didn't look too close but i think
11. Bh6 would be a good move for white, to exchange bishops to weaken kingside defence
also before d6, the c5 square looks like it could be exploited by a knight for some sort of tactic. but i haven't found it.
Also, the name is too simple. i'll call your defence the: "Schultz's Sicilian Najdorf King's Indian Defence from Arkhangelsk"
Well, to begin, 2...a6 is a very popular move, and 3.d4 is a very poor reply. 3.d4 scores about 45%, which is, needless to say, a very bad score for the white pieces. 3.c3 is the best scoring and most popular response at about 60%, which is, needless to say, better than most.
4...b5 is a ridiculous opening move. The tempo could be spent on much more important things, and this move gives white immediate control of the game. 4...Nf6 is the common move. White could play 5.Bg5, punishing the move order, and making black's kingside development more difficult.
Given the position at the time, I really like your sixth and seventh moves. Despite e5 creating a backwards pawn, I think it is warranted, given white's dubious central setup. These are sensible opening moves.
I can't imagine why you didn't play 8...d5. That was the point of your play, wasn't it? To prepare an early ...d5? Here, white gives you the chance for the central break you were looking for. Was there some reason you were afraid to take it?
This is just the opening to a random game between novices, and there is no point calling it a variation. White has better options on almost all of his moves (so does black for that matter), so there is little chance this kind of opening will be played again intentionally, and calling it a variation is silly. Come up with an original opening sequence that has logic to it, and you can call it the Matthew Schultz variation.
Just one correction: while variations with ...a6 are very popular in the sicilian,
2...a6 is NOT popular at all. It is never played at high levels nowadays. It used to be. It's a known positional trap from years ago, and nothing else.
It used to be played a lot years ago (mostly in the 60s and 70s, I think Taimanov played many games with it). Nowadays you can usually only find players of lower levels play it,
OR when a very strong player meets a much weaker one and to avoid the high risk of a draw (which can kill the chance for a prize in many tournaments, if you draw much weaker opponents in the beginning), and just wants to play something unfamiliar. Examining the database, that was the reason for many of its modern occurences, in my opinion.
In any case, it is considered to be just a slight error nowadays.
If white continues with 3.d4, which is the positional error black is aiming for, black can play for a quick d5 break. Think about it as if black wants to get a semi-sveshnikov position, where black has not yet played Nc6, but white cannot place the N on b5, so black is aiming for a quick Bb4 and d5. If that is confusing, say so, and I'll elaborate.
About the database statistics that have been given: they are too often misleading. You have to see from which periods each move's popularity comes from, when were most of the games played, what are the most recent results, HOW MANY recent results are there, how many of those are from GM games, and what are the results among those (otherwise the percentage means little or nothing) etc... Especially with an opening that is almost never played at the GM level anymore.
The two leading ideas according to opening theory against this 2...a6 move are:
a) 3.c4 - Setting up a maroczy bind, which just gives white a good position. 2...a6 is quiet enough to give white time to gain something quietly.
b) 3.c3 - Setting up the Alapin sicilian, where in most variations/positions there is little or no use for the move ...a6. So black may have lost a move there.
Once these two options were found, this variation hardly sees the light of day among the top players. Only a couple of hundred occurences in high level play EVEN if you count the years before GMs learned how to deal with it.
4...b5 is a bad move. You violate the principles (development and center) for little or no gain.
8.f3 has to be an error. White can exploit his lead in development and castle NOW. White's lead in development and black's king in the center give white a wonderful position if black dares to take the e pawn. Of course, white already has a very large advantage even if black does not take on e4.
The move played: 8.f3, ruins everything for white. now the game is complex. Black has to exploit the moment he's been given, and play d5, after which an interesting position is reached, even if it is approximately equal in my opinion.
In the final position, white just has a very big advantage. White's pieces are poised for both attack and defense.
More than that... Not much to say about this strange..... opening.
At your level, things change back and forth because of large errors every couple of moves. Openings aren't that important at this stage. Improve your tactics first. Get a better grasp of the basic principles (development, center, king safety etc.), before you choose an opening that violates them like this one (you have to know the rule in order to break it successfully when necessary).
this variation is a bit odd, but i think first of all against 4... b5 can be strongly replied by 5. a4! forcing blacK to play b4 which afterwards white can develop his bishop to c4 an have a significant development advantage, but if played like white did i think blacK. In fact in the move 13. h4?! is kind of a mistake cause blacK can simply play 13... h5 and white has no attack. I think it has been said but 13. Bh6 is interesting, with the simple idea of h4, h5,BxB, pxp and Qh6+ with threats of mate.
Also the move 13. a3 is a complete waste of time because it's only weakennig even more the queen side which can allow for tactical possibilities.
a4 is indeed a very good reply to b5, but I don't think what white did was any worse. It was just not followed up properly
I tryed this out in ECC rapidplay and it scored very well
What do you think about it?