Taimanov or Paulsen?

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
Post Reply
Warren Kingston
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:05 pm

Taimanov or Paulsen?

Post by Warren Kingston » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:15 pm

Going through the 16th game of Karpov v Kasparov title match 1985 in the Worlds Greatest Chess Games by John Nunn. It states that it is the Taimanov Variation of the Sicilian, but at chessgames.com states that it is the Paulsen Variation. Are they the same or is someone wrong?
Last edited by Warren Kingston on Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dan O'Dowd
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:14 am
Location: Carlisle, Cumbria

Re: Taimanov or Paulson?

Post by Dan O'Dowd » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:44 pm

As far as I'm aware, Taimanov's original idea was that ...a6 prevents any shenanigans with Nb5, and can be followed up by ...Nge7 (after Nc6) and ...Nxd4, reducing Black's space concerns. The Paulsen is another Western name for the Kan, both players played it (e6 and a6, before anything else), whereas the Taimanov tends to have Nc6 with ...Qc7 as a way to control e5. :)

John McKenna

Re: Taimanov or Paulson? (Paulsen!)

Post by John McKenna » Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:23 am

In the game in question the move 8... d5 was know to Chessbase as B44 - Sicilian, Szen variation, Dely-Kasparov Gambit.
Joseph Szen played his anti-Taimanov variation long before Taimanov was born.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 e6 5.Nb5 - "this is unusual, yet it has the advantage of continuing the attack..." Staunton on Szen-Anderssen 1851 London.

Warren Kingston
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:05 pm

Re: Taimanov or Paulsen?

Post by Warren Kingston » Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:21 am

Many thanks for all this, it is really interesting reading. Just love the Sicilian.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Taimanov or Paulsen?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:39 am

Paul Cooksey wrote: Players just want to understand how to play the positions, and the systems are interrelated.
As much as any thing else, it depends what happens to the d7 pawn and f8 Bishop. In the Hedgehog structure they go to d6 and e7 with the Knight on f6. In other structures, the pawn is held back on d7, with an attempt to be more active with the f8 Bishop, such as it going to c5 or b4. That can also support a plan of Nge7-g6.

Whilst there are early move order tricks, these systems do tend to blend in with each other.

In the KvK game, previous practice had been to settle down to a long Hedgehog with the e6 d6 pawn structure. Kasparov came up with the idea of the d5 break which at the time looked to some commentators as if it gave up a pawn for no compensation. A somewhat similar idea had been seen in the Fischer - Petrosian match of 1971, invented, it is believed by Suetin.

I would be more inclined to consider that White set the opening in that game, by playing the early Nb5. Unlike the Sveshnikov, White does it voluntarily, but can still end up with the Knight on a3. You can make Black play e5, by playing Bf4. It's not quite the modern version of the Svesh as Black usually plays Be6.

John McKenna

Re: Taimanov or Paulsen?

Post by John McKenna » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:03 am

Yes, love it or hate it, it is fascinating. But, say the variation in the game in question is the 'Szen' and people will start calling it the 'Zen'. Go further and call 8... d5 the Dely-Kasparov gambit and we'll soon have "Kasparov's deli (as in delicatessen) gambit"!

Post Reply