about the french exchange variation discussion going on(which doesnt not really have anything to do with the sicilian) i think the answer is kinda in the middle because its possible to play the exchange variation for a win but if white just play 3.exd5, knight to f3, is willing to build himself in with bishop to e2, castle and make a wall black will struggle getting through when white want a drawn position that bad
Open sicilian vs antisicilians are they worth it?
Sort:
TheDrevland wrote:
wow i stopped paying attention to this thread because it was quiet but it has exploded since then! i decided to go for the c3 sicilian for now and look deeper in the open sicilian a little later against sicilianplayers who i know what line they will play. i might have been better of going straight for the open sicilian but this is my choice for now
This is pretty smart. Being prepared for every single Sicilian defense is a near impossible task. Even the very best chess players in history slipped in an anti-Sicilian or two every now and then.
Jul 27, 2018
0
#44
i have also been toying with ideas of allowing the najdorf and stuff (which i score well against somehow) and the kings indian attack against e6 systems for a middleroad approach seems to be many choices
TheDrevland wrote:
i have also been toying with ideas of allowing the najdorf and stuff (which i score well against somehow) and the kings indian attack against e6 systems for a middleroad approach seems to be many choices
Once you study those e6 Sicilians a little bit, it's very easy to deal with them. I used to struggle against the Taimanov Sicilian and Four Knights, but now the two are very easy for me. The Kan never gave me much trouble. A lot of people are playing 3.d3 and going for a KIA against 2 … e6, but this doesn't work. Black can use this move order:
Jul 27, 2018
0
#46
yuck you are probably right. the guys i play do 2...e6 to avoid rossilimo and stuff so i didnt give it any thought. i have used alot of time studying isolated queen pawns so the c3 sicilian seems like the natural choice
TheDrevland wrote:
yuck you are probably right. the guys i play do 2...e6 to avoid rossilimo and stuff so i didnt give it any thought
Yep! The irony is that I considered switching to 2 … e6 to avoid the Rossolimo (I play the Sveshnikov) and the Sveshnikov can be reached with a Four Knights move order; if white wants to force it. This seems like a bad idea, as I play the Sveshnikov mostly because I prefer all the side lines - from black's perspective. Most players don't play the main line in the Sveshnikov. As I mentioned, I used to struggle with white against 2 … e6 Sicilians, so I started studying both the Four Knights and the Taimanov. Now I play 2.Nc6 to reach a Taimanov! It's better to avoid 3.d3 than the Rossolimo.
After this:
All 6th moves other than Nbd5 probably favor black.
If I play 2 … e6, I won't get any of those positions.
As far as anti-Sicilians go, I strongly recommend the Rossolimo.
Against 2 … e6, 3.d3 and a KIA - I know nothing about. I know of it, but not about it. You can always play that Kopec system against 2 … d6 ...
One problem with an anti-Sicilian repertoire is that you end up having a custom tailored repertoire for each of the three black replies in the event you play 2.Nf3 … and you're throwing away white's opening advantage for the sake of being lazy.
2.c3 avoids this ...
Of course you can delay certain moves like b2-b4 and c2-c3 ...
Here are some examples:
Jul 27, 2018
0
#49
I am a huge fan of anti-Sicilians. My favorite opening is the Grand Prix Attack. I have a great record with it.
The reason why lower rated players are intimidated by the mainlines in the Open Sicilian is because they do not understand pawn structures. When you do understand plans that stem from pawn structures, you'll be able to take on the Sicilian.
The regular amateur should study pawn structures that arises from the Sicilian Defense. According to Soltis, there are five structures you should familiarize yourself with: the Scheveningen (pawns on d6 and e6), the Boleslavksy (pawns on d6 and e5), the Maroczy (pawns on c4 and e4), the Dragon (pawns on d6 and g6) and the Taimanov (pawns on a6 and e6).
Once you understand pawn structures, you'll be able to beat Black in the Sicilian. I play the Open Sicilian as white and I hardly know mainlines, but I have a pretty good score against it simply by internalizing plans based off the pawn structure.
breaker90 wrote:
The reason why lower rated players are intimidated by the mainlines in the Open Sicilian is because they do not understand pawn structures. When you do understand plans that stem from pawn structures, you'll be able to take on the Sicilian.
The regular amateur should study pawn structures that arises from the Sicilian Defense. According to Soltis, there are five structures you should familiarize yourself with: the Scheveningen (pawns on d6 and e6), the Boleslavksy (pawns on d6 and e5), the Maroczy (pawns on c4 and e4), the Dragon (pawns on d6 and g6) and the Taimanov (pawns on a6 and e6).
Once you understand pawn structures, you'll be able to beat Black in the Sicilian. I play the Open Sicilian as white and I hardly know mainlines, but I have a pretty good score against it simply by internalizing plans based off the pawn structure.
Please come join my club.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
There is nothing lazy in anti Sicilians. That's nonsense of the ignorants. They are as difficult as open Sicilian and in some cases theory is as much as in all open Sicilians together.Sveshnikov's book in Alapin is 556 pages. You can choose a simple line in each of the Sicilians that won't take more than 10 pages study and many of the lines can be played by only understanding the positions and memorising very few lines.For example in Aronian's book about Najdorf , the perfectly fine (according to Aronian) 6.a4 is 6 pages and you don't even need them all!
Chess is difficult no matter what you choose to do. Either with theory or no theory, to master chess needs a lot of work. Those who don't focus in theory focus in more useful areas of the game. The amateurs that choose open Sicilian are the ones that usually jump from one opening to the other and they never improve.
Who called Anti-Sicilians lazy?
I don't think they're lazy. But I do think the regular amateur gets intimated by many Black aggressive lines. But it's not so bad for White and he can play quite well if he knows about pawn structures.
The only logical response to 1. E4 C5 is 2. C3
the Alapin variation. Play it people
DeirdreSkye wrote:
There is nothing lazy in anti Sicilians. That's nonsense of the ignorants. They are as difficult as open Sicilian and in some cases theory is as much as in all open Sicilians together.Sveshnikov's book in Alapin is 556 pages. You can choose a simple line in each of the Sicilians that won't take more than 10 pages study and many of the lines can be played by only understanding the positions and memorising very few lines.For example in Aronian's book about Najdorf , the perfectly fine (according to Aronian) 6.a4 is 6 pages and you don't even need them all!
Chess is difficult no matter what you choose to do. Either with theory or no theory, to master chess needs a lot of work. Those who don't focus in theory focus in more useful areas of the game. The amateurs that choose open Sicilian are the ones that usually jump from one opening to the other and they never improve.
You are just blatantly propagating LIES! You're seriously going to post that "in some cases, theory is as much as in all open Sicilians [combined]"
I have "The Sicilian Pelikan" by Sveshnikov and it is 280 pages. Yet you're trying to tell me that one anti-Sicilian has more theory than the Najdorf, Sveshnikov, Kan Scheveningen, and Taimanov combined? ... plus the Dragon, Accelerated Dragon, Kalashnikov and whatever else ...
If someone is playing an anti-Sicilian it's either because they don't want to prepare for each Sicilian defense, or because one of them in particular is giving them a hard time ...
From black's perspective, it's pretty well documented that anti-Sicilians are easier to deal with than main lines of the open Sicilian defenses. GMs have been stating this in literature for decades now and top level players have been challenging the Sicilian by means of 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 for decades and decades, yet you want to bluff. What is your agenda?
If a player learns some line in the Najdorf 20 moves deep, it's because he had to. The thing is, with optimal play from black, black has equalized or attainted an advantage by move 10 in every single anti-Sicilian.
Even for an amateur to challenge another amateur in an anti-Sicilian, it pretty much requires that the white player is a specialist in his chosen anti-Sicilian; combined with the black player being unprepared.
Of course 99% of us win or lose due to blunders in the middle game and endgame, but this doesn't negate the scientific facts of opening theory and some players need a strong start; some players don't.
Someone … some antagonistic, contrary and polarizing person must always jump into these threads about opening theory and propagate their pro middle game philosophy. Well, this is about anti-Sicilians; not why an intermediate to expert level player should read My System over and over until he has cataracts!
The big advantage of playing things like the Alapin or the London system is that it requires less study, then you have more time to study the endgame and middle game. If someone is playing the Grunfeld and Sicilian Dragon, they will be consumed by reams and reams of lines and variations. This is why these players are not that good at other facets of the game.
So if you want an opening advantage - play an open Sicilian.
Do you need an opening advantage? No.
Does having an opening advantage guarantee victory? Obviously not.
But why sit here and LIE and make all these absurd claims that anti-Sicilians are as difficult and that the body of opening theory is greater than that of open Sicilians?
oh and this myth that anti-Sicilians make black uncomfortable is just that - a myth. Most people playing the Sicilian would much rather face an anti-Sicilian.
So as I said, there are only two real reasons why anyone plays these openings.
1) They don't want to prepare for the multitude of black's options.
2) One (or several) of black's options causes them problems.
Evading their opponent's prep is not even a real reason, because Sicilian players are almost always better prepared for an anti-Sicilian than a main line open Sicilian.
Justs99171 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
There is nothing lazy in anti Sicilians. That's nonsense of the ignorants. They are as difficult as open Sicilian and in some cases theory is as much as in all open Sicilians together.Sveshnikov's book in Alapin is 556 pages. You can choose a simple line in each of the Sicilians that won't take more than 10 pages study and many of the lines can be played by only understanding the positions and memorising very few lines.For example in Aronian's book about Najdorf , the perfectly fine (according to Aronian) 6.a4 is 6 pages and you don't even need them all!
Chess is difficult no matter what you choose to do. Either with theory or no theory, to master chess needs a lot of work. Those who don't focus in theory focus in more useful areas of the game. The amateurs that choose open Sicilian are the ones that usually jump from one opening to the other and they never improve.
You are just blatantly propagating LIES! You're seriously going to post that "in some cases, theory is as much as in all open Sicilians [combined]"
I have "The Sicilian Pelikan" by Sveshnikov and it is 280 pages. Yet you're trying to tell me that one anti-Sicilian has more theory than the Najdorf, Sveshnikov, Kan Scheveningen, and Taimanov combined? ... plus the Dragon, Accelerated Dragon, Kalashnikov and whatever else ...
If someone is playing an anti-Sicilian it's either because they don't want to prepare for each Sicilian defense, or because one of them in particular is giving them a hard time ...
From black's perspective, it's pretty well documented that anti-Sicilians are easier to deal with than main lines of the open Sicilian defenses. GMs have been stating this in literature for decades now and top level players have been challenging the Sicilian by means of 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 for decades and decades, yet you want to bluff. What is your agenda?
If a player learns some line in the Najdorf 20 moves deep, it's because he had to. The thing is, with optimal play from black, black has equalized or attainted an advantage by move 10 in every single anti-Sicilian.
Even for an amateur to challenge another amateur in an anti-Sicilian, it pretty much requires that the white player is a specialist in his chosen anti-Sicilian; combined with the black player being unprepared.
Of course 99% of us win or lose due to blunders in the middle game and endgame, but this doesn't negate the scientific facts of opening theory and some players need a strong start; some players don't.
Someone … some antagonistic, contrary and polarizing person must always jump into these threads about opening theory and propagate their pro middle game philosophy. Well, this is about anti-Sicilians; not why an intermediate to expert level player should read My System over and over until he has cataracts!
The big advantage of playing things like the Alapin or the London system is that it requires less study, then you have more time to study the endgame and middle game. If someone is playing the Grunfeld and Sicilian Dragon, they will be consumed by reams and reams of lines and variations. This is why these players are not that good at other facets of the game.
So if you want an opening advantage - play an open Sicilian.
Do you need an opening advantage? No.
Does having an opening advantage guarantee victory? Obviously not.
But why sit here and LIE and make all these absurd claims that anti-Sicilians are as difficult and that the body of opening theory is greater than that of open Sicilians?
oh and this myth that anti-Sicilians make black uncomfortable is just that - a myth. Most people playing the Sicilian would much rather face an anti-Sicilian.
So as I said, there are only two real reasons why anyone plays these openings.
1) They don't want to prepare for the multitude of black's options.
2) One (or several) of black's options causes them problems.
Evading their opponent's prep is not even a real reason, because Sicilian players are almost always better prepared for an anti-Sicilian than a main line open Sicilian.
Stupid post. Complete waste of time. Just play the Alapin variation. It’s the best move
staples13 wrote:
Stupid post. Complete waste of time. Just play the Alapin variation. It’s the best move
Nice blitz rating. Thank you for educating the rest of us with your short but thorough analysis of the Sicilian.
It’s been mathematically proven that the Alapin variation is the highest scoring response to the Sicilian defense. There is no good reason to play any other move
How’s that for proper analysis moron
staples13 wrote:
How’s that for proper analysis moron
Before calling anyone a moron, you might want to go look at opening explorer or database statistics. If you already have, then you're a liar. Seriously, you must be aware that anyone playing 1.e4 or the Sicilian with black knows that the Alapin does NOT score well.
there was an fm on lichess who never lost a game in the alapin as white so good choice