An answer to question 2....recently I read there is a refutation to the poisoned pawn. I don't remember where it was written or what the refutation is(and of course the refutation will probably be refuted in another couple years). If I remember correctly it was written by someone who had "recently" proposed a poisoned pawn rep as black in a book and then wrote a 2nd edition taking out the poisoned pawn because of this line. Now that I have been all mysterious use google
Sicilian Najdorf poisoned pawn question
Sort:
You'd think that if there was a viable refutation, though, that it would be widely publicized, since the poisoned pawn seems to be both popular and a very strong weapon for black when played well. One could exist, a la Spassky-Fischer, but we will have to see.
Jan 10, 2011
0
#4
check the first post and the link. I wouldn't trust a mere 1900 chess.comer either. But, a very strong player writing a book proposing the poisoned pawn changes his mind. Intriguing indeed
ha ha...I swear I posted a link(anyways-
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1187125791
Estragon wrote:
8 b3 is just weak. You avoid the Poisoned Pawn, but you could do that without disadvantage with 8 Nb3. b2-b3 weakens the dark squares on the Queenside, particularly c3, for no reason and with no benefit for White. It gives up a valuable development tempo to make your position worse.
Okay that seems reasonable. . . So it would be an inaccuracy verging on a mistake to play b3 because of a wasted tempo and a single purpose move.
capnahags wrote:
Alright, so I like to play sicilians, and I have a question about the poisoned pawn variation. After Qb6, is there a compelling reason why white doesn't just play b3? Since poisoned pawn games seem to offer an almost even if not better than even result for black (in master games at least), wouldn't it make sense for white to just avoid it altogether? So I guess it's really 2 questions: 1) is there a refutation for ...Qb6 b3? and 2) why would white allow black to play the poisoned pawn?
...
1. look at the stats (chessgames.com opening explorer) - no games with b3:
| 8. Qd2 | 639 |
|
||||
| 8. Nb3 | 284 |
|
||||
| 8. Qd3 | 53 |
|
||||
| 8. a3 | 33 |
|
||||
| 8. Bxf6 | 8 |
|
||||
| 8. Be2 | B Barth Sahl vs S Bjerke, 2005 1/2-1/2 | |||||
| 8. f5 | Murey vs Pinter, 1980 0-1 | |||||
2. I would say it's white who plays the poisoned pawn, not black.
Alright, so I like to play sicilians, and I have a question about the poisoned pawn variation. After Qb6, is there a compelling reason why white doesn't just play b3? Since poisoned pawn games seem to offer an almost even if not better than even result for black (in master games at least), wouldn't it make sense for white to just avoid it altogether? So I guess it's really 2 questions: 1) is there a refutation for ...Qb6 b3? and 2) why would white allow black to play the poisoned pawn?
From what I've seen, I can take a guess at the answer to the 2nd- white aims to either trap black's queen and take it or keep it out of play enough to force a win, and so sacrificing a pawn can work. The strategy for black seems to be to tie down as many of white's pieces as possible in the hunt for the queen, while also trying to rally an attack through the center and kingside.
Thanks!