Jack Hughes wrote on 09/11/19 at 20:13:34:
As black I would recommend 6... g6 7. Bg2 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Bg7 9. e5 Ng4 10. f4 Nh6, when I'm really unable to find anything tempting for white. After 11. 0-0 0-0 the e5-pawn is going to drop for insufficient compensation, while the more ambitious 11. Bd2 gives black a pleasant choice between the relatively safe 11... Nf5 12. Qe2 0-0 and initiating complications with 11... 0-0 12. 0-0 Bg4 13. Rde1 Be6. In either case white doesn't seem to be even pressing for an objective advantage.
9. ..Ng4 is a good point, kinda forgot that's an option.
Still seems like a decent try to me, however:
- Presuming you mean 11.Bd2 Nf5 12.Qe4 0-0 (Qe2 not a legal move), the least I found was 13.0-0-0 dxe5 14.fxe5 Qa5 15.Qd5 Qxd5 16.Nxd5 Bxe5 17.Bb4 Kg7 18.Nxe7 Nxe7 19.Bxe7 Re8 and ok it's gonna be a draw, but there was no risk whatsoever, and Black had to solve some questions (eg 17...Kg7 isn't exactly the most natural move in the world to me, and more natural tries like 17...Re8 or 17...Bd6 leave Black in very unpleasant waters);
- While the complications after eg 11.Bd2 0-0 12.0-0-0 Bg4 13.Rde1 Be6 14.Bxb7 Rb8 15.Bd5 dxe5 16.fxe5 Nf5 17.Qd3 always seem to end in some sort of "I have an extra pawn, go prove something, I'm not seeing it" type positions.
IF that doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny, there's also always decent other choices for White on the path, like 6...g6 7.Nde2 and just going into the standard type positions, or 6...g6 7.Bg2 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Bg7 9.0-0 0-0 10.a4 / similar, which get some kind of engine approval and are backed up database scores.
Quote:In terms of a non-Rauzer weapon against the Classical I'm quite fond of 6. f3. In particular the mainline 6... e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. Be3 0-0 9. Qd2 a5 10. Bb5 Na7 11. Bxa7!?, as played by Leela against Chess22k in TCEC Season 13, seems very interesting. Have you looked into this? What are your thoughts?
I loosely looked at this, as it's recommended in Shaw's Sicilian Mainlines, and I'm sorta/sometimes playing 6.f3 against the Najdorf as well (haven't actually faced the Najdorf in what feels like forever, there's been a few Dragons and a lot of 2. ..Nc6 recently), but I think back when I had a glance at it, there was still this "Bg5 is the only serious move" stuff spooking around in my mind, so I was too lazy to take it seriously.
It certainly is on some sort of "list" of things to look at, if I end up unhappy with the g3 line..
.. or perhaps I 'have to' look at f3 in any case, as Black can always sorta transpose into it, if he goes Nc6 somewhere in the Najdorf?
I always get lost in whether these lines are just the same position, or suddenly dead lost for Black, cause the extra tempo spent on ..a6 was necessary elsewhere
Remains the question: Why is this "Rauzer is the only serious try" something that gets repeated so often? Simply because it "promises" an advantage, while every other move is only "an attempt" at one (while eg vs the Najdorf, nothing promises one)?
Ie, is 6.f3/similar against the Classical *less* promising than against the Najdorf, or are they "the same", and there's just an even better option against the Classical (Bg5), while nothing as strong exists vs the Najdorf?
MNb wrote on 09/12/19 at 05:58:16:
@JackH: It's rather 6...e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.Be3 Be6 (iso O-O) 9.Qd2 d5 or 9.Nd5 Bxd5 10.exd5 Nb4 that puts me off.
Shaw quotes this game
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1522621 amongst others, and doesn't seem too miffed about the whole variation.
Haven't done any analysis myself, so I'm not sure if he is omitting something, but it doesn't "feel" very problematic to me either..
Jack Hughes wrote on 09/12/19 at 10:47:19:
At any rate, we're getting off topic here (unless IsaVulpes wants to rename the thread 'Alternatives to the Rauzer' or something), and I don't my second of three thread contributions to be another derail, so perhaps we could continue this discussion in a new one.
Hah, it's no problem. I am happy with all discussion, good to see this forum pumping again in some fashion
I guess this renaming is actually not too off, as it was one of the core questions I had upon thread inception anyway..
E: Okay, I can't rename it - either because people have posted here, or because it's too old, but that option simply doesn't exist anymore.
Feel free to open a new thread on discussing 6.f3 if you like, but I also don't mind if you keep that talk here.