Perhaps you, Gorath, should trawl through the [i]possible[/i] moves rather than looking at what's already been played. Some ideas:

a) 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Qc7 (my recommendation, Chess Assistant 10 shows only 2 games, both of them in Under Ten Girls of youth chapionships)
b) 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nh6- known as the left hook variation I believe
c) the Dragondorf (...g6 then 6...a6)
d) 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5-I've only ever met this once, but it seems playable.
e) 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 (folks were worried about this??) g6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Bg7, with NO chance of a Maroczy- this satisfies your original criteria.

Note that 5...Qc7 involves taking on the complexities of 6. Bg5 Nbd7 7. Bb5, which are undocumented as yet,  but see the attached.

Gorath wrote on 08/01/09 at 14:50:48:


There's much fun (and if not, why play the Sicilian at all?!) in employing the Sveshnikov of all. There's a very good repertoire book on it - 'The Easiest Sicilian' by Atanas Kolev and Trajko Nedev. They give a good insight into the Sveshnikov to feel like trying it. Also, there's a good 2DVD package by Andrew Martin to start playing it from scratch.

Markovich wrote on 09/08/09 at 00:44:51:


Don't forget the Tartakower-Makagonov.

(Could not resist  ) but in the spirit of markovich's posting, what about the 1...g6 or 1...d6 2...g6? The Modern? The Rat? The Robatsch?

The story goes like this.

At the end of the fifties there was some debate about the best way to enter the Paulsen.
Against the traditional (Paulsen's) move-order  e6-a6-Qc7-Nc6,  5.Bd3 was getting annoying.

The two new methods were:  (1) Nc6-Qc7, then the pawns;  (2) Nc6-e6, then the rest.

Both methods had tried been tried by Larsen, Furman... when young Taimanov decided to take up (2).
The dreaded 5.Bd3 was avoided, the Paulsen was reached, and he lived happy (until he met Fischer, anyway).

Bottom line is, I fail to see why we should turn history on its head in this case.

For his later creative games with ...Ne7, he can be credited.

That would be a Paulsen, actually.

Taimanov foregoes ...Qc7 in favor of ...Ne7

I forgot to mentioned that the accelerated line agaianst Nc2 I meant is in fact mentioned in the notes but with a different assesment

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4.
Nxd4 g6 5. c4 Nf6 6. Nc3 d6 7. Nc2 (7. Be2 Nxd4 {is the line that Nc2 wants to
avoid.But I am no expert in this line since I play regular dragon , especeilly
since white has not got much lately in toplevel games in experts line agianst
that!}) (7. Be3 Ng4 {and black is better}) 7... Bg7 8. Be2 O-O 9. O-O Nd7 10.
Bd2 a5 11. Na3 Nc5 12. Nab5 Nd4 13. Nxd4 Bxd4 14. Bh6 Bxc3 15. bxc3 Re8 {
is the line I meant. Rybka 3 seems to evalute this little different than Rybka
2 but it is still on blacks side,but insignificant. Experts claims that
white has an edge and books for black claims the opposete. Maybee th truth is
somewhere between} *

Markovich wrote on 08/31/09 at 12:32:17:


If white knows Opening for White according to Anand he gets an advantage in any anti Yugloslav like positions. a5 is best meet by 0-0 intending a4 Nxa4 Nxe4 c4. I was actually white once in this line and manage to make a blunder that costed a peace, but white has an edge here.

Also, many strong players says that the Bind is not what it used to be. There are for example major improvment on experts vs the sicilian line where computers and books written for black claims that black is slightly better. But at any rate I did rahter face a yugoslav attack than play against the bind.