"... Two-thirds of this book deals with 'Open Sicilian' positions, in which White plays 2 Nf3 followed by 3 d4. This is by far the most common way for White to meet the Sicilian. White opens more lines for his pieces and attempts to exploit the fact that he will be ahead in development.
Let's take a look at the possible opening moves 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 ... . White is up in development and can move his pieces more freely. Black, however, has a structural advantage of an extra central pawn, which gives him long-term chances of taking control of the centre. A typical imbalance has arisen. The onus is on White to exploit his lead in development in order to secure an early initiative. If White plays passively or his initiative runs out of steam, then typically it's Black, with the better pawn structure, who enjoys the long-term chances. Thus it's quite rare for a state of 'dull equality' to arise. Often in the Sicilian, if Black 'equalizes', he is already slightly better! This structural advantage is seen in most Open Sicilian lines: for example, the Dragon, the Najdorf, the Scheveningen and the Classical Variations. The major exception to this rule is the Sveshnikov Variation, in which Black accepts pawn weaknesses in return for activity. ..." - GM John Emms (2009) in Starting Out: The Sicilian, 2nd Edition
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627122350/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen123.pdf
Talk to me about the Sicilian.
When people talk about Sicilian they usually mean Open Sicilian. All the rest have been classified as anti-Sicilians , a term that many don't accept(that's another discussion).
The first to know is that Sicilian is not one. There are many Sicilians and each one is different. If we attempt to do a general classification then the development of the dark squared bishop defines the line or the lines.
1.Dragon type
In Dragon lines(regular , accelerated and hyper accelerated) Black fianchetoes the bishop.
2.Scheveningen type
In Scheveningen lines the bishop remains on e7. It's less active there but it does a very important job , it protects the potentially weak d6.
3.Paulsen type.
In Paulsen/Taimanov/Kan Sicilian Black delays d6 and waits to see if he will have the chance to develop the bishop in a more active square outside the pawn structure. That seems to be better but it has several drawbacks. One of them is that white is often allowed to gain more space and better central control with c4 the other is that the absence of the bishop from e7 means d6 might become difficult to defend later.
I concur. Thank you.
The Sicilian is great for beginners! You need to make sure to play OPEN games and focus on tactics. This is important for chess hazing purposes, as the chess orthodoxy likes to ensure that you will get crushed by some other Hypermemorized 50 move Dragon player. Sounds like great fun, huh? What a deal!
Sounds like a riot lol
Around 2010, IM John Watson wrote, "... For players with very limited experience, ... the Sicilian Defence ... normally leaves you with little room to manoeuvre and is best left until your positional skills develop. ... I'm still not excited about my students playing the Sicilian Defence at [the stage where they have a moderate level of experience and some opening competence], because it almost always means playing with less space and development, and in some cases with exotic and not particularly instructive pawn-structures. ... if you're taking the Sicilian up at [say, 1700 Elo and above], you should put in a lot of serious study time, as well as commit to playing it for a few years. ..."
I love the Sicilian. It's my ONLY response to 1. e4 and it gives you a fighting chance from the beginning. However, if you play the Sicilian, you need to study all the Anti-Sicilians out there so you are not caught off guard. I work to learn at least the first 13-16 moves for all the Anti-Sicilians.
Nice post, Deirdre.
I wouldn't choose the Dragon at your level. It's fun to play but very theoretical and Fischer taught us that it can be destroyed with the Yugoslav Attack ("Sack, Sack, Mate"). The Kan and Taimanov variations are less theoretical. I switched to the Najdorf -- from the Dragon and then the Taimanov -- but it's a long learning process and highly theoretical.
I taught an incarcerated kid (who had talent) the Yugoslav Attack and he mastered it immediately. He could destroy the Dragon, even against people who had studied it a long time. There is a reason the Dragon is rarely seen at top level anymore.
The Soltis Variation of the Dragon (...h4; I have a book on the opening I studied) merely slows the attack. When I've seen the Dragon at top level, it has usually been the Soltis Var. Even the kid I taught the Yugoslav Attack could break through the Soltis. Eventually, White plays g4 and breaks it open.
Luca Brasi played the Sicilian Game and now he sleeps with the fishes.
The Soltis Variation of the Dragon (...h4; I have a book on the opening I studied) merely slows the attack. When I've seen the Dragon at top level, it has usually been the Soltis Var. Even the kid I taught the Yugoslav Attack could break through the Soltis. Eventually, White plays g4 and breaks it open.
Bullshit, sir.
The Soltis is perfectly sound, but it requires a lot of reading and memorizing. Suffice to say that I have an old book on the Soltis, exclusively (authored 25 years ago), and it is 330+ pages thick.
So, the problem with it is definitely not the ABC woodpusher being able to "break through", but rather that maintaining it is a royal pain in the butt.
Yes, Bobby, when you get upset and cannot have a reasonable discussion, just resort to name-calling. Most grand masters don't play the Dragon. There are a few diehards, but most have moved on to the Najdorf or other Sicilians. You can look it up in Master Games. Why spend a ton of time studying an opening that few top level players use?
IMpfren, Miss Congeniality. It's ma'am to you, sir. And, I have that book. Studied it extensively.
IMpfren, Miss Congeniality. It's ma'am to you, sir. And, I have that book. Studied it extensively.
Ahhh, yes... my bad.
Since I am a suspicious guy, can you tell me how page 170 begins?
Yes, Bobby, when you get upset and cannot have a reasonable discussion, just resort to name-calling. Most grand masters don't play the Dragon. There are a few diehards, but most have moved on to the Najdorf or other Sicilians. You can look it up in Master Games. Why spend a ton of time studying an opening that few top level players use?
Because what does it matter what opening "top level players" are playing? It doesnt matter at our level.
FYI, I was exclusively plaing the Dragon as Black some 40- years ago. Then I gave up on it, not because it was unsound, but simply because I decided that maintaining it was not a practical idea.
I'm goofing off at work. The book is on the second shelf in my living room with all my other chess books. I played the dragon for a long time and got the Soltis Variation book hoping to continue to play it. I even tinkered with the Chinese Dragon, but it made no sense to me. You can bash me for my rating, but it was 986 two years ago, so I am improving. I'd rather put in the work and learn the Najdorf.
I've been a Chess novice for 32 years. Only in the last year and a half have I been seriously playing the Sicilian. Tell me some stuff about it. Others might find it useful as well. What are its dynamics? How do you win with it? Whats its mood? What are its pitfalls, its weapons? But talk to me about it. It would be great to just read some stuff and some thoughts, help me get a shape of what the deal is.