I usually do not put my analysis in writing, but I thought I would give it a shot with a simple short game.

I realize this is not black's best played game, but it is my first win on chess.com with 2. a3!? against the sicilian.

Nice game I can't believe your opponent never saw it comming

very smooth. you paired your bishops for a well-controlled center remarkably early. nice.

I'm not so enthusiastic about your second move.  Instead of a "!?" I would call it 2. a3?!.  I think it's fun to play inferior openings like 1. g4 from time to time, but if you're looking for a non-theory Sicilian there are better alternatives.

Also, 9...d6! is a great move for Black, you simply overlook his best followup after 10. exd6, which is Bf6.  White will regain the pawn and might even be able to hold d6 for while, but the steam is gone from the attack.

 

anaxagoras wrote:

I'm not so enthusiastic about your second move.  Instead of a "!?" I would call it 2. a3?!.  I think it's fun to play inferior openings like 1. g4 from time to time, but if you're looking for a non-theory Sicilian there are better alternatives. 

---

I don't know if it's accurate to call 2. a3 a "non-theory Sicilian" given that a Grandmaster Alexei Bezgodov has written a  book about it.

http://www.chessville.com/reviews/ChallengingSicilianWith2a3.htm 

No,  you're making this into an argument over semantics.  I can call the 3. Bc4 lines "non-theory Sicilians," even though plenty has been written about them.  The point is that players who like the Sicilian from the Black side are unlikely to have learned any theory about 2. a3, whereas they may know a great deal about the more traditional lines.

I expect that an intelligent reader will interpret my words charitibly.

anaxagoras wrote:

No,  you're making this into an argument over semantics.  I can call the 3. Bc4 lines "non-theory Sicilians," even though plenty has been written about them.  The point is that players who like the Sicilian from the Black side are unlikely to have learned any theory about 2. a3, whereas they may know a great deal about the more traditional lines.

I expect that an intelligent reader will interpret my words charitibly.

---

I wasn't trying to have an argument over semantics ... your meaning wasn't clear to me. Perhaps 'main-line' rather than non-theory would have been clearer?

 

And thanks for the "intelligent reader" dig

Ok, we're cool. 

I would have taken that a little harder... really man it would end up as a duel to the death, a.k.a bloody chess. Guns and rifles permitted : ) 

How about 1.e4 c5 2.a3?! g6

 

Surely this sucks for white.  If you're going to play this way, grow some balls and play 2.b4!

 

The exclamation mark is for emphasis rather than claiming 2.b4 is a good move - because frankly it probably sucks as well.

 

 

rowrulz wrote:

How about 1.e4 c5 2.a3?! g6

---

I played Howlingbanshee with this. Responding to 2. a3 with 2. ... g6, White has just lost a tempo and Black has nothing to worry about in the opening. The first few moves were: 

 

Yeah, it seems 2. a3 is a wasted move. But the one good purpose it holds is avoiding all the deep opening theory in the Sicilian lines.

Yeah I started a game with sicilian as well and played a5, but then I realised when I went to sleep that g6 would have been much better (I knew a5 couldn't be the best answer...).

MattHelfst wrote: Yeah, it seems 2. a3 is a wasted move. But the one good purpose it holds is avoiding all the deep opening theory in the Sicilian lines.

---

True, but then so does 1.h4

your really lucky