fling wrote on 01/25/11 at 21:05:48:


You do get a very atypical pawn structure which I have found to be uncomfortable for Black.  The upside is that the strange, atypical and uncomfortable pawn structure controls a lot of important squares.  It is very positional, as are many other lines with a White piece taking on c6 in the Sicilian (e.g. - Kasparov's first Dragon in the 1995 match with Anand).

Not suited for players who treat the sicilian as an opportunity to attack the king.

OrangeCounty wrote on 01/25/11 at 17:50:12:


Those lines are pretty unbalanced (Black center pawns vs White bishop-pair) and seems to offer a lot of play for both sides. Not so typical Sicilian-style positions, though, IMO.

OrangeCounty wrote on 01/25/11 at 17:50:12:

I agree that the Be2/Be3 lines don't look very inspiring for Black. It's only my total lack of understanding of the Classical Scheveningen that keeps me from playing them with White.

To nitpick a bit, is it really true these days that this is the "absolute main line"? You could argue that the English Attack has taken over that role.

MNb wrote on 12/18/10 at 15:35:47:


Sorry to come back a little late. What was the answer against the Kan again? Playing 5. Be2 Nf6 6. Nc3 followed by castling? It looks like a decent enough line where you can just play chess, although not particularly dangerous to black. I need to analyze this more, when I have time / get home.
The a3 idea applies only to the Taimanov, right? I guess it's strength depends on how much white wants a Scheveningen and black wants to avoid one.

Whites also arguing/reasoning that a Taminov player is not used to being threatened by this sort of naked aggression. So even a slightly suboptimal version of it has real potential. 

I think thats entirely plausible vs many Taminov players at club level etc, but breaks down somewhere as all of the really strong GMs are very flexible indeed now.

Personally I have it hanging about as surprise weapon if I feel bloodthirsty/irresponsible but mostly the main line stuff instead.

kylemeister wrote on 12/18/10 at 17:08:27:

Well, that was exactly my point, wasn't it? If White would not play a3 in the Classical Scheveningen, then I don't get why this move is so fantastiwastic via another moveorder.

And indeed he does go f4/g4/Be3/Be2 /o-o-o vs an early d6. Bologan's best game book has a couple of nice games as white in that. Never quite been a main line but very dangerous.

In fact even then some of the quick b5 lines get quite close to forcing him to play a3 anyway

MartinC wrote on 12/17/10 at 20:38:40:

Then not playing a2-a3 is even quicker.

MartinC wrote on 12/17/10 at 20:38:40:

Exactly.
More important:

felipesan wrote on 11/16/10 at 08:24:14:


Meat wrote on 11/23/10 at 08:15:03:


It looks like we have a few decent answers now.

The question isn't how useful 8 a3 is if white plays directly as a Classical Scheveningen. White's not planning to play like that. He's going for a quick (very quick perhaps!) f4/g4 with an eventual o-o-o to follow.
(unless he goes Kd2 after Bh4+ as in one of the DW lines!)

Trying that against the Scheveningen has a few issues with early b5 ideas aiming at the weakened e4 pawn. Still playable of course - the odd Kasparov - Adams game iirc. 

But its pretty dangerous in a straight attack race/space grab situation vs classical development. Of course its still entirely playable for black cf Emms' repitoire book etc

So even Nc6 is a non trivial concession. It certainly doesn't help to hit at e4 and the alternative 'natural' e5 break is very double edged, even with the pawn it normally wins. Its the same sort of subtle effect as in those f3 Rauser lines? 

Yes the classical main line is a good and substantially more reliable way to play. But no risk of mating black in 20 moves

Really the basic attraction of 8 a3 is dragging black into position types you can't normally get him into in these lines. So yes, less interesting if black is using the Taminov to reach the Scheveningen.....

Probably better suited as a surprise than a full time main line.

Stigma wrote on 12/17/10 at 18:05:21:

OK, but that means that the idea a3 isn't a complete solution against 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6/a6, right?

kylemeister wrote on 12/17/10 at 18:09:56:

You think White has enough after 12...Bxg4 ? In such positions the loss of a tempo with a2-a3 might very well be significant ... The question "What exactly does the move a2-a3 add to White's position in the Scheveningen with Be2 ?" remains. I mean, with the moveorder I gave above, wouldn't you rather play 10.g5 ?

In the Taimanov move order Black has played an early Qc7. That makes a ...d5 break, which would be the classical reaction to an early pawn storm with f4 and g4, harder to realize. So White can argue that given his plan of f4/g4, Qc7 is not much more useful than a3 in this Scheveningen structure.

This was pure armchair reasoning, so don't ask me to provide examples 

From Black's point of view, one appeal of  the Taimanov is that all lines lead to interesting play.
Against the set-up with Be2,Be3 and a3, I guess many Taimanov fans would play Be7 and d7-d5 in one go. However, if an early a3 can be venomous in the scheveningen, that's an interesting bit of information.

ErictheRed wrote on 12/17/10 at 05:58:43:

That's not the most theoretical line of the Open Sicilian either. Perez-Garcia, CUBch 1995 is not theoretical at all.

Remember
Meat wrote on 11/23/10 at 08:15:03:



Those lines with 8.a3 in the end are an inferior version of the Classical Scheveningen, where White only plays a2-a3 in answer to ....b7-b5. It's still a game of course and Ivantsjuk managed to beat Radjabov with it.

6...Qc7 7.0-0 Nc6 transposes directly to a Taimanov, and is of course valid, but I would guess that a Kan player would try 7...Bc5!?

MNb wrote on 12/15/10 at 19:02:58:


I don't really understand this, after 5.Be2 Black should just play 5...Nf6.  White has to play 6.Nc3 or else Black can play 6...d5, correct?  So 5.Be2 Nf6 6.Nc3 Qc7 (or Bb4!?) and it's just a regular Kan.

Black very rarely plays ...Nc6 in the Kan.  When he does, it's usually inferior or transposes to a Taimanov or Paulson (there are a couple of exceptions).

In a very general sense, which is how I read the question, Black's counterplay in the Taimanov is targeted at c2. Why would you castle into Black's attack?

Raffie wrote on 11/22/10 at 11:36:07:


I assume you mean 4...a6 and 5...Qc7. 5.f4!? and 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Qf3!? are both interesting tries to catch out the opponent, although with best play they peter out to equality.

What are you calling the Taimanov?  I notice that some people use the Taimanov, Paulsen, and Kan names somewhat interchangeably.

Not sure - there aren't all that many anti Taminov lines where you get to castle long though  

The recent English attack stuff I guess or the Be3/Be2/a3/f4/g4 etc thing. The former seems very popular now, the latter a little bit wild if dangerous.

There are plenty of good enough lines but nothing dramatically effective. Its a very solid opening so pick one of the main lines which feels like it suits you.

is it better short or long castling?