A few months ago, I played an interesting line in the Najdorf, which I quite like now, and I thought I may as well see what the internet thought about it.
One possible drawback to the line is that 9. ... h6 forces 10. Bxf6 (since 10. Bh4 can be answered by 10. ... Nxe4).
The Najdorf is one of the most heavily analysed openings in all of chess. Those who know enough about the opening aren't going to be very interested in a novelty from a beginner.
The moves you give have been played before, so it's not a novelty anyway.
The most common reply 8.Qb3 has the same points, and in addition aids in the common f5 / kingside attack themes while the bishop watches c4 (usually captures a knight there). I don't know much about openings, but I know this much anyway.
So it's not really about how good a piece is on a square, it's about the collective usefulness of all the pieces and whether or not they work together to meet the needs of the position. Not that it's a bad move, but to my limited knowledge it doesn't seem as testing.
This seems to be a good example game on the line. White's position stays fairly bleak throughout (I wouldn't look forward to the endgame after move 20).
I think that this not a good way of developing the bishop because you reach a very similar position to the ones from the 6.Be2 e6 line except for your bishop on g5. After 9...h6! black wins the bishop pair as 10.Bh4 runs into Nxe4! 11.Bxe7 Nxc3 12.Qd3 Qxe7 13.Qxc3 O-O when you are just a pawn down. In these kind of positions white's dark-squared bishop is a very important piece so you would better play this via 6.Be2 e6 7.Be3 Be7 8.f4 Qc7 9.Bf3 because our bishop is active but save as well on e3.
Thanks for the info guys!
Combining Be2 with Bg5 works only in few variations of the Sicilian- e.g. the Karpov variation of the Classical Dragon. It certainly does not work well here.
Yes, you're right jempty.
I guess what I mean to say is you're not going to introduce anything new in an opening like the Najdorf with a move or a few variations. It has to be based around a whole system of ideas. Yes it may be a great novelty, but a beginner woudln't know why even after the masters tried to explain it to them
what does it have to do with post number 1 ?
you've now dragged this thread off topic in 2 directions (and first to do it).
my post in that thread was relevant as it had digressed to arguments and bickering and was a call to bring it back on topic.
Black could also just kick White's bishop immediately after 8. Be2 with 8...h6. After 9. Bh4 0-0 it's still a game, but after 9. Bxf6?! Bxf6 White has given up the bishop and Black still gets to play typical Najdorf moves such ...Nc6 and either ...Qc7 or ...Qb6
There, happy now sunofthemorninglight?
you're back on topic!
Your posts in that thread were nothing of the sort: "there people still trying to reason with yereslov ? why ?" That's not "a call to bring it back on topic" -- it's blatant trolling.
Now I've just posted something about post #1 of this thread, but you've posted nothing about post #1 in this thread or the other one.
i think the OP was quite happy with the "relevant" responses.
Well after Bf3, then ..b5, then e5, (the line the OP has proposed for discussion) black can simply move his knight ..Nd5 to answer the threat of the bishop against the rook and save his knight as well if that was the point of the 'trap' (double attack on black's knight and rook with white's bishop and pawn).
man i looked to fast, ok white had to give up the knight. Anyway i should be more careful now( i just looked at the strategy and didnt see knight takes was maybe a tactical/postional necessity), but still why play an opening just for a trap? i mean if he could control the diagonal it would be something else i guess in my patzer view
As for controlling the diagonal, in my games, there are still ideas of e5 without b5.