21 Jan 09
Originally posted by kmac27International master Andrew martin states that masters play 1...c5 when they want to win and 1...e5 when they don't want to lose!
I'm debating reverting back to e5. I'm just not sure playing the sicilian is right for me. There are just about half a million different lines. e5 players out there why do you play e5 and not c5?
21 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by kmac27switching off from c5 is probably the smart thing to do for us beginners, as we have so much basics to cover even without the huge block of opening theory. but dragon just happens to be the only one I've felt comfortable in so far, so I'm a bit stuck with having to learn the theory. and if it was just the dragon it would be okay. but there are all the anti-sicilians, with more than enough of theory to learn as well. it's a huge amount of work, which could be spent on more important general things.
I'm debating reverting back to e5. I'm just not sure playing the sicilian is right for me. There are just about half a million different lines. e5 players out there why do you play e5 and not c5?
if I could have something like 1.f4 against 1.e4, I'd switch in a second (and maybe come back some day after having mastered basics on other areas. that is, when I'd be ready.)
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by kmac27I've been playing c5 lately, having recently changed from e5.
I'm debating reverting back to e5. I'm just not sure playing the sicilian is right for me. There are just about half a million different lines. e5 players out there why do you play e5 and not c5?
My thinking is that I'm going to have to take my lumps with c5 just so I'll have the background to even begin learning the theory.
So far, I've never played the French as black.
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by kmac27I pay c5 because I hate defending against the Ruy Lopez. I can sometimes do it fairly well, but I feel like I'm playing with both hands tied behind my back. It's just no fun. I always hear about how dangerous the Dragon is for black but I've never seen someone successfully execute a Yugoslav against me and until that happens a couple of times, I'm gonna stick with the Dragon.
I'm debating reverting back to e5. I'm just not sure playing the sicilian is right for me. There are just about half a million different lines. e5 players out there why do you play e5 and not c5?
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by kmac27I turned back to e5 just because of traxler possibility. I am thinking to turn to c5 just to avoid Ruy Lopez 😛
I'm debating reverting back to e5. I'm just not sure playing the sicilian is right for me. There are just about half a million different lines. e5 players out there why do you play e5 and not c5?
On the other hand c5 is more obscure and complicated, especially if you play OTB. I still don't understand Sicilian as much as I understand symmetrical anwser.
21 Jan 09
1. ... e5 is the more classical approach. I have found that it is a lot easier to refute weak opening moves with 1. ... e5 than the Sicilian. There are also more tactics in open games. When white knows what he's doing, you still get a very playable position. I have read over and over again that players should learn classical games first. Only after you have mastered the open, tactical game should you switch to other defenses.
The Sicilian defense is great too. It's a little loose. It seems as though black is making a slight positional concession in return for winning chances (no symmetrical positions at all). It does have the top GM seal of approval though.
Being a classical player myself, I hardly use the Sicilian much. I prefer 1.e4 e5 and 1.e4 e6.
Then comes the theory.
1.e4 e5 may seem like it has a lot of variations.
1.e4 c5 does too though. (You have 2.c3, 2.d4, 2.Nc3 with g3/f4, 2.f4, and many different deviations AFTER you get into an open Sicilian).
I suggest you test out both and see which one fits your style.
* If you want to take up 1. ... e5, I suggest you try to find Play The Open Games As Black By Emms. This has a good response against every 1.e4 e5 opening for black except the Ruy Lopez. They are main line suggestions (Two Knights Defense, Scotch 4. ... Nf6, King's Gambit Accepted, etc) not tricky sidelines that don't really hold up in critical positions.
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsWhat do you say about Ruy Lopez ? What is the best defence against it ? It gives me nightmares 😛
1. ... e5 is the more classical approach. I have found that it is a lot easier to refute weak opening moves with 1. ... e5 than the Sicilian. There are also more tactics in open games. When white knows what he's doing, you still get a very playable position. I have read over and over again that players should learn classical games first. On ...[text shortened]... Gambit Accepted, etc) not tricky sidelines that don't really hold up in critical positions.
I tried to experiment with 3...f5 but that's still very unclear to me.
Morphy defence/exchange variation leaves me with queenside pawn majority (I don't quite know how to exploit it) and other variations are even worse to me especially when white at one point attacks the center with d4.
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsI somewhat disagree with this description. Positionally, the Sicilian makes a lot more sense than a lot of opening variations. Black stops 2. d4 with a flank pawn instead of a center pawn. In the main line for instance, Black exchanges his c-pawn for White's d-pawn. This is very positionally desirable - Black now has two center pawns vs. White's one, and I would also go so far as to say the c-file is generally more useful than the d-file.
The Sicilian defense is great too. It's a little loose. It seems as though black is making a slight positional concession in return for winning chances (no symmetrical positions at all). It does have the top GM seal of approval though.
That said, White has certain dynamic advantages. Black finds it slightly harder to develop in a natural fashion in the Sicilian, and many times has to play moves like ...a6, ...d6, ...e6, and falls behind in development. White has to capitalize on this before Black consolidates, catches up in development, and is just left positionally better. That's why statistically the longer a game lasts in the Sicilian, the more Black wins.
Just some thoughts. 😀 Not trying to pick on you too hard Paul
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by !~TONY~!With the Sicilian, you are basically playing the English Opening a tempo down. Players that would never even open with 1.c4 don't realise that they are doing just that.
I somewhat disagree with this description. Positionally, the Sicilian makes a lot more sense than a lot of opening variations. Black stops 2. d4 with a flank pawn instead of a center pawn. In the main line for instance, Black exchanges his c-pawn for White's d-pawn. This is very positionally desirable - Black now has two center pawns vs. White's one, and I ...[text shortened]... he more Black wins.
Just some thoughts. 😀 Not trying to pick on you too hard Paul
After cxd4, black has gained an extra central pawn. In a lot of the variations, he has a backward pawn on d6 and on e6. This is part of the looseness I was talking about.
The Dragon is a whole nother ballpark (tons and tons of theory being tested repeatedly).
In Greenpawn's book, he says Capablanca said (heresay lol) the Sicilian is full of holes. The GM adoption of the Sicilian is a relatively modern trend. You will see very few in the games of Lasker, Capablanca, and even Alekhine. It wasn't until players like Botvinnik (occasionally ... Dragon ... etc), Boleslavsky, Bronstein, and Nezhmedtinov starting playing it that it really became acceptable. The same thing goes for the King's Indian Defense.
By the way, I'm not 100% sure the Open Sicilian is white's best option. I have just recently started playing it, and it seems white HAS to get some very active play going very quickly.
Don't get me wrong the Sicilian is a GREAT defense. It just seems to me positionally that it is not the best move.
I know a lot of my stuff overlapped yours. 🙂