George against the Sicilians

Hi Pilgrims,

In chess I play e4 because I like the romantic openings of the 19th Century - slash, cut, thrust, tension, combinations, pyrotechnics. Recall that my first chess book was the Best Games of Paul Morphy (Dover Books), ‘the pride and sorrow of New Orleans’ and I was first attracted by that exciting kind of chess. Also, Bobby Fischer was the leading player of the 1970’s and he famously pronounced e4 is ‘best by test.’

The problem is, that in the modern era, very few opponents in crossboard or correspondence chess play symmetrically. So instead of for instance, being able to play my favourite Vienna Opening (I will post some Viennas soon), I found that I was facing the Sicilian, Caro Kann, French, Pirc and other less popular semi open defences. They were, and are, saturated in theory and I lack the patience to pursue that aspect of the game.

So over time I have drifted across to playing Queen centres based around d4, although I still ventured the Kings pawn in more than half of my openings as White, in the hope of getting symmetry and the chance to play a Vienna. What I needed was a generic way of playing against the semi open defences, where I would get a reasonable game without having to live my life with my nose buried in a book or worse, a database.

In a second hand bookshop some time back, I came across a book by Larry Evans the USA Grandmaster, who suggested using the Kings Indian formation as a generic opening for White, especially against opponents too cowardly or too savvy to reply symmetrically to e4. So I tried it and in many cases it worked.

So I offer for your amusement the following effort in a correspondence tourney where I first used what I like to call ‘The Smart Alleck Variation’.
I did not invent the variation, just the name.

George Eraclides (1338) VERSUS John Paul Fenwick (1339)

Please note these are Correspondence Chess League of Australia ratings; the conversion to the ELO standard did not occur until the mid to late 1990's.
CCLA Tournament 7/1051 1992

Closed Sicilian, Smart-Aleck Variation.

John Paul Fenwick, along with his brother Chris, is a very experienced and strong over the board player, as I have found to my displeasure. Correspondence chess is, of course, quite another kind of battlefield.
In this game, using the Smart-Aleck Variation, White manages to first frustrate his strong opponent, and then extinguish counter-play of any substance; after dominating the centre, White switches over to a successful attack with some attracive motifs.

1 e4 c5
2 Nf3 d6
3 g3

Introduces the Smart-Aleck Variation - Black, having been lulled into thinking he was going to play a conventional Sicilian, now faces a closed game requiring patience and supreme alertness, because any winning chances (and they are few in this line of the Sicilian) lie with White.

3 ...........g6

There are of course, many possible replies. In the system chosen, he hopes for a more normal Sicilian attack structure; the drawback is that he becomes loath to ever play e5 and thereby block the diagonal for his Bishop; consequently, White can aim for an f4 attack, similar to many King's Indian formations.

4 Bg2 Bg7
5 0-0 Nc6
6 c3

A natural response in these systems, in order to prevent Nd4.

6 ..........Qb6?!

This turns out to be a waste of time. The Queen ‘threatens’ b2 and d4 together with the Bishop on g7, as well as eyeing f2. However White is not obliged to play so as to open the position with a later d4. In fact opening the game is anathema to the kind of system White has chosen. Straightforward development was a better option.

7 d3 e6
8 Qe2 Nge7

At least he is consistent with the Qb6 idea, wishing to keep the Bishop's diagonal open.

9 Nbd2 0-0

Here Na5 was a possibility, in order to prevent an eventual Nc4; a consequence of having placed his Queen on b6, is that he does not have b5 - a useful counter-attacking line against a King's Indian formation.
If Na5 then,
10 Nc4 Nxc4
11 dxc4 Qa6
could lead to interesting possibilities; White seems to control the centre and restrict Black's play, but in return Black has some chances on the Queen side. White could try Be3, Nd2, and f4 with complications.

10 Nc4 Qc7
11 a4

Stopping b5. I astonish myself with a positional insight.

11 ............Na5

Too late, he cried.

12 Nxa5 Qxa5
13 Be3

I thought e5 was premature.

13 ............Bd7

Black is drifting into a passive position--a terrible condition for a player of the Sicilian.

14 Nd2

14 d4 just does Black a favour by opening up the position.

14 ............Nc6

14 ...f5 is not so good:
15 exf5 and 16 Bxb7 with Nc4 to come, extricating the Bishop after Black plays Rb8;
14 ...Bc6 was worth considering, with the idea that if Nc4, then Qc7-a6-b5 to drive White back; note here, that 16 a5 is unclear for White because of the possibility 16 ...Rb8 and 17 ...Bb5.

15 f4 Qc7

This is a second home for the Queen in the Sicilian, but this time Black is in trouble.

16 e5! dxe5
17 Bxc5

Best, capturing with tempo.

17 ..........Rfd8!

Allows the Bishop to go to e8 and defend f7; the open file is a bonus.

18 fxe5

White is opening up lines into the heart of Black's position. White has acquired a very strong initiative; time wasting manoeuvres like Qb6 above are too risky if you play Black; the lesson is: Don’t do it.

18 ..........Qxe5

Hoping by the Queen exchange to dampen the attack. However, an attack based on sound positional play is very hard to stop.

19 Nxe4

High art or low cunning?
Low cunning: 19 Qf2 was reasonable and perfectly sound, but lacking ambition; then
19 ...f5 would be answered by 20 Rae1;
19 ...Qf5 by 20 Qe2 (20 Qe3 Bh6 is unclear) and Black plays 20 ...Qe5 with a draw offer or White risks Bh6 at some stage.

19 ...........Be8

Defending f7 (see note above to Black's 17th move) and d6; if 19 ...f5 White plays 20 d4 and then 21 Nd6 and the Bishop cannot move from d7 due to 22 Qxe6.

20 d4 Qc7 (This Queen likes her familiar haunts).
21 Qf2

This is best now.

21 ...........b6
22 Ba3 Rac8

What else? White's a3 Bishop slices through the Black position like a death-ray. Desperado moves like f5 allow the Knight to dance away to g5 where it will be particularly obnoxious. Perhaps 22 ...e5 was worth a try, although 23 d5 in reply seems dangerous:
23 .......Rxd5
24 Nf6+ or
23 .......Na5
24 d6 Qd7
25 Ng5!? and if 25 ...Nc4, 26 Bd5 is hard to meet;
Also, in reply to 22 ...e5, White has
23 Nf6+ Bxf6
24 Qxf6 with the threats of 25 Bxc6 and 26 Be7 (Barrier motif) is decidedly unpleasent.

23 Nf6+ Bxf6
24 Qxf6

Thus the black square defender is eliminated.

24 ..........Na5

Black has to try something; c4 and b3 are the only weak points in White's position he can attack - but so what? The action is in the other quadrant North by North-East.

25 Rae1

You can never have too much heavy artillery. Note that 25 Be7 or Bf8 are ineffective.

25 ..........Nc4

Black is in virtual zugzwang. When this happens in the middle-game you have big problems.

26 Be7

Forming a barrier to the Queen's defence of the second rank. I consider this idea to be almost the pinnacle of White's strategy in this game - evidence that even a mediocre player can on extremely rare occasions play with a little intelligence.

26 ..........Rd7
27 Rxe6! Nxb2

If 27 ...fxe6?? 28 Qf8 ++

28 Rc6! Resigns

Because:
(i) The Bishop on e8 has to guard f7;
(ii) 28 ............Qb8
29 RxRc8 Qxc8
30 Bh3 Qc7
a) 31 BxRd7 Qxd7 wins the exchange; White does a re-organisation to place the Bishop on f6 (say with Qg5) to mate or win more material; or
b) 31 Be6! (the brilliant alternative - can you see the gold coins tossed by admiring fans White?); or
c) 31 Bf8 Kxf8
32 Qh8+ Ke7
33 Re1+ Kd6
34 Qe5+ Kc6
35 Bg2+ Rd5
36 Bxd5++ This is the more vulgar - sadistic - denouement.

White managed to play well and was very pleased to defeat such a strong player in over the board and correspondence chess.

The Smart-Aleck Variation has proved itself a solid line against the Sicilian, with just enough venom in it, should Black become overconfident and stray from the dictates of sound play.

Try it yourself and frustrate a player of the Sicilian.