kylemeister wrote on 04/15/10 at 20:44:21:
Schaakhamster wrote on 04/15/10 at 19:18:20:
it isn't Emms call, he doesn't really puts a definitive assesment on the variation (other then that black chances are better then generally assumed). It is more my own opinion but if it makes everybody happy I'm perfectly willing to change the assesment to +=. I won't claim that black is better then mainline stuff but I'm not completely convinced that black is much worse then after 1 e4 c5 2. c3 d5 and that seems at least +=/=
I'm glad you won't claim that Black is better than in mainline stuff, because (if "mainline stuff" means approximately what I would take it to mean) that would seem a strange claim indeed.
When you say that "I'm not completely convinced that black is much worse then after 1 e4 c5 2. c3 d5 and that seems at least +=/=," I'm not sure what to make of that. The usual view of 2. c3 d5 has been that it should lead to equality in the best-play lines. I would say that it seems that Black is not "much worse" after 2. Nf3 a6 3. c3 d5 than after 2. c3 d5, but rather slightly worse, thus the shift essentially from "equal" to "slightly better for White." I mean, these categories aren't exact, but still.
If Emms thinks that 2. Nf3 a6 3. c3 d5 is better for Black than generally assumed, one might expect him to say some stuff on the order of "Standard theoretical works have considered this position (after 10 or 15 moves or whatever) to be +=, but I think Black is very close to equality" or "Here theoretical works usually give move X, but I think Black can improve with move Y ...". Failing that, "better than generally assumed" sounds suspiciously like some typical boilerplate. By the way, I would think it's generally true that a slight advantage requires good play to "capitalise on it."
Look it's a Dangerous Weapons book. They cover, at best, slightly offbeat lines. And I'm still waiting for the first chess author that will say: "hey I'm going to cover opening x from the black/white side and boy what a bad opening it is".
That being said: I like Emms coverage of 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. c3. He has some nice ideas.
I have played a few games with that variation and personnally I wouldn't play 3. c3 unless you have experience with 2. c3 or have prepared it a bit.
I must admit: there also practical and psychological reasons:
* As I said before 3. c3 won't be everyone's cup of tea.
* At my level (1600-1700) most players will just whip out 3. d4. Players with a bit more book knowledge will sometimes play 3. c3 because they know from their books 3. c3 and white is better, but that is mostly where their knowledge ends, unless they got 2. c3 experience.
In that respect I quote Sokolov from "The Ruy Lopez Revisited":
"One important aspect of these ‘sidelines’ improves their practical viability.
Many years ago I talked to my French colleague Grandmaster Joel Lautier, who at the time played the Siesta Variation of the Ruy Lopez with Black. I was not fond of the Siesta – I considered it dubious and challenged the viability of his opening choice. His answer was quite simple: ‘Yes, White is objectively better, but the position is sharp, the line is not often played and the vast majority of my opponents will have to make do with a maximum of a few hours of preparation before the game, versus my 100 hours of work at home. Under such circumstances, in a sharp and relatively unexplored position, I should be the favourite and the tables should turn.’ This reply made sense – his results in the Siesta were good. Later I often employed a sim i lar kind of ope ning prep a ra tion (never even close to 100 hours, though!), and with success. I even played the Siesta at some stage!"
I know some of the truth-seekers on this forum might challenge that approach.
Pages: 
O'Kelly Sicilian (Read 69648 times)
