Sicilian Defence and Dutch Defence

Sort:
NoahmanX

Given that in GM Simon William's book The Killer Dutch, Williams says that the Sicilian and the Dutch are mirror images of each other, as Williams states "If you look at the first move, you can see that the two openings are similar, due to the fact the initial pawn structures of both openings are actually mirror images of each other." (Williams, 32) What Sicilian Defence variation has the most similarity to the Dutch? In the sense of pawn structures, middlegame plans, and strategic ideas? From what I observe it seems to me like the Scheveningen is similar to the classical variation of the Dutch. 

Which variation do you think is most similar?

Strangemover

I don't know... I mean GM Williams is correct in that 1.e4 c5 and 1.d4 f5 is symmetrical. But the key difference is that the black queen is on d8 and the black king is on e8. In my experience the games are completely different in these openings. 

NoahmanX
Strangemover wrote:

I don't know... I mean GM Williams is correct in that 1.e4 c5 and 1.d4 f5 is symmetrical. But the key difference is that the black queen is on d8 and the black king is on e8. In my experience the games are completely different in these openings. 

I can understand what you are saying, but I only agree with you partially. For example, the King's Gambit and the Queen's Gambit are symmetrical in pawn structure, but the king and queen are swapped. Despite this, they both still fundamentally follow the same strategic ideas, that something like a King's Indian or a Spanish do not really do. Based on studying all world champions in order up to Fischer, in the Sicilian it is quite obvious that in the open Sicilian black would like to play an eventual pawn to d5, this is similar to the Dutch in the sense that black wants to play and eventual e5.  

Strangemover

Yeah I hear what you are saying. But if you blunder in the Dutch you are getting mated, whereas if you blunder in the Sicilian you can struggle on. For me I play Leningrad Dutch so g7, Bg7 aiming for e5 etc. You can't do that in a Sicilian with b6 Bb7. Hence totally different IMO. 

ThrillerFan

Comparing the Dutch and Sicilian or King's Gambit and Queen's Gambit is like comparing your mouth to your butt.  Yes, they are both an opening into your digestive track, but I have yet to see anybody eat through the butt or have an enema through the mouth.  They are completely different body parts, just like the Sicilian and Dutch are completely different openings.  And just like how he proved no similarity to the Leningrad, there is no similarity to the Stonewall either!

 

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4

1.d4 f5 2.Nc3?! Nf6 3.e4?

 

All the more proof that they are in no ways similar.

Strangemover
ThrillerFan wrote:

Comparing the Dutch and Sicilian or King's Gambit and Queen's Gambit is like comparing your mouth to your butt.  Yes, they are both an opening into your digestive track, but I have yet to see anybody eat through the butt or have an enema through the mouth.  They are completely different body parts, just like the Sicilian and Dutch are completely different openings.  And just like how he proved no similarity to the Leningrad, there is no similarity to the Stonewall either!

 

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4

1.d4 f5 2.Nc3?! Nf6 3.e4?

 

All the more proof that they are in no ways similar.

Getting flashbacks to The Human Centipede. 

blueemu
ThrillerFan wrote:

Comparing the Dutch and Sicilian or King's Gambit and Queen's Gambit is like comparing your mouth to your butt.  Yes, they are both an opening into your digestive track, but I have yet to see anybody eat through the butt or have an enema through the mouth.

I think you just killed about 10,000 of my brain cells. Nice going.