Thanks to all for sharing why Black shouldn't grab the e4 pawn.  I don't know if Black can hold against sub-optimal play, but I also have no idea why Black would risk it after these high-class massacres and the analysis provided here.

I've learned two things from chesspublishing today:  Not to play 6...Nxe4 in this position, and the second meaning of interlocutor!  This has been a good day.

[quote author=Uberdeker link=1184654042/0#7 date=1185790444] Yes, this is certainly not recommended for Black. However, 5. ...Ktf6 ; 6. Ktc3 Ktxe4 leaves White struggling to prove he has something for the pawn. [/quote]
The Ivanchuk - Movsesian to me seems to show how one ought to play this as white, but I remain unsure as to how one should assess the resulting positions.
[quote author=Uberdeker link=1184654042/0#7 date=1185790444]If he wants a Maroczy against this move-order, better is 5. Ktb5 Qb8 ; 6. c4[/quote]
Actually, can white not just transpose after 5...Nf6 6.Nb5 Qb8? So does the first move 5.c4 or 5.Nb5 actually matter if white is willing to play the Nb5 + c4 combination?

Also, what about 5.c4 Nf6 6.f3, presumably black should aim for 6...e6 7.Nc3 Bb4 with the idea to play d7-d5 as quickly as possible? 7...a6 seems to have been played more often though.

Quote:



6. Nb5 and something nasty on c7.

In the Hracek game, 13...Be7 (as in Kuzvinov-Jezek) looks OK. However I find 11...f5 less convincing. 12.b3 looks unambitious. 12.Be3 seems better and then there is the wild 12.g4!?

I think you're right about 8.Be3 being better. There's also the interesting 8.Bd3!? Qxd4 9.Be3!?

Hmmm. If 6...Nxe4 is really worth a ! how come looking at 2400+ games from 1995 I find +3=2-0, with an ELO + of 199 for White if I exclude 1 Grandmasterly draw (and one of the two draws is where White played a sub-optimal line)?

After 7.Nxe4 Qe5, White has won with 8.Be3, but 8.Nb5 appears better. Just get hold of the game Grischuk-Hracek, Bremen 2003, if you want to see Black being demolished. 

Assuming that one is willing to play the 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4
http://www.france-echecs.com/diagramme/imgboard.phpfen=rxbqkbnr%2Fppxppppp%2Fxxn...
move order to reach the Taimanov, I have been wondering about the relative merits of 4...e6 and 4...Qc7. I've only found a side-remark in Rizzitano's Chess Explained - The Taimanov Sicilian and don't have any other background on this, so I did some thinking for myself.

After 4...Qc7 Rizzitano points out there's 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Nxe4!, which is a justification for how this move order might make c2-c4 systems less attractive. However he doesn't say much more on the topic, which I would have found quite interesting.
I suppose white can still try 4...Qc7 5.Nb5, but I suppose 5.Nb5 Qb8 6.c4 Nf6 7.N5c3 e6 8.Be3 b6 could be an improved version of the corresponding lines after 4...e6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4? My thoughts were e.g. 9.Be2 Bc5 10.Qd2 0-0 11.0-0 Bb7 12.Rd1 Rd8 13.Kh1 Bxe3 14.Qxe3 d5 15.cxd5 exd5 16.exd5 Nb4. Khalifman in Anand 9 recommends to simply transpose to the standard lines with 5.Nc3.

Okay, after 4...e6 black has to deal with 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 and 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bf4. On the other hand one still has the option of playing Qa5 in one go against the English attack (assuming one is not worried about 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6, which one might have to be...).

I guess my question is whether (as long as one is willing to play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 allowing primarily 3.Bb5 as an extra option for white) one can cut down on a lot of Taimanov theory by playing the 4...Qc7 move order? Or are the further downsides that I am missing?