Oh, Kelly!

This is experimental & I'm just playing. It wasn't a good game by any means. But it shows the point of the 5 ... Qc7 move order. In slow play it can be worth 20 minutes on the clock.

I think your game is in the wrong forum - should be game showcase. Also i think im missing something, but you seem not to play the best idea in the opening - 

No, thanks very much for your comment but it isn't meant to be a showcase game. It's a pretty bad game for that. This is very much a continuation of the discussion about the O'Kelly.

The move 3 d4 is not dubious. It is perfectly sound and playable for white. There is no logical reason why 3c3 or 3c4 should be better, since a6 is a normal move against both these lines. However, all this is based on faulty analysis and assessment of 5 ...e5, which in no way deserves an exclamation mark. Qc7 is far stronger.

3.d4 actually is bad here exactly because of 2...a6. Black gets a sort of Sveshnikov in which White can't attack the dark squares with Nb5 and so Black is already equal. Note that the sole purpose of this move in the opening is to prevent Nb5. So 3.c3 is played with the idea that the move a6 won't prevent any Nb5 move or even assist in some kind of queenside attack because White won't play into any of those positions that might make 2...a6 a useful move. 

What does make 2...a6 useful imo is that even though White will have no trouble in the opening there aren't a lot of ways for White to go making it a lot easier for Black to prepare. White will usually either go for an isolated queen's pawn or a French structure and you might be able to outplay your opponents there because theory isn't really a big deal. 

<<3.d4 actually is bad here exactly because of 2...a6. Black gets a sort of Sveshnikov in which White can't attack the dark squares with Nb5 and so Black is already equal.>>

White does have other moves, you know. The same holds for the Kan, the Najdorf and the Paulsen. It seems a bit wrong that for some magical reason, The Najdorf is ok for white to play into whilst the O'Kelly isn't, even though in the Najdorf black has played the more developing d6. It's illogical.

But I want to move the conversation on past whether 3 d4 is OK. Some people have bought the mythology, hook, line and sinker. I'm happy to discuss the e5 lines but debates about 3 d4 are a bit like debating about religion, which rightly isn't allowed here. People have their opinions and there isn't much point opposing them.

Also, the Najdorf isn't an automatic win for white and there's no reason it should be. Given best play, it's about equal. Exactly the same applies to the O'Kelly.

The Najdorf is actually NOT AS GOOD because Black has already played d6. In the O Kelly Black has moved neither the e or d pawns meaning that he will be able to push both in one go giving him major trumps that he won't have in any main line Sicilian. This is exactly why 3.d4 is the move you want to see when you play the O' Kelly. After 3.d4 it's BETTER than the Najdorf AND the Sveshnikov. You will have a very good time if your opponents play this way.

I've been playing this line for 20 years. Usually they play better than that. I don't play e5, which causes a permanent weakness and greatly reduces black's chance of a win, although it may increase black's chance of a draw somewhat. After e5, the dark bishop is almost certain to be exchanged off. But in the variation I play, it's a major, attacking piece and is kept on where possible. Qc7 retains pawn flexibility. 5 ... e5 is premature, although it may be played later on.

I tryed to tell Optimissed this. I did a huge analytical report on a forum. Trying to show him the value of the bishop getting outside of the pawn chain. Causing white some problem's. He dismissed my report like the evening news.

You're being rather boring.

Well for agruement sake lets pretend you played the pawn to e5. How would your follow up go. Would you trade off the dark bishop or no?

OK, case in point. Consider the Alapin Sicilian, where black responds d5. I play e6 very quickly. I don't want my B outside the pawn chain where it can be a target. I want to keep the pieces on and maneuvre white to death. White wants some pieces off and weaknesses to penetrate. I want to win substantial material or checkmate him. I do not want to be permanently on the wrong side of having nearly equalised, which is the fault in the e5 system. I don't want to nearly equalise but not quite, which is the case there. I don't want white to have a permanent +0.15 that I can't do anything about.

5...e5 is the best move in the position... Why not play e5 and at absolutely no cost to you? The dark squared bishop will be outside the pawn chain to b4, attacking e4 or on c5, Black threatens ...d5 (NOT D6). This is absolutely fine for Black:

This is already uncomfortable for White who now has to resort to tactics just to prevent ...d5.

Following up to 5 ...e5, if white plays Nf5, I play d5. If white plays Nf3 or Nb3, I play Bb4. I don't particuularly want to waste my bishop wrecking white's c-pawns though. That is a grovelling way for black to play which often  brings defeat in its wake, because white gets the active pieces. White does NOT play moves like Bc4 and Qd3.

Yes but white is forced to play those moves to save his bacon.

However, I have also been looking at the crushing move.

Macrozy Bind surely now white will positional crush black to death

One last point. Having played both sides of these positions, the better retreat may be Nb3. Not totally sure.

3 c4 is easy to play against.

Anyway, the purpose of this is not to go over old ground, which has been mis-analysed. It is to look at new moves.

I think you are being afraid of ghost.

The pawn on d6 is not a huge problem and the Boleslavsky hole on d5 is not the end of the world for black.

Thousands of GM's have played the Najdorf there is no shame in playing the Najdorf with out the dark bishop.