I was just wondering if there's any update on when this book will be out in the UK, firstly, and secondly I'm not sure that Richard answered the earlier question over whether or not the book will also cover lines where Black starts with 2...e6, as I do.   

If anyone owns a copy (I notice that Amazon in the USA have it showing in stock) I'd like to hear their thoughts on it.

I own Play 1d4! by Mr Palliser and like the way that book was written, so would hope that this new effort would be as thorough and well researched, to appeal to as many of us Sicilian players as possible....

Thanks

asmund wrote on 07/08/07 at 22:14:13:


Yes, come on, we all know Gary's name has a double L  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/football_meet_the_football...

Of course. 1.c4 e5 (c5) 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 and 6.e4.
There is 6.Bg5 in the Panov Caro-Kann.
There is 7.Bd3 in the Orthodox QGD.
Botvinnik also popularized the Dutch Stonewall.

If you are lazy, play 2...Nf6 against the 2.c3 Sicilian and 3...Nf6 against the Morragambit.
Else begin studying the 6...a6 variation (without ...e6). If you don't like it, then the ...Nge7 variation (without ...d6).

Can this thread title not be corrected?

Good point, Willempie. IMO Morra positions can become quite complex (or even sharp should Black wish), but crucially there's always that extra pawn in the bank...

I often find it rather difficult to disagree with MNb.

[quote author=Uberdeker link=1180038915/15#18 date=1181319330]True, this is indeed the only point of playing the Morra rather than the Alapin move-order. I think this one of MNb's favorite subjects, so you can expect him to merrily chime in. My only contibution is this : Black has an independant attempt in 4. ...Ktf6.  [/quote]

As I don't want to disappoint Uberdeker, here I go.
Even 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 is not as bad for Black, as theory wants it. Still, the possibility of playing an early Nc3 gives White a few extra options. Turning them into something concrete is another matter. Eg 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nc3 Qd6 (not Qd8 8.Bc4 Nf6, which is the Steinitz Variation of the QGA; the early ...cxd4 is thought to benefit White) 8.Bc4 and it is not sure, if White has an advantage or how big.
The independent 4...Nf6 is inferior because of the typical reply 5.Bb5+.

Another line, where the Morra move order might benefit White compared to the Lasker-Alapin (2.c3) is 2...d6. After 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Bd3 (or 4.f3) White has made a concession. Or has he? After 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d6 4.cxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 White can consider developing his bishop to c4, but has to watch out for ...Nxe4 tricks, eg g6 6.Nf3 Bg7 7.Bc4 0-0 8.0-0 Nxe4!. So White should play 8.Bb3 instead.

The trouble with the Wing's Gambit (I have tried it a few times) is, that it does not provide a lead in development like the Morra Gambit and does not really deflect a centre pawn. The extra pawn on b4 can be a nuisance and as a consequence Black has no trouble playing ...d5. Not surprisingly this is the main antidote. I have tried to revive 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.d4, but after d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 (Nf6 is not bad either) White's central superiority is only minimal. In another thread someone (I am forgotten who and don't feel like finding out) gave 3.a3 d5 4.exd5 Nf6 5.axb4 Nxd5 6.d4 e5! 7.c3 exd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Bb5 Rossetto-Sanguinetti, Sao Paulo 1957, Be7! This nicely illustrates White's problem: Black is the one, who is speeding up development.
So I disagree with Mednis and Hoppers here. White's strategy to give up a pawn for centre dominance simply fails.

If White insists on forming a gambit repertoire against the Sicilian, (s)he can consider the Bb5 variations. A few examples are (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3)
2...Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0-0 Bg7 5.c3 Nf6 6.d4
2...Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0-0 Bg7 5.Re1 e5 6.b4
2...d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 5.0-0 Nc6 6.c3 Nf6 7.d4

and after 2...e6 3.d4 cxd4 the Morra Gambit 4.c3 is a relatively stronger because of Black's second move. The Wing's Gambit Delayed 3.b4 cxb4 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bd3 d5 has a bad reputation.

My experience though, is that keeping up with the theoretical developments in such gambits and trying to find new ideas to keep them alive, takes so much time, that playing interesting less topical variations of the Open Siclian is easier. Playing through a dozen of GM-games will give you an idea what to do and takes less effort. This is one of the few points, I wholeheartedly agree upon with Willempie. Heck, White has much more choice after 2.Nf3 and 3.d4.
To save time picking up the Morra or the Wing's Gambit was a good idea 25 years ago, but not anymore in Silicon Age. White will quickly and often get outprepared.

Having just looked back at my edition of Gallagher, I was reminded that the Wing Gambit will be covered too, where apparently Nigel Davies has come up with some interesting new ideas in his 'Gambiteer book'.

Which is the inferior line?  Having looked at Gallagher and Rogozenkos' analysis, it would seem that the Wing Gambit has the worse reputation, but to me this doesn't make 'chess sense'.  Sacrificing a wing pawn, to me at least, seems a lesser evil than saccing a centre pawn.

Any other anti sicilian gambits?  I once faced the 'Halasz Attack' after 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 f4, but 3...d5! is a simple and good antidote.