Switching to Sicilian, but which Sicilian?

Depends on the situation. It makes more sense for black to play it in response to white challenging the centre with c4. It makes less sense for white to play it and allow black to gain more space with c5.

yeah but totally different play styles

White doesn't have to play it in a quiet manner. dxc5 against ...Qb6 gives the London some dynamism and potential bite. The idea is to create imbalances, and to hit black's d5 pawn with an eventual c4.

One example line:

(Also, I'm not sure why the London has popped up on a Sicilian thread, but oh well. )

The Sicilian can be a bit counter-intuitive, which can make it difficult for some players to adjust to.

The logical, "natural" moves that look reasonable sometimes (almost inexplicably) don't hold up.

This can make it more difficult to play than some other defenses, where the natural moves are often the best moves.

Consider this line, for example:

Black seems to have made all reasonable moves ... logically countering white's threats with moves that, on the surface, appear to have nothing wrong with them at all.

However, white is nearly +3 in this position. Completely winning. Black's f8 bishop is essentially locked out of the game (hence the +3 advantage for white). Meanwhile, white can throw his queenside pawns and pieces at black's weakened kingside, at will.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the Sicilian is bad ... but it's just one example where "logical moves" sometimes fail, due to the imbalanced nature of the Sicilian.

It can be a very fun defense to play, but it can also be very difficult. Sometimes, the only way to truly navigate certain lines is to be engine-prepped in them ... as finding the correct moves over the board can be difficult, even for experienced experts or masters.

(I remember watching a game where a top GM played a natural rook to c8 move ... grabbing the semi-open file ... which immediately sent the eval bar plunging. He needed to play an unusual knight move - undeveloping his knight, instead. It was a strange-looking move that most humans would not have considered, unless they had previously found it through engine prep.)

For some players, this is what makes the Sicilian so enticing. They love to dive into the theory and analyze high-level games where the opening struggle is complicated and nuanced. But not all players are like this. Some players don't enjoy opening study at all, and would rather do anything else.

For these kinds of players, the Sicilian and its many complexities can be quite daunting.

1. e5 is usually whats played if the 6th move isint Bg5 or Bc4

2. if you were to ever screw up like this, you learn the refutation and get over it

Often, but e6 is a completely legit treatment of the position.

...e6 is fine, yes.

The problem was actually 11...Qc7. A reasonable-looking move, but a mistake. Everything after that was essentially forced.

Why is ...Qc7 a mistake? Well ... it's not exactly easy to parse. It's a mistake because of the moves that follow afterward, and the difficulties that the ensuing position is left with ...

This sometimes happens in the Sicilian. A move may make you worse, for no obvious reason. It can be a slippery beast ...

@IronSteam1

Not true at all. If you actually consider the moves, there are very concrete and understandable reasons behind them.

In the example you gave, the move which actually completely resolves this whole issue for black is 7. ...h6, a perfectly logical move, instead of 7. ...b5, a less logical move allowing g5.

Even following the variation you showed, black was actually completely fine until Qc7 which isn't a logical move as it doesn't respond to the position and walks into Nd5.

...h6 is a playable alternative to ...b5, sure. But it's also a move that should be considered carefully, as it softens black's kingside and gives white a future hook to potentially target.

Nd5 would actually be a welcome move for black there. Black would play BxN, and after exb, white's pawn has now closed off the long diagonal, leaving white's bishop misplaced on g2.

Something like this and all of black's problems have been solved:

Yes, this is all true. My hesitation in going too far with it is that White has to capitalize on it too. I'm a B player over the board, but even when I play against class A players (which is fairly frequent), they almost never have prep that's that deep or that tricky. You rarely see those sorts of lines until the Expert or Master level. And if you're playing at that level as black, you probably know enough theory to avoid those problems (most of the time).

Exactly. In a game OTB, I gave a guy a lesson in this. He just started playing the Najdorf and I played Bg5 against him to which he responded with e5. He didn't play e5 in that position again.

At the end of the day, he learned a lesson about the Najdorf and in turn improved. There is a concrete reason why e5 isn't played in response to Bg5 or Bc4. It isn't some illogical alien language. It's about weak squares. Learning this lesson isn't just instructive in the Najdorf but in chess as a whole as you can understand how bad a weak square can be for your position or your opponent's position.

@IronSteam1

No, like in the line you showed, 12. exf5 first and now the file towards the king is open and Nd5 is a real threat as Bxd5 Bxd5 comes with tempo on the rook and gives white an uncontested, open bishop on d5.

Instead of Qc7, b4 was best, forcing Nd5 when the bishop isn't open like in the position you showed. Even fxe4 is still ok for black though. Qc7 drops the f5 pawn for no reason and walks into Nd5.

In the first place, 10. ...exf5 didn't really make sense as black is opening up their king for no reason.

Also there's no way that 7. ...h6 can be exploited in that position. Even in the case that it can be in the future, this just applies to many different openings where h6 is played as a normal reaction to threats on g5 or other reasons.

Even b4 is not without its difficulties, as white has tactical complications, to keep putting the question to black.

Many different lines to calculate. This was why the ...Qc7 mistake was played earlier, because black foresaw the loose nature of the b7 bishop, the potential opening of the e-file, and was further preparing to castle queenside, away from white's central and kingside pressure.

In any case, we're debating the moves of a line that was simply meant to be illustrative. Perhaps you would not have played ...Qc7 in that position, but it would've been a move that many players would've considered.

The sharp, imbalanced nature of the Sicilian can often lead to these kinds of narrow paths that black needs to walk along. This isn't a bad thing - many players relish it. But it can be off-putting for some others, especially those who don't have the time or desire to put in the study hours that might be required to learn these kinds of nuances.

@IronSteam1

I looked at the line without checking the engine and saw, from what you showed, that Qc7 drops f5 and walks into Nd5. I checked the analysis board afterwards.

12. Qe2 bxc3 13. exf5+ Be7 14. Bxb7 Ra7 and it's just a trade. The c3 pawn will be a bit annoying for white.

Fair enough. I wouldn't consider it just an even trade though - black's giving up the bishop pair in a rather open position.

But that's also not the only line to calculate. There's a whole rabbit hole of possible lines to explore, if black chooses to sac the exchange.

This is all going far past my original point, though. Now we're into the analyzing weeds ...

That's a fair point.

I'd say that my perspective is from personal experience. I suffered some tremendous losses in the Sicilian OTB, when I played it without knowing any theory.

For while, this was all the knowledge I operated with:

That was the end of my Sicilian prep. I assumed that I could just figure it, OTB, from there. Easy peasy, why not?

This was how I learned firsthand that natural, reasonable moves sometimes get severely punished - especially if your opponent is booked up.

This was a departure from my other e4 defenses at the time: Scandinavian, or Hippo (double-fianchetto). With those, I could more or less wing it, and rely on tactical vision or positional inuition to save the day.

Not so much with the Sicilian. Sloppy or lazy moves seemed to get punished much more severely.

Fast forward several years later, and I believe I have a much firmer grasp on the Sicilian. Though, I'm still keenly aware of its double-edged nature. I'd argue that, yes, it requires a bit more precision and knowledge than some other e4 defenses, as black has, in many lines, specific ways that he should develop, which aren't easy to find on intuition alone.

I enjoy the Sicilian - but I'd argue that it takes more study hours than some other defenses, to reach the same level of results.

Don't play the Dragon Sicilian. It's bad.

That’s exactly what I said! Not all London players are Gotham subs 👍

Exactly! Frog 🐸