Sicilian Defense - which is the best??

They are all playable at 1300 level.

The exhilerated dragon?

Obviously takes ginseng.

<>

How odd, AcivilizedGentleman!

I used to hope and pray for that continuation but these days they usually try c3 instead. The number of games I used to win against c4 speaks for itself, I believe!

The O'Kelly doesn't offer less opportunities at all. The main problem was that the positional analysis offered by GMs was mistaken and based on logically false premises. I once wrote an article demonstrating that. They tended to have the wrong idea altogether about how it ought to be played and the consensus was that the Najdorf offered more. They were all for getting rid of the Black squared bishop and playing e5, which is quite drawish. But it was all nonsense based on a far too superficial an understanding of the positions involved. Black keeps his dark squared bishop, often declining the chance to win a pawn in the opening on c3. Very often the pawn on d7 stays on d7 for 20 moves or more. The dark squared bishop acts like a mobile machine gun, systematically weakening white's castled position, backed up by a bishop often at b7 and knights scurrying around everywhere. If white castles long, he's REALLY asking for it. So the common misconceptions about the O'Kelly are simply misconceptions.

Surely you still have to learn openings, hicetnunc. A chess game is an organic whole and you'll see how different openings tend to produce differing possibilities.

Oh shit another problem with this site!

Fred, do you really think you're the only one to have noticed that !?

haha no, didn't say that!

In UK, they call it "the Rolls-Royce of chess openings". Go figure

No one cares about the Pelikan?!

I stick with my answer that a player below 1500 should play the (regular) Dragon if they must play a Sicilian. Above that, play whichever Sicilian you want.

Personally, I only encouraged one of my students to play the Sicilian (Najdorf Variation with Georgiev and Kolev's The Sharpest Sicilian). But the student was 1800 at the time, and is now 30 points from Expert. I encouraged him to play this because he was TOO passive and I wanted him to learn to play aggressively when appropriate and fight for the initiative.

Why the Dragon ? Because it's easier than most other Sicilians and straightforward ?

A few things to clear up:

The book is brand new, and - last I checked - there still hadn't been a review up about it. So how can you say its worthless? Have you even read any of the books in the move by move series that you call worthless?

Also, have you played the Taimanov? Do you know much about it or have you looked at any of the many books on it? As one of the biggest strengths of the Taimanov is its flexibility, its not uncommon for a book on the Taimanov to include at least a few variations from other Sicilians, as it can be preferable to black to transpose into them at some points rather than stay with the pure Taimanov.

One last point: the concept of the Move by Move series is not at all to teach the person 7 or 8 moves of variations and then leave them hanging. Rather, it uses the complete game format instead and explains each move (as the name implies), so instead of a variation with a vague statement at the end (like "and black is better") you get each move in each variation explained to you, and illustrated with complete games.

It also makes use of the "Socratic Method" (same as the one employed in Gulko's highly regarded Lessons with a Grandmaster) where Emms pauses to answer the kinds of typical questions that someone studying the book may have of the author; and he also does the opposite, as well, by pointing out key moves and asking the reader why the player made it (with the answer in the back of the chapter) or what purpose the move serves.

All of that aside, the big issue I have with the Accelerated Dragon is that once you get beyond the opening, and the few well know traps it contains, it requires a fair amount of patience and positional ability to handle properly.

I regard it as one of the tamer, more positional Sicilians and have no idea why anyone would recommend it over the many more aggressive Sicilians to a player who is seeking a sharp, aggressive opening. How about addressing that rather than putting down a book with a statement that only reveals that you've never even glanced at it.

In the Regular Dragon, you can get rolled off the board quickly if you don't know what your doing. White's play just seems so much easier...

I actually think the Najdorf (and Scheveningan with Najdorf move order) is easier. Its more positional than the Dragon though. More about the feel for the position than a ton of theory in the Dragon.

And just be aware that you often have to defend for a long time in the Najdorf/Schev...Its not all about attack,attack,attack.

Ftacnik even says that you need to have "knowledge of typical piece manoeuvres, when to defend, when to counterattack. The last of these can take some time and practice to develop, but once you have it, you will truly be the master of an unbreakable defensive system of a lifetime."

You got it dude! Emphasis especially on "straightforward."

<
Is there any reason to like the c4 position for black more in the okelly than the one for the taimanov when the one for the taimanov has white spend often 3-4 tempis on getting the same structure? Any at all other than your personal preference?>>

Definitely, in my opinion at least. The tempi white spends are directed at more than just getting in c4, although c4 is like the cement that makes white's position so convincing against the Taimanov.

Of course, what success I've had against c4 speaks for the fact that the O'Kelly seems to suit my style. Quite often there is only one line that frees black's game, quite often based on the advance b5. It is a difficult defence for black to play, having to balance development with counter-attacking possibilities. It is EXTREMELY hypermodern and that quite simply is not to the taste of most GMs, who prefer classical positions because GMs draw on their incredible knowledge of previously played lines.

In some variations, black is forced into apparently desperate counter-attacks and in others, black may dominate the centre with his extra pawn. Often the d pawn remains on d7; sometimes black's f pawns are doubled, giving very good chances on the g file, although black automatically goes down a pawn by losing the h pawn. Again, losing pawns isn't to everyone's taste. The opening is extremely dynamic and unbalanced. THAT's why people don't like it. Occasionally black loses, which is only to be expected. There seems to be a VERY low percentage of draws. I like that but you may not! However, if I felt the opening was unsound I'd play something else instead. My second string defence is the Caro-Kan. I think that's WAY less sound than the O'Kelly, but then I'm not an expert on the Caro-Kan.

Back to the O'Kelly, GMs don't like it but I'm convinced that sooner or later it is bound to be played and then gain in popularity. They don't like it so they recommend sidetracking it. They tend to believe that 3 d4 is actually a mistake against the O'Kelly but they gave up recommending 3.c4 20 years ago!

So ....

It is true that the Dragon is risky at a good level (say, 2400+), but probably no riskier than something like the Modern Benoni or the Pirc.

I will say though, in my 17-year chess career the two openings for Black I've seen that a person can learn very well and play 200-300 points above their level JUST BY KNOWING THE OPENING EXTREMELY WELL are the Sicilian Dragon (not Accelerated, hell no) and the Benko Gambit. I've never played them in my career, but it is simply uncanny how people can learn these two openings and become simply so hard to face. Game after game after game they wheel these openings out in tournaments and get very good-to-excellent results overall. I personally know several players (and I'm talking 2100+ USCF) who use the Dragon or Benko and know it so well and just kill people.

I agree that the Najdorf/Scheveningen are not attacking systems. The Najdorf is dynamic, and the Scheveningen is even a counterattacking system, in my view. These two systems are superior to the Dragon if one takes a long-term view of chess development. But to me (below the titled ranks) there is no doubt: the Sicilian that will bring the best results-per-unit-study time is the Dragon.

Hey, I forgot to mention that since the O'Kelly transposes to the Paulsen in the c4 variation, to say that c4 defeats the O'Kelly is the same as saying that it defeats the Paulsen and nobody thinks that. The Paulsen is played at top levels. Ergo, the argument that c4 refutes the O'Kelly fails.

Hyper-Accelerated Dragon is where it's at .

The average White player trying to castle queenside and "pawnstorm" will be met with a rather violent queenside fate, or will stumble into a tactical trick. Obviously the test is the Maroczy idea, in which case I advocate finding an offbeat, energetic concept on your own (I'm trying out playing for an early f5).

Why black should want to rush to play dragons beats me. The dragon is a pussy.

And the hyper IS unsound.

I play the Dragon for variety; various 2...e6 Sicilians are my alternative to meeting 1.e4. I like the Dragon because its very demanding and taxes your skills at both attack and defence (and typically in the same game). I like that its double edged and can be decided by a single tempo. I don't think its that theoretical when you're playing at the U2000 level either.

That there is a lot of theory in an opening doesn't mean white is going to know it. I doubt class level players know very much the Yugoslav Attack, beyond the main ideas, simply because there's no reason to study it in preference to any other reply from black, unless they play it. Its hardly a fashionable opening anymore.

The Accelerated Dragon is a whole other animal entirely: quieter games where white isn't able to stir much up against black (but neither is black often able to put any real pressure on white's king) and not that much opening theory. A good enough choice for a positional player who wants a solid defence to 1.e4 and doesn't want to deal with much theory.