What is the name of the rizzitano's book?

Ya probably i should write Any gr8 books on Taimanov Opening.

What about the book The Taimanov Sicilian by Graham Burgess? It looks quite interesting.If anybody has read it,is it worth investing?

Vidit wrote on 11/30/09 at 06:26:59:


the best is probably the safest Sicilian, Rizzitano also wrote a book on it.  check out the forum and i'm sure there is good information for the subscribers about the Taminov.

You should use N=knight; K=king.   

I am thinking about playing the taminov.  I think the safest sicilian is the best book on the taiminov.

That is interesting thanks When I originally posted I did wander if black had anything like this.

As 5 Nb5 ^ 5.. Qb8 6 c4 seems pretty well equivalent to the standard Taimanov Nb5/c4 stuff, I suppose you're trading either the complications above or a mildly inferior hedgehog for the anti Taimanov.

Doesn't seem an especially great exchange for me, but if you really don't want to allow the anti Taimanov for some reason then it certainly doesn't seem insane. 

Might be worth looking at various Kan move orders too.

The 'problem' with 2.. Nc6 and 4.. Qc7 is that you let white go 5 c4 for 'free' - e6 deters this by keeping Bb4+ in reserve. Thats the only reason white goes Nb5 then c4 in the main Taminov move order - unsurprisingly he doesn't want to send his knight to a3

So the problem is white gets a Maroczy Bind without the knight on a3? like in the solid Kan Sicilian? Although, in exchange for this niusance -not to mention the interesting line 1e4 c5 2Kf3 Kc6 3d4 cd4 4Kd4 Qc7 5c4 Kf6 6Kc3 Kxe4¡? 7Ke4 Qe5- you avoid the Probing Bishop Variation with 5.Kb5 6.Bg5 which is indeed the line what worries me most because it tends to Kalashnikov/Sveshnikov pawn structures that i'm not used to. I gave up the sharp Najdorf  and started to study the Taimanov but I'm not sure which move order to employ?  Any advice? Thanks in advance.

I'd like to know which are the pros and cons of using the 2..Kc6 4..Qc7 move order to reach the Taimanov Sicilian (a la Miladinovic, Macieja, Oral, etc..) vs. the classical move order 2..e6 3...Kc6 5..Qc7 defended by taimanov's experts like Delchev or J. Polgar. At first sight, the 2..Kc6 4..Qc7 move order avoids the Probing Bishop and Maroczy Bind Variations after 5.Kb5 6.Bg5 or 6.c4 -which are supoused to be the main drawback of the taimanov- and the anti-sicilians 1.e4 c5 2.Kf3 e6 3.c3 and 3.d3 in an improved version of the c3 sicilian and the KIA because of the early e6. And all this adventages just for tolerating a relatively dangerous version of the 2...Kc6 3.Bb5 anti-sicilian?. It seems like a good deal, don't you think?. I'll really appreciate your comments.