A different theme from ones we're used to seeing. If this sort of thing can work, the Sicilian should be out of business!

Surely 9...exf4 10 Axf4 foc6 is the natural solution? Then Shirov-Van Wely, Tilburg 1997 continued 11 h3 (where's the flank advance? What's that bishop doing on e2 instead of g2?)

11.. Ae6! ? (11.. .foe5 12 Wd4 0-0 13 0-0-0 ®c7 with equality) 12 «d2 d5!? (D).

This was assessed as 'clearly better for Black' in an old Informator. Wouldn't any Sicilian player agree that White has been fiddling about while Black has freed his game in classic style?

13 0-0-0 dxe4 14 ®e3! (then again, maybe not; perhaps Black might have played 12...£te5) 14...®c8 15 £ixe4!? (pessimism about this line was based on 15 Ad6 &xd6 16 2xd6 0-0 17 £>c5 £to4! of Rigo-Ribli, Hungary 1977, when Black was held to be better due to the ideas of ...£\bd5 and ...£\xa2+; nevertheless, White doesn't look badly off at all after 18 Shdl, 18 £ixe6 fxe6 19 ®d4 or 18 g5, and a move earlier 17 g5 was fairly promising as well) 15...£>xe4 16fxe40-0 17sfrbl?! (Shirov posits that it was time for 17 Ac4 JLxc4 18 #xc4; 17 Ad3 f5 18 gxf5 ±xf5 19 #g2!? is a wild alternative) 17...f5 18 f e3 and Black was somewhat better although Shirov went on to win.

Svidler doesn't make a peep about the win of a pawn by 10...hxg5 11 fxg5 £>h7, when it seems that 12 h4 &xg5 13 #d5 Sa7 14 ±c3 Ac6 15 ®d3 Sd7! ? 16 0-0-0 might be tried.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment