Download PGN of June ’25 Open Sicilian games
>> Previous Update >>
Sveshnikov 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.g4!? [B33]
We start with Mohaved, S - Sargsyan, S , where Shant came up with an interesting novelty, 9...h5!?:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sina reacted with the natural 10.g5 that let Black stabilize the kingside and obtain an acceptable position. The further play was full of mutual inaccuracies and naturally ended in a draw.
In my opinion, we will surely see more tests of 9...h5!? soon, when 10.gxh5!? might be a good practical try.
Kan 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 Ba7 7.Bf4 [B42]
The game Pichot, A - Xiao, T saw White plays the fresh 7.Bf4!?:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Perhaps it came as a surprise to Black, as he soon erred with 9...h6?!. This wasted tempo made White's lead in development very significant, and the advance of the white f-pawn put Black in a difficult position. The last critical moment came soon, when the impulsive 16...Qa5? turned out to be the decisive mistake.
Even though Black's play in this game can be easily improved, I still find 7.Bf4!? quite promising.
Taimanov 6.Be3 a6 7.Qf3 b5 [B48]
I was asked to annotate Navara, D - Dionisi, T, and I hope I'll provide some answers in my annotations. In the position after 9...Bb7:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
David played 10.Nb3!?, as he already did a while ago. Indeed, it may pose Black the most problems in this endgame: in all cases White can challenge his opponent's bishop with Nb3-c5. Thomas's reaction was correct, but the natural 15...Be7 was inaccurate - it yields White the bishop pair in a bad version. The rest of the game contains several other serious mistakes, but still David's energetic technical play is very impressive.
Venice Attack 5...e5 6.Bb5+ Nbd6 7.Nde2 [B56]
In the game Abdusattorov, N - Aditya, M White chose the quiet 7.Nde2 to deviate from Mittal's preparation in this relatively rare line. Perhaps it didn't confuse Black, as after the novelty 9...Nxd7! most problems seem to be solved:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Even so, Nodirbek managed to handle the position very precisely, and after 18.f4! Black still needed a few accurate moves to equalize. I have to say that Mittal was able to withstand the pressure till the end. Moreover, eventually it was Nodirbek who should certainly be satisfied with sharing a point.
Najdorf 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 h5 9.Nd5.. 12.0-0-0 Nb6 [B90]
The next game, Sokolovsky, Y - Hayrapetyan, H, saw a theoretical discussion in one of the most researched Najdorf lines with 6.Be3. In the position after 15.Bd3:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hovik played 15...Nbd7, deviating from the previously covered Volokitin - Aizenberg. It looks like Yahli was well-prepared for his opponent's choice, including playing a novelty 19....b5! The critical moment of the game came on move 23, when the impulsive 23...0-0? let White quickly mobilize all his forces and decide the struggle due to his powerful bishops and c-passer.
Najdorf 6.Be2 e5 7.Be2 Be7 8.h4 [B90]
The game Pranav, A - Seeman, J saw White choose the relatively rare but aggressive 8.h4. It hardly got Jakub confused: Black reacted well with 9...b5 and should have obtained an acceptable position.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The first premature decision seems to be 14...0-0 which made it easier for White to expand on the kingside. However, the main cause of Jakub's defeat is the dubious novelty 17...Bf8?! GM Pranav managed to convincingly demonstrate the drawbacks of his opponent's artificial setup, where all his pieces were located on the back-rank!
Despite such an effective victory, I am not sure if 8.h4 poses Black any serious problems.
Najdorf 6.f4 e5 7.Nb3 [B93]
Another rare and original idea was seen in Mohaved, S - Can, E. In the position after 9.Bd3:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Emre bravely played 9...0-0, reasonably not fearing White's fast attack on the kingside. However, he soon went astray with 12...Na5?!, followed by 13...Nc4?!, which let White set up a blockade on e4 and obtain a much better position. On his turn Sina returned the favor with the premature 16.Ne4?!, spoiling all his advantage. The game was decided by Emre's blunder on move 21 in an approximately balanced position.
In my opinion, 7.Nb3 can be tried from time to time as a surprise weapon, but Black has a few reasonable ways to meet it.
Najdorf 6.f4 e5 7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.a4 [B93]
In the last game, Zemlyanskij, I - Sokolovsky, Y, White opted for 10.g4!:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
that was only tested in a few games before. Yahli's brave reaction 10...Nxg4 isn't bad at all, but Black needs to be aware of its consequences. The complications that arose after 11...Nc5?! 12.b4! are objectively good for White, but the game could go either way - the position is too complex. Luckily for Ivan, his opponent was the last to err with 21...Qg1?
See you next month, Michael
>> Previous Update >>
Please feel free to share any of your thoughts at the Open Sicilians Forum, or subscribers can write directly to support@chesspublishing.com