Kalashnikov/Sveshnikov

Recently, I have been looking into playing the Kalashnikov/Sveshnikov sicilians.  I am somewhat torn over which I should choose.  From my understanding, the Sveshnikov leads to sharp, highly theoretical variations where study time is definetely needed. The Kalashnikov, however gives the opponent the option of a Maroczy Bind (c4) and if the opponent tries to transpose into a Sveshnikov (Nc3), Black can answer with Be7, sidestepping some theory.  My question is: Is it recommendable for me, 15 years old with plenty of free time over the summer, to study the theory of the Sveshnikov?, or to study the general positions of Kalashnikovs with the sideline Be7 as previously mentioned.

If you have the time you claim, why not study both?

There is more to chess than just the opening, I wouldn't want to waste time studying unneccesarily.

Your opinions would be appreciated...

 The plans in the sveshnikov do not translate well to other sicilians if you decide to switch them out later. The Kalashnikov is under a theoretical cloud at higher levels because white can get a very strong bind on the position and shut down Black more easily than the Sveshnikov. Its no longer played at the GM/IM level.

my advice is to study something like the Najdorf or mainline or accelerated dragon if you have a lot of time. the dragon is probably the easist and most fun to learn. Even better is to study ...e5 or ...d5 because then your understanding of your particular opening for white is doubled :) you learn it from both sides!
 

Thank you.  I looked on Amazon and have decided to buy the Starting Out book.  Advlegitimate, are Sveshnikov games primarily just playing out theory?  Is it often that opponents deviate?  I fear that games will become boring if I'm simply playing the moves I've prepared beforehand.  This the main reason why I was thinking about the Kalashnikov.

The Sveshnikov Reloaded by Dorian Rogozenko quality chess publishing is an excellent book. Check out the reviews and download a sample at qualitychess.com.

I would agree with a former post that the najdorf would be a better opening to learn for some people. Simply for the fact that more people know how to play the opening. A matter of taste. I heard svindler the other day saying he never plays the sveshnikov because he just doesn't  like the piece postitions. He said it was a good opening during the world championships but just wasn't for him.  All a matter of taste.

Carlsen also commented that he doesnt know whats going on in the Sveshnikov so doesnt play it.

Interesting.  I've looked at the Najdorf, Dragon, Scheveningen, Classical and all other sicilians.  I've played the French, but the exchange variation turned me off.  I've had good results with ... e5, but wanted more. So, its not a question about what is "easy" because I've been all over the place with my openings, I'm just trying to find an opening I enjoy that won't give me boring games so I can stick with it and not worry about my response to e4 for a while. I'm ready to move on in chess study.

boring is a vague statement. Kramnik and karpov's definition of exciting is different than that of Kasparov and shirov. 

THe thing to understand as well is that two people play the game and one side can always choose something to make it 'boring'. get good at everything. The exchange french is funny to me because people play it to avoid the classical closed french structure but there are some nice plans for black in it as well. I really like the one with 0-0-0, Ne7 , f6 and a fast g5-g4 usually black has fun because white plays normal moves and doesnt understand that the e-file is meaningless (the bishops control the access points, no access points = meaningless control of the file) I have beaten many players because they go about doubling on the e-file and waste key tempi while my attack gains momentum. Also e5 is taken away as an outpost because of f6 which confuses many players

By "boring" I mean a game in which I honestly would rather not be playing simply because it takes away that with which fuels my liking for chess (dynamics).  I understand that there is more to the exchange french.  I've been there.  Though the exchange french I am referring to is with White's 4. c4, because I would rather be the one with IQP.  I find holding on until an endgame before I leave my passivity in defending White's attack "boring".  As a result, I've looked to move on from that opening: hence the reason for this forum.

again you dont get the choices always. your opponent can play a quiet game and unless you just want to play bad moves to try and mix things up you have to learn to play slower games too. Sicilian players have the c3, bb5 and closed sicilians to deal with. just buckle down and face them :)

I try to think about openings like this. What is the short term and long term goals of your selection? most players look at selection based on 'winning' and define this as something that allows them to surprise or trick their opponent and gain a quick victory due to a mistake. Not a bad approach but lets look at the long term....

I break down the long term benefits like this:
does the opening provide a stable platform for continued growth once your opponents learn the simple dangers of the opening. The Patzer opening (2. Qh5) is counter productive because the threats generated by this opening are quickly(the challenges are simple and voided in less than 5 moves) and easily (the defensive ideas are easily found) nullified then white is left with nothing. 

Do the opening plans and structures fit into a more complex middlegame plan and segway easily into other opening systems? The Italian game fits this bill by providing a plan and piece development that is similar to the Ruy Lopez (not identical in all respects but thats another lesson) The plan of c2-c3 and d2-d4 with a big pawn center teaches key ideas that apply across the board to many different openings. 

Is the system fairly easy to understand and is there "wiggle" room? Oneof the complaints with the closed systems is that the strategical approaches are varied and very nuanced. In the beginning the strategical approaches should be SIMPLE in the approach. By this i mean they should fit into the basic principles we hear over and over, development, central control, king safety. If the opening requires a lot of small moves for strategical purposes then the metal focus is too exact. The brain is working on a detail when it should be focused on a bigger picture. his rules out a lot of more challening openings like the najdorf where small pawn move are needed to set up a position then pieces are developed based on whites responses. IMO the first openings should be focused on piece activity.

Wiggle room is that if a player makes an seemingly logical move in the opening they dont get steamrolled and can fight back. One of the problems I have with the mainline dragon is the yugoslav attack where whites setup is fairly easy to play and many of black's moves arent logical (at least to me) although they are interesting positions. The marczy bind is not a big problem at certain levels because the position is hard to play at the U1800 level imo and even at the master level its playable so my suspicion is that its ok at all levels its just 1800 when it pops up more frequently and needs to be learned.

Finally,... and this is a personal one but it falls in line with the idea that to improve at chess you need to eliminate mistakes, fewer mistakes the stronger you will be as a player. The appoach here I feel is wrong is playing systems that do not allow for mistakes becuase they are 'safe'. Systems that arent challenging your opponent and play for a 'setup' with out rapid development and quick central control lead to fewer mistakes but they also lead to a slower growth curve because there are fewer mistakes made to learn from.

Finally you can make your own decision but my issue with the sveshnikov is that the middlegame plans and piece development dont fit into other sicilain structures very well. the plan A in the sicilian is the central break ...d5 but this is not true in the sveshnikov mainline. There is no segway to another opening. if you start with the accelerated dragon the mainline dragon makes sense as does classical systems (since many lines transpose) If you play the taimanov you can, well learn ..e6 sicilans. 

Granted the system has a ton of theory and very forcing lines so in CC chess the player with more reference material tends to win but this is true with any opening. CC chess is an opening test but the primary focus is on endgames.(another point but i think CC chess is a great way to practice endgames)

Very insightful, TonyH.  Thank you for your philosophies about when and why should developing players pick up certain openings.  Are you a chess teacher?  It seems as if your ideas would correspond very well for one who wants to help other players develop.

thank you. yes I have been coaching chess for the last 8 years. My students do well and are often in the top 10 for their age in the state. My best student is one of the best in the country and top female players in the US almost 2000 now. I taught her until about 1800

Throw a bone in this. Isn't the Sveshnikov a very difficult opening for black due to the fact that the g pawn gets broken and castling on the kingside can leave black quite vulnerable. Especially when the white queen goes to the h file?

Its theoretically safe, and there are different paths the opening can take.

I don't know much about the Kalashnikov. But in your sideline, after 6...Be7, how does Black meet 7. Nd5 ? With Rb8? Inviting Nbc7+ ? I guess that's playable for Black. But it seems white has a very firm grip on d5 already, without even having to cede the two bishops. 

OTOH, I've been playing the Sveshnikov for many years, and I can wholeheartedly recommend it. The structural imbalances in the Bxf6 gf positions in particular make it a lot of fun to play. There's a lot more dynamicism, at least early on, than there is the Kalishnikov steup. 

That was my bad guys, 6. ... a6 is absolutely necessary to avoid White from getting a firm grip of d5.

The sveshnikov is fine , theres a book called the easiest siclian that I would recommend. http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_gst_wrtrs/The_Easiest_Sicilian.html

I really like the format since it gives you enough to get you started but not overwhelm you with theory but also provides detailed theory once your read for it.