The Sicilian as played by Non-Masters

To answer a few of your questions plutonia:

Firstly, I don't think it's risky to castle queenside against the Taimanov? Black's attack doesn't look scary to me. I just go for natural development (I'm ahead in development) and ripping open the center later.

I don't yet have a good line against the Poisoned Pawn - my current line allows an easy forced draw by Black.

Against the Sveshnikov I play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 (or 10...Bg7 transposes by force) 11.c3 where Black has to play Bg7 or allow a very strong Nc2-e3 maneuver. After that play branches off.

Here are some analysis files:

@60

Did a 2000 really play Nc4??

I wouldn't even consider that move and I'm nowhere near 2000

r u crazy??? im 1599 and ive beaten 1800's with the black side of the sicillian.

Rxg6!! is an amazing shot in post 67. Maybe Kf8 was better just giving up that g-pawn. Either way it looks rough.

This time a Sicilian Najdorf in which I win.

Can anyone comment on the strategy I chose? In another game in this thread had I a pawn storm on the king side that went too slow. This time went it pretty fast. It looked ok now.

I'm not sure if Bc4 and f3 work together in the sicilian. The basic idea of having the bishop on c4 is to play f4-f5 at some point to pressure e6. Then you will have the Nd4, Bc4 and pawn on f5 all attacking that square and that sometimes allows different sorts of piece sacs. 

16...f5 looks too dangerous after something simple like 17.ef ef 18.Nd5 Black's pieces can barely move.

I think 19.Nf6+ Bxf6 20.gf Qe5 21.O-O-O looks good for White.

9.O-O-O Bd7 in the Dragon is quite dubious but 10.Bc4 allows a transposition to the main lines.

I thought Bc4 and f3 looked really weird together. I also don't really get why White plays 7.Bb3 instead of castling but maybe I've always been a bit weird about that move.

@TitanCG and Expertise87: thanks for your replies and insights.

During the play I already missed ways to put pressure on f5.

Edit: now I know that it is due to f3 that this pressure was missing.

I forgot sometimes to play Bb3 and played 0-0 instead. I consider that as an error because of the next reasons: the move Bb3 is first of all to prevent the line 7. 0-0 b5 8. Bb3 b4 9. Na4/Ne2 Ne4:. To keep the pawn will white have to play 7. 0-0 b5 8. Bd3, which has the result that white is giving a tempo to develop b5, because white could have played Bd3 in one move instead of two and white has given up his strategy on the first move it was challenged.

The other possibility is to play 8. Be2, which gives white after 8. .. b4 the choice between Nb1 or Na4. I would not like to play those positions. Do I have it wrong, is one of those lines good playable for white? Is that in the line with the pawn sacrifice?

7.Bb3 isn't forced because the e4 pawn is poisoned. After 7.O-O b5 8.Bb3 b4 9.Na4 Nxe4 10.Re1 White gets way too much play for the pawn. One example is 8...Bb7 9.f3 Nf6 10.Bxe6 fe 11.Nxe6.

 I don't know if 7.O-O or 7.Bb3 is better though. I doubt it matters too much.

7.Bb3 allows Nbd7 which is actually.pretty harmless. Also White can still play the aggressive lines where he castles queenside. I always castle or play Bg5 though.

It's also full of fail :)

I'm just kidding, I do see how some people really get passionate about it because of some spectacular wins. But white is better, especially in the 9.0-0-0 variation.

In your game: everybody who castles long with white is supposed to know to retake on b3 with the c pawn. Taking with the a pawn means that the a-file will be indefensible. Black just has to remove his own pawn, and proceed to invade.

It seems like everytime an opening is based on tactics it gets analysed to death and near refuted. Benoni's is doing badly, Benko is too, KID is not as common as it used to be, Only the Marshal gambit and Grunfeld seem to still get played a lot and a lot of people just sidestep the Marshal. :( I thought the Dragon would survive all this but maybe it won't.

Is 0-0-0 Bd7 really that dubious? The mainline reaches a complicated position where black has sacrificed a rook for 5 pawns, but I'm not sure how bad it is for black and white must know a lot of theory to even reach that position.

Instead of just going h4-h5, doesn't the best line involve inserting Be2 to stop sacks on f3, and then continuing with the attack?

Yes, pretty much. I could post analysis but Be2 is a key move.

Benoni is doing fine, as far as theory goes and no where near getting refuted.  It is less seen in OTB because of the POPULARITY of 1... d5 being way way easier to play in many lines.  GIven how accurate and powerful White's play can be, it is a STRONG sign of vitality that the Benoni is very popular in correspondence chess.  If it does well at the highest levels of correspondence chess, it is a strong sign that the Benoni is not ANYWHERE close refutation.

KID is also played a lot in correspondence, another sign of it being strong.  Grunfeld is not seen as much in correspondence.

Why are KID and Benoni so popular in correspondence?  Because it is very promising to play for a win given its rich strategical struggle and because who understands the positions better is the one who wins.   The struggles are very very complex and in correspondence chess, the more complex it is the richer the possibilities to win for either side.

Many top GMs do not employ Benoni or KID at the very top of OTB competition, it may very well be because it is so complex for practical benefits to justify it being used since White usually has an easier time because the White side is less rich in complexity.

I will quote another example:  

1.e4  e6 ( I am also a strong advocate of the French not just the Sicilian )

2. Qe2   (this is not seen much in OTB)

Eventhough Qe2 is not seen much in OTB, it is no where near being refuted, and not even close to being "bad".   I am currently involved in a correspondence match, not in Chess.com, but real correspondence chess at regular time control.  In the current game the 2.Qe2 is being used by White.  I do not underestimate it at all nor do I breath a sigh of relief.

The positions are very rich in strategic content and struggle, and Black can easily lose if a strategic mistake is done.  Mistakes in correspondence chess are hardly ever forgiven compared to OTB chess.  I have seen a lot of positions where Black can easily be left without a chance for counterplay and then squeezed to death.  I have seen the same for when White does a mistake and then it goes the other way.  The complexity of positions are a big reason which motivate a player to play it or not in a game since the choices are compared one with another.  1. e4 e6 2.Qe2 is not seen as much in OTB since developments have indicated that Black can get a comfortable game in OTB standards, but the truth of how good 2.Qe2 is is not really determined by its use in OTB.

The more the White player is trained and versed in 2.Qe2 in the French, the chances increase of him playing it in OTB in order to gain a pragmatic advantage over Black.

9...Bxf6 is not normal and seems to be bad on account of nd5 and nc4

Can you try something like 14.h4 Bh6 15.g4 here?