Why play the Classical Sicilian

The Classical usually transposes to the Scheveningen formation no?, probably less so to the Dragon. If you play the 2...Nc6 move order, 6.Bg5 is good. If you play the Scheveningen move order then 6.Bg5 is not so good, after 6...Be7. but then you have to be prepared to face the Keres Attack with 6.g4 I would rather face the Keres attack in the Scheveningen than the Richter-Rauzer in the Classical. But all of this is moot if you play 2...e6, then you can play the Kan or the Taimanov, and also play the Scheveningen if you are up to facing the Keres Attack. And you will never have to worry about 6.Bg5 again.

I had a book on the Classical once. The author claimed Classical only had independant significance if Black played 6...e5 after 6.Be2, or something very much like that.

edit: perhaps should read: if you play ...Nc6 before e6 it's the Richter-Rauzer you have to face. ...Nc6 after ,...e6 the Keres. And if you don't see the Keres, then you will get your Classicl/Schev formation, knights of f6 and c6, pawns on e6 and d6, under circumstances other than the Richter Rauzer.

After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd 4. Nxd Nc6 5. Be2 black can play e6 like you describe and it's an interesting game. But black can also play e5 which gives a hole on d5 but also very active piece play. I've played both and have done better with e6 but enjoyed the game more after e5 - dont know why.

As for Keres or Rauzer, the doubled pawn Rauzer structure is pretty specialized but most classical players have studied it in depth so would likely refer it to the Keres attack-- regardless of which is a pawn fraction better. It's just what you understand.

Bill

Well yeah, that's why they are classical players. I haven't checked the numbers on the database, but I expect the Scheveningen sees a lot more action.

Fred

And people who understand both? What do they TEND to prefer?. That's the real question

Here the data says e5, then g6 then e6 in order of preference

https://lichess.org/analysis#11

I dont know what that data base covers.

I only play a Scheveningen formation against the Rauzer and against Bc4 lines - against 6. Be2 I play g6 and against 6. f3 the standard move is e5. (6. Be3 is not very good against the Classical because of Ng4).

Both g6 and e5 are popular against Be2 - Shankland's course covers the first one and Srinath the second. But Srinath goes for a slightly odd and in my opinion awkward sideline within ...e5 because if you go into the main line, White has a forced draw available if they want it. ...e6 is not terrible or anything but people generally play the Classical wanting a fight, it's a little bit passive.

It's sound. This is probably the absolute best line for White in my opinion:

White is a little bit better here I think, but it's nothing to write home about, and I think I have encountered this Be2 idea once ever having played this line many times.

Another decent try for White is this, if you want to try to hang on to the pawn:

Black's activity here provides full compensation for the pawn imo.

It is vastly more common in amateur games for White to continue with something like 4. d4 Nxd4 5. Nf3 cxd4 6. cxd4, which is an equal position where Black has the choice of several pleasant continuations. 4. d4 is the most-played move even in the Masters database on Lichess.

That’s a really impressive breakdown! I like how you compared the different Sicilian lines and explained why the Classical fits your goals. It’s encouraging to see someone commit after so much study — this post will definitely help other players who are still deciding on a repertoire

This cannot be further from the truth. The classical has many independent lines:

In the last example we actually have a side-variation in the najdorf but black is up a tempo. There are many more independent lines, but you get my point.

Yeah I play the same line against the Alapin. Good activity.

It seems I have a knack for choosing to play the same lines that you play.

Well, besides what some others have mentioned - that the Prins is not a threatening line - your attempt at controlling the game already failed here since you ran right into this (a line I mentioned already), which just bypasses the Prins and to which your best response is to transpose into the main lines... lines which, as a result of your anti-sicilian repertoire, you're now not well versed in.

But anyway, when you're resorting as white to anti-sicilians to control the game... that's a major victory for black. Unless it's the Rossolimo. Because it's another feature of the sicilian that... these anti-sicilians play kind of the same as one another. They don't take black off guard.. unless they're really special and well prepared. Your line didn't do that against me, it failed as I showed you.

If I didn't find the anti-sicilians so incredibly boring I'd rejoice in seeing them.

You play the anti-chekhover and the amount of theory against the Chekhover is greatly reduced / the Prins is not reachable. After which ~20-30% of white players get confused and try to deviate, at which point they walk into a prepared line that's sharp, odd and objectively fine for black. Black is happy to play this -

Moscow is just a weaker rossolimo, and the alapin is far better against Nc3 than it is against d6. The delayed alapin vs. d6 is nothing, you literally just develop and white can't even push d4, it is complete garbage. Very little prep needed. 
Really the only serious line is the Moscow but Rossolimo is alot more serious than that. Besides... I have a cheese against the main line in the Moscow too. Whites best is to allow this but it's again one of those odd positions that black can prepare, I'm fine with playing it. White needs to play Na3 to maintain his edge but against the people I'm facing I don't see that happening very often -

Many of you guys like to think of chess in objectively idealistic terms, but it's often better to approach it like gambling... when you gamble you're playing your opponent.

Why much study the sicillian? There are 3 from these types.

In my case specifically, you aren't getting a Sicilian in the first place. I play 1.d4!

Classical Sicilian sidelines overview:

- The Moscow is maybe the best, I don't really love my line against that and will probably switch to something else. Unlike some of the other sidelines, it is not easy for Black to either reach obvious equality or get active counter-chances.

- The Closed Sicilian is annoying and a pretty decent line, it is by far my least favorite thing to play. there are a few different plans and it's hard to get familiar with all White's options as Black. I'm including 3. Bb5 in here.

- The Alapin is not terrible but not very good and I like my line against it.

- The Morra is frustrating enough to deal with that I just try to combine my line against it with my Alapin line now, it is a general problem with the Morra that it is possible for Black to do that.

- The Chekhover is a pretty decent line for White actually, but as crazedrat said, it is avoidable with the anti-Qxd4 move order.

- Against the Prins, if you play the Classical there is a very easy way to simplify into an equal position, but I don't think the line is good anyway against a booked up Black.

- 3. Bc4 is a reasonable way to just get an equal game as White.

- The Delayed Alapin and the Grand Prix Attack are junk imo. Like the GPA is OK, as in equal, if you really know your lines, but if you are willing to study theory to that extent then you should play something else. GPA players who don't know what they are doing against 2...d6 are rapidly worse.

Anti-Chekhover avoids most but not all of the Chekhover. But it does reduce the size of what remains to something alot more predictable and manageable. But it completely prevents the prins.

Comparing 3... Bd7 vs. 3... Nd7 in the Moscow the former simplifies the game whereas the latter tends to explode in size. I played Nd7 for a while, but white has good control over the game and the experience edge, there are also some sharp variations he can enter, so I decided the simplification via Bd7 was better. 

Lines like the moscow gambit here I'd rather avoid. Though objectively good for black they require precision for quite a while to maintain the equality -

Really the issue is these are just 2 lines out of dozens, it's too large for me to invest the time it would require to play properly.

Against the Smith Morra I just play this line and win 65% of the games. It's an easy game, just don't even bother pushing d5 and try to rotate over to the kingside or trade off pieces in that vicinity, don't get greedy... you'll usually do very well -

Closed sicilian is probably the thing I least like about playing 2... d6. Because I always preferred 2... e6 against the closed over everything else, due to the way it breaks open whites fiancettos. It's not that the classical is bad though, you can play 2... Nc6 and it's fine, just not e6. And after 3. Bb5 it's hard to find something other than theory to play.