Bibs wrote on 12/07/13 at 02:01:48:


Me too, scored well online and in ordinary blitz with some lines the book thought to bad to mention. IIrc it was something with ...e6 and ...Bxb4 and my Qg4 worked very well indeed, except against a computer in analysis...

Which is also a downside of the book, at least the 1st edition (but probably this one too). It recommended lines hard to fathom and remember - like that Ra3 sac vs ...e6, almost no one accepted the exchange and soon you find yourself out of book in an early middlegame with a homeless rook on the third rank. But for an engine it's easy to see where and when it should be moved...

Does it? In what way? Your implicit assumption is that somehow playing 2.a3 is better than playing actual good moves on the basis that your opponent might know some theory too?

Michel Barbaut wrote on 12/03/13 at 14:32:17:


Srsly?!?

Michel Barbaut wrote on 12/03/13 at 14:32:17:

That's amazing. I've seen several discussions on the Internet where people said something like "if you want something without theory against the Sicilian, you'll have to play a move like 2.a3". And then I would point out that there was in fact an entire book on that line already (Bezgodov's "Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3!?" from 2004).

Now the same publisher is bringing out a second book on 2.a3. I find this mildly absurd...

MNb wrote on 09/06/11 at 19:51:09:


I started playing the Wing Gambit recently in speed games and this 3...e5 variation is the one I've had the toughest time proving compensation against.  After 4.axb4, Houdini thinks 4...Nf6! is strong.

1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3 b3 could also be worth trying for Black

     4.cxb3 d5 5.exd5 Nf6 6.Bb5+ Bd7   Kravtsiv-Kuzubov, Ch-Ukr 2006
                      5.e5 Nc6 6.d4 Forster – Bauer, SUI-chT Switzerland 2008
     4.c3 Qb5 5.Bb2 Qg6 Nanu-Manolache, Padron 2004

with interesting play. Even if Nanu-Manolache bailewd out in a short draw.

2.b4! is much better imo. There is no need to prepare this move as Black can "stop" it by playing 2...g6!

Btw, 2.b4 e5 or 2...cxb4 3.a3 e5 is very very interesting from Black's point of view. Unfortunately not the same can be said for 2.a3 e5?! when the delay of the move b4 is in White's favour. But, too weird position to look for nuances like that. It doesn't worth the effort in my opinion. On the contrary 2.b4 can help your chess and your practical results. White is no worse as the traditional theory believes. Kaissiber articles is a good place to start investigating. Also games from some Italian IMs can prove usefull.

But please, also study the Open lines sometime. Experts Vs the Sicilian is still a good source. Also De la Villa's book offers a complete repertoire which can be worked together with the recent Bologan's Chessbase DVDs as they have the same repertoire choices: The ENglish Attack!

But Bezgodov's results are not really impressive; according to my database, he has played 2.a3 four times, scoring 2.5 points, but against weaker opponents, so he actually lost rating points (his average is 2550, his TRP with 2.a3 is 2515).
Vladimir Dobrov scored somehow better: 8.5 points from 14 games, also against weaker opponents, but he reached a TRP of 2517, his own mean rating being 2503.
With almost all second moves, Black scores more than 50 %, the only exception being 2...Nc6?!, where White scores 58 %, and the quite rare 2...a6?!. The point after 2...Nc6?! seems to be 3.b4!?, when White gets a (probably) reasonable version of the Wing Gambit, scoring 62%, but that might be due to his much better knowledge of the "theory".

Richard Palliser (in Fighting the Anti-Sicilians, Everyman 2007, p. 239 ff) recommends 2...g6!, which is indeed both the most common and statistically one of the most successful moves (from Black's point of view, White scores only 40 %); a secondary line is 2...e6 (also quite common and scoring well for Black), after which White doesn't seem to have a good answer.

There is also quite some coverage here in the Anti-Sicilians section with 12 annotated games; I hope I don't violate too many copyright laws when I quote one comment form Andrew Martin at the beginning of the latest game covered (Klings-Bruno, Capo d'Orso op 2008):
Quote:

(By the way, White lost that game.)

Best regards,

Zwischenzugzwang