Home > GM Repertoire > 5.f3 against the Sicilian

5.f3 against the Sicilian

September 22nd, 2017 Leave a comment Go to comments

Some posts on this blog have drawn attention to the fact that the line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3 is not mentioned in Grandmaster Repertoire 6A – Beating the Anti-Sicilians by Vassilios Kotronias.

However, the line was featured in Experts on the Anti-Sicilian, where the recommended response was 5…e5 with coverage of the variations:

A) 6.Bb5† Nbd7 7.Nf5 d5 8.exd5 a6
A1) 9.Ba4
A2) 9.Bxd7†
B) 6.Nb3

We have decided to make this chapter freely available as a pdf here.

Categories: GM Repertoire Tags:
  1. Johnnyboy
    September 22nd, 2017 at 12:21 | #1

    Top quality aftercare from the QC team!
    Listening to your customers always pays dividends… looking forward to spending much too much on some further books I don’t really need….

  2. Topnotch
    September 22nd, 2017 at 15:51 | #2

    Johnnyboy :
    Top quality aftercare from the QC team!
    Listening to your customers always pays dividends… looking forward to spending much too much on some further books I don’t really need….

    Experts on the Anti-Sicilian is quite dated now, I haven’t checked but there must have been important developments since that publication.

  3. Dennis
    September 22nd, 2017 at 16:04 | #3

    @Topnotch: Not only dated on the calendar, but there has also been a book advocating the variation since the EotAS chapter. Hopefully Kotronias will publish his own update soon!

  4. Johnnyboy
    September 22nd, 2017 at 16:56 | #4

    This was a freebie so can’t be too critical. If you want to be comprehensive it’s sometimes called the Prins variation and kasparov did a couple of articles in new in chess yearbook to complement his book. As far as being dated Carlsen karjakin pretty much followed colins lines

  5. Johnnyboy
    September 22nd, 2017 at 17:09 | #5

    https://youtu.be/H22Eskf-rio
    Good discussion on state of theory by Peter svidler on the chess24 broadcast. The Oparin Bocharov game worth seeing…

  6. RYV
    September 22nd, 2017 at 17:13 | #6

    all this f3 discussion…. is an other point to avoid 2..d6 and switch to 2..e6 ! This coming book on Taimanov/kan is highly awaited

  7. The Doctor
    September 22nd, 2017 at 17:35 | #7

    @RYV
    I would hope ‘Playing the Kan’ would feature Ant-Sicilian lines for 2…e6 players as there are a few lines in GM Rep BTAS that wouldn’t suit Kan players such as 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6. A Kan player would play 2…a6 or 2…e6

  8. RYV
    September 22nd, 2017 at 18:28 | #8

    @The Doctor
    after 1.e4 c5 2.Cf3 e6 there are not much anti-sicilian lines not covered in previous books
    3.c3 Cf6!
    3.b3
    3.b4 cb or b6 !?
    3.Cc3 a6!
    What else? if you play the Kan you are ready to play some hedgehog type position .. Then you can turn to Shipov 2 volumes.
    anyway i agree that anti-sicilian lines are much more common than main line sicilian if you play below master level ( as i am !) .
    My last 10 games were : 1.e4 c5 2.c3 ( 4/10) 1.e4 c5 2.Cc3 ( 2/10) 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.b4 (1/10) 1.e4 c5 2.d4 (1/10) 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3.d3 ( 1/10) and finally 1;e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cd 4.Qd4

    so maybe i dont really need a GM Rep on main line Kan !?

  9. Tom Tidom
    September 22nd, 2017 at 18:36 | #9

    Is there any real disadvantage by playing 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6, when 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 avoids the Prins-Variation altogether? The only notable deviations seem to be 5.Qxd4 and earlier 4.dxc5 but both do not look critical to me.

  10. Jacob Aagaard
    September 23rd, 2017 at 11:32 | #10

    Who are doing a book on the Kan? We are working on a Taimanov book 🙂

  11. RYV
    September 23rd, 2017 at 14:07 | #11

    Jacob Aagaard :
    Who are doing a book on the Kan? We are working on a Taimanov book

    good point.
    beside move order , what makes a Kan not a Taimanov and vice versa ?

  12. Jacob Aagaard
    September 23rd, 2017 at 17:04 | #12

    @RYV
    1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4

    Here the Taimanov is 4…Nc6 and 5…Qc7

    The Kan/Paulsen is 4…a6, which offers both players more flexibility. I generally consider it a bit inferior, but it is taste I presume.

    There is 4…Nc6 5.Nc3 a6, which I am honestly not clear what is called. It is probably a Kan, rather than a Taimanov. I see the three as separate systems…

  13. RYV
    September 23rd, 2017 at 19:37 | #13

    @Jacob Aagaard

    Yes, there are many transpositions from Kan to Taimanov. And i think it is an important point to discuss in a book as playing ..Nc6 ..Dc7 and ..a6 or ..a6 ..Qc7 and ..Nc6 might lead to the same position but each move order is designed to avoid some specific variation. Even if it is not a Kan book I hope the book will cover those lines where Kan & Paulsen move order lead to Taimanov positions. It will be too restrictive to analyse only 4..Nc6 ( unless there is an other book with 4..a6….coming later)

  14. Csaba
    September 24th, 2017 at 12:41 | #14

    What about 5.. e5 6 Nb3 a5!? (with the idea of 7 c4 Nxe4! 8 fxe4 Qh4+ 9 Kd2 a4 LOL), as presented in the Sharpest Sicilian?

  15. The Doctor
    September 24th, 2017 at 13:45 | #15

    Jacob Aagaard :
    Who are doing a book on the Kan? We are working on a Taimanov book

    Please Jacob, is the Taimanov book going to be a GM Rep or a Playing the format??

    Cheers

  16. middlewave
    September 24th, 2017 at 14:00 | #16

    These …a5 lines are certainly quite decent, but I personally dislike the somewhat rigid structures that occur from them; a matter of taste, obviously, as many GMs have employed them with success. Against the particular move-order Csaba mentions, I think 7.a4 is the most appropriate reply; and then I would dislike the lack of breaks on the queenside, though of course dark-square play compensates for this. A matter of taste, like I said.
    However, the really significant development in this line since Experts was published has been the resurgence of 5…e5 6.Nb3 d5, followed by 7.Bg5 d4!. It has been played extensively in the last couple of years, most notably by Cheparinov, with excellent results. I have done some analysis on this line, out of curiosity, and I am personally of the opinion that it is quite good and offers Black very active and fluid play. The positive feedback from GM games recently seems to support this opinion.

  17. Jacob Aagaard
    September 24th, 2017 at 18:21 | #17

    @The Doctor
    Let’s wait and see.

  18. Jacob Aagaard
    September 24th, 2017 at 18:21 | #18

    @middlewave
    I think White is struggling more from this lack of breaks on the queenside?!

  19. Jacob Aagaard
    September 24th, 2017 at 18:22 | #19

    @RYV
    We cannot cover everything. The author’s have freedom to write about the stuff they know about.

  20. Pinpon
    September 24th, 2017 at 18:31 | #20

    Yes , you Kan

  21. RYV
    September 24th, 2017 at 18:53 | #21

    Jacob Aagaard :
    @RYV
    We cannot cover everything. The author’s have freedom to write about the stuff they know about.

    Judit or Peter as an author ?

  22. Csaba
    September 24th, 2017 at 20:26 | #22

    I’m just wondering, what is the advantage of starting 6 .. Be7 instead of a5? The LOL line seems to be gone, what is gained? (not rhetorical question, in fact I fully expect an obvious answer here, but I don’t know it.)

  23. middlewave
    September 25th, 2017 at 15:28 | #23

    @Csaba
    I believe the main difference is what you allow and what you avoid. More concretely:
    – 6…a5 makes 7.c4 unplayable, as you pointed out, but it does allow 7.Bb5+, which often leads by transposition to a line of the Classical Sicilian after 7…Nc6 8.Nc3 (stopping …a4 for good) Be7 9.Be3 0-0 10.Qd2; this would be a Classical Sicilian with 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.Be3 0-0 9.Qd2 a5 (the most common choice) 10.Bb5. This is a fully respectable line, but one that is a little unusual (for example, Black often plays …Na7-c8-b6 to break the bind on b5 and get some play on the queenside) and therefore not one that comes very naturally.
    – 6…Be7 avoids that transposition (Bb5+ has no point before …a5 has been played), and after 7.Nc3 Black can continue simply with …0-0 and think later whether to transpose to a Najdorf with …a6 or whatever else; but of course it does allow White to play 7.c4, which would be the choice of most 5.f3 fans.
    I don’t really see any other difference. I would even venture to say that with 6…Be7 Black invites 7.c4, to enjoy dark-square play later!
    Regarding Jacob’s reply above: I made a typo, I wanted to say “7.Bb5+ is the most appropriate reply”, not 7.a4 (which would in fact invite …Nc6-b4 later). And my comment about queenside “breaks” was intended to mean that “Black has played …a5 but he can hardly do anything further with his pawns on the queenside” in the transpositional line given above…

  24. Manfredo
    September 26th, 2017 at 19:10 | #24

    Anti-Sicilians versus 2… e6: Please don’t forget the very annoying line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bd3.

  25. Manfredo
    September 26th, 2017 at 19:15 | #25

    This line is simply not covered in the Anti-Sicilian books!

  26. Jacob Aagaard
    September 26th, 2017 at 20:30 | #26

    To call this a line is an exaggeration 🙂

    What about:

    1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. Nxc6 (6. Be3 d5=)
    6… bxc6 7. O-O e5 8. Nd2 (8. c4 Bc5=) 8… Be7 9. Nc4 d6 10. f4 d5!N
    11. exd5 Bc5+ 12. Be3 Bxe3+ 13. Nxe3 Qb6 14. Qd2 Nxd5 15. Rae1 exf4 16. Qf2!
    Nxe3! 17. Rxe3+ Be6 18. Qxf4 O-O 19. b3 Rad8=

  27. Patrick
    September 26th, 2017 at 20:46 | #27

    In response to Jacob’s September 23rd post, questioning what various lines are called. It’s not 3 different systems, it’s 2.

    1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 is the Kan. The Knight is not developed to c6 early, and most of the time, it’s not developed there at all. It usually goes to d7.

    What distinguishes the Kan and Taimanov is specifically that Knight, similar to how the g8-Knight distinguishes the Pirc from the Modern.

    After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf6 e6 (2…Nc6 and 4…e6 is also possible) 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 is the Taimanov. After 5.Nc3 (5.Nb5 is White’s other option), both 5…a6 and 5…Qc7 are considered the Taimanov. The line with 5…a6, where the King’s Knight usually goes to e7, is the Old Main Line while the line with 5…Qc7, where the King’s Knight is typically developed to f6 instead of e7, is the Modern Main Line of the Taimanov.

    A number of openings have multiple main lines where one is considered the “Old” or “Classical” main line and the other is the Modern Main Line. The Taimanov is one of them. Others include:

    The Scheveningen (Classical features …a6, Modern does not)
    French Open Tarrasch (Classical features 5…Nc6, Modern features 5…Nf6)
    Benoni (Old features 1…c5, Modern features 1…Nf6/2…c5/3…e6)

    I’m sure there are others, but those come to mind at this time.

  28. Patrick
    September 26th, 2017 at 20:57 | #28

    Csaba,

    As one that has played my fair share of 5.f3, I can tell you that after 5.f3 e5 6.Nb3 (6.Bb5+ is another move Black must know, but it’s not very good for White), the move 6…Be7 is rarely played. Sure that move will be played eventually, but more common are 6…a5 and 6…Be6 (The “Main Line”). The reason for 6…Be6 instead of 6…Be7 is to get the queenside pieces out more rapidly. Knight going to d7, Rook to c8, etc.

    After 6…Be6 7.c4, White’s play resembles a Maroczy Bind with a misplaced Knight on b3.

    Also, I have seen a number of comments about 6…a5. It does make 7.c4 highly dubious, and 7.a4 is nothing but equal. White is better off playing either 7.Bb5+, or a move not mentioned is 7.Nc3, and there are some major differences between 7.Nc3 and the lines that come from the normal 5.Nc3.

    I’ve mostly been playing 1.d4 of late, but I would still play 5.f3 in the 2…d6 Sicilian. I avoid the Dragon from both sides at all cost! If you know the Accelerated Dragon, congrats! You can directly transpose to it, along with the 5…e5 option or the Hedgehog setup. All 3 cases give White his desired Maroczy Bind setup, which is what most 5.f3 players, like myself, are looking for.

  29. RYV
    September 27th, 2017 at 10:45 | #29

    Manfredo :
    Anti-Sicilians versus 2… e6: Please don’t forget the very annoying line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bd3.

    If you play 4.Nc6 ( taimanov system!) there is no point to Bd3

  30. kutlu hasan
    September 27th, 2017 at 10:53 | #30

    a idea fore nikos play1 c4-c5 what you think….

  31. Thomas
    September 27th, 2017 at 10:59 | #31

    Play 1.g4 g5 would also be on my list.

  32. Nikos Ntirlis
    September 27th, 2017 at 11:05 | #32

    Nowdays Black also equalises in the line 5.f3 e5 6.Nb3 d5! 7.Bg5 Be6…

  33. Steve
    September 27th, 2017 at 11:54 | #33

    An anti-Sicilian line not in Kotronias, but relevant to Taimanov, is 2…,e6 3.Nc3, Nc6 4.Bb5.

  34. Egzejber
    September 27th, 2017 at 14:26 | #34

    @Steve
    Wouldn’t 3…Qc7 solve your problem? I have not checked it, but it seems that White has nothing better than transposing to normal Taimanov lines after 4.d4.

  35. Manfredo
    September 27th, 2017 at 17:51 | #35

    @RYV: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 allows 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 with a completely different structure I want to avoid.

  36. Manfredo
    September 27th, 2017 at 18:21 | #36

    @Jacob Aagaard: Thank you for the interesting idea.

  37. Manfredo
    September 27th, 2017 at 18:28 | #37

    1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bd3 no line? In Mega-Database 2017 there are 6010 games in this line – a lot of GMs are playing this in tournament games – including one Anand-game.
    For comparison: In the “very important Anti-Sicilian line” 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3 there are 6567 games in Mega-Database 2017. I don´t see why the 5.f3 line should be more important than the 5.Bd3 line.

  38. RYV
    September 27th, 2017 at 21:39 | #38

    @Manfredo
    every move order has his drawback.
    whay is point in playing 4.Nf6 ? playing Sicilian attack, 4N variation ,?

  39. Manfredo
    September 27th, 2017 at 22:27 | #39

    @RYV: The point is to avoid Sicilian-Hedgehog-positions and to play the Scheveningen, The Four-Knights or Sveshnikov-main lines after 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5. I never saw a book with a serious study of the 5.Bd3 Anti-Sicilian. The main theoretical recommendation is 5… Nc6 6.Nxc6 dxc6 with a very dry position (see e.g. Anand-Leko, Dortmund 2001). Several times i tried 5… Qb6 but i am not sure that this is the solution.

  40. RYV
    September 28th, 2017 at 07:54 | #40

    @Manfredo
    there are anti-sicilian lines in all 3 systems ( 2..d6 2..e6 and 2..Cc6 ) as i said there is no perfect move order. If your opponent doesnt want to play main line, then go for the = position even if it doesnt offer wining chances( not loosing with black is already a ggod result)

  41. Jacob Aagaard
    September 28th, 2017 at 08:51 | #41

    @Patrick
    5…a6 may be a Taimanov in some distinctions, but after the almost mandatory 6.Nxc6, we have an entirely different type of position, making in meaningless to group it with 5…Qc7.

  42. Jacob Aagaard
    September 28th, 2017 at 08:53 | #42

    @Manfredo
    2…Nc6 and 4…Qc7 has no drawback as far as I know

  1. No trackbacks yet.

 Limit your comments to