"The Taimanov System ... was my main weapon against 1.e4 until 2008. ... [After a burst of popularity of my pet system,] I had to accept deep theoretical disputes in every game. ... I began my migration toward the Kan. ... The play is not forced and both sides have tons of options on every move. This greatly reduces the chances of being caught on a home preparation. The wide choice also means an ample ground for strategic mistakes. Even good grandmasters often mix up the move order and allow an easy equalisation. ... Keep in mind that the Taimanov is a self-sufficient system while in some Kan lines it is best to develop the knight on c6 switching over to the Taimanov. One such example is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Be2!? ..." - GM Alexander Delchev in the 2014 book, The Most Flexible Sicilian
Questions about the Sicilian Kan
An important consideration is how much like playing hedgehog positions, i.e white pawns on c4 and e4. These are more static and english like than most sicilian positions. 4...Nc6 by putting more pressure on the centre prevents most hedgehog positions. Only the old main 5Nb5 d6 6c4 Nf6 7Nb-c3 a6 8Na3 is respected version in Taimanov. In Kan have all sorts of different versions.
After playing Nc6, there is no reason black can't play a6 soon after. For example, in jengais first game 6...a6 is a sounder line if white plays 7f4 b5 etc too.
i PLAY THE kAN WITH A 2 ... A6 MOVE ORDER, WHICH i FIND SUPERIOR TO THE 2 ... E6 ORDER. tHE TAIMANOV IS LESS INTUITIVELY LOGICAL SO IT PROBABLY DEPENDS MORE ON BOOK VARIATIONS. i DON'T THINK IT'S NORMALLY GOOD TO DEVELOP THE B8 kNIGHT TOO QUICKLY AS IT MAY WANT TO GO TO d7. (don't know how caps lock was on again, sorry)
I find the Paulsen setup with a6 and e6 very flexible and solid ... much more so than the Taimanov. Incidentally I play it as a straight Kan early on if white makes the mistake of playing a3, because then, it's natural to want to play b5 - b5.
How the heck do you get into a Kan with a 2. ... a6 move order?
After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 the move 3. d4 is known to be a mistake. White should play 3. c3 or 3. c4 instead... no?
Generically, I think all these versions of the e6 and a6 setup come under the Paulsen Sicilian. One of the Paulsen brothers played them in the late 19th century and had significant input.
Yes. It is widely agreed upon that 3. d4?! cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5! 6. Nb3 Bb4! is nice for Black.
Still confused.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5! is practically winning for Black, AFAIK.
How exactly do your games transpose from an O'Kelly (2. ... a6) into a Kan?
How the heck do you get into a Kan with a 2. ... a6 move order?
After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 the move 3. d4 is known to be a mistake. White should play 3. c3 or 3. c4 instead... no?>>
No, d4 is slightly stronger. There are some people who still perpetuate the myth that d4 is a mistake, which makes 2 ... a6 excellent for my purposes because a significant number of players have heard the myth and believe it. I could prove it isn't a mistake but I find most people on these forums have attention-deficit disorder when discussing it and they don't really understand the logic of tempi. So people tend to play 3 c3 quite a bit, which makes my job easy compared with 3 d4 lines played really well, because a6 isn't a wasted move at all. Sometimes they play 3 c4, which, well handled, is probably better than 3 c3, although of course it's a very different game. In that line it can be exceptionally difficult for black to play for a win and a holding method has to be employed. Black can only win if white tries too hard to win, obviously discounting blunders. One source of blunders for white can be ignoring the capacity for black to play b5, apparently dropping a pawn. But then, here we aren't discussing 2 ... a6 specific lines since that Maroczy Bind formation is more often reached via a more normal move order and there's often a straight transposition.
Specifically,
1d4 c5
2Nf3 a6
3d4 cd
4Nxd4 Nf6
5Nc3 Qc7
I developed this move order myself, I lay claim to originating it as a properly worked out system, over 25 years ago, and it's a sound and extremely surprising counter-attacking weapon which, one day, is going to be taken up more popularly. The downside is that there are several specific variations, specific to this Sicilian variation, which many people don't want to get involved in trying to understand.
People like Silman, for one...
But seriously, the position after 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Nb3 Bb4 cannot possibly be better than the position after 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Qc7 5. Be2 Nc6 6. O-O for White.
Yes. It is widely agreed upon that 3. d4?! cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5! 6. Nb3 Bb4! is nice for Black.>>>
It's too easy for white to play for a small positional edge and just grind the position out, with black being able to achieve nothing better than a draw unless white blunders and with his normal counter-attacking routes closed to him because he's played e5 and the position is blocked.
As an experiment I went into one of those e5 and Bb4 lines a few years ago in a correspondence game, when my daily rating was about 2250. I was playing someone about 2350 and I put an extreme amount of effort into finding the right moves. I ended up losing, although I could have held on for a draw, more than likely. It wasn't pleasant and I wouldn't go into these e5 lines, which are more pleasant for a very positional player of the white pieces than for black, if white knows what he's doing.
Although 6Nb3 is playable for white, that isn't the "correct" move, which is 6 Nf3, considered to be much stronger than 6Nb3. It's interesting that Nb3 variations are being cited. Actually it was my inability to win as black against 6 Nb3 in several games that caused me to finally decide that the e5 lines are nowhere near as good as they're cracked up to be. I can only presume that I was playing well and that these games included both blitz and 3-day games. The trouble is that taking on c3 and doubling white's pawns can result in a stronger position for white, who has the two bishops and lovely open diagonals. If I'm playing for a win I want my pawn on e6, not e5, all things being equal.
In any case, I've probably played more games than most people alive with 2 ... a6 and for a while I was playing both the e5 lines and the e6 lines. All in all I was getting easier games with e6 and winning more often. I started just playing the e5 lines as a diversion and then I gave them up altogether as being inferior. This was probably a result of practice with the e6 lines, since after playing them for a quarter of a century, I must have acquired some slight expertise that makes my opinion at least as good as that of masters who hardly ever play the lines and definitely better than the GMs who still, like dinosaurs, believe the myth that e5 eggs contain real gold. And I was a strong club player at one time, who could expect to beat 2200s at 5 minute blitz occasionally. That's for the people who dismiss the opinions of those who don't seem as strong as they are.
Finally, as Jengaias says, the so-called easy equality obtained by black is a pseudo-equality only. It's piece development without point. White keeps a small but significant edge in mobility and threat-creation and black is reduced to a scramble for real equality. Black's better bishop is now the c8 bishop, which can be hard to develop significantly. The main weapon in the e6 lines, the f8 bishop, also has mobility problems, the pawn structure is compromised and black's setup is liable to be undone by a well-played k-side attack, often initiated by white offering the gift of a pawn or two on the q side. There's very little flexibility after playing such an early e5, which should normally be played in two stages, finally committing to e5 when there's a significant chance of also getting in d5 or some other significant follow up.
But you seem to miss the point that if e5 were stronger than e6 lines, which in any case can be transposed to from 2 ... e6, then 2 ...e6 lines would be unplayable, since we seem to have agreed that e5 offers a small but permanent edge to white.
So if e5 were the best move, I wouldn't be playing these variations at all and of course they can all be wrong, just as those who follow any fashion regarding chess moves can be mistaken. After all, we've agreed that there's a myth circulating.
No, 5 ....Qc7 in the previous one after 5 Nc3.
First, why does the Kan score significantly higher than the Taimanov, despite many claiming that the Kan is more passive (which is negative?) than the Taimanov? Surely, if there is more counterplay for the Taimanov, that means that it would be higher scoring for Black than in the Kan.
Second, in the Kan, how should someone choose between developing the queen's knight to c6 or d7 (since it's supposed to be one of the reasons it is preferred by some over the Taimanov)?