The Najdorf isn't the only Sicilian where Black gets in an early e5. There's also the Kalashnikov and Sveshnikov.
The K goes like this:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6
The S like this:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6. Nb5 d6
I'm trying to decide which is best for me to try and I'm just not sure. Apart from allowing c4, the K seems to give Black more flexibility regarding his knight. Although, I don't think this is enough to say it's better. How do these systems compare?
Originally posted by exigentskyKalashnikov allows c4 and the bind, Sveshnikov doesn't. Positional vs. anti-positional, note that they transpose a lot, without the bind they're both sharp and usually end up with the same mainline.
The Najdorf isn't the only Sicilian where Black gets in an early e5. There's also the Kalashnikov and Sveshnikov.
The K goes like this:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6
The S like this:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6. Nb5 d6
I'm trying to decide which is best for me to try and I'm just not sure. Apart from a ...[text shortened]... . Although, I don't think this is enough to say it's better. How do these systems compare?
Originally posted by cmsMasterNot quite true. Certain Svhvish lines do allow a c4. Particularily ones involving 7. Nd5 by white.
Kalashnikov allows c4 and the bind, Sveshnikov doesn't. Positional vs. anti-positional, note that they transpose a lot, without the bind they're both sharp and usually end up with the same mainline.
Originally posted by cmsMasterIn another forum, it was said that if White plays Ndb5 and then Nc3 in the K, Black would have to play Nf6 and transpose into the S anyway in order not to be worse. Thus, players don't want to allow the bind and still have to play the S. It's more theory for no benefit. Is this true?
Svesh is more popular - which is better is largely up to interpretation.
Interestingly enough, I've been looking recently at various Sicilians from the black point of view. I normally play 1...e5, which I'm very comfortable with, but feel I'd like to have a Sicilian in my repertoire, especially against lower rated players who sometimes play very tediously against 1...e5 (i.e. unashamedly playing for a draw).
I first tried out the Kalashnikov in a few games on this site but was rather disappointed to find out that where white played 6.c4 followed up with fairly natural moves then just sat on the position and did nothing, I found it very hard to come up with positive plans for black. And after 6.Nc3 I came to the conclusion that most of the better lines for black do in fact transpose to the Sveshnikov. So I tried out the Sveshnikov a few times but again wasn't entirely happy with the positions I reached when white just concentrated on playing solidly. I thought I might as well have played 1...e5 in the first place.
I don't quite trust the Dragon, so I'm still looking. I think the Najdorf best suits my style and the type of position I'm looking to reach, but with so much theory involved, I'm not sure it's suitable as an occasional weapon for black.
Originally posted by Northern LadHow about the Taimanov-Paulsen System....very respectable, played frequently by Anand. Very hard to break down...but offers good winning chances!
Interestingly enough, I've been looking recently at various Sicilians from the black point of view. I normally play 1...e5, which I'm very comfortable with, but feel I'd like to have a Sicilian in my repertoire, especially against lower rated players who sometimes play very tediously against 1...e5 (i.e. unashamedly playing for a draw).
I first tried ...[text shortened]... so much theory involved, I'm not sure it's suitable as an occasional weapon for black.
Originally posted by exigentskyYou don't necessarily have to play ..Nf6, and you aren't necessarily worse. You can play ..Nge7 or the rarer are maybe less convincing but interesting ..Nce7. Then line with ..Nge7 can become very sharp. For instance:
In another forum, it was said that if White plays Ndb5 and then Nc3 in the K, Black would have to play Nf6 and transpose into the S anyway in order not to be worse. Thus, players don't want to allow the bind and still have to play the S. It's more theory for no benefit. Is this true?
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d6 6. N1c3 a6 7. Na3 b5 8. Nd5 Nge7 9. Bg5 h6 10. Qh5 hxg5 11. Qxh8 Nxd5 12. exd5 Qa5+ 13. c3 b4 14. Nc4 Qxd5 15. Rd1 Qe4+ 16. Be2 Qxg2 17. Nxd6+ Ke7 18. Nxc8+ Rxc8 19. Rf1 bxc3 20. bxc3 Nb4 21. Qh7 Rxc3 22. Qf5 Nc2+ 23. Kd2 Rc5 24. Bd3 Nd4 25. Qe4 Qxe4 26. Bxe4 f5 27. Bb1 Ke6
Was a game where black acquired quite a large advantage. The main line runs not 9. Bg5 but 9. c4! Nd4 10. cxb5! Nxd5 11. exd5 Bd7 12. Be3 Be7 with enormously complicated play. It's all very interesting. I was actually considering adding the Kalashnikov or the Sveshnikov as a back up to the Dragon.
Also, in the Kalashnikov, you don't have to just sit there if they play c4. You can play some interesting options with ..f5 afforded to you by the fact that you haven't played ..Nf6 yet. So:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Ndb5 d6 6. c4!? Be7 7. N1c3 a6 8. Na3 f5!? Where normally after 9. exf5 Bxf5 10. Bd3! Be6! , black trades a slightly worse pawn structure for activity and some happiness knowing that White doesn't have a stronger grip on d5. I would encourage EVERYONE in this forum who reads this to find the awesome game Nunn-Nataf, where instead of 9. exf5, the great John Nunn opts for 9. Bd3, and gets absolutely hammered in one of the greatest sacrificial attacks I've seen in a long time.
My favorite game against the Sveshnikov:
[Event "Rated game, 90m + 0s"]
[Site "Main Playing Hall"]
[Date "2006.07.15"]
[Round "?"]
[White "CMSMaster"]
[Black "Caffeinated"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B33"]
[WhiteElo "1581"]
[BlackElo "1891"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "2006.07.15"]
[TimeControl "5400"]
1. e4 {4} c5 {2} 2. Nf3 {7} Nc6 {5} 3. d4 {2} cxd4 {3} 4. Nxd4 {1} Nf6 {1} 5.
Nc3 {2} e5 {4} 6. Ndb5 {1} d6 {2} 7. Bg5 {50} a6 {3} 8. Na3 {13} b5 {2} 9. Bxf6
{36} gxf6 {9} 10. Nd5 {12} f5 {132} 11. c3 {17} Bg7 {47} 12. exf5 {16} Bxf5 {2}
13. Nc2 {3} Be6 {5} 14. Nce3 {13} Ne7 {31} 15. c4 {56} Nxd5 {418} 16. cxd5 {211
} Qa5+ {37} 17. Qd2 {121} Qxd2+ {46} 18. Kxd2 {3} Bd7 {2} 19. Bd3 {39} O-O {87}
20. Nf5 {165} Bf6 {487} 21. h4 {181} e4 {544} 22. Bxe4 {376} Bxb2 {106} 23.
Ne7+ {37} Kg7 {49} 24. Rab1 {121} Ba3 {161} 25. Rb3 {107} Bc5 {19} 26. Rg3+ {
448} Kf6 {628} 27. Nc6 {39} h6 {91} 28. Rf3+ {46} Kg7 {6} 29. g4 {54} f5 {115}
30. gxf5 {124} Kf6 {17} 31. Rg1 {81} Rg8 {30} 32. Rg6+ {16} Kf7 {113} 33. Re6 {
90} Bxe6 {80} 34. fxe6+ {3} Kg7 {309} 35. Rf7+ {
Caffeinated resigns (Lag: Av=0.71s, max=4.2s) 15} 1-0
🙂
One of my early 5/0 Pelikans
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d6 6. N1c3 a6 7. Na3 Nf6
8. Bg5 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5 f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. O-O Bxd5 13. exd5 Ne7 14.
c3 e4 15. Be2 Bg7 16. Qd2 Be5 17. c4 Ng6 18. cxb5 Bxh2+ 19. Kxh2 Qh4+ 20.
Kg1 Nf4 21. Rae1 Nxg2 22. Rd1 Rg8 23. Bg4 Rxg4 24. f3 exf3 25. Rf2 Ne3+ 26.
Rg2 Rxg2+ 27. Qxg2 fxg2
I am using the e5 sicilians almost exclusively now as my response to e4 while the dragon and I are seeing separate councillors. Usually I play 2. .. d6 rather than Nc6 to avoid the Rosso and transpose back into the mainline if i can.