I call it a Paulsen, which meant that, a year or two ago in a discussion here, I was calling a Paulsen with a quick b5 a Kan, and everyone else didn't understand the implication. Very confusing. We should drop all the false, egocentric Russian nomenclature. Let them follow us, especially since the West is more dominant now.
Taimanov, Paulsen, Kan Sicilian dispute/confusion
Sort:
The long and short of it is when you see a book on any of these openings, look at the table of contents before buying it. Make sure it covers the lines you want to study.
Optimissed, no intention of making this political...enough of Russia vs US in the news. Exactly what are you calling the Paulsen?
TuckerTommy wrote:
Pardon my research below. Can we support our posts with references. Some of the most recent posts are not well substantiated.>>>>
A reference is typically another opinion which coincidentally agrees with one's own.
<<Optimissed, no intention of making this political...enough of Russia vs US in the news. Exactly what are you calling the Paulsen?>>
Russia used its temporary position at the forefront of world chess to try to Russify as much chess as it could. This is factual and not political. Anyway, regarding the "Paulsen", to me, the Paulsen Sicilian has an early e6 without an early Nc6, and typically has an early a6.
Mark Taimanov, in his excellent book on the Paulsen, which I mentioned earlier, gave much of the history of the opening complex. Anyway, without trying to reproduce it from memory, I'll try to find a link which will give the history, which revolves around the Paulsen brothers. Actually, it was the other one, not Louis, who used c5, e6, a6 all the time. I think that Taimanov believed it was probably Louis's analysis, however.
EDIT .... so this is worth a read. http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-paulsen-sicilian-a-history-part-2 Part 1 is less useful because the games chosen to illustrate why certain lines were dropped were badly played.
Optimissed schreef:
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.
yes 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 is the O Kelly variation. Not a paulsen or Kan variation although it can transpose to them. To me is Always told that on the O Kelly 3.d4 is less good and 3.c3 or 3.c4 are stronger.
The 3.c3 move can transform to a kind of French position in wich black has played a6. often also Bd7 and Bb5 are plans for black there. I had it only opn the board a few times. After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.c3 e6 , lets name it O Kelly French. Thus after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.c3 e6 4.d4 d5 5.e5 Bd7. There it went like 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 And maybe also 7.Nxd4 could be played or is even better. And 7...Bb5. And here I wonder then and still if 8.Bxb5+ 8.Bc2 or 8.0-0 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 is the best. In any case I played then the last and won but it was by ni means clear. Me was told that after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 was a good move and the white knight must return to f3 or b3 since 6.Nf5? is aswered with d5! and black has a good game. After 6.Nf3 Bb4 is an option and also after 6.Nb3 Bb4 should be good. Why is this then not so good for black?
7. Nd2!?A frequently-seen idea from White. One of the disadvantages of the Paulsen, compared to openings like the Scheveningen or Najdorf, where Nc3 is forced, is that the white knight (and c-pawn) have flexibility. Thus White avoids putting the knight on c3 where it is a target for ...b5. Nevertheless, 7.Nd2 is a rare move in this position. 7... Nc6 >>
This is also the case to some extent in part two, which I linked. For instance, in the Stein-Portisch game, Nc6 is weak, because, as the text mentions, 8. Nxc6 compromises black's pawn structure and makes black's game difficult. Also, as black I think very aggressively in this opening and therefore I wouldn't invite piece swaps until I need to do so, since the more pieces there are, the more threats I can create, and the pieces won't be compromised because black's king can stay in the middle for most or all of the game, protected by f7-e6-d7.
So for move 7, I'd probably choose between b5 (not so effective here since the N is not so vulnerable on d2 as it would have been on c3) Bc5 (with the possible intention of retreating it to a7 or d6) and Bd6 immediately, since after f4, a pin is possible from c5. The idea is to cause white maximum inconvenience and possibly decentralise white's pieces by inviting moves like Nb3.
For instance, the B can go first to d6, causing white to take action regarding the h-pawn, and then to c5, inviting Nb3, and then the choice of e7 or a6 etc. and if K h1, then b7-b5 and Bb7 becomes very viable, with pressure on the white king from the two bishops. This system is superbly flexible for black but the depth of thinking required tends to mean I play the late opening/early middle game very slowly. Hopefully, white will be getting into trouble by about move 25, and black will catch up on time.
This is also the case to some extent in part two, which I linked. For instance, in the Stein-Portisch game, Nc6 is weak, because, as the text mentions, 8. Nxc6 compromises black's pawn structure and makes black's game difficult. Also, as black I think very aggressively in this opening and therefore I wouldn't invite piece swaps until I need to do so, since the more pieces there are, the more threats I can create, and the pieces won't be compromised because black's king can stay in the middle for most or all of the game, protected by f7-e6-d7.
So for move 7, I'd probably choose between b5 (not so effective here since the N is not so vulnerable on d2 as it would have been on c3) Bc5 (with the possible intention of retreating it to a7 or d6) and Bd6 immediately, since after f4, a pin is possible from c5. The idea is to cause white maximum inconvenience and possibly decentralise white's pieces by inviting moves like Nb3.
For instance, the B can go first to d6, causing white to take action regarding the h-pawn, and then to c5, inviting Nb3, and then the choice of e7 or a6 etc. and if K h1, then b7-b5 and Bb7 becomes very viable, with pressure on the white king from the two bishops. This system is superbly flexible for black but the depth of thinking required tends to mean I play the late opening/early middle game very slowly. Hopefully, white will be getting into trouble by about move 25, and black will catch up on time.
RubenHogenhout wrote:
Optimissed schreef:
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.
yes 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 is the O Kelly variation. Not a paulsen or Kan variation although it can transpose to them. To me is Always told that on the O Kelly 3.d4 is less good and 3.c3 or 3.c4 are stronger.
The 3.c3 move can transform to a kind of French position in wich black has played a6. often also Bd7 and Bb5 are plans for black there. I had it only opn the board a few times. After 1.e4 c5 2.Kelly French. Thus after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.c3 e6 4.d4 d5 5.e5 Bd7. There it went like 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 And maybe also 7.Nxd4 could be played or is even better. And 7...Bb5. And here I wonder then and still if 8.Bxb5+ 8.Bc2 or 8.0-0 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 is the best. In any case I played then the last and won but it was by ni means clear. Me was told that after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 was a good move and the white knight must return to f3 or b3 since 6.Nf5? is aswered with d5! and black has a good game. After 6.Nf3 Bb4 is an option and also after 6.Nb3 Bb4 should be good. Why is this then not so good for black?>>>
I did explain. Black's game is effectively cut in half by the inflexible pawn structure and the position is vulnerable to a careful, manoeuvring game by white which clamps down on black's piece mobility with the aim of attacking black on the k-side. Essentially, white can start an attack on the q-side and transfer the pieces much more easily to the k-side than black. Essentially, in the e5 lines, black is playing for a draw only, unless white plays badly. I've had this conversation here before. There are some strong players who still believe the mythology surrounding this opening. It's another reason why it's such an effective weapon for black.
Regarding 3. c4 black has few real problems unless white plays a long series of waiting moves without playing d4, perhaps. 3.c3 is better, but ...a6 is a useful move in the 3. ...d5 variation.
Also after the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 so a system with e6 and a6 without thus yet moves like d6 and Nf6 and also not yet Nc6. Then white does not have to play Nc3 and can also play 5.Bd3 then after Bc5 6.Nb3 the black bishop can fall back to a7 or also to e7. By the way did you mean 7.Bd2 after 6.Nb3 Bb4 ? or is this comment to something else?
RubenHogenhout wrote:
Also after the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 so a system with e6 and a6 without thus yet moves like d6 and Nf6 and also not yet Nc6.>>
e
yes, in that system for black I'd play 5. ...Qc7. I don't think much of the Taimanov because Nxc6 generally degrades black's pawn structure after a6 has been played. That's why Ne7 is probably better played before a6. But personally, I think the Taimanov Sicilian is very weak against best play. The Nb8 is often far stronger on d7 than on c6.
<<Then white does not have to play Nc3 and can also play 5.Bd3 then after Bc5 6.Nb3 the black bishop can fall back to a7 or also to e7.>>
Yes, but that's why I use the 2. ...a6 move order, because then I can play Nc6 if 5. Bd3 is played. If 6. Nxc6, then ...dc and next move I play e7-e5. This brings me to the other main line against 5. Bd3 a full tempo up on the main line, since black hasn't played e7-e6. I think black has an edge in this position. Black normally plays Qc7, Bd6, maybe Be6, maybe Nfd7, and b5 if necessary to stop piece invasions, which can be the beginning of a q-side pawn advance by black. As usual, black tries to keep the pieces on because black has an edge in space.
<<By the way did you mean 7.Bd2 after 6.Nb3 Bb4 ? or is this comment to something else?>>
You've lost me but in general, Bd2 can be very effective, especially if white has castled and black has played b7-b5, since Nxb5 can win a pawn for white in some circumstances, since the Nb5 attacks the Q on c7.
Optimissed, in the games from that article you posted there is no Nc6 before a6. The Taimanov plays Nc6 before a6!
It can be played either way round. One way might invite an attack on the Q, which can be played to b8 in the absence of the N, but I don't think white gains from that. So it should transpose and the move order should be unimportant. I personally wouldn't play the Taimanov with a6 first because Nxc6 is fine for white. So the only logical Taimanov is Nge7 before a6, surely? But does black have time for that? I only played that once, years ago, and I lost, but I can't remember whether I blundered or whether my opponent found a strong continuation. It must be 25 years ago but I remember vaguely that it simply loses an important knight from black's k-side and black becomes vulnerable there.
I think it was one of those very fortunate losses, which moulds a player's entire playing career, because I never tried the Taimanov again at serious chess. My opponents were taking the N on c6 and when I played Nge7 first, I still lost. When I started using the 2. ...a6 move order to transpose to a Paulsen, with the possibility of Nbd7 very late in the opening, I started to win very regularly indeed. It's so much more flexible than the Taimanov, which I believe to be weak.
Here is the Clarity:
The Kan involves no Nc6. It is either delayed or more often avoided and the knight usually goes to d7. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6.
The Taimanov is 4...Nc6 instead of 4...a6. Now-a-days though, they separate the "old" main line, 5.Nc3 a6, from the modern main line, 5.Nc3 Qc7, referring the first to the Paulsen and the second as the Taimanov.
Csayant, do you mean Paulsen pin, Taimanov pin or kan pin?
Look at my most recent games where you’ll see the pure Taimanov played with great success
csayant2014 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Paulsen Sicilian was the one with 2...e6 and 4...a6
Kan was supposed to be a Paulsen with a quick ...b5 but nowadays the name Paulsen has dissapeared and almost everyones calls it Kan.
Taimanov is the line with 2...e6 and 4...Nc6.
Obviously an early 2...Nc6 in Kan can transpose to Taimanov and an early ...d6 can transpose to Scheveningen(only if White hasn't played c4).
then what is pin variation ?
The pin variation is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 4.Nf6 (instead of 4...Nc6 or 4...a6) 5.Nc3 and now 5...Nc6 is the Four Knights Variation and 5...Bb4 is the pin variation.
6.Bd3, e5, or f3 follows the pin variation.
Here’s the line I like 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 Nge7 7. O-O Qc7 8. Be3 Ng6 9. Nxc6 bxc6
The pin variation is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 4.Nf6 (instead of 4...Nc6 or 4...a6) 5.Nc3 and now 5...Nc6 is the Four Knights Variation and 5...Bb4 is the pin variation.>>
Ah, that's like a Classical Sicilian from a century ago, isn't it? I imagine that 5. Bd3 would be much more usual these days? But in this pin variation, you say that 6. Bd3, 6. e5 or 6. f3 are normal. But wouldn't 6. Bd2 be just as good, since there's no attack on the Nd4?
Pardon my research below. Can we support our posts with references. Some of the most recent posts are not well substantiated. From what you'll see below, Kan and Paulsen are distinguished by when the a6 move is played. If Nc6 is played any at all, its Taimanov...
James Rizzitano refers to Types of Taimanov
Pure Taimanov 5…Qc7 (or a6)…6….Nge7 6 Be3 Nge7 or 6…Nf6. Qc7 usually goes along with Nf6 while a6 goes with Nge7
6…a6 is played to avoid Ndb5.
Taimanov exchange 6.NxC6 bxNc6
FCO refers to 4…a6 as the Paulsen or Kan variation. So the name Kan is synonymous with Paulsen.
5….Nc6 Taimanov variation or 4…Nc6 is also Taimanov
Delchev and Semkov in “The most flexible sicilian” refer to 4…Nc6 and 5…Qc7 as trademarks of Taimanov 4…a6 as Kan.
1e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6 …main line Taimanov
e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 a6…Kan
This also coincides with the moves by John Emms in the Sicilian taimanov:move by move.
5…Qc7 seems to have a specific name… Internet reference: Sicilian, Taimanov (Bastrikov) Variation (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6 5 Nc3 Qc7.
Per chesstempo.com 1 e4 c5 2Nf3 e6 3d4 cxd4 4 Nxd Nc5 5Nc3 a6…Paulsen. It appears here that 5….a6 rather than 4…a6(kan)…it’s known as the Paulsen.
Jeroen Bosch in “Secrets of opening surprises” Sicilian Taimanov refers to e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6 5 Nc3 Qc7 6 g3…as the fianchetto variation…after black plays 6…a6 7…h5 has about 9 kinds of 8…variations!
Graham Burgess in the book, the taimanov Sicilian states on page 6…’Paulsen’ is trickier to define. It is sometimes taken to mean the same thing as the Kan, but is often used in German and Russian chess to refer to lines with a6, Nc6 and Qc7. Taimanov himself called them the Paulsen
So I tend to think the Paulsen is the granddaddy of them all for nomenclature sake.
So…Taimanov-4...Nc6 or 5....Nc6 along with 2 or 3...e6
Kan-4…a6
Paulsen-5…a6