My copy of this book arrived today. At first glance it looks really good. Now I can complete my article for "The Australian Chess Quarterly" on the Sicilian Wing Gambit.

Hi Toppers,

I dont see the particular worry. I have had a superficial glance, but is there much wrong with 9..Nd4 or 9...exf4 10.Nxf4 Rb8?
Both look decent. I would prefer 9..Nd4 myself as white needs to move the knight from c3 to remove the knight, which itslef can always be exchanged against Ne2 if need arises. In the background there is also the idea Ne8 to allow f5 and possibly go Ne8-c7-e6.

Here's one from your own competition, with the knight tour:
[Event "BCF-chT 0708 (4NCL)"]
[Site "Sunningdale"]
[Date "2007.09.15"]
[White "Bisby,Daniel L"]
[Black "Eggleston,David"]
[Result "0-1"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.d3 Nc6 7.h3 e5 8.0-0 0-0 
9.Be3 Nd4 10.f4 Ne8 11.Rb1 Nc7 12.Qd2 Rb8 13.g4 f5 14.gxf5 gxf5 15.Ng3 Qh4 16.Kh2 Be6 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.exd5 Bd7 19.c3 Nb5 20.Rf3 Nc7 21.fxe5 Bxe5 22.d4 cxd4 23.cxd4 Bg7 24.Rbf1 Rbe8 25.Nxf5 Bxf5 26.Rxf5 Rxf5 27.Rxf5 Nb5 28.Rf4 Qh5 29.Bf3 Qg6 30.Rg4 Qf6 31.Bh6 Nxd4 32.Bd1 Nf5 33.Bxg7 Nxg7 34.Bc2 Qe5+ 35.Rg3 Rf8 36.Qg2 Kh8 37.h4 Nh5 0-1

And here's one from a chap I know, who outnovelties Kasparov, but gets blown to pieces:
[Event "Haarlem AKN op"]
[Date "1993.??.??"]
[White "De Vreugt,Dennis"]
[Black "Mawira,Djohan"]
[Result "0-1"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.d3 Nc6 7.h3 0-0 8.Be3 e5 9.f4 Nd4 10.g4 h5 11.Qd2 hxg4 12.0-0-0 gxh3 13.Ng3 hxg2 14.Qxg2 Bg4 15.fxe5 Nh5 16.Nxh5 gxh5 17.Rdg1 Ne6 18.Nd5 dxe5 19.Bd2 f5 20.exf5 Rxf5 21.Qe4 Rf7 22.Rxg4 hxg4 23.Qh7+ Kf8 24.c4 Nf4 25.Bxf4 exf4 26.Rf1 f3 27.Qe4 Qg5+ 28.Kc2 Re8 29.Qh7 Re2+ 30.Kb3 Rxb2+ 31.Ka3 Qd2 0-1

Well I have been recently poring through Richard Palliser's provocative Fighting the Anti-Sicilians and finding it quite informative and enjoyable. The chapter on the Closed Sicilian is particularly interesting but there is an important possibility for White that he failed to consider in one of his mainlines that goes as follows:

[Event "Linares 16th"]
[Site "Linares"]
[Date "1999.02.21"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Adams,Michael"]
[Black "Kasparov,Garry"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "B26"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 g6 5.d3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nge2 0-0 8.h3 e5! facilitating a later b5 without allowing any e5 tricks on the long diagonal 9.0-0 b5! apparently a strong novelty at the time 10.Nxb5 Rb8 11.a4 a6 12.Na3 Rxb2 And Kasparov being Kasparov, went on to win in 59 moves. Ok, that's all well and good, but rolling back to move nine White could play in my opinion the stronger 9.f4!? which seems to pose Black a few more problems. 

See the following game for an illustration of the potential dangers facing Black:   

[Event "Pardubice op"]
[Site "Pardubice"]
[Date "1995.07.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Jurkovic,Hrvoje 2355"]
[Black "Voitsekhovsky,Stanislav"2500]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B26"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.h3 0-0 8.Nge2 e5 9.f4!? Nh5 10.f5 Nf6 An admission of failure, and after 11.g4 Ne8 12.Qd2 Nc7 13.0-0-0 White had a big advantage and went on to win in 38 moves. One logical place to look for improvements for Black would be move ten, however the natural looking 10...gxf5 11. exf5 Nd4 12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Qxh5 dxc3 14. O-O cxb2 15. Rae1! gives White a strong and probably winning position.

So my question is what is Black's best counter to White's 9.f4!?.

Let the analysis begin.

Toppy