% BOOKTITLE = Opening Repertoire: The Sicilian Taimanov
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "About this Publication"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Nigel Davies"]
[PlyCount "8"]
[SourceTitle "OR: Sicilian Taimanov"]
[SourceDate "2022.05.12"]

{The Sicilian Taimanov (} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 {) is a
very flexible Black system in the Sicilian Defence developed by Mark Taimanov.
It is characterised by the development of the g8-knight on e7, often along
with a quick ...b7-b5. The Taimanov often leads to tense, dynamic position
which are ripe in counterattacking possibilities. --- In 'Opening Repertoire:
The Sicilian Taimanov', highly experienced chess author and coach Nigel Davies
guides the reader through the complexities of the Taimanov and carves out a
repertoire for Black. He examines all aspects of this highly complex opening
and provides the reader with well-researched, fresh, and innovative analysis.
Each annotated game has valuable lessons on how to play the opening and
contains instructive commentary on typical middlegame plans. There are also
suggestions for countering White's "anti-Sicilian" tries thus creating
an entire repertoire to meet 1 e4.} (4... Z0 {Nigel Davies is an International
Grandmaster and respected coach. He is the author of numerous books and DVDs
on the game and is known for the clarity of his explanations.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Nigel Davies"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "OR: Sicilian Taimanov"]
[SourceDate "2022.05.12"]

{I first met Mark Taimanov at the Paz E Amizade tournament in Lisbon in 1985,
a small round robin event in which he was the invited star. Knowing we would
be playing I watched his games quite closely and then noticed something
strange in his game against Jorges Guimaraes.} 1. Z0 {Hoping for a repeat of
this line I opened with 1 e4 in my game against him instead of my habitual 1
Nf3 followed by 2 g3. This is how the game went (see the following game).} *

[Event "1: Lisbon"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1985.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Davies, N"]
[Black "Taimanov, M"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B46"]
[Annotator "Nigel Davies"]
[PlyCount "27"]
[EventDate "1985.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "OR: Sicilian Taimanov"]
[SourceDate "2022.05.12"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 Qc7 {QUESTION: Had
he rightly suspected some preparation? --- ANSWER: This is very possible, not
least because I varied from my usual 1 Nf3.} ({Taimanov thought for a few
minutes before varying from the} 6... Nge7 {he played in the Guimaraes game.
Afterwards I showed him what I had found: after} 7. O-O Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Nc6 9. Qd3
Nb4 {White can play} 10. Qg3 ({instead of Guimaraes's move} 10. Qd2 {.
Taimanov was astonished as Anatoly Karpov had also played 10 Qd2 against him.
He was also quite appreciative that I had shown him this line rather than
wander into 10 Qg3 in a subsequent game. He found a few resources for Black
before concluding that White had a very powerful initiative, also pointing out
that 9...Nb4 was not Black's only move, and he could also play 9...Qc7.}) ({
Interestingly James Plaskett made this same} 10. Qg3 {discovery over the board,
when he played against William Hartston a few years later.})) 7. f4 {After 6...Qc7
I had nothing special in mind and was making it up as I went along. This
becomes evident over the coming moves, with Black achieving a very comfortable
position.} b5 8. Be3 Bb7 9. O-O Bc5 10. Nf5 {This was starting to feel
uncomfortable, so I decided to exchange the dark square bishops.} ({White
could also play just} 10. Qd2 {and then further defend the knight with Rad1.})
10... Nce7 11. Bxc5 Qxc5+ 12. Qd4 Qxd4+ 13. Nxd4 b4 14. Na4 ({QUESTION: Why
did Black agree to a draw? --- ANSWER: The position is actually quite balanced
here, for example after} 14. Na4 Bxe4 15. Nc5 Nf6 16. Nxa6 Ned5 17. g3 Ke7 18.
a3 {. It also seems possible that my opponent was okay with a rest day in
which to do some sight-seeing. After his loss to Bobby Fischer in 1971 his
opportunity for travel had been severely limited.}) 1/2-1/2

[Event "2: England"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1986.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Plaskett, H"]
[Black "Hartston, W"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B46"]
[Annotator "Nigel Davies"]
[PlyCount "35"]
[EventDate "1986.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "OR: Sicilian Taimanov"]
[SourceDate "2022.05.12"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 Nge7 7. O-O Nxd4 8.
Qxd4 Nc6 9. Qd3 Nb4 {I was surprised to see this line come up, but Hartston
had been a keen exponent of the Taimanov Variation. At this point Plaskett
went into thought and, like I did a year earlier, decided there was no need to
defend the c2-pawn.} 10. Qg3 $1 Nxc2 {QUESTION: Did Black not see what was
coming when he took the pawn? --- ANSWER: I think that at this stage it is
hard to find other reasonable moves. The queen on g3 prevents Black from
developing his f8-bishop and unless he takes the pawn moving the knight to b4
will be a waste of time.} 11. Bg5 $1 f6 {QUESTION: With the rook on a1 and
bishop attacked, does this not win material? --- ANSWER: Unfortunately for
Black there is a sting in the tail, as given in the note to Black's next move.}
({QUESTION: So should Black have done something else? --- ANSWER: It's not
easy to find a good alternative, for example} 11... Be7 12. Bxe7 Kxe7 (12...
Qxe7 13. Qxg7) 13. Qg5+ Ke8 14. Qxg7 {regains the sacrificed pawn with an
overwhelming position,}) ({and} 11... Qb6) ({or} 11... Qa5 {can be met by} 12.
Rad1 {, when White's lead in development gives him very good compensation for
the pawn.}) 12. Bf4 $1 Kf7 {Ugly but necessary.} ({QUESTION: Why doesn't Black
just take the rook with} 12... Nxa1 {- ? --- ANSWER: The problem is that White
then has the line} 13. Bh5+ g6 (13... Ke7 14. Bd6# {is mate!}) 14. Bxg6+ hxg6
15. Qxg6+ Ke7 16. e5 $1 {(threatening mate with 17 exf6!)} d5 17. Qxf6+ Kd7 18.
Qxh8 {, and when the knight on a1 tries to escape with} Nc2 {, White can just
pick it up with} 19. Qh7+ {, winning back all the sacrificed material with a
two pawn surplus.}) 13. Bc7 Qe8 (13... Qe7 14. Rad1 {would be similarly
horrific for Black, due entirely to his lack of development.}) 14. Rad1 {
Threatening Na4, amongst other things.} b5 15. e5 $1 {Now threatening both Bf3
and exf6, and there's no good defence to both of these. Hartston's position
rapidly goes down in flames.} Bb7 ({After} 15... f5 {there follows} 16. Bf3 Ra7
17. Bb6 Rb7 18. Bxb7 Bxb7 19. Qd3 {, with a further loss of material being
inevitable.}) 16. exf6 Kg8 {This loses by force but there was nothing else;} ({
for example} 16... gxf6 17. Bh5+ Ke7 18. Qd6# {;}) (16... g6 17. a3 {traps the
knight on c2,}) ({or if} 16... Kxf6 {there follows} 17. Be5+ Ke7 18. Qg5+ Kf7
19. Bh5+ g6 20. Qf6+ Kg8 21. Qxh8+ Kf7 22. Qxh7+ {followed by mate.}) 17. fxg7
Bxg7 18. Be5 ({Black will lose a piece after} 18. Be5 Qg6 19. Qxg6 hxg6 20.
Bxg7 Kxg7 21. Rxd7+ {and taking on b7.}) 1-0

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction 2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Nigel Davies"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "OR: Sicilian Taimanov"]
[SourceDate "2022.05.12"]

{Taimanov would later ascribe the discovery of 10 Qg3 to 'English chess
players', perhaps not sure if it was the result of individual efforts or
teamwork. I would meet Taimanov at several events after that, for example Tel
Aviv 1990 and Gausdal 1992, subsequently inviting him to the Owens Corning
tournament in Wrexham in 1997. Although we could only communicate via my poor
German I felt a sense of kinship with him, perhaps partly because Taimanov,
like my parents, was also a pianist. My mother had been an aspiring concert
pianist before taking lessons with the former Russian star Iso Elinson, who
learned at the conservatoire in Taimanov's native St. Petersburg. I was used
to being around classical musicians, even if their efforts to involve me fell
on stony ground. --- Because of this connection, when I became interested in
the Sicilian Defence Taimanov was my first source of insight, and I carefully
went through his book which was inappropriately titled Winning with the
Sicilian (Batsford, 1991). I became interested in particular in how he
described the evolution of the Taimanov Variation from his earlier studies on
6...Qc7: "So, in analytical work one day there was born the idea to refrain
from the conventional early development of the queen, but instead to develop
the king's knight not on the square f6, where it is subject to the threat of
attack, but to the more intricate and flexible e7-square. This innovation
turned out to be highly significant and enriched the traditional opening
scheme with original strategic content.} 1. Z0 {"In the process of practical
tests and theoretical research the new idea found its adherents, gradually
gaining in prestige and popularity and finally, having detached itself from
the Paulsen system, it became an independent and highly diversified opening
scheme known to theory as the 'Taimanov system." (Taimanov, 1991). --- This
makes it abundantly clear that Taimanov himself considered his innovation to
be 6...Nge7 and that it was the development of the knight on e7 that
distinguishes it from the Paulsen system with 6...Qc7. Curiously this seems to
have been ignored by many authors who simply apply the 'Taimanov' label
the position after 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6, regardless of where
Black develops his king's knight. I have chosen to go instead with the
inventor's definition, that Taimanov's innovation was the development of
Black's knight on e7, and the repertoire presented here will reflect this. In
a couple of lines, I felt it necessary to give 6...Nxd4 followed by ...Ne7
rather than 6...Nge7 because otherwise White can effectively move the knight
from d4, but these two are in the Taimanov spirit rather than being Paulsens.
--- The distinction can be a subtle one, for example the following game starts
out with 6...Qc7 but later features the development of Black's king's knight
to e7. It was also one of Taimanov's most brilliant games (see the following
game).} *

[Event "3: USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1969.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lutikov, A"]
[Black "Taimanov, M"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B48"]
[Annotator "Nigel Davies"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[EventDate "1969.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "OR: Sicilian Taimanov"]
[SourceDate "2022.05.12"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e6 5. Nc3 Qc7 {QUESTION: Does this not
introduce the Paulsen Variation? --- ANSWER: Essentially it is a Paulsen,
though as Black's king's knight later goes to e7 it has a Taimanov feel. Chess
openings are not always easy to define, especially if they involve various
transpositions.} ({The formal Taimanov Variation is brought about by} 5... a6 {
followed by ...Nge7.}) 6. Be3 a6 7. Bd3 b5 {QUESTION: Shouldn't Black be
developing his pieces instead of this? --- ANSWER: In many modern openings,
where the position stays relatively closed, you can often afford to develop
more slowly. Here it's difficult for White to open files, even though his
pieces are currently more active than Black's.} (7... Nf6 {would stay solidly
in Paulsen territory because the knight has gone to f6.}) 8. Nxc6 Qxc6 9. Bd4 {
QUESTION: What's the point of moving the bishop a second time? --- ANSWER: He
is trying to make it difficult for Black to develop his kingside.} ({The
following year a game D.Minic-M.Taimanov, Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970,
varied with} 9. a3 {after which} Bb7 10. O-O Ne7 $1 11. Qg4 Ng6 12. f4 Bc5 13.
Bxc5 Qxc5+ 14. Kh1 O-O 15. Rae1 f6 $5 16. Ne2 Rae8 17. Ng3 Qd4 $1 18. Nh5 f5 $1
19. exf5 exf5 20. Qg5 (20. Bxf5 $2 {loses to} Rxe1 21. Rxe1 Rxf5 22. Qxf5 Bxg2+
$1 23. Kxg2 Nh4+ {etc.}) 20... Rxe1 21. Rxe1 Qxb2 22. h3 Qxa3 {, with a clear
advantage for Black.}) ({Another possibility is just} 9. O-O {.}) 9... Bb7 10.
Qe2 Ne7 {A Taimanov style move. By bringing the knight to e7 instead of f6,
Black makes it harder for White to create a breach in Black's position.} ({
After} 10... Nf6 11. Bxf6 gxf6 {, Black's doubled pawns would make it very
difficult for his king to find safety on the kingside.}) 11. f4 ({A surprising
point of Black's last move is that} 11. O-O {can be met by} Nf5 $1 12. Be5 f6
13. Bf4 Nd4 {, with counterplay.}) 11... b4 12. Nb1 (12. Nd1 {was a better
move.}) 12... Ng6 13. Qf2 Bd6 $1 {A provocative move which threatens the
f4-pawn.} 14. Be3 ({QUESTION: Can White not answer this with} 14. Bxg7 {
- ? --- ANSWER: He can, but then} Rg8 (14... Nxf4 {is also possible}) 15. Bh6
Bc5 16. Qe2 Bd4 {will win the b2-pawn and leave Black with tremendous activity.
}) ({QUESTION: Then can White not win time with} 14. e5 {- ? --- ANSWER: He
can, but Black would then play} Be7 {threatening the g2-pawn and meeting} 15.
O-O {with} Nxf4 {. The knight is immune to capture because of} 16. Qxf4 Qxg2# {
, and meanwhile Black would be threatening 17...Nh3+ 18 gxh3 Qh1 mate.}) ({
QUESTION: So that leaves him with} 14. g3 {then? --- ANSWER: It's playable,
but Black can then play} e5 15. fxe5 Nxe5 {with excellent play.}) 14... O-O 15.
Nd2 Rac8 16. h4 $5 Qc7 ({Alternatively Black could consider} 16... e5 {, for
example} 17. g3 (17. f5 Nf4) 17... exf4 18. gxf4 Qc7 19. Bb6 Qb8 20. Ba7 Qa8
21. Be3 Bxf4 $5 22. Bxf4 f5 $1 {threatening 23...fxe4.}) 17. e5 (17. g3 {
would be well met by} f5 $1 {.}) ({QUESTION: What about} 17. f5 {, attacking
that g6-knight? --- ANSWER: Besides giving the e5-square away, that could be
met by} Bg3 {.}) 17... Bc5 18. h5 Bxe3 19. Qxe3 Ne7 20. Nc4 ({White could also
consider} 20. Ne4 {, but then Black can gain counterplay with} Nf5 21. Qf2 f6 {
, for example} 22. exf6 Bxe4 23. fxg7 Nxg7 24. Bxe4 Rxf4 {etc.}) 20... Nf5 21.
Qd2 (21. Bxf5 {is most simply met by} Qxc4 (21... exf5 $5 {is also possible})
22. Bd3 Qd5 {, when chances remain balanced in this sharp position.}) 21... Bd5
22. Ne3 Nxe3 23. Qxe3 Qc5 24. Qg3 ({After} 24. Qxc5 Rxc5 {Black could then
proceed with ...f7-f6! breaking White's centre.}) 24... h6 25. Rh4 Qg1+ {
Heading into some mind-boggling complications.} ({There was a solid option in} 
25... f5 {after which} 26. exf6 Rxf6 27. Rg4 Qf8 {defends Black's king and
leaves him with options such as an advance of his a-pawn.}) 26. Kd2 {Analysts
have considered this White's best move for decades;} ({but engines consider} 
26. Ke2 {to have equal value, draws resulting after 26...Qxa1, 26...Rxc2+ or
even 26...Bf3+. The easiest to see is after} Rxc2+ 27. Bxc2 Bc4+ 28. Kd2 Qd4+
29. Kc1 Qg1+ {, when White must allow the draw with} 30. Kd2 ({because} 30. Bd1
Rc8 {gives Black a winning attack.})) 26... Qd4 $5 ({QUESTION: Why did Black
not take the rook with} 26... Qxa1 {- ? --- ANSWER: Unfortunately that would
be met by} 27. Rg4 $1 {, with a winning attack.}) ({At the same time the
engines do not favour Taimanov's move, giving instead the line} 26... Rxc2+ $1
27. Bxc2 Qd4+ 28. Qd3 (28. Bd3 Qxb2+ 29. Ke3 Qxa1 30. Rg4 Qc1+ {would draw
this time}) 28... Qf2+ 29. Kd1 Qg1+ 30. Ke2 Qxg2+ {with a draw by repetition.})
27. f5 {Threatening f5-f6.} ({QUESTION: What about} 27. Rg4 {threatening the
g7-pawn? --- ANSWER: Black could then play} Be4 $1 28. Rxg7+ Kh8 {when White's
attack comes to nought.}) 27... Rxc2+ $1 28. Kxc2 b3+ $1 {The best chance.} ({
The immediate} 28... Rc8+ {is met by} 29. Kd1 Qg1+ 30. Qe1 Qxg2 31. Qe3 {
, when Black's attack is running out of steam and there is the small matter of
that sacrificed rook.}) 29. Kd1 $2 {In this wild position White goes astray.} (
{It turns out that he can get away with} 29. axb3 $1 Bxb3+ 30. Kd2 $1 (30. Kxb3
Rb8+ 31. Kc2 Qxb2+ 32. Kd1 Qxa1+ {wins back the rook and leaves Black able to
take pot-shots at White's exposed king}) 30... Qxb2+ 31. Ke3 Qxa1 32. f6 $1
Qc1+ ({or} 32... Qg1+ 33. Ke2 $1 Qd1+ 34. Kf2 Qd2+ 35. Be2 {etc.}) 33. Kf2 Qd2+
34. Be2 Qg5 35. Rg4 Qf5+ 36. Kg1 Qb1+ 37. Kh2 {, when White's king finally
finds safety and leaves him with deadly threats.}) 29... Qg1+ 30. Qe1 Qxg2 $1
31. Qf1 ({Black can meet both} 31. Rf4) ({and} 31. Qe3 {with} bxa2 {. The
engines indicate that he has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed rook.})
31... Bf3+ 32. Ke1 (32. Kc1 Qg5+ 33. Kb1 Qxh4 34. Qxf3 Qe1+ 35. Qd1 Qxd1# {
is mate.}) 32... Qxb2 33. Rb1 Qxe5+ 34. Kf2 bxa2 35. Re1 (35. Kxf3 {was
another possibility, but White still has the problem that his king is totally
exposed.}) 35... Qf6 36. Kg3 Bg2 $5 {Unnecessary fireworks from Taimanov.} ({
The engines like the mundane} 36... Bc6 {, leaving White to think about his
exposed king and that a2-pawn.}) 37. Qg1 $2 {Black's simple reply is crushing.}
({QUESTION: What happens if White takes the bishop? --- ANSWER: He has two
ways of doing this,} 37. Kxg2 {being simply met by} Qxh4 {.}) ({On the other
hand,} 37. Qxg2 {is considerably less clear as after} a1=Q 38. Rxa1 Qxa1 {
Black has given up his magnificent, passed a-pawn, and this is the line that
Lutikov should have chosen.}) 37... exf5 38. Qd4 Qg5+ 39. Kh2 Be4 $1 40. Rhxe4
fxe4 41. Qxe4 Qxh5+ 0-1

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction 3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Nigel Davies"]
[PlyCount "10"]
[SourceTitle "OR: Sicilian Taimanov"]
[SourceDate "2022.05.12"]

{With the time control having been passed, White resigned this hopeless
position. Black can easily defend against the threat of mate on h7 and then
activate his f8-rook. --- The type of counter-attacking possibilities seen
here are typical of the Sicilian Defence, what is less usual about the
Taimanov Variation is that the lines are not well charted by theory. Partially
this is because 6...Nge7 never developed a huge following, but it is also due
to the early play developing more slowly and offering scope for originality.
For this reason, you can find Ukrainian Grandmaster Oleg Romanishin on the
Black side of the Taimanov. --- Besides covering the actual Taimanov Variation
with} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 {followed by 6...Nge7,
I have added other lines to make it a complete repertoire against 1.e4.
There are several Open Sicilian lines that preclude Taimanov's 6...Nge7, such
as 6 Nxc6 and 5 Nb5. Given the popularity of Anti-Sicilian lines I have also
devoted much of this book to handling them as Black. --- It remains for me to
wish the reader good luck with your own Sicilian adventures. I recommend going
through all the games at least once before playing it in friendly and then
competition games.} (5... Z0 {Nigel Davies, St. Helens, UK, January 2022}) (
5... Z0 {Acknowledgements: My thanks go to Byron Jacobs of Everyman Chess for
his support and encouragement throughout this project.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3: Taimanov: 6 Be3 and 6 f3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B46"]
[Annotator "Nigel Davies"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[SourceTitle "OR: Sicilian Taimanov"]
[SourceDate "2022.05.12"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 {This and 6 f3 can
come to the same thing if both moves are played, though Be3 can also be played
with independent significance.} ({Another difference is that Black can meet} 6.
f3 {with} Nge7 {, as in Inarkiev-Mchedlishvili (Game 15),} ({though it might
be simpler from a repertoire perspective to meet it with} 6... Nxd4 7. Qxd4 Ne7
8. Be3 b5 {as in Vallejo Pons-Kobalia (Game 16).})) 6... Nxd4 {QUESTION: Why
does Black make this exchange so early? --- ANSWER: There are a couple of
lines in which White can effectively move the d4-knight away if Black doesn't
exchange immediately, 6 Be3 is one of them and 6 f4 is another.} ({In this
position} 6... Nge7 {would be well met by} 7. Nb3 {, for example} d6 (7... b5
8. a4 $1 b4 $2 9. a5 $1 Nxa5 10. Na4 Nxb3 11. Bb6 Nxa1 12. Qxa1 {was winning
for White in Y.Zaderman-M.Taimanov, New York 1992}) 8. Na4 $5 b5 9. Nb6 Rb8 10.
Nxc8 Nxc8 11. c4 Be7 12. Rc1 Qd7 13. cxb5 axb5 14. Be2 O-O 15. O-O Qb7 16. f4 {
was better for White in A.Sulypa-M.Taimanov, Lvov 2000.}) 7. Qxd4 Ne7 8. f4 (8.
Bc4 {is an aggressive move by White common to many Sicilian lines, but here it
seems less appropriate. Black played} b5 9. Bb3 Nc6 10. Qd2 Be7 11. O-O Bb7 {
in Kabisch-Moor (Game 17).}) 8... b5 9. O-O-O Nc6 10. Qd2 Be7 11. Qf2 Bb7 {
. This brought about a typical Sicilian Taimanov middlegame in S.Polgar-M.Taimanov
(Game 18) in which experience triumphed over youth.} *

[Event "15: European Championship, Jerusalem"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2015.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Inarkiev, E"]
[Black "Mchedlishvili, M"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B46"]
[Annotator "Nigel Davies"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[EventDate "2015.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "OR: Sicilian Taimanov"]
[SourceDate "2022.05.12"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. f3 {QUESTION: As the
e4-pawn is not being attacked, what is White's idea with this move? --- ANSWER:
He is presumably envisaging a set-up with Be3 but keeps some short-term
flexibility with his bishop. It could also be to lend the opening a new twist
to get his opponent to think for himself.} Nge7 (6... Nxd4 7. Qxd4 b5 {is
arguably more flexible as Black can still bring his knight out to f6. I could
not find any games from this position, which is surprising given that we are
only up to move seven in a Sicilian.}) 7. Nb3 ({After} 7. Be3 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 b5
9. O-O-O Nc6 10. Qd2 {Black should probably play} Be7 {followed by ...0-0 so
that the bishop on c8 will continue to defend d7 for the time being. As with 6...Nxd4
there is a dearth of experience in this position.}) 7... b5 8. Be3 d6 {
Playing ...d7-d6 generally has a low priority in the Sicilian Taimanov. Black
does still intend a manoeuvre that is known in the Taimanov; he is planning to
bring his e7-knight to c8 and b6.} (8... Ng6 {would have been a typical
alternative, intending 9...Be7 followed by 10...0-0.}) 9. Qd2 Bb7 10. O-O-O Nc8
11. g4 Be7 12. f4 O-O 13. g5 Nb6 {The e7-knight completes its voyage to the
queenside and may now take part in action against White's king. One of nice
things about having a knight on b6 is that White cannot meet ...b4 with Na4.}
14. Rg1 b4 15. Nb1 Re8 16. Qf2 Nd7 17. N1d2 ({QUESTION: Can White launch an
attack with} 17. f5 {- ? --- ANSWER: It would be a playable move, but it's not
clear that any attack would be served up after} Bf8 {followed by ...Nce5.})
17... a5 18. Kb1 a4 19. Nc1 Qc7 20. Nd3 d5 21. exd5 exd5 22. f5 Bd6 (22... Nce5
{would also have been a logical move, meeting} 23. f6 {with} Bf8 {.}) 23. g6
hxg6 24. fxg6 fxg6 25. Rxg6 Nce5 26. Rg1 $2 {From here until the end of the
game the advantage seems to change hands every move or two. In such a
complicated position inaccuracies can be expected, especially if the players
were short of time, though this has little to do with our consideration of the
opening moves.} ({Apparently} 26. Rg5 {was the right move here.}) 26... Rac8
27. Rc1 Nc5 28. Nf4 Qf7 29. Qh4 b3 30. Bh3 bxa2+ 31. Ka1 Be7 32. Qf2 a3 33. Bd4
Rc6 34. b3 Bf8 $2 ({Here} 34... Bf6 {was the right move with Black being well
on top. White in turn misses an apparent chance, he should have played 35 Rcf1.
}) 35. Qh4 $2 Be7 $2 (35... Ne4 {was the right move, and now White should have
played 36 Qh5.}) 36. Qf2 $2 Bf6 37. Kxa2 Ne4 38. Nxe4 dxe4 39. Bf5 Rd6 $2 {
We are approaching the final moments of this dramatic encounter.} ({Stockfish
indicates that} 39... Nf3 {was correct, assessing the position as very good
for Black after} 40. Bg6 Qf8 41. Be3 Bh4 {.}) 40. Ba1 $2 {Nimzowitsch wrote
that a passed pawn is 'a criminal that must be kept under lock and key', but
this unlocks Black's e-pawn.} (40. Bc5 {would have kept Black's e-pawn under
guard when it's still anybody's game.}) 40... e3 $1 41. Qg3 Nc6 42. Nd3 Rxd3
43. cxd3 $2 {Losing immediately.} ({After} 43. Qf4 Bxa1 44. Bh7+ Kf8 45. Qxf7+
Kxf7 46. Bg6+ Ke7 47. Bxe8 {White could certainly fight on for a while.}) 43...
Bxa1 44. Rxa1 Qf6 45. Qxg7+ (45. Rab1 {is met by} Nb4+ 46. Kxa3 Nc2+ {followed
by 47...Ra8 mate.}) 45... Qxg7 46. Rxg7+ Kxg7 47. Rg1+ Kf6 48. Be4 Nb4+ 49.
Kxa3 Bxe4 50. dxe4 Rxe4 0-1

[Event "16: Germany"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Vallejo Pons, F"]
[Black "Kobalia, M"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B46"]
[Annotator "Nigel Davies"]
[PlyCount "52"]
[EventDate "2006.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "OR: Sicilian Taimanov"]
[SourceDate "2022.05.12"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nge2 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 a6 6. f3 Nxd4 7. Qxd4 Ne7 8.
Be3 b5 $1 9. Qe5 $5 {Vallejo Pons finds an interesting way to bring the queen
to g3.} ({A couple of alternatives are worth considering: a)} 9. Qd2 Nc6 10.
Qf2 Qc7 11. O-O-O Be7 12. Bc5 $2 O-O 13. Bxe7 Nxe7 14. Qg3 e5 {gave Black a
comfortable game in J.Alvarez Nunez-R.Leitao, Santiago Entel Cup, 2006.}) ({b)
} 9. a4 {can be met by} Nc6 10. Qd2 Qa5 {, when} (10... b4 {allows} 11. Nd5
exd5 12. exd5 Ne5 13. d6 {, when White will have a dangerous attack for the
sacrificed piece}) 11. Bd3 b4 12. Ne2 (12. Nd5 $2 {is no longer any good
because of} exd5 13. exd5 Qxd5) 12... Bc5 {is about even.}) 9... Nc6 ({In his
notes to the game, Kobalia also mentioned} 9... Ng6 {with the variation} 10.
Qg3 Qa5 (10... Be7 {is also playable}) 11. Bd3 b4 12. Ne2 Bc5 13. Bxc5 Qxc5 14.
f4 {offering a complex Sicilian middlegame fight.}) 10. Qg3 Qa5 11. O-O-O ({
There's a good answer to} 11. Bd3 {in} g6 {followed by 12...Bg7.}) 11... b4 $1
{Provoking the following sacrifice.} ({Black could also play} 11... Bb7 {
but this gives White time to protect his a-pawn with} 12. Kb1 {.}) 12. Nd5 $1 {
With the a-pawn dropping this is the only show in town.} exd5 13. exd5 Qxa2 {
Counterattack!} (13... Ne7 14. Bc4 {would give White excellent compensation.})
14. dxc6 Qa1+ ({QUESTION: Can't Black eliminate that dangerous c6-pawn with} 
14... dxc6 {- ? --- ANSWER: Unfortunately, that would lose on the spot to} 15.
Qc7 {.}) 15. Kd2 Qxb2 16. Ke1 ({Kobalia thought that} 16. Bd3 $1 {was better
and he may well be right. My silicon friend then indicates that} d5 17. c7 Qf6
{is Black's best defence, aiming for ...Be7 and ...0-0.}) ({Another
possibility is} 16. Re1 Be7 17. Bg5 {when Black can force a draw with} Qc3+ 18.
Kd1 Qa1+ {etc.}) 16... Qc3+ $1 17. Rd2 $1 {The best try.} ({Black defends
easily after either} 17. Bd2 Qxc6) ({or} 17. Kf2 Bc5 18. cxd7+ Bxd7 {etc.})
17... Qxc6 18. Bd3 ({After} 18. Re2 {Black can cold-bloodedly allow the
discovered check with} f6 $1 {and then play his king to f7 next.}) 18... d5 19.
Re2 ({On} 19. Bd4 {Black defends with} Be6 20. f4 f6 {for example} 21. Bxh7
O-O-O {.}) 19... Be6 20. f4 ({This time} 20. Bd4 {can be answered by the
immediate} O-O-O {, for example} 21. Kf2 a5 {setting in motion a passed a-pawn!
}) 20... d4 $1 {Suddenly taking the initiative.} 21. Bxd4 O-O-O $1 22. Qf2 ({
After} 22. Be3 {Black can develop with} g6 {followed by ...Bg7 when the raking
bishops help keep White's pieces passive.}) 22... Bc4 23. Kd2 $2 (23. Qe3 {
was a better chance but still good for Black after} Bxd3 24. Qxd3 Kb7 {.})
23... Qd5 $1 24. Bb6 Bxd3 25. Re5 ({Or} 25. cxd3 Qxd3+ 26. Kc1 Rd5 27. Rc2+ Kb7
28. Rc7+ Kb8 {escapes the checks after which it's Black's turn to 'attack'.})
25... Qc4 26. Rc1 Qc3+ 0-1

[Event "17: Dresden"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2002.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kabisch, T"]
[Black "Moor, R"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B41"]
[Annotator "Nigel Davies"]
[PlyCount "92"]
[EventDate "2002.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "OR: Sicilian Taimanov"]
[SourceDate "2022.05.12"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 ({It's probably as well to ignore the
early moves of the actual game and instead consider the relevant move order
with} 4... Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Nxd4 7. Qxd4 Ne7 8. Bc4 {.}) 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. Nc3
Nge7 7. Be3 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 {The development of White's bishop on c4 is typical
of many lines of the Sicilian. Here it seems less well motived, if only
because Black's e6-pawn is so securely defended.} b5 9. Bb3 Nc6 10. Qd2 Be7 ({
A year later Moor would choose} 10... Bb4 {, presumably to sidestep any
preparation. A.Sokolov-R.Moor, Switzerland 2003 went} 11. O-O Bb7 12. Rfd1 Rc8
13. f3 Na5 14. Qd4 Bc5 15. Qd3 Be7 16. e5 Nc4 17. Bxc4 bxc4 18. Qd2 Bc6 19. Qd4
O-O 20. Ne4 Bd5 {, ending in a draw after} 21. Nc3 Bc6 22. Ne4 Bd5 23. Nc3 {
(½-½).}) 11. O-O ({QUESTION: Can White castle long instead? --- ANSWER: This
might be where Sokolov intended to improve with} 11. O-O-O {, though the
position looks fine for Black after} Na5 12. Kb1 Bb7 13. f3 Bc6 {, securely
defending d7 and keeping the option of exchanging off the bishop on b3.}) 11...
Bb7 12. Rad1 ({White can also play} 12. f4 Rc8 13. Rad1 Na5 14. f5 (14. e5 Nc4
15. Bxc4 Rxc4 {was fine for Black in D.Krklec-W.Karrer, Munich 2005}) 14...
Nxb3 15. axb3 Qc7 16. Kh1 {was a game L.Olzem-H.Scepanik, Calella 1994, and now
} Bc6 {looks like a good move, envisaging ...Qb7.}) 12... Rc8 13. Kh1 (13. f4 {
would transpose into the previous note.}) 13... Na5 14. Qd4 {Hereabouts it
seems that White was running out of ideas; Black can easily handle the
temporary activity of White's queen.} f6 (14... Bf6 15. Qa7 Qc7 {is also fine
for Black.}) 15. f4 Qc7 16. f5 Nxb3 17. cxb3 Bc6 {Defending d7 and creating a
rock-solid position. White has some space and activity, but his pawn structure
is loose.} 18. a3 O-O 19. b4 Rfd8 20. Qd2 d5 {Opting to free his position,
though this does allow White to exchange his weak e-pawn.} (20... Qb7 {would
have been a good alternative, intensifying the pressure on e4 and the a8-h1
diagonal.}) 21. Qf2 Qb7 22. fxe6 {A double-edged decision as the pawn on e6
might prove to be a weakness.} (22. exd5 exd5 23. Ne2 {seems sounder, with
approximate equality.}) 22... dxe4 23. Qg3 Rd3 24. Rxd3 exd3 25. Rd1 Rd8 (25...
Bd5 26. Rxd3 Bxe6 {was probably stronger, when Black has the two bishops and
White would struggle to produce a passed pawn in this position with asymmetric
majorities.}) 26. Bf4 $6 {Missing his way.} ({White should challenge the
blockader of his passed pawn with} 26. Bc5 Bxc5 27. bxc5 Qe7 28. Rxd3 Rxd3 29.
Qxd3 Qxe6 {is very slightly better for Black because of the strength of his
bishop.}) 26... Be4 27. Rd2 $2 {Making matters worse because rooks are
notoriously poor blockaders. From d2 the rook cannot go to the open e-file
which is his main source of possible counterplay.} Bf5 28. Bc7 Rc8 29. Bd6 Re8
30. h4 (30. Bc7 Qc8 {followed by 31...Qxe6 would be winning for Black, so
White's attempts to lash out are understandable. The remainder of the game
might have been played with both sides short of time; improvements were
certainly possible.}) 30... Bxd6 31. Qxd6 Rxe6 32. Qd8+ Kf7 33. Nd5 Re5 34. Nc3
Qa7 35. Nd5 Re8 36. Qd6 Re2 37. Qf4 Re4 38. Qg3 Re2 39. Qf4 Re1+ 40. Kh2 Qg1+
41. Kg3 Re5 42. Rf2 Rxd5 43. Qc7+ Rd7 44. Qc5 Qxf2+ 45. Qxf2 d2 46. Qxf5 d1=Q
0-1