Well, I do not really enjoy your appreciation, as I would rather see Black busted .... Annoying defence, that Taimanov. I comfort myself, that White has other options on move 19. It is quite an old line, I found it in my 1986 Open Sicilian book by Ludek Pachmann.

MNb is absolutely right. Black gets a very active game and should be fine. Also If white isn't very careful he could find himself checkmated before he knows it (I'll spare you the examples this time though I do have some). As a devoted Taimanov player I'm usually happy when white grabs the g7 pawn and in so doing activates my rook. That our king has to stay in the center is just part of the fun of playing the Taimanov.

I played nearly a decade the dragon, now older and wiser I play the Taimanov but there is one line, that cause me some headache, unfortunately a forced line, that every strong player knows:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be2 a6 7.Be3 Nf6 8.0-0 Bb4 9.Na4 Be7 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Nb6 Rb8 12.Nxc8 Qxc8 

I´ve the excellent Delchev/Semkov book, they prefer 13.Bd4, but a couple of moves later this bishop will cause some probs for white; with 13. e5 I freeze the center, black has probs with his d-pawn;
13.e5 Nd5 14.Bc1 Bc5 15.c4 Ne7 16.b3 Qc7 17.Bb2 d6!? Delchev/Semkov 18.exd6 Bxd6 White has different options like 19 h3, 19.g3 or 19. Qd4 but why not the obvious  19. Bxg7 to provoke an unpleasent endgame for black 19.Lxg7 Lxh2+ 20.Kh1 Tg8 21.Lc3 Df4 22.Dd3 Dh6 23.Dh3 Dxh3 24.gxh3 Lc7 +/- due to better pawn structure and bishop pair; any opinions?!

Willempie wrote on 08/03/07 at 07:46:47:

I'm not sure, what about 11.0-0 when after 11...Nxc3 12.bxc3 white's space advantage on the kingside could potentially be worrying. Additionally black has a somewhat passive light-squared bishop.

The space advantage problem can probably be countered by a timely f7-f5, I suppose. As for the bishop, I am not sure whether maybe the white bishops are not much better anyway.

Coming to think of it, I have a question leading up to this line, why does white so rarely play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be2 a6 7.Be3 Nf6 8.f4? Everyone seems to assume 8.0-0 is a given, but surely 8.f4 is a move that might easily occur to white players.

8...d6 9.0-0 looks like a fairly mainline Scheveningen. So I guess the Taimanov thing to do is 8...Bb4, when 9.Bf3 doesn't look quite right due to 9...d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Bxd5 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 exd5, which is presumably quite nice for black. However much more sensible would be 9.Qd3 when 9...d5 can be answered by 10.e5. There's one game where black successfully replied 9...e5 to 9.Qd3... 

Does someone have some experience with this?

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, all of which makes good sense.   I'm actually around 2000 USCF, so I'm usually playing players in the 1700-2300 range.  I appreciate the fact that lower-rated players don't know what to do against ...Bb4, and have found something like that lately, at  least in informal games on the ICC.   I also agree that the Taimanov lines are clearer to understand; I've played the Scheven. lines a bit, but often get a lingering sense that my opponents have more experience to draw from in playing against the black set-ups,  and they are indeed tricky to handle from the black side.   It strikes me that it takes a lot of experience to get a good feel for the Scheven. positions.
    My one concern about the ....Bb4 Taimanov lines was that an IM (who opts for the Scheven. positions)  once told me that it's difficult to win with black, and often a draw is the best one can hold for.   But in looking again at the lines lately (mostly as spelled out in "The Safest Sicilian") it does seem that black has quite good winning chances, especially if white plays less than optimal moves at critical times.   

I think 8...Bb4 is better, and I can echo the comment that 2000 ELO and less players don't know it - I've been playing the Taimanov for a year and I've had several players in shock thinking that I've "tricked them" as they appear to be losing a pawn....

desjarlais wrote on 06/26/07 at 05:56:41:

A lot depends on your level of opposition. Not many will play 9.Na4 in the Taimanov below 2000 ELO and without it you are immediately "equal". For the rest I dont think there is much objective difference, so it is more a question of personal taste and which other lines you like to play. Personally I like the Taimanov lines better, but there is nothing wrong with the schevy option either. I also wouldnt say they are that different in the general type of play it is just that in the schevy lines it can get quite a bit sharper.

There is a starting out book about the Schevy but I dont have it, so I cant comment on its quality.