Bosch J. (editor) SOS: Secrets of Opening Surprises. Volume 1

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

28.na6 baS 29.~b3

1:1c5

30.'i!Vb8

we7

31....d6 wee 32.~bB we7

%-%

Kevin Spraggett

• Paul Ross

Canada ch 1989

1.e4 e6 Vtjf3

d5 3.e5

05 4.b4 ob4 5.a3

0e6

6.ab4

i.b4 7.e3 :i.e7 B.d4 ~d7

9.~d3

nea

10.h4 a6

11.l:1h3

II. h5

11...h6

12':lg3

Qf8

13.~f1

0a5

14.Wg1

'6'b6

15.~c2

tbe7 16.h5

tL;f5

17.lIh3

ti'04

18.na2

tiJe7

19.~h4 ~d8!

20JU3 ~e8 21.8a3 ne7 22.ng3

!LiaS

23.~d2 tDec6

24.Q.d3 ~e8 25ke2

ltjc4

26.~c4 de4 27.~e3

,sen

%-%

Peter Rahls

• Martin Breutigam

Germany 8undesliga 1995

1.e4

e6 2.!d3

d5 3.e5 e5 4.b4 cb4

S.d4?!

tl2c6

5...~d7 6.a3 ~d7 7.ab4

~b4

8.c3

Qe7

9.~d3

8a5 10.0-0 a6

11.tL:bd2

nes

12.Ciib3 o2e4 13.ne1 h5

14.~fd2!?

g6 lS.iLe4 de4

16.tDa5 b5

17.'ttf3 ft'b6

18.tLe4

19.tL:b7! nes 20.0.bd6 iLd6 21.tl:.d6

l:ld6 22.ed6 ~d6

23.

"a8+-

~e7

24.:a6

1jJJe7

2S.eb4

'.tf6 26.na7

~c8

J!Yf3 'i;g7

28.~f4 h4

29.b5 h3

30.na8 ~aB

31.-.a8 i.b5

32.~e5

1·0

Dimitri Reinderman

• Leon Pliester

Purmerend 1993

1.e4

2.luf3 d5 3.eS e5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3

tL;c6 6.ab4 .ib4

7.e3

~e7

8.d4 ~d7

9.j(d3

ti"aS 1O.M a6 11.0-0 fLb5

12.:a2

li.d3 13.'i'd3

tlc4

14.hS!~

ncB

15.g3 o2h6

16.~h60

gh6 17.~h2 0-0

18.oi::g4~g7 19.04·;d2..-07

20.J:1b1

tL;d2

2UWd2

xg5

22.f4 ii..e7 23.Wh2

~e6

23 ...

~c3

24.• c3

J:[c3

25Jtb7

:1a3

26.nc2

24J~b3

J;;{c7

25.f5

SLg5

26.f6

Wh8

27.1tVd1

28A.

.:f2! [:, Ct:.d3-c5

28..J~fe8 29.li,d3

'\tb6

so.z.es

30...a5

:i'd3

b4 32.eb4 ab4 33.na4

nes

34.de5 'ikcs 35.nab4 SLf6 36.effi

1tVf237.wh3 fVf6 38.....f3 "'a1 39Jtb8

~B_n~ 1~

169

Erling Mortensen

• Lars Karlsson

Copenhagen 1985

1.e4 e6 2.l2:.f3d5 3.eS c5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3

ba3 6.d4 tL:c6 7.c3 15 8.~d3 iLd7 9.g4

ti\ge7 10.gf5 tL:.f511.~gS tLlce712.lL:a3

h6 13.Q'h3 'f;c7 14.tL;b5 ~b5 15.~b5

<M7

16.~d2~ g6 17.:g1

17.0-0

t::,.

~hl, ~gl 17...a6 18.~d3 :g8

19.1;\14

'i'c6 20:.-f3 b5 21.:%b1 :b8 22.'i'h3

llb7 23.~f1 ,.pe8 24.<;1;>92g5 25.tZ:hS

~d8

26.«t:h1 llg6 27.f4 g4 2B.llg4 llg4

29.• g4 b4 30.cb4 'ii'b6 31 :itg1 llc7

32.lla1 'Wd4 33.'Wd4 tUd4 34J~a6 tDf3

35.~e3 l:ic3 3S..i.b6 <>pc837..i.e2 <ot>b7

38.~c5 tL:h4 39.<;1;>91.ac240.wf1 lDef5

41.~f8 ~d4

42.na7 c;t;a743...ilc5 t:c5 44.be5 0hl5

45.~g3 0,g7 46.~d1 'iPa6 47.~a4

~a5 48.$i.d7

Ci.;b3

49.f5 49.c6 Wb6

49....!i:.f5 50.~f5 0c5! 50 ...ef5

51.e6+- 51 ..b6 tLle6 SVbh6 ~b4

53.lt;g4 We4 54.h4 Ci':.g755 ...t>f2 d4

56. ""3 Wd5 57.<;t>f4d3

5a.t/",e3

$d4

5Vijf1 -;Pd5 60.ci:d2 ~d4 61.tLif3 'it>d5

62.we3 tL:fS63.~14 d2 64.Cud2

Yz.Yz

170

Boris Shashin

• Boris Naglis

Moscow 1970

1.e4 e6 2.~.\f3 d5 3.e5 e5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3

ba3 6.d4 LUe67.e3 f5 8..:id3 .td7 9.h3

9.g4! 9...g6 9...tLge7 10.g4 <Llh6

11.tLla3 a6 12.~g5 'itc8 13.~f6 ng8

14:.wd2 tDf7 15.0·0 b5 16.g15 gf5

17.'it>h2~h6

•

i i~i

ltJ

ttJ

~ ~

:a:

18J~91! CUe719.'iVb2 tt.:g6 20.h4 .ic6

21.h5 [i.e7 22.tDC2 'i'c7 23.tUb4 .i.b7

24.LDa6! %la6 25.~b5 J:[e6 26.%[a7 %lgl

27.~c6 Ci:e628Jlb7

'-0

Yury Dovzik

• Jean-Philippe Gentllleau

Cannes 1992

1.e4 e6

2.Ci.;f3

d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3

IS!'? 6.ab4 Qb4 7.c3

ssa

8.d4 i.d7 9.h4

t.i..lh610.~h6 gh6 11:itd2 :slf8 12.~e2

12.;:.d3

12...~g7

13.~83 0-0 14.0-0

.te6

14...a6 15.t.i'.b5 Qh5 16.~b5 q·.d7

15.~b5 .ib5 16...Q.b5 li~d7 17.c4 dc4

18..ic4 'tie7 19.'ita5 llfe8 20.nfb1 ~b6

21.dS edS 22.~d5 'tt'hB 23.llb6! ab6

24.Wa8 .ela8 25..ela8 gf8 26.~d4 'ife5

27ke6 ~e1 28.wh2

~e5

29.14

'·0

Section VI: A surprising Sicilian

The Sicilian typically offers the second

player good chances to fight for the initia-

tive and it is the l.e4 player's main con-

cern. There are so many Sicilians - all

fundamentally differing in nature - that it

is hard to be well-prepared against all of

them. The line that

advocate in Chapter

18:

'the Kupreichik Variation' makes

matters even worse.

1.e4 c5

2.lDf3

d6 3.d4 cd4

4.tbd4 lLlf65.tLic3~d7

The move

5....

.Q.d7Ieaves White in

state

of uncertainty concerning Black's future

development plans. Indeed, as Black re-

tains the option of developing with e5, e6

g6,

the Kupreichik Variation is a flexi-

ble Sicilian which is its main attraction. A

full theoretical overview and an elaborate

games section should provide the reader

with an SOS Sicilian for his repertoire.

Is the characteristic 5...~d7 a proper

developing move? Black prepares either

tDc6,

set-up with eS and i.c6. Still

you may wonder how effective the bishop

is placed on d7? This is more

philosophical question though. After all,

it is also quite difficult to regard 5...a6 as

the best developing move

the position.

Yet, Najdorf's little pawn move has come

to be recognized as one

the strongest

Sicilians. The

Kupreichik

actually has

quite a lot in common with the Najdorf.

Other Sicilians that are worth knowing

about when playing the Kupreichik are:

the

Rauzer

(5...!i;c6

.i.g5). the Dragon

(S...go) and the Scheveoingen (5...eo).

After S...Qd7 6.~g5 there are several di-

rect transpositions to the Rauzer.

A Dragon-like set-up is possible after

many of White's 6th move alternatives,

but not after 6.~g5 though.

The Scheveningen is typically on the

cards after 6.Qe2 and 6.~c4.

CHAPTER 18

The Kupreichik Variation

5...~d7: a flexible choice

NIC KEY 51 3,6

For several

years now

the

Russian grand-

master

Viktor Kupreichik has been play-

ing an original Sicilian

his own inven-

tion. After the

age-old l.e4

2.!i:r3

J.d4 004 4.ti':'d4 ~f6 5.08c3

the whole

world is playing

5 ... <16,

5...

i.;c6,

5 ...e6

5...g6, followed by

leust 10

more 'hook

moves'.

Little

improvisation and a

lot

learning is not to everyone's taste,

though, and certainly not to Kupreichik's.

The

Belarus

grandmaster immediately

leaves the

well-trodden

Sicilian

paths

with

5"h~.d7!?

His

success has inspired other grandmas-

172

tcrs and among his

'apostles'

are

(in arbi-

trary order): Zviagintsev,

Atalik.

Kengis,

Kveinis, Efimov, Balashov, Kogan.

Wojtkiewicz

and Larsen.

NUL a

bad side

you might

feel-

and the statistics

arc ex-

cellent too. However,

note

warning

the reader already eager

adopt

5...~d7:

the New In Chess Database reveals that

this

line is played

grandmastersonly.

First

all

this means that the

statist

ics arc

unreliable (Black was quite often simply

the stronger player). But more impor-

tantly. I wondered whether there

was an

objective reason why so

few

club players

went for the

Kupreichik.

After

studying

the games, which are rich in all sorts of Si-

ci~ian ideas.

came up with the following

explanation: in order to play 5...~d7 you

need a basic understanding of the

Najdorf. the

Rauzer,

the Dragon and the

Scheveningen! Each of these lines could

rake a lifetime of study - never mind all

four of them!

For those not deterred by this warning.

read

on'

After 5...~d7 all the 'Najdorf moves' -

6.~g5. 6.~e2. 6.~c4, 6.ge3. 6.f3, 6.f4,

6.g3, 6.h3, and 6JlgJ -come into consid-

eration. Or as Zviagintsev put it more pes-

simistically: 'Practically all White's (6th

move) repJies set Black serious prob-

lems'

Things are perhaps not all that bad

really, as the following theoretical over-

view may reveal.

A note of warning: there are

transpositional possibilities galore. On

the whole,

will concentrate on those

games that are distinctly 'Kupreichik'.

Still, one of the main ideas of 5...~d7 is

that Black remains flexible and defers his

choice of set-up until White has put his

cards on the table. Thus. Black may prefer

a Scheveningen type of set-up versus one

line. a Dragon scheme against another

variation, and Boleslavsky-iike develop-

ment with eS and ~c6 to meet yet another

White system.

The material in the theoretical section is

divided as follows:

e4 c5

2. tt::.f3

d4 cd4

4. tDd4 lLlf6

5. ttJc3 ~d7

A) 6.~gS

6.~e2

C) 6.~c4

D) 6..ae3

E) 6.f3

'the rest'

Variation A

.i.g5

Insofar

as is possible to speak of a 'main

line' in

non-theoretical line like the

Kupreichik, it surely is 6..igS. White pre-

vents Dragon-like set-ups and plays in the

spirit of the Richter-Rauzer and the

6.~gS Najdorf.

should not surprise us,

then. that transpositions to these two vari-

ations are possible. Thus.

6 ...lC.c6

is a

genuine

Richter-Rauzer,

while

6...e6

7.f4

is a Najdorf

and

6...

e6 7."d2 a6 7.f4 a

strange hybrid.

practice. 6..ig5 is the most common

move. This popularity may partly be ex-

plained by its forcing character.

6....

Bad is 6...~c6 7.~f6 g1'6 8.'it'h5 .cd7

173

9.~c4 ~e5 !O.~b3 0.g6 11.f4

12.f5

"a5 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.'ifh3±

Kindermann-Efimov, Portoroz

1998.

White's main moves now are: 7.f4,

7.'t!Vd2 and 7.~db5. Before we delve

deeper into the matter here are some mi-

nor alternatives:

• 7.~f3 h6!? 8.~f6 gf6 9.0-0-0 a6

1O.~h5

tzJc6

Il.ttJc6 bc6 12.~c4 ~b6

and Black is ok in this funny Rauzer,

Santo Roman- Efimov, Bastia rapid 1997.

• 7.ft'd3 a6 8.f4 h6 9..ah4 ~e7 10.tt1f3

.ac6 11.0-0-0 lDbd7 12.1t'e2 0-0 13.wbl

liJe4! Belotti-Efirnov, Reggio Emilia

1997.

• 7.0

a6 8.'ftd2

~e7

9.0-0-0 b5

1O.'it>b

b4 II.~f6 ~f6 12.tDce2 '*'b6=i=

Tomczak-Szczechowicz, Barlinek 2002.

AI) 7.f4

A2) 7.~d2

A3) 7.ttjdb5

Variation A1

7. f4 ~c6

This is the main line. but possibly 7...

lJie

is stronger. The game Arakhamia-

Kupreichik, Mariehamn 1997, went:

8.'ifd2 a6

!W-O-O

h6 1O.~h4 0-0 and in

answer

II.g4 Black executed the stan-

dard 11...lbe4 with a good game. After

7 1J..e78.'iWd2 Black can also opt for

8 h6!? when 9.~f6 .if6 10.tiJdb51J..bS

Il.tiJbS 0-0 12.0-0-0 'tWb6! 13.'4!fd6

(l3.c3 d5 14.ed5 a6 IS.lijd4 ed5~)

13...tt1c6 14.'tta3 l:tfd8 gives more than

sufficient compensation for the pawn.

Solleveld-Bosch, Dutch

1998.

174

B. tbdb5

Simply bad is 8.~f6 -.f6 9.lbdb5 be-

cause of

9...

0-0-0

JO.'iIi'd2

l.0.a3

12.ed5 ed5 13.~e2.ib4 14.

'it>dI

~f5 and

While resigned in Suknev-Sidorov, Yalta

1995.

8..... bB

s.es

de5 10.

.af6

g'6 11.'it'd2 f5

12.o.0-{l ..-d8 13.fe5 ~e5 14....d4 with

a dangerous initiative in Van den

Doel-Kupreichik, Groningen 1996.

Variation A2

7. *d2 a6

This seems forced as White is ready for

tbdb5 and 0-0-0 attacking d6. Yet, after

7...

8.tLldb5 ~b5 9.~b5

tDc6 10.0-0

0-0 II.:aadl .l::tc812.~e2 a6 White had at

best a tiny edge in Kokarev-Kozlov,

Voronezh 2002.

8. f4

Not in keeping with this Rauzer set-up is

8.~c2. In Timoshenko-Jaracz.

Lubniewice

1998. Black equalized with

8".~e7 9.f4 'it'c7 1O.tUf3h6 11.~h4 ~c6

12.~d3 lbbd7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Whl b5

15.a3 e5.

Black also gets satisfactory play after

8.f3

b5 9.0-0-0 j}_e7:

• 10.M b4 II/ubi 'iYb6 12.hS h6

3.~e3 'iWb7 14."f2 e5 15.~b3 a5

Zude-Kupreichik,

Bundesliga 1993.

• IO.Wbl b4 I uH6 i..f6 12.~ce2 a5:j:

Fercec- Kogan, Ljubljana 1998.

• 10.j;.,d3 0-0 11.h4 b4 J2.~ce2 a5

13.g4 ttJa6=i=

Gurh-Jaracz,

Bad

Wiessee

1998.

• 1O.~e3 h5!'! II..id3 b4 12.tbce2 e5

13.tDf5i..f5 14.ef5 d5 with aeomplicated

game in Hellers-Markovic, Sweden

2(0).

The move 8.0-0-0 normally has

little

in-

dependent significance. Play may trans-

pose to

our

main line (after

h6 9.~f6

"'f6 10.f4), or to

8.f3

(after

~e7

9.f3).

Not attractive is

!to-O-O

h6 9.~e3

(9.~4?

ttJe4!)

9...

lDg4

lO.f4 lDe3

1.'tte3 fi.e7 12.~b

tUc6 13.e5 d5 14.g4

~c5:j: Mieles

Palau-Teplitsky,

Bled 2002.

8.... h6

9. ~f6

White must give up the bishop in view of

the

standard trick

.ih4? ltJe4.

9. ... llf6

10. 0-0-0 .!De6

Most natural but

IO...

fNd8 is possible too.

For example. 1l.g3 (I l.h4 .ie7 12.0f3

tDc6

l3.g4 ~a5 14.g5 0-0-0 Sypnicki-

Heberla,

Zakopane

200 I)

II...lLic6

12.$Lg2 j}_e7 13.h4

'fie7

14.<~bl l:tc8

l5.l:thel

0-0

with an equal game,

Horvatn-Antoniewski, Aviles 2000.

11.

tDf3

No good is l1.e5? because of ll...de5

12.lbdb5 'it'd8 l3.tud6 ~d6 l4 .... d6 'it'e7

15.lDe4 Kotkov-Lein, Soviet Union 1971.

and now 15...ef416.'C!ff40-0 17.'¥kc7l:tfd8

would have given

Black the

advantage.

More to the point is Il.tDe6 ~c6 in order

not to lose time. White got an advantage

in Tseitlin-Kupreichik, Groningen 1996.

after

2.,*e3 g5?! 13.g3 gf4 14.gf40-O-0

lS ...wb6! ~f4 16.Q;lbl ~e5 17.~d5!'

Black.

can

improve with

12..:t!t'd8

3.lbd5 is not as strong as itlooks after ei-

ther l3 ...fi.e7 or l3 ...ed5 14.ed5 i.e7

15.dc6 bc6. Instead of 12.'it'e3 the game

Lau- Kupreichik, Munster 1997. went

12.g3

"d8

13.~g2 .-a5 14.11hel 0-0-0

and Black was fine.

The manoeuvre 'iYf6-d8-a5 is also known

from the Rauzer, And in fact. after our

text move II.tDf3 we have via transposi-

tion reached a position from the Rauzer

that is known to be satisfactory

for

Black.

11.... 0-0-0

Equally good

II... .. d8.

Playing the

queen retreat or castling queenside is

largely a matter of taste. Too ambitious

though is 11...g5?! as White has l2.fg5

hg5

3.e5!

lbe5

l4lue4 with a substantial

edge as in Moberg-Malmstig, Haninge

1997.

175

12. h4

After 12.'ot>bI ~e8 13.'fi'e3 'ire7 14.h4 g6

IS.g3 ~b8 Black was comfortable

Timrnerrnans-Bosch, Hoogeveen 1998.

Shi

roy

has recommended 12.

'tW

e3.

12. ... g6

12...

~b8

13.g4 'fIIe7 14.~c4

~c8

IS.g5

g6 Bologan-Zviagintsev,

Azov

1996.

13. 'tte3 'ite7

With two bishops and a solid position

Black has

fine prospects here. See

Psakhis-Kupreichik and Ciernniak-

Kengis

in the

Study

Material.

Variation A3

7. lOdb5

This move 'punishes' Black for omitting

5...a6.

7.... ~c6

So far

the

move 7...£t.b5!'? (originally a

suggestion of Kupreichik's) has only

once been played - in the Groningen

1997

tie-break rapid game Benjamin-

176

Zviagintsev. That game went 8.~bS

tDc6

9.'i!H3

h6 1O.i.h4 ~e7 II.e5 'Dd5 12.~c6

bc6

13.~e7 'ile7 14.'fIIg3 and White was

better.

8. .afS

This fracturing of Black's kingsidc pawns

the

pointof7.tudb5. However, in the re-

cent game Belikov-Kumosov, Alushta

2002. While went

for

a Sveshnikov pawn

structure arguing that the bishop

does not

belong

on c6

but on

e6,

after:

8.~f4!? e5

9.i.gS a6

IO.Af6

gf6

l.~a3

2.~d3

llg8

13.<1jc4White was better,

is of course impossible to draw any def-

inite conclusions on the basis of one

game. Black should investigate

8...~e4!?

9-'tJe4 ~e4

10...Q.d611:'a6.

Less dangerous is 8.'irf3 a6 9.ti'ld4 ~e7

10.0-0-0 'fIIa5 Ivanovic-Kupreichik,

Cetinje

1993.

8. ... 9f6

9. 'tth5

This prepares

queenside

castling.

tricks

on e6 (after the inevitable ~bS-d4), and

blocks the Black h-pawn

(h6-h5

is a good

move in this type of structure).

9. ... a6

Not to be recommended is

9 ...tLla6'?!

10.0-0-0 ttJc5 II.~c4 'it'd7 12.Uhel a6

13.tt:Jd4± Kotronias-Efimov, Gausdal

1991.

10. tZld4 ~d7

11. 0-0-0

is useful to know that Black

may strive

exchange queens

as the

resulting

end-

ings are nearly always in his favour. Thus

11..~c4 is well answered

I t...'irc8!

12.~b3 'it'c5! when 13.'fllc5 dc5 14.tbf3

l::rg8 was slightly

better

for Black

Pikulinski-Wisrnont, Lubniewice 1998.

Perunovic- Ivanisevic, Lazarevac 1999,

went instead 13.ttJ£5lLlc6 14.~h4 (here

14.0-0-0 0-0-0 15.ttJg3 ti'f2 would have

transposed to Ivanovic-Kupreichik,

Becici

1994) 14...0-0-0! an excellent

pawn sacrifice, see the study material.

The move 11.£4 is met

II...lilc6

12.0-0-0

'ft'b6

13.lbce2

.-as!

14.'i!h5

tDaS

15.log3

~e7

and Black was already

slightly better in Szelag-Heberla, Brzeg

Dolny2001.

11. •.. <1~c6

White is at crossroads here.

No good is 12..Q.c4~a5! again Black of-

fers the queen exchange, the game Lu-

ther-Kupreichik,

Minsk 1994 continued

13.'tWe2

'iWgS

14.~bl

lbd4

15.l:ld4

~g2

16.l:lhd

Wh2 and

White

did

not

have

enough compensation.

Unclear is 12.ttJc6 bc6 (l2 ...~.c6

13.~c4± Kupreichik) l3.~c4 'iWb6

Spasov-Kuprcichik, Moscow 1994. Fi-

nally,

White

won quickly in

Stripunsky-Balashov, Minsk 1996. after

12.ttJb3 b5 13.f4 'iWc8 14.f5!. However.

1VDb3 does not look very dangerous,

Black's 12...

is simply bad.

Variation B

6. .te2

Black is playing all sorts of set-ups

against 6.~e2. and it is a matter of taste

rather than objective strength which one

you pick for your own repertoire. How-

ever, as so often you must beware of

transpositions

other main line Sicil-

ians! Thus, 6...g6 could easily become a

Dragon. 6...e6 a Scheveningen, and in

Bohnenblust-Blehm, Parras 1999,

6...

lLlc6transposed into

regular

Rauzer!

Most consistent perhaps is the 'Najdorf

move' 6...e5. followed by ~c6 - this will

be our main line.

6.... e5

Some brief comments concerning the al-

ternatives here:

• 6...Ac6 Efirnov's

move

7.0·0

0,hd7

8.~g5 (I.:!.:el e6

s.zn

~e7 10.f4 0-0

11.e5 ttJe8 12.<it>h1 g6:j: Wagman-

Efimov. 5t Vincenl2000) 8...e6 9_~h5!?

g6 1O.~e2

iie7

II.ltjc6 bc6 12..ih6I:lb8

n.b3

fh5

14.ti'd2ltjgS 15.~g7 ~f6 and

Black was ok in Zontakh-Efimov, Cutro

1998.

177

• 6...lbc6

7.Ag5 (7.Qe3

tDd4~?

8.~d4

~c6 9.j(d3 eS IO.~e3 d5 was Bur-

nett-Csom,

Budapest 2000)

7...~a5

8.~f6 gf6

9.0-0 tLld4 1O.'ti'd4

I:tc8

and

this

is a Rauzer

line. Bohnenblust-Blehm,

Parras 1999.

• 6...g6

7.0-0

Jig7

R.Ag5 0-0

(8...

tL!c6

9.tLlb3

10.a4

nc8 II.~h I .ie6

(11...0-0 looks better) 12.f4 ti.:ld7

13.f5;!;

Xie Jun-Larsen, Vienna

1993)

9.Wd2

tiJc6 10.liJb3

II.a4

I:tc8

12.lIad

tle8

13.<bh

I Rublevsky-Kupreichik,

Aalborg

1993; Black should now rely on 13...tLla5.

Instead of 7.0-0 White

can

play the sharp

7.g4

after 7...h6 8.~e3

9.tUdb5

Ac6

io.eas

tUd5 ILed5 ~b5 12.~b5 tLJd7

13.~d2

a6 14.i.e2 i.e7

is bad to castle:

15.0-0-0 .ig5!+ Velimirovic-Markovic,

Subotica 2000. Better is IS.h4 i.h4

16.g5

hg5

17.~g5

Ag5

18J::th8

tl2f8

with com-

pensation Cuijpers-Kupreichik, Bundes-

liga 1994.

• 6...e6

7.Ae3 1l.e7 8.g4

h6 9.~d2 a6

10.0-0-0

tLic6

11.f3

b5 12.4.lc6 ~c6

13.~d3

11c8

14.c-Ji>bld5 15.e5 d4 16.ef6

~f6

l7.liJe4

YI-V:!

was Balogh-

Kosanovic, Budapest

2002.

However,

playing the English

attack

after 6.Ae2

does not look like such a good idea. Regu-

lar Scneveningen positions are, for in-

stance. reached after:

- 7.~e3

tbc6

8.£4 a6 9.0-0 .ae7 10.Wh1

h5 II.a3 0-0 Laketic- Vuksanovic,

Vmjacka Banja 1999. and

- 7.0-0 ~e7 R.f4tiJc6 9.tt::Ib30-0 1O.~e3

l:lc8 Benjarnin-Zviagintsev, Groningen

1997. Clearly the Scheveningen falls

OUl-

side the scope of this book. Though,

would not want to keep Zviagintsev's im-

pressive concept from you: I J.~f3 a6

178

12.a4 e5 13.f5liJb4 l4.g4 h5! and Black

had a

good position!

Finally, after

6.~e2 e6 I

would like to

mention the Keres-like

7.g4~?

position

that you will only reach

the Kuprcichik

move order. After

7...h6

8.f4 e5 9.tDfS

.tc6

1O.

.tf3

11.~g3 ~bd7 l2.f5 g5

Black was

tine

in Sturua-Zviagintsev,

Pula 1997. The sharp

B.gS

(instead of

8.f4) is well-answered by

8...hgS 9.

.tg5

a6 1O:.wd2 b5!,

see Velimirovic-

1vanisevic, Belgrade 1999

the study

material.

7. ti.Jdb5

Most consistent, play now comes to re-

semble the Svcshnikov,

other knight

moves are less dangerous.

7.tLJb3.tc6 8..i.g5 tZlbd7and now:

• 9:~id3

~e7 10.0-00-0 II.a4 a6 12.a5

nc8

l3JUdl ~e8 14.i.f3

'ilfc7

with an

equal position. Gallagher-Wojtkiewicz,

Bern 1996.

• Sharp but satisfactory for Black is 9.f3

h6 (9...~e7 lO.'ifd2

0-0 11.0-0-0 a6

12.h4b5 13.';t)bl b414.tt.Jd5 .tdS 15.ed5

Gheng-Manea, Bucharest 200 I)

1O...te3 fie7 11.'~/d2 0-0

12.0-0-0