The Levy Rozman philosophy of chess is that you win by playing bad openings to confuse the opponent.
As mentioned, he promotes playing Englund Gambit and Blackburne-Kloosterboer Gambit over Sicilian.
Playing good openings is too difficult for us because we aren't smart enough is basically what he says.
Total misunderstandings. e6 and d6 Sicilians are just a different style and type of game not more or less complicated. It's best to choose which one fits your style. e6 Sicilians are good for some people, d6 Sicilians are better for others.
Same with Caro Kann. It's not good to start with Caro Kann if that isn't in your style. Sicilian is way better for aggressive, tactical players at any level.
King's Indian isn't a solid choice against almost every single opening. King's Indian is a very sharp, risky, aggressive defence against d4. Against e4, it's the Pirc which is much less reputable and can be difficult to play because it allows white a lot more space in the centre.
Man, I really brought life back to this forum.
d6 sicilian is actually more complicated because it will let white develope the bishop with a check amd earn and extra move after exchanging any of black’s piece early in the game
You're referring to the Canal Attack. This is completely fine for black as white isn't playing that ambitiously. It doesn't give white an extra move because they already spent a move to move the bishop to b5 and then capture on d7.
Technically it gives black an extra move as in the end black will have a piece on d7 whereas white still has yet to develop an extra piece.
The Canal Attack is much less reputable than the Rossolimo as it doesn't threaten to double black's pawns, it just trades off pieces. For what?
The Levy Rozman philosophy of chess is that you win by playing bad openings to confuse the opponent.
As mentioned, he promotes playing Englund Gambit and Blackburne-Kloosterboer Gambit over Sicilian.
Playing good openings is too difficult for us because we aren't smart enough is basically what he says.
Notice how he doesn't mention lines that are actually truly venomous, like Ulvestad, or lets say Horwitz defense against d4, but chooses to educate people with one trick pony openings that are losing by force (Traxler, Englund).
You can be off-beat yet still solid objectively, while having practical chances. And then there is downright losing. Trash.
He's recommended this against the Sicilian:
Like I said, Delayed Bowdler Attack. If you want the bishop on c4 then there are already good options with actual dangerous catches like the Fischer-Sozin Attack and Smith-Morra, but that's too mainline for him.
He just has to be quirky and recommend basically the Bowdler Attack. If he wants to play like that then that's his choice but he just has to drag everyone else down with him by misleading them and convincing them that main line Sicilian is somehow always losing for you regardless of which side you're on.
Maybe.. we’ll there both the same.. I don’t want to be rude or mean
Can confirm. I'm 1730 blitz and he's way better than me in daily. I wouldn't be surprisd if he does really well in classical.
LOL
Dats funny when u move da king up. Epic troll.
yeah I agree.. but I dont like the English really
Caro Kann is solid but much more passive and slow than the Sicilian. They are different styles. French is also more aggressive as it allows c5 in 1 move.
Caro Kann allows black to activate the LSB but the concept is far more positional than aggressive. It just aims to trade off the weakness rather than striking at the centre with c5.