Thumb through any report from a high-level grandmaster tournament and you'll see a variety of sharp and topical openings being contested. Often the theory on the Sicilian Dragons, Classical King's Indians and Botvinnik Semi-Slavs will stretch out past move 20 or 30.

While these openings disputes are often fascinating and appear to be all the rage, I would caution the average practical amateur tournament player from emulating their chessic heroes' opening choices. After all, the Kasparovs, Kramniks, Karpovs, and assorted other "special Ks" of the chess world are professionals who can afford to spend countless hours studying, honing, and sharpening their repertoire. Who among us can do the same?

I long ago gave up any aspirations of becoming a world-class (or even national-class) chess player. With the demands of work and family, I determined that I had to find ways to minimize the opening study necessary to play tournament chess.

That is why I have sought to go my own way in the openings. I seek little-known but still viable approaches in the opening. This doesn't mean that one has to resort to playing 1.g4 or speculative gambits. In just about every opening there are little analyzed sidelines that can be useful with a bit thought and study.

The following game is a case in point. Although black plays the trendy and over-analyzed Najdorf Sicilian, he still finds a way to steer the play away from opening theory. As a result, he was better able to deal with the resulting positions and won a key game on the way to winning the state championship.

Mitch Weiss (2350) vs. Randy Bauer (2250)
1989 Iowa State Closed Championship
Sicilian Defense, Najdorf Variation

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5

This was the critical game of the championship. My opponent, the defending champion, was the top-rated player and I was number two in the 6-player round robin. Most of my pre-tournament preparation had been spent on 6.f4, my opponent's usual choice. Before the tournament, however, I had prepared "something different" in case he played this most popular try.

6...e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.g4 h6!??

LITTLE KNOWN SIDE LINE

The position after 10.g4 is considered the main line of the 6.Bg5 Najdorf and is still a hot topic in high-level play. The theory on it is extensive and ever-changing. As an example, the primary theoretical work at that time on the Najdorf was John Nunn's excellent NAJDORF FOR THE TOURNAMENT PLAYER. That 1988 book contained 16 pages of double spaced text on the line with 10.g4. Black's choice, 10...h6, merited just 6 lines in one column on one page.

Things have only gotten worse theory-wise since this game was played. John Nunn has recently starting revising his 1988 book. In 1988, he was able to cover all the variations of the Najdorf in 288 pages. Earlier this year, Nunn released a partial revision of his work. This time, he spent 320 pages on the lines with 6.Bg5 alone, of which 60 are devoted to 10.g4. All the other popular tries (6.Bc4, 6.Be2, 6.Be3, 6.f4, etc.) will be covered in a second volume of similar length!

By finding lines like the text, black is able to sidestep most of that theory. Of course, avoiding theory is of little use if the move you play is downright bad. In this case, I'll grant you that 10...h6 is not as objectively good as black's primary choice, 10...b5. However, the move isn't without its points.

Black envisions a typical attack on the dark squares with ...g5, which helps secure a fine outpost on e5 for black's pieces. In similar positions, the g-pawn would be on g2, which is probably a better square for it.

Still, 10...h6 costs time, and white should be able to get an edge with accurate play. In my database, however, black scores about 50% with it (albeit from a small sample).

11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.h4 Qb6 13.Nb3

In 1988, all Nunn gave was 13.Nce2 g5!? without further comment, and I did a fair amount of original analysis on that position. After the game, I analyzed the game quite a bit with NM Dan Harger. His suggestion was 13.Nde2 g5 14.hxg5 hxg5 15.e5. Then 15...Rxh1 16.Qxh1 dxe5 17.f5! causes black some problems, but 16...Be7!? looks playable.

Interestingly, Nunn gives a little further information on Harger's 13.Nde2 in his 1997 book. He gives 13.Nde2 g5 14.e5 dxe5 15.fxg5 e4 16.Qxe4 hxg5 17.h5 Ne5 18.Nd4 Bd7 19.Rh3 0-0-0 as unclear, based on Molvig-Kristensen, Copenhagen 1995.

At the time, I thought 13.Nb3 passive, as it removes the knight from a strong central post, and the knight does nothing but watch for the rest of the game. Nunn also ignores it in both his 1988 and 1997 books. However, when I repeated this opening in a preliminary game of the 1994 Iowa state postal championships, I found an interesting idea for white that I'd been oblivious to.

13...g5(?) 14.hxg5 hxg5 15.Rxh8+ Bxh8

CRITICAL POSITION

16.f5?

Although this seemed logical at the time, it weakens the dark squares and hands over control of e5 without a fight. Of course, 16.fxg5? would be no better, as after ...Ne5  black's knight dominates the board and white's pawns are fractured.

The testing try, which I found while analyzing my postal game, was 16.Nd2! Suddenly, the d6-pawn is a big weakness and the knight coming to c4 controls the e5-square as well.

I could find no satisfactory method for black and concluded that 13...g5 was in fact an error. In my postal game, I avoided 13...g5 and played 13...Qc7, offering to repeat the position. My opponent chose something else and I ended up winning the game.

16...Be5!

This may seem strange, since black generally bases his play in these types of positions around securing a knight on e5, but here it is the right decision. For starters, after 16...Ne5 17.Qh3 the dark squared bishop is uncomfortably placed and hard to activate. Second, the bishop on e5 absolutely dominates the board. It has no counterpart, and it simultaneously supports the weak d-pawn, threatens to block the f-file if necessary via ...Bf4, and also keeps an eye on the c3-knight. No other minor piece on the board does so much.

17.fxe6 fxe6 18.Qh3

White logically aims at the black kingside via the open h-file. Another plan would have been to attempt to utilize the open f-file, but after 18.Be2 Qd8! black re-deploys his queen to the kingside with good play.

It's important to note that all the long-term prospects are black's. His two bishops are potentially very strong (and his dark-squared bishop already the best minor piece on the board), and white's g and e-pawns are targets. That means that black can defend by offering queen trades.

18...Qf2!

WHITE'S ATTACK WAS AN ILLUSION

After I played this move, my opponent thought for 16 minutes. I think he was realizing that black was taking control of the game. Black's move maintains his dark square grip while re-deploying the queen to the kingside. Now on Be2 or Bd3 black plays ...Qh2 and, if necessary, ...Qf4+. Black welcomes the trade of queens, since in any endgame the white light-squared bishop will be the worst minor piece on the board because of the e and g-pawns, and black's dark squared bishop will be the best. The other point of black's move is that 19.Qh5+ Qf7 20.Qxg5?? Bf4+ wins the queen.

I can probably hear some of the skeptics now. "How can black be better? White is better developed and black's king looks insecure." In the Sicilian, however, black often looks optically bad when in fact his position is quite good.

This is one such example. Although white appears better developed, neither of his knights is doing much and his light squared bishop is severely constricted. Black's position is solid, and if he develops his queen bishop, he's got much better long-term chances.

19.Bc4 Nb6 20.Rf1 Qh2! 21.Qd3 Nxc4 22.Qxc4 Bd7 23.Qc7!?

White decides to mix it up, since if black gets to play ...Rc8 white will be totally defensive.

23...b5

BLACK'S e5-BISHOP RULES THE BOARD

24.Kb1

White gets out of ideas based on checking on f4, but it is too slow. A better try was 24.Qb7 Rc8, but white can't play 25.Qxa6 because of 25...b4, or 25.Rf7 because of 25...Bf4+ 26.Kd1 Qg1+ 27.Ke2 Qe3+ 28.Kd1 or Kf1 Qf3+ followed by a bishop check and  ...Qxf7. White has to stop for 25.a3, when Bxc3 26.bxc3 Rxc3 27.Nd4 at least muddies the water. Black shouldn't give up his strong dark-squared bishop. After 25...Bf4+! (which removes tactics based on the rook getting to f7) 26.Kb1 Qh3 27.Rd1 Be5 black is clearly  better.

24...Qg2 25.Rf7?

White can't hope to get anything out of this, since his knights are so far removed from the action. A better try was 25.Rd1, but after 25...Qxg4 26.Rh1! Rc8 27.Qb7 Qg2! 29.Rh7 Qf1+ 30.Nc1 Rd8. White's problem is that he can't get the rook to the 8th rank, and black intends to just push the g-pawn.

25...Kxf7 26.Qxd7+ Kf6 27.Qh7 Qxg4 28.Qh6+ Kf7 29.Qh7+ Bg7

IT'S ALL OVER

The threat of ...Rh8 forces back the white queen. With white's knights just spectating, the rest is simple technique – penetrate with the big guns to the seventh and eighth ranks.

30.Qh1 Rh8 31.Qf1+ Qf4 32.Qg1 Rh2 33.Nd1 Be5 34.Nc1 Qxe4 35.Nd3 Rh1 36.Nxe5+ dxe5, 0-1.

This win catapulted me into the lead. I ended up winning the state championship by half a point over Weiss.