I want to play this line against the Pelikan, is it any good?
I'm not very well wandering in the pelican variation, but I think 7. Bg5 is sharper and more ambitious. You want a piece on d5, not a pawn.
It doesnt have much wrong with it other than setting black less problems than some of the other systems.When I was playing the sveshnikov often I never had much trouble with it, but it did get me out of book quicker than other lines.
@Viktor: I don't like the Bg5 lines since there is too much theory, and I just don't like the positions that come from it.
@Fear_Itself: I don't like the other lines, and this one actually makes sense, its pretty narrow, there aren't many plans, the plans are similar to a KID, White attacks on the QS while Black gets counterplay on the KS
@CFO: Having those ppl playing it gives me confidence!
White can set up a wall of pawns and play Qc2 as well, forcing either some pawn moves to the King side or exchanging LSB's on f4 with some odd play but I would not be comfortable handling the White pieces this way even though the resulting pawn structure could be OK. I had only one game this last year with the Pelikan and I was glad i like the Taimanov more LOL.
My butt still hurts from how bad it was kicked.
if someone of you is like really bored, i would like to know the diffence between the pelikan, the kalashnikov, the shveshnikov and the najdorf with e5.
It's a very safe variation, but the mainline has been analysed to death (and a draw). Even a patzer can draw this as Black if he is booked up.
The Sveshnikov is the same as the Pelikan.
The Kalashnikov plays ...e5 on the fourth move instead of the fifth move. I suppose that it could transpose into the Sveshnikov. The Kalashnikov positions the e pawn one move earlier, but it preserves more flexibility for the Black kingside Knight.
The Najdorf plays ...a6 first on the fifth move. Then, it plays ...e5 later, if at all. A popular variation of the Najdorf is to transpose it to the Scheveningen vai ...e6, so ...e5 might never be played in a Najdorf, though it is the defining characteristic of the Sveshnikov and Kalashnikov.
@pfren, where would you find the main lines, like which websites have it?
@Tamini The line you claim to be the Kalashnikov is actually the Löwenthal.
Kalashnikov: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6
Löwenthal: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 a6
Last book on the variation (focused on Black) is named "Easiest Sicilian" and published by Chess Stars (Bulgaria).
Nomenclature may vary, e.g. Russians call the Sveshnikov "Cheliabinsk Variation" and the Kalashnikov "Neo- Cheliabinsk Variation". For the record, Evgeny Sveshnikov was born in Cheliabinsk.
Starting Out: Sveshnikov is good
@pfren: thanks, but are there any online sources?
@gundamv: i think that book is for black players, i want to play AGAINST the pelikan
I do not know any, sorry.
A good book from white's perspective is De la Villa's "Dismantling the Sicilian" (aimed at rather hi-rated players).
If amateurs ate up practical endings like they try to eat slavs and sicilians I'd have trouble breaking a 1500 USCF rating
"Pfren, do you know any good books on rook endings, I've only read 2 and I want another"
That's the kind of player I'd be afraid of facing.
To many ppl (including me) endings are not every interesting. You don't even have to know them if you play as well as Houdini, in which case your games will be over in 25 moves, which I suppose is why people pay attention to the opening.
Endgame books are the only ones I actually read, and it has been paying off a lot, expecially OTB :)
Sorry to say that you are wrong.
The endgame is the most interesting part of the game, because there every slight mistake is usually fatal.
You don't even have to know them if you play as well as Houdini...
Oh, here are two slight issues:
- You cannot play as Houdini.
- Houdini plays the endgame as an idiot. Maybe even worse than that.
Usually (not always), Houdini will win an endgame where he is material up for no compensation- but in general, he plays endgames extremely poorly. I will soon pass an example (correspondence game of mine, not finished yet) where in an endgame with queens and opposite-colored bishops, one side being two pawns up, Houdini suggests as "best" all the continuations the weak side draws comfortably, or retains good drawing chances.
I know I can't play as well as Houdini, but that's what opening preperation is for, right? What I was trying to say when I said that if people played like Houdini was that you wouldn't reach an endgame as the position would be decided by the middlegame or even the opening.
And plus, slight mistakes can cause the loss of a game in the middlegame as well, especially sharp middlegames.
Anyways, I was just saying that I found the middlegame more interesting compared to the endgame, its an opinion.