Switching to Sicilian, but which Sicilian?

Bg5 isn't necessarily like that. Bg5 has a lot of sharp, well-known lines but is by no means forcing. Both sides have ways of deviating at various points. It has just as much or more "non-theoretical" lines as "theoretical" lines. (I have played it successfully without knowing 30 lines of theory.)

Personally, I was far more attracted to Bg5 over the English Attack for this reason. The English Attack became the most popular as white's plan is incredibly simple but effective. The main line is pretty forcing. Bg5 has more diversity to it.

Bc4 is a bit more dubious because ultimately the bishop is biting on the e pawn. It can also become a target so white has to pull it back to b3, spending a tempo. Technically black equalises but it's not a normal kind of equality. It's a very dynamic equality. A draw is a less likely result because of the ensuing tactical skirmish.

There are a lot of tactics to watch out for. Bxe6 is always something to be considered. This sacrifice is not normally an automatic win. It's often just to win 3 pawns for the piece and prevent the black king from castling.

Bxe6 is normally good when you win the 3 pawns in exchange, otherwise it normally isn't good.

The amount of Old Steinitz I also encounter is unfathomable. Same goes for Czech Pirc too. Just why? Or Philidor with Bg4 (loses, badly loses)

Bc4 has a lot of theory too, lack of recent published books on it doesn't mean there's less theory. It's very poisonous but with Bg5, White can choose from more lines to catch Black off-guard.

If you want to play Bc4 there was an old book by Lane, winning with the Fischer-Sozin attack, see Fischer games and Nigel Short games ( esp Vs Kasparov ), then it's up to you to curate the lines, with no recent published literature. Which will take quite a bit of your time.

Samuel how do you have this much opening knowledge but are only 800? Do you have a secret account you play on?

Hahaha, the classic "Philidor: Opera Game variation"

No, I just need to improve in other aspects, particularly time management actually. I also often play OTB with a local group.

I think you’re missing the first step here (which, admittedly, was many pages back). GPO’s claim was that at the intermediate level, Black regularly gets slaughtered in the Sicilian. He told us to check a database of intermediate games, and it would back him up.

Turns out it doesn’t. This is a total myth. In the lichess database of games between 1000 and 1800, Black has, by a slim margin, a *winning* record with the Sicilian.

So rather than admit he was wrong, GPO shifts to point to certain lines where Black can get into trouble. He points to a series of lines where he gets to choose White’s trickiest (but not necessarily most common) move and have Black respond with the most common move in the intermediate lichess database. He shows a number of these where White wins. It’s true these lines can be found, and they’re important for both players to know about. But there are several huge problems with using this as justification for the claim that intermediate players shouldn’t play the Sicilian because it’s too dangerous. Here are three:

1. For every line you can show where White scores much better, there exists another common line where Black scores much better. If this weren’t true, then White would have a winning record against the Sicilian. As pointed out above, White has a (narrowly) losing record. You can’t just pick the games where they win and ignore the ones where they lose. (Do you remember that bozo who used to claim that the Alapin “wins by force” and kept trying to “prove” it with a series of cherry-picked bullet games he had won? This is slightly more sophisticated, but it’s the same basic logical fallacy.)

2. I had’t articulated this before, but it’s worth stating. In many of the lines he shows, Black’s losing move is the most common one, but not something that’s played a majority of the time. It has a plurality, but maybe only of 25%. So in three quarters of games, Black isn’t falling into the trap and may have a winning score among the games where they play something else.

3. You can easily use the same technique to seem to show that Black always falls into losing traps in other openings. I gave four or five examples after 1.e4 e5. Each one took me about a minute to come up with. And others could quickly be found for almost any other opening you care to name. You should try it! It really is a rather fun exercise. Just not a very meaningful one.

There are interesting points to discuss here, and I’m not against trying to address the question with nuance. But it won’t do to say “You shouldn’t play the Sicilian - you’ll get clobbered.” Statistically, that’s just not true, and no amount of special pleading will make it true.

I see, it’s ok 👍 I also struggle with time management ⏰ I usually play too fast or play too slowly

:troll

It would be a paradox to know about openings so much yet be 800. He is just slow.

but also when theres an opening that has so many tactical options its great for a bright mind or a person who can make good, creative sacrifices

ive gotten this line once lmao

its obvious that samuel likely has an issue with deflated elo, his ONLY issue is that he blunders pieces every so often, other than that hes great at attacking chess and winning the game

One of the reasons why I temporarily dropped the Najdorf from 15/10 play was struggling to find a middle game plan and thus, burning the clock.

I easily gained 200 rapid points against tougher opponents by doing so.

90/30 is a different story.

Ahhh, okay. Thank you very much for explaining that all to me. I appreciate it.

90/30 best time control no doubt! 120/60 is terrible 😣

#JusticeForSamuel✊

@samuelajedrez95

where did you learn everything you learned and how?

Samuel is a chess coach Andas follower, maybe some of his streams/videos?

andas gives great advice on chess, if you want to get better learn the open sicilian and ruy lopez as white, classical nimzo and main line kid. ENJOY what you do, practice tons and tons on everything

while you got gothamchess who is over here recommending THE LONDON or some very passive openings, or he will give near refutable ¨traps¨ for black and white that if they dont work you just lose the game

i mean look at the traxler, whites winning by force

look at his ponziani-steinitz gamibit recommendation, its literally near refutable

look at f5 agianst the italian, near refutable

f5 agianst the ruy, black ends up very passive and white gets initiative

there are plenty others but im not mentioning them

I am also an Andras follower! I have his brilliant 1.e4 Chessable course! The videos are astounding!