#20 I was an e4 player and this is ridicolous, I loved playing against the French and I didn't mind not developing my Bishop on move 3...
Sicilian or French Defense?
Sort:
Jan 31, 2022
0
#23
0peoplelikethis wrote:.
Lol. 4.f3 is the official refutation of the Portugese joke of an opening.
Wrong.
ThrillerFan wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
Why not play it in rapid? how does that make sense?
Sicilian is "better" (slightly) but unless you're master strength the chances you'll actually be able to take advantage of the fact that it is somewhat a little better (gives you more of a fighting chance) are slim.... so if you're asking this because you want to learn one it won't matter... try both, pick one and have fun with it... or maybe try the french sicilian... and if you're going to learn an opening don't forget to study opening principles as welll
That is such a false statement. The Sicilian doesn't give you more of a fighting chance. The Sicilian, actually, is all about defending the King and avoiding all kinds of sacrificial attacks by White, and trying to win the better endgame.
The French is just as much, if not more, of a fighting opening. Case in point:
Showing one game means nothing.... If white allows Winawer variation then the game is very unbalanced yes, but white has a few ways to avoid it if he doesn't want to go for it... it's a lot easier for white to steer the game into a drawish/balanced middle game against the french than against the sicilian
White can do the same thing with the Alapin Sicilian!
If White wants to try for a draw, go right ahead. In roughly 40 or so games that I've played over the board as Black in the exchange French since the US Open in 2014, I have roughly the same number of wins as draws with literally ONE LOSS!
If you want to give me 20 wins and 20 draws for each loss I inherit, go right ahead and play the "drawish" Exchange French! DARE YA!
SMH!
I wasn't referring exclusively to the exchange french... nor did I say anything about trying to draw... I said go for drawish/balanced middle games, which means usually calmer, less risky, more controlled positions
Anyway nice statistics... sample size 1 player... However you personally perform in a specific opening has nothing to do with how drawish or balanced a position is... especially in masters games, which is what I was referring to if you had paid attention to what I wrote...
And to say that "The Sicilian, actually, is all about defending the King and avoiding all kinds of sacrificial attacks by White, and trying to win the better endgame." is just funny... That's why Kasparov played it, to defend and grind an endgame... except for when he unleashed his fearsome french and checkmated the opponent!! There is a reason why most top GMs play sicilian most of the times...
Also, you sound a little angry, are you okay?
You claiming that my statement about Black defending the whole game to reach a winning endgame is laughable just goes to show how uneducated you are with the Sicilian Defense.
The Najdorf is all about long term advantages, which typically are "endgame" advantages. For White, it's all about various sacrificial attacks. The most common is Nd5, sacrificing a piece to get an open e-file and an outpost on c6 (now that d5 has a White pawn).
Another is Nf5, often seen in the Perenyi Attack.
A third is Ne6 (or Nxe6).
Black? It's all about defending against these sacrificial attacks and other various attacks where White has gone all out with his attack that after a defused attack and tradedown, White's pawn structure is wrecked and in an endgame, he's likely lost!
And as far as the French, clearly you understand nothing about it. If you think that White has more opportunities to quiet down the position in the French than he does in the Sicilian, you are totally delusional. White can just as easily defuse the Sicilian. Alapin. Nd4-e2, g3, and Bg2 lines in the Open Sicilian. Moscow with 5.c4. Maroczy Bind positions, like against the Accelerated Dragon.
White wants to play the Tarrasch? 3...Be7 often leads to the Universal System, to which Black can play 8...g5, which is a wild, attacking line. The Winawer is a mess. The McCutchen is a mess. I have had many wild games in the Advance. The only line that can sometimes be "dull" is the Exchange Variation, but then it's about understanding position play. In no opening can Black force White into a wild tactical malee in all lines. Even the Benoni, there are Anti-Benoni lines and QP systems.
So yes, your claims are firvilous! That said, with best play, both openings are a draw, as is any other "sound" opening.
There are many lines indeed where black defends and hopes to convert a superior endgame, but saying that "sicilian is ALL ABOUT DEFENDING and trying to win an endgame" is in fact funny... you take on a possibility and make it into a rule
And I assume the fact that you mentioned only the Najdorf is probably because I mentioned Kasparov, who I think goes without saying liked unbalanced (and if possible attacking) positions... which makes me wonder why him and other top GMs choose sicilian over french in the vast majority of cases... curious no? Probably just a coincidence
As far as the accelerated dragon, no GM would go for that in classical as black (sure if you dig you can find a couple of exceptions), but maroczy structure and good luck executing d5... if you're in a must win situation thinking about playing the accelerated might as well brush up on theory and just go for the main dragon, face the yugoslav and pray you don't get checkmated... But in a must-win situation anything is valid...sicilian, french, alekhine, modern, dutch, benoni, pirc, even scandi....in the moscow (and the canal and the rossolimo) white is often giving up the bishop pair and messing up blacks pawn structure, it doesnt get much more imbalanced than that.... alapin is in fact most of the times a bit boring, but then again I never said white has no way of avoiding calmer games (but in a must-win worst case scenario, play a couple of sub-optimal moves, get the benoni/alekhine mindset, get cramped up and hope to find some counterplay... or lose the game, which you can do with pretty much any opening - to a certain extent), but for most sicilian players they don't mind facing the alapin as most french players I know they don't mind facing the exchange either... the other lines you mentioned they were too broad you would have to be more specific (classical, taimanov, 2...d6 vs 2...Nc6, etc etc) ... but in the open sicilian, even when white can play more quiet moves it's usually black in the driver's seat dictating the play
In time, "fighting" doesn't mean sharp tactical attacks... it only means "fighting"
In the lichess masters database, sicilian scores better than french (shocking, I know)
But I do agree with you in the part where there is no opening where black can force white into going into sharp madness, but I never claimed so, nor did I say that the french is bad or that it cannot be unbalanced as you seem to believe I did... I merely stated that -in general- with the sicilian, compared to the french, there are more opportunities for black to get an unbalanced game, but for the OP it wouldn't make a difference because he wouldn't be able to take advantage of whatever inaccuracies white plays, whether it's against sicilian or french, since we all know that in non-masters game chances are there will be decisive blunders/tactical shots, but you took that comment on the french as a personal attack god knows for what reason and started distorting my words to fit into your narrative, which is why I'm no longer going to waste any more time and energy into this discussion, feel free to have the last word ... my "frivolous claim" is backed up by being the choice of the majority of GMs.... yours is backed up by your own personal experience... However, if you find 10 super GMs who prefer the french over the sicilian , then I'll come back to this thread... note that the keyword is PREFER (not play it sometimes), as in someone who plays french more often than sicilian.... It's probably do-able, but not nearly as easy as finding 10 super GMs who play sicilian.... I'll Start 1-Radjabov (although not so sure if he still plays it frequently) 234, Korchnoi, Petrosian, Botvnic (not sure if they all played it more often than sicilian, and technically not super GMs, but unfair to deny WCs (and viktor) a place in any list just because they didnt break 2700)... other than them, vitiugov... and 6- the beast morozevich who also plays chigorin and albin somewhat frequently...
I play both but I play the French first and then if they play almost anything other than 2.d4 I transpose into a Taimanov Sicilian
Jan 31, 2022
0
#26
Morfizera wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
Why not play it in rapid? how does that make sense?
Sicilian is "better" (slightly) but unless you're master strength the chances you'll actually be able to take advantage of the fact that it is somewhat a little better (gives you more of a fighting chance) are slim.... so if you're asking this because you want to learn one it won't matter... try both, pick one and have fun with it... or maybe try the french sicilian... and if you're going to learn an opening don't forget to study opening principles as welll
That is such a false statement. The Sicilian doesn't give you more of a fighting chance. The Sicilian, actually, is all about defending the King and avoiding all kinds of sacrificial attacks by White, and trying to win the better endgame.
The French is just as much, if not more, of a fighting opening. Case in point:
Showing one game means nothing.... If white allows Winawer variation then the game is very unbalanced yes, but white has a few ways to avoid it if he doesn't want to go for it... it's a lot easier for white to steer the game into a drawish/balanced middle game against the french than against the sicilian
White can do the same thing with the Alapin Sicilian!
If White wants to try for a draw, go right ahead. In roughly 40 or so games that I've played over the board as Black in the exchange French since the US Open in 2014, I have roughly the same number of wins as draws with literally ONE LOSS!
If you want to give me 20 wins and 20 draws for each loss I inherit, go right ahead and play the "drawish" Exchange French! DARE YA!
SMH!
I wasn't referring exclusively to the exchange french... nor did I say anything about trying to draw... I said go for drawish/balanced middle games, which means usually calmer, less risky, more controlled positions
Anyway nice statistics... sample size 1 player... However you personally perform in a specific opening has nothing to do with how drawish or balanced a position is... especially in masters games, which is what I was referring to if you had paid attention to what I wrote...
And to say that "The Sicilian, actually, is all about defending the King and avoiding all kinds of sacrificial attacks by White, and trying to win the better endgame." is just funny... That's why Kasparov played it, to defend and grind an endgame... except for when he unleashed his fearsome french and checkmated the opponent!! There is a reason why most top GMs play sicilian most of the times...
Also, you sound a little angry, are you okay?
You claiming that my statement about Black defending the whole game to reach a winning endgame is laughable just goes to show how uneducated you are with the Sicilian Defense.
The Najdorf is all about long term advantages, which typically are "endgame" advantages. For White, it's all about various sacrificial attacks. The most common is Nd5, sacrificing a piece to get an open e-file and an outpost on c6 (now that d5 has a White pawn).
Another is Nf5, often seen in the Perenyi Attack.
A third is Ne6 (or Nxe6).
Black? It's all about defending against these sacrificial attacks and other various attacks where White has gone all out with his attack that after a defused attack and tradedown, White's pawn structure is wrecked and in an endgame, he's likely lost!
And as far as the French, clearly you understand nothing about it. If you think that White has more opportunities to quiet down the position in the French than he does in the Sicilian, you are totally delusional. White can just as easily defuse the Sicilian. Alapin. Nd4-e2, g3, and Bg2 lines in the Open Sicilian. Moscow with 5.c4. Maroczy Bind positions, like against the Accelerated Dragon.
White wants to play the Tarrasch? 3...Be7 often leads to the Universal System, to which Black can play 8...g5, which is a wild, attacking line. The Winawer is a mess. The McCutchen is a mess. I have had many wild games in the Advance. The only line that can sometimes be "dull" is the Exchange Variation, but then it's about understanding position play. In no opening can Black force White into a wild tactical malee in all lines. Even the Benoni, there are Anti-Benoni lines and QP systems.
So yes, your claims are firvilous! That said, with best play, both openings are a draw, as is any other "sound" opening.
There are many lines indeed where black defends and hopes to convert a superior endgame, but saying that "sicilian is ALL ABOUT DEFENDING and trying to win an endgame" is in fact funny... you take on a possibility and make it into a rule
And I assume the fact that you mentioned only the Najdorf is probably because I mentioned Kasparov, who I think goes without saying liked unbalanced (and if possible attacking) positions... which makes me wonder why him and other top GMs choose sicilian over french in the vast majority of cases... curious no? Probably just a coincidence
As far as the accelerated dragon, no GM would go for that in classical as black (sure if you dig you can find a couple of exceptions), but maroczy structure and good luck executing d5... if you're in a must win situation thinking about playing the accelerated might as well brush up on theory and just go for the main dragon, face the yugoslav and pray you don't get checkmated... But in a must-win situation anything is valid...sicilian, french, alekhine, modern, dutch, benoni, pirc, even scandi....in the moscow (and the canal and the rossolimo) white is often giving up the bishop pair and messing up blacks pawn structure, it doesnt get much more imbalanced than that.... alapin is in fact most of the times a bit boring, but then again I never said white has no way of avoiding calmer games (but in a must-win worst case scenario, play a couple of sub-optimal moves, get the benoni/alekhine mindset, get cramped up and hope to find some counterplay... or lose the game, which you can do with pretty much any opening - to a certain extent), but for most sicilian players they don't mind facing the alapin as most french players I know they don't mind facing the exchange either... the other lines you mentioned they were too broad you would have to be more specific (classical, taimanov, 2...d6 vs 2...Nc6, etc etc) ... but in the open sicilian, even when white can play more quiet moves it's usually black in the driver's seat dictating the play
In time, "fighting" doesn't mean sharp tactical attacks... it only means "fighting"
In the lichess masters database, sicilian scores better than french (shocking, I know)
But I do agree with you in the part where there is no opening where black can force white into going into sharp madness, but I never claimed so, nor did I say that the french is bad or that it cannot be unbalanced as you seem to believe I did... I merely stated that -in general- with the sicilian, compared to the french, there are more opportunities for black to get an unbalanced game, but for the OP it wouldn't make a difference because he wouldn't be able to take advantage of whatever inaccuracies white plays, whether it's against sicilian or french, since we all know that in non-masters game chances are there will be decisive blunders/tactical shots, but you took that comment on the french as a personal attack god knows for what reason and started distorting my words to fit into your narrative, which is why I'm no longer going to waste any more time and energy into this discussion, feel free to have the last word ... my "frivolous claim" is backed up by being the choice of the majority of GMs.... yours is backed up by your own personal experience... However, if you find 10 super GMs who prefer the french over the sicilian , then I'll come back to this thread... note that the keyword is PREFER (not play it sometimes), as in someone who plays french more often than sicilian.... It's probably do-able, but not nearly as easy as finding 10 super GMs who play sicilian.... I'll Start 1-Radjabov (although not so sure if he still plays it frequently) 234, Korchnoi, Petrosian, Botvnic (not sure if they all played it more often than sicilian, and technically not super GMs, but unfair to deny WCs (and viktor) a place in any list just because they didnt break 2700)... other than them, vitiugov... and 6- the beast morozevich who also plays chigorin and albin somewhat frequently...
10 is an easy number to come up with:
Botvinnik
Vaganian
Petrosian
Korchnoi
Short
Uhlmann
Glek
Gurevich
Bareev
Psakhis
Radjabov
Morozevich
Nimzowitsch
Winawer
Simon Williams
If I put more time into it, I can find you two dozen more at least!
Ok I'll bite and reply one last time since you came up with 10... However, read again... I said super GMs (with a little leeway to WCs, so out of the ones I didn't mention I think short's the only one that fits the criteria, but use my list and continue it'll be easier for you).... once again you just show how you don't pay attention to what you read and interpret everything wrong... but good job on ignoring the rest of what I said lmao ... probably the smartest thing to do when you have nothing relevant to say so please do us all a favor and let's just leave it at that
Jan 31, 2022
0
#28
Morfizera wrote:
Ok I'll bite and reply one last time since you came up with 10... However, read again... I said super GMs (with a little leeway to WCs, so out of the ones I didn't mention I think short's the only one that fits the criteria, but use my list and continue it'll be easier for you).... once again you just show how you don't pay attention to what you read and interpret everything wrong... but good job on ignoring the rest of what I said lmao ... probably the smartest thing to do when you have nothing relevant to say so please do us all a favor and let's just leave it at that
The term "Super GM" is artificial. Either you are a GM or you are not.
Uhlmann was a GM
Petrosian was a GM
Nimzowitsch was a GM
It isn't like I put nobodies on there. Psakhis is a GM, Etc. I haven't officially looked for some stupid title on each individual one, but over 10 of those were GMs.
Artificial or not, it's a thing... and it means above 2700... They're all great players no doubt, but I wrote super GM and you ignored because you obviously cannot find 10 super GMs... otherwise you would have, hence proving me right and that is as clear as day... no matter how much you try to convince yourself and others.... But tell you what, just list them and I'll check for their "stupid title".... Lol you're funny
Jan 31, 2022
0
#30
Morfizera wrote:
Artificial or not, it's a thing... and it means above 2700... They're all great players no doubt, but I wrote super GM and you ignored because you obviously cannot find 10 super GMs... otherwise you would have, hence proving me right and that is as clear as day... no matter how much you try to convince yourself and others.... But tell you what, just list them and I'll check for their "stupid title".... Lol you're funny
Using a numerical criteria like that is bopkis. Botvinnik peaked at 2730. Today, many GMs are over 2700. It is a ludicrious criteria because it doesn't take being a top 3 player in the world to be at that numerical number. They are all relative to each other during the same time period.
A 1786 today is not the same as a 1786 in 1953.
A 2158 today is not the same as a 2158 in 1972.
Same thing goes for 2700. So all such a criteria does is put a bias towards today's players. Openings go thru trends. The French was domanint in the 3rd quarter of the 20th century. The Najdorf and Scheveningen were dominant in the 4th quarter. The Rossolimo is all the rage today.
So all you were doing was trying to gerrymander the question so that you could sound smart by rigging the criteria when in reality, a doornail is smarter than you are!
Igor Glek would kick the snot out of your weak 1808 butt! The fact that he was 2670 instead of 2700 doesn't mean jack sh*t. He's a Grandmaster that has played the French most of his life!
Ad hominem exhibit 1 - A classic
A doornail is smarter than me bc it won't waste its time arguing with a cherrypicker like you who ignores what he can't reply to and distorts the rest to fit into their delusional narrative... but since fate has decided to play a prank on me and make it rain everyday during my holidays on the beach I find myself here replying to you...
"A 1786 today is not the same as a 1786 in 1953.
A 2158 today is not the same as a 2158 in 1972."
No shiit sherlock... what's the point of stating the obvious ? Looks like maybe you're the one trying to sound smart... pretty much everyone knows that and it doesn't prove anything...
Now... english is not my first language so I have no idea what bopkis is and I couldn't find it in the dictionary... thru context I'm assuming it means something like "bogus"... the criteria is not bogus nor rigged at all... (gerrymander is a nice word, had to google that one but I like it)... The reason why I said super GMs is simple: they are the elite today, the best there are.... and (surprise surprise) chess knowledge evolves.. during Morphy's era they thought my beloved Dutch was as good as most other common replies to d4, now we know that even though it is playable it is not the soundest... In absolute terms, players today are stronger than their equivalent players 50-80 years ago, hence my criteria for saying super GMs... because they have the vast accumulated knowledge of previous generations, and today, to be elite, 2600 is not enough, you need at least 2700... so if there is a decay in the use of the french or any other opening it's obvious that "the trend" is not just personal preference of GMs
Scheveningen and especially najdorf are still "all the rage" today... and played far more often than the french...
But this excuse of yours was a nice attempt as to why you can't find super GMs playing the french, really great deflection
""Igor Glek would kick the snot out of your weak 1808 butt! The fact that he was 2670 instead of 2700 doesn't mean jack sh*t. He's a Grandmaster that has played the French most of his life!"
LOL I mean I would honestly f**king hope so... in fact he would beat me playing bongcloud grob with odds... if a gm who dedicated most of their life to chess can't beat a patzer who plays blitz for a hobby then they are doing something very very wrong... but who knows maybe if I get to your 1852 do you think I will have a chance of beating him? Lololol once again great argument, you have really outdone yourself in this one... comparing a GM to a casual player sure proves that the french is the holy grail of the openings lmao smh.... geez ok 2670 is close enough, you can add him to the list, after all he can beat an 1800 player, if that doesn't prove something, what does?... Lol that comment alone was worth all the time I spent here I actually legit laughed out loud really hard... thank you for that.... just out of curiosity, how old are you? lmaoo
And I actually take back what I said, please amuse me again, let me see some more of that razor sharp wit of yours.. it would be entertaining to see what you have to say on the rest of that previous post you conveniently turned a blind eye to where I said you couldn't come up with 10 super gms who play the french (and you still haven't)...
Also would you like me to come up with 20 super gms who play the sicilian?
1-pretty
2- much
3-almost
4-every
5-single
6-elite
7-chess
8-player
9-today
10-plays
11-the
12-sicilian
13-far
14-more
15-often
16-than
17-they
18-play
19-the
20-french
Btw, I checked again, sicilian still scoring better than french in lichess masters database (still can't believe that)
Bearing in mind that the OP is 800 rapid, I'll tailor my response to that level since really trends at the SGM, Expert, or club player level aren't relevant to them.
At this level I think the French is much better. You'll likely see the exchange an advanced variations most often and if someone does play Nc3 or Nd2 or some weird sideline you can play the plans from the advanced or exchange variation reasonably effectively, because there's a 0 percent chance the opponent knows the lines well enough to punish.
Advanced variation: Simple plan of just keep adding attackers to d4 until d4 falls and then clear e5 as well. If you can't figure out how to get attackers to the right squares look up some videos on how to play the advanced french. Avoid getting greek gifted and win up 2 pawns and with complete control of the center. This will be the hardest part, but teaches valuable lessons about looking out more mate threats and converting and advantage. Eventually this simple plan will stop working, but it won't be for several hundred points.
Exchange variation: At the 800 level where no one plays theoretical lines this might as well be an e4-e5 game. The positional difference of an open e file means nearly nothing at this level. Most players should have some comfort in an open game.
Both the French and the Sicilian fundamentally give you a pawn structure advantage, but I think at the 800 level the French pawn structure advantage is easier to understand and exploit. For that reason I think it's stronger and more instructive.
Feb 1, 2022
0
#33
vs e4 there are the big four: e5, sicilian, caro-kann and french. According to the best engines the dark square strategies are marginally better (e5 and Sicilian). Probably on human non super GM level it doesnt make a difference.
Whats for sure tough is that the french is the most narrow and forcing of the 4. In the other 3 openings there are a lot of decent sidelines who are equal but still have bite and you have to learn them.
Long story short while the french might not be the best for your chess development if you plan to become a super GM it's the least to learn and most narrow.
In the Tarrasch and exchange variation you can steer for an IQP if white doesnt choose to go for an IQP himself. Basically you play with or against an IQP. Then just choose something vs Nc3 that you like.
Feb 1, 2022
0
#34
Morfizera wrote:
Ad hominem exhibit 1 - A classic
A doornail is smarter than me bc it won't waste its time arguing with a cherrypicker like you who ignores what he can't reply to and distorts the rest to fit into their delusional narrative... but since fate has decided to play a prank on me and make it rain everyday during my holidays on the beach I find myself here replying to you...
"A 1786 today is not the same as a 1786 in 1953.
A 2158 today is not the same as a 2158 in 1972."
No shiit sherlock... what's the point of stating the obvious ? Looks like maybe you're the one trying to sound smart... pretty much everyone knows that and it doesn't prove anything...
Now... english is not my first language so I have no idea what bopkis is and I couldn't find it in the dictionary... thru context I'm assuming it means something like "bogus"... the criteria is not bogus nor rigged at all... (gerrymander is a nice word, had to google that one but I like it)... The reason why I said super GMs is simple: they are the elite today, the best there are.... and (surprise surprise) chess knowledge evolves.. during Morphy's era they thought my beloved Dutch was as good as most other common replies to d4, now we know that even though it is playable it is not the soundest... In absolute terms, players today are stronger than their equivalent players 50-80 years ago, hence my criteria for saying super GMs... because they have the vast accumulated knowledge of previous generations, and today, to be elite, 2600 is not enough, you need at least 2700... so if there is a decay in the use of the french or any other opening it's obvious that "the trend" is not just personal preference of GMs
Scheveningen and especially najdorf are still "all the rage" today... and played far more often than the french...
But this excuse of yours was a nice attempt as to why you can't find super GMs playing the french, really great deflection
""Igor Glek would kick the snot out of your weak 1808 butt! The fact that he was 2670 instead of 2700 doesn't mean jack sh*t. He's a Grandmaster that has played the French most of his life!"
LOL I mean I would honestly f**king hope so... in fact he would beat me playing bongcloud grob with odds... if a gm who dedicated most of their life to chess can't beat a patzer who plays blitz for a hobby then they are doing something very very wrong... but who knows maybe if I get to your 1852 do you think I will have a chance of beating him? Lololol once again great argument, you have really outdone yourself in this one... comparing a GM to a casual player sure proves that the french is the holy grail of the openings lmao smh.... geez ok 2670 is close enough, you can add him to the list, after all he can beat an 1800 player, if that doesn't prove something, what does?... Lol that comment alone was worth all the time I spent here I actually legit laughed out loud really hard... thank you for that.... just out of curiosity, how old are you? lmaoo
And I actually take back what I said, please amuse me again, let me see some more of that razor sharp wit of yours.. it would be entertaining to see what you have to say on the rest of that previous post you conveniently turned a blind eye to where I said you couldn't come up with 10 super gms who play the french (and you still haven't)...
Also would you like me to come up with 20 super gms who play the sicilian?
1-pretty
2- much
3-almost
4-every
5-single
6-elite
7-chess
8-player
9-today
10-plays
11-the
12-sicilian
13-far
14-more
15-often
16-than
17-they
18-play
19-the
20-french
Btw, I checked again, sicilian still scoring better than french in lichess masters database (still can't believe that)
You say No S*** Sherlock, and then question the whole point. The whole point is a 2700 in 1950 is more like a 2850 today. Therefore, your sweeping 2700 criteria across the board is ludicrous. So your argument that Uhlmann and Nimzowitsch and Psakhis and others are invalid answers just goes to show how much you gerrymander to try to sound right when you know damn well you are wrong all along.
And cherry-picking? Pa-Leez! 15 GMs is not cherry-picking! A single game by a single GM to prove a point - that is cherry-picking. Like if I said that Fischer-Uhlmann, Buenos Aires 1960, magically made the French the only good response to 1.e4. That would be cherry-picking.
And what people play today is not what matters. Just because the Rossolimo is what is trendy today does not make it better than anything else. Kasparov once said - "All openings are sound. All normal openings that is."
An opening is sound or it is not. There is no "better soundness". If one scores a half of a percent better than the other, it just means it has been figured out deeper and closer to the forced draw. Guarantee you that once chess is fully figured out, Sicilian, French, Caro, and 1...e5 will all lead to a draw. Edge Case openings that are not so normal, like the St. George Defense, a refutation may be found.
So take your (in a whiny pitch) "The Sicilian is better than the French" argument and shove it!
I play d4 only as white, and love the sicilian. But I used to play against a 1800 bullet player OTB and he only played French Defence. I now have a hatred for French Defence (no offense to any that play that opening)
ThrillerFan wrote:
Morfizera wrote:
Btw, I checked again, sicilian still scoring better than french in lichess masters database (still can't believe that)
You say No S*** Sherlock, and then question the whole point. The whole point is a 2700 in 1950 is more like a 2850 today. Therefore, your sweeping 2700 criteria across the board is ludicrous. So your argument that Uhlmann and Nimzowitsch and Psakhis and others are invalid answers just goes to show how much you gerrymander to try to sound right when you know damn well you are wrong all along.
And cherry-picking? Pa-Leez! 15 GMs is not cherry-picking! A single game by a single GM to prove a point - that is cherry-picking. Like if I said that Fischer-Uhlmann, Buenos Aires 1960, magically made the French the only good response to 1.e4. That would be cherry-picking.
And what people play today is not what matters. Just because the Rossolimo is what is trendy today does not make it better than anything else. Kasparov once said - "All openings are sound. All normal openings that is."
An opening is sound or it is not. There is no "better soundness". If one scores a half of a percent better than the other, it just means it has been figured out deeper and closer to the forced draw. Guarantee you that once chess is fully figured out, Sicilian, French, Caro, and 1...e5 will all lead to a draw. Edge Case openings that are not so normal, like the St. George Defense, a refutation may be found.
So take your (in a whiny pitch) "The Sicilian is better than the French" argument and shove it!
Not cherry picking GMs, but cherry picking the arguments which you reply: some you have absolutely no counter-arguments - which is why you ignore them -, others you distort completely... do you always have a hard time interpreting or you do that on purpose when you just don't know how to argue back?
Cet par, a 2700 today is stronger than a 2700 some 70 years ago... which means they have more chess knowledge.... and yes your gm picks are invalid because there was a criteria you didn't match. Plain and simple, you can twist it as much as you like to try and fit into your narrative...
Rossolimo is trendy because the GMs believe it's their best choice at the time they're playing, whether they don't want to go into deep open sicilian theory, or play into black's comfort zone, or they think they'll outprepare their opponent or whatever reasoning, but for the most part, most of them still vary between rossolimo, open, etc... so that argument is a fallacy... And pay attention, I also never said French is unsound, as you're trying to imply with Garry's quote
You don't seem too versed on statistics.... if one opening (in this case, sicilian) scores 2% better in wins and 2% better in draws and 3% better in defeats, not a half percent (but nice try again at disqualifying a statistic), that is, you win and draw more, and lose less, is because it is easier to play the better scoring opening, whether the best moves are more natural to find, or the plans are more straight-forward and easier to execute, or whatever reason... we are talking about people playing said openings, not computers (although, if I'm not mistaken 1...c5 did score better than 1...e6 in the WCCC, but I would have to double check that), it's a big difference... So, while in theory they might be equally sound, in practical terms one is a little better than the other, as evidenced by data...
Notice how I reply directly to what you say? I would like to see you do the same someday...
Now... I'm wrong all along? Lol too funny... I said that top GMs consider the sicilian slightly better than the french because they choose it more often when they are trying to get an imbalanced position, but that it wouldn't matter at OPs level (and to be honest, it doesn't in our 1800s either), and you, for some reason I am still trying to understand, got all pissy, started fuming and threw a fit as if I said that the french is garbage... but this is clearly a waste of time because you're too proud and too stubborn and never reply to the actual points I make (maybe I should start numbering them to make it easier for you), you just go back in circles, so unless you actually come up with an actual a counter-argument (or another hilarious one like a GM beating an amateur) to the things I said, I am actually done this time... But I am still curious, how old are you?
Well...that escalated rather quickly.
ChesswithGautham wrote:
It depends. If you’re a bit calm do French. I’m a attavk8ng player so I enjoy Sicilian. Don’t play it in rapid, just blitz and bullet
I don't think you know how to play the French correctly, learn some more, people don't just play the exchange variation they also play the advance.
May 23, 2023
0
#39
sicilian or french
heres the real answer
In the french you get
- a quick counterattack
- a bad bishop on c8
- a space disadvantage
- a closed game
- having to endure the exchange variation
- possible quick equality
in the sicilian you get
- no symmetry
- a bit of a slower game (really depends how white plays)
- a backwards d pawn (sometimes)
- a small center
- easy development
- good activity on the c file and queenside
- a possible d5 break
- potentially strong bishops
- instant equality if white plays the closed sicilian
Sicilian > French
"The French Defence. In my younger years I used to consider it at best a second-rate opening, and I once even lost a bet with one of my friends, and as a result had to play 1... e6 in all my games with Black in a Super-GM tournament. Fortunately my friend was greedy, and took money instead. I believe that both 1...c5 and 1...e5! are better choices, but since I desperately wanted to win this game (I was trailing the leaders Kramnik and Shirov by 1 point at this stage) I decided to try something new." - Carlsen
AlphaZero prefers 1...e5
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf
That is all theory. In practice the opening does not matter and tactical errors decide games regardless of opening. Even 1...a6 is good enough to defeat a reigning world champion, see Karpov - Miles.