gewgaw wrote on 11/03/20 at 19:27:49:

I remember the ...g5 thing.

More history:  in the Wijk aan Zee 1975 tournament book, Kavalek wrote (of the position after 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cd 4 Nxd4 Nc6 5 Nc3 d6), "Did anyone ever think of playing 6. P-KN4!? here.  This is just curiosity, but I can almost bet that Quinteros would reply to it with 6...P-KN4."

A decade later, Karpov played 6. g4 against Kasparov ...who eventually (on move 13) put his knight on f6.

The really annoying thing about 6 Be3 is that white still retains the option for a huge variety of set ups - English Attacks, Be2 too, Bc4 etc etc.

Meanwhile black doesn't have many sensible ideas left except for 6 .. Nf6 and back to the main lines. For instance 6 f3 Be7!? can be amusing, 6 Be3 Be7 7 g4 is rather less so.

Maybe 6.. a6 but that doesn't quite fit in with 5.. d6.

gewgaw wrote on 11/02/20 at 11:23:50:

GM Kotronias and IM Semkov in Attacking the Flexible Sicilian look at this from White's pov. They recommend 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f4.

It does seem somehow slightly depressing to potentially keep defending that ending, but I guess if you've looked at how to draw it then you'll draw it and then white will be after something different to try too!

A slight tangent: LC0 is moderately keen on 6.. e5 in the pseudo Keres where black has Nc6 in instead of Nf6.

That can turn very silly indeed  

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cd 4 Nxd4 Nc6 5 Nc3 d6 6 g4 e5!? 7 Nf5 h5 8 g5 g6 9 Ne3 Qxg5 10 Ned5 Qd8 11 Nb5 Bg4 12 f3 Qh4+ 13 Ke2 Rc8 14 Be3 a6 14 Nbc7+ Kd7

Rather unclear!

LeeRoth wrote on 07/30/11 at 17:10:00:


In my file of internet games, both against IMs, I find 16...0-0-0 17.exf5 Nd4 (instead of Nf4) and 16...fxe4 17.Nxe4 f5 18.Ng3 Nxg3 19.fxg3. Both should be ok, and computers agree.

But I'm not so sure which lines are critical. It seems 7.Nf5 is now more often played by strong players. I haven't investigated 7...Nc6 yet.

Harald Keilhack wrote on 07/06/11 at 21:30:42:


It's interesting.  I thought the critical line to be  Kurnosov-Nisipeanu, Budva 2009.  After 12.Bxd8 gxf5 13.Bxd6 Nc6 14.Bc5 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 b6 16.Bd6 0-0-0 17.exf4 Nf4 18.Ne4 Rh4 19.f3 Nd4 20.Rxd4 exd4 21.Be7, when White had a significant advantage even if he failed to convert it.  But I see that Kurnosov later tried this line as Black, so maybe he had an improvement in mind.  Marin had suggested 16..fxe4 17.Nxe4 0-0-0 as a possible improvement for Black, but it hasn't been tried and the position still looks a bit better for White. Do you have something in mind here?    

I'd need to see the first 6 moves before I could comment.

Is the position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.g4 correct?

Here's a link to Nisipeanu's game against Azarov from earlier this year:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1611657

Hello,

is there anybody who has experience in this line?

IF this line works, it would be an elegant solution to the Scheveningen move order, and no reason  to study the Main Line Najdorf just to avoid the Keres.

Against unprepared opponents, the move 6...e5 works rather well and leads to some original positions.

Theoretical issues:

a) 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.Nf5 h5 10.gxh5 Nxh5, and now the spectacular 11.Bh6!.
Incidentelly, it seems I was the first one who faced this move in a tournament game, some years later it became the main recommodation in White repertoire books.
I think Black is rather Ok after Nisipeanu's  11...g6! with enough compensation in the upcoming endgame.

b) 7.Nf5 h5 8.g5 Nxe4 9.Nxg7+ Bxg7 10.Nxe4 d5 11.Ng3! (11.Nf6+ works very well for Black), and now the original idea is the exchange sac 11...Nc6 12.Nxh5 Rxh5 13.Qxh5 Nd4. Though it has still good statistics, I doubt this is not correct after 14.Bd3!, and it seems there are some guys on ICC who can even convincingly refute this in a Blitz game.

But there are possiblities like 11...Bg4.
Someone has checked this stuff?