I think I forgot to mention that against 2...e6 there is also 3.g3!? as Michael Adams has dabbled with.

Over-all pick the Sicilian you like and worry about the anti's later.

ErictheRed wrote on 04/09/14 at 16:37:23:


The tameness or not depends who is playing with the White pieces, the positions can be interpreted quietly and in a positional way, or White can go straight for the throat. As Magnus Carlsen has shown, lines previously thought "tame" can contain quite a degree of venom.

ErictheRed wrote on 04/09/14 at 05:10:34:

Thanks, this is a more than sufficient answer. While I agree this is a solid good line for Black I wouldn't call it boring. In your line b Black runs the risk of an isolated queen pawn with square d4 under White's control while White runs the risk of getting Bb2 blocked by ...d5-d4. Like Keano wrote 5.c4 is possible too; in all cases there is an entire game to play and I disagree it must be a boring one.

Nc6 then e6 and d6 directly is a very sensible, well known, anti Keres attack move order for Scheveningen players. 

You still to have do some work for 6 g4 anyway, the bind after e6 Nb5 etc but nothing that bad.

It sounded like 2..Nc6 instead of 2..e6 due to an active like of facing 3 Bb5 In that case I'd think that 2 .. Nc6 is definitely most likely to induce Bb5 ideas.

The Sveshnikov is rather a difference beast to normal open sicillians and quite a few dodge it.

2.. d6 does tend to go together with an early Nf6.

ErictheRed wrote on 04/09/14 at 05:10:34:


In that particular line 5.d4?! is indeed not best if Black knows about 6...Qf6!

5.c4 is eminently playable though.

But the real expert on 3.b3 is Akopian and  I noticed a game he played a couple of days ago in the first round of the Dubai open where he went:

5.g3 d5 6.exd5 exd5 7.Qe2+ Qe7 8.Nc3! (only this can cause trouble)

The nice thing about 3.b3 is that White is playing chess and not remembering theory.

MNb wrote on 04/09/14 at 00:17:26:


In brief, 3.b3 a6 4.Bb2 Nc6 and now:
5.d4?! cd 6.Nxd4 Qf6!
5.g3 d5 6.ed ed, and
5.c4 Qc7 6.g3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Rb8 preparing ...b5.

Obviously I don't want to give too much away; they take two pages to cover 3.b3 in The Safest Sicilian.

A related question: I like to play the hybrid variant (Nc6 + d6) against the Rossolimo and the Moscow. -

But first some background: If white plays the open Sicilian, I as black aim for positions in the Scheveningen family. I don't play the Sicilian for the dynamic counterchances black is supposed to get after an antipositional e5, nor for the tactical complications in one of the lines where white plays Bg5, nor for the hedgehog type positions. The dragon, accelerated or not, is also not for me, although I like the spirit of the opening. I just want to have the extra central pawn, one more than white has. And I prefer to have it in a classical type of game. My elo is about 1800 and I like to understand what my plan in the opening is as much as possible.
You will probably agree that I can play Nc6, d6 and e6 on my second move. If I aim for a Scheveningen structure, the three moves have their pros and cons, but they are more or less equally playable to try to reach a Scheveningen position. (Of course, a downside of playing d6 is having to risk white playing Bg5, either in a Najdorf or in a classical Sicilian, but depending on the possible gains, that might be a risk I'd be willing to take.)

Now back to the actual question: which move order invites white more to play 3.Bb5 in your opinion? I agree with what has been said: in most cases, you shouldn't worry about the anti-sicilians, you should decide which open Sicilian you want to play and only then worry about what to do when white doesn't play d4. But in my case I can take white's anti-sicilian options into account when deciding on my second move. And in truth I play the Sicilian to annoy white. Tempting white to play an anti-sicilian is a part of that. So it's natural to wonder which move order tempts white most of all to play something else than the open Sicilian.

Up until now, I always assumed 2... Nc6 was a surer way of inviting 3.Bb5(+) than 2... d6. Accordingly, I have been playing 2... Nc6 in recent times. But after reading what has been said about the Moscow in this thread, I'm starting to think I should switch to 2... d6. What do you think?

MartinC wrote on 04/08/14 at 08:30:20:


Agreed. My point is that deciding on your main Sicilian based on anti-Sicilians is an absurd thing to do.

By the way 3.b3 is under-rated in my view against 2...e6.

MartinC wrote on 04/07/14 at 08:21:54:


But is 3.Bb5+ more worrying than after 2...e6:

3.c4!?
3.b3!?
3.c3
And of course 3.d3

Ultimately I think not.

MartinC wrote on 04/07/14 at 08:21:54:


I know a guy that plays Rossolimo against 2...Nf6, 3.Bb5+ against 2...d6 but 3.d4 against 2...e6. 
"I avoided the sharpest sicilians doing this (Najdorf, Pelikan and dragon)", he says.

Just my two cents...

I wouldn't make your choice of what Sicilian to play based on the anti-Sicilians.

2...d6 or 2...e6 are equally susceptible to different ant-sicilians.

2...e6 is more frustrating for the White anti-Sicilian player.  A review of White repertoire materials will confirm this.

Just my opinion, ymmv.

You should first decide if you prefer Najdorf of Taimanov/Kan kind of positions. They are totally different, mainly in terms of theoretical study and in terms of tactical / strategical nature. You'll then select you Anti according to your main line, not the opposite. At least, that's my opinion.

One exception related to your inital indecision about 2... d6/e6 happens if you decide to play the Scheveningen 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6/e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6/d6. In which case neither choice is objectively better, it comes down to your taste, and how you intend to meet second moves Antis such as 2.Nc3 and 2.c3.

MartinC wrote on 04/04/14 at 10:24:06:

vs. 2 Nc3 I play 2...a6 so the question still remain the same. I know it's a matter of taste but I'd like to read opinios about your feelings and the theoretical shape of both anti-sicilians. 

MartinC wrote on 04/04/14 at 10:02:05:


So let's get to the point: who do you think gets better anti-sicilians a Najdorf or a Kan player? I appreciate your comments.

MartinC wrote on 04/04/14 at 08:23:31:


Maybe for a Taimanov player, but not for the Sicilian Kan as far as I know.

I'm doubting about playing the Najdorf or the Taimanov/Kan complex (a la Delchev in his forthcoming book "The most Flexible Sicilian") and I think at my level (2000 ELO) the anti-sicilians play an important role: what anti-siclians are better for black those that start with 2...d6 or with 2...e6?