxe4 leads to a roughly
equal game). Black could obtain an advantage with 14…Ng4!.
(2) Most commonly, White plays 8.Bg5, and, after 8…h6 9.Bh4 (Black’s
chances are a little better if the bishop is exchanged on f6) 9…0-0 10.f3, the
play is equal.
Notice that the continuation 9…g5 10.Bg3 Nxe4 is risky, but possible; for
example, 11.b4 Nxc3! (11…Nxg3 is dangerous: 12.Nxg3 Bb6 13.Nd5 d6
14.Bc4, and White has more than adequate compensation for his sacrificed
pawn) 12.Nxc3 Bb6 13.Nd5 d6 14.h4 Be6 15.Nxb6N axb6 16.hxg5 Nd4 with
equality.
(3) 8.b4!? (an active continuation) 8…Bb6. Sveshnikov evaluates the
resultant position in favor of Black, but this is a delusion.
White has the move 9.Qd6!N.
Now on the sharp variation 9…Ng4 10.f3 Qh4!+ 11.g3 Qf6 12.Qxf6
Bf2+! 13.Kd1 Nxf6 14.Bg5 d6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Nd5 Kf8 17.Nxf6 a5, Black
practically has full compensation for his pawn. The calm 9…h6 10.Be3 Bc7
11.Qd2 d6 12.Ng3 0-0 13.Bc4 Ne7 14.0-0 Be6 15.Bb3 is also possible, and
White exerts slight pressure on his opponent’s position. Let us return to the
move 6…Bc5.
7.Ng3
There is no reason to damage your own pawn structure with 7.Be3?!.
After 7…Bxe3 8.fxe3 d6 (or 8…0-0), Black’s position is slightly better.
You have only to refrain from following the recommendation given in
Sveshnikov’s book 8…d5?! 9.exd5 Nb4, as after 10.Ng3!N Nbxd5 11.Bb5+,
it is already White who has a small advantage. Then a possible continuation
is 11…Bd7 12.Bxd7 Qxd7 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.Qxd5 Nxd5 15.0-0-0 0-0-0
16.Nf5 Kc7 17.Rhf1 g6 18.Nh6, and White has the initiative.
7…d6
In the rapid game Morozevich-van Wely, Monte Carlo 2003, the rare
move 7…h5 occurred.
After 8.Bg5 Qb6 9.Qd2, Black captured a poisoned pawn with 9…Qxb2?
(9…d6, with a small white advantage, is much better). There followed
10.Rb1 Qa3 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Rb3 Qa5 13.Rb5 Qa3 14.Nd5 a6, and now
White had a chance to obtain a great advantage with 15.Rxc5!N (in the game
there was 15.Rb3). For example, 15…Qxc5 16.Nc7 Kd8 17.Nxa8 d6
18.Ne2!! Be6 19.Qe3! Nd4 (or 19…Qxc2 20.Nc3!) 20.Qc3!.
But, to find to such a variation during a rapid game is definitely
impossible.
In his book, Sveshnikov highly recommends the move 7…Qb6,
intending, after 8.Qd2, to continue 8…Ng4 (with an exclamation mark,
“disrupting the enemy battle formation.”
Actually, instead of the knight move, it is better to play 8…d6 or 8…0-0,
and White has a strong retort to Sveshnikov’s recommendation, 9.Nf5!N.
Now 9…Nxf2?? loses immediately to 10.Nxg7+ Kf8 11.Nd5 Qa5

12.Qxa5 Nxa5 13.Nf5 h5 (the continuation 13…Nxh1 14.Bh6+ Ke8
15.Ng7!+ Kf8 16.Ne6+ Ke8 17.Nec7+ Kd8 18.Bg5+ f6 19.Bxf6+ Be7
20.Bxe7# leads to a forced mate) 14.b4 Nxh1 15.bxc5.
In the comparatively better line 9…Bxf2+ 10.Kd1 d6 11.Nd5 Qc5
12.Nxg7 Kf8 13.h3! Ne3+ 14.Nxe3 Bxe3 15.Qxe3 Qxe3 16.Bxe3 Kxg7,
White has a better ending.
Let us return to 7…d6.
8.Be2
8.Na4 Bb4+ 9.c3 Ba5 does not gain any advantage for White.
8…a6
On 8…Be6?! (the most popular move in practice and, perhaps because of
that, the main move in this variation according to Sveshnikov) we have to
take into account the possibility of 9.Na4! Bb4+ (9…h6!?N is probably
better) 10.c3 Ba5 11.Bg5!?N, and it looks like Black is in for serious
problems.
For example, 11…h6 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Qxd6! Nd4 14.Bd1! (14.0-0 Rd8
15.Qc5 b6 16.Qc7 Nxe2+ 17.Nxe2 0-0 leads to equal play) 14…Rd8 15.Qa3
Bc4 16.b4 Nb5 17.Qb2 Bb6 18.Nxb6 Qxb6 19.a4 Nd6 20.Be2, and White is a
pawn up without any particular counterplay for his opponent.
8…0-0 9.0-0 a6 transposing into the main variation 8…h6 is also
possible.
9.0-0 0-0!?
Other options:
(a) After 9…Be6, we have (with a transposition of moves) the position
from the main variation of the 6.Nde2 system in Sveshnikov’s book, but he
does not examine there the move 10.Nd5!, which gains a small advantage for
White as it is impossible to take on d5 with the knight now.
(b) The most common move is 9…h6, instead of castling, but it does not
secure full equality. In A.Rodriguez-van Wely, Minneapolis 2005, White
played incorrectly: 10.Nh5 Nxh5 11.Bxh5 0-0 12.Nd5. Then there followed
12…Qh4 13.Bf3 Nd4, and after another error, 14.Ne3?!, Black obtained a
slightly better game. The line 12…Ne7!N 13.Be3 Nxd5 14.Bxc5 Nf4, with
equal play, is also worth attention.
But the correct line is 10.Be3! 0-0 (10…Bxe3?! 11.fxe3 is worse, for
example, 11…0-0 12.Qd2, and now 12…Ne7 is dangerous because of
13.Rxf6 gxf6 14.Rf1, or 12…Be6 13.Nd5, and White has the initiative)
11.Nd5 Bxe3 12.Nxe3 Be6, and White stands slightly better.
10.Bg5
10.Kh1, Andriasian-Sanjay, India 2011, is dubious because of 10…Nd4!
with slightly better game for Black, for example, 11.Bd3 (or 11.f4?! Nxe2
12.Qxe2 Ng4!) 11…Ng4!N.
10…h6 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nd5 Qg5!N.
The game is equal. The strong position of the knight on d5 is offset by the
black pieces’ pressure on the kingside; notice that one of the main roles is
played by the bishop on c5, which, in the main lines, takes a less satisfactory
position on g5.
Chapter 5
6.Nf5 d5 7.exd5 Bxf5 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Qf3 Qd7 without 10.Bc4
It is strange that this meaningless move allows Black to force through the
freeing advance …d7-d5 both immediately and in a favorable way; it is
relatively popular among good players.
I have the only explanation for that: in his book, Sveshnikov has
designated this move from other minor retreats of the knight and awarded it
with the sign that means “worth attention.”
Which is completely illogical, for, at the end of the chapter on the move
6.Nf5, Sveshnikov concludes correctly: “Black position looks at least as good
as White’s.” He also indicates that he highlighted the move 6.Nf5 only
because it was mentioned somewhere by David Bronstein. Frankly speaking,
it is a mystery to me what is so important about this.
6…d5 7.exd5
In Solleveld-Van Den Doel, 1992, after 7.Bg5? d4 8.Ne2 h6, Black
obtained a clear advantage; however, 8…Qb6!N is even stronger.
On 7.Nxd5?!, Black has to play 7…Nxe4!, with a small advantage (but
not, according to Sveshnikov, 7…Nxd5, as after 8.Qxd5 Qxd5 9.exd5 Bxf5
10.dxc6 bxc6 11.Bd3 Bxd3 12.cxd3, the play is equal).
7…Bxf5 8.dxc6 bxc6
Here, Black has two objectively equal options that lead to equality but
taking with the pawn results in more complex positions. As in practice White
still plays with less confidence in this case, I would prefer this continuation.
8…Qxd1+ 9.Nxd1 bxc6 10.Ne3 is quite playable and also leads to
equality.
(a) Now Black frequently plays 10…Be6, and after 11.Nc4 Nd7 (11…
e4!?) 12.Be3, instead of the usual 11…f6, he should continue 11…0-0-0!?N,
for example, 13.0-0-0! (after 13.Bxa7 c5 14.Bb6! Bxc4 15.Bxd8 Bxf1
16.Rxf1 Kxd8, Black has excellent play) 13…Kc7, and the analysis shows
that Black is very close to complete equality.
(b) I believe that 10…Bg6 is a bit more precise.
In the resulting position, the best move is 11.Ba6!; all the other moves do
not create any problems for Black.
Let us examine those options.
(a) The move 11.Bc4, popular among weaker players, occurred in
Naumenko-Timoshchenko, Bryansk 1975 (game 32 in “Another 16
Games”)..
(b) After 11.Bd3 0-0-0!N, Black has a small initiative, for example,
12.Bxg6 hxg6 13.Bd2 Bc5.
(c) In Zhang-Kryvoruchko, Cappelle-La-Grande 2005, White played
11.Be2, and after 11…0-0-0 12.Bd2 Bc5 13.Ba5 Rd7, Black stood
excellently. The next inaccurate white move, 14.Ng4 (14.0-0!?), gave Black a
chance to obtain a small initiative through 14…Rd5! 15.Nxf6 gxf6.
After 11.Ba6!,
…Black almost always plays 11…Rb8.
Then, possible is 12.0-0 Bc5 (12…Bd6!?N) 13.Nc4 0-0 14.Nxe5 Bxc2
15.Bc4 (in Blodstein-V.Milov, Kirovabad 1984, after 15.Bg5, Black
answered recklessly 15…Rxb2 (15…Ne4!N is stronger – White has nothing
better than to return with his bishop to c1), but got nowhere after 16.Bxf6
gxf6 17.Nd7 Bd4 18.Nxf8 Kxf8 19.Rae1!) 15…Be4 16.Bg5 Bd4 17.Bxf6
gxf6 18.Nd7 Rb4 19.Rad1 Rxc4 20.Nxf8 Bxb2, and, in Bator-King,
Copenhagen 1983, an even position arose.
But let us return to the capture to c6 with the pawn. 8…bxc6
9.Qf3 (the best move) 9…Qd7 10.Bg5

In practice, White employs this continuation much more often than any
other one. However, it is not the best one and even creates certain problems
for him. That is just what I meant when I wrote about White’s tentative play
against 8…bxc6 a bit earlier. The move 10.Bc4!, which we are going to
discuss in the next chapter, is stronger.
10…e4!
The key move that creates very strong counterplay for Black. 10…Bb4 is
not so good because of 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bc4!, with a small white advantage
(12.Bd3 Bxd3 13.cxd3 Qd5! 14.Qxf6 Rg8 is weaker).
After 10…Be7 11.Rd1, the move 11…e4!N gives good chances for
equality, for example, 12.Qf4 Qe6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Rd6 Qe5 15.Qxe5+ Bxe5
16.Rxc6 Rb8 17.Rc5 Bxc3+ 18.bxc3 Be6.
Playing 11…Qe6 instead of 11…e4 is not so good because of 12.Bc4!.
The same goes for 11…Qc8!? in view of 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Ne4!N Be7
14.Nd6+ Bxd6 15.Rxd6 0-0 16.Bc4, and White has a small advantage.
Now where should the white queen retreat?

11.Qe2
This is the best retreat. Sveshnikov marks the move 11.Qe3?! with sign
“!?,” but practice clearly does not confirm the evaluation of the expert of the
Chelyabinsk Variation: after 11…Ng4, White has to choose where to place
his queen again.
(a) In Pozin-Ikonnikov, Perm 1993 there was 12.Qe2 Bc5 13.Nxe4 Bxe4
14.Qxe4+ Kf8, with clear advantage to Black, and, after White’s error
15.Be2? (15.Qd3), Black could have obtained a won position with 15…Nxf2
16.Qc4 Qf5.
(b) After 12.Qd2 Qxd2+ 13.Bxd2 Bc5 14.Nd1 Nxf2 15.Nxf2 e3 16.Bxe3
Bxe3 17.Bd3 Be6 Black, has a small advantage (Teschke-Krasenkow,
Germany 2003).
(c) In the blitz game Serper-Kasparov, 1998, White played 12.Qg3 and,
after 12…Bc5 13.Nd1 h6 (13…f6! 14.Be3 Rd8 is still stronger) 14.Bf4 g5
15.Be5? (15.Bd2!), the game could have ended much quicker: 15…f6 16.Bc3
Bd6 17.Qh3 h5!. For example, 18.Ne3 Bc5 19.Rd1 Nxe3 20.Qxe3 Bxe3
21.Rxd7 Bxf2+.
11.Qd1 has also been played. It is just a bit weaker than the move in the
main line. The best answer to it is 11…Bd6!, and White is in a fog.
In Muzychuk-Ushenina, Rijeka 2010, there was 12.Qd4 Qe7 13.Bxf6,

and now Black should have taken the bishop with a pawn 13…gxf6, not
fearing 14.Bb5 Rc8!, and Black has a small edge.
On 12.Bc4 Qe7 13.Qe2 0-0, Black also possesses a small advantage.
I believe that the move 12.Bxf6!?N is worth attention. The position after
12…gxf6 has been analyzed, and I can offer you the beginning of the main
line of this analysis: 13.Bc4 0-0-0 14.Qe2 Bg4 15.Qe3 f5 16.Be2 Rhg8
17.Bxg4 Rxg4, and Black has a small advantage once again.
11…Be7!
Black has no fear of losing his the e4-pawn.
12.Rd1!
Other continuations are weaker.
(a) The move 12.Qa6?! occurred in Dzumaev-Frolyanov, Izhevsk 2010.
After 12…0-0 13.Bc4, the white queen finds itself far from the center of
action, which is underscored by the move 13…Ng4!. There followed
14.Bxe7?! (14.Rd1 is more precise), and here Black has an intermediate
move 14…e3!, with great advantage, for example, 15.Bh4 Qd2 16.Kf1 exf2
(the prosaic 16…Qxc2 is also fine) 17.Ne2.
Black has several good ways to develop his attack.

I am going to suggest only one of them here: 17…Rae8! 18.Bxf2 Re4!
(with the threat of Rf4) 19.h3 (the only move) 19…Nxf2 20.Kxf2 Rf4+
21.Kg1 Qe3+ 22.Kh2 Rh4! (threatening …Rxh3 and Qf2#) 23.Raf1 (or
23.Qxc6 Be4 24.Qd7 Qf2 25.Rag1 Bf5) 23…Bxh3! 24.gxh3 Qxh3+ 25.Kg1
Qxh1+ 26.Kf2 Qe4 27.Bd3 Rh2+ 28.Ke1 Qb4+ 29.Kd1 Qxb2, and Black
stands better.
(b) In the position after 11…Be7!, White commonly accepts the sacrifice
of the pawn: 12.Bxf6?! Bxf6 13.Nxe4 0-0 14.Nxf6 gxf6, but this position is
favorable for Black, and practice confirms this statement.
In Rogers-Volzhin, Saint Vincent 2002, there followed 15.Qd2 Rfe8+

16.Kd1 Qc7! (16…Qb7, that occurred in Müller-McShane, Lippstadt 1999, is
bad. White should have replied 17.Kc1!) 17.Bd3 Rad8 18.Kc1! (the move
18.b4?, Mellado-Campos, Sants 2002, did not save White. Black won quickly
after 18…c5 19.bxc5 Qxc5 20.Rb1 Qd5 21.Rb3 Qd4 22.Rc3 Rb8 23.Kc1
Rb6 24.Bxf5 Rb1+ 25.Kxb1 Qxd2 26.Kb2 Qd4, and White resigned.
Moreover, Black could have played even stronger, for example, 22…Bxd3 is
simpler.) 18…c5 19.b3?! (19.Re1 is more stubborn) 19…Qe5 (19…c4!
20.bxc4 Qc5N, is even stronger) 20.Rb1 c4! 21.bxc4 Rb8 22.Rxb8 Rxb8
23.Qe3 Qb2+ 24.Kd1 Bg4!+ 25.f3 Qa1+ 26.Kd2 Qxh1 27.Qf4 Qxg2+
28.Kc3 Re8 29.Qxg4+ Qxg4 30.fxg4 Re5!, and Black won.
12…Qe6!
The continuation 12…Qb7, Vavra-Novotny, corr. 1988, is just a little
weaker. After 13.Qa6 Rb8 14.Qxb7 Rxb7, White should have retreated with
his bishop to c1, and Black has only a minimal advantage.
There is the interesting move 12…Qc7!?. Now it is dangerous to play
13.Bxf6?! (White should probably prefer 13.Qe3!?N) 13…Bxf6 14.Nxe4
because of 14…Bxb2!N, with a small black edge.
13.Qc4 Rb8 14.Qxe6 fxe6
In another correspondence game, Bock-Langois, 2000, Black took on e6
with his bishop, which led to equal play: 14…Bxe6 15.b3 Bb4 16.Bd2 0-0
17.Na4 etc.
15.b3 Nd5 16.Bxe7 Kxe7 17.Na4
We follow the game Akopian-Yakovich, Rostov-on-Don 1993. Now
Black is a little too hasty with the advance …4-e3, and this leads to quick
equalization.
17…e3?!
After 17…Rbd8!?N, Black retains a micro-advantage, for example
18.Bc4 e3 19.0-0 Nb6! 20.Nxb6 axb6 21.fxe3 Bxc2.
18.c4 exf2+ 19.Kxf2 Nb4 20.Be2 Nxa2 21.Ra1 Nb4 22.Nc5 a6 23.Rhd1
Rhd8 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Ra4, and, In this position a draw was agreed.
Chapter 6
6.Nf5 d5 7.exd5 Bxf5 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Qf3 Qd7 10.Bc4
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Nf5 d5 7.exd5
Bxf5 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Qf3 Qd7 10.Bc4!
In practice, this move is much less common than the continuation 10.Bg5
that we have just explored in the previous chapter, but, now, it is already
Black who has to play precisely to avoid obtaining a worse position.
10…Be7
10…Bd6?! is inaccurate because of 11.Bg5 e4 12.Qe2 Qe7 (this move
occurs in one of Moskalenko’s games), and now 13.Bxf6!N gxf6 14.0-0-0,
for example, 14…Be5 15.Qe3 Qb4 16.Bb3 Bxc3 17.Qf4! (17.bxc3 is also
good) 17…Bg6 18.bxc3 Qa3 (18…Qxc3? 19.Qd6, with a great advantage)
19.Kb1 a5 20.Qd6 Qxd6 21.Rxd6, and the endgame is better or White.
After 10…Bxc2!? 11.0-0 Be7, the game transposes to the main variation.
The continuation 10…Bb4 11.0-0 0-0 has also been seen. After that, in
Zelcic-Smith, Schwarzach 2007, there followed 12.Bg5 (12.Rd1!N Qc8
13.Re1 is a little better. White now has a small edge) 12…Bxc3 13.Qxc3, and
here Black first committed an inaccuracy with 13…Ne4?! (13…Nd5!N leads
to equality: 14.Qd2 Rfe8 or 14…Qd6, with the idea of Qg6), and then, after
14.Qe3, simply blundered: 14…h6? (14…Nxg5N is better: 15.Qxg5 Rad8,
with a slight advantage to White) 15.Rad1! Qb7. In this position, White went
in for the incorrect piece sacrifice with 16.Bxh6? (the correct move is
16.Bh4!N, with clear advantage to White) 16…gxh6 17.Bd3, but won after
another error by Black, 17… Qxb2?.
However, after the correct 17…c5N 18.Rfe1 Rad8!, White’s initiative is
sufficient only for equality, for example, 19.h3! Nd6 20.Qxe5 Rfe8 21.Qg3
Kf8 22.Qf4 Bxd3 23.Qxh6+ Kg8 24.Rxe8+ Rxe8 25.Rxd3 Nf5 26.Qg5+ Ng7
27.Rg3 Qxb2, with equal chances.
A move that is worth serious attention is 10…e4!?. (D)
Then, there occurred 11.Qg3 (after 11.Qe2 Bb4, the game is equal) 11…
Bg6 12.Qe5!+ (in Rogers-McShane, England 2004, White attempted
to shock his opponent with 12.Nb5??, But, after 12…cxb5 13.Qe5+ Kd8
14.Bxb5 Bd6!, found himself a pawn down and quickly lost) 12…Be7 13.0-0
0-0 14.Rd1 Qb7 15.Ba6!? Qxa6 16.Qxe7 Qb6 17.h3 (17.Be3N does not bring
any advantage because of 17…Qxb2 18.Bd4 e3! 19.Qxe3 Qxc2 20.Bxf6 gxf6
21.Rd6 Qf5; the continuation 18…Rfe8?! 19.Nd5!, with a small advantage to
White, is worse), and here Black has an improvement 17…Rfe8!N (there had
previously occurred 17…Bh5 18.Re1), for example, 18.Qa3 e3! 19.Bxe3
Rxe3 20.fxe3 Qxe3+ 21.Kh1 Ng4! 22.Re1 Nf2+ 23.Kh2 Qf4+ 24.g3 Ng4+
25.hxg4 Qf2+ 26.Kh3 h5! 27.Re4! (the only move) 27…f5 28.gxh5 fxe4
29.hxg6 Qf5+, and Black forced a draw. Now let us return to 10…Be7.
11.0-0
White often plays 11.Bg5; Black should reply by taking the pawn with
11…Bxc2!.
In Campora-Dvoirys, Izmir 2004, there was 11…0-0 12.Rd1 (12.Bxf6!?N
is worth attention, for example, 12…Bxf6 13.Rd1 Qc8 14.Ne4 Be7 15.Nd6
Bxd6 16.Rxd6 Qb8!? 17.Qa3! Bxc2 18.0-0 and, in spite of being down a
pawn, White has a minimal advantage) 12…Qc8 13.Qe2 e4 14.h3 Re8 15.0-
0, and now, instead of 15…Qc7?!, Black should have played 15…Bg6!N, for
example, 16.Rfe1 Qf5 17.Qe3 Bc5 18.Qf4 Bxf2+ 19.Kxf2 Qc5+ 20.Qe3
Qxc4 21.Bxf6 gxf6 22.Rd4 Qe6 23.Nxe4 Rad8, with equal play.
Let us examine the capture 11…Bxc2!. Then, in B.Ivanovic-Chandler,
Manila 1990, White continued 12.Qe2 (on 12.0-0 0-0, the game comes down
to the main continuation 11.0-0 in a fashion that is favorable for Black), and,
after 12…Qg4!, made an error with 13.Qxc2? (13.Qxg4 is better: 13…Nxg4
14.Bxe7 Kxe7 15.0-0, and White has some compensation for his pawn).
Black grabbed a second pawn with 13…Qxg2 14.0-0-0 Qxg5+ 15.Kb1 0-0,
and White was left with neither an attack nor material. At a later stage, Black
had a chance to improve more than once: 16.Rhg1 Qh4 17.Bb3 Rad8
18.Rde1 Bc5 19.Rg2 Qf4 20.Reg1 Kh8 21.Rxg7 Bxf2 22.R1g2 Rd2 23.Ne2
Qe3 24.Rxf7 Rxf7 25.Qf5. Here, instead of simply winning by 25…Rd8!
26.Bxf7 Rd1+ 27.Kc2 Qxe2+, he chose 25…Qe4+?? and the game was
drawn.
11…0-0
In Zelcic-Saric, Stari Micanovci 2010, Black took the pawn with 11…
Bxc2. White regained it with 12.Qe2 (12.Re1!N is probably just a little
better, for example 12…0-0 13.Rxe5 Bd6 14.Re1 Qc7 15.h3) 12…Bg6
13.Qxe5 0-0 14.Rd1 Qb7, but here committed an inaccuracy 15.Qg3?!
(15.b3, with an equal game is better), and, after 15…Rfd8 16.Rxd8+ Rxd8
17.Bb3 (17.h3!?) 17…c5 18.h3, it was already Black’s turn to play
inaccurately.-18…Bd6?! (a better move is 18…Bd3!, and Black stands
slightly better). Then there followed 19.Bf4?! (19.Qh4!) 19…Nh5 20.Qh4?
(after 20.Qg5! Be7 21.Qe5 Nxf4 22.Qxf4, Black is left with only a minimal
advantage) 20…Be7 21.Bg5 Rd4 22.g4?. A decisive blunder of this
unfortunate game (much better is 22.Re1! Rxh4 23.Rxe7 Qb8 24.Bxh4,
though even now Black’s advantage is great) 22…Nf4 23.Nd5 Bxg5 24.Qxg5
Nxh3+, and White resigned.
12.Rd1
On 12.Bg5, Black can calmly take a pawn with 12…Bxc2, for example,
13.Qe2 Bg6 14.Qxe5 Bd6 15.Qe2 Qf5 16.Bxf6 Rfe8!N 17.Qf3 Qxf3 18.gxf3
gxf6, and in the ending Black’s chances are a little better.
12…Qc8 13.Qe2N
In the Gorbatov-Gershov, Moscow 1995, there was 13.Re1 e4 14.Qg3
Re8 15.b3?! (15.h3 Bd8 16.Bb3 is better), and here Black had an excellent
chance to seize the initiative through 15…Bd8!N 16.Bb2 Bc7 17.Qh4 e3!
18.Rxe3 Rxe3 19.fxe3 Ng4.
13…Bb4!?
The move 13…e4?! fails to equalize because of 14.h4, but both 13…Qc7
and 13…Re8 lead to equal play.
14.h3 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Re8
The game is level.
Chapter 7
6.Ndb5 without 6…d6
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5
As I have already said, the knight move to b5 is the only chance for
White to fight for an advantage. However, in this position, Black, in his turn,
also has the only move that allows him to continue full-fledged struggle for
equality, and that is 6…d6, preventing the enemy knight from giving check
on d6 and preparing …a7-a6, after which the the white knight will have to
retreat to the uncomfortable a3-square.
Other options for Black (a) do not comply with the ideas of the
Chelyabinsk Variation; and (b) lead Black to a worse position rather quickly.
And, though years ago they would occur frequently enough, now only about
two percent of the games in the database are accounted for by those
variations, and even less in the database of strong players, about a half-
percentage point.
In the old books, not excluding Sveshnikov’s, these old moves have been
investigated in great detail; however, we will put them in their rightful place
and examine all of them in a single chapter.
6…h6
Let s examine other options.
Let us first take a moment for the move 6…Bc5?!. Sveshnikov writes that
now 7.Nd6+ Kf8 “leads to a double-edged position.” This is certainly wrong.
After 8.Be3!N Bd4 9.Be2, White has a great advantage. So, Black does better
to retreat to e7 with his king, though, even then, White has a clear edge.
Furthermore, he has the move 7.Be3!? which also gains him a serious
advantage.
The move 6…Bb4 is better, but, after 7.a3 Bxc3 8.Nxc3 d6 9.Bg5 h6
10.Bh4 or 9.f3!?, White enjoys the bishop pair in a quiet position.
In Jakovenko-Cuartas, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010, there occurred 6…a6
7.Nd6+ Bxd6 8.Qxd6 Qe7 9.Qxe7 Nxe7 10.Bg5 b5 11.f3 Bb7 12.0-0-0 h6
13.Bh4, and White also obtained the advantage of the bishop pair, this time in
the endgame.
7.Nd6+
The move 7.Bc4 is also possible, for example, 7…a6 8.Nd6+ Bxd6
9.Qxd6 Qe7 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7, and here we have the novelty 11.b3!, after
which White’s advantage is more serious than in usual continuations.
White can gain a small edge after 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 a6 9.Nc3!
(9.dxc6?! is weak: 9…axb5 10.cxd7+Bxd7!, and Black has no problems at
all) 9…Nd4 10.Bd3 d6 11.0-0, for example, 11…g6 (Bartel-Miton, Prievidza
2009), and now White should play 12.Ne4! Bg7 (12…f5 13.Nd2!) 13.c3 Nf5
14.Qa4!N, and Black has to lose castling as the natural-looking move 14…
Bd7 would run into 15.Qb4, and 15…Qc7? is impossible in view of 16.g4!,
so White wins.
It is a little better to carry out the plan with Nd5 after the preliminary
7.Be3!?, for example, 7…d6 8.Nd5 Nxd5 9.exd5 Nb8 10.c4 Be7 (the
variation 10…a6 11.Qa4!? Nd7 12.c5! Rb8 13.c6! is favorable for White)
11.c5! 0-0 12.Rc1 Na6 13.cxd6 Bxd6. This position occurred in Fier-Di
Bernardino, Rio de Janeiro 2007. Here, White could have retained his
advantage by calmly playing 14.a3!N instead of 14.Nxd6.
7…Bxd6 8.Qxd6 Qe7 9.Qxe7+!
9.Nb5 is weaker. In the old days, the common reply was 9…Qxd6
10.Nxd6+ Ke7 11.Nf5+ followed by the king’s retreat to f8, for example,
12.b3 d5 13.Ba3+ Kg8 14.exd5 Nxd5 15.Nd6 Rb8 16.Bc4 (16.0-0-0!N is
even stronger, for example, 16…Nc3 17.Rd2 Nxa2+ 18.Kb2 Nab4 19.Nxc8
Rxc8 20.Bc4, with great advantage) 16…Be6 17.0-0-0 Nf4?! (17…Nc3!)
18.g3!, and White won (Spassky-Gheorghiu, 1973).
Later the move 11…Kd8! was discovered. It offers more defensive
chances, for example, 12.Be3 d5 13.Nd6 Kc7 14.Nb5 Kb8 15.exd5 Nxd5, as
in Hector-Andersson, Helsingor 1999, and here the correct move is not the
text, 16.Bc4, but 16.Bc5!, with the better ending.
However, Black should play 9…Rb8!. In Brandenburg-Reinderman,
Dieren 2007, there followed 10.Be3 (10.b3 Nxe4 11.Qd3!?N is probably
stronger) 10…Nxe4 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7 12.f3 a6 13.fxe4 axb5 14.Bxb5 d6 15.0-
0-0, and White has only a minimal advantage.
9…Kxe7 (D)
10.Be3
The variation 10.b3 d6 11.Ba3 a6 12.0-0-0 Rd8 also leads to a small
white edge, for example 13.Bc4 (in Gallagher-Gheorghiu, Switzerland 2001
there was 13.Nd5+ Nxd5 14.exd5 Nd4 15.f4 f6, and now, instead of 16.Bd3,
it is better to play 16.fxe5 fxe5 17.Bb2 Nf5 18.Re1, with a small
advantage to White) 13…Be6 14.Nd5+ Bxd5 15.Bxd5 (15.exd5! is stronger)

15…Nxd5 16.Rxd5 b5 17.Rhd1 b4 18.Bb2 f6, and White possesses only a
slight advantage (Schmalz-Agdestein, Kallithea 2003).
10…d6 11.f3 Be6 12.0-0-0
In the ensuing endgame, White has an obvious advantage, two bishops, a

freer position, plus the possibility of a pawn storm on the kingside (g2-g4,
h2-h4, etc.); this has been proved more than once, even in the old games.
I will refrain from presenting scores of examples of White’s successful
strategies; unfortunately, I have to be laconic, as another 193 chapters, and
more interesting ones at that, are in store for us.
However, I have to draw your attention to a novel plan that is given
preference by the computer. The point of this plan is that White first makes
two preparatory moves, b3 and Kb2. If Black does not play …b7-b5, then
White keeps on improving his position (Be2, Rd2, Rhd1). At an opportune
moment, the move Nd5 is possible. But, if Black plays b7-b5 in advance,
then White changes his intentions by playing a2-a4 and undermining the b5-
pawn. On paper, everything is simple, so let us examine only a single
example.
12…a6
All the other moves, 12…Rac8, 12…Rhd8 or 12…Rhc8, change
practically nothing.
13.b3!?
The classic plan 13.Be2!? Rac8 14.Rd2 etc. brings good results.
13…Rhc8 14.Kb2 b5!?
On 14…Nd7, the simple 15.Nd5+ Bxd5 is playable, and now both
16.Rxd5 and 16.exd5 are equally fine; in both cases the advantage is obvious.
On 14…Rc7, White first places his bishop in a fine position with tempo,
15.Bb6! Rcc8 16.Be2. Black has to drive the bishop away with 16…Nd7, but
after 17.Bf2, he is unable to defend two squares, d5 and b6, with one knight.
On 17…Nf6, there follows 18.Na4! Nd7 19.c4! (this is one of the ideas of the
plan with b3), and, after 17…Rc7, it is possible to play 18.Nd5+ Bxd5
19.Rxd5.
15.a4 b4
The line 15…bxa4!? 16.Nxa4 Nd7 is worth attention. (D)
We are following the game Burg-Reinderman, Amsterdam 2013. Here

White played…
16.Nd5+
Though he had an advantage until the end of the game, the engine
recommends not fixing the position
in the center, but to play 16.Na2!?. For example, 16…a5 17.Rd2 Nd7 18.h4
with the idea of g4.
16…Bxd5 17.exd5 Na5
Here 17…Nb8! is just a little more accurate.
18.Bf2 Nb7 19.Be1 Rc5?! (19…a5) 20.Bxb4 Rxd5 21.Bc4 Rxd1
22.Rxd1 a5 23.Be1 Nc5
White’s advantage is undeniable; still, the game ended in a draw.
Section 2. White’s Moves after 6…d6 (except for 7.Bg5)
Chapter 8
7.Be2, 7.Na3 and 7.Be3
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6
As I have already noted, the move 6…d6 is the only possibility of

continuing a full-fledged struggle with real chances for equalization.
Nowadays, this is practically the only move for strong players here. Black
intends to make the white knight retreat to the uncomfortable a3-square with
…a7-a6.
7.Be3
The position after 7.Be3 more often than not arises after various
transpositions of moves, for example, 4…e6 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bf4 e5 7.Be3 Nf6
8.N1c3, but it can arise in the main line of the Chelyabinsk Variation as well,
as we will investigate here. Occasionally, other moves occurred.
The move 7.Be2 is passive. After 7…a6 (7…Be6?! has been already
discussed in “Cutting My Teeth,” game 23) 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5, Black can
coolly take the e4-pawn with 9…Nxe4! (this move occurred for the first time
in the game Donchenko-Timoshchenko, Chelyabinsk 1967, and later became
the main one (see game 16).
7.Na3 does not give any advantage to White because of the reliable
answer 7…Be7. This move was investigated in the comments to Gusev-
Timoshchenko, Odessa 1975 (game 33 in “Another 16 Games”).
In the rapid game Tomczak-Krasenkow, Warsaw 2012, Black played 7…
Bg4, and after 8.f3 Be6 9.Bc4 (9.Bg5?! is worse) 9…Qb6 10.Nd5 Bxd5
11.exd5 Nd4? (the correct move is 11…Ne7, with rough equality) 12.c3 Nf5
13.Bb5+ Ke7, White obtained a clear advantage.
To equalize, it is enough to play 7…Be6. For example, 8.Bg5 Be7!? (in
Govashelishvili-Timoshchenko, Vilnius 1974, Black tested an experimental
exchange sacrifice, 8…Rc8 9.Nc4 Nd4 10.Ne3 Qa5 11.Bd3! Rxc3 12.bxc3
Qxc3+ 13.Kf1 Be7; however, White could have retained a small advantage
after 14.Bxf6!N) 9.Nc4 0-0 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Qxd6 (11.Nxd6? is obviously
worse because of 11…Qe7) 11…Qe8!N, and Black has a full compensation
for his sacrificed pawn.
7…a6 8.Na3
8…b5
8…d5?! leads to a small white advantage (though Sveshnikov thinks that
this move is worth attention). After 9.Nxd5 Nxe4, White has at his disposal
the unpretentious novelty 10.Nb6! (10.Bb6?! is met with 10…Bc5!, with a
small advantage to Black). For example, 10…Qxd1+ 11.Rxd1 Bb4+ (or 11…
Rb8 12.Nac4) 12.c3 Bxa3 13.Nxa8 Bxb2 14.Nc7+ Kf8 15.Nd5 Bxc3+
16.Nxc3 Nxc3 17.Rd2, and White’s position is slightly better.
In Morozevich-Radjabov, Zug 2013, there was 8…Be7 9.Nc4 b5 10.Nb6
Rb8 11.Nxc8 Qxc8 12.Be2 0-0 13.0-0 b4 14.Nd5 Nxe4 15.a3 Bd8, and now,
instead of 16.Qd3?!, which could have been met with 16…Nc5!N with
equality, White should have played 16.axb4N. For example, 16…Nxb4
17.Nxb4 Rxb4 18.Bxa6 Qc6 19.c4! Rxb2 20.Bb5 Qc7 21.Ra3, with a small
advantage to White.
8…Be6 9.Nc4 b5 10.Nb6 Rb8 11.Nbd5 Ng4! (11…Qa5? is bad because
after 12.Nxf6+ gxf6, White plays not 13.Bd3, as Sveshnikov writes, but
13.a4!N) is enough for equality. Then, in Kryakvin-Kobalia, Krasnoyarsk
2007, there was 12.Bd2 b4 13.Na4 f5? (the correct move is 13…Nf6N, with
equal play), and now White could have obtained a serious advantage with
14.Bc4!N.
Black frequently and successfully plays 8…Rb8!? followed by 9.Nd5
(after 9.Bg5?! Black has a very useful lead of one tempo, Rb8, in comparison
with the main line 9…b5 10.Nd5 Be7 11.Bxf6 Bxf6) 9…Nxd5!? (the move
9…b5, with a transposition to the main variation, is playable) 10.exd5 Ne7
In this position, Black has no problems at all. For example, 11.c4 (after
11.c3 g6!, Black has a comfortable game) 11…Nf5 12.Bd2 Be7! 13.Bd3 0-0
14.0-0 Nh4!, followed by …f7-f5, and it is already White who has to worry
about the safety of his position.
9.Nd5 Nxd5!?
This move has occurred very often lately; sometimes this position arises
after 9…Ne7xd5 from the 4…e5 variation. It leads to highly complex and
interesting play.
Black has had good results with 9…Rb8!?. It is a reliable continuation
that allows equalizing by simpler means.
Then possible is: 10.Nxf6+ (after 10.g3 Nxe4 11.Bg2 f5! 12.0-0, there is
the novelty 12…Ne7!, with a small advantage to Black. On 10.c4 there is
another novelty – 10…Nxe4!?. For example, 11.cxb5 Qa5+ 12.Bd2 Nxd2
13.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 14.Kxd2 axb5 15.Bxb5+ Bd7 16.Nc4 Nb4!, and it is already
White who has to worry about equalizing) 10…Qxf6 11.Bd3!? (on 11.Be2
there is the interesting reply 11…Nd4!?. In Velimirovic-Kosic, Tivat 1994,
there was 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 Qg6 13.Qd5 Bb7 14.Qd2 Be7, with comfortable
play for Black who, by the way, has another fine option, 14…Qxe4!?) 11…
Be7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Nb1 (Hort-Andersson, Amsterdam 1978), and now the
simplest continuation is 13…Qg6 14.Nc3 Bh3 15.Qf3 Bg4 16.Qg3 Nb4, with
equal play.
10.exd5 Ne7 11.c4 Nf5
12.Bd2!
The only way for White to struggle for advantage. Sveshnikov’s
recommendation 12.Nc2?! is erroneous because of 12…Nxe3N 13.Nxe3 Bd7
14.Bd3 Qa5+, and Black has the advantage.
Sveshnikov gives a forced variation 12.cxb5 Nxe3 13.fxe3 Qh4+ 14.g3
Qe4 15.Qc2 Qxe3+ 16.Be2 Bd7 (16…Bg4?! recommended by Sveshnikov
leads, after 17.bxa6, to a clear white advantage) 17.bxa6 Be7 18.Qd2. Now,
18…Qe4!?, recommended by Kasparov and Nikitin long ago, is quite good.
18…Qxd2?!+ is weaker (the analysis by Kotov that is quoted by
Sveshnikov is wrong; after 19.Kxd2 Bg5+, the correct move is 20.Kc3!N,
with advantage to White). Sveshnikov writes that 18…Qa7 is bad because of
19.Nb5, “with advantage to White,” but, after 19…Qb6N, it is Black who has
a small advantage, and instead of 19.Nb5?!, the correct move is 19.Nc4, with
equal play. It turns out that the move 18…Qa7!? is actually good.
12…g6!
I believe that this is the best move that results in equal chances, although
it occurs only rarely. Another Sveshnikov recommendation, 12…Qh4 13.Be2
b4?!, is also mistaken, as after the simple 14.Nc2!N, White has the
advantage; for example, 14…a5 15.b3 Be7 16.a3.
On 12…e4 13.cxb5 Be7, play comes down to the variation 12…Be7.
After 12…Be7 13.cxb5! (after 13.Bd3, White’s advantage is somewhat
smaller), there very often occurs 13…0-0, and now White is able to prevent
the advance …e5-e4 by 14.Bd3!? (on 14.Be2, there is the possible reply 14…
Nd4!?; the variation 14.Bc3!? e4 15.Be2 Bf6 16.0-0 leads, with a
transposition of moves, to a position that will be examined below) 14…Bf6,
and here, the best move is 15.0-0!N (15.Qb1 should be met with 15…Bg5!,
with equality). for example, 15…e4 16.Bxe4 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Bxa3 18.b6! Rb8
19.Qf3 Bc5 20.Bxf5 Bxf5 21.Qxf5 Bxb6, and White has only a slight edge.
13…e4 looks more thematic. (D)
The best reply is 14.Be2!?. After 14…0-0 15.0-0 Bf6 16.Bc3 Bxc3
17.bxc3 a position arises in which I have not been successful in my attempts
to find equality for Black.
For example, 17…Nh4!? (17…Qf6?! is worse because of 18.b6!N Qxc3
19.Nc4 Rb8 20.Rc1 Qf6 21.a4, and White has a solid advantage) runs into a
highly unpleasant retort, 18.g3!N Ng6 19.Qd4 axb5
(or 19…f5!? 20.b6) 20.Nxb5 f5 21.a4, and White stands better.

In Carlsen-Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2007, where the position in the
diagram had arisen with a transposition of moves, White also played quite
well, 14.bxa6!?, but after 14…0-0, made two poor moves in succession:
15.Be2?! (15.Bb5!? Bf6 16.Nc4 retains a small advantage) 15…Bf6
16.Nc4?!, after which Black seized the initiative (16.Rb1 allows to maintain
equality). There followed 16…Bxa6 17.0-0 Nd4 18.Rc1, and now Black
could have obtained an advantage by playing 18…Nxe2!+N instead of 18…
Bb5?: 19.Qxe2 Bxb2 20.Rc2 Rc8! 21.Qxe4 Re8 22.Qd3 (the only move)
22…Qh4 23.f4 (another “only” move) 23…Qf6!, and Black’s initiative
clearly outweighs his small material deficit.
13.cxb5 Bg7 14.Be2
In Wotawa-Babula, Czechoslovakia 1990 there was 14.Bc3 0-0 15.Nc2
Nd4! 16.Be2 Nxb5 17.Bxb5 axb5, and Black has a small edge.
14.bxa6 has also occurred: 14…0-0 15.Bc3 Qh4 16.Nc2 (16.Be2? Ne3)
16…Qe4+ 17.Qe2 Qxd5 18.Nb4 Qc5, and Black’s position looks more
promising.
14…e4 15.Bc3 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Qa5!N
16…Qg5?! 17.0-0 0-0 is weaker because of 18.Qc1!N.
This chapter is rather long as result of the abundance of the material. So,
much to my regret, I will have to quote only the most important variations of
the analysis.
17.Qc1 Nd4 18.Nc4 Nxe2 19.Nxd6+ Kd7! 20.Kxe2 Qc7!
20…Kxd6?? 21.Qf4+ Kc5 loses to either 22.Rhb1! or 22.a4!.
21.Nxf7 Rf8 22.Ng5 Qc4+ 23.Ke1 Rf5
23…axb5, with equal play, is possible.
After 23…Rf5, chances are equal. For example, 24.Rb1 (or 24.a4 Rxg5
25.Qxg5 Qxc3+ 26.Ke2 Qd3+ 27.Ke1 Qc3+, with a draw; or 24.h4 axb5
25.Qe3 Bb7 26.Nxe4 Re8 27.f3 Bxd5 etc.) 24…axb5 25.Rb4 Qxa2 26.Nxe4
Bb7 27.Rb2 Qc4 28.Rb4 Qa2, and we have a repetition of moves.
Chapter 9
7.a4 a6 8.Na3 without 8…Be6 or 8…Bg4
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.a4
As it has already been mentioned above, this continuation was

recommended by Schlechter more than a hundred years ago. The move 7.a4
aims at preventing the advance b7-b5, which is a key method of obtaining
counterplay for Black in the main systems of the Chelyabinsk Variation.
Besides, after the usual move, 7…a6, and the knight’s retreat to a3, the knight
has an opportunity to enter the game via c4.
But, besides its obvious advantages, the move 7.a4 has its drawbacks. It
leads to the loss of time in the struggle for the d5-square, and the best chance
for Black to underscore this is the move 8…Bg4!? (chapter 13). In addition,
the b4-square, where the black knight is often conveniently placed, gets
weakened. Moreover, we will see that the intended maneuver, Na3-c4, very
often allows the blow Nf6xe4! followed by d6-d5.
7…a6!
The best continuation that guarantees equality. All the other moves are a
little weaker.
On 7…h6?!, there follows the unpleasant reply 8.Nd5!, and after 8…
Nxd5 9.exd5, there arise positions similar to ones in the 7.Nd5 system;
however, the move a2-a4 is more helpful than h7-h6, so White retains the
advantage.
7…Nb4 is not bad.
7…Be7 is playable, and, only after 8.Bg5, should Black continue 8…0-0
9.Bxf6 Bxf6! 10.Qxd6 Qa5 instead of the usual move 8…a6?!. For example,
11.Qd2 a6N 12.Na3 Be6 13.Nc4 Qc5 14.Nd5 Rfd8 15.Nce3 Bg5 16.Qc3 Qd4
17.Bd3 Rac8, and Black has an equal game.
Let us explore the popular continuation 7…Be6?!.
The correct move in this position is 8.Nd5!, with better play. For
example, 8…Rc8 (8…Bxd5 9.exd5 Nb4 is also playable. In Sveshnikov’s
book, this position is evaluated as unclear, but after 10.Bc4!N, the advantage
is White’s.) 9.Nxf6!+ Qxf6 10.Nxd6+ Bxd6 11.Qxd6 Qg6, and now 12.f3!N
Nd4 13.Bd2!, and the analysis shows an advantage to White. For example,
13…Rc6 14.Qb8+ Rc8 15.Qxe5 Nxc2+ 16.Kf2 Nxa1 17.Bb5+ Kf8 18.Rc1.
White usually plays 8.Bg5 here, but this move throws away the
advantage. After the possible continuation 8…Rc8 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5,
another Sveshnikov recommendation 10…f5? 11.Nbc3? does not hold water.
First, because after 11…fxe4!, Black’s position is a little better. Second,
White should play 11.exf5!N. For example, 11…Bxd5 (or 11…Bxf5 12.Qf3,
with advantage to White) 12.Qxd5!, and after 12…Nb4 13.Qxb7 Nxc2+
14.Kd1 Nxa1 15.Nxa7 Rc5 16.Nc6 Rxc6 17.Bb5! Bh6 18.Bxc6+ Kf8 19.Bd5
Qe8 20.b3 Kg7 21.Qc7!, White possesses a clear advantage. Third, instead of
10…f5?, it is better to play 10…a6! with equality. For example, 11.Nbc3 Rg8
etc. 9.Nd5 appears more accurate than 9.Bxf6.
After 8.Bg5, it is possible to play 8…Nb4, but the most precise
continuation is 8 a6!, For example, 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Na3, and now not the
frequently occurring move 10…f5?! in view of 11.exf5 Bxf5 12.Nd5, with a
small white advantage, but 10…Rc8!, with equal play.
8.Na3 Be7
In the following two chapters, we are going to discuss the moves 8…Be6
and 8…Bg4!. There are also other continuations.
The point of the move 8…h6 is obvious: to prevent white bishop from
going to g5.
The possible developments are as follows:

(a) 9.Nc4 Be6 10.Be3 leads to a transposition of moves.
(b) The most common move is 9.Bc4, and after 9…Be6, a position from
the next chapter arises; the continuation 9…Be7 10.0-0 0-0, with a
transposition of moves, leads to a level position from the main variation.
(c) 9.Be3! Be6 (9…Rb8, recommended by Sveshnikov, should be met
with 10.Nd5!N, with better play for White. For example, 10…Nxd5 11.exd5
Ne7 12.Nc4 b5 13.axb5) 10.Nc4.
The most common move here is 10…Be7, but White has an unpleasant
answer 11.Bb6!N Qd7 12.Nd5, with a small white edge.
The best move is probably 10…Nb4!N, and White is left with only a
slight advantage.
On the other hand, 10…Nxe4?! is dubious. In his book, Sveshnikov even
awards an exclamation point to this move, but his raptures are clearly
inappropriate. After 11.Nxe4 d5 12.Nb6 dxe4 (12…Rb8!N is even better, but
White has the advantage anyway) 13.Nxa8 Qxa8, there arises a position from
Zakharov-Timoshchenko, 1978, examined in detail in the chapter “Another
16 Games,” but with a considerable difference; there Black has already made
a useful move …Bf8-e7 instead of the useless …h7-h6.
There follows 14.a5!N (14.c3 can be met by 14…Na5) 14…Be7 15.c3 0-
0 16.Qa4 Qc8! 17.Qxe4! (17.Bc4 Nb4) 17…f5 18.Qa4. This position arose,
with a transposition of moves, in A.Ivanov-Hansen, Gausdal 1991. White has
a solid advantage. Then, there followed 18…e4 19.Bc4 Kh8 20.Bxe6 Qxe6
21.0-0-0 Ne5 22.Kb1 f4. White’s advantage was near decisive, but he
squandered half of it with 23.Bb6? (the correct move is 23.Ba7!) and then,
after 23…Nc4, the rest of it with 24.Qd7?. After 24…Na3+, the game was
drawn.
The move 8…d5 looks highly thematic, but is probably not enough to
equalize. After 9.exd5 Nd4 10.Be3!? (this move is clearly the most popular
one; however, Black must also search for equality after 10.Bd3!? and
10.Bg5!?) 10…Bc5!? (a possible answer to 10…Bb4 is 11.Bxd4 exd4
12.Qxd4 Qe7+ 13.Be2 Bg4 14.f3!N, with an advantage for White).
An insufficiently explored position has arisen that needs great additional

analysis. We will explore the possible variations very briefly.
(a) Here Sveshnikov recommends 11.Bc4, but this move is bad because
of 11…0-0. For example, 12.h3 (12.0-0 is met with 12…Ng4!N) 12…Re8!N
13.0-0 Bxh3 14.gxh3 Qc8 15.Bxd4 exd4 16.Ne2 Bxa3 17.Rxa3 Qxc4, with a
black advantage in both cases.
(b) 11.Bd3 does not promise any advantage: 11…Bg4!N 12.f3 Bh5
13.Nc4 0-0, and Black is quite comfortable.
(c) White usually plays 11.Nc4!?; the better reply now is 11…Nxd5!N,
and, after 12.Nxe5 (12.Nxd5?! Qxd5 13.c3 falls short of its goal because of
the simple answer 13…0-0) 12…Nb4 13.Rc1 Bf5 14.Bd3 Bxd3 15.Nxd3
Ndxc2+ 16.Rxc2 Nxd3+ 17.Ke2 Bxe3 18.Qxd3 Qxd3+ 19.Kxd3 Ba7
20.Re1+ Kd7, Black practically manages to equalize.
(d) The paradoxical move 11.Bg5!?N is worth serious attention;
preliminary analysis shows a small advantage to White.
Let us return to the continuation 8…Be7.
The bishop move is a means of preventing Bf1-g5 in a more subtle

fashion than 8…h6.
9.Bc4
Let us explore other options.
(a) The variation 9.Be3 Be6 10.Nc4 Nxe4!? has been investigated in
detail in the comments to Zakharov-Timoshchenko, Ordzhonikidze 1978
(game 38 in “Another 16 Games”).
I would like to add here that the move 10…0-0!? is also quite acceptable.
Sveshnikov recommends 11.Nb6 Rb8 12.Be2 as a reply. However, Black has
a strong retort, 12…Nxe4!N. For example, 13.Nxe4 d5 14.Nc5 d4 15.Nxe6
fxe6 16.Nc4 dxe3 17.Nxe3 (after 17.fxe3?? Bb4+ 18.c3 Qf6 Black wins)
17…Qb6 18.0-0 Bc5, with excellent play.
(b) The move 9.Nc4 allows a typical simplifying combination, 9…Nxe4!
10.Nxe4 d5, and now the best move is 11.Be3! (11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.Ng3 favors
Black. He also has a micro-advantage after 11.Ng3 dxc4 12.Qxd8+ Nxd8N
13.Bxc4 Be6 14.Bxe6 Nxe6 15.Be3 Rd8) 11…dxe4, and then 12.Qxd8+
Nxd8 13.Nxe5 Be6, with equal play.
(c) The continuation 9.Bg5 may lead to interesting complications.
Black can continue 9…Nxe4! (after 9…Be6, a position from the chapter
10 arises). For example, 10.Nxe4 Bxg5 11.Nxd6+ Ke7 12.Nac4 (12.Nxc8+
leads to equality) 12…Be6 13.Qf3 Nd4!.
Then, in Langier-Kramnik, Guarapuava 1991, there was 14.Qxb7+ Qd7
15.Qxd7+ Kxd7 16.Bd3 Be7, and here the correct continuation was 17.Nxf7!
(in the game, White lost ingloriously after 17.Be4?? Bxd6 18.Nxd6 Kxd6
19.Rd1 Rae8 20.c3 Bb3 21.Rd2 Kc5).
Kramnik points out the variation 17…Bxf7 18.Nxe5+ Ke6 19.f4, and, in
his opinion, in this position, White has a great advantage. Actually, after
19…Bf6! 20.Nxf7 Kxf7 it is Black who has a small advantage. So instead of
19.f4?!, it is better to play 19.Nxf7N Kxf7 20.c3, with a slightly better game
to Black. But it is even better to play 18.Nb6!+N instead of 18.Nxe5+, with
equality.
9…0-0 10.0-0 h6!
10…Be6 takes the game to a position from the main variation (chapter
12).
11.Be3
White frequently plays 11.Re1, but, after 11…Nb4!, Black has no
problems. For example, in Lau-Vaisser, Palma de Majorca 1989, there
followed 12.b3 b6 13.Bb2 Bb7 14.Qe2 Qc7 15.Rad1 Rfe8 16.Rd2 Rad8
17.Qd1. Here Black could have played 17…Nxe4!?N. For example, 18.Nxe4
(18.Bxf7?!+ Kxf7 19.Nxe4 d5 is favorable for Black) 18…d5, and, after
19.Bxe5! Qxe5 20.Nc5 Qc7 21.Nxb7 Qxb7 22.Bf1 Qc7 23.g3 Bf6 24.Rxe8+
Rxe8 25.c4 Bc3, the game is level. However, Black continued 17…Qc8, and,
after 18.Bf1 d5! 19.exd5 Nbxd5 20.Nxd5 Rxd5 21.Rxd5 Nxd5, obtained
excellent play.
Then there was 22.Rxe5?! (22.Nc4!N is better: 22…f6 23.Ne3 Nf4
24.Qg4) 22…Rd8!, and here, after White’s error 23.Qa1?, Black had a fine
wining opportunity in 23…Nf4!N. For example, 24.Rxe7 Bxg2! 25.Re3 Bxf1
26.Qxf1 Qg4+ 27.Rg3 Ne2+ 28.Kg2 Nxg3 29.hxg3 Qe4+ 30.Kg1 (or 30.Kh2
Rd5) 30…Qf3 etc.
11…Be6 12.Qe2 Rc8
12…Nd4!?N is probably even a simpler way to equalize, for example,
13.Bxd4 exd4 14.Nd5 Re8.
13.Rfd1
13… Nd4!N
In the game Espig-Tischbierek, Germany 2004, Black chose the less
accurate 13…Nb4, and, after 14.Bb3 Qc7, White could have obtained a small
advantage with 15.h3!N. Instead, there followed 15.Nd5?! Nbxd5 16.exd5
Bg4 17.f3 Bh5 18.Nc4 e4 19.a5 exf3 20.gxf3, and now, after 20…Nd7!N, it
is already Black who could have obtained a small advantage.
14.Bxd4
On 14.Qd3, there is 14…Nxc2!. For example, 15.Bxe6 Nxe3 16.Bxc8
Nxd1 17.Bxb7 (17.Rxd1! is more solid) 17…Nxf2 18.Qxa6 N6g4! 19.h3
(19.Nd5 is worse because of 19…Bh4!) 19…d5!, and Black has the initiative.
14…exd4 15.Nd5
15.Rxd4 is weaker because of 15…Qb6 with a black initiative.
15…Bxd5 16.exd5 Nd7 The game is level.
Chapter 10
8…Be6 without 9.Bc4
8.Na3 Be6
9.Bg5
Here any attempt to exploit the weak b6-square with Nc4 + Be3 does not
work. Both 9.Be3?! Rc8 10.Nc4 and 9.Nc4 Rc8 10.Be3?! (after the correct
move 10.Bg5! the game transposes to the main variation) are weak because
of 10…Nb4! (10…Nd4 recommended by Sveshnikov is clearly weaker:
11.Bxd4 Bxc4 12.Bxc4 Rxc4 13.Be3 and, despite Sveshnikov’s promises of
comfortable play for Black, White has a small and stable advantage), for
example, 11.Nb6?! (11.Bb6 Qd7 12.Ne3 is better, though even here, after
12…d5, Black’s advantage is obvious) 11…Nxe4!.
A killer novelty! The usual continuation is 11…Rc6 12.Nxc8 Qxc8
13.Nxe4?! (13.Be2 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxc3+ 15.Kf1 Nxc2 is more stubborn, but
Black still has a clear advantage) 13…Nxc2 14.Ke2 Nxa1 15.Nxd6+ Bxd6
16.Qxd6 f6, and the black advantage is manifest. As we are going to see, the
move 9.Bg5 does not create any problems for Black, so it is better for White
to play 9.Bc4! (this move will be explored in the chapters 11 and 12).
9…Rc8
The most popular move, 9…Be7, is worse.
However, 9…Qb6!? is also fine, for example, 10.Nc4! (after 10.Rb1 Qb4,
Black has good play) 10…Qb4! (10…Bxc4 11.Bxc4 Qxb2 12.Nd5 leads to a
white advantage) 11.Bxf6 Bxc4!? (11…gxf6N is also good) 12.Bxc4 Qxc4
13.Bg5 Nb4!, and Black has no problems.
10.Nc4
The move 10.Bxf6, first occurring in the game Semenyuk-Timoshchenko,
Novosibirsk 1976, leads to equal play.
On 10.Nd5, Black can offer his opponent a repetition of moves after 10…
Qa5+ (he is also able to continue playing after 10…Bxd5 11.exd5 Qa5+.
11…Ne7N is also good) 11.Bd2 Qd8 (or 11…Qc5 12.Be3 Qa5+) 12.Bg5.
After 10.Bc4!, there arises a position from chapter 11.
10…Nb4!
The move 10…h6?! (Smeets-L’Ami, Amsterdam 2012) is weaker: after
11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nb6 Rb8 13.Bc4, White had a small advantage,.
Strange as it may seem, the move 10…Nd4?! occurs in the overwhelming
majority of games.
In the position in the diagram, the most common move 11.Ne3 is less
promising. The simplest answer is 11…Be7 (the move 11…Qa5 was
explored in the comments to Madon-Timoshchenko, Moscow 1966, game 7
in the chapter “Cutting My Teeth”; after 12.Bd3! Rxc3 13.Qd2!N, White has
only a very slight advantage), for example, 12.Bd3 0-0 13.0-0 Nc6, and the
game is almost level.
After 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 (11…gxf6 is a bit worse) 12.Ne3, Black has an
intriguing possibility, 12…d5!? (objectively, 12…Qd8! is slightly better), for
example, 13.exd5 Bb4 14.Bd3! (14.Bc4 Bf5 15.0-0 Bg6, Savon-
Tseshkovsky, Sochi 1975, does not bring any advantage) 14…Bf5!N 15.Bxf5
Nxf5 16.0-0 Nxe3 17.fxe3 Qg6, and White has a slight edge.
White obtains a small advantage with 11.Nd5!?, preparing c2-c3, for
example, 11…Be7 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.c3 Bxd5 14.exd5 Nf5 15.Qb3. Then in
the game Feldman-Sveshnikov, Vilnius 1967, there followed 15…Qc7?
(Sveshnikov recommends 15…Rc7 “with excellent play for Black,” but after
16.Bd3 Ne7 17.0-0 White still has a small advantage, for example, 17…0-0
(17…Nxd5?! is highly dangerous because of 18.Rad1, for example, 18…
Be7! 19.Bxh7! Nf6 20.Nxe5 d5 21.Bb1, and White is a pawn up) 18.Rad1 g6
19.Rfe1 Bg7 20.Bf1) 16.g4 Nh4 17.Qxb7 Bd8 18.Qxc8, and White won.
11.Ne3 Be7 12.Be2
White is able to prevent Black’s simplifying combination with 12.Bxf6,
but after 12…Bxf6, Black is left with a small initiative. For example,
13.Ncd5 (13.Qd2?! Bg5 14.0-0-0?? (Meijers-Ikonnikov, Ghent 2012) is no
good at all: after 14…0-0 15.Kb1 b5!, White’s position is hopeless) 13…
Nxd5 14.Nxd5 0-0N, and Black has a small advantage.
12…Ng4! 13.Bxe7 Nxe3 14.Bxd8 Nxd1 15.Rxd1 Rxd8 16.Rd2 Ke7
17.0-0
Or 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.exd5 Bd7 19.a5 Rb8 with excellent play for Black.
17…d5 18.exd5 Nxd5+ 19.Nxd5 Rxd5 20.Rxd5 Bxd5 21.Rd1 Be6
Black does not have any problems at all.
Chapter 11
8…Be6 9.Bc4 without 9…Be7
8.Na3 Be6 9.Bc4 (D)
9…Rc8
Apparently, this move does not lead to full equality, but in case of
inaccurate White’s play Black can have rich opportunities.
Here the standard simplification 9…Bxc4? 10.Nxc4 Nxe4? 11.Nxe4 d5

won’t do because of 12.Bg5! f6 13.Qh5+ g6 (or 13…Ke7 14.Ncd6!N and
White wins) 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.Bxf6 gxh5 16.Nb6! Bc5 17.Nxa8 0-0 18.Nc7
Rxf6 19.Nxd5, and on 19…Rxf2 there follows 20.b4 Ba7 21.b5 with a win
for White.
The position that arises after 9…h6 10.0-0 Rc8 will be explored below
with the move order 9…Rc8 and 10…h6. The move 9…Be7! will be
investigated in the next chapter.
10.0-0!
Here White very often plays 10.Bg5
Then the best reply for Black is 10…Nd4!, with equal chances.
Sveshnikov considers this move to be dubious, but we will see his mistake
very soon.
The move 10…Nb4, recommended by Sveshnikov, is weaker because of
11.b3! Be7 12.0-0, and the game transposes to the main variation of this
chapter. In most games Black prefers 10…Be7, but after 11.Bxf6 Bxf6
12.Nd5 Bg5 13.0-0 0-0 the game transposes into the variation which we are
going to explore in the following chapter, and which is favorable for White.
But let us return to the move 10…Nd4!.
Now 11.Nd5 does not gain any advantage because of 11…Qa5!+
(Sveshnikov examines only the weak move 11…Bxd5 which leads to
White’s advantage) 12.Bd2 Qxa4! (in the game Papp-Vovk, Szombathely
2008, Black had chosen the modest 12…Qd8, and White could have obtained
an advantage with 13.c3!N) and here, to maintain the balance, White should
play 13.0-0!N (the continuation 13.Nb6?! Qc6 14.Bxe6 Qxe4+ 15.Kf1 Rc6 or
14.Nxc8? Qxe4+ 15.Kf1 Bh3! results in great advantage for Black).
White usually prefers 11.Bxf6.
11…Qxf6 Black has made this move in every game that is known to us.
(However, 11…gxf6! is stronger. Strange as it may seem, this move is a
novelty in this particular position, but the position after 11…gxf6 has
occurred in several games with a transposition of moves. Computer analysis
shows that after taking with pawn, it is White who has problems).
Then a possible development is 12.Qd3! d5! (the best chance) 13.Bxd5
Bxa3 14.Rxa3 b5!N. (14…Bxd5 is weaker. Then it is possible to continue
15.Nxd5 Nxc2!+ 16.Kf1!. Sveshnikov puts a question mark on this move, but
his recommended refutation 16…Qg5 runs into 17.Rc3N Rxc3 18.Qxc3 Nd4
19.Qc8+ Qd8 20.Nc7+ Ke7 21.Qxb7, and White’s advantage is undeniable.
His edge is less after 16.Kd1 (recommended by Sveshnikov) 16…Qxf2!
17.Rc3 Rxc3 18.Qxc3 Qd4+ 19.Kc1! Qxc3 20.bxc3 Na3 21.Nb6 h5!N 22.c4
Rh6 23.c5 Rc6 24.Kb2 Nb5 25.axb5 Rxc5) 15.axb5 axb5 16.0-0! b4 17.Ra8
Rxa8 (in Sveshnikov’s opinion, 17…0-0 loses to 18.Rxc8 Rxc8 19.Bxe6
Qxe6 20.Nb5; however, 20…Rxc2!+N leads to equal play. In the above-
quoted variation there are two more inaccuracies: instead of 19.Bxe6?!, it is
better to play 19.Nb5N with a small advantage to White, and Black should
take on c8 with the bishop) 18.Bxa8 bxc3 19.bxc3 0-0 20.Ra1, and after 20…
Rd8!N 21.cxd4 Rxd4 22.Qg3 h6, Black has good chances to hold his
position.
All these complications are very interesting, but let me remind you that
Black could have moved 10…gxf6! with excellent play. Let us return to the
move 10.0-0.
10…Nb4
Black has other options as well.
(a) Simplification by 10…Bxc4?! 11.Nxc4 Nxe4? 12.Nxe4 d5 is still no
good because of 13.Bg5!.
(b) 10…Nd4 is a playable move after which the known continuations do
not bring any advantage. However, a novelty, 11.Bd5!?, promises a small
edge.
(c) The best reply to 10…h6 for White is 11.Re1!, for example, 11…Nb4,
and now not 12.b3, as suggested by Sveshnikov, but 12.Nd5!N with a small
advantage, for example, 12…Nbxd5 13.exd5 Bf5 14.Bb3 Be7 15.Nc4.
In Gipslis-Timoshchenko, Moscow 1975, after the weaker 11.Bd5, Black
ventured to capture the pawn-11…Bxd5 (11…Be7! with equal play is more
solid) 12.Nxd5 Nxe4 13.Nc4 Nf6! (here Sveshnikov’s recommendations,
13…Ne7 and 13…Nd4, are erroneous as they both lead to a clear white
advantage) 14.Nxf6 Qxf6 15.Nb6, and now Black should have played 15…
Rd8! with good defensive chances (in the text there was 15…Rb8?! 16.Nd5
Qd8, and after 17.Ra3!, White could have created unpleasant pressure).
The position after 14.f4? (instead of 14.Nxf6) with a transposition of
moves arose in the game Semenyuk-Sveshnikov, 1975. Then there was 14…
Nxd5 15.Qxd5 Nb4 16.Qe4, and now Black should have played 16…Be7! (in
the text there was 16…Qc7, and Black obtained only a somewhat better
endgame), for example, 17.fxe5 (or 17.Qe2 d5 18.Nxe5 Rxc2 19.Bd2 0-0
with an extra pawn) 17…d5 18.Qf5 Rxc4, and White is left without
compensation for his lost piece.
(d) The move 10…Be7!?, with transposition to positions from the next
chapter, is worth attention.
11.b3!
The only way to retain a small advantage.
11…Be7 12.Bg5!
The most common move here is 12.Bb2, but the bishop is idle there.
12…0-0 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Nd5 White has a small edge in this position.
14…Nc6
It is clear that exchanging minor pieces on d5 would not bring any
benefits to Black. In the game Filipowicz-Nicevski, Polanica Zdroj 1974, the
course of events was as follows:
15.Qd3 Bg5 16.Rad1 Kh8 17.c3 f5?
This move is an error that hands a serious advantage to White. A better
continuation is 17…Bg4, provoking White into playing f2-f3.
18.Ne3! fxe4 19.Qxd6 Bxe3?
Sveshnikov awards an exclamation mark to this move; it is, however, bad
and is associated with a miscalculation. But even after 19…Qxd6 20.Rxd6,
White’s advantage is undeniable.
20.Bxe6!
In the game there was 20.Qxd8? with equal play.
20…Qxd6 (a novelty in a bad position).
Sveshnikov believes that Black wins here with 20…Bxf2+ (?? G.T.)
21.Rxf2 Qb6, but actually after 22.Rdd2 Rcd8 (or 22…Rxf2 23.Rxf2 Rd8
24.Bd7) 23.Nc4 Qa7 24.Kf1!, it is about time for Black to resign.
21.Rxd6 Bc5 22.Bxc8 Bxd6 23.Nc4 Rxc8 24.Nxd6 and White will be
simply a pawn up in a better position.
Chapter 12
8…Be6 9.Bc4 Be7
8.Na3 Be6 9.Bc4 Be7
This continuation gives equal chances for Black.

10. 0-0
The move 10.Bg5 is highly popular, but it allows Black to play for
favorable complications after 10…Nxe4! 11.Nxe4 d5 12.Bxe7 Kxe7.
Now it is White who has to prove that he has an equal game. Possible is
13.Qh5 (13.Ng5 dxc4 14.Qe2 runs into a very strong retort, 14…Qd5!N)
13…dxc4 14.0-0 f6 15.Rae1.
In the game Aliavdin-Kanarek, Krakow 2009, Black continued 15…
Qb6!? (15…Qa5!N is even better: Black fortifies the e5-square against the
possibility of f2-f4 and plans Rad8 followed by the evacuation of the king to
the queenside. After that, his advantage would be undeniable) 16.Kh1, and
after 16…g5?, (the correct move is 16…Rad8N with good chances)
17.Nxg5?! (17.Nxf6!N is obviously stronger: 17…Kxf6 18.Qh6+ Kf7 19.f4!)
17…fxg5 18.Qxg5+ Kd6? (18…Kf7!) 19.Rd1+ lost quickly.
10…0-0
In this position Black also has a variety of options.
(a) In the game Rublevsky-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1991, Black attempted
to solve his opening problems with one stroke-10…Bxc4? 11.Nxc4 Nxe4?!
12.Nxe4 d5, but White found a strong move, 13.Qg4!. Then there followed
13…g6! 14.Rd1 f5 15.Qg3 fxe4 16.Be3! (16.Bh6!N is also good) 16…d4
17.Nxe5 Bd6 (17…Qd6!N is better), and now White should have played
18.Bxd4!N (in the game there was 18.Nxc6? Bxg3 19.Nxd8 dxe3 20.fxg3
Rxd8 21.Rxd8+ Kxd8, and White obtained only a better ending) with an idea
of 18…Qc7 19.Bb6! Bxe5 20.Bxc7 Bxg3 21.Bxg3, and White has a great
advantage.
(b) The move 10…Rc8 occurs frequently enough, but after 11.Bg5! Nb4
(on 11…0-0, a position from the main variation, favorable for White, arises)
12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd5, White’s chances are a little better, and
the best move now is 14…Rc5!N.
(c) The move 10…h6! is worth serious attention. It is highly probable that
it will lead the game, with a transposition of moves, to equal positions from
chapter 9, for example, 11.Be3 0-0, and the transposition has taken place.
11.Bg5
This is the best move. After 11.Be3, there arises a position from the main
variation with an extra tempo for Black, so there is no point analyzing it. The
move 11.Re1 occurs frequently enough.
Black’s usual reply 11…Rc8 is not quite accurate (the correct reply is
11…Nb4!, for example, 12.Bg5 Rc8 13.b3 Ng4! with excellent play for
Black, as 14.Bxe6? will be met with the surprising 14…Nxf2!, and though
White momentarily has two extra pieces, his happiness is not going to last-
15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Kxf2 fxe6+ 17.Kg1 Rxc3).
Here Sveshnikov gives us a short variation with four errors in it: 12.b3?!
(the correct move is 12.Nd5! with a small white advantage) 12…Nd4?! (and
here the correct continuation is 12…Nb4!13.Bb2 Qc7 with excellent play for
Black) 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.exd5 Bf5?! (instead of this move, Black should play
14…Bd7!N, and White is left with only a slight advantage) 15.c3 b5 16.cxd4
bxc4 17.Nxc4 exd4, and, according to Sveshnikov, “Black has taken over the
initiative.” Well, this is his fourth mistake: actually, after 18.Bd2!N, White’s
advantage is undeniable.
11…Ne8!?
The variation 11…d5?! 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.exd5 Bxd5 14.Bxd5 Bxg5
15.Nc4 leads to a small advantage for White.
The most common continuation here is 11…Rc8 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nd5
Bg5 14.c3, and in the resulting position White has a small advantage. Then it
is possible to play 14…Ne7 15.Qb3! Bxd5 16.Bxd5 Nxd5 17.Qxd5. Here
Sveshnikov points out a variation, 17…Qc7 (17…Qd7!? is better, but White
retains a small edge anyway) 18.Rfd1 Rfd8, and concludes that “Black’s
position is somewhat passive but rather solid.” As for me, I believe that
White has a marked and stable advantage here.
The second Rublevsky-Sveshnikov game took place five years after the
one cited above (Elista 1996). This time Sveshnikov’s preparation was much
better. He refused to follow his own recommendations and employed an
interesting novelty, 11…Nxe4!?. Then there was 12.Nxe4 Bxc4 13.Bxe7
Nxe7 14.Nxc4 d5. Here Rublevsky played 15.Qh5 but did not gain any
advantage.
White has a more interesting move, 15.Qg4!?N at his disposal.
I will quote only the main variation of the analysis-15…f5! 16.Qh3!

Ng6!, and now after any of the three moves 17.Ned6, 17.Ned2 or 17.Nxe5
White has a very small edge.
12.Be3
12.Bxe7 Nxe7!N 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Qc7 does not bring any
advantage, for example, 15.Nc4 Bxd5 16.Qxd5 Nf6 17.Qd3 Rad8 18.Ne3
Qc6, and White has to play 19.Nd5.
12…Nf6 13.Qe2
It is clear that 13.Bg5 leads to a repetition of the moves.
13…Rc8!?N
Black also has no apparent problems after 13…Nd4!?N 14.Bxd4 (on
14.Qd3 d5 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Bxd4 exd4 18.Qxd4 Bc6!, Black
obtains full compensation for his pawn) 14…exd4 15.Nd5 Bxd5 16.exd5
Nd7!.
14.Nd5
Black’s game is also fine after 14.Rfd1 Nd4! 15.Bxd4 (or 15.Qd3 Nxc2
16.Bxe6 Nxe3 17.Bxc8 Nxd1 18.Bxb7 Nxf2 with excellent play) 15…exd4
16.Nd5 (16.Rxd4 is dangerous because of 16…Qb6 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Rd3
Qb4! with the idea of Nd7) 16…Bxd5 17.exd5 Nd7.
14…Nd4!? 15.Bxd4 exd4
Black is quite comfortable. He plans to take the d5-knight with the bishop
and then to vacate the f6-square for the other bishop after Nf6-d7.
Chapter 13
8…Bg4
8.Na3 Bg4!?
This continuation was employed by Pelikan as early as 1956 but never

became popular then. Chessplayers returned to this move only in 1990s. I
believe that Black achieves comfortable equality here, although he has to
display some accuracy.
Black provokes his opponent into making the advance f2-f3, as a result of
which the g1-a7 diagonal becomes weakened, and Black has more
possibilities as a result of he queen’s advance to b6. However, White also
gains additional opportunities in view of the safe position of the e4-pawn, for
example, Nc3-d5.
9.f3
The variation 9.Be2 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 d5, leading to an equal game, often
occurs.
In the game Zelcic-Zhigalko, Saint Vincent 2005, there was 11.exd5
Nxd5 12.Nxd5?! Qxd5 13.0-0 Nd4, and Black has the initiative. A better
continuation is 12.0-0! Nxc3 13.bxc3 Bc5 14.Nc4 0-0 15.Rb1!, a novelty, and
White has counterplay along the b-file (but not 15.Nxe5? Re8!N 16.Nxc6
Rxe2 17.Nxd8 Rxd8, and Black stands better).
In the position in the diagram it is best for White to play 11.Bg5. Black
has a good choice:
(a) Possible is 11…Nd4, which should be met with 12.Qd3!, with
equality, for example, 12…Bb4! 13.0-0 Bxc3 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.bxc3 dxe4
16.Qxe4 etc.
(b) The move 11…dxe4 is also sufficient for equality, for example,
12.Nxe4 Qa5!+ 13.c3 (on 13.Bd2 both 13…Qd5 and 13…Qxa4 are possible;
in both cases Black’s play is a little better) 13…Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Bxa3 15.Rxa3
f6 16.Be3 Rd8 17.Ra1 0-0, and Black has no problems.
(c) 11…d4 (the most common continuation) 12.Nd5
Now 12…Be7?! is weak: 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Nc4 Rb8 15.a5, and White’s
advantage is indisputable (Timofeev-Ni Hua, Goa 2002).
12…Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Qd8 14.Bg5, with a repetition of moves, leads to
equality; 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.0-0 Bc5 with a small black initiative is
objectively weaker (Panarin-Moiseenko, Dagomys 2010).
There is the interesting continuation 12…Nb4!?. After 13.Bxf6 gxf6
14.Qf3 Nxd5 15.exd5 Qa5+ (15…Rg8!?N) White manages to maintain the
balance with 16.c3!N (16.Kf1?!, after which Black gains an advantage as in
Efimenko-Smirnov, Rethimnon 2003, is weaker).
After 13.Nc4, the play is also level, for example, 13…Nbxd5 14.exd5
Qxd5 (14…Bb4?!+ 15.c3! dxc3 16.Qxe5+ Qe7 17.Qxe7+ Kxe7 18.0-0-0,
Panarin-Bykhovsky 2006, leads to White’s advantage) 15.Qxe5 Qxe5
16.Nxe5.
9…Be6
10.Bc4
This move occurs significantly more often than any other one, and it is
the only way to hold the balance. On 10.Be3 Black replies 10…Nb4!,
planning d6-d5. On 10.Nc4, the best answer is also 10…Nb4!. 10.Bg5 is
insufficient for equality too: after 10…Be7, White usually takes the knight
with 11.Bxf6 (11.Bc4 allows the blow 11…Nxe4!, and after 12.Bxe7 Kxe7
13.Nxe4 d5, Black possesses a small initiative) 11…Bxf6, and now on
12.Nd5 (or 12.Bc4 Nb4 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 0-0N 15.0-0 Rc8, Black
stands slightly better) there is an interesting answer, 12…Ne7!?N, with a
small advantage to Black.
10…Nb4!
Though this continuation is rather rare, I think that it is the most topical
one. Its main goal is to prevent the White’s programmed move Nc3-d5.
In more than a half of all the games, players make the move 10…Rc8!?;
however what I do not like about is that after 11.0-0 Nb4, it allows the
blockading of the center, 12.Nd5!? Nbxd5 13.exd5 Bd7, and in this position
White possesses a tiny edge.
11.Bg5!
Continuing the struggle for the d5-square. 11.Nd5? Nbxd5 12.exd5 Nxd5
is unconvincing, for example, 13.0-0 Qc7!N 14.Kh1 Qc6 (or 14…Nf6) with
an extra pawn and a solid position for Black. The move 11.0-0 fails to
prevent Black’s breakthrough in the center: 11…d5!N 12.exd5 Nbxd5
13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Re1 f6, and Black has an excellent play.
11…Be7
11…Qb6 falls short of the goal: White castles queenside, 12.Qe2 Rc8
13.0-0-0 and, for example, 13…Qc6?! (13…Qc5N is more accurate, but
White retains the initiative anyway) 14.Bxe6 fxe6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.f4!
exf417.Kb1!N, intending Rhf1, and White retains the advantage.
17.Nd5?! as in Ivanov-Sherzer, Philadelphia 1993, is weaker: Black could
have played 17…f3!N 18.gxf3 Qxa4, with an equal game because 19.Nb6?!
Qb3 is bad, for example, 20.Nxc8 Bh6+ 21.Rd2 Na2 22.Kd1 Qxb2 23.Nxd6+
Kf8 24.Ke1 Nc3 25.Nac4 Qb1+ 26.Rd1 Qb4, and Black has a small
advantage.
11…Rc8 leads, after 12.b3! Be7 13.0-0, to a position from the main
variation with a transposition of moves.
12.0-0 Rc8
13.b3!
The best way to hold the balance. 13.Bb3 is a little worse: after 13…0-0
14.Kh1 h6 15.Bxf6 (15.Bh4!? is an interesting novelty) 15…Bxf6 16.Nd5
Nxd5 17.Bxd5 (in Pogonina-Sebag, Krasnoturinsk 2008, Black made a poor
move, 17…Qb6?!, forcing the useful advance b2-b3, hemming in the b7-
pawn and losing a tempo with his queen (Na3-c4). He should have played
17…Qd7N instead, aiming at the a4-pawn, and Black retains the initiative as
a result of the knight’s bad position on a3, for example, 18.c3 (18.c4 is worse
because of 18…Bxd5, and any capture on d5 has its drawbacks) 18…Rc5
19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.c4 d5!.
13…0-0 14.Kh1 Re8
Black threatens d6-d5 once again and after subsequent exchanges, is
ready to take on e7 with this rook. The fact that both 14…Qb6N and 14…
Qc7N also lead to equality is ample evidence of the solidity of Black’s
position.
15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.Bxd5 Re7
Another plus of 14…Re8 is that, should an occasion arise, the rook can
move to c7. In the impending struggle, the chances are equal. Those moves
were made in a correspondence game between two little-known players.
Strange as it may seem, but they have played out the opening better than
famous grandmasters. Just look what computers may do…
Chapter 14
7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c4 Nf5
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
The bright side of this move is that the c3-square gets vacated for the
knight on b5; in addition, White creates a pawn majority on the queenside.
There is no loss of a tempo either, as Black also has to repeat moves with c6-
knight.
The main minus is that Black does not have to worry both about the d5-
square and possible problems with his backward d6-pawn now. He also gets a
pawn majority on the kingside in a bargain. Objectively, the knight move to
d5 throws away about half of the advantage, so 7.Bg5 is not only much more
common; it is a somewhat better as well.
7…Nxd58.exd5 Ne7
The retreat to e7 is playable but leaves White with a small advantage
(although this conclusion does not result from Sveshnikov’s book), because
the knight’s position on e7 is far from perfect. It is more accurate to retreat to
b8. This continuation is going to be explored in detail in chapters 18 to 29.
8…Nb4?! is weaker; after 9.c3 Na6 10.Be3, White has an advantage.
9.c4
Here strong players prefer 9.c3; this move will be discussed in chapters
16 and 17.
9…Nf5
9…g6?? 10.Qa4 loses immediately. 9…a6? 10.Qa4 axb5 11.Qxa8 leads
to a difficult position.
Sveshnikov proposes that the move 9…f5 is worth attention and proves
his point with the following variation: 9…f5!? 10.Bg5 (“10.c5 Ng6 is
unclear”) 10…h6 11.c5! hxg5! 12.Nxd6+ Kd7 13.Qa4+ Kc7 14.Qa5+ b6
15.cxb6+ axb6 16.Qxa8 Qxd6 17.Rc1+ Kd8, “and in the sharp play Black
manages to hold the equilibrium.”
However, I believe that there are four errors in it.
(1) The evaluation itself of the cited variation is wrong – White possesses
a solid advantage both after 18.a3!? and after 18.Rc3!N, which is even
stronger.
(2) Instead of 13.Qa4?+, there is a much stronger move, 13.Qd2!N, and
even on the best reply 13…Kc7, White has a great advantage both after
14.Rc1 and 14.0-0-0.
(3) The exclamation point that is awarded to the move 11…hxg5 must be
changed to a question mark; the correct answer is 11…Kf7!N, although even
in this case White still has an advantage.
(4) After 10.c5 Ng6? 11.h4 a6 12.h5 axb5 13.hxg6, White has a great
advantage; the correct continuation is 10…Ng8!N, after which White’s edge
is much smaller.
The move 9…Ng6 will be examined in the next chapter. (D)
10.Bd3 Be7
This is a common continuation, but there is another one that is also
interesting, 10…g6!?. First we will dwell on the move 11.Qa4 which, in
Sveshnikov’s opinion, is the best. Then he declares that after 11…Bd7
12.Bxf5 gxf5 13.Qb4 Bxb5
14.Qxb5+ Qd7 15.a4 f4 16.f3, the ending is favorable for Black. This is true,
but instead of 16. f3, White should play 16.g3!N, making use of Black’s
previous move, and instead of 15…f4, the correct move is 15…Be7N with
equal chances.
Actually, the main move is 11.0-0. As a refutation, Sveshnikov suggests
the variation 11…Bg7 12.Rb1 0-0 13.b4 a6 14.Nc3 Nd4 with good play for
Black. There are two conspicuous inaccuracies in this line: instead of 12.Rb1,
there is a stronger move, 12.Qa4! 0-0 13.Qa3, for example, 13…Re8 14.Bxf5
Bxf5 15.Nxd6 Bf8 16.c5, and White has an advantage. Because of this it is
more precise to play 11…a6 12.Nc3 instead of 11…Bg7, and only then 12…
Bg7. White retains a certain advantage, but it is not as great as after 11…Bg7.
11.0-0 0-0
The continuation 11…a6 12.Nc3 0-0 usually leads to a simple
transposition of moves; however, sometimes it is better to leave the knight on
b5.
12.f4!
Opening the game on the kingside.
(a) The sweeping move 12.b4?! throws away the advantage almost
completely after 12…a6 13.Nc3 Nh4 14.f4 exf4! (Sveshnikov holds that
“14…Qb6+ 15.Kh1 Qxb4 16.Qe1! Bf5 leads to a dramatic sharpening of the
struggle,” but White gains a substantial advantage after 17.Rb1!N Qc5
18.Bxf5 Nxf5 19.fxe5 g6 20.Rxb7 Rae8 21.Rxf5 gxf5 22.Bh6. Instead of
16…Bf5? the correct move is 16…Qa5 with a small white advantage.)
15.Bxf4 Ng6. Then Sveshnikov points out the variation 16.Bxg6 hxg6 17.c5
(Nunn-Wockenfuss 1976) where, in his opinion, White struggles for the
initiative. However, after 17…a5!N 18.b5 dxc5 19.d6 Bf6 20.Nd5 Be6, Black
has a small advantage. Instead of 17.c5?!, White should have played
17.Qd2N with rough equality, and instead of 16.Bxg6?! – 16.Be3 with
slightly better play for White.
(b) The timid 12.Kh1, after 12…a6 13.Nc3, allows 13…Bg5!, for
example, 14.f4 (a common continuation) 14…exf4 15.Bxf4 Bxf4 16.Rxf4
Nh6!N 17.h3 f5, and White is left with only a minimal edge.
(c) White starts his queenside offense with 12.a4, after which the usual
continuation is 12…a6 13.Nc3 Bg5 (in Hjartarson-Korchnoi, Saint John
1988, there was 13…a5, but after 14.Nb5 g6 15.b3 Bd7 16.Ra2, White also
has an advantage) 14.a5 Bxc1 15.Qxc1 Nd4 16.Qe3. Here Black should not
play 16…g5?!, despite Sveshnikov’s exclamation point to this move (16…
Bf5 is a little better, although even then White’s chances are better), because
of 17.Ne2! Nxe2 18.Bxe2N, and White’s advantage is obvious as it is
difficult for Black to hinder his opponent’s attack on the queenside after b2-
b4 and c4-c5.
As it is obvious now that the move 13…Bg5 falls short of its goal, I
recommend playing 13…Nh4!.
12…a6
Though this move is the most common one, I believe that it is not the
most accurate. Why drive the knight to where it is eager to get anyway? My
analysis show that the move 12…g6 is a little more precise. But then a
legitimate question arises: what does the black bishop do on e7? Thus we
return to what has been said above: Black had the sound move 10…g6!?.
13.Nc3 exf4 14.Bxf4 (D)
14…Nh4
Here Sveshnikov gives another poor recommendation, 14…Qb6?+. As he
breaks off the variation immediately after this move, we will have to extend
it: 15.Kh1 Qxb2? (objectively, the best move here is “coming home again”
with 15…Qd8 which results in the loss of two tempi and a great advantage
for White) 16.Bd2!.
Now, 16…Ne3? loses immediately: 17.Bxe3 Qxc3 18.Bd4 Qa3 (18…Qa5

does not save Black either) 19.Bxh7+ Kxh7 20.Qh5 Kg8 21.Bxg7 Kxg7
22.Rf3. There has also occurred 16…Nh4 17.Rb1 Qa3, but then White wins
after 18.Qc2!N, for example, 18…Ng6 (or 18…Qa5 19.Na4 Qd8 20.Nb6 Rb8
21.Bxh7+, and the position is hopeless for Black) 19.Na4! b5 20.Nb6 bxc4
21.Bxg6 hxg6 22.Nxa8 Bf5 23.Rxf5 gxf5 24.Nb6 with an extra piece for
White.
The best move is 16…g6!?N followed by 17.Rb1 Qa3 18.Qe2 Bd8
19.Bxf5 Bxf5 20.Rb3 Qc5 21.g4 Bc2 (21…Bd7 22.Ne4 Qc7 23.Bh6 is even
worse, for example, 23…Re8 24.Qb2 Re5 25.c5, and White wins) 22.Rb2,
and Black loses a piece.
15.Qc2 Ng6
This position occurred in about 20 games; the most common move here is
16.Be3 with a small advantage to White. However, he has an even stronger
move:
16.Kh1!N (D)
16.Bg3 runs into 16…Bh4.
16…b6!?
Probably the best answer. Black’s problem is that he has no useful moves.
The most important point is that he is unable to take on f4:
16…Nxf4? 17.Bxh7+ Kh8 18.Rxf4, and now any attempt to trap the
bishop leads to a rapid collapse, for example, 18…f5 (or 18…g6 19.Raf1!
Kxh7 20.Rxf7+ Rxf7 21.Rxf7+ Kh6 22.Ne4! with a possible variation 22…
Bf5 23.Qd2+ Bg5 24.Nxg5 Qxg5 25.Rh7+ Kxh7 26.Qxg5) 19.Bxf5 g6
20.g4! gxf5 21.gxf5 Bg5 22.Rf3 Bh623.Qf2! with a crushing white attack.
The advantage of the king move is now obvious – the g1-square is available
for the second rook.
After 16…Bd717.Bg3, Black is already unable to move 17…Bh4.
The continuation 16…Bf6 17.Bg3 Bh4 leads to the loss of a tempo, but
17…Be5 18.Bxg6 hxg6 19.Bxe5 dxe5 20.c5, with solid advantage to White is
no better.
17.Be3
White can also tease his opponent with 17.a4, but then after 17…Nxf4
18.Bxh7+ Kh8 19.Rxf4 f5 20.Bxf5 g6 21.g4?! gxf5 22.gxf5 Bf6, the idea of
16…b6 becomes clear – the a8-rook comes to the defense of its king via a7.
Nevertheless, after 21.Bxc8, White retains a small advantage.
In the position after 17.Be3, White’s edge is noticeable, but you should
remember that Black has had two opportunities to obtain a more solid
position (I mean 12…g6 and 10…g6!?) and thus the variation 9…Nf5 itself
is not as bad for Black as it may seem.
Chapter 15
7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c4 Ng6
Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c4 Ng6 (D)
It is assumed that the knight’s position on g6 is better than on f5 (for
example, the undermining f2-f4 gets hindered); however, this move has its
drawbacks. For example, the d6-pawn is less solidly defended now, and the
knight itself is under a potential threat of h2-h4-h5.
10.Qa4!
The only move that creates problems for Black.
The straightforward 10.h4 does not bring any
advantage because of 10…Be7! (10…a6 11.Nc3! Be7 12.g3 0-0 13.h5 Nh8
14.Qb3 f5 pointed out by Sveshnikov is not so good because of 15.Be3!N,
with a small edge for White) 11.h5 Nh4 (11…Nf8? is bad in view of 12.c5!
a6 13.cxd6 Bxd6 14.Qa4! with an advantage) 12.c5! Nf5! (12…Qa5?! “with
sharp play”, suggested by Sveshnikov, fails to equalize because of 13.Nc3!N,
and Black is unable to capture the c5-pawn: 13…dxc5? 14.d6 Bf6 15.Bb5+
Bd7 16.Bxd7+ Kxd7 17.Qg4+, and White wins, or 13…Qxc5? 14.Rxh4
Bxh4 15.Qa4+ and 16.Qxh4).
The most common move in the database is 10.Bd3.
(a) 10…f5?! is doubtful because of 11.Qa4!, and Black loses the right to
castle as 11…Bd7? is useless because of 12.Bxf5.
Sveshnikov amusingly recommends transferring the queen to the opposite
flank – 11.Qh5? a6 12.Nc3 e4! 13.Bc2, but after 13…Be7!N, Black has a
small advantage, for example 14.0-0 0-0 15.f3? Ne5! 16.fxe4 f4! with a threat
of trapping the queen, and Black has a strong attack and a great advantage.
(b) On 10…Be7, White has the good continuation 11.c5!N (11.0-0 a6
12.Nc3 with a transposition to the variation 10…a6 takes him nowhere), 11…
a6 12.Nxd6+ Bxd6 13.cxd6 Qxd6 14.0-0, for example,14…Qxd5 15.Bxg6
Qxd1 16.Bxf7+ Kxf7 17.Rxd1 with a tiny advantage in the endgame).
(c) The best continuation for Black is to play 10…a6! immediately, and
after 11.Nc3 Be7 12.0-0 0-0, the game is equal.
10…Bd7 11.Qb4!
This is where the insufficient defense of the d6-pawn starts to tell.

11…Bf5!
Objectively, this move is a little better than the most common one 11…
Qb8?! recommended by Sveshnikov. It leaves White with a small advantage,
but at the same time allows him to force a repetition of the moves from a
position of strength by means of 12.Qa4 Bd7 13.Qb4. So, to play for a win,
Black has to choose moving the queen to b8 that is objectively worse.
Here Sveshnikov only mentions the move 12.Be3 that occurs in the
overwhelming majority of the games and then recommends 12…b6!?,
proving his statement with the variation 13.h4!? a5!? 14.Qa3 Bxb5 15.cxb5
Be7, “solving all he problems of development” (all signs are by Sveshnikov).
Gullible readers of his book play just like this in most cases; however, in
this variation, beginning with 11…Qb8, there are five inaccuracies.
In the final position White plays 16.Rc1! and invades on c6 with his rook,
with N obvious advantage; so, instead of 15…Be7, it is more accurate to
move 15…Qb7!N.
Instead of 13…a5?! it is better to give up a pawn after 13…a6 14.Nc3
Be7.
Instead of 12…b6?! it is definitely better to choose 12…a6!, for example,
13.Nc3 Be7 14.Na4 Qc7! 15.Bb6 (15.Nb6 promises nothing to White) 15…
Qc8!N 16.Ba5!? Rb8 17.Nb6 Qc7 18.Na8 Qc8, and White has nothing better
than to return to b6 with his knight; and 19.Nb6 (19.Nc7?!+ is dubious, as the
knight is not going to find his way home after this) leads to a repetition of the
moves.
Instead of 12.Be3 there is a better move, 12.h4!, that we will discuss a
little later.
Let us also recall that instead of 11…Qb8, recommended by Sveshnikov,
it is better to play 11…Bf5.
Let us explore the stronger move 12.h4!.
It is only this move, not mentioned by Sveshnikov, which creates

problems for Black. The best defense against 12.h4! is the continuation 12…
a6 13.h5 axb5 14.hxg6 Ra4!N. After 15.gxf7+ Kxf7 16.Qb3 bxc4 17.Bxc4
Be7 18.Be3 b5 19.Be2, White’s position is a little better.
In practice, only 14…fxg6?! occurs, but after 15.cxb5 Be7 16.a4! (not
determining the position of the c1-bishop), White has a marked advantage.
His play in the Popovic-Nikcevic, Yugoslavia 1994, was weaker: 16.Be3?! 0-
0 17.Be2 Qd8 18.a4. Here Black made a mistake – 18…Rc8? (18…Bg5N
leads to equality), and resigned after 19.0-0 Bg5?! 20.Qxd6 Bxe3 21.fxe3
Qg5 22.Qxd7 Qxe3+ 23.Kh2 Qxe2 24.Qe6+ Kh8 25.d6 h6 26.d7 Rcd8
27.Rxf8 Rxf8 28.Qe7.
More logical is the novelty 18.0-0, but 18…Bg5! 19.Qxd6 Bxe3 20.fxe3
Qg5 21.Qxd7 Qxe3+ 22.Kh2 Qxe2 23.Qe6+ Kh8 with equal play is also
possible. Unlike the position in the text, where the rook is on c8, now it is the
rook on f1 that hangs. (D)
12.h4!
Sveshnikov considers only the weaker 12.Be3 (with an exclamation
mark) 12…a6 13.Nc3. Here he
breaks off the variation declaring it favorable for White; however, after the
simple move 13…Be7!, we see nothing of the kind. Moreover, if White grabs
the pawn with 14.Qxb7?!, then after 14…0-0 15.Qb3 Rb8 16.Qa3 Nh4!,
Black’s initiative is more than adequate compensation for the sacrificed
pawn.
12…a6!?
On 12…Be7, leading to quieter play, there is the unpleasant reply
13.Bg5!, for example, 13…a6 14.Bxe7 Kxe7 15.Nc3 Qc7 16.h5!N Nf4 17.0-
0-0 a5 18.Qa3! Qb6! 19.Rd2 g6, and black chances are only a little lower
than in the main variation.
13.h5
13.Nc3 does not bring any advantage because of 13…Be7!N.
13…axb5 14.hxg6 bxc4!? N.
In the correspondence game Brooks-Powells, 2008, Black played more
cautiously: 14…fxg6 15.Qxb5+ Qd7 16.Qxd7+ (there is an interesting
novelty 16.a4!? here, for example, 16…Qxb5 17.cxb5 Be4 18.a5 Bxd5 19.a6
Be7 20.Be3, and the analysis shows that White stands a little better in the
ending despite being a pawn down) 16…Bxd7 17.Bd3 Bf5 18.Ke2?!N
(18.Be2!? is better as White has only a minimal advantage now) 18…e4
19.Bc2 Be7 20.a4 Bf6 with equality.
15.Rxh7 Rxh7 16.gxh7 Bxh7 17.Qxb7 Be7 18.Bxc4 Be4!
This is a critical position for the evaluation of the pawn sacrifice.
19.Kf1
It is not advantageous to expose the king with 19.f3 Bf5; in addition, the
continuation e5-e4 gains in strength.
19…Rb8 20.Qa6
20.Qa7?! is weaker: 20…Qc8! 21.Ba6 (or 21.Bb3 Bxg2+ 22.Kxg2 Qg4+
23.Kf1 Rxb3 with a draw) 21…Bxg2+, and if White plays for a win with
22.Kg1?!, he is going to face problems after 22…Qh3 23.Qxb8+ Bd8.
20…f6!
Analysis shows that this is the best move. Black prepares f7 for his king.
21.f3 Bf5 22.Bd3
22.a4 Kf7 23.Qa7! does not bring any advantage because of 23…Qc8!
24.Bb5 (or 24.b3 Rxb3! 25.Bxb3 Qc3) 24…Ra8 25.Qe3 Bd7!
22…Bd7 23.b3 f5 24.Be3 Kf7
White’s chances are a bit better, but the position is rather complex.
Instead of the calm king move, a more forcing continuation, 24…Ra8!?, is
playable, for example, 25.Qb6 Qxb6 26.Bxb6 Ra3! 27.Be3 Bf6 28.Bc1 Ra5
29.Bc4 e4 30.b4 Bb5! 31.Bxb5+ Rxb5 32.Rb1 Kd7 33.a4 Rxd5 with
sufficient black counterplay in the endgame.
Chapter 16
7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c3 Nf5 10.a4 without 10…Be7
Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c3
With this move White creates the tactical threat of Qa4!. If the second
player is sufficiently competent, he is going to parry it, and then White
switches to the positional plan a2-a4!, securing the route Nb5-a3-c4 for his
b5-knight, with definite pressure on the queenside.
9…Nf5!
The naive 9…a6? is met with 10.Qa4! and, to avoid the worst, Black has
to play 10…Kd7. Here the best move is probably 11.Bg5!?N, for example,
11…f6! (or 11…h6 12.Qa3! axb5 13.Bxb5+ Kc7 14.Bxe7!) 12.Be3 Nxd5!
(or 12…Nf5? 13.Nxd6+ Kxd6 14.Bc5+ Kxc5 15.Qb4+ Kxd5 16.0-0-0+ Kc6
17.Qe4+ Kc7 18.Qc4+ etc.) 13.Rd1 Nb6! (or 13…Nxe3 14.Nxd6 Kc7
15.Ne8+ Qxe8 16.Qxe8) 14.Bxb6 Qxb6 15.Nxd6+ Kc7 16.Qc4+ Qc617.Nf7
Bc5! 18.Nxh8 Be6 19.Qh4 Rxh8 20.Qg3, and White is an exchange up.
The move 9…Ng6?! is also bad. It occurred for the first time in the game
Kuzmin-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976, but now only weak players choose it. Then
it is possible to continue 10.Qa4! Bd7 11.Qb4 Qb8 12.Qc4 Kd8 13.Be3 with
a clear white advantage (Zelcic-Ljubicic, Rabac 2003).
The move 9…f5 is noticeably stronger, but this move is not sufficient for
equality. There follows the standard 10.Qa4! (10.f4?!, recommended by
Sveshnikov, takes White nowhere, for example, 10…a6N 11.Na3 Ng6) 10…
Kf7 11.Qb4 with a slight advantage for White, for example, 11…Ng6 12.h4
a6! (12…Be7, recommended by Sveshnikov, is a little worse) 13.h5N axb5
14.hxg6+ Kxg6 15.Bxb5.
10.a4!
10.Bd3 is inaccurate in view of 10…a6, for example, 11.Qa4 (or 11.Na3
Be7 12.Nc4 b5 with equal play) 11…Bd7 12.Bxf5 Bxb5, and White is going
to have a hard time proving his advantage.
10…g6
The more common move 10…Be7 will be explored in the next chapter.
(D)
11.Bd3
The move 11.Na3 occurred in the game Gallagher-Ivanchuk, Saint
Vincent 2005. White intends either to exchange light-square bishops or to
weaken the b6-square after 11…a6. Then there was 11…Bg7 (the computer
suggests an interesting novelty, 11…Bh6, with the idea not to exchange light-
square bishops after 12.Bxh6 Nxh6 13.Bb5+, but
to play 13…Kf8 first and then Kg7) 12.Bb5+ Bd7 13.Bxd7+ (now White
loses his small advantage; 13.0-0! is more accurate) 13…Qxd7 14.0-0 0-0
15.Nc4 Rac8 16.b3 h5 (it is better to play 16…e4!N immediately) 17.Ra2
(and here White misses his chance to regain his small advantage after
17.Re1!N Rfe8 18.Re4!) 17…e4 18.Re1N (18.Re2! is more accurate) 18…
Rfe8, and, following several additional inaccuracies by White, Black won,
though the opening variation had nothing to do with this outcome.
In game five of the world championship candidates’ match Yudasin-
Kramnik, 1994, White chose to play 11.Be2.
There then followed 11…Bg7 (and here the novelty 11…Bh6!? is also
interesting) 12.0-0 0-0 13.Qb3 Re8 (later this move was repeated by several
others, but the novelty 13…Bd7! is probably more accurate) 14.Qb4?! (and
this is an obvious inaccuracy; it is better to play 14.Na3! (Apicella-Sanchez,
Cannes 2008) and after every black reply, White retains a small edge) 14…
e4! (now the game is even) 15.Bf4?! (another inaccuracy, and Black takes
over the initiative. Kramnik points out 15.a5!?) 15…Be5 16.Bxe5 Rxe5
17.Rad1, and instead of the text, 17…Nh4, Kramnik recommends 17…a5!
18.Qc4 Bd7 19.Nd4 Qb6 20.Nxf5 Bxf521.Qb5 Qc7 with small advantage for
Black.
11…Bg7 12.0-0 0-0
13.Qb3 Re8 14.Re1 Bd7

14…b6?! is weaker because of 15.a5! a6N (15…bxa5 is a little better)
16.axb6. Then in the game 1 of the same match Yudasin-Kramnik there was
16…Rb8 (and here 16…Qxb6 is a bit better, for example, 17.Nd4! Qc7
18.Nc6 Ne7 19.Na5, and White’s advantage is indisputable, Moreno-
Vasquez, Calvia 2004) 17.Na3 Rxb6 18.Qa4 Ne7 19.Nc4 Rb5 20.Na5, and
the subsequent struggle went on with a great white advantage.
15.Na3!?
In the game Hamarat-Pfretzschner (world correspondence championship,
1999) White played 15.Qb4; the answer should have been 15…b6! (in the
game there was 15…Bf8 16.a5, and White increased his advantage). Now it
is disadvantageous for White to take the d6-pawn: 16.Bxf5 (an attempt to
shatter the Black’s queenside with 16.a5?! does not work as well – 16…a6!
17.Na3 bxa5, and the advantage is already Black’s) 16…Bxf5 17.Qxd6 a6
18.Qxd8 Rexd8 19.Nc7 Ra7 20.d6 Rxd6 21.Ne8 Re6 22.Nxg7 Kxg7, and the
game is even.
15…Rb8 16.Nc4 b6 (so as to prevent a4-a5) 17.Qa3N
White’s position is somewhat better. He has managed to create pressure

against the d6-pawn that had been weakened by the bishop’s development to
g7. Nevertheless, there is no direct threat of capturing this pawn so far, for
example, 17…h6 (a useful move in view of the White’s plan of transferring
the knight to e4). Now 18.Bxf5?! Bxf5 19.Qxd6 brings no advantage because
of 19…Bd3 20.Qxd8 Rbxd8 21.Ne3 f5 22.Rd1, and Black has several good
continuations.
Chapter 17
7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c3 Nf5 10.a4 Be7
Nxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c3 Nf5 10.a4 Be7
11.Bd3 0-0
Occasionally there occurs 11…Nh4 12.0-0 Ng6?! (it is not too late to play
12…0-0 with a transposition to the main line). Now the continuation 13.f4?!
(an exclamation point from Sveshnikov) 13…a6 14.Na3 is weak because of
14…exf4! (Sveshnikov examines only 14…Nxf4? 15.Bxf4 exf4 without
taking into consideration the novelty 16.Qh5!, and White has an advantage),
for example, 15.Bxg6!?N hxg6 16.Bxf4 0-0, and White’s advantage has
practically vanished). The correct continuation is 13.Be3!, for example, 13…
a6 14.Na3 0-0 15.Nc4 f5 16.f3!, and White’s position is better.
12.0-0 (D)
12…Nh4
In the diagram we see the first critical position of the variation 10…Be7.
The knight move to h4 clears the way for the f7-pawn, the knight itself is
going to proceed to g6 and, should an opportunity arise, to e5 (after a
possible exchange of pawns on f4).
On the other hand, the e3-square, which is the best place for the white c1-
bishop, is not under surveillance anymore; besides, Black’s control over
the d6-square is weaker (which forces e5xf4 after f2-f4), and if the knight is
driven from b5 by a6, then the weakness of the b6-square starts to tell. In my
opinion, the cons slightly outweigh the pros. If so, do we have a more precise
move?
In the game Naumann-Babula, Austria 2003, Black tested the variation
12…a6 13.Na3 Bg5. There followed 14.Bxg5?! (White retains a small
advantage with 14.Nc4!? or 14.f4!?) 14…Qxg5 15.Bxf5?! (there is an
interesting novelty 15.Qf3!? here) 15…Bxf5, and the game is balanced. After
16.Nc4, Black made a mistake, 16…Qd8?!, and lost subsequently. Equality
could be maintained with 16…Rad8 or 16…Qg6.
However, Black has an excellent move, 12…Bd7!, which so far has
seldom occurred.
Black has made a useful developing move that facilitates the activation of
the a8-rook; in addition, the f5-knight controls the important e3-square; the
b6-square does not get unnecessarily weakened for now, and the bishop itself
aims at the enemy pawn on a4.
Now the aggressive move 13.f4 will run into 13…g6!N, for example,
14.Qf3 a6 15.Na3 Re8 16.Nc4 Rc8, and White does not accomplish anything.
And if he attempts to exploit the imaginary weakness of the f7-pawn by
17.fxe5?! dxe5 18.g4?, then he gets more than he bargained for after 18…e4!
19.Bxe4 Rxc4 20.gxf5 Rxe4 21.fxg6 Qb6+ 22.Kh1 Qxg6.
The attempt at the kingside bind by g2-g4 and f4-f5 also fails: 16.g4?!
Nh4 17.Qg3 e4! 18.Bxe4 Bf6! 19.Re1! Qa5 20.Kf2 Nf5!! 21.gxf5 Qd8!
22.Qf3 Bh4+ 23.Kg2 Bxe1 24.Nc4 Qf6 25.Be3 Rxe4 26.Qxe4 Bxf5 27.Qf3
Re8 28.Kg1 Bh4 with clear advantage to Black (I have cited only the analysis
of the main line).
The move 13.Qc2 (which should be met with 13…g6) is more solid than
13.f4?!. Probably the best move is 13.g3!?, for example, 13…g6 14.Re1 h5
15.h4, and White’s position is a bit better.
13.f4! a6 14.Na3 exf4.
14…f5 15.Nc4 Ng6 is a little weaker because of 16.g3!.
15.Bxf4 Ng6 (D)
This is the second critical position.
16.Be3!?
Here White usually takes on g6 – 16.Bxg6. In the game Ye-Novik,
Moscow 1992, there occurred
the well-known continuation 16…hxg6 (another good move is 16…fxg6!N)

17.Nc4 Qc7 18.b3 Bf5 19.a5 Be4!, and Black has no problems at all. 16.Bg3
Ne5 is playable: White has only a small advantage (16…Bh4 is weaker).
16…Ne5
16…Bg5 falls short of its goal because of 17.Bd4 Ne5 18.Nc4.
17.Nc4
Another good move is 17.Bd4!?N.
17…Nxc4N 18.Bxc4 Bf6 19.Bd4 Bxd4+ 20.Qxd4 Qc7 21.Bd3 Bd7
22.a5
White has a small positional advantage; however, it would be appropriate
to remind you that Black has an ambitious move, 12…Bd7!, that promises
him better chances at equality than the common continuation 12…Nh4.
However, in any case there is no complete equality, so we have to infer
that the move 8…Ne7 fails to equalize (though this conclusion does not
follow from Sveshnikov’s book).
Chapter 18
7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 without 9.a4 or 9.c4
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8!
As we have seen, the knight’s retreat to e7 requires it to go to g6 or to f5

subsequently, and in both cases Black experiences certain discomfort as a
result of the fairly unfortunate position of this piece. The knight’s position on
d7 is more natural: it can move to f6 and c5 from there, or even to e5, if the
e5-pawn were either move to e4 or traded for its white counterpart upon f2-
f4.
9.Qf3
This is a comparatively recent move that is particularly popular in
correspondence games. It has appeared after White’s fruitless attempts to
gain an advantage with the main continuations 9.a4 and 9.c4 (we are going to
examine then in the following chapters).
The white queen is transferred to a3 (and sometimes to c3 or g3). The
move 9.Qd3 is also associated with similar ideas.
In passing, White set a couple of traps into which inexperienced players
may fall. If Black’s play is correct, White does not gain an advantage, but
there arise novel positions that are not yet worn out, which suits some players
just fine.
The move 9.Be3 is fairly common; a possible answer is 9…a6 10.Na3!?
(Black equalizes without any problem after 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Bd3 0-0 12.0-0
f5) 10…Nd7! (10…Be7 allows 11.Nc4 Nd7 12.a4 with some small pressure
on the queenside) 11.Qd2 Be7 12.Nc4 0-0 13.a4 f5. The more cautious move
here is 14.f3 with equal play, but the most common continuation is 14.f4?!
and that leads to an edge for Black after 14…exf4 15.Bxf4 Nc5! (Black also
has a small advantage after 15…Bf6!?N).
Then in Marjanovic-Rogozenko, Bucharest 2000, there was 16.Be2
(16.Bd3! is more accurate), and now instead of 16…Bf6?, which leads to
equality after 17.0-0, Black should have played 16…Bd7! with a marked
advantage.
Let us investigate possible continuations.

(a) Now the d6-pawn is untouchable, and after grabbing the knight White
loses by force: 17.Nxd6?? Bxd6 18.Bxd6 Ne4 19.Qb4 Re8! 20.Bf4 Qh4+
21.Bg3 (21.g3 Nxg3!) 21…Qh6 22.Rf1 Nxg3 23.hxg3 Re4 24.Qd2 Rae8, and
Black wins.
(b) To take with bishop is also bad: 17.Bxd6? Bxd6 18.Nxd6 Qf6 19.Nc4
b5, and then a forced variation is possible: 20.axb5 (20.Na5 loses to 20…
Ne4) 20…axb5 21.Na5 Qb6 22.Qd4 Rxa5 23.Rxa5 Qxa5+ 24.b4 Qa4
25.Qxc5 Qa1+ 26.Bd1 Qe5 27.Kd2 Rc8 28.Qe3 Qxd5+ 29.Kc1 Qxg2 30.Rg1
Qxh2 31.Qd4 Qh6+ 32.Kb1 Be6, and Black has every chance to win.
(c) 17.a5 Bb5!N 18.0-0 Ne4 19.Qb4 (with a transposition of moves, there
arises a position from the correspondence game van Kempen-Sevecek, 1999)
19…Bf6 20.c3 Bg5 21.Bd3 Rc8 22.Bxg5 Qxg5 23.Rf3.
In this position Black has a strong move, 23…Rf6!!N, with serious
advantage, for example, 24.Nb6 Bxd3 25.Nxc8 Be2! 26.h4! Qd2! 27.Rxf5 (or
27.Qa4 g6) 27…Qe3+ 28.Kh2 Qg3+ 29.Kg1 Rxf5 30.Ne7+ Kh8 31.Nxf5
Qf2+ 32.Kh1 Qxf5 etc.
9…a6
This continuation is the most common, but other moves also occur. Black
has to be on guard already. The careless 9…g6? runs into 10.Qc3 Na6
11.Be3, and Black loses a pawn without any compensation. 9…Nd7? 10.Qc3
Nc5 11.b4 Na6 12.Be3 is no better – the a7-pawn is once again defenseless.
On the other hand, sacrificing the a7-pawn with 9…Be7!? 10.Qc3 Na6
11.Be3 0-0 12.Nxa7 is worth attention.
In Fedorovsky-Markos, Pardubice 2007, Black erred with 12…f5?!,

White returned the favor with 13.Bxa6?!, and after 13…f4 14.Bc5 bxa6
15.Nc6 Qe8 16.Bb4 Bd7 17.0-0-0 Kh8, made another error and lost his small
advantage: 18.Qa3?! (18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Qa3 Rf6 20.Ba5!? is worth attention)
18…Bxc6 19.dxc6 Qxc6 20.Bxd6 Bxd6 21.Qxd6 Qxg2 22.Qxe5 Qxf2, and
the game is even.
White should have played 13.Qb3!N, for example, 13…Qa5+ 14.Bd2
Qc5 15.Bxa6 Qxa7 16.Be2, and Black does not have full compensation for
his pawn.
In the position in the diagram, the correct move is 12…Bg5!, for
example, 13.Nb5 (or 13.Bxa6 Bxe3 14.Qxe3 Qa5+ 15.c3 Qxa6 16.Nxc8
Rfxc8 with an equal game) 13…Bxe3 14.Qxe3 f5, and Black’s counterplay
balances his sacrificed pawn (Marcel-Toro, corr 2007).
10.Qa3
A curious position. White has compelled his opponent to hold the d6-
pawn and also intends to divert the black queen, with Bg5. There is also a
plan to transfer the bishop from c1 to b4, increasing pressure against the d5-
pawn.
10…Be7
10…b6 is also quite playable, for example, 11.Bg5 f6 12.Be3 Be7 with
complicated play.
11.Bg5!
As we will see a little later, it is rather useful to make Black weaken the
diagonal a2-g8.
11…f6
11…Bxg5?? leads to a difficult position: 12.Nxd6+ Kf8 (or 12…Kd7
13.Nxf7, and the queen is unable to defend two pieces at once; on 13…Qe7
there follows 14.Qa4!+) 13.Nxc8+ Kg8 14.Nd6, and in Solak-Bogoslavljevic,
Vrsac 2007, after 14…Be7?! 15.Nxb7 Qxd5 16.Qxe7 Qe4+ 17.Be2 Nc6
18.Qxf7+, Black resigned.
On the other hand, 11…Bf5!? is quite playable. In the correspondence
game Marcel-Vosahlik, Czech Republic-Slovakia match 2008, after 12.Be2
axb5 13.Bxe7 Rxa3 14.Bxd8 Ra8 15.Bh4 f6 16.f4 exf4 17.Bxb5+ Kf7 18.0-0,
a draw was agreed.
12.Bd2
The variation 12.Be3 0-0 13.0-0-0 leads to complex play with even
chances.
12…0-0 13.Bb4 Qd7
13…axb5 14.Qxa8 Na6 has also occurred, but after 15.Bd2, White has a
small edge after both 15…Qc7 16.Qa7 Qxc2 17.Qe3!N and 15…Qb6 16.Be3
Qa5+ 17.c3.
14.Bd3
This bishop move prepares kingside castling. 14.0-0-0!? has also been
played, and that is usually met with 14…b6. (D)
Black prepares 15…Bb7 to defend his rook on a8, after which the white
minor pieces on the queen-side may find themselves in trouble: the knight
retreat to c3 blocks the bishop. But White still has tactical resources at his
disposal.
He can play 15.Kb1 (king defends the a2-pawn, which may turn out
useful. 15.Nxd6?! does not work because of 15…a5). If Black replies with
15…Bb7?!, he falls into a trap: 16.Nxd6 a5 17.Bb5! axb4 (White’s advantage
is even more prominent after 17…Qc7 18.Ne8! axb4 19.Qb3 Qc5 20.d6+
Kh8 21.dxe7 Qxe7 22.Nd6 Bc6 23.Qxb4; 22…Bxg2?? loses to 23.Rhg1 Bb7
24.Nf5) 18.Bxd7 bxa3 19.Be6+ Kh8 20.Nxb7 Ra7 21.d6 Rxb7 22.dxe7 Rxe7
with clear white advantage in the endgame. But if Black strengthens the d6-
pawn with 15…Rd8, White would have to sound the retreat for his minor
pieces. It is possible that 15.Rg1!?N is a little better than the king move. The
idea is to prepare g2-g4, and the game is roughly even. Let us return to
14.Bd3.
14…b6 15.0-0 g6!
Black may be tempted to win a pawn after 15…e4 16.Be2 Bb7 17.Nd4
Bxd5, but he should not, as the continuation 18.Rfd1 Bf7 19.h3 (with a threat
of Bg4) allows White to retain small initiative.
15…Bb7?! 16.Nxd6 a5?? is bad again, this time because of 17.Bf5! axb4
(or 17…Qc7 18.Nb5! Bxb4 19.Qh3 Qd8 20.Bxh7+ Kh8 21.Bg6+ Kg8
22.Qh7#) 18.Qh3.
16.Rad1 Rd8 17.Bd2 Bb7 18.Nc3 Qc7
This position arose in the correspondence game Marcel-Rattinger, 2009.
White had not been able to get anywhere, so he had to retreat with his minor
pieces. The queen’s position on a3 is poor. It looks like Black’s position is
even a bit more pleasant.
Chapter 19
7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.a4
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.a4
The move 9.a4! is the only way for White to retain his small advantage in
this position. It is logical enough. As White has a pawn majority and spatial
advantage on the queenside, he plans to act there. It is also important that the
a- pawn’s move prepares the knight’s retreat to a3 (after a7-a6), followed by
its transfer to the comfortable square c4, from where the knight is going to
take aim at both weakened b6-square and the d6-pawn. In this chapter, I will
try to prove that the move 9.c4!, occurring about a dozen times more
frequently, throws the above-mentioned small edge away.
The reason for such disregard of the move 9.a4! is probably that in the
original book by Sveshnikov which has been showing us the ways and means
of playing out the Chelyabinsk Variation for years (unfortunately, not all of
them are correct), it is mentioned only briefly as a non-essential line.
9…Be7
It is pointless to play 9…a6 weakening the b6-square immediately and
driving the knight exactly to where it wants to move.
10.Be2
Developing the bishop on d3 – 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 f5 12.f4 a6 13.Na3 Nd7
– is not promising.
On 10.Be3, Black should answer 10…Nd7! to make White lose a tempo
in his preparation of a4-a5 (10…0-0 is an inaccuracy: 11.a5!, and now 11…
a6?? loses to 12.Bb6), and after 11.Qd2 a6 12.Na3 0-0 13.Nc4, there arises
by transposition a position from Marjanovic-Rogozenko, 2000, which has
been examined in the previous chapter.
10…0-0 11.0-0 Nd7
This move seems to be more accurate than 11…f5, because after the
latter, White is able to play 12.f4 with no need to prepare it first with Kh1.
This is the first important position for the evaluation of the variation
9.a4!. White has several continuations to choose from.
12.Kh1
This move occurs in about half the games.
First I would like to note that now the advance 12.f4 falls short of its goal
because of 12…a6 13.Na3 b5!. Then it is possible to play 14.Kh1 (the
variation 14.axb5 axb5 15.Bxb5? Qb6+ 16.Kh1 Rxa3 17.Rxa3 Qxb5 leads to
the loss of material for White), and now not 14…bxa4 15.Nc4, with a small
advantage to White, (Rowson-Adams, London 1998), but 14…b4! 15.Nc4 a5
with equal play.
In another game in the 1998 Rowson-Adams match White tested 12.Be3,
but after 12…a6 13.Na3 f5, the game is even. Then in the game there was
14.f3?! f4 15.Bf2, and now instead of 15…Qe8, the second player should
have chosen 15…Rf6! 16.Nc4 Rh6 and Black has the initiative.
The move 14.f4 is better, for example, 14…exf4 15.Bxf4 Ne5! with
equality (after 15…Qb6+ 16.Kh1 Qxb2 17.Nc4 Qf6 18.a5, White has more
than adequate compensation for his pawn). The continuation 12.a5!? is worth
our most serious attention. (D)
For example, 12…a6 13.Nc3 f5. Then:
(a) The most common move 14.f4?! hands the initiative to Black after
14…Bf6 (14…b5 is also good) 15.Be3 exf4!N 16.Bxf4 Nc5, for example,
17.Qd2 b6 18.b4 Qc7!.
(b) The move 14.Re1!N, with a small advantage to White, looks

interesting.
(c) 14.f3! f4!? 15.Bd2 Bh4 (with the idea of Rf8-f6-h6) 16.Ne4 Nf6 17.c4
Bf5 (Moll-Kochemasov, corr 2010), and now there is a strong novelty
18.Bd3! with roughly the same advantage as in the main variation.
12…a6 13.Na3 f5
The move 13…b6 runs into the unpleasant retort 14.a5!. In the internet
game Nataf-Wang, 2004, there followed 14…Bb7N (14…f5 is a bit more
accurate) 15.axb6 Nxb6 16.c4 Nd7. Here Nataf made two inaccurate moves
in a row – 17.Nc2N (17.b4!? looks interesting) 17…a5 18.Ra3, and lost all
his advantage.
14.f4
This is the second critical position of the variation 9.a4. Now it is Black
who has to choose between several possible continuations. The choice is
complicated by the fact that the evaluations of those continuations are
roughly the same – but none guarantees clear equality.
14…Qc7!?
Let us explore other continuations.
(a) 14…exf4 15.Bxf4 Ne5 occurs rather often. In the game Gallagher-
Parligras, Göteborg 2005, there followed 16.Nc4 Nxc4 17.Bxc4 Bf6 18.c3
g5! 19.Be3 Be5?! (19…f4! 20.Bd4 Bxd4 21.Qxd4 Qf6 with equal play is
better) 20.Bd4 Qf6 21.Bxe5 dxe5, and, though White’s chances are
somewhat better, Black manages to hold the balance. Probably 16.Qd2 with a
small white advantage is a little better.
(b) The most popular move is 14…Bf6, but White retains a slight
advantage after the usual moves 15.Nc4 Nb6 (this continuation occurs almost
universally, but the novelty 15…exf4! is a little better, for example, 16.Nxd6
g5 or 16.Bxf4 Ne5) 16.fxe5 (16.Nxb6?! Qxb6 17.a5 Qc7 18.c3 Bd7 19.Be3
Rae8 leads to equality, and in Gallagher-Spasov, Göteborg 2005, a draw was
agreed) 16…dxe5 17.Nxb6 Qxb6 18.a5. Then in Nataf-Antic, Vrnjacka Banja
2005, there followed 18…Qc5 (I believe that not only both 18…Qd6 and
18…Qb4, but also 18…Qd8 are more accurate) 19.c4 e4 20.Ra3 (20.Qb3 is
also good) 20…Be5 21.Be3 Qe7 22.c5 f4. Here White made a serious
blunder by playing 23.Bc4? and the advantage passed to Black. White could
have retained it with 23.d6!.
(c) White retains a modest advantage in the variation 14…b6 15.a5! b5
(15…e4!?N is a bit better) 16.c4 bxc4!N 17.Nxc4 Rb8. 16…Qxa5? as in
Gallagher-Chernyaev, Switzerland 2005, is weak, and now instead of
returning the favor with 17.Bd2?, White should have continued 17.cxb5!N
with a clear advantage.
(d) 14…Rb8!?N needs checking, for example, 15.Nc4 b6, and White’s
advantage is roughly the same as in the main variation.
Let us return to the move 14…Qc7.
15.Nc4 b6
16.Ra3!
An important novelty that allows White to retain a small advantage.
16.fxe5?! is entirely docile; after 16…Nxe5 17.Qd4 Rb8, White has nothing,
for example, 18.Be3N Bf6 19.c3 Nxc4 20.Qxc4 Qxc4 21.Bxc4 b5.
16.Be3 exf4 17.Bxf4 Bb7 18.Qd4 fails to gain any advantage. Here Black
should play 18…Rad8!N, for example 19.Ra3!? (or 19.b4 b5 20.axb5 axb5
21.Na3 Bf6 22.Nxb5 Qxc2 23.Qd1 Qxd1 24.Raxd1 Ba6!) 19…g6 20.Rb3
Rfe8! 21.Be3 Bf6 22.Qd2 Re4!. In this position White has three ways to win
the b6-pawn, but in each variation Black obtains full compensation for it.
After 16.Ra3! it is possible to continue… 16…e4 17.Be3 Bf6 18.Bd4 a5
19.Rc3 Nc5 20.Na3! and White has a modest positional advantage.
Chapter 20
7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 without 9…a6
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4
As we have said before, this move is very fashionable; in the diagrammed

position, it occurs in three games out of four. However, the reason for this
popularity is not quite clear as, if Black plays precisely, White is unable to
gain advantage with 9.c4.
9…Be7
This is the most common move, but, if my analysis is right, it is more
accurate to play 9…a6! immediately to drive away the only active white
piece. The move 9…a6 will be explored in detail in the following chapters.
Occasionally there occurs 9…Nd7, also aimed at preventing c4-c5.
However, this continuation has one drawback – the f5-square is not under
control anymore, so after 10.Bd3 Be7 11.0-0 0-0, White has the strong
12.Qc2!, for example, 12…g6 13.Bh6 Re8.
Now the move 14.f4?!, recommended by Sveshnikov, looks weak
because of 14…f5!, for example, 15.fxe5 Nxe5 16.Rae1 (or 16.Be2 Bd7!, or
16.Kh1 Bd7N 17.Nd4 Bf6 with a small advantage for Black) 16…Bh4!?N
17.Re2 (or 17.g3?! Nf3+; or 17.Re3 a6 18.Nd4 Bf6) 17…Bf6 18.c5 dxc5
19.Bc4 Nxc4, and Black has a small edge.
The novelty 14.Qd2!?, preventing the exchange of bishops on g5, seems
strong.
14.b4! a6 15.Nc3 is possibly even better: there arises a position that is
favorable for White. We are going to examine it in chapter 22.
10.c5!?
This interesting continuation occurs very seldom; I know of only three

games in which players at grandmaster level employed it. Indeed, this move
is much more popular in correspondence games.
In my opinion, this is the only way to create problems for Black or even
to obtain a small edge – and thus to prove that the move 9…Be7 is an
inaccuracy. This move is not mentioned in Sveshnikov’s book, in which he
writes that “the developing moves 10.Be2 and 10.Bd3 are in accordance with
the spirit of the position.” However, practice shows that with either of these
main continuations, White fails to obtain an advantage.
White has to act before Black drives back the b5-knight, so I would say
that the developing moves 10.Be2 and 10.Bd3 are in accordance with
positional chess of the first half of the 20th century, and the active move
10.c5!? is a concrete approach to the position that is typical for the modern
game.
The most common moves 10.Bd3 and 10.Be2 lead, after 10…a6, with a
transposition of moves, to positions that will be examined in chapter 22 and
later. Here we also have to note that after 10.Bd3, the most common reply
10…0-0 is an inaccuracy because 11.c5! brings the game to the position of
this chapter’s main variation. White should play 10…a6! immediately.
10…0-0
10…a6 is insufficient in view of 11.cxd6 Bxd6 12.Nxd6+ Qxd6 13.Be2!
(13.Be3 0-0 14.Rc1 occurs more often, but after 14…Nd7 15.Bd3 Re8!N
16.0-0 Nf6, chances are equal) 13…0-0 14.0-0 Nd7 15.Qb3!N Nf6 16.Rd1
followed by Bg5, and White has a small advantage.
The variation 10…Na6 11.cxd6 Bxd6 12.Bc4 0-0 13.0-0 Nc7 14.Nxd6
Qxd6 15.a4! Rd8 16.Qe2!N leads to a small white advantage; if Black takes
the pawn now with 16…Nxd5, then there follows 17.Bg5 Re8 (17…f6? is
quite bad because of 18.Bxd5 Qxd5 19.Rad1 Qa5 20.Qc4+, for example,
20…Kf8 21.Be3, or 20…Kh8, and now, similar to the famous game Adams-
Torre, 21.Qc5!) 18.Rad1 Qg6 19.Rxd5 Qxg5 20.Bb5 Rf8 21.Rxe5, and White
has the advantage.
11.Bd3!?
On 11.Be3 a6 12.cxd6 Bxd6 13.Nxd6 Qxd6 there arises a level position
which has been explored before.
11.Bc4 Bd7 12.cxd6 (12.Nxd6?? loses to 12…Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Qxc5) 12…
Bxb5 13.Bxb5 Qxd6 14.0-0 Nd7 does not bring any advantage.
In Berelovich-Shariyazdanov, Swidnica 1997, White chose the move
11.Be2 and after 11…Na6 (11…Bd7!?N also equalizes: 12.Nxd6 Qa5+
13.Qd2 Qxc5 14.Ne4 Qb6) 12.cxd6 Bxd6 13.0-0 Nc7 14.Qb3 (14.Nc3 with
equal play is more precise) 14…Nxb5 15.Qxb5 f5 16.f4?!, Black could have
obtained an advantage after 16…Re8!N, for example, 17.Bd2 Bd7 18.Qxb7
Rb8 19.Qa6 Rxb2 20.Qxd6 Rxd2 21.Rf2 exf4.
11…Bd7!? (D)
A novelty in a well-known position. Probably, Black’s tasks are slightly

more difficult after the more frequent 11…Na6. Then there usually follows
12.cxd6 Bxd6 13.0-0 Nb4 14.Bb1 (14.Be4 f5 15.a3 fxe4 16.axb4 leads to
equal play) 14…Qd7! 15.Nc3 f5. This position has occurred in several
correspondence games, for example, 16.Be3!? (White gains no advantage
after 16.a3 Na6 17.Qh5, Hofer-Latronico 2007) 16…b6 (16…Na6N; 16…f4)
17.Re1 Bb7 18.f3 Na6 19.Bc2, White possesses a slight positional advantage,
Hofer-Rattinger, 2010.
12.cxd6
12.Nxd6 Qa5 13.Qd2 Qxc5 14.Ne4 is also playable, for example, 14…
Qd4 (but not 14…Qxd5?? 15.Nf6+ Bxf6 16.Bxh7+ and Black loses his
queen) 15.0-0 f5 16.Nc3 Bd6, and White stands slightly better.
12…Bxb5 13.dxe7 Qxe7 14.0-0 Bxd3 15.Qxd3 Rd8!
15…Qd6 is also possible, for example, 16.Be3 Nd7 (after 16…Rd8
17.Qb3! Rd7 18.Rfd1 Na6 19.Rac1, White’s position is a little better)
17.Rfd1 Rfc8 18.a4. White exerts some pressure on the queenside and has a
central passed pawn.
16.Be3 Nc6 17.Rad1!
17.Rfd1 Qd6 18.Qb3 is less precise in view of 18…Ne7, for example,
19.Rac1 b6 20.Bg5 Rd7! (20…f6?? loses to 21.Rc6!, but 20…h6 is playable:
21.Bxe7 Qxe7 22.Rc6 Rd6 23.Qc4 Rad8, and White stands slightly better)
21.Bxe7 Qxe7 22.Rc6 Rad8 23.Qc4 g6 24.h3 Rd6, and the game is
practically level.
17…Qd6 18.Qc4 Rac8 19.f4
A final attempt to hold an advantage.
19…Ne7 20.Qe4 Ng6 21.fxe5
21.f5 Nf8 22.f6 g6 falls short of its goal, for example, 23.Qh4 h5 24.Qg5
(or 24.g4? Rc4) 24…Nh7.
21…Nxe5 22.Bf4 Re8 23.Rfe1 f6
White exerts obvious pressure on the black position, but it is not clear
how to gain anything real.
Chapter 21
7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 without 10.Nc3
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6!
10.Qa4!?
This continuation is worth a special attention as in the main lines (after
10.Nc3) White fails to obtain an advantage. Besides, some theoreticians,
Sveshnikov among them, consider the move 9…a6! inaccurate precisely
because of the reply 10.Qa4. It is probably that, influenced by those
evaluations, players prefer 9…Be7 in practice.
10…Nd7!
The variation 10…Bd7 11.Qa3 Bxb5 12.cxb5 Be7 (neither 12…Nd7
13.bxa6 bxa6 nor 12…a5 13.b6!?N are sufficient for equalizing, for example,
13…Qxb6 14.Qa4+ Kd8 15.Bb5) 13.bxa6 0-0! 14.a7 leads to a small white
edge.
Now Black should play 14…Na6!N; 14…Nd7 is a bit weaker. Then in
the game Timofeev-Wang Yue, Taiyuan 2006, there was 15.Be2 Qc7 16.Be3
(16.0-0N b6 17.b4!? is interesting) 16…b6 17.Bb5 Rxa7 18.Qb4 Qb7 19.Bc6
Qa6 20.Qb5 Qxb5 21.Bxb5, and in the ensuing ending, Black has to fight for
a draw.
After 14…Na6!, the only move that allows White to maintain a small
advantage is 15.b4!, for example, 15…h6!? (preparing Bg5; the immediate
15…Bg5?! 16.Bxg5 Qxg5 17.b5 Nc5 18.b6 is weaker, as the defended pawn
on a7 secures an advantage for White, or 15…Qb6 16.Bxa6 Qxa7 17.Be3
Qxa6 18.Qxa6 bxa6 19.Ke2 with an ending that is slightly better for White)
16.Be2 Qb6 17.Qb3 etc.
11.c5! dxc5!
Sveshnikov puts a question mark to this move, probably because 11…
Rb8?! (but the exclamation point is Sveshnikov’s) is much more common,
although after 12.Nxd6+ Bxd6 13.cxd6 0-0, there follows 14.Qa3! (14.Be3?,
as in Westerinen-Kramnik, Gausdal 1992, hands the initiative to Black). Now
the best continuation is 14…b6!N 15.Be2 Nc5, but after 16.b4 Ne4 17.0-0
Nxd6 18.Rd1, White has a small advantage.
12.d6 axb5 13.Qxa8
13…Bxd6!
This is almost a novelty. Sveshnikov has lambasted this move as Black’s
second blunder, after which his position becomes as bad as it can be;
however, it is exactly through this move that Black obtains full-fledged play.
Here I would like to remark that the move 13…Bxd6! first occurred in
practice in the game Golovchanov-Elena Matsenko, Voronezh 2000. A future
IM’s mom sorted out the position over the board better than an experienced
grandmaster in his quiet study!
The usual answer is 13…c4 (obviously, influenced by Sveshnikov’s
book). And Black would be on Easy Street if not for the important white
novelty 14.Bg5!. The idea of this move is to provoke the weakening of the
diagonal a2-g8.
Then there may follow 14…f6 15.Be3 Bxd6 16.0-0-0 Ke7! (neither 16…
Be7? 17.Bb6! nor 16…Bc7? 17.a4! is good; in both cases White has a great
advantage) 17.Rxd6! Kxd6 18.Qa3+ Ke6 (or 18…Kc7 19.Be2 Qf8 20.Qa5+)
19.Qb4 e4! 20.Qxb5 Ne5 21.Bxc4+ Nxc4 22.Rd1! Qc7 23.Qd5+ Ke7
24.Bc5+ Nd6 25.Qxd6+ Qxd6 26.Rxd6, and in the resultant ending White has
a small advantage; 26…Rd8? is bad because of 27.Rd4+. Certainly, assuming
correct defense by Black, he has good chances for a draw, but this is not the
outcome for which he has sacrificed the exchange.
14.Bxb5 0-015.0-0N
In the above-mentioned game Golovchanov-E. Matsenko, White made a
mistake here, 15.Bxd7?!, and Black seized the initiative. After 15…Qxd7
16.0-0 Qc6 17.Qa7?! (17.Qa3! is better) 17…b5 18.Qa3 Bb7 (18…f5 is
better) 19.f3?! c4, the game became chock-full of adventures, but Black won
eventually.
The plan with queenside castling, 15.Be3 e4N 16.0-0-0 Ne5 17.Kb1, is
playable, but after 17…Nd3! Black has good play.
15…e4! 16.Qa4 Nf6
The resulting position is very interesting. Black has a strong pawn on e4

and a certain edge in development for his sacrificed exchange; in addition,
White is going to lose some time on bringing both his b5-bishop and his
queen back into play. Besides, the pawn on c5 is going to support the black
bishop that will move to d4. Black has still another ace in the hole: he can
include his h-pawn in attack.
I have analyzed this position rather seriously. The analysis shows that
chances are equal. Because of the lack of space, I am going to give here only
some variations out of many.
17.g3!? (preparing Bf1-g2).
Or 17.Be2 Qe7 18.Re1 h5! 19.Be3 Nd5 20.Bd2 Qe5 21.g3 e3 22.Bxe3
(22.fxe3 Nb4 23.a3 h4 24.axb4 hxg3 25.bxc5 Qf5! with equal play) 22…
Nxe3 23.Bf3 Qxb2 24.fxe3 Be6! 25.Rab1 Qf6 26.Bxb7 c4!, and the two
active bishops successfully support the c-pawn.
17…Bg4! 18.Re1 h5! 19.Bf1 Be5 20.Bg2 Bd4 21.Qc2
Or 21.Bxe4? Nxe4 22.Rxe4 Qd5!.
21…Qd7 22.Bg5
Or 22.Bxe4?! Nxe4 23.Qxe4 c4! and c4-c3.
22…Bf5 23.Be3 h4! 24.Rad1 h3 and Black’s domination in the center
maintains the balance. If you have a couple of weeks to spare, you are
welcome to look for errors in those variations.
Chapter 22
7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Bd3 0-0 12.0-0
f5 13.f3 without 13…Nd7 or 11.Be2
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 (D)
A calm continuation that does not promise any advantage.
10…Be7 11.Bd3
Occasionally there occurs 11.Be3 0-0 12.Qd2. As an answer, I can

recommend 12…Bf5 (the conventional 12…f5 is also playable) 13.Be2 Nd7
14.0-0.
The move 11.Be2 will be examined in chapters 25-29.
11…0-0 12.0-0 f5
Sveshnikov does not even mention this natural move in his book, dealing
only with the continuation 12…Nd7, which has an obvious drawback: Black
loses his control over the f5-square, so there immediately follows 13.Qc2! g6
14.Bh6 Re8. In this position White gains a small advantage after 15.Qd2!,
preventing exchange of the bishops on g5, vacating the c2-square for the d3-
bishop and planning an attack on the queenside after b2-b4 (but he should not
play 15.f4?! because of 15…f5! with the idea of e5-e4).
13.f3
13.f4 Nd7 14.Kh1 e4 (14…g6 is probably even better) 15.Be2 Bf6 is
totally toothless.
By the way, in 1997, my almost-namesake Timoshenko, while playing
with White, lost a game in which a similar pawn structure had arisen after
13.Kh1 Nd7 14.f4 e4 15.Bc2?! Bf6.
13…Bg5
This is sufficient for equalizing.
13…Nd7 occurs more frequently. We will consider this move in the next
two chapters.
14.Bxg5
The continuation 14.Kh1 Nd7 brings the game to a position from chapter
24.
14…Qxg5 15.f4! (D)
15…exf4
15…Qg6? (Volokitin-Tregubov, Sochi 2005) is weak. After 16.fxe5 dxe5
17.Qc2 Qb6+ 18.Kh1 e4? (18…g6N is better, although White retains a solid
advantage even then) White should have sacrificed his knight with
19.Nxe4!N (in the game there was 19.Bxe4, but Black managed to draw), for
example, 19…fxe4 20.Rxf8+ Kxf8 21.Rf1+ Kg8 22.Qe2! Qd4!? (22…Nd7?!
23.Qxe4 Nf6 24.Rxf6!
gxf6 25.Qe8+ Kg7 26.Qe7+ Kg8 27.Bxh7+ Kh8 28.Bg6 loses more rapidly)
23.Bxe4 Nd7 24.d6 h6 25.Bd5+ Kh7 26.Rf7! Nc5 27.h3!, and Black is
helpless.
15…Qe7?!, played by Cheparinov in his game against Blehm (Linares
2003) does not help to equalize either. After 16.fxe5 dxe5 (16…Qxe5!?N
17.Qd2 is more solid: White retains his small advantage.) White has the
strong move 17.Bc2!N creating the threat of d5-d6 (in the game there was
17.a3?!; White should reply with 17…e4!N, then 18.Be2 Qe5 19.Qd2 Nd7
and White’s advantage becomes noticeably smaller), for example, 17…Qb4
(or 17…Qd6 18.Na4!) 18.Kh1! Qxc4 (18…Qxb2?? loses immediately:
19.Na4 Qd4 20.Qxd4 exd4 21.Nb6 Ra7 22.Nxc8 Rxc8 23.Bxf5 Re8 24.Be6+
Kh8 25.Rf7) 19.d6 Qb4 20.a3 Qb6 21.Na4 Qd8 22.Qd5 Kh8 23.Qxe5, and
White’s advantage is great.
16.Qe2 Kh8! 17.Rae1 Nd7 18.Qe6
18…f3!
18…Qf6 (Najditsch-Nijboer, Wijk aan Zee 2003) is weaker. After
19.Qxf6 (19.Rxf4!N seems to be even more precise) 19…Nxf6 20.Na4 Rb8
21.Nb6 Nd7 22.Nxd7 Bxd7 23.Re7 Rbd8, White gradually won (admittedly,
with a little help from his opponent).
19.Rf2
Certainly not 19.Rxf3? Ne5.
19…Qf4!
An accurate move, after which White does not have any advantage. Then
in the correspondence game Grabner-Ridholm, 2007, there was:
20.Ne2 Qd2 21.Nc1 Qb4 (21…Qa5!N is even more accurate) 22.Qe7
Kg8 23.gxf3 Nf6 24.a3 Qb6 25.Qe3 Qxe3 26.Rxe3 Bd7 27.Nb3 Rae8
28.Rfe2 Rxe3 29.Rxe3 Kf7 30.Nd4 g6 31.Bf1 Re8 32.Rxe8 Nxe8 and the
opponents agreed to a draw.
Chapter 23
f5 13.f3 Nd7 without 14.Kh1
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Bd3 0-0 12.0-0 f5 13.f3 Nd7
As we know from the previous chapter, after the immediate 13…Bg5,

Black faces certain problems associated with his lagging in development on
the queenside (though, admittedly, they are far from being formidable), so
Black delays the bishop maneuver for one move.
14.Be3
Another popular move, 14.Kh1, will be examined in the next chapter.
Black has no problems after 14.Qe2 Bg5, for example, 15.Bxg5 (or 15.f4
Bh6) 15…Qxg5 16.Rae1! (16.f4 is worse: 16…Qd8, and Black’s position is
preferable; on 16.b4 the continuation 16…Qf4!N 17.Rac1 b5! is possible
with excellent play for Black) 16…Qh4!? 17.Qf2 Qd8 18.Be2 (after 18.Qe2
Qh4, chances are equal) 18…b6 with a balanced game.
14…Bg5
Another poor recommendation by Sveshnikov is 14…g5?!.
White has various ways of obtaining a small advantage, for example:
(a) 15.b4 e4 16.fxe4 f4 17.Bd4 Bf6 18.Be2.
(b) Another possibility is 15.Qc2 e4 16.fxe4 f4 17.e5 Nxe5 18.Bxh7+
Kh8 19.Bd4 Bf6 20.Ne2 (Chandler-S.Polgar, Biel 1987).
(c) However, the strongest move is probably 15.Rc1!. In the only game
that is known to me (played by two little-known players) after 15…e4, a
draw was agreed, but White could easily take the pawn with 16.fxe4 f4
17.Bf2. Then possible is 17…Ne5 18.Bd4! g4 19.Be2 h5 20.Na4! Bf6 21.Bb6
Qe7 22.Rxf4 with great advantage to White.
Later we are going to examine the move 14…g5 in more detail.
15.Bf2 Qf6!
This move leads to clear, battle-tested equality.
The passive 15…b6 leads to calmer play and to a bit more complicated
position; after 16.b4 White’s chances are slightly better.
On the other hand, the thematic advance 15…e4?! sharpens the game
dramatically, though objectively it only creates unnecessary problems for
Black. Then possible is 16.fxe4 f4 17.Be2! (the best move) (Kurnosov once
played 17.c5?! in this position; his opponent should have replied 17…f3!N
with equality; the most common continuation is 17.Bd4 Bf6 18.Be2 with a
small advantage to White) 17…Ne5 18.Bd4 Qe7 19.Kh1, and Black has only
partial compensation for his pawn. An interesting novelty is 19.Qb3!?.
After testing a number of possibilities in this position, White failed to
gain an advantage.
16.Qc2!
This move maintains the balance and is the most common one.
16.Qe2?! is also common enough, but it allows 16…e4! (16…Qh6 leads
only to equality) 17.fxe4 f4 with a rich black initiative for the pawn because
of the poor position of the white queen on e2. Moreover, I was not able to
find equality for White in this position.
Another frequent line is 16.Na4?! Qh6 (Black already stands slightly
better) 17.Qe2?! (White practically always makes this move) 17…e4!
18.fxe4. (D)
In this position different options have been tested.

(a) Black obtains no advantage after 18…f4 19.Bd4 Bf6 20.Bxf6 Qxf6
because of 21.Rf2! (after 21.Qc2 b5!N 22.cxb5 axb5 23.Bxb5 Ne5, Black has
more than adequate compensation for his two sacrificed pawns).
(b) 18…Ne5 19.Bd4 Bf4 leads to equal play (Pruijssers-Zhigalko,
Enschede 2009), and now the
correct continuation is 20.Rxf4! (20.g3N was played in the game) 20…Qxf4
21.Rf1 Qg5 22.Bxe5 dxe5 23.Nb6 Rb8 24.Qf2 (or 24.Nxc8 fxe4!, with
equality in both cases).
(c) The best move, 18…fxe4! secures a small advantage to Black, for
example, 19.Bxe4 Nf6 20.Bf3 (20.Nc3?! is worse in view of 20…Ng4
21.Bg3 Be3+ 22.Kh1 Bf2! with clear advantage to Black) 20…Bf5 21.Rae1
Rae8 22.Qd1 Bd2!N 23.Rxe8 Rxe8 24.Be1 Qe3!+ 25.Bf2 Qf4 26.Bg3 Be3+
27.Kh1 Qxc4.
Let us return to the move 16.Qc2.
16…Nc5
And here the variation 16…e4?! 17.fxe4 Ne5N (17…f4?! runs into 18.e5!
with better play for White), 18.Bd4 f4 19.Kh1 is insufficient as Black does
not obtain full compensation for his pawn.
17.Be2 a5 18.Na4 Nxa4 19.Qxa4 e4 20.Qa3 Bf4 21.fxe4 Be5 22.Rad1
Now the game is level. 22.Rab1!?. as in Smeets-Pavlovic, Wijk aan Zee
2004, is weaker. In the text there followed 22…Qh6 23.g3. Here Black
reciprocates with the inaccuracy 23…fxe4?!, and after 24.Be3 Rxf1+ 25.Rxf1
Qg6, the game was quickly drawn. However, after the correct move 23…
Qg6!, White would have to work hard to equalize.
22…Bxb2 23.Qe3 Bd7 24.exf5 Rae8 25.Qd2 Bc3 26.Qc2 Bxf5 27.Bd3
Bb4 28.Bb6 Bxd3 29.Qxd3 Qb2 30.a4 and the correspondence game Drake-
Bubir, 2006, was quickly drawn.
Chapter 24
f5 13.f3 Nd7 14.Kh1
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Bd3 0-0 12.0-0 f5 13.f3 Nd7
14.Kh1
With this move White pursues two objectives: he plans to transfer his
bishop to e3 with a subsequent retreat to g1 in case of the reply Bg5 and also
hides his king from the check that may be given from b6.
It is interesting to note that the most common move in the database is
14.Be3, investigated in the previous chapter; however, the strongest players
definitely prefer 14.Kh1. It is hard to find the reason for that. As we are going
to see, in both cases Black gradually obtains full equality.
14…Bg5
Black position is also very solid after 14…b6!?.
15.b4 a5
In Ivanchuk-Babula, Bled 2002, there occurred a more reserved
continuation for Black 15…Bxc1 16.Rxc1 b6. He held a roughly equal
position for a long time – 17.a3 Kh8 18.Qd2 Bb7 19.Rc2 Rc8 20.Rfc1 Qh4
21.g3 Qe7 22.f4?! g6 (after 22…Qf6!N, Black’s position is none the worse)
23.Kg1 exf4 24.gxf4 Rfe8 25.Bf1 Kg8 26.Qf2 Qe3 27.Qxe3 Rxe3, but in the
ensuing endgame his play was far from perfect and he lost.
Black also has quite good results after 15…b6.
16.a3
16.Bxg5 Qxg5 17.Nb5!? axb4 brings no advantage, for example, 18.Nxd6
(the variation 18.Nc7 Ra3 19.Ne6?! Qe3 20.Bc2 Rf6 21.Qb1 Nc5 22.Bxf5 g6
23.Be4 Qe2! is favorable for Black) 18…Nc5 19.Bc2 Bd7 20.Qb1 Rf6
21.Qxb4 Rg6 22.g3 Na6N 23.Qxb7 Qd8!, and after 24.c5! Nxc5 25.Qb4 Na6
26.Qa3 Nc7 27.Qc5 Na6, the game is drawn by a repetition of the moves.
The attempt 16.Nb5!? is also interesting, but after 16…Bxc1 (16…axb4!?
N is also not bad) 17.Rxc1 axb4 18.Nxd6 Rf6 19.Nxc8 Qxc8 20.Qe2 Qc5
(Toro-Farcas, corr 2007) Black equalized.
16…axb4
Here serious attention must be drawn to the move 16…e4! which
occurred in one of Chekhov’s
After 17.fxe4 (the attempt to block the center with 17.Bxg5 Qxg5 18.f4??
does not work because of 18…Qf6, winning a piece) 17…axb4 18.Bxg5
Qxg5 19.axb4 Rxa1 20.Qxa1, instead of the text move 20…Ne5?!, Black
should have played 20…Qe3!N with equal chances, for example, 21.Rf3 Qd4
22.Be2 fxe4.
17.Bxg5 Qxg5 18.axb4 Rxa1 19.Qxa1 Qe3
Now it is too late for the advance 19…e4?! because of 20.f4!. For
example, in the correspondence game Farcas-Flumbort, 2004, there followed
20…Qd8 21.Be2 Qb6 22.Qa3 Qe3 23.Qc1 Qb6 24.Nb5, and White has a
clear advantage.
20.Be2
20…Nb8!
The best continuation. This move first occurred in the correspondence
game Claridge-Rodriguez, 2002.
But Krasenkow had made a poor move, 20…e4?, in his game against
Leko, Essen 2002. White gained a great advantage after 21.Qc1 Qb6 22.fxe4
fxe4? (22…Qxb4! is better – after 23.Rxf5 Rxf5 24.exf5 Ne5 25.g4 b6,
White has only a small advantage) 23.Rxf8+ Nxf8 24.Nb5 (however, White
also had a stronger plan: 23.Nxe4!N, and 22.Nb5!, also a novelty).
The move 20…b5 (blindfold game Leko-Kramnik, Monte Carlo 2003)
practically leads to equality. There followed 21.Qc1 Qxc1 22.Rxc1 bxc4
23.Nb5 Bb7 24.Nxd6 (in Kasimdzanov-Smirnov, Rethymnon 2003, White
tried the move 24.Bxc4, but Black managed to hold the position, and after
24…Rf6 25.Nc7 Nb6 26.Bb5 Rf7 27.Ne8 Bxd5 28.Nxd6 Rf8 29.Re1 Rf6
30.Ne8 Rh6 31.Bd3 e4 32.fxe4 fxe4 33.Bxe4 Bxe4 34.Rxe4 Nd5 35.h3, the
game ended in a draw) 24…Bxd5 25.Bxc4 Bxc4 26.Rxc4 e4 27.fxe4 fxe4
28.Kg1 e3 29.Re4 Nf6 30.Rxe3 Rd8 31.Re6 Rb8 32.Re7 Rxb4 and a draw
was agreed.
21.Qc1
21.Qb2 (Svidler-Timofeev, Moscow 2004) is no better. After 21…Na6
22.Rb1 Bd7 23.Nd1 Qd4, the game is level, but White should not have
exchanged on d4; he subsequently committed several other inaccuracies and
eventually lost: 24.Qxd4 exd4 25.Kg1 Rb8 26.b5 Nc5 27.Nf2?! (27.Ra1! is
better) 27…Ra8 28.Rd1 Ra4 29.Nh3 h6 30.Rxd4?! (and here a better move is
30.b6) 30…Bxb5 31.g4 Bd7 32.Rd2 fxg4 33.fxg4 Nb3 34.Rb2 Nd4 35.Bf1
Bxg4 etc.
21…Qb6 22.Qa3 Na6 23.Rb1 (D)
23…Qf2
23…Bd7 24.c5 dxc5 25.Bxa6 Ra8!N leads to equal play.
White has no advantage after 23…Qe3 24.Rd1 Bd7 25.c5 dxc5 26.Bxa6
cxb4 27.Qxb4 bxa6 28.d6 e4 29.fxe4 fxe4 (Horvath-Karasoni, corr 2010).
24.Qb2
A possible reply to 24.Qc1 is 24…Bd7! 25.Qg1 Qd4 with equal play.
The position after 24.Qb2 arose in the game Belozerov-Filippov, Tomsk
2004. Black has no problems.
After 24…Bd7 25.Bf1 Qd4 26.Rd1 Qb6, White made a silent offer to
draw with 27.Rb1, but Black decided to keep on playing and moved 27…e4.
Then there followed…
28.f4
Here White has a chance to force a draw in the variation 28.fxe4 fxe4
29.Nxe4 Bf5 30.Qe2! Bg6 31.Ng5! Re8! (31…Bxb1?? loses to 32.Qe6+)
32.Qf3 Rf8 33.Qe2.
28…Qe3 29.Ne2?! Rc8 and Black obtained a small advantage. The
correct move is 29.g3 with equal play.
Chapter 25
7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0
without 12…f5
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be2
The bishop’s development to e2 occurs somewhat more often than to d3.

Frankly speaking, I can see no advantage for this move; rather on the
contrary, as we are going to see from the following chapters about the move
11.Be2, it has only drawbacks.
11…0-0 12.0-0 Bf5
Here is the first minus for you – this move would be impossible with
white bishop on d3. After the usual move 12…Nd7 followed by f7-f5, the
game usually transposes to the variations that will be explored in the
following chapters. The move 12…f5 will be investigated in chapters 26-29.
(D)
13.Be3
It hardly seems sensible to open the game by 13.f4,as after 13…exf4
14.Bxf4 Bg6 15.Kh1 Nd7, the black pieces are activated. Now the most
precise move is 16.Rc1 with equal play. 16.b4?! (Popovic-Chuchelov,
Belgium 2004, is careless because of 16…Re8!N (in the text there was 16…
Rc8!? 17.Rc1 Re8 18.a3?! Bg5 19.Bg4 f5 20.Be2 Bxf4 21.Rxf4 Re3 22.Qd2
Qe7 with a small black edge) 17.Rc1 Bg5 with a small advantage for Black,
for example, 18.Qd2 Bxf4 19.Qxf4 a5 20.a3 axb4 21.axb4 Qb6, etc.
In Cheparinov-Illescas, Plovdiv 2003 White played 16.Qd2 and after
mutual mistakes, 16…Rc8 17.Rae1 (17.Rac1! is a little more precise) 17…
Ne5 18.b3 Bh4 (the immediate 18…Bf6!N is more accurate) 19.Rd1?! (and
here the more precise move is 19.Rc1) 19…Bf6 20.Be3 b5?! 21.cxb5 axb5
22.Bxb5, the advantage passed to White (who lost the game anyway).
13…Nd7
The continuation 13…Bg5?! allows 14.Qb3!N, and if 14…Nd7, then
15.Qb4!, and Black has to say goodbye to his pawn.
14.b4
In the game Campora-Illescas, Barcelona 2003, White chose the move
14.Qd2 and after 14…Rc8 15.Rac1 Bg6 16.f3 h6, carried out an erroneous
plan with the imprisonment of the black bishop on h7 – 17.g3?! Bg5 18.f4?!
exf4 19.gxf4 Bf6 20.f5?! Bh7 21.Ne4 Be5. In the resulting position the weak
f5-pawn and the exposed king clearly outweigh the temporary position of the
bishop on h7. However, Black managed to lose in time-trouble.
14…Rc8
The move 14…Bg5 after 15.Qd2 Bxe3 16.Qxe3 Rc8 17.Rac1 may
transpose to the main variation.
15.Rc1 Bg5 16.Qd2 Bxe3 17.Qxe3 (D)
17…b6!?
This interesting move, provoking White’s advance f2-f4, was employed
by Tregubov in his
game against Socko (Germany 2007). As this game took place three years
after the one against Degraeve (see below), we can assume that this move had
been specially prepared by him.
17…Qb6?! is dubious as it results in the somewhat worse endgame for
Black after 18.a3 Qxe3 19.fxe3 Bg6 20.Na4.
Now on 20…b6 there follows 21.c5! (but not 21.Bg4?!, as in Degraeve-
Tregubov, Clichy 2004), for example, 21…bxc5 22.Bxa6 Rc7 23.bxc5!?N
(this move is a little better than 23.Bb5, that had been once employed by
Kotronias) 23…Nxc5 24.Nxc5 dxc5 25.a4 or 25.Bb5, with a small white
edge in both cases.
In Volokitin-Eljanov, Sarajevo 2005, there was 20…Be4 and then
21.Rfd1 Rfd8 22.c5 dxc5 23.bxc5 Kf8 24.Bf3 (24.g4! is better) 24…Bxf3
25.gxf3 Ke8 (and here a more accurate plan is 25…Rc7 with the idea of 26…
Rdc8) 26.Kf2 (26.Rc3!) 26…Rc7, and the game was drawn despite White’s
small advantage.
In the position shown in the diagram, Black has a rather solid move 17…
Nb6!?. Though it looks somewhat unnatural on the surface, it permits Black
to maintain the balance. Then possible is 18.Nd1 Bg6 19.Nb2 f5!N 20.Rfd1
Bf7.
Thus Black prevents the breakthrough c4-c5. It is extremely hard (if at all
possible) for White to improve his position.
18.f4 Re8
Once you pledge, don’t hedge: after f4 White simply has to play g4.
19.g4 exf4 20.Qxf4 Bg6 21.Qxd6 and White wins a pawn (admittedly, at
the cost of weakening his king’s position). Here Black had a strong novelty
21…Re5!.
In the game Tregubov made a mistake – 21…Re3?. White returned the
favor – 22.c5? (the correct move is 22.Qf4! with advantage) 22…bxc5
23.Bxa6, and now, instead of 23…Ra8?, Black could have equalized with
23…Qh4!.
Analysis shows that in this sharp position the exposed white king
balances chances. With his last move, Black prevents the white queen’s
return into its own camp and plans Qe8 followed by h7-h5, or Rd8, or Nf6.
On 22.Rf2 it is possible to reply 22…Qg5 (the simple 22…h5 is also
quite sufficient) 23.Rcf1 Nf6, for example, 24.Qxb6 Qd2 25.Qxa6 Rce8, etc.
Chapter 26
f5 without 13.Kh1 or 13.f4
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 f5
13.f3
In the following chapter we are going to explore another popular
continuation, 13.Kh1, and in the chapters 28-29 the most popular move in the
position in the diagram, 13.f4, will be investigated.
13…Nd7
Sveshnikov recommends 13…Bg5, but this move creates unnecessary
problems for Black after 14.c5!N. I will quote the main line of the analysis
without comments: 14…dxc5 15.d6 Bxc1 16.Qd5+ Kh8 17.Raxc1 Nd7
18.Rfd1 Qe8!? 19.Na4 Nf6 20.Qb3 c4 21.Qa3! b5 22.Nb6 Rb8 23.Nxc8
Qxc8 24.b3! b4 25.Qa5 c3 26.a3! with a small initiative for White who
regains his pawn. Of course, Black is not losing here, but the analysis shows
that White has an enduring initiative throughout the variation.
14.Be3
Here Sveshnikov offers the following comment: “Now on 14…Bg5 there
will follow 15.Bf2!, but Black has other possibilities – 14…g5, 14…f4 and
14…Rf6!.” There is nothing more in his book about the move 14…Bg5,
though those “other possibilities” do get analyzed.
Actually, those “other possibilities” do not allow clear equality for Black;
in fact, the move 14…g5 leads to a clear advantage for white. But after
bishop move to g5, the game has only just begun; Black has full-fledged
chances. After 14.Kh1, the game transposes to a position from the next
chapter.
14…Bg5 15.Bf2
In the blitz game Kasimdzhanov-Carlsen, Moscow 2007, this position
arose after repetition of the moves 15.Bf2 Bh4 16.Be3 Bg5, but we will
return to the move numbering in the main variation.
White chooses an unhappy way to avoid a draw – 15.Qd2, and after 15…
Bxe3 16.Qxe3 a5, Black has excellent play. Then there followed 17.f4 Re8
18.Bd3 Nc5 19.Bc2 Bd7 20.Kh1 Qf6 21.fxe5 Rxe5 22.Qf2 Rae8 23.Rad1
(here White has the move 23.g4!?, but it is much too bold for a blitz game)
23…g6 24.h3 Kg7 25.Qf4 g5 26.Qf2 f4 27.Bb1 a4. Black’s advantage is
obvious; on the next move White blundered, 28.b4?, and after 28…axb3
29.axb3 Re3, quickly lost.
15…Qf6!
Black bases his counterplay on the weakness of the e3-square. It is
difficult for White to control it because of the bishop position on e2; this is
another drawback of 11.Be2.
The most common continuation here is 16.b4.

The attempt to prevent the exchange of the bishop on e3 by means of
16.Bd3?! Qh6 17.Qe2 is over-reaching because of the concrete 17…e4!
18.fxe4 f4 19.Bd4 Bf6 20.Bxf6 Rxf6 with a small advantage for Black, but
then there is an abstract question, viz., “Why did White play 11.Be2
anyway?”
The variation 16.Na4 Qh6 17.c5!N Nxc5 18.Nxc5 dxc5 19.Bxc5 Be3+
20.Bxe3 Qxe3+ 21.Kh1 leads to equality.
16.Qc2 Qh6 is playable: now 17.b4 transposes the game into the position
from the main variation, and after 17.Rad1N Bf4 18.g3 Be3 19.Bxe3 Qxe3+
20.Kh1, a level position arises.
16…Qh6 17.Qc2
17.Qd3?! is poor as 17…e4 18.fxe4 Ne5 followed by f5-f4 leads to strong
black initiative, and the planned move 17.c5 results, after 17…dxc5 18.bxc5
Nxc5 19.Bxc5 Be3 20.Bxe3 Qxe3 21.Kh1 Qxc3, in the loss of a pawn. (D)
In this position Black has a good novelty 17…a5! which secures the
initiative for him. The
idea of this move is, after the standard a2-a3, to open the position with the
breakthrough e5-e4 and to benefit from the resulting tension on the queenside
by means of a5xb4. Apparently, White has to play actively here:
18.Nb5!
The passive 18.a3 allows 18…e4! 19.fxe4 Ne5, for example, 20.Kh1! (the
best move) 20…f4 21.Bg1 f3 22.Bxf3 (after 22.gxf3? Rf6!, Black has a
formidable initiative) 22…Nxf3 23.gxf3 (23.Rxf3? is impossible because of
23…Rxf3 24.gxf3 axb4; now the rook on a1 hangs, the point of 17…a5)
23…Bh3 24.Nb5!? (Black also has a small advantage upon other
continuations) 24…Bf6 25.Rab1 axb4 26.axb4 Qh5!, for example, 27.Nxd6
Ra3! 28.Qe2 Rfa8, and Black’s position is won.
Then it is possible to play 18…axb4 19.Nc7 Ra3 20.Ne6 Rf6 21.Nxg5
Qxg5 22.h4! Qf4 23.Qc1 Qxc1 24.Rfxc1 Nc5
In the variation 24…b3? 25.axb3 Rxb3 26.c5 dxc5 27.Bxc5 Nxc5
28.Rxc5 Bd7 29.Bc4 Rc3 30.d6, White has to part with an exchange.
25.Be1 leads to a complex endgame with roughly equal chances.
Chapter 27
f5 13.Kh1
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 f5 13.Kh1 (D)
This continuation is also quite fashionable. White intends to advance his

f2-pawn one or two squares, so he first hides his king from possible checks.
13…Nd7
Black should not hurry with 13…Bg5 here. As in the previous chapter,
White has a strong retort 14.c5!?N. The game could further develop: 14…
dxc5 15.d6 Kh8 (probably 15…Bxc1 16.Rxc1 Kh8 17.Qd5 Nd7 18.Na4 Nf6
is slightly better) 16.Bxg5 Qxg5 17.Nd5 Qd8 18.Nc7 Ra7 19.Qd5
Nd7 20.a4 b6 21.f3, and White’s compensation for his pawn is more than
adequate.
14.f3
The much more common move is 14.f4, after which the game transposes
into a position from the next chapter. Jumping ahead, I would like to note that
in such positions the move f2-f4 brings White nothing but minor troubles and
it is better to place the pawn on f3, which secures equal play for him.
14…Bg5
The topical continuation. It is useful to weaken dark squares in the white
camp after the exchange of dark-square bishops and to reduce the strength of
the advance c4-c5 which is White’s main plan in this position. However,
Black also has other options.
(a) 14…f4 looks sharp and rather crucial. Black yields the e4-square to
his opponent but plans an attack on the kingside after Bh4 and Rf6-h6, at the
same time preventing the white bishop from getting to e3.
In Freidl-Standke, corr 2007, there followed 15.Bd2 Bh4 16.Ne4 Nf6
17.Rc1 Nxe4 18.fxe4 b6 19.b4 Be7 20.Qb3 Rb8 21.Qc3 g5?!N (21…Qc7 is
better as it hampers the breakthrough c4-c5), and now White had the sharp
continuation 22.c5!N (in the text there was 22.g3 with equal play), for
example, 22…bxc5 23.bxc5 dxc5 24.Qxe5 Bd625.Qc3 Qe7 26.Qc2, and
White has a small advantage.
(b) 14…b6 is playable, for example, 15.Be3 Bg5 (15…Bb7 is inaccurate
because of 16.Qd2!N, preventing Bg5) 16.Bg1 a5 (planning Nc5 and then
some) 17.a3. Here, instead of the usual move 17…Bb7, Black has a new plan
– 17…Qf6!? 18.b4 Qh6, for example, 19.Nb5 axb4 20.axb4 Rxa1 21.Qxa1
Nf6!, intending to carry out Nh5 and Bf4 (possibly reversing them). Sharp
variation buffs may analyze the position after 22.g3! Nh5 23.Kg2 Bf4!.
(c) A calmer continuation is 14…a5, preparing the knight move to c5. In
Kotronias-Eljanov, Warsaw 2005, there followed 15.Be3 Bg5 16.Bg1 Nc5
17.b3! (the straightforward 17.a3?! does not work because of 17…a4!
18.Bxc5 dxc5 19.Nxa4 Be3 with an advantage for Black) 17…Bd7 18.a3 a4!
19.Nxa4 Bxa4 (19…Nxa4 probably is more accurate) 20.bxa4?! (the correct
move is 20.Bxc5N) 20…b6 21.Qc2 Nxa4, and White finds himself on the
defense. But let us return to the move 14…Bg5.
15.b4
This is practically a universal move. 15.Bxg5 Qxg5 16.Qc1 Qh4 is
absolutely unpromising.
15…Bxc1
The capture can be postponed for the sake of 15…b6. I was not able to
discover any advantage for White in this position. The usual move here is
16.Na4; a fine reply is 16… Bxc1N 17.Rxc1 a5 18.a3 axb4 19.axb4 Rf6!
20.Nc3 Rh6, and Black’s threats on the kingside secure equality for him, for
example, 21.Ra1 Qg5 22.Rxa8 Qg3 23.Rxc8+ Nf8 24.h3 Rxh3+ 25.gxh3
Qxh3+ with perpetual check.
16.Rxc1
It is possible to take the queen – 16.Qxc1. In Socko-Gormally, Port Erin
2013, there followed 16…Nf6 17.f4?!, and now, instead of 17…e4, Black
should have played 17…Re8!N, and his position is already a little better.
16…b6 17.Qd2
Here I would like to suggest a novelty:

17…a5!?
In Gallagher-Mieles, Turin 2006, Black chose the solid 17…Bb7 and
after 18.Rfe1 Rc8 19.Bf1 (19.Na4!?N) 19…Rf6 20.Bd3 Rf7 21.Qe3 Qh4
22.Bf1, maintaining a roughly equal position. After White’s inaccuracies, he
even had a small advantage, but eventually lost the game.
18.a3 Ba6
Black’s idea is to prove, after 19.Nb5 Bxb5 20.cxb5 axb4 21.axb4, that
the control over both c-file and c6-square still does not guarantee an
advantage for White as Black has adequate counterplay after doubling his
rooks in the a-file, while the white pawns on b5 and d5 limit the white
bishop’s range. A typical variation is 21…Rf7 22.Rc6 Nf6 23.Rfc1 g6
24.Qe3 Rb7 with equal play.
Chapter 28
7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Bc7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0
f5 13.f4 Nd7 14.Kh1 Bf6 15.Qc2 without 15…exf4
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 f5 13.f4
The database indicates that the move 13.f4 is much more popular than
any other one. I do not know how to explain this strange fact. After all, the
move is less successful than both 13.f3 and 13.Kh1, and serious analysis
shows that rather than gaining an advantage, White should worry about
equalizing.
I will try to explain this. The move 13.f4 was first employed by Mikhail
Tal in his 1979 game against Tseshkovsky. Tal won, and the under the
influence of the Combination Wizard’s name, the game was incorrectly
covered in the media, including in Sveshnikov’s book. So hundreds of
chessplayers started to play à la Tal who had beaten Tseshkovsky.
However, chess has come a long way since then, rich practical material
has been amassed; powerful analytical tools called computers appeared. Thus
the time has come to give an objective evaluation of the move 13.f4, and we
are going to do that in this chapter, in which we will analyze Tal’s game, and
in the next one, where instead of the Tseshkovsky’s move 15…g6, we will
investigate the much more common continuation 15…exf4.
And if we probe a little deeper, we will find that the move 11.Be2 was
made just so that f2-f4 could be played later. So if we ascertain that the pawn
move to f4 is overestimated, then why play 11.Be2 at all?
13…Nd7
Tseshkovsky chose a rather common move 13…Bf6, and after 14.Qc2
Nd7 15.Kh1, the game transposed into the main variation of this chapter.
14.Kh1
Let us ask ourselves why, in the position after 14.Qc2 Bf6, Tal had
refrained from taking the pawn on f5, playing instead 15.Kh1 and transposed
to main variation? The reason is that this pawn is poisoned; after 15.Qxf5?
exf4 White has to find a place for his queen. More often than not there
follows 16.Qe6+N (16.Qe4 is no the better as it is met with 16…g5) 16…
Rf7! (16…Kh8? is an error because in certain variations the rook on f8
hangs, for example, 17.Qxd6 Be5 18.Qa3 Qh4 19.g3!N, with a clear
advantage for White) 17.Qxd6 Be5.
Then Sveshnikov quotes the variation “18.Qa3 Qh4 19.Bf3 Bd4+ 20.Kh1
Rf6 21.h3 Ne5 with a dangerous black attack,” making three serious errors in
four moves.
Let us discuss the grandmaster’s mistakes. Instead of 18.Qa3?, there is a
much more stubborn continuation, 18.Qb4!; then there follows 18…a5! (on
18…Qh4, White replies 19.c5!N) 19.Qa4! Nc5!N 20.Qd1 Ra6 21.Bh5! Rf8
22.Qe2 Qg5 23.Bf3 Rh6 with an advantage for Black. 20…Rf6? after 18…
Qh4 19.Bf3 Bd4 20.Kh1 is an error (the correct move here is 20…Ne5!N
with a decisive advantage); 21.h3? is also a mistake (and here the correct
continuation is 21.Ne2! Bc5 22.Qc3 g5 23.Bd2!N, with a small advantage for
White). Let us return to the move 14.Kh1.
14…Bf6 15.Qc2
I have my doubts about White’s last move. Why place the queen on c2,
either now or on the previous move as Tal had done, if the f5-pawn is
untouchable anyway, and then the queen often moves to d2? And if plans
with g2-g3 aimed at capturing on f4 with a pawn are dubious, as we are going
to see a little later, then maybe White is better to play 15.Be3, for example,
15…exf4 16.Bxf4 Ne5 17.Rc1, though even then Black’s chances are
preferable.
15…g6
I happened to read somewhere that Yakovich, who had also written a
book about the Chelyabinsk Variation, evaluated this move as bad. But this is
certainly far from the truth; the move is no worse than the common 15…exf4.
By the way, now I feel like searching for Yakovich’s book and reading it
carefully, or else it appears that Sveshnikov is the one who takes all the
lumps. This seems kind of unfair, doesn’t it?
16.Rb1!?
Apicella successfully employed this move in several games. White plans
b2-b4 so, which he could not carry out immediately because of 16…a5!.
Let us explore other options.
First, let us study in detail the game Tal-Tseshkovsky, Riga 1979, which
essentially opened the door for the move 13.f4. In this game Tal chose the
move 16.g3 (Sveshnikov awards this move an exclamation mark), the idea of
which is, after 16…exf4, to take on f4 with the g3-pawn, preventing the black
pieces from occupying the e5-square.
This plan is highly debatable, as after 17…Nc5, Black’s chances are
better, but the position was new and unknown then, so the players continued
to make mistakes for the next several moves.
Then there followed 16…Re8?! (besides 16…exf4, another good

continuation is 16…Qc7 17.Bd2 exf4) 17.Bd2?! (now White could have
equalized with 17.g4!N, for example, 17…exf4 18.gxf5, etc. The move 17…
fxg4?! is weaker because of 18.f5!, and in the variation 18…gxf5? 19.Qxf5,
the absence of the rook on f8 starts to tell as there is no move 19…Nc5). The
variations are rather complex, so please bear with me because there is no
space for them in the book. The game continued as follows: 17…b6?! (the
correct move is 17…exf4!N with advantage) 18.Rae1?! (once again, there
was a chance to equalize by 18.g4!N,). Eventually White won, but the
outcome had nothing to do with the opening.
The move 16.g3 exposes the king unnecessarily; instead, White has
several more accurate moves, for example, 16.Be3!?, without fear of losing a
tempo after 16…exf4 17.Bxf4 Ne5 (or 17…Be5).
16.Re1N is also good; however, after any other white move, Black’s
chances are preferable.
16…Re8!?
Black has several good moves that are roughly equivalent, for example,
16…b6 or 16…Qc7, but the rook move hampers the White’s plan of 17.b4,
which would be met with 17…exf4.
17.Re1
Defending the e2-bishop. 17.g4?! is useless here. The difference from the
position in the variation 16.g3 Re8?! 17.g4! is only in the location of the rook
(there it is situated on a1), but it matters in the variation 17…exf4 18.gxf5 g5
19.h4 h6 20.Rg1 Bg7 21.hxg5 hxg5 22.Ne4 Nc5 23.Nxg5 Qf6, which is quite
important for evaluation of the move 17.g4. In the variation from Tal’s game
with the rook on a1, White gains an advantage after 24.Bf3! Bxf5 25.Qh2,
and if the rook is on b1, Black simply grabs it and wins.
17…b6!?N
In the game Apicella-Spasov, Capelle la Grande 2011, there was 17…
Bh4 18.g3 Bf6 (see how the game of chess has changed: Sparov is willing to
lose two tempi to provoke the move g2-g3, while Tal had played g2-g3 of his
own free will) 19.Bf1 b6 20.Be3 Bb7 (20…Rb8!?N) 21.Qd2 Rc8. Here
White made a mistake – 22.Na4?! (after 22.Rbc1, the game is level); there
followed 22…exf4 23.gxf4 Bh4 24.Rec1, and after 24…Rb8!?N, the black
position is somewhat better (in the text there was 24…Re4 25.Nc3 with a
quick draw). 17…Rb8!?N 18.Bf1 b6 leads to a transposition of moves.
18.Bf1 Rb8
A complex position has arisen, in which Black’s chances are preferable.
Black plans an exchange on f4 followed by the knight’s advance to e5. He
needs a rook on b8 to defend the b6-pawn which may find itself under attack
after Be3 and Na4. On occasion, the rook will support b6-b5. Developing the
bishop to b7 is hardly commendable.
Chapter 29
f5 13.f4 Nd7 14.Kh1 Bf6 15.Qc2 exf4
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.c4 a6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 f5 13.f4 Nd7
14.Kh1 Bf6 15.Qc2 exf4
In this chapter we are going to examine the immediate capture on f4. This
move is much more common than any other one, and, just like 15…g6, it
brings a minimal advantage for Black. Taking on f4 is the simplest course of
action; however, it also simplifies White’s game.
16.Bxf4 Ne5!
Sveshnikov favors 16…Be5, but I cannot agree with him. After the
exchange on f4, the white queen will have the excellent d4-square. The
simplest reply to 16…Be5 is 17.Qd2!.
In Apicella-Krasenkow, France 2013, Black played 17…Bxf4. White
took the bishop with his rook, 18.Rxf4 (capturing with the queen, 18.Qxf4, is
more common, and after 18…Ne5 the game is equal). Then there was 18…
Ne5 (the preliminary 18…b6 seems more prudent) 19.Raf1 (here there is the
interesting 19.c5!?N, for example, 19…dxc5 20.d6 Kh8 21.Qd5 with
compensation for the pawn) 19…Bd7 20.Qd4 Rc8 21.g4?, and now Black
has a strong novelty, 21…Ng6! (in the text there was 21…g6?), for example,
22.R4f2 Qh4 23.Qb6 fxg4 24.Ne4 Rxf2 25.Rxf2 Rf8 with great advantage.
The most common answer to 17.Qd2! by Black is 17…b6!?, exerting
control over c5. Then in Apicella-Suarez, Cannes 2008, there followed:
18.Rac1 (18.b4 looks more logical, but it too does not bring any advantage
for White) 18…Bxf4 19.Qxf4 Ne5 20.b4 a5 21.a3 axb4 22.axb4 Qf6 23.Qd4
Bd7 24.Ra1 Rxa1 25.Rxa1 Rc8 26.Ra7, and a draw was agreed.
17.Be3
White took the important b6-square under control immediately. In the
interesting game Stanojoski-Sutovsky, Struga 1995, there was 17.Rae1 Bd7
18.Bd3 g6 19.c5!? Nxd3?! (the correct move is 19…Re8!N with a small
advantage for Black) 20.Qxd3 dxc5 21.Bd6 (and here the correct move is
21.d6!N with equal play) 21…Qb6?! (Black should not have sacrificed the
exchange: after 21…Rf7!N 22.Bxc5 Rc8 he has a small advantage) 22.Bxf8
Rxf8 23.Qd2N (23.d6! allows White to maintain the balance) 23…Bd4, and
Black ultimately won.
17…Bd7
A common continuation that is successful for Black. As we are going to
see, it leads to equality in view of the loss of control over b6. Therefore, I
believe that the correct continuation is 17…b6!, preventing both c4-c5 and
White’s occupation of the b6-square.
In this position White usually chooses the logical 18.b4; a good reply is
18…Re8 (the combination 18…Nxc4? 19.Bxc4 Qc7 that occurred in
Yudasin-de la Villa, Pamplona 1993, is an error: White gained a clear
advantage after 20.Na4 b5 21.Nb6 Rb8 22.Bd3 Qxc2 23.Bxc2 Bxa1 24.Rxa1
f4 25.Bf2 Bf5, and now instead of 26.Bxf5, it is better to play 26.Bd1!N).
The game Nataf-Kristensen, Asker 1997, continued as follows: 19.Rae1N
(19.Bg1!? is more cautious) 19…a5 (it is better to play 19…Bh4!N 20.g3 Bf6
with a small advantage for Black) 20.bxa5 Rxa5 21.Na4 Nd7 (21…Ra6!?N)
22.Bd3 g6 23.Nxb6 Rxe3 24.Nxd7 Bg5 25.Rxe3 Bxe3 26.Nb8 Ra3 27.Nc6
Qf6 28.Qb1, and a level position has arisen.
I am not aware of clear equality for White after 17…b6!, so let as
postpone a detailed discussion of this move until our next meeting, if at all.
18.Qb3 Ng6
18…Qe7 is playable. In Apicella-Lautier, Senat 2003, after 19.Rae1 Rfc8
(19…Rfe8!?N) 20.a4 a5 21.Bg1 Bh4 22.Rd1 Kh8 23.Nb5, Black slipped up
with 23…Ng4?! 24.Bxg4 fxg4, and now White could have retained a small
advantage after 25.Nc3!N; in the game there was 25.c5?!).
19.Bb6!N
Deflecting the queen from the b6-square. After any other continuation,
White has no clear path to equality. For example, in the correspondence game
Mrazik-Toro 2006, there occurred 19.Bh5 Be5 20.Bxg6 hxg6 21.Bf4 Bxf4
22.Rxf4. Then there followed 22…Qc7 23.Rff1 Rae8 24.Rae1 g5. White’s
position is slightly worse, so he goes in for the break 25.c5?!, but after 25…
Qxc5 26.Qxb7 Bc8 27.Qb3 Rxe1 28.Rxe1 Qf2 29.Rb1 Re8 30.Qd1 f4 31.Qf1
Qe3, Black gains a clear advantage. Besides, the continuations 22…g5N and
23…g5N are also worth attention here.
After 19.Rae1 Be5 20.Bg1 Rb8 21.Na4? b5, the only difference from the
position in the main line is that the black queen is now on d8, but it is exactly
this distinction that deprives the white knight of the opportunity to move to
b6.
19…Qe7 20.Rae1 Be5 21.Bg1! Rab8 22.Na4!
And now this move becomes possible. Then there may follow 22…b5
23.Nb6 bxc4 24.Qxc4 Bb5 25.Qb3 Bxe2 26.Rxe2 Qd8 27.a4 a5 28.Rc2 and
the game is equal.
Section 3. 7.Bg5 without 7…a6 8.Na3
Chapter 30
7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 without 10.Nc4, 10.Bc4, 10.exf5
or 10.Bd3
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5!
This is the strongest continuation and it creates the greatest problems for
Black. White begins the battle for d5. Good players follow this line in 90 per
cent of their games.
7…a6
In inexperienced players’ games, the move 7…Be6?! occurs; Sveshnikov
dedicated as many as three pages in his book to it.
White should meet this move with 8.Nd5!, for example, 8…Bxd5 (or 8…
Rc8 9.c3! a6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Na3 with better play for White) 9.exd5 Ne7
10.c3! a6 (10…Qb8? 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Qa4 Kd8, recommended by
Sveshnikov, is bad because of either 13.Qh4N or 13.Qa5+N with a great
advantage for White in both cases) 11.Qa4! Kd7! 12.Na3+ b5, and here,
along with the widely known move 13.Qc2, 13.Qh4!?N is also playable, 13…
Nexd5 14.c4 with an advantage for White in both instances.
8.Bxf6
We already know that this move had previously been quite fashionable,
but then its popularity greatly decreased as the move brings nothing new to
White, while Black, on the contrary, besides the opportunity to transpose to
the main line with 9.Na3, and after 9…b5 10.Nd5, also has another
opportunity to play 9…f5!?.
8…gxf6 9.Na3
9…f5!?
A logical move. Black intends to get rid of the doubled pawns and, while
trading off his e4-pawn, to struggle for d5 at the same time. The move 9…
f5!? is comparatively under-explored, so a creative player obtains a wide field
for analysis here. I would like to remark that this move is sufficient for
equality and, what is more, as opposed to the Pelikan Variation that we are
going to investigate soon, the struggle in this line is usually very sharp. We
will devote nine chapters to the detailed examination of this continuation.
Sveshnikov also explored the move 9…f5 in passing – but, unfortunately,
with serious blunders. We are going to discuss those in the respective
chapters.
The move 9…Be6 leads to a position from the variation 8.Na3 Be6 in
which White has a small edge.
The most common move is 9…b5, after which the game transposes to the
variation 8.Na3 b5.
Sveshnikov devotes more than four pages to the move 9…d5. It must be
noted that this continuation, called the Pelikan Variation, had been popular in
1950s and 1960s. In fact, it is a predecessor of the Chelyabinsk Variation.
Then it was decided that the moves 9…f5 or 9…b5 is more promising, and
strong players have not been employing the Pelikan Variation for the last
forty years. There then follows 10.Nxd5 Bxa3 11.bxa3 Be6 12.Bc4 Qa5+
13.Qd2 Qxd2+ 14.Kxd2 0-0-0. In the resulting ending, White’s chances are
slightly better, and it is commonly believed that struggling for a draw is the
height of Black’s ambitions. It is probably because of this that the variation
has vanished from practice, so we are not going to analyze the resulting
position. I will only note that the engine prefers 15.Rad1 here.
10.Qh5?
This move first occurred in the game Tarrasch-Janowski, Vienna 1898.
White won, and the game itself was incorrectly covered by the press. Because
of this, many players started to play “according to Tarrasch.” In Sveshnikov’s
book this move is also investigated as the main one, but actually it is bad and
hands the advantage to Black. Other (and stronger) white moves will be
considered in the following chapters.
10…b5!
This is precisely the way Janowski played in the game. But let us first
deal with the move 10…d5? which looks rather pretty, but actually squanders
the entire advantage. This move is the brainchild of Sveshnikov who, in his
book, marks it with “!?” and investigates it in considerable detail in four and
a half pages. As we might expect, the possibility of errors in the material
increases in direct proportion to its volume, which is great, so it is hardly
surprising that I have discovered quite a lot of mistakes in this chapter of his
book. I cannot say that I amvery happy about it, because I had to spend a
particularly great amount of time on checking those recommendations.
In the position in the diagram four moves have been tried.
(a) 11.Nc4?, recommended by Sveshnikov, is bad. Here because of the
abundance of the material and for the sake of clarity, we will have to break
down Black’s options.
(a1) The continuation 11…fxe4? that Sveshnikov considers to be the
main refutation of 11.Nc4? is clearly bad now. Then he points out the
variation 12.0-0-0 Be6?! (here 12…Rg8!N is better, though White still
retains his advantage) 13.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.Ne3 Qf6, and “Black has good
chances for equality.” However, after 15.Rxd5!N Be7 16.Bc4 Qg6 17.Qh3 0-
0 18.Kb1 b5 19.Bb3 Rad8, Black can only dream of equality as White’s
position is clearly better.
(a2) 11…dxc4 is markedly stronger, for example, 12.Bxc4 Qf6 13.Nd5
Qd6! 14.Nb6, and now not 14…Qb4?!+, as it in the game Palnichenko-
Timoshchenko, 1973, analyzed in the chapter “Another 16 Games…” but
14…Nd8! 15.Nxa8 Qb4+ 16.c3 Qxc4 17.0-0-0 Qc6 with an advantage for
Black. Sveshnikov refers to the game Ossachuk-Ushakov, 1974, where there
was 18.Rxd8+ Kxd8 19.Qxf7 “with sharp play,” but in fact the play is not
really sharp as after 19…Bh6+ 20.Kb1 Qd6, White’s position is difficult.
Incidentally, Sveshnikov believes that the move 11…dxc4 is dubious and
risky, but the variations show that the only one who runs the risk of losing
after it is White.
(a3) But the best continuation is 11…d4!. (D)
Then the following variation is possible: 12.Nd5!N (12.0-0-0?, pointed

out by Sveshnikov, is downright bad: 12…b5 with an obvious advantage for
Black) 13…fxe4 13.Ncb6 Be6 14.Bc4 Bxd5 15.Nxd5 Qa5+, and Black has a
clear superiority.
(b) The continuation 11.Nxd5 Bxa3 12.0-0-0!? leads to equality
(somewhat weaker is 12.bxa3
Qa5+ 13.c3 Be6, and now not 14.0-0-0??, as in the game Kuzmin-
Kupreichik, Minsk 1971, but 14.Rc1, with a small advantage for Black).
Now Black should play 12…Nd4!N, for example, 13.bxa3 Be6 14.Bc4
Qd6!, and White has no advantage. 12…Bd6?, recommended by Sveshnikov,
is no good because of 13.exf5 h6 (14.Qh6 was threatened) 14.Bc4 Rh7!? (or
14…b5 15.Bb3, and despite Black’s extra piece, White’s position is better)
15.f4 exf4 16.f6 Kf8 17.Rhe1. White has an advantage. I suggest that readers
analyze the variation 17…Be6? 18.Bd3 Rh8 19.Rxe6 fxe6 20.Qg6, and
White wins.
(c) 11.exd5 has also occurred.
Then 11…Bxa3 12.bxa3 (12.0-0-0!? Is an interesting novelty) 12…Qa5
13.Kd2 Ne7. Now the correct move is 14.Re1!, and after 14…e4 15.Re3N,
White can be confident about his future.
Instead of rook move to e3, there occurred 15.d6?, after which Black
should reply with 15…Be6!N followed by 16.dxe7 Rc8 17.Re3 Kxe7
18.Qh4+ f6, and Black has a great advantage.
Sveshnikov points out only that after 14.Qe2?, 14…Be6! leads to a great
advantage for Black; the position after 15.Qxe5?! 0-0-0 is, in his opinion,
unclear, but let us continue the variation: 16.Bd3 Rhg8!, and analysis shows
that White is on the brink of defeat. 15.Qc4!N allows to hold out longer.
(d) The most common continuation for White is 11.0-0-0.
Then there follows 11…Bxa3 (here the move 11…Nd4 is worth attention,
and after 12.Nxd5 Bxa3 13.bxa3 Be6, I was unable to find any white
advantage. For example, 14.Bc4 Qd6, etc.) 12.bxa3. Further options are:
(d1) The continuation 12…fxe4?, which Sveshnikov considers to be the
main move, is weak. After 13.Nxd5 Be6 14.Bc4, Black’s position is difficult.
His best defense is probably 14…0-0!?N.

14…Qa5?? (I have already written about this move in the chapter on the
all-time record number of mistakes on a single page) immediately loses to
15.Nf6+ Ke7 16.Rd7!+N (16.Nd5?+, suggested by Sveshnikov, gains only a
small advantage for White with precise defense by Black) 16…Bxd7
17.Qxf7+ Kd6 18.Rd1+ Nd4 (or 18…Kc7 19.Rxd7+ Kc8 20.Be6 Qxa3+
21.Kd1) 19.Qxd7+ Kc5 20.Qd5+ Kb6 21.Nd7+ Kc7 22.Qxa5+ Kxd7
23.Qxe5 and 24.Rxd4+.
The position after 14…Qa5 was examined in more detail in the chapter
“Practicum on Tactics,” position No.6.
14…Rc8?? also loses quickly, though Sveshnikov considers this move
“intriguing” and then, among others, quotes the variation 15.Nf4! Bxc4
16.Rxd8+ Rxd8 17.Nh3 with the following comment: “Black still has to
prove that his compensation for the queen is adequate.” I would be more
specific here: the compensation is clearly insufficient. More than that, if
White, instead of the cowardly knight retreat, plays correctly, 17.Re1!, then it
is high time for Black to resign.
14…Bxd5 is playable. A good reply is 15.Bxd5, but 15.Rxd5!N is even
stronger, for example, 15…Qf6 16.Rhd1 Rd8 17.Rxd8+ Nxd8 18.Rd5 Nc6
19.Qg4 Qf4+ 20.Qxf4 exf4 21.Rf5, and the black pawns start falling one after
another.
(d2) I would like to remind you that in the chapter 3 of the part “Thou
shalt not make unto thee any graven image” I have already told you about
Sveshnikov’s analysis of the move 12…Nd4?! which can hardly be termed
infallible.
(d3) 12…d4! is the best move. However, Sveshnikov considers it
inadequate and proves his evaluation with the variation 13.Bc4N (13.exf5!?
is probably a bit better, but even in this case Black has sufficient resources to
maintain the balance) 13…Qe7 14.Nd5 Qxa3 15.Kb1. Yet after 15…Be6!N,
the game is approximately equal, for example,16.Nc7 Ke7 17.Nxe6 fxe6
18.exf5 exf5.
But let us finally return to the correct move 10…b5!.
11.Naxb5
This is the best White can do in this position, but it is insufficient even for
equality. I have to admit that my very first suspicions about trusting the
variations quoted in the older chess books arose right after I had seen this
sacrifice there, crowned with exclamation points and, for good measure,
hailed as a direct refutation of the variation 5…e7-e5.
Those suspicions have gradually evolved into a conviction that you
should never believe in that analysis, period. Moreover, I would like to
remark in this connection that, sad as it may sound, every chess book is
doomed to fall within the “ancient” category sooner or later, and even that
glorious opus by Sveshnikov has already taken its seat of honor there. I
reckon that this single chapter is sufficient proof of this fact. I have
discovered more than 20 errors in it and then lost count. You are welcome to
try it; perhaps, you will have more luck than I.
The piece sacrifice 11.exf5 is clearly insufficient: 11…b4 12.Bc4 Ra7
13.Nab5 axb5 14.Nxb5, and now not 14…Rb7, recommended by
Sveshnikov, but 14…Rd7!N, with great advantage for Black.
11…axb5 12.Bxb5 Bb7
In this position White has several continuations that are roughly equal in
strength; all of them lead to Black’s advantage.
13.Bc4
Clearly the most common move.
(a) The continuation 13.0-0, after 13…Bg7 14.exf5, may lead to the
13.exf5 variation, but also allows for the possibility of 13…fxe4 with the idea
of Rg8-g6.
(b) Another possible line is 13.exf5 Bg7 (Sveshnikov recommends 13…
Qa5? “followed by 14…0-0-0.” This is an interesting plan; the only question
is how to carry it out after either 14.Qf3N or 14.Qh4N ?) 14.0-0!N (the line
14.Nd5?! 0-0!N 15.f6 Bxf6 16.Bd3 Re8 is not dangerous for Black) 14…0-0
15.Bd3 h6 16.Ne4 d5 17.f6 dxe4 18.fxg7 Kxg7 19.Bxe4 Qg5, and Black’s
chances are better.
(c) As an example of good play against 13.Qxf5, Sveshnikov cites his
1969 game against Levchenkov. Apparently under the impression that he was
winning, he misses several blunders that had been committed during the
game.
Then there followed 13…Bg7 14.0-0-0?! (here 14.0-0, with advantage for
Black, is a little better) 14…0-0 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Rd3 Bd7 17.Qh5 Be6
18.Rhd1Bxa2?. Black has a great advantage that he throws away with this
move. Sveshnikov himself awards it an exclamation point. The correct
continuation is 18…Qb6!N 19.b3 Bxb3 20.cxb3 Qa5?. Another serious error
that now leads to White’s advantage. The correct move is 20…Qb6N with
equal play. 21.Rg3? White returns the favor; the correct answer is 21.Kd2!N
with the advantage. 21…Rfc8 22.Kd2 Rxc3 23.Rxc3 d5 24.exd5 e4 25.Qh3?.
After this error Black regains his great advantage. The correct move is
25.Rdc1!N with equal play. 25…Rd8 26.Rdc1 e3+ 27.fxe3?? The final
blunder. After 27.Qxe3 Rxd5+ 28.Ke2 Re5 29.Kf1 Rxe3 30.Rxe3, Black
would have to exert himself as the win is still far away. 27…Bxc3+ 28.Kc2
Qxd5 29.Qg4+ Bg7 30.Rd1 Qc6+ and White resigned.
13…Qf6 14.Nd5 Qg6 15.Nc7+ Kd7!
15…Kd8, played by Janowski and quoted by Sveshnikov, is a bit weaker.
And, by the way, after 16.Qxg6, it is better to take the h-pawn with 16…
hxg6!N.
16.Qxg6 hxg6!
Exactly! Black has a clear advantage. Usually the pawn is taken with
another black pawn, 16…fxg6, and after 17.Nxa8 Bxa8 18.exf5 Nd4 19.0-0
d5, Black’s advantage is not quite as large.
17.Nxa8 Bxa8 18.c3
18.Bxf7?! runs into a highly unpleasant retort, 18…Nd4 19.0-0-0 Bxe4.
Then in Vrana-Ressler, corr 2007, there was: 18…Ne7 19.Bxf7 Bxe4 20.0-0
Bh6 21.Bb3?!N (21.a4!? is better) 21…Bd3 22.Rfe1 e4 23.Rad1 Nc6
24.Be6 Kc7 25.Bd5 Ne5 26.b3 Kb6 27.h3 Kc5 and White resigned.
Chapter 31
31. 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Nc4
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Nc4
10…fxe4!
The best move, allowing Black to equalize.
10…Nd4?! is weaker because of 11.Nd5! (Sveshnikov only points out the
variation with 11.exf5 and then fails to notice that after 11…Bxf5, the game
transposes to the variation 10.exf5 Bxf5). Then the most common
continuation is 11…fxe4 12.c3 Be6 13.Ncb6 Bxd5 14.Nxd5 Bg7 15.Bc4
(after 15.a3!? Rc8 16.cxd4 Qa5+ 17.Nb4 exd4 18.g3, Black does not have
full compensation for his piece either) 15…b5 16.Be2, and White also has a
small advantage.
According to Sveshnikov, the main move is 10…b5?! (I admit to having
played this way twice in 1973). Here White should play 11.Ne3! (both my
opponents preferred 11.Nd2?, after which the game transposes to the
variation 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nab1 f5 11.Nd2, and this is also missed
by Sveshnikov, as he gives different comments to this position on pages 80
and 113 of his book). Then it is possible to play 11…b4 (11…f4!? is
probably a little better, but it still leaves White with an advantage) 12.Ncd5
fxe4 13.Qh5!? (here White has the strong move 13.a3!. Sveshnikov proceeds
to cite the game Zaichik-Chekhov, Vilnius 1978: 13…b3 14.c3 Bg7 15.Qxb3
0-0 16.Qb6 Bd7 17.Qxd8 Rfxd8, etc. “with advantage to Black.” However,
after the correct move 18.g4!N, it is White who has a solid edge) 13…Bg7,
and now the correct move is 14.0-0-0!N, (Sveshnikov points out the variation
14.Bc4 0-0 15.0-0 Na5 with the comment “I can see no real compensation for
the pawn.” He is wrong, as after both 16.Rfd1 and 16.a3, White’s chances are
better). Finally, on 14…0-0?! 15.g4!, White has a great edge. Should Black
make any other move instead of castling, White retains his solid advantage.
11.Nxe4 Nd4
The pawn sacrifice 11…d5 12.Qxd5 Be6 is insufficient: besides the usual
13.Qxd8+, White has 13.Qd3!N at his disposal.
12.Ne3
Other moves also fail to create problems for Black. In Cranbourne-
Weisser, corr 2005, there followed 12.Ng3 Be6 (apparently 12…h5!N is even
better) 13.c3 Nc6 14.Qh5 Qc7 15.Ne3 d5 16.Be2 0-0-0 17.0-0 Kb8 18.Nef5?
(it was necessary to venture upon 18.c4N followed by 18…d4 19.Nd5) 18…
Rg8! 19.Qxh7 Bc5 20.Qh6 Rg6!, and White resigned because analysis has
shown that it is hardly possible to parry his opponent’s attack.
Or 12.c3 d5 13.Nxe5 dxe4 14.Qxd4 Qxd4 15.cxd4 f6 16.Nc4 Be6, and
Black has a full compensation for his pawn (Bazan-Pelikan, Argentina 1961).
12…Be6 13.c3 d5 14.Qh5
14.cxd4? dxe4 is bad.
14…dxe4 15.Qxe5 Rg8 (D)
16.Rd1!
The only way to hold the balance for White. 16.cxd4? is poor because of
16…Bg7 17.Qc5 (17.Qxe4 Qa5+) 17…Qxd4 18.Qxd4 Bxd4 with great
16.Qxd4?! Qxd4 17.cxd4 Bb4+ 18.Ke2 Rd8 leads to a small black
advantage. 16.0-0-0 Bg7 17.Qxe4 Qa5! is also insufficient for equalizing.
Then Borwell-Oliveira, corr 2010, there was 18.Qxb7?!N (18.Bc4! is a little
better, for example, 18…0-0-0 19.cxd4 Bxc4 20.Nxc4 Qxa2 with a small
advantage for Black) 18…Rc8 19.Bc4 Rxc4 20.Nxc4 Ne2+ 21.Kc2 Qa4!+
22.Qb3 Qxc4 23.Qxc4 Bxc4 24.Rhe1 Bf6 25.Rd6 Rg6 26.Rb6 a5 with an
16…Qb6
16…Bg7!?N is also playable, for example, 17.Qxe4 Qa5 18.b4! (after
18.Qxb7?! Rd8 19.Bd3 Bh6 20.b4 Qa3 Black has a small advantage) 18…
Qa3 19.cxd4 Qxb4+ 20.Ke2 with equal play.
17.Qxd4 Bc5!N
Weaker is 17…Qxb2?! as occurred in Boldysh-Scuderi, corr 2009. After
18.Bc4 Bg7 19.Qxe4 Bxc3+ 20.Kf1 Rg6 21.Bxe6 Rxe6 22.Qxh7, White has
the advantage.
18.Qxe4 Qxb2 19.Bc4 Qxc3+ 20.Kf1 In this sharp position chances are
equal.
Chapter 32
7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bc4 without 10…b5
1.e4c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bc4
Though in practice this continuation is the least successful for White, he

is still able to obtain equality with correct play. Note that Sveshnikov is very
laconic about the move 10.Bc4, but even what little he does write needs
correction.
10…Qg5!?
This is the most common move that is sufficient for equality. Another
good continuation is 10…b5!? which we are going to explore in the next
chapter.
While analyzing the move 10…Bg7?, Sveshnikov refers to my game
against Tsikhelashvili, Vladimir 1966. It was an interesting game,
Unfortunately, the moves, starting with 10…b5, are completely different
from those cited in the book. This game was annotated in detail in the
historical part (game 4) and was briefly mentioned in the next chapter. And
after 10…Bg7?, White gains a clear advantage in the variation 11.Qh5 0-0
12.exf5 Nd4 13.Bd3 h6 14.Be4.
Sveshnikov holds that the best move is 10…Ra7, believing it to be the
“most solid continuation that solves all problems.” However, in my opinion,
the argument about this move having been suggested in 1966 by fifteen-year-
old Tolya Karpov, the future world champion, is not enough to prove his
point, as after 11.Bd5!, Black fails to equalize. The variation has been
explored in detail in game 31 in the historical part of this book.
11.Bd5
11.g3 – according to Sveshnikov the main and by far the most popular
one in this position – and, perhaps as a result of this, first occurred in Gulko-
Timoshchenko, Kharkov 1967. This game has also been examined in detail in
the historical part (game 15), and I have already stated there that the
popularity of the move 11.g3 is clearly undeserved. After 11…fxe4!, which is
not mentioned by Sveshnikov at all, Black takes over the initiative. I would
also like to note that the move 11…Nd4?!, recommended by Sveshnikov, is
dubious because of 12.f4!.
11…Be6
The variation 11…Qxg2N 12.exf5 Qh3 is probably insufficient because
of 13.Nc4 Nd4 14.Ne4! with a small advantage for White (14…Nf3?+ loses
to 15.Qxf3).
Another playable continuation is 11…Nd4 with the idea of 12.0-0? f4,
beginning play against the white king.
12.exf5 Qxf5 13.Nc4 0-0-0 14.Ne3
In Turkov-Grigoryev, corr 2007, there occurred 14.g3, after which Black
should choose 14…Kb8!N (in the text there was 14…Qg6 15.Be4 f5, and
now White can continue 16.Bxc6!N bxc6 17.Na5!, for example,17…Kc7
18.Qf3 e4 19.Qe3, and the exposed position of the black king created certain
problems for him), and now the capture on c6 is not dangerous.
14…Qg6
15.Qd2!?N
15.0-0?! is highly suspicious because of 15…Nd4!N. Then the variation
16.Ne2 Rg8! 17.Bxe6+ Nxe6 18.Ng3 d5! 19.Nxd5 Nf4 20.c4 h5 21.Qe1!
Qg5! 22.Qa5 Nxd5 23.h4! Qxh4 24.cxd5 Kb8 is possible, and Black’s
position is better.
15…Rg8 (Korman-Cramling, Sweden 1977) is weaker. There followed
16.Na4 (after 16.Ne2 Nd4!, the game transposes to the line 15…Nd4, but
16.g3!N is better) 16…Nd4 (though Sveshnikov puts a question mark to this
move while awarding an exclamation point to 16…Bh6, those moves are
equal in strength) 17.c3, and now Sveshnikov fails to notice 17…Bh6!N,
after which Black has a small advantage.
After 15.Qd2!?, a possible continuation is 15…Kb8 (or 15…Ne7 16.0-0-
0 Kb8) 16.0-0-0, and after 16…Ne7 Black has no problems at all.
Chapter 33
7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bc4 b5
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bc4 b5!?
This move occurred for the first time in the game Tsikhelashvili-
Timoshchenko, Vladimir 1966. Sveshnikov believes that it is both
insufficient and dubious and, to prove his point, quotes the game Karakas-
Levitina, 1973. Well, we will see that the grandmaster is once again wrong.
11.Bd5
In the correspondence game Koenig-Muschalek, 2000, White gallantly
played 11.Bxf7?+, but after 11…Kxf7 12.Qd5+ Kg7! 13.Qxc6 Bd7 14.Qb7
Rb8 15.Qxa6 b4 16.Nd5 bxa3 17.Qxa3 fxe4, was left down a piece.
11…Qc7
In my game there was 11…Bb7?! 12.Qh5?! Qc7! 13.exf5 Nd4! with
equal play. The game is explored in detail in the historical part (game 4).
I will only add that Sveshnikov suggests the weak 12.Qh5?!; the correct
continuation is 12.Nab1!N with advantage for White.
12.Bb3
This is the most common move. Sveshnikov breaks off his analysis of the
move 11…Qc7 here, implying that there is nothing more left to analyze in
this variation as White just stands better. But we are more inquisitive, so let
us probe about ten or twelve moves deeper. After both 12.Ne2 and 12.Nab1,
White has no advantage either.
12…Qb7
In the junior game Grosspeter-Van Der Wiel 1976, there was 12…Bg7
13.exf5 (13.Nd5!?N Qb7 with transposition to the main variation with the
move 13…Bg7 is also possible) 13…Bxf5 14.Qf3 (14.Nd5N Qb7 is more
precise, once again transposing to a variation that is advantageous for White),
and now it would be fine to play 14…Qd7!N, for example, 15.Nd5 e4 16.Qe2
0-0, with full-fledged play for Black.
13.Nd5
13…fxe4
13…Bg7 is slightly weaker because of 14.exf5 Bxf5 15.Qf3!N Bg6
16.c3! 0-0. 17.0-0 Na5 18.Rad1 with a small advantage for White.
14.Qh5!?N
14.Nf6+ Ke7 15.Nd5+ Kd8 16.c3 has also occurred; the best reply is
16…Na5!N 17.Bc2 f5, and White is the only one with minor problems, for
example, 18.f3 Rg8, etc.
14…Be6
14…Bg7 is once again somewhat weaker here, for example, 15.Nb6 Rb8
16.Nxc8 Rxc8 17.c3 Na5 18.Nc2 d5 19.Ne3 Rd8 20.Nf5 0-0 21.Nxg7 Kxg7
22.Qg5+ Kh8 23.Qf6+ Kg8 24.Qxe5, and White has a small advantage.
15.Nf6+ Ke7 16.Nxe4 Nd4 17.f3 Nxb3
There is an interesting variation, 17…f5 18.Bxe6 Kxe6 19.c3 Nxf3+
20.gxf3 fxe4 21.Qg4+ Ke7 22.Rg1! Qd5 (22…exf3?! is met with 23.Qg7!)
23.fxe4 Qe6 24.Nc2, and White’s position is slightly better.
18.axb3 (D)
In this position Black has a lot of options.

18…Qb6
After 18…f5 19.Ng5 d5, the retort 20.g4! is rather unpleasant. 18…d5 is
playable, for example, 19.Nc5 Qb6 20.b4 Rg8 21.0-0 Kd8 22.Rf2 Bxc5
23.bxc5 Qxc5 24.c3 f6, but after 25.Qh6!, White’s position is still somewhat
better.
The sharp continuation 18…f6!? does not look bad, for example, 19.0-0
d5 (19…Qb6?! 20.Kh1 d5 is worse because of 21.Nxf6! Kxf6 22.f4!) 20.Nc5
(now 20.Nxf6? is bad as after 20…Kxf6 21.f4 e4, the rook on h8 is
untouchable in view of the check on c5) 20…Qb6 21.b4 Kd8 22.c3 Bxc5+
23.bxc5 Qxc5 24.Kh1 Kc7, and because of the insecure position of the black
king, White gains compensation for his pawn, but nothing more than that.
After 18…Qb6, one possible course of development is 19.0-0-0 Qe3
20.Kb1 Qh6 21.Qxh6 Bxh6 22.Nxd6 Rhg8 23.g3 Be3
23…Rad8 is also playable.
24.Rhe1 Bb6
In this position Black has full compensation for his pawn thanks to his
bishop pair and the badly placed white knight on a3.
Chapter 34
7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 without 10…d5!? or
10…Bxf5
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 (D)
A quiet move, after which the game often transposes to systems

beginning with 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5. We will dedicate chapters
34-36 to this continuation.
10…Nd4
Even now this move is absent from databases, though it is known that
Sveshnikov used to play this way in Russian scholastic competitions in
summer of 1966, and I employed this move on the first day of the year 1967
against IM Ostoic during the Hastings New Year Tournament.
The idea of this move is, above all, to prevent White from blocking the
d6-pawn by placing his knight on d5, and then to make an attempt at
advancing this pawn in order to create a powerful pawn center. In the next
chapter we will explore the continuation 10…d5!? which is extremely rare
but nevertheless sufficient for equalizing, and in chapter 36, we will look at
the move 10…Bxf5 which is thought to be almost obligatory.
It is impossible to transpose to the variation 8.Na3 via 10…b5?! because
of 11.Qf3!N with a noticeable advantage for White, for example, 11…b4?
12.Qxc6 Bd7 13.Qd5 bxc3? 14.Bc4!, and White wins.
11.Nc4 Bxf5
It is curious that Sveshnikov explores this position with this move order
on the page 78, ignoring the fact that he investigates the very same position
twice more in his book – with different move orders, on different pages and
with different comments. Usually this position arises after 10…Bxf5 11.Nc4
Nd4. However, as I believe that last two half-moves are not quite accurate
(see chapter 36), I consider it logical to quote the one that you find in this
book.
12.Ne3Be6
12…Bg6? (Nakamura-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee, 2010, is weaker. Then there
was 13.Ncd5 Bh6 14.c3N (14.Bd3! with an advantage is even stronger) 14…
Ne6N (14…Bxe3 is more precise) 15.Bd3 Bxe3 16.Nxe3?!N (16.fxe3!, with
the better game, is stronger) 16…Qb6 17.0-0 Nf4 18.Be2 Rg8 19.Bf3.
White’s imprecise play results in an equal position in which Black should
have played 19…0-0-0N. However, he carries out an incorrect combination:
19…Nh3?+ 20.Kh1 Nxf2+ 21.Rxf2 Qxe3 22.Bxb7 Rb8 23.Re2 Qb6 24.Bd5
with an advantage for White which he eventually managed to convert into a
win.
13.Bc4
In Chiburdanidze-Kveinys, Lvov 1976, the former champion of the world
attempted to occupy the d5-square with 13.Ncd5?, but after 13…Bxd5
14.Nxd5 Qa5+ 15.Nc3 d5, her plan failed. Black obtained a clear advantage,
not to mention White’s error on the next move – 16.Bd3?
In this situation, Black, being a gentleman, rejected the obvious 16…
Ba3!N, for example, 17.Qc1 e4 with a practically won position. He played
16…Bg7? and eventually even managed to lose.
Sveshnikov does not mention the move 16…Ba3! to his readers at all.
Now Black has various options.
13…Rc8!?
The move 13…Qh4?! occurred in Belyshev-Timoshchenko, Chelyabinsk
1967 (game 17 in the historical part).
In Adams-Chandler, Hastings 1991, Black chose 13…Qg5. White made
an immediate mistake, 14.Ncd5?! (he would retain a small advantage after
14.0-0!). There followed 14…Rc8 15.Bb3 Nxb3 16.axb3 f5 17.g3 f4 18.h4
Qg6 19.gxf4 Bh6?! (after 19…exf4N 20.Nxf4 Qe4 21.Nfg2 Rg8, the game is
equal), and after 20.Ra4?!N (20.Qf3! is better) 20…Rf8 21.h5 Qg8!, Black
seized the initiative.
13…Bg7!? is quite playable, for example, 14.0-0 Rc8!N 15.Bb3, and the
game transposes to the variation that will be explored below.
14.Bxe6
White should have played 14.Bb3!N, with a small advantage, for
example, 14…Bg7 15.0-0 0-0 16.Ncd5.
14…fxe6
15.0-0!
Sveshnikov declares that this is the best move, but instead of citing a
move or two from the game between IM Ostoic and master Timoshchenko,
where this move occurred for the first time (by the way, he mentions this
game in passing in his book), on page 78 he quotes another game between the
first-category player Mikhalenko and the brand-new candidate master
Sveshnikov to the very end, including the move 15.Qh5 that he himself
marks with “?”. This game must be really memorable to the author, but what
about logic?
In Sveshnikov’s opinion, after 15.0-0!, White’s chances are better, and
this is why the move 10…Nd4 is dubious. Let us not be gullible and probe
deeper. For starters let us examine the above-mentioned game Mikhalenko-
Sveshnikov. The move 15.Qh5+ does not deserve the question mark that
Sveshnikov, influenced by his victory, awarded it: all White has to do after
15…Kd7 16.0-0 Qe8 is to choose 17.Qh3!N instead of the “creative” move
17.Qd1?!.
And in the text after the quite decent moves 17…Qg6 18.Na4 Kc7 19.c3
Nc6 20.b4 Rg8, there followed a series of mutual errors: 21.g3 d5 22.c4 d4
23.b5 Nb4 24.Ng2 and now after 24…a5??, White could have won with
25.Ne1! followed by a2-a3.
Instead, another set of mutual mistakes followed: 25.a3 Nc2 26.Ra2 d3
27.b6+ Kb8 28.Ne1 Nxa3 and White resigned. The reason for this decision is
completely incomprehensible. After all, White has a clear advantage! He has
the obvious 29.Nxd3, for example, 29…Rd8 (29…Nxc4!? is more stubborn)
30.Nab2 e4 31.Qe1! exd3 32.Qxa5 Qf5 33.Qa7+ Kc8 34.Qa8+ Kd7
35.Qxb7+ Ke8 36.Qc6+ Kf7 37.Qc7+ Be7 38.Rxa3 Rc8 39.Qa7, etc.
I have dwelt on this weak game in more than the usual detail for a reason:
I wanted to show how many mistakes can be possibly be contained in the
games that Sveshnikov quotes without comments as examples of correct play
(as for this one, there is not a single comment from move 11 to the very end).
Are you inspired by such an example? Are you eager to play like the
future grandmaster did in this game? If not, then why do you need such a
game in the book? You are free to disagree with me, but it seems to me
somehow that before citing a game in a book you have to analyze it just a
little bit with a view to possible errors, all the more if the game in question is
your own and had been played when you were just a schoolboy.
15…Qh4! 16.f4
After both 16.g3 and 16.Ne2, White also does not have any advantage.
16…Bg7 17.fxe5 Bxe5 18.Ng4
In this position from my game against Ostoic, I played 18…Bg7? (see
game 11 in the historical part).
Instead of that move I should have chosen 18…Rc5!N with equal play,
for example, 19.Re1 Rg8 20.Nxe5 dxe5 21.Rf1 Rc7 etc.
Chapter 35
7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 d5!?
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 d5!? (D)
A typical advance that occurs in various lines of the Chelyabinsk

Variation. Here it is sufficient for equality. Black sacrifices a pawn but
obtains a full compensation for it. Only two games with this extremely rare
move that is not mentioned by Sveshnikov are known to me.
A drawback of the variation 10…d5!? is that White, if he wishes, can take
the game into a roughly
equal ending, which may be undesirable in the games against weaker

opponents.
11.Nxd5
The attempt to hold the pawn by means of 11.g4? runs into 11…Bb4!
12.Nab1 d4 13.a3 Ba5 14.b4 dxc3 15.bxa5 Nd4 and results in a difficult
position.
On 11.Qxd5, Black should reply 11…Bxf5!N (11…Bxa3?! is worse
because of 12.Qxd8!+N, and the harmony of the black pieces is disrupted),
and then Black takes on a3 with equal play, for example, 12.Bc4 Qc7 13.0-0-
0 Bxa3 14.bxa3 Na5 15.Bb3 Nxb3 16.Qxb3 Rc8 17.g4! Qxc3 (17…Bg6
18.Kb2 h5 is also sufficient for equality) 18.gxf5, etc.
11…Bxf5!N
In Szmetan-Sorokin, Buenos Aires 1993, there occurred 11…Bxa3
12.bxa3 Bxf5, and after 13.Ne3, White’s position is slightly better. Then
there was 13…Be6N (13…Qa5!?+ is probably more precise: 14.Qd2 Qxd2+
15.Kxd2 Be6, and on 16.Bc4, the game transposes to the text) 14.Bc4 (and
now White could have obtained a small advantage by 14.Qxd8!+N Rxd8
15.Rb1) 14…Qa5+ 15.Qd2 Qxd2 16.Kxd2 0-0-0+ 17.Kc1?! (17.Kc3, with
small advantage, is more accurate) 17…Bxc4 18.Nxc4 Rhg8 19.g3 Rg4, and
the game is equal.
12.Ne3
The variation 12.Nc4?! Bxc2! 13.Qd2 Nd4 14.Nde3 Be4 15.Nxe5 Bc5!
(15…Qb6 leads to equality) 16.Nd3 Bb6 17.Rc1 (17.0-0-0?! is weaker
because of 17…0-0 18.f3 Bg6) 17…0-0 18.Nc5 Bxc5 19.Rxc5 Qd6 20.Qc3
Rfe8 is in favor of Black.
The long variation 12.c3 Bxa3 13.bxa3 Qa5 14.Nf6+ Ke7 15.Nd5+ Kf8
16.Qh5 Qxd5 17.Qxf5 Rd8 18.Qc2 Rg8 19.Rd1 Qc5 20.Rxd8+ Nxd8 21.g3!
results in equal play.
12…Qa5+ 13.c3
White has good chances for gradual equality in the line 13.Qd2 Qxd2
14.Kxd2 0-0-0+ 15.Ke1 Bg6! 16.Rd1 or 16.h4 h5 17.Rd1 (his task is more
difficult after 16.Bc4?! b5 17.Bb3 Nd4 18.Rd1 Bh6).
13…Bxa3
On 13…Rd8, White continues 14.Qc1!.
14.Qb3!
An interesting situation arises after 14.Nc4?! Bxb2 15.Nxa5 Bxc3+
16.Ke2 Bxa5 17.Qd6! Rd8! 18.Qf6 0-0. Although White has a material
advantage, his king’s position is unfortunate, so Black stands clearly better,
for example, 19.Kf3!? Bd2! 20.Rd1 Nd4+ 21.Kg3 Bf4+ 22.Kh4 h6, etc.
14…0-0-0!
15.bxa3
After 15.Bc4, 15.Nxf5 and 15.Qxa3, White has no advantage either.
15…Be4
15…Bg6 leads to more complicated play with fine chances for Black.
Then it is possible to continue 16.Be2 Nd4 17.Qb4 Qxb4 18.axb4 Nxe2
19.Kxe2 Bd3+ 20.Kd2 Rhg8 21.Rhg1 Rg6 22.Rad1 Rc6 and chances are
even.
Chapter 36
7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 Bxf5
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.exf5 Bxf5 (D)
11.Nd5!?
This is probably the best move in this position. It occurred for the first
time in the game Podgaets-Timoshchenko,
Odessa 1968 (historical part, game 18). Sveshnikov ignores this game, and
the move 11.Nd5 is generally unspoiled by his attention as he devotes only a
few lines to it.
The continuation 11.Bd3?! Be6 12.Bc4 explored by Sveshnikov and
popular with weaker players is poor because of 12…Qg5!, and the black
position is a little better (12…Bg7?!, suggested by Sveshnikov, leads to
rough equality and thus is not so good), for example, 13.Bd5!?N 0-0-0, etc.
The most common move here is 11.Nc4, although White still has to
struggle for equality. There follows 11…Be6!, and White has to work hard
for equality (after 11…Nd4, there arise positions that have been studied in
chapter 34).
Sveshnikov believes that 12.Qh5!, which is the best move in this position,
is actually dubious (White usually plays 12.Ne3, and after 12…Bh6!, 13.g3!
– all the other moves are somewhat weaker – 13…Bxe3 14.fxe3 Qg5!?N,
Black has a slight initiative, for example,15.Qd2 d5 16.0-0-0 0-0-0).
Here Black should reply with 12…Nb4!N. The continuation 12…b5?!
13.Ne3 Qa5?!, pointed out by Sveshnikov, is absolutely unconvincing. If we
continue this variation we will see that after 14.g3!, White has a solid
advantage. Instead of 13…Qa5?!, it is better to play 13…d5!N, for example,
14.Ncxd5 Qa5+ 15.c3 0-0-0 with a small advantage for White.
Then it is possible to play 13.Ne3 Qb6 14.0-0-0 Rc8. It appears that dark
clouds are gathering over the white king’s position, but White is still able to
equalize: 15.Ne4 (15.a3 Rxc3 16.axb4 is also sufficient) 15…Nxa2+ 16.Kb1
Nc3+ 17.Nxc3 Rxc3 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.Rxd5, and White has adequate
compensation for the pawn.
Let us return to 11.Nd5!.
11…Bg7
On page 78 of his book, Sveshnikov gives the following short comment
to this position: “11…Bg7! (in comparison with the Sveshnikov Variation
that we would have after 11…b5!?, Black saves a tempo).” What he means is
that Black does not wish to spend a tempo in order to transpose to the
variation 9.Na3 b5. This comment has amused me for following reasons:
First, it seems a bit unusual to call a variation after himself even before
others have done that. “The Variation Named after Me” sounds somewhat
immodest, doesn’t it?
Secondly, in years gone by, he still hesitated to name the whole 5…e5
variation after himself, but chose only a part of it.
Thirdly, the phrase itself lacks logic. For starters, the reader is told that on
the move 9.Na3, Black should reply 9…b5!, hemming in the a3-knight
(essentially the whole variation 5…e5 is based on this opportunity), and then
he states that it is better not to hem in the knight, but play 11…Bg7, saving a
tempo, and the knight may go where it wants. As proof, it is the only game
cited – without comments. So the reader is told to believe that this game
outweighs thousands of others in which Black does hem in the a3-knight.
As we will see, the move 11…Bg7 does not spoil anything yet, but only
on condition that Black plays 13…b5! in the main line and transposes to the
variation 8.Na3 after all. But if he is going to keep on “saving tempi” by
leaving his pawn on b7, then I fail to see clear equality here.
It is easier to play 11…b5! immediately and to transpose to the variation
8.Na3, where Black’s chances for equal play are much higher.
12.Nc4
12.c3 0-0 13.Nc4 is just a different move-order.
12…0-0
13.c3!
Capturing the d6-pawn looks highly suspicious: after 13.Nde3? Be6
14.Qxd6 Qh4!N, Black’s initiative balances his pawn deficit.
In the stem game Podgaets-Timoshchenko, White chose the not-quite-
successful move 13.Nce3. The game itself was examined in the in the
historical part (game 18). An attempt to occupy the blockading b6-square
immediately by 13.Ncb6N also turns out unsuccessful because of 13…Nb4!
14.Nxb4 Qxb6 15.Nd5 Qxb2 16.Ne7+ Kh8 17.Nxf5 Qc3+ 18.Ke2 e4!
19.Nxg7 (19.Rb1? is bad because of 19…Qc4+ 20.Ke3 Qc5+ 21.Nd4 Qc3+)
19…Qc4+ 20.Ke3 Qc3+ 21.Kf4 Qe5+ with perpetual check.
13…b5!
This is the last chance for Black to return to well-known positions and to
retain good play. In the old game Pavey-Lombardy, New York 1955, in
which the move 11.exf5 first occurred, Black played 13…Be6?! (as you see,
Sveshnikov’s idea of doing without b7-b5 smells of mothballs). White’s
reaction was absolutely correct: 14.Ncb6! (14.Nxd6? is bad because of 14…
Nd4! 15.cxd4 exd4) 14…Rb8, and now instead of 15.Be2, it would have
been more precise to continue 15.Bc4!N, strengthening his control over the
point d5, for example, 15…Ne7 16.Nxe7+ Qxe7 17.Bd5!, etc.
14.Nce3
The game transposes to a well-known position from the 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6
system. Black is completely equal.
Chapter 37
7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bd3 without 10…Rg8
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bd3
A solid continuation that does not claim to be a refutation of the move

9…f5. It is fairly common in the database but is not popular with strong
players. A probable reason for that is that after 10…b5 11.Nd5, the game
transposes to well-explored variations of the system 8.Na3, in which it is
rather problematical, if not downright impossible, to obtain an advantage.
10…Qg5
Black has a number of other playable moves.
(a) As we already know, after 10…b5!? 11.Nd5, the game transposes into
a variation from the 8.Na3 system with rather good chances for Black.
Curiously though, Sveshnikov does not even mention this possibility.
(b) 10…f4 is also playable, and after 11.Nd5 Rg8!? (a novelty that is a
little better than 11…Be6, cited by Sveshnikov) 12.g3, the game transposes
to the 10…Rg8 variation which we are going to explore in the next chapter.
(c) There is the interesting 10…Bg7!? which occurred for the first time in
Mukhin-Timoshchenko, Chelyabinsk 1974. Now on 11.Nc4, recommended
by Sveshnikov, there follows 11…b5! (Sveshnikov examines only 11…0-0,
after which White has a small advantage), for example, 12.Ne3 (12.Nd2 leads
to a position from 8.Na3) 12…f4 13.Ned5 0-0 14.0-0 (here in Odler-
Timoshchenko, Slovakia 2012, there was 14.Qh5 Be6 followed by Kh8 and
Rg8, and Black obtained an excellent game), and in this position, instead of
the standard moves Kh8, Rg8 or Bf8, the engine suggests the maneuver 14…
Re8-Re6-Rh6 with highly unclear play.
In Mukhin-Timoshchenko there was 11.0-0! fxe4 (here the plan with
11…f4!?N is also worth serious attention; we will discuss it when we next
meet it) 12.Bxe4 0-0?! 13.Nc4 Nd4, and now instead of 14.Bd5?!, White
should have played 14.Nd5!N, for example, 14…f5 15.Bd3 Be6 (or 15…e4
16.c3!) 16.Ncb6 with better play for White.
Instead of 12…0-0?!, it is more accurate to play 12…Be6!N (Black
prevents the white knight from moving to c4), for example, 13.Qh5! d5 (or
13…h6 14.Rad1 0-0 15.Bd5 with a small advantage) 14.Bxd5 Bxd5 15.Rad1
Nd4 16.Nxd5 Qxd5 17.c3 0-0-0 18.Nc2, and White has a small advantage.
(d) And, finally, the most popular move, 10…Rg8!?, will be examined in
the next chapter.
11.g3
This is the most common continuation. Bear with me while I cite another
example of not-quite-precise analysis from Sveshnikov’s book (page 77).
“An interesting variation is 11.exf5!? Qxg2 12.Be4 Qg513.Nc4, and if 13…
Bxf5?, then 14.Nxd6!+ Bxd6 15.Qxd6 Rd8 16.h4! with the initiative
(Dergachyov-Sveshnikov, Vladimir 1966). The correct reply is 13…Nd4.”
Let us begin improving this analysis from the end. First, the “correct”
13…Nd4?? leads to a lost position by force: 14.h4!N Qg7 15.Nb6 (White
also wins after both 15.Nd5 and 15.Qd3) 15…Rb8 16.Ncd5 Bxf5 17.Bxf5
Nxf5 18.c3! Kd8 19.Qa4 f6 20.0-0-0, and Black is hopeless. Thus, the move
13…Bxf5 is correct, and the question mark should be changed to an
exclamation point. After 13…Bxf5, White will have only a slight advantage.
Second, 13.Nc4? is poor; White should play 13.Qd3!, for example,13…
Bd7 14.h4 Qg4 15.Nc4 0-0-0 16.Nb6+ Kb8 17.Ncd5, and Black is on the
brink of defeat.
Third, 12…Qg5? is also bad. 12…Qh3!N is incomparably better, for
example, 13.Nc4 Nd4 14.Ne3 Nxf5 15.Nxf5 Bxf5 16.Qd5 Rb8, and White
has only a small edge.
Fourth, instead of the risky 11…Qxg2?!, Black does better play 11…
Bxf5, for example, 12.Bxf5 Qxf5 13.Nc4 0-0-0!N 14.Nd5 Kb8 15.c3 Rg8
16.0-0 Qh3 with equal play.
I should add that Black cannot play 11…d5? because of 12.Nxd5, for
example, 12…Qxg2? 13.Nf6+ Ke7 14.Be4, and White wins.
11…fxe4!
This is best continuation, but you will not find it in Sveshnikov’s book.
Instead there is a reference to another childhood game by the author,
Kovalenko-Sveshnikov, where the following moves were made: 11…f4
12.Nd5 Nd4 13.Be2, etc. “with a definite white advantage.” Once again, a
gullible reader gets hoodwinked. There are three blunders in those four half-
moves.
For one thing, the move 11…f4? hands a clear advantage to White; 12…
Nd4? makes this advantage really great, and 13.Be2? throws it away almost
completely.
The correct move is 13.c3!, emphasizing the obvious adventurousness of
the Black’s offensive, as on 13…Bg4?, White just grabs the enemy bishop
with his queen. Adolescent Zhenya Sveshnikov must have simply overlooked
this move in his aggressive plans, but, after having grown up and particularly
while writing a book, he could have found his own childish mistakes and not
put his readers on a false path once again.
By the way, a certain gullible reader from Austria, having read this
paragraph from Sveshnikov’s book most carefully, employed this variation in
his game in 2005, but, unfortunately for him, his opponent had not read the
book and replied with 13.c3!. Only then did our reader notice that the bishop
move to g4 is impossible and had to sound the retreat (Frick-Kleiser, Austria
2005).
As the best chance for Black, Sveshnikov recommends 11…b5? 12.Nd5
Ra7 “with complex play”, but after 13.c4!N, White obtains an undeniable
advantage.
12.Bxe4 Be6 13.Nd5 0-0-0
This position is critical for the evaluation of the entire 10…Qg5 variation.
Black has the bishop pair, but White has managed to block his central pawn
for the time being; in addition, black king’s position is not quite secure.
White has to act decisively:
14.b4!N Then it is possible to continue 14…f5 15.Bg2 Qg4 16.Qxg4
fxg4 17.b5 Ne7 18.c4 a5. White has a small advantage, but it is not easy at
all to realize.
Chapter 38
7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bd3 Rg8
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 10.Bd3 Rg8
This is the most common move. The rook will support Black’s actions on
the kingside.
11.g3!
Another very popular move.
The move 11.Qh5?! (Nizhnik-Pavlov, Kiev 2009) looks highly
suspicious, but Black makes an immediate error 11…Ra7? (there are various
continuations which are favorable for Black, for example, 11…f4!N, 11…
fxe4N, or 11…Nb4N). Here White should have taken the pawn on f5 with
advantage, but he plays 12.0-0-0?. Now it is Black’s turn to make mistakes:
12…fxe4? (the correct answer is 12…f4N with a small advantage). Then, for
some reason, White takes the pawn with the knight, 13.Nxe4? (after 13.Bxe4,
he would have a clear advantage) and after 13…Bg4 14.Qxh7 Rg7 15.Qh8
Bxd1, quickly loses. I do not know how to explain this mysterious run of
errors in a game between rather strong players. Of course, the variation is
complex, but not as complex as that.
The move 11.g3 is not mentioned in the Sveshnikov’s book; he suggests
dubious 11.Nc4 instead and continues his variation with another questionable
move 11…Rxg2?! (the correct continuation is 11…f4!). Then there follows
12.Ne3 Rxf2? (Sveshnikov puts an exclamation point to this move, but it is
actually poor; the correct continuation is 12…fxe4!N 13.Bxe4 Rg7, and
White has more than adequate compensation for his sacrificed pawn)
13.Kxf2?! (symbol by Sveshnikov) 13…Qh4+ 14.Kg1 d5! “and White fails
to parry his opponent’s onslaught (Sireke-Burke, corr. 1985).”
So White has failed, but we can try 15.exf5!N. Then it is possible to

continue 15…Qg5+ (or 15…e4 16.Qe1, or 15…Bc5 16.Ncxd5) 16.Ng4!, and
the onslaught is parried, but the extra material is here to stay. So, that’s it?
But somebody promised us a terrible crushing attack…
Please note that on 15.Qe1!?, Sveshnikov points out the variation 15…
Qh6 16.exf5 Bc5 17.Ncxd5 Ne7!, but after the simple novelty 18.Kg2, Black
can resign with a clear conscious. 15…Qxe1N+ is much stronger – after that
move Black is still able to struggle on.
Please note also that I have quoted only some comments to the above-
mentioned game from Sveshnikov’s book for fear of wearing you down with
minor variations that are also erroneous. And please note again that
Sveshnikov had not analyzed this game for himself, but casually copied
comments by Lev Alburt and Sahu.
But let us return to 11.g3. (D)
11…fxe4!?
Here the most common move is clearly 11…Nd4?! followed by 12.Nd5
fxe4 13.Bxe4 Bg4 14.Qd3 f5 15.Bg2, but in this position White has a solid
advantage, so it does not pay to play in this fashion.
11…d5!? is quite playable. I have analysis that shows equality for Black
after 11…f4!?, for example, 12.Nd5 Be6!? (12…Nd4?! is weaker because of
13.c3 Bg4 14.Qa4+ Nc6 15.Be2N) 13.Nc4 Nd4!N, but I suggest that we put
aside the discussion about this variation.
12.Bxe4 Bg4N
This is a bit better than 12…Be6.
13.Bf3 Qc8!
Later it becomes clear why the queen should move to c8 and not to d7.
14.Bxg4 Rxg4 15.0-0
White has no advantage after 15.Nd5 Rd4! 16.Qf3 e4 17.Qh5! (the long
variation 17.Nf6+ Kd8 18.Nxe4 Ne5 19.Qf6+ Be7 20.Qh8+ Kd7 21.Qxc8+
Rxc8 is in favor of Black) 17…Ne5 18.Rd1 Qc5, but with the queen on d7,
the move 14…Rd4 would be impossible because of 15.Nf6.
15…Qe6 16.Nd5 0-0-0 17.c4 Bh6! 18.b4 Nd4
In the impending sharp play, the chances are even. Let me bring two
variations to your attention:
19.b5
Or 19.Nc2 Kb8! 20.f4 Qg6 21.Nxd4 Rxg3 22.Kh1 Rd3 with an equal
game.
19…Rh4 20.f3 Rg8 21.Rf2 Bf4 22.Nxf4 exf4 23.Qxd4 fxg3 24.Qxh4
gxf2+ 25.Kxf2 Qe5! and the game is equal.
Section 4. 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 without 8…b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6
10.Na3 f5 or 9.Nd5
Chapter 39
8.Na3 Be6 9.Nc4 without 9…Rc8 or 8…b5
8.Na3!
This is certainly better than taking on f6 because it deprives Black of

good counterplay in the variations with 9…f5, discussed in the previous
section.
8…Be6
Sveshnikov pays an enormous amount of attention – 23 pages! – to this
move. Taking into account the fact that the theoretical part in his book is 206
pages, this represents more than 10 per cent and roughly corresponds to 20
chapters of my book.
In my opinion, the move 8…Be6 clearly does not deserve this kind of
attention. This is a second-rate continuation which used to be employed at the
dawn of the development of the 5…e5 variation when people were still
ignorant of the merits of the move 8…b5!. It has occurred in many games,
but there is absolutely no need to enumerate them all, much less to re-copy
them.
They occasionally play in this fashion even now, but only to confuse the
opponent in the course of his preparation of main systems. I suppose that
three chapters would be enough to discourage you from making this move.
The sharp 8…d5?! fails to equalize because of 9.Nxd5 Qa5+ (the usual
continuation 9…Bxa3?! 10.bxa3 Qa5+ 11.Qd2 Qxd2+ 12.Bxd2 Nxd5
13.exd5 Nd4 14.0-0-0 Bf5 15.c3 is worse. White has a serious advantage,
Sax-Velimirovic, Rio de Janeiro 1979) 10.Qd2 Qxd2 11.Bxd2 Nxd5 12.exd5
Nb4 13.0-0-0N Nxa2+ 14.Kb1 Nb4 15.Nc4 with an advantage for White.
The variation 8…Be7 9.Nc4! Nd4 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Nd5 Be6 12.Nxf6+
Qxf6 13.c3 Bxc4 14.Bxc4 Nc6 also leads to a clear white advantage. And the
main move 8…b5! is going to be analyzed beginning with chapter 42 to the
very end of the theoretical part.
9.Nc4!
9.Nd5?! Bxd5 10.Bxf6 throws away the advantage because of 10…Qa5!+
11.c3 Be6! with equal play. 11…Bxe4?! is weaker in view of 12.Nc4 Qc7
13.Bxg7!, and now Black should play 13…Nd4!N, with a small advantage
for White. 13…Bxg7? 14.Nxd6+ Ke7 15.Nxe4, suggested by Sveshnikov, is
a blunder. He believes that the game is even, while in fact White’s position is
won. 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.Nd5 Qd8! is not so good, as White has only a slight
advantage here.
Let us return to 9.Nc4!.
9…Nd4
This is an old move. One can say that the development of the variation
9.Nc4 started with this. Now it occurs only rarely. At first I intended to
discuss it very briefly in the comments to the main line, but then I decided to
devote a separate chapter to this move. I had two reasons to do that: the first
one was that I had a great amount of material on the move 9…Rc8, and the
second and principal one was that Sveshnikov’s chapters devoted to 9…Nd4
contain a lot of errors which need correcting. The move 9…Rc8 will be
discussed in the next two chapters.
It is interesting that in my database I found about a dozen recent
correspondence games in which players with ratings higher than 2300 played
Black and in which a new move, 9…Be7!?, occurs. Black is willing to
sacrifice a pawn after 10.Bxf6 Bxf6!. Then it is possible to continue
11.Nxd6+ (or 11.Qxd6 Be7 12.Qxd8+ Rxd8, and White has only a slight
advantage) 11…Kf8 12.Nc4 Qd4!? 13.Ne3 Bg5 (or 13…Bh4), and White
does have an advantage, but it is no greater than in the main line with 9…
Rc8. It is quite possible that in the future the theory of the move 8…Be6 will
develop in this direction.
10.Nd5
This move can lead to interesting complications which are admittedly
favorable for White. Positional players may prefer the calm 10.Bxf6!? Qxf6
11.Nb6 Rb8 12.Ncd5, and although the move 12…Qd8 cited by Sveshnikov
is not the best, White retains an undeniable advantage after other moves as
well.
10…Bxd5 11.exd5 b5?
Sveshnikov puts an exclamation mark on this move that leads to sharp
positions, but objectively it is bad. The move 11…Be7!, which Sveshnikov
brands with a question mark, retains chances for a successful defense for
Black, although after 12.c3 Nb5, White’s advantage is obvious.
12.Ne3 Qa5+ 13.c3 Ne4! 14.Bh4 g5
15.Bxg5!N
Sveshnikov examines only 15.Bg3 Nxc3 16.Qd2 b4. He awards Black’s
moves 11, 13 and 15 with exclamation marks. Judging by the number of
those, you might think that Black has almost won the game, but actually he
faces very serious problems.
The variation continues 17.Nc4!? Qxd5 18.bxc3 bxc3 19.Qxc3. Now all
Sveshnikov’s moves (19…Bg7, 19…f5 and 19…Qc5) lose, pure and simple.
The best that he has here is 19…Rc8!N, on which possible is 20.Ne3 Rxc3
21.Nxd5 Rc5 22.Nb4! a5 23.Nd3 Rc2 24.f3!, etc., with a great advantage for
White. Indeed, instead of 17…Qd5, a more precise novelty, 17…Qa4!, can
be employed, but White possesses a solid edge even then.
15…Rg8!?
In the variation 15…Nxg5 16.a4! b4! 17.cxd4 b3+ 18.Ke2!, White has a
great advantage.
16.f4! h6!
16…Nxc3?! 17.bxc3 Qxc3+ 18.Kf2 is weaker, for example, 18…f6
19.Qh5!+ Rg6 20.f5 Qd2+ 21.Be2 Nxe2 22.Rhd1! Qb2 23.Kf1, and Black is
on the brink of defeat. Try to find an improvement in this interesting
variation for yourself.
17.Bh4 Nxc3 18.Qd2! Nb3 19.Qxc3 Qxc3+ 20.bxc3 Nxa1 21.Kd2!
In this position White has a large advantage.
Chapter 40
8.Na3 Be6 9.Nc4 Rc8 without 10.Bxf6
8.Na3 Be6 9.Nc4 Rc8 (D)
This rook move occurs in the overwhelming majority of games.
10.Nd5!?
And this move, about three times as rare as 10.Bxf6 and half again as rare
as 10.Ne3?!, nevertheless deserves serious attention because it forces Black
to part with his light-square bishop.
A probable reason for such an underestimation of 10.Nd5 in tournament
practice is the strange order of presenting material in Sveshnikov’s book. He
explores the move order with 10.Nd5 in a separate chapter, but only in
connection with the weak 11.exd5?! (after 10…Bxd5) instead of the correct
one 11.Bxf6!. As for the position after 11…gxf6, it is investigated in another
chapter and with another, secondary move order (with 9.Bxf6). More than
that, the analysis itself contains serious errors which we are going to correct
currently.
10.Bd3?! is weak because of 10…Be7, and it is already White who has to
worry about equalizing. 10.Ne3?! throws away the advantage after 10…Be7!.
It must be noted that 10…Qb6? is bad even if Sveshnikov believes that this
move deserves attention. White obtains a great advantage after 11.Bxf6!, for
example, 11…Qxb2 12.Ncd5 Bxd5 13.Nxd5 Nb4 (or 13…gxf6 14.Rb1)
14.Rb1! Nxc2+ 15.Kd2 Qd4+ (or 15…Qxa2 16.Nc3!) 16.Bd3 gxf6 (16…
Qxf2+ 17.Qe2 is even worse) 17.Ke2!.
The move 10.Bxf6! will be discussed in the next chapter.
10…Bxd5 11.Bxf6!
11.exd5?! is weak: 11…Ne7 12.Bxf6 gxf6, and Black has good play.
11…gxf6
This is the move for adventurous players. Capturing the bishop with the
queen, 11…Qxf6, is a rare but quite playable move. After 12.Qxd5 Be7
13.c3, Black has the interesting 13…Nd8!? (the knight intends to move to
e6), for example, 14.Rd1 (there is an interesting novelty 14.Ne3!?) 14…Rc6,
and though White has an advantage, Black is prepared for a long siege.
12.Qxd5
We have already discussed the position after 12.exd5?! Ne7.
12…Nd4!?
This is the main move. However, Sveshnikov brands it with a question
mark and devotes no more than a couple of lines to it. His key moves are
12…Nb4 and 12…b5. Well, let us explore them in more detail.
Sveshnikov is right to think that the variation 12…Nb4 13.Qd2 d5
14.exd5 Nxc2+ 15.Qxc2 Bb4+ 16.Kd1 b5 17.Qe4 bxc4 18.Bxc4 Qb6 19.Rc1!
is insufficient for equality. I would make his evaluation more exact: in this
position White has a great advantage.
Instead of 14…Nxc2?!+, it is better to play 14…Qxd5, but in the ensuing
endgame White has a clear advantage. Instead of 16…b5?!, Black has a better
move, 16…Qxd5+, but in the resulting position he does not have full
compensation for his piece.
In the end of the chapter about the move 12…b5 in Sveshnikov’s book a
sharp position arises; however, he commits an awful blunder in the variation
that leads to it. After 13.Ne3 Bh6 14.Nf5 Nb4?? 15.Nxd6+ Kd7, White has a
choice.
Sveshnikov, who has for the umpteenth time copied somebody else’s
analysis without checking it (this time the original analyst is Simic), holds
that after 16.Qxf7+ Kc6 17.Qb7+ Kc5, and so on and so forth for ten lines,
“Black beats back the opponent’s attack successfully.” And yet in the game
Schmidt-Hohlbein, 1995, White made a move that had not been included in
analysis, 17.Rd1!, and after 17…Nxc2+ 18.Ke2 Nd4+ 19.Rxd4 exd4 20.Nxc8
d3+ 21.Kf3, Black resigned.
But there was another, even sadder story. In 1991 during the European
Club Cup tournament in the game Smagin-Kharlov, Black, with boundless
confidence in Sveshnikov’s book, “caught” his opponent in a variation that
included 17…Kc5. But instead of 18.Qa7 promised by Sveshnikov, White
played 18.Rd1!. This move, though weaker than 17.Rd1!, was sufficient for a
win.
Sveshnikov himself believes that instead of the winning move 16.Qxf7!+
“there is a more vigorous continuation, 16.Bxb5!+ axb5 17.Qxb5+, with a
strong attack” (then there follows that neatly copied analysis by Simic).
However, this attack is parried after 17…Ke6 18.Rd1 Nxc2+ 19.Ke2 Nd4!+
(19…Qxd6?? loses) 20.Rxd4 exd4 21.Qd5+ Ke7 22.Nf5+ Ke8 23.Qxd8+
Kxd8 24.Nxh6 Kd7!N, with equal play.
There is another line that is even more promising, 17…Kxd6!?N. After
18.Rd1+ Ke6 19.Rxd8 Nxc2+ 20.Kf1 Rhxd8 21.g3 Bd2, 21…Nd4 or even
21…Ne1!?, Black feels quite comfortable.
Thus, we must vigorously award the “vigorous” move 16.Bxb5 with a
couple of question marks. Instead of 14…Nb4??, Black should play 14…
Nd4!. The best reply is 15.c3! (15.Nxd6+? is bad: 15…Ke7 16.c3 Qxd6
17.Qxd6 Kxd6 18.cxd4 Rc2, and Black stands better), and then 15…Nxf5
16.exf5 0-0 17.Be2. Despite White’s advantage, the struggle is far from being
over.
Sveshnikov thinks that instead of 13…Bh6, “the move 13…Ne7!?
deserves serious investigation.”
Well, I had undertaken this serious investigation and came to the

conclusion that this knight move is highly dubious.
First, after 14.Qb7 Qa5 +15.c3 Rc7 16.b4 Rxb7 17.bxa5, the correct
move is 17…Bh6, and White has an advantage in the endgame (Murey-
Jamieson, Lucerne 1982).
Second, Sveshnikov’s recommendation 17…Kd8? is wrong, as after
18.a4 bxa4, chances are far from being equal. White has a great advantage,
for example, 19.Rxa4! (19.Bxa6 Ra7 20.Bb5 Rxa5 21.Bxa4 is slightly
weaker) 19…Rb1+ 20.Nd1 and Bd3.
Finally, 14.Qd3! Bh6 15.Be2! is even stronger as now White’s advantage
is obvious.
Let us return to 12…Nd4.
13.Bd3!
In Sveshnikov’s opinion (this time he refers to Larsen), White is able to
refute 12…Nd4 by 13.0-0-0 Qc7 14.Rxd4!, so there is no point in discussing
12…Nd4 any longer.
However, after the correct move 13…b5!, White has to think about
equalizing, for example, 14.Ne3 Bh6 15.c3 Rc5 16.Qb7 Rc7 17.Qxa6
(17.Qd5 b4) 17…Qb8 18.Kb1 Ra7 19.Qxa7 Qxa7 20.cxd4 Bxe3 21.Bxb5+
Ke7 22.fxe3. Thus, the question mark should be transferred from 12…Nd4 to
13.0-0-0.
13…b5!
13…Qe7?! is weaker because of 14.Qa5!. Then in Varavin-Kharlov,
Elista 1994, there was 14…Rc5! 15.Qd2 Qc7 16.c3 Ne6 17.Ne3 Bh6 18.0-0
Qb6 19.g3 Rc6 20.Rae1 Rg8 21.Kh1 Bxe3 22.Rxe3, and White has a solid
advantage.
In Yemelin-Kharlov, St. Petersburg 1998, Black played 14…Rxc4
15.Bxc4 Nxc2+ 16.Ke2 Nxa1?N (16…Nd4!+ is much stronger), and after
17.Rc1 Bh6 18.Bxf7+ Kxf7 19.Rc7 Rd8 20.Qd5+ Kf8 21.Rxe7 Kxe7
22.Qxb7+ Rd7 23.Qc8 d5 24.Qg8 Bf8 25.exd5, White won.
14.Ne3 Bh6 15.c3 Bxe3 16.fxe3 Ne6 17.0-0.
On 17.Bc2, there is the unpleasant novelty 17…b4!?, for example,
18.Ba4+ Ke7 19.cxb4 Qb6 20.Qd2 Ng5 21.Bc2 Rc4 22.0-0 Rhc8, etc.
17…Ke7 18.Bb1!? Qb6 19.Qd2 Rhg8 20.a4! Rg4 21.Qf2 Rg6 22.axb5
Qxb5 23.Ba2
This position arose in Baranowski-Zlotkowski, corr 2010. White has a
small advantage.
Chapter 41
8.Na3Be6 9.Nc4 Rc8 10.Bxf6
8.Na3 Be6 9.Nc4 Rc8 10.Bxf6!
This capture is the most common move. Black faces a difficult choice:
either to let the white knight go to b6 or spoil his own pawn structure without
any hope of carrying out f6-f5 in the future.
10…Qxf6
In the database the move 10…gxf6 is much more common, although I see
no reason for that. Taking with queen brings better results in practice.
The best move in this position is 11.Bd3!, but the most common one is
11.Ne3. In Hjartarson-Kharlov, Leeuwarden 1995, there followed 11…Bh6!
12.Bd3 Bxe3 13.fxe3 Qb6 14.Qc1 h5! 15.0-0 Rh6 16.a3 h4 17.Rf2 h3 18.g3
Ne7 19.Qe1 Kf8 20.Rd1, and now instead of 20…Rc6?!, Black should have
continued 20…Kg7!N, and White has only a minimal advantage.
It is incorrect to play 14…Na5?! instead of 14…h5!. The game Georgiev-
Shirov, Biel 1992, continued 15.0-0 Ke7 16.Qe1N (16.Qd2! is better) 16…
h5?! (16…Nc4! is better) 17.b3! Qc5? 18.Nd5+ Bxd5 19.exd5 Qxd5 20.Rd1
Rcg8 21.Qf2 Rh6 22.Bg6, and Black resigned.
Let as return to the stronger move 11.Bd3!. In Anand-Morovic, Las
Palmas 1993, there was: 11…Ne7 12.Ne3 Bh6 (12…Qb6 13.0-0 Qxb2
14.Ncd5 is in favor of White) 13.0-0 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Qb6 15.Qc1!? (the usual
line is 15.Qf3 h5 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.exd5 Rh6, but here White has the strong
move 18.c4!, for example, 18…Qxb2 19.Rab1 Qxa2 20.Rxb7 Qa3, and
though Sveshnikov thinks that this position is unclear, White obtains an
advantage after 21.Qh3!N Rd8 22.e4) 15…Ng8 16.Kh1 (16.a4!? is more
accurate) 16…Qc5 17.Qd2 (and here 17.a4!? is not bad) 17…h5 18.Rad1 h4
19.h3 Kf8 20.Qe2 Rh6 21.Nd5 Bxd5 22.exd5 Ne7 23.c4 e4? (23…b5!N is
better, though White has an edge in any event) 24.Bxe4 Qxc4 25.Qf3 Re8
26.Rd4 Qc5 27.b4, and White has a great advantage.
Let us return to 10…Qxf6.
11.Nb6!
Taking the pawn does not bring any advantage: 11.Nxd6+ Bxd6 12.Qxd6
because of 12…Rd8! (12…Nd4 is weaker because of 13.Bd3 Qg5 14.Nd5
Bxd5 15.exd5 Rd8 16.h4! with an advantage for White (Vulfson-Chekhov,
Moscow 1979). Then it is possible to continue 13.Qc5 Nd4 14.Bd3 Qg5
15.Kf1 Rc8! 16.Qb4 b5.
This position has been analyzed by Chekhov, and Sveshnikov cites his
analysis without noticing that it contains two blunders. I think that the main
move is 17.a4!? (on 17.h4 both grandmasters suggest the variation 17…Qd8
18.Rd1 Qb6?, missing the simple refutation 19.Nd5! with a great advantage
for White. The correct reply is 17…Qe7!N with equal play. On 17.Rd1, they
point out 17…h5, which is not bad, but 17…Qh5!N 18.Re1 f6! 19.a4 Kf7N
with an equal game, is even better.).
On 17.a4, Black should reply 17…Qe7!N (17…Bc4? 18.Bxc4 bxc4,
recommended by Chekhov, is bad; now instead of 19.Rd1?, correct is
19.a5!N, and White has a clear advantage), 18.Qxe7+ Kxe7 19.axb5 axb5,
and analysis shows no advantage for White in this position.
11…Rb8 12.Ncd5!
After this move the game calms down, White has an indisputable
advantage. As this move is clearly the strongest, there is no need for us to be
distracted by other continuations.
12…Qd8
But if Black is not careful, he gets into trouble. After 12…Qg6?!, in
Emelyanov-Polishchuk, corr 2007, there followed 13.Qd3 Be7 14.Nc7!+
(14.g3?!, Kamsky-Polgar, Buenos Aires 1994, is weak) 14…Kd8 15.Ncd5 f5
16.0-0-0! fxe4 17.Qc3! (17.Qa3?!, pointed out by Sveshnikov, is noticeably
weaker) 17…Rf8 (after 17…Bxd5, White also has a great advantage)
18.Bxa6 Rf7 19.Kb1. In this difficult position Black made an error, 19…
Qxg2? (the only chance to try to hold the position is 19…Bf8!N), and after
20.Bxb7! Bxd5 21.Nxd5 Rxb7 22.Qxc6 Bf8 23.Qa6 Rb8 24.Qa5+ Ke8
25.Nc7+ Ke7 26.Qa6 Qg6 27.Rhg1 Qh6 28.Nd5+ Ke6 29.Qc4 Rfb7 30.b3
Kf7 31.Nc7+ Ke7 32.Qc6 Ra7 33.f4, Black resigned.
13.c3 Be7 14.Bc4!
Not only is this move is the most popular one, it is also probably the best,
so there is no point discussing other continuations.
14…0-0 15.0-0 Bg5 16.a4
In the game Anand-Kharlov, Oviedo 1993, White played 16.Qe2. Black
should have replied 16…Ne7N, but Kharlov responded à la Sveshnikov,
16…Qe8?!. Now White had an opportunity to continue 17.Nc7 Qe7
18.Nxe6N fxe6 19.Qg4 Nd8 (19…Rbe8? 20.Bxe6+) 20.a4 (or 20.g3!?), and
his advantage is undisputable.
16…Kh8
Sveshnikov heaps praise on the Chekhov’s move 16…Qe8?!; however,
there is nothing much to write home about here. After 17.Nc7 Qe7,
Sveshnikov notes that “18.Nxe6 fxe6 is unfavorable,” but we are going to
question him once again and continue the variation: 19.Qg4!N Nd8 (19…
Rbe8? 20.Bxe6+) 20.g3!, and in comparison with the previous comment,
White has an extra tempo and his superiority is accordingly greater.
17.Qe2 g6 18.Kh1
The game Karpov-Nunn, London 1982, continued in this fashion. The
moves 18.Rad1 and 18.Rfe1 are no worse.
18…Bh6 19.Rad1!?
Karpov’s move, 19.b4, gave Black an opportunity to play 19…a5!?, but
Black attempted to open the game with 19…f5 instead, and after 20.exf5
gxf5 21.f4 Bxd5 22.Nxd5, carelessly continued 22…e4?! (22…Ne7! with an
advantage for White is better). Now White has a strong novelty, 23.g4!, with
a great advantage.
Karpov recommended 19.Rae1!?
19…f5
This move opens the game to White’s advantage. It is probably better to
choose a waiting strategy of the Bh6-g5-h6 or Kh8-g7-h8 kind, for example,
19…Bg5, and if 20.Rd3, then 20…f5 21.exf5 Bxf5! 22.Rdd1 Ne7, easing the
defense through the exchange of knights. However, even in this case, White
retains an undisputed edge.
20.exf5 gxf5?! (20…Bxf5 is more solid) 21.Qh5!
21.f4!? (Gruenfeld-Cifuentes, Novi Sad 1990) is a bit weaker.
21…Bg7
This position arose in the game Inarkiev-Chekhov, Serpukhov 2002. In
the text there followed 22.f4 Bf7 23.Qh3, etc., but 22.Ne3!N is much
stronger, for example, 22…Qe7 23.f4 with a serious advantage for White. As
we can see, Black’s path to equality in the 8…Be6 variation is certainly not
simple.
Chapter 42
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 without 11.c4, 11.g3, 11.c3
or 11.Bd3
8.Na3 b5!
This move is worth special mention. Until about the mid-1960s, the
variation 5…e5 did occur occasionally, but Black tried to do without this
move. He was not particularly successful. It is thanks to 8…b5! that the
Chelyabinsk Variation started to become popular, evolving into the system
that we know today.
Two young players from Chelyabinsk, Sveshnikov and Timoshchenko,
were the first to study this move in detail and to employ it in tournaments.
Sveshnikov was the first to play this way in scholastic competitions, and a
little later I became the first one to employ the variation in master
tournaments.
The idea of 8…b5! is quite simple: Black prevents the white knight from
getting to c4. Beginning in this chapter and to the end of the theoretical part,
we are going to be busy investigating various opportunities that both parties
may have after this move.
9.Bxf6
Until about 2005, this move had been more common than 9.Nd5, but then
the first players gradually came to a conclusion that it only allows good
counter-play for Black in view of the possibility for him to play f6-f5.
Therefore the rate of occurrence for 9.Bxf6 gradually decreased and after
2010 became rarer than 9.Nd5. The proportion is the same for grandmasters’
games. We will explore the move 9.Nd5 in detail in chapters 123-200.
The old move 9.Nab1 did occur recently in several games of good
players. It is an unorthodox attempt at solving the problem of the knight on
a3. It is usually followed by 9…Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.a4 (after 11.Nd5, the
game transposes into the variation 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Nb1) 11…b4
12.Nd5 0-0, and the game once again transposed to the above-mentioned
variation.
9…gxf6
Taking with the queen is rare as after 9…Qxf6 10.Nd5 Qd8, White has a
pleasant choice: he can play 11.c4!? b4 12.Qa4!, after which Black should
reply 12…Ra7!N, (a natural-looking move; for 12…Bd7?, as in
Timoshchenko-Nikitin, Moscow 1966, see game 8 in the historical section) is
bad because of 13.Nb5!. He can also continue 11.Bxb5!? axb5 12.Nxb5, and
after 12…Qa5+ 13.c3 Kd8 14.a4, White has an advantage.
10.Nd5
Let us discuss the move 10.Nab1 – another attempt to find a better
position for the knight on a3.
In Anand-van Wely, Calvia 2004, Black played 10…Bg7 here, after

which White replied with the suspicious 11.g3?! (11.a4! is better: 11…b4
12.Nd5 f5, and the game transposes to the 10…f5 variation). Then there
followed 11…0-0 (Black has an interesting novelty, 11…h5!) 12.Bg2 Ne7!?
13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Qxd5 Be6 15.Qd2 Rc8 (here Black can seize the initiative
by 15…b4!N, for example,16.Qxb4 Rb8 17.Qa3 Qb6 18.b3 Rfc8 with an
advantage for Black) 16.0-0 f5 17.exf5 Bxf5 18.Nc3 (and here, instead of
18…Rc4, it is possible to play 18…d5!N with roughly equal play). Black lost
the game, but the opening had nothing to do with this outcome.
Instead of 10…Bg7, the interesting novelty 10…Ne7!? is playable.
Black’s most common reply is 10…f5, after which White should play
11.a4! (after 11.Nd2 fxe4!, Black has the initiative; on 11.Bd3 Ne7!? 12.exf5
d5, he has excellent play, and 11.g3?! is even weaker here because of 11…
fxe4!N, for example, 12.Bg2 Be6 13.Bxe4 Rc8 14.Nd5 h5!, and Black stands
better), for example, 11…b4 12.Nd5 Bg7 13.Nd2 0-0 14.Bc4 fxe4! 15.Nxe4
Kh8, and the game is equal.
Let us return to 10.Nd5.
10…Bg7
Here Sveshnikov devotes a whole page to the analysis of the variation
10…Be6? 11.c3 Bg7 12.Nc2 f5 13.exf5 Bxf5. If you ask me, it was quite
enough to remark that, in comparison with the usual variations, Black simply
loses a tempo.
The move 10…Bg7 became highly popular around 1984, so it is
noticeably “younger” than the main Chelyabinsk continuation 10…f5 which
we are going to explore in chapters 60-122. The main drawback of the move
10…Bg7 is that Black does not attack the e4-pawn immediately, offering
White a chance to place his pieces comfortably.
11.Qh5
This move is rather common, though we will see that its theory needs
some improving. In the next chapter we are going to examine the move
11.c4; chapter 44 will be devoted to 11.g3; in chapter 45 I will dwell upon the
highly popular continuation 11.c3, and then we will proceed to the analysis of
the main line, 11.Bd3.
11.Ne3 Ne7 12.c3! with good play is quite possible (Sveshnikov
continues 12.g4?, but after 11…h5!, Black’s chances are better).
11…Ne7! 12.Ne3
Objectively, the rarer continuation 12.Nxe7!? Qxe7 is probably better:
White should play 13.c3 with a good game.
12…f5!?
12…d5!? is no weaker, for example, 13.exd5 (in Adams-Spasov, Novi
Sad 1990, White made an error, 13.Bd3?, and Black could have obtained a
great advantage after 13…b4!N, for example, 14.Nb1 f5 15.Qg5 Rg8, etc.)
13…f5 14.0-0-0 Qd6 or 14…f4, and Black has good play for his pawn.
13.exf5
13…d5!
In practice, the move 13…e4 that Sveshnikov marks with “!” is much
more common. Then there usually follows 14.0-0-0 (14.c3! is a little better,
for example, 14…b4?! 15.Bc4!N 0-0 16.cxb4 Bxb2 17.Rb1 with a clear
advantage) 14…0-0 (14…Qa5? is bad because of 15.Bc4!N). Now 15.f3? is
also poor because of 15…Qb6 (Klinger-Vaisser, Szirak 1985).
Another bad move is 15.g4? because of 15…d5 (Geo. Timoshenko-
Ikonnikov, Chelyabinsk 1990). However White has the good move
15.Nb1!N, after which he has the advantage, for example, 15…d5 16.Nc3!
Bxc3 17.bxc3 f6 18.g4 Qd6 19.Kb1 Kh8 20.Rg1.
14.Qg5 0-0
After 14…Rg8, the game may end in a draw: 15.f6 Ng6 16.Nxd5 Qxd5
17.fxg7 Qe4+N 18.Qe3 Qb4+ 19.Qc3 Qe4+ 20.Qe3 Qb4+.
Now possible is 15.f6 Ng6 16.Nxd5 Qxd5 17.fxg7 Kxg7, and the game is
equal.
Chapter 43
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.c4
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.c4
According to Sveshnikov, this move is a “premature break” that he marks

with “?!”. But actually it is not so bad. Both Beliavsky and Anand either have
not read Sveshnikov’s book or they have but never believed in its contents.
Anyway, both of them tried this move a few years after the book had been
published, and both obtained good positions. As the move 11.c4 occurs in
more than 400 games, we are going to devote a separate chapter to it.
11…f5
11…b4? is an error because of 12.Nc2, and White has a serious
advantage. After 11…0-0 12.cxb5 Nd4 13.Bd3 f5, the game transposes into
the main variation with 13…0-0.
12.cxb5
This move is almost a must. Here 12.Bd3!? is also quite good, for
example, 12…Ne7 (after 12…0-0 13.cxb5 Nd4, the game transposes to the
above-mentioned variation) 13.Nxe7 Qa5!?+N (after the usual 13…Qxe7, the
game transposes to the 11.Bd3 variation), and White has a difficult time
proving his advantage.
12…Nd4
“Black has a strong initiative” (Sveshnikov). As confirmation of his
evaluation, he quotes two games by little-known players in which Black won.
The whole variation certainly cannot be evaluated on the basis of such
games; it should be analyzed just a little. I want to elaborate on this
evaluation: good Black play supposed, he has fine chances to equalize.
13.Bd3
13.b6?! is weak because of 13…0-0, for example, 14.exf5 Bb7! 15.Bc4
Rc8 16.Bb3N (in the rapid game Malisauskas-Shirov, Warsaw 2009, White
first made a mistake 16.f6?, and after 16…Bxf6 proceeded to make another
one, 17.0-0??. The punishment was not long in coming: 17…Rxc4! 18.Nxf6
Qxf6 19.Nxc4 Nf3+ 20.Kh1 Qf4 21.Qxf3 Bxf3 22.Nxd6 Bxg2+ 23.Kxg2
Qg4+ 24.Kh1 Qf3+ 25.Kg1 Kh8, and Black won) 16…Rc5 17.Ne3 d5 18.0-0
Qxb6, and Black’s position is better.
13.bxa6 followed by 13…0-0 14.Nb5!? often occurs. Then in Kostakiev-
Morgado, corr 2000, there followed 14…fxe4 (here it would be interesting to
examine 14…Qh4!?N) 15.Nbc7 Ra7 16.Rc1 e3! 17.fxe3 Qh4+ 18.Kd2! (the
move 18.g3 starts a long forced variation: 18…Qe4 19.Rg1 Rxc7! 20.Bg2!
Rxc1 21.Ne7+ Kh8 22.Bxe4 Rxd1+ 23.Kxd1 Bg4+ 24.Kd2 d5! 25.Bxd5 Nf3
26.Bxf3 Bxf3 27.Rc1 Rd8 28.Ke1 Bf8, and the game is equal. In Zontges-
Rost, corr 2002, there followed 29.Nc8 f5 30.a7 Bh6 31.Rc3 Rd1+, and here
a draw was agreed) 18…Qf2 19.Be2 Bxa6 20.Nxa6 Rxa6 21.Rf1 Qxe2
22.Qxe2+ Nxe2 23.Kxe2 Rxa2 24.Ne7 Kh8 25.Rc2, and though after 25…e4
26.Rf4 White has a very slight advantage, a draw was agreed.
13…Be6!
13…0-0 is slightly weaker because of 14.Nc2! (there is no such move in
Sveshnikov’s book). In Beliavsky-Dolmatov, Yugoslavia 1992, there
followed: 14…Nxc2+?! (14…fxe4 15.Bxe4 Rb8 is better; White should reply
16.Qh5! with a small advantage) 15.Qxc2. White’s position is better. 15…
Bb7 16.0-0 (16.bxa6!N with better play) 16…Bxd5 17.exd5 e4 18.Bc4 Qb6?
19.bxa6 Rfc8?! 20.Qb3, and White has a serious advantage.
14.0-0 Bxd5!
The most common continuation here is 14…0-0 15.Nc2 Nxc2? (15…
Bxd5! is better: 16.exd5 Nxc2 17.Qxc2, and White has only a small
advantage) 16.Bxc2! fxe4 17.bxa6 Rxa6.
Then in Anand-Lautier, Belgrade 1997, there was 18.Bxe4? (strange as it
may seem, this natural-looking move is an error. It is better to play 18.a4!
with a serious advantage for White.) 18…f5 19.Bd3?! (the correct move is
19.Bc2!) 19…Rc6!, and now it is already Black who has a small advantage.
As we can see from these two games, complicated positions of the
Chelyabinsk Variation create serious problems not only for authors of books
about this system, but for leading chessplayers of the world as well.
15.exd5 e4 16.Be2 Rb8!N. Then possible is 17.bxa6 Rxb2 18.Qa4 Kf8
19.Bd1 Be5 20.g3 e3! and in this very complex position, chances are equal.
Chapter 44
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.g3
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.g3
Now the situation is more favorable for this move than after 10…f5, as in
the latter variation, White has to waste time regaining the pawn with Bg2xe4;
besides, his bishop is threatened after f7-f5. And this is another small
drawback to 10…Bg7 – the e4-pawn should be attacked immediately.
11…f5
11…0-0 12.Bg2 f5 (after 12…Ne7 13.Nxe7+ Qxe7, the game transposes
to the variation 11…Ne7) 13.exf5 e4?! (13…Bxf5!? 14.Ne3! Bd7 15.Qxd6
Nd4!N is better, though White retains a small advantage anyway) 14.f6!
(after either 14.c3 or 14.Qh5, White also has an advantage) 14…Bxf6 15.c3
Bg7 (15…b4!?N) 16.0-0 f5 17.f3! exf3 18.Qxf3 Rb8 19.Nc2 Kh8 fails to
equalize: White has a clear advantage (Motylev-Hamdouchi, Tripoli 2004).
11…Ne7 is also insufficient for equality. In Polgar-Radjabov, France
2003, there followed 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.Bg2 0-0 14.0-0 Rb8 15.c3 f5 16.exf5
Bxf5 17.Nc2 a5 18.Ne3 Be6 19.Qd3 f5 20.Rad1, and now White should have
played 20…f4!N (in the text there was 20…b4?! and White eventually won),
21.Nd5 Qf7, and White has a small advantage.
The variation 13…f5 14.exf5 e4 15.c3 0-0 (15…Bxf5?? 16.Qd5, and
White won, Tomczak-Mista, Lazy 2012) 16.Nc2 Bxf5 17.0-0 is no better:
12.exf5!
The move 12.Bg2 secures a fine additional opportunity, 12…f4!?, for
Black (12…fxe4!? with transposition to the variation 10…f5 is also not bad).
Then the most common continuation is 13.c3 0-0 (in Bekerra-Shabalov,

USA 2006, Black acted aggressively: 13…h5?! 14.Nc2 h4, but after 15.gxf4
exf4 16.Nxf4 Ne5 17.Ne3 h3 18.Bf3 Qh4, White could have retained a solid
advantage with 19.Nfd5!N instead of 19.Nd3?) 14.Nc2 a5. The game is level.
Then in Hamdouchi-Munoz, Tarragona 2006 there was 15.a3 Ne7 16.Qh5?!
(after 16.Nxe7+N Qxe7, chances are equal), and here Black has an
opportunity to gain a small edge after 16…Nxd5N) 17.exd5 Qf6 18.Be4 Qh6.
In Vokarev-Kuzubov, Alushta 2004, there was 14.0-0 Ne7 15.Nxe7+
Qxe7. Here White made a mistake, 16.gxf4?! (16.Nc2 leads to equal play),
and after 16…exf4 17.Nc2 Be5 18.Nd4 Kh8 19.Kh1 Rg8 20.Rg1 Bd7
21.Qd3 Rg6 22.Nf5 Qf6, Black had an advantage.
12…Bxf5.
12…e4?! looks suspicious.
White can continue 13.f6! Bxf6, and now not 14.Nxf6+? (Ljubojevic-
Kramnik, Belgrade 1995), but 14.c3!N) 14…0-0 (on 14…Ne5, both 15.Be2
and 15.Bg2 are playable, with an advantage for White in both instances)
15.Bg2, and with a transposition of moves there arises a position from the
game Motylev-Hamdouchi that we have already analyzed.
13.c3! is also good, for example, 13…Bxf5 (after 13…Ne5 14.Be2 Bxf5
15.Nc2 0-0 16.0-0, White stands better) 14.Bg2, and the game transposes to
the 12…Bxf5 variation.
13.Bg2 Be6
The position after 13…0-0 was explored in the comments to 11…0-0.
The game Sax-Roganovic, Hungary 2010, continued 13…e4 14.c3 0-0 (14…
Ne5 15.0-0 Bg4 16.Qd2! leads to a white advantage) 15.0-0 Ne5 16.Nc2 Bg4
17.Qd2 f5 18.Nd4 Nc4 19.Qc1!. White has an edge, and after Black’s error
19…Ra7?!, (the correct move is 19…Rf7!) White could have obtained a
great advantage through 20.Ne6!N Qa8 21.Ndf4.
14.c3 0-0 15.0-0
After 15.Nc2, the game transposes to the variation 10…f5 11.c3 Bg7
12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6 14.g3 0-0 15.Bg2 which is going to be investigated
in chapters 70-72.
15…Rb8 16.Nc2 and the game once again transposes into the variation
10…f5.
Chapter 45
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.c3
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.c3 (D)
This continuation is very popular: in the database the move 11.c3 occurs
even more often than the main one, 11.Bd3.
11…Ne7?!
The quick exchange of the d5-knight is an implementation of the main
idea of the 10…Bg7 variation. Nevertheless, I consider this knight move
dubious as Black does not equalize in spite of the fact that the resulting play
is rather sharp. In addition, Black has a chance to take the game into main
line 10…f5 advantageously by 11…f5!. Here he has excellent chances for
equality without resorting to the bishop sacrifice on b5 that frightens many
players. I would also note that the stronger the players, the less frequently
they choose 11…Ne7, which is further proof of all this.
12.Nxe7
After 12.Nc2 f5 13.Nxe7 Qxe7, the game transposes into main variation.
12…Qxe7 13.Nc2
Occasionally there occurs 13.Bd3, and the game transposes to the
variation 11.Bd3.
13…f5
The most common move. 13…Bb7?! allows 14.Qg4!? or 14.Qf3!?, which
is probably even stronger. The continuation 13…Qb7 14.Ne3 Qxe4 15.Qxd6
(Velimirovic-Spasov, Belgrade 1994) fails to equalize: after 15…Be6 16.Rd1
Qb7 17.Be2 Bf8 18.Qd3, White has an advantage.
14.exf5
And here White, if he wishes, can transpose to the position from the
11.Bd3 variation with 14.Bd3.
14…0-0
Of course, Black cannot play 14…Bxf5?? because of 15.Qf3, and White
wins. And that means that Black has failed to carry out his plan in full. That
requires the sacrifice of a pawn without full compensation. 14…Bb7 15.Ne3
0-0 leads to a transposition of moves.
The sharp continuation 14…d5 is playable. Now it is better not to take the
pawn, as after 15.Qxd5 Bb7 16.Qd1, Black should choose 16…Bh6!N and
not the usual 16…Rd8, and White is left with only a small advantage.
Playing 15.Bd3 instead of 15.Qxd5 looks quite good. Then in Adams-
Schmittdiel, Ostend 1991, there was 15…0-0 16.0-0, and the game once
again transposed to the 11.Bd3 variation (16.Qh5!?, also transposing to the
11.Bd3 variation, is also playable). Perhaps, instead of 15.Bd3, 15.a4!? is
even stronger.
15.Ne3 Bb7 16.Be2
And here it is possible to transpose to the 11.Bd3 variation after 16.Bd3
d5 17.0-0 Qg5.
16…Rfd8!?
In the rapid game Adams-Nunn, Brussels 1992, Black’s play was weak:
16…Rad8?! 17.Nd5 Qg5?! (even 17…Bxd5N is better) 18.h4 Qh6. Now,
instead of 19.Rh3?!, it is better to play 19.g4! Bf6 20.Kf1!N with a great
advantage for White, for example, 20…Kh8 (the pawn is untouchable: on
20…Bxh4?? there follows 21.g5! Qxg5 22.Rg1), and now White can choose
from 21.Bf3, 21.a4 and 21.Rh3, with a great advantage in every case.
In another rapid game Ivanchuk-Radjabov, Black chose 16…Kh8. Then
there was 17.a4 b4 (here 17…d5!?N is apparently somewhat better) 18.0-0
e4. Here White committed an inaccuracy 19.cxb4?! (19.Bc4!N 19…bxc3
20.bxc3 Bxc3 21.Rb1 with a solid advantage for White is better). Now it was
Black’s turn to err – 19…Bxb2? 20.Rb1 Be5 21.Bc4!, and White won.
Instead of 19…Bxb2?, Black should have played 19…Rad8!N, for
example, 20.Nd5 Qe5 21.f6 Bh6, and if 22.Bc4?!, then 22…Rg8! 23.g3 Rg5
24.Ne3 Rxg3! 25.fxg3 (25.hxg3 Bxe3! 26.Kh2 Rg8 27.Ra3 Bxf2 28.Rxf2 e3
is bad as Black’s advantage is obvious) 25…Bxe3+ 26.Kg2 Bb6 27.Qe2 e3
28.Kh3 Bc8+ 29.Kg2 Bb7+ with a draw.
17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.Qxd5 Rac8 19.0-0 Rc5
In Spitz-Kerr, corr 2007, there followed 20.Qe4 d5 21.Qg4 d4 22.Rfd1
and though White had a certain advantage, a draw was agreed. Instead of
20.Qe4, preferable was 20.Qf3 or 20.Qd2.
Chapter 46
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 11…Ne7 12.Nxe7
Qxe7 13.c3 f5 14.Nc2 without 14…Qb7 or 13.0-0
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3!?
This is the main continuation that allows White to fight for an advantage
successfully. He has managed to prevent the freeing advance f6-f5 for the
moment.
11…Ne7
This is the usual move. On 11…0-0 12.0-0 (if White wishes, he can
obtain an advantage by 12.Qh5 Ne7 13.Nxe7+ Qxe7 14.Nb1!?N) 12…Ne7
13.Nxe7+ Qxe7, the game transposes to main 11…Ne7 variation.
After 11…Be6 12.0-0 f5, the game transposes to the 10…f5 variation, but
White also has an opportunity to play 12.Ne3!? Bh6 13.0-0 with better
chances.
12.Nxe7
Other moves are noticeably worse. The variation 12.c4?! Nxd5 13.cxd5
f5 14.exf5 e4 15.Bxe4 Bxb2 16.Nc2 Bc3+! 17.Kf1 Qe7 18.f3 Bxa1 19.Qxa1
Qe5 leads to a black advantage. 12.Qf3?! Nxd5 13.exd5 Qd7! is also in favor
of Black. The continuation 12.Ne3 f5 13.exf5 d5 leads to equal play, but
quite differently from the way Sveshnikov sees it.
His variation is “14.Qg4 Rg8 15.Qh4! Qd6 16.0-0-0 e4 17.Nxd5! Nxd5

18.Bxe4 Bxb2! 19.Kxb2 Qb4+ 20.Ka1 Qc3+ 21.Kb1 Qb4+ with perpetual
check.”
Following our skeptical tradition, let us check it. Well, there are four
serious errors there.
For openers, instead of 18…Bxb2??, Black wins with 18…Bf6!N, for
example, 19.Rxd5 Qe7 20.Qh5 Qxe4, or 19.Qh3 Bb7 20.Qb3 0-0-0 21.g3
Qc5, etc.
Instead of the losing move 17.Nxd5??, correct is 17.Bxe4!N, with equal
play after 17…Bxb2+ (17…Qe5? 18.Nxd5! Qxb2+ 19.Kd2 loses).
Instead of the hasty 16…e4?!, Black retains his advantage after 16…Bf6!,
for example, 17.Qh3 Bb7N. Finally, instead of the hyperactive 14.Qg4?!,
correct is 14.c3! with equal play.
12…Qxe7 13.c3
The main move, 13.0-0, will be discussed in chapters 48-59. 13.c4 f5
14.0-0, with a transposition to the 13.0-0 variation (after 14.cxb5? d5!or
14.Qf3? d5!, Black’s position is better) is playable.
13…f5
The variations 13…d5 14.Nc2 f5 and 13…0-0 14.Nc2 f5 are of no
independent importance as in both cases, the game transposes to the main line
of this chapter, 13…f5.
14.Nc2
One of the two main continuations. The other one, 14.0-0, leads
transposes to the 13.0-0 variation.
14…0-0
The continuation 14…Qb7 will be investigated in the next chapter.
The move 14…Bb7 occurs often enough; the best answer is 15.exf5 (in
the rapid game Anand-Kramnik, Moscow 1994 there was 15.Ne3?! fxe4
16.Nf5 Qf6 17.Bxe4 d5 18.Bxd5 Rd8 19.Qg4 Rxd5 20.Qxg7 Qxg7 21.Nxg7
Ke7 22.Nf5 Ke6 23.Ne3 Rd7, and White has only a small advantage). Then it
is possible to continue 15…Qg5 16.Ne3 d5 17.0-0. Here in Topalov-Spasov,
Budapest 1993, Black played 17…0-0!?, and the game transposed to a
position in the 13.0-0 variation which is going to be explored in chapter 49
(17…h5 is a little weaker: 18.Qb3 Rd8, (Morgado-Volodin, corr. 2002), and
now instead of 19.Qb4?, the correct move is 19.a4!N, for example, 19…d4
20.cxd4 exd4 21.f4 with advantage for White).
14…Qg5 is insufficient for equality, for example, 15.0-0 Bb7 (in Vallejo-
Caruana, Arvier 2010, there was 15…f4 16.a4! bxa4 17.Rxa4 0-0, and the
game transposed back to the 13.0-0, see chapter 49) 16.f3 (here 16.Qf3!? f4
17.a4!, with advantage for White, is not bad) 16…0-0 17.exf5 d5. Then in
Leko-Magem, Pamplona 1994, there was 18.a4?! e4 19.Be2 Be5! 20.Qe1 b4
21.Nxb4, and now instead of 21…d4?!, the correct continuation is 21…Qh6!
22.g3 a5 23.Nc2 Qb6+ 24.Kg2 Qxb2 25.Nd4!N Bxd4 26.Rb1 Qxc3 27.Rxb7
with equal play.
Instead of 18.a4?!, it is better to play 18.Qc1! Qf6 19.a4, and White has a
small edge.
15.Qh5
White prepares to castle queenside. After 15.exf5 e4 16.Be2 Bxf5 17.0-0
Bd7!N, hindering a2-a4, White’s advantage is minimal. 15.0-0! with
transposition to the 13.0-0 variation is somewhat better.
15…f4! 16.0-0-0
Here White often plays 16.g3, and after 16…f5 17.0-0-0 Bb7, instead of
the usual move 18.Rhe1, it is better to play 18.f3!, retaining his small
advantage.
16…Be6 17.g3
17.Kb1 does not bring any advantage because of 17…Qd7!, for example,
18.h3 a5 19.g3 b4! 20.c4 b3 21.axb3 Qb7 22.gxf4 Qxb3!N 23.Na1 Qb4
24.Rhg1 (or 24.Nc2 Qb3) 24…Rfb8 25.b3 Qc3 26.f5 (26.Qg5?? exf4) 26…
Rxb3+ 27.Nxb3 Rb8 28.Bc2 Rxb3+ 29.Bxb3 Qxb3+, with perpetual check.
Then in Noble-Standke, corr 2009, there was 17…Bxa2 18.gxf4 Qf6!
19.f5 Bh6+ 20.Ne3 Kh8 21.Kc2 Bxe3 22.fxe3 a5 23.Ra1 and despite
White’s small advantage, the opponents
Chapter 47
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7
13.c3 f5 14.Nc2 Qb7
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.c3 f5
14.Nc2 Qb7
15.f3!?
This move is a relatively recent one. The variation 15.exf5 Qxg2 16.Rf1
does not lead to any advantage. Then it is possible to continue 16…Bh6 (on
16…Bb7, either 17.Ne3 Qg5! 18.Qe2!N or 17.a4!N,with with equal chances
in both cases) 17.Be2 Bxf5 18.Qxd6 (or 18.Ne3 Bxe3 19.fxe3 Qe4!N with
equal play) 18…Bxc2 19.Qxh6 Qg6 20.Qe3 0-0 21.Rc1 Bf5. The game is
level. In Spitz-Taler, corr 1999, there followed 22.Rd1 Rfe8 23.a3 Bc2
24.Rd2 Bb3 25.f3 Kh8 26.Rg1 Qe6 27.Bd3 Rg8 28.Rdg2 Bd5, and soon a
draw was agreed.
When this line first began to develop, White would almost invariably play
15.Qf3.
Then the most common continuation is 15…0-0 16.Ne3 f4 17.Nd5 Be6
18.g4 b4 19.c4. Here they usually play 19…Bxd5 (after 19…Rac8! 20.0-0-
0!N Bxd5 21.exd5 b3 22.a3 Qe7, Black is a little closer to equality) 20.exd5!
(20.cxd5, as in Dolmatov-Topalov, Groningen 1993, leads only to equal
play), and now 20…Qe7!, instead of the usual 20…e4.
In Spitz-Cardelli, corr 2006, there followed 21.Be4N (21.Bf5!? is more
precise) 21…Qh4 22.b3 a5 23.a4 bxa3 24.Rxa3 Bf6 25.0-0 h5 26.h3 Bd8
27.b4, and a draw was agreed.
In Polgar-San Segundo, Madrid 1993, instead of 16.Ne3, the move 16.0-0
occurred; then there was 16…d5 17.exf5 e4 18.Qg3 (18.Qf4 exd3 19.f6 also
leads to an equal game) 18…Kh8 19.Be2 Bxf5 20.Rad1 Rad8 21.Rd2 Be6
22.a3 f5 (here Black has a strong novelty, 22…Bh6!) 23.f4 a5 24.Nd4 Bd7
25.Rfd1 Rc8 26.b4 Qc7 27.Rc2 axb4 28.axb4 Ra8 29.Qe3 Qb8 30.Nb3 Ra3,
and Black’s position is every bit as good as White’s.
15…f4 16.Nb4
Another typical move, 16.0-0, allows 16…a5!, hampering the knight’s
transfer to d5 via b4. In Hall-Dotan, corr 2006, there followed 17.Qe2 Bd7
18.Kh1 0-0 19.g3 Kh8 20.gxf4 exf4 21.Rg1 Be5, and White has nothing to
show for it. The game continued 22.a3 Rg8 23.Nd4 b4 24.Bc4 bxa3 25.bxa3
Rxg1+ 26.Rxg1 Rg8 27.Rxg8+ Kxg8, and several moves later the game was
drawn.
16…Be6
In Luther-Gustafsson, Panormo 2001, Black played 16…0-0. White’s
reply, 17.Bc2, was not quite correct. After 17.0-0 Be6, the game could have
transposed to the 16…Be6 variation. There followed 17…a5 18.Nd5 Be6,
and here White made another slip, 19.g4?!. Now Black could have played
19…b4!N with excellent play, but he preferred 19…Qa7!?, and after 20.Kf1,
he once again had the move 20…b4!N (in the game there was 20…Rac8
21.a3, and White managed to escape further problems), for example, 21.cxb4
Rfb8 22.Bb3 a4 23.Bc4 Bxd5! 24.Bxd5 Rxb4, and 25.Bxa8?? is impossible
because of 25…Rxb2 26.Qe1 Qa6+ 27.Kg1 Qb6+ 28.Kf1 Qb5 29.Kg1 Qc5+
30.Kf1 Qc2, and Black wins.
17.Qc2
The pawn sacrifice 17.0-0!? a5 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Qxd5 20.Kh1 is
worth serious attention, as White has more than enough compensation.
17…0-0
Here Black has an interesting continuation 17…Ke7!?N: 18.0-0-0 a5
19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.exd5 b4 21.c4 a4 with good play. Then in Coleman-Toro,
corr 2007, there was 18.Nd5 Rac8 19.0-0 a5 20.Kh1 Rc5 21.a3 a4 22.Nb4
Bf6 23.Qf2 Kh8 24.Rfd1 Be7 25.Bb1 Rcc8 26.Rd2 Bc4 27.Ba2 Bxa2
28.Nxa2 f5 29.exf5 Rxf5 30.Nb4 Rh5 31.Rad1 Rh6. White has a small edge,
but it is unclear how to increase it, so after several more moves the game was
drawn.
Chapter 48
13.0-0 without 13…0-0
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.0-0
This is the main continuation. White postpones the decision about how to
bring his a3-knight into play, whether b7 c2-c3 or after c2-c4.
13…f5
The main move, 13…0-0, will be examined later.
On 13…d5, White should play 14.c3! (14.exd5 f5 15.d6 Qe6 is less
promising), for example, 14…0-0 (14…dxe4 is slightly worse: 15.Bxe4 Rb8
16.Qf3 with an advantage for White, Rodriguez-Espinosa, Merida 1997, and
after 14…f5 15.exf5, the game transposes to the 13…f5 4.exf5 d5 15.c3
variation) 15.Nc2 f5 (15…Bb7? is poor because of 16.Ne3!, for example,
16…dxe4? 17.Nf5 Qe6 18.Qg4, and White wins), and the game transposes to
the variation 13…0-0.
14.c3
14.c4 is more usual, and after 14…0-0, the game transposes to the 13…0-
0 14.c4 f5 variation which will be examined in chapters 52-59.
The move 14.exf5 employed by Anand against Lobron, Dortmund 1996,
is less common. Then there was 14…Bb7 (after 14…d5!? 15.c3 0-0 16.Nc2,
the game could have transposed to the well-explored variation starting with
13…0-0; see chapter 49) 15.Re1 Qg5 (White also has an advantage after
15…d5 16.c3) 16.g3 (16.Be4!?, with an advantage for White, is also fine)
16…0-0 17.c4 Rae8?!N (17…Rad8!? is better) 18.Be4 Bxe4 19.Rxe4 Qxf5
20.Qd5 b4?! (another inaccuracy; 20…bxc4 is better) 21.Nc2, and White
converted his advantage into a win.
14…Bb7
The usual move here is 14…0-0, and the game transposes to the variation
13..0-0.
15.exf5
15.Re1 0-0 16.exf5 Qg5 17.g3 is playable, and the game transposes to the
15.exf5 variation with 17.Re1.
15…Qg5
Thus, Black sacrificed a pawn, but did not have full compensation for it.
16.g3!
16.f3 is weaker because of 16…d5!. Giving check with 16…Qe3+?!
(Morgado-Pankratov, corr 1997) is pointless: after 17.Kh1 d5 18.Nc2, as it all
results in a waste of time for Black and to White’s advantage. It is possible to
play 17.f4 Qh6!N (in Sevecek-Demian, corr 1998, Black took the pawn with
17…exf4?! and after 18.Qf3 0-0-0 19.Nc2 Rhg8 20.Rae1, White obtained a
small advantage) 18.Nc2 e4 19.Be2, and White is left with only a very slight
advantage.
16…0-0
16…h5?! is weak because of 17.h4!. Then possible is 17…Qe7N(17…
Qf6!? is a little better) 18.Re1! d5 19.Nc2, and White has a serious
advantage.
For example, in the game De Las Heras-Vaisser, Benasque 1997, there
followed 19…Bf6 (after 19…e4 20.a4!, that occurred in Casabona-Toro, corr
2007, White’s advantage is even greater) 20.Ne3N (20.a4! is more precise)
20…Bxh4? (20…Kf8 21.a4 Qc5 is better, although even then White has a
solid advantage). Here White could have easily taken the bishop with
21.gxh4! (the text move 21.Nxd5? is prettier but weaker: after 21…Bxd5!N
22.Bxb5+ Kf8 23.Qxd5 Rd8, Black is still able to resist), for example, 21…
Qxh4 22.Ng2 Qf6 23.Qf3, and Black has no attack.
17.h4
Another plan is 17.Re1. In Joecks-Kalinistschew, Germany 1997, after
17…d5 18.Nc2 e4 19.Bf1 Qxf5 20.a4 bxa4 21.Rxa4 Rfd8 22.Nd4 Qg5,
White safely blockaded Black’s pawn center. Now he could have fixed his
advantage with 23.Qb3!N.
17…Qf6
17…Qe7 is no better: 18.Nc2 d5!N (18…Kh8?! is weaker because of
another novelty, 19.a4!, with a clear advantage for White) 19.Qh5 e4
20.Rfe1, and White has an advantage.
18.Qh5!N
18.Qg4 d5 19.Nc2 has also occurred, but the g4-square may become
useful to white knight planning a3-c2-e3-g4 route.
18…d5 19.Nc2 d4 20.cxd4 exd4 21.Rfe1 Rfe8 22.Rxe8+ Rxe8 23.Re1
Black does not have full compensation for his pawn, so White’s chances
are better.
Chapter 49
8.Ca3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Cd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ce7 12.Cxe7 Qxe7
13.0-0 0-0 14.c3 f5 15.Cc2 without 15…Rb8 or 14.c4
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.0-0 0-0
(D)
This is the main continuation.

14.c3!?
A solid move which occurs about three times less than 14.c4. However, I
believe that this move is at least no weaker and that Black’s problems here
are not easier than after the usual move 14.c4. The move 14.c4 will be
examined in chapters 52-59.
The development of the game Anand-Kramnik, Hoogeveen 1998, was

interesting: 14.Qf3 f5 15.exf5?! (15.c4!, transposing to the 14.c4 variation, is
better) 15…d5! 16.Qxd5 Bb7 17.Qb3 e4 18.Be2 (another possibility is
18.Rfe1 Bd4! 19.Bf1 e3 20.fxe3N Be5 with equal play) 18…Qg5 19.Rad1?!
(this is an inaccuracy: 19.Nc4, with equal play, is better) 19…e3 20.f3 Be5?!
(now it is Black who makes a mistake: after the correct 20…Rac8!N, he has a
small edge, for example, 21.c3! Rfd8 22.Rxd8+ Rxd8 23.Rd1 Rd2, etc.
21.Nc4?! is worse because of 21…Rxc4 22.Bxc4 bxc4 23.Qxb7? e2, and
Black’s advantage is great) 21.Nc4 Bf4 22.Rd4 Bd5?! (another slip-up, and
now the advantage passes to White; the correct continuation is 22…Rad8!
with equal play) 23.Rxf4! Qxf4 24.Qxe3 Qxf5 25.Bd3 Qf6 26.Nb6
(26.Ne5!N) 26…Rad8 27.Nxd5 Rxd5 28.Qe4 Qd4+ 29.Qxd4 Rxd4 30.Re1,
and a draw was agreed.
14…f5 15.Nc2
In Sokolov-Dolmatov, Moscow 1992, after 15.exf5 e4 16.Be2 Bxf5
17.Nc2 Qe5 18.a4 Be6 19.Qd2 f5 20.axb5 axb5 21.Nd4 b4, the game was
drawn.
15…f4
Fixing the position in the center and planning the attack on the kingside.
The move 15…Rb8 will be considered in the next two chapters.
The move 15…d5!? is worth attention, despite the fact that it is
insufficient for equality because of 16.exf5 e4 17.Be2 Rd8 18.a4! (the most
usual move is 18.Nd4, and that should be met with 18…Qf6! with the idea of
b5-b4) 18…bxa4 19.Rxa4 Bxf5 20.Qd2!N. However, White’s advantage in
this position is less than in the main variations of chapters 49-51, where the
continuation 13.c3 is investigated.
The move 15…Bb7 occurs fairly often. (D)
White takes the pawn with 16.exf5!. Now after 16…e4 17.Re1 (17.Be2 is
also quite good) 17…d5
18.Qh5, the game transposes into the variation 16…d5.

In Killonis-Toro, corr 2002 there occurred 16…d5 17.Qh5 e4 18.Rfe1
Rad8. After 19.Rad1, White is a pawn up in a solid position, so his chances
are better.
Probably the best reply for Black is 16…Qg5!; then possible is 17.Ne3
(the position after 17.f3 is examined in chapter 46; the variation 17.g3! e4
18.Be2 Qxf5 19.a4, with an advantage for White, is probably even better)
17…d5 18.f4 exf4 19.Qg4 Qxg4 (after 19…Bf6, White also has an
advantage) 20.Nxg4 Rfe8! (20…f6?!, Spasov-Topalov, Budapest 1993, is
weak) 21.Rxf4 h5 22.f6 Bf8 23.Rd1 Re6!N and White possesses an
advantage in the endgame (23…hxg4?? loses to 24.Rxg4+ Kh8 25.Rh4+ Kg8
26.Bh7+ Kh8 27.Be4+ Kg8 28.Rd3).
Let us return to the move 15…f4.
16.a4!
16.Nb4!? is also good.
16…bxa417.Rxa4 Qg5
This is the most popular move, but it does not seem the strongest to me.
With correct play by White, Black’s attack on the kingside has little chance
for success. I like two other continuations better.
For example, there is 17…a5!?, after which White usually replies 18.b4,
and now 18…d5!?N, for example, 19.Rxa5 Rxa5 20.bxa5 dxe4 21.Bxe4 Qc7,
etc.
In Schramm-Petrolo, corr 2007, Black tried 17…Qb7!?. White
immediately squandered his advantage almost completely with 18.Nb4?! (he
could still fight for the advantage with 18.Qa1!?N), and after 18…a5 19.Qa1
f3! 20.Rxa5 fxg2 21.Kxg2 Rxa5 22.Qxa5 Kh8, Black obtained good play.
Even so, neither move leads to equality.
18.f3!?
In the position in the diagram the most common move is 18.Qe2. In
Vallejo-Caruana, Arvier 2010, Black’s answer was not reassuring: 18…Bf6
19.Rfa1 Kh8?! 20.Ne1 Bg4?! 21.f3 Be6 22.Rxa6, and Black has no
compensation for his pawn.
Instead of 19…Kh8, it is better to play 19…Bd8, and instead of 20…Bg4
– 20…Rb8N. However, White also had 22.Bc4!N which is a little stronger
than the game move.
The best answer after 18.Qe2 is 18…a5!. In Goloshchapov-Jakovenko,
St. Vincent 2005, White played 19.Ne1?! (here he suddenly found out that his
planned move 19.Rfa1 would run into 19…Bd7!, and to take the pawn with
20.Rxa5? Rxa5 21.Rxa5 was not healthy because of 21…f3!; it was better to
play 19.Na3, and White retains an advantage). Black’s answer was also
inaccurate, 19…Bb7?!N (19…Bf6! is better), and after 20.Nf3 Qd8 21.Bc4
Bc6 22.Ra2, White had an advantage. 22.Bb5!N was even better.
The continuation 18.Qd2!? is very popular in correspondence games. As
we have seen, queen on e2 is sometimes vulnerable to f4-f3, so White
chooses a more accurate move. Then possible is 18…Kh8 (this is the most
common move; 18…f5 is no better because of 19.f3!?N.) 19.Rfa1 f5 (both
19…Rg8 20.Ne1 and 20.Ba6 are in White’s favor) 20.f3!? (20.exf5 d5N
21.f3 Rd8, etc. leads to sharper play, but also with advantage for White) 20…
Bb7 21.Rb4. White’s position is better.
Then there usually follows 18…Bf6 19.Bc4!
In Goloshchapov-Khalifman, Izmir 2004, White’s continuation was
markedly weaker – 19.Nb4?! – and after 19…Kh8, he simply made a
mistake, 20.Bxa6? (20.Nd5 Rg8 21.Rf2 Bd8 with equal play is better). There
followed 20…Rg8 21.Rf2 Bd8, and White proceeded to make another error,
22.Bxc8? (22.Kh1 is better) 22…Bb6 23.Bg4? (23.Kf1!) 23…Rxa4 24.Qxa4
h5, and White’s position is hopeless.
19…Kh8 20.Rf2!
The move 20.Qxd6? allows Black to seize the initiative after 20…Rg8,
for example, 21.Qd2!N (after 21.Ne1? Be7!, Black has a great advantage, for
example, 22.Qd3 Bc5+ 23.Kh1 Ra7!, and then he transfers his major pieces
to the h-file) 21…Qh5 or 21…Ra7, etc.
20…Be7
20…a5!N seems a little better. In Polgar-Kasparov, Prague 2002, White
chose the move
21.Nb4?
An obvious error. She should have played 21.Kh1!N, and Black faces
serious problems obtaining active play.
21…d5! 22.Bxd5 Bc5 23.Bxa8?
And this already a forced loss. The correct move is 23.Nd3!N and gives
White a chance to set up a long-time defense.
23…Rg8 24.Kf1 Bxf2 25.Ke2 Qxg2
The engine states that 25…Be3!N wins more quickly.
Chapter 50
13.0-0 0-0 14.c3 f5 15.Nc2 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 without 17.Be2
14.c3 f5 15.Nc2 Rb8
The prophylactic rook move is aimed at hampering the break a2-a4

prepared by White. Though the most common one, it is nevertheless no better
than three other moves considered in the previous chapter and is also
insufficient for equality.
16.exf5
This move occurs in almost every game; however, there are other options.
(a) Despite Black’s preventive measures, 16.a4 is quite playable, for
example, 16…bxa4 17.Nb4 fxe4 18.Bxe4 Bd7 19.Qc2 with a small
advantage for White.
(b) White’s advantage is roughly the same after 16.Qh5 fxe4 17.Bxe4 f5
18.Bd5+ Kh8 19.Nb4.
(c) The variation 16.Re1 fxe4 (Black has the good moves 16…d5!? and
16…f4!?) 17.Bxe4. In Anand-Khalifman, Moscow 2002, there followed 17…
a5 18.Nd4 Bd7?! 19.Qh5 h6 20.Nf5 Qg5 21.Qxg5 hxg5 22.Nxd6 Be6, and
Black’s compensation is no more than a half-pawn. Instead of 20.Nf5, there
is an interesting novelty 20.Nc6!?, and instead of 18…Bd7?!, another
novelty, 18…Qf6, is better.
In the rapid game Anand-Radjabov, Mainz 2006, there followed 17…f5
(instead of 17…a5) 18.Bd5+ Kh8 19.Nb4 Qc7 20.Bb3?! (20.Re3!? is more
accurate) 20…a5 21.Nd5 Qb7 22.a3 Be6 23.Ne3 Bxb3 24.Qxb3 f4 25.Nd5,
and soon the game was drawn.
16…e4 17.Re1
This move occurs in approximately five games out of six. However, we
are going to see that it brings only a small advantage for White. A stronger
move, 17.Be2!, will be considered in the next chapter.
17…Bxf5
18.Ne3!?
18.Nd4 is a rather frequent move, but after 18…Bxd4 19.cxd4 d5 20.Qd2
Rb6, White’s advantage is really slight. In Short-Illescas, Madrid 1997, there
followed 21.Rac1 (21.Qf4! is a little better) 21…Rg6 (Black’s attack has no
chance of success, so 21…Rc8! is better) 22.Bf1 Qh4 23.Re3 Qg5 24.g3?!
(the correct move is 24.Rc5! with a small advantage for White. Illescas in his
comments points out the variation 24…Bh3 25.Qc3 Bxg2 26.Rg3 Bf3!, and
Black has an advantage; however, he overlooks a simple novelty 26.h4!, and
Black is on the brink of defeat. Because of this Black would have to play
24…Be6) 24…h5, and the game was level.
The move 18.Nb4 occurs even more frequently.
Here Black has a choice of several options.
(a) In Lutz-Lautier, Germany 2001, there was 18…Rbe8?! 19.Bf1 Qg5,
and now, instead of 20.Nc6, White could have easily taken the pawn on a6
and retained the advantage.
(b) The move 18…Qb7 occurs frequently, but after 19.Bc2 a5 20.Nd5
Rfe8 21.Qd2 Bg6 22.Rad1, White’s advantage is somewhat greater than in
the main line.
(c) The best reply for Black is 18…a5!. Then there follows 19.Nd5 (the
variation 19.Nc6? Qb7 20.Bxe4 Bxe4 21.Nxb8 Rxb8 22.Qxd6 Bxg2 23.Re7
Qa8 24.Rae1 Rf8 25.R7e3 Qc6 is in Black’s favor) 19…Qe5 20.Bc2.
In this position Black has 20…b4!?N (20…Bg6 is usually played,
transposing to main variation of this chapter), for example, 21.f3 bxc3
22.bxc3 Rb2 23.Bxe4 (or 23.fxe4 Be6 with equal play) 23…Bxe4 24.fxe4 (or
24.Rxe4 Qg5 25.Rg4 Qd2 with equality) 24…Rfb8! with equal play.
This is exactly why the move 18.Ne3 is more precise, and so we now
return to it. Then there usually follows 18…Bg6 19.Nd5 Qe5 20.Bc2 a5 (D)
20…Kh8 is also quite playable.
21.f4
This is the usual move, but I believe that 21.f3!? is a bit better, and on
21…f5, White replies 22.a3!?, hindering b5-b4. Then in the game Berg-
Nithander, Gothenburg 2010, there followed 22…Kh8 23.Qd2 Rfc8
24.Rad1?! (the correct move is 24.Kh1!, moving the king away from the
dangerous diagonal) 24…b4! 25.axb4 axb4 26.fxe4 (the b4-pawn is
untouchable: 26.Nxb4 Qc5+ 27.Kh1 Rxb4 28.cxb4
Qxc2) 26…bxc3 27.bxc3 fxe4 28.Nf4 Bf5 29.Qxd6 Qxd6 30.Rxd6 Bxc3
31.Rf1 Be5 32.Rd5 Bxf4 and a draw was agreed.
21…Qe6 22.Qd2
The variation 22.g4 f5 23.Ne3 Kh8 24.gxf5 Bxf5 25.Nxf5 Qxf5 26.Rxe4
b4! 27.Kh1 bxc3 28.bxc3 Rb2 29.Rb1 d5 30.Rxb2 leads to equality (in this
position the game Berg-Gharamian, Maastricht 2010, the players agreed to a
draw).
22…Kh8 23.a3 f5 24.Bb3 Qc8
Here Black has a nice-looking novelty 24…Bf7!?. In another rapid game
Anand-Radjabov, Mainz 2006, there followed the inaccurate…
25.Qf2?!
After 25.Kh1!N, White is left with only a minimal advantage.
25…Qc5
This leads to equality; once again, Black has 25…Bf7!. 26.Rad1 Bf7
27.Bc2 Bxd5 28.Qxc5 dxc5 29.Rxd5 b4 30.Rxc5 bxc3 31.bxc3 Rbc8
32.Rxc8 32.Rb5!? Rxc3 33.Bb3 is apparently simpler 32…Rxc8 33.Rd1 Bf8
34.Kf1? and White lost. He could have drawn with 34.Rd5!.
Chapter 51
13.0-0 0-0 14.c3 f5 15.Nc2 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 17.Be2
14.c3 f5 15.Nc2 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 17.Be2 (D)
This simple retreat secures an undisputed advantage for White which is

about twice as great as the one he has in the original position. And because
the resulting position is rather stable, the adherents of the move 10…Bg7
have a problem here.
And if we take into consideration the fact that in the main (or, more
exactly, the most popular!) continuation, 14.c4, all is not rosy, it comes as no
surprise that the popularity of the move 10…Bg7 has gradually decreased.
For example, among the best players it reached its peak around 1994 or 1995
and has been declining since.
17…Bxf5 18.Nb4 Qg5 19.f4!
Let us examine other options.
(a) 19.Qxd6?! does not bring any advantage because of 19…Rbd8!N, (but
not 19…Rfd8? 20.Qg3 with a serious advantage for White, Jobava-
Khairullin, Moscow 2008) 20.Qc5 (or 20.Qg3 Qd2 21.Nc6 Rde8), for
example, 20…Rd2 21.h4 Qxh4 22.Qxf5 Rxe2, etc.
(b) In Adams-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2001, White played poorly:
19.Kh1?! Be5 20.a4?! a5! 21.Nc6 bxa4 22.f4 exf3 23.Rxf3 Be4 24.Nxb8?
(24.Nxe5, with a small advantage for Black, is better) 24…Rxb8 25.Rxa4.
Here instead of both the game move, 25…d5?, and the continuation
recommended by Kramnik, 25…Bxf3 26.Bxf3 Qh6 (on which White has
27.Bh5N) the correct move is 25…Qh6!N, for example, 26.g3 Bxf3+
27.Bxf3 Rxb2 28.Bg2 Kf8 29.Rxa5 Bxg3 30.Ra8+ Kg7 31.Qg4+ Kf6
32.Qf3+ Bf4, and Black is a pawn up.
(c) On the contrary, 19.Qc1!? is unpleasant for Black, for example, 19…
Qxc1 20.Raxc1 Rb6 21.Nd5 Rb7 22.f3, as in Starke-Cruzado, corr 2010.
19…exf3 20.Bxf3
20…Rb6
The pawn sacrifice 20…Rbe8?! 21.Nxa6! has been tested (21.Nc6?,
Ivanchuk-Radjabov, Sofia 2008, throws away the advantage. Now Black
could have fully equalized with 21…Be4!N, but Radjabov preferred 21…
Be5, and after 22.Nxe5 dxe5 23.Qc1 Qxc1 24.Raxc1 Be6, there arose a level
position. However, White missed an opportunity, 22.a4!N, with a small
advantage). In Siigur-Chiru, corr 2009, there followed 21…Re6 22.Nb4 Rfe8
23.Rf2, and Black does not have adequate compensation for his pawn.
20…Be5 is playable, for example, 21.Rf2! (now 21.Nxa6 is already not
so good because of 21…Rb6!N, 22.Nb4 Qe3+ 23.Kh1 Qh6 24.g3 Bxg3
25.Qe2 Kh8, and White has only a small advantage). In Cook-Nilsen, corr
2009, there was 21…Rbc8 22.Nxa6 Kh8 (22…d5 is a little better, but White
retains an advantage anyway) 23.Nb4 Be6 24.Nd3 Bf6?! (24…Bg7) 25.Qd2
Rfd8 26.Nb4 (26.Nf4!?) 26…d5 27.Qxg5 Bxg5 28.Re2 Be7 29.Kf2 Bc5+
30.Ke1 Rd6 31.Nc2, and White has an advantage.
Let us return to the move 20…Rb6.
21.Nd5
This is the usual move, but there are also other playable ones, for
example, 21.Rf2 or 21.a3, and the game may transpose to the main variation.
21…Rbb8 22.Rf2 Be6 23.g3 a5 24.a3 Rfc8
In Rattinger-Cruzado, corr 2009, there followed 25.Qd3
In my opinion, this is not right. Black has a lot of weaknesses, but he also
has the bishop pair. In such situations, White’s usual strategy is to trade off
one of those bishops. In our case he should seek to the exchange the light-
square ones.
It would be interesting to test 25.Nf4!?N, for example, 25…Bc4 26.Bd5!?
(26.Qxd6? is bad because of 26…Bf8 and Bc5) 26…Rc5 27.Bxc4 bxc4
28.Qf3! Rcb5 29.Re1 Be5 (29…Rxb2?? loses to 30.Rxb2 Rxb2 31.Re8+ Bf8
32.Rxf8+ Kxf8 33.Ne6) 30.Nh3!? Qg6 31.Ree2 with an advantage for White.
25…Kh8 26.Re1
There is an interesting novelty, 26.Rd1!?, here.
26…Be5 27.Be4 Rc5 28.Nf4 Bc4 29.Qd1 f5 30.Bc2 Rg8 31.Qd2 h5
32.Nd3 Qxd2 33.Rxd2 Bxd3 34.Rxd3 h4 35.Kf2 b4 36.Bb3 hxg3 and the
Chapter 52
13.0-0 0-0 14.c4 f5 15.Qh5 without 15…Rb8 or 15.Qf3
14.c4
I have already mentioned that this is the most popular continuation. White
wishes to solve the problem of his a3-knight with tempo. But in fact, Black
can simply ignore the threat of the capture on b5, and thus the move c2-c4 is
less formidable than it looks. Another drawback of this move is that it does
not facilitate the restriction of the activity of the g7-bishop, so the pawn on b2
is going to hang in many variations.
14…f5! 15.Qh5
White has other options:
(a) The usual common move here is 15.Qf3. We will explore it in
chapters 55-59.
(b) The move 15.cxb5?! occurred in the game Cheparinov-Carlsen, Wijk
aan Zee 2005. Then there was 15…d5 16.exd5 e4 17.Qe2 Rb8?! (the usual
continuation here is 17…Qb4! 18.Bc4 Qxb2 19.Nc2 axb5 20.Rab1 Qf6
21.Rxb5 f4, and now the correct move is 22.Qd2! with equal play) 18.Rab1
(18.Bc4!?) 18…Rb6 19.Qe3?! (This move squanders White’s small
advantage. Why drive the rook where it wants to go anyway? The correct
move is 19.g3!N, and White has a small advantage.) 19…Rg6 20.Bc2N
(20.g3!? is more accurate) 20…Qh4 21.b6??, and now instead of 21…Kh8?,
Black could have obtained a won position with 21…f4!N, for example,
22.Qxe4 Rh6 23.h3 Qg5, and if 24.Kh2?, then 24…Be5!, and Black wins.
(c) 15.Re1 is a little better. Then it is possible to continue 15…fxe4
16.Bxe4 Rb8 17.cxb5 axb5. In Kosten-Chandler, Hastings 1991 there
followed 18.Qd3 f5 19.Bd5+ Kh8 20.Nxb5 e4 21.Qb3 Be5 22.a4 Bd7
23.Rac1 Qe8 24.Bc4?!.
The players had played rather well until this point in the game, but here
White should have chosen 24.Qd1!N with equal play. 24.Rc2?, recommended
by Boensch and Rogers, can be met with 24…Bxb5 25.axb5 Rxb5 26.Qa2
Bxh2+27.Kxh2 Qe5+ 28.Kg1 Qxd5, and White loses a pawn. Admittedly,
this pawn on h2 is the most inconspicuous one, but it’s a shame anyway.
Perhaps, 25…Qxb5!? 26.Qa2 Qd3! is even stronger.
In the game there followed 24…Qh5 25.h3 Qg6! 26.Bd5 Rg8! 27.g3 Rg7
28.Rc7 Qh5, and Black pressed home his attack.
(d) 15.Qe2 often occurs.
Then there usually follows 15…Bb7 16.Rad1 Rad8 17.f3 fxe4 (17…bxc4
is a bit weaker) 18.fxe4 f5N (18…bxc4! is a little better). Here in the game
Georgy Timoshenko-Gagarin, Budapest 1993, White made the mistake
19.Nc2? (the correct move is 19.cxb5! with a small advantage for White);
there followed 19…bxc4 20.Bxc4+, and now instead of the erroneous 20…
d5?, Black should have played 20…Kh8!N with a small advantage.
Let us return to the move 15.Qh5.
15…d5!?
This is a rare continuation, but I decided to devote a separate chapter to it

because I have managed to discover an important novelty for Black on move
16. Analysis show that Black’s chances after 15…d5!? are at least no worse
than in the main continuation, 15…Rb8, which is going to be investigated in
the following two chapters.
16.cxd5
16.exf5? is completely bad because of 16…e4 17.Rae1 bxc4; 16.exd5?!
e4 17.Rae1 Bxb2 is in Black’s favor.
16…Qd8!
And this is the novelty that I have been talking about. Black threatens to
take on e4. Not good is the immediate 16…fxe4? 17.Bxe4 f5 because of
18.d6. The usual move here is 16…f4?!, after which there is the strong reply
17.Rfc1 Kh8 18.Nc2!N Rg8 19.Ne1 Bf8 20.Be2, and Black is left without
compensation for the pawn, for example, 20…f5 21.Bd3 fxe4 22.Bxe4 Bg4
23.d6! Qg7 24.Qh4 with a great advantage for White.
17.exf5
The idea of 16…Qd8! becomes clear in the variation 17.f3 f4 18.Kh1
Rb8! 19.Rg1 Rb6, and the white queen cannot retreat to h4, while its black
counterpart does not interfere with the rook’s transfer to h6, something which
would be impossible after 16…Qd6.
17…Qxd5 18.Rad1
After 18.Qf3 Qxf3 19.gxf3 Bb7 20.Be4 Bxe4 21.fxe4 Rfc8, the most
probable outcome of the game is a draw.
18…e4 19.Bxb5 Qxf5 20.Qxf5 Bxf5
After 16…Qd8!, this position arises practically by force. Analysis shows

that White has a small edge, but practically no real chances to win. However
– and this is the main drawback of the move 16…Qd8! – it is extremely hard
for Black to play for a win.
Now there may follow 21.Bd7!? Bxd7 22.Rxd7 Bxb2 23.Nc4 Bg7
24.Rfd1 Rac8 25.Ne3 Rc5 and it is very difficult for White to achieve
anything tangible.
Chapter 53
13.0-0 0-0 14.Cc4 f5 15.Qh5 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 17.Rae1 Bb7
18.Qg4 without 18…Rfe8
14.c4 f5 15.Qh5 Rb8 (D)
This move occurs in the overwhelming majority of games. It is practically

always followed by a series of moves 16.exf5 e4 17.Rae1 Bb7, and now
White has plenty of choices.
18.Qg4!?
This is the most common move, but other options have also been tested.
(a) 18.f3? is weak: after 18…d5 19.fxe4 dxc4 20.Bb1 Bd4+ 21.Kh1 f6,
Black has a clear advantage.
(b) 18.cxb5 has also occurred. For example, in Geist-Leotard, corr 2004,
there followed 18…d5 19.Re3 axb5 20.Nxb5 (20.Rh3 leads to equal play)
20…Bxb2 21.Bc2 Rfd8 (21…Ba8!?N) 22.Rh3 f6 23.Rd1 Rbc8 24.Bb3 Kh8
25.Qh6 Qg7 26.Qe3 Be5 27.Nd4 Rg8 28.g3, and soon the game ended in a
draw, though White maintained a small advantage to the very end.
(c) 18.Re3!? is also playable, and after 18…bxc4 19.Bxc4 d5 20.Bxd5
Bxd5 21.f6 Qxf6 22.Qxd5 Rxb2 23.Nc4!? (23.Rxe4 occurred in Hjartarson-
Yusupov, Munich 1988, and is a little weaker) 23…Rxa2 24.Rxe4 Rd8
25.Qc5, White has a small advantage.
(d) The move 18.b3 is the most successful one in the position in the
diagram, but we will give it a real evaluation now. After 18…bxc4 19.bxc4, it
is possible to continue 19…d5! (the move 19…Kh8, Vorobiov-Zhigalko,
Moscow 2006, is a little weaker), and after 20.cxd5 Qxa3 21.f6 Bxf6
22.Bxe4, a sharp position arises, where Black faces a choice of three possible
squares to retreat his f8-rook.
First we will examine the worst and losing move, 22…Rfc8?, occurring
in the game Isupov-Yagupov, Kolontaevo 1994. After 23.Re3 Qb2 24.Bxh7+
Kg7 25.Qg4+ Kh8, White wins by force with 26.Bf5!N (in the game there
was 26.Qh5, and White even managed to lose).
For example, 26…Bg7 (the win is simpler after 26…Rc3: 27.Qh5+ Kg8
28.Qh7+ Kf8 29.Qh6+ Bg7 30.Qd6+ Kg8 31.Qxb8+) 27.Qh4!+ Kg8
28.Bh7+ Kh8 29.Bg6+ Kg8 30.Bxf7!+ Kxf7 31.Qe7+ Kg6 (or 31…Kg8
32.Qe6+ Kf8 33.Rf3+) 32.Qe4 Kf7 33.Qe6 Kf8 34.Rf3+ Bf6 35.Rxf6+ Qxf6
36.Qxf6+.
Much better is 22…Rfe8?!, but this move is still insufficient for equality
because of 23.Re3, for example, 23…Qc5!N 24.Rg3+ Kf8 25.Qh6+ Ke7
26.Re1! Qd6! 27.Bc2+ Kd8 28.Rxe8+ Kxe8 29.Rg8+ Ke7 30.Qe3+ Be5
31.Rxb8 Qxb8 32.f4, etc.
The correct move is 22…Rfd8!,
Black manages to hold out successfully, for example, 23.Re3! Qb2!
24.Rb1! (probably the best move) 24…Rbc8 25.Ree1!?N (25.Rg3?+, as in
Larsen-Gagarin, Aalborg 1995, is bad because after 25…Kf8 26.Qh6+ Bg7
27.Qe3, Black wins with 27…Qe5!N. Instead, in the game there was 27…
Qd4? 28.Rxg7! Qxg7 29.Rxb7 with equal play) 25…Qc3 26.h3 Kf8 27.Re3
Qe5 28.Bf5 Qf4! 29.Bxc8 Bxc8, etc. Thus, the move 18.b3?! throws away
the advantage and is the weakest of the four, if we do not take into account
the bad 18.f3?.
Let us return to the move 18.Qg4!?.
18…Kh8
The main move 18…Rfe8 will be considered in the next chapter; the king
move occurs only slightly less frequently.
19.Bxe4 Rfe8.
19…Bxb2?! (Shirov-Markos, Montcada 2009) is weaker. After 20.Re3
Bxe4 21.Rxe4 Qf6 22.Nc2 bxc4 23.Rxc4 d5 24.Rb4 Bc3 25.Rxb8 Rxb8
26.Ne3 Black erred again, 26…d4?! (26…Rd8 is better, but White’s
advantage is obvious anyway). There then followed 27.Nd5 Qe5 28.f6! Rg8
29.Qd7?!N (29.Qf3!?, with great advantage is better) 29…Qe8? (29…Qe6!
retains chances for successful defense) 30.Qe7!, and White once again has a
great advantage. Black quickly lost: 30…Ba5? 31.Rd1 Qa4 32.Qe2 Rg5
33.Rb1 Rxd5 34.Qg4.
20.Bd3
In practice, White has succeeded with 20.f3, for example, 20…Bxb2
21.Bc6! Qxe1 22.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 23.Kf2 Bxc6 24.Kxe1 Bxa3 25.Qd4+ Kg8
26.f6 with better chances, but Black has an opportunity to equalize after 20…
Bxe4!N 21.Rxe4 Qa7+.
Now there follows a series of practically forced moves:
20…Qxe1 21.f6 Bh6 22.Qh5 Qd2 23.Qf5 Be4 24.Bxe4 Rxe4 25.Qxe4
Qxb2 26.Qd3 b4
26…Qd2?! (Shomoev-Yakovich, Ramenskoe 2006) is worse. After
27.Qxd2 Bxd2 28.cxb5 axb5 29.Rb1 b4 30.Nc4 Bc3?! (30…Bf4!?) 31.Nxd6
Ra8 32.Nxf7+ Kg8 33.Nd6 Rxa2 34.Ne4 Re2 35.Nxc3 bxc3 36.Rc1 Re6
37.Kf1, White eventually won.
27.Nc2 Qxf6 and in this position White has the advantage. Apparently the
best move is 28.g3! which has occurred in many correspondence games and
in Kokarev-Simonian, Loo 2014.
Chapter 54
13.0-0 0-0 14.c4 f5 15.Qh5 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 17.Rae1 Bb7
18.Qg4 Rfe8
14.c4 f5 15.Qh5 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 17.Rae1 Bb7 18.Qg4 Rfe8
This is the main continuation. Black has defended the e4-pawn and
intends to take the white c4-pawn with his next move.
19.cxb5 d5
This move occurs practically in every game, but I believe that 19…Kh8!,
which is rare enough for the moment, is more precise. (D)
The idea of this move is as follows: we are going to see that in the main
variation the black bishop has to retreat to c6 to prevent White’s attack
against the e8-rook with tempo by Bb5, after which the rook would have to
lose time retreating. But the
bishop on c6 is insecure, and that hands an important tempo, Rc1, to White.
So Black vacates the g8-square for his rook. After that, the bishop attack
from b5 is not going to be worth anything as the rook would simply occupy
the now-vacant g8-square.
After 20.bxa6 Ba8, the following options are possible:
(a) In the correspondence game Kund-Borzenko 2009, White played
21.Nb5, and after 21…d5N (21…Qd7!? seems more precise, for example,
22.Be2 Rxb5 23.f6! Qxg4 24.Bxg4 Rxb2! 25.fxg7+ Kxg7, and White is left
with only a small advantage) 22.a7 Rb6 23.a4 Be5 24.f4 Bxb2 25.Kh1 Rg8
26.Qe2 Bg7 27.Qf2 Rh6 28.Re2 Qd7 29.Bc2 Qxf5 30.Nc7 Bc6 31.Rb1, and
White stands slightly better.
(b) In Mook-Blanc, corr 2007, there occurred 21.a7 followed by 21…
Rbd8N (21…Qxa7! is better, for example, 22.Bxe4 Qe7 23.f3 Rxb2 24.Nc4
Rxa2 25.Qh5!, and White has a small advantage) 22.Kh1?! (and here White
has a good novelty in 22.Nb5!?) 22…d5 23.Nb5 Rg8 24.Qh5 Be5 25.Bc2
Rg5 26.Qh3 Rdg8 27.g3 f6! 28.a4 Qb4, and White has an advantage, though
the position is very sharp.
(c) In another correspondence game, Oprisor-Schulman, 2010, White
played 21.Be2. Then there followed 21…Rxb2 22.Nc4 Rxa2 23.Ne3 d5
24.Qh5?! (this move leads to equal play; 24.Rc1!N is better, for example,
24…Bf6! 25.Qh5 Rg8 with a small advantage for White) 24…Rd8 25.Rc1 d4
26.Bc4 dxe3 27.f6 Bxf6 28.Bxa2 exf2+ 29.Rxf2 Bd4 30.Qf5, and the
20.bxa6
20.f3?! is poor because of 20…Kh8!N with a small advantage for Black.
20…Bc6
In this sharp position various moves have been tested.
21.Rc1!?
In Najer-Yakovich, Novokuznetsk 2008, White played 21.Be2!?, and
Black made an immediate mistake: 21…Rxb2?! (the correct move is 21…
Kh8! with a small advantage for White after 22.Rc1 Bd7 23.Qh5!N). After
22.Rc1, another error followed, 22…h5? (the correct move is 22…Bd7).
Then there was 23.Qxh5 Ba4 24.f6? (24.Nb1! with a great advantage for
White, is stronger) 24…Bxf6 25.Qxd5 Rxe2 26.Qc4 Qxa3? (the correct
continuation is 26…Rd2 27.Qxa4 Rxa2), and after mutual errors, White won.
The continuation 21.b3 occurred in two of Shirov’s games against
Carlsen. After 21…Kh8 22.Nc2, those games went in different directions.
In the earlier game (Sofia 2009) Carlsen had tested the move 22…Be5!?,
but after 23.Be2 d4 24.Bc4 Rg8 25.Qh3 Rg7N (25…e3!? is more accurate)
26.g3 Rbg8 27.Qh6 blundered: 27…Qc7? (the correct move is 27…Ba8 with
good play). There followed 28.Nb4 Ba8 29.Nd5 Qd8 30.Rxe4, and Black
resigned.
In Wijk aan Zee in 2010 Carlsen played 22…Bc3. Then there was 23.Qh3
(White could have obtained a small advantage after 23.Be2!? d4 24.g3!N)
23…Qf6 24.Be2 d4 25.Bc4 Rg8 (it is possible to take the exchange by 25…
Bxe1N 26.Rxe1 with equal play) 26.g3 Rbe8 27.Rd1 e3 28.fxe3 dxe3 29.Be2
Re4 30.Qg2 Re7 31.Qh3 Re4 32.Qg2 Re7 33.Qh3, a draw was agreed.
Let us return to the move 21.Rc1!?
In Topalov-Carlsen, Nanjing 2009, there followed 21…exd3 22.Rxc6
Qe2! 23.h3! Rxb2 24.f6 Qxg4 25.hxg4 Rxa2 26.Nb1 Bf8 27.Rc3 Rxa6
28.Rxd3 Rxf6 29.Rxd5 Bb4 30.g3?!
I believe that after 30.Nd2N, White’s winning chances are better.
30…Re2 31.Kg2 Be1 32.Rf5 Rxf5 33.gxf5 and in this position the
players agreed to a draw, having decided that White’s small material
advantage does not bring him real chances to win.
Chapter 55
13.0-0 0-0 14.c4 f5 15.Qf3 without 15…Qb7 or 15…d5
14.c4 f5 15.Qf3
This is the most common move.

15…bxc4
This is the most popular move in the database, but in fact it is not so
good. I do not mark it as a dubious one out of deference to the opinion of the
majority. In the next chapter we are going to examine the move 15…Qb7!?,
and in chapters 57-59, the move 15…d5!?. Both definitely promise better
chances to Black.
I think that the move 15…Re8 still holds a lot of secrets. White usually
replies with 16.Rfe1, then there follows 16…b4?! (this continuation is
dubious, but Black almost invariably plays in this fashion.
The viability of the continuation 15…Re8 probably depends on the move
16…Qb7!?, the ideas of which have much in common with the ones in the
next chapter.) 17.Nc2 f4 18.Nxb4 (White has to take the pawn: the passive
retreat 18.Be2?!, for example, 18…Rb8 19.b3 Kh8, Shirov-Kramnik, Linares
2000, brings no advantage) 18…Rb8 19.Nd5 (19.Nc6?! squanders almost the
entire advantage because of 19…Qg5, for example, 20.Nxb8 Bg4 21.Qxg4
Qxg4 22.Nxa6 f3. On the other hand, 19.a3 is not bad, for example, 19…Qg5
20.Be2 a5 21.Nd5 Rxb2 22.Qc3, etc.) 19…Qg5 20.Be2 Rxb2.
In this position White’s superiority is obvious. For example, in Dotan-
Otake, corr 2007, there followed 21.Qa3 Rd2 22.Rad1 Rxd1 23.Rxd1 Bf8
24.Rb1 Rd8 25.Qa5! Rd7 26.Rb3, and White converted his advantage.
16.Nxc4 d5!17.exd5 e4
This position arises almost by force after 15…bxc4.

18.Qe3
White’s advantage is less after 18.Qe2 Bb7 19.d6 Qe6 20.Bc2 f4.
18…Bb7 19.d6
19.Rfd1 (Svidler-Kramnik, Tilburg 1997) is weaker. After 19…Bxd5
20.Nb6 Rad8 21.Nxd5 Rxd5 22.Bxa6 Rxd1+ 23.Rxd1 Bxb2 24.Rd5 Qf6
25.Bc4 Rd8 26.Rxd8+, a draw was agreed.
19…Qf6 20.Bc2 f4
20…Rac8 is also quite good here. In Svidler-Jakovenko, Toljatti 2003,
there followed 21.b3 Bd5 22.Rad1 Bxc4 23.bxc4 Rxc4 24.Bb3 Rc3 25.Qa7
Rd8 26.Rd5? (26.Qe7! maintains the advantage) 26…Bf8 27.d7 Qc6 28.Qd4
Rd3 29.Qc4 Qxc4 30.Bxc4 Rxd5 31.Bxd5 Rxd7, and White is left a pawn
down.
21.Qh3 Rac8 22.b3
This is a natural move. Occasionally 22.Bb3?! occurs, followed by 22…
Rc5 23.Rad1. In this position Black practically always chooses 23…Rg5, and
the game continues with a small white advantage.
Instead of this, Black is better play 23…Rd8!, leaving the position of the
c5-rook undefined for the moment as this piece may turn out to be useful
either on h5 (after Qg6) or on e5. For example, 24.Nb6 Qg5 25.Rfe1Re5 or
25…Rb5N 26.Nc4 Qg6, with good play for Black in both cases.
22…Qg5
This move occurs in the overwhelming majority of the games. However,
we will see that it only slightly increases White’s advantage that is solid
enough as it is.
I think that it is better to play 22…Qg6!? (Grischuk-Jakovenko, Moscow
2003). This game was very interesting: 23.Rad1 Rc5 24.d7, and here Black
made a mistake by playing 24…Rh5? (the correct move is 24…Bf6!N, for
example, 25.Rd6 Qg7 26.Rfd1 Rd8 27.Rb6 Bd5, and though White’s
advantage is obvious, Black is able to keep on fighting).
After 25.Qf3! exf3 26.Bxg6 hxg6 27.d8Q fxg2 28.Rfe1 Rxd8 29.Rxd8+
Kh7, Black’s position is lost, but it is White’s turn to err now – 30.Re7?! (the
correct move is 30.Red1!N) 30…Bd5 31.Rc7 f3 32.Rxd5? (32.Rdd7!N, with
great advantage, is better) 32…Rxd5 33.Ne3 Rd2 (33…Rh5!N 34.Rxf7 Rh3)
34.Rxf7, and after a long struggle the game ended in a draw.
The transition to an ending by 22…Rcd8!? 23.Rad1 Qc3 24.Qxc3 Bxc3
also does not make Black’s position any worse.
23.Rad1
In Anand-Kasimdzhanov, Hyderabad 2002, White played 23.d7?. Though
highly praised by some annotators, Anand among them, this move is weak.
After 23…Rc6 24.Bxe4 Rh6 25.Qf5, Black made a mistake – 25…Qh4?! (the
correct move is 25…Qxf5! with a small advantage for White). Then there
was 26.h3 Rf6? (the correct continuation is 26…Bxe4! 27.Qxe4 Re6 28.Qd5
Bxa1 29.Rxa1 Rd8 with an advantage for White) 27.d8Q Rxd8 28.Qa5 Bxe4
29.Qxd8+ Bf8 30.f3 Bf5, and Black resigned.
23…f5 24.d7 Rcd8
25.b4!
This is the best move, although it occurs only infrequently. 25.Rd6? Rf7
leads to equal play. 25.Nd6?! Ba8 brings a small advantage. In Shirov-
Topalov, Dortmund 2002, there followed 26.f3? (a blunder; 26.b4! is better)
26…Rxd7 27.fxe4 f3! 28.Qg3 Qe3+ 29.Qf2+ Qxf2 30.Kxf2 fxg2 31.Kxg2
Rfd8 32.Nc4 Bxe4+ 33.Bxe4 Rxd1 34.Rxf5 Re1, and despite Black’s
obvious advantage, a draw was agreed.
Then possible is 25…Bc6 26.Na5 Ba8! 27.Nb3! Rf6 28.Nc5 Kf8
29.b5!N and White has a considerable advantage. 29.Bb3 is not so good
because of 29…Ke7!.
Chapter 56
13.0-0 0-0 14.c4 f5 15.Qf3 Qb7
14.c4 f5 15.Qf3 Qb7!? (D)
Objectively, this is a good continuation that promises White a transition

into a somewhat better ending. The drawback of this move is that in this
ending he would have to forget about sharp play and winning chances.
16.exf5
This move occurs in the overwhelming majority of games; however,

White does not have to transpose to an ending at all. In Kurnosov-Maletin,
Apatity 2011, White chose an imprecise move, 16.Qe2?!, that was met with
16…d5!. Then there was 17.cxd5 fxe4 18.Bxe4 f5 19.Bc2, and here Black
could have equalized with 19…e4! (his game move 19…Qb6 was a little
weaker) 20.Bb3 Be5! 21.f4 Bd4+ 22.Kh1 Qg7N, etc.
The move 16…b4 (Nakamura-Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2012) is a bit
weaker than 16…d5!. After 17.Nc2 f4, instead of 18.b3, White could have
made the stronger move 18.a3! with idea of meeting 18…bxa3 with 19.b4,
maintaining some pressure on Black’s position.
The extremely rare move 16.Rad1!? also retains a small advantage for
White, for example, 16…b4 17.Nc2 f4 18.Be2!, followed by doubling of
rooks along the d-file.
16…Qxf3 17.gxf3
17…e4!
Bringing the dark-square bishop into play and creating a threat of
capturing on b2. 17…bxc4?! 18.Be4 Rb8 is definitely weaker because of
19.Rfd1! Rd8 20.Nxc4 d5 21.Rxd5 Rxd5 22.Bxd5 Bxf5 23.b3, 23.Rd1 or
23.Kg2!?N with an advantage for White. The continuation 17… Rb8?!
18.Be4 bxc4 leads with a transposition of the moves to the variation 17…
bxc4?! which is favorable for White (see above).
18.Bxe4 d5!
Now White has to take the d5-pawn with his bishop, leaving the f5-pawn
that prevents the c8-bishop from entering the game undefended.
19.Bxd5
It is pointless to try to lure the black bishop to f6 with the intermediary
move 19.f6 because Black obtains an open g-file and can give a check on g8
with his rook.
19…Rb8!
In position in the diagram, Black plays 19…Bxf5 in the overwhelming
majority of games. In my opinion, this move is less accurate. Then there
usually follows 20.Bxa8 Rxa8 21.Rae1! Bd3. In Hedlung-Toro, corr 2005,
White retained his small advantage after 22.Re3 Bxf1 23.Kxf1 Bxb2 24.cxb5
axb5 25.Nxb5 Rxa2 26.Re2 Ra1+ 27.Kg2 Bf6 28.Nd6 Kg7 29.f4 Rd1 30.Ne4
Bd8 31.Ng3. In Garcia-Siigur, corr 2009, there followed 22.b3 Bf8 23.Nb1
bxc4 24.bxc4 Bxc4 25.Nd2 Bxf1 26.Nxf1 Rc8 27.Ne3 (27.Ng3!?) with a
small advantage for White. Note that 21.Rad1 Bxb2 22.Nc2!N (after 22.Nb1
bxc4, it is White who struggles for a draw), 22…bxc4 23.Ne3 Bd3, etc. does
not bring any advantage for White.
20.Rad1!
The game Kokarev-Yakovich, Samara 2011, was drawn after 20.Rab1
Bxf5 21.Be4 Bh3 22.Rfe1 (22.Rfd1!?) 22…Kh8 23.cxb5 Bxb2 24.Rxb2
Rg8+ 25.Kh1 Bg2+ 26.Kg1 Bh3+ 27.Kh1 Bg2+ 28.Kg1 Bh3+.
20…Bxb2 21.Nc2 Bxf5 22.Ne3 Bh3 23.Rfe1 Rfd8!?
Also playable is 23…Rfc8 with a small advantage for White. Another
interesting line is 23…Bc3!?N 24.Re2 Rfd8. In Kireev-Boldysh, corr 2010,
there followed 24.c5 Rbc8 25.c6 Kf8 26.f4 Bc3! 27.Re2 Ba5 28.Rc2 Rd6
29.f5 Bb6 30.Rcc1 Bxe3 31.fxe3 Bxf5 32.Rd4 Ke7. White’s advantage has
gradually trickled away, and soon the game was drawn.
Chapter 57
13.0-0 0-0 14.c4 f5 15.Qf3 d5 16.cxd5 fxe4 17.Bxe4 Rb8
without 18.Rfd1
14.c4 f5 15.Qf3 d5!?
A thematic advance that frequently occurs in the Chelyabinsk Variation

with various ideas. Here Black sacrifices a pawn to get a chance to take on
e4; at the same time, he clears the way to h6 for his a8-rook.
16.cxd5 fxe4
16…f4? (Kramnik-Radjabov, Dortmund 2003) is weak. After 17.Rfc1
Kh8 18.Nc2 Bd7 19.Ne1 Rg8 20.Be2 Bf8 Black has no compensation for his
sacrificed pawn, but White, instead of playing a normal move like 21.Qc3 or
21.Qd3, unexpectedly played 21.Nd3?, provoking Black into accepting the
queen sacrifice. Black rejected the offer and lost quickly; however, on 21…
Bg4! 22.Qxg4 Rxg4 23.Bxg4 Qa7!N, White would have been quite sorry he
had sacrificed.
17.Bxe4 Rb8
18.Rad1
This move does not bring any advantage for White, as later his queen
rook would have turned out useful on c1. The best move, 18.Rfd1!, will be
examined in the next two chapters.
The exchange sacrifice is useless for White after 18.Rac1 f5! 19.Rxc8
Rbxc8 20.Bxf5. Black has excellent play – 20…Qg5! 21.Be6+ Kh8 22.Qe2!
(22.Qd1?! is in favor of Black) 22…Rc1 23.g3!N (the well-known 23.Nc2? is
worse) 23…Rxf1+ 24.Kxf1, etc.
18…Rb6
The move 18…Qd7?! that occurred in the rapid game Topalov-Anand,
Monaco 2004, is an inaccuracy. Then there followed 19.d6 Rb6 20.Qc3!
Rxd6?! (20…Bb7!N is better, although White still retains his advantage)
21.Bf5! Rxd1 22.Bxd7 Rxd7 23.Nc2 Rfd8 24.Ne3, and the compensation for
the queen is clearly insufficient.
19.Qd3 Qd7
19…Rh6 is a little weaker, and on the usual reply 20.Bf5, Black has 20…
e4!?N (in Smirnov-Khairullin, Tomsk 2004, there was 20…Bxf5 21.Qxf5 e4,
and now instead of 22.Rd2?!, White should have played 22.g3! with a small
advantage) 21.Bxe4!? (White does not have any advantage after 21.Qxe4
Qe5! 22.Qxe5 Bxe5 23.g4 Bxf5 24.gxf5 Bxh2+ 25.Kg2 Be5). Then there
follows 21…Re8! 22.Rfe1 Bf5, for example, 23.g3 Bxe4 24.d6 Bxd3
25.Rxe7 Rd8 26.Rxd3 Bxb2 27.d7 Kf8 28.Rde3 Kg7, and White is left with
only a minimal advantage.
20.Bxh7+
The position after 20.d6 Rd8 21.Bxh7+ Kh8 is examined with the move
order 20.Bxh7. In Leko-Radjabov, Linares 2004, White played cautiously,
20.g3, and after 20…f5 21.Bg2 Rh6 (21…e4N is sufficient for equality) 22.f4
exf4 23.gxf4 Bxb2 24.Nc2 Bg7 25.Nb4 Qd6 26.Nc6 Bd7 27.Qf3, a draw was
agreed.
20…Kh8 (D)
21.Qe3
The game Lutz-Radjabov, Plovdid 2003, developed as followed: 21.d6
Rd8 22.Qe3 Rxd6
23.Rxd6 Qxd6 24.Bb1 (I think that the best answer to 24.Bc2 is 24…Bb7!N,
for example, 25.Be4 Bxe4 26.Qxe4 Kg8, and Black has a full compensation
for his pawn) 24…f5 25.Nc2 e4 26.b4 Be5 27.g3 Qf6 28.Qe2 Kg7 29.Rd1+
Rxd1 30.Qxd1 f4 31.Qe2?! (both 31.Qd5 and 31.Qf1 with equal play are
better) 31…e3! 32.fxe3 fxg3 33.hxg3 Qg6!, and Black has a small advantage.
22.Qe4 has also been seen; a good reply is 22…Bh6 23.Rfe1 (23.Qc2!?
Rc6 24.Qe4 Rb6 leads to repetition of moves) 23…f5! 24.Qxe5 Kxh7 25.Qf6
Rb7! 26.Nc2 Re8. White’s attack is only partial compensation for his
sacrificed piece. In Cardelli-Martin, corr 2006, there was 27.Qc3, and now
Black could have fixed his small advantage with 27…Qf7!N (in the game
there was 27…Re4 with equal play).
21…Rh6 22.Bc2 Qd6 23.Nb1!?
In the blitz game Smirnov-Radjabov, Tripoli 2004, after 23.g3 Bh3
24.Rfe1 f5, White committed hara-kiri with 25.f4?? exf4 26.Qe7? Qb6+.
25.Rd2 is better, but in any event, Black has a full compensation for his
sacrificed material.
23…e4 24.g3 Bg4 25.Bxe4 f5 26.Bg2 f4 27.Qe4
We have been following Rattinger–Blank, corr 2006. Now Black could
have forced a draw with 27…Rxh2 28.Kxh2 fxg3 29.fxg3 Qh6+ 30.Kg1
Qb6+.
Chapter 58
18.Rfd1 without 18…Qg5
14.c4 f5 15.Qf3 d5 16.cxd5 fxe4 17.Bxe4 Rb8 18.Rfd1!
This move secures an advantage for White and therefore presents another
problem for Black in the variation 10…Bg7. In this chapter we are going to
investigate difficulties which Black faces in a well-known continuation, and
in the next one I will try to prove that there is a novelty that alleviates Black’s
defense a little, though it does not allow him to fully equalize.
18…Qd7
Let us examine the game Topalov-Radjabov, Linares 2004 first, where
the variation 18…Qh4 19.g3 Qg5 20.Qb3 Bg4 21.Bf3 occurred. Here Black
committed an inaccuracy, 21…f5?! (it is better to play 21…Bxf3 22.Qxf3 e4,
and now instead of the usual move 23.Qb3, White can employ a novelty,
23.Qe2!, with an advantage, for example, 23…f5 24.Nc2 Bxb2 25.Rab1 Qf6
26.Nb4 Be5 27.Rbc1), and after 22.Bxg4 Qxg4 23.d6+ Kh8 24.Qd5 f4
25.Nc2, Black made another mistake, 25…Qg6?, and the move 26.Nb4!
resulted in a great advantage for White.
Five years later in the game Anand-Radjabov, Linares 2009, Black
attempted to improve his play with 18…f5. Then there followed a series of
usual moves 19.d6 Qf6 20.Bc6 Be6 21.Bd5 Rbd8 22.Qb3 Bf7 23.Nc2 Rxd6
24.Bxf7+ Rxf7, and here White played 25.Rxd6 (25.Ne3!? is also quite
good). After 25…Qxd6 26.Ne3 f4 27.Rd1 (apparently, the variation 27.Nf5!?
N Qd7 28.Nxg7 Kxg7 29.h3 is a little better: now White has a small
advantage in view of the exposed position on the black king and weakened
pawns, for example, 29…f3 30.Qe3 Qf5 31.Re1) 27…Qg6 28.Nd5 Bf8,
White squandered almost all his advantage.
19.d6 Rb6 20.Qd3 Rd8

20…f5? is bad because of 21.Qd5+ Kh8 22.Qc5!.
21.Rac1 Bf8 22.Qg3+
22.Rc7?! Qxc7 23.Bxh7+ Kg7 24.dxc7 Rxd3 25.Bxd3 Bxa3 26.bxa3 Rc6
leads to equal play.
In the game Istratescu-Khairullin, Plovdiv 2006 there followed 27.Be4
Rxc7 28.Bd5 Rc3 29.h4 Bf5 30.Bb3 a5 31.a4, and a draw was agreed.
22…Bg7 23.Qh4
If he desires, White can force a pendulum draw with 23.Qd3.
23…Rxd6 24.Bxh7+
The continuation 24.Qxh7?!+ Kf8 25.Rxd6 Qxd6 26.g3 Qh6 is favorable
for Black.
24…Kf8 25.Qb4 Bb7 26.Nc2 Qe7 27.Rxd6
White’s advantage is roughly the same after 27.Qg4!? Bc8! 28.Qe2 Be6
(or 28…Bh6!?N) 29.Ne3 Rd4 30.Nf5 Bxf5 31.Bxf5 e4 32.Rxd4 Bxd4 33.Re1
Re8 34.Qc2 e3 35.fxe3 Bxe3+ 36.Kh1 Qb4 37.Qb1 (Matei-Siru, corr 2008).
27…Rxd6
The resulting position is very important for the general evaluation of the
variation 15…d5!?. However, we are going to see very soon that it has not
been played out quite correctly so far.
28.Qe1!N
I believe that this continuation is the best. White prepares the move Ne3
that was impossible to make immediately because of the check on d1.
Let us consider other White’s options.
(a) 28.Qg4?! (Vallejo-Radjabov, Linares 2004) is weak: after 28…Rh6
29.Bf5 Rh4 30.Qd1 Bh6 31.Ne3Bxe3 32.fxe3 Bxg2, Black regained his pawn
with equal play, and then after 33.Rc8+ Kg7 34.Qe1 Qg5 35.Qg3 Kf6,
exploited further White’s inaccuracies and won.
(b) The move 28.Re1 occurs rather often. Black should reply 28…Bh6!N
(the idea is to prevent the white knight from getting to e3), for example,
29.Ne3 Bxe3 30.fxe3, and here the most precise move is the study-like 30…
Bf3!! which prevents the white queen from getting to g4 and at the same time
creates a perpetual check, for example, 31.Rf1 (or 31.a3 a5! 32.Qc3 Qg5)
31…Kg7 32.Bf5 (32.Be4?? a5) 32…Rg6 33.Qxe7 Rxg2+ 34.Kh1 Rf2+
35.Kg1 Rg2+, with a draw.
(c) The most common move is 28.h4. The correct defense was
demonstrated as early as in Hoffmann-Campian, corr 2008: 28…e4! 29.Re1
Re6 30.Qxe7+ Rxe7 31.b3 Rd7! (31…Re5?! is weaker) 32.Bxe4 Bc3! 33.Bf5
Rd2 34.Rf1 (34.Kf1 Rxc2! 35.Bxc2 Bxg2+ 36.Ke2 Bf3+ with a draw) 34…
Bf6 35.Re1 (35.g3 Bd8! and then Bb6) 35…Bxh4 36.g3, and a draw was
agreed.
28…Bh6!?
The tempting 28…Bxg2? 29.Kxg2 Qh4 is not good because of 30.Ne3!
Qxh7 31.Qb4 Qg6+ 32.Kh1 Kg8 33.Nf5! Rd7 34.Qe4! Qh5 35.Rc3!, and the
powerful position of the knight on f5 decides the outcome (however, 35.Rg1
Rd1 36.Nh6 Kf8 37.Qa8+ Ke7 38.Nf5+ Kf6 39.Qc6+ Kxf5 40.Qc2+ e4
41.Qxd1 Qxd1 42.Rxd1 Bxb2 43.Rd6 is also sufficient).
29.Ne3 Qd8 30.h3 Bf4 31.Bf5 could follow, and White’s chances are a
little better, although Black has certain compensation for his pawn.
Chapter 59
18.Rfd1 Qg5!?
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.0-0 0-
014.c4 f5 15.Qf3 d5 16.cxd5 fxe4 17.Bxe4 Rb8 18.Rfd1 Qg5!?
This is exactly the novelty I promised to you in the previous chapter.

Black removes his queen from e7 where it had been under the threat of d5-d6,
and at the same time creates two threats of his own – f7-f5 and Bc8-g4.
19.d6!
19.Qg3 Qxg3 20.hxg3 Rd8 leads to equal play. There is the interesting
move 19.Qb3!?, on which there follows 19…Bg4!? (19…f5? is poor because
of 20.d6+ Kh8 21.Bc6, with great advantage for White, but 19…Qf4 20.Re1
Bd7 is playable) for example, 20.Bf3 (20.f3?! is weak because of 20…Bh5,
for example, 21.d6 Kh8 22.Nc2 f5) 20…Bf5 21.Nc2 e4 22.Be2 Bd7, etc.
19…Bg4
And here 19…f5? is bad because of 20.Qb3+ Kh8 21.Bc6.
20.Qg3 Qf4! (D)
21.Bf3
The variation 21.Qxf4 exf4 22.Rd2 Rfd8 does not bring any advantage,
for example, 23.Rc1 Rb6 24.Rc6 Rxc6 25.Bxc6 Be6 26.b3 Rc8 27.Bf3 Rc1+
28.Bd1 Bd7 29.Nc2 Bc3 30.Rd3 Kf8, and the game is even.
21.f3!? Be6 22.Nc2 leads to a small white advantage, for example, 22…
Rfd8 23.Nb4 Qxg3
24.hxg3 f5 25.Bc6. Then the following virtually forced variation is possible:

25…a5 26.Nd5 Kf7 27.Nc7 Rb6 28.Rac1 Bh6 29.Rc2 Be3+ 30.Kh2 Bc4
31.Bd5 Bxd5+ 32.Nxd5 Rbxd6 33.Nxe3 Rxd1 34.Nxd1 Rxd1 35.Rc5 Ke6
36.Rxb5 Rd2 37.Rxa5 Rxb2, and Black draws by creating a passed pawn
after e5-e4.
21…Bxf3 22.Qxf3
22.gxf3?! is weak because of 22…Qh6!. Black seizes the initiative and
continues the game with queens on the board, for example, 23.Kh1 Rbd8
24.Nc2 Kh8, etc.
22…Rfd8
Apparently, this position is critical for the evaluation of the move 18…
Qg5!?.
23.Qe2!?
23.Qc6 e4 24.g3 Qf3 25.Rd2 Bh6 (25…Bxb2 26.Rxb2 Qxa3 27.Re2
Qxd6 28.Qxe4 Qd4 is also possible) leads to equality. 23.Qd5 is also useless
because of 23…Rbc8, for example, 24.g3 Qb4 25.Rab1 Rd7. 23.Qxf4!? exf4
24.Rd2 retains a small advantage, for example, 24…Rd7 25.Rc1 Rb6
26.Rc8+ Bf8 27.Kf1 f3! 28.gxf3 Rbxd6 29.Rxd6 Rxd6 30.Nc2, etc.
23…e4
This continuation is logical but not the only one. Both 23…Qf6 and 23…
Bf8 are very close to it in strength.
24.g3 Qh6
24…Qe5 is a little weaker because of 25.Nc2 Rxd6 26.Rxd6 Qxd6
27.Rd1 Qe6 28.b3, and then the knight goes to d5 with a small advantage for
White.
25.Nc2 Bxb2 26.Rab1 Bg7 (D)
So Black has managed to regain the pawn, but White’s chances are still
better as a result of the not quite harmonious formation of black kingside
pawns that allows white knight’s intrusion on f5. In the position in the
diagram, White has a choice of several moves which are roughly equal in
strength.
For example, the variation 27.Rb4 Rxd6 28.Rxe4 Rbd8 29.Rxd6 Qxd6
30.Ne3 is playable, and White retains a small advantage.
With this chapter we finish our discussion of the fashionable move 10…
Bg7, so the time has come to sum it up. As we could see, White has several
ways of obtaining a small advantage. There are plans with c2-c3 and with c2-
c4. This is why I believe that the classic “Chelyabinsk” continuation 10…f5
is objectively stronger. In my opinion, it gives Black better chances for
equality. We are going to explore it in minute detail in the following chapters.
Section 5. 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 without 11.Bd3
Chapter 60
10…f5 without 11.g3, 11.exf5, 11.Bxb5 or 11.c3
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5!?
With this chapter we open a new section of the theoretical part of this
book. Here we will start the in-depth exploration of the main “Chelyabinsk”
continuation 10…f5!?. White has a lot of replies, so we will as usual begin
with the weakest moves and gradually go on to stronger and more popular
ones.
The first to be examined is the second-rate move 11.Nxb5?!. I decided to
devote a separate chapter to it as there are more than 200 games with this
move, among them some played by grandmasters.
11.Nxb5?! axb5 12.Bxb5 Bb7!
This move leads to a black advantage. In the database the weaker move
12…Bd7 is roughly three times more common. White replies with the pawn
capture 13.exf5. (D)
We have to examine this position in detail. You probably already miss my

references to the fundamental book by Sveshnikov. The explanation is really
very simple: he devotes less than two pages to the move 10…Bg7, one that
we have been discussing in the last 18 chapters, so I had nothing to which to
refer.
But now the situation has changed dramatically: Sveshnikov devotes

more than three pages to the weak move 12…Bd7, while discussing several
options for Black in the position in diagram. Even so, he correctly evaluates
the bishop move itself as passive; at the end of his variations Black somehow
obtains an advantage. In my opinion, there is something wrong with the logic
here, so let us try and sort it out.
(a) We will begin with Sveshnikov’s main move 13…Bg7 (an
exclamation point follows). Sveshnikov’s main variation is “14.a4 Nd4!
15.Bxd7+ Qxd7 16.0-0 Qb7!” (exclamation point #3), and his conclusion is:
“Black has the initiative.” Then he cites a game where there was 17.c4 Rc8!
(#4…) 18.f6 Bh6, and White soon resigned.
To begin with, I would like to note that after 19.b3!N Qxb3 20.a5, White
has a small advantage. Then instead of 18.f6 there is the stronger 18.Qd3!N,
and White’s advantage is noticeably greater.
Instead of 16…Qb7?, the correct move is 16…Qc6!, which Sveshnikov
rejects as weak, although after 17.c4!, White’s chances are a little better too.
Also after 16.c3?!, Sveshnikov’s recommendation 16…Qxf5? fails
because of the simple novelty 17.0-0 with an advantage for White. Black
should play here 16…Qb7! with a small advantage.
Finally, instead of a strange move 14.a4?! (the bishop is not under any
attack yet!), there is a simple and much more logical-looking move 14.0-0,
with advantage for White. The logical conclusion is that the move 13…Bg7?!
fails to equalize.
(b) Let us now investigate another move that is recommended by
Sveshnikov – 13…Qg5? (he marks it with !?). Actually, it is even weaker
than 13…Bg7. There follows simple castling 14.0-0 (Sveshnikov considers
only the move 14.g4?) 14…Rg8 15.g3, and White has an advantage, for
example, 15…Kd8 16.Nb6 Rb8 17.Nxd7 Rxb5 18.Nxf8 Kc7 19.c4!, and
White’s advantage is indisputable.
(c) Sveshnikov believes that “13…Ra5! 14.a4 Nd4! deserves most serious
attention.” Then there follows the variation 15.Bxd7+, etc., “and White has
no adequate compensation for his piece.”
However, if, instead of 15.Bxd7+?!, White continues 15.0-0!N Nxb5
16.b4!, then it is Black who has problems equalizing.
(d) Now let us look at the move 13…Rb8, which is the most common one
in practice.
Then there usually follows 14.a4 Qg5! (Sveshnikov thinks that the main
move is 14…Nd4?! followed by 15.Bxd7+ Kxd7, and “the resulting position
is full of mutual opportunities.” Later he explores the moves 16.b4? and
16.a5?!, but not the natural-looking 16.0-0, after which White has an
advantage.) 15.0-0! (the moves 15.Ne3 and 15.g4 investigated by Sveshnikov
are worse) 15…Rg8 (it seems that 15…Qxf5!? is somewhat better here)
16.g3! Qxf5 (in Sulskis-Pert, Port Erin 2003, there was 16…Kd8?; the best
reply here is 17.Qd3!N with a great advantage for White) 17.Ra3!.
The most usual move in this position is 17…Nd4, followed by the
practically forced variation 18.f4 Nxb5 19.fxe5 Nxa3 20.Rxf5 Bxf5 21.Nf6+
Kd8. Then in Wedberg-Bergstrom, Sweden 1980, there was 22.Nxg8 Nxc2??
(a losing move; 22…Nc4! is clearly stronger. The latter should be met with
23.Qh5!N Be6 24.Qg5+ Kc7 25.exd6+ Bxd6 26.b3, and White has the
advantage in this sharp ending.) 23.Qd5 Bg6? (23…Be6 is more stubborn)
24.exd6 Bg7 25.Qg5+ Kc8 26.Qe7 Bd4+ 27.Kh1, and Black resigned.
Thus, none of the four continuations suggested by Sveshnikov secures
even equal play.
(e) Still, things are not all that bad as in those four continuations we have
just explored. Black manages to hold the balance after 13…Rc8!, for
example, 14.0-0 Bxf5 15.Qf3 Bd7 16.Nf6 Ke7 17.Nd5+ Ke8 18.Nf6+ Ke7,
and White has nothing better than to force a draw.
Let us return to the move 12…Bb7!.
13.exf5Bh6!
This is a novelty that leads to an edge for Black. The move 13…Bg7?
squanders the advantage. In Gordh-Balabaev, corr 2005, there followed
14.f6! Bxf6 15.Qf3 Kf8! (15…Be7?! is weaker because of 16.Nb4! Rc8
17.Nxc6 Qb6 18.Nxe7 Kxe7 19.Qd3!) 16.Bxc6 Bxc6 17.Qxf6 Qxf6 18.Nxf6
Ke7 19.Ng4 Bxg2 20.Rg1 Be4 21.Ne3, and Black has good compensation for
his pawn. Now, instead of 21…Rhb8, the more accurate continuation is 21…
Rhc8! 22.Kd2 d5, etc.
The move 13…Ra5? also leads to equal play. It is by far the most
common, probably because it is regarded as the best one in Sveshnikov’s
book.
In the position in the diagram White has a choice of several (but not
many) options.
(a) The move 14.c4?? that, in Sveshnikov’s opinion, deserves attention,
loses by force. There follows 14…Rxb5! 15.cxb5 Nd4 16.Ne3 Bxg2!
17.Nxg2 Qa5+ 18.Kf1 Qxb5+ 19.Ke1 Qb4+ (19…Qa5!+ 20.Kf1 Qa6+
21.Ke1 Rg8! is even stronger, but then the variation will be longer) 20.Kf1
Qc4+ 21.Ke1 d5! 22.a3 Nc2+ 23.Kd2 Nxa1 24.Ne3 Bh6 25.Qxa1 d4, and
Black is a piece up with an attack.
(b) As Garry Kasparov correctly points out, after 14.Qd3 Bg7 15.Qc4?
(quite a common move) the best answer for Black is 15…Kf8!, as the
variation 16.Bxc6 Rc5 17.Qxc5 dxc5 18.Bxb7 Qd7 is clearly in his favor.
In Jacobsson-Durnes, corr 1994, Black confidently followed another
Sveshnikov recommendation, 15…0-0?, but after 16.Bxc6 Rc5 17.Qg4!,
encountered very serious problems. Then there followed 17…h5 18.Qg3
Rxd5 19.Bxb7 Rb5, and after the simple 20.Be4!N, Black’s position was lost,
for example, 20…d5 21.Rd1.
Apparently, instead of 15.Qc4?, it is best to play 15.b4!? (pointed out by
Kasparov), though after 15…Ra8!N, Black has a small advantage.
(c) The correct move is 14.a4!. (D)
Then there usually follows 14…Rxb5!? 15.axb5 Nd4. In Sveshnikov’s

opinion, “Black has a dangerous initiative.” I subscribe to the opinion that
after 16.c4, the game is even, for example, 16…Qc8!?N 17.Ra4!? Qxf5 18.0-
0, etc.
In Wojtkiewicz-Majorovas, Parnu 1982, Black played 13…Rc8!?; then

there followed 14.c3 Bg7 15.Qf3 Bf6 16.Bd3 Bh4 17.Be4 Ne7, and now
instead of the risky 18.0-0-0?!, White should play 18.Rd1 with a small
Let us return to the move 13…Bh6!.
14.f6!?
I think that this is the best chance for White. On 14.Nb4 there follows
14…Rc8, for example, 15.0-0 0-0 16.Nxc6 Bxc6 17.Bxc6 Rxc6 18.a4 Bg7
19.b4 d5 with an advantage for Black. 14.Qh5 Ra5! is playable, for example,
15.a4 (or 15.Qxh6 Rxb5) 15…Rxb5 16.axb5 Nd4 17.c4 Bxd5 18.cxd5 Nc2+
19.Ke2 Bg7!, and Black has an advantage (19…Nxa1 20.Rxa1 Bg7 21.Qg4
0-0 is an error because of 22.Ra8!).
14…Kf8 15.Qh5 Bf4 16.Bxc6!?
16.Nxf4? is bad because of 16…Qa5+. After 16.Rd1 Qa5+ 17.Nc3 Qb4!,
Black stands better, for example, 18.g3 Nd4 19.Rxd4 Qxd4 20.gxf4 Qxf4)
16.c3 Nd4! 17.Nxf4 Nxb5 is favorable for Black.
16…Bxc6 17.Nxf4 Qxf6 18.Ne2 Bxg2 19.Rg1 Rg8 20.Qxh7 Rg6
21.Ng3 Bd5 22.a3 Rc8 23.c3 Bb3 and though White is two pawns up, the
engine indicates that Black stands better.
Chapter 61
11.g3
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.g3
This move does not create real problems for Black.

11…fxe4 12.Bg2 Be6
Other options are:
(a) On 12…Bf5, is it is best to play 13.c3!, for example, 13…Bg7 14.Nc2
0-0 15.g4!?N with a small advantage. 13.f3 is not so good; as a reply to it I
can recommend either 13…Be6!? 14.fxe4 Bg7 or 14…h5!?N with equal play
in both cases.
In Klovans-Timoshchenko, Kishinev 1975, there occurred 13.0-0 Bg7
14.Re1!? (on 14.f3, an exchange sacrifice is quite playable: 14…exf3
15.Qxf3 Be6 16.Nf6+ Bxf6 17.Qxc6+ Ke7 18.Qb7+ Qd7 19.Qxd7+ Bxd7
20.Bxa8 Rxa8, and Black has good play,) 14…0-0 15.c3, and now instead of
15…Ne7, as in Adams-Van Wely, Tilburg 1998, the correct move is 15…
Bg6!, with a small advantage for White.
(b) After 12…Bg7 13.Bxe4, it is best to play 13…Be6 with a
transposition to the main variation. 13…Rb8 is imprecise because of 14.Qh5,
for example, 14…Ne7 15.0-0! Nxd5 16.Bxd5 0-0 17.c3, and White stands a
little better. On 13…Ra7, White should reply 14.Qh5! (in Soloviev-
Timoshchenko, Sverdlovsk 1978, White chose the weak 14.Qd3?!, see game
37 in the historical section) 14…Ne7 15.0-0, and White has a small
advantage.
13.Bxe4 Bg7
13…Rc8 is also quite playable, for example, 14.Qh5 (or 14.c3 Bg7
15.Qh5 with a transposition into the main variation) 14…Bg7, once again
transposing to the main variation of this chapter.
I must note that 14…Nd4? 15.c3 Rc5?, recommended by Sveshnikov, is
bad because of 16.cxd4 Bxd5 17.dxc5 (or 17.0-0!N, and Black is on the brink
of defeat) 17…Qa5+, and now 18.Ke2!N (Sveshnikov gives only 18.Kd1?
Bxe4 19.Re1 Bg6 20.Qe2??, etc., with a “formidable black attack”; however,
after 20.Qf3!N, White has a serious advantage). The line could continue 18…
Bxe4 19.Rhd1 Qb4 20.Kf1, and Black can resign with a clear conscience, for
example, 20…Bg6 21.Qh3 f5 22.cxd6 Bxd6 23.Nc2 Qc4+ 24.Kg1.
14.Qh5
Black is not afraid of 14.Nf6+ Bxf6 15.Bxc6+ Ke7 16.Bxa8 Qxa8 as his
compensation for the exchange is more than adequate, for example, 17.f3?!
e4! 18.c3 b4 19.Nb1? Qa7!N 20.Qe2 Rb8, and White has no escape.
The continuation 14.c3 Rc8 15.Qh5!, transposing to the main variation, is
playable. 15.Qd3?! is dubious because of 15…0-0!.
The move 15…Ne7!? (instead of 15…0-0!) first occurred in
Tseshkovsky-Timoshchenko, Kishinev 1975. This game has been analyzed in
the historical section in game 34. There White erred with 16.Rd1?. The
correct move is 16.Nxe7! Kxe7!?, and Black has good chances for equality.
In Caruana-Ivanchuk, Reggio Emilia 2011, there occurred 14.0-0 0-0
15.c3 f5 16.Bg2 Rb8 17.Nc2 a5. The game is even. Here various moves had
been tested. White has played 18.a3. Then 18…Kh8 19.Qe2 Qd7 20.Rad1 e4
21.f3 Nd4! 22.Nxd4 Bxd5 23.Qd2 b4!? 24.axb4 axb4 25.fxe4 (25.cxb4 leads
to equal play; after the game mov, Black stands slightly better) 25…bxc3
26.bxc3 fxe4 27.Rxf8+ Rxf8 28.Qe3 Qe7 29.Bh3 Qe5, and after long
struggle Black won.
14…Rc8
15.c3
Here 15.0-0!? Ne7 16.Rad1 Rc5 often occurs, as in the main variation
(16…Nxd5 17.Bxd5 0-0 18.c3 Rc5 19.Qf3 Qd7 20.Rd3 leads to simpler and
more equal play), then 17.Nb4 Qb6 18.Qg5 Kf8 19.Qe3 f5 (19…h5 is also
playable) 20.Bg2 e4 21.c3, and the game transposes to the main variation
with 19…f5.
15…Ne7! 16.Rd1 Rc5
16…Nxd5 17.Bxd5 Qd7 leads to a small White advantage. In Volokitin-
Krasenkow, Lublin 2009, there followed 18.Bxe6 (the move order 18.0-0
Rc5 19.Bxe6 Qxe6 20.Nc2 0-0 is more common but leads to the same
position) 18…Qxe6 19.0-0 0-0 20.Nc2 Rc5 (20…f5!?) 21.Rd2 Bh6 22.Ne3
e4 23.Qe2 f5 (23…Re5!?N) 24.Rfd1 Rd8 25.Rd4. After two slight slips by
Black, White’s advantage has slightly increased. Here Krasenkow erred with
25…Re5?!, but after 26.Nd5 Kh8, it was White’s turn to blunder – 27.Nb4?
(the correct move is 27.Kh1!N with a clear advantage), and Black seizes the
initiative after 27…d5 28.c4 bxc4 29.Rxc4 f4!.
In Almasi-Tregubov, Rijeka 2010, Black’s defense was better: 25…Kh8
26.Nd5 Qf7 27.f4 exf3 28.Qxf3 Bg7 (28…Re8!N) 29.R4d2 a5 30.Ne3 Rf8
31.Nd5 Be5 32.a3 Rc4, and White has an advantage.
But the best move is probably 25…d5!N, though White has an advantage
anyway.
17.Nb4
Though this move usually occurs in practice, it still raises questions.
17.Qg5 Nxd5 18.Qxg7 Qf6 19.Qxf6 Nxf6 takes White nowhere. In Berg-
McShane, Bundesliga 2003, there followed 20.Bb7?! Ke7! 21.Bxa6?, and
now Black had a chance to punish his opponent’s excessive greediness with
21…Bd5!N.
It looks like the most solid move is 17.Nxe7!? (Carlsen-Alekseev,
Lausanne 2004). Then there was 17…Qxe7 18.Nc2 d5 19.Bf5 d4 20.0-0 Bxf5
21.Qxf5 dxc3 22.bxc3 0-0 23.Ne3 e4 24.Rd5 Rxd5 25.Nxd5 Qe6 26.Qh5
Qe5 27.Qxe5 Bxe5 28.a4, and the game soon ended in a draw.
17…Qb6 18.Qg5 Kf8 19.Qe3
19.Nac2? is weak: 19…a5 20.Nd3 Rc4 (20…Rc8!N is even stronger)
21.Bg2 h5 22.Qe3 Qb8!, and Black has the advantage.
19…h5!?
19…f5 20.Bg2 e4 21.0-0! (21.Nac2?! is weaker: 21…a5 22.Nd4 Bc4!
23.Nbc2 b4! 24.b3 Bd3, and Black has an advantage, for example, 25.cxb4
Rxc2 26.Nxc2 Bc3+ 27.Rd2 Qxe3+ 28.Nxe3 axb4) 21…Kf7 leads to equal
play. In Lanka-Krasenkow, Tbilisi 1985, there followed 22.Rfe1 Ng6?! (the
correct move is either 22…Re8 or 22…Rb8 with equal play) 23.Nac2!
(23.Nd3 is weak) 23…a5 24.Nd3 Rc6 25.Nd4 Rc4? (the correct move is 25…
Bxd4N with an advantage for White) 26.Nf4? Nxf4 27.Qxf4 Bxd4 28.cxd4
d5, and, in Sveshnikov’s opinion, “Black managed to obtain quite a solid
position.” As for me, I believe that after 26.Nxf5!N Qxe3 27.Nxd6 Kf6
28.Rxe3 exd3 29.Rde1! Bg4 30.Rxd3, Black’s position is difficult.
20.0-0
On 20.Nd3, there is the strong reply 20…Bh6!, for example, 21.f4 exf4
22.gxf4!N (all the other moves are notably worse) 22…Rc6 23.Nc2 Qxe3+
24.Nxe3 d5, and Black has a small edge.
20…f5
The variation 20…h4 21.Nxa6 Bh6 22.Rxd6 Qxd6 23.Qxc5 Qxa6
24.Nxb5 does not promise any advantage.
21.Nd5
In Berg-Hellers, Sweden 2000, there followed 21…Nxd5?! 22.Bxd5
Bxd5 23.Rxd5 Qc6?! (23…h4!N is better) 24.Rxc5 dxc5 25.Rd1 Ke7 and
White has an advantage after 26.Qg5+!N Qf6 27.Qd2 Qc6 28.Nc2
The correct move is 21…Qb7!N, and Black has a slight edge.
Chapter 62
11.exf5
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.exf5
This is a popular continuation. White takes on f5, intending to win a

tempo for development later by attacking the bishop on f5. Strong players
carry this out either via c3, Nc2 and Nce3 or immediately through 12.Bd3,
and weaker ones with 12.Qf3.
11…Bxf5 12.Bd3
First let us look at the move 12.Qf3?. While there are more than 300
games with this move in the database, I know only of two by players with
ratings of 2500 and higher.
Sveshnikov devotes three pages to this move, so let us sort it out. Then
there follows forced 12…Nd4 13.Nc7+ Qxc7 14.Qxa8+ Ke7 (14…Bc8?,
recommended by Sveshnikov, is poor because of 15.c3 Nc6 16.Nxb5 axb5
17.Bxb5 Kd7 18.Qa4!, and White has a small advantage).
In this position, after 15.Rd1N Sveshnikov gives another erroneous
recommendation – 15…Nxc2+? 16.Nxc2 Bxc2 – but after 17.Be2!, Black has
only a small advantage. The correct move is 15…Bg7!, maintaining a large
advantage.
I believe that the most stubborn continuation is 15.Qxa6!? b4 16.Bd3!, for
example, 16…bxa3 17.0-0 axb2 18.Rab1 Bc8!N 19.Qa3 Rg8, though even
here White’s position is poor.
But in the overwhelming majority of games White, in the position in the
diagram, chooses 15.c3?!. Then there follows 15…b4! 16.cxb4 Qb6! (Black
has a great advantage after 16…Bh6 as well) 17.Bxa6 Qxb4+ 18.Kf1, and
now there is the very strong 18…Bh6!, which is not mentioned in
Sveshnikov’s book. His other erroneous recommendation is 18…Qd2? (he
considers it the main variation of the chapter) because of 19.h4! Bh6
20.Qxh8! Qxb2 21.Rd1N Qxa3 22.Qa8! Bd3+ 23.Kg1 Bxa6 24.Rh3 with
equal play. I should also note that Black has a very solid advantage after 18…
Qxb2! 19.Qb7+ Qxb7 20.Bxb7 d5!), for example, 19.Qb7! (after 19.Qxh8
Qxb2 20.Re1 Qxa3 21.Rxe5 dxe5N 22.Qxe5 Ne6, it is time for White to
resign) 19…Qxb7 20.Bxb7 Rb8 21.Ba6 Rxb2, and, despite his extra
exchange, White is on the brink of defeat.
The move 12.c3!? is good (it occurs in the overwhelming majority of
games); the best answer is 12…Bg7, and the game transposes to the 11.c3
variation that will be investigated later. Another playable continuation is
12…Be6 13.Nc2, and Black once again has to transpose to the variation
11.c3 via 13…Bg7. Both 13…Bxd5?! and 13…Bh6?!, recommended by
Sveshnikov, are noticeably weaker. In the chapter devoted to this move,
Sveshnikov cites as the main variation 14.a4 0-0! 15.axb5 axb5 16.Rxa8
Qxa8 17.Bxb5 Nd4! 18.Nxd4 Qxd5 19.Nxe6 Qxg2 (marks by Sveshnikov),
etc., “and Black has nothing to complain about.” The only thing is that after
20.Bc6! e4 21.Rf1 fxe6 22.Qxd6, good advice is hard for Black to come by.
12…e4
This move is employed very often and is rather successful. As we are
going to find out, it is absolutely correct from the tactical point of view, but
has certain positional drawbacks which have not been given sufficient
attention in praxis thus far.
Sveshnikov devotes more than six pages to this move, and his variations
contain a lot of mistakes, so I have chosen this move as the main one to sort
out those errors more easily.
I believe that the move 12…Be6!, with good play for Black, is
objectively better.
Then there usually follows 13.Be4 (13.Qf3 is weaker because of the

simple answer 13…Bg7, and 14.Nf4, recommended by Sveshnikov, runs into
14…d5!N, for example, 15.Qg3! exf4 16.Qxg7 Kd7 with a small advantage
for Black).
If Black is not willing to allow the move Nf6+ that wins an exchange, he
may choose 13…Rc8!?, for example,14.c3 (on 14.Qh5? there is a playable
move 14…Rg8!N, with better play for Black) 14…Bg7 15.Qd3?! (after
15.Qh5 the game transposes to the variation 13…Bg7) 15…0-0! 16.Bxh7+
Kh8, and White has serious problems equalizing.
But the immediate 13…Bg7!? is also possible, for example, 14.Qh5 (the
variation 14.Nf6+? Bxf6 15.Bxc6+ Ke7 16.Bxa8 Qxa8 is clearly in Black’s
favor, for example, 17.0-0 b4 18.Nb1 Rg8 19.f3 Bh3 20.Rf2 Qa7 21.g3
Bg5!N Rc8.
Now, if you haven’t noticed, after 15.c3 Ne7 16.Rd1 Rc5 17.Nb4?! Qb6
18.Qg5 Kf8 19.Qe3 there arises a position from the main variation of the
previous chapter; the only difference is that White played g2-g3 there. Who
benefits from this? Apparently, Black does, because after 19…f5, the white
bishop is deprived of the possibility of retreating to g2, which defines a small
Black advantage. It was better to choose 17.Nxe7, with equal play.
Another possibility is 15.0-0 Ne7 16.Rad1 Rc5 17.Nb4 (neither 17.Ne3
nor 17.Nxe7 brings any advantage either) 17…Qb6 18.Qg5 Rg8!? with equal
play (18…Kf8 is also quite good), as 19.Bxh7?! is disadvantageous because
of 19…e4 20.Qe3 a5.
13.Qe2
Into the storm. This move occurs practically in every game, but
objectively 13.Be2!, avoiding fruitless complications and retaining certain
positional benefits is somewhat stronger. I know only of four games with this
move. Then it is possible to continue 13…Bg7 14.c3 0-0 (14…b4
recommended by Sveshnikov is dubious because of 15.cxb4N, for example,
15…Bxb2 16.Nc4 Bxa1 17.Qxa1 Rg8 18.Qc3!, and White has the advantage)
15.Nc2 (this position sometimes arises with a different move order, for
example, 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Bd3 e4 14.Be2 0-0 15.Nc2) 15…Be6,
and here instead of 16.a4?!, which has occurred in some games, the correct
move is 16.0-0N with a small advantage for White.
13…Nd4 14.Qe3 Bg7
15.Bxe4
The continuation 15.c3 0-0 is rare; now the correct reply is 16.Bc2! (the
usual 16.Bb1? is bad, as it is going to be met not with 16…Nc6, pointed out
by Sveshnikov, but with 16…Be6! 17.Nf4 b4 18.cxd4 bxa3 with great
advantage for Black) 16…Be6! (this novelty is better than Sveshnikov’s
move 16…Nc6), for example, 17.Nf4! Nxc2+ 18.Nxc2 Qg5 with equal play.
In Matulovic-Vukic, Vrsac 1979, there followed 15.f3 Nxf3+! (note that
Sveshnikov believes 15…Qh4 to be the best move, but evaluates the ending
that arises after 16.g3 Nxf3+ 17.Qxf3 exf3 18.gxh4 Bxd3 19.cxd3 Bxb2
incorrectly. Here White has a small advantage, while Sveshnikov thinks that
“White has to act very cautiously.” For example, on 20.Kf2, he suggests the
variation 20…Bxa1 21.Rxa1 Rc8 22.Kxf3 Rc5, and “after any knight retreat
Black has the initiative.” As I see it, after 23.Ne3!N, it is White who has a
small initiative, and Black is struggling for a draw. In addition, there is the
good move 20.Kd2!?) 16.gxf3 Qh4+! 17.Kd2 Kf8 18.Bxe4 Bxe4 (18…Re8!?
N is also sufficient for equality) 19.Qxe4. Here Black overestimated his
chances and played 19…Qf2+?!. Instead of this he could easily equalize after
19…Qxe4!N 20.fxe4 Bxb2.
15…0-0 (D)
In this position, the correct move is 16.0-0-0!

Sveshnikov thinks that the best move is 16.0-0?, but presently we are
going to see that he is wrong. After 16…Re8 17.f3, Black is at a crossroads.
(a) Let us follow Sveshnikov’s example and begin with the move 17…b4.
Then he quotes the variation 18.Nc4 Nxc2 19.Qf4 Bxe4 20.fxe4 Nxa1
and writes that “now White could have obtained a clear advantage with
21.Nxd6!.” However, after 21…Qd7!N 22.Nxe8 Rxe8 23.Rxa1 Bxb2, there
is no advantage at all; and besides, Black had 18…Be6!N with equal play.
(b) Then the maestro writes: “17…Qh4!? is better, which is proved in
detailed analysis by Yusupov, Dvoretsky and Shashin, as improved by Zak
and Yuneev.”
Apparently, this list was meant to confirm the correctness of the analysis.
Without going onto subtleties of the analysis itself, I would only like to
notice that after 18.Qf2!N, White stands better, and the “detailed analysis”
itself, performed by the group (though not in collusion), proves exactly
nothing. Another good continuation is 18.Rae1N b4 19.g3!.
(c) Actually, the best move is 17…Be6!, for example, 18.c3 Bxd5
19.cxd4 b4 20.Nc2 Bc4 21.Qd2 Bxf1 22.Rxf1 d5, and Black has an obvious
advantage. Consequently, the move 17.0-0 is weak.
16…Bxe4 17.Qxe4 Re8 18.Qd3
18.Qg4? is bad because of 18…h5 19.Qh3 Qg5+ 20.Ne3 Ne2+!N
21.Kd2! (or 21.Kb1 Qf6) 21…Nf4 22.Qg3 Qf6 23.Qf3 d5, and White’s
position is lost.
18…Qg5+ 19.Ne3 Qf6 20.c3 Qxf2 21.Nac2 Nxc2 22.Nxc2 Re2 23.Rhf1
Qxg2 24.Rg1 Qxh2
The game is even, though the variation that Sveshnikov cites here,
25.Nd4? Rxb2?? 26.Qg3?, is not a very convincing proof of this evaluation.
Let us begin from the end. Instead of 26.Qg3? there is 26.Nf3!N which
wins immediately, for example, 26…Qe2 27.Rxg7+ Kxg7 28.Rg1+ Kf8
29.Qxd6+ Qe7 30.Qh6+! Ke8 31.Qc6+, etc. Thus 25…Rxb2?? loses, and
correct is 25…Rf2!N with an advantage for Black. Therefore 25.Nd4? is bad,
and the correct continuation is 25.Rdf1!N with equal play.
Chapter 63
11.Bxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 Ra4 13.b4 without 13…Rxb4 or
13.Nbc7
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bxb5
This interesting continuation occurred for the first time in the game
Peresypkin-Sveshnikov, Kiev 1973, but strong players had not paid much
attention to it until approximately 2001. Then there followed a short upsurge
in popularity, apparently under the influence of the game Shirov-Topalov,
Leon 2001, but a year later Shirov lost to Kasparov and the variation became
less attractive. Nevertheless, we will see that there is still scope for creativity
and for improvements in it. White does not obtain an advantage, but the
resulting complications are very interesting.
11…axb5 12.Nxb5
In this position Black has tried various moves.

12…Ra4!?
(a) He frequently played 12…Qg5?, though this move is obviously weak.
After 13.Ndc7+ Kd8 14.Qd5! Bb7, White should take the rook with 15.Nxa8!
(in Sveshnikov’s opinion, “15.0-0!? is interesting.” Don’t ask me why, as
after 15…Rc8!N 16.Qxf7 Qe7, Black’s advantage is indisputable. The most
common move is 15.Qxf7 with an advantage for White.) 15…Bxa8
16.exf5!N, and White has a great advantage.
(b) Sveshnikov also investigates the weak move 12…Qa5+? (and marks it
with “!?”), citing the variation 13.c3 Qa4 14.Nbc7+ Kd8 15.Nxa8 Qxa8
16.Nb6 Qa6 17.Nxc8 Qxc8 18.Qd5 “with mutual chances.” This is not quite
the case, as actually White has an obvious advantage. Instead of 17…Qxc8?!,
Black should play the more accurate 17…Kxc8!, and White also has an
advantage, but it is less serious.
(c) Let us explore the move 12…Ra7? which is the starting point in the
development of the variation.
After 13.Nxa7 Nxa7 (probably 13…Qa5+!? 14.c3 Qxa7 15.exf5 Bxf5 is
slightly better), White usually chooses 14.c3 (14.exf5!? is no worse. As a
refutation, Sveshnikov points out the variation 14…Nb5 15.c3 Nc7 16.0-0
Bxf5 17.Qf3 Nxd5 18.Qxf5 and believes that “Black’s position is preferable.”
There is room for argument here, as I think that White stands better. Besides,
a little earlier he had a stronger move, 15.a4!. I would also like to add that on
14…Bxf5, White can also reply with 15.a4!N with a clear advantage.).
Now the best continuation for Black is 14…Bg7!? (the move 14…Nc6?!
is weaker. In reply, I can suggest 15.a4!N, with the idea of advancing the a-
pawn as quickly as possible with a great advantage for White. In Mitkov-
Shirov, France 1994, Black played 14…Nb5, on which White should have
also answered 15.a4! with a s solid advantage.) Then it is possible to play
15.exf5!? (White usually prefers 15.Qa4+?!, apparently believing that in this
fashion he forces a transposition to a better ending after 15…Qd7 16.Qxd7+
Bxd7. However, this ending is only slightly better for White.) 15…Bxf5
16.0-0, and White has a solid advantage.
(d) Sveshnikov opines that “12…Rb8?! is hardly good because of
13.Nbc7+ Kd7 14.Qh5.” I, on the contrary, believe that after 14…Ne7!
15.Qxf7 Kc6, Black is fine.
Let us return to the move 12…Ra4!?.
13.b4
This is the most common move with strong players, but more often than
not it only leads to problems for White. Let us explore other options.
(a) The best move 13.Nbc7+! will be discussed in chapter 65.
(b) 13.c4? is bad, though Sveshnikov considers this continuation to be the
best move. After 13…Rxc4 14.0-0 (14.Nbc7+?! Kd7, transposing to the
variation from chapter 65, is even worse) Black should play 14…Be7! to
have an opportunity to meet 15.Rc1 with 15…Rc5! and obtain a great
advantage.
It must be noted that in the chapter devoted to the move 13.c4,
Sveshnikov regards 13…Qa5+? as a main move and confirms his opinion
with the following main variation: 14.b4 Rxb4 15.0-0 Rxb5 16.cxb5 Nd4
17.Qh5 Bg7 18.Qg5 0-0 19.Ne7+ Kh8 20.exf5 h6 21.Qh5 Qd2 22.Nxc8
Rxc8, “with sharp play.” As it has happened more than once already, there
are many errors in this variation. Let us begin with the final position.
First, there is little evidence of sharp play here; after 23.b6 White wins
quickly.
Second, instead of 21…Qd2?, it is better for Black to play 21…Qxb5N,
and though White’s advantage is great, Black can still continue the struggle.
Third, instead of 17…Bg7?, it is better to reply 17…Be6! with equal play,
for example, 18.Nf6+ Kd8 and now after 19.b6?!, recommended by
Sveshnikov, Black obtains an advantage after 19…Qxb6 20.Rfb1 Qa7
21.Rb2 Be7!N. The correct move is 19.exf5.
Let me remind you that the moves 13…Qa5? and 13.c4? are also
erroneous, so there are another two serious mistakes in the same chapter.
(c) After 13.0-0?! and 13…Rxe4 14.Nbc7+ Kd7, Black can transpose to
the main variation of the following chapter, but it is better for him to continue
13…Be7!, with a small advantage.
Let us return to the move 13.b4.
This position arose in the game Shirov-Kasparov, Linares 2002. Black

chose a sharp continuation: 13…Qh4!?. I believe that 13…Nxb4 is sufficient
for equal play, for example, 14.Nbc7+ Kd7 15.c3 Nxd5 (or 15…Ra7 16.cxb4
Rxc7 17.0-0 Ke8!N 18.Nxc7+ Qxc7) 16.Qxa4+ Kxc7 17.exd5 Qg5!N 18.0-0
f4. In the next chapter we will investigate 13…Rxb4!.
Then there followed 14.0-0 Rg8 15.f4!?
The game Luther-MacShane, Lippstadt 2000, ended in a quick draw after
15.c3 f4 16.Qxa4 Rxg2+ 17.Kxg2 Qg4+.
15…Kd8 16.c3!
The only move that holds the balance. On 16.Nxd6?, Kasparov points out
the variation 16…Bxd6 17.Nb6 Nd4 18.Nxa4 fxe4, and Black wins. On
16.Nb6?, Black has 16…fxe4N!.
If White takes the rook with 17.Nxa4?, there follows 17…Bh3 18.Rf2 e3
19.Re2 Bxg2! 20.Rxg2 Qf2+ and 21…Qxg2#. Another beautiful variation is
17.Nxd6? Nd4! 18.Nbxc8 Ra3!!, and Black’s attack is irresistible: 19.Kh1
Rxg2! 20.Kxg2 Rh3 21.Rh1 Re3!, etc. Best for White is 17.Nxc8!, on which
there follows 17…Qh3 18.g3 Kxc8 19.c3! Ra6, and Black has a solid
advantage.
16…Ra6 17.Nbc7!
A novelty and once again the only move. It is this knight that has to move
to c7. The other knight stays on d5 to control both the e3- and f4-squares. As
Kasparov points out, 17.Ndc7? loses: 17…fxe4 18.Nxa6 Bh3!, and 19.Rf2
does not help because of 19…e3.
Shirov’s defense in the above-mentioned game was poor: 17.a4? fxe4
18.f5? (18.Ra2 is more stubborn) and he lost quickly: 18…Bb7 19.Ra2 e3
20.Nxe3 Qe4 21.Re1 Nxb4 22.cxb4 Bh6 23.Kh1
Bxe3 24.Qe2 Rc6, etc.
17…Ra7
17…fxe4?! is dubious: 18.Nxa6 exf4 (after 18…Bh3 19.Rf2, there is no
move e4-e3. Complications after 18…Bxa6 19.b5! Bxb5 20.Qb3 are
favorable for White.) 19.Nb8! Nxb8 (19…Ne5? is bad because of 20.Qd4 f3
21.Rf2) 20.Qd4 f3 21.Qb6+ Ke8 22.Rf2, and the advantage is White’s. 17…
Ra3 18.Nb5 Ra6 leads to a repetition of moves.
18.b5 Qg4!?
18…Ne7 19.b6 Ra5 20.Ne3! leads to equal play, for example, 20…Ng6!
21.Qb3! Nxf4 22.Qxf7 Ne2+ 23.Kh1 Ng3+ 24.Kg1 Ne2+ with a draw.
19.Qd2! Rxc7 20.bxc6! Rxc6 21.Nf6 Qg6 22.Nxg8 and in this sharp
position, chances are equal.
Chapter 64
11.Bxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 Ra4 13.b4 Rxb4
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 Ra4 13.b4 Rxb4!
This development occurs in most games.

14.Nbc7+
14.Nxb4? Nxb4 15.0-0 is favorable for Black, for example, 15…Qd7!N
16.Qe2 fxe4.
14…Kd7 15.0-0 Rg8!?
This is both the most common and the most successful move. White faces
some challenging problems. Let us investigate other Black’s options.
(a) 15…Qxc7? has been encountered. Black gives up his queen without
any reason, as if he is frightened. It is possible to understand Dolmatov, who
played 13.b4 for the first time in 1979 in a game against a little-known
opponent, but what about the other eleven adherents of this idea?
I really had to put on my thinking cap and to “torture” my computer to
understand Topalov’s reasons for choosing this move in his game against
Shirov, Leon 2001 (the opponents played “Advanced Chess,” i.e., employed
computers), but, try as I might, I failed to find an answer. My only guess is
that Topalov accidentally touched the knight that had invaded Black’s battle
formations and had to take it…
And, joking aside, I guess computers were too weak then and
grandmasters trusted them much too much. As for the question mark to this
move, the reason for it is that Black has about a dozen of moves that are
better than this unnecessary queen sacrifice. But the puzzles were not over. In
the above-mentioned game, White surprisingly played 16.c3?, and the Chess
Informant’s experts pronounced this move the best novelty on the Informant
#81.
Then there followed 16…Rxe4 17.Qh5.
White stubbornly refuses to take the queen, which he would have

definitely regretted after 17…Qb7!N (Topalov played 17…Kd8? and White’s
plan ground to a halt – after 18.Nxc7 Kxc7 19.Qxf7+ Be7 there arose a
position from the variation 16.Nxc7, but with a white pawn on c3 that
controls both the d4- and b4-squares; White has a great advantage).
For example, after 18.Qxf5+ (on 18.Rab1? or 18.Rfb1?, there follows
18…Nb4! with a great advantage for Black) 18…Kd8 19.Qxe4 Ne7! 20.c4!
Bf5 21.Qf3 Rg8, Black has a small advantage. It looks like the experts were
wrong.
Experienced players say that you should take the queen even if, instead of
the capture, you see a mate in three moves (because there is always a
possibility that actually there is no mate at all); therefore 16.Nxc7!, and after
16…Kxc7 17.Qh5 Rxe4 18.Qxf7+ Be7 19.Rfb1! Rf8 20.Qb3 Rb4 21.Qd5,
White has an advantage.
(b) 15…Rb7?! is also insufficient because of 16.Qh5!. After the blunder
16…Ne7?, the blindfold game Shirov-Lautier, Monaco 2000, ended rather
quickly: 17.Qxf7 Kc6? (17…Rxc7! is better – 18.Nb6+ Kc6 19.Rab1 d5
20.Qf6+ Qd6 21.Qxh8, and White still has a great advantage) 18.Rab1! fxe4
19.Rxb7 Kxb7 20.Rb1+ Kc6 21.Rb6+ Kc5 22.Rb3 Kc6 23.Rc3+ Kb7
24.Nxe7 Bxe7 25.Qd5+ Ka7 26.Qa8+ and Black resigned.
The correct move is 16…Nd4!, but after 17.Rab1 Be7 18.Rxb7!N Bxb7
19.c3, I am unable to find equalizing play for Black.
(c) In Luther-Reinderman, Venlo 2000, Black tried 15…Qg5. (D)
Then there was 16.Nxb4 Nxb4 17.c3 Kxc7 18.cxb4 fxe4 19.Qa4, and in
this very sharp position Black blundered and quickly lost: 19…Bh3?? (losing
a most important tempo or even two as the bishop is needed on b7; the
correct move is either
19…Kb8N or 19…Rg8N, with equal play) 20.Rac1+ Kd8 21.Qa8+ Ke7

22.Rc7+ Bd7 23.Qb7 Qf5 24.Rfc1 Rg8 25.Rxd7+ Ke6 26.Qc8 Rxg2+
27.Kxg2 Qf3+ 28.Kg1 Qg4+ 29.Kf1 Qh3+ 30.Ke1.
(d) In Rolacek-Gerhardt, corr 2001, there occurred 15…Rxe4, a move
that is not popular among strong players. After 16.Qh5 Qh4! (both 16…Nd4?
and 16…Ne7? lose) White equalizes with 17.Qxf5+! (in the game he was less
accurate – 17.Qxf7+?! Be7 18.g3? Rg4 – and Black obtained a great
advantage) 17…Kd8 18.Qxf7 Be7 19.Rab1!N.
(e) Finally, the move 15…Qh4!? is extremely rare, although in my
opinion it is no worse than the main continuation 15…Rg8. After 16.g3!?
Qxe4!N 17.c3 Rb2 18.Nf6 Kxc7 19.Nxe4 fxe4, Black has a small advantage.
Let us return to the move 15…Rg8.
16.Rb1!
This is a rare move (I know only one game with it) that allows White to
struggle for equality. All the rest are worse.
(a) 16.Qh5? is really bad because of 16…Qg5! 17.Qxf7+ Be7 18.g3
Qg6!.
(b) In Luther-Leko, Essen 2002, there was 16.g3?! Rb7?! (16…Ne7!N is
better, for example, 17.Nxb4 Qxc7 18.exf5 Qc4!, etc. with an advantage for
Black) 17.Qh5 Qg5 18.Qxf7+ Be7 19.Nxe7? (a blunder that somehow went
unnoticed by numerous annotators, including Leko himself. Now everything
is clear.) 19…Nxe7 20.Ne6 Qg6 21.Nf8+ Rxf8 22.Qxf8 fxe4 23.Rfb1 Rc7
24.a4 e3 25.fxe3 Qe4, and White resigned.
The correct move is 19.Na8!N, with the idea of giving a check on b6 with
another knight and allowing the queen to c4. Although Black retains a small
advantage, the struggle is going to be very sharp, for example, 19…Nd4
20.Ndb6+ Kd8 21.Nxc8!. Now if 21…Kxc8?, then 22.Rfb1!, and it is already
White who has a serious advantage.
(c) In Otake-Balabaev, corr 2002, White chose 16.Nxb4?! which occurs
in the clear majority of games. Then there followed 16…Nxb4 17.Nd5 Nxd5
18.Qxd5 Ke7. Black’s position is better. 19.exf5 Qc7 (19…Bxf5!?N)
20.Rab1 Kf6 21.f4?! Bh6! 22.fxe5+ dxe5 23.Kh1 Bf4 24.Rf2 Rd8 with great
16…fxe4
On 16…Rxe4, it is possible to reply 17.Qf3!, for example, 17…Qg5
18.g3 Be7 19.Qc3! Bd8 20.Nb6+ Kxc7 21.Nxc8, and though Black is a piece
up, the engine does not give an advantage for him.
17.c3! Rxb1N
17…Rb7 18.Rxb7 Bxb7 has also occurred, and now instead of 19.Qa4,
the correct move is 19.Qb3!N with equal play.
18.Qxb1 Qh4 19.Na8!
A familiar idea. Then it is possible to continue 19…Ba6 20.g3 Qh3
21.Re1 e3!?. Though Black has the initiative, White, almost miraculously,
manages to hold the balance.
22.Nf6+ Ke6 23.Nxg8
You must agree that this position is highly unusual. Now it is possible to
continue 23…exf2+ 24.Kxf2 Qxh2+ 25.Kf3 Bc4 26.Nc7+ Kd7 27.Qe4! f5
28.Nf6+! Kxc7 29.Qxc4 e4+ 30.Nxe4 fxe4+ 31.Rxe4. The game is even.
Let us sum up the two last chapters devoted to the move 13.b4. It seems
that it only creates problems for White, and besides, after 15…Qh4!? (chapter
64), equality is still to be found.
Chapter 65
11.Bxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 Ra4 13.Nc7
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 Ra4 13.Nbc7+
In this fashion White obtains even chances. Admittedly, he still has to

demonstrate a series of the “only” moves. This once again confirms that the
bishop sacrifice on b5 is more favorable for Black and not for White.
13…Kd7 14.0-0
The first move in the above-mentioned series. 14.Qh5? quickly loses to
14…Rxe4+ 15.Kf1 Qh4! 16.Qxf7+ Be7.
Sveshnikov devotes much space to the analysis of the move 14.c4?, and
comes to a conclusion that the best variation is 14…Rxc4 15.0-0 (after
15.Qh5? Rxe4+ 16.Kf1 Qh4! 17.Qxf7+ Be7 18.Ne6 Ba6+ 19.Kg1 Nd4,
White can resign) 15…Nd4!, “after which it is very hard for White to
develop an initiative.” Indeed it is, as White is on the brink of defeat because
of the move 14x4? (by the way, Sveshnik-ov awards it a “!?“). Then there
may follow 16.Nb6+ Kxc7 17.Nxc4 fxe4!?N or 17…Kb8!?N, etc.
14.Nb6+? Kxc7 15.Nxa4 is also bad, and now the best moves are 15…
fxe4 or 15…Rg8 with great advantage for Black.
14.exf5? is somewhat better; the correct answer is 14…Re4! (14…Ne7,
pointed out by Sveshnikov, is worse because of 15.b4!?N) 15.Kf1 Rd4!N, for
example, 16.Qh5 Ne7 17.Qxf7 Kc6 18.c4 Bxf5 19.Ne6 Bxe6 20.Qxe6 Kb7!,
and Black has a serious advantage.
White can try to bring the game to the variation that has been explored in
the previous chapter by 14.b4, but, (1) after the move 14…Rxb4 that is
already familiar to us, there are problems equalizing in the variation 15…
Qh4!?; and (2) Black may choose other possible moves, for example, the
variation 14…Qh4!? 15.0-0 Rg8 (see the analysis of the game Shirov-
Kasparov in chapter 63), and so far I have been unable to find a way for
White to equalize.
Let us return to the move 14.0-0.
14…Rxe4
This is the most common move, but Black has other good options as well.
(a) In Pavlovic-Shariyazdanov, Biel 2002, there was 14…Qh4 15.c4!.
Now 15…Rxc4? is bad because of 16.Qb3!N, for example, 16…Rg8 17.g3
Rc5 18.Rac1 with great advantage for White. Here I must remark that the
variation recommended by Sveshnikov, 16.Nb5! Kd8 17.Nb6 Rb4? 18.Nxd6!
Rd4 19.Nxf7+ (marks by Sveshnikov), is not good because of 19…Ke8!N
with a serious advantage for Black.
In the game there was 15…Ra7?! 16.Nb5 Rb7? (it looks like the idea of
the rook transfer to b7 was suggested by Sveshnikov’s analysis, about which
we are going to discuss a little later. 16…Ra6N is better.) 17.a4! Kd8 18.a5,
and White has a great advantage. Instead of 15…Ra7?!, the correct move is
either 15…Rg8 or 15…Ra5N with equal play.
(b) 14…Rg8 is also quite playable. Now 15.g3? is bad because of 15…
Rxe4. In Kurnosov-Tregubov, Ulan Ude 2009, there was: 16.Qh5, and now
instead of 16…Qg5? 17.Qxf7+ Be7 18.Ne6! Nd8 19.Nxg5 Nxf7 20.Nxf7
Bb7 21.Nxe7 Kxe7 22.Nh6 Rf8 23.f4, with an equal game, the correct
continuation was 16…Ne7!N, for example, 17.Qxf7 Rg7! 18.Nf6+ Kxc7
19.Ne8+ Kd7 20.Qxf8 Rg6 21.Nf6+ Rxf6 22.Qxf6 Qb6, and White is on the
brink of defeat. Instead of 15.g3? White should have chosen 15.c4!N with
equal play, for example, 15…Ra5 16.Nb5 Qh4, etc.
(c) The move 14…Qg5 deserves special attention. Sveshnikov devotes a
whole chapter to it. It is usually followed by 15.c4 Rg8 (15…Rxc4? is very
weak as White can answer 16.Na8! with crushing attack, for example, 16…
Rxe4 17.Qb3!N Be7 18.Qb5!, and White wins) 16.g3.
According to Sveshnikov, the main continuation in this position is 16…

Ra7? 17.Nb5 Rb7??. He supports his opinion with the variation 18.a4 f4
19.a5 Qh4 20.a6 fxg3 21.fxg3 Rxg3+, adding: “with perpetual check;
however, it is not improbable that this is not the limit of Black’s
possibilities.”
Yet if we go back couple of moves and instead of careless 20.a6?? make
the accurate 20.Qd3!, then Black would have to resign. The transfer of the
rook to b7, from where it provokes the opponent’s pawn to advance as far as
the a6-square, really goes a long way, but no less astonishing is the fact that
there were several exemplary students from all over the world who, guided
by their guru’s recommendations, mounted the scaffold right without
reasoning.
I also have to note that instead of 17…Rb7??, Black should play 17…
Ra6!N, and White’s advantage is far from being decisive.
The correct move in the position on diagram is not 16…Ra7?, but 16…
Ra5! (although Sveshnikov considers this move dubious). Then it is possible
to play 17.b4 Nxb4 18.Nxb4!N (Sveshnikov recommends 18.Nb5?! Nxd5
19.Qxd5, but after 19…Qe7!N 20.Rfd1 Kd8, Black has the advantage) 18…
Kxc7 19.Nd5+ Kd8 20.Rb1! fxe4 21.Rb8, and Black’s material advantage is
balanced by the exposed position of his king, so the game is even.
Let us return to the move 14…Rxe4.
15.Qh5 Nd4
In recent years strong players have preferred this move. 15…Ne7
occurred very often, and after the compulsory 16.Qxf7 Kc6, the following
position would arise:
White almost invariably plays 17.c4, but we will see that there are issues
with this move (I must also add that the rare moves 17.Rad1 and 17.Rfd1 are
sufficient for equality).
I believe that the correct move after 17.c4 is 17…Kb7!, moving the king
away from the front lines. White usually continues 18.Nb5, on which there
follows 18…Kb8!, and in this position Black has a small advantage. Instead
of 18.Nb5, White could have played 18.Ne6!?N, but this move does not lead
to full equality either. It turns out that the move 17.c4 is not the most accurate
one.
But in practice in the overwhelming majority of games Black replies 17…
Qd7, which leads to equal play. Then there usually follows 18.Na8! Ng6!
19.Nb4+ Kb7 20.Qd5 Kb8 21.Nc6+!.
Playing 21.Nb6? instead of this move is bad because of 21…Qb7 22.Qb5
Nf4 23.N4d5 (23.f3 is weaker: 23…Re2 24.g3 Rg8!N, with the idea of
25.Kh1 Rg6!, and Black wins) 23…Be7!, and Black has a great advantage.
Then there follows 21…Kxa8 22.Qb5! Qb7 23.Qa5+ Qa6 24.Qc7 Qb7
25.Qa5+ with a pendulum draw.
22…Qc7, instead of 22…Qb7, is also playable, for example, 23.Qa4+
Kb7 24.Na5+ Kb8 25.Nc6. Here 25…Kb7 leads to a repetition of the moves,
but Sveshnikov recommends 25…Qxc6?? 26.Qxc6 Bb7, etc. with “sharp
play.”
Well, there is no sharp play after 27.Qb5!N as White’s position is won,
for example, 27…Be7 28.a4! Rc8 29.a5 Ka8 30.f3, etc.
Let us return to the move 15…Nd4.
16.c3!
Here Sveshnikov analyzes the variation 16.Qxf7+? Be7 17.Na8? (17.f3 is
better, but after 17…Re2!N, Black has a great advantage) 17…Qf8! and
points out that “18.Nf6+! Kd8 19.Qxf8+ Rxf8 20.Nxe4 fxe4 21.Nb6 Bb7
22.c4! leads to a slightly better endgame.” This optimistic evaluation needs a
slight correction: after 22…Ne2+N 23.Kh1 Nf4, White’s position is hopeless.
16…Ne2+ 17.Kh1 Kc6 18.g3 Kb7!?
The old move 18…Rg8 occurred in Vallejo-San Segundo, San Sebastian
2009. Then there was 19.Qf3!, and here the correct move was 19…Qxc7 (in
the game in this well-known position Black employed an unsuccessful
novelty 19…Nf4?, and resigned after 20.gxf4 Bb7 21.Qd3 Qxc7 22.Nxc7
Kxc7 23.f3 Rxf4 24.Rf2 e4? 25.Qc4+ Kb6 26.a4 Rxf3 27.a5+ Ka7 28.a6)
20.Nxc7 Kxc7. In this sharp position there could follow 21.Qd3 f4 22.Rfe1
Bb7 23.f3 Re3 24.Qc4+ Kb8 25.Rxe2 Rxf3 26.Kg1 fxg3, and the chances are
even.
19.a4!
This is the only move to maintain the balance. The move 19.Rae1?!
(Mastrovasilis-Illescas, Calvia 2004) is weaker. After 19…Rc4 20.Na6 Ka8
(20…Ka7!? with an advantage for Black is also playable) 21.b3, Black
committed an inaccuracy, 21…Rxc3?! (the correct move is 21…Nxc3!N with
better play). Then there was 22.Qxe2 Bb7 23.Kg1 Bxd5 24.Rc1 Rc8 25.Qb5
Bb7 26.Qa4 Qb6 27.Rxc8 Bxc8 28.Rc1. The game was even, but Black
blundered: 28…Kb7? (the correct move is 28…Bxa6!N) and White
immediately returned the favor – 29.Rc7+? (the winning move is 29.Nb4!
with ideas of Nd5 and Rc6) – and even managed to lose in the end.
19…Rc4! 20.Nb5! Be6 21.Rfd1 Nd4! 22.Ne3 Nb3!?N
In Strautins-Carasoni, corr 2010, instead of this there was 22…Nxb5
23.axb5 Rc8 24.c4! Ra8 25.Kg1, and in spite of the Black’s material
advantage, the game is level as a result of the exposed position of the black
king.
After 22…Nb3!? play could continue 23.Nxc4 Bxc4 24.Qxf5 and here
Black may choose between 24…Nxa1, 24…d5 or 24…Qb6, with equal play
in all cases.
Chapter 66
11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 without 13…Be6 or 13…0-0
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.c3
One of the two main continuations. Aiming for a solid position, White
prepares to bring his a3-knight into play. The even more popular continuation
11.Bd3 will be discussed later, in chapters 85-122.
11…Bg7
Black should not play 11…fxe4?! because of 12.Bxb5! axb5 13.Nxb5
with an advantage for White. For example, in Hamdouchi-Dorfman, France
2003, there followed 13…Be6 14.Nbc7+ Kd7 15.Nxa8 Bxd5 16.Qxd5 Qxa8
17.Qxf7+ Ne7 18.0-0-0 (18.0-0! is more precise) 18…Rg8 19.g3 e3
20.Rhe1?!. With his three last moves, White managed to squander his entire
advantage, and now instead of the strange move 20…Rg7?, it was correct to
play 20…Bh6!N, with equality.
12.exf5
This move occurs in the overwhelming majority of games. Let us
investigate other options.
(a) It is a bad time for sacrificing the knight on b5: 12.Nxb5?! axb5
13.Bxb5 Bb7! (13…Bd7?! is worse as the game transposes to the variation
12.Bd3 Be6 13.Nxb5) 14.Nb4. In Sokolov-Lautier, France 2004, there
followed 14…Qd7 (both 14…Qc7 and 14…Rc8, with an advantage for
Black, are slightly better) 15.exf5 Kf8 16.0-0 Rg8 (and here the more precise
move is 16…Qc7!N) 17.g3 (17.a4!N with almost level play is slightly better),
and after all those slips, the game is of no interest for us anymore.
(b) The game Chrupov-Zinchenko, Pardubice 2008 developed as follows:
12.Nc2 fxe4 13.g4?! (13.a4 with equal play is better, for example, 13…Rb8
14.axb5 axb5) 13…Ne7! 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bg2?! (Black has a small
advantage after 15.h4!N) 15…Nxd5 16.Nxd5 h5!, and Black has an
advantage.
(c) The solid move 12.g3 is playable, for example, 12…fxe4 13.Bg2 0-0
14.Bxe4 f5 15.Bg2 Be6 16.0-0, and the game transposed to a position from
Caruana-Ivanchuk (see chapter 61).
(d) The continuation 12.Bd3 usually transposes to well-known lines, for
example, 12…Be6 with a transposition to the variation 11.Bd3, or 12…Ne7
13.Nxe7 Qxe7, with a transposition to positions that we have already
explored in the system 10…Bg7.
12…Bxf5
13.Nc2
Other moves also occur:
(a) 13.Bd3 occurred in Nikolaidis-Kotronias, Rhodes 2008. There
followed 13…Be6 (on 13…e4 14.Be2, the game transposes to the variation
11.exf5) 14.Bc2 (after 14.Be4 Rc8, the position from the variation 11.exf5
arises) 14…Rc8 15.Bb3 Na5 16.Nc2 0-0 17.0-0, and here, instead of 17…
Nc4N, 17…f5! is more precise, with the idea of securing the comfortable e4-
square for the black rook after 18.f4 Nc4 19.Bxc4 Rxc4.
(b) The move 13.Qf3 is rather common; the best answer to it is 13…Be6
(after 13…Bg6?!, the variation 14.h4 e4 15.Qh3 h5 16.Nc2 leads to a small
White’s advantage, but the sharp move 14.Nxb5!? looks even more
promising). In Rogers-Ivanovic, Vrsac 1987, there was 14.Nf4?! (14.Be2
with equal play is better) 14…Nd4! 15.cxd4 exf4 16.Nc2 0-0 17.Bd3 Qg5
18.0-0 d5 19.h3 Kh8?! (after 19…Rab8!N, Black could make the break a2-a4
unfavorable and retain his minimal advantage) 20.a4! Bf6 21.axb5 axb5, and
Black’s small advantage has vanished into thin air.
(c) The position after 13.Be2 0-0 14.Nc2 will be studied with the move
order 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Be2.
13…Ne7
Both 13…Be6 and 13…0-0 are much more common; those moves will be
explored in detail in the following chapters.
14.Bd3!
Here the most common move is 14.Nce3 Be6, and the game transposes to
the variation 13…Be6.
In Adams-Shirov, Chalkidiki 1993, there occurred 14.Nxe7 Bxc2 (14…
Qxe7?? is not good because of 15.Qf3) 15.Qxc2 Qxe7 16.Be2 (there is an
interesting variation 16.Qe4!? d5!? 17.Qxd5 0-0 18.Be2 Rad8 19.Qc6!?N,
with the idea of 19…Rd6 20.Qe4 f5?! 21.Qb4!, and White has the advantage)
16…0-0 17.0-0 d5 18.Rfd1 Rfd8 19.Qb3, and here instead of 19…Qc5, it
was better to choose 19…e4!?N, for example, 20.Rxd5 Rxd5 21.Qxd5 Rd8
22.Qh5 e3, and Black is quite close to full equality.
14…Be6!?
This move is more precise than 14…Nxd5 (Ivanchuk-Kramnik,
Novgorod 1994). Then there followed 15.Bxf5 Ne7 16.Qg4 (16.Ne3! is
slightly better, for example, 16…d5 17.Qg4 0-0 18.Rd1, and, with a
transposition of moves, the game position arises) 16…0-0 (returning the
favor; the more accurate continuation is 16…Nxf5! 17.Qxf5 Qd7, and after
Kramnik’s recommendation 18.Ne3 Qxf5 19.Nxf5 Bf8 20.a4, Black has an
opportunity to employ 20…b4!N, for example, 21.cxb4 d5 22.0-0-0 0-0-0
23.f4 exf4 24.Rd4 Rg8, and White’s advantage is rather small) 17.Rd1 d5
18.Ne3 d4 19.Be4 dxe3? (for some reason Kramnik thinks that this is the
only move, although there is no question that both the well-known 19…f5
(20.Nxf5 Nxf5 21.Bxf5 Qf6 22.Be6+ Kh8 23.0-0), and 19…Ra7N are better;
in both cases White has an advantage) 20.Rxd8 exf2+ 21.Kxf2 Raxd8 22.Qe2
f5 23.Bb7?! (it is simpler to play 23.Bc2!, and White has a won position.)
23…Rd7 24.Bxa6 Rfd8 25.Qxb5 Rd2+ 26.Kg3 e4 27.Re1 (27.Kh3!) 27…
Ng6?! 28.Re2, and White once again has a won position.
15.Nxe7
On 15.Be4, Black should answer 15…f5!, for example, 16.Nxe7 (16.Bf3
e4 17.Bh5+ Kd7!N, with a small advantage for White, is possibly somewhat
better) 16…fxe4 17.Nd5 0-0 18.0-0 Ra7! 19.a4 Raf7 20.Nce3 Bh6 21.axb5
axb5 22.Ra6 Kh8 23.Qe2. Here in Ninov-Simic, Belgrade 1994, Black played
23…Bxe3?!. Instead, he had a number of aggressive moves – 23…Bf4!?N,
23…Bg5!?N (with the idea of Bh4), or even 23…Rf3!?N, with good play in
all cases.
15…Qxe7 16.Be4 Rd8
16…d5!? fails to equalize because of 17.Bxd5 Rd8 18.Bc6+ Kf8 19.Qf3,
and now Black should play 19…Qf6!?N.
17.Bc6 Bd7 18.Bxd7 Qxd7 (D)
White has the advantage. In Zontakh-Zezulkin, Serbia 2000, there

followed 19.Qd5 0-0 20.0-0 Kh8. Interesting is 20…Rc8!?N, with the idea of
21.Rad1 Rfd8. 21.Rfd1 f5 22.Nb4 e4 23.Nxa6 Rde8 24.Nc5?!
The correct move is 24.Qxd6!N. Then there followed 24…Qc8! 25.Qxd6
f4 26.Nd7 Rd8 and although Black is two pawns down, he has serious
counterplay because of the dangerous position of the knight on d7. After
27.Qe6?! Rf8 28.Qf7 e3 29.fxe3 fxe3 30.Rd3 e2?! (better is 30…b4!?N with
a slight advantage for Black) 31.Re1 Qc7, the game was agreed drawn.
Chapter 67
11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6 without 14.Nce3 or 14.g3
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6
With this move Black demonstrates his intention to struggle against the
knight on d5 either with standard means, Nc6-e7, or, when occasion offers,
through Nc6-d4. However, it allows White to carry out the plan with g2-g3,
which, as we will see, creates certain problems for Black.
14.a4
Trying to exploit the weakening of the black queenside immediately. The
main continuations 14.Nce3 and 14.g3 will be investigated in the following
chapters. The position after 14.Be2 0-0 15.0-0 is going to be discussed in the
variation 13…0-0 (chapter 73).
14…0-0!
There is no need to defend the pawn. 14…bxa4?! is weaker: 15.Rxa4
(perhaps 15.Nce3!? 0-0 16.Qxa4 Ne7 17.Bc4 with an advantage for White is
even better) 15…0-0 (15…a5? is bad: 16.Bb5 Rc8 17.Rc4! Bd7 18.Nce3 0-0
19.Qa4 Nb8 20.Bxd7 Rxc4 21.Nxc4 Nxd7 22.0-0, and Black’s position is
difficult (Kulaots-Felgaer, Bled 2002).
In Naiditsch-Filippov, Bad Woerishofen 2001, there followed 16.Nce3
f5?! (16…Kh8!?N is better) 17.Bc4! Kh8 18.Nb6 Qxb6 19.Bxe6. White has
an obvious advantage, and with his next move Black only makes his situation
worse. 19…Qxb2?! 20.0-0 f4 21.Nf5 Qb6 22.Qg4 Bf6 23.Nxd6 Nd8 24.Rd1
a5?! 25.Bd5 (25.Bf5!N) 25…Ra7 26.Ne4 Rg7 27.Qh5 Nf7, and now White
obtains a won position with 28.Rda1!.
15.axb5
The position after 15.Nce3 will be examined with the move order 13…0-
0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.a4 (chapter 75).
15…axb5 16.Rxa8 Qxa8
17.Nce3
17.Bxb5? clearly leads to a worse game because of 17…Nd4!, for
example, 18.Ne7+ Kh8 19.cxd4 Qxg2 20.Bc6 (or 20.Rf1 Qb7!N with a great
advantage) 20…e4 21.Rf1 Qg5 22.Nd5 Bxd5 23.h4 Qd8 24.Bxd5 Qa5+
25.Qd2 Qxd5 26.Rg1 f5!N, and Black has a great advantage.
After 17.Nc7 Qa2 18.Bxb5, the most precise move to equalize is 18…
Na7! (although both 18…Qxb2 and 18…Nd4 are only slightly weaker), for
example, 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Bd7 Rf7 21.Be8 Rf8 22.Bd7 Rf7 23.Be8 Rf8
Draw (Makitos-Krivic, corr 2006).
17…Nd4!
This move leads to equality. 17…Qb7 is slightly weaker, for example,
18.g4! Ne7 19.Bg2 Nxd5 20.Bxd5 Qe7. In Kasparov-Leko, Wijk aan Zee
2000, there followed 21.h4 (perhaps 21.Rg1!? with the idea of 21…b4
22.Rg3 is slightly more accurate; note that Black cannot play 21…Bh6
because of 22.g5) 21…Rc8 (and here 21…Qf6!? seems a more precise, for
example, 22.Qd3 Qf4 23.Qe4, and in Smirnov-Radjabov, Tripoli 2004, a
draw was agreed. It would be interesting to examine 22.Rh3!?N.) 22.g5 Rc5
(22…b4!?N) 23.Be4 d5 24.Nxd5 Bxd5 25.Bxd5 e4, and here the correct
move is either 26.Qd2 or 26.Kf1!?N with an advantage for White.
The move 18…b4!? is interesting (Lautier-Leko, Dubai 2002). Then there
followed 19.Bg2 bxc3 20.bxc3, and now the correct move is one of the
novelties, 20…Qa7!? or 20…Qd7!?, with the idea of Nc6-e7. Lautier played
badly: 20…Qb5?! 21.Be4 Nd4?, and now instead of the erroneous 22.f3?,
White could have continued 22.g5!N, with a serious advantage. White
intends to give a check on f6 with the knight.
18.Nc7
An attempt to take the knight on d4 takes White nowhere: 18.Ne7+ Kh8
19.cxd4 exd4 20.N3f5 Qa5!+ (after 20…Bxf5?! 21.Nxf5 Qe4+ 22.Be2 Qxf5
23.0-0, White’s position is slightly better) 21.Ke2 (21.Qd2?! is weaker: 21…
Qa1+ 22.Qd1 Qxb2 23.Bd3 Bxf5 or 22.Ke2 Qb1! 23.Ng3 Re8, etc.) 21…Bf6
or 21…b4, with a small advantage for Black in both cases.
18…Qa2 19.Nxe6 Nxe6 20.Bd3! Qxb2
20…Nf4 21.0-0 Nxd3 22.Qxd3 Qxb2 23.Rb1 e4 24.Qxe4 Qxc3 25.g3
Qc5 leads to a slight advantage for White (Kulaots-Eljanov, Kharkov 2003),
and now 26.Qb7!N.
21.0-0
21…Rd8!
This is probably the most precise move. I was not able to find even a
slightest hint of White’s advantage after it.
21…Nf4 22.g3 Nxd3 23.Qxd3 Re8 24.Qxd6 Qxc3 25.Rb1 Bf8 26.Qd7
Rb8 27.Rxb5 with almost complete equality is also playable.
In Topalov-Grischuk, Wijk aan Zee 2003, Black played 21…Nc5?!. Then
there was 22.Bf5 (perhaps a better move is 22.Qg4!N with a thematic
variation 22…Kh8? 23.Nf5 Bf6 24.Qh5 Nxd3? 25.Qh6!, and White wins)
22…e4 23.Nd5 Re8?! (the correct move is 23…Kh8) 24.Qg4 Kf8 25.Bxh7.
Here Black blundered – 25…Re5?? – and White could have won after
26.Nc7!, for example, 26…Ne6 27.f4 exf3 28.Qxf3 Nd8 29.Qa8, etc.
Here is one of the variations to consider: 22.Nd5 Nf4 23.Nxf4 exf4
24.Qg4 Qxc3 25.Qh4 Rb8 26.Bxh7+ Kf8 27.Qxf4 Qf6 and the game is
even.
Chapter 68
11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6 14.Nce3 Ne7 15.g3 Nxd5
16.Nxd5 0-0 17.Bg2 a5 18.0-0 without 18…f5
14.Nce3
While defending his knight on d5, White intends to develop his bishop to
d3. It is the most common move in the database; however, strong players
prefer 14.g3 (see chapters 70-72 below).
14…Ne7
Strong players practically always make this move. Sveshnikov awards it
an exclamation point and rightly notes that it was “introduced into practice by
Timoshchenko.” All I have to add is “in the game against Gufeld in 1976.” I
also would like to add that I do not think that this move is as outstanding as it
is popular. I consider 14…0-0, with a transposition to the variation 13…0-0,
to be preferable.
15.g3
Other moves are much less common.
(a) The variation 15.Be2 Nxd5 16.Nxd5 0-0 17.0-0 Rc8! (17…Rb8 is a
bit weaker) does not bring any advantage. Then there usually follows 18.a4
Rc5 19.Nb4 bxa4 20.Qxa4 a5 21.Na6 Rd5, and the game is even.
(b) 15.Nxe7 Qxe7 16.Bd3 has also occurred. (16.Qf3?! allows 16…e4!
17.Qxe4 d5 18.Qf3 b4 with the initiative for Black. On 16.a4, Black may
continue 16…0-0!, for example, 17.axb5 axb5 18.Rxa8 Rxa8 19.Bxb5 Qb7
with equal play.) In Ivanisevic-Damljanovic, Subotica 2000, there followed
16…d5 17.0-0 Rd8 18.Qh5 e4 19.Bc2 Qf6 20.Rad1 Qg6 21.Qe2?! (the
correct move is 21.Qh4!N with the idea of meeting 21…f5? with 22.Bb3!)
21…f5, and Black seized the initiative.
(c) The move 15.a4 is fairly common.
Then there usually follows 15…Nxd5 16.Nxd5 0-0 17.Be2. The game De
Firmian-Filippov, Minneapolis 2005 continued in the following fashion: 17…
bxa4 (this is the most common move, but 17…Rc8!? also deserves attention)
18.Rxa4 a5 19.0-0 Rb8 20.b4 axb4 21.cxb4. In this position Black committed
an obvious inaccuracy 21…e4?! (the correct move is 21…Qg5! with
practically equal play), and then, instead of the even more obvious error
22.b5?, White should have played 22.Qd2 with an advantage.
15…Nxd5 16.Nxd5 0-0 17.Bg2 a5
This move that occurs in most of the games had been introduced into
practice in Radev-Timoshchenko, Varna 1977. At first contemporaries did
not do justice to it, and the next game with it took place only eight years later.
In the above-mentioned game against Gufeld, I played 17…Kh8, and later the
game transposed to main variations via a non-essential transposition of
moves. It is possible to play 17…Rb8 18.0-0 a5, getting back to the main
variation. On 17…f5 18.0-0 a5, we arrive at the initial position of the next
chapter.
18.0-0 Rb8
Aimed primarily against the possible break a2-a4. The continuation 18…
f5 will be explored in the next chapter.
19.Qh5!?
This move creates certain problems for Black, so, as I see it, the move
18…f5, considered in the next chapter, is more accurate. After 19.Qe2 Qd7
20.Rad1 f5, the game transposes to the 20.Rad1 variation in the next chapter.
The common continuation 19.Qd2 f5 leads to the position which, with a
transposition of moves, will also be explored in the next chapter.
19…f5
The variation 19…Qd7 20.Qh4 Bxd5 (20…f5!?) 21.Bxd5 Kh8 leads to
worse play. In Short-Lautier, Linares 1995, there was 22.Rad1 (22.g4?! is
weak because of 22…f5, Short-Kramnik, Dortmund 1997) 22…f5 23.Qh3
(23.a3! retains the advantage) 23…Qe7 24.Rfe1 e4 25.Re2 Be5 26.f4?! exf3
27.Bxf3, and the game becomes equal.
20.Rad1
This move is made practically all the time, but 20.a3!? is not worse, for
example, 20…Kh8 21.Rad1, and the game arrives at the main variation.
20…Kh8 21.a3!?
21.Rd2 Bf7 22.Qd1 is not as strong, for example, 22…Qe8 (22…Qd7 is
also fine) 23.a3 e4, and here in Kotronias-Illescas, Chalkidiki 1992, White
managed to ruin his own position in two moves, 24.Nf4?! Be5 25.Rxd6?!
Bc4!, and Black has the advantage.
21…Bf722.Qh3!?
22.Qe2 is slightly weaker. In the game Georgy Timoshenko-Wells,
Oberwart 1994, there followed 22…Be6 23.Rfe1. 23.Rd2!?N with the idea
23…Qg5 24.Rfd1 seems somewhat more precise; White has a small
advantage.
23…Qd7
And now the more accurate move is 23…Qg5!?N, restricting the white
queen without fear of 24.Nc7 because after 24…Bb3 25.Rxd6 Qe7 26.Rc6
e4!, Black has the advantage.
24.Qh5 Bf7
Wasting his time; 24…e4!N is slightly better.
25.Qh4 Bxd5?!
Black should have preserved his bishop pair by 25…Be6N, but White
retains a small advantage anyway.
26.Rxd5 b4 27.axb4 axb4 28.c4 and White’s advantage is indisputable.
Chapter 69
11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6 14.Nce3 Ne7 15.g3 Nxd5
16.Nxd5 0-0 17.Bg2 a5 18.0-0 f5
14.Nce3 Ne7 15.g3 Nxd5 16.Nxd5 0-0 17.Bg2 a5 18.0-0 f5 (D)
This continuation is aimed against Qh5, but it allows the undermining a2-
a4.
19.Qe2
Let us check other options.
(a) Here the most common move by White in the database is 19.Qh5;
however, it is the most
harmless of all the moves we are going to investigate. Black has a strong
reply, 19…b4!. In the game Hjartarson-Krasenkow, Malmö 1995, there
followed 20.Rad1 (after the rare 20.cxb4, Black should reply 20…e4! with
equal play. 20…axb4?! is weaker because of 21.Rfc1!N, and White has a
small advantage.) 20…bxc3 21.Nxc3 Rb8.
Here White played 22.b3?! (the only way to hold the balance is
22.Bd5!N, for example, 22…Bxd5 23.Nxd5 Rxb2 24.Rb1!, and White has
sufficient compensation for his pawn). There followed 22…e4 23.Nd5 Rb5
24.Nf4 Bf7 25.Qe2 Rc5 26.f3? (Krasenkow believes that this is the only
move, but 26.Bh3N is obviously better) 26…d5? (a mistake; after 26…
Re8!N, Black’s advantage is undeniable) 27.fxe4 fxe4, and now White
equalizes with 28.Nh5!.
(b) The move 19.a3 is aimed against b5-b4. Black’s most common reply
is 19…Rb8 20.Qh5, and there arises a position that has been already explored
in the previous chapter. However, there is a stronger option, 19…Rc8!, and
White’s advantage is small.
(c) 19.Qd2 also occurs rather often. (D)
Then there may follow 19…Rb8 20.Rad1 (after 20.Rfd1 Kh8, it is

already too late to reply 21.a4 because of 21…e4!) 20…Kh8 21.Kh1 (21.f4?!
is
premature because of 21…b4!) 21…Qd7 22.f4 (this plan is quite frequently
employed in similar positions, but at the moment White is better playing
more cautiously, for example, 22.a3) 22…e4 (22…Qf7!?, as I played against
Radev, Varna 1977, is no worse, but after 23.a3, I should have played more
accurately, 23…Rbd8!N, instead of 23…Rfd8, which allowed White to
obtain good play after 24.g4! fxg4 25.fxe5) 23.g4!? (in Wang Pin-
Krasenkow, Shanghai 2000, White made the poor move 23.Ne3?!; the best
reply was 23…b4!N with an advantage) 23…b4 24.gxf5. This position arose
in Naiditsch-Skripchenko, Dortmund 2001. Black played 24…Bxd5, but
24…Bxf5!N, with full equality, is more precise.
(d) Finally, the move 19.a4!? is also rather common. Let us consider this
principled continuation.
Black has tried three options:

(1) 19…b4?, as Krasenkow has once played, is brave but bad. After
20.cxb4 axb4 21.Rc1!, White has a great advantage. On 21…e4, White
should have simply taken the exchange with 22.Nc7N Qd7 23.Nxa8 Rxa8
24.Bh3!. There is a threat of Bxf5; on 24…Rxa4, there is the strong reply
25.Rc7!, and 24…d5 is met with 25.Qd2!.
(2) 19…bxa4?! 20.Rxa4 Rb8 is insufficient for equality because of
21.Qd2 Kh8 22.Rfa1 Rb5 23.c4 Rc5 24.b3!. The only game in which this
position has occurred is Ilis-Savchak, corr 2001. Then there followed 24…e4
25.Nf4! Bf7 26.R1a3 d5 27.cxd5 Bxd5, and now instead of 28.Rd4?!, the
correct move was 28.Bf1!N (on 28.Rxa5, Black has the defense 28…Bc6!
29.Qxd8 Rc1+!), and there arises a kind of zugzwang position on the board
crammed with pieces – Black has no useful moves, while White is already
prepared to take the pawn on a5.
(3) 19…Rb8! is the most precise reply. Then a possible continuation is
20.Qd2 Kh8 21.axb5!? Rxb5 22.b4 axb4 23.cxb4 e4! 24.Ra5 Rb7, and
White’s advantage is no more than symbolic (Müller-Lafarga, 2003).
Let us return to the move 19.Qe2.
19…Rb8 20.Rfd1
The usual move here is 20.Rad1, and the usual reply is 20…Qd7. Then it
is possible to play 21.f4 (21.Rd2!? Qf7 22.Rfd1 leads to the main variation)
21…Qf7 (Black has excellent play after 21…e4!? 22.Rd2 b4). In Yakovich-
Sveshnikov, Sochi 1986, there followed 22.Rd2 (22.Ne3!?N is more
accurate) 22…e4 23.Rfd1 Rfc8 24.Bh3?! (the correct move is 24.g4!N with
equal play) 24…Rc5 (here 24…h5N looks natural) 25.Ne3 d5?! (25…Bf8N
is better as it maintains the balance, but Sveshnikov repeats my game against
Gufeld – as well as my error) 26.g4! fxg4 27.Bxg4 Bxg4 28.Qxg4 Kh8, and
now after 29.Kh1!, the game could miraculously dovetail into the game
Gufeld-Timoshchenko that will be discussed later.
20…Qd7 21.Rd2 Qf7 22.Rad1 Kh8 23.f4
23.Kh1 to equal play.
23…Rfc8
23…e4 also leads to equality.
24.Kh1
24.Qf2 does not bring any advantage. In Gufeld – Timoshchenko,
Novosibirsk 1976, there followed 24…e4 25.Bh3 Rc5. 25…b4! with
excellent play for Black is simpler.
26.Ne3 d5?!
26…Bf8!N with equal play is more accurate, but Black takes into account
his opponent’s time trouble and plays for complications.
27.g4! fxg4 28.Bxg4 Bxg4 29.Qxg4 b4! 30.cxb4
30.Nxd5N Rd8! with a small advantage for White is no better.
30…axb4 31.Nxd5 Bxb2
White has a small advantage, but here he blunders in time-trouble –
32.Nc3?? Rg8 33.Qxg8+ Qxg8 34.Nxe4 Rc1 and White resigned.
Chapter 70
11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6 14.g3 0-0 15.Bg2 a5 16.0-0
without 16…f5
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 Be6 14.g3
The continuation 14.g3 is definitely “younger” than 14.Nce3 explored in

previous chapters. As far as I know, in occurred for the first time in the game
Anand-Vyzmanavin, Moscow 1987, so it comes as no surprise that it is
simply absent from Sveshnikov’s book (talking about “exhausting the
variation” once again…).
This is a logical move, White has to prepare castling as quickly as
possible. Players with ratings 2600 and higher employ it about five times
more often than the knight move to e3.
14…0-0 15.Bg2 a5
Strong players practically always play in this fashion. 15…f5 16.0-0 a5
leads to a transposition of moves; this position will be examined in the
following two chapters.
In Short-Kramnik, Novgorod 1995, Black attempted to do without a7-a5:
15…Rb8 16.0-0 Qd7 (it is still not too late to return into the main variation of
this chapter by playing 16…a5!) 17.a4! b4?! (and now he should have played
17…a5!) 18.Ncxb4 Nxb4 19.cxb4 Bxd5 20.Bxd5 Rxb4 21.b3!, and White
has a clear advantage.
16.0-0 Rb8
16…f5 occurs approximately twice as often. We will devote two chapters
to this move.
17.Qh5
This is the most common move, but certain other continuations are no
worse. 17.Qd2 is playable, and after either 17…f5 or 17…Qd7, 18.Rad1 f5
leads to positions in the next chapter.
The position after 17.Nce3 f5 18.Qh5, with a transposition of moves, will
be examined later. The continuation 17.Qe2 frequently leads to positions in
chapter 72, as it is not easy for Black to play without f7-f5.
17…f5
It is pointless to play 17…Qd7?!. First, it does not prevent 18.Rad1, for
example, 18…Bg4? 19.Qg5 f6 20.Nxf6+ Rxf6 31.Bxc6 with an extra pawn
for White; and second, 18.Nce3!? f5 19.g4! is better (Dvoyris-Iskusnykh,
Novgorod 1995). In the game Black made a mistake immediately – 19…
fxg4?! (the best defense is 19…Kh8! 20.gxf5 Bxf5 21.Nxf5 Rxf5 22.Qg4
Rf7!N 23.Qxd7 Rxd7, but after 24.Rad1 White has an advantage), and after
20.Be4 h6 21.Qg6 Rf7 22.f4!, his position became hopeless.
18.Rad1
Now the move 18.Nce3 is not so strong; the only thing Black should not
do under any circumstances is play 18…Qd7?! as we have just seen. Simplest
of all is to take the game into the main variation of the next chapter with 18…
b4!; however, there is also a logical-looking move 18.a3!? which hampers the
main method of Black’s counterplay.
18…Kh8
This is the most common move. Here it seems pointless to play 18…Qd7
(Anand-Nunn, Monaco, blindfold 1995). There is still a possibility of trying
to transpose the game to the main variation of the next chapter once more
after 18…b4!? 19.Nce3. However, White is able to avoid this if he wishes,
for example, by 19.cxb4.
19.Rd2
This is the most common move. Let us discuss other options. 19.Nce3 is
playable; the best reply is 19…b4!, taking the game to a position in next
chapter’s main variation.
In Grischuk-Hamdouchi, Ubeda 1999, White chose 19.a3!?. Then there
followed 19…Ne7 20.Rd2 (after 20.Nce3!? Nxd5 21.Nxd5, the position from
the main variation of chapter 68 could have arisen), and now instead of 20…
Ng6, Black could have played 20…Nxd5!?N 21.Bxd5 Bd7, and White has a
small advantage.
19…b4 20.Rfd1 Bf7 21.Qh3

In Zontakh-Horvath, Budapest 1999, there followed 21.Qe2 bxc3 (there is
a strong novelty 21…e4!?) 22.bxc3 Rb2 23.Nde3 (23.Nce3!N) 23…Ne7
24.Nc4 Bxc4 25.Qxc4 Qb8?! (25…e4!N) 26.Ne3 f4 27.Nd5 Nxd5 28.Qxd5,
and White has a clear advantage.
21…Qg5!N
In Sakai-Balabaev, corr 2001, there was 21…bxc3 22.bxc3 Rb2?! (22…
Bg6N with a small advantage for White is better) 23.Nce3 Rxd2 24.Rxd2
Be6 25.Qh5 and White has an advantage. Then the possible continuation is
22.Nce3 (the best move) 22…Bh5
22…bxc3 is also not bad.
23.f4 exf4 24.gxf4 Qg6 and White has only a small advantage.
Chapter 71
f5 without 17.Qe2
0-0 15.Bg2 a5 16.0-0 f5!?
This move, creating a mobile pawn phalanx, is more important for Black
than the rook move to b8, the more so since he does not have to fear a2-a4,
and the advance b5-b4 is often possible even without any support from the
rook.
17.Qh5
This continuation is second in popularity, but the move 16…f5 is aimed
directly against it. Let us examine other options.
(a) We are going to explore the main continuation, 17.Qe2, in the next
chapter.
(b) In Morovic-Lautier, Cap d’Agde 2002, White resorted to the forced
line 17.Nf4 exf4 18.Bxc6 fxg3 19.hxg3 f4 (19…Rc8!? leads to equal play)
20.Bd5 (after 20.Nd4 fxg3 21.Nxe6 Qh4 22.fxg3 Qxg3+, the game ends with
perpetual check) 20…Qc8 21.Re1 Bxd5 22.Qxd5+ Kh8 23.Nd4 fxg3 24.fxg3
Qh3 25.Qg2 Bxd4+ 26.cxd4 Qg4 27.Re4 Qg7, and soon a draw was agreed.
(c) In the variation 17.Qd2 Rb8 18.Rad1, I can recommend 18…Qc8!?N
(previously there had only occurred 18…Qd7, which may run into the
unpleasant retort 19.Nde3 Rbd8 20.Bd5 with a small advantage for White,
and if 19…f4?, then 20.Qxd6), and if now 19.Nde3?!, then 19…f4! with
excellent play for Black.
(d) In the game Ivanchuk-Radjabov, Morelia/Linares 2008, White played
17.Re1!?. Then there followed 17…Rc8 18.Nce3 (in Svidler-Filippov, Kazan
1995, there was 18.Qd2 Kh8 19.Rad1 e4 20.f4?! b4!, and Black seized the
initiative) 18…Kh8 19.Qh5 b4 20.Rad1, and there arises a position that is
different from one in the main variation only in that instead of Rd2, White
has played Rfe1, and black rook is on c8. This is apparently not in White’s
favor. I would like to draw your attention to the move 18.Re2!? with an idea
of transferring the rook to d2.
Let us return to the move 17.Qh5.
17…b4!
Just so. Black begins play on the queenside immediately, without waiting
for the probable a2-a3. There is no sense of playing 17…Rb8, transposing the
game to positions in the previous chapter.
18.Nce3
This is the most common move. On 18.Rad1, Black can do without Rb8
and implement his plan: 18…e4!N, and then, for example, 19.Nce3 Ne7!, and
the analysis shows that the chances are even.
18…Rb8!
Now the time has come for the rook move. Opening the b-file would be
premature.
19.Rad1
19.g4 practically forces a draw. In Xie Jun-Lautier, Monte Carlo 1996,
there followed 19…Bf7 20.Qxf5 Bg6 21.Qe6+ Bf7 22.Qf5 Bg6 23.Qe6+ Bf7
and a draw was agreed. 19.Rfd1 allows the queen rook to be placed on d1
first and then doubling rooks along the d-file; it leads to transposition of a
moves.
19…Kh8!
Accuracy to the end. In this position Black invariably plays 19…bxc3
20.bxc3 Kh8, but it gives White an opportunity to change his plans and
switch to play along the b-file with 21.Rb1!, retaining a small advantage.
20.Rd2 bxc3 21.bxc3
21…a4!
In this position, most players, as if hypnotized, play 21…Rb5?!, after
which White, also almost exclusively, replies 22.Rfd1?!, and after 22…Rc5,
White starts to wonder where his entire advantage has gone. Instead, White
should have played 22.a4!, retaining his advantage, for example, 22…Rc5
23.Rb1 e4 24.Nf4!N Bf7 25.Qd1 Be5 26.Rb5, etc.
22.Rfd1N
In the only game I know with 21…a4, Kurnosov-Chekhov, Serpukhov
2002, White chose the much too active 22.g4?! and after 22…Bf7! 23.Qh3
fxg4 24.Qxg4 Bh6, obtained a worse position. 24…Ne7!N is even stronger.
22…a3!
White’s edge is only “moral” if anything at all, for example, 23.Nc4 Bf7
24.Qe2 e4 25.Nf4 d5 26.Nxd5 Qg5 27.h4 Qh5 and Black has a full
compensation for his sacrificed pawn.
Chapter 72
f5 17.Qe2
0-0 15.Bg2 a5 16.0-0 f5 17.Qe2
As we know from the previous chapter, the queen move to h5 is not

especially promising for White, so another popular (and more reserved)
move, developing the queen on e2, is not without interest.
17…Rb818.Rfd1
This is the most common move. Getting ahead of myself, I would like to
note that this rook is often needed right on f1 – at times to support the break
f2-f3 after Black’s move e5-e4; at other times, in the variation Ra1-d1-d2, to
have the move f2-f4 after Black’s reaction Bh6. Let us study other options.
(a) The variation 18.Nf4 Bf7 19.Bxc6 exf4 does not bring any advantage,
for example, 20.Qf3 fxg3 21.hxg3 Kh8, etc.
(b) After 18.a3 the move 18…e4 looks suspicious (Navara-Gagunashvili,
Rethymnon 2003). Instead, Black should play 18…Qd7 and then Kh8 (or in
the reverse order), retaining excellent chances for equality.
(c) 18.Na3 Na7 19.Rfd1 Kh8 (see 19.Na3) leads to a transposition of
moves, but 18…e4!?N is not worse.
(d) Finally, let us dwell on the move 18.Rad1!?, which I personally
consider the most unpleasant one for Black. We have already discussed its
advantages.
(1) Black usually continues 18…Qd7, after which White should reply
19.Rd2! (19.f4 throws away the advantage because of 19…e4!), for example,
19…e4 (after 19…Kh8 20.Rfd1, we reach the game Topalov-Leko to be
discussed below) 20.f3! Nd4 21.Nxd4 Bxd5 22.b3 Ba8 23.fxe4 fxe4
24.Rxf8+ Bxf8 25.Qe3 Kh8 26.Rf2, and White’s advantage is quite tangible.
(2) The move 18…Ne7 is not bad at all. The game Leko-Kramnik,
Linares 2000, came down to this position with the inverted move-order. Then
there followed 19.Nce3 Kh8 20.a3 Qd7 21.Nxe7 Qxe7 22.Nd5 Qf7 with
equality. However, White could have played more accurately: 19.Rd2!N,
retaining a small advantage.
(3) I believe that the best answer for Black is 18…Kh8. Then it is
possible to continue 19.Na3!? (on 19.Rd2, Black maintains the balance with
19…e4! 20.Nce3 Bh6!N) 19…Na7! (19…b4 is weaker because of 20.Nb5
with an advantage) 20.Rd2 b4 21.cxb4 axb4 22.Nc2.
This position arose in Dvoiry-Filippov, Tomsk 1997. Now instead of
22…Qa5?!, it is better to play 22…Bh6!, and White has only a small
advantage.
Let us return to the move 18.Rfd1.
18…Kh8 19.Rd2
In Topalov-Lautier, Tilburg 1998, there was 19.Na3 b4?! (the correct
move is 19…Na7!, for example, 20.Rd2 Bh6! 21.f4!?N Bxd5 22.Rxd5 exf4
23.Rf1 fxg3 24.hxg3 Qg5 25.Qd3, and White’s position is only
insignificantly better.) 20.Nb5 bxc3 21.bxc3 Bg8 (Lautier believes that this is
the only move, but actually there is an active continuation that is more in the
spirit of the Chelyabinsk variation: 21…e4!N 22.Ndc7 Bd7 23.Rxd6 Ne5,
and though the advantage is White’s, the play is highly complex.) 22.Ndc7
Na7 23.Bd5 Nxb5 24.Nxb5 Qb6 25.a4 Rf6, and here instead of the erroneous
26.Ra2?, the correct continuation is 26.c4!N with a clear advantage for
White.
19…e4!
In Topalov-Leko, Leon 1996, there occurred the stereotyped 19…Qd7.
After 20.Rad1, Black committed another slip: 20…Qf7?! (the correct move
here is 20…e4!, for example, 21.Nf4!?N Bxa2 22.Rxd6 Qe8, and White has
only a small advantage). Now instead of the conventional move 21.b3?!,
White should have played 21.Nde3! with an advantage, for example, 21…
e4!?N 22.Rxd6 Ne5 23.Nd4, etc.
The move 19…Bh6!? does not look bad, for example, 20.f4N Bxd5
21.Rxd5 exf4 22.Qh5 Bg7, and White’s advantage is next to invisible.
20.Nf4
On 20.Nce3, Black equalizes with 20…Bh6!, for example, 21.Qh5 Bg5
22.h4 Bxe3 23.Nxe3 Ne5, etc. In similar fashion Black also plays after
20.Rad1 Ne5 21.Nce3, 21…Bh6!?N, for example, 22.Rd4 Nc6 23.R4d2 Ne5
with a repetition of the moves.
20…Bg8!N
Until now only 20…Bf7 and 20…Bc4 have occurred, but in both cases
Black is not able to achieve full equality, for example, 20…Bc4 21.Qh5 Ne7
22.Ne3 Bg8!N, etc.
21.Qh5 Ne7 22.Ne3 Be5 23.Qg5 Qe8! 24.Bh3 Qf7 followed by Qg7 and
equal play.
Let us sum up our discussion of the move 14.g3. As we can see from this
chapter, if White follows the current main line, then Black equalizes. But let
us keep in mind that White had promising opportunities, 19.Na3!?, 18.Rad1!?
as well as the move 17.Re1!? which was investigated in the previous chapter.
Moreover, if we take into account the fact that the move 16…Rb8, explored
in chapter 70, does not bring Black full equality either, then it is hard to
escape the conclusion that full equality after 14.g3 is still to be found.
Consequently, the move 13…Be6 does not completely solve Black’s
problems. In the following chapters we are going to examine the move 13…
0-0 which, in my opinion, may be just such a solution.
Chapter 73
11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 without 14…Bd7
or 14…Be6
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0
The position in the diagram is extremely popular: more than 4,000 games
with it are known. By choosing to castle, Black prevents White’s move 14.g3
– after that it would be necessary to reckon with 14…Be4. If White is still
willing either to fianchetto his bishop or to develop it on d3, he would have to
transfer his c2-knight to e3 in order to drive the black bishop away to e6.
14.Nce3
The knight’s position on e3 has its drawbacks. For example, White has to
keep an eye on the black pawn’s advance from f5 to f4; besides, his control
over the square b4 weakens, thus making the break b5-b4 easier for Black.
Nevertheless, this continuation occurs in the overwhelming majority of
games.
(a) After 14.g3?!, Black continues 14…Be4!, for example, 15.f3 Bxd5
16.Qxd5 Ne7 17.Qd2 d5, and his position is preferable.
(b) On 14.a4, the best reply is 14…Be6!, transposing the game to a
position that will be explored in detail in chapter 167.
(c) 14.Be2!? looks solid. This position, with an inverted move-order,
arose in the game Sveshnikov-Timoshchenko, played Moscow as early as
1975. Then there was 14…Be6 15.0-0 (on 15.Qd2N, 15…Nd4!? is possible,
with equal play) 15…Kh8!?.
The most common move here is 15…f5, but that runs into an unpleasant
retort 16.a4!, for example, 16…bxa4 17.Rxa4 a5 18.Bc4 Kh8 19.Nf4! Bxc4
20.Rxc4 Qd7 21.Nd5, and White has a small advantage. 15…Nd4 is also
insufficient for equality because of 16.Nce3!. I think that the move 15…
Rb8!? is worth exploring, for example, 16.Ncb4 Nxb4 17.Nxb4 Rb6 18.Nd5
Rb8, but here White has a small advantage as well.
After 15…Kh8!?, Sveshnikov chose a plan with full control over the d5-
square, 16.Bf3 (16.a4! with a small advantage for White, is better, for
example, 16…bxa4 17.Rxa4 a5 18.Bb5!N) 16…Rc8 17.Ncb4?!, which
resulted in a small advantage for Black after 17…Nxb4 18.Nxb4 a5.
Another error followed, 19.Nc6?! (19.Nd5 is better), and after 19…Qc7
20.a4 bxa4 21.Rxa4 e4! 22.Bxe4 d5! (for some reason Sveshnikov puts a
question mark to this move; I guess it must be a misprint) 23.Bxh7? (23.Bxd5
is better) 23…Kxh7, White was down material soon lost.
But the outcome of this game is only a consequence of White’s weak play
and does not affect the evaluation of the move 14.Be2!?, against which I have
still been unable to find a clear equality. Deeper analysis is needed here.
14…Bg6?!
In the following chapter we are going to investigate the move 14…Bd7,
and still later the main move 14…Be6. The old move 14…Be4?! is weak;
after 15.Bd3 Bxd5 16.Nxd5 e4 17.Bc2 f5 18.0-0, White’s chances are better.
He plans to undermine a center with f2-f3.
15.h4!
15.a4 is not as strong because of 15…b4!, for example, 16.Nxb4 (this is a
more common move; after 16.cxb4 Nd4, White has a small advantage) 16…
Nxb4 17.cxb4 e4!? (17…f5!? is also not bad, for example, 18.Bc4+ Kh8
19.0-0!, and White has a very slight edge).
In Aagaard-Carlsen, Malmö 2004 there followed 18.Bc4!? Bxb2 19.h4 h6
20.Rb1 Bc3+ 21.Kf1 Kh8 22.g3 f5 23.Nd5 Be5 24.Qd2 (24.Nf4!?N is
interesting) 24…Kh7 25.Kg2, and the chances are even.
15…h6
In many games the move 15…Be4 occurs.
It used to be quite common, but now the best move is 16.h5!. In Polgar-
Leko, Wijk aan Zee 2000, there followed 16…Qg5 17.Be2! Ra7 (the
variation 17…h6 18.Rh3 Kh8 19.Rg3 Qd8 20.Bd3 Bxd5 21.Nxd5 f5
22.Qd2!N, is obviously in favor of White. Apparently, the best move is either
17…Rae8!?N or 17…Rad8!?N) 18.Bf3 Bxf3, and now, instead of the
stereotyped 19.Qxf3?!, White should have played 19.gxf3!N with a serious
advantage.
17.Rh3?! (Timman-Leko, Sarajevo 1999) is much weaker. Then there
followed 17…Kh8 18.Rg3 Qh6 19.Bd3 Bxd5. Now the simpler continuation
is 20.Nxd5, with equal play, but White preferred 20.Nf5 Qf6 21.Bc2?!, and
now instead of 21…Be6?!, Black could have played 21…Nd4!N 22.cxd4
Rg8 with a small advantage. (D)
16.a4!?
This is a rare move, but I think that it is the best one in the given position.
Other White’s options are:
(a) The most popular move, 16.g4?!, (recommended by Sveshnikov) is a
little weaker because of 16…Ne7!, for example, 17.Bg2 e4N 18.Nf4 Re8,
and White’s edge is small. The usual move, 16…e4?!, given by Sveshnikov,
is worse than 16…Ne7! because of 17.Nf5!, with an advantage for White.
There is also the interesting move 16…b4!?. Now 17.Bg2?! (Azarov-
Moiseenko, Cappelle la Grande 2006) does not bring any advantage, and the
critical position arises after 17.cxb4! Rb8 18.a3 a5 19.b5!N Nd4 20.a4, and
White has a small edge.
(b) The variation 16.h5 Bh7 is not promising for White.
(c) On 16.Qg4, Black can reply 16…h5 17.Qg5 Kh7 with the idea of f7-
f6. The move 16…e4 that occurred in the rapid game Mista-Moiseenko,
Warsaw 2007, is slightly weaker. There followed 17.Be2 b4?!, and now
instead of castling, White should have taken the pawn with 18.cxb4!N, for
example, 18…Bxb2? 19.h5 Bxa1 20.hxg6 Qg5 21.gxf7+ Rxf7 22.Qxe4, and
in view of the threat Rh5, White’s position is won.
(d) The move 16.Bd3 is worth attention. The idea is, after 16…e4, to
retreat with the bishop not to c2, as in every game known to me, but to e2.
After 17.Be2!N, White retains a certain advantage, for example, 17…b4
18.cxb4 Bxb2 19.Rb1 Be5 20.Rc1 Nd4 21.Bg4, etc.
16…b4!
In Freeman-Bennborn, corr 2007, White captured the pawn with his
knight: 17.Nxb4
The continuation 17.cxb4 Nd4!?N is also playable, for example, 18.Rc1
Ra7 19.a5 f5 20.Nc2, and the advantage is White’s.
17…Nxb4 18.cxb4 f5 19.Rc1 f4 20.Nd5 Kh8
In this position, White, instead of 21.b5?!, should have played 21.Rc7!N
with an advantage, for example, 21…Bf7 22.Rxf7 Rxf7 23.Bd3 and White
has more than adequate compensation for the sacrificed exchange.
Chapter 74
11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Bd7
14.Nce3 Bd7
This continuation has its logic. As the d6-pawn is safe now thanks to the
knight on d5, Black places his bishop not on e6, but on a safer square. The
point is that after the planned e5-e4 and the white knight move to f4, the
bishop will not be under attack. It is interesting to note that in the database
the success of this continuation is appreciably much higher in comparison
with any other bishop retreat. The explanation is easy: White simply has not
played the best variations so far. We will try to deal with this situation.
15.Bd3
This move is by far most popular. Let us check other options.
(a) Occasionally there occurs 15.a4. The best answer is 15…Ne7!N. In
any other case, the route to equality would be more complicated.
(b) The move 15.g4 is fairly common, probably because of the fact that it
is the main one in Sveshnikov’s book. Let us examine this move a little
deeper. There usually follows 15…e4 (15…b4!? is also good) 16.Bg2 Re8
17.Qc2 Rc8! (here 17…b4!? is good as well) 18.Bxe4 Bxg4 (this move is
always made, but I think that 18…b4!N is more precise, for example, 19.0-0
bxc3 20.bxc3 h5!, and Black has good play) 19.Rg1 Nd4 20.Qd3.
In Sveshnikov’s book, a curious situation arises around the position in

this diagram. He writes about it twice, because, with a transposition of
moves, this position is examined on adjacent pages 157 and 158.
First Sveshnikov writes: “But not 20…Rxe4? 21.Qxe4 Nf3+ 22.Kd1,”
which is true, but on the next page, he informs his readers that “there is an
interesting variation 20…Rxe4!? 21.Qxe4 Nf3+.” Though if we continue the
line – 22.Kd1 f5 23.Nxf5 Bxf5 24.Qxf5 Nxg1 25.Qxc8 Qxc8 26.Ne7+ – then
our interest dramatically decreases, as Black may resign with a clear
conscious.
The correct move is 20…Nf3+, and after 21.Bxf3 Bxf3 22.Rg3 Be4
23.Qd2 Re6 24.Nf4!N (aimed at preventing the rook from moving to g6)
(c) I believe that the best continuation is 15.Qh5!? which is currently
comparatively rare.
For example, 15…f5 is playable (15…e4 can be met with a good novelty,
16.g3!?, for example, 16…b4 17.Bh3, or 16…f5 17.Be2, with small
advantage for White in both cases).
Here Sveshnikov’s book tells us that we should follow the variation
“16.g4! Be8 17.Qh3 fxg4 18.Nxg4 Bg6 19.Rg1, and in connection with
20.Nh6+!, White has a strong attack.”
Let us deal with this analysis. First, there is no strong attack here at all.
After 19…Ne7!N 20.Nh6+ Bxh6 21.Qxh6 Nxd5 22.Rxg6+ hxg6 23.Qxg6+
Kh8 24.Qh6+, the game ends in a draw.
Second, instead of 18…Bg6, it is better to play 18…e4!N, and then it is
White who has to worry about equality.
Third, on g4 it is necessary to take with the queen and not with the knight,
after which Black should choose 18…e4! and not 18…Bg6?! (recommended
by Sveshnikov), and the game is even.
Fourth and finally (and this is the main point!), instead of unprepared
aggression, 16.g4?!, I would recommend a more solid novelty, 16.Be2!?, and
White has a small advantage. On 16…f4? there follows 17.Bd3, and on 16…
e4 White plays 17.g3.
Let us return to the move 15.Bd3. Black practically invariably replies
with 15…f5.
16.Qh5
This active move occurs in the majority of the games, but here it does not
bring any advantage. Let us discuss other options.
(a) On 16.0-0 e4 17.Bc2, the move 17…f4?! is slightly hasty because of
18.Bxe4 fxe3 19.Qh5 h6 20.Qg6 e2 21.Qh7+ Kf7 22.Rfe1!N, and White has
a small advantage. The correct continuation is 17…Ne5, and after 18.Qh5
Kh8, the game transposes to the main variation.
(b) 16.Bc2 often occurs, on which it is good to reply 16…e4, for example,
17.Nf4 (after 17.Qh5, the game transposes to the main variation) 17…Be5
(17…b4!? also leads to equality). In Groszpeter-Halkias, Panormo 2001,
there followed 18.g3 (18.Ned5 is more precise) 18…b4! 19.Ned5 bxc3
20.bxc3 Ne7 21.0-0 Nxd5 22.Nxd5 Bb5, and Black has a small advantage.
(c) Probably the best move in this position is 16.g3!?, for example, 16…
b4!?N 17.0-0 Kh8, and now the engine insists on the move 18.Rb1!? – which
would be an unusual choice for a human – with a very slight advantage for
White. It is unfavorable for Black to take on c3; it is not easy to find a useful
move.
16…e4 17.Bc2 Kh8!
This move is rare, but it is still the best. The most common continuation
is 17…Ne5?!, but White has a strong retort, 18.f4!, and if 18…exf3, then
19.0-0-0!N with an advantage for White, for example, 19…fxg2?! 20.Rhg1
Qe8 21.Qh3, and White is much superior.
18.0-0 Ne5 19.Rad1
Also playable is 19.f3 exf3 20.gxf3 (20.Bxf5 is weaker: 20…Bxf5
21.Nxf5 Qd7 22.Nfe3, and now instead of 22…fxg2?! as in Todorovic-
Parligras, Sutomore 2004, it is better to play 22…Rae8!N, with an advantage
for Black. 20.Nxf5 Be8 21.Qh3 Bd7 22.Qh5 leads to a draw; in addition,
21…Qg5?! is suspicious because of 22.NC7) 20…Qe8 with equal play,
Stojanovski-Parligras, Istanbul 2002.
19…Ra7 20.f3 exf3 21.gxf3 Be8
21…Nc4 is just as good.
22.Qh3 Qg5+ 23.Kh1 Qh5 24.Bxf5 Qxh3 25.Bxh3 Rxf3 26.Rxf3 Nxf3
The game is even.
Chapter 75
11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 without 15.g3
or 15.Bd3
8.Na3 b5 9.bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0
14.Nce3 Be6
This retreat to e6 occurs in more than 80% of the games.
15.g4
In this crude fashion, White attempts to hinder standard counter-play with
f7-f5. This move was the starting point in the development of the 14…Be6
variation. It was especially popular from 1976 to 1978.
Sveshnikov considers this continuation to be the main one, but, in my
opinion, his priorities are wrong. In practice, this variation is not played
properly either, probably under the influence of his book. That is why I
decided to devote a separate chapter to it. In the next chapter we are going to
investigate the move 15.g3 and then switch to the main continuation 15.Bd3.
White has other options as well.
(a) On 15.a4, Black should play 15…b4! (15…Ne7 16.Be2 f5?
recommended by Sveshnikov is bad because of 17.Nxe7+!N 17…Qxe7
18.axb5 axb5 19.Rxa8 Rxa8 20.Nxf5!, and Black simply loses his important
pawn). Then possible is 16.Bc4 (on 16.cxb4, both 16…Rb8 and 16…f5 are
good) 16…bxc3 17.bxc3 e4!? 18.0-0 Ne5 with equal play.
(b) After 15.Qh5 f5 16.Bd3, the game transposes to the 15.Bd3 variation.
Sveshnikov thinks that “16.g4!? may be interesting.” As usual, we will
not be too lazy to continue the variation: 16…Bf7! 17.Qh3 f4 18.Bd3 h6, and
the maestro’s inquisitiveness is satisfied – White simply loses a piece without
any compensation, for example, 19.g5 fxe3 20.Nf6 Kh8 21.fxe3 d5N, etc.
15…Qh4
Sveshnikov believes that this is the main continuation, but practice does
not support this opinion, as this move is the least successful of all the main
ones.
(a) After 15…e4 16.Bg2 Qh4, the game transposes to the main variation.
(b) Curiously enough, the most typical move in the full database is 15…
Ne7, but strong players have not played like this. Then possible is 16.Bg2
Rc8 17.Qd3 (or 17.h4 Nxd5 18.Bxd5 Qf6 with equal play) 17…Nxd5
18.Bxd5 Bh6!? (I think that this is the most precise move, although almost
everyone plays “according to Sveshnikov” 18…Bxd5). Sveshnikov believes
that after 19.Nf5 Qf6 20.Nxh6+ Qxh6 21.Rd1 Bxd5 22.Qxd5 Rc4 23.h3 Qf4,
White’s chances are better; however, after 23…Rd8N, play is even, and after
22…Rfe8!?N 23.Qxd6 Qf4, it is Black who has slightly better chances.
(c) In my opinion, the best move is 15…b4!. Sveshnikov devotes only a
few lines to it, but this move is the most popular one with strong players.
White usually replies 16.Bg2 (16.cxb4 is probably slightly weaker, as
after it Black has several good continuations at his disposal, for example,
16…Rb8, 16…Nd4 or 16…a5!?N. In the last case 17.bxa5? is bad because of
17…Qxa5+ 18.Qd2+ Qxd2 19.Kxd2 Rfb8 with great black superiority).
Then it is possible to continue 16…bxc3 17.bxc3 Rc8 18.0-0!? (18.Qd3?
as in the rapid game Polgar-Gelfand, Pacs 2003, is bad: after 18…e4!
19.Bxe4 Ne5 20.Qe2 Nxg4! 21.Rg1?! Nxe3 22.Qxe3 Kh8, Black has a great
advantage. 21.0-0N is more stubborn.) 18…Ne7 19.c4!? Ng6!? Black must
leave his knight on the board as, thanks to the move g2-g4, he has
comfortable entry squares. All in all, he has a wonderful game. Let us return
to the move 15…Qh4.
16.Bg2
16…e4?!
Sveshnikov regards this move as the main one and awards it an
exclamation point. This move does occur in the majority of games, but in fact
it only creates problems for Black.
A little later we find out that “in the game Reijaibi-Yurtseven (Innsbruck
1977) Black managed to create a decisive attack after 16…f5!?.” Perhaps he
did, but after the natural-looking 17.Nc7N, Black is not to be envied, as his
position is hopeless.
I believe that Black obtains equality after 16…Rae8!N, for example,
17.Nc7 (or 17.0-0 Ne7 18.Nxe7+ Rxe7 19.Qxd6 Bh6! 20.h3 Bf4 and h7-h5)
17…Re7 18.Qxd6 Nd4! 19.Nxe6 Rxe6 20.Qd5 b4!, etc.
17.Bxe4
White has an advantage. There is no complete compensation for the
pawn.
17…Rae8!?
Sveshnikov quotes the game Trabattoni-G.Kuzmin, Reggio Emilia 1976,
where the move 17…f5?! occurred. Then there followed 18.Bxf5 Bxf5
19.gxf5 Rae8 20.Qf3 Ne5 21.Qg3 Nd3+ 22.Kd2 Qxg3 23.fxg3 Nxb2, and
although Black’s position was lost, the game ended in a draw. The errors are:
instead of 23…Nxb2?, the correct move is 23…Nxf2, maintaining drawing
chances; instead of 22.Kd2?, correct is 22.Kf1!, winning; instead of 20…
Ne5?, there is a much more stubborn move, 20…b4!; instead of 19…Rae8?!,
more accurate is 19…Kh8!N. The move 17…f5?! is just weak. White retains
the advantage after 17…Ne5 18.h3 f5 19.Ng2!N.
18.0-0
The most usual move is 18.Rg1?!; a good reply is 18…f5! with the
initiative.
18…h5
White’s position is better after both 19.Nf5 and 19.f3!?N.
Chapter 76
11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.g3
14.Nce3 Be6 15.g3
A solid continuation. It is interesting to note that its popularity gradually

declines as a player’s strength increases. Obviously, good players know that
they are not going to obtain an advantage this way.
15…f5
A logical continuation that occurs in the majority of games. Sveshnikov
regards it as dubious, but, we will presently see where his mistake lies.
16.Bg2
Both the most popular and the most natural-looking move. Let us note
other White’s options.
(a) Sveshnikov believes that the best move is 16.f4?! followed by 16…
Ra7?!. However, it is best for Black to play 16…Rc8! (both 16…b4 and 16…
Ne7 also lead to a small Black edge), for example, 17.Bg2 b4! 18.0-0N bxc3
19.bxc3 Ne7, and Black has the advantage.
18.cxb4? exf4 19.Nxf4 is weaker because of 19…Qb6!N, for example,
20.Nxe6? Qxe3+ 21.Qe2 Qb6! 22.Nxf8? Nd4! 23.Qd3 Nc2+ 24.Ke2 Re8+
25.Kd1 Ne3+ 26.Kc1 Nxg2, and Black’s position is better, although the
variations are rather complex. It is better to play 20.Qe2, but after 20…Nd4,
Black has a serious advantage.
(b) On 16.Qh5 there is the good reply 16…Ne7!? (16…b4 17.Bg2 bxc3
18.bxc3 e4 is also sufficient for equality), for example, 17.Bg2 e4 18.Rd1
Nxd5 19.Nxd5 Rc8 20.Rd2 Rc5 21.Qd1 Bh6!N 22.Rd4 Qd7 23.0-0 Qb7, and
Black has a slight initiative.
(c) The move 16.Bh3 is second in popularity. It is also the oldest one and
harkens back to when they immediately tried to refute Chelyabinsk Variation.
The most typical black move is 16…Ne7, and the game goes on with a
minimal advantage to White, for example, 17.0-0 Nxd5 18.Nxd5 Rc8 19.a4!
Rc5. In Butcher-Mucka, corr 2004 there followed 20.Ne3 a5 21.axb5 Rxb5
22.Qd3 Qd7 23.Rfd1 d5 24.c4 e4 25.Qf1 f4, and now instead of 26.Rxd5?,
White should have played 26.Bxe6+!N Qxe6 27.cxd5 Qd7 28.gxf4 Rxf4
29.Rac1 with a small advantage.
I believe that the most precise reply here is 16…Rb8!?, for example,
17.0-0 Qd7 18.f4 b4!N, and Black has a comfortable game. After the usual
18…e4, White has the rejoinder 19.g4!?N.
Let us return to 16.Bg2. (D)
16…f4!
I consider this move, exploiting the knight’s position on e3, to be the
most precise. I know of 23 games with it in the database, and Black managed
to score 72%. 16…Rc8 is quite typical – and also quite successful.
Another common move is 16…Rb8, for example, 17.Qh5 b4! 18.0-0 a5!?
N, and the game came down to a position with a very small White advantage
which we have already explored in detail in chapter 71.
18…bxc3?! (Georgy Timoshenko-Luther, Linares 1998) is weak as it
prematurely opens the b-file for the white rook. Black should wait until the
white rook is on d2 and only then open the b-file. However, 18…e4!?N is
also quite playable.
17.Nc2
17.gxf4?! is weaker because of 17…exf4 18.Nxf4 Rxf4 19.Bxc6 Qh4
20.0-0 Be5!, for example, 21.Ng2? Qh3 22.Bxa8? Rf3!, and Black mates.
The only defense is 21.f3, which is met with 21…Raf8N with the initiative to
Black.
17…Bf5!
17…Ra7?! 18.Be4 Raf7 19.Qd3! leads to small edge for White.
Now possible is 18.Nxf4 exf4 19.Bxc6 Qe7+ 20.Kf1 Bh3+ 21.Kg1!
Rac8, and Black’s initiative fully compensates for his sacrificed pawn.
In Dragiev-Cheparinov, Sofia 2003, White played the weaker 21.Bg2?!.
Black should have answered 21…Qb7!N (in the game there was 21…Qe4?!
22.f3 fxg3?! 23.Kg1!, and White even obtained an advantage), for example,
22.Rg1! (on 22.f3?!, the computer gives 22…fxg3! 23.Bxh3 Rxf3+ 24.Kg1
Re8! 25.Qxd6 g2!! 26.Bxg2 Qa7+ 27.Nd4 Rd3! 28.Kf1! Kh8!, and Black has
a great superiority) 22…Bxg2+ 23.Rxg2 f3 24.Rg1 Rae8 25.Ne3 b4, and
Black has the advantage.
Chapter 77
11.c3 Bg7 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5
without 16.Qh5 or 16.0-0
14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3
This continuation is clearly the main one, so we are going to devote eight
chapters to it, starting with the current one. On the face of it, White’s minor
pieces on d3 and e3 seem to provoke black pawn advances f7-f5-f4 or e5-e4,
but the things are not so simple here.
15…f5 16.Bc2
A silent offer of a draw. If Black refuses, his position would be slightly
worse. In the next two chapters we will investigate the move 16.Qh5 and then
proceed to explore the main move 16.0-0.
The game Leko-Kramnik, Frankfurt 2000, in which there occurred 16.a4
b4 17.0-0 bxc3 18.bxc3 Kh8 19.Rb1 e4 20.Nf4, raised a lot of questions.
Here Kramnik committed an inaccuracy by playing 20…Bd7 (it is better to
choose 20…Ba2! 21.Rb2 Be5 with equal play). After 21.Bc4, another
controversial move, 21…Be5, was played, and the small white advantage
grew larger (the more precise move is 21…Qg5!?, and White obtains nothing
after 22.Qxd6 Ne5 23.g3 Nf3+ 24.Kh1 Bxa4).
Then there was 22.Ne6?! (White could have retained his advantage with
22.Ned5!?N) 22…Bxe6 23.Bxe6 Qg5, and the game was level again. There
followed 24.Bd5 Rac8 25.Nc4 Ne7 26.Nxe5 dxe5 27.c4 Ng6 (27…Rfd8
leads to equal play) 28.Kh1 Rcd8 29.Rb6, and here instead of 29…Rf6?!, the
balance could be maintained by 29…Nf4!N, for example, 30.g3 Nxd5
31.cxd5 f4 32.Rxa6 e3, etc. (D)
16…f4!
In the position in the diagram Black has many opportunities, but this is
the only continuation that secures equal play.
(a) A very usual move is 16…Ra7?!; then there usually follows 17.Qh5
Raf7 18.g4! Bxd5 19.Nxd5 e4, and now White has the strong 20.0-0-0!? (the
most typical continuation is 20.Nf4, but this move throws away the advantage
because of 20…Ne5!, for example, 21.Ne6 Nf3+ 22.Ke2 Qb6!N 23.Nxf8 b4!
with the threat of Qb5, etc.). Now possible is 20…b4 21.gxf5!N Rxf5 22.Qh3
Qg5 23.f4! exf3 24.Kb1, and White’s chances are better.
(b) The continuation 16…Kh8 17.Qh5 e4 leads to a slightly better
position for White; we are going to study it in the next chapter.
(c) On 16…Rf7, White can continue 17.f4! with a small advantage.
(d) 16…Bh6 leads to a small white edge. In Topalov-Illescas, Linares
1995, there followed 17.0-0 (17.Qh5!? Bxe3 18.Nxe3 Qe8 19.Qg5+!N seems
to be more accurate, for example, 19…Qg6 20.h4! with a slight edge for
White) 17…Ra7 18.f4 Qh4?! (the correct move is 18…Ne7!N, and White is
left with only a slight advantage) 19.g3! Rg7? (the losing move; 19…Qh3N
is much better) 20.Nc7! exf4? (20…Bc4N is much more stubborn) 21.Ng2
Qh3 22.Rxf4 Bxf4 23.Nxf4 Rxg3+ 24.Kh1 Qh6 25.Qxd6, and Black
resigned.
17.Qh5 Rf7 18.Bxh7+

18.Qxh7+?! Kf8 leads to an advantage for Black, for example, 19.Bf5
Qe8, etc.
18…Kf8 19.Bf5 Qe8
Another quite playable move is 19…Qc8, with a great choice of options
as well as more chances to make a mistake. 20.Nb6 (after 20.Bxe6 Qxe6, the
game transposes to the main variation) 20…fxe3 21.0-0 Qe8 22.Bxe6 exf2+
23.Rxf2 Rxf2 24.Qh3! Rf4 25.g3! Rf6 26.Nd7+ Ke7 27.Nxf6 Bxf6, and
though the game is even, there is still no forced draw as in the main variation.
20.Bxe6 Qxe6 21.Qg4 Qh6 22.Nf5
The move 22.Nc2?!, as in the rapid game Ivanchuk-Carlsen, Leon 2009,
leaves the initiative with Black. There then followed 22…e4 23.Qh3?! (here
23.Nd4 is slightly better, for example, 23…Ne5 24.Qg5!N, and Black’s
chances are only slightly better) 23…Qxh3 24.gxh3 Ne5, and Black has an
advantage.
After 25.0-0?!, Black squandered most of his advantage with 25…Nd3?!.
Instead, he should have played 25…Rc8!N, for example, 26.Nd4 Re8! 27.a4
Nd3 28.axb5 Bxd4 29.cxd4 axb5, and Black has a great superiority.
22.0-0 does not change the evaluation of the position: the game Radulski-
Spasov, Bulgaria 2009, was drawn after 22…e4 23.Nf5 Qe6 24.Nfe3 Qh6
25.Nf5 Qe6 26.Nfe3 Qh6.
22…Qe6 23.Nfe3 Qh6 24.Nf5 Qe625.Nfe3 with a pendulum draw – such
was the outcome of the game Topalov-Illescas, Dos Hermanas 1996, and of
about one hundred other games in the database.
Chapter 78
16.Qh5 e4 17.Bc2 Ne7 without 18.Rd1
14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.Qh5
This is a very popular continuation. White prevents Black’s pawn

advances to e4 and then to f4 and at the same time creates a potential threat of
g2-g4.
16…e4!
On 16…Ra7, it is best for White to reply 17.Bc2!, with the favorable
position which was examined in the previous chapter.
Note that the aggressive 17.g4? is weak here because of 17…e4 18.Bc2
Bf7! 19.Qh3 (19.Qxf5 Bg6 20.Qe6+ Kh8 is in favor of Black) 19…fxg4, for
example, 20.Qg2 (20.Qxg4? is much weaker because of 20…Ne5 21.Qg3!
Bxd5 22.Nxd5 Rf3 23.Qg2 Qh4, and Black has a great advantage) 20…Ne5
21.0-0-0 Bg6, and Black’s chances are better.
The once-popular 16…Qd7 leads to small white advantage after 17.0-0!
(and here the active 17.g4 is also possible, but after 17…e4 18.Bc2 Bxd5
19.Nxd5 Ne5! 20.0-0-0 Nxg4, it is really hard for White to prove that he has
even a minimal advantage) 17…Qf7 (17…Rae8!? is interesting) 18.Qxf7+
Rxf7 19.f4 e4 20.Be2.
17.Bc2
17…Ne7!
This is the best continuation, but there are other playable moves too.
Sveshnikov writes that “17…Ne5? 18.Nf4! Bf7 19.Qxf5 Bd5 is weak in view
of 20.Ne6!.” Actually, the move 17…Ne5 is not so bad; and there are two
serious blunders in Sveshnikov’s variation.
First, after 20.Ne6?, Black has 20…Qh4, retaining good defensive
opportunities; thus, the correct continuation is 20.Qh3! with a great
advantage.
Second, instead of 18…Bf7?, the correct move is 18…Bc4!, and White’s
advantage is small, for example, 19.Nxf5 Nd3+!N 20.Bxd3 exd3 21.0-0 Be5,
etc.
The variation 17…Kh8 18.Nf4 Qe8 19.Qxe8 Raxe8 leads to a small white
advantage. Probably the best option here is to take on e6: 20.Nxe6 Rxe6, but
in this position White’s advantage is really slight.
18.Nf4
In the next chapter we are going to explore the main move 18.Rd1.
Sveshnikov thinks that the best move is 18.Bb3. Black should meet it with
18…Ng6! with equal play, for example, 19.g4 fxg4 20.h3 g3 21.fxg3 Kh8!,
and it is White who has to worry about equality. The move 19.g3 is more
solid. In Sveshnikov’s opinion, “the only correct reply” is 18…Kh8. I believe
that the king move is dubious. In the rapid game Anand-Kramnik, Monaco
2000, there followed 19.Nf4 Bxb3 20.axb3 Qd7. Here Anand made an error,
21.Ned5?, and after 21…Nxd5 22.Nxd5 f4, the advantage went to Black. The
correct move is 21.0-0, for example, 21…Be5 22.Nh3!N, and White retains
the advantage. (D)
18…Bf7 19.Bb3 d5
This move was employed by Kramnik against Anand (Frankfurt 2000).
Against Almasi (Dortmund
1998) Kramnik played 19…Qd7. There followed 20.0-0 Be5 21.Bxf7+ Rxf7
22.Nfd5 Nxd5 23.Nxd5 Qe6. In this position, a draw was agreed.
20.Qg5 Ng6
The most usual continuation 20…h6?! 21.Qg3 is not as good, for
example, 21…Ra7 22.Nfxd5 Nxd5 23.Nxd5 a5 24.Nf4, and White has a
small advantage.
21.Qxd8 Raxd8
Perhaps, 21…Rfxd8!? is even more precise, for example, 22.Nexd5 Nxf4
23.Nxf4 Be5! 24.Ne2 (now 24.Ne6 Rd6 is useless) 24…b4 25.Rd1 Rac8
26.Rf1 Rxd1, and in Boessing-Noble, corr 2010, a draw was agreed.
22.Nexd5 Nxf4 23.Nxf4 b4 24.Ne6 Bxe6 25.Bxe6+
In this position in the game Anand-Kramnik, Frankfurt 2000, the players
agreed to a draw.
Chapter 79
16.Qh5 e4 17.Bc2 Ne7 18.Rd1
14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.Qh5 e4 17.Bc2 Ne7! 18.Rd1 (D)
This is the most typical and the most successful move. Black has several
possible answers.
18…b4!?
This continuation is also the most typical and the most successful one. Let
us examine other options.
(a) 18…Ng6?! frequently occurs. However, it runs into the highly

unpleasant retort 19.g4!, for example, 19…Nh4 20.gxf5 Bxf5 21.Nf4!, and
White’s advantage is undeniable.
(b) The move 18…Rc8 is not quite right here, for example, 19.0-0 Nxd5
(19…Rc5 is slightly weaker because of 20.Nf4! Bf7 21.Bb3, and White has
the advantage) 20.Nxd5 Rc5 21.Bb3 a5 22.Nf4 Bxb3 23.axb3, and White’s
chances are slightly better.
(c) The continuation 18…Nxd5!? 19.Nxd5 b4! may lead to the main
variation with a transposition of moves. The idea is to avoid the move 19.Bb3
that is possible in the main line. Then there may follow 20.Nxb4 (20.cxb4
leads to the chapter’s main variation) 20…a5 21.Nc6 (the position after
21.Nd5 will be studied later) 21…Qd7 22.Nd4 Bxa2 23.0-0 Bc4 24.Rfe1 a4,
and the game is level.
(d) I would like to mention another rare but good move for Black. He can
coolly continue 18…Kh8!?, and after 19.0-0, we have reached a practically
even position that will be discussed in the chapters 83-84 via the move order
16.0-0.
Let us return to the move 18…b4!?.
19.cxb4
Other continuations have also been seen.
(a) First let us investigate the move 19.Nxb4?!, which is the most usual
one. There follows a sequence of practically forced moves: 19…a5 20.Nbd5
Nxd5 (20…Rb8!? may be even stronger) 21.Nxd5 Rb8 22.Bb3 a4 23.Bxa4
Rxb2 24.Bb3 Kh8! 25.0-0 f4.
This position occurred in the game Fressinet-Gelfand, France 2003. The
best move here is 26.Rb1!, Then possible is 26…Rxb3! 27.axb3 Rf5 28.Qg4
Re5 29.Qxf4 Bxd5 30.c4 Bb7, and Black has a very slight edge.
In the game White blundered, 26.Rfe1??, and resigned after 26…Rf5
27.Qg4 e3! 28.Rxe3 (or 28.fxe3 Rg5 29.Qf3 Bg4!) 28…fxe3 29.Nxe3 h5!
30.Qg6 Rf6 31.Qxh5+ Rh6 32.Qf3 Qh4. Gelfand recommends 26.Nb4, but
after 26…Bf5!N, White faces problems.
(b) 19.0-0 looks poor. In Ponomariov-Leko, Erevan 2001, there followed
19…bxc3 20.bxc3 Kh8 21.g3 (21.Nf4!N allows the balance to be more
simply maintained) 21…Rc8 (after 21…Nxd5!?22.Nxd5 Be5!N, Black
stands slightly better) 22.Bb3 Bf7 (22…Be5!N) 23.Qe2 Bxd5 24.Nxd5 Nxd5
25.Bxd5 a5 26.c4 Rb8, and a draw was agreed.
(c) The continuation 19.Bb3 is worth serious attention. The idea is to
obtain a position in which Black does not have the bishop pair after 19…
Nxd5 20.Bxd5 Bxd5 21.Nxd5 bxc3 22.bxc3. Admittedly, this is more of a
moral nature as it does not bring any real advantage to him. Black obtains
quite good results after usual 22…Rb8, but both 22…Rc8 and 22…Qe8 are
no worse.
19…Nxd5 20.Nxd5
20…a5
In Goloshchapov-Volzhin, Moscow 1999, Black played 20…Bxb2. After
21.0-0 Be5, White replied with the cautious 22.Kh1 and lost his minimal
advantage. Slightly better is 22.f3, either immediately or after 22.Bb3.
21.0-0 axb4 22.Bb3
22.Qh3!? is interesting. After 22…Bxd5 23.Rxd5 Be5!N 24.f4 exf3
25.Rxf3 Kh8 26.Bxf5 Qe7, White has a slight advantage.
In Ruch-Chiru, corr 2007, there followed 22…Kh8 23.Rd2 Be5 24.f4
exf3 25.Qxf3 Qg5 26.Nf4 Bxb3 27.axb3 Qf6 28.Rfd1 Qh6 29.g3 Rg8
30.Rf1 Rae8 and a draw was soon agreed.
Chapter 80
16.0-0 without 16…Ra7 or 16…Kh8
14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.0-0
The database indicates that the popularity of 16.Qh5 and 16.0-0 is about
the same, but good players clearly prefer castling. It is necessary to add that
until about 1994, the queen move had occurred in almost in every game, but
then its popularity started to decline gradually. This comes as no surprise as
we have already seen that after 16.Qh5, Black does not have any serious
problems. Although I have not found a single word about the move 16.0-0 in
Sveshnikov’s book, we will devote five chapters to it.
16…e4
This is an active continuation, but it does not secure full equality for
Black. In the following chapters we are going to explore the moves 16…Ra7
and 16…Kh8. It has to be noted that the thematic 16…Ne7? won’t do
because of 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.Bxf5!.
17.Nf4 Bf7 18.Bc2 Be5
Typical, but hardly a successful move.
18…Qg5 is quite playable, for example, 19.Nh3 (the variation 19.Qxd6
Ne5 20.Nh3 Qh5! is completely unpromising) 19…Qg6 20.f3 Rae8, and
I believe that the best continuation is 18…Qd7!?, for example, 19.Bb3
Kh8 20.Bxf7 Rxf7 21.Ned5 Rg8N, and White’s advantage is slightly smaller
than in the main line.
19.Nfd5
19.g3?! Bxf4 20.gxf4 d5N 21.Nxf5 Kh8 leads to splendid play for Black.
In de Firmian–Shabalov, USA 2007, White played 19.Nh3?!. There
followed 19…Kh8, after which the opponents traded inaccuracies – 20.f4?!
(the correct move is 20.Nxf5N with equal play, for example, 20…Be6 21.f4
Bxf5 22.fxe5 Bxh3 23.Rxf8+ Qxf8 24.gxh3, etc.) 20…Bf6?! (after 20…
Qb6!, Black has a small advantage) 21.Nxf5 d5 22.Nh6?!, and after more
inaccuracies, White lost.
19…Qg5 20.f4 exf3 21.Qxf3!
The development of the game Topalov-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 1999
was interesting: 21.Rxf3 Bh5 22.Nc7 Bf4! 23.Qd5+ Kh8 24.Rxf4! Qxf4
25.Re1. Many annotators, for example, Van Wely and Ftacnik, put a question
mark after this move, but the rook move is not bad at all, all the more so
because it led to a quick white win.
In this position Black immediately blundered, 25…Rac8??, and after
26.Ne6 Qh4 27.g3 Rg8 28.Nxf5 Qc4 29.Qxd6 Rg6 30.Ne7 Nxe7 31.Qe5+
Kg8 32.Bxg6, resigned. Annotators point out that 25…Ne5 26.Nxa8 Rg8!
leads to a great advantage for Black. They are right, but why take the rook?
The correct move is 26.Ne6!, for example, 26…Qh4 27.g3!N Qe7 28.Nxf8
Nf3 29.Kf1 Nxh2+ 30.Kf2 Rxf8 31.Qd4+ Qe5 32.Qf4, and the game is equal.
21…Bh5 22.Qh3!
22.Qf2 as in Anand-Kramnik, Linares 1998, does not bring any advantage
to White. There followed 22…f4 23.h4 (23.Nc7, recommended by
annotators, runs into 23…Bf7!, for example, 24.Nxa8 fxe3 25.Qf3 e2!
26.Qxe2 Rxa8, or 26.Rf2 Qh6+!, with equal play in both cases; after the latter
move, Black meets 27.g3?! with 27…Nd4!) 23…Qd8?! (23…Qg7!N, which
the annotators have also overlooked, is slightly better, for example, 24.Nf5
Rxf5 25.Bxf5 Rf8 26.Be4 f3 with equal play) 24.Nf5 Bg6 25.Nd4 Nxd4
26.cxd4?! (after 26.Bxg6!, White has a small advantage) 26…Bxc2 27.dxe5
dxe5 28.Qc5 Rf7, and a draw was agreed.
Now possible is 22…f4 23.Nf5 Kh8 24.Nh4 Ra7 25.Nf3 Bxf3 26.Qxf3.
Chapter 81
16.0-0 Ra7 without 17.Qh5
14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.0-0 Ra7
The rook move to a7 occurs significantly more often than any other one
both in the fll database and among strong players, but actually it does not
secure equality (see the next chapter). The best move is 16…Kh8!, which
will be discussed in the chapters 83-84.
17.a4
This move is clearly the most popular one; it occurs in approximately
70% of the games. However, I believe that the move 17.Qh5! which we are
going to explore in the following chapter is worth even greater attention.
The move 17.f4 (Polgar-Gelfand, Budapest 2003) does not bring any
advantage. In the game there followed 17…Ne7 18.Bc2 Nxd5 19.Nxd5 a5.
Here White went astray with 20.a4?! (20.Qd2 is better), and Black could have
obtained the better game with 20…Rb7!.
17…Ne7!
17…b4?! (Vallejo-Shirov, France 2002) is weak. After 18.cxb4 f4 (18…
e4 is slightly better) 19.Qh5 Rff7 20.Bxh7 Kf8 21.Bf5, Black erred with 21…
Rxf5? (21…Qe8!N is much better), and after 22.Nxf5 Bxd5 23.b5, White had
obtained a great advantage that he eventually managed to convert into a win.
18.Nxe7+
In the rapid game Topalov-Leko, Monte Carlo 2004, there occurred
18.axb5 Nxd5 19.Bc4 (19.Bxf5 Rxf5 20.Nxf5 with an equal game is also
playable, for example, 20…Nf4 21.Rxa6!N 21…Rxa6 22.bxa6, or 20…a5
21.Nxd6!N, etc.) 19…Nf4 20.Bxe6+ Nxe6 21.Qd5 (21.Rxa6!?N with equal
play seems more precise) 21…Qe8 22.Rxa6 Raf7.
There followed 23.Qc4?! (23.b6!?) 23…f4 24.Nd5 e4! 25.Rxd6 Ng5
26.h4 Qe5, and here White made the losing move 27.Rc6? (27.Rd7!N is
better, although Black has an advantage anyway), after which the winning
move was 27…f3! (in the game there occurred 27…Ne6?), for example,
28.g3 Nh3+ 29.Kh2 Nxf2 30.Rxf2 e3 31.Nxe3 Qxe3 32.Qc5 Qe1, etc.
18…Rxe7 19.axb5 axb5
20.Bxb5
The move 20.Bc2 takes White nowhere. Then possible is 20…d5 (20…
Kh8 is slightly weaker because of 21.Nd5) 21.Bb3 f4 22.Nxd5 Rd7 23.Nb4
Rxd1 24.Bxe6+ Kh8 25.Raxd1.
Here in the game Anand-Kramnik, Dortmund 2003, a draw was agreed.
The game Topalov-Leko, Istanbul 2000, was much longer – 25…Qe7 26.Bd5
e4 27.Rfe1 e3 28.Bf3 Be5 29.Nc6 Qf6 30.Nxe5 Qxe5 31.fxe3 fxe3 32.Rd4
Re8 33.Re4, etc. – but also ended in a draw.
20.Ra6!? is interesting.
In Anand-Kasparov, Moscow 2004, there was 20…d5 (Black has 20…
Kh8!? here, and after 21.Bxb5 d5, the game could transpose to our main line)
21.Nc2!? (21.Bxb5 leads to a position in the main line) 21…Bc8 22.Ra8 Qd7
23.Nb4 (23.Ra5!? is probably more accurate) 23…e4 24.Be2 Bb7 25.Ra5 d4
26.cxd4, and a draw was agreed. As Kasparov points out, after 26…f4
27.Bxb5 Qd8, Black has sufficient compensation for his pawn.
20…d5 21.Ra6
In Svidler-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 1999, after 21.Nc2 Rb7, White
committed an inaccuracy, 22.Bc6?! (22.Ra6N with equal play is better).
There followed 22…Rxb2 23.Ra8 Qd6 24.Ra6, and now Black could have
obtained a clear advantage with 24…d4!N. On 25.cxd4? there follows either
25…Bc4 or 25…Bc8; 25.Bb5? Qc5 26.Rxe6 Qxb5 is also bad. Both 25.Nb4
and 25.Na3 are relatively better.
21…Kh8
In Anand-Leko, Wijk aan Zee 2005, Black tried the move 21…f4. There
followed 22.Nc2!? (the variation 22.Rxe6 Rxe6 23.Qxd5 Qxd5 24.Nxd5
leads to a small edge for White) 22…Bc8 23.Ra8 Qd6 24.Nb4 Bb7 25.Ra7?!.
This move throws away the advantage. It is better to play 25.Rxf8+ Bxf8
26.Bc4 Rd7 27.Ba2, for example, 27…Kh8 28.Qh5 Rg7 29.Qe8, as in
Persson-Neto, corr 2007, and Black still has to prove that he has full
There followed 25…d4 26.Ba6? (26.Bc6! Bxc6 27.Rxe7 Qxe7 28.Nxc6
Qe6 29.Nb4 f3! 30.gxf3 Qh3 leads to an equal game) 26…Bxg2! 27.Bc4+
Kh8 28.Ra6 Qc5 29.Kxg2 f3+ 30.Kh1 Qxc4, and White is on the brink of
defeat because of his exposed king.
22.Qa4 f4 23.Nc2
23…Bg8!
The most accurate move that secures equal play. The position in the
diagram has occurred in about 90 games, but this moves occurs only in one of
those.
Carlsen’s play against Hector, Malmö 2004 was not successful: 23…
Rg8?! 24.Ra1 Bc8?! 25.Ra8 Bf8?!, and now White retains great advantage by
playing 26.Bc6 or 26.Ne1N instead of the game move 26.Bf1?!.
23…Bf5 24.Ra1 Ref7 also fails to equalize, for example, 25.Bc6 e4!?
N26.Ra8 Qd6 27.Qb5 e3! 28.Qxd5 Qe7 29.Nb4 exf2+ 30.Kf1!, etc.
23…Bc8 occurred in two games out of three, but it also does not secure
full equality, for example, 24.Ra8 Re6 25.Qa7!? Qb6 (25…Qg5 is worse
because of 26.Qc5!) 26.Qa5 Qxa5 27.Rxa5 Bb7 28.Rfa1 Rb6 29.R1a2, and
although Black’s drawing chances are very good, he is still down a pawn.
24.Bc6 e4 25.Ra8
After 25.Nd4 Rc7 26.Ra8 Qd6, White also has no advantage.
25…Qd6 26.Rxf8 Bxf8 27.Nd4 Qg6
Black has full compensation for his pawn and plans first Rg7 to provoke
g2-g3, and then e4-e3, shattering white king’s pawn cover.
Chapter 82
16.0-0 Ra7 17.Qh5
14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.0-0 Ra7 17.Qh5!
In my opinion, this is the strongest continuation. White hinders the

advance of Black pawns in the center.
17…Raf7
A logical move; 16…Ra7 was played with the express purpose of making
it possible. 17…e4 18.Bc2 is quite playable. In this position in the rapid game
Ivanchuk-Kramnik, London 1994, Black played the unfortunate 18…Qe8
(the correct continuation is 18…Ne7! with a small advantage to White), and
after 19.Qxe8 Rxe8 20.f3! exf3 21.Rxf3 Ne5 22.Rg3, White’s advantage
became obvious.
There followed another inaccuracy 22…Rf7?! (22…Bxd5N is noticeably
better) 23.Nf4 Nc4 24.Nxe6 Rxe6 25.Nxf5, then there was one more
inaccurate novelty 25…Nxb2?! (25…Kh8), and now after 26.a4!N White’s
advantage could have become substantial.
18.Rad1
The continuation 18.Bc2 is also common; it brings a small advantage to
White. Then there typically follows 18…Ne7 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7 20.Rad1, and
the game transposes to the main variation.
The move 18.g4?!, employed by Svidler in several games, does not bring
any advantage.
After 18…e4 19.Bc2, Black has several options.

(a) 19…fxg4?! 20.Bxe4 Be5 is not very good because of 21.Kh1!?N.
Then possible is 21…Kh8 22.f4 gxf3 23.Rxf3, and White has a small
advantage.
21.Qh6?!, played by Svidler in his game against Kramnik (Linares 1998),
is weak. After 21…Kh8 22.Kh1 Bxd5 23.Nxd5 Ne7 24.Qh4 Nxd5 25.Qxd8
Rxd8 26.Bxd5 Rf5, Black has a slight initiative in the ensuing ending.
All the annotators are unanimously lavish in their praises for the move
21.h3?! which allegedly brings great advantage to White. However, the
simple novelty 21…Ne7! has gone unnoticed, after which the game is even,
for example, 22.hxg4 Nxd5 23.Bxd5 Bxd5 24.Nxd5 Kh8, and the pawn
deficit is fully compensated by the exposed position of the white king.
(b) 19…Qd7!?N leads to equal play.
(c) The most common black move is 19…Ne5! followed by 20.Nf4 Bd7
21.Bb3 (21.Kh1 is slightly more accurate) 21…fxg4 22.Ne6 Bxe6 23.Bxe6
Kh8! (23…Qf6 employed by Kasparov in the rapid game against Svidler
during the Internet match in 1998 leads only to equal play) 24.Bxf7 Rxf7
25.Rad1.
Here in Svidler-San Segundo, Madrid 1998, Black threw away his
advantage with 25…Qf8?!, and after mutual inaccuracies, the game ended in
a draw. The correct move is 25…Qf6!N, after which Black has a small
advantage.
Let us return to the move 18.Rad1. (D)
18…Ne7 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7 20.Bc2 e4 21.Nd5 Bxd5?!

This move is made almost invariably, but I have grave doubts about it. I
believe that it is reasonable to pay attention to the move 21…Qd7!?N, or
even 21…Qe8!?N.
22.Rxd5 Kh8 23.f4
The game Anand-Leko, Dortmund 2003, continued like that. White has a
small advantage.
White had another, no less strong move at his disposal, 23.Bb3!?N, for
example, 23…f4 24.Bc2! Rf6 25.Re1, and Black has problems.
23…b4 24.cxb4 Bxb2 25.Bb3?!
Now White is a little late with this move. Annotators never noticed that it
throws away the advantage for good. White should have played 25.Qe2!N,
for example, 25…Ba3 26.Rb1 Qc7 27.Qd2 Rc8 28.Bd1, and White has a
small edge.
25…Ba3! 26.Qd1 Qa7 27.Qd4 Qxd4+ 28.Rxd4 Re7 with an even
ending.
Chapter 83
16.0-0 Kh8 17.Qh5 e4 18.Bc2 Ne7 19.Rad1 without 19…a5
14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.0-0 Kh8!
From my point of view, this is the strongest continuation. As we could

see from the previous chapter, after the a8-rook transfer to f7 via a7, Black
has nothing to write home about, as he fails to create an attack against the
white king.
So Black moves his king, preparing the thematic Nc6-e7N. As we have
already pointed out in chapter 80, this maneuver is impossible with the king
on g8, and the rook on a8 will come in handy for play on the queenside.
17.Qh5!?
White’s other options are:
(a) 17.f4?! only makes White’s position worse. In Georgiev-van Wely,
Bled 2002, there followed 17…Ne7 (17…e4 is also good) 18.Bc2 Nxd5
19.Nxd5 Rc8 20.Bb3 a5 21.a3 Qe8!, and Black has a small advantage that
grew after White’s inaccuracy: 22.Ne3?! exf4 23.Nd5 Qf7 24.Qf3 Be5
25.Rad1 Rg8, etc.
(b) 17.a4 b4! (17…bxa4 is worse) 18.cxb4 e4 19.Nf4 Bg8 leads to equal
play, for example, 20.Bxa6 Rxa6 21.b5 Be5!N.
(c) 17.Bc2 does not bring any advantage, for example, 17…Ne7 18.Nxe7
(18.a4 Rb8) 18…Qxe7 19.Bb3 f4 20.Nd5 Qf7, etc.
17…e4
The variation 17…Bf7?! 18.Qh3 e4 19.Bc2 Ne5 is rather common. Now
in Polgar-Illescas, Dos Hermanas 1999, White played 20.f3!?, and after 20…
exf3 21.gxf3 (21.Bxf5 is also good) 21…Bxd5 22.Nxd5 Qg5+, erred with
23.Kh1? (the correct move is 23.Qg2!N, and White’s edge is minimal). There
followed 23…Qd2! 24.Bb3 Nd3, and Black seized the initiative.
I think that to play 20.Rfd1! instead of 20.f3!? is even better, for example,
20…Qg5! (20…Bxd5?! is weaker because of the simple 21.Rxd5, as in the
blindfold game Topalov-Leko, Monaco 2003) 21.Qxf5 Nf3+ 22.Kh1 Qh4
23.Qf4 Bxd5 24.Qxh4 Nxh4 25.Rxd5 Rxf2 26.Rh5 Nxg2 27.Bxe4 Re8
28.Ng4, and White has a small advantage.
18.Bc2 Ne7
In the variation 18…Ne5 19.Nf4 Bd7 (or 19…Qf6) White’s chances are
slightly better.
19.Rad1
This move occurs in almost every game. (D)
In practice, a great many continuations have been tested in this position,

but none of them secures clear equality for Black. Because of this, the next
chapter, in which I am going to demonstrate how Black should play in the
position in the diagram, is of key importance.
19…Rc8
This move also occurs in the overwhelming majority of games; however,
it is far from being the strongest. After 19…Nxd5 20.Nxd5 Be5 21.f4!, White
stands slightly better. The continuation 19…Bf7 is also slightly better than
the move in the main line, for example, 20.Qh3 Nxd5 21.Nxd5 Qg5 22.Qe3!
Qh4 23.g3 Qg4! (23…Qh3, Azarov-Spasov, Rumania 2008, is slightly
weaker), and White’s advantage is also minimal. The best move, 19…a5!N,
will be explored in the next chapter.
20.f3! Nxd5
Before exchanging, Black may drive the white queen off to h3 with 20…
Bf7, for example, 21.Qh3 Nxd5 22.Nxd5 Bxd5 (in the blitz game Anand-
Topalov, Sofia 2004, Black played the weak 22…b4?, after which White
should have taken the pawn on f5) 23.Rxd5 Qb6+ 24.Kh1 Qe3 25.g3 Qe2
26.Qg2 Qxg2 27.Kxg2 b4 28.fxe4 bxc3 29.bxc3 Rxc3 30.Bb3 fxe4 31.Rxd6,
and White has a small edge in the endgame.
21.Nxd5 Bxd5 22.Rxd5 Qb6+ 23.Kh1 Qe3! 24.f4! Rc5
24…b4 is slightly weaker because of 25.Rxf5 bxc3 26.bxc3, and White
stands better.
In Hansen-Mooij, corr 2007, there followed 25.Rxd6 b4 26.Rd7 Rc6
27.Qd1 Rb6 28.Rd8 bxc3 29.Rxf8+ Bxf8 30.Qd8 Qc5 31.bxc3 and White
has a small advantage.
Chapter 84
16.0-0 Kh8 17.Qh5 e4 18.Bc2 Ne7 19.Rad1 a5
14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3 f5 16.0-0 Kh8 17.Qh5 e4 18.Bc2 Ne7 19.Rad1 a5!
Black’s last is a novelty. It suggests the way to equalization in the

position which has been thought to be slightly better for White. This becomes
key for the evaluation of the continuation 16.0-0 and, consequently, of the
whole system beginning with the move 11.c3, so I have devoted a separate
chapter to it.
20.f3!?
White has other options as well.
(a) 20.Nxe7 Qxe7 21.Nd5 Qb7 22.Nf4 Bf7 leads to equal play.
(b) 20.Qh3, trying to exploit the vulnerability of the bishop on e6, is
playable. There follows 20…Bxd5 21.Nxd5 b4! (This is possible thanks to
the move 19…a5) 22.cxb4 axb4. Then a possible development is 23.Nf4!?
(23.Nxb4? is weak because of 23…d5 with an advantage to Black) 23…Qb8!
24.Ne6 Rf6 25.Nxg7 Kxg7 26.Bb3 d5! 27.Bxd5 (or 27.Rd4 Rh6 28.Qg3+
Qxg3 29.hxg3 Rb6 30.f3 h5!, preventing g3-g4, with equal play) 27…Rh6
28.Qg3+ Qxg3 29.fxg3 Nxd5 30.Rxd5 Rxa2 31.Rd7+ Kf6 32.Rd6+ Kg7 with
a pendulum draw.
(c) 20.Nf4 does not bring any advantage since, thanks to the move 19…
a5, Black can take the a2-pawn with 20…Bxa2, for example, 21.b3 a4!
22.Ne6 Qd7 (22…Qe8!? is also fine as now White is unable to win the
exchange: 23.Qxe8? Rfxe8 24.Nc7? axb3 25.Bb1 f4 26.Ned5 Bxb1 27.Rxb1
Nxd5 28.Nxd5 Ra3, and Black’s position is won) 23.Nxf8 Rxf8 24.bxa4
bxa4.
Analysis of this position shows that Black has full compensation for his
sacrificed exchange both after 25.Ra1 Bb3 26.Bxb3 axb3 and after 25.Qe2
Bg8 26.Qa6 f4 27.Rxd6 Qc7 28.Nd1 Qc5!, as well as after 25.c4 Ng6 26.Qe2
Bb3 27.Bxb3 axb3 28.c5 f4. (D)
Now there follows the simplifying operation in the center that is familiar
to us from the previous chapter; the only difference is that instead of the rook
move to c8, Black has made a more useful move a6-a5.
20…Nxd5 21.Nxd5 Bxd5 22.Rxd5 Qb6+ 23.Kh1

The variation 23.Rf2 Qe3! 24.f4 brings nothing to White, for example,
24…b4 (also possible is 24…Qe1+ 25.Rf1 Qe3+ 26.Kh1, and the game
transposes to the main variation) 25.g3 bxc3 26.bxc3 Qxc3 27.Rxf5 Bd4
28.Kg2 Qe1.
23…Qe3! 24.f4
24.Qh4 Qe2 (24…b4?! is weaker because of 25.Re1) 25.Qf2 Qxf2
26.Rxf2 b4! leads to equality.
24…b4 25.cxb4 axb4 26.Bb3
On 26.g3 Black has several good continuations, for example, 26…Rf6,
26…R a2 or 26…Bxb2.
26…Rac8 27.Rxf5 Rc1 28.Rxf8= Bxf8 29.Rxc1
After 29.Bd1 Qd3 30.Rg1 d5, threatening Bc5, all White has is a
perpetual check.
29…Qxc1+ 30.Qd1 Qxf4
The chances are even. I hope that I have managed to convince you that
the move 19…a5! equalizes, and after it Black obtains equal play in the
principle continuations of the 11.c3 system. Now all that remains is to
discover means of equalization for Black in the current main line of the
9.Bxf6 variation, viz., 11.Bd3.
Section 6. 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 without 11…Be6
12.0-0
Chapter 85
11.Bd3 Be6 without 12.Qh5, 12.c3 or 12.0-0
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3
A logical continuation. White develops his bishop and creates a threat of

capturing on f5. However, the move has a serious drawback: White weakens
his control over the d5-square, and after Black’s reply 11…Be6, the second
player obtains a positional threat of taking the knight on d5 and of creating a
mobile pawn phalanx e5-f5.
11…Be6
To cite Sveshnikov, “11…Qg5?! is reckless because of 12.g4! Kd8
13.gxf5 Bxf5 14.Ne3 Be6 15.Qd2 Bh6 16.0-0-0 Qf6 17.Bf1 Bxe3 18.fxe3
Ke7 19.Nb1…,” etc., “with obvious advantage to White (Martin-Rivas, Spain
1977).” Immediately a number of legitimate questions arise, for example,
why doesn’t White win with 17.Bxb5 ?
But first, do not look for logic in the quoted moves and do not let
blunders surprise you, because Mr. Sveshnikov has made a little muddle of
things. Actually, the move in the game was 14…Bd7.
Second, the game was level both after 14…Be6 and after 14…Bd7; in
other words, the move 12.g4? does not bring any advantage to White.
Third, the move 11…Qg5? is just plain bad because White obtains a
really serious advantage after 12.exf5!, for example, 12…Kd8 13.0-0N, etc.
On 11…f4?!, instead of 12.g3 recommended by Sveshnikov, it is more
accurate to play 12.c4!, for example, 12…Qa5+ 13.Qd2 Qxd2+!?N 14.Kxd2
bxc4 15.Nc7 Ke7 16.Nxa8 cxd3, and the advantage is White’s.
12.c4?!
Sveshnikov marks this move as “worth attention,” but his estimation is
wrong; in fact, this move leads to Black’s advantage. In the database this
continuation occurs even now, possibly under the influence of the maestro’s
book, but strong players have stopped playing like this long ago. I know only
of three games, in which first players have ratings of 2500 or higher, with this
move during the last 20 years,.
Stronger moves, 12.Qh5, 12.c3 and 12.0-0, will be considered in the
following chapters.
12…Qa5+!
Quite a correct reaction. 12…bxc4? 13.Nxc4 is weak, for example, 13…
Bxd5 14.exd5 Nd4 15.Qa4+, and White has a clear advantage. 12…b4? is
also inadequate because of 13.Qa4+ Bd7 14.Nc2!N, (14.Nb5 recommended
by Sveshnikov is weaker because of 14…axb5 15.Qxa8 Qxa8 16.Nc7+ Ke7
17.Nxa8 Nd4!, and White’s chances are only slightly better), for example,
14…a5 15.Nce3 f4 16.Nf5, and White has a clear edge.
The variation 12…Nd4 13.exf5 Bxd5 14.cxd5 Qa5+! (but not
Sveshnikov’s move 14…Qg5?, which leads to a solid white advantage)
15.Kf1 Rc8 16.Rc1 Rc5N leads to a small White’s edge.
13.Kf1
The variation 13.Qd2 Qxd2+ 14.Kxd2 Bh6+ is in Black’s favor.
13…fxe4
13…Nb4? (Adams-Granda, Buenos Aires 1991) is weak. Instead of
14.exf5, White is better play 14.Qd2!N, for example, 14…Bxd5 15.cxd5, and
White stands better. 14.Qe1!? Bxd5 15.exd5 is also fine.
Black usuallyy plays 13…Bxd5?!.
(a) Now the variation 14.cxd5 fxe4 15.dxc6! (Sveshnikov believes that
the strongest move is 15.Bxe4?!, which is employed almost always, but after
15…Qb4!, Black has a small advantage) 15…exd3 16.Qxd3 Rc8 17.Rc1
Qb6!N leads only to equality.
17…b4?! 18.Nc4 Qb5, recommended by Sveshnikov, is poor. He believes
that in this position Black stands better; however, after 19.Ke2!N Rxc6
20.Rhd1, White has a small advantage.
(b) White should take with e-pawn: 14.exd5! Then there usually follows
14…Nd4 15.cxb5 axb5 16.Nc2 Nxc2 17.Qxc2 e4 18.Qc6+ Ke7 19.Bxb5
Ra7. This position arose in Ivanovic-Sveshnikov, Yugoslavia 1976.
There followed 20.Qe8+ (the most common continuation is 20.a4 Bg7
21.Qc1! with a small advantage. Sveshnikov recommends here 21…Qb4??
but that is immediately refuted by 22.Qg5+!N Bf6 23.Qxf5 Qxb5 24.axb5
Rxa1 25.Ke2 Rxh1 26.Qxe4+ Kf8 27.b6, and White wins.) 20…Kf6.
Here White blundered: 21.g4? (the correct continuation is 21.a4! Bg7
22.Qc6 with a small advantage), and after 21…Bg7! N22.Qc6+ Ke7, could
have found himself on the hot seat, but Black made two errors in a row in
return – 21…Re7? 22.Qb8 Ke5? (the correct move is 22…Qb4!N with a
small advantage to Black), and now after 23.Be2!N (in the game there was
23.f4+?) the advantage moves to White. Sveshnikov does not notice his two
errors and even puts an exclamation point to the king move to e5.
14.Bxe4
14…Rc8!
Exactly so! 14…Bg7?! leads only to equal play. Then possible
developments are:
(a) The most usual White’s move is 15.cxb5. Then the possible is 15…
axb5 (15…Nd4!? also leads to equality) 16.Rc1, and now the simplest is
16…Rc8, taking the game into the 15.Rc1 variation.
(b) According to Sveshnikov, “15.Nf6? Bxf6 16.Qxd6 Ne7 17.Bxa8 0-0!
is unacceptable for White.” But after 18.Be4, the game is level, so we should
remove all the marks.
(c) In Tseshkovsky-Sveshnikov, Krasnodar 1978, there was 15.Ne3 Rc8
16.Qxd6 Nd4 17.Nac2 Rd8 18.Bc6+ Nxc6 19.Qxc6+ Bd7, and now White
maintains the balance after 20.Qd6.
(d) 15.Rc1 Rc8 16.cxb5 axb5. This position is interesting. Apparently,
Black will stand better after Ke8-d7, so what should White do?
In this position Makarychev would make a losing move 17.Nf6+? in three
games (in Sveshnikov’s opinion, this move is correct), and after 17…Ke7
both of them repeat the slip-up: 18.Nh5? (more stubborn is 18.Nd5+ Kd7!N
19.g4) 18…Bh6 19.Rxc6.
In this position all three Makarychev’s opponents – grandmaster
Razuvaev in 1978, Georgadze in 1980 and Vaisser in 1983 – opted for 19…
Rxc6? with equal play, instead of winning after 19…d5!, for example,
20.Bxd5 Rxc6 21.Bxc6 Rc8 22.Nxb5 Rxc6 23.Nc3 Qb6!N 24.Qf3 Bd2
25.Ne2 Bc4, etc.
In my opinion, in the position in the diagram, White has the following
fantastic route to equalization: 17.h4!!N Kd7 18.Rh3! Bxh3 19.gxh3 Nd4
20.Nc2, etc.
Let us return to 14..Rc8!.
15.cxb5!
Sveshnikov does not investigate this move at all, but I regard it as the
main one. Sveshnikov thinks that “15.Rc1!? is interesting” (my mark is “?”),
after which “15…Bh6 16.f4 is debatable,” but after 16…Nb4!N, Black
unquestionably has a great advantage, for example, 17.Rc3!? Bxd5 18.Bxd5
Nxd519.Qxd5 0-0, etc.
Sveshnikov’s main move is 15.Nf6+?!, but after 15…Kd8, his
recommended line 16.cxb5 Nd4 17.Bb7 does not help, because 17…Rc7!N
18.bxa6 Qb6! leads to a lost position for White, for example, 19.Qd2 Bh6!
20.Qxh6 Rxb7 21.axb7? Qa6+ 22.Kg1 Ne2+ 23.Kf1 Ng3+ 24.Kg1 Qf1+
25.Rxf1 Ne2#. 16.Nc2!N is better, but Black’s advantage is still obvious.
15…axb5!
15…Nd4 is not so good because of 16.Rc1 Rxc1 17.Qxc1 axb5 18.Qc3
Qa4 19.Nc2!N, and White equalizes.
16.Rc1 b4 (the best move) 17.Nc4 Qb5
In this position, good advice is hard for White to come by.

18.Ndb6!
A novelty and the only move that allows White to retain good defensive
chances. 18.Bd3? Qxd5 19.Nb6 should be met with by 19…Qa5!N 20.Nxc8
Nd4 with the idea of Kd8, and Black’s position is won.
18…Bxc4+ 19.Nxc4 Nd4 20.Bd3 Kd8 Now possible is 21.Qh5 Qd5
22.f3 Rg8 and Black’s position is better.
Chapter 86
11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Rg8 without 13.g3
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5
This continuation was the main one at the dawn of the variation
development, but in the last 10 years strong players have practically given up
on it. The reason for this is that the reply 12…Rg8! has been found and
developed and secures excellent play for Black.
12…Rg8!
It is assumed that this move first occurred in the game Huebner-Sax, Rio
de Janeiro 1979, although the game Green-Rohland, Canada 1978, is known.
(a) Earlier the move 12…Bg7 had occurred almost invariably.
In the old game Semeniuk-Timoshchenko, Novosibirsk 1976, White
chose 13.0-0-0?!. Then there was 13…Rc8 14.Kb1 Bxd5 15.exd5 Ne7 16.f3!
0-0 17.Rhe1 Rc5 18.g4 e4 19.fxe4 fxe4 20.Rxe4? Nxd5 21.Re5 Nf6
22.Bxh7+? Kh8 23.Rxc5 dxc5, and White resigned. It is better to play
20.Bxe4 Ng6 with unclear play. The move 18.c3 is also more solid.
But later it turned out that the variation 13.0-0 f4 14.c4! is in favor of
White (we will discuss it with the move order 12.0-0), so about 20 years ago
strong players practically had given up on the bishop move to g7.
(b) 12…f4 is quite playable, although Sveshnikov considers this move
premature, for example, 13.g3 Rg8! with good play. The position will be
explored in the next chapter with a transposition of moves.
13.f4?
Having run into a novelty, Hübner chose this move. Trailblazers never
have it easy, and there were no computers then, so this continuation remained
popular for about 15 years. But now I can state quite definitely that this move
is not good. We will see the reason why in this chapter. In the following
chapters we are going to discuss the correct move 13.g3!.
Other moves are not so good.
(a) On 13.0-0-0?, Black should take a pawn with 13…Rxg2!, for
example, 14.Qf3?! (on 14.f4 the game transposes to the main line) 14…
Bxd5! 15.Qxg2 (or 15.exd5 Qg5+ 16.Qe3 Qxe3+ 17.fxe3 Ne7 with great
black superiority) 15…Bxa2, and Black has a serious advantage.
(b) 13.0-0?! f4 leads to a small black advantage, for example, 14.h3!?
(14.Qxh7?? loses to 14…Rg6! with the threat of 15…Rh6 16.Qg8 f5; 14.c4 is
very dangerous because of 14…Rg6! 15.cxb5 Nd4) 14…Rg5 (14…Rg6 is
also good) 15.Nc7 Kd7 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Qd1 Qf6, and Black exerts tangible
pressure on the kingside.
(c) The variation 13.c3 Rxg2 (Sveshnikov regards 13…Bxd5?! as a main
move, but after 14.exd5 Ne7 15.0-0, White has a minimal advantage) 14.Qf3
Rg4 was rather typical.
Here Sveshnikov recommends “15.h3, and White’s prospects are better,
for example, 15…Rh4 16.exf5 Bxd5 17.Qxd5 Ne7 18.Qg2 d5 19.Nc2, etc.”
This is another error by the grandmaster; in the final position Black obtains a
small advantage after 19…Bh6!N.
The correct move is 15.exf5. Then possible is 15…Bxd5 16.Qxd5 Ne7
17.Qb7 Qc8!? (17…Bh6 18.f6 Ng8 19.Qc6+ Kf8 20.Rd1 Rf4! leads only to
equal play) 18.Qxc8+ Nxc8 19.Nc2 Nb6, and the endgame is slightly better
for Black.
13…Rxg2
First let us look at the move 13…Nd4? recommended by Sveshnikov.
After that he simply recopies the analysis by Povah complacently: “13…
Nd4!? 14.c3 (14.0-0!?) 14…Bxd5 15.exd5 e4 16.0-0-0 (if 16.cxd4, then 16…
Qa5+! 17.Kf1 Qd2 or 17.Kd1 Qa4+! with an attack, but 16.0-0 is stronger)
16…b4! 17.Nc2 (17.cxd4 bxa3 18.Bc2 Qd7 19.g3 Rb8 is no better) 17…
Nxc2 18.Bxc2 Qf6!…” and so on and so forth, “with a dangerous black
attack.”
Perhaps if the grandmaster spared a little of his time for an analysis of
this analysis, he would find six or eight errors in it, including 13…Nd4?
itself.
Let us begin at the end of the variation. The correct move is not 17.Nc2?,
but 17.Bc2!N with equal play.
In the variation to the move 16.cxd4 the blunder 17.Kd1?? immediately
loses to 17…Rxg2!N. In the same variation, after 17.Kd1 Qd2?, White
retains the advantage after 18.Be2!N, and the correct move is another
novelty, 17…exd3!, with equal play.
Next, 16.0-0 is no stronger than 16.0-0-0 and also leads to equality.
The novelty 14…Rxg2! seems stronger than 14…Bxd5, for example,
15.cxd4 Qa5+ 16.Kf1 Rxb2, and White’s position looks rather dangerous.
Finally, instead of 14.c3, it is slightly better to play 14.0-0, and White retains
a certain advantage.
Once again, a question hangs in the air : is it ethical for the grandmaster,
universally known as an expert on the variation, to recopy a weaker player’s
analysis in his book – and to repeat all the errors at that? I daresay that these
readers rather expected his own thoughts and ideas on the expert level from
him. (D)
14.0-0-0!
This continuation is correct, though Sveshnikov puts a question mark to
this move. We will analyze
his errors below, but for now let as look at the historical game Hübner-Sax.
White played 14.Ne3? here. After 14…Qa5+ 15.Kf1, Black erred with
15…Rg7?. Then there followed 16.exf5 Qb4?! 17.fxe6 Qxf4+ 18.Ke2 Nd4+
19.Kd2 Nf3+ 20.Ke2 Nd4+ with a draw by perpetual check.
As usual, we will start correcting errors from the end.
16…Qb4?! leads to a draw. On 16…Bd7?!, Sveshnikov recommends
17.f6?, but this move is poor because of 17…Rg6!N, and Black has a serious
advantage. White should move 17.Nd5!N with equal play, whereas the
correct move for Black is 16…exf4!N. For example, 17.Ng4 Rxg4 18.fxe6
Ne5 19.exf7+ Kd8 20.Bf5 Rg7 21.c3 Ra7, and Black has a small advantage.
In Sveshnikov’s opinion, “16.c3!? needs checking.” Fine, so I have
checked it and found that the move 16.c3?? is no good at all; after 16…b4!,
White’s position is hopeless, for example, 17.Nac4 Qc5 18.exf5? Bxc4
19.Nxc4 Qd5, etc. 18.Nf5 is slightly better.
Instead of 15…Rg7?, there is a much stronger move, 15…Rd2!. Then a
possible continuation is 16.exf5 Qb4! 17.Qf3 Bd7 18.Re1 Rc8!N. Black has
great advantage, for example, 19.Nb1 Nd4 20.Qg3 Rxd3 21.cxd3 Bc6.
14…Nd4 (D)
15.Ne3
Let us investigate other opportunities.
(a) 15.Rhg1? loses. True, it is recommended by Sveshnikov, “15…fxe4!
16.Rxg2 exd3” but is no good as, instead of 16.Rxg2?, White equalizes with
16.Bxb5+!N, and instead of 15…fxe4??, Black wins
after 15…Rxg1!N 16.Rxg1 Bxd5 17.exd5 e4 18.Re1 Qf6 19.c3 b4!, etc.
(b) 15.Qh3? is also bad because of 15…Rf2!N, and Black’s advantage is
quite substantial. 15…Rg8?, recommended by Sveshnikov, is much weaker.
(c) Sveshnikov opines that 15.c3? “may lead to bad consequences” after
15…Bxd5 16.exd5 b4! 17.Nc4? bxc3 18.bxc3 Rc8 19.cxd4 Qa5. There are
three errors in this variation. Instead of the suicidal move 19.cxd4??, it is
correct to play 19.Rd2!N with equality. 17.Nc4! is not bad, but simply the
only move. Finally, instead of 15…Bxd5?, which leads to equal play, the
correct move is 15…Rc8!N, and Black has a great advantage.
(d) 15.Kb1!?N is playable, for example, 15…Bxd5 16.exd5 Rg4!, and
Black’s position is no worse than in the main line.
15…Rf2 16.Rhf1!
In Brodsky-Kramnik, Kherson 1991, White chose a losing move
16.exf5?. Then there followed 16…Bxa2 17.fxe5? (17.Rdf1N is much more
stubborn) 17…dxe5! (17…Rc8!? 18.Bxb5+ Nxb5 19.Nxb5? Qb6N 20.Nd4
dxe5 is also playable) 18.Nxb5 Bh6!! 19.Rhe1 (19.Qxh6? Rxc2+ 20.Bxc2
Ne2# leads to mate), and here a shorter way to win (instead of 19…axb5) is
19…Qb6! 20.Nxd4 exd4 21.Qh4 Rb8!N, for example, 22.Qxf2 dxe3 23.Bb5+
Qxb5 24.Rxe3+ Kf8 25.b3 Bxb3.
16…Rxf1 17.Rxf1 Bxa2!N
The well-known move 17…Qc7 leads only to equal play.
Now possible is 18.Nxf5 Nxf5 19.exf5 Qb6 and Black has a serious
advantage.
Chapter 87
11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Rg8 13.g3 without 13…Nd4 and 13…Rg5
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Rg8! 13.g3
This is certainly the best continuation; however, it does not bring any
advantage to White.
13…Rg4
In the position in the diagram, Black has five or six continuations which
lead to equality, and that is at variance with Sveshnikov’s conclusion in
which he states: “In the variation 12…Rg8!?, assuming precise play by the
opponent, Black finds it difficult to obtain a good position as a lack of
coordination between his forces begins to tell.”
The continuations 13…Nd4 and 13…Rg5 will be discussed in the next
two chapters.
13…Rc8 is sufficient for equality.
For example, 14.c3 Rg6 15.Nc2 (in RittnerSoltau, corr 1991, there
followed 15.Qf3 Bxd5 16.exd5 e4 17.Qxf5 Rg5 18.Qf4 exd3 19.dxc6 Re5+
20.Kf1 Qb6, and chances are even) 15…fxe4! 16.Bxe4 Bg4 17.Qh4 Qxh4
18.gxh4 f5 19.h5! Rg7! 20.h3! Bxh3 21.Bf3 Bg4 22.Nf6+ Kd8 23.Nxg4!?N
fxg4 24.Be4, and White has sufficient compensation for his sacrificed pawn.
13…f4!? is not very common…
…but this move also gives equal chances to Black, for example, 14.c3!
Rg6!? (in Short-Sax, Saint John 1988, there followed 14…Bg4 15.Qxh7 Rg6
16.Qh4 Qxh4 17.gxh4 Bf3, and here instead of 18.Rf1, White should have
chosen 18.h5 with equal play, for example, 18…Rh6 19.Rg1 Ra7!?N) 15.Qe2
Bh6 16.Nc2 Kf8!, and Black has excellent play.
The usual continuation 14.gxf4?! is slightly weaker. Now 14…Bg4,
which is almost invariably played, leads only to equality. Black should
continue 14…exf4! with a small advantage, for example, 15.Qxh7
(15.Nxf4?? is bad because of 15…Bg4 16.Qxh7 Rg7 17.Qh6 Bf3 18.Rf1
Rg4, and Black wins) 15…Rg7 16.Qh8 Ne5!N 17.0-0-0 Rg6, etc.
14.f4!
The best move. It is the only one that allows White to retain equal
chances. After 14.Qxh7? Nd4, Black has a solid advantage, for example,
15.0-0-0 Rg6 (the game arrives at the same position after 13…Rg5) 16.Qh4
Qxh4 17.gxh4 Bxd5 18.exd5 Rg2.
The variation 14.Ne3?! fxe4 15.Nxg4 exd3 16.c3! (16.cxd3?! is markedly
weaker because of 16…Qa5+ 17.Kf1 Qd2) 16…e4 or 16…b4 leads to a small
14…exf4 15.Nxf4 Rxf4
15…Qa5+ 16.Kd1 Rxf4 17.gxf4 leads to a transposition of moves.
16.gxf4 Qa5+
In Geo.Timoshenko-Krasenkow, Voskresensk 1992, Black played 16…
Qf6?!. There followed 17.c3 b4 (I think that 17…Nb4!N is slightly better).
Here White made an imprecise move – 18.Nc2?! – and squandered his
advantage (18.Nb1! with a slight edge is better). After 18…bxc3 19.b3, it
was Black’s turn to slip – 19…Nd4?!.
Instead, the correct move is 19…fxe4! 20.Bxe4 d5 21.Bxd5 0-0-0!
22.Bxc6 Qxf4 23.Qe2 Kc7 24.Rf1 Qd2+ with equal play (Perez-Balabaev,
corr 2001).
17.Kd1
17…fxe4
17…Qb4 is quite playable, for example, 18.exf5 Bd5 19.Re1+ Kd8!
(19…Kd7? is bad because of 20.f6, and on 20…Be6, there follows 21.Rxe6!
fxe6 22.Qf7+ with great advantage to White.) 20.f6 Be6!N, and analysis
shows equal chances.
18.Bxe4 d5!
18…Qb6?! is insufficient for equality because of 19.Nb1!.
19.Bf5! Qb4
The variation 19…0-0-0!? 20.Qxf7 Bxf5 21.Qxf5+ Kb8 leads to sharp
play with even chances.
20.Bxe6 Qd4 21.Kc1 Qe3+ 22.Kd1!N
22.Kb1 Qxe6 23.Qd1 0-0-0 has also occurred and which is in Black’s
favor.
22…Qd4+ 23.Kc1 Qe3+ with perpetual check.
Chapter 88
11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Rg8 13.g3 Nd4
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Rg8! 13.g3 Nd4
A sharp continuation, after which play becomes forced.

14.c3!
In his book Sveshnikov gives a following analysis: “On 14.0-0-0 Rc8!
15.Kb1 fxe4 16.Bxe4 b4! 17.Nxb4 Rg5 18.Qxh7 d5 19.Bxd5 Bxd5 20.Nxd5
Qxd5 21.Qd3 Bxa3 22.Qxa3 Rxc2!? 23.f4 Rd2! Black’s counter-play at least
balances chances (Jinrong-Kindermann, Chicago 1983).”
In the database this “Jinrong” is called “Liang,” but this is just a trifle. If
you are bored and have nothing to do at all, I suggest that you try to find nine
errors in this “analysis” just for fun.
Done? Then let us compare our results, starting from the end.
Instead of 23…Rd2??, the move 23…Qe4!N wins on the spot, for
example, 24.Qd3 (neither 24.Qa4+ Rc6+ 25.Ka1 Nc2+ nor 24.Ka1 Rc1+!
25.Rxc1 Nc2+ helps) 24…Qg2 25.Qxa6 Rc1+!! 26.Rxc1 Qe4+ 27.Ka1 Nc2+
28.Kb1 Na3+ 29.Ka1 Qb1+ 30.Rxb1 Nc2#. Therefore, instead of 23.f4??, it
was necessary to play 23.Qa4!N, though even then Black retains the
advantage.
Instead of 22…Rd2?, Black has a much stronger move, 22…Qc6!N, for
example, 23.Qd3 Nf3!, and White’s position is difficult. Instead of 21.Qd3?,
there is a more stubborn move, 21.f4!.
19.Bxd5? is an error; after the correct continuation 19.h4!N Rg7 20.Qh5,
Black is left with only a small advantage.
Instead of 15…fxe4?, there is a stronger move, 15…h6!, with threats of
Rg5 or fxe4, for example, 16.Rd2 fxe4 17.Bxe4 b4! (a simple move; 17…
Bg4 is also good) 18.Nxb4 Rg5 19.Qd1 d5 20.Bxd5 Bxd5 21.Nxd5 Qxd5
22.f4 Rf5, and Black has a great advantage.
To avoid playing without a piece in the last variation, White, instead of
15.Kb1?, should have chosen 15.c3!N. In his turn, Black, instead of 14…
Rc8? with a small advantage, should have played 14…Rg6!, and his edge is
much greater.
Finally, instead of 14.0-0-0? that brings White on the verge of defeat, the
correct move is 14.c3! with equal play.
What is the reason for such a great number of errors in the Sveshnikov’s
analysis? He has once again employed author know-how already well-known
to us. He has simply copied Kindermann’s analysis without taking the trouble
to check it – or even mentioning Kindermann’s name.
Kindermann is certainly entitled to analysis at such a level, and
Sveshnikov has a right to recopy any analysis he likes, even without ever
referring to its author. However, a reader also has the right to get more or less
reliable information for his hard-earned money. Do you know any way of
breaking this impasse?
After 14.c3, there follows a sequence of almost forced moves:
14…fxe4 15.Bxe4 Bg4 16.Qxh7 Rg7 17.Qh6
17.Qh8?! is weaker because of 17…Nf3+ 18.Ke2 Ng5+ 19.f3 Nxe4
20.fxg4 Qg5 21.Ne3 d5, and Black’s chances are better.
17…Nf3 (D)
18.Ke2
18.Kf1 is often seen here, usually followed by 18…Rg5 19.Nf6+ Ke7
20.Qh8 Nd2 21.Kg2 Nxe4
22.Nxe4 Rg6 23.Qh4+ (in Galkin-Filippov Elista 1997, White lost the game
in several moves after 23.Rhe1? Qd7 24.f3?? Bxf3+! 25.Kxf3 Qf5 26.Kg2
Rh6 27.Qg8 Qh3+ 28.Kf3 Rg6, etc.) 23…Ke6! (23…f6! is also good)
24.Qxd8 Rxd8, and Black’s bishop pair combined with strong center pawns
fully compensate for his pawn deficit.
18…Ng5+ 19.f3 Nxe4
19…Be6!?N leads to equal play, for example, 20.Qf6 Qc8!. Now if
21.Nb6?, then after 21…Nxe4 22.fxe4 Qb7 23.Nxa8 Qxe4+ 24.Kf2 Qxa8,
Black has a great advantage despite being an exchange down.
20.fxg4 Qc8 21.Qe3 Qxg4+ 22.Qf3+ Qxf3 23.Kxf3 f5 24.Nc2 Kf7
25.Nce3
25.Nde3 is less precise as it allows 25…Ng5+! 26.Kg2 f4!?, for example,
27.Nd5N with equal play.
25…Nf6
In Beliavsky-Shirov, Groningen 1993, Black played 25…Ke6?!. There
followed 26.Nxf5 Ng5+ (26…Nd2+!?N) 27.Kg4 Rf7 28.Rhf1 Ne4, and after
29.Rad1?! the game is even. The correct move is 29.Nfe3! with a small
advantage.
26.a4 Nxd5 27.Nxd5 Ke6 28.Rhd1 Raa7 29.b4
29.Nb4 (Acs-Van Wely, Plovdiv 2003) is slightly weaker.
29…Rh7 30.Ra2 Bh6 The game is equal.
Chapter 89
11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Rg8 13.g3 Rg5
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Rg8! 13.g3 Rg5
This continuation occurs noticeably more often than others. White queen
has to return home.
14.Qd1
Taking the pawn is bad: 14.Qxh7? Nd4!, and Black has a great advantage,
for example,
15.0-0-0 (15.c3? is worse: 15…Nf3+, and White’s position is difficult
both after 16.Ke2 Bxd5 17.exd5 e4 and after 16.Kd1 Bxd5 17.exd5 Qf6!N)
15…Rg6, and then 16.Qh4 Qxh4 17.gxh4 Bxd5 18.exd5 Rg2. Black has the
upper hand.
14…Bxd5 15.exd5 Ne7 16.c3
In Polgar-Leko, Budapest 1987, White tried the sharp 16.Nxb5!?. There
followed 16…Qb6 17.Na3! (17.Qc1 Bh6!) 17…Qxb2 18.Nc4 Qc3+ 19.Kf1.
Here Black committed an inaccuracy, 19…Rd8?! (both 19…Nxd5 and
19…e4 lead to equality), and after 20.Rb1 e4 (20…Bh6!?), White has the
strong continuation 21.f4! Rg6 (21…exd3? 22.cxd3! Rg6 23.Qa4+, etc.
loses) 22.Rb3!N Qh8 (22…Qd4?? 23.Nxd6+ Rgxd6 24.Bb5+ loses) 23.Be2
with an advantage. (D)
16…Bh6
16…e4 is quite playable, for example, 17.f4 (or 17.Be2 f4!N with an
equal game) 17…Rg6 18.Be2 Bg7, and the game is even.
There often occurred 16…Qb6 followed by 17.Nc2 e4 (17…Bh6! is more
precise, and after
18.Be2 the game may transpose to the main variation) 18.Be2. In Grischuk-
Krasenkow, Wijk aan Zee, Black made an unnecessarily active move 18…
f4?! here (more accurate is 18…Bh6, on which White has 19.f4 and 19.f3!?
N), and after 19.Qd2! Rxd5 20.Qxf4 Re5 21.0-0 Bg7, White possesses a
positional advantage.
17.Be2
In Bruzon-Felgaer, Buenos Aires 2003, there occurred 17.Nc2 e4!? (after
17…Kf8! 18.Be2 Qb6, it is possible to transpose to the main variation)
18.Bf1 f4 19.gxf4 Rxd5 20.Qg4. The position is equal, but Black managed to
lose in two moves: 20…Rf5 (20…Rc5 is more precise) 21.Qh4 Bxf4?? (the
correct line is 21…Ng8 22.Qh3 Rf6) 22.Bh3, and Black resigned.
Taking into account certain troubles that White experiences in the main
line, I would recommend the move 17.0-0! with equal play, for example,
17…Qb6!?N 18.Re1 Kf8 19.Nc2 Nxd5 20.a4! bxa4 21.Rxa4 Ne7 22.Ne3,
and White’s initiative is sufficient compensation for his pawn minus.
Let us return to the move 17.Be2. (D)
The position in the diagram first arose in Acs-Leko, Budapest 2003. The
game has been presented by various annotators, but all the evaluations are
incorrect. Everyone thought that it was favorable for White. We will
presently see that this expert evaluation is very far from being correct.
17…Qb6
The move 17…Rc8?! is imprecise: there follows 18.Nc2! (in Polgar-
Lautier, France 2003, White
chose 18.c4?!, after which Black could have obtained excellent play with
18…Qa5+!, for example, 19.Kf1 b4 20.Nc2, etc.). Then a possible
continuation is 18…Rc5 19.a4! Rxd5 20.Qb1, and in this position, White has
a small advantage.
After 17…Kf8 18.Nc2 Qb6, the game may transpose to the main
variation.
18.Nc2 Kf8!
This is the best move, although Ftacnik regards it as dubious. 18…Qb7?!,
recommended by Ftacnik, falls short of the goal: after 19.a4! (19.0-0!?N is
also good, for example, 19…Nxd5 20.Re1, etc.) 19…Nxd5 20.axb5! Nxc3!?
N 21.Bf3 Ne4 22.0-0 Rg6 23.bxa6 Rxa6 24.Rxa6 Qxa6 25.Qd5!, White’s
chances are better.
19.a4
The more cautious move here is 19.0-0!?N, but Black retains a small
advantage anyway.
19…bxa4 20.Nb4 f4
20…e4!? is probably more precise (the idea is to transpose to the main
variation after 21.Qxa4 f4, eliminating the possibility of 21.Qd3.
But Leko has another – erroneous – plan.
21.Qxa4
21…e4!
This continuation changes official theory’s estimate of the variation
diametrically. Rogozenko and Ftacnik do not examine this move at all and so
evaluate the position in the diagram as favorable for White.
Here Leko had committed a serious blunder by playing 21…f3?, after
which the advantage went to White. In the text there followed 22.Bd3 Rg4
23.0-0 f5 24.Qd7 Rxb4? 25.cxb4 e4 26.Bb5! Rb8 27.Bc6 Qxb4 28.Ra4 Qxb2
29.Qxd6 Be3 30.h4!, and White won.
22.Qa5
Here Acs and Hazai break off their comments and evaluate the position in
favor of White.
22…Qb7!
22…Qb8! is also good.
Analysis shows that White’s activity on the queenside has brought him
nothing but trouble. For example, if he grabs a pawn with 23.Bxa6, then after
23…Qd7, the white pieces get caught on the queenside, and meanwhile Black
launches his attack against the white king.
Chapter 90
11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 without 14.exf5, 14.0-0 or
13.Nxb5
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 (D)
This continuation first occurred in the game Zhilin-Timoshchenko,

Voronezh 1973. In the beginning it was unpopular, but now is a confident
runner-up after the main move 12.0-0.
12…Bg7
The variation 12…Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5! Bg7 15.Na3 0-0 (15…e4
runs into the unpleasant retort 16.Qa4+) 16.0-0 e4 leads to sharp play with
better chances for White, for example, 17.Bc2 Qb6! (17…Rc8 18.Bb3 f4 is
weaker because of 19.Qg4! Ng6 20.Qf5, Nyzhnyk-Zhou, Chotowa 2010)
18.Rb1 Qc5 19.Bb3. Here in Bokar-Kerr, corr 2004, Black was inaccurate,
19…f4?!, and after 20.Qg4 Ng6 21.Qf5, White’s position is definitely better.
13.Qh5
(a) As it is known, the move 13.Qf3? is weak because of 13…Bxd5!
14.exd5 e4, and to take the pawn with 15.Qxf5? is unwise, as after 15…
exd316.dxc6 Qe7+ 17.Kf1 Qe2+ 18.Kg1 0-0, Black has a great advantage.
(b) The continuation 13.Nc2 usually leads to a transposition of moves, for
example, 13…0-0!? (after 13…Bxd5 14.exd5 Ne7 15.0-0, there arises a
position from the 12.0-0 system that will be investigated below. However, it
is not quite clear how to equalize after 15.a4!) 14.Nce3 (the position after
14.0-0 will be discussed below with the move order 13.0-0) 14…fxe4
15.Bxe4 f5 16.Bc2, and there arises an equal position that has been explored
in detail in chapter 77.
(c) In the above-mentioned game Zhilin-Timoshchenko, White chose the
move 13.0-0. There followed 13…0-0!? (now, after more than 40 years, I can
say that 13…Bxd5!? 14.exd5 Ne7, transposing the game to main variations of
the 12.0-0 system, is also not bad) 14.Nc2 (after 14.Qh5 f4!, the main
position of the next chapter arises) 14…Rc8! 15.Ncb4? (15.a4 is better) 15…
Nxb4 16.Nxb4 fxe4 17.Bxe4 a5 18.Nd5 f5 19.Bc2? (19.Bf3N is better), and
here Black (as far as I know, for the first time in similar positions of the
Chelyabinsk Variation) has implemented the idea of Rc8-c5, winning the
struggle for the d5-point with 19…Rc5! and obtaining a great positional
advantage.
(d) The sharp 13.Nxb5!? will be examined in detail.
13…0-0
There are also other options.
(a) In 1975 in this position I twice employed the move 13…f4 in my
games against Semeniuk. Now it is a dubious move, but then it was my
trademark idea that I had successfully tested three times in similar positions.
True, White had been castled there instead of c2-c3, and this makes rather a
considerable difference.
Then there was 14.g3!? (14.Nc2! is still stronger, and the position after
14.0-0 0-0 is a subject of the next chapter with a transposition of moves)
14…0-0 (14…Ne7! 15.Nxe7 Kxe7!N is stronger) 15.0-0-0 (in the first game
Semeniuk chose 15.gxf4, and lost the game despite having had a good
position after 15…exf4 16.e5 h6 17.Rg1 Nxe5 18.Qxh6 Ng6 19.Qh5 Bxd5
20.Qxd5 Re8+ 21.Kd2) 15…f5 (15…b4!?N 16.cxb4 Re8 with the idea of
taking the knight on d5 is slightly better, but White has an advantage
anyway) 16.gxf4 Bxd5? (16…b4 is better) 17.exd5 Ne7 18.fxe5 Bxe5
19.Nc2, and White obtained a great advantage that he managed to convert
into a win – not without adventures, I have to admit.
(b) In the game Beliavsky-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976, there occurred 13…
b4.
Sveshnikov points out that the idea is mine, but I am not sure of it. There
followed 14.cxb4 Bxd5 (14…0-0!?N with the idea of taking on e4 and then
carrying out f7-f5 is more accurate) 15.exd5 Nxb4 16.Qxf5 Nxd5 17.Nc4
Ne7 18.Qh5 d5?! 19.Nxe5 Qa5+?! (19…Ng6!) 20.Kf1 Ng6 21.Nf3, and
White has a great advantage.
Sveshnikov writes that “the correct continuation is 18…Rc8! 19.Rd1 Rc6
20.0-0 e4! with mutual chances,” but this opinion is erroneous. After 21.Qg4
Kf8 22.Qxe4 d5 23.Qf4!N, White has a great advantage, for example, 23…
dxc4?? 24.Bg6! Qe8 25.Qxf7 Qxf7 26.Rd8 Qe8 27.Rxe8#. I suppose that the
best defense is 18…Qc7!N (instead of 18…d5?!), but White has an
advantage anyway.
Let us return to the move 13…0-0.
The main moves in this position are 14.exf5 and 14.0-0. They do not
bring any superiority to White and will be examined in the following
chapters. To get the whole picture, we are going to explore other
opportunities.
14.Ne3
14.Nc2? is bad because of 14…fxe4 15.Bxe4 f5 16.Nf4 exf4 17.Bxc6
Rc8, for example, 18.Bf3 (18.Qf3? loses to 18…d5) 18…Bf7 19.Qxf5 Rxc3!
20.Be4 Qh4, etc.
Sveshnikov suggests an “original resource 14.Nc7!?.” After 14…Qxc7
15.exf5, Black has 15…e4!N (15…d5!? is also good); then possible is
16.Bxe4 Rfe8! 17.fxe6 Rxe6 18.Qxh7+ Kf8 19.0-0-0 (19.0-0? d5 20.Bxd5
Rh6 loses) 19…b4, and Black has an advantage.
14…f4 15.Nf5 Bxf5
15…Qf6!? is probably even better as it gives White a chance to close the
game even more after 16.g4!, but Black retains excellent play, for example,
after both 16…Rfd8!?N and 16…Rfc8!?N.
16.Qxf5 Ne7
16…b4!? is also fine; both 17.N 4 and 17.cxb4 lead to equality (though
Sveshnikov puts a question mark to the latter move).
Then there may follow 17.Qh5 d5! 18.exd5 f5 19.0-0-0 e4 20.Bc2, and
now not 20…Ng6? as in the game Bauer-Zhao Jun, Paris 2006, which was
met with 21.g4! with clear advantage, but either 20…Nc8!N or 20…b4!N
21.cxb4 Ng6 with equal chances in both cases.
Chapter 91
11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.exf5
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.exf5
In this chapter we will examine the move 14.exf5, which was popular at
the dawn of the development of the variation. Later it turned out that it brings
no advantage to White, and for the last decade strong players do not resort to
it, preferring the move 14.0-0 which we are going to start exploring in the
next chapter.
14…Bxd5 15.f6 e4
In Anand-Ivanchuk, Linares 2002, Black tried the move 15…h6?!. After
16.fxg7 Kxg7, White had an opportunity to carry out 17.Rad1!N with slightly
better chances, but he preferred 17.Nc2. Then there was 17…Be6, and White
squandered his advantage for good with 18.Ne3. I think that 18.0-0!N allows
him to retain a small advantage.
16.fxg7 Re8 17.Be2
17.Bc2?! occurred in the rapid game S.Polgar-Nunn, Oviedo 1992, and is
weaker. There followed 17…Re5 18.Qh3 b4 19.cxb4 Nxb4 20.0-0 Rc8
21.Bb3, and here Black has a fine novelty 21…Bxb3!, for example,
22.Qxb3?! Nd3, and Black has a great advantage.
17…Re5
This move occurs almost invariably, but 17…Ne5!? also looks good, for
example, 18.0-0 Qf6 19.Rfd1 Nd3! 20.Bxd3 Re5 21.Qh3 exd3 22.Rxd3
Rae8!N 23.Rf1 Rg5! 24.g3 Qg6 25.Rd2 Bf3, and Black has an excellent play.
18.Qh6
This is a well-known position; there are about 150 games in the database
which have reached this position.
18…Rg5!
This is both the best and the most usual move, but the other ones have
also occurred.
(a) 18…Qg5 is slightly weaker: after 19.Qxg5 Rxg5, White may chose
20.Nc2!? (20.0-0 b4 21.Nc2 bxc3 22.bxc3 Be6 leads to the 18…b4 variation
with a transposition of moves).
In this position Sveshnikov considers it an error to take the pawn on g2,

pointing out the following variation: “20…Rxg2? 21.Ne3 Rg5 22.h4 Re5
23.Ng4! e3 24.f3!.” Honestly, I am still unable to figure out what point he
was trying to make, but I do see four errors in his variation quite clearly.
Let us begin from the end. The move 24.f3? leads to a clear black
superiority after 24…Re6.
Instead of 24.f3?, the correct line is 24.Nxe5!N Bxh1 25.Ng4! with an
edge for White, as Black cannot play 25…exf2+?? because of 26.Kxf2, and
the black bishop is doomed. Then again, Black does not have to play 23…e3?
at all; the correct move is 23…Re6!N with equal play. Finally, instead of
23.Ng4?!, there is a correct move 23.a4!, and White has a small advantage.
Sveshnikov’s evaluation of the move 20…Rxg2 is also wrong, as, along with
20…Be6!?, it is one of the two best moves in this position.
(b) 18…b4 has also occurred.
Then the options are as follows:

(a) 19.Nc4 Bxc4 20.Bxc4 bxc3 21.bxc3 d5 leads to equality – White
retains even chances with 22.Bb3!N.
(b) 19.cxb4 Nd4 is also playable. Sveshnikov points out that in this
position “the relatively best defense is 20.Bd1!?.”
Apparently, this is not quite the case, because when one of the noted
correspondence players, Bernardino, trustingly followed this advice, nothing
remained for White but to resign after 20…e3! 21.fxe3 Nf5. Actually, the
best defense is not 20.Bd1??, but 20.Q 3! which leads to equal play.
(c) Usually White replies with 19.Nc2; then possible is 19…bxc3 20.bxc3
Be6! (on 20…Qg5 21.Qxg5 Rxg5 22.0-0 Be6, the game transposes to the
20…Be6 variation; however, White still has a resource, 22.h4!?N) 21.0-0
Qg5 22.Qxg5 Rxg5 23.Rfd1 Rc5 (I think that the best way to equalize for
Black is 23…Rd8!N, for example, 24.Bxa6 Rc5 25.c4 Ne5 26.Ne3 Bxc4
27.Bxc4 Nxc4, etc.) 24.Rxd6 Rxc3 25.Ne3 Nb4 (Sveshnikov believes that the
“clear path to equalization” is the move 25…Rc5 that he had made in his
game against Beliavsky in 1978, but he is wrong. The game was quickly
drawn only after Beliavsky’s error 26.Bg4?!).
In the game Klovans-Timoshchenko, Odessa 1975, in which this position
occurred for the first time, there followed 26.a3! (26.Rad1?! leads to equal
play, and the game Beliavsky-Timoshchenko, Lvov 1977, was drawn soon
after 26…Kxg7 27.a4 Ra3 28.R1d4 Na2 29.Bf1 Nc3!. The game Anand-Van
Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2003, came to the same result after 26.a4 Nc2 27.Nxc2)
26…Nc2 (White also has a small advantage after 26…Nd3!?N) 27.Nxc2
Rxc2 28.Bxa6 Bc4 29.Bxc4 Rxc4 30.g3, and though White has a small
advantage, Black draws with best play by both sides. Let us return to the
move 18…Rg5!.
19.0-0
19.Rd1?! is dubious because of 19…Rg6! 20.Qf4 Bxa2!N, for example,
21.Qxe4?! d5, and if 22.Qf3?, then 22…d4!, and the engine declares that
Black’s position is won.
Sveshnikov regards the move 19 Nc2!? as interesting (the symbol is
Sveshnikov’s) and quotes the almost forced variation 19…Rxg2 20.Ne3 Rg6
21.Qf4 Be6 22.h4! d5 23.h5 Rxg7 24.0-0-0, etc., “with a strong white
attack.” However, if Black is not too greedy and plays 23…Rf6!N instead of
23…Rxg7?!, then he retains at least equal chances, for example, 24.Qh4 Qe7!
25.Rad1 Rad8, etc.
19…Ne5! 20.Nc2
20.Rad1 does not bring any advantage because of 20…Nd3! (Sveshnikov
examines only the moves 20…Rg6?! and 20…Ng6?!, both leading to a white
advantage) 21.g3 (or 21.Bxd3 exd3 22.g3 Qe7 23.Rxd3 Qe4 24.f3 Rxg3+
with equal play) 21…Nf4!N, for example, 22.Rfe1 Qd7, etc.
20…Bc4 21.Bxc4 bxc4 22.Ne3 Rb8
This is better than 22…Rc8?! as recommended by Sveshnikov. The game
is level.
Chapter 92
11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-0 f4 without 15.Rad1
or 15.Rfd1
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-0
As we already know from the previous chapter, taking the pawn on f5

does not bring any advantage to White and, moreover, may lead to significant
simplification; so for the last decade strong players have been almost
invariably opting for castling, which at least promises more complicated play
for White.
14…f4!
With the advance f5-f4, Black seizes space on the kingside and prepares
to attack there, simultaneously closing the position in the center. The simplest
plan is Kh8, Rg8 and Bf8, but there are other options too. The plan with f5-f4
was tested for the first time by yours truly in the end of 1973 in two games of
the match against Andrey Lukin during the USSR Cup semifinals (Moscow
1973).
But before that there was the classic game Spassky-Sveshnikov, Moscow
1973, in which Black played 14…h6?! (but with the move order 13…h6),
and there followed 15.Nc2 fxe4?! (15…Qg5 is a bit better) 16.Bxe4 f5
17.Nf4! Bd7? (17…exf4 18.Bxc6 Rc8 is obviously better, though White has
a clear advantage anyway) 18.Bd5+ Kh7 19.Qg6+ Kh8 20.Nh5 Qe7 21.Nb4
Nxb4? 22.Bxa8+ Rg8? 23.cxb4, and Black resigned.
I recall that I had seen this game literally the next day in a newspaper,
quickly discovered several Sveshnikov errors and, most importantly, hit upon
a brand-new idea, f5-f4, that I would successfully test a month later in the
two above-mentioned games.
Attempts to improve Sveshnikov’s plan with the idea of avoiding wasting
time on the move h7-h6 have been successfully made. After 14…fxe4
15.Bxe4 f5 16.Nf4 exf4 17.Bxc6 Rc8, Black is certainly left with a shattered
position, but it turns out to be amazingly defendable thanks to the bishop pair.
A possible development is 18.Qe2 Be5 (18…Bf7!? is not bad at all) 19.Qf3
b4 (19…Kh8!? also looks solid) 20.cxb4 Bxb2.
In Kramnik-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2005, there followed 21.Bd5 Qf6
22.Rad1 Rc3 23.Rd3 Bxd5 24.Qxd5+ Qf725.Qf3 Rfc8 26.Nb1 Rc1 27.Nd2
Rxf1+ 28.Nxf1 Be5. White’s elusive advantage had vanished once and for
all, and a draw was agreed.
15.Nc2
In the following chapters we are going to explore the moves 15.Rad1 and
15.Rfd1.
The move 15.g4 that crudely prevents the threat of f7-f5 is quite playable;
however, in reply Black has many good choices which secure equality for
him, for example, 15…Rb8, 15…Kh8, 15…Nb8N, 15…h6 and 15…Ne7. I
even find it difficult to give you a concrete advice.
I find Nunn’s play against Polgar (Monte Carlo 1994) quite logical: 15…
Kh8!? 16.Kh1 Rg8 17.g5 Ne7. Here Polgar played the inaccurate 18.f3?!
(both 18.c4!?N and 18.Nc2!?N look better) and after 18…Bf8, the initiative
passed to Black. There followed 19.Rad1 Rg7 20.Bc2 Ng8! 21.Rg1 Be7
22.h4, and now instead of 22…Rg6?, Black should have played! 22…f5!N
with an advantage. White cannot reply with 23.exf5? because of 23…Bf7!
24.Qg4 Bxd5 25.Rxd5 Nf6, and Black wins.
15…f5!
Exploiting a drawback of the move 15.Nc2 – the knight on d5 is poorly
defended.
In my first game against Lukin I tried the standard 15…Kh8?!. There
followed 16.a4 bxa4 17.Rxa4 a5 18.Rfa1 Rg8?! (a risky move, but after 18…
Rb8!N 19.b4, White has an advantage) 19.b4 Bf6 20.b5 Nb8 21.Nxf4! (the
move 21.Nd4??, recommended by Sveshnikov, who refers to Igor Zaitsev’s
analysis of 21…Rg5 22.Qh6?, immediately loses to 22…Rg6!N 23.Nxe6
fxe6 24.Qh5 exd5) 21…Bg4 22.Qxf7 exf4? (22…Rg7!N 23.Qd5 Nd7 24.Ne6
Bxe6 25.Qxe6 Nc5 26.Qd5 Nxa4 27.Rxa4 is better, but to play out such a
position, especially with White’s advantage, is rather boring) 23.e5 Bg7
24.Qxf4? (after this error the chances are even, but White eventually lost. The
modest 24.h3! leads to a great advantage for White) 24…Bxe5 25.Qh6 Ra7
26.Ne3 Bc8 27.Rh4 Rgg7, etc.
16.Ncb4
This move, regarded as the main line, first occurred in Klovans-
Timoshchenko, Vilnius 1974. We will return to it later, but now let us discuss
the second game of the match Lukin-Timoshchenko, in which White played
16.a4, and after which there followed 16…Bxd5!.
This game essentially became the predecessor of Sax’s idea 12.0-0
Bxd5!, as it suggests a plan for Black of trading the e6-bishop for the d5-
knight. White has to recapture with the e4-pawn, after which the black
kingside pawns are unstoppable. Later the idea became extraordinary popular
and bishops started getting exchanged for knights without any hesitation.
There followed 17.exd5 Ne7 18.axb5 e4 19.Bc4. It is interesting to note
that after 19.Be2?!, the position from Krasenkow-Gorelov, Moscow 1982
would have arisen. There it appeared as a result of 12.0-0 Bxd5!, while the
move e5-e4 had been made earlier, so the bishop was unable to move to c4
because of the pawn on b5. But both the pattern of the position and its ideas
have been known for a long time!
My game against Lukin continued as follows: 19…axb5 20.Bxb5 Rb8
21.c4 Nxd5 22.Ra7 Nc7 23.Rfa1? (before this move, White had been holding
the balance quite successfully. The correct continuation is 23.Rd1!N). There
followed 23…Nxb5 24.cxb5 Qf6 (24…Qe8!N is more accurate) 25.Rc7?!
Rbc8! 26.Raa7?! Rxc7 27.Rxc7 Qxb2 28.Qe2 d5 29.h3 Kh8 30.Qh5 f3
31.Ne3 Qa1+ 32.Nf1 fxg2 33.Kxg2 f4 34.Qg4 f3+ 35.Kg1 Rg8 36.Rc8 Bf8,
and White resigned.
16…Nxb4 17.Nxb4 a5!
18.Nc2!
In Klovans-Timoshchenko White played 18.exf5. Now, 40 years later,
this move can be regarded as a slight error. After 18…Bf7 19.Qh3, Black
returned the compliment with 19…Qd7, and the game transposed to the main
variation of this chapter. About 30 years ago an improvement for Black has
been found, 19…Qf6! 20.Nc2 b4! 21.cxb4 d5, and Black has very rich play
for his sacrificed pawns, for example, 22.f3 axb4 23.Kh1 Rfb8, and Black has
the initiative. Note that 18.Nc6? is bad because of 18…Qc7, and if 19.exf5?!,
then 19…Bc4!, and Black’s position is won.
18…d5!
18…Qf6!? is also sufficient for equality.
19.exf5 Bf7 20.Qh3 Qd7!?
Here 20…Be8!N is playable; Black has a good game, for example,
21.Rad1 Ra6 22.f6 Rfxf6 23.Bxh7+ Kf8, etc.
21.Rad1 Ra6 22.Qg4?!
Klovans had played exactly in this fashion, and only recently the correct
move was found, 22.g4!, after which 22…Rh6 23.Qg2 Kh8N with a highly
complicated struggle is possible.
22…Rh6
I had a look at my old scorebook and found that up to this point I had
spent six minutes of my time (remember that there were no 30-second
increments for each move then!). Naturally, everything was played out in
accordance with home analysis.
23.Qe2 f3!
This move made White go into a deep think for 45 minutes.
24.gxf3?
The correct move is 24.Qxf3!N, for example, 24…e4 25.Bxe4 dxe4
26.Qxe4 with an advantage to Black.
24…Qe7?
24…Qd6!N, creating the terrible threat of e5-e4, is much stronger.
25.f4 e4 26.Bxb5 Bh5 27.f3 Qc5+28.Ne3 exf3 29.Qd3 f2+ 30.Kxf2
Bxd1 31.Rxd1 Kh8! 32.Kg2 Rg8 33.Nf1
The last ten moves were made very quickly; White had run into time-
trouble while Black imagined that his moves were obvious. I could have been
proud of this game if in this position I took a short pause to think and played
33…Qg1!, for example, 34.Kxg1 (or 34.Kf3 Rh3 35.Ng3 Qxh2) 34…Bd4+
35.Kh1 Rg1#
Chapter 93
11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-0 f4 15.Rad1
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-0
f4 15.Rad1
By playing in this fashion, White indirectly defends the knight on d5 and

hampers Black’s programmed advance f7-f5. The king rook remains on f1 in
order, on occasion, to take part in the White’s actions on the kingside after
g2-g3. However, Black also wishes to play on the same sector of the board.
15…Kh8!
A natural-looking move that nevertheless is absent in the Sveshnikov’s
book. Let us explore other options.
(a) After 15…f5? 16.exf5 Bxd5 17.f6 Rxf6 18.Bxh7+ Kf8 19.Rxd5 Ne7
20.Be4, White has more than sufficient compensation for the exchange; still,
16.Bc2! is even stronger.
(b) 15…Rb8?! 16.Nc2 Qd7, recommended by Sveshnikov, is weak
because of 17.Rd2N, and White has a small edge. A similar position arises in
the main variation of the next chapter.
(c) It is difficult for White to obtain advantage after 15…Ne7, for
example, 16.c4 h6!, preparing to capture on d5 with his knight.
(d) The variation 15…Ra7 16.Nc2 Kh8 17.Ncb4 Nxb4 18.Nxb4 Qd7
19.Be2 (19.Qe2!?) 19…f5 is playable. In Svidler-Topalov, France 2003,
there followed 20.exf5 Rxf5 21.Qh4 Bf6 22.Qh6 Bg7 23.Qh4 Bf6 24.Qh6
Bg7 with pendulum draw.
Let us return to the move 15.Rad1.
There follows a sequence of almost obligatory moves: 16.g3 Rg8 17.Kh1

Bf8 18.Be2 Rg5 19.Qf3 f5
The thematic break still occurs.
20.gxf4
In the game Svidler-van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2004, there followed
20.exf5 Bxf5 (after 20…Rxf5 21.Qe4, White has a small advantage) 21.Nxf4
exf4 22.Qxc6 Rc8 23.Qf3.
This move is an inaccuracy. 23.Qb7?! is dangerous because of 23…d5,
for example, 24.Bf3!?N Qf6! 25.Rxd5?! fxg3, and now it is already time to
give up the exchange on f5. The correct move is 23.Qg2!N with the idea of
meeting 23…Qe7 with 24.Bf3!, with equal play.
23…fxg3 (23…Qe7! leads to a small advantage) 24.fxg3 d5?! (after 24…
Bg7!N, the game is even) 25.Qg2 (van Wely points out the variation 25.Qe3!
Be4+ 26.Bf3 Bc5 27.Qe2 Bxa3 28.bxa3 Qe7 29.Rd4 Re5 “with
compensation,” but after either 30.Qd1!N or 30.a4!N White’s chances are
better). There followed 25…Bxa3 26.bxa3 Qe7 27.Bf3 Be4 28.Qd2 Qg7
29.Bxe4 dxe4 30.Qe3 Re5 31.Kg1 Rf8 32.Rxf8+ Qxf8, and the game was
drawn on the move 47.
20…fxe4
20…exf4 is slightly weaker because of 21.Nxf4, for example, 21…Bc8!N
22.Nc2 (or 22.exf5 Bb7 23.Qh3 Qf6 24.Ng6+ Kg8 25.Nxf8+ Ne5+ 26.f3
Rxf8 27.Nc2 Qxf5 28.Qxf5 Rgxf5 29.Nd4 Nxf3 30.Nxf5 Rxf5, and the game
is practically equal) 22…fxe4 23.Qxe4 Bb7 24.Ne6 Re5 25.Nxd8 Rxe4
26.Nxb7 Rxe2 27.Ne3 Rxb2, and White’s advantage is very slight.
In practice only the move 21…Bxa2 has occurred, for example, 22.c4 (in
the rapid game Anand-Topalov, Monaco 2001, there was 22.exf5?! Rxf5
23.Qe4 Rf7 24.Bh5?! Rf6 25.c4 Ne5?! 26.c5? Rc8! with great advantage to
Black. Instead of 26.c5?, the correct move is 26.Be2N, and instead of 25…
Ne5?!, another novelty, 25…Rb8!, is more accurate.) 22…fxe4 23.Qxe4 Qe8.
In Anand-Hernandez, Merida 2001, there followed 24.Bf3 Qxe4 25.Bxe4
Rc8 26.Ne6 Re5 27.Bxc6 Rxc6 28.Nxf8 b4, and now White retains a small
advantage with 29.Nd7!.
21.Qxe4 Bf5 22.Qe3 exf4 23.Nxf4 (D)
23…Qd7!N
After this move chances are equal. 23…Ne5 is slightly weaker because
after 24.Nc2!, White retains a certain advantage (24…Bxc2? is bad because
of 25.Ne6).
But, strange as it may seem, White usually plays “according to Anand,”

24.Nd5?! (Anand-Leko, Wijk aan Zee 2001). Black should reply with 24…
Bh6!N, and it is already he who has a small advantage. Then the possible
development of the game is 25.f4 Rg7 26.Qd4 Ng4 27.Bxg4 Bxg4 28.Rde1
Qh4 29.Qf2 Qxf2 30.Rxf2 Bd7! followed by Bc6 and, despite his extra pawn,
White is on the defensive.
But in practice after 24.Nd5?!, Black plays only 24…Ng4?. Leko in the
comments to his game against Anand even awards an exclamation point to
this move, confusing less strong players. In the game there followed 25.Bxg4
Rxg4, and now White was able to fix his small advantage with 26.f3!.
After 23…Qd7!, possible is 24.Nd5 Rg6 25.Nb6 Qb7 26.Nxa8 Re6!
27.Qb6 Qxb6 28.Nxb6 Rxe2 29.b4 Ne5 30.Kg2! Be4+ 31.Kg3 Nf3 with
equal play.
Chapter 94
11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-0 f4 15.Rfd1 without
15…Kh8
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-
0f4 15.Rfd1!?
With his last move White has left his queen rook on a1. It is obvious that
he plans to carry out the break a2-a4 and then to play on the queenside.
Besides, after the break c2-c4 followed by c4xb5, the a2-pawn will be
defended.
15…Rb8
This rook move occurs in two games out of every three. Its aim is to take
the b6-square under control, preparing the queen move to d7. I personally
think that it is rather slow – both in this particular position and in many other
similar situations. The threat Bg4 that it creates is, in fact, not so terrible, as
White plans Rd2 anyway.
Therefore I prefer the move 15…Kh8!? that we are going to explore in
the next chapter. As far as I can see, Sveshnikov, on the contrary, has a
weakness for Rb8, both here and in the similar positions. What we have here
are different approaches to the Chelyabinsk Variation.
Just as in the previous chapter, 15…f5? misses its goal, and for the same
reasons, too. 15…Ne7 runs into the unpleasant retort 16.c4!.
16.Nc2 Qd7
17.Rd2!?
For unknown reason, this logical move is very rare. White has other
options as well.
(a) 17.Qh4 f5 18.Ncb4 Nxb4 19.Nxb4 Bf6 leads to equal play, for
example, 20.Qh5 a5 21.exf5 Bf7 22.Qh6 Bc4! (22…Bg7?! that occurs in the
rapid game Topalov-van Wely, Monte Carlo 2004, is weaker) 23.Bxc4+ bxc4
24.Nd5 Qxf5, etc.
(b) Sveshnikov’s main move is 17.Qe2 followed by 17…Bxd5 with a
comment: “Black has to hurry, as on 17…Kh8, there is the unpleasant reply
18.a4!.”
In fact, there is no rush at all. Black will simply grab the pawn with 18…
bxa4, for example, 19.Ne1!? Na5!, and Black has excellent play. Therefore,
the move 18.a4 is not good, the move 17…Kh8! is correct, and the move
17…Bxd5?! is inaccurate as it leaves White with a small advantage.
(c) White has a promising resource in 17.Be2!?, for example, 17…f5
18.exf5! Rxf5N (or 18…Bxf5 19.Rd2) 19.Qh4. If there is any way for Black
to equalize, I don’t know it.
(d) White chooses the move 17.h3 much more often than any other one,
but it leads only to equality.
Then there usually follows 17…f5! (Black was unsuccessful in the rapid
game Anand-Kramnik, France 2003: 17…a5?! 18.Na3! Here Black should
have played 18…Na7, but he chose 18…b4?! and after 19.Nb5 failed to
overcome the resultant difficulties.) 18.Ncb4 Nxb4 19.Nxb4 a5 20.exf5, and
now Black has to choose with what piece to retake on f5.
The correct continuation is 20…Bxf5! (20…Bf7?! is weaker: 21.Qh4
axb4 22.f6 Bg6 23.fxg7 Qxg7 24.Bxg6 Qxg6 25.cxb4, and White has an
advantage), and in Hracek-Shirov, Bundesliga 2003, after the sequence
21.Nc6 Rbe8 22.Bxb5 Qc7, White played the extremely risky 23.Nxa5?!
(23.Qf3 Kh8 24.Qd5 f3!N leads to equal play; the usual 24…Re6!? is also
sufficient). There followed 23…Rb8 24.Bc4+ Kh8 25.b4 Bg6!, and White
faced problems.
In his comments to this game, Shirov recommends 26.Qe2?! e4 27.Rac1?
f3 28.Qd2 fxg2 29.Qxd6, but Black has a much stronger continuation, 28…
d5! 29.Bxd5N fxg2, and although White is two pawns up, the shattered
position of his king makes his situation very difficult. In the game there was
26.Qg4 e4! with a strong black attack.
It is possible that White is still able to retains equality with 26.Qh4!?N;
the variations are very complicated.
There follows a sequence of more or less forced moves that is similar to
the well-investigated 17.h3 variation: 17…f5 18.Ncb4 Nxb4 19.Nxb4 a5
20.exf5 Bxf5 21.Nc6 Rbe8!N
Let us continue the variation: 22.Bxb5 Qc7 23.Rad1 Re6 24.Bc4!? Qxc6
25.Bxe6 Bxe6 26.Rxd6 Qc8 27.Qg5 h6 28.Qd8
The computer holds that in this position, White has a small advantage.
Chapter 95
11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-0 f4 15.Rfd1 Kh8
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.0-
0f4 15.Rfd1 Kh8!?
Curiously, in the database this king move is Black’s main weapon against
the queen rook’s move to d1, but it is very rarely employed against the same
move by the king’s rook. The only explanation that I have is that with the
rook on a1, Black is worried about the break a2-a4. Well, as we will see, his
fears are groundless.
16.Nc2
In the rapid game Smirnov-Grischuk, Sochi 2004, White played 16.g3?!.
It is anybody’s guess whether he had simply mixed up variations and put the
wrong rook on d1 (a similar position with the queen rook on d1 is explored in
detail in the chapter 93).
Anyway, the difference is clearly in favor of Black. There followed 16…
Rg8 (16…f5!N is a good move is with excellent play for Black, 17.exf5?!
Bxd5 18.f6 Bh6! 19.Qxh6 Ra7) 17.Kh1?! (17.Nc2!?N leads to equal play, for
example, 17…Bf8 18.Be2 Rg5 19.Qf3, etc.).
17…Bf8?! (Here Black has an excellent opportunity to obtain an
advantage with 17…Bh6!N. Now 18.Qxh6?? immediately loses to 18…Rg6
19.Qh4 Qxh4 20.gxh4 Bg4!; after 18.Be2 Rg6, Black’s chances are better).
In the game there followed 18.Be2 Rg5 19.Qf3 f5 20.gxf4 fxe4 21.Qxe4
Bf5 22.Qe3 exf4 23.Nxf4. In a similar position discussed in chapter 93,
White manages to maintain equality, but now things are much worse for him.
23…Ne5? Now Black should have played 23…Qd7!N with a serious
advantage. For example, after 24.Nd5 Bh6!, White can no longer play
25.Nb6?? because of 25…Qa7! 26.Nxa8? Qxe3 27.fxe3 Be4!+, and the
absence of the rook on f1 takes its toll.
24.Nd5?! (after 24.f3! Bh6N 25.Qd4, Black has only a small edge) 24…
Bh6 25.f4 Ng4 26.Bxg4 Rxg4 27.Rg1 Qe8 28.Ne7??, and here Black easily
wins: 28…Ra7! 29.Rxg4 Rxe7 30.Qd4+ Bg7 31.Qd1 Bxc3!
16…f5!
16…Rg8?!, as Georgy Timoshenko has played against Szelag, Cappelle
la Grande 2008, is weak. There followed 17.a4! bxa4 18.Rxa4 Bf8, and here
the correct continuation is not 19.h3?, but 19.Rda1! Ra7!? (with the threat of
20…Bg4) 20.h3 or 20.Qd1!?N, and White stands better.
17.a4
It is pointless to play 17.exf5?!, as after 17…Bxd5 18.f6 Bh6! 19.Qxh6
Ra7, Black has a small but obvious advantage. In the game Inarkiev-Filippov,
Sochi 2005, there followed 20.f7?! (both 20.Be2N and 20.Ne1N are more
accurate) 20…Rfxf7?! (20…Raxf7!N is more precise) 21.Ne1 (21.Be2!?),
and after a long struggle the game was drawn.
17…Bf7
The aim of this move is to define the position of the white queen. If it
withdraws to e2, then it gets hit with f4-f3!, and if to h3, then the
homecoming is going to be more difficult.
Also quite playable is 17…Bxd5N 18.exd5 Ne7, for example, 19.axb5 e4
20.Bf1 axb5 with equal play, as taking the pawn with 21.Bxb5?! is dangerous
because of 21…Rxa1 22.Rxa1 Qb8 23.Qe2 f3!, etc.
18.Qh3N
The possible reply to 18.Qe2 is 18…Bxd5!?N 19.exd5 Ne7 20.axb5 f3!
21.Qxf3 e4 22.Bxe4 fxe4 23.Qxe4 with equal play.
18…Bxd5 19.exd5 Ne7 20.axb5 e4 21.Rxa6
21.Bf1 does not bring any advantage because of the simple reply 21…
axb5. 21.bxa6 exd3 22.Qxd3 Qc8 also leads to equal play.
21…exd3 22.Qxd3 Ng6 23.Nd4 Bxd4 24.Qxd4+ Kg8 25.Rda1 Rb8
26.c4
The game is even.
Chapter 96
11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Nxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5 Bd7 15.exf5
without 15…Nb8 or 15…0-0
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Nxb5!?
This knight sacrifice is comparatively recent, and its theory has been
booming for the last decade. With strong players, this move has practically
replaced the older continuation 13.Qh5. It does not bring any advantage to
White either, but compels Black to solve new problems.
Sveshnikov does not even mention this move, and this means that this
important part of the Chelyabinsk Variation has also been fortunate to avoid
the declared exhaustion of theory.
13…axb5
The variation 13…Bxd5 14.exd5 Ne7 leads, with a transposition of
moves, to the variation 12…Bxd5, explored in the chapter 90.
14.Bxb5 Bd7
A good path to equalization is 14…Rc8!?. Then there usually follows
15.Qa4 Bd7 (after 15…0-0?! 16.Bxc6 fxe4 17.0-0-0, White has an advantage,
Almasi-Sutovsky, Paks 2005) 16.exf5, and now Black has the solid-looking
move 16…h5!? (16…0-0 17.0-0 e4! is also playable, for example, 18.Rfe1
Ne5 19.Bxd7 Nxd7 20.Qxe4 Nf6 21.Ne7+ Kh8 22.Qf3 Rc7 23.Nc6, and in
Müller-Scherer, corr 2010, a draw was agreed) 17.0-0 Rh6 (17…Kf8!?N is
also good), for example, 18.Rfd1 Kf8 19.h3 Bf6 20.Qe4 Ne7 21.Nxe7 Bxe7
22.Bxd7 Qxd7 23.a4 Rf6 24.a5 Bd8! (24…Qxf5 is dangerous because of
25.Qb7!), and chances are even.
15.exf5 Rb8
Though rather typical, this move is not the most precise one. The
continuation 15…Nb8 will be investigated in the next chapter, and 15…0-0
in chapters 98-100.
16.a4
In the position in the diagram Black has tried various moves.

16…Rg8
In my opinion, this is the best continuation. Black prepares the maneuver
Nc6-e7 to get rid of the strong white knight. It looks like he is going to
equalize eventually. 16…Qg5? is weak because of 17.Qf3, and White has a
clear advantage. The move 16…0-0 is of no independent significance as after
White’s best reply, 17.0-0!, the game transposes to the line 15…0-0 16.0-0
Rb8 17.a4 which is favorable for him.
17.Qf3!
17.0-0 Ne7 18.Ne3 d5 19.Qf3 is less strong because of 19…e4! (the move
19…Bxb5?! employed by Krasenkow against Vallejo, Spain 2010, is an
inaccuracy, as after 20.axb5 e4 White has the move 21.Qe2, with a small
advantage), for example, 20.Qf4 (and now 20.Qe2 is not dangerous: Black
simply plays 20…Kf8!) 20…Bxb5 21.axb5 Rb6!.
In Winkelmann-Moll, corr 2010, there followed 22.Ra7 Bh6 23.Qe5
Bxe3 24.fxe3 f6 25.Qd4 Qd6 26.b3 Rg4 27.c4 dxc4 28.Qxd6, and a draw was
agreed.
17…Ne7 18.Ne3 Bh6

In the rapid game Azarov-Krasenkow, Jurmala 2012, Black chose 18…
Bf6!?, but after 19.0-0 failed to find the correct move 19…Kf8! and played
19…d5?!. There followed 20.Ng4 Qb6 21.a5 Qd6 22.Bxd7+ Kxd7 23.a6, and
White had the advantage. After another weak move, 23…h5?, (it is better to
play 23…e4N), and after 24.Ne3, White’s advantage had become great.
19.f6
White has no advantage after 19.Ng4 Bg5. Then in the game So-
Zhigalko, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010, there was 20.h4 h5 21.Nxe5 Bd2+!
22.Kxd2 dxe5 23.Kc2 Bxb5 24.axb5 Qb6, and the game is even.
19…Nc8 20.Nd5 Kf8!
After 20…Bxb5 21.axb5, White stands better.
21.Bxd7 Qxd7 22.a5
22.0-0!? is probably better. White has a small advantage.
22…e4 23.Qh5 Rg6 24.0-0 Bg5 25.b4 Qc6!
In Buse-Kochemasov, corr 2011, Black played the careless 25…Qf5?!,
and after 26.f4! Qxd5 27.h4!, encountered difficult problems.
26.Rfd1 Bxf6 27.a6 Na7 28.Qe2 Nb5! 29.a7 Ra8 30.Qxe4 Be5 and the
chances are even (Bokar-Gusan, corr 2010).
Chapter 97
11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Nxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5 Bd7 15.exf5
Nb8
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Nxb5 axb5
14.Bxb5 Bd7 15.exf5 Nb8!?
Another way to equalize. Black simply wants to trade his opponent’s

active bishop on b5 for his passive knight d7. After that he intends to deal
with the d5-knight.
16.a4
The attempt to refute Black’s plan in a tactical manner does not work:
16.f6?! Bxf6 17.Qf3 Bg7 18.Bxd7 Nxd7 19.Nc7+ Qxc7 20.Qxa8+ Ke7
21.Qe4 Rb8, and Black has a small advantage.
16.Bd3 often occurs, but this move does not promise White anything.
Black obtains good play both after 16…Ra5 and 16…Bc6, but my personal
favorite is 16…Na6!?, with the idea of Nc7 or, should the opportunity arise,
Nc5.
In Istratescu-Felgaer, Dresden 2008, White played 16.Qg4, and after 16…
Kf8!? (16…0-0, transposing to an equal position from the 15…0-0 variation,
is also playable), committed an inaccuracy, 17.Bc4?! (White maintains the
balance with the awkward looking 17.c4!N). There followed 17…h5 18.Qf3
Bc6 19.f6 Bh6 20.0-0 Nd7 21.Rfd1 Ra7 22.Qd3?! (22.a4!N) 22…Bxd5?!
(why not 22…Nxf6!?N, for example, 23.Nxf6 Qxf6 24.Qxd6+ Qxd6
25.Rxd6 Bd7 with advantage to Black.) 23.Qxd5 Qxf6 24.Qxd6 Qxd6+
25.Rxd6, and soon the game was drawn.
16…0-0!
It is interesting to note that in the position in the diagram, Black more
often than not takes the bishop immediately, 16…Bxb5?!, but after 17.axb5
Rxa1 18.Qxa1, the white queen has the possibility of active action along the
a-file. If now 18…0-0, then there is the strong reply 19.Qa3!, hampering the
development of the b8-knight. And if Black develops his knight with 18…
Nd7, then 19.Qa6!, and Black faces problems once again. One of the
variations is 19…Nf6 20.Qc6+ Qd7 21.Qa8+ Qd8 22.Nc7+! Kd7 (22…Ke7
23.Qa7!) 23.Qc6+ Ke7 24.g4!N, and White has an advantage. For example,
24…Bh6 25.0-0 Rg8 26.h3 Qd7 27.Qb7 Qxf5 28.Nd5+ Ke6 29.Qe7+ Kxd5
30.Qxf7+ Kc5 31.Qxg8! Nxg8 32.gxf5, and the ending is better for White.
17.0-0
The game is greatly simplified after 17.f6!? Bxf6 18.Nxf6+ Qxf6
19.Bxd7 Nxd7 20.Qg4+ Qg6 21.Qxd7. In Berbatov-Spasov, Bansko 2010,
there followed 21…Qe4 22.Kf1 Rfb8 23.h4 Rxb2 (23…Rb7!?N 24.Qxd6
Rxb2 25.Kg1 Qf4 26.Rf1 Rxa4, etc. is probably slightly more accurate)
24.Kg1 Qf4 25.Rf1 Qxa4 (25…Rab8!?N) 26.Qxd6 Qf4 27.Qd1 Raa2
28.Qd8+ Kg7 29.Qg5+, and after another ten or so moves the game was
drawn.
17…Bxb5
Now it is already possible to trade bishops.
The variation 17…Bxf5?!18.Qf3 Be6 19.Nf6+! (19.Ne7+ as in Kaidanov-
Polgar, Hilton Head 2010, is a bit weaker) 19…Qxf6 20.Qxa8 Nd7 21.Qc6
d5 22.Qc7 Qf5 23.a5 e4 is in favor of White.
Here in the game Azarov-Bobras, Czech Republic 2013, White erred with
24.Bxd7?. The correct move is 24.Qg3!N, retaining the advantage.
18.axb5 Rxa1 19.Qxa1 Nd7 20.Qa7 e4
The previous move sequence was almost forced, and now White has a
wide choice of alternatives. However, none of them brings even a minimal
advantage to him. The position in the diagram is especially popular in
correspondence games.
21.Ra1
This is the most usual move. In Najer-Tregubov, Dagomys 2009, there
was 21.Re1 Be5 22.b6 Nf6 23.Ne7+ Kg7. Here White erred with 24.Qc7?.
24.Nc6!N would have allowed him to maintain the balance, for example,
24…Qc8 25.Nxe5 dxe5, etc.
21…Be5
21…Nf6!?N is also sufficient for equality.
22.h3
In Süigur-Bubir corr 2009 there was 22.Qe3 Qh4 23.g3 Qg4 24.Re1 Nf6
25.Nxf6+ Bxf6 26.Qxe4 Qxe4 27.Rxe4 Rb8 28.Rb4 Kf8 29.Kf1 d5 30.Ke2
Ke7 31.f4 Kd6 32.g4 h6, and after a couple of more moves, a draw was
agreed.
22…Nf6 23.Ne7+ Kg7 24.Nc6 Qc8! 25.Nxe5 dxe5 26.b6 h6 27.b7 Qc7
28.Ra6 Rb8 29.Qb6
In this position, Starke-Pierce, corr 2010, was drawn.
Chapter 98
11.Bd3 Be6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Nxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5 Bd7 15.exf5 0-0
16.0-0 without 16…Re8 or 16…Ra7
14.Bxb5 Bd7 15.exf5 0-0!?
In most cases Black chooses this continuation. I think that this is the most
precise move; the big problem is that in practice Black has not yet
demonstrated any clear means to equalize. I am going to try and give some
recommendations about his course of actions.
16.0-0
This move is beyond question. 16.Qg4 does not bring any advantage
because of 16…Nb8! (the move 16…Kh8?!, which Black chooses almost
invariably is weaker).
Then possible is 17.0-0 h5 18.Qf3 e4! (18…Qg5?!, chosen by Topalov in
his game against Vallejo, Linares 2004, is weak, but 18…Bxb5!?N is
sufficient for equality, for example, 19.f6 Be2! 20.Qg3 Bg4 21.f3 Bxf6
22.fxg4 h4 23.Qf3 Bg5 24.Nf6 Bxf6 25.Qxa8 Qb6+ 26.Kh1 Nd7, etc.)
19.Qxe4 Re8 20.Qd3 Bxb5 21.Qxb5 Nd7.
In Almasi-Ni Hua, Reggio Emilia 2009, White played the strange
22.Rfd1? here (22.Nb4!N maintaining equality is better) and after 22…Rb8
23.Qa6 Rxb2, obtained a very difficult position: 24.Qxd6? is impossible
because of 24…Be5!, and Black wins.
16…e4!?
In the recent games strong players have preferred this move. In the next
chapter we are going to examine the move 16…Re8, and in chapter 100 – the
move 16…Ra7.
16…Nb8? is poor because of 17.f6! Bxf6 18.Nxf6+ Qxf6 19.Bxd7 Nxd7
20.Qg4+ and 21.Qxd7.
The most common move in the database is 16…Rb8?!. I find it
unnecessary and therefore weak. Why make White play a2-a4 when he plans
to do so anyway?
In my opinion, Black’s counter-play must be associated with the move
e5-e4 that activates several black pieces at once, including the f8-rook that is
not yet on e8. All he needs to do is to choose an appropriate moment for this
advance. White must accordingly prevent the move e5-e4, so he usually
blocks the e5-pawn with his queen.
Then there usually follows 17.a4 (this position also arises from the 15…
Rb8 move order) 17…Re8 18.Qg4 Kh8 19.Qe4! (with a threat of f5-f6) 19…
f6 (Black had to forget about the move e5-e4; more than that, he had to place
his pawn on f6. True, even after this White’s advantage is not so great and
Black is able to defend himself. However, being an advocate of active chess,
I cannon recommend such a method of play).
20.b4 Ne7 21.Bxd7 Qxd7 22.Rfd1!? This move is usually chosen by
correspondence players; 22.Nxe7, more common with practical players, is a
litter weaker. In Cheparinov-Timofeev, Moscow 2010, after 22…Rxe7
23.Rfd1, Black played 23…Qc7?!. The correct reply was 24.Ra3! with an
advantage for White. However, instead of 23…Qc7?!, it is better to play 23…
Qc8!, leaving the c7-square vacant for the e7-rook, and White has only a
small edge.
In Krivic-Powells, corr 2009, there followed 22…Nxd5 23.Rxd5 Qc6!
24.Qd3 e4 25.Qd4 Rbc8 26.a5 (26.Kf1!?N) 26…e3! 27.fxe3 Bh6 28.Kh1
Qxc3 29.Qxc3 Rxc3 30.Rxd6 Rb3 31.g3 Bxe3 32.Re6 Rc8 33.Ra2, and here
a draw was agreed. Black managed to hold the position with precise play.
Let us return to the move 16…e4.
17.a4!
Preparing Qg4. 17.Re1 Re8 18.a4 leads to a transposition of moves.
17…Re8 18.Qg4
18.Re1?! squanders the advantage because of 18…Re5!. There usually
follows 19.Ne3 Ne7! 20.Bxd7 Qxd7 21.f6 Bxf6 22.Qg4+ Qxg4 23.Nxg4 Re6
24.Nxf6+ Rxf6 25.Rxe4 Kf8, and Black has no problems.
Curiously, in 2010 three strong players played out the position after
18.Re1?! with Black – and none of them managed to find the move 18…
Re5!. Van Wely in his game against Berg played 18…Ne5?; Filippov against
Smirnov preferred 18…Rc8?. Those are comparatively better than 18…Ra7?!
chosen by Timofeev against Wang Hao, but also does not equalize. As has
happened previously more than once, correspondence players with much
lower ratings, but equipped with computers, have solved problems much
better.
It fact, those three well-known players did not even have to solve them, as
three correspondence games and the game Delchev-Kotronias which we are
going to analyze below have already been available.
18…Kh8 19.Rad1 Rc8
19…Re5 is slightly weaker. In Kotronias-Parligras, Dresden 2011, there
followed 20.Ne3 d5?! (20…Qf6 is better) 21.Rxd5 Rxd5 22.Nxd5 Ne5
23.Qxe4 Bxf5 24.Qxf5 Qxd5 25.Re1, and White has a great advantage.
20.Rfe1 Re5! 21.Ne3 Qf6
22.Qe2!
In the game Delchev-Kotronias, France 2009, which we have already
mentioned, White lost like a lamb: first the error 22.Qh5? had passed the
advantage to Black; then, after 22…Bxf5 23.Nxf5?! (23.f4N is better), this
advantage magnified; several moves later, after 23…Rxf5 24.Qh3 Ne5
25.Rxe4 Rg8, Delchev committed a blunder, 26.Rf1?, leaving his undefended
rook on e4 (the correct move is 26.Re2), and finally, after 26…Qg6!, put the
finishing touch on his painting with 27.Re3? (after 27.f4!, White still
manages to hold on somehow). There followed 27…Rh5 28.Qg3 Qh6 29.Re4
Rxh2, and White resigned. By the way, the last black move is far from being
the strongest. Much simpler is 29…Bf6!, for example, 30.Qe3 Rxh2 31.Qxh6
Nf3#.
After 22.Qe2!, it is possible to continue 22…Bxf5 23.Nxf5 Qxf5
24.Rxd6 Nb8 (the only move) 25.h3!?
In Svacek-Schwenk, corr 2010 there followed 25…Bf8 26.Rd4 Bc5
27.Rxe4 Rxe4 28.Qxe4 Qxf2+ 29.Kh1 Bd6 30.Re3 Qf4 31.Qxf4 Bxf4
32.Re1 Bg3 33.Re8+ Rxe8+ 34.Bxe8, and although White had a minimal
advantage, Black drew without any problem.
Chapter 99
16.0-0 Re8
14.Bxb5 Bd7 15.exf5 0-0 16.0-0 Re8!?
For the moment Black refrains from e5-e4, makes a useful move and
waits for White’s reaction.
17.Qg4
This move is made almost in every game, but I have my doubts about
whether it is the strongest one.
17.Qf3?! (Karjakin-McShane, Pamplona 2003) throws away all chances
for advantage. After 17…e4 18.Qg3?! (18.Qf4N would maintain the balance)
18…Kh8 19.Qxd6?! (19.a4N is better) White picks up a fourth pawn for a
piece, but leaves the initiative to his opponent. In the game there was 19…
Be5?!, and after mutual inaccuracies Black won.
But 19…Ne5!N was better, for example, 20.Bxd7 Ra7! 21.Nb6 Ra6
22.Qd1 Rg8, and Black has the advantage.
17.a4!? is extremely rare (I know of only two games with this move), but
in spite of this I believe that it is the best one. In those two games Black
replied 17…Rb8, and the game transposed to the 16…Rb8 variation studied
in the previous chapter and is in White’s favor. The more accurate reply is
17…e4!?, bringing the game to the main variation of the previous chapter. In
addition, Black can try 17…Kh8!?N, changing the direction of play.
Then there may follow 18.Ne3!? (18.Qh5 falls short of its goal, as after
18…e4! White cannot take the pawn – 19.Qxf7? Rf8 20.Qh5 Rxf5 21.Qd1
Qh4, and White comes under very strong attack) 18…e4! 19.Qxd6 Ne5
20.Rfd1 (20.Bxd7?! is weak because of 20…Ra7! with excellent play) 20…
Bf8 21.Qd5 Bxb5 22.axb5 Qxd5 23.Nxd5 Rxa1 24.Rxa1 Rb8 25.Nf6 Rxb5
26.b4, and although White has a small advantage, Black has fine chances to
hold the draw. (D)
17…h5!?
A novelty. I think that it is exactly because of this that the previous white
move was a bit premature. The idea of this move will become clear a little
later.
Here Black almost always plays 17…Kh8, and after 18.Qe4!, White
blocks the e5-pawn, hampering counter-play for his opponent. Now after
18…Rb8
19.a4, Black is able to transpose to the 16…Rb8 variation, discussed in the

previous chapter. The move 18…Nb8?! has independent significance. The
simplest reply for White is 19.c4! with obvious advantage.
18.Qxh5
White is late with his blockade in the center as 18.Qe4 will be met with
18…Rb8, for example, 19.Qa4 (after 19.a4?! Ne7! – the point of the novelty
17…h5 – the king on g8 neutralizes the advance f5-f6, and after 20.Bxd7
Qxd7 21.Nxe7+ Qxe7 22.b4 d5! 23.Qxd5 e4, Black seizes the initiative) 19…
Ra8 20.Qe4 Rb8 with a pendulum draw.
18…e4 19.Rad1
Or 19.a4 Re5 20.Ne3 Ne7! 21.Bxd7 Qxd7 22.Qg4 Nd5 23.Nc4 Ree8, etc.
19…Re5
19…Rxa2?? loses to 20.Bxc6 Bxc6 21.Nb4.
20.a4
20.g4?! Ne7 21.Bc4 is weak because of 21…Nxf5! 22.gxf5 Rxf5 23.Qe2
Qh4 24.Ne3 Rf3, and Black’s attack is worth more than the deficit of two
pawns.
20…Rxf5 21.Qe2 Re5
This position has arisen more or less by force. Black intends to launch an
attack against the white king with the support of his strong pawn on e4, so the
next several moves are obvious.
22.f4 exf3 23.Qxf3 Rf5 Now possible is 24.Qg3 Ne7! 25.Qxd6 Rxf1
26.Rxf1+ Bxb5 27.Nxe7+ Kf8 28.Qxd8+ Rxd8 29.axb5 Kxe7 30.Re1+!
Kf8 31.Kf2 Rb8 and Black wins back one of the pawns, after which a draw
is not a great problem for him.
Chapter 100
16.0-0 Ra7
14.Bxb5 Bd7 15.exf5 0-0 16.0-0 Ra7! (D)
This is an infrequent continuation that occurs in about one game out of

twenty. Strong practicing players do not employ it at all. Soon, however, we
are going to see that this move is probably better than its reputation. Its aim is
to defend the e7-square from various future forks (after Bxc6), which gives
Black an opportunity to activate his queen while simultaneously eliminating
the potential threat of the fork on b6. Examples will be given later.
17.a4
This is the most usual move.
In Cruzado-Thielen, corr 2009, White chose 17.Re1. There followed 17…
Qg5 18.Qf3 Rb8! (another plus for the move 16…Ra7 – the b8-square is
vacated for the other rook) 19.a4 e4! 20.Qg3 (20.Rxe4?? is impossible
because of 20…Rxb5 – the a7-rook is in action again; 20.Qxe4 Bxf5 brings
nothing to White) 20…Qxg3 21.hxg3 Kf8 22.f6 Bh8 23.g4 h6 24.Rad1 Ne5
25.Rxe4 Bxb5 26.axb5 Rxb5 27.b4 Rb8. Play is equal, and after a long
struggle the game ended in a draw.
17.Qg4 looks more dangerous. It creates the threat of Bxc6 followed by
f5-f6. Black has to make an unsightly move, 17…f6; however, as
distinguished from the variation 16…Rb8 from chapter 98, he has saved two
tempi by not making the moves Re8 and Kh8, and this makes the position
level. The economy would be even more serious if we note that in the
endgame Black would not have to waste a tempo on Kh8-g8.
Latronico-Noble, corr 2007, there was 18.Qe4 (18.Qc4 is useless because
of 18…Na5; the line 18.a4!? Ne7 19.Bxd7 Qxd7, with equal play, is probably
more accurate) 18…Ne7 19.Bxd7 Qxd7 20.Nxe7+ Qxe7 21.a4 Qb7 22.Qxb7
Rxb7 23.b4 d5 24.Rfb1 Ra8 25.Kf1 Kf7 (this is precisely the tempo we have
been talking about), and Black’s position is even preferable.
17…Qg5 18.Qf3 e4!
19.Qe3!?N is an attempt to make the task more difficult for Black.

With the rook on b8 in the variation 19.Qg3 Qxf5?? 20.Bxc6 Bxc6
21.Ne7+, Black loses the queen, but with the rook on a7, his position is
markedly better. Besides, with rook on b8, White can easily take the pawn on
e4 – 19.Qxe4, and if 19…Bxf5??, then 20.Qe3 Qxe3 21.fxe3 Bd7 22.Bxc6
Bxc6 23.Ne7+, capturing a piece.
But let us return the rook to its legitimate square a7. In the position in the
diagram, White has been taking the pawn on e4; then there would follow
19…Bxf5 20.Qe3 Qxe3, and here both captures used to occur.
In Feco-Miciak, corr 2010, White failed to get advantage after 21.Nxe3.
There followed 21…Ne7 22.Nxf5 Nxf5 23.Rfd1 Rd8 24.Bd3 Ne7, and the
game is equal.
In another correspondence game, Balabaev-Knight, 2007, there was
21.fxe3 Bd7 22.b4 f5 23.Rad1 Be8 24.c4 Ne7 25.Nxe7+ Rxe7 26.Rxd6
(26.Bxe8 with equal play is simpler) 26…Bc3! 27.Bxe8 Bxb4 28.Rd8 Rxe3
29.Bf7+ Kxf7 30.Rxf5+ Kg7 31.Rfxf8 Bxf8 32.a5 Ra3 33.Ra8, and soon the
game was drawn.
19…Qxe3 20.fxe3
20.Nxe3 Ne5 is useless.
20…h5!
Preparing the comfortable h7-square for his king and at the same time
impeding his opponent’s pawn attack on the kingside.
21.b4 Kh7 22.f6
Or 22.Rad1 Rg8! 23.f6 Bh6 24.a5 Rc8 with the idea of Be6, and chances
are even.
22…Bh6 23.Kf2 Bg5
Play is equal. There may follow 24.g3 h4 25.g4 Rb8! 26.h3 Rab7
27.Rfd1 Rxb5 28.axb5 Ne5!, but not 28…Rxb5? because of 29.Nf4! with
great advantage to White.
29.Rd4
29.b6?! is worse because of 29…Nd3+ 30.Ke2 Bb5 31.Ra5 Bc4 32.Kd2
Nf2, and Black has the advantage.
29…Bxb5 30.Rxe4 Bc4
A level position has arisen in which the active placement of Black’s
minor pieces fully compensates for White’s small material advantage.
Let us sum up the last five chapters in which we have been exploring the
fashionable move 13.Nxb5. Black has several solid routes to equality, so you
are free to choose the one you like the most.
Section 7. 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0
Chapter 101
12.0-0 Bg7 13.Qh5 f4 14.c4 bxc4 15.Bxc4 0-0 16.Rac1 Rb8
17.b3 without 17…Qd7 or 12…Bxd5
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0
By playing in this fashion, White first of all tries to prevent the plan with
f5-f4 that yielded good results for Black after 12.c3 (this was explored in the
chapters 92-95). If Black still tries to carry out this idea, he will run into the
strong retort 14.c4! which we are going to investigate in both current and
following chapters.
Because of this Black, had initially had a hard time struggling against the
move 12.0-0, but the reply 12…Bxd5!, making Black’s task much easier, was
found soon enough. It immediately became the main move, and we are going
to discuss it in chapters 103-122.
12…Bg7
This is an old move, from which the development of the variation has
begun. In the recent years, strong players practically never play in this
fashion, and it comes as no surprise: the database indicates that the difference
in the success of the moves 12…Bxd5! and 12…Bg7 amounts to 15%for
strong players. Still, it is necessary for us to familiarize ourselves with the
problems that lie in wait for Black after 12…Bg7.
12…Rc8 is aimed against the move c2-c4; White should reply 13.c3!
(13.c4 does not bring any advantage in view of 13…fxe4 14.Bxe4 Nd4, for
example, 15.f4 h5!), and if 13…Bg7, then 14.Qh5!. Now the move Rc8 looks
unnecessary and White has an advantage.
12…f4 has also been played. The usual reply to this move is 13.c4!?
(13.c3! with the idea of Nc2 and a4 is no less promising) 13…b4 (13…Rg8?
is bad because of 14.cxb5! Bh3 15.g3) 14.Qa4 (here 14.Nc2!? is also no
worse) 14…Rc8! (Sveshnikov only considers the losing move 14…Bd7??
which runs into 15.Nb5!)
Here White has invariably played 15.Nxb4, on which there is the strong
reply 15…Rg8!N resulting in equal play. One of the variations is 16.Nxc6
Qg5! 17.Nb8+ Ke7 18.g3 Rxb8 19.c5 fxg3 20.hxg3 dxc5 21.Bc4 Rxb2
22.Bxe6 fxe6 23.Rad1 Qxg3+ 24.fxg3 Rxg3= 25.Kh1 Rh3+, with a draw.
15.Nc2!N is better: 15…a5, and White has a small advantage both after
16.c5 and 16.a3.
13.Qh5!
The continuation 13.c3 brings the game into the 12.c3 variation.
Until Black plays f5-f4, the move 13.c4 is not dangerous for him as after
13…bxc4, White has to take the pawn with the knight: 14.Nxc4 0-0 15.Ndb6!
Rb8! (here Sveshnikov regards 15…Bxc4?! followed by 16.Nxc4 Nd4 as the
main move, but if White now plays 17.Ne3!, he would have a small edge)
16.exf5 Bxc4 17.Nxc4 d5 18.Ne3 e4 19.Bc2!, and chances are even.
As a result of analytical errors, Sveshnikov regards the weak move
15.Ncb6? as the main continuation. Then there follows 15…fxe4 16.Bxe4
Rb8 17.Bxh7+ Kxh7 18.Qc2+ e4! 19.Qxc6 Bd4. In this position, Black has a
serious advantage; for example, on one of the moves suggested by
Sveshnikov, 20.Na4?, instead of 20…Rc8 pointed out by him, there is a
much stronger reply, 20…Qh4!, and Black wins.
13…f4
After 13…h6 14.c3 0-0, there arises a position that has been explored in
chapter 92. 13…Rc8 is insufficient for equality because of either 14.c4 or
14.c3!?.
14.c4!
This move is a real source of trouble for Black; all the rest are not
dangerous. After 14.c3 0-0, Black is quite comfortable; this position, via a
transposition of moves, was investigated in chapters 92-95.
14…bxc4
The best move, occurring in the clear majority of the games.
Unsuccessful efforts to achieve counter-play with 14…0-0?! used to be
made. For example, in the game Makarychev-Sveshnikov, Tbilisi 1978, there
followed 15.cxb5 Nd4 16.Nc2 (Sveshnikov believes that after 16.bxa6! Bxd5
17.exd5 f5 “Black has a formidable initiative”; however, after 18.f3! Rf6
19.Qh4, this initiative eventually dies out, but the extra material remains. It
looks like White also has a solid advantage after the rare move 16.Nc3!?)
16…Nxb5? (16…Nxc2 17.Bxc2 axb5 is stronger, but after 18.Bb3, White’s
chances are better) 17.a4 Na7 18.a5? (18.Bxa6! with a great advantage is
stronger) 18…Nc6 19.b4 f5? (19…Ne7N is better) 20.Nb6 Ra7, and here,
instead of 21.Q 2?, White has a stronger continuation, 21.exf5! Bf7 22.Qh3
(22…Qf6?, recommended by Sveshnikov, is bad because of 23.Bxa6!N with
an enormous advantage to White, for example, 26…Rxa6? 24.Nd7 Qe7
25.Nxf8 Bxf8 26.b5, etc.).
Instead of the reckless move 14…0-0?!, there is a more solid one – 14…
b4.
However, then there arise the positions with a blocked center and a stable
advantage for White that are unacceptable for Black.
Now one possible development is 15.Nc2 Rb8 (15…a5 is also playable)
16.b3!?. This continuation occurs in the overwhelming majority of games.
16…a5!? (the most usual move is 16…0-0, but it allows White to play 17.a3!
bxa3 18.b4, and Black is unable to take on d5) 17.Rad1 h6 18.Be2 Qg5
19.Nc7+ or 18…0-0 19.Bg4, and White has a positional advantage.
However, instead of the solid move 16.b3!?, the more vigorous 16.a3!? is
possible, for example, 16…bxa3 17.b4 Bxd5 18.cxd5 Nxb4 19.Nxb4 Rxb4
20.Rxa3 a5 21.Rfa1 0-0 22.Rxa5, and the weak pawn on d6 defines White’s
advantage.
15.Bxc4 0-0 16.Rac1
16…Rb8
The well-known game Short-Sax, Saint John 1988, in which Black
replied 16…Ne7, had been incorrectly covered by Sveshnikov. After 17.Rfd1
Rc8, White played 18.Nxe7+!; there followed 18…Qxe7 19.Rc3!? with an
advantage to White. 19.b3! seems to be even stronger.
Sveshnikov regards the move 18.Nxe7+! as dubious and suggests three
other possibilities: 18.b4, 18.Qe2 and 18.Rc2. Unfortunately, all those moves
are errors. After 18.b4? Bxd5 19.exd5 e4!, Black has no problems at all. We
have the same picture after 18.Qe2? Nxd5N 19.Bxd5 Rxc1 20.Rxc1 Bxd5
21.exd5 e4!. 18.Rc2?! is slightly better: 18…Nxd5 N19.Bxd5 Rxc2 20.Nxc2
Qa5!, and White has squandered half of his advantage.
17.b3
In Volokitin-Yakovich, Moscow 2007, White played the trappy
17.Nxf4?!. His plan worked out: Black followed Sveshnikov’s
recommendations and played 17…Bxc4?!
Instead, he should have chosen the move 17…exf4!, rejected by
Sveshnikov, and meet 18.Bxe6 with 18…Nd4!N (also good is 18…fxe6!?
19.Rxc6 f3!N, for example, 19.Bc4! f3 20.g3 (there is an interesting variation
20.gxf3 d5! 21.exd5 Rb6! 22.Kh1 Rh6 23.Qg4 Qb8 24.f4 Rg6 25.Qh3 Rh6
26.Qd3 Re8!, and, despite White’s three extra pawns, the position is equal,
and it is even White who has to worry about equality) 20…Ne2+ 21.Bxe2
fxe2 22.Qxe2 Bxb2 23.Nc4 Bxc1 24.Rxc1 Qf6, and White’s advantage is
negligible.
17…Qa5
In the next chapter we are going to explore the main move 17…Qd7.
18.Bd3!?
For me this is the best continuation, but both 18.Nc2 and 18.Nb1 are only
slightly weaker. Those moves also secure an advantage for White.
18…Nb4 19.Nc4
19…Qd8
19…Qxa2?!, Zugrav-Neumann, corr 2002, is weaker because of 20.Bb1!
Qxb3 21.Nxd6, for example, 21…Na2 22.Bxa2 Qxa2, and now 23.Rfd1!N,
and White has a serious advantage.
20.Nxb4 Rxb4 21.Rfd1 a5
21…Rb7 is weaker.
22.Qe2!?N Bh6!?
Or 22…a4 23.Qd2! Qb8 24.Na5, etc.
23.Rb1 Bg5
In this position White can play 24.Nb2!? with the idea of Bc4, retaining
the advantage.
Chapter 102
12.0-0 Bg7 13.Qh5 f4 14.c4 bxc4 15.Bxc4 0-0 16.Rac1 Rb8
17.b3 Qd7
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0Bg7 13.Qh5 f4 14.c4
bxc4 15.Bxc4 0-0 16.Rac1 Rb8 17.b3 Qd7 (D)
This continuation occurs much more often than any other, but it does not
equalize.
18.Rfd1
This move is rightly regarded as the main one. 18.h3 Kh8 19.Rfd1 leads
to transposition of moves.
18…Kh8
18…Bg4? is poor because of 19.Qg5. The move 18…Nd4?! used to be

fairly common. Then there typically followed 19.Nc2 Nxc2 20.Rxc2 Kh8?!
21.Qh4!, and White has a great advantage as Black cannot play 21…f5?
because of 22.Ne7!, and White wins. Incidentally, Sveshnikov holds that
“after 21.h3 a critical situation arises,” but the move 21.h3 is weak.
19.Qh4
This move occurs in the overwhelming majority of games. However,
19.h3!? deserves the most serious attention. Now there usually follows 19…
Nd4 (19…f5?! is worse because of 20.Nxf4 exf4 21.Bxe6 Qxe6 22.Rxc6
fxe4 23.Nc4, and White has a clear advantage) 20.Nc2 Nxc2 21.Rxc2 f5
22.exf5. This is the best move, although in Sveshnikov’s opinion it is
dubious. In Tukmakov-Sveshnikov, Tbilisi 1978, 22…Bxf5 was played.
White continued 23.Rcd2, and, according to Sveshnikov’s comment, Black
“seized the initiative” with the move 23…Qa7+.
But, as has already happened more than once, he slightly overestimates
the position. White is able to retain an advantage various ways, for example,
with 24.Qh4N, 24.Re1N or 24.Qf3. After Tukmakov’s game move, 24.Kh1,
White also has a small advantage.
19…Rg8!
This move occurs very rarely, approximately in one game out of twenty,
but it is the very move that retains the best defensive chances for Black.
Let us study other continuations that are more popular, but nevertheless
weaker.
(a) 19…f5?! used to occur quite often. Sveshnikov recommends it in his
book, but there is a serious blunder in the main variation there, and a lot of
people have suffered from following this recommendation.
After the introductory moves 20.Nxf4 exf4 21.Bxe6 Qxe6 22.Rxc6 fxe4
23.Rcxd6 Qe8 24.Nc4 e3 25.fxe3 fxe3 26.Re1 Qf7! 27.Nxe3 Rbe8,
Sveshnikov only points out the variation 28.Nc4? Re4! 29.Qg3 Bd4 30.Rxd4
Rxd4 31.Qe5+ Qg7 with equal play.
However, White has the strong move 28.Rf1! (28.Rh3!? is slightly
weaker). There usually follows 28…Qa7 29.Rxf8+ Bxf8 30.Qf6+ Bg7
31.Qf2 Bd4+ (31…Qc5 is more stubborn) 32.Re6! Qd7 33.Re4! Bxe3
34.Qxe3 Qd1+ 35.Kf2 Qc2+ 36.Kf3, and White has extra material. In my
database I have another six games with this position; what is more, the first of
them, a correspondence game between Rittner and Privara, was played as
early as 1982.
(b) But the most usual black move is 19…Bxd5 – probably, because in
the Sveshnikov’s book it is considered the main one.
Then there follows 20.Bxd5 (20.Rxd5?, which Sveshnikov points out as
the main move, is obviously weaker, for example, 20…Nb4 21.Rd2 f5, as in
the game Dvoirys-Gorelov, Barnaul 1984) 20…Nb4 (20…Nd4?! is weaker:
21.Rc4! Rbc8 22.Qh5, and White has a serious advantage) 21.Rd2 f5 22.Qh3
(22.Nc4 as in Renet-Korchnoi, Lugano 1988, is also in White’s favor) 22…
Qe7!? (the most usual move is 22…f3?!, on which there is the strong reply
23.Rcd1! Qe7 24.Nc4!) 23.Rcd1!?N 23…Nxd5 24.Rxd5 fxe4 25.Nc4, and
White has the advantage.
20.Kh1
20.f3 Nd4 21.Kh1 leads to transposition of moves. 20.Nc2!? is also good.
20…Nd4 21.f3!
The move 14.c4 is important for the general evaluation of the whole
variation. Sveshnikov underestimates the continuation 19…Rg8, but his only
argument in favor of its inadequacy is the game Dvoirys-Vaisser, Sochi 1981.
However, White played poorly in that game, and lost the advantage at
once with 21.Nc2?. Then there was 21…Bxd5 22.Bxd5 Ne2! 23.Ra1 Nc3
24.Rd3 Nxd5 25.Rxd5 f5 26.f3 (26.Qh3!?N), and here Black should have
played 26…fxe4!N (in the game Black made an error – 26…Qc6?! 27.Na3 –
and White has a small advantage), 27.fxe4 Rb5, and Black has no problems
at all.
21…a5 22.Nf6 Bxf6 23.Qxf6+ Rg7 24.Nc2!
This is a novelty, as only 24.B 6 has occurred before. Then there may
follow 24…Nc6 (or 24…Nb5 25.Rd2, etc.).
25.Bd5 Rc8 26.Bxe6 fxe6 27.Na3 Kg8 28.Nb5 and White has the
advantage.
Chapter 103
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 without 14.c4, 14.Re1, 14.Nxb5 or
14.c3
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0 Bxd5!
In the system 9.Bxf6, this move is the very linchpin of Black’s defense,
and it looks like that it is exactly because of it that the popularity of the
continuation 9.Bxf6 is gradually decreasing.
It is assumed that the idea of the move 12…Bxd5! belongs to Sax who
employed it against Hübner. However, one year before this, in 1978, another
game with this move had been played during the Buenos Aires Olympiad.
Besides, as I have already pointed out in chapter 92, the predecessor of this
idea was the game Lukin-Timoshchenko, Moscow 1973, in which Black had
carried out this bishop-for-knight exchange in a similar position for the first
time.
In my database there are about 3,500 games with the position in the
diagram. It would not be amiss to note that by the time of the publication of
Sveshnikov book, only fifteen or so of them were known, and only about one
and one-half pages of his book are devoted to the move 12…Bxd5. We can
easily come to the obvious conclusion that this key system is practically
absent there and that it has also been fortunate to avoid his declared
exhaustion.
13.exd5 Ne7 14.Qh5
This is an old continuation. This move practically disappeared from
practice about five years ago. In the following chapters we are going to
consider the moves 14.c4 (chapters 104-105), 14.Re1 (chapters 106-109),
14.Nxb5 (chapters 110-115) and 14.c3 (chapters 116-122).
14…e4 15.Be2 Bg7 16.c3
16…0-0
This is the most precise move, but let us discuss other options as well
anyway.
(a) 16…b4?! is weaker because of 17.cxb4 (17.Nc4? as in the rapid game
Shirov-Leko, France 2003, is not good). In Kuzmin-Sveshnikov, Yerevan
1982, there followed 17…Bxb2 18.Rab1 Bxa3 19.Rb3 Qb6?! (19…Bxb4
20.Rxb4 h6!N, is better), and now instead of 20.Ra3?, White should have
played 20.Rfb1!N with a serious advantage.
(b) In Leko-Kramnik, Linares 2004, there was 16…Rc8 followed by
17.Nc2 Rc5 (17…0-0, transposing to the variation 16…0-0, is more accurate)
18.Ne3 f4 19.Nf5 0-0 20.a4 Nxf5 (20…Kh8!N is more accurate) 21.Qxf5
Qe7 22.axb5 axb5 23.Qxf4 Rxd5 24.Rfd1, and White has an advantage.
(c) There is the interesting move 16…Qd7, whereby Black creates two
simultaneous threats – a crude one, 17…Nxd5, and a more subtle one, 17…
Ng6.
It would be a pity to lose a pawn, so everybody plays 17.Rad1. In the
game Kramnik-Anand, Munich 1994, there followed 17…Ng6 18.g3 0-0
19.Nc2?! (both 19.Qh3!?N and 19.f4!?N are better), and now after 19…f4!N,
Black seizes the initiative.
However, White has a more subtle move that allows him to parry both
threats, and this is 17.Nc2!N. Now 17…Ng6 runs into 18.Rfe1. After 17…
Nxd5 18.Bg4! Ne7 19.Bh3 Qe6 20.Ne3 Qg6 21.Nxf5 Nxf5 22.Qxf5 Qxf5
23.Bxf5 d5 24.Rfd1 Rd8 25.a4, there arises an ending that is favorable to
White. Finally, after 17…0-0, the game transposes to the main variation with
the move 17…Qd7, where White has a small advantage.
17.Nc2
17…f4!
Van Wely in his two rapid-games in the Monte-Carlo tournament (against
Leko and Shirov) employed the move 17…Re8. Then in both games there
was 18.Rad1 Ng6?! (18…f4! is better, for example, 19.Nb4 Qb6 20.Qg5 a5,
and Black is close to equalizing). Here both of van Wely’s opponents chose
19.f4 (White also played this way in the other four games that I know of).
This is not bad, but it remains unclear how van Wely was going to react on
19.Qxf5!?N. Then possible is 19…Re5 20.Qh3 Nf4 21.Qe3, and the analysis
of this position shows better chances for White.
The move 17…Rc8 was very typical. Then there usually follows 18.Ne3
(in the game Shirov-Grischuk, France 2003, there was 18.Rad1 Rc5 19.Ne3
f4 20.Nf5 Ng6 21.Rfe1 Re8 22.f3?! e3 23.Bd3, and here, instead of 23…
Re5?!, Black should have played 23…Qb6!N with the idea of b5-b4, and his
position is even preferable) 18…f4 19.Nf5 Re8 20.a4! (20.Bg4 Rc4!
21.Nxe7+ Qxe7 22.Rae1 Qf6 23.Bf5 h6 24.b3 Rxc3 25.Rxe4 Rxe4 26.Bxe4
Qe5 27.Qxe5 Bxe5, Karjakin-Leko, Dortmund 2004, leads to equal play)
20…Ng6 21.axb5 axb5 22.Ra6 Bf8 23.Bxb5 Re5 24.Qh3.
This position has been repeatedly tested in the games of good
correspondence players, and the following main continuation was for choice:
24…Rb8 25.Nd4 Qf6 26.Kh1 (I think that 26.g3!? is slightly better) 26…Rg5
27.b4 f3 28.g3 Ne5 29.Bd7 Nxd7 30.Qxd7 Rd8. The game is even. In
Vosahlik-Grigoriev, corr 2010, there followed 31.Qc7 Rh5 32.Ra7 Qh6
33.Qxf7+ Kh8 34.Nxf3 exf3 35.Qxf3 Rxh2+ 36.Kg1 Bg7 37.Rfa1 Qh5+
38.Qxh5 Rxh5 39.Ra8 Rg8 40.Rxg8+ Kxg8 41.Ra8+ Kf7, and a draw was
agreed.
18.Qg5
This move occurs in the majority of games. It has been known for a long
time that White obtains nothing from 18.a4 f5, for example, 19.axb5? f3!
20.gxf3 Ng6 21.fxe4 Nf4 22.Qf3 fxe4 23.Qxe4 Qg5+ 24.Kh1 Rae8, and
Black wins.
Attempts were made to struggle for the advantage with 18.f3. After 18…
f5 19.fxe4 fxe4 20.Bg4, the correct reply is 20…Qc7!. In Shabalov-
Krasenkow, Port Erin 2006, there followed 21.Rad1 Kh8 22.Nd4 Qc5 23.Kh1
Qxd5 24.Nf5 Qe5 25.Nxd6 Qxh5 26.Bxh5 e3 27.g3 Be5, and chances are
even.
18…f5 19.Rfd1
White has no advantage after 19.Qxf4 Nxd5 20.Qd2 Nb6 21.Rad1 d5.
19…f3 20.gxf3 Rf6!
20…Kh8?! (Grischuk-Krasenkow, Germany 2003) is weaker.
21.Kh1 Rg6 22.Qe3 Bh6 23.f4 (D)
23…Kh8!
A novelty that allows Black to equalize. Previously Black would
invariably play 23…Qf8, after which there is an unpleasant retort 24.Bh5
Rg7 25.Qh3. Black’s queen has more worthy prospects, namely the square
h4; should the opportunity arise, it may also target the d5-pawn from g8.
Then a possible continuation is either 24.Bh5 Rg7 25.f3 Ng6! 26.Bxg6

Qh4 27.Rf1! Bxf4 28.Qf2 Qh3 29.Bxf5 or 29.fxe4 Rxg6 30.exf5 (30.Rg1
Bxh2 31.Qxh2 Qf3+ 32.Rg2 Rag8 33.Rag1 Qxe4 is also in favor of Black)
30…Rg4!
29…Qxf5 30.Nd4 Qh3 31.Qe2
31.fxe4? Rag8 32.Rad1 Rg6 leads to a difficult position.
31…Rag8 32.Rg1 e3 33.Rxg7 Rxg7 34.Rg1 Rxg1+ 35.Kxg1 Qh5 and
the game is level.
Chapter 104
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c4 Bg7 without 15.Rb1
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7
14.c4
The popularity of this move has also decreased dramatically over the last
years. Apparently, White is dissatisfied with the results.
14…Bg7
14…e4 15.Be2 Bg7 16.Qd2 or 16.Rb1 leads to a transposition of moves.
15.Qd2
We will examine the move 15.Rb1 in the next chapter. 15.cxb5?! e4
16.Be2 (or 16.Bc4) 16…Bxb2 is in Black’s favor.
15…e4
The move 15…bxc4 (Black refrains from the advance e5-e4 for now) is
both very typical and very successful. Usually there follows 16.Nxc4 0-0
17.Rac1! (17.f4?! e4 18.Be2 Rb8, Stefansson-Krasenkow, Gausdal 1991, is
favorable for Black. In Najer-Ivanchuk, Istanbul 2003, there was 17.a4 e4
18.Be2 Ng6 19.f4 exf3?! 20.Rxf3, and White obtained a small advantage.
Black should not have taken on f3.) 17…Rb8 18.b3 e4 19.Be2 Rb5 20.Ne3.
In Kotronias-Krasenkow, Greece 2004, there followed 20…Qa5 (20…f4
is no better, for example, 21.Bxb5 fxe3 22.Qxe3 axb5 23.Qxe4 Qd7 24.a4!?N
and White’s chances are slightly better) 21.Qe1?! (21.Qc2!) 21…Qxe1
22.Rfxe1 Ra5 23.a4 f4 24.Nc4?! (24.Rc7N allows to maintain equality) 24…
Rxd5 25.Nb6, and here instead of 25…Rd4?, the correct move is 25…Rd2!N
with a small advantage for Black.
16.Be2 b4!
This move is not in Sveshnikov’s book at all. In this position Black also
often plays 16…bxc4. This move is even more common than 16…b4. Then it
is possible to continue 17.Nxc4 0-0. Here the move 18.Rac1 does not look
bad, but Sveshnikov believes that 18.Rad1 is stronger, although neither
practice nor analysis confirms his opinion. Even my inner voice (and I am
rather wary about its opinion!) asks me a question: “Why place the rook on
the closed file?”
For example, in the stem game Minasian-Krasenkow, 1985, (which, in
Sveshnikov’s opinion, was played in Baku in 1979) there was 18…Rb8
19.Qf4 Bxb2! 20.f3 e3 21.Qxe3, and now after 21…Re8!N, the game is
practically equal.
In his book, Sveshnikov regards the move 19…Bxb2 as dubious and
informs us that “19…Rb5! is certainly better.” Curiously, he later writes that
after 19…Rb5, “Black does not obtain equality,” and here I see eye to eye
with him. Another curious fact is that after Sveshnikov’s book had been
published, everybody, as if charmed, started to play 19…Rb5. This is the
influence of the expert’s unvarnished opinion!
Still another equally curious fact is that if we accept Sveshnikov’s dating
of the game, then at the time of the game, Krasenkow would have been 16,
and Minasian – 12 years old. Well, those kids really could play chess,
couldn’t they?
17.Qxb4
Everyone makes this move, but after it Black has the initiative. So here
there is the interesting line 17.Nc2!?N Bxb2 18.Rab1 Bc3 19.Qh6 with equal
play.
17…Rb8
17…0-0 is also good. In Marjanovic-Vuckovic, Vrniacka Banja 2010,
there followed 18.Rab1 Ng6 (18…f4 also leads to equal play) 19.f4 Rb8
20.Qd2 Qb6 21.Kh1 Bxb2 22.Nc2 Ne7 23.g4 Qc5, and chances are roughly
even.
18.Qa4+ Kf8 19.Rab1 (D)
19…Be5!N
In Leko-Kramnik, Linares 2003, Black took the pawn with 19…Bxb2.
Then there followed 20.Nc2 (after 20.Qc2!?, Black encounters certain
problems), and here Black erred – 20…Ng6?! (the correct continuation is
20…Rg8! 21.Rfd1 Be5 with equal play) 21.Nb4 (21.Ne3! f4 22.Qc2 Qf6
23.c5!N is more precise) 21…Qf6 22.Nc6, and though White had a small
advantage, the game was quickly drawn.
After 19…Be5!, a most interesting position arises in which Black intends
to launch an attack on the kingside without losing a tempo opening the b-file.
The ideas of the attack include Rg8, Ng6, Qg5 or Qh4, and also f5-f4.
I devoted a lot of time to this position and analyzed nine various moves
for White. If that analysis is anything to go by, then the best moves, roughly
equal in strength, are: 20.Qxa6, 20.c5 and 20.Kh1. However, after every one
of them, Black retains a small initiative, and White has to worry about
equalization.
Chapter 105
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c4 Bg7 15.Rb1
14.c4 Bg7 15.Rb1!? (D)
The rook move looks a bit clumsy, but its aim is to prevent the advance
b5-b4 (this was key in the previous chapter), which will be followed by a
check on a4. Black still has an opportunity to hit the
d3-bishop with his pawn with tempo, but one move later he will have to
decide what to do with the b5-pawn.
15…e4
15…0-0 16.cxb5 e4 17.Bc4 axb5 18.Nxb5 leads to a small white edge.
Tregubov twice played 15…bxc4, and after 16.Nxc4 0-0 17.Re1!, there
arises the position with a small advantage to White that we are going to
explore in the next chapter, but with move order 14.Re1.
16.Be2 0-0
16…b4 17.Qa4+ Kf8 18.Qxb4 is in White’s favor. 16…bxc4 often
occurred. Usually there followed 17.Nxc4 (Black probably has more
problems after 17.Qa4+ Qd7 18.Bd1!?N, preventing Black from castling and
preparing a transition to an ending) 17…0-0.
In this position various moves have been tried.
(a) In the game Areshchenko-Wang Yue, Lausanne 2006, there occurred
18.f4?! a5 (18…Rb8, as in the rapid game Ivanchuk-Lautier, Odessa 2006, is
a bit weaker) 19.Qd2 Qb8, and Black’s position is preferable; however, 19…
a4!N is even better, for example, 20.b4?! axb3 21.axb3 Ra7 22.Rfd1 Qa8!.
(b) The next day in the game against the same opponent, Areshchenko
improved White’s play with 18.Qd2, but it was sufficient only for equality:
18…Ng6 (18…Rc8!?) 19.f4 (19.f3!?N). Here Black erred with 19…exf3?!
(19…a5N is better), and after 20.Rxf3, White’s chances are better.
(c) The move 18.f3! is probably the strongest. In Efimenko-Moiseenko,
Zlatibor 2006, there followed 18…Rb8 19.Kh1 Rb5 20.Qc2 Nxd5?! (20…
Rxd5!N is stronger) 21.fxe4 Nb4 22.Qa4 fxe4 23.Ne3 Nd5?! 24.Nxd5? (with
24.Nf5!N White could have obtained a serious advantage) 24…Rxd5
25.Qxe4 Re5, and the game eventually was drawn.
17.cxb5 axb5 18.Bxb5
18…Ng6!
18…Bxb2?! is weak because of 19.Nc4 Bg7 20.a4. In Areshchenko-
Shirov, Sochi 2006, there was 20…Ng6 (it is hardly reasonable to play 20…
Qc7 21.Qd2 Rxa4?! 22.Bxa4 Qxc4 23.Bc6 Qd4, as did Topalov in his rapid
game against Leko, Monaco 2003) 21.Qh5 Qf6, and now White retains the
advantage with 22.g3!N.
18…Qa5 is slightly better. Then a possible continuation is 19.Bc6! Nxc6
20.dxc6 d5 21.Nc2 Qc5 22.b4! Qxc6 23.Ne3 Qe6 (Efimenko-Arizmendi,
Istanbul 2003) 24.Qh5!N 24…Rxa2 25.Nxf5 Be5 26.b5, and White has an
advantage. White also has a small edge after both 18…Qb6 and 18…Ra5!?N.
19.Bc6
I would like to note that the move 19.Re1 which has never occurred in
this position allows White to transpose the game to the main variation of the
next chapter.
19…Ra7 20.Qb3 f4
This position occurred in the game Milos-Krasenkow, Tripoli 2004. The
game is even, but with his next move White makes an error: 21.Nb5?! (the
correct move is 21.Kh1!). Krasenkow replied with the natural-looking 21…
Re7. Instead, Black has a stronger continuation, 21…f3!N. This is the main
variation as I see it:
22.gxf3!?
It is easy to see that Black wins after 22.Nxa7?? Qg5 23.g3 Qf5 24.Kh1
Ne5.
22…Be5! 23.fxe4 Kh8! 24.f4
After 24.Nxa7? Qh4 25.f4 Nxf4, Black mates.
24…Nxf4 25.Kh1 Qh4 26.Qg3 Qh6 27.Qe3! Rg8 28.Nd4! Qg7 29.Qg3
Qxg3 30.hxg3 Rxg3 31.Nf5! and, despite Black’s small advantage, White
manages to repulse the attack.
Chapter 106
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Re1 Bg7 without 15.c3
14.Re1!?
This rook move is about 15 years younger than any other main
continuation in this position. It appeared after it had turned out that it was
extremely difficult to obtain an advantage by traditional means. The idea of
the move is rather simple – to secure a retreat to the safe f1-square for his
bishop after e5-e4. Here, unlike on e2, it would not be hit with the pawn
advance f4-f3, and the rook itself will keep on targeting the e4-pawn,
hampering Black’s pawn storm.
14…Bg7
14…e4 15.Bf1 Bg7 16.Rb1 or 16.c3 leads to transposition of moves.
15.Rb1
By playing this way, White intends to hit the b5-pawn with c2-c4. We
will discuss the main move, 15.c3, in subsequent chapters.
15…0-0 16.c4 e4
In the game Anand-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2005, Black’s play was too
sharp: 16…f4?! 17.cxb5 axb5 18.Bxb5 f5 19.Nc4 e4 20.a4 f3?! (20…Ng6N
is better) 21.gxf3 Ng6 22.fxe4 Qh4 23.Qf3 fxe4 24.Qg3 Qh6? (after 24…
Rf4!N, it is still possible to keep on fighting) 25.Rxe4, and White’s position
is won.
On the contrary, 16…b4?! is overcautious, as after 17.Nc2 a5 18.Qh5 e4
(18…Qd7 will be met with 19.f3!) 19.Bf1, Black’s initiative on the king-side
is neutralized, and all his weaknesses remain.
There has also occurred 16…bxc4 17.Nxc4 f4 (Smirnov-Tregubov,
Krasnoyarsk 2007), and after 18.a4!? f5!?N (18…a5 is no better because of
19.b4) 19.f3! Kh8 20.Bf1, White has a small advantage.
17.Bf1
17…Ng6!
The idea is familiar to us. 17…bxc4?! 18.Nxc4 is noticeably weaker, for
example, 18…Rb8 19.b4 Rb5 20.Ne3 f4!? 21.Bxb5 fxe3 22.Bc6!?N exf2+
23.Kxf2 Qb6+ 24.Kf1 f5 25.b5!, and White’s chances are better.
The move 17…Qb6 also has its drawbacks. In the game Luther-van
Wely, Halkidiki 2002, there followed 18.Qh5 (18.Qd2!? is more precise: it
creates the same threat Qg5 and at the same time allows White to keep an eye
both on the center and the opposite flank) 18…Rfc8 (18…Rfe8!?N). Here,
instead of 19.b4?!, White could have retained a small advantage with either
19.Qg5N or 19.g3N.
18.cxb5
Anything else is worse.
18…axb5 19.Bxb5 Qg5
19…Kh8 is also not bad, for example, 20.Bc6 Ra7 21.Nc4 (Czarnota-
Moiseenko, Turin 2006), and now 21…Rg8!N with good play.
19…Bxb2 20.Nc4 Ba3! is quite playable.
20.Re3 Be5
In Asrian-Volokitin, Greece 2005, there was 20…Nh4 21.Rg3 Qh6
22.Rh3 (apparently, White wants to force a draw, or he could have played
22.Qc2!N with a small edge) 22…Kh8?! (Black avoids repeating moves,
22…Qg5 23.Rg3, even at the cost of worsening his position) 23.Bf1 f4?!
(23…Rfd8!?N), and now instead of 24.Nb5?!, White has 24.Nc4!N with the
idea of meeting 24…Rad8 with 25.b4, with great advantage, as the knight is
unable to prevent the pawn advance. 20…Ne5!? leads to equal play, for
example, 21.Rg3!? Qh6 22.Rh3 Qg6 23.Rg3, etc.
Game is even. Then in Isaev-Poleshchuk, corr 2007, there followed
21.Bc6 Ra7 22.Nc4 Nh4 23.Rg3 Bxg3 24.hxg3 Ng6 25.Qd4! Rxa2 26.Nxd6
Ne7 27.Qe5 Ra5 28.Bb5 Ng6 29.Qc3 Raa8 30.Bc6 Rab8 31.b4 Rfd8
32.Nb7 and a draw was agreed.
Chapter 107
12.0-0Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Re1 Bg7 15.c3 0-0 without 16.Qh5
14.Re1 Bg7 15.c3!?
This is a solid and logical continuation. The g7-bishop is blunted; the

knight enters the game via c2; and, if occasion offers, the break a2-a4 is
carried out.
15…0-0
No less logical. Other continuations frequently lead to transposition of
moves. For example, after 15…e4?! 16.Bf1 0-0, 17.Qh5 is usually played,
and there arises the position that we are going to discuss in chapters 108-109
with 15…0-0 move order. However, 17.Nc2! is better; we will also
investigate this position later.
The position after 15…Qd7 16.Nc2 0-0, is the main subject of this
chapter. There has also occurred 15…Qc8. Now the correct continuation is
16.Nc2!, and after 16…0-0, there arises a position that we are going to
explore below. 16.Qh5 (Quezada-Wang Yue, Calvia 2004) is weaker as after
16…e4! 17.Bf1 Nxd5, White has to look for compensation for his pawn
deficit.
16.Nc2!?
16.Qh5 is much more usual, and we are going to explore this move in the
two following chapters. But in my opinion, Black’s route to equality is
noticeably more complicated after the knight move. (D)
16…Qd7
This is the most common move, and rightly so. Black hampers the break
a2-a4 and prepares the development of his a8-rook.
In the variation 16…e4 17.Bf1 Re8 18.a4! bxa4 19.Rxa4 Qb6!?N 20.Rb4
Qc5, White has a small advantage.
In Volokitin-Moiseenko, Kiev 2013, there was 16…f4 17.a4! bxa4 (an

interesting novelty is 17…f5!) 18.Nb4! f5 19.Rxa4 (19.Nc6!? is possibly
more precise) 19…Ng6 20.Rxa6 Rxa6 21.Bxa6 Qg5 22.f3. In this position,
White has a slight advantage. Instead of the move in the game, 22…Kh8?!, I
can suggest 22…Nh4N, 22…Rf6N and 22…e4N.
The move 16…Qc8 occurs rather often. In the blindfold game Kramnik-
Leko, Monte Carlo 2004, there followed 17.a4 e4 18.Bf1 bxa4 (18…Qc5!?N)
19.Ne3 Qb7 20.Nc4 Qxd5?! (20…Rad8!? is better) 21.Qxd5 Nxd5 22.Red1
Nc7 23.Rxd6, and the ending is better for White.
17.g3!
Occasionally White still plays 17.a4 but does not score any success with
it. In Dominguez-Felgaer, Cuernavaca 2006, there followed 17…e4 18.Bf1
bxa4 19.Nb4 a5 (19…Qb7!? 20.Qxa4 a5 is simpler) 20.Nc6 Nxc6 21.Bb5
Qb7 22.Bxc6 Qxb2 23.Bxa8 Rxa8 24.Qxa4, and now 24…Rb8!N would
have been sufficient for full equality.
17…Rae8
After 17…Nxd5 18.Qh5 Ne7 19.Ne3 e4 20.Nxf5 Nxf5 21.Bxe4 Nh6
22.Bxa8 Rxa8 23.Re4!, White has a small advantage because of the
unfortunate position of the black knight and weakness of the black pawns.
18.Bf1
This is a typical but not obligatory move. White has a small advantage
after 18.a4!?.
18…Qb7
This is the only move in this position for stronger correspondence
players; and they are rather successful with it. Still, there are questions about
this move. If Black intends to launch an attack on the kingside, why waste his
time on transferring his queen to the opposite flank?
I suppose that Black equalizes more rapidly if he begins his play against
the king immediately: 18…f4!?N.
Here is the main variation of the analysis: 19.a4! fxg3 20.hxg3 f5 21.axb5
axb5 22.Nb4 f4 23.Qh5 Rf6 24.Bh3 Qd8 25.gxf4 Ref8! 26.Re4!? Rh6 27.Qf3
Ng6, and Black has the initiative. It seems that he will win back the pawn.
19.Qd2
This is the only move that has occurred before, but there are questions
about it too. Why open files on the kingside after f5-f4 making it easier for
Black and waste a tempo doing it in the bargain?
I have managed to prove equality for Black in the analysis after the text
move, but White has other moves as well, for example, 19.Nb4!?N, 19.Qe2!?
N and 19.Bg2!?N. The issue of equalizing however still remains open.
19…f4! 20.a4
20.gxf4? will be met with 20…Bh6.
20…fxg3 21.hxg3 f5 22.axb5 axb5 23.Qd3 f4 24.g4
After 24.Qxb5N Qc8!, Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn.
Then possible is 24…Ng6 25.Re4 f3 26.Ne3 Nf4 27.Qd1 h5 28.Qxf3
hxg4 29.Qg3 Rf6. Play is equal, so in Kurgansky-Grigoriev, corr 2010, a
draw was agreed.
Chapter 108
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Re1 Bg7 15.c3 0-0 16.Qh5 e4
17.Bf1 Re8 without 18.Rad1
14.Re1 Bg7 15.c3 0-0 16.Qh5
As I have already said, this queen move occurs much more often than
16.Nc2 (see previous chapter). As far as I can understand, White attempts to
tie down the black knight with the attack on f5, to prevent the possible
advance f5-f4 followed by f7-f5 through another attack on h7 and, in doing
so, to make Black weaken his position with the move e5-e4, after which the
black pawns’ advance would be impeded.
That means that the queen move is of a prophylactic character. White
seeks to prevent his opponent’s activity on the kingside; however, his d5-
pawn gets weakened, which balances chances.
16…e4 17.Bf1 Re8!
This move is indisputably the best. In recent years, strong players have
only been choosing this continuation. Instead of passive defense, Black
threatens the capture on d5. 17…Rc8?! 18.Nc2 Rc5 19.Ne3 Qc8 20.g3! f4
21.gxf4 is in White’s favor.
In Motylev-Shariyazdanov, Kazan 2005, Black chose 17…Qd7?!. There
followed 18.Rad1 Ng6 (18…Rab8!N with the idea of b5-b4 is better) 19.g3!
b4?! (19…Ne5? is even worse because of 20.Bh3!; the correct move is 19…
Rfe8) 20.cxb4 Rab8? (20…Rae8!N) 21.Nc4!? (21.Bh3!?N) 21…Rfe8 22.Bh3
Qc7 23.b3 f4 24.a3, and Black finds himself on the brink of the defeat.
After 17…Re8!, the second most popular move is 17…Qc8?!. Usually
there follows 18.Rad1 Ng6 (the position after 18…Re8! will be considered in
the next chapter, with a transposition of moves) 19.g3! Re8 (19…Ne5??
won’t do because of 20.Bh3!) 20.Bh3 Re5 21.Nc2.
White has an advantage. In Short-Krasenkow, Tripoli 2004, there was
21…Qc4?! (21…Ne7 is better, but Black implements the main idea of the
move 17…Qc8) 22.Ne3 Qxa2 23.Qe2! f4? (Black should not have given up
the queen; after the best reply, 23…b4!N, White has serious advantage)
24.Ra1 Qb3 25.Ra3 Qxa3 26.bxa3 fxe3 27.Qxe3, and White’s position is
won.
Let us return to the move 17…Re8!.
White has certain problems with his pawn on d5. In this chapter, we will
discuss his attempt to trade it for the f5-pawn, and in the next one – the solid
move 18.Rad1 that admittedly does not solve the problems as Black is able to
retain pressure against the pawn with Ra8-c8-c5).
18.Nc2 Nxd5
18…Rc8?! is weaker because of 19.a4!. In the game Goloshchapov-
Moiseenko, Cappelle la Grande 2006, there followed 19…Nxd520.axb5 axb5
21.Qxf5 Re5 22.Qh3 h5 23.Ra7 Rc7 24.Rxc7 Qxc7. White has an advantage
but then committed an error – 25.Nd4?. The correct move was 25.Ra1!N.
19.Qxf5 Re5 20.Qg4
On 20.Qh3, it is sufficient to play 20…Nb6! (20…Qb6!? is also
playable), for example, 21.Rad1 Qf6!?N.
20…h5!
In Karjakin-Felgaer, Dos Hermanas 2005, there was 20…f5 21.Qd1 (this
move occurs practically without fail) 21…Kh8?! 22.a4!, and White obtained
the advantage. The correct move is 21…Nb6!, preventing a2-a4, with equal
play. In its turn, instead of 21.Qd1, White should preferably play 21.Qe2 or
21.Qh3N.
21.Qd1 Qg5 22.a4 Rae8
The move 22…b4?!, made by Krasenkow in his game against Hracek,
Saint Vincent 2005, is suspicious. After 23.cxb4 e3?! 24.fxe3 Nxe3, White
must have started seeing things and he offered a draw with the move 25.Nxe3
(after 25.Qf3!?N, his advantage is obvious). But even after the text, Black is
not to be envied, for example, 25…Rxe3 26.Ra3! Rxe1 27.Qxe1, etc.
23.axb5 axb5 24.Ne3 h4!N
Black has good play, for example, 25.Ng4 R5e6 26.Ra5 e3! 27.fxe3
Nxe3 28.Nxe3 Rxe3 29.Qd2 Bh6! and 30.Rxb5?? is impossible because of
30…Qxb5!.
Chapter 109
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Re1 Bg7 15.c3 0-0 16.Qh5 e4
17.Bf1 Re8 18.Rad1
14.Re1 Bg7 15.c3 0-0 16.Qh5 e4 17.Bf1 Re8 18.Rad1
This is a solid continuation, but nevertheless it does not bring any

advantage to White.
18…Rc8!
Planning Rc5. This is the only move for strong players in recent years.
(a) The move 18…Qc8?! had previously been quite common. This
position also often arises after 17…Qc8. Then there usually follows 19.Nc2
Ng6, and then:
(1) In Voss-Costa, corr 2004, there was 20.Nd4 Bxd4 21.Rxd4 Re5
22.Qh6 Qf8! 23.Qd2 Rae8 24.a4 f4! 25.axb5 axb5 26.Bxb5 R8e7 27.Bf1
Qh6, and Black’s initiative is more than adequate compensation for his
sacrificed pawn. The move 22.Qxf8+ is more solid.
(2) In Efimenko-Smirnov, Sochi 2005, White played 20.Qh3. Then there
followed 21…Re5 21.Nb4, and now instead of 21…Qc5?!, which, after
22.Qe3!, resulted in a small advantage to White, it was better to play 21…
Nf4N, for example, 22.Qe3 a5 23.Qxf4 axb4 24.cxb4 Rxa2 25.Bxb5 Rxb2
26.Rc1 Qb7 27.Bc6 Qxb4 28.Bd7 h6! 29.Bxf5 Qd2 30.Qxd2 Rxd2 31.Bxe4
f5 32.Bf3 Rxe1+ 33.Rxe1 Bd4, and the position is drawn.
(3) 20.Nb4! is the best move. 20…Ne5 21.a3! (the game Bologan-
Kramnik, Dortmund 2003, was drawn after 21.Nc2 Ng6 22.Nb4 Ne5 23.h3
Rb8 24.Nc2 Ng6 25.Nb4 Ne5 26.Nc2 Ng6 27.Nb4). After the modest pawn
move, Black has serious problems with counter-play, while White’s plan is
clear – Nc2, g3 and Bh3. In the correspondence game Sferle-Kerr, 2006,
there followed 21…Qd7 22.Nc2 Ng6 23.g3 f4 24.Bh3 Qc7, and now after
25.Bf5!N, White has solid advantage.
(b) Interesting complications are possible after 18…Ng6. I managed to
find an important novelty in the main variation: 19.Qxf5 Re5 20.Qh3 (White
should probably play 20.Qg4 f5 21.Qg3!) 20…Nf4 21.Qg3 (21.Qg4 allows
21…Nxd5, Lutz-Krasenkow, Calvia 2004) 21…Qf6 22.c4! (after 22.Nc2,
Alekseev-Tregubov, Sochi 2005, 22…Kh8, Black has no problems) 22…
Kh8! 23.cxb5 Rg8.
It has been assumed that in this position 24.Qb3 is favorable for White,
but there follows 24…Nxg2!N 25.Bxg2 Bh6 with equal play, for example,
26.Kh1 e3! 27.Qc2 Qh4 28.fxe3 Bf4! 29.Bf3 Qh3 30.Rf1 Rxe3 31.bxa6 Bxh2
(31…Rxf3 is also sufficient for a draw) 32.Qxh2 Rxf3 33.Rg1 Rxg1+
34.Rxg1 Qf5 35.a7 Qxd5, etc.
On 24.Kh1 there is another novelty: Black should play 24…Rg5! 25.Qh4
Qf5! with crushing attack, to say the least. For example, 26.Nc4! Be5
27.Nxe5 dxe5 28.Re3 Rh5 29.Qe7 Nxg2! 30.Bxg2 Qxf2 31.Rg1 Rf5!
32.Ree1 Rfg5, and Black wins.
(c) I would like to add that Black has excellent chances for equalizing
after the rare move 18…Qa5!?, for example, 19.Qg5 Qa4 or 19…Rac8.
Let us return to the move 18…Rc8.
19.Nc2
The usual line, 19.Re3?! Rc5, is more likely in Black’s favor, for
example, 20.c4 (or 20.Rh3 h6 21.c4 Ng6) 20…bxc4 21.Rh3 c3! 22.Qxh7+
Kf8 23.bxc3 Nxd5 24.Rg3 Qf6, etc.
19…Rc5 20.Ne3
This move occurs in the overwhelming majority of games. The attempt to
defend the d5-pawn does not help: 20.Rd2 Qc8 21.Red1 Qb7 22.Na1 Rxd5
23.Rxd5 Nxd5 24.Qxf5 Re5 25.Qh3 e3 26.Qf3 exf2+ 27.Qxf2 Ne3 28.Rxd6
Qc7 29.Rxa6 Rh5 30.g3 Nxf1 31.Qxf1 Qc5+, and in Johansson-Nekhaev,
corr 2009, a draw was agreed.
20…f4
21.Nf5
This move occurs almost invariably. After 21.Nc2 Ng6 22.Qh3 Re5N
23.Nb4 Qb6, White has no advantage.
21…Nxf5 22.Qxf5 Qf6 23.Qxf6 Bxf6 24.Bd3 e3!
24…Rxd5?! is weaker because of 25.f3! with a small edge to White
(Reinderman-Krasenkow, Hilversum 2009).
25.g3 exf2 26.Kxf2 Rxe1 27.Kxe1 fxg3 28.hxg3 and the game is level.
As we have seen, the move 16.Qh5 does not bring any advantage to White.
Chapter 110
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 without
16.Bc4
8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7
14.Nxb5!? (D)
Another attempt to obtain an advantage by brute force. The move itself
has been known since 1980. At first it occurred rather rarely (perhaps,
because of the fact that Sveshnikov has condemned it in his
book), and only after 2002 or so did its theory start to develop rapidly.
Sveshnikov declares that this move is weak and corroborates this opinion
with a single game played by persons who were never strong players. This
time he creates an elementary logic fallacy.
Actually, this move is not bad at all. There are more than 1,000 games
with it in the database, and recently it has become especially popular with
strong correspondence players who, as you already know, try not to make
weak moves in the openings.
14…Bg7 15.Nc3
So White has won a pawn, but lost two tempi. As in sharp positions the
cost of a tempo is very high, it is not easy to evaluate this one.
15…e4
15…0-0 does not seem reasonable as it gives an additional opportunity to
White – 16.Re1!? (after 16.Qd2 e4 17.Bc4 or 17.Be2, the game may
transpose to the 15…e4 variation) 16…e4 17.Bf1.
16.Be2!?
16.Bc4 is much more usual; we are going to explore it in subsequent
chapters.
16…0-0
16…Qa5 is a bit weaker because of 17.Rb1 (17.Qd2 is also not bad), for
example, 17…Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qxc3 19.Rb3! Qe5 20.c4, and White has a small
advantage.
16…Rb8 is playable, for example, 17.Rb1N 17…Qc8 18.Re1!? (18.Na4
allows 18…f4!?) 18…0-0 19.Na4, and White’s chances are slightly better.
(D)
17.Rb1
I think that this move is slightly better than the usual 17.Qd2. White
defends the pawn on b2 and prepares f2-f3 in order to hamper the black
pawns’ advance on the kingside.
After 17.Qd2, there usually follows 17…Ng6, and it is extremely difficult
to obtain any real advantage.
Apparently, the best course of action is to transpose to the position that we

are going to examine below via 18.Rab1.
(a) In Perunovic-Bogoslavljevic, Kragujevac 2010, there was 18.Kh1 Re8
19.f4?! Qa5 20.g4? Rab8! 21.gxf5 Rxb2 22.fxg6 hxg6 23.f5 Qxc3 24.Qf4.
Here Black made a serious blunder with 24…Qe5? (24…Qf6!N allows to
Black to retain a solid advantage), and White could have equalized with
25.Qg4!N.
(b) In Olsen-Latronico, corr 2008, White chose 18.Rae1. There followed
18…Re8 19.g3 Rb8 20.b3 f4 21.Bh5?! (both 21.Kh1N and 21.Nd1N are
better) 21…f5 (21…Qg5!N 22.Bxg6 Qxg6 23.Nd1 f3! with the initiative for
Black is even better) 22.Bxg6 hxg6 23.gxf4 Qh4 24.Ne2 Qg4+ 25.Kh1 Qf3+
26.Kg1 Qg4+ 27.Kh1. Draw.
(c) The most usual move is 18.a4. It is typically followed by 18…Re8
19.a5 f4 20.Kh1 Qg5!, and chances are even.
17…Ng6 18.f3!?
18.Qd2 is less strong because of 18…Rb8! (the usual move is 18…Re8;
the best reply to it is 19.f4!, and on 19…Qa5 White has 20.b4!).
In Ljubicic-Martin, corr 2009, there followed 19.Kh1 (the variation
19.Bxa6 Qa5 20.Bc4 Rxb2 21.Rxb2 Bxc3 22.Qc1 Bxb2 23.Qxb2 Qd2! is not
promising for White) 19…Re8 20.Rfe1 Be5 (20…Qc8!N 21.Nd1 f4 is
probably simpler) 21.Bxa6 Kh8 22.g3 Qf6 23.Bb5 Rg8 24.Qh6 (on 24.Re3!?
N there follows 24…Nh4! 25.gxh4 Qxh4 with equal play) 24…Bxc3 25.bxc3
f4 26.Rf1 Qxc3 27.Qg5 f5! 28.Rb3 Qe5 29.Bd7 Rxb3 30.axb3 Rf8 31.gxf4
Nxf4, and soon the game was drawn.
18…Qg5
It would be interesting to examine the novelty 18…Re8!?, for example,
19.fxe4 fxe4 20.Qd2 Rb8 21.Qe3 Qc8!, etc.
19.fxe4 Qe3+ 20.Kh1 fxe4 21.Bg4 Bxc3 22.bxc3 Qxc3 23.Rb3 Qe5!N
23…Qc4 (Suto-Burn, corr 2007) is slightly weaker. Here White should
have played 24.Rg3!N with a small advantage, but in the game there was
24.Be2 Qc7 25.Rf6 Rfb8 26.Qb1 Rxb3 27.cxb3 with equal play.
Now a possible continuation is 24.Rf5 Qe7 25.Re3 Rab8 26.h3 Rb2
27.Qd4 and White has a small advantage.
Chapter 111
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4
without 16…Ng6 or 16…0-0
14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4
This is clearly the main continuation currently, but I hesitate to make an

outright assertion that this move is better than 16.Be2, studied in the previous
chapter.
16…Qa5
In the following four chapters we will explore 16…Ng6 and 16…0-0.
Other opportunities have also been tried.
(a) 16…Bxc3?! 17.bxc3 Ng6 18.f3 is in White’s favor.
(b) 16…Qc7 followed by 17.Qe2 0-0 18.Na4 Ng6 19.Bb3 Rfe8 20.f4!
exf3 21.Qxf3 frequently occurs. This position arose in Hayakawa-Winkler,
corr 2008. Black chose the usual move 21…f4 (perhaps 21…Re5!?N is
simpler), and although after 22.Rae1 Qa7+ 23.Kh1 Re3 24.Rxe3 fxe3 25.c4!?
Re8 26.Bd1 Kh8 27.Be2 Qd4 28.Rd1 Nh4, White has a small advantage,
Black stands a good chance of holding the position.
In Saenko-Mucka, corr 2008, there occurred 17…Bxc3 18.bxc3 0-0. Then
there was 19.Rab1 Kh8. Here White played 20.Rb3, after which Black has
20…Ng6!N.
Instead, White could have played 20.a4!N, retaining a small advantage,
for example, 20…Ng6 21.Bxa6 Rg8 22.Bb5! Nf4? 23.Qe3 Rxg2+ 24.Kh1
Rg4 25.Rg1, and White’s superiority is now great.
Besides, White has 19.Rfb1!N, in order to defend his a2-pawn after
taking on a6.
17.Qd2
The old move 17.Ne2 does not lead to any advantage because of 17…
Bxb2! (in 1991 Polgar played against Anand in Munich 17…Rc8?!, and
Anand, instead of the move 18.Bb3, had the good retort 18.b3!, and then
18…Bxa1 19.Qxa1 Rg8 20.Rd1!N with slight advantage for White) 18.Rb1
Be5 19.Qc1 Rc8 20.Bb3. The game Anand-Polgar arrived at this position
with transposition of moves. There followed 20…Rg8! 21.f3?! (21.Kh1 is
more accurate) 21…Nxd5 22.Kh1, and here instead of 22…Rg6 that led to
equal play after 23.fxe4 fxe4 24.Rf5, Black should have played 22…Qc5!
with a small advantage.
In Short-Van Der Wiel, Brussels 1987, there was 20…Nxd5 21.Qg5 Ne7
22.f4!, and now Black should have played 22…exf3, for example, 23.Rxf3
Rg8N24.Qh5 Rg7 with quite a playable position. However, he chose 22…
Bc3? and White obtained an advantage with 23.Nxc3 Qxc3 24.Ba4 Kf8. Here
he had a very strong novelty 25.Rb7! with a serious advantage.
The move 17.Qe2!? is interesting, for example, 17…0-0! (17…Bxc3
18.bxc3 0-0 is weaker because of 19.Qe3!, Neumann-Balabaev, corr 2003)
18.Rae1!?N Bxc3 19.bxc3 Qxc3 20.f3 Rfc8 21.Bb3 a5 22.a4 Ng6 23.fxe4 f4.
White is a pawn up, but the black knight is markedly better than the white
bishop.
Let us return to the move 17.Qd2.
17…Rc8 18.Bb3
18.Nxe4? is poor because of 18…Qb6!.
18…Bxc3 19.bxc3 (D)
19…Rg8!
Much more usual in this position is 19…Qxc3?!, which is met with
20.Qh6 with a strong initiative,
for example, 20…Kd7 (or 20…Qe5 21.f3!) 21.Rab1! (this is the most usual
move, although 21.Rae1!?, 21.Ba4+!? and even 21.g3!?N are also not bad)
21…Rhg8. In Soltau-Leotard, corr 2001, there followed 22.Ba4+ Kc7 23.Rb3
Qg7 24.Qxg7 Rxg7 25.Rfb1 Kd8 26.Rb6 Rg6, and now the correct move is
27.Rb7! Rc7 28.c4 with a better ending.
20.f3! Qc5 21.Qd4
21.Kh1 is slightly weaker, for example, 21…e3 22.Qd3 f4 23.Qe4 Kf8
24.Qxf4 e2 25.Rg1 Rg6 26.c4 Qf2, and White’s superiority has practically
vanished into thin air.
Now possible is 21…e3 22.f4 Qxc3 23.Qxc3 Rxc3 24.Rae1 Kd8 25.Rf3
Ng6 26.Rfxe3 Rxe3 27.Rxe3 Nxf4 28.g3 Nh5 29.Kf2 and White has a small
advantage in the endgame.
Chapter 112
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 Ng6
17.Qh5 Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qf6 19.Qh6 Qxc3
14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 Ng6
This continuation is extremely popular, particularly with correspondence

players. In my database I have more than 900 games with the position after
16.Bc4, and in almost 600 of them Black chose the move 16…Ng6. I do not
know a reason for this; as I see it, the move 16…0-0, explored in chapters
114-115, is better. The fact that in the database the success of castling is
about 10% better in comparison with the knight move, confirms my
suggestion.
17.Qh5!?
An attempt to obtain, with a transposition of moves, the position from
chapter 115 (which is explored there with the move order 16…0-0) with
17.Qd2 0-0 and consequently to avoid spoiling his own pawn structure is
interesting.
17…Bxc3
In Milman-Shabalov, Connecticut 2004, Black played 17…Qf6?!. Then
there followed 18.Rae1 (here 18.Ne2!?N with ideas of Ng3 or c2-c3 is
interesting) 18…0-0 19.Kh1 Rab8 20.Bb3 Rb4?, and White could have
obtained a great advantage with 21.Ne2!N.
18.bxc3 Qf6
19.Qh6!
The best move. 19.f4?!, employed by Nunn against Susan Polgar, Munich
1991, is weak. In the game there followed 19…0-0 20.Bb3 Rfc8?! (after 20…
a5! 21.a4 Rac8 22.Qg5 Qxg5 23.fxg5 f4, Black has a small advantage)
21.g4? (much too bold; 21.Qg5N leads to equal play), and now after 21…
Rxc3!, Black has a great advantage, for example, 22.gxf5 Nh4, etc.
19.Rae1 does not bring any advantage, for example, 19…Rg8 20.f4 (after
20.Qh6, the game transposes to variations that we are going to investigate
below) 20…Kf8 21.Re3 Rc8.
In Ehlvest-Van Wely, Moscow 2004, White committed an error here with
22.Bb3? and eventually lost. Instead of this, equal play is obtained through
22.Bxa6!N, for example, 22…Rxc3 23.Qh6+! Ke7 (or 23…Rg7 24.Rb1!
Rxe3 25.Rb8+ Ke7 26.Rb7+ Kd8 27.Rb8+ with a draw) 24.Rxc3 Qxc3
25.Qg5+ Kf8 26.Qd8+ Kg7 27.Qxd6, etc.
19…Qxc3
19…Rg8!? occurs in many games.
Then there usually follows 20.Rab1! (the balanced position after
20.Rae1?! Qxc3 21.Bb3 Ke7 will be explored later) 20…Qxc3 (20…Qg7?!
and 20…Qh4?! are weaker) 21.Bxa6 Qg7! 22.Qxg7 Rxg7 23.Rb6. The
correct move here is 23…Ke7!, but much more usual is 23…Nf4, after which
White retains his small advantage, for example, 24.g3 Nxd5 25.Rxd6 Nc3
26.Rc6 Rg6 27.Bb7 Ra3 28.Rc5 Rb6 29.Bc8, (Oskulski-Otake, corr 2008).
In Magalhaes-Ruggieri, corr 2010, there followed 24.Rfb1 h5 25.Rc6
(25.a4N is slightly better, but White’s advantage is insignificant) 25…Nh4
26.g3 Nf3 27.Kg2 h4 28.Rb7+ Kf6 29.Rxd6+ Ke5 30.Rh6 Rg6 31.Rxg6 fxg6
32.Rb6 h3+ 33.Kh1 Kd4 34.a4 Ne5, and the game is even.
20.Bb3
This move occurs in about three games out of four. I cannot quite
comprehend the reasons of this popularity as it brings no advantage to White,
and Black’s route to equality is not so complicated at that. I believe that the
move 20.Be2! that we are going to discuss in the next chapter is slightly
stronger.
20…Ke7
The position after 20…a5 21.Ba4+ Ke7 22.Rae1 will be studied below
with a transposition of moves. The position after 20…Rg8 21.Rae1 Ke7 will
also be investigated later.
21.Rae1 Rhg8
21…a5 is playable, for example, 22.Ba4 Rab8 23.Kh1 Rhg8, or 22…
Rhg8 23.Kh1, and in both cases the arising positions will be discussed below.
22.Kh1 (D)
22…a5
This move is a bit more precise than 22…Qf6, after which there follows a
forced variation 23.f3 Nh4 24.Qxf6+ Kxf6 25.fxe4 Rxg2 26.Rxf5+ Nxf5
27.Kxg2 Rg8+. Now the king has two retreats of equal value. Both of them
allow White to retain a moral superiority, for example, 28.Kf2 Nh4 29.Rf1
Ke5 30.Ke2 Rg2+ 31.Kd3 f6, etc.; or 28.Kh3 Nd4 29.Rf1+ Ke5 30.Rxf7
Kxe4, Houwen-Schmidt, corr 2007.
23.Ba4
After 23.a4, the conditions for 23…Qf6 become more favorable in
comparison with the previous comment, for example, 24.f3 Nh4 25.Qxf6+
Kxf6 26.fxe4 Rxg2 27.Rxf5+ Nxf5 28.Kxg2 Rg8+ 29.Kf3 Nh4+ 30.Ke2 Ke5
31.Kd3 Ng2 32.Rf1 Nf4+ 33.Ke3 Ng2+, and in Privara-Pugh, corr 2008 a
draw was agreed.
23…Rab8 24.a3
Or 24.f3 Rb4 25.Bc6 Qxc2 26.Qg5+ f6 27.Qh6+ Nf4 28.Rg1 Nd3
29.Qxh7+ Kf8 30.Qh6+ with a draw, Latronico-Perche, corr 2007.
24…Qd4
24…Qxa3 and 24…Qg7 are also sufficient for equality.
Now the most typical continuation is 25.Bc6 Rb2 26.Qg5+ Qf6 27.Qd2
Nh4 28.Rg1 Rg6 29.f3 Kf8 30.fxe4 fxe4. In Bures-Freeman, corr 2010, there
followed 31.Bd7 Kg7 32.Ref1 Qg5 33.Qd4+ Qe5 34.Qf2 Qe7 35.Be6 Nf3
36.gxf3 fxe6 37.Qd4+ Qf6 38.Qxe4 exd5 39.Qd3 Qf4 40.Re1 d4 and soon a
draw was agreed.
Chapter 113
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 Ng6
17.Qh5 Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qf6 19.Qh6 Qxc3 20.Be2
14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 Ng6 17.Qh5 Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qf6 19.Qh6
Qxc3 20.Be2!?
As I have already pointed out in the previous chapter, for the moment the
retreat on e2 occurs much more rarely than the one on b3, but its popularity is
gradually growing. And, by the way, its success rate is also better. In my
opinion, in this fashion White retains chances for obtaining a small edge in
the opening. (D)
20…Qe5
(a) It obviously does not pay to take the c2-pawn, but in Valent-Muzyka,
corr 2003, Black took a plunge – 20…Qxc2?. Then there was 21.Bd1! Qb2?!
(21…Qd3!N is more stubborn) 22.Rb1! Qd4 23.Rb7 Rd8?! (and here more
stubborn is 23…Rg8!,
but White retains a great superiority anyway) 24.a3! Rg8 (the planned 24…
Rd7 is met with 25.Rb4 and then Ba4) 25.Qg5 h6 26.Qxf5 Ne7 27.Qf4, and
Black’s position is difficult.
(b) 20…Rg8 used to occur frequently; the usual reply was 21.Rab1 Qg7
22.Qxg7 Rxg7 23.f4. Here various moves have been tested, and it seems that
the best of them is 23…h5. In Moucka-Makowski, corr 2010, there followed
24.Rb6 Ke7 25.Rb7+ Kf8 26.c4 h4 27.a4, and White has a small advantage.
25.Bxh5!?N is interesting as well.
Perhaps, the new move 21.g3!? (stopping Black’s play along the g-file
and avoiding exchange of the queens) is more precise. For example, in
Sauzig-Otake, corr 2010, there followed 21…Ke7 22.Rae1 Qg7 23.Qe3 Rge8
24.Rb1 Kf8 25.Rb6 f4 26.Qa3, and White has a small edge.
21.Rab1
This move occurs in the majority of games, but here White also has an
opportunity to fight for an advantage by means of a new move 21.g3!?.
In Schinke-Grigoriev, corr 2010, there followed 21…Ke7 22.Rae1!
(22.f3!?N) 22…Rhc8 (22…Rac8! 23.c4 f4 seems to be more accurate) 23.c4
Rab8 24.f3 f4 25.fxe4 fxg3 26.Qe3 gxh2+ 27.Kh1 Kf8 28.Rf5 Qg7?! (28…
Qe7N is better, for example, 29.Ref1 Kg8 30.Rxf7 Qh4 with an advantage
for White) 29.Ref1 Rb7 30.Qa3, and White clearly stands better. I am still
searching for a clear route to equality after 21.g3!?. The most serious
additional analysis is necessary.
21…Qf4
22.Qg7
White can transpose to a slightly better ending after 22.Qxf4 Nxf4. In
Szczepanski-Cruzado, corr 2009, there followed 23.Bc4 (or 23.Bxa6 Ke7
24.Bc4 Rhc8) 23…0-0 24.f3 Rfc8 25.Rb4 a5 26.Ra4 Re8 27.Bb5 Reb8
28.Bc6, and a draw was agreed.
22…Qe5 23.Qxe5
If desired, White can force a draw with 23.Qh6.
23…Nxe5 24.f3
24.Bxa6 Rg8 25.Rfc1 Ke7 26.Rb7 Kf6 27.Rb6 Ke7, etc., does not bring
anything tangible.
24…0-0 25.Rb6
A usual continuation. In Wilczek-Dzenis, corr 2008, White was not
successful either: 25.fxe4 fxe4 26.Rf6 Rfc8 27.Rb2 Rab8 28.Rxb8 Rxb8
29.Rxd6 e3! 30.h3 Rb2, and a draw was agreed.
25…Rac8
In Szczepanski-Latronico, corr 2007, there followed 26.Rc1 Nd3
27.Bxd3 exd3 28.Rc6 d2 29.Rd1 Rxc6 30.dxc6 Rc8 31.Rxd2 Rxc6 32.Kf2
Kf8 33.Ke3 Ke7 34.Kd3 Rc5 35.f4 and here a draw was agreed.
Chapter 114
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 0-0
without 17.Qd2
14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 0-0! (D)
As previously noted, this continuation occurs considerably less often than

16…Ng6, but its success rate is better.
17.Qh5
The move 17.Qd2 will be considered in the next chapter. Sometimes there
occurs the move 17.Bb3. In Saenko-Efremov, corr 2010, there was 17…Ng6
18.f4 (18.Qd2 leads to a position in the next chapter) 18…Bxc3 19.bxc3 Qf6
20.Qd4 Qg7 (20…Kg7 also leads to equal play) 21.Qd2 a5 22.a4 Kh8
23.Rae1 Nh4 24.Kh1 Rg8 25.Rf2 Rac8
26.Re3 Qf6 27.c4 Qa1+ 28.Re1 Qf6 with equal play. White cannot take the
pawn with 29.Qxa5?? because of 29…Nxg2! 30.Rxg2 Rxg2 31.Kxg2 Qd4!,
and Black wins.
17…Qc7
The usual continuation was 17…Qc8 18.Bb3. Now it is pointless to play
18…Ng6?!, although the move Qc8 has been made with exactly this knight
move in view.
In Areshchenko-Kuzubov, Poltava 2006, there followed 19.Rae1!? (both
19.Na4 and 19.f4 are also in White’s favor) 19…Re8 20.f4 exf3?! (20…Bxc3
is slightly better) 21.Rxe8+ Qxe8 22.Qxf3 f4 23.Ne4 Bd4+ 24.Kh1 Qe5
25.c3 Be3, and now White could have obtained a serious advantage with
26.Bc2!N.
The position after 18…Bxc3! 19.bxc3 f4 20.Qg5+ Ng6 21.Qf6 Qd8, will
be examined slightly later with a transposition of moves.
18.Bb3 Bxc3 19.bxc3 f4
20.Qg5!
It is necessary to block the f7-pawn.
Let us discuss other continuations.
(a) In the position in the diagram we come across a completely
inexplicable situation. For some reason the most usual White’s move here is
20.h4?. I know of eight such games; in seven of those Black answered 20…
f5, and White lost all of them. All the games are correspondence games and
were played from 2008 to 2010; in other words, they are comparatively
recent. In four games the first players’ ratings were higher than 2460, i.e.,
they were rather strong. Then there usually followed 21.Qg5+ Kh8 22.Qxf4
Rg8!? (after 22…Ng6, Black also has an advantage) 23.h5 Qxc3 24.Qe3 Qg7
25.g3 Raf8 26.Qf4 Qf6 27.Rae1 Rg5, and the miserable bishop’s position on
b3 deprives White of the opportunity to organize a sound defense, for
example, 28.Qc1 (or 28.Bc4 Rfg8 29.Qc1 Rxh5 30.Qa1 Qxa1 31.Rxa1 f4
32.Rae1 Nf5 33.Rxe4 fxg3 34.Be2 gxf2+ 35.Kxf2 Rh2+ 36.Ke1 Ng3, and
Black soon won, Adriano-Wohl, 2010) 28…f4 29.Qa1 Qxa1 30.Rxa1 Nf5
31.Rae1 e3! 32.c4 f3 33.Bd1 Nxg3!, and Black won, Chripko-Cruzado, 2009.
(b) 20.c4 has also occurred, and after 20…f5 21.Rae1, the position arises
that will be examined below.
(c) In Michalek-Pierce, corr 2010, White chose 20.Rae1, but after 20…f5,
Black developed the initiative on the kingside: 21.c4 a5 (the immediate 21…
Ng6 is also playable) 22.a4 Ng6 23.Kh1 Rae8 24.Qd1 Qc5 25.Qc1 Re7
26.Qd2 Rg7 27.Rg1 Kh8 28.Ref1 e3 29.Qe2 Ne5, and Black has an
advantage.
20…Ng6 21.Qf6
Thus, White has prevented the advance f7-f5 which could have given
Black offensive opportunities on the kingside.
21…Rfe8
The exchange of the queens, 21…Qd8 22.Qxd8 Rfxd8, leads to equal
play, for example, 23.Rfd1 f5 24.f3, etc.
In Walsh-Matei, corr 2009, there followed 22.Rad1 e3 23.fxe3 Rxe3
24.h4 h5 25.c4 Rae8 26.c3 Re2 27.Rd4 R8e5 28.Bd1 Rxa2 29.Bf3 Qa5
White bishop is back in the game, and the chances are even. White
carried out a small combination 30.Bxh5 Rxh5 31.Rdxf4 Nxf4 32.Rxf4 Qc7
and a draw was agreed.
Chapter 115
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 0-0
17.Qd2
14.Nxb5 Bg7 15.Nc3 e4 16.Bc4 0-0 17.Qd2
This continuation does not leave White any chance of obtaining

advantage either.
17…Ng6 18.Kh1
White has other opportunities:
(a) 18.Rae1 does not bring any advantage because of 18…Qh4!. In
Kuiter-Moll, corr 2010, there followed 19.b3 Bh6 20.Qd1?! (this has usually
been played here, but 20.Re3!N probably maintains the balance) 20…Ne5!
21.Ne2 (after 21.Be2 Kh8 22.Kh1 Rg8, Black has the initiative) 21…Kh8
22.f4 Ng4 23.h3 Nf6 24.Qd4 Rg8 25.Qc3 Rg6 26.Rf2 Bg7 27.Qe3 Nh5, and
Black exerts strong pressure on the kingside.
(b) The popular move 18.Rab1 also brings no advantage, for example,
18…Re8!? (it is possible to equalize with 18…Qh4 19.Be2 Qf4) 19.Rfe1
Qh4 20.Bf1 Ne5 21.Be2 Rab8 22.a3 Rec8 23.Qe3 a5. The game is level, but
in Korosec-Pierce, corr 2010, White committed an inaccuracy, 24.Rf1?!
(24.Nb5!N allows White to maintain the balance), and after 24…h5, Black
had a small advantage.
(c) I have to put a question mark to the popular move 18.Bb3. If my
database does not deceive me, this position occurs in 44 games, and in only
one of those Black has made a move that is most in keeping with the active
spirit of the Chelyabinsk Variation – 18…f4!.
While attempting to refute Black’s plan, White has to take the e4-pawn,
otherwise after f7-f5, Black would coolly prepare an attack against the king;
as for the move 18.Bb3, it must be regarded as an error by default.
19.Nxe4. For his second sacrificed pawn, Black obtains two tempi plus an
opportunity to place his pawn on f3, in other words – to launch a direct attack
against white king. This is too much. 19…f5 20.Nc3 f3!. Now White has a
wide choice of continuations, but none even secures equality!
Now possible is:
(1) In this only game mentioned above, White immediately made a losing
move, 21.gxf3??, after which Black should have answered 21…Qh4!N, for
example, 22.Ne2 Be5 23.Ng3 Nf4 24.Kh1 Qh3! 25.Rg1 Kh8, and White is
unable to parry the threat Rf6.
(2) 21.g3 does not help either, for example, 21…f4 22.Kh1 Qd7 23.Rg1
fxg3 24.Rxg3 Be5.
(3) After 21.Qe3!?N Ne5! 22.Qf4! Qe8!, Black has the advantage. 22…
fxg2!? is also not bad.
Let us return to 18.Kh1.
18…Qc7!
At first, 18…Qh4 19.g3 Qh3 20.Be2 followed by 20…Rab8 21.Rab1
used to be played in this position. Now after 21…Ne5, White has a small
advantage. 21…Rfc8! is more precise, for example, 22.Nd1 f4! 23.gxf4 Qh6
24.Bxa6 Be5 25.f3 Bxf4 26.Qg2 Re8 27.fxe4 Re5, and Black’s initiative
fully compensates for his material deficit.
Subsequently the move 20.Rg1! was found, and after 20…Ne5 21.Be2,
19.Bb3 Bxc3 20.bxc3 f4
21.Rab1
Other moves have also been tried, but without success. For example, on
21.Ba4 there follows 21…Qc4, and after 22.Bb3 Qc7, the position is
repeated.
21…Rac8 22.Qe2 Qe7
In this position it is already White who has to tread lightly.
23.Rbe1!N
23.Qxa6 occurred in two games. After 23…Rxc3 24.Rbe1 Qe5, Black has
a small initiative.
23…f5
23…Rce8? is bad because of 24.Ba4.
24.Qxa6 f3! 25.gxf3 Ne5 26.Qe2 Qh4 27.fxe4 Rxc3
Though White has great material advantage, Black’s initiative is
sufficient for maintaining equality.
Let us summarize out study of the move 14.Nxb5!?. It becomes clear
from the two last chapters that the move 16…0-0! secures at least equal play
for Black, and thus the usual continuation 16.Bc4 does not bring any
advantage to White. As we can see from the chapter 110, after 16.Be2!, no
path to equality has been found. And this, in its turn, means that no equality
is found after the move 14.Nxb5!?, which, as you remember, had been
declared weak by Sveshnikov.
Chapter 116
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c3 Bg7 without 15.Qh5
14.c3!?
A solid continuation, the aim of which, as far as I can understand, is to

bring the a3-knight into play and then to carry out a2-a4. At the same time,
White blunts the black bishop that is going to appear on g7 soon.
The modest pawn move to c3 appeared only in 1991 after unsuccessful
attempts to immediately refute the variation and now it is the most popular
choice. By the way, there is not a word about it in the Sveshnikov’s book.
14…Bg7
There is no particular point to the move 14…Qd7?!. The best
continuation for White is 15.Nc2!, and on 15…Bg7, the game transposes to a
line that is favorable for White.
But in the clear majority of games White plays 15.Qh5?!. I believe that
the reason for this undeserved popularity was the game Almasi-Rogozenko,
Yerevan 1996, in which this queen move had occurred for the first time and
that was later incorrectly evaluated in the comments of well-known
chessplayers. In the game there followed 15…Rg8! 16.Rad1 Rg6 17.Bb1 Bg7
18.Nc2 Kf8 19.Kh1 Kg8 20.Ne3 e4.
An even position has arisen, in which, in Dolmatov’s opinion, White has
a clear advantage. As proof he recommends the move 21.f3? followed by a
five-move variation; however, after 21…f4!N, it is Black who has clear
superiority, for example, 22.Nc2 Nf5! 23.Nd4 (23.fxe4? is even worse in
view of 23…Ng3+! 24.hxg3 Rh6 25.Qxh6 Bxh6 26.gxf4 Qg4! with a great
advantage) 23…Bxd4 24.cxd4 Ne3 25.fxe4 Qg4!. In the game there followed
21.f4 Kh8 22.Qe2 h5?! (22…Rh6!N leads to equal play) 23.Qxh5, and White
obtained an advantage.
14…e4 may lead to a transposition of moves, for example, 15.Bc2 (or
15.Be2 Bg7 16.Nc2) 15…Bg7. Here the move that leads to a transposition is
16.Qh5+, but White also has quite a good opportunity in 16.f3!?.
Let us return to 14 …Bg7.
15.Nc2!?
Now the time has come to explain why I have used the phrase “as far as I
can understand” a little earlier. It seems logical not to hedge once you have
pledged, I mean, to play 15.Nc2 after playing 14.c3. And it seems only fair
that this move allows White to retain a certain advantage. But, for some
reason, in practice, six players out of seven understand the idea of the move
14.c3 differently and leave the knight on a3, which is another mystery of the
Chelyabinsk Variation. Well, afterwards they should not look surprised and
ask where had this small advantage gone. Admittedly, in the recent games by
strong players. the move 15.Nc2 occurs with increasing frequency, which
means that the picture may eventually change.
White has an opportunity to transpose to the favorable variation that has
been discussed in chapter 107 with the move 15.Re1!?. The move 15.Qh5,
the one that is clearly the most popular, will be explored in the following
chapters.
15…e4
Apparently, the aim of this move is to make the bishop withdraw to e2.
The popular continuation 15…0-0 allows 16.Re1!?, after which the game
transposes to the variation in chapter 107. After 16.Qh5 e4 17.Be2, an even
position from chapter 103 arises, while 16.a4 e4 17.Be2 leads to the main line
of this chapter.
It would be inaccurate to play 15…Qd7?! here. After 16.a4 e4 17.Be2 0-0
18.axb5 axb5, White’s position is better (Bologan-Ni Hua, Shanghai 2001).
Now White had a pleasant choice between 19.Rxa8!?N and 19.Nb4!?N.
16.Be2
16…0-0
Sometimes the move 16…Qb6 is seen. Then in Galkin-Tregubov,
Retymnon 2003, there followed 17.Qd2 0-0 18.Qg5 Ng6 (18…Qb7! is more
accurate) 19.Qxf5 Rae8 20.Qg5 Re5 21.Qe3 (21.Qd2! is better), and now the
correct move is 21…Qxe3!N, for example, 22.fxe3 Ne7 with a small
advantage to White.
17.a4!
17.Qd2 is too sluggish and therefore throws away the small advantage,
for example, 17…Ng6! (although the usual move here is 17…Rc8) 18.f3!?
Be5 19.Qh6!?N a5 20.a3 b4! 21.axb4 axb4 22.Rxa8 Qb6 23.Kh1 Rxa8
24.Nxb4 Nf4! 25.Bc4 Qc5, and Black maintains the balance.
17…bxa4 18.Rxa4 Qb6
This move occurs in practically every game, but I have some doubts
about it, as the queen withdraws from the kingside where Black is going to
launch his attack. I have done some groundwork on this subject, and we are
going to talk about it in more detail, should the opportunity arise.
19.Ra2
In Sadvakasov-Khalifman, Sochi 2005, there was 19.Rb4!? Qc5 20.Ne3
(20.g3!? is slightly better) 20…Rab8 21.Qb3 Rxb4 22.cxb4 Qc8?! (22…Qd4!
with equal play is more precise), and White could have obtained a small
advantage after 23.Ra1!.
19…f4!
The best move, though it occurs rather rarely. 19…a5 is regarded as the
main move. It is usually followed by 20.Qd2 Rfc8 21.Rfa1 Rc5 22.c4, and
White stands slightly better (Jacot-Gorokhovsky, corr 2008).
20.Qd2 Ng6!
And here the usual move is 20…Be5, but Black’s problems still remain.
For example, in Vosahlik-Privara, corr 2007, there followed 21.Rfa1 (21.Na3
is also not bad) 21…Kh8 22.Bf1 Rg8 23.Na3 f3 24.Nc4 fxg2 25.Bd3! Qb7
(25…Qd8N is more precise) 26.Nxe5 dxe5 27.Bxe4 f5 28.d6 fxe4 29.dxe7
Qxe7 30.Rxa6, and White’s chances are better.
21.Nb4!?N
The move 21.Rfa1 is also known, but after 21…a5 22.Na3, I have
managed to find a novelty that allows Black to obtain good play, 22…f3!, for
example, 23.Nc4 Qd8 24.gxf3 Re8!, etc. White cannot take on a5: 25.Rxa5?!
Rxa5 26.Rxa5 exf3 27.Bxf3 Ne5 28.Nxe5 Qxa5, and Black has a small
advantage.
Now the line could continue 21…a5 22.Nc6 Rfe8 23.Ra4!? e3 24.fxe3
Rxe3 25.Kh1 Rae8 26.Bg4!? Qb5 27.Raa1 Ne5 28.Nxe5 R8xe5 29.Qf2!
and White retains a certain edge.
Chapter 117
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5 without 15…e4
14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5
The queen move looks active but, as in many other systems in the
Chelyabinsk Variation, does not bring the desired results to White.
15…Qd7?!
Thus is the old continuation which was popular during the fledgling years
of the development of the variation with 14.c3. 15…e4 is undoubtedly better.
That continuation will be explored in the following chapters.
16.Rad1
16.Rae1 followed by 16…Rc8 has also been seen: 17.Bb1 Rc5 (17…
Rg8!?N) 18.Nc2 e4? (18…f4 is better; White has only a slight edge) 19.f3 0-
0 20.fxe4 fxe4 21.Rxe4 Nxd5 22.Qf3 Ne7 23.Nd4, and White has a great
advantage, Glazer-Privara, corr 1995.
16…Rc8
This move occurs almost invariably. Occasionally Black would play 16…
0-0 17.Bb1 (17.f3!?N). In Minasian-Van Wely, Khanty Mansiysk 2005, there
followed 17…Rae8 (17…h6, Jones-Wang Yu, Liverpool 1987 is slightly
weaker, but 17…Rfe8!?N is a bit better) 18.Nc2 (18.g4!?N) 18…e4 (18…
f4!?N is more accurate).
Here White has played the cautious 19.f4?! which leads to a small White
advantage. Instead, he had a more effective opportunity to undermine Black’s
pawn chain with 19.f3!N.
17.Nc2
17.Bb1!? is also good here. The usual reply is 17…Rc5 (I think that 17…
Rg8!?N is better). In Galkin-Nijboer, Metz 2000, there followed 18.g3!?
(18.Nc2!? is also fine) 18…a5 19.Nc2 f4, and now instead of the erroneous
20.gxf4? which led to equal play after 20…Nxd5, White could have
continued 20.a3!?N, for example, 20…h6 (both 20…Nxd5? 21.b4 Nf6
22.Qg5 Rg8 23.Rxd6! Qxd6 24.bxc5 Qc7 25.Re1 Kf8 26.Qxe5, with great
advantage to White, and 20…Rxd5? 21.Ba2 Rxd1 22.Qxf7+ Kd8 23.Rxd1,
etc., are poor) 21.Rfe1 Kf8 22.gxf4 Ng6 23.fxe5 Bxe5 24.Ne3, and White has
an advantage. 17.f3!? leads to an advantage for White.
For example, 17…Rc5 18.Kh1 f4!?N (18…Rxd5?! 19.c4!? is favorable
for White) 19.Nc2! a5 (and here it is a bad idea to take on d5: 19…Rxd5?
20.Nb4 Rc5 21.Nxa6 Rc8 22.Rd2! or 19…Nxd5? 20.Bf5 Qc7 21.b4 Rxc3
22.Rxd5 Rxc2 23.Bxc2 Qxc2 24.Rxd6, with a great advantage to White in
both cases) 20.Be4! h6 (20…Ng8!?).
Then the following variation is possible: 21.g3! 0-0 (21…fxg3 22.f4!)
22.gxf4 f5 23.fxe5 fxe4 24.fxe4 Rxf1+ 25.Rxf1 Nxd5! 26.exd6! Qe6 27.Qf5
Qxd6 28.exd5 Qxd5+ 29.Qxd5 Rxd5 30.Rf2!, and White is a pawn up in the
endgame.
17…e4!
In the position in the diagram we discover another mystery of the
Chelyabinsk Variation. In roughly 80% of the games, Black chooses the
weak move 17…0-0?, allowing 18.f3!. There follows 18…h6 (preparing f5-
f4) 19.Kh1 (19.g3!? is also not bad), and if 19…f4? is played (19…Rc5 is
much better, but White has definite superiority anyway), but after 20.Rg1!, it
surprisingly turns out that Black’s position is, to say the least, difficult, for
example, 20…f5 21.g4! Kh8 (21…Rf6!? is more stubborn) 22.Nb4!N
(22.gxf5, Popovic-Reinderman, Germany 2003, is weaker.) 22…a5 23.gxf5,
and White’s position is won.
18.Be2 0-0 19.g3
19.f3!? leads to a small white advantage. In Luther-Horvath, Paris 2005,
there followed 19…Rc5 (19…b4!?N 20.Nxb4 a5 seems to be more precise)
20.Kh1 Nxd5 21.fxe4 Nf6 22.Qh3 Re8?! (22…fxe4N is better) 23.Ne3
(23.Nd4!N is more accurate). In the game, White obtained great advantage
after 23…Nxe4?! 24.Nxf5.
Instead, it is better to play 23…f4!N, for example, 24.Qxd7?! Nxd7
25.Rxf4 Bh6 26.Rg4+ Kf8 27.Nd5 (or 27.Rxd6?! Ne5 28.Rg3 Bf4 29.Rh3
Ng4! with equal play) 27…Rxd5 28.Rxd5 Nf6 29.Rd4 Nxg4 30.Bxg4 Bg7
31.Rb4 d5 32.Bf5 Rd8!, and White has only a small advantage.
19…f4 (D)
20.f3!
The usual continuation is 20.gxf4 f5 21.Kh1. The only move which has
occurred after that is 21…Ng6?!, for example, 22.Qg5 Qd8, and now not
23.Rg1?! (Kotronias-Nejboer, Wijk aan Zee 1995),
but 23.Qg3! with an advantage to White. Then there may follow 23…Bh6N
24.Nd4 Bxf4 25.Qh3! Be5! 26.Ne6 Nf4 27.Qg3+ Ng6 28.Qg2, etc. However,
after 21…Rf6!N, White’s advantage vanishes, for example, 22.f3!? Rh6
23.Qg5 Kh8 24.fxe4 Rg8!, and the game is level.
20…e3!N
Here only 20…f5? and 20…fxg3?! have previously occurred. Now
possible is 21.Qg4!? Qf5!? 22.Bd3 Qxg4 23.fxg4 fxg3 24.hxg3 Nxd5
25.Bxh7+ Kxh7 26.Rxd5 and White has a slight advantage.
Chapter 118
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5 e4 16.Bc2 without
16…0-0
14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5 e4
A natural-looking continuation, after which Black obtains even chances.

16.Bc2
Occasionally, the move 16.Be2 occurs, leading to equal play. The
position after 16.Be2 has already been examined in detail in chapter 103 with
the move order 14.Qh5.
16…Qc8
This is the most usual move, but 16…0-0 is more precise. We are going
to explore the latter move in the following four chapters.
I believe that another move that is sufficient for equality is 16…Qa5!? (or
16…Rc8 17.Rae1 Qa5!?) with the idea of meeting 17.Rae1 with 17…Rc8!
(but not with the popular 17…Bxc3? 18.bxc3 Qxa3 because of 19.Bxe4! fxe4
20.Rxe4, and Black’s position is difficult), for example, 18.f3!? (18.Bb3
Bxc3 19.bxc3 Qxa3 20.f3 0-0 21.fxe4 fxe4 22.Rxe4 Ng6 does not bring any
advantage) 18…b4 19.cxb4 Qxb4 20.fxe4 Bxb2 21.exf5 Qxa3 22.f6 Rxc2!
23.Qf5! Qc5+ 24.Kh1 Qc8 25.Rxe7+ Kd8, and the game is equal.
17.Rad1!?
It is interesting that in the overwhelming majority of games (including the
ones played by strong players!) the move 17.Rae1 usually occurs here, but
after the simple reply 17…0-0, an even position arises which we are going to
examine in chapters 119-122 with a transposition of moves.
17…Qc5
In Almasi-Markowski, Bern 1996, Black chose a slightly weaker move,
17…0-0. There followed 18.Bb1! Ng6 19.Kh1 (19.Nc2! with a small
advantage is more accurate) 19…Re8 20.f4! Qc5 21.Nc2 e3?! (after 21…
Ne7!N White has only a small advantage) 22.Qe2, and White increases his
advantage.
18.Nb1!
A rare move, but I regard it as the best one. Let us examine other options.
(a) 18.Bb3 does not bring any advantage because of 18…a5!. Then there
usually follows a long and almost forced variation, 19.Qe2 a4 20.Bc2 b4
21.cxb4 Qxb4 22.f3 Qc5+ 23.Kh1 e3 24.Rc1 0-0. This position is equal, for
example, 25.Bb1 (the most usual move here is 25.Bxa4, but after 25…Qd4
26.Bb3 f4, Black has a minimal advantage) 25…Qxd5 26.Qxe3 Qe5 27.Qd3
Qxb2 28.Nc4 Qf6 29.Qxd6 Qxd6 30.Nxd6 Rfd8 31.Nxf5 Nxf5 32.Bxf5 Rd2
33.Rc2, and in the game David-Pierrot, Cappelle la Grande 1999, a draw was
agreed.
(b) The most usual move is 18.Bb1 and it is typically followed by an
almost forced variation 18…b4 19.cxb4 Qxb4 20.Nc2 Qxb2 21.Ne3 Qf6
(21…Qe5! is also not bad; for example, in the game de Vreugt-Harikrishna,
Wijk aan Zee 2001, after 22.f4 Qf6 23.g4 Qg6, a draw was agreed) 22.f3 Bh6
23.Rfe1 Bxe3+ 24.Rxe3 Ng6 25.fxe4 (or 25.Qh6 Ke7 26.Rf1 Rab8 27.g3?!
Rb2 28.fxe4 Rhb8 29.e5! Nxe5 30.Qxf6+ Kxf6 31.Bxf5 Kg7 32.Ra3 a5
33.Rxa5, and in Almasi-Krasenkow, Pula 1997, Black retained a certain
advantage with 33…Rd2N) 25…f4 26.Rb3 Ne5 27.Qf5 Qxf5 28.exf5 Ke7
29.Rd4, and here, instead of 29…f3 (Dolmatov-Shariyazdanov, Moscow
1998), it is simpler to play 29…Kf6!30.Rxf4 Rab8 with equality.
18…0-0
19.Nd2
19.Rfe1 is more usual, but Black can equalize after 19…b4!, for example,
20.g4!?N bxc3 21.Nxc3 Bxc3 22.bxc3 Qxc3 23.gxf5 Qxc2 24.f6, and Black
has several ways to draw, for instance, 24…e3. Now interesting
complications arise, and Black’s play should be precise.
19…Qxd5
After 19…b4?! 20.c4, White obtains an advantage.
20.Nxe4 Qxa2 21.Bb1!?
Also possible is 21.Nxd6!?N, for example, 21…Qxb2 22.Rc1!? Bxc3
23.Nxf5 Ng6 24.Bb1 Rad8 25.h4!, and White seizes the initiative.
21…Qxb2 22.Rd2!?N Qa3! 23.Nxd6 Qxc3 24.Rfd1 Qf6 25.Ba2 f4
26.h4 and White’s chances are slightly better.
Chapter 119
12.0-0 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne7 14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5 e4 16.Bc2 0-0
17.Rae1 Qc8 18.Bb3 a5 without 19.Nxb5 or 18.Kh1
14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5 e4 16.Bc2 0-0! (D)
This continuation allows Black to obtain equal play, so it comes as no

surprise that it supplants the older move 16…Qc8.
17.Rae1
On 17.Rad1, Black should not reply with 17…Qc8?!, which leads to the
position which, as we have found out in the previous chapter, is favorable for
White. The correct move is 17…Rc8! with equal play.
17…Qc8
Both 17…Re8 and 17…Rc8 lead to a small advantage for White.
18.Bb3
18.Kh1 is more dangerous for Black and will be explored in chapters 121-
122. White has other possibilites as well:
(a) In the rapid game Almasi-Leko, Monaco 2002, there was 18.Bb1 Qc5
19.Kh1 Qxd5 20.f3 Qe5 21.fxe4 fxe4 22.Qxe5 dxe5 23.Bxe4 Rad8 24.Rd1 f5
25.Bb7 Rxd1 26.Rxd1 Rf6, and the game is even.
(b) 18.g4 is useless for White because of 18…b4!, for example, 19.cxb4
Bxb2! 20.Qg5+ Ng6 21.gxf5 Bxa3. Here in Sax-Delchev, Medulin 1997,
White played 22.fxg6 (22.Bxe4! with even chances is more precise), and
after 22…fxg6 23.Bxe4 Rf7, the correct continuation was 24.Rb1N with
slightly better play for Black.
(c) The move 18.f3 does not pose problems for Black because of 18…
b4!.
Now 19.cxb4? is weak because of the forced variation 19…Bxb2 20.fxe4

Bxa3 21.Re3 Qxc2 22.Rg3+ Ng6 23.Rh3, and now the correct move is 23…
Rfd8!, for example, 24.Qxh7+ Kf8 25.Rh5! f4! 26.Rf5 Ne5 27.R5xf4 Ra7
28.Qh8+ Ke7 29.Qh4+ Ke8 30.Qh8+ Kd7 31.Qh3+ Kc7 32.Qxa3 Kb8
33.Qe3 Rb7, and Black has a great advantage.
In Asrian-Wang Yue, Khanty Mansiysk 2005, there followed 19.Nb1
bxc3 (19…Nxd5! is slightly better, for example, 20.fxe4 Qc5+ 21.Kh1 Ne3
22.cxb4 Qd4 23.Rxe3 Qxe3 24.exf5 Rfe8 25.f6 Qh6, and Black has excellent
play) 20.Nxc3 Bxc3 21.bxc3 Qxc3 22.Bb1 (22.Re2 also leads to equality)
22…Ng6 23.Qxf5 exf3 24.Qxf3 Qxf3 25.Rxf3 Rae8 (25…a5!?N) 26.Rxe8
Rxe8 27.Kf2 Rb8 28.Rb3 Rxb3 29.axb3 Ne7 30.Be4 a5!, and then the black
knight moves to b6, building a fortress.
18…a5
In Ponomariov-Anand, Mainz 2002, Black chose 18…Ng6. There
followed 19.Nc2 Re8 20.f4 exf3! 21.Rxe8+ Qxe8 22.Qxf3 f4 (22…a5!N with
practically level play is more precise) 23.Re1 Qd7 24.Nb4 a5 (24…Re8! is
more accurate) 25.Nc6 Re8 (and now more accurate is 25…b4!N) 26.Rxe8+
Qxe8 27.Kf1!. After a series of inaccuracies by Black, White obtained the
advantage and converted it into a win.
19.Qg5
The most popular but not the best continuation. Strictly speaking, it does
not even secure equality for White. In the next chapter we are going to
examine the move 19.Nxb5 which leads to equal play.
Eight years ago, in correspondence games, a new move, 19.g4!?,
appeared as a result of White’s unsuccessful attempts to obtain the advantage
the usual ways.
True, after 19…a4 20.Bc2 Nxd5 21.Qxf5 Qxf5 22.gxf5 b4 23.Nb5 bxc3
24.bxc3 Nxc3 25.Nxc3 Bxc3 26.Rxe4 a3 27.Rd1 Rfb8, it is hardly possible to
speak of an advantage for White, so the evaluations of the positions after
16…0-0 remain secure.
19…Qb7! 20.f3 h6 21.Qg3
In Shirov-Grischuk, Wijk aan Zee 2003, there was 21.Qf4 a4 22.Bc2 b4
23.cxb4 Qxb4 24.fxe4 Ng6! 25.Qxf5 Bxb2 26.e5 Bxe5 27.Nb1.
Here Black threw away his small advantage with 27…Rae8 (27…Qc4!?N
is more precise), but White blundered in return – 28.Be4?? – and after 28…
Bf4! 29.g3 Re5 30.Qg4 Rxe4 31.Rxe4 Qxe4 32.gxf4 Rb8, White resigned.
21…a4 22.Bc2 b4! 23.cxb4
23.Nc4 has occurred with almost the same frequency. Now possible is
23…Qxd5 (Black also has an advantage after 23…bxc3!?) 24.fxe4 Qxc4
25.exf5 Nd5 26.f6 Nxf6 27.Rxf6 bxc3! (27…Rae8?! leading to equal play,
Shirov-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2003, is weaker) 28.bxc3 (28.Rxh6 Qc5+
29.Kh1 Rfe8 30.Rf1 cxb2 is also in Black’s favor) 28…Qxa2 29.Qd3 Rfe8
30.Ref1 Bxf6 31.Rxf6 Ra5, and Black has a small advantage (Timmerman-
Hertel, corr 2009). (D)
23…e3!
23…Qxb4 occurs more often; it is followed by 24.fxe4 f4! 25.Qxf4 Ng6,
but here White has a good
move in 26.Qf3!, for example, 26…Bxb2 27.Nb1 Qc4 28.Re2!N with equal
play.
24.b5 Qxd5 25.f4!
Black has a more serious advantage after 25.Kh1 Qxa2 26.Qxd6 Nd5!N.
25…Ng6
And now possible is 26.Kh1 Rfe8!N 27.Rxe3 Rxe3 28.Qxe3 Bxb2 29.b6
Rb8 and Black has a small advantage.
Chapter 120
17.Rae1 Qc8 18.Bb3 a5 19.Nxb5
14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5 e4 16.Bc2 0-0 17.Rae1 Qc8 18.Bb3 a5 19.Nxb5
As already noted, this continuation leads to equal play.

19…a4 20.Bd1 Qc5 21.Be2
21.Nd4 Qxd5 22.Re3 (22.b3! is more accurate, for example, 22…a3
23.Re3 h6 24.Rh3 f4, but here Black also has excellent play) 22…Rfb8!
(22…Qe5, Carlsen-McShane, Retymnon 2003, is slightly weaker) occurs
very often.
Here in the overwhelming majority of games White would play 23.Rh3?!
(23.Qh4!?N is interesting), and after 23…Rxb2! (23…h6?!, Vallejo-Van
Wely, Bled 2002, is weaker) 24.Qxh7+ Kf8 Black’s chances are better.
21…Nxd5 22.Qg5
Apparently, it is simpler for White to maintain equality after 22.Qxf5!?,
for example, 22…Nxc3 23.Qxc5 Nxe2+ 24.Rxe2 dxc5 25.Rxe4 Rfb8 26.Nc7
Ra7 27.Nd5 Rxb2 28.Re8+ Bf8 29.Nf6+ Kg7 30.Nh5+ Kg8 31.Nf6+ with a
pendulum draw.
22…h6
A necessary precision. In the game Pelletier-McShane, Biel 2004, there
followed 22…Rab8 23.c4 Nc7 24.Nxc7 Qxc7 (24…h6) 25.Qxf5 Rfe8 26.b3
axb3 27.axb3 Rxb3 28.Bd1 Rc3 29.Rxe4 Rxe4 30.Qxe4 Qxc4. Here, instead
of 31.Qxc4 and an immediate draw agreement, White could have retained a
small advantage with 31.Qe8+.
23.Qg3
The move 23.Qd2 occurs rather frequently. In the correspondence game
Chopin-Jong, 2005, there followed 23…Rfd8 24.Rd1 Nc7 (24…Ne7!N
seems to be slightly more precise) 25.Nxc7 Qxc7 26.Qf4 Qc5 27.Rd2
(27.g3!N is more accurate) 27…a3 28.b3 Qxc3 (and now the more precise
move is 28…Bxc3!N) 29.Rfd1 Qe5 30.g3 Qxf4 31.gxf4, and after a while the
game was drawn.
23…f4!
23…Rab8 occurs somewhat more frequently.
For example, 24.Nxd6 (after 24.c4 Ne7 25.Rc1 Ng6 26.Rcd1 Be5 27.Qe3
Qxe3 28.fxe3 f4, Halvik-Sakai, corr., 2003, White is also unable to get
anywhere) 24…f4! 25.Nxe4 fxg3 26.Nxc5 Rxb2 27.Nxa4 Rxa2 28.Bb5 Nxc3
29.Nxc3 Bxc3 30.Re2 Rxe2 31.Bxe2, and soon the correspondence game
Bücker-Oliveira, 2007 was drawn. Let us return to 23…f4!. 24.Qh4 (D)
24…e3!N
In the game Asrian-Ni Hua, Beer-Sheva 2005, Black misplayed two
moves in a row – 24…Rae8?! 25.c4 Nc7?! (it is better to play 25…f3!N
26.gxf3 exf3 27.Bxf3 Nb6 28.b3 axb3 29.axb3 d5, and White has only a
slight advantage) 26.Nxc7 Qxc7 27.Qxf4 Qb6 28.Bd1 Qc6 29.b3 axb3
30.Bxb3, and White has an obvious advantage.
25.c4
I think that this move is the best.
25…exf2+ 26.Rxf2 f3! 27.Bxf3 Rae8 28.Rb1!
Every other move leads to Black’s advantage.
28…Ne3 29.Nc3! Qxc4 30.Qxc4 Nxc4 31.Kh1!? Bxc3 32.bxc3 Re3
With precise defense, White managed to stop his opponent’s attack, and
though Black can win a pawn after 33.h3!?, the game is practically even and
White stands to draw. Thus, we can conclude that the move 18.Bb3 fails to
create any problems for Black at all.
Chapter 121
17.Rae1 Qc8 18.Kh1 without 18…Ng6
14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5 e4 16.Bc2 0-0 17.Rae1 Qc8 18.Kh1!? (D)
As distinct from 18.Bb3, with this move White prepares undermining of

the pawn pair e4-f5 with f2-f3 or g2-g4.
18…Rb8
In my opinion, 18…b4!? is also sufficient for equality, for example,

19.cxb4 Bxb2 20.Re3 Bg7! 21.B,b3 Rb8 22.Nc2 a5, etc.
19.g4!
This strong move first occurred in Topalov-Leko, Dortmund 2002. We
are going to discuss this game later. Before that, in the clear majority of
games White would play 19.f3 and obtain no advantage; so in recent years
this continuation has been supplanted by the move 19.g4!.
Let us examine the move 19.f3 in more detail. After 19…b4!, White has
two options:
(a) 20.fxe4?! is weak and leads to a small Black’s advantage after 20…
bxa3 21.exf5 Re8! 22.f6 Ng6 23.Rxe8 Qxe8 24.fxg7 axb2 25.Qf5 Rb7!.
The variation 21…Ng6 22.f6 Rxb2 23.fxg7 Kxg7 24.Bd3 Qxc3 25.Re3
Kg8 or 25…Qd2 leads only to equal play.
(b) White should play 20.Nb1!.
In the game Shirov-Leko, Dortmund 2002, there followed 20…bxc3
21.bxc3 Bxc3 22.Nxc3 (after 22.Re2 the game is equal) 22…Qxc3 23.fxe4 f4
(or 23…Qxc2 with equality) 24.Bb3 Ng6 25.Rc1 Qf6 26.Qf5 (26.Rc7!?)
26…Qe7 27.Rc4 a5. Leko in his comments evaluates the position in favor of
Black, but actually, because of the weakness of the black pawns, his
advantage is rather slight.
Now the correct move is 28.Qg4!N. In the game White played the
inaccurate 28.h3?!, and after 28…Rb4!, obtained the worse position. Let us
return to the move 19.g4!.
19…b4 20.cxb4 Nxd5
On 20…Bxb2 there follows 21.gxf5! (21.Qg5+!? Ng6 22.gxf5 is also in
favor of White) 21…Kh8 (21…Nxd5?? loses to 22.Bb3 Nf6, and now not
23.Qh6??, as in Bobras-Safarli, Pardubice 2007, but 23.Qg5+!N Kh8 24.Nc4
Rg8 25.Qf4, etc.) 22.Bxe4!N Ng8 23.Nc2 Nf6 24.Qe2, and White has a small
advantage.
I would like to note that Black has the good move 20…Kh8!? which is no
worse than the move in the main variation, for example, 21.b3!? Nxd5
22.Bxe4 fxe4 23.Qxd5 Qxg4 24.Re3 Rxb4 25.Nc4, and White’s advantage is
rather slight.
21.gxf5 Kh8
22.Qd1!
This is an improvement of the variation in comparison with the stem
game Topalov-Leko, Dortmund 2002, in which there was 22.Rg1 Bxb2
23.Qh6 Qc3! 24.Rxe4 Qf6 25.Qh3 Rg8. In this position Topalov committed a
serious blunder, 26.Rf1?, which, however, went unnoticed by numerous
annotators (it is better to play 26.Reg4 or 26.Qb3 with approximate equality).
Leko returned the compliment with 26…Bxa3?. Instead, should have played
26…Be5!N with great advantage for Black.
For example, 27.Rh4! (27.Nc4?! is weaker because of 27…Nf4 28.Qe3
Qg5 29.Qf3 Qh6! 30.Rxe5?! Rg2! 31.h3 dxe5 32.Nxe5 Rg7 or 30.Nxe5 dxe5
31.Qc3 f6, etc.) 27…Rg7 28.Rh6 Qg5 29.Rh5 Qd2 30.Qd3 Qxd3 31.Bxd3
Nf4 32.f6! Bxf6 33.Rf5 Be5 34.Bc4 f6 35.Nc2 d5 36.Bxa6 Rbg8 37.Nd4
Rg2!, and the threat Nh3 forces White tp give up the exchange with 38.Rxf4.
22.Bb3?! Nf4! is in Black’s favor. And Black has no problems after
22.Bxe4 Nf6 23.Qh3!N (the usual 23.Qf3 slightly weaker), 23…Rxb4. Let us
return to the move 22.Qd1!.
22…Nxb4N
After 22…Nf6 23.Qxd6 Rg8 24.Qg3!N (this is slightly more accurate
than the well-known move 24.Qc5), White also retains a small advantage, for
example, 24…Rxb4 25.b3 Rd4 26.Nc4 Qc6 27.Bb1!.
Now possible is 23.Bxe4 d5 24.Bb1
24.f6 Bh6 25.Qh5 dxe4 26.Qxh6 Rg8 27.Rxe4 Qf5 leads to equal play.
24…Bf6!
24…Bxb2?? loses to 25.f6!, for example, 25…Qh3 26.Re3 Qh4 27.Qb3!
Qxf6 28.Bxh7!
25.b3 Qb7 26.Qf3
White has a slight advantage.
Chapter 122
17.Rae1 Qc8 18.Kh1 Ng6
14.c3 Bg7 15.Qh5 e4 16.Bc2 0-0 17.Rae1 Qc8 18.Kh1 Ng6!?
This move was introduced into practice by Krasenkow in his game with
Almasi in 1994 (we will discuss it later). It is directed first of all against g2-
g4, on which Black will simply take the pawn on g4.
19.Bb1
This occurs in the overwhelming majority of games, but there are other
moves as well. The game Galkin-Filippov, Tomsk 2001, was drawn after
19.f4 b4 20.cxb4 Bxb2 21.Re3 Bxa3 22.Rh3 Re8 23.Qxh7+ Kf8 24.Qh6 Kg8
25.Qh7 Kf8 26.Qh6+ Kg8 27.Qh7, but Black could have continued the
struggle after 21…Ra7!?N.
19.f3 does not bring any advantage because of 19…b4!. In the
correspondence game Nimtz-Hiltunen, 2006, there was 20.Nb1! bxc3
21.bxc3 Bxc3 (21…Rb8 is also not bad) 22.Re2 Bg7 23.fxe4 Qc4! 24.Bb3
Qd3 25.Rd1 (25.Bc2 Qc4 leads to a repetition of moves) 25…Nf4 26.Rxd3
Nxh5 27.Rf3 Rac8 28.Nd2 Rc1+ 29.Nf1 Re8 30.Rxf5 Nf6 31.g3 Rxe4, and a
draw was agreed.
19…Re8!
All other moves are weaker.
(a) In Kovalev-Krasenkow, Aalborg 1995, Black tried the move 19…
Be5?. Then there was 20.f4 (20.f3! is even stronger, for example, 20…b4
21.cxb4 Bxb2 22.fxe4 with a great superiority for White) 20…Nxf4 21.Qg5
Ng6, and now, instead of 22.Nc2?!, White could have maintained his
advantage with 22.Rxf5.
(b) 19…b4 20.cxb4 Bxb2 21.Nc2 is playable.
For some reason, everybody chooses 21…Bc3?! here (it is better to play
21…Re8!N, and after 22.f3?!, the game transposes to a variation that is
favorable for Black and which will be discussed later).
Now there follows 22.Re2! (22.Re3?!, Motylev-Lalic, Calcutta 2002, is
weaker because of 22…Re8!N with equal play, for example, 23.Rh3 f4, etc.)
22…Bg7, and now the correct move is 23.g3! with a small edge (in the game
Leko-Krasenkow, Batumi 1999, there was 23.f4?! exf3 24.Qxf3 f4 25.Ne1
Qc4! with equal play), for example, 23…Re8 24.Ne3 Re5 25.f4 exf3
26.Rc2!N (26.Qxf3 Qc3! leads to equality) 26…Qb7 27.Qxf3, and White has
a small advantage.
20.f3
The variation 20.Nc2 Nf4 21.Qg5 (21.Qh4!N Nd3 22.Re2 Nxb2 23.Nd4
with equal play is simpler), frequently occurs, but after 21…Nd3! Black has
excellent play, for example, 22.Ne3 h6 23.Qxf5 Nxe1 24.Rxe1 Qxf5 25.Nxf5
Re5 26.Bxe4 Rae8 27.Nxd6 f5 28.Nxe8 Rxe8 29.f3 fxe4 30.fxe4 b4 (Kraft-
Boldysh, corr.,2011).
20…b4!
20…exf3 is slightly weaker, for example, 21.Qxf3 Rxe1 22.Rxe1 f4.
In Almasi-Krasenkow, Malmö 1994, there followed 23.Nc2 (after
23.Bxg6 hxg6 24.Qxf4 Be5, Black has full compensation for his pawn, but
23.Bd3!?N is probably even more accurate, for example, 23…Qc5 24.Nc2 a5
25.a3 Ne5 26.Qe4 Nxd3 27.Qxd3, and White’s position is more pleasant)
23…a5 24.Rd1 Qc5 (there is the good move 24…b4!?N, for example,
25.cxb4 Bxb2 26.Qe2!? axb4 27.Nxb4 Bf6 28.Nc6 Qa6, and Black is quite
comfortable) 25.Nd4 b4 (25…Bxd4 is simpler) 26.Nf5!? bxc3 27.bxc3.
Here Black already needs a hard-to-find move 27…Kf8!?N in order, after
28.h4 Qxc3 29.h5 Qxf3 30.gxf3, to be able to play 30…Ne7! with equality.
21.cxb4 Bxb2
22.fxe4
Oddly enough, the move 22.Nc2?! followed by 22…Bc3! 23.Re2 Qc4
24.fxe4 Rxe4 25.Ref2 Re5, occurs much more frequently.
Now the correct move is 26.Qf3! (26.Qh3?! f4 is weaker, for example,
27.Na3 Qxb4 28.Bxg6 (Bologan-Filippov, Tomsk 2001) 28…hxg6!, and
Black has an advantage, but for some reason everybody takes with the f-pawn
with equal play) 26…Rae8 27.g3!N, preventing f5-f4 and preparing a2-a3.
Black has only a slight advantage.
22…Bxa3 23.Re3!
23.exf5? is bad. In Van Der Weide-Nunn, Paington 2000, there followed
23…Rxe1 24.Rxe1 Qc3 25.Rf1, and now instead of 25…Qc4?, Black obtains
a great advantage with 25…Nf8!N.
23…Bb2!
The only move that allows to hold the balance.
24.Rh3 Bf6! 25.exf5 Ne5
25…Ne7 is also playable.
26.Qh6! Nd7 27.Rg3+
In this position the correspondence game Manduch-Santos, 2009, was
drawn, as a repetition of the moves is unavoidable:
27…Kh8 28.Rh3 Kg8 29.Rg3
Let us sum up our examination of the move 15.Qh5 in the last six
chapters. As we saw, the simplest way to equalize for Black is 16…0-0!, so
White has to look for advantage in the variations 15.Nc2!? (chapter 116) and
14.Re1!? (chapter 107).
Section 8. 9.Nd5 without 9…Be7 10.Bxf6
Chapter 123
9.Nd5 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qd8 without 11.Bd3 or 11.c4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5!?
Nowadays the move 9.Nd5 occurs about three times as often as 9.Bxf6.
What are the reasons for this phenomenon given that both moves are roughly
equal in strength?
Apparently, White’s attempts to refute the Chelyabinsk Variation by
tactical means turned out to be unsuccessful (we could see it for ourselves
already), and now the first player tries to exploit certain positional drawbacks
in the black formation (for example, the d5-square, the advanced b5-pawn
that may be hit with a2-a4 or c2-c4, etc.).
I also would like to note that Sveshnikov examines the move 9.Nd5 at the
end of his book and devotes about 27 pages to it. This surely seems totally
unfair to this continuation. One can even get the impression that at a certain
point Sveshnikov had become tired of writing his book (or was working
under deadline pressure), so he finished it in a hurry.
Speaking of the position in the diagram, Sveshnikov informs his readers
that “G. Timoshchenko had developed the variation 9…Qa5, but your author
always preferred the move 9…Be7.”
This declaration makes me smile slightly. Sveshnikov plays cunning here,
it is sufficient to look at my games which are given in the beginning of this
book. In 12 of them I played 9…Be7 long ago (please pay particular attention
to games 30 and 40). Curiously enough, almost all of those games are
mentioned in the Sveshnikov book…So it would be correct for him to write:
“Timoshchenko was not too lazy to develop both moves, while I have always
analyzed only 9…Be7.”
9…Qa5+
I have analyzed this move rather seriously and employed it in several

games. Later, when I had become Garry Kasparov’s coach, we even
considered possibility of using it in the 1985 match. That did not happen, but
later Garry used to play it often in his clock simuls.
It is interesting to note that in the section “Practical Examples” of the
Sveshnikov book, he calls the variation 9…Qa5+ dubious as early as the
comments to game 18 (Beliavsky-van der Wiel) and puts an appropriate mark
to it. Admittedly, in his comments to the opening of this game, Sveshnikov
commits three serious blunders literally within the space of two moves, but
we will speak of that in chapter 126.
Objectively, the variation 9…Qa5+ leads to a small edge for White (after
11…b4!?), but, if desired, Black can provoke crazy complications with 11…
Nxe4. True, those complications are liable to magnify White’s advantage
even more.
The move 9…Be6?! is pointless: after the usual 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.c3 Bg7
12.Nc2 f5 13.exf5 Bxf5, it turns out that Black has simply lost a tempo in
comparison with normal variations. Another option, 10.c4, is playable; see,
for example, game 2 in the beginning of this book.
10.Bd2!
The variation 10.Qd2 Qxd2+ 11.Bxd2 Nxd5 12.exd5 Ne7 13.c4 bxc4
14.Bxc4 Bb7 is completely unpromising for White.
The move 10.c3 is also useless because of 10…Nxe4! (after 10…Nxd5
11.exd5 Ne7 12.Nc2 or 12.Bd3, White has a small advantage), for example,
11.Be3 Rb8 12.Nc2 Qd8!? 13.a4 Be7, etc.
10…Qd8 11.Nxf6+?!
It is common knowledge that the variation with 9…Qa5 is frequently
employed in games between friends in order to make a quick draw, so in
practice White’s usual move in this position is 11.Bg5, repeating the position.
But if Black is aggressively inclined and gives check on a5 either to sound
out the opponent’s mood or to provoke him to an attempt of refuting this
check, for example, through 11.c4, then he can transpose back to the main
variation after 11…Be7.
Second in popularity is the move 11.Nxf6+!, and we are going to examine
it in this chapter. The stronger moves 11.Bd3 and 11.c4 will be explored in
the following chapters.
In Sveshnikov’s book, a curious situation arises after the move 11.Be3.
He fails to notice that the position he investigates has already been examined
by him on the pages 33-34 with the move order 7.Be3 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 (in
my book it is discussed in chapter 8) and he starts to analyze it anew – and,
curiously enough, with different results. For example, after 11…Rb8, he puts
a question mark to the move 12.g3, while in the earlier case this move
obtained a rather positive evaluation from him as “a more modern attempt.”
11…Qxf6
After 11…gxf6?! 12.c4, the best chance for Black is 12…Nd4!?N, but it
is also insufficient for equality.
12.Bd3
Another very popular move, 12.c4, is slightly weaker, as after 12…Qg6!,
it is already White who has to worry about equalizing. Now:
(a) The usual reply after 13.cxb5 is 13…Qxe4 14.Be3 Nd4, but it is better
for White to play 14.Qe2!. Thus, correct is 13…Nd4! immediately. Now after
14.f3?! Be7!, the game transposes to a line in the 13.f3 variation which is
favorable for Black (we will discuss it below), so White has to play 14.Be3
Qxe4, and Black obtains a well-known, good position. Then there usually
follows 15.Qd3 d5, and in this position Black has a small advantage both
after 16.Qxe4 Bb4+!N and 16.0-0-0 Qxd3!N, for example, 17.Bxd3 Ne6
18.Rhe1 f6, etc.
(b) The more usual move is 13.f3!? which is usually met with 13…Be7.
Now the best move for White is 14.g3!; the best reply to it is 14…h5!N
with a small advantage for Black.
But the most typical continuation for White is 14.cxb5?!. Sveshnikov also
regards this move as the main one; however, after the not-so-popular reply
14…Nd4!, Black’s advantage becomes real.
We will look at 14…Nd4! later. Now let us examine the most common
move 14…Bh4+? which Sveshnikov also regards as the main continuation. It
leads only to equal play after 15.g3 Bxg3+ 16.hxg3+ Qxg3+ 17.Ke2 Nd4+
18.Kd3!, for example, 18…Bg4?? 19.Be1!, and White’s position is won, or
18…Nxf3 19.Be3! with even chances. I would like to note that the move
18.Ke3? noted by Sveshnikov and employed practically in every game, leads,
after 18…f5, to Black’s advantage, for example, 19.exf5 Nxf5+!, etc.
After 14…Nd4!, there usually follows 15.Be3 0-0 16.Bxd4 exd4. Then in
Anand-Hergott, Salonika 1984, there was 17.Qd2 (after 17.Qxd4 d5!, Black
also has an advantage) 17…d5! 18.Bd3, and now 18…Bh4+!N leads to a
solid advantage for Black, e.g., 19.g3 Bg5 20.Qe2 Re8! 21.0-0 dxe4 22.fxe4
(22.Bxe4? Bf5 is even worse, for example, 23.Nc2 d3! 24.Qxd3 Rxe4
25.fxe4 Bxe4) 22…Be3 23.Kh1 axb5 24.Nxb5 Bb7, etc.
12…Qg6!
Sveshnikov believes that here the main move is 12…d5? (his sign is
different, namely “!?”), but this leads to White’s advantage after 13.exd5 Nb4
(13…Bxa3 14.bxa3 Ne7 15.Bb4! is also in White’s favor) 14.Be4 Qh4
15.Qf3 (15.Qe2 is also fine). Here Black has a choice of three options.
(a) Sveshnikov writes that “15…Bc5!? is worth attention,” as “game 16
of the match Karpov-Kasparov, Moscow 1985, springs to my mind quite
automatically.”
Well, the knowledge of the classic heritage is certainly commendable, but

still, after 16.g3! Qh3 17.Qc3! Bd6 18.Qb3, Black can resign with a clear
consciousness, for example, 18…Bf5 19.Bxf5 Qxf5 20.0-0-0N 20…Qe4
21.Bc3 0-0 22.Rhe1 Qg4 23.h3, etc.
(b) 15…Bg4 (Sveshnikov’s main move) 16.Qe3! (Sveshnikov regards
16.Qg3?! as the main move, but it leads only to a small edge for White) is
playable.
In view of the threats d5-d6 and c2-c3 Black should play 16…Rd8. Now I
bring to your attention the beginning of the main analytical variation: 17.h3!
f5!N (17…Nxd5? is weak: 18.g3! Qh5 19.hxg4 Qxh1+ 20.Bxh1 Nxe3
21.Bc6+! Ke7 22.Bxe3, and White’s position is won) 18.g3! Qh6! 19.Qxh6
gxh6 20.hxg4 fxe4 21.Bxh6 Rxd5 22.Rd1!, and White has a great advantage.
(c) But the best move here is 15…Bd6!N, although White still retains
serious advantage.
13.0-0 Be7
Sveshnikov holds that this move is insufficient, but I cannot agree with
him again. My concrete proof will follow just below.
14.c4
This move occurs in clear majority of the games, and this is quite right.
14…Bg4!
Although this strong move has been known since 1985, Sveshnikov says
nothing about it, and his proof of the “insufficiency” of the move 13…Be7 is
the line 14…Nd4 15.Kh1 0-0 16.cxb5 d5 17.Re1 Bxa3 18.bxa3 axb5 19.Bc3.
Of course, such an argument cannot convince anybody; first, because the
resulting position is level after 19…Rd8!N.
Second, instead of 19.Bc3, it is better to play 19.Bb4! with a small edge.
Third, there is no need to be hasty with the capture on a3 but begin with
taking on b5 – 17…axb5 – with equal play.
Fourth, instead of 16.cxb5, the correct move is 16.Be3! with a small
advantage.
And, fifth and finally, instead of 14…Nd4?!, it is better to play 14…Bg4!
with equality.
15.Be2
This move occurs in the majority of games, but I think that this is a slight
slip-up. To equal play leads 15.f3! Bh3 16.Rf2 Bh4 17.Bf1!? (17.Re2?! is
weaker because of 17…Nd4, for example, 18.Kh1!? Bd7 19.cxb5 axb5 20.g3
Bg5! 21.Rf2 h5 22.Nc2 Ne6, and Black has a slight advantage). Then
possible is 17…Bxf2 18.Kxf2 b4 19.Nc2 Bd7 20.Nxb4 0-0 21.Kg1!N with
even chances.
15…Bh3 16.Bf3 Nd4 17.Bc3 Nxf3
17…b4?! (Tiviakov-Reinderman, Rotterdam 200) is weaker.
18.Qxf3 Bd7
18…Bg4!?N is no worse, for example, 19.Qd3 d5 20.cxb5 dxe4 21.Qg3
f6, etc.
19.cxb5 axb5 20.Nc2 Bc6 21.Rfe1 0-0 22.Nb4 Bb7 23.a3 and Black has
a very slight advantage.
Chapter 124
9.Nd5 Qa5 10.Bd2 Qd8 11.Bd3
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Qa5 10.Bd2 Qd8 11.Bd3!?
This is a solid continuation. White simply defends his pawn on e4 and

develops his bishop.
11…Nxd5
Black chooses this move much more often than any other one, but we are
going to see that it leads to White’s advantage, so there are compelling
reasons to suppose that it is not the best. According to my analysis at the time
I was writing this book, I can suggest two moves that are considered slightly
better than 11…Nxd5 and are roughly equal in strength.
Let us begin with 11…Rb8!?. The idea is, after 12.c4 Nxd5 13.exd5, to
retreat comfortably with the knight to d4 without sacrificing the b5-pawn in
the process.
The move 11…Nd4!?N deserves no less attention. On c2-c3 the knight
withdraws to e6, from where it can later move to c5; and after 12.c4 Nxd5
13.exd5, Black is at the very least able to transpose to the above-mentioned
position with 13…Rb8. The relative drawback of both those moves is that the
resulting positions are less sharp than in the main variation.
12.exd5 Ne7
Occasionally, there occurs 12…Nd4, on which possible is 13.c3 Nf5
14.0-0 g6 15.c4!? (or 15.Nc2!?N with an advantage).
13.c4
The variation 13.0-0 g6 14.c4 Bg7 15.cxb5 leads to a transposition of
moves. (D)
13…g6!
13…bxc4? is poor because of 14.Nxc4, for example, 14…Ng6 15.Ba5
Qg5 16.Nb6 Nf4 17.Nxa8 Nxg2+ 18.Kf1 Bh3 19.Qb3!N, and White wins.
14.cxb5 Bg7
This is the most usual move. Other moves have also been tried, but
usually, after both sides castle, they all lead to a mere transposition of moves.
15.0-0!
15.b6?!, Nisipeanu-Reinderman, Wijk aan Zee 2000, is not so good. The
game continued as follows: 15…Qxb6 (15…0-0!?) 16.Nc4 Qb8 17.Qa4+
Bd7 18.Qa5 0-0 19.Bb4 (19.Nb6!?N) 19…Bb5 20.Bxd6 Qb7 with sharp play.
15…0-0
16.Bc4!?
One of the two best continuations. White’s other options are:
(a) 16.Bb4?! is played both frequently and successfully, but this move
throws away the advantage after 16…Nxd5! (usually Black would choose
16…a5?!, but after 17.Bd2!N he has to resign himself to a worse position, for
example, 17…Bb7 18.Bc4 Nxd5?! 19.Bxd5 Bxd5 20.Bxa5 Qxa5 21.Qxd5).
Then possible is 17.Be4 Nxb4 18.Bxa8 d5 19.Qd2 Qe7!N 20.b6 Be6 21.b7
e4, and in this position the game is level.
(b) 16.bxa6 is slightly better. In A.Sokolov-Nataf, Besanson 2006, there
was 16…Bxa6 17.Bxa6 Rxa6 18.Nb5! Nxd5 19.a4. Then a series of mutual
inaccuracies followed: 19…Qd7?! (19…e4!N with very slight White
advantage is better) 20.b3?! (20.Rc1!N is stronger) 20…Re8?! (after 20…
Rc6!N, White stands slightly better) 21.Rc1, and White’s chances are better.
(c) The continuation 16.Qb3!? is roughly as strong as the move in the
main line. For example, 16…Rb8 17.Nc2 e4 (or 17…axb5 18.Nb4 with an
advantage for White) 18.Bc4!N, and White stands better.
16…e4!?
Usually Black plays 16…f5, but after 17.bxa6 Bxa6 18.Nb5!, White’s
superiority is indisputable.
17.Qc2 Nf5 18.Rfe1!?
18.Bc3!? Bxc3 19.Qxc3 Re8 20.Rfe1 with a transposition to the main
variation is playable. Then there may follow 18…Re8!?N19.Bc3 Bxc3
20.Qxc3 Re5 21.bxa6 Bxa6 22.Bxa6 Rxa6 23.h3 and White’s position is
better.
Chapter 125
9.Nd5 Qa5 10.Bd2 Qd8 11.c4 without 11…Nxe4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qd8 11.c4!? (D)
This continuation is more ambitious than 11.Bd3 which was examined in

the previous chapter. Precise play is required from Black, the more so
because the official theory, including Sveshnikov’s book, does not point out
any method of this precise play, and in the main variation Black obtains a
difficult position.
11…b4!?
I believe that this move is no worse than 11…Nxe4 which occurs in three
games out of four (this move will be examined in the next chapter).
An interesting situation concerning the evaluation of the move 11…b4!?
occurs in the Sveshnikov’s book. First, he informs us on page 196 that this
move is bad and puts a question mark to it, and then, in the comments to the
game Beliavskyvan der Wiel on page 240, he declares that it is worth
attention. So what should readers believe?
11…Nxd5 is also playable.
White takes with the e-pawn: 12.exd5! (it seems interesting that after
12.cxd5 Nd4 13.Bd3 Be7 14.0-0 0-0 15.Be3, the game transposes to one of
the main variations of the 4…e5 system; in this position White’s advantage is
slightly less than after taking with the e-pawn) 12…Nd4 13.cxb5 Be7 (this
move occurs almost in every game, but I believe that 13…g6!?N is more
accurate) 14.Bd3! (this is better that the usual move 14.bxa6) 14…0-0 15.0-0,
and Black seems to have no useful moves, for example, 15…Bb7 16.bxa6,
and now 16…Bxa6 leads to the loss of a tempo, and 16…Bxd5? is bad
because of 17.Be3.
The move 11…Nd4 is an absolute rarity; after 12.cxb5 Nxd5 13.exd5, a
position from the variation we have just examined may arise.
Let us return to the move 11…b4!?
12.Nc2
12.Nxf6+ throws away half of the advantage. After 12…Qxf6 13.Nc2
Qg6, White should play 14.Ne3!N (all the other moves squander the other
half of White’s superiority, for example, 14.f3 Rb8 15.Ne3 Be7 16.Bd3 Bh4+
17.g3 Bg5, and the game is level). Then possible is 14…Qxe4 15.Be2 Nd4
16.Bxb4, and White has a small advantage.
12…Nxe4
12…a5 runs into an unpleasant retort 13.Bg5, for example, 13…Be7
14.Nxe7 Qxe7, and the game transposes to a variation from chapter 127 that
is favorable for White.
13.Ncxb4
Now Black is at crossroads. He has three moves with very close

evaluations.
13…Bb7
Apparently, the weakest of them is 13…Nxb4. Then possible is 14.Bxb4
Rb8 (after 14…Nf6 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Be2, White’s advantage is doubtless)
15.Qa4+!N 15…Qd7 16.Qa5 Qa7!? (16…f5 17.Be2 is in White’s favor)
17.c5! Nxc5 (on 17…Be7 it is possible to reply 18.Bb5+ Kf8 19.Be2 with an
advantage) 18.Nc7+ Kd7 19.Nd5, and White has more than sufficient
compensation for his pawn; for example, 19…Ne4?! (19…Be7 is better)
20.0-0-0! Nxf2?? 21.Qa4+ Ke6 22.Bc4, and White wins.
13…Bd7 leads to calmer play with an advantage for White. There may
follow 14.Be2!? Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Nd4 16.Nc2!?N Nxe2 17.Qxe2 Be7 (17…
g6?! is met with 18.Qf3) 18.0-0 0-0 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7 20.Rfd1 Rab8 21.b3 Bc6
22.Ne3, and White’s chances are better.
14.Qa4!N
In practice there has occurred only 14.Nxc6 Bxc6 15.Be3 Rb8 16.b4 Be7.
Then possible is 17.Bd3 Nf6 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.a3!? (or 19.b5 axb5 20.cxb5
Bxg2 21.Rg1 Qb7 22.a4 Bf3 23.Qb3 Ng4 with equal play, Makowski-Turati,
corr 2009) 19…Qb7 (it is better to refrain from taking the pawn – 19…
Bxg2?! 20.Rg1 – and if 20…Qb7, then 21.Be2!, for example, 21…0-0? 22.f3
Bh3 23.Qxd6 Ne8 24.Qxe5, and White’s position is won) 20.f3 0-0 21.0-0
d5. White’s position is slightly better, but in the correspondence game
Freeman-Turati, 2009, a draw was agreed after 22.Re1. 22.c5!?N is worth
attention.
14…Nxd2 15.Nxc6 Qd7 16.Qa5!
The variation 16.Nb6 Bxc6 17.Nxd7 Bxa4 18.Nb6 Rd8 19.Nxa4 Nxf1
20.Rxf1 d5 hardly looks promising.
16…Rc8 17.Qxd2
The naive 17.Nb6? Qxc6 18.Nxc8? loses to 18…Nxf1.
17…Rxc6 18.Bd3 Be7 19.0-0 f5
On 19…0-0, possible is 20.Bf5, for example, 20…Qd8 21.Qd3 g6
22.Be4, etc.
20.Nxe7 Qxe7 21.Bxf5 Rxc4 22.Rae1 In this position White’s chances
are better.
Chapter 126
9.Nd5 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qd8 11.c4 Nxe4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qd8 11.c4 Nxe4
As already noted, in practice this move clearly occurs much more

frequently than any other one. This is understandable, as it opens the way to
wild complications that the current official theory is still unable to evaluate
correctly.
It is essential that the main (according to the official theory) variation
contains several serious errors – and literally repeats every mistake
committed by Sveshnikov in his book. Such is the influence of the expert’s
authority for you!
I had to put a great deal of thought into the form of presenting the
material in this chapter. I could simply cite a variation consisting of the
moves that I consider to be the best, but then it would be difficult to point out
all the errors of the official theory. So I decided to quote the main variation
according to Sveshnikov and to examine all his mistakes in detail.
12.cxb5 Be6
My first experiments in the variation 9…Qa5+ took place at the end of
1973 in Tbilisi, where I participated in the USSR Cup. Regretfully, those
turned out to be the last ones as well because even then my opponents never
played either 11.Bd3 or 11.c4, but unanimously chose 11.Bg5, repeating the
position. So I had either to agree to a draw or to return to the usual variations
after 11…Be7.
In those first two games I tested the move 12…Ne7? which is rightly
considered weak now. In the first game against Adrian Mikhalchishin, I
counted on the surprise effect, but my opponent either played excellently or
turned out to be prepared better than I, and after 13.Be3! Rb8 14.Bc4 Qa5+?
15.b4! Qxa3 16.Bc1 Nc3 17.Qd2 Qa4 18.Bb3 Nexd5 19.Bxa4 Nxa4 20.Qxd5
axb5 21.Be3, Black’s position was hopeless.
In the second game, against Petrushin, I improved the variation with the
move 14…Be6, but after 15.0-0! axb5 16.Nxb5 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Nxd5
18.Qxd5 Nf6 19.Qc4 Be7 20.Nc7+ Kf8 21.Rfd1!, there arose a position with
a great advantage for White. I admit I even managed to win the game, but lost
my desire to continue experimenting with the move 12…Ne7?.
13.Bc4
13.Nc3?! is weak. In the game from a clock simul, Fishbein-Kasparov,
New York 1988, Black simply took on d2 with 13…Nxd2. Then there was
14.Qxd2 Nd4 15.bxa6 Be7 16.Bd3 0-0 17.0-0 d5 18.Nc2, and here, instead of
18…Nxc2, leading to an equal game, Black could have played 18…Bg5N
This is the first critical position for the evaluation of the move 11…Nxe4.
In the overwhelming majority of games there follows 13…Ne7?! which
markedly worsens Black’s position.
But Black has other moves as well. Let us examine them.
(a) Sveshnikov writes: “The move 13…Na5!? leads to unclear
consequences.
For example, 14.b6 Nxc4 15.Nc7+ Ke7 16.Nxc4 Bxc4 17.Rc1 Be6 18.b7
Rb8 19.Ba5, etc.” Let us check this “analysis” beginning from the end. First,
it turns out that the resulting position after 19…Qd7N is completely hopeless
for White. Then it becomes clear that, instead of the losing move 18.b7??,
White has a simple winning one, 18.Nxa8N.
And then it dawns on us that, instead of the previous losing move 17…
Be6??, it would be healthier to play 17…Nxd2!N, with certain chances for
successful defense.
Thus, we can conclude that the consequences of the move 13…Na5? are
quite clear: it brings Black to the edge of defeat. We also have to come to the
conclusion that the grandmaster’s analysis was not exactly correct.
(b) The best move in the position in the previous diagram is 13…axb5!.
This move occurred in the game Beliavsky-van der Wiel, Moscow 1982.
Sveshnikov declares it an error. In his comments to the game he writes: “All
this has been known for a long time and is weak. The position remains sharp
after 13…Na5!? or 13…Ne7!?.”
And for us this is a fine example of the erroneous long-accepted
knowledge. You already know everything about the move 13…Na5?, and
right now you are going to learn about 13…Ne7?!.
But first let us sort out the move 13…axb5!.
Then in the above-mentioned game there followed 14.Nxb5. Here Black
made a losing move, 14…Qh4??, and, after 15.Be3 Nxf2 16.Nbc7 Kd8
17.Nxe6 fxe6 18.Bb6+ Ke8 19.Nc7+ Ke7 20.Bxf2 Qxc4 21.Nxa8, his
position was hopeless.
The correct move is 14…Rc8! (note that Sveshnikov himself believes that
the move 14…Rc8 is only slightly better than 14…Qh4), for example, 15.0-0
Be7 16.Be3 0-0 17.a4!.
Sveshnikov quotes this variation with a comment: “White retains the
advantage.” Yes, he does, but he does not win by force, like after 14…Qh4??.
I would like to add that both 17.Re1N and 17.a3N deserve attention.
Let us continue the variation 17.a4 just a little, as it is crucial for the
evaluation on the move 11…Nxe4: 17…Nb4!? 18.Bb6 Qd7 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7
20.Bxe6 fxe6 (20…Qxe6? is bad because of 21.Nc7! Qe7 22.Qb3) 21.f3 Nf6
22.Qxd6 Qxd6 23.Nxd6 Rc6 24.Ba5! Nd3 25.Ne4 Nxb2 26.Rfb1 Nd3, and
White has a small advantage in the ending.
Let us return to the move 13…Ne7?!.
14.Be3!
14.0-0? squanders the entire advantage. In the game Leko-San Segundo,
Moscow 1994, there followed 14…Bxd5 15.Bxd5 Nxd5 16.Ba5 Ndc3!
17.Bxc3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Be7 (after 18…axb5N, the game is equal. 18…d5
19.Qb3 Bxa3 20.Qxa3 axb5 21.Qc5 Rc8 22.Qxb5+ Qd7 23.Qb4 f6 is often
seen, with even chances.) 19.Qb3, and now the simplest continuation is 19…
axb5!N with equal play.
This is the second critical position of the variation 11…Nxe4. In full
concordance with Sveshnikov’s instructions, they have been playing 14…
Rc8? for many years. The only reason for this is that the expert regards this
move as correct and the move 14…Qa5+ as dubious. The idea of rethinking
what was written many years ago on the basis of three wrongly evaluated
games never occurs even to good players somehow. We will deal with those
mistakes by Sveshnikov a little later, and now let us examine the queen
move.
After 14…Qa5+!, (D)
Sveshnikov opines that the main move is 15.Ke2 followed by 15…Rc8

16.Qd3! Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Nc5 18.Bxc5 Rxc5 19.Bb3 d5 20.Rhc1, and “White’s
advantage is obvious, Kruppa-Vyzmanavin, Irkutsk 1986.”
As usual, I have some comments. Instead of 19…d5?, much better is
19…Ng6!, for example, 20.g3 Be7 21.Rhc1 e4!N.
Instead of 19.Bb3?, the correct move is 19.Bb7!N with a serious
advantage.
Instead of 17…Nc5?, Black should have played 17…Nxd5!N, for
example, 18.Qxd5 Qxa3!, and White has only a slight advantage.
Instead of 16…Bxd5?!, it is better to play 16…Nc5!N, and now it is
already Black who has a small advantage, for example, 17.Bxc5 Rxc5 18.b4
Nxd5! 19.Bxd5 Qxb4 20.Rhb1 Qg4+ 21.Bf3 e4 22.Qxe4 Qxe4+ 23.Bxe4
axb5, etc.
An exclamation point to the move 16.Qd3 must be exchanged for a
question mark; the correct move is 16.Nb6! with clear advantage to White.
The move 15…Rc8 is inaccurate. The correct one is 15…Nc5!N, and
White’s advantage is not so great; moreover, 16.b4?! runs into 16…Nxd5!.
Finally, instead of 15.Ke2, more precise is 15.Kf1! (this will become
clear from the following analysis).
Let us sum up the results of our investigation. If I am not mistaken,
within the range from move 15 to move 19 there are seven errors. And on the
basis of such a variation Mr. Sveshnikov, without any analysis, draws a firm
conclusion that the move 14…Qa5 is dubious! But in chess, intuition is by no
means always the best helper. In the position in the diagram the correct move
is 15.Kf1!.
Sveshnikov points out the variation 15…Rc8 16.Bb6 Qd2 17.Nc7+
Rxc7!, but even in this short line there are errors.
Instead of the losing move 17.Nc7+, slightly better is 17.Nxe7!?, and
instead of 16.Bb6?, which leads to a great advantage for Black, the correct
move is 16.Nb6! with a great superiority for White, for example, 16…Rc7!N
17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Nbc4 Qb4 19.Qb3 Nd5 20.Qxb4 Nxb4 21.b6, etc.
In my opinion, Black should meet 15.Kf1! with 15…Rb8!?. As the
position after 15…Rb8 is important for the evaluation of 14…Qa5!, I will
quote the main variation of the analysis: 16.Rc1 Nf5 17.Qd3 Nc5! 18.Bxc5
dxc5 19.b6!N Bd6 20.Nc7+ Bxc7 21.Bxe6 fxe6 22.Nc4! Qb5 23.bxc7 Rc8
24.a4! (24.g4 is useless because of 24…Qc6), and White has a clear
advantage.
This is the third critical position.
15.Bb6!
This is exactly the move that emphasizes the seriousness of White’s
advantage; all the rest are notably weaker.
Let us explore the move 15.Nxe7?.
(a) 15…Rxc4? is poor because of the simple reply 16.Nxc4!N with a
great advantage for White (but not 16.Nxc6? as in Korneev-Barrientos,
Binissalem 2004).
(b) In Smeets-van der Wiel, Hilversum 2006, there was 15…Qa5? 16.Bd2
Nxd2 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Nxc8 d5, and now the correct move is 19.Qg4!N with
a great advantage for White.
(c) It is best to play 15…Bxe7, for example, 16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.0-0 0-0
(17…axb5!?N) 18.Qg4 d5 19.Qxe6+ Kh8 20.Rad1!N, and White does have
an advantage, but it is much smaller than after 15.Bb6!.
The most frequent move in the position in the latest diagram is 15.Nb6?,
on which there usually follows 15…d5 (perhaps 15…Rxc4!? is better). (D)
Here there is a parting of the ways. To equal play leads 16.Nxc8? Nxc8,
and then not 17.0-0? (Gobet-Kasparov, simul, Zurich 1987), but
17.Bd3!, for example, 17…Qa5+ 18.Kf1 Bxa3 19.bxa3 Ncd6! 20.f3 d4, etc.
The correct move is 16.Qa4! dxc4 17.bxa6+! (typically, here 17.Rd1?
Nd5 18.bxa6+ Bd7 19.Nxd7 Bb4+ 20.Kf1 Qxd7 21.Qxd7 Kxd7 22.Rxd5+
Ke6 is played, and chances are even) 17…Nc6 18.0-0 Bxa3 19.Nxc8 Qxc8
20.Qxa3 f5 21.f3, and White has an obvious advantage.
15…Qd7 16.bxa6 Rxc4 17.a7! Bxd5 18.Nxc4 Ba8
This is the usual continuation. Neither 18…Bc6, which is met by 19.f3,
nor 18…Qb5, which runs into the strong retort 19.Qb3!, solves Black’s
problems.
19.f3 d5 20.fxe4!
Here White almost always plays 20.Nxe5? – and throws away most of his
advantage after 20…Qe6.
20…dxc4 21.Qxd7+ Kxd7 22.0-0-0+ Ke6!N
It is easy to verify that 22…Kc6? loses to 23.Rd8 Kxb6 24.Rxa8 Nc6
25.Rf1 f6 26.Rd1N Nd4 27.Kb1, and then Rc1.
23.Rd8 g6 24.Be3 Bxe4 25.a8Q Bxa8 26.Rxa8 and though Black keeps
on struggling while being an exchange down, his position is very difficult.
This chapter turned out to be long because there were many
improvements to official theory; but now you have a more or less correct
concept of the move 11…Nxe4.
Chapter 127
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Qxe7 11.c4 without 11…0-0 or 10…Nxe7
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 (D)
Objectively, the move 9…Be7 is slightly better than 9…Qa5.

10.Nxe7
With this pawn structure, the white knight on d5 is stronger than black
dark-square bishop, so exchanging the bishop for the knight alleviates
Black’s defense. We can also be more specific and say that this exchange
throws away the advantage.
10…Qxe7!?
For some chess-related reasons that are incomprehensible to me, this
logical move is roughly five times rarer than knight capture (which will be
investigated in the following chapters); for strong players this figure is even
more than ten times. Curiously, before 1974, they would take on e7
practically only with the queen, and with good results at that.
Well, in such a situation we cannot but lay blame at the Sveshnikov’s
door once again: in his book he is rather reserved about taking with the
queen, but the capture with the knight is awarded an exclamation point,
because the author has played several successful games in this variation. But
if we look at the matter objectively, we will notice that he was successful
only against noticeably weaker opponents, and the opening had not been
really important in those games.
I have played three games with 10…Nxe7 myself hoping to experience
the depth and every benefit of this move first-hand. Well, I failed.
Both in this chapter and in the next one, I will attempt to prove that taking
with queen secures simple equality for Black, still leaving him a chance to
play for a win. (D)
11.c4!?
The only way to struggle for an advantage for White; every other move
fails to create any difficulties for Black whatsoever.
On 11.Bd3, Black continues 11…h6 and waits for the opponent’s
reaction. Typically, there follows 12.Bh4 (12.Bxf6 Qxf6 leads to equality)
12…0-0 with comfortable play for Black, and after 13.c3 Rd8!N, the engine
already declares that Black’s position is better.
11.c3 occurs rather often. The most precise reply to it is 11…h6!. Then
possible is 12.Bxf6 (the move 12.Bh4?! occurred in Kotkov-Timoshchenko,
Tyumen 1967, game 12 in the beginning of the book) 12…Qxf6 13.Nc2 0-0
14.Ne3 Bb7 15.Be2 (15.Nd5 is not dangerous because of 15…Qg6N, for
example, 16.Qf3 Rae8, planning Ne7 or even Nb8) 15…Ne7, and, with a
transposition of moves, the position from Jahr-Timoshchenko, Hastings
1966/67 has arisen. See game 10 in the beginning of the book.
11…Nd4
This move is the most frequent one in the database of strong players. The
natural 11…b4?! leads to White’s advantage. In the database this move
occurs in the clear majority of the games. The reason for this is simple: most
of the players have neglected to analyze this position before a game and
because of it are unwilling to sacrifice the b5-pawn. After 12.Nc2 0-0 (12…
h6 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Nxb4 is in White’s favor), White has the strong 13.Ne3!.
Then possible is 13…Be6 (or 13…Qe6 14.f3! h6 15.Bh4) 14.Bxf6!N Qxf6
15.Qxd6 Nd4 16.Qxb4 Rad8 17.Qc3! Qh4 18.Bd3, and White has the
advantage.
13.f3, as in the rapid game Carlsen-Radjabov, Porto Vecchio 2007, is
slightly weaker. After 13…h6 14.Bh4 a5 15.Be2 Be6 16.0-0 Rfd8, White has
only a slight advantage. But more accurate is 16…Rac8!N with the idea of
taking on c4 after 17.Qd3?, on e4 – after 17.Qd2?, and on 17.b3, to play 17…
a4.
On the other hand, the rare move 11…0-0! deserves most serious
attention. In the next chapter we are going to find out that it leads to equal
play.
Let us return to the move 11…Nd4.
12.Nc2
12.cxb5, the move most frequently played, leads to an equal game.
Sveshnikov regards it as poor based on the incorrect evaluation of two of his
own games that he played as a child. I have already said that when you write
a book at a mature age, it is desirable to check those games.
Then there usually follows 12…Qb7 13.f3 (after 13.Bd3!N 13…Nxe4
14.Be3, chances are equal; on 14…Nf5? there follows 15.Qa4! Nxe3
16.bxa6+ Ke7 17.axb7 Nxg2+ 18.Kf1 Nd2+ 19.Ke2 Rxa4 20.bxc8Q Rxc8
21.Kxd2, and White is a piece up) 13…Nxe4 14.Be3! (14.fxe4? is bad: 14…
Qxe4+ 15.Kd2, and now not 15…Bg4? pointed out by Sveshnikov, but 15…
0-0! with a great advantage for Black) 14…Nf5.
In Socko-Tregubov, Paris 2004, there followed 15.Bg1 (Sveshnikov
considers only 15.Qa4?! which, after 15…0-0 16.Qxe4 Qxe4 17.fxe4 Nxe3,
leads to Black’s advantage) 15…Nf6 16.Nc4?! (16.bxa6N Qxb2 17.Nb5
leads to equal play) 16…0-0. Here White made the losing 17.Nb6?, after
which Black should have replied 17…e4!N with crushing attack.
12.Bd3! brings only the slightest advantage to White. The best reply
seems to be 12…0-0 (after 12…Qb7 13.f3 Be6 14.0-0 b4 15.Nc2 Nxc2
16.Qxc2 Nd7, White has a small advantage, Gufeld-Dvoretsky, Kutaisi 1978)
13.0-0 Rb8!?N.
12…Nxc2+
Let us look at the move 12…Qb7? that Sveshnikov regards as the main
one. There follows 13.Nxd4, and now Black has two options:
(a) Sveshnikov believes that 13…Qxe4+?? is playable and insists that
after this move, White should play 14.Be3? because “14.Ne2 bxc4? is risky”
(all symbols are mine). I cannot quite comprehend what the risk is, as after
15.Qxd6N, it is time for Black to resign. It appears that in this variation three
half-moves out of four are serious blunders, and, to crown it all, the
evaluation of the resulting position is absolutely wrong.
(b) The correct move is 13…Nxe4, for example, 14.Nf3 bxc4.
In Sveshnikov’s opinion, there arises a very sharp position with mutual
chances. As proof, he cites two games of his own. In Angantysson-
Sveshnikov, Tallinn 1968, there followed 15.Be2 (both 15.Rc1!?N and
15.Bc1!?, pointed out by Sveshnikov himself, are stronger. In Sambursky-
Sveshnikov, Novosibirsk 1971, there was 15.Be3 Qxb2?, and now after
16.Rc1!N White’s position is won, as Black cannot play 16…c3? because of
17.Qa4. This means that the latter game clearly does not corroborate the
“mutual chances” statement.) 15…Qxb2 16.0-0 Be6 17.Qa4+ Qb5 18.Qa3.
Sveshnikov believes that in this position “Black can count on an

advantage after 18…f6!.” Unflagging optimism is the strongest feature of
Evgeny Sveshnikov’s creative work. Indeed, Black can count on an
advantage, and on a great one at that, but who is going to let him obtain it?
Unfortunately for Black, after the move 19.Be3N, it is White who has a
small advantage, for example, 19…d5 20.Nd2 Nxd2 21.Bxd2 Rb8 22.f4, etc.
Let us return to the move 12…Nxc2. In Socko-Nataf, Calvia 2004, there
followed 13.Qxc2 Bd7 14.cxb5 axb5 15.Bd3 h6 16.Bd2. An interesting
novelty is 16.Bh4!?.
16…0-0 17.0-0 Rfc8 and Black has excellent play.
Let me remind you that it is White who has the better chances after
12.Bd3.
Chapter 128
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Qxe7 11.c4 0-0
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Qxe7 11.c4 0-0!
As already said in the previous chapter, this rare move leads to equality.
Black is prepared to sacrifice a pawn for the initiative.
12.cxb5
A natural continuation. 12.Bd3 does not create any problems for Black as
he can take the pawn with 12…bxc4.
As is the case in similar positions, it is disadvantageous for Black to play
12…b4?!, as it leads to fixation of the center and a small edge for White.
After 12…Nd4, there arises a position from the previous chapter. Evidently,
12…Nb4N is also sufficient for equal play.
In the correspondence game Rebord-Guzy, 2007, there was 13.Nxc4 h6
14.Bh4 g5 (and here Black has a good move, 14…Nb4!?N, with the idea of
15.a3 d5) 15.Bg3 Be6 16.0-0 Rac8 (once again, 16…Nb4!?N leads to an
equal game, for example, 17.a3 Nxd3 18.Qxd3 Bxc4 19.Qxc4 Rfc8 20.Qd3
Rc6, etc.) 17.b3 Nb4! 18.Ne3 a5 19.Re1 Qa7 20.Nc4 Nxd3 21.Qxd3 Bxc4
22.bxc4 Rc6 23.Rac1 Kg7 and Black’s position is preferable.
12…Nd4
13.Bd3
In this position various continuations have been tested.
(a) 13.b6?! is weak because of 13…Qb7! with a small edge for Black, for
example, 14.Bd3!N, etc.
(b) On 13.bxa6?! possible is 13…h6! 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Bd3! (perhaps
15.Nc2 is slightly worse because of 15…d5!N, for example, 16.exd5 Qg6
17.Ne3 Bxa6 18.Bxa6 Qxa6, and the white king is stuck in the center) 15…
Qg6!N 16.0-0 Bh3 17.g3 Rfc8!, and Black has a small advantage.
(c) The best reply to 13.Nc2 is 13…Ne6!, for example, 14.Bxf6 Qxf6.
Now possible is 15.bxa6 (grabbing the pawn is a bad idea: 15.Qxd6? Rd8
16.Qc6 Bb7! 17.Qxb7 Nc5 18.Qc6 Qf4 19.Be2 Qd2+ 20.Kf1 Qxc2, and
Black’s advantage is obvious.) 15…Qh4!. The game is equal. Then 16.Qd5
Bxa6 17.Bxa6 Rxa6 18.Ne3 Rb8 19.0-0 Rxb2 20.Rab1 Rxb1 21.Rxb1 g6
22.g3 Qf6 23.Ng4 Qg5 24.Ne3 Qd8, and in the correspondence game
Petrocola-Brewer, 2009, a draw was agreed.
13…Ne6!?N
In Perez-Illescas, Leon 2006, Black played 13…axb5. There followed
14.Nxb5 Nxb5 15.Bxf6 (15.Bxb5? is bad because of 15…Qb7) 15…Qxf6
16.Bxb5, and now, instead of 16…Qg6?!, there is a stronger move 16…
Bb7!N, and Black practically has full compensation for his pawn, for
example, 17.Qg4 h5! 18.Qxh5 Bxe4 19.0-0 Rfc8 20.a4 (or 20.Rfc1 Qf4!)
20…Rc2 21.b4 Rb2, etc.
14.Bxf6
On 14.Be3 there is a playable continuation 14…d5 15.exd5 Nxd5, and
now 16.Bxh7+? Kxh7 17.Qxd5 is bad because of 17…Nf4! with great
advantage to Black. On 14.Bh4, there is the good reply 14…g5! 15.Bg3 Nc5.
14…Qxf6 15.0-0 Nf4 16.Re1!
16…Qg6!?
16…axb5 17.Nxb5 Qg6 18.Qf3 leads to a transposition of moves. 16…
Rd8!? also seems to lead to equal play.
For example, 17.Bc4 h5! 18.bxa6 Qg6 19.g3 (or 19.Qf3 h4 20.b4 Bg4
21.Qe3 Bc8 22.g3 Bxa6 23.Bxa6 Rxa6). I analyzed this position rather
seriously. According to my preliminary results, Black has equal chances after
19…h4, after 19…Nh3+, after 19…Bxa6 and even after 19…Rxa6!?.
Here are some possible lines: 19…Rxa6!? 20.Bxa6 Bxa6 21.Qf3 d5
22.Rad1 Rb8 23.b3 (23.exd5? Rxb2 24.d6 does not work because of 24…
Nh3+ 25.Kg2 Nxf2 26.Qxf2 Bb7+! 27.Kg1 Rxf2 28.Kxf2 Qf5+ 29.Ke3
Qe4+ 30.Kd2 Qb4+ 31.Kc2 Bc6!, and Black wins) 23…dxe4 24.Qe3
(24.Qxe4? Nh3+ 25.Kg2 Bb7) 24…Nh3+ 25.Kg2 Qg4 26.Nc4! Bxc4
27.bxc4 Ng5, and Black’s initiative fully compensates for his loss of the
exchange.
Let us return to the move 16…Qg6!?.
In the position in the diagram, the game is even. The main line of the
analysis is:
17.Qf3 axb5
17…h5 and 17…d5 are also playable.
18.Nxb5!
18.Bxb5?! f5 19.exf5 Bxf5 is in favor of Black.
18…d5! 19.Nc7 Ra5! 20.a4 Rc5 21.Nb5 Ba6!
Then possible is to continue 22.b4 Bxb5! 23.bxc5, but not 23.axb5??
Rc3, and Black wins.
23…Bxd3 24.exd5 Qf6 25.g3 Nh3+ 26.Kg2 Bf5 and in this sharp
position, the chances are equal.
I hope that in this chapter I have managed to convince you that the move
10…Qxe7 is not so bad.
Chapter 129
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bd3 without 11…d5 or 11.Bxf6
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7
As I have already said, Sveshnikov has the highest regard for this move
and puts an exclamation point to it. To quote him, “the knight takes the
important points d5 and f5 under its control. The doubling of the pawns in the
f-file (after Bg5xf6) is not particularly dangerous, as Black will soon
undermine the opponent’s center with either f6-f5 or d6-d5.”
But if we stop to think a little, then the move 10…Nxe7 does not appear
so very wonderful. First, the knight on c6 is already developed, and it is
usually disadvantageous to make a second move with such a piece in the
opening. It is more logical to develop the queen.
Second, as we have seen from two previous chapters, the knight has a
more glorious route leading to the central d4-square. Third, the break d6-d5
does not deliver Black from doubled pawns on the f-file. Fourth, Black
frequently has to play with his king on f8, which is not to everyone’s liking
even if the position is objectively level. So let us refrain from evaluating this
capture with the knight for the moment and first see how the game develops.
11.Bd3
Here we can see another mystery of the Chelyabinsk Variation; this
bishop move to d3 is not the strongest one. It is second in popularity in the
database, but for some unknown reason, it is preferred by good players. In
my opinion, the main move here is 11.Bxf6, and we are going to examine it
in chapters 131-134.
Let us have a look at the other options.
(a) 11.Qf3 is absolutely toothless because of 11…Bg4!, for example,
12.Qg3 Be6 13.Bd3 Ng6 14.0-0 h6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.c4 (Gross-Babula, Zlin
1998). Here instead of unsophisticated, though typical, move 16…b4?!, much
stronger and more interesting is 16…h5!N. The possible is 17.cxb5 Nf4, and
if 18.bxa6?, then 18…h4 19.Qf3 Qg6!, and Black has a strong initiative on
the kingside that defines his great advantage.
(b) The move 11.f3 does not create any problems for Black at all. After
11…d5 12.exd5 Nfxd5! 13.c4 bxc4 14.Bxc4! f6 15.Bd2 Be6, play is equal.
(c) For advocates of the move 10…Nxe7 who are eager for sharp play,
Black may face an unpleasant reply, 11.Qd3.
There usually follows 11…Bb7 (the position after 11…d5 12.exd5 Bf5
13.Qb3 Qxd5 14.Qxd5 Nexd5 15.c4 bxc4 16.Bxc4 0-0 17.0-0, Anand-Leko,
Linares 2005, is also rather boring) 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.0-0-0 d5 14.exd5 Qxd5
15.Qxd5, and it all came down to an equal ending which is similar to the one
we are going to look at in chapter 132. However, there the white queen is on
d2 and Black at least has a relatively advantageous move, 13…Bxe4, while
here he is does not even have this opportunity. This position occurred, for
example, in the game Morozevich-Smirin, Biel 2003.
Let us return to the move 11.Bd3.
11…Bb7
Another mystery. This is clearly the most popular move both with strong
players and with mere mortals; however, it is also not the strongest one. As
usual, the reason for this is not hard to discover – Sveshnikov advocates
playing in this fashion. In the current chapter and in the following ones we
will try to sort out the flaws in his doctrine. In the next chapter we are going
to examine a stronger move, 11…d5!.
The move 11…Nd7?!, which Carlsen has employed twice, is insufficient
for equality. In Morozevich-Carlsen, Moscow 2006, there was 12.c4 b4
13.Nc2 a5 14.Ne3 f6 15.Bh4 0-0 16.0-0 Nc5 17.f3 Be6, and White has a
small advantage.
The game Naiditsch-Carlsen, Wijk aan Zee 2006, developed in the
following fashion: 12.0-0!? Nc5 13.b4 Nxd3 14.Qxd3 f6?! (here interesting is
14…d5!?N, for example, 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.exd5 Qxb4 17.c4 with a small
advantage to White) 15.Be3 d5 16.Bc5 dxe4?! (16…d4!N is more accurate)
17.Qxe4 Qd5 18.Qe2 Bb7, and here, instead of 19.f3?!, the correct move is
19.f4! with a serious White’s advantage.
12.Qe2!
This continuation first occurred in the game Petrushin-Timoshchenko,
Baku 1977. It poses certain problems for Black. 12.Bxf6 is weaker; the
position after 12…gxf6 will be examined, with a transposition of moves, in
chapter 131.
12…Nd7
Black also has other options.
(a) In Sveshnikov’s opinion, “12…d5!? deserves attention here.”
Actually, after 13.exd5!, White obtains an advantage, so the sign to the move
12…d5 should be changed to the opposite one.
(b) In Anand-Ivanchuk, Linares 1992, Black continued 12…0-0. White
failed to exploit his opponent’s inaccuracy and played 13.0-0?! (both
13.Bxf6! gxf6 14.c3N and 14.0-0-0 with a small advantage are stronger).
After 13…Ng6 14.c4 h6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.cxb5 Nf4 17.Qf3 axb5 18.Nxb5
Qg6 19.Rfd1 Nxd3 20.Qxd3 Bxe4 21.Qg3 Rfb8 22.Nxd6 Rxb2 23.Nc4, a
draw was agreed.
(c) The continuation 12…Ng6!? appears to be no worse than the move in
the main line.
White has an interesting possibility, 13.Bxf6!? (the usual move is 13.c4,

on which possible is 13…b4 14.Nc2 h6!N. 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Nxb4?! is weak
because of 16…Nf4 17.Qf3 Qg6, and White has to struggle for equality), on
which Black has the reply 13…Qa5+!N, defending the b5-pawn with tempo
(on 13…Qxf6 possible is 14.Bxb5+!), and after 14.Qd2+ Qxd2 15.Kxd2 gxf6
16.c4 bxc4 17.Nxc4, White has a slightly better ending.
13.c4!
Petrushin played exactly in this fashion, and this is the correct
continuation. But I had won the game, and because of it the move 13.c4! was
incorrectly evaluated by annotators, including in Sveshnikov’s book. He
quotes the fragment of the game from move 14 to move 25 without a single
comment, and then writes that “the advantage passes to Black.” To think of
it, if the advantage passes to Black, then probably White had it previously?
Instead of looking into all this, Sveshnikov literally sings praises about
the move 13.b4?! as in the game Chiburdanidze-Zaichik, Baku 1979, and
puts an exclamation point to it.
A great many chessplayers have fallen under the influence of this
undeservingly high estimate, and the move 13.b4?! occurs in most games,
especially those played by weaker players (true, they never get anything out
of it). Strong grandmasters still prefer the continuation 13.c4.
Sveshnikov cites a quotation in his book: “This difficult positional move
reveals the dark side of the black position, namely the weakness of his
queenside pawns.” (V. Zak)
It looks like that is what accounts for the mystery of the undeserved
popularity of move 11.Bd3: after all, everyone is eager to make a difficult
positional move 13.b4 and to reveal the dark side of the opponent’s position!
I beg your pardon, but, first, in my opinion, it is somewhat indecent for a
grandmaster and an expert on a variation to quote a weaker player who is not
an expert on the variation at all. Such an approach is understandable when the
author is a first-category player, but readers expect his own thoughts,
preferably original ones, from a grandmaster.
Second, the quotation itself contains an incorrect evaluation of the
position which shows that the original author is not that conversant with the
Chelyabinsk Variation. Never mind the queenside. Black often sacrifices it
for the sake of the initiative on the opposite flank; more than that, here the
white king has not yet castled!
The only way out for us is to explore in detail the game Chiburdanidze-
Zaichik which Sveshnikov regards as the main one in the variation 11.Bd3.
So White played 13.b4?! in this game. (D)
Then there followed 13…f6 14.Bd2. Sveshnikov supposes that in this

position “possible is 14…d5 15.exd5 Bxd5 16.0-0 0-0 17.c4 bxc4 18.Nxc4
Nb6 with mutual chances.”
But both his evaluation of the resulting position (after 19.Ne3 Bf7
20.Rfd1 Qc8 21.Be4, White has an advantage) and his evaluation of the
move 14…d5 are incorrect. More than that, the variation itself contains
errors.
In the game there was 14…f5!15.c4! (15.exf5?! is weaker because of
15…0-0, for example, 16.c4?! Bxg2!N 17.Rg1 e4! with an advantage for
Black, or 16.0-0 d5! 17.c3 Nxf5, and Black has a small advantage).
Here the correct continuation is 15…fxe4! 16.Bxe4 d5!N, for example,
17.cxd5 Nf6 18.0-0! Nxe4 19.Qxe4 Ng6 20.Rfd1 Bxd5 21.Qf5 Qf6 22.Qxf6
gxf6, and Black’s position looks slightly more pleasant. The hyped-up pawn
move on b4 clearly falls short of its goal.
In the game Black played 15…Nf6?!, and after 16.f3 fxe4 17.fxe4 Nc6
18.cxb5 Nd4 19.Qe3 axb5 20.Nxb5 0-0, White obtained the advantage. Then
there followed 21.0-0 Nxb5 22.Bxb5 Bxe4 23.a4 d5, and after mutual errors,
White won.
Well, it is high time for us to stop, but I cannot help showing you the
following Sveshnikov’s analysis: “21.Nc3?! Ng4 22.Qg5 Nf2 23.Bc4+ Kh8
24.Qxd8 Raxd8 25.0-0 Nxe4 26.Nxe4 Bxe4, and Black’s position is active.”
Let me begin with the final position. No particular activity is anywhere in
sight; more than that, after 27.Rxf8+N Rxf8 28.a4 d5 29.Bf1, Black is on the
edge of defeat. Instead of the almost losing move 24…Raxd8??, Black is able
to maintain equality with 24…Nc2+!N 25.Ke2 Raxd8.
Instead of 23…Kh8??, Black wins quickly after 23…d5!N 24.Qxd8
Nc2+! 25.Ke2 Nd4+ 26.Ke1 Raxd8 (24.0-0? is impossible because of 24…
Nf3+!, and Black wins his opponent’s queen).
Instead of the losing move 22.Qg5??, White should play 22.Qg3!N, and
Black is left with only a very slight advantage.
Finally, instead of 21…Ng4?, the correct move is 21…Qb6!N, preventing
castling with 22…Ng4, while on 22.h3 there follows 22…Rc8! (with a threat
of capture on c3) 23.Rc1 Nh5, and Black has a great advantage.
In the light of the above, the move 21.Nc3 must be evaluated not as
dubious, but as downright bad. Thus, within the range of six moves of
Sveshnikov’s analysis, we find four blunders and two serious errors in the
evaluation of a position.
But let us return to the move 13.c4!.
13…b4 14.Nc2 a5
15.f3!
A minor improvement in comparison with the usual continuation 15.0-0.
Both White and Black need to set up their minor pieces first. White, above
all, has to defend his e4-pawn and to carry out Ne3, and the best square for
his dark-square bishop is f2.
In Morozevich-Radjabov, Kemer 2007, there followed 15.0-0 Nc5! (in
the stem game Petrushin-Timoshchenko, Baku 1977, both opponents were
not that accurate: 15…0-0 This move allowed White to obtain a healthy piece
formation, for example, 16.f3! Nc5 17.Ne3 f6 18.Bh4 Ng6 19.Bg3, and the
game transposed to the main variation of the chapter. However, he played
16.Rad1?!, preparing the bishop retreat to c1. Then there followed 16…Nc5
17.f3 f6 18.Bc1 Qb6 19.Ne3 a4 20.Bb1 Rac8 21.Kh1 b3 22.a3 Ba6, and
chances are even.) 16.f3 Qc7 (it was worth considering 16…f6!?N) 17.Qd2
0-0 18.Ne3 b3 19.Rfd1 f6 20.Bh4 a4 21.a3 Nxd3 (to trade his strong knight
for the relatively bad bishop does not look like a great idea) 22.Qxd3 Rfd8
23.Rac1 Rac8. Black was not entirely convincing, and now White could have
underscored his clear advantage by moving 24.Be1!N with the idea of Bb4.
15.Ne3!?N Nc5 16.f3 leads to a transposition of moves.
15…Nc5 16.Ne3!
A novelty. Previously 16.0-0 had been played, with a transposition to the
15.0-0 variation.
Now possible is 16…f6 17.Bh4 Ng6 18.Bg3 0-0 19.0-0 Qb6 20.Qd2 Nf4
21.Bc2 Nfe6 22.Bf2 and White has a small advantage.
Chapter 130
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bd3 d5
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bd3 d5! (D)
It has already been mentioned that this move occurs more rarely than
11…Bb7 which was examined in the previous chapter. Nevertheless, it is the
correct rejoinder to 11.Bd3. This is exactly the move that prevents blockade
of the center, which is favorable for White, after c2-c4 and allows the a3-
knight to be brought into the action with a tempo.
12.exd5
The position after 12.Bxf6 gxf6, with s transposition of moves, is going to

be explored in the next chapter.
12…Qxd5!
12…Nfxd5?! is clearly weaker because of 13.Qh5! (White obtains
practically nothing after 13.c4 bxc4 14.Nxc4 f6 15.Bd2 0-0, Yudasin-
Yakovich, Moscow 1992). In Yemelin-Kharlov, Kazan 1995, there followed
13…Qa5+ (13…g6!?N looks slightly more accurate, for example, 14.Qh6?!
f6 15.Bd2 Kf7 or 14.Qh4 0-0 with the idea of f7-f6. Now the best move is
14.Qf3!) 14.c3 Qa4 15.Bxe7?! (and here it is better to play 15.0-0!N) 15…
Nf4! 16.Qf3 Nxd3+ 17.Qxd3 Kxe7 18.Qd5 Be6 19.Qxe5 Rhd8 20.Qc5 Ke8
21.0-0 Rac8 22.Qh5 h6, and White’s advantage is minimal.
13.Qd2
Strong players for all practical purposes rejected 13.f3 about fifteen years
ago because of 13…e4! (curiously, Sveshnikov puts a question mark to this
strong move. We will find out the reason for this two moves later.) 14.Bxf6
exd3 15.Bxe7.
Then possible is:

(a) Sveshnikov considers only 15…Kxe7? 16.Qxd3 Qxd3 17.cxd3 with
an extra pawn for White in the ending; however, Black has solid
compensation for it.
(b) 15…Qe5+ 16.Kf2 Qd4+ 17.Kg3 Qe5+ 18.Kf2 (18.f4?! is weaker;
Black should reply not with 18…Qe3+?!, Lie-Berg, Kragero 2007, but with
18…Qxe7!N, transposing to the position from the variation 15…Qe6) 18…
Qd4+ 19.Kg3 with perpetual check.
(c) 15…Qe6+! (Sveshnikov has overlooked both intermediate checks),
and then 16.Kf2 Qb6+ 17.Kg3 Qc7+! (17…Qg6+ 18.Kf2 Qb6 leads to
repetition of moves).
Here in the correspondence game Piccoli-Pierce, 2009, there was 18.Kf2
Qa7 19.Kg3 Qxe7 20.Qxd3 0-0 21.Rhe1 Qc7+ 22.Kf2 Be6, and Black has a
small advantage as a result of the poor position of the a3-knight and White’s
problems with the defense of the a2-pawn.
The novelty 18.f4 is useless.
18…Qxe7 (the simple 18…Kxe7 19.Qxd3 Be6 is also good) 19.Re1 Be6,
and now White cannot play 20.f5? because of 20…Qd6+, for example,
21.Kf2 (or 21.Kh3 d2 22.Re2 0-0-0 23.fxe6 Rhe8! 24.exf7 Qh6+ 25.Kg3
Qg6+ 26.Kf2 Qxf7+ 27.Kg1 Qd5!, and Black wins) 21…0-0 22.fxe6? Qd4+
23.Kg3 d2, and after 24.Re2 g5! 25.Qxd2 Qh4+, the white king has to
undertake a journey along the third rank – 26.Kf3 fxe6+ 27.Ke3 Qf4+ 28.Kd3
Rfd8+ 29.Kc3 Rac8+ 30.Kb3 Qa4#.
17.Kf1!? seems slightly more precise, for example, 17…Kxe7 18.Qe1+!
Be6 19.Qb4+, and now not 19…Qd6?! 20.Qxd6+ Kxd6 21.cxd3 Rac8 22.Kf2
with equal play (Yemelin-Bochkarev, St. Petersburg 1998) but 19…Ke8!N
20.cxd3 Rd8 21.Ke2 f6 22.Rac1 Rd5 25.Rhd1 Kf7, and, in spite of being a
pawn down, Black’s position is preferable.
Let us return to the move 13.Qd2.
13…Ne4!
Playable is 13…Bf5 14.Bxf5 Qxd2+ 15.Bxd2 Nxf5, and after 16.0-0-0!?
N, White has a very slight edge in the endgame.
13…0-0 14.Bxf6 leads to equal play (14.0-0-0?! is weaker because of
14…Qe6!N with a small advantage for Black) 14…gxf6 15.0-0-0!N
(anything else is weaker) 15…Qxa2 16.Qh6 f5 17.Rhe1, and in this sharp
position chances are even. In Morozevich-Radjabov, Crete 2007, after 13…
Ne4!, there was…
14.Qe3 Nxg5 15.Qxg5 Qc5! 16.0-0-0 0-0 17.Rhe1 f6 18.Qe3 Qxe3+
Here an interesting novelty is 18…Qc7!?N, for example, 19.f4! Be6
20.fxe5 f5, and Black has full compensation for his pawn.
19.Rxe3 Be6 20.Be4
In the ensuing endgame Black has excellent play.
20…Rad8
It was probably better to keep the rooks on the board with 20…Ra7!?N.
21.Rxd8 Rxd8 22.b3 Kf7 23.Rd3 Rxd3 24.Bxd3 f5 25.c4 b4 26.Nc2
Here Black played 26…e4, after which the game became level. 26…a5!N
looks slightly more accurate, as Black’s chances are slightly better.
Chapter 131
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 without 12.Qd2 and
12.c4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6
A logical continuation. White exploits drawbacks of 10…Nxe7, creating
doubled pawns on the f-file and simultaneously removing the attack on the
e4-pawn.
True, all those achievements are sufficient only for equal play because
White has already squandered the advantage with his previous move.
11…gxf6
If we compare the position in the diagram with the one from the popular
variation 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6 gxf6, then it turns out that in the
latter position the white pawn is already on c3, i.e., White has already made a
useful move and obtained a small advantage as a result of it. And here White
plays without this important tempo, so chances are even. Apparently, this is
the secret of the popularity of 10…Nxe7.
In the position in the diagram White has tried various approaches.
12.Bd3
We are going to look at this move now.The next three chapters will be
devoted to 12.Qd2 and 12.c4. 12.Qf3 occurs quite frequently. This move is
especially popular with players who are not very strong. Black nearly always
replies with 12…f5 (interesting is 12…Rg8!?N 13.Qxf6 Be6 with full
compensation for the pawn). Then there usually follows 13.exf5 Bxf5 14.Bd3
Be6 15.0-0 (more cautious is 15.c3!, for example, 15…d5 16.Qe3 e4 17.Be2
with equal play) 15…d5! (this is more precise than the usual 15…0-0)
16.Rad1 Qc7 17.Qf6 0-0-0, and Black has excellent play (McDonald-
Chandler, Plymouth 1989).
12…d5!?
After this move Black has very good play. It is already time for White to
be on the alert, but theory does not show him any clear way to equality.
To equalize, it is sufficient to play 12…Bb7. In Naiditsch-Sutovsky,
Dortmund 2005, White chose the risky 13.Qh5 (after 13.c4, the transposes to
the 12.c4 line, which we will examine in the following chapters, but 13.Qe2
d5 14.0-0-0!? also deserves attention).
Now 13…d5 (this is typical play, but it seems that 13…Rg8! is more
precise) 14.0-0-0 d4?! (after 14…Qb6!, Black has excellent play) 15.Nb1
Qa5 16.a3 b4 17.Qh6?! (17.f4!N is better, as now White has a small
advantage) 17…Ng6 18.g3 Rb8 19.f4 b3? (both 19…exf4N 20.gxf4 Ke7 and
19…bxa3 20.Nxa3 Qb4 lead to an equal game) 20.c4! dxc3? (the correct
move is 20…Qc5!N with the idea of 21.f5 Qf8) 21.Nxc3 Rc8 22.f5 Ne7
23.Qxf6 Rxc3+ 24.Kb1 Rg8 25.bxc3, and White won.
13.c3!?
Here the most frequent move is 13.exd5, but I do not think that it is the
best. After the usual 13…Qxd5 14.Qe2, the computer has found 14…Rb8!N
(the most common move is 14…Bb7). The best reply for White is 15.f3!, and
then there follows the unexpected 15…Kf8! (the king heads for g7; at the
same time, 15…0-0 allows the possibility of 16.Nb1 Qd4 17.Nc3 b4 18.Qe4!,
and Black has to exchange queens in unfavorable circumstances). Then
possible is 16.Nb1!? Qd4! 17.Nc3 (after 17.c3 Qb6, Black has a small edge)
17…b4 18.Nd1 Kg7 19.Qf2 Rd8 20.Qxd4 Rxd4, and Black has certain
advantage in the endgame.
Another popular move is 13.0-0, on which there usually follows 13…Bb7
(13…Rg8!? is also good) 14.Qe1. In Sveshnikov’s opinion, the simplest
continuation now is 14…dxe4 (with an exclamation point) 15.Bxe4 Bxe4
16.Qxe4 Qd5 (another exclamation point). Well, after 17.Qxd5 Nxd5
18.c4!N 18…bxc4 19.Nxc4, White has a minimal advantage in the endgame.
I would like to note that, instead of 14…dxe4?!, it is better to play either
14…Rg8!? or 14…Qb6!? with a slight advantage for Black in both cases.
13…Rg8!?
A rare move that poses certain problems for White. The game Kharlov-
Smirnov, Ramenskoe 2006, was drawn after 13…Bb7 14.Qe2 Qb6 15.0-0-0
0-0-0 16.f3 Rd6 17.Nc2 h5 18.Ne3 Kb8 19.Rd2 Rhd8.
14.Nc2!
A novelty and the only way for White to hold the balance. Then possible
is:
14…Rxg2
14…Bb7 also leads to equality.
15.exd5 Qxd5 16.Ne3 Qc6 17.Nxg2 Qxg2 18.Rf1 and in this sharp
position chances are even.
Chapter 132
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Qd2
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Qd2 (D)
This continuation is considered quite solid and occurs rather often. In

many variations the game transposes to an equal ending, which is a certain
plus
for the first player if he is playing for simplification against a strong

opponent.
However, we will see that in the main variation Black has a small
improvement that allows him to gain a certain initiative. Besides, I am going
to show that the evaluation of the important game Mikhalchishin-
Timoshchenko in official theory is incorrect. All the above-mentioned greatly
lessens the value of the move 12.Qd2.
12…Bb713.0-0-0
This is both the most frequent and most successful move, but I believe
that 13.f3!? is more accurate, for example, 13…d5 14.exd5 Qxd5 (an equal
position also arises both after 14…Nxd5 15.c4 Nf4!?N and after 14…Bxd5
15.c4 bxc4 16.Bxc4 0-0!?N) 15.Qxd5 Nxd5 16.c4 bxc4 17.Nxc4, and
chances are even.
13…Bxe4!?
Here the most frequent move is 13…d5. Sveshnikov regards it as the
main one. After 14.exd5, Black has tried the captures of both the bishop and
queen.
(a) Sveshnikov’s main move here is 14…Qxd5. It occurs in the majority

of games but leads to a cheerless endgame after 15.Qxd5 Nxd5 16.c4.
The game Radulski-Cheparinov, Sofia 2004, developed as follows: 16…
bxc4 17.Nxc4 Ke7 18.Na5 Rac8+ 19.Kb1 Rhd8 20.Nxb7 Nc3+ 21.bxc3
Rxd1+ 22.Kc2 Ra1 23.Kb2 Rxf1, and the opponents agreed to a draw.
(b) It is much more interesting to keep queens on the board with 14…
Bxd5!?.
This move has frequently occurred in the early games, but then
Sveshnikov undeservedly condemned this continuation on the basis of the
incorrect evaluation of the action in the game Mikhalchshin-Timoshchenko,
Rostov-on-Don 1976.
In this game there followed 15.c4 bxc4 16.Bxc4 Qc8 17.Qc3 Bxg2
18.Rhg1 Qc6 (after 18…Rg8!?N, Black has excellent play) 19.Kb1?! Bf3
20.Rd2 Rg8 21.Re1 Rg2 (and here Black obtains even greater advantage with
21…Kf8!?N) 22.Qb4 Bh5 23.Nb5.
The right move in this position is 23…a5!N, driving the queen off the b4-
square, from which it defends the rook d2 and controls the diagonal a3-f8,
and Black has a solid advantage (in the time-trouble Black lost literally in
two moves – 23…Bg6+? 24.Ka1 Kf8? 25.Bd5, and White won the
exchange), for example, 24.Qa3 Kf8 25.Bd5 Qd7!, and White cannot take
either black rook because his own on d2 is undefended.
Certainly, in this sharp game White could have been more precise as well,
but the move 14…Bxd5!? deserves to be examined separately anyway, and I
am going to speak about it in more detail when the opportunity arises.
14.Qxd6
14…Nc6!
A novelty that slightly changes the evaluation of a well-known position.
White faces a choice of whether to transpose to somewhat worse ending or to
play out a complex position in which his opponent possesses a small
initiative.
At first, queens were always exchanged, 14…Qxd6 15.Rxd6 Nc6, but
here White can capture the pawn with 16.Rxf6! (I have already written about
the move 16.f3 in the comments to game 35 in the beginning of the book).
Then possible is 16…Ke7 17.Rh6 Rac8 18.Rh4 Bg6 19.Bd3 Bxd3 20.cxd3
Nd4+, and Black has full compensation for his pawn – but nothing more
(Hunt-Maze, Cannes 2006).
15.Qc5!?
Playable is 15.f3 Qxd6 16.Rxd6, and the game transposes to the 14…
Qxd6 variation in which the ending is slightly better for Black. 15.Qxd8+ is
also slightly favorable for Black.
After forced 15…Qe7, there may follow 16.Qe3 Bg6 17.h4 h5!?
17…Rc8 18.h5 Bf5 19.Bd3 Be6 20.Nb1 leads to an even game. After
17…h5!?, Black has a minimal advantage because of the poor position of the
knight on a3. The following continuation is then possible: 18.Bd3 Rc8
19.c3!? Qe6, and White needs to make several more precise moves to fully
equalize.
Chapter 133
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.c4 without 12…f5
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.c4
This is the most popular continuation, especially among strong players.

White wants to solve the problem of activating his a3-knight. In the main part
of the Sveshnikov’s book, the move 12.c4 is regarded as normal, but in the
comments to the illustrative game 19 it is already marked as dubious.
Perhaps, this is the most democratic approach: every reader is able to choose
an evaluation according to his/her tastes.
12…Bb7
This move is also the most popular one in the database and is clearly
preferred by strong players. Let us have a look at other options. The
continuation 12…f5!? will be examined in the next chapter. The move 12…
0-0 leads to the position from the 12…f5 variation after 13.cxb5 f5 14.exf5
Nxf5.
The old move 12…Qa5+ occurs very frequently, though strong players
stopped playing this way about ten years ago. After 13.Qd2 Qxd2+ 14.Kxd2,
there almost always follows the continuation “according to Sveshnikov”:
14…b4 (I think that 14…bxc4!? 15.Nxc4 0-0 is slightly better), and after
15.Nc2, White has a small advantage (though Sveshnikov believes that the
endgame is equal), for example, 15…a5 (15…Rb8 is no better, for example,
16.Bd3 f5 17.exf5 Bxf5 18.Bxf5 Nxf5 19.f4!?N or 19.b3!?) 16.a3!.
Then in Vokarev-Kharlov, Sochi 2004, there was 16…bxa3 (16…b3! is
more accurate) 17.Rxa3 Rb8 18.Kc3 Nc6 19.Bd3 Bd7 20.Ne3 0-0 21.Bc2,
and White stands better.
13.Bd3
13.cxb5, which in the database is slightly even more popular that the
continuation in the main line, is no weaker, but strong players have not been
playing like this for years. The probable reason for this is that Sveshnikov
evaluates this move as dubious.
Then possible is 13…Bxe4 14.bxa6 (here 14.Qa4 is already risky: after
14…d5 15.bxa6+ Kf8, White is probably still able to hold the balance, but
only with 16.b4!, but these lines are highly complex) 14…0-0 15.Be2, and
now the correct move is 15…Ng6! with equal chances.
13…Rg8
(a) The continuation 13…bxc4 which Sveshnikov considers the main one,
occurs very often. After the practically forced moves 14.Nxc4 d5 15.exd5
Qxd5, White has a choice of various continuations.
(1) The most popular move is Sveshnikov’s main one 16.Nd6+?!. Then
there follows a sequence of forced moves, 16…Kf8 17.Be4 Qa5+ 18.Qd2
Qxd2+ 19.Kxd2 Rd8 20.Bxb7 Rxd6+. Here the best continuation is 21.Kc2,
and Black has a very slight edge both after 21…Rb6 and 21…Nf5.
(2) 16.Qa4+ leads to equal play. After 16…Kf8 17.0-0-0, there is a
parting of the ways.
In the rapid game van Wely-Anand, Monte Carlo 2004, there was 17…
Qxg2. After 18.Rhg1 Qxf2 19.Qb4, Black made an error by choosing 19…
Bf3? instead of the correct move 19…Qf4+. There followed 20.Rgf1 Qg2
21.Ne3 Qh3 22.Bf5 Qh5 23.Rd7 Re8, and now, instead of 24.Bc2?!, White
wins with 24.Rxe7!N Rxe7 25.Bd7!.
In the rapid game Zhang-Shirov, Corsica 2004, Black chose 17…Qc5;
there followed 18.f3 Kg7 (interesting is 18…a5!?N) 19.Qa5, and instead of
19…Rac8, which leads to a small edge for White, Black could have played
19…Qxa5!N 20.Nxa5 Rac8+, for example, 21.Kb1 Bd5 22.b3 Rc5 23.Nc4 a5
with equal play.
(3) The strongest move is the rare 16.Qb3!, for example, 16…0-0 17.0-0-
0 Qb5!N (the well-known 17…e4? is bad because of 18.Bc2 Qg5+ 19.Qe3 or
19.Kb1!N) 18.Nd6 Qxb3 19.axb3 Bd5 20.Bc4 Be6 21.f4!, and White’s
advantage is very slight.
(b) The relatively rare move 13…f5!? is also sufficient for equality.
For example, 14.exf5 Rg8 (14…e4?! is weak is because of 15.Bxe4!

Bxe4 16.Qd4, for example, 16…Qa5+ 17.Kf1! Bxg2+ 18.Kxg2 Rg8 19.Kf1,
and White has an advantage) 15.cxb5 (after 15.Rg1 e4 16.Bc2, there is the
good reply 16…d5!N, and Black has a slight initiative).
In the rapid game Volokitin-Shomoev, Sochi 2004, there followed 15…
Rxg2 16.bxa6?! (16.Nc4!N with equal play is better) 16…Qb6! 17.Qd2? (a
blunder; 17.Qe2!N with good defensive opportunities is much stronger, for
example, 17…Bxa6 18.Bxa6 Rxa6 19.Nc4, etc.) 17…Bxa6 18.Nc4? (now
White’s position is hopeless; it was better to play 18.Bxa6N) 18…Bxc4
19.Bxc4 Rg4! 20.b3?, and now 20…Qb7! 21.0-0-0 Rc8 wins.
Let us return to the move 13…Rg8.
14.0-0
The popular 14.cxb5?! is weak. In Zhang Pengxiang-Ni Hua, Tiayuan
2005, there followed 14…Rxg2 15.bxa6 Bxa6 16.Bxa6 Rxa6 17.Nc4
(17.Qd3 Qb6! is also clearly favorable for Black) 17…f5 (17…Qa8! is also
fine, for example, 18.Qd3 Ng6 19.0-0-0 Rxa2!N, and Black has the
advantage) 18.exf5 Nxf5 (18…Qa8!?N is good here as well) 19.Qd5, and
now, instead of the faint-hearted 19…Qa8?!, the correct move is 19…Qh4!,
and Black obviously has the upper hand after both 19.Qxg2 Qxc4 and 20.0-0-
0 Kf8.
14.Rg1 is pointless. Black can play 14…bxc4 (Motylev-Shirov, Bastia
2004, but 14…f5! 15.exf5 is even better, and the game transposes to the 13…
f5 variation which we have previously investigated.
14…bxc4 15.Nxc4 d5 16.Nd2!
The move 16.exd5?, played by Kupreichik in his 1976 game against
Chekhov, is weak. Then there followed 16…Qxd5 17.f3 (after 17.Be4?
Rxg2+! 18.Kh1 Rxf2 19.Qxd5! Rxf1+ 20.Rxf1 Bxd5 21.Nd6 Kd7 22.Rxf6
Ng8 23.Bxd5 Nxf6 24.Bxa8 Kxd6, White loses a pawn) 17…Rd8 18.Rf2 e4!
19.Be2 (or 19.fxe4? Qxd3 20.Rd2 Rxg2+!) 19…exf3 20.Qxd5 Bxd5, and
Black has an advantage.
16…Ng6!?N
16…Kf8!? is also interesting. After 16…Ng6!?, there may follow
17.exd5 Nf4 18.Be4 Bxd5 19.g3 Kf8 20.Re1 Rb8 21.b3, and, though
chances are almost even, Black has still not obtained full equality.
I therefore have to remind you that Black had the opportunity to play
13…f5!?, which seems to equalize.
Chapter 134
9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.c4 f5
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.c4 f5!?
Black immediately initiates action against the center and in passing gets
rid of one of the doubled f-pawns. In the process, the knight seeks to transfer
from e7 to the more worthy d4-square, and the direct route to h4 gets opened
for the queen. The c8-bishop can either find a job for itself on the diagonal
c8-h3 or take the a6-pawn, should it appear there.
All Black has to do to obtain all those life pleasures is to sacrifice a single
pawn. Sveshnikov, carried away by his own idea of capturing the bishop on
e4, does not even mention this attractive move.
13.exf5
The variation 13.cxb5?! fxe4 14.Nc4 Nf5 is in Black’s favor, for
example, 15.Qd5? Be6 16.Qc6 Kf8 17.Rd1 Nd4 18.Qxd6 Qxd6 19.Nxd6 Rd8
20.Nxe4 Nc2+ 21.Ke2 Bc4+ 22.Kf3 Rxd1, and Black wins.
After 13.Bd3, Black can continue 13…Bb7!?, bringing the game to the
level position from the previous chapter, or play in a simpler fashion – 13…
Qa5+ – for example, 14.Qd2 Qxd2+ 15.Kxd2 fxe4 16.Bxe4 d5 (16…Rb8!?N
is also good) 17.Bxd5 Nxd5 18.cxd5 Bb7 19.Nc2 Bxd5 20.Ne3 Be6 21.Rhc1
Kd7 with excellent play.
13…Nxf5 14.cxb5
In Alekseev-Zhigalko, Baku 2013, the rare 14.Bd3 occurred. Then there
followed 14…Nd4 15.0-0 Bb7 16.f3 Qg5?! (more accurate is 16…Rg8!N
with the idea of 17.Rf2 Qb6!) 17.Kh1?! (more precise is 17.Rf2N, for
example, 17…Rg8 18.Be4! Bxe4 19.fxe4, and White has the advantage)
17…Rg8 18.Rf2 Qh4, and the opponents agreed to a draw. (D)
14…Nd4
Other moves are also possible:
(a) There frequently occurs 14…0-0 followed by 15.bxa6 Bxa6 (in the
game Volokitin-Shabalov, Calvia 2004, there was 15…Qh4!? 16.Nc2 d5?
17.Qxd5 Be6 18.Qxe5? Rad8, and Black has full
compensation for the pawns. Instead of 18.Qxe5?, the correct move is

18.Qf3!N with a solid advantage for White, and instead of 16…d5? – 16…
Rxa6!N – with excellent play for Black) 16.Bxa6 Qa5+ 17.Qd2 Qxa6 18.Qe2
(the game Socko-Radjabov, Izmir 2004, was drawn after 18.h4 Kh8 19.Qg5
Nd4 20.Qf6+, but Black could have obtained a small advantage after 19…
Ng7!?N) 18…Qa5+ 19.Qd2 Qa6 20.Qe2 Qa5+ 21.Qd2, and in Socko-
Malakhatko, Lublin 2009, a draw was agreed.
(b) The rare move 14…Rg8!? is sufficient for equality. In Milos-Ricardi,
Buenos Aires 2000, White’ reply was inaccurate, 15.Bc4?! (15.Nc2 is better),
and after 15…Bb7 16.Bd5 Qa5 17.Kf1, Black could have obtained a small
advantage with 17…Qb6!N.
Let us return to the move 14…Nd4. (D)
15.Rc1
15.bxa6 leads to an equal game. Then possible is 15…Bxa6 16.Qa4+
(16.Bxa6 is, perhaps, slightly
more accurate, for example, 16…Qa5+ 17.Qd2 Qxa6 18.Nc2 with equal
play) 16…Qd7 17.Qxd7+ Kxd7 18.Bxa6 Rxa6 19.0-0-0 Rg8 20.g3 Ne2.
Here, instead of 21.Kd2 (Degraeve-Sulava, Cannes 2005), simpler is
21.Kb1N with even chances.
15…Rg8
15…0-0 is also playable. In Socko-Parligras, Calvia 2004, there followed
16.bxa6 Bxa6 17.Bxa6 Qa5+ 18.Qd2 Qxa6 19.Nc2, and now, instead of the
text move 19…Ne6?!, Black has many moves which allow him to retain even
chances, for example, 19…h6N or 19…Rfe8N.
16.Rc3 Qh4 17.bxa6 Kf8 18.Qd2 Rg4!N
This is more accurate than 18…Rg6 which occurred in Socko-Parligras,
Athens 2004. Now possible is 19.h3 Re4+ 20.Re3 Nf5 21.Rxe4 Qxe4+
22.Qe2 Qb4+ 23.Qd2 Qe4+ with a pendulum draw.
As we see, the continuation 10.Nxe7 does not create any problems for
Black at all.
Section 9. 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 without 11.c3 0-0
Chapter 135
10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c4 without 11…b4 or 11.c3
Now we are going to examine both the continuation 11.c4, which is

currently very fashionable, and attempts to avoid the main line, 11.c3 0-0,
viz., 11…Bb7, 11…Rb8, 11…Ne7 and 11…Bg5.
All these continuations have been actively developing in recent decades. I
would like to note that Sveshnikov hardly managed to collect material
amounting to a couple of pages devoted to this subject. My own problems, as
usual, are of different nature: how to cram only the most useful information
about those opportunities into twenty chapters, from 135-154.
From what has been said, the conclusion clearly is that Sveshnikov’s
notorious declaration about his “having exhausted the variation” with his
book is once again slightly at odds with the facts.
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6!
This continuation is more logical than taking on e7 with the knight. White
keeps his strong knight on d5.
10…Bxf6 11.c4
This continuation is ambitious. Sveshnikov regards this move as dubious
and devotes less than a half-page to its examination. This strikes me as rather
strange, but there is another, even stranger, extreme.
I looked through the games of good players in the database and found out
that in the last four years the move 11.c4 had occurred in their games roughly
three times as often as the classic move 11.c3!. More than that, the success of
the move 11.c4 is significantly higher, so this may be the reason to believe
that it is exactly this move which has been behind the certain decrease in
popularity of the Chelyabinsk Variation in recent years. The time has come to
save the opening!
As I see it, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The continuation 11.c4
leads to equal play, and I will try to prove it in the following chapters. Thus,
we can call it neither dubious nor strong, much less the refutation of the
The unpretentious move 11.Be2 occurred in the game Timoshchenko-
Sveshnikov, Chelyabinsk 1965, from which the whole story had its start. This
game is examined in detail in the chapter “Historic Game” in the very
beginning of the book.
There have been attempts to bring the a3-knight into play via b1 with the
move 11.Nb1. Then possible is 11…0-0 12.a4 b4 (12…Be6!?N leads to an
equal game) 13.Bc4 Bg5 (13…Bb7, Najer-Eljanov, Ashdod 2004, is slightly
weaker) 14.Nd2 Kh8 15.0-0 f5.
In Savon-Timoshchenko, Rostov-on-Don 1976, White chose the far-
from-strongest move 16.f3 (16.Re1! with equal play is more precise), but
Black did not leave the favor unanswered, and was too hasty in his eagerness
to grab space on the kingside with 16…f4?! (the correct move is 16…Bb7!,
and if 17.exf5, then 17…Nd4, for example, 18.Ne4 Rc8, and Black has the
advantage), and after 17.c3 White has a small edge.
Let us return to the move 11.c4.
11…Nd4
The principal aim of the move 11.c4 is to force 11…b4 and to fix the
center, after which Black will attempt to outplay his opponent in a calmer
atmosphere.
Though Black sacrifices a pawn with this knight move, he also succeeds
in changing the direction of play completely. Sharp positions become
possible, so those who dislike playing with a static center may test this
continuation without taking any great chances. And if we take into account
the novelty effect, then Black’s chances are just as good as his opponent’s.
The pawn can be sacrificed with other moves as well, for example, with
11…0-0, 11…Bb7 or 11…Bg5, and after 12.cxb5 Nd4, it all boils down to a
transposition of moves. Nevertheless, 11…b4! is objectively stronger. We
will look at it in subsequent chapters.
12.cxb5
12…Be6!?
Black has other options, too.
(a) There is 12…Bg5?!, after which possible is 13.b6 0-0 14.Bc4 Bb7
15.0-0 (Ni Hua-Sulava, France 2007, but 13.b4! is appreciably stronger, for
example, 13…0-0 14.bxa6!N Rxa6 15.Nb5 with a serious advantage for
White.
(b) More often than not, Black chooses 12…0-0. For example, in the
game Ponkratov-Moiseenko, Moscow 2009, there followed 13.b6 (13.bxa6!
is stronger; the usual reply is 13…Bg5?! and then 14.h4! Bh6 15.Nc2, and
here White also has a solid advantage) 13…Bb7 14.Bc4 Rb8 15.0-0 Bg5
16.f4 (16.b3 is more solid) 16…Bf6 17.f5 Bg5 18.Kh1 Kh8 19.Qd3 Bxd5
20.Bxd5 Qxb6 21.Rab1, and White has a small advantage.
(c) Interesting complications may arise after 12…Bb7!?. Then the
possible development of the game is as follows:
(1) Playable is 13.Nc3. In the game Valerga-Ricardi, San Luis 2007, there
was 13…0-0 14.bxa6 Rxa6 15.Bxa6 Bxa6.
16.h4! (to bring the rook into play via h3) 16…Qb8 (16…Qa8!?N is
roughly equal in strength) 17.Rb1! (17.Qd2 is weaker in view of 17…Bd8!
with the idea of Ba5) 17…Bd8 (interesting is 17…Rc8!?N) 18.Nc2?! (White
retains his edge after 18.Qa4!N) 18…f5! 19.b4? (now it is Black who has an
advantage; 19.Nxd4N is better) 19…Qc8 20.Rh3 Qc4? (20…Ne6!N is
better), but eventually Black won.
(2) In Nisipeanu-Muzychuk, Wijk aan Zee 2010, there was 13.Bc4 axb5
14.Bxb5 Kf8 15.Bc4 Qa5+ 16.Qd2 Bd8 17.Qxa5 (interesting is 17.Nc3!?N)
17…Bxa5+ (17…Rxa5!?N, to prevent the white knight from getting to b5,
seems slightly more accurate) 18.Kd1 f5 19.f3 g6 20.Nb5 Nxb5 21.Bxb5 Kg7
22.Ke2, and White’s chances are better.
Let us return to the move 12…Be6. (D)
13.Bc4 axb5
13…Qa5+ is quite playable. In the correspondence game W.Fischer-
Siigur, 2009, there followed 14.Qd2 axb5?! 15.Nxb5! Bxd5 16.Qxa5 Rxa5
17.Nc7+ Kd7 18.Nxd5 Nc2+ 19.Kd2 Nxa1 20.Rxa1 Rb8 21.Kc3, and White
has an advantage.
Instead of 14…axb5?!, Black should play 14…Bd8!N; then possible is
15.bxa6 Rb8! 16.Qxa5
Bxa5+ 17.Kf1 Rxb2 18.Bb3 Bc8! 19.a7 Ba6+ 20.Bc4 Bb7 21.Bd3 Kd7
22.Nc4 Rb5 23.a4 Rc5 24.Rb1 Bxd5 25.exd5 Ra8 26.Nxa5 Rxa5 27.Rb7+
Kc8 28.Rxf7 R8xa7 29.Rxa7 Rxa7 30.Bxh7 Rxa4.
Despite White’s extra pawn, his advantage is slight, and the most
probable outcome of the game is a draw. The variation cited above is more or
less forced, and it is therefore given without comments.
14.Bxb5+ Kf8 15.Bc4 Qa5+ 16.Qd2 Bd8!
16…Qxd2 17.Kxd2+ Bg5 is slightly weaker because of 18.Kd3 f5 19.f3,
and White has an advantage (Nepomniachtchi-Popov, Dagomys 2010).
17.Qxa5 Bxa5+ 18.Kd1
After 18.Kf1?! g6, Black also has no problems whatsoever.
White has a small advantage. In Kosintseva-Muzychuk, Khanty Mansyisk

2014, there followed:
18…f5
Both 18…Rc8!?N and 18…g6!?N are as good.
19.f3
And here worth consideration is 19.exf5!?N Bxf5 20.Nb5.
19…Rc8 20.b3 (20.Ne3!N is more precise) 20…fxe4?!
Black should not have opened the f-file so soon; the correct move is 20…
g6!N.
21.fxe4 g6 22.Nc2?!
The correct continuation is 22.Rf1+!N Kg7 23.Ne3, and White has a
small advantage.
22…Bg4 23.Kc1 Be2 and Black has successfully equalized.
Chapter 136
11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 without 12…a5 or 12…0-0
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c4 b4! (D)
As already noted, this is the strongest continuation which is sufficient for

equal play. Its only drawback is that the center gets fixed, and so subsequent
play may be rather boring.
12.Nc2
The variation 12.Qa4?! Bd7 13.Nxb4? (much better is 13.Nb1!N) 13…
Nd4 14.Qd1 Rb8! 15.Qd2
Bg5 16.Qc3 Qb6 17.Nd5! (17.Nd3? is poor because of 17…Qb7 18.f3 Bh4+,
and White’s position is hopeless) 17…Qxb2 18.Qxb2 Rxb2 leads to a great
12…Rb8
Black defends the pawn on b4 and prepares the move Bg5. This
continuation is second in popularity in the database but is relatively rare with
strong players, because, in comparison with the continuation 12…0-0, the
rook move often turns out to be a mere loss of a tempo.
I would like to note that the immediate 12…Bg5?!, which Sveshnikov
considers a good move, can be met with 13.h4!, and if 13…Bxh4, then
14.Rxh4 Qxh4 15.Nc7+; thus, there is a certain sense in safeguarding the
rook against the fork. The most popular move, 12…a5, will be examined in
the next chapter.
However, in the recent years, strong players unconditionally prefer the
move 12…0-0! which we are going to discuss in chapters 138-142.
13.b3
Obviously the main move; White prevents a likely b4-b3.
13.g3 is playable: 13…0-0 (13…b3?! is still premature because of
14.axb3 Rxb3 15.Ncb4! Nd4 16.Nc6! Bg4 17.Qxg4 Nxc6 18.c5!N, and
White has an advantage) 14.b3! (now on 14.Bg2, it is already possible to
reply 14…b3! with equal play) 14…Bg5, and the game transposes to the
main variation.
In Beliavsky-Sokolov, Manila 1992, there was 13.Be2 0-0 14.0-0 Bg5
15.Qd3 a5 16.Rad1 Be6, and the game transposes to the variation that we are
going to examine in chapter 138, (there, instead of Ra8-b8, a more useful
move can be made).
13…Bg5
Attempts were made to do without this move. For example, the game
Caruana-Tregubov, Sochi 2012, continued 13…0-0 14.g3 (14.h4!? is
probably more accurate: after 14..Be6 15.g3, the game position arises) 14…
Be6 (after 14…Bg5!?, the game transposes to the main variation) 15.h4 Be7
16.Bg2 Rb7 (16…Qd7 with the idea of Bd8 is just as good) 17.0-0 Qb8
18.Qd3 Bd8 19.Rad1 Rd7 20.Kh2 a5 21.Bh3 Bb6 22.f4!. After Black’s
barely noticeable inaccuracies, White’s advantage increases. 22…Bxh3
23.Kxh3 exf4 (perhaps 23…Bc5!?N is more precise) 24.gxf4?! (more
accurate is 24.Nxb6!N Qxb6 25.gxf4 with advantage to White) 24…Bc5!
25.Nce3, and here Black could have equalized with 25…Qe8!N.
14.g3!?
After 14.Be2 0-0 15.0-0 a5 16.Qd3 Be6, the game transposes to positions
which will be examined in chapters 138 and 139.
14…0-0
15.h4!?
A very popular continuation here is 15.Bg2 followed by 15…a5 16.0-0.
Now the two principal options for Black are:
(a) 16…Ne7, which is played more often than not. Then possible is:
(1) 17.Nce3 Bxe3 18.Nxe3 Nc6 with an equal game.
(2) The move 17.h4 is slightly better, but it allows the retort 17…Nxd5!?
N, and after 18.Qxd5 Be6 19.Qd3 Be7 20.Rad1, White’s advantage is slight,
and after 17…Bh6 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 (Nakamura-van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2012),
the game transposes to the 17.Nxe7 variation.
(3) The strongest move is 17.Nxe7+!, which has always been met with
17…Qxe7 (17…Bxe7!N is slightly better, but still is insufficient for
equality).
Now the most energetic move is 18.h4!, and, after 18…Bh6, Nakamura’s
game move 19.Qd5?! is already weak as Black can simply encourage the
white queen to return home with 19…Be6!?N (on 20.Qxa5 there follows
20…Bd2!, and then Black hits the queen. In addition, 21.f3? does not work
because of 21…Bc3! or 21…Qb7! followed by 22…Ra8.
The correct continuation is 19.Qd3! Be6 20.Rfd1N Rb6 21.a3 bxa3
22.Nxa3!, and White’s chances are better.
(b) The move 16…Be6!? seems slightly more accurate, for example,
17.Qd3 Qd7 18.Rad1 Qa7 (possible is 18…Bd8!?) 19.Kh1 Bxd5!? 20.Qxd5
Qb6, and White’s advantage is very small (Bibir-Zolno, corr 2009).
15…Bh6 16.Bh3 Be6
17.Kf1!
17.Qh5, with the idea of preventing the movement of the bishop h6 after
18.Bf5, has also been seen. I can recommend the reply 17…Kh8!, vacating
the g8-square for the knight (17…Re8!? is also not bad, for example, 18.Bf5
Bxd5 19.cxd5 Nd4 20.Nxd4 exd4 21.0-0 Qf6!?N, and White is hard put to
prove his advantage), for example, 18.Bf5 Bxd5 19.cxd5 Ne7 20.Ne3 Ng8!
21.Qe2!?N (21.Qf3 g6 22.Bh3 f5!N 23.exf5 Bxe3 24.fxe3 gxf5 25.Bxf5 Nh6
26.g4 Rc8 is equal) 21…Bxe3 22.Qxe3 Ne7 23.Rc1 Nxf5 24.exf5 Qd7
25.Qe4 Qb5, and White’s advantage is at the vanishing point.
17…a5 18.Kg2 Rb7
This is another drawback of the move 12…Rb8: to play Nb8, White has
to withdraw his rook. White has a small advantage that is roughly equal to the
one in the original position.
19.Bf5
I believe that this move throws away this small edge and it is more
precise to play 19.Qe2!?N, for example, 19…Nb8 20.Rad1 Nd7 21.Ne1!, and
then the knight goes to d3.
The position after 19.Bf5 arose in the game Morozevich-Leko, San Luis
2005. Now, instead of 19…Kh8?!, Black should have played 19…g6!, for
example, 20.Bh3 f5 21.h5 Qg5!N, and it looks like White does not have an
advantage any more.
Now it is time to cast the first stone (the smallest one so far!) against the
fashionable move 11.c4. The continuation 12…Rb8 is clearly not the
strongest, but even after it, White’s advantage is no greater than in other
usual Chelyabinsk lines, for example, in the 11.c3 variation.
Chapter 137
11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 a5
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 a5
Strong players choose this move in half of the games, and in the database
it occurs even more frequently. However, this is only the consequence of the
fact that the 11.c4 variation is in the initial phase of its development, as the
move 12…a5 is not the strongest.
13.Qf3!?
It is assumed that this is just the continuation that emphasizes drawbacks
of the move 12…a5 and gives White a chance to struggle for the advantage.
After 13.Be2 0-0 or 13.g3 0-0, the game transposes to the 12…0-0 variation.
13…Be7
Other continuations also used to be tried quite often.
(a) Black’s problem is that on the natural-looking and most popular move
13…Bg5, White can continue 14.h4!.
Then possible is 14…Bh6?! (this is the usual move, but 14…Bxh4?! is
also no better in view of 15.Rxh4 Qxh4 16.Nc7+, for example, 16…Ke7
17.Nxa8 Bg4 18.Ne3! Bxf3 19.Nf5+ Kf6 20.Nxh4 Bxe4 21.Nc7! Nd4
22.Rd1!N, and White has the advantage. Black ought to acknowledge his
mistake and to withdraw with his bishop to e7 – 14…Be7) 15.g4 f6?! (it is
better to give up the pawn with 15…Bf4) 16.g5! (16.Rg1?! Morozevich-
Carlsen, Moscow Blitz 2007, is much weaker) 16…fxg5 17.Qh5+ (and here
the move 17.hxg5?, chosen by Morozevich in another game of his in the
same tournament against Shirov, is weak) 17…Kf8.
In this position, I was going to make my readers’ day with an important

novelty, 18.c5!, but while the book was being typeset, the game Safarli-
Zhigalko, Denizli 2013 appeared, in which this move was made (before only
the move 18.Bh3? had occurred, and after 18…g4 19.Bxg4 Qe8, White’s
advantage is not really that great).
Now in the game there was 18…Be6 (after 18…dxc5??, White wins
almost by force with 19.Qf3+!. Now 19…Kg8 will run into 20.Nc7!, and on
19…Ke8, the variation 20.Bb5 Bd7 21.Qh5 Kf8 22.Rg1! gxh4 23.Bxc6 Bxc6
24.Qf5++ Kg8 25.Nf6+ Kf7 26.Ng4+ Ke8 27.Qe6+ Kf8 28.Rd1 Qe8
29.Qd6+ Qe7 30.Qxc6 will follow, and Black can resign) 19.Bb5 Na7?! (it is
better to play either 19…Rc8N or 19…Bf7N) 20.Qf3+ Bf7.
Here White squandered practically all his great advantage with the move
21.Bc4?. The correct continuation was 21.Ba4!N, for example, 21…g4
22.Qxg4 Rc8 23.Nb6, etc.
(b) 13…Be6 also occurs rather often. The usual reply is 14.Rd1. (D)
From the position in the diagram:

(1) On 14…Be7 there is an unpleasant reply 15.c5.
(2) Usually Black plays 14…Bxd5. In Kobalia-Krasenkow, Sochi 2008,
there followed 15.Rxd5 (after 15.cxd5!?, White has a small advantage) 15…
Ne7 (15…Qc7! with the idea of 16.Be2 0-0 17.0-0 Nd8!?N,18.Rfd1 Ne6 is
more precise) 16.Rd1 (16.Rb5! is better) 16…Qb6 17.Be2 Bg5 18.Qd3 Rd8
19.0-0 0-0 20.g3 g6, and White’s small edge is undisputable.
(3) Instead of those two awkward moves, I would like to suggest a pawn
sacrifice that is more in the aggressive spirit of the Chelyabinsk: 14…Rc8!N,
defending the c7-square and preparing Bg5.
If White accepts, then, after 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.Qxf6 gxf6 17.Rxd6 Ke7
18.Rd2 b3! 19.axb3 Rb8, it turns out that Black equalizes completely, for
example, 20.Rd3 f5 21.f3 fxe4 22.fxe4 Rhd8 (or 22…f5) 23.Rxd8 Kxd8, etc.
Apparently, it is better for White to play 15.g3!?, retaining his minimal
advantage.
(c) Quite playable is 13…Rb8!?, for example, 14.Rd1 (or 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6
15.Qxf6 gxf6 16.0-0-0 Ke7 17.Ne3 Be6, and White’s advantage is very
small) 14…Bg5, and now, after 15.h4 Bxh4 16.c5!?, interesting
complications arise.
Black continues 16…b3!, and then there follows 17.axb3 dxc5 18.Ndb4!?
N Nd4 19.Nxd4 cxd4 20.Nc6 Qd6, and if 21.Nxb8, then 21…Qb4+ 22.Ke2
Bg5!, and White does not have the winning move 23.Qb3 because of his own
pawn that is now there as a result of Black’s move 16. Instead of 15.h4, more
solid is 15.Be2!, and White’s advantage is minimal.
Let us return to the move 13…Be7. (D)
14.Rd1!?
White plans the c4-c5 breakthrough. 14.a3 has also occurred. Then there
may follow 14…bxa3 15.Qxa3 Rb8 16.Bd3 (16.Be2!?, to avoid blocking the
d-file, seems more accurate) 16…0-0 17.0-0 Be6 18.Rfd1 Bg5 (in
Ponomariov-Radjabov, Sochi 2008, after 18…Bxd5 19.cxd5 Nb4 20.Nxb4
Rxb4 21.Rd2 Rd4 22.Rdd1 Rb4, a draw was agreed)
19.Be2 Rb7?! (it is better to play 19…Kh8!N with equality) 20.c5, and White
obtains a small advantage, Nisipeanu-Spasov, Romania 2008.
14…0-0 15.c5 dxc5 16.Nf6+ Bxf6 17.Rxd8 Rxd8
Black had sacrificed the queen and obtained almost full compensation for
it.
18.Bc4 Nd4 19.Nxd4
Certainly weak is 19.Qd1? because of 19…Bb7 (Grigoryan-Zhigalko,
Martuni 2008).
19…Rxd4 20.Bd5 Rb8 21.0-0 (D)
21…Bb7
21…c4?! (Filippov-Krasenkow, Mumbai 2008) is weaker. In that game,
White immediately erred with 22.Rd1?! (correct is 22.Rc1!N with a small
advantage). After 22…c3!, the game was equal. There followed 23.Rb1 cxb2
(23…c2! 24.Rc1 b3 with equal play is simpler) 24.Qb3, and Black eventually
lost. However, this outcome had nothing to do with the opening.
Now possible is 22.Bxb7 Rxb7 23.Qb3! Rbd7 24.Qa4 Be7!N 25.Qxa5
Bf8
White possesses a certain material advantage, but he has to hold the e4-
pawn, and meanwhile Black invades the second rank. The normal outcome of
the game should be a draw.
Well, here flies the second stone, and larger one at that. If the move 12…
a5 is not the best and the resulting position is objectively drawn, then why is
the move 11.c4 so very strong?
Chapter 138
11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.Be2 a5 14.0-0 Bg5 15.Qd3 Be6 without
16.Rfd1 or 13.g3
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0!
This is a more subtle way to prepare Bg5 and which allows Black to
sidestep both the possible fork on c7 (see comments to the move 12…Bg5?!
in chapter 136) and a waste of time with 12…Rb8. As already noted, strong
players clearly prefer this move, and they are perfectly right.
13.Be2
The bishop development on e2 is almost as common as the main move
13.g3. It is interesting to note that the stronger the players are, the more
serious is the difference with the success of those moves. For example, in the
database, in the games in which both opponents have ratings higher that
2300, this difference is 6%, and for the ratings of 2500 and higher – 14% in
favor of the second continuation.
Hence, we have grounds to suppose that the move 13.Be2 is not really so
strong, and Black should face more problems after the continuation 13.g3!?,
which we are going to examine in chapters 140-142.
13.h4 a5 14.g3 leads to a position from chapter 141, and after 13…Rb8
14.b3, there arises a position from chapter 136.
The variation 13.Ncxb4Nxb4 14.Nxb4 Qb6 15.Nd5 Qxb2 16.Bd3 Bd8
17.0-0 Be6 leads to an equal game. In Anand-Radjabov, Bilbao 2008, there
followed 18.Qb3 Qxb3 19.axb3 Rb8 20.Rfb1 Bxd5 21.cxd5 a5, and the
position is drawn.
13…a5
13…Bg5 frequently occurs. Usually, it leads to a transposition of moves;
however, White has an opportunity to play 14.Ncxb4!?, for example, 14…
Nxb4 15.Nxb4 Qb6 16.Nd5 Qxb2 17.0-0 Qa3 18.Qb3!?N with a small
advantage.
14.0-0 Bg5 15.Qd3
In the rapid game Kamsky-Radjabov, Beijing 2013, there was 15.Bg4
Be6 16.Bxe6?! fxe6 17.Nde3 Qe7 (17…Qc7!?N) 18.Qe2 a4 19.b3 Rfb8, and
Black has excellent play.
15…Be6
Clearly the main move. Among other continuations, we will mention only
15…Bb7. Then possible is:
(a) In Malakhov-Carlsen, Sarajevo 2006, there followed 16.Rad1 Nb8
17.a3 bxa3 (this move is usual, but I believe that 17…Na6!N is better, for
example, 18.axb4 axb4 19.Ncxb4 Nc5 20.Qc2 Qa5! followed by Rfb8, and
Black has excellent compensation for his pawn) 18.Nxa3 Na6 19.Nb5 Nc5
20.Qc2 a4, and in this position White has a small advantage.
(b) I suggest that the move 16.a3!? be tested, for example, 16…bxa3
17.Qxa3 Ne7 18.Nc3 Bd2!? 19.Nb5!N Bxe4 20.Rad1! Nf5 21.Bd3 (after
21.Rxd2 Qg5 22.Bf3 Bxf3 23.Qxf3 Qxd2 24.Qxf5 g6 25.Qe4 f5, the game is
level) 21…Bb4 22.Nxb4 axb4 23.Qxb4 Bxd3 24.Rxd3, and White’s chances
are slightly better.
16.Rad1
The development of the variation stems from this move, but in the recent
times strong players prefer to move the other rook to d1.
The continuation 16.Rfd1 will be examined in the next chapter.
The position in the diagram has occurred in more than a hundred games;
Black has tried a number of alternatives.
16…g6!?
In my opinion, this is the best continuation, though it occurs rather rarely.
It is a “multi-pronged” move. The position is equal, White does not have any
clear plan of improving it, so there is no rush for Black. He takes under his
control the f5-square which the white knight could have theoretically
occupied (see the game Beliavsky-Sokolov below), and, should the
opportunity arise, intends to play f7-f5. The move 16…g6 can also be
regarded as creating a luft for the king (instead of the traditional h7-h6), or as
preparation either for h7-h5 or even for the capture on d5 (we will see below
that after 17…Bxd5 18.exd5, the knight c6 obtains the f5-square).
(a) The most frequent move is 16…Bxd5?!, but it is premature in view of
the unpleasant reply 17.exd5!? (usually it is the queen that does the capture –
17.Qxd5 – but after 17…Qb6, White’s advantage is extremely small). For
example, 17…Nb8 18.c5! dxc5 19.d6 Nd7 20.Ne3 Bxe3 21.fxe3 Qg5 22.Rf5!
(here a pawn on g6 would come in real handy!) 22…Qh6 23.Qe4, and White
has a small edge despite being a pawn down.
(b) Another very popular continuation, 16…Rb8, is slightly better. Then
possible is 17.b3 Kh8 (the immediate 17…g6! is more accurate) 18.Nde3 g6!
(after 18…Qb6?! 19.Nf5, White has an advantage, Beliavsky-Sokolov,
Manila 1992) 19.Bg4. In Inarkiev-Ivanchuk, Jermuk 2009, Black for some
reason gave up a pawn here: 19…Qc8? 20.Bxe6 fxe6 21.Qxd6 Rd8 22.Qc5
Rxd1 23.Nxd1!, but after simple 19…Be7!, White’s advantage would be
minimal.
(c) Also playable is 16…Ra7!? with the idea of possibly transferring the
rook to d7.
17.b3
This is the most popular move.
In Ernst-McShane, Stockholm 2001, after 17.Nde3 there followed a
typical reply 17…Qb6!, and after 18.Bg4 Rad8 19.Nd5 Qb7 (19…Bxd5N is
simpler, for example, 20.Qxd5 b3 21.axb3 Qxb3 22.Qxc6 Qxc2 with equal
play) 20.Qg3 Bxd5 21.cxd5?! (21.Rxd5!N) 21…Nb8 22.Ne3, Black has an
opportunity to play 22…Bxe3!N 23.Qxe3 Na6, and his position is more
promising.
17…Kg7!?N
In the position in the diagram, Black has a wide choice of continuations.
(a) In the correspondence game Cruzado-Wilczek, 2009, Black carried
out a rather cynical plan by transferring the bishop to g7, which looks
somewhat strange. However, White failed to obtain an advantage: 17…Bh6
18.h3 Bg7 19.Rfe1 h5 20.Bf1 Rc8 21.Nde3 Qb6 22.Qe2 Qc5 23.Qf3 Ne7,
and chances are even.
(b) 17…Qb8 is a good move, with the idea of transferring either the
bishop, via d8 to b6-c5, or the queen, via a7 to c5. In Koch-Tregubov, France
2010, there followed 18.Qg3 Bd8 19.f4 exf4?! (the correct continuation is
19…Bxd5!N 20.Rxd5 exf4 21.Qxf4 Bb6 22.Kh1 Bc5 with equal play)
20.Nxf4 Bc8 21.Bg4 Bxg4 22.Qxg4 a4 23.Kh1 axb3 24.axb3 Ra2, and now
White could have fixed his advantage with the move 25.Ne3! with the idea of
Nf5.
(c) 17…h5!?N is not bad.
(d) As noted above, now the capture on d5 is more appropriate: 17…
Bxd5N, for example, 18.exd5 (or 18.Qxd5 Qb6) 18…Ne7 19.c5 dxc5 20.d6
Nf5 with normal play for Black.
18.g3
White intends to carry out h2-h4 to drive the black bishop off g5. If it
retreats to e7, White has the possibility of making use of the important
squares e3, d2 and c1, and if to h6, then the bishop will not be able to go to
b6 via d8 when needed.
18…Bh3
18…Bxd5!?N leads to simpler and level play, for example, 19.exd5 e4!
20.Qxe4 Re8 21.Qd3 Ne5 22.Qd4 Bf6 23.Qd2 Nd7 24.Nd4 Bxd4 25.Qxd4+
Qf6 26.Qxf6+ Kxf6 27.Rd2 a4.
19.Rfe1 f5! 20.Bf3 f4
Surprisingly, the d5-knight has lost its chance to retreat, and Black plans
to open the f-file at an opportune moment. The game is equal. After 21.g4
Bh4, White cannot play 22.Be2?? because of 22…f3! 23.Bxf3 Ra7, and
Black wins.
Chapter 139
11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.Be2 a5 14.0-0 Bg5 15.Qd3 Be6 16.Rfd1
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.Be2 a5 14.0-0
Bg5 15.Qd3 Be6 16.Rfd1 (D)
By making this move, White clearly intends to first play on the

queenside, where he can carry out the breakthrough a2-a3, after which the a1-
rook will spring to life. Black should pay attention to this.
16…Rb8!
This move is the most usual one, but other continuations also occur.
(a) 16…Ra7?! (Magem-Moiseenko, Sestao 2010) is imprecise; after this
move, White could
have obtained a small advantage through 17.a3! bxa3 18.Nxa3!N, and the
knight proceeds to b5.
(b) Black commits a similar error with 16…Rc8; after 17.a3!?N bxa3
18.Qxa3, White has a minimal advantage.
(c) The move 16…Bxd5?! is very popular, but I cannot recommend it.
Usually there follows 17.cxd5 Nb8, and now White has the strong
continuation 18.a3! Na6 (18…bxa3! is more accurate, but even in this case
White retains a small edge) 19.axb4 Nxb4 20.Nxb4 axb4 21.Qc4. White has
the advantage. For example, in Nijboer-van Wely, Eindhoven, 2010, there
followed 21…Rxa1 22.Rxa1 Qb8 23.Ra4 Rc8 24.Rxb4 Qa8 25.Ra4 Qb7
26.Ra7 Rxc4 27.Rxb7 Rc1+ 28.Bf1, and White is a pawn up, though bishops
of opposite colors interfere with cashing in on this material advantage.
18.Ne3 is weaker, though more popular. Black has solid equality after
18…Nd7 19.Rac1 Rc8 20.Rxc8 Qxc8 21.Bg4 Nc5 22.Qb5 Qb8 23.Qxb8
Rxb8 24.Nc4 Nxe4 (Haslinger-Reinderman, Hilversum 2009), but 18…Bxe3
19.Qxe3 Nd7 20.Rac1 Nc5 21.Rxc5 dxc5 22.d6 Qb6 is also quite playable.
This position often occurs in the games of strong players, but White has no
advantage there; moreover, Black has 22…Qf6!?N. For example, it is
unfavorable for White to take on c5 because of Rac8, and the rook gets to c2.
(d) 16…g6 is quite solid. In this situation the break 17.a3!? (or 17.b3
Rb8, and the game transposes to the main variation) is almost useless for
White: after 17…bxa3 18.Qxa3!?N Qb8 19.b3 Ra7, Black holds the position
without any problems. (D)
17.b3
It is clear that 17.a3 will be met with 17…b3. 17.Nde3 takes White
nowhere because of 17…Qb6!.
In Nepomhiachtchi-Pavlov, Moscow 2010, White attempted to prepare
the move a2-a3 with 17.Qb3, but after 17…Ne7 (also possible is 17…Kh8!?
N 18.a3 f5 with excellent play for Black)
18.a3 (18.Nce3!N is more accurate) 18…Nxd5 19.cxd5 Bd7 20.axb4, Black

has the move 20…f5!N, with a small initiative for Black.
17…g6 18.Bf3
In Balog-Tregubov, Germany 2009, there was 18.h3 Rb7 (both 18…
Kg7!? and 18…Kh8 are also not bad) 19.Bf3 Qb8 20.Nde3, and here, instead
of 20…Bxe3?!, Black should have played 20…Rd8 with equality.
While looking at this position, I recall the term “overprotection” in the

Nimzo-Indian Defense being bantered about (by the way, I strongly suspect
that the very idea of overprotection has come to its author after several
crushing defeats suffered in games against stronger players with more active
playing styles).
White has defended his d5-knight five times (if we take into account the
x-ray action of both the bishop on f3 and the rook on d1). All he needs to
achieve total happiness is to transfer the knight from c2 to e3 and double the
rooks in the d-file.
The only question is why does he need to do all this? To hold the
position? Or can it be that White simply has no active plan besides a2-a3 and
he is unwilling to carry it out as it creates a weak pawn on b3 for him?
I recall another chess classic, and a much more respected one, because the
author was a world champion who used to teach that if you have a light-
square bishop, then it is unhealthy to put you pawns on light squares because
your bishop would be blunted by your own pawns and the dark squares
would be weak.
If this is so (and I personally believe it rather than in the fundamentally
excessive “overprotection” defense), then how can we explain White’s
strategy in the variation 11.c4 ?
I would like to add that we have already seen more than once (and will
see again) white pawns placed very successfully on b2 and c3 and Black
trying to make his opponent play c3-c4 by means of b5-b4. So what happens
now? Why has the move 11.c4 become so very popular? Is this some kind of
a mass hypnosis? Another mystery of the Chelyabinsk Variation.
18…Kg7!?
With this move, Black prepares Qd7, but he has been known to try other
continuations too.
(a) The most frequent move in the database is immediate 18…Qd7, but
strong players do not play this way, probably because they dislike the reply
19.Qd2!, after which Black has to retreat his queen to d8 (19…Qd8), and
White can withdraw his queen to e2 and win a tempo.
(b) The move 18…Kh8 has also occurred, but if Black do not plan to play
f7-f5, he is better keeping his king on g7.
(c) Quite playable is 18…h5 19.Qe2 Kg7, and the game transposes to a
position that we are going to examine below.
(d) Also good is 18…Rb7!? with the idea of vacating the b8-square for
the queen or even for the knight to transfer it to c5, and, should the
opportunity arise, to employ the rook on d7 for the defense of the d6-pawn.
19.Qe2
A typical plan. White vacates the d3-square for the rook.
19…Qd7
The position after 19…h5 20.h3 Rb7 arose, with a transposition of
moves, in the correspondence game Powells-Strautins, 2010. There followed
21.Nde3 Rd7 22.Rd3 Qb6 23.Rad1 Qc5. Here White attempted to exploit the
king’s position on g7 with 24.Qd2, but after 24…Rfd8 25.Nf5+ Kf6 26.Nfe3
Kg7, was not able to get anywhere, and a draw was agreed.
This level position arose in the game Fedorov-Maletin, St.Petersburg

2009. The next move by White corresponds to White’s usual plans in similar
positions, but here it only plays directly into Black’s hands:
20.Rd3
White should have prepared this move by first taking care of his king’s
safety. His life would be more comfortable after 20.g3!N, for example, 20…
h5 21.h4 Bh6 22.Rd3, avoiding the problems he had to face in the game. A
question immediately arises as to why not play g2-g3 seven moves earlier?
20…Nd8!
The knight heads for c5 via b7 – or even for e6, as it could have happened
in the game.
21.a3 bxa3 22.Nxa3 Bxd5 23.Rxd5!?N
In the game White committed an error with 23.cxd5?!, and after 23…Nb7
24.Rc3 Nc5 25.Qc2?! (25.Qa2!?N), instead of 25…Rfc8, Black should have
played 25…Qb7!N, for example, 26.Nc4 Qb4! 27.h4 (or 27.Nxd6?! Nxb3
28.Rb1 Nd4 29.Rxb4 axb4, and Black wins) 27…Bxh4 28.Nxa5 Ra8 29.Rc4
Rxa5 30.Rxb4 Rxa1+ 31.Kh2 Rfa8 32.Rc4 R8a2 33.Rxc5 Bxf2! 34.Qxa2
Rxa2, and it appears that Black’s position is won.
23…Rxb3 24.Qd1!
24.c5? Ne6 is in Black’s favor.
24…Rb4 25.Rxd6 Qc8 and in this position Black has a slight initiative.
If you ask me, there is no particular doubt about the fact that the move
13.Be2 examined in the last two chapters does not bring even a minimal
advantage to White.
Chapter 140
11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.g3 without 13…a5
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.g3
It has already been mentioned that White’s principal hopes in the

variation 11.c4 are associated exactly with this continuation. Then he can
artlessly fianchetto his bishop or, after a preliminary h2-h4, carry out Bf1-h3.
As for Black, he can either transfer his queen to c5 via a5, though it looks
excessive (we will examine this popular plan in the current chapter) or choose
a more natural plan with 13…a5 (see the next two chapters).
13…Bg5
A playable move which prepares the queen transfer to c5 via a5, but 13…
a5 is simpler. It is interesting that this move clearly prevails both in the
database and in the games of strong players. This seems to be a temporary
phenomenon which only tells us that the 11.c4 variation is still in the initial
stage of its development.
14.Bg2
A quiet and a very popular continuation, which, however, has a small
drawback: it allows Black to transpose to an equal position with 14…a5! (the
position is going to be examined in detail in chapter 142).
Black has slightly more problems after 14.h4!?, for example, 14…Bh6
15.Bh3 Be6 16.Kf1 a5! (16…Qa5 17.Kg2 leads to a small advantage for
White) 17.Kg2.
I believe that the best move in this position is 17…Nb8!N with the idea of
transferring the knight to c5 via d7, after which White is left with only a
negligible edge. We will not go into details as, in my opinion, the move 13…
Bg5 is not the main one.
14…Qa5
This queen move clearly prevails as well, but it does not secure full
equality. As I have already noted, I believe that it would be simpler to play
14…a5!, transposing to the 13…a5! variation.
In Karjakin-Ponomariov, Tashkent 2012, there was 14…Be6 15.0-0
Qb8!? (the usual move is 15…a5, transposing to the 13…a5 variation) 16.b3
a5, and we have the position that is going to be examined in chapter 142.
15.0-0
15.b3 Qc5 16.Qh5 falls short of its goal because of 16…Bd8! (16…f6?!,
played in Nepomniachtchi-Zhou, Moscow 2010, is weak). Now possible is
17.Rd1 a5. In Danin-Frolyanov, Belgorod 2010, White played here 18.Bh3?!
(and this is the whole idea behind 16.Qh5). Black took on h3, but the correct
move was 18…Be6!N, and Black has a small advantage associated with the
advance a5-a4.
15…Qc5
In the position in the diagram White usually prepares the advance f2-f4
by retreating with his king to h1.
16.b3
This is the most popular move.
Let us first look at the rapid game Shirov-Krasenkow, Jurmala 2012,
where White carried out this plan immediately: 16.Kh1 a5 17.f4. Black’s
defense was poor: 17…exf4 (17…Bd8!?N) 18.gxf4 Bh6?! (18…Bd8N with
equal play is definitely better), and here, instead of 19.Qh5?!, White should
have played 19.Nce3!N with the idea of Ne3-f5. Then possible is 19…g6
20.Nf6+ (20.Qe1 with the idea of Qh4 is also good) 20…Kg7 (or 20…Kh8?
21.Nf5! gxf5? 22.Qh5 Kg7 23.Qh4!, and White wins) 21.Nfg4 Bxg4
22.Nxg4, and White’s superiority is obvious.
In Alekseev-Yakovich, Loo 2013, Black’s defense was also far from
inspiring confidence. In the game there was 16.Qd3 Be6 (after 16…a5!?
17.b3, the game could have transposed to a position which will be examined
below) 17.Rad1 a5 18.Kh1 Ra7?! (18…a4N and 18…Ne7N, with equal play
in both cases, are better) 19.f4 Bd8 20.Nde3 Nd4 (and here more accurate is
20…Be7!N) 21.Nxd4 Qxd4 22.f5 Qxd3 (Black has the better chances after
22…Bg5!N) 23.Rxd3 Bd7 24.Rxd6, and White has an extra pawn and the
advantage.
16…a5
It is clear that 16…Be6? is bad because of 17.Nc7 Ra7 18.Nxe6 fxe6
19.Qg4, and White wins a pawn. (D)
17.h4!
This rare move is the only one that allows White to retain some
advantage.
The usual continuation is 17.Qd3, and the correct reply is 17…Be6 (17…
Ra7?!, Burg-Krasenkow, Vlissingen 2013, is weaker because of 18.a3!N
bxa3 19.Nxa3 with a small advantage for White), for example, 18.Rad1 (now
18.h4!?N will be met not
with 18…Bd8 which leads to transposition to the main variation, but with
18…Bh6! with equal play) 18…Bxd5 19.Qxd5 Rfd8 20.h4 Be7 21.Bh3 a4
22.Qd3 axb3 23.axb3 Ra2 24.Rd2 g6 25.Rfd1 Bf8, and in the game Popovic-
Medvegy, Germany 2010, a draw was agreed.
17…Bd8
17…Bh6 does not equalize because of 18.Qh5!N, for example, 18…Be6
19.Nf6+ Kh8 20.Ne3 Nd4 21.Nf5!, etc.
18.Qd3 Be6 19.Kh2!N
The king move pursues two objectives: it prepares Bg2-h3 while
simultaneously preventing counterplay with a5-a4 which is possible after the
natural 19.Rfd1. It is followed by 19…a4!N, for example, 20.a3 (a typical
reaction) 20…Bxd5 21.exd5 axb3 22.dxc6 bxc2 23.Qxc2 (23.axb4??
Cxd1Q+ – the d1-rook is hit by the pawn that only several moves before had
been standing on a5!) 23…Rxa3 with equal play.
Now possible is 19…g6
19…a4?! is weak because of 20.a3!, as there is no rook on d1.
20.Bh3 Bxd5 21.cxd5 Nd4 22.Nxd4 Qxd4 23.Qxd4 exd4 24.Bd7!
In the resulting ending, White has a slight advantage. As we can see from
this chapter, the move 13…Bg5 allows 14.h4!, and the popular queen transfer
to c5 does not secure full equality for Black.
Chapter 141
16.0-0 Re8
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.g3 a5! (D)
This position much more often arises after 12…a5, but, as we have seen,
Black has his reasons for making this move right now.
14.h4
With this move, White prevents the maneuver Bf6-g5, and Black faces
the problem of what to do with his bishop on f6 that compels the queen to
defend it. However, this problem can be solved easily enough, and the pawn
move to h4 can lead to the loss of a tempo. Besides, if White carries out the
plan with f2-f4, then, after e5xf4, the natural-looking move g3xf4 leaves the
h4-pawn undefended. In the next chapter we are going to look at the
continuation 14.Bg2.
14…Be6
A solid and typical continuation.
15.Bh3
(a) After 15.Qd2, Black has a lot of ways to equalize, for example, 15…
Be7!? 16.Bg2 Ra7 17.0-0 Qb8 18.b3 Bd8, etc. 15…Bxd5?! is slightly weaker
because of 16.cxd5, Morozevich-Halkias, Khanty Mansyisk 2011. 15…a4!?N
is rather strong, for example, 16.Ndxb4 Qd7 or 16.Ncxb4 Qd7 with full
compensation for the pawn. Also good is 15…Rb8!?N with the idea of 16.b3
Bxd5 17.Qxd5 Nd4, and chances are even.
(b) The move 15.Bg2 has recently begun to occur frequently. Now Black
should not take on d5, as Krasenkow did in his game against Svetushkin
(France, 2011). Black can solve the problem of the f6-bishop with the move
15…g6!?. In Morozevich-Shirov, Moscow 2008, there followed 16.Nxf6+
(or 16.0-0 Bg7 17.Qd3 f5!?N with equal play) 16…Qxf6 17.b3 a4 18.0-0.
Now Black should not have opened the a-file: 18…Qd8!?N or 18…Qe7!?N,
and Black’s chances are no worse (in the game there was 18…axb3?!
19.axb3 Rxa1 20.Qxa1 Qd8 21.Rd1, and White stands better).
15…a4!
The best move, allowing Black to equalize easily. I would like to note
that other moves have also been tried in this position, but all of them turned
out to be slightly weaker, so, for the sake of saving space, I would not deal
with them here. Excuse me if I am wrong about this.
In this position White has no advantage.

16.Nce3!?
Other continuations are slightly weaker.
(a) In Nepomniachtchi-Ni Hua, Sochi 2009, White played 16.b3?!, and
Black, instead of 16…Bxd5?!, should have replied with 16…Nd4!, for
example, 17.Nxd4 (possibly, slightly better is 17.Bxe6N fxe6 18.Ndxb4 axb3
19.Nxd4 b2! 20.Rb1 exd4 21.Rxb2 Qc7 22.Qd3 Rfc8, and Black’s chances
are preferable) 17…exd4 18.Rc1 Bxd5N, 19.cxd5 Re8 20.Bg2 axb3 21.axb3
Rc8 22.Rc6 Rxc6 23.dxc6 d5, and Black has a small advantage.
(b) The continuation 16.Ncxb4 Nxb4 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Nxb4 leads to a
position from the next variation.
(c) There often occurs 16.Bxe6 which triggers the almost forced variation
16…fxe6 17.Ndxb4 Nxb4 18.Nxb4 Qb6 19.Qd2 (or 19.a3 Bxh4 20.Qe2 Bd8)
19…Be7! 20.a3 Rf3 21.c5! (21.Rf1?, Nicipeanu-Shirov, Foros 2008, is
weaker because of 21…Rc8!N, for example, 22.Rc1 Qb7 23.Qe2 Rb3
followed by d6-d5, and Black has a great advantage) 21…Qxc5 22.Rc1
Rxf2!? (22…Qb6 is met with 23.Nd5!, and on 22…Qb5, White replies
23.Qe2) 23.Rxc5 Rxd2 24.Kxd2 dxc5 25.Nd3 c4 26.Nxe5 c3+ 27.bxc3 Bxa3,
Let us return to the move 16.Nce3!?.
16…Nd4 17.Kf1 b3 18.Kg2 Rb8 19.axb3

19.a3 g6 is favorable for Black.
19…Rxb3 20.Rxa4 Rxb2 21.Qa1 Qb8 22.Rf1 Bxd5 23.cxd5 h5 24.Nc4
Rb3 25.Na5 Rb2
In this position in the correspondence game Silva-Grigoriev, 2010, the
opponents agreed to a draw. As we know now, the move 14.h4 is no big deal
at all.
Chapter 142
11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.g3 a5 14.Bg2
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 0-0 13.g3 a5 14.Bg2
White chooses this move more often than any other one.
14…Bg5
A natural continuation. First, Black is ready to trade his bishop for the
knight, should the latter appear on e3, and second, he releases his queen from
the necessity of defending the bishop on f6. He should not play 14…Rb8
because White is willing to play b2-b3 himself so that his c4-pawn does not
hang. Besides, the b8-square is often used by Black for either his queen or
knight.
In the recent years, Black quite frequently plays 14…g6, planning to
retreat with his bishop to g7. The development of the theory of this variation
has only just begun, so even good players have been known to slip up while
playing it.
For example, in the game Nepomniachtchi-Mamedov, Kirishi 2007, there
followed 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.0-0 Qe7 17.Qd3 (17.Qd2!N is more accurate,
aiming both at the b4-pawn and at the dark squares on the diagonal c1-h6).
Now Black could play 17…a4!N (in the game there was 17…Be6, though
at the moment the bishop on e6 is not really necessary, 18.b3 Rac8?!
19.Rad1, and White gained the advantage. Instead of last move, the correct
one is 18…a4!N).
After 17…a4!, possible is 18.Rad1 (or 18.f4 Qb7! 19.Qxd6 Be6 20.f5
Rfd8 21.Qc5 Ra5 22.Qe3 Bxc4 23.Rf2 Qe7 with excellent play, while 20.b3?
is bad because of 20…Qb6+ 21.c5 Qb5, and Black has a great advantage in
view of the threat Rfd8) 18…Be6 19.f4 (19.Qxd6 Bxc4 is in favor of Black)
19…Qa7+ 20.Kh1 (or 20.Rf2 b3! 21.axb3 Rfb8! 22.bxa4 Rxb2 23.f5 Nb4)
20…b3! 21.axb3 axb3 22.Ne3 Nd4 23.f5 Bd7, and chances are even.
Let us return to the move 14…Bg5.
15.0-0
In the position in the diagram, Black has two solid moves.

15…Ne7!
It seems to me that this is the simplest way to equalize. Play (and,
accordingly, the analysis) is much more complicated after 15…Be6!?; White
has two main continuations.
(a) The variation 16.b3!?, in which White leaves the position of his queen
undefined for the moment, needs additional analysis. Then possible is 16…
Qb8!? (in Filippov-Gelfand, Tromsø 2013, there was 16…g6 17.Qe2 Bxd5
18.exd5?! Nd4 19.Nxd4 exd4, and Black managed to hold the position,
although White was able to gain a very slight edge with the move 18.cxd5!N.
But Black could have replied 18…Nb8!?N with equal play).
In the game Karjakin-Ponomariov, Tashkent 2012, there followed 17.f4!?

Bd8 18.Kh1 Ra7 19.Qh5 (worth attention is 19.f5!?N, for example, 19…
Bxd5 20.exd5 Nd4 21.Nxd4 exd4 22.f6! Bxf6 23.Rxf6 gxf6 24.Be4, and
though after 24…f5! 25.Bxf5 Qb6, White has the initiative, there is nothing
dangerous for Black in sight) 19…f6 (playable is 19…a4!?N with equality,
because 20.f5 once again brings no advantage) 20.Rad1 Ne7 21.Nce3 Bb6?!
(21…Nxd5!N 22.Nxd5 Bb6 with equal play is more accurate) 22.Nxb6 Qxb6
23.Rd3 Qc5 24.Qd1 Rd8?! (24…Bf7!N with a small advantage to White is
more precise) 25.f5 Bf7 26.g4, and White has an edge.
(b) White more often chooses 16.Qd3, and here Black has several
options.
(1) As already said, in such positions there is not much point in playing
16…Rb8.
(2) 16…Ne7 also does not lead to equality because of 17.h4! Bh6 18.a3!.
(3) It is hardly worthwhile to play 16…Bxd5?! as there follows 17.cxd5
Nb8 18.a3!. Here in the game Anand-Gelfand, Moscow 2012, Black was
erred – 18…Na6?! – but even after the correct move, 18…bxa3, White has a
small advantage.
(4) 16…Qb8!. I believe that this move is the best. 17.f4!? (apparently,
this is the only way of fighting for the advantage) 17…Bd8 18.Kh1.
18…f6!. This is a novelty. Black intends to transfer his bishop to b6 and

meanwhile, first hinders the advance f4-f5-f6 and second, prepares the f7-
square for a comfortable retreat of the e6-bishop (18…a4 as in Borisek-
Moiseenko, Porto Carras 2011, is premature. After 19.b3 h6, White has the
strong 20.Rab1!N, and then 20…axb3 21.axb3 Qb7 22.Ra1, with a small
advantage).
19.Nce3 Kh8! (19…Qa7?! 20.Nf5 Qc5 will not do because of 21.Nxd6!).
I have to limit myself to only a couple of principal variations. 20.Rad1 (or
20.Nf5 Bb6! 21.Nxb6 Qxb6 22.Nxd6 a4! 23.Rac1 Qc5 24.Rfd1 Rfd8 25.Nb7
Rxd3 26.Nxc5 Rxd1+ 27.Rxd1 Bxc4 28.Rc1 Bxa2 29.Nxa4 Rxa4 30.Rxc6 h5
with equal play) 20…Qa7 (also playable is 20…a4) 21.Nf5 Qc5 22.Nde3 Bc7
23.Nxd6 exf4 24.gxf4 g5! 25.Nef5 gxf4 26.Qf3 Qe5 27.Qxf4 Qxf4 28.Rxf4
Ne5 29.Nb5 Bb8 30.b3 Nxc4, and chances are even.
As you see, those variations are both long and rather complicated, so it is
quite probable that improvements will be found in them. If you have a free
week, you can devote it to the analysis of the move 15…Be6 and, perhaps,
you will manage to prove its sufficiency for equalizing in a simpler way – or
even to find an advantage for White.
Let us return to the move 15…Ne7!. (D)
16.Nce3
This move occurs in roughly half of the games; moreover, we can add to
them those with the variation 16.Nde3 Bxe3 17.Nxe3, which leads to the
position from our main line.
Let us have a look at the other White’s options.

(a) Strong players rarely choose 16.Nxe7+, though this move is just as
good as any other one. Then possible is 16…Qxe7 17.Qd3 Be6!? (this is
more accurate than 17…Qc7 (Nisipeanu-Kotronias, France 2011) 18.h4!?
Bh6 19.b3 g6 20.Rfd1 Ra6!N, and it is unfavorable for White to play 21.c5?!
because of 21…Rc6 22.cxd6 Qa7, etc.
(b) The variation 16.b3 Nxd5 17.Qxd5 Be6 18.Qd3 Qb6 occurred in the
game Movsesian-Tregubov, Sochi 2008. Here White could have played 19.h4
with the idea of equalizing with Kh2 and Bh3, but he chose a sharper plan:
19.Kh1 a4 20.f4 axb3 21.axb3 Rxa1 22.Nxa1 exf4 23.gxf4 Bf6 24.Nc2 Bc3
25.Bf3 h6, and Black has excellent play.
(c) In Jakovenko-Tregubov, Sochi 2012, White played 16.h4.
There followed 16…Bh6 (also playable is 16…Nxd5, for example,
17.hxg5 Nc7!N with equality, for example, 18.Ne3 Ne6 19.Nf5 g6 20.Nxd6
Qxg5 or 20…Ra6 21.Nb5 Qxg5, etc.) 17.Nde3 Qb6 (also quite solid is 17…
Bxe3 18.Nxe3 Be6 19.Qd3 Qc7, similar to the main line) 18.Qd3 Rd8 (more
precise is 18…g6!N, preventing the knight from moving to f5) 19.Rad1
(interesting is 19.Nf5!?N) 19…g6! 20.b3 Be6 21.Kh2 a4 22.Bh3 axb3
23.axb3 Ra2?! (both 23…Nc6N and 23…Bxe3N 24.Nxe3 Nc6 are more
accurate) 24.Bxe6 fxe6. Now White could have obtained a small edge after
25.Ra1!N, for example, 25…Rda8 26.Rxa2 Rxa2 27.Kh3! Bxe3 28.fxe3, and
then the white queen moves to the f-file.
Let us return to the move 16.Nce3.
16…Bxe3 17.Nxe3 Be6 18.Qd3 Qc7
18…Qb6?! runs into the unpleasant retort 19.Nf5!.
18…Qd7 occurs rather often. In Korneev-Nataf, Orense 2007, there
followed 19.Rad1 Rfd8 20.Rd2 Qc7, etc. The only unclear point is the reason
for queen’s moving in a triangle.
19.Rad1
This move is both the most popular and the most successful one.
However, the analysis shows no advantage at all for White. I think that the
move 19.Rac1!? is more precise; Black’s probable reply is 19…Nc6!?N.
Then possible is 20.Nf5 Rfd8 21.Rfd1 a4 22.Qe3 (it is unhealthy to take the
pawn, 22.Nxd6? Nd4 23.c5 Ra5, and Black has a great advantage) 22…Ra5
23.Rd2 Bxf5 24.exf5 Nd4 25.f6! gxf6 26.Qh6 d5 (26…Qe7?! is dangerous
because of 27.Re1!) 27.Qxf6 Rc5, and White has nothing better than
perpetual check.
The well-known move 19…Rac8!? is also good, for example, 20.Rfd1
Rfd8 21.Nf5 Nxf5 22.exf5 Bxc4 23.Qe4 d5 24.Qg4 Qd7 25.b3 Bb5 26.Rxc8
Qxc8 27.Bxd5 Kf8 with equal play, as in the correspondence game
Maliangkay-Stefan, 2007.
19…Rfd8 20.b3
20.f4 is useless for White because of 20…f6.
20…Nc6 21.Nc2
And here useless is 21.Nf5 in view of 21…a4 22.Qe3 Na5 (with the idea
of Na5-b7-c5), as 23.Qg5 will be met with 23…f6.
21…a4 22.Rd2 axb3 23.axb3 Qb6 24.h4 (D)
We now follow the game Nepomniachtchi-Timofeev, Irkutsk 2010.

Black’s position is excellent, and the engine even gives slight preference to it.
All he has left to do is to transfer his knight to c5.
However, Black chose 24…Ra2?!, which, after 25.Rb1!, only hampered

this knight transfer because of the tactical opportunity Nc2xb4!. Moreover,
after further inaccuracies, he even lost the game, but the opening was not to
blame.
The correct move is 24…Na5!N. Then possible is 25.Ra1 Nb7 26.Rdd1
Nc5 27.Qe3 h6, etc.
Thus, in the variation 14.Bg2, Black is also able to at least equalize with
15…Ne7, and most probably with 15…Be6 as well. It looks like White failed
to upgrade the classical theory about good and bad bishops. And once again
the question arises: why is the move 11.c4 is so attractive if it leads to equal
play? I suggest three variations of the answer:
(1) First players imagine that the move 11.c4 does bring an advantage.
(2) First players attempt to limit Black’s opportunities and to impose
upon an opponent a complicated strategic struggle with the board almost full
of pieces, which is unpleasant for the most adherents of the Chelyabinsk
Variation, most of whom usually prefer open piece play.
(3) First players got tired of studying all those complex variations and
simply want some easy living.
Well, what do you think about it?
Chapter 143
11.c3 without 11…Ne7, 11…Bg5 or 11…0-0
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3!?
A logical continuation that in the position in the diagram has been rightly
considered the main one from the very start of the development of the
variation. White plans to activate the a3-knight with 12.Nc2 and then to
undermine the b5-pawn with a2-a4. After the natural b5xa4, white bishop
gains access to the c4-square, where it will be of the greatest help in the
ensuing pawn structure. As you may remember, the principal drawback of the
move 11.c4 is that the white bishop is blunted by its own pawns that occupy
squares of its own color.
11…Bb7
11…Rb8 is also seen. Its idea is, after 12.Nc2 Bg5, to be prepared for the
move a2-a4 as much as possible (the intended reply is b5xa4) and at the same
time to avoid h2-h4 which becomes possible after the immediate 11…Bg5
(there will be no fork on c7 now).
Admittedly, it is pointless to defend against the latter threat as it not
dangerous (we will look at the position after 11…Bg5 12.h4 in chapter 149);
as for the former, it is still not too late to play Rb8 one move later (this
position will be also examined with the move order 11…Bg5). Because of
that, the move 11…Rb8 is devoid of the independent significance.
We are going to explore the move 11…Ne7!? in chapters 144-148, the
move 11…Bg5 – in chapters 149-154, and the main continuation 11…0-0, in
the last three parts of the theoretical section.
12.Nc2
12…Nb8
The key to Black’s idea is the transfer of the c6-knight to d7 via b8.
However, this plan is fine in the Ruy López, where the position is of the
closed nature, but here it looks a bit sluggish and only magnifies White’s
advantage.
Objectively, 12…Ne7!? is slightly better. Then possible is 13.Ncb4!? (the
position after 13.Nxf6!?+ gxf6 will be examined in the chapter 145 with the
move order 11…Ne7; also playable is 13.Nce3, for example, 13…Bg5
14.Nxe7 Bxe3! 15.Nf5 Bc5 16.Nxg7+ Kf8 17.Nf5 Bxe4 18.Qg4 Bxf5
19.Qxf5 Rg8! 20.g3!N Rg6 21.Bg2 Rf6 22.Qxh7 Bxf2 23.Kd1 Ke7 with
roughly equal play) 13…Nxd5! (13…0-0 allows 14.Nxf6+!N gxf6 15.Bd3
with a small advantage for White) 14.Nxd5 0-0 15.Be2.
In Minasian-Andriasian, Yerevan 2007, there followed 15…Rc8 (15…
Bg5!? 16.0-0 Rb8! is more accurate) 16.a4 bxa4 (16…Bxd5 17.Qxd5 Rc5 is
more precise) 17.Qxa4?! (the correct move is 17.Rxa4 with the better
position) 17…Bxd5 18.exd5 Rc5 19.Qxa6 Rxd5, and chances are roughly
even.
13.a4!
Let us take a look at the other options.
(a) 13.Nce3 often occurs. Curiously, in the overwhelming majority of
games, Black commits an inaccuracy by replying 13…Nd7?! (the correct
continuation is 13…0-0! 14.a4 bxa4 15.Rxa4 Nd7, and the game has
transposed to the main 15.Nce3 variation). Now White can obtain a clear
advantage after 14.a4! (though this move occurs only rarely) 14…bxa4. We
are going to investigate this position below with a transposition of moves.
(b) 13.g3 also leads to a small edge for White, for example, 13…Nd7
(playable is 13…Bg5 followed by 14.h4! Bh6 15.g4, for example, 15…Bf4
16.Nxf4 exf4 17.f3 Nc6 18.Qd2, Polgar-Illescas, Dos Hermanas 1994, and
White’s advantage is roughly the same as after 13…Nd7) 14.h4!? 0-0
15.Nce3 Nb6 (15…g6 allows 16.a4!?N, for example, 16…bxa4 17.Qxa4 Nb6
18.Qd1 with an advantage for White) 16.Bh3!? or 16.Be2!? with a small edge
for White.
(c) 13.c4!? occurs only rarely, but this move is not half bad. Then
possible is 13…0-0 14.cxb5 axb5 15.Bxb5 Qa5+ 16.Nc3 d5 (or 16…Bxe4
17.0-0 Bb7!?N 18.Ne3 or 18.Qxd6, and White’s chances are better) 17.exd5
e4 18.a4. In Campora-De La Villa, Spain 1995, there followed 18…Rd8?!
(18…Bxc3+ is better: 19.bxc3 Qxc3+20.Qd2 Qxd2+ 21.Kxd2 Bxd5 22.a5
with an advantage for White) 19.0-0 Bxc3 20.bxc3 Rxd5 21.Qe2 Qxc3
22.Ne3, and White has a great advantage.
13…bxa4
14.Rxa4
After 14.Nce3, Black should not be hasty with 14…Nd7?! (the correct
move is 14…0-0!, and after 15.Rxa4 Nd7, the game transposes to a position
that we are going to explore below), because after 15.Nxf6+ Nxf6 (15…Qxf6
16.Qxa4 Qd8 17.0-0-0 Qc7 18.Nc4!N leads to equally serious problems, for
example, 18…0-0 19.Qa5 Qxa5 20.Nxa5 Bxe4 21.f3 Bf5 22.Rxd6) 16.Qxa4+
Kf8!? 17.f3 g6 18.0-0-0, White has clear a superiority as a result of the threat
of Qb4.
14…Nd7
This move occurs practically in every game. 14…0-0 does not have any
independent significance as the game usually transposes into the main 14…
Nd7 variation, for example, 15.Bc4 Nd7 or 15.Nce3 Nd7.
15.Bc4!
I believe that this is the best move. White has carried out his plan by
developing the bishop to c4. An interesting exchange sacrifice, 15.Rb4 Nc5
16.Rxb7!? Nxb7 17.b4 (Kasparov-Shirov, Horgen 1994), leads to unclear
consequences. White’s idea is to preserve his strong d5-knight while
simultaneously impeding the black knight on b7. However, the computer
does not confirm White’s advantage. In the text there followed 17…Bg5
18.Na3 0-0 19.Nc4 a5 20.Bd3 axb4 21.cxb4.
Here Shirov made an inaccurate move and got an inferior position.
Instead of this, the engine suggests 21…Ra2, 21…Kh8N and 21…Ra7N with
equal play in all cases.
Black also experiences certain difficulties after 15.Nce3 0-0 16.h4!?, for
example, 16…Nc5 17.Ra2!N (17.Rc4?! leads to an equal game, Zagrebelny-
Gagarin, Moscow 1995) 17…Nxe4 18.Qf3 Nc5 19.b4 Bxd5 20.Nxd5 Ne6
21.Bd3!? (with the idea of Qf5; also not bad is 21.Rxa6!?) 21…Nf4! 22.0-0
Bxh4 23.Rfa1 Rc8! 24.Bxa6 Rb8, and in this position White has a small
advantage.
15…0-0 16.Qe2 a5 17.0-0
In this position White’s chances are slightly better. Then possible is:
17…Bg5 18.Ra2
18.Rfa1 occurred in the game Kudrin-Ochoa, New York 1992, is no
worse. There followed 18…Nc5 19.R4a2 a4 (19…g6!?N looks more precise)
20.Ncb4 Rb8 21.Rd1 Kh8 22.Bb5 f5 23.exf5 Rxf5 24.Bxa4 e4?! (more
accurate is 24…Nxa4N) 25.Bc6! Bc8?! (25…Qc8 is better) 26.Rda1 Nb3?
(26…Qg8!) 27.Ra8, and White won.
18…Nb6
In Spasov-Halkias, Goteborg 2005, there followed 19.Nxb6?!.
19.Rfa1 is stronger.
19…Qxb6 20.Rd1 Kh8 21.Ra3 Rab8?!
Black should have played 21…a4!, for example, 22.Nb4 f5 23.Nd5 Qc6,
22.Rb3 Qc7 23.Na3 Bc6 24.Nb5 Bxb5 25.Rxb5 Rxb5 26.Bxb5 and
White has a small but clear advantage.
Chapter 144
11.c3 Ne7 without 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Nc2 or 13.Bd3
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Ne7!? (D)
This interesting move first occurred in the game Evans-Lombard, Haifa

1976. Later van der Wiel would play like this in a couple of games, and since
1985 Krasenkow has become the main advocate of this move.
Black does not wait for White to move his a3-knight up the board but
immediately starts to play against the d5-knight. He does not mind doubling
his pawns on the f-file either. In this case, there arise positions which are
similar to ones from the variation 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6. However,
while in the latter line chances are even, this time White wins a tempo for the
important move c2-c3. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Black fails to obtain
full equality. However, full equality remains unattainable for Black in other
continuations as well, so the move 11…Ne7!? is as good as every other one.
12.Nxf6+
12.Nxe7 is absolutely toothless, for example, 12…Bxe7 13.Be2 (or
13.Nc2 Bb7 14.Bd3 d5) 13…Be6 14.Bg4!? (this novelty is slightly better
than the usual move 14.Bf3) 14…0-0 15.Nc2 d5 16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.exd5 Bc5
18.0-0 exd5, and Black’s position is even preferable.
12.Nc2 Nxd5 13.Qxd5 Rb8 occurs very often (13…Ra7 is also good). In
Dominguez-Krasenkow, Esbjorg 2003, there followed 14.Rd1 (14.Nb4 Bb7
15.Qd3 0-0 16.Be2 occurs more frequently) 14…Bb7 15.Qd3 0-0 16.g3 (the
usual 16.Be2 looks more natural) 16…Be7 17.Bg2 f5 18.0-0 f4 19.Nb4 Qb6
20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.exd5 (21.Qxd5+N with equal play is more precise) 21…Rf6
22.Be4, and after 22…g6!N, Black’s position is slightly better.
12…gxf6
13.g3
This continuation is the subject of the current chapter. The next one will
be devoted to the move 13.Nc2, and the main continuation, 13.Bd3, will be
examined in detail in chapters146-148.
In the position in the diagram other continuations also occur.
(a) With the move 13.c4?!, White more less givis back the gained tempo.
It leads to an equal position from the variation 10.Nxe7 Nxe7 11.Bxf6 gxf6
12.c4 which has been explored in detail in chapters 133-134.
(b) The variation 13.Qf3 f5 14.exf5 Bxf5 15.Bd3 Be6! 16.0-0 0-0 is
widely known. In Popovic-Vukic, Yugoslavia 1989, there followed: 17.Bc2!?
Rb8 18.Bb3 b4 19.Bxe6 (more precise is 19.Nc4!N and White has a very
slight edge), and now Black should have played 19…fxe6!N with equal play
(in the game there was 19…bxa3 20.Bb3 axb2 21.Rab1, and White stands
better), for example, 20.Qg4+ Kh8 21.cxb4 Nd5 22.g3 Nf4, etc.
(c) 13.Be2 has often been played.
Black has several choices.
(1) 13…f5 (Hansen-Krasenkow, Koszalin 1998) does not equalize. There
followed 14.exf5 Bxf5 15.Nc2 0-0 16.0-0 d5 17.a4 bxa4 18.Rxa4 a5 19.Ne3
Be6 20.Qd2 Qb6? (the correct continuation was 20…Rb8N 21.Rfa1 Nc6)
21.Rfa1 Rab8 22.Nd1! d4 23.Rxa5, and Black is left a pawn down.
(2) In the majority of games Black plays 13…Bb7. Then there typically
follows 14.Bf3 Qb6 15.Nc2 (in Ivanchuk-Leko, Batumi 1999, after 15.0-0
Rd8 16.c4 f5 17.Qd3 fxe4 18.Bxe4 d5 19.cxd5 Bxd5 20.Rfd1, a draw was
agreed) 15…d5 16.exd5 (16.Qe2 is also in White’s favor) 16…Rd8 17.Qe2
Nxd5, but in this position White’s chances are slightly better after 18.0-0-0!
(18.Bxd5?!, Illescas- Krasenkow, Pamplona 1999, leads to an equal game).
In Sokolov-Krasenkow, France 2013, there followed 18…0-0 19.Be4 Nf4
20.Qg4+ Kh8 21.Bxb7 Qxb7 22.Qf5 Qc6 23.Nb4 Qb6 24.g3 Ng6 25.Rxd8?!
(better is 25.Qf3!N Ne7 26.Nc2, and White has an edge) 25…Rxd8 26.Rd1
Rxd1+ 27.Kxd1 Kg7 28.Ke2, and White has a very slight advantage in the
endgame.
(3) In my opinion, the best move is 13…d5!N, for example, 14.exd5
Nxd5 15.0-0 0-0 16.Bf3 Be6, and White’s advantage is quite minimal.
13…Bb7
Also possible is 13…f5 14.Bg2 Bb7 with transposition to the main
variation.
14.Bg2 f5 15.Qe2
This position has been tested in almost a hundred games, but Black has
not succeeded in finding the correct way yet. We have to help him:
15…h5!
This is the best move, although it occurs very rarely. In order to spare
both space and your time, we will be rather brief in our examination of other
options.
(a) The continuation 15…Qb6 is the most usual one. It is typically
followed by 16.0-0-0 (the move 16.Nc2!? is just as good) 16…0-0-0 17.Nc2,
and in this position White has a small edge.
(b) Second in popularity is the continuation 15…0-0, which is usually
followed by 16.Nc2 (16.0-0-0!?N is just as strong) 16…fxe4 17.Bxe4 Bxe4
18.Qxe4 f5 19.Qe2, and White has an advantage.
(c) Another line begins with the move 15…fxe4, and then there follows
16.Bxe4 d5 17.Bg2 Qd6 18.Nc2 0-0. Here White has an advantage both after
19.0-0 and 19.0-0-0!?N.
(d) The move 15…Qc7 is infrequent and almost always met by 16.Nc2.
Now White has a small advantage both after 16…fxe4 and 16…0-0.
According to analysis, the move 16…h5!?N is slightly better.
16.Bf3!
This novelty is the only move that retains a minimal advantage for White.
With every other
continuation Black’s task is simpler. For example, in Kaminski-Zezulkin,
Wisla 1998, there followed 16.0-0-0 Qc7 17.Nc2, and now Black should have
played 17…h4!N with equal play (in the game there was 17…0-0-0?! 18.f4!
with a small edge for White), and after 18.f4 fxe4 19.Bxe4 d5 20.Bf3 e4, the
pawn on h5 does not hang.
16…Qc7
16…fxe4 17.Bxe4 d5 18.Bg2 Qd6 or 18…Qc7 leads to a quieter position
with a very slight edge for White.
17.exf5 b4!
Certainly not 17…Nxf5? because of 18.Nxb5!.
18.Nc4
A level position arises after 18.cxb4 Nxf5, for example, 19.Rd1 Kf8!
20.Nc2 Rc8 21.Rd2 Qb6 22.Bxb7 Qxb7 23.0-0 Rxc2 24.Rxc2 Nd4 25.Qd1
Nf3+ 26.Kh1 Ne1+ 27.f3 Nxc2 28.Qxc2 h4 29.g4 Qxb4, etc.
After 18.Nc4 there follows a forced variation:
18…Bxf3 19.Qxf3 d5 20.Ne3 bxc3 21.0-0 cxb2 22.Rab1 Rb8 23.f6 d4
24.fxe7 dxe3 25.fxe3 Qxe7
Now possible is 26.Rf2 Qc7 27.Kg2 Rh6 28.Rfxb2 Rxb2 29.Rxb2 Kf8
30.h4 Qc6 31.e4 Rg6 32.Rf2 Qc4 33.a4 Rg4 and the chances are even.
Chapter 145
11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Nc2
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Nc2
This logical continuation is the most popular one in the database;

however, the stronger the players, the more noticeable is the growth of the
popularity growth of 13.Bd3, and among
grandmasters it has already become the main one. Analysis confirms that
after 13.Bd3, Black has slightly more problems, so this is exactly the move
that should be considered the main one. We will look at it in chapters 146-
148.
13…Bb714.Bd3 d5!
The best continuation.
15.exd5
This move occurs in the overwhelming majority of the games, but we are
going to see that after it White does not have an advantage any longer. So we
will have to search for other ways.
15.f3 is absolutely unpromising because of 15…dxe4! (after the usual
15…Qb6?! 16.Qe2, White has a small advantage)16.Bxe4N (or 16.fxe4
Ng6!N 17.g3 f5 18.Qf3 Qg5 19.Rf1 0-0-0, and Black has a small edge), 16…
Qb6 17.Bxb7 Rd8! 18.Qe2 Qxb7 19.0-0 0-0, and the game is equal.
So far I am unable to find full equality for Black after 15.Qe2!?.
(a) 15…f5?! is dubious despite the exclamation point that Sveshnikov
gives to this move. This is the probable reason for this move being the most
popular one, but, understandably, with poor results. After 16.exf5! e4 17.f6
Ng6 18.Qe3 Qxf6 19.0-0, White’s position is better.
(b) The position after 15…Qb6 will be examined in the next chapter with
the move order 13.Bd3.
(c) I think that it is best for Black to play 15…dxe4! 16.Bxe4 Bxe4
17.Qxe4 Qd5, for example, 18.Qxd5 Nxd5 19.0-0-0 (19.a4 bxa4!N 20.Rxa4
Rb8 leads to equal play) 19…0-0-0 20.g3, and the ending is in favor of
White, though, of course, assuming normal play, the position is still drawish.
Certainly, not every player would want to play such a simple (and slightly
inferior in the bargain) position with Black, and this is one of the weaknesses
of the move 11…Ne7.
But things cannot be all that bad for Black. To be fair, I must note that not
every player would want to play such a simple position with White either,
and with such a slight advantage at that.
15…Qxd5 16.Ne3 Qe6
17.a4!?
The old move 17.Qh5 was very popular in the past, but about ten years
ago interest in it waned. White obviously attempts to prevent f6-f5. Then
there occurs 17…0-0-0 18.Bc2.
First, in Ye-Krasenkow, Shenyang 1999, there followed 18…Kb8 19.Bb3
Qb6! 20.Rd1 Ng6 21.0-0 Nf4 22.Qxf7, and the game was drawn in view of
22…Bxg2 23.Rxd8+ Rxd8 24.Nxg2 Nh3+ 25.Kh1 Nxf2+ 26.Rxf2 Qxf2
27.h4.
Then the game Fernandez-Illescas, Dos Hermanas 2000, was played,
where Black continued 18…f5!. There followed 19.Nxf5 Ng6 20.Ne3 Nf4
21.Qf5 Bxg2 (21…Rhg8 is also sufficient for equality, for example, 22.Rg1
Kc7!?N, etc.) 22.Qxe6+ fxe6 23.Nxg2 Nxg2+ 24.Ke2 Nf4+ 25.Ke3 Ng2+
26.Ke2 Nf4+, and the opponents agreed to a draw. Thus, the attempt to
hamper the advance f6-f5 falls short.
17…Rd8! 18.Qc2
The game Socko-Krasenkow, Lublin 2009, developed in the following
fashion: 18.Qe2 Nd5! (the usual 18…e4 is slightly weaker) 19.Nxd5 Qxd5
20.0-0-0 Qxg2 21.Rhg1, and now, instead of 21…Qf3 which led to a small
White’s edge, Black could have played 21…Qxh2!N, for example, 22.Bxb5+
Ke7 23.Qc4 Rxd1+ 24.Rxd1 axb5 25.Qc5+! Ke6 26.Qb6 Kf5 27.Qxb7 with
equal play.
18…e4
18…b4? is poor because of 19.Bc4 Qc8 20.Qb3, Baklan-Malakhatko,
Ordzhonikidze (Ukraine) 2000. 18…Nd5 19.axb5 Nxe3 20.fxe3 axb5
21.Be4, Stefansson-Lalic, Aarhus 2003, is in White’s favor, but 21.0-0!N is
even stronger.
19.Be2 0-0!
19…f5 20.g3 0-0! 21.axb5 axb5 22.Bxb5 leads to a transposition of
moves, but 20.axb5!? is unclear.
20.axb5 axb5 21.Bxb5 f5 22.g3 Ng6
An interesting position. Black has a strong initiative for the pawn. The
most dangerous development for White is obviously the advance f5-f4, and
he has to get prepared for it urgently. After f5-f4, the white rook obtains the
g-line, the black king retreats to h8, and here a check on c3 with queen would
be greatly useful. To do that, White has to play c3-c4, but first it is necessary
to return the bishop to e2; from here it is going to defend the d3-and f3-
squares. Thus:
23.Be2!
23.Bc4?!, to drive the black queen off the diagonal c8-h3, is slightly more
popular, but after 23…Qf6!, this move turns out to be a mere waste of time.
Then possible is 24.Be2!N Ne5! 25.c4 Nd3+ 26.Kf1 f4, and Black has a
small advantage.
The move 23…Qc8?! made by Mamedyarov in his game against
Stefansson, Antalya 2004, is weak. Apparently, Black wanted to retain the
opportunity of transferring his queen to h3. Now instead of the usual move
24.Ra5?! that passes the initiative to Black, White once again should have
played 24.Be2!N, for example, 24…f4 25.gxf4 Nxf4 26.Rg1+ Kh8 27.c4!,
and the position from the main variation arises with the only difference that
the queen is on e6, and after 27…Qh3, there arises a position examined
below which is favorable for White and in which Black does not have the
move Qe6-e5 any longer.
23…f4 24.gxf4 Nxf4 25.Rg1+ Kh8 26.c4 and now correct is
26…Qe5!N
Previously only 26…Qh3?! had been played, after which White gains the
advantage with 27.Rd1 Ra8 28.Rg3 Qxh2 29.Qc3+ f6 30.Qb4!, Etc.
27.Qc3 Qxc3+ 28.bxc3 Ra8 and the chances are even.
Chapter 146
11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Bd3 without 13…d5
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Bd3!?
As already noted, this is the most popular move with strong players.
Obviously, they regard this move as the best one.
13…Bb7
This continuation is the most popular one in the database, but I believe
that the move 13…d5 that we are going to explore in the following two
chapters is slightly more accurate. The natural-looking 13…f5?! leads to a
better position for White after 14.exf5, for example, 14…Bxf5 15.Bxf5 Nxf5
16.Qf3 Ne7 17.0-0-0 0-0 18.Nc2N, etc.
14.Qe2!
After 14.Nc2, there arises a position from the main variation of the
previous chapter, and after 14.0-0 d5, the game arrives at the main line of the
next chapter.
14…d5
Let us look at other options.
(a) To play 14…Rg8 is hardly sensible, as it forces White to make a
useful move 15.g3, as a result of which the f4-square becomes inaccessible
for the black knight. For example, in Korneev-Felgaer, Dos Hermanas 2005,
there followed 15…Qb6 16.0-0-0 0-0-0 17.Nc2 Kb8 18.Rhe1 d5, and now,
instead of 19.a3?!, White could have played 19.exd5!N, for example, 19…
Bxd5 20.f4 with the advantage.
(b) The variation 14…Qc7 15.Nc2 f5 16.f3 fxe4 17.fxe4 is playable, and
now 17…Ng6!?N (the usual move 17…d5 is slightly weaker because of
18.0-0-0! with a more serious edge for White), for example, 18.g3 f5 19.0-0-
0 f4, etc. with an advantage for White.
(c) 14…Qb6 occurs often. Then possible is 15.Nc2 d5 (or 15…f5, for
example, 16.f3 f4 17.Qf2 Qxf2+ 18.Kxf2, and White stands better in the
ending, as in Nisipeanu-Moreno, France 2000).
Now after 16.0-0-0! the game transposes to the main variation. Previosuly
it had been assumed that the move 16.Nb4 was strong, but this is not the case.
After 16…f5! (16…0-0-0?! is clearly weaker because of 17.a4!, Tiviakov-
Sulava, Saint Vincent 2004) 17.Nxd5 Nxd5 18.exd5 e4 19.Bc2 (Tiviakov
points out 19.f3 as the best move, but after 19…0-0-0N, the game is equal,
for example, 20.fxe4 fxe4 21.Bxe4 Rhe8 22.0-0-0 Qh6+ 23.Kb1 Qf4! 24.Rd4
Bxd5 25.Bxd5 Qxd4! 26.Be6+! Rxe6 27.Qxe6+ fxe6 28.cxd4 Rxd4) 19…
Bxd5 20.Bb3 Rd8, White’s advantage is slight.
15.0-0-0 Qb6!?
This move is patently the most popular one, but Black has been known to
prepare other ways to castle queenside as well. For example, in Rowson-
Vallejo, Selfoss 2003, there was 15…Qa5?! 16.exd5?! (16.f4!?N with an
advantage is better) 16…Nxd5 17.Qf3 b4? (the correct move is 17…Rc8!N),
and White could have exploited his opponent’s error with 18.Nc4!N (in the
text there was 18.Be4? bxa3 19.Bxd5 Qb6 20.b3 Bxd5 21.Rxd5 Ke7 22.Rhd1
Rhd8 with an advantage for White), for example, 18…Qc7 (18…Qc5!?
seems to be more accurate; the reply is also 19.b3!) 19.b3! Nxc3?! (more
stubborn is 19…0-0-0! 20.Be4 Nxc3 21.Bxb7+ Qxb7 22.Nd6+ Rxd6
23.Qxb7+ Kxb7 24.Rxd6, and White should win) 20.Qxf6! (20.Qxb7 is
weaker) 20…0-0 (Black is able to hold out a little longer after either 20…
Nxd1 21.Rxd1 or 20…Rg8 21.Bxh7) 21.Bxh7 Kxh7 22.Qh4+ Kg7 23.Qg4+
Kh8 (or 23…Kf6 24.Rd7 Qc8 25.f4! Ne2+ 26.Kb2 Nxf4 27.Rf1!) 24.Rd7
Qc8 25.Nd6 Nxa2+ 26.Kb1 Be4+ 27.Nxe4 Nc3+ 28.Kb2 Nxe4 29.Rc1!, and
White wins.
In Nisipeanu-Halkias, Охрид 2001, Black tried 15…Qc7. There followed
16.Nc2! (16.exd5 is weaker) 16…0-0-0 17.exd5 Kb8 (17…Bxd5!? seems to
be more accurate) 18.Be4 f5 19.d6! Rxd6 20.Bxb7 Kxb7 21.Rxd6 Qxd6, and
here White has 22.a4!N (in the game there was 22.Rd1 Qe6, and White’s
edge became a little smaller), for example, 22…bxa4 23.Rd1 Qe6 24.Nb4
Rc8 25.Nxa6! Rc4! (25…Qxa6? 26.Rd7+) 26.Nb4, and White has a clear
advantage.
16.Nc2!
This continuation is the best; however, other moves also occur. In my
opinion, on 16.exd5, Black does better to take with bishop, 16…Bxd5!? (in
practice the pawn is almost always captured with knight, 16…Nxd5, but after
17.Be4 Nf4 18.Qf3 Bxe4 19.Qxe4 0-0 20.Nc2 Qe6 21.Kb1! f5 22.Qf3 Ng6
23.h4 or 23.Rhe1!?N, Black has more problems), for example, 17.Be4!?N 0-
0-0 18.Bxd5 Nxd5 19.Qe4 Qc6 20.Nc2 Kc7, and White has a small
advantage.
The move 16.f4!? is interesting. As I see it, Black should reply with 16…
Ng6!N (after the usual continuation 16…0-0-0 17.fxe5 fxe5 18.exd5 Rxd5
19.c4!, it is more difficult for Black to struggle for equality, for example,
19…Rc5 20.Rhf1 Rf8 21.Kb1 b4 22.Nc2 f5 23.Nd4! e4, Shapiro-Oliveira,
corr, 2002, and now, instead of 24.g4?!, White should have played 24.Nb3!N
with a solid advantage) 17.fxe5 Nf4 18.Qf3 fxe5 19.exd5 Qh6! 20.Qe3!
Nxd3+ 21.Rxd3 Qxe3+ 22.Rxe3 0-0-0 23.Rxe5 Bxd5, and White’s edge is
only slight.
16…0-0-0 17.exd5
Other continuations are also possible, but all are weaker.
17…Nxd5 18.Be4 Nf4
18…Kb8 19.Qf3 Nf4 leads to a transposition of moves.
19.Qf3 Kb8 (D)
In this position the move 20.Nb4 has been tested four times, and the move
20.g3 twice, but both of them lead to equal play. However, the computer
suggests a novelty that gains an advantage for White:
20.Rhf1!
With this move White defends his f2-pawn in advance and prepares g2-
g3. The immediate 20.g3?! runs into 20…Bxe4 21.Qxe4 Nh3!.
Now possible is 20…Bxe4! 21.Qxe4 Qb7 22.Qxb7+ Kxb7 23.Ne3 Kc6
24.g3 Nd5 25.Nf5 and the endgame is better for White.
Chapter 147
11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Bd3 d5 without 14.Qe2
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6 gxf6 13.Bd3 d5!
As already noted in the previous chapter, I regard this move as the best.
The point is that Black is often able to do without the bishop move to b7 (as,
for example, in the next chapter or in the variation 14…Rg8!? of the current
one).
14.0-0
Let us have a look at the other options. 14.exd5?! is poor. Usually there
follows 14…Qxd5 15.Qe2 Bb7 16.f3, and now Black should play 16…0-0-0!
(16…Qe6, Sznapik-Vaisser, Biel 1989, is slightly worse). After 17.Rd1!?N
(both 17.Be4?! Qc5 and 17.0-0-0?! Qxa2 are weaker) 17…Qxa2 18.0-0,
White has adequate compensation for his pawn, but nothing more than that.
14.Nc2 frequently occurs. Now Black faces a choice. He almost always
plays 14…Bb7, and the game transposes to the variation we examined in the
previous chapter. Possibly 14…dxe4!? is even simpler, for example, 15.Bxe4
Qxd1+ 16.Rxd1 Ra7!N 17.0-0 Be6 18.Rd6 0-0, and White’s advantage is
rather slight.
In the next chapter we are going to deal with the main move 14.Qe2.
14…Bb7
Black invariably chooses this move; however, he has a more interesting
continuation, 14…Rg8!?N. Black intends to employ the c8-bishop on the
diagonal c8-h3. I will quote the analysis in the most condensed form possible:
15.Re1!? (after 15.g3!? Bg4! 16.Qc2 h5! 17.exd5 h4 18.Be4 Rc8, there arises
a complex position with roughly even chances) 15…Bg4! 16.Be2 Bh3 (16…
Be6!? is also not bad) 17.Bf1 (17.Bf3 dxe4 18.Bxe4 f5 or 18.Rxe4!? Be6 is
also playable) 17…dxe4! 18.Qh5 Bg4 19.Qxh7 Bf5 20.Qh6! Rg6 21.Qc1!?
Nd5! 22.Rd1 e3! 23.fxe3 Be4 24.c4 Rc8 25.g3 (25.Qd2! bxc4 26.g3 c3
27.bxc3 Qb6 28.Nc4 Qc7 with equal play is more solid) 25…f5 26.Qd2
(26.Bd3?! Nf4!) 26…f4 27.exf4 Qb6+ 28.Qf2 Ne3 29.fxe5! Nxd1, and Black
has excellent play.
15.Re1!
This is the best move. Both 15.Qf3 and 15.Qd2 are slightly weaker.
15…Qb6
This is the most popular move, but, in my opinion, it is probable that
objectively the simple continuation 15…dxe4!? 16.Bxe4 Bxe4 17.Rxe4
Qxd1+ 18.Rxd1 Nc6!?N 19.Nc2 Ke7 with a small advantage to White is a bit
stronger. With queens on the board, Black faces more serious challenges.
16.Qf3!N
The continuation 16.exd5?! (Bellia-Spasov, Korinthos 2001) throws away
the advantage. After 16…Nxd5 17.Qg4?! (17.Be4 0-0-0 18.Qf3 is equal)
17…h5 18.Qf5 Kf8! 19.Be4 Nf4 20.Bxb7 Qxb7 21.Qe4 Qxe4 22.Rxe4 Rd8,
Black gained a small advantage, but 22…Kg7N was more precise.
16.Nc2! leads to a transposition of moves; the best reply is 16…Rg8!N,
for example, 17.Qf3, and the game transposes to the main variation.
16…Rg8
17.Nc2!?
After 17.g3 0-0-0 18.Rad1, it is also not easy for Black to obtain good
play. In my opinion, his best chance is 18…h5!, after which interesting
complications become possible. I will quote here the main variation of the
analysis: 19.Qxh5 Ng6 20.exd5 Nf4 21.Bf5+ Kb8 22.Qf3 Bxd5 23.Qe3 Qxe3
24.fxe3 Ng2! 25.Re2 Bf3 26.Rxd8+ Rxd8 27.Kf2! Bxe2 28.Kxe2! Rh8 29.h4
Kc7 30.Nc2! a5 31.b4! axb4 32.cxb4, and then White takes the knight on g2,
retaining his small advantage.
17…Ng6!? 18.Ne3 Nf4 19.Bc2 0-0-0
This position is critical. Black pieces are active, but after exchanges,
weaknesses on the Black’s kingside may start to tell.
20.g3!
Also good is 20.Rad1!?.
Then possible is 20…dxe4 21.Bxe4 Kb8!?
Or 21…Rd2 22.Kf1! Nh3 23.Re2 Rgd8 24.Rae1, and White intends to
exchange both rooks.
22.Bxb7 Qxb7 23.Qxb7+ Kxb7 24.Red1 and in the ensuing endgame
White’s chances are better. But let me remind you that Black had a more
promising opportunity, 14…Rg8!?.
Chapter 148
11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Bd3 d5 14.Qe2
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Ne7 12.Nxf6 gxf6 13.Bd3 d5
14.Qe2! (D)
This is the main continuation – and the most popular one, too. White’s
plans are associated with queenside castling.
14…d4!
Here the most frequent move is timid 14…Bb7, after which the game
arrives at the main variation of the chapter 146 that is favorable for White. As
far as I know, the pawn move to d4 had been once employed by Krasenkow.
All the other grandmasters who played this position have not yet given due
consideration to this continuation. However, Black has other quite good

options as well, ones which I would evaluate slightly higher than the move
14…Bb7.
(a) For example, 14…Qb6!? does not look bad. Then possible is 15.0-0-
0!? (or 15.Nc2 f5! 16.f3 dxe4 17.fxe4 f4 with equal play; or 15.exd5 Nxd5
16.Be4 Be6 17.Nc2N 0-0-0, and now 18.a4? Nf4 19.Qe3 Qc7 20.axb5 f5! is
favorable for Black) 15…Be6!?N (15…Bb7 sends us back to the chapter
146) with the idea of meeting 16.Nc2 with 16…d4! 17.cxd4 Bxa2.
(b) The move 14…dxe4!? deserves serious attention. After 15.Bxe4 Rb8,
Black hinders White’s queen castling and the bishop on e4 gets hit with f6-f5.
For example, 16.0-0 Qc7 17.Rad1 f5 18.Bc2 Rb6!?, and then the b8-rook will
be able to transfer to the kingside via b6.
15.cxd4
15…Rg8!
And this is a novelty that appears important to me. The idea of the move
is to prevent White from castling kingside. Previously only the move 15…
Qxd4 occurred, allowing White to get an advantage after 16.0-0! (16.0-0-0?!,
Socko-Krasenkow, Germany 2003, is weak). Then possible is 16…Be6!N
(all the other moves are weaker, for example, 16…Ng6 17.Nc2 Qb6
18.Ne3!N Nf4 19.Qf3 Rg8 20.Rfd1, and White has an advantage) 17.Rfd1
Qb6 18.Nc2 0-0 19.Ne3, and White’s superiority is undisputed.
16.Nc2
The straightforward 16.dxe5 takes White nowhere, for example, 16…
Rxg2 17.exf6 Qa5+ 18.Qd2+ Qxd2 19.Kxd2 Rxf2+ 20.Ke3 Rxf6, etc. The
attempt to castle kingside after 16.g3 Qxd4 17.0-0?! Bg4! leads to Black’s
advantage. 16.d5 Rxg2 17.Nc2 leads to the main variation with a
transposition of moves.
16…Rxg2 17.d5
This position belongs to a class that is absolutely novel and quite atypical
for the Chelyabinsk Variation. White has a defended passed pawn on d5,
though for the moment it is not going anywhere. Black has the prospect of
transferring the knight to f4 and a more mobile bishop that controls the
important f5-square. On the other hand, the king’s shelter is not really good
and his pawns on the f-file are doubled. All this promises an extremely
complex struggle.
17…Qa5+!?
The idea is to weaken the king’s pawn cover in case if White castles
queenside. Another possibility is 17…Ng6!?, for example, 18.Qd2 Nf4
19.Ne3 Rg6 20.0-0-0 Qb6 21.Rhe1 Bd7 22.Bf1 Rc8+ 23.Kb1 h5!? (planning
h5-h4-h3) 24.h4 a5, etc., with rather slight advantage for White.
18.b4 Qc7 19.Qe3!?
Or 19.Qd2 Bd7 20.Ne3 Rg8 21.Rc1 Qb6, for example, 22.Rc5 a5!
23.a4!? axb4 24.Rxb5 Bxb5 25.Bxb5+ Kd8 26.Qxb4 Qa5 27.Qxa5 Rxa5, and
White’s edge is negligible.
19…Bd7 20.Qc5 Qb7 21.Ne3 Rg6 22.Kd2 Rd8 23.Rac1 Rh6!? 24.Qc7
Qxc7 25.Rxc7 Rh4! and, in view of the threat f6-f5, Black is very close to
equality.
Let us sum up the results of our examination of the move 11…Ne7. As
we could see from the last five chapters, and particularly from the last two,
the theory of this continuation is rather far from being complete. There are a
lot of opportunities to improve known variations.
Assuming correct play by Black, White is only able to obtain a rather
small advantage. In the process, some highly interesting positions may arise,
which makes this continuation both attractive and viable.
Chapter 149
11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.a4 bxa4 14.Ncb4 Nxb4 without
15.Nxb4 or 12…Ne7
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Bg5!?
A solid continuation, which is not mentioned by Sveshnikov and which is

usually associated with one of three following plans:
(a) Preparation for the maneuver Nc6-e7 while preventing White from
ruining Black’s pawn structure by taking the f6-bishop;
(b) Preparation for the move 12…Rb8, the aim of which is to hinder
White’s break a2-a4 (it is necessary to note that in the move order 11…0-0
12.Nc2 Rb8 White has the move 13.h4!, and the bishop is already unable to
get to the diagonal c1-h6);
(c) Finally, in the majority of games it all simply comes down to an
artless move transposition after 12.Nc2 0-0, and the game transposes to the
main continuation 11…0-0.
12.Nc2
This move occurs in overwhelming majority of games and in practically
every game played by strong players. On 12.Bd3 or 12.Be2, Black easily
equalizes with 12…Ne7!?, exchanging the most active white piece. The
continuation 12.h4 is more ambitious but does not deliver any particular
benefits to White. Now 12…Bxh4? (Polischuk-Geo. Timoshenko, Alushta
2007) is a serious blunder. After 13.Rxh4! Qxh4 14.Nc7+ Ke7 15.Nxa8 Qxe4
16.Qe2 Qxe2+ 17.Bxe2 d5, White, instead of 18.0-0-0, should have played
18.Nc2!N, preparing a2-a4! and disentangling the a8-knight, for example,
18…d4!? 19.cxd4 exd4 20.Nb6 Bf5 21.0-0-0, and Black is on the brink of
defeat.
Thus, there usually follows 12…Bh6 13.g4 (13.Nc2! is more precise, and
after 13…0-0 the game transposes to the 11…0-0 variation, which we are
going to examine in the corresponding chapter) 13…Bf4, and Black is fine,
for example, 14.Qf3 (or 14.Nxf4 exf4 15.Qd5 Bb7 16.0-0-0 Qe7 with
comfortable play for Black) 14…Be6 15.Nxf4 Qf6!, and Black has excellent
play.
12…Rb8
As already pointed out, the aim of this prophylactic move is to hinder
White’s intended a2-a4 break. The equally popular move 12…Ne7 will be
examined in chapters 151-154. The most frequent move is 12…0-0, and the
game transposes back to the main continuation 11…0-0.
Slightly weaker is 12…Bb7; strong players have not been playing in this
fashion for about fifteen years. After 13.a4! bxa4 14.Rxa4, there most often
occurs 14…0-0, and the resulting position is favorable for White. We will
examine it with the move order 11…0-0 (another way is 14…Nb8; after
15.Bc4 Nd7 16.Qe2! 0-0 17.0-0 a5, a position that we have already
investigated in chapter 143 may arise).
13.a4!?
Yet here it comes! If White does not make this move, then the game may
transpose to a position from the main continuation 11…0-0.
(a) For example, such a transposition will happen after 13.Be2 0-0,
13.Bd3 0-0, 13.g3 0-0 or 13.Nce3 0-0.
(b) The variation 13.a3 a5 has independent significance.
In Kasparov-Kramnik, Frankfurt 2000, there followed 14.Bd3 Ne7
15.Nxe7 (I think that Black’s problems are slightly more difficult after
15.Nce3!?) 15…Qxe7 16.Qe2 0-0 (probably 16…Qb7!? is slightly more
precise) 17.0-0 (17.Bxb5 leads to an equal game, for example, 17…Bb7!?N
18.0-0 Bxe4 19.Qxe4 Rxb5, etc.) 17…Bd7 18.b4 axb4 19.Nxb4 Rfc8 20.c4
(worth attention is 20.Rab1!?N, for example, 20…Qd8 21.Nd5 Bc6 22.Rb3!,
and White applies pressure to the b5-pawn) 20…bxc4 21.Bxc4 Be6, and the
chances are roughly even.
13…bxa4 14.Ncb4 Nxb4
The continuation 14…Bd7 usually leads to mere transposition of moves.
After 15.Bxa6 Nxb4 16.cxb4, there arises a position which will be examined
below in the current chapter; the position after 16.Nxb4 is going to be the
subject of the next chapter.
15.cxb4!?
In the next chapter we will take a look at the continuation 15.Nxb4 that is
clearly more popular. However, I think that taking the pawn creates slightly
more problems for Black. (D)
15…0-0
The move 15…Bd7 occurs less frequently but is no worse. Then possible
is 16.Bxa6 0-0 17.0-0 Bc6 18.Rxa4 (this move leads to equal play, so
preferable is 18.Bc4!?, for example, 18…Bxd5 19.Bxd5 Rxb4 20.Rxa4 Rxb2

21.g3!N Qd7 22.Ra6 Bd2 23.Qf3, and Black’s extra pawn is of no
consequence; the initiative is White’s) 18…Bxa4 19.Qxa4.
Here the move 19…Qe8?! made by van Wely in his game against Anand,
Wijk aan Zee 2006, is not quite successful: after 20.Qxe8 Rfxe8 21.b5, White
The correct move is 19…Kh8!, for example, 20.b5 Qd7 21.Qc4 Bd8!
(this is better than more frequent 21…f5) 22.Qc6 Qa7!N (here Black had
always played 22…Qxc6, and, after 23.bxc6 Rxb2 24.c7 Bxc7 25.Nxc7
Rfb8, drew a slightly worse ending), 23.Qxd6 Re8 24.g3 Bb6 25.Kg2 Bd4
26.Qc7 (or 26.b4 f5) 26…Qxc7 27.Nxc7 Re7 28.Nd5 Rd7, and the game is
equal.
16.Rxa4 a5 17.b5
This move occurs practically in every game (for example, Bacrot,
Jakovenko, Leko and Dominguez used to play in this fashion), but it seems
imprecise because Black gets an opportunity to fully equalize. In my opinion,
he has more problems after 17.h4!. When 17.b5 is analyzed, the matter will
become clearer.
17…Bd718.Nc3
18.Qb3 also occurs; a possible reply to this is 18…Qc8! 19.Nc3 Bd8
20.Bc4 Bb6 21.0-0 Qd8! with equal play.
18…d5!
This continuation is rare but is in line with Black’s dynamic opportunities
in the Chelyabinsk Variation. In the position in the diagram the most popular
is the variation 18…Qb6 19.Bc4 Kh8 20.0-0 f5 21.exf5 Bxf5 22.Qe2, and
White has a small advantage (Dominguez-Frolyanov, Loo 2014). There are
also games in which Radjabov and Tregubov were not particularly successful
playing with Black, but because of the limited space I will have to stop here.
19.exd5
On 19.Qxd5 there follows 19…Bc1!. Just before this book was almost
finished, there appeared a new game – the second one with the move 18…
d5!. In Dominguez-Grischuk, Bilbao 2014, there followed 19.Nxd5 Be7!
20.Qb3 Bb4+!? (20…Be6!?N is also sufficient for equality) 21.Nxb4 axb4
22.Bc4 (22.Qxb4N with equal play, is more accurate) 22…Bxb5 23.Bxb5
Rxb5 24.0-0 Qd4, and Black has a small initiative.
19…e4! 20.Rxe4N
In the first game with the move 18…d5! played by two little-known
players by correspondence in 2010, White continued 20.Be2. There followed
20…e3 21.f3 Bh4+ 22.g3 Bf6 23.0-0 Bxc3 24.bxc3 Bxb5 25.Ra2 Bxe2
26.Rxe2 Qb6, and the chances are even. Now possible is:
20…f5 21.Rd4
21.Ra4 is no better because of 21…Re8 22.Be2 Rxb5 23.Ra2 Rb4 24.0-0
Bf6, and Black has excellent play for his sacrificed pawn.
21…Bf6! 22.Be2! Bxd4 23.Qxd4 f4!?
23…Qe7!? with the idea 24.0-0 Qb4! also leads to equality.
24.0-0 f3 25.Bxf3 Rxf3 26.gxf3 Bh3 27.f4 Qh4 28.Qe3 Bxf1 29.Kxf1
Qxh2 and the game is equal.
So, let us return to the move 17.h4!. Its idea is to drive the enemy bishop
off the key g5-square. If the bishop retreats to f6 or e7, then White is able to
confidently play 18.bxa5!, as the move 18…Rxb2 has already lost its
strength. And if the bishop withdraws to h6, then later it would be impossible
for it to get to f6 as in the main variation. So it looks like Black will have to
dampen his enthusiasm and give up the plan with the break d6-d5.
In any case, I have been unable, at least for now, to find clear equality for
Black after 17.h4!. However, I have already done some interesting
preliminary work. Let me suggest the following variation for analysis: 17…
Bh6 18.b5 Kh8! 19.Be2! Be6 20.b3! f5!?N 21.exf5 Bxf5 22.g4 Rc8! 23.g5
(perhaps 23.Rc4!? is more accurate) 23…Bc2 24.Qd2 Bxb3 25.Ra1 Rc2
26.Qd3 a4! 27.gxh6 gxh6 28.Nb4! Rc4 29.Rxa4 Rc1+ 30.Kd2 Rxh1 31.Qxb3
Rxh4 32.Nd3 Rxa4 33.Qxa4 Qg5+, and the game is almost level.
Chapter 150
11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.a4 bxa4 14.Ncb4 Nxb4 15.Nxb4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.a4 bxa4
14.Ncb4 Nxb4 15.Nxb4
White chooses this move notably more often than 15.cxb4, but, as already
said, I believe that taking the pawn is slightly more dangerous for Black. By
creating the threat of Nc6, White manages to capture the a6-pawn in time and
to thereby secure the stable position of his knight on b4.
15…Bd7
15…0-0 is slightly weaker. Then there usually follows 16.Nc6!? (also
good is 16.h4!?, on which Black should reply 16…Bxh4!N, for example,
17.Qh5 Bxf2+ 18.Kxf2 h6, and though White is a piece up, he finds it rather
difficult to obtain a real advantage) 16…Qb6 17.Nxb8 Qxb2 18.Be2!, and
here, instead of the blatantly weak 18…Qc3+?, the correct move is 18…
Bd2+!N, for example, 19.Kf1 a3! 20.Rxa3! Qxa3 21.Qxd2 Bb7 22.Nd7 Rc8,
and the evaluation of the position is the same as in the previous comment.
16.Bxa6
16.Qxd6? is weak because of 16…Be7 17.Qxe5 0-0. Here in the blitz
game Shirov-Kramnik, 1999, White played 18.Bxa6, and, instead of 18…
Re8?!, Black should have continued 18…Bxb4 19.cxb4 Qb6, for example,
20.Bd3!N Qxb4+ 21.Qc3 Qxb2 22.Qxb2 Rxb2, and the ending is better for
Black.
16…Qa5!
16…0-0 is slightly worse, for example, 17.0-0 Qc7 18.Bd3 Ra8 19.Ra3
Ra5 20.Qe2, and White has a small advantage (Shirov-Kramnik, another blitz
game, 1999).
17.Qxd6
After 17.Qe2?! Rxb4! 18.cxb4 Qxb4 19.Kf1 0-0 20.h4 Bd8 21.g3 Bb6,
Black has a small edge. I can hardly recommend 17.Qd5, as after 17…Qxd5
18.exd5 0-0 19.0-0 e4, Black’s position looks more pleasant.
17…Rb6 18.Qd3 Be7
The sacrifice 18…Rxb4? 19.cxb4 Qxb4+ 20.Kf1 is incorrect. In Aseev-
Volzhin, Elista 1996, there followed 21…Bc6? (much better is 20…Ke7!N)
21.h4 Bh6 22.Qc2! Qb6 23.Bc4 0-0 24.Rh3, and White quickly won.
19.Nd5
19.Rd1?! is weaker because of 19…Be6! (19…Bg4 20.Nd5! Rxb2,
recommended by Tiviakov, leads to equal play after 21.Rd2!N) 20.0-0 0-0
21.Bc4.
Here in Tiviakov-Yakovich, Gausdal 2000, the opponents agreed to a
draw. Although after 21…Bxb4 22.cxb4 Qxb4 23.Bxe6 Rxe6 24.Rd2 Rc6,
Black’s position is slightly better, trying to win it is unrealistic.
19…Rxb2 20.0-0
As Garry Kasparov pointed out, the tempting 20.Nxe7? Kxe7 21.0-0-0?
leads to a defeat after 21…Rhb8! 22.Qxd7+ Kf8 23.Qd6+ Kg8 24.Qc6
R2b6!.
20…Qc5
This position occurs in more that seventy games, and various

continuations have been tried in it.
21.Rab1
This move is made in more than half of the games. The move 21.Rad1
has also been seen. That should be met with 21…Bc6! (in Karjakin-
Radjabov, Baku 2008, there was 21…a3?!, after which White could have
gained an advantage through 22.Nxe7!N Qxe7 23.Qd5!), for example,
22.Nxe7!? Kxe7 23.Qg3 g6!N24.Rd5! Bxd5 25.Qxe5+ Kd7 26.Qxh8 Be6,
and in this sharp position, I am unable to discover even the slightest White’s
advantage.
In the correspondence game Weisser-Soltau, 2010, there was 21.c4!? Rb3
(after 21…0-0 22.Bb5 Bxb5 23.cxb5 Bd6!? 24.Rxa4 Qxb5 25.Qxb5 Rxb5,
the game arrives at the text position; White has a micro-advantage) 22.Qe2
Bd6 23.Bb5 Bxb5 24.cxb5 Qxb5 25.Qxb5 Rxb5 26.Rxa4 0-0, and here the
game was drawn.
21…Rxb1 22.Rxb1 0-0 23.Bb5
23…Be8!?
Quite playable is 23…Bxb5. For example, in Volokitin-Van Wely,
Merida 2005, there followed 24.Rxb5 Qa7 25.Qe3 Qd7 26.Ra5 Rb8
27.Nxe7+ Qxe7 28.g3 Qd6 29.Qa7 g6?! (29…h6! with equal play is simpler)
30.Rd5 Rb1+ 31.Kg2 Qc6 32.Rxe5 Qxc3?? 33.Re8+ Kg7 34.Qe7 h5 35.Qf8+
Kh7 36.Re7, and Black resigned. However, after the move 36…Kg7!N,
White has only a small advantage.
24.Bxe8 Rxe8 25.Rb7
25.Qa6 also occurs, and after 25…a3 26.Rb5 Qd6 27.Nxe7+ Qxe7 28.g3
h5 29.Rb3 Qg5!N, Black has full compensation for his lost a3-pawn. In
Motylev-Timofeev, Moscow 2004, there followed 25…Bd6! 26.Qa6 a3, and
the opponents agreed to a draw. As we can see, the defensive system 11…
Bg5+ and 12…Rb8 has been passing all the tests with excellence so far.
Chapter 151
11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7 13.Ncb4 0-0 14.a4 bxa4 without
15.Qxa4 or 13.h4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7!?
A solid continuation which brings quite good practical results to Black,

including in games at the highest level. For example, Magnus Carlsen has
been known to employ this move in several of his games. Black wants to
exchange the strong white knight on d5. Admittedly, here various questions
arise, for example, would not it be better to wait for White to play Nc2-b4
and then to exchange knights on b4, and without losing a tempo at that?
The other question is more philosophical: there is only one weak point for
white knights (d5), but there are two of them, so in this context the second
knight is somehow excessive (or idle). Thus, it remains unclear whether it is
logical for Black to insist on exchanging the knights.
But perhaps, after this exchange, Black wants to trade off the second
white knight for the light-square bishop and to obtain a position with
opposite-color bishops, which is usually considered drawish.
13.Ncb4
The main move 13.h4!? will be examined in chapters 153-154. 13.Nxe7
Qxe7 14.Nb4 0-0 leads to a transposition of moves. The variation 13.a4 bxa4
frequently occurs.
Here the move 14.Ncb4 is usual (14.Rxa4 Nxd5! 15.Qxd5 Be6 16.Qd1!,
leads to an equal game, but the best continuation is 14.h4!, and after 14…
Bh6, the game transposes to the 13.h4 variation). Black should reply 14…
Nxd5! (14…0-0 leads to the main variation and allows 15.h4!), for example,
15.Qxd5 Be6 16.Qc6+ Bd7! 17.Qxd6 Be7 18.Qxe5 0-0 19.Nd5 Re8, and
Black has full compensation for his pawn (Ganguly-Deepan, India 2006).
13…0-0 (D)
14.a4
Good players almost invariably play this way. 14.Nxe7+ does not bring
any advantage to White, for example, 14…Qxe7 15.a4 Qb7!N 16.Qd5 bxa4!?
(or 16…Qb8 17.Nc6?! Qc7 18.Ne7+ Bxe7 19.Qxa8 Bb7 20.Qa7 d5 21.Qe3
d4!, and Black has the advantage) 17.Rxa4 a5 18.Bb5!? Qb8! 19.Nc6 Qb6
20.c4 Bb7 21.Qxd6 Kh8! 22.0-0 Rad8 23.Nxd8 Qxd6 24.Nxb7 Qd4 25.Bc6
f5! 26.exf5 g6, and Black’s chances are slightly better.
Now is not the best time for 14.h4 (Bacrot-Eljanov, Elista 2008), because
Black replies 14…Nxd5!? with good counterplay, for example, 15.Nxd5 Bh6
16.a4!?, and the game transposes to a variation that we are going to explore
in chapter 153, in which Black continues 16…Be6!?.
14…bxa4
This natural move is also made in almost every game; however, it allows
h2-h4. Because of this, more precise is 14…Nxd5!? 15.Nxd5 Be6!, and after
16.h4 Bh6, the game may once again transpose to a variation from chapter
153 that is comparatively favorable for Black.
15.Rxa4
Here White has his last chance to play 15.h4! (though this move is
extremely rare) and, after 15…Bh6, to transpose the game to the favorable
13.h4! variation. Another popular move, 15.Qxa4!?, will be examined in the
next chapter.
15…a5 16.Nxe7+
After 16.h4 Bh6, play transposes to the 13.h4 variation, but 13.h4N is
also interesting. And if White plays 16.Bb5, then there arises a roughly level
position that we will look at later with the 11…0-0 move order.
16…Qxe7 17.Bc4!
The move 17.Bb5 once again leads to positions from the main variation,
11…0-0. The usual 17.Nd5 Qb7 leads only to equal play. For example, in
Maslak-Moiseenko, Moscow 2007, there followed 18.b4 Be6 (18…axb4 is
also good) 19.Bc4 axb4 20.Rxb4 Qa7 (20…Qc6! is simpler) 21.0-0 Kh8
22.Qb3 Qa3 23.Nb6 Qxb3, and the opponents agreed to a draw.
17…Qa7!
This is the best move, though it has been extremely rare so far. The most
popular continuation is 17…Bd7, and after 18.Nd5, the game transposes to
the main variation 11…0-0 with 15…Bd7 (see chapter 183). White has a
small advantage. In Vachier-Lagrave-Zhao Jun, Paris 2006, there followed…
18.Bd5
After this move, chances are even. More precise is 18.0-0!?N, for
example, 18…Bd7 19.Ra3! Rac8 20.Bb3 Bb5 21.Re1 Kh8 22.Bc2!?
(22.Qxd6? is bad because of 22…f5!) 22…Bh4 23.g3 Bd8, etc., with
minimal advantage to White.
18…Bd7 19.Ra2 Rac8 20.0-0 Kh8 21.Qa1?!
Better is 21.Nc2N with equal play.
21…Bd8 22.Nc2 f5 and Black has a slight initiative.
Chapter 152
11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7 13.Ncb4 0-0 14.a4 bxa4 15.Qxa4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7 13.Ncb4 0-0
14.a4 bxa4 15.Qxa4
Taking with queen is roughly as popular in the database as capturing with

the rook, but strong players clearly prefer the queen move. Moreover, its
success rate is also notably higher.
15…Nxd5
15…a5 leads to small White edge, for example, 16.Bb5! Nxd5 17.Nxd5
Be6! (17…f5 is slightly weaker in view of 18.b4! fxe4 19.Bc6, and White has
an advantage) 18.Bc6 Rb8 19.b4! (the usual 19.Ra2 does not bring any
advantage: Black should not play 19…Qc8 (Kamsky-Carlsen, Khanty
Mansyisk 2005), but 19…f5! with equal play, for example, 20.h4 Bf6 21.exf5
Bxf5 22.Qc4 Be6!N 23.b4 axb4 24.cxb4 Qc7!, and the queen moves to the
comfortable square f7) 19…Bxd5 20.Bxd5 axb4 21.cxb4 Qb6 22.Rb1!N and
16.Nxd5 Bd7
After 16…a5 17.Bb5, the game transposes to the 15…a5 variation. (D)
This is the critical position for the 15.Qxa4 variation. Where does queen
have to withdraw to? Five possible retreats have been tested.
This move seems to be the best. All the other retreats are slightly weaker,
and their evaluations are practically the same.
(a) On 17.Qa5, the simplest reply is 17…Qxa5! 18.Rxa5 Rfb8, for

example, 19.b4 Bd8 20.Rxa6 Rxa6 21.Bxa6 Ra8 22.Be2 Ra1 23.Bd1 Bb5
24.h4 Bd3 25.f3 Ra2, etc.
(b) In the game Inarkiev-Wang, Nizhni Novgorod 2007, there occurred
17.Qa3 Bc6 18.Bc4 a5 19.b3 Kh8 20.0-0 f5. Here, instead of the strange
move 21.Qb2?!, White should have played 21.exf5!N with a very slight
advantage.
(c) In Anand-Carlsen, Morelia/Linares 2008, White chose 17.Qa2. There
followed 17…a5 18.Bd3!? (or 18.Bc4 a4! with equal play) 18…Bc6 (worth
attention is 18…a4!? 19.0-0 Qb8) 19.0-0 Qb8 20.Bc4 Kh8 21.b3 f5 22.exf5,
and here the game was drawn. However, White retains small advantage after
more precise 21.Qb1!N. By the way, this move shows that the queen retreat
to a2 was not the most successful decision.
(d) In Korneev-Moiseenko, Fuegen 2006, there was 17.Qd1 a5 18.Bc4
Kh8 19.0-0 f5 (19…Rb8!? 20.b3 f5 is more accurate) 20.exf5 Bxf5 21.Qe2
(and here White has the unpleasant 21.Bd3!) 21…Qb8 (21…Be6N seems to
be more precise) 22.Rfd1 (after 22.b4!N White has a small edge), and after
all those mutual slips, the game lost its theoretical interest. (D)
17…a518.Bc4
Curiously, in this position the engine gives preference to the move
18.Bd3!?, though strong players do not play in this fashion. The idea of the
move is to prevent the advance f7-f5. If the black d7-bishop moves to c6 or to
e6 to take the knight, then White replies Bd3-c4!, hampering f7-f5 in the
former case and a5-a4 in the latter.
18…a4!
The move 18…Rc8 chosen by Carlsen against Jakovenko, Dortmund
2009, is imprecise. After 19.Qe2 Kh8 20.0-0 f5 21.exf5 Bxf5 22.Bd3! Be6
23.Be4, it turned out that the rook’s position on c8 is not really good, so
Black played 23…Rb8. White stands slightly better.
19.0-0 Qa5
In Korneev-Jakovenko, Pamplona 2006, there followed…
20.Nb4!?
Also playable is 20.Qe2, for example, 20…Qc5 21.Ra3 Rac8!? 22.Ba6
Rb8 23.Nb4 g6!N with minimal advantage to White.
20…Qc5 21.Bd5 Ra7 22.Nd3 Qb6 23.Rfd1 Kh8
White’s edge is smaller after 23…g6!N.
24.c4 Qb8 25.Qc3 Rc8 26.c5 Bb5 27.c6?!
27.b3!N is better, but after 27…Bxd3 28.Qxd3 axb3 29.Qxb3 Rxa1
30.Rxa1 Qxb3 31.Bxb3 dxc5 32.Bxf7, White advantage is next to negligible.
27…Bd8 and Black has excellent play.
Chapter 153
11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7 13.h4! Bh6 14.a4 bxa4 15.Ncb4 0-0
without 16.Qxa4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7 13.h4!
As we have seen from the two previous chapters, the continuation

13.Ncb4 fails to create any serious problems for Black, particularly if we
keep in mind the opportunity 14…Nxd5!?. White eventually managed to find
a more energetic move order, 13.h4!, to make it impossible for black bishop
to return to e7 or d8 with a subsequent 14.a4!. At the grandmaster level, this
move order first occurred in the game Karjakin-Radjabov, which we are
going to examine below.
13…Bh6 14.a4!
14.Ncb4 is not so strong. There may follow 14…0-0, and now 15.Nxe7+
Qxe7 16.Nd5 leads to an equal game. Interesting is the development of the
game Barua-Shariyazdanov, Guntur 2000: 16…Qb7 17.g4 Bf4 18.Bg2 Be6
19.Nxf4 exf4 20.Qxd6 f3! 21.Bxf3 Bxg4 22.Bg2 Rad8 23.Qf4, and here the
simplest continuation is 23…Qd7!?, for example, 24.0-0 Be2 25.Rfe1 Qd2
with equality.
More active is 15.a4!?; one possible reply is 15…Nxd5! (after 15…bxa4,
the game transposes to the main variation) 16.Nxd5 Be6!, for example,
17.axb5!?N axb5 18.Bxb5 Rxa1 19.Qxa1 Bxd5 20.exd5 e4! 21.Qa4 e3 22.f4
Qc8 23.Rh3 Qg4 24.Kf1 Rb8, and Black has a sufficient initiative for the
pawn.
14…bxa415.Ncb4
15…0-0
In the position in the diagram, we can see that the inclusion of the moves
h4 and Bh6 is favorable for White. Should Black now play 15…Nxd5?!,
there would then follow 16.Qxd5 Be6 17.Qc6+, and after 17…Bd7 18.Qxd6,
Black does not have the move Bg5-e7 as in the game Ganguly-Deepan,
examined in chapter 151.
In the above-mentioned game Karjakin-Radjabov, Warsaw 2005, 15…
Bd7 was played. Then there followed 16.Rxa4!? (16.Nxe7!? Qxe7 17.Nd5
Qd8 18.Rxa4 leads to a transposition of moves) 16…Nxd5 17.Nxd5 Bxa4
(worth attention is 17…a5) 18.Qxa4+ Kf8 19.b4 a5 20.b5 Rb8?! (more
precise is 20…Rc8!N, planning to transfer the rook to c5) 21.g3 g6 22.Bh3
Kg7 23.0-0 Rf8 24.Ra1?! (and here more accurate is 24.Rb1!N, for example,
24…Kh8 25.b6 f5 26.Qxa5 fxe4 27.Qb5, retaining the advantage) 24…Kh8
25.Qxa5 Qe8? (after 25…Ra8!N, the most probable outcome of the game is a
draw) 26.c4 f5?! (and here better is 26…Ra8N) 27.Qc7!, and White has a
serious superiority.
16.Rxa4
The main continuation 16.Qxa4! will be examined in the next chapter.
16…a5
Also quite playable is 16…Nxd5!? 17.Nxd5 a5, for example, 18.g3 Kh8N
19.Bg2 Bd7 20.Ra2 a4 21.0-0 Rb8 22.Qc2 Qc8, and White has only a
symbolic edge.
17.Bc4
After 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.Nd5 Qd8 19.Bc4 Bd7, there arises a position
from the main variation; besides, Black may also play the good 18…Qb7!?.
17…Bd7!
In Dominguez-Ni Hua, Beer-Sheba 2005, Black played 17…Nxd5?!.
There followed 18.Bxd5 Bd7 19.Bxa8 Bxa4 20.Qxa4 axb4 21.Bd5 bxc3
22.bxc3 Qf6, and here, instead of 23.Qa7, White should have played 23.Qc2!
with a small but stable advantage.
18.Nxe7+ Qxe7 19.Nd5 Qd8 20.Ra2
This is a critical position for the evaluation of the move 16.Rxa4. I cannot
see any advantage at all here for White. Because of the pawn on h4, he has
certain difficulties with castling.
20…Kh8
In Brkic-Eljanov, Teslic 2006, there was 20…Rc8?! 21.Qe2 Be6, and
here, instead of 22.g3, White has the move 22.0-0!?N, for example, 22…
Qxh4 23.g3 Qd8 24.Rfa1 Rc5 25.b4 axb4 26.cxb4 Rc8 27.b5, and White has
a small edge.
Now possible is 21.Qe2 a4! 22.Bb5 Be6 23.Rxa4 Rxa4 24.Bxa4 Qa5!N
24…f5?! 25.Bc6 fxe4 26.Qxe4 (Smeets-Wang Yue, Istanbul 2005) leads
to White’s advantage.
25.Qd1
Or 25.Qb5 Qa7 26.0-0 Rb8 27.Qc6 Rc8 28.Qb5 Rb8 with a draw.
25…f5 26.Bc2 fxe4 27.Bxe4 Qa2 28.0-0 Qxb2 and the game is equal.
Chapter 154
11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7 13.h4 Bh6 14.a4 bxa4 15.Ncb4 0-0
16.Qxa4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 Ne7 13.h4 Bh6 14.a4
bxa4 15.Ncb4 0-0 16.Qxa4!
In this position, taking with queen is much more popular than capturing
with rook. It allows White to exploit the bishop’s position on h6 and to start
active actions on the queenside.
16…a5
This move leads to a well-examined, long and almost forced variation, in
which Black obtains a position that is both slightly worse and cheerless, but
nevertheless is drawn. However, he has another, more interesting and
practically unexplored, opportunity.
The move 16…Nxd5!? is no worse, and, after 17.Nxd5, Black has the
solid 17…Kh8!.
This continuation has occurred in only a little-known game; there almost
always follows 17…a5 18.Bb5, and the game transposes to the main
variation.
Possible is 18.Qa5! Qd7! 19.Be2 (pointless is 19.Nb6 Qb7 20.Nxa8
Qxe4+ 21.Be2 Qxg2 22.Rf1 Qxa8, and Black has excellent play; in addition,
21.Kd1?? loses to 21…Be6! 22.c4 Rxa8) 19…Rb8 20.0-0 (or 20.b4 f5!) 20…
f5!N (20…Rxb2 is slightly worse because of 21.Bxa6 Bxa6 22.Qxa6)
21.Bxa6 fxe4.
The analysis continues as follows: 22.Bxc8 (22.Nb6?! is weaker because

of 22…Qg4! 23.Bxc8 Rbxc8 24.Nxc8 Bf4!!, and White is defenseless against
25…Qxh4 26.g3 Bxg3, with perpetual check) 22…Qxc8! (after 22…Rbxc8
23.Qa4!, White stands better) 23.b4 Qg4 24.Qa2! Rf5 25.Ne3 Bxe3 26.fxe3
Rxf1+ 27.Rxf1 Qxh4 28.Qd5 Qg3 29.Qxe4 d5 30.Qd3 e4 31.Qd4 h6, and in
this particular line, the game is level. Perhaps, White could have played
better, for example, 23.Qa3!?. Here further analysis is necessary.
17.Bb5!
After 17.Nxe7 Qxe7 18.Nd5 Qd8 19.Bb5, the game transposes to the
main variation, but Black sill has an opportunity to play 18…Qb7.
17…Nxd5 18.Nxd5
18…Be6
18…Kh8 (Karjakin-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee, 2007) is slightly weaker. After
19.b4 f5 20.Bc6 Ra7 21.exf5 Bxf5 22.bxa5, Black errede by playing 22…
Bd3? (better is 22…Raf7 23.Ra2! Bb1! 24.Rb2 Bd3 25.a6 Ra7 26.Bb5 Qb8!?
N, although White retains the advantage anyway). There followed 23.Bb5
Bxb5 (more stubborn is 23…Bf5!?N) 24.Qxb5 Raf7 25.0-0! Qxh4.
Here it is already White who commits an obvious error: 26.Qe2? (the
winning move is 26.a6!N, for example, 26…Rxf2 27.Qd3! e4 28.Qh3 Qxh3
29.gxh3 Rxf1 30.Rxf1+ Ra8 31.a7! Kg8 32.Ne7 Kh8 33.Kg2! Be3 34.Nd5
Bxa7 35.Ra1 followed by Nc7) 26…Bf4 27.g3. Now it is Black’s turn to
blunder: 27…Bxg3?? (the correct move is 27…Qh3!N with good defensive
opportunities), and after 28.fxg3 Qxg3 29.Qg2 Rxf1+ 30.Rxf1 Rxf1+
31.Kxf1 Qd3+ 32.Kg1, White won.
19.Bc6 Rb8 20.b4 axb4
20…Bxd5 21.Bxd5 axb4 22.cxb4 leads to transposition of the moves.
21.cxb4
This position has been thoroughly studied; it has occurred in almost 100
games.
21…Kh8 One of two solid moves. White is still unable to castle as his
h4-pawn is under attack. 21…Bxd5 22.Bxd5 Qb6 also often occurs.
In Leko-Carlsen, Morelia/Linares 2008, there followed 23.Rb1 Kh8 24.0-

0 f5 (more precise is 24…Bd2! 25.b5 Bc3, and the bishop gets activated)
25.Qa5?! (and now more accurate is 25.Qc2!, taking under control the d2-
square and at the same time creating a threat of taking on f5) 25…fxe4
26.Qxb6 Rxb6 27.Rb3! Rc8 28.Ra1 g6 29.Ra8 Rxa8 30.Bxa8 Bf8 (30…
Bd2!N 31.b5 Rb8 32.Bxe4 Ba5, etc., is simpler) 31.b5 Be7 32.g3 Bd8
33.Bxe4, and now, instead of 23…d5?, the correct move is 23…Rb8! with
excellent drawing chances.
In Grischuk-Carlsen, Linares 2009, there followed 23.0-0 Qxb4 24.Qd7
(just about as good is 24.Qxb4 Rxb4 25.Ra7 with a small advantage) 24…
Kh8 25.Ra4 Qb5 26.Qxb5 Rxb5 27.Bxf7 Bd2 28.Rfa1 Bc3 29.Ra8 Rbb8
30.Rxb8 Rxb8, and soon the game was drawn.
Let us return to the move 21…Kh8.
22.b5 Bxd5 23.Bxd5 Qb6 24.0-0

24.Bc6 is met with 24…Be3!, and then the bishop goes to d4.
24…Qxb5 25.Qxb5 Rxb5 26.Ra6
On 26.Bxf7, the simplest reply is 26…Bd2!.
26…f6
This is a bit passive but very solid. Both 26…f5 and 26…g6 are no
worse.
27.Rxd6 Rc5 28.g3
Or 28.h5 Rc7 29.g3 g6 30.Kg2 Kg7 31.Kh3 Bc1 32.f4 exf4 33.gxf4 g5
34.fxg5 Bxg5 35.e5 Re7 36.e6 f5 37.Bc6 Kh6 38.Bf3, and the game Shirov-
Radjabov, Bazna 2009, was drawn.
In Alekseev-Moiseenko, Legnica 2013, there followed 28…Rc7 29.Rb1
g6 30.Rbb6 Kg7 31.Rdc6 Re7 32.Re6 Rc7 33.Rb7 Rxb7 34.Bxb7 Rf7
35.Bd5 Rc7 36.Re8 Bc1 37.Rg8+ Kh6 38.Rf8 Kg7 39.Rg8 Kh6 40.Rf8 and
the opponents agreed to a draw.
Let us sum up the results of our examination of the move 12…Ne7.
White is able to obtain a rather small advantage, as in this chapter, but
Black’s position is very solid. Because of this, strong players employ the
move 12…Ne7 as a reliable method of step-by-step equalization without
taking any particular risks.
Section 10. 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 without
12.Nc2 Bg5
Chapter 155
11…0-0 without 12.Nc2
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0
This is the main continuation, and the position from which the history of
the variation began. As Black’s results with it had been good, there was no
reason to look for other possibilities; therefore only the move order 11…Bg5
12.Nc2 0-0, leading to the same positions, would occasionally occur. It was
only much later, when White learned he could obtain solid positions with a
small advantage after 11…0-0, that Black started to search for other
opportunities and found out that those were no worse. We have already
examined those relatively novel paths in previous chapters, so now we
proceed to the main continuation.
12.h4!?
This move is not typical: it is only fourth in popularity in the database.
However, it creates certain difficulties for Black by hindering the standard
move Bf6-g5, so Black has to look for different and more unusual. That is
why I decided to devote a separate chapter to it.
Besides, in his book Sveshnikov is very laconic about this move: all the
variations take only ten lines – with ten errors in them. I am going to tell you
about those as well.
The unpretentious 12.Be2 Bg5 13.0-0, often chosen by weak players,
leads to equal play in view of 13…Ne7!. That is what happened in the game
Pozharsky-Timoshchenko, Leningrad 1967, game 13. In the overwhelming
majority of games White has 12.Nc2. We will start to explore this move in
the next chapter.
12…Be6!?
Quite playable is 12…g6, for example, 13.g3 Bg7 14.Nc2 Ne7 15.Nce3
h5, and White’s advantage is only rather slight. Sveshnikov in his book
recommends 12…Ne7!?, which in itself is not bad, but then condemns the
bishop move, citing the game L.Bronstein-Ligterink, Haifa 1976. We will
speak of it later.
First let us have a look at the move 12…Ne7. Sveshnikov gives, without
comment, a fragment from the game Mark Tseitlin-Kalinitschew, Tbilisi
1985: 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.Qf3 f5 15.Bd3 d5 16.exd5 Qxd5 17.Qg3+ Kh8 18.0-
0-0 Qc5 19.Nc2 Rg8 20.Qf3 Be6 21.Be2 Rac8 22.Qb7 Nd5, and evaluates
the resulting position as the one “with mutual chances.”
All this is shot through with errors. Let us begin with the fact that the
resulting position is already absolutely hopeless for White, and the reason for
this is the move 22.Qb7??. After 22.Rd2!N, he is still able to keep on
struggling.
Instead of 21.Be2?, better is 21.Qe3!N; instead of 20.Qf3?!, correct is
20.Qe3!N, and Black has only a small edge; and instead of 17.Qg3+?!, equal
play is obtained with 17.Qxd5N.
Finally, the move 14.Qf3, leading to equality, is inaccurate. White retains
a certain advantage after 14.Nc2!?. Here is how the struggle continued in the
“position with mutual chances”: 23.Qxa6? (much more stubborn is 23.Rh3)
23…Nxc3! 24.bxc3 Qxc3 25.Bd3 e4 26.Qxb5 Rb8 27.Qa4 Qb2+ 28.Kd2
Rgd8 29.Rb1, and Black missed a chance to show off his skill – 29…Qc3+!!.
13.Nc2
13.Nxf6+? is weak in view of 13…Qxf6!N, for example, 14.Qxd6 Rad8!
15.Qc5! (after 15.Qxc6? Qf4! 16.Bxb5 Qd2+ 17.Kf1 axb5 18.Qxb5 f5,
White’s position is hopeless) 15…Qg6 16.Qe3 f5 17.h5 Qf6, and Black holds
an advantage.
13…Nb8!N
Black’s main problem is his bishop on f6, as it has to be guarded by black
queen. So he wishes to transfer his knight to d7, after which the queen would
be able to move to b8, and the bishop would occupy the now vacant d8-
square. At a first glance, all this looks somewhat overwhelming, but the
analysis shows that this plan is not bad at all.
Let us return to the game L.Bronstein-Ligterink, cited by Sveshnikov. It
continued 13…Bxd5 14.exd5 Ne7 15.Ne3 Rc8 16.Bd3 Rc5 17.Qf3! Nc8
18.Nf5 Be7 19.Nh6+!, and Black resigned.
Since even a cursory inspection of this game leaves a strange impression
of a, pardon the expression, “whathat-the-hell-is-this?”, I felt an immediate
desire to play the game of “Find Ten Errors.” And though I had a short
fragment of only seven moves, I almost made it!
To begin with, instead of 18…Be7??, the correct move is 18…g6!N, and
Black has a small edge; instead of 18.Nf5?, correct is 18.Ng4! with a very
tangible advantage for White. By the way, when I went to the fountainhead, I
found out that this was exactly the game move, and the one with Nf5 was
cited in the Chess Informant from which Sveshnikov had copied the game.
Let us proceed with our little game. Instead of the awkward 17…Nc8?!,
more stubborn is 17…Qd7!N, although White’s advantage is obvious
anyway. Now 18.Ng4?! is pointless because of 18…Nxd5.
Instead of 16…Rc5?, the correct move is 16…g6!N with equal play; and
instead of 15…Rc8?!, correct is 15…e4!, for example, 16.Qc2 Qa5!N, and
Black has a small edge.
The move 15.Ne3?! is inaccurate; White should have played 15.Bd3!N
with equal play.
I think that the move 14…Ne7 is also a miscue, as it removes the attack
from the h4-pawn, blocks the e-file and puts the knight on a poor square.
Interesting is 14..Na5!?, after which the computer gives preference to Black.
Without doubt, 14.exd5? is wrong in principle. The correct move is
14.Qxd5! with a small advantage for White.
The move 13…Bxd5 is also not the best choice. More precise is 13…
Nb8!, as in the main variation, and White is left with only a very slight edge.
Of course, you can say that I am much too harsh, that there are only eight
errors instead of ten (well, count for yourself), but that does not alter the fact
that the number of mistakes is unacceptably great for a game that a
grandmaster cites in his book as an example of correct play, and then
evaluates the move 12…Be6 on the basis of its outcome. It would be nice to
have a special chapter called “Tragicomedies” for such games, as Dvoretsky
has done in his Endgame Manual.
Now possible is…
14.Nce3!?
After 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.Qxd6 Rd8 16.Qc5 Nd7 17.Qe3 Rac8, Black
obtains full compensation for his sacrificed pawn. Interesting complications
may arise after the standard 14.a4!?. (D)
For example: 14…bxa4 15.Rxa4 Nd7 16.Rxa6 Rxa6 17.Bxa6 Bxh4!
18.Qh5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Bxf2+ 20.Kxf2 Qb6+ 21.Ke1 (or 21.Ne3 Nf6 22.Qe2
Ne4+ 23.Kf3 f5 24.Nd1 Ng5+ 25.Kg3 Ne4+ 26.Kf3 Ng5+ with a draw) 21…
Nf6 22.Qe2 Qxb2 23.Kd2 Nxd5, and the chances are even.
14…Nd7 15.g3 Qb8! 16.Bg2 Bd8 17.0-0 Nb6 and White has only a very
small advantage.
Chapter 156
12.Nc2 Rb8 without 13.g3, 13.Be2 or 13.h4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2
A logical continuation that allows White to retain a certain advantage.
12…Rb8
The aim of this move is to hamper White’s break a2-a4. Sveshnikov
writes in his book that “probably, it is a more solid continuation” in
comparison with the move 12…Bg5.
As for me, I have always thought that the rook move is slightly passive
and that the bishop move is more in the spirit of the Chelyabinsk Variation.
After all, if you need solid positions, you can always choose the Ruy Lopez.
Practice shows that here Sveshnikov is somewhat off again. At first the
rook move had been more popular (especially after the Sveshnikov’s book
had been published), but then it lost its appeal. At the moment, in my
database there are about two-and-a-half thousand games with the move 12…
Rb8 and roughly five-and-a-half with 12…Bg5. In addition, in the database
the success of the bishop move is no greater than of the rook move, but the
stronger the players, the more obviously successful is the former.
I can also add that if Black is still eager to obtain a solid position with the
rook move to b8, it is more accurate to do that in the variation 11…Bg5, and
then 12…Rb8.
The variation 12…Bb7?! 13.a4! bxa4 14.Rxa4 is in White’s favor: after
the usual 14…Nb8 15.Bc4 Nd7, there arises a position examined in chapter
143. 12…Be6 is also insufficient for equality because of 13.a4!.
The main move 12…Bg5 will be investigated in chapters 170-200. Let us
return to the move
13.a4
Despite Black’s prophylaxis against a2-a4, this move is quite playable. It
leads to equal play. The move itself is rather logical – and rather consistent at
that. The state of its official theory is very far from ideal, and Sveshnikov
also makes lots of mistakes while writing about it. Because of all this, we will
devote a separate chapter to the move 13.a4.
(a) Formerly Black would often choose 13.Bd3, but failed to obtain an
advantage. There usually followed 13…Bg5 (also good is 13…Be6) 14.0-0
Be6. Then in Ponomariov-Yakovich, Moscow 2005, there was 15.a4
(15.Nce3 leads to equal play) 15…bxa4 16.Ndb4 (this move occurs in most
games, but 16.Rxa4!, with equality, is more precise) 16…Ne7 (it seems that
16…Qd7!?N is more accurate, for example, 17.Nxc6 Qxc6 18.Nb4 Rxb4!
19.cxb4 Bb3 20.Qg4 Bh6, and in this position Black has solid equality)
17.Bxa6 Bb3 (here 17…Qd7!?N is interesting) 18.Qd3 (more accurate is
18.Qe2! Qc7 19.Bd3 with the idea of Ra3N and Na1!) 18…Qc7, and play is
equal. Perhaps 18…d5!?N is even simpler.
(b) 13.a3 frequently occurs, but White’s success after it is below average.
In the game Sjugirov-Maletin, Irkutsk 2010, there followed 13…Bg5 14.h4
Bh6 15.Ncb4 Bb7 16.g3?! (more accurate is 16.Nxc6! Bxc6 17.g3, for
example, 17…Qd7 18.Qb3! Qb7 19.Rd1 with equal play). Now, instead of
16…a5?!, it is better to play 16…Ne7!N, for example, 17.Bg2 (or 17.Bh3
f5!) 17…a5 18.Nxe7+ Qxe7 19.Nd5 Qe6, and Black is ready to take on d5;
20.Bh3 is met with 20…f5!.
(c) In the following chapters we will investigate the continuations 13.g3,
13.Be2 and 13.h4!.
13…bxa4 14.Ncb4
This move occurs in the overwhelming majority of games; however, we
are going to see that after it, Black has a slight initiative. So it seems
reasonable to examine other opportunities.
14.Rxa4 Rxb2 15.Bxa6 leads to equality. The rare 14.Nce3!? is
interesting.
Now:
(a) 14…Bg5!? is not bad, and the game transposes to a balanced position
from the 12…Bg5 variation.
(b) The move 14…Ne7?!, as in Nisipeanu-Eljanov, Warsaw 2005, is
weaker. After 15.Rxa4?! Nxd5 16.Nxd5 Rxb2 17.Bxa6, Black could have
fully equalized with 17…Be6. However, White, in his turn, lost an
opportunity to obtain a small advantage after 15.Nxf6+!N gxf6 16.Rxa4
Rxb2 17.Bd3.
(c) 14…Rxb2 is not bad, for example, 15.Qxa4 Nb8 16.Qa3 Rb7 17.Be2
Bg5 18.0-0 Be6 19.Rfd1 Bxe3 20.Nxe3 Rb3 21.Qxd6 Qxd6 22.Rxd6 Rxc3
with equal play.
14…Nxb4
15.cxb4!
Sveshnikov thinks that “15.Nxb4 Bb7 16.Qxa4 Bxe4!? 17.Nxa6 d5
18.Nxb8 Qxb8 leads to sharp play…with compensation for the exchange.” I
can agree with his evaluation of the resulting position; however, there are
four errors in the variation itself.
As usual, let us begin at the end. Instead of the move 17…d5??, which
turns a won position into an equal one, correct is 17…Rxb2! with a decisive
advantage, for example, 18.Qxe4 d5 19.Qa4 e4 20.Rc1 Bxc3+! 21.Rxc3 Qf6
22.Rc2 Rb1+ 23.Ke2 d4, and in Blass-Schmittdiel, 1981, Black soon won.
Instead of the losing move 17.Nxa6?, clearly better is 17.Nc6!, and
though Black’s superiority is very serious, White seems to be able to hold on.
The move 16.Qxa4? puts White on the brink of defeat. Better is 16.Bxa6!,
although in any event, Black has an advantage. Finally, instead of 15.Nxb4?!,
it is better to play 15.cxb4 as in the main variation.
15…Bb7! 16.Rxa4 Qc8! (D)
Sveshnikov regards 16…Bc6?! as the main move, and almost everyone
plays in this fashion. Then he points out the variation 17.Rxa6 (after 17.Bxa6
Bxa4
18.Qxa4 Bg5 19.0-0, the game transposes to an equal position from chapter
149) 17…Bxd5 (also possible is 17…Qc8!?N with equal play) 18.Qxd5 Rxb4
19.Bc4 (19.Rxd6?? quickly loses to 19…Qb8) 19…Rxb2 20.0-0, However,
in this position, Black is on the defensive despite his extra pawn.
In Vachier-Lagrave-Nataf, France 2007, there was 16…Bxd5 17.Qxd5
Qd7! 18.Rxa6 Rxb4 19.Bc4 Rxb2 20.0-0 Qb7 21.Rxd6, and the opponents
agreed to a draw.
17.Bd3!?N
In Sveshnikov’s opinion, “17.Nc3 Rd8 18.Be2 Bc6 19.Bxa6 Bxa4
20.Qxa4 Qg4 21.0-0 is not so clear.”
Maybe so. However, instead of 17…Rd8?!, better is 17…d5!N with an
advantage for Black, for example, 18.exd5 e4! 19.Be2 Bxc3+ 20.bxc3 Qxc3
21.Qd2 Qb3 22.Ra5 Qb1+ 23.Bd1 Ba8, etc. And instead of 17.Nc3?!, White
does better to choose 17.Bd3, as in the main variation. 17.Be2 Bxd5!?N
18.exd5 Rb6 19.0-0 Qb7 20.Qd2 Rb8 leads to an edge for Black.
17…Bxd5 18.exd5 Rb6 19.0-0 Qb7 20.Qf3 Be7 21.Rc1 Rxb4 22.Bxa6
Qb8 and Black’s position is preferable. However, let us keep in mind that
14.Rxa4 and 14.Nce3 would equalize for White.
Chapter 157
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.g3
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.g3
A solid continuation that, however, does not lead to White’s advantage,

so strong players have not been playing in this fashion for the last decade.
13…Bg5!
Precision is required here: after any other continuation, White plays h2-
h4! and prevents his opponent’s bishop from appearing on the important
diagonal c1-h6.
For example, Sveshnikov believes that “the immediate 13…a5!? is also
good,” overlooking 14.h4! that, with a transposition of moves, leads to
positions with a small advantage for White. We will examine this in detail
below in the corresponding chapters with main move order 13.h4!.
Later we are going to see that in Sveshnikov’s book, things are even
worse with the evaluation of this key move and, accordingly, with the
identification of the main variation for the 12…Rb8 continuation. This is also
the reason for his certain overestimating of the move 12…Rb8 itself.
14.Bg2
Now 14.h4 already does not bring an advantage for White, for example,
14…Bh6 15.Bh3 (note that after 15.Bg2 a5 16.b3 b4 17.c4, a position from
the popular variation 11.c4 may arise, but with an extra tempo for Black)
15…Be6! (15…Bxh3 is slightly weaker) 16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.Nde3 Bxe3
18.Nxe3.
This level position occurred in the blindfold game Ivanchuk-Lautier,
Monaco 1999. There followed 18…Na5 19.0-0 Nc4 (I prefer 19…Qc7N,
temporarily refraining from determining the knight’s position, for example,
20.Qe2 Nb7!? with the idea of Nc5, and 20.Qd3 is now met with 20…Nc4)
20.Qe2 Qc7 21.Rad1 Rb6 22.Rd3 Qc5 23.Ng4 b4?. Now White could have
gained great advantage with 24.cxb4!N, for example, 24…Qxb4 25.Rb3! Qa4
26.Rc3 Nxb2 27.Rc7! Qe8 28.Rfc1 Kh8 29.h5! Qxh5 30.Rc8 Qf7 31.R1c7
Qg8 32.Rxf8 Qxf8 33.Nf6!, etc.
14…a5
15.0-0
15.a3 is useless, for example, 15…Ne7 16.Nce3 Be6!? (the usual 16…
Bxe3 17.Nxe3 b4 18.axb4 axb4 is insignificantly weaker). In Bartel-
Radjabov, Tripoli 2004, there followed 17.Nxe7+?! (more accurate is 17.0-0,
for example, 17…Bxe3 18.Nxe3 a4N, and Black has an easy game) 17…
Qxe7 18.Nf5 Qd7 19.h4!. It turns out that 19.Nxd6? loses to 19…Bg4! 20.f3
Rb6, for example, 21.Nf5 Bxf5 22.exf5 Rd6, etc.
19…Bf6 20.Ne3 (and now on 20.Nxd6?? there will follow 20…Qc6!, and
Black wins; slightly better is 20.0-0!N) 20…b4 21.cxb4 axb4 22.a4 Bd8
23.Nd5 Bxd5 (more accurate is 23…Ba5!?N 24.0-0 Rfc8 25.Qd3 Bxd5!
26.Qxd5 Bb6, avoiding 25.Bh3!N that was possible in the game) 24.Qxd5
Bb6, and now Black’s small edge is already obvious.
15…Ne7
15…b4 is also good. 15…Be6 16.Qd3 Ne7 17.Nce3 Bxe3 18.Nxe3 leads,
with a transposition of moves, to the main variation.
16.Nce3 Bxe3 17.Nxe3 Be6 18.Qd3
In Malakhov-Kharlov, Saint Vincent 2000, there followed 18.Qd2 Qb6
19.Rfd1 Rfd8 20.b3 b4 21.Rac1 Nc6 22.Nd5 Bxd5 23.Qxd5 bxc3 24.Rxc3
Nd4 25.Bf1 Rdc8 26.Rdc1 Rxc3 27.Rxc3 g6, and chances are even.
18…Qb6
This move occurs practically in every game, but we are going to see that
after it, Black fails to obtain full equality. Therefore I will point out other
opportunities for Black.
Preliminary analysis shows that both 18…Qd7 and 18…Rb6N are
sufficient for equality. The move 18…Qc7!?, which I have been analyzing
for a long time, also equalizes. Now if 19.Rfd1 Rfd8 20.Bf3N b4 21.Bg4, as
in the main variation, then 21…Bxg4 22.Nxg4 bxc3 23.bxc3 d5 with equal
play because the e5-pawn is defended.
19.Rfd1 Rfd8 20.Bf3!?
Other moves do not create any problems for Black either. In Kuporosov-
Malakhatko, Minsk 2000, there followed…
20…b4 21.Bg4 d5 22.Bxe6 fxe6 23.exd5
Here more precise is 23.cxb4!?N, for example, 22…Qxb4 24.b3, and
White retains a certain advantage.
23…exd5 24.c4 d4 25.Nf1 and in the resulting position, White has a
microscopic
Chapter 158
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.Be2 Bg5 without 14.0-0
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.Be2
This is the most popular continuation in the database; however, strong

players clearly prefer the move 13.h4!, examined in chapters 162-169.
13…Bg5 14.Qd3
The move 14.0-0 occurs more often and will be explored in the next three
chapters.
14…a5!
This deprives the knight of the square b4 and prepares Nc6-e7. In the
correspondence game Weisser-Nekhaev, 2009, after 14…Ne7 15.Ncb4 Nxd5
16.Nxd5 Be6 17.0-0 a5 18.Rad1, there arose a position that, with a
transposition of moves, will be investigated in chapter 161.
In the game Cheparinov-Parligras, Warsaw 2005, there followed 14…
Be6 15.Rd1 Qd7 (more accurate is 15…a5!, transposing to the main
variation) 16.0-0 (16.Qg3!?) 16…Ne7 17.Ncb4 a5?!, and here, instead of
18.Nxe7+, it would be interesting to test 18.Na6!?N, for example, 18…Rb7
19.Qg3 h6 20.h4 Bxh4 21.Qxh4 Bxd5 22.exd5 Rb6 23.Qe4! and White has
an advantage because the lever c2-c4 or a2-a4 is possible.
15.Rd1
The idea of this particular move order is to hinder Black’s intended
knight exchange after Nc6-e7. 15.0-0, with a transposition of moves, leads to
a position from the next chapter.
15…Be6
16.Nce3
This is the most popular move. In the position in the diagram other
continuations have also been tested.
(a) After 16.0-0, the game transposes to a position from chapter 160.
(b) On 16.Na3, Black should reply 16…Na7!N with equal play (16…b4
is weaker because of 17.Nb5!).
(c) 16.a3 is useless. Then possible is 16…Ne7 17.Nce3 Nxd5 (slightly
weaker is 17…Bxe3. In Hracek-Caruana, Rijeka 2010, there followed
18.Nxe3 b4?! 19.axb4 axb4 20.Qxd6 Qxd6 21.Rxd6 bxc3 22.bxc3 Rfc8
23.c4 Nc6 24.0-0 Nd4, and now White could have retained an advantage after
25.Bd3!N. Instead of 18…b4?!, better is 18…Rb6N) 18.Nxd5 g6 (Black
could have equalized in a simpler fashion by exploiting the weakness of b3
with 18…Qc8!N, for example, 19.0-0 Qc4 20.Qc2 Qa4 21.Qb1 Qb3, etc.)
19.b4 f5 (simpler is 19…Kg7!N) 20.Bf3 Kh8 21.0-0 axb4 22.cxb4 Qd7
23.exf5 gxf5, and the game is equal, Brodsky-Beshukov, Helsinki 1992.
More precise is 22.axb4!N with a micro-advantage.
16…b4!?
This move gives an independent direction to the game. As we see, Black
invites his opponent to play c3-c4 and to transpose to now-fashionable set-
ups from the variation 11.c4 with a loss of a tempo. After other continuations,
the game often transposes to positions that will be examined in chapter 160.
For example, playable is 16…Ne7, and after 17.Nxe7+ Bxe7 18.Nd5 Bg5
19.0-0, there arises the position from chapter 160.
17.0-0
On 17.c4?! there follows 17…Bxe3 18.Nxe3 b3! 19.a3 Nd4, and Black
17…bxc3 18.bxc3 Ne7 19.Rb1 Qd7 20.c4 Bxe3 21.Qxe3 Nc6 22.Rb5
Nd4!?N
Black position is solid, so there is no point to create unnecessary
weaknesses with 22…f5?!, as it happened in the correspondence game
Sergel-Strautins, 2001. After 23.exf5 Bxf5 24.Bd3, White has a small
advantage.
22…Rxb5!?N leads to an equal game. The game is very close to equality
after 22…Bxd5N.
23.Rxa5 Rb2 24.Bd3 Qb7
Despite White’s extra pawn, chances are even. Other good moves are
24…Rfb8 or even 24…h6.
Chapter 159
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.Be2 Bg5 14.0-0 without 14…Be6
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.Be2 Bg5 14.0-
0
14…a5
Sveshnikov considers this move to be the main one and puts an
exclamation point on it. This is probably the reason why it occurs in most
games, including those by strong players. However, in my opinion, this move
is slightly premature as White gains an additional opportunity to struggle for
an advantage and, even if Black’s play is precise, there arise positions in
which he is unable to play for a win.
Black has other moves.
(a) 14…f5?! 15.exf5 Bxf5 16.Ncb4! is in White’s favor.
(b) Playable is 14…Ne7. Then in the rapid game Almasi-Van Wely,
Monaco 2003, there followed 15.Ncb4 Bb7 16.Nxe7+ Qxe7, and now,
instead of the usual 17.Nd5, leading to an equal game after 17…Qe6!, it
would be interesting to test 17.a4!?N, for example, 17…bxa4 18.Rxa4 Bxe4
19.Re1!, and White has a small edge.
(c) It is no easy task for White to obtain advantage after 14…g6. For
example, 15.a4 bxa4 16.Ncb4 Nxb4 17.Nxb4 Bb7 18.Qxa4 a5! 19.Qxa5
Bxe4 20.Rfd1 leads to an equal game, Beliavsky-Dolmatov, Vilnius 1980,
and here good is 20…Qc8!N. It seems that White should prefer 15.Qd3.
(d) The most precise move, 14…Be6!, will be examined in the next two
chapters. Let us return to the move 14…a5.
15.b4!?
This is exactly the move that underscores the drawbacks of the premature
14…a5. White is unwilling to allow b5-b4 (let us recall the fashionable 11.c4
once more) and at the same time fixes the pawn on b5 that has become weak
as a result of the last Black’s move.
Let us take a look at other White’s options.
(a) On 15.Na3, good is 15…Na7!, for example, 16.Qd3 Be6, and there
arises a level position from the move order 14…Be6.
(b) Quite typical is the move 15.a3, on which I can recommend 15…a4!,
for example, 16.Bd3!? Na5 17.Qe2 Qd7!?N 18.Rad1 Qb7, and the game is
roughly equal.
(c) Black experiences certain difficulties equalizing after 15.Nce3!?.
(d) Clearly the most popular continuation is 15.Qd3 (Sveshnikov puts
exclamation points on both this move and 14…a5), but it allows Black, after
15…Be6, to bring the game to a position from the next chapter, which is
slightly more favorable for him than the one after 15.b4.
The move 15…Ne7 also occurs very often, for example, 16.Nce3 (to
equality leads 16.Nxe7+ Qxe7 17.Rfd1 Rd8). Here the most common black
move is 16…Bxe3, which is not really successful (more accurate is 16…
Nxd5!? 17.Nxd5 Be6 18.Rfd1 or 18.Rad1 (both positions will be explored
with the move order 14…Be6), or 16…Be6!? (this position is investigated in
the next chapter).
Then in Kamsky-Illescas, Dos Hermanas 1996, there followed 17.Nxe3
Qb6 18.Rfd1 Rd8 19.Rd2 h6 20.h3 Qc5 21.Rad1 Be6 22.Bg4 Bc4 23.Qc2
Rb6 24.b3 Be6 25.Bxe6 fxe6 26.c4 b4 27.Qd3 Nc6 28.Nc2, and White’s
chances are slightly better. Let us return to the move 15.b4!?.
In the position in the diagram Black has three moves that are
approximately equal in strength.
15…Be6!?
This is the most popular move, and it is with this continuation that Black
seems to be closest to equalizing.
Let us have a look at the move 15…Ne7. It occurred for the first time in
the game Kapengut-Timoshchenko, Ashkhabad 1978. By the way, this is the
only game in which I have tried the move 12…Rb8.
There followed 16.Nxe7+ Bxe7 (after 16…Qxe7 17.bxa5 Qc7 18.Nb4
Qxc3 19.Rb1!N, White has a small edge) 17.Ne3 Bg5! (17…axb4! 18.cxb4
Bg5 19.Nd5 leads to a transposition of moves. Sveshnikov believes that the
best move is 17…Be6, with an exclamation point, but after 18.a3!, Black has
no time for a favorable exchange on b4, and White has a small advantage.
And although Sveshnikov ascribes the authorship of the move 17…Be6 to
me, citing the game against Kapengut and mixing up the moves, I have not
played in this fashion.) 18.Nd5.
In this position Black should play 18…axb4!N (the text move 18…Be6 is
an inaccuracy because after 19.a4! bxa4 20.Rxa4 axb4 21.cxb4, there arises a
position that is in White’s favor and which will be examined below), and
after 19.cxb4, two moves later, with a transposition of moves, we have a
position that we are going to investigate under 15…axb4.
Also possible is 15…axb4, for example, 16.Ncxb4! (the position after
16.cxb4 Be6 17.a4 bxa4 18.Rxa4 will be explored below with a transposition
of moves) 16…Nxb4 (in Psakhis-Korchnoi, Lugano 1988, after 16…Bd7,
White played 17.Bd3 and squandered his advantage. Better is 17.Rb1!N, for
example, 17…Rb7 18.Nc2 Qb8 19.Rb2! Nd8 20.Qb1, and White has a small
edge) 17.cxb4 Bd7! 18.Qd3 (in Bauer-Tregubov, Clichy 2004, there was
18.Bg4, after which Black should have replied 18…Be6!N with equal play)
18…g6!?N, and White’s advantage is quite small, for example, 19.Rfd1 Kg7
20.a3 f5!, etc.
16.a4! bxa4 17.Rxa4 axb4 18.Ncxb4
Slightly weaker is 18.cxb4, which Sveshnikov regards as a main move,
because of 18…Ne7!, for example, 19.Bc4 Nxd5 20.Bxd5 Qc7 (good is 20…
Qd7!?N, for example, 21.Ra6 Rfc8 22.Bxe6 Qxe6 23.Rxd6 Qb3, and the
game is equal) 21.Ra2. This position Sveshnikov assesses as favorable for
White, referring to the game Tseshkovsky-Yusupov, Ashkhabad 1978.
However, Black made an imprecise move 21…Kh8?! there, and White, after
22.Qd3, obtained a slight advantage. Instead of the king move, Black has
several good opportunities that are equal in strength, for example, 21…Qd7N
with equal play.
18…Qd7!
Precision is necessary here. Another good move is 18…Qc8!? In the
above-mentioned game Kapengut-Timoshchenko, the position after 18…
Nxb4 19.cxb4 arose with a transposition of moves. Then there followed 19…
Qd7 20.b5 Bd821.Ra6 Bxd5 22.Qxd5 Bb6 23.Rd1 Rfd8 24.Bc4 Bc5 25.g3 g6
26.Rd3 Kg7. Sveshnikov evaluates this position as good for Black. After
27.Rc6 Qe7 28.Rf3 Rf8, White, despite his tangible advantage, offered a
draw, which was accepted.
19.Ra6
If desired, White can obtain more complicated positions after 19.Qd3!?N,
for example, 19…Nxb4 20.Rxb4, and White has a minimal edge.
19…Nxb4 20.cxb4 Bxd5 21.Qxd5 Rxb4 22.Rxd6 (D)
22…Qa4!
In Rodriguez Amador-Vaisser, Sochi 1988, a draw was agreed after 22…
Qb7, but the text move is more accurate.
23.Ra6 Qc2 24.Bd3 Qb3!?N 25.Qxb3 Rxb3 26.Bc4 Rb7
So, with precise play Black has managed to avoid all the pitfalls and
gained a slightly passive but solid position. From the point of view of pure
theory, this is a fine result, but everything is relative in this world…
I believe that equalization would be a little simpler after 14…Be6!. The
resulting positions are much more complex there, and that means that, from
the practical point of view, they are clearly better suited for playing for a win
with Black. We will examine this move in the next two chapters.
Chapter 160
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.Be2 Bg5 14.0-0 Be6 15.Qd3 a5 without
16.Rfd1
0 Be6!
In my opinion, this is the most precise reply, though the move 14…a5
occurs roughly three times as frequently.
15.Qd3
Both the most logical and most popular continuation. Let us have a look
at the other options.
(a) To play 15.b4 would be to absolutely pointless: Black can reply 15…
Ne7 with equality.
(b) Occasionally there occurs 15.Ncb4, the most precise reply to which is
15…Qc8! (the usual move is 15…Nxb4 followed by 16.Nxb4 Qb6 17.a4 a5
18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.Qxd5 bxa4 20.Rfb1, and White has a small advantage).
Then in Navara-Caruana, Reggio Emilia 2010, there followed 16.Qd3 Nxb4
17.Nxb4 a5 18.Nd5 Qd7, and, with transposition of moves, a level position
arose which will be examined below. 18…Qb7!? is also solid; this position is
well-known and will be explored with the move order 12…Bg5 in chapter
170.
(c) The move 15.Nce3 is highly popular in the database but extremely
rare with strong players. Then there can follow:
(1) The most popular reply, 15…Bxe3, but after 16.Nxe3 Ne7 17.Bg4!?
Qd7 18.h3, White stands slightly better.
(2) The continuation 15…a5 leads, after 16.Qd3, to the position that we
are going to investigate below. However, White has an interesting
opportunity, 16.a4!?, for example, 16…Bxe3! 17.axb5!?N Bc5 18.bxc6 Rxb2
19.c7 Qg5 20.Rxa5, and Black has failed to equalize.
(3) Black has a reply 15…Ne7!?, for example, 16.Qd3 Nxd5 (the position
after 16…a5 is examined below) 17.Nxd5 a5, and, after both 18.Rad1 and
18.Rfd1, it all comes down to positions that we are dealing with in the current
chapter and in the next one.
15…a5
Through a simple transposition of moves, Black manages to neutralize the

continuation 15.b4!, investigated in the previous chapter, without any side
effects.
16.Rad1
Quite a logical move. True, it has only one drawback – the a2-pawn is left
defenseless. As we are going to see below, Black will be able to exploit this
weakness. But let us take a look at other options for White first.
16.Rfd1, which occurs much more frequently, will be examined in the
next chapter.
The position after 16.Nce3 is often reached via various transpositions.
Black obtains a solid position after 16…g6!?, but let as explore other
opportunities first.
(a) It is hardly favorable for Black to play 16…Bxe3. In Kamsky-
Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1992, there followed 17.Nxe3 Qc7 18.Rfd1 Rfd8 19.Bg4
Ne7 20.Qe2 d5 21.Bxe6 fxe6 22.Qg4 Rb6 23.Qg3 (more accurate is
23.Qh5!N with a small advantage for White) 23…Rc6 24.Qg5?! (and here
more precise is 24.a4!N), and now Black was able to equalize after 24…
h6!N, for example, 25.Qh5 b4! 26.cxb4 axb4 27.Ng4 Rf8, etc.
(b) The move 16…Qd7 is quite solid.
(c) Also playable is 16…Ne7 followed by 17.Nxe7+ (after 17.Rad1, there
arises a position from the main variation, and after 17.Rfd1 –one from the
next chapter) 17…Qxe7 18.Nd5 Qd7 (after 18…Qb7!?, the game may
transpose to the well-known position that is going to be explored in chapter
170) 19.Rad1.
This position arose with a small transposition of moves in the game

Navara-Caruana, Reggio Emilia 2010. Then there followed 19…Rfc8 20.Qg3
Qd8! 21.a3 h6 22.Bg4?! Rc5! 23.Bxe6 fxe6 24.Ne3. Black now has an
excellent opportunity, 24…b4!N, and it is already White who has to worry
about equalizing.
(d) The move 16…b4!? is sufficient for equal play, and after 17.Rfd1 the
game reaches a position from the next chapter.
(e) Let us return to the move 16…g6!?. Then possible is 17.Rad1 b4!.
Here Black usually plays 17…Qd7 or 17…Kh8, but I think that he has a
better continuation. In the only game with 17…b4!, there followed 18.Nc4
bxc3 19.bxc3 Ne7 20.Nde3, and Black obtains excellent play after 20…a4!N.
Now let us return to the move 16.Rad1. (D)
16…Ne7! 17.Nce3
After 17.Nxe7+?! Qxe7 18.b3 Rfc8!N, Black stands somewhat better.
17…Nxd5 18.Nxd5 Kh8
18…f5 is slightly weaker. Then in Weisser-Nekhaev, corr 2009, there
followed 19.Bf3 Qc8 20.b3 f4!?. Having cut off the escape route for the
enemy knight, Black secures his d6-pawn. 21.h3 Qd7 22.Rd2 Qa7 23.Rb1
Rfc8 24.b4 a4 25.Rc2 Rc4 26.Be2 Qf7 27.Rd1 Kh8 28.Bf1! (after 28.Qf3
Rxe4 29.Bd3 Re1+! 30.Rxe1 Bxd5 31.Qg4 Bf6 32.a3 Bb3 33.Rd2 d5, it is
difficult for White to convert his advantage into anything tangible) 28…g6
29.Qf3 Rc6 30.c4 bxc4 31.Rdc1 Qb7 32.Bxc4 Rbc8 33.Qd3. White has
carried out the break and has a small advantage, but Black manages to hold
the position.
19.a3
This is a typical move.
19…a4!N
Here 19…f5 is also slightly weaker. After 20.Bf3 g6 21.Rfe1!? Qd7
22.exf5 Bxf5 23.Be4!N, White has a small edge.
With a5-a4, Black has blocked White’s queenside pawns. The game is
equal. In this position I am unable to find even the slightest advantage for
White.
Chapter 161
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.Be2 Bg5 14.0-0 Be6 15.Qd3 a5 16.Rfd1
0Be6 15.Qd3 a5 16.Rfd1
As already noted, White puts his f1-rook on d1 much more frequently:

firstly, to defend the a2-pawn, and, secondly, he intends to play on the
queenside.
16…b4!
An interesting moment. On one hand, with this move Black provokes
White to play c3-c4, and we have a pawn structure from the variation 11.c4
which, according to the official theory, is in its turn supposedly favorable for
White.
On the other hand, it is employed by such experts on the Chelyabinsk
Variation as Gelfand and Radjabov. I have no doubt that they understand,
somewhat better than the official theory does, that this structure allows Black
to obtain good play. My own analysis confirms this evaluation.
(a) Previously, good players had preferred 16…g6, but after 17.Na3! Na7
18.b4! f5 19.Qf3, White retains a certain advantage.
(b) The most popular move in the database, 16…Qd7, runs into the
unpleasant retort 17.Qg3!, and now it is best for Black to admit his
inaccuracy and to retreat with the queen, 17…Qd8!, after which White gets a
very slight advantage.
(c) 16…Ne7 has also occurred, for example, 17.Nde3!? (playable is
17.Nce3 Nxd5 18.Nxd5 Qd7 19.Qg3, and here, instead of the usual move
19…Bd8, more accurate is 19…Qd8!N with equal play. White mostly
chooses 17.Nxe7, and after 17…Bxe7 18.Ne3 Qd7 19.Nd5, all three bishop
retreats, the usual 19…Bd8 and the unusual 19…Bg5 and even 19…Bh4!?,
lead to equality) 17…Rb6! (17…b4 18.c4 or 18.cxb4!?N is in White’s favor)
18.Na3 Bxe3 19.Qxe3 Qb8 20.b3 with a very slight advantage for White,
Lebedev-Ivanov, corr 2009.
17.cxb4
17.Nce3 is of no use to White, for example, 17…bxc3 18.bxc3 Ne7
19.Rab1 Rxb1 20.Rxb1 Bxe3 21.fxe3 (21.Nxe3) 21…Nxd5 22.exd5 Bd7
23.c4 Qc7 24.Qb3 Qc5 25.Qb6 Qa3 26.Qb3 Qc5 27.Qb6 Qa3 28.Qb3 Qc5,
and in the correspondence game Czernik-Meier, 2008, a draw was agreed.
17.c4 leads to an equal game. After this move, there arises a position
which has been examined in detail in chapter 139, in which White had an
extra tempo, as the advance c2-c4 had been carried out in one go.
There the game had been level, and I hardly need to explain to you that an
extra tempo would do no harm at all to Black. However, there is a variation
in which Black has to tread lightly: 17…g6! 18.b3 Kg7 19.Nde3!?, and here
he should play 19…Qc8! (on 19…Qb6 possible is 20.Nf5! with a check, for
example, 20…gxf5 21.exf5 Ne7 22.fxe6 fxe6 23.Rf1!, and White stands
slightly better. With the king on g8, Black would be able to calmly continue
20…a4! with excellent play.) Then possible is 20.Qxd6 Rd8 21.Qc5 Rxd1+
22.Nxd1 Qd7 23.Bf1 Be7 24.Qe3 Rd8, and Black has more than an adequate
initiative for his pawn.
17…axb4 18.b3
18…g6!?
We are already well acquainted with this move in similar positions.
I think that 18…Qd7!?N is at least no worse than the move in the main
variation. Its idea is that, after 19.Qa6 Qc8!, the game more or less proceeds
as in the main variation and, after 19.Qg3!?, the move 19…h6! allows Black
to maintain equality, for example, 20.Bc4 Kh8 21.h4 Be7, and after 19.a3!?
bxa3 20.Rxa3, there follows 20…Ne7 (20…f5! is also fine) 21.Ncb4 Nxd5
22.Nxd5 Bd8!, for example, 23.Ra6 Qb7 24.Rxd6 Qxb3, etc., with equal
play.
In Dominguez-Gelfand, London 2012, the black king had retreated from
the center with 18…Kh8!?, but this had no impact on the evaluation of the
resulting endgame as an equal one. There followed 19.Qa6 Qc8 20.Qxc8
Rfxc8 21.Ba6 Rd8 22.Nc7 Bg4 23.f3 Rd7! 24.fxg4 Rxc7 25.Rxd6 Nd4 (also
good is 25…g6!?N with equal play) 26.Nxd4 Be3+ 27.Kh1 Bxd4 28.Rf1 f6
29.Bc4 Ra7 30.Ra6 Rxa6 31.Bxa6 Ra8 32.Rc1 Bc3 33.Rd1 Bd4 34.Rc1 Bc3,
and the game ended in a draw.
19.Qa6
After 19.a3!?N, a more complex position arises. Then in the rapid game
Dominguez-Radjabov, China 2013, there followed…
19…Qc8 20.Qxc8 Rfxc8 21.Ba6 Rd8 22.Nc7
More accurate is 22.Bc4!?N with equal play.
22…Rd7
Black could have been more precise: 22…Bg4!N. After 23.f3! Be6, the
weakening of the a7-g1 diagonal starts to tell, for example, 24.Nxe6 fxe6
25.Bc4 Kf7 26.a3 bxa3 27.Rxa3 Nb4! 28.Ra7+ (or 28.Nxb4 Be3+!) 28…Kf6
29.Nxb4 Be3+ 30.Kf1 Bxa7 31.Nc6 Bd4 32.Nxd8 Rxd8, and Black’s
position is even slightly preferable.
23.Nxe6 fxe6 24.Bc4 Kf7 25.a3 bxa3 26.Rxa3 Ne7!? 27.Ra5 d5
28.exd5 exd5 29.Bxd5+ Rxd5 30.Raxd5 Nxd5 31.Rxd5 Rc8
Probably as a result of the demands of a rapid game, Black forces a
transition to a drawn rook ending down a pawn, but this is not necessary.
Black obtains equal play after the simple 31…Ke6N, for example, 32.Rd3
Rc8 33.Ne1 Rc1 34.Kf1 Rb1 35.Ke2 Rb2+! 36.Kf1 (36.Kf3?? loses to 36
e4+! 37.Kxe4 Re2+) 36…Rb1, etc.
32.Ne1 Rc1 33.Rxe5 Bd2 34.Kf1 Rb1 35.Re2 Bxe1 36.Rxe1 Rxb3 and
after 40 moves the game was drawn.
As we have seen, the continuation 13.Be2 that we have been investigating
in detail in the last four chapters, does not promise any significant advantage
for White. Thus Sveshnikov, who regards the move 12…Rb8 as rather solid,
may be perfectly right, but practice shows that White has the strong
continuation 13.h4!. The following chapters will be devoted to the analysis of
this move.
Chapter 162
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Ne7 14.Nxf6 gxf6without 15.Qd2
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4!
This continuation is White’s principal weapon against 12…Rb8. Now the

black bishop is unable to get to g5 and, accordingly, Black is unable to
equalize. It may be noted that in the database they mostly prefer to ignore the
subtleties of the edge pawn’s “strange” move and choose the old move
13.Be2. However, strong players understood everything long ago and play
13.h4! much more often. For example, in the last ten years, this move has
occurred five times more frequently than the bishop move to e2.
In his book Sveshnikov devotes about ten lines to the move 13.h4!.
Moreover, we will see that the value of variations cited is next to zero, to say
the least.
13…Ne7?!
An old move that Sveshnikov regards as the main one and awards it with
an exclamatory point. This may be the reason for this move’s popularity for
about ten years after Sveshnikov’s book had been published. Even Kramnik
and Lautier would play in this fashion (true, without success), but afterwards
it was practically forgotten by strong players.
The main move 13…Be7 will be examined in chapters 166-170.
Other continuations have also been encountered:
(a) After 13…Be6, the move 14.Nxf6+ is not dangerous for Black
(usually there follows 14.Nce3! Be7, and and the game transposes to the
main channels of the 13…Be7 line) 14…Qxf6! 15.Qxd6 Rbc8 16.Qd2 h6!
(intended against Qg5), and Black has adequate compensation for his pawn.
(b) 13…a5 also fails to equalize. In the game Ivanov-Siigur, corr 2008,
there followed 14.Nce3!? b4 15.Bc4 bxc3 16.bxc3 Be6 17.Nxf6+ Qxf6
18.Qxd6 Rbc8 19.Bd5 (19.Bxe6!N 19…fxe6 20.0-0 with a small advantage
for White seems more accurate) 19…Rfd8 20.Qa3 Bxd5 21.exd5 Nd4!, and,
although White retains a certain edge, it is all downhill for Black from here.
(c) Interesting is the continuation 13…g6!? with the idea of retreating
with the problem bishop to g7.
Then possible is 14.g3! (after 14.h5 Bg5, White’s edge is negligible)

14…Bg7 15.h5 Be6 (here not bad is 15…Ne7!?) 16.Bh3 (the solid 16.Nce3!?
leads to a small advantage for White) 16…Qd7 17.hxg6 hxg6. Now, instead
of the timid 18.Bg2, White has a daring move, 18.Nce3!?N, for example,
18…Bxh3 (18…b4!? looks more accurate) 19.g4 Bxg4 20.Nxg4 Qe6! (20…
f5? is bad because of 21.Qb3!) 21.Qf3 f5 22.exf5 Rxf5 (22…gxf5? 23.Ndf6
Bxf6? 24.Nh6+ loses; 22…Qxf5?! 23.Ndf6+ Rxf6 24.Nxf6+ and 25.Qxc6
leads to the loss of the exchange) 23.Qe4, and White has a small advantage.
14.Nxf6+
Sveshnikov does not examine this natural move at all, citing instead two
games with the modest 14.Nce3?, after which White completely throws away
his advantage.
14…gxf6 15.Bd3
This move occurs in two games out of three, but I strongly doubt that this
continuation is the best. In the next two chapters we will examine the
continuation 15.Qd2!?.
15…d5
15…f5 is slightly weaker, for example, 16.exf5 Nxf5! 17.Qh5 (17.Qd2!?
is also good) 17…e4 (this is the only move).
18.Bxe4!N. For some unknown reason, no one ever takes this pawn,
which does not seem right somehow (the usual 18.Be2 is met with 18…
Rb6!N, and White is left with only a small edge). Black is unable to exploit
the bishop position on e4, for example, 18…Re8 19.Qf3 Bb7 (19…d5??
20.0-0-0 loses; 19…Nxh4? runs into 20.Qg3+ Ng6 21.f3!, for example, 21…
f5? 22.0-0-0 fxe4 23.Rxd6 Qe7 24.Rxg6+, and White wins) 20.Qxf5 Bxe4
21.Qg4+ Kh8 22.Ne3, and White has an advantage.
18…f5
Weaker is 18…e4?!. In Kasparov-Lautier, Moscow 1994, there followed
19.Bc2 b4?! (more stubborn is 19…f5) 20.c4 Kh8 21.0-0-0 f5 22.Qg5 Rb6
23.h5 Rc6?! (and here more stubborn is 23…Rg8) 24.Kb1 Rc5? (Black is
still able to hold his own after 24…Rg8N) 25.h6 Qe5 26.Rh5 Rg8 27.Ng4!,
and Black resigned. After 27…Rxg5, he could get mated: 28.Nxe5 Rxh5
29.Rd8+ Ng8 30.Nxf7#.
19.0-0-0 Qg6! 20.Qe2!
Weaker is 20.Qg5?!: after 20…f6 21.Qxg6+ hxg6 22.Bc2 b4!N White’s

advantage becomes a mere memory.
20…Qg7!N
In Branding-Traut, corr 1996, Black’s play was surprisingly careless:
20…Qe6? 21.g4! Qxa2? (better is 21…f4!) 22.gxf5 f6 23.Bb1 Qf7 24.Ng4
Qg7?, and now White wins by force after 25.Qd2!N, for example, 25…Kh8
26.Nh6 Ng8 27.Rhg1! Qe7 28.Nxg8 Rxg8 29.Rxg8+ Kxg8 30.Ba2+ Kh8
31.Qd8+ Qxd8 32.Rxd8+ Kg7 33.Be6 Bxe6 34.Rxb8 Bxf5 35.Rb6, etc.
21.Bc2 Be6 22.h5 Rfd8!
Or 22…h6?! 23.g4! fxg4 24.Rhg1, and now 24…f5? loses to 25.Rd6!, for
example, 25…Rf6 26.Nxg4 fxg4 27.Rxe6 Rxe6 28.Rxg4 Ng6 29.Bxg6 Kh8
30.Bf5, etc.
23.h6 Qf6 24.Kb1 and White has a small advantage.
Chapter 163
12. Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Ne7 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Qd2 Bb7 without
16.Ne3
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4! Ne7?!
14.Nxf6 gxf6 15.Qd2!?
Though this continuation is definitely less common than 15.Bd3, I still

believe that it is slightly stronger. The white queen casts glances both at d6
and at h6.
15…Bb7
15…f5 has also occurred. Then in Kamsky-Benjamin, San Diego 2004,
there followed 16.Qg5+ (more accurate is 16.exf5!, for example, 16…Bxf5
17.Qg5+ Kh8 18.Qf6+ Kg8 19.0-0-0 Be6 20.f4! Ng6 21.fxe5 Nxe5 22.Qh6,
and White has an edge) 16…Kh8 17.Qf6+ Kg8 18.0-0-0 Be6 19.Bd3, and
now, instead of 19…Nc6?, correct is 19…f4!N, and White’s advantage is
rather slight.
16.Bd3 A typical continuation. In the next chapter you have an important
novelty 16.Ne3! waiting for you.
Then there usually follows an almost forced variation:
16…d5 17.exd5 Qxd5 18.0-0-O! e4 19.Be2 Qxa2 20.Qh6 Qe6 21.Nd4
Qb6
21…Qe5?, as Illescas played against Garcia, Linares 1994, is downright
weak. There followed 22.f4 exf3 23.Bd3! Ng6 24.g3! Be4 (more stubborn is
24…f5!N), and now, instead of 25.Bxe4?, the winning move is 25.Rde1!N
(25.Rhe1!N also wins), for example, 25…Bxd3 (or 25…f5 26.Nxf5 Qxf5
27.Rxe4 Rbd8 28.h5 Rxd3 29.hxg6 Qxg6 30.Rg4!) 26.Rxe5 Nxe5 27.Qxf6
Rbe8 28.h5 h6 29.Rd1! Bh7 30.g4! Nd3+ 31.Rxd3 Bxd3 32.g5 f2 33.Qxf2
hxg5 34.Qf6 Kh7 35.Nf3 Rg8 36.b3!, etc.
22.g4!
This move was pointed out by Kasparov in his comments to his game
against Kramnik, Novgorod 1994. And in the game there was 22.Rh3, and
then 22…Kh8 23.Bg4 Rg8. Here White committed an error, 24.Ne6?
(Kasparov himself pointed out the correct continuation, 24.Be6!. There may
follow 24…Rg6 25.Qf4 fxe6 26.Qxb8+ Rg8 27.Qh2 e5 28.Nc2, and Black
has several moves that secure equal play to him, for example, 28…Nd5!?N).
After 24…Rg6 25.Qf4, Black made a losing move 25…Re8?? (correct is
25…Bd5!, for example, 26.Bh5 Bxe6 27.Bxg6 Nxg6 28.Qxf6 Kg8. Now
29.Rg3? loses to 29…Qa5!N. Correct is 29.h5!N 29…Bxh3 30.Rd6 Qc5
31.hxg6 hxg6 32.gxh3 b4, and Black is a pawn up in a healthy position).
The game ended in the following fashion: 26.Rd6 Nd5 27.h5!! Nxf4
28.hxg6 Qxd6 (or 28…Rxe6 29.Rxh7+ Kg8 30.gxf7+ Kf8 31.Rh8+ Kxf7
32.Bxe6+ Nxe6 33.Rxb6 with winning position, the variation is pointed out
by Kasparov) 29.Rxh7+ Kg8 30.gxf7+ Kxh7 31.fxe8Q Nxe6 32.Bf5+ Kg7
33.Qg6+ Kf8 34.Qxf6+ Ke8 35.Bxe6 Qf8? 36.Bd7+ and Black resigned.
22…Kh8! 23.Nf5 Nxf5 24.gxf5 (D)
24…e3!
A novelty that allows Black to equalize almost completely. 24…Rg8? is
bad. In Gerasimov-Sibeldin, corr 2007, after 25.Rd7 Rg7 26.Rhd1 Rbg8
27.R1d4 Bc8 28.R7d6 Qc5 29.Qxf6 Qxf5 30.Rxa6! Qxf6 31.Rxf6 Rg1
32.Kd2, White obtained a serious advantage.
24…Rfd8!? has also occurred. Then in Zavernyaev-Pankratov, corr 1997,

there followed 25.Bh5 e3 26.Rhg1 Rxd1+ 27.Bxd1 Rg8 28.Rxg8+ Kxg8
29.Qxe3 Qc6 30.h5! b4 31.h6 bxc3 32.bxc3 Bc8 33.Qd4 Bd7, and here White
should have continued 34.c4!N with a small advantage. According to my
analysis, the main variation is…
25.Rhg1 Rg8 26.fxe3
26.Qxe3 Qxe3+ 27.fxe3 Be4 leads to an equal game.
26…Rxg1 27.Rxg1 Rg8 28.Rd1!
This is the only way to struggle for the advantage.
28…b4 29.c4 b3! 30.h5! Be4 31.Rd2 Bxf5 32.Bd1 Rc8! 33.Rg2 Rg8
33…Rxc4+ is slightly weaker because of 34.Bc2! Rxc2+ 35.Rxc2.
34.Rf2 Rg5 35.Qf8 Rg8 36.Qe7 Qe6! 37.Qxe6 Bxe6 38.Bxb3 Rg1
39.Kd2 Kg7 and with his precise defense, Black has just about managed to
equalize.
Chapter 164
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Ne7 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Qd2 Bb7 16.Ne3
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4! Ne7?!
14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Qd2!? Bb7 16.Ne3!
An important novelty that may put into question the viability of the
continuation 13…Ne7?!. White is going to launch an attack against the
weakened position of the black king after Ne3-g4.
16…Bxe4
This is exactly the idea behind the move 15…Bb7. Sudden digressions
disagree with Black’s health. For example, after 16…d5?! 17.Ng4, he has to
play 17…Kh8 (17…dxe4?? loses to 18.Qh6 Ng6 19.Rd1 Qe7 20.h5, for
instance, 20…Rfd8 21.Rxd8+ Rxd8 22.hxg6 fxg6 23.Qxh7! Qxh7+
24.Nxf6+ Kg7 25.Rxh7 Kxf6 26.Rxb7), and after 18.Nxf6 Ng8 19.Nxd5,
White has great superiority.
16…f5 17.exf5 f6 also does not help because of 18.Rh3! d5 19.g4. The
cautious 16…Kh8 is playable, for example, 17.0-0-0 (17.Ng4?! is weaker
because of 17…f5 18.exf5 f6; but 17.Bd3 with an edge for White is fine)
17…Bxe4 18.Qxd6 Qxd6 19.Rxd6, and White has the upper hand.
17.Ng4 Kh8
The continuations 17…Bf5 18.Nxf6+ Kh8 and 17…Bg6 18.h5 Bf5
19.Nxf6+ Kh8 both lead to a transposition of moves.
18.Nxf6
18…Bg6
This move looks strange – Black provokes White to play h4-h5. And the
point is that in certain lines, White has the strong Qg5!, so Black wants to
leave his opponent’s queen on g5 undefended. I will try to make this clearer
below.
Slightly weaker is 18…d5?!, for example, 19.Qg5! (19.f3? is no good
because of 19…Bf5 20.g4 Rb6! 21.Qg5 Qd6, and Black is fine) 19…b4!?
(there is the threat of 20.0-0-0) 20.Nxe4 dxe4 21.Qf6+ Kg8 22.Rd1 Qc7
23.Rh3! Rb6 24.Rg3+ Ng6 25.Qg5 bxc3 26.Rxc3! (26.bxc3? is worse
because of 26…f5! 27.h5 f4 28.Rh3 f3 with unclear play) 26…Qe7 27.Qxe7
Nxe7 28.b3, and White has a solid advantage in the endgame.
18…Bf5 is quite playable.
For example, 19.Rd1 Rb6 20.Qg5! d5!? (with the pawn on h5, Black
would have the move 20…Ng8, but now it runs into 21.Nd5! with a clear
advantage for White) 21.Nxd5 Rd6 22.Qxe7 Rxd5 23.Qxd8 Rfxd8 24.Rxd5
Rxd5, but Black would not obtain full compensation for his pawn.
19.h5 Bf5 20.g4!?
20.Bd3!? also leads to White’s advantage, for example, 22…Ng8!?
21.Bxf5 (after 21.Nxg8?! Bxd3, White is left with only a very slight edge)
21…Qxf6 22.Bc2 Rbd8 23.0-0-0 d5 24.f3 Rfe8 25.Kb1, etc.
20…Ng8 21.Nxg8 Be4 22.Rh3 Rxg8 23.Re3! (D)
23…f5!?
Certainly not 23…Rxg4?? because of 24.f3, and White wins. Play is

simpler after 23…Ba8!?. Then possible is 24.0-0-0 Rxg4 25.Be2! Rg5! (or
25…Rf4 26.Rxe5!) 26.Qxd6 Qxd6 27.Rxd6, and the ending is better for
White.
24.0-0-0 d5
24…Qg5?! 25.gxf5 Bxf5 26.Qxd6 Be4 27.Be2! is in White’s favor.
25.gxf5 Qf6 26.f3 Bxf5 27.Qxd5 Rbe8!
27…Rge8?! is met with 28.Qd6!, for example, 28…Qg5 (Black does not
have the move 28…Re6 because his rook on b8 hangs) 29.Rde1 (there is the
threat of 30.f4! Qxf4 31.Qf6+ Kg8 32.Bh3! Bxh3 33.Qxf4) 29…Rbd8!?
(another alternative is 29…Kg7!?) 30.Qxa6 b4 31.f4!, and White has great
superiority. Then possible is…
28.b3! Re7 29.Rde1 Rge8 30.Qc5 Rc8 31.Qb4 and Black does not have
full compensation for his pawn; White has the advantage. Thus, the move
16.Ne3! poses serious problems for Black, and that means that the
continuation 13…Ne7?! itself is hardly an example to emulate.
P.S. While preparing this book for publication, I received the foreword by
Garry Kasparov that you have certainly read already. In it Garry Kimovich
points out that he has already written about the move 16.Ne3 in his new
book, so it is not a novelty any more. The same goes for the move 24…e3 in
chapter 163. But I decided not to correct the original text of those two
chapters as, should I do that, it would be impossible for readers to understand
what Kasparov writes about in his foreword.
Chapter 165
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Be7 without 14.Nce3
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4! Be7
Both the most popular and the most successful continuation. Black
prepares the regrouping Be6, Qd7 and Bd8, while at the same time depriving
White of the opportunity to take on f6 and to ruin the black king’s pawn
cover.
14.g3
A solid continuation. The main move, 14.Nce3, will be examined in
chapters 166-169.
After 14.Qf3 Be6 15.Rd1 Qd7 16.Nce3 or 15.Nce3, the game, with a
transposition of moves, reaches the main variation of the next chapter.
After 14.Bd3 Be6 15.Nce3, there arises the position from the main
variation of chapter 167 (with a transposition of moves).
As the pawn on h4 is not yet hanging, the move 14.a3 occurs rather often.
Then in the game Topalov-Leko, Dortmund 2005, there followed 14…Be6
15.Ncb4 Nxb4 16.axb4 Ra8 17.g3 Qd7, and the game transposed to the main
variation of the current chapter.
14…Be6 15.a3
The crude 15.Bg2 does not bring any advantage. In Shirov-Timofeev,
Sarajevo 2005, there followed 15…Qd7 16.0-0 Bd8 17.Qd3 a5 18.Nce3 Ne7
19.Nxe7+ Bxe7 20.a3 (more accurate is 20.Rfd1!?N, making way for the
rook and avoiding weakening the b3-square) 20…Rfc8 (20…Bb3!?N)
21.Rfd1 g6 22.Rd2 Rc6 (22…Rc5!N, preventing the knight from moving to
d5, looks slightly more accurate, for example, 23.b4 Rc6, and if 24.bxa5?!,
then 24…Qc7 with a small advantage for Black) 23.Nd5 Bd8?! 24.Rad1, and
White has a small edge.
Instead of 23…Bd8?!, Black has the move 23…Rc5!N. After 24.Nxe7+
Qxe7 25.Qxd6 Qxd6 26.Rxd6 b4, he has full compensation for the pawn, for
example, 27.cxb4 axb4 28.Rd2 Ra5 29.Bf1 Kg7 30.f3 Rba8 31.Rd3 Rc8
32.Rd2 Rca8 with a repetition of moves. (D)
15…Qd7
Weaker is 15…a5?!, as Shirov played against Karjakin, Crete 2007.
White’s reaction was precise:
16.Nce3! Re8 (the usual 16…Qd7? is weak because of 17.a4! bxa4 18.Qxa4;
the best move is 16…a4!?N, and White’s edge is not so great) 17.a4! b4?!
(better is 17…Na7!N) 18.Bb5 Bd7 19.0-0 bxc3 20.bxc3 Bf8 21.Qd3 Na7?
(Black’s position is difficult; he should have chosen passive defense, for
example, 21…g6!?N 22.Nc4 Kg7, etc.) 22.Bxd7 Qxd7 23.Qa6, and White
has great superiority (even stronger is 23.Nc4!N Nc6 24.Rfb1).
15…Re8!? is a very interesting possibility. The idea of the move is to
avoid opening the a-file after 16.Ncb4 and to continue 16…Qc8!?N, for
example, 17.Nxe7+ Nxe7 18.Qxd6 Qb7 19.0-0-0 Bg4! 20.Qxa6! Qxe4
21.Bxb5 Bxd1 22.Rxd1 Red8, and White’s advantage is small.
16.Ncb4 Nxb4 17.axb4 Ra8
17…Qb7!? is no worse, for example, 18.Bg2 Bd8 (the position after 18…
Ra8 will be examined below with a transposition of moves) 19.0-0 Bb6. Then
possible is 20.Qd2 Bxd5 21.Qxd5 Qxd5 22.exd5 Ra8 23.Ra3 Ra7 24.Rfa1
Rfa8 25.g4 g6 26.Be4 a5, and in Dauga-Tinture, corr 2008, the opponents
soon agreed to a draw.
18.Bg2 Bd8
This move occurs almost always, but I strongly suspect that it is not the
best one. In my opinion, more precise is 18…Qb7!?, for example, 19.0-0
Ra7. This position occurred in three games, and all were drawn quickly. The
idea of the move 18…Qb7!? is that now 20.f4 is not dangerous because of
20…Bxd5 21.Qxd5 Qb6+ 22.Kh2 exf4!, and the rook on a8 does not hang, as
may happen in the main variation. After 23.Rxf4 Bf6, play is equal.
19.0-0 Qc6 (D)
20.f4!
A novelty that allows White to keep struggling for an advantage. In
Topalov-Leko, Dortmund 2005, 20.Ne3 was played. This continuation does
not bring any advantage. There followed 20…a5 21.bxa5 Bxa5 22.Nf5 Qd7
23.Qd2 Bc7 (Black has the move 23…Bb6!?N, for example, 24.Qxd6 Qxd6
25.Nxd6
Rfd8, and he has full compensation for his pawn) 24.Ne3 Qc6 25.Nf5 Qd7
26.Qg5 f6 27.Qd2.
Here Black faltered – 27…d5?! (once again, possible is 27…Bb6!N), and
after 28.Ne3 d4 29.cxd4 Qxd4 30.Qxd4!?N (in the game there was 30.Qc2)
30…exd4 31.Nd5, White was able to obtain a symbolic edge.
In Dominguez-Timofeev, Havana 2009, there was 20.Ra3 Ra7 21.Ne3
(slightly more accurate is 21.Kh2!) 21…Bb6 22.Qd3 Bxe3 23.Qxe3 Re7
24.Rd1 (on 24.Rfa1 there will follow 24…Bc8) 24…Rd8 25.Rd2 (25.Qc5
dxc5 26.Rxd8+ Re8 27.Rxa6 Rxd8 28.Rxc6 cxb4 29.cxb4 Rd1+ 30.Kh2 Rd2
leads an equal game) 25…h6 26.Ra1 Red7 27.Kh2 Qb7 28.Rad1, and now
the simplest ways to equalize is 28…Bb3!?N or 28…Bg4!?N.
Let us return to the move 20.f4!.
20…exf4
Perhaps, preferable is 20…Bxd5!?, for example, 21.Qxd5 Qxd5 22.exd5
Re8, etc.
21.e5!Bxd522.Qxd5
Or 22.Bxd5 Qb6+ 23.Kg2 Ra7 24.e6 fxe6 25.Bxe6+ Kh8 26.Qg4 d5!
27.Bxd5 Bc7, and White has a small advantage.
22…Qd7! 23.Rxf4 Qa7+ 24.Kh2 dxe5 25.Rxf7 Rxf7 26.Qxa8 Qxa8

27.Bxa8 Rf2+ 28.Kh3 Rxb2 29.Rxa6 Bf6 30.Be4 and White has a small
advantage. Let me remind you that Black had the move 18…Qb7!?.
Chapter 166
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Be7 14.Nce3 Be6 without 15.Bd3 or 15.a4
14.Nce3
This is the main continuation. After this move White retains the choice of
different game plans.
14…Be6 15.Qf3
Curiously, this is the most popular move in the database, and particularly
among active players with ratings above 2600. Nevertheless, I suspect that
this move is sufficient only for equality. And I am not alone in my
conclusions, because strong correspondence players almost never play in this
fashion.
It the next chapter we will look at 15.Bd3, and chapters 168-169 are
going to be devoted to the move 15.a4!, which, in my opinion, is the
strongest. 15.g3 has often occurred, but after 15…Qd7, White does not have
an advantage. For example, 16.a4 Bd8 (16…Rfc8?! as in Sjugirov-Timofeev,
Dagomys 2010, is weaker) 17.axb5 axb5 18.b4 (it is anything but simple for
Black to obtain equality after 18.Be2, but in Rodes-Diaz, corr 2009, Black
managed to find a way: 18…Ne7! 19.Ra6 Kh8 20.0-0 Qb7! 21.Nb4 Bb6
22.Qxd6 Bxe3 23.fxe3 Qxe4 24.Qd3 Qb7 25.e4 Bc4 26.Qe3 Bxe2 27.Qxe2
Rbd8, and the position is absolutely level) 18…Ne7 19.Bg2 Qc6 (the game
Nisipeanu-Lautier, France 2001, was drawn after 19…Qb7) 20.Ra3 Qb7
21.0-0 Nxd5 22.Nxd5 Bb6 23.Nxb6 Qxb6, and in Grigoriev-Nekhaev, corr
2010, a draw was soon agreed.
15…Qd7 16.Rd1
This move occurs practically always. 16.g4?! (Motylev-Filippov, Sochi
2005) looks much too optimistic. After 16…Bd8 17.Bd3, in the game there
was 17…a5. Now White should have played 18.a3!, but he planned an
unsuccessful bishop transfer to a4: 18.Bc2?! b4 19.Ba4?! bxc3 20.bxc3 Qc8,
and Black’s advantage became clear. White committed another inaccuracy,
21.Nf5?!, and after 21…Bxd5 22.exd5 (instead of the text move 22…e4?)
Black could have increased his advantage with 22…Ne7!, for example,
23.Nxd6 Qa6!N,24.Nf5 Rb2, etc.
Black also had an opportunity to play 17…b4!N
For example, 18.Bxa6 bxc3 19.bxc3 Ne7! 20.Bc4 Rc8 21.Bb3 Nxd5
22.exd5 Qb7! 23.c4 Bd7, and Black has more than sufficient compensation
for his pawn; even more daring is 23…f5!? 24.gxf5 g6.
16…Bd8 17.Be2
And here the move 17.g4?! does not look convincing. In Shirov-
Volokitin, Sarajevo 2005, there followed 17…Ne7 18.h5 (more accurate is
18.Be2!, defending the queen), and here, instead of 18…Bxd5, Black could
continue 18…Nxd5!N 19.exd5 Qb7, and he has a small advantage.
The move 17.Bd3 has occurred rather often
After 17…Ne7 18.Bc2, Black usually plays 18…b4!?. In the game

Karjakin-Eljanov, Warsaw 2005, White carelessly took the pawn: 19.Nxb4?!
(19.Bb3?! bxc3 20.bxc3 Qa7!N leads to a certain edge for Black; 19.cxb4!? is
solid enough, for example, 19…Bxd5 20.Nxd5 Nxd5 21.Rxd5 Rxb4
22.Bb3N; 19.c4!? leads to an equal game). There followed 19…a5 20.Nd3
Qc6, and here White committed a serious blunder, 21.Bb1? (the correct move
is 21.0-0 Bxa2 with only a small advantage for Black), and after 21…f5!,
Black had a serious advantage. There followed 22.exf5 e4 23.Qg4 Nxf5
24.Nf4, and now, instead of 24…Bc8?, Black could have captured a pawn
with 24…Rxb2!N, for example, 25.0-0 Bc8 26.Nxf5 Bxf5 27.Qg3 d5!, and
Black has a great advantage. The d5-pawn cannot be taken either with the
rook (because of 28…Bc7) or with knight (because of 28…Rxb1).
17…Ne7 18.h5 h6 19.0-0 Qc8!
Preparing to take on d5. Black must not play 19…Bb6?!, as after 20.Nf5,
White’s chances are definitely better.
20.Nxe7+ Bxe7
21.Nf5
On 21.b3?! Black should not play 20…Bg5?!, as in Jakovenko-Ivanchuk,
Foros 2007, but 20…Qc5! 22.Nf5 Bg5!, for example, 23.Nxd6N (or 23.Rxd6
Qa3) 23…Rfd8 24.Nf5 Qa3, etc.
21.Rd2 leads to equal play. For example, 21…Rd8 22.Rfd1 Bxa2 23.Nf5
Bg5 24.Rxd6 Rxd6 25.Rxd6 Be6 26.Qg3, and here Jandek-Cutillas, corr
2009, was drawn.
21…Qc7
Also good is 21…Qd7.
22.Qg3 Bg5 23.Nxd6 Bf4 24.Qf3 g6 25.c4 Rb6 26.Qa3 b4!
The move 26…gxh5? (Landa-Eljanov, Germany 2007) is weak. After
27.c5 Rc6 28.b4, Black seriously misplayed the position with 28…Qe7?? (he
could keep on fighting after 28…a5!?N). There followed 29.Qf3? (White
wins after 29.g3!N) 29…h4, and in this position, despite White’s serious
advantage, a draw was agreed. Probably, both opponents were severely short
of time.
27.Qa5 Qe7! 28.Qxb6
In this position Gavazov-Latronico, corr 2008, was drawn. Now possible
is 28…Qh4 29.g3 Bxg3 30.fxg3 Qxg3+ 31.Kh1 Qh3+ with perpetual check.
Chapter 167
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Be7 14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3
14.Nce3 Be6 15.Bd3
When playing this way, White expects his opponent to move 15…Qd7,
after which he puts his knight on f5. Note that Black can meet the immediate
15.Nf5?! with the simple 15…g6.
15…Qd716.Nf5!?
This move allows White to struggle for an advantage. Let us have a look
at the other options.
(a) Probably, 16.a4! is even slightly stronger; after this move the game
usually transposes to the 15.a4! line, for example, 16…Bd8 17.axb5 axb5,
and there arises a position from the main variation of the next chapter.
(b) 16.g3 Bd8 17.0-0 has also been seen. Then in Karjakin-Khairullin,
Kirishi 2005, there followed: 17…Ne7! (17…a5?!, Oleksienko-Eljanov,
Kharkov 2004, is weaker because of 18.a4!N, for example, 18…b4 19.cxb4
Bxd5 20.Nxd5 Nxb4 21.Bb5!, etc.) 18.Bc2 (more accurate is 18.Nxe7N with
equal play) 18…Bb6?! (after 18…Nxd5!N 19.Nxd5 a5, Black’s position is
preferable), and here, instead of 19.Nxe7?!, correct is 19.Nxb6!N Rxb6
20.Bb3, and White has a small edge.
(c) 16.Qf3 has often occurred. In Korneev-Sprenger, Madrid 2002, there
followed 16…Bd8 17.Bc2 (after both 17.g4?! and 17.Rd1 there arise
positions which we have examined in the previous chapter) 17…Ne7 18.Bb3
Bb6?! (Black commits the same inaccuracy as Khairullin did in the previous
game; the correct move is 18…a5! with equal play) 19.Nxb6 Rxb6 20.h5.
Here Black falters once more: 20…Bxb3?! (he should have played 20…h6!),
and after 21.axb3, White’s position is better.
16…Kh8!
Certainly not 16…g6?? because of 17.Nfxe7 Nxe7 18.Nf6.
17.a4 Bd8 (D)
18.axb5
At first glance, this continuation looks quite logical. In the position in the
diagram it occurred in 15 games out of 16 that are known to me. However,
the analysis shows that with this move White throws away his rather small
advantage which he still had.
The exchange on b5 alleviates the advance b5-b4 for Black, as the a6-pawn
disappears from the board.
So far I have not managed to find complete equality after 18.h5!?. For
example, in the only game known to me, Palac-Eljanov, Goteborg 2005, there
followed 18…bxa4!? (or 18…b4N 19.Bxa6 bxc3 20.bxc3 Bxf5 21.exf5 Qxf5
22.Ne3 Qe6 23.0-0, and White stands slightly better) 19.Qxa4 Rxb2
20.Qa3Rb8 21.Qxd6 Qxd6 22.Nxd6 a5 23.0-0 Bg5, and although in this
position the opponents agreed to a draw, White’s chances are still preferable.
For example, the move 24. 4!?N does not look bad at all. The question is how
realistic is it to win such a position against a grandmaster.
18…axb5 19.h5 b4!
Black is hardly advised to play 19…Ne7: after 20.Nfxe7 Bxe7 21.h6 g6
22.Nxe7 Qxe7 23.Qd2 f5 24.0-0N, White has a small advantage.
20.Qa4
This is the usual move. White obtains nothing after 20.c4 b3 21.Qg4 Rg8
(Lutsky-Matej, corr 2008. 20.Qg4 also brings no advantage. Asquith-
Serradiminni, corr 2007, was drawn after 20…Rg8 21.Qf3 bxc3 22.bxc3 Na5
23.0-0 Nb3 24.Ra2 Bg5 25.Re1 g6 26.Nfe3 Nc5.
20…bxc3 21.bxc3 Rb7!
Creating the threat of Rb7-a7.
22.0-0 g6 23.Nfe3 Ra7 24.Qc4
Playable is 24.Qc2N f5! 25.Rxa7 Nxa7, for example, 26.f4!? Nc8!
27.hxg6 Qa7, and in this sharp position chances are even.
24…Na5 25.Qb4 Rb7 26.Qa4 Qxa4 27.Rxa4 f5 28.hxg6 hxg6 29.Rb4
Rbf7 30.Ra1 fxe4 31.Bxe4 Rxf2 32.Bxg6 Rd2 and in Silva-Schulman, corr
2006, the opponents agreed to a draw.
Chapter 168
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Be7 14.Nce3 Be6 15.a4 Qd7 16.axb5 axb5
without 17.Be2
14.Nce3 Be6 15.a4!
In my opinion, this move creates the greatest problems for Black. It tries
to hoist him by his own petard. This is just the right time to scratch your
heads and ask yourself a question: “And what has Black played 12…Rb8
for?”
It is interesting to note that strong active players almost never employ the
move 15.a4! (only two games are known to me). What is the reason for that?
I can suggest the following explanation: strong active players have trust in
their strong opponents who, after 12…Rb8, have supposedly taken steps
against a2-a4, while correspondence players (or, to be more accurate, their
engines) dig deeper. Trust, but verify!
15…Qd7
After 15…bxa4?! 16.Qxa4, Black cannot play 16…Qd7?? because of
17.Qxc6, and on 16…Bd7 there follows 17.g3! with clear advantage for
White.
16.axb5 axb5 17.Bd3
17.Be2! will be explored in the next chapter. Not bad is 17.b4!?, and after
17…Bd8 there arises (with a transposition of moves) a position from
Nisipeanu-Lautier, France 2001, in which there followed 18.g3?! (correct is
18.h5!N Bg5 19.Be2, and the game transposes to a position from the 17.Be2
line, favorable for White) 18…Ne7 19.Bg2 Qb7, and the opponents agreed to
a draw.
17…Bd8 18.h5
18.Ra6 throws away the advantage. In Wang Hao-McShane, Tiayuan
2005, there followed 19…Ne7 19.Bc2 Kh8?! (he should have continued 19…
Bxd5!N 20.Nxd5 Nxd5 21.Qxd5 Bb6 or even 21…Qg4, with equal play in
both cases) 20.h5 h6 21.0-0 Qb7?! (another inaccuracy; better is 21…Bxd5N
22.Nxd5 Nxd5 23.Qxd5 Bb6) 22.Nb4 Bc7 23.Qd3 Ra8, and here, after
24.Rfa1!N, White is clearly superior.
18…h6
Also good is 18…Bg5. Then in Dolgov-Nekhaev, corr 2009, there
followed 19.0-0 Ne7 20.Nc2?! (better is 20.Be2!, for example, 20…Qb7
21.Nxe7+ Bxe7 22.Qd3 h6!?N with small advantage for White) 20…Nxd5
21.exd5 Bg4 22.Be2 f5! 23.Nb4 Rbe8 24.Nc6 Bxe2 25.Qxe2 f4 26.Ra7 Qf5,
and Black has excellent play.
19.Nf5!?
White almost always plays 19.0-0, but after 19…Ne7!, Black equalizes
without any problems. For example, 20.Bc2!? (after White has developed his
bishop to d3, the move 20.Be2 looks strange; nevertheless, good
correspondence players are known to play in this fashion. Then possible is
20…Nxd5 21.Nxd5 Qc6!?N 22.Nb4!? Qxe4 23.Bf3 Qh4 24.Nc6 Rc8
25.Qxd6 e4! 26.g3 Qg5 27.Bxe4 Qxh5 28.Rfe1 Bf6, and White’s edge is
slight) 20…Bxd5 21.Nxd5 Nxd5 22.Qxd5 b4 23.Ra6 bxc3 24.Rxd6 Qe7
(also good is 24…Qg4!?N) 25.bxc3 Rb2 26.Bb3 Rxb3 27.Rd7 Qe8 (27…Qa3
is also fine, for example, 28.Rxd8 Rxc3 29.Rxf8+ Qxf8 30.Rd1 Rc5 31.Qd8
Rc8, and in Schueppel-Mucska, corr 2008, the opponents agreed to a draw)
28.Rxd8 Qxd8 29.Qxb3 Qd3! 30.Re1 Qd2 31.Rd1 (or 31.Re3 Qc1+ 32.Kh2
Qd2 33.Kg3 Qd8), and Bronnikov-Baraniuk, corr 2011, was drawn.
Note that the resulting position is similar to the one from the previous
chapter; the only difference being that instead of the move Kh8, Black has
played h7-h6, which makes impossible the knight’s dislodgement by means
of g7-g6. Thus, if in the position from previous chapter chances were even,
then now White has a certain advantage.
19…Bxf5
In Johnson-Fritzsche, corr 2009, Black continued 19…b4. There followed
20.Qa4 bxc3 21.bxc3 Rb7 22.0-0 Bxd5!? 23.exd5 Ne7 24.Qg4 Nxf5 25.Bxf5
Qe7 26.Bd3 Qg5 27.Qxg5, and here the opponents agreed to a draw despite
White’s very slight advantage.
20.exf5 Ne7 21.Be4!?N
In the correspondence game Gil-Matej, 2010, there was 21.Qf3 Nxd5,
and here a draw was agreed.
21…Nxd5 22.Qxd5 b4 23.0-0 Bb6 24.g3
White has certain advantage, but of course, Black’s position is very solid.
Chapter 169
12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Be7 14.Nce3 Be6 15.a4 Qd7 16.axb5 axb5
17.Be2
14.Nce3 Be6 15.a4 Qd7 16.axb5 axb5 17.Be2!
In my opinion, this is the best continuation, and therefore the position in

the diagram is critical for evaluation of the whole system with 12…Rb8.
Benefits from the bishop’s position on e2 are: the white queen controls the
d5-square, thereby invalidating Black’s plan with Bd8 and Ne7; the queen
itself acquires the comfortable d3-square; and, if desired, the white bishop is
able to move to g4.
In this chapter I will have to cite only correspondence games, because,
unfortunately, over-the-board players have given us no material to analyze at
all. Believe it or not, but there is not a single game with the move 17.Be2 in
my database for over-the-board players with ratings above 2300!
Why is this? Either I am greatly mistaken in my analysis or we can see
once again that the theory of the Chelyabinsk Variation is still very far from
completion and that OTB players lag slightly behind correspondence ones in
their knowledge of it.
17…Bd8 18.h5 Bg5
18…h6!? 19.0-0 Bg5 leads to transposition of moves. On 18…b4, the
reply 19.h6!? does not look bad (after 19.Ra6!? bxc3 20.bxc3 Kh8! 21.h6 g6
22.0-0 Rb7 23.Ra8, White has a small advantage, as in Ricchio-Nekhaev,
corr 2010), for example, 19…g6 20.0-0 Bg5 21.Nc4 bxc3 22.bxc3, and Black
cannot take the pawn on h6 because after 22…Kh8 23.Qa4! Bxh6?, there will
follow 24.Ncb6, and he has to give up an exchange to avoid greater losses
after 24…Qe8 25.Nc7.
19.0-0
19.h6 g6 leads to equal play, for example, 20.g3 Kh8! 21.f4 Bd8 22.0-0
f5!, Bennedik-Pierce, corr 2009.
White retains a small advantage after 19.Ra6, for example, 19…Qc8
20.Qa1 b4 21.0-0 bxc3 22.bxc3 Ra8 23.Rxa8!?N Qxa8 24.Rd1, etc.
The move 19.b4!? is absolutely unexplored; preliminary analysis
confirms White’s small advantage.
19…h6!
Slightly weaker is 19…b4, for example, 20.Ra6 bxc3 21.bxc3 Qc8
22.Qd3! (after 22.Qa4, White’s advantage is a bit smaller; however, the line
22.h6!?N gxh6 23.Qd3 deserves attention) 22…Rd8 23.h6!?N (23.Rfa1!? as
in Gushchin- Stoeckert, corr 2010, also results in an edge for White), 23…
gxh6 (a fantatstic variation arises after 23…g6??: 24.f4! exf4 25.Rxc6! Qxc6
26.Qd4! Bxh6 27.Ne7+ Kf8 28.Nxc6 and, to make the matters worse, we also
have a fork here…) 24.Nf5 Bxf5 25.exf5 Ne7 26.Nxe7+ Bxe7 27.Bf3, and, in
spite of Black’s extra pawn, White’s advantage is indisputable.
The most popular move here is 19…Rfd8, for example, 20.b4!?
(20.Nc2!? is also not bad) 20…Bxe3 21.Nxe3 Ne7 22.Qd3 d5 23.exd5 Nxd5
24.Nxd5 Bxd5 25.h6!? (the usual 25.Rfd1 is weaker) 25…Qe6 26.Rfd1 Qf6
27.Qh3 Qf4 28.Ra7 Be4 29.Rxd8+ Rxd8 30.Rd7 Ra8 31.Qg3! Qxg3 32.fxg3,
and the resulting ending is favorable for White, Manso-Rhodes, corr 2011.
As we can see, Black’s troubles are often associated with the advance h5-
h6, so this pawn must be blocked, and so we return to the move 19…h6! once
more.
20.Ra6
20…Bxe3!?
A novelty. It turns out that this move is playable, which may cheer up the
adherents of the move 12…Rb8 just a little. Then in Ricchio-Luncz, corr
2008, there followed 20…Kh8 (this looks like preparation for the capture on
e3, but then this move is a loss of tempo) 21.Qa1 (White retains the
advantage after 21.b4!?N), and here interesting is 21…Ne7!?N (in the game
there was 21…Bxe3 22.Nxe3 Rfd8 23.Rd1 with an advantage for White), for
example, 22.Qa3 Bxd5 23.Nxd5 Nxd5 24.Rxd6 b4! 25.Qa6 Qc7 26.exd5
bxc3 27.bxc3 Qxc3 28.Rc6, and White has a small advantage.
The typical move here is 20…Rfd8; then possible is 21.Qd3 (21.Nf5!?N
is in White’s favor) 21…Ne7 22.Nxe7+ (or 22.Rd1!? Bxe3 23.Nxe3 d5
24.exd5 Nxd5 25.Qe4 Qc8! 26.Raa1, and White’s chances are slightly better)
22…Qxe7 23.Nd5 Qb7 24.Rfa1 f5 25.Rb6 fxe4!? (another opportunity is
25…Qf7) 26.Qxb5 Qc8 27.Bc4 (27.Ra7!?N is also not bad: White has a
small advantage here as well) 27…Rxb6 28.Nxb6 Bxc4 29.Qxc4+ Qxc4
30.Nxc4 Bf6 31.Nb6 d5 32.c4 dxc4 33.Nxc4 Rd4 34.b3 Rd3, and in
Fimhaber-Standke, corr 2010, the opponents agreed to a draw despite
White’s small advantage.
21.Nxe3
Perhaps Black refrains from taking on e3 for fear of 21.Rxc6. (D)
However, analysis shows that he has nothing to be afraid of. Here is the
main variation: 21…Kh8! 22.Ra6! Ba7! 23.Qd2 f5 24.Rfa1 (24.Ne3 Bb6
25.exf5 Bxf5 26.Nd5 Ba7 27.Rfa1 Rb7 leads to a transposition of moves)
24…Rb7 25.exf5 Bxf5 26.Ne3 Be4! 27.Qxd6! Qxd6 28.Rxd6 Bc5 29.Rd2
Rbf7 30.Bxb5 (30.Rf1!? seems slightly stronger, for example, 30…b4
31.Ng4 Rf5 32.Bd1 bxc3 33.bxc3 Bc6 34.Re1 e4, but White is hardly able to
obtain anything real anyway) 30…Rxf2 31.Rxf2 Bxe3 32.Raf1 g6 33.hxg6
Rb8 34.Re1 Bxf2+ 35.Kxf2 Rxb5 36.Rxe4 Rxb2+ 37.Re2 Rb5 38.Re3 Kg7
39.Rg3 Rc5 40.Ke2 e4, and there is a drawn position on the board.
Pretty progress in opening theory. I do hope you have not taken me for a
crazy person.
21…Rfd8 22.Bg4
After both 22.Qd3 and 22.Qa1, White’s advantage is roughly the same.
There may follow 22…Qb7 23.Ra1 b4 24.Bxe6 fxe6 25.Qg4 Qe7 26.Ra6
Rbc8 27.Rfa1 and White has a small advantage.
Let us sum up the results of our investigation of the move 12…Rb8. As
we saw, after 13.h4!, White blunts the f6-bishop and retains slightly better
chances, though Black’s position is sufficiently solid.
Black often has to defend himself in already fixed positions, where he has
no chance at taking over the initiative. Probably this is the reason for the fact
that popularity of the move 12…Rb8 is lower than of the sharper 12…Bg5.
Section 11. 9. Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5
without 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8
Chapter 170
12…Bg5 13.Be2 Ne7 without 14.Ncb4, 13.h4 or 13.a4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5
With this move, the development of the variation had begun; the cautious
continuation 12…Rb8 appeared only in mid-70s. With his last move, Black
put his bishop on the open diagonal c1-h8 and at the same time proclaimed
his agreement to the White’s plan of a2-a4, believing that he would obtain
counterplay along the now-opened b-file. In my opinion, this is more in the
spirit of the Chelyabinsk Variation than going on the defensive without any
particular reason.
13.Be2
The old continuation that occurred for the first time in the game
Petrushin-Timoshchenko, Novosibirsk 1976 (see the next chapter). It brings
no advantage at all to White and, although it used to be employed even by
leading grandmasters, interest in it waned quickly enough. Still, many games
have been played in this fashion, so I must tell you about this variation.
In chapters 172-173 we will take a look at the more ambitious move
13.h4 and then switch to the examination of the clearly main continuation
13.a4!.
Other continuations have also occurred rather often.
(a) On 13.Nce3, I can recommend 13…Ne7!?, for example, 14.a4 (after
14.Be2, there arises the position that we are going to investigate below) 14…
Bxe3 15.Nxe3 Bb7 16.axb5 axb5 17.Rxa8 Bxa8 18.Bd3 d5 19.0-0 d4
20.cxd4 Qxd4 with equal play.
(b) Black has no problems either after 13.g3. In Kadaner-Timoshchenko,
Kazan 1968, where the move 13.g3 had first occurred, Black played 13…Na5
(this is game 19 at the beginning of the book).
Perhaps 13…Ne7! is even more convincing, for example, 14.Ncb4?! (this
is the most popular move, but more accurate is 14.h4!, and after 14…Bh6,
there arises a level position from the chapter 172) 14…a5 15.Nxe7+ Qxe7
16.Nd5 Qb7 17.Bg2 Be6. In Asrian-Ni Hua, Istanbul 2000, there followed
18.0-0 (more cautious is 18.a3!?) 18…Bxd5 19.exd5 b4 20.c4, and after 20…
Rac8N, Black’s advantage is undisputable.
(c) In Gouliev-Shirov, Corsica 2005, White chose 13.Bd3.
There followed 13…Ne7! 14.Ncb4 (I will refrain from putting question

marks, but this move is inaccurate. The balance would be held after 14.Nce3.
We have discussed 14.Nxe7+ in the comments to the game Agzamov-
Timoshchenko, Leningrad 1967, which can be found in the beginning of the
book, game 14.) 14…a5 15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 16.Nd5 Qb7 17.Qh5 Bd8
(interesting complications are possible after 17…h6!?N, for example, 18.h4
Bd8 19.g4 Be6! 20.g5 Bxd5 21.exd5 e4! 22.Bc2 Qxd5, and Black has a small
advantage) 18.Rd1 (more accurate is 18.Qe2!N, for example, 18…b4 19.0-0
Be6 20.Bc4 with equal play) 18…Be6 19.Bc2 b4 20.0-0 bxc3 21.bxc3, and
now, instead of 21…Qb2?!, Black should have played 21…Rc8!N with a
small advantage.
Let us return to the move 13.Be2.
13…Ne7!
(a) On 13…Bb7, White usually continues 14.0-0, but 14.a4! is better, for
example, 14…bxa4 15.Rxa4, and there arises a position with a small
advantage for White from the 13.a4! line.
(b) There is not much point in playing 13…Be6 either because the move
14.a4! allows White to seize a certain initiative on the queenside (usually
White replies 14.0-0, but after 14…Rb8, Black obtains the level position that
we have already examined in chapters 160-161 with the move order 12…
Rb8), for example, 14…bxa4 15.Rxa4 a5 16.0-0 Rb8 17.b4, and we have a
position from main variation of chapter 159.
(c) Curiously, Sveshnikov in his book gives preference to the move 13…
Kh8?!, which is awarded the “!?” sign there. However, strong players are
somewhat reluctant to play in this fashion.
Let’s get clear this up. Sveshnikov refers to his game against Muratov
(Chelyabinsk, 1981), in which there was 14.0-0 f5 15.Bf3 Ra7?! 16.a4! bxa4
17.Rxa4 a5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.b4?! Raf7 20.b5 Ne7, and, according to
Sveshnikov, “Black’s chances are more real.” (All the signs to the moves are
from his book).
To begin with, in the resulting position White clearly has an advantage.
Both in the text and in the comments there are several small inaccuracies. For
example, instead of 20…Ne7, more precise is 20…Na7!? with the idea of
Nc8. Further, the move 19.b4 is quite normal (in Sveshnikov’s opinion, “the
correct continuation is a with complicated struggle.” Actually, the struggle is
really complicated, but with an advantage for White.). Finally, Sveshnikov
writes that “the variation 15.exf5 Bxf5 16.Bg4! Bg6 17.Bh5 Bf5 18.Bg4
leads to equality.”
This variation is convincing, but, provided White is unwilling to force a
draw, he obtains a small edge both after 16.Nce3!? and 16.a4!.
By the way, also good is 14.a4!. As we can see, Black experiences certain
problems equalizing, so good players, except for Sveshnikov, prefer not to
make the move 13…Kh8?!.
Let us return to 13…Ne7!
14.Nce3
In the next chapter we will examine the main continuation 14.Ncb4. In
the rapid game Golubev-Gelfand, Odessa 2008, White played 14.Nxe7+.
There followed 14…Qxe7 15.Nb4 (more accurate is 15.0-0! Bb7 16.Bf3 with
equal play) 15…f5?! (a reciprocal inaccuracy; better is 15…Qb7!N, for
example, 16.Qd3 Be6 17.Rd1 Rfc8 18.0-0 a5 19.Nd5 Rc5, and Black’s
position is more promising) 16.exf5 (more accurate is 16.0-0!N, for example,
16…Bb7 17.Bf3 fxe4 18.Nd5! Qf7 19.Bxe4, and White stands slightly better)
16…Bxf5 17.0-0 Kh8 18.Nd5 Qb7 19.Bf3?! (better is 19.Ne3N with equal
play) 19…e4 20.Be2 Be6 21.Ne3 d5, and Black has an advantage.
14…Bxe3 15.Nxe3 Bb7 16.Bf3
16.Qd3 d5 17.exd5 Nxd5 18.Nxd5 Qxd5 leads to an equal game. After
16.Bf3, in Gaprindashvili-Timoshchenko, Leningrad 1977, there followed…
16…d5!?
16…g6?! (Kamsky-Shirov, Moscow blitz 2007) is slightly weaker.
17.exd5
After 17.Nxd5 Nxd5 18.exd5 e4! 19.Be2 Bxd5, Black’s position is more
pleasant.
17…Qd6 18.g4! (f7-f5 was threatened) 18…Rad8 19.Qd3
Here Black should have played 19…h5!N
In the game he made the natural-looking move 19…Rd7?!, and after
20.0-0-0 Rfd8, White could have obtained a small edge with 21.g5!N (the
text move is 21.Nf5?!). Then possible is…
20.h3
On 20.g5, there will follow 20…f5!.
20…Qf6 21.Be4 Rd6 22.Rd1 Rfd8 23.c4 bxc4 24.Qxc4
Certainly not 24.Nxc4?? because of 22…Rxd5!.
24…a5 and Black has full compensation for his pawn.
Chapter 171
13.Be2 Ne7 14.Ncb4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.Be2 Ne7
14.Ncb4
The idea of the White’s last move is to protect his knight from being
exchanged for the black dark-square bishop, which becomes possible after
14.Nce3.
14…a5
Let us take a look at the move 14…f5. Sveshnikov writes about it:
“Another way is 14…f5. In Armando-Marcel (Innsbruck, 1977), after
15.Nxe+7 Qxe7 16.Nd5 Qf7 17.exf5 Bb7 18.c4 Rac8 19.b3 Rc5 20.0-0 Bxd5
21.cxd5 Rxd5 22.Bh5 Qb7 23.Qg4 Qe7 24.Qe4 Rd4, Black took over the
initiative.” In this short fragment that is left uncommented except for the
evaluation of the resulting position, there are about six errors which have
been overlooked.
Let us begin from the end – as usual. I can agree with evaluation of the
resulting position. But, first, instead of 24.Qe4?!, correct is 24.Rad1!N, and it
is already White who possesses a limited initiative. Second, instead of 21…
Rxd5?!, correct is 21…e4!N with a small initiative for Black. Third, instead
of 17.exf5?! which leads to a small edge for Black, correct is 17.Nb6!N with
a small advantage for White, for example, 17…Rb8 18.Nxc8 Rfxc8! 19.0-0,
etc. Fourth, instead of 16…Qf7?!, more accurate is 16…Qa7!?N, for
example, 17.Nb6!? Qxb6 18.Qd5+ Kh8 19.Qxa8 Rd8! 20.Qd5 Bf7 21.Qf7
fxe4, and Black has adequate compensation for the exchange.
Let us note that after 15…Qxe7, a position from the game Golubev-
Gelfand that we hae explored in the previous chapter has arisen. There White
played 16.exf5, and we could see that 16.0-0 was more accurate; therefore,
the move 16.Nd5 which throws away the advantage is also not the best one
(and this is our “fifth”).
Sixth and last, the move 14…f5 itself must be recognized as suspicious
because it deprives Black of equal play which he has after the usual 14…a5.
15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 16.Nd5 Qb7 17.Qd3
Sveshnikov marks White’s last move with the “dubious” sign; probably
the reason for this was the outcome of my game against Petrushin that he
refers to. Actually, the move is good. Later it would be employed by some of
he best players in the world, among them Anand, Kamsky (twice),
Kasimdzhanov, Almasi (four times!), Navara, and others.
17…b4!?
This move is roughly equal in popularity to 17…Rb8, but I like it better.
By the way, it is slightly more successful, too. 17…Rb8 is usually followed
by 18.0-0 Be6 19.Rfd1 Rfc8. Now the most popular move in the database is
20.Qg3, for example, 20…h6 21.h4 Bd8 22.Bg4, as it occurred in the rapid
game Navara-Moiseenko, Khanty Mansiysk 2011. However, this is not really
convincing because of 22…b4! 23.cxb4 Qd7! (Boer-Leleko, corr 2004), and
now the only way for White to equalize is 24.Bf5!N, for example, 24…Bxf5
25.exf5 Qxf5 26.a4!.
It seems to me that it is necessary to prevent the advance b5-b4: 20.a3!?
h6 21.h3!?N (here Almasi tried the move 21.g3 twice – against Topalov,
Monaco 2001, and against Nielsen, Germany 2004, but without any success
at all. As for me, I am going to suggest a novel move with the old idea of
exchanging light-square bishops to you.). Then possible is 21…Qd7 22.Qg3
Rc6 23.Bg4, and White exerts slight pressure against Black’s position. And,
by the way, the d3-square is now vacant for the white rook.
18.cxb4 axb4
19.Qg3!?
In the first game with the move 13.Be2, Petrushin-Timoshchenko,
Novosibirsk 1976, White committed a small inaccuracy, 19.0-0. After 19…
Be6 20.Rfd1, Black returned the favor with 20…Ra5 (I was eager to exploit
the benefits of 17…b4 immediately, but more accurate was 20…Rfc8!N, for
example 21.a4 bxa3 22.bxa3?!, and only now 22…Ra5!). There followed
21.a3?! (correct was 21.a4!N, for example, 21…Bxd5 22.exd5 f5 23.Qg3
Bh6 24.Bb5 Qa7 25.Qb3 Qc5 with roughly equal play) 21…Bxd5 22.exd5
Qa7! 23.Qb3 Rb8 24.a4 Bd8! 25.Bc4 Bb6 26.Qc2 b3 27.Bxb3 Bxf2+, and
Black eventually won.
I would not want to miss my chance to show off: it was the first game
ever in which the exchange on d5, when White cannot help but take the
pawn, followed by the bishop transfer to b6, had been employed in the
In Anand-Kramnik, Dortmund 1997, White also chose the move 19.Qb3,
which is far from being the strongest, and after 19…Be6 20.Bc4 Rac8 21.0-
0?! (he should have played 21.h4!N Bd8 22.0-0 Bxh4 23.a4!, and White has
full compensation for his pawn) 21…Qc6! 22.Rac1 Bxd5 (certainly not 22…
Bxc1?? because of 23.Ne7+) 23.exd5 Qc5 24.Rc2 g6?!, the opponents agreed
to a draw, although it is obvious that Black retains a small advantage after
24…e4!N.
19…h6
At first, in this position the move 19…Bd8 was employed, but this is not
the best. For example, in Kamsky-Lautier, Dos Hermanas 1995, there
followed 20.0-0 Bb6 21.a3?! (correct is 21.Bc4!N, for example, 21…Kh8
22.Nxb6 Qxb6 23.Rfd1, and White has a minimal advantage. Black could not
play 21…Bd4? because of 22.Nf6+ and 23.Bd5) 21…bxa3 22.bxa3?! Be6?!
(after 22…Bc5!N, Black has a clear advantage, for example, 23.a4 f5, etc.)
23.Bc4?! (he should have played 23.Nxb6!N with equality) 23…Bd4, and
Black has the advantage.
On the contrary, 19…Bh6!?N is worth attention. Then in Almasi-Shirov,
France 2005, there followed…
20.0-0 Kh8 21.Qb3
More accurate is 21.h4!?N Bd8 (or 21…Be7?! 22.Rac1) 22.Bc4, and if
22…f5, then 23.Qg6.
21…Rb8 22.Rad1 f5 23.Bf3?!
23.exf5N Bxf5 24.Ne3 leads to equal play.
23…Qa7 24.Nxb4?!
24.exf5N is better, for example, 24…Bxf5 25.Nxb4 or 25.Rde1, and
Black has only a slight edge.
24…fxe4 25.Bxe4 Bg4! 26.a3!
26.Bf3?? loses to 26…Bxf3 27.gxf3 Qd7 28.Kg2 e4! 29.fxe4 Qg4+.
26…Bxd1 27.Qxd1 Rbc8 28.g3 Rc1 29.Qe2 Rxf1+ 30.Kxf1 and Black
has an advantage which vanished into thin air after his next move, 30…Qd4?.
Correct is 30…Be3!N.
Chapter 172
13.h4 Bh6 without 14.g4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.h4
At this point this move is not as strong as after 12…Rb8, since the bishop
has already found a comfortable diagonal for itself.
13…Bh6
It is obvious that to retreat either to f6 or to e7 would be inconsistent, and
the move 13…Bf4?! turns out to be just a gift of an extra tempo to White in
comparison with the main variation after 14.g3 Bh6.
14.g3
As we are going to see, this solid-looking continuation creates certain
problems for White rather than for Black. The more active 14.g4!? will be
explored in the next chapter.
14.Nce3 first occurred in the game Hoogendoorn-Timoshchenko played
in Hastings as early as the end of 1966. There followed 14…Bxe3 (also not
bad is 14…Rb8, as the dark-square bishop is already fine now, or 14…Ne7)
15.Nxe3 Ne7 16.Be2 Be6 17.Bf3 (after 17.Bg4 d5, play is equal) 17…Qb6
18.Qd2 (or 18.a3 a5N 19.0-0 a4 with equal play) 18…Rab8.
I told you about this game in more detail at the beginning of the book,
game 9).
14…Ne7!
The move 14…Be6!? is also good and no less popular. Then possible is:
(a) 15.Bh3?! I have put the “dubious move” sign to it because I believe
that after 15…Na5!N, Black obtains a small advantage (weaker is 15…a5,
Short-Fedorov, Bled 2002, or 15…Bxd5, Short-Inarkiev, Catalan Bay 2004).
For example, 16.b3 Nb7 17.b4 Rc8 18.Qf3 Rc4, and Black has a small
advantage.
The idea of the maneuver Nc6-a5-c4 has been known to me since the
game against Kadaner, 1968, you can find it at the beginning of the book,
game 19.
(b) The move 15.Nce3 occurred in the game Barua-Filippov, Elista 1998.
There followed 15…Bxe3 16.Nxe3 Qb6 17.h5, and here, instead of 17…b4,
which allowed White to obtain a small edge after 18.h6!, Black should have
played 17…h6!N with equal play.
(c) In Polgar-van Wely, Hoogeveen 2002, there was 15.Bg2 (this is the
most popular move) 15…Ne7 16.Nce3 Bxe3 17.Nxe3 Qb6 18.a3 a5 19.0-0
b4 (simpler is 19…Rfd8!?N with equal play) 20.axb4 (Black faces small
problems after 20.Nf5!?N Bxf5 21.exf5 Rad8 22.axb4 axb4 23.Qg4) 20…
axb4 21.Rxa8 Rxa8 22.Nf5 Bxf5 23.exf5 Rd8 24.Qd3 d5 25.Rd1 bxc3
26.bxc3, and the opponents agreed to a draw. (D)
15.Nce3!
This is a rather uncommon move, but I believe that it is the only one that
holds the balance (let me remind you that it has come to this because of move
14.g3).

(a) In the rapid game Kravtsiv-Wang Yue, Beijing 2008, there followed
15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 16.Bg2 Be6 17.0-0 a5 18.Re1 g6 (Black can do without this
move if he intends to capture the knight on e3) 19.Ne3 (more accurate is
19.a3!N), and here, instead of 19…Rfd8, Black should have played 19…
b4!N with a small advantage.
(b) The game Short-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2005, things went favorably
for Black as well: 15.Bh3 Bxh3 16.Rxh3 a5 17.Kf1!? (more accurate is the
immediate 17.Nce3N) 17…Rc8 18.Nce3 Bxe3 19.Nxe3 Qd7 (19…f5!?N is
probably more precise) 20.g4 Rfd8 21.h5 (preventing h7-h5) 21…Qc6
22.Qf3?! (and now 22.a4!N is definitely stronger) 22…d5, and Black’s
position is better.
(c) White’s most popular move is 15.Ncb4. Instead of the usual 15…Be6,
Black has a more precise reply 15…a5!. Then possible is 16.Nxe7+ Qxe7
17.Nd5 Qb7, and now the best continuation is either 18.c4!?N or 18.a4!?N,
even though in both cases Black retains a certain advantage.
Now there follows an almost forced variation:

15…Bxe3 16.Nxe3 Bb7 17.Bg2 f5 18.exf5 Bxg2 19.Nxg2 Nxf5 20.Qd5+
Kh8 and now the best move is 21.Ne3!N
The continuation 21.0-0-0?! occurred in three games. It runs into a strong
retort, 21…b4!, for example, 22.g4 Nh6 23.Qxd6 Qxd6 24.Rxd6 bxc3
25.Ne3 cxb2 26.Kb1 Rxf2, and after 27.g5!N 27…Nf7 28.Re6, White retains
good drawing chances.
In the blitz game Hjartarson-Anand, Reykjavik 2006, White played 21.0-
0. There followed 21…Qb6 22.Kh2 Rad8 (more accurate is 22…Ne7!N, for
example, 23.Qe4 Ng8!, and the knight comes to f6, after which Black has a
minimal advantage) 23.Rad1 (simpler is 23.Qe4!?N with the idea of 23…Ne7
24.Ne3) 23…Rf6 24.Qe4 Rdf8.
The game is equal, but White makes an impulsive move, 25.f4?! (correct
is 25.Ne3!N, and Black is unable to play 25…Nxe3 26.fxe3 Rxf1 27.Rxf1
Rxf1?? because of 28.Qa8), and after 25…Nh6! Black gains an advantage.
21…Nxe3 22.fxe3 Qb6 23.Ke2! b4 24.c4 b3 25.a3 and the chances are
even.
Chapter 173
13.h4 Bh6 14.g4
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.h4 Bh6 14.g4!?
(D)
This energetic continuation creates some problems for Black. Admittedly,

the means to solve them have already been found, and even the insignificant
improvement for White that I suggest on the move 18 of the main variation
does not bring any real benefits to White.
14…Bf4!
Weak players occasionally choose the meek 14…g6?!, and after 15.g5
Bg7, White has a small but stable advantage both after 16.Nce3 and 16.Qd2.
The move 14…f6?! seems more reasonable. In contrast to the similar

position examined in chapter 137, here Black has already castled, so the
break g4-g5 is not dangerous for him. Nevertheless, he is unable to equalize.
Now possible is 15.a4! bxa4 16.Rxa4 Kh8 17.Nce3 Ne7 18.Nxe7 (worth
attention is 18.Nf5!?N) 18…Qxe7 19.Nf5!? (after 19.Nd5!?N, White also has
a small edge, for example, 19…Qb7 20.Rg1 g6 21.b4) 19…Bxf5 20.gxf5
Qb7 21.Rb4 Qc6 22.Qa4 Qc7 23.Rh3! d5 24.exd5 a5 25.Rb5 e4 26.Qd4.
Such was the development of the correspondence game Melholm-Otake,
2008. White has a small edge.
15.Qf3
15…Be6!?
I believe that this is the best continuation. It is also the most popular one,
particularly with correspondence players. As for OTB players, they prefer
other moves which, in my opinion, are slightly weaker.
Let us examine those possibilities.
(a) After 15…Rb8, the variation 16.Rd1 Be6! 17.Nxf4 exf4 18.Qxf4
b4!N leads to an equal game, for example, 19.Qxd6 Qc8 20.Nxb4 Nxb4
21.cxb4 Bxg4 22.Be2 Bxe2 23.Kxe2 Qc2+ 24.Kf3 Qxb2, etc.
In the game Iordachesku-Chuchelov, 2003, White played 16.a3, and after
16…a5 17.g5 Be6 18.Bd3 Qd7, there arose a complex position with mutual
chances.
It is best for White to play 16.Be2!. Now after 16…Re8, the game
reaches a position from the 15…Rb8 variation which is favorable for White.
(b) After 15…Re8, in the game Yemelin-Ramirez, Moscow 2004, there
followed 16.g5 Bb7! 17.Bg2, and now, instead of 17…Ne7?!, Black has the
excellent 17…Na5!N, for example, 18.Nxf4 Bxe4 19.Qe2 Bxc2 20.Nh5 Bf5
21.Bxa8 Qxa8 22.0-0-0 Qc6 23.Ng3 Be6 24.Qe4 Qc7 25.Kb1 d5, and Black
has full compensation for the exchange.
The most popular white move is 16.Be2!?. Then possible is 16…Rb8 (or
16…Bb7 17.Nxf4 exf4 18.Qxf4, for example, 18…d5 19.0-0-0 Rxe4
20.Qxe4 dxe4 21.Rxd8+ Rxd8 22.Rd1 Rxd1 23.Kxd1, and the ending is
slightly better for White) 17.Rd1 Qa5!?N 18.0-0!? (or 18.a3 Qa4) 18…Qxa2
19.Ra1 Qb3 (19…Qxb2? is poor because of 20.Bd3) with a sharp struggle in
which White has a certain advantage.
Probably the best move is 16.Bg2!?. White is not in a hurry with the
capture on f4, preparing to castle kingside after g4-g5, while simultaneously
retaining the possibility of queenside castling. For example, 16…Rb8!?N
17.g5! Be6 18.Nxf4 exf4 19.Qxf4, and in this position I have yet to find any
clear path to equality for Black.
16.Nxf4
16.Bd3?! Rb8! is in Black’s favor (preparing both b5-b4 and Qd7). Then
possible is 17.g5 Qd7! (slightly weaker is 17…a5?!, Volokitin-Eljanov,
Ordzhonikidze 2001) 18.a3!?N (weak is 18.Nxf4?! because of 18…Bg4!, and
if 19.Qg3?!, then 19…exf4 20.Qxf4 Ne5 21.Qg3 f5! with a clear advantage
for Black) 18…Bxd5 19.exd5 Na5, and Black has a small edge.
16…exf4!
I regard this as the best move. Sveshnikov does not even mention it. In
his book, the story of the move 13.h4! takes less than a quarter-page and ends
with 16…Qf6, which is awarded with an exclamatory point. But it is rather
unbecoming for a known maestro of the Chelyabinsk Variation to look for
salvation in a somewhat worse ending, when he has a chance to add some
fuel to the fire…
Then there usually follows 17.g5 Qxf4 18.Qxf4 exf4 19.Nd4 (no worse is
19.h5!?N) 19…Ne5 (after 19…Nxd4 20.cxd4 f5 21.gxf6 Rxf6 22.Kd2, the
ending is slightly better for White) 20.0-0-0 (20.Be2 has also occurred, but
after 20…d5, it only leads to equal play) 20…Rad8.
In this position, White has the move 21.Rd2!?N (in several games, for
example, in Haugen-Schwenk, corr 2007, there occurred 21.Be2 Bc8. There
followed either 22.Nf5 or 22.h5, but White’s advantage was only of a
symbolic nature).
The idea behind the rook move is as follows: the bishop on e2 sometimes
comes under an attack after f4-f3, so for the moment it stays put and, if
necessary, is able to move to h3. For example, White has a possibility to react
to the plan 21…Bc8 with 22.Nf5 Bxf5 23.exf5 f6 24.g6! hxg6 25.fxg6 Nxg6
26.Rd4!, retaining his small advantage.
17.Qxf4 Ne5 (D)
In the position in the diagram, no known continuation secures an

advantage for White. Let me suggest a novelty that creates some novel
problems for Black, even though those are very slight.
18.Qg3!
The most popular move is 18.Ne3, on which possible is 18…b4!, for
example, 19.c4!? (or 19.cxb4 Qb6 20.a3 Qd4 21.Rb1 a5 22.b5 Rac8, and
Black’s initiative fully compensates for his two pawns) 19…b3 (or 19…Qa5
20.b3 Qa3) 20.axb3 Qb6 21.Be2!?N Qxb3, and Black is fine.
On 18.g5, I can recommend the move 18…Qc7!?N (with ideas of 19…
d5, 19…Bc4 or 19…Rae8, and then 20…f5!). In this position I am unable to
find any advantage for White, for example, 19.Qg3!? Rae8 20.Bg2 f5, and
Black has excellent play. Now possible is…
18…Bxg4 18…Nxg4? 19.0-0-0 is in White’s favor. 19.Bg2 Qf6! 20.Ne3!
Be6! 21.0-0-0 Bxa2 22.f4 Ng6 23.e5 dxe5 24.fxe5 Qxe5 25.Qxe5 Nxe5
26.Bxa8 Rxa8 27.h5! and in the resulting ending White has a microscopic
advantage.
Chapter 174
13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 without 14…a5
8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4! (D)
A logical continuation, the aim of which is to shatter Black’s queenside

pawns and to secure the c4-square for his bishop. As a compensation, Black
obtains counterplay along the b-file.
13…bxa4
The move 13…Rb8?! is dubious (although Sveshnikov puts a “!?” to it).
After 14.axb5 axb5 15.Bd3 Be6 16.Qe2!?, White’s chances are better.
14.Rxa4 Bb7
Not the strongest continuation, though popular enough. Its main
propagandist was my nearly-namesake Georgy Timoshenko. He has not been
playing in this fashion for the last seven years, though.
We are going to start examining the best continuation 14…a5! in the next
chapter. But other moves have also occurred.
(a) 14…Rb8?! is dubious (Sveshnikov once again puts the opposite sign
“!?” to it) because of the concrete variation 15.h4! (the only line that
Sveshnikov takes into consideration is 15.b4 a5 16.b5, in which White’
advantage is rather slight) 15…Bh6 16.Bxa6 Rxb2 (perhaps 16…Be6!? is
slightly better) 17.Bxc8 Qxc8 18.Rc4! Qb7 19.0-0 Nd8. Here in Pug-Saksis,
corr 2001, White obtained a solid advantage after 20.Rc7, but 20.Ncb4! is
notably stronger.
(b) 14…Ne7 is entirely pointless, as after 15.Bc4! (if 15.Ncb4, then a
position from chapter 151 arises), it is best to play 15…a5, and the game
reaches a position, favorable for White, that we are going to explore in
chapter 180 with the move order 14…a5.
(c) 14…Kh8 is quite playable (Sveshnikov’s sign “?!” is once again out
of the picture).
Then possible is 15.Nce3 Bxe3 (this is the most typcommonical move,

but it seems that more accurate is 15…Ne7!?) 16.Nxe3 Ne7 (more popular is
16…a5?!, on which White has the strong retort 17.Qd5! with a clear
advantage) 17.Bd3!? (on 17.Bc4, Black should play not 17…f5?!,
Sethuraman-Geo.Timoshenko, Bhubaneswar 2009, but 17…Bb7 with almost
equal play), and White’s chances are better, for example, 17…d5 18.exd5N
Nxd5 19.Nxd5 Qxd5 20.Be4 Qxd1 21.Kxd1+, etc.
Let us return to the move 14…Bb7.
15.Bc4!
The best continuation. I suggest we do not waste time with other possible
moves.
15…Na5
This is the most popular continuation; all the experts on 14…Bb7 play in
this fashion, and only in deference to them I have refrained from putting a
“dubious move” sign to Black’s the last move. I think that more accurate is
15…Nb8, for example, 16.h4!? (the usual move is 16.0-0, and after 16…Nd7
17.Qe2 a5, there arises a position from chapter 143) 16…Bh6 17.Nce3 Bxe3
18.Nxe3 Bc6 19.Ra1 Bxe4 20.Qg4 Bb7 21.0-0, and though White’s initiative
more than compensates for his sacrificed pawn, Black’s position is still
slightly better than in the main variation.
16.Ba2 Bc6 17.Ra3 Bb5
This is exactly the idea behind 14…Na5. White has temporary problems
castling.
18.h4!
18.b3?! Nb7 19.c4 Bd7 solves the castling problem, but after 20.b4 a5
21.b5 Nc5, White is left with a bad a2-bishop.
More sound is 18.Nce3, for example, 18…Bxe3!? (in Cornette-
Gladyszev, Montpellier 2005, Black chose the most popular move 18…
Nb7?!. There followed 19.Nf5! Nc5 20.Bb1! Kh8 21.h4 Bf6, and here White
could have taken a pawn with 22.g4N g6 23.Nxf6 Qxf6 24.Qxd6 Qxd6
25.Nxd6, but the game move 22.b4 is also good) 19.Nxe3 Rc8 20.Qd2!?N
Nc4 21.Bxc4 Bxc4 22.b3 Be6 23.0-0, and White has a small advantage.
18…Bh6 19.Nce3 Bxe3 20.Nxe3 Rc8
21.h5!
Other moves are weaker.
(a) The variation 21.Qd2 Nc4 22.Bxc4 Bxc4 23.Nxc4 (more accurate is
23.b3 Be6 24.h5!?N) 23…Rxc4 24.Qd3 (as in Asrian-Geo.Timoshenko,
Dubai 2000, where Black should have continued 24…Qb6!N), leads only to a
small White’s advantage.
(b) In Ljubojevic-Salov, Barselona 1989, there was 21.f3?! Qb6 22.Nd5
Qd8 23.Ne3 Qb6 24.Qd2 Nc4 25.Bxc4 Bxc4 26.Nxc4 Rxc4 27.Qf2, and the
opponents agreed to a draw, even though White stands slightly better.
(c) 21.Nf5?! falls short of its goal (but nevertheless occurs in the
overwhelming majority of games!) because of 21…Nc4! (21…Nb7?, Lanka-
Krasenkow, Moscow 1989, is weak), for example, 22.Bxc4 Rxc4 23.Nxd6
Rd4! 24.cxd4 Qxd6 25.f3 exd4 26.Kf2 d3 27.Qd2 Qd4+ 28.Kg3 Qe5+
29.Kh3 h5, and White has only a small advantage. Then in Kotronias-
Geo.Timoshenko, Thessaloniki 2007, there followed…
21…h6 22.Qg4 Bd7?!
22…Nc4N is better, even though White has a serious advantage.
23.Qh4!?
23.Nf5!N is probably even stronger.
23…Qb6 24.b4 Nc6 25.0-0 Be6 26.Bd5 and White pressed home his
great advantage.
Chapter 175
13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 without 15.Bb5 or 15.Bc4
14.Rxa4 a5!
This is the main continuation, and it is multifunctional. With this move,

Black prepares to target the b2-pawn with his rook on b8, removes the
pressure off his a6-pawn, releasing the c8-bishop for supporting the advance
f7-f5; and at the same time takes the b4-square under his control.
Unfortunately, in his fundamental treatise Sveshnikov pays undeservingly
little attention to the move 14…a5 (about three and a half pages), though
even in those years practical material on it has been abundant. And those
pages contain plenty of errors. As for us, we are going to be more serious
about this continuation and examine it beginning from this chapter to the end
of the book (26 chapters all in all).
15.b4
This old move is third in popularity after 15.Bc4 and 15.Bb5. We are
going to devote the next four chapters to 15.Bb5 and then switch to the main
continuation, 15.Bc4!.
Let us take a look at other White’s opportunities.
(a) In my practice, the position in the diagram first occurred in 1972 in
my game against Fichtl (in Stary Smokovec). Then it was the very cutting
edge of theory; in fact, this theory ended with the move 14…a5. For example,
nobody had ever heard about the plan with f7-f5 then. No wonder my
opponent, an experienced IM, played with great uncertainty: 15.Na3?! Rb8
16.Qa1? (better is 16.Nc4) 16…f5! 17.Bc4 Kh8 18.exf5? (better is 18.0-0N
fxe4 19.Nc2) 18…Bxf5 19.0-0 e4? (much stronger is 19…Ne7!N 20.Nxe7
Bxe7, and White is on the brink of defeat) 20.Nc2 Ne5 21.Nce3?! Bd7!
22.Rxa5 Bxe3 23.Nxe3 Nxc4 24.Nxc4 Bb5, and Black wins the exchange.
(b) After 15.h4 Bh6 16.Bc4 Rb8 17.b3 Kh8, with transposition of moves,
there arises a position from chapter 188.
(c) The move 15.Nce3!? is solid. After 15…Rb8 16.b3 (or 16.Ra2 Kh8
17.Bc4), it may lead, with a transposition of moves, to the main lines of the
15.Bc4 system.
Let us return to the move 15.b4.
15…Be6!?
This is the most popular Black’s reply.
16.b5 Nb8?!
Sveshnikov regards this move as the main one; however, it does not bring
clear equality. Black has two stronger moves.
Better is 16…Ne7, for example, 17.Nce3 Bxe3 18.Nxe3 Qc7 19.c4 Nc8.
Then Sveshnikov cites the variation 20.Ra1 Nb6 21.Be2 Rfc8 22.Qd2 Qc5
“with an advantage for Black”; but there is no advantage at all after 23.0-0.
The game is equal. 16…Bxd5!? Also led to equal play.
For example, 17.Qxd5 Ne7 18.Qd3!N d5 19.h4! Bh6 20.g4 Bf4 21.Bg2,
etc.
17.h4!
The only way for White to struggle for an advantage.
Sveshnikov does not distinguish between this move and the others. He
cites the game Yudasin-Semeniuk, Saratov 1981, without comments:
17.Ncb4 Qc8 18.Be2 axb4 19.Rxa8 bxc3 20.Ne3 f5 21.Qxd6 Bxe3 22.fxe3
c2 23.Kf2 fxe4+ 24.Kg3 Bb3. According to Sveshnikov, “Black’s chances
are no worse” here.
But comments are simply indispensable here, because Sveshnikov has
overlooked several blunders and a couple of less serious errors.
First, the resulting position is in no way level: White has a significant
advantage after 25.Qd2!N (in the game there was 25.Qb4? with equal play).
Second, with the move 24…Bb3?, Black has brought himself to the brink of
defeat; the correct continuation is 24…c1QN with even chances. Third,
instead of optimistic 21.Qxd6?, correct is 21.0-0!N with serious superiority
for White. Fourth, instead of 20…f5?, correct is 20…d5!N with an advantage
for Black, for example, 21.exd5 Bxe3 22.fxe3 c2 23.Qc1 Bxd5 24.Ra4!?
Qc3+ 25.Kf2 Rc8, etc. Fifth, instead of 20.Ne3?!, White should have played
20.Ra2N, and Black is left with only a very slight advantage. Sixth and
finally, the move 17.Ncb4?! should be regarded as imprecise because it
allows Black to seize the initiative.
Let us return to the move 17.h4!.
Then we will follow the game Levy-Radashkovich, Natanya 1976, to
which Sveshnikov refers without a single comment (and misses several other
errors). I will undertake to annotate this fragment.
17…Bh6?!
An inaccuracy. After 17…Be7! 18.Nce3 Nd7, White’s advantage is
notably smaller.
18.Ncb4 Kh8 19.Qa1?!
This idea is erroneous. It is better to play 19.Bc4!N, for example, 19…f5
20.Ne3! f4 21.Ned5 f3 22.g3, and White has an advantage.
19…f5!20.b6?
In the heat of chasing the a5-pawn, White has completely forgotten about
his own king. Correct was 20.Bd3!N with equal play.
20…fxe4 21.Rxa5 Bxd5?
This move squanders Black’s great advantage. Correct is 21…Rxa5!N
22.Qxa5 Qe8!, transferring his queen to either g6 or f7, for example, 23.Be2
Qg6 24.b7 Qxg2 25.Rf1 Qg6! 26.Qc7 Qf7, etc.
22.Nxd5 Nd7 (D)
Here Sveshnikov cuts off his reference with a comment: “and White has
lost his b-pawn.” Lose it he did, but where is the evaluation of the position?
Perhaps it is already high time for White to resign? So it is necessary to add
that after a novelty
23.g4! and the game is equal, for example, 23…Bf4 24.Rxa8 Qxa8
25.Qxa8 Rxa8 26.Bg2 Ra1 27.Ke2 Ra2, etc.
This chapter is for all intents and purposes devoted to correction of errors
which Sveshnikov has overlooked (in other words, committed). Hopefully,
now your understanding of the move 15.b4 will be more accurate.
Chapter 176
13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 without 15…Ne7
14.Rxa4 a5! 15.Bb5
This continuation does not bring any advantage for White, so it has
gradually receded into the background. Top players have not employed it for
a long time. However, after this move great complications are possible, and
there are improvements to those complications, so it is necessary to
investigate them. We will deal with them in the current chapter and in the
following ones.
15…Bb7
A playable move. However, Black has to struggle for equality, so he
chooses 15…Ne7!? much more often. We are going to explore the latter
continuation in the next chapter.
Sveshnikov is very laconic about the move 15…Bd7, quoting without
comments the game Kapengut-Yusupov, Ashkhabad 1978, drawn by
perpetual check. Does it follow from this that the move 15…Bd7 is good?
No, it does not.
Let me summarize my comments to this interesting game: 15…Bd7?!
(leads to White’s advantage) 16.0-0 (also good is 16.Na3!?, but 16.h4!?N
Bh6 17.Na3 is probably even stronger) 16…Rb8 17.c4 (no worse is
17.Na3!?, Nisipeanu-Ivanov, Cappelle La Grande, 1998) 17…Na7?! (more
accurate is 17…Ne7!, Karstens-Tregubov, Vlissingen, 2002, on which the
best reply is 18.Nc3!? with a small advantage) 18.Bxd7 Qxd7 19.Rxa5 Rxb2
20.c5?! (a tempting move, but more accurate is 20.Ncb4!N, for example,
20…Nc6 21.Qa4 Nb8 22.Qa3 Rd2 23.Ra8 with an advantage for White)
20…Rb7 21.Qh5 (more accurate is 21.cxd6!N Qxd6 22.Ncb4 Nc6 23.Nxc6
Qxc6 24.Qa1, and White has a small advantage) 21…Bd8.
22.Ra3!? (This is the move order according to Sveshnikov. In fact, in the

game the move 22.Nce3?! was made, after which Yusupov himself points out
the variation 22…Bxa5! 23.Nf6+ gxf6 24.Nf5 Qxf5 25.Qxf5 dxc5 26.Qxf6
Bd8 27.Qxe5 Be7, and Black stands slightly better.) 22…f6?! (more accurate
is 22…g6!N 23.Qh6 dxc5 with roughly equal chances) 23.Nce3 (more
accurate is 23.cxd6!N) 23…dxc5 24.Nf5 g6 25.Rg3 Qe6?! (an unnecessary
move; simpler is 25…Nc6!N with equal play). Now in the game there
followed 26.Rxg6+?! (caution that is quite understandable from the human
point of view) 26…hxg6 27.Qxg6+, and drawn by perpetual check.
But the engine, deprived of every human feeling, suggests the variation
26.f4!N Nc6! 27.Rxg6+ hxg6 28.Qxg6+ Kh8 29.Qh6+ Kg8 30.Rf3! Rb1+
31.Kf2 Rb2+ 32.Ke3! Rxg2 33.Qh3! Nd4 34.Qxg2+ Kf7 35.Qa2! Exf4+
36.Kf2!, etc., and White has a small advantage. Let us return to the move
15…Bb7.
16.0-0
16.Nce3 does not bring any advantage because of 16…Bxe3 17.Nxe3
Qb6!, for example, 18.Qe2 (or 18.Qd3 Nd8!) 18…Nd8!? (this maneuver was
suggested by Garry Kasparov) 19.0-0 Ne6 with good play for Black.
Playable is 16.Qd3!?, for example, 16…Ne7 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.0-0, with
a transposition to a position that will be examined below.
16…Ne7 (D)
17.Bc4
This is the most popular move, but it remains unclear whether it is the
best one. Other continuations:
(a) 17.Nxe7!? Qxe7 18.Qd3 is probably more accurate. This position
(with a transposition of moves) occurred in the game Zapata-Filippov,
Merida 2003, where Black failed to equalize. There followed 18…Rfd8
(probably more accurate is
18…Qc7!? in order, after 19.c4, to continue 19…g6) 19.c4! Qc7 20.Rfa1

(also good is the immediate 20.Ne3!?) 20…Qb6 21.Re1 g6 22.Ne3 Bxe3
(22…Qc5!?N) 23.Qxe3 Qxe3 24.Rxe3 Rdc8 25.f3 Bc6 26.Rb3, and White’s
position is slightly better.
(b) Another tempting move is 17.Nce3. Then there usually follows 17…
Bxe3 18.Nxe3 Qb6. 18…Rb8 is slightly weaker. Then in Kasparov-Van
Wely, Wijk aan Zee 1999, there followed 19.Qd3 Qb6 20.Bc4 Bc6 21.Ra2
Rfd8 22.b3 Qc5 23.Rfa1 Ra8 24.h4 h6 25.h5 Bb7 26.Rd1 Bc6 27.Rda1 Bb7
28.Bd5 Bxd5 29.exd5 Rdc8 30.b4 Qxc3 31.Qxc3 Rxc3 32.Rxa5, and White
has an advantage. 19.Qd3 Rfd8 (Slightly worse is 19…f5. In Short-Gelfand,
Pamplona 2000, there followed 20.exf5 e4 21.Qe2 Nxf5 22.Bc4 Kh8 23.Rd1
Rae8?! 24.b4 axb4 25.Rxb4, and White has a solid advantage).
Here White almost invariably plays 20.Bc4, even though it does not bring
him any advantage (another opportunity is 20.c4!?, but after 20…Nc6!N
21.Nd5 Qd4 22.Qe2 Qc5! 23.Bxc6 Bxc6 24.Ne7 Kf8 25.Nxc6 Qxc6 White
has only a microscopic edge). There usually follows 20…Bc6 21.Ra2 Qb7
22.Nd5. The game Xie Jun-Filippov, Shanghai 2000, developed in the
following fashion: 22…Bxd5 23.Bxd5 Nxd5 24.exd5 g6 25.Rfa1 Rdc8, and
here the simplest continuation is 26.h4!? with equal play.
Let us return to the move 17.Bc4.
The position in the diagram has occurred in many games, but a clear route
to equality for Black has not been found yet. He mostly chooses…
17…Bc6
Other options are:
(a) The variation 17…Kh8 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Bd5 Qd7 20.Ra2 leads to a
small white edge.
(b) 17…Rb8 also fails to equalize because of 18.b4!. Then possible is
18…axb4 19.Ncxb4 Bxd5 (Geo.Timoshenko-Smirnov, 2004), and now it
would be slightly better to take the knight with 20.Nxd5!?N.
(c) Probably the best (though very rare) move is 17…Nxd5! followed by
18.Bxd5 Qb8!N. Exactly so! There has also occurred 18…Bxd5 and 18…
Qb6, but those moves resulted in White’s advantage. There may follow
19.b4! Bxd5 20.Qxd5 axb4 21.Rxa8 Qxa8 22.Nxb4 h5!?, and, in my opinion,
Black’s chances are slightly better than in the main variation.
18.Ra2 Rb8 19.Qd3
Here interesting is 19.b4!?.
19…Nxd5 20.Bxd5 Bb5 21.Bc4 Bxc4 22.Qxc4 Qb6 23.b4 axb4
24.Nxb4 Rfc8 25.Qd3 Ra8?!
More precise is 25…Qb5!N.
26.Nd5 Qd8 27.Rxa8 Rxa8 28.g3
So far as in the game Iordachesku-Malakhatko, Kiev 2000. White has the
advantage.
Chapter 177
13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 Ne7 without 16.Ncb4
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 Ne7!
This is the main continuation that, assuming correct play by Black, does
not leave White any chance to obtain a real advantage.
16.Nxe7+
White more frequently plays 16.Ncb4!; we will begin to examine this
move in the next chapter.
White has been known to try other moves as well. For example, in the
rapid game Polgar-Leko, Frankfurt 1999, there was 16.0-0 Nxd5 17.Qxd5
Be6 18.Qd3 Qb6 19.c4 f5 20.Ne3?! (correct is 20.b4! with equal play) 20…
fxe4 21.Qxe4, and here Black, instead of 21…Rac8?!, should have played
21…Ra7!N, for example, 22.Raa1 Raf7 23.Rae1 Qc5 or 23…Rf4, and
Black’s position is better.
The move 16.Nce3 occurs rather frequently. In the correspondence game
Szczut-Holm, 1999, there followed 16…Bxe3 17.Nxe3 Rb8!? (17…Qb6
18.Qd3 Rb8 19.c4 Rd8!N 20.0-0 Bd7 is also sufficient for equality) 18.c4
Bb7 19.Qd3 Nc6 20.0-0 Nd4. In this level position White committed an
inaccuracy, 21.Rd1?! (better is 21.Nf5N), and after 21…Qh4 22.Nf5 Nxf5
23.exf5 Bxg2! 24.Kxg2 Rxb5 25.cxb5 Qxa4, Black had an advantage.
16…Qxe7
16…Bxe7 has also occurred, but I do not think there is any point in
examining this continuation specifically.
First, there is no logic in it. Second, White has a concrete move that
brings him certain advantage: 17.0-0!, for example, 17…Rb8 18.Qd3!N (on
the well-known 18.c4 Black replies with 18…Bd7!, for example, 19.Qd3!?N
Bxb5 20.cxb5 d5! 21.exd5 Qb6 22.Rfa1 Qxb523.Qxb5 Rxb5 24.Rxa5 Rxa5
25.Rxa5 Rc8, and the position looks very drawish), 18…f5 19.b4! fxe4
20.Qd5+ Kh8 21.Rxa5, etc.
However, White almost always plays 17.Ne3, and this move throws his
advantage away. Then in the rapid game Shirov-van Wely, Monaco 2003,
there followed 17…Rb8 18.Qe2 Qb6 19.c4, and now, instead of 19…Be6?!,
Black could have played 19…Qd4!N, for example, 20.Nd5 Bh4 21.Rxa5
Bg4! 22.Qxg4 Qxf2+ 23.Kd1 Qxb2 24.Qxh4 Qb1+ 25.Ke2 Qxh1, and play is
equal.
17.Nb4
In Smyslov-Sveshnikov, Leningrad 1977, there was 17.0-0 Qb7 18.Qd3
Be6 19.c4 Bd8. The game was level, but here White hastily grabbed the d6-
pawn: 20.Qxd6 Qxe4 21.Ne3 Qd4, and Black gained a slight initiative. There
followed 22.Qa3?! (more precise was 22.Qxd4N exd4 23.Nc2) 22…Bb6
23.Rd1 Bc5 24.Rxd4 Bxa3 25.Rd2 Bb4 26.Rd1 Rfd8, and Black’s chances
were slightly better.
17…Bg4! (D)
18.Qa1
18.Qxg4 axb4 is useless for White, for example, 19.Rxa8 Rxa8 20.0-0
bxc3 21.Bc6 Rb8 22.bxc3 Bd2 23.c4 Bc3. On 18.Nd5, interesting is 18…
Qb7!?N (in van der Doel-Nedev, Plovdiv 2003, there was 18…Bxd1
19.Nxe7+ Bxe7 20.Kxd1 Rab8 21.c4 Bd8 22.Ke2 f5 23.exf5 Rxf5 24.Rd1
Bb6 25.f3, and White has a minimal advantage), for example, 19.Qd3 Be6
20.0-0 Bxd5 21.exd5 (after 21.Qxd5?! Qxd5
22.exd5 Rab8 23.c4 Bd2!, Black has a small edge) 21…Rab8 22.c4 Bd8, and
Black has excellent play.
18…Qb7 19.Bc6 Qb6 20.Bxa8 Qb5!
20…Bd2+?, as van der Wiel played against Dominguez in Wijk aan Zee,
2004, is not good. After 21.Kf1 Qb5+?! (better is 21…Rxa8N, but Black has
no compensation for the exchange anyway) 22.Kg1 Rxa8 23.Nd5 Bd7
24.Ra2 Qb3? (more stubborn is 24…Qe2!N) 25.h3 (25.h4!N is even
stronger), White’s position is won. Then in Landa-van Wely, Germany 2004,
there followed…
21.f3 axb4 22.fxg4 Qd3 23.Qd1!
The only defense. Black threatens to mate after 23…Bd2+ 24.Kf2 Be3+
25.Kg3 Bb6+ 26.Kh4 Bd8+, etc.
23…Qe3+ 24.Qe2 Qc1+ 25.Qd1 Qe3+ and the opponents agreed to a
draw.
Chapter 178
13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 Ne7 16.Ncb4 without 16…Bh3
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 Ne7 16.Ncb4! (D)
This continuation creates certain problems for Black, but the means of
solving them will be pointed out both in the current chapter and in the
following one. Black has several moves that are comparable in strength. I
believe that the best of them is 16…Bh3!, and we are going to examine it in
the next chapter.
16…Bd7
(a) The variation 16…Nxd5 17.Nxd5 Rb8 18.Qe2 has frequently

occurred. For example, in Bures-Nickel, corr 2007, there followed 18…Be6
19.Bc4 Bd7 20.Ra2 a4 21.0-0, and the game surprisingly came down to a
position from chapter 183 that is slightly better for White (there the move
order was 15.Bc4, and therefore this position arose a move earlier).
(b) The most popular black move in the position in the previous diagram
is 16…Be6. Then there typically follows 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7?! (the move 17…
Bxe7! is extremely rare here, but I believe that this is exactly the correct
continuation, for example, 18.Nc6 Qc7 19.0-0 Bg5! 20.Qe2!?N Qb6. Now
21.Rd1 will be met with 21…Bg4!, and 21.Rfa1 with 21…Bd7!, for example,
22.Ne7+ Bxe7 23.Bxd7 Rab8 24.R1a2 Qb7 25.Bg4 Bd8, and White’s
advantage is markedly smaller then after 17…Qxe7) 18.Bc6.
In the position in the diagram Black has tried three moves.

(1) At first the continuation 18…Rac8 was being checked, but soon it
turned out that after 19.Rxa5 Rxc6 20.Nxc6 Qb7, White has the move 21.h4!,
allowing him to obtain a solid advantage (21.Qxd6? is weaker; it has been
examined in detail in the comments to the game Kalinichev-Timoshchenko,
Ordzhonikidze 1978, cited in game 39).
For example, 21…Bf6 22.Qxd6 Rc8. In this position White has various
options:
Sveshnikov considers only 23.Rc5? Bd7 24.Ne7 Bxe7 25.Qxe7 Qxe4,
etc., with perpetual check. Not bad is 23.Ra6, on which possible is 23…Kh8
24.Ra7 Qb6!N. Now 25.Ra5 runs into the cold-blooded 25…h6!, for
example, 26.Rc5 Qa6 27.b4 Bc4! 28.Qd7 Qa1 29.Qd1 Qxc3 30.Qd2 Qa1,
with a draw. Stronger is 25.g4!, on which Black should play 25…Qxb2.
The best move is 23.Ra7!, for example, 23…Qxc6 24.Qxc6 Rxc6 25.Ra8
Rc8 26.Rxc8 Bxc8 27.Kd2, and in this position, the game Landa-Filippov,
Samara 1998, was drawn, even though White’s advantage is quite tangible.
(2) Later there appeared the move 18…Rab8!?. After 19.Rxa5 Qc7
20.Rb5 Bc4 (slightly more accurate is 20…Rxb5! 21.Bxb5 Qc5, and after
22.Bc6!N White has an advantage) 21.Rxb8 Rxb8 22.Bd5 Bb5 23.h4! (this
move again!) 23…Bf4 (“with compensation for the pawn,” Sveshnikov)
24.Rh3! Kh8 25.Rf3 f6 26.Qa1, White’s chances are better (Sevecek-Moura,
corr 2001.
(3) As the two above-mentioned moves turned out to be not quite
successful, the move 18…Ra7 came to the front. Then in the game Krnan-
Moiseenko, Canada 2006, there followed 19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.Bxd5 Qd7 21.0-0
Bd8 22.Qb3, and White’s advantage is once again undeniable.
Thus, we have to admit that the generally accepted move 17…Qxe7?! is
definitely inferior to 17…Bxe7. Now let us return to 16…Bd7.
17.Nxe7+ Bxe7
18.Bxd7!?
In the overwhelming majority of games 18.Nc6 occurs, but it results only
in equality. There usually follows 18…Qe8 19.Qd5 (or 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7
20.Bxd7 Qxd7 21.0-0 Rfb8 22.b4 axb4 23.Rxa8 Rxa8 24.cxb4, and chances
are even (Sevecek-Benz, corr 2002) 19…Be6 20.Qd3 Bd7 21.Qd5 (21.Nxe7+
is equally useless) 21…Be6 22.Qd3 Bd7. In many games this variation used
to be employed as a demonstration of peaceful intentions, as, for example, in
Polgar-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee, 2003.
18…axb4 19.Bc6 Rxa4 20.Qxa4 bxc3 21.bxc3 Qc7!?
I think that this is slightly more accurate than 21…Qb8. After the usual
22.0-0 Bd8, in Svidler-Ivanchuk, Polanica Zdroj 2000, the opponents agreed
to a draw, although it was possible to continue 23.Qb4!?N, and White stands
slightly better.
22.c4 Rb8 23.0-0 Bg5 24.Ra1!
A novelty. White has to secure the access to the a7-square for his queen
before Black has transferred his bishop to the a7-g1 diagonal. The game
Papp-Banusz, Sarajevo 2013, ended in a draw after 24.Bd5 Bd2! 25.Rd1 Bc3.
24…Bd2 25.g3 Bb4!
Or 25…Bc3 26.Ra3!, and the rook goes to f3.
26.Qa7! Qxa7 27.Rxa7 Bc5 28.Rd7 and by transferring his bishop to d5,
White maintains certain pressure.
Chapter 179
13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 Ne7 16.Ncb4 Bh3
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 Ne7 16.Ncb4 Bh3!
As already noted, I consider this move the best. Unlike the continuation
16…Bd7, where Black struggles for equality in a slightly inferior position,
after 16…Bh3! he solves his problems in a tactical way. No wonder that with
this continuation there arise positions that are both more complicated and
more interesting.
17.Nxe7+ Qxe718.Nd5!?
Other White’s opportunities are:
(a) The popular move 18.Bc6 leads to equal play.
Then usually follows almost forced variation 18…Rac8 (18…Bxg2
19.Rg1 Rac8 20.Rxa5 leads to transposition of moves) 19.Rxa5 Bxg2 20.Rg1
Bh3 21.Qh5 (21.Bd5?! is weak because of 21…Bf4!N, and Black has a small
advantage) 21…Bh4 22.Qh6 (another transposition of moves arises after
22.Nd5 Qd8 23.Qh6 g6) 22…g6 23.Nd5 (weaker is 23.Qe3?!. Then in
Korneev-Shirov, Pamplona 2006, there followed 23…Be6! 24.Ra7 Qf6
25.Bd5 Rb8 26.Ra6 Rfc8. Black has a slight advantage, and with his next
White increases it. 27.Rc6?! Rxc6 28.Bxc6 h5, and Black stands better.
However, 28…Qd8!N with the idea of transferring the queen to a5, is even
stronger) 23…Qd8 24.Ra6 Be6.
The game is equal. In the correspondence game Bescos-Farcas, 2007,
after 25.Kf1 Rb8 26.b4 Qc8 27.b5 Bxd5 28.Bxd5 Rxb5 29.Rxg6+, the
(b) An interesting struggle arises after 18.gxh3!? axb4 19.Rxb4.
Then there may follow 19…Qe6! 20.Bc6! (20.0-0 Qxh3 21.Qd3 Qh6
22.Bc4 Bf4 23.h3 Qg5+ 24.Kh1 Qh4 leads to an equal game, Sukhov-
Vilyavin, corr 2005) 20…Rac8 21.Bb7 Rb8 22.Qg4 (or 22.Rg1 Qe7 23.Qb3
Bh4 24.Ke2 Kh8 25.Rg2 Qd7 26.Bd5 Rxb4 27.cxb4 Rb8 28.Bxf7 Qa7 29.b5
Rf8 with equal play, Zlatariu-Vasile, corr 2009) 22…Qh6!N (the move 22…
Qe7?! is also encountered. I think that White gains a small advantage with
23.Bd5!N, for example, 23…Rxb4 24.cxb4 g6!? 25.b5 Rb8 26.Bc6 Bc1
27.Qe2, etc.), 23.0-0 g6 24.Bd5 Rxb4 25.cxb4 Bd8!. In this position White
has an insignificant advantage after 26.b5 (or 26.Qd7 Qg5+ 27.Kh1 Qf6
28.b5 Bb6 29.Qg4 h5 30.Qg3 h4 31.Qg4 Kg7 with equal play), for example,
26…Bb6 27.h4!? Qd2 28.h5 Kg7 29.Qh4 Rc8 (also not bad is 29…Bd8)
30.Bc6 Rf8 with the idea of f7-f5, etc.
Let us return to the move 18.Nd5.
18…Qb7
19.c4
In the game Dominguez-Leko, Yerevan 2001, White played 19.Bc4.
There followed 19…Bd7 20.Ra2 Kh8 (more accurate is 20…a4! 21.0-0 g6!N
with equal play) 21.0-0 f5 22.exf5 Bxf5 23.Ne3.
In the game there was 23…Qd7?, and the opponents suddenly agreed to a
draw. However, with 24.Nxf5! Qxf5 25.Qd5!N e4 26.b4! White could have
obtained the advantage. As for 24…Rxf5?, recommended by Rogozenko, it
runs into 25.b4! with great advantage for White.
Instead of 23…Qd7?, Black should have played 23…Bxe3!. Then
possible is 24.Bd5! (24.fxe3 Qb6 or 24…Qe4!?N leads to an equal game)
24…Bxf2+ 25.Kh1!N. In his analysis of this position, Rogozenko points out
the variation 25.Rxf2 Qb6 26.Bxa8 Bb1!, and ends without evaluating the
resulting situation. Of course, we should continue the variation and make a
judgment about it: 27.Qd4!N Qxd4! 28.cxd4 Rxf2 29.Rxa5 Rxb2 30.dxe5
dxe5 31.Rxe5, and play is equal. What is important here is that 27…Qd8? is
poor because of 28.Rxf8+ Qxf8 29.Qf2! Qxf2+ 30.Kxf2 Bxa2 31.b4, and
Black has to give up his bishop for the pawn.
White has a slightly better move, 25.Kh1!N, for example, 25…Qb5
26.Bxa8 Bc2! 27.Bc6! Qc4 28.b3! Bxb3 29.Bd5 Qxd5 30.Qxd5 Bxd5
31.Raxf2 Rg8! 32.Ra1 Ra8 33.Rd2 Bg8 34.Rxd6 a4 35.Ra3 Bb3, and White
is hardly able to realize his insignificant advantage.
19…Be6 20.Nc3!
This is a bit stronger than the usual 20.0-0, after which Black typically
plays 20…f5?!, but after 21.Nc3!, White has an advantage, for example, 21…
Be7 22.exf5 Rxf5?! 23.c5! dxc5 24.Bd3 Bb3 25.Qb1 Bxa4?! 26.Bxf5 Bc6
27.Bxh7+ Kh8 28.Re1! Bxg2 29.Rxe5, and White’s position is won
(Oliveira-Barrioz, corr 2007). More precise are 22…Bxf5N and 25…Rff8N.
The correct move is 20…Bd8!N. Then possible is 21.Nc3!? (otherwise
21…Bxd5 and 22…Rb8) 21…Bc7 22.Qd3 Rad8 with the idea of 23…Bb6,
and the game is even.
Now Black has to display a lot of resourcefulness to maintain balanced

chances.
20…Bd8!N
Well-known is 20…Qb6 21.0-0, etc., with small advantage for White.
21.Qxd6 Be7! 22.Qd3
22.Qxe5?? loses to 22…Bf6! 23.Qf4! (the only move) 23…Bxc3+
24.bxc3 Bxc4! 25.Rxc4 Qxb5 26.Rd4 Rfd8! 27.Qc1 a4, etc.
22…Rad8! 23.Qg3
Or 23.Qe2 Bb4 24.0-0 Rd4 25.Rd1 Bxc3 26.bxc3 Qxe4 27.Qf1 Rxd1
28.Qxd1 Qa8 29.Qa1 g6 30.Rxa5 Qc8 with even chances.
23…Bb4 24.0-0
The pawn is untouchable: 24.Qxe5?? Bxc4! 25.Bxc4 Bxc3, and Black
wins.
24…Rd2 25.Qxe5 Qa7! 26.Qf4 Qd4
Weaker is 26…Rxb2?! because of 27.Qc1!. Then possible is…
27.Qe3!?
After 27.Nd5 Bxd5 28.cxd5 f5!? 29.d6 Rxb2, the game is equal.
27…Qxe3 28.fxe3 Rxb2 29.Nd5 g6
White’s material advantage is of a purely symbolic nature. Thus, we can
see that the move 15.Bb5 does not bring any advantage for White; however,
its official theory is far from being complete.
Chapter 180
13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 without 15…Kh8, 15…Bd7 or
15…Rb8
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4!
This is the most natural square for the bishop.

15…Ne7
This move is by no means the only one. In the next chapter we will
examine 15…Kh8; chapters 182-183 will be devoted to the move 15…Bd7,
and after that we are going to study the main continuation 15…Rb8!? for the
remainder of the book.
16.0-0
After 16.Nxe7 Qxe7+ 17.Nb4, there arises a position from the main
variation of chapter 151, where the best move for Black is 17…Qa7!. After
the usual 17…Bd7 18.Nd5, the game transposes to a position from chapter
183.
The move 16.Nce3 occurs rather often. Then possible is 16…Nxd5 (after
16…Bd7, there arises a position which we are going to investigate in chapter
183) 17.Nxd5 Kh8!? (the position after 17…Bd7 18.Ra2 will also be
examined in chapter 183) 18.0-0 f5 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.Ra2 Bd7 21.Qe2 Bc6
22.b3 Qd7!?N (in Freeman-Rattinger, corr 2008, there was 22…Qb8 23.Rd1
a4 24.b4 Qb7 25.Qg4 Bh6 26.Qe6 Rad8 27.g3 Rfe8 28.Qg4 Rf8 29.Qe4, and
White has a small advantage) 23.Rd1 (23.Nb6?! Qb7 24.Nxa8 Bxg2 25.Qg4
Bxf1 26.Bxf1 Qxb3 27.Rxa5 Be3! 28.fxe3 Qb1 29.Qg2 Rxf1 30.Qxf1 Qg+
leads to a draw by perpetual check) 23…Bd8 with a small advantage for
White.
16…Nxd5
16…Bd7 17.Ra2 Nxd5 18.Bxd5 is but a transposition of moves.
17.Bxd5 Bd7 18.Ra2!
After 18.Ra3, with a transposition of moves, a position from the main
variation of chapter 182 is reached.
18…Rc8
19.Qd3!?
White has other opportunities:
(a) The old move 19.Na3 used to be more popular than the others, but in
the recent years good players do not employ it.
Then possible is 19…Be6!? (Black more often plays 19…Rc5, on which
not bad is 20.Qd3!?, for example, 20…Qc7 21.Rfa1 Bc6 22.c4 Rb8 23.b3
with a small advantage for White (Tiemann-Rattinger, corr 2006) 20.Bxe6!?
N (20.Qd3?! brings no advantage because of 20…Bxd5 21.Qxd5 Rc5 22.Qd3
Qb6, Vescovi-Mecking, Sao Paulo 2000), 20…fxe6 21.Qg4 Re8!, and even
though Black’s position looks suspicious, I has been able to register only a
rather slight advantage for White, for example, 22.Rd1 d5 23.c4 d4 24.b3 h6!
25.Nb5 Qb6, etc.
(b) In addition to the move in the main variation, also strong is 19.Qe2!?.
For example, 19…Qb6!?N (Black usually plays 19…a4, but after 20.Na3,
White’s chances are better, for example, 20…Rb8 21.Rfa1 Kh8 22.Nc4 Qc7
23.Rxa4! Bxa4 24.Rxa4 f5 25.exf5 Rxf5 26.b4 Rf6, and White has an
advantage, as in Ricchio-Banet, corr 2007) 20.Na3!?, and, with a
transposition of moves, we have the position from Ollmann-Freeman, corr
2009. There followed 20…Qc5 21.Rfa1 Be6 22.Rd1 Bh4 (22…Bd8!?N)
23.Nc2 g6 24.g3 Bd8 25.Ne3 (25.b4!N is even stronger) 25…Bb6 26.Qd3
Rfd8 27.h4 h5 28.Ra4 Rb8 29.Rb1 Kg7 30.Kg2, and White has a small
advantage. (D)
19…Qb6
In Fenwick-Schueppel, corr 2006, there was 19…a4 20.Na3! (20.Rfa1
Kh8 21.Rxa4 Bxa4 22.Rxa4 is less strong because of 22…Qd7!)
20…Rb8 (slightly more accurate is 20…Kh8) 21.Rfa1 (more precise is

21.Nc4!N, and on 21…Qe7?! there follows 22.Nxd6!) 21…Kh8 22.Nc4 Qe7
23.Rxa4 Bxa4 24.Rxa4 g6 25.b4 f5 26.f3, and White’s chances are better.
20.Na3!?
In Naiditsch-Carlsen, Dortmund 2009, White played 20.Rfa1 and after
20…Kh8 21.Rxa5 f5, squandered his advantage once and for all with
22.Qa6?! (22.Ne3!N retains a minimal advantage). There followed 22…Qxb2
23.R5a2 Qxc3 24.Qxd6 Bb5 (preferable is 24…Rfd8!?N) 25.Be6 Rfd8
26.Qa3 Qxa3 27.Nxa3 Rc1+ 28.Rxc1 Bxc1, and soon the game was drawn.
20…Qc5 21.Rfa1
21.Qc4!? is playable, for example, 21…Qb6 22.Qe2, and the game
transposed to a position that we have examined above. Now in Rhodes-Neto,
corr 2010, there followed 21…Be6 22.Rd1 Bd8 23.Nc2 and White has a
small advantage.
Chapter 181
13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Kh8
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Kh8 (D)
Quite playable. Black has prepared the advance f7-f5, but refrains from
the usual Ra8-b8 for the moment. Very often it all comes down to a mere
transposition of moves. In this chapter we are going to examine variations
which are independently significant.
16.0-0
The move 16.Nce3!? deserves serious attention. Let us explore Black’s

possibilities.
(a) 16…Rb8!? is most often played, and after 17.b3 or 17.Ra2, it is a
transposition of moves.
(b) 16…Bxe3 17.Nxe3 Rb8 has also occurred, and both 18.b3 and 18.Ra2
result in positions from the main line with 15…Rb8.
(c) Most probably, the only continuation that has independent
significance is 16…g6!?, but Black has to be prepared for the reply 17.h4!?
(17.0-0 Rb8 18.b3 with a transposition to more common variations is less
dangerous), for example, 17…Bxh4 18.g3 Bg5 (18…Bf6!?N) 19.f4 exf4
(19…Bf6!?N) 20.gxf4 Bh4+ 21.Kd2 (or 21.Kf1!?N).
As we are going to see in the chapter devoted to the move 15…Rb8, this
position, with the moves Rb8 and Ra2 (or b3) included, is highly unpleasant
for Black, particularly when the king retreats to f1. There the rook transfer
from a4 via a2 on h2 was very important. Note that from a logical point of
view, the position without inclusion of the above-mentioned moves should be
more favorable for Black, because the rook’s route to h2 would not be so
easy. So it is not improbable that it would be declared quite viable, and the
move 15…Kh8 itself in combination with 16…g6 would become an
independent system of play
16…f5
Also playable is 16…Rb8. Now after 17.b3 or 17.Ra2, the game once
again comes down to well-examined variations with transposition of moves.
In the rapid game Karjakin-Carlsen, France 2006, White attempted to
deviate from well-known positions with 17.b4. There followed 17…Bd7
18.Ra2 axb4 19.Ncxb4 Nxb4 20.cxb4 f5 21.exf5 Bxf5 22.Qb3 Be6 23.b5
Qc8 (23…Qd7!?N). White’s position is slightly better, but he played the
indiscreet 24.Ra6?! (better is, for example, 24.Nc7!?N), after which Black
should have played 24…Bxd5!N, for example, 25.Bxd5 Qc5 26.Qc4!
(26.Bc6?? loses to 26…Rxf2! 27.Rxf2 Qc1+ 28.Rf1 Be3+; and 26.Bc4? d5!
27.Be2 Rxf2 28.Rxf2 Be3 leads to the loss of a pawn) 26…Rxb5 27.Rxd6!
Rxf2 28.Qxc5 Rxf1+ 29.Kxf1 Rxc5 30.Re6, and the game is equal.
17.exf5 Bxf5 18.Nce3
18.Qe2 Rb8 19.Nce3 Be6 leads to a position from the main variation.
18.Bd3 has also been encountered. Then possible is 18…Be6 19.Be4 Rb8
20.b4 axb4 21.Ncxb4 Nxb4 22.Nxb4, and the game Tkachiev-Lautier,
Moscow 1994, was drawn after 22…Rc8 23.Ra6 Rxc3 24.Rxd6 Qe8 25.Qa1
Rc8.
18…Be6 19.Qe2 Rb8
The position in the diagram first occurred in the game Geller-Sveshnikov,

Leningrad 1977. It is highly typical for the variation 15.Bc4 and therefore
very important for the understanding of both parties’ intentions, so we will
examine this game in more details. Then there followed…
20.Rd1
More accurate is 20.b3!, after which there arises a position from chapter
191.
20…Qd7 21.Raa1 Qf7
The queen transfer to f7 is an important element of Black’s plan. From
here queen exerts pressure upon the f2- and d5-squares; in addition, it is also
able to go to g6 or h5, if desired.
22.Nf1 Bd8
It is symptomatic that Sveshnikov awards this defensive move with an
exclamation point. The choice of a move frequently depends only on a
player’s style. The sharper moves 22…e4!?N and 22…Nd4!?N are no worse.
All three moves lead to equal play.
23.Rd2
23.b3!?N was worth consideration.
23…Ne7
A barely noticeable inaccuracy; preferable is 23…Bg5!?N, on which
White would have to play 24.Rdd1! with a repetition of the position
(24.Rd3?? loses to 24…e4 25.Rdd1 Ne5, etc.; 24.Nfe3?! is weak because of
24…e4! with the idea of Ne5).
24.Nfe3 Ng6 25.Rad1?!
A stereotyped move that throws away the advantage. After 25.Bd3!N,
White has a small edge, for example, 25…Bg5 26.Qh5 Bxd5 27.Qxg5 Nf4
28.Qh4! Nxd3 29.Rxd3 Be6 30.Rd2, etc.
25…Bg5 26.b3 Nh4 27.Ra2 Qg6 28.Nf1?!
Curiously enough, Sveshnikov gives this move an exclamation point and
immediately after it points out the variation in which, in his opinion, “Black
has an extra pawn, and it’s odds-on that he will win.”
There is something wrong with this logic, isn’t there? The correct move is
28.Qc2!N with an equal game.
Here Sveshnikov points out the variation 28…Bd2!? (in the game there
was 28…Bf4?!) 29.Ng3 Bxd5 30.Bxd5 Bxc3.
However, despite Sveshnikov’s opinion, in this position Black is far from
being an “odds-on” favorite and his chances would be even worse after
29.Nfe3!N, for example, 29…Bxd5 30.Bxd5 Bxc3 31.Qd3!, and here
endgames with bishops of opposite colors and blocked black pawns may
arise. As you know, to play out such endings is rather a boring job. But
endgames with bishops of opposite colors are not the reason we love chess,
so let us return to the position in the last diagram and bring to it an exciting
life:
28…a4!?N
A thematic move for this kind of positions. Now White faces a difficult
choice: capturing a pawn with the rook weakens the f2-square; taking it with
a pawn opens the b-file for the black rook which would be able to get to b1;
and the move b3-b4 leaves the bishop on c4 undefended. Here are some
general variations:
29.Rxa4!
29.bxa4?? loses to 29…Bh6!!, for example, 30.Nde3 Bxe3 31.Nxe3
Nxg2! 32.Nxg2 Bg4 33.Qd3 Qxd3!, and if 34.Rxd3, then 34…Rb1+ 35.Ne1
Rxe1+ 36.Kg2 Be2! 37.Re3? Bxc4 38.Rxe1 Bxa2 with an extra piece.
Or 29.b4? Nxg2! 30.Kxg2 Bh4+! 31.Ng3 Bg4 32.Qd3 Bxd1 33.Qxd1
Bxg3 34.Qd3!? (34.hxg3? is worse because of 34…Qe4+ 35.Kg1 Qxc4) 34…
Qxd3 35.Bxd3 Bh4, and Black has an extra pawn and exchange.
29…Nxg2! 30.Kxg2 Be3+ 31.Ng3 Rxf2 32.Qxf2 Bxf2 33.Kxf2 Qc2+
34.Ke1! Qxh2 35.Nf1 Qh4+ 36.Kd2 Bd7! 37.Ra6 Bg4 and then h7-h5, and
Black’s chances are slightly better.
As you see, in positions similar to the one in the last diagram, one must
be very careful. Black rooks on the semi-open f- and b-files in combination
with the bishop pair and queen on the kingside have great offensive potential.
Note also that the knight on h4 (or, in some lines, on e5) also comes rather
handy for Black, so I do not think that in such positions Black should allow
the exchange of the knight.
Chapter 182
13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Bd7 without 16.Nce3
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Bd7 (D)
This continuation is another attempt to deviate from well-examined

variations arising from the main move 15…Rb8, and is distinct from it in that
Black rejects the plan with f7-f5 and turns his attention to the queenside.
Very likely, Radjabov was the first grandmaster to employ this move, but all
of them were played during a very short period of time in 2006-2007. I must
note that in the databases the move 15…Bd7 is less successful in comparison
with 15…Rb8.
16.0-0
One of the ideas of the move 15…Bd7 is the tactical threat Nb4!?. Then
White is deprived of the opportunity to retreat with his rook to a2. The
simplest way to parry this threat is to play 16.Nce3!?. We will examine this
move in the next chapter. But other continuations have also occurred.
For example, after 16.b3 Ne7 17.Ra3! Nxd5 18.Bxd5 Rc8 19.c4 Qb6
20.0-0, White has a minimal advantage (Djukic-Milanovic, Bar 2007). And
after 16.Ra2 a4 17.h4!? (after 17.0-0 Na5 18.Bd3 Nb3 19.Nce3 Nc5 20.Re1,
play is equal, rapid game Kravtsiv-Shabalov, Beijing 2008) 17…Bh6
18.Nde3 (vacating the d5-square against the possibility of Nc6-a5) 18…Qf6
19.Ng4 Qg6 20.Nxh6+ Qxh6 21.Ne3 Ne7 22.0-0 Rab8 23.g3, White stands
slightly better (Oliveira-Winkelman, corr 2010.
16…Nb4!?
(a) The move 16…Nd4 occurred in the blindfold game Anand-Radjabov,
Monaco 2007, which developed with a small advantage for. There followed
17.Ra2 Ne6 18.Qe2 a4 19.Ncb4 Nc5 20.Nd3 Ne6 21.Rfa1 Rc8 22.N3b4 Nc5
(22…Rb8!?N) 23.Bb5!? (23.Na6!N, with an advantage, looks even stronger)
23…Bxb5 24.Qxb5 Kh8? (it was necessary to play 24…Qe8!N) 25.Na6!
Nxe4?! 26.Nb6 Rxc3? (an oversight: 26…Qe8 is better, but White has a
serious advantage anyway) 27.Rxa4! f5 28.bxc3 Nxc3 29.Qc6 Nxa4 30.Rxa4,
and White won.
(b) In another game Anand-Radjabov (rapid, Mainz 2006) Black played
16…Ne7 (this position more frequently arises via the move order 15…Ne7
and 16…Bd7). There followed 17.Ra2! (17.Ra3 is inaccurate; after 17…
Nxd5, there arises a position from the main variation) 17…Rc8 (the position
after 17…Nxd5 18.Bxd5 has been examined in chapter 180) 18.Nxe7+
(slightly more accurate is 18.Qd3! Nxd5 19.Bxd5; this is also a position from
the main variation of chapter 180) 18…Qxe7 19.Bd5 Rc5, and here White
should have played 20.Qd3!?N, and he has a small advantage (in the game
there was 20.b3?! Rxc3 21.Rxa5, and chances became even).
(c) In many games Black plays 16…Rb8.
This looks rather odd to me. First of all, the move 16…Rb8 itself is odd
in combination with 15…Bd7 (try to imagine the reverse move order: 15…
Rb8 16.Ra2 Bd7. You have troubles with this, right?). Furthemore, in most
cases White for some reason replies with the weak 17.Ra2?! (in the early
games on this theme even Karjakin and Anand would play like this). This
move would be more understandable if White refused to castle, hoping to
carry out the plan with h2-h4 followed by the rook transfer to h2, which we
are going to discuss in upcoming chapters. But here this is not so, so why let
the black pawn proceed to a4? We will return to the move 17.Ra2?! later, but
first let us have a look at other options.
(a) For example, after 17.b3!? Kh8, there we have a position from the
usual move order 15…Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 in which Black makes an odd
move 17…Bd7.
(b) Probably the strongest move is 17.Qa1!. Winkelman-Chiru, corr 2010
developed in a very interesting manner: 17…g6 18.Nce3 Kh8 19.Qa3! f5!?
20.exf5 gxf5 21.Qxd6 f4 22.Nd1 e4! 23.Ba2?! Re8! 24.h4 Bxh4 25.Qxf4 Nb4
26.Rxa5 Qxa5 27.cxb4 Qd8 28.Qc1 Bf6 29.Nxf6, and the opponents agreed
to a draw. I believe that White has misplayed twice: instead of 20.exf5, more
accurate is 20.Qxd6!N, retaining the advantage, and instead of 23.Ba2?!,
better is 23.Ra1!N, also retaining a small advantage. Let us return to the
move 17.Ra2?!
The next mystery is that Radjabov, instead of move 17…a4!, twice
played 17…Kh8?! (Black should have seized his chance: after 17…a4!
18.Ndb4!?, White has a minimal advantage; what is more, it is difficult to
retain. I can suggest 18…Na5 19.Bd5 g6 20.Re1! with the idea of Ne3.
Certainly, Black must not play 18.Rxa4? because of 18…Na5.)
First there was the rapid game Karjakin-Radjabov, Cap d’Agde 2006:
18.Nde3!? Qc7 19.Qd3 Ne7 20.Rd1 Bc6, and here, instead of 21.Nd5?!,
White should have played 21.g3!N with the idea of h2-h4 and with better
chances.
Later there appeared the game Anand-Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2007:
18.Nce3!? g6 19.Qd3 (it is more precise to play 19.b3!?N first, preventing
a5-a4). There followed 19…f5 (19…a4!?N) 20.b3 Bh6. Black plans Qd8-h4,
so it is worthwhile for White to play now 21.Re1!N, and if 21…Qh4, then
22.Nf1!, neutralizing Black’s small pressure and retaining his advantage.
Also playable is the more concrete move 22.Nc7!?. In both cases White has
an edge.
In the game there was 21.Rd1 Qh4 22.f3. It is amusing that after these
moves, there arises, with a transposition of moves, the same position as in the
blitz game Topalov-Kasparov played in the same year in Lyons (we are going
to mention it in chapter 190). 22.Nc7?! fxe4 23.Qxd6 Rxf2! 24.Rxf2 Bxe3
(here the rook on e1 would come in handy!) 25.Rdf1 Qe7! leads to an equal
game.
Now, instead of 22…Qg5, Black could have simplified the game with the
22…fxe4!?N, for example, 23.Qxe4 (weaker is 23.fxe4?! because of 23…
Nd8!, for example, 24.Nc7 Nf7, etc., with equal play) 23…Qxe4 24.fxe4
Kg7, and White has only a slight edge. Let us return to the move 16…Nb4!?.
17.Ra3 Nxd5
17…Rc8 is an inaccuracy. Then in the game Volokitin-Radjabov, Biel
2006, there followed 18.cxb4 axb4 19.Ra6 Rxc4 20.Rxd6 b3 21.Nce3 Rd4
22.Qxb3 (slightly better is 22.Qf3!?N) 22…Qc8 23.Qc2 Be6?! (Black should
not have given up the c6-square) 24.Rc6! Qb8. Here White misplayed –
25.Rb1? – and threw away his advantage. The correct move was 25.Rc7!N.
18.Bxd5 Rb8 19.b4 axb4 20.Nxb4 Qc8!? Slightly weaker is 20…Qb6.
Then in Shirov-Topalov, Morelia/Linares 2008, there followed 21.Qe2
(White’s advantage is a little greater after 21.Qa1!?N with the idea of Na6
and Rb1) 21…Bb5 22.Bc4 Rfc8 23.Bxb5 Qxb5 24.Qxb5 Rxb5 25.Rd1 g6
26.g3, and White has a small advantage in the endgame. 20…Kh8!? is very
playable, with a small advantage for White. Then in Makowski-Dotan, corr
2007, there followed 21.Qf3 Kh8 22.Ra7 and White’s chances are slightly
better.
Chapter 183
13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Bd7 16.Nce3
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Bd7 16.Nce3!?
With his last move White has eliminated the threat of Nc6-b4!? and
secured a comfortable retreat to a2 for his rook against the possibility of Nc6-
e7. Curiously, strong OTB players prefer 16.0-0 all the same, and strong
correspondence players are definitely in favor of the knight move to e3.
Admittedly, the difference in strength for those moves is very slight if any.
16…Ne7
Other moves have also been tested.
(a) In Timofeev-Smirnov, Tomsk 2006, Black played 16…g6. Before
White castles, his opponent should be very cautious about the move g7-g6
because White can launch an attack with h2-h4. We will examine a similar
plan in detail while speaking about main continuation 15…Rb8. There
followed 17.b3 Kh8 18.h4 (here this plan is not so good, and I guess that
18.Ra2!N is more precise) 18…Bh6? (he should play 18…Bxe3!N, for
example, 19.Nxe3 Ne7! 20.Qxd6!? Nc8 21.Qxe5+ f6 22.Qc5 Bxa4 23.h5! g5
24.bxa4, and White has only a slight advantage) 19.Ra2 (19.Ng4!N seems
even stronger, for example, 19…Bg7 20.h5 Qg5 21.Nge3, and White has a
solid advantage) 19…Ne7?! (more accurate is 19…a4!N) 20.Nf6! Be6 21.h5
Bxc4 22.Nxc4. Here Black committed a blunder, 22…Bg5?? (he could
continue struggling after 22…Kg7), and resigned after 23.hxg6 Bxf6 24.Qh5.
(b) 16…Kh8 has been encountered frequently.
Now weak is 17.h4?!, making Black take on e3, because, first, Black has
not yet played g7-g6 yet, and second, this capture is in itself one of the best
lines of play in such positions without any coercion. Now in the rapid game
Volokitin-Radjabov, Cap d’Agde 2006, there followed 17…Bxe3 18.Nxe3
Ne7 19.Ra2 Bc6 20.Qg4 d5 21.exd5 Nxd5. Here White played 22.0-0?! and
after 22…Nxe3 23.fxe3 f6, Black obtains a small advantage. The correct
move is 22.Nxd5N with equal play.
In Noble-Carasoni, corr 2010, White was more accurate: 17.0-0 Ne7
18.Ra2 a4 19.Nxe7 Bxe7 20.Nd5 Rb8 21.Qe2, and in spite of the small
advantage for White, a draw was agreed.
(c) Possibly the best move here is 16…Bxe3!?, but this continuation has
yet to be well-explored. After 17.Nxe3 Ne7 18.Ra2, the game may reach a
position that we are going to investigate below.
17.Ra2
17…Nxd5
Black makes this move in almost every game, but it probably is not the
most precise. Worth attention is 17…Bxe3!?, for example, 18.Nxe3 Bc6
19.Qd3!? (19.Nd5 Rb8!N 20.0-0 Nxd5 21.Bxd5 Qc7 leads to an equal game)
19…Qb8!?N 20.0-0 Rd8 21.Rfa1 Qb7, and White has only a small
advantage.
18.Nxd5 a4
Attempts were made to return to the plan with f7-f5: 18…Kh8 19.0-0 f5
20.exf5 Bxf5.
Then in Schneider-Neto, corr 2010, there was 21.Qe2 Bd7 22.b3! Qb8
23.Rfa1 a4 24.bxa4 Ra5. Now White could have played 25.Rb2!?N (in the
game there was 25.g3), for example, 25…Qa7 26.Rab1! Rxa4 (26…Bxa4? is
bad because of 27.Rb7, for example, 27…Qc5 28.Rc7! Bc6 29.h4! Bxh4
30.Qg4 Qxf2+ 31.Kh1 Qg3 32.Qxg3 Bxg3 33.Rxc6, and White has a large
advantage) 27.Nb6 Ra1 28.Nxd7 Rxb1+ 29.Rxb1 Qxd7 30.Bd5, and White
has an edge.
19.0-0 Rb8
20.Qe2!?
20.Bd3!? is considerably rarer, though those two moves are roughly equal
in strength. The aim of the latter continuation is to transfer the bishop to c2,
from where it can attack the a4-pawn.
In Müller-Taler, corr 2009, there followed 20…Qc8 21.Nb4 Bd8 22.Bc2
Ba5 23.Nd5 Qc4 24.Qa1! Bd8 25.Rd1 Bh4 26.f3 Ra8 27.b4 Qc6 28.Qc1
Rfc8 29.Qd2, and White has a stable advantage.
20…Qc8!? 21.Rfa1 Bg4 22.Qd3!?
Also playable is 22.Qf1. Then in Nekhaev-Kurgansky, corr 2010, there
followed 22…Bd7 23.g3 Bd8 24.Bd3 h6. Here, instead of 25.Ba6?!, White
should have played 25.Bc2!N, retaining his small advantage. Black, in his
turn, could have been more accurate and played 24…Qb7!?N. Now possible
is:
22…Be6 23.h3!? Qc5 24.Qe2 Bd7 25.Rxa4! Bxa4 26.Rxa4 and White
has a small but undeniable advantage.
Section 12. 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5
13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8
Chapter 184
15…Rb8 16.Ra2 Kh8 without 17.Nce3 or 16.b3
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8!?
This is a classic continuation, from which the development of the

variation originally began. Its solidity has been confirmed over time. The
measure of its quality is its popularity, which is very high in the databases for
players of various levels. It is particularly high in the databases for strong
players, where it reaches 85%.
16.Ra2
This is an old move that leaves White with a small advantage. The
drawback of the rook move is that it gives Black a chance to ignore the a5-
pawn for a time as the rook on a2 is bound to defend the b2-pawn. Assuming
correct play by Black, White usually has to play b2-b3 at some point, and the
move Ra4-a2 may turn out to be a loss of a tempo. However, should Black
react in the standard fashion (16…Kh8 and 17…g6), he is in for monumental
challenges. We will see this in the next chapter. The main continuation 16.b3!
will be examined in chapters 188-200.
In many games White would play 16.Qa1. In Gavrilakis-Halkias, Athens
2000, after 16…Kh8 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 Bg6 (I think that 19…
Be6!? is more precise), White committed an inaccuracy, 20.Be2?! (correct is
20.b3! with roughly equal play). Black could have continued 20…Bxe3!N (in
the game he played 20…e4), for example, 21.fxe3 Rxf1+ 22.Bxf1 Bf7, and
Black’s position is preferable.
The move 16.b4 is also quite popular but not entirely successful. For
example, in the rapid game Polgar-Lautier, Dos Hermanas 1995, there
followed 16…Bd7!? 17.Ra3 Kh8 18.0-0 f5 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.bxa5 Nxa5
21.Bd3 Be6 22.Ncb4 Rc8 23.Be4. Here Black played 23…Nc4, but with
23…Bh6!?N the route to equality seems to be even simpler.
16…Kh8
In the rapid game Kramnik-Leko, Monte Carlo 2005, there was 16…Be6
17.0-0 Qd7 18.b3 Kh8 19.Qe2 (more accurate is 19.Nce3!) 19…f5 20.exf5
Bxf5 21.Nce3 Bg6 22.Rd1 Bd8 23.Bb5?! (a dubious idea: the bishop position
was well placed) 23…Qb7 24.Ba4 Ne7! 25.Nxe7, and here 25…Qxe7N leads
to equality.
16…Ne7!? is solid continuation, for example, 17.Nce3 Nxd5 (or
immediately 17…Kh8) 18.Nxd5 Kh8 19.0-0, and in both cases, the game
transposes to positions that we are going to explore in chapter 186.
17.0-0
As we will see in this chapter, castling throws away some of the White’s
advantage. More dangerous is the continuation 17.Nce3! that we are going to
study in the following chapters. The variation 17.h4 Bh6 18.Nce3 Bxe3
19.Nxe3 leads to a minimal advantage for White, for example, 19…Ne7
20.b3 f5 21.exf5 Nxf5 22.Nxf5 Bxf5 23.0-0 Be4 (Asrian-Khalifman, Bled
2002).
17…f5!
Leko tested the move 17…g6?! twice and in both cases did not really
succeed, even though both his opponents chose the continuation 18.b4?!
which is far from being the best one (this move reduces White’s advantage;
stronger is 18.Qe2!, for example, 18…f5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.Rd1!N with a small
advantage for White.). Then in Anand-Leko, San Luis 2005, there was 18…
axb4! (in the game Kasimdzhanov-Leko, San Luis 2005, there was 18…Bd7
19.Qe2 axb4, and now, instead of 20.Ncxb4, more accurate is 20.cxb4!N with
a more significant advantage) 19.cxb4. In this almost even position, Leko
unexpectedly made two inferior moves: 19…Be6?! (after 19…Ne7!, Black is
very close to equality) 20.b5 Bxd5 (20…Na5!?) 21.exd5, and after 21…Na5
22.Be2 Ra8 23.Nb4 Nb7 24.Ra6 Nc5 25.Rc6, White has an advantage.
18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3
In my opinion, this move throws away the minimal edge that White still
had. More accurate is 19.b3!?, transposing to the 16.b3 variation that will be
examined a little later.
19…Bg6 20.Qa4!?
According to Sveshnikov, this move is dubious, but even now it clearly
remains the most popular one. The cautious 20.f3 is entirely unpromising:
Black has about five moves that allow him to equalize. For example, playable
is 20…Bf7 (Black should not choose 20…Qd7, as in the game Alekseev-
Radjabov, Halkidiki 2002) followed by 21.Qd3 Ne7!N, and it is already
White who has to tread lightly. It seems that the only move that allows him to
maintain the balance is 22.Rd1!.
20…Be8!
Objectively, this is the best move which, however, has one subjective
drawback – White may opt for a repetition of moves. At first in the position
in the diagram the move 20…Qc8 was employed. Let us examine White’s
options.
(a) 21.Rd1 (Socko-Krasenkow, Plock 2000) runs into an unpleasant reply,
21…Bh5!N.
(b) Sveshnikov points out the variation 21.Bb5? Be8! 22.c4 Nb4!
23.Nxb4 Bxe3!, etc. (Matanovic-Sax, Belgrade 1977, all symbols are
Sveshnikov’s). But his priorities in this variation are not in order. First, the
move 21.Bb5 is absolutely normal and occurs in the majority of games.
Second, 22.c4?! is dubious; correct is 22.Ra3!N with equal play. Third,
23.Nxb4? is a losing move; correct is 23.Raa1!N with only the typical
advantage for Black. Fourth and finally, it was not Matanovic who played
with White in this game; it was Matulovic. Anyway, both names are
beautiful, aren’t they?
(c) I suggest the move 21.b3!?N, for example, 21…e4 22.Rd1. This is the
position which the game Socko-Krasenkow reached with a transposition of
moves. Then there followed 22…Bf7!? 23.Qa3 Qd7 24.Nf1 Ne5 25.Qxa5
Qg4 26.Nde3 (with this move White squanders his very slight advantage;
26.Rda1!?N looks more precise) 26…Bxe3 27.Nxe3 Nf3+ 28.Kh1 Qf4
29.gxf3 Qxf3+ 30.Kg1 Bxc4 31.bxc4 Rf6. Chances are even, but White
misplays: 32.Re1?? (he has various means at his disposal of holding the
balance, for example, 32.Qa7) 32…Rg6+ 33.Kf1.
In this position Krasenkow could win by force literally in a few moves

after 33…Qh1!N 34.Ke2 Rg1!, with the idea of 35.Rxg1 Qf3+, etc. However,
he chose 33…Rf8?? which led only to a draw, for example, after 34.Qb6!N.
In addition, White has at least two other moves which lead to a draw. Those
interested are free to look for those themselves. Curiously, Krasenkow did
not find this rather simple way to win even while annotating the game for
Chess Informant, though he could have easily turned his computer on. Let us
return to the move 20…Be8.
21.Qc2
Bad is 21.Bb5? (Sznapik-Filipovic, Banja-Luka 1983). After 21…Nb4!
22.Bxe8 Nxa2 23.Bb5 Bxe3 24.Nxe3, Black, instead of 24…Rf4?, should
have continued 24…d5N with great advantage, for example, 25.Ra1 d4
26.Nd1 dxc3 27.bxc3 Rf4.
21…Bg6!22.Bd3
22.Qa4 leads to a repetition of moves. Now possible is…
22…Bxe3 23.Nxe3 Bf7 24.Raa1 Bb3!N 25.Qe2 d5 26.Bb5!? Qb6
27.Bxc6 Qxc6 28.Rxa5 d4 29.cxd4 exd4 30.Nf5 Rfd8 and Black’s initiative
fully compensates for his lost pawn.
Chapter 185
16.Ra2 Kh8 17.Nce3 without 17…Ne7 or 17…Bxe3
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.Ra2 Kh8 17.Nce3!
This continuation, hampering the break f7-f5, creates serious problems

for the adherents of the Chelyabinsk Variation. In this chapter we will
examine the continuation 17…g6 that, from the point of view of modern
theory, is the main one and follow it to the very end, where a hopeless
position is in store for Black.
A little later we will see that en route to this result Black makes a dubious
move, 17…g6?!, and then commits three more rather serious errors. As
official theory refuses to do so, I will have the pleasure to specifically
identify all those blunders in order to keep the advocates of the Chelyabinsk
Variation from repeating them and from losing games as a result of this.
17…g6?!
The history of this unfortunate move begins with an exclamation point
that Sveshnikov gave it in his book, commending it as “energetic.” No
wonder that, after such a high evaluation from the maestro himself, the move
had gained enormous popularity and started to occur in almost every game
where the position in the diagram would arise.
But eventually it turned out that the maestro was once again wrong and
that Black must not move his pawn to g6 before White has castled – or the
first party may change his mind and launch an attack with h2-h4. (Speaking
of the advantages of a broad outlook in the theory of openings, I would like
to add that all this has been common knowledge since the times of the
Dragon Variation.) In the next two chapters we will examine two
continuations that are more solid – 17…Ne7 and 17…Bxe3.
18.h4!
A shot across the bow that must have put Black on his guard. Sveshnikov
takes into account only 18.0-0, and here his contribution into the theory of the
“energetic move” 17…g6 ends, so the readers of his book are left to solve the
newly-arisen difficult problems on their own.
18…Bxh4?
But this independent problem solving is a bad idea. By opening the h-file,
Black dooms himself to a difficult defense. He makes this mistake in nine
games out of ten. Admittedly, there arise very complex positions, and
formerly the enthusiasts of playing out crazy complications as Black could
not possibly have known what was in store for them.
But then powerful computers appeared and pointed out correct ways of
developing the attack for White. Thus, Black’s last move had already
deserved its low assessment, which is corroborated by its rather poor success
(about 25% for Black in the full database).
Note that it is particularly dangerous to grab the h4-pawn after 16.Ra2
because White retains the possibility of transferring his rook to h2 not only
after b2-b3, but even after more active b2-b4!. Thus, in the positions that
arise with the main continuation 16.b3, Black usually has comparatively
better chances for a successful defense (we will later speak of it in detail in
upcoming chapters). Two other moves are significantly better.
(a) For example, not bad is 18…Bxe3!?19.Nxe3 Ne7!. Usually there
occurs 19…f5 20.h5 g5 21.exf5 Bxf5, but after 22.0-0!N, White has a serious
advantage. 19…h5!?N is not bad.
Then possible is 20.h5 Ng8!N 21.hxg6 fxg6 22.b3 Nf6 23.f3 Nh5, and
Black has parried the direct threats, even though White’s position is better.
(b) In the rapid game Kasimdzhanov-Ivanchuk, Tallinn 2006, Black
chose another path: 18…Bh6!? 19.h5 Kg7 20.Qd2 Rh8.
The direct attack has been stopped, but White still has an advantage.
There followed 21.g3 Bd7?! (21…f5!? looks more precise) 22.f4? (throwing
his entire advantage away; the correct move is either 22.Qd1!N or 22.b3!N)
22…a4? (Black misses his chance to play 22…exf4!N 23.gxf4 g5!) 23.Rxa4
(more precise is 23.Qf2!?N) 23…Na5? (23…Nd4!N is much better), and
now, after 24.Ra1!N, White has great advantage (in the game there was
24.Rb4). Do not let this great number of errors put you off; all that means is
that the position is extremely complicated, and there is not a lot of thinking
time in the rapid games, you know.
19.g3
19…Bg5?
Amazingly, this weak move has occurred in more than 80 games! The last
brave soul among strong grandmasters was Moiseenko, who had played in
this fashion in 2012. But after this move the sounds of the Chopin’s most
popular piece, The Funeral March, are clearly in the air for Black.
The last chance to organize a defense in the face of great opponent’s
superiority is the continuation 19…Bf6!, as Kramnik played against
Ponomariov, Wijk aan Zee 2005.
In the game there was 20.b3! Bg7?. After this game by Kramnik, almost
everybody, as if charmed, made this losing move. The best defense is 20…
Be6!, for example, 21.f4 exf4 22.gxf4 Bxd5 23.Nxd5 Kg7 24.Rg2
Rh8!N25.Qd3! Rb7!, and though White has a great advantage, the struggle
continues. Now in the game there followed 21.f4 exf4 22.gxf4 Re8 23.Qf3?,
after which Black could have equalized with 23…Ne7!.
White should have played 23.Rah2!, for example, 23…h6!? (the most
stubborn move; on 23…Rxe4 playable is 24.Rxh7+ Kg8 25.Qf3 Qe8 26.Qg3!
with the threat of Nf6+, and White wins) 24.Kd2! Kg8 25.Qg1! (another
winning move is 25.Nf5!?) 25…a4 26.Rxh6 Bxh6 27.Rxh6 Kg7 28.f5! Kxh6
29.Qh2 Kg7 30.f6+ Qxf6 31.Nxf6 Rh8 32.Qf4 Ne5 33.N fd5 axb3 34.Qf6
Kh7 35.Qxd6 Nxc4+ 36.Nxc4, etc. Let us return to the move 19…Bg5?.
20.f4! exf4 21.gxf4 Bh4+ 22.Kf1!
22.Kd2? is bad; the simplest reply is 22…Rg8, transferring the rook to g7
and securely defending the h7-point.
22…f5?
Like 18…Bxh4?, this move is also made in nine games out of ten, but the
computer shows that after it, White’s advantage is already more than three
pawns. In other words, now we can speak of a forced win for White, though
it is admittedly not a very easy one. If before this move we can still find
games of good players that indicate serious errors in the main line after 17…
g6, then in the position in the diagram we are unable to discover one.
Nevertheless, Black still had a glimmer of hope of escaping after 22…
g5!. The main variation of the analysis is: 23.b4!N f6! 24.b5! Ne7 25.Ng2!
Ng6 26.Nxh4 Nxh4 27.Rf2, and while White’s pressure is very serious, he
does not have a forced win.
23.b4!
Much weaker is 23.b3?, transposing to the variation 16.b3. This position
will be examined in chapter 196.
23…fxe4 24.Rah2 g5
25.Ke2!
A move of terrible strength. For a comparatively long time 25.b5 has
almost invariably been played, but it only leads to an equal game. Then there
usually followed 25…Ne5 26.Qd4 Rb7 27.Rxh4 gxh4 28.Ke2.
Now Black has several choices:

(a) In the rapid game Kramnik-van Wely, Monte Carlo 2005, Black chose
incorrectly, and after 28…Re8? 29.fxe5 Rxe5, White could have obtained a
very serious advantage with 30.b6!N.
(b) The variation 28…Rg7! 29.fxe5 h3 leads to a transposition of moves.
(c) In several correspondence games there has occurred 28…h3! 29.fxe5
Rg7 30.Nf6 dxe5! 31.Qxd8 Rxd8 32.Bd5 a4 33.c4 a3 34.Nxe4 a2 35.Ra1 h2
36.Nf2 Ra7 37.Nf1, and after 37…Rxd5 38.cxd5 Bb7, a draw was not long in
coming. After 25.Ke2!, Black’s position is hopeless. Then possible is…
25…Rf7 26.b5 Qf8 27.bxc6 Rb2+ 28.Kf1 Rxf4+ 29.Kg1 Bf2+ 30.Rxf2
Rfxf2 31.Qd4+ Qg7 32.Qxe4 Rf7 33.Bd3 Rd2
This move occurs almost in every game. Slightly more stubborn is 33…
a4, on which White should reply 34.c7!N.
Then in Glazman-Bennborn, corr 2007, there followed 34.c7 h6 35.Rh5
a4 36.Ng4 Rd1+ 37.Kg2 Rxd3 38.Nxh6 Rd2+ 39.Kg3 Qe5+ 40.Qxe5+
dxe5 41.Nxf7+ Kg7 42.Rh8 Rd3+ 43.Kf2 Bf5 44.Nd6 Bg4 45.Rd8 Rxd5
46.Ne8+ Kf7 47.Rxd5 and Black resigned.
Chapter 186
16.Ra2 Kh8 17.Nce3 Ne7
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.Ra2 Kh8 17.Nce3 Ne7!?
An accurate move. Black intends to exchange the d5-knight to deflect the

other white knight on e3 from controlling the f5-point and to make possible
the advance f7-f5.
18.0-0
This is the usual move. Now the move 18.h4?! is pointless. After 18…
Bxe3 19.Nxe3 Bb7! 20.Bd3!?N (this is more interesting than the usual
20.Bd5 Nxd5 21.Nxd5, for example, 21…Bc6!?N 22.b3 h6 23.c4 a4 24.b4
Bxd5 25.cxd5 Rxb4 26.Rxa4 Rb2, and Black has a small advantage), there
may follow 20…f5! (20…d5 is less clear because of 21.0-0 dxe4 22.Be2!)
21.exf5 e4 22.Be2 Nxf5 23.Nxf5 Rxf5 24.0-0 Bd5! 25.c4 Bg8 26.h5 d5!?
27.h6 dxc4 28.hxg7+ Kxg7, and Black has a small advantage.
After 18.Nxe7+ Qxe7 19.Nd5 Qd8 (19…Qe6!?N is not bad), useless is
20.h4 (more accurate is 20.0-0!, which, with a transposition of moves, leads
to the main variation) because of 20…Bh6. For example, in Glazman-Bubir,
corr 2009, there followed 21.Qe2 Be6 22.Ra1 Rc8 23.g3 f5 24.exf5 Rxf5
25.0-0 Rf8 26.Nb6 d5 27.Nxc8 dxc4 28.Na7 Qd5 29.f4 Qb7 30.Rf2 Qxa7
31.Qxe5 Qd7 32.Rxa5, and the opponents agreed
18…Nxd5
Here Black has a good opportunity to reach the main variation of the next
chapter (with a transposition of moves) through 18…Bxe3!? 19.Nxe3.
19.Nxd5 f5 20.exf5 Bxf5 21.Qe2!?
White’s advantage is roughly the same after 21.b3!?, transposing to the
variation 16.b3.
21…Be6
On the rare 21…Bd7, it is best for White to reply 22.b3!, after which the
game, with a transposition of moves, reaches a position we have examined in
the last two chapters.
22.Rd1
On 22.Kh1, Black should not take on d5, as he has done in both currently
known games. Correct is 22…Rc8!N, intending to transfer his rook to c5. For
example, on 23.Rd1!?, Black may exercise caution and play 23…Bg8!? first
(the immediate 23…Rc5 may well run into the unpleasant retort 24.Nb6!? d5
25.b4 Qxb6 26.bxc5 Qxc5 27.Bb3 e4 28.c4). Now possible is 24.b3 Rc5, and
it is difficult for White to improve his position.
22.Rfa1 also falls short of its goal because of 22…Bh4!N, for example,
23.g3 Qc8! 24.Rxa5 (24.gxh4 is met with 24…Bg4) 24…Bg4 25.Qe4 Bd8
26.Rb5 Rxb5 27.Bxb5 Bf3 28.Qc4 Qb7 29.Ne3 Bg5 30.b4 Bxe3 31.fxe3 h5,
and Black has strong counterplay.
22…Rc8 (D)
The position in the diagram occurred in the game Tseshkovsky-Vukic,
Banja Luka 1981 (by the way, it was the first game ever with the move
17.Nce3!). White has a small advantage. Black is deprived of active play and
all that is left for him to do is wait for White’s actions. Now the more precise
move would be 23.b3!, reaching a position from penultimate chapter. White
chooses another plan.
23.Ra3 Rc6
A careless move. More accurate is 23…h6!?N, retaining the possibility of
meeting 24.Ba2 with 24…Rb8. Now in the game there followed:
24.Ba2! Rc8
With his last move, White creates a threat of 25.b4!, and if 25…axb4?,
then 26.Nxb4, and the c6-rook is under attack.
25.Ne3
The second idea of the move 24.Ba2 is to exchange light-square bishops.
25.c4!?N with the idea of Nc3-e4 looks strong.
25…Bxa2?!
Black’s play seems to lack willpower. He could have left the bishops on
the board with the move 25…Bd7!N.
26.Rxa2 Bxe3 27.Qxe3 Rc5?
This is an error, but White has the upper hand even after the best move,
27…h6.
28.Qxc5 dxc5 29.Rxd8 Rxd8 30.Kf1 and the endgame is clearly better
for White. 30.g3!N was even stronger.
Chapter 187
16.Ra2 Kh8 17.Nce3 Bxe3
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.Ra2 Kh8 17.Nce3 Bxe3!
I believe that taking the knight on e3 is the most solid weapon against the
unpleasant move 17.Nce3. By playing in this fashion, Black trades off his
dark-square bishop, which, as we have seen in the previous chapter, is no
more than a passive onlooker in the struggle for the key point d5.
18.Nxe3 Ne7 19.0-0
19.b3 f5 20.exf5 Nxf5 21.Nd5 (or 21.Nxf5 Bxf5 22.0-0) 21…Bb7 22.0-0
(Karjakin-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2006) leads, with a transposition of moves,
to positions we are going to examine below.
19…f5 20.exf5 Nxf5
20…Bxf5?! is not so good, as after 21.b3, there arises a position from the
main variation of chapter 197.
21.Nxf5!?
White’s small advantage vanishes after 21.Nd5 Bb7! (21…Ne7?! is
slightly worse). Usually there follows 22.b3 and, with a transposition of
moves, there arises a position from the game Karjakin-Topalov that we have
previously examined. In that game there followed 22…Rc8 23.Qd3 Nh4?! (I
would like to remark that since then about twenty correspondence game have
been played in which Black moved 23…Rc5!, maintaining equality) 24.Rd1
h6 25.Qg3?! (White once again throws away his small advantage; better is
25.h3!?N) 25…Nf5 26.Qg4 Rc5?! (and now 26…Bxd5!N 27.Rxd5 Ne7
28.Rdxa5 d5 leads to an equal game) 27.Rad2 (probably slightly better is
27.b4!?N, and after 27…axb4 28.cxb4 Rc8 29.Ra7, White stands slightly
better) 27…Bc8 28.Qe4 Bb7 29.h3, and White has a minimal advantage.
White retains his small advantage after 21.Bd5!?. (D)
(a) In Balabaev-Valent, corr 2006, there was 21…Nxe3 22.fxe3 Rxf1+

23.Qxf1 Bb7 24.Bxb7 Rxb7 25.Qa6 Rb8 26.Qxa5 Qh4 27.Ra1 h5 28.Qa3
Qe4 29.c4 Rb6 30.h3 Rc6 31.Kh2 Kh7 32.Qa7, and White has a small
advantage.
(b) Playable is 21…Qc7 22.Nxf5!? (or 22.Qd3 Nxe3 23.Qxe3 Bb7!?N,

for example, 24.Qa7 Rfc8 25.Qxa5 Qxa5 26.Rxa5 Bxd5 27.Rxd5 Rxb2
28.Rxd6 h6, and a drawn rook endgame – “three pawns against two on the
same flank” – is reached) 22…Bxf5 23.Qd2 or 23.c4!?N with a small
advantage.
21…Bxf5
In this position the most common White move is surely…
22.b3
He can prevent Black’s bishop from appearing on the long diagonal:
22.Bd5!. Then in the correspondence game Plomp-Nickel, 2007, there
followed 22…Qb6 23.b3 Rf6 24.Qd2 Be6 25.Bxe6 (25.Rb1!?N is not
successful: 25…Bxd5 26.Qxd5 Rbf8 27.Qxa5 Qxa5 28.Rxa5 Rxf2 29.Rd5
Rc2! 30.Rxd6 Rxc3 31.b4 e4 32.Re6 e3 33.b5 Kg8, and Black equalizes)
25…Rxe6 26.Ra3 e4 27.Qe3 Kg8, and the game was drawn.
22…Be4 23.Bd5 Bxd5 24.Qxd5 Qc7
Now White is at a crossroads.
In the game Carlsen-van Wely, Schagen 2006, there followed…

25.Rxa5
25.Qxa5 Qxa5 26.Rxa5 Rxb3 27.Rd5 Rf6 28.Rfd1 Kg8 29.f3 Rxc3
30.Rxd6 Rxd6 31.Rxd6 Kf7 leads to complete equality, and in the game
Ninov-Spasov, Bankja 2011, the opponents agreed to a draw. The variation
25.c4 Rxb3 26.c5 Rb5 27.cxd6 Rxd5 28.dxc7 Rc5 29.Rfa1 Rxc7 30.Rxa5 e4
31.Ra8 Kg8 also brings nothing tangible.
25…Rxb3 26.c4 h6 27.Ra6 Rb6 28.Rfa1 Qb8 29.h3 Rxa6 30.Rxa6
Qb2 31.f3 Qc1+ 32.Kf2 Rb8 33.Ra8 Qc2 34.Kg3 Qg6+ 35.Kh2 Rxa8
36.Qxa8+ and soon a draw was agreed.
As we can see, the continuation 17…Bxe3 is a reliable counter to the plan
with 16.Ra2 and 17.Nce3.
Chapter 188
16.b3 Kh8 without 17.0-0 or 17.Nce3
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3
This continuation has been the main one from the beginning of the
development of the variation, and it remains the same now.
16…Kh8
This is absolutely the main continuation, although other moves occur as
well. 16…g6, Nisipeanu-Carlsen, Skanderborg 2005, seems a bit premature.
The whole point is that after 17.Nce3!? (in the game there was 17.0-0 Kh8,
and the game transposed to a position that we are going to examine in the
next two chapters) Black can hardly think of a better move than 17…Kh8,
and then the game transposes to a variation favorable for White which we
will explore in chapters 194-196, where White has the strong continuation
18.h4!.
Sveshnikov’s ancient move 16…Be6 also failed to find adherents among
strong players. After the simple 17.0-0, Black sooner or later will have to
play Kg8-h8 anyway, because on 17…g6 18.Nce3 f5?! there follows the
standard reply 19.exf5 gxf5 20.f4!, and White has a solid advantage; and after
18…Kh8 the game reaches positions which we are going to investigate in the
following chapters.
17.Qe2
With this move White provokes his opponent to choose the natural-
looking continuation f7-f5, after which interesting complications may arise.
In chapters 189-193 we will examine the move 17.0-0; as for the main
continuation 17.Nce3!, it will be explored in the final chapters of the book.
The move 17.h4 is quite popular among players who are not very strong,
but occasionally experienced grandmasters also play in this fashion.
After the usual 17…Bh6, possible is 18.Nce3!? (18.g4 Bf4 19.Nce3 takes
White nowhere because of 19…Ne7!. Then in Krüger-Moucka, corr 2004,
there followed 20.Nxe7 Qxe7 21.Nf5 Qd8 22.Qxd6 Bxf5 23.Qxd8 Rbxd8
24.gxf5 Bd2+ 25.Ke2 Bxc3 26.h5 Rd2+ 27.Ke3, and the game was drawn.)
18…Bxe3 19.Nxe3 Ne7 20.0-0 f5 21.exf5 Nxf5 (quite playable is 21…Bxf5
as in Sanchez-Tregubov, Paris 2004) 22.Nxf5 Bxf5 23.Qd5 Bg6 24.Qxa5 (on
24.g3 possible is 24…Be8, as Filippov played against Onischuk, Batumi
1999, but 24…Bf7!N is even stronger, for example, 25.Qxa5 d5 26.Bb5 Qf6!,
planning Bg6 or Be6, and in view of the awkward placement of the white
pieces on the queenside, Black has full compensation for his pawn) 24…
Qxh4 25.Qa7! Qg5 26.Qe3 Qxe3 27.fxe3 Rxf1+ 28.Kxf1 Be4!.
In the resulting ending White’s advantage is quite slight. In Hoios-Toro,
corr 2008, after 29.Be6 d5 30.b4 g6 31.Bd7 Bc2 32.Ra7 d4 33.cxd4 exd4
34.exd4 Rxb4 35.d5 Rd4 36.Be6 Bb3 37.Kf2 Rd2+ 38.Ke3, the opponents
agreed to a draw. Let us return to the move 17.Qe2.
17…f5!
As the complications which may arise after this move lead to equal play,
there is no point for Black to reject it. Both 17…Bd7 (Leko against Ivanchuk
in the blindfold game, Monte Carlo 2004) and 17…Ne7 (Nisipeanu-
Ponomariov, Vitoria Gasteiz 2007) failed to equalize.
18.h4
This is exactly White’s idea, but 18.exf5! is objectively stronger, for
example, 18…Bxf5 19.0-0, and the game transposes to positions from the
continuation 17.0-0.
18…Bf6
This move occurs in the overwhelming majority of games. Slightly
weaker is 18…Be7. After 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.Nce3 Be6, in the game
Iordachesku-Malakhatko, Ohrid 2001, White could have obtained a small
advantage by 21.Nxe7!N Qxe7 22.0-0. But the move that is worth the most
serious attention is 18…Bh6!?. It inspires White to heroism: 19.exf5 Bxf5
20.g4.
According to the official theory, this position is bad for Black, but we will
drill down deeper and infuse life into it. Before that there occurred only 20…
Bxc2?, and after 21.Qxc2, Black actually faced great problems, for example,
21…Bf4?! 22.Qe4! Qd7 23.Bd3 g6 24.Rc4!!N Nd8 25.Rc7 Qxg4 26.h5, and
White wins. More stubborn is 21…g6N.
I suggest the move 20…Bd7!N. Then there may follow 21.g5 Nd4!
22.cxd4 Bxa4 23.Qe3 (23.Qd3 e4! 24.Qe3 Bxb3 25.Bxb3 Rf3 also leads to an
equal game) 23…Bb5! 24.Kd2! Qc8 25.Qe2 a4 26.Bxb5 Rxb5 27.Qxb5 Rxf2
28.Ke3! Rxc2 29.dxe5! (as can be easily verified, 29.gxh6?? loses to 29…
exd4+), and in this position, 29…Rb2 30.b4 Rb3+ 31.Kd2 Rb2+, etc., is
sufficient for a draw.
19.exf5 Bxf5 20.Nce3 Bd7 21.Qc2
21.Bd3 also to equal play. For example, in the game Polgar-Kramnik,
Wijk aan Zee 2005, there followed 21…Ne7 22.Nxe7 Qxe7 23.Nd5 Qf7
24.Rxa5 Bd8?!, and after 25.Ra7 Qxd5 26.Rxd7 Rxb3 27.Qg4 Bf6 28.Qf5
Qg8 29.0-0 Rxc3 30.Rxd6 Bxh4 31.Qxe5 Bxf2 32.Rxf2 Rc1+ 33.Kh2 Rxf2
34.Rh6 Rcf1 35.Rxh7+ Qxh7 36.Bxh7 Kxh7, Black even obtained the moral
advantage.
But White committed a couple of inaccuracies. Instead of 31.Qxe5, more
accurate is 31.Qh5!N. Instead of 27.Qg4, White can retain a small advantage
with the move 27.0-0!N. In his turn, Black also could play a little stronger –
26…Qxb3!N instead of 26…Rxb3 (however, that still does not allow him to
equalize).
Instead of 24…Bd8?!, Black should have played 24…Ra8!N. Then there
may follow 25.Qe4! Bf5! 26.Rxa8! (26.Qxf5?! g6) 26…Bxe4 27.Rxf8+ Qxf8
28.Bxe4 Qa8 29.Ke2 Bd8 30.Kf3 Qa7 31.g3 Bb6 32.Kg2 Qa6 with equal
play.
21…Ne7!
Slightly weaker is the shot 21…e4. Then in Ivanchuk-Shirov, Izmir 2004,
there followed 22.Qxe4 Ne5 23.Ra3! Nxc4 24.Qxc4 Be5 25.Qd3 (25.Qe2!?
N) 25…Bb5 26.Qd2 Rb7?! (26…Bc6!N leads to equality) 27.g3 (why not
immediately 27.c4!N Bc6 28.Qxa5? (the question mark has no bearing on the
move itself)) 27…Rf3 28.c4 Bc6 29.Qxa5 Qxa5+?! (better is 29…Qe8!N, for
example, 30.0-0 Bxg3 31.fxg3 Rxe3 with equal play) 30.Rxa5 Rxb3 31.0-0,
and White retains his extra pawn. 21…Nd4!?N 22.cxd4 exd4, etc., is worth
attention.
22.Ra2 Nxd5!
In Nisipeanu-Volzhin, Dubai 2002, after 22…Bc6 23.Qe4 Nxd5 24.Nxd5
Bxd5 25.Bxd5 Qc7 26.Bc4 Bd8 27.g3, the opponents agreed to a draw, but
White’s position looks distinctly more pleasant.
23.Nxd5
23.Bxd5 brings no advantage either, for example, 23…Qb6 24.g3 Qb5
25.Bc4 Qc5, etc. And if the knight takes on d5, then Black is able to equalize
by various means. I can recommend 23…Be8N, 23…Rc8N or 23…a4!?N.
The pawn on h4 clearly spoils White’s position.
Chapter 189
16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 g6 without 18.Qd3 or 17…f5
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0
For the moment, this continuation is the most popular, but it seems that
the move 17.Nce3!, creating slightly more problems for Black, is going to
take the lead soon. We will examine it in chapters 194-200.
17…g6
This move occurs rather often. Its idea is to take on f5 with pawn after f7-
f5, keeping control over the e4-square, retaining the mobile pawn pair e5-f5
and opening the g-file. From all that, it already follows that White should not
comply with his opponent’s plans and take on f5, so he is better to keep his
pawn on e4. However, in practice, White does not follow this advice in the
majority of games. We are going to examine main continuation 17…f5! in
chapters 191-193.
In Topalov-Kasparov, Leon 1998 (it was a match in which the
participants were allowed to employ the powerful engine available) there was
17…Bd7. White’s reply was not the strongest – 18.Qd3?!.
I think that more precise is 18.Ra2!?, in order, after 18…f5 19.exf5 Bxf5
20.Nce3, to obtain a position that differs from the well-known one only in
that the rook is on a2 instead of a4, which is rather in White’s favor. Another
good continuation would be 18.Nce3!?, and after 18…g6, there may arise a
position from the 17.Nce3 variation that is also favorable for White.
In the game there followed 18…f5 19.Ra2, and here Black, after 19…
fxe4 20.Qxe4 Bf5 21.Qe2, again has an opportunity to obtain a position that
differs from the well-known one only in that the rook is on a2 instead of a4,
which, as already noted, is in White’s favor (in the game there was 19…g6).
In the position in the diagram, a modern computer suggests another
playable line: 18…Ne7!?N19.Ra2 Nxd5 20.Qxd5 Be6 21.Qxa5 Qxa5
22.Rxa5 Bxc4 23.bxc4 Bd2! 24.Rd5 Bxc3 25.Rxd6 Rfc8 26.Ne3 Bd4 with
almost full equality. Let us return to the move 17…g6.
18.Qe2
We will explore the continuation 18.Qd3!? in the next chapter. In the
position in the diagram White has other options as well.
(a) The opportunity of transposing to the position from chapter 194 (with
a transposition of moves) by means of 18.Nce3!? does not look bad, and this
is also weighs against the move 17…g6.
(b) 18.b4 is hardly promising for White. Then in the game Nisipeanu-
Carlsen, Skanderborg 2005, there followed 18…Bd7! 19.b5 (I think that the
only way for White to fight for an advantage is 19.Ra2!) 19…Na7 20.Qa1
Qc8 21.Bd3?! (21.Nce3N leads to an equal game).
Black played 21…Nxb5?!, and after 22.Rxa5 Nc7 23.Nxc7 Qxc7, the
game was quickly drawn. Both players seem to miss 21…Bxb5!N, for
example, 22.Bxb5 Nxb5 23.Rxa5 Bd2!, and White loses a pawn. As we can
see, the idea of hitting the c3-pawn with the bishop on d2 turns out to be quite
efficient; and the same goes for the variation from the game Topalov-
Kasparov.
(c) In Polgar-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 1998, White chose a cunning move
18.Kh1!?. Then there followed 18…Bh6 (of course, Black would love to play
18…f5, but after 19.exf5 gxf5 20.f4!, White’s advantage only increases, and
taking on f5 with bishop looks rather odd in combination with the move g7-
g6) 19.Qe2 (also good is 19.Nce3!?) 19…Bd7 20.Raa1 (20.Ra2!?) 20…f5
21.exf5 gxf5 22.f4!? (another strong move is 22.f3!?N) 22…Bg7 (on 22…
Qh4, recommended by Kramnik, there is a good reply 23.Qd2!?N, for
example, 23…exf4 24.Nxf4 Ne5 25.Qd4!, etc.). In this position, White has
different ways to retain his small advantage, for example, 23.Qh5!?N (in the
game there was 23.Rad1?! Ne7! with equal play). Let us return to the move
18.Qe2.
18…f5
Delaying f7-f5 is pointless for Black, since capturing on f5 is hardly
advantageous for White.
19.exf5
This move occurs in the majority of games. As already noted, this capture
cannot be recommended. I believe that a novelty for Black on move 20 will
clearly demonstrate the drawbacks of taking on f5. I would advise playing
either 19.Rd1!? or 19.Ra2!?. In both cases, after 19…fxe4 20.Qxe4, the game
may transpose to a position from the variation 18.Qd3, which we are going to
examine in the next chapter, and in both cases, White has a small but
indisputable advantage.
19…gxf5 20.Rd1
20.f4 does not bring any advantage: Black should reply with 20…exf4!N
(the well-known 20…Bh6 is slightly weaker). White’s problem is that the
natural-looking 21.Nxf4?! runs into 21…Bxf4! 22.Rxf4 d5, and if 23.Nd4?!,
then 23…Re8! 24.Nxc6 Rxe2 25.Nxd8 dxc4 26.Raxc4 Ba6, and Black has
the initiative.
Objectively, both 20.Rfa1!? and 20.Raa1!?N are slightly stronger.
20…Rb7!
A novelty, and a rather important one at that, because other moves do not
equalize. A possible course now is…
21.b4 Rg7 22.b5
22.Bb5 is no better because of 22…Ne7!, for example, 23.Nxe7 Bxe7
24.Rxa5 Bb7 25.Ne1 f4 26.f3 Qc8! (or 26…Qc7!?, or 26…Bh4!?), etc.
22…Nb8 23.Rda1 f4 24.Ne1!?
24.Rxa5? is sure to run into 24…f3! with a great advantage for Black.
24…Bb7 25.Rxa5 Qc8 26.Ra7 Bd8 27.b6 Qc6 Black has full
Chapter 190
16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 g6 18.Qd3
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 g6 18.Qd3!?
This is the most popular move among strong players. It is clear that, while
choosing this continuation, White does not intend to take on f5 after f7-f5.
18…f5
It is hardly makes sense for Black to play 18…Bd7, though even strong
players are known to have made this move in several games. Then possible is
19.Ra2 (the immediate attack against the d6-pawn by 19.Nde3!?N is worth
serious attention. In the game Ye-Filippov, Elista 1998, there was 19.Raa1 f5
20.Rfd1 Bh6 21.f3 Qh4 22.Nde3 fxe4 23.fxe4 Rf6 24.Rf1 Rbf8? 25.Rxf6
Rxf6 26.g3! Qg5 27.Qd5, and White obtained a solid advantage. Instead of
24…Rbf8?, Black should have played 24…Bf4!N, for example, 25.g3 Bxg3
26.hxg3 Qxg3+ 27.Ng2 Qxd3 28.Bxd3 Rxf1+ 29.Bxf1 Rxb3, and White has
only a small edge) 19…f5.
This position arose in two games of the match Topalov-Kasparov, Leon
1998 (the opponents were allowed to use computers). Then there followed
20.f3?! (better is 20.Nce3!, obtaining, with a transposition of moves, a
position from the game Anand-Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2007, that we have
studied in chapter 182. The move 20.Rd1! is also better) 20…Bh6 (Black
probably wanted to maintain the tension, but objectively it is better to play
20…fxe4!N, for example, 21.fxe4 Rxf1+ 22.Qxf1 Ne7! 23.Nce3 Bc6 with
practically full equality, or 21.Qxe4 Ne7 22.Nxe7 Bxe7 23.Ne3 a4! with
equal play) 21.Rd1 Qh4.
At first in this position the move 22.Nde3!? was tested. Then there
followed 22…Rf6 23.Bd5 Rbf8?! (more precise is 23…fxe4!N, for example,
24.Bxe4 Rxb3 25.Bxc6 Bxc6 26.Ng4! a4! 27.g3 Qg5 28.Nxf6 Qxf6 29.f4!
Bf8 30.Nb4 Bd7, and White’s advantage is not so great after all) 24.Nf1?!
(after 24.Qe2!N or 24.Qc4!N, White’s advantage would be more serious)
24…Ne7 25.Nce3 Nxd5 26.Nxd5 fxe4 27.Qxe4 Qxe4 28.fxe4 R6f7 29.Rxa5,
and White has a small edge. In the playoff blitz game White played 22.Nce3;
nd this position has already been examined in chapter 182. Let us return to
the move 18…f5.
19.Rd1
This move is the most popular one. 19.Raa1 is no better because of 19…
fxe4 20.Qxe4 Bb7!N, for example, 21.Qe2 Ne7 22.Nce3 Bxe3 23.Nxe3 Qc7,
etc. Analysis shows that 19.Rfa1!? is also worth consideration.
19…Bh4!?
In my opinion, this is slightly better than usual 19…Bh6. After 20.Nde3!
(to prevent the black queen from getting to h4, for example, after 20.Nce3
Bd7 21.Ra2 Qh4, as has occurred (with transposition of moves) in the game
Anand-Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2007, see chapter 182) 20…Rf6 21.Ra2!?
(21.f3?! Ne7! 22.Rda1 Bb7 23.Rxa5 fxe4 24.fxe4 Rf4 25.Bd5 Bxd5 26.Nxd5
Nxd5 27.Rxd5 Qb6 28.Kh1 Qxb3, Bologan-Degraeve, Belfort 1998, leads to
an equal game. 21.Qe2!?N Bd7 22.Ra2, is a transposition of moves) 21…Bd7
22.Qe2!N; I do not see any useful move for Black.
After 22…fxe4 23.Nd5 Rf8 24.Qxe4 Bf5 25.Qe2 (or even 25.Qe1!?N),
there arises a standard position that is favorable for White – exactly the one
that Black wished to avoid when making the move 17…g6. (D)
20.f3
Also playable is 20.g3, for example, 20…Bg5 21.Ra2!?N with a small
advantage for White. After 21.b4?!, possible is 21…Bd7 (Bologan-Belikov,
Sevastopol 1997), but 21…fxe4!N 22.Qxe4 Bf5 23.Qe2 Qd7! 24.Rda1 Bg4
25.Qe1 axb4 26.cxb4 Bf5!, with excellent play for Black, looks even better.
20…Ne7!?
Now in Bascetta-Dambrauskas, corr 2002, there followed…
21.Nxe7
21.Nce3!?N looks slightly better, for example, 21…Nxd5 22.Nxd5 fxe4
23.Qxe4 Bd7 24.Ra2, retaining his small advantage.
21…Bxe7 22.Ne3 fxe4 23.fxe4 Bg5 24.Nd5 Be6 25.Rda1 Bxd5 26.Bxd5
Qb6+ 27.Kh1 Qe3 28.Qxe3 Bxe3 29.Rxa5 Bd2 30.R5a2 Bxc3 31.Rc1 Bd4
32.g3 Bc5 33.Kg2 Kg7 34.Rcc2 and the opponents agreed to a draw.
Chapter 191
16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 without 19…Bg6
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 f5!? (D)
According to databases, this move first occurred in the game Geller-
Sveshnikov, 1978. Actually it was first employed in Zhelyandinov-
Timoshchenko, Leningrad 1974 (game 30 in the beginning of the
book). As for the plan with f7-f5 itself, I have carried it out in a similar
position even earlier, in the game Fichtl-Timoshchenko, Stary Smokovec
1972 (this game is already included in databases; I mentioned it in chapter
175).
If you ask me, the continuation 17…f5!? looks more natural than 17…g6
and leads to positions where Black has slightly less problems in comparison
with 17…g6.
18.exf5
18.f3 does not bring any advantage. Then in Bologan-Nataf, Moscow
2001, there followed 19…fxe4 (no weaker is 18…Ne7!?) 19.fxe4 Rxf1+
20.Qxf1 Be6 (also good is 20…Ne7!?) 21.b4 axb4 22.Ndxb4?! (better is
22.Ncxb4 with equal play) 22…Bxc4 23.Qxc4 Nxb4 24.Nxb4? (it was
necessary to play 24.Rxb4) 24…Be3+ 25.Kh1 Qh4! 26.Qe2, and here Black
should have chosen 26…Bf4! with a serious advantage.
In Ivanchuk-Johannessen, Saint Vincent 2005, White played 18.Re1, but
after 18…fxe4 19.Rxe4 Bf5 20.Re2, Black had the good opportunity to play
20…Bg4!, for example, 21.f3 Bh5 22.Kh1!?N Ne7 23.Nxe7 Bxe7 with
roughly equal play.
18…Bxf5
19.Nce3
Occasionally White tries to do without this natural move and leaves the
knight on c2 for the time being. His idea is to wait for e5-e4, after which the
knight would be able to occupy the comfortable d4-square. For example, the
game Ivanchuk-Kramnik, Monte Carlo 2005, developed in the following
fashion: 19.Qe2 Bg6 (after both 19…Be6 20.Nce3 and 19…Qd7 20.Nce3
Be6, the game may come down to the positions we are going to examine
below) 20.Rd1 Qc8!? (the move 20…e4?! made by Carlsen in the rapid game
against Ivanchuk in 2007, is dubious. After 21.Nd4 Nxd4 22.Rxd4 Rb7
23.Qe1 Rbf7 24.Ra2, White’s chances are better) 21.Nce3 e4! 22.Bb5. Here
Black was able to obtain equal play after 22…Bxe3!N (in the game there was
22…Ne5?!), for example, 23.Nxe3 Ne5 24.Bc4!? Nd3! 25.Bxd3 exd3 26.Qb2
Qb7, etc.
19…Be6
This continuation will be the main subject of this chapter. In the
beginning of the development of this line, the retreat on e6 was popular, but
then the approach changed, and now almost everyone prefers the continuation
19…Bg6 that we are going to explore in the next two chapters. Why did it
happen? Frankly speaking, I can see no chess-related reasons, as both moves
are absolutely equal in strength. I can only assume that second players remain
unaware of the existence of two important improvements for Black in the
main line. Arm yourself with patience, I will tell you about them soon
enough.
20.Qd3
This move occurs in almost every game. Obviously, it is logical to
occupy the d3-square that is not controlled by the black bishop any more.
Historically, in the first game with the move 17…f5, Zhelyandiniv-
Timoshchenko, Leningrad 1974, White’s play was not confident: 20.Ra3 Qd7
21.Bd3?! Bxe3 22.Nxe3 d5 23.Bc2 Rbd8, and Black has a small advantage.
You can find this game with detailed comments in game 30.
The position after 20.Qe2 Qd7, with a transposition of moves, arose in the
game Isupov-Timoshchenko, Krasnodar 1978. Then there followed 21.Rd1
Qf7 22.Ra2 e4! (Sveshnikov in his book is harsh on this move and puts a
question mark on it) 23.Nf1 Ne5! 24.Qxe4 a4! 25.bxa4??. In Sveshnikov’s
opinion, Black’s position is bad, and in several moves White obtains
“decisive material gains.” Well, if we take a little time to think this over, we
will find that after 25…Nxc4!N 26.Qxc4 Rb1!! it is Black who obtains
decisive material gains. You can find this game with detailed comments in
game 40.
20…Qd721.Rd1
On 21.Bb5 correct is 21…Qb7!. On 21.Ra2!?, Black usually plays 21…
Qf7 (I like the move 21…Bf7!? better, e.g., 22.Rd1 Bh5 23.Rda1 Bg6). For
example, in the game Krasenkow-Kalinitschew, Tbilisi 1985, there followed
22.Qe4 Qb7 23.Rd1 Bd8!? (in Sveshnikov’s opinion, this move is dubious)
24.Nb6 Rf4 25.Qd3 Bxb6 26.Bxe6 Bc5 27.Bd5.
Sveshnikov holds that “Black has not solved all his problems.” Certainly,
if we reason on the level of lofty matters, a human being is never able to
solve every problem, and this is good because it is the main motivation for
progress. But if we speak of the position on the board, then White’s
advantage is quite small after 27…Qc7!, which move had been pointed out as
early as thirty years ago by Krasenkow (I must note that in the game Black
misplayed with 27…Qb6?, after which White could have obtained a large
advantage with the move 28.b4!N).
21…Qf7
The queen move is highly popular, but 21…Bf7!?, with the idea of Bh5
and Bg6 is also good.
22.Ra2!?
Black has a hard time playing against the move 22.f3 which occurs rather
frequently. In any case, in practice he has certain issues with this
continuation. (D)
I think that here he has only one way to equalize, and this is the move:
22…e4! (both 22…Rfd8?!, Semeniuk-Timoshchenko, Sverdlovsk 1978,
game
36, and 22…Bd8?!, Soloviev-Timoshchenko, Chita 1979, game 41, are
insufficient), and then 23.Qxe4 (23.fxe4? loses to 23…Qf2+ 24.Kh1 Ne5, for
example, 25.Qd4 Bxe3! 26.Qxe3 Ng4! 27.Qe2 Bxd5 28.Rxd5 Qf4 29.g3
Qc1+, or 25.Qe2!? Qxe2 26.Bxe2 Bxe3 27.Nxe3 Bxb3, etc.).
23…Rbe8!N (in the only game with 22…e4! there was 23…Rfe8?),
24.Qc2! (the only move that maintains the balance) 24…Ne5!. Now possible
is 25.Qf2!? Qb7 26.Rda1 (or 26.Rxa5 Bxe3 27.Nxe3 Bxc4 28.bxc4 Nxf3+
29.gxf3 Rxf3 30.Ra7! Qe4! 31.Rd4!) 26…Bg8! 27.Rxa5 Bxe3 28.Nxe3
Nxf3+ 29.gxf3 Rxf3 30.Qg2 Rexe3 31.Bxg8 Qb6! 32.Kh1 Qxa5 33.Rxa5
Re1+ 34.Qg1 Rxg1+ 35.Kxg1 Kxg8 36.Ra8+, etc.
Probably in view of the fact that official theory remains unaware of this
possibility for Black, the general evaluation of the move 19…Be6 is set too
low.
22…a4!
Weak is 22…Bxe3?!. In the game Iordachesku-Sveshnikov, Novgorod
1995, after 23.Qxe3 Bg4, the opponents agreed to a draw, even though
simple 24.f3N leaves White with the advantage.
In the overwhelming majority of games, Black plays 22…Qh5, after
which strong is 23.f3!. For example, in Almeida-Kazoks, corr 2000, there
followed 23…Bf7 (interesting is the variation 23…e4!?N 24.Qxe4 Rbe8
25.Ng4!? a4!? 26.Rxa4 Bd7 27.Qc2 Ne5 28.Nxe5 Bxa4 29.bxa4 Rxe5, and
White has a small advantage) 24.Qe2 Bg6 25.Ng4 (more precise is 25.h3!N,
to be able to meet 25…e4 with 26.f4!) 25…e4! 26.fxe4 Rfe8 27.Rf1 Bxe4
28.Ne5! Be3+! 29.Qxe3 Qxe5 30.Nc7, and after the correct move 30…
Re7!N, White’s advantage would be rather slight.
23.bxa4!
On 23.b4N, playable is 23…e4!? (the simple 23…Rbc8!? is also good)
24.Qxe4 Ne5 with even chances, for example, 25.Bd3 Qh5 26.Be2 Qf7
27.Bd3 with a repetition of moves. Note that 27.Bf1?? loses to 27…Bxe3
28.fxe3 Ng4!, and White is defenseless. For example, there is a threat of a
double capture on d5 followed by taking on f1 and the fork on e3. (D)
23…Na5!
This is the promised second novelty that can resurrect the lost popularity
of 19…Be6. The only game with 22…a4! that is known to me was played
in 2002 between the programs Shredder 6 and Chess Tiger 14.0. There Black
played 23…e4?! 24.Qxe4 Ne5, after which White could have retained an
advantage with 25.Bb5!N.
24.Bb5! Nb7!?
24…Nb3!?25.c4 Nc5 leads to the same position.
25.c4 Nc5 26.Qe2 e4!?
Also playable is 26…Qa7!? with the intention of doubling the rooks in
the f-file.
27.Ra3 Nd3 28.Raxd3 exd3 29.Rxd3 Qa7!
In this complex position White has a small advantage of roughly the same
order as after 19…Bg6. I hope that the two important novelties pointed out in
this chapter (22.f3 e4! 23.Qxe4 Rbe8! and 22.Ra2 a4! 23.bxa4 Na5!) will
help Black overcome the problems he has previously had in the 19…Be6
line.
Chapter 192
16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 Bg6 without 20.Qe2
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 Bg6 (D)
Currently this is the main continuation. Without doubt, before 1997, the
main move was the retreat to e6, but in 1998, two games on the highest level
were played: first Shirov-Kramnik, and then Leko-Gelfand. From that time,
the popularity of the retreat to g6 started growing rapidly. The benefit of the
move is that the bishop on g6 deprives the white
queen of the comfortable d3-square and supports the advance e5-e4. As for
its main drawback, it is the lack of both direct control of the d5-square and
the indirect pressure upon the b3-pawn (this pressure may become real once
the c4-bishop is exchanged).
20.Be2
This move is clearly not the strongest, but it occurred in both above-
mentioned games, so everybody started to repeat it just because Shirov and
Leko had played it. Now strong players practically never employ this move,
but it remains the most popular to this day, and because of that we are going
to devote a separate chapter to the move 20.Be2 to outline its drawbacks
better.
White plans a restructuring: to place his knight on c4 and, on occasion,
his bishop on f3. The only question is why does he need all this? In my
opinion, the best move for White is 20.Qe2!, and we are going to examine it
in the next chapter.
(a) 20.Bd3 leads to equal play. Then in Kasimdzhanov-Gelfand, Tashkent
2012, there followed 20…Bxd3 (20…Bf7 is slightly weaker) 21.Qxd3 Bxe3
22.fxe3 Rxf1+ 23.Qxf1 Rxb3 (after 23…h6?! 24.Qc4!, White has a small
edge) 24.Rc4 Rb5! 25.Nc7 Rb6 26.Nd5 Rb5 27.e4 Rc5 28.Rxc5 dxc5 29.Qf7
h6 30.Qe6 Qa8 31.Qd7 a4 32.Nb6 Qb8 33.Qxc6 a3 34.Qxc5 Qa7 35.Na4!
Qxa4 36.Qf8 Kh7 37.Qf5+, and soon the game ended in a draw.
(b) Lately strong players have often chosen the move 20.Re1 to vacate the
f1-square for the knight.
In Anand-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2005, Black played 20…Rb7, and then
21.Bd3?! resulted in a forced draw after 21…Bxd3 22.Qxd3 Bxe3 23.fxe3
Rxb3 24.Qc4 Rb2 25.Qxc6 Qg5 26.Nf4! exf4 27.Rxf4 Rfb8. However, White
could have played better – 21.Nf1! – with a small edge.
Black’s best answer is 20…e4!. In the overwhelming majority of games
White plays 21.Nf1 (21.Ng4!? seems slightly stronger, for example, 21…Qd7
22.Ra2, and White has a slight advantage), and then 21…Ne5 22.Ng3 e3! (in
Dominguez-Ramirez, Buenos Aires 2003, there was 22…Bh4 23.Nxe4 Bxe4
24.Rxe4 Bxf2+ 25.Kh1, and White has a very slight edge) 23.Nxe3 Bxe3
24.Rxe3 Nxc4 25.Rxc4 Bf7. Now it is best for White to withdraw to g4 with
his rook: 26.Rg4!, and after 26…Bxb3 27.Qd3 Rb7!, Black has excellent
play. Note that 27…a4? loses to 28.Rxg7! Kxg7 29.Nh5+ Kh6 30.Rh3.
(c) I have rather seriously analyzed the move 20.Qg4!? that exploits the
drawback of 19…Bg6, namely loss of control over the diagonal h3-c8. The
material is enough for a whole chapter, but still I could not find a solid
advantage for White. Because of this, at the last moment I decided to save the
space by limiting myself to the main variation of my analysis.
Here it is: 20…e4 21.h4! Bh6! (21…Bxh4 22.Nf4!) 22.Rfa1!?N, Rc8!
(White has created strong pressure, and it is no easy job for Black to find
moves) 23.Qh3 Be8! 24.Ba6!? (24.Ng4?! is poor because of 24…Ne5!
25.Rxa5 Bd7 26.Be2 Rc5! 27.Rxc5 dxc5 28.c4 Qc8! 29.f3 exf3 30.gxf3
Ng6!, and Black has a small advantage) 24…Rb8 25.Rxe4 Bg6! 26.Rc4! Ne5
27.Rca4 Rxb3 28.Rxa5 Rb2 29.Bb5 Bxe3 30.Qxe3 Bf7 31.Nb4 Qxh4, and
White failed to obtain anything real. Let us return to the move 20.Be2.
20…Bf7
The bishop returns to the a2-g8 diagonal. Weaker is 20…e4?! (Hübner-
Adorjan, Bad Lautenberg 1980, candidates’ match). After 21.b4 axb4
22.cxb4 Rb7?! (more precise is 22…Ne5!) 23.b5 Ne5 24.Qd4 Qd7? (better is
24…Qb8N). (D)
White could have obtained a great advantage with 25.h4!N (in the game
there was 25.b6?), for example, 25…Bxe3! (25…Bxh4? loses to 26.f4!, (a
beautiful example of the unusual “capture en passant”, when two pawns
disappear from the fourth
rank in one move, and the h4-bishop is lost) 26.fxe3! Rxf1+ 27.Bxf1, etc.
By the way, this is the very game in which the move 19…Bg6 first
occurred. Its baptism of fire has been clearly unsuccessful, and the move was
forgotten for another several years. Anyway, in the fundamental book by
Sveshnikov it is quoted with the only remark that Black should have played
22…Ne5; three other important mistakes (20…e4?!, 24…Qd7? and 25.b6?)
are left unnoticed.
21.Nc4
This seems to be the idea behind 20.Be2. This move has occurred in
roughly a hundred games, but it is clearly not the best. After it Black starts to
play for the advantage. 21.Bf3 does not bring any advantage, for example,
21…Bxe3 22.fxe3 Ne7!? (22…Bg8!?, played by Filippov in his game against
Stefansson, Halkidiki 2002 also leads to an equal game) 23.Be4 Bxd5
24.Rxf8+ Qxf8 25.Bxd5. As a result, everything centers around the d5-square
anyway, and in Zherebuch-Oleksienko, Budapest 2009, the opponents agreed
to a draw after 25…Qd8. The queen heads for b6. It looks like White should
have preferred 21.h3!?N, maintaining a solid position. But, to avoid the
worst, the bishop has to be returned to c4.
21…Bg8!?
After this calm retreat, Black has excellent play. The move 21…Nd4?!
that Kramnik had employed against Shirov in the rapid game played in
Monaco in 1998, did not find a lot of adherents. After 22.cxd4 Bxd5 23.dxe5
Bxc4?! (more accurate is 23…dxe5!, for example, 24.Nxa5 Rf4!, and White
has only a slight edge) 24.Bxc4 dxe5, White should have played 25.Qe1!,
retaining the advantage (in the game there was 25.Qe2).
21…e4 leads to an equal game. In practice White usually plays 22.Kh1?!;
then in Leko-Gelfand, Polanica Zdroj 1998, there followed 22…Bg8! 23.Ra3
Ne7 24.Nce3. Here Black should have probably preferred 24…Bxe3!
25.Nxe3 Qb6!N with a small advantage, but Gelfand chose 24…Nxd5, and
after 25.Nxd5 Rf5 26.c4 Bxd5 27.cxd5 Qb6, White, instead of 28.f3?!, could
play 28.Ra4!, and the game must end in a draw very soon.
Instead of 22.Kh1?!, White should reply 22.b4!. The game could continue
22…axb4 23.cxb4! (the more popular 23.Ra6? is weak because of 23…
Ne7!N, for example, 24.Rxd6?! b3! with a serious black advantage; more
stubborn is 24.Nxb4) 23…Bxd5 (also good is 23…Bg8!?N) 24.Qxd5 Nxb4
25.Qxd6 Qxd6 26.Nxd6 e3 27.fxe3 Bxe3+ 28.Kh1 Rxf1+ 29.Bxf1 with full
equality.
22.Bf3 Rb5! 23.Be4 Ne7!?
In Klovans-Nataf, Pardubice 2002, there was 23…Rc5 24.Qd3 Bxd5
25.Bxd5 e4!, and here White should have played 26.Qd1! with equality (in
the game, White’s position became bad after 26.Qxe4? Ne7!), for example,
26…Ne7 27.Be6 Rc6!N, etc. (27…Bf4?! 28.g3 Rf6, recommended by Nataf,
is weak because of 29.b4!N with an advantage for White). Black has
excellent play after 23…Qb8!?N.
24.Nxe7 Bxe7 25.Na3!
25.Bc2? is weak because of 25…Rc5!, e.g., 26.Qa1 d5!N 27.Nxa5 (or
27.Nxe5 Qc7) 27…Rc7!, and in this position, Black has an advantage
because of the poor placement of White pieces on the queenside.
25…Rc5 26.c4 d5
26…Qb6 is also not bad.
27.cxd5 Bxd5 28.h3
In Buczinski-Novak, corr 2006, after 28…Rf4 29.Re1, the chances were
completely even. I think that Black’s chances are slightly better after both
28…h6N and 28…Bh4N, but with several precise moves, White is sure to
fully equalize.
Chapter 193
16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 Bg6 20.Qe2
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.0-0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 Bg6
20.Qe2!
In my opinion, this is the best continuation, even though we will see that
is it does not bring great advantage to White. The number of games by strong
OTB players is regretfully small. However, the queen move to e2 is rather
popular among good correspondence players, particularly in recent years
when powerful computers have appeared, and this is an additional
recommendation in its favor.
20…e4
This move is made in the overwhelming majority of games. 20…Bf7 has
also occurred, and it allows 21.Nf5!N with the idea of transferring the knight
via g3 to e4. Then possible is 21…Qd7 (the tactical justification of the move
21.Nf5 is the variation 21…Bxd5 22.Bxd5 Rxf5 23.Bxc6 Rxb3?? 24.Qc2,
hitting both rooks simultaneously) 22.Ng3 Bd8 23.Ne4 Ne7 24.Qd3 Nxd5
25.Bxd5 Bg6 26.f3, and White has a small edge.
20…Qd7!? is quite solid. White is hard put to obtain more or less any real
advantage. For example, in Posokhov-Kryvoruchko, Alushta 2004, there was
21.Qg4 Qxg4 22.Nxg4 e4!? 23.Nc7?! (23.Nge3!N retains a certain
advantage) 23…Rfc8 24.Ne6 (it was better to return with 24.Nd5!) 24…Bd2!
25.Rd1 Bxc3, and it is already White who has to struggle for equality.
21.Nc2!?
(a) The old move 21.Qa2 does not bring any advantage for White. If this
is an attempt at tying the black knight to the defense of the a5-pawn as a
result of efforts of both white queen and rook, then the plan looks a bit odd.
Black has many fine continuations.
(1) The most popular Black’s reply is 21…Rb7, planning a rook transfer
to f7. But I think that Black’s last move is imprecise. Then in Kozirev-
Filippov, Omsk 1996, there followed 22.b4! axb4 23.cxb4 Ne5.
After 24.Ra7?! (throwing away a small advantage) 24…Rxa7 25.Qxa7

Bh5, White should have retained even chances with 26.Qa2 (in the game
there was 26.Ra1?!). Correct is 24.b5!N. If now Black continues, as per
Filippov’s plan, with 24…Bh5?!, then after 25.Be2!, White’s advantage
increases.
(2) I think that Black should have activated his bishop by 21…Bf7!N. If
now 22.b4?!, then 22…axb4, and after 23.Nxb4! Be8!, Black has a small
edge. And after 23.cxb4?! Ne5, White is even in worse shape.
(3) Also good is 21…Bh5!?N.
(b) The most popular move for Whie in the position after 20…e4 is
21.Rfa1!?.
21…Qc8! is a solid reply (21…Bf7!?N also looks fine. Slightly weaker is

the most popular move 21…Bh4 because of 22.g3! Bg5 23.h4!, e.g, 23…
Bxe3 24.Nxe3 Qf6 25.Nd5 Qe5 26.Nf4, and White has a small advantage).
Then in Ibragimov-Filippov, Tomsk 1997, there followed 22.Qg4 (I think
that 22.Bb5!? is insignificantly better) 22…Qxg4 23.Nxg4 Bd8 24.b4 Be8!
25.bxa5 Ne5 26.Nxe5 Bxa4 27.Rxa4 dxe5.
Thus, White’s minimal advantage has eventually vanished, and now the
game is absolutely level. We could have dropped the curtain on this, but in
the resulting sharp ending, the opponents committed many errors which
nobody had ever pointed out, so I decided to go on with my comments.
28.a6? (28.Bf1, 28.Kf1 and 28.Ra2 all lead to equal play) 28…Rb1+
29.Bf1 e3? (after this move the advantage passes to White; much better is
29…Bb6!, and it is already Black who has an edge, for example, 30.Nxb6 e3
31.Ra2 Rxb6 32.fxe3 Rb1 33.Rf2 Kg8. Note that 32.a7?? loses to 32…exf2+
33.Rxf2 Rbf6!) 30.Nxe3 Bb6 31.Rb4! Rxf1+ 32.Nxf1 Bxf2+ 33.Kh1 Be1?
(stronger is 33…Kg8! 34.g4 Bc5 35.Rb1 e4) 34.Ng3 Bxc3? (34…Kg8! with
the idea of 35.a7?! Bf2! 36.Rb7 e4! is much better) 35.Rb7 e4 36.a7 Be5, and
now White wins after 37.Rb5! (in the game there was 37.Rb8??, and the
opponents agreed to a draw), for example, 37…Bd6 38.Nf5 g6 39.Ne3 Ra8
40.Rb7, etc. Let us return to 21.Nc2!?.
21…Qc8! 22.Nd4 Nxd4 23.cxd4 Bd8 24.Qe3!?

In Kiss-Klauner, corr 2008, White played 24.Raa1, and after 24…h6
25.f3 (25.h3!?N with the idea of Qg4 may be slightly more promising) 25…
exf3 26.Rxf3 Rxf3 27.Qxf3 Qf5 28.Qxf5 Bxf5, the game ended in a draw.
24…Be8!?
In Bücker-Sukhodolsky, corr 2010, there was 24…Qg4 25.Ra2 h6 26.Re1
Bh7 27.h3 Qh4 28.Kh2 (more accurate is 28.Qe2!N, retaining a small
advantage) 28…a4! 29.bxa4, and the opponents agreed to a draw. There
could follow 29…Bg8!N 30.Qxe4 Qxe4 31.Rxe4 Rc8 32.Bb3 Rb8 33.Bc4
Rc8 with a repetition of moves.
25.Raa1 Bb5
Now in this position possible is…
26.Qxe4!?N (only 26.Rac1 had been previously played) 26…Bxc4
27.bxc4 Qxc4 28.Rfc1! Qa6 29.g3 Qa8!
Weaker is 29…a4 because of 30.Rc3 with the idea of Rca3, and on 29…
Rb2 there follows 30.Nf4! Bg5 31.Ne6 Re2 32.Qg4 Rxe6 33.Qxg5 with
small White’s edge.
30.Qe6 Bf6 31.Nxf6 Rxf6 32.Qe1 with an advantage for White.
Chapter 194
16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 g6 without 18.h4 and without 17…Bxe3,
17…Be6 or 17…Ne7
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3!
A strong move that hinders the advance f7-f5. In his book Sveshnikov
pays practically no attention to the move 17.Nce3!, devoting a mere six lines
to it (without an exclamation point). In particular, he writes that after this
move “not bad are both 17…Bxe3 etc., and 17…g6!? followed by f7-f5!.”
As we are going to see in the following chapters, neither of these
recommendations is exactly successful and lead to an undisputed superiority
for White. In other words, it can be said that the system of playing against
Black’s main line 11…0-0 that is most dangerous is just plain missing from
the Sveshnikov’s book, and this is another example of the absurdity of his
declaration about his “having exhausted the variation.”
17…g6
As already noted, this move is recommended by Sveshnikov. There are
more than 900 games with the position in the previous diagram in my
database, and in more than 600 of them Black chose this move. We will
examine the continuation 17…Bxe3 in chapter 197, 17…Be6 in chapter 198
and 17…Ne7 in chapters 199-200. (D)
18.0-0
This old continuation is the subject of the current chapter. Later it was
found out that 18.h4!, which we are going to investigate in the two
following chapters, is stronger. The variation 18.Qe2!? f5 19.h4 Bxe3

20.Qxe3 has also been seen (it is slightly better to capture with the knight –
20.Nxe3! – so that after 20…f4, it may be directed to Nf1-d2).
Now weak is 20…fxe4?! (Shirov against Anand, Morelia/Linares, 2008).

After 21.h5 g5 22.Qxe4 Bb7?! 23.Qe3! e4 24.0-0 Ne5 25.Rfa1 Qe8 26.Rxa5
Qxh5 27.Qxe4? Rbe8 28.Be2, Black, instead of 28…Qh4?, could have
equalized with 28…g4!, for example, 29.Qd4 Qg5 30.Rf1!N Re6, etc.
However, White had previously missed his chance to obtain a serious
advantage with 27.Rb5!N, while on move 22, it was better for Black to play
…Bf5.
The correct move is 20…f4!. Then in Volokitin-Shirov, Poykovsky 2008,
there followed 21.Qd2 Bd7 22.Ra1 Be6. The position is close to equality
because it is not clear what to do with the h4-pawn. If h4-h5, then g6-g5, and
if White attempts to do without this move, then his rook has to watch over the
pawn. In any case, the White’s next move provides Black with additional
possibilities.
23.Kd1 Ne7! 24.Kc2 Nxd5 25.Bxd5 Bxd5 26.Qxd5 Qb6 27.Rhf1 Rfc8
28.Ra4? (White was able to equalize with 28.Rfd1!N, for example, 28…
Qxf2+ 29.Rd2 Qg3 30.Qd3!, or 29…Qe3 30.Rd3, or 29…Qb6 30.Qe6) 28…
Rc5? (and now Black could have gained an advantage after 28…Rb7!N)
29.Qe6 Rc7, and here, instead of 30.Qd5?, White should have played
30.Rd1!N once again, for example, 30…Qxf2+ 31.Rd2 Qg3 32.Rc4! Rxc4
33.Qf6+ Kg8 34.bxc4 with even chances.
18…f5 19.Qd3
White usually takes on f5 – 19.exf5 – although I can hardly recommend
this. After 19…gxf5, he mostly plays 20.Qh5 (or 20.f4 exf4, and now
21.Nxf4?? is bad because of the straightforward 21…Qb6! 22.Qf3 Ne5
23.Qf2 Bxf4 24.Qxf4 Ng4 25.Re1 Re8, and Black wins; so White has to play
21.Nc2).
Black should reply 20…e4! with equal play (slightly weaker is 20…Bd7),
for example, 21.f4 exf3 22.Rxf3 Ne5 23.Rg3 Rg8 24.Nf6! Qxf6 25.Bxg8
Bxe3+ 26.Rxe3 Kxg8 27.Qe8+ Qf8 28.Rg3+ Ng4 29.Qe3! Rxb3 30.Rgxg4+
fxg4 31.Qg5+ Kh8 32.Rf4 Qe8 33.Qf6+ Kg8 34.Qg5+ Kh8 35.Qf6+ with
perpetual check.
White rather often plays 19.Qf3 with the idea of preventing the black
pawn from getting to f3, as in the main variation. Then there may follow
19…Be6! 20.Rd1 Qd7 21.h3 Bd8 22.Ra2 Qf7 23.Rad2 f4! 24.Nf1 h5 25.Rd3
g5 26.Nh2 Kg7 27.g4 hxg4, and in Ljubicic-Hertel, corr 2009, the opponents
agreed to a draw.
19…f4!
19…Be6 has also occurred, leading to a position from the 17…Be6
variation (chapter 198).
20.Nc2 f3 21.g3 h5! 22.Rfa1
Another continuation is 22.Rd1 h4 23.Ne1?! (more accurate is
23.Nde3!?) 23…hxg3 24.hxg3 Rb7 25.Nxf3 Rh7, and Black has the
advantage. Then possible is 26.Nh2 Qd7 27.Ra2 Kg7 28.f3 Qa7+ 29.Kh1
Ne7!, and Black’s initiative is more than adequate compensation for the pawn
(Cordoba-Bubir, corr 2007. I believe that White retains the possibility to sight
for an advantage after 22.Nde3!? with the idea of 22…h4 23.g4!.
22…h4 23.Ne1 hxg3.
23…Bg4? is much more popular, but notably weaker.
24.hxg3
24…Rb7!
An important novelty that allows Black to maintain the balance. Only two
games in which Black has played 24…Bg4?! are known, and in both of them
play was favorable for White. The main variation of the analysis is:
25.Nxf3! Rbf7 26.Nf4!?
26.Nxg5 Qxg5 does not bring any advantage for White. Then possible is
27.Qe3! Qh5 28.Be2! Qh3 29.g4!? (29.Bf1 Qh5 30.Be2 leads to a draw) 29…
Qh4 30.Qg3 Qg5 31.Rf1 Kg7 32.Ra2!? Rh8 33.Bd1 Ba6 34.Be2 Bc8 with a
pendulum draw.
26…Rxf4! 27.gxf4 Bxf4 28.Kg2!? Bg4 29.Rh1+ Kg7 30.Ra2!? (there
was the threat of 30…Be3) 30…Rh8 31.Raa1 Rf8! 32.Rad1 Be3 33.Qxe3
Bxf3+ 34.Qxf3 Rxf3 35.Kxf3 Ne7 with the idea of either Qc7 or a5-a4 and
equal play.
Chapter 195
16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 g6 18.h4 Bxh4 19.g3 Bg5 20.f4 exf4
21.gxf4 Bh4 without 22.Kf1
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 g6 18.h4!
White sacrifices a pawn for the sake of opening the h-file. Black faces a
small and rather unpleasant choice: he must either to take on e3 or accept the
sacrifice, because the continuation Bg5-h6 that is typical for the Chelyabinsk
Variation, runs into h4-h5, and then Black has every reason to regret having
played 17…g6. As already noted, the move 18.h4!, putting in question the
whole line of counterplay starting with 17…g6, is simply not mentioned in
Sveshnikov’s book.
18…Bxh4
I believe that 18…Bxe3!? is more cautious and objectively slightly
stronger, for example, 19.Nxe3 Ne7 (interesting is 19…h5!?N, for example,
20.Ra2 Ne7 21.Rd2 Rb6, and Black is still able to hold on) 20.h5 Ng8!?N
(slightly weaker is 20…g5, Sjugirov-Krapivin, St. Petersburg 2009) 21.hxg6
fxg6 22.Qd2 Nf6 23.f3 Nh5 24.Kd1 Bd7 25.Ra3 Bc6 26.Kc2, and though
White’s position is better, the struggle continues.
19.g3 Bg5
This retreat occurs practically in every game, and it is in fact the best
continuation with the 16.b3 move order. After 19…Bf6?! 20.Ra2!, there
arises a position from the game Ponomariov-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2005,
which we have already examined in chapter 185 with the move order 16.Ra2
(as in the text). In that game Black’s problems were anything but simple.
20.f4!
(a) Weak is 20.Qe2? (Karjakin against Shirov in the rapid game, Khanty
Mansiysk 2007. In return Black made a serious error, 20…f5? (correct was
20…Ne7! 21.f4 exf4 22.gxf4 Nxd5 23.Nxd5 Bf6!, and Black is fine). There
followed 21.f4 (21.exf5!? Bxf5 22.Nxf5 is no weaker) 21…exf4 22.gxf4
Bh4+ 23.Kd1 Rb7! 24.Qh2 g5 25.Ba6? (after this move chances are even; the
correct move is 25.Nxf5!N, and White has a serious advantage) 25…Rxb3
26.Kc2 Bxa6 27.Kxb3 fxe4 28.fxg5 Qb8+. Now White should have played
29.Nb4!N (in the game there was 29.Rb4?? axb4 30.Qxh4 bxc3+ 31.Kxc3
Qa7, and Black’s position is won), for example, and a draw is just around the
corner.
(b) The move 20.Ra2?! throws the advantage away almost completely.
After 20…Bxe3 21.Nxe3 Be6! (slightly weaker is 21…f5) 22.Rd2 Qc7!?
(22…Qe7 23.Rxd6 Nd4 24.Rd5 Nc6 25.Rd3 leads to a small advantage for
White) 23.Qf3 Kg8 24.Ng4 Bxg4 25.Qxg4 Kg7 26.f4 h5 27.Rxh5 Rh8
28.Rxh8 Rxh8, White has a very slight edge. In Del Vecchio-Carasoni, corr
2006, after 29.f5 Rh6 30.Rf2 a4 31.f6+ Kf8 32.Qe2 axb3 33.Rh2 Rxh2
34.Qxh2 Ke8 35.Qh8+ Kd7 36.Bxb3 Nd4, the opponents agreed to a draw.
20…exf4 21.gxf4 Bh4+
22.Kd2?!
This move occurs in the overwhelming majority of games, viz., in more
than 200! However, 22.Kf1! is much stronger. The next chapter will be
devoted to this move.
22…Ne7
The move 22…f5? (van Wely against Ponomariov, San Sebastian 2006)
is a serious blunder. After the correct 23.exf5! (Ponomariov played 23.Bd3?)
23…Bxf5 24.Nxf5 Rxf5 25.Kc1!, White has a serious advantage.
23.Qg1
This is the most popular move, but other possibilities have been tried as
well, and also without much success.
(a) 23.Kc2 does not bring any advantage in view of 23…Nxd5 24.Nxd5
Bf6! (24…Be6? is weak because of 25.Qd4+ Kg8 26.f5!, for example, 26…
Bxd5 27.Bxd5 Qg5!N 28.Kb1, and White has prepared transfer of the a4-
rook to h2). For example, 25.Nxf6 Qxf6 26.Qd4 Qxd4 27.cxd4 Bb7 28.d5
Ra8 29.Rha1 h5 30.Rxa5 Rxa5 31.Rxa5 h4 32.Kd3 Kg7 33.Ke3 Rh8 34.Ra2.
This even position occurred in the game Frolyanov-Tregubov, Ulan Ude
2009.
(b) The line 23.Ra2!? Nxd5 24.Nxd5 Bf6 25.Ke3 Rg8! 26.Nxf6 Qxf6
27.Qd4 Qxd4+ 28.cxd4 has also been encountered. Then in Gerhardt-Novak,
corr 2009, there followed 28…Kg7 29.d5 Bg4 30.Rg1 h5 31.Rxa5 Rge8
32.Kd4 f6 33.Ra6 Red8 34.Rb1 g5 35.fxg5 fxg5 36.e5 dxe5 37.Kxe5 Rb7,
and the game was drawn.
(c) The move 23.Kc1 is second in popularity. Then possible is 23…Nxd5
24.Nxd5.
In the position in the diagram Black usually plays 24…Be6 (24…Bf6!?

also leads to equal play. In Grigoryev-Otake, corr 2007, after 25.Ra2 Rg8
26.Qd3 Be6 27.Kb1, the opponents agreed to a draw.).
Now possible is 25.Ra2!? (in Topalov-Leko, Linares 2005, there was
25.Qd4+ Kg8 26.Ra2 Bxd5 27.Qxd5 Qf6 28.Qd2 Bg3 29.Rf1, and now,
instead of 29…h5?!, it is better to play 29…d5!, for example, 30.Bxd5 g5 or
30.exd5 Rfe8 with equal play in both cases) 25…Bxd5 26.Qxd5 Qf6 27.Qd2!
(weak is 27.Qd4?! as in the rapid game Mista-Shirov, Warsaw 2008: after
27…Qxd4 28.cxd4 Bd8 29.Rah2 h5, Black has an advantage).
Now in Matyukhin-Grigoryev, corr 2010, there followed 27…Bg3 28.Rf1
d5! 29.exd5 (29.Bxd5 g5!) 29…Rfe8 30.Rf3 Qh4 31.Qd4+!? (interesting is
31.Rxa5!?N; then possible is 31…Re4 32.Kc2 Rxc4! 33.bxc4 Qh1 34.Qd1
Rb2+ 35.Kxb2 Qxd1 36.Rxg3, and Black equalizes with 36…Qf1!) 31…Kg8
32.d6 Re1+ 33.Kb2 Qh1 34.Qf6 Rb7 35.Rxg3 Qh2+ 36.Ka3 Qxg3 37.Qd8+
Kg7 38.Qc8 Ra7 39.d7 Qxc3 40.d8Q, and the opponents agreed to a draw in
view of the variation 40…Re8!! 41.Qxe8 Qb4 42.Kb2 Qd2+ with perpetual
check.
23…Nxd5 24.Nxd5 Be6
Also not bad is 24…h5.
25.Qh2 g5
26.Kc2!?
Karjakin would employ the move 26.fxg5 twice. In the game Karjakin-
Ivanchuk, Nalchik 2009, there followed 26…Bxg5+ 27.Kc2 h6 28.Raa1 Rg8
29.Rag1 Rg6 30.Nf4 Bxf4 31.Qxf4 Qf6 32.Rxg6 Qxf4 33.Rhxh6+ Qxh6
34.Rxh6+ Kg7 35.Rh5 Bxc4 36.bxc4 Re8 (or 36…Rc8 37.Rxa5 Rxc4
38.Kd3 Rc6 39.Kd4 Kf6 40.c4 Ke6 41.Rh5 Ra6 42.c5, draw); in Karjakin-
So, Al Ain 2008 – 37.Rxa5 Rxc4 38.Rd5 Rxc4 39.Rxd6 Kf8, also with a
draw.
26…f6 27.Rha1Bxd5
Slightly weaker is 27…f5, for example, 28.Qd2! Bxd5! 29.Bxd5 fxe4
30.Rxe4 Qf6 31.Rxa5 gxf4 32.Ra7 Qf5 33.Qd3, and White has a small
advantage.
28.Bxd5 Rb5
This position was tested in sixteen correspondence games, half of them
by players of sufficiently high level. All they managed to achieve was a
rather slight advantage for White. Now possible is…
29.Rd4 Rc5! 30.Qh3 Qe7! 31.Rd3 f5 32.exf5 and though White has a
minimal edge, in Percze-Zolno, corr 2008, a draw was agreed.
Chapter 196
16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 g6 18.h4 Bxh4 19.g3 Bg5 20.f4 exf4
21.gxf4 Bh4 22.Kf1
.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 g6 18.h4 Bxh4 19.g3 Bg5 20.f4
exf4 21.gxf4 Bh4 22.Kf1!
As we have seen in the previous chapter, the continuation 22.Kd2, almost

invariably employed by White, creates practically no problems for Black.
This is probably the reason why the move 17…g6 is so popular. However, it
is not all that simple, for now we enter the almost unexplored region of the
The king move to f1 has so far been a rare guest, although it is logical: if
White wishes to transfer his rook from a4 to h2, why block the second rank? I
expect that this is exactly the move that will make Black abandon 17…g6,
which for now is clearly his main defensive system against 17.Nce3!, and
break fresh ground.
22…f5?!
I know of seven games in which Black employed this move, and with
great success on the face of it, as he scored five points in them. But actually
this move leads only to additional difficulties for Black, who should play
22…g5!. This continuation is a novelty and a serious improvement of Black’s
play in comparison with the main variation. As we are going to see, pseudo-
active 22…f7-f5 leads only to further deterioration of Black’s position.
Instead, Black creates the defensive line f6-g5-Bh4.
Let us examine White’s options.

(a) Weak is 23.fxg5? because of 23…Qxg5, for example, 24.Ra2 f5
25.Rah2 fxe4+ 26.Ke2 Bg4+ 27.Nxg4 Qxg4+ 28.Kd2 Bg5+ 29.Kc2 Qxd1+
30.Kxd1 h6, and Black stands better.
(b) 23.Ra2!? is not bad, for example, 23…f6! 24.Rah2 Rb7 25.Ng2 Ne7!
26.Nxh4 gxh4 27.Rxh4 Nxd5 28.Bxd5 Rg7, and White has an advantage.
(c) Also playable is 23.Qh5!?, for example, 23…f6! 24.Ng2 Rb7 25.Nxh4
gxh4 26.Qxh4!? (or 26.Rxh4 f5 27.Bd3 Be6) 26…f5! 27.Qxd8 Rxd8 28.Ne3
fxe4 29.Bd5 Rc7, and although White has an edge, it is considerably less than
in the main variation. But let us return to the move 22…f5.
23.Ra2
The following game is more suitable for a column of a “That’s-chess-for-
you” kind: 23.exf5? Bxf5 24.Nxf5 Rxf5 25.Qg4 Bg5 26.Kg2?? (26.Bd3!N
Rxd5 27.Bxg6 leads to an equal game, for example, 27…Rb7 28.Be4 Rc5
29.fxg5, etc.) 26…Bxf4 27.Nxf4? (27.Qh4) 27…Rg5 28.Nxg6+ Kg7, and
White resigned (Delchev-Kotanjian, Kusadasi 2006).
23…fxe424.Rah2 g5 (D)
25.Qh5!
Exactly so! This move for all practical purposes buries the continuation
22…f5?!. As early as in 2012,
I used to show it to young talents of Nitra, where I have been living for more
than twenty years now. But chess thought does not stand still, ideas hang
thick in the air, everyone has a computer, so, while I was writing this book,
there appeared two games with this move. White’s plan is simple: to move to
e2 with his king, after which he will have an opportunity to take on g5 with
his f4-pawn.
The usual continuation 25.Ng2? is much weaker and leads only to equal
play. Then there typically follows 25…Rb7 26.Nxh4 gxh4 27.Rxh4 Rg7
(Black has four other moves that lead to equal play; they are 27…Ne5N,
27…a4N 27…Qg5N and 27…Be6N. This only goes to underscore the
harmless nature of the move 25.Ng2? one more time) 28.Qh5.
Now weak is 28…Be6? (Radulski-Spasov, Bulgaria 2012. After
29.Qxh7! Rxh7 30.Rxh7+ Kg8, White, instead of 31.Rh8+?, should have
played 31.Ke1!!N, creating the threat of 32.Nb4!. Occasionally f4-f5! is also
strong. It is easy to see that Black is in a kind of zugzwang, when almost
every move leads to deterioration of his position. The only chance to avoid
losing by force is 31…a4!, after which there may follow 32.bxa4!? Nd4!
33.Ne7+ Qxe7 34.Rxe7 Nf3+ 35.Kf2 Bxc4 36.Rxe4 Bd5 37.Rb4!, and White
has a serious advantage. Correct is 28…Bf5!.
For example, 29.Qh6! (29.Ne3?! Bg6 30.Qd5 Ne5 31.Ke2 is in Black’s

favor, Hrachek-Mista, Czech Republic 2006, and now 31…Nf3!N 32.Rg4
Qf6). Then in Stangl-Kindermann, Altensteig 1987, there was 29…e3!?
30.Nxe3, and here, instead of 30…Be4, somewhat simpler is 30…Bg6!N
with equal play.
By the way, to the best of my knowledge, this is the very first game with
the idea of 18.h4! – admittedly, with the move order 16.Ra2. Let us return to
the move 25.Qh5!.
25…Rb7!?
This move occurred in the game Giri-Shirov, Hoogeveen 2014. In the
position in the diagram, Black has only three moves that enable him to
continue the fight. All the rest lose by force.
(a) For example, 25…Ne7?? runs into 26.Rxh4! gxh4 27.Rxh4 Rf7
28.Nf6!, and in view of the threat Qxh7+, Black will have to give up his
queen with 28…Qg8.
(b) 25…Be6!?N 26.Ke2 Rb7 leads to the main line with a transposition of
moves.
(c) The third possibility to continue the struggle is 25…Ne5!?. Analysis
shows that the critical position arises after 26.Ke2 Nxc4! (slightly weaker is
26…Bg4+!?N. The main variation of the analysis is 27.Nxg4 Nxc4 28.bxc4
Qc8! 29.Nge3! Qd7! 30.Qh6! Rf7 31.Nc2! Rxf4 32.Kd2! Rf3 33.Kc1 a4
34.Nd4 Rf7 35.Nb5, and White has a great advantage) 27.fxg5 Rxb3 28.Rxh4
Rb2+.
Now weak is 29.Ke1?!. Then in Barski-Skliarov, Lvov 2013, there
followed 29…Rb1+ 30.Nd1 Bf5 31.g6 Rb7 32.Qe2! Bxg6 33.Qxc4 Qg5
34.N5e3 with an edge to White. Slightly stronger is 34.Qd4+!N.
The correct move is 29.Nc2!N followed by 29…Rb7! (29…Rxc2+??
loses to 30.Kd1) 30.g6 Bf5 31.Rg1! Bxg6! 32.Rxg6 Qe8 (the only move)
33.Rh6 Qxh5 34.R6xh5 Rbf7! 35.Nce3! Ne5! 36.Ng4! Nxg4 37.Rxg4 a4
38.Rxe4 Ra7 39.Rh1 a3 40.Rd4 a2 41.Ra1, and White retains his extra piece
and has roughly the same advantage as in the main variation. Let us return to
the move 25…Rb7!?.
26.Ke2 Be6 27.Qh6! Bg8!
27…Bxd5 is slightly weaker because of 28.Nxd5 Rff7 29.Qe6!.
28.Rg2!
28…Bxd5!N
After the move 25.Qh5!, in the above-mentioned game Giri-Shirov Black,
being in difficult position and having limited time for thought, had to solve
the challenging task of neutralizing White’s various combinational threats.
Not every computer will be able to do that, so it is quite understandable that
in the position in the diagram Black committed a blunder that led to a
completely lost position: 28…Rbf7??. Then there followed 29.Rxh4! gxh4
30.Nf5! h3! 31.Nh4! Qxh4 32.Rxg8+ Rxg8 33.Qxh4 Rg2+ 34.Kf1!, and
White needs nothing more than common accuracy. The struggle may develop
in the following fashion:
29.Nxd5
29.Bxd5? Rxf4 30.Bxc6 Rxb3 leads to an equal game.
29…Ne7!
If 29…Rg8?!, then White wins with the studylike 30.Ne7!!.
30.Rxg5! Nxd5 31.Rxd5 Bf6 32.Rdh5 Qe7 33.Qg6 Qg7! 34.f5!
Analysis shows gives White a great advantage, though at first glance it
does not seem so obvious. Another promising line is 34.Qxe4!? Re7 35.Be6
Bxc3 36.Kf3!. For example, on 34…Bxc3? there will follow 35.Rxh7+
Qxh7 36.Qxd6 and White wins.
Let us sum up this chapter. Analysis shows that king’s retreat to f1, which
is now almost never employed, creates real problems for Black because of the
possible move 25.Qh5!. Evidently, it will take the adherents of the
Chelyabinsk Variation some time to satisfy themselves about the strength of
the move 25.Qh5!, and then they are going to start wishing for less interesting
lives. They will realize that the root of Black’s problems is first and foremost
the move 17…g6, so they will have to find a replacement for this indiscreet,
though highly popular continuation. But we are not going to wait until that
occurs in practice, but in the next four chapters will try to find this substitute
for ourselves.
Chapter 197
16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Bxe3
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Bxe3
By playing like this, Black manages to do without g7-g6, pinning his

hopes on the standard advance f7-f5.
18.Nxe3 Ne7
Black can immediately play 18…f5, for example, 19.exf5 Bxf5 (after
19…Ne7 20.0-0, the game transposes to the main variation) 20.Qd5 (20.0-0!
Ne7 also leads to the main variation) 20…Bc8!. Then in Gardarsson-
Gavrilakis, corr 2006, there followed 21.Qxc6 (21.0-0!?N) 21…Bb7 22.Qb5
Bxg2 23.Qxb8 Qxb8 24.Nxg2 Qb7 25.0-0 d5 26.Be2 Qxb3 27.Rxa5 g6
28.Rc5 Qb2, and White’s advantage is only very slight.
19.0-0 f5
After 19…Bb7!? 20.Qd3 f5 21.Rd1! (21.exf5? Bc6! is favorable for
Black) 21…f4 22.Nf1 Ng6!?N (22…Rf6 23.Nd2, etc.) 23.Nd2! (Taking the
pawn with 23.Qxd6? is a bad idea because of 23…Qg5, and Black has an
edge), White’s advantage is roughly the same as in the main variation, but the
position is much more complex and more suitable for Black’s playing for a
win.
20.exf5 Bxf5
20…Nxf5 often occurs. I believe that after 21.Nxf5 Black should take
with rook – 21…Rxf5! (21…Bxf5 is slightly weaker. Then in the game Berg-
Spasov, Turin 2006, there followed 22.Qd5! Bc2 23.Ra2 Bg6 24.Qxa5 Be4?!
25.Qxd8 Rfxd8 26.f3 with an extra pawn for White. It is better for Black to
play 24…Qf6N, keeping queens on the board, but there is still no full
compensation for the pawn anyway).
Now possible is 22.Qd5 (only this move has been played, but slightly
better is 22.Qd3!N, for example, 22…Bd7 23.Ra2 Qc7 24.Rfa1 Rbf8 25.Rd2
with an advantage for White) 22…Rg5! 23.g3 (or 23.Qxa5 Qxa5 24.Rxa5
Bh3 25.Bd5 e4! with rough equality) 23…e4! 24.Qxe4 (24.Qd4!?N) 24…d5
25.Rd1 Bd7 26.Bxd5 Bxa4 27.bxa4 Qe8 28.Qf4 Re5 29.Kg2 Rd8 30.Bf3
Rxd1, and in Silva-Farkas, corr 2007, the opponents agreed to a draw.
21.Ra2!
This is the main continuation. Should the opportunity arise, the rook is
going to move to d2. Less strong is 21.Nxf5. In Karjakin-Khalifman,
Amsterdam 2007, after 21…Rxf5 22.Bd3 Rf6 23.Bc2 Qb6 24.b4 axb4
25.Rxb4 Qc7 26.Qd3, the opponents agreed to a draw.
In the game Sokolov-Nataf, Aix-les-Bains 2007, there followed 21.Qd2
Be4 22.Nd5 (more precise is 22.Rd1!) 22…Bxd5 23.Bxd5 Nxd5 24.Qxd5
Qc7 25.Qxa5 (this leads to complete equality, but even after other moves,
White’s advantage is purely symbolic) 25…Qxa5 26.Rxa5 Rxb3 27.Rd5 Rf6
28.Rfd1 Rxc3 29.Rxe5 h6, and the game was drawn.
21…Rf6!
This continuation is rare. In the position in the diagram the move 21…
Be4 is clearly the most popular, but it does not seem the most successful
choice to me. In Leko-Radjabov, Morelia/Linares 2008, there followed
22.Rd2 Rb6 23.Re1! (creating the threat of 24.Ng4! followed, after the
bishop’s withdrawal, by 25.Nxe5. Significantly weaker is 23.Be6?! as in the
rapid game Kasimdzhanov-Tregubov, Bastia 2006. After 23…Rf6 24.Bd5
Bxd5 25.Nxd5 Nxd5 26.Rxd5, White has only a small edge.) 23…Qb8 (23…
Qc7 runs into the strong rejoinder 24.Bf1!N) 24.Qa1! Qc7. Here White could
have played 25.Qa3!, retaining his advantage (Leko’s move is weaker; Black
should have answered 25…Qc5!N, keeping the important a3-square under
control, and White has only a small edge), for example, 25…Rd8 26.Red1 h6
27.h3, etc.
22.Nd5
22.Re1 is not particularly promising: after 22…Be6!?N, there may follow
23.Bxe6 Rxe6 24.Nd5 e4 25.Nxe7 Rxe7 26.Rd2 Reb7! 27.Rxd6 Qf8, and in a
number of variations the game comes down to a rook ending with three
pawns against two on the same flank, which, as is well known, is drawn.
22…Nxd5 23.Qxd5!?
Weaker is 23.Bxd5.
23…Ra8N!
Creating the threat of Be6.
At the moment only 23…Rh6?! has been encountered. A possible reply is
24.g3!N with a clear advantage for White.
24.Qd2 h6
In this position White has a certain edge after 25.Bd5, 25.Rfa1 or 25.h3.
His advantage is much less than in the position in the last diagram of the
previous chapter, but still greater than in the original position. Therefore the
variation 17…Be6 will hardly satisfy the adherents of the Chelyabinsk
Variation.
Chapter 198
16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Be6
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Be6
Choosing this continuation, Black does not abandon the plan with g7-g6
and f7-f5, but only postpones it for one move and carries it out only as soon
as White castles and the advance h2-h4 becomes completely pointless. This
seems quite reasonable, if we remember all those difficulties that Black ran
into after the immediate 17…g6 (see chapter 196).
18.0-0
This move occurs in the majority of games, so now Black is able to carry
out his plans. Other moves have also occurred.
(a) In Nisipeanu-Radjabov, Goteborg 2005, White played 18.Qd3?!, and
Black had the move 18…Bxe3! (in the game there was 18…Qd7?! 19.0-0,
and the game transposed to the main variation). Now possible is 19.Nxe3
(19.Qxe3 Ne7! leads to equal play) 19…Bxc4 20.bxc4!?N (or 20.Rxc4 Ne7
21.b4 axb4 22.cxb4 f5 with even chances) 20…Qc7! 21.0-0 Nd8 22.Nd5 Qc5
23.Qc2!? (23.Rfa1 is met with 23…Rb2) 23…Ne6 24.Rfa1 Ra8, and the
game is equal.
(b) 18.h4!? often occurs. Now it is hardly sensible for Black to play 18…
Bf4 (Leko-Radjabov, Morelia 2006). After 19.Nf5 g6 20.Nfe3, it turned out
that Black had only spoiled his position. There followed 20…Kg7 21.g3?!
Bh6?! 22.Ng4 with an advantage for White.
However, instead of 21.g3?!, White should have played 21.h5!N with
better chances, and, in his turn, Black, instead of 21…Bh6?!, should take the
knight with 21…Bxe3!N, and White has only a small edge.
The move 18.h4!? is practically always followed by 18…Bxe3 19.Nxe3.
(D)
This position is important for evaluation of the move 18.h4. I believe that
it is best for Black to play 19…Ne7! (there also occurred 19…Bxc4, for
example, 20.Nxc4 f5 21.Nxd6 Qf6!? 22.Qd5!? Rbd8 23.Qxc6 Rxd6 24.Qc5
Rc6 25.Qe3 f4 26.Qf3, and
White has an advantage. It cannot be ruled out that in this variation more
precise is 24…f4!?N). Now possible is 20.0-0 Bc8! 21.b4!?N axb4 22.Rxb4
Ra8!, and White has a small advantage.
Slightly weaker is 20.Bxe6 fxe6, and now 21.Nc4?! d5! 22.Nxa5 Qe8!N,
threatening Qg6, leads to excellent play for Black. On 23.0-0, there follows
23…Ng6, and White does not have the move 24.g3? because of 24…Nxh4!.
Instead of 21.Nc4?!?, White is better play 21.0-0N.
18…g6
18…Qd7!? has also been seen. After the usual 19.Qd3, a position from
the above-mentioned Nisipeanu-Radjabov, Goteborg 2005 game has been
reached with a transposition of moves (not bad is 19.Ra2!?, for example,
19…g6 20.Kh1, transposing to the main variation).
Then in the game there was 19…g6 20.Bb5 (after 20.Rd1!? f5, play could
have transposed to positions we are going to explore below) 20…Qb7
21.Bxc6, and even though after 21…Qxc6 22.c4 White has a small
advantage, the opponents agreed to a draw.
19.Kh1!?
The most popular continuation. A complex position has arisen, in which
the play centers around the advance f7-f5. With his last move, White is
prepared to meet it with a capture on f5 so that, after g6xf5, the black pawn
on f5 can be fixed by f2-f4, limiting Black’s opportunities.
Another popular move is 19.Qd3.
Now there usually follows 19…f5 20.Rd1 Qd7 21.f3 (White practically
always makes this move, but it alleviates Black’s task by creating an object
for attack, the pawn on f3. Black’s counterplay is less obvious after both
21.Ra2!? and 21.Raa1!?N) 21…f4! 22.Nc2 (or 22.Nf1 Bd8 23.Nd2 g5
24.Kh1 h5 with adequate counterplay for Black, as in Nekhaev-Lebedev, corr
2009. Perhaps 24…Rg8!?N, permitting him to do without h7-h5, is even
more accurate) 22…Bd8. Then in Gavazov-Blank, corr 2008, there followed
23.Raa1 g5 24.Kh1 Rg8 25.b4 Rg6 26.Rd2 g4 27.fxg4 Bxg4 28.Bb5 axb4
29.Ncxb4 Nxb4, and in this position the game was drawn.
19…Qd7!?
This is a rare move, the idea of which will become clear a move later.
After 19…f5, there follows 20.exf5 gxf5 21.f4! Bh6 (after 21…exf4 22.Nxf4
Bxc4 23.Rxc4! Ne5 24.Rd4, White has an advantage). In this position White
has a lot of possibilities, but he is hard put to gain a real advantage. Not bad
is 22.Ra2!? (the usual 22.Qh5 is less strong because of 22…Bxf4!N, for
example, 23.Nxf4 exf4 24.Nd5 Ne5 25.Nxf4 Bd7 26.Ra3 Nxc4 27.bxc4
Rg8), and the position after 22…Qd7 will be examined below.
The continuation 19…Bh6 prepares f7-f5. White can continue 20.Ra2!?
(weak players typically prefer 20.f4?, and after 20…exf4 21.Nxf4 Ne5!, the
advantage passes to Black, for example, 22.Bxe6 fxe6!N 23.Nxe6 Rxf1+
24.Nxf1 Qf6 25.Nd4 Rf8 26.Ra1 Ng4 27.Qe1 Nf2+ 28.Kg1 Nxe4!, etc.), and
after 20…f5 21.exf5 gxf5 22.f4 Qd7, once again we have the position that we
are going to examine below.
20.Ra2
20…Qb7!?N
This move contains two ideas: before carrying out the advance f7-f5,
Black intends, first, to make the rook occupy the a3-square, and second, to
prevent White’s g2-g3 that becomes playable in the variations with an
immediate 20…f5. On 20…f5, possible is the topical 21.exf5 gxf5 22.f4 Bh6
23.g3!?. After e5xf4, White is prepared to take the g-pawn, blunting both the
knight on c6 and the bishop on h6 (another good move is 23.Rd2!?, for
example, 23…Qg7 24.g3!?N). Then possible is 23…Bg7 24.Qf3 Qb7, and
White has the advantage.
Another possible development is
21.Ra3!?
Black was going to capture on e3.
21…f5 22.exf5 gxf5 23.f4 Bh6 24.Qf3
24.Qh5?! Bxf4! 25.Nxf4 exf4 leads to equal play.
24…Qg7 25.g3
Black has to choose a waiting strategy. Nevertheless, the position is

highly complicated, so it is no easy task at all to find a plan of improving
matters for White.
Chapter 199
16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Ne7 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nd5 Qd8 20.0-0 f5
21.exf5 Bxf5 22.Qe2 Bd7 23.Ra2 without 23…Bh4
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Ne7!?
So far, this move is second in popularity after 17…g6, but the margin is
enormous – about a 100 games against more than 600. In my opinion, this
situation only confirms the fact that the theory of the Chelyabinsk Variation
is still very far from being completed, loud declarations of some “experts”
notwithstanding.
Also interesting is the fact that recently the move 17…Ne7!? has become
highly popular among correspondence players, while OTB players do not
seem to pay any serious attention to it as yet. This is another corroboration of
the above statement.
There are two circumstances that speak against this move, which is an
offer to exchange knights. First, the knight on c6 defends the a5-pawn, and
after it is traded off, it is the black queen that becomes burdened with this
task. Second, White has two knights that are directed to the same square, d5,
so one of them is “surplus.” Why exchange it?
The argument for the exchange is that it makes it easier for Black to carry
out the advance f7-f5. After the f-file is opened, Black gains additional
opportunities on the kingside, for example, hitting the f2-pawn by means of
Bg5-h4. In an open position it is easier to utilize the bishop pair, and, after
all, he can sacrifice the a5-pawn…
Nevertheless, it remains unclear, whether it all is worth the bother… Let
us try and figure it out.
18.Nxe7
18.0-0 Nxd5 19.Nxd5 leads, with a transposition of moves, to the main
variation. Now it is absolutely pointless to play 18.h4?!: after 18…Bxe3
19.Nxe3 Bb7 20.Nd5 f5, Black has excellent play, Pokazanjev-Mamedov, St.
Petersburg 2006. However, preliminary 20…Bc6!N with the idea of driving
white rook off the fourth rank would be even stronger.
18…Qxe7
19.Nd5
19.Nf5 does not bring any advantage: after 19…Bxf5 20.exf5 e4! 21.0-0
e3, Black is quite comfortable, for example, 22.fxe3 Qxe3 23.Kh1 Qxc3
24.Qd5 Qf6 25.Rxa5 Be3, (Sallione-Gonzalez, corr 2008.
19…Qd8 20.0-0
Occasionally White would immediately turn his gaze to the a5-pawn:
20.Qa1 f5 21.exf5 Bxf5 22.Rxa5. Then in Kalinin-Boesenberg, corr 2008,
there followed 22…Bc2! 23.0-0 (or 23.Ra3 Be4 24.0-0 Bd2 25.Ra2 Qg5, and
if 26.g3, then 26…Qg4) 23…Bxb3 24.Bxb3 Rxb3 25.Ra7 Qc8 26.Qa4 Qc5
27.Qxb3 Qxa7, and soon a draw was agreed.
20…f5 21.exf5
21.f3 is also seen, after which Black usually replies with 21…Bd7. I like
the move 21…Be6!? better, as it immediately hints at the weakening of the
e3-square.
After 21.Qe2 fxe4 22.Qxe4 Bf5 23.Qe2, with transposition of moves, we
have the position from the main variation.
21…Bxf5
22.Qe2
This is clearly the main continuation; it is difficult to find a more
comfortable square for the queen. 22.Qa1 is less promising. Black replies
22…Ra8, after which he is able to carry out the maneuver Bf5-d7-c6. It
seems funny that in the resulting position the engine in many variations
insists on the queen’s return to e2. Probably the best move for White is
23.Ra3!?N, for example, 23…Bd7 24.Bd3!? Bc6 25.Be4, and White has a
small advantage. 22.Ra2 also occurs.
Now I can suggest 22…Bh4!?N, for example, 23.Qe2 (on 23.Qa1,
playable is 23…Qg5; after 23.g3 Bg5 24.Qe2 Bd7, there arises a position
from the next chapter) 23…Bd7. This position will also be investigated in the
next chapter.
22…Bd7
This move occurs practically in every game as well, but also possible is
22…Be6, for example, 23.Ra2! (23.Rfa1 Qc8 24.Rxa5 Bd8 25.R5a2 Bxd5
26.Bxd5 Qxc3 leads to equal play. Usually White plays 23.Rd1, on which
possible is 23…Bh4!?N, for example, 24.g3 Bg5 25.Rda1 Qc8 26.Rxa5 Bd8
27.R5a2 Bxd5 28.Bxd5 Qxc3, and White has a small advantage). Now
possible is 23…Rc8 24.Rd1! Rc5 25.b4 axb4 26.cxb4 Rc6 27.b5 Rc5 28.Rb2
Qa5 29.g3 Qa4 30.Nb6 Bxc4 31.Nxa4 Bxe2 32.Rxe2 Rxb5 33.Rxd6 Kg8 and
White has a small edge, Laane-Kurgansky, corr 2008.
22…Bh4!?N with the idea of provoking g2-g3 and exploiting the
subsequent weakening of White’s kingside, does not look bad. After 23.g3
Bg5 24.Rfa1 Qc8 25.Rxa5 Bg4, a position from the next chapter arises.
23.Ra2
23…Be6
This is the move that Black chooses in the majority of games – possibly
to prepare for the threat of Rfa1 and to defend his a5-pawn indirectly, or,
perhaps to prevent the transfer Bc4-d3-e4!.
However, there are questions about this continuation. First, why drive the
rook to a2, where it supports the f2-pawn, and then play Be6, when it can
move directly to e6 (we have already previously discussed the move 22…
Be6), because I can see no better move for White than Ra2 anyway? Or is
Black in zugzwang?
Second, as we are going to see, the position of the black bishop on d7 is
not without its advantages. For example, sometimes the advance a5-a4
becomes possible. In case of the thrust Qe2-h5, Black is able to play Bd7-e8,
and on Qh5-g4, to hit the queen from the d7-square. With the bishop on e6,
an attack from f7 is possible, but it is not true for the e6-square; so the white
queen will assume an active position on g4.
Therefore, Black can simply leave his bishop on d7 and try to find a more
useful move in place of Bd7-e6. And it looks like he has such a move: in the
next chapter we will examine the continuation 23…Bh4!?.
23…Bc6 has also occurred, for example, 24.Rd1!? (on 24.Rfa1, playable
is 24…Qc8, indirectly defending the a5-pawn; 25.Rxa5 is going to be met
with 25…Bd8 followed by 26…Bxd5) 24…Bd7 (not bad is 24…Ra8!?)
25.Rda1 a4 26.bxa4 Qa5 27.Rd1 h6 28.Kh1!, and Black does not have
complete compensation for his pawn, Glazman-Grigoriev, corr 2008).
24.Rd1
As we have already seen, on 24.Rfa1, Black is able to defend with 24…
Qc8 25.Rxa5 Bd8. Then there typically follows:
24…Rc8 25.g3!
Here there is a parting of the ways. The most popular move for Black is
25…Rc5.
I think that the best move now is 25…Rb8! which has so far occurred
only in a correspondence game, Ricchio-Moll, corr 2010, where there
followed 26.Qe1 Bg4! 27.Rda1 Qc8 28.Rxa5, and the game transposed to a
position from the next chapter, which is more favorable for Black. Probably,
instead of 26.Qe1, stronger is 26.Rd3!N, planning 27.Rf3 and 28.Qe4. After
the usual sequence of moves:
26.b4 axb4 27.cxb4 Rc8 28.b5! (slightly weaker is 28.Rb2) 28…Rc5
29.h4! Black should play 29…Qc8!N.
In Stalmach-Grigoriev, corr 2008, there was 29…Bxh4? 30.b6 Qg5
31.Qe4 Bxg3 32.fxg3 Qxg3+ 33.Rg2 Qh3 34.b7 Rxc4 35.b8Q! Rxb8
36.Qxc4 Rc8 37.Qe4, and White eventually converted his great advantage to
a win.
Now possible is:

30.Nb6!?
Or 30.hxg5 Rxc4 31.Nb6 Qc5 32.Nxc4 Bxc4 33.Rc1 Bxe2 34.Rxc5 dxc5
35.Rxe2 c4 36.Rxe5 Rc8 37.b6 g6 38.b7 Rb8 39.Re7 c3 40.Rc7 c2 41.Rxc2
Rxb7, and the endgame is drawn despite White’s extra pawn.
30…Bxc4 31.Nxc4 Be7 32.Nxd6 Bxd6 33.Rxd6 Qb8 34.Rd7 Rxb5
35.Qg4 Rg8 36.Raa7 Rb1 37.Kh2 Qb2 38.Qf3 Qc1 and Black has parried
all the direct threats. But his joy is incomplete, as White retains the
advantage. Possibly, Black will manage to transpose into a rook ending, 3P-
v-2P, all on the same flank, at the cost of the e5-pawn.
Chapter 200
16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Ne7 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nd5 Qd8 20.0-0 f5
21.exf5 Bxf5 22.Qe2 Bd7 23.Ra2 Bh4
14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.Nce3 Ne7 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nd5
Qd8 20.0-0 f5 21.exf5 Bxf5 22.Qe2 Bd7 23.Ra2 Bh4!? (D)
So far, this move has occurred in only two games. When at the very
beginning of my work on this book I found out that 17…g6, this traditional
system of play against 17.Nce3!, was insufficient for obtaining good
positions because of 22.Kf1! followed by 25.Qh5! (see chapter 196), I had to
look for other opportunities. Therefore, I had to give special consideration to
the moves 17…Bxe3, 17…Be6 and 17…Ne7.
In spite of sufficiently deep analysis, I did not like the positions that arose
in the first two
continuations. The same can be said about traditional ways of playing after
17…Ne7 (see chapters 197-199). And only in the practically unknown line
23…Bh4!? was I able to find interesting opportunities for Black. As this
move pretends to certain improvement of Black’s play in his struggle against
this main weapon for White, the unpleasant system 17.Nce3!, and because I
have analyzed a great number of variations on this subject, I will tell you
about my results in this last separate chapter of the theoretical part of the
book.
24.g3
This is the way White usually reacts to the bishop move to h4 in similar
positions. And in this particular one it is really hard to keep from employing
this continuation because White seemingly wins a pawn while his opponent
does not get any particular compensation for it. However, after this move,
White’s kingside is weakened, so, if my analysis does not fail me, Black
obtains good counterplay. White should probably look for other counters to
the bishop move.
For example, interesting is 24.Bd3!?N Be6 25.Qh5 Bg8 26.Bc4!?, and
White has compelled the black bishop to occupy the g8-square, one that is far
from comfortable. Then it is already possible to play g2-g3, and the
weakening of the kingside is less noticeable.
24…Bg5 25.Rfa1
The consistent continuation. In Reinoso-Sallione, corr 2007, White
played 25.h4!?. There followed 25…Bxh4! 26.Rfa1! (26.gxh4 Qxh4 leads to
equal play, for example, 27.f4 Bh3! 28.Rf3 Bg4 29.Qf2 Qh5, etc.) 26…Bg5
27.Rxa5 Qc8 (also not bad is 27…Bf5!?N) 28.Qh5 h6. Here, after 29.Ba6?!
Qc6, the game became level, but White could have retained a small edge with
29.Ra7!N.
25…Qc8!
This move is a novelty which, in my opinion, allows Black to obtain a
position with interesting play and quite decent assessments. 25…a4?!, as in
Aleksandrov-Popov, corr 2009, is not so good: after 26.bxa4 Qc8 27.Bd3
Qc5 28.c4 Be6 29.Qh5 Bh6 30.Qh4, White’s advantage is obvious. 26…
Qa5!?N seems more accurate, but White has an edge anyway. White also had
an interesting possibility in 29.Kg2!?N which was more promising than the
queen thrust.
26.Rxa5 Bg4
Now White has to choose where to retreat with his queen.

27.Qe1!?
I think that this is one of the two best continuations. Let us have a look at
other options.
(a) 27.Qd3 does not look so good because of 27…Bf3! (also fine is 27…
Bf5!?), for example, 28.Ra6 Qh3 29.Qf1 Qf5 30.Rxd6 Be4! 31.Ne3 Bxe3
32.fxe3 Qg5 33.Qe1 Rf3!, and in this position I could not find any advantage
for White.
(b) On 27.Qf1, possible is 27…Bf3! 28.R1a2 Qf5, and the game
transposes to a position from the game Ricchio-Moll which we are going to
examine below.
(c) 27.Qa2 does not bring any real advantage either because of 27…Bf3,
for example, 28.b4 Qf5 29.Re1! h5! (on 29…Be4, playable is 30.f4!?)
30.Ne3 Qf6 31.Bf1 h4, and Black once again has adequate counterplay.
(d) Interesting is the attempt 27.Qc2!?, for example, 27…Bf3 28.Be2!?
Bd8!? 29.Bxf3 Bxa5 30.Kg2 Qc5 31.Be4!.
I believe that Black can continue 32…Bxc3!, for example, 32.Qxc3!?

(32.Nxc3 can be met with 32…Rbc8, for example, 33.Rc1 Qd4 34.Bf5! Rc5
35.Be6 d5 36.Qb2 Rc6! 37.Bxd5 Rxc3 38.Qxc3 Rxf2+ 39.Kh3 Qxd5
40.Qc8+ Qg8, etc.) 32…Rxf2+ 33.Kh1 (or 33.Kh3 Qb5 34.Qe3 Rb2) 33…
Qxc3 34.Nxc3 g5!? (or 34…g6 35.Bd5 Rd2, and White’s advantage is really
very slight) 35.Bd5 Rd2 36.Bc4 g4, etc.
I hope you understand that the position after 26…Bg4 is highly
complicated, so it is impossible to give detailed analysis in several lines. But
the important point for us is that Black obtains much more complex positions
than he does after more usual continuations, and that his chances are quite
good. Let us return to the move 27.Qe1!?.
27…Bf3 28.Ne3!?
After 28.R1a2!?, with a significant transposition of moves, there occurs a
position from Ricchio-Moll, corr 2010. Curiously, Black never played Bg5-
h4 in this game at all. The game developed with a small advantage for White:
28…Qh3 29.Qf1 (29.Bf1 is useless because of 29…Qe6) 29…Qf5 30.b4 h6
(worth attention is 30…Be4!?N, for example, 31.Qd1 Bf3 32.Qe1 Be4
33.Re2 Bf3 34.Ne3 Qg6 35.Rd2 h5!, and Black has good counterplay)
31.Be2 Bd8 32.Ne3 Bxe2 33.Rxe2 Qd3 34.Rd5 Qxc3 35.Rxd6 Qxb4 36.Rd1
Qe4 37.Rc1 Bf6 38.Rc4 Qd3 39.Re1 Qxf1+ 40.Kxf1, and the opponents
agreed to a draw. In order not to abuse your attention, I will quote only the
only the main variation of the analysis of the move 28.Ne3:
28…Bd8! 29.Ra7 Bb6 30.Rf7 Rxf7 31.Bxf7 Qb7! 32.Be6 Re8 33.Bc4
d5 34.Ba6 Qf7 35.Bd3 Rd8 36.Ra6 Qc7 37.Ra2 d4 38.cxd4 Bxd4 39.b4
h5!? (the calm 39…h6 does not look bad either) 40.h4 e4 and White’s
advantage is only very slight.
Let us sum up the results of our examination of the move 17.Nce3!?, to
which the last seven chapters have been devoted. We could see that the
continuation 17…g6?!, which had been recommended by Sveshnikov and
later became generally accepted, is not quite satisfactory. I will hazard a
cautious suggestion that the best retort to 17.Nce3!? is the move 17…Ne7!?
because it makes possible the move 23…Bh4!?, examined in the current
chapter.
Conclusion
Together we have carefully examined main systems of the Chelyabinsk

Variation. Now you have a clear idea of the modern state of the theory of this
opening. In certain cases, we have even attempted to take a look into the
future and imagine the direction of further development of this theory. Now
the time has come evaluate the results of the theoretical part of this book.
The publication of Sveshnikov’s book was undoubtedly an important
stage in the development of the theory of the Chelyabinsk Variation. Now,
after a quarter-century has passed, we can see that his book was only the first
attempt at summarizing and systematizing knowledge accumulated by that
time. And though far from all the games cited there had been played by
strong players, and as a result, some of them contained a great number of
errors, it became a bedside book for adherents of the Chelyabinsk Variation.
Oddly enough, the author of the book who might have been expected to
understand the potentialities of the variation better than any other person,
declared 20 years after the publication of his book that he had “exhausted the
variation” with it. Apparently, it was only another PR-stunt of his – and, as it
has often happened before, an unlucky one.
But the variation continued to live its life and its theory kept on
developing. Let me list the main stages of this development. In Sveshnikov’s
opinion, the best variation for Black in the system 9.Nd5 was 11…0-0
12.Nc2 Rb8. But it was eventually discovered that White had the strong
continuation 13.h4!, which had been absolutely incorrectly evaluated in the
Sveshnikov’s book and to which the chapters 162-169 of my book were
devoted. Therefore, the move 12…Bg5 became the main one.
At the next stage it turned out that, contrary to Sveshnikov’s opinion, the
move 17.0-0 is not really the main continuation in the 12…Bg5 variation and
that the move 17. Nce3! is promising, as it allows White to meet the move
17…g6, recommended by Sveshnikov, with 18.h4! (there is not a word in the
Sveshnikov’s book about this possibility). At present, the intensive
examination of White’s offensive possibilities in this line continues. By the
way, so far official theory remains unaware that in the main variation, the
move 22.Kf1! is significantly stronger than generally accepted one, 22.Kd2
(see chapters 195-196 of the current book). But this fact is already known to
progressive minds, and the first games with the move 25.Qh5! have already
appeared.
So, the move 17…g6 should be rejected, and followed by the testing of
three other opportunities, viz., 17…Bxe3, 17…Be6 and 17…Ne7 (see
chapters 197-200). It is possible that Black would not be fully satisfied with
the results of these tests, and I believe that in this case the next stage in the
development of the variation would happen.
And this next stage will be a suggestion that though the move 11…0-0 is
regarded by the modern theory as the main one, this is probably not best. The
moves 11…Ne7, 11…Rb8 and 11…Bg5, which presently look equal in
strength, should be examined more seriously. I must note that the best players
have already reached this stage: the move 11…0-0 occurs only in three
games out of the last twenty two that I am aware of, in which grandmasters
rated 2600+ have played with Black.
As we can see, after the publication of Sveshnikov’s book, the theory of
the Chelyabinsk Variation has made great progress. Within this framework
the “theory” described by Sveshnikov now lags four or five important stages
behind – and has become hopelessly obsolete because of this.
It is obvious that the theory of the variation will keep on developing, and
we can only guess about the direction of this process. Still, we are able to do
something about it for ourselves by analyzing new opportunities and by
employing them in practice.
Afterword
Respected readers, our journey in the numerous branches of the

Chelyabinsk Variation is getting near the end. I hope you have found it
interesting. Many of you may think that I have devoted too much space both
to mere enumeration and analysis of errors committed by Evegeny
Sveshnikov. It was done to demonstrate the ridiculous results that the
widespread method of thoughtless copying of others’ games and analyses
leads to. I do hope that it would get the authors who have made a cottage
industry out of writing books on openings thinking a little, and as a result the
readers would be able to buy books of higher quality.
Besides, my desire was to guard my readers against wrong notions about
the variation than had been put to them by the book of a well-known author
and, consequently, against undeserved defeats in their tournament games.
Without that, it will be difficult for them to move on.
Now the time has come for us to say our goodbyes, but before that I
would like to take a look at the future of the variation and to say a few words
about our possible future meeting.
So, what will happen to the variation in the future? Fortunately, I am not
so naive as to inform the whole world about the coming cessation of the
development of the variation as a result of the publication of this book, or
declare that all I have to do now is to give another brush to some insignificant
details. The variation will keep on living its own life, keep on developing
further and further. I believe that the Chelyabinsk Variation is absolutely
viable and therefore will continue to occupy its rightful place among the most
popular chess systems in the future.
I concede that it may temporarily go out of fashion. The probable reason
for this may be that you have to keep too many complex variations in your
head, and the modern generation of leading chessplayers does not seem to
like this very much. More than that, those variations need computer checking
before you start uploading them into your memory.
But a new generation will come, together with much more powerful
computers, and this plethora of variations would scare no one – rather on the
contrary. And then the variation would become fashionable again. Or,
perhaps, this scenario will not come true and the variation will remain
popular. We shall wait and see.
Gennady Timoshchenko,
Nitra, Slovakia

Sicilian Defense - The Chelyabin - Gennadi Timoshchenko

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Sicilian Defense - The Chelyabin - Gennadi Timoshchenko

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Sicilian Defense: The Chelyabinsk Variation

Its Past, Present & Future

© Copyright 2018 Gennadi Timoshchenko

Cover design by Janel Lowrance

Printed in the United States of America

Foreword by Garry Kasparov

(8) 7.Be2, 7.Na3 and 7.Be3

(30) 7.Bg5 a6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Na3 f5 without 10.Nc4, 10.Bc4, 10.exf5 or

(39) 8.Na3 e6 9.Nc4 without 9…Rc8 or 8…b5

(60) 10…f5 without 11.g3, 11.exf5, 11.Bxb5 and 11.c3

(85) 11.Bd3 Be6 without 12.Qh5, 12.c3 or 12.0-0

(123) 9.Nd5 9…Qa5 10.Bd2 Qd8 without 11.Bd3 and 11.c4

(135) 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c4 without 11…b4 or 11.c3

(155) 11…0-0 without 12.Nc2

(170) 12…Bg5 13.Be2 Ne7 without 14.Ncb4, without 13.h4 or 13.a4

(184) 15…Rb8 without 16.Ra2 or 16.b3

Gennadi Timoshchenko’s book on the Chelyabinsk Variation is both very

My special thanks to former world champion Garry Kimovich Kasparov,

The author with Garry Kasparov in Bratislava, 2011

As of now, no official name has been attached to this variation. In Russia,

So what is opening theory?

A new standard for books on openings

The theory itself

The Opening Revolution, Phase 2

Limited volume of books vs. enormous amount of practical material

A Great Number of Novelties

More than a half-century ago, on June 5, 1965, in the city of Chelyabinsk,

It was not long before the first tests had begun…

= the play is equal

(1) Timoshchenko – Sveshnikov

This game has already been given in Part I, chapter 1.

(2) Timoshchenko – Sveshnikov

(3) Gutkin – Timoshchenko

(4) Tsichelashvili – Timoshchenko

The cold-blooded 18…Rd8! retains equal chances.

It is not often that you can see such a position!

(5) Slonimsky – Timoshchenko

(6) Kirpichnikov – Timoshchenko

(7) Madon – Timoshchenko

(8) Timoshchenko – Nikitin

(9) Hoogendoorn – Timoshchenko

(10) Jahr – Timoshchenko

(11) Ostojic – Timoshchenko

19.Ne4! Ke7 20.g3?

(12) Kotkov – Timoshchenko

(13) Pozharsky – Timoshchenko

(14) Agzamov – Timoshchenko

(15) Gulko – Timoshchenko

(16) Donchenko – Timoshchenko

(17) Belyshev – Timoshchenko

(18) Podgaets – Timoshchenko

(19) Kadaner – Timoshchenko

(20) Stukaturkin – Timoshchenko

(21) Khe – Timoshchenko

(22) Kashljak – Timoshchenko

(23) Pulkis – Timoshchenko

Black continues to play for complications against his less experienced

(24) Zorin – Timoshchenko

(25) Sabitov – Timoshchenko

(26) Palnichenko – Timoshchenko

(27) Fabrikant – Timoshchenko

(28) Rurov – Timoshchenko

(29) Buchholz – Timoshchenko