The

Chameleon Variation
Confronting the Sicilian on Your Own Terms
by Carsten Hansen
ISBN: 978-1-941270-86-8 (print)
ISBN: 978-1-941270-87-5 (eBook)
© Copyright 2017
Carsten Hansen
All Rights Reserved
No part of this book may be 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.
P.O. Box 3131
Milford, CT 06460 USA
http://www.russell-enterprises.com
info@russell-enterprises.com
Cover by Janel Lowrance
Editing and proofreading by Alexey Root
Printed in the United States of America
 Table of Contents
Foreword by Andy Soltis
Chapter 1
Ideas
Chapter 2
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e5
4…b5
4…g6
4…Nce7
4…Nge7
Chapter 3
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 d5
5…Nxd5
6…e6
6…Nc7
6…Nxc3
6…Be6
6…Nf6
5…Nd4!?
6.Bg2 Bg4 7.h3
6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.Nb5
Chapter 4
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 4.g3 Nf6
Chapter 5
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 4.g3 d5
Chapter 6
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nd4
4.d3
4.Nxd4 cxd4
5.Nb5!?
5.Ne2
Chapter 7
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 a6 4 g3 b5 with 6.0-0
 6…b4
6…Nf6
7…d6
7…d5
Chapter 8
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e5 3.Nge2 a6 4.g3 b5 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.d4
6…b4
6…cxd4
Chapter 9
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 d5
Chapter 10
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3 Nge2 e5
Chapter 11
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3 Nge2 e6 4 d4 d5!? and 3…Nf6 4 d4 d5?!
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 4.d4 d5
6.dxc5
6.Be3
6…c4
6…cxd4
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.d4 d5?!
Chapter 12
Transpositions to the Open Dragon
2…Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Nde2 Nf6 7.g3
7…b6
7…b5
2…d6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 g6 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Nde2
2…Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 d6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 g6 7.Nde2
2…Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 0-0
Chapter 13
Transpositions to the Najdorf Sicilian
Chapter 14
Transpositions to the Classical Sicilian
Chapter 15
Ideas in the Closed Sicilian with Nge2
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 d6 6.d3
 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d3 d6 8.h3 Rb8 9.f4
9…Bd7
9…Nd7
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 g6 6.0-0 Bg7 7.Nd5
eBook List
 Foreword
In 1982, the late Ken Smith’s publishing house Chess Digest published the first edition of
my small monograph Beating the Sicilian, The Chameleon Variation. It was well received
and a second edition came out in 1990. It proposed a very flexible way for White to
handle the Sicilian Defense using the move order 1.e4, 2.Nc3 and 3.Nge2. It kept most of
White’s options open and allowed White the possibility of luring Black into unfamiliar
territory.
I was certainly not the first person to play 3.Nge2 in the Sicilian, and I did not play it to
create opening theory. I did it to avoid theory. I had found it increasingly difficult to keep
up to date with the latest nuances and changes in the main Sicilian lines, such as the
Najdorf, Taimanov, Kan and Dragon, or even the rarer lines like the Kalashnikov. When I
first analyzed 3.Nge2, I was concerned about Black’s attempts at refutation, such as 2…
Nf6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 d5 5.exd5 Nd4. But, not to worry.
With a 3.Nge2 move order, I could get to a perfectly playable middlegame in which I
could expect to know as much about it as my opponent. Of course, there were some
Sicilian main lines that I was happy to visit. So, for example, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6
3.Nge2 Nf6, I would reply 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 and get to play a Sozin (5…d6).
When Bobby Fischer adopted the Chameleon, he took the same approach. On 3…e6, he
would transpose into a main line with 4.d4. Curiously, Bobby played 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 d6
4.h3 in one of his last tournaments. Fischer also used the 2.Ne2 Nf6 3.Nbc3 move order in
his 1992 rematch with Boris Spassky – himself an occasional Chameolonist – to play an
Open Sicilian.
So, I initially looked upon 3.Nge2 as a kind of ruse. But I also began to appreciate it as a
trap. It got my opponents thinking at move three, no small trick in the over-analyzed, over-
memorized Sicilian. After I had been playing it for a few years, I was surprised by how
many players, even some masters, didn’t understand White’s third move. They saw 2.Nc3
and thought “Closed Sicilian.” They mentally ruled out an Open Sicilian. So I won quick
games that went 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 4.g3 g6? 5.d4! cxd4 6.Nxd4 Bg7? 7.Ndb5.
Back in the 1970s, we believed that 2…d6 and 3…e5 (or 2…Nc6 and 3…e5) had to favor
White after 4.Nd5 and 5.Nec3 and Bc4. After all, one central square was superior to the
others and White owned it. But one square isn’t all that important. Fischer used the
Chameleon in his rematch with Spassky, but avoided Bc4 in favor of g2-g3 and Bg2.
Why the name? Chess Digest had issued my previous pamphlets with titles like 1.b4. He
wanted something memorable. For subsequent pamphlets I suggested names like Nimzo-
Larsen Attack (for 1.b3) and Baltic Defense (for 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5). How the name stuck
and won acceptance – and how 2.Nc3/3.Nge2 grew into a worthwhile chapter of opening
theory – continues to surprise me.
And now, the journey of the Chameleon continues in this thorough, comprehensive update
by well-known author Carsten Hansen.
Andy Soltis
New York City
September 2017
Chapter 1

Ideas
In this short chapter, we will take an introductory look at some of the ideas behind White’s
opening play in the Chameleon Variation of the Sicilian.
The Sicilian jungle is vast. Unless you have a massive amount of time on your hands, it is
an exhausting task to keep a sharp opening repertoire together against Black’s numerous
possibilities. It does not mean that it is impossible, nor does it mean that you shouldn’t do
it. But for the average player with an average amount of time available for chess studies, it
is important to pick the right battles. This is where our weapon comes in handy.
1. e4 c5

The normal Open Sicilians arise after 2.Nf3 and then, after most replies from Black, White
will then play 3.d4. Many of the variations are incredibly theory-heavy. For instance, not
long ago I wrote a monograph on the Sicilian Dragon (which arises after 2…d6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6). I filled 463 pages in a small font. Even then, I had to make a lot of
concessions and cut the coverage of some variations down to the bare minimum. We will
visit a transposition to the Dragon in chapter 14. But the Dragon is not even the biggest
line. The English Attack of the Scheveningen (2…d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6
6.Be3 followed by f2-f3 and Qd2) or the Najdorf Sicilian 2…d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
5.Nc3 a6), where the theory in many lines stretches well beyond move 20, can be fear-
inducing.
So, how can White limit Black’s options, at least a bit? Well, for starters you can avoid the
Open Sicilian. There are many ways of doing this. White can play 3.Bb5(+) if Black plays
either 2…Nc6 or 2…d6. The Alapin Sicilian, 2.c3, is also a popular choice. Similarly, the
Closed Sicilian, 2.Nc3 followed by 3.g3, or the Grand Prix Attack, 2.Nc3 followed by
3.f4, are commonly seen choices. In addition, White has many other minor lines. If Black
has a well-considered repertoire, then he or she will also have made some decisions about
what to do against most of these anti-Sicilians. Would you be interested in possibly
tricking Black into playing something he would otherwise not be inclined to play? That’s
where the Chameleon is useful!
2.Nc3
White apparently invites either the Closed Sicilian or the Grand Prix Attack or the
somewhat curious 2…Nc6 3.Bb5!? which has also found its supporters.
The normal response to the Closed Sicilian is 2…Nc6 and now the main lines arise after
3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 and here White typically plays either 6.Be3 or 6.f4 although
several other options are available for White, including 6.Nge2 which is a move you will
become more familiar with in the last chapter of this book.
The problem for Black, however, is that after 2…Nc6, White can consider reentering the
Open Sicilian with 3.Nf3 followed by 4.d4. That move order will have tricked Najdorf
players out of the opportunity to play their favorite opening. Similarly, Dragon players
will be forced to play lines with …Nc6, which is not ideal in all lines of the Dragon.
Black, however, can answer 3.Nf3 with 3…e5, thus preventing White from reaching the
Open Sicilian. This line has been strongly advocated by Sveshnikov and others to punish
White. Theoretically, Black is doing fine in that variation. The key is that the weakened
d5-square is difficult to exploit.
Now White has another trick up his sleeve:
3.Nge2!?

This is the Chameleon Variation.

If Black now plays 3…e5, then White has some additional options available. For instance,
4.Nd5 d6 5.Nec3 followed by 6.Bc4, e.g.,
…and White has grabbed full control of the d5-square in a way that is not possible after
3.Nf3. I recall that I first saw this idea discussed in a book by Suba, possibly the first
edition of his Dynamic Chess Strategy. Suba’s verdict was bold: clear advantage for
White. This may be a little excessive, but considering how heavily the score favors White
in this variation, he may well be onto something.
This means that Black will have to declare his intentions very early and before White
commits to d2-d4:
(I) Black aims for a Najdorf or Dragon – 2…d6 3.Nge2 Nf6
(II) Black aims for a Taimanov – 2…Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 (or 2…e6 3.Nge2 Nc6)
(III) Black aims for a Kan – 2…e6 3.Nge2 a6
(IV) Black aims for a Sveshnikov or Richter-Rauzer/Sozin – 2…Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6
(V) Black strikes immediately in the center – 2…e6 3.Nge2 d5
(VI) Black closes the center – 2…Nc6 3.Nge2 e5 or 2…d6 3.Nge2 e5
While the re-entry into the Open Sicilian opens the same can of worms as with 2.Nf3
followed by 3.d4, White can be selective and choose to only enter against certain lines
while against others stay in Chameleon territory or enter a Closed Sicilian.
The reason why this opening appeals to so many is that White is the player in control and
Black has to adjust accordingly. The set-ups where White transition into the Open Sicilian
all feature an early g2-g3 which is always played before going for d2-d4. This means that
Black cannot play just any set-up because it (a) has to be a variation that is actually part of
Black’s normal repertoire; and (b) the standard response against the Closed Sicilian a set-
up with 2…Nc6 and 3….g6 doesn’t jive well for those players who play the Najdorf, the
Sveshnikov or some of the many other non-Dragon lines. In fact, even Dragon players will
have some issues, because some of the main lines that I and many other Dragon players
often prefer to play are unavailable to us through White’s move order trickery.
Aside from its flexibility, the greatest strength of this opening is that it is so relatively
unexplored. There are plenty of opportunities to explore further and find ideas of your
own. This is fertile ground and your seeds could well sprout to become new branches of
theory and most importantly, you, as White, decide which direction you want the game to
go: sharp and tense, or a calm maneuvering game. In each chapter, I will summarize which
lines will apply in each category.
Chapter 2

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e5

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e5

This is Black’s primary line to avoid any inconvenient transpositions to an unintended line
in the Open Sicilian. The problem for Black, however, is that the d5-square and the light
squares around the center pawns are rather weakened. Black hopes that White’s
development of the knight to e2 will limit White’s options, he will often find that this is an
improved version for White of another move order trick, 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3, when
3…e5 is an important option for Black. The key difference between 3…e5 after 3.Nf3 and
after 3.Nge2 is the coordination between the white knights which are now able to
penetrate and control the d5-square fully and the f2-f4 pawn break is more readily
available to White.
4.Nd5
Now Black has to choose between the following options:
(A) 4…b5
(B) 4…g6
(C) 4…Nce7
(D) 4…Nge7
4…Nf6 and 4…Be7 are both played regularly but invariably transposes to main line.
(A) 4…b5
This is looks like an interesting counter to White’s odd knight moves, but it turns out that
it simply weakens Black’s dark squares further, and they are already quite weak to begin
with.

5.a4
White has tried a few other things at this point:
(a) 5.Ng3 a6 6.a4 Rb8 7.axb5 axb5 8.c3 g6 9.Qb3 (or 9.Qf3 Bg7 10.d3 d6 11.Be2
intending Ng3-f1-e3 and potentially transfer the bishop via d1 to b3) 9…c4 10.Qa2 h5
11.Be2 Nce7 12.b3 h4 (Black should perhaps have played 12…Nxd5 13.exd5 Bb7
14.bxc4 h4 15.Nf1 Ra8 16.Qb2 Rxa1 17.Qxa1 bxc4 18.Bxc4 Nf6 with a complicated
struggle ahead) 13.Nf1 Nxd5 14.exd5 cxb3 15.Qxb3 Qb6 (or 15…Nf6 16.Ne3 b4 17.0-0
with a better game for White) 16.Ne3 Nf6 17.c4 b4 18.Bb2 d6 19.d4 exd4 20.Nc2 and
White has the better chances, Zhelnin-Moroz, Pardubice 1992.
(b) 5.Nec3 a6 6.Ne3 Nf6 7.d3 g6 8.g3 Bg7 9.Bg2 0-0 10.0-0 d6 11.Ned5 Nxd5 12.Nxd5
Ne7 13.Bg5 f6 14.Nxe7+ Qxe7 15.Be3 Bb7 and Black has equalized, Blodstein-Votava,
Pardubice 1992.
5…b4 6.Ng3 Nf6
6…Nge7 7.Bc4 Nxd5 8.Bxd5 g6 9.b3 (9.d3 Bg7 10.h4 h5 11.Be3 Qe7) 9…Bg7 10.Bb2 0-
0 11.h4 Bb7 12.h5 Qg5 13.d3 Na5 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.Bc1 and White already has a clear
advantage, but he gets the opportunity to finish the game off in style: 15…Qe7 16.Nf5 Qf6
17.Qg4 Bxd5 18.Qh3 Rfe8 19.Bg5! and Black resigned, 1-0, Neiksans-Kantans, Liepaja
2014.
7.Bc4 Na5 8.Nxf6+
Or 8.d3 Nxd5?! 9.Bxd5 Bb7 10.Bxb7 Nxb7 11.h4 h5 12.Nf5 Nd6 13.Ne3 a5 14.b3 (White
could do better with 14.f4!) 14…Nc8 15.Bb2 d6, Ibarra Jerez-Grigore, Mallorca 2004, and
now 16.f4 would be clearly better for White, for instance, 16…exf4 17.Nf5 Qd7 18.Nxf4
when Black has a very hard time getting his development completed.
8…Qxf6 9.Bd5 Bb7 10.Bxb7 Nxb7 11.0-0
11.d3 g6 12.0-0 h5 13.f4 Nd8 14.Kh1 (14.f5! seems to improve) 14…Bh6 (Black should
have played 14…h4 15.Ne2 Ne6 16.f5 Ng7 17.fxg6 Qxg6 with chances to both sides)
15.fxe5 Qxe5 16.Bxh6 Rxh6 17.Qd2 Rh7 18.c3 with better chances for White, Salazar
Jacob-Bellon Lopez, Manila 1992.
11…g6 12.c3 h5 13.Ne2 c4 14.d3 Qe6 15.Be3 b3 16.a5 cxd3 17.Nc1 Nd6
Was played in Malisauskas-Votava, Budapest 1992, and now 18.Nxd3 Nxe4 19.Re1 would
have left Black in serious trouble, far behind in development.
(B) 4…g6 5.Nec3 Nd4
Black’s alternatives are not that interesting:
(a) 5…Bg7? 6.Nb5 Rb8 (6…Kf8 7.Nd6 Nf6 8.Bc4 Na5 9.Qe2 b5 10.Bxb5 Nxd5 11.exd5
Qc7 12.Nxc8 Rxc8 13.0-0 and Black is a pawn down without compensation, Mariano-
Naing, Yangon 1998) 7.Nd6+ Kf8 8.Bc4 Nd4 9.c3 Ne6 10.d4 cxd4 11.0-0 Nf6 12.cxd4
Nxd5 13.Bxd5 and Black is completely busted, T.Paehtz-Heidrich, Germany 2003.
(b) 5…a6 6.a4 Bg7 7.Bc4 Nge7 (7…d6 8.d3 Be6 9.0-0 h6 10.Be3 Nf6 11.Nxf6+ Qxf6
12.Nd5 Qd8 13.Qd2 Ne7 14.b4 with a strong initiative for White, Petrov-Enchev, Plovdiv
2007) 8.d3 Nxd5 9.Nxd5 d6 10.Be3 Rb8 11.Qd2 Be6 12.0-0 h6 13.a5 Ne7 14.Nb6 Nc6
15.Bd5 Bxd5 16.Nxd5 g5 17.c4 0-0 18.b4 cxb4 was played in Inkiov-Gheorghiu, Warsaw
1979, and now 19.Rfb1 would have given a large advantage to White.
6.Bc4 Bg7
6…a6 7.a4 Bg7 8.d3 d6 9.0-0 Ne6 10.f4 (10.Rb1 followed by b2-b4 may well be even
better) 10…exf4 11.Nxf4 Ne7 12.Nfd5 Nc6 13.Be3 0-0 14.Qd2 is pleasant for White,
Kazoks-Vayser, Russia 2004.
7.d3 d6 8.0-0

8…Nh6
Black didn’t have much fun after 8…Be6 either: 9.f4 f5 10.a4 Nf6 11.Nxf6+ Qxf6 12.Nd5
Bxd5 13.Bxd5 0-0-0 14.c3 Nc6 15.a5 Kc7 16.Qb3 Rb8 17.Qb5 and Black was completely
lost, Hernandez-Martin Del Campo, Linares 1993.
9.Bd2 0-0 10.Qc1 Qh4 11.f3 Rb8?
Black had to play 11…Be6 when White would only have been clearly better. Now on the
other hand, it goes rapidly downhill.
12.a4 a6 13.Bg5 Qh5 14.a5 Nxc2 15.Bxh6 Nxa1 16.Bg5 Nc2 17.Ne2 h6 18.Be7 Nd4
19.Ng3 Re8 20.Nxh5 Ne2+ 21.Kf2 Nxc1 22.Nhf6+
And Black resigned, 1-0, Mamedov-Akkozov, Tashkent 2016.
(C) 4…Nce7 5.Nec3
White can also retreat with the knight to e3 with 5.Ne3, and now:
(a) 5…a6 6.Nc3 b5 7.a4 b4 8.Ncd5 Nxd5 9.Nxd5 Ne7 10.Bc4 Bb7 11.Nxe7 Bxe7 12.Qe2
0-0 13.0-0 a5 14.d3 when Black is pretty much okay, Morovic Fernandez-Degraeve,
Istanbul 2000.
(b) 5… Nf6 6.Nc3 (or 6.Ng3 g6 7.b3 Bg7 8.Bb2 d6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0 b5 11.Bd3 h5 12.f4
with some initiative for White, Lastin-Sherbakov, Ekaterinburg 2002) 6…a6 7.a4, and
here

(b1) 7…d6 8.Bc4 Be6 9.d3 g6 10.0-0 Bg7 11.f4 exf4 12.Rxf4 0-0 13.Rf1 d5 and Black
has equalized, E.Paehtz-Kosteniuk, Lausanne 2003.
(b2) 7…d5 8.exd5 Nexd5 9.Ncxd5 Nxd5 10.Qh5 Be6 11.Qxe5 Be7 12.Qxg7 Bf6 13.Qg3
Qe7 14.Be2 is wildly optimistic and should be insufficient for the pawns sacrificed, yet
Black made it work in the game Nikolenko-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1992.
(b3) 7… g6 8.Bc4 (or 8.Nc4 d6 9.f4 Bg7 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Ne3 0-0 12.Bc4 Rb8 13.d3 Bd7
14.0-0 b5 15.axb5 axb5 16.Bb3 Nc6 17.Ncd5 Nxd5 18.Nxd5 with a more comfortable
game for White, Felgaer-Ikonnikov, Havana 2004) 8…Bg7 9.d3 d6 10.g4 Be6 11.Qf3 Rb8
12.h4 Qd7 13.Rg1 h5 14.Nf5 gxf5 15.gxf5 Bxc4 16.Rxg7! and White has the better
chances, Lagarde-Cornette, Agen 2017.
5…Nxd5 6.Nxd5 Nf6
Black has also tested 6…Ne7, and now:
(a) 7.Ne3 d6 8.Bc4 Be6 9.d3 (9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.d3 Qd7 11.a3 Nc6 is fine for Black, Wang
Zili-Urday Caceres, Yerevan 1996) 9…Qd7 10.0-0 g6 11.a4 Bg7 12.Bb5 Nc6 13.Nd5 0-0
14.a5 Kh8 15.a6 and White has the better chances, Nakamura-Maisuradze, Victoria 2012.
(b) 7.Bc4 d6 (or 7…Nxd5 8.Bxd5 g6 9.h4 h5 10.Qf3 Qe7 11.d4 Bg7 12.dxc5 0-0 13.g4
Qf6 14.Qxf6 Bxf6 15.gxh5 gxh5 16.Bh6 Rd8 17.0-0-0 with a devastating attack, Delchev-
Simon, Thorigny 2006) 8.0-0 (White doesn’t have anything after 8.Qf3 Be6 9.Qb3 Nxd5
10.Bxd5 Bxd5 11.Qxd5 Qd7 12.f4 exf4 13.0-0 Qc6 14.Rxf4 Qxd5 15.exd5 as in
Antoniewski-Baramidze, Germany 2005) 8…Nxd5 9.Bxd5 Be7 10.f4 exf4 11.d4 cxd4
12.Qxd4 Bf6 13.Qc4 0-0 14.Bxf4 Bxb2 15.Rab1 Bf6 16.Qd3 when White’s very active
pieces more than compensate for the sacrificed pawn, Hamdouchi-Sardana, Doha 2014.
7.Bc4
White can also force Black’s queen to f6 but it is unclear whether this is to White’s
advantage: 7.Nxf6+ Qxf6 8.Bc4 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.d3 (or 10.Bd5 d6 11.b4 Be6 12.Rb1
Rab8 13.Qe2 Qg6 14.d3 b6 15.f4 exf4 16.Bxf4 Bxd5 17.exd5 Bg5 and Black has
equalized, Gallagher-Shcherbakov, Metz 1994) 10…d6 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 Be6 13.b3 d5
14.Bg3 Qc3 15.exd5 Bxd5 16.Qe1 Qxe1 17.Raxe1 Bxc4 18.Rxe7 Bd5 was played in
Berend-Van der Stricht, Gothenburg 2005, and now 19.Bd6 f6 20.c4 Bc6 21.Bxc5 would
have left White with an extra pawn in the endgame.
7…Be7 8.d3 d6
Or 8…Nxd5 9.Bxd5 d6 10.0-0 0-0 11.c3 Bg5 12.f4 Bxf4 13.Bxf4 exf4 14.Rxf4 and White
has the initiative, Solak-Simic, Vrnjacka Banja 2005.
9.0-0
Some key alternatives for White are:
(a) 9.Nxe7 Qxe7 10.Bg5 0-0 11.f4 (or 11.Qf3 Be6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.0-0-0 Kh8 14.g4 Rg8
15.h3 Rg6 16.Qe3 Rb8 17.f4 Rg7 18.f5 and White is complete control of the game, Terzi-
Kazakovskiy, Minsk 2016) 11…exf4 12.0-0 h6 13.Bxf4 Be6 14.e5 dxe5 15.Bxe5 Nd5
16.Re1 Rad8 17.Qf3 Qg5 18.a3 with somewhat better chances for White,
Solodovnichenko-Kovalevskaya, Voronezh 2009.
(b) 9.f4 exf4 10.Bxf4 0-0 11.0-0 Nxd5 12.Bxd5 Be6 13.c3 Bxd5 14.exd5 Bf6 15.Qf3 Re8
16.Rae1 Qd7 17.Qg3 Rxe1 18.Rxe1 Rd8 19.Bxd6 b6 20.Be5 Bxe5 is better for White,
Galkin-Womacka, playchess.com INT 2007, when now 21.Qxe5.
9…0-0 10.Nxe7+ Qxe7 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 Ng4 13.Qf3 Ne5
After 13…Be6 14.Qg3 Rad8 15.Bb3 a6 16.Bd5 Bxd5 17.exd5 Ne5 18.Rae1 f6 19.c3 Qd7,
Black had equalized in V.Georgiev-Tiviakov, Plovdiv 2003, but 18.Bxe5 dxe5 19.c4 can
perhaps give White a little something to play for.
14.Bxe5 dxe5 15.Qh5 g6 16.Qh6 Be6 17.Bxe6 Qxe6 18.Rf3 f6 and Black has equalized,
De Almeida-Irzhanov, ICCF email 2006.
(D) 4…Nge7 5.Nec3

5…d6
Black can also choose to exchange on d5 immediately, 5…Nxd5 6.Nxd5 g6, and now:
(a) 7.h4 h6 (or 7…Bg7 8.h5 0-0 9.Bc4 d6 10.hxg6 hxg6 11.d3 Be6 12.Ne3 Qe7 13.Qf3 b5
14.Bd5 Rfc8 15.Qg3 Rab8 16.c3 c4 17.dxc4 bxc4 18.Qh2 Kf8 19.Qh7 Nd8 20.Bxe6 Qxe6
21.Nd5 Qg4 22.Rh4 Qxg2 23.Qxg7+ and with mate in a few moves, Black resigned, 1-0,
Ruefenacht-Rosen, corr 1990) 8.Bc4 Bg7 9.h5 g5 10.d3 d6 11.Ne3 Be6 12.c3 Qd7 13.Qf3
Ne7 14.a4 0-0-0 and Black has equalized, Franzoni-L.Szabo, Bern 1987.
(b) 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.0-0 0-0 9.d3 Na5 10.f4 exf4 11.Bxf4 Nxc4 12.dxc4 d6 13.c3 b6 14.Qd3
with somewhat better chances for White, Kuzmin-Khenkin, Belgorod 1989.
6.Bc4 Nxd5
Two other options for Black are:
(a) 6…Nd4 7.a4 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 Be7 9.d3 0-0 10.c3 Ne6 11.0-0 Bg5 12.f4 exf4 13.Nxf4
Nxf4 14.Bxf4 Bxf4 15.Rxf4 with some initiative for White, Kanmazalp-Kinsiz, Konya
2011.
(b) 6…a6 7.a4 Nb4 (or 7…Nxd5 8.Nxd5 Be6 9.d3 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 Rb8
13.Ne3 Bf6 14.c3 Be5 15.Qe2 Qd7 16.Bd5 Bxd5 17.Nxd5 Ne7 18.Nb6 Qe6 19.a5 Bxf4
20.Rxf4 and White has the upper hand, Lobron-Pribyl, Germany 1990) 8.d3 Nbxd5
9.Nxd5 Be6 10.f4 Bxd5 11.exd5 exf4 12.Qe2 g5 13.h4 Bg7 14.hxg5 Be5 15.c3 Kf8 16.a5
Ng6 17.Rh5 with a messy position but where White has the better game, Short-Dzagnidze,
Caleta 2012.
7.Nxd5

Recapturing with the bishop doesn’t do anything for White, 7.Bxd5 Be6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Bxe6
fxe6 10.Qg4 Qd7 11.Qxg7 0-0-0 12.Qg4 h5 and Black has a good game, Vesselovsky-
Miton, Frydek Mistek 1997.
7…Be6
The text move and 7…Be7 can transpose, but if Black plays 7…Be7 first there are some
individual lines of importance: 8.0-0 0-0, and now:
(a) 9.a4 Kh8 10.d3 Bg5 11.Qh5 Bxc1 12.Raxc1 f5 13.f4 fxe4?! (13…Be6 was safer) 14.f5
Rxf5 15.Rxf5 g6 was played in Petrov-Sanchez, Villeneuve Tolosane 2006, when 16.Qh6!
would have left White with a decisive advantage.
(b) 9.f4 exf4 10.d3 (10.Nxf4 Bg5 11.d3 Rb8 12.c3 b5 13.Bd5 Ne5 14.h3 Bb7 15.Ne6 fxe6
16.Bxe6+ Kh8 17.Rxf8+ Qxf8 18.Bxg5 with a clear advantage for White, Vogt-Luecke,
Germany 1991) 10…Ne5 11.Bxf4 Nxc4 12.dxc4 Bg5 13.Bg3 f5 14.Qd3 g6 15.e5 dxe5
16.Bxe5 and Black’s weak king guarantees White a clear advantage, Rublevsky-
Krasenkow, Moscow 1991.
(c) 9.d3, and here:
(c1) 9…Bg5 with another fork in the road:
(c11) 10.a4 Bxc1 (or 10…Be6 11.c3 Bxc1 12.Rxc1 Ne7 13.Qb3 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Qd7 15.f4
exf4 16.Rxf4 Rae8 17.Rcf1 Bxd5 18.Qxd5 when White has no advantage to show from
the opening, Vogt-Lalev, W.Berlin 1989) 11.Qxc1 Be6 12.Qd2 Rc8 13.a5 Qd7 14.Rae1
Ne7 15.f4 Bxd5 16.Bxd5 Nxd5 17.exd5 exf4 18.Qxf4 Rfe8 and Black has equalized,
Solodovnichenko-Sveshnikov, Livigno 2011.
(c12) 10.f4 exf4 11.Bxf4 Ne5 12.Bb3 Be6 13.a4 (after 13.Qe2 Rc8 14.Kh1 b5 15.Bxe5
dxe5 16.a4 a6 17.axb5 axb5, Ermenkov-Baker, Coulsdon 2009, 18.Ra7 would would have
a small pull) 13…Bxf4 (13…Rc8 14.Qe2 Kh8 15.Kh1 Re8 16.Rae1 a6 17.Ra1 Bxf4
18.Rxf4 b5 was equal in Ermenkov-Aghayev, Sunny Beach 2012) 14.Rxf4 Qg5 15.Qf1
Rac8 16.Qf2 b6 17.Rf1 Ng6 18.Rf3 h5 19.Ne3 h4 20.Nf5 Rcd8 21.Bd5 Bxd5 22.exd5
Rfe8 23.Rh3 with chances to both sides, Maki-Liiva, Finland 1996.
(c13) 10.Qh5 Bxc1 11.Raxc1 Ne7 12.Ne3 g6? (12…Be6!? Would keep White’s advantage
to a bare minimum) 13.Qh6 Kh8 14.f4 Ng8 15.Qg5 Qxg5 16.fxg5 Kg7 17.Bd5 h6 18.Nc4
and White is clearly better, Sax-Pribyl, Germany 1994.
(c2) 9…Rb8 10.a4 Be6 11.f4 exf4 (or 11…Bf6 12.c3 exf4 13.Bxf4 Ne5 14.Qh5 Bxd5
15.Bxe5 dxe5 16.Bxd5 Qb6 17.Rf2 Rbd8 18.Raf1 with a small plus for White in Calhau-
Vasile, ICCF email 2003) 12.Bxf4 Bg5 13.Qh5 h6 14.h3 (14.Ba2 Bxf4 15.Rxf4 Qg5
16.Qxg5 hxg5 17.Rf2 Kh7 18.h3 Kg6 was very close to equal in Short-Nataf, New
Delhi/Tehran 2000) 14…Bxf4 15.Rxf4 Qg5 16.Qxg5 hxg5 17.Rf2 Kh7 18.Ne3 Ne5
19.Bd5 Ng6 20.g3 Bxd5 21.Nxd5 with a tiny edge for White in Charochkina-
Goryachkina, Nizhnij Novgorod 2013.
8.d3
After 8.0-0 g6 9.d3 Bg7 10.f4 exf4 11.Nxf4 Bxc4 12.dxc4 0-0 13.c3 Ne5 14.Qe2 Qd7
15.Nd5 f6 16.Bf4 Rae8 17.Bg3 White had the initiative in Moreno Carnero-Boensch,
Germany 2003.
8…Be7
Black has also tried the over-ambitious 8…Ne7 9.0-0 a6, when he soon ran into trouble
10.Bg5 b5 11.Bb3 Ra7 12.a4 b4 13.f4 exf4 14.Qh5 and Black is toast, Medvegy-Kunin,
Schwarzach 2002.
9.0-0
The Dutch Grandmaster and specialist in this variation, Tiviakov delivered a thematic win
after 9.f4 exf4 10.Bxf4 0-0 11.Qd2 Rb8 12.a4 Ne5 13.0-0 h6 14.Bxe5 dxe5 15.Qf2 b6
16.Qg3 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Bf6 18.Rf5 Qe7 19.Raf1 Kh7 20.R1f3 Rh8 21.Qf2 Bh4 22.g3 Bf6
23.Rxf6 gxf6 24.Rxf6 Rbf8 25.Qf5+ Kg7 26.Qg4+, and Black resigned when he stood to
lose the queen, 1-0, Tiviakov-Senders, Groningen 2014.
9…0-0

Or 9…Qd7 10.a4 0-0-0? is a bad idea as Black soon found out: 11.c3 Rdf8 12.a5 Kb8
13.a6 b6 14.Bb5 Rc8 15.Qa4 Bd8 16.d4 and Black’s position collapses, Dgebuadze-
Kahrovic, Schwaebisch Gmuend 2017.
10.f4
An important alternative is 10.c3, and here Black has tried:
(a) 10…Kh8 11.f4 f5 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Ne3 Bd7 14.f5 Bg5 15.Qh5 Bf4 16.g3 Qg5 and
Black has neutralized White’s pressure, Watson-Heinemann, Germany 2001.
(b) 10…Na5 11.Be3 Bg5 12.Qh5 Bxe3 13.Nxe3 h6 14.Rad1 Nc6 15.Rd2 Rb8 16.Bd5
Bxd5 17.Nxd5 Ne7 18.Ne3 Qd7 19.d4 cxd4 20.cxd4 with a small advantage for White,
Lobron-Ostermeyer, Bad Neuenahr 1984.
(c) 10…Rb8 11.f4 (or 11.a4 Bg5 12.Ne3 g6 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Qg4 Re8 15.g3 h5 16.Qh3
Na5 17.Ng2 Bxc1 18.Raxc1 b5 and Black has equalized, Ghinda-Inkiov, Pernik 1978)
11…exf4 12.Bxf4 Bg5 13.Bg3 Bh4 14.Bf4 Bg5 15.Bg3 Bh4 16.Bf4, and draw agreed, ½–
½, Bosch-Burg, Rosmalen 2014.
10.a3 Rb8 11.b4 b5 12.Bb3 a5 13.Nxe7+ Qxe7 14.Bd5 Rfc8 15.Bxc6 Rxc6 16.bxa5 Qc7
17.Bd2 with a small plus for White, Zhelnin-Mitrofanov, Tula 2000.
10.a4 Rc8 (10…Nb4 11.Nxe7+ Qxe7 12.c3 Nc6 13.Be3 Rad8 14.a5 a6 15.Qa4 Rc8
16.Rfd1 Rfd8 and Black has equalized, Solodovnichenko-Koch, Germany 2009) 11.f4
exf4 12.Bxf4 Bxd5 (12…Bg5 was played in Giorgadze-Nemet, Teslic 1979, and now
13.Qh5 h6 14.Bxg5 Qxg5 15.Qxg5 hxg5 16.Rf2 would have left White with, at best, a tiny
edge) 13.Bxd5 Nb4 14.Bb3 d5 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Qh5 Nxf4 17.Rxf4 Kh8? (17…Bf6
18.Raf1 isn’t pleasant for Black but is at least playable) 18.Rxf7 Qd4+ 19.Kh1 Rxf7
20.Qxf7 and White is clearly better, Najer-Aveskulov, Plovdiv 2008.
10…exf4 11.Bxf4

11…Bf6
Here Black has tried a few other moves as well:
(a) 11…Na5 12.Qd2 (or 12.Rf2!? Nxc4 13.dxc4 Bh4 14.g3 Bf6 15.Bxd6 Bd4 16.Bxf8
Qxf8 17.Qd2 Bxf2+ 18.Kxf2 with a clear advantage for White, Sutovsky-Markos,
Kaskady 2002) 12…Re8 (12…Nxc4 13.dxc4 Re8 14.Rad1 Bf8 15.b3 Qd7 16.h3 Qc6
17.Nc3 Rad8 18.Rf3 Rd7 19.Rd3 Red8 20.Qf2 leaves White with nice positional pressure
on Black’s position, which may be defensible. But at present Black is uncomfortable,
Polivanov-Voloshin, Alushta 2011) 13.Nxe7+ Rxe7 14.Bd5 Nc6 15.Bxc6 bxc6 16.e5
(White can improve with 16.Qf2 f6 17.Qg3 Rd7 18.b3 Bf7 19.Bd2 with some pressure on
account of having the initiative and opposite-color bishops) 16…dxe5 17.Bxe5 f6 18.Bc3
c4 19.dxc4 Qxd2 20.Bxd2 Bxc4 21.Rfe1 Rae8 22.b3 Be2 23.Kf2 Kf7 24.Rac1 a6, and
draw agreed, ½–½, Mortensen-De Firmian, Copenhagen 1985.
(b) 11…Ne5 12.Bb3 (or 12.Kh1 Bg5 13.Bxe5 dxe5 14.Qf3 Kh8 15.Qg3 f6 16.Bb3 Rc8
17.Rad1 Qe8 and Black had equalized, Rublevsky-T.Ernst, Helsinki 1992) 12…Rc8 (12…
Ng6 13.Be3 Bg5 14.Bxg5 Qxg5 15.Nc7 Bg4 16.Rxf7 Rxf7 17.Bxf7+ Kxf7 18.Qf1+ Nf4
19.Nd5 was comfortably better for White, Tischbierek-Zlatilov, Sankt Augustin 1990)
13.Kh1 Ng6 14.Qh5 Qd7 15.h3 b5 16.Qe2 Rb8 17.a4 Nxf4 18.Rxf4 Bg5 19.Rff1 was also
about even in Berzinsh-Zhuravliov, Latvia 1994.
(c) 11…Bxd5 12.Bxd5 Bf6 13.c3 Ne7 14.Bb3 b5 15.Kh1 a5 16.a4 b4 17.Rc1 bxc3
18.bxc3 Ng6 19.Be3 and White has the better chances, Martin Del Campo-Gonzalez,
Cienfuegos 1997.
12.c3 Be5 13.Qh5

After 13.Bb3 Qd7 14.Be3 Ne7 15.d4 cxd4 16.cxd4 Bxd5 17.dxe5 Bxb3 18.axb3, Glek-
Dvoirys, Vilnius 1984, Black had to play 18…d5 19.Rxa7 Rxa7 20.Bxa7 Rd8 to keep
White’s advantage to a bare minimum.
13…Bxf4 14.Rxf4 Ne5 15.Raf1
Or 15.Rh4 h6 16.Rf1 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Nxd3 18.Rf3 Ne5 19.Rg3 Qf6 20.Qxh6 Qxh6
21.Rxh6 Rfd8, Smirin-Sasikiran, Winnipeg 1997, and here 22.Rh4 would be somewhat
better for White.
15…Ng6 16.R4f3 Qd7 17.Rg3 b5 18.Bb3 Rfe8 19.Ne3 Bxb3 20.axb3 Re5 21.Nf5
With a strong initiative for White, Hakobyan-Sargsyan, Yerevan 2015.
Summary:
Since Black is responsible for choosing to close the game early on, it somewhat limits
White’s opportunities for making the game sharp. However, the main lines, primarily main
line (D), give White the opportunity to opt for an attack on the kingside while keeping an
iron-fist-like grip on Black’s active possibilities. Overall, this variation favors White.
Chapter 3

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 d5

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 d5

If Black wants to avoid entering a Closed Sicilian with his knight on f6, which is
definitely not to everybody’s taste, then this pawn advance is a possibility. This variation
has featured as the repertoire recommendation in a few anti-Sicilian repertoire books. It
does not represent a real problem for White, although there should not be a real
expectation to gain an advantage either.
5.exd5
And now we have two main paths:
(A) 5…Nxd5
(B) 5…Nd4!?
The former, (A) 5…Nxd5, is the most solid and likely leads to equality. However, (A) also
offers White an opportunity to take the game in a direction that is interesting for him. The
latter, (B) 5…Nd4, is both sharper and somewhat more interesting.
(A) 5…Nxd5 6.Bg2
Here we have five main options for Black that we will cover separately:
(A1) 6…e6
(A2) 6…Nc7
(A3) 6…Nxc3
(A4) 6…Be6
(A5) 6…Nf6
(A1) 6…e6
This position can also arise after the move order 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Nf6
5.Nge2 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5.
7.Nxd5 exd5
8.0-0
An important alternative for White is 8.d4, and now:
(a) 8…Be6 9.0-0 Qd7 10.Be3 0-0-0 (10…c4 11.Nf4 Bb4 12.b3 Na5 13.Bd2 Bxd2
14.Qxd2 b6 15.Rfe1 0-0 16.Re3 and Black has no good way of meeting the threat of
17.Rae1 and therefore White is much better, R.Martinez-Jara, Milan 2012 or 10…cxd4
11.Nxd4 Be7 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Qg4 Bf6 14.c3 Rd8 15.Rad1 0-0 16.Rfe1 with better
chances for White, Sepp-Rezaei, Moscow 1994) 11.dxc5 d4 12.Bxc6 Qxc6 13.Nxd4 Qa6
14.Qd3 Bc4 15.Qf5+ Kb8 16.Rfd1 Qa5 17.b4, and Black resigned, 1-0, Arribas Lopez-
Chuvnik, Zürich 2012.
(b) 8…cxd4 9.Nxd4 Bc5 10.Nb3 (Here White could benefit from giving the check on e2
himself, e.g., 10.Qe2+ Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Bxe7 12.Be3 and White should have an edge in the
queenless middlegame) 10…Qe7+ 11.Qe2 0-0 12.Qxe7 Bxe7 13.Bf4 Nb4 14.0-0-0 Nxa2+
15.Kb1 Nb4 16.Rhe1 Re8 17.Nd4 a5 18.c3 (Here White could have considered 18.Bd6
Be6 19.Bxe7 Rxe7 20.Nxe6 Rxe6 21.c3 Rxe1 22.Rxe1 Nc6 23.Bxd5 with marginally
better chances in the endgame) 18…Nc6 19.Bxd5 Nxd4 20.cxd4 Kf8 21.h4 a4 22.Re3 Ra5
23.Be4 and the chances are about even, Gibney-Trcka, ICCF email 2000.
(c) 8…Bg4 9.h3 Bh5 (or 9…Be6 10.Be3 c4 11.Nf4 Qd7 12.0-0 Be7 13.c3 0-0 14.Qf3
Rad8 15.Kh2 Bd6 16.Nh5 Be7 17.Nf4 Bd6 18.Nxe6 Qxe6 19.Rae1 with a better game for
White, Krapivin-Tupy, Ceske Budejovice 1998) 10.0-0 cxd4 11.g4 Bg6 12.Nxd4 Be7
13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.c4 Be4 15.Bxe4 dxe4 16.Qxd8+ Rxd8 17.Re1 h5, and now rather than
18.g5 f5 19.gxf6 gxf6 20.Be3 a6 21.Bb6 Rg8+ 22.Kf1 Rd3 23.Rxe4 Rxh3 24.Ke2 Rg4
with equal chances in Himanshu-Markos, Kolkata 2009, White should have played 18.b3
hxg4 19.hxg4 Kf8 20.Kg2 Bf6 21.Ba3+ Kg8 22.Rad1 with the somewhat better chances.
8…Be7
Or 8…Bg4 9.h3 Be6 10.Nf4 Qd7 11.Re1 Be7 12.c3 0-0 13.d3 Bf6 14.Bd2 Rad8 15.Qa4
a6 16.Rad1 Qc8 17.Nxe6 fxe6 18.Qg4 and White has the initiative and the bishop pair,
Barle-Remmler, London 2009.
9.Nf4 d4 10.Nd5 Bd6
10…0-0 11.Nxe7+ Qxe7 12.d3 Be6 13.Bf4 Qd7 14.Qh5 b6 15.a3 Rac8 16.Rfe1 Ne7
17.Bd2 Rfe8 18.h3 Bf5 19.g4 Bg6 20.Qh4 Nd5 21.Qg3 left White with a tiny edge,
Pribyl-Stevic, Majdanpek 1976.
11.Re1+ Be6 12.d3 0-0 13.Qh5
White is trying to provoke some weaknesses to play against instead of just retreating the
knight.
13…g6 14.Qg5 f6 15.Qh6 Qd7 16.Bf4 Rae8 17.Bxd6 Qxd6 18.Qf4 Qxf4 19.Nxf4 Bd7
This position is about equal. Black has a bit more space thanks to her advanced pawns, but
these pawn advances have also created some additional weaknesses. Nothing serious,
though, and thankfully the players kept fighting. However, the remainder of the game is a
bit outside the scope of this book and therefore I will leave it without annotations:
20.Bd5+ Kh8 21.Bxc6 bxc6 22.f3 g5 23.Nh5 f5 24.Kf2 Be6 25.b3 Bf7 26.Nf6 Rd8
27.Re7 Bg6 28.Nd7 Rf7 29.Rxf7 Bxf7 30.Nxc5 Rd5 31.b4 Rd6 32.a3 Rh6 33.Kg1 Bd5
34.Rf1 Kg7 35.f4 g4 36.Re1 Rf6 37.Re7+ Rf7 38.Rxf7+ Kxf7 39.Kf2 Ke7 40.Ke1 Kd6
41.Kd2 Kc7 42.Kc1 Kd6 43.Kb2 Bf7 44.Nb3 Kd5 45.c4+ and Black either resigned or
lost on time, 1-0, Jobava-J.Polgar, Warsaw 2010.
(A2) 6…Nc7

Black is making a retreat similar to that in the Rubinstein Variation of the Symmetrical
English. But here White is further in his plans, and therefore the position is not without
problems for Black.
7.d3
The alternative 7.0-0 is less of a problem for Black: 7…g6 (7…e5 is also fully playable),
and now:
(a) 8.d3 Bg7 9.Be3 (9.Ne4!? may improve) 9…Nd4 10.Ne4 b6 11.c3 Nxe2+ 12.Qxe2 Ba6
13.Rad1 Rc8 14.Rfe1 0-0 15.Qd2 f5 16.Ng5 Bf6 17.d4 cxd4 18.cxd4 Bc4 was Leonard-
Winkler, IECG email 1998, and now 19.d5 Bxa2 20.Qb4 Qd6 21.Qa4 Bxd5 22.Bf4 b5
23.Qxa7 Qb4 24.Bxc7 Bxg2 25.Bd6 Qc4 26.Bxe7 is a fascinating continuation which is
difficult to accurately assess.
(b) 8.Na4 Ne6 9.b4 Bg7 10.b5 Ncd4 11.Nxd4 Qxd4 12.c3 Qd3 13.Qb3 Bd7 14.Rb1 Rb8
15.Re1 0-0 16.Be4 Qd6 was seen in Fier-Oms Fuentes, Collado Villalba 2010, and here
the Argentine grandmaster should have played 17.Ba3 although the chances after 17…b6
18.d4 Qc7 19.dxc5 Nxc5 20.Nxc5 bxc5 21.c4 Bd4 would be about even.
7…g6
Black has some other moves to consider at this juncture:
(a) 7…e5 8.0-0 Be7 9.f4, and here:
(a1) 9…exf4 10.Bxf4 (10.Nxf4 0-0 11.Ncd5 Bd6 12.Nxc7 Bxc7 13.Nd5 Be5 14.c3 Be6
15.Qf3 Qd6 16.Be3 Rad8 17.Nf4 Bxf4 18.Qxf4 Qxf4 19.Rxf4 Rxd3 20.Bxc5 Rfd8
21.Bxc6 bxc6 22.Bxa7 Rd1+ 23.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 24.Kf2 Bxa2 is equal, Ulanov-Mirzaev,
Uljanovsk 2013) 10…0-0 11.Qd2 Ne6 (or 11…Be6 12.Bxc7 Qxc7 13.Nf4 Bd7 14.Nfd5
Qd8 15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 16.Rae1 Qd8 17.Nd5 Kh8 18.Kh1 Bh3 19.Bxh3 Qxd5+ 20.Bg2 Qd7
was seen in Huerta-Wojtkiewicz, Buenos Aires 2003, where White now could have
claimed a large advantage with 21.Qc3 b6 22.d4!) 12.Rae1 Nxf4 13.Nxf4 Bg5 14.Ne4
Bh6 15.Kh1 b6 16.Nxc5 bxc5 17.Bxc6 Rb8 18.b3 Bb7 19.Qg2 Bxc6 20.Qxc6 Bxf4
21.Rxf4 with an extra pawn and clearly better chances for White, Csonka-P.Horvath,
Zalakaros 2004.
(a2) 9…0-0 10.Be3 (10.fxe5 Nxe5 11.Bf4 Ng6 12.Bxc7 Qxc7 13.Nd5 Qd8 14.Nxe7+
Qxe7 15.Nf4 Rb8 16.Qf3 Qd6 17.Qd5 Qxd5 18.Bxd5 Nxf4 19.Rxf4 Be6 20.Bxe6 fxe6
21.Raf1 Rxf4 22.Rxf4 and although marginally better for White, this rook ending should
end in a draw, Stukopin-Gladyszev, Voronezh 2008) 10…exf4 11.Nxf4 Nd4 (11…Ne6
12.Nfd5 Bg5 13.Bf2 f5 14.a3 Bd7 15.Ne2 Ncd4 16.c4 Rb8 17.b4 b6 18.Nxd4 Nxd4
19.Bxd4 cxd4 20.Nf4 g6 21.Qf3 with somewhat better chances for White, Knoppert-
Klyuner, Belgium 2003) 12.Kh1 (or 12.Qd2 Nf5 13.Bf2 Ne6 14.Ncd5 Bd6 15.Rae1 Rb8
16.Nh5 Qg5 17.Qd1 Kh8 18.h4 Qd8 19.Be4 Ne7 20.Nxe7 Bxe7 21.Be3 and White has the
initiative, Kraus-Rehorek, Czechia 2012) 12…Rb8 13.Qd2 b6 14.Rae1 Bb7 15.Bxb7
Rxb7 16.Qg2 Rb8 17.Bxd4 cxd4 18.Ncd5 Bd6, Rantanen-Binham, Narvik 1979, and now
19.Re4 would offer White a little to work with.
(b) 7…Ne6 8.Be3 Ned4 9.0-0 e6?! 10.Ne4 Qb6 11.Rb1 Be7? (11…Nf5) 12.b4! 0-0 13.c3
Nxe2+ 14.Qxe2 Qc7 15.Bxc5 Bxc5 16.bxc5 Bd7 17.d4 and White is winning, Van Lanen-
Kohlweyer, Germany 2010.
(c) 7…Bf5 8.0-0 e6 9.Be3 Be7 10.d4 c4 11.d5 exd5 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.Qxd5 Qxd5
14.Bxd5 Bxc2 15.Bxc4 0-0 16.Rac1 Bf5 17.Nd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4, and draw agreed, ½-½,
Moldovan-Bets, Bucharest 1993.
8.Ne4 Ne6 9.0-0 Bg7

10.Nf4
White can also consider 10.c3 0-0 11.Be3 (11.Nf4!?) 11…Qa5 12.a3 Rd8 13.Qc2 Ne5
14.b4 Qc7 15.Rfd1 Ng4 16.Qc1 Nxe3 17.Qxe3 cxb4 18.axb4 f5 19.Nc5 Nxc5 20.bxc5 and
White has the upper hand, Lindsay-Krebs, Austria 1998.
10…Ncd4
10…Nxf4 11.Bxf4 Qa5?! (11…Qb6 is a better choice) 12.Qe1! Qxe1 13.Rfxe1 Nd4
14.Nd6+ Kf8 15.Nxc8 Rxc8 16.Bxb7 Re8 17.Rac1 e5 18.Be3 Rb8 19.c3 Rxb7 20.cxd4
exd4 21.Bf4 Bf6 22.Rxc5 Kg7 23.b3 and White is simply a pawn up in the endgame,
Ermenkov-Nikcevic, Chania 1993.
11.c3 Nxf4 12.Bxf4 Ne6 13.Be3 Qc7

14.d4!?
A natural pawn push in the center to take advantage of the lead in development.
White can also add pressure on the c5-pawn with 14.Qa4+ Bd7 15.Qa3 (or 15.Qc4 Rc8
16.f4 b5 17.Qd5 Bc6 18.Qb3 c4 19.dxc4 Qb7 20.Qc2 f5 21.Ng5 Nxg5 22.fxg5 bxc4
23.Bxc6+ Rxc6 as seen in Arwanitakis-Ceschia, Austria 2004, and now 24.Rad1 0-0
25.Qe2 would have been clearly better for White) 15…c4 16.dxc4 Qxc4 17.Ng5 Qb5
18.Nxe6 Bxe6 19.Rac1 a5 20.b3 Bf6 21.c4 (Here 21.Bh6! is simply better for White) 21…
Qb4 22.Qxb4 axb4 23.Rc2 0-0-0 and Black is only marginally worse, Ding-Kuang,
Xinghua 2013.
14…cxd4 15.cxd4 0-0 16.Rc1 Qa5 17.d5 Nd8 18.Qb3 Bd7 19.Rfe1 Rc8 20.Bd2 Qb6
21.Qxb6 axb6 22.Rxc8 Bxc8 23.Bb4 and Black is busted, Ermenkov-Csiszar, Balaguer
2005.
(A3) 6…Nxc3 7.bxc3
By recapturing with the pawn, White signals his intentions to take on an unbalanced fight.
On the other hand, keeping the pawns neat with 7.Nxc3 presents fewer problems for
Black.

Now Black has the following options:

(a) 7…h5 8.h3 e5 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Qe2 Be6 11.b3 Qd7 12.Bb2 c4? (too optimistic; 12…
f6 was necessary) 13.Qxe5 Bd6 14.Qxg7 0-0-0 15.0-0-0 Bxh3 16.Ne4 Bc7 17.Qc3 cxb3
18.Nc5 Qf5 19.Rxh3 Qxh3 20.Qc4 Kb8 21.Bxh8 Rxh8 22.Qa6 Qc8 23.Qxc6 b2+ 24.Kb1,
and Black resigned, 1-0, Shanava-Frhat, Ordu 2017.
(b) 7…Bf5 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.d3 g6 10.0-0 c4 11.Re1 cxd3 12.cxd3 Bg7 13.Bg5 Be6
14.Qd2 h6 15.Be3 Qa5 16.Rac1 Rd8 17.b3 with chances to both sides, Koenig-Biskopp,
email 2014.
(c) 7…g6 8.d3 Bg7 9.Be3 (9.0-0 0-0 10.Ne4 Qc7 11.c3 b6 12.Be3 Ba6 13.Qc2 Rad8
14.Rfd1 Qd7 15.Qa4 Nb8 16.Qa3 h6 and Black has solved his opening problems, Leniart-
Klekowski, Gorzow Wielkopolski 2014) 9…Nd4 10.Ne4 f5?! (10…Nf5!?) 11.Nxc5 Qa5+
12.c3 Qxc5 13.Bxd4 Bxd4 14.Qa4+ Bd7 15.Qxd4 Qxd4 16.cxd4 0-0-0 17.Kd2 with a
clear advantage for White, Atlas-Bjornsson, Cappelle-la-Grande 1993.
(d) 7…Qd7 8.0-0 e6 9.d3 b6 10.Be3 Bb7 11.a3 (11.Qg4!?) 11…Be7 12.Rb1 0-0 13.f4
Rad8 14.Ne2 Rfe8 15.Qe1 Nd4 16.Nxd4 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 cxd4 18.Bf2 f5 19.Kg1 Bf6 and
Black has a comfortable game, Ramos Suria-Oms Pallisse, Oropesa del Mar 1996.
(e) 7…e6 8.0-0 Be7 9.d3, and Black has now tried:
e1) 9…0-0 10.Be3 Bd7 11.Ne4 b6 12.f4 (or 12.c3 Rc8 13.Re1 e5 14.f4 Be6, and draw
agreed, ½-½, in Zhelnin-Petrienko, Katowice 1991) 12…Rc8 13.c3 Qc7 14.Qb3 Rfe8
15.Rad1 Bf8 16.Ng5 h6 17.Ne4 Ne7 18.g4 Bc6 19.f5 Nd5 20.Bc1 exf5 21.Rxf5 Re5 was
Drozdov-Zontakh, Arandjelovac 1993, and now 22.Rf2 Qd7 23.Rdf1 Ba4 24.Rxf7 Qxf7
25.Qxa4 would have left the players with a complicated struggle with chances to both
sides.
(e2) 9…Nd4 10.Ne4, with another fork in the path:
(e21) 10…0-0 11.Be3 f5 12.Nd2 e5 13.Nc4 f4 14.Bxd4 exd4 15.Re1 Rb8 16.Qh5 Rf5
17.Qe2 Bf8 18.Qe8 (White can possibly improve with 18.Be4 fxg3 19.hxg3 Rg5 20.Qd2
Qf6 21.a4 when I prefer White) 18…Qc7 19.Ne5 g6 20.c3 dxc3 21.bxc3 Rf6 22.Bd5+
Kg7 23.Rab1 b6, Zhelnin-Cherniaev, Cherepovets 1993, and here 24.c4 would have
promised White somewhat better chances.
(e22) 10…Bd7 11.c3 (11.Be3 Rc8 12.a4 Bc6 13.f3 0-0 14.Nd2 Bd5 15.Rb1 Qd7 16.b3 b6
17.Nc4 was seen in Lematschko-Kelecevic, Switzerland 1993, and now 17…Bf6 18.Qd2
Nf5 is rather comfortable for Black) 11…Nf5 12.Qh5 0-0 13.Rd1 g6 14.Qe2 Bc6 15.h4 h5
16.Bf4 Qd7 17.Rd2 Rad8 18.Rad1 Bd5 19.b3 b6 with chances to both sides, Ruifeng Li-
Stukopin, St. Louis 2017.
7…g6
Here Black has a bunch of alternatives that we should look at:
(a) 7…Bd7 8.0-0 g6 9.Rb1 Qc8 10.d4 Bg7 11.Ba3 b6 12.dxc5 Qa6 13.Bb4 Rd8 14.cxb6
axb6 15.Nd4 Nxb4 16.Rxb4 0-0 17.Qb1 Rb8, and the chances are about even,
Malisauskas-Pileckis, Kaunas 2008.
(b) 7…e5 8.0-0 Be7 (or 8…Bf5 9.Rb1 Qd7 10.d4 Rd8 11.Be3 Bg4 12.Qe1 Be6 13.Bg5 f6
14.Rd1 Bxa2 15.Be3 Bc4 16.d5 Na5 17.f4 e4 18.f5 Bd6 with a position my computer calls
about even. Black certainly seems to be doing alright, Mariano-Roca, Makati 2002) 9.d4
cxd4 10.cxd4 exd4 11.Bb2 Bf6 12.Bxc6+ bxc6 13.Bxd4 0-0 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Qd4 Qf3
16.Qe3 Qxe3 17.fxe3 Ba6 18.Kf2 Rab8 with equal chances in the endgame, Okhotnik-
Afek, Bois Colombes 2003.
(c) 7…Qc7 8.0-0 e6 9.d4 Bd6 10.Be3 cxd4 11.cxd4 Na5 12.Qd3 Bd7 13.Nc3 0-0 14.Nb5
(14.Ne4!? looks promising for White) 14…Bxb5 15.Qxb5 Rab8 16.d5 a6 17.Qd3, and a
draw was agreed upon, ½-½, Mitkov-Markos, Panormo 2001.
(d) 7…Bf5 8.c4 (8.0-0 Qd7 9.Nf4 g5 10.Nd5 0-0-0, Behting-Steiner, Paris 1924, and now
11.Ne3 Bh3 12.Qh5 looks somewhat better for White) 8…Qd7 9.h3 Rd8 10.d3 e5 11.Nc3
Bd6 12.Be3 Nd4 13.a4 0-0 14.Ne4 Be7 was seen in Zwaig-Blom, Tel Aviv 1964, and now
15.a5 Kh8 16.Rb1 Rb8 would have been about equal.
(e) 7…e6 8.0-0 (or 8.c4 Qc7 9.Bb2 Ne5 10.d3 Be7 11.Qc1 0-0 12.Rb1 Rb8 13.Nc3 a6
14.Ne4 f5 15.Qf4 Nxd3+ 16.cxd3 Qxf4 17.gxf4 fxe4 18.Be5 Bd7 19.Bxb8 Rxb8,
Dolzhikova-Shapoval, Poltava 2010, and now 20.dxe4 b5 21.0-0 Rf8 22.Rfd1 Be8 23.f5
exf5 24.e5 would have left White with the somewhat better chances in an interesting
endgame) 8…Be7, and now White has a few choices:

(a) 9.d3 Bd7 (or 9…0-0 10.Be3 Bd7 11.Rb1 b6 12.f4?! Rc8 13.g4 Na5 14.Ng3 Bc6
15.Bxc6 Nxc6 16.f5 exf5 17.gxf5 Ne5 18.Ne4 Nd7 19.c4 Re8 20.Qf3 as seen in
Grigoriants-Gagarin, Moscow 1998, when 20…Nf6 21.Nc3 Bd6 would have promised
Black the better chances) 10.Rb1 b6 11.d4 Rc8 12.Nf4 cxd4 13.cxd4 0-0 14.d5 exd5
15.Nxd5 Be6 16.Bb2 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Bf6 18.Ba3 Re8 19.c4 Nd4 20.Bb2 Ne2+ and draw
agreed, ½-½, Movsesian-Tregubov, Rethymno 2003.
(b) 9.Rb1 0-0 10.d3 (10.c4 Qd7 11.Bb2 b6 12.d4 Bb7 13.d5 Na5 14.Nf4 Nxc4 15.Bxg7
Kxg7 16.Qg4+ Kh8 17.dxe6 and now Black had a meltdown: 17…Rg8?? 18.Qxg8+ and
Black resigned, 1-0, Keres-Foltys, Salzburg 1943) 10…Qc7 11.Bf4 e5 12.Be3 Be6 13.c4
Rad8 14.Qc1 b6 15.f4 Nd4 16.Bxd4 cxd4 17.f5 Bd7 18.g4 Bh4 19.Ng3 Bxg3 20.hxg3 was
played in Movsesian-Holmsten, Elista 1998 and now 20…f6 seems to offer Black about
even chances.
(c) 9.d4 0-0 10.Be3 Qa5 11.Qb1 Qa6 12.Re1 Na5 13.a4 Bd7 14.dxc5 Rac8 15.Qb4 Rfd8
16.Nf4 b6 17.Bf1 Qb7 18.Nd3 was Sale-Rosandic, Zadar 1994, when 18…Bc6 19.Rab1
Bf3 is messy and unbalanced, but Black should not be worse.
(d) 9.c4 0-0 (9…Bd7 10.Rb1 b6 11.Bb2 0-0 12.Re1 Rc8 13.Nf4 Bf6 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.c3
Rfd8 16.Qe2 g6 17.Nd3 Be8 18.f4 Rd6 19.Nf2 Qe7 20.Ne4 Rdd8 with about even
chances, Barle-Kastelic, Celje 2003) 10.d3 Bd7 11.Rb1 b6 12.g4?! Rc8 13.f4 Nd4 14.Be3
Ba4 15.Rc1 and a premature draw was agreed upon, ½-½, in Bartel-Kuzubov, Port Erin
2007; clearly Black has a comfortable position.
8.0-0
White has a couple of other moves to consider:
(a) 8.d4, and then:
(a1) 8…cxd4 9.cxd4 Bg7 10.Be3 0-0 11.0-0 Qa5 12.c3 Bg4 13.d5 Rad8 (13…Ne5!? is
fine for Black) 14.h3 Be6 15.c4 Bf5 16.g4 Bc8 17.Qb3 Bxa1 18.dxc6 Be5 19.cxb7 Bd7
20.Nf4 e6 21.Nd3 and White is winning, Jaracz-Pyda, Polanica Zdroj 1995.
(a2) 8…Bg7 9.Be3, and now:
(a21) 9…Bg4 10.d5 Ne5 11.Bxc5 Qa5 12.Bd4 0-0 13.0-0 Rac8 14.f3 Bf5 15.g4 Bd7
16.Ng3 Rfe8 17.Re1 Qc7 18.Ne4 b6 and Black has compensation for the pawn, Kontic-
Zontakh, Podgorica 1993.
(a22) 9…0-0 10.d5 Na5 11.Bxc5 Qc7 12.Bd4 e5 13.dxe6 Bxe6 14.0-0 Rfd8 15.Re1 Nc6
16.Qb1 Nxd4 17.cxd4 Bxd4 18.Nxd4 Rxd4 19.Qxb7 Qxb7 20.Bxb7 Rb8 and Black’s
activity makes up for the missing pawn, Matta-Mis, Prague 2017.
(b) 8.d3 Bg7 9.Be3 Qd6 10.Qd2 (10.Rb1 offers less for White, e.g., 10…0-0 11.0-0 Rd8
12.Qc1 b6 13.Bf4 Qd7 14.Re1 Bb7 15.Qe3 Rac8 16.Rbd1 e6 and Black has a comfortable
position, Pyernik-Tsesarsky, Beersheba 1990) 10…0-0 11.Bh6 Bg4 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.0-0
Bxe2 14.Qxe2 e6 15.a4 b6 16.a5 b5 17.d4 c4 18.Rfd1 Rab8 19.d5 exd5 20.Rxd5 Qf6
21.Qf3 and White has the better chances, Narciso Dublan-Guillen Ramirez, Ayamonte
2006.
8…Bg7 (D)
9.Rb1
Once more we have a couple of other choices for White to consider:

(a) 9.a4 0-0 10.Ba3 c4 11.Re1 Re8 12.Nf4 e5 13.Qe2 Na5 14.d3 h5 15.h3 Bd7 16.Nd5
cxd3 17.cxd3 Bc6?! (17…Be6!? improves) 18.Qa2 Qd7 19.Bb4 b6 20.c4 Rad8 was
played in Lepelletier-Hamdouchi, Toulouse 1996, and now 21.Bxa5 bxa5 22.Rab1 would
have offered White the better chances.
(b) 9.d3 0-0 (or 9…Qd7 10.a4 0-0 11.Be3 c4?! 12.d4 e6 13.Qb1 Ne7 14.Qb4 Qc7 15.Bf4
e5 16.dxe5 Bxe5 17.Bxe5 Qxe5 18.Nd4 Nf5 19.Rfe1 is clearly better for White, Lendwai-
Wach, Graz 1993, but 11…Qd6 looks like a simple improvement) 10.h3 Qa5 11.Bd2 Rd8
12.c4 Qa3 13.Qc1 (13.Rb1!? is saner and possibly better) 13…Bb2 14.Qb1 Bxa1 15.Qxa1
Nd4 16.Nxd4 cxd4 17.Rb1 Qd6 18.Rb5 Re8 (Black can improve with 18…e5 19.f4 exf4
20.Bxf4 Qe7 21.Qf1 f6 when the chances are about even) 19.Rd5 Qf6 20.Rxd4 e5 21.Rd5
and White has the upper hand, Seeman-Sevtsenko, Tallinn 1997.
9…0-0 (D)
9…Qa5 10.d3 0-0 11.Be3 c4 12.d4 Rd8 13.Re1 Qa6 14.Qc1 Bd7 15.Nf4 Rac8 16.d5 Nb8
17.Bd4 Bxd4 18.cxd4 Re8 19.Be4 b5 20.h4 (or 20.c3 Qd6 21.a4) 20…Qf6 21.c3 Na6
22.Qa3 b4 23.cxb4 Nc7 24.Qxa7 and

in this sharp position, White appears to have the better chances, Frolov-Kharlov, Moscow
1991.
10.c4
The alternatives are:
(a) 10.Nf4 Qd7 11.Qf3 Rb8 12.Re1 e6 13.Ba3 Ne7 14.Bxc5 b6 15.Qe2 Bb7 16.Bxe7
Qxe7 17.Bxb7 Qxb7 18.Rb3 h5 19.h4 and White’s position is preferable, Mariano-Linan
Baena, Campillos 2006.
(b) 10.d3 Qc7 11.Re1 b6 12.Bf4 e5 13.Be3 Bb7 14.Qc1 Ne7 15.Bxb7 Qxb7 16.Bxc5 Rfe8
17.Bxe7 Rxe7 18.c4 e4 was Sale-Grivas, Greece 2002, and now 19.Qd2 exd3 20.cxd3
Rae8 21.Nf4 would have left Black without full compensation for the pawn.
10…Qc7 11.Nf4 b6 12.Nd5 Qd7 13.Bb2 Bb7 14.Re1 Bxb2 15.Rxb2 Kg7 16.Qa1
An interesting approach for White to put pressure on Black’s center.
16…e5 17.Rb3 f6 18.Rbe3
This was the idea behind White’s 16th move.
18…Nd4 19.Qb2 Rae8 20.c3 Bxd5 21.Bxd5 Nf5 22.R3e2 Nd6 with chances to both
sides, Barle-Sveshnikov, Bled 2008.
(A4) 6…Be6 7.0-0
White can also consider:
(a) 7.Ne4 b6 (the untested 7…Bg4!? is possibly Black’s best chance, e.g., 8.Nxc5 e5
9.Nb3 a5 10.a4 Ncb4 11.0-0 Rc8 12.c4 Rxc4 13.d4 with an unclear position or 8.f3 Bh5
9.d4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Rc8 11.Nxc6 Rxc6 12.0-0 e6 when Black should not be worse), and
now:

(a1) 8.0-0 Rc8 9.b3 Nf6?! (a better try for Black is 9…Qd7 10.Re1 Bg4 11.h3! Bh5
12.Bb2 e6 with about even chances) 10.Nxf6+, and now instead of 10…exf6 which was
played in Knoppert-Duijn, Haarlem 1999, when 11.Nf4! Bf5 12.Re1+ Be7 13.Qh5 Bd7
(or 13…Bg6 14.Nxg6 fxg6 15.Qe2 Ne5 16.Bb2) 14.Nd5 0-0 15.Bb2 would have promised
White an obvious advantage, Black should have opted for 10…gxf6 11.Nf4 Bf5 12.Bb2
Bg7, although this too seems preferable for White.
(a2) 8.d4! is probably the biggest problem for Black in the line, for instance, 8…cxd4
9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Rc8 11.Ng5 Qd7 12.0-0 Nc7 13.Nxe6 Nxe6 14.Qxd7+ Kxd7
15.c3, and White has a clear advantage in the endgame, Gorovykh-Korbut, St. Petersburg
2007.
(b) 7.d3 g6 8.0-0 Bg7 9.Ne4 Qb6 10.Ng5 Nc7 was tried in Eveleens-Taboada, ICCF email
1997, and here 11.Nxe6 Nxe6 12.Nc3 represents White’s best chance for an edge.
7…Qd7?!
This move is likely not the best choice for Black; he should instead focus on getting his
development completed. The alternatives are:
(a) 7…Rc8 8.Re1 Nf6 9.d3 Bg4 10.h3 Bxe2 11.Qxe2 e6 12.Ne4 Be7 13.c3 0-0 14.Nxf6+
Bxf6 15.Be3 b6 16.Rad1 with a typical position where the bishop pair promises White the
somewhat better chances, Van Leeuwen-Isigkeit, ICCF email 2013.
(b) 7…g6 was seen in a couple of the older games of this opening variation: 8.Ne4 Qb6
9.Ng5 Nc7 10.Nxe6 Nxe6 11.d3 Bg7 12.c3 (or 12.Nc3 Rd8 13.Nd5 Qa6 14.f4 Rd7 as seen
in Mieses-Antze, Hanover 1926, when 15.c3 0-0 16.f5 would have promised some
initiative and the marginally better chances) 12…Rd8 13.Qc2 0-0 14.Be3 Qa6 15.Rfd1
Rd7 16.Bh3 Ne5 17.Nf4 g5 18.Nxe6 Nf3+ 19.Kh1 fxe6 20.Bg2 and although White has
the better pawn structure, the bishop pair and better chances, he later managed to lose the
game, Seibold-Rattmann, corr 1932.
(c) 7…Nxc3 8.bxc3 Bd5 has yet to be tried, but it looks like a decent option to neutralize
White’s strong g2-bishop while getting some pieces off the board.
8.Ne4 b6 9.d4

9…c4
The alternative is also quite problematic for Black: 9…cxd4 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Qxd4 Rd8
12.a4 Nc7 13.Qc3 Nd5 14.Qd4 Nc7 15.Qxd7+ Bxd7 16.a5 and Black is in serious trouble
in the queenless middlegame, Kagan-Birnboim, Israel 1984.
10.b3 Nc7
10…Na5? doesn’t look as bad is actually is. Truth be told, White is almost winning after
the simple 11.Bd2!, e.g., 11…cxb3 12.axb3 Nb7 13.c4 Nf6 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Nf4 Bg4
16.Qc2 Bf5 17.Qc3 Bg7 18.Qf3 e5 19.Qxb7, and Black resigned, 1-0, Kacirek-Hlavac,
Pardubice 1996.
11.c3 Bd5 12.Nf4 Na5 13.Re1 e6 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 (D)
15.Nd2
Here White missed out on an even better move: 15.Ng5! and now, for instance, 15…Be7
is met by 16.Nxf7!! Kxf7 17.Bh3! Nc7 18.b4, winning back
the piece, because 18…Nc6 runs into 19.d5! when Black’s position completely collapses.
15…Rc8 16.bxc4 Nxc3 17.Qh5 Be7 18.d5 with a strong initiative and clearly better
chances for White, Rantanen-Manninen, Tampere 1992.
(A5) 6…Nf6
This modest move has recently been used by Grandmaster Boris Gelfand and therefore
deserves some attention. It doesn’t pretend to play for anything other than equality, but it
is quite solid.
7.0-0

White achieves less with 7.d3 e6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Ne4 0-0 10.Be3 Nxe4 11.dxe4 Qc7 12.c3
Rd8 13.Qc2 b6 14.f4 Ba6 15.Rfd1 Rxd1+ 16.Rxd1 Rd8 with equal chances, Vallejo Pons-
Gelfand, Almaty 2016.
7…e5
The alternatives are:
(a) 7…Bg4 8.h3 Bh5 9.d3 e5 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Qd2 0-0 12.Rae1 Rc8 13.f4 exf4 14.Nxf4
Bg6 15.Nxg6 fxg6?! (15…hxg6 seems more solid) 16.Be3 Bd6 17.Bf4 (17.g4!?) 17…Nh5
(17…Nd4 18.Ne4 Nxe4 19.Rxe4 b6 20.Kh2 is at best marginally better for White)
18.Bxd6 Qxd6 19.Ne4 Qd4+ 20.Kh2 Rxf1 (20…Nf6 was probably Black’s last chance to
stay in the game; now it goes rapidly downhill) 21.Rxf1 Qxb2 22.Nd6 Rb8 23.Bd5+ Kh8
24.Nf7+ Kg8 25.Nd8+ and with mate coming in the next move, Black resigned, 1-0,
Bakin-Kulagin, Chelyabinsk 2009.
(b) 7…e6 8.b3 Qc7?! (8…Be7 makes more sense) 9.d4! (cracking the center open to take
advantage of the lead in development) 9…cxd4 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Qxd4 Bc5 12.Qc4 Bd7
13.Bf4 Qc8 14.Nb5 0-0 15.Nc7 and White is winning, Velickovic-Popadic, Budva 2003.
(c) 7…g6 8.a3 Bg7 9.Rb1 0-0 10.b4 cxb4 11.axb4 Bg4 12.h3 Bf5 13.g4 Bd7 14.b5 Na5
15.d3 and White has some initiative, Armengol Comas-Mimbela Lopez, Barcelona 2000.
8.f4
8.d3 Be7 9.b3 (9.f4 is somewhat similar to our main game and probably best, e.g., 9…0-0
10.fxe5 Nxe5 11.Bf4 Ng6 12.Qd2 Re8 with about equal chances although White’s
position looks easier to play) 9…0-0 10.Ba3 Bg4 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.f3 Bh3 13.Rf2 Nd7
14.Qe1 Qc7 15.Na4 Rfe8 with chances to both sides although this looks like an odd
Nimzo-Indian with the colors reversed: White missing his light-square bishop and Black
with a doubled c-pawn, Saidashev-Simakov, ICCF email 2012.
8…Bd6 9.d3 0-0 10.f5

10…Nd4
A reasonable alternative for Black is 10…Be7, and now 11.Ne4 c4!? (11…Nxe4 12.Bxe4
Nd4 13.c3 Nc6 14.Be3 gives White the kind of position he is aiming for) 12.Nxf6+
(12.dxc4 Qxd1 13.Rxd1 Bxf5 is fine for Black) 12…Bxf6 13.Be3 cxd3 14.cxd3 Re8
15.Be4 Bd7 16.Nc3 with about even chances.
11.Ne4 Nxf5?!
Now Black starts playing with fire. Instead, Black should once more consider 11…Be7!,
for instance, 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.Be4 Rb8 14.Nc3 Bd7 15.Nd5 Bc6 16.Nxf6+ Qxf6 17.c3
Bxe4 18.dxe4 Nb5 19.Qh5 and while I prefer White’s chances, any advantage he may
have is rather small.
12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Be4
White also has decent compensation for the pawn after 13.Nc3 Ng7 14.Nd5 f5 15.Bh6
Be6 16.Qe2 f6 17.Ne3 Qd7 18.b3.
13…Ng7 14.Bh6 Re8?
Black does not have time for this move. He should have played 14…Bg4 15.Qd2 c4
16.Nc3 cxd3 17.cxd3 Bc5+ 18.Kh1 Bd4 19.Rac1, when White is better but Black is still in
the game.
15.Bxg7 Kxg7

Black has an extra pawn but his kingside and light squares are terribly weak. The rest of
the game is a beautiful example of White exploiting these weaknesses.
16.Nc3 Be7?!
My computer calls for the inventive 16…h5 to defend.
17.Qh5 h6 18.Nd5 Be6 19.c4 Qd7 20.Bf5 Rad8 21.Rae1 Rh8 22.Rf2 Rdg8 23.Ref1 Kf8
24.Nxf6 Qd4 and Black resigned at the same time, 1-0, Marinkovic-Zivic, Nis 1997.
(B) 5…Nd4!?
This is an attempt by Black to play for the initiative, radically changing the nature of the
game from what we saw in line A above.
Now White has two main lines to choose from:
(B1) 6.Bg2 Bg4 7.h3
7.0-0, and now Black has two options:
(a) 7…Nf3+, with a further fork in the road:
(a1) 8.Kh1 h5

9.h3! (after 9.h4 g5 10.d4 cxd4? 11.Nxd4 Nxh4 12.f3 Nf5 13.Nxf5 Bxf5 14.Bxg5 Qd6
15.Bh4 Bg7 16.Qe2, White was clearly better in Ermenkov-Papadopoulou, Komotini
1993, but 10…gxh4 would have been fine for Black; the immediate 9.d4?!, on the other
hand, made it okay for Black to capture on d4, e.g., 9…cxd4 10.Qd3 dxc3 11.Bxf3 Bxf3+
12.Qxf3 Qxd5 13.Qxd5 Nxd5 14.Nxc3 Nxc3 15.bxc3 h4 16.g4 Kd7 17.Be3 e6 18.Rfd1+
Kc6 and the chances are about even, Bernstein-Bisguier, New York 1956) 9…h4? (9…
Qd7 was better, but then White once more plays 10.d4 with the somewhat better chances)
10.Nf4! hxg3 11.Bxf3 Bxf3+ 12.Qxf3 g5 13.Nfe2 Qd7 14.Kg1 g2 15.Qxg2 g4 16.d3 0-0-0
17.Bf4 Bh6 18.Bg3 Rdg8 19.Ne4, and White is winning, Kontic-Nurkic, Kladovo 1989.
(a2) 8.Bxf3 Bxf3 9.d4 c4 10.Qd2 Nxd5 11.Nf4 e6 (11…g6 12.Ncxd5 Bxd5 13.Re1 Bg7
14.Nxd5 Qxd5 15.Qg5 Qxg5 16.Bxg5 e6 17.d5 e5 18.Rad1 Kd7 19.Bd2 was marginally
better for White in Hort-Osnos, Leningrad 1967) 12.Nfxd5 Bxd5 13.Qe2 Be7 14.Bf4 0-0
15.Rfe1 Bb4 16.Nxd5 Bxe1 17.Nc7 Bxf2+ 18.Qxf2 Rc8 19.Nb5 Qb6 20.Nd6 Rc6 21.Ne4
Qxb2 with a complicated position and chances to both sides, Gibney-Pinkovetsky, ICCF
corr 2002.
(b) 7…Nxd5 8.f3, and here Black can try a couple of things:
(b1) 8…Be6 9.Ne4, and now the path splits again:
(b11) 9…Rc8 10.c3 Nxe2+ 11.Qxe2 Nb6 (11…h6 12.Rd1 Bf5 13.d4 c4 14.g4 Bh7 15.f4
h5 16.h3 hxg4 17.hxg4 Bxe4 18.Qxe4 e6 19.f5 and White has the initiative, Velickovic-
Kotronias, Kavala 1997) 12.d3 Bd5 13.Be3 e6 14.c4 Bxe4 15.dxe4 Be7 16.Rad1 Qc7
17.f4 0-0 18.e5 f6 19.exf6 Bxf6 20.b3 with an obvious and clear advantage for White who
has both better pawn structure and the bishop pair, Mariano-Harikrishna, Kolkata 2001.
(b12) 9…Qb6 10.c4 Nxe2+ 11.Qxe2 Nb4 12.b3?! (Here White can improve with 12.d3!
Rd8 13.Be3 Nxd3 14.b3 and White has the clearly better chances; Black’s pawn hunt
leaves none of us impressed) 12…Nc2 13.Rb1 Nd4 14.Qf2 Bxc4 and Black already has
the upper hand, Dashko-Savchenko, Sukhumi 2006; White’s best chance is 15.Ba3 Bxf1
16.Bxc5 Qc7 17.Bxf1, but after 17…Nc6 it is doubtful that White has enough for the
exchange.
(b2) 8…Bf5 9.Nxd4 cxd4 10.Nxd5 Qxd5 11.f4 Qd7 12.b3 (or 12.Qf3 Rb8 13.c4 d3
14.Qd5 e6 15.Qxd7+ Kxd7 when the pawn distribution favors Black, Muranyi-I.Rajlich,
Budapest 2006) 12…h5 13.c4 d3 14.Ba3 Rc8 15.Qf3 b6 16.Rae1 e6 17.Bxf8 Kxf8 18.h3
b5 19.g4 hxg4 20.hxg4 Bg6 21.cxb5 Qxb5 with a sharp position and chances to both
sides, Bartel-Sveshnikov, Nova Gorica 2004.
7…Bf3 (D)
8.Bxf3
The positions White reaches after 8.0-0 really show no promise of an edge, for instance,
8…Nxe2+ 9.Nxe2 Bxg2 10.Kxg2 Qxd5+ 11.Kh2 (or 11.Kg1 e6 12.Nc3 Qc6 13.d3 and
draw agreed,
½-½, which in this case only tells us that the much-higher rated player behind the White
pieces felt it unlikely that a win could be on the horizon today, Baklan-Van der Stricht,
Gent 2009) 11…Rd8 (11…e6 12.Nc3 Qc6 13.f4 0-0-0 14.Qf3 Qxf3 15.Rxf3 Nd5 16.Nxd5
exd5 17.d3 is equal, Knoppert-Vandevoort, Belgium 2007) 12.d3 e6 13.Nf4?! (13.Nc3 is
about equal) 13….Qc6 14.Be3 h5! (Now Black grabs the initiative) 15.Qe2 Bd6 16.a4 h4
(White is already in trouble) 17.Rae1 Kd7 18.Bd2 Kc8 19.a5 (Seriously? What is White
thinking he is doing?) 19…g5! 20.Bc3 (White probably realized a little too late that
20.Ng2 runs into a brutal refutation: 20…hxg3+ 21.fxg3 Rxh3+! 22.Kxh3 Rh8+ 23.Nh4
g4+! 24.Kh2 Rxh4+ and game over) 20…hxg3+ 21.fxg3 gxf4 22.Bxf6 fxg3+ 23.Kg1
Rxh3 24.Qg2 Qxg2+ 25.Kxg2 Rh2+ 26.Kf3 Rg8 27.Rg1 Rf2+ and White resigned, 0-1,
Bosboom-Kramnik, ICC INT 1999.
8…Nxf3+ 9.Kf1 Nd4 10.Kg2 (D)
White has some alternatives at this point:
(a) 10.Nxd4 cxd4 11.Nb5 Rc8 (or 11…Qb6 12.c4 dxc3 13.Qa4 0-0-0 14.dxc3 a6 15.Qc4+
Kd7 16.Nd4 Ke8 17.Qa4+ Rd7 18.Nf3 Qd6 19.Kg2
Nxd5 as was played in Radovanovic-Cherniaev, Coulsdon 2009, and now 20.Re1 would
have promised White the clearly better chances) 12.Nxd4 Qxd5 13.Nf3 Qc4+ 14.d3 Qxc2
15.Qxc2 (or 15.Be3 a6 16.Kg2 Nd5 17.Qe1 Qxd3 18.Bd4 e6 19.Rd1 Qg6 20.Ne5 Qf5
21.Qa5 Be7 22.Qa4+ b5 23.Qxa6 0-0 24.Rhe1, and draw agreed, ½-½, in Sax-Jelen, Celje
2004) 15…Rxc2 16.Nd4 Rc8 17.Ke2 e6 18.Bd2 Bd6 19.Nb5 Bb8 20.Bc3 Ke7 21.a4 h5
22.h4 Rhd8 23.Rhc1 g6 and despite an inferior pawn structure for White, the chances are
more or less equal, Movsesian-Jakubiec, Czechia 2000.
(b) 10.Nf4 h5 (Black can also consider 10…g5 11.Ng2 Nxd5 12.d3 e6 13.Ne4 Be7 14.c3
Nc6 15.Qe2 h5 16.Bd2 Kd7 17.Re1 Qg8 18.d4 cxd4 19.Qb5 Kc7 20.c4 a6 and here a
draw was agreed upon, ½-½, in Barle-Nordenbaek, Pula 2010, where Black definitely had
nothing to fear in the final position, but White could possibly improve with 18.a3 g4 19.c4
gxh3 20.cxd5 hxg2+ 21.Kxg2 exd5 22.Nc3 d4 23.Nd5 which looks promising for White)
11.d3 g6 12.Ne4 Nxd5 13.c3 Nc6 14.Qe2 Bg7 15.Nxc5 Nxf4 16.Bxf4 Qd5 17.Ne4 0-0-0
18.f3 h4 19.gxh4 Rxh4 20.Bg3 Rh5 and Black has more than adequate compensation for
the pawn, Nikolenko-Isajevsky, Sochi 2005.
(b) 10.d3 Nxd5 11.Ne4 e5 12.c4 Nb4 13.a3 Nbc2 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Be3 f5 16.Bxd4 Qxd4
17.Qa4+ Kf7 18.Nc3 h5 19.Re1 h4 (Black doesn’t have time for 19…Qxd3+?! 20.Kg2
which lets White get a little too far ahead in development along with opening the d-file
which only benefits White) 20.Qc2 Rd8 21.Kg2 Rh6 with about even chances, Gibney-
Bravo, ICCF email 2012.
10…Nxd5 11.Nxd4 cxd4 12.Nxd5 Qxd5+ 13.Qf3 Qxf3+
Or 13…e6 14.c4 (my computer gives preference to 14.Qxd5 exd5 15.Re1+, claiming a
small plus for White, but despite his doubled d-pawn, Black has no problems because he
will get his pieces developed and mobilized faster than White and the c2-pawn will
become a target) 14…Qxc4 15.Qxb7 Qc8 16.Qf3 Bd6 17.b3 0-0 18.Bb2 e5 19.Rac1 Qd7
20.Rc4 Rad8 and while I would rather play White in this position, the chances are
objectively about equal, Savicevic-Spasov, Golubac 2008.
14.Kxf3 Rc8 15.c3 g6 16.b3 dxc3 17.dxc3 Rxc3+ 18.Be3 Bg7 19.Rac1 Kd7 20.Rhd1+
Ke6 and a draw was soon agreed upon in Barle-Babula, Rijeka 2010.
(B2) 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.Nb5 (D)
White achieves less with 7.Bb5+: 7…Bd7 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.Ne2 (or 9.Nb1 Qxd5 10.0-0
h5 11.d3 h4 12.Nd2 Rc8 13.Re1 e6 14.Ne4 Qf5 15.Bf4 Be7 16.Qe2 Rc6 with a good game
for Black, Cempel-Drbohlav, Czechia 1998) 9…Qxd5 10.0-0 h5 (10…e6 11.c3 Bc5
12.cxd4 Bb6 13.Qa4+ Qd7 14.Qxd7+ Kxd7 15.a4

Rac8 16.a5 Bd8 17.Nc3 Nd5 when White’s extra pawn is of no consequence, Hemant-
Stany, Aurangabad 2011) 11.d3 h4 12.c4 Qd7 13.Bf4 hxg3 14.Bxg3 Ng4 15.Nf4 0-0-0
16.Qe2 e5 17.Nd5 f5 18.f3 Ne3 19.Nxe3 dxe3 20.Bxe5 Qxd3 21.Qxd3 Rxd3, and White is
struggling to equalize, Akshayraj-Papadopoulos, Gaziantep 2008
7…e5
After 7…a6 8.Nxd4, Black has tried a couple of different things:
(a) 8…e5 with a further split:
(a1) 9.Nb3 Qxd5 10.f3 Bf5 (10…h5 11.c4 Qc6 12.Qe2 h4 13.d4 hxg3 14.Qxe5+ Be7
15.d5?! g2! 16.Bxg2 Qxc4 17.d6 Qb4+ 18.Bd2 Qxd6 19.Qxd6 Bxd6, and Black has the
initiative, Barle-Jelen, Ptuj 2005, but 15.Qxg3 is a better try although hardly enough for an
edge) 11.d3 Rc8 12.Bd2 Be7 13.Bg2 Qc6 14.Rc1 h5 15.Qe2, and Black does not have
enough compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Ermenkov-Todorovic, Subotica 2002.
(a2) 9.Qe2 Be7 (9…Qxd5 10.Nf3 e4 11.d3 Bg4 12.Bg2 Bb4+ 13.c3 0-0 14.dxe4 Nxe4
15.0-0 Rfe8 16.cxb4 Nxg3 17.Qxe8+ Rxe8 18.fxg3 f6 19.Bf4 g5 20.Rad1 Qxa2 21.Bc1
and with rook and two minor pieces for the queen, White is doing well, Purtov-Kuznetsov,
Alushta 2004) 10.Nb3 Qxd5 11.f3 Bf5 12.d3 Rc8 13.Be3 Rxc2?? (13…0-0 is normal and
would provide Black with sufficient compensation for the pawn, but not more than that)
14.Qxc2 Qxf3 15.Qf2 Qxh1 16.Qxf5 0-0 17.0-0-0 Qxh2 18.Qh3 and White consolidates
his winning material advantage, Kalinitschew-Babula, Pardubice 2001.
(b) 8…Qxd5 9.Nf3 e5 10.d3 Bg4 11.Bg2 0-0-0 12.Qe2 Bb4+ 13.c3 Bc5 (13…Qxd3
14.Qxd3 Rxd3 15.cxb4 Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Rxf3 17.Ke2 e4 18.Be3 Nd5 19.Rac1+ Kb8 was
Ryan-Llaneza Vega, Barcelona 2010, and here 20.Bc5 would offer White the better
chances in the endgame) 14.0-0 Rhe8 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.Qxe3 Bxf3 17.Bxf3 Qxd3 18.Qc5+
Kb8 19.Bg2 Qd6 20.Qe3 with about even chances, Boskovic-Kuljasevic, Richardson
2007.
8.Bg2
Some other tries are:
(a) 8.Qe2 Be7 (or 8…Bd6 9.Nxd4 0-0 10.Nb5 Bg4 11.f3 Bh5 12.Nxd6 Qxd6 13.g4 Bg6
14.c4 e4 15.f4 Qxf4 16.d4 Qxg4 17.Qxg4 Nxg4 18.Be2 Nf6 19.Rf1 and White has the
better chances, Vallejo Pons-Merino Mejuto, Cordoba 1995) 9.Qxe5 0-0 (D)
10.Be2 (10.Bg2?? a6 11.Nxd4 Bd6 12.Qe3 Re8, and Black is winning, Anisimov-Maletin,
St. Petersburg 2006) 10…Bc5 11.d6 b6 12.Qe7 Qe8 13.Qxe8 Rxe8 14.f3 Bh3 15.Nc7 Bg2
16.Nxe8 Rxe8 17.Rf1 Bxf1 18.Kxf1, and White is simply a pawn up for

insufficient compensation, Klimov-Shomoev, Saratov 2006.

(b) 8.dxe6 Bxe6 9.c3 Bd5 10.f3 Qe7+ 11.Kf2 Qd7 12.Qe2+ Be7 13.Nxd4 0-0 14.Nc2
Rfe8 15.Ne3 Bd6 16.Bg2 h5 17.d4 when Black has some compensation for being behind
in material. However, if White can manage to get some pieces exchanged, then Black will
be in trouble proving he has enough for two pawns, Bryzgalin-Smirnov, Russia 2000.
(c) 8.c4 a6 9.Na3 Bd6 (9…b5 10.Qb3 b4 11.Nb1 e4 12.d3 is recorded as a win for White
at this point, but he is at best marginally better, Sanchez Guirado-Basto Auzmendi,
Mislata 1997) 10.Bg2 0-0 11.0-0 Bg4 12.f3 Bh5 13.d3 Nd7 14.Nc2 f5 15.b4 b6 (15…a5!?
is fine for Black) 16.Qe1 Rc8? 17.Nxd4! Qe7 18.Nc6, and White is winning, Makka-
Makropoulou, Athens 2006.
8…Bc5 9.0-0 Bg4
Black doesn’t necessarily have to chase this tempo. With 9…0-0!?, Black appears to reach
a good position, e.g., 10.d3 (or 10.c4 a6 11.Na3 Bg4 12.f3 d3+ 13.Kh1 Bf5 14.b3 b5 and
Black is indeed better) 10…a6 11.Na3 Nxd5 12.Nc4 f6 13.a4 Be6 14.a5 with more or less
even chances.
10.Qe1 0-0 11.d3
White can also consider 11.b4!? Bb6 (or 11…Bxb4 12.Qxe5) 12.d3 Qd7 13.a4 Rfe8 when
the chances are about even.
11…Qd7 12.a4
Black equalizes effortlessly after 12.c4 dxc3 13.Nxc3 Bh3 14.Qxe5 Bxg2 15.Kxg2 Rfe8
16.Qf4 Nxd5 17.Nxd5 Qxd5+ 18.Qf3 Rad8. But this may well be the better choice for
White.
12…a6 13.Na3 Bh3

14.Qxe5?!
Eating this pawn is not without consequence. The alternative is 14.Bxh3 Qxh3 15.f3 Nxd5
16.Nc4 Rfe8 and Black has the initiative.
14…Bxg2 15.Kxg2 Rfe8 16.Qf4 Qxa4?!
Black is clearly better after 16…Nxd5 17.Qf3 Rac8.
17.c4 b5?
Black slips again. After 17…Re2 18.Rb1 Rae8 19.Qf3 Qb3, he would have had adequate
compensation for the pawn.
18.Qd2 bxc4 19.dxc4 Rab8 20.Qd3 Ng4 21.Nc2 Qd7 22.Nxd4 Ne5 23.Qc3 Qg4
24.Nf3?
White could do better with 24.Be3! Qe4+ 25.f3, and Black doesn’t have enough for the
pawn.
24…Nxf3 25.Qxf3 Qxc4 26.Bf4!
Or 26.b4 Rxb4 (26…Bxb4 27.Bf4) 27.Ra3 with somewhat better chances for White.
26…Rxb2 27.d6 Bxf2
Black is tempted by the lure of winning a pawn. Black doesn’t realize that he also opens
the f-file for White’s queen and rook that are conveniently placed on this file.
28.d7 Bb6+ 29.Kh1 Rd8??
Black had to guard the f7-pawn with 29…Rf8. Now he is lost.
30.Rae1 h6

31.Re8+
White also had the more obvious win in 31.Bxh6! gxh6 32.Re8+ Kh7 33.Qf5+ Kg7
34.Qf6+ Kh7 35.Qh8+ Kg6 36.Qg8+ Kh5 37.Rf5#.
31…Kh7 32.Be5 Bf2

33.Rd1?
White could win with not entirely obvious 33.Kg2!, e.g., 33…Rd2 (or 33…Bd4+ and the
king starts running down the board: 34.Kh3 Qc2 35.Rxd8 Qxh2+ 36.Kg4 h5+ 37.Kf5 g6+
38.Kf6 Bxe5+ 39.Kxf7) 34.Bc3 and White wins.
Note that 33.Rxf2?? Rxf2 34.Qxf2 Qe4+ 35.Qg2 (however, not 35.Kg1?? Rxd7 36.Qf1 f6
and Black is actually winning) 35…Qb1+ 36.Qg1 Qe4+ with a draw by perpetual check.
33…Rd2 34.Kg2 Re2 35.Kh3 Bb6 36.Qf5+ g6 37.Qf6 Rxh2+ 38.Kxh2 Qe2+ 39.Kh3
Qh5+ 40.Kg2 Qe2+ 41.Kh3 Qh5+ with a draw by perpetual check, ½-½, Jobava-
Alekseenko, Moscow 2016.
Summary:
This variation is another attempt by Black to take the choice of variations away from
White. The variations after 5…Nxd5 are the most solid options for Black, most of all,
6.Bg2 Nf6. Most of the lines are very close equal chances, but each have their
opportunities for White to sharpen the game and grab the initiative.
The most difficult line for White to face, especially if not properly prepared (which if you
read these words should not include you!), is 5…Nd4. Black tries to put his claws on the
initiative and if White doesn’t pay attention that can quite easily happen. If White wants to
play for hard for an advantage the variation B2 is likely the better choice, there are some
8th move alternatives that deserve particular attention, whereas variation B1 starts out
looking crazy and sharp but quickly fizzles to something more even.
Chapter 4

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 4.g3 Nf6

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 4.g3 Nf6 5.Bg2
This chapter is devoted to those lines where Black either doesn’t play …d7-d5 on move
four or, when he plays …d7-d5 on a different move, he then recaptures with the knight if
White exchanges on d5. (The next chapter covers other lines where Black plays …d7-d5.)
This chapter also covers when White doesn’t capture on d5. In other words, this chapter is
a summary of all the non-main lines before we move on to the main lines in the next few
chapters.
In common for these lines is that Black typically is hoping for White to play d2-d4 to enter
an Open Sicilian but when White doesn’t comply then Black has a set-up that isn’t ideally
designed to face the Closed Sicilian that White employs. (D)
5…a6
(a) 5…Qb6 6.0-0 Be7 7.h3 (or 7.b3 d6 8.d3 Bd7 9.Na4 Qc7 10.f4?! – 10.Nb2 – 10…h5
11.h3 b5 12.Nb2 0-0 13.Be3 Rac8 14.Qd2 d5 15.a4 b4 16.Rae1 dxe4 17.dxe4 Na5 with a
pleasant game

for Black, Van Willigen-Winckelmann, ICCF email 2001) 7…d6 8.b3 0-0 9.Bb2 a6 10.g4
Qc7 11.f4 b5 12.Ng3 b4 13.Nce2 d5 14.exd5 Nxd5 15.f5 Rd8 16.fxe6 Bxe6 17.Qc1 Rac8
18.Nf5 Nd4 19.Nxe7+ Nxe7 20.Rf2 Bd5 when it is apparent that Black has come out of
the opening with a smile on his face, Leonard-Halwick, IECG email 2004.
(b) 5…Rb8 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 d6 8.0-0 a6 9.b3 Be7 10.Bb2 0-0 11.Nce2 Qc7 12.c4 Bd7
13.Rc1 Rfc8 14.h3 Qd8 15.Qd2 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 with a position that may objectively be
even, but where White has more space and an easier game, Siebarth-Busquets, Madrid
2015.
(c) 5…d5 is important, even if the most important lines only appear after transposition to
the next chapter. Now White can play:
(c1) 6.exd5 Nxd5 (6…exd5 7.d4 transposes to chapter 6) 7.Nxd5 exd5 8.d4 (8.0-0 Be7
9.Nf4 d4 10.Nd5 is our main line in chapter 3) 8…Bg4 9.h3 Bh5 10.0-0 cxd4 11.g4 Bg6
12.Nxd4 Be7 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.c4 Be4 15.Bxe4 dxe4 16.Qxd8+ Rxd8 17.Re1 h5 18.g5 f5
19.gxf6 gxf6 with equal chances, Himanshu-Markos, Kolkata 2009.
(c2) 6.d3 with another fork in the road:

(c21) 6…Be7 7.0-0 (7.exd5 exd5 8.Bg5 d4 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Nd5 0-0 11.0-0 Re8 12.Nef4
Be5 13.Re1 Qd6 14.Qh5 Bd7 15.a3 g6 16.Qd1 Bg7 17.c4 dxc3 18.bxc3 Ne5 19.Ne3 Rad8
with a pleasant game for Black, Shahinyan-Kuzubov, Yerevan 2014) 7…0-0 8.Bg5 (or
8.Nf4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Qc7 10.Nxf6+ Bxf6 11.Nh5 Be5 12.c3 g6 13.Nf4 Bg7 14.h4 b6 15.d4
Ba6 16.Re1 cxd4 17.cxd4 Nxd4 18.Bxa8 Rxa8 when Black had phenomenal
compensation for the exchange, Krapivin-Dobrov, Moscow 2006) 8…dxe4 9.dxe4 h6
10.Be3 Qb6 11.Qc1 e5 12.h3 Nd4 13.g4 Be6 14.Ng3 Rfd8 15.Re1 c4 16.Nd5 Bxd5
17.exd5 Bc5 18.c3 and White is in command of the game, Vokac-Potkin, Pardubice 2008.
(c22) 6…d4 is definitely one of Black’s better options, e.g., 7.Nb1 Be7 8.0-0, and now
both the normal 8…0-0 9.Nf4 Rb8 10.a4 a6 11.Nh5 Ne8 12.g4 e5 13.f4 g6 14.Ng3 exf4
15.Bxf4, Tukpetov-Gormally, Reading 2017, 15…Bd6 as well as the more aggressive 8…
h5 9.h3 h4 10.g4 e5 11.f3 Nd7 12.f4 exf4 13.Nxf4 Nde5 14.Nd2 Bg5 15.Nf3 Nxf3+
16.Qxf3 Ne5 17.Qd1 0-0, Kostic-Raetsky, Seefeld 2000 are both better for Black.
(c23) 6…dxe4 7.dxe4 Qxd1+ 8.Nxd1 Nb4 9.Ne3 Ng4 10.Nxg4 Nxc2+ 11.Kd1 Nxa1
12.Nc3 Bd7 13.Ne5 b5 14.Nxd7 b4 15.Nxf8 bxc3 16.bxc3 Rb8 was played in Vokac-
Navara, Pardubice 2008, and now White’s best was 17.Kd2 Rb6 (or 17…Rd8+ 18.Ke2
Rxf8 19.e5 f6 20.Bb2 with a clear advantage) 18.Ba3 Ra6 19.Bxc5 Rxa2+ 20.Ke3 Nb3
21.Nxe6 fxe6 22.Rb1 and White has the clearly better game.
(d) 5…Be7, and here
(d1) 6.0-0 0-0, and now:
(d11) 7.h3 when Black has a broad selection of options available:

(d111) 7…Rb8 8.b3 (8.g4?! looks and feels premature; after 8…b5 9.Ng3 d5 10.exd5
Nxd5 11.d3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Bb7 13.Rb1 b4 14.a3 Ba8 15.axb4 a draw was agreed upon ½-
½, but Black couldn’t be worse, Novitzkij-Lukin, St. Petersburg 2000, while 8.a4 a6 9.d4
cxd4 10.Nxd4 d6 11.Be3 Qc7 12.Qd2 Bd7 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.a5 c5 15.b3 Bc6 16.Rfe1 Qb7
is about even, Roos-Koch, France 1994) 8…b5 9.d4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Ba6 11.Re1 Bb4
12.Bb2 Qb6 13.Nxc6 dxc6 14.e5 Nd5 15.Nxd5 cxd5 16.Re3 Bc5 17.Rf3 Rbc8 with equal
chances, Brikov-Sevdimaliyev, Tula 2014.
(d112) 7…d6 8.d3 Rb8 9.f4 Qc7 10.g4 b5 11.Ng3 b4 12.Nce2 Re8 13.g5 Nd7 14.f5 Nce5
15.Nf4 Bxg5 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.Qh5 Qd8 18.Nxe6 Rxe6 19.Bxg5 Nf6 20.Bxf6 (I would
prefer White’s chances after 20.Qe2 Nf7 21.Be3) 20…Rxf6 21.Rxf6 Qxf6 22.Rf1 Qe7
23.Nf5 Bxf5 24.exf5 when the chances are about even, Andreikin-Rublevsky, Khanty-
Mansiysk 2013.
(d113) 7…d5 8.exd5 exd5 9.d4 Be6 10.Be3 Qd7 11.Kh2 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Ne5 13.Nce2 Nc4
14.Bc1 Rad8 15.b3 Nd6 16.Bb2 with a small but typical advantage for White thanks to
Black’s isolated d-pawn, Fernandez Romero-Martinez Lopez, Linares 2015.
(d114) 7… a6 8.d3 (8.g4 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.d3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bd6 12.Rb1 Qc7 13.Ng3 f5
14.gxf5 exf5 with a sharp position and chances to both sides, although Black’s position
looks easier on the eye, Novitzkij-Ratkovich, Minsk 2002) 8…Re8 (or 8…b5 9.e5 Ne8
10.Bxc6 dxc6 11.Ne4 f5 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Kg2 e5 14.f3 Be6 15.b3 Qd7 16.g4 Rad8
17.Be3 c4 18.dxc4 and Black has grabbed the initiative, Reinderman-Kuporosov,
Pardubice 1993) 9.f4 d5 10.e5 Nd7 11.Kh2 b5 12.a4 Rb8 13.b3 Qc7 14.Bd2 b4 15.Nb1 c4
16.dxc4 dxc4 17.bxc4 Na5 and Black is better, Frendzas-Grivas, Papanastasio 1996.
(d12) 7.f4 d5 8.e5 Nd7 9.d3 Rb8 10.a4 a6 11.g4 b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.Ng3 b4 14.Nce2 f6
15.exf6 Nxf6
16.g5 Ne8 17.h4 Nd6 18.f5!? Nxf5 19.Nxf5 exf5?! 20.Nf4 leads to a fascinating game
where White has the better chances, Nepomniachtchi-Potkin, Yaroslavl 2014.
(d2) 6.d3 0-0 7.0-0 Rb8 (or 7…d6 8.a3 Bd7 9.Rb1 a5 10.Be3 a4 11.h3 d5 12.d4 cxd4
13.Nxd4 dxe4 14.Nxe4 Nd5 15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.Bd4 Nf6 and a draw was agreed upon, ½-
½, in Murey-Nisipeanu, Paris 2002) 8.h3 b5 9.a3 a5 10.Be3 b4 11.axb4 cxb4 12.Na4 d5
13.Nd4 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 dxe4 15.dxe4 Ba6 16.Re1 Qc7 17.e5 Nd7 with approximately even
chances, Murey-Kramnik, Moscow 1992.
6.0-0 (D)
6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.0-0 Qc7 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Rad1 0-0 12.Na4 b5 13.Nb6
Rb8 14.Nxc8 Rfxc8 15.c3 Rd8 is rather even, Wang Yu-Bu Xiangzhi, Beersheba 2005.
6.d3 will after 6…Be7 likely transpose to our main line.

6…Be7
Solid, normal development by Black. However, Black has a bunch of alternatives at this
point:
(a) 6…b5 7.d3 Bb7 8.Be3 Be7 9.h3 0-0 10.g4 d5 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.Nxd5 exd5 13.d4 cxd4
14.Nxd4 Ne5 15.Nf5 Bf6 16.Bd4 and White has the better chances, McShane-Caruana,
Moscow 2012.
(b) 6…Qc7, and here
(b1) 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Nxc6 dxc6 10.Qe2 (or 10.Bf4 e5 11.Bg5 Ng4 12.h3 h6
13.Bd2 Nf6 14.Qe2 Be6 15.Be3 Bd6 16.Rad1 b5 and Black has equalized, D.Popovic-
Plaskett, playchess.com INT 2003) 10…e5 11.Be3 Bg4 12.f3 Bxe3+ 13.Qxe3 Be6 14.Na4
Rd8 15.Rfd1 0-0 16.Qb6 Qxb6+ 17.Nxb6, Rodriguez Vila-Morovic Fernandez, Santos
2004, when 17…Nd7 would equalize, for instance, 18.Nxd7 Bxd7 19.Rd6 Be6.
(b2) 7.d3 d6 8.h3 b5 9.f4 Bb7 10.Be3 h5 11.a3 Be7 12.Qd2 Rd8 13.Rae1 0-0 14.f5 d5
15.exd5 exd5 16.Bg5 b4 17.axb4 was played in Jovanovic-Hulak, Bol 2014, and now
instead of 17..Nxb4?! as played in the game, Black should have played 17…cxb4 18.Na4
Rfe8 19.Qf4 Qa5 20.b3 Rc8 with approximate equality.
(c) 6…d6, and now:
(c1) 7.h3 Be7 8.d3, with an additional fork in the road:

(c11) 8…h6 9.f4 d5 10.g4 d4 11.e5 dxc3 12.exf6 Bxf6 13.bxc3 Qc7 14.Rb1 0-0 15.Be3
Ne7 16.c4 Ng6 17.Be4 was seen in Jobava-Ehlvest, Moscow 2007, and now Black’s best
attempt at keeping his chances even would have been 17…Rb8 18.Ng3 b5 19.Nh5 Bc3.
(c12) 8…Qc7 9.g4 b5 10.Ng3 Bb7 11.f4 0-0-0 12.a4 b4 13.Nce2 d5 14.g5 Ne8 15.exd5
exd5 16.Nf5 Bf8, Adhiban-Vishnu, Sri Lanka 2009, and now the knight journey 17.Ne3
d4 18.Nd5 Qd6 19.Nb6+ Kb8 20.Nc4 Qd7 21.Ng3 would have left White with somewhat
better chances.
(c13) 8…0-0, and now White has several possibilities: (D)
(c131) 9.Be3 Qc7 (or 9…Nd7 10.f4 b5 11.Qd2 b4 12.Nd1 Bb7 13.Nf2 Nb6 14.g4?! –
14.f5!? – 14…d5 15.f5?! d4 16.Bf4 e5 17.Bg3 c4 18.b3 Bg5 and

Black was already clearly in command, Gurpreet-Kovalyov, New Delhi 2010) 10.g4 b5
11.g5 Nd7 12.f4 b4 13.Na4 Re8 14.c4 bxc3 15.Naxc3 Rb8 16.b3 Nb6 17.Qd2 Bf8
18.Rac1 Qd7 19.d4 cxd4 20.Nxd4 Nxd4 21.Bxd4 and White dominates the game,
Gdanski-Niklasson, Sweden 2004.
(c132) 9.f4 Nd7 10.f5 b5 11.Nf4 e5?! (11…Nde5!? improves) 12.Nh5 g6?! (logical, but
not good, Black should have played 12…f6 13.Qg4 Rf7 when White has the initiative, but
not more than that) 13.Nd5 Bg5 14.fxg6 fxg6 15.Rxf8+ Nxf8 16.Bxg5 Qxg5 17.Nhf6+
Kh8 18.Qf3 Bb7? 19.h4 (19.Ne8! is even better, according to the computer. But the text
move more than suffices) 19…Qh6 20.Nc7 Nd4 21.Qf2 Rd8 22.Nfe8 and Black resigned,
1-0, Rublevsky-Grigoriants, Krasnoyarsk 2007.
(c2) 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7 with an Open Sicilian (more detailed coverage of these types
of positions can be found in chapter 15), and here White has tried: (D)
(c21) 9.b3 Be7 10.Bb2 0-0 11.Nde2 b5 12.Qd2 Qc7 13.Nd1 Rac8 14.Ne3 Ne5 15.Nd4
Rfd8 16.Rfc1 Be8 17.c4 bxc4 18.Nxc4 Nxc4 19.Rxc4 Qb6 with more or less equal
chances, Narciso Dublan-Tregubov, Barcelona 2009.
(c22) 9.Re1 Be7 10.Nxc6 Bxc6 11.e5 dxe5 12.Bxc6+ bxc6 13.Rxe5 Nd5 14.Na4 0-0
15.Bd2 Rb8 16.Rb1 Qc7 17.Qe2 Rfd8 and Black has despite his inferior pawn structure
equalized, Macieja-Jakubowski, Warsaw 2003.
(c23) 9.Nce2 Rc8 10.b3 Be7 11.c4 0-0 12.a4 Qa5 13.Bd2 Qh5 14.h3 Nxd4 15.Nxd4 Qe5
16.Bb4 Ne8 17.f4 Qf6 18.Nf3 when White is nicely in control of the game, Macieja-
Wojtaszek, Chotowa 2009.
7.d3
Once more, White has the opportunity to transpose into an Open Sicilian with 7.d4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Qc7 (or 8…d6 9.Re1 Qc7 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.e5 dxe5 12.Rxe5 0-0 13.Bf4 Qb7
14.Na4 Rd8 15.Qf3 Nd5 16.Bd2 Qc7 17.Re2 Bb7 18.c4 when White has a nice positional
plus in Rodriguez Vila-Granda Zuniga, Villa Martelli 2005), and here White has tried: (D)
(a) 9.a4 0-0 10.Nb3 d6 11.a5 Ne5 12.f4 Nc4 13.g4 Nd7 14.Qd3 Rd8 15.g5 b5?!
(premature, but Black’s position is not easy to navigate accurately; 15…Rb8!? was better)
16.axb6 Ndxb6 17.Nd4 e5 18.Nf5 exf4 19.Bxf4 Bxf5?! (19…Bf8 would have kept
White’s advantage within control) 20.exf5 Nxb2 was seen
in Dai-Teerapabpaisit, Bangkok 2017, and now 21.Qd4 would have offered White a clear
advantage.
(b) 9.Be3 0-0 10.f4 (or 10.Qe2 d6 11.Rad1 Bd7 12.Nb3 – 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Rd2 would
have been fine for White – 12…Ne5 13.f4 Nc4 14.Bc1 e5! 15.f5?! b5 16.g4? b4 17.g5
bxc3 18.gxf6 Bxf6 19.bxc3 Bb5 when Black was winning in the old classic, Blackburne-
Anderssen, Paris 1878) 10…d6 11.Kh1 Re8 (in another ancient game, Black played 11…
Na5 12.Qf3 Nc4 13.Nd1 Nxe3 14.Nxe3 Bd7 15.g4 Qb6 with equal chances, Mieses-
Paulsen, Breslau 1889) 12.e5 dxe5 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.fxe5 Rd8 15.Qf3 Qxe5 16.Bb6 Rf8
17.Rae1 Qd6 18.Qxc6 (White should have opted for 18.Rd1, e.g., 18…Qb4 19.Bd4 e5
20.Bxe5 Be6 21.Qxc6 Qxb2 22.Qa4 when White would have been marginally better) 18…
Rb8 19.Qxd6 Bxd6 20.Na4 Bd7 21.Bc5 Bxc5 22.Nxc5 Rfc8 23.Nxd7 Nxd7 with a clear
advantage for Black, Uribe-Shankland, Philadelphia 2010.
(c) 9.Re1 Nxd4 (or 9…0-0 10.Nxc6 dxc6 11.e5 Rd8 12.Qf3 Nd5 13.h4 b6 14.Bg5 Bxg5
15.hxg5 Nxc3 16.Qxc6 Qxc6 17.Bxc6 Rb8 18.bxc3 Bb7 19.Bxb7 Rxb7 20.Red1 with a
small plus for White in the endgame, although Black soon managed to equalized in
Macieja-Ivanchuk, Bled 2002) 10.Qxd4 d6 11.e5 dxe5 12.Qxe5 Bd6 13.Qe2 0-0 14.Bg5
Be7 15.Bf4 Bd6 16.Bg5 Be7 17.Bf4 Bd6 18.Bxd6 Qxd6 19.Ne4 Nxe4 20.Bxe4 and with a
lead in development and better placed pieces, White has the better chances, Jovanovic-
Izsak, Hungary 2017.
7…d6
Similar to our main line is 7…Qc7 8.f4 d6 9.h3 b5 10.a3 Bb7 11.f5 Nd4 12.Be3 exf5?!
(12…e5!? improves) 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Bxd4 fxe4 15.Nxe4 Bxe4 16.Bxe4 Nxe4 17.dxe4
0-0 18.Qg4 f6 19.c3 with a small plus for White, Kovalevskaya-Khurtsidze, Kemer 2007.
8.a3
This move looks a little strange, but it is played in anticipation of Black eventually
wanting to play …b7-b5-b4, when the move will come in handy.
White has also tried the more direct 8.f4, e.g., 8…d5 (8…0-0 was a very reasonable
alternative) 9.e5 Nd7 10.Nb1 0-0 11.Nd2 Qc7 12.d4 a5 13.a4 b6 14.Nf3 Ba6 15.Be3 Rfc8
16.Rf2 b5 17.axb5 Bxb5 18.Nc3 Bc4 19.b3 Ba6 20.Na4 Nb4?! (Black should have opted
for 20…Rab8 21.dxc5 Nb4 22.f5 with a sharp position and chances to both sides) 21.c3
and here White has the upper hand, Macieja-Kempinski, Warsaw 2004.
8…Qc7 9.f4 b5 10.Kh1 0-0 11.Be3 Bb7 12.Bg1

White has very patiently built up his position, giving Black the opportunity to weaken
himself in the pursuit of the initiative on the queenside.
12…Rab8
Black can also play 12…Rfd8, for instance, 13.h3 d5 14.e5 Nd7 15.g4 d4 16.Ne4 c4
17.N2g3 Nc5 18.g5 (18.Nxc5 Bxc5 19.Ne4 Be7 20.Qe2 would have kept things more or
less balanced) 18…Na5 19.Nxc5 Bxg2+ 20.Kxg2 Qxc5 and Black was in command of the
game, Romero Holmes-Lautier, Salamanca 1998.
13.h3 Ba8 14.g4 b4
Here, my computer calls for 14…h6, which only a computer would think is a good idea,
weakening the kingside when White is starting a pawn storm against Black’s king. After
15.f5 Qd7 16.Nf4 Bd8, Black should be able to weather the storm, but I still find the
approach dubious.
15.axb4 cxb4 16.Na4

This type of knight placement isn’t unusual in this line and it helps to control Black’s
activity. In some cases, White will play b2-b3 and re-route the knight to c4 via b2.
16…Nd7 17.Qd2 Rfc8 18.b3 a5 19.g5 Bf8 20.Ra2!
Unless you know better, this move belongs in the category of odd rook moves. The main
idea is to guard the c2-pawn, but secondarily it prepares Na4-b2-c4, activating the knight
and taking a good, hard look at the pawn on a5.
20…Ne7 21.Nd4 g6 22.Nb2 Bg7 23.Nc4 d5 24.Nxa5 dxe4 25.dxe4 e5?
A logical, but erroneous counterpunch in the center. Black should have played 25…Nc5!
with good compensation for the pawn.
26.Ne2 exf4 27.Nxf4
With clearly better chances for White, who went on to win this game, Spassky-Fischer,
Belgrade 1992.
Summary:
Most of the lines in this chapter will not exactly rock your boat if excitement is what you
are seeking, the Closed Sicilian rarely is. Nor should White anticipate gaining any kind of
large advantage, in the Closed Sicilian most assessments are hovering around equal or a
tiny advantage for one side or the other, that is the nature of this opening variation. White
can decide to switch to the Open Sicilian which for these set-up is covered in chapter 13.
White should keep in mind that Black typically is hoping for this option, even if the
desired version of the Open Sicilian is not available. White can therefore, with benefit,
keep the play in the Closed Sicilian where Black, in the case of the variations covered in
this chapter, has chosen a really strange set-up.
Chapter 5

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 4.g3 d5

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 4.g3 d5 5.exd5 exd5
Black’s set-up in this variation is quite aggressive, hoping to claim the center and easy
piece development. While these certainly are factors to take into consideration as White,
they also open for extra opportunities for White. For Black to play this line successfully a
good understanding of several kind of pawn structures as well as having to be unafraid of
taking on an isolated d-pawn is required.

6.Bg2
Although the alternatives have been tested on many occasions, also by players with
pedigrees, they are decidedly inferior to our main line. Nevertheless, I will provide a brief
overview for illustrative purposes:
(a) 6.d3 was the main line in Soltis’s book, The Chameleon Sicilian, and was subsequently
used by Fischer in his 1992 match against Spassky but Black shouldn’t have any problems
equalizing:
(a1) 6…Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.Bg5 d4 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Ne4 Be7 11.Nf4 0-0 12.0-0 is the
sequence seen most often, and now:
(a11) 12…Bd7 13.a3 Rc8 14.Qh5 b6 15.Rfe1 (or 15.Rae1 Be8 16.Qd5 Kh8 17.h4 Bd7
18.Qh5 Be8 19.Ng5 h6 20.Ngh3 Bd6 21.Nd5 Ne7 22.Nxe7 Bxe7 and Black has equalized,
Lau-Sommerbauer, St. Poelten 2002) 15…h6 16.h4 Re8 17.Nd2 Bd6 18.Bd5 Rxe1+
19.Rxe1 Be8 was Kulhanek-Rigo, Ostrava 2006, and with 20.Re4 Rc7 21.Nc4 Bxf4
22.Rxf4 Re7 23.Re4 White could maintain a tiny initiative but this is nothing that should
worry Black.
(a12) 12…Bf5 13.Nd5 Rc8 14.Re1 Bd6 15.Qd2 b6 16.Re2 Bb8 17.h3 Kh8 18.Nf4 Ne5
19.Kh1 Rc6 with a comfortable game for Black, Soltis-Olafsson, New York 1986.
(a13) 12…Re8 13.Qh5 g6 14.Qd5 Bf5 15.Rfe1 Kg7 16.a3 Rc8 17.h3 Qxd5 18.Nxd5 Bf8
19.g4 Be6 20.Nef6 Red8 and although White’s knights look intrusive, Black should not
have any problems holding the balance, Fischer-Spassky, Belgrade 1992.
(a2) 6…d4 7.Ne4, and here Black has another selection of choices:
(a21) 7…h5?! 8.Bg2 h4 9.gxh4 Be7 10.Bg5 f5 11.Nd2 Ne5 12.Rg1 Bxg5 13.hxg5 Rxh2
14.Nf4 Rh4 15.Qe2 Rxf4 was played in Soltis-Shirazi, Greenville 1983, when 16.Nc4 Kf8
17.Nxe5 Qxg5 18.Kf1 would be winning for White.
(a22) 7…Be7 8.Bg2 Nf6 9.Nxf6+ Bxf6 10.0-0 0-0 11.h3 Bf5 12.g4 Bd7 13.Ng3 Be5 14.f4
Bc7 15.Ne4 b6 16.f5 gives White some initiative to work with but Black is not in serious
trouble by any stretch, Cabrera-Diaz, Ibague 1999.
(a23) 7…f5 is the main line: 8.Nd2 (or 8.Ng5 Qd5 9.Rg1 Be7 10.Bg2 Qd8 11.h4 h6
12.Nh3 Nf6 13.Nhf4 0-0 14.c3 dxc3 15.bxc3 Re8 16.Rb1 Bd6 17.Kf1 when Black has a
good game, Lehtinen-Pukkila, Finland 2001) 8…Qd5 9.Rg1 Nf6 10.Bg2 Qe6 (or 10…Qf7
11.Nc4 Be6 12.Bxc6+ bxc6 13.b3 Be7 14.Nf4 Bxc4 15.dxc4 0-0 16.Kf1 Rae8 17.Kg2
Bd6 18.Nd3 Ne4 with better chances for Black, Soltis-Timoshenko, Belgrade 1988)
11.Kf1 Nd5 12.Nb3 Be7 13.Nf4 Nxf4 14.Bxf4 g5 15.Bd2 Bd7 16.Qe1 0-0-0 17.Qxe6
Bxe6 18.Re1 Bd5 19.Na5 Nxa5 20.Bxa5 Bxg2+ 21.Kxg2 and White has a small plus in
the endgame, Suba-Timman, Bazna 2008.
(b) 6.d4 is best met with 6…Bg4, and now:

(b1) 7.Qd2 Nf6 8.Bg2 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Qe7+ 10.Kf1 Qd7 11.h3 Be6 12.Qd1 Rc8 13.Bg5 Be7
14.Kg1 0-0 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Kh2 h6 with a better game for Black, Rasic-Panchenko, Pula
2001.
(b2) 7.Be3? is obviously not a good idea: 7…Bf3 8.Rg1 c4 9.Nb1 Nf6 10.Nd2 Bh5 11.h3
Qb6 12.g4 Bg6 13.f4 Be4 and Black is better, Sodoma-Langner, Czechia 2008.
(b3) 7.Bg2 Nxd4 (or 7…cxd4 8.Nxd5 Nf6 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 10.0-0 Bc5 11.h3 Bf3 12.Bxf3
Qxf3 13.Nf4 Qxd1 and draw agreed, ½-½, Cerovic-Bakic, Yugoslavia 1994) 8.0-0 (8.h3
Bf3 9.Kf1 Ne7 10.Bxf3 Nxf3 11.Nf4 Nd4 12.Be3 Qb6 13.Bxd4 cxd4 14.Ncxd5 Qb5+
15.Qe2 Qxe2+ 16.Kxe2 Nxd5 17.Nxd5 which looks better for White but my computer is
firm when calling it equal, Torre-Rahman, Kolkata 2001) and here:
(b31) 8…Nxe2+ 9.Nxe2 Nf6 10.Re1 Be7 11.h3 Bf5 12.g4 Be4 13.g5 Nd7 14.f3 Bg6
15.Qxd5 and White has the upper hand, Magnato-Haba, playchess.com INT 2006.
(b32) 8…Qd7 9.f3 Nxe2+ and now instead of 10.Nxe2 Bf5 11.g4 Be6 12.Nf4 0-0-0
13.Re1 Bd6 14.Nxe6 fxe6, Polster-Flumbort, Germany 2004, White should have played
10.Qxe2+ Be6 11.f4 0-0-0 12.f5 Bxf5 13.Nxd5 Ne7 14.Qf2 Be6 15.Nf4 Nc6 16.Be3.
(b33) 8…Nf6 9.f3 Be6 10.Nxd4 cxd4 11.Nb5 Bc5 12.Nxd4 0-0 13.Kh1 Re8 14.c3 h6
15.Bf4 Qb6 16.Nb3 Bd6 17.Bxd6 Qxd6 18.Nd4 Bd7 with the typical tiny edge for White,
Pancevski-Djukic, Paracin 2011.
6…Nf6
Black has an important alternative in 6…d4, and after 7.Nd5, Black has many choices:

(a) 7…Nge7 8.Nef4 Nxd5 9.Nxd5 Bd6 (9…Be6 frequently transposes to the lines below)
10.0-0 0-0 (10…d3 11.b4 0-0 12.bxc5 Bxc5 13.Bb2 Qg5 14.cxd3 Bd7 15.h4 Qh6 16.Rc1
when Black does not have enough for the pawn, Mariano-Korobov, Dubai 2004) 11.d3,
and now:
(a1) 11…Be6 with another fork in the road:
(a11) 12.Qh5 g6 (or 12…Qd7 13.Re1 Bg4 14.Qh4 Ne5 15.h3 Be6 16.Qh5 Rad8 17.Nf4
Bf5 18.b3 Rfe8 19.Bd2 b5 20.g4 Bg6 21.Nxg6 hxg6 and Black has equalized,
Reinderman-Yu Yuhua, Wijk aan Zee 2014) 13.Qf3 Ne5 14.Qf6 Qxf6 15.Nxf6+ Kg7
16.Ne4 Be7 17.Re1 Nc6 18.Ng5 Bxg5 19.Bxg5 with a position I would like to think is
better for White, but it is probably no more than equal, Dgebuadze-Brink, Eindhoven
2017.
(a12) 12.Nf4 Bxf4 (or 12…Bf5 13.h3 Rb8 14.Bd2 Re8 15.Re1 Rxe1+ 16.Qxe1 Qd7 17.g4
Re8 18.Qd1 Bxf4 19.Bxf4 Be6 with approximate equality, Fischer-Spassky, Belgrade
1992) 13.Bxf4 Bd5 (also 13…Qd7 14.Qh5 b6 15.Rfe1 Rac8 16.a3 Ne7 17.Qf3 Nd5
18.Bd2 Nf6 is similarly more or less equal, Certic-Antic, Tivat 1995) 14.Qh5 Bxg2 (14…
Nb4 15.a3 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Qd5+ 17.Qxd5 Nxd5 and draw agreed, ½-½, in Mariano-Negi,
Dubai 2005) 15.Kxg2 b6 16.a3 Qd7 17.Rfe1 Rfe8 18.Qf3 h6 19.h4 Rac8 20.h5 Kh8
21.Rad1 Kg8 22.Rb1 a5 23.c4 f6 and here a draw was agreed upon, ½-½ in Feoktistov-
Vorobiov, Vladimir 2004.
(a2) 11…Re8 also presents White with several alternatives:

(a21) 12.a3 Be6 (or 12…Bf5 13.Bf4 Be5 14.Bxe5 Nxe5 15.f4 Bg4 16.Qd2 Nc6 17.Rae1
Qd7 with chances to both sides, Thesing-Sadler, Germany 1999) 13.Nf4 Bd7 14.h3 a5
15.a4 Rc8 16.b3 b6 17.Bd2 Ne5 18.Nd5 Bc6 19.f4 Nd7 was played in Mariano-Kunte,
Kuala Lumpur 2005, and now after 20.Re1 Re6 21.Qh5 Nf6, the chances would have been
close to equal.
(a22) 12.Re1 Bf5 13.Rxe8+ Qxe8 14.h3 Bd7 15.Bd2 Qf8 16.Qh5 Re8 17.Re1 Rxe1+
18.Bxe1 Ne7 was equal in Neimer-Soffer, Herzliya 2009.
(a3) 11…Bf5 12.h3 Qd7 13.Kh2 Nb4 14.Nxb4 cxb4 15.b3 Rac8 16.Bb2 Bb8 17.Qd2 Rfd8
18.Rfc1 a5 19.a3 bxa3 20.Rxa3 offers White the better chances, Barle-Nikolov, Rijeka
2010.
(b) 7…Bd6 8.d3 (or 8.0-0 Nge7 9.Nxe7 Nxe7 10.d3 Ng6 11.c3 dxc3 12.Nxc3 0-0 13.Ne4
Be7 14.Be3 and White’s lead in development offers him the somewhat better chances,
Ernst, T.-Miladinovic, Cutro 2004) 8…Nge7 9.Bg5 (9.Nxe7 Nxe7 10.Nf4 0-0 11.0-0 Bf5
12.Bxb7 Rb8 13.Bg2 Bxf4 14.Bxf4 Rxb2 15.Qc1 Rb6 16.Qa3 Qd7 appeals to me as
White, but Black should be okay, Franzoni-Christiansen, Biel 1994) 9…h6 10.Nxe7 Nxe7
11.Bf4 Bg4 12.Bxd6 Qxd6 13.h3 Bd7 14.0-0 Ng6 15.c3 0-0 16.cxd4 cxd4 17.Rc1 Rac8
and Black is fine, Sax-Miladinovic, Sibenik 2007.
(c) 7…Nf6 8.Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.0-0 Bd6 10.d3 0-0 11.Nf4 Re8 12.h3 Bd7 13.Bd2 Ne7 14.Nh5
Qg6 15.Re1 Bc6 16.Qg4 Nd5 and Black has equalized, Tischbierek-Sveshnikov,
Leningrad 1984.
(d) 7…Bg4 8.h3 Bf5 9.d3 Bd6 10.Nef4 Nge7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Nxe7+ Qxe7 13.Qh5 Qd7
14.g4 Bg6 15.Nxg6 fxg6 16.Qd5+ Kh8 17.Bd2 with some initiative and better chances for
White, Simonian-Baghdasaryan, Warsaw 2010.
7.d4

7…cxd4
The alternatives are:
(a) 7…Be6 8.0-0 (or 8.Bg5 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Bc5 10.Be3 Qb6 11.Na4 Qa5+ 12.Nc3 Bxd4
13.Bxd4 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 0-0 15.0-0 Rac8 16.Rad1 Rc4 and Black has equalized, Serper-
Yermolinsky, Tashkent 1987) 8…Qd7 9.Re1 Be7 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Nf4 0-0 12.Ncxd5
Nxd5 13.Bxd5 Rad8 14.c4 and Black really didn’t have enough for the pawn in
Blackburne-Janowski, Vienna 1898.
(b) 7…c4? is a bad idea that was soon punished after 8.Bg5 Bb4 9.0-0 Bxc3 10.Nxc3 Ne7
11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Qf3 Be6 13.Qxf6, and Black is already lost, Gu-Zhang, Hefei 2010.
(c) 7…Bg4 is covered in chapter 10.
8.Nxd4 Be7
Black has several alternatives:
(a) 8…Bc5, and now:
(a1) 9.Nb3 Bb4 (exchanging the queens with 9…Qe7+ 10.Qe2 Qxe2+ 11.Nxe2 only helps
White: 11…Bb6 12.c3 0-0 13.a4 a6 14.a5 Ba7 15.0-0 Bf5 16.Bg5 Ne4 17.Be3 Bxe3
18.fxe3 Be6 19.Ned4 with better chances for White, Henriquez Villagra-Salgado, Chile
2010) 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 0-0 12.Nd4 Qa5 13.Bf4 Qxc3 14.Nb5 Qc5 15.Qb1 a6 16.Nc7
Ra7 17.c3 Qxc3 18.Nxd5 Nxd5 19.Bxd5 and White has excellent compensation for the
pawn, Gonzalez Acosta-Bakalarz, Mallorca 2004.
(a2) 9.Qe2+ Qe7 (9…Be7 10.Be3 0-0 11.0-0 Re8 12.Qb5 Bd7 13.Qxb7 Nb4 14.a3 Rb8
15.Qxa7 Ra8 16.axb4 Rxa7 17.Rxa7 and White is clearly better, Kovalevskaya-
Shumiakina, Orel 1995) 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7 11.Nb3 Bb4 12.Bd2 Rd8?! 13.0-0-0 Bg4? (13…
Kf8 is better but still leaving White on top) 14.f3 Bf5 15.a3 d4 16.axb4 dxc3 17.Bxc3 and
White is winning, Maze-A.Sokolov, Nimes 2014.
(b) 8…Qb6 9.Nxc6 (or 9.Nb3 d4 10.Ne2 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 0-0 12.0-0 Bg4 13.h3 Bxe2
14.Qxe2 Rad8 15.Bxb4 Qxb4, Plotkin-Kimelman, Toronto 2008, and now 16.Rfe1 Rfe8
17.Qf1 Rxe1 18.Qxe1 with a tiny edge for White) 9…bxc6 10.0-0 Be6 (also 10…Be7
11.Re1 Be6 12.Na4 Qb5 13.b3 0-0 14.Bb2 Rad8 15.Bf1 Qa5 16.Bc3 Qc7 17.Be5 Qc8
18.Qe2 Rfe8 19.Qa6 Nd7 20.Qxc8 Rxc8 with equal chances, Vasiukov-Panchenko,
Dnipropetrovsk 1980) 11.b3 Be7 12.Bb2 0-0 13.Ne2 Bg4 14.Qd3 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Rfe8
16.Qd3 Ne4 17.Bxe4 dxe4 18.Qd4 Bf6 19.Qxb6 axb6 20.Bxf6 gxf6 with equal chances in
the endgame, Narciso Dublan-Martinez Ramirez, Montcada 2011.
(c) 8…Bg4 is aggressive and makes good sense:

(c1) 9.Qd3 Bc5 10.Nb3 Qe7+ 11.Kf1 d4 (11…Bb6!? looks like an improvement) 12.Nxc5
Qxc5 13.Qb5 Qxb5+ 14.Nxb5 Rd8 15.h3 Bf5 16.Bf4 0-0 17.Nd6 Bxc2 18.Nxb7 Rd5
19.Bxd5 Nxd5 was played in Safarli-Vega Gutierrez, Minsk 2017, and now 20.Bd6 Rc8
21.f3 d3 22.Kf2 f6 23.Ba3 d2 24.Rhd1 Bxd1 25.Rxd1 Ndb4 26.Rxd2 Nxa2 and White has
a small advantage.
(c2) 9.f3 Bh5 (or 9…Be6 10.Be3 Qb6 11.Qd2 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Qc6 13.0-0 Bc5 14.Rad1 0-0
15.Kh1 Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Rfd8, Sindarov-Atabayev, Tashkent 2017, and now 17.g4!? would
have offered White a tiny advantage) 10.Be3 Bb4 11.0-0 0-0 12.Bf2 Re8 13.Nce2 Ne5
14.Nf4 Bg6 15.Nxg6 hxg6 16.c3 Ba5 17.Re1 Bb6 18.b3 Qd7 19.Qd2 Rac8 20.Rad1 and
White has the usual tiny plus, Cornette-Wang, Auckland 2016.
(c3) 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qd4 Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Na4 Qd7 13.Re1 Rfe8 14.Bd2 Bh3 15.Bc3
Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Bf8 17.f3 Qf5 18.Qd3 Qxd3 19.cxd3 Nd7 20.Rac1 f6 with a position the
computer assesses as equal, but where I prefer White on account of the backward pawn on
the c-file, Malakhov-Delchev, Benidorm 2005.
(c4) 9.Nde2 Bb4 10.h3 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Bf5 12.0-0 0-0 13.Bg5 Be4 14.f3 Bg6 15.Rb1 Re8
16.Rf2 b6 17.Nf4 h6 18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.Nxd5 Qd6 with equality, Predojevic-Halkias,
Subotica 2008.
(c5) 9.Nce2 Bc5 10.f3 Bd7 11.Be3 Qe7 12.Qd2 0-0 13.0-0 Rfe8 14.Bf2 Ne5 15.b3 Rac8
16.Rfe1 Qd6 17.c3 a5 18.Nf4 b5 19.Nd3 Nxd3 20.Rxe8+ Rxe8 21.Qxd3 b4 and Black has
equalized, Maze-Hamdouchi, Drancy 2016.
9.0-0 0-0

9…Bg4 10.Qd3 (also 10.Nde2 has been tried, e.g., 10…0-0 11.h3 Bh5 12.Bg5 d4 13.Bxf6
Bxf6 14.Nd5 Qd6 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.g4 Bg6 17.f4 h6?! 18.f5 Bh7 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Qxd4
and White is of course much better, Milligan-King, Brighton 1980, but 17…h5 improves)
10…0-0 11.Bf4 (or 11.b3 Qd7 12.Bb2 Rac8 13.Rfe1 Rfe8 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Na4 Bf5
16.Qd2 Bh3 17.Rad1 Bxg2 18.Kxg2 and White has the somewhat better chances, Narciso
Dublan-Gonzalez Velez, Spain 1994) 11…Qd7 12.Rfe1 Rfe8 13.a3 Rac8 14.Nxc6 bxc6
15.Be5 Bf5 16.Qd2 Ng4 17.Bd4 Bf6 18.Bxf6 Nxf6 19.b4 Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1 Re8 21.Rxe8+
Qxe8 was played in Shamkovich-Kan, Soviet Union 1967, and now 22.Ne2 Qe5 23.Nd4
would have provided White with a tiny edge.
10.Be3
This is an important juncture for this variation and White may choose among several
moves. The play and ideas for White in each line are similar, but Black’s opportunities
against each are.
(a) 10.Re1, and now:
(a1) 10…h6 11.h3 Bb4 12.a3 Ba5 13.Qd3 Bb6 14.Nf3 d4 15.Na4 Bc7 16.Bd2 Qd5
17.Nh4 Qd8 18.Nc5 with slightly better chances for White, Chadaev-Kotsur, Astana 2012.
(a2) 10…Re8 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Rxe8+ Qxe8 14.Ndb5 Qd8 15.Bxd5 Bf5
16.Nd6 Bg6 17.Nxb7 (White should have played 17.Nce4 Be5 18.c4 Qc7 19.Nb5 Qe7
20.Nbc3 with a fairly clear advantage; the text move is weaker, but Black soon gets lost in
the complications) 17…Qb6 18.Nd6 Rd8?! (18…Qxb2 would have been better) 19.Nce4
Nb4??

20.Nxf6+ gxf6 21.Nc4? (White should have played 21.Bxf7+ Bxf7 22.Qg4+ with a
winning attack) 21…Qc7 22.Ne3 Qe5?? 23.Bxf7+, and Black resigned, 1-0, Zakhartsov-
Timoshenko, Minsk 2015.
(a3) 10…Bb4 11.Bg5 Bxc3 12.bxc3 h6 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Bxd5 Rd8 15.Qf3 Qxf3 16.Bxf3
Na5 17.Rab1 when it is clear that White’s pieces are nearly ideally placed and Black will
have an uphill battle getting the rest of his pieces developed without losing material,
Potapov-Demidov, Pardubice 2017.
(a4) 10…Bg4 11.Qd3 Nb4 12.Qd2 Re8 (12…Rc8 13.h3 Bd7 14.Qd1 h6 15.Kh2 Re8
16.Be3 Bc5 17.Re2 Bb6 18.Rd2 Rxe3 19.fxe3 Qe7 20.Qf3 when White is up an exchange
but Black has active counterplay; I doubt it fully compensates for the missing material,
Heidenfeld-Panzalovic, Germany 1999) 13.h3 Bc8 14.Qd1 Bc5 15.Rxe8+ Qxe8 16.Be3
Bb6 17.Kh2 Bd7 18.Qd2 Rc8 19.Re1 Qd8 20.a3 Nc6 21.Nxd5 Nxd5 22.Bxd5 Nxd4
23.Bxd4 and White had an extra pawn and a clear advantage, Kupreichik-Lau, Meisdorf
1996.
(b) 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Nde2 d4 13.Nd5 Be5 14.Qd2 Be6 15.Nef4 Qd6 16.a3
Rad8 17.Nxe6 Qxe6 18.Nb4 Nxb4 19.axb4 with a small but clear positional advantage for
White, Iordachescu-Jumabayev, Baku 2013.
(c) 10.h3, and here Black has tried:

(c1) 10…h6 11.Bf4 a6 12.a3 Bc5 13.Be3 Ba7 14.Re1 Re8 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Bxa7 Rxe1+
17.Qxe1 Rxa7 18.Na4 Re7 19.Qc3 which my computer calls equal, but I prefer White’s
position because of its superior pawn structure, Kislinsky-Cvek, Czechia 2012.
(c2) 10…Nxd4 11.Qxd4 Bf5 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.Qxd5 Qxd5 14.Bxd5 Bxc2 15.Be3 Bf6
16.Rac1 Rac8 17.Bxb7 Bxb2 18.Bxc8 Bxc1 19.Rxc1 Rxc8 20.Bxa7 when White’s extra
pawn of course meant that he had the better chances but the presence of opposite-color
bishops made it difficult for White to make real progress, Vesselovsky-Klima, Czechia
2015.
(c3) 10…Be6 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Bg5 Qd7 13.Ne2 Rad8 14.c3 Bc5 15.Nf4 h6 16.Bxf6 Rxf6
17.Qe2 Qf7 18.Rad1 Bb6 Black has a comfortable game, Grosar-Rahman, Moscow 1994.
(c4) 10… Qb6 11.Nce2 (removing the blockade from d4 with 11.Nde2 allowed Black easy
equality after 11…d4 12.Na4 Qa6 13.b3 Rd8 14.Nf4 b5 15.Nb2 Bb7 16.a4, and draw
agreed, ½-½, Spassky-Barlov, New York 1987) 11…a5 (11…Re8 12.c3 Bd7 13.Qb3 Qa6
14.Be3 Na5 15.Qc2 Nc4 16.Bg5 h6 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.Rfd1 Rac8 19.Nf4 Nb6 20.Qd3
Qxd3 21.Rxd3 is more or less equal but not easy for Black to play and eventually he lost
to his 200-point lower-rated opponent, Berend-Adianto, Beijing 2008) 12.a4 Bc5 13.Nb3
Bf5 14.Nxc5 Qxc5 15.c3 Be4 16.Be3 Qe7 17.Nd4 Ne5 18.Re1 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Qd7 20.Bf4
Ng6 was played in Deviatkin-Grachev, Irkutsk 2010, and now 21.Be3 Rfe8 22.f3 followed
by Qd3 would have left White with the upper hand and a nice positional edge.
10…Bg4
Black has a number of alternatives at this point:
(a) 10…h6 11.Re1 Re8 12.h3 Bb4 13.a3 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Na5 15.g4 Ne4 16.Qd3 b6 17.Bf4
Bb7 18.Nf5 Re6 19.f3 Nc5 20.Qd4 Qf8 with more or less equal chances, yet the world
champion nevertheless won convincingly, Carlsen-Kotsur, Astana 2012.
(b) 10…Re8 11.Qd2 Bb4 12.a3 Ba5 13.Rad1 Ne4 14.Bxe4 dxe4 15.Nxc6 Qxd2 16.Bxd2
Bxc3 17.Bxc3 bxc6 18.Rd6 Bh3 19.Re1 Rac8 20.Rd4 and White has the somewhat better
chances due to his superior pawn structure although the opposite-color bishops provide
Black with decent drawing chances, Najer-Heberla, Germany 2011.
(c) 10…Ng4 11.Nxd5 Nxe3 12.fxe3 Bc5 13.c3 Ne5 14.Qh5 f6 15.Rf4 Bd7 16.Rh4 h6
17.Rf1 Qe8 with a nice little tactical puzzle to solve:

18.Rxf6! Qxh5 19.Rxf8+ Rxf8 20.Rxh5 and White had a clear advantage, Comas
Fabrego-Berkovich, La Massana 2012.
11.Qd3
White has two other moves he can consider:
(a) 11.Nce2 Qd7 12.f3 Bf5 13.Nxf5 Qxf5 14.Nd4 Qe5 15.Re1 Bc5 16.c3 Qc7 17.Qd2 Qb6
18.Nb3 Bxe3+ 19.Qxe3 which is only fractionally better for White according to my
computer, but White can at least play for a win at no risk, Xiong-Macieja, Wheeling 2014.
(b) 11.f3 Bd7 12.Re1 Re8 13.Nb3 Be6 14.Bf2 Qd7 15.Qd2 Rad8 16.Rad1 Qc8 17.Nb5 b6
18.N5d4 Bd7 19.Nxc6 Qxc6 20.Nd4 with a small but pleasant edge for White, Safarli-
Tregubov, Loo 2013.
11…a6
A standard reaction in this type of position, but also one that Black has to be careful about
making because the dark squares get weakened severely, which can cause long-term
headaches. Another option is 11…Qd7 12.Rfe1

12..Rac8 (or 12…Rfe8 13.a3 Rac8 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Bd4 Bf5 16.Qd2 h6 17.Rad1 Nh7
18.b4 Ng5 19.f4 Ne6 20.Bf2 d4 21.h3 as played in Vachier Lagrave-Gwaze, Istanbul
2012, and here Black should have played the aggressive 21…h5 to stay in the game, e.g.,
22.Re5 g6 23.Ne4 c5 24.bxc5 Nxc5 25.Qxd4 Qxd4 26.Bxd4 Nxe4 27.Bxe4 Bxh3 28.Bd3
with even chances in the endgame) 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bd4 Rfe8 15.Qa6 Bf5 16.Re2 Bg4
17.Re3 Be6 18.Ree1 c5 19.Be5 Ng4 20.Bf4 g5 21.Bd2 h6 22.Qa4 Qxa4 23.Nxa4 Bf6 and
Black has equalized, G.Jones-Tregubov, Bastia 2011.
12.Rfe1 Qd7 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Na4
White lays claim to the dark squares, providing him with a small but clear advantage.
14…Qf5 15.Bf4 Bb4 16.Qxf5 Bxf5 17.c3 Ba5 18.Bf1
So far, model play by White who makes it difficult for Black to activate his pieces or even
get a pair of rooks exchanged. Black has to play actively to stay in the game, which forces
him to push hard on the kingside.
18…Bd8
The bishop needs a better job than it currently has on a5. Its destination is f6. White’s next
move is intended to address the threat of …Bc2, which looms in some variations, but it
didn’t have to be played right away. Instead, White could have considered 19.f3 to take
away the e4-square from Black’s knight.
19.b3 Ne4 20.h4 Bf6 21.Rac1 g5
Black messes with his pawn structure even more but expects that his activity will provide
compensation.
22.hxg5 Nxg5 23.Bg2 Nh3+ 24.Bxh3 Bxh3 25.Be5
It would be ideal for White to exchange the dark-squared bishops when the endgame will
be a near-certain win for English grandmaster Jones. Black, of course, should never allow
this exchange to happen. Considering that Black doesn’t have too many good active
moves to make, White could have considered 25.f3, for instance, 25…Bf5 26.Kf2 Rfe8
27.Be3 a5 28.Bd4 with somewhat better chances.
25…Bg5 26.f4 Be7 27.Bd4 Rfe8 28.Re3 Bf5 29.Nc5 Bxc5 and a draw was agreed upon,
½-½, G.Jones-Caruana, Reykjavik 2012.
Summary:
As mentioned in the chapter introduction, Black has to be quite adept at several types of
pawn structures to play the variation in this chapter well. White has the pleasant choice
playing d2-d3 which will make the game quieter and more nuanced, whereas if White
plays the variations with d2-d4 then Black gets saddled with an isolated pawn, which is
certainly not to everybody’s taste, but with hopes for active counterplay. White has a good
shot at a tiny edge with the former option, although the pawn structure with just one open
file can make things a little boring and uneventful. The main line is, by and large,
sufficient for equality for Black, but even so, as we can see in our main game, a world
class player such as Caruana was struggling to stay in the game against a strong, but
considerably lower-rated player.
There is no easy equality for Black in this variation.
Chapter 6

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nd4!?

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nd4!?

This interesting move deserves attention because it hasn’t yet been played too much yet. It
was chosen by Grandmaster Kotronias as his recommendation against the Chameleon
Variation in his work Grandmaster Repertoire: Beating the Anti-Sicilians. The first
stronger player to use it regularly was International Master Josef Pribyl. It has since
become the weapon of choice of Grandmaster Vyacheslav Ikonnikov.
White has to make a decision about what to do with the knight: exchange it or leave it be.
If White leaves it be, he has to keep in mind that entering a Closed Sicilian with g3 will be
problematic, e.g., 4.g3?? Nf3#, the same is of course the situation after 4.d3 followed by
g2-g3. So, other ideas are required.
Aside from the main lines that we will cover below, we have the following options:
(a) 4.b4!? is probably dubious but definitely not unplayable, e.g., 4…cxb4 5.Nxd4 bxc3
6.Bc4 (or 6.Qf3 cxd2+ 7.Bxd2 a6 when White has some compensation for the pawn in the
shape of lead in development, but overall I have my doubts) 6…cxd2+ 7.Qxd2 Qc7 8.Bb3
e6 9.0-0 when White seems to have decent compensation. Since this has not been played
at the master level, it definitely needs some tries before anything close to a true evaluation
can be uncovered. However, in games with short time limits this line may not be a bad
idea.
(b) 4.b3 d6 5.Bb2 Bd7 (or 5…Nf6 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.Nd5 Nxe4 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.Qe2 Nf6
10.Nxf6+ gxf6 11.Bxd4 Bxb5 12.Qxb5+ Qd7 13.Qxd7+?! Kxd7 14.c4 Rg8 15.0-0 f5 was
better for Black in Pijpers-Petrov, Leiden 2015, but 13.Qe2!? Rg8 14.g3 Qe6 15.Be3
improves) 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.Ne2 Nf6 (7…e5 8.c3 dxc3 9.Nxc3 Nf6 10.Bc4 Be7 11.0-0 0-0
12.d4 Qb6 13.Re1 a6 14.a4 Rae8, Vyzharov-Daurelle, email 2010, and now White should
have continued with 15.Nd5 Nxd5 16.a5 Qc7 17.Bxd5) 8.Nxd4 e5 9.Nf5 Nxe4 (or 9…g6
10.Ng3 Rc8 11.a4 h5 12.Bd3 when White cannot complain) and now instead of 10.Qg4
Nf6 11.Nxg7+ Bxg7 12.Qxg7 Rg8 13.Qh6 Rg6 14.Qe3 Nd5 15.Qe4 Bc6 16.f3 Qg5
17.Qc4 Nf4 with chances to both sides, Enescu-Zlatariu, ICCF email 2008, White could
have considered 10.Ne3, for instance, 10…Bc6 11.Be2 Be7 12.0-0 0-0 13.b4 (or 13.d3
Nc5 14.d4 exd4 15.Bxd4 Ne6 16.B(b2) 13…a6 14.a4 Bg5 15.c4 Nf6 16.b5 Be4 17.d3
with an interesting position where I would prefer White.
(c) 4.Nf4 e6 5.g3 Ne7 6.Bg2 h5 7.0-0 h4 8.d3 Nec6 9.Be3 a6 10.a4 was Sanchez Guirado-
Bordell Rosell, Torrevieja 1997, and now 10…b6 would have been fine for Black.
(d) 4.a4 a6 5.d3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.a5 d6 8.Qd2 (White can also play Larsen-style with
8.h4!? e6 (or 8…h5 9.Nd5!? Nxe2 10.Bxe2 Bxb2 11.0-0 Nf6 12.Nb6 Rb8 13.Rb1 with
excellent compensation for the pawn) 9.h5 Bd7 10.Bd2, intending to exchange on d4; this
nothing for Black to be unduly worried about, but I wouldn’t mind playing White) 8…b5
9.axb6 Qxb6 10.Na4 Qb7 11.Nc1 Bd7 12.c3 Nc6?! was played in Soltis-Peters, USA Ch
(Mentor) 1977, and now 13.d4 cxd4 14.cxd4 Nf6 15.f3 would have left White with the
better chances. However, Black can improve with 12…Ne6 13.Be2 Rb8 14.0-0 Nf6 and
the chances are about even.
(e) 4.f4 g6 (4…e6 5.Nxd4 cxd4 6.Ne2 Qb6 7.Ng3 Bc5 - 7…Nf6!? can also be considered
- 8.Bd3 Nf6 9.0-0 g6 10.a3 a5 11.b3 d6 was played in Madl-Csiszar, Hungary 1995, and
now 12.Bb2 0-0 13.Kh1 would be best) 5.Nxd4 (5.g3 Nf3+ (5…Bg7 6.Bg2 d6 7.d3 Nf6)
6.Kf2 Nd4 7.Bg2 Bg7 8.d3 h5 9.Be3 h4 10.e5 Nh6 11.Nxd4 cxd4 12.Bxd4 d6 and Black
is doing fine, Gi-Lyaskovsky, Vladivostok 2012) 5…cxd4 6.Nb5 Bg7 7.c3 dxc3 8.Nxc3
(or 8.dxc3 a6 9.Nd4 Qc7 10.Bd3 d6 11.0-0 Nf6 12.f5 0-0 13.Qe2 Bd7 14.Bf4 Rac8 with
counterplay is given by Kotronias, but White really doesn’t have a reason to be
dissatisfied either), and now:
(e1) 8…a6 9.d4 b5 (9…d5 10.e5 Nh6 11.Be3 0-0 12.Be2 is called slightly better for White
by Kotronias but that may be a little harsh; the chances are about even) 10.Be3 Bb7 11.d5
e6 12.Be2 Ne7 (12…Nf6?! 13.Bf3 is better for White according to Kotronias) 13.d6
(13.Bd4 0-0 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Qd4+ f6 is given as equal by Kotronias and this seems to
be correct, e.g., 16.0-0 exd5 17.exd5 Nf5 18.Qf2 Re8 when Black should have nothing to
worry about) 13…Nc6 14.0-0 0-0 15.Rc1 Rc8 16.Qd2 f5 which Kotronias analyzes well
past move 20 to conclude the chances are even, but rather than his main line with 17.e5
which I agree is nothing for White, then 17.exf5 Rxf5 18.Bg4 can be considered for
White, it probably will not suffice for an advantage but it is an interesting alternative.
(e2) 8…e6 9.Bc4 (Here White can improve with 9.Nb5! d6 (9…d5 10.e5 Bf8 11.Qc2 or
10…Ne7 11.Nd6+ Kf8 12.b3) 10.Qa4 Kf8 with chances for White) 9…Ne7 10.Qf3 Qb6
11.d3 a6 12.Bb3 d6 13.Be3 Qa5 14.0-0 0-0 15.Qg3 and White has a promising position,
Ubach Miralda-Gardela Batlle, Barcelona 2011, e.g., 15…Nc6 16.Rac1 Bd7 17.Qf2.
(f) 4.Rb1 Although played infrequently, Kotronias invests a considerable amount of time
and space on this move. We will reciprocate at this time:
(f1) 4…e6 5.Nxd4 cxd4 6.Nb5 Nf6 is a suggestion by Kotronias which he gives as unclear
and as “worth further investigation.”

(f11) 7.d3?? Qa5+ should, of course, be avoided.

(f12) 7.e5 a6 8.exf6 (8.Nxd4 Qa5 is fine for Black) 8…axb5 9.fxg7 Bxg7 10.a3 Qc7
11.Bxb5 b6 12.0-0 Bb7 provides Black excellent compensation for the pawn.
(f13) 7.Qe2 Qb6 8.Qc4 (8.c3 dxc3 9.dxc3 (9.Nxc3 Be7) 9…a6 10.Nd4 e5 11.Nf3 d6 is
entirely unproblematic for Black) 8…Rb8 9.Qxd4 Qxd4 10.Nxd4 Nxe4 11.d3 Nd6 Black
has equalized.
(f2) 4…a6 5.d3 (Kotronias also offers 5.b4!? as an interesting alternative 5…cxb4 6.Rxb4
e5 7.Rxd4 [7.Rb1 Bc5 is fine for Black] 7…exd4 8.Nxd4 d6 9.Bc4 (9.Nd5 Nf6 10.Bc4
Nxd5 11.Bxd5 Be7 12.Qf3 is similar to Kotronias’ line) 9…Nf6 10.0-0 Be7 11.Qf3 0-0
12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 Bf6 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.Qxf5 Qc8 16.Qxc8 Raxc8 17.c3 b5 which
Kotronias evaluates as approximately balanced and I agree with that assessment) 5…b5
(5…d6 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.Ne2 e5 8.c3 dxc3 9.Nxc3 Nf6 10.Be2 Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.d4 b5
13.Be3 Bb7 14.f3 is pleasant for White as offered by Kotronias) 6.a4 e5 7.Bd2 (7.Nxd4
cxd4 8.Nd5 Bb7 9.Be2 Ne7 is assessed as better for Black by Kotronias and while Black
may have a little initiative, it is generous to call it better for Black, e.g., 10.c4 dxc3
11.Nxe7 cxb2 12.Bxb2 Qxe7 13.0-0 and White is doing fine) 7…Nf6 8.axb5 Bb7 9.Ra1
(9.bxa6 Rxa6 10.Ng3 h5 11.h4 Be7 gives Black adequate compensation because of the
weak h4–pawn, according to Kotronias. If we continue the analysis a little further then
12.Nce2 (12.Be2 g6 looks passive for White) 12…d5 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Be2 0-0 15.0-0
dxe4 16.dxe4 Ra8 17.Bd3 Qd7 18.Bg5 and I would probably prefer White but there’s
nothing wrong with Black’s position) 9…Be7 10.bxa6 Bxa6 11.Ng3 0-0 12.Be2 (12.Nce2
d5) 12…d5 13.0-0 dxe4 14.Ncxe4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 f5 16.Ng3 (16.Nc3 Qd6 looks good for
Black; he can consider …Bb7 followed by …Qg6) 16…Bb7 17.Rxa8 Qxa8 18.f3 Qa2
19.c3 (19.Bc3 Bg5) 19…Nb3 provides Black adequate compensation for the pawn
according to Kotronias and that does seem like a reasonable assessment.
(f3) 4…e5 5.Nxd4 cxd4 6.Nd5 Nf6 7.Bc4 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.d3 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 d6 11.c3 Be6
12.Qb3 Qd7 13.Bd2 (My computer is making an argument for 13.cxd4 exd4 14.Qxb7
Qxb7 15.Bxb7 Rab8 16.Bd5 Rfc8 but I can’t blame the former World Champion Spassky
for not going in that direction: while he does have an extra pawn at the moment it will be
very difficult to convert to a victory) 13…Bxd5 14.Qxd5 dxc3 15.bxc3 with a pleasant
position for White, which was sufficient for a victory in a long game, Spassky-Bartsch,
Germany 1984.
(g) 4.Nd5 e6 5.Ne3, and now:

(g1) 5…d5 6.exd5 exd5 7.c3 Nc6 8.d4 Nf6 9.g3 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Bc5 11.Bg2 0-0 12.0-0
Be6 13.Nec2 Bg4 14.Qd3 Qd7 15.Re1 Rfe8 16.Bf4 h6 with even chances, Berzinsh-
Irzhanov, Bratislava 1993.
(g2) 5…Bd6 6.c3 Nxe2 7.Bxe2 Qc7 8.d4 Be7 9.d5 Nf6 10.Bf3 0-0 11.c4 d6 12.0-0 e5 was
played in De Lange-Ziska, H., Kusadasi 2006, and here White should have played 13.h3
Bd7 14.Qd3.
(g3) 5…Qh4 6.d3 Nf6 7.c3 Nxe2 8.Bxe2 d5 9.g3 Qh3 10.e5 d4 11.Bf1 Qh6 12.Nc4 when
Black has wasted entirely too much time with his queen, Neukirch-Schmidt, H., 1965.
(g4) 5…Ne7 6.c3 (or 6.Ng3 d5 7.d3 g6 8.Ng4 Bg7 9.Bg5 f5 10.Ne3 h6 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 and
Black is doing well, Berzinsh-Sobek, Czechia 1993) 6…Nxe2 7.Bxe2 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5
9.0-0 (or 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.d4 c4 11.Bf3 Be6 12.Qe2 (12.Bf4 Bd6) 12…Be7 13.Bf4 0-0
14.0-0 Bd6) 9…Nxe3 10.dxe3 Qxd1 11.Rxd1 Bd7 12.e4 Be7 13.Be3 with somewhat
better chances for White, Brodsky-Vaulin, St. Petersburg 1995.
(A) 4.d3
Rather than reacting to Black’s knight advance, White simply proceeds with his
development which makes a lot of sense.

4…g6
Kotronias calls the text move over-ambitous and he may well be right in that assessment.
Black has several alternatives:
(a) 4…d6 5.Be3 (5.Rb1 e5 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.Nd5 Be6 8.c4 Ne7 9.f4 Bd7 10.Bd2 Nxd5
11.cxd5 exf4 12.Bxf4 Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Qxa2 14.Be2 and White has excellent compensation
for the pawn, Kissinger-Riemer, IECG email 1999) 5…e5 6.Nd5 Ne7 (6…Nf6 7.Nxf6+
Qxf6 8.c3 Nxe2 9.Bxe2 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 Qe6 13.Bf3 Bf6 14.Qe1 Be5
15.Be3 Bd7 16.d4 cxd4 17.cxd4 Bf6 was played in Knoppert-Milov, Tilburg 1994, when
only White can be better after 18.Rd1) 7.Nec3 Nec6 8.g3 Be7 9.Bg2 0-0 10.0-0 Rb8 11.a3
b5 12.b4 a6 13.f4 exf4 14.Bxf4 Bg5 15.Qd2 Bxf4 16.gxf4 f5 17.Rae1 Bb7 18.Nd1 and
White has the upper hand, Borovikov-Moroz, Rivne 2005.
(b) 4…e6 is Kotronias’s recommendation and therefore a lot of what follows below is
based on his analysis and recommendations. Now White has the following options:
(b1) After 5.Be3, Kotronias recommends to move the e-pawn again: 5…e5 6.Nd5 (or 6.f4
d6 7.Nd5 Ne7 8.Nec3 Be6 with equality) 6…Ne7 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bxe7 Bxe7 9.Nxd4 (9.Ng3
g6 10.c3 Ne6 11.Be2 Nc7 12.Nxc7+ Qxc7 13.Nf1 b6 14.Ne3 Bb7 is also even according
to Kotronias) 9…cxd4 10.Be2 b6 11.0-0 Bb7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.f4 0-0 14.fxe5 Rac8
15.Qd2 Rc5 and Black has equalized, according to Kotronias.
(b2) 5.Nxd4 cxd4 6.Ne2 Bc5 7.c3 dxc3 8.bxc3 is the main line and now:

(b21) 8…e5?! 9.d4 exd4 10.cxd4 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 is comfortably better for White, Anderson-
Mutton, London 2000.
(b22) 8…Ne7 9.d4 Bb6 10.Ba3 d6 11.Ng3 Qc7 12.Rc1 0-0 13.Be2 (13.Bd3 Bxd4! or
13.Qd2 e5 are both fine for Black) 13…Rd8 (13…f5 14.exf5 Nxf5 15.Bd3 is somewhat
better for White) 14.0-0 e5 15.f4 exf4 16.Rxf4 Be6 17.Kh1 Bc4 18.Bxc4 Qxc4 19.Rf2 f6
20.Nf1 Kh8 21.Ne3 Qe6 22.Qf3 Rac8 “equal chances – White looks slightly more
comfortable, but he has his weaknesses too; this is a position where anything can happen”
– Kotronias.
(b23) 8…d6 9.Ng3 Bb6 10.Be2 Nf6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Kh1 (12.d4 e5 13.Kh1 d5 14.Ba3 Re8
15.dxe5 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Bd6 Bf5 and Black has equalized according to Kotronias)
12…Qc7 13.c4 (or 13.Bd2 d5 which is excellent for Black, whereas after 13.Bg5 Qxc3
14.Rc1 Qb2 15.Rc2 Qd4 16.Rc4 Qb2 a draw by repetition will arise) 13…Bd4 14.Rb1
Nd7 15.f4 b6 16.Bf3 Bb7 17.Ne2 Bf6 18.Be3 – “The position is highly complicated, with
chances for both sides” – Kotronias. This is true although I would prefer White in this
position.
(b3) 5.Rb1 does not, according to Kotronias, have much point when White has already
played d2-d3 because Black now can go for 5…Ne7! 6.Nxd4 cxd4 7.Ne2 Nc6 8.c3 dxc3
9.bxc3 d5 with equal chances.
5.Nxd4
White has a whole string of alternatives, none of which are particularly promising:
(a) 5.Be3 Bg7 6.Qd2 d6 7.Nd1 Nc6 (or 7…d5 8.c3 Nxe2 9.Bxe2 d4 10.Bg5 f6 11.Bh4 e5
12.Bg3 Ne7 13.f4 Bh6 14.0-0 Nc6 15.Nf2 exf4 16.Bxf4 Bxf4 17.Qxf4 0-0 18.Bg4 Ne5
19.Rad1 Qe7 and Black has equalized, Bodnaruk-Shtyrenkov, Alushta 2011) 8.h4?!
(8.d4!?) 8…h5 9.g3 Bg4 10.Bg2 Ne5 11.Ng1 Nf6 12.f4 Nc6 13.Nf2 Rc8 14.Nf3 d5?!
(14…Bd7!?) 15.Bxc5?! (White should have played 15.e5; now it rapidly goes downhill)
15…b6 16.Ba3 Bxf3 17.Bxf3 Nd4 18.Bd1 Rxc2 19.Qb4 dxe4 and Black is winning,
Reinaldo Castineira-Llaneza Vega, Barcelona 2008.
(b) 5.Bf4 Bg7 6.Qd2 d6 7.Nxd4 cxd4 8.Nd1 e5 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bh4 h5 11.f3 Ne7 12.c3 Bh6
13.Qc2 Nc6 14.Be2 Be6 and Black is completely in charge of the game, De Vreugt-
Ikonnikov, Haarlem 2002.
(c) 5.f4 d6 6.g3 h5 7.Nxd4 cxd4 8.Ne2 h4 9.Bg2 Bg7 10.c3 hxg3 11.hxg3 Rxh1+ 12.Bxh1
Qa5 13.Bd2 Qh5 was played in Balogh, V.-Berczes, C., Hungary 2004, when 14.Bg2 dxc3
15.Bxc3 would have been the only way for White to stay in the game.
(d) 5.Nd5 Bg7 6.c3 Nxe2 7.Bxe2 e6 8.Ne3 d5 9.0-0 Ne7 10.f4 0-0 11.Bf3 d4 12.cxd4
Qxd4 13.Rf2 b6 14.e5 Rb8 15.Nc2 Qd7 16.d4 Rd8 and Black is clearly doing well,
Hartston-Pribyl, Vrnjacka Banja 1972.
5…cxd4 6.Ne2
White achieves less with 6.Nd5, e.g., 6…e6 7.Nf4 Bg7 8.g3 Ne7 9.Bg2 0-0 10.0-0 b5
11.Bd2 Bb7 12.a4 a6 13.axb5 axb5 14.Bb4 Re8 15.Qd2 Nc6 16.Rxa8 Qxa8 and Black is
at least equal, Bokelbrink-Michna, Pinneberg 1998.
6…Bg7 7.c3

White can also try 7.g3 after which Black has tried the following moves:
(a) 7…h5 8.h3 d5 9.Bg2 (9.Nf4!?) 9…dxe4 10.Bxe4 e5 11.c4 Nf6 12.Bg2 0-0 13.0-0 Re8
14.Bg5 Bf5 15.b4 Qd7 16.Kh2 e4 and Black has taken complete charge of the game, Ask-
Dragicevic, Norrkoeping 2015.
(b) 7…e6 8.Bg2 Ne7 9.0-0 0-0 10.c3 Nc6 11.c4 d6 12.Bd2 a5 13.b3 Rb8 14.Qc2 Bd7
15.a3 b5 16.f4 bxc4 17.bxc4 Qb6 18.Rfb1 Qc5 with a comfortable game for Black,
Ermenkov-Lederman, Plovdiv 2013.
(c) 7…d5 8.Bg2 dxe4 9.dxe4 e5 10.0-0 Ne7 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.c3 0-0 14.cxd4
exd4 15.Nf4 Qd6 when Black has solved his opening problems successfully, Hernandez,
G.-Martin Del Campo, Linares 1993.
7…dxc3 8.Nxc3 d6
8…e6 9.d4 Ne7 10.Be2 (or 10.Bg5 h6 11.Be3 0-0 12.Qd2 Kh7 13.g4 f5 14.gxf5 exf5
15.e5 d6 16.f4 dxe5 17.dxe5 Qxd2+ 18.Bxd2 Bd7 19.h4 Bc6 as played in Kashtanov-
Kosov, Moscow 2006, when White could have claimed an advantage with 20.Rg1 Rac8
21.Bc4 Rfd8 22.Be6) 10…0-0 11.0-0 Qb6 12.Be3 Qxb2 13.Nb5 d5 14.Bd2 a6 15.Bc3
Qxa1 16.Qxa1 axb5 17.Bb4 and Black doesn’t have enough for the queen,
Solodovnichenko-Llaneza Vega, Sabadell 2009.
9.Be2
White has some interesting alternatives:
(a) 9.d4 Nf6 10.Bb5+ Nd7 (10…Bd7 11.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 Ng8 13.Qxd7+ Qxd7 14.f4 0-0-
0 15.Bxd7+ Rxd7 16.Be3 b6 17.Rc1 Nh6 18.Ke2 Kb7 and if White has anything in this
position, it is next to nothing, Ertl-Glaser, email 2002) 11.0-0 a6 12.Be2 0-0 13.a4 Nf6
14.Be3 Bd7 15.e5 Ne8 16.f4 e6 17.b4 Nc7 18.Qb3 and White is in charge, Papp-Csiszar,
Hungary 2012.
(b) 9.Be3 Nf6 10.d4 0-0 11.Be2 Be6 (11…Qa5 12.0-0 b5 13.a3 a6 14.b4 Qd8 15.f3 Bb7
16.Qb3 Nd7 17.a4 bxa4 18.Rxa4 e6 19.Bf2 and White has more space and pressure,
Hortensius-Haast, Amsterdam 2016) 12.0-0 Qa5 13.f4 Rfc8 14.Bf3 Bc4 15.Rf2 e5 16.Qd2
Re8 17.h3 Rac8 18.Rc1 Ba6 19.Rc2 Rc4 was Van Eijk-Piscopo, Amantea 2011, and here
20.fxe5 dxe5 21.d5 would have promised White the better chances.
9…Nf6 10.0-0 0-0 11.d4

11…d5
Or 11…e5 12.Be3 Bd7 13.Rc1 exd4 14.Bxd4 Bc6 15.b4 Re8 16.f3 a6 17.a4 Rc8 18.Qd2
and White has the better chances, Ponomariov-Moiseenko, Kharkov 2001.
12.e5 Ne4 13.Nb1 f6 14.f3 Ng5 15.Nc3 Ne6 16.f4
White has the better chances. The game concluded as follows: 16…Qb6 17.Be3 fxe5
18.Nxd5 Qxb2 19.dxe5 Rd8 20.Bc4 b5 21.Bb3 Bb7 22.Qg4 Nd4 23.Nxe7+ Kf8 24.f5
Kxe7 25.f6+ Kf8 26.fxg7+ Kxg7 27.Rf7+ Kg8 28.Rxh7+ and Black resigned, 1-0
Solodovnichenko-Milliet, Drancy 2016.
(B) 4.Nxd4 cxd4
According to Kotronias, neither of White lesser options are of importance, e.g., 5.Nd5 e6
6.Nf4 b6 7.d3 Bb7 and Black is already better or 5.Nb1 d5 6.Bb5+ (or 6.e5 Bd7) 6…Bd7
7.Bxd7+ Qxd7 8.exd5 Rc8 9.0-0 Nf6 and Black once more has the upper hand.
(B1) 5.Nb5!?
This knight jump looks rather bizarre but has the distinct advantage over 5.Ne2 that it
doesn’t block the development of the light-squared bishop on f1 and the queen, something
that White now makes use of in this curious variation.

5…e5
After 5…Qb6 6.c3 dxc3 7.Nxc3 e6 8.d4 Nf6, White has to go for 9.a3 (9.Bc4 was
effective after 9…Bb4?! 10.0-0 d6?! 11.e5 Bxc3? 12.bxc3 dxe5 13.dxe5 Nd7 14.Qg4 and
Black was already busted in Rowson-Berry, Glasgow 1999, but 9…Nxe4! 10.Nxe4 d5
11.Bb3 dxe4 12.Ba4+ Bd7 13.Bxd7+ Kxd7 14.0-0 Qb5 15.Bf4 Rc8 is fully playable for
Black) 9…Be7 10.Be3 d5? (10…0-0 11.Bd3 d6 12.0-0 improves for Black, but White is
nonetheless still better) 11.e5 Nd7 12.Bd3 Nb8 13.Qg4 g6 14.Nxd5 Qa5+ 15.Nc3 Nc6
16.0-0 0-0 17.b4 and Black is rapidly falling in a dark hole of no counterplay, Bauer-Karr,
Paris 2006.
6.Qh5
This is the only move to put Black under any kind of pressure after 6.c3 a6 7.Qa4 (or
7.Na3 Bc5 8.b4 Ba7 9.c4 Nf6 10.d3 d6 11.Bd2 Bd7 12.Be2 b5 13.0-0 h6 14.Qe1 0-0
15.Bd1 Bc6 was played Soltis-Marchand, New York 1985, when 16.f4 would have been
better for White, but 12…0-0 13.0-0 h6 improves for Black) 7…Rb8 8.Na3 b5 9.Qb3 Bb7
10.cxd4 exd4 11.Bd3 Nf6 12.0-0 Be7 13.Re1 d5 14.e5 Ne4 and Black is doing fine,
Suarez Uriel-Pena Gomez, Madrid 2013.
6…d6 7.Bc4 g6
7…Nh6 8.d3 Bg4 9.Qg5 f6 10.Qh4 g5 11.Qg3 Qa5+ 12.Bd2 Qb6 13.h4 is considerably
worse for Black, Christiansen-Salcedo Mederos, ICCF email 2000.
8.Qf3

Or 8.Qe2 a6 9.Na3 Bg7 10.c3 Ne7 11.cxd4, and now rather than 11…exd4 12.0-0 0-0
13.d3 d5 14.Bb3 dxe4 15.Qxe4 Nc6 16.Nc4 Be6 17.Bf4 Bd5 and draw agreed, ½-½,
Antoniewski-Kovalev, Czechia 2006, Kotronias believes that Black can claim an
advantage after 11…d5 12.Bb3 exd4 13.d3 0-0 14.Bg5 Re8 15.0-0 h6 16.Bxe7 Rxe7.
8…Be6
Or 8…Nf6?! 9.Qb3 Nxe4? 10.Bxf7+ Ke7 11.d3 Nf6 12.Bg5 Bg7 13.f4 Qa5+ 14.c3 Bd7
15.a4 Rhf8 16.0-0 e4 17.Bd5 when White was winning in Bauer-Pena Gomez, Mallorca
2005.
9.Bxe6
White achieves less with 9.Bb3, for instance, 9…a6 10.Na3 Bg7 11.d3 Rc8 12.Bd2 b5
13.0-0 Nf6 14.c3 dxc3 15.Bxc3 0-0 as played in Wedberg-Bistric, Sweden 2000, and now
16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.Qe2 Qb6 18.Nc2 a5 would have been fine for Black.
9…fxe6
10.Qb3!
The way White spends considerable intimate time with his queen almost resembles an
attempt to make a version of Scholar’s Mate work for White. The alternatives, however,
are less effective:
(a) 10.c3 Qd7 11.Qd3 a6 12.Na3 Bg7 13.0-0 Ne7 14.cxd4 exd4 15.Nc4 Rd8 16.a4 was
played in Colijn-Ikonnikov, Leuven 2011, and here Kotronias offers 16…d5 17.exd5
Nxd5 with the better chances for Black.
(b) 10.0-0 Qd7 11.Na3 Bg7, Livshits-Kahn, Budapest 2004, and here 12.Qe2 Rc8 13.c4
Nf6 14.d3 was interesting although most likely entirely fine for Black.
(c) 10.c4 a6 11.Na3 Qh4 12.d3 Bg7 13.h3 Nf6 14.g3 Qh5 15.Qxh5 Nxh5 16.Bd2 Kd7
17.Ke2 Raf8 with equal chances, Pedro-Simmelink, IECG email 2006.
10…Qd7 11.d3 a6 12.Na3 b5 13.Nb1 Ne7 14.a4 bxa4 15.Rxa4 Nc6 16.c3 Bg7 17.Qa2
Rc8 18.0-0 and White has the better chances, Lehtinen-Soederberg, Finland 2001.
(B2) 5.Ne2
This restrained move may well be White’s best option. It forces Black to spend additional
time to defend the pawn on d4. At the same time White’s lack of easy development makes
it more complicated for White to take advantage of Black’s pawn weakness and present
lack of development.
5…e5
This is the main line but it isn’t that easy for Black. Therefore, Kotronias recommended
going in a different direction which we look at immediately underneath.
(a) 5…d5!? is Kotronias’s recommendation:
(a1) 6.d3 e5 7.c3 dxc3 8.Nxc3 d4 9.Nd5 Ne7 10.Nxe7 Bxe7 11.Be2 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 Qa5 is
completely harmless. Black has achieved full equality, Savickas-Garnelis, Panevezys
2008.
(a2) 6.Nxd4 dxe4 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Qe2 (8.0-0 Nf6 is equal according to Kotronias) 8…Nf6
9.0-0 a6 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.c3 e5 12.Nb3 Qd3 is also perfectly okay for Black, Breyther-
Bach, Hamburg 2002.
(a3) 6.e5!? is the critical continuation and White’s only hope for an advantage:
(a31) 6…Qc7!? is Kotronias’s untested recommendation but it appears to hold water
although I do disagree with some of his assessments (the majority of the analysis is that of
Kotronias): 7.f4 Bg4 8.h3 (8.b3 e6 9.h3 Bh5 10.g4 Bg6 11.Nxd4 Bc5 provides Black
adequate compensation for the sacrificed pawn and 8.d3 e6 9.c3 dxc3 10.Qa4+ Qd7
11.Qxd7+ Kxd7 12.bxc3 Ne7 13.Be3 h5 14.Nd4 Nf5 is perfectly okay for Black as well)
8…d3 9.cxd3 Bd7 10.b3 e6 11.Bb2 Qb6 12.Bd4 Bc5 13.Bxc5 Qxc5 14.Qc1 Qb6 and this
position in which “compensation for the sacrificed material” is the assessment by
Kotronias, accompanied by the following interesting and frank verbal explanation of the
situation: “We have reached a position that is hard to assess: Black has play for the pawn,
and he can try to set up a formation with …h5 and …Ne7-f5 to contain a future kingside
expansion, while White should try to exchange queens as quickly as possible and
subsequently push his opponent back, in order to make something out of his doubled extra
pawn. I feel the position should be about equal, but practical tests are needed.”
(a32) 6…Qb6 7.c3 dxc3 8.dxc3 e6 9.Nd4 Bd7 10.Bd3 Ne7 11.Qg4 (Now 11.0-0 Nc6
12.Nf3 [White accomplishes less with 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.b4 Bb5 14.Be3 Qa6 15.Bxb5+
Qxb5 16.Qg4 Rc8 when Black is fine] 12…Be7 13.Re1 0-0?! [13…Rc8 14.b4 also is
better for White] 14.Qc2 and White has pressure and the better chances) 11…Nc6 12.Nf3
(here 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.0-0 g6 14.b3 Bg7 15.Be3 c5 16.b4 Qc7 17.Bxc5 Bxe5 18.f4 Bxc3
19.Rac1 looks like an improvement for White) 12…0-0-0 13.0-0 f6 14.Qg3 Qc7 15.exf6
gxf6 16.Qxc7+ Kxc7 17.Bf4+ e5 18.Bg3 Bd6 19.Nh4 Ne7 20.Rfe1, and draw agreed, ½-
½, Rowson-Gallagher, Scarborough 1999.
(b) 5…Nf6, and now:

(b1) 6.d3 e5 7.f4 (7.g3 should be answered with 7…d5! with better chances for Black) 7…
d5 8.fxe5 Ng4 9.Nxd4 Bc5 10.c3 dxe4 11.dxe4 0-0 12.Be2 Qh4+ 13.g3 Qh3 14.Bf1 Qh5
15.Bg2 Qxe5 16.Bf4 Qe7 17.h3 Nf6 18.Qe2 Nxe4 19.Bxe4 (19.0-0-0 may improve) 19…
Re8 20.Bxh7+ Kxh7 21.Qxe7 Rxe7+ and Black has equalized, Barle-Llaneza Vega,
London 2010.
(b2) 6.e5 Ng4 7.Nxd4 (or 7.f4 e6 8.g3 Qb6 9.Ng1 Nh6 10.Nf3 d6 11.Bd3 dxe5 12.fxe5
Bd7 13.0-0 Nf5 14.b3 Bc6 15.Bb2 h5 16.Qe2 0-0-0 with a complex position and chances
to both sides, Bryzgalin-Gasanov, Krasnodar 2002) 7…Nxe5 8.Nf3 (or 8.b3 e6 9.Bb2 Ng6
10.Qg4 Be7 11.0-0-0 0-0 12.f4 d5 13.Qf3 e5 14.fxe5 Nxe5 15.Qg3 Bf6 16.Kb1 Bd7
17.Be2 was played in King-Sadler, London 1988, and here 17…Qb6 18.Rhf1 Ng6 would
be fine for Black) 8…Nxf3+ 9.Qxf3 Qc7 10.c3 e6 11.d4 Bd6 12.Qg4 Kf8 13.Bd3 Rb8
14.Bd2 b5 15.h3 Bb7 16.0-0 Bc6 17.b3 h5 18.Qe2 Bh2+ 19.Kh1 Bf4 was Andres
Gonzalez-Paramos Dominguez, Villava 2009, and now 20.Bxf4 Qxf4 21.b4 Ke7 with a
rather unusual position but where Black should be okay.
(b3) 6.Ng3 Qc7 (also 6…d6 7.Bc4 e6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Bb3 0-0 10.d3 Bd7 11.f4 a5 12.a4 b5
13.axb5 Bxb5 14.f5 a4 15.Ba2 e5 is fine for Black, Fedorov-Vaulin, Minsk 1997) 7.c3
dxc3 8.dxc3 g6 9.Be2 Bg7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Be3 b6 12.f4 d6 13.Bf3 Bb7 14.Rf2 Bc6 15.Qc2
Qb7 16.Re1 Rfe8 with a solid and flexible position for Black, Martinez Duany-Ikonnikov,
Barcelona 2009.
(c) 5…Qb6 6.Ng3 d6 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.0-0 Bg4 9.Qe1 Rc8 10.d3 Bd7 11.h3 e6 12.f4 Bc6
13.Bb3 h5 14.e5 dxe5 15.fxe5 Nd5 was Szwed-Helis, Jastrzebia Gora 2016, and now
16.Qf2 Rc7 17.Bxd5 Bxd5 18.Ne2 Rd7 19.b3 Bc5 20.Bb2 would have been more or less
equal.
6.c3

A major alternative for White is 6.Ng3 Nf6 (6…d5 is premature, e.g., 7.Bb5+ Bd7
8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.0-0 dxe4 10.Qh5 Qd5 11.c4 Qe6 12.Nxe4 Be7 13.d3 g6 14.Qe2 and
White has the upper hand, Ducarmon-T.Koch, Germany 2015), and now:
(a) 7.c3 Bc5 8.Bc4 0-0 9.0-0 d6 10.d3 Be6 11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.b4 Bb6 13.c4 a5 was played
in Sorcinelli-Okhotnik, Arvier 2007, and now 14.b5 Nd7 15.f4 exf4 16.Bxf4 Nc5 17.Qe2
would have been more or less equal.
(b) 7.Bc4 Bc5 (or 7…d6 8.c3 dxc3?! 9.dxc3 Be6 10.Qa4+ Nd7 11.Be3 Qc8 12.Bd5 Bxd5
13.exd5 a6 14.c4 Be7 15.Nf5 and White is clearly better, Werle-Heinz, Fuerth 2002, but
Black can improve with 8…Be7 9.cxd4 exd4 10.d3 0-0 11.0-0 d5 when Black should be
fine) 8.0-0 0-0 9.d3 d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Re1 f6 12.Qf3 Be6 13.Ne4 Be7 14.c3 Nc7
15.cxd4 Bxc4 16.dxc4 Qxd4 17.Be3 with better chances for White, Jakel-H.Schneider,
Germany 2005.
(c) 7.Be2 Bc5 8.c4 g6 9.d3 h5 10.0-0 Be7 11.Bd2 d6 12.b4 Kf8 13.f4 Kg7 14.Bf3 h4
15.Nh1 Bd7 with chances to both sides, Franzoni-Milov, Neuchatel 1996.
If White plays 6.c4, play will typically transpose to our main line after 6…dxc3 7.Nxc3,
but Black can additionally try 6…Nf6 7.d3 b5!? is an interesting continuation for Black,
e.g., 8.b3 bxc4 9.bxc4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Qa5 11.Rb1 Rb8 12.Rb3 Qa4 13.Bxb4 Rxb4, and
Black is in command, Ghane-Shaarbaf, Tehran 2003..
6…dxc3
Or: (a) 6…Bc5 7.cxd4 exd4 8.Nf4 Ne7 9.Bc4 0-0 10.Qh5 Qc7 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.Bxd5 d6
13.0-0 Be6 14.d3 Rae8 with even chances, Karabalis-Lasinskas, Germany 2004.
(b) 6…Nf6 7.cxd4 exd4 8.Ng3 (8.d3 d5 9.exd5 Bc5 10.Ng3 Qxd5 11.f3 0-0 12.Be2 Bd7
13.0-0 Bc6 14.Ne4 Be7 when Black has the upper hand, Trisic-Bach, Hamburg 1996) 8…
Bc5 9.Bc4 0-0 10.0-0 d6 (10…d5!? looks like an improvement) 11.d3 Ng4 12.a3 Qh4
13.h3 Ne3 14.fxe3 Qxg3 15.Rf3 Qg6 16.b4 Bb6 17.Bd5 Be6 was tried in Van den Berg-
Ikonnikov, Vlissingen 2002, and now 18.Bxb7 Rab8 19.Bc6 with better chances for
White.
7.Nxc3

Alternatively, 7.dxc3 Bc5 (or 7…Nf6 8.Ng3 d5 9.Bg5 dxe4 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Bxd7+ Qxd7
12.Bxf6 gxf6, Stephan-Aagaard, Germany 1999, and now 13.Qe2 0-0-0 14.0-0 Be7
15.Rad1 Qe6 16.Qxe4 would have left White with a nice positional plus) 8.Ng3, and here:

(a) 8…Qf6 9.Be3 Bxe3 10.fxe3 Nh6 11.Qd2 0-0 12.0-0-0 d6 13.Bc4 Bg4 14.Rdf1 Qe7
15.Nf5 Bxf5 16.exf5 Rac8 (16…Ng4 improves, offering Black something close to
equality) 17.f6 gxf6 18.Bd5 and White has the upper hand, Landa-Ikonnikov, Vlissingen
2013.
(b) 8…Nf6 9.Qf3 (or 9.Bc4 0-0 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.0-0 d6 13.b4 Bb6 14.a4 a6
15.a5 Ba7 16.Bd5 g6 as played in Lupulescu-Csiszar, Hungary 2008, and now 17.Qd2
would have left White with the better chances) 9…h6 10.Bc4 0-0 11.Nh5 Nxh5 12.Qxh5
d6 13.Bxh6 Be6 14.Bxe6 fxe6 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.fxe3 Qa5 17.Qd1 d5 18.exd5 Rad8 19.Qe2
(or 19.Rf1 Rxf1+ 20.Kxf1 Qb5+ 21.Qe2 Rf8+ 22.Ke1 Qxd5 when Black has sufficient
compensation for the pawn) 19…Qxd5 20.Rf1 Qd2+ 21.Qxd2 Rxf1+ 22.Kxf1 Rxd2 23.b4
Rd3 and draw agreed, ½-½, Dolgov-Gnutov, ICCF email 2014.
(c) 8…d6 9.Bb5+ Kf8 10.Qe2 h5 11.Be3 Bg4 12.f3 Bxe3 13.Qxe3 Be6 14.Nf1 Nf6
15.Nd2 Qc7 16.Ba4 Nd7 17.Bxd7 Bxd7 was equal in Inkiov-Gochev, Sofia 1981.
7…Bc5 8.Bc4 Nf6
Black has tried a few other things as well:
(a) 8…Ne7 9.0-0 0-0 10.d3 d6 11.Be3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Be6 13.b4 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Rc8 15.Rc1
Ne7 16.Nxe7+ Qxe7 17.Bxe6 Qxe6 and Black has equalized, Zaragatski-Ikonnikov, Bad
Woerishofen 2006.
(b) 8…Qh4 9.Qf3 Nf6 10.h3 (or 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.Bxd5 0-0 12.Qg3 Qxg3 13.hxg3 Rb8
14.d3 d6 15.Ke2 Be6 16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.Be3 Rbc8 18.Rac1 with equal chances, Baljon-
Formanek, Amsterdam 1980) 10…0-0 11.0-0 (White may be able to improve with 11.d3
d6 12.g3 Qh5 13.Qxh5 Nxh5 14.Nd5 Be6 15.Ke2 Rab8 16.Be3 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Nf6 and
White has the upper hand) 11…a6 12.a4 d6 13.d3 Be6 14.Be3 Rac8 15.b3 h6 and Black
has solved his opening problems, Szoen-Khamrakulov, Cappelle-la-Grande 2001.
9.d3
White should consider 9.0-0 a6 10.d3 b5 11.Bb3 d6 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.a4 bxa4
15.Nd5 Qd8 16.Bxa4+ Kf8 17.b4 Bd4 18.Rc1 and White is in command, Jansa-Pribyl,
Brno 1975.
9…h6
Black has also tried 9…a6 10.a4 d6 11.0-0 Be6 12.Qb3 Bxc4 13.dxc4 h6 14.Nd1 0-0
15.Be3 Nxe4 16.Qxb7 Bxe3 17.Nxe3 Nc5 18.Qd5 Rb8 was better for White in Giorgadze-
Pribyl, Decin 1975, but 12…Qe7 equalizes.
10.0-0 0-0 11.Be3
11.Kh1 d6 12.f4 Be6 13.Qf3 Bxc4 14.dxc4 Bd4 15.Bd2 Rc8 16.b3 exf4 17.Rad1 Re8
18.Nb5 Be5?! (18…Bc5 is fine for Black) 19.Bxf4 Bxf4 20.Qxf4 Rxe4 21.Qxd6 and
White has the better chances, Genocchio-Salvador, Venice 2009.
11…Bxe3 12.fxe3 d6 13.Qb3 Qe7
14.Nd5
Or: (a) 14.Rf2 Be6 15.Raf1 Rac8 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Nxd5 18.Qxd5 Rc7 19.h3 and
draw agreed, ½-½, Hamdouchi-Ikonnikov, France 1998.
(b) 14.Rac1 Be6 15.Bxe6 fxe6 16.Nb5 (16.h3 Rac8 17.Nb5 is approximately equal) 16…
Ng4! 17.d4 Qg5!, and now White blundered himself into a completely lost position:
18.Nc7?? Nxe3 19.Rxf8+ Rxf8 20.g3 Nd5! 21.Rc2 Qf6 22.Qb5 Ne3, and White resigned,
0-1, Sitnikov-Kovchan, Kharkov 2005.
14…Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Be6 16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.d4 Kh7 18.d5 exd5 19.exd5 Qg5 20.Qd3+
Kg8 21.Qe4 Rac8 and Black has equalized, A.Hunt-Moiseenko, Aviles 2000.
Summary:
Despite the detailed coverage in this chapter, the entire 3…Nd4 is still quite rare and may
therefore appeal to those who are not overly keen on studying tons of theory. It is difficult
to point to a place where White for sure will find an edge, because in the case of this
variation, I suspect it doesn’t exist, but B1 and B2 look like variations where Black will
have the hardest time. If White prefers to sharpen the game then B1 should definitely be
the choice when Black has to be on the alert not to end up in serious trouble. B2 is more
calm and methodical but can also be a decent choice.
Chapter 7

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 a6 4 g3 b5 with

6.0-0
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 a6 4 g3 b5 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.0-0

This is the first of two chapters featuring this set-up for Black. In this chapter, we focus on
the lines where White avoids d2-d4, but rather pursues the pure Closed Sicilian options.
These are decidedly less sharp than the variations we will explore in the following chapter
but they still carry a punch although Black objectively speaking should be doing fine.
Now Black has to choose between the following options:
(A) 6…b4
(B) 6…Nf6
Additionally, Black has a variety of other options available:
(a) 6…Ne7 7.d3 d6 (or 7…Nbc6 8.Be3 d6 9.f4 g6 10.g4 b4 11.Na4 h5 12.gxh5 Rxh5
13.c3 a5 as in Reinderman-Grooten, Enschede 1991, and now 14.d4!? cxd4 15.cxd4 d5
16.Ng3 Rh8 17.f5 would have offered White the better chances) 8.Be3 Nd7 9.f4 d5? (9…
Qc7!? was solid and about equal) 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5 Bxd5 12.Bxd5 exd5 13.Nc3 d4
14.Re1 Be7 15.Nd5 Ne5 16.Nxe7 dxe3 17.Rxe3 and White is winning, Murey-Kogan,
Rishon Le Ziyyon 1997.
(b) 6…Be7, and here:
(b1) 7.f4 b4 8.Na4 d5 9.f5 dxe4 10.fxe6 Nf6 11.d4 fxe6 12.Nxc5 Bxc5 13.dxc5 Qxd1
14.Rxd1 with better chances for White, Murey-Bergez, Evry 2002.
(b2) 7.a3 d6 8.d4 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Nd7 10.a4 b4 11.Na2 a5 12.c3 bxc3 13.Nxc3 Nc5 14.Be3
Nf6 15.Ndb5 Ncxe4 16.Nxe4 Bxe4 17.Bxe4 Nxe4 18.Qg4 and White has the initiative and
the better chances, Tseshkovsky-Karjakin, Hastings 2003.
(c) 6…Qc7, and here too, White has some alternatives to look at:
(c1) 7.d3, and now:

(c11) 7…Nf6 8.h3 b4 (8…Be7 9.Be3 d6 10.f4 h5 11.Qe1 Nbd7 12.Qf2 d5 13.exd5 exd5
14.f5 d4 15.Bf4 Qb6 16.Nd1 Rc8 17.c3 dxc3 18.Nexc3 Bxg2 19.Qxg2 and Black is doing
fine, Murey-Prusikin, Clichy 1998) 9.Nb1 Be7 10.f4 d5 11.e5 Nfd7 12.d4 Nc6 13.c3 a5
14.f5 bxc3 15.bxc3 cxd4 16.cxd4 was Radionov-Gundavaa, Prague 2016, and now 16…
Ba6 17.Be3 0-0 was fine for Black.
(c12) 7… g6 8.Be3 Bg7 9.Qd2 Ne7 10.Bh6 0-0 11.Nd1 d5 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.Ne3 d4
14.Ng4 Nd7 15.Qh6+ Kh8 16.Qh4 Ng8 with chances to both sides, Barbosa-E.L’Ami,
Cochin 2004.
(c2) 7.a3 Nf6 8.d3 Be7 9.h3 d6 10.g4 Nc6 11.f4 h6 12.Be3 Nd7 13.Qe1 g5 14.Qf2 gxf4
15.Nxf4 Nde5 with more or less even chances although the position is sharp and
unbalanced, Reinderman-Shaked, Wijk aan Zee 1998.
(d) 6…h5 7.d4 cxd4 (7…h4 is best met with 8.d5 when Black’s kingside “attack” doesn’t
look particularly meaningful or threatening) 8.Nxd4 h4 9.Re1 hxg3 10.hxg3 Bc5 (or 10…
b4 11.Nd5 Bd6 12.e5 Bc5 13.Nb3 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 Bxd5 15.Bxd5 exd5 16.Qxd5 Nc6 as
seen in Escher-Gaponenko, Germany 2004, and now 17.Qe4 Rc8 18.Kg2 would have
offered White the better chances) 11.Be3 Be7 12.Nb3 d6 13.a4 b4 14.Na2 Nc6 15.Nd4 a5
16.c3 Ne5 17.cxb4 Nf6 18.Bf4 Neg4 with an interesting position where both sides have
their share of the chances, Sepp-Miezis, Riga 1995.
(A) 6…b4
7.Na4
White has also tried the knight retreat, 7.Nb1, on several occasions, and now:
(a) 7…Qc7 8.d3 Nf6 9.Bf4 e5 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Nd2 h6 12.Be3 d5 13.exd5 Nxd5 14.g4 was
Pridorozhni-Yuzhakov, Tyumen 2014, and now 14…Nd7 15.Ng3 0-0 16.Nf5 Rfe8 would
have been more or less even although I prefer White’s chances in this position.
(b) 7…d5 8.e5 (or 8.exd5 Bxd5 9.Bxd5 Qxd5 10.d4 Nf6 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Qxd5 Nxd5
13.a3 Nc6 14.axb4 Ndxb4 15.Na3 was about equal in Blokhuis-Landa, Netherlands 2006,
but the less forcing 10.d3 may offer White the better chances) 8…Ne7 9.a3 a5 10.c3 Nbc6
11.axb4 cxb4 12.d4 h5 13.h4 Nf5 14.Bg5 Be7 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Nd2 0-0 17.Nf4 and
White has the better chances, Barbosa-Georgiadis, ICC INT 2009.
(c) 7… Nf6 8.d3 d5 (Black didn’t have too many problems after 8…d6 9.f4 Qc7 10.c4
bxc3 11.Nbxc3 Nc6 12.f5 e5 13.h3 h5 14.Bg5 Nd4 15.Qd2 Be7 16.Rfc1 Qd8 as in P.
H.Nielsen-Rotstein, Minsk 1993) 9.Nd2 Be7 10.exd5 exd5 11.d4 Nbd7 12.b3 0-0 13.Bb2
Rc8 14.Nc4 Qc7 15.Ne3 Rfe8 16.Nf4 and White has the somewhat better chances,
Vombek-Solak, Portoroz 2005.
7…Nf6
In another game, Black tried to harass White’s knight on a4 with 7…Bc6, but instead of
8.c4 e5 9.a3 a5 10.d3 d6 11.f4 h5 12.h3 Nf6 13.Be3 Nfd7 14.Kh2 g6 15.Qc2 Bh6 16.Rf2
0-0, which gave Black a good game in Jovanovic-Kozul, Bol 2014, White should have
played 8.c3, e.g., 8…Qa5 9.b3 Bxa4 (9…Nf6 10.e5 is also pleasant for White) 10.bxa4
Nc6 11.Bb2 and White has the better chances.
8.d3
White patiently builds up, as is typical of the Closed Sicilian, but he can also consider
breaking the center open with 8.d4, for instance 8…cxd4 (or 8…Bxe4 9.Bxe4 Nxe4
10.Be3 Be7 11.Nxc5 Nxc5 12.dxc5 0-0 13.a3 bxa3 14.Rxa3 Nc6 15.Nf4 a5 16.Nd3 Bf6
17.Ra4 Qb8 18.b3 with better chances for White, Oblitas Guerrero-Leitao, Sao Paulo
2000) 9.Qxd4 Nc6 10.Qe3 (10.Qb6 which can be annoying for Black in some lines is less
effective here, e.g., 10…Rb8 11.Bf4 d6 12.a3 Qc8 13.Qe3 h6 14.Qd2 Ne5 15.axb4 Nxe4
16.Qd4 Nf6 17.Bxe5 dxe5 18.Qxe5 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Bxb4 with fairly even chances, Murey-
Franic, Pula 2003) 10…d6 11.b3 Be7 12.Bb2 0-0 13.Rad1 Qc7 14.f4 Rad8 15.c4 bxc3
16.Bxc3 d5 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.exd5 exd5 19.Qb6 Qxb6+ 20.Nxb6 was played in
Kolosowski-Krzyzanowski, Szklarska Poreba 2013, and now Black could have kept the
balance after 20…Rfe8 21.Kf2 Be7 22.Na4.
8…d6
Black can also play the more aggressive 8…d5, and now:

(a) 9.exd5 Bxd5 10.Bxd5 Nxd5 11.Nf4 Nxf4 12.Bxf4 Nd7 13.Qf3 Ra7 14.Rfd1 Qa8
15.Qe3 Qc6 16.b3 Be7 17.d4 cxd4 was played in Orlov-Predojevic, playchess.com INT
2005, when 18.Rxd4 0-0 19.Rad1 would have left White with the better chances.
(b) 9.Bg5, and there is another fork in the road:
(b1) 9…dxe4 10.dxe4 (or 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Nb6 Ra7 12.dxe4 Be7 13.Nc4 0-0 14.a3 Rd8
15.Qc1 Nc6 16.Qe3 Nd4 17.Nxd4 Rxd4?! 18.b3 with a clear positional advantage for
White, Dgebuadze-Lemmers, Belgium 2007, but 17…cxd4 would have kept the advantage
within control) 10…Qxd1 (also 10…Nbd7 11.c3 Qa5 12.Qc2 Rc8 13.b3 Be7 14.Rfd1 Ne5
15.Nb2 0-0 16.Bf4 c4 17.cxb4 Bxb4 18.a3 Be7, Girya-Peng, St. Petersburg 2009, and now
19.b4 Qc7 20.h3 promises White the somewhat better chances) 11.Rfxd1 Nbd7 12.Bxf6
Nxf6 13.e5 Bxg2 14.Kxg2 Nd5 15.c4 bxc3 16.Nexc3 Nxc3 17.bxc3 g5 18.Nb6 Rd8
19.Nc4 when White’s knight on c4 is considerably better than Black’s bishop on f8,
Gdanski-Lach, Trzcianka 2015.
(b2) 9…Nbd7 10.exd5 Bxd5 11.Bxd5 exd5 12.Nf4 Be7 13.Qf3 0-0 14.Rae1 h6 15.Bxf6
Nxf6 16.Nb6 Qxb6 17.Rxe7 Rad8 and White has some initiative thanks to his active
pieces, but with accurate play Black should be able to neutralize this, Castano-Rios,
Pereira 2014.
Black didn’t have any problems after 9.f4 Nbd7 10.h3 h5 11.c4 g6 12.Be3 Qc7 13.b3 Bg7
14.Qd2 a5 15.Nb2 0-0 16.a3 Bc6 17.a4 Qb7 18.Qc2 Rad8 in Andonov-Pikula, Valjevo
2000.
9…a5 10.c3 Nbd7
The alternatives are less accurate:
(a) 10…bxa3 11.bxa3 Nbd7 12.Rb1 Bc6 13.c4 Be7 14.Nac3 with slightly better chances
for White, Georgakopoulos-David, Rethymno 2011.
(b) 10…Nc6 11.d4!? (11.Bg5 Be7 12.f4 0-0 13.Bf3 Rb8 14.Qd2 Ba8 15.d4 cxd4 16.cxd4
Qd7 looks okay for Black who has a solid and flexible position, Vezzosi-Efimov, St.
Vincent 2000) 11…cxd4 12.cxd4 d5? (this is mistaken, but according to the computer,
Black’s best is the far from obvious 12…Ne7 but even so White is better after 13.e5)
13.exd5 Nxd5 14.Nf4! Nce7? (14…Be7 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Nc5 Bxc5 17.dxc5 leaves
White with a large advantage but the text move is even worse) 15.Nc5! (Now White is
winning) 15…Bc6 16.Nfxe6 fxe6 17.Qh5+ g6 18.Qe5 Rg8 19.Bg5 h6 20.Bxe7 Nxe7
21.Bxc6+ Nxc6 22.Qxe6+ Ne7 23.Ne4, and Black resigned, 1-0, M.Kuijf-Shaked, Wijk
aan Zee 1998.
11.Bd2 bxc3 12.bxc3 Qc7 13.Rb1 Bc6 14.c4 Be7 15.Nec3 0-0 16.Nb5 Qc8 17.Bc3 Ne8
18.Qd2 White has the better chances with more space and nice control over both wings,
Rublevsky-Papin, Dagomys 2010.
(B) 6…Nf6
7.d3
In view of the threat of 7…b4, White has to choose between of main line move or the
considerably sharper 7.e5. After 7…Bxg2 8.Kxg2 Ng4 9.d4 (9.f4 led to a better game for
Black after 9…d5 10.d4 Nh6 11.Be3 Nf5 12.Bf2 cxd4 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 g6 15.g4
Nc6 16.Ne2 h5 17.f5 Qh4 18.fxe6 fxe6 in Murey-Meijers, Sautron 2002, but
improvements are easy to come by, for example, 10.f5!? exf5 11.d4 or 10…Nxe5 11.d4
when White’s lead in development can spell serious trouble for Black and therefore 9…
Nc6 may be safer), and here Black has tried several moves:

(a) 9…Nc6 10.f4 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Rc8 13.Qd1 Nh6 14.Ne4 Rc4 15.Re1 Qa8
16.Qd3 d5 17.Nd2 Rc7 18.Nf3 Be7 19.Bd2 0-0 with chances to both sides, Petrov-
Eggleston, Penarth 2011.
(b) 9…cxd4 10.Qxd4 f5 (or 10…h5 11.f4 Nc6 12.Qe4 Rc8 13.h3 Nh6 14.Be3 Nf5
15.Rad1 Qc7 16.Bf2 Qb7 17.g4 hxg4 18.hxg4 Nh4+ 19.Bxh4 Rxh4 20.Kg3 Rh8 with a
wonderfully weird position where both sides can claim a share of the chances, Knoppert-
Handke, Belgium 2004) 11.exf6 Nxf6 12.Ne4 Nc6 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 14.Qxf6 gxf6 15.Be3
Nb4 16.Rfc1 Rc8 17.Bd2 Nd5 18.c3 Nb6 19.Rd1 d5 20.Nd4 Kd7 with approximately
even chances in the sharp ending, Lomsadze-Kekelidze, Tbilisi 2008.
(c) 9…Qc7 10.Bf4 Qb7+?! (Black may be able to get away with winning the e5-pawn,
e.g., 10…cxd4 11.Nxd4 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Qxe5 13.Re1 Qc7 14.Qf3 Nc6 15.Nd5 Qb7 when
White has compensation for the pawn but not more than that) 11.f3 f6 12.d5 (12.Ne4!?
looks like an easy improvement) 12…Nxe5 13.Bxe5 fxe5 14.d6 Nc6 15.Ne4 Nd8 16.a4 b4
17.c3 b3 18.c4 Nf7 19.Qd3 Rc8 20.Ra3 Rc6 21.Rxb3 Qa8 with a very unclear position,
Daulyte-Cmilyte, Belgrade 2013.
(B1) 7…d6

8.h3
While this move looks curiously modest, it is often interchangeable with 8.f4 which we
will look at below. White tends to build up with f2-f4, g3-g4, transferring the knight to
either g3 or f4 and attack Black’s king.
Now:
(a) 8.f4 with another fork in the road:
(a1) 8…Qc7 9.a3 (or 9.f5 b4 10.Nb1 e5 11.Bg5 Nbd7 12.Nd2 Be7 13.Nc4 Ng8 14.Bxe7
Nxe7 15.Qd2 Nf6 16.a3 a5 17.axb4 axb4 18.Rxa8+ Bxa8 and Black has equalized,
Rogulj-Movsesian, Neum 2002) 9…Be7 10.f5 e5 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.exd5 Nd7 13.c4 0-0
14.Nc3 Rfb8 15.Bd2 Bc8 16.Rb1 Nf6 with chances to both sides, Chaika-Stoyanov, ICCF
email 2013.
(a2) 8…Nc6 9.h3 (9.f5!? has also been tested although Black is doing fine after 9…b4
10.Nb1 e5) 9…h5 (or 9…Be7 10.g4 b4 11.Nb1 0-0 12.Ng3 a5 13.a4 d5 14.g5 Ne8 15.Nd2
f5 with chances to both sides, Sudakova-Popov, Peterhof 2005) 10.a3 Be7 11.Be3 Nd7
12.Qd2 Bf6 13.Rab1 Qc7 14.Nd1 Nb6 15.Nf2 Nd4 16.Nc1 Nc6 17.c3 c4 18.d4 Na5 with a
sharp position, Kritz-Henrichs, Differdange 2007.
(a3) 8…Nbd7 9.h3 h5 10.b3 Qc7 11.Bb2 Be7 12.Qd2 d5 13.e5 Ng8 14.f5 0-0-0 15.Nf4
Nf8 16.d4 Nh6 (or 16…cxd4 17.Nce2) 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.a4 and White is clearly better,
Perez Candelario-Ibarra Jerez, Sestao 2010.
(b) 8.a3 Nc6 9.h3 Be7 10.Be3 0-0 11.Nf4 Rc8 12.h4 Ne5 13.Nh5 d5 14.Bg5 b4 15.Bxf6
Bxf6 16.axb4 cxb4 was good for Black in Purtov-Tihonov, Sukhumi 2006, which well
illustrates the importance of playing as forcefully as possible since Black otherwise will
grab the initiative himself.
8…Qc7 (D)
Solid development, protecting the bishop on b7. Note that 8…Be7 can be met with 9.e5,
e.g., 9…Bxg2 10.exf6 Bxf1 11.fxe7 Qxe7 12.Qxf1 with better chances for White). Black
has a couple of other moves to consider as well:

(a) 8…h5 9.Re1 (or 9.Bg5 Nbd7 10.f4 b4 11.Nb1 Be7 12.Nd2 Qc7 13.a3 a5 14.axb4 axb4
15.Rxa8+ Bxa8 16.Nc4 d5 17.e5 dxc4 18.Bxa8 Nb6 19.exf6 gxf6 20.Bh4 Nxa8 with an
unclear position, Parkanyi-Ribli, Hungary 2003) 9…Nbd7 10.Be3 Nb6 11.b3 b4 12.Nb1
d5 13.Nd2 Be7 14.a4 a5 15.Bg5 dxe4 16.dxe4 Nfd7 17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.Nf4 h4 was played
in Vibbert-Gorovets, Chicago 2016, and here White could play 19.Nd5 Qd8 20.Nxb6
Nxb6 21.e5 Bd5 22.g4 although it may not be good for more than equal play.
(b) 8…b4 9.Nb1 (9.Na4 h5 10.c3 a5 11.f4 Nbd7 12.b3 Qc7 13.Bb2 Be7 14.Kh2 e5 15.Bc1
h4 16.g4 exf4 17.Nxf4 was Reinderman-Davies, Germany 2000 and now 17…Nh7 seems
to offer Black a decent position) 9…d5 10.Nd2 Nbd7 11.g4 Qc7 (11…dxe4!?) 12.Ng3
Bd6 13.Qe1 Bf4 14.Nb3 Bxc1 15.Rxc1 dxe4 16.dxe4 h6 17.c3 Qb6 18.Qe3 and White has
the better chances, Petrukhin-Iskusnyh, Krasnoyarsk 2007.
9.f4
9.g4 b4 10.Na4 d5?! (10…h6 11.a3 a5 looks like a better idea for Black) 11.g5 Nh5,
Kostic-Wallner, Austria 2013, and now 12.exd5! leads to a clear advantage for White:
12…Bxd5 (12…exd5? is even worse after 13.Re1) 13.Bxd5 exd5 14.Nec3! bxc3 15.Qxh5
when Black is far behind in development and is in serious trouble.
9…Nc6 10.Be3 Be7 11.Qd2 0-0 12.g4 Rae8 13.g5 Nd7 14.Ng3 Nd4 15.Nce2 Nxe2+
16.Qxe2 d5 with a typical position for this variation. Objectively speaking, the chances
are about even but White’s position could well be easier to play, Jovanovic-Monroy,
Tallinn 2016.
(B2) 7…d5

This aggressive pawn advance, before Black’s development has been completed, strongly
encourages White to make a decision about the future of his center.
8.exd5
The normal and logical move, forcing Black to exchange his developed pieces.
White has a couple of minor alternatives:
(a) 8.Bg5 will typically transpose to 6…b4 7.Na4 Nf6 8.d3 d5 9.Bg5 above.
(b) 8.e5, and now:
(b1) 8…Ng4 is probably best met with 9.Nf4!? (9.f4 Nc6 10.h3 Nh6 11.g4 Ng8 12.Ng3
Qb6 13.Nce2 g6 14.c4 Nge7 15.Nc3 led to sharp play in Marholev-Aloma Vidal, La Roda
2006) 9…Nxe5 10.Qh5 Qd6 11.Re1 Nbd7 12.Nfxd5 0-0-0 13.Bf4 f6 14.Ne3 Bxg2
15.Nxg2 and White is in command of the game, Valmana Canto-Ibarra Jerez, Alicante
2011.
(b2) 8…Nfd7 9.f4 (the untested 9.Nf4!? is once more interesting, e.g., 9…Nc6
10.Ncxd5!? exd5 11.Re1 and now the safest continuation for Back is probably 11…Ncxe5
12.Nxd5 Bd6 13.f4 0-0 14.fxe5 Bxe5 15.c3 Re8 with approximately equal chances) and
now instead of 9…Qb6 which can be met with 10.f5! Nxe5 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.Nf4, Black
should play the solid 9…Nc6 when White will have to figure out a way to organize his
pieces. An idea is to play Nc3-b1-d2-f3.
8…Nxd5 9.Nxd5
A sharper option for White is 9.Ne4, and now:
(a) 9… Nc6?! 10.c4 Nb6?! 11.Be3 bxc4?! 12.Nxc5 Bxc5 13.Bxc5 cxd3 14.Nf4 and White
already has a very large advantage and it went further downhill for Black from here: 14…
Na5 15.Nxe6 (15.Qg4! was even stronger) 15…fxe6 16.Qh5+ g6 17.Qe5 Kf7 18.Bd4 Rg8
19.Rfe1 and White is completely winning, Bastian-Anka, France 2007.
(b) 9…Be7 is more solid and better, although 10.c4!? looks interesting, e.g. 10…Nb4
11.d4 (or 11.Nf4!? 0-0 12.Nf6+ Bxf6 12.Bxbb7 Ra7 13.Be4) 11…cxd4 12.Nxd4 bxc4
13.Be3 Bd5 14.Nc3 Bxg2 15.Kxg2 0-0 16.Qf3 Nd7 and Black is doing fine, Zhelnin-
Piasetski, Kamena Vourla 2012.
9…Bxd5 10.Bxd5 Qxd5
Black has only developed the queen but because of the remaining material, as well as
White’s relatively modest development (with a knight on e2, for instance), White has
difficulty producing anything tangible with his lead in development.

11.Nf4
Another try is 11.a4, to have Black commit himself to a fixed pawn structure on the
queenside. However, despite making good sense it, too, has failed to deliver anything
concrete: 11…b4 12.Nf4 (a sharper option is 12.c4 Qh5 13.a5 Nc6 14.d4 but Black
appears to be okay after 14…Be7 15.d5 Ne5 16.Qa4+ Kf8 17.Nf4 Qf5 with chances to
both sides as in Tseshkovsky-Levin, Sochi 2008) 12…Qd7 13.Ng2 Nc6 14.Ne3 Na5 15.b3
Be7 16.Bb2 0-0 17.f4 f5 18.Re1 Rad8 was equal in Solodovnichenko-Ibrayev, Voronezh
2009. White can possibly consider 13.Re1 Nc6 14.Nh5!? (or 13.Nh5 followed by 14.Re1)
which prevents Black from completing the kingside development in a satisfactory fashion.
My computer calls for 14…Rg8, which will leave Black with some long-term issues with
regard to king placement.
11…Qc6
Or 11…Qb7? 12.Qh5 Nc6, and now instead of 13.Re1 0-0-0 14.Be3 g6 15.Qf3 Nd4
16.Qxb7+ Kxb7 17.Bxd4 cxd4 with an endgame that may well be easier to play for Black,
Krapivin-Popov, Lvov 2006, White could have claimed a large advantage with 13.Nxe6!
g6 14.Qd5 fxe6 (14…Qd7 15.Nc7+!! Qxc7 16.Re1+ Be7 17.Rxe7+ Kxe7 18.Bf4 Qd7
19.Bg5+ and White is winning) 15.Re1 Be7 16.Rxe6 Rc8 17.Bf4 Rf8 18.Rae1 Rf7 19.Rd6
and Black has no good way to meet Ree6, winning back the piece with interest.
12.Re1 Nd7

13.b3
White may consider 13.a4 b4 14.Qh5!? intending to meet 14…g6 with 15.Qh3. It is
certainly worth a closer look. Also 14.Qg4!? can be considered.
13…Be7
13…Bd6 was met with 14.Nh5?! Be5 15.Rb1 g6 16.Nf4 0-0 17.Qg4 Bc3 18.Bb2 Bxe1
19.Rxe1 e5 20.Nh3 Rae8, and here Black is comfortably better in Dimitrov-Nestorovic,
Subotica 2007, but 14.Bb2 0-0 15.Qg4 g6 16.Nh3 intending Ng5 looks like a better idea to
target the dark squares around Black’s king.
14.Bb2 0-0 15.a4 Bf6 16.Bxf6 Nxf6 17.Nh5 Nd7 18.Qg4 g6 19.axb5 axb5 20.Rxa8
Rxa8
And Black has a comfortable position, B.Gonzalez Acosta-Miton, Dresden 2008.
Summary:
While the variations in this chapter are considerably tamer than what we will see in the
next chapter, they do offer White good opportunity to obtain a tiny edge or least a position
that is easy to play for White. That being said, Black should be able to equalize or get very
close to it. However, the biggest argument for choosing these lines for White is that Black
is angling for an Open Sicilian which White then chooses to deny him. Black’s set-up is
far from ideal against a Closed Sicilian, but at the same time, White would not mind
having his e2-knight on another square. That is the kind of trade-offs you will often have
to make in the Chameleon.
Chapter 8

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 a6 4.g3 b5 5.Bg2

Bb7 6.d4
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 a6 4 g3 b5 5 Bg2 Bb7 6 d4

The variations in this chapter, while similar to an Open Sicilian, nearly always arise from
some sort of transposition, either through our Chameleon approach or from White for
example playing 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 a6 4.g3 b5. Each move order has its limitations, but the
lines given below can all arise without the use of odd, meaningless transpositions.
Here Black has to choose between the following options:
(A) 6…b4
(B) 6…cxd4
As we will see below, there are many opportunities to transpose from (B) to (A). The lines
are razor-sharp and will not be to everybody’s liking. However, for those who think this is
not their cup of tea, the lines in Chapter 7 are also completely viable and much saner.
(A) 6…b4
The variations covered in this section are frequently arrived at from a number of
transpositions from ‘B’ – I will point the transpositions out in section ‘B’ whenever they
occur. That makes it a little cleaner presentation-wise, but suffice it to say that if you enter
this variation as White you will need to understand all of ‘A’ and the parts of ‘B’ you
decide to incorporate in your repertoire.
7.Na4 cxd4 8.Nxd4
White can seriously consider the saner 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qb6 (9.Qe3 offers White less, e.g.,
9…d6 10.0-0 Nf6 11.Rd1 Nd7 12.b3 Be7 13.Bb2 0-0 14.c4 with more or less even
chances, Abergel-Drnovsek, Pardubice 2016) 9…Qxb6 (or 9…Qc8 10.0-0 Rb8 11.Rd1 d6
12.f3 Be7 13.Qf2 when White has a slight pull) 10.Nxb6 Rb8 11.Bf4 d6 12.0-0-0 e5
13.Be3 Nf6 14.Nc4 Ng4 15.Nxd6+ Bxd6 16.Rxd6 Nxe3 17.fxe3 Ke7 18.Rhd1 Rhd8
19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.c3 and Black does not have full compensation for the sacrificed pawn,
Adhiban-Atabayev, Doha 2016.
8…Nf6
8…Qa5 9.b3 Nf6 (9… Nc6 10.0-0 Nf6 11.Re1 Nxd4 12.Qxd4 e5 13.Qd3 Be7 14.a3 Qb5
15.axb4 Qxd3 16.cxd3 Bxb4 17.Rd1 was better for White, Hou Yifan-Ushenina, Beijing
2014) 10.0-0 Bxe4 11.Bxe4 Nxe4 12.Re1 Nf6 13.Bb2 Be7 14.Qf3 (14.c4!? improves)
14…Ra7 and Black has a good game, Guseinov-Moroz, Cappelle-la-Grande 2006.
9.0-0
White has some important alternatives at this juncture:
(a) 9.Qe2, and now:

(a1) 9…Qa5 10.b3 Nc6 11.Bb2 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 e5 (or 12…Qb5 13.Qd3 Be7 14.0-0 e5
15.Be3 d5 16.exd5 Bxd5 17.c4 and draw agreed, ½-½, in Hellers-Kengis, Aarhus 1997)
13.Bb6 Qb5
14.Qd3 (14.Qxb5 axb5 15.Nc5 Bxc5 16.Bxc5 Bxe4 17.Bxe4 Nxe4 18.Bxb4 d5 19.0-0
Kd7 led to an interesting endgame in Horvath, Z.-Markus, Hungary 2013) 14…Be7 15.0-
0-0 Rc8 16.Kb1 0-0 17.f4 d6 18.Rhe1 Rc6 19.Bf2 Qa5 20.Bh3 Rd8 21.Qe3 Qc7 22.Re2
Bf8 with chances to both sides, Petrosian, T.-Mahjoob Zardast, Tehran 2005.
(a2) 9…Be7 10.0-0 0-0 (10…Qa5!? 11.b3 Nc6 is fine for Black) 11.c4 Nc6?! 12.Nb3 d6
13.Rd1 Qc7 14.Bf4 e5 15.Be3 Nd7 16.Bh3 and Black is under pressure, Pashikian-Hulak,
Antalya 2004.
(a3) 9…e5 (concerned about White’s threat of e4-e5, Black plays it himself) 10.Nf5 Bc6
11.b3 Bb5 12.Qd2 Qc7 13.Bb2 Nc6 14.c4 Bxa4 15.bxa4 g6 16.Ne3 Bc5 17.Nd5 Qd8
18.0-0 0-0 with an interesting position and chances to both sides, Simonian-Nyzhnyk,
Khmelnitsky 2008.
(a4) 9…d6 10.0-0 Nbd7 11.Rd1 Qc7 12.a3 e5 13.Nf5 a5 14.Qd3 Ra6 15.axb4 axb4
16.Bd2 g6 17.Ne3 and White is in command of the game, Varga-Papp, Austria 2012.
(b) 9.Bg5 with some branches to consider:

(b1) 9…Qa5 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.c3 (Black has a comfortable game after 11.b3 Nc6 12.0-0
Rc8 13.Kh1 Be7 14.Rc1 Na7 15.Nb2 Qc5 16.Ne2 Nb5 17.Nd3 Qa7 18.Qd2 Qa8 19.f3 h5,
when I would much rather play Black, Kalegin-Aldokhin, Voronezh 2009), and here we
need to consider:
(b11) 11…f5 12.0-0 fxe4 13.cxb4 Bxb4 14.a3 Be7 15.Re1 (15.b4 Qe5 16.Nc5 Bd5 17.Re1
Bxc5 18.bxc5 Nc6 19.Nxc6 Bxc6 20.Rc1 Rb8 with chances to both sides, Berkovich-
I.Sokolov, Rijeka 2010) 15…d5 16.b4 Qd8 17.f3 e3 (or 17…exf3 18.Qxf3 0-0 19.Nc5
Bxc5 20.bxc5 Qg5 21.Rxe6 Nd7 as in Greenfeld-Oratovsky, Rishon Le Ziyyon 1997,
when White should have played 22.Rd6 Nxc5 23.Rf1 with excellent compensation for the
sacrificed pawn) 18.Nc5 Qb6 19.Rxe3 Nc6 20.Rc1 0-0 21.Nxc6 Bxc6 22.Qd4 Rfb8, and
now instead of forcing the draw with 23.Qg4+ Kh8 24.Qd4+ Kg8 25.Qg4+ Kh8 26.Qd4+,
½-½, G.Garcia, G.-Sutovsky, Groningen 1997, White had the surprisingly simple
combination 23.Nxe6 fxe6 24.Qxb6 Rxb6 25.Rxe6 and White is clearly better.
(b12) 11…Nc6 12.0-0 Bg7 (or 12…Be7 13.Ne2 Ne5 14.cxb4 Qxb4 15.a3 Qd6 16.Qxd6
Bxd6 17.Rfd1 Be7 18.Rac1 Bc6 with even chances, Mirumian-Kengis, Berlin 1999)
13.cxb4 Qxb4 14.Ne2 Bh6 15.f4 0-0 16.Rc1 a5 17.a3 Qe7 18.Nc5 Ba6 19.Rf2 Ra7
20.Nxa6 Rxa6 21.Nc3 Rb8 22.Rd2 Ra7 23.a4 Rb4 was played in Adams-Kasparov,
Tilburg 1997, and here 24.Nb5 Rb7 25.b3 would have left White with a clear advantage.
(b2) 9… Be7 10.0-0 Qa5 11.e5 (or 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Nb3 Qxa4 13.Nc5 Qc6 14.Nxb7 Be5
15.Nd6+ Qxd6 16.Qxd6 Bxd6 17.e5 Bxe5 18.Bxa8 Bxb2 19.Rab1 Bc3 20.a3 a5 with
excellent compensation for the exchange, Benjamin-Serper, Salt Lake City 1999) 11…
Bxg2 12.Kxg2 Qxe5 13.Bf4 Qa5 14.c3 0-0 15.cxb4 Qxb4 16.Rc1 Nd5 17.Be3 Nc6
18.Nxc6 dxc6 19.Bd2 Qe4+ and Black is doing well, Becerra Rivero-Serper, ICC INT
2007.
9…Bxe4
Black has two other moves to consider:
(a) 9…Nxe4 10.Re1 d5 (or 10…Qa5 11.c4 Nd6 12.Bxb7 Nxb7 13.Qf3 Ra7 14.Be3 Qxa4
15.b3 Qa5 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Bxa7 Qc7 18.Bd4 Nc6 19.Bb2 Nbd8 with a double-edged
position and chances to both sides, Klauser-Bogner, Flims 2016) 11.Nxe6 (also 11.c4 is an
option, e.g., 11…bxc3 12.bxc3 Bd6 13.Rb1 Qc7 14.Qb3 Ra7 15.Be3 Bc8 16.c4 Rb7
17.Qc2 Rxb1 18.Rxb1 e5 as in L.Barczay-Votava, Budapest 1995, and now 19.Nb6 wins
for White: 19…exd4 20.Nxd5 Qd8 21.Qxe4+ Be6 22.Qxd4 or 19…0-0 20.Nxd5 Qd8
21.Bxe4 exd4) 11…fxe6 12.Qh5+ g6 (or 12…Kd7 13.Rxe4 dxe4 14.Bg5 Be7 15.Rd1+
Bd5 16.Bxe4 Qe8 17.Qg4 Kc7 18.Bf4+ Bd6 19.Bxd6+ Kxd6 20.Nb6 Rf8, Szwed-Ly,
Marianske Lazne 2016, and now 21.Bxd5 exd5 22.Qxb4+ Kc6 23.Nxd5 would have been
the easiest win) 13.Qe5 Qd7 14.Qxh8 Qxa4 was played in Plaskett-Hillarp Persson,
Hampstead 1998, and now 15.f3 Nc5 16.Bh3 Nbd7 17.Qxh7 Kd8 18.Bxe6 Nxe6 19.Rxe6
would have left White with a winning position.
(b) 9…d6 10.Re1 e5 (or 10…Nbd7? 11.e5! Bxg2 12.exf6 Bb7 13.fxg7 Bxg7 14.Nxe6 fxe6
15.Rxe6+ Kf8 16.Rxd6 Qe7 17.Rxd7 Qe4 18.Rxb7 Qxb7 19.Bf4 Re8 20.Qd6+ Kg8
21.Nc5 Qe7 was Gdanski-Jedryczka, Lubniewice 2003, and here 22.Qc6 h5 23.h4 should
win easily for White) 11.Nf5 g6 12.Ne3 Bc6 13.c3 a5 14.Nc4 Nbd7 15.Bd2 Rc8 16.Ne3
bxc3 17.Nxc3 Be7 18.Nc4 and White is clearly better, Tseitlin-Kurajica, Bugojno 1999.
10.Bxe4 Nxe4 11.Re1
11.c4 Be7 12.Qf3 f5 13.g4 Nc6 14.Nxc6 dxc6 15.gxf5 exf5 16.Qxf5 Nf6 17.Qe6 Qd7
18.Re1 Qxe6 19.Rxe6 offers White some initiative in the endgame but nothing that should
worry Black unduly, Martinez Martin-Martin Rueda, Madrid 2013.

11…d5
This pawn advance looks so obvious that, at first glance, you may wonder why Black
would even consider other options. But it does have some downsides. For instance, it takes
one of the guardians of the e6-pawn away, which opens up several tactical ideas for White
if White removes the knight on e4. Although that knight is protected it is rather unstable.
The alternatives are:
(a) 11…Nc5, and here White has tried several things:
(a1) 12.c4 Nxa4 13.Qxa4 Bc5 14.Nb3 Be7 15.c5 Nc6 16.Bf4 0-0 17.Rad1 Qc8 18.Bd6
Bxd6 19.Rxd6 was played in Vallejo Pons-Ghaem Maghami, Almaty 2016, now 19…Qc7
20.Rc1 Rfd8 would have left White without full compensation for the pawn.
(a2) 12.c3 Nxa4 13.Qxa4 with yet another fork in the path:
(a21) 13…Be7 14.cxb4 Qb6 15.b5 0-0 16.Be3 Bc5 17.bxa6 (or 17.Rad1 Bxd4 18.Rxd4
Qxb5 19.Qxb5 axb5 20.a3 Nc6 21.Rd6 Ne5 22.Kg2 Nc4 23.Rxd7 Nxb2 with even
chances in the endgame, Kalegin-Simonian, Alushta 2007) 17…Rxa6 18.Qc4 d5 19.Qd3
Nd7 (19…Ra4! looks like a good improvement for Black) 20.b4 Bxb4 21.Reb1 Ra3
22.Qe2 Qd6 23.Nb5 Rxe3 24.Qxe3 Qe7 25.a4 with White having a tiny pull, Thesing-
Fedorov, Brasov 2011.
(a22) 13…bxc3 invites trouble: 14.Nxe6! fxe6 15.Rxe6+ Kf7?? 16.Re5 Be7 17.Qc4+ Ke8
18.Bg5 Nc6 19.Rxe7+ Nxe7 20.Re1 Rc8 21.Qe2 Kf7 22.Qf3+ Kg6 23.Bxe7 Qa5 24.Qg4+
Kh6 25.h4 and the king hunt is over, Black resigned, 1-0, Zapata-Bruzon Batista, Bogota
2011. Black can improve with 15…Be7! 16.Bg5 Nc6 17.Bxe7 Nxe7 18.Rae1 0-0 19.Rxe7
when White only has some initiative but nothing like in the game.
(a23) 13…Qb6 14.Be3 Bc5 15.Rad1?! (15.Qd1 is probably best) 15…0-0 16.a3 bxc3
17.b4 Bxd4 18.Bxd4 Qc6 and White will have to hustle to get compensation for the pawn,
Shchukin-Kalegin, Voronezh 2011.
(a3) 12.Nxc5 Bxc5 13.Qf3 (or 13.Be3 Qb6 14.a3 Nc6 15.Nxc6 Qxc6 16.Bxc5 Qxc5
17.axb4 Qxb4 18.b3 with more or less even chances, Safarli-Yakovich, Dresden 2007)
13…Ra7, and here:
(a31) 14.Nf5? looks attractive, but rather than 14…Qf6?! which was very successful for
Black in its one outing (14…Qf6 15.Be3 Rc7 16.Qf4 Bxe3 17.Nxg7+ Ke7 18.Qxc7
Qxf2+, 0-1, Isonzo-Likavsky, Imperia 2003, but White has several easy improvements, for
example 16.Bxc5 Rxc5 17.Nd6+ Ke7 18.Qd3 Rc6 19.Ne4 Qxb2 20.Rab1 Qxc2 21.Qd4
Rg8 22.Rxb4 with chances to both sides), Black should simply play 14…0-0! when
White’s initiative soon runs out.
(a32) 14.Be3 Qb6 (or 14…Rc7 15.Nf5 0-0 16.Nh6+ Kh8 17.Nxf7+ Kg8 18.Nh6+ Kh8
19.Nf7+ Kg8 20.Nh6+ with a draw by repetition, ½-½, in Simonian-Harutjunyan,
Khmelnitsky 2008) 15.Rad1 0-0 16.c3 bxc3 17.bxc3 d5 18.Rb1 Qc7 19.Qg4 Kh8 20.Rb3
Nd7 21.Bf4 Bd6 22.Rxe6 fxe6 23.Nxe6 Nf6! And as Black equalized, the players settled
for a draw, ½-½, in Matikozian-Liou, Los Angeles 2011.
(a33) 14.Nb3 Bb6 15.c4 (or 15.Bf4 d5 16.Qg4 0-0 17.Bg5 Qc7 18.Bf6 g6 19.Be5 Qc4
20.Qxc4 dxc4 21.Nd2 Nc6 22.Nxc4 Bd4 23.Bxd4 Nxd4 and the chances are very even in
the endgame, Cornette-Panelo Munoz, Montcada 2009) 15…Qf6 16.Qxf6 gxf6 17.Bf4
Nc6 18.Rad1 Kd8 with a sharp position and chances to both sides, Nikolenko-Abhishek,
Moscow 2016.
(b) 11…Nf6 12.c4, and here Black has to choose between the sharp or the solid
continuation:

(b1) 12…bxc3 with a further split in the road:

(b11) 13.Qf3 d5 14.Bg5 cxb2 15.Rad1 Nbd7 16.Nc3 Rc8?! (16…Nb6! 17.Bxf6 Qxf6
18.Qxf6 gxf6 19.Nxe6 Rb8 20.Nf4+ Kd7 looks dangerous for Black but the b-pawn will
keep White busy and Black better) 17.Nxd5 Be7 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nf5 Qc5 20.Nxg7+
Ke7 21.Nf5+ Kf8 and Black resigned, 1-0, Demchenko-Korobkov, Sochi 2005; after
22.Bh6+ Ke8 23.Bg7 Rg8 24.Nd6+ White should win rather easily.
(b12) 13.Qb3 Nc6 (13…d5 was played in Paredes Galan-Yakovich, Paris 2005 where
White quickly collapsed and lost, but 14.Bf4 Be7 15.Nxc3 Nbd7 16.Na4 0-0 17.Nc6 is
fine for White) 14.Nxc6 dxc6 15.Qxc3 Rc8 16.Be3 Nd5 17.Qc4 Qa5 18.Bc5 Qb5 19.Rac1
Be7 20.Bxe7 Qxc4 21.Rxc4 Kxe7 is, despite Black’s extra pawn, about equal,
D.Gurevich-Drozdowski, Richardson 2014.
(b2) 12…Be7 13.Qf3 Ra7 14.Bf4 0-0 15.Rad1 Re8 16.b3 Qc8 17.Re2 Qb7 18.Be3 d6
19.Kg2 Ng4 20.Bc1 Qxf3+ 21.Nxf3 Nd7 was played in Matikozian-Andrianov, Burbank
2004, and now 22.a3 would have been okay for White.
12.c4
White has a couple of alternatives at this point:
(a) 12.Qh5 Qf6 (12…g6? 13.Qe5 Rg8? 14.Nxe6! and the game was already decided in
Hou Yifan-Muzychuk, M., Beijing 2014) 13.Be3 Nd7 14.f3? (14.c4 bxc3 15. Nxc3 is a
much better chance) 14…g6 15.Qg4 h5 16.Qh3 Nd6 17.Rad1 Be7 18.Nxe6 Qxe6 19.Qg2
Nf5 20.Bg5 Qc6 21.Bxe7 Nxe7 22.Qe2 0-0, and White resigned, 0-1, Jovanovic-
Andreikin, Tallinn 2016.
(b) 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Qh5+ g6 14.Qe5 Qf6 15.Rxe4 Qxe5 16.Rxe5 Kf7 17.Re3 (or 17.c4
bxc3 18.Re3 Bg7 19.bxc3 Nd7 20.Rf3+ Bf6 21.Bg5 Ke7 22.Bxf6+ Nxf6 with about equal
chances in the endgame, Escobar Forero-Pantsulaia, Istanbul 2012) 17…Nd7 18.Rf3+
(18.Bd2 Nf6 19.Rae1 Re8 20.f3 Bh6 21.R3e2 Bxd2 22.Rxd2 Rc8 also didn’t offer White
any hope of an advantage, Muzychuk, A.-Cramling, P., Khanty-Mansiysk 2014) 18…Kg7
19.b3 Be7 20.Nb6 Bf6 21.Rxf6 Nxf6 22.Nxa8 Rxa8 23.Bb2 Kf7 with an interesting
endgame which my computer assesses as equal, but on account of the bishop and Black’s
three pawn islands, I would probably give White a slight preference, Velimirovic-Markus,
Zlatibor 2006.
12…bxc3 13.Nxc3
White achieves less with 13.bxc3 Be7 14.c4 0-0 (White gets a little something to work
with after 14…Nf6 15.Rb1 0-0 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.Nb6 Bxf4 18.Nxa8 Nbd7 19.gxf4 Qxa8
20.Rc1 dxc4 21.Rxc4 when Black has some but not full compensation for the exchange,
Venkatesh-Guramishvili, Doha 2015) 15.cxd5 exd5 16.Bf4 Bb4 17.Re2 Bd6 18.Bxd6
Qxd6 was played in Baimuratov-Pugachov, Karaganda 1994, and here 19.f3 Nf6 20.Nf5
Qd8 21.Rb1 would have left White with more than enough compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.
13…Be7
13…Nxc3?! is too dangerous, 14.Qh5!, and now:
(a) 14…g6 15.Qe5 Ne4 16.Qxh8 Nd7 17.f3 Qf6 18.Qxf6 Nexf6 was Lefebvre-Swiercz,
Aix les Bains 2011, and here 19.Kg2 Bc5 20.Nb3 would have left White with the clearly
better chances.
(b) 14…Ne4 15.Nxe6 Qb6 (or 15… g6 16.Nc7+ Qxc7 17.Qxd5 f5 as in Pilavov-Zubarev,
Evpatoria 2007, when 18.Qxa8 Bc5 19.Bf4 Bxf2+ 20.Kg2 Qc6 21.Rxe4+ Qxe4+
22.Qxe4+ fxe4 23.Kxf2 would have left White with the clearly better chances in the
endgame) 16.Nc7+ Qxc7 17.Qxd5, and here:
(b1) 17…Nc6 18.Bf4 Qd7 19.Qxe4+ Be7 20.Rad1 Qb7 21.Bd6 0-0 22.Bxe7 Rfe8 23.Qd5
and White has an extra pawn along with a dominating position, Heberla-Aloma Vidal,
Mallorca 2007.
(b2) 17…Qc6 18.Rxe4+ Be7 19.Rxe7+ Kxe7 20.Bg5+ f6 21.Re1+ Kf8 22.Qd8+ Kf7
23.Re7+ Kg6 24.Qxh8 Kxg5 25.Qxg7+ and with mate in a few moves, Black resigned, 1-
0, R.Pereira-Rasulov, Vung Tau 2008.
(b3) 17…f5 18.Qxf5 Be7 19.Qxe4 Ra7 20.Be3 0-0 21.Rac1 Qb7 22.Bxa7 Qxa7 23.Re2
Bd8 24.Rc8 Nd7 25.Rxd8 and Black resigned, 1-0, Mamedov-Lie, Turin 2006; after 25…
Rxd8 White plays 26.Qe6+ Kf8 27.Qe7+ and the fun is over.
14.Nxe4 dxe4 15.Rxe4 0-0 16.Qb3 Bf6 17.Be3 Qd5
In Zivkovic-Kurajica, Teslic 2006, Black continued 17…Qd7, and after
18.Rd1 Rd8 19.Rd2 Qc8 20.Rc2 Qd7 21.Rd2, a draw was agreed upon, ½-½ . But instead
of his weak 21st move, White could have gained a large advantage with 21.Nxe6 fxe6
22.Rd2, for instance, 22…Qf7 23.Rxd8+ Bxd8 24.Rxe6 (threatening Re8+) 24…Nd7
25.Re8+ Nf8 26.Bc5, when Black’s best chance is 26…Bb6 27.Qxf7+ Kxf7 28.Rxa8
Bxc5 29.Rxa6 and White should win the endgame.
18.Qxd5 exd5 19.Rf4 Nd7 20.Rf5 Ne5 21.Rd1 Rfe8 22.b3
White has a small but clear advantage in the endgame and duly converted it into a full
point some time later, G.Jones-Firouzja, Baku 2016.
(B) 6…cxd4 7.Nxd4
This line looks exactly like one from the Open Sicilian. However, this position very rarely
arises from a pure Open Sicilian move order.
7…Nf6
There are many move orders and minor lines to look at as alternatives to the text.
(a) 7…Ne7 8.0-0 and we will look at three responses on move 8 by Black, leading to
several variations:
(a1) 8…Nec6 looks and is a little clumsy: 9.e5 (or 9.Bf4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Nc6 11.Qd2 d6
12.Rfd1 Ne5 13.a4 Nc4 14.Qe2 Nxb2 15.Rdb1 Qc8 16.Rxb2 Qxc3 17.Rab1 Be7 18.axb5
with an advantage for White, Olsson-R.Akesson, Sweden 2004) 9…Qc7 10.Re1 (White
can also consider 10.Nf3!? Na5 11.Qe2 Nbc6 12.b3 Rc8 13.Bb2 when White’s position
seems easier to play) 10…Nxd4 11.Bxb7 Qxb7 12.Qxd4 Nc6 13.Qg4 (13.Qf4 Be7 14.Be3
0-0 15.Ne4 f6 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.Nxf6+ Rxf6 was played in Lopez Silva-Hellsten, Santiago
de Chile 2005, and now 18.Qe4 Rc8 19.c3 d5 offers a comfortable game for Black) 13…
h5 14.Qf3 Rb8 15.Qe4 Nb4 16.Re2 Be7 was seen in Sutovsky-Svidler, Rishon Le Ziyyon
2006, and now 17.Qxb7 Rxb7 18.Be3 Nc6 19.f4 f6 would have been fine for Black.
(a2) 8…d6 9.Bh3 b4 10.Na4 e5 11.Nf5 Nxf5 12.exf5 Qc7 13.c3 Qc6 14.f3 bxc3 15.bxc3
Nd7 16.Rb1 Be7 and Black has no problems, T.Ernst-Berg, E., Tromsø 2010.
(a3) 8…Nbc6 is more in accordance with normal development and leaves White with the
following options:

(a31) 9.Nxc6 Nxc6 10.Re1 (10.Bf4!?) 10…d6 11.Ne2 (after 11.a4 b4, White went for the
ultra-sharp 12.Nd5!? exd5 13.exd5+, now Black decided to hand the piece back
immediately with 13…Ne5 14.f4 Be7 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.Rxe5 and White had the better
chances in Safarli-Svidler, Berlin 2015, but obviously you have to consider if Black can
get away with keeping the piece with 13…Ne7 but it looks extremely uncomfortable for
Black after moves such as 14.a5 Bc8 15.Qd4 when Black will have a very hard time
getting his pieces developed and his king to safety) 11…Be7 12.Nd4 0-0 13.Nxc6 Bxc6
14.Bf4 Qc7 15.Qd2 Rfd8 16.Rad1 h6 17.Qe2 b4 18.Qg4 Kh7 19.Bf1 Bf6 20.Bd3 Be5
21.b3 and here a draw was agreed upon, ½-½, in Rozentalis-Flores, Khanty-Mansiysk
2010, Black has completely equalized.
(a32) 9.e5 looks ambitious but does nothing for White, e.g., 9…Ng6 10.Nxc6 Bxc6
11.Bxc6 dxc6 as in Venkatesh-Prathamesh, Pune 2013, and now 12.Qe2 Qd4 13.Re1 Be7
was fine Black.
(a33) 9.Bf4!? is far more interesting, for instance, 9… Ng6 10.Be3 Nge5 11.Nxc6 Bxc6
12.Bd4 Ng6 13.Re1 f6 14.Nd5 Kf7 was played in Jovanovic-Vitiugov, Tallinn 2016, and
now 15.Qh5 Kg8 16.f4 exd5? 17.exd5 Bb7 18.d6 would have been truly ugly for Black.
(a34) 9.Nb3 presents Black with a myriad of different moves to choose between: (D)
(a341) 9…Ng6 10.f4 Be7 11.Be3 0-0 12.h4 Re8 13.h5 Nf8 14.Qg4 d6 15.e5 is better for
White, Llaneza Vega-Granda Zuniga, Barcelona 2008.

(a342) 9…Na5 10.Nc5 Nec6 11.Nxb7 Nxb7 12.e5 Rc8 13.Re1 Be7 14.Qg4 Kf8 15.h4 h5
16.Qd1 d5 17.exd6 Nxd6 and with White having the bishop pair and Black having lost the
right to castle, White has the better chances, Petrosian, T.-Anastasian, Yerevan 2008.
(a343) 9…Nc8 is a bit artificial: 10.Re1 (or 10.e5 Be7 11.f4 d6 12.Be3 dxe5 13.Qxd8+
Nxd8 14.Bxb7 Nxb7 15.fxe5 Na7 16.a4 b4 17.Nb5 Nxb5 18.axb5 a5 19.Ra4 and White is
clearly in command, Zubarev-Zubov, Kharkov 2005) 10…Be7 11.a4 b4 12.Nd5 0-0
13.Nxe7+ Qxe7 14.Be3 d6 15.a5 N8a7 16.Qd2 Nb5 17.f4 with better chances for White,
Bosch-Kabatianski, Netherlands 2012.
(a344) 9…d6 10.f4 Nc8 11.f5 Nb6 12.fxe6 fxe6 13.Ne2 e5 14.Nc3 Be7 15.Nd5 Nxd5
16.exd5 Na5 17.Nxa5 Qxa5 18.Qg4 leaves White with the upper hand, Saldano Dayer-
Dolezal, Pinamar 2012.
(b) 7…Nc6 8.0-0, and now: (D)
(b1) 8…Rc8 9.Nxc6 Bxc6 10.Re1 Bc5, with another fork in the road:
(b11) 11.Be3 Bxe3 12.Rxe3 Ne7 13.Qd6 Qc7 14.Rd1 Qxd6 15.Rxd6 f6
16.a3 Rc7 17.Rd2 Bb7 is pretty much completely equal, Himanshu-Cori Tello, Montcada
2016.
(b12) 11.Nd5!? is the most challenging move for Black to face:

11…Ba8 12.Qg4 g6 13.b4 Bd4 14.Be3 Bxa1 15.Bb6 exd5 (Black can possible improve
with 15…Bc3 16.Bxd8 Bxe1 17.Bf6 Nxf6 18.Nxf6+ Kf8 19.Qf4 Kg7 20.Nxd7 Bc3 21.e5
Bxg2 22.Kxg2 and Black may well be alright) 16.Bxd8 Bc3, and now instead of 17.Bb6?
Bxe1 18.exd5 Bc3 19.Bd4 Bxd4 20.Qxd4 f6 which was better for Black in Wieczorek-
Jakubowski, Warsaw 2011, White should have played 17.Re3! with a clear advantage.
(b2) 8…Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Ne7 10.Bf4 Ng6 11.Bd6 Bxd6 12.Qxd6 Rc8 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4
Qc7 15.Qa3 with a small but clear positional advantage for White, Matikozian-Stripunsky,
ICC INT 2010.
(b3) 8…Bc5 9.Nb3 (Black didn’t have too much to worry about after 9.Nxc6 Bxc6
10.Qg4 Nf6 11.Qg5 Bf8 12.e5 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 b4 14.Nd1 h6 15.Qd2 Nd5 16.c4 bxc3
17.Nxc3 Bb4 18.Qd4 Bxc3 19.bxc3 Qc7 20.c4 as in Willemze-Bosboom, Netherlands
2012 if he had continued 20…Nb6 21.Bf4 0-0 22.Rfc1 Rfb8) 9…Be7 10.e5 Qc7 11.Re1
f5 12.f4?! (White can improve with 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Bf4 Qc8 14.a4!? which looks truly
uncomfortable for Black) 12…h5 13.Be3 h4 14.Bc5 hxg3 15.hxg3 was Bodnaruk-
Vitiugov, Wroclaw 2014, and now 15…Rc8 would have left Black with the better chances.
(c) 7…d6 8.0-0 once more leaves Black with a plethora of options to choose between:
(c1) 8…Nf6 9.Re1 Qc7, and now:

(c11) 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Qh5 Qc4 13.Rad1 Nc6 14.Bf1 was very good for
White is J.Van Foreest-Sevian, Wijk aan Zee 2016, but Black should have played 11…
Bxf6, although he has to be prepared to enter 12.Ncxb5!? axb5 13.Nxb5 Qb6 14.Nxd6+
Ke7 15.Nxb7 Be5! (15…Qxb7? 16.e5 is of course out of the question) 16.c3 with a
fascinating middlegame ahead.
(c12) 10.a4 b4 (10…bxa4?! is too dangerous for Black: 11.Bg5 and White intends to enter
a favorable version of Van Foreest-Sevian above: 11…Be7 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Ndb5 axb5
14.Nxb5 Qc6 15.Nxd6+ Ke7 16.Nxb7 as played in Rodriguez Vila-Salinas Herrera,
Buenos Aires 2016, when Black’s best would have been 16…Be5 but 17.Qd2! Qb6
18.Red1! f6 19.Nd6! Rd8 20.Nc4 is clearly better for White) 11.Nd5! exd5 12.exd5+ Kd8
13.Bg5
13…Qc4 (13…Nbd7 14.Nc6+ Bxc6 15.dxc6 is absolutely unpleasant for Black) 14.c3 b3
15.Bxf6+ gxf6 16.Qh5 Qc7 17.Re3 Bc8 18.Rae1 Qd7 19.Ne6+ (also 19.Bh3 Qxh3
20.Qxf7 Bd7 21.Re8+ Kc7 22.Ne6+ Kb6 23.a5+ Kb7 24.Rxb8+ Kxb8 25.Qxd7 with mate
in a few moves wins for White) 19…fxe6 20.dxe6 Qa7 21.e7+ Bxe7 22.Rxe7 Bd7 23.Qf7
Kc7 24.Qxf6 Rd8 25.Rd1 Kc8 26.Qxd6 a5 27.Rd4 Qa6 28.Bxa8, and Black resigned, 1-0,
Ponizil-Bilguun, Pardubice 2016.
(c2) It seems like 8…b4 is simply asking for trouble. For starters, White’s 9.Nd5 is
beginning to looks almost standard (White can also play the more moderate 9.Na4 Nd7
10.a3 a5 11.Re1 Ne7 12.axb4 axb4 13.Nb5 Nc8 14.Qd4 Qa5 15.c4 bxc3 16.Nbxc3 Ne5
17.b4 Qc7 as seen in Slobodjan-Van Wely, Germany 2000, and here 18.Be3 would have
left White with a clear advantage) 9…exd5 10.exd5 Bc8 11.Re1+ Be7 12.c4 Kf8 13.a3
bxa3 14.Rxa3 Bg5 15.Bxg5 Qxg5 16.Ne6+!
16…fxe6 17.dxe6 d5 18.Rf3+ Nf6 19.h4 Qg6 20.Qxd5 Ra7 21.e7+ Rxe7 22.Rxe7 Qb1+
23.Kh2 Kxe7 24.Re3+ Be6 25.Qxe6+ and Black resigned, 1-0, Vallejo Pons-
Nepomniachtchi, Pamplona 2008.
(c3) 8…Be7 9.Re1 Nc6 10.a4 b4 11.Na2 a5 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.c3 bxc3 14.Nxc3 Qd7 15.b3
Bf6 16.Qd3 Ne7 17.Ba3 is comfortably better for White, Rublevsky-Dominguez Perez,
Poikovsky 2005.
(c4) 8…Nd7 9.Re1 Rc8 (9…Qc7 10.a4 bxa4 11.Rxa4 Ngf6, and now once more 12.Nd5!
is absolutely nasty for Black 12…exd5 13.exd5+ Kd8 14.Nc6+ Bxc6 15.dxc6 Nc5 16.Rb4
Be7 17.Be3 and Black is completely busted, Khusnutdinov-Vovk, ICC INT 2010) 10.a4!
b4 11.Na2 Ngf6 12.Nxb4 and now 12…d5 was idea behind Black’s previous moves, but
unsurprisingly White simply plays 13.Nxd5! Bc5 14.Nxf6+ Nxf6 15.c3 and Black has
nothing for the pawns, Guseinov-Belov, Berlin 2015.
(d) 7…Qc7 8.0-0 Be7 (or 8…Nf6 9.Re1 b4 10.Na4 Nc6?! 11.c3 Nxd4?! 12.cxd4 d5
13.Bf4 Qa5 14.Rc1 dxe4? 15.Bc7 Qb5 16.Nb6 Rd8 17.Bf1 and White is winning
Radulski-Rombaldoni, Cappelle-la-Grande 2009, but Black played exceptionally poorly in
this game) 9.Re1 d6 10.a4 bxa4 11.Rxa4 Nd7 12.Qg4 h5 13.Nxe6 Qxc3 14.bxc3 hxg4
15.Nc7+ Kd8 16.Nxa8 Bxa8 17.Rxa6 Bb7 18.Ra7 Bc8 19.e5 Nxe5 20.Be3 and White has
the better chances, Carlsen-Van Wely, Schagen 2006.
(e) 7…h5 8.0-0 h4 9.Re1 Be7 10.e5 Qc7 11.Ne4 hxg3 12.hxg3 Nc6 13.Bf4 Qb6 14.c3
Nh6 was played in Orsini-Flores, Berazategui 2007, and now 15.Nc2 would have left
White with the clearly better chances.
(f) Finally, 7…b4 transposes to variation ‘A’.
At last, let’s return to our main line.

8.a3
White decides to stop any further opportunity for Black to play …b5-b4. The alternatives
are:
(a) 8.0-0 b4 9.e5 (9.Nd5?! is a spirited try, but little too optimistic: 9…exd5 10.exd5 Bc5
11.Re1+ Kf8 12.c4 d6 13.Bf4 Nbd7 14.Nc6 Qb6 and White didn’t have enough for the
piece, Rozentalis-Plischki, Teplice 2014) 9…Bxg2 10.Kxg2 bxc3 11.exf6 Qxf6 12.bxc3
Be7 13.Rb1 0-0 14.c4 Rc8 15.Qd3 Nc6 16.Nxc6 dxc6 was played in Lugovskoy-Pechac,
Pardubice 2015, and now the centralizing 17.Qe4 would provide White with a nice edge.
(b) 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.0-0 Nc6 11.Nxc6 Bxc6 12.Qe2 Qe5 13.f4?! Qc5+ and Black
has already taken over the command of the game, Lobron-Quesada Perez, Matanzas 2017.
(c) 8.Qe2 d6?! (8…b4!? would have been fine for Black; now White grabs the initiative)
9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Re1 Nb6? (10…Ne5 11.f4 Qb6 would have been safer) 11.Bg5 (White
could also play 11.e5!, e.g., 11…Nfd5 12.exd6 Qxd6 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Qxe6+ Qxe6
15.Rxe6+ Kf7 16.Rxb6 Nxb6 17.Bxb7) 11…e5 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 (12…gxf6 13.Nf5 would be
a positional disaster) 13.Ndxb5! Rc8 14.a4 Nc4 15.Na7 Rc7 16.Nd5 Qd8 17.Nxc7+ Qxc7
18.a5 Nxa5 19.Nb5 and White is winning, Berelowitsch-Stefansson, Rogaska Slatina
2011.
8…Qc7
Black has a couple of other moves to consider as well:
(a) 8…d6 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Re1 (10.f4 Qc7 11.g4 Nb6 12.g5 Nfd7 13.f5 e5 14.Ne6 fxe6
15.Qh5+ Kd8 16.fxe6 Nc5, and now White forced a draw with 17.Qxh7 Rxh7 18.Rxf8+
Ke7 19.Rf7+ Kd8 20.Rf8+ Ke7 21.Rf7+ Kd8 22.Rf8+, ½-½, Balog, I.-Horvath, Cs.,
Budapest 2013) 10…Ne5 (very ambitious; 10…Qc7!? is a possible improvement) 11.f4
Nc4 12.b3 Nb6 13.a4 bxa4 14.Nxa4 Nxa4 15.Rxa4 Qd7 16.Bb2 with pleasant,
harmonious position for White, Hovhannisyan-Andreikin, ICC INT 2011.
(b) 8…b4?! is not very good and Black soon ended up in trouble: 9.axb4 Bxb4 10.0-0 0-0?
11.Bg5 Qc7 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qg4+ Kh8 14.Qh4 Qe5 15.Nf3 Qc5, Djuric-Landa, Minsk
2015, and now the more accurate continuation would have been 16.Na2! Kg7 17.e5 and
Black is toast.
9.0-0 d6
9…Nc6 led to interesting complications in De la Riva Aguado-Kelires, Luxembourg 2016:
10.Nxc6 dxc6 11.f4 Rd8 12.Qe2 Bc5+ 13.Kh1 Bd4 14.e5 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Nd5 16.f5 exf5
17.Bg5 Ne7 18.g4 fxg4, and now 19.Qxg4 Bc8 20.Qg3 Be6 21.Bxe7 Kxe7 22.a4 a5
would probably be okay for both sides but it is a tricky position to play.
10.Re1
10…Nbd7
10…Be7 11.Bf4 (or 11.a4 bxa4 12.Nxa4 0-0 13.b3 Nbd7 14.c4 Rab8 15.Nc3 Nc5 16.Ba3
Ba8 17.b4 Ncd7 as played in Wang-Lu, China 2015, and now 18.b5 a5 19.Na4 Ne5
20.Rc1 Rfc8 21.Qe2 would have been better for White) 11…0-0 (11…Nbd7 would have
questioned White’s set-up better, making him have to consider whether to play 12.Nd5!?
exd5 13.exd5 which is an interesting sacrifice or to come up with something else) 12.e5
dxe5 13.Bxe5 Qb6 14.Bxb7 Qxb7 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Ne4 Be7 17.Qf3 Kh8 18.Rad1 Nd7
was Al Modiahki-Tukhaev, Moscow 2012, and here 19.Ng5 Qxf3 20.Ngxf3 Nc5 21.Nc6
Bf6 22.Nfe5 would have offered White some initiative in the endgame.
11.a4 b4 12.Na2 Nc5

13.f3?!
13.Nxb4 Ncxe4 14.c3 Be7 15.Qc2 d5 would obviously have been okay for Black, but it is
certainly better for White than the game continuation.
13…e5
13…Nxa4?! is not as accurate, e.g., 14.c3 (14.Nxb4 is the more correct move order
because Black can answer 14.c3 with 14…b3) 14…Nb6 15.Nxb4 a5 16.Nd3 (16.Nbc2!?)
16…Be7 and now instead of 17.g4?! 0-0 18.g5 Nfd7 19.f4 Rfe8 20.Re3 e5 21.Nf5 Bf8
which left Black with a pleasant position in Gevorgyan-Rychagov, Heraklion 2017, White
should have played 17.Be3 0-0 18.Bf2 with a good position.
14.Nf5 a5 15.c4 h6 16.b3 g6 17.Ne3
Here White needed to think differently because the flow of the game is definitely
beginning to carry him in the wrong direction. If White is not careful, Black will soon
have his dreams come true.
17…h5 18.Nd5 Nxd5 19.cxd5 Ba6 20.Bf1 Bxf1 21.Rxf1
Thus far, Simonian-Korneev, Sareyn 2017 when Black now with 21…Rc8 or 21…h4
could claim the better chances.
Summary:
If the variations in this chapter appeal to you as White, then your weapon for the future
surely must be the Chameleon. These variations are sharp, featuring pawn and piece
sacrifices, and that is not to everybody’s liking because White must play hard to maintain
the initiative and find compensation for the sacrificed material.
Overall, Black should theoretically be fine, but this is not easy ground to navigate for
either side and there are numerous pitfalls for Black to avoid and consider. If you as White
are not happy with sharpness of these lines, then return to chapter 7 and see if those lines
there are not more to your liking. This flexibility for White is a key feature in the
Chameleon. Whether you prefer super sharp or super solid you, as White, are the one who
gets to choose.
Chapter 9

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 d5

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.d4
We have already looked at other lines that involved Black playing …e7-e6 followed by …
d7-d5. This chapter will cover the lines where Black doesn’t play …Nc6 immediately.
The absence of the knight on c6 means that Black can develop other pieces first and only
later decide whether the knight should be placed on c6. The downside for Black is that
White has not yet commited to g2-g3 which, technically speaking, weakens the light
squares on the kingside. White still has the option of going in that direction if he so
chooses, but can also attempt to exploit Black’s loose pawn center through pressure
against the center and rapid piece development, exactly what Black attempts to do as well.
5…Nf6
(a) 5…cxd4 is not an outright mistake, but Black is risking becoming seriously behind in
development: 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.Bb5+ (or 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.Qd3 Nc6 10.0-0-0 0-0
11.Nf5 Bxf5 12.Qxf5 Qa5? 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Bd3,

and Black resigned, 1-0, Herman-Feher, Hungary 2000) 7…Bd7 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.0-0
Be7?! (9…Nc6 is better, but White has an advantage anyway) 10.Qd3 0-0 11.Nf5 Bb4?
12.Bh6! (now it goes downhill rather rapidly for Black) 12…Bxc3 13.bxc3 Ne8 14.Rae1
Nc6 15.Re3 gxh6 16.Rxe8 f6 17.Qg3+ Kf7 18.Rxa8 Rxa8 19.Qg7+ Ke6 20.Re1+ Ne5
21.Nd4+ Kd6 22.Qxf6+, and Black resigned, 1-0, Skovgaard-Avdeeva, Serpukhov 2004.
(b) 5…Be6 6.g3 (6.Nf4 Nf6 7.Bb5+ Nc6 8.0-0 a6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Qe2 Qc8 11.Na4 Ra7
12.dxc5 Re7 13.Be3 and it is pretty clear that Black’s opening play has been a failure,
Maki-Keskinen, Jyvaskyla 1996) 6…Nc6 7.Bg2 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bb4 9.0-0 Nxd4 10.Qxd4
Bxc3 11.Qxc3 Nf6 12.Bg5 Rc8 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Qxf6 gxf6 15.c3 when Black’s messed-
up pawn structure provides White a clear positional advantage, Sirias Martinez-
Theerapappisit, Mallorca 2004.
(c) 5…c4 6.g3 Bb4 (or 6… Nf6 7.Bg2 Nc6 8.Bg5 Bb4 9.0-0 Bxc3 10.Nxc3 and White is
already much better, Gu-Zhang, Hefei 2010) 7.Bg2 Ne7 (7…Bg4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Ne7
10.Rb1 Qd7 11.Ba3 Nbc6 12.Re1 0-0-0 13.Qd2 h5 14.Nf4 and Black’s position is a few
small steps away from completely falling apart, Baumhus-Denk, Vienna 1991) 8.0-0 0-0
9.Nf4 (or 9.Bg5 Nbc6 10.Nxd5 Qa5 11.Nxb4 Qxg5 12.Nxc6 Nxc6 13.c3 when Black is
clearly in trouble, Ertl-Camerini, ICCF email 2004, but 9…f6 improves for Black,
although 10.Be3 Nbc6 11.Re1 Bg4 12.Qd2 is still somewhat better for White) 9…Bxc3
10.bxc3 Qa5 11.a4 Nbc6 12.Ba3 Bf5 13.Re1 Rfe8 14.Re3 with a large advantage for
White, Al Qudaimi-Darini, Muscat 2015.
(d) 5…Nc6 transposes to chapter 13.
6.g3
White has tried a few other ideas as well:
(a) 6.Bg5, and now:

(a1) 6…Nc6 7.Bxf6 gxf6 8.dxc5 d4 9.Ne4 f5 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.cxd6 Qxd6 12.Qd2 Be6
13.Nf4 0-0-0 14.Be2 d3 15.Bxd3 Qe5+ 16.Qe3 Qxb2 17.0-0 with better chances for
White, Pancevski-Dinev, Skopje 2007.
(a2) 6…Be7 7.dxc5 (or 7.Bxf6 Bxf6 8.dxc5 0-0 9.Qxd5 Qa5 10.0-0-0 Nc6 11.Qc4 Be6
12.Qb5 Qc7 13.Ne4 with a better game for White, Antoniewski-Torotto, Tatranske Zruby
2008) 7…0-0 8.Qd2 Be6 9.0-0-0 Nc6 10.Nf4 d4 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Qe1 e5 13.Bxf6 Bxf6
14.Bc4+ Kh8 15.Ne4 and White is completely in control, Rogovski-Zhornik, Simferopol
2003.
(a3) 6…Be6 7.Nf4 cxd4 (or 7…Nc6 8.Bb5 a6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.0-0 h6 11.Nxe6 fxe6
12.Be3 Be7 13.dxc5 when Black does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn,
Isaev-Polonsky, Moscow 2008) 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Bxf6 (9.Bb5 Be7 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.0-0-0
0-0 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Rhe1 Qd7 14.f3 Bd6 15.Bxf6 c5 16.Qg4 Rxf6 was played in
Gavrilov-Plich, Koszalin 1996, and now 17.Nxd5! Rg6 18.Qe4 would be clearly better for
White) 9…Qxf6 10.Qxf6 gxf6 11.Ncxd5 Bxd5 12.Nxd5 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 and Black has lost
a pawn without adequate compensation, Kron-Ginzburg, Itkutsk 2016.
(b) 6.Be3 cxd4 7.Bxd4 Be7 8.g3 0-0 9.Bg2 Nc6 10.0-0 Bg4 11.h3 Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Bxe2
13.Nxe2 Rc8 14.Nc3 (or 14.c3 Bc5 15.Qd3 Qb6, Hou Yifan-A.Muzychuk, Beijing 2014,
and now 16.b4 Bd6 17.Bxd5 Rfd8 18.Bg2 Bxb4 19.Qc2 Ba5 20.Rab1 Qc5 21.Rxb7 is
somewhat better for White) 14…Bc5 15.Qd3 d4 16.Ne2 Qb6 17.a3 Rfd8 18.Rfd1 with a
small plus for White, Spassky-Borik, Germany 1982.
6…Bg4
6…cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bb4 (7…Be7 8.Bg2 0-0 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Be3 Ng4 11.Nxd5 Nxe3 12.fxe3
Bc5 13.c3 Ne5 14.Qh5 with better chances for White, Comas Fabrego-Berkovich, La
Massana 2012) 8.Bg2 Qe7+ 9.Be3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Bg4 11.Qd3 Nbd7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Rfe1
Rfe8 14.h3 Nc5 15.Qf1 when White has some initiative, Moskalenko-Sveshnikov, Alushta
1994, now both 16…Bd7 and 16…Be6 should be met with 17.c4! with a pleasant game
for White.
7.Bg2 Nc6
A reasonable alternative for Black is 7…cxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qa4, and now:

(a) 9…Bc5 10.Nxd5 Bxe2 (10…0-0!?) 11.Nxf6+ Qxf6 and now instead of 12.Qe4+? Kf8
13.Qxe2 Re8 14.Be3 Bxe3 15.fxe3 Nd4 16.Qc4 Rxe3+ and White is completely busted,
Tseshkovsky-Gorelov, Aktjubinsk 1985, White should have played 12.Bxc6+ bxc6
13.Qe4+ Kd7 14.Qxe2 Rhe8 15.Be3 with a clear advantage.
(b) 9…Qd7 10.Bg5 Bb4? (10…Be7 is better although 11.0-0-0 is still problematic for
Black) 11.Bxf6 Bxe2 12.Kxe2 gxf6 13.Rhd1 0-0-0 14.Kf1 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Qf5 16.Rab1 and
Black is, in fact, losing; the threat is c3-c4, Lobron-Hector, Reykjavik 1984.
(c) 9…Bb4 10.0-0 0-0 (10…Qa5 11.Qxa5 Bxa5 12.h3 Bf5 13.Bg5 Ne4 14.Nxe4 Bxe4
15.c3 0-0 16.Be3 Rfd8 17.Rad1 Ne5 18.Nd4 Nc4 19.Bc1 Bb6 20.Rfe1 with a small plus
for White, Novitzkij-Balashov, St. Petersburg 2000) 11.Bg5 (or 11.Nf4 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Ne5
13.f3 Bd7 14.Qd4 Re8 15.Be3 Bb5 16.Rfe1 Bc4 17.a4 Qa5 18.Qd2 Nc6 and Black clearly
does not have any problems, Bryzgalin-Lugovoi, Moscow 1998) 11…d4 12.Bxf6 Qxf6
13.Nd5 Qd6 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Qxb4 Qxb4 16.Nxb4 a5 17.Nd5 Nxc2 18.Rac1 Nb4 was
played in Novitzkij-Kupreichik, Minsk 2003, and now White’s best continuation would
have been 19.Ne7+ Kh8 20.a3 Nd3 21.Rc7 Nxb2 22.Rb1 Nd3 23.Bxb7 Rad8 24.Nc6 with
a small plus on account of his active and better-placed pieces.
8.h3

8.Be3 c4 (8…cxd4 9.Bxd4 Nxd4?! 10.Qxd4 Rc8?! 11.Nxd5 Qa5+ 12.c3 Bxe2 13.Qe5+
Kd8 14.Qxe2 Nxd5 15.0-0-0 and White is completely winning, Iskov-Grooten,
Amsterdam 1982, but Black can easily improve with 9…Bd6) 9.h3 Bh5 10.0-0 Bb4
11.Bg5 Ne7 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qd2 Qd6 14.Nf4 Bg6 15.Nb5 Bxd2 16.Nxd6+ Kd7 17.Nxg6
hxg6 18.Nxb7 Rab8 19.Nc5+ and White is clearly better, Savage-Sprenkle, Chicago 1984.
8…Be6
Black has tried several other things at this juncture:
(a) 8…Bxe2 9.Nxe2 Be7 (9…Qb6 10.0-0 cxd4 11.c3 Bc5 12.cxd4 Bxd4 13.Nxd4 Qxd4
14.Qe2+ Ne4 15.Rd1 with a clear advantage for White, Misailovic-Kontic, Cetinje 1993)
10.0-0 0-0 11.Be3 c4 12.c3 h6 13.Qc2 b5 14.b3 Rc8 15.bxc4 bxc4 was played in
Reinderman-Yermolinsky, Wijk aan Zee 1999, and now 16.Nf4 would have left White
with the better game.
(b) 8…cxd4 9.hxg4 (or 9.Nxd5 Nxd5 10.hxg4 Bb4+ 11.Kf1 Nde7 12.Qd3 h6 13.Bf4 Bd6
14.Re1 Qc7 15.Nc3 Bxf4 16.Nd5 with clearly better chances for White, Teichmann-
Spielmann, Berlin 1914) 9…dxc3 10.Nxc3 d4 (also 10…Bb4 favors White: 11.0-0 Bxc3
12.bxc3 0-0 13.Rb1 Qa5 14.Rxb7 Qxa2 15.Rb3 Rad8 16.Bg5 Qa5 17.Bxf6 gxf6,
Lepelletier-Marciano, Toulouse 1995, and now 18.g5 f5 19.Qd3 f4 20.gxf4 would have
left White with a large advantage) 11.Qe2+ Be7 (11…Qe7 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 Qxe2+
14.Kxe2 Bc5 15.Rh5 Bb6 16.Bf4 g6 17.Rh2 Rc8 18.Rah1 is close to winning for White,
Sale-Hulak, Pula 1999) 12.g5 Nd7 13.Nd5 Kf8 14.Nxe7 Qxe7 15.Qxe7+ Kxe7 16.Bf4
with a clear advantage for White, Novitzkij-Litvinov, Minsk 2002.
(c) 8…Bh5, and here:

(c1) 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd5 Qa5+ 11.Bd2 Qd8 12.Ndf4 Bg6 13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.0-0 Qd7
15.Bf4 with a lead in development and a superior pawn structure for White, Shirazi-
Sprenkle, Pasadena 1983.
(c2) 9.g4 Bg6 10.Be3 (White can improve with 10.0-0 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Be7 12.Be3 0-0
13.Nde2 when he has positional advantage) 10…cxd4 11.Nxd4 Bb4 12.0-0 0-0 13.Nce2
Re8 14.Nf4 Bd6 15.Nxg6 hxg6 16.Re1 Be5 17.c3 Bxd4 18.cxd4 Qb6 with equal chances,
Smederevac-Velimirovic, Osijek 1978.
(c3) 9.Be3 cxd4 10.Bxd4 Bb4 11.0-0 0-0 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Nxd5 Qxb2 14.Rb1 Qa3
15.Rb3 Qa5 16.g4 Bg6 17.Nxb4 Nxb4 18.Qd2 with better chances for White. Botterill-
Adorjan, Canterbury 1973.
9.Be3
White can also play 9.Bg5, e.g., 9…h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Nxd5 Bxd5 12.Bxd5 0-0-0
13.Bxc6 Qxc6 14.0-0 and White is somewhat better, Troianescu-Kortschnoj, Bucharest
1954.
9…cxd4 10.Nxd4 Bb4 11.0-0 0-0 12.Nce2 Be7
Or 12…Rc8 13.Nf4 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 Bd6 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Qe2 with better pawn structure
and a small advantage for White.
13.c3 Na5 14.b3 Rc8 15.Rc1 Nc6 16.Nf4
With a small, but clear, positional advantage for White, Wittmann-Zoister, Graz 2005.
Summary:
This variation is not to be recommended for Black who does best by trying to transpose to
chapter 5, but will in any case only get inferior versions of the lines in that chapter. Unlike
when White plays the traditional Closed Sicilian move 3.g3 (instead of 3.Nge2 as covered
in this chapter), White is ready to play d2-d4 immediately and this is in his favor. The
variations in this chapter are not particularly sharp, except when Black slips up, giving
White the opportunity to punish him. Nevertheless, most lines offer White a pull.
Chapter 10

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nge2 e5

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nge2 e5

This variation is quite similar to the line covered in chapter 3, and there are indeed a
number of transpositions available. However, there are some unique lines as well and
those we will explore in this chapter. For general ideas for both sides, it can certainly not
harm you to familiarize yourself with chapter 3 before going through this chapter.
Furthermore, there may be opportunities for White to favourably transpose to chapter 3.
4.Nd5
As in chapter 3, this move deserves attention and we will consider it our main line.
There are some alternatives that we need to look at as well:
(a) 4.d3 Nf6 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Be7 7.0-0 Nd4 8.f4 Bd7 9.h3 b5 10.g4 b4 11.Nxd4 cxd4
12.Ne2 0-0 13.Ng3 Rc8
This is a type of position where I quite possibly would be unhappy to play as Black, on
account of the kingside attack options for White and the possibility of a2-a3 on the
queenside. Yet in the only game I could find in my database, Black proved to be okay:
14.Nf5 Bxf5 (Or 14…a5 15.a3 bxa3 16.b3 Bxf5 17.exf5 exf4 18.Bxa3 (18.Rxa3 d5
19.Ra2 can also be considered) 18…d5 19.Bb2 h6 20.Rxf4 Bc5 which my computer calls
equal, but I would rather play White) 15.exf5!? (on the other hand, 15.gxf5?! Rc6 16.a3
Qc7 17.Rf2 bxa3 18.b3 Rc8 19.Bxa3 and now not 19…Rxc2?! 20.Qxc2 Qxc2 21.Rxc2
Rxc2 22.fxe5 which is obviously better for White, but the patient 19…h6 intending …Nh7
and …Bf6 when it is difficult for White to think of something constructive to do) 15…
Nd7 16.a3 bxa3 17.Rxa3 a5 18.g5 Rc5 (Black should also consider 18…exf4 19.h4 d5
20.Ra1 Bd6 which seems like an improvement over what follows) 19.Qg4 Re8?! (19…f6)
20.f6 Bf8 21.Be4 (21.fxe5 dxe5?? (21…g6 22.e6 Rxe6 23.Qxd4) 22.fxg7 Bxg7 23.c4
dxc3 24.bxc3 and Black is in serious trouble) 21…exf4 22.Bxf4 (22.b4!? axb4 23.Ra8
Nb8 24.Bxf4 g6 25.Rfa1 Rxc2 26.Bd5 Qc7 27.Qg3 looks very uncomfortable for Black,
but computer calls it only marginally better for White. Nevertheless, precision seems more
required by Black than by White.) 22…g6 23.Rf2 Ne5 24.Qd1 d5 25.Bg2 Rc6 26.Ra1
Rce6 and here a draw was agreed upon, ½-½, in Kindermann-Gruenfeld, Munich 1987,
although after 27.h4 Nc6 28.Qf3 Nb4 29.h5 the better chances seem to be with White.
(b) 4.Ng3 is an ugly move, knights do not belong on g3, but the idea is of course to grab
onto the light squares around Black’s dark-square pawn chain. After 4…Be6 (Black could
perhaps be tempted to play 4…g6 but then 5.Bc4 Bg7 6.h4 h5 7.d3 looks reasonably
promising for White) 5.Bb5+ Nd7 6.d3 Be7 7.0-0 Ngf6 8.Nce2 0-0 9.f4 a6 10.Bxd7 (In
the light of what follows, then 10.Bc4!? must be considered, although this can hardly be
considered critical for Black) 10…Bxd7 11.fxe5 dxe5 12.Nc3 Be6 (Here Black should
have played 12…c4! 13.Nf5 [13.dxc4?! Bc5+ 14.Kh1 Ng4 is better for Black] 13…Bxf5
14.Rxf5 Qd4+ 15.Kh1 Rad8 and Black has taken charge for the game) 13.Nf5 Ne8 (Black
could once more consider 13…c4!?, e.g., 14.Bg5 Bxf5 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Rxf5 g6 17.Rf3
cxd3 18.cxd3 Qb6+ 19.Kh1 Bg7 and the chances are about even) 14.Qg4 Bf6 15.Be3 b6
16.Qg3 and here White has taken control of the initiative, Kritz-Froehlich, Budapest 2000.
(c) 4.f4 Nc6 5.d3 g6 6.Be3 (6.g3 h5 7.Bg2 h4 8.Be3 Nd4 9.Bxd4 cxd4 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.c3
Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.cxd4 exd4 14.0-0 hxg3 15.hxg3 Bg4 offers no particular problems
for Black, nor is White in particularly bad shape, Cetkovic-Lapcevic, Belgrade 2008) 6…
Nd4 7.Nd5, and now:
(c1) 7…Nf6 8.Nxf6+ (8.Nec3 Be6 9.fxe5 Ng4! is fine for Black) 8…Qxf6 9.c3 Nxe2
10.fxe5 dxe5 (10…Qh4+ 11.Bf2 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Qf4 13.Bg3 Qe3+ 14.Be2 looks preferable
for White, but is likely about equal) 11.Bxe2 Be7 is about even.
(c2) 7…Ne7?? should of course be avoided because of 8.Nf6#.
(c3) 7…Bg7 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.c3 Ne6 10.g3 Ne7 11.Bg2 0-0 12.0-0 Nc6 13.Qd2 b6 14.Rf2 f6
15.Raf1 Rf7 16.Bh6 Bh8 17.h4 and White is clearly the player with the better chances,
Timofeev-Lysenko, Kaluga 2003.
(d) 4.g3 will either transposes to 4.d3 above or chapter 15, covering the Closed Sicilian
transpositions.
4…Ne7 5.Nec3 Nxd5
5…Nbc6 6.d3 (6.Bc4 transposes to the main lines in chapter 3) 6…Nxd5 7.Nxd5 Be7 8.g3
0-0 9.Bg2 Be6 10.0-0 Qd7 11.f4 Bg4 with chances to both sides in Mieses-Bogoljubow,
Bad Kissingen 1928.
6.Nxd5 Be7
6…Be6 7.Bc4 Nc6 8.d3 (8.0-0 Be7 transposes to chapter 3) 8…a6 (the immediate will
typically transpose to our main line; after 8…Be7 9.0-0 transposes to chapter 3) 9.a4 Be7
10.0-0 0-0 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 Rb8 13.Ne3 Bf6 14.c3 Be5 15.Qe2 Qd7 16.Bd5 Bxd5
17.Nxd5 Ne7 18.Nb6 Qe6 19.a5 with some pressure for White, Lobron-Pribyl, Germany
1990.
7.b4!?
This is an interesting idea by Tiviakov, taking the game in an entirely new direction.
The normal continuation is of course 7.Bc4 0-0 8.0-0 Bg5 9.a3 (or 9.d3 Bxc1 10.Rxc1
Nc6 11.c3 Be6 12.Qh5 Ne7 13.Ne3 Qd7 14.Rcd1 b5 15.Bxe6 Qxe6 16.d4 cxd4 17.cxd4
with marginally better chances for White who eventually won the game, Lobron-
Gruenfeld, Dortmund 1984) 9…Be6 10.b4 Nd7 11.d3 Bxc1 12.Qxc1 a6 13.bxc5 Nxc5
14.a4 Rc8 15.Qe3 Nxa4 16.Rxa4 b5 17.Rxa6 bxc4 18.Nb4 (or 18.Rb1 Bxd5 19.exd5 cxd3
20.Qxd3 Qe7 21.c4 with at best a tiny initiative for White in the heavy-piece ending) 18…
cxd3 19.cxd3 Qd7 20.h3 Rc5 21.Rfa1 h6 22.Rb6 Qc7 23.Raa6 Rb8 24.Rc6 Qb7 25.Nd5
Bxd5 26.exd5 Rxd5 27.Rab6 and draw agreed, ½-½, in Tseshkovsky-Dvoirys, Aktjubinsk
1985.
7…0-0
After 7…cxb4 8.a3 (8.Nxb4 0-0 is not anything for White) 8…bxa3 9.Bxa3, White
appears to have excellent compensation for the sacrificed pawn, e.g., 9…0-0 10.Bc4 Nc6
11.0-0 a6 12.Qe2 b5 13.Ba2 Rb8 14.c3 with an interesting position.
8.bxc5 dxc5 9.Bc4 Nc6 10.0-0 Be6 11.d3 Rb8 12.a4 Bg5

13.Bb2
White could consider 13.Qh5 Bxc1 14.Rfxc1 Qd6 15.c3 with a position that appears quite
pleasant for White.
13…Nd4 14.Ne3 Bxe3 15.fxe3 Nc6 16.Bb5
16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.Qg4 Qd6 is fine for Black.
16…Qg5 17.Qe2 Rbc8 18.a5 Ne7 19.h4 Qxh4 20.Bxe5 Ng6 21.Bh2 c4 22.Rab1 Qd8?!
22…Rfd8!? 23.a6 cxd3 24.cxd3 b6 is fully playable for Black, although White still
appears to have the upper hand.
23.a6! cxd3 24.cxd3 bxa6 25.Bxa6 And although he managed to lose the game in the end,
White at this point had a clear advantage, Tiviakov-Idani, Rasht 2012.
Summary:
The key difference between the lines in this chapter and those in chapter 3 is that Black
waits to develop his knight to c6. It usually will end up on c6 sooner or later anyway, but
by keeping it in reserve, Black takes the play in a slightly different direction. It is a very
minor line in the overall picture of things, and as we can see from the the main line, White
dictates the play and has decent chances to obtain a small advantage.
Chapter 11

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 4.d4 d5

This chapter is the first of what I refer to as the hybrid chapters, the ones where White
invites to take the game into an Open Sicilian. The difference between this chapter and the
three that follows it, is that Black here, for some reason, decide against going for the Open
Sicilian.
We will look at two specific lines where White invites Black to enter the Open Sicilian but
where Black seems insistent on wanting to try to punish White for his indiscretion of
playing 3.Nge2. The results on this endeavor on Blacks part are certainly mixed, with a
downward pointing trend, because it is Black who will be fighting to equalize.
Nevertheless, the resulting lines are interesting and rarely covered in any existing
literature:
(A) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 4.d4 d5
(B) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.d4 d5?!
Before we switch to the main lines, there are two minor options that deserve a look:
(a) 5.Be3 cxd4 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.exd5 exd5 8.Be2 h6 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Qd2 0-0 11.Rad1 with a
tiny edge for White like in a Tarrasch Variation in the French Defense (3.Nd2 c5) in
Lehtinen-Helin, Helsinki 1999.
(b) 5.g3 dxe4 6.Be3 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 (holding on to the pawn is also possible, e.g., 7…
f5 8.Bb5 Bd7 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qe2 Nf6 11.0-0-0 Qe7 would have left White with adequate
compensation after 12.Qc4, Lipski-Radev, Lublin 1977) 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 9.Bxd4 Bd7 10.0-
0-0 a6 11.Bg2 f5 12.f3 exf3 13.Bxf3 0-0-0 14.Bb6 Re8 as played in Velimirovic-
Taimanov, Vinkovci 1970, and now 15.Rd3 Nf6 16.Rhd1 Rg8 (16… e5 17.Nd5 is pleasant
for White) 17.Na4 Be7 (now of course not 17…Bxa4?? 18.Rd8+ Rxd8 19.Rxd8#)
18.Rc3+ Kb8 19.Bc7+ Ka7 (or 19…Ka8?? 20.Nb6+ Ka7 21.Nxd7 Nxd7 22.Rxd7 and
White wins) 20.Bb6+ with a draw by perpetual check.
5…exd5
With the following variations:
(A1) 6.dxc5
(A2) 6.Be3
Furthermore:
(a) 6.g3 transposes to chapter 6.
(b) 6.Bf4 Be6 7.Be3 (7.Qd2 Nf6 8.0-0-0 Qa5 9.Kb1?! b5 10.Nc1 c4 was already clearly
better for Black in Strugnell-Belkhodja, Malakoff 2006) 7…Nh6!? (Black willingly allows
his kingside pawn structure to be as messed up as in an Advance Variation of the French,
well knowing that he intends to castle queenside. Instead 7…Nge7 is also worth a thought,
e.g., 8.g3 (8.dxc5 Nf5 is simply better for Black) 8…Nf5 9.Bg2 Be7 10.dxc5 Nxe3
11.fxe3 Bxc5 12.Nxd5 Bxd5 13.Qxd5 Qxd5 14.Bxd5 Bxe3 and Black has a pleasant
position) 8.Bxh6 gxh6 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Nf4 Qf6 11.Nd3 Bb6 12.Be2 Rg8 13.0-0 0-0-0
14.Kh1 was played in Suetin-Nicevski, Polanica Zdroj 1974, and now 14…Kb8 would
have left Black with a comfortable position.
(A1) 6.dxc5 d4
Black can also go for something that resembles a gambit approach and play 6…Bxc5, and
now:
(a) 7.Nxd5 Nf6 8.Nec3 (8.Nef4 0-0 9.Be3 Re8 10.Bc4 Ng4 [Black can also try 10…Bd4
11.0-0 Bxb2 12.Rb1 Be5 or 10…Bg4 11.Nxf6+ Qxf6 12.Qxg4 Ne5 in both cases he
should be no worse] 11.0-0 Qh4 12.h3 Nxe3 13.fxe3 Rxe3 14.Nxe3 Bxe3+ 15.Kh1 Bxf4
16.Qe1 Qxe1 17.Raxe1 g5, and Black is doing fine, Karen-Mirabile, Nassau 1999) 8…
Ng4 9.Ne4 Bd4 10.Ne3 Nxe3 11.Bxe3 was Korneev, O.-Roeder, Krumbach 1991, when
11…0-0 12.Bxd4 Nxd4 13.Bd3 f5 14.Bc4+ Kh8 15.c3 Re8 16.0-0 Rxe4 17.cxd4 Rxd4
18.Qb3 Bd7 19.Rfd1 Bc6 is no more than superficially better for White.
(b) 7.Qxd5 Qe7 8.Be3 Bxe3 9.fxe3 Nf6 10.Qg5 0-0 11.0-0-0, Kozlicek-Berezjuk,
Hlohovec 1994, and here the simplest continuation for Black is 11…Re8 12.e4 h6 13.Qf4
Nxe4 14.Nxe4 Qxe4 15.Qxe4 Rxe4 16.Nc3 Re5 with equal chances.
Another try is 6…Nf6 7.Be3 (or 7.Bg5 Bxc5 8.g3? [8.Qd2 h6 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.0-0-0 Qxf2
11.Nxd5 0-0 is also better for Black] 8…Bxf2+ 9.Kxf2 Ng4+ 10.Kg1 Qxg5 11.Nxd5 0-0
12.Nef4 Be6, and White is clearly in severe trouble, Maggiori-Benedetti, Mar del Plata
2016) 7…Be7 (7…Bg4?! 8.h3 Bxe2 9.Qxe2 Be7 10.0-0-0 0-0 11.Qb5 is simply better for
White, Tischbierek-Cvitan, Warsaw 1990) 8.h3 0-0 9.g4 Ne5 10.Bg2 Nc4 11.Qd4 Qa5
12.0-0-0 Be6 13.g5? Qb4! 14.Nb1 Bxc5!, and White is in severe trouble, Fusco-Cubas,
Santos 2011.
7.Ne4 Nf6

We once more have a couple of alternatives to consider:

(a) 7…Qd5 8.N2g3 (8.Nd6+ Bxd6 9.cxd6 Bg4?! [9…Nf6!? improves: 10.c3 Qe6 11.cxd4
0-0 12.Be3 Qxd6 and Black has no problems at all] 10.f3 Bf5 11.c3 d3 12.Nf4 Qxd6
13.Bxd3 leaves Black with insufficient compensation for the pawn, Pachman-Letelier
Martner, Santiago de Chile 1959) 8…h5 (8…Bxc5 9.Nxc5 Qxc5 10.Bd3 Nf6 11.0-0 0-0
12.Re1 was Yurtaev-Kiselev, Frunze 1988, and here White would have the clearly better
chances after 12…Bd7 13.b3 Rfe8 14.Bb2 or 8…f5 9.Nd6+ Bxd6 10.cxd6 Qxd6 11.Bd3
Nge7 12.Qh5+ g6 13.Qh6 Be6 14.0-0 0-0-0 15.Re1 and once more White is better, Serper-
Neverov, Uzhgorod 1987) 9.Bd3 h4 10.Qf3 Be6 11.Nf5 Kd7 12.Ng5 Qxf3 13.Nxf3 h3
14.N5xd4 hxg2 15.Rg1 Bd5 16.Bf5+ (White could have claimed the better chances after
16.c4 Nxd4 17.Nxd4 Bxc5 18.cxd5 Bxd4 19.Rxg2) 16…Ke8 17.Bf4 Bxc5 18.0-0-0 Nge7
and the chances are about evenly divided, Tischbierek- Belkhodja, Germany 2006.
(b) 7…Bxc5 8.Nxc5 Qa5+ 9.c3 Qxc5 (9…dxc3? is best refuted by 10.b4! Nxb4 11.Nb3
Qe5, and now instead of 12.Bf4?? which after (White would have been close to winning
with 12.Be3 Bf5 13.Ned4 Rd8 14.Bb5+ Bd7 15.Bxd7+ Rxd7 16.0-0 when Black is simply
a piece down) 12…Qe4 13.Qd6, V.Fedoseev-Urjubdshzirov, Peterhof 2008, should have
lost to 13…Nd3+ 14.Kd1 Nxf2+ 15.Kc1 Bf5) 10.Nxd4 Nxd4, Homut-Heidrich, German
Ch (Dudweiler) 1996, and now 11.Be3 Nf6 12.Qxd4 Qxd4 13.Bxd4 would have left
White a clear pawn up without the shadow of compensation for Black.
8.Bg5 Qa5+
The alternatives are more problematic for Black:
(a) 8…Bg4? 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Qd2 f5 11.Nd6+ Bxd6 12.cxd6 Qxd6 13.f3 Bh5 14.Nf4 and
White is clearly better, the bishop on h5 is not having the time of its life, Reinderman-
Berkvens, Germany 2003.
(b) 8…Be7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Nd6+ (10.N2g3 Be7 11.Bc4 0-0 12.0-0 Na5 13.Bd3 f5 14.Nd6
Bxd6 15.cxd6 Qxd6 16.Qh5 g6 17.Qg5 Qf6 18.Qxf6 Rxf6 with a playable position for
Black, Jurkovic-Ljubicic, Opatija 2003) 10…Kf8 11.Qd2 b6 12.Ng3 (12.Ne4 bxc5
13.Nxc5 Rb8 14.Nd3 g6 15.Nef4 Kg7 16.Be2 Qd6 17.0-0 was seen in Kuijf, M.-Kveinys,
Germany 1994, and here 17…Ne5 18.b3 Re8 19.Rfe1 Bb7 would have left Black with
more than adequate compensation for the pawn) 12…bxc5 13.Nge4 Qe7 14.Bb5 Bd7
15.0-0 Be5 16.Nc4 Bxh2+ 17.Kxh2 Qxe4 18.Qg5 as played in Kuijf-Renet, Lyon 1990,
and here Black should probably have given preference to 18…Qe7 19.Qg3 Qf6 although
White clearly is the side holding the initiative after 20.Rfe1.
(c) 8…Bxc5 is possible, for instance, 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nxc5 Qa5+ 11.Qd2 Qxc5 when
Black has won the pawn back with a decidedly scrappy pawn structure, but yet it may be
playable 12.0-0-0 Bf5 13.Ng3 Be6 14.Ne4 Qe5 15.Bd3 0-0-0 16.Rhe1 f5 and Black,
despite his horrible pawn structure, has decent play through his active pieces.
9.Bd2 Qd8 10.N2g3
With 10.Bg5 White can repeat moves if he so desires.
10…Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Qd5

11…Bf5? is mistaken: 12.Bd3 Qd5 13.Qf3 Be6 14.0-0 Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Qxc5 16.Rfe1 0-0-0
17.b4 Qd6 was played in Reinderman-Har Zvi, Oakham 1992, and here 18.Be4 would
have left White with a near-winning position.
12.Qf3 Be6 13.Nd6+ Bxd6 14.Qxd5 Bxd5 15.cxd6 0-0-0 16.Bf4 Rhe8+ 17.Kd2 Ne5
18.Re1
18.Bb5 Re6 19.Rhe1 f6 20.Bd3 g6 21.Bxe5 fxe5 22.Be4 Bxe4 23.Rxe4 Rf8 24.f3 Kd7
25.Rae1 Kxd6 is completely even, Knoppert-Janssen, Leuven 2002.
18…f6 19.Bb5 Re6 20.d7+ Kc7 21.f3 Kb6 22.Ba4 Kc5 23.c3 dxc3+ 24.Kxc3 b5
25.Be3+ Kc6 26.Bc2 a5 and Black has nearly equalized, Smirin- Xu Jun, Beijing 1996.
(A2) 6.Be3
Here we are already at another fork in the road:
(A21) 6…c4
(A22) 6…cxd4
(A21) 6…c4
Black radically changes the nature of the game by closing the center and settling himself
with a d5-pawn that will be a target for White’s pieces. On the other hand, Black lays
claim to some extra space and hopes to be able to contain White and then apply pressure
on either wing
7.g3

A much rarer but not entirely terrible idea is 7.Nf4, intending to develop the light-square
bishop on e2 instead of on g2 as in our main line. It has only seen in one outing, but the
resulting position looks like it may be worth another try: 7…Bb4 8.Be2 Nge7 9.0-0 0-0
10.Bf3 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Bf5 12.Rb1 Qd7 13.Re1 b6 14.Bc1 Rfe8 15.Ba3 h6 16.h3 (16.Re3!
intending to stack all the heavy pieces on the e-file looks very unpleasant for Black) 16…
Rad8 17.Qd2 (once more 17.Re3!? can be considered) 17…Ng6 18.Nxg6 Bxg6, and
Black has completely equalized, Zubarev-Moiseenko, Zharkov 2001.
7…Bb4
Black intends to tie White down, typically responding …Bxc3 when White plays Nf4 to
help alleviate the pressure against Black’s d5-pawn.
However, he has some interesting alternatives at this point:
(a) 7…Nf6 8.Bg2 Be6 9.0-0 Be7 10.Re1 0-0 11.a3 h6 12.Nf4 Qd7 13.Qd2 Rae8 14.Nxe6
fxe6 15.f4 Bd8 was about equal in Kaufmann-Spielmann, Vienna 1914.
(b) 7…Bg4 8.Bg2 Bb4, and now:
(b1) 9.f3 Be6 10.0-0 Nge7 11.Bf2 0-0 12.a3 Bd6 13.Qd2 Qd7 14.Nf4 Bxf4 15.Qxf4 Bh3
16.Bxh3 Qxh3 17.Rfe1 Qf5 18.Qxf5 Nxf5 19.Rad1 Rad8 20.g4 Nfe7 21.Bh4 and White
has at best a tiny edge, but objectively speaking it is pretty equal, Marholev-Szmetan,
Binissalem 2004.
(b2) 9.h3 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 Nge7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Qh5 Bxc3 13.bxc3 Qa5 and draw agreed in
Livshits-Barenboim, Israel 2002 does not tell us much. Despite the bishop pair for White,
things are pretty equal at this point.
(b3) 9.0-0 Bxc3 10.bxc3 Qd7 11.Re1 h5 12.h4 0-0-0 13.Qc1 Re8 14.Nf4 Nf6 15.Rb1 Bf5
16.Rb5 Be4 17.Bh3 with another early draw, Gibney-Makarov, ICCF corr 2002, although
in this position I will prefer the changes for White, even if the position objectively is no
more than a nudge better for White. It seems easier for White to find a way forward.
8.Bg2 Nge7
A key alternative for Black is 8…h6, and now:
(a) 9.0-0 Nf6 10.a3 (or 10.Nf4 Bg4 11.Qb1 Ne7 12.h3 Bf5 13.a3 Ba5 14.b4 Bc7 15.Qd1
Qd7 16.Nh5 Nxh5 17.Qxh5 Rd8 18.Rfe1 0-0? (18…Be6 19.Ne2 0-0 is fine for Black)
19.Bxh6! Bg6 20.Qe2 Rfe8 21.Bg5 and White has just won a pawn for nothing, Espig-
Hernandez Onna, Varna 1976) 10…Bxc3 11.Nxc3 0-0 12.Qd2 (12.Re1 Bf5 13.f3 Re8
14.Qd2 Qd7 15.b3 Na5 16.Nd1 b6 17.b4 c3 18.Nxc3 Nc4 19.Qf2 Nxe3 20.Rxe3 Rxe3
21.Qxe3 Bxc2 was about equal in Purtov-Vrublevskaya, St. Petersburg 2005) 12…Bf5
13.Rfe1 Ne4 14.Nxe4 Bxe4 15.f3 Bf5 16.Bf2 Qd7 17.b3 Bh3 18.Bxh3 Qxh3 19.bxc4
dxc4 was played in Welling-Sulskis, Port Erin 2002, and now 20.d5! Rfd8 21.Rad1 would
have promised White the clearly better chances.
(b) 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.Nxc3 Nf6 11.Qd2 0-0 12.0-0-0 Bf5 13.Rhg1 Re8 14.g4 Ne4 15.Bxe4
Bxe4 16.Qe2 Qh4, Hacker-Baumbach, email 2007, and now 17.f3 Bg6 18.Qf2 Qxf2
19.Bxf2 would have offered White the tiniest of edges.
9.0-0
9.a3 Ba5 10.b4 cxb3 11.cxb3 0-0 12.b4 Bb6 13.Nf4 Be6 14.0-0 Qd7 15.Na4 Nf5 16.Nc5
Bxc5 17.bxc5 Na5 18.Rb1 with better chances for White, G.Horvath-Vaulin, Zalakaros
1992.
9…0-0
An interesting line for the understanding of this particular variation is 9…Bg4. Now 10.h3
Bh5 11.a3 Ba5 12.Qd2 f6 13.Nf4 Bf7 14.b4 Bc7 15.Rfe1 g5 16.Nfe2 Qd7

Here we have a couple of moves to look at:

(a) 17.Rab1 Be6 18.Nb5 (or 18.b5 Nd8 19.f4 (19.h4 h6 20.Na2 is also possible) 19…Bxh3
20.fxg5 Bxg2 21.Kxg2 0-0 22.Bf4 and White has the initiative) 18…Bb8 was played in
Berzinsh-Kveinys, Riga 1995, and now 19.Nbc3 h6 20.b5 Nd8 21.h4 Bc7 22.Na4 offers
White the marginally-better chances.
(b) 17.h4 h6 (it could seem like White is inviting Black to open up White’s kingside with
17…gxh4, but that move actually allows White to get his pieces onto more active squares
and generate a genuine initiative after 18.Bf4 hxg3 19.fxg3 Bb6 20.Na4 0-0 21.b5 Nd8
22.Nxb6 axb6 23.Bh6 Re8 24.Rf1 Nf5 25.Nc3) 18.Rab1 0-0-0 19.b5 Na5 20.Na4 b6
21.Nc5 Qf5 22.Na6 Bd6 23.Nb4 with chances to both sides.
10.a3 Ba5 11.b4 cxb3 12.cxb3

12…Bg4
This plan employed by Black does not make a lot of sense, intending to hand over the
bishop pair for no apparent reason but clearly, he was at a loss for a decent plan.
Another attempt for Black is 12…Bxc3 13.Nxc3 Be6 14.b4 Rc8 15.Qb3 h6 16.Rfd1 Nb8
17.a4 a5 18.Rac1 Bg4 19.Re1 Be6 20.Red1 (here 20.b5! Rc4 21.Ne2 Nd7 22.Nf4
improves for White, offering her something like a clear advantage) 20…axb4 21.Qxb4 b6
22.Nb5 Nbc6 23.Qa3 and White is only somewhat better, Vasilevich-Munguntuul,
Shenzhen 2011.
13.b4 Bb6 14.Qd3 Bxe2 15.Nxe2 a6 16.Rad1 Qd6 17.Nc3 Rfd8 18.Na4 Ba7 19.Nc5
Qc7 20.Rfe1 a5 21.Bf4 and White is entirely winning, Ekstroem-Preissmann, Switzerland
1988.
(A22) 6…cxd4 7.Nxd4 Nf6
Black focuses on getting the pieces developed to natural squares.
7…Bb4 and now:
(a) 8.Be2 Nge7 9.0-0 Bxc3 10.bxc3 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 0-0 12.Rb1 b6 13.c4 Ba6 (13…Bf5
14.Bb2 dxc4 15.Bxc4 Qxd1 16.Rbxd1 Rfc8) 14.cxd5 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Nxd5 16.Bxg7 Kxg7
was played in Nadyrhanov-Maiorov, Krasnodar 1998, and now 17.Qe5+ f6 18.Qg3+ Kh8
19.Rbd1 would have promised White the better chances.
(b) 8.Bb5 Nge7 (8…Bd7 9.0-0 Bxc3 10.bxc3 Nf6 11.Bg5 0-0 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.Qf3 Qd6
14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Qxf6 gxf6 is at best marginally better for White, Raaste-Keskinen,
Jyvaskyla 1996) 9.0-0 Bxc3 (9…0-0 10.Nce2 Bg4 11.f3 Be6 12.f4 Nf5 13.Nxf5 Bxf5
14.Ng3 Be4 15.Bxc6 bxc6 is more or less equal, Schroeder-Andersen, J., Hamburg 1985)
10.bxc3 0-0 11.Qh5 Qa5 12.Bd3 g6 13.Qh4 Qxc3 14.Nb5 Qh8 15.Nc7 Rb8 16.Bh6 and
Black does not appear to be in very good shape, Gonzalez, J.-Vila Dupla, Spain 1998.
(c) 8.Nxc6!? Bxc3+ (8…bxc6 9.Qd4 Bf8 [9…Be7 10.Qxg7 Bf6 11.Qg3 d4?? 12.0-0-0
Qb6 13.Ne4 Be6 14.Nxf6+ Nxf6 15.Bxd4, and Black resigned in Ciolac-Aglietti, Bernate
1999] 10.0-0-0 Nf6 11.Qa4 Qd6 12.Be2 Be7?? (12…Bd7 13.g4 Qb4 14.g5 Qxa4 15.Nxa4
Ne4 16.f3 Nd6 17.Rhe1 would only have been somewhat better for White) 13.Nxd5 Nxd5
14.Rxd5 Qe6 15.Re5 and Black is completely busted, Gibney-Basanta, Vancouver 2000)
9.bxc3 bxc6 10.Bd3 Nf6 11.Bc5 Be6 12.Qe2 Nd7 13.Bd6 Nb6 14.Qe5 Qf6 15.Qxf6 gxf6
16.0-0Na4 17.Rfb1 Nxc3 18.Rb7 Nb5 19.Be7 and White has a very clear advantage, yet
somehow Black managed to save the draw against the former World Champion, Spassky-
Polugaevsky, Bugojno 1982.
8.Bb5

A key alternative is 8.Be2, and now:

(a) 8…Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bf4 (10.h3!?) 10…Qb6 11.Be3 (11.Ndb5 Be6 12.Be3 Qd8
13.Nd4 Rc8 is about equal) 11…Qxb2 12.Ndb5 Bf5 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Qxd5 Qxc2 with a
comfortable game for Black in Collutiis-Fercec, Nereto 2002.
(b) 8…Bd6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qd2 Re8 11.Rfe1 a6 12.Bf4 Bc5 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bd3 Be6
15.Na4 Ba7 16.Qc3 Ng4 17.Bg3 h5 and here Black has grabbed the initiative, Afek-
Stocek, Budapest 1997.
(c) 8…Bb4 9.0-0 0-0 10.Na4 (10.Bg5 Bxc3 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.bxc3 h6 13.Bxf6 Qxf6
14.Qd4 Qxd4 15.cxd4 Bf5 and Black obviously has nothing to worry about, Krapivin-
Shariyazdanov, Perm 1997) 10…Ne5 11.Nf3 Nc4 12.Bd4 b5 13.b3 Nd6 14.Nc3 a6
15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Nxd5 and White is completely in charge, Nadj Hedjesi-Martorelli,
Salerno 2012.
8…Bd7 9.0-0
9.Nb3 a6 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 11.Qe2 Ne4 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Rd1 Qc7 14.Qg4 Bd6 15.Nd4 Be5
16.Nxc6 Qxc6 17.c3 0-0 was seen in Roos-Grivas, Athens 1983, and with 18.Qd7 f5 19.0-
0, White could have maintained a tiny initiative.
9…a6
Black is also doing fine after 9…Be7 10.Nb3 Be6 11.Nd4 Qd6 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.g4 0-
014.g5 Ne8 15.f4 g6 16.Na4 Ng7 with a position I would rather play as Black, Kontic-
Moldovan, Sozina 2004.
10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.Nb3 Bd6 12.Bc5
White is playing for domination on the dark squares and, although not a bad idea, Black
obtains sufficient counterplay.
12…Bxc5 13.Nxc5 0-014.Re1 Bf5 15.N3a4 Qd6 16.h3 a5 17.c3 h6 18.Qd4 was played
in Kadric-Indjic, Kragujevac 2013, and now 18…Rae8 19.Rac1 Bg6 would have promised
Black about equal chances.
(B) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.d4 d5?!

This move, while a charming diversion from the standard lines, is not very good. In the
best-case scenario, Black is simply a pawn down with inadequate compensation. Black
should have accepted the standard return to the Open Sicilian main lines.
5.exd5 Nxd5 6.dxc5 Ndb4?
(a) 6…e6 7.Nxd5 exd5 8.Be3 Be7 (8…Bg4 is simply met with 9.c3 Be7 10.Qa4 Qd7
11.h3 Bf5 12.Rd1 0-0 13.Nf4 and it is clear that Black has no adequate compensation for
the pawn) 9.g3 0-0 10.Bg2 Be6 11.c3 Qd7 and for some reason a draw was here agreed,
½-½, in Todor-Cvicela, Slovakia 2007, even though White is simply a pawn up.
(b) 6…Nxc3 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Nxc3 Nd4 (After 8…Nb4 9.Bd3 Nxd3+ 10.cxd3 e5 11.Be3
Bf5 12.d4 exd4 13.Bxd4 White is simply a pawn up, Pijpers-Tromp, Dieren 2013) 9.Bd3
e5 10.Be3 Bxc5 11.0-0-0 Kc7 was seen in Messing-Bjelajac, Zagreb 1977, and here
instead of the reasonable 12 b4 as played in the game, White should have played the direct
12.Rhe1 Be6 13.f4 and White is clearly better as Black is struggling to get his pieces
developed and king safely tucked away.
7.a3
White achieves less with 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Kd1 and here a draw was agreed, ½-½, in
Ksieski-Bogdanovich, Leutersdorf 2009 which tells us nothing. But Black is fine after 8…
Bf5 9.a3 Nxc2 10.Ra2 Ke8 11.g4 Rd8+ 12.Bd2 Bg6 with chances to both sides.
7…Bf5?
This is wildly optimistic and completely unwarranted. Black can limit White’s advantage
with 7…Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Na6 9.b4 Nc7 10.Bb2 but he has simply lost a pawn without any
relevant compensation.
8.axb4 Nxb4

9.Nf4!
In another game in this variation, White tried 9.Ng3 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 Bxc2+ 11.Ke1 0-0-0
12.Rxa7 Kb8 13.Ra5 and was completely winning, yet Black somehow swindled his way
to a full point against his much lower-rated opponent, Tairova-Andreikin, Serpukhov
2003.
9…Qxd1+
Or 9…Nxc2+ 10.Qxc2! Bxc2 11.Bb5+ and White easily wins.
10.Kxd1 0-0-0+
10…Bxc2+ 11.Ke1 0-0-0 12.Rxa7 Kb8 13.Ra5 is similar to Tairova-Andreikin above.
11.Nd3! e5 12.Bd2!
Not the most accurate according to my computer but it shuts down all counterplay for
Black and therefore essentially ends the game.
12…Nxd3 13.Bxd3 Bxd3 14.cxd3 Bxc5
and here Black resigned at the same time; continuing a piece down without compensation
against a strong grandmaster usually makes no sense, 1-0. Sax-Palac, Vinkovci 1993
Summary:
This chapter is the first of our hybrid chapters, those where White takes the game from a
Chameleon into an Open Sicilian. However, in the lines in this chapter, Black doesn’t
capture on d4 right away. Black has decent chances to equalize in (A).
White’s best bet for an advantage is (B2), but even here White has good chances for an
edge even if the overall verdict is quite close to equal. As for (B), Black manages to dig
himself a hole without any prodding from White. No need to stop that trend!
Chapter 12

Transpositions to the Open Dragon

The transpositions to the Open Sicilian Dragon are particularly important because there
are so many of these opportunities. Also, if White wants to avoid the less-sharp Closed
Sicilian with Nge2, then White will often have to head into the Dragon.
Below we will look at the most important ways White can enter the Dragon, there are
several and the nuances are not unimportant. In nearly all the lines, Black will be able to
equalize or get very close it, particularly in ‘D’ which is typically the line that most
Dragon players will be familiar with.
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3
And now the most important lines are:
(A) 2…Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Nde2 Nf6 7.g3
(B) 2…d6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 g6 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Nde2
(C) 2…Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 d6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 g6 7.Nde2
(D) 2…Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 0-0
Finally, if 2…Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 then it is too late for White to
enter the Open Dragon with 7.d4 with any kind of positive prospects, because after 7…
cxd4 8.Nxd4,

Black has 8…Nxe4 9.Nxc6 Nxc3 10.Nxd8 (or 10.Nxe7+ Qxe7 11.bxc3 Bxc3 12.Rb1 d6
13.Bf4 Rd8 14.Qd3 Be5 15.Rfe1 Qc7 16.Bg5 Re8 17.Qd2 Qc5 is about equal, Nowak-
Gonet, Poland 2004) 10…Nxd1 11.Nxb7 (11.Nxf7? is weaker 11…Nxb2 12.Nh6+ Kh8
13.Rb1 Na4 14.Bg5 Nc3 15.Rb3 Ne2+ 16.Kh1 Nd4 17.Rd3 Nxc2 18.Bxe7 Bxh6 19.Bxf8
Bxf8 and Black has a clear material advantage, Sakhvadze-Navara, Tallinn 2016) 11…
Nxb2 12.Rb1 Bxb7 13.Bxb7 Rab8 14.Bxb2 Rxb7 15.Bxg7 Rxb1 16.Rxb1 Kxg7 17.Rb7
Rd8 18.Rxa7 Kf6 with more or less equal chances in the endgame despite White’s pawns
being spread out and Black’s being in one mass, Vaicekauskas-Seeman, Liepaja 2017.
(A) 2…Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Nde2 Nf6 7.g3

And now Black has several options:

(A1) 7…b6
(A2) 7…b5
Two additional possibilities are:
(a) 7…d5 8.exd5 (8.Nxd5 Nxe4 9.Bg2 Nd6 10.0-0 0-0 11.c3 e6 12.Ne3 e5 13.b3 Nf5
14.Qxd8 Rxd8 15.Nd5 Nfe7 16.Nxe7+ Nxe7 17.Re1 was Perez Candelario-Aloma Vidal,
Navalmoral 2011, and now 17…Nc6 18.Bg5 f6 19.Be3 Be6 would have been fine for
Black) 8…Nb4 9.Bg2 Bf5 10.Nd4 (10.0-0 Nxc2 11.Rb1 0-0 12.b4 Rc8 13.Rb3 Nd7 14.h3
h5 15.Bg5 Nf6 16.Qd2 Rc4 and Black has a very comfortable game, Saltaev-Nadyrhanov,
Tashkent 1992) 10…Bg4 11.Qd2 (11.Nce2 Nfxd5 12.h3 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Nb6 14.Bd2 Nc6
15.Bc3 Bxc3+ 16.Nxc3 Qxd1+ 17.Rxd1 0-0 18.0-0 Rfd8 was played in Sanz Alonso-
Klauner, Marbella 1982, and here 19.Ne4 would have provided White with a neat little
edge that can bother Black for some time to come) 11…Nfxd5 (11…0-0 12.0-0 Qd7 13.d6
exd6 14.a3 Nc6 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.b3 Bh3 17.Bb2 Bxg2 18.Kxg2 was V.Georgiev-Frois,
Algarve 1999 and here 18…d5 would have been pleasant for Black) 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.h3
Bc8 14.Nb5 (14.Nb3!? Nb6 15.Qxd8+ Kxd8 16.0-0 Kc7 17.Re1 Re8 18.a4 a5 19.Bf4+ e5
20.Bd2 and Black is struggling to get his pieces developed and properly coordinated,
Mokry-M.Jirovsky, Pardubice 1998) 14…a6 15.Qxd5 Qa5+ 16.c3 Qxb5 17.Qxb5+ axb5
18.0-0 0-0, Vajda-Szieberth, Hungary 2012, and now 19.a3 would have left White with a
small but clear advantage.
(b) 7…h5 8.h3 d6 9.Bg2 Be6 10.0-0 Qd7 11.Nf4 Bc4 12.Re1 Rc8 13.Nfd5 e6 14.Ne3 Ba6
15.a4 0-0 16.Nb5 Rfd8 17.c4 b6 18.Bd2 and now rather than the premature central break
18…d5?! 19.cxd5 exd5 20.Nxd5 (White appears to be able to do better with 20.exd5!
Bxb5 21.Bc3!, winning the piece back with a dominating position according to my
computer) 20…Nxd5 21.exd5 Bxb5 22.axb5 which was better for White in Reinderman-
Miladinovic, Cappelle-la-Grande 1995, Black should have played 18…h4!? 19.g4 Nh7
20.Bc3 Be5 with a comfortable game and excellent counterchances.
(A1) 7…b6 8.Bg2 Ba6 (D)
Or 8…Bb7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Ne5 12.Rb1 Rc8 13.b3 b5 14.Bb2 Qb6
15.Bd4 is somewhat better for White who has an easier game plan whereas Black is
struggling

somewhat to find targets of counterplay, Tonchev-Skrobek, Wroclaw 1980.

9.0-0
White has also tried 9.f4 Rc8 10.e5 Ng4 11.h3 Nh6 12.g4 0-0 13.0-0 d6 14.exd6 Qxd6
15.Qxd6 exd6 16.f5 Rfe8 17.Rf2 Nd4 18.f6 Nxe2+ 19.Rxe2 Rxe2 20.Nxe2 Bxe2 21.fxg7
Kxg7 22.Bd2 in Shkuran-Polak, Vsetin 2015, and now 22…Bb5 23.Bc3+ Kf8 24.Rd1 f5
25.Rxd6 fxg4 26.hxg4 Nxg4 27.Bh3 Rc4 28.Bf1 Rxc3 29.bxc3 Bxf1 30.Kxf1 Ke7 would
have led to an endgame that Black should be able to hold.
9…0-0
Or 9…Rc8, and now:
(a) 10.h3 0-0 11.Be3 d6 12.Qd2 Re8 13.Rac1 Nd7 14.Rfd1 Nc5 15.b3 Qd7 16.Nd5 f5?!
(Black could have equalized with 16…Bxe2 17.Qxe2 e6 18.Nf4 Bc3 but was clearly
trying to ruffle White’s feathers and was willing to take some risks doing so) 17.exf5 Qxf5
18.c4 and White is completely in command of the game, Mastoras-Antoniewski, Kallithea
2003.
(b) 10.Re1 d6 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bd2 0-0 13.a4 Na5 14.b3 Bb7 15.Rc1 Nd7 16.Nd5 e6 17.Ne3
Nf6 18.f3 Nc6 when Black is solid and has equalized, Vokac-M.Jirovsky, Czechia 2001.
10.Re1
10.a4 Rc8 11.Nb5 d6 12.Re1 (12.Ra3 Nd7 13.c4 Bb7 14.b3 a6 15.Nbc3 Nc5 16.f4 Nb4
17.Bd2 e6 and Black has a nice grip on the dark squares and on the game as a whole,
Saltaev-Nesterov, Tiraspol 1994) 12…Nd7 13.Rb1 Bb7 14.b3 Nc5 15.c4 a6 16.Nbc3 Nb4
17.Ba3 a5 with a comfortable game for Black, Angelini-Jirovsky, M., Imperia 2013.
10…Rc8 11.h3
11.Bf4 d6 12.Qc1 Qd7 13.Bh6 Rfd8 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.h3 e5 16.Qd2 Rc7 17.Rad1 Qc8
18.Kh2 Na5 when Black has a pleasant position that is far easier to play than White’s,
Votava-Zilberman, Rishon Le Ziyyon 1993.
11…d6

12.Bg5
White has two decent alternatives at this point:
(a) 12.a4 Qd7 13.f4 Rfd8 14.Be3 Na5 15.Bf2 Nh5 16.Ra2 Bc4 17.b3 Be6 18.Nd5 Rc6??
was Saltaev-Petursson, Komotini 1993, and here White could have won material with
19.g4 Nf6 20.Nxf6+ Bxf6 21.f5 and the bishop is trapped, but 18…Nc6 would have been
pleasant for Black.
(b) 12.Be3 Nd7 13.Qd2 Re8 14.Nd4 b5 15.Nd5 Nde5 16.b3 e6 17.Nf4 Qa5 18.Qxa5 Nxa5
was Watson-Hellers, Amsterdam 1985, and here White could have claimed an advantage
with 19.a4! b4 20.Ra2! Re7 21.Nb5! which is kind of model play for White in this type of
position.
12…Nd7
12…h6 13.Be3 Na5 14.Rb1 Nc4 15.Bc1 Nd7 16.b3 Na5 17.Bb2 Bxe2 18.Nxe2 Bxb2
19.Rxb2 Nc6 20.c4 with a comfortable plus for White who has more space and an easier
game where Black is rather passively set-up, Kofidis-Frendzas, Athens 1996.
13.Rb1 Nde5 14.b3 h6 15.Bd2 b5 16.a3 b4 17.axb4 Nxb4 18.Rc1 e6 19.Na4 Nbc6
20.Be3 Qe7 21.Qd2 with better chances for White, Gulbas-Bocharov, Izmir 2004.
(A2) 7…b5!?
This sharp reaction is natural consequence of White’s tentative play. (D)
8.Bg2
Sometimes White plays 8.a3 first but it usually ends up being a transposition to the main
line. However, there is some room for individuality: 8…0-0 9.Bg2 Rb8 10.0-0 (10.b3 d6
11.Bb2 a5 12.0-

0 Qc7 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Bxg7 Ne3 15.Qc1 Kxg7 16.Qxe3 Bg4 17.Nf4 Qa7 18.Qc3+ Nd4
19.h3 Rfc8 and Black has a good game, Del Rio de Angelis-V.Georgiev, Matinhos 1994)
10…a5 11.Rb1 b4 12.axb4 axb4 13.Nd5 Ba6 14.Bg5 Ne8 15.b3 h6 16.Be3 e6 17.Ndf4 d6
and once more Black has equalized, Collas-Navarro Cia, Pamplona 2002.
8…Rb8
Black can also play the direct 8…b4, and then after 9.Nd5, Black can choose among three
moves:
(a) 9…Ba6 10.0-0 Rc8 11.Bg5 e6 12.e5 exd5 13.exf6 Bxf6 14.Bh6 Bg5 15.Bxg5 Qxg5
16.Re1 0-0 17.Nf4 d4 18.h4 Qf6 19.a3 was Holtman-Kanovsky, Pardubice 2016, and now
19…b3 20.cxb3 Rfe8 21.Nd5 Rxe1+ 22.Qxe1 would have been okay for Black.
(b) 9…Bb7 10.0-0 d6 (10…0-0 11.a3 a5 12.axb4 axb4 13.Rxa8 Bxa8 is very close to
equal) 11.a3 bxa3 12.Rxa3 Nd7 13.Bd2 0-0 14.Bc3 Bxc3 15.Rxc3 Nc5 16.Qd2 e6 17.Ne3
Qe7 18.Ra3 and White is marginally better, Ochoa de Echaguen-Ferreira, Barcelona 1993.
(c) 9…e6 10.Ne3 Rb8 11.a3 0-0 12.0-0 Re8 13.axb4 Rxb4 14.c4 (or 14.c3!?) 14…Bb7
15.Nc3 Qb8 16.Nb5 with somewhat better chances for White, Fedorov-Kanovsky,
Czechia 2014.
9.0-0
9.a3 0-0 10.0-0 transposes to our main line.
9…0-0
9…d6 is also commonly seen but it too transposes to our main line.
9…b4, however, has independent importance: 10.Nd5 d6 11.a3 a5 12.axb4 axb4 13.Ra2 0-
0 14.b3 Nd7 15.Bg5 Nc5 16.Qd2 Ba6, V.Georgiev-Tiviakov, Mallorca 2004, and now
17.Rd1 would have left White with a light initiative.
10.h3
White can choose among several other moves:
(a) 10.a4 a6 (10…b4 11.Nd5 d6 12.h3 Ba6 13.Re1 Bxe2 14.Rxe2 Rc8 15.Be3 Qa5 16.Rd2
Rfe8 17.Qf1 Rb8 18.Rad1 b3 19.cxb3 Rec8 20.Rc2 Nxd5 21.Rxd5 and White has the
better chances, Atlas-Denny, Moscow 1994) 11.axb5 axb5 12.Nd5 d6 13.Bg5 Nd7 14.c3
h6 15.Be3 e6 16.Nb4 Nxb4 17.cxb4 Ne5 18.Bd4 Nc6 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 and Black has
equalized, Munoz Pantoja-Martinez Ramirez, Barcelona 2012.
(b) 10.Re1 d6 11.h3 and now:
(b1) 11…b4 12.Nd5 Nd7 (or 12…a5 13.Kh2 Re8 14.Rb1 Ba6 15.Ndf4 Nd7 16.Nd3 Rc8
17.f4 Nd4 18.c3 Nc6 19.cxb4 e6 20.b5 Bxb5 and Black has the easier game, Soltis-Rind,
New York 1979) 13.c3 bxc3 14.Nexc3 Nc5 15.Na4 Nxa4 16.Qxa4 Bd7 17.Rb1 a5 18.Qd1
Nb4 19.Nxb4 Rxb4 with pressure for Black, Cordts-Rotstein, Leverkusen 2007.
(b2) 11…a5 12.a4 b4 13.Nb5 Ba6 14.c4 bxc3 15.Nexc3 Nd7 16.Bf1 Nc5 17.Be3 Rc8
18.Rc1 Bb7 19.b3 Nb4 20.Nd5 when the chances are about even, but this position is of the
type that White often will seek to play for more, Movsesian-Zhu Chen, Cappelle-la-
Grande 1998.
(b3) 11…Nd7 12.Rb1 Nc5 13.b3 a5 14.Bb2 b4 15.Nd5 Bxb2 16.Rxb2 Bb7 17.c4 bxc3
18.Nexc3 Nb4 19.Rd2 Nxd5 20.exd5 Ba6 21.Ne4 Nd7 22.Ng5 Nf6 was played in
Movsesian-Su.Hansen, Koszalin 1998, and now 23.Rc2 Rb4 24.Qd2 would have provided
White with a small but clear advantage.
(c) 10.Nd5 is a major option for White: (D)
(c1) 10…b4 11.Bg5 (11.a3 a5 12.axb4 axb4 13.Bg5 is a clear improvement for White)
11…Ng4 12.Qc1 Ba6 13.Re1 Rc8 14.Ne3 Nge5 15.Qd1 d6 16.Bf4 Nd7 17.Nd5 Bxb2
18.Rb1 Bg7

19.Nxb4 Nxb4 20.Rxb4 Qa5 and Black is clearly better, Espineira Gonzalez-Brodowski,
Leiria 2017.
(c2) 10…Nxd5 11.exd5 Ne5 12.Nd4 (12.Be3 Qc7 13.Bd4 b4 14.a3 a5 15.axb4 axb4,
Lujan-Z.Polgar, Dresden 2006, and now 16.b3 would have been better for White, e.g.,
16…d6 17.h3 Bf5 18.f4 Nd7 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Qd4+) 12…e6 13.Bf4 g5 14.Bc1 f5,
Golubev-Nedev, Izmir 2004, and now 15.Qh5!? would have been interesting, for instance,
15…h6 16.b3 f4 17.dxe6 dxe5 18.Bb2 Rb6 19.Rad1.
(c3) 10…d6, and now:
(c31) 11.c3 b4 12.cxb4 Nxb4 13.a3 Nbxd5 14.exd5 Bb7 15.Nc3 Qd7 16.Re1 Rfc8 17.Be3
Ba8 18.Rb1 a5 19.h3 Qb7 was Atlas-Tiviakov, Kallithea 2002, and now 20.Qd2 Nd7
21.Ne2 Nb6 22.b3 Nxd5 23.Nf4 e6 24.Nxd5 exd5 25.Bd4 would have fine for White.
(c32) 11.h3 Nd7 12.c3 e6 13.Nb4 Nxb4 14.cxb4 Nb6 15.Bf4 e5 16.Be3 Nc4 17.Bc1 Ne6
18.Nc3 (18.b3!?) 18…a5 19.b3 axb4 20.Nd5 with a pleasant game for White in Garcia
Carbo-Baklan, Sabadell 2007.
(c43) 11.Bg5 Nd7 (or 11…Ng4 12.c3 h6 13.Bd2 a5 14.Rc1 Kh7 15.b3 e6 16.Ndf4 Ne7
17.Nd3 e5 18.h3 Nf6 when the chances are close to even, Kopylov-Ekebjaerg, ICCF corr
1999) 12.c3 h6 (or 12…Re8 13.Rc1 Bb7 14.Nd4 h6 15.Be3 a6, Atlas-M.Jirovsky,
Germany 2013, 16.Nxc6 Bxc6 17.f4 Rc8 18.Rf2 Nc5 19.Rd2 with somewhat better
chances for White) 13.Be3 a5 (also 13…Bb7 14.Qd2 Kh7 15.Rad1 Nde5 16.b3 Ng4
17.Bf4 e6 18.h3 Nxf2 19.Rxf2 exd5 20.exd5 Ne7 21.Rdf1 Rc8 22.Be3 is better for White,
Georgiev, V.-Chatalbashev, Bulgaria 1995) 14.Nd4 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Bb7 16.Bxg7 Kxg7
17.Qd4+ e5 18.Qd2 Bxd5 19.Qxd5 Nf6 20.Qd2 Qb6 21.Rfe1, and draw agreed, ½-½,
V.Georgiev-Kudrin, Dayton 2016, but 15.cxd4 e6 16.Nf4 seems pleasant for White.
10…d6 11.a3 a5
Or: (a) 11…Ne5 12.Nd5 Bb7 13.Bg5 Nxd5 14.exd5 Nc4 15.b3 Nb6 16.Rc1 Re8 17.Qd3
Qd7 18.Be3 Rec8 19.Rfd1 Rc7 20.h4 Rbc8 21.c3 Ba8 22.Kh2 with a small plus for White,
but Black’s position is rather uncomfortable to play, Kosanski-Stanojoski, Kladovo 1991.
(b) 11…a6 12.Bg5 h6 13.Be3 Kh7 14.Qc1 e6 15.Rd1 Qc7 16.f4 Bb7 17.g4 Rbc8 18.Rb1
Na5 19.Rd3 Nc4 20.Bf2 Rfd8 and Black has equalized, Payen-Spiridonov, Cannes 1996,
but White can play 14.Nd5 Bd7 15.c3 with a tiny but typical edge.
12.Be3
White can also consider 12.Bg5 Nd7 13.Ra2 h6 14.Be3 b4 15.axb4 axb4 16.Nd5 e6
17.Ndf4 b3 18.cxb3 Nc5, which was Kokarev-Lintchevski, Khanty-Mansiysk 2016, and
now 19.Qc1 is interesting.
12…Nd7 13.Rb1
13.Nd4 Nde5 14.b3 b4 15.axb4 axb4 16.Nce2 Bb7 17.Ra4 Ra8 18.Nxc6 Nxc6 19.Rxa8
Qxa8 20.Qd2 Qa2 and Black has the initiative, Kucera-Simek, Czechia 2015.
13…b4 14.axb4 axb4 15.Nd5 Ba6 16.Re1 e6 17.Ndf4 Qc7 18.Qd2 Nce5 19.b3 Rfc8
and Black is fine, Caruana-Vachier Lagrave, Stavanger 2017.
(B) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 g6 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bd7
Black should not enter 7…Bg7?! 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.e5 dxe5 10.Qxd8+ (White achieves less
with 10.Bxc6+ Bd7 11.Bxa8 Qxa8 12.f3 e4 13.0-0 exf3 14.Qxf3 Bc6 15.Qe2 0-0 16.Be3
Qc8 and Black has excellent compensation for the exchange, Tsvetkov-Tkaczyk, ICCF
corr 1997) 10…Kxd8 11.Bxc6 Rb8 12.Be3 (or 12.0-0 Kc7 13.Bg2 Bb7 14.Re1 Bxg2
15.Kxg2 Kd6 16.b3 Ke6 17.Bb2 Rhd8 18.Ne2 Nd5 19.Rad1 with better chances for
White, Janev-Afek, Bois Colombes 2003) 12…Kc7 (12…Rxb2 13.0-0-0+ Kc7, Adams-
Dreev, Linares 1997, and now 14.Nb5+ Rxb5 15.Bxb5 Bb7 16.Rhe1 with better chances
for White) 13.Ba4 a6, and here not 14.0-0-0 Bg4! 15.Nd5+ Kb7 16.Nxe7 Bxd1 17.Rxd1
Rbd8 18.Rxd8 Rxd8 19.Nc6 Rd6 20.Nxe5 Nd5 21.Nc4 with chances for both sides,
Pereira-El Debs, Joao Pessoa 2017, but 14.0-0!? Bd7 15.Bb3 e6 16.Rae1 with better
chances for White.
8.Nde2 Bg7 9.0-0 0-0
Or 9…Qc8 10.Nf4 0-0 11.Be3 Ng4 12.Bd2 Nge5 13.b3 f5 14.Rc1 Kh8 15.exf5 Bxf5
16.Ncd5 g5 17.Nd3 with better chances for White, Efimenko-Motylev, Poikovsky 2011.
10.h3
A major alternative for White is 10.Nd5, and Black should capture White’s knight.
(a) 10…Nxd5 11.exd5 (D) and now:
(a1) 11…Na5 12.a4 Qc7 (or 12…Rc8 13.Ra2 Bg4 14.b3 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Re8 16.Bh3 Rc7
17.Bb2 Bxb2 18.Rxb2 b6 19.c4 Kg7 20.Qe3 e5 21.dxe6 fxe6 22.Rd2 Qe7 23.Rfd1 with a
clear positional advantage for White, Jacobs-Fatin, London 1987) 13.Ra2 a6 14.b3 b5
15.axb5 axb5 16.Bb2 Bxb2 17.Rxb2 Nb7 18.b4 e5 19.dxe6 fxe6
20.Nf4 Ra6 21.Qd3 Nd8 22.Re1 Qa7 was more or less even in Boguszlavszkij-Dolana,
Zalakaros 2016, and here White can consider 23.Qd2, e.g., 23…e5 24.Nd5 when I would
prefer to play White.
(a2) 11…Ne5 12.Nd4 (or 12.h3 Qc8 13.Kh2 Nc4 14.c3 b5 15.b3 Nb6 16.Be3 was
Rodriguez Vila-Abarca Gonzalez, Antofagasta 2017, and now 16…Qb7 17 Re1 Rfe8
18.Qd2 Rac8 19.Rac1 would leave White with the typical small advantage that he is
aiming for in this variation) 12…Qc8 (or 12…Qb6 13.c3 Rac8 14.Qe2 Rfe8 was played in
Tal-Gufeld, Moscow 1974, when 15.h3 Qa5 16 Rd1 Nc4 is about equal but offers White
the kind of position he wants) 13.Re1 Bg4 14.f3 Bh3 15.c3 Re8 16.Bf4 Bxg2 17.Kxg2
Qc4 18.Bxe5 Bxe5 19.Qb3 Rac8 was Vajda-Kosintseva, N., Heraklio 2007, and here
20.Rad1 would have been somewhat better for White.
(b) 10…Rc8 11.c3 Ne5 (11…Ne8 12.Be3 e6 13.Ndf4 Ne5 14.Nd3 Nxd3 15.Qxd3 a6
16.Qd2 Bc6 17.Nd4 e5 18.Nxc6 Rxc6 19.Rfd1 with better chances for White, Padeiro-
Pogorelov, Figueira da Foz 2005) 12.Nd4 Nc6 (Black can also consider 12…e6 13.Nxf6+
Bxf6 14.f4 Nc4 15.b3 Na5 16.Qd3 a6 17.Be3 e5 18.fxe5 dxe5 19.Ne2 Bg4 20.Qxd8 Bxd8
21.Bf3 Be6 with equal chances, Shamkovich-Gurevich, D., New York 1994) 13.Be3 Nxd5
14.exd5 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Qb6 17.Qd2 Bf5 18.Rfe1 Rfe8 19.Re2 e5 20.dxe6
Rxe6 21.Rxe6 Bxe6 22.h4 h5 23.Re1, and White is better, V.Georgiev-Vavrak, Plovdiv
2008.
(c) 10…Ne5 11.h3 Rc8 12.a4 Bc6 13.Ra2 Ned7 14.Bg5 h6 15.Be3 Kh7 16.Qd2 e6
17.Nxf6+ Nxf6, Afek-L’Ami, Amsterdam 2002, 18.Qd3 Qc7 19.Nc3 a5 20.Bf4 with an
easier game for White, although objectively the chances are more or less even.
10…Rb8
This is an important intersection for numerous different moves, from among which Black
may choose:
(a) 10…a6, and now:
(a1) 11.Be3 b5 (or 11…Rb8 12.b3 b5 13.Qd2 Bc8 14.Rad1 Bb7 15.Nd5 Nd7 16.Bh6 Re8
17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.f4 and White has an easier game, Fontaine-Shchekachev, France 2002)
12.f4 Rb8 13.a3 a5 14.Nd5 Ne8 15.Qc1 e6 16.Ndc3 b4 17.axb4 axb4 18.Na4 Na5 19.Nb6
Rxb6 20.Rxa5 Rb8 21.Ra7 with more or less even chances, Bartel-Dziuba, Lublin 2010.
(a2) 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.exd5 Ne5 (12…Na5 13.c3 Qb6 14.b3 Qc7 15.Bg5 Rae8 16.Qd2 b5
17.Rfd1 Nb7 18.Rac1 a5 19.Nd4 when White has clearly the upper hand, Tiviakov-
Padmini, Kuala Lumpur 2012) 13.Nd4 Qb6 (13…Rc8 14.b3 Be8 15.c4 b5 16.f4 Nd7
17.Be3 Nc5 18.cxb5 axb5 19.Qd2 when Black is struggling to find active counterplay,
Spangenberg-Zapata, Matanzas 1994) 14.c3 Bb5 15.Nxb5 Qxb5 16.Re1 Rfe8 17.a4 Qd3
18.Qb3 b5 19.Re3 Qc4 20.Qxc4 Nxc4 21.Re2 and White has the initiative, although
Black’s position is structurally sound, Medarde Santiago-Vasques, Leiria 2017.
(a3) 11.Nf4 Rc8 12.Ncd5 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Ne5 14.Bg5 Re8 15.b3 h6 16.Be3 Be6 17.Nf4
Bd7 18.Nd5 Be6 19.Nf4 Bd7 20.Nd5 Bc6, was played in Matanovic-Fischer, Monte Carlo
1967, and now 21.Bb6 Qd7 22.c4 e6 23.Nb4 a5 24.Nxc6 Nxc6 25.Rb1 would have left
White with the upper hand.
(a4) 11.a4 Rc8 (11…Re8 12.Be3 Qc8, Lillo Castany-Petkov, Pontevedra 2017, 13.g4 h5
14.f3 Nb4 15.Qd2 with a comfortable edge for White) and now:
(a41) 12.Be3 Qc7 (or 12…Na5 13.b3 Be6 14.Rc1 Nd7 15.Nd5 b5 16.axb5 axb5 17.Nd4
Bxd4 18.Bxd4 and White is in control of the game and clearly better, Kovchan-Bakre, Al
Ain 2014) 13.g4 Nb4 14.a5 Bc6 15.Bb6 Qb8 16.Bd4 e5 17.Be3 Rfd8 18.Bb6 Re8 19.Qd2
with a better game for White, Franzoni-Gerber, Biel 1988.
(a42) 12.Nd5 Ne5 (Black has also tried 12…b5 13.axb5 axb5 14.Bd2 Nxd5 15.exd5 Ne5
16.Ba5 Qe8 17.Bc3 Qd8 18.Bd4 b4 19.f4 Nc4 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.Qd4+ Kg8, Aronian-
Grischuk, chess.com INT 2016, and now 22.Rfe1 would have been pleasant for White and
so is 12…Nxd5 13.exd5 Na5 14.Ra2) 13.Ra2 Bc6 14.b3 Ned7 15.Bf4 b6 16.Re1 Ba8
17.a5 (17.c4 Nc5 18.Be3 Re8 is about balanced) 17…b5 18.Qd2 Re8, Suarez Gomez-
Cordova, Benasque 2016, and here 19.Be3 e6 20.Nxf6+ Nxf6 21.Bb6 Qd7 would have left
the chances about even.
(b) 10…Rc8 11.a4 Na5 12.Ra2 Be6 13.Nd5 Nc6 14.c3 Ne5 15.b3 Bxd5 16.exd5 a5
17.Be3 Ned7 18.Qb1 Nc5 19.Nd4 Qd7 20.Re1 and White has the upper hand, Bartel-
Kempinski, Warsaw 2011.
(c) 10…Qc8 11.Kh2 Rd8, and now 12.Be3?! Ne5 13.b3 Nfg4+ 14.hxg4 Nxg4+ 15.Kh1
Nxe3 16.fxe3 Bxc3 17.Nxc3 Qxc3 18.Qd5 Be6 19.Qxb7 Re8 and Black has a very large
advantage, Rzayev-Beradze, Nakhchivan 2017, but 12.Nd5 Re8 13.Be3 h5 14.c3 with a
pleasant game for White.
(d) 10…Qa5 11.Bd2 Qh5 (11…Rfc8 12.Nd5 Qd8 13.Bc3 Nxd5 14.exd5 Ne5 15.Kh2
Nc4?! [15…Qf8!? is fine for Black] 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.a4 Kg8?! 18.b3 and White has
gained the type of control of the position that he is aiming for, V.Georgiev-Raev, Sunny
Beach 2004) 12.Qc1 e5?? (12…Rac8 13.a3 Qa5 14.g4 Qa6 15.Be3 Na5 offers Black a
comfortable position) 13.g4! Bxg4 14.Ng3 Qxh3 15.Bxh3 Bxh3 16.f3 Bxf1 17.Qxf1 and
White is winning, Mrva-Druska, Banska Stiavnica 2015.
11.a4 a6 12.Nd5
12.Be3 b5 (12…Qc8 13.Kh2 Ne5 14.Ra2 b5 15.axb5 axb5 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.exd5 Nc4
18.Bd4 Bxd4 19.Nxd4 with a small but comfortable advantage for White, Motwani-
Hamdouchi, Novi Sad 1990) 13.axb5 axb5 14.Nd5, and here Black has tried:
(a) 14…b4 15.Re1 (White didn’t achieve anything after 15.Ra2 Ne8 16.Bg5 h6 17.Bd2 e6
18.Ne3 Nc7 19.c4 bxc3 20.Bxc3 Nb5 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.Qd2 e5 and a draw was agreed
upon, ½-½, Smirin-Pigusov, Podolsk 1990) 15…Re8 16.Ra2 Be6 17.Nd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4
Nxd5 19.exd5 Bxd4 20.Qxd4 Bf5 21.b3 with a small advantage for White, Malakhov-
Gao, China 2010.;
(b) 14…Ne8 15.Nd4 Nc7 16.Nxc6 (16.Re1 Ne6? [16…Nxd4! 17.Bxd4 Bxd4 18.Qxd4 e5
19.Qd2 Nxd5 20.Qxd5 Be6 21.Qd2 is about equal] 17.Nxc6 Bxc6 18.Ra7 Re8 19.Nb4
Ba8 20.c3 Rb7 21.Ra2 with a clear positional plus, Renner-Gershon, Bad Wiessee 2002)
16…Bxc6 17.Nb4 Bb7 18.c3 Ra8 19.Qd2 Ne6 20.Qe2 Qd7 21.Rfd1 Rxa1 22.Rxa1 Nc5
23.Ra7 and White has the upper hand, Borges Feria-Gallego Alcaraz, Havana 2009.
(c) 14…Re8, and here:
(c1) 15.b3 Qc8 16.Kh2 Nxd5 17.exd5 Nb4 (Black can possibly improve with 17…Bxa1
18.dxc6 Bxc6 19.Bxc6 Qxc6 20.Qxa1 Qxc2 21.Nd4 Qe4 with chances to both sides) 18.c3
Na6 19.b4 Ra8 20.Bd4 Qc4 21.Bxg7 Kxg7, Magem Badals-Llaneza Vega, Sabadell 2011,
and now 22.Qd4+ Qxd4 23.Nxd4 and White has better chances.
(c2) 15.Nef4 b4 16.Kh2 e6 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6 18.Qxd6 Be5 19.Qc5 Bxb2 20.Rab1 Bg7
21.Rfd1?! (White should have played 21.Nd3 Rc8 22.Bg5 f6 23.Bd2 e5 24.Nxb4 Nxb4
25.Qxb4 Bf8 26.Qb2 Bc5 27.Bb4 Bxb4 28.Qxb4 Be6 and Black has equalized) 21…Bf8
22.Qc4 Ne5 and Black has taken control of the game, Miroshnichenko-Eliseev, Moscow
2016.
12…b5
Or 12…Ne8 13.c3 e6 14.Ne3 b5 15.axb5 axb5 16.f4 Na5 (16…b4!? is fine for Black)
17.b4 Nc6 18.Ra2 f5 19.e5 Qb6 20.exd6 Nd8 21.Kh2 Nxd6 22.Nc2 Qc7 23.Be3 N8b7
24.Bd4 and White has a small advantage, Shaposhnikov-Khismatullin, Serpukhov 2008.
13.axb5 axb5 14.Bg5
14.Kh2 Ne8 15.c3 b4 16.c4 e6 17.Ne3 Qc7 18.Rb1 Na5 19.b3 Nb7 20.Bd2 Nc5 21.Nc2
h5 22.Nxb4 h4 23.Qc2 was Janev-Bujisho, France 2010, and now 23…Nf6 24.Bc3 Rfe8
and Black has some compensation for the pawn.
14…Nxd5
14…Ne8 15.Qc1 Nc7 16.Rd1 b4 17.Bh6 Qc8 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.b3?! (19.f4!?) 19…Nb5
20.Qb2+ e5 21.Kh2 Be6 and Black has equalized, Kovchan-Tukhaev, Kharkov 2007.
15.exd5 Ne5 16.Nd4 h6 17.Bc1 Qb6 18.Kh1 b4 19.b3 Ng4 20.Bb2 Nf6
Onischuk-Henriquez Villagra, Doha 2016, and now 21.Re1 Qc5 22.Qf3 Rfe8 with chances
to both sides.
(C) 2…Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 d6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 g6 7.Nde2 Bg7
Black frequently plays 7…b6 8.Bg2, and now:
(a) 8…Ba6 9.0-0 Bg7 when White has tried a few moves: (D)
(a1) 10.b3 0-0 11.Bb2 Rc8 12.Qd2 (or 12.Rb1 e6 13.a4 Re8 14.Nb5 d5 15.exd5 exd5
16.Nf4 d4 17.Re1 Bxb5 18.axb5 Nb4 19.Rxe8+ Qxe8 20.Bxd4 and White is better,
Efimenko-Szalanczy, Hungary 2014) 12…e6
13.Rab1 d5 14.exd5 exd5 15.Rfd1 Re8 16.a4 d4 17.Nb5 Ne4 18.Qf4 g5 19.Qf3 and White
is clearly better, winning the pawn on d4, Movsesian-Shabalov, Bermuda 2004.
(a2) 10.h3 0-0 11.Bg5 h6 12.Be3 Nd7 13.Re1 Rc8 14.Qd2 Kh7 15.Rad1 Nc5 16.b3 Bb7
17.g4 e5 18.f4 exf4 19.Bxf4 Re8 was Yermolinsky-Smirin, Yerevan 1996, and now
20.Bxd6 would have been better for White.
(a3) 10.Re1 0-0 (or 10…Rc8 11.Nd5 Nd7 12.Rb1 0-0 13.Be3 e6 14.Ndf4 Nf6 15.c3 Ne5
16.f3 Bb7 17.Nd3 Ned7 18.b3 Ne8 was played in Efimenko-Grandelius, Doha 2014, and
now 19.Qd2 Nc7 20.Bg5 f6 21.Be3 Qe7 22.c4 would have left White with the better
chances) 11.a4 (White can also consider 11.Rb1 Rc8 12.b3 Nd7 13.Nd5 Bxe2 14.Rxe2 b5
15.Bb2 Bxb2 16.Rxb2 Nb6 17.c3 Ne5 18.Rbc2 Rc5 19.h3 Re8 which the computer calls
equal, but I prefer White Strohhaeker-Kulaots, Augsburg 2010) 11…Rc8 12.Nf4 (Black
was fine after 12.h3 Nd7 13.Nd5 Nc5 14.Ra3 e6 15.Ne3 Qe7 16.Qd2 Nd7 17.b3 Rfd8
18.c4 Bb7 19.Bb2 Bxb2 20.Qxb2 Nb4 in Roiz-Nakamura, Gibraltar 2007) 12…Re8
13.Nb5 Bb7 14.Bh3 Rb8 15.Nd5 Nxd5 16.exd5 Nb4 17.Nxa7 Nxd5 18.Bg2 Qd7 19.Bxd5
Bxd5 20.Qxd5 Qxa7 21.c3 with marginally better chances for White, Kaidanov-Atalik,
Chicago 1997.
(b) 8…Bb7 9.0-0 (or 9.Nd5 Bg7 10.c3 Ne5 11.Qa4+ Nfd7 12.Bg5 Nd3+ 13.Kf1 N3c5
14.Qc2 Nf6 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Nxf6+ exf6 17.Nf4 0-0 18.h4 Re8 19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.exd5 f5
was fine for Black in Rapport-Wojtaszek, Wijk aan Zee 2017) 9…Bg7 10.Nd5 0-0 (10…
e6 11.Nxf6+ Bxf6 12.c3 0-0 13.Bh6 Re8 14.Qd2 Ne5 15.Rad1 Qc7 16.Qxd6 Qc4 was
played in Sharapov-Vovk, Grodzisk Mazowiecki 2007, and now 17.Qd2 Qxa2 18.Nd4
Nc4 19.Qe2 Rec8 20.Bc1 would lead to interesting play and chances to both sides) 11.Bg5
e6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 14.c3 Rfd8 (14…Qe7 15.Nd4 Rac8 16.Qd2 Rfd8
17.Rfd1 Nxd4 18.cxd4 Rc7 19.Rac1 Rdc8 was pretty even in Becerra Rivero-Epishin,
Connecticut 2000) 15.Qa4 Rac8 16.Rad1 e5 17.c4 Na5 18.b3 Bc6 19.Qb4 Nb7 20.Nc3
and White has the upper hand, Sharapov-Tukhaev, Evpatoria 2009.
8.Bg2 0-0 9.0-0 Rb8
At this juncture, Black has some additional choices:
(a) 9…Bg4 10.h3 Bxe2 11.Nxe2 b5 12.c3 Rb8 13.Nd4 Ne5 14.f4 Nc4 15.Kh2 Qc7 16.a4
b4 17.b3 Na5 was seen in Movsesian-Bacrot, Dresden 2008, and now 18.Nb5 promises
White the upper hand.
(b) 9…Be6 is Black’s key alternative to our main line. Now:

(b1) 10.Nd5 Rc8 11.c3 Bd7 12.Bg5 Nxd5 13.exd5 Ne5 14.Nd4 h6 15.Bf4 Bg4 16.Qd2
Nc4 17.Qc1 g5 18.Be3 Nxe3 19.fxe3 and White has the somewhat better chances thanks
to the weak light squares around Black’s king which will be emphasized when White
plays Nf5 and Black has to exchange his light-square bishop to remove the knight,
Heberla-E.Hansen, Hoogeveen 2014.
(b2) 10.h3 is typical and then:
(b21) 10…Rc8 11.Nd5, with yet another fork in the road:
(b211) 11…Ne5 12.a4 (or 12.Nd4 Bxd5 13.exd5 Qa5 14.Re1 Rfe8 15.a4 a6 16.c3 Nfd7
17.Kh2 Nc4 18.Re2 with another typical position of this variation where White is
fractionally better Brodsky-Mamedov, Dubai 2003) 12…Bd7 13.Ra2 Bc6 14.Bg5 e6
15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 was Becerra Rivero-Mamedov, Dos Hermanas 2004 and
now 17.Nd4 Qe7 18.b3 would at best leave White with a tiny edge.
(b212) 11…Bxd5 12.exd5 Ne5 13.b3 (13.a4 a5 14.Ra2 Ned7 15.b3 Nc5 16.c4 Qb6
17.Nd4 Nfe4 18.Bxe4 Nxe4 19.Nb5 Nc3 20.Nxc3 Bxc3 21.Re2 with a small, but clear
advantage for White in Vallejo Pons-Blanco Fernandez, Havana 1992; this is the kind of
position Black should strive to avoid) 13…b5 14.Be3 Qc7 15.Nd4 a6 16.a4 b4 17.a5 Rfe8
18.Ra4 Qc3 19.Qe2 Rc5 20.Nc6 Qxc2 21.Qxc2 Rxc2 22.Nxb4 and White is clearly better,
Matulovic-Strikovic, Cuprija 1986.
(b22) 10…Qd7 11.Nf4 (also 11.Kh2 Bc4 12.a4 Rac8 13.Re1 Rfd8 14.Nf4 e6 15.Rb1 Nb4
16.Nd3 a5 17.Bg5 h6 18.Be3 Qc7 19.Qd2 Kh7 is about even, Andonov-Gulko, St. John
1988, and now 20.Nxb4 axb4 21.Nb5 Bxb5 22.axb5 d5 23.Qxb4 d4 24.b6 Qb8 25.Bd2
Rxc2 26.Rbc1 was the way to continue) 11…Rfc8 12.Ncd5 Bxd5 13.exd5 Ne5 14.c3 a5
15.a4 b5 16.axb5 Qxb5 17.Re1 Nfd7 18.Bf1 Qb7 19.Ra2 with chances to both sides,
Nunn-Civin, Czechia 2002.
(b23) 10…Bc4 11.a4 Rc8 12.Re1 Nb4 13.Nf4 Nd7 14.Ra3 Ne5 15.Nfd5 Nec6 16.b3 Ba6
17.Nb5 e6 18.Nxb4 Nxb4 19.c4 with an advantage for White, Fedorov-Grinberg, Minsk
2017.
(b3) 10.Re1 Bc4 11.Nf4 Rc8 (or 11…Ba6 12.a4 Nd7 13.Nb5 Nde5 14.Nd5 Rc8 15.c3 e6
16.Ne3 Qb6 17.f4 Nc4 18.Kh1 Bxb5 19.axb5 Nxe3 20.Bxe3 Qxb5 21.Ra2 and White has
the better chances, Bartel-Korobov, Lublin 2012) 12.b3 Ba6 13.Bb2 Qa5 14.Rb1 Rfe8
15.a3 Qd8 16.Qd2 Ne5 17.Ncd5 Nfd7 18.a4 b6 19.c4 Nc5 20.Ba1 e6 21.Nc3 is
objectively speaking about equal although by no means easy to play for either side. Since
White has more space, I would prefer White, Movsesian-Mamedov, Huaian 2016.
10.a4 a6
Or 10…b6 11.Re1 Bb7 12.b3 Rc8 13.Bb2 Nd7 14.Qd2 Nb4 15.h3 Nc5 16.Rab1 Ne6
17.Kh2 h5 18.Ba3 Nc6 19.Nd5 Ncd4 20.Nxd4 Nxd4 21.c4 h4 22.g4 e6 with sharp play
and chances to both sides, Movsesian-Li Chao, Huaian 2016.
11.Nd5

Another option is 11.h3 b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.Bg5 b4 14.Nd5 Nd7 15.Qc1 Re8 16.Rd1 Nc5
17.Bh6 Bh8 18.Be3 Bd7 19.Nd4 with a small plus for White, Movsesian-Kryakvin,
Pardubice 2015.
11…b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.Bd2
White can also consider 13.Be3 b4 14.Nd4 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Nxd5 16.exd5 Bxd4 17.Qxd4
Bf5 18.Ra7 Re8 19.Re1 with somewhat better chances for White in Efimenko-
Mchedlishvili, Baku 2013, but Black may be able to play 17…Qb6 18.Qxb6 Rxb6 19.Ra7
Rb7 with something very close to equal chances in the endgame.
13…Nd7 14.Bc3 Nde5 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Bg4 17.Qd2 Qd7 18.Ra7 Rb7 19.Rxb7
Qxb7
Thus far Vallejo Pons-Van Wely, Monte Carlo 2007, and now 20.Qg5 f6 21.Qe3 would
have offered White the better chances.
(D) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4
9.Qxd4 0-0

10.Qd3
White has several options here and Black is objectively doing fine against all of them.
However, two are somewhat more problematic than the others. The text move is one of
them. The other is variation ‘a’ below. The remainder I have included for illustrative
purposes only.
(a) 10.Qc4 (D) has the distinction of the being the favorite move of Dutch GM Sergei
Tiviakov who himself is a great specialist on the black side of the Sicilian Dragon. The
white queen’s move is not its final destination but rather a temporary stop before deciding
where it can annoy Black the most. Now Black can choose among several options:
(a1) 10…Bd7 11.a4 Qa5 (or 11…Rc8 12.Qb4 Bc6 13.a5 Qc7 14.Be3 Qb8 15.Rac1 Ng4
16.Bd2 Nf6 17.Rfe1 Rfe8 18.Nd5 left White with the type of advantage that we see White
seek in
this chapter, Tiviakov-Abreu Delgado, Merida 2015, but Black can improve with 12…
Ng4!?, intending to meet 13.h3 with 13…Bxc3! 14.bxc3 Ne5 15.Qxb7 Rc7 16.Qa6 Qc8!
and Black has fantastic compensation for the sacrificed pawn) 12.Ra3 Rac8 13.Qe2 Be6
(13…Rfe8!?) 14.Rd1 Qc5 15.Be3 Qc7 16.Bxa7 b6 17.Nb5 with a clear advantage for
White, Tiviakov-Savchenko, Algiers 2015.
(a2) 10…Nd7 11.Nd5 Ne5 12.Qb3 Nc6 13.Bg5 h6 14.Be3 b6 15.c4 Bb7 16.Rfd1 Rc8
17.Rac1 e6 18.Nf4 Qc7 with chances to both sides, Tiviakov-Esen, Konya 2012.
(a3) 10…Be6 11.Nd5, and now:
(a31) 11…Rc8 12.Qb3 b5 (or 12…Nxd5 13.exd5 Bf5 14.c3 Qd7 15.a4 Rc7 16.a5 Rb8
17.Re1 h6 18.Ra4 Rc5 19.Qd1 and White has the upper hand, Salgado Lopez-Dembo, Aix
les Bains 2011) 13.c3 Nxd5 14.exd5 Bd7 15.Re1 a5 16.a3 Re8 17.Be3 Qc7 18.Qd1 Rb8
19.Bd4 Bxd4 20.Qxd4 and White’s position is easier to play, Fedorov-Artemiev, Voronezh
2014.
(a32) 11…Qd7 12.a4 (or 12.Re1 Ng4 13.c3 Rfe8 14.a4 Rac8 15.Qb5 Ne5 16.Bg5 f6
17.Be3 Nc6 18.a5 a6 19.Qe2 Bxd5 20.exd5 Ne5 21.f4 and White is better, Tiviakov-Ruiz
Sanchez, Villahermosa 2016) 12…Rfc8 13.Qb3 Rc7 14.c3 Nxd5 15.exd5 Bh3 16.Re1
Bxg2 17.Kxg2 Qf5 18.Be3 h5 19.h3 Be5 20.a5 Qe4+ 21.f3 Qd3 22.Rad1 with somewhat
better chances for White, Fedorov-Volokitin, Calimanesti Caciulata 2016.
(b) At one point in time, 10.Qb4 was a headache for Black because it appears more
complicated to get the queenside developed without making serious positional
concessions. These problems, however, have long been solved. Now Black can try:
(a) 10…Rb8 11.a4 Be6 (or 11…b6 12.Re1 Bb7 13.Bf4 Nd7 14.Nd5 Ne5 15.Rad1 Rc8
16.c3 Nc6 17.Qa3 Kh8 18.Bh3 Ra8 19.Bg5 h6 20.Bc1 Ne5 21.Bg2 with a small edge for
White, Popovic-Miles, Ljubljana 1985) 12.a5 Qc8 13.Be3 a6 14.Rfe1 Nd7 15.Ba7 Ra8
16.Bd4 Ne5 17.Qa4 Re8 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Qd7 20.Bxe5 Qxa4 21.Rxa4 Bxe5 22.Rb4
with a difficult endgame for Black, Rodin-Klimentov, Voronezh 2014. This variation is an
example of what Black should avoid.
(b) 10…Qc7 11.Be3 a5 12.Qb6 Qxb6 13.Bxb6 a4 14.a3 Bd7 15.Rad1 Bc6 16.Bd4 Nd7
17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Rd4 Nc5 19.Rfd1 Ra6 20.Rb4 Nd7 21.Nd5 Bxd5 22.Rxd5 is similarly
miserable for Black, Firat-Chu, Albena 2014.
(c) 10… a5! is the best way for Black to respond to White’s 10th move. Now White has
two options:
(c1) 11.Qb5 Nd7 12.Rd1 b6 13.e5 (13.Be3 Ba6 is fine for Black) 13…Nxe5 14.Bxa8 Bd7
15.Qd5 Be6 16.Qg2 Qxa8 17.Qxa8 Rxa8 18.Nd5 Ra7 19.Ne3 Bd7 20.h4 a4, Black has
excellent compensation for the exchange and shouldn’t necessarily go for the draw as
happened in the game continuation: 21.Rb1 Nf3+ 22.Kf1 Bh3+ 23.Ke2 Nd4+ 24.Ke1
Nf3+ 25.Ke2 Nd4+ 26.Ke1, ½-½, Drazic-Stankovic, Novi Sad 2015.
(c2) 11.Qb3 Be6!
12.Qxb7 (or 12.Nd5 a4 13.Qxb7 Nxd5 14.exd5 Bf5 15.Bg5 Qb8 16.Qxb8 Rfxb8 17.Bxe7
Rxb2 18.a3 Rxc2 and Black was dominating the game and soon won, Adams-Kramnik,
Wijk aan Zee 1998) 12…Nd7 (Black can also play 12…Rc8 13.e5 dxe5 14.Rd1 Qc7
15.Qxc7 Rxc7 16.Nb5 Rxc2 17.Na3 Rc7 18.b3 e4 19.Bf4 Rcc8 with a good game, Saren-
G.Jones, Reykjavik 2017) 13.Qb5 Rc8 14.Rd1 Rc5 15.Qe2 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Qc7 17.Bd2
Nb6 18.Be3 Rc4 19.Bf1 Rc8 20.Bd4 Na4 21.Qe3 Rc6 with a pleasant position for Black,
Naiditsch-Hoffmann, Germany 2017.
(d) 10.Qd1 Bg4 11.Qd2 Rc8 12.h3 Be6 13.Nd5 Nd7 14.c3 Ne5 15.Qe2 Re8 16.Kh2 Qa5
17.Bf4 Bd7 18.a4 e6 19.Nb4 Nc4 20.Ra2 Qb6 21.Qd1 a5 with a comfortable game for
Black, Quparadze-Shanava, Tbilisi 2017.
(e) 10.a4 Be6 11.Qb4 a5 12.Qxb7 Nd7 13.Qb5 Rc8 14.Rd1 Ne5 15.Qe2 Nc4 16.Rb1
Nxb2 (Black can consider 16…Bxc3 17.bxc3 Qc7 18.Bh6 Rfe8 when he should have a
pleasant position) 17.Bxb2 Bxc3 18.e5 Ba2 19.exd6 exd6 20.Bxc3 Bxb1 21.Qd2 Ba2
22.Bxa5, Spangenberg-Mekhitarian, Buenos Aires 2015, and now 22…Qd7 23.Bc3 d5
24.Ra1 Bc4 25.a5 leaves White with excellent compensation for the sacrificed exchange,
particularly the weak dark squares around Black’s king will cause long-term headaches.
(f) 10.h3 Be6 11.Qd1 (or 11.Qb4 Qc8 12.Kh2?! a5 13.Qa3? b5 14.Nd5 Bxd5 15.exd5
Qxc2 16.Qe3 Rfe8 17.Re1 Nd7 18.Re2 Qc4 19.b3 Qc3 and Black is completely in control,
Svidler-Gelfand, Polanica Zdroj 2000) 11…Rc8 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.exd5 Bf5 14.c3 h5
15.Be3 Qd7 16.Bxa7 Bxh3 17.Bd4 Bxg2 18.Kxg2 Bxd4 19.Qxd4 b5 20.Rfe1 Rc4 21.Qe3
was Aabling Thomsen-Su.Hansen, Helsingor 2015, and now 21…h4 22.Rad1 Qf5 23.Rd2
Re8 24.Rh1 g5 25.Qd3 Qg4 would have promised Black excellent chances.
10…Be6 11.Nd5
A very common idea. But White can also play the more careful 11.Bd2, for instance, 11…
Rc8 12.b3 a6 13.a4 Qc7 14.Ra2 Rfe8 15.Re1 Nd7, Vesselovsky-Hracek, Czech Republic
2016, and now 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.exd5 Qc5 18.c4 would have left White with a small, but
comfortable edge.
11…Rc8
11…Nxd5 12.exd5 Bf5 13.Qe2 b5 14.c3 Qd7 15.Re1 (White didn’t accomplish much after
15.Bg5 h6 16.Be3 Rfc8 17.Rfc1 Rc4 18.Qd2 h5 19.Bf1, and now Black had the excellent
exchange sacrifice 19…Be4! 20.Be2 Qf5 21.Rd1 Bf3 22.Bxf3 Qxf3 and Black was in
charge of the game, Vallejo Diaz-Vazquez Igarza, Madrid 2013) 15…Rfc8 16.Bf1?!
(White should have played the more careful 16.a3 a5 17.Bg5 Re8 although White has
nothing more than approximately equal play) 16…Rab8?! (Now 16…b4! is possible, e.g.,
17.c4 a5, when the pawn on e7 may look tempting but causes White nothing but a passive
miserable position 18.Qxe7 Qxe7 19.Rxe7 Re8 20.Re3 a4 21.a3 b3 and Black is clearly
better) 17.Qxe7 b4 18.Qxd7 Bxd7 19.cxb4 Rxb4 20.Re7 Rd8 21.Bd2 Rxb2 22.Ba5 and
here White had the clearly better chances, Malakhov-Palac, Warsaw 2005.
12.c3 a6 13.Re1 Nd7 14.a4
White can also consider 14.Be3, e.g., 14…Ne5 15.Qe2 Nc4 16.Bd4 Bxd4 17.cxd4 Bxd5
18.exd5 Re8 19.Rac1 Nb6 20.Qd2 with nice positional pressure against Black’s position,
which is very passive.
14…Ne5 15.Qd1 Re8 16.h3 Nc4 17.Kh2 Bd7!

Black has to get his pieces active and that includes this retreat, preparing …b7-b5.
18.Re2 b5 19.axb5 Bxb5!?
This is better than the normal 19…axb5, which does nothing for Black in terms of
activating the pieces.
20.Rc2 e6 21.Ne3 Rb8?!
Now Black is losing the thread. Instead 21…h5, intending to follow up with …h5-h4,
pushing White rather than waiting for White to take action, would have been a more
difficult line for White to face.
22.b3 Ne5 23.c4 Bc6 24.Ra3
White has the better chances at this point although the game eventually ended in a draw,
Karjakin-Topalov, Paris 2017.
Summary:
As mentioned in the chapter introduction, the lines in variation (D) are the ones Black will
most likely be familiar with, as this is the most frequently recommended line for Black
against the g3-variation of the Dragon. Even so, Tiviakov’s Qc4 may be unfamiliar to
some Dragon players.
As for the other main lines, White’s play is similar, but Black’s set-ups and opportunities
depend on the move order chosen by Black and when White’s to play d2-d4. In theory,
Black should not have any issues equalizing against these lines for White, but because
White has prevented Black from playing an early …Nxd4, Black will often have to
navigate these waters without the help of home preparation. My best advice for White is to
familiarize yourself with the standard plans, when to play Nd5, the fianchetto of the
queenside bishop, the play down the semi-open e-file if Black exchanges on d5, when to
play a2-a4, when to play c2-c4, where to place the rooks, etc. That will help so much more
than merely studying the theory of these lines.
Chapter 13

Transpositions to the Najdorf Sicilian

The Najdorf Sicilian is incredibly popular at all levels of play. It is an exciting opening,
sharp and complicated. If you are playing White, it is also quite difficult to obtain an
advantage against. In this chapter, we will look at what to do when Black chooses a move
order that invites an Open Najdorf.
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 a6
Now 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 leads straight to the Najdorf when 6…e5 is the main line that
Black typically will choose. Obviously, this is not in White’s best interest, playing into
Black’s hands.
Some of the lines in this will transpose to an Open Sicilian, but White will only do this
when avoiding Black’s preferred set-ups. This is no guarantee for a White advantage, but
may discomfort Black. (D)
Black has several alternatives that we will look at here:
(a) 4…b5 is interesting because it seems like Black can dispense with from having to play
the usual …a7-a6 to

prepare for the pawn advance. After 5.Bg2 (or 5.Nxb5 Nxe4 6.Bg2 Bb7 7.0-0 Qd7 8.c4 a6
9.Na3 e5 10.Nc2 Be7 11.Ne3 0-0 12.d3 Nf6 13.Nc3 Nc6 14.Ned5 Nxd5 15.Nxd5 with
about even chances, Andonov-Grigorov, Blagoevgrad 2010) 5…Bb7, and now:
(a1) 6.0-0 Nbd7 7.d3 a6 8.a3 e6 9.f4 Qc7 10.h3 Be7 11.Bd2 0-0 12.g4 Nb6 13.g5 Nfd7
14.Ng3 Rfe8 15.h4 d5 16.exd5 exd5 17.Qf3 b4 18.Nce2 a5 with chances to both sides,
Fedorov-Cheparinov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005.
(a2) 6.d3, and here:
(a21) 6…a6 7.0-0 e6 8.a3 Nc6 9.h3 Be7 10.Be3 0-0 11.Nf4 Rc8 12.h4 Ne5 13.Nh5 d5,
Purtov-Tihonov, Sukhumi 2006, and here 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.exd5 exd5 with equal
chances.
(a22) 6…b4 7.Nd5 Nxd5 (7…Nbd7 8.c4 bxc3 9.bxc3 e6 10.Nxf6+ Nxf6 11.0-0 Qc7,
Palkovi-Timoshenko, Hartberg 1991, 12.Rb1!? Bc6 13.d4 with some initiative for White)
8.exd5 e5 9.0-0 Nd7 10.c3 Be7 11.Be3 a5 12.a3 Nf6 13.c4 0-0 14.h3 Nd7 15.Qd2 Bf6 and
Black has equalized, Kritz-Pruess, Peabody 2007.
(a3) 6.d4 with a few options for Black:
(a31) 6…b4 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 g6 9.Be3 Bg7 10.dxc5 dxc5 11.Bxc5 Na6 12.Be3 Nc7
13.c4 bxc3 14.Qa4+ with better chances for White, Ivanov, A.-Browne, Seattle 2002.
(a32) 6…e6 7.dxc5 b4 8.Nb5 Bxe4 9.f3 Bc6 10.Nxd6+ Bxd6 11.Qxd6 Qxd6 12.cxd6 Kd7
13.0-0 Kxd6 14.Rd1+ and White’s lead in development provides him with a clear
advantage, Kuporosov-Timoscenko, Wattens 1994.
(a33) 6…Nbd7 7.0-0, and now: (D)
(a331) 7…e6 8.Nxb5 Bxe4 9.Bxe4 Nxe4 10.c4 a6 11.Nbc3 Nxc3 12.Nxc3 Be7 13.dxc5
dxc5 14.Qe2 0-0 15.Rd1 Qc8 16.Ne4 Qc6 17.Bf4 Nf6 18.Nxf6+ Bxf6 19.Rd6 with
somewhat better
chances for White, Smirin-Gelfand, Klaipeda 1988.
(a332) 7…a6 8.Re1 e6 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bxf6 Nxf6 11.Nf4 cxd4 12.Qxd4 Be7 was played in
Kontic-Dobrov, Budva 2009, and now 13.Nd3 0-0 14.a4 would have led to more or less
equal play.
(a333) 7… b4 8.Nd5 e6 9.Nxf6+ Nxf6 10.d5 (10.e5 Bxg2 11.Kxg2 dxe5 12.dxe5 Nd5
13.Nf4 Be7 14.Qg4 Nxf4+ 15.Bxf4 Qd5+ 16.Qf3 Qxf3+ 17.Kxf3 with a better endgame
for White, Kupreichik-Solovjov, Minsk 2001) 10…exd5 11.exd5 Be7 12.c4 (or 12.h3 0-0
13.g4 Nd7 14.Ng3 g6 15.Bh6 Re8 16.Re1 Bf6 17.Rxe8+ Qxe8 18.Ne4 Be5 and Black
should be okay, Rublevsky-Volokitin, Foros 2006) 12…0-0 13.h3 Nd7 14.Bf4 Re8 15.Qc2
a5 16.a4 Nf8 17.g4 Ng6 18.Bh2 Bc8 was seen in Felgaer-Areshchenko, Tromsø 2013, and
now 19.Ng3 Bg5 20.Rae1 Bf4 21.Be4 would have promised White the better chances.
(b) 4…e6 5.Bg2 Nc6 6.0-0 Be7 is another main line to consider:
(b1) 7.h3, and now:
(b11) 7…a6 8.d3 Qc7 (8…h6 9.f4 d5 10.g4 d4 11.e5 dxc3 12.exf6 Bxf6 13.bxc3 Qc7
14.Rb1 0-0 15.Be3 Ne7 16.c4 Ng6 17.Be4 Re8 18.Qd2 and White has the better chances,
Jobava-Ehlvest, Moscow 2007) with another fork in the road:
(b111) 9.Be3 b5 10.f4 (or 10.a3 Bb7 11.Kh1 Rd8 12.Qd2 0-0 13.g4 d5 14.exd5 exd5
15.g5 d4 16.gxf6 dxc3 17.Qxc3 Bxf6 18.Qxc5 Bxb2 19.Rab1 Be5 and Black should not
have any problems, Gdanski-Almasi, Ohrid 2001) 10…b4 11.Nb1 d5 12.Nd2 Bb7 13.e5
Nd7 14.c3 a5 15.Nf3 g6 16.Rc1 bxc3 17.bxc3 Ba6 with chances to both sides, Ghaem
Maghami-Sasikiran, Doha 2006.
(b112) 9.f4 b5 10.g4 b4 11.Nb1 h6 12.a3 bxa3 13.Nxa3 Bb7 14.c3 a5 15.Be3 Ba6 16.Ng3
d5 17.e5 (here White should consider 17.Bc1!? 0-0 18.exd5 Nxd5 19.Nc4 when I would
prefer White although the chances probably are about even) 17…Nd7 18.c4 d4 19.Bc1
Rb8 20.Ne4 0-0 and Black is doing fine, Macieja-Jaracz, Plock 2000.
(b113) 9.g4 h6 (9…b5 10.Ng3 Bb7 11.f4 0-0-0 12.a4 b4 13.Nce2 d5 14.g5 Ne8 15.exd5
exd5 16.Nf5 Bf8, Adhiban-Vishnu, Sri Lanka 2009, 17.Ne3 would have promised White a
somewhat better game) 10.f4 b5 11.Ng3 g6 12.Nce2 Bb7 13.c3 d5 14.e5 Nd7 15.d4 0-0-0
16.f5 gxf5 17.gxf5 Rdg8 with an interesting battle ahead, Arribas Lopez-Valles Moreno,
Madrid 2010, and here 18.Nh5 would have been White’s best move.
(b12) 7…0-0 8.d3, with the following options for Black:
(b121) 8…Rb8 9.f4 (9.a3 b6 10.Kh2 Bb7 11.f4 a6 12.g4 Nd4 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Ne2 e5
15.Ng3 Bc8 16.Bd2 Ne8 17.Nf5 Bxf5 18.exf5 with an easier game for for White,
J.Gdanski-E.Agrest, Sweden 2002) 9…d5 10.e5 (10.g4 dxe4 11.Nxe4 Qb6 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6
13.c3 Rd8 14.Qc2 Bd7 15.Be3 Rbc8 16.Ng3 Ne7 17.Qf2 Bh4 was pleasant for Black in
Reinderman-I.Sokolov, Leeuwarden 1997) 10…Nd7 11.g4 b5 12.Ng3 b4 13.Nce2 a5
14.g5 Nd4 15.Nxd4 cxd4 16.b3 Ba6 17.h4 Rc8 18.Nh5 Rc6 19.Rf2 Qc7 20.Bb2 Rc8
21.Rc1 with chances to both sides, Andreikin-Potkin, Khanty-Mansiysk 2013.
(b122) 8…d5 9.exd5 exd5 10.d4 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Qb6 12.Nde2 d4 13.Na4 Qa6 14.b3 Rd8
15.Nf4 b5 16.Nb2 Bb7 17.a4, and draw agreed, ½-½, doesn’t tell us much but objectively
speaking, Black is doing okay, Spassky-Barlov, New York 1987.
(b123) 8…a6 9.f4 Nd7 (9…Qc7 10.g4 b5 11.g5 Nd7 12.Ng3 b4 13.Nce2 Bb7 14.f5 Rfe8
15.h4 Nd4 16.Nxd4 cxd4 17.f6 Bf8 18.fxg7 Bxg7 19.Nh5 and White has clearly better
chances thanks to Black’s weakened kingside, D.Popovic-Antal, Hungary 2007, but Black
may be able to improve with 17…gxf6 18.gxf6 Bf8 19.Bd2 Rac8 20.Rc1 Qc5) 10.g4 b5
11.Ng3 Nd4 12.Nce2 Nxe2+ 13.Qxe2 Bb7 14.g5 Re8 15.h4 Bf8 16.h5 g6 17.Be3 b4 was
Cherniaev-Guliyev, Geneve 2011, and now 18.a3 a5 19.f5 Ne5 would lead to a fascinating
battle.
(b2) 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7 (or 8…0-0 9.a4 Qc7 10.Ndb5 Qb8 11.b3 b6 12.Bb2 Bb7
13.Re1 a6 14.Nd4 Qc7 15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.Qd4 Rfe8 17.h3 h6 where the chances are about
balanced, Galego-Vitiugov, Caleta 2014) 9.Nde2 (9.Nb3 0-0 10.g4 d5 11.exd5 Nxd5
12.Nxd5 exd5 13.c3 Be6 14.Be3 Ne5 15.h3 Nc4 with chances to both sides, Gharamian-
Bailet, Vandoeuvre 2014) 9…a6 10.h3 0-0 11.g4 Be8 12.Ng3 Rc8 13.Kh2 b5 14.g5 Nd7
15.f4 b4 16.Nce2 Nb6 17.b3 d5 18.Bb2 (or 18.a3!?) 18…dxe4 19.Bxe4 with more or less
equal chances, Vachier Lagrave-Shchekachev, Le Port Marly 2012.
(b3) 7.d3, and now: (D)
(b31) 7…a6 8.f4 (8.a3 transposes to Spassky-Fischer, Belgrade 1992 which is covered in
Chapter 5) 8…Qc7 (8…d5 9.e5 Nd7 10.Nb1 0-0 11.Nd2 Qc7 12.d4 a5 13.a4 b6 14.Nf3
Ba6 15.Be3 Rfc8 16.Rf2 b5 17.axb5 Bxb5 18.Nc3 Bc4 with even chances, Macieja-
Kempinski, Warsaw 2004) 9.f5 Bd7 10.Nf4 Ne5 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.Bh3 Qc8

13.b3 b5 14.Bb2 0-0 15.Qe2 g5 16.Nh5 Qe8 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6 and Black has equalized,
Radulski-Poluljahov, Vrnjacka Banja 1996.
(b32) 7…0-0 8.f4 Bd7 9.Kh1 Rc8 10.Be3 e5 11.f5 Nd4 12.h3 b5 13.g4 b4 14.Nd5 Nxd5
15.exd5 Bg5 16.Bxg5 Qxg5 17.Ng3 and White is better, Gdanski-Adorjan, Budapest
1993.
(b33) 7… Rb8 8.f4 Nd7 9.Be3 0-0 10.d4 (or 10.f5 Nde5 11.h3 b5 12.fxe6 fxe6 13.Nf4
Nd4 14.Nce2 Nxe2+ 15.Qxe2 Bd7 16.h4 g6 17.Bh3 Qc8 18.Rf2 and White has the
initiative, Kolosowski-Jasnikowski, Szklarska Poreba 2013) 10…cxd4 11.Nxd4 a6 12.a4
Qc7 13.Qd2 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 b6 15.f5 Ne5, and now instead of 16.f6 Bxf6 17.Rxf6 gxf6
18.Rf1 Qe7 when Black was doing fine in Sutovsky-Ehlvest, Reykjavik 2003, White
should have played 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.Rxf8+ Bxf8 18.Ne2 with a pleasant game for White.
(b4) 7.b3 0-0 (7…Bd7 8.Bb2 a6 9.a4 0-0 10.h3 Qc7 11.g4 Rfd8 12.d3 Ne8 13.Qd2 Nb4
14.Nd1 d5 15.c3 Nc6 16.exd5 exd5 17.Ne3 Be6 and Black has equalized, Soltis-
Quinteros, New York 1984) 8.Bb2
8…a6 (8…e5 9.h3 Nd4 10.f4 Bd7 11.g4 Bc6 12.d3 b5 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Ne2 b4 15.Ng3
a5 16.g5 Nd7 17.h4 with some initiative for White, Rublevsky-Karpman, Russia 1992 or
8…d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.d4 Nxc3 11.Bxc3 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Bd7 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.Qg4 and
White has the better chances, Soltis-Meyer, St Paul 1982) 9.h3 Qc7 10.d3 b5 11.Qd2 Bb7
12.Nd1 d5 13.exd5 Nxd5 14.Ndc3 Nxc3 15.Bxc3 Rad8 16.Rae1 h6 with equal chances,
Turner-Conquest, England 2011.
(c) 4…e5 5.Bg2 Nc6 (5…h5 6.h4 Bg4 7.d3 Nc6 8.Bg5 Nd4 9.Qd2 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6
11.Nxd4 cxd4 12.Nd5 Be6 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 ½-½, H.Simonian-Ter-Sahakyan, Yerevan
2012) 6.d3 Be7 7.0-0 (also 7.h3 has been tried: 7…Nd4 8.f4 Bd7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Be3 b5
11.Qd2 b4 12.Nd1 a5 13.b3 Bb5 14.Nb2 Nxe2+ 15.Qxe2 d5 16.exd5 exf4, Ermenkov-
Sveshnikov, Mallorca 2007, and now 17.Bxf4 Nxd5 18.Be5 would have left White with a
plus), and here Black has tried: (D)
(c1) 7…0-0 8.f4 Nd4 (or 8…Rb8 9.a4 a6 10.h3 b5 11.axb5 axb5, Dzhumaev-Alikulov,
Tashkent 2012, 12.Nd5!?) 9.h3 Rb8 10.a4 a6 11.g4 b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.g5 Nxe2+
14.Qxe2 Nd7 15.Nd5 exf4 16.Bxf4 and White has the
upper hand, Vallejo Pons-Areshchenko, Germany 2007.
(c2) 7…h5 8.Nd5 h4 9.Nxe7 Nxe7 10.Bg5 hxg3 11.fxg3 Nfg8 12.Nc3 f6 13.Be3 Nh6,
Leniart-Maksimenko, Gorzow Wielkopolski 2014, and now 14.Qh5+ Nf7 15.Qe2 Be6
would lead to interesting play and chances to both sides.
(c3) 7…Nd4 8.h3 Bd7 9.Nxd4 cxd4 10.Ne2 Rc8 11.c3 dxc3 12.Nxc3 0-0 13.Be3 a6 14.d4
b5 15.a3 Rc4 was played in Perez Candelario-Vachier Lagrave, Linares 2013, and now
16.Rc1 Qb8 17.Qd2 Rfc8 18.Rfd1 would be about even.
5.Bg2 e6
5…e5 shuts down White’s opportunities to transfer into an Open Sicilian: 6.d3 Be7 7.0-0
b5 (or 7…0-0 8.h3 Nc6 9.f4 Bd7 10.f5 Nd4 11.g4 h6 12.Ng3 Nb5 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.exd5
Nc7 15.Be3 Bh4 16.Kh2 Ne8 17.Qd2 Qe7 with chances to both sides, Brunsek-Krueger,
ICCF email 2006) 8.f4 0-0 9.a3 Nbd7 10.h3 h5 11.Be3 Rb8 12.Qe1 Bb7 13.b3 Qc7
14.Qf2 Rbd8 15.Bf3 Nb6 16.g4 d5 (logical, but 16…exf4 17.Bxf4 hxg4 18.hxg4 may be
an improvement for Black) 17.fxe5
Nfd7 18.Bf4 Nxe5 was seen in Kochemasov-Nekhaev, ICCF email 2012, and now
19.gxh5 Bf6 20.h6 would have offered White the better chances.
6.0-0 Be7 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qc7
A key alternative for Black is 8…0-0, and now White can consider several options:
(a) 9.f4 Qc7 when White, against standard conventions, decided the position was ripe for
an attack: 10.g4 Re8 11.f5 Bf8 12.g5 Nfd7 13.fxe6 fxe6 14.Nxe6!? Rxe6 15.Qf3 Re7
16.Nd5 Qd8 17.g6 Nf6 18.Bg5 Nbd7 19.gxh7+ Kh8 20.Qb3 Nc5 21.Qg3 Nxd5 (Black
appears to be able to defend with 21…Be6 22.Bxf6 gxf6 23.Nxe7 Qxe7 24.Rad1 Re8 with
an unclear middlegame) 22.exd5 Bd7 23.Qh4 Qb6 24.Bxe7 Bxe7 25.Qxe7 and White is
winning, Naiditsch-Shchekachev, Chartres 2017.
(b) 9.a4 Nc6 10.Be3 (10.Nb3 Qc7 11.a5 Ne5 12.Nd2 b5 13.axb6 Qxb6 14.h3 Bb7 15.Kh2
Rac8 16.Ra4 Rfd8 17.f4 Ned7 is about even, Motylev-Gabrielian, Sochi 2016), and now:
(D)
(b1) 10…Rb8 11.f4 (11.Qe2 Qc7 12.Kh1 Re8 13.f4 Bd7 14.Nb3 Nb4

15.a5 Rbc8 16.Rac1 Qb8 17.Qd2 Rc4 18.Bb6 Rec8 19.Nd4 Bd8 20.Bxd8 Rxd8 and Black
is fine, Mekhitarian-Salem, Abu Dhabi 2016) 11…Qc7 (11…Nd7 12.Qe2 Nxd4 13.Bxd4
b6 14.Rad1 Qc7 15.Kh1 Bb7 16.g4 Rbe8 17.Qf2 Bc6 18.g5 b5 19.axb5 axb5 20.b4 Qb7
with chances to both sides, Barbosa-Yu Yuhua, Baku 2016) 12.Kh1 Bd7 (or 12…Re8
13.Qd2 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 e5 15.Be3 Be6 16.a5!? Rbc8 17.f5 Bc4 18.Rfd1 d5 19.exd5 Bb4
20.d6 Qd7 21.Bg5 when White has the upper hand, Kryvoruchko-Salem, Berlin 2015)
13.Nb3 b6 14.g4 h6 15.Qe2 Nb4 16.Nd4 Rbc8 17.Rad1 Qc4 18.Qf3 e5 19.Nf5 Bxf5
20.exf5 exf4 21.Rd4 Qc7 22.Bxf4 and White has taken over the initiative and eventually
won a good game, Adams-Giri, Shamkir 2015.
(b2) 10…Bd7 11.Qe2, and here:

(b21) 11…Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bc6 13.Rfd1 Rc8 14.a5 Nd7 15.b4 Re8 16.b5 axb5 17.Nxb5
Ra8 18.Bc3 Bxb5 19.Qxb5 Qc7 20.Bd4 Reb8 was Brkic-Kraemer, Austria 2017, when
21.Rdb1 would have left White with a tiny pull.
(b22) 11…Rc8 12.Nb3 Ne5 13.Rfd1 Nc4 14.Bc1 Qb6 15.Nd4 g6 16.b3 Na5 17.Qd3 Ng4
18.h3 Ne5 19.Qe3 Qc7 20.Nce2 with a pleasant game for White, Balogh-Kraemer,
Germany 2016.
(b23) 11…Ne5 12.Kh1 Rc8 13.f4 Nc4 14.Bc1 Qb6 15.Nb3 Qc7 16.Nd4 Rfe8 17.b3 e5
18.Nf5 Bxf5 19.exf5 Nb6 20.Bb2 exf4 21.a5 Nbd7 22.gxf4 d5 with chances to both sides,
Balogh-Van Wely, Baku 2016.
(c) 9.Be3 Nc6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.e5 Nd5 (or 11…dxe5 12.Bxc6 Rb8 13.Qxd8 Rxd8 14.b3
Bb7 15.Bxb7 Rxb7 16.Na4 Nd5 17.Bd2 e4 18.Rfd1 f5 19.Kf1 Kf7 with a complex
endgame where both sides have their share of the chances, Deepan Chakkravarthy-Salem,
Sharjah 2017) 12.Nxd5 exd5 13.exd6 Qxd6 14.c4 dxc4 15.Qxd6 Bxd6 16.Rfd1 Be7
17.Bxc6 with better chances for White, Dragun-Bu Xiangzhi, Moscow 2016.
(d) 9.b3 Qc7 10.Bb2 Nbd7 (10…b5 was tested in Popilski-Zherebukh, New York 2017,
where White played the tame 11.a3 and Black already was doing rather well; instead,
11.Ndxb5!? is worth looking into, for instance 11…axb5 12.e5 dxe5 13.Bxa8 b4 14.Ne4
Nfd7 15.a3 leads to sharp and interesting play where White should not be worse) 11.a4
Rb8 12.a5 b5 13.axb6 Qxb6 14.g4 g6 15.g5 Nh5 16.f4 Bb7 17.Kh1 Ng7 18.h4 Rbc8 19.f5
with excellent attacking prospects for White, Dubov-Korobov, Poikovsky 2017.
9.a4

White has two decent alternatives:

(a) 9.f4 Nc6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Qf3 e5 12.Nd1 0-0 13.Qc3 Rb8 14.Ne3 Qb6 15.fxe5 dxe5
16.Qxe5 Be6 17.Kh1 Nd7 18.Qh5 was played in Benedetti-Perez Ponsa, Villa Martelli
2016, and now 18…Bf6 would have provided Black with decent compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.
(b) 9.Be3 0-0 10.Qe2 (White can also start a kingside attack with 10.g4 Re8 11.g5 Nfd7
12.f4 Bf8 13.h4 Nc6 14.h5 Nxd4 15.Qxd4 b5 16.Rad1 Bb7 17.Qd2 Rad8 with chances to
both sides, Muzychuk, M.-Bruzon Batista, Gibraltar 2016) 10…Re8 11.Rad1 Nbd7 12.f4
Nb6 13.Bc1 e5 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.exf5 exf4 16.Bxf4 Rac8 17.Kh1 Nc4 18.Nd5 Nxd5
19.Bxd5 Bf6, and here a draw was agreed upon, ½-½, in Macieja-Kempinski, Poznan
2005. White should be marginally better after exchanges on c4 but evidently felt that it
would not be enough to play for a win against his grandmaster colleague.
9…Nc6
9…Bd7 10.a5 Nc6 11.Nxc6 Bxc6 12.Be3 0-0 13.Bb6 Qb8 14.Re1 Nd7 15.Bd4 b5 16.axb6
Nxb6 17.b3 Qb7 18.Ra5 leaves White with the kind of advantage that he is striving for in
this variation, Tiviakov-Silva, Caldas da Rainha 2014.
10.Be3 0-0
Or 10…Ne5 11.Nb3 0-0 12.a5 Nc4 13.Bc1 Nd7 14.Qe2 Rb8 15.Rd1 Bf6 16.Ra4 b5
17.axb6 Ndxb6 18.Ra2 Rd8 19.Nd4 Bb7 20.b3 with a small pull for White, Saldano
Dayer-Mareco, Lima 2013.
11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.a5 Bb7
Also 12…Nd7 is playable, for instance, 13.Na4 Rb8 14.Nb6 c5 15.Nxc8 Rfxc8 16.b3 Bf6
17.Ra4 Ne5 18.Re1 Nc6 19.Qd2 Bd4 and Black has equalized, Leko-Navara, Tallinn
2016.
13.Bb6
Black turned out to be okay after 13.Qe2 c5 14.Rfd1 Rad8 15.Bf4 Nd7 16.Nb1 Nb8
17.Nd2 Nc6 18.Nc4 Nd4 19.Qd3 e5 as played in Predke-Jakovenko, Sochi 2016.
13…Qc8 14.b4 Nd7
After 14…d5 15.Rb1 c5 16.Bxc5 Bxc5 17.bxc5 Nxe4 18.Nxe4 dxe4 19.Rb6 Bd5 20.Qd4
Ra7 21.c4 Ba8 22.Rfb1 Rc7 23.Qd6 Bb7 24.Qf4 h6 25.h4 White has the better chances,
Dragun-Lu Shanglei, Cappelle la Grande 2016, but Black can improve with 17…dxe4
18.Qd4 Rd8.
15.Na4 c5 16.bxc5 dxc5 17.Qe2 Bc6 18.Rfb1 Rb8 19.Bf1 Bxa4 20.Rxa4 Bd8
21.Qxa6?!
This may look good at first glance but it allows Black to trade down to a drawn endgame.
Instead, 21.e5 Bc7 22.Ra3 Nxb6 23.axb6 Rxb6 24.Rxb6 Bxb6 25.Rxa6 Qc7 26.c3 would
have left White with a little pressure although Black should ultimately be okay.
21…Qxa6 22.Bxa6 Nxb6 23.axb6 Rxb6 24.Rxb6 Bxb6 25.Bc4 g5 26.Ra6
And here a draw was agreed upon, ½-½, in Dragun-Sasikiran, Moscow 2016.
Summary:
This chapter is in some ways my favorite example of the Chameleon. If White played the
g3-variation against the Najdorf, most Black players would without hesitation play 6…e5
in response to White’s 6.g3. With the Chameleon move order, Black doesn’t have that
option and will therefore have to settle for an e6-configuration.
These lines are perfectly good and playable, offering Black several possibilities of
equalizing. However, these are not the lines Black typically will have prepared when
putting his Najdorf repertoire together. In fact, they are often entirely forgotten, and this
gives White the excellent opportunity to enter the middlegame with an advantage in hand.
There will be few chances for White to sharpen the game, but sharp is not what White is
aiming for in this variation. It is control of Black’s active counterplay, of which there is
almost none.
Chapter 14

Transpositions to the Classical Sicilian

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 d6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4

6…Bg4
Black has several alternatives at this point:
(a) 6…e5 7.Nde2, and now:
(a1) 7…Bg4 8.Bg2 Rc8 9.h3 Be6 10.0-0 Be7 11.Be3 0-0 12.Nd5 a6 13.c4 Bxd5 14.exd5
Na5 15.b3 with a better game for White, Uzhva-Savchenko, Dagomys 2010;
(a2) 7…Be7 8.Bg2 (8.h3 typically transposes to the lines below) 8…0-0 (8…h5 9.h3 h4
10.g4 Nh7 11.Nd5 Bg5 12.f4 exf4 13.Nexf4 0-0 14.0-0 Ne5 15.a4 Be6 16.b3 Bxd5
17.Nxd5 Bxc1 18.Qxc1 with more or less equal chances according to the computer, but
White’s position seems easier to play, Kudrin-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1985) 9.0-0
(9.h3 Be6 10.0-0 Rc8 11.Nd5 Bxd5 12.exd5 Nb8 13.Be3 a5 14.b3 Nfd7 15.c4 Na6 16.Qd2
Ndc5 17.Rab1 b6 18.Nc3 and White is comfortably in control of the game, Ciolac-Videki,
Aschach 1995) 9…a6 10.h3 b5 11.Be3 (Or 11.Bg5 b4 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nd5 a5 14.a3 Ba6
15.axb4 axb4 16.Re1 Bg5, Tompa-Okhotnik, Hungary 2010, and now 17.h4 Bh6 18.b3
would have left White with a position I consider somewhat preferable for White) 11…Bb7
12.Qd2 Nb8 13.g4 Nbd7 14.Ng3 b4 15.Nd5 Nxd5 16.exd5 a5 17.a3 Ba6 18.Rfc1 when
White pieces are something close to their ideal squares while the same cannot be said
about their black counterparts, Kudrin-Kosten, Geneva 1988.
(a3) 7…d5 8.exd5 Nb4 9.a3 Nbxd5 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 11.c4 Nf6 12.Qxd8+ Kxd8 13.Bg2
Kc7 14.b3 Bd7 15.Bb2 Re8 was seen in Bartel-Heberla, Lublin 2008, and now 16.0-0 Bc6
17.Rfd1 would have left White with a steady advantage in the queenless middlegame.
(a4) 7…a6 transposes to 6…a6 7.Bg2 e5 below.
(b) 6…a6 7.Bg2, and here Black has tried:

(b1) 7…Bg4 8.Nde2 (8.Qd2 Qb6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.b3 g6 11.Bb2 Bg7 12.f4 d5 13.e5 Nd7
14.Na4 Qb5 15.h3 Be6 16.0-0-0 0-0 17.g4 with a better game for White, Lopez Martinez-
Asis Gargatagli, Catalunya 2013) 8…g6 (8…h5 9.h3 Bd7 10.Bg5 e6 11.Nf4 Qa5 12.h4
Be7 13.0-0 Ne5 14.Nd3 Nfg4 15.Bxe7 Kxe7 16.Qd2 Nc4 17.Qe1 with a double-edged
position, Tiviakov-Van Assendelft, Netherlands 2015) 9.h3 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 Bg7 11.0-0 0-0
12.Nd5 Rc8 13.c3 Nxd5 14.exd5 Ne5 15.Re1 Re8 16.Bg5 h6 17.Bf4 with an easier game
for White, Kryvoruchko-Neverov, Lvov 2015.
(b2) 7…Nxd4 8.Qxd4 e5 9.Qd3 Be7 (or 9…h6 10.0-0 Be7 11.a4 Be6 12.a5 Qc8 13.b3 0-0
14.Na4 Nd7 15.c4 Bd8 16.Bd2 Bc7 17.Nc3 Nc5 18.Qc2 b6 19.axb6 Bxb6 was played in
Vazquez-Delgado Ramirez, Asuncion 2013, and now 20.b4 Nd7 21.Nd5 would have
offered White a small but clear advantage) 10.Bg5 Be6 11.0-0 Rc8 12.Rfd1 Ng4 13.Bxe7
Kxe7 14.Rd2 Qb6 15.b3 Rhd8 16.Nd1 Qc5, Berelowitsch-Guliyev, Germany 2012, and
here 17.Bf3 Nf6 18.Ne3 would have slightly better for White albeit not by much.
(b3) 7…e5 8.Nde2 (8.Nf5 g6 (also 8…Bxf5 has been tested, e.g., 9.exf5 Be7 10.Be3 0-0
11.g4 Nd7 12.h4 Rc8? – 12…Nb6 was better -13.g5 b5 14.f6 gxf6 15.Be4 Re8 16.Rg1
fxg5 17.Bxh7+ Kxh7 18.Qh5+ Kg7 19.Bxg5 Bxg5 20.Rxg5+ Kf8 21.Qh6+, and game
over, 1-0, Lilov-Rzayev, Varna 2009) 9.Ne3 Bg7 10.0-0 0-0, Timman-Savchenko,
Germany 2009, and here White should have played 11.Ned5 Nxd5 12.Nxd5 Be6 13.Qd3
with slightly better chances) 8…Be6 9.0-0 Be7 10.Nd5 Bxd5 11.exd5 Na5 12.h3 0-0
13.g4 Qc7 14.Ng3 Rfc8 15.c3 b5, Grigorov-Inkiov, Sofia 1984, and here 16.g5 Nd7 17.h4
is better for White.
(b4) 7… Bd7 8.0-0 (White can also consider 8.Nde2 e6 9.a4 Be7 10.b3 0-0 11.0-0 Qc7
12.Bb2 Rfd8 13.Qd2 Be8 14.h3 Rac8 15.Rfc1 d5 16.exd5 Nb4 17.Nf4 Bc6 18.Qe2 exd5
as in Naiditsch-Xu Yuhua, Sharjah 2017, and now 19.Nb5 axb5 20.axb5 Be8 21.c3 or
20…g5 21.Re1 Re8 22.Ne6 Qd7 23.bxc6 Nxc6 24.Nxg5 Ba3 25.Rxa3 Rxe2 26.Rxe2 d4
27.h4, in both cases with somewhat better play for White) 8…e6, and now we have
entered a position a g3-variation that could have arisen from a number of variations by
Black, except in each of those variations, Black would most likely not have chosen to set
himself up in this fashion through a traditional move order from that given variation. Now
White can choose from several moves:

(b41) 9.Be3 Qc7 10.f4 Na5 11.Bf2 Rc8 12.Qe2 Nc4 13.Rae1 Nxb2 14.e5 Qxc3 15.exf6
gxf6 16.Qh5 Rc5, Naiditsch-Saric, Monzon 2016, and now 17.f5 e5 18.Nb3 would have
left White with a substantial advantage.
(b42) 9.a4, with another fork in the path:

(b421) 9…Be7 10.Be3 0-0 (or 10…Ne5 11.Kh1 0-0 12.f4 Ng6 13.a5 Rc8 14.Nb3 Bc6
15.Bb6 Qd7 16.Nd4 Bd8 17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Qd3 Qb7 19.Qxd6 Bxb6 20.Qb4 with a clear
advantage for White, Wei Yi-Santos Latasa, Leon 2016) 11.Qe2 Rc8 12.Rfd1 Qc7
13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.a5 Nd7 15.f4 Bf6 16.Qd2 Bxc3 17.Qxc3 Rfe8 18.Qb4 with an active
position, more space and the overall better chances for White, Quesada Perez-Saric,
Monzon 2016.
(b422) 9…Qc7 10.Nxc6 (or 10.Nb3 Be7 11.f4 Na5 12.Nxa5 Qxa5 13.Qe2 h5 14.h3 Bc6
15.Bd2 Qc7 16.Be3 b6 17.Rae1 Qb7 18.Bd4 with better chances for White, Solak-
Rajkovic, Cetinje 2010) 10…Bxc6 11.a5 b5 12.axb6 Qxb6 13.Re1 Be7 14.Ra3 (14.b3 Qc7
15.Bb2 0-0 16.Qe2 Bb7 17.e5 dxe5 18.Bxb7 Qxb7 19.Qxe5 Rfc8 is fine for Black, Leko-
Morozevich, Beijing 2012) 14…Qc7 15.Nd5 exd5 16.exd5 Bd7 17.Rae3 Ng8 18.Qe2 Qd8
19.c4 Kf8 with sharp play and chances to both sides in Svidler-Morozevich, Tashkent
2012, but 15.Qe2 may simply improve White’s position without having to sacrifice the
piece.
(b43) 9.Nce2 Rc8 10.Re1 e5 11.Nf5 d5 12.exd5 Bxf5 13.Nc3 Bg4 14.Qd2 Na5 15.Rxe5+
Be7 16.d6 Nc4 17.Rxe7+ Qxe7 18.dxe7 Nxd2 19.Bxd2, and White has a tiny advantage,
Naiditsch-Lu Shanglei, Danzhou 2017.
(b44) 9.Nxc6 Bxc6 (9…bxc6 10.Qe2 e5 11.Nd1 Be7 12.Ne3 0-0 13.b3 Ne8 14.Bb2 Be6
15.f4 f6 16.Rad1 Qb6 17.Kh1 and White has the upper hand Gaprindashvili-Garcia
Gonzales, Wijk aan Zee 1979) 10.a4 (or 10.Bf4 Qc7 11.Qd2 Be7 12.Rfd1 Rd8 13.a4 0-0
14.a5 Rfe8 15.h3 Qc8 16.Be3 d5 17.Bb6 d4 18.Na4 Bxe4 19.Bxd8 Rxd8 20.Bxe4 Nxe4
21.Qe2 Qc6 with equality, Istratescu-Laznicka, Rogaska Slatina 2011) 10…Be7 (10…b5
11.Re1 bxa4 12.Nxa4 Nd7 13.Bf4 Qc7 14.Nc3 Be7 15.Qd2 Ne5 was played in Alekseev-
Morozevich, Moscow 2008, and now White could have played 16.Nd5! with clearly better
chances) 11.a5 0-0 12.Be3, and now Black has tried a few different moves:

(c1) 12…Qc7 13.Bb6 Qb8 14.Re1 Bd8 15.Bd4 Nd7 16.Qd2 Bf6 17.Na2 Rd8 18.Nb4 Qc7
19.Bxf6 Nxf6 20.c4 Rab8 21.b3 with a firm grip on the position, Tiviakov-Damljanovic,
Plovdiv 2008.
(c2) 12…Nd7 13.Qd2 Qc7 14.Rfe1 Rac8 15.Bd4 Ne5 16.b3 Be8 17.Re3 Nd7 18.Re2 Bf6
19.Bxf6 Nxf6 20.Na2 Bd7 21.c4 Rfd8 22.Nb4
White has a small but not insignificant positional advantage, Tiviakov-J,Polgar,
Hoogeveen 2009. This set-up for White is worth paying attention to, as it is very difficult
to face when playing Black.
(c3) 12…Rc8 13.Re1 Nd7 14.Na4 f5 15.Nb6 Nxb6 16.Bxb6 Qd7 17.c4 e5 18.exf5 Qxf5
19.Bd5+ Kh8 20.Ra3 with a positional plus for White, Safarli-Andreikin, Berlin 2015.
(d) 6…Bd7 7.Bg2 typically transposes to the other lines in this chapter.
(e) 6…Nxd4 7.Qxd4 g6 8.e5 (8.Bg2 Bg7 transposes to the Dragon chapter) 8…dxe5
9.Qxe5 Bg7 10.Bg2 0-0 11.0-0 Bf5 12.Qe2 (12.Qb5 Bxc2 13.Qxb7 Rb8 14.Qxa7 e5
15.Bg5 Rxb2 16.Nd5 e4 17.Rad1 Bxd1 18.Rxd1, and now instead of 18…Qxd5?!
19.Rxd5 Nxd5 20.Bxe4 Nc3 21.Bf3 Rxa2 which was about equal yet not without
problems for Black in Janev-Jerez Perez, Bratto 2012, Black should have played the cool-
headed 18…Kh8! 19.Bxe4 Qd7 20.Qxd7 Nxd7 21.a3 Nc5 with somewhat better chances
for Black) 12…e6 13.Bxb7 Rb8 14.Bf3 Nd5 (14…h5 15.Rb1 Ng4 16.Ne4 Ne5 17.Bg2
Bg4 18.f3 Bf5 19.Rd1 Qa5 20.a3 when Black had some but not full compensation for the
pawn, Kaidanov-Yermolinsky Parsippany 1996) 15.Nd1 Qc8 16.c3 Bh3 17.Re1 Rd8
18.Bg5 f6 19.Bd2 e5 20.c4 Ne7 21.Bc3 and White had an extra pawn, Felgaer-Peek,
Caleta 2011.
(f) 6…Qb6 7.Nb3, and now:
(f1) 7…e6 8.Bg2 Be7 (8…a6 9.a4 Na5 10.Be3 Qc7 11.Nxa5 Qxa5 12.0-0 Be7 13.f4 0-0
14.Qd2 Qc7 15.a5 Bd7 16.Bb6 Qc8 was Rodriguez Cespedes-Corral Blanco, Barcelona
2000, and here White could have improved on the game with 17.e5! Ne8 18.Rad1 Bc6
19.Bh3 and White is completely in command of the game or 17…dxe5 18.fxe5 Ng4
19.Qd4 Nh6 20.Rad1 Bc6 21.Ne4 Nf5 22.Qf2 with an uncomfortable position for Black)
9.0-0 0-0 10.a4 (10.Be3 Qc7 11.f4 a6 12.a4 b6 13.g4 Re8 14.g5 Nd7 15.Rf3 g6 16.Rh3
Nb4 17.Qd2 Bb7 18.Rf1 Bf8 19.Qf2 Bg7 20.f5 exf5 21.exf5 Bxg2 22.Kxg2 and Black is
fighting to keep his head above water, Popovic-Damjanovic, Niksic 1996) 10…Qc7 11.a5
Bd7 12.Qe2 Nb4 13.Bf4 e5 14.Bg5 Rfc8 15.Rfd1 h6 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.h4 b6 with chances
to both sides, Jansa-Cvek, Czechia 2012.
(f2) 7… Bg4 8.f3 Be6 9.Qe2 Nb4 10.Qb5+ Qxb5 11.Bxb5+ Bd7 12.Kd1 e6 13.Be3 Be7
14.g4 h6 15.h4 Bd8 16.Kd2 Nc6 17.Rad1 and White has a tiny plus, Bartel-Gonda,
Balatonlelle 2003
7.f3
7…Nxd4
Black can also simply retreat with the bishop to d7, although this square isn’t always ideal
for Black: 7…Bd7 8.Be3, and now:

(a) 8…Rc8 9.Qd2 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Qa5 11.Nd5 Qxd2+ 12.Kxd2 Nxd5 13.exd5 a6 14.Re1
e5 15.dxe6 fxe6 16.f4 and White has the upper hand in this double-rook + two bishops
ending, Willemze-Burg, Netherlands 2016.
(b) 8…a6 9.Qd2 e6 10.g4 (10.Bg2 Ne5 11.b3 Qc7 12.0-0 Ng6 13.Nd1 d5 14.exd5 Nxd5
15.Bf2 Bb4 16.Qe2 0-0 17.c4 Nf6 18.Nc2 Bd6 is fairly even although White’s position
seems a bit easier to play, Faibisovich-Zinchenko, Rethymno 2011) 10…h6 11.h4 b5 12.0-
0-0 Nxd4 13.Qxd4 Qa5 14.a3 Rc8 15.Qa7 Rc7 16.Qb8+ Rc8 17.Qa7 Rc7 18.Bb6 Rxa7
19.Bxa5 Bc6 20.Bg2 Be7 21.Kb1 and White has the easier game and more space in the
queenless middlegame, Prasca Sosa-Barrientos Chavarriaga, Mendes 2009.
(c) 8…h5 is an idea we see regularly in the Najdorf, but here Black intends to combine it
with a Dragon after 9.Qd2 g6, nevertheless White is better after 10.0-0-0 Bg7 11.Kb1 Rc8
12.h3 a6 13.Rh2 0-0 14.Nxc6 Bxc6 15.g4 b5 16.Bd4 e5 17.Be3 b4 18.Ne2 Qc7,
Willemze-Bosboom, Netherlands 2016, and now 19.g5 would have left White with a fairly
clear advantage.
(d) 8…e5 9.Nb3 Be7 10.Qd2 0-0 11.0-0-0 a5 12.Bb5 (or 12.Kb1 a4 13.Nc1 a3 14.b3 Nb4
15.Nd3 Nxd3 16.Bxd3 Rc8 17.g4 Qc7 18.Bc4 with somewhat better chances for White,
Garbisu de Goni-Mladenov, Pamplona 2009) 12…Nb4 13.Bxd7 Nxd7 14.a3 a4 15.axb4
axb3 16.cxb3 f5 17.Kb1 fxe4 18.fxe4 Qe8 19.Rhf1 and despite his odd pawn structure,
White has a clear advantage thanks to his superior-placed pieces, Movsesian-Granda
Zuniga, New York 1998.
(e) 8…g6 is another “Dragon”-like setup that has been tested a bunch of times, 9.Qd2
Bg7, and now:

(e1) 10.0-0-0 0-0 11.g4 Ne5 (or 11…Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Qa5 13.Kb1 Rfc8 14.h4 Be6 15.a3
Rab8 16.h5 and White has an improved version of 9.g4 variation of the Yugoslav Dragon,
Rodriguez Vila-Stamenkovic, Campinas 2011) 12.h4 Rc8 13.h5 d5? (premature, but Black
is already struggling) 14.hxg6 fxg6 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.exd5 Rxf3 17.Nxf3 Nxf3 18.Qb4
and White is much better, Al Zendani-Salem, Dubai 2011.
(e2) 10.g4 Rc8 (10…Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Qa5 12.h4 h6 13.0-0-0 Rc8 14.a3 Be6 15.g5 hxg5
16.hxg5 Rxh1 17.Bb5+ Nd7 18.Rxh1 Bxd4 19.Qxd4 and White has the initiative and
better chances in Sitnikov-Pilavov, Evpatoria 2007) 11.0-0-0 Ne5 (11…0-0 12.Kb1 Ne5
13.h4 Qa5 14.Nb3 Qd8 15.Be2 b5 16.h5 b4 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.exd5 Qc7 19.Rc1 is another
example of a Dragon that is not working for Black, Movsesian-Belov, Istanbul 2003)
12.Kb1 (or 12.h4 h6 13.Be2 Nc4 14.Bxc4 Rxc4 15.Kb1 Qc8 16.Nde2 b5 17.Nf4 b4
18.Ncd5 Nxd5 19.Nxd5 with a clear advantage for White, Quparadze-Dubov, Yerevan
2014) 12…Nc4 13.Bxc4 Rxc4 14.Nb3 h5 15.e5 dxe5 16.g5 Nh7 17.Nc5 Rd4 18.Bxd4
exd4 19.Nxd7 Qxd7 20.Ne2 and Black’s opening has clearly been a failure, Pinter-
Likavsky, Slovakia 2008.
8.Qxd4 Bd7
It is generally considered too dangerous for Black to accept the pawn sacrifice with 8…
Bxf3 9.Bb5+ Nd7 10.Rf1. Theoretically, Black is nearly okay but in practical play it is
much more difficult to play accurately:

(a) 10…Bg2 11.Rf2 Bh3 12.Qd5 Be6 13.Qxb7 Qc8 (13…Rc8 14.Qxa7 g6 15.Nd5 Bg7
16.Qb6 Rc5 17.Qxd8+ Kxd8 18.a4 Bxd5 19.exd5 Rxd5 20.c3 gives White the better
chances in the endgame, Shchekachev-Arbakov, Moscow 1989) 14.Qxc8+ Rxc8 15.Be3
Rc7 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.exd5 g6 18.c4 (or 18.Bd4 f6 19.Rf3 Kf7 20.Bxd7 Rxd7 21.Ra3 Bg7
22.Rxa7 Rxa7 23.Bxa7 and White has the upper hand in the endgame thanks to his passed
pawns on the queenside, Garcia Carbo-Rivas Pastor, Burgas 1999) 18…Bg7 19.c5 dxc5
20.Bf4 Rb7 21.Bc6 Rb4 22.0-0-0 and White is better, Schwarz-Michenka, Frydek Mistek
2004.
(b) 10…Bg4 11.Qd5 Be6 12.Qxb7 g6 13.Nd5 Rc8 14.Bg5 Bxd5 (14…Rc5 15.Be3 Bxd5
16.Bxd7+ Qxd7 17.Qxd7+ Kxd7 18.Bxc5 Bc4 19.Bd4 e5 20.Bxa7 Bxf1 21.Kxf1 is
another favorable endgame for White, Augustin-Smejkal, Pardubice 1965) 15.Qxd5 f6
16.Rxf6 exf6 17.Qe6+ Be7 18.Bxf6 Rxc2 19.Kd1 Rc5 20.Bxd7+ Qxd7 21.Qxd7+ Kxd7
22.Bxh8 Rh5 and Black has managed to equalize, Sharapov-Kononenko, Simferopol
2003.
9.Be3
White has a couple of good alternatives at this point:
(a) 9.Bg5 e6 10.Nb5 Be7 11.0-0-0 Bxb5 12.Bxb5+ Kf8 13.Bc4 Qa5 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.f4
Rc8 16.Bb3 with clearly better chances for White, Georgiev, V.-Peek, Lido Estensi 2002.
(b) 9.g4 e5 10.Qd3 Be7 11.Be3 0-0 12.0-0-0 Be6 13.Rg1 Rc8 14.g5 Nh5 15.Nd5 and
White is slightly better, Atlas-Tukmakov, Liechtenstein 1991.
9…g6
After 9…Qa5 10.Bc4 e6 11.0-0-0 Be7 12.Bd2 Rc8 13.Bb3 Bc6 as seen in Kagan-Csom,
Lucerne 1982, White could have obtained the better chances after 14.Nd5 Qc5 15.Qxc5
dxc5 16.Nxe7 Kxe7 17.Bc4.
10.Qd2 Bg7 11.0-0-0

White accomplished less after 11.Bh6 Bxh6 12.Qxh6 Qa5 13.Bc4 Rc8 14.Bb3 Be6 15.0-
0-0 Bxb3 16.axb3 Qa1+, and a draw was agreed upon, ½-½, in Kudrin-Csom,
Copenhagen 1983.
11…h5
White had the better chances after 11…0-0 12.Kb1 Rc8 13.Bd4 Bc6 14.h4 h5 15.g4 e6
16.gxh5 Nxh5 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Bh3 Qf6 19.Bg4 in Livshits-Selin, Alushta 2002.
12.Kb1 Qc8 13.Bd4 0-0 14.Bxf6 exf6 15.Qxd6 Be6 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.Rxd5 Rd8
18.Qxd8+ Qxd8 19.Rxd8+ Rxd8 20.Bd3
And White has an advantage thanks to his extra pawn, but the opposite-color bishops
provides Black with decent drawing chances and a draw was indeed the outcome of the
game, Stanojoski-Jovanovic, Obrenovac 2004.
Summary:
This line is an interesting hybrid because Black can enter variations which resemble many
different types of Open Sicilians. However, the key word is “resemble.” They are close but
not quite the real thing, and therefore Black has to be keenly aware of these nuances.
Black must also keep in mind that White may not want to open the center, instead heading
for the Closed Sicilians, examined in chapter 15. These are lines in which where Black
may end up with the knight on f6, which is not to everybody’s liking against the Closed
Sicilian. Bottom line, Black should be fine, but it is far more difficult for Black to navigate
than it initially looks.
Chapter 15

Ideas in the Closed Sicilian with Nge2

This final chapter features the Closed Sicilian ‘proper’ but exclusively those lines where
White has played Nge2, thus only lines that can be reach after 3.Nge2.
These lines are not particularly problematic for Black, as they lead to rather equal play. In
fact, so do most of the lines in the Closed Sicilian. The lines in this chapter are therefore
those where White deliberately seeks the Closed Sicilian, where White doesn’t have
anything better than a Closed Sicilian, or where the choice of a Closed Sicilian provides
White with some additional options he wouldn’t have had through normal means.
Therefore, we have divided the material in this chapter as follows:
(A) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 d6 6.d3
(B) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d3 d6 8.h3 Rb8 9.f4
(C) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 g6 6.0-0 Bg7 7.Nd5
(A) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 d6 6.d3

6…e6
Black has several minor alternatives:
(a) 6…Nd4 7.0-0 e6 8.Nxd4 cxd4 9.Ne2 Ne7 10.c3 dxc3 11.Nxc3 0-0 12.Be3 Bd7 13.Qd2
Bc6 14.Bg5 Re8 15.d4 with more space and the better chances for White, Balashov-
Giorgadze, Hanover 1983.
(b) 6…Bd7 7.0-0 Qc8 8.Nd5 h5 9.h3 Rb8 10.Kh2 Nh6 11.c3 b5 12.d4 Kf8 13.Be3 c4
14.Bg5 Ng8 15.Bd2 Nf6 16.Nxf6 Bxf6 17.Nf4 and White has the upper hand, Alexander-
Flohr, Hastings 1936.
(c) 6…Rb8, and here:
(c1) 7.0-0 Nf6 (7…b5 8.Be3 Nd4 9.Qd2 b4 10.Nd1 e6 11.c3 bxc3 12.bxc3 Nxe2+
13.Qxe2 Ne7 14.Qd2 Qa5 15.Bh6 0-0 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Ne3 was about even in Cozza-
Sevilla, Remote email 2014) 8.f4 0-0 9.h3 Nd7 10.Kh2 b5 11.a3 a6 12.g4 Bb7 13.Ng3
Nd4 14.Nce2 Nxe2 15.Qxe2 a5 16.g5 b4 17.h4, Jobava-Cvitan, Skopje 2015, and now
17…Qb6 18.h5 e6 with a sharp game and chances to both sides.
(c2) 7.a3 b5 8.0-0 e6 (8…Nf6 9.d4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Qxd4 a5 12.Qa7 Bd7 13.e5
dxe5 14.Be3 0-0 15.Rad1 Qc8 16.Qxa5 Bh3 17.Bxh3 Qxh3 18.f3 Rfc8 was fairly equal in
Krapivin-Popov, Moscow 2014) 9.Be3 b4 10.axb4 cxb4 11.Na4 Nge7 12.Qd2 0-0 13.Bh6
Bxh6 14.Qxh6 a5 15.b3 Kh8 16.Ra2 e5 17.Qe3 Qc7 and Black has equalized, Short-
Nakamura, London 2013.
(d) 6…e5 7.0-0 Nge7 8.a3 0-0 9.Rb1 h6 10.b4 b6 11.Be3 Nd4 12.Qd2 Kh7 13.f4 Be6
14.bxc5 dxc5 15.fxe5 g5 when Black should be okay, Eljanov-Najer, Netanya 2009.
7.0-0 Nge7
7…Rb8 8.Be3 Nd4 9.Qd2 Ne7 10.Nd1 Nxe2+ 11.Qxe2 b6 12.Qd2 d5 13.Bh6 0-0
14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Ne3 Bb7 17.Rad1 Nf6 18.d4 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Qc7, ½-½,
Spassky-Ljubojevic Thessaloniki 1984
8.Be3
8.Bg5 is an interesting alternative: (D)
(a) 8…Rb8 9.Qd2 h6 10.Be3 Nd4 11.a3 Bd7 12.Rab1 h5 13.h3 Qc8 14.Kh2 b6 15.Ng1 0-
0 16.Bh6 e5 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.f4 f6 with chances to

both sides, Rufieng Li-Gordievsky, Norfolk 2017.

(b) 8…0-0 9.Qd2 Nd4 10.Rae1 e5 11.Nxd4 cxd4 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Nd5 Qd8 14.f4 Be6
15.f5 Bxd5 16.exd5 Bf6 17.fxg6 hxg6 with equal chances, Jobava-Wojtaszek, Poznan
2012.
(c) 8…h6 9.Be3 Nd4 10.Qd2 Nec6 11.Rab1 Rb8 12.a3 a5 13.a4 Nb4 14.Bxd4 cxd4
15.Nb5 Nc6 16.c3 dxc3 17.bxc3 0-0 18.d4 and White has the upper hand, Minasian-
Petrosian, T., Yerevan 2006.
(d) 8… f6 9.Be3 e5 10.f4 Nd4 11.h3 Be6 12.Kh2 Qd7 13.Nd5 f5 14.c3 Nxe2 15.Qxe2 0-0
16.fxe5 Bxe5 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Rae1 when White’s better placed pieces
promise him the slightly better chances, Jobava-Druska, Minsk 2017.
8…0-0
8…Nd4 is an important option:
(a) 9.Qd2 Qa5 10.a3 Nec6 11.Rfb1 Qd8 12.Ra2 a5 13.Bxd4 cxd4 14.Nb5 0-0 15.c3 dxc3
16.bxc3 d5 17.d4 and White has the initiative, Zablotsky-Mikhalchenko, Novokuznetsk
2007.
(b) 9.Rb1 0-0 (9…Nec6 10.Qd2 0-0 11.Nc1 b6 12.Nd1 e5 13.c3 Ne6 14.f4 Nc7 15.Ne2 d5
16.f5 d4 17.cxd4 Nxd4 18.Nxd4 cxd4 19.Bh6 is better for White, Ni Hua-Ye Jiangchuan,
Tripoli 2004) 10.b4 (or 10.a3 Rb8 11.b4 b6 12.Qd2 Bb7 13.Rfc1 Qd7 14.Bh6 Bxh6
15.Qxh6 f5 and Black should be okay, Galego-Pupo, Cienfuegos 1997) 10…Nec6 (Black
didn’t have any noteworthy problems after 10…b6 11.e5 Nd5 12.exd6 Nxe2+ 13.Nxe2
cxb4 14.Bd2 a5 15.a3 Ra7 16.axb4 Nxb4 17.Bxb4 axb4 18.Qd2 Qxd6 19.Rxb4 Bd7
20.Rfb1 b5, Spassky-Chandler, Germany 1987) 11.a3 Rb8 12.Qd2 b6 13.f4 f5 14.Nc1
cxb4 15.axb4 a5 16.N3a2 axb4 17.Nxb4 Nxb4 18.Rxb4 Nc6 19.Rb1 and White is
somewhat better, Garcia Padron-Baron Rodriguez, Spain 1998.
9.Qd2

White has also tried the central pawn break, 9.d4, but it shouldn’t suffice for any kind of
advantage:
(a) 9…cxd4 10.Nxd4 a6 11.Qd2 (11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Qd2 Rb8 13.Rab1 d5 14.Bc5 Re8
15.f4 Qa5 16.b4 Qd8 17.Na4 f6 18.c4 and White had the upper hand in Garcia Jimenez-
Porta Tovar, Martorell 2015) 11…Ne5 12.b3 Ng4 13.Rad1 Nxe3 14.Qxe3 Qc7 15.Rd2 b5
16.f4 e5 17.Nde2 exf4 18.gxf4 Qc5 19.Qxc5 dxc5 20.e5 Ra7 21.Ne4 Rc7 22.Rfd1 and
while White has a nice, active position, Black is perfectly solid, Sudakova-Goganov, St.
Petersburg 2013.
(b) 9…b6 10.f4 Ba6 11.Re1 Rc8 12.Bf2 Qc7 13.d5 exd5 14.exd5 Na5 15.a4 Rce8 16.Ra2
Nf5 17.Ne4 Bc4 18.b3 Bxe2 19.Rxe2 when White at best is marginally better, Barle-
Lenic, Ljubljana 2007.
9…Nd4 10.Nc1
White is preparing to evict the knight on d4 with Nc1, Nd1 and then c2-c3 after which the
knight has to return.
White has also tried a few other things:
(a) 10.Nd1, and now:
(a1) 10…Rb8 11.c3 Nxe2+ (this is why White often retreats to c1 with the e2-knight, to
eliminate this possibility) 12.Qxe2 b6 (or 12…e5 13.Qd2 b6 14.f4 exf4 15.Bxf4 Nc6
16.Bh6 f6 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Ne3 and draw agreed, ½-½, Nikolic, Z.-Cvitan, Yugoslavia
1988, but White should have the better chances in the final position) 13.f4 (13.d4 cxd4
14.cxd4 d5 15.e5 Nf5 16.Qd3 f6 17.f4 Bd7 18.Bd2 a5 19.b3 Rc8 20.Rc1 Rxc1 21.Bxc1
with chances to both sides, Kogan-Kozirev, Cheliabinsk 2011) 13…Bb7 14.Nf2 f5
15.Rad1 Qc7 16.Rfe1 Rbe8 17.Qd2 Nc6 18.Qc2 e5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.Nh3 Nd8 21.Ng5 and
Black should not be worse, Rhodes-Frijling, ICCF email 2003.

Also possible is 10…e5, for instance, 11.f4 f5 12.Nd5 Rb8 13.c3 Ndc6 14.fxe5 Nxd5
15.exd5 Nxe5 16.Ne2 b5 17.Nf4 Qf6 18.h3 b4 19.c4 Nf7 20.d4 cxd4 21.Bf2 Re8 22.Rfe1
with sharp play and chances to both sides, Alonso Moyano-Garcia Castro, Linares 2015.
11.Nd1 b5
Two other moves have been tried for Black at this point:
(a) 11…e5 12.c3 Ne6 13.Bh6 d5 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Ne3 Nxe3 17.Qxe3 Qd6
18.Re1 f6 19.Nb3 b6 20.Rad1 Rd8 21.h4 a5 and Black should be okay, Stripunsky-Pruess,
Reno 2006.
(b) 11…b6 12.c3 Ndc6 13.Bh6 d5 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Ne3 Nxe3 17.fxe3
Bb7 18.d4 cxd4 19.exd4 e5 20.d5 Ne7 21.c4 b5 and Black has equalized, Ter-Sahakyan-
Firat, Akhisar Manisa 2009
12.c3 Ndc6 (D)
13.d4
White can also consider:

(a) 13.a3 a5 14.Ne2 b4 15.axb4 axb4 16.Bh6 Na5 17.Nc1 bxc3 18.bxc3 Nb3 19.Nxb3
Rxb3 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 when White appears to have the better chances, Drazic-Kovacevic,
Rijeka 2009.
(b) 13.Bh6 Bxh6 (or 13…d5 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Ne3 Nde7 17.a4 a6 18.axb5
axb5 19.Nb3 Qd6 20.Rfd1 e5 21.d4 cxd4 22.cxd4 Nxd4 23.Nxd4 exd4 24.Qxd4+ Qxd4
25.Rxd4 Nf5 26.Nxf5+ Bxf5 and the game is about balanced, Hera-Demuth, Bad Ragaz
2017) 14.Qxh6 b4 15.f4 bxc3 16.bxc3 f5 17.Ne3 d5 18.exd5 exd5 and Black should not be
any worse, Perez Mitjans-Perpinya Rofes, Montcada 2013.
13…c4 14.Bh6 e5?!
This move is likely premature, leaving White with the upper hand. Instead, 14…Bxh6
15.Qxh6 f5 would be okay for Black.
15.d5 Na5 16.b4 cxb3 17.axb3 Bxh6 18.Qxh6 b4 19.Qd2 bxc3 20.Qxc3 Rb5 21.b4 Nb7
22.Rxa7 Qb6 23.Ra4 and White has the somewhat better chances, McShane-Karjakin,
playchess.com INT 2004.
(B) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d3 d6 8.h3 Rb8 9.f4
This is the recommended line given by Rogozenco in his Anti-Sicilians: A Guide for
Black.
And now Black has two main lines:
(B1) 9…Bd7
(B2) 9…Nd7
The alternatives are:
(a) 9…b5?! 10.e5! dxe5 11.Bxc6 b4? (11…Bxh3 was Black’s only way of keeping the
game interesting) 12.fxe5 bxc3 13.exf6 Bxf6 14.bxc3 Bxh3 15.Rf2 and Black doesn’t
have enough for the pawn, Depasquale-Oliver, Canberra 2004.
(b) 9…Ne8, and now:
(a) 10.Be3 Nd4 (or 10…Nc7 11.Qd2 b5 12.Rae1 b4 13.Nd1 Rb5 14.f5 Ra5 15.Nc1 Nb5
16.Bh6 Ne5 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Ne3 Ra4 with a sharp position and chances to both sides,
Kuijf, M.-Hellers, Groningen 1989) 11.a4 Bd7 12.Bf2 Nc7 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Ne2 e5 15.c3
dxc3 16.bxc3 b6 17.d4 Qe7 18.a5 Bb5 19.axb6 axb6 with chances to both sides,
A.Ivanov-Vigorito, Tulsa 2008.
(b) 10.a4 Nc7 11.f5 e6 12.g4 exf5 13.exf5 gxf5 14.gxf5 Kh8 15.Kh1 Rg8 16.Ne4 Be5
17.c3 Qh4? (17…d5!? improves) 18.Ng1 Rxg2 19.Kxg2 Bd7 20.Bg5 Rg8 21.Qg4 Qxg4+
22.hxg4 and White has a large advantage, Jobava-Vachier Lagrave, Leuven 2017.
(c) 9…Nd4 10.g4 (or 10.Nxd4 cxd4 11.Ne2 Nd7 12.f5 b5 13.Bg5 Bb7 14.Qd2 d5 15.Bh6
dxe4 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.dxe4 Nc5 18.e5 Bxg2, and draw agreed, ½-½, Smagin-Petrosian,
A., Riga 1985), and here:
(c1) 10…b5 11.Ng3 b4 12.Nce2 Nd7 13.f5 (or 13.g5 f5?! 14.exf5 gxf5 15.Nh5 Bh8
16.Nxd4 Bxd4+ 17.Kh2 e6 18.Qe2 Nb6 19.Rb1 Qd7 20.Be3 and White is better,
Bitensky-Popilski, Petah Tiqwa 2010) 13…a5 14.Nxd4 Bxd4+ 15.Kh1 Ba6 16.Rb1 Bg7
17.b3 Bb7 18.Bf4 Ra8 19.Qd2 a4 20.Bh6 axb3 21.axb3 Ra2 22.Bxg7 Kxg7 with chances
to both sides, Boros-Medvegy, Aggtelek 1999.
(c2) 10…e6 11.Ng3 Ne8 12.Be3 f5 13.Qd2?! (13.gxf5 exf5 14.Nd5 improves) 13…fxg4
14.hxg4 Qh4 15.Nge2 Qxg4 16.Rae1 Bd7 17.Nd1 e5 18.c3 Nxe2+ 19.Rxe2 exf4 20.Bxf4
Be5 21.Ref2 when White has some but probably not full compensation for the sacrificed
pawn, Galdunts-Zimmermann, St. Ingbert 1993.
(B1) 9…Bd7 10.g4
This move is entirely in the vein of the variation and for that matter in the variation in the
English Opening when the colors are reversed. However, it is also very aggressive, some
may say overly aggressive. Therefore, other moves have been tried at this juncture:
(a) 10.Be3 b5, and now:

(a1) 11.a3 with another fork in the road:

(a11) 11…Ne8 12.d4 cxd4 13.Nxd4 b4 14.Nxc6 (14.axb4 Bxd4 15.Bxd4 Rxb4 16.Bf2
Rxb2 17.Qd2 or 15.Nb3 both seem favorable for White) 14…Bxc6 15.axb4 Rxb4 16.Rxa7
Rxb2 17.e5 Bxg2 18.Kxg2 Nc7 19.exd6 exd6 and Black had equalized, Spassky-Fischer,
Belgrade 1992.
(a12) 11…a5 12.a4 bxa4 (12…b4 13.Nb5 Ne8 14.Rb1 f5 15.e5 dxe5 16.Bxc5 Nc7 17.c4
and White has the upper hand, Knoppert-Van der Vliet, Netherlands 1996) 13.Nxa4 Ne8
14.Bd2 Nd4 15.Bc3 f5 16.exf5 Rxf5 17.g4 Rf8 18.Nxd4 cxd4 19.Bd2 Kh8 20.b4 e5
21.Nb2 exf4 22.Rxf4 Rxf4 23.Bxf4 Rb5 24.Nc4 with better chances for White, Bachin-
Kanep, Oropesa del Mar 2001.
(a13) 11…b4 12.axb4 cxb4 13.Nd5 Ne8 14.Bc1 e6 15.Ne3 Qc7 16.d4 a5 17.b3 Nxd4
18.Nxd4 Qc3 19.Nxe6 Qxa1 20.Nxf8 Kxf8 looks ugly for Black, but it appeared fully
playable in Francovig-Grosso, LADAC email 2006.
(a2) 11.Qd2 b4 (11…Ne8 12.f5 b4 13.Nd1 Nd4 14.g4 a5 15.Nxd4 cxd4 16.Bh6 Qc7
17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.a3 Qc5 19.axb4 axb4 20.Qf2 Bb5 21.b3 Nf6 with even chances,
M.Turner-Hennigan, Swansea 1995) 12.Nd1 Qb6 13.g4 Nd4 14.Ng3 Bc6 15.Rf2 Qa6
16.Qc1 Nd7 17.c3 bxc3 18.bxc3 Nb5 19.a4 Nc7 20.d4 e6 with a comfortable game for
Black, Day-I.Ivanov, Montreal 1981.
(b) 10.a4 a6 11.g4 (11.Be3 b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.Qd2 b4 14.Nd1 Ne8 15.f5 Nd4 16.Nxd4
cxd4 17.Bg5 f6 18.Bh6 with chances to both sides, Norwood-Grigorov, Lvov 1986) 11…
b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.Ng3 b4 (13…Nd4 14.f5 Bc6 15.g5 Nd7 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.exd5 Be5
18.Bf4 b4 with a double-edged position, Starostits-Schartz, Saarlouis 2004) 14.Nce2 Qb6
15.g5 c4+ 16.d4 Nh5 17.Nxh5 Nxd4 18.Kh1 Nxe2 19.Qxe2 gxh5 20.f5 c3 was played in
Grigoryan-Duda, Maribor 2012, and now 21.f6 Bb5 22.Qf3 Bxf1 23.Bxf1 Bh8 24.Bd3
Ra8 25.Rb1 would have led to a double-edged position.
10…b5 11.Ng3

11…b4
The normal continuation. Black has also tried:
(a) 11…Nd4 12.f5 (White has also tried 12.g5 Ne8 13.Kh2 e6 14.Nce2 Nxe2 15.Qxe2 f5
16.gxf6 Qxf6 17.e5 Qd8 18.Bd2 b4 19.c3 a5 20.Rac1 Qb6 with chances to both sides,
Barle-Hoffmann, Vienna 2009 or 12.Nce2 Nxe2+ 13.Qxe2 Ne8 14.c3 b4 15.c4 Nc7 16.f5
e6 17.Bf4 Rb6 18.Qd2 Qh4 19.Kh2 h6 20.g5 and now things are getting tricky for Black
who completely collapsed with 20…Be5?? 21.fxg6 Bxf4 22.Rxf4 Qxg5 23.gxf7+ Kh7
24.h4, and Black resigned, 1-0, Sedlak-Miranovic, Sombor 2004), and now:
(a1) 12…Ne8 13.Nce2 e6 14.c3 Nxe2+ 15.Qxe2 b4 16.c4 Qh4 17.Qf2 Bd4 18.Be3 Be5
19.Bf4 Bd4 20.Be3 Be5 21.Bf4 with a draw by repetition, ½-½, Kritz-Troff, Dallas 2014.
(a2) 12…b4 13.Nce2 Nxe2+ (13…Ba4?! makes less sense: 14.Nxd4 cxd4 15.b3 Bb5
16.a3 bxa3 17.Rxa3 Qc7 18.Ne2 Rfc8 19.Ra2 Nd7 20.Nf4 Nb6 21.Qf3 and White has a
good game, Sudakova-Kurnosov, Warsaw 2009) 14.Qxe2 Bb5 15.a3 a5 16.g5 Nd7 with
chances to both sides, Mariano-Kotanjian, Olongapo City 2015.
(a3) 12…Bc6 13.g5 (or 13.Nd5 b4 14.Be3 Nd7 15.Qd2 Re8 16.Rf2 Nb5 17.Rb1 a5
18.Ne2 Ne5 19.Rbf1 Bxd5 20.exd5 c4, Tompa-Pavlovic, Bagneux 1974, and now 21.Bh6
c3 22.bxc3 bxc3 23.Qf4 would have left White with the upper hand) 13…Nd7 14.h4 c4
15.dxc4 Be5 16.cxb5 Nxb5 17.Nce2 Na3 18.c3 Nc4 19.b3 Qb6+ with a complicated game
and chances to both sides, Jobava-Andriasian, Legnica 2013.
(b) 11…a5 12.f5 a4 13.a3 b4 14.axb4 a3 15.b5 axb2 16.Bxb2 Nd4 17.Kh1 Nxb5 18.Qd2
Bc6 19.Nxb5 Rxb5 20.Bc3 d5 21.g5 and White has the better chances, Kuijf,M.-Wians,
Budel 1987.
12.Nce2 a5

Other options for Black are:

(a) 12…Ne8 13.f5 Nc7 (13…Nd4 14.Nf4 Bb5 15.Be3 Nc7 16.a4 Bc6 17.b3 d5 18.exd5
Nxd5 19.Nxd5 Bxd5 20.Ne4 Bxe4 21.Bxe4 Qd6 and here the players settled on a draw, ½-
½, in Gasanov-Averjanov, Tula 2004) 14.g5 (14.Nf4 Nd4 15.Be3 Bc6 16.Qc1 Bb5 17.Rf2
Nc6 18.Nd5 c4 19.dxc4 Bxc4 20.Bh6 Nxd5 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.exd5 with better chances
for White, Rogulj-Horvath, G., Austria 2007) 14…Nd4 15.h4 Nxe2+ 16.Qxe2 Nb5
17.Rb1 Qa5 18.f6 Bh8 19.Qf2 Qxa2 20.Be3 Qe6 with a complicated position and chances
to both sides, Rublevsky-Kurnosov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2013.
(b) 12…Qb6 13.Kh1 Ne8 (or 13…Nd4 14.Nxd4 cxd4 15.f5 Ba4 16.b3 Bb5 17.Ne2 Nd7
18.Nf4 Bc6 19.Rf2 Rbc8 with chances to both sides, Popovic, D.-Perunovic, Kragujevac
2009) 14.f5 Nc7 15.h4 Nd4 16.g5 Be5 17.Nxd4 cxd4 18.Bf4 Qc5 19.Bh3 Bc6 20.Qd2
Bxf4 21.Rxf4 Qe5 with a complicated and fascinating struggle ahead, Jobava-Duda, Wijk
aan Zee 2014.
13.a4
White tries to put a cork in Black’s queenside initiative before continuing on the kingside.
Normally, you would not recommend playing on the wing where the opponent is stronger.
However, as you will see in Jobava-So below, it also causes problems when you let the
opponent go through with his plans unhindered.
The alternatives are:
(a) 13.Rb1 Ne8 14.f5 Nd4 15.g5 Ba4 16.b3 Bc6 17.h4 a4 18.h5 axb3 19.axb3 with a
typical position for this variation, Black is doing fine, Grigoryan-Gomez Garrido, Barbera
del Valles 2015.
(b) 13.f5 a4 14.Rb1 Ne8, and now:

(b1) 15.Bg5 a3 16.b3 Nd4 17.Qd2 Bc6 18.Bh6 Qb6 19.Kh1 Nxe2 20.Nxe2 Nf6 21.Qg5
Kh8 22.Nf4 with chances to both sides, Maus-Moiseev, Germany 1995.
(b2) 15.Be3 Nd4 16.Qd2 Qc7 17.Nf4 Bc6 18.c3 bxc3 19.bxc3 Rxb1 20.Rxb1 Nb5
21.Nge2 Nf6 22.fxg6 hxg6 23.Nd5 Bxd5 24.exd5 and White has the easier game, Tompa-
Hernandez Onna, Kecskemet 1975.
(b3) 15.g5 a3 16.b3 Nc7 17.h4 Nb5 18.h5 Ncd4 19.Bd2 Be5 20.Nf4 gxf5 21.exf5 Nxf5
22.Ne4 Kh8 23.g6 Bd4+ was horrible for White in Jobava-So, Leuven 2017.
13…bxa3
Or 13…Nd4 14.Nxd4 cxd4 15.g5 Ne8 16.b3 Qc7 17.Rf2 Qc5 18.h4 f6 19.Qf1 e6 20.Bb2
fxg5 21.hxg5 with a position where I prefer White, Rotstein-Zelbel, Germany 2013.
14.Rxa3 Ne8 15.c3 Nc7
15…Qb6 16.Kh1 Nc7 17.f5 Ne5 18.Nf4 a4 19.g5 Rfe8 20.h4 Qa6 21.h5 Bb5 22.hxg6
hxg6 23.fxg6 fxg6 24.d4 Nc4 was played in Kontic-Radovanovic, Banja Vrucica 2013,
and now 25.Ra2 would have promised White the better chances.
16.f5 Ra8 17.Nf4 Ne5 18.g5 Bc6 19.c4 Qb8 20.h4 a4 21.h5 Ra6 22.Rf2 Rb6 23.Nf1
Rb3 24.Ne3
Both sides have their share of the chances in this double-edged position, Morozevich-
Efimenko, Rethymno 2003.
(B2) 9…Nd7 (D)
10.g4!?
This direct move is our main line. There are several alternatives to consider as well:
(a) 10.Be3, the normal move, and here:

(a1) 10…Nd4 11.Qd2 (or 11.Bf2 Nxe2+ 12.Qxe2 b5 13.Rfb1 b4 14.Nd5 a5 15.Qd2 a4
16.a3 e6 17.Ne3 bxa3 18.Rxa3 Bxb2 19.Rxa4 Bc3, and here a draw was agreed upon, ½-
½, in Prathamesh-Sharma, Mumbai 2004, but White should be better after 20.Qd1) 11…
b5 12.Rae1 b4 13.Nd1 Qc7 14.c3 Nxe2+ 15.Rxe2 Qa5 16.cxb4 cxb4 17.a3 Nc5 18.axb4
Rxb4 19.Nc3 Nb3 20.Qe1 with chances to both sides, Garcia Jimenez-Vehi Bach, Barbera
del Valles 2007.
(a2) 10…b5 11.Qd2 (Black is fine after 11.e5 b4 12.Bxc6 bxc3 13.bxc3 dxe5 14.fxe5
Nxe5 15.Bg2 Bb7 16.Bxb7 Rxb7 17.Bxc5 Qc8 18.d4 Rd8 19.Kh2 e6 20.Nf4 Nd7, Barle-
Cvitan, Vienna 2009) 11…b4 12.Nd1 Nd4 (12…a5 13.f5 c4 14.Bh6 cxd3 15.cxd3 Nd4
16.Bxg7 Nxe2+ 17.Qxe2 Kxg7 18.Ne3 Ba6 19.Nd5 e6 20.fxe6 fxe6 with chances to both
sides, Kuklin-Mirumian, Plzen 2000) 13.Nc1 f5 14.c3 bxc3 15.bxc3 Ne6 16.exf5 gxf5
17.Re1 Nb6 18.Bf2 Nc7 19.Nb3 Bd7 20.Rc1 and White has the upper hand, Hoen-Hort,
Havana 1966.
(b) 10.a4 a6, and here:
(b1) 11.f5 b5 (11…e6 12.Bf4 Nde5 13.g4 Re8 14.Qd2 exf5 15.gxf5 gxf5 16.Nd5 Nb4
17.Nxb4 cxb4 18.Bg5 f6 19.Bh6 Bxh6 20.Qxh6 Nf7 21.Qh4 Ng5 22.Ng3 fxe4 23.Qh6
with a dangerous initiative for White, Bohak-Beres, ICCF email 2012) 12.axb5 axb5
13.g4 b4 14.Nd5, with another split path:

(b11) 14…Nb6 15.Nef4 Nxd5 16.Nxd5 e6 (16…Bd4+ 17.Kh1 e6 18.Ne3 Bf6 19.Nc4 exf5
20.exf5 Ne5 21.Bh6 Re8 was Andreikin-Sjugirov, Moscow 2011, and now 22.Ne3 Bg5
23.Bxg5 Qxg5 24.Nd5 gxf5 25.d4 cxd4 26.Qxd4 would have been complicated and fun)
17.Ne3 Bb7 18.Qe1 Ne5 19.Qf2 Bf6 20.g5 Bxg5 21.f6 Kh8 22.Ra7 Rg8 23.Ng4 Bxc1
24.Rxc1 was seen in Andreikin-Le Qiem, Havana 2011, and now 24…Nc6 25.Ra4 Nd4
should be fine for Black.
(b12) 14…e6 15.Ne3 Nd4 16.Nf4 Nb6 17.Bd2 Nb5 18.Ra2 Re8 19.Qf3 d5 20.exd5 exf5
21.gxf5 Nd4 22.Qf2 Nxf5 23.Nxf5 Bxf5 with chances to both sides, Ponomariov-
Dominguez Perez, Tashkent 2012.
(b2) 11.g4 (D)
11…b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.g5 (or 13.Ng3 c4 14.Kh1 cxd3 15.cxd3 Nc5 16.f5 Nb4 17.d4
Ncd3 18.Nd5 Bb7 19.Nxb4 Nxb4 20.Be3 Rc8 21.Rf2 Nc6 with chances to both sides,
Bitoon-Kazhgaleyev, Shenyang 1999) 13…b4 14.Nd5 f6 15.gxf6 Nxf6 16.Ne3 Bd7
17.c3 e6 18.d4 bxc3 19.bxc3 cxd4 20.cxd4 Ne7 and while White has some initiative,
Black should be able to defend adequately, Gibney-Krzyzanowski, ICCF corr 2002.
(b3) 11.Nd5 e6 (or 11…b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.c3 e6 14.Ne3 Bb7 15.g4 Ra8 16.Rxa8 Qxa8
17.f5 Nce5 18.Nf4 Re8 19.h4 Nb6 20.fxe6 fxe6 21.g5 when I prefer White, but the
chances have to be close to even, Berzinsh-Galliamova, Nabereznye Chelny 1993) 12.Ne3
Nd4 13.a5 b5 14.axb6 Nxb6 15.g4 Nxe2+ 16.Qxe2 f5 17.Kh1 d5 18.gxf5 gxf5 19.e5
(19.exd5 exd5) 19…Kh8 20.Rg1 Qh4 21.Qe1 Qxe1 22.Rxe1 and White is, if anything,
marginally better, Swiercz-Areshchenko, Lublin 2014.
10…b5
10…Nd4 11.Ng3 b5 12.g5 (or 12.f5 Bb7 13.Nce2 Nxe2+ 14.Qxe2 e6 15.c3 Re8 16.Bf4
Qb6 17.Kh2 Rbd8 18.Bg5 f6 19.Be3 d5 20.Qf2 with chances to both sides, Abergel-
Balcerak, Germany 2016) 12…Ba6 13.Nd5 e6 14.Ne3 b4 15.a3 Bb7 16.axb4 cxb4 17.Kh2
Qc7 18.Bd2 Ba8 19.Ra4 a5 and Black is doing fine, Kritz-Enkin, Peabody 2007.
11.Ng3 b4
An important alternative is the other pawn push, 11…c4, and now:
(a) 12.Nce2 Qb6+ 13.Kh2 a5 14.Rb1 Ba6 15.d4 Bxd4 16.Nxd4 Qxd4 17.e5 Qxd1
18.Rxd1 d5 19.Rxd5 Nb6 20.Rc5 – also 20.Rd1 Bb7 21.Be3 is better for White.
Alternatively, 20…Nb4 as played in Roganovic-Kashlinskaya, Marianske Lazne 2009,
when 21.c3 Nd3 22.Rc7 is better for White.
(b) 12.f5 cxd3 13.cxd3 e6 14.Nce2 Qb6+ 15.Kh1 b4 16.Bg5 Bxb2 17.Bh6 Bxa1 18.Qxa1
e5 19.Bxf8 Kxf8 20.Qc1 Kg7?? was played in Gladkiy-Dzhakaev, Maykop 2008, when
White could have won with 21.fxg6 hxg6 22.Qg5!, but Black would have been fine with
20…Kg8!.
(c) 12.Kh2 cxd3 (or 12…b4 13.Nce2 Qb6 14.d4 c3 15.bxc3 bxc3 16.Be3 e5 17.d5 Qxe3
18.dxc6 Nb6 19.Rf3 Qc5 20.Rxc3 Nc4 21.f5 was Rahman-Rowson, Dresden 2008, and
now 21…Qxc6 22.g5 Rb5 23.Nc1 Ba6 would have left the chances approximately even)
13.cxd3 Nd4 14.Nce2 b4 15.Be3 Nxe2 16.Qxe2 Nc5, Simonian-Negi, Chotowa 2010, and
now 17.Rfd1 Ba6 would have been balanced and sharp.
12.Nce2 c4
The alternatives are:
(a) 12…a5, and here:
(a1) 13.f5 Qb6 (13…Ba6 14.Nf4 c4 15.g5 cxd3 16.cxd3 Rc8 17.h4 Nd4 18.h5 Ne5
19.Kh1 Re8 20.Rf2 Qc7 21.fxg6 hxg6 22.hxg6 fxg6 looks good for Black and I don’t
really see any immediate improvements for White, Abergel-Ofitserian, St. Petersburg
2016) 14.Kh1 c4 15.Nf4 cxd3 16.cxd3 Ba6 17.g5 Qb5 18.Qg4 Nce5 19.Qh4 Bb7 20.d4
Nc4 21.Nd5 Bxd5 22.exd5 and White has the initiative, Kritz-Al Modiahki, Biel 2007.
(a2) 13.Rb1 Nd4 (or 13…Ba6 14.f5 c4 15.d4 c3 16.bxc3 bxc3 17.Rb3 Rb4 18.Be3 Rc4
19.Rf3 Qc7 was played in Romanov-Kornev, Krasnoyarsk 2007, and now 20.Bf2 a4
21.Rbxc3 would have been better for White) 14.f5 Nxe2+ 15.Nxe2 e6 16.Bf4 Ne5 17.Qd2
exf5 18.exf5 gxf5 19.gxf5 Kh8 20.Bg5 Bf6 21.Bxf6+ Qxf6 22.Qf4 Rg8 and Black should
not be any worse, but White nevertheless went on to win, Kritz-Alekseev, Biel 2006.
(b) 12…Ba6 13.f5 (or 13.a3 Qb6 14.axb4 c4+ 15.d4 e5 16.Be3 exd4 17.Bf2 Nxb4
18.Nxd4 Nc5, Pancevski-Sjugirov, Plovdiv 2012, 19.Qd2 Rfe8 20.Rfd1 with chances to
both sides) 13…Qb6 14.Kh1 c4 15.Nf4 cxd3 16.cxd3 Nde5 17.g5 Rfc8 18.h4 Qb5 19.d4
Nd3 20.f6 Bf8 21.Bh3 Rd8 22.Nd5 with sharp play and more or less even chances,
Bitensky-Goryachkina, Wijk aan Zee 2013.
(c) 12…Qb6 13.Kh2 Ba6 14.Rb1 c4 15.dxc4 Bxc4 16.b3 Bb5 17.Bb2 Bxb2 18.Rxb2 Rfc8
19.Qd2 Qc5 20.Rf3 Bxe2 21.Nxe2 Nf6, and Black should not have any problems, Barle-
Mencinger, Ljubljana 2010.
13.d4 c3 14.bxc3 bxc3 15.e5 Na5 16.Nxc3 Ba6
17.Nce2
White can play better with 17.Nge2 Nc4 18.a4 with the better chances.
17…Nb6 18.Be3 Qc7 19.Bf2 Rfd8 20.e6
20.Rb1 Nac4 21.Qc1 Bh6 22.Ne4 Nd5 is about equal.
20…fxe6 21.f5 Rbc8?!
21…exf5 22,gxf5 d5 was necessary when Black would have had the better chances.
22.fxg6 Qxc2 23.Be4 Qxd1 24.gxh7+ Kh8 25.Rfxd1
White has the upper hand, Jobava-Wojtaszek, Warsaw 2010.
(C) 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 g6 6.0-0 Bg7 7.Nd5!
This is the only way White can try to benefit from the move order. It doesn’t guarantee
White any advantage. However, it does change the nature of the game considerably
compared to a “normal” Closed Sicilian.
7…0-0
Black has tried a number of other things at this juncture:
(a) 7…Bd7 8.c3 h5 9.Nxf6+ Bxf6 10.d4 cxd4 11.cxd4 h4 12.Be3 hxg3 13.hxg3 Qa5
14.Nf4 Bg7 15.a3 Rc8 16.b4 Qa6 17.Re1 and White has more space and the somewhat
better chances, Stojanovski-Olszewski, Paracin 2013.
(b) 7…h5 8.h3 h4 9.Nxf6+ Bxf6 10.g4 Bd7 11.d3 Qc7 12.c3 Bg7 13.Nf4 e6 14.Be3 a5 (or
14…0-0-0 15.Rc1 Kb8 16.b4 Rhg8 17.bxc5 dxc5 18.d4 Bc8 19.Qa4 with some initiative
for White, Bocanegra Moreno-Keuter, ICCF email 2010) 15.Qd2 a4 16.Ne2 Qa5 17.Rab1
Qa6 18.Rfd1 b6 19.f4 Ne7 20.d4 Rd8 21.b4 axb3 22.axb3 Qc8 23.b4 Ba4 24.Re1 Bc6
25.d5 Ba8 26.c4 e5 27.fxe5 Bxe5 28.bxc5 bxc5 29.Bf4, and Black resigned, 1-0, Van
Leeuwen-Noble, ICCF email 2014. It is difficult to pinpoint where Black decidedly went
wrong, it seems as if Black’s position gradually worsened until it entirely collapsed.
(c) 7…Nxd5!? 8.exd5 Ne5 (or 8…Nd4?! 9.Nxd4 Bxd4 10.c3 Bg7 11.d3 0-0 12.Be3 b5
13.d4 cxd4 14.Bxd4 Bxd4 15.Qxd4 Bb7 16.Rfe1 Qc7 17.Re3 with a comfortable plus for
White, Lohmann-Hummel, Germany 1991) 9.d3 0-0 10.a4 b6 11.Bd2 Nd7 12.Qc1 Re8
13.Nc3 Nf6 14.a5 Ba6 15.Re1 b5 with more or less equal chances, Suttles-Gligoric, Palma
de Mallorca 1970;
(d) 7…Nd7 8.c3 e6 9.Ne3 b5 10.d4 Bb7 11.d5 exd5 12.Nxd5 0-0 13.h4 Ne7 14.Bg5 f6
15.Nxe7+ (or 15.Be3 Nb6 16.Nef4 Qd7 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.Re1 Nc4 19.Bc1 with a nice
positional plus for White) 15…Qxe7 16.Bf4 Ne5 17.Qb3+ Nf7 18.Rad1 Rfd8 19.Rfe1
Rab8, and Black has more or less equalized, Sudakova-Muradli, Baku 2017.
(e) 7…e6 8.Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.c3 0-0 transposes to 9…Qxf6 in our main line below.
8.c3
This is one of the points behind White’s seventh move: It offers the opportunity to build a
broad center.
8.Nxf6+ Bxf6 9.c3 Bd7 (or 9…Bg7 10.Nf4 Qd7 11.d3 b5 12.a3 Bb7 13.Be3 Rac8 14.Rc1
Rfe8 15.d4 cxd4 16.cxd4 a6 17.Bh3 e6 18.b3 Qd8 19.d5 Ne5, Markus-Rudenko, LSS
email 2010, and now 20.Rxc8 Qxc8 21.dxe6 fxe6 22.Bg2 would have left White with a
small plus) 10.f4 Rb8 11.Kh1 Bg7 12.d3 b5 13.Be3 b4 14.Qd2 bxc3 15.bxc3 Qa5 16.f5
Qa3 17.Rab1 Rxb1 18.Rxb1 Rb8 19.Rxb8+ Nxb8 and Black has the initiative, Nilsson-
Olesen, Copenhagen 1993.
8…e6
This is probably the most critical response to White’s opening idea, forcing White to
exchange on f6. Black has tried other moves, but things are not that easy to deal with:
(a) 8…Bg4 9.h3 Bxe2 (or 9…Be6 10.d3 Rc8 11.Bg5 Bxd5 12.exd5 Ne5 13.Qd2 Re8 14.f4
Ned7 15.Kh2 c4 16.dxc4 Rxc4 17.b3 Rc8 18.Rad1 Nc5 19.Qc2 h6 20.Bh4 with a nice,
little positional advantage for White, Westerinen-Tsiganova, Aaland-Stockholm 1997)
10.Qxe2, and now:

(a1) 10…e6 11.Nxf6+ Bxf6 12.d3 Bg7 13.Be3 Qe7 14.f4 Rae8 15.Qf2 b6 16.Rae1 Qd7
17.f5 f6 18.g4 with more space and pressure for White, Huerta-Muci Kuechler, Merida
2001.
(a2) 10…Ne8 11.d3 e6 12.Ne3 (White doesn’t achieve much after 12.Nf4, e.g., 12…Nc7
13.Be3 e5 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 Ne7 16.g4 f5 17.f4 Qc7 18.Rf2 Rae8 19.Re1 h6 20.Kh1
Kh7 21.Qf1 Qc8 22.fxe5 Bxe5 23.Bf4 fxg4 24.Bxe5 dxe5 and here the game record ends,
recorded as a win for White, but the chances are about even, Lohmann-Nilsson, ICCF corr
1996) 12…Nc7 13.Ng4 f5 14.exf5 gxf5 15.Nh2 Qd7 16.Be3 Rae8 17.Rae1 Kh8 18.Qd2
Rg8 19.Bh6 Bf6 20.Nf3 Rg6 was played in Brenke-Boensch, Lippstadt 1992, and now
21.h4 would have left White with the somewhat better chances, intending to play Bg5.
(a3) 10…Rb8 11.a4 Re8 12.d3 a6 13.Bg5 Nd7 14.h4 h6 15.Bd2 b5 16.axb5 axb5 17.h5
b4? (17…e6 would have been less problematic although White here too is better) 18.hxg6
fxg6 19.Nf4 with a clear positional advantage, Fontana Sotomayour-Zamarbide Inarrea,
Zaragoza 2001.
(b) 8…e5 9.Nxf6+ Bxf6 10.d3 Bg7 11.f4 f5 12.exf5 gxf5 13.Be3 Qe7 14.Qd2 Be6 15.b3
Rae8 16.Rae1 with a marginally better game for White, Fontana Sotomayour-Gomez
Anadon, Zaragoza 2002.
(c) 8…Rb8 9.a4 (or 9.d4 cxd4 10.cxd4 Bg4 11.f3 Bd7 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.Be3 Qb6 14.Qd2
Qb4 15.Rad1 Rbc8 16.f4 Bg4 17.e5 Bg7 18.h3 Qxd2 19.Rxd2 Bxe2 20.Rxe2 with
somewhat better chances for White, Almeida Toledano-Llaneza Vega, Catalunya 2012)
9…c4 10.d3 cxd3 11.Qxd3 Ne5 12.Qd1 Nxd5 13.exd5 Bg4 14.f3 Qb6+ 15.Kh1 Bf5 16.g4
Bd3 17.f4 Qa6 18.Ng3 Nd7 was played in Fontana Sotomayour-Contreras Rodriguez,
Benidorm 2002, and now 19.Rf3 Nc5 20.b4 Bxc3 21.bxc5 Bxa1 22.cxd6 exd6 (or 22…
Bc4? 23.dxe7 Rfe8 24.d6 and White is winning) 23.Rxd3 with a clear advantage for
White.
(d) 8…Bd7 9.h3 (White didn’t accomplish much after 9.d3 Rb8 10.Bg5 e6 11.Nxf6+ Bxf6
12.Be3 Qe7 13.Qd2 b5 14.d4 Rfd8 15.f4 Bg7 16.Rae1 – or 16.Rad1 b4 - 16…Re8 17.g4
d5 18.f5 cxd4 19.cxd4 with chances to both sides, Mariano-Riline Orso, Roque Saenz
Pena 1997) 9…Rb8 10.Kh2 b5 11.d4 cxd4 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.cxd4 e5 14.dxe5 dxe5
15.Bh6 Re8 16.Rc1 Rc8 17.Qd5 b4 18.Rfd1 Nd4 19.Nxd4 exd4 20.Qb7 a5 was played in
Mariano-Myint, Yangon 1998, and now 21.Bf4 Rxc1 22.Rxc1 h5 would have led to about
even chances.
(e) 8…Nd7 9.d4 e6 10.Ne3 cxd4 11.cxd4 e5 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.b3 Nb6 14.Bb2 Be6 15.Nd5
f5 16.Nec3 Nd4 17.Nxb6 Qxb6 and Black is doing fine, Westerinen-Dokhoian, Cattolica
1993.
9.Nxf6+ Qxf6

Or 9… Bxf6 10.d3 Bd7 (or 10…Bg7 11.Be3 Qc7 12.d4 Ne7 13.Qd2 b6 14.Bh6 e5
15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.f4 Bb7 17.Rad1 cxd4 18.cxd4 with an initiative and better chances for
White Viana-Di Berardino, Rio de Janeiro 2001) 11.Bh6 Bg7 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.d4 cxd4
14.Nxd4 a6 15.Nc2 Qc7 16.Qd2 Rad8 17.Ne3 b5 18.Ng4 f5 19.exf5 exf5 20.Ne3 Be6
21.a4 Kg8 22.Nd5 and White was in charge, Westerinen-Lopez Agustench, Albacete
1994.
10.d3 Qe7
10…Bd7 11.f4 Qe7 12.Be3 f5 13.Qd2 Rae8 14.Rae1 b6 15.Kh1 Nb8 16.Ng1 Bc6 was
about equal in Westerinen-Sahl, Gausdal 1995.
11.d4
More frequently played, but in my opinion also less effective is 11.Be3 b6 12.Qd2 (or
12.d4 Ba6 13.e5 Rac8 14.Re1 Bxe2, and draw agreed, ½-½, Mitkov-Nedev, Skopje 1998)
12…Bb7 13.Rfd1 (13.f4 Rac8 14.Rae1 Qd7 15.f5 exf5 16.exf5 Ne5 17.Nf4 Bxg2
18.Nxg2 Qc6 19.Nh4 Qd5 and draw agreed, ½-½, in Finnie-Christiansen, ICCF email
2000, which seems premature, Black cannot be worse) 13…f5 14.f4 e5 15.Re1 Rae8
16.Rad1 exf4 17.gxf4 fxe4 18.dxe4 Na5 19.Bf2 Nc4 20.Qc1 Bh6 and Black has grabbed
the initiative, Vescovi-Akesson, Katrineholm 1995.
11…cxd4 12.cxd4 e5 13.Be3
13.d5!? Nd4 14.Nxd4 exd4 15.Bf4 Bd7 16.Qb3 seems to be a possible improvement for
White who has the upper hand.
13…b6

14.Rc1
Once more, 14.d5!? looks like a good alternative, e.g., 14…Nb8 15.Rc1 Na6 16.Qd2 with
more space and an easier game for White.
14…Bb7 15.Qd2 Rfc8 16.Rfd1 exd4 17.Nxd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Bxd4 19.Qxd4
And here a draw was agreed upon, ½-½, in Stojanovski-Saric, Novi Sad 2012, but
although my computer agrees with the result of the game, I think only White can play for
more in the final position. However, the better tries for White are d4-d5 on either the 13th
or 14th moves.
Summary:
The Closed Sicilian with Nge2 is, by and large, considered rather harmless. The g1-knight
is not optimally placed on e2 and therefore Black has excellent chances of equal play.
That, of course, begs the question, why is the Nge2 variation employed by grandmasters?
There are several reasons, the most important is that Black is less familiar with it than the
main lines. Aside from variation (A) which is a “pure” Closed Sicilian allowing Black to
choose his desired anti-Closed Sicilian set-up, Black is struggling in the other lines with
the fact that he is dealing with less than an ideal configuration, i.e., the knight has gone to
f6. “Less than ideal” is a relative term because it is perfectly acceptable and in fact
advocated by Kasparov. The former world champion’s recommendation has hardly caught
- White’s kingside initiative can frighten unprepared players with the black pieces.
Finally, note that I was not familiar with variation (C) prior to writing this book, so I
suspect that many other black players will be in the same boat. Black should be fine
theoretically, but matters are far from simple.
Russell Enterprises, Inc. is one of the world’s major publishers of fine chess books. For
complete descriptions of all our books, free downloads and Hans Ree’s monthly column
Dutch Treat, we invite you to visit our website: www.Russell-Enterprises.com
More than 100 Russell Enterprises titles are also available as eBooks (Kindle, iPad, etc.):
1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations by Fred Reinfeld
1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate by Fred Reinfeld
212 Surprising Checkmates by Bruce Alberston & Fred Wilson
The 3…Qd8 Scandinavian: Simple and Strong by Dan Lowinger
Alexander Alekhine – Fourth World Chess Champion by Isaak & Vladimir Linder
Art of Bisguier by Arthur Bisguier & Newton Berry
Back to Basics: Fundamentals by Branislav Francuski
Back to Basics: Openings by Carsten Hansen
Back to Basics: Strategy by Valeri Beim
Back to Basics: Tactics by Dan Heisman
Bobby Fischer: The Career and Complete Games of the American World Chess Champion
by Karsten Müller
Bullet Chess by Hikaru Nakamura & Bruce Harper
Carlsen-Anand 2013 by Karsten Müller*
The Chameleon Variation – Confronting the Sicilian on Your Own Terms by Carsten
Hansen
Checkmate: Bobby Fischer’s Boys’ Life Columns by Bobby Fischer
Chess Analytics: Training with a Grandmaster by Efstratios Grivas
ChessBase Complete by Jon Edwards
ChessCafe Puzzle Book 1 by Karsten Müller
ChessCafe Puzzle Book 2 by Karsten Müller
ChessCafe Puzzle Book 3 by Karsten Müller & Merijn van Delft
ChessCafe Puzzle Book Sampler by Karsten Müller (free!)*
Chess Puzzle Book 4 by Karsten Müller & Alex Markgraf
Chess Juggler by Dr. James Magner
Chess Mazes 1 by Bruce Alberston
Chess Mazes 2 by Bruce Alberston
Chess Movies 1 by Bruce Pandolfini
Chess Movies 2 by Bruce Pandolfini
Chess Words of Wisdom by Mike Henebry
ChessBase Complete by Jon Edwards
Common Sense in Chess by Emanuel Lasker
The Complete Chess Course by Fred Reinfeld
Danish Dynamite by Karsten Müller and Martin Voight*
The Doeberl Cup – Fifty Years of Australian Chess History by Bill Egan*
Doubled Pawns by Sergey Kasparov
Draw! by Leonid Verkhovsky
Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual by Mark Dvoretsky
Elements of Positional Evaluation: How the Pieces Get Their Power by Dan Heisman
Emanuel Lasker: Second World Chess Champion by Isaak & Vladimir Linder
Endgame Workshop by Bruce Pandolfini
The Exchange Sacrifice by Sergey Kasparov
For Friends & Colleagues, Volume 1 – Profession Chess Coach by Mark Dvoretsky
For Friends & Colleagues, Volume 2 – Reflections on My Profession by Mark Dvoretsky
French Defense: The Solid Rubinstein Variation by Hannes Langrock
Gelfand-Anand 2012: Match for the World Chess Championship by Karsten Müller*
The Hague-Moscow 1948: Match/Tournament for the World Chess Championship by Max
Euwe
A History of Chess: From Chaturanga to the Present Day by Yuri Averbakh
How to Be a Winner at Chess by Fred Reinfeld
How to Beat Your Kids at Chess by David MacEnulty
How to Play Chess like a Champion by Fred Reinfeld
How to Think in Chess by Jan Przwoznik & Marek Soszynski
The Hypermodern Game of Chess by Savielly Tartakower
José Raúl Capablanca: Third World Chess Champion by Isaak & Vladimir Linder
The KGB Plays Chess by Gulko, Felshtinsky, Popov & Kortchnoi
Kramnik-Kasparov 2000 by Karsten Müller*
Lasker’s Manual of Chess by Emanuel Lasker
Learn Chess the Right Way: Book 1 – Must-know Mates by Susan Polgar
Learn Chess the Right Way: Book 2 – Winning Material by Susan Polgar
Learn Chess the Right Way: Book 3 – Mastering Defensive Technique by Susan Polgar
Learn Chess the Right Way: Book 4 – Sacrifice to Win! by Susan Polgar
Learn Chess the Right Way: Book 5 – Finding Winning Moves! by Susan Polgar
Legend on the Road by John Donaldson
Let’s Play Chess by Bruce Pandolfini
The Life & Games of Carlos Torre by Gabriel Velasco
London 1922 by Geza Maróczy
Looking for Trouble (2nd ed.) by Dan Heisman
The Magic of Chess Tactics by Karsten Müller & Claus Dieter Meyer
Maneuvering: The Art of Piece Play by Mark Dvoretsky
Mastering Mates: Book 1 – One-move Mates by Jon Edwards
Mastering Mates: Book 2 – Two-move, Three-move and Four-move Mates by Jon Edwards
Masters of the Chessboard by Richard Réti
Max Euwe: Fifth World Chess Champion by Isaak & Vladimir Linder
Miniatures in the Sicilian Najdorf by Carsten Hansen*
Miniatures in the Queen’s Indian by Carsten Hansen*
Miniatures in the Ruy Lopez – Main Lines by Carsten Hansen*
The Modern Chess Instructor by Wilhelm Steinitz
Modern Ideas in Chess by Richard Réti
Modern Morra Gambit (2nd. ed.) by Hannes Langrock
Music and Chess: Apollo Meets Caissa by Achilleas Zographos
My Best Games of Chess, 1908-1937 by Alexander Alekhine
My Best Games of Chess,1905-1954 by Savielly Tartakower
My Chess by Hans Ree
My First Book of Checkmate by David MacEnulty
My First Book of Checkmate Workbook by David MacEnulty
My First Book of Chess Tactics by David MacEnulty
Najdorf x Najdorf by Liliana Najdorf
New York 1924 by Alexander Alekhine
New York 1927 by Alexander Alekhine
Nottingham 1936 by Alexander Alekhine
Opening Originals: Strong Sidelines for Club Cats by Daniel Lowinger
Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective by Valeri Beim
A Practical Guide to Rook Endgames by Nikolay Minev
Profession: Chessplayer – Grandmaster at Work by Vladimir Tukmakov
Reaching the Top?!: A Practical Guide to Playing Master-Level Chess by Peter
Kurzdorfer
Reinfeld on the Endgame by Fred Reinfeld
The Rules of Chess by Bruce Pandolfini (free!)*
St. Petersburg 1909 by Emanuel Lasker
The Scotch Gambit by Alex Fishbein
Strategic Opening Repertoire by John Donaldson & Carsten Hansen
Studies for Practical Players by Mark Dvoretsky & Oleg Pervakov
Tal-Botvinnik 1960 by Mikhail Tal
The Scotch Gambit: An Energetic and Aggressive System for White by Alex Fishbein
The Tactician’s Handbook by Victor Charushin, Revised & Expanded by Karsten Müller
Topalov-Kramnik 2006 by Veselin Topalov with Zhivko Ginchev
Tragicomedy in the Endgame by Mark Dvoretsky
Vienna 1922 by Larry Evans
A World Champion’s Guide to Chess: Step-by-Step Instructions for Winning Chess the
Polgar Way by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
Why You Lose at Chess by Fred Reinfeld
Wilhelm Steinitz: First World Chess Champion by Isaak and Vladimir Linder
Zürich 1953 by Miguel Najdorf
*Available only as an eBook