Scrutinizing the Scicilian

Hey all -

I recently posted a game about the Grand Prix attack vs the Scicilian, which has been almost an automatic response of mine traditionally, just as automatically played as several black players play 1. ... c5 in response to 1. e4 ...

But this time I thought that I would try something different and save the pawn pushing for the mid-endgame. I am not very familiar with the non-Grand Prix lines, since I open the game to this standardly, so I would like some analysis of this game please, particularly in how the opening (first 12-20 moves) was handled by both colours.
I really appreciate it, thanks:

btw - this was a 3 min blitz, so considering, I think the play was not bad, and the dual blunders, forgiveable, to some degree.. lol

6... E5?! is a very dubious move by black, handing you a crushing positional advantage.  Instead of Nf5, which I think is a mistake, I would have played for the positional retreat Nb3 which would be set up for an immediate occupation of the E5 square, leaving black's position cramped, tied down and thoroughly miserable.  Such play often will become overwhelming fairly quickly, as black's burden becomes too much, and will inevitably become critical.

This was my problem with Nf5?!  After BxN PxN, the E4 pawn no longer serves to check the advance of black's pawn center and though, for the moment your pieces work nicely to prevent further advances in the center, black has real hope of an eventual D5, freeing up the position and eliminating all of those structural weaknesses.  (Speaking about this advance, if you look closely, later on, during move 14, your preoccupation with the kingside allowed black the opportunity to play this move, after which I think black has a very fine position moving forward).

Finally, on move 20, black should have recaptured with the knight on h6, after which your simply a pawn down heading into an endgame.

Ultimately, I think you played a bit too aggressively all things considered.  You could have pursued a safe, crushing edge, but instead gambled everything on an attack that, with best play, should not have given you an advantage.  Positional play can be just as crushing as tactics, and in positions such as that, I would argue that they a slow strategic buildup would have been much, much more effective.

This game actually transposed into Fischer-Sozin attack, so that is what you should study if you are interested.

Gambitknight - thank you for your insightful comments/analysis, I found it very helpful.

I agree with the 'positional retreat' idea to Nb3, though it is not in my style preference, it is important to stay flexible and be able to change gears.. The dual ready knights on the queenside, and the mobile bishops on the kingside, with an activated queen, would have been crushing indeed, as I have found in other recent games of mine.. I shall have to cross-reference my strategies further, thank you again.

however, I do have a bone to pick about your analysis of move #20 - I would NOT be a pawn down because you are forgetting about my check on h7 with the bishop! (or with the knight perhaps instead, either way - 21. Bxh7+ wins a pawn and material is equal). Positinally, I like my prospects with the light bishop around giving me a range of attack/defence advantage. I think. Perhaps that last point you may have overlooked.

Otherwise, like I said thanks, and I appreciate it, and will try to make use of this knowledge.

Fischer-Sozin attack eh? ... Never heard of it, or if so, only in passing.

I shall look into, thanks...

is it a recommneded course of action then? (not that Fischer's name on it alone isn't prestegious enough!)

Tarius78: as of move 20, black has two knights attacking the queen.  One on h6, the other on f6.  Your opponent captured with the Kt on f6, a piece that was defending the h7 square.  I'm saying that black should have captured with the h6 knight.

In that case, your responce Bxh6+ would be answered simply with N(f6)xh7, and black is up an entire piece.