Well I disagree that as a clubplayer you cant play the open with confidence without studying heaps of theory. This used to be my line of thinking as well, which usually gets supported by analysis of GM where they only start commenting their games after move 15 or so. However some 2 years ago I just started playing it after just browsing through some theory. To my initial surprise this lack of theory really didnt matter that much. I would just play something which seemed good to me and then afterwards look up what the experts thought about it. This has worked out quite well and got me only 1 loss (I got a bit overenthused in a Najdorf kingside attack) over quite some games in these 2 years. For most lines the recipe is quite simple, just put the pieces on the proper squares (usually only the bishops are the issue) and start applying pressure on black.

I wonder what the actual question is this thread is...

If the question is: "What should a player study to improve his chess?" then the answer is certainly: The open Sicilian!

But if the question is "What should you play against the Sicilian?" then Zvjanginsev's 2. Na3 is a good answer. Maybe not the very best, but certainly 2. Na3 is not an inferior variation. For a club player like me it his close to impossible to play the open sicilian confidently. There is a huge amount of theory you have to learn only to survive against a well prepared black player. Not have do I have not much time available but I also play 1. d4 as my main opening move. I occasionaly want to use 1. e4 and need a good answer to 1...c5. So with the open sicilian ebing impossible I had the choice between the various Anti-Sicilians and I don't think 2. Na3 is worse than the Alapin, GPA or Rossolimo. In fact it often transposes to a quite similar positions. And while probably not offering a theoretical advantag it is still better than some of the speculative gambits (Morra, b4-gambit). 
Probably black is out of book on move 2 (seems like it is still not clear what the best answer is) and then it's all about playing chess. The better player will win, not the better prepared player and that is good enough for a parttime e4 player like me.

     I smiled when I read some of the posts above that warn against 2.Na3.  I had been playing this move on playchess exclusively for awhile and eventually came to similar conclusions.  My positions were OK, but nothing special.  I had read Bosch's article in NIC and Bucker's at Chesscafe (and Rowson's of course).   During my games had an acute sense that I was not a strong enough player to make the most out of the system.  I felt like I was just screwing around.   
      
I decided that I wanted positions that pressured my opponent more, and this wasn't cutting it for me.  I switched back to open sicilians and immediately I felt like the wind had been blown into my sails, that I was playing with some firepower at last.   
      
I have very little theoretical knowledge of open sicilians. I know them well from a more general point of view, like what white is aiming for in the 9.Nd5 Sveshnikov, or some of the queenside plans white uses in the 6.Be2 e5 Najdorf, and how black counters them, stuff like that, but that's about it.  I know well enough how to avoid razor sharp black holes like Poisoned Pawn Najdorf, Chinese Dragons, and Velomirovic Attacks.   

When my theory runs out I know how to improvise, and even though sometimes it doesn't work out and I get a difficult position.  But I am used to it and can cope usually.  Some would reprimand me for entering such positions without sufficient knowledge, and they might be right, but it feels okay to me and seems to work fine.  My advice I guess is to play the Open, find variations that are fairly logical (so that improvisation is feasible), study as much as you want or can, and learn how keep things under control when you enter uncharted territory.   

Delchev said in his Safest Sicilian book how ANY open sicilian was more challenging to black than the various anti-sicilians out there.

One argument if favor of 2.Na3 is this:  Many teachers recommend the c3 sicilian to young improving or club players as an easy way to fight against the sicilian.  fair enough.  I agree with Zviaginsev, however, when he said that he can't see why 2.Na3 is worse than 2.c3. Hmm.

Still, I prefer a more straightforward pursuit of the initiative.  It's not necessary to get tricky at lower levels of play.  I like the talk in the other posts about chess education and chess classics and I felt a distinct shame during my 2.Na3 games like I was cheating myself, but that's just me...

Dinomike100 wrote on 06/22/06 at 22:44:17:


I think what you give is reasonable (e.g. on 3...Bd7 4. ed Bxb5 5. Nxb5 a6 6. Nc3 Nf6 White has 7. Qf3, with further possibilities of Nge2-f4 or d6).  But sometimes I don't know what that knight is doing on a3.  Perhaps especially in your final position after 6. c4; surely White would like to have his knight back on b1, because thematic play (for White, in this case) in such a structure involves moves like Nc3, b3, Ba3, Rc1 and Na4 (and sometimes Qd2 and Qa5).  I think this fits into what the Red One was saying above; it's the sort of thing you would glean from a book like Pawn Structure Chess or Pawn Power in Chess (and that you wouldn't get from consulting Fritz on such a position).

By the way, that reminds me of this amusing article ...
http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_true_combat/040630_the_difficult_opponent_part...

Another thought I had was that you might try to study the Open Sicilian and tactics simultaneously with a book like http://www.newinchess.com/Shop/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=135 .

Dinomike, White is getting a lead in development (and an advantage in space in many lines) in exchange for trading his d-pawn for Black's c-pawn.  Furthermore, White can usually exert a lot of pressure down the d file early on.

Anyway, I completely agree with Topnotch; I think 2.Na3 is "rubbish" in the sense that it already gives Black equality and will go out of fashion after a few more months (maybe a year).  I don't feel the need to justify my opinions with lines of analysis, but at the same time there's nothing wrong with White playing this way; the game may be equal, but White players can do a lot of homework and expect to gain time on the clock as well as having some interesting ideas to spring against Black's various set-ups.  Equal doesn't always mean boring, or drawish!

Regarding some other things that have been said, I totally agree that people below master strength shouldn't use these kinds of openings except in occasional casual games.  There are plenty of good, sound options to avoid theory if that's what you want to do.  The main point, though, about not playing these moves is that if you want to improve you really need a "chess education", and you need to understand the ideas and themes of a wide variety of positions instead of just relying on "getting out of book."

Let's take me as an example (because I know me better than any of you)!  I'm trying to increase my rating, I have definite long-term goals for improving.  In other words, I'm trying to learn to play chess better in the long run, and not just win a few "cheap" games with opening innovations on move 2.  Now, a few years ago, I realized that I had never opened with 1.e4 in a serious game and that I had never played 1...e5 as Black.  I thought that something was deficient in my "chess education", and so I studied the open games as Black for about a year.  I played a lot of casual games with 1...e5, and I feel that I learned a lot.  I finally played 1...e5 in a G/60 game against someone rated 300 points below me, and lost after getting an uncomfortable position in the late opening/early middlegame.  However, I found improvements for Black in that game, and I can honestly say that I'm very glad I spent all that time studying the open games.  I learned a lot about chess in general, and my rating has improved as well (though whether that is due to studying 1...e5 or something else, who knows!??).  I don't play 1...e5 in serious games anymore, though I might again someday, but the point is that if you want to improve you really need to learn about CHESS in general and not just try to get a few wins in an offbeat line.

Anyway, regarding Dinomike's post about why he plays 2.Na3: it's fine to play a move for fun, but it sounds like your "chess education" is deficient regarding Open Sicilians.  The best advice I can give you is to get and read Andrew Soltis' Pawn Structure Chess.  I think that book has taught me more about openings and middlegames than any other single volume.  In fact, I recommend everyone read that book instead of just trying to learn (i.e., memorize) a bunch of opening theory.  I read it the first time as a 1500 player or so, and improved to 1800 almost overnight.  The point is to get a good education about how to play various position types; then you will naturally be able to play (and play against) offbeat lines.

One final point: look at that game I played against the kid a couple of weeks ago.  Okay, I joked that he was only a 10 year old kid, but he's rated just under 1800 USCF and in that tournament he drew with a 1970 player, beat a 1920 and 1850 player, and lost to me.  He also used 2.Na3 to win against the 1850 guy.  So he doesn't seem so bad at first.  But, looking at that game, it's obvious that his overall chess education is lacking.  He didn't realize that he shouldn't give up the two Bishops if he can't damage my pawn structure.  Then he closed the position, probably not understanding that he was getting a bad French-type position.  Towards the end, he thought the opposite-coloured Bishop position was going to be okay for him, saying that it gave him more drawing chances, which is just completely off; in the middlegame, opposite colored Bishops give excellent attacking chances to the player with the initiative.  Anyway I'm sure my play could be improved (I haven't seriously analyzed my games from that tournament yet), but I hope you get the idea; White played an offbeat move, but he lost from a deficiency in his "chess education", not from anything wrong with 2.Na3 per se.   

I'm sorry for the long post, but I sincerely want to help people to improve by encouraging them to study chess as a whole, like by reading Pawn Structure Chess instead of trying to "learn" opening moves.  By all means, take a look at these offbeat lines, and find something sound to play against them, but then move on and play something normal.

Of course, I say all this regarding people who are trying to improve; if you just want to have fun, do anything you want!!

Strong players can make even rubbish playable....at least to a point.

2.Na3 doesnt harm the white position, but neither does it improve it. Lets be honest, is this really what amateurs should be focussing on? For me Knights on the rim are still dim especially on move two in the opening.

Yes Zvjaginsev has won with it, but I think thats more to do with Zvjag's overall chess skills than with any objective merit to 2.Na3. As a Dragon player myself, although even if I wasn't , I would be happy to play 2...g6, after which it is not clear to me exactly what White wants to do......perhaps 3.d4 maybe.

I would caution amateur players not to get too infatuated with fashions like 2.Na3 as in the long run it rarely ends well.

Concentrate more on perfecting sound positional judgement, sound reliable opening play, and good fundamental endgame knowledge, this is the kind of stuff you can build on and really develop as a player. When you acquire and fully appreciate the true value of such knowledge then by all means experiment with psychological moves such as 2.Na3.

Not so long ago Nakamura's 2.Qh5 verses almost everything was all the rage with amateurs, now 2.Na3 is the flavor of the month. 

Lets see how long the shelf life will be on this latest eye sore.

Toppy

For info on the Willy Wonka Attack or Elevator (both names were thought up by TalJechin), I direct you to the last discussion in the thread "Most Effective Anti-French" in the French section.