The real reason that many people prefer not to play 3 d4 is that they think they can get a stronger game by 3 c3 or 3 c4, but these judgements are highly suspicious. Certainly, a6 can be thought to come into normal main lines against a c4 sicilian, whereas it is hardly a wasted move against 3 c3. As for the d3/g3 closed Sicilians, they are the only lines where a6 is wasted, since black would normally play Rb8 followed by b5. But that is a bit slow for white and not to everyone's taste. There has been a lot of rubbish talked about this by grandmasters and it isn't in the interest of other GMs to challenge it. That doesn't mean it isn't rubbish.
What we get is people using arguments from authority but who are incapable of giving analysis to support their assertions.
When nothing is forced...
Absolutely right. It's a win for white but you can't allow him such active play with his rooks, since that's his only chance.
Incidentally, I don't think g3 loses with best play but it makes black better even though he's down a pawn. Black gets pressure on c2, f2, and h2 after the N has been rerouted. Paradoxically, g3 makes his N stronger rather than weaker because there are now holes for it to jump into. Black is now better and it's going to be difficult for white to hang on.
Yeah. After the game I came up to conclusion that Bc5 was best, but I am just losing my focus when I have got slight advantage in rapid games. Don't know why, and how to fix that.
In the first game(with Jamal), I really want to use the technique "doing something while doing nothing", but in defferent way mentioned.
I recognise that he cannot move his rook forward because of back rank(so I need my roo on the open file). He could play a4,Ka3 to get rid of that of course. But I knew he cannot do much so I was moving back and forward to wait for him to make his position worse! I recognised that If he moves his pawns forward he make his king as unsafe as my. And I was right: b4 was a inaccuracy because of Qc4. I wanted to play that, but I've confused it with some other lines which I was calculated, and I haven't played that because of Rd4, which in reality leads to checkmate after back rank check... If only I had calculated that precisely, probably I would draw that.
That's why f4, trying to maintain the initiative.
The real reason that many people prefer not to play 3 d4 is that they think they can get a stronger game by 3 c3 or 3 c4, but these judgements are highly suspicious. Certainly, a6 can be thought to come into normal main lines against a c4 sicilian, whereas it is hardly a wasted move against 3 c3. As for the d3/g3 closed Sicilians, they are the only lines where a6 is wasted, since black would normally play Rb8 followed by b5. But that is a bit slow for white and not to everyone's taste. There has been a lot of rubbish talked about this by grandmasters and it isn't in the interest of other GMs to challenge it. That doesn't mean it isn't rubbish.
What we get is people using arguments from authority but who are incapable of giving analysis to support their assertions.
Well I have looked at the 3.c3 line and 3.d4 lines and I must say I'm not a huge fan of those position's.
I mean the 3.c3 line ends up looking very similar to a Alapin Sicilian with a tempo up by white pretty much.
An the difference would be the below picture.
However, I don't even play the Alapin so its like ok I'm up 1 move in a position I know nothing about.
Than I looked at the 3.d4 lines and apparently I don't know it doesn't feel right. Chessbases and engines are not liking that continuation and are even suggesting weird move's. An the position's dont feel right.
So the above position was looked at by a chess engine. It recommends Qxd4 as the best move.
Second best move is c3.
An the move Nxd4 is not even mentioned by the engine it really doesn't like that move.
I than went to chessbases filled with only human games just to get a sanity check. Obvious the more tools and resources you use more precise the position may seem. So I didn't take it at face value with just an engine. I looked at some humans games and it seems.
Judit Polgar faced her sister Zsuzsa Polgar with this Qxd4 line and she won in 1993, Amber-rapid 2nd, Monte Carlo
She was playing the white pieces.
Chess bases also revealed c3 has a nice percentage for white in this position.
Yet when I looked at the move Nxd4 it has a huge advantage for black of winning. 41.6% that black wins 29.1% its a draw and 29.4% white wins.
So on the surface it seems like their are problems with this Nxd4 line.
After Nxd4 2 main moves seem to be equal or ok for black. E5 or Nf6 chessbases and computers both agree on these moves. It does seem like a toss up between them.
So the below position.
Engines believe black is really close to equal here. Chessbases have a high winning percentage for black here.
After Nf6 white has 2 defence of the e4 pawn. Bd3 or Nc3.
If Nc3 is played apparently black plays e5.
I think one of the main issue with why the engines and databases believe black is better is becuase the position looks like a Upgraded verison of the Sveshnikov Variation. Its like a better verison.
An when I compare the Sveshnikov Variation with that of the other O'Kelly variation the a6 pawn is rather annoying my knight can't jump to b5.
I will admit I don't play the Sveshnikov Variation or the O'Kelly Variation as black. So I have no idea of how to play those lines. However, these are moves mentioned by chess engine and chess databases.
I am just trying to interpret their moves they are showing the best way I can.
I mean the chess engine believes this position is even with slight favor to black which is like -0.03 which isn't really much at all. Pretty much even. However, it does seem like black has solved some of his problem's. His bishop is not on e7 outside of the pawn chain. He also has some pressure
Knight on b3 doesn't seem like it has alot of places it can go.
It really doesn't feel right either. Why does black has pressure on white its like lop sided. White should be the one with the pressure not black. It feels like something has gone wrong with white here and yet the position is considered even.
So that is why I went with my KIA g3 system Old Faithful and I felt like I was doing OK. Until I went crazy.
<<So the above position was looked at by a chess engine. It recommends Qxd4 as the best move.>>
I get that a lot. It's absolutely terrible for white. If white is going to play 3 d4 he has to capture with the N or play c3.
<<Second best move is c3.>>
That's quite good because it forces black into variations with a6. I don't tend to play a6 in the smith-morra, for instance, because I prefer the mainlines. But there are viable variations with a6 and I understand them ok. So I play one of them.
<<An the move Nxd4 is not even mentioned by the engine it really doesn't like that move.>>
Change your chess engine.
X_J_X is the kiddy! the posts are so groovy.
<<Engines believe black is really close to equal here. Chessbases have a high winning percentage for black here.>>
I absolutely love it for black. But a lot of white players play it. And I know why. At around the FIDE 2000 range, a lot of players are highly positional. They are talented, they can be tactical but they don't know the lines that an IM would know and so they try to positionally outplay their opponent. And, believe it of not, chess engines don't do positional chess. But humans do. The idea is that white sits on the position and tries to strangle black to death by allowing him zero meaningful counter-play. This is maybe not how GMs like to play. So they pretend it is bad for white. Am I getting through? The point is that white can get the better game, by not all that much. But then, is the Najdorf winning for white? No? So why do players of the white pieces go into it? The fact is that the argument against 3 d4 is self-inconsistent and depends on the assumption that white has to attack vigorously. In reality white should try to out-fox black by allowing him no chances. And hope that black makes a positionally or tactically bad move.
BTW, don't forget that engines are programmed by humans who introduce their biasses. They may be given code that prevents their responding with 3 d4. The idea that 3 d4 is bad is actually completely ridiculous. One day I should post some games in this line that I've played.
Incidentally, I wouldn't play e5. That is because white has two viable lines. Nb3 is OK but more active for white is Nf3. Then, when black plays Bb4, pinning the N on c3 and apparently threatening the e4 pawn, well, this is just an illusion. White hold the e4 pawn by playing Bc4. White gets a really active game where black's white square weaknesses are already targetted. So I don't play e5.
can you leave some space for X_J_X to post please ? thanks.
Well, he needs it. My posts are a bit more to the point of course but his are so groovy. If I had a tongue like that I'd want to show it off too.
Na3 is a more and more common maneuvre. Your assessment is good.
When I started playing chess at club level Raymond Keene was an important chess commentator. He published some work which had 3 c4 as the top move. This was fine, since I was using Taimanov's book on the Paulsen and he gave a lot of sample games and good lines. I was pretty happy. Then Keene changed his recommendation and decreed that 3c3 was the move to play. I wasn't very experienced and genuinely believed the proposition that a6 is wasted in this line, which is what they were all saying, so I gave it up for about two years and started developing my own weird line involving d5, g6, Be7, h5, N to f5, Ke8-f8-g7 etc. It was alright but after about two years word got around that f7 and f6 were weaknesses and white had to concentrate everything on these squares. By then I was a strong club player and people were working out lines against my weird systems, which I was developing.
There was another guy at Bolton Chess club, near us, and he was developing lines in the Caro-Kann where white doesn't move his King's Bishop and in some lines plays a 5 pawn sacrifice. He was 2200 FIDE so he was a strongish player. At that time I could take games off him at blitz so I was getting fairly strong too. We compared notes a bit on the stuff we were working on. His name is Mike Surtees. I remember he was FIDE 2200 for something like 8 straight years but he never got much better.
Anyhow, back to the O'Kelly/Alapin. All of a sudden I lost about three in a row with my weird setup, realised what I was playing was terrible and went back to standard Alapin lines. By this time I could figure out for myself that a6 was probably alright. Then in a club match I got completely crushed by a guy called Dave Tebb. At that time I was developing the c8 bishop to g4. He used it as a target to work up a superbly tactical attack. After that game I entirely stopped playing Bg4 and instead played e6 very early. It turns out that the QB is better left undeveloped, a bit like in Mike Surtees' systems. Eventually when you see how the land lies, maybe it goes Bc8-d7-c6 or something like that. It turned out that a6 was perfectly viable and that Keene had been wrong. But this is where these myths came from.
Edit ^^
<<Engines believe black is really close to equal here. Chessbases have a high winning percentage for black here.>>
I absolutely love it for black. But a lot of white players play it. And I know why. At around the FIDE 2000 range, a lot of players are highly positional. They are talented, they can be tactical but they don't know the lines that an IM would know and so they try to positionally outplay their opponent. And, believe it of not, chess engines don't do positional chess. But humans do. The idea is that white sits on the position and tries to strangle black to death by allowing him zero meaningful counter-play. This is maybe not how GMs like to play. So they pretend it is bad for white. Am I getting through? The point is that white can get the better game, by not all that much. But then, is the Najdorf winning for white? No? So why do players of the white pieces go into it? The fact is that the argument against 3 d4 is self-inconsistent and depends on the assumption that white has to attack vigorously. In reality white should try to out-fox black by allowing him no chances. And hope that black makes a positionally or tactically bad move.
The chess database I was using was from title players only and the chess engine I'm using is the best engine in the market as of yet.
Engines + Human Title players score better with the black pieces after 3.d4 if Nxd4 is played.
I absolutely love it for black.
Well so do GM's? which is why they are scoring better than white sided players.
The idea is that white sits on the position and tries to strangle black to death by allowing him zero meaningful counter-play.
Look at the position below again my friend. Black already has counter play and pressure?
In reality white should try to out-fox black by allowing him no chances.
White has the first move in the game. White is playing with the white piece's. White shouldn't have to out-fox black. White should be the one dictating/controlling the game. The only side that should be trying to out-fox is black.
White has 2 bishops sacked on the D file in passivity/ purely defensive.
White has 1 knight on b3 that can't even move. Except to go backwards which doesn't inspire alot of confidence in the white position.
Being on the defensive vs a Sicilian is the last thing a person with the white pieces wants to do.
In the above position its like a terrible white verison of the Sicilian Sveshnikov Variation.
I also looked at the Nf3 line instead of playing Nb3 and that position doesn't inspire any hope either. Here is how it seems to have turned out.
After 6.Nf3 Chessdatabase and Chess engines believe black does well with 2 moves Bb4 and d6. Black is considered to be equalized with those moves by an engine. They end up being better verisons of a Najdorf.
After 6...Bb4 white has few moves best move seems to be Bc4. Once Bc4 is played d6 seems to be the move recommended.
White has 2 recommended choices in this position to castle or to play Qd3. Both moves are considered equal evulation is -0.03 and -0.05.
If white plays Qd3 black responses with Be6 shown by the green highlights
If white plays castle black responses with Bxc3 shown by the yellow highlights.
This position is that of a Najdorf with the luxury of black not having to deal with their issues.
Normally white wants to target the d5 square and/or the backward d6 pawn. In this situation all white is doing is reacting to the threats black has on him.
It doesn't seem good to me. If I want to play passive I can just play the KIA. At least with the KIA I will be passive with no pressure on me. In these situations you end up passive with pressure. The lesser of the 2 evils?
Yeah those seem to be the 3rd move option choices which give white better chance of actually winning I believe.
I don't think I'm a fan of playing c3 alapin type of position. It would be 1 tempo/move up from a normal Alapin. Which is true but I never play the Alapin. So it would be totally out of my repertoire.
I think maybe later on or another day I will investigate the c4 line.
It does seem very interesting and similar to what I have played before. Its like a Marcozy Bind position. Maybe that will go nicely vs the O'Kelly.
I have played the Marcozy Bind alot vs other sicilians. An the Marcozy Bind is in my repertoire against The Sicilian Accelerated dragon and Hyper Accelerated Dragon.
Imo you overrate your chances/position(vs the polish master?). After move 25. you say: In this position black has an advantage, but I can definitely try my best to drew the game. I think black has a big advantage and itg is just a technical job to win for black. Your assessment is incorrect I think.
The black bishop is a monster and black is about to rush you over with the center pawns and you cannot stop him. The only chance in my (humble) opinion was to generate counter play with g6 asap at move 35. g6. The idea is to break through to get counter play at the 7e rank for maybe a perpetual. The move 35. Rh3 is a passive(panic?) move try to stop him, but you need counter play instead as fast a possible, not defence.
In the Dragon game i don't like the idea you exchange your Bishop at Bg7 at move 17. It is such an important piece in that variation you (never) want it to exhcange, it is an atacking and very import defensive piece. If you keep the bischop, you can always defend vs the doubling of rooks idea(including Queen). The standard defends move is to play Re8, the bishop at Bg7 and play Kf8 when the enters h7. Now when the bishop is gone he can just push the paws, open the bord and go all in.
Play the opening brilliantly, outplay opponent in the middlegame = get a slight, but decisive advantage(around +1 point in computer analise), get to the endgame safe, in better position, ready for a win. Suddenly you look at the board and do not know what to do next: Your pieces are on good positions, pawns moves are not needed, king is ok and your opponent is standing not so badly. Then you begin to think: what i am gonna do, there is no forced, active moves. How to go forward? How even find candidate moves then?
Have you got the same problem as me? Share your opinions, fill free to put some games connected with the topic.
Sounds like you are playing without a longterm plan. A bad plan is better than no plan, so figure one out. Attack in the king side, in the queen side, centralise your king. If your pieces are in good positions, there must be a way to take advantage of that.
"It is not recommended" by people who are not familiar with the opening. The whole thing is a myth, which some players ignore but which some perpetuate.
I have offered to let strong players demonstrate that white cannot achieve a normal, first move advantage after 3 d4, by taking me through specific lines but I'm afraid they haven't taken up the challenge. This is because they are doing no more than repeating an incorrect judgement.