Some who - as above - wants the Kan lines but doesn't like 5 Bd3. Makes it a logical move order to look at I guess

If white is happy committing to Be2 then I'm not sure that 3 Be2 isn't even more forcing into an open sicillian then 3 Nc3.

Incidentally that isn't the first time Emms has addressed Markovich's line; in NCO he gave it as leading to "unclear."  Sveshnikov has given 6. Be2 as leading to +=, citing an old game Timoschenko-Kasparov (I actually remember that one, I believe annotated by Timoschenko in Informator).

On 3...e6 4. d4 d5, I thought the most standard reply is 5. e5, with a somewhat favorable Advance French (+=).  I noticed that a few days ago, a 2400 player was successful against a 2600 player with 5. Nbd2, which led to an IQP position of a kind I suspect is addressed in that recent book "A New Method of Playing Against the French" or whatever.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone would play 3...a6 given that 3.c3, which must be the best move, is there.  After the 3...g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 (can it be right that Black opens up c3 for White's knight?) 5...d5 6.exd5 suggested below, I would much rather be White.  He will soon have an IQP posiiton where Black's ...g6 looks both premature and time-wasting.  In the QGA, White normally forms a battery on the b1-h7 diagonal to force ...g6, then shifts to dark-square kingside piece play.  Here Black plays ...g6 cooperatively.  I just don't think that Black's system is for real.

No doubt 3...e6! 4.d4 d5 5.exd5 exd5 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.O-O c4 8.Bc2 Ne7 is better, but after 9.b3 I think that White has something more than he had in the initial position.

I brought up this subject in another thread but I guess this is a better place for it. For an upcoming tournament I'm preparing to use the Kan via an O'Kelly move order, so I've been looking at the sequence 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Qc7. My goal is to reach the Hedgehog lines more typically reached from 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Qc7 7.a3 b6 as Hellsten gives in his book. Obviously if White plays an early d4 I get just that, so I'm wondering how to handle White's other options:
1) 5.g3 looks a little annoying - if I develop normally it seems White will get a good version of an English Hedgehog, having not wasted time on moves like a3 or Re1. I see Eingorn, Nestorovic and Pantsulaia have experimented with 5...Nc6 6.Bg2 Nd4!? 7.0-0 Ne7 8.d3 Nec6 - anyone got opinions or experience with this?
2) In the other thread it was suggested that 5.Be2 b6!? 6.0-0 Bb7 7.d4 gives White a better version of a Hedgehog than he might expect from the Kan. I'm not so sure myself - 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nf6 9.f3 Be7 10.Be3 0-0 seems like a good move order for Black, holding back ...d6 so that White needs to prepare b2-b4. (If he plays a3 then we're back in the Kan lines.) And an early a2-a4 seems adequately met by ...Nc6. Maybe 8.Qxd4!? is possible, but I'd propose 8...d6 9.Rd1 Nd7! in response, covering e5 and preparing to meet b3+Ba3 with ...Nc5.
3) If the Kan transposition doesn't work out, there's also 5.Be2 Nf6 6.0-0 Nc6 when 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bb4 seems OK for Black. Instead 7.a3!? was suggested, but maybe Black can try 7...Nd4!? with the idea of 8.d3 Bd6 9.h3 Nxf3+ 10.Bxf3 0-0 and ...Be5 and ...d6 to come. The same plan was employed against 7.b3 in Leko - Khalifman, New Delhi FIDE Wch 2000.

I admit I never played O'Kelly, though I know some friends of mine play it very successfully at a club level.
Looking at the previous posts in this fine topic, I consider that O'Kelly is playable and black can achieve a good position even against 3.c3 or 3.c4 which are known as white preferable choices. At first glance, if I am the second player I would prefer the following setups:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. c4 e6 (the Sicilian Kan - very good for black imo) 4. Nc3 (trying to delay d4) 4. .... Qc7 5. Be2 Nf6 6. O-O Nc6 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Bd6 (sample game: 9. Kh1 Nxd4 10. Qxd4 h5 11. f4 Bc5 12. Qd3 Ng4 13. Bxg4 hxg4 14. Be3 b6 15. Bxc5 bxc5 16. Qg3 Bb7 17. Qxg4 O-O-O 18. h3 g6 19. Qe2 f5 20. Qe3 Qc6 1/2-1/2, Menno Okkes 2353 - John Van Der Wiel 2493, Hoogeveen, Netherlands 2004)
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. c3 e6 4. d4 d5 5. exd5 exd5 6. Bd3 (I consider this as the only try for +=) 6... c4 7. Bc2 Bd6 8. O-O Ne7 9. b3 cxb3 10. axb3 O-O 11. Ba3 (11.c4!? is worth a try) 11... Nbc6 12. Re1 as in John Emms 2485 - Igor Glek 2580 1-0, Germany, 1995  where black had to go with 12... Re8 which is hardly +=
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. c3 e6 4. d4 d5 5. e5 Bd7 6. a3!? (6. Be2 Nc6 7. O-O Rc8 8. a3 cxd4!? 9. cxd4 Nge7 10. b4 Nf5 11. Bb2 Qb6 12. g4 Nfe7 13. Nc3 as in Garcia Antonio Hernandez - Miguel Pedro De Najera, 0-1 Las Palmas, Spain 1997   
where 13... Ng6 gives a good counter chances for the second player) 6... Nc6 7. b4 (7.Bd3 can be met by 7... Nge7) 7... cxd4 (7... c4!? might worth a try) 8. cxd4 f6 (8... Nh6!? seems very entertaining, too) 9. Bd3 fxe5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. dxe5 Ne7 as in Alexandr Stebunov 2022 - Evgeny Elesin 2100, 0-1 Petrozavodsk, Russia 2008
A closer look to the O'Kelly system may find this is a good setup for black giving from += to = as nearly as any Sicilian setup imho.

HoemberChess wrote on 05/08/11 at 15:25:01:


Definitely weaker since an early ... a6 is not part of Blacks major setups after 1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6. White should be slightly better here while the above mentioned lines in the Morra are at worst unclear or equal but possibly slightly better for Black.

Fllg wrote on 05/08/11 at 10:16:15:

I see. Thanks!

One last question, then.
After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3, 
is the attempt to transpose into a "..Nf6 Alapin" with 
4..Nf6 weaker than accepting the gambit with the line I mentioned above?