In "The Sicilian Pelikan" Svesnikov lists: 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. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5 f5
11. Nxb5 axb5 12. Bxb5 Bb7 13. exf5 Ra5!? 14. Qd3 Bg7 15. Qc4

Here it says 15 .. Rxb5 16. Qxb5 Qa5+ 17. Qxa5 Nxa5 is satisfactory for
Black, but it says 15.. 0-0 !? "promises even more".

After 15 .. 0-0 16. Bxc6 Rc5 it looks like White has the resource 17. Qg4
which seems to just win.

Anyone have anything that keeps Black alive after 15 .. 0-0 16 Bxc6?

Is the "satisfactory" line really any good? Fritz seems to think White is
about a point better. Maybe it's not really that bad for Black but it
doesn't seem to be anything to write home about.

Is 12 .. Bb7 still considered playable? Should I look at 12 .. Bd7 instead?

---
Douglas L Stewart

"Douglas L Stewart" wrote

In "The Sicilian Pelikan" Svesnikov lists: 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. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5 f5
11. Nxb5 axb5 12. Bxb5 Bb7 13. exf5 Ra5!? 14. Qd3 Bg7 15. Qc4

Here it says 15 .. Rxb5 16. Qxb5 Qa5+ 17. Qxa5 Nxa5 is satisfactory for
Black, but it says 15.. 0-0 !? "promises even more".

After 15 .. 0-0 16. Bxc6 Rc5 it looks like White has the resource 17. Qg4
which seems to just win.

Anyone have anything that keeps Black alive after 15 .. 0-0 16 Bxc6?

Is the "satisfactory" line really any good? Fritz seems to think White is
about a point better. Maybe it's not really that bad for Black but it
doesn't seem to be anything to write home about.

Is 12 .. Bb7 still considered playable? Should I look at 12 .. Bd7
instead?

---
Douglas L Stewart



Your analysis of 15...0-0? is correct. The consenus among authors is that
Sveshnikov was wrong for once.
Tamás Horváth ('The Sicilian with E5 in Tournament Practice', Caissa Chess
Books 2003, page 69) gives an interesting line he 15...Kf8! 16.Bxc6 Rc5
17.Qxc5 dxc5 18.Bxb7 Qd7 19.Ba8 Qc8 20.f6 Bh6 with a clear advantage for
Black. It seems to me that he is perfectly right. No need to switch to
12...Bd7.

Tobi

Tobi Usher wrote:
In "The Sicilian Pelikan" Svesnikov lists: 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. Bxf6
instead?
nice move, this 15.. Kf8, but its a long line..

Why not 9.Nd5! instead of Bxf6!? in above Sveshikov line ?
(and if i'm correct than 8..b5 might not be best for black).

Thx in advance for the answer(s),
regards,
ChAn

--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.games.chess.analysis

"chessanalyst" wrote

Why not 9.Nd5! instead of Bxf6!? in above Sveshikov line ?
(and if i'm correct than 8..b5 might not be best for black).


Both 9.Nd5 and 9.Bxf6 have been played in thousands of games. There is a
large amount of theory about both moves. In practice, 9.Bxf6 scores slightly
better, but it's mainly a matter of taste. 9.Bxf6! is the sharpest
continuation, while 9.Nd5 leads to a somewhat more quiet positional game.
Saying that 8...b5 might not be best is sheer heresy. It's called the
Sveshnikov variation. If Black plays something else, he isn't playing a
Sveshnikov. The main alternative 8...Be6 is known as the Bird variation.

The knight sac 11.Nxb5 (the line Douglas Stewart was asking about) is a
subvariation that is generally considered unsatisfactory for White. Better
moves are 11.exf5, 11.Bd3 and the wild bishop sac 11.Bxb5.

Tobi

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 15:13:04 +0200, "Tobi Usher"
wrote:


Both 9.Nd5 and 9.Bxf6 have been played in thousands of games. There is a
large amount of theory about both moves. In practice, 9.Bxf6 scores slightly
better, but it's mainly a matter of taste. 9.Bxf6! is the sharpest
continuation, while 9.Nd5 leads to a somewhat more quiet positional game.
ok, no problem; we could endlessly analyze these lines but
that could be pointless indeed; see below.

Saying that 8...b5 might not be best is sheer heresy. It's called the
Sveshnikov variation. If Black plays something else, he isn't playing a
Sveshnikov. The main alternative 8...Be6 is known as the Bird variation.
ok, i mixed up pure Sveshnikov with Pelikan(Lasker/Sveshnikov);
and 8..Be6 indeed is the Bird variation of the Pelikan; but then i
would prefer 8. .Be7 which is the Chelyabinsk variation. Calling
that 'heresy' is a bit strong word; preferring Chelyab. would
simply be my preference for fast correspondence games (havent
memorized these lines yet for OTB play) based on my current database;
but i'm flexible enough to change my mind, if you can refutate the
Chelyab. thats whats this forum is all about i guess isnt it ?

The knight sac 11.Nxb5 (the line Douglas Stewart was asking about) is a
subvariation that is generally considered unsatisfactory for White. Better
moves are 11.exf5, 11.Bd3 and the wild bishop sac 11.Bxb5.
agree (after i've done some quick analysis on Bxb5, with a later Ndc7
instead of the Nbc7 which was in my database) but who cares if black
could better play Chelyabinsk than Sveshnikov;
:-)
best regards
ChAn
PS those names are anyway not defined as strictly as ECO (or SI)
codes but in above case i agree with you about the names
PS in fact i prefer an earlier ..e6 instead of ..e5 in my
repertoire, especially OTB, ie Taimanov instead of Pelikan..

Thanks for the information! I was thinking of updating the Svesnikov part
of my chess library. I couldn't find 'The Sicilian with E5 in Tournament
Practice' on Amazon. Is that book no longer available? The best new
looking book I could find was "The Complete Svesnikov Sicilian" by Yuri
Yakovich, published by Gamit this year. There was one good review of the
book.


"Tobi Usher" wrote in message
...

"Douglas L Stewart" wrote

In "The Sicilian Pelikan" Svesnikov lists: 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. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5
f5
11. Nxb5 axb5 12. Bxb5 Bb7 13. exf5 Ra5!? 14. Qd3 Bg7 15. Qc4

Here it says 15 .. Rxb5 16. Qxb5 Qa5+ 17. Qxa5 Nxa5 is satisfactory for
Black, but it says 15.. 0-0 !? "promises even more".

After 15 .. 0-0 16. Bxc6 Rc5 it looks like White has the resource 17.
Qg4
which seems to just win.

Anyone have anything that keeps Black alive after 15 .. 0-0 16 Bxc6?

Is the "satisfactory" line really any good? Fritz seems to think White
is
about a point better. Maybe it's not really that bad for Black but it
doesn't seem to be anything to write home about.

Is 12 .. Bb7 still considered playable? Should I look at 12 .. Bd7
instead?

---
Douglas L Stewart



Your analysis of 15...0-0? is correct. The consenus among authors is that
Sveshnikov was wrong for once.
Tamás Horváth ('The Sicilian with E5 in Tournament Practice', Caissa Chess
Books 2003, page 69) gives an interesting line he 15...Kf8! 16.Bxc6 Rc5
17.Qxc5 dxc5 18.Bxb7 Qd7 19.Ba8 Qc8 20.f6 Bh6 with a clear advantage for
Black. It seems to me that he is perfectly right. No need to switch to
12...Bd7.

Tobi

"Douglas L Stewart" wrote

Thanks for the information! I was thinking of updating the Svesnikov part
of my chess library. I couldn't find 'The Sicilian with E5 in Tournament
Practice' on Amazon. Is that book no longer available? The best new
looking book I could find was "The Complete Svesnikov Sicilian" by Yuri
Yakovich, published by Gamit this year. There was one good review of the
book.


Horváth's book is quite new, so perhaps Amazon don't have it yet. If you do
a Google search you will see it on offer at various places, e.g.
www.chessdirect.co.uk and at www.newinchess.com
The Yakovich book is a good choice. It's a more complete reference work.
Horváth's is a very personal book, the author describing his own games and
preferences in the Sveshnikov. I have both books and find that they
complement each other nicely at various points.

Tobi