Move 7.Qg4, followed by 8.Qe2, eliciting two useful pawn moves for Black: g6 plus d6 (which move we are at present taking for granted).

I know we have done the same thing in the WvN game, and so have many others, but looking at it objectively and from a developing point of view, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'd welcome a sensible explanation, or a link to what has already been said on this subject.

Thanks for your reply.

However, it is not a totally convincing argument, is it? OK, let's not quibble over terminology: developing moves they are in as far as they create space for the pieces behind them.

I see no obvious weakness in either pawn move from Black and apparently in a Sicilian the final pawnstructure for an endgame is decided much later than in most other openings. (Not until towards the end of the middle game) So 'they' say. :-) So that may not have been the motive for those moves.

To me it seems that either side would have liked to say "Pass" and instead White made an empty move and Black gains some space. Still as much of a riddle as before. Was this maybe a universally engine generated move?

It did not appear until 1994, and then not frequently until 2003, in other words, well into the age of engine assisted home preparation.

What if black replies

53...xe6 54 xd7+ h8.

"...Would I lie to you!?

Well you must have been hungry!

Yes. this is true!..."

White does not waste a move there because by forcing the pawn to g6 he is in effect taking only one move to get to e2, a useful developing move in this position.

You cannot call 'g6' a developing move, however, as it does not help any piece to develop. The pawn move actually loses more space than it gains, because now the h6 and f6 squares are subject to attack, and only the h5 square has been picked up.

A developing pawn move would be d6, as it allows the bishop to move, which contributes to the overall piece development on the queenside. Also, g6 would be a developing move if the bishop were still on f8.