Sicilian or e5?

just ignore him CS

I know the question "is chess a draw" cannot be solved by majority vote. Actually, chess  is so complex that total proof cannot be given [as it has been given in checkers]

However the fact that 99% of grandmasters believe chess is a draw means a lot.

You know there was a certain opening line of which both sides had been played by the world's top players for decades.

One day I declared the line was a win for Black after only 4 moves!  I was told I was full of it and stupid and why should anyone buy a book authored by me?

The problem was that I was right! 

When a good player undertakes to make a diagnosis of many different openings and does so in good part by conventional wisdom- that player will sometimes make a mistake such as a recent note on the best opening play against the Albin Counter Gambit. 

Umm, so, according to some being equal in 3 moves is the same as being equal in 30- the difference being just one worthless zero. Allow me to disagree.

What matters most is that Black not only has effortless equality in the aforementioned variation, but his play is extremely easy to handle- natural moves with close to zero risk. This is hardly the case with the Ruy, the modern Italian, the Scotch, even the 4 knights Ruy.

What's more important is that today finding a way to get a good game against secondrate opening like the Ponziani is a fairly easy task- all you need is a good game database, a computer, and some common sense. The days one had to rely on potentially flawed analytical work by Zagorovsky, Estrin or whoever are gone.

Alex, to my knowledge mr. Taylor has not played any ICCF rated correspondence games for the last 20 years or so.

Of course he is a fairly strong player, and the opening he advocates is a sound one- but hardly something that can give to any slightly booked-up Black a headache. The openings which were "hot" some twenty years ago, while being disreputable today are too many to count.

Hey, man, I was never "world champ" but a long time ago when I was a lot younger, I did win the 7th United States Correspondence Championship with a score in the Finals of 13 wins and 1 draw. After that I played a challenge game against a group of high rated players [including one who is a GM now] This was my attempt to refute the Albin Counter Gambit--and I invented a line where White does not play a3 in the opening and the game transfered from the opening to an end game quickly. It was the endgame of a good N vs a bad Bishop. This was not a rated game but lasted a year and each move posted on the internet.

Also a challenge game where I tried to refute  1. e4  e5 2. Nf3  f5 is part of the theory of that opening.

After. I was diagnosed with Alzheimers,my chess not so good but maybe good enough?

With my Health problems [especially I have lost my spatial] have turned me into

just an average master. I will help the Ponziani Power group however.

he Ponziani was never hot 20 years ago and is not hot now. It has never been hot.

I have seen this posting a lot  1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6 3. c3  d5! =

Chess ain't that simple.

Going back to OP's original question.  I would say that if you decide to go with the Sicilian, stay away from the Najdorf.  The Najdorf relies on long forced variations and the first person to vary from theory usually loses.  Natural looking moves are often bad in the Najdorf.  The Dragon and the Sveshnikov are both good below the level of master, in that although White has a theoretical edge at the highest levels, they are easier to play as Black.  I would also stay away from the Kan and the Taminov, they are both very flexiable which is good at high levels, but easy to get into a bad position at lower levels.

I would hope the Kradon/ the OP chooses something besides the Sicilian.  Wait until you are @ 1700 to play it is my .02.

Kradon /OP:  The Scandinavian is good I recommend it instead of the Sicilian.

From a patzers perpective: With the Kan Black has to deal with, delayed development, Marcozy bind positions and occasionaly castling by hand.. this is assuming White is a decent player.

I tried the Kan for a while and enjoyed it, despite the drawbacks I mention above but my coach told me not to play it or any Sicilain lines as black.  So I stopped.

The upsides to the Kan. Variations up to move 10 are easy to "see" and what looks right usually is.  The eventual f4 push by white is a critical point in the Kan for Black.  It's much more complicted than that though.  

My .02

joey you are just wrong. name some of these tons of things. The thing about science is that it is self correcting as opposed to religion which is not.

A scientist never believes in things as dogma. If something comes along to indicate a theory is wrong then that theory will go out the window. There never has been a time when the top world players did not think chess is a draw.

Joey for someone who has studied math--you sure like to misquote!

"Chess is a draw because lots of grandmasters say it is a draw" is NOT what I said at all.  First I mentioned 99% not "lots"

Second, I never said that I believed chess is a draw because grandmasters believe it is a draw [or say it is a draw]--that is just one piece of evidence--I have other reasons to say chess is a draw--so again you misquote.

I do however have to respect their hundreds of years of chess knowledge and playing and these hundreds of years are not irrevelant.

One reason I believe chess is a draw is my own more than 60 years of chess playing [some of these at a high level] 

And the fact that there has never been a time when the top world players did not think chess is a draw IS relevant--it is very good evidence. You cannot negate hundreds of years of chess experience just by saying it is not relevant.

It will never be 100% proven chess is a draw because chess is just too complicated but that does not mean  we cannot have a very informed opinion.

Any professor worth his salt will admit that it is possible what he is teaching is incorrect.

Much of what you refer to as having been proven wrong is simply religious dogma--not science.

It is very hard to understand your point.  Are your saying its alright to play the Kan and Taimanov, even if you don't understand them because chances are your opponent won't either?  How does the fact that Black occasionally survives at the top level playing the Sveshinikov and Dragon make them unfit for amateurs.  I would point out that in the Anand-Gelfand game, Anand played a very safe variation and didn't seem to be playing for a win.

I have NM Taylor's pamphlet on the Center Counter.  Good stuff.

Unfortunately, @Joey comports himself like a retired high school math teacher, who worked part time as a line coach for the football team.

No self respecting math Ph.D., would ever say the outrageous things he does inside these threads, or pretend to talk about the "history of knowledge," with a straight face.

At best he's a retired stock broker with a BA in math from Podunk University.  Just my conjecture.  But he is always spoiling for a fight, Q.E.D.

He's a very strong chess player, nonetheless.  And given his voluminous record of games and posts on this site to date, it appears to be just about all he does, from sun up to sundown.  Hence the retirement conjecture.

Since when is Math a Science?  Most Universalists assert it is the language of Science. But that's a "whole nother" kettle of fish, indeed.

Would NM Taylor really pose for an avatar photo like the one being used?  Probably not.

Such a crazy, sleepy, cyberworld, chess town we inhabit.  

So entertaining, reading these these posts.  Mine excluded, of course.

@Snakes (and a few others) set the standard for combining intellect with entertainment on this site.  More power to them. 

The offer to always "place a bet" gives you away.  You need to let go of that song and dance.  UNC is great school, in any case.  Have nice day.

Please stop trolling, @Bankwell.  You're out of practice, and not especially good at it.

And @Joey is a VERY knowledgable chess player, and good writer, among other things. He's very funny, if you can look past all the bashing he does.

Agreed.  I will endeavor to avoid pointless arguing with you.  You are head and shoulders above so many people on this site.  Seriously.

But I'm still getting used to your avatar photo.  

Another self referential syllogism (above), something at which you excel. Couple of key typos too.

That Ph.D. assertion continues to look a bit threadbear.  You said what, regarding ad hominem attacks and logic?

So you have played roughly 3000 games in only 4 months on the site?  Did you even take a break from playing chess when you insisted you had pneumonia?  Or was that illness after your Math Ph.D., or your planned lunar landing?

So hard to keep track.  You're such an amazing guy.

Thankfully you're a strong chess player.  That actually becomes you.

joey, I do not understand your ambigous statement "Hundreds of years of playing chess is irrelevant for virtually all human knowledge" Those hundreds of years of playing chess may not be very relevant to ALL human knowledge but it is relevant to chess knowledge.

And your implication that chess is not a draw because of the millions or more games which have decisive results is wrong the decisive results come from players who make mistakes--most players make several mistakes each game.

As to  you quoting me as saying "lots" instead of 99% was an attempt on your part to discredit--why because you followed up implying it was my religion that since "lots" of grandmasters believe chess is a draw then I believe same.  Your statement of why I believe chess is a draw is made up and not at all accurate.