scrumptiousbricks, I used to be a Gotham fan, believe it or not. Once I dropped my subscription, my games were so much better and fun that I never looked back. You should try it.
You must’ve completely misplaced your openings. You probably played the g3 Vienna and the Bf5 Advanced Caro-Kann 🤣🤣🤣
If a 900 cannot learn a good opening, that means the opening will work beyond 900. This thought process explains your rating.
A more interesting question is how do we rank the various sicilians. For a typical below-masters player I would rank them roughly as follows:
1) four knights
2) classical
3) accelerated dragon
4) taimanov w/ a6
5) bastrikov
6) nimzowitsch
7) lowenthall
8) hyperaccelerated
9) sveshnikov
10) scheveningen
11) dragon
12) najdorf
13) kan
It's odd that so many people play the Najdorf, it honestly sucks unless you're going for the most theoretical, studious advantage you possibly can.
Not a big Sicilian expert, but I agree on your evaluation of the Najdorf for the club player. Why would you play a variation which has 20 possible continuations for White on move 6, at least 10 of which are highly theoretical and dangerous. From my limited experience and from what I have seen others play, the Accelerated Dragon and the Taimanov seem logical enough for the club player to not have to overwork themselves for practical usefulness
Agreed. Its passivity (a6) is a large part of its problem, since it gives white so many options, as you say.
I've said that before and in so doing triggered enraged responses in some Najdorf players on here, but it's true regardless. The Kan has the same problem. Taimanov, while it is also passive, the pawn on e6 gives alot of extra stability, and the games where white doesn't play very sharp just tend to equalize quickly after an early d5... it just doesn't seem to suffer the same way.
On the other hand, what makes the four knights and classical so good is they both focus on rapid development with the two early knights. Which not only restricts the repertoire, it allows black to punish mistakes early on, leading to lots of easy wins. Especially the four knights - there are only 2 good lines white can respond with, anything else and black is pushing d5 soon and it's basically an equal game. Easiest sicilian to play by far.
For me, I distill the decision down to the following:
- four knights = play if you want easy equality and good activity without having to study theory
- classical = play if you like positional games that break down into lots of tactics, and you don't mind studying theory if it means you can use it to punish your opponents mistakes.
- taimanov = play if you prefer a slower, more positional game that's theoretically sound, which still gives easy equality usually
- accelerated dragon = play if you prefer longer, whole-board games where you seek a long term advantage
- nimzowitsch = play if you want to avoid anti-sicilians, you like hypermodern positions, or you want to play something your opponent hasn't seen
I was just thinking about ranking the main Sicilian lines. I guess I’ll rank them from favorite to least favorite here. I threw in the O’Kelly because I feel that if the Nimzowitch gets a mention, the O’Kelly probably should too.
Sveshnikov - I play this Sicilian currently. It’s quite theoretical, but not crazy theoretical like the Najdorf. It took me a while to get adjusted to it, but now I am comfortable with it and find it to be a fun and interesting Sicilian. Have really been enjoying it OTB.
Kalashnikov/Lowenthal - very similar to the Sveshnikov. It’s not as theoretical but also probably a bit worse objectively. It may even fit my playing style slightly better than the Sveshnikov because the theory is not as demanding.
Kan - fairly simple and not knowing the exact theory is typically not detrimental. If I were to learn another Sicilian, it would likely be this one or the Four Knights.
Four Knights - pretty good. If white plays 6. Ndb5 then black has three main options, all of which are appealing in ways to me. However, I definitely prefer the white side of the board after 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. e5. It’s one of my favorite lines to play as white, partly because it’s super fun and partly because it just feels good for white. Black isn’t terrible in that line if they know what they’re doing, but if they don’t know the theory, then they’re probably in danger.
Classical - the Classical is a line that I really like in theory, and would love to be able to play well, but at the same time I feel there’s Sicilian lines that fit my playing style better. It seems really good, and the games can be very interesting, but when I look at or play things like this from the black side, I feel uncomfortable whenever white doesn’t play a passive structure. Perhaps I just need more practice in them, because I think the Classical is great.
Taimanov with a6 - I know very little about this line. It often seems to transpose into the Bastrikov, but those lines can be avoided for something more like the Kan. I think I would prefer holding off on Nc6, but not bad.
Bastrikov - this is probably the line here that I’m worst against from the white side. It’s a great line. That said, I simply feel it’s not really my style.
Accelerated Dragon - IMO, far and away the best of the Dragons, both subjectively and objectively… mostly because I feel the other Dragons have glaring flaws. While I like white’s positions out of the Maroczy Bind, the Accelerated can cause some trouble and can be interesting.
Najdorf - not bad by any means, but too theoretically risky for my liking. I don’t mind playing highly theoretical lines; I really like the Ruy Lopez for example. But not knowing 100% what you’re doing in the Ruy Lopez is, from my experience, still okay, while I feel the Najdorf is super theoretical while also being dangerous if you stumble into an unfamiliar line. I just feel there’s better things to spend my time on than a highly theoretical line I’ll have to constantly review to not get lost positions early on.
O’Kelly - pretty simple, but I generally like the positions out of 3. c3 more for white.
Nimzowitch - great if you want to avoid large amounts of theory and surprise your opponents, but I don’t like the positions very much out of this line.
Scheveningen - quite unfamiliar with this line, but I don’t love it from what I’ve seen. The line with g4 looks pretty intimidating for black, while the Classical instead just completely avoids this problem.
Hyperaccelerated Dragon - the lines after 3. c3 are not only definitively better for white, but they’re also very easy to play. It’s not uncommon for white to have a clear advantage in certain Sicilian lines, but this one is worse to me because white can easily avoid complications and just retain a better position that’s very hard to lose.
Dragon - I have a strong dislike for the Dragon, pretty much entirely thanks to the Yugoslav. I used to play the Dragon, but the Yugoslav just gives white so much better chances.
I’ll probably make an objective version of this in the next couple of days when I get time and am in the mood. I’m not an expert on most of these lines so if you feel I said something that didn’t make sense feel free to let me know.
For me, I distill the decision down to the following:
- four knights = play if you want easy equality and good activity without having to study theory
Good suggestion, but I feel like it may be worth noting that the lines can be quite theoretical depending on what both sides choose.
For instance, 6. Nxc6 from white will very often require black to play a very long theoretical line to be safe.
On 6. Ndb5, if black plays the main move 6… d6, the game will likely transpose into a Sveshnikov, which is very theoretical. 6… Bb4 and 6… Bc5 seem less theoretical, but still have some important theory.
For me, I distill the decision down to the following:
- four knights = play if you want easy equality and good activity without having to study theory
Good suggestion, but I feel like it may be worth noting that the lines can be quite theoretical depending on what both sides choose.
For instance, 6. Nxc6 from white will very often require black to play a very long theoretical line to be safe.
On 6. Ndb5, if black plays the main move 6… d6, the game will likely transpose into a Sveshnikov, which is very theoretical. 6… Bb4 and 6… Bc5 seem less theoretical, but still have some important theory.
Bc5, the cobra variation, is my preferred option there. It can backfire pretty hard on white if he goes wrong, and it's scoring well in practice. Bc5 also has a very narrow move tree. So does Nxc6. Of course, I'm targeting this at below-masters settings - there you can usually assume the opponent won't know the position, unless it's a very common one, so if you're reaching a specific complex position like that often in your repertoire, it's favorable. The challenge begins when the move tree widens, while white has initiative and lines remain sharp. With the Najdorf you're probably needing to study about 30 lines to get started with it. Here, you really just need to study those 2 lines.
Why isn’t the sicilian dragon good?
The Yugoslav tends to lead to positions with many sharp only-moves for black, while white enjoys tons of comfortable options.
Although, surprisingly, black is outscoring white in the Yugoslav at the lower levels. Probably just due to his familiarity with the line.
If you can get past the Yugoslav, it's actually very good against everything else.
A more interesting question is how do we rank the various sicilians. For a typical below-masters player I would rank them roughly as follows:
1) four knights
2) classical
3) accelerated dragon
4) taimanov w/ a6
5) bastrikov
6) nimzowitsch
7) lowenthall
8) hyperaccelerated
9) sveshnikov
10) scheveningen
11) dragon
12) najdorf
13) kan
It's odd that so many people play the Najdorf, it honestly sucks unless you're going for the most theoretical, studious advantage you possibly can.
Not a big Sicilian expert, but I agree on your evaluation of the Najdorf for the club player. Why would you play a variation which has 20 possible continuations for White on move 6, at least 10 of which are highly theoretical and dangerous. From my limited experience and from what I have seen others play, the Accelerated Dragon and the Taimanov seem logical enough for the club player to not have to overwork themselves for practical usefulness