Sicilian defense.

Which is better for black?Sicilian Najdorf(e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cd Nd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6) or Sicilian Kan(e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cd Nd4 a6)?

Najdorf. It's so tactically complex that white has no chance of getting an edge without black makes a mistake. However, both players are bound to make mistakes in the Najdorf!

Playing the Kan Variation is a fairly safe opening. I play this and the Taimanov quite a bit. White can delay Black's Queenside expansion at times with a4 early, denying the b5 advance or can play a3 to stop the Bb4+ that is in some lines. Also, Black can adopt a Schevenigan type game with d6 at some point. Black also has some resources with both Ne7 and Be7, though I usually play the Knight to f6 and the Bishop to either e7 or if given the opportunity, g7. This opening has an advantage of that castling is entirely optional for Black; he can either play 0-0 if he wishes or even the interesting 0-0-0 since this will force White to weaken the Queen's wing to attack the position. I have played some games in the Kan/Taimanov Defenses where the King sits behind the triangle of pawns with Ke7.

The Najdorf (B90-B99) are really sharp lines where counterattacks and tactics are involved. The White Bishop at g5 is very aggressive and if the Bishop is fianchettoed to g7, White can attack the vacant diagonal with Qb6, initiating the Poisoned Pawn variation if memory serves me correctly. In this opening, I think Black typically castles with 0-0, though to be honest, i have only attempted to play the Najdorf twice on the site so do not quote me on this.

One of the interesting things with the Najdorf is that there are lines if i correct that can transpose into Dragon and Richter-Rauzer Variations with some interesting challenges for both sides.

On the whole, I like the Kan and Taimanov games because there is less theory at times to have to deal with and the games can either be played with normal move orders or by transpositions.

One small word of advice: if you play a6 on move 4, you get the O'Kelley Variation which is slightly different and Black needs to be ready if he plays Nc6 to play bxc6 should White play Nxc6. This can delay the Bishop working on the h1-a8 diagonal.

Closing, if you get the Bowlder Attack commonly (2. Bc4), then playing the Kan Variation is a good reply as 2... e6 protects f7 immediately. If White opts for Be2 or Bd3, either opening is OK.

Best of luck and i will try to post a couple games from my listings showing some of the ideas I disussed including a draw obtained against a 1900 player in which i played this against a Smith-morra Gambit.

thanks.was helpful :)

One correction: The O'Kelly is actually 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6(move two not move four).

Correct. I just had this opening as White a few months ago beforemy accident and forgot that it occured on move 2. a6 on move 4 is still in the Taimanov territory.

Basically if you like mixing it up early, play the Najdorf (including the Poioned pawn vaiation) and if you like a safer approach, try the Taimanov.

They are both good.

Absolutely they are. I actually have a game posted I think where I did play 0-0-0 in the Taimanov and won pretty convincingly. i play the Taimanov against most White replies, including the SMG, the Gran Prix, Alapin and other lines as well, with mixed results.

One word on the Taimanov, if White wants to, he can throw the book out the window and play 3. d3, opting to try a KIA. The Sicilian is denoted by the 1...c5 move so this line if you wanted to look at these lines for ideas, most will be under B20 in the ECO as a sideline variant. I play this move as white a lo of the time and though most play 3. d4, the games are still interesting as White will have the h1-a8 diagonal on the same line as the b7 Bishop. I have played some interestng games under this line.

Sicilian Najdorf-Scheveningen (...a6, ...e6 later)

they are both very good variations but i personally prefer the najdorf of course this doesn't mean that its any better but both variations have a lot of theory

Kan is easier to play and understand, play the Kan.

Both are good openings, of course, and you can be successful with them.

Honestly, I don't even like the Sicilian that much and would rather play the Ruy Lopez! For some reason I cannot make the RL work, but I keep getting fantastic positions from the Najdorf, even if I botch them later. Some of my best tournament performances have come thanks to the Najdorf. I guess I ought to just stick with it...

My two students who play the Najdorf also inflict major pain.

Not only is the Najdorf virtually bulletproof, but you can always play for a win if you want to, just as much as White can.

And if you face players who are unprepared for the Najdorf? You will win virtually every game if you're a better player than they are. If you want a "fish-killer" opening this is it. Just learn your Anti-Sicilians well.

A lot of players are afraid of the Najdorf theory, but I have come to agree with Kiril Georgiev that having a bunch of forced lines makes things easier to learn!

Could not repost the game but to see an idea of what the Kan looks like against the Smith-Morra, look at I think it is post 1558 or 1559 under the forum topic, "we need more amateurs to post their annotated games, where I drew after 41... Rc6 instead of playing 41... Kc6!! winning. My opponent was against a teammate in an invitational tournament who was rated 1905.

I would prefer (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6) myself.  As for which is better, probably neither one is better objectively.  Although I personally dislike playing against the Kan.

Though in the time it'd take to learn najdorf lines maybe up to move 15 (rather than my usual suggested 10 considering its forcing) and all the anti sicilian lines...You probably would be well on your way to having a good grasp on a different opening, your 'expertise' in which may serve as a 'fish-killer' on its own.

I draw this from my own experience, for quite some time I played the Avrukh repertoire (QG mainlines focusing on critical fianchetto variants), the QG was quite a good fish killer though. Assimilating so many lines in the KID and Benoni and Catalan was hard (similar work load to najdorf in these two I think).
I eventually decided after I had some experience that these lines just weren't for me, so I went back to playing the Trompowsky and other bg5 variants. Since the Tromp and Hopton are relatively narrow in lines I have gained some expertise in them and they serve great as 'fish killers', not because of all the critical lines, as in the QG, but because I had experience in how to capitalise on position mistakes.

Given this dont you think a slightly forcing response but less theoretically dense may be a better option? Or do you think its really worth learning the Najdorf? (keep in mind I have 0 najdorf experience, so if you say it is the ultimate fish killer with my considerations in mind, ill take your word for it).

Fear_Itself:

I think the Najdorf is way superior to something less forcing, and I'll tell you why: the Najdorf is POSITIONALLY a very ambitious opening. White MUST take concrete measures against it (either by creating a kingside attack or by pressing the weak d5/d6 points). Black already has a superior pawn structure after 3...cxd4 (2-to-1 central majority, c-file, ready-made minority attack on the queenside), but is behind in development. If Black catches up in development, he will be at least equal. White's space advantage from his e4-pawn (assuming Black has d6-e7 or d6-e6) is a double-edged sword, because Black can generate great pressure against it. Witness Tal's mauling of Fischer in Round 13 of the 1959 Candidates Tournament for a classic example of this.

White can go for the English Attack and launch a kingside attack, but Black's counterplay on the queenside is just as dangerous.

Given all the points I have made above, imagine the chances an unprepared White player will have facing an experienced Najdorf player...practically none. With other less-ambitious openings, the unprepared player is unlikely to be staring at a strategically lost position by move 15-20.

How's the Najdorf Scheveningen holding up in grandmaster games?  (by that, I mean the Najdorf, with an eventual ...e6 rather than a ...e5, achieving a Scheveningen little center via the Najdorf move order)

Not quite sure but both the Kan and Najdorf can be equally employed (though very carefully) as the a6 move is present in both. I have played a Schevenigan type setup in the Kan with mixed results. Also, I have had one nice game where Black played 0-0-0 in the Kan and others where Black eschews castling at all and leaves the pawn on d7, providing an excellent defensive spot to rest. I play this opening against nearly every Sicilian line though I have had my worst finishes when White goes for an accelerated Gran prix Attack with 2. f4 and when WHite gets to play a4 after the a6 move, though this is sometimes remedied by Black resorting to Bb4 with or without check. In the najdorf, White will often play 0-0-0 with Bishops either on d2 and d3 or in some cases e2 and e3 with some interesting games. If White does not slow the pawn storm while operating on the King's wing by playing Kb1, the results can be disasterous.

The Kan has been labeled as the "safe Sicilian" or "the Sicilian for those who do not want to study Sicilian lines" as most of the first 4-5 moves are rote. About all Black has to decide on really is whether to play the g8 Knight to e7 or f6 on moves 5 or 6.

Personally I like them both now (though more the White side for the  Najdorf) :)

Here is a Najdorf handling by White where Blacks omits a key move to the defense and embarks on a minority attack to the Queen side castled position.

G/10

neither: play the dragon