Download PGN of April ’25 Anti-Sicilian games
>> Previous Update >>
We’ll also have a look an uncommon response to the Wing’s Gambit, with 2...b6!?. Our example does not show Black in a good light, and I don’t think I’ll be playing this move any time soon.
I’ve picked out three games in an usual line of the 2.Nc3 Sicilian. Though Black is fine, White can cause some issues in the line 2...d6 3.f4 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Qxd4!?, which can easily catch Black off-guard.
Wing Gambit: 2...b6 [B20]
I hadn’t seen 1.e4 c5 2.b4 b6!? before:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Having said that, it is the second most played after 2...cxb4.
After 3.bxc5 bxc5 4.Nc3 g6 5.Nf3 Bg7 6.Rb1, White obtained a very promising position in Theodorou, N - Bjerre, J which he converted quickly and in style.
Grand Prix Attack 2...d6 3.f4 g6 4.d4 [B23]
If you’re running out of ideas against the Sicilian, 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.f4 might be worth a look. Games often continue 3...g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Nf6:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
6.e5 is the main move here. Both of our games followed 6...Nc6 7.Bb5 Nh5 where White chose the direct but imprecise 8.e6!? in Gdanski, J - Markowski, T, where Black quickly went wrong and lost.
GM Bartel, on the other hand, opted for the principal 8.Nf3 but didn’t achieve much and eventually went on to lose in Bartel, M - Volokitin, A.
Another option is 6.Nf3, which is a little more flexible. Black decided to force matters in Lagarde, M - Cukrowski, F where play continued 6...Nc6 7.Qf2 d5!?:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Leading to complications that should favour White.
Moscow Variation: 3...Nd7 4.0-0 a6 5.Bxd7 Bxd7 6.c3 [B51]
In preparation for Kirk, E - Sokolovsky, Y, I remembered an interesting line I’d analysed for the February update...
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Nd7 4.0-0 a6 5.Bxd7 Bxd7 6.c3:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
In that update, we saw a game which continued 6...Nf6 7.Re1 e6 8.d4 Be7 9.e5 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nd5:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
11.c4 Nb4!?. My opponent, however, opted for 11...Nb6. Black suddenly went wrong a couple of moves later and I gained an advantage even I wasn’t able to spoil!
Moscow Variation: 3...Bd7 4.Bxd7 Qxd7 [B51-52]
We’ll look at two different approaches in the position that occurs after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bxd7 Qxd7:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I took a very direct approach in Kirk, E - Shafer, L, before quickly crumbling and escaping with a lucky draw after 5.0-0 Nf6 6.Qe2 Nc6 7.c3 e6 8.d4 cx4 9.cxd4 d5. I quite like this variation for White, if you’re looking for a quiet life and limited theory!
I also came across another idea that I hadn’t seen before for Black, though it turns out to be quite common. After 5.c4 e5 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.d3 Be7 8.a3:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
8...Bd8! is a nice manoeuvre to know... giving Black comfortable equality. Black got very decent play in Niemann, H - Dubov, D.
Through a slightly different move order, Black was also completely fine in Rozentalis, E - Kosakowski, J.
Till next time, Ezra
>> Previous Update >>
Please post you queries on the Anti-Sicilians Forum, or subscribers can write to me at support@ChessPublishing.com if you have any questions or queries.