I really disagree with this. I have played the Sicilian since I started playing chess and my score with Black is fine. And for the record, I am not a really strong player.
Thank You
I looked up the Sicilian Dragon and I may try that, as it is more aggresive than what I have been playing.
I have never tried the Scandanavian. White seems better in the games you showed me.
I suggest the book Starting Out the Sicilian. It introduces all of the major variations of the Sicilian and, of course, looks at the Dragon.
If you are under 1900 USCF, it almost does not matter what you choose as long as you enjoy it. Any of the major openings is going to be played with the same lack of skill by both sides and the game is more likely than not going to be decided by a tactical blunder than one side's superior knowledge of some positional nuance particular to the opening variation. ;-)
I really disagree with this. I have played the Sicilian since I started playing chess and my score with Black is fine. And for the record, I am not a really strong player.
I'm with Mr. Robert on this one.
Actually I think the sicilian is a great choice for the lower-rated club player as white will more than likely play an absolutely horrible response to it (2.Bc4 anyone?) and give BLACK the initiative. At worst you'll be seeing anti-sicilians like the closed or grand-prix, and those are easy equality for black with a little research.
edit: Oddly enough, I've really started studying the sicilian for black lately. I've been familiarizing myself with all the different anti-sicilians and some of them are actually quite interesting. For example I used to think the grand-prix was the lamest thing on earth but it's actually quite a lively game. Black is no worse positionally or otherwise, but the positions are much richer than I had expected. Especially in the 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bb5 Nd4 6.0-0 Nxb5 7.Nxb5 lines.
c5. No question.
"play the sicilian dragon, you get no weaknesses"
One facepalm is not enough to describe my amazement at how wrong this statement is.
After some more analysis on Scandinavian, I'm beggining to like it (sorry about criticizing it in other topics).
MN94XD: I think that in the Scandinavian you showed, white has a better position. Here's a game I played against myself (that's what I do to analyze an opening) using the Scandinavian. I play the main line according to the book Modern Chess Openings by Nick De Firmian until black's 8th move. That's when I change things up a bit and I think black ends up well.
What about Nxf7 ?; wouldn't that win a pawn and prevent black fom castling? Infact Bc4 and THEN Nxf7 looks even better.
If one player attacks in the center, the best way to counter that is to attack the flanks. h5 starts a deadly king side pawn storm followed by g5, f5 etc. Then you put all your pieces into this quick kingside attack and you have yourself an easy win.
Actually, if my opponent (White) plays in the center, I play in the center right back, because I do not want them to gain control of the center. If they play the flanks, I play the center to gain control of the center. "He who controls the center, controls the game." (me.) So, the best immediate responce to 1. e4, in my book, would be 1 ... d5.
Disclaimer: I am just joking about h5 being the best response as well as the kingside pawn storm. I believe e5 is the best move after e4.
After some more analysis on Scandinavian, I'm beggining to like it (sorry about criticizing it in other topics).
MN94XD: I think that in the Scandinavian you showed, white has a better position. Here's a game I played against myself (that's what I do to analyze an opening) using the Scandinavian. I play the main line according to the book Modern Chess Openings by Nick De Firmian until black's 8th move. That's when I change things up a bit and I think black ends up well.
What about Nxf7 ?; wouldn't that win a pawn and prevent black fom castling? Infact Bc4 and THEN Nxf7 looks even better.
Nxf7 on what move? I'd like to see where I need to fix things up.
Thank You
I looked up the Sicilian Dragon and I may try that, as it is more aggresive than what I have been playing.
I have never tried the Scandanavian. White seems better in the games you showed me.
I suggest the book Starting Out the Sicilian. It introduces all of the major variations of the Sicilian and, of course, looks at the Dragon.
If you are under 1900 USCF, it almost does not matter what you choose as long as you enjoy it. Any of the major openings is going to be played with the same lack of skill by both sides and the game is more likely than not going to be decided by a tactical blunder than one side's superior knowledge of some positional nuance particular to the opening variation. ;-)
I have this and its more of a guide for White, it seems.
Thank You
I looked up the Sicilian Dragon and I may try that, as it is more aggresive than what I have been playing.
I have never tried the Scandanavian. White seems better in the games you showed me.