The Sicilian Four Knights: A good practical opening?

Sort:
bulletchesser
My personal experience in the sicilian four knights has been really positive. It's my favorite line because I always get a playable and active position out of the opening.
The reason is that at my level most of the players don't play the critical line 6. Ndb5 (with the idea 6. ...d6 7. Bf4 e5 8. Bg5 transposing into the complicated sveshnikov) which isn't surprising since only people who know theory would play Ndb5. I'll discuss it later. 
So most of the players play a developing move like Bc4 or Be3. The reason why I like this opening is that because black didn't play d6 he is able to develop his bishop actively to b4 pressuring the center.
Sometimes Qa5 can be played but most important is the fact that black can push d5 in most of the lines. In no other sicilian it is so easy to push d5. Black gets active play and good winning chances.
The reason why I think that the sicilian four knights is a good opening is that only really strong players who know the theory will move their knight a second time with Ndb5 thus playing the critical main line. Here I would suggest Bb4 instead of d6 because the sveshnikov is really complicated and to be honest I don't understand a lot of the positions which arise out of the sveshnikov.
 
After 6. ... Bb4 7. a3 Bc3:+ 8. Nc3: d5 9. ed ed you get a IQP-position which is maybe a little easier to handle if you already play IQP-positions. I had this variation only once against an IM in a local rapid tournament and he destroyed me (Never in my life I lost so brutally.happy.png). But I don't think it was because of the opening.
 
Another critical line I saw in a book was 6. Nc6: bc 7. Ne4. To be honest I don't know much about this line and I didn't studied it in depth nor did I encounter it online or OTB. 
My first impression is that the position are slightly uncomfortable with black.
 
Maybe you have some advice?
 
Long story short: I think the sicilian four knights is a good practical weapon which offers active piece play and the possibility to play the thematic sicilian pawn break d5 most of the time.
It doesn't take much time to prepare it, it's not so theory heavy. After a few games you can familiarize yourself really quickly with the typical plans and ideas.
 
The only problem I see is in the main lines. But I don't encounter them in most of my games but it can't hurt to have something in store for these critical lines. As mentioned above I recommend Bb4 against Ndb5 because the sveshnikov is too much theory.
Against Nc6: ... well maybe you have some ideas.
 
Have fun!

 

bulletchesser

@pfren thx for the Bc5 line. Seems like a good idea. To be honest my stomach hurts after the mainline with Bb4 where white forces me to give up the bishop pair with a3. With bc5 i don't have to exchange it.

 

@eehunt94 thank you too! That maneouver you're talking about (Ba6, Da5+) Can it be played directly after Ne4?

Maybe it is premature because White didn't move his king's bishop yet. But does this tempo matter?

bulletchesser

@eehunt94 thx I'll look it up.

bulletchesser
pfren wrote:

8...Ba6 can be met either by 8.Bxa6 or 8,c4- totally different approaches, well tested, and not very rewarding for Black.

I suggest looking at 8...Rb8. There is no theory at all on it, so it's just you, your engine, and your analytical skills. IMO white has no way to a meaningful advantage.

What is the idea of Rb8? At first glance I can see that the b2 pawn is attacked so the bishop cannot be developed without a pawn move. Maybe black wants to provoke b3 which would weaken the dark squares like 8. ... Qc7 as suggested by eehunt94. A combination of both ideas could be interesting. Rb8 seems like a useful waiting move to me.

All in all I like the positions that arise in the four knights. They aren't so ultra-sharp like some lines in the najdorf (I recently saw some najdorf-games from MVL. It's just insane if you look at the analysis afterwards. The funny thing is that the games ended in a draw but the analysis the forced lines didn't appear on the board because both sides were able to avoid them.)

What I'm wondering is, was that all prepared or do they figure/calculated some of the things over the board. Because the forced lines in the analysis/sidelines are just crazy.

That's why I play the four knights with quite decent results except against strong opposition. Most of tournament games with Ndb5 which aren't that many I lost horribly.

Anyway thanks for the nice input. I got some new ideas and I'll try to improve my play in the main lines especially that line with Bc5 and the one with Rb8

 

Mike_Aronchuk

The Sicilian Four Knights is a very good system,from the practical point of view.Another warning is that black must know what he is up to !Here is a sample of anallogous variations.

 

penandpaper0089

 I can imagine myself playing 8...Rb8 and losing because I don't know what I'm doing. What's wrong with 8...f5 here as played by Lasker? The engines don't like it but ehh...

 

 

The engine likes the queen trade but maybe I need to leave it on for a day or something because almost no one is trading queens. Xiangzhi Bu won a game here albeit against a then much lower-rated opponent:

 

 

 

penandpaper0089

Interesting! I guess the only other move that I'd notice is 6.a3 since it's a cheeky way to avoid theory.

bulletchesser
penandpaper0089 wrote:

Interesting! I guess the only other move that I'd notice is 6.a3 since it's a cheeky way to avoid theory.

After 6. a3 I would consider to play 6. ... d6 to transpose in to the main lines where white wasted a tempo on a3. Also pushing 6. ..d5 immediately is possiblyy an option.

Samhain1966

I havent played as extensively as you all and not very much at all in the past 10 years or so. So I will offer my amateurish opinion in hopes i could learn a bit. My approach to the Sicilian is to avoid allowing black to exchange a wing pawn for my center and opening the C file. Most players i encounter on here play 2...d6 which i usually respond with the conservative 3.Be2. I think the kingside pawn movements by white in the four knights is a quite natural response to queenside concentration by black. Educate me.

bulletchesser

@Samhain1966 Can you explain a little more, please? I'm not sure whether I understood everything you say. As far as I undestood you said to two things:

  • You avoid playing the open sicilian by not playing 3. d4. For example: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Be2. 
  • The second thing you said which has if I understood correctly nothing to do with the first one since the sicilian four knights requires you to play 3. d4. To be honest I'm not quite sure about  what you are trying to say because in most of the lines mentioned above black actually plays in the center. Maybe you can clarify a little bit.
bulletchesser
Optimissed wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:

Interesting! I guess the only other move that I'd notice is 6.a3 since it's a cheeky way to avoid theory.>>>

Not so. After 6. a3, then 6. ... a6 would transpose directly to a Taimanov Sicilian, which is very heavily analysed and very much part of chess theory. The Tiamanov is part of the Paulsen group of Sicilians ... generically those with e6 and a6 ... of which the Kan is also a part. The Taimanov is characterised by a6, e6 and an early Nc6, which is abnormal for Paulsens in general.

 

I have question: You're right about the transposition but it's a bad version fort white, isn't it?

White is a tempo down because of a3.

bulletchesser

@Optimissed You play a6 on one move 2. My question is what is your idea behind a6 on move 2. Is there any move order trick?

Since you don't plan to play e5 after d4 cd you have probably another plan in mind.

Samhain1966

bulletchesser wrote:

@Samhain1966 Can you explain a little more, please? I'm not sure whether I understood everything you say. As far as I undestood you said to two things:

  • You avoid playing the open sicilian by not playing 3. d4. For example: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Be2. 
  • The second thing you said which has if I understood correctly nothing to do with the first one since the sicilian four knights requires you to play 3. d4. To be honest I'm not quite sure about  what you are trying to say because in most of the lines mentioned above black actually plays in the center. Maybe you can clarify a little bit.

I apologize for being vague. I suppose I should not have asked a general question on a thread for a specific line. Simply put, is avoiding 3. d4 an acceptable approach? Does it somehow frustrate black?

penandpaper0089
Samhain1966 wrote:
bulletchesser wrote:

@Samhain1966 Can you explain a little more, please? I'm not sure whether I understood everything you say. As far as I undestood you said to two things:

  • You avoid playing the open sicilian by not playing 3. d4. For example: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Be2. 
  • The second thing you said which has if I understood correctly nothing to do with the first one since the sicilian four knights requires you to play 3. d4. To be honest I'm not quite sure about  what you are trying to say because in most of the lines mentioned above black actually plays in the center. Maybe you can clarify a little bit.

I apologize for being vague. I suppose I should not have asked a general question on a thread for a specific line. Simply put, is avoiding 3. d4 an acceptable approach? Does it somehow frustrate black?

3.Be2 is fine.

Samhain1966

pfren wrote:

penandpaper0089 έγραψε:

3.Be2 is fine.

Yes, I fail to see why it isn't- e.g. 3...Nf6 4. c3!? transposes to a tricky line, which was played by many whites. Carlsen included!

Thank you.