Why many players choose the Sicillian???????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mldwb

I know the Sicilian defense but I only use it on very weak opponent's !!!

mldwb

I know this is Celine but I only use it very very weak opponents!

mldwb

I'm not a Sicilianur

ANOK1

because it has stood the test of time and you can devote your life to it

USAuPzlBxBob
ANOK1 wrote:

because it has stood the test of time and you can devote your life to it

Good answer!

mldwb

Do you play Sicilian

mldwb

I play King's Indian

benonidoni
robertjames_perez wrote:

 If you will play Sicillian,you should know all variations.

why would you want to know all the openings if you can study one or two in depth? With black for choice he can learn a system within a certain Sicilian opening.

 

workhard91

People usually choose the Sicilian due its unbalanced nature. It offers sharp dynamic play with chances for both sides. So if you like to play for a win with black it is usually a good choice. Also it offers many complex pawn structures to improve your general understanding of Chess.

I hope this helps you.

Kenny-Ji

Because its the best move. 

BL4D3RUNN3R

May I quote "Simple Chess", the famous book by M. Stean? Believe it or not, it's 40 years old! Could be written yesterday.

"Minority attacks derive from the Pawn structure, Pawn structures derive from the opening. Go back to the eras of Capablanca and Alekhine and you will see Queen's Gambits, hoards of them, with hoards of minority attacks descending from them. Nowadays [1978; still relevant] the Sicilian Defense is all the rage. Sicilians here, Sicilians there, Sicilians absolutely everywhere. Why this saturation with Sicilians? Does the Mafia's influence really extend this far? The answer lies in the minority attack. The whole idea of the Sicilian is for Black to trade his c Pawn for the d Pawn. White almost invariably obliges: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (or d6 or e6 or g6) 3.d4 cxd4, when Black immediately arrives at a minority attack Pawn structure. Half-open c file, extra central pawn, 2-3 minority on the Queenside; these are all the necessary ingredients. Sounds infallible, so where's the snag? Why doesn't Black win every game? The problem is of course that White has a lead in development in the early stages, which may prove difficult to survive. Black's prospects lie later in the game when the winds of White's initiative have blown themselves out."
The structural weaknesses White accepts because he is trying to avoid Black's plan to launch a minority attack to get a winning endgame and must attack. They are not the cause of Black having winning endgames (otherwise White wouldn't weaken his position in such a way); merely they are a symptom of him having to attack the Black King. The root cause of this is the minority attack, and this is why most Sicilian endgames are winning for him. The minority attack is also a theme in any Rook endgames, so it's not just a late middlegame idea."

BonTheCat

I've read this before, and still don't understand this comment by Stean. For a minority attack to be successful, the opposing pawn structure needs to be such as to allow the creation of a backward pawn which can be attacked (such as in the Carlsbad structure) by the heavy pieces. This doesn't happen on the queenside in the Sicilian. Most of the time White's a, b, and c pawns stay on their original squares, and then a minority attack is virtually impossible.

 

Firethorn15
BonTheCat wrote:

I've read this before, and still don't understand this comment by Stean. For a minority attack to be successful, the opposing pawn structure needs to be such as to allow the creation of a backward pawn which can be attacked (such as in the Carlsbad structure) by the heavy pieces. This doesn't happen on the queenside in the Sicilian. Most of the time White's a, b, and c pawns stay on their original squares, and then a minority attack is virtually impossible.

 

I'm not sure a minority attack necessarily has to create a weak pawn. To my mind it is simply an attack by a pawn minority. Black will always be able to attack more easily on the queenside as he has the half-open c-file due to the possession of a pawn minority.

I would also say that the White c-pawn is often quite weak in these structures, even if it isn't necessarily the most notable feature in the position, more a latent problem. White doesn't want to be playing c2-c3, which gives Black a good outpost on c4 for a Knight and the option of opening more lines with ...b5-b4, but otherwise the pawn will come under pressure down the c-file.

bartnic1

What's it like being a baby who plays chess

MainframeSupertasker

mee

AussieTeen

Because it is a relatively safe opening that usually results in black equalising rather quickly,although a lot of theory is involved.I play Caro-kann myself as black and D4 as white.

BL4D3RUNN3R

Black can make better of use of the c-file than White of the d-file, additionally a center pawn plus. Larsen once called the Sizi the "cheap trick" which has a point, it is a positional trap basically.

Look at this game, perfect Sizi type endgame, although it started as a Scandinavian.

 

 

syedkurirul

sicilian is a number 1 on the world

BonTheCat
Firethorn15 wrote:

I'm not sure a minority attack necessarily has to create a weak pawn. To my mind it is simply an attack by a pawn minority. Black will always be able to attack more easily on the queenside as he has the half-open c-file due to the possession of a pawn minority.

I would also say that the White c-pawn is often quite weak in these structures, even if it isn't necessarily the most notable feature in the position, more a latent problem. White doesn't want to be playing c2-c3, which gives Black a good outpost on c4 for a Knight and the option of opening more lines with ...b5-b4, but otherwise the pawn will come under pressure down the c-file.

While I understand what you mean, it's still not the generally accepted definition of a minority attack. A minority attack is a manouevre by which the side with fewer pawns pushes his pawns forward in order to create a pawn weakness for the side with the pawn majority, which can then be attacked with the heavy pieces, from the front or the side. This is only possible (or desirable) for certain pawn formations. Even if white plays c2-c3 (or a2-a3) in the Sicilian, that pawn will be defended by a pawn on b2, which is not typically under direct attack. Normally, Black's attacks on the queenside in the Sicilian are traditional pawn storms with the object of creating weaknesses (not specifically weak pawns) in the enemy camp which can then be exploited by Black's pieces, both heavy and light, to deliver mate or extract material concessions. It's of course possible to conduct a minority attack also in the Sicilian, but it's unusual. Nor does the 3 v 2 for White on the queenside necessarily constitute an endgame weakness (especially not when White castles long), as opposed to a Carlsbad structure which has been subjected to a minority attack.