choosing a Sicilian line

Considering my experience with the taimanov I don't hate the e6 sicilians, but it's not my favorite structure to play. They can be pretty safe and flexible but I dislike the Kan because it just seems a little passive. Something I might look into as a secondary weapon though. The classical sicilian is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 with the most common response being Bg5, the Richter-Rauzer. It's a pretty common line at all levels, although less so than the najdorf. I have also been thinking about going the e6 route in the najdorf to transpose to scheveningen structures but I think the amount of theory in both lines can be manageable if I focus on the ideas in the opening.

Those videos are just a part of the main course!

Hi there, I would advise you against NAJDORF...

I had NAJDORF as goto weapon with black, but stopped playing it... You need to know so much, and can get hit always on all levels. The amount of work you need to put in just to play this opening is insane.

Most of the times NAJDORF middlegames are not intuitive - meaning that you can't play lot of positions by feal, you will just need to calculate (good moves) and good luck in games with shorter time controls.

When I play against NAJDORF I usually play quiet line (e4 c5 nf3 d6 bb5), and most of the times black would not get any dynamic chances ( what a irony ).

You will get attacked, and will need nerves of steel, look at Be2 line where white plays Be3, f4, Kh1, and only thing you can do is trying counter it on the queen side.

So many move orders, and if you miss one against strong players, you lose. I thing Gary said you should not learn sicilian until 2000 fide, in my case he was right.

YOU said you don't like structures that arise from kan/taimanov, that being said If you want opening that is based on your understanding of the structures try than SVESHNIKOV.

Edit: I never played dragon as black, but i know people over 2000 that uses it regularly. Since top players can play dragon why can't you? You can add me if you want to play some training games

Fair enough! I’m happy because you said Sveshnikov yay! 😁

It should be noted that the Classical was one of the OP's candidates. He also says his anti-Sicilian worry is the Moscow. He says he has played e6 or Nc6 in the past, which means he has dealt with the Rossolimo before. The 2...Nc6 move order, which also avoids the Prins (5.f3 instead of 5.Nc3 in the 2...d6-Sicilians), can be used for the Classical. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6.

Don't listen to @lb0301. They don't know what they're talking about. I've done very well with the Najdorf, even at a lower level, and it helped me improve at the game.

Some people will try to feed you this nonsense that if you play the Najdorf at lower levels you will just lose, but if we actually check the database for the score we can see that black is doing very well. The same people will turn around and say that playing against the Najdorf is tough as white and you will just lose, which is totally contradicting themselves. So no matter who you are, what colour you are or who you're opponent is, you can only lose? NONSENSE. It's like they suggest every opponent you face is going to be a booked up GM who you can never beat when actually they are going to be a player like you who struggles just as much as you. If they are stronger than you, then they will beat you. If you are stronger than them, you will beat them. Simple.

It's just because they themselves are personally intimidated by it that they try to discourage others. They discourage others based on their own personal taste and failure. If someone can't handle aggression and sharp play, that's a personal problem not a rating problem.

You don't need to focus on theory as much at lower levels as your opponents likely won't know it much better than you do. You can gradually learn the theory as you work your way up and learn through experience.

I supported my opinion with my rating (2300). I studied very hard even tho I started playing chess in 2018, without coach, or any help i improved my game to 2300 level. Ask any coach should you play NAJDORF, I think they would laugh very long very hard. I studied najdorf through David Vigorito Najdorf book, i don't study openings with videos.

Rating of @SamuelAjedrez95 proves it all. In my post, I didn't ever mention about improving anyones game by playing this and that, but playing najdorf when you are begginer/low rating player is not smart move. @SamuelAjedrez95 or Mattias shouldn't giving you advice because they never played on higher level than 1300.

If @SamuelAjedrez95 played once against stronger players he would know what i am talking about.

Everyone is hitting Samuel with the rating thing lol this is getting repetitive

@lb0301

It doesn't matter what rating you are because you are only talking from the perspective of that rating. If you are losing then you should accept the loss in good sport and get better instead of blaming the opening and discouraging others.

You're wrong because there are a lot of coaches, much higher rated than you, who would recommend the Najdorf and give the reasons I just stated. You start playing it and learn the theory as you go. If you don't start learning it at some point, then you never will.

Najdorf is a very smart move even at a lower rating as you can learn a lot from it and win games. Annoying, gatekeeping elitists like you just try so hard to put down lower rated players for playing it even when they do well with it. Literally just trying to make chess miserable for others and discredit other people's learning experience and success. I've had success even if it's not up to your almighty 2300 blitz rating standard.

To be fair, Chess coach Andras recommends the Najdorf and he’s an IM. So saying that it’s now false because it’s passed down to a lower rated person, doesn’t make much sense. 👍

Okay, i will make it simpler for you to understand. Firstly rating reflects how much someone understands the game.

I am not coach, i did not learn chess when i was 8 or 10, but i worked hard and progressed studied/played different openings against different players.

Secondly we can ask BEST COACHES and they will laugh again. We can ask Sokolov, Ramesh, Aagard, Kasimdzhanov… and they will tell you same.

(Contrary to your statement if you win with it doesn’t mean it’s good)

And i don’t know why are you so stuck at NAJDORF

EDIT : So if SOKOLOV(much better coach and player) says it’s bad, according to your logic, debate is over?

This is such a cliche gatekeeper argument as well "I'm 2300 and I keep losing in the Najdorf so YOU shouldn't play it either!" Like damn man, I'm sorry you keep losing, truly.

But hang on... then that would mean that all the opponents are doing plenty well in the Najdorf? Perhaps it would make more sense to follow THEIR example than the example of the one who keeps complaining about how much they're losing.

No, read what I said. An IM says Najdorf is good, so I just said it doesn’t make much sense that it’s now false because someone 800 said it. If sokolov says it’s bad, my logic is that if a 800 says what sokolov said it still makes sense

If someone is laughing at me for trying to learn something and doing well then they aren't a very good chess coach. End of. I don't care who you are. That's such a petty, elitist attitude that it disgusts me.

"If you win with it doesn't mean it's good" except it is good and we know it's good because it scores very well at all levels. All GMs and engines consider it to be an incredibly high quality, sound defence.

If Sokolov, Ramesh, Aagard and Kasimdzhanov or whoever tf is laughing at me for trying to learn something, well guess what? They can all bugger off!

I completely agree!

And you reflect. When I said i was losing in NAJDORF? when i shared my results in najdorf. And you have same opinion -> I beaten many strong 800 players with this all people should play it, it’s so easy, i don’t know why you losing.

I think i can speak on this subject because my understanding is much better than his. This ajedrez guy is rated as guy who asked the question -> they should have eqaul understanding.

It is like I coaching tennis beginner tennis player without any acknowledgment or achievement, just because i decided that my opinion maters or learned coaching on youtube.

Alejandro?

I already explained it to you, but you won't listen. I'm not just going by my own opinion, I'm basing it on the opinion of other strong players and coaches but you seem to think your opinion matters more that we should just follow everything you say.

Classic "Don't you know who I am, you freakin patzer? I'M 2300 RATED IN BLITZ! THAT'S RIGHT!"

@lb0301

I think you are arguing against Samuel’s rating more than samuels actual points and arguments