The Classical is the best opening in the world if you LOVE the Rauzer.

In principle, I really like the Classical. It has a long history and Black is perfectly fine in every line except 6.Bg5. When I played it, it usually would take players off guard, since it is rarely played among amateurs these days, and I often would get a comfortable Classical Dragon against normal moves like 6.Be2. This was perfect, given my past experience in the Dragon. 6.Bc4 is countered well by modern methods that delay kingside castling. (IMO Black is just as good here as in the Najdorf.) 6.Be3 Ng4!? is interesting independent variation that avoids the English and puts Nc6 to good use. (This compares favorably with the Najdorf.) Everything else: the Classical Dragon is great!

This practically leaves 6.Bg5 as the only reliable attempt at an advantage for White. Unfortunately, it seems to be a very good one. Fortunately, many people know that, but they don't really know the specifics for practical play. I thought this factor would be on my side, and in a sense it was, but the positions can become very chaotic and it takes a LOT of work to master the Rauzer. I would study and study, and some complicated lines would still not make sense to me. It is a huge challenge. You're balancing on a knife edge and the best lines for White are not too hard to find.

If you have a lot of experience with the Dragon and have some ideas in the Rauzer, I think the Classical Sicilian could be a useful surprise weapon, but I would be hesitant to use it as my main defense. One of the most promising lines for Black was called the "Kozul Suicide Variation" by Yermolinsky in his Classical Sicilian book, which might make you think twice about playing these lines! Black has a much greater margin of safety in the 6.Bg5 Najdorf. Look at the games of the Rauzer expert Kozul and make up your mind!

PANFR wrote on 01/22/14 at 23:21:56:


How about a section in a SOS book? 

Lauri Torni wrote on 01/22/14 at 11:23:26:


That could very well be true. I played it OTB a lot in the 80s and had a very good score with it, but quite possibly a comparison with other versions of the English attack might not be to blacks advantage. Back then the English attack was really considered to be just a slower Keres-attack and thus not very dangerous. Understanding of the nuances in the position and the fact that white must not play only on the Kingside has greatly improved since. At that time the debate was really whether white should play with f4 or f3.

Lauri Torni wrote on 01/22/14 at 08:03:55:


I believe that if 9.Nxc6 would be considered satisfactory for black then interest in this line would increase dramatically. 9.Be3 was consdered whites best try in the 80s/90s when the a6-h6 RR was all the rage. Of course white has various options after 9.Be3, but it is an interesting position with castling on opposite sides and many possibilities. 9.Bf4 and 9.Bh4 (9..Nxe4) were considered less dangerous.
6.Bc4 is a completely dirrent issue, but I don't think that this has kept people away from the Classical.

OK. Now the question is. How about 9.Be3? White has here basically two plans. 
a) f4-systems
b) f3-systems

I wonder what is the theoretical status here. I looked yesterday recent games and it seems to me that white has easier game here. Recently black has played some "sophisticated" plans with 9.-Qc7 + 10.-Rb8. I Couldn't understand the point.

On the other hand, after 6.Bc4 interesting is 6.-Bd7 and if 7.f3 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 g6, 7.0-0 g6, 7.Be3 Ng4

P.S. also 6.Bg5 g6!? seems better than its reputation. There was an article on this in a recent NIC yearbook.

kylemeister wrote on 01/20/14 at 16:32:51:


Where does the hope lay? Here?

[Event "Moscow-ch"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "2013.03.31"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Stukopin, Andrey"]
[Black "Najer, Evgeniy"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B66"]
[WhiteElo "2500"]
[BlackElo "2634"]
[PlyCount "120"]
[EventDate "2013.03.22"]


1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 d6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8.
O-O-O h6 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Bf4 d5 11. Qe3 Bb4 12. Be2 O-O 13. e5 Nh7 14. h4 Qa5
15. Rh3 Rb8 16. Bxh6 Rb7 17. Rg3 f6 18. exf6 Rxf6 19. Bg5 Bc5 20. Qd3 Rxf2 21.
Be3 Rf6 22. Bxc5 Qxc5 23. Qd4 Qb4 24. Bxa6 Qxb2+ 25. Kd2 Rb4 26. Qc5 Bxa6 27.
Rb1 Qxc3+ 28. Qxc3 Rxb1 29. Qxc6 Rf2+ 30. Kc3 d4+ 31. Kxd4 Rb4+ 32. Kc3 Rc4+
33. Qxc4 Bxc4 34. Kxc4 Rxc2+ 35. Kb3 Rc8 36. a4 Nf6 37. Rc3 Rb8+ 38. Ka3 e5 39.
a5 e4 40. Ka4 Re8 41. a6 e3 42. Rc1 Nd5 43. Kb5 Rb8+ 44. Ka5 Rb2 45. Ra1 Nc7
46. Re1 Rxg2 47. Kb6 Nxa6 48. Kxa6 Rg3 49. Kb5 Kf7 50. Kc4 Kg6 51. Kd3 Kh5 52.
Rh1 g6 53. Ke2 Kg4 54. Rh2 Kh5 55. Rh1 Kg4 56. Rh2 Rg1 57. h5 Kg3 58. h6 Ra1
59. Kxe3 Kxh2 60. Kf4 Ra5 0-1

How about combining the Rauzer with the Najdorf? I think Ivan Saric's Najdorf-ish treatment of the Rauzer is worth investigating. Here's his most recent outing:

J. Timman (2607) - Iv. Saric (2637) Tata Steel (Group B) 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. Bg5 a6 7. Qd2 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Qa5 9. Bd2 Qc7 10. f3 e6 11. O-O-O b5 12. g4 Bb7 13. g5 Nd7 14.Kb1 Rc8 15. Bd3 Ne5 16. Rhf1 Qc5 17. Ne2 h6 18. gxh6 g6 19. f4 Qxd4 20. Nxd4 Nxd3 21. cxd3 Bxh6... 1/2- 1/2