Sicilian Defense: Closed Variation

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.

You implied.

Sorry. I didn't want najdorf! I was white!

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.

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?

 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.

You must be joking.

A few days ago, a player rated about 100 points higher than the O.P. made a post here, asking how to meet the powerful novelty 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 f6!

But OK, lets's talk about serious players. Here is a game between two Grandmasters:

Still insisting that a class player must know "a lot of theory" to play the Sicilian?
It's all about ideas, and planning, not theory. That stupid 2...h6 move (which of course is not terribly good) does have a positional idea: To prevent an eventual Bc1-g5 after say 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5! when the "Boleslavsky hole" on d5 is not such a big issue without the knight pin being available.

Sample lines:

Recent very high level game- the strong, young Grandmaster van Kampen comes prepared to meet the aged Wolf's line.

...I could go on, but i guess this is enough...

I clicked on this topic hoping to see X_Player proclaim that the closed sicilian is unsound or refuted.

I'm a little disappointed :(

Wow that is not true at all.

The Nge2 lines can be very ambitious!

I have talked with several IM's who specialize in Nge2 lines.

The Chameleon is a neutral line.

You have the option to play open or closed sicilian with it.

Thus, nothing wrong with it at all!

I mean playing a Sicilian line like the taimanov, najdorf, dragon etc. things that are known very well even at 2000 level. Sure 2..h6 has little theory and probably for good reason. I mean just a few days ago I played a game in the najdorf when my opponent played 6.a4!? And I responded with 6..e5 7.Nf3 h6 for the very reason you mentioned..although after white played that a4 move.

Sicilian is very well know at M, IM, GM, and IGM levels. But in this level... Once someone played as white against me:

To settle the front page disputes, the Sicilian is the best fighting chance for black. 

X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:

Taulmaril wrote:

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?

Wow that is not true at all.

The Nge2 lines can be very ambitious!

I have talked with several IM's who specialize in Nge2 lines.

The Chameleon is a neutral line.

You have the option to play open or closed sicilian with it.

Thus, nothing wrong with it at all!

They were referring to the nge2 setup after you've committed to the closed sicilian. Perhaps it's not as ambitious as say the early f4 &nf3 line. They said it's tough to cracked the nge2 setup but isn't particularly ambitious either.

Wrong. The best fighting chance is knowing how to fight. The opening is just a part of the fight, and all sound openings give a good chance to fight. Well, even some unsound ones.

Whether you play 2.Nge2

or

2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2

Both Chameleon lines are considered neutral.

Chameleons change color in real life.

Which is to say the Chameleon line can change from open to close as well.

Thus, the people telling you that are incorrect.

Example:

Yeah the Chameleon is great.

The problem people have is they try to respond the same way against everything black does.

The Chameleon is not one of those lines.

Furthermore, The Closed Sicilian is not that type of line either to be honest.

True. But it's best for those who already know how to fight.

You will not learn how to fight by studying openings.

Studying games of great players/fighters is one thousand times preferrable. Start from Morphy and Steinitz. Admittedly, most of Morphy's games were not much of a fight- blame it on his opponents' poor play, but he also has several great games, which are easy to understand.

Taulmaril, your comment on this game that e6 and d6 don't go together is not correct. In the Closed Sicilian, White often plays for f5. With this e6/d6 setup, Black will meet f4 with f5 himself, with a tense game to come. There is a corresponding line in the Closed English where White plays e3/d3 and meets Black's f5 with f4. This is just one of many standard setups that occur in the Closed Sicilian/Closed English.

One thing I think you have to look out for as White in the Closed Sicilian is that you don't always want to play Nge2. Botvinnik always considered that if White played Nge2, Black should reply e5, with the Botvinnik setup that also occurs in the Closed English. The e5 pawn restrains the knight on e2. In this game, I think your Nge2 was okay because Black had already played e6 (though I would probably have played Qd2 and left options for my g1 knight). In the Carlsen game, you saw that he replied to e5 with Nh3. I beat a master quite badly using that exact reply, followed by a quick f4-f5, many years ago. One commentary I saw on Carlsen's game suggested that Black should have met Carlsen's Nh3 with h5. That is certainly plausible; I would love to hear pfren's opinion on this suggestion.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, there are many commonalities between the Closed Sicilian and the Closed English. Knowing those nuances well has helped me beat higher rated players in those strutures.