MNb wrote on 03/08/10 at 09:56:24:


I'm not really looking for a philosopher's stone or holy grail - just something interesting a little outside the norm. One could say the Dragon is clearly superior to the Scheveningen because the bishop is more active and the French looks stupid next to the Caro-Kann because it locks out the light-squared bishop. In both cases, I believe the main lines of the Scheveningen and French tend to offer better winning chances for Black than the main lines of the Dragon and the Caro-Kann. Of course, it may sound like I am exaggerating the point, but there are certain advantages to keeping the bishop on the f8-a3 diagonal.

I am not advocating 2...h6. "It is not even bad." OK, so what's point then? There are concrete reasons for that move that are more connected to the Sveshnikov/Kalishnikov complex than e6 Sicilians. I am not sure how they are connected to this system. (?)

Also it's not like the Taimanov is the only e6 Sicilian, so I don't understand what you mean by that.

"The surprise value of those variations with ...Be7 is close to zero; and then it will be a pleasant surprise ("nice, Black does not play the bishop to the most active square")."

If my opponent thinks that, then all the better. A false sense of confidence is more dangerous than a lack of knowledge, because the first admits the latter with an even greater psychological burden. When I noticed that Palliser recommended 5.f4 d5 6.e5 and superficially described it as a favorable KIA, that got my attention especially after I found that several strong GMs were quite willing to play the position as Black. I examined the IQP positions and compared some existing theory of 2.Nc3 e6 3.g3 d5. Then I examined a secondary approach allowing transpositions to the Scheveningen.

I'm sorry, but the Scheveningen is about as mainstream as it gets. The truth is that many good ideas in mainstream theory are often overlooked in different settings. It's not like I'm some ditz talking about games I played with Fritz 8. I even admitted that I like several standard approaches as well. It is a crime to expand my horizons?

Regarding 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 e6 5.Nge2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d3, I am now inclined to think 7...Rb8 may be a little more efficient than 7...a6. After 8.a4, I think Black can still play the same ideas with 8...Nb4. My feeling is that the interpolation of Bf4 and d6 probably does not benefit White much as the options of d4 and f4 are cut out while the bishop is on f4.

Quote:


I am not sure if this was directed to me, but I was addressing the problem from Black's perspective. I was attempting to find such a deviation for Black as my last post explains and I took inspiration from some strong Black players when I investigated this line in a database search. Stocek and Kramnik are two memorable players that have adopted the delayed ...d5 approach. Fier and Sveshnikov also had a number of games, but they tend to play ...d5 immediately.

I agree that the early interpolation of a6 and a4 benefits Black more than White; however, I don't think it carries a great cost for White. Practically, I can see it taking advantage of an inflexible Black player unfamiliar with the subtleties of the Closed Sicilian as a whole.

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 White can still enter the Open Sicilian, so Black has to play something coherent with his favourite system. In the old times we were trying to guess if our opponent would play the Jaenisch Gambit (hint: beard), now we're trying to sense the Bb5 sicilian (hint: googles).

Equal and draw are not the same in chess, in a game much depends on players' strength. As for speculating that Black won't play early ...d5 because it won't give him enough winning chances, well, if this ever happens you can expect Black to play any acceptable deviation from "dead equal" theory. After all, in many unbalanced games a stronger Black is only too happy to deviate from best theory as long as she gets a playable position against her opponents' skills rather than books.
As for meeting 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 a6 with 3.a4: so far Black has made useful moves : a6 controls b5, enables e5 and sometimes b5, etc. It is a sicilian where White is supposed to launch an early attack, how can a4 help him in this respect and how can it be useful at move 3 ? if White plays a slow setup with d3-g3 he'll be a tempo down in an already equal position, with added Black control on d5 thanks to the hole in b4. At least 3.a3 wouldn't be so detrimental. Perhaps White's idea is to wait for ...d6 before playing Bc4, but a4 is an odd waiting move in my opinion.

I had a look at this line again. (Incidentally, I first looked at this line soon after my computer crashed which pushed me to use an actual chess set in my analysis. For some reason, pulling out the chess set caused me to think about the Closed Sicilian as though I were a beginner approaching the opening for the first time. "What are the most natural moves?")

I think kylemeister's find is perhaps the most challenging to this concept. If White has an advantage through this slow traditional Closed Sicilian approach, then the delayed ...d5 approach looks flawed as a method for obtaining independent play with decent winning chances. Theoretically, I think this is a non-issue in a larger sense, since it appears that Black is OK after 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.Nge2 d5, but I don't think Black has very good winning chances in the line 6.exd5 exd5 7.d3 which seems to effectively transpose to a drawish variation known through 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.g3 d5. Acquiescing to that variation would defeat my intentions (although I admit sometimes you don't have a choice if your opponent really wants a draw). So Black has two options: 1) invite the drawish 7.d3 and the IQP positions with 7.d4; or 2) invite a transposition to a known line in the fianchetto Scheveningen.

As far as meeting my intended goals through my exploration of this variation, I think #2 is the only realistic option. It's an established Open Sicilian line after all, so the winning chances are there. Also my guess is that many Closed Sicilian players are not so familiar with those positions either. I think the only real potential barrier is when White holds back on d4 and f4 with normal Closed Sicilian moves as pointed out by kylemeister:

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 e6 5.Nge2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d3

Once again, I don't think 7...d5 is a bad move, but it comes back to the problem I stated earlier: 8.exd5 seems to transpose back to lines that give 2...e6 a solid but drawish reputation.

Here's my attempt to continue the Scheveningen approach:

7...a6!? 8.a4

Now 8...Rb8 9.Be3 b5 10.axb5 axb5 has been tested in several master games, but I think I actually like White's chances here. He can play for d4 or f4. I don't think achieving b5 is as desirable as it first appears. Control of the a-file appears to be a useful asset for White.

Black can build up more slowly after a move like 8...d6 and patiently develop the queenside, but often his development can become congested (e.g. after moves like d6, Bd7), while White seems to be able to expand more freely on the kingside. If this is the case, I believe White has a definite advantage.

I propose a third approach:

8...Nb4!?

which exploits the temporary opening of the b4 square by 8.a4. Instead of 8.a4, White could allow ...b5 and play a3 later, but Black can build up on the queenside with ...a5 and ...b4 with an important difference being that after axb4, Black can recapture with ...cxb4 as in Murey - Kramnik.

As strange as it looks, the main idea of 8...Nb4 is to be able to play ...d5 and recapture with a piece twice upon exd5 and Nxd5.

9.d4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 d5 seems to completely neutralize White's play.

9.f4 d5 10.e5 Nd7 once again looks like a good French structure. I don't think the knight on e2 is ideally placed here. Black can consider ...f6 to undermine the e5 wedge.

9.e5 Ng4!? looks interesting to me. I don't see problems here for Black either. 10.d4 cxd4 11.Qd4 h5 12.Be4 Qc7 looks strong on first impression. 10.f4 h5!? looks interesting and appears to be the best continuation for White. It looks a bit odd, but I think Black is OK. (Edit: On further reflection, I think 10.f4 d6! is strongest: 11.h3 Nh6 12.g4 dxe5 13.fxe5 Bg5 is one idea.)

The funny thing is that after all this thought, I'll probably end up playing the reliable g6+e6 Closed Sicilian main lines anyway.

I notice that several sources consider the Scheveningen reached after 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 e6 5. Nge2 Be7 6. 0-0 0-0 7. d4 cd 8. Nxd4 d6 to be unclear.  It may be that the most challenging to the approach you just laid out is 7. d3 Rb8 8. a4 a6 9. h3 (still keeping the f4-square free ...); e.g., the Russian encyclopedia cites Hort-Vladimirov, Leningrad 1967 as slightly better for White.

Ugh, I had a couple of paragraphs prepared and completely lost them!

Thanks for informing me of those references. I used to have NCO and BCO2, yet I haven't felt the desire to get an opening encyclopedia again. I would agree with equal and unclear in these positions! Soon after I wrote the last post, I noticed Palliser assessed 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 as "slightly better" for White in his Starting Out book by transposition (p. 171, citing R. Fischer - Bertok, Zagreb 1970). I do get the feeling he would more seriously consider Black's chances in a more serious book, but unfortunately most books on the Closed Sicilian tend to have such bias in evaluation and coverage.

In my opinion, line (a) (especially the 7.d3 approach) is the biggest obstacle to obtaining winning chances through this move order. I am very happy with Black's chances in line (b). I may consider holding back on d5 like Stocek in line (a), accepting potential transpositions to a fianchetto Taimanov or Scheveningen. The idea would be to wait until White has committed to a move like f4 until playing d5, but I would need to think about the move order carefully to make sure I don't allow an unfavorable Open Sicilian transposition.