Book Review, Hansen's *The Chameleon Sicilian*
Carsten Hansen, The Chameleon Variation: Confronting the Sicilian on Your Own Terms. (Russell Enterprises, 2017.) 160 pp., $19.95.
About a dozen years ago I started playing the Berlin Defense on occasion. Not for a draw, either: as Levon Aronian said not so many years ago, when I play for a win with Black, I use the Berlin!" The ins and outs of the famous Berlin ending that Vladimir Kramnik popularized were more than complicated enough to get good winning chances against the experts and masters I used it against, and I went 6-0 with it against players rated from 1963 to 2410. No complaints here! But when using it in blitz I'd face 4.d3 more and more, and came to find those positions excruciatingly dull after a while. And nowadays 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Re1 is very popular, with stupendously dull Petroff/Exchange French positions where Black either achieves a stagnant equality or else suffers with a slight disadvantage and not so much as a shade of counterplay. So I'd had enough, and dropped the Berlin.
Sometimes similar happens to many Sicilian players. They get attracted by the razor-sharp variations in the Najdorf or the Dragon, or are attracted to the complexities of the Taimanov, and then they see 1.e4 c5 2.c3 on the board. Or 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+, or one of a half-dozen other anti-Sicilian weapons. What's worse, while some of the sidelines are harmless for Black (e.g. 2.f4, which has mostly gone extinct thanks to 2...d5!), others have their drop of poison and force Black to know a fair amount of theory, too. Black wants to have some fun, but White won't let him!
And then there are some interesting hybrid lines that can go either into a main line or a sideline, depending on how Black reacts. The foremost of the hybrids starts with 2.Nc3. Given a choice between 2...Nc6 and 2...d6, the former move is more precise, because if White heads for a Grand Prix Attack with 3.f4 Black's most reliable option involves a quick ...d5. Therefore, it's better to play ...Nc6 to save a tempo - why play ...d6 and then ...d5 if you can go to d5 in a single move? The answer is that after 2...Nc6, a Najdorf player is in trouble if White plays 3.Nf3, intending d4. If White can do this, then Black will be forced to play another Open Sicilian other than the Najdorf - a Sveshnikov, perhaps, or a Classical. It's therefore standard for Najdorf players to attempt to punish White by playing 3...e5: no 4.d4 for you! Black seems to be doing reasonably well at the moment after 4.Bc4 Be7 5.d3 d6. White can either play for the d5 square (e.g. with 6.Nd2 followed by 7.Nf1 and Ne3) or for kingside play with 6.0-0 Nf6 7.Ng5 followed by 8.f4, but at the moment it seems that Black is holding his own in any case.
But White can be even sneakier with 3.Nge2. If Black plays ...e5 now, then White's knights are both perfectly set up for the d5 square: one goes to d5 and the other backs it up, following in its footsteps if the first one is exchanged away. Meanwhile, if Black doesn't play ...e5, White can play d4 if he so desires, heading for a non-Najdorf Sicilian. (Emphasis on the "if".) This is the idea of the "Chameleon" Sicilian: it an be an Open Sicilian if White wants (generally), or not - it's White's choice with this flexible move order.
The book under review, by Carsten Hansen, is devoted to this anti-Sicilian approach with 2.Nc3 and 3.Nge2, with the lion's share covering 2...Nc6 from Black. Chapter 1 is a very short chapter called "Ideas"; it's more a brief explanation of the sort given above, followed by an outline of Black's options.
Chapter 2 covers the principled 3...e5, and chapter 3 covers another very principled approach: 3...Nf6 4.g3 d5, and after 5.exd5 both 5...Nxd5 and 5...Nd4 are presented.
Chapter 4 looks at 3...e6 4.g3 Nf6, and chapter 5 deviates on move 4 with ...d5.
Chapter 6 is another way of "punishing" White by preventing d2-d4: 3...Nd4.
Chapters 7 and 8 are non-punishment oriented, but allow White to return to an Open Sicilian. Both chapters start with 2...e6 (rather than 2...Nc6 as in all the previous chapters) 3.Nge2 a6 4.g3 b5 5.Bg2 Bb7. In chapter 7 White plays 6.0-0 and avoids the d2-d4 push; in chapter 8 White goes for it: 6.d4. This transposes to a Taimanov line where White generally sacs the e-pawn.
Chapter 9 also begins with 2...e6, but after 3.Nge2 Black plays 3...d5, heading for an isolated pawn position after 4.exd5 exd5 5.d4.
In Chapter 10 the Najdorf player finally shows up: 2...d6, and after 3.Nge2 plays 3...e5. It's similar to the line in Chapter 2, but Black can delay the development of his knight to c6 or forgo it entirely.
Chapter 11 covers an oddball line where Black seems to acquiesce in an Open Sicilian, only to throw White a curve: 2...Nc6 3.Nge2 e6 4.d4 d5. This is closely related to chapter 9, and here too Black is likely to wind up with an isolated d-pawn. The difference is that in the earlier chapter Hansen looked at lines where Black slightly delayed (or on rare occasions, did without) ...Nc6.
Chapter 12 looks at various transpositions to the Fianchetto Variation against the Dragon, while chapter 13, strangely enough, covers transpositions to a 6.g3 Najdorf...kinda sorta. The chapter title is "Transpositions to the Najdorf Sicilian", but White doesn't do this. Hansen only has White play d4 once Black has committed to ...e6, so it's really a transposition to a Scheveningen Sicilian instead.
Chapter 14 covers transpositions to a Classical Sicilian (e.g. 2...Nc6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.g3 d6 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4).
Finally, Chapter 15 switches back, turning away from the Open Sicilian to the Closed. Hansen covers a variety of Closed Sicilian lines, i.e. setups with Nge2, g3, Bg2, and d3, aiming for a gradual kingside expansion with further moves like 0-0, h3, Be3, and f4.
That's what's in the book. The presentation is not based on illustrative games, but straight analysis. There is comparatively little by way of explanation; mostly it's variation after variation with game citations and the verbal equivalent of Informant-style punctuation. (E.g. White has an initiative, Black has compensation, White is slightly better, etc.) That doesn't mean it's bad, but it makes the book less user-friendly to lower- and middle-ranged club players.
In my opinion, the book is best used as a reference work for players who like some of the lines, and/or for those who like to get certain sorts of Sicilian players (Najdorf fans especially) away from their favorite variations. Thus if you're happy going into main line Dragons, there's no need to bother with Hansen's analysis of the Fianchetto Variation. Play 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 and now rather than 6.Nde2, play 6.Be3 and off you go. On the other hand, if you only like 9.0-0-0 in the main line of the Dragon, you can't do this with White, because after 6...Nf6 White more or less needs to play 7.Bc4 to stick to the main lines. There's nothing wrong with this, but if it's not part of your repertoire than you'll have only managed to trick yourself with 2.Nc3 and 3.Nge2. Be careful.
How's the material? Thumbing through, I often saw Hansen acknowledge that Black was doing reasonably well, at least from a theoretical perspective, so he doesn't seem to be overpromising - which is good. It's always possible that some sideline largely neglected by the pros is at least as good as what they play, but it wouldn't be wise to count on it. The right attitude, or at least one reasonable attitude, is this: if White is never worse with correct play, and Black has a good number of natural ways to go at least somewhat astray, and White's play isn't too difficult to understand and execute with a bit of study, then it's worth trying if you like it.
One line I was curious about, since I used to play it a lot in blitz through an Open Sicilian move order, arises after the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nge2 a6 4.g3 b5 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.d4 b4 7.Na4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nf6 9.0-0 - this is line (A) of chapter 8. (My move order was 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 a6 4.g3 b5 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.d4 b4 7.Na4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nf6 9.0-0.) After 9...Bxe4 10.Bxe4 Nxe4 11.Re1 Hansen gives 11...d5 as the main line, but rightly notes that the less popular 11...Nc5 is a very serious try as well. After 11...Nc5 he considers three moves, and I understand his evaluations of two of them. About 12.c4, he ultimately says that White lacks full compensation for the pawn, while all the lines with 12.Nxc5 wind up with equality when both sides make best moves.
But I don't understand all of his evaluations after 12.c3 Nxa4 13.Qxa4. In his first sub-line (13...Be7), he gives a variation that results in White having "a tiny pull", but offers an improvement for Black before that. He says it "looks like a good improvement for Black"; okay, but does that mean that it's equal? Black is better? Or that White's pull is even tinier? Likewise in his second sub-line (13...bxc3) he says that it "invites trouble": 14.Nxe6! fxe6 15.Rxe6+ Kf7?? 16.Re5 (etc.) followed by a massacre in the game Zapata-Bruzon Batista, Bogota 2011. But then he says that Black can improve with 15...Be7! (etc.), "when White only has some initiative but nothing like in the game." Does this mean that he's better, but not massacring Black? Finally, in the third subline (13...Qb6) he concludes that "White will have to hustle to get compensation for the pawn". Does this mean that objectively, he has this, and must simply rise to the occasion? Or that he doesn't, but has good practical chances? He also offers a possible improvement for White along the way, but without an accompanying evaluation. It's difficult to give perfectly precise evaluations most of the time, but this seems too vague - especially for one of the most important variations in the chapter. (For my evaluations, see the link to the replayable board, below.)
Working through these variations, it seems that he prefers to follow previous games wherever possible. There were plenty of spots between a branching point and the end of a variation where equally good alternatives seemed to be present, but unless the improvement was fairly major he would follow in the footsteps of a cited game. There is value to this approach, but my preference would be for fewer references and (a) more direction and (b) more independent analysis. While the book purports to be something like a repertoire for White, it comes across more as an encyclopedia on the line, and as such more of a starting point for research than its terminus.
This again shows up in the main line with 11...d5 (rather than 11...Nc5). After 12.c4 bxc3 13.Nxc3 Be7 14.Nxe4 dxe4 15.Rxe4 0-0 16.Qb3 Bf6 17.Be3 we come to a position that has arisen twice before. In one game Black played 17...Qd7, an inferior move which was followed by several more inferior and even bad moves on the way to a short draw. White was the lower-rated player and was happy to repeat in the game Zivkovic-Kurajica, Teslic 2006, but he could have won instead of settling for the draw. Hansen points this out, but doesn't punctuate any of Black's inferior and bad moves along the way. Thus his main line follows the other game, Jones-Firouza, Baku 2016, which went 17...Qd5 18.Qxd5 exd5 19.Rf4 Nd6 20.Rf5 Ne5 21.Rd1 Rfe8 22.b3, when "White has a small but clear advantage in the endgame and duly converted it into a full point some time later".
All well and good. But if one runs the engine while doing all of this, a third option shows up: 17...a5, intending ...a4 and in some lines helpfully clearing a6 for the rook. Houdini likes this a lot, giving triple zeroes in most lines and only a tiny, sub-+= plus after 19.Rc1 a4 20.Qb7 Qd5 21.Qxd5 exd5 21.Rf4 Nd7 22.Rf5 Ne5. It's very similar to Jones-Firouza, but the insertion of ...a5-a4 helps Black a lot, as he gets clear counterplay against White's b-pawn. From here a draw looks like an overwhelming favorite. Incidentally, this isn't just some quirk of Houdini's: asmFish and regular Stockfish both give 17...a5 immediately, while Komodo takes a few blinks first before joining its chums. (AlphaZero couldn't be reached for comment.)
It this a huge problem? No. But many of us have access to giant databases and can find the games for ourselves. What we want from the author of an opening book is to shape and organize the material, pare it down, help us understand what's going on, cue us in on move-order issues, and find improvements over existing theory and practice. To my taste, there isn't enough paring down, explanation, or independent analysis in this book. It's useful as a reference and for generating ideas, but from what I've seen in this chapter I think he's putting too much trust in previous games.
Let's look at one more line, as it's suggested by Vasilios Kotronias in his anti-Sicilians repertoire book for Black. This is Hansen's chapter 6: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nd4. At the end of the chapter Hansen admits that there doesn't seem to be any advantage for White, but White has a nice array of options to put Black under pressure.
What's odd about this is that when I look at one of the lines he refers to in his summary, (B1), I see no place where he claims that Black equalizes against best play. The line begins 4.Nxd4 cxd4 5.Nb5 Now 5...e5 (5...Qb6 is given parenthetically, and doesn't equalize; the engine thinks it's a pretty bad move, and in practice Black has played 5...e5 14 times and 5...Qb6 only once, losing). 6.Qh5 d6 7.Bc4 g6 (he briefly analyzes - or rather, gives a game citation with - 7...Nh6, concluding that it's "considerably worse for Black") 8.Qf3 Be6 (8...Nf6 is looked at and found wanting) 9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.Qb3 and from here he follows the game Lehtinen-Soederberg, Finland 2001 through White's 18th move, concluding that "White has the better chances". The moves from here to there are 10...Qd7 11.d3 (Hansen doesn't note it, but this move isn't considered by Kotronias; he only looks at 11.0-0 and 11.c3) 11...a6 12.Na3 b5 13.Nb1 Ne7 14.a4 bxa4 15.Rxa4 Nc6 16.c3 Bg7 17.Qa2 Rc8 18.0-0+=.
How does this hold up when you run the engine? It's at best unclear. First, on move 11, it may be better for Black to abstain from ...a6, at least for the moment, and develop his knight. The knight has little to do on b5, and will have to retreat to a3 sooner or later to join the play. The question is if a quick c3 from White will force ...a6 anyway. It might, but since White can improve on Hansen's line with 13.c4 it may make sense for Black to induce c3 instead. Thus 11...Ne7 12.c3 a6 13.Na3 Bg7 may equalize; likewise 12.f4 a6 13.Na3 b5! 14.fxe5 Nc6!, with probably sufficient compensation. It isn't completely clear though, and it's a good spot to dig more deeply for anyone who would go into this line with either color.
I already mentioned 13.c4 as an improvement, giving White an edge. After his 13.Nb1 Ne7 14.a4 the position is closer to equal, but it's hard to say with certainty if it is or not. What is clear is that 16...Bg7 isn't Black's best, and White's edge is unquestionable after that. 17...Rc8 isn't best either, and on both moves 16 and 17 Black should prefer ...a5 instead. For example: 17...a5 18.b4 dxc3 19.Nxc3 0-0 20.bxa5 Rfb8 21.0-0 Nb4 with full or very nearly full compensation for the pawn.
In sum, I don't think the book is suitable for players under 1800 or 1900, at least not as a standalone repertoire book, not least because there is too little real, explanatory prose. Players at or especially above that rating range could profit from the book as a reference and a starting point, but not as a ready-made repertoire.
Let me close with some positives. What is in the book is good as far as it goes, and there is no attempt to hide the dead bodies: if Black equalizes in a chapter, Hansen doesn't pretend otherwise and doesn't disguise it with a collection of weasel words. That isn't always the case in books recommending non-main line openings, so that's unfortunately worthy of praise. Hansen has done his due diligence in his database research, and while I think there should have been (a lot) more of it, he does offer improvements over previous games. One final virtue of the book is to extend one's imagination. Many of us are set in our ways when it comes to our anti-Sicilian repertoire with White. The Chameleon Sicilian reminds us and demonstrates that there are lots of ways to go after 1...c5, and even if one doesn't adopt the book's repertoire in its entirety we might try to incorporate some bits and pieces, especially as a surprise weapon or against players who use certain sorts of Sicilians.
The analysis above can be replayed (with further detail) here.