Do you have a line to back up this claim? I play the Taimanov sicilian a lot and I would love to know the line to equalize.

Making grandiose statements like this without variations to back them up does nothing to further your argument. 

Black can get equality in all openings if play is perfect. Its generally assumed that perfect play in chess results in a draw. So equality would necessarily occur at some point. So this is hardly a grandiose statement...its actually the common wisdom.

The problem is not that equality is not there, the problem is that you cant possibly know every possible line. If I were to try and give you, from the position of the taimanov, blacks best play against every conceivable move by white in every variation, then there would be various logistical issues, such as the fact that the universe would end before you read all of it.

People have said that black can equalize against the alapin. I do not dispute that. But I certainly deny that it is easy...and im sure they are totally ignorant of and/or dismissing a myriad of alternative ideas white may have in whatever line they think is equal (and/or the position they consider equal simply may not be). This is exactly the error i would be making if i sat here and gave you one of the thousands of GM games where black managed to equalize out of the opening in the taimanov.

Well I don't know about that... What if the mass is lower than the critical mass? ;)

 Agreed. Of course, it is possible to doubt the premise that perfect chess results in a draw, but even accepting it doesn't follow that 'Black can gain equality in the Taimanov' or any other variation. First, it may be that the Taimanov is not the perfect opening for Black; second, it is possible that the Black cannot equalize from the opening at all with correct play, but that the advantage White obtains is not sufficient to convert into a win with perfect play in the middlegame and the endgame.

Hey, I found a new line against the Dragon I am going to try...

Hmm, I don't there is anyway to beat the Sicilian right out. I preferr the Alapin, or the Morra Gambit. They're both very popular openings against the Sicilian. Also if they fall for the gambit, then you can put alot of pressure on them from the start by being ahead by developement. I would choose rapid developement for a pawn. Besides you can always get some compensation later on.

The better player will win, just go with your instincts. Also it is good to prepare a couple of lines against it. Don't move until you see it.

Well...we can avoid the philosophical nonsense by simply poitning out that whites results among GM play are just as good in the alapin as the open sicilian. So if you say the open sicilian is better, then you really should provide some actual reason.

The main difference between the two is that in the open sicilian, black has an extra center pawn. Thats it.

White development is exactly as rapid on the alapin or rossolimo as the open sicilian...in fact usually somewhat mroe rapid because white doesnt 'waste time' on f4 etc.

 how can someone just say the open sicilian must be 'best'? what is this founded on? Ive played both, and I KNOW that i personally tend to get much better positions from an alapin than an open sicilian.

its midly offensive to me, if I play the alapin, that so many people assume that i must be terrified of learning theroy in open sicilians, and am playing an inferior move. Im not terrified of theory, and I deny that c3 is inferior. prove it.

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 and white cannot play his knight to c3, the most natural square. Therefore he must submit to e5 wherein he gets a bad version of the Alekhine's defence.

1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 black cannot play this d5 break so easily in the open sicilian.

To say nothing of 1.e4 c5 2.c3 e6 followed by d5 and white has nothing better than transposing to an advanced french, which is theoretically rather timid for white.

To my knowledge Sergei Tiviakov is the only strong GM who asserts that the c3 sicilian is as good as the open. When Topalov, Anand, Carlsen and Kasparov agree with him then I'll consider it, until then...not so much.

Personally, when faced with 2.c3 I prefer 2...Nf6.

Wing Gambit (1. e4 c5 2. b4) will surely throw him for a loop.

after Nf6 e5 may have some similarities to the alekhine, but its not a bad version. black does not generally want to play c5 in the alekhine. There is a transpositional possibility to a line in the chase variation where white scores as much as 70%, and this is generally considered an error for black, and indeed when i was reading a book on the alekhine it specifically warned against allowing this transposition.

 black can play 2 d5 if he wants, so this break does not necessarily ensure that black gets a good game. The queen ends up on a vulnerable square...although white may not be able to play Nc3 right away as he does often in a scandinavian (i dont :P), there are other ways white may take advantage of this situation. Again, black does not generally want to play c5 in the scandinavian.

The most well known GM who really championed this line is sveshnikov. And as i said before, many top GMS  have fiddled with this opening at one time or another, but they do not make it part of their main repitiore because naturally the open sicilian was working fine for them. The issue was not its inferiority, it was that it wasnt superior so no point in learning a lot of new theory.

I think you've been reading some of Sam Collins' propaganda. 

In the Alekhine, after 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 would white really ever want to play 3.c3? I think most GMs agree that the inclusion of the moves c3 and c5 favors black. Not to say that black is better, but white's hopes for an advantage have been diminished. 

I was going to mention Sveshnikov yes, also I must say that both Tiviakov and Sveshnikov play the sicilian often themselves. When they face 2.c3 Tiviakov prefers 2...d5 while Sveshnikov has always maintained 2...Nf6 is the best move.

Let's just call the 2.c3 sicilian what it is, a solid but slightly passive way for white to avoid theory. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but white's chances to win are less than if he plays the riskier open sicilian. On the upside, white's chances to lose are also less than in the open sicilian.

well I certainly havent asked most gms but lol i fail to see how the insertion of the moves c3 and c5 favor black in the alekhine. Can you explain this? The way I see it, c5 reduces the options black has to hold the d5 square, and also reduces the scope of his kingside bishop, so long as the pawn remains on that square. but it increases the black influence on d4, and allows the queen access to the queenside. c3 solidifies the white control of d4, allows the queen access to queenside, and reduces the scope of the queenside knight.

its pretty early in the game to make clear assesments imo, theres too many options. I dont even know if you know any of the main lines of these variations.

I had a similar problem altho not just with the Dragon, I lost every serious game I played with white against the Sicilian. Then using the chess mentor facility on this site I was introduced to the Alpin version ie e4 c5 c3. This gives black somewhat limited options in reply and is therefore easy to learn. It is very solid and can lead black into a style of game he will not be comfortable with. As somebody said before it is not a Sicilian killer but you should come out of the opening with a playable game. I played this in a club match last week and scored a good win against a higher ranked opponent so I do recommend it. I suppose I should add I am a lower ranked club player (104 British Chess Fed) so I am not an expert or anything.

try the King's indian attack.

or the alapin. I play a combination of both (e4 e5 Nf3 d6 c3 and later g3-Bg2)

nc3 - closed. Love it and most Sicilian players HATE playing against it.

-Ted

I'll try that opening(what's it called)  on my club mates. Thank you.