I agree with you, but the Sicilian does still have other important merits that you didn't mention, such as
Preserving both central pawns when d4 is played
Giving black the open C-file
Making the game sharper and more imbalanced
Preparing to attack the queenside
Well… the issue is MUCH more complex than how you explained it, I’ll do my best to give a tl;dr but think of this as a simplification of a simplification of a summary. This is a very complex topic.
1… e5: Locks the pawns in the center, de-incentivizes 2. d4, allows the DSB out, doesn’t block in the LSB, but to do so it allows White’s LSB three great diagonals long term and paints a target on the e5 square. Solid, a perfect mix of tactical and positional play, not too aggressive or passive, not too flexible or inflexible.
1… e6 2. d4 d5: allows the DSB out, doesn’t initially show White any targets, but it blocks in the LSB. Solid but inflexible, more tactical but a grasp of good positional play is still mandatory, very aggressive.
1… c5: de-incentivizes 2. d4, allows for 2… Nc6 as a flexible second move to keep pawns on the 7th rank, doesn’t block in either bishop in the short term. Solid, very very flexible, can be played passive, flexible, and positional or tactical, inflexible, and aggressive.
(1… c6: an inaccuracy that blocks in a knight, doesn’t put pressure on the center, often wastes a tempo, but technically doesn’t do anything OBVIOUSLY wrong, per se. Almost solid, too passive to be flexible, too positional. I wouldn’t recommend it, but obviously other people have made it work)
very, very oversimplified
I don’t wanna go into detail about how an opening move’s advantages work. That can stretch into some serious digging into an opening’s intended plans and the supposed layout for the rest of the game if both sides play correctly. So, I’ll just say this: say, the fact that 1.e5 allows the bishop and the queen to go out immediately is a very minor advantage, because 1. e6/c5 only delay that by a very small amount of moves, and these openings shouldn’t be compared in that context because each one leads to wildly different games. For example, I could say 1. c5 is better because it creates a strong imbalance in the position. I could say 1. e6 is better because it tries to build a strong pawn structure. The advantages are wildly different, and can only be compared through one’s personal success with the opening.
They are different. E5, c5, e6 and c6 are all good openings with different pros and cons.
Objectively, yes e5 is the best followed by c5.
The Sicilian wishes to obtain two center pawns against one after black takes on d4. Black also wishes to obtain the open c-file and an immediate imbalance as potato said I think.
The French wishes to prepare a counter attack with d5, the Caro also wishes to obtain this.
very, very oversimplified
I don’t wanna go into detail about how an opening move’s advantages work. That can stretch into some serious digging into an opening’s intended plans and the supposed layout for the rest of the game if both sides play correctly. So, I’ll just say this: say, the fact that 1.e5 allows the bishop and the queen to go out immediately is a very minor advantage, because 1. e6/c5 only delay that by a very small amount of moves, and these openings shouldn’t be compared in that context because each one leads to wildly different games. For example, I could say 1. c5 is better because it creates a strong imbalance in the position. I could say 1. e6 is better because it tries to build a strong pawn structure. The advantages are wildly different, and can only be compared through one’s personal success with the opening.
But the fact that e5 allows the bishop and queen movement make e5 the most principled move. But ye the openings are widely different and cannot really be compared from the starting move itself
e5 and c5 are definitely the best two moves, but the French and caro kann are both very good as well
C5 does not allow symmetry and that's the main reason it's played
Meanwhile the Kramnik Variation.
Discussion on what ise better 1...c5 or 1 ....e5 is almost philosophical in how abstract it is. In practical terms
I belive that 1. ...c5 is slightly better. I once read a writing by late GM E. Swiesnkow( sp.?) where he explained why. In short beacause it follows his famous opening priorities better. It is an openig priority for black not to create weaknesses, and e5 pawn can be considered one. Mind that majority of open game strategy is about white bothering the e5 in different ways, and black defending it. Sure it is not a big liabilty, but it is one nanotheless, and that is why 1...e5 is slightly weaker then 1 ...c5
French Defense is good
At least at My level
But my level not that good
i believe that the problem with e5 is that the longest that the game stays symmetrical, the more likely white is going to win or draw. sicilian defense is terrible for development, but it ensures your knight won't block the pawn and the pawn is absolutely infuriating for white unless they do something really aggressive, like d4.
i believe that the problem with e5 is that the longest that the game stays symmetrical, the more likely white is going to win or draw. sicilian defense is terrible for development, but it ensures your knight won't block the pawn and the pawn is absolutely infuriating for white unless they do something really aggressive, like d4.
you have not played the sicilian
Black will play Bb7, Rc8, and catch up in development. Black does not have terrible development by any means, and the piece placement has a stronger purpose
Both 1...e5 and 1...e6 2.d4 d5 accomplish the following three things:
- occupy the center with a Pawn
- open diagonals for the Queen and the King's Bishop, help to develop these pieces
- get Black one move closer to castling
But the difference is that 1...e6 2.d4 d5 accomplishes these three things in two tempos instead of one, so it makes Black lose one tempo. Why would you do something in two tempos when you can do it in one? 1...e5 is like 1...e6 but better in every single way.
Other differences between 1...e5 and 1...e6:
- 1...e5 prevents White from playing d4
- 1...e5 allows Black to develop his King's Knight to it's optimal square, the f6 square, without fear that White will kick it away by advancing his e4-Pawn to e5
- 1...e6 blocks the Queen's Bishop, turning it into a bad Bishop
1...c5
- does not occupy the center with a Pawn
- does not help develop any piece (except the Queen, but there's an opening principle that says "don't bring your Queen out too early")
- does not get Black any closer to castling
Chess is a flexible game. More rigid rules you impose on yourself, the more you are at disadvantage.
But if your argument is that 1...e5 gives rise to varied types of positions. And hence it is more preferable for most chess players, then it is a different argument altogether.
I have played them all. It very much depends what you want to achieve. The French is a good defensive opening including the easy to learn Fort Knox. But you will seldom win with black unless white blunders.The Sicilian is a good tactical defence but there are so many different variations from Alapin to Sveshnikov. I just met 1.e4 c5 2.f4. Very theory heavy.The 1.-e5 Open Games is a good alround defence but also very theory heavy. You must have something good against the Ruy Lopez ( Marshall, Breyer or Berlin) and Evans Gambit is not easy to meet. Ask yourself which one you do not want to meet.
They're all comparable - all a draw with best play. If Black plays perfect chess, White can never win against any of the top 4 responses (...e5, ...c5, ...e6, or ...c6).
It's like arguing over whether or not ketchup or mustard is "better" - it comes down a matter of taste.
I feel like the Sicilian is the best response to e4. E5 is a subject to a multitude of different openings that are so good against it. Just off the top of my head, the ruy Lopez, scotch, Italian, evans gambit, ponziani, and Vienna are really good against it.
Right now, this is true:
Tablebase draw
Tablebase draw
Tablebase draw
Tablebase draw.
Add in all the pieces (in a future, hypothetical full tablebase), and the outcome will still be the same, due to the perfect symmetry from both sides: a tablebase draw, no matter which of the four first moves you choose.
(Of course, the tricky nature of chess still remains; there's still tons of room for both players to go wrong along the way ...)
Both 1...e5 and 1...e6 2.d4 d5 accomplish the following three things:
- occupy the center with a Pawn
- open diagonals for the Queen and the King's Bishop, help to develop these pieces
- get Black one move closer to castling
But the difference is that 1...e6 2.d4 d5 accomplishes these three things in two tempos instead of one, so it makes Black lose one tempo. Why would you do something in two tempos when you can do it in one? 1...e5 is like 1...e6 but better in every single way.
Other differences between 1...e5 and 1...e6:
- 1...e5 prevents White from playing d4
- 1...e5 allows Black to develop his King's Knight to it's optimal square, the f6 square, without fear that White will kick it away by advancing his e4-Pawn to e5
- 1...e6 blocks the Queen's Bishop, turning it into a bad Bishop
1...c5
- does not occupy the center with a Pawn
- does not help develop any piece (except the Queen, but there's an opening principle that says "don't bring your Queen out too early")
- does not get Black any closer to castling