I posted a thread about the Classical Sicilian once. Matemax shot down my idea (well, someone else's idea that I developed on) against the Nxc6 line. Maybe we can move the discussion to that thread. Also, maybe someone can help me revive my idea . If not, Nxc6 seems to kill the ...a6 and ...h6 line.

I don't like the Bxf6 lines in the Kozul lines. I don't like my king getting stuck in the centre. However, if White does not play that, and if White moves the bishop back to e3 as in normal ...h6 lines, then I am quite happy with my position.

Another idea that I got from Chess Strategy in Action is that Black can play ...h5 to stop g4. That forces White to play in the centre, which is supposedly good for Black. Maybe the hope of reviving the Classical Sicilian lies in this line?

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1196775985

Markovich wrote on 07/10/08 at 18:37:51:


Mark, still not tracked down the Tarrasch ref, but by chance this was in a recent Chess Today by Baburin:

"Knights are very handy when one has the isolated d-pawn – this is something I learnt while working on the Winning Pawn Structures book."

The IQP position he was thinking of is also given as an evaluation exercise at

http://chessmind.powerblogs.com

does anyone play sicilian four knights now?  i think it was recomemed  in the book meeting e4.  i never read the book so don't know what the author recomends.

Paddy wrote on 07/10/08 at 23:56:45:


Ah, maybe it is simply that White would prefer to have the knights.  I think I can understand that, since they're usually better blockaders.

Hello,

I remember reading something similar in "Both sides of the chessboard" discussing Spassky's ability at playing IQP position's, think related to Bf4 QGD game.

Bye John S

Paddy wrote on 07/10/08 at 13:19:22:


Really?  I thought I was familiar with the Great Man's works, but I don't recall this.  I wonder where he said it.

I don't understand what he meant, except that obviously, you can't possibly wind up with the wrong bishop.

DoubledPawns wrote on 02/02/08 at 22:06:32:


I have been looking at this line and there should be some scope for creativity. Dreev is the player to take a look at.

Quote:


It is difficult and misleading to try to generalize too much on this topic. The old Soviet coaching system has broken up but private coaching persists. Even the old system was never as systematic or monolythic as its reputation. There was always quite fierce competition between coaches to get results for their students (and therefore good stipends for the coaches). There was not total uniformity, since each coach or "school" was in a sort of "arms race". 

I know of no sources other than Zak and Shereshevsky which deal with this subject directly and in any detail. Here are some snippets that might be of interest:

Valdimir Zak (coach of the young Korchnoi and Spassky) used to insist on his charges studying and playing strictly classical openings for some considerable time. This did not go down well with some of his more willful pupils (see The Road to Chess Improvement by Yermolinsky).

In "Improve Your Chess Results", Zak criticised other coaches for teaching the Dragon, especially to girls (!), on the grounds that it is too stereotyped and limited in ideas. "Instead of a wide outlook, the pupils acquire a narrow specialization which fetters their imagination".

"One day I was lucky to have a training camp with Vladimir Yurkov, who taught me the Scheveningen defense. Without understanding it you cannot play the Sicilian." GM Jaan Ehlvest in his book "The story of a chess player".

Bologan's excellent book "Victor Bologan: Selected Games 1985-2004" gives lots of insights into the early opening choices of the Moldavian school led by Chebanenko, who gave his lazier pupils a lot of "short-cuts", side-lines which are nevertheless sound and playable on a long-term basis. At least one of these (a6 Slav) has become high fashion!

In his interesting book "The Soviet Chess Conveyor"  Shereshevsky recommended choosing openings with a lot of strategic content which are unlikely to be overtuned by the latest innovations. Regarding playing Black against 1 d4: "The majority of my pupils stick to a white square strategy with Black in the closed opening systems they usually choose i.e. the Nimzovitch defence, the Bogoljubov defence if White plays 3 Nf3 or the more risky Ragozin defence." Of course, Shereshevsky was dealing with young players who were already strong and had prospects of becoming master strength or beyond. Against 1 e4 he recommended the Closed Lopez and the French.

I hope this is of interest. Anyone know any other sources of info?