2. ...Nf6 is what I always hated seeing. It is also a transposition to the declined Smith Morra Gambit.
And nevermind what GMs say in books, you won't be playing many GMs anyhow.
2. ...Nf6 is what I always hated seeing. It is also a transposition to the declined Smith Morra Gambit.
And nevermind what GMs say in books, you won't be playing many GMs anyhow.
Thanks guys! Ok, i'll take a second look at the 2. Nf6 stuff especially if a c3 sicilian player says he hated seeing it
Against the c3 line I usually play the e6 line. 1.e4 c5 2.c3 e6 3.d4 d5. It tis the most solid line against the c3 Sicilian, but it can turn into the French. So I switched to the d5 line. 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5
Depends on where your main strengths lie, but if you really want winning chances at this level, maybe you should look at some sidelines (2...d6+g6, 2...e6, 2...b6).
That's not dead equal.
Yes it is. White has absolutely nothing in that position. A check with Houdini shows 0.00 no matter how long you let it think.
Tbh, i think you look at the engine evaluation a bit too much. Of course its a draw, but humanistically speaking, if white is the only one to win this position, that in my mind gives white the advantage.
Hey, so i am an expert level player looking for an aggressive or full of complications line for black against the c3 sicilian. For all this time, i had been playing the following line:
Although it is a risky line, I felt that in my games against lower rated players, the positions got some what dull. Another line i looked at was the Nf6 line:
But i felt again after reading Experts on the anti-sicilians, that the main lines end in many simplifications and even some of the side lines end in dead equal endgames. So my question is: Is there a more dynamic way or improvements for black in the lines above? Thanks