Give me a little bit of time to look all this stuff over. I actually have never played anything but the ...f5 lines, so I'll have to do some work. 

To my last post I should have added:

IV  9 Bd3(!) (perhaps the best move, which [i]might[/i] call the 6 ...Be6 move order into question?) Be7 10 0-0 Bg5 11 Nc2 (11 Nd5 and 11 b3 are also possible) Bc1 12 Rc1 Nf6 (the usual move, but 11 ...Nge7!? is a serious alternative to explore -- see for example the exciting game Stefansson--Gausel) 13 Qd2 0-0.

We have transposed to 6 ...Be7 7 N1c3 a6 8 Na3 Be6 9 Bd3 Bg5 10 0-0 Bc1 11 Rc1 Nf6 12 Nc2 0-0 13 Qd2 Rc8!? (a position which could of course also be reached via 7 Bd3 Be6). It's possible that Black has played ...Rc8 prematurely or unnecessarily here -- Pinski & Aagaard prefer the 13 ...Qb8/14 ...Qa7 plan here, saying that 13 ...Rc8 14 Nd5 Nd7 15 b4 left White slightly better in Stefansson--Sveshnikov. But is this true? -- Black's reaction was very thematic and logical and he never seemed to be in any real trouble. Any thoughts?

Great to see the Kalashnikov generating lots of concrete discussion - and good too to see it featuring in the update for the second month running.

I’d be really interested to know which 6 c4 line(s) people think might offer the severest challenge to Black. Black’s move order, of course, might be critical here. It seems for example that the 6 …Be6 7 N1c3 a6 8 Na3 Rc8!? order is really neither more nor less than a cunning transposition device, Black in effect saying to his opponent “I’m going to steer play into one of the well-known 6 c4 Be7 lines - just not, perhaps, one you were reckoning on or were prepared for!”. Thus:


I   9 Be2 Nd4 10 Be3 Nc2 11 Be2 Be7 12 0-0 Nf6 13 f3 0-0 transposes to 6 …Be7 / 9 Be2 Nd4 etc.


II   9 Be3 Nf6 10 Be2 Be7 transposes to 6 …Be7 7 Be2 Nf6 8 N1c3 a6 9 Na3 Be6 10 Be3 Rc8 (How frequent or esteemed a way this is of meeting 7 Be2 I have no idea, and would welcome advice!)


III  9 Nc2 and now:

(a)  9 …Nf6 (9 …Na5 10 b3! b5 11 Nc3 is better for White?) 10 Ne3 Be7 11 Bd3 0-0 12 0-0 Nd7 (12 …Nd4!? is also interesting and OK?) transposes to 6 …Be7 / 9 Nc2 Rc8 10 Ne3 Nf6 etc.

(b)  9 …Be7 (the simplest?) transposes to 6 …Be7 / 9 Nc2 Rc8


In each of these cases White has alternatives, but not it seems advantageous ones. I find (II) above particularly fascinating. Here after 10 0-0 0-0 Aagaard/Pinski recommend (a) 12 Rc1 h6 or 12 …Nd7, or (b) 12 Qd2 Ng4!? since 12 …h6 13 Bd3! (rather than 13 Rfd1 Ng4) might allow White an edge. Years ago I spent ages looking at a line Silman gave in his ancient (1991) book: 9 Be3 Be7!? 10 Qd2 h6 11 Rd1 Nf6 then …0-0, …Ne8, …Bg5. Nowadays, of course, as A/P tell us Black plays …Ng4 rather than …Ne8 in these positions, so perhaps Silman’s line can be rescued:  12 Be2 0-0 13 0-0 Ng4!? and we’ve reached (b) above with 12 …h6 13 Rfd1 Ng4, with the sole difference that it’s White’s QR not his KR that’s on d1. But Black could also feint at Silman’s line with [9 Be3] Be7 10 Qd2 Nf6!?, aiming at (b) above and bypassing (a). Again White has other options, but are they dangerous?

Yes, I'm enjoying the Kalashnikov!  

After some study my opinion is that Bd3 is not dangerous for black although I'm not convinced by Ikonnikov's opening play against Okkes. I think the queen's bishop should developped to e6 after Bd3, keeping an eye on f5 instead of Bb7. Okkes suggestion of 13. a4 b4 14. a5 looks +=. 

[Event "TCh-NED 2008-9"]
[Site "Netherlands NED"]
[Date "2008.12.13"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Okkes, M"]
[Black "Ikonnikov, Vy"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B32"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d6 6. N1c3 a6 7. Na3 Be7 8. Nc4 b5 9. Ne3 Nf6 10. Bd3 O-O 11. O-O Nd4 12. Ncd5 Bb7 13. c3 Ne6 14. Nf5 Nxd5 15. exd5 Nc5 16. Bc2 Bc8 17. Nxe7+ Qxe7 18. f4 Bb7 19. f5 f6 20. Be3 Qf7 21. b4 Nd7 22. Bb3 Rfc8 23. Qd3 a5 24. a4 bxa4 25. Rxa4 Ba6 26. c4 axb4 27. Rfa1 e4 28. Qd2 Bb7 29. Rxa8 Rxa8 30. Rxa8+ Bxa8 31. Qxb4 Qe7 32. c5 Qe5 33. c6 Qa1+
34. Kf2 Nc5 35. Bxc5 Qb2+ 36. Ke3 Qc1+ 37. Kxe4 Qb1+ 38. Ke3 Qc1+ 39. Ke2 g5 40. Bd4 Qf4 41. Qc3 Qg4+ 42. Ke1 Qxg2 43. Qe3 Qh1+ 44. Kd2 Qxh2+ 45. Kc3 Qh5 46. Qe6+ Qf7 47. Bc4 g4 48. Ba6 Kg7 49. Qxf7+ Kxf7 50. c7 1-0

That being said Ivanchuk Rb8 seems good enough and is indeed a well played game by both players.

[Event "GMA"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2003.01.14"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Shirov, A"]
[Black "Ivanchuk, V"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B32"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d6 6. N1c3 a6 7. Na3 Nf6 8. Nc4 b5 9. Ne3 Be7 10. Bd3 O-O 11. O-O Rb8 12. Ncd5 Nxd5 13. exd5 Na5 14. a4 b4 15. Bd2 f5 16. c3 bxc3 17. Bxc3 e4 18. Bc2 Bf6 19. g3 Bd7 20. Rb1 Nb7 1/2-1/2

The main move has been 11. ... Be6 but I like 12. Ncd5 Nd7 13. a4 b4 14. Bd2. This is a refinement of 12. a4 b4 13 Ncd5 where black has the adequate a5 instead of of the to my feeling slightly lesser Nd7. It might seems nitpicking but it does pose some problems. A possible continuation after 14. Bd2 is 14. ... a5 15. Bb5 (Fercec has played 15. c3 twice)  which Rybka likes.

I do have another idea which also seems adequate for black but that is for another time.

TonyRo wrote on 05/14/09 at 15:15:23:


If Black doesn't play ...b5 in the Sves the logical answer is Na3-c4. So I would say 7...Be7!? 8.Nc4 is logical as well. Of course the game has just begun. My point is just that 8.Nc4 is not really hard to find.
I would prefer 10.g3 to 10.Bd3 - better control of keysquare d5. That doesn't necessarily mean that White is better though.

TonyRo wrote on 05/15/09 at 16:16:51:



Okkes very light notes (in Dutch) can be found  at http://www.schaakclubutrecht.nl/week16.htm. He comes to the same conclusion about 16 ... g6.

Well I'm looking into 10. Bd3 instead of 10. g3. Shirov played this against other super-GM Ivanchuk at Wijk aan Zee 1993. Okkes defeated Ikonnikov in this line  this year in the Dutch teamchampionship although it wasn't due to the opening. 

My first impression is that white has less grip on the d5-square then in the g3-line but gains some time and if black is careless white can sometimes develop a kingside attack.