Against 1 e4 c5 2 Na3 I would play 2...a6 to restrict the knight.  I would follow quickly with ...b5.  The N on a3 wants to go to b5 or c4.  Pawns on a6 and b5 stop that.  This structure of ...a6...b5 to restrict a N on a3 was seen in Karpov--Kasparov 1985, game 16 ( which arose from a Taimanov Sicilian ).  In that game Black won brilliantly while restricting white's knights.  Also the structure is seen in the Sveshnikov Sicilian.  ( As an aside, the Sveshnikov exploded in popularity at a date after the above mentioned Kasparov game.  Maybe the restriction of an a3 knight was seen to be an effective strategy. )  After 2...a6 where can the knight go? c4? Better go there soon; black is going to play ...b5.  So 3 Nc4.  Now where is the knight going to go?  e3?  Do you really want the knight on e3?
I dont think the move 2...a6 creates any weaknesses beyond the usual weaknesses of the Sicilian.  And I think it refutes Zviagintsev's move.

MarinFan wrote on 09/11/06 at 10:38:14:


Very interesting game and annotations, which I don't mind saying further reinforces my thoughts about the true value of 2.Na3.

I seem to recall suggesting on one of these 2.Na3 threads that 2...g6 was a very flexible and challenging response to this unusual idea. Nevertheless black seems to equalise comfortably with just about any reasonable setup, and I suppose u can fashion your response according to what Sicilian pawn structures you feel most at home in.   

I am a bit surprised that this bocharev game has not attracted more interest and comment from the 2.Na3 protagonist among us. 

Tops

TalJechin wrote on 09/11/06 at 10:30:13:

Well I believe the whole system evolves around the a6 b5 d6 e5 structure being a weakness and whether it can be offset by active play by black. So in order to get the knight to such an awkward place as Na3 obviously is, black had to weaken his position considerably. Luckily in this case it can often regroup to e3, or support the c4 break first. In all cases black has to really get some active play going as otherwise he is in real trouble as illustrated by the fact that model games illustrating themes such as bad bishops and weak colours often are superior white performances in the Sveshnikov as for example in Nunn's "chess move by move"

Willempie wrote on 09/11/06 at 08:46:11:


Well, since black has pawns on a6 and b5 I think black would welcome Na3-b5/c4 most of the time. And then there's the time aspect, Nb1-a3 and Ng1-e2-c3 would be faster than Ng1-f3xd4-b5-a3 and Nb1-c3 - but maybe you want to give black time to weaken himself? 

1.e5 c5 2.Na3 is 3 ply, not 1½.

TalJechin wrote on 09/08/06 at 10:31:05:


Well, I guess I don't have the excellent positional understanding of Zvjaginsev, but I don't understand how 2.Na3 can possibly be better -- or even as good as -- 2.c3.  But whatever...

As a full-time Sicilian player, I can only say that I hope more people follow the lead of Taljechin, Meat, and others and start playing 2.Na3?! against me more often.

I would also like to agree with Willempie.  As a player who only plays the Black side of the Sicilian, I can whole-heartedly agree that I get the most trouble against Open Sicilian players.  I used to play the Dragon, then switched to the Kan/Paulsen/Taimanov systems (I vary them up a bit for variety).  I also sometimes play the Kalashnikov online.  Anyway, I think White can put a lot of pressure on Black even if he doesn't know cutting edge theory.  First off, I'd like to make a little confession--I don't know a ton of cutting edge theory, either!  Since about half of my opponents play Anti-Sicilians anyway, I'm actually probably more prepared to meet the Grand Prix, 2.c3, and the Closed Sicilian, etc. than a lot of Open Sicilian lines!  Also, if White knows the basic strategic ideas of the Open Sicilian (go read Pawn Structure Chess!, he can often cause trouble.  For instance:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be3 a6 7.Nb3 isn't really covered much in Taimanov books (this exact move isn't in Delchev's and Semkov's book).  But White can certainly use it to play a "third-rank attack" type setup, with moves like Bd3, f2-f4, Qf3, 0-0 or 0-0-0, etc.  Thus, already we see one fairly straightforward line of play that White can play without knowing much --if any -- theory.  In this type of position, the player who better understands the Open Sicilian will win (or the better tactical player!).

I think the idea that the Open Sicilian is about 95% memorizing theory is totally bogus.  Maybe at GM level it gets like this, but there are plenty of ways to play the Open that don't rely on ultra cutting edge stuff, and White can still expect an edge.  For instance, 6.Be2 against the Scheveningen has theory on it, sure, but a lot of players could play it with success after they learn the basic ideas for both sides, and it would amount to a LOT less work than the Keres Attack.

Am I the only non-professional that thinks spending a lot of time worrying about the latest nuances in the most fashionable opening lines is a waste of time!?!?!  Just play chess already--you may be surprised at the result.

Willempie wrote on 09/08/06 at 10:40:23:


I think you say that because you do know the theory. After 4...e5 it's not so easy to picture that the 'proper square' for Nd4 is b5 and then a3 without prior knowledge - so already on move 5 black can easily take the advantage. 

And even if white knows the 10 first moves, it's much easier to play black attacking the centre with f6-f5 and then f7-f5 etc while white needs to find the fine balance between reactivating Na3 and developing - for one thing...

Why suicidal vs the Sveshnikov? The first 10 moves are not exactly rocket science and after there are various decent lines to choose from OTB. I played it 2 times in an official game before I got the expert book and either I am a genius or the main line is rather logical for white.