Taimanov, Paulsen, Kan Sicilian dispute/confusion
Sort:
Maybe this can be settled once and for all. One author claims there is some confusion about which is which as these defenses are kin to each other. One claims Qc7 is the Paulsen while another claims Qc7 is the Taimanov. Besides, one reference refers to 3 different kinds of Taimanov...(like the Basitrokov and pure Taimanov with Nge7. It appears that some references rely on move order to identify the systems while others rely on a single move. The references I’m referring to include Taimanov move by move by John Emms and another by James Rit....another one is also the flexible Sicilian...one is the safest Sicilian by Graham Burgess....your thoughts?
the kan is 4...a6. The taimanov is Nc6. I think the Paulsen happens before either of these choices are made...so the Paulsen can become the kan or the taimanov. Qc7 is not really an important decision here...the difference between these systems and the other Sicilian systems is that the dark square bishop is not yet committed.
To be honest, I think the confusion is just based on perhaps the lack of understanding that early players had about the Sicilian in general. It turns out the move order of a6 and nc6 simply doesn't matter. If they were going to make distinct names I would think it makes more sense to distinguish different dark square bishop decisions.
There isn't really much white can do to create serious independent lines, so in general all of this stuff tends to bleed together into some similar position after a6 nc6 and qc7...and the important decision is when and where to commit the dark square bishop
So what identifies the Paulsen?
TuckerTommy wrote:
So what identifies the Paulsen?
all of them basically. Its just bad naming.
Exactly my point...the lines are not well defined...it’s a system!
One reference calls the move Nge7 the pure Taimanov!?
My understanding was that the Kan is e6 and a6 without either Knight moving. The Paulsen is any Sicilian with e6 and Nc6, whereas the Taimanov is a particular type of Paulsen with e6, Nc6, Qc7 and a6. The Taimanov is always a Paulsen, but a Paulsen is not necessarily a Taimanov (for instance, an early Bb4 or Bc5 with or without Nf6 would be a different set-up). The Kan can transpose into either.
It may be useful to think of the pawn structure of the Najdof, the Scheveningen and the Four Knights Sicilian. In theory, all three can reach the same position, though the move order would obviously be different. At that point, names don't really matter.
I totally agree...vague lines means name don’t matter, hence the “system”.
I also think it’s more important to understand when and why each individual move is necessary as opposed to a route memory of individual names of lines. Many hybrids of the names show up. Names help in grasping basic understanding.
TuckerTommy wrote:
Maybe this can be settled once and for all. One author claims there is some confusion about which is which as these defenses are kin to each other. One claims Qc7 is the Paulsen while another claims Qc7 is the Taimanov. Besides, one reference refers to 3 different kinds of Taimanov...(like the Basitrokov and pure Taimanov with Nge7. It appears that some references rely on move order to identify the systems while others rely on a single move. The references I’m referring to include Taimanov move by move by John Emms and another by James Rit....another one is also the flexible Sicilian...one is the safest Sicilian by Graham Burgess....your thoughts?
I think that the Sicilian is garbage.
Sometimes, it's better just to use ECO codes rather than descriptive names. Unfortunately, even ECO can get confusing and inaccurate due to all the possible transpositions between sister variations.
I tend to stick with Taimanov's nomenclature, but usually point out that I'm never as sure as the amateurs on chess.com are of the names of these variations.
While they admittedly did more work on the variations, the Soviets weren't shy about taking over naming rights for openings from older non Soviet custom. Since they were top dogs in chess for many years, their names tended to stick.
Basic Paulsen ideas became Kan and Taimanov. Lasker - Pelikan became Sveshnikov. I even wonder if why they called the Petrov Defense the Russian Defense is because Petrov was pre revolution or if the guy that worked with Petrov wasn't a real Russian.
They took it seriously. GM Sosonko told a story about how outraged the Soviets were when Korchnoi dared to play the Russian Defence against Karpov in that very political WC rematch.
My personal understanding is that sicilian can be grouped into 4 broad categories:
1) Paulsen - (kan, taimanov, scheveningen, najdorf, sveshnikov, classical)
2) Dragon - (dragon, accelerated dragon, Chinese dragon)
3) closed anti-sicilians - (alapin, rossolimo, closed Sicilian, Kings Indian attack)
4) open anti-sicilians - (Grand Prix attack, Smith morra Gambit)
Optimissed,
What do you think my categorization?
Yeah, I forgot to mention wing Gambit. Yeah, I would say that it is open anti-sicilians.
I think najdorf, scheveningen and taimanov have lots of common trans positions and similar middle games, so I think all of them can be grouped under the Paulsen umbrella.
About Grand Prix: honestly, I was in two minds myself whether to classify it as closed or open.
Pardon my research below. Can we support our posts with references. Some of the most recent posts are not well substantiated. From what you'll see below, Kan and Paulsen are distinguished by when the a6 move is played. If Nc6 is played any at all, its Taimanov...
James Rizzitano refers to Types of Taimanov
Pure Taimanov 5…Qc7 (or a6)…6….Nge7 6 Be3 Nge7 or 6…Nf6. Qc7 usually goes along with Nf6 while a6 goes with Nge7
6…a6 is played to avoid Ndb5.
Taimanov exchange 6.NxC6 bxNc6
FCO refers to 4…a6 as the Paulsen or Kan variation. So the name Kan is synonymous with Paulsen.
5….Nc6 Taimanov variation or 4…Nc6 is also Taimanov
Delchev and Semkov in “The most flexible sicilian” refer to 4…Nc6 and 5…Qc7 as trademarks of Taimanov 4…a6 as Kan.
1e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6 …main line Taimanov
e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 a6…Kan
This also coincides with the moves by John Emms in the Sicilian taimanov:move by move.
5…Qc7 seems to have a specific name… Internet reference: Sicilian, Taimanov (Bastrikov) Variation (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6 5 Nc3 Qc7.
Per chesstempo.com 1 e4 c5 2Nf3 e6 3d4 cxd4 4 Nxd Nc5 5Nc3 a6…Paulsen. It appears here that 5….a6 rather than 4…a6(kan)…it’s known as the Paulsen.
Jeroen Bosch in “Secrets of opening surprises” Sicilian Taimanov refers to e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6 5 Nc3 Qc7 6 g3…as the fianchetto variation…after black plays 6…a6 7…h5 has about 9 kinds of 8…variations!
Graham Burgess in the book, the taimanov Sicilian states on page 6…’Paulsen’ is trickier to define. It is sometimes taken to mean the same thing as the Kan, but is often used in German and Russian chess to refer to lines with a6, Nc6 and Qc7. Taimanov himself called them the Paulsen
So I tend to think the Paulsen is the granddaddy of them all for nomenclature sake.
So…Taimanov-4...Nc6 or 5....Nc6 along with 2 or 3...e6
Kan-4…a6
Paulsen-5…a6
The long and short of it is when you see a book on any of these openings, look at the table of contents before buying it. Make sure it covers the lines you want to study.
Optimissed, no intention of making this political...enough of Russia vs US in the news. Exactly what are you calling the Paulsen?
Optimissed schreef:
Incidentally, it shouldn't be thought that by playing 2. ...a6, I'm playing an O'Kelly, which is often believed to be so amazingly powerful that all sensible players of the white pieces avoid it. The fact is that 2. ...a6 has never been particularly fashionable and yet it invites a plethora of deviations from normal, open Sicilians, and I think there's been a bit of a conspiracy amongst GMs to stop people playing it, because it would represent their having to analyse a new branch of theory which they would rarely employ. So in effect, they are giving due notice that if faced with 2. ...a6, then they will deploy with 3. g3, 3. c3, maybe 3. c4 etc. and they will not play an open Sicilian against it. Which is fair enough, even though the lines with ...e5 are generally not very strong for black. There's a deceptive air of strength, to be sure, but black's position is susceptible to careful, positional manoeuvring, when it becomes clear that black cannot easily transfer pieces from the q-side to the k-side to defend. So white should castle 0-0 and then attack on the k-side with pawns and pieces, if black goes 0-0. This is an area of "theory" where accepted theory is miles out of date.
So I play ...a6 with the intention of playing a Paulsen. Typical would be
1. e4 ...c5
2. Nf3 ...a6
3. d4 ...cd
4. Nxd4 ...Nf6
5. Nc3 ...Qc7 etc
Black has the possibility of b7-b5-b4, especially if white makes the mistake of playing a3. The f8 bishop can go to d6 if necessary, although b4 or c5 are more usual. The c8 bishop can be deployed at b7 or, in some cases, e6 or g4. This latter becomes possible because black's aim is to play d5, if necessary recapturing with a piece, and then potentially e5 and f5 etc, with a central attack. There's often no backward or isolated pawn on d6 and ideally, this only occurs when black has sufficient compensation and an active game.
yes 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 is the O Kelly variation. Not a paulsen or Kan variation although it can transpose to them. To me is Always told that on the O Kelly 3.d4 is less good and 3.c3 or 3.c4 are stronger.
The 3.c3 move can transform to a kind of French position in wich black has played a6. often also Bd7 and Bb5 are plans for black there. I had it only opn the board a few times. After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.c3 e6 , lets name it O Kelly French. Thus after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.c3 e6 4.d4 d5 5.e5 Bd7. There it went like 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 And maybe also 7.Nxd4 could be played or is even better. And 7...Bb5. And here I wonder then and still if 8.Bxb5+ 8.Bc2 or 8.0-0 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 is the best. In any case I played then the last and won but it was by ni means clear. Me was told that after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 was a good move and the white knight must return to f3 or b3 since 6.Nf5? is aswered with d5! and black has a good game. After 6.Nf3 Bb4 is an option and also after 6.Nb3 Bb4 should be good. Why is this then not so good for black?
Also after the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 so a system with e6 and a6 without thus yet moves like d6 and Nf6 and also not yet Nc6. Then white does not have to play Nc3 and can also play 5.Bd3 then after Bc5 6.Nb3 the black bishop can fall back to a7 or also to e7. By the way did you mean 7.Bd2 after 6.Nb3 Bb4 ? or is this comment to something else?
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.