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?

in addition to what i wrote earlier, i'm just guessing that its because of the added flexibility found in the Panno  which explains why there are more Panno systems adopted against the saemisch rather than the Byrne.

Alias, 

I think you're probably right, but the problem for White in the entire game was that he never seemed to have control of the game.  White was always dancing between consolidating his advantage and falling apart.  In the end, we know he landed on the wrong side. I do blame the opening to some extent for White's difficulties later on, but I want to see some professional analysis too.

Morozevich is primarily a 1. e4 player. Actually this is the first time i've seen him play 1. d4, and he played not at all badly (of course he is 2700!). His loss seems more like time-trouble than anything else. Svidler played well too, so a draw would have been a fairer result.

For me king-safety is of paramount importance, so am not  keen on the Classical, which i think is actually more  complicated than the Samisch. But I do follow Bayonet theory with great interest on Mikhalevski's chesspub site 9. Nd2 is also intriguing after Sakaev's two beautifully-controlled victories over Fedorov recently...so many variations, so little time!

agree with Bonsai..  Morozevich must have been hoping for 3. f3 d5, where theory is not so well worked-out.

But Morozevich didn't do too badly either in the Samisch KID. in fact I thought his position was rather playable until he lost the thread later on.

There are two lines where Black opens up the queenside:   
the Panno and the Byrne system (a6/c6/b5). imho the Byrne is underrated, and a stronger system than the Panno. Great choice by Svidler!
 
And, there are two schools of thought on how to treat these lines as White.
 
The Chris Ward school (as you can see in his Controversial Samisch repertoire book) will for instance, play 0-0-0 and go for a mating race. Against the Panno, their choice would be 9. g4, 9, h4 and 9. 0-0-0. Against the Byrne, they will play like Morozevich did against Svidler.
 
The Alexey Dreev school believes in castling kingside whenever Black becomes too frisky on the queenside, thus transposing into a good Classical system where Black has been very "cooperative" by opening up the queenside for White      So, against the Panno, White will play 9. Rc1, 9. Rb1 or 9. a3. And against the Byrne 1. d4  Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3  Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 a6 6. Be3 c6 7. c5 or 7. Bd3! will both do the trick.
 
The strength of the Samisch lies in its flexibility. While the typical Samisch queenside-castle may be good for White after 6.Be3 e5 7. d5 , it is wiser to be more flexible in the Panno and Byrne. I tend to follow Dreev here and I don't think Black is okay.   

Gallagher is a top KID expert who has spent a not inconsiderable amount of time on the Samisch, so believe him when he says 6... c5! is the best and most critical.

Oh man, am I glad I don't play the KID Saemisch!

The game between Alexander Morozevich and Peter Svidler is precisely why I hate the White side.  Black has no right to go busting up the q-side in the KID, yet in the Saemisch, that's exactly what happens!  Clearly White has better than what Moro played, but what?  Will we see Moro trot out the Saemisch again in this tournament, or is it broken beyond repair for this event?