I have been reading the Classic Line recommendation by Hellsten in the Kan and I found this kind of positions don't suit me. Also I have found in the Jeroen Noomen Book for Rybka Aquarium a second line for Hellsten to be very annoying after 14.Bf4:



1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be2 b5 7. O-O Bb7 8. Re1
Nc6 9. Nxc6 dxc6 10. e5 Rd8 11. Bd3 c5 12. Qh5 g6 13. Qh3 Bg7 14. Bf4 Ne7 15.
a4 c4 16. Bf1 b4 17. Ne4 Nf5 18. c3! ({Instead of Hellsten's} 18. Nd6+ Nxd6
19. exd6 Qc8!=) 18... O-O 19. g4 bxc3 20. bxc3 Bxe4 21. Rxe4 Ne7 {And
I think this position is at least += because c4 pawn is very weak and White
has the bishop pair.}


I also have checked prior deviations  (10... Ne7) and I don't feel confortable in the resulting positions, for example, in this line:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be2 b5 7. O-O Bb7 8. Re1
Nc6 9. Nxc6 dxc6 10. e5 Ne7 11. Ne4 Nf5 12. Bf4 Rd8 13. Bd3 c5 14. Qh5 Qc6 15.
f3!?



And White pressure is annoying (if not, I don't like this kind of simetrical structure and slow development by Black).

So I hope to find "better" positions to my like in the Taimanov 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be2 Nc6. This way of reaching the Taimanov is because I want to avoid the English Attack and The Kalashnikov type after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nb5 d6 6. Bf4 e5 7. Be3

MNb wrote on 04/29/09 at 11:04:46:

You're talking to someone who has tried the Sveshnikov, the Kalashnikov, and the Boleslavsky (6.Be2 e5 and 6.f3 e5 in the Classical) all with bad results, even if White usually chose non-critical lines! This pawn structure only brings back bad memories. So if nothing else, the Anti-Taimanov would be a dangerous psychological weapon against me.  

Of course White should only choose it if he is comfortable in Sveshnikov-type positions, that goes without saying. Unless you can argue that Black is actually better in the Anti-Taimanov I maintain that it is a good practical weapon if White likes the position type and Black does not.

I have played the Kan quite a bit in blitz.  I am amazed by the number of people who try to play the English Attack. I would say approximately 20% to 30% of my games on ICC follow this identical sequence:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be3 Bb4 7. Qd2 Nf6 8. f3 d5

MNb wrote on 04/29/09 at 02:24:48:

If you read my post, I was talking not about the objective evaluation of the position, but about pawn structures and style. This is the only line in the Taimanov where Black must play with a hole on d5, and if that's what Black really wanted he would have played the Sveshnikov or the Kalashnikov. Taste and personal preferences matter in practice, especially on club level. The Anti-Taimanov is first of all a psychological weapon; though to be fair it has been played by quite a few GMs, Leko to mention one.

MNb wrote on 04/29/09 at 03:20:53:

Actually it is possible to argue that it is. In the Sveshnikov White must retreat the b5 knight to a3 since c3 is occupied; and this a3 kinght often becomes a problem piece which requires several moves to get back into play. In the Anti-Taimanov the b5-knight retreats to c3 and the b1 knight can go to d2, with arguably more harmonious development.

MNb wrote on 04/29/09 at 02:24:48:


On 5. Nb5 d6 6. Bf4 e5 7. Be3 Nf6 there is 8. Bg5 as played by e.g. Fischer; also 7...a6 is a major move.

Stigma wrote on 04/28/09 at 17:57:16:


I'm yet to come to a definite conclusion about the Kan. My first impressions are favourable but the Bd3 + c4 line I have study closely. I am using Hellsten's excellent book as a guide, so whatever the conclusion I reach it will wellinformed  . 

My "very annoying" comment is based on a few offhand games and the general opinion in the books and is perhaps a bit overstated. But in my experience each opening, certainly as black, has variations I find "annoying". You either learn to deal with it or you move on.

Hellsten's book is excellent (& I've had more interesting games with his lines than the lines from Delchev's also-excellent book).  I will say that the Kan lines that combine Bd3 with Qg4 - ...g6 - Qe2 can be a bit hard to handle though.
 
Still, I think the mainline Taimanov/Paulsen (1 e4 c5, 2 Nf3 e6, 3 d4 cd, 4 Nxd4 Nc6, 5 Nc3 Qc7, 6 Be2 a6, 7 Be3 Nf6, 8 O-O Bb4) gets very theory-heavy quickly and you have to want to play that particular line in order to stick with Delchev's repertoire recommendation.

I don't think the choice is that straightforward; actually I'm trying to make up my mind on this myself.

One issue with the Taimanov is the "Anti-Taimanov" 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bf4 e5 7.Be3. Maybe not White's best try for advantage, but it leads to a very different pawn structure from your typical Kan or Taimanov. It's really a matter of taste whether one allows this or the Hedgehog; though admittedly the Anti-Taimanov is much less popular than 5.Bd3/c4 vs the Kan.

In reality, anyone who thinks that "Bd3 with c4 to follow is very annoying" probably is not considering the Kan in the first place. It's the main line; the Kan is all about elastic, Hedgehog-type positions and if you don't like them you're not a Kan player. The Kan scores very well on amateur level, and the main reason for that is many White players are not very good at playing with a space advantage.

Another issue is the many White players, particularly below 2000, who play Nc3, Be2 and usually Be3 and 0-0 against almost any Sicilian. In the Taimanov this is a critical main line and not easy to get winning chances against, whether one plays with ...d6/Be7 (-> Classical Scheveningen) or ...Bb4. If I'm playing for a win I would rather have the option of a ...Nbd7/b5/Bb7 setup, as is still possible in the Kan.

Holbox wrote on 04/27/09 at 15:42:43:


again after just taking a glance at Hellsten "Play the Kan" : timing seems everything for black in these hedgehodge positions. I wouldn't want to play this without truly understanding what going on.

Schaakhamster wrote on 04/27/09 at 13:47:15:


You may be right.  That shows what I know about the Kan.

LeeRoth wrote on 04/26/09 at 13:51:48:


Is this true?  I had the impression that the early c4 wasn't very strong against the Kan.  Black plays ...Nf6, ...Bb4 and so forth.  I would have said, Taimanov because I don't like that bishop sitting on d3.

However, since limited theory is a criterion, I did notice that the Kan with 4...a6 5.Bd3 Ne7 was featured in the most recent (April 2009) update, with the comment that it's a reasonable Sicilian with not much theory.

There is nothing new in the Pub:

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1146111676/0

We have the symptoms but no patient. Level? Experience?