Suggestions vs. Sicilian, French & King's Gambit

Hi,

I'm looking for suggestions on how to fill in the gaps in my opening repertoire, specifically against the Sicilian and French with White and against the King's Gambit with Black.

Quick background: I have an OTB rating of around 1500, and I frequently play classical OTB games against much stronger opponents (sometimes up to 1900). Combined with the fact that, as an adult improver, I'm not exactly great at fast calculation, I enjoy playing very classical and very solid openings (Scotch Four Knights with White, Petrov and QGD Semi-Tarrasch with Black). I'm struggling a bit to find similar variations against the openings mentioned above.

Sicilian:

I currently play a simplified version of the Open Sicilian, and while my results are reasonable, I don't feel confident against some setups, e.g.,

I think the Moscow and Rossolimo would suit you temperamentally, I play the Rossolimo, there's a bit to know but it's not super difficult to play and it's an interesting opening. That said, considering the Moscow and Rossolimo are quite different beasts and then you would need something against the e6 Sicilians as well, it's not a simple answer.

If you want a universal response to the Sicilian, I quite like the look of The New Anti-Sicilian, by IM Fernando Valenzuela and might give it a go myself sometime. Chessable have a 30-day money back guarantee, so you could buy it, have a browse through and see if you like it, and just return it if you don't. It is just getting you equal positions, but Black is very unlikely to have played them before (I play the Sicilian and I know the first like 4 moves against this and then have no clue) and there are plenty of ways for him to go wrong.

For the French I would really consider sticking with the Tarrasch. For the Closed Tarrasch with Nf6, I can recommend 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Qg4, theory is over at that point, in the Lichess database this move is played 0.4% of the time and it's not like the Tarrasch is common anyway, so there is no chance your opponents have ever seen this before. When I play this online my opponents blitz out the first 6 moves but Qg4 is invariably met with a long pause. If you spend 10 minutes messing around in Lichess Explorer in that position (you especially need to know what to do if your opponents hit you with h5 or f5) you will have much more of an idea of what is going on than your opponents do. For the Open Tarrasch (3...c5) I play 4. Ngf3 and I think getting to a decent position from here for White is easy. I am scoring well from that position and I am very hazy on the theory.

For the King's Gambit, I haven't played 1...e5 in a while but I used to play the Falkbeer Countergambit and was very happy with it. This results in equality at best for White. There's a video here on it that looks pretty good.

• King's Gambit - I second the nomination of the video's 1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 exf4 - a good move order into the Modern Defense. Totally sound but you should be aware that in a few sidelines black still needs to play ... g7-g5. The King's Gambit always means a fight, no way around it.
• French - You are playing the Exchange Variation. This is reasonable and will give the same pawn structure as the Russian/Petroff, which is helpful. If you want something sharper then 3 Nc3 is the big move but you still have a chance to chicken out with 4 exd5 , so maybe you don't have to learn about both 3 ... Nf6 and 3 ... Bb4 at the same time. You mentioned not liking the IQP, how do you feel playing against it? Because the Tarrasch 3 Nd2 seems like a good fit for your repertoire.
• Sicilian - Your objections to the Alapin and the Closed are quite valid. I play the Closed myself (also Open) and no question black is comfortable, although -0.2 is not correct, it's equal there. I think you should stick with the "simplified" Open but just learn some actual theory and alternative plans. For example in the Dragon don't play 8 Be3 Nc6 9 f4. Instead do something like 8 Nb3 Nc6 9 Re1 !? with the idea of Bf1 and Nd5.

I don't remember the Falkbeer very well but I don't think g5 is ever really necessary is it? You play that if you want to try to hang on to the pawn and go for advantage, but I think you can just return the pawn with equality. Could be wrong.

A few things. 
1) You're 1500. I usually don't recommend getting really serious about memorizing openings until around 1800ish. That said... you can at least be experimenting and thinking about what to settle on, why you like this line or that line, and gearing up for a more serious study at some point in the future. But yes, at some point you do have to memorize openings if you want to keep advancing.

2) You really can't avoid the french, transpositions to it are everywhere. Furthermore... there aren't alot of very good and interesting deviations for white to play against it.... I've tried things like 2. f4 LaBourdonnais, 2. b3 the Horwitz attack, 2. Qe2 the Chigorin french... the problem with these deviations is, due to how defensively sound blacks position is, you really can't force interesting early complications and the game winds up just a worse version positionally of what the main line would have gotten you... You're honestly better off just playing the Tarrasch or Paulsen, and looking for some deviations within those lines. This is coming from someone who plays 1. d4 d5 2. Nd2 as white - I hate playing into my opponents hands in terms of theory, but with the french... there's not a much better option. 
But you don't have to play into the mainline Winawer, there are sidelines like the Alekhine-Maroczy 4. Ne2... try finding deviations like that within the main lines. Yes, it requires theory.

3) As white playing 1. e4 you should realize just how predictable you are. There's not an easy solution to the sicilian, it is the biggest challenge to the 1. e4 player... infact, at below-master level black might even have the advantage here, because black gets to choose the mainline variation... and white is tasked with learning so much theory that it's overwhelming. I could give you advice on how to deal with it, but the first thing I'd suggest is honestly not playing 1. e4, the move that 2/3rds of white players play every single game. Otherwise, if you're insistent on playing 1. e4... you should probably play the sicilian as black for a while.

4) Okay, you ignored my advice and continued with 1. e4. 
If I were play 1. e4... I'd go with 2. Nf3. In general I would recommend playing a mix of favorable open lines and favorable anti-sicilians... this way you can limit the amount of theory but not neuter yourself.

Against 2... d6, which leads to the Dragon / Najdorf / Classical, I would just push d4 and enter the main lines. The open lines here are generally devastating if white plays them correctly. The Yugoslav and Richter-Rauzer crush black.... Yes it's alot of theory, but you signed up for that when you played 1. e4. If you want to avoid theory play anything else... Against the Najdorf... I like the Adams attack, which is h3. There are other good lines, you have like 10 viable options vs Najdorf as white and honestly... the Najdorf is one of the easiest sicilians for white to deal with since he sees it so often and white is the one who directs the game. For proof, compare winrates of the Najdorf against other sicilians, it's one of the lowest scoring.

The Princ (f3) is also decent if you don't want to play the open lines here, since you usually get a maroczy bind going.

Against the french sicilian 2... e6 I would play an anti-sicilian such as 3. b3, the Westerenin attack. This is an improved version of the Snyder, it's an unusual position and you avoid the Taimanov, Kan, Four Knights... etc. Some other options are the delayed wing attack and 3. g3. I would not play the Kramnik variation, even Kramnik himself mocks the variation, if black plays just the first few moves correctly you don't have much.

Against 2... Nc6, since you're avoiding the french sicilians, you should play an anti-sicilian here too. Rossolimo is good. I think the delayed wing attack here, called the Portsmouth, is also quite good. 
The Anti-Sveshnikov is a good line, but it only makes sense in a repertoire consisting of open lines against the french sicilian, since it transposes w/ the Four Knights / Tiamanov.

I wouldn't play the Moscow since I think you're forgoing some of the whites most brutal lines in the Yugoslav / Rauzer for no real benefit.

So... Rossolimo / Westerenin / Yogoslav / Richter-Rauzer / Adams attack, that's my recommendation on the sicilian. Or, if you want something a bit more cheesy, insert the delayed wing attacks I mentioned instead.

Another word of advice - be weary of most anti-sicilians. Certain ones can be good... most are crap. Don't assume you're throwing black off of his algorithm... that's not quite how the sicilian is played to begin with. Against an anti-sicilian that doesn't do anything special black often can respond by just "playing chess" in his typical sicilian fashion and the game will basically equalize. Alapin is a very lame opening for this reason, I think it's terrible. Of course you can get "just a game" no matter what anti-sicilian you play, but then you're not really mastering the opening just getting past it, and why are you playing 1. e4 in the first place? Play something else like the Van Geet in that case, if you're settling for just a game at least get a novel one. I'm not really a huge fan of most early Qxd4 lines for similar reasons. And if anyone ever tells you to play the Smith Morra... ignore them, that line is total crap. Play something sharp, keep your initiative, don't just play a positional game.

Also.... I like the Closed Sicilian, but one that often transposes into open lines. Grand Prix is obviously great against 2... d6. But against 2... Nc6 - I don't like 3. Bb5, because then I just have to wonder why I didn't play a Rossolimo, which is just superior. So instead I'd play 3. Nf3 and transpose into the Anti-Sveshnikov here. Likewise, 2... e6 crushes lines like 3. g3, and the chameleon seems to me whites best response. So really here you're getting a different set of open lines - the ones from the french sicilian mainly. But certainly a Closed repertoire is very viable.

alapin is good you dont need much theory for it they can time to time transpose to advance french against siccilian if you are afraid of a IQP theres line where you could take on c5 I forgot which its been a year I play alapin myself and never had issues with my IQP closed siccilian is a good alternative it fixes your IQP you could also do a3 b4 then go c3 d4 open rook file massive center open lines for your peices its called mengarini idk about it being played in classical but rapid blitz its good my next reccomendation is portsmouth you do need a lot of theory for it as it leads to very sharp positons but you can get a crushing position very fast and its rarely played even classical below 2k fide you could run it with good results as a surprise weapon online its very doable for french run milner barry gambit theres a lot of cool lines you can use its decently sound has otb playability exchange is boring but it fixes your theory needs and cures black of most of his problems for me advanced seems to be a good middle ground between the complicated french lines and not letting him have a easy game kings gambit have not played against it in years so I cannot recommend anything

youre right about the anti siccilian part they're sub optimal

For Sicilian play the open Sicilian with a very sick attack with opposite side castle. For french you could play the exchange variation for a peaceful open game. For King's Gambit, Idk it's pretty rare to face. Maybe accept it and then counter with d5.

Thank you for the many detailed replies! I really appreciate the advice.

Regarding the King's Gambit, I was already looking into 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4. Since it was confirmed here several times as a good line in the style I'm looking for, I'll stick with it.

As for the French, I guess I should reconsider the Tarrasch, as it was also recommended more than once. When I last tried to learn it, I found it rather confusing, but perhaps that was due to the way it was presented (with a somewhat heavy focus on rare sidelines like the Guimard variation, despite targeting beginners and intermediates).

After my initial post, I found a ChessBase DVD from the "Master & Amateur" series that proposes what was also suggested here against the Sicilian: the Rossolimo vs. 2...Nc6, the Moscow against 2...d6, and 3.b3/g3 against 2...e6. I looked into the part on the Moscow, and the selection, depth, and commentary of the lines seem appropriate for my level. I also like the positions that come out of it and they score well according to the database. As a bonus, I'm already familiar with some of the themes, like the Maroczy Bind, from my experience with the Open Sicilian, and I retain the option to play the Open Sicilian when I feel like it based on what Black plays on the second move.

Regarding the suggestions that I don't need much theory at my level, or that I might consider switching away from 1.e4: While I do think that a bit more theory than usual is justified given my frequent OTB games against much stronger opponents, I'm the first to admit that I already spent way too much time on opening study. Besides the openings discussed here, I already looked into 1.d4, 1.c4, and 1.Nf3 with White as well as 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6, the French, and 2...e6 Sicilians with Black. At this point, I'm tired of it, and just want to get the opening out of the way and focus on other aspects of the game. But since I know that I won't be satisfied with anything other than a set of rock-solid openings and good theoretical foundations, I'm looking for the quickest way to get there. Hence, I'm trying to narrow the "required" theory, e.g., by replacing 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 with the Petrov, the Open Sicilian with the Rossolimo/Moscow etc., and I'm forcing myself to stop asking "What if I played something completely different?". If I could start over from scratch, I'd probably be playing 1.d4 instead of 1.e4, but given my current situation, it seems much more reasonable to fix my "issues" with the Sicilian than to give up on my knowledge and experience in 1.e4 e5 with White, i.e., the one opening that I'm definitely confident and happy with. (Plus I'm good at remembering forcing lines and terrible at transpositions.)

good luck to you if you need some sparring games like test new stuff hit me up for some unrateds

French:

Play the King's Indian Attack against the French and the e6 Sicilian.

Enter it via 2. d3 and 3. Nd2

Welcome to the club!

I wouldn't recommend you stop studying the opening, instead I'd recommend you go less deep into specific lines... instead experiment more, learn a little bit about this line or that line, try it out... maybe learn it 5-7 moves. And just get familiar with how to assess and compare openings. A good transpositional player relies on their breadth of understanding in the opening... get to the point where transpositions are your strength. I think you don't need to wait to do this. Eventually you'll settle on something. But it doesn't take very long to just try out an opening, an hour of watching hanging pawns videos and you're there. That will pay off long term, when you finally go to choose an opening... you'll choose the right one given your priorities as a player, your style, knowing what the available options are... no one can *really* tell you what opening to play since it's stylistic at the end of the day. But experimentation like this is unavoidable, but easier if you just do it as you go along. if you wait until some time in the future and decide to start then.... it's possible you'll never do it.

If you want to just "know your lines" - like you want something nice and compact... you should play more of a gambit style. Or at least force things early. Like play some wing attacks. Play the Evans gambit. Or even better, play the Polish.

I agree, and in fact I do enjoy acquiring a basic knowledge of all kinds of openings, including their history. I'm happy to play 1.e4, 1.d4, and Open Sicilians with White as well as the Italian, Ruy Lopez, and French with Black in Blitz or casual games. I'll even play the Pirc or Dutch, just wing it and see what happens. In this sense, I'll definitely continue studying openings.

That being said, when I get up on Sunday, drive an hour to play a classical OTB against a strong opponent, and every half-point really matters for my team, I also want to have a repertoire that I know well and that is very solid. For example, with the QGD Semi-Tarrasch I've drawn a classical game against a player who's OTB rating is 500 points above mine. So I can relax and freely play or study whatever I like, without any worries that I might struggle to face the Queen's Gambit, at least not due to a lack of opening knowledge. That is the sense in which I would like to get opening study out of the way.

Yeah, I agree with this (re the Najdorf). At all of 2000-2200, 2200-2500 and 2500+ on Lichess, the Najdorf scores the worst for Black out of any of the three ...d6 Sicilians. In fact, it's the only one of them where Black is not outscoring White.
Objectively the Rauzer is OK for Black but it's very difficult to play and practically speaking White is better (I play the Classical myself). I mention this just because in contrast, the Yugoslav is not objectively OK for Black. I know there are the weird endgame lines where Black is surviving, but the opposite side attack lines, which are the reason to play the Dragon, are very dubious. The amount of theory you have to know as White to take Black on is brutal though. I stopped playing the main line 9. Bc4 Yugoslav when I had one line that went to move 22 and White was still down two pawns but it was +1.

Sicilian- there's a lot you can do- have you tried 2. Nc3 followed by 3. Nf3? You can either follow up with d4 or d3- by now their sure to have put the knight on c6, so maybe even 4. Bb5 with the point being that we get into a Rossolimo structure pretty much every time, we're developed nicely and d4 is still a very nice idea to get a knight in the center.

French- I actually have had great success with the French in a lot of different variations. My latest experiment (before switching to 1. c4) was the Two Knights, but it's very tactical and you can't head in blind. More boring but literally overpowered (I bet I had a very high win percentage with it) is the Tarrasch variation, 3. Nd2. The point is after c5, we exchange the e-pawns and now black has sort of overextended (overextending in the french, lol) and we'll aim for an IQP structure for black, taking on c5 after they move Be7 or Bd6.

King's Gambit: honestly I think I've faced this once and lost (I was completely winning from opening but then blundered away and got mated). I don't play e5 anymore and really despise it unless you're playing the Petroff (I struggled a lot against the Italian), so my first piece of advice would be to not play e5 (Classical Sicilian, perhaps?), but I'm sure you're looking for something more like my second piece of advice: just strike back in the center. Thematic across different variations, but my favorite is this:

It's easy to learn and effective. You could also try the modern:

I'd recommend my first option though, it's simpler, safer, and there's a lot of games with that line (even at the master level, although most of those games are pretty old).

Your first suggestion against the King's Gambit most likely transposes to the 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 line that has been recommended a couple of times, so I take that as confirmation that I should look into this approach.

Regarding the Sicilian: As I said, I tried to make it work for me (with the black pieces), but I find it very counterintuitive, and I don't have much intrinsic motivation to learn it, apart from it's objective strength and other people's recommendations. I've also looked into the Richter-Rauzer a bit, and the black side of that is just about the last place where you'll ever find me.

Given my desire to play solid lines that I understand and that I have experience in, there's another "problem" with the (Classical) Sicilian and many other openings that score well at the beginner to intermediate level: There often seems to be a consensus on what the critical lines are (e.g., Richter-Rauzer vs. the Classical Sicilian or 2.g3 vs. the Dutch), and they're by far the most common responses at higher levels. Yet, at my level they're rarely played, let alone correctly. That's great in terms of winning chances, but it also means that I'd have to study a lot of theory that I'd rarely use, I wouldn't have many opportunities to gain experience in these lines, and a stronger opponent is quite likely to hit exactly that gap in my repertoire. Again, I know that I shouldn't worry about this, but that's easier said than done.

I'm happy to report that after looking into the Tarrasch again, it makes a lot more sense to me. I focused on main lines that seemed intuitive to me and that score well at my level, and I only looked at sidelines like the Guimard and Morozevich to the extend that they illustrate key themes of the Tarrasch.

For what it's worth, I'll post my analysis here, just in case someone comes across this thread in the future. It should cover all lines that appear at least once every 400 games, unless they are obviously harmless.

You know the proper response to the Bishop check, yes?

Please explain, but I don't see what's wrong with 10.Bd2. It's more common even among masters and the best move according to the engine.