1... e5
because I don't have a clue what's going on in the Sicilian
Sicilian or 1...e5 against 1.e4?
Sort:
I play neither seriously, but the Sicilian occasionnaly.
I hate 1...e5, I also hate 1...d5 after 1.d4, but that's completely irrational.
I like both. Currently my preference is 1...e5, because I can reach sharp and tactical positions that have less theory and aren't played out like the mainline Najdorfs and Dragons.
1...e5 because I'm not nearly strong enough to understand how to play the Sicilian.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
^ Not sure what point you're trying to make there but the Sicilian is by far the best-performing main opening for under 2100s in chess. It's much easier to play than 1. ...e5, because you're not subjecting a pawn to attack from move 1.
1...e5 may well be subjecting a pawn to attack from move 1, but as Expertise pointed out in his other thread, 1...c5 gives White more space and a lead in development, subjecting Black to White's attack from move 4-ish.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
It's much easier to play than 1. ...e5...
Also may be easier to play than 1...e5 because in the sicilian black decides what kind of sicilian will be played, so less theoretical study (to get a decent game) is necessary.
1...e5 gives white the choice, so there's a little bit more theory to cover.
Honestly 1...c5 scores better, but that probably doesn't mean much at the amateur level. It simply boils down to taste. I put the sicilian down because I didn't like the type of play black got (not that it was bad, I just didn't like it), and REALLY hated opposite side castled-pawn storm positions.
I'd like to see some evidence about the Sicilian scoring well below 2100 level, as my database doesn't go down that low. Also, it could have more to do with White fearing it and playing anti-Sicilians - I would imagine the open Sicilians score very well for White.
e5 gives more activity to black. And easier to play, because less theory, and more logical moves. The sicilian is very hard to play well, because you give white lots of activity, for a long-term goal. If you survive you win, but white has better middlegame.
I completely disagree that 1... e5 is less theory. There are a wide range of openings to beat the Sicilian or any other semi-open game in the sheer number of volumes of theory in the 1.e5 e5, also known as the open games.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Estragon wrote:
You can safely disregard anything uhohspaghettio posts.
omg what the hell is your problem THIS time?
You're such a ridiculous poster at times, say a few sensible things and then come out with a line like this. I'm sick of your trolling nonsense, you're not half the chess player or poster you think you are.
Leave him alone, until you have at least half of his knowledge. That will save us for another 50 years, thanks.
Both e5 and c5 are very valid openings and choosing one is a matter of taste.
For me e5 is the more logical opening. For some reasons the central breaks and piece placement seems more logical to me.
And i actually believe low rated people score better in Sicilian openings than e5 openings. There are in my opinion a few reasons for that.
1) On low level sicilian is just as much a system opening as the London system is. Put you rook on c8 and your N on c4 etc. Only stronger players can make use of black's systemlike thinking in the sicialian
2) If you play e5 you have to know several gambits that are very dangerous if not played right for black. (Max Lange Attack, Belgrade Gambit, Evans Gambit, Schotch gambit etc). At lower level these openings are often played badly while at higher level people invested time to learn the way to combat these aggrive but objectivly equal systems.
3) I think on general e5 players are slightly less into "their" opening than sicialian players. Often people who play the Najdorf (even at very low levels) are really passionate about their opening and know a lot about it. I once played a 1400 player and got scolded for making a wrong move as far as move 15ish. He was not a good chess player but knew a lot about the Najdorf.
@woodrow: I doubt you would say that if you have to play sicialian against well prepared 2200+ players.
The problem in the sicialian against these people is that 1 wrong move and you are left without a chance. For example in some cases it matters if you first play Be7 or first play Bb7
I use 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6 to avoid all those gambits. It's more passive than other choices but there is nothing to memorize. Meanwhile White has to play chess.
If you are really serious about winning, you study tactics and end game TONS and TONS. Picking 1.... e5 or 1... c5 to win is not a fair choice. Remember that vs both, White has options to steer the game into drawish territory.
Do not base your choice 1... e5 or 1... c5 on wether you want to win or draw. 1... e5 is filled , on the black side with plenty of murky and complicated waters just asking for a war.
If you want to win, be better today than you were yesterday. If you know your opponent and you believe you are equal or slightly better than him, even just a hair worse than him, then be pragmatic in the game. Choose the path which you believe will give HIM problems which might give him some practical trouble considering his strengths or weaknesses. But you will need to do research on him to find that stuff out. If you can't find out about him, then your choice is ONLY to be a better player if you want to win.
Well ive been playing 1...e5 for awhile but im contemplating quiting because i just CAN NOT stand when white plays the italian game. Now that i think of it....that is stupid that i like every single line in 1.e4...e5 as black besides the italian.
Ive been leaning towards the sicilian simply because i really like it. Im starting out with the schvevinigen which i really like because i develop freely while black has a hard time penetrating my structure.
I used to play caro but i really hate some lines for example, in the advance when white plays Bd3 forcing the light sq bishops off i just dont like that. Or the two knights variaton or the exchange.
I beg myself to try the french but some lines are just dull and uninspiring for me.
Chessteenager, you will want to learn the lines vs the Italian game. Also, study your games and look for improvement. Most of the time, the problem with your games are tactical mistakes mixed with a positional misunderstanding of what is happening.
Review your games, look for improvements, study tactics, and review the theory of what to play. It's hard work but it will pay off. If you are a poor player, any opening will seem to give you problems when facing someone who does less mistakes than you do.
I wish you the best.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
Expertise87 wrote:
I'd like to see some evidence about the Sicilian scoring well below 2100 level, as my database doesn't go down that low. Also, it could have more to do with White fearing it and playing anti-Sicilians - I would imagine the open Sicilians score very well for White.
The open Sicilians don't score very well for white at the amateur level. Look here: http://www.ficsgames.org/openings.html ....black is actually AHEAD at the lower levels. That's internet chess but it still matters. There are similar patterns in chessbase. It makes perfect sense to me also. This idea of yours does not work. White has no targets and finds it hard to attack without very precise play and understanding (unless it's a stupidly aggressive opening like the Sveshnikov).
"I completely disagree that 1... e5 is less theory. There are a wide range of openings to beat the Sicilian or any other semi-open game in the sheer number of volumes of theory in the 1.e5 e5, also known as the open games."
It's a ridiculous idea. Clearly Expertize had some romantic ideas about how he'd be one of the few players able to "graduate" into playing the Sicilian properly while everyone else didn't know wtf they were doing (probably after a horrible loss with it himself), when it's actually the exact opposite and easy to see why. At the amateur level it's awesome, while at the absolute Super GM levels in chess, the Sicilian has become almost a ilttle suspicious because the pros prefer 1. e4 e5 now and view the Sicilian as risky.
The link you gave was for FICS games where the average rating was over 2000. I don't know how much you know about FICS, but most FICS players with blitz ratings over 2000 are at least 2100+ if not 2200+ OTB. Also, time is a major factor in these games. I'm currently downloading the 2012 ficsgames.com database for all ratings to compare average elo and search games
From what I can see, if you don't restrict your search to just players rated over 2000, White scores right about 50% vs the Sicilian on FICS, and is rated 1491 on average, while Black is rated 1549 on average. The hilarious 4% draw statistic shows us how reasonable this is too.
So Black does not outperform with the Sicilian at amateur level according to ficsgames.com databases.
Which do you prefer and why?