LOL at the sicilian

Nazi memorabilia is also highly collectible, however considered pretty bad today.

did U just compare my system to a lamp shade made from human flesh?

If this is not a troll post then I guess the ones who are taking it seriously should really spend some time considering that possibility.
The OP. wrote:

> The sicilian is the worst opening you can play at club level. You're just wasting your time with it because sooner or later you'll have to abandon it.

I'm not sure what does exactly mean "at club level" there's also clubs frequented by titled players and even GM... let's assume that "Club level" means "weak player" then the problem should be that if you are weak you are not able to manage it. Now as the times goes on a player will supposedly increase his stenght therefore he should improve his ability to manage the opening not the opposite, this is quite a non sense...

I do agree that the sicilian may not be the easiest opening to begin with.

> The development in the sicilian is just awkward; it is so messed up that your survival depends on having a ton of theory memorized. Even then, you just have a hard position to play where a single slip up will cost you the game immediately. Why would you go through the trouble of playing such a difficul position?

I saw a video on here (when I was a diamond member) where an IM forgot the theory of a sicilian line and got an almost lost position...at move 6.

Is this statement any kind of proof? I'm not at master level but it's not so hard to figure out that going early out of theory at level may turn out to be a big problem. this is true for all the openings, why don't you try to go out of theory with the Ruy lopez? the grunfeld? 

[...] That's because if you happen to play against somebody stronger than you, you are screwed.

That's really strange I always thought that weaker players were usually supposed to win against stronger players... No flaw in this argument either...

[...]This would not happen if they played let's say 1...e5 or the Caro-Kann.

Assuming this is true they will lose as fast as with the sicilian as soon as the game will reach a stage with positonal aspects they're not able to manage. Playing 5 moves more doesn't make you stronger. Playing under the illusion of being on equal ground doesn't make you stronger and doesn't make the opening more or less sound or playable. 

Have you noticed how a great number of tactical puzzles just happen to feature the sicilian as the receiving end of a brilliant combination by white?

Have you ever heard about a syllogism? well if the statement above means: "since "a great number of tactical puzzles just happen to [...]" then the sicilian is unsound (no, not unsuitable at club level because more likely they don't make puzzle from club games )"  then this is a way to make it wrong. The number of puzzles realated to the sicilian are simply not related about the sicilian being sound or not. andthat's all. 

now we got 8 pages speaking about sometnhing which is a troll post or a mistatement or simply a wrong argument. that said I feel free to speak about my system.

The Sicilian is an incredibly solid opening if you know what you are doing, and a complete abomination if you don't.

As far I can understeand he siad nowdays there are better books for learning chess which is different from "don't read "My System"! You will not learn anything! Everything is wrong!"  isn't ?

He didn't questioned the value of the book on his hystorical perspective, he really didn't spoke about it... 

that said I do appreciate your point of view I think that My system has is value not only as a piece of chess hystory but for some of his contents, not all the contents just some of that. 

I do believe is a fine book for starting to learn chess from zero. I'd like to remind that the book start explaining how the pieces moves...

Another thing that I liked and I still like today too it's the logical approach he use to define  a strategy. I agree the book may have not been written with didactic pourposes, it may be a systematic collection of logic thoughts ordered from the begin to the end of the middle game (possibly without leaving any hole). 

last the book was written around 90 years ago (should be 1925 right?) after the computer era there's nothing bad or shameful to call outdated some of his ideas.

Besides the obvious, all of his ideas are outdated. You are better off buying a more modern book on tactics and srategy.

Surely enough I have learned more from both of them than Nimzo- actually I don't believe he really wrote the book as a didactic text.

Different strokes for different folks. I often wonder if pfren is aware that much of what he writes are just his opinions and other people have different ones -- especially when it comes to learning materials.

When you say that some old book is still actual, you should always demonstrate the facts of its influence on the contemporary chess views. In almost every interview, the Grandmasters are asked to tell whom do they consider as their creative predecessors. Petrosian and Larsen always acknowledge Nimzowitsch in this case. Critics also noted Nimzowitsch's influence in their playing.

--Mikhail Tal
http://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/mikhail-tal-foreword-to-aron-nimzowitschs-quotmy-systemquot-1972

[Bent Larsen] described himself as self-made, with only Aron Nimzovich's My System a major style influence.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/sep/17/leonard-barden-chess

GM Jacob Aagaard lists "My System" as the 9th best chess book of the 20th century. Reti's "Modern Ideas in Chess" was seriously considered but didn't make the cut. Petrosian's best games was not even mentioned.

http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/2855

I also wonder what pfren thinks "My System" is, if not a didactic text.

if the obvious: are outposts, playing on the open files, the center the 7th and 8th rank and so on... yes indeed. I'm not so sure where a modern book start off (by how to move the pieces?) but if someone has already some knowledge of the game I see no way to disagree with you. (I wouls still give it some points for the writng approach which worked very well for me although probably not as well for everyone...)

P.S.: back in time I was suggested to read a more modern book it was from Jonathan Tisdall I found it utterly useless.. I've heard speaking very good about Silmann but I never read it.

The Silican is quite solid if you know the lines.

Yes trust me, I've experimented with almost all sicilians.

Najdorf: the sharpest and the most double edged. The most aggressive and uncompromising. The best Sicilian. Unfortunatly there's ton of theory.

Dragon: uh, it's popular because of the name I think. While you can do amazing attacks against white's O-O-O, I prefer white with the Yugoslav attack (in the version where they castle long instead of Bc4).

Accelerated Dragon: I know it's very different from the normal Dragon. I played it quite a bit. I agree that it's easier to play and safer. But it's very painful to play against the Maroczy. Good luck if you need a win against a stronger opponent.

Sveshnikov: that's the coolest of all Sicilians. The position is very interesting. The problem is that many moves are forced and this means your opponent might have memorized very deep.

Kan/Taimanov: not much experience with this one, but it seems to me that bringing the dark squared Bishop outside the pawn chain is not really an improvement.

Classical: funnily enough, the only one I've never played with black.

O'Kelly: great to trick clueless opponents. Unfortunately when I tried it in a tournament against a 1800 FIDE he knew the refutation of the trick and I got a worse position.

Closed sicilian: here I struggle to equalize with black. Queenside play just doesn't seem enough against white advance in the centre and kingside.

Grand Prix: I think it's the weakest of white responses, here black should be at least equal.

Alapin: I had a supercool system with black playing an IQP (forgot the move order now), that was a great pleasure to play.

Smith-Morra: good, white is just down a pawn. Ok I'm kidding but I prefer black, I just don't believe in this gambit.

Bb5: Rossolimo is the most annoying to play against, but I had a good system against the Moscow.

Qxd4: As I said before, and pfren confirmed, it's a good system for white and not easy to play against.

Early Bc4 stuff: the bane of all sicilian players. Everybody is convinced it loses by force, but it just doesn't. White players can adopt this just to mess with you.

I played the sicilian for years. I know what I'm talking about. I might still be a weak player but I have enough experience to compare openings, especially because my observations are limited to club players.

Whichever sicilian you play there are always two problems:

1) White has more choice.

2) You always have some development issues, it's hard to stay coordinated and have every piece working. Look at the Najdorf that violates all opening principles and works just because of concrete lines.

I play 1...e5 now. I get my share of the centre and I take out all my pieces very quickly. That's how chess is supposed to be played, ask Greco.

It's true I need to memorize a bit of theory on the Evans and the Giuoco Piano and the Max Lange, but it's much more intuitive.

And to the person who asked: I assure you can play the Ruy Lopez without knowing theory. It's all intuitive and you can find moves OTB.

Taimanov Sicilian is a great option and your post above makes no real effort to prove why there should be problems with it

Play the Caro. It puts an end to the 1) e4 quick attack wipper snappers. Just sit back and smile when you realise it's going to take them x amount of moves to improve their middle game position to even have a sniff of a successful attack.

Too much bullshit, too little time.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States

Everything you said in red highlight is wrong.

The Najdorf is the Cadillac of Sicilian's.

However, saying it is the best is a matter of opinion!

To different people the opinions vary.

If you do not have much experince with the Kan/Taimanov Sicilian's than why are you making assumption on the dark bishop.

Your assumption is wrong by the way.

If you have never played the Classical Sicilian than how are you making the assumption that all the Sicilian lines have deep memorization?

Compared to the other Sicilian lines I believe the Classical variation 5...Nc6 isn't that bad.

White only has like 5 - 6th move options which are worth mentioning.

Out of those 5 only 3 of them have been played more than 1k games in a database which simply shows how condensed white's options really are.

The mainline move 6.Bg5 is the most played by far.

Out of 10 games you will see 6.Bg5 at least 6-7 times.

Furthermore, I have seen Sicilian Dragon players use the Classical move order to get into the Sicilian Dragon when there oppoents do not play 6.Bg5.

Which means if you play the Yugoslav Attack and you like the 9.0-0-0  or 9.g4 lines you better play 6.Bg5 against the Classical.

If you do not than you have a hole in your repertoire.

A transposition hole which you did not forsee.

The O'Kelly variation is not refuted.

In fact I have a losing score against it.

The Grand Prix Attack is a good opening if white plays it correctly which they perfectly can.

The 2.Bc4 lines do give black a slight advantage in some lines.

It does not lose by force. However, unless white can tip the scale during the middle game or endgame than the black slight advantage is worth something.

I know of some lines which are suppose to give black a slight advantage against 2.Bc4.

I have never liked some of them. I personally have settle with a equal line which I believe is perfectly playable.

As for your 2 problems:

1) White has more choice.

Well black has choices as well.

There are over 20 Sicilian lines in this opening.

I believe black is happy to have choice as well.

2) You always have some development issues, it's hard to stay coordinated and have every piece working.

Name an opening as black which doesn't have development issues?

Black moves second he should always be with a development issue.

The Chess community as well as Chess Theory gives black a leveling scale.

The level scale shows acceptable levels of being behind in development.

As well as showing unacceptable levels.

For a brief example of these levels in play lets take a look at a few examples:

In the above position.

Do you think this line is Acceptable or Unacceptable for black?

If you wish to pause to figure it out do so now.

I will state the answer below in White Text:

The answer is Unacceptable

Now compare this position with the following one.

In the above position.

Do you think this line is Acceptable or Unacceptable for black?

If you wish to pause to figure it out do so now.

I will state the answer below in White Text:

The answer is Acceptable

Now compare this position with the following one.

In the above position.

Do you think this line is Acceptable or Unacceptable for black?

If you wish to pause to figure it out do so now.

I will state the answer below in White Text:

The answer is Acceptable

Now compare this position with the following one.

In the above position.

Do you think this line is Acceptable or Unacceptable for black?

If you wish to pause to figure it out do so now.

I will state the answer below in White Text:

The answer is Acceptable

Yeah hopefully you can see what I mean when I say acceptable and unacceptable.

Now to answer your final question.

Look at the Najdorf that violates all opening principles and works just because of concrete lines.

It doesn't violate chess principles.

It fights for the center like any other line.

Interesting post Plutonia, it amazes me how many openings some of you in this subforum have played.

As for the Chekhover anti-Sicilian with 4.Qxd4, I believe GM Mihai Suba came up with a move order that cuts that option out for White against d6 Sicilians. Of course as a 2...Nc6 Sicilian player I don't need to worry about it to begin with.

It kind of surprises me that you would list the "early Bc4 stuff" as "the bane of all Sicilian players". First I don't think any of us believe it should lose by force for White, it just makes the opening very comfortable for Black and gives them easy equality. Against 2.Bc4 most people play 2...e6, but I believe 2...Nc6 is a better option, and even 2...Nf6, when White may be temped into 3.e5 and there could follow d5 4.exf6 dxc4 5.fxg7 Bxg7 when Black is clearly better due to the two bishops and extra space, in particular the pawn on c4 is actually a strength which cramps White and Black can use the semi-open g-file to attack the White king. I actually Arabian mated my opponent the last time I got this variation as Black. But if that doesn't happen here's how most of my games as Black vs 2.Bc4 go. First I comfortably get my pieces out and play d5, at which point there's an exchange of pawns and the e-file opens, reaching a structure similar to the French exchange except that I'm able to get more space on the queenside by kicking the bishop. All the heavy pieces get exchanged down the e-file, oftentimes White will try to start an unjustified attack but it's easy to predict what they'll do and set little traps for them. 2.Bc4 players are very predictable in my experience.

I myself have considered playing 1...e5, and I would like to someday play it, but everytime I look into it I'm just shocked by all the theory there seems to be. You have to know a system against the Ruy, Italian, Scotch, Vienna, the multitude of gambits, etc. I've read people discussing their choices against the Ruy Lopez like the Marshall, Berlin, Archangel, etc, and I have no idea why some 1...e5 players criticize the Sicilian for being theory heavy. There's a ton of theory connected with 1...e5 as well and it seems just as dangerous.

When you were playing the Accelerated Dragon did you use the Gurgenidze System against the Maroczy Bind? If not, I'd recommend learning it and giving the Accelerated another try. I'm surprised you, as a d4 player, would be so afraid of the Maroczy Bind to begin with. Aren't d4 players supposed to like quiet positional struggles? Facing the Maroczy Bind is so easy and relaxing, and you don't have to know hardly any theory, just the ideas. "Good luck winning against a higher rated opponent" you said, well most times I'd be delighted to make a draw against someone higher rated as Black, wouldn't you? Also there are lines, albeit possibly unsound ones, Black can use if they want to sharpen it up against the Maroczy.

Heh. 4. Qxd4 as a whole is unique. It does lose a tempo, which isn't naive but factual. I admire players who try that line thinking it will throw Black off as we always play our lines against 4. Nxd4. In my comment, my opinion wasn't a dismissal, simply because I just smile to myself. I'm not playing Judith Polgar or some 2700+ player. I stated that gaining a tempo doesn't mean I'd equalized (didn't I?) but in reality I know if I play solid it will be easier.

Btw I think bringing up GM's as a way to dismiss my opinion is cowardly in itself. Yes. Better to "stay on topic" than illustrate why my.opinion is naive. Thank you for that at least.

I can't believe saying the Najdorf violates all Opening principles and works just because of concrete lines doesn't merit a "naive" remark from some IM. Or an comment relating that every opening gives up an imbalance (using Silman's terminology) in exchange for another. Whether this is enough for an edge or equality remains to be seen. It's theoretical. Not concrete. Forcing lines like in the 6. Bg5 that lead to a known draw is concrete. True. By contrast, the Spanish, Breyer variation in which the Knight "advances" backward, you would consider a "violation of all Opening play"? Or even the Ruy Lopez, Chigorin Defence, where the Knight trots on the rim where it's grim? One last example (although I could site more) is the Benko Gambit, where it's soundness was questioned for many years sacrificing the b-pawn. It's viable, but like the Dragon, there is no concrete line by both sides validating or disproving it works. Personally, as a d4 player, I avoid it.

Anyways, it's your opinion. I just happen to disagree with.many of your rationales. I'm glad though, you'd realized the Sicilian wasn't for you at this point because you're obviously a competitive player and your level of experience + time (off Chess vs Life is a balancing act which I totally relate to) warrants you making such a decision. It's just I think in time, as you gain more experience, knowledge you'll acknowledge that (if you go back to the Sicilian) it's not soo hard to play. Cool.

Ironic though (as we're discussing My System and the Najdorf) that Tigran Petrosian, the Epitome of Nimzowitschian Chess, played the Sicilian Najdorf as a central part of his opening repertoire.

Look up:

Averbakh-Petrosian

USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1959

Where White played for direct occupation of d5 (the hole) and the way he worked around it. Impressive to me.