Closed Sicilian with 2 ... a6

Tonight, I'm playing over-the-board, where, based on the pairings, it's likely I'll have Black in a game that begins 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3, at which point I'd like to try 2. ... a6 with a quick ... b5. If prior games are anything to go by, my opponent is likely to play a standard closed Sicilian setup, with g3, Bg2, d3, Nge2, f4, etc.

I've been looking at some lines and reading a brief account of this line in a book (Georgiev, the Sharpest Sicilian), but would be welcome for any further pointers on how  to play this, or any instructive games I would profit from studying, videos on the line, etc.

Do you play the Najdorf against the Open Sicilian?

If not, 2...a6 is a waste.  Only Najdorf players should play 2...d6 or 2...a6, and the first is better than the second.

The only problem with 2...d6 is that White can get the Grand Prix Attack with having to deal with the aggressive lines with an early ...d5.  2...d6 is not "bad" or "dubious".

The problem with 2...a6 is that in the Closed Sicilian, Black usually looks to expand on the Queenside with ...b7-b5, ...b5-b4, and ...a7-a5.  By going to a6, you waste a move on your Queenside expansion.  Usually it is assisted by a rook on b8 rather than a pawn on a6 to advance the b-pawn.

If you are a Kan player, play 2...e6.

If you play anything else (Dragon, Classical, Taimanov, etc), play 2...Nc6 against 2.Nc3.

The reason a Najdorf or Kan player should not play 2...Nc6 is because after 3.Nf3, intending 4.d4, what do you do?  You cannot play a Kan or Najdorf any more due to ...Nc6.  You can still get a Taimanov, Dragon, etc.

Thanks.  Yes, I'm a Najdorf player, hence the dissatisfaction with Nc6.

The other point is to simply get white out of his most comfortable prep, since there seem to be a few lines where the threat of a quick b5-b4 can mess with white's normal plans.

i am a najdorf player. i just play 2..nc6 3 nf3 e5 not allowing any open sicilian since i can't get the najdorf anymore here. i don't like 2 a6 in the closed sicilian as you are better off preparing b5 with rb8. if you try the early b5 lines you get hit with a4 and you surrender squares without gaining anything in return. 2..d6 is fine, i just don't like facing the d4, qxd4, qd2, b3 and bb2 lines, and also against the grand prix i would rather not have the d pawn moved so early. i would say 2..a6 is the worst of the three, but it takes some subtlety to prove that in a game.

You are making the same mistake that numerous other amateurs make.

You need to start thinking more in a "prep FOR YOURSELF" rather than "anti-prep YOUR OPPONENT" mentality.

The moment you say you are playing something to get out of Opponent's prep is the moment you have already screwed up!

Prepare for yourself!  Figure out best lines of openings you understand.  If, after that, you know a player, and you know he is good against one opening but not another THAT YOU KNOW, go ahead and use that as your decision of what to play, but do not go out of your way to build an anti-line for a specific opponent.

Example - Let's use myself:

The following is the scope of openings I know enough to where I would dare play it against a GM:

White - 1.b4, 1.Nf3, or 1.e4 with the following lines:

Sicilian - Closed, Prins (Open with 5.f3 against 2...d6), Open vs 2...Nc6, KIA vs 2...e6, Grand Prix Attack

Caro-Kann - Fantasy

French - 3.Nc3, Advance, KIA

1...e5 - Italian

Black:

Vs 1.e4 - French - Any line - Winawer, McCutchen, Classical, etc.

Vs 1.d4 - QGA, QGD, Dutch, KID

Now, Let's say I am White and my opponent is a French player.  If I have played them before, or seen their games, and I see that he or she scores well against the Advance - I might play 3.Nc3 or the KIA since they are in my repertoire.

Let's say that in another round, I face a player that I know plays the Caro-Kann and Slav and I have White.  I also know that said player HATES symmetrical positions.  Well, the Exchange Slav is symmetrical, but that is not really my game.  For me to go out of the way to spend the final hour before a round to prepare the Exchange Slav just to throw off my opponent is stupid.  I have knowledge in the Fantasy Caro-Kann.  Yes, it is not symmetrical.  So what?  I can play my own strength and throw the Fantasy Variation at him, or I can go out of my way to think that an hour of Exchange Slav prep is going to "get him".  Sure, it may annoy him, but he has likely been playing the Slav for years.  Even the exchange, guarantee you a player that plays it for years, even when faced by annoying lines, he will know it better than a one-hour cram study, and he will likely win.

So again, work on your own game, not on throwing off your opponent.  You trick yourself more than you trick him or her more often than not.

Sure, that makes sense.   But . . . I've never liked anything else against the closed Sicilian.  And I *am* fond of a number of openings that can feature rapid queenside expansion (Najdorf (sometimes), Benoni, Benko). 

So while the occaison is tonight's game, what I'm really looking for is an approach to the closed Sicilian that I can be comfortable in a range of games.  That it's not the main line and nevertheless scores as well as the main lines (better, actually, though not by enough to matter) doesn't seem like a bad thing either.  It also keeps me from getting move-ordered into an open Sicilian I don't know (which, honestly, probably isn't a problem for tonight's game, but I might as well work on something that I can reuse on other occasions when it might be).

But I could be wrong.  If you were White, what would you think is the most critical continuation to make me wish I'd played Nc6 or d6 instead?

Well, if you want something that scores well against the Closed Sicilian that is not the "main line", move 2 ain't the place to deviate.

As a Najdorf player, your best bet is 2...d6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 Nc6 and now, instead of 6.f4 e6 or 6.Be3 e6, respond with 6...Rb8 - you get your desired queenside expansion without wasting a move with the a-pawn.

Thanks -- I'll think about this. I've been avoiding d6 because of the Grand Prix, but maybe I don't need to.

As it happened, the guy surprised me tonight and played 2. Nf3, and the game went into a regular Najdorf.  After errors on both sides, we split the point.  I'll take it -- he's top seed in the tournament and 300 points better than me.

what's wrong with 2.,,,a6 exactly? if white insists on playing 3.g3 then 3...b5 is unpleasant no?

Yes, the bishop's quick arrival on b7 in these lines seems useful.  I'm still not convinced a6 is a wasted tempo.

I only play White in Sicilians and ... a6 is a nuisance move for me as I play the Grand Prix Attack and I have nowhere for my light squared bishop to go except e2 instead of going to b5 and exchanging the bishop for the knight with a tempo. Otherwise that knight later becomes a queenside threat - another good reason for the exchange.

It is not at all unpleasant.  Lots of Closed Sicilian lines see the Bishop go to b7 or even a6.

The problem for Black is he is a tempo behind all the other lines.  Like 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 and now 6.f4 e6 (the main line) or 6...Rb8 (intending ...b5 and ...b4 and ...a5), and already we see the problem.  Look at 6...Rb8.  Black storms the Queenside, and a7-a5 is played in one move instead of 2 (a7-a6 and a6-a5).

Comparatively speaking, White gains a tempo in the 2...a6 line compared to 2...d6 or 2...Nc6 or 2...e6.

But only if you're trying for that g6 Bg7 d6 setup, no?  Look, I can see arguing about whether that might be a better or worse setup than the 2. ... a6 plan, which, as I understand it, typically involves Bb7, e6, and Be7.  I need to play more with both and get a better feel for how I like them, after which I might well come to prefer Nc6, d6, or g6 on move 2.  But it sounds like you're treating 2 ... a6 as just a worse version of those typical closed sicilian setups with g6, and I'm not sure that's right. 

(Also, what about Derek's point about taking away Bb5 from certain Grand Prix lines?)

except white often tries to play a prophylactic .a4, which at least gives white a file if black insists with insists with both rb8 and a6, here the early a6 b5 removes that avenue.

Also as far i know, the most common line where black plays rb8-b5 shenanigans is when he plays early g6 stuff. if black plays 2.a6 intending b5 right away, he can play it with  bb7 e6, nf6 be7 etc. Like a sort of KIA french for the black side, where black hasnt committed to d5 just yet. (and the knight on c3 instead of nd2 is better for black allowing b4 threats)

So black should probably play a6 now but the white queen can leave the queenside thanks to black's missing queenside knight and white's exchanged bishop will not be missed in the attack.

i looked briefly at 2..a6 when white insists on the g3 system. while it does require white to play differently against b5 and bb7, it looks to me that overall white still gets f4 in and black still tries to go for the queenside pawn storm. while this may be okay, i feel that in the g6 lines black's play is a lot more straightforward and he can get his counterplay going with typical moves. in particular i don't like black's bishops on b7 and e7 as i don't see how they help black's plan. i know you can move them but still feels inefficient to place them there in the first place.

As the poster also pointed out right after you, the setup of the Bishops is less effective than if Black were to fianchetto the kingside.

Also, you compare it to a KIA vs French.  In the KIA vs French, fianchettoing the Queen's Bishop is ineffective.  It should be on the f1-a6 diagonal.  Oh, that's right, you played a6 and it cannot go there!  Black's play is too slow in those Bb7 lines of the KIA vs French.

The most effective way to fight for Black in the KIA vs French is as follows:

Beyond this, it depends what White does:

After 13.Ng5, 13...Qe8! Is strong.  If 14.Qh5, then 14...h6 and a couple of moves later, ...f5!, shutting down the kingside since en passant is not possible with the Queen hanging on h5.

After 13.Bf4, 13...a4 14.a3 (allowing 14...a3 15.b3 is terrible for White) bxa3 15.bxa3 with play for both sides.

After 13.Ng4, 13...a4 is possible, but I like 13...Nd4.  Now 14.Nxd4 is forced as allowing 14...Nf5 is better for Black.  After 14...cxd4, it is a battle of weaknesses - c2 vs d4.

So once again, ...a6 is ineffective there too.

There are many similarities between the KIA and the Closed Sicilian.  The main differences are the Queen's Knight for White (c3 vs d2) and advancement of the f-pawn vs advancement of the h-pawn.

To give a legit comparison.  Look at the Queen's Gambit Declined.

After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 O-O 6.Nf3 Nbd7 and now the main line is 7.Rc1 c6.

However, if White goes for one of those kingside attack lines, like 7.Qc2, then slow play on the queenside with 7...c6 is ineffective.  After 8.O-O-O, White's play will be faster, and there is no good way to stop it.  For example, 8...h6 9.h4!!

However, if Black plays 7...c5!, getting the ball rolling from the start, then 8...O-O-O is very risky and White should settle for 8.Rd1 and eventually castle Kingside with a level position.

The Closed Sicilian is another where White does not care what you do on the kingside - he is going for a blunt attack on that side.  Black's best strategy is to distract White on the other side, and to do that, he needs to be pressing as quickly as possible with moves like b7-b5-b4 and a7-a5, and just like how f4-f5 is a highly desirable break for White, so is c5-c4 for Black!

There are many other openings with this same premise.  Go for the king and hope your queenside does not get over-run to the point of no return if your attack is stopped.  Just think about the number of openings like this:

Classical King's Indian (Black)

King's Indian Attack (White)

Closed Sicilian (White)

French Winawer (White)

Certain lines of the Dutch Defense (Black)

Rubinstein Variation (7.Qc2) of the QGD (White)

There are others too!