Here's a typical example. Shirov goes into an isolated pawn position, a classical structure, to get counterplay against his opponent.
Some folks play certain openings and think stuff like this just doesn't happen but it really does.
Class players and the Sicilian
Sort:
Aug 16, 2017
0
#23
cjxchess16 wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
Here's a typical example. Shirov goes into an isolated pawn position, a classical structure, to get counterplay against his opponent.
Some folks play certain openings and think stuff like this just doesn't happen but it really does.
And the same Shriov also lost a game as white due to his opponent playing B33...
I'm not sure what you're showing this game for.
Aug 16, 2017
0
#24
ipcress12 wrote:
There is no getting around it -- the Sicilian is a complex and many-splendored beast. Many find it intimidating.
Some advise class players to stick with the more straightforward double KP defenses or learn less sharp, less intricate defenses like the French.
I'm sure it's easy for regular Black players to get blown out of the water against, say, a Najdorf expert. But how often does that happen?
Class players mostly play other class players and their games are hard-fought but imperfect.
Should class players avoid the Sicilian or just wade in if the Sicilian fits their stlye?
I have never played 1.e4, so i dont have any experience in this, but from what others have said. Players under USCF class A dont really know how to play the Sicilian, and its all about memorizing moves, and not understanding the positons.
And Shirov has likely lost to many other older GMs that did not play B33.
Small sample size much?
Aug 16, 2017
0
#26
cjxchess16 wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
cjxchess16 wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
Here's a typical example. Shirov goes into an isolated pawn position, a classical structure, to get counterplay against his opponent.
Some folks play certain openings and think stuff like this just doesn't happen but it really does.
And the same Shriov also lost a game as white due to his opponent playing B33...
I'm not sure what you're showing this game for.
What do you mean? I use that game to demonstrate the power of B33! Shriov, who is a 2700-rated grandmaster, has lost to a Russian almost 10 years older than him, since the 39-year old played B33.
Oh. I don't know much about the Sveshnikov. I was only showing a transposition to a classical pawn structure. The result wasn't really important.
Aug 16, 2017
0
#27
Yes.
The Sicilian can be very sharp for black.
But it is for white as well. The two arguements cancel each other out.
And if my opponent is higher rated than me, and therefore better suited to the tactics of the Sicilian? Then he is going to be the same rating, if I play a Petroff, French, or Scandinavian. And better suited for that as well. So I may as well play what I know, and am comfortable with.
My experience with the Sicilian is, that that can be just as slow or fast, as white wants, (if he knows it.) If it was a dance, white would be the one who leads.
But i have also found, that the harder white hits, the more the Sicilian strikes back.
Which I found a welcome relief, from my many years of playing the Caro-Kann.
Of course, I won't say I have never lost a game with the black side of the Sicilian. I have lost many, to be sure.
But I can honestly say that I have always had a fighting chance, in every single one of those games. And I have always gotten some measure of counterplay.
IMBacon wrote:
... I have never played 1.e4, so i dont have any experience in this, but from what others have said. Players under USCF class A dont really know how to play the Sicilian, and its all about memorizing moves, and not understanding the positons.
If one insists on referring to understanding as if it were a yes-or-no thing instead of a matter-of-degree, then it remains to consider why anyone should care about the one's standard for understanding.
So yeah... I hear some coaches tell their students to play whatever as long as it isn't bad. But I can see the point in getting players to play classical stuff first.
penandpaper0089: Sure. I can see some point to it as well.
Tonight I was going over the first Capablanca game in Botvinnik's "Hundred Best Games." It was pleasant to follow a fully human game from an era where the clear plan, never mind all the niggling moves a machine can calculate, was supreme.
Playing over a SuperGM game from 2017 ain't the same.
But I was taking issue with the the demand one MUST work through classical chess first, that playing the Sicilian before laying down a classical foundation would just be "wasting your time reading and memorizing useless stuff," as pfren informed us though he failed to provide any support for the claim.
Clearly not all players -- such as my friends -- bother with that stage in an intentional way. Nonetheless they may reach ratings in excess of 2000 and 2200.
How could this be true if one MUST learn classical chess first?
And how unclassical is the Sicilian anyway?
The Sicilian may have been pushing the envelope in in the 1930s but that was a long time ago.
It's not like playing b3 or b6 on the first move no matter what.
Aug 19, 2017
0
#31
ipcress12 wrote:
And how unclassical is the Sicilian anyway?
The Sicilian may have been pushing the envelope in in the 1930s but that was a long time ago.
It's not like playing b3 or b6 on the first move no matter what.
Classical chess is usually described as those positions where you just put a pawn in the center like 1.e4 e5 or 1.d4 d5. The other point is that class level chess is mostly tactics so it's probably possible to get a high rating by tactics and not blundering.
Aug 19, 2017
0
#32
I disagree with the assertion that one "must" understand classical chess in order to play the Sicilian well.
I've beaten titled masters using the Sicilian—and I know pretty much nothing about classical chess.
Best way to get good at the Sicilian? Play it a lot. And by a lot, I mean hundreds of games. Thousands, even better.
Expect to lose a lot with it. Learn from those losses. If you're serious about improving, analyze and review each and every game. You'll start to see positional and tactical motifs. Traps to avoid. Squares to focus on. Pawn structures to strive for or prevent. You'll improve as a result.
Voila, you're a Sicilian player.
Aug 19, 2017
0
#33
SIowMove wrote:
I disagree with the assertion that one "must" understand classical chess in order to play the Sicilian well.
I've beaten titled masters using the Sicilian—and I know pretty much nothing about classical chess.
Best way to get good at the Sicilian? Play it a lot. And by a lot, I mean hundreds of games. Thousands, even better.
Expect to lose a lot with it. Learn from those losses. If you're serious about improving, analyze and review each and every game. You'll start to see positional and tactical motifs. Traps to avoid. Squares to focus on. Pawn structures to strive for or prevent. You'll improve as a result.
Voila, you're a Sicilian player.
If you've actually analyzed like that, then of course you'll have learned classical principals. Just because you didn't read a book titled "classical chess" doesn't mean you've never learned about it.
In the game above, black waits for Nf6 because black wants to keep its options open. It can turn into a Sicilian, a Pirc, or something else. That's why when I do play something other that 1. e4 e5 for black, I usually play 1. e4 g6 and wait to see what white wants to do...
Aug 19, 2017
0
#35
ipcress12 wrote:
There is no getting around it -- the Sicilian is a complex and many-splendored beast. Many find it intimidating.
Some advise class players to stick with the more straightforward double KP defenses or learn less sharp, less intricate defenses like the French.
I'm sure it's easy for regular Black players to get blown out of the water against, say, a Najdorf expert. But how often does that happen?
Class players mostly play other class players and their games are hard-fought but imperfect.
Should class players avoid the Sicilian or just wade in if the Sicilian fits their stlye?
Check out the thread "Is the Sicilian for chess experts only?" It will answer all of your questions.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/is-the-sicilian-meant-for-chess-experts-only
Aug 20, 2017
0
#37
You can start learning the Sicilian as soon as you learn how the pieces move.
It's a complex and dynamic defense. If you want to excel at it, you'll have to put in the hours. Better to start early than late.
timonypumba wrote:
Start with the Scheveningen. That is the why I started when my teacher saw I already made progress with 1. e4 e5, and was ready for some more advanced strategic ideas in the middle game. The structure as well as the main ideas are easy to explain. With time and patience you can learn the theory, but start with the basic plans.
Good idea
The Sicilian is great. I am looking for grandmasters that were especially known for playing it. Besides, well, the ones who the variations are named after. I know Mikhail Tal played just about every variation of it at top level. Of course most others played it as well but I am looking for those who stood out with the Sicilian being their signature opening. Thanks.
It's quite simple: In order to understand and play properly modern asymmetrical games like the Sicilian, you MUST understand classical chess first- else you are wasting your time reading and memorizing useless stuff.
MUST?
As usual, I'll take issue with such an absolute statement. Of the four guys I played chess with in high school and college, three became masters and one became an expert.
None of them played double KP as Black past the absolute novice stage. None of them went out of their way to learn "classical chess" either, though I'm sure they picked up some in their studies.
If you want to learn calculus you MUST know algebra and trig. No kidding. You can't even read a calculus textbook without algebra and trig.
I see no such sequential requirements in chess beyond learning the rules, relative piece values and some very general notions about the opening.
More often than not, the entire point of not putting pawns in the center is to put your pawns in the center at a later time to reach classical pawn structures but in situations that are better than the typical ones. For example, a common idea in the sicilian is the ...d5 break. Sometimes White can meet ...d5 with e5 reaching a classical pawn structure. If you don't actually know anything about such a structure how can you know whether allowing it is good or not for either player? You can't. I'm sure that in your time here you've seen plenty of threads about how the French is hard or how White can avoid the French. A player with a fear of the French structure might dismiss such a change in pawn structure out of hand even when it's good for Black.
There are many breaks in the sicilian: ...b5, ...e5, ...d5,, and ...f5. The last three tend to lead to classical structures. And if you don't know them then you'll just have a harder time trying to figure out whether you should play any of them or not. Opening books won't teach you this because it's not their job to teach this stuff. Anyway I'm sure you can play it without knowing any of this stuff. After all class players aren't the most sophisticated players anyway. But not knowing this stuff at all could just cause you to burn more time on the clock and do a lot more more than you might have to.
So yeah... I hear some coaches tell their students to play whatever as long as it isn't bad. But I can see the point in getting players to play classical stuff first.