It could be mentioned that Sveshnikov addressed both 3. Na3 and 3. g3 in his B22 monograph from 14 years ago (he gave the first as leading to unclarity, the second as leading to an edge for White).

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/16/11 at 09:33:48:


Curious if he considers 3. Na3.  Anyway I play other lines involving Na3 in the 2. c3 lines, so I have a certain comfort level, e.g. http://queenalice.com/game.php?id=613161 ; Plus just because an IM says so doesn't make it so.  I'm reminded of some IM or GM (Christian Bauer?) asserting 4...a6 is equal in the 3. d4 exd4  4. Qxd4 line of the Philidor, but I've posted with my 5. Qa4+!? idea, and whereas that wasn't especially well-received, I've gotten the impression that the general consensus is 5. Bf4 Nc6  6. Qd2 is better for White.

In this line of the Philidor on general principles I cannot believe Black is equal due to his having played nothing but pawn moves the first 4 moves of an open game.  Likewise on general principle I cannot believe 2...Qa5 as being equal for Black against the 2. c3 Sicilian, moving the queen altogether too early, making it a target for Na3-c4, etc.

Mnb, i am not going to disagree with you as i think that basicaly we are saying similar things. Yes, i agree on understanding and that Bologan's example in not proof even though many GMs share the same opinion with him as i have read in various sources.

About theory now (even though it seems that this belongs to the general section and not on the Anti-Sicilians) you said about Italian and other examples that are not really weird side-lines such as 1.b3 or 1.b4. I don't have a problem a students of mine to take up the Italian, or even the Scotch gambit instead of my proposal that is the Spanish. Or, to be relevant with the Anti-Sicilian section, i don't see something wrong with the choice of 2.c3 instead of my recommendation which is the open variations of the Sicilian. In fact, i agree that a young player with good understanding of the Alapin can be more effective that one that plays the Open and cannot understand the positions quite deep as in general you need to be a much stronger player to do so. But again, the Alapin is not a rare side-line! I would have problem if a student of mine played 2.Na3 in regular basis and i consider this (to build your repertoire against the Sicilian with such side-lines) a stupid thing to do for many reasons. Basically you win nothing and you lose many things. Probably you win only in the sense that you feel humorous and funny and you want to be creative, but this is just for 1 or 2 games. If this becomes a general philosophy i am against it and as i understand you are against it also.

What i have understood after many years of guiding junior players is that if they follow a main line can play decent moves and stay "in theory" and as a result they have good positions. If they are playing some weird side-line, with the first sub-optimal move they get bad positions. That's why i said that by playing main lines (OK, the ones that are not forced in nature!) you can play them without the need of deep study.

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/16/11 at 09:33:48:

Alas, no. A club player needs guidance to play an opening decently. And there is something to say for taking up less theoretical stuff - it is usually also less complicated strategically speaking. The good news is that club players don't have the skills to take benefit of a small opening advantage anyway, so they have more choice than GM's. The Giuoco Pianissimo/Modern Italian (c3, d3) eg is a fine choice, even though it will be easier for Black to equalize than against the Ruy Lopez. The same for the Glek System, the King's Gambit, the Evans Gambit etcetera. These are basically sound openings and give the clubplayer who understands them better excellent chances.
They still require some work.

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/16/11 at 09:33:48:

To paraphraze yourself: one example is no proof.

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/16/11 at 09:33:48:

My point is that that study should focus on understanding. Playing 2.Na3 for pseudopsychological reasons is a bad idea. Playing it because the clubplayer knows what kind of positions he/she wants and because he/she feels comfortable with them is a good idea.
Apparently GJempty goes for the surprise, surprise effect.

George Jempty wrote on 02/15/11 at 12:02:03:

Two wrong assumptions.
I have known a couple of players who like 1.b4 and 1.b3. It's their goal to lure you in unknown territory like that and outplay you on experience. They love it. So yes, I deny. Because your psychology backfires.
In the second place you make it harder for yourself to reach a playable position. So a little later you will be the one to burn time on the clock, because you have found yourself in an unusual position where following the three basic rules is not enough anymore.
I guess you will have to learn this the hard way.

But can't they meet your 1. b3 b5 with the super unusual an incredibly strong 2. b4!, forcing you to psychologically deal with the fact that you're White but looking at Black pieces? How are you going to handle such a monumental development!?! 

Why not make an attempt at playing less like an 1700 amateur and try to smash him after the best (or one of them) 1...e5! 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 d5!

Grab the center. Beat them. Play principled chess.

George Jempty wrote on 02/12/11 at 01:24:24:

This is self-obsessed warbling. I am an amateur and otb not that much stronger than you (about 1800). Trying to find good moves in the opening, ie those that follow the basic principles of centre control, development and King's safety  is hard enough. Trying to meet the unusual with the unusual on our level usually backfires. If I meet something unusual I never try to refute it, never try to do something unusual, but instead simply try to follow those three principles. The result in more than 9 out of 10 games is that I get a pleasant position after 10, 15 moves, after which I often still manage to screw things up. That's why I am a patzer.