Which is better? Caro-Kann or Sicillian?

Sicillion I think is better

The dragon variation...

you can think about it

Yeah, that's reasonable, and I wouldn't necessarily shy away from playing an opening/defense where the engine has me 0.6 in the hole.

One caveat to that though: if I'm down 0.6 (and I believe the computer eval) I want the initiative or attacking chances or something tangible as compensation. I don't want a passive position where 0.6 down means the computer thinks it could hold -- so qualitative analysis comes in there.

0.6 isn't large enough to demand some form of "compensation". Maybe around +1 such a perspetive becomes important.

I like the sicilian more, its a sound opening, Caro is too quiet

0.6 isn't large enough to demand some form of "compensation". Maybe around +1 such a perspetive becomes important.

In my experience with computer evals 0.6 down would either equate to a more passive position, that a computer with its superhuman abilities thinks is manageable but a human would suffer in, or one in which there is a structural deficit but dynamic counterchances, like a Grunfeld or a KID.

The compensation is already factored in the 0.6 versus 1.0 eval.

My point is that computer eval means nothing over +1 or -1.

I get where you're coming from, "that a computer with its superhuman abilities thinks is manageable but a human would suffer in", and agree that it is important to evaluate openings and positions in general from a practical standpoint as well. However, the vast majority of 0.6 positons do not share these characteristics. 0.6 is pretty much synonymous with equal in my experience, and should never be taken seriously because it almost always signifies nothing.

In terms of openings like the Grunfeld or the KID, computers often misunderstand the nature of these openings. Again, a +0.6 evaluation in these openings essentially means nothing and should be ignored. Perhaps you misunderstand the definition of a passive position. To you, openings like the Grunfeld and the KID may appear passive and only holdable with the superhuman abilities of a computer, however, in reality, you simply have little experience playing these openings, no familiarity with their ideas and plans, and no understanding of opening theory so whenever you encounter these openings you get crushed without much of a fight.

Comepnsation and practical vs objective evaluations are more applicable to 1 and higher evals. In 0.6 evals, the position still remains balanced and such criteria are far less applicable to 0.6 types of positions.

Let me give a practical example of what I mean.

Stockfish puts both the Philidor Hanham and the Benko Gambit at about +0.5 or +0.6. It basically say the first is passive but defensible and the second it's factoring in the compensation black has for the pawn to say "yes, 1 pawn down but 1/2 pawn's worth compensation = only 1/2 pawn net disadvantage."

So, I do in fact think the concept of compensation is meaningful at comp evals less than 1.0

While I do agree that compensation could be present in 0.6 positions (technically, in most balanced positions one side has some advantage to counteract the other side's advantage), the idea of passive positions that can only be defended with seemingly computer-level perfect play is simply not applicable to most 0.6 evaluations.

Just because you find these positions "passive" and "indefensible" does not mean that they cannot be played if one knows the general approaches, ideas, and maybe a bit of theory.

For example, the Alekhine may appear passive to most, but in practice, it scores better than 1. e5. This is not because of any "compensation", but because Alekhine players have a better understanding of how to play these seemingly "passive" positions that more inexperienced players quickly collapse in.

Of course, some positions may indeed be 0.6 but only holdable by computer moves. However, these positions are rare. My arguement is that you cannot simply split 0.6 positions into those that have compensation and those that can only be held by computers. Understanding of the pawn structures, endgames, positions, basic theory, etc. all allow more experienced players to not only hold but win these seemingly passive 0.6 positions lesser experienced players may categorize as impossibly difficult to play in.

@dontprepagainstme

I never said "indefensible" I said "passive" and that a human player would likely "suffer" (not that they could never defend, just that it would be unenviable.) And I stand by that for the example I used, the Philidor Hanham. Why do you think the Hanham gets played so rarely by top players? The computer looks at it and thinks "no that big a deal; +0.5" but the human looks at it and thinks "yeah, that looks no fun and barely playable"

As for the Alekhine, it is absolutely about compensation. White gets a big center but black gets pressure against that center in compensation. If black didn't get compensation/pressure the Alekhine would probably not be playable. Maybe you might choose to use a different term, like imbalance, but I think 'compensation' is perfectly acceptable here, as we're talking about a functionally positive imbalance for white being compensated for by another for black.

Also, addressing what you said about the Grunfeld or the KID, I never said those were passive. I'm having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not intentionally trying to strawman me there. The one opening I specifically mentioned as passive is the Philidor Hanham.

But, again with compensation, the Grunfeld is another big center versus compensating pressure situation and the KID is space versus a compensating formulaic kingside attack situation (in the Classical variation at least). In both cases it's a matter of the very thing I was saying initially, that one doesn't just want to look at the eval and say "well, +0.6 is within my threshold so ok to go there as black". One should qualitatively examine the position and see that one gets something practical, like dynamic compensation against whatever the computer thinks is so good for white, to work with.

LOL, the Karen-Can Defense! That will make you lose out of frustration over its obnoxiousness!

Poisitions where a human would suffer in are practically indefnesible. You seem to be very reliant on this specific variation of the Philidor. It is little played at a high level because black has little reason to go for these lines when they can play more solid Spanish or Italian setups without hte possibility of loosing. However, even at the highest level, the Harham can be a good surprise weapon, a dangerous one might I add, in faster time controls. See Praggnanandhaa, R. vs Wei Yi where black successfully implemented the right queenside plan and went on to win convincingly. Just because an opening in your opinion looks "no fun" and "barely playable" doesnt mean that that is the case. Again, its your lack of experience that leads to such a faulty evaluation.

If we were to stretch the definition of compensation to fit the Alekhine, then in a similar way, black has compensation in the "passive" Harham Philidor in the form of a more stable centre and mobile queenside play. Again, my previous arguements "Understanding of the pawn structures, endgames, positions, basic theory, etc. all allow more experienced players to not only hold but win these seemingly passive 0.6 positions lesser experienced players, like yourself, may categorize as impossibly difficult to play in." still holds true.

As for the Grunfeld and KID, my arguement is that evaluations like 0.6 should be thrown out the door entirely. The position, is just that, an even position. The only advantage you give for white is the big centre, but that is all it is, a big centre. You argue that "One should qualitatively examine the position and see that one gets something practical, like dynamic compensation against whatever the computer thinks is so good for white, to work with." and while I agree that such a perspective is applicable to more sharper 1.0 positions, at 0.6, the position is just even with both sides having different plans and goals.

"Poisitions where a human would suffer in are practically indefnesible."

So the answer is yes, you are trying to strawman me. You're taking what I'm actually saying and trying to shift it into what you want me to be saying in order to refute that.

"You seem to be very reliant on this specific variation of the Philidor."

Reliant on? I mention the variation by way of a concrete example and now you want to frame me as being "reliant on" it. I picked it because I picked two contrasting examples to fit what I was saying about a +0.6 eval, one that was rather dynamic, the Benko, and the other that was rather passive, the Philidor Hanham. My point is that when seeing a +0.6 eval one wants to see what it's all about, not just look at a number.

"Just because an opening in your opinion looks "no fun" and "barely playable" doesnt mean that that is the case. Again, its your lack of experience that leads to such a faulty evaluation."

You have no idea about my experience level.

But let's ask some other inexperienced players what they think?

Bobby Fischer: "The Philidor Defense is a very passive opening. It allows White to seize the initiative and dictate the game."
Viktor Korchnoi: "The Philidor Defense is a good way to lose slowly."

I couldn't readily find a quote regarding the Hanham in particular, but it's reputation most of my chess playing life has been as a defense for masochists. The so-called "Lion Variation" may have revived its standing somewhat, but really the Lion is more of an offshoot of the Pirc, as 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 and white doesn't have to play 4. Nc3 but can play 4. Bc4 and then 4...Nf6 5. dxe5 is very good for white. So black has to resort to the Pirc move order 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 and even then hope white accommodates with 4. Nf3

Or how about how it performs statistically? 4. Bc4 variation white wins 57% draw 22% black wins 21%. Yeah, that's inspiring.

"If we were to stretch the definition of compensation to fit the Alekhine, then in a similar way, black has compensation in the "passive" Harham Philidor in the form of a more stable centre and mobile queenside play."

I don't agree my definition is a stretch. You just love to try and frame things to your advantage, don't you?

And the things you speak about with the Hanham aren't really compensation. The Hanham tries to avoid the "surrender of the center" and to strongpoint e5, so, in other words, it tries to stand toe to toe with white without the need for compensation. But the cost is to be rather passive and be subject to considerable pressure by white.

"As for the Grunfeld and KID... The only advantage you give for white is the big centre, but that is all it is, a big centre."

Yeah, like the big center has ever been considered any sort of advantage in chess. A popular chess author once wrote, to paraphrase, the big center, if allowed to be consolidated, will suffocate the opponent. The player playing against it has to play with all energy to dismantle it less he stand permanently worse. It's understood in chess the big center is not a neutral thing, at least in the opening and middlegame.

but I think this will be my final response. I'm not interested in this type of interaction, where a discussion is turned into a rhetorical sparring match with someone who isn't, in my opinion, acting in good faith and isn't trying to respond to my actual positions. We're not discussing chess here anymore. We're playing a game of your devising.

For the record, I have played the Philidor.

The Hanham variation is very strong.

The Hanham variation is one of the Best Philidor variations and it isn’t passive.

Most people who call the Philidor Passive are referring to the Exchange Variation.

The Exchange Variation trades off Black furthest center pawn which causes Black to have lack of space.

Top Players still play the Hanham Variation, but they use the Pirc move order to prevent 4.Bc4 lines.

The 4.Bc4 line is often played in main Philidor move order and the positions can become extremely complicated.

Obviously, you peeps are having different conversation entirely and I don’t know why you’re going to drag Philidor into this conversation.

There is nothing wrong with the Philidor.

I probably should have been more clear in specifying the move order I was referring to when commenting on the Hanham. Mentally I was thinking the line 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4. Bc4, but I never dreamed my comment would raise such a hullabaloo.

But yes you're right. 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 and black gets a better deal than in the above line.

One thing I'd ask (and if you say no that's fine and you're perfectly justified and that is convention), but is there maybe a relevant sense in which 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 4. Nf3 Nd7 could be reasoned to not be the Philidor but in fact a line of the Pirc? Convention says otherwise and says we've transposed into the Philidor, but given that 4. Nc3 makes far less sense after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 than 4. Nf3 does after 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 I can't help but associate the position with the PIrc, and not the Philidor.

@Post #88

To fully answer your question, I would have to explain a lot of Philidor stuff to set the stage.

I don’t really have time and this thread is certainly not the place for me to write a mile long post about the Philidor on a Caro Kan/ Sicilian thread.

The Short 5 min answer to your question is:

No, The positions are mainly Philidor positions.

It’s hard to consider them Philidor positions if you’re not a Philidor player yourself.

Philidor players are trying to manipulate their opponents into getting into their set up.

They are doing Move Order Tricks.

I also think Sicillian is better!

As an aspiring chess artist the question is sort of interesting. The first instinct is to say the sicilian is better since in the main line open sicilian there is probably more scope to create something beautiful than in the caro Kann,,,,particularly with black, There are probably some games where black won in a beautiful way with the black side of the caro Kann.....but probably many more with the black side of the sicilian. On the other hand creating a beautiful game out of the black side of the caro Kann may be an achievement a chess artist would be more proud of since it would be more unexpected.

*