Sicilian Defense: Closed Variation

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.

The restrained ...d6, ...e6, ...Nge7 setup is quite fine. Black will do all the natural developing moves, start expanding q-side, and be ready to meet g3-g4 with ...f5. There's an expert argument about the right way for Black to recapture at this particular structure when white goes gxf5 or exf5, I guess there's no true gospel here.

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.

Well, there are many things to consider. I suggest starting from the excellent old book by Danny King- outdated lines, small, but very well written. There is also the newer (10 years old) book by Palliser which is almost up-to-date, but I suggest reading King first.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

Let's put it this way...playing main lines won't make your chess better.

X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:

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.

That's 1 of the 2 mail setups against the closed sicilian . They either fianchetto or play for an early d5.

jengaias wrote:

Taulmaril wrote:

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.

There is a Spanish GM that plays Closed Sicilian, David Nieto Larino.

He has a specific system from which he rarely deviates.For example he usually plays h3 before Nf3 if Black can pin the knight with Bg4.

His system is simple and the same moves with some few deviations seem to be repeated all the time(the positions produced though are anything but simple).

I would start from Nieto if I was you.Then I would go to better players like Spassky , Smyslov and Keres.You have much more to learn by analysing their games than from any book.

Then the book might refine your understanding or might even prove useless.

p.s. The link for Larino's games in case you need it.

http://www.365chess.com/search_result.php?submit_search=1&eco=B25&wid=5869#

Interesting. He plays a different setup than the 1 I've been playing so far, but the more setups I know the more versatile I can be. Thanks for the link.

Yes, you should play for f4; that's what Carlsen did with his Nh3 so he could capture with it if Black played ef (which he eventually did). But you should keep your attacking options open and not only play to open the f-file. If Black plays e5 instead of e6, that creates a hole on d5 that gives White the possibility to play Nd5 in support of the kingside expansion with f5. A knight on d5 lends one more attacker against Black's hole on f6. If Black uses the e6/d6 setup, White cannot occupy d5 with a knight, and it helps prevent f5 which can lead to a dangerous attack. Black can have f5 attacked by the e6 pawn, the g6 pawn, the e7 knight, a d4 knight, and the c8 bishop; he can also play f5 himself. The f5 attack (...f4 in the closed English) is a structure you should look at.

For more ideas in the Closed Sicilian, I would look at Volume 3 of John Watson's Understanding the Opening Series, and look at his chapter on the Closed English.

Indeed. It's pretty weird to read just how many people advocate against studying mainlines. Sure, I notice many here talk of reaching certain levels (of rating & experience) before even considering such a "absurd" notion.

Though, in my opinion...always...mainlines are the foundation. At any level. I've always believed, especially in these times of chess engines.& databases, mainlines.are the distillation of chess theory handed down from generation to generation where through written medium, then digitized, It's ideas remain fundamental. Each succeeding generation adding to it, tweaking it. To the ultimate. Although in the meantime, until there is an innovation or a better idea (I should say) players can rest assured there is an certainty that the moves being played in a mainline is the best move without question.

The ...d6 ...e6...Nge7 setup seems pretty effective v. the closed Sicilian. The Polgars v. Spassky in the late 90's showed the ideas pretty well and a recent Mamedov - Ponomariov game was interesting.

The general idea is that White has to be active and relatively quick on the kside. If white is stalled there or gets side tracked too much on the queen side, things could get a lot tougjher. Spassky's games v. Geller in 68 showed the benefit of a kside coming before qside. Some similarities with white KIA ideas.