The Taimanov is really the perfect entry to Sicilian openings. It's probably the least complex Sicilian, with the least theory. Sure, there is some theory, but there are also general guidelines and ideas you can bear in mind when your opponent goes off-book (often, at 1600). For example, queen on c7, fianchetto light-squared bishop, etc. I've found that many club players don't know the Taimanov at all, meaning they often over-extend their position and create weaknesses for themselves you can exploit.
Is the Sicilian Taimanov good for a 1600 rapid-rated player?
Sort:
Dec 20, 2018
0
#3
You're higher rated than me, but I've played Sicilian for 5ish years now, and the Taimanov complex is absolutely where it's at. It's very solid, there are several transpositional tricks, and white can get badly counterattacked if they over-press (also, lots of mating tricks with the b7 bishop and c7 queen...you won't mate with it at 1600, but you'll win material when opponents overlook it). The c3 Sicilian can transpose you into an advanced French, so be aware of those themes, but it's a really intuitive position. My first try was the Najdorf (because Judit Polgar).....I got KILLED. These systems allow for principle based play rather than requiring exact theoretical replies.
Also, because 2.Bc4 is so prominent at club level, I've been working out this line with Stockfish....you'll find zero master games here, but I would argue that that's mostly because masters never play 2.Bc4 (or haven't since 1860)
As White, I've rarely switched my first move - 1.e4. However this was not the case for Black - I changed openings a lot. Initially I played the Sicilian because statistics said it was the best scoring opening. Of course this didn't really help me much as I was ~800-900 rated back then. After a while, I realized that playing 1...c5 wasn't going to automatically make me a better player, so I learned the best-scoring Sicilian opening according to statistics - the Sicilian Kan. I had some wins with it, but I suffered some pretty bad losses from being wrecked on the dark squares and so I switched.
I switched to many openings, including the Caro-Kann, the Qd8 Scandinavian and the Modern Defense, and of course the classic 1.e4 e5. Recently I played ...Nf6 as a universal opening against any move by White - I played the Alekhine many times too. Then I switched things up again, and played the Taimanov Sicilian (the Qc7 lines). It seems to be quite a decent opening for me - most of the time I get the initiative and get to attack, and occasionally I win some material. However it has gone wrong many times when White puts pressure on me after winning material - my consolidation skills are awful and I lose winning positions that way. This goes for other openings too, such as the Black side of the Blackmar-Diemar gambit where I miss easy consolidation moves as well.
I've noticed that even at 1600 rapid, players continue to play slightly questionable moves like 2.Bc4 (the Bowdler Attack) against me.
Is the Taimanov Sicilian good for my level for rapid chess? Should I try another Sicilian line like the Dragon and the Sveshnikov, or should I stick to the Taimanov and improve my material-consolidation skills? I've tried out many many openings previously already, so switching back to one of the other ones shouldn't be too much of an issue for me.