Latest Updates:
Poll
Poll Question: Sicilian Kan vs. Sicilian Taimanov



« Created by: Stu(Guest) on: 04/27/06 at 04:21:16 »
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Kan vs. Taimanov (Read 92797 times)
Alias
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: East of the river Svartĺn
Joined: 11/19/04
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #76 - 11/18/13 at 12:21:42
Post Tools
There has been a number of Kan vs Taimanov threads here. I just want to mention that "The Kan or Taimanov? What to choose" by Delchev and Semkov is listed on the future plans on the Chess stars web page.
  

Don't check me with no lightweight stuff.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2514
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #75 - 01/09/13 at 16:09:45
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 01/09/13 at 07:48:56:
In 2006, Khalifman, writing in OFWAA came up with 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Qc7 3.Nc3.

The point could be seen in 3...a6 4.d4 cd4 5.Nd5!? and in 3...e6 4.d4 cd4 5.Nb5!? Qa5+ 6.Bd2 Qb6 7.a4!


Interesting, I didn't know that.  Just thinking about it blindfolded, that does look pretty strong.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uberdecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 629
Joined: 03/21/06
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #74 - 01/09/13 at 09:57:05
Post Tools
No, you are correct. 3.Ktc3 is highly problematic for those wishing to transpose to the Kan or to employ the independent lines of the "Underground System".
3. ...e6 ; 4. d4 cd and 3. ...a6 ; 4. d4 cd are unplayable while 3. ...a6 ; 4.d4 e6 ; 5. d5 b5 ; 6.e5 is no fun either.
Black is more or less forced to transpose to the 5. Ktc3 Accelerated Paulsen with 3. ...Ktc6 ; 4. d4 cd ; 5. Ktxd4. Oh well, at least he avoids the Maroczy Bind (1. e4 c5 ; 2. Ktf3 Ktc6 ; 3. d4 cd ; 4. Ktxd4 Qc7) 5. Ktb5 Qb8 ; 6. c4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #73 - 01/09/13 at 07:48:56
Post Tools
In 2006, Khalifman, writing in OFWAA came up with 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Qc7 3.Nc3.

The point could be seen in 3...a6 4.d4 cd4 5.Nd5!? and in 3...e6 4.d4 cd4 5.Nb5!? Qa5+ 6.Bd2 Qb6 7.a4!

Has Khalifman's line been busted?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2514
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #72 - 12/17/12 at 16:59:50
Post Tools
Yeah, I don't have experience of that line of the Alapin either, but my gut thinks that 6...Qc7 should be inferior to straightforward moves like 6...d6, 6...b6, or 6...Nc6.  But maybe not.

Aziridine wrote on 12/16/12 at 04:32:52:
I took the O'Kelly discussion to a different thread. Uberdeker's line is a direct transposition to 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 e6 6.cxd4 Qc7 which is rare, apparently because of 7.Bd3 according to the books, but I don't have any experience with the Alapin and won't make a judgment here.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Aziridine
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 146
Joined: 04/07/09
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #71 - 12/16/12 at 04:32:52
Post Tools
I took the O'Kelly discussion to a different thread. Uberdeker's line is a direct transposition to 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 e6 6.cxd4 Qc7 which is rare, apparently because of 7.Bd3 according to the books, but I don't have any experience with the Alapin and won't make a judgment here.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uberdecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 629
Joined: 03/21/06
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #70 - 12/16/12 at 00:53:47
Post Tools
ErictheRed wrote on 12/15/12 at 23:30:24:
Aziridine wrote on 12/15/12 at 20:47:55:
Uberdecker wrote on 12/15/12 at 07:56:58:
No, I was referring to 2. ...Qc7, against which there is no clear-cut punishment as against the O'Kelly 2. ... a6 ; 3. c3 or 3. c4 e6 ; 4. Ktc3 Qc7 ; 5. Be2 followed by 0-0 and d4 with a strong Maroczy bind.

Isn't 2.Nf3 Qc7 3.c3!? a problem? On the other hand, I thought 2.Nf3 a6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Qc7 5.Be2 Nc6 (5...b6!?) 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bb4 was considered playable for Black.


Yes, it's hard for me to imagine that the Queen is on a good square after 2.Nf3 Qc7?! 3.c3.  It looks like White just gets an improved Alapin; is there an idea that I'm missing? 

Regarding the O'Kelly, as a long-time Taimanov/Kan player (who sometimes dabbles in the O'Kelly move order), I think that the only way to trouble Black at all is with 3.c3; I agree that Black is more or less fine after 3.c4, so long as he's willing to transpose to Kan or Taimanov waters.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Qc7 3.c3, what's the idea for Black? 


Well, 3.c3 is much less troublesome against 2. ... Qc7 than against 2. ...a6. Black aims for a transposition to theoretical lines of the Alapin following 3. ...Ktf6 ; 4. e5 Ktd5 ; 5. d4 cd ; 6. cd e6. For detailed analysis we could start a thread in the Anti-Sicilians section.

Of course 2. ...a6 ; 3. c4 e6 ; 4. Ktc3 Qc7 ; 5. Be2 b6 (probably better than 5. ...Ktc6 ; 6. 0-0 Ktf6 ; 7. a3) ; 6. 0-0 Bb7 ; 7. d4 is playable for Black, but it's just a stronger form of Maroczy bind than White can hope to achieve via the Kan.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2514
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #69 - 12/15/12 at 23:30:24
Post Tools
Aziridine wrote on 12/15/12 at 20:47:55:
Uberdecker wrote on 12/15/12 at 07:56:58:
No, I was referring to 2. ...Qc7, against which there is no clear-cut punishment as against the O'Kelly 2. ... a6 ; 3. c3 or 3. c4 e6 ; 4. Ktc3 Qc7 ; 5. Be2 followed by 0-0 and d4 with a strong Maroczy bind.

Isn't 2.Nf3 Qc7 3.c3!? a problem? On the other hand, I thought 2.Nf3 a6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Qc7 5.Be2 Nc6 (5...b6!?) 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bb4 was considered playable for Black.


Yes, it's hard for me to imagine that the Queen is on a good square after 2.Nf3 Qc7?! 3.c3.  It looks like White just gets an improved Alapin; is there an idea that I'm missing? 

Regarding the O'Kelly, as a long-time Taimanov/Kan player (who sometimes dabbles in the O'Kelly move order), I think that the only way to trouble Black at all is with 3.c3; I agree that Black is more or less fine after 3.c4, so long as he's willing to transpose to Kan or Taimanov waters.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Qc7 3.c3, what's the idea for Black?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Aziridine
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 146
Joined: 04/07/09
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #68 - 12/15/12 at 20:47:55
Post Tools
Uberdecker wrote on 12/15/12 at 07:56:58:
No, I was referring to 2. ...Qc7, against which there is no clear-cut punishment as against the O'Kelly 2. ... a6 ; 3. c3 or 3. c4 e6 ; 4. Ktc3 Qc7 ; 5. Be2 followed by 0-0 and d4 with a strong Maroczy bind.

Isn't 2.Nf3 Qc7 3.c3!? a problem? On the other hand, I thought 2.Nf3 a6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Qc7 5.Be2 Nc6 (5...b6!?) 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bb4 was considered playable for Black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uberdecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 629
Joined: 03/21/06
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #67 - 12/15/12 at 07:56:58
Post Tools
Justinhorton wrote on 12/26/11 at 10:40:19:
What is this Kan move-order which avoids 5.Bd3 ?


TN wrote on 12/26/11 at 11:06:59:
Perhaps he means 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6, when 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 cd4 5.Nd4 is a Kan, as is 3.c4 e6 4.d4 cd4 5.Nd4. There's still 3.c3 though, whereas 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 is a pleasant version of the Sveshnikov/Kalashnikov.


No, I was referring to 2. ...Qc7, against which there is no clear-cut punishment as against the O'Kelly 2. ... a6 ; 3. c3 or 3. c4 e6 ; 4. Ktc3 Qc7 ; 5. Be2 followed by 0-0 and d4 with a strong Maroczy bind.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Isolani
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 23
Joined: 04/19/10
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #66 - 02/20/12 at 19:50:12
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 02/17/12 at 21:19:32:
Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 02/17/12 at 20:02:52:
But are there any problems with the repertoire within the Kan complex instead of the anti-Sicilian lines?

This is the relevant question.

The relevant question is this one, from the first post Quote:
What is your preference and why?

Thanks in advance,
Sterling

So after Five pages of interesting considerations, where most of the more important things had already been said, I just wanted to add some details about some practical differences, making it clear (well, I believed I was clear...) I was NOT speaking about theoretical problems (after Bd3 or whatever you want).
Furthermore, when I said this: Quote:
Again, I just want to signal that if you build a typical Kan repertoire, ŕ la Hellsten for example, you will have a more carefull choice to do for your anti sicilian repertoire than with the Taimanov, because of move orders issues. That's not the end of the world but it may have some importance.


I was refering to my initial posts were I also pointed out the problem with the Nc6 lines against the closed. Whatever the importance you give to this, I just say there is a difference.

Quote:
So this is just nonsense:
No, it's not nonsense. May be jut a bit provocative. It all depends the way you build your repertoire. I'll give more details than  I intended to do.
When I considered both openings I noted that for reasons already explained:
- I would end in the Scheveningen, my preference  in both cases against Be2 (although I vary sometimes)
- Against Bg2 I would end in a Taimanov in both cases (the  Hellsten line could have been a good point for the Kan, but I had to reject for move orders issues or change my KIA line )
So the lines against Be2 and Bg2 wouldn't make a difference between the two openings.
Then what really makes a difference.
- I consider the hedgehog positions slightly more annoying than the english attack (just a matter of taste)
- I would have to abandon Nc6 in the closed with the Kan (or accept the e5 line)

After this considerations, the Taimanov seemed to me the more reasonable choice overall according to my preferences in both open and anti sicilian.


Now I hope have completely answered to the relevant question, wich is about my preferences.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10604
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #65 - 02/17/12 at 21:19:32
Post Tools
Isolani wrote on 02/17/12 at 19:52:43:
What do you mean?

This:

MNb wrote on 02/17/12 at 16:54:36:
Indeed, no problem....if you play the Kan.  Tongue
Unless you're so dogmatic that want to forbid Kan-players ever to play ...Nc6 of course. Cheesy

You can figure this out for yourself. It's true that ...Bb4 without ...Nc6 can be more attractive, but this doesn't mean that playing ...Nc6 is bad.

Quote:
That's not the end of the world but it may have some importance.

Well, yes, but it is a bad reason to prefer the Taimanov over the Kan. It's a non-problem. Black just has a very nice choice after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.g3. If there is a problem it's 6.Bd3. And/or 5.Bd3.

So this is just nonsense:
Quote:
Indeed, no problem....if you play the Taimanov!

And you know it.

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 02/17/12 at 20:02:52:
But are there any problems with the repertoire within the Kan complex instead of the anti-Sicilian lines?

This is the relevant question.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gilchrist is a legend
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1039
Location: Manchester, UK
Joined: 03/02/10
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #64 - 02/17/12 at 20:02:52
Post Tools
But are there any problems with the repertoire within the Kan complex instead of the anti-Sicilian lines?
  

Creo lo que creo no importa lo que creen los demás.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Isolani
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 23
Joined: 04/19/10
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #63 - 02/17/12 at 19:52:43
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 02/17/12 at 16:54:36:
Come on, you're smarter than that.

What do you mean?
Quote:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 (Nc6 transposes immediately) 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Nc6 is exactly the same as 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 6.Bg2 Qc7 7.Nc3 Nf6. It would surprise me if White gains anything by omitting Nb1-c3; anyhow this is the same for both Taimanov and Kan players.
Indeed, no problem....if you play the Kan. 

Yes it's a problem for a Kan player if he usually doesn't transpose into the Taimanov against g3 systems. For example he can't follow Hellsten recommandation anymore (Bb4 + Qc7  attacking the Nc3, but pointless with a  N on c6).
It's not being dogmatic, just pragmatic. Why learn two variations, and let  white chose the one he prefers to face with his move order?
Of course you can build your repertoire with a mix of Kan and Taimanov lines to avoid such situations (what I do when, from time to time, I play the Kan. I accept many transpositions into the Taimanov.). If this is your point, I agree. But it's just another case where your open sicilian repertoire is dictated by anti sicilian repertoire considerations.
Again, I just want to signal that if you build a typical Kan repertoire, ŕ la Hellsten for example, you will have a more carefull choice to do for your anti sicilian repertoire than with the Taimanov, because of move orders issues. That's not the end of the world but it may have some importance.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10604
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Kan vs. Taimanov
Reply #62 - 02/17/12 at 16:54:36
Post Tools
Isolani wrote on 02/17/12 at 11:52:20:
Indeed, no problem....if you play the Taimanov! Smiley

Come on, you're smarter than that.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 (Nc6 transposes immediately) 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Nc6 is exactly the same as 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 6.Bg2 Qc7 7.Nc3 Nf6. It would surprise me if White gains anything by omitting Nb1-c3; anyhow this is the same for both Taimanov and Kan players.
Indeed, no problem....if you play the Kan.  Tongue
Unless you're so dogmatic that want to forbid Kan-players ever to play ...Nc6 of course. Cheesy
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo