1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Nbd7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.O-O-O b5 10.Bd3 Bb7 11. Rhe1 Qb6 <12.Nd5>

It seems we enter a forced line

12...Qxd4 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Bxb5 Qc5 15.Nxf6+ Kd8 16.Nxd7 Qxb5 17.Nxf8 Rxf8 18.Qa3

and ends up here: Opening Explorer

6. h3

A Nickel vs J Siigur, 2007

and 6. Be2

A Nickel vs J Siigur, 2007

and 6. a4

<Thanks all for joining the rematch. I never expected so many people registering in a few days. It's overwhelming and shows that the World Team has become a real community over the years. Thanks also to the outstanding promotion by Chessgames.com and Daniel Freeman. Without his efforts we wouldn't have played any "challenging" move. Have a great game! Arno Nickel>

I strongly urge people to play 1...e5.>

To begin with, I'm not sure why we need to avoid positions of a strategic nature. I think we've demonstrated already that our depth and breadth of analysis makes us more than capable of handling such positions. And are you genuinely intimating that after 1...e5 there are no slow positional lines?!

If he wishes to play into an inferior line of the Sicilian, then I say good. The Closed Sicilian doesn't really pose Black any serious problems these days. Black has learnt how to repel any kingside intentions White might have, and Black now readily equalizes. I can't think of any top-flight GMs who still regularly use the Closed Sicilian.

i'm voting for ... the sicilian.

I like this idea, too. GMAN has said he "will try to surprise the Chessgames Team with a completely new approach." Finding out what that means would be a great learning experience for the Team.

Last game I wanted to find out what GMT had prepared in the main line of his beloved Dutch. When the Team opted for a little played sideline, I was frustrated. Perhaps that's why it took so long to win although all props to GMT for his tenacity and skill. I doubt that any other opponent will last that long against us.

Me...Until shown otherwise, I expect that GMAN's new strategy in this game will just be to try and play the strongest moves he can find, and he and his chess engine aren't likely to be intimidated by an "open" or "tactical" game.

As a side point, I believe the whole concept that the World Team is stronger in an open or tactical game needs a re-think. It seems to be based on some sort of argument by false analogy, like this:

Premise 1: Modern chess engines are better at calculating concrete variations than people.

Premise 2: The faster the computer a given chess engine is running on, the better it is at calculating.

Premise 3: Inaccuracies in calculation are more likely to be decisive and will be more quickly decisive in open tactical games.

Premise 4: The World Team has more computing power available than its GM opponents.

Conclusion: The World Team will do best in open tactical games.

I'm willing to go along with all the premises above, but I don't believe they actually lead to the conclusion. In order to get to the conclusion, some other hidden premises are required that I believe to be false. For example:

Hidden Premise 5: The decisive mistakes in the game are likely to be inaccuracies of calculation (that can be seen as such at available engine-based search-ply depths) - whether or not this was true in any of our games, I don't expect it will be true in the current one.

Hidden Premise 6: Inaccuracies are at least as likely to happen in open tactical games as in closed positional games.

Sub-optimal moves are more likely when there are more pieces on the board to consider and fewer forcing lines, and the team which loses will be the one that makes more sub-optimal moves. So I see open positions are a little less likely to lead to mistakes for both the World Team and our opponents, and hence a bit more likely to be drawn (whether that is desirable or not), whereas open tactical OTB games are less likely to be drawn for reasons given in the premises above. So that is the basis of the false analogy.

Dear friends.

In another forum, Hector Walsh played a team such as ours. The team was smaller, but some of the stalwarts of this team were present in that game.

There was a sentiment at that time for a Dragon (partly because I was on the Black team and was a bit of a Dragon specialist). I recommended not playing the Dragon against Hector, but it was chosen anyway.

The team then chose a move order whereby my choices were not played at three vital turns and got into a basically lost position. The numbers voting diminished and, through remarkable endeavours, the team managed to find a way of drawing the game.

Two lessons for this team:

The Dragon does not hold much promise for Black at cc level.

Move order is vital in most Sicilian systems, and that includes the Nadjorf. One wrong choice may lead to months of trying to retrench.

A common theme to most Sicilians is that each side tries to commit the other into narrowing their options before the other does. The more successful colour at doing this has all the fun.

Cheers,