Strange Sicilian

What is the idea behind the move 2.c4 after 1.e4 c5?

Game Explorer gives White a 25.1%  chance to win if 2.c4 is played.  2...Nc6 is the most popular response, followed by 2...e6.  

Game Explorer identifies 1.e4 c5 2.c4 as B20: Sicilian Defense: Staunton-Cochrane Variation or A36: The English Opening: Symetrical Variation, Botvinnik System. 

Transposition possibilities?

"It is natural to treat the English as a Sicilian reversed, but the results are often surprising-main lines in the Sicilian Defense correspond to obscure variations in the English, and visa versa." - Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition by Nick de Firmian

Is there a book or article on this Strange Sicilian? Thanks!  

Below are three examples of this opening. The first two are B20. The third is A36. 

Last is an example played by Kasparov and Beliavsky where White plays a gambit, giving up his e5 pawn for some initiative. 

they might be trying to transpose to a maroczy bind.. if they get to that or not they will be clamping down the d5 square at an attempt to perminatly have more space. black though will have a nice knight outpost, so I like whenever an opponent plays 2.c4

Is that a Sicilian or an anti Sicilian?

that would be characterized as an anti-sicilian

Game Explorer identifies 1.e4 c5 2.c4 as Sicilian. 2.c3 would be one example of the Anti-Sicilian. 

Our chess.com video instructor GM Roman Dzindzichashvilli classifies the following openings as Anti-Sicilian:

The Closed Sicilian: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.d3 d6.

Grand Prix Attack: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 or 2.f4.

The Alapin Variation w/ 2.c3 and the Smith-Morra Gambit: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.cxd4 d5

Wing Gambit and 2.b3: 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4

"Chess Openings for Black Explained" by GM Lev Alburt, GM Roman Dzindzichashvilli, GM Eugene Perelshteyn  

---

So, what is the idea behind the move 2.c4 and does anyone know of a book or article that explains this move? As shown above, 1.e4 c5 2.c4 has been played by great players of old and current Grand Masters. 2.c4 is not a Patzer move. 

I have that book, a very nice one that is recommended.

anything after 1e4 c5 could be called a "sicilian" ..but sicilian vs anti sicilian is basically saying "mainline sicilian(s) vs non mainline sicilian.. so 1.e4 c5 2.c4 would be anti, as would 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4, athough those anti sicilians wouldnt be as good as the ones you mentioned Imo.

just realized my "fighting the anti-sicilians" by palliser has a little on this line. will read up

Thank you! 

they didnt say much about it, but stated something along the lines of- fairly rare line that you wont see too much of, but a botvinnik english player may like it

the recommendation was to "keep things in fairly independent waters" by playing 1.e4 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5!? 4.g3 h5?!

not sure if I would play that line but its a decent idea if you play an 1...e5 english

Perhaps White is attempting to transpose the Sicilian Defense into some sort of English opening with 2.c4. If that's the rational, then it's pretty clever. Now Black is out of the comfort zone, especially if Black is not familiar with the English opening.  

What? are you all crazy? How do people not know what this is? It's the Maroczy Bind, white is still going to exchange it's D pawn for blacks C pawn, it's still the Sicilian. The reason behind the pawns on c4 and e4 is to have better control over the d5 square so Black cant free his position with d7-d5

A trappy line is this.

It's only a Maroczy if White gets d4 in, or chooses to play d4. Black could prevent d4 with e5 if he so chose. So keep your babble to yourself.