Solution to Avoid Lots of Sicilian Theory

I've heard that the Smith-Morra is good for a draw, and it allows you to steer the game along distinct lines that I believe avoid the mainstream of book openings. My own favorite reaction to the Sicilian is the Staunton-Cochrane Variation, but my thread about this variation stirred up a lot of controversy (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/staunton-cochrane-sicilian-my-quotsicilian-killerquot).

There is a major flaw in the Smith-Morra Gambit.  When I played the Sicilian, I enjoyed the Chicago Defense (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 7.O-O b5), but Black can just as easily DECLINE the 2nd pawn, and he can virtually force a direct transposition to the c3-Sicilian, which is the main reason I do not advocate the Morra Gambit.

When I played the Sicilian, which I played mainly the Taimanov or the Scheveningen (via 2...e6), I can tell you what my take was on the various Sicilians I faced:

Open Sicilian (2.Nf3 and 3.d4) - One of the reasons why I prefer 1...e5, 1...c6, or 1...g6 as Black against 1.e4.

Closed Sicilian (2.Nc3 and 3.g3) - This line is EXCELLENT for blitz tournaments (game in 5 minutes).  I have faced this in OTB blitz events and it drains your time, then you lose on some time scramble error.  In long time controls, it's good enough for a draw or some occasional surprise use, but it's not a good solution for everyday use.  Of course, against lower competition, like 1700, anything would work.  1.e4 c5 2.h4 might be ok.

c3-Sicilian (a.k.a. Alapin) - I find this line to be a complete joke.  See my previous posts in this thread.  Patience is the key for Black.  This line can be annoying to say, Najdorf players that want instant clash and a major combat.  The Taimanov and Scheveningen are more positional and the c3-Sicilian should never bother a player like this, myself included!

Grand Prix Attack (2.f4 or 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4) - The latter is better than the former.  The former allows the Tal Gambit (2...d5 3.exd5 Nf6) or Toilet Variation (2...d5 3.Nc3), neither of which are any good for White.  Throwing in 2.Nc3 Nc6 first before 3.f4 is a slight improvement, and it will get the unprepared, but those that know it, this line is not a problem at all for Black.

Morra Gambit (2.d4) - If White could force Black to accept, I might advocate it more than I do.  There are trap lines, like the one with e6 and Qc7 by Black (can't think of the name of it, but 8.Qe2 is a blunder in that line).  And I always liked the Chicago Defense, but it's not without its problems to solve as well.  However, declining it and transposing to a c3-Sicilian is sure-fire equality at worst for Black, and why I wouldn't play it as White.

Wing Gambit (2.b4) - This line is horrible because of 2.cxb4 3.a3 d5!

Deferred Wing Gambit (2.a3 intending 3.b4) - This is what I play myself.  See post 15 for sample games.  I advocate this line because it's extremely tricky, and there is no refutation.  Against correct play, it might only be equal, but the path to correct play against this is the width of a piece of thread while the path to equality against the Alapin is the width of the broad side of a barn!

Lines with 2.Nc3 and 3.Bb5 - These lines are fairly recent and can be tricky for Black to defend.  Often times, they end up being very similar to the Hubner Variation of the Nimzo-Indian Defense with the colors reversed.  If you like blocked positions with your main advantage being pawn structure, and can squeeze out very long endgames and win because of your opponent's structural damage, like doubled c-pawns, give this line a whirl.

Lines with 2.Nf3 and 3.Bb5 - The Moscow (2...d6 3.Bb5+) I don't think gets White much of anything.  The Rossolimo (2...Nc6 3.Bb5) is a bigger problem for Black.  He often has to deal with the same issues as in 2.Nc3 and 3.Bb5, though there are differences in the two lines.  White can again squeeze out a small advantage via slow, methoical play, realizing that his trumps are long term and not blasts at the Black King.

So which lines do I respect for White and feel White can try to play for a win with?

Correspondence and Long Time Controls Over the board:  Open Sicilian, Deferred Wing Gambit, Nc3/Bb5 lines, and the Rossolimo (2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5)

Blitz events:  Everything listed above for Correspondence and OTB events along with the Closed Sicilian.

My comment was a comment on 1)e2-e4 c7-c5 2)b2-b3!

2)b2-b3 great! white pawn on f4, if black has pawn on e5 like king's gambit, white bishop on b2 on long diagonal before black bishop on g7, EVEN KNIGHT ON C3, the white bishop x-rays the long diagonal.When knight leaves c3, c2-c4 is possible - how can black attack along c-file?

Obviously you have no clue about anything.

Totally avoiding any theory at all?  That's non-existent!  All lines, even the London System, has theory of some sort.

Obviously any Anti-Sicilian is going to have less theory than the Open Sicilian.  None of them are going to be as strong as the Open Sicilian.  I simply pointed out which ones still have winning chances against anybody of any decent strength, which of course excludes you, I'm talking Experts (like myself) and Masters.  I already pointed out that against people like you, anything would work, including 1.e4 c5 2.h4.

As for your diatribe about the Closed Sicilian, I don't only speak for myself.  There have been many people that have stated what I said at the higher level.  I didn't come up with the original idea that the Closed is great for blitz.  I actually only faced it once in blitz, but have used it as White in blitz as well, and the problem for Black is that of choice.  No move stands out and screams "I must be played" unlike in other lines.  There are no tricks or immediate tactics for White that Black has to watch out for.  It's all subtle minor stuff that takes time to calculate.  Time is something you don't have in blitz.  It's like trying to play for a win as Black in the exchange french.  It looks like nothing is happening, and yet, there's a lot happening.

You list excessive question marks about the Alapin and Toilet, like you don't know what they are.  I didn't come up with those games.  1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nc3 is called the Toilet Variation.  1.e4 c5 2.c3 is the Alapin.  Neither are any good for White.

My point for speaking of my own experiences is to verify that I have actually played what I'm talking about, not just blowing hot air.

I am well above your skill level, and you should not be trying to outsmart someone that is more than 200 rating points above you.

So go back and crawl in your little hole, and speak again when you have something more intelligent to say.

Hi all, (sorry to get to the party late Chicken_Monster)

Nice to see that the Sicilian is still able to ruffle feathers and raise tempers ;)

SO...First off I completely agree with the people who scoffed at theory, NOT because knowledge is bad in itself, but because people mistake collecting knowledge for honing skill. SKILL is what you need at your level (and mine, and pretty much everybodies to be honest ;) (and 'theory' is NOT really knowledge, it's more collective experience mixed up with (old!) fashionable trends and idiosyncratic preferences of chess practitioners).

Whether you realise it or not C_M, side-stepping mainlines ALWAYS means relying on skill to see you through. There's a lot of good advice in this thread, but one thing that everyone seems to have forgotten is that (especially at our modest levels) WE ARE NOT CHESS-PLAYING MACHINES!

I aim for positions that interest me, positions that I'm comfortable playing, positions that quite simply I ENJOY. THAT is what you need to go out and find C_M, positions/games that you enjoy! Figure out what you like in chess and try to find it in every game you play!

Stepping down from my soapbox, if I had to choose a simple answer to the Sicilian, I'd go for 2. b3 as a few people here have suggested (I would look into Wing-gambit lines too, just for the kick). As soon as Sicilian players have to play a very different kind of position to their 'normal' (read 'pet'!) lines, you're halfway there.

Go play 10 games with each against a computer at 10 mins/game, playing for activity...whether you lose or not (let's face it, you probably will!) see how you felt. Then try it out in a couple of online games (really putting some effort into it). Then decide if it feels okay for you. Regardless of what you decide, you'll have improved your chess...

I see. Can you recommend a good book on the deferred wing gambit? 

Playing 1. g3

csalami, check out the following:

http://shop.chesscafe.com/The-Modern-Anti-Sicilian-STR9893.htm

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Black gave up 1-0

(unless they play a6 you'll win for sure)

jk, but it's still good

Is THIS what people don't like about the Wing-gambit? 

That's certainly the right attitude, BUT..choosing a good but unorthodox line is a good practical approach to building up an opening repertoire.

InTowardsTheLight - Your line in message 62 is one of many issues with 2.b4.

After 3...d5, your 4.e5 is one of many bad options for White (A good option doesn't exist here).

Another problem for White is after 4.exd5 Qxd5, now taking the pawn on b4 is a blunder (5.axb4?? Qe5+ drops the Rook)

The whole point of the Wing Gambit is accelerated play on the Queenside.  This usually requires an open a-file.  By deferring the gambit, if Black takes on b4, the a-file is open.  Here, Black can take on b4, reject a3, and White never gets the time to take back as Black is always threatening something, like the pawn on e4, or a Queen fork on e5.

This is why deferring it with a3 is better.

My doubts about 2.a3 stem from the fact that Black can do what they want with that free tempo that 2.a3 gives them....things like 2... g6.

NOT saying this stuff looks unplayable, but frankly even the position I posted doesn't look unplayable to me. Forget the queenside, Black king has to go somewhere, and White looks ready on the kingside. Seems to head towards a Frenchlike structure where White's queenside is a bit of a mess, but where Black's natural counterplay with c5 is impossible....no?

It seems to me that BOTH these systems takes Black far from his pet sicilian lines. I'm going to go fiddle with them both and will get back to you... ;)

I remember wanting to get a book on 2.a3 vs. the Sicilian.  The marketing text made me happy when it said Tigran Petrosian played it (then was disappointed when they stressed "The modern one!")

I don't follow.

1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 does not stop b4 like once thought.  3.b4! Bg7 4.Nc3 and White is fine.

OK, I'm itching to play anti-Sicilian as White and try a couple of these ideas against Black playing the Sicilian Defense. If anyone wants to try a turn-based game (it can be rated or unrated, I don't care) using Black 1...c5 against me as White (1.e4) please challenge or PM me. Thanks.

Chicken, there's a Tigran L. Petrosian who is a fairly strong GM but no relation to the world champion. He plays some fairly baroque openings.

I know of him and joined his group on this site. I'll have to look at his games. I thought I read he was named in honor of the late GM.

Thanks.