...h6 actually is a creative try to get more out of kalashnikov/pelikan type sicilians by not allowing Bg5 in turn allowing the knight of f6 to challenge the exposed d5 square.
Is this a named Sicilian variation? What is your opinion of it?
Sort:
sort of a style aspect... some people build forts... some people attack ferociously.... some people play good chess.
h6 is more of a fort move and it fits along lines to prevent knights and bishops from camping out on the g5 square. this is a benefit... but it is passive because white hasn't committed any time to the threat of putting someone on g5. now if white wastes a move getting a bishop or knight bumped off the spot... it's an entirely different scenario.
The whole point of the position after Whites plays 5. Nc3 ...
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3
... from I understand is for Black to play 5...a6 to not allow 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Qxd7 8. O-O whereby Black loses a defender off f5 (thereby 'asking' black to play for g6 weakening Black kingside structure and White is better off
When Black I frequently play the French Sicilian Defence (2..e6 rather than 2..d6)
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6(to avoid the strong Nb5!)
Although to clear up your question whether or not h6 is playable is to firstly identify its possible function(s);
To confuse the opponent(unlikely)
To 'side-step' opening or middle-game theory (unlikely and depends on opponent knowledge base of theory)
Considering h6 doesnt threaten whites centres it is hard to recognise why one would play for it
Mar 17, 2009
0
#25
This is not a bad idea : I guess black wants to play a classical sicilian while avoiding the main line 6.Bg5 (the Rauzer attack)
Why not ?
The 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3... is called the Sicilian Defence Nf3 variation I think, however 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3... is called the Closed variation, because you don't open up the king side straight away. For that position...I don't think it has an offial name since it is 5 moves long...
TheKhaotic, I think your question, was a valid one, that deserved an answer. I can't believe how many elitist's there are on this site, who will call someone stupid, or make fun of them for asking a question. Which makes a lot of sense to me, because the ones who talk down to people are usually rated under 1500. If a GM played this move, I am pretty sure he put some thought into it. So an amatuer trying this out doesn't really seem stupid, or a terrible move at all to me. Everyone is smarter than everyone else on the internet I guess, it's kind of sad.
Yes, it's fine to try out mostly in Blitz games as a surprise weapon, but then again so is 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5. It doesn't say anything about the objective strength of a move that one or 2 GMs have experimented with it, because clearly if it was used as anything more than a surprise weapon then these GMs would have played it for more than one or 2 games and not abandoned it. 1. a4 has also been played by Masters and that doesn't make it a good move. But if the GMs can play these type of objectively weak moves once in a blue moon then so can anyone..