1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4 Nxg4 8.Rg1 h5

<[8...Ndf6 9.h3 Nh6 10.Rxg7 Nf5 11.Rg1 Bd7 12.Bd2 Qe7 13.Bd3 a6 14.Na4 dxc4 15.Bxc4 Nd5 16.Be2 Nh4 17.Ne5 Bxe5 18.dxe5 Ng6 19.Nc5 0–0–0 20.0–0–0 Nxe5 21.e4 Nc7 22.Ba5 ]>

6...g6

Fischer vs Reshevsky, 1962

Fischer praised Reshevsky's treatment of the opening. The idea is to create a Dragon position where h3 is a loss of tempo.

6...e6

Kurajica vs Najdorf, 1971

After getting slaughtered by Fischer with 6...b5, Najdorf adopted the idea of playing an early d5. This remains the most popular response today.

6...e5

Has not had much success. The hole on d5 is perhaps too much of a deficit.

6...b5

Little tried without much success. Probably premature as it isn't clear yet where the queen bishop belongs.

The RybkaII opening book shows 6...e6 with the best performance. White's usual responses are 7. Be3, which has performed poorly, and 7. g4 which has done well enough. In practise, Be3 is never played. It's use in this book must be an artifact. g4 is almost always played. Amazingly in the only GMAN game at CG, he played 7. Qf3!

A Nickel vs T Schmidt, 2007

Poisoned Pawn: 10.e5 not dangerous after all

In 2007 the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Sicilian Najdorf was experiencing a crisis due to 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5!? The Rybka 3 book shows you a fairly easy solution to black's problems: 10... h6 11.Bh4 dxe5 12.fxe5

and now instead of the usual 12... Nfd7: 12... Nd5!

Some B80 preparation of mine from a couple of years ago..

[ECO "B80"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5 8. Qd2 b4 9. Na4 Nbd7 10. O-O-O d5 (10... Qa5 11. b3 Bb7 12. a3 d5 13. e5 Ng8 14. f4 Nh6 15. h3 O-O-O (15... Rb8 16. g4 Rc8 17. Kb1 Nb6 18. Nxb6 Qxb6 19. f5 Rc3 20. Bxh6 gxh6 21. fxe6 fxe6 22. axb4 Rc7 23. Be2 Bg7 24. Rhf1 Bc8 25. c4 Bxe5 26. Qe3 Bxd4 27. Rxd4 Re7 28. Qc3 Bb7 29. c5 Qc7 30. Rxd5 exd5 31. Qxh8+ Kd7 32. Rf6 Qc8 33. c6+ Bxc6 34. Rd6+ Kxd6 35. Qxc8 Rxe2 36. Qxa6 Re3 37. Kc2 Re6 38. b5 Kc7 39. Qa5+ Kb7 40. bxc6+ Rxc6+
41. Kd3) (15... Be7 16. g4 Rc8 17. Kb1 O-O 18. f5 Rfe8 19. Bxh6 gxh6 20. fxe6 fxe6 21. Nxe6 Nxe5 22. Qxh6 Bf8 23. Nxf8 Rxf8 24. Qe6+ Nf7 25. Bd3 Qc7 26. axb4 Rce8 27. Qb6) 16. Qe1 g6 17. Bd2 Nf5 18. axb4 Qc7 19. Nxf5 gxf5 20. Kb1 Kb8 21. Bd3 Rc8 22. Qf2 Be7 23. g4 Bc6 24. gxf5 Bb5 25. Qd4 Qa7 26. Qxa7+ Kxa7 27. fxe6 fxe6 28. Bxb5 axb5 29. Nc3 Bxb4 30. Nxb5+ Kb6 31. Bxb4 Kxb5 32. Bd6 Nb6 33. Rdf1 Rhg8 34. Rh2) (10... Qc7 11. g4 h6 12. h4 Bb7 13. Bg2 Ne5 14. b3 d5 15. g5 Nfd7 16. exd5 Bxd5 17. f4 Nd3+ 18. Kb1 N3c5 19. Bxd5 exd5 20. Nf5) 11. exd5 Nxd5 12. Bc4 N7f6 13. Rhe1 Qc7 (13... Nxe3 14. Qxe3 Qc7 15. Bxe6) 14. Bxd5 Nxd5 15. Nf5 Bb7 16. Bd4 Rg8 17. Ne3 Rd8 18. Nxd5 Rxd5 19. Nb6 Rd8 20. Qe3 Be7 21. Kb1 Qxh2 22. Bc5 Qc7 23. Rxd8+ Qxd8 24. Qe5 g6 25. Nc4 Bd5 26. Bxe7 Qxe7 27. Ne3 f6 28. Qb8+ Kf7 29. Qh2 Bc6 30. Qxh7+ Rg7 31. Qh4 a5 32. Rd1 f5 33. Qd4 a4 34. Qc4 Bd7 35. c3 bxc3 36. Qxc3 Bb5 37. Qe5 Qe8 38. Nc2 Bc6 39. Nd4 Bd5 40. Ne2 g5 41. Nd4 Qd7 42. Rc1 Kg6 43. Re1 Kf7 44. Ka1 Rh7 45. a3 Rh5 46. Nxf5 exf5 47. Rd1 Qe6 48. Rxd5 Qxe5 49. Rxe5 f4 50. Ra5 Kf6 51. Rxa4 Rh2 52. b4 Rxg2 53. b5 Rg1+ 54. Kb2 Rg2+ 55. Kb3 Rg1 56. Rb4 1-0

Cheers,

Will you get some time off to help with setting goals for the team? Your outstanding position assessment ability may come handy as the game progresses. Especially when Rybka has us all hypnotised with its evaluations but limited by the horizon effect provided from our computers.

Our problem for obtaining consensus to vote for a move canditade with the best prospects is difficult to achieve as you well know. Our summarizers may refuse to put weight on suggested moves and therefor we will be left without an effective leadership and may set us adrift like ship without a rudder.

My point here is for you to step in at times with assessments of potential positions we may be steered into by following Rybka to closely.

If you were to step in with your superb command of the English language you may convince many of us to look at perceived weaknesses and strength etc and or how to avoid them or successfully exploit them. I do not suggest for you to take the role of a move advokater which would be unacceptable for our top analysts just a facilitator with the emphasise on verbal position assessment and horizon effect, etc.

Just give me a shout via e-mail if you have any questions. BTW i am still evaluating my options for a new comp.
cheers,
kurt

Thanks you for your kind comments - here are my thoughts..

We might see h3 or f3 in the following idea:

6. Be3 Ng4
7. Bc1 Nf6
8. f3 or h3

kwid:

At this time I wonder what GMAN is up to. I have a strong feeling that he prepared for either 6.h3 or f3 unless he chickens out with 3.Bb5 and uses Kasparov vs World game analysis.

Ceri:

If we see 3. Bb5, then we should immediately start looking at 14... d5, which I think is sound and keeps some winning chances. This was recommended by IM Regan during the Kasparov / World game.

kwid:

Will you get some time off to help with setting goals for the team? Your outstanding position assessment ability may come handy as the game progresses.

Ceri:

I just got back from holidays and will be around for 6 months, so I will be able to help. Louise is off to Bristol University and Adam won a Queen's scholarship to Westminster, so he will be boarding from next week.

The issue is that most of this team don't know me, so it will probably be necessary for me to write stuff and for some of the accepted experts, such as yourself and zsoyd, to endorse the comments.

kwid:

Especially when Rybka has us all hypnotised with its evaluations but limited by the horizon effect provided from our computers.

Ceri:

I just installed Rybka 3 and now have to get around to understanding what it does and doesn't understand. I will try it out on the above pgn as a test of when it sees Black as in trouble.

I will also test out Rybka 3 on some endings to see if Jim G's famous quote still holds good:

"A computer - a sort of calculating machine which does not see the danger in advancing pawns until it is too late!"

By the way, Kurt. Your command of English has improved immensely since we first started talking on message boards.

Mine is not bad for a Welsh scientist.

Cheers,

My only game where I faced the Grand Prix attack:

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bb5 d6 6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.d3 Nh6 8.O-O Rb8 9.Qe1 f5 10.e5 O-O 11.Kh1 Qc7 12.Qg3 c4 13.dxc4 dxe5 14.Nxe5 Ng4 15.Nxg4 fxg4 16.b3 g5 17.Bd2 Bf5 18.Rac1 Rbd8 19.Qe1 Qd7 20.Be3 gxf4 21.Bxf4 Bg6 22.Rd1 Bxc3 23.Rxd7 Bxe1 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rxe1 Bxc2 26.Bg5 Rd1 27.Rxd1 Draw agreed 1/2-1/2

Cheers,

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5!? h6 11.Bh4 dxe5 12.fxe5 Nd5! *13 Nxd5 exd5 14 e6! Bxe6 and there is nothing whatsoever either for black or white... This is the best line black has and it gives only draw...There is plenty of risky lines that leads to black losing in Sicillian Poisoned Pawn variation..

That 12.fxe5 Nd5!variation showed in Rybka 3 book was one that eliminated some of the old dangerous lines for black, but gives only draw with best play...There is massive amount of theory in this variation and zero chance as i sees it to surprise..

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5!?

What about:
10...dxe5 11.fxe5 h6 12. Bh4 g5 13. exf6 gxh4 14. Be2 h3 15. gxh3 Nd7 16. O-O Bb4

click for larger view

& perhaps

17. Rb3 Qa5 18. a3 Bc5 19. Kh1 Nxf6

click for larger view

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 Ba7 7.Qe2 Nc6 8.Be3 <Bxe3> (Morozevich/izimbra) 9.Qxe3 d6 10.Nc3 Nf6 (or 9...Nf6 10.Nc3 d6)

= Opening Explorer and this position:

click for larger view

A. 11.O-O-O!? This should be suicide against us :/

11...O-O 12.f4 Qc7 13.Be2 b5 (13.Rhg1 b5 14.g4 b4 =) 14.a3 (14.g4 b4 15.g5 Ne8 16.Na4 Rb8 =) Bb7

15.Kb1 b4 16.axb4 Nxb4 17.Bf3 Rd8 =
15.g4 d5 =
15.Rd2 b4 16.axb4 Nxb4 17.Bf3 Rfd8 18.Rhd1 Rac8 19.g4 (19.Kb1 d5 20.e5 Nd7 =) d5 20.e5 Nd7 =

Admittedly some low ply here and there... and not everything is covered.

B. 11.0-0 Opening Explorer don't have time for this.

C. 11.f4 should transpose to A: 11...Qc7 12.0-0-0 0-0

D. 11.g4!? Anand vs K Ninov, 1987 1-0 must be looked at.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 <7... Nbd7> 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. 0-0-0 b5 10. Bd3 Bb7 11. Rhe1 (mainline)

click for larger view

Opening Explorer

Now both Anand and Ivanchuk played <11... Qb6> recently against Shirov and both won!

After 12. Nb3 Anand played <12... Rc8> with the idea of <13... Rxc3> after the main move 13. Qh3 (and 13. Kb1). And Black gets a strong attack for the exchange.

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 d6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 e6 Another open Sicilian, this time a Scheveningen. 6.Be3 This is used to steer the game into a specific variation of the Scheveningen, namely, a delayed Keres Attack. The idea of a Keres Attack is to play an early g2-g4-g5, aiming directly at the enemy king. 6...Nf6 7.Qd2 Be7 8.f3 This introduces the English Attack, favored by Nigel Short and other British Grandmasters. 8...a6 9.0-0-0 Black can also launch the kingside attack before castling. 9...0-0 With players castled on opposite wings the life-or-death struggle begins. 10.g4 This is the basic idea of the English Attack, which is sort of a delayed Keres Attack. White launches a pawnstorm against the Black king. 10...Nxd4 10...Nd7 will just transpose below after an eventual g4-g5. 11.Bxd4 11.Qxd4 b5 12.h4 Bb7 11...b5 11...Nd7 is also possible. 12.g5 Technically this is a theoretical new idea, but in fact the game steers back into charted territory quickly. 12.Kb1 is the alternative. 12...Nd7 13.h4 b4 13...Bb7 14.Bd3 Rc8 15.Kb1 Ne5 16.Qf2 White stands better. 14.Na4 Bb7 Here is the true new idea. 14...Qa5 15.b3 Nc5 15.Nb6 This is Fischer's new idea. 15.Qxb4? Bc6 Intending Rb8, an idea that had already been noticed by theoreticians, though it had not yet been played in an attested game. 15...Rb8 15...Nxb6 16.Qxb4 d5 17.Qxb6 Qxb6 18.Bxb6 dxe4 19.Rd7! wins for White. 16.Nxd7 Qxd7 17.Kb1 White has the superior position because of a spatial advantage and prospects for a kingside attack. 17...Qc7 18.Bd3 Bc8 19.h5 e5 20.Be3 Be6 Spassky could have reached a similar position some time ago, with less danger to himself on the kingside. Now Fischer quickly builds his attack. 21.Rdg1 a5 22.g6 A typical example of the g6-break, seen many times in the games of Mikhail Tal. 22...Bf6 Relatively best, since any capture at g6 could prove deadly. 23.gxh7+ Kh8 24.Bg5 White eliminates Black's most effective defender. 24...Qe7 24...Bxg5 25.Rxg5 f6 would have provided stiffer resistance, though White would still have had an impressive attack. 25.Rg3 White wants to double rooks on the g-file. 25...Bxg5 26.Rxg5 Qf6 26...f6! would have been a stronger defense. 27.Rhg1 Qxf3 Otherwise Wh ite will play his queen to g2 with an overpowering attack. Now Fischer must work for the win. 28.Rxg7 Qf6 29.h6 A problem-like solution. White must sacrifice both h-pawns to expose the enemy king to the mating attack. 29...a4 30.b3 A prophylactic move to eliminate any counterplay. 30...axb3 31.axb3 Rfd8 Black tries to play d5, and get something going. 32.Qg2 Rf8 33.Rg8+ Kxh7 34.Rg7+ Kh8 35.h7 Since Rg8+ followed by a check on the h-file is inevitable, Black resigned.

13. Qf4 H Lopez-Silva vs J Hellsten, 2005 0-1
13. Qg4 Sutovsky vs Svidler, 2006 0-1

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 a6 3. Nf3 b5 4. g3 e6 5. d4 cxd4 6. Nxd4 Bb7 7. Bg2 Nc6 **

8. O-O 7

42.9% 1-0
14.3 % 1/2
42.9% 0-1

8. Nxc6 Smirin vs E Anka, 1998 1/2-1/2

Sources opening explorer

<1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6>

A) <2...d6 3.Nge2 Nf6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6> We now have achieved a Najdorf. <6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3> A beautiful Najdorf game awaits, but alas, <2...d6> has about a dog's chance of winning.

click for larger view

B) <2...a6> is a unique and interesting response for Black in dealing with White's flexible knight move. White's win/draw percentage is only fair after ...a6 has been played.

B1) <3.Nge2 Nf6 4.e5 Ng4 5.d4 cxd4 6.Qxd4> Why not? Let's have some fun since we have left the sanity of the mainline. <6...d6 7.exd6 Nc6 8.Qd2 e5 9.Ng3 Nf6 10.Bd3 Bxd6 11.0–0 0–0 12.Re1 Bc7> Equal

click for larger view

B2) <3.g3 b5 4.Bg2> White's winning chances are about zero. <4...Bb7 5.Nge2 e6 6.0–0 Nf6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qd1 Qc7> Equal.

click for larger view

B3) <3.a4 Nc6 4.f4 e6 5.Nf3 d5 6.Be2 c4 7.d3 cxd3 8.cxd3 Bc5 9.d4 Bb6 10.e5 Nh6 11.Be3 0–0 12.Bd3 f6 13.0–0 (13.exf6 gxf6 14.Rc1 Ng4 15.Bd2 Kh8 16.h3 Nh6 17.Be3 Nf5 18.Bxf5 exf5 19.0–0 Be6> Black has a small edge.) <13...Ng4 14.Qe2 Bd7 15.Kh1 Nxe3 16.Qxe3 fxe5 17.fxe5 Nb4 18.Bb1 Qe7> The position is about equal.

click for larger view

<1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6>

We are now entering into the Closed Sicilian. The three most popular continuations are 6. Be3, 6.f4, and 6.Ne2. More analysis will follow as the game progresses.

A) <6.Be3 Nf6 7.h3 0–0 8.Qd2 Nd4 9.Nge2 e5 10.f4 Nh5 11.0–0–0 Qa5 12.a3 b5 13.Bxd4 cxd4 14.Nd5 Qd8 15.Bf3 Nf6 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Nxd4 exd4 18.e5 Rb8 19.exf6 b4 20.axb4 Qxf6> Unclear.

click for larger view

B) <6.Be3 e5 7.Qd2 Nge7 8.f4 Nd4 9.Nf3 0–0 10.0–0 exf4 11.Bxf4 Nxf3+ 12.Rxf3 Qb6 13.Rb1 Be6 14.Bh6 Rae8 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Kh1 f6 17.a3 d5> (17...Nc6 is equal according to Rogozenko; however, this assertion will need to be checked.) <18.b4 cxb4 19.Rxb4 Qc7 20.Nb5 Qd7 21.Nd4 Bg8 22.Re3 Nc6 23.Nxc6 Qxc6> Unclear according to Rogozenko.

click for larger view

Part 3

<1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2>

A) <3...d6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5 Qb6 7.Nb3 e6 8.Be2 Be7 9.0–0 0–0 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Kh1> Equal, as in Ivanchuk-Smirin, 1994, which ended in a draw.

click for larger view

B) <3...Nf6> Recommended by Rogozenko in his book, "Anti-Sicilians: A Guide for Black."

B1) <4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0–0 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 16.b3 Kh8 17.0–0 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Nce3 Bg6> There is a very slight plus for White, but the position is mostly drawn, as in Anand-Kramnik, 2005.

click for larger view

B2) <4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.0–0 0–0 7.d3 d6 8.h3 Rb8 9.f4 Bd7>

click for larger view

If we choose 2...Nc6, lets be prepared for 3.g3 or 3.f4:

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 then play may continue:

3...g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6

click for larger view

We reach the first major branching point and a few comments about each variation:

6.f4 --> complex middle game arise, difficult to handle for both sides, white has to attack, reaches an ending with vulnerable queenside, bad bishop on g2

6.Be3 --> white intends to exchange dark squared bishops before deciding to play on the kingside or the queenside

6.Nge2 -->white finds it harder to attack on the kingside with the knight on e2, black has time to develop, deploy his pieces armoniously and play ...b5

6.Nh3 --> avoiding main lines and leaving the f pawn free to advance, Benko style play might unsue

6.Nf3 --> blocks the f pawn, might transpose to a fianchetto variation,the position is mainly a reversed English.

If white plays 3.f4, play continues: 3...e6 (entering sharp territory) 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb5 Nge7

click for larger view

and four possible ways for black:

6.0-0 --> black may end with the bishop pair and contain play on the kingside, keeps long term prospects on the queenside, passive for white

6.Ne5 --> leads to exchanges and an easy game for black

6.Qe2 --> quite uncharted, but black seems Ok. Directed against ...a6 because of the exchange on c6 leaving the queenside damaged for black

6.exd5 --> probably best answered with 6...Nxd5 when sharp play unsues

After 2...Nc6 3.f4, black can also play 3...d5 and plays solidly but many variations transpose to previously noted.

Hope this helps with 2...Nc6

I am sticking with 2...a6

[3...e6* 4.g3 (4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Qc7 6.Be2 (6.Ndb5 Qb8 7.f4 a6 8.Nd4 Nf6 9.e5 Nd5 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Nf3 Qc7 12.c3 d6) 6...a6 7.Nxc6 dxc6 8.Qd4 Nf6 9.f4 b6 10.e5 Nd5 11.Bd2 Bb7 12.0-0-0 Bc5) 4...d5 5.d3 d4 6.Nb1 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 (8...e5 9.h3 0-0 10.Nd2 Be6 11.f4 Qd6 12.Nf3 Nh5) 9.Nd2 e5 10.h3 Be6 (10...b6 11.f4 Bb7 12.Nc4 exf4) 11.f4 Qd6 12.Nf3 Nh5;

3...g6* 4.d3 (4.g3 d6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.d3 e6 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Bg5 0-0 9.Qd2 Rb8 10.Rab1 (10.Bh6 Nd4 (10...b5 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.f4 Nd4) 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.f4 b5 (12...Qb6) ) 10...Ne5 11.b4 b6 12.bxc5 dxc5) 4...Bg7 5.Be3 Nf6 6.Bxc5 d6 7.Be3 Ng4 8.Qd2 Nxe3 9.Qxe3 Bg4 10.d4 Qa5 11.0-0-0 Rc8 12.h4 b5; 3...e5 4.Nd5 Nce7 5.Ne3 Nf6 6.Nc3 d6 7.Bc4 Nc6 8.0-0 Be6 9.d3 Be7 10.Ned5 Qd7 11.f4 Bg4 12.Qe1 Nd4;

3...Nf6* 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Bb5 (7.Qd3 Be7 8.0-0-0 0-0 9.Qg3 Nh5 10.Bxe7 Nxg3 11.Bxd8 Nxh1 12.Nxc6 bxc6) 7...Bd7 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.Qf3 Qb6 10.0-0-0 Be7 11.Nb3 e5 12.Bxf6 gxf6]

4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9.Be3 Be7

9...Ng4 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bc5 d5 12.Bxf8 Kxf8]

10.f4

[10.f3 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 (11.Qxd4) 11...b5 12.Kb1 (12.Bxf6 Bxf6) 12...Rb8 (12...Bb7) ]

10...Nxd4

[10...Bd7 11.Kb1 (11.Be2 Rc8 12.Kb1 0-0) 11...b5 12.Bd3 0-0]

11.Qxd4

[11.Bxd4 b5 12.Qe3 a) 12.Kb1 b4 (12...Bb7) ; b) 12.Bd3 0-0 (12...b4) ; 12...Bb7 (12...0-0) ]

11...b5 12.e5

[12.Be2 Bb7 13.g4 Rc8 a) 13...Qa5 14.g5 hxg5 15.fxg5 b4 16.gxf6 Bxf6 17.Qxd6 Rd8 18.Qg3 Rc8 19.Qd6 Rd8 20.Qg3 Rc8 21.Qd6 Rd8; b) 13...0-0 14.g5 hxg5 15.fxg5 Nd7 16.Kb1 Nc5 (16...Ne5 17.Rhf1) ; ]

12...dxe5

Based on a 2600 + elo book
Still does not like 2..Nc6

Kasparov,Garry (2775) - Kramnik,Vladimir (2775) [B63] Amsterdam VSB Euwe mem Amsterdam (7), 30.03.1996

I've played a fair amount of Sicilians as White and I have to say that 9. ...Bd7 always struck me as awkward unless Black seriously wishes to create some sort of kingside play after, say, g4 Qc8!? via some sort of sacrifice on g4. Then again, because of the exposed Kts on f6 and c6, I'm not sure how else Black smoothly prepares b5 without Bd7. Maybe Nd4? I dunno. I guess what I'm saying is that from my admittedly non-omniscient viewpoint from the White side of this, this whole Nf6 system seems a wee bit rickety. On the other hand, if it actually does hold up well vs a direct Kingside pawn push, I do have to admit that Black's sleek "dragon" formation created by not pushing the e pawn makes it particularly difficult for White to parlay his Kingside initiative through the center and/or queenside.

I am not a betting man otherwise I would bet that we will see Nf3 next and after Nf6 he will lead into the classical with d4. He has then succeeded with his goal to stop us from playing the Naydorf and also the Sveshnikov

ok I'll play the sceptic here. After 3. Bb5 Qc7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. O-O e6 6. Re1 a6 7. Bxc6 dxc6

click for larger view

Any Black improvements? The diagram shows that White has given up two bishops for a superior pawn structure, I take it that this is thematic? Is Black's position 'playable' (I'm underwhelmed)?

[Event "xxx"]
[Site "xxx"]
[Date "xxx"]
[Round "3"]
[White "xxx"]
[Black "xxx"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B30"]
[WhiteElo "xxx"]
[BlackElo "xxx"]
[Annotator "Widmann,Kurt"]
[PlyCount "58"]
[EventDate "xxx"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Qc7 5. O-O (5. d3 e6 6. Bxc6 (6. O-O Be7) 6... Qxc6 7. Ne5 Qc7 8. Ng4 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Bg5 Nxg4 11. Qxg4 f6 12. Be3 b6 13. f4 f5 14. exf5 Rxf5 15. Ne4 Bb7 16. Rae1 Raf8) 5... Nd4 6. Re1 (6. Nxd4 cxd4 7. Nd5 Nxd5 8. exd5 Qc5 9. c4 a6 10. b4 Qxb4 11. Ba4 b5 12. cxb5 axb5 13. Bb3 g6 14. Qf3 Bb7 15. a3 Qd6) (6. Bc4 e6 7. d3 Ng4 (7... a6 8. a4 Ng4 9. g3 Nxf3+ 10. Qxf3 Ne5) 8. g3 Nxf3+ 9. Qxf3 Ne5 10. Qf4 (10. Qh5 g6 11. Qh3 a6 12. Be3 h5) 10... d6 11. Bb3 Be7 12. Qe3 O-O 13. f4 Nc6) 6... a6 7. Bf1 Ng4 8. g3 Nxf3+ 9. Qxf3 Ne5 10. Qe3 e6 11. Bg2 (11. Nd5 exd5 12. exd5 f6 13. f4 Bd6 14. fxe5 Bxe5 15. c3 O-O 16. d4 Bd6 17. Qe4 f5 18. Qf3 cxd4 19. cxd4 b5) 11... d6 12. Ne2 Be7 13. f4 Nc6 14. c3 O-O 15. d4 Bd7 (15... cxd4 16. Nxd4 Bd7) 16. d5 Na5 17. dxe6 fxe6 18. b3 Nc6 19. Bb2 Be8 20. Rad1 Bh5 21. Rd2 Bf6 22. e5 dxe5 23. Ba3 Be7 24. Bxc5 Bxc5 25. Qxc5 Bxe2 26. Rdxe2 exf4 27. gxf4 Qxf4 28. Rxe6 Rad8 29. R6e2 Qg4 1/2-1/2