We're talking about tricking someone into playing the classical variation, not the najdorf. It would be hard to trick someone into playing the najdorf since neither of the main setups I've seen against the standard closed sicilian call for an early a6.
Sicilian Defense: Closed Variation
Sort:
You could trick someone into playing a taimanov, a dragon or a classical if they thought you were playing the closed sicilian and you flipped the script and played the open. But you couldn't trick someone into playing the najdorf by bluffing a closed sicilian. Unless they were a najdorf player anyway just sticking to their standard moves in which case you would want to stay with the closed sicilian anyway.
True. In one of my only games against the Sicilian my opponent played it and annihilated me! I was trying for this setup:
Then too late I realized that was old Sicilian!!!!!
lolurspammed wrote:
That's not true at all. Play the najdorf without knowing theory and you're dead.
Lolurspammed speaks the gosphel truth.
Same statement can be said for the Classical Sicilian.
Trying playing against the 6.Bg5 lines in the Classical Sicilian.
If you think there is no theory in that line.
You are only fooling yourself.
6.Bg5 is considered one of the most testing lines against the Classical Sicilian.
B61, Sicilian: Richter-Rauzer, Larsen variation anyone?
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067597
In which universe?
No, but really, I don't even know what the Najdorf is, let alone the Falkbeer where an IM is losing almost all of his blitz games, before giving up.
You need theory for these openings!! No matter what the opening!!
Here's an example of someone trying to play without caring about theory:
I didn't play that game!!!! It was Unzicker-Fischer!!!!!!!!
I also tried to play najdorf variation without knowing any theory and got crushed!!!!!
Funny how the so called rich people don't even have that plastic chess set you are asking. Ever heard of talented amateurs? Nope. Never.
jengaias wrote:
Andrewtopia wrote:
I didn't play that game!!!! It was Unzicker-Fischer!!!!!!!!
I never said you play.
You implied.
pfren wrote:
Andrewtopia wrote:
I also tried to play najdorf variation without knowing any theory and got crushed!!!!!
You'd rather try learning how to upload a game/pgn here before learning the Najdorf... it's a tad easier!
And: if you generously donate wood/ plastic to your opponent, you will lose, regardless if you know theory, or not.
Sorry. I didn't want najdorf! I was white!
Mar 31, 2016
0
#95
If you play a Sicilian without theory, you best be a tactical wizard. So many things to solve otb that most Sicilian players already know.
jengaias wrote:
Andrewtopia wrote:
jengaias wrote:
Andrewtopia wrote:
I didn't play that game!!!! It was Unzicker-Fischer!!!!!!!!
I never said you play.
You implied.
No I didn't.
I knew you might showing someone else's game.
I talk about you regardless of whom the game was or what it showed.
I saw some of your games from your archive.
Sorry. '\_("/)_/'
So, it was mentioned in this thread that the nge2 setups aren't the most ambitious. Anybody with more experience know the main setups and which are more dynamic? I tried playing some of the f4 setups but didn't have much success. I did build some decent attacks but would lose the thread. I suppose it wasn't really the opening I had trouble playing, but I've since switched to the setups without f4 and had good results. But there are formations with f4 followed by nf3 as well as the grand prix attack. Are these considered more ambitious?
jengaias wrote:
Andrewtopia wrote:
You need theory for these openings!! No matter what the opening!!
Here's an example of someone trying to play without caring about theory:
I can't see the game but one is sure.
At your rating you don't need any theory.
You do have a point. I never study opening theory, but I try. You're sure you can't see the game? I can give you the moves if necessary. It's a cool game.
Jengaias post on #121 is wrong.
Jengaias shows a diagram of the Najdorf Variation Mainline.
Which is the below diagram:
Jengaias than says in text:
This is the most analysed line Najdorf.I think we all agree with that.
Can you play it without theory?Yes you can.You only need to know when to get out of theory!
After Jengaias says the above text in green. He shows a line Anand played.
Jengaias than says in text:
The above is just an entertaining game that shows how the good player can get out of theory and win because he understands chess more.
Jengaias continued on...
I will not repost it. Since I am trying to make a point on why Jengaias is wrong.
Jengaias than shows another game example:
The below annotations in the diagram are from Jengaias as well.
After Jengaias is finished!
He wraps up with the following statement:
It's a myth that you can't play Najdorf without theory.
If you study chess correct , you can play ANYTHING without theory.
Which brings me to my ending points.
1) The first point I want to say is Jengaias still hasn't proven the Najdorf requires no theory.
The reason why he hasn't done this is because the 2 diagrams he used as evidence are not Najdorf Sicilian lines.
The first example line he gave was a Najdorf line.
The second & third example line he gave are Classical Sicilian lines.
The Classical Sicilian is different than the Najdorf Sicilian.
If black plays 5...a6 that is the Najdorf.
If black plays 5...Nc6 that is the Classical Sicilian.
6.Bg5 has been played against both lines which is true.
However, black has more ways of responding in the Najdorf.
In the Classical Siclian black plays 5...Nc6 which means the knight on b8 goes to c6.
However, in the Najdorf black plays the move 5...a6. Which means if white proceeds with 6.Bg5.
Black has the option of defending the knight on f6 with his knight.
By playing 6...Nbd7.
This line has been played and is trendy.
However, I myself still like playing the normal way with 6...e6.
The point I am getting at is The Classical Sicilian & Najdorf Sicilian are completely different lines.
In the Najdorf the theory can be very extreme.
I will show you an example:
The below line is called the Posion Pawn Variation:
Now use common sense.
Why do you think this line has alot of theory?
Black is playing a queen move to steal a pawn.
White is accepting the loss of the b2 pawn in order to attack the black queen.
If black screw's up white might be able to trap the black queen and win it!
Does it surpise you that this line has heavy theory?
Black has to be able to get his queen the hell out of there with out losing it!
It is common sense!!!
When your life is in danger the stacks are higher!
When your life is not in danger the stacks are low!
Theory is the same bloody way!
Lines which have heavy theory = more danger
Lines which have low theory = less danger
Now compare to the Classical Sicilian line that Jengaias is talking about.
Is the black queen in danger here?
Is black getting checkmated?
No!!!
The danger is low!!
Which means the theory you have to know is low!!
Do you see how that works?
Which brings me to point 2.
2) Life Time Achievements/Recognition/Awards
Now this is something I want everyone to think about.
The reason I want people to think about this is because many people never mention it!
What is theory?
At its core do you know what theory is?
Opening theory is the hard work, sweat, & tears of chess players through out the ages!!!
Some people spend there entire life in love with the game of chess playing a specific chess line.
They love it!
They try to improve it!
An over time other chess players recognize your work.
They see all your hard work and many name it after you.
That is how chess opening lines got created.
Many lines in chess are named after people.
People who spent there life studying and going over such lines.
I think opening theory is part of history.
You can see the history of a line.
Why wouldn't a person want to learn the history of a line?
Learning how the opening changed over time.
How the theory of the line came to be.
Those are the reasons why I think Jengaias is incorrect.
That's not true at all. Play the najdorf without knowing theory and you're dead.