Had a look at another Anti-R, 3.Na5. Thought it must be not difficult to prove the black underdelopment, like with 3...Qb6 above. But its not that easy. But I recognize that in all Rossolimo-variations that include a black e6, an early White e5 looks very strong.
For example, Heiki Westerinnen - Josef Roth, Liechtenstein open 1999:
1.e4 c5, 2.Nf3 Nc6, 3.Bb5 Na5, 4.0-0 a6, 5.Be2 b5, 6.d4 cxd4, 7.Nxd4 Bb7, 8.Bf3 e6, 9.e5 Qc7, 10.Re1 Ne7 and know I know why I better dont play the Na5-variation, thank you, Mr. Westerinnen.
And this leads me now back to your question, Rolf Berger: in any e6-Rossolimo-variation - and Na5 is finally also in this category - you get after a white e5 a very difficult pawn structure with a hanging pawn on d7. I cannot imagine that somebody <2000 can like to handle such a difficult position. Another reason why I think that 3..g6 is the better Rossolimo. OK, if 3...g6, 4.Bxc6 then things get also somehow complicated with pawns on f6 and d6. But this still looks much easier to handle then the alternative. Would like to hear what some 3..e6-Rossolimo player thinks about this.
|