1 edit
Originally posted by YUG0slav55% is what I've heard...
I'm the opposite, I used to play into all open Sicilians, and would score poorly against Pelikans and Sveshys, (never really faced Dragons and the Najdorf players I faced were luckily all junk) so I switched to a closed (with a delayed Nc3)
and to say that the closed scores 47% isn't a good argument from you since white scores 44% in the 9. Bc4 Yugoslav ...[text shortened]... y your argument would make the Closed a better choice than playing into mainline Dragon theory
Still, The Open is much cooler and more beneficial to improvement as a chess player.
Originally posted by cmsMasternot necessarily in my opinion...
55% is what I've heard...
Still, The Open is much cooler and more beneficial to improvement as a chess player.
open sicilians do nothing for positional understanding...
and Closed Sicilian is, from what i've read, becoming more popular with new theory after white makes the e5 sacrafice...
undermines c5 square, opens diagonals for both bishops...
it looks interesting to say the least...
Originally posted by rubberjaw30e5 sac is old, and you're completely confused if you think that Open Sicilians don't benefit positional chess.
not necessarily in my opinion...
open sicilians do nothing for positional understanding...
and Closed Sicilian is, from what i've read, becoming more popular with new theory after white makes the e5 sacrafice...
undermines c5 square, opens diagonals for both bishops...
it looks interesting to say the least...
1 edit
Originally posted by cmsMasterdon't all open-type games lean more towards tactical fireworks than positional play?
e5 sac is old, and you're completely confused if you think that Open Sicilians don't benefit positional chess.
and you must forgive me for not knowing what is old and what is not, i just started reading about it and it looked like a new development the way the author presented it...
Originally posted by rubberjaw30If we're thinking of the same thing, Spassky introduced it a while ago.
don't all open-type games lean more towards tactical fireworks than positional play?
and you must forgive me for not knowing what is old and what is not, i just started reading about it and it looked like a new development the way the author presented it...
Yeah, Open games are more active usually, but the Sicilian's got so many variations black can play as positionally or tactically as he wants - look at the Dragon compared to the Kan.
Originally posted by cmsMasteryeah, we were still thinking of the same thing...
If we're thinking of the same thing, Spassky introduced it a while ago.
Yeah, Open games are more active usually, but the Sicilian's got so many variations black can play as positionally or tactically as he wants - look at the Dragon compared to the Kan.
and the author did mention Spassky...
but made it sound like Spassky didn't believe it had potential... just made the move to prove that he was cool enough to make any move he wanted and still win...
Originally posted by rubberjaw30To help answer your question, consider the following line from the Scandinavian (or Center Counter) Defense: 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. dxc6 Nxc6. In this position, Black is considered to have full compensation for the pawn because of the advantage in development and the weakness of White's backward pawn at d3 (which cannot easily advance to d4). By comparison, in your line, Black has a smaller developmental advantage and that is the only compensation for the pawn. So, we can conclude that the compensation is insufficient and the line is good for White.
me, although, i polayed through this variation in my head this morning, and when i showed it to a friend on a board, he said he actually liked it for black...
what do you guys think?
this is a line i would consider for black:
1. e4 d5
2. exd c6
white declines with d4, where it basically becomes a Caro-Kann Echange Variation...
and accepts with ...[text shortened]... pawn?
i like the open files for queen (and rook after an eventual Rc8)
what do you guys think?
Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozerinsufficient at the moment, but consider the line in OTB tournament play...
To help answer your question, consider the following line from the Scandinavian (or Center Counter) Defense: 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. dxc6 Nxc6. In this position, Black is considered to have full compensation for the pawn because of the advantage in development and the weakness of White's backward pawn at d3 (which cannot easily advance to ...[text shortened]... pawn. So, we can conclude that the compensation is insufficient and the line is good for White.
sacking a lowly pawn to get a developmental advantage, plus several open lines for the queen and rook after an eventual Rc8
me and my friend are just trying to see if it would work for him in this tournament on Saturday...
he says he likes it, and i don't see many major flaws...