I finally reached my rating goal for live standard chess on chess.com (1400+). I was wondering when I should add the Sicilian. I know that beginners such as myself should not focus on openings too much since there are more dire considerations. However, I'm getting very bored with 1...e5 and want something else for at least a little variety. The Sicilian, though, appears to have much theory surrounding it. My experience and lack of understanding may render any investigation into the opening somewhat meaningless until I have a better grasp of the basics. What are all of your thoughts? Should someone, who is 1400 here( around 1300 OTB, approximately, right?) think about adding the Sicilian for a little bit of variety, or should I stick with the 1...e5 openings and master those? Maybe I'm just impatient :)
Personally id advise you to stick with what you have and become more proficient in it, I wish i'd done the same.If you feel the need for variety, try a different variation or sub variation, this will change things up and help you to increase your understanding of the dynamics of positions you play.What positions exactly are you getting bored with? I, or others here may be able to suggest something.
yeah take up the sicilian; it is fun and at least is more imbalanced than 1...e5. Of course you're going need to put some work into playing it.
Well, I'm about 1400-1500 OTB (although most people agree that I would be rated much higher if I didn't blunder so much). I used the sicilian (dragon, if possible) on every single e4 game I've ever played from way back in my first tournament when I went from unrated to 1036.
The dragon does have a good deal of theory, but I've found that it's not really necessary to know it in-depth (I'm sure someone else will disagree with me, though). I've never actually read anything about the dragon, and all I've been taught was what the 1200 told me in 5 minutes before my first tournament. For me, I've always played weaker players, so I've basically learned by trial and error--I've never been at a seriously worse position in the opening (except by blunders).
I asked a master if he thought I should change, because as my rating goes up, I will meet people who know how to punish small inaccuracies. He told me that it wasn't really necessary to memorize loads of theory in the dragon, and that I would be fine without learning anything new for several hundred more rating points.
Hope that gives some perspective into the practicality of choosing the sicilian. I'm not sure you can just go in cold and still win with it, because I'd imagine that anyone near your rating has played the sicilian longer than you.
Well, the Italian game can be somewhat boring and incredibly tame. Ruy Lopez is fine. In fact, I love playing against the Ruy Lopez, but it's the other games that are kind of.... meh
lol, wouldnt we all.
Here's a little bit on the dragon:
This is actually a little more than I was taught when I first started playing it.
Well, yes. But I blunder a larger percentage than most people. I completely dominate almost all the games I play against people near my rating, until I blunder. I probably blunder about 80% of my games, but I'm already winning by then, so we usually end up equal.
The only way to get better in chess is to experiment with new openings and ideas, sure you will take some beating; but no pain, no gain!
The Sicilian is a wonderful opening that leads to imbalanced positions with a wealth of tactical oportunities where the better player often prevails, try it!
Well, I suppose I could try it. One of my favorite players is Bobby Fischer(I'm an American, duuuuuuh :) Though, I for one am not a fan of his anti-Semitic and anti-American rants), and the Sicilian was one of his favorite openings. That's one reason I was thinking about taking it up.
Hi chessman1504, The Sicilian is a great opening. Now which variation are you going to play?
I was thinking about the Sicilian Najdorf.
I think the Najdorf is the most complicated Sicilian . . . I definately wouldn't try that unless you're prepared to book up.
I'm ready :P. And, I might also try the Dragon as well :)
I've always played 1.e4 so I've played against the sicilian hundreds of times. Personally I would stay away from the najdorf and dragon. One they are very complicated and everyone plays them. I feel like every other sicilian game I play is a dragon or a najdorf, and as a result I know the lines pretty well. But there are other lines of the sicilian that I almost never see, like the kan, taimamov, scheveningen, if someone played them against me over the table I'd be pretty lost.
Was reffering to #5.
I think it's too complicated, only strong players can really use it. It's too complex and instead of studying all those books on it (which is necessary to learn it) just study tactics and your rating will soar, believe me, then you can worry about other stuff like real openings. Even I don't play any regularopenings,
Well, it appears that the positions I happen to get into with the Italian end up tame and drawish. And, at my level, no one plays those crazy tactical sequences quite like that :P
Just go for it man! Sicilian is fun. You are not gonna get better at it if you don't use it. Playing it will reveal the logic of the opening to you and the right moves will come naturally.