Sicilian without d4.

What can Black do when after 1.e4 c5...White never plays d4? I get d3 all too often. What purpose can the c5 pawn serve without the d4 move by White?

Example:

now black has more queenside space.  you can gradually get more queenside space with a6, b5, b4, and try to battle for the d4 square.  play g6 and Bg7, Nf6(or e6 and Ne7 to get it to f5 and control d4)  and attempt to not get mated on the kingside. 

3. d3 is a fail move compared to 3.d4 b/c it usually becomes the KIA which is fail vs. Sicilian imo. But, white can also transpose into a Closed Sicilian but most players who play 3.d3 likely don't even know anything about the Closed Sicilian (most CLosed players will play 2. Nc3) or are going to play the KIA. Actually, White can't even get a proper Closed Sicilian as for that to be even remotely effective you need Nge2 to play f4.

The c5 pawn is very useful and its kind of a jumpstart for queenside expansion. It also takes control of d4 and gives you space.

3.d3 is wayyy to easy to play against and usually I like to play 3...Nc6 followed by g6/Bg7 and Nf6 or even Nge7 after e6 or e5. Moves are often interchangeable btw. Simple development will do against this weak move. Ive found that against the KIA, Black has many plans, most obvious is queenside expansion although he may sometimes even be able to go for f5 in the style of KID (usually after e5, bringing about some 'dark square stonewall').

look up the "Closed sicilian" opening.  Also look at "KID in Reverse" because some guys use 1 e4 but then do a KID in Reverse setup behind it.  in the KID black often plays e5 after castling, so this is just a transposition of moves.  I don't know what the differences between closed sicilian and the KID in Reverse, they look the same to me.

But look at that darksquared long diagnonal just begging for you're king's bishop to take over.

It's just lame. Why would a player of 1. e4 make two forceful developmental moves and then stop his attack on the center in favor of slow, creepy development? It is as bad as the lame 2. d3 against the French Defense. It looks like a move played by someone who is afraid of what Black can do more than excited about what he can do to Black.

 Judit Polgar had success with d3 in the Sicilian with the White pieces, but then we are talking Polgar power. This was a blitz game, so maybe she slipped and meant to play d4, because the next move she played after d3 was d4. Interesting. Do you think she slipped?

Also, why didn't Black take White's knight on move 6 with his pawn. It looks like Black would have won the exchange. Is there a tactic for White after this capture?

Update: My chess engines tell me that Black blundered on move 6 and should have taken the free knight. It makes me feel good to see elite players mess up in blitz.

Can your engine explain 9...Bd7 followed by 10...Be6 ? Or maybe you can find an explanation by yourself 

I don't think this games is authentic; do you have a link ?

As for 3. d3, it works better if the Black played 2. ...e6 when it leads into a King's Indian Attack. (Those who think the KIA is lame are probably lame players.) It's also playable against 2. ...d6 but not as strong.

The Polgar game makes no sense at all. I suspect an error in the transcription.

As for the lameness of the KIA, it's just lame. It says more about the psychology of the person playing it than its value as an opening system. I stick by my previous note that White is wasting his initiative over nothing, following up his dynamic 1. e4 with the peanut: d3. Why not just play the Reti and wait to see where the e-pawn goes? I'll defer from now on to more seasoned players and other opinions.

How could it not be authentic?

I got the game from the ChessBase online database (4.5 million games). Maybe someone else can open their ChessBase database and take a look at the game. If it's a mistake, then it's the fault of ChessBase.

Interesting. How do people transcribe blitz games? Do they video tape the game? That should prevent transcription errors.

I agree. Even I know to play d4 in the Sicilian, not d3. Maybe Susan had a temporary hand cramp and moved the d-pawn only one square? I don't know.

 I don't know about you, but in that position, I'd rather have played h4, planning to shift knights and helping to free the dark squared bishop, than Qe2. ...g5!? is still good to me, it seems, but not as effective anymore.

To be honest, the only time I play d3 is to support e4 when it is attacked, so I really wouldn't have played 2.d3. I'd have continued 2.g3 3.Bg2 and by that time, the e4 pawn is being attacked by a knight (usually) which to me is high time to play d3. That, to me, is fine, since that gives me an option, sometimes, to play for an English Opening-style opening with pawns on c4, d3 and e4, which I'm familiar with.

No, what made me really gave up on KIA until recently is this:

That opening shows up in over 400 Master games (well clicking through says 501) in the Game Explorer here. White doesn't appear to have many chances, statistically anyway, but it does appear to get played and by better players than me.

In my OTB experience, I see d3 a lot of the time, instead of d4, but almost always (probably always without looking at my database) with Bc4 first, especially with a couple of the players in my club. A couple of others play d4 and go into more normal Sicilians. I have still lost and drawn games in the d3 lines.