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 Defense: Closed Variation
Sort:
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.
Taulmaril wrote:
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.
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.
pfren wrote:
Andrewtopia wrote:
To settle the front page disputes, the Sicilian is the best fighting chance for black.
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.
True. But it's best for those who already know how to fight.
Taulmaril wrote:
Here's a game I played against a more evenly matched opponent. Feedback appreciated.
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.
Well I have another game posted on page 3 or 4 I believe against a 2255 opponent who told me that e6 and d6 don't go together, possibly because if you play e6 you're likely considering d5 so playing d6 first is a wasted move. But that's just my take on his comments.
And if they play e5 does that just give me a hook to play f4? Then I don't need to play for f5, I have the option of exchanging on e5 opening the f file. Whatever insights you can provide are appreciated as I'd like to make the closed sicilian my main weapon and have a lot of ground to cover.
Musician44 wrote:
... What GM's do and play is irrelevant to the capabilities of patzers. ...
Some more of what IM Greg Shahade said:
"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)
I have a pdf version of starting out the closed sicilian by palliser. I'll see if I can find the king book. It seems like it'd be too much to try and read the entire volume cover to cover when I have much more practical skills to develop (I'm wanting to work through a series of endgame tomes in the coming months). Any recommendations on how to effectively go through the palliser book to greatest effect in terms of understanding?
For many opening books, I think that they are written to be a combination of instruction manual and reference. The idea seems to be that the reader skip much of the reference material and consult it only after playing a game that raises a question addressed by the reference material.
In a 2006 GM John Nunn book, in connection with opening study, it is stated that, if a "book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first", and the reader was also advised, "To begin with, only study the main lines - that will cope with 90% of your games, and you can easily fill in the unusual lines later."
In one of his books about an opening, GM Nigel Davies wrote (2005), "The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line."
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
Yeah that's what I've done so far. Just played it and did a little reading. The most common variation according to palliser is when black also fainchettos his bishop and that was the only setup I saw from black until my 2255 opponent played the early e6 and d5 setup. He gave me some pointers after the game and I perused that section of the book as well to gain additional ideas on what to do. Seems the most practical way to use the book without reading it cover to cover and needlessly using time on a bunch of sub variations when there are much more concrete ways to improve.
Look at bent larsen, that guy played all kinds of shit OTB and was 1 of the 2 top players in the world not living in the USSR back in the day.
Taulmaril, I think we are talking about completely different positions.
In your example game Black was playing more of a Sicilian/French type of position.
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
ylblai2 wrote:
Musician44 wrote:
... What GM's do and play is irrelevant to the capabilities of patzers. ...
Some more of what IM Greg Shahade said:
"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)
pfren wrote:
... Really? Plenty of examples about the opposite apply- one of them GM Gelashvili, who usually does play irregular lines- let alone mainlines. This costed him a lot: He never surpassed a FIDE rating of 2623...
When he was living and playing in Greece, we had a joke about him: He should somehow have been killed within the first 15 moves- if not, one could safely resign...
As I have pointed out before, IM Greg Shahade wrote, "... greatly help yourself ...". He did not write, "... only succeed ...". Are there plenty of examples of people who have used a cell phone while driving and not had an accident? Would it greatly help if one did not use a cell phone while driving?
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!