The Sicilian as played by Non-Masters

Here's a Sicilian game against the Closed.

It was played under very tense circumstances... last round, half a point behind the tournament leader, needing a win with the Black pieces, and with the Atlantic Provinces Championship title on the line.

The game was like a Hollywood thriller, with one dramatic deed following hard on the last.

I've always thought it was a bit boring, but should be fine. At your level, which is much higher than mine, it is probably a better try. For me, I want a development advantage without trading pieces.

I find it nice to avoid enormous thickets of opening variations.

Yes, activity is one of the problems for black. And also, the d6 pawn becomes a weakness. That is why I like this as black.

But I am not sure about it yet. And white has the advantage of going into systems, which cannot be prevented by black, for example the Maroczy-bind.

So yes, it is much more easier to play it as white. But if black knows what is he doing, he has good chances.

There is one Sicilian line that effectively avoids f2-f3, but I think it only works by a 2...d6 move-order: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6/g6/e6/Nc6.

Unfortunately this attempt loses by force with 2...Nc6 3.d4 Nf6? 4.d5 (4.e5 is also winning)

5.f3 e5 seems reasonable here, more so than in the lines with d6 because you don't waste a tempo pushing d5 later.

That's a win?  Hm.

See my earlier post about the importance of exchanging on d4 and controlling d6.

Would you agree, however, that if black understands the sicilian more than white, black will have an easier game.

That's a tough question to answer. Saying Black will have an 'easier' game when White has a development and space advantage and Black is relying on specific concrete variations to get counterplay is hard for me to agree with, and I'm not sure what you mean by 'understanding the Sicilian more.' Certainly not at lower levels. And people who memorize 15-20 moves of Najdorf or Dragon theory at sub-1800 levels are doing themselves a major disservice.

Playing through lots of master games in those lines, finding out how to play against different development schemes, etc. could lead to understanding a Sicilian line better, but very few people actually study properly.

Recently I played a Sicilian with white. I have more trouble playing it as white then playing it as black and lost it within miniature limits. Ouch.

I know I have made bad moves, but my question is if I have used a sound strategy or not? Here is the game:

I would be a bit more aggressive with the placement of the Bishop from c1, and would consider playing it to g5. Also castling kingside on move 7 is preferable I think.

Actually I don't like your whole idea of going queenside in this position in the first place.

Thanks for your response.

Bg5 in combination with f4?

Would you explain some more why you would not like it? I try to combine queenside castling with the advancement of the pawns. Queenside castling gives me the opportunity to use both rooks in the attack. What makes that strategy not working? I always thought that it is my lack of knowledge and chess expertise that it does not work out well, but that the strategy is sound.

The issue, from a practical standpoint at below-master level, is that Black has not actually played a weakening move with a pawn on his castled position, such as g6 or h6. In the Dragon, White is more justified in opposite-side castling attacks because Black has already weakened his king with the move g7-g6. In the Najdorf, I have never understood why opposite-side castling is so popular. I'm sure there are concrete reasons why it is played at high levels, and certainly unbalances the game, but Black hasn't created any weaknesses so it's harder for White to attack.

I prefer castling queenside if it means my opponent's King is either stuck in the center or forced to commit to the queenside, as in the line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Nbd7 9.O-O-O Qc7 10.Bd3 b5 11.Rhe1 Bb7 12.Qg3 b4 13.Nd5, etc.

Wow, that is an awesome explanation. Thank you very much! That helps me a lot.

Damn it, I just relized how poorly I have been preserving games I played on this site. I know I won a Sveshnikov by reducing material, controling d5 with a bishop and opening the a file. Black refused to play f3, and had no counterplay.

I also had an 18 move or so game when Black played something like 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nb5 a6?! 6. Nd6+ Bxd6 7. Qxd6 and lost badly on the dark squares.

I really miss the FICS mailold moves command.

All games are saved. You might ask a diamond member to give you a link to your old games.

Nothing doing, I guess I'll just have to be more vigiliant in the future.

And then what?