Is the Sicilian meant for chess experts only?

@SmyslovFan,

so, when is the appropriate time to play sicilian as black according to you?

I don't agree with you that postponing the playing of sicilian helps the improvement(especially, if someone has ambitions to be a master or higher). On the contrary, I think it would be counter-productive to avoid sicilian. Because the later one starts, the more difficult it is to adjust to an opening like sicilian and also learn all the theory in one go. The earlier one starts, the easier it is to adjust to the opening (and get feel of it) and learn the theory as one goes along. So, I would say that one can switch to sicilian somewhere around 1400 and slowly ease into it rather than getting into it later and finding it hard to adjust. 

The truth is a bit different:

One slight slip in the main lines of the Dragon, or Najdorf, and you will not get a chance to make another.

In 2012, IM Greg Shahade wrote, "... These days ....c5 is more popular than ....e5, so who's to say that the lessons learned in e5 are somehow more valuable? It was by far the most popular opening in the past, but it's no longer the case. The lessons in the Sicilian, as irrational as they may seem to a relative newcomer, are very important to learn and who's to say that this type of action packed/dynamic chess is not just as good a way to start as the more classical style of chess. I definitely think that playing only 1.e4 e5 until 2000 is way too harsh a restriction in today's world of chess that is so much more than just classical 1.e4 e5 openings. That's not to say it's bad to play only 1.e4 e5 until 2000, but I think it's incorrect to assume that this is the proper way to approach chess development."

http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=16827&p=231700

Around the same time, he did acknowledge, "I specialize at teaching players who aspire to be pretty strong...like at least 2200, and usually higher, so I'm less skilled at helping 1500-1600 players without any particular ambitions to become great at chess".

http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=16827&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

I don't want the Sicilian as part of my opening repertoire.  I just want to understand the ideas so I can enjoy grandmaster games that use the Sicilian even more.  

https://www.chess.com/article/view/is-speed-chess-good-for-you

As Black, I don't believe in making a symmetrical first move, so yes, I play the Sicilian and I'm no expert.  I can win with it when I'm in the groove.

'

Thanks Kindaspongey! Finally! I hope Diedresky will shut up now about blitz and bullet being not good for beginners. I have been telling this to him (that blitz and bullet are really useful for beginners) for so long but he just doesn't understand and instead talks as if he knows anything about anything.... 

Consistently, top players are good at all formats (speed and slow). I have not heard of many top players who are really good at one format and really bad at another format. Because to play well in any format you have to play good chess. Okay, may be in bullet, you can get away by playing nonsense and just moving fast. But, blitz needs proper chess. I understand that some openings and gambits that work in fast chess may not work in slow ones. But, by and large, one has to play well to win and thats that. Hopefully, Diedresky will talk less and listen more from now on.

As for the e5 vs sicilian: sicilian is definitely a much more challenging defense for both sides. With e5, white already has initiative and I think objectively the best outcome for black is draw. And I think e5 is played at top level when they are trying to draw. On the other hand, sicilian gives black best chance to win. So, play e5 if you are trying to draw (and win when the white blunders) and play c5 if you are trying to win.

Actually, blitz CAN be excellent for novices! It is a great way to get a ton of experience quickly.

The problem is that it can be addictive, and MUST be played in moderation with plenty of time given to slower forms of chess analysis too. 

Playing only blitz as a novice is a terrible idea. But in moderation, it can be an excellent part of a complete chess program.

What do all those GMs have in common? They all played blitz as kids and excelled at it!

And if you look at quickly improving young players... they play tons of blitz.

As smyslovfan says, they also do serious analysis and play in lots of tournaments too, so this makes sure they're developing proper analysis habits, but (also as SF says) playing blitz in addition to that is giving them a lot of experience.

The essence of any position is in the elements... piece activity, pawn structure, king safety... this is how you can understand a position. Studying the Sicilian opening without looking at it through the lens of these elements (and/or others) wont help you understand or appreciate anything. Just saying.

So, as I've said in the past, when looking at a GM game look at where the main pawn breaks are, look at which area they seek play on (kingside, center, queenside), and very generally how they do it (pawn storms or piece play).

Also think about, you know, of all 8 minor pieces on the board, which are the best? Which are worst? Whose king is safer?

These sorts of question will let you appreciate a position

Even if you get the answer wrong!

That's part of the fun... when you say "Oh, that knight on f6, wow, that's really holding black's position together" then the GM immediately trades off the knight... "what the hell?!" you think to yourself, then their position doesn't fall apart at all, and some piece you thought was bad turns out to be good. Getting things wrong can be very entertaining too  but you have to be asking these sorts of questions in the first place.

When I was young, I played many 7 min. blitz games against a strong player at my club (former Greek champion), mainly for fun.

The games themselves were not of any serious value, but nevertheless I learned quite a bit from them: The comments of my opponent during the games were highly instructional. I lost a lot of games, but they helped me accepting losses with dignity, and fortunately enough we did not have to worry about blitz ratings and such nonsense by then.

What could someone learn from an internet blitz game against some anonymous guy? The answer is quite clear: Less than nothing. Still, it can be fun... but that is that.

Yeah. Naka clearly lost skill by playing countless hours of internet bullet and blitz chess for years. As did many other juniors who are now GMs. Imagine, if they'd followed Pfren's advice, they wouldn't be lowly GMs, they'd be **I**Ms which is two letters further advanced than G!

When I want to learn a new opening I:

1) Identify the major branches of the opening, and choose what I'll play against each, putting these choices in a chessbase file for quick reference

2) Look up some GM games to get a feel for what the middlegame is all about

3) Play as much blitz with that opening as I can. Not only against humans (I mostly play humans) but even goofy computer stuff like chess.com's java program. This does many good things. It tests your memory, it exposes you to move orders and variations you didn't know about, and it gives you experience in those positions.

Nah, this is unfair.

If any students agreed on him as a trainer, they were ruined beforehand.

I think all that happened in SmyslovFan's head when he read that according to Kirsan, Vassia Smyslov confessed to him that he once got aid from aliens to win a very important game. So, if alien help works, then why not blitz?

Of course Smyslov claims that he mostly benefited by solving and composing chess studies, but I guess this was before aliens came down to train him...

http://www.chessintranslation.com/2011/01/remembering-smyslov/

Wow.

I did make a personal joke at @pfren's expense, but I thought it was a rather gentle one compared to his comments.

But now I see the vitriol in the last two comments.

The last two posts by Deirdre and @pfren contain false innuendos and flat out lies.

I am honored when my students thank me for helping them earn titles, but they did the hard work. I don't take credit for their work. 

Just a few quick comments to Deirdre's post

Naka did play in a candidate's tournament.

The idea that online blitz is the reason Naka is not better, and the characterization that he is somehow languishing at the world top 10 level, and consistently in the top 10 I would add, are both ridiculous.

Botvinnik famously never played blitz... except in secret. Some dying GM revealed it before his death. Maybe it was Smyslov, but I forgot.

Anyway, no one is claiming blitz is a primary form of training. Instead, those on the extreme side of "blitz is always bad" should point out to us moderate types, who rationally regard blitz as fine, those GMs or world champions who never played it. You can't, because everyone does.

Infact, most of these Super GMs, GMs and IMs primarily play lots of blitz(especially when they were starting out). I bet all of them played lot more bullet and blitz than any other format. They play so much blitz and bullet that 1-3 move tactics become intuitive to them. This aids them in their long calculations in slow games.

Anyway, forget all that. Lets just think about it and we can know if blitz would be good for beginners or not: 

when beginners play chess, what are they trying learn and what are main reasons for losing games?

a) board vision (simple blunders like hanging pieces or taking the hanging pieces of opponents)

b) spotting simple tactics and mate threats(using checkmate patterns). (1 to 3 moves).

c) basic strategic ideas (like king safety, rook in a open file and outpost for horse)

d) some opening theory or principles (and practice it again and again)

e) basic endgame principles (active king and active pieces)

Now, most beginners (upto 2000) will make mistakes in these 5 points again. Pretty simple mistakes. You can play a long 1 or 2 hr game or you can play a short 10 min game, either way the mistakes will be more or less the same. You get to know blind spots when you see the pattern in your loses. And you also get to see your strengths when you see the pattern in your wins. That means you need to play lots of games to see what leads to your wins and what are the blind spots that leads to your loses. Blitz allows you play lots of games in short time. You will have some wins and some loses which gives you experience of understanding and trying to implement these basic ideas. You can learn about your blindspots and try to work on them. You can do the same with longer games but it will take you much longer time. Blitz allows you to do the same in much shorter time. You don't need an IM or GM to tell you that Blitz is the best way for the beginner to learn faster.