McNastyMac wrote:
There's no way I just read the sicilian is simple.
Sicilian Nadjorf and Ruy Lopez is most complicated openings in chess history
Is the Silican good or bad?
Sort:
fine but night orph is relativly simple
Indeed, the Sicillian is a very simple opening. It must be invented first, though.
pfren wrote:
Indeed, the Sicillian is a very simple opening. It must be invented first, though.
yes
how do you spell scillian?
chesterhawkson wrote:
how do you spell scillian?
Sicilian
ahh it is sicilian
I thought it said Silicon. And of course that has been debated for years now...
Actually, I think Tolkien wrote a book about the Silican.
what???
Oct 7, 2013
0
#73
I think one could devote a gigantic amount of time to several variations of the Sicilian, and still be in trouble often playing it. There are easier ways to go about answering 1.e4 .
Oct 7, 2013
0
#74
AndyClifton wrote:
Actually, I think Tolkien wrote a book about the Silican.
Silmarilion?
Oct 7, 2013
0
#75
chesterhawkson wrote:
I don't know if the sillican defense helps my game or not. I have no idea if it's a good idea.
It is the principal reason that 1.d4 scores better than 1.e4.
Simple????? Najdorf stoped playing the Najdorf because it`s too complicated. That`s how simple it is. I hate it. Never play it with black and play anti-Sicilian lines with white.
fine then what opening do you do when e4 happens
bean_Fischer wrote:
pfren wrote:
The Silican is so bad, that it does not exist in any opening book.
Agree, lol. 1. .... c5 is a blunder for 1. e4. Black resigns after 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3
how can you agree with that, there are a lot of trash books, just because something is written in a book doesnt give it any intrinsic value...
its an absolute meaningless statement
hi
The reason I enjoy the sicillian is that it is extremely simple and due to the various variations it can get some awkward situations