By the way, Grandelius got another crack at this line today, and opted for h4 on move 14 (as opposed to move 16 as in his earlier game, or move 15 as suggested by Eric ...).  Obodchuk's article had "with counterplay" after 16...Kh8.

kylemeister wrote on 04/01/14 at 17:53:09:


After some research I have a feeling this is indeed quite acceptable for black. White has Bxh6 at one point forcing a draw, but as soon as the white-squared bishops gets exchanged (Ba6) black seems to be able to hold on the kingside. With the central pawn majority and open b-file he then has good longterm chances.

In the Obodchuk article I mentioned, he liked deviating from those correspondence games (and from Edouard-Raetsky) with 11...Bb4 12. Be2 0-0 13. e5 Nh7 14. Ne4 a5, which had been played by the Croatian grandmaster Jankovic.

Thank you very much for the replies.  I will go over the games tonight.

OrangeCounty wrote on 04/01/14 at 00:12:14:


Perhaps you should compare the position to those that arise after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cd 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6 bc 7.Bd3 d5.  The concrete lines are different, but White's effectively up an entire tempo or so in the Richter-Rauzer version with the same pawn structure.  

In the Ricther-Rauzer line, Black's kingside has been compromised by ...h7-h6 already, providing White a potential target for attack.  The rook on d1 exerts unpleasant pressure down the d-file and Black has problems to solve with his light-squared bishop.  White's bishop on f4 means that Black doesn't have b8 for a rook, so it's difficult to create play down the b-file.  And don't forget that White is ahead in development in an opposite-side castled situation where Black's kingside has been slightly compromised.

It's not like this refutes the whole Classical Sicilian or anything, but White has a lot going for him.  In concrete terms, 13.h4 is probably better than the 13.Qg3 of your line, trying to extract a defensive tempo out of Black and generally threatening to get on with things (i.e. 14.g4 is coming if Black does nothing).  

Black's 13th move must be a mistake in this game, but here's something to just show the ideas (and this is a recent game where Black is a GM, it's not like Raetsky is a fish):

raja wrote on 12/29/11 at 20:03:53:


In my opinion :

1. Bobby Fischer and Kasparov´s main weapon vs 1.e4.
2. The reputation of the Rauzer. (Maybe it is better than its reputation after all).

There are pros and cons. Najdorf is more theorethical than the classical. Classical is "safer". The battle doesnt tend to be so bloody (often white chooses how bloody it will be...by playing 6.Bg5 for example) as it is in the Najdorf.

Najdorf is less flexible vs the anti-sicilians ...especially vs the Grand Prix but also Moscow/Rossolimo where the Classical player has more options. One could compare them like this also to see which opening "wins" :

vs

Be2-Boleslavsky  - Approx equal.
f4 system           - Classical sicilian wins (f4 setup is more popular vs Najdorf)
English attack : Approx equal. Hard to say. If I had to chose I would probably say Classical wins.
Sozin: Classical wins. Qb6 -Benko system is very solid and stable.
g3 system Approx equal but the classical is slightly more flexible here. Classical has the possibility to face the g3 system with either a Scheveningen (-e6),or Boleslavsky (-e5) AND a Dragon set up (-g6 without having committed to -a6). 

Rauzer vs 6.Bg5 in the Najdorf - Hard to say because theoretically black is probably in better shape in the 
Najdorf 6.Bg5 but on the other hand its more difficult (in practical play) to face 6.Bg5 in the Najdorf as blacks king position is often under heavy fire. So which opening wins ? Hard to say but if I have to chose I vote for Najdorf as it has some more setups to chose from.

Najdorf players also have to face two other options 6.h3 (sound and fully playable) and 6.Rg1 (6.Rg1 probably not too dangerous  and sound after all).

All in all ...if considering.... : flexibility,Theory!,score (according to 'Easy guide to the classical sicilian' The classical scores better than the Najdorf... but that book was written some years ago),to face the anti-sicilians..... I would chose playing the Classical sicilian (I play the accelerated dragon now) instead of the Najdorf. Thats my opinion. Other players may be of the opinion that the Rauzer is the achilles heel of the Classical and more difficult to face than 6.Bg5. What I remember is that Khalifman in his Anand book series wrote/concluded that in the Rauzer black has chances "for a successful defence in all variations"...(or something similar).

You also asked : Does the Najdorf give more winning chances ? : Despite the above text the answer is probably YES. Classical is safer ...little more solid which probably gives it a better score. The Najdorf can become very messy which also gives blacks good chances to fight his way to a win or to a complete collapse.

This is my opinion.....which could be far from the truth of course 

Lauri Torni wrote on 01/24/14 at 12:37:34:


I disagree somewhat with that. Having switched to the Najdorf, I feel like the Rauzer is more work than the Old Main Line of the 6.Bg5 Najdorf. The Poisoned Pawn is also a lot of work, but so many of the sharp lines have been resolved in Black's favor. The gives Black a significant buffer of safety if he learns the known theory. Both are sharp of course, but my feeling is that the Rauzer is more difficult to play and demands more creativity and independent research to play well. It may appear there is not much theory, but it was (is?) an important Sicilian that once generated of a lot of theory. In many instances, I think the Najdorf actually cuts the theoretical workload in preparation, as it often uses positional methods to bypass problems Black has in the Classical. Maybe this is a minority opinion, but so often being able to play Nbd7 in the Najdorf is quite a relief!

I think I should add that I adopted the Classical Sicilian with the intention that it would be less work than the Najdorf, given my experience with the Dragon. Early on, I realized the main continuations to study were 6.Bc4 and 6.Bg5. I never faced 6.Bc4, but I was happy with Black's position. There is a lot of old theory on the Velimirovic and Sozin, but there are some good modern lines that bypass the complications of the old lines. 6.Bg5 is another story though. I never faced anyone who knew the theory very well, but many of the positions seemed to be very dangerous at times. Maybe you can play an old line and hope to be slightly worse in a more stable position, but that's not the way I wanted to go. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that this approach was not too practical for the nonprofessional, despite my initial impressions. You also present yourself as a bit of a target if you consistently play the Classical, so you need very good preparation against the Rauzer. You could use it as a temporary theoretical shortcut (i.e. using 6.Bg5 g6?! if you're really pressed for time), but this approach has its perils.