A waiting move in the Sicilian

I always thought that Nf3 prepared d4 in the Sicilian.  But lately, I have been thinking of Nf3 as a waiting move.  If d6, then c3! and White gets an improved version of the Alapin.  If e6, then b3! and Black's best defense to blunt the fianchetto, e5, is no longer available.  Nc6 is probably Black's best choice to retain flexibility.  The Rossolimo is fine against it.  Instead of playing an immediate Anti-Sicilian, I prefer to let Black tip his hand.  So, if you like playing certain variations of the Open Sicilian, you can do that as well.  What do you think about the line of play?

Why do you say white gets an improved version of the Alapin after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3 Nf6 This doesnt give black any trouble IMO. I would even play 1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.Nf3? d6?! transposing.

Look in my blog.  Also, if you don't like that variation, look in IrishChessWizard's blog called Test.  They both give very good lines.  Black isn't even attacking e4 after Nf6 because of Qa4+

I think 3.b3 fianchettoing the bishop is a strong move leading to sharp play. I am sure KillaBeez can show you how it can be tactical.

I understand what you are saying but, how does your opponent prepatation or not in the line affect how good the line is? As Fischer said: "I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves." (Assuming the lines are equally good, then yes, i would use the less known to my opponent, or the one im more confortable with , if any)

Im not arguing that the line is playable, im was just wondering why KillaBeez thinks its an improvement over the main line Alapin.

Also, when you want to get your opponent out of theory in the first few moves, you usually want to do this by playing something dangerous, full of traps, otherwise people would just go 1.h4 cause nobody is prepared for that. But IMO this line is very easy for black to play, the only trap i see is 4.Nxe4? losing the knight (i might be mistaken but i think i saw a game where Timman plays Nxe4) but if black just plays Nf6, and fianchettos his dark squared bishop, i dont see how white can get anything out of the opening.

By the way i remember having lost twice to this variation, i once played Nxe4, resigning shortly after (it was blitz :) , and the other time playing along the lines the games on IrishChessWizard blog OTB.

If anyone wants to try this with me, just send me a challenge :)

If Black fianchettos, White will play Be2, 0-0, Re1, and Bf1 followed by d4.  White gets his ideal center.

Yes, but in my opinion black has completely equalized then. Its a very week center. 7.e5 gives black 45.7% wins, and 45.7% draws in a database with 35 games, not sure why :).

Rather than 8. d4, I would prefer to play h3 to keep the annoying bishop out of g4.  Then I would play d4 unless Black played something along the lines of e5.

3. ... Nxe4! Black is already ahead. That's why the above move order is beneficial for White.

Yes, thats why i gave 3.d6 a ?!, Nxe4! is clearly better, but d6 transposes, there is no point playing a game where you are clearly ahead by move 3 (unless you cant transpose into a position your opponent can "force" you to get.

Your job in chess is to take every opportunity you can get to get a forced advatage. By the logic you've stated, you wouldn't take advantage of the poor 'Damiano Defense', or the 'Russian Game: Damiano Defense' as White, since it would give you a clear advantage and wouldn't make the game interesting enough. Am I correct in assuming this?

No, as i said before, i only play this moves when they transpose into a position i can be forced to. This way i dont waste my time playing a game where my opponent blundered in move 3, and i can play a position i would have arrieved by 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3 Nf6 anyway, thus learning something from the game. I dont have to learn further theory this way also. Its not so much about winning, but of playing the best game possible (giving the opponent a hand, cause it takes 2 to play a great game).

It wouldn't be a great game if you botch the opening by not taking advantage of an obvious and glaring mistake. And it wouldn't provide learning material for your opponent, except that they do not have to play an intelligent opening because their opponent isn't trying to win so much as they are to have a balanced game.

He is saying hypothetically, he wouldn't even mind playing the position from a real Alapin.  Of course he would take the pawn in a tournament.

Hypothetically, if you want to learn opening theory, you should try it with an opponent who didn't play 3. Nf3?? to begin with.

First, im not looking to privide my opponent with learning material, just have a good game, and learn something if posible. I learn nothing if i play a game where my opponent blundered on move 3. By playing d6 i give my opponent a chance to make things right, if he drops the queen on move 4 then i will take it, and again i will learn nothing, but i will do this because i cant transpose to a position i can be forced to play.

Gms do this all the time, they transpose into positions they are familiar with, or suit more their styles instead of playing a move they know is theoretically stronger, sometimes they do this because they think their opponent is well prepared in that inferior line, or, as in my cause, they realized their opponent just got the wrong move order.

I once read a story here in chess.com, it was something like this (i dont remember the story correctly  but you will get the point): a chess player was giving a simul exibition, and one of the games goes like this 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 Nb8, at which point the player giving the exibition returns all the pieces to their original squares and says to the opponent something along the lines: "now make a move worth playing"

Killabeez is right when he says i wouldnt mind playing the position from a real Alapin, cause i would have anyway if myopponent had played the correct move order. But i would do the same thing on a tournament, and eithir of this things will happen, 1.my opponent plays a bad 4th move and i take advantage of it, or he starts playing good chess and we have a good game.

I agree that GMs sometimes do transpose into lines that are familiar with, rather than take lines which may be theoretically stronger. Not in the case of an obvious hung pawn! Your opening is supposed to respond what your opponent is playing, that’s why it works.

Of course, but now you have stated exactly what is wrong with the strategy you argued for in post #9. Luis showed you the problem with 'getting the center that white wants' with 8.d4, which is 9...Bg4. If you play the critical 8.h3 instead, black has 8...e5 and d4 is still out the window.

I would have to agree with Luis when he said that black can equalize with correct play in this line. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that black has equalized after 8...e5 in the line just discussed.

I would still like to hear a response to Luis' question: Why you think this is an improved version of the Alapin. It seems nothing of the sort to me. Of course Nxe4 is no longer threatened, but neither is white threatening d4. Also, the difficulty that 3.e5 presents in the Alapin is gone since ...d6 has been played. ...d5 is rather out of the equation, but ...Nf6 is the mainline in the Alapin proper, and is the more critical response in my opinion.

I checked out the blogs you quoted. The line posted in your blog entry is clearly nothing critical. The games presented in 'Test' gave me a healthy respect for the line. I see that it is playable and I am going to bone up on that theory a bit. However, neither of these entries do anything for the claim that 2.Nf3 and 2...d6 give white an improved version of the Alapin.

I still think it is better than the normal Alapin.  That is a matter of debate.  There is flexibility, surprise value, and eventual preparation of d4 without extending your center with e5.  I take it you are a Dragon player TonightOnly, otherwise you wouldn't be so pessimistic and critical.  Anybody who likes an opening tends to defend that opening with their life.  I do that with the French Defense sometimes.