A Bust to the Sicilian Defense

So, you are not claiming that the symmetrical English is now avoided because of the possibility of 2 e4 ?

xxx

Actually, I thought that you wrote something about 2 c4 seeming to kill Black. Can we safely assume that it no longer seems that way to you?

Actually, I thought that you wrote something about 2 c4 seeming to just kill Black. Can we safely assume that it no longer seems that way to you?

"... You don't have to answer. ..." - Laura Branigan (1982)

I missed the big shift when all the best players started meeting the Sicilian with 2.c4. When did that happen?

I can’t in good conscience recommend 2. c4, much more accurate is 2. c3

Do you see indications that the chess world generally believes that 2 e4 seems to just kill the 1 c4 c5 English?

You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion. And we, of course, are entitled to laugh

What time control?

All I have wanted to do is call attention to the issue of whether or not the chess world generally shares your opinion.

First of all, I don't care what happens if you are playing bullet. That's important.

And I'm also sure that any NM can prove you wrong here.

Second of all,in slower time control the play will be of higher quality thus proving a point better.

In bullet, you can win with a queen down.

In 3+0 blitz, you can possibly win without your rook on a1 in the starting position. That position is objectively lost. In slow games , you'll lose for sure.

That makes your 3+0 blitz challenge to an IM or GM not be serious.

Third point :

The opponent does change the quality of play.

Say you play a 1200 and he starts without his b8 knight. You'll win for sure.

Do the same against Kasparov and you'll probably lose.

This thread has become more entertaining since we now have two dunces singing in harmony. One guy stuffs his fingers in his ears and shouts "c3 destroys the Sicilian!" While his singing partner stuffs his fingers in his ears and shouts "2.c4 crushes the Sicilian!" Maybe they could get to gether and write a book: "Crushing the Sicilian with 2.c3.5!"

Although I like 2 c4 myself (the plan being to transpose into  a Symmetrical English-Botvinnik Variation), there is no way that I would even begin to call it a "refutation" to the Sicilian. As Black against 1 e4 I play 1...c6. It is just a matter of taste as to what defense one plays from move one. As far as what does against the Sicilian, I know guys who are USCF Experts who like to play 2 Nc3, 2 f4, 2 d3 and even 2 g3 with decent results. The more I play Chess (and at 72 years old most of my life is behind me) I`m seeing that those who make flamboyant sweeping statements about Chess "refutations" are setting themselves up for deserved ridicule. By the way, I did find post 1973 rather amusing.

It would seem to me, as I`much more into correspondence at these days having passed my prime in OTB years ago, that correspondence games in these "refutation" lines would be a real test of their value. Also, one can check out the current ChessBase database that even has a separate correspondence section in addition to the section with both OTB and correspondence games combined.

While a series of correspondence games using these openings would be interesting, the fact is that both both 2.c3 and 2.c4 have been thoroughly tested in master--and grandmaster--play for over a century. No one would claim that either move is unplayable, but the top players in the world, bolstered with their hours of computer analysis, continue to play 1...c5!. Do you suppose they are secretly praying that their opponents don't play the magic 2.c3 (or 2.c4) against them? I don't either!

As a matter of fact, 2.c3 has been my "go to" line against the Sicilian for many years. I have played at least 50 rated OTB games with it, and many times that number of casual and online games. If I didn't believe it was perfectly good I wouldn't play it. But I'm not dumb enough to claim that it "refutes" the Sicilian when it so obviously doesn't

Don't get so hysterical Mr. Cheese. It's all fun here.

But I think some idiot was posting under your name (see #1929). Better check it out

I wanted to have the #1981 post of this thread, since this is the year of my birth 😊😊

Including me, sometimes!