Sicilian Moscow Variation (2...d6 3.Bb5+)

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
I much prefer ...e6 on moves 3, 4 & indeed 5.
It relieves the tension from the position in my opinion.
[b]5.Bd5...e6
6.Bxc6...dxc6 looks fine to me for both.

I accept (unlike others) that I may be wrong though - after all this is only after scant analysis by a 1550-1600 player.[/b]

It's a matter of taste, one line isn't much better than the other. If we all liked the same type of positions chess would not be the reat game that it is 😉

Originally posted by najdorfslayer
It's a matter of taste, one line isn't much better than the other. If we all liked the same type of positions chess would not be the reat game that it is 😉

Understood.
I guess I've taken it personally - falling for unconstructive criticism from someone who only a few weeks ago barely seemed to know how the pieces move & certainly couldn't recognise basic threats.

I leave it for others to judge.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Aah, but would you recommend 3...Nc6 for a -1600?
I think they'd suffer because of the reasons I outlined earlier.

I'd not recommend any particular opening lines for -1600 players. I'd tell them to keep working on their tactics and on their endgames until their rating is at least 1800. The chance they'll lose a game because of a bad opening choice is extremely small - likely they will miss some tactics during the game and lose because of that, or misplay the pawn-up endgame and draw.

I think I also have to keep working on tactics. I've never won a game yet purely based on strategy/technique.

Yes you have a point, although maybe it is worth intermediates selecting openings that are more tactics-oriented to start with.
I agree that studying mass Sicilian theory for a 1500-1600 is a waste & that is why I haven't done so.
Maybe that is why I showed niaivety in this thread, going for the "safe" or "straightforward" option.

I'll stick to my basic repertoire & CT-Art instead.