anti-sicilians for black

I play the Taimanov If I get the chance.  When white doesn't play the open sicilian I play d5 as soon as I get the chance.  e.g. a line I often get & like is below.  I don't know the name of the line & have never read any theory on it, I improve at it by using an engine after play.  What I'm after is some advice on good books to read & lines to play when white plays e4 but doesn't play the open sicilian.  Thanks

maravilla

Thanks!  I'll take a look.

One thing to keep in mind is understanding what each one covers:

Experts on the Anti-Sicilian - A series of articles, some objective, some for White, some for Black.  This is not a complete repertoire.  Excellent information, but not complete!

Fighting the Anti-Sicilians - Doesn't cover 2.Nf3 at all (i.e. Rossolimo).  Accepts the Morra Gambit, covers the various move orders against 2.Nc3, 2...d5 against 2.c3, Accepts the Smith-Morra (more like Smith-Moron) Gambit

Anti-Sicilians a Guide for Black - Only gives 2...Nc6 against 2.Nc3 (Najdorf Players need to look elsewhere), has you go c3-Sicilian by declining the Morra (Moron?) Gambit, 2...Nf6 against 2.c3, covers Rossolimo/Moscow.

Don't own the other 3, so can't tell you much about them!

Grandmaster Repertoire: Beating the Anti-Sicilians by Vassilios Kotronias (2015)

I have this. I must say his coverage of the Morra amounts to a footnote that boasts a sterile equality - it might only warrant a footnote - but that's not the point. As black I want an advantage against this gambit. (stats suggest we should be looking for an advantage)

WTF

How on earth did that diagram position take place?

I only see one way!

Yeah I think something is majorly wrong.

i think based on how quickly i read opening books i've got enough here to last me the rest of my life. Thanks! Can anyone recommend any of these that is particularly easy (very good at explaining the concepts behind the moves) or openenings suggested suitable for someone who likes interesting positional play as opposed to very slow or very tactical (the taimanov is my favourate opening,  play d4 as white and slav against d4)?

X_PLAYER_J_X you are correct!  I get that sequence a lot.  Stockfish (20 seconds per move) shows book moves until I play 3..d5 which it says is my 3rd best move (0.02 below the best).  Given 3..d5 is almost the best & "play d5 as soon as you can" is easy to remember that's why I play d5.  Stockfish then says the rest of blacks responses are the best. A master that was teaching me also recomended these moves against this opening by white.  White's moves are the best til 7.Re8+ (0.3 below the best but an intuitive move for many players).  I assumed this was a standard opening I was playing & would have a name???

I probably should have mentioned, that, in the case of the Palliser book, the assumption seems to have been that the reader would also get The Bb5 Sicilian by Palliser. I think that the Delchev book has some stuff on 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 c3.

My guess is that, of the authors mentioned above, Palliser is the one with the greatest effort at helpful explanations. It occurs to me that you might want to go with what you can learn from Starting Out: The Sicilian, 2nd Edition by John Emms (2009).

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627122350/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen123.pdf

who even plays 2. Bc4 lol

In the Sicilian Defense the move 2.Bc4 is considered a dubious move.

The reason 2.Bc4 is dubious is because white has dispatched the bishop to early.

In chess you try to play moves which do not show your true intentions until it is to late for your opponent to do anything about it.

After 2.Bc4 black can see white hitting f7.

Which means they can set up a structure aimed at hitting the bishop.

The problem is the move 2.Bc4 is not really considered an Anti-Sicilian line.

It is considered a dubious one.

The line is called the Bowlder Attack.

Eventually as your ranking increases you will stop seeing it.

If your playing the taimanov, you don't need anything against 2Nf3 Nc6 3Bb5 because can play 2...e6, if want too. That's Delchev's recommendation, and suggests against  3c3 d5 4pxp Qxp and 4e5 d4. 2c3 d5 would be consistent with this.

With the given diagram that you posted, skeldol, I believe Black has a slight edge; Black has three pieces developed while White's queenside is untouched. With the two pawns and knights, Black has a dependable center - not one that is likely to collapse. Frankly, this advantage is merely temporary, but the given diagram gives Black a comfortable game to continue with. 

As others have correctly mentioned, 2. Bc4 is, at best, a questionable alternative. Many (including myself) consider deploying the light-square bishop early inaccurate, and a different move order is preferred to attain an ideal lead. First, it forfeits the potential flexibility in the current position. This allows Black to adjust to White's declared intentions, leaving the player with a plain-sailing edge. Additionally, it is unclear whether c4 is the ultimate post. If a given position usually has a piece's post nearly established, then activating that piece will not be harmful, but the given position shows the opposite situation; the demands of the position dictates the bishop's post. Finally, predominantly, 2. Bc4 proves to lose a tempo. Normally, Black plays 3... d5, which forces the bishop to move anyway.

With all these characteristics, it becomes unsurprising that 2. Bc4 is altogether abandoned at higher levels. Hopefully, now you know. At your level, you still see players who do not understand the above phenomenon, and you can exploit those slim advantages. Happy chess!