I have to credit RollingPawns interest in openings for my not chucking some of my openings monographs (even though they are quality ones). I’ve finally come up with a rule, one shelf for chess books, and they fit snug, so no new chess books – I have 32 books. The most books I’ve had at any given time was around 100 more than I have now.
For the C3 Sicilian, Sveshnikov is it’s sin-qua-non practitioner, but Murray Chandler (who beat Kasparov with it, not sure if it was the game during the World juniors or during the simul, as he’s 2-0 against Kasparov) was also a practitioner and includes games as far back as Alekhine-Podgorny. Oh my, there is actually a name for such a sideline “The Barmen Defense”. lol. Looks like just another sub-variation to me, but I guess someone took this opening seriously. Black does take this C3 opening seriously, that is what is so surprising about it.
Looking at this game again, I believ Alekhine’s 11.d5 is one of those double-exclam moves, but then again ..Bb4 is a highly irregular move (although Kasparov proved it could draw against Deep Blue, but not sure if it was in conjunction with ..Qa5). Typical 1900 player will have some safer system that they have worked out and will try to beat you with their positional play most likely.
In any case, I just looked at a Qa4 line, which supposedly has bad results, and doesn’t look great, but I looked at one sideline which the author give as a -+ from one game, and I found multiple improvements to where I would rather play White, and in a tournament game you will probably get a huge edge on the clock or Black will probably just blunder.
This is the power of opening-study which I never thought of before. On the one hand, it looks as if an author has covered thousands of sidelines, all from GM games, which must be air-tight. But OTH, you realize that if someone is looking at thousands of variations, and you are looking at just one, you can pick it apart and try different improvements. Plus, OTB you would already know what doesn’t work.
Hadn’t thought about this before, that you can play to catch someone in a very specific offbeat line. However, I feel as though my study has only just begun. The neat part is that you can use all of the ideas from the stem game that you would never have had the guts to play yourself, OTB, first time through, such as not castling. You sort of “borrow” the chess understanding of the original person who played it.