Sicilian Defense: Closed Variation

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.

That's not to say one should automatically play mainlines but as far as anything else I've read, it's common sense to play the "best" move methinks. At any level.

Yeah it's subjective. But if your goal is to improve your game, not play like a GM, do what THEY did. Study mainlines first. Shortcuts will guarantee some short term success. Building a foundation always guarantees advancement from one level to another.

Here you go:

Kenneth_Thomas wrote:

Taulmaril wrote:

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.

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.

I've seen a fair amount of cases where white just sacrifices a pawn on f5 (though usually to damage blacks pawn cover). I have pawn structure chess by soltis and the closed sicilian/english is one of the last ones he covers. He says it's one of the more complex pawn structures in chess.

That's why I chose the closed sicilian. All those theory parrots who just repeat booklines on the board often don't know what they're doing. And if nothing else I won't get blown off the board because I didn't memorize move 25 of the Dragon and allowed some cheap shot. My goals for my openings right now is reach a playable (and preferably dynamic) position where me and my opponent are just playing chess over the board.

Yes, I think you are confused.

Playing Nge2 is not very appealing for white when black is able to play the pawn move e5.

The pawn on e5 restricts the knight on e2.

Which is why you would want your knight on like f3 or h3.

This happens in the Botvinnik Variations.

I think 7.Nh3 is the better optoin than 7.Nf3.

However, you can see how if you play 7.Nge2 your knight will be hitting your own pieces. Which will cause it to be more restricted.

X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:

Taulmaril wrote:

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

Yes, I think you are confused.

Playing Nge2 is not very appealing for white when black is able to play the pawn move e5.

The pawn on e5 restricts the knight on e2.

Which is why you would want your knight on like f3 or h3.

This happens in the Botvinnik Variations.

I think 7.Nh3 is the better optoin than 7.Nf3.

However, you can see how if you play 7.Nge2 your knight will be hitting your own pieces. Which will cause it to be more restricted.

I believe you're the one who's confused. I'm talking about variations where black plays an early e6 to support d5, as in my example game. That is one of the setups against the closed sicilian. And against that setup nge2 is a move, but you don't play it in combination with f4, because you want f4 for your knight in that variation. The Nge2 supports white playing d4 should black choose to play d5.

Yeah having a knight on e2 is playable in e6 lines.

I know you was asking when having a knight on e2 can be undesireable.

Which is why I was giving you examples.

Usually it has to due with a pawn being on e5 which restricts the knight on e2.

I don't know if you have ever heard of the term redundancy?

Bascially the knight on e2 would be called the redundant knight.

The reason why is because when black has a pawn on e5.

It causes the knight on c3 and knight on e2 to fight for the same squares.

Bascially you have 2 knights fighting to go to the same squares.

However, only one of them can be there.

In lines where black has a pawn on e6.

You can often jump your knight to the f4 square or in some cases play the move Bf4 which is protected by your knight on e2.

Yeah I have to admit I am a fianchetto junkie.

I love playing fianchetto lines.

KIA, KID, Pirc, Modern Defense, Gruenfeld, English Opening, etc.

Yeah I think having discussions like this can help in improving.

I know I have learned alot from different chess forums.

Well in the e5 lines it was pointed out by a poster that the d5 square is a juicy outpost. So the knight on c3 could go n to d5 then the e2 knight could go to c3 further supporting that point. Or maybe white could at some point play g4 then the e2 knight might want to go to g3 supporting the kingside storm, as it does in some of the fianchetto lines I've glanced through. But yeah, just trying to learn the ins and outs of piece placement against different structures. But now I know if they play an early e6 nge2 is desirable. Fischer played it against spassky in 1992 I think it was.

Taulmaril, you are right that you can play f5 (...f4 in the Closed English) as a sacrifice, but there is also an attacking plan that uses a non-sacrificial f5. Spassky's f4/Nf3 line is based on this theme, among other things. Depending on Black's formation, it is easier or harder to achieve f5. For example, if Black plays a Dragon setup (pawn staying on e7, knight on f6), it is relatively easy for White to achieve f5, though it's not the end of the world for Black. With e6/Nge7, it is harder for White to play f5. It's a matter of taste on both sides. You want to familiarize yourself with some of the plans involved with the non-sacrificial f5, as it can lead to a powerful attack.

Black has played the kingside fianchetto most times against me though not usually with nf6.

Indeed. Again, it's weird. What's more key to understanding an opening than going through the mainlines, then alternatives, and then sidelines?

Understanding, as you put it, does not come without a sort of basis on which, depending on your experience, to stand on. There are master games upon master games that anyone can study & follow from many different mediums.

An example would be following Botvinnik's treatment of the QGD Exchange Variation. Are you sure you want to surmise he didn't have to adhere to mainlines and improve on them. Which, coincidentally has contributed to mainline theory.

You're speaking of such instances where, I guess a newbie should listen to you, thus denying one the riches of distilled theory built upon decades just because yeah, mainlines are an excuse for those who want to spend hours studying.

Cool. I think it's backwards thinking but hey, if the.greats themselves advocated the same thing there wouldn't be advances in opening theory.

I'll give you the notation and you can play it on analysis board or something. How do you feel about that?? Here you go: 

           1. e4  e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. O-O Nbd7 9. f4 Qc7 10. f5 Bc4 11. a4 Be7 12. Be3 O-O 13. a5 b5 14. axb6 Nxb6 15. Bxb6? Qxb6+ 16. Kh1 Bb5! 17. Bxb5 axb5 18. Nd5 Nxd5 19. Qxd5 Ra4! 20. c3 Qa6 21. h3 Rc8 22. Rfe1 h6! 23. Kh2 Bg5 24. g3? Qa7! 25. Kg2 Ra2 26. Kf1 Rxc3! White resigns

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1140234

There you go, it's called the dragon.

Its sybling 'The Adams attack'.