Taimanov, Paulsen, Kan Sicilian dispute/confusion

Maybe this can be settled once and for all. One author claims there is some confusion about which is which as these defenses are kin to each other. One claims Qc7 is the Paulsen while another claims Qc7 is the Taimanov. Besides, one reference refers to 3 different kinds of Taimanov...(like the Basitrokov and pure Taimanov with Nge7. It appears that some references rely on move order to identify the systems while others rely on a single move. The references I’m referring to include Taimanov move by move by John Emms and another by James Rit....another one is also the flexible Sicilian...one is the safest Sicilian by Graham Burgess....your thoughts?

the kan is 4...a6. The taimanov is Nc6. I think the Paulsen happens before either of these choices are made...so the Paulsen can become the kan or the taimanov. Qc7 is not really an important decision here...the difference between these systems and the other Sicilian systems is that the dark square bishop is not yet committed.

 

To be honest, I think the confusion is just based on perhaps the lack of understanding that early players had about the Sicilian in general. It turns out the move order of a6 and nc6 simply doesn't matter. If they were going to make distinct names I would think it makes more sense to distinguish different dark square bishop decisions.

 

There isn't really much white can do to create serious independent lines, so in general all of this stuff tends to bleed together into some similar position after a6 nc6 and qc7...and the important decision is when and where to commit the dark square bishop

So what identifies the Paulsen?

all of them basically. Its just bad naming.

Exactly my point...the lines are not well defined...it’s a system!

I used to own "The Paulsen Sicilian", Batsford, by Taimanov himself. He included a lot of his own material on the section on the Taimanov. It was my Bible back in the late 80s.

The Paulsen Group of Sicilians are characterised by e6 and, usually, a6. Kan himself played a very early b5, which may be slightly dubious. However, a lot of modern writers are confused and they believe that a6 e6 Sicilians are Kans. This is because the historical origins are outside their remit even though the Paulsen brothers were among the strongest players of the late 19th century. However, there's no doubt about this: the Taimanov is characterised by e6 and Nc6.

One reference calls the move Nge7 the pure Taimanov!?

>>>>
It was Taimanov's preference. I have to say, I looked at the Taimanov WITHOUT Nge7 and I didn't like it. I play Nge7 in Sicilians, but I don't like to play g6. I think it's too passive. In the Paulsen, the d7 pawn preferably remains on d7, giving the f8 bishop e7, d6, c5, b4 and even h3, although the latter doesn't tend to be so good ... there are tactical refutations which I've discovered. So what price Bg7?

Sorry for the confusion, which I've edited. I believe I'm developing late-onset dyslexia.

My understanding was that the Kan is e6 and a6 without either Knight moving.  The Paulsen is any Sicilian with e6 and Nc6, whereas the Taimanov is a particular type of Paulsen with e6, Nc6, Qc7 and a6.  The Taimanov is always a Paulsen, but a Paulsen is not necessarily a Taimanov (for instance, an early Bb4 or Bc5 with or without Nf6 would be a different set-up).  The Kan can transpose into either.

It may be useful to think of the pawn structure of the Najdof, the Scheveningen and the Four Knights Sicilian.  In theory, all three can reach the same position, though the move order would obviously be different.  At that point, names don't really matter.

 

I totally agree...vague lines means name don’t matter, hence the “system”.

I also think it’s more important to understand when and why each individual move is necessary as opposed to a route memory of individual names of lines. Many hybrids of the names show up. Names help in grasping basic understanding.

I think that the Sicilian is garbage.

Sometimes, it's better just to use ECO codes rather than descriptive names. Unfortunately, even ECO can get confusing and inaccurate due to all the possible transpositions between sister variations. 

I tend to stick with Taimanov's nomenclature, but usually point out that I'm never as sure as the amateurs on chess.com are of the names of these variations.

While they admittedly did more work on the variations, the Soviets weren't shy about taking over naming rights for openings from older non Soviet custom. Since they were top dogs in chess for many years, their names tended to stick.

Basic Paulsen ideas became Kan and Taimanov. Lasker - Pelikan became Sveshnikov. I even wonder if why they called the Petrov Defense the Russian Defense is because Petrov was pre revolution or if the guy that worked with Petrov wasn't a real Russian.

They took it seriously. GM Sosonko told a story about how outraged the Soviets were when Korchnoi dared to play the Russian Defence against Karpov in that very political WC rematch.

My personal understanding is that sicilian can be grouped into 4 broad categories:

1) Paulsen - (kan, taimanov, scheveningen, najdorf, sveshnikov, classical)

2) Dragon - (dragon, accelerated dragon, Chinese dragon)

3) closed anti-sicilians - (alapin, rossolimo, closed Sicilian, Kings Indian attack)

4) open anti-sicilians - (Grand Prix attack, Smith morra Gambit)

 The Paulsen is any Sicilian with e6 and Nc6>>

No, that's wrong, unfortunately. I often play the N to d7, for instance, and leave its development very late. Although I play a6 on move 2 and sometimes play e7-e5 in one move, that's only a transposition into a recognised Paulsen line, where black saves a full tempo. In general, Paulsen Sicilians are those with an early e6 and a6, though. Taimanov played e6, Nc6 and a6. He often played Nge2, which is a main branch of that opening.

Kan is really irrelevant to the opening complex. He was a Russian player around the 1950s, who took up playing the Paulsen system before it became fashionable again, but it was quite fashionable back in the 19th century. It shouldn't be named after Kan but after its originator, Louis Paulsen, who was quite possibly the strongest chess player of the 19th century and who also invented the Dragon and other ideas.

Incidentally, it shouldn't be thought that by playing 2. ...a6, I'm playing an O'Kelly, which is often believed to be so amazingly powerful that all sensible players of the white pieces avoid it. The fact is that 2. ...a6 has never been particularly fashionable and yet it invites a plethora of deviations from normal, open Sicilians, and I think there's been a bit of a conspiracy amongst GMs to stop people playing it, because it would represent their having to analyse a new branch of theory which they would rarely employ. So in effect, they are giving due notice that if faced with 2. ...a6, then they will deploy with 3. g3, 3. c3, maybe 3. c4 etc. and they will not play an open Sicilian against it. Which is fair enough, even though the lines with ...e5 are generally not very strong for black. There's a deceptive air of strength, to be sure, but black's position is susceptible to careful, positional manoeuvring, when it becomes clear that black cannot easily transfer pieces from the q-side to the k-side to defend. So white should castle 0-0 and then attack on the k-side with pawns and pieces, if black goes 0-0. This is an area of "theory" where accepted theory is miles out of date.

So I play ...a6 with the intention of playing a Paulsen. Typical would be
1. e4 ...c5
2. Nf3 ...a6
3. d4 ...cd
4. Nxd4 ...Nf6
5. Nc3 ...Qc7 etc
Black has the possibility of b7-b5-b4, especially if white makes the mistake of playing a3. The f8 bishop can go to d6 if necessary, although b4 or c5 are more usual. The c8 bishop can be deployed at b7 or, in some cases, e6 or g4. This latter becomes possible because black's aim is to play d5, if necessary recapturing with a piece, and then potentially e5 and f5 etc, with a central attack. There's often no backward or isolated pawn on d6 and ideally, this only occurs when black has sufficient compensation and an active game.

Optimissed,

What do you think my categorization?

I'm not quite sure. Evidently I'm not the best person to ask because no-one here thinks I'm an opening theorist or an anything theorist for that matter. However, I will comment if you like.

Firstly, I've noticed that you place the Grand Prix Attack in the group designated open anti-Sicilians and yet, when faced with it as black, I try to make the game a closed one, by playing c5, e6, a6 and finally d5. White is welcome to capture on d5 and treat it as a French with the moves f4 and a6 inserted. In fact, it's quite French-like in any case. Often, white plays e4-e5, when the opening is definitely closed. I think the best players refrain from both exchanging and pushing and they prefer to maintain the central tension. But, very often, the GP is closed.

I'm not sure I'd include the Najdorf as a Paulsen because, very often, d6 and e5 occur, and when Kasparov played e6, it was his intention to transpose to a Scheveningen. Incidentally, I know I've a bee in my bonnet about Kan, but surely, the Kan IS a pure Paulsen and there's no need to over-categorise it. As someone pointed out, the Russians tried to grab a lot of chess nomenclature for themselves and it's time people pointed out that the so-called Russian Defence is actually the Petrov, as it's historically been called, perfectly satisfactorily for decades, and no amount of vainglorious posturing by the Russians will change that. And the same goes for Kan and the Paulsen.

By the way, how would you classify the Sicilian Wing Gambit? Open anti-Sicilian?

Yeah, I forgot to mention wing Gambit. Yeah, I would say that it is open anti-sicilians.

I think najdorf, scheveningen and taimanov have lots of common trans positions and similar middle games, so I think all of them can be grouped under the Paulsen umbrella.

 

About Grand Prix: honestly, I was in two minds myself whether to classify it as closed or open.