I tried the e5 idea for a while against a club player who is a lot higher up on the rating scale than myself as he is a 1900 uscf. I didnt do to well with it. When i dicovered that you can gambit a pawn and reap a lot of rewards for the said pawn with 6.c5 then i started giving him problems. I beat him once too! But he has been playing a lot longer than i have and has a lot more expieience over the board so its a always an up hill battle. 

But C5 seems to be stronger in my opinion if they accept or decline. I will not play C5 in the KI often but i will make an exception for the samisch and averbach

Quote:


So following your reasoning we may also add the Najdorf Polugaevsky- Looks darned bad for black but somehow still a lot of  hidden potential around. But of course further discussion of this obviously needs to be brought up in  the Open Sicilian section.....

Quote:

Here is a link to a site that says he played 1.d4 15 times.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=11719&side=white

- Lost Highway

Hi Inn2,

The KID Saemisch Orthodox or some books might call the KID classical saemisch or even KID saemisch mainline is the 6.Be3 e5 line. Yes! in this system also White castles Q-side. You are most correct! Sorry for the confusion caused. (have not met a saemisch since 1987!) 

I mistook a position from the KID classical line where white plays f3 in respose to black's f5. That particular line is not good for white. (hence the citation of a Be2) That  line according to Fischer works out to a forced mate.

Normally I play Uhlmann's defense when facing the Saemisch: 6.be3 e5 7.d5 Nh5 8.Qd2 f5 9.0-0-0 with 9...a6, 9...f4 or 9...Nbd7 as possible options.

Quite honestly this is also the 1st time i'm hearing of 6.Bg5 in the saemisch. How does possible play continue for both white or black?

Quote:



Well, yeah.  I'd also like to win a brilliant game against one of these eight players without breaking a sweat.

What I'm getting at is that nowadays players of both colors have to take risks.  They're following Bronstein's precept that a weakness is only a weakness if it can be exploited.  If the White king is exploited when it's castled Queenside (with or without the c-pawn), then castling queenside was probably a mistake.

It's kinda like saying the side that scores more goals will win the soccer game.  The great beauty of chess lies in these positions where experts disagree about the relative merits of certain positions.   

I'm not going to pretend that castling q-side with the pawn in front of my King blown away makes me feel at home.  But I will continue to castle queenside in similar positions to this as long as I consider my chances to be worth the risk.

Quote:


No. I'm back and I'm withy you. I'm not comfortable castling queen side without c pawn (on c2)

Inn2,

1) I was refering to the saemisch orthodox. There are a lot of  varieties there. in those Be2 lines especially, white castles King side. You may encounter it again where black goes for exd4. You maybe right abt 6.be3 e5 & almost no K-side castling for white. Majority of games in that particular line white castles Q-side.

2) Yes. black only has the typical Rb8/a6/b5 setup. I was referring to more Panno games being played/seen rather than varieties employed. There are no Panno varieties. Just that in the Panno there is  more all round the board play.

hope this clarifies.

Quote:


well there is only the Panno gambit line after 9. Nc1, but against everything else Black only has the typical Rb8/a6/b5 no?