Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/15/11 at 04:57:12:


I'll try that. 

As a preface: I enjoy 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4 on a regular basis, counting on the facts that it hasn't been in the spotlight of the big guys and the fact that it poses concrete problems to solve from move 2 on. Nevertheless, I am aware of the fact that this variation (IMHO) yields better prospects for white, who is (IMHO) good-advised to reply with 3.Nd5 (!). 

This constitutes the first try: 

A) What is your reply to 

1.e4 c5
2.a4?! Nc6 
3.Bb5 Nd4

? In the mirror variation, black's best retreat is Be7, yet the appearance of a pawn on a2 or a4 will not change the evaluation. The only retreat trying to utilize this move is by 4.Bc4, when black may just mirror the english variation by the means of 4...Nf6, when 5.c3 Nc6 6.d3 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 may be equal, but the additional move a4 doesn't impress much. I'd rather be black here. 

This tells me that you mostly will keep the bishop on b5, which however automatically puts you into standard openings in which a4 is harmless, like 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bb5!? Nd4 4.a4?. 

If you propose to challenge the d4 knight classicaly by 4.Nf3, black seems to be able to level the game by

4...Nf6!? (gamblers might also enjoy 4...a6!?, when 5.Nxd4 transposes to the note below and 5.Bc4 gives the additional possibility 5...d5!? 6.exd5 Bg4 - as well as a transposition by the means of 5...Nf6)
5.e5 (the desired 5.Nxd4 cxd4 6.d3 seems harmless: a6! 7.Bc4 d5 8.exd5 Bg4! this nice yet typical zwischenzug gives black a fine game) 

and if the white bishop does not retreat onto the a2-g8 diagonal, the whole point of a2-a4 seems to be missing (6.Bd3 Nd5=). Yet after

6.Bc4 d5!
7.Be2, it seems simplest for me to play 7...Nxe2 8.Qxe2 Ng8 9.d4 Bg4, which resembles a superior C-K (Bf1 exchange clearly favors black).   

The only true independent line is constituted by 4.c3?!, when 4...Nxb5 and 5...d5 next levels the game immediately.

And it should be kept in mind that this is a variation in which white was allowed to get his "dream" exchange on d4. 


B) Your variation 

1.e4 c5
2.a4?! g6
3.Nc3 (One can surely look what Marin has analyzed in the mirror variation following 3.d4?!, but you already agreed upon white having nothing in this line) Bg7
4.f4 Nc6 
5.Bb5

B1) - of course! - allows black to transpose into one of the GPA main lines by the means of 5...Nd4 6.Nf3. I think we agree that objectively, black does not have to fear this line, even though black was not able to "punish" the first player for his rather strange move order. 

B2) There is also the independent idea 5...Nh6!?, which enjoys a certain popularity against the "normal" Bb5 GPA (it takes the sting out of e4-e5, allows the defence manoeuvre f7-f5 and does not block the Bg7's view onto d4). The move a2-a4 seems rather dispensable in this variation.

B3) Also the "direct punishment" 5...Nb4 (!) seems adequate. After 6.Nf3 a6! (it seems to be most precise to first question the bishop and then play according to its retreat square) 7.Bc4 (7.Be2 is harmless, 7...d5 =+, the possibility Nh6, controlling f5, secures black the better game), black should rather not try the energetic 7..d5?!, when 8.exd5? Nf6 = as well as 8.Nxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxd5 Nf6 = gives him an easy game and 8.Bxd5! Bg4! is a creative and troublesome counterplay attempt (e6 comes with tempo, when Ne7-c6-d4 will be quick), yet does not seem to give enough compensation for the pawn. 

WAY better (after 6...a6 7.Bc4) is 7...e6!. This basically forces 8.e5, as otherwise black gets a hyper anti GPA setup with 8...d5. After 8.e5 d5! 9.exd6 Nf6 and Qxd6 next, black is at least equal. 

C) After 

1.e4 c5
2.a4?! e6
3.Nf3 Nc6
4.Bb5 you give 4...Nf6 in your analysis, but fail to mention the 'natural' 4...Ng-e7. This position is known with Nc3 instead of a4, with the former being way more useful. Usually, in this line White tries to exploit his development advantage, and a single wasted tempo can be quite telling.



Having employed the GPA exclusively (and quite successful) for several years, I do not feel comfortable with such an early a4. There are some subtleties in which White is better off with a2-a3 instead of a2-a4, and there are a LOT of positions in which the move is not needed at all. I have therefore at least mixed feelings regarding this move, even though it does not seem so easy to dismiss it. Nevertheless, as my considerations above show it is also not easy to claim an advantage.

I noticed, I just don't know how the dates compare to when an event was finished in correspondence chess. 

Ok, a decade is a bit long for a tnmt to drag on, even using snail mail.

Jon, what does "BCCA DJKO 39/1" represent? From the rest of your text, I'm guessing this was one of the correspondence games from your World Championship tnmt where you earned the CC IM title. (Congratulations!)

SWJediknight wrote on 08/15/11 at 17:56:59:

I don't know whether forcing matters early with White is bad. Some of my 2010 ideas (still unpublished) are sharp white gambits. With the Sicilian, I have this reservation because of (a) Black's extra pawn in the center, and (b) the Pelikan/Sveshnikov and other lines seem to equalize. 

John Watson speculated "meta-theoretically" that there may be a difference between 1.d4 and 1.e4: pawn e4 can be attacked more easily. If not today, this instance may gain relevance in the future, with PCs getting faster and the software stronger. Let's assume for a moment that John were right and 1.e4 invites simplifications (more than 1.d4). Instead of "Is forcing matters with 2.Nf3 good?" the real question may be: "Is it easier for Black to force matters (= simplify) in the Open or in the Closed Sicilian?" 

But following this line of argumentation is risky, it comes dangerously close to "1.d4!" (Hans Berliner), something I certainly don't agree with.

Markovich wrote on 08/16/11 at 15:50:51:


White can choose between many set-ups in the Closed, and while I am sure that the additional a4/a6 doesn't "ruin" the system, I am less sure which of the possible set-ups is best. 

My article http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss21.pdf tells the "history" of 1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 d3 d6 6 f4 e6 7 Nf3 Nge7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Be3 Nd4 10 e5. I propagated this exotic gambit (and versions of it) in two publications: S. Bücker: Geschlossener Sizilianer Teil 1, Nordwalde 1983; and S. Bücker: “Closed Sicilian,” in New in Chess Magazine 7/1985, pp. 52-56. I didn't invent it, but it was almost forgotten in 1983. In the late 1980s the brothers Bastian liked the 10.e5 version and used it successfully; so it's fair to call it "Bastian Gambit". Today there are 1.700+ games in the database, 53% for White, Miles and Spassky played it, Balashov scored heavily ("success elo": 2800). 

I still have much sympathy for the gambit 10.e5 and for my related ideas from the 1980s. But before I could confidently recommend the gambit in the a4/a6 version, a lot of work would be necessary. I really don't want to go into that now, I hope you understand. Maybe the following is sufficient to convince you that an experienced "Closed" player should not fear 2...a6.

1.e4 c5 2.a4 a6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.g3 (let's leave 4.f4 e6 5.Nf3 d5 6.d3 Nf6 for another day - I don't believe that Black has fully equalized) 4...g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.d3 e6 7.Be3 d6   


As I said above, gambit ideas starting with 8.f4 Nge7 9.Nf3 still seem promising. In particular as you intend to strive for b7-b5, which rather invites the gambit (pawn c5 becomes weak) than discourages it. E.g. 9...0-0 10.0-0, and now it seems wiser to play 10...b6 than some idea with b5. 

On the other side after a4/a6 there are factors which rather encourage set-ups without f2-f4. The additional a6 reduces Black's counterplay against d3-d4 (typically b6 +Ba6 attacking Rf1 is a plague). Therefore the direct 8.Nf3 comes into consideration: followed by 0-0, d4, Nce2, c3; or followed by Nf3-d2-b3, "working" on the c5 pawn. Other options are 8.h4!? or 8.Nge2 or 8.Nh3, so I'd be in trouble to identify a single best move. Finally, you gave 8.Qd2 Rb8 9.Nge2 b5. But after 10.axb5 axb5 11.d4 White is better. You'd have to prepare the advance b7-b5, e.g. 9...Nd4 which gives, however, White tons of concrete ideas, like 10.a5 Ne7 11.Bxd4 cxd4 12.Na4 or 10.Rb1 Ne7 11.b4 or even 10.0-0 Ne7 11.b4!? or 10.h4!?. 

There is a lot more to say, e.g. 9.f4(!) threatens both f4-f5 or 9...b5? 10.e5. Another case with many options. Probably Black should play 9...Nge7 10.Nf3 Nd4 11.0-0 Nec6 (or 11...b5 12.e5; or 11...0-0 12.a5 Nec6 13.e5) 12.e5. 


Just like in the 10.e5 gambit, it is difficult to say what is going on in the diagrammed position. All I can say is that I'd feel very much at home, it's quite similar to my pet line 10.e5. 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 08/18/11 at 02:37:55:

Many thanks for moving all these posts, Smyslov_Fan. If members ignore 2.a4, they hurt only themselves. 

The last 47 Posts were moved here from General Chess [move by] Smyslov_Fan.

More on identifying "high level" games: you could also order on the minimum of the Elos of the two players.

Stefan my be mistaken about that particular position, but it doesn't really affect his advocacy of 2.a4, which mainly envisions some sort of closed Sicilian.

So l'd like to come back to that and 2...a6, which is a move I continue to like.  Since 2...a6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.f4 e6 5.Nf3 d5 6.d3 Nf6 does not appear to be very good for White, I assume White's main idea would be 4.g3.  Against that, Black's set-up ...g6, ...Bg7, ...e6, ...Nge7 looks flexible and preserves ...d5 in one go as an option.  For example 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.d3 e6 7.f4 Nge7 8.Nf3 d5 9.O-O O-O.  This position has come up in 20 games in my database, White scoring 30.2%.  That score seems ridiculous to me, since I don't think White is worse, but I don't think that Black is worse either.  He has the obvious plan of ...Rb8, ...b5 and so forth. It looks like a game of chess where both sides have pretty significant winning chances, which is just what I like about Black's side of Closed Sicilian.

If White instead of 7.f4 goes with 7.Be3, then 7...d6 8.Qd2 Rb8 looks pretty interesting, and I see no reason why Black should be worse.  E.g. 10.Nge2 b5 11.axb5 axb5 12.0-0 b4 13.Nd1 Nd4 appears to be another one of those positions where both sides have good winning chances.

Stefan, you apparently understand these Closed Sicilian positions better than I do, since you've worked out a theory under which a4, ...a6 favors White.  So I look forward to being educated on this subject.  Why is White better after the methods that I've proposed for Black?

For what it's worth, I don't know that statistics are much of a guide to these positions with a4 and ...a6 in, since I've noticed that the games are mostly rather low-level.  However when the number of games goes up into the hundreds, I think the statistics do mean something. 

P.S. Moderator, maybe this 2.a4 Sicilian discussion should be snipped off and moved into Anti-Sicilians.

P.P.S. Stefan, ordering groups of games by White's average Elo introduces a bias, in that the stronger White is, the larger the likely disparity between White and Black.  To identify games as high-level, you should order by the average of both player's Elos.  Otherwise your results are contaminated by the tendency of stronger players to defeat weaker ones in the higher groups, and the symmetrical effect in the lower groups.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/17/11 at 00:09:19:


If we take this line one move further with 8...d6, we have the following position:



I can't imagine why you would prefer White.  Black has a standard Dragon position, while White has made a couple strange (and frankly just harmful) moves.  The b4 square is chronically weakened (in fact, White would prefer that the pawn be back on a2) and the queen stands awkwardly on d2.  Black looks slightly better to me.

Markovich wrote on 08/16/11 at 15:50:51:

First of all, thanks for all the constructive replies posted yesterday and today. I'll address more of it soon. 

Yes, 2...a6 should be seriously considered. The idea that the pair of moves a6/a4 was good for Black stems from the old times when the accepted way to counter the Closed Sicilian was Rb8 followed by b5 and b4. There were lines with a3, exchanging pawns on b4 (or maybe with a4 as a reaction to a5). A very similar thing may appear on the board after a6/a4 if Black continues with Rb8 and b5. Boris Spassky not only played these nice king-side attacks vs Portisch, he was also able to show that often White must play an active role on the queenside, in contrast to what was formerly believed. 

In http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1309410160/5#5 I had discussed the line 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.g3 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Bg2 Nf6 6.d3 d4 7.Ne4 Nxe4, trying to explain why White scored badly here. (Yes, it is different than the version with a6/a4 included. But in both cases I believe that the position is objectively doing fine for White, at least in the hand of good players.)



Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/01/11 at 02:58:19:

I still feel that there must be lines in which the tempo used for 2.a4 could be better for something else, as TalJechin says about the center play e.g. Also, the weakening of b4 this early can't be better than the advantage of a4 when Black has played neither ...a6 nor ...b6, can it? Don't have any concrete lines though, without looking at it more in detail. Anyway, thanks for the link Stefan.

Stefan, I didn't see your link, sorry; but I also have not issued any sweeping condemnations or said that anyone's work shouldn't be published. My essential point was that analysis that commences at move two must necessarily be inadequate for determining moves at that stage and that, therefore, one must rely on principle. In all fairness, I don't think that that's an empty statement.

I agree that in chess, eventually, all is specificity. I do not agree that this means that chess principles aren't a good basis for finding moves in many situations. For humans finding them, at any rate.
 
Further, what is your argument about not opening the game early but an appeal to principle?

SWJediknight wrote on 08/15/11 at 17:56:59:

In some lines my article wasn't very specific. For example, after 2...a6 I just linked to another article on 2.Nc3 a6 3.a4. In my experience the pair of moves a6/a4 improves White's chances in the Closed Sicilian. The most popular Anti-Closed set-up today is the one with b6, Bb7, Qd7, f5. Softening up Black's structure on the queen side (b5 axb5 axb5) is a small success. Black can still play b6 after a4/a6, but the structure is weaker than without a7-a6. In opening books I've sometimes seen remarks that the inclusion of a4/a6 in the Closed Sicilian favoured Black, but in this point I disagree. 

Regarding the question whether a4 is useful in Bb5 Sicilians, Gerard Welling knows more about these positions than I do. He believes that it is useful in many lines, but not in all cases. However, he doesn't think that there is a single line where a4 is more a negative than a positive factor. And we shouldn't forget that a4, innocuous as it seems, produces a new situation, it isn't simply an English Opening Reversed. There are many people who do play 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4 with Black and think it is equal. Ask them whether they'd like a move a5 for free!

Djy wrote on 08/15/11 at 13:08:30:

That comes close, but I think Gerard would rather say: it requires some good moves from Black, and if he finds a line where a4 isn't a real advantage, then let's play chess. 

SWJediknight wrote on 08/15/11 at 17:56:59:

Don't ask me about details (someone else did the work), but 6.Qe2 is equal at best. (And TalJechin's 2.Nc3 d5: I always loved that with Black. Sicilian 2.Nf3 advocates are lucky that e5 is unprotected.) I am a big fan of the Scotch, but 4.Nxd4 Qh4 is Black's best option and entirely unclear. 

@TalJechin: Thanks for your remarks. You mention 2...a6 and 2...g6. My article http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss65.pdf already said a bit about these moves: 

Quote:

I also find it hard to believe that 2.a4 could be as good as 2.Nf3 or 2.Nc3, except from a hypertheoretical perspective (all of these moves lead to a draw).

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/14/11 at 21:38:46:


I think you are right about this. How many U1800 players regularly play Nd5 sacs, e.g.?

Markovich wrote on 08/15/11 at 02:18:55:

Did you see the link? Before criticizing you could at least look at my article. I am tired of the empty talk. Give me a concrete suggestion for Black. I think the logic (principles, if you want) behind the move is pretty good, and yes, I have a tree of variations which only partly went into the article. 

I don't think I ever wrote on 1.a3. My principles do tell me that 1.e4 c5 2.h4 or 2.Nh3 or 2.Qf3 are dubious. However, my principles don't tell me whether 2.Na3 or 2.a4 is better. Sometimes there is no alternative to concrete analysis.

Larry Evans condemned unorthodox ideas. I remember one of his articles in Chess Life, where he found one error in a long analysis by Weaver Adams. On this basis alone Evans attacked Adams in a rude manner, quoting "principles in chess" and that A.'s stuff should never have been printed and so on. With a little effort of his own Evans could have repaired the analysis. But no, he had his principles, and filling two pages with empty phrases meant more to him than simply trying to find a better move.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/14/11 at 21:38:46:


Because it's known to be better, at least at higher levels, to stick to and develop a repertoire. I think Botvinnik was the first person to openly declare this idea, and said he could fit it all in one notebook. In fact it's absolute beginners that play something different every day of the week. 

If you're learning a math book, you don't do part of chapter one monday, part of chapter two tuesday etc., it's easier to study one thing at the time or you just won't know what you're doing.

Fromper wrote on 08/08/11 at 22:46:55:

This is a good reason to keep on playing the Morra Gambit. I only noted that it doesn't apply anymore as soon as White faces stronger opponents.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/12/11 at 21:49:59:

This is a good reason to play 2.Nc3. Alas I'm too weak to take benefit of it. I lack the necessary positional skills.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/12/11 at 21:49:59:

You don't have to, because I have played OTB the Morra Gambit, the GPA and even Bb5-variations way more often than the Open Sicilian (only 4 games; score 2½).
In corr. chess I have played the Open Sicilian more often, overall with good results.
Moreover with my Dutch ELO about 1800 I don't belong to the biased stronger players who prefer 2.Nf3 and 3.d4.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/12/11 at 21:49:59:

You still avoid my counterargument that this applies to say the Löwenfish as well. Similar approaches are possible against the Sveshnikov as well. If you don't believe, consult Davies' Tame the Sicilian. It contains an entire repertoire based on the Open Sicilian and still is smaller than several books I own on several Anti-Sicilians.
As for the Sveshnikov: 6.Nf3 is an easy solution. So is 7.Nd5. White has done well with 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 and 11.g3. I would like to recommend the piece sac 11.Bxb5 too, but Black can avoid it with 10...Bg7. Maybe someone likes 11.c3 Bg7 (f5) 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.g3 better.
Before anyone screams: "but Black can equalize this or that way!" remember: 1.e4 c5 is equal anyhow. If there is an edge after all for White an U1800 player will not be able to maintain it anyway, certainly not in the sophisticated lines you recommend after 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/12/11 at 21:49:59:

No, I did not claim that. I claimed that "tons of theory" is the wrong reason to avoid the Open Sicilian, simply because White does not need to study tons of theory to play it. My point of view is this: 1.e4 c5 is equal anyway. So the way to go is posing problems. If anyone thinks he/she can do that with 2.b3, the Closed Sicilian, the GPA or even 2.a4, go ahead.
Moreover I made another point - an ambitious amateur of U1800, who wants to improve, should usually focus on relatively simple strategy and complex tactics instead of complex strategy and simple tactics. Then offbeat Open Sicilians are perfect.
What I specifically attack is the idea of "the Open Sicilians are too much work now, I'll postpone it for a few years". This will lead to postponing it eternally.
Yochanan Afek said something similar about taking up the Ruy Lopez vs. sticking to the Scotch.

If anyone has positive reasons to play some Anti-Sicilian, he/she has my blessings. These days I play 1.d4, so it's not a question for me anymore. Except that the NID, Rubinstein Variation (4.e3) is also equal. Still I have a positive score with it, in corr. chess.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/13/11 at 08:24:11:

Then you can wait until the cows come home. And again: I don't cheer about the strength of 2.Nf3. This is another logical fallacy. This one is called a strawman.
So for the zillionth time: your arguments to avoid the Open Sicilian are wrong. That doesn't imply that 2.Nf3 is better than 2.b3 or 2.Nc3. I am certainly not stupid enough to argue that the Löwenfish is stronger than the Czerniak Variation, the Closed and the GPA.
What I argue is simply this (also for the zillionth time): your arguments to play various Anti-Sicilians also apply to the Löwenfish and the sidelines of the Sveshnikov I mentioned. This is exactly what I wrote in the first sentence of this post.

Concrete analyses by Top GMs haven't had much influence, they often start at move 15. Anyway, players of all levels did find a few results: 

In the Dutch 1.d4 f5 set-ups with an early e4 are not successful. For example, the Staunton Gambit 2.e4 leads to exchanges and simplification (=). 

Against 1.f4, neither the immediate 1...e5 (+=) nor the various plans after 1...d5 which prepare e7-e5 can fully equalize. 

In the English Opening 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3, only few players like to play 2...Nf6 followed by d5. 

The Spanish is sometimes regarded as White's best system in the Open Games. In contrast to 3.d4 or other "faster" systems it often requires patient manoeuvering. 

[sarcasm] But of course, the Sicilian is the one and only exception. Here it is best to ruin your pawn structure for the ending, open the game prematurely, allow all kind of forcing lines and simplifications. And even with best play from Black, White has "winning chances". [/sarcasm]

Play 2.Nf3, if you want. Maybe one day I'll join the 2.Nf3 camp, if Sveshnikov is solved. But this cheering about the strength of 2.Nf3 is ridiculous.

As a player around Fromper's level, or a little higher (1900-2000 OTB), I can confirm that the advantage of the first move is essentially swamped by the randomness of play at this level.  My results with Black are as good, or better than, my results with the White pieces (This is, probably, because I spend a lot of time on my Black openings, but just play chess with White.  Yes, I realize this is dumb.  I have a great score against my Black repertoire - all my own openings are clearly a forced loss!)

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that for players "down here with the rest of us," playing OTB chess below master strength, opening choice is far more a matter of taste than theoretical validity.  In all probability you will play three or four "second-best" theoretical recommendations and end up in the hinterlands of theory (if not out of it entirely) by move 12.   And if you don't, your opponent will play the London System or something and make "theory" borderline irrelevant.

So the Smith-Morra is probably as good as anything else, although I can't imagine a gambit player not enjoying the actual Open Sicilian, myself.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/12/11 at 11:52:56:

Exactly the same point can be made for something like the Löwenfish Attack or the Sozin-English Attack hybrid (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 followed by Bb3, Be3, f3, Qe2 or Qd2 and O-O-O).
Some numbers again: 2.b3 plus the related 2.Nf3/3.b3 about 12 000 games. The Löwenfish Attack: 2200.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/12/11 at 11:52:56:

What you consequently and conveniently forget is that your 70% for the largest part consists of topical stuff like the Jugoslav Attack, the Richter Rauser and the Najdorf 6.Bg5. To my best knowledge White is not obliged to play that after 2.Nf3 and 3.d4, but has the very right to deviate from them on move 6.
Some more numbers: with the Löwenfish Attack less than 100 games were played at U1800 level. The 2.c3 Sicilian: 2700 games. The 2.b3 and 2.Nf3/3.b3 Sicilian: more than 250.
I believe you are presenting a logical fallacy.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/12/11 at 11:52:56:

 
Black could also be often aware of his weakness against some openings, but is trying to learn his defence against the main lines first. I think it's reasonable to study one opening like this first, especially if the player buys a book/dvd on it and sees many variations and ideas. Otherwise it is hard to get a feeling for the middle game. Though of course it is a good idea to alert them to fact anyway. I wonder if we could have a distribution set/curve of what "<1800" chessbase statistics actually means or at least the average of what we're talking about.  

I like the Open Sicilian myself, but I also like the Anti-Sicilians, especially the Alapin, which I think is only marginally inferior to the Open Sicilian.

Do you really analyse positions like 1.e4 c5 2.a4?
On the search for "new positions" this approach seems to me more than a bit sophisticated. Doesn´t the king´s gambit need all your help to get playable?

Btw. - I really would like to read more kassiber editions. Any forecast, when the next booklet is ready?

Uhohspaghettio wrote on 08/10/11 at 18:58:00:

Who am I supposed to say he is wrong?
As far as I know FM Bücker and I are only presenting interesting data. Drawing a conclusion is an entirely different matter.

You can find exceptions but there are also exceptions and illogical data found even the 2600+ section. It seems to me like people are just selecting the data to try to say he's wrong, which is 100% selective bias. 
  
Smyslov Fan was quite correct to state there is a significant first-move advantage across all levels at least 1800+. Though the higher up you get the more draws you are likely to get (or be forced into) also, which impacts on White's performance. I think for example if you discounted draws that you would find the first-move advantage is made significantly more of at the higher levels, which is logical.  

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/10/11 at 07:37:58:

According to my database the numbers are different for ELO 1800-. Open Sicilian: 50%. Closed Sicilian: 55%. But note 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.g3 d5: White scores 31% (2½/8). A lot better is the GPA-line 3.f4 d5: 50%. Go figure.

GabrielGale wrote on 08/10/11 at 04:30:05:


It wasn't my intention to bag out Suttles; in fact I have had a lot of fun playing some of his openings online. With my post I was trying to show that the nature of repertoire books are that soon after one repertoire book is published, a repertoire book for the other side is also published. I've even seen cases of authors writing a repertoire book on one opening and later write a book on how to beat that opening. I included Suttles in the above post to try and show that Storey and Dzindzichashvili also have original ideas in their works. 

I am sorry if my post offended you.

The variation 1.e4 c5 2.a4 was invented by the American opening theoretician and author Hugh Edward Myers (1930-2008), inspired by a discussion in 1958 about 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 with GM Nicolas Rossolimo. The latter liked to combine his pet line with an early a2-a4. Myers' stem games with 2.a4 from the 1960s appeared with instructive comments in Exploring the Chess Openings (1978) and in Myers' autobiography A Chess Explorer (2002). 

My own article http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss65.pdf gives an introduction into the ideas, recommending 2.a4 as part of my semi-unusual repertoire for 1.e4 players. The line remained a rarity, but the Dutch IM Gerard Welling used it with success. In his games Welling follows Myers' main concept: White hopes for a version of the Rossolimo Variation, but in contrast to the beginning 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 White may be able to choose a different set-up including f4 or develop his king's knight to e2 after, say 1.e4 c5 2.a4 Nc6 3.Bb5 or 2...Bd7 3.Bb5+. Moreover, in contrast to 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6, when White must be familiar with another system, the Myers Variation offers possibilities to steer the game into Rossolimo channels (or d6 Bb5+ channels) even against 2...g6. - To the following game I added some analysis in order to illustrate White's options after 2...g6.