Unorthodox Sicilian 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 c4

1.e4 c5

2.Nf3 c4

3.Bxc4

I was wondering if white is really better off taking the pawn on c4 because then they are likely to castle kingside and wouldn't  that make it easier for black to know right away which side of the board the white king is on?

That pawn should be snapped off in less than a nanosecond.

And how does it matter if Black knows where white is going to castle.

1) Your up a pawn so OBJECTIVELY you should win the game after such a bad blunder (yes, losing a pawn is a major blunder..don't ever think "its just a pawn")...

What you are thinking is a misconception that should be thrown out immeadiately. Yes, sometimes you don't want to castle early or into an attack in certain positions. But in this case, it doesn't matter even the slightest. 

When you play Bxc4, you gain a pawn AND develop a piece. And it doesn't matter if Black knows where White will castle.

White will be 3 or 4 tempos ahead in deveopment and up a pawn, with domination in the center and a safer (castled) king.

Black will not have any central control or development, so in fact it is Black's king (stuck in the center) that will be in great danger.

Chess is a simple game in the opening-- control the center, develop fast, get the king safe.  And if possible, avoid letting the opponent do those things.

Hi Gregkluzak,

I believe it is absolutely correct to take the pawn on c4.  This move develops a piece, controls the centre, puts pressure on the weak f7 pawn, and wins a pawn.  On the other hand, if you don't take the pawn, the f1 bishop will have to settle for a less appealing square like e2, or take two moves to develop instead of one with g3 followed by Bg2.  After taking on c4, the only thing you have to watch out for is that the bishop is a hanging (unprotected) piece.  But black can't win it straight away, and you can always defend it or move it to a protected position when necessary.

Regarding the point about black knowing which side white will castle on: firstly, just because white has moved the kingside knight and bishop, does not mean white is committed to castling on the kingside.  White has a big advantage in development and central control.  This means white will easily have the time to develop his queenside pieces and castle queenside before black can get to the white king.  The second point is that even if we assume that white will castle kingside, white's two move development advantage, and superior central control, ensure that it is black who will be on the defensive, and this will prevent him from exploiting his knowledge of where white will castle.

I think that the move 2...c4 is bad for several reasons.  Most importantly, it gives away a pawn without compensation.  Second, the whole point of the move 1...c5 is to prevent white from having two pawns in the centre with the move d4.  By giving away the c pawn, white will eventually be able to get two pawns into the centre.  For example, after 1.e4 c5  2.Nf3 c4??  3.Bxc4 e5 (stopping 4.d4)  4.0-0 Nf6  5.Re1, and now white has the simple plan of playing c3 followed by d4, when white will get his two pawns into the centre.  The third reason why 2...c4 is bad is that with the pawn on c5, if white does play d4 (as is most common), black can take on d4 and achieve his primary strategical objective in the sicilian, which is a central pawn majority (two central pawns versus one).  But of course this is no longer possible if the c-pawn is sacrificed.  Finally, it should be noted that one of the main downsides to the sicilian is that the move c5 does not aid black's development, and this immediately creates a disadvantage in development.  Wasting another move by moving the c-pawn a second time only compounds the development disadvantage which black must deal with in the sicilian.

Hope this helps,

Take care,

UdayanOwen