Serious opening books are becoming harder and harder to write due to the enormous amount of material that must be looked at by the author. In the case of ANTI-SICILIANS: A GUIDE FOR BLACK (What to do when White avoids the Open Sicilian), I presumed (before reading the book) it would be geared towards the “B” (1600-1799) to “Expert” (2000-2199) range. However, in Rogozenko’s introduction I was taken aback to read (concerning his section on the Closed Sicilian), “I am convinced that the information provided here is sufficient to play against the Closed Sicilian at every level, from amateur to grandmaster.”

Really? I immediately turned to the bibliography and saw:

ECO, Volume B (2002 edition)
Informator (up to 85)
The Week In Chess (up to 435)
ChessBase Mega Database 2003 CD
ChessBase Corr Database 2002 CD
Gallagher, Beating the Anti-Sicilians, Batsford 1994
King, The Closed Sicilian, Chess Press 1997
Plaskett, Sicilian Grand Prix Attack, Everyman 2000

That’s all? He didn’t check out the NIC Yearbooks? He didn’t open up PLAY THE 2.c3 SICILIAN by Rozentalis and Harley? He ignored EASY GUIDE TO THE Bb5 SICILIAN by Pedersen? The list goes on and on since there are innumerable books and articles on all the lines he analyzes, yet he only bothered to look at the eight listed sources.

If I were a student reading Rogozenko’s book, I would expect him to have done a tremendous amount of research into his recommended lines since he expects me to innocently take them into battle. The bibliography makes me mistrust everything he’s said. This doesn’t mean he’s wrong, or that his analysis isn’t good or even perfect. It just means that I would be compelled to compare his work to all the other sources HE should have looked at. Such laziness isn’t up to IM snuff, let alone grandmaster standards.

Okay, he went a bit berserk by claiming that grandmasters would worship at his alter, but perhaps my initial impression of the “B” to “Expert” spread was more realistic? In that case you don’t expect super-deep mega-analysis. Instead, all key lines and lots of explanation will succeed admirably. Sadly, there’s very little explanation of common plans, tactics, strategy, structure, etc.

To me, he seems to be talking over the heads of class “A” players (1800-1999) and below. That leaves us with Experts and Masters (2200). With this in mind, let’s take a peek at a couple of the lines that are recommended in ANTI-SICILIANS: A GUIDE FOR BLACK.

Against the popular Alapin Variation, Rogozenko recommends the sharp 1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nf3 e6 setup. Fair enough! 5.d4 cxd4 6.cxd4 d6 7.Bc4 Nc6 8.0–0 Be7 9.a3 0–0 10.Re1 Bd7 In Gambit’s PLAY THE 2.c3 SICILIAN, Black’s 10...Bd7 isn’t even looked at. Instead they give 10...Qc7 and show how White always gets good attacking chances: 11.Bd3 (11.Qe2 Rd8 12.h4 dxe5 13.dxe5 Nb6 14.Ba2 Nd4 15.Nxd4 Rxd4 16.Nc3 Rd8 17.Qg4 Bd7 18.Bh6 Bf8 19.h5 offered an effortless attack for White in Smagin-Filipov, St. Petersburg 1998.) 11...dxe5 12.dxe5 Rd8 13.Qe2 g6 14.Bd2 b6 15.Nc3 Nxc3 16.Bxc3 Bb7 17.h4 and again White can be happy with the opening, Kharlov-Gallagher, Calcutta 2001. After Rogozenko’s 10…Bd7 he gives the game Salmensuu-Rotsagov, Tampere 1994 which went: 11.b4 Rc8 12.Qb3 dxe5 13.dxe5 a5 14.Bxd5 exd5 15.b5 Na7 16.a4 Be6 17.Nd4 Rc4 18.Be3 Bb4 19.Rd1 Nc8 20.Nd2 Rc3 21.Qb2 Nb6 22.Nc2 Nc4 23.Nxc4 Rxc4 =.

Okay, Black’s okay in the final position. But I’m left wondering how a game between two unknown players from 1994 makes Black’s life easy with 10…Bd7, while more recent games between top grandmasters have seen 10…Qc7, when Black appears to have problems. Something smells fishy! One can’t help but wonder how Black deals with the usual “easy” attacking plan of 11.Bd3 (instead of 11.b4, which failed to impress). Rogozenko mentioned this move, and called the position after 11...Rc8 12.Qe2 Na5 equal. Is this true?

WHITE TO MOVE, DOES HE HAVE ANYTHING?

13.Nc3 Nxc3 (13...Bc6! intending ...Nxc3 followed by ...Bd5 is most likely Black’s best try.) 14.bxc3 is anything but simple: 14...Nb3 15.Bxh7+! (15.Qe4 g6 16.Rb1 Nxc1 17.Rexc1 Bc6 is nothing for White) 15…Kxh7 (15...Kh8 16.Nd2!) 16.Qc2+ Kg8 17.Qxb3 Bc6 18.Re3 gives White all the chances.

Let’s try another system from the book, this time looking at something that’s popular with many players in the “B” to 2400 category: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bb5 Nd4 6.0-0 Nxb5 (Rogo makes us think that everything is a cake-walk here, but IM Zoran Ilic says, in an excellent and detailed article on this whole system, “Generally speaking, with all continuations Black achieves solid positions but his problem is that it is very difficult for him to organize adequate counterplay.”) 7.Nxb5 d5 8.e5 (Ilic gives this an “!” and says, “Black really has to know what he is doing, and even then it is not clear if he can equalize.” Zounds! That’s not what I would want to hear if I had decided to trust my soul to Rogozenko.) 8…a6 9.Nc3 d4 10.Ne4 Qd5 11.Qe1 Nh6 12.Nf6+ Bxf6 13.exf6 Be6 14.fxe7 Nf5 15.d3 Nxe7, Reinderman-M Hoffmann, Groningen 1998. Rogozenko says that this position is, “at least satisfactory for Black.”

Okay, I’ll accept that Black is equal after 11.Qe1, though the “at least satisfactory for Black” comment makes me think that the second player is the only one with chances. Not so, since 16.Ng5 forces Black to find a few good moves.

But Ilic also mentions 11.Qe2!?, a move that Rogozenko ignores.

BLACK TO MOVE, WHAT’S AN UNPREPARED PLAYER TO DO?

Suddenly things get more interesting: 11…Bg4?! 12.d3 Nh6 13.h3 Bxf3 14.Qxf3 Qc6 15.g4 f5 16.exf6 exf6 17.f5 and White obtained a strategically winning position, Plaskett-Hodgson, England 1999.

No problem, Black played poorly with 11…Bg4. Ilic says that 11…Nh6 is likely best, thinking that White probably should try 12.Nf6+ as above. However, the position of the Queen on e2 makes life easier for Black here than it did in the other line with 11.Qe1 since now 12.Nf6+ Bxf6 13.exf6 can be met by 13…Qe6! when White has nothing.

End of story? No, White can make use of the Queen’s position on e2 by playing (after 11…Nh6) 12.c4! Qc6 (Perhaps 12…dxc3 is better, but the play is still interesting: 13.Nxc3 Qd8 14.Qc4 when 14…b6 15.d4 keeps things hopping.) 13.b4! d3 14.Qxd3 Bf5 15.Re1 cxb4 16.Nd4 Qb6 17.Bb2 Rd8 18.Rac1. Now THIS is a chess position!

INTERESTING STUFF!

To clarify my stance: I like his recommended lines (and would use them as a template for my own investigations) but find fault with the lack of explanatory ideas (which deprives the book of the lower rated audience) – some are given, but not nearly enough. The scarcity of sources he used is my main complaint, and this effectively takes the higher end audience (2400 and up) out of the equation (or at the very least forces them to conduct their own painstaking research into everything Rogozenko said). I do think that players in the 2000-2300 range would find Rogozenko’s ANTI-SICILIANS: A GUIDE FOR BLACK useful.

An interesting book with excellent recommendations and occasional bursts of original analysis, ANTI-SICILIANS: A GUIDE FOR BLACK is filled with lots of good stuff but could easily have been far better than it turned out to be.

.

YOU CAN FIND THIS BOOK AT