After 6...bxc6, White can try either 6.Bc4 or 6.Bd4. I think that White has some compensation for the pawn, but wheter it is enough is another question.

Still, this line is better IMHO than accepting the rook. I have done some analysis of this line and it seems that instead of the suggested and greedy 9.Nxa7, I think that 9.Ne5 leads to an unbalanced position in which I would slightly prefer White.

Example line: 9.Ne5 (threatening Bc4) Qd6 10.Nb5 Qb8 11.Nxf7 Kxf7 12.Qh5+ g6 13.Qf3+ Ke8 14.Bxh8 White is down a small amount of material (pawn) but has a lead in development and coordination. I have more analysis at my blog (Bishop's Blog at Baker Street on Chess.com)

I agree w/ Zoo.  I'd rather be Black and have the pawn.  Just simple development seems to suffice.  ..e6, ..Nf6, ..Be7, ..0-0. 

In his CBM surveys, Grivas recommends meeting 5.Be3 with Qxb2 6.Nxc6 dxc6! (his exclam). He gives 7.Bd4 Qb4 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Rb1 Qa5 10.e5 Nd5 11.Bc4 e6 -/+ Heuer-Gusev, Novgorod 1961.  But perhaps 8.c3 Qa5 9.Nd2 keeps things level.   

Grivas looks at 6..Qxa1, giving 7.Bd4 Qxa2 8.Nc3 Qe6  9.Nxa7 Nf6 10.Nab5 as best play.  After 10.Nab5, he indicates that White has comp.  That may be an understatement; I think I'd rather be White in that one.  Grivas does not look at 7.Bc4.

Quote:


after 11.Kxd1:


White has compensation: - enough / - not enough / - more than enough

For sure you can count on "not enough"/"enough" playing this position with an engine, but somehow I think in a practical game it is "more than enough" and Black has to be careful not to run into troubles - but I may be wrong

you might be able to hold this with an engine, but in a real game, White's compensation for the pawn looks terrific

I recently tried the Grivas with Black and was faced with this:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6 5.Be3 Qxb2 (this is probably "forced" if you don't want to get an inferior position right away) 6.Nxc6 Qxa1 7.Bc4!?



Of course you don't have to take the rook on move 6 (the alternative is to take the knight) but on the first glance it's not obvious how White will continue as 7.Bd4 Qxa2 looks like not much for him. But if this line is not good for Black then the whole Grivas-idea looks in my view simply rubish...

ghenghisclown wrote on 04/07/12 at 21:13:05:


Stratos himself plays here mostly 3...e5.

I played Grivas Sicilian a couple of times in the past, mostly as a surprise weapon against lower-ranked opponents. For sure it is a risky opening, but I think it is quite playable and usually leads to an all-out battle. 

I have analyzed some of the games that I played in the tournaments with this line. If anyone is interested, you can check it out here - http://www.4shared.com/file/my1erULy/Terekhov-on-Grivas-B33.html

fling wrote:
Quote:


Agreed, fling. About fifteen years ago I did some fairly serious analysis of the Grivas line with a friend. We found some promising lines for White, but nothing definitive.  Unfortunately, I've lost most of my analysis. But I suspect that good lines could easily be created in a couple of hours with the aid of your favorite silicon beastie if all you're looking for is a weapon against the weekend warrior. 

Against someone like Polgar, or in a correspondence game, I'm not so sure that White can prove the advantage anymore. Having said that, I play the Taimanov as Black in correspondence games occasionally. I am not at all likely to try 4...Qb6 as Black any time soon.

Quote:


I guess this is to a certain extent a matter of personal preference. In the Kan, Black often chooses to displace the knight on d4 by Bc5. However, it is not strictly necessary and in some lines, the knight might actually offer Black more tactical chances following e.g. f4, especially when Qb6 attacks both b2 and d4.

On the other hand, Judith Polgar (well, not even only her) seem to be pretty happy with the Grivas in critical situations. This suggests to me that it is a rather complex issue, and not something that can be solved just by reasoning without looking at really concrete lines.

Quote:


Except in your Taimanov move order White played Nb3 without being attacked. I think the objective of the Grivas is to force the knight on d4 to retreat to b3 so that it loses influence over the centre. In your Taimanov move order White retreats nevertheless, in place of which other moves could have been more useful, such as Rae1. I think the tempo lost on Qb6-c7 would be immaterial in compensation for the more important factor of White's decentralised d4-knight.

I found my old copy of Gambit's publication on the Grivas Sicilian, and these recent games in the (Chess) World Cup might lead me to read the book.

7.a3.

TopNotch wrote on 05/22/05 at 13:49:28:


Hi Toppy,

do you like playchess computer games? Computers /or his bookmakers/ very like this move.You can contact me for DB 

g3g6

What about this no name Sicilian  

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 h6!? Is this mentioned anywhere? 

The idea I believe is to steer the game towards and improved Lowenthal variation.

Maybe this line is not as stupid as it looks, but almost. 

Thoughts?

Top  

Quote:


I've never played this line, but I looked at it in some detail last year. There are some issues of move order early on to resolve, but it seems that In most games Black is able to reach a sort of Scheveningen position, without having had to worry about the Keres Attack, English Attack or the Velimirovic. 

The main snags are that a) in some lines the Qb6 is misplaced, preventing ...b5; b) in other lines, White's Be3 wins a tempo on the identical line stemming from e.g. a  Qb6 Sozin, or maybe a Taimanov in which White plays Bd3 and Be3. Some apparently think that's a price worth paying to a) "demobilise" the strong Nd4 and b) have a good chance of reaching a familar type of Scheveningen middlegame position, thus gaining the usual Sicilian "three results" game without having to learn huge amounts of theory.

Grivas himself has played this in nearly 100 published games, with a healthy plus score for Black. It is also popular with some Armenians, such as Akopian and Anastasian. Golod and Milov also play it.

Yes indeed he does! Sorry, sloppy reading on my part...

Didn't Ilic write a book about the Qb6 line some years ago? Was that with 2...e6 or 2...Nc6 or both?

I've never heard about the Grivas Sicilian before either! But ...Qb6 I've seen many times... Maybe he transposes to the Gaw Paw (aka GåPå varianten) with 5.Nc3 Nf6