e6 vs d6 Sicilian

Thanks for sharing that; 30 years is a lot of experience so I appreciate the incite.

I do have to review the Qc7 ideas but I am very comfortable with the O’Kelly and Katalimov lines with Bb7 as that is my favorite response against most anti-Sicilians for the enjoyment and straight forward strategies/plans.

In d6 lines, that’s what I call the dragon bishop. I utilize it for the fianchetto set-up or support the d6 pawn when I want to play a e6 or e5 line.

That dragon bishop is important for supporting that backwards d6 pawn but all Najdorf players know they signed up for that.

Don’t tell me you know very little. Look at this whole discussion!

It’s because 1.e4, c5 was what I was taught and ever played or ever knew lol.

1.e4, e5 you are speaking French to me.

Oh. But I guess the lines after the Sicilian seem more complicated than the average four knights game…

My coach at the time was a club player so I learned his repertoire because we had the same taste. So it was the English or Reti as White and Sicilian or Indian Game as black and I never looked back.

I don’t understand e5 and life is too short to learn.

In the French, there are transpositions in the Sicilian so I get it.

In the Caro-Kann, they share ideas in the Indian Game depending if you want to push c5 or a supporting c6 instead.

The English is just the Sicilian with the white pieces.

The Reti is just the Indian Game with the white pieces or transpose to the English.

It’s really concise when you think about it?

It’s about seeing tactics, ideas, themes, plans and strategies therefore in the Sicilian, it’s about understanding what to do with imbalance positions and creating counter play. This I understand and can apply.

4 knights? I have no clue. Symmetry is my weakness and will always be, hence my repertoire is built around imbalance positions and counter play.

Thanks! Maybe I’ll figure it out eventually…

You may want to reconsider the French Defense because you had the most success and white has less follow up in 1.e4, e5 lines.

You're approaching the intermediate stages and that’s where you start addressing and understanding middle game plans and ideas to further improve.

In the end, you go with the defence that you understand and enjoy playing.

What I don't get is the Sicilian to begin with: why are we moving the c pawn?

And I had the most success with the French defense?

It fights for the d4 square, in general, you should stake a piece of the centre or at least fight for the centre.

The exchange of the c for d pawn gives Black a semi open c file for counter play and an imbalance position.

You did. 200 games is  a reliable  sample size but it’s worth reconsidering.

You have to ask yourself some questions with 1.e4, e5 vs 1.e4, e6:

1. Which is easier to play?

2.  Which one do you enjoy more?

3. Which one do you understand?

4. which is intuitive?

You look at e4,e5, and look at whites second moves that you have to factor in further:

Database shows you played the French 199 times.

Point is you should commit to one when you are approaching the intermediate stages.

Breaking out your French defense against whites second move:

As white I love seeing e6 on the board because it means i get everything i ever want in a position. If you actually want to test white you need to play d6 and go for a Najdorf or Classical. Playing e6 is almost like playing the Alapin or some other garbage as white. Super easy to break down. I can beat most of the sidelines with ease. 

That's actually pretty smart. I have a few questions about your opening repertoire though.
You said you hate symmetry but one of the only openings where you can get away with symmetry and be fine as Black is the English, so how do you fare against Symmetrical and Ultra-Symmetrical lines?
What do you do against Trompowsky and Torre Attacks?
Which Indian Games do you play?

Thank-you.

I mainly play the Katalimov Sicilian reversed as white; which nobody knows about other than my former coach and training partners because there are no resources on this unless you look up transpositions from the Nimzo-Larsen Attack line, therefore I have never ran into a copy cat yet because most sensible players will use the same defense against d4 for c4:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/57803370189

This guy name Bobby was pretty good with the line:

https://www.chess.com/games/view/176132

https://www.chess.com/games/view/181687

With regards to English symmetry, I can break it with the Botvinnik System particularly when black plays a fianchetto set-up. The center is locked and blacks bishops are useless enabling me to initiate play on the king side or queen side or back up the center depending on how black responses.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/19626053127

When I want to play the Dragon as white, I will transpose thru the Reti move order because life is so much  easier when you takeaway an early e5 and set-up is unimpeded. Some will call it the Catalan or Zukertort.

I play the Grunfeld with a preferable c5 push (to open up the long diagonal for the Catalan Bishop) or concede to c6 (notice I play this as white as well).

https://www.chess.com/game/live/44598551583

As white:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/57631848627

Against the Torre or Trampowsky, I jump the knight to e4. I rarely run into this line. Here I got flagged but was winning a majority of the game. If it was classical OTB I would have put the game away easily because the missed wins were on my side.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/5780641208

Thank-you, I will consider that.

Im going to review my Najdorf games.

I prefer the Opecensky lines when there is no bishop to c4 line (I will concede to e6). In rare lines were it calls for g6 over e6, I’ll transpose to the dragon depending on what black does.