I'm a big fan of Nunn's writing. He gives good insights into the ideas behind the position, which helps when you're looking for a plan in the middlegame.
I can't answer your specific question, because I don't play the Sicilian. But 30-50% of the players on the site do, so I'm hoping that someone can get you your answer. If you ask about the Caro-Kann, I'm your guy.
Ok, sorry to hijack this thread slightly....
Ozzie your status indicates from 10 days ago that you will be back on Monday. Also--main question--just wondering how drawish your games tend to be with the Caro?
Sadly, for the original poster I have nothing as I tend to avoid the Sicilian.
I would 0-0, but Nc3, Be3, Bf4,c4 also seem good
Lucena, Black has opportunities to steer the Caro-Kann into less drawish waters if he's willing to accept some risk. Jovanka Houska wrote a repertoire book on the Caro Kann with playing for the full point in mind. Also, bear in mind that because an opening is drawish at the master level doesn't mean it's drawish at the amateur level.
I'm a caro-kann player too.
@ozzie
I understand that you play the Caro but what we're talking about is the Sicilian with white. Have you got any help to give me on this subject?
I highly recommend Nunn's book (I dont have it but I've browsed through it) - but you have to be off-beat in your chess style. Nunn likes to experiment with unconventional lines..
Below IM level it shouldn't matter [and in fact would be an advantage], though.. -
Remember to prepare responses to opponent's 'non-book' moves :) [e.g. (sort-of) : I played an OTB game yesterday - the usual najdorf-transposing-into-scheveningen [1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5], but opp. comes up with 7.f3 - well I am long retired from serious chess so this (the english attack) is new to me [I daresay it is old to the young people here]; anyway 7..b5 sort-of stands out and all is well.. - after the game I see that 7...b5 is 'book' - which was no surprise..
relevance?? those two games went 1-0 didnt they.
OTOH *I* was playing black and mine went 0-1...
Unlike black in those two games linked by the prev poster, I did *not* play the Kan [pl. note the difference] (nor the Taimanov) - not directly, and not by transposition. Nor did I play ..Bc5.
relevance?? those two games went 1-0 didnt they.
OTOH *I* was playing black and mine went 0-1...
Unlike black in those two games linked by the prev poster, I did *not* play the Kan [pl. note the difference] (nor the Taimanov) - not directly, and not by transposition. Nor did I play ..Bc5.
"After viewing the games, of one of my biggest opponents, in this variation I realised that what he actually played with black was 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 Be7."
I think "kosmeg" is interested how to respond with White, so I gave links to 2 games won by White in this variation. Don't see any relevance of your post.
relevance?? those two games went 1-0 didnt they.
OTOH *I* was playing black and mine went 0-1...
Unlike black in those two games linked by the prev poster, I did *not* play the Kan [pl. note the difference] (nor the Taimanov) - not directly, and not by transposition. Nor did I play ..Bc5.
"After viewing the games, of one of my biggest opponents, in this variation I realised that what he actually played with black was 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 Be7."
I think "kosmeg" is interested how to respond with White, so I gave links to 2 games won by White in this variation. Don't see any relevance of your post.
Oh sorry; didnt realise you weren't responding to me [earlier post] but to Kosmeg. Post hoc propter hoc fallacy...
Yes, my post was maybe irrelevant... too tired too mixed up too disturbed I dont know
there is an escape: I shut off the computer: the 'internet people' cease to exist...
Kosta o michelakos to pezi afto?
oxi afto einai poli palio...gia ta topika tis perioxis m. o rigopoulos to paizei
Ok, sorry to hijack this thread slightly....
Ozzie your status indicates from 10 days ago that you will be back on Monday. Also--main question--just wondering how drawish your games tend to be with the Caro?
Sadly, for the original poster I have nothing as I tend to avoid the Sicilian.
I don't like the word drawish. If you're playing white against me and "aiming for a draw", you have to do many things.
1. Get out of the opening at least equal. If you don't strive for much, you may end up with just a smidgeon of a worse position. And for a player who is ok with a draw, these are among the most difficult to play. For example, you might trade Bf1 for Bc8 and be left with a bishop which is not expressly suited to your pawn structure.
2. You must play through the middlegame without making any serious errors. Obviously this is easier said than done. You must always keep one eye on the endgame (more on that in a minute) and one eye on the middlegame maneuvering, while always calculating variations.
3. You must be very comfortable in the endgame. I end up winning games in all three phases. I'm perfectly happy coming out of the opening equal, or even a little worse (in the C-K world, "a little worse" is basically "equal", because the slight bit worse is usually because of a space disadvantage).
So if you can do all these things, then you'll probably end up earning the draw anyway. If my opponent is good, and knows how to get a slight initiative, and how to keep it, then I'll be the one fighting for a draw. But I don't find it a handicap at all if I must beat a lower rated player.
In regards to:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3
black has two responses Ba7 and Be7. Ba7 has more tactics, including ideas based on a timely Bxf2+ in certain lines. White can nullify all these tactics by trading dark squared bishops via Be3 at the right moment, leaving black with weak dark squares.
Black's other option of Be7 is positionally more sound (but he does not have the same tactical shots as the Ba7 line. He keeps the dark squared bishop on the board and defends his relatively weak dark squares.
White can proceed to attack kingside, such as with f4, or can attack Queenside such as with a4, Be3, N1d2-c4 with pressure on b6. White also has the simple plan of Qg4 ...g6 Qe2 softening up blackk's king side and further weakening his dark squares. This plan can be combined with the kingside attack with a later f4.
Finally white has not committed Nc3 in front of the c pawn, so another option is converting to a maroczy at any time. That gives you at least 4 different plans of attack. Q side, K side with Qg4 idea, K side without Qg4 idea and finally the maroczy, heading into a headgehog type of position.
And this is to say nothing of Nc3 reverting back to a classical structure, which is fine as well. The great thing about 5.Bd3 is that it is fairly non-commital, and you can feel your way toward the best way to attack black's structure.
You might look through these plans and see which suites you best. Keep in mind, black has to know a lot of this position, because there are so many different viable plans for white, so if you know one plan for white well, I think you would be in good shape. Of course your game was 3 years ago, so this is only relevant for your next game against the kan.
The local youth championship is in 12 days, so I started doing my opening preparation and had a problem: In Nunn's book "Beating the Sicilian" in the section about Kan(1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6) there is something not mentioned. In the variation 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 he gives only reatreat for the bishop as 6...Ba7. After viewing the games, of one of my biggest opponents, in this variation I realised that what he actually played with black was 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 Be7.
What would you recommend against this line, any articles, books, or even your own opinions are welcome.
P.S. Do you thing Nunn's book worths reading?