Back to Sicilian Basics -- What's the idea behind the Najdorf

sholomsimon

I read the following comment in two quite separate places.

The best example of  this  very different approach to the game is the move 5...a6 in the Sicilian Najdorf 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6.  The move is an indirect defense of the thematic square d5.

Defense of d5?  Is this saying that a6 followed by b5 then prevents white from playing Bc4 which would attack the d5 square?

Mr_Winawer

I usually play the French, but have seen some Najdorf videos, so I will try my best until someone better comes along 

You could try these videos. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pemkjtICTLg 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuLYgClRe-Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuL191Z3vAo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPg1bSeJYNg

Hope this helped 

Yigor

Does such a natural move as a6 (especially with 2 white knights aiming at b5) require any additional justification ?!? grin.png

sholomsimon
Yigor wrote:

Does such a natural move as a6 (especially with 2 white knights aiming at b5) require any additional justification ?!?

That's a great question!  The potential downside of a6 or h6 in any game is: do you really need to protect against Bg5 (or Bb5) so much so that you miss one move of developing your pieces?  I'm still trying to develop a feel for when -- in general -- such a move is "too defensive" vs "appropriately defensive".

Mr_Winawer
sholomsimon wrote:
Yigor wrote:

Does such a natural move as a6 (especially with 2 white knights aiming at b5) require any additional justification ?!?

That's a great question!  The potential downside of a6 or h6 in any game is: do you really need to protect against Bg5 (or Bb5) so much so that you miss one move of developing your pieces?  I'm still trying to develop a feel for when -- in general -- such a move is "too defensive" vs "appropriately defensive".

The main reason for this move is to allow e5 the next move. For example:

Now white gets a good out post