Looking for active play with black

OMG - another stupid, inaccurate comment by FoS.  Take the post I put minutes before this one.  Just because the c-, d-, and e-files are closed doesn't mean a sacrifice is "necessary".  White can still rip thru the f-, g-, and h-files, a section of the board typically abandoned by Black in that line as he castles queenside in most cases and tries to attack thru the hole on b3.

So no, you don't "have to" sacrifice to break thru!

Especially when one hasn't read your novel yet when the post was made.  I start where I left off the previous time, and go sequentially, not backwards!

And even after reading your novels, there is still no comedy except your stupidity.

For example, and I quote:

"if you really want to avoid tactics as black i would suggest you play the sicilian....then just dont play so ambitiously simply develop slightly faster so there is no chance for white to have some way to force things open decisively."

For starters, sentences start with a capital letter.  Secondly, if you really want to speak literally, the answer is "YOU CAN'T AVOID TACTICS!"  Also, you try to tell me that there are no tactics in the first of the two games from the following post:  http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/two-games-from-the-chicago-open

Last time I looked, that's a Sicilian, and it's loaded with Tactics, starting with taking his Knight on c3 - it's what I used to get the position down to a winning Queen and Rook ending.

I also find it completely hilarious that you try to give this spiel in post 36 about how others lump terms together when the whole thing started with you lumping Open and Tactical together in post 7, and how I have constantly stated that no two terms in chess "go together", they are completely independent, and that there are many tactical opportunities in closed positions, and many wide open positions that are positional, or in some cases, dull.

And obviously you haven't seen how I post in response to questions like "how do I force quiet?" or "how to I force a tactical game?", etc., and I continue to tell people that no opening guarantees anything.  You have battles that are very tactical in nature in the Slav (i.e. 5.e4), and you have battles with a lot of manouvering in the Najdorf (i.e. some of the 6.g3 or 6.Be2 lines), and that one player can't force anything (other than White's first move), and that it takes two to determine the nature of a game, not one!

So not only had I not reached your explaination to elubas yet at that point when I posted, but even your own posts to elubas are a complete joke!

So I just posted that "dull" was probably the wrong word but that "drawish" is very accurate in the line I gave, and you still seem to think that I tie the two words together?  Do you have anything between those two ears?  Somehow I doubt it!

Also, the spiel about tactical games leading to draws at the GM level was yours, not mine, so where the h*ll do you get that I think tactical and drawish go together?  I don't claim for the QGA to be highly tactical in "most" lines.  Sure there are tactical lines in ALL openings.  But I do claim that the QGA is drawish! 

Seriously, what drugs are you on?

FiveofSwords, you don't even know how to quote or paraphrase people.  You claim I made any statement associated with "pointing out that a closed position can become tactical after it becomes open".

BALONEY!  I NEVER SAID THAT!

What I said was that a Closed Position can be tactical in nature and that tactics are often used to open up the position, NOT that they are tactial AFTER becoming open!

Actually, I've had numerous positions be just the opposite of your "mis-quoting".  Position is closed, I use some tactical combination, often started off by a piece sacrifice, where when all is said and done, and I've likely won my piece back, the end position is open with myself having an extra pawn or two, and a longwinded manouvering game with little to no tactics to be found AFTER it's opened up.  Far more often, it's I have a Bishop and 4 pawns to your Bishop and 2 pawns with an ending that is 40 moves long, but 40 moves ago, my opponent could just as easily have resigned!  But the tactics occured BEFORE it became open, and opened as a RESULT OF THE TACTICS, NOT TACTICAL AFTER OPENING UP!

Time for you to take 4th Grade English!

Yeah... and I feel like there are so many terms that would benefit from being used/defined more precisely, not just chess terms. Even love for example is a funny term... because we will use it to describe feelings with our family, and feelings with strangers, each of which are actually quite different feelings. They're similar in that they're both desirable, sure, but as far as the internal structure of what's going on in them, they're very different. Really every feeling we have with everyone is distinct from another, and if we wanted to we could make up a new word to describe each one. But instead we have to recycle the same words and so it can make things look more similar than they are, if that makes sense.

Anyway, that's sort of what happens with chess. As you said, there may have been associations of the sicilian with tactics because you could find some weird knight d5 sacrifices or something like that. In reality that's only for specific sicilian variaitions, but since we call those the sicilian all the same, words blend in and instead of saying "there are lots of tactics in this line of the sicilian" we say "there are lots of tactics in the sicilian."

If you're looking for some crazy double edged super-tactical risky games, try the sicilian dragon and the modern benoni.