Sicilian Defense: Closed Variation

Happy to post these things!

ltristam wrote:

Taulmaril wrote:

Glad I came across this thread. I've started playing the closed sicilian with good results despite not being particularly knowledgeable on the difference between variations (the importance of this was pointed out to me by an opponent who played a different setup than I was used to seeing and busted me up). I've played it 5 or 6 times in tournament and won every game with it so far except 1 game against a much higher rated opponent. I like it for the reasons mentioned in earlier posts, it's more based on setups and ideas than concrete lines. I'm not going g to get caught out in some trap on move 20 in some open pet variation in the open sicilian my opponent plays. I just get my setup and play chess.

Happy to post these things!

To clarify I'd already picked up the closed sicilian before finding this thread but I'm still new to it and working out the nuances and this discussion thread should help.

Does jengaias imagine that GM Dorian Rogozenko also "forgets"?

"In the 1990s the Closed Sicilian considerably lost its popularity for several reasons. First of all, its previous adherents, such as Smyslov, Hort, and especially Spassky, ceased to develop it, and other players failed to impress with it. Secondly, Black has found clear ways to parry White's active intentions." - GM Dorian Rogozenko (2003)

Again, where is "bad" in the IM Greg Shahade 2012 quotes? Here is a reminder of part of one of them: "... If top players aren't playing it, it's usually not good. Sometimes there will be exceptions, but they are rare and you'd need good evidence to back it up. ...". As for "Shahade's logic" in connection with the Closed Sicilian specifically, it might be as well to remember this part of what he wrote in 2012: "... Honestly if I know someone is playing the Closed Sicilian, I can pick one of probably 5-6 lines, each of which I can learn in probably 15 minutes, and expect to get a fully playable position without much difficulty."

Do we know that IM Greg Shahade had even read GM Dorian Rogozenko in 2003?

"... [the Grand Prix attack, the Closed Sicilian, the Schleimann Defense] are all ok openings as a surprise from time to time, ..." - IM Greg Shahade (2012)

Do you want to pick out one for further discussion?

"... for several reasons. First of all, its previous adherents, such as Smyslov, Hort, and especially Spassky, ceased to develop it, and other players failed to impress with it. Secondly, Black has found clear ways to parry White's active intentions." - GM Dorian Rogozenko (2003)

So, perhaps it isn't very meaningful to cite what happened with Spassky, Keres, and Smyslov decades ago?

Indeed. If it's good enough for world champions it's more than good enough for any class player. Regardless of what Shahade says. From what I've seen of him he'll say anything to get some exposure for himself. Recently he was saying classical time controls should be abolished. Should FIDE void all world championship reigns prior to his outburst based on his authority? Nonsense.

Bottom line, players better than shahade have found it worthy of playing. Spassky, 40 years past his prime could probably play the closed sicilian against shahade today and still give him the business. So if you don't want to discuss the merits of the closed sicilian that's fine. But if you're not going to contribute anything more than copy and pasting lines you've already parroted more than enough times in this thread perhaps you should move on to a different topic more worthy of your interest.

Interesting. I just stick to the basics in regards to the play. Kingside fianchetto nge2 d3 be3 qd2 in some order. I learned a valuable lesson from a player rated 2250+ who beat up my closed sicilian using a different setup than I was used to seeing, so now I know that depending on their setup I have to vary the move order. But the Bb5 idea will be a new wrinkle I can add once I've got my first setup down.

Bb5 is known and played at top level for many years...

This enables white for instance to have this kind of repertoire on 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 :

- 2...Nc6 3.Bb5, Tiviakov Grand Prix, difficult for black to play

- 2...d6 3.f4 : GP attack where d6 set up is supposed to be less god for black than without (its more complicated than that...).

- 2...a6 3.g3 : not clear if a6 so useful in closed sicilian, however, its an interesting replay for black.

- 2...e6 3.g3 : playing e6 may be a good possibility trying to transpose later in "classical" closed sicilian, but black can try d5 with different positions.

- 2...g6 3.d4 or Nf3 and d4, but also 3.g3 : white can try to go back in normal lines with Nf3 and d4, reaching accelerated dragon and maybe Maroczi bind. But 3.d4 leads to independant paths, and again, white can go back to classical closed sicilian.

In all these variations, black has to be careful : white can at move 3 play Nf3 (or Nge2) followed by d4, so black's second and 3rd moves have to fit with their way to play open sicilian...

So White can create some flexible repertoire based on closed sicilian, GP attack, Tiviakov GP, etc...

Against 2. e6 I'd be playing 2. Nge2 so if they decide to break immediately with 3. d5 I'm prepared to play exd5 followed by d4. Also if you play nge2 apparently you're holding out on the decision to play an open or closed sicilian.

I am glad that, for one sentence at least, you kept track of what I actually wrote (about citing what happened).

I did NOT say anything about studying games. I quoted examples of what I WAS writing about, comments that did not study specific games.

For the second time, where did anyone claim the Closed Sicilian is unplayable?

I suppose the c3 Sicilian is nonsense too.

I'd be hesitant to play the c3 sicilian myself simply because I don't know enough about playing with an IQP. Of course it's playable but you'd probably want some understanding of that structure before playing it regularly.

I don't remember agreeing that Closed Sicilian is indeed a good line and that Shahade says nonsense.

Are you under the impression that IM Greg Shahade said otherwise?

"If you really want to be great at chess someday, or want to be above 2000-2200, you will greatly help yourself by playing main lines and serious openings. If you don't have these ambitions, you can basically play whatever you want as long as you know something about it." - IM Greg Shahade (2012)

Would you doubt what Fischer wrote about the quality of this or that chess move because of what he said on other matters? How about Kasparov? How about Alekhine?

"... [the Grand Prix attack, the Closed Sicilian, the Schleimann Defense] are all ok openings as a surprise from time to time, ..." - IM Greg Shahade (2012)

Some of these notes seem to me to make it advisible to try to prevent misunderstanding about what has actually been said.

Its not like white can force an advantage against the sicilian in the main lines anyways, so why not? White has no opening advantage against good play.

Shahade has clearly stated in the quotes you've posted that it's okay as a surprise, meaning if your opponent isn't prepared then it's fine but if he is then it's not a good opening to play for an advantage. Which simply isn't true. According to shahade there's several options for black to equalize that take a whole 5 minutes to prepare, so why would any player be unprepared to meet the closed sicilian? Take the 5 minutes to prepare your options and you'll be prepared for life according to shahade. And yet a game has been posted of shahade being spanked by this opening he clearly feels is innocuous.

Against a significantly lower rated player no less, so there's not even a "whites understanding of chess is just better" excuse to fall back on. A player rated almost 300 points lower played an opening that is supposedly easy to play against and garners no advantage for white and proceeded to kick shahades teeth in with it. Enough said.

Partly joking, GM Milos Pavlovic has published an article/ repertoire for Black against the Closed, in "Experts on the Anti-Sicilian". It's based on the reversed Botvinnik setup, and titled "A 10-minute repertoire against the Closed Sicilian".

Well, while the GM has tried to keep it simple, one can easily find out that

1. this is not at all a ten minute repertoire,

2. some of the lines MUST be memorized down to the last detail (actually one of his lines is totally busted, but such things do happen).

And OK, Shahade blundered badly by taking on b4 with the rook, but he did not have anything resembling an easy life before the blunder, either.

On the nh3 ideas, is there any practical difference between nh3 and nge2? Both are essentially supporting f4 and later the knight will go there.