May I ask a simple question? How did Masters/Grandmasters become so skilled with the Sicilian? They learned and practiced it- just like any other opening. If someone wants to become really proficient, they practice and work hard. I can't see someone waiting until they are at Master Level and then all of a sudden adopt the Sicilian. They make it look good because they've WORKED at it. They've made the mistakes and learned. We might as well say any popular opening is for GM's or Masters only.
It sounds like you are more comfortable in positions arising from other than 1.... c5. That is more important than anyone's debatable notion that 1.... c5 is somehow better than 1....e5/...e6/...c6. My experience was that the amount of preparation was the same for the French, Sicilian and Open Game. The Sicilian is sharper over-all but being under-prepared in the Open Game is no less deadly. The advantage of the French is that most players feel uncomfortable playing against it. It is a hard road for Black, though, a rather heroic quest.
I made the same comment about how well @LouStulle does in other openings months ago, @OZmatic. It was viewed as a personal affront.
I wish you more success than I had.
Another win with the Sicilian by "Not an Expert. I haven't posted any of my Sicilian wins lately because I got tired of all the "experts" (you know who you are) who say things like "Your opponent made mistakes" or "You didn't play it right". The entire purpose of this thread is to show that even us average players can have success with the Sicilian with a little preparation and practice. In that vein, here is another one of my wins with the Sicilian.
I am in no way arguing your point of this post, but don't you think the mistake with 9.Qf3 lost the game? I dont see how you can say it was because of the opening?
Where was it asserted that something-or-other (what?) "was because of the opening"?
There are a number of variations of the Sicilian where if you don't memorize a large number of variations, you can be successful without being an expert. A Caro-Kann or French player during my life, I seldom tried the Sicilian. Recently, I've played a couple daily games with the Dragon Variation and realize there are traps 10 moves long you have to avoid as well as know not to launch a Pawn Storm if White castles Q-side.
So, now I'm studying John Emm's book, The Sicilian Kan (c.2002), who says about that variation (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 a6): "A major selling point, which cannot be overstressed, is that the Kan is one of the easiest variations of the Sicilian to learn...the onus is not on the player with the black pieces to memorise reams of opening theory simply to stay on the board. Of course Black still has to play good moves (!), but is much less likely to be at a disadvantage simply down to a memory loss. The Kan is more of a 'system' in that Black tends to react similarly regardless of how White plays it.
This brings us to another positive feature; how does White play it? When I began to use the Kan as my main weapon against 1 e4 I was struck by the number of strong and experienced white players who would become flummoxed and slump into deep thought early on."
The Kan is sometimes referred to in the literature as the Paulsen or Taimanov Variation, but those variations have some specific differences from a true Kan - but transposing into them is ok, too, if you want to explore more after learning the true Kan.
Yes.
Another win with the Sicilian by "Not an Expert. ...
Where was it asserted that something-or-other (what?) "was because of the opening"?
You may want to re-read this thread.
Another win with the Sicilian by "Not an Expert. ...
Where was it asserted that something-or-other (what?) "was because of the opening"?
You may want to re-read this thread.
Sufficient, I think, to note the absence of an answer.
Are "with" and "because" equivalent?
It sounds like you are more comfortable in positions arising from other than 1.... c5.
You might be right. As well as not playing the Sicilian that much as Black, I often try and avoid playing against the Sicilian when I'm White! Such as, after 1. Nf3 c5 I (usually) don't play 2. e4. I always assume that if my opponent plays the Sicilian then they must know it very well.
In Masters of the Chessboard, Richard Reti wrote:
"A beginner should avoid Queen's Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be ambly compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game."
Fred Reinfeld often echoed this; for example, in The Complete Chess Player, he wrote
"The inexperienced player does well to familiarize himself with the King's Pawn openings before tackling the rather taxing Queen's Pawn openings, with their more refined positional considerations."
But this is predicated on the result of White playing 1. e4 being that Black plays 1. ... e5. If playing 1. e4 doesn't lead into one of the classic double King's Pawn openings, but instead into the Sicilian, the beginner is still plunged into waters too deep. Thus, it seems like Michael Stean's Simple Chess is now a better starting point if one doesn't have co-operative opponents.
I analyzed this game a bit deeper than I normally do specifically for this thread. This was a tournament game. I included annotations to give some perspective in to my thoughts during the game.
I'm a regular Sicilian player and I know his mistake was from move #1. c5 was so much better and he didn't play for any positional advantage(except for doubling those c pawns) or even not giving any. I'm with the Sicilian and I comment an inverse of Lou's comment. Sultan, you only won because the other was not even logical about the Sicilian. Sicilian is aimed at gaining positional advantage.
In Masters of the Chessboard, Richard Reti wrote:
"A beginner should avoid Queen's Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be ambly compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game."
Fred Reinfeld often echoed this; for example, in The Complete Chess Player, he wrote
"The inexperienced player does well to familiarize himself with the King's Pawn openings before tackling the rather taxing Queen's Pawn openings, with their more refined positional considerations."
But this is predicated on the result of White playing 1. e4 being that Black plays 1. ... e5. If playing 1. e4 doesn't lead into one of the classic double King's Pawn openings, but instead into the Sicilian, the beginner is still plunged into waters too deep. Thus, it seems like Michael Stean's Simple Chess is now a better starting point if one doesn't have co-operative opponents.
Thank's for the advice and yeah I started with Queen's gambit and the Sicilian. Well not when beginning but while having a choice to learn in a chess class. Well I didn't have a choice about the Sicilian though but I still feel lucky. And I also attended only 5 days of 5 hours in private coaching.
If you want to learn the Sicilian, you should get one of those books explaining the strategy and thematic tactics in the opening. David Levy's and Kevin O'Connell's 'How to Play the Sicilian Defence', David Levy's 'Sacrifices in the Sicilian', Danny Kopec's 'Mastering the Sicilian', Yuri Yakovich's 'Sicilian Attacks', 'Gennady Nesis' 'Tactics in the Sicilian', and John Emms' 'Starting out: the Sicilian' are all excellent choices. Once you've read one or two of those, just pick a variation you like, get a book on it and go through its main (the bold text) lines (don't bother too much about all the intricate sidelines initially, because there'll be numerous options at nearly every turn), and then start playing the opening. Don't worry about not knowing the exact theory (after all, you've have learned about the typical strategies and tactics, so you should have imbibed some 'intuition' and be able to feel your way through the positions you get). After your games, go back and check the variation in the book again. This is the way Bent Larsen used to recommend learning an opening. If you enter your games in ChessBase, it's good idea to use the book on the variation as basis for your own annotations of the opening phase (include alternative moves), that'll make the theory stick better in your mind. If you find that the main move in a certain line isn't too your liking, just take a look at the alternatives offered, there's bound to something else that suits you.
Initially you're going to suffer some defeats, but that's virtually inevitable when you take up a new opening. Don't let that dishearten you, see it as an opportunity to learn, and remember, chess is great fun, but also difficult.
If you want to learn the Sicilian, you should get one of those books explaining the strategy and thematic tactics in the opening. David Levy's and Kevin O'Connell's 'How to Play the Sicilian Defence', David Levy's 'Sacrifices in the Sicilian', Danny Kopec's 'Mastering the Sicilian', Yuri Yakovich's 'Sicilian Attacks', 'Gennady Nesis' 'Tactics in the Sicilian', and John Emms' 'Starting out: the Sicilian' are all excellent choices. Once you've read one or two of those, just pick a variation you like, get a book on it and go through its main (the bold text) lines (don't bother too much about all the intricate sidelines initially, because there'll be numerous options at nearly every turn), and then start playing the opening. Don't worry about not knowing the exact theory (after all, you've have learned about the typical strategies and tactics, so you should have imbibed some 'intuition' and be able to feel your way through the positions you get). After your games, go back and check the variation in the book again. This is the way Bent Larsen used to recommend learning an opening. If you enter your games in ChessBase, it's good idea to use the book on the variation as basis for your own annotations of the opening phase (include alternative moves), that'll make the theory stick better in your mind. If you find that the main move in a certain line isn't too your liking, just take a look at the alternatives offered, there's bound to something else that suits you.
Initially you're going to suffer some defeats, but that's virtually inevitable when you take up a new opening. Don't let that dishearten you, see it as an opportunity to learn, and remember, chess is great fun, but also difficult.
That's good advice, Bon!! Very helpful for a stressed out patzer like me!
white players generally will play following against Sicilian:
1) anti-sicilian
a.GrandPrix & its variants,
b. Alapin & delayed alapin
c. Smith morra,
d. Rossalimo type
e. closed sicilian
2) kings indian attack
3) English -yugoslav type attack with opp castling
4) Fischer sozin type attack
5) moroczy bind
6) short castle & f4
So, there are about 10 mainlines to prepare. That's a lot of theory for a beginner. Even if you don't actually study the theory, still you need a way to deal with these lines.
I don't think Sicilian is for experts only but Sicilian is also not for rank beginners because of so many possible lines.
Trying to play the asymmetric e4 openings(particularly Sicilian) by just using opening principles is very difficult. There is no symmetry. More importantly, these asymmetric e4 defenses (particularly sicilian) violate all opening principles. They keep moving the same piece again and again. Too many pawn moves in the opening. Giving up space and/or centre control voluntorily. So, black seemingly hands white everything white would want to gain from an opening. So, after that, how does both sides proceed? Both sides are unlikely to know about the plans if thet have not studied that opening. White in sicilian has a slightly easier task because he can still somewhat depend on opening principles. But, black has to know what he is doing. Otherwise, he'll get slaughtered very quickly.
In conclusion, Sicilian is a tricky opening posing challenges for both sides and best case for black to fight for equality against e4. But, it does require lot of studying and preparation. So, it's better for beginners (say under 1400) to avoid it.
Another win with the Sicilian by "Not an Expert. I haven't posted any of my Sicilian wins lately because I got tired of all the "experts" (you know who you are) who say things like "Your opponent made mistakes" or "You didn't play it right". The entire purpose of this thread is to show that even us average players can have success with the Sicilian with a little preparation and practice. In that vein, here is another one of my wins with the Sicilian.
I am in no way arguing your point of this post, but don't you think the mistake with 9.Qf3 lost the game? I dont see how you can say it was because of the opening?