Oh, Kelly!

Well I really don't know what else to tell you other than that if you're not willing to make dynamic choices like giving up the bishop pair for activity (let alone a rook) you may not want to play the Sicilian. This position is the best that you can get after c5 because you not only have ...e5 as a free move but your dark-squared bishop is actually creating serious threats and White is scrambling to keep an advantage. Bd3 d5 is already equal so I'm not sure what White can do besides mixing it up. 

It is true that the position may not play itself if White attempts complications but you will never get better chances than this right out of the opening after ...c5. The world is your oyster here.

You seem to be on another planet. I don't want to give up the bishop pair to win an unimportant c-pawn, but I'd probably do it for the e pawn. I am the one who doesn't play e5 because it is non-dynamic. It only has the appearance of dynamism. Now repeat that ten times ...

I'm trying to tell you that the formation with e5 and d6 is not dynamic enough. Black has shot his bolt. Given the game away. Told White exactly how he's going to play. It's too early. e5 may not lose but it doesn't win. Trust me, I'm the one who plays these positions. In a blitz match after e5 I have to trust to luck and hope white blunders. After Q c7 I just try to outplay white. The future is in my hands there. White doesn't need to make any obvious blunder. Someone once told me that playing against me in the Sicilian is like having a brick wall coming at you slowly. He emphasised slowly. But I was the stronger player and I didn't need to resort to flashy counter-attacks. But when playing a stronger player than me, I have to take advantage of my extra knowledge of these positions and find something grotesquely fiendish.

That sort of thing happens a lot, Richard. They often think they can hold both the e-pawn and c3 with the queen by moving it to d3 and they get surprised by Nxe4. Having said that, I hate it when I have to win a pawn in the opening. I'd much rather they defended everything and just let me develop instead of winning pawns. If they play 6 Bg5, you just play e6 and let them cripple your pawns. Your king will be very safe indeed on e7. Play b5 quickly and you don't worry about holding the pawn on h7. Just connect your rooks. ...Qe5 can be a useful maneuvre.

You above all else should know rating is not a measure of strength if the sample size is not great enough.

Your profile shows a USCF rating of 1701.

Your online rating is 1200/ Unrated becuase you have not played alot of games online.

However, we both know your game strength is much stronger than a 1200 don't we?

I have never tryed to refute Optimissed O'Kelly.

I simply gave advice which is what you do on discussion forums. I believe 5...e5 is the better continuation.

Optimissed instead likes his variation with 5...Qc7

Optimissed in fact plays the same moves which are seen in the 5...e5 continuation. I was recommending.

Optimissed knight does to go f6, Optimissed bishop does to go b4, and Optimissed queen does go to c7 etc.

The only difference we have is Optimissed likes his E pawn on e6 and I like the idea of gaining more space and a tempo with a pawn push to e5.

This is the only disagreement we have.

I am a positional type of player and I have come to realize. You can not slowly build an advantage if your position was never equal.

5...e5 equalizes instantly. You can build from equal. Just like you can build with something opposed to trying to build with nothing.

5...e5 is the refutation of 3.d4 and I have given concrete, old and tired analysis on why this is. He disagrees with hundreds of years of theory and GM practice on move 5 of all things and thinks he knows better and I'm not going to argue with that. If he doesn't want to play 5...e5 because he thinks some GMs couldn't figure out what to do in five moves that is his choice and he is welcome to it. 5...e5 is certainly not forced here.

However there is little point in not playing ...e5 if the entire point of ...a6 indeed to allow ...e5 and with virtually no drawbacks other than a "possible" d6 pawn that White won't even have the time to do anything about. It's either an obvious misunderstanding of the position not to do this or a simple want to follow practiced patterns and give White back the advantage for free. 

I'm talking about the theoretically best moves not who can throw a better curve ball. A game with me isn't going to suddenly change the theory of chess as we know it or get you scouted by anyone.

Who's acting like an expert? I'm only stating common knowledge for 5 moves in an opening. That surely doesn't make me an expert and no I don't need to open game explorer to know that the point of ...a6 is to play ...e5 and that it would be really nice if I could play ...e5 and ...d5 in one go. Qc7 is possible but unnecessary because ...e5 and ...Bb4 already create problems for Black and you may not want or need a queen on c7. It's also harder to play ...d5 (another point of ...Bb4, not simply winning a pawn) with the queen on c7. You're just taking opportunities away that White has to deal with. 

But like I said it's not forced and you certainly don't have to play it.

I believe that statement is not true.

Since 4.Qxd4 is said to keep some advantage for white.

However, the line we are talking about in question is 4.Nxd4

@OP : very interesting idea here ! I agree with your overall assessment that it's not easy to win as Black in the regular ...e5 lines without giving white activity. From a practical perspective your approach is interesting.

Don't you end un transposing into regular Kan positions though ?

Quite often. The main purpose of the move order is to avoid white's strongest move in the Kan/Paulsen, which is generally held to be 5d3, and which loses its point here. There are also other positions that are non-Kan, such as 6 Bg5 ...e6 7 Bxf6.

I'm back from playing only my second OTB match game in about 3 years. I was on the black side of a Sicilian and I wonder if I should post it somewhere. It's interesting because my chess style seems to have reverted from very tactical to the highly positional style I used 20 years ago.

Yeah I still think 5...e5 is better.

However, I do believe by playing 5...Qc7 you keep more pieces on the board.

LOL Go for it. Did you win or lose?

One thing at a time. If I post it, do you think it should be in this thread or in a new one? It wasn't an O'Kelly. It was a Closed Sicilian by transposition from a King's Indian Attack.

Well I suppose you can create another thread to show it.

Usually the Closed Sicilian has a knigh on c3. and KIA has a knight on d2.

I am still trying to figure out how 5...Qc7 stops Bd3? 

I went for this thread. It's a bit of fun really, no more. My opponent wasn't very strong, about 1750 FIDE, and I had hardly played for 3 years.