Sveshnikov 201: Mainline 9.Nd5

The Sveshnikov is one of very few openings that I'm willing to play with either color. One author has tagged the opening The Easiest Sicilian, principally because the theory is relatively narrow, say, compared to the Najdorf.  The Sveshnikov makes up for its lack of breadth, however, by running deep in its theory.  The novelty in this game comes on move 26, and that's not unusal for the Sveshnikov.  Here, White dominates the center of the board, and that, among other things, allows White to save a tempo by keeping his King in the center.  Black's only play is based on the outside passed a pawn, which is too slow.

Walters,Gary (2343) - Mauro,Lucio (2355)

WCCC33PR04 ICCF, 20.04.2009 [Stockfish 1.7.1 JA 64bit (40m)]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 (6.Ndf5 is the only interesting alternative.) d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0–0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5

A position reached in countless games, and it likely appears at least 2,000 times in your largest games database. Now White has a major and a minor option. The minor option is 15.Bb5.

(See, e.g., Kasparov,Garry (2812) - Van Wely,Loek (2636) [B33] Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee (2), 17.01.1999 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0–0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 Bb7 16.Nce3 Bxe3 17.Nxe3 Ne7 18.0–0 Rb8 19.Qd3 Qb6 20.Bc4 Bc6 21.Ra2 Rfd8 22.b3 Qc5 23.Rfa1 Ra8 24.h4 h6 25.h5 Bb7 26.Rd1 Bc6 27.Rda1 Bb7 28.Bd5 Bxd5 29.exd5 Rdc8 30.b4 Qxc3 31.Qxc3 Rxc3 32.Rxa5 Rb8 33.Ra7 Kf8 34.Rd7 Nc8 35.Rd8+ Ke7 36.Rg8 Rxb4 37.Ra8 Kd7 38.Rxg7 Rc1+ 39.Kh2 Rf4 40.Ng4 Ne7 41.Ra7+ Ke8 42.g3 Rf5 43.Rh7 1–0)

Black’s more common response to 15.Bb5 (other than Van Wely’s 15...Bb7) is 15...Ne7.

(See, e.g., Shirov,Alexei (2723) - Van Wely,Loek (2668) [B33] Amber-rapid 12th Monte Carlo (11), 27.03.2003 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 Bg5 12.Nc2 0–0 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bb5 Ne7 16.Nxe7+ Bxe7 17.Ne3 Rb8 18.Qe2 Qb6 19.c4 Be6 20.0–0 Qd4 21.Qc2 Bd8 22.Rd1 Qc5 23.Qd2 Bc7 24.Ra3 Rfd8 25.Rd3 g6 26.Nf5 Bxf5 27.exf5 d5 28.Qg5 d4 29.Rh3 e4 30.Qh6 Qxf5 31.Qxh7+ Kf8 32.Rf3 exf3 33.Qh8+ Ke7 34.Re1+ Qe6 35.Qh4+ f6 36.Qh7+ Kd6 37.c5+ Kxc5 38.Qxc7+ Kxb5 39.Rxe6 d3 40.Qc6+ Kb4 41.Re4+ Kb3 42.Qc3+ Ka2 43.Qa3+ 1–0)

Much more often played than 15.Bb5, however, is the move in the game, the major option. 15.Bc4 Now the common move, as in the game, is Rb8 15...Kh8 will usually transpose back to the main line after 16.O-O Rb8) 16.b3 (16.Ra2 is to be seriously considered. While the Rook is less actively posted at a2, there are variations ahead where the Rook slides along the 2nd rank to the Kingside. 16...Kh8 The King needs to get out of the Bishop’s line of sight and free the f pawn.

17.Nce3 White more often castles in this position, but there is no absolute need for White to remove the King from the center. White rather plans to play down the h file, and while this game is not decided there, the threats are ever present. Note that White will not castle in this game.) g6 (Black has played 17...Bxe3, but the idea is dubious and has scored poorly. Black should keep the Bishop pair. 18.h4 Bxh4 results in a highly dynamic position. Both Rybka and Stockfish need a substantial amount of time to turn the evaluation away from Black’s advantage and back to balanced.

19.g3 Bg5 White has sac’d a pawn to open the h file. Black has the Bishop pair, but has common Svesh weaknesses in a backward d pawn and weak a pawn. White’s structure is not remarkably better, but the Rook staring down the h file is a constant bother and the Knights are well posted.
20.Ra2 Thematic. White will return the Rook to play along the 2nd rank. 20...Bxe3 White was threatening to take over the game with 21.f4

21.Nxe3 Be6 Obvious and good. 22.Rd2 I think this is objectively best. This game is still in well-known territory, but is unclear. 22...Qe7 23.Rxd6 Still nothing that hasn’t been seen before.

23...Nd4 The Knight cuts off the White Rook, but obviously White had to be prepared for this. 24.Rd5 Nc6 The Rook is off limits. White will recapture with the Knight gaining a tempo on the Queen with the Black Knight still hanging. 25.Rd3 Bxc4 26.bxc4N And we finally arrive at a new position. Previously, the play had been 26.Nxc4 Qb7 27.Qd2 Nb4 28.Re3 Rfd8 29.Qe2 Nc6 30.Nd2 Qd7 31.g4 a4 32.Reh3 h5 33.Qe3 Qxg4 34.Rh4 Qg2 35.R4h2 Qg4 36.Rh4 Qg2 37.Rxh5+ Kg7 38.Rh7+ Kf6 39.R1h3 Qg1+ 40.Ke2 Rb7 Huschenbeth,N (2318)-Aulich,M (1996)/Kelheim 2007/CBM 122 Extra/1–0, but 26.Nxc4 offered little opportunity in my view to play for a win in CC. The point of bxc4 is that while the doubled c pawns are ugly, White is dominating the center of the board. There’s little time for Black to get the a pawn moving in a genuinely threatening manner. 26...Rfd8 27.Rd5 Kg8 28.Kf1 Rb2 29.Kg2 Qg5 [29...h5 30.Qc1 Rdb8 31.c5] 30.Qf3 h5 31.c5 Kg7 32.Nc4 Rb3 33.Rhd1 Re8 [33...Rf8!?] 34.Rd7+- Re7 35.Rxe7 Qxe7 36.Ne3 Rb8 [36...Rb5 37.Nd5 Qd7 38.Qf6+ Kg8 39.Qg5+-] 37.Rd6 Rc8 38.Qd1 Nb8 39.Qd5 a4

[39...h4 40.gxh4 a4 41.Ng4 Qxh4 42.Qxe5+ Kf8 43.Qf4+-] 40.Nc4 h4 [40...Rc7 41.Nxe5 a3 42.Nxf7 Qxf7 43.Qd4+ Kh7 44.Rd8+-] 41.Nxe5 a3 [41...Re8 42.c6 Rc8 43.gxh4+-] 42.Ng4 a2 43.Qd4+ [43.Qxa2?! Qxe4+ 44.f3 Qe1 45.gxh4 Rxc5±] 43...Kh7 44.Nf6+ Kh6 45.Qd2+ [45.Qd2+ Kg7 46.Qxa2+-] 1–0

Support for Executive Board Candidacy

I announced my candidacy for the USCF Executive Board on the USCF Issues Forum on November 12. I have been a regular reader and poster on that Forum since May 2008. The below excerpts appear in the Forum.

Joe Lux: "You have a long trail of posts on the forum to your credit. I will be proud to collect signatures for your campaign, as you asked. We can certainly use a lawyer on the EB. If you can spend a fraction of your time that you put towards correspondence chess, you will be an active Board member."

Brian Lafferty: "You have my vote."

Bill Brock: "Very impressive and very sensible. You would be an excellent addition to the Board."

Rob Sturgeon: "You have my vote also."

T.P. Griffin: "Agreed. Thanks for stepping up! (Both here, and in Kuwait.) Good luck."

Bill Goichberg: "I look forward to having you join our Board."

Ben Bentrup: "I always love your posts for being down-to-earth, impartial, logical, and helpful. You've done a great job trying to deflate a tense situation. I, too, would be happy to vote for you."

Brian Mottershead: "Not the first time I've agreed with Bill Goichberg, nor probably the last, but when Bill and I can easily agree on something, it means we have a sure winner."

Mike Murray: "I'm climbing on the bandwagon. You have my vote."

Harry Payne: "You can count on my vote, and any support I can give. I will start calling members in Oklahoma, and the surrounding states as soon as it is official. Thank you for your, efforts and willingness to volunteer. Also, your voice and correspondence chess experience needs a place in the Government of the USCF. Good Luck, Just my take on it."

Mark Nibbelin: "Grayson, great candidate statement, a very refreshing change."The "game" begins with the rank and file player who plays in weekend events. These players (for the most part you and me) are critical to raising chess to its highest potential, which certainly includes developing young players who will enjoy the game beyond their school years, and affording the most talented players the opportunity to play full time with minimal distraction. We must present to all a professional, reasonable, and capable leadership if we are to advance chess in the United States and tap into resources, yes, including money, that will allow chess to be viewed as the intellectual pursuit that it is. We don't always have to agree with one another, but we do need to work together to advance the game."We have a ways to go - good luck."

Tim Redman: "I agree that Grayson seems to be a very good candidate."

2009 USCF Absolute--Correspondence Chess

These are the standings of the 2009 USCF Absolute, the USCF's top level correspondence chess tournament, as of today with 9 games remaining. It's a four-player race for first, with David Sogin having the highest potential score. The number in parentheses after each player's score indicates the number of unfinished games. Crosstable.

1 Walters 2158 7.5 (1)
2 SM Brandhorst 2293 7 (0)
3 Ballow 7 (0)
4 Wilson 6.5 (2)
5 O'Hare 2369 6.5 (2)
6 Sogin 2287 6 (3)
7 Anderson 2281 6 (1)
8 Van Enk 2301 5.5 (1)
9 IM Miettinen 2291 5.5 (1)
10 Greene 2295 5.5 (0)
11 Rhodes 3 (0)
12 Poole 2.5 (1)
13 Shipman 2219 0.5 (6)

7.Qf3 vs. the Najdorf

Modern databases make zooming in on the novelty presented in every game possible. Here, 7.Qf3 is not a novelty by a long shot, but it is probably underplayed. White wins the opening if not the game. Annotations by Fritz 12 and Rybka 3.

A Correspondence Sveshnikov

I play various Sicilians against 1.e4. The Sveshnikov holds up well in CC. The game below is from board 8 in the currently running North Atlantic Team Tourney VI. Move 18...f4 is shown by Fritz as the end of theory and you won't find it in Mega 2009, but it has been played in one prior correspondence chess game. This is to my knowledge, though, the first successful effort by black. The annotations below, excepting the earlier game reference, are entirely by Fritz 12.

The Lawsuits

I have posted extensively on many facets of the Lawsuits on the USCF Issues Forum. My position has been and is pretty clear. I support the USCF and its co-defendants in these actions. I find no merit to the cases that have been filed against the USCF. It goes without saying that the USCF cannot afford this litigation. Unfortunately, the USCF can neither afford not to defend itself vigorously.

I think that these Lawsuits are amenable to settlement, and any settlement should be made taking into account economics, the likelihood of sucess on the merits, and the likelihood of collecting should the litigation be played out to a victory in the end. There is risk in all litigation, and the USCF should be risk averse. I do not believe that we should or need to worry about the reputation of the USCF or any party related to the USCF in these actions, as I think the filings against the USCF are obviously without substance. In short, the USCF's and its allies' good names are intact, and we do not need to spend USCF dollars further proving so. In settling the cases, however, we do not need to make any concessions to those who've sued the Federation. There's no need to apologize and no need to pay $1. If given, it is likely both of these concessions would be used against the USCF for years to come.

I am aware that some want to play the cases out for the sake of justice and to recover the USCF's expenses. These two points should resonate in some degree with just about everyone. Nevertheless, my view is that playing the cases out is not necessary, entails risk, and may mean spending money that will not be recovered. I want the USCF's dollars to go toward furthering chess. We're an NFP organization. We should not be afraid to defend ourselves, but scorched earth litigation is not what we do.

I believe that the bringing of a lawsuit by a former member of the USCF EB was a monumental mistake, and that the course that has been run by the USCF has been a good and decent one. The resolve of the USCF has been demonstrated, and the EB elected most recently appears ready and able to move forward with the business of chess. I think that the conclusion of the cases should be left in the hands of our present leadership and the USCF's attorneys. Anyone who has a view on how the cases should be concluded should make his or her opinion known. I know that many in a leadership position read the Issues Forum on the USCF's website.

[My comments above do not apply to the Book & Equipment (B&E) dispute. There's not sufficient publicly available information for me to make a meaningful comment.]