As far as I remember Grivas was smashed with his variation at this years Wijk an Zee!? 

I also played a game with the following moves:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6 5.Nb3 Nf6 6.Nc3 e6 7.Be3 Qc7 8.Bd3 Bb4 (I think 8...Be7 was the way Grivas played it - but I am not completly sure) 9.f4 d5 10.e5 Ne4 11.Bxe4 
[11.Qg4 deserves to be investigated]
11. ... dxe4 12.Bd2?! e3! - and finally we made a draw (move 28)
[12.Nd2 was a better try]

see the book by Grivas. Immodestly titled: The Grivas Sicilian. Poor chap must have had a few identity issues at the time for that to feel necessary.

Tedious pop-psych aside, moves rather than explanations though. But the gent has plenty of experience in it, so I guesss knows his stuff. Good to see someone practice what they proverbially preach.

Zatara wrote on 06/24/08 at 23:30:52:


All those Qb6-sicilians have to be tested by the move Be3 - if this doesnt work in the specific situation (but in most it does!), then Nb5 followed by Be3 comes into question. Finally White can ever go for an approach with Nb3 followed by Nc3, Bd3, Be3, f4, Qf3 and 0-0-0 or even play c4 in some variations instead of Nc3. I think Black overestimates the value of Qb6-Qc7 to "force" the white knight to b3 - sometimes the knight is even better placed there. Short castle is another but less critical option for White - probably White should nearly always play 0-0-0 in the Sicilian if possible (famous exception is the Sveshnikov - which may be one of the benefits of this variation for Black).