Check Is In The Mail: Shopping For A Sicilian

Shopping For a Sicilian

As I mentioned in a prior column, I tend to respond symmetrically as Black except against 1.e4. I have several approaches I use against 1.e4 from time to time (the French, the Caro-Kann, and even the Scandinavian), but I have always enjoyed the counter-attacking nature of the Sicilian Defense. The problem I face is in which line to choose. In my youth I enjoyed the small center positions (Black pawns on d6 & e6) of the Scheveningen, but in Karpov–Hort Moscow 1971 the World Champion made a world-class grandmaster look strategically helpless in the main line. Thankfully Kasparov showed us how to use the Najdorf Variation to transpose into the Scheveningen, but that meant learning the various attacking methods White can choose from against the Najdorf. And these days the theory of the Najdorf Variation seems to change with each major tournament!

Our first game, Ingersoll-Levine, has the higher-rated White player avoiding main-line Najdorf theory to take the lower-rated player out of his comfort zone. Joel Levine shows that he is up to the challenge, finishing with a queen-and-pawn ending where Black has perpetual check. A well-played game on both sides!

At the club level there are many players who prefer to avoid the main (open) lines of the Sicilian, opting for one of several anti-Sicilian variations available. In our second game, Robert TeVrucht uses the Sveshnikov Variation to avoid the Open Sicilian lines and is willing to take on pawn weaknesses to maintain a space advantage. Once Black’s kingside is compromised, White uses his space advantage to develop a kingside attack. The anti-Sicilian lines can still be quite sharp!

One of the favored anti-Sicilian weapons from my youth is the Grand Prix Attack, in which White plays for a kingside assault by playing f2-f4. In our third game Thomas Segreto fights back on the black central squares, eventually breaking through with a nice exchange sacrifice. This is a line that all Sicilian players need to be prepared to face.

One continuation that I quickly dismissed was 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6, due to 3.Bb5, the Rossolimo Variation. In my youth it was considered a rather positional continuation, but more recently attacking players have found considerable resources, making the variation riskier for Black. Our fourth game, Sogin-Magat, shows two strong players debating the Rossolimo. Black presses hard on the queenside, picking off material but getting his queen trapped in the process. However, White never gets the chance to bring his queen into an attack, as Black rallies his forces and fights his way to a draw.

In my opinion, trying to keep up with the Najdorf theory is best left to professional players. Our fifth game, Farrar-Dechaine, is basically my Sicilian nightmare, and a great example of why I no longer play the Najdorf. First one inaccurate move, then another, and before you know it your king is staring down the barrels of your opponent's major pieces, and you are on the wrong side of a miniature.

The line I have been playing for the past year is the Four Knights Variation (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6). I had heard about it since I read Reuben Fine’s The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings, in which he gave it good marks without analyzing it in much depth. Fortunately several authors since then, in particular David Willis, have brought the variation more into the mainstream. While some of the main line positions may look difficult or awkward, I find them fairly easy to understand and play, and I have yet to lose a game with it (although I have not won many, either!). Our sixth game, Sury-Irons, has me fighting the most popular line against a player rated more than 300 points higher than me. While not an exciting game, any time I can hold such a player to a draw, I am quite happy!

However, as I mentioned, that was not a terribly exciting game, and the Four Knights Variation is not the line to choose if you are looking for a sharp battle. Our seventh and final game is analyzed by the winner, Joe Kuspa, and is once again further proof of why I will NEVER play the Najdorf again! This game shows the Polugaevsky Variation, one of the sharpest lines, and Joe’s analysis shows an amazing depth of understanding of the position.

If you have a particular opening you would like highlighted in this column, please send your request to me at Click here to show email address. I will gather enough games to turn it into a short lesson on the opening, much like I have done here this month.

Stay safe, and good skill in your games!

Robert

2021 Electronic Knights Semi-Finals

Play began March 1st in 4 sections.

ENSf-01

ENSf-02

ENSf-03

ENSf-04

Those scoring 4½ points or more in the semi-finals will advance to the finals. Results can be found at https://new.uschess.org/correspondence-chess/en2021.

136 entrants competed in 20 preliminary sections.

2022 46th Annual Absolute Championship

Tim Corkum of Menomonee Falls, WI and John Walton of Pullman, WA have completed play with 7½/12. They split the point in their game and each boasted three wins and zero losses. This is each player's first Absolute Championship.

John Millett of Sacramento, CA has 6½ /11 with one game remaining against three-time champion Harry Ingersoll (2019, 2017 and 2010). This would also be Millet’s first Absolute if he scores the full point.

The standings can be found at https://www.iccf.com/event?id=96982.

“In Passing”

Hank Cox of Lexington, Kentucky passed away on January 30, 2023. He had competed in numerous Electronic Knights, Walter Muir E-Quad and Victor Palciauskas events.

Recent Event Winners

Swift Quad

21SQ02, Andrew Ickes, 4-2

Trophy Quad

20T08, James Ruth, 5-1

21T01, Charlie Leach 5½ - ½  

Walter Muir E-Quad

22W26, David Souza 5-1

22W27, Kenneth Farrar, 6-0

22W28, Benjamin Hoback 6-0

Victor Palciauskas

22VP10, Eric Brink & Nicholas Digiuseppe, 5½ - ½

22VP13, Benjamin Hoback 6-0