I think this whole concept has been played much more often than you guys think, for example last year in a club match against me. The line goes like: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. 0-0 Nf6 6. Re1 Nc6 7. b3!?. That way you play a move that's certainly useful in the maroczy, but of marginal value in the c3+d4 lines. With the line discussed here, it's the other way round. I'm still fairly sure White gets close to nothing here.

Yes, but he obviously thought that d4 was both, inconsitent and leading to nowhere. The resulting position is simply without potential and it is certainly not better than what you can archieve by playing c4 in one move.

Now this may sound all way too vague, since there are lots of moves to be played until you reach the draw, but that's how it goes. I can only assure you that the position is easy to defend for black at master level. Since there are no forced lines I cannot do more than that.

Eh, you're kinda pissing me off with your bull****. If you can't explain it, don't assert it.

I am sorry to disappoint you. Black is fully developed, has no weakness and there are no tactical threats. It is very difficult to assess this position other than "equal chances". If this is the worst that could happen in the sicilian, then black would be happy.

This conclusion was based on my judgement. Better judgement usually indicates a stronger player. If you don't trust my judgement then you may ask yourself why this idea didn't appear in master practice yet. There was a chance for it - the game I quoted above - but a strong player of GM strength decided against it. Maybe you want to trust his judgement that the idea has no potential.

If this is an insufficient explanation for you and you don't like computer evaluations, then try the idea in practice against human competition. If you manage to beat stronger players with it on a regular basis, then it would be a strong indication that it is indeed a very powerful concept. Chess has the advantage that theories can be tested in practice. Go for it!

I would also tend to say that the position is equal. You're quite right when you say that it's difficult to assess. Maroczy and Hegdehog positions are notoriously difficult to analyse because of their slow pace (up until the point when Black eventually gets in one of his levers).

However, we would have a method to determine the merit of the line. At first we must study the position that arises after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 5.c4. How does Black fight for equality here? Is Black usually relying on the kingside fianchetto or is e7-e6 also acceptable here.

If e7-e6 is considered a valid setup here that leads to equality, we can bury Discipline's idea right at this spot.

In case the fianchetto is preferred, we would have to look at the games with e7-e6 and learn how White secures an advantage. Then we'll have to see whether the tempo White gives up by playing c2-c3-c4 would allow Black to realise an idea that was impossible in the "normal" line.

Only if all this is the case would we have a serious theoretical novelty. It would allow White to circumvent the fianchetto and force Black into a e7-e6 setup, where we know how to secure an advantage.

Things like "I just like the positions and am happy to prevent the fianchetto" are worthless in a theoretical discussion, where personal taste must stand back behind analytical rigor. It's the same as saying "I just love suited connectors and I will play them in every situation".

Discipline has given a rough outline of the White strategy in his OP. I have given a line (8.c4 Be7 9.Nc3 O-O 10.d4 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Rfd8 12.Nc2! a6 13.b3 Rac8 14.Bb2 Qc7) that I consider best up to a point where I just don't know enough about Maroczy bind structures without the light-squared bishop in order to give an assessment here other than "I can't imagine that Black is worse here".



This is the point where the study would have to begin.

This looks like a potential easy equaliser to me as well.

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 5.c4 Nc6 6.O-O Nf6 7.Nc3 g6 is the more popular move but 7...e6 is of course just as good. It has been played repeatedly by Wojtkiewiscz, Georgiev and Marin. Also players like Short, De Firmian, Alterman, Smirin, Spasski, Ribli, Epishin and Kasparov have been seen playing it.

That position reminds me of this classic game:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1107067

I hope everyone can see that the attack on the light squares wouldn't have worked without the light squared bishop. That's why I said that the attacking chances are limited without that specific piece.

Thanks for the great game link. I had never seen that game, nor Nd5 in these exact sort of positions. My excuse is I rarely play them I guess. Very eye opening either way.

Wow, that was quite an impressive sacrifice. Petrosian defended tenaciously, but White's initiative was just overwhelming. Nice.