As I find myself some 400 points in rating higher than I was when the year began, I already begin to feel the pressure to play more "serious" openings. Those openings that give any beginner a chill down the spine, those openings that have been thoroughly analyzed for over 100 years. It seemed to be a daunting task, but I found that some openings developed naturally, despite their complexity. Pretty soon, I found myself inviting the Ruy Lopez as Black. The French Defense finally made sense to me. And I even learned how to handle "drawish" openings like the Queen's Gambit Declined and the Classical Petroff as my endgame improved. I felt like I had finally broken my old habit of playing gimmicky defenses and systems I could follow 5 moves deep without regard to the enemy position (the Pirc comes to mind, not that there's anything particularly faulty with it).
Yet, despite all my efforts, I still seem to be unable to build a nice Sicilian Defense. A search through any master's game would show pages of 1. e4 c5. The same cannot be said for the Russian Game, nor even the Ruy Lopez (not to the same extent, though I am aware that is definitely an arguable statement). Now, I can handle myself on a few Sicilians, like the Najdorf with an early e5 and the ever-popular and all-but-refuted Dragon, even the Pterodactyl Variations; however, none of those positions are particularly appealing to me.
So, after reading this, I am keen to the fact that it may seem like I am complaining over nothing, maybe even bragging. I apologize for that. Admittedly, I have spent the last 2 paragraphs trying create a façade that is contrary to my real ability. The truth is, I have always loved the Sicilian Scheveningen. It looks so simple, so elegant and symmetrical, so mature. I read through the games of greats like Kasparov and Flohr and dream of using such a sophisticated defense, yet looks can be deceiving, especially in the world of chess.
And now comes that dreaded moment of truth. By now it should be obvious what I am about to write next, though I will write nonetheless: I have a god-awful Scheveningen Variation. I never know when to place which knight where and under which circumstances. I fall for center-crippling maneuvers because I forget to put my queen on c7, or because I developed a bishop instead of castling. Of course, no plan can ever occur perfectly in chess if it requires specific moves that don't regard the enemy's pieces. I should know that, but for some reason the Scheveningen has me baffled. I know I'm supposed to be fighting for d5, but when do I make the time to defend the pawns? And what is with all of these minute maneuvers in Kasparov's games? He explains them as best he can, yet they still seem to be just out of the realm of my understanding.
Now I can't be the only person here that has trouble with some elusive form of the Sicilian. Well, actually, it's quite possible that I am. Either way, I think we should spend some time analyze a few Sicilians. I'll bring examples from books I have and I'll see if that helps anyone more than it did for me. The Sicilian, in the words (paraphrased words) of Kasparov, is one of the only defenses that offers Black an opportunity for an advantage, rather than simple equality.