2 edits
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Well, actually, if White plays Nc3, I transpose into the Dragon (Classical or Yugoslav) almost for certain. So, it wouldn't be any less complex and I would have an excellent game. IMO, a game at least as solid as in the Najdorf/Dragon and with just as many winning chances.
You have a point, the Najdorf (and Dragon for that matter) are substantially more complex than the HAD. But, the more complicated they are, the more likely your opponents are to play subpar lines that don't challenge the system. For instance, tonight I played a game against a substantially stronger opponent. His USCF rating is over 2100, and mine is about 1 hyper accelerated dragon. Not nearly as fun as the other sicilians, and not as good either.
I agree with you that extra complexity may make for more subpar lines, but this can work for both sides. 😉 So what this really means is that you need to be more booked up than you would in the HAD. Once you are out of the book, the complexity will mean that actual chess strength is very important. Thus, while I may have a simpler position in the HAD and can play the best move because I'm good enough for that, you may struggle in the complexity and play only the second best move. And IMO, even with all the best lines, the Yugoslav is still worse for Black than the Maroczy, but you do have bettter winning chances.
Moreover, the HAD is less well known than the Dragon or Najdorf and players are more likely to try to refute it and endup playing subpar lines. I can't tell you how many times some player thought he would refute it by playing Qxd4 instead of Nxd4, thinking he would just push e5 and win.
Furthermore, I don't think White really has a simpler game in the HAD as opposed to the Dragon. (except if he plays the Maroczy bind) I think Black has a simpler game while White has just as many problems to deal with and a less clear plan. For example, the kingside attacks common in the Najdorf and Dragon just don't work in the HAD. Statistics also show that in the Nc3 lines, the HAD scores as well if not better than the best lines of the Najdorf or Dragon, so it's clear that there are sufficient winning chances whether the HAD is less complex or not. In the end, practical games is what matters and here, the HAD proves its worth. In practical play, the HAD is imo a better opening than the Dragon, as long as Whtie plays Nc3 instead of c4. It is simply more flexible and as such harder to play accurately against. Being able to play d5 in one shot changes everything.
In the end, it all comes down to the bind. The bind is the only sore point of the HAD. It just sucks the life out of an exciting opening. Winning chances dwindle to about 15-20% for Black even in the best lines. With best play, one usually wants at least a solid 30% winning chance. So yes, here, the Najdorf and Dragon are much more likely to give you the full point. But of course, you are also more likely to lose. 😉
Anyway, nice game! But, your opponent played Bc4 instead of 9.0-0-0. Such a mistake is equivalent to playing Be2 rather than Bc4 in the HAD. Not a tactical error or anything, but Black wins 60% of the time when that happens. It's not surprising that you developed a better position. As for 12. Bg5, why play that when the simpler g4 and kb1 create such a clear and strong idea? White's plan should be crystal clear in this kind of position. Go for the king! After that, it seems like a tougher game for Black. Bh6 is just a bad move.
Finally, please elaborate on your experience with the HAD. How did you play it? What was the mainline for you, in the Nc3 lines?
BTW: Sorry for the wordiness. I'm curious about what you think and also want to state my position.
Originally posted by exigentskyFor one thing, I think you really worry about statistics much more than necessary. The one thing about the Dragon and such is that it has swung in and out of fashion, and many different lines have been tried. So if you search for 9.Bc4 in chessbase, you are finding responses like Rb8, Bd7, Qa5, and lines that are out of fashion or completely refuted. 9.Bc4 is certainly not a mistake, and maybe not even better than 9.0-0-0. You should judge the opening by how the Black is doing in the toughest lines. The lines with are rather vague. Basically, White normally gets around to playing these moves, but he normally repositions the bishop on g5 first. Note that it exerts pressure down that diagonal, threatens to increase control of d5, makes h5 easier to get through, lessens the strength of a later Ng4..., etc... Anyway, Black does fine in all of the Bc4 lines. If you actually show me a line, I can probably tell you what the best idea is for black. I stopped playing the HAD simply because I found it too boring. I prefer playing against the Yugoslav and such. I don't like the bind, I didn't even like to transpose it to one of the slower dragons lines. I played the Uogele Variation (all that ..a5 business). It might just be a style thing. I don't care about statistics, and I don't care if it's really sharp, because that's what I love. Complexity does lead to mistakes from both sides, but I am happy to put my calculation ability up against anyone of my rating, and probably a bit higher.
Well, actually, if White plays Nc3, I transpose into the Dragon (Classical or Yugoslav) almost for certain. So, it wouldn't be any less complex and I would have an excellent game. IMO, a game at least as solid as in the Najdorf/Dragon and with just as many winning chances.
I agree with you that extra complexity may make for more subpar lines, but this ...[text shortened]... for the wordiness. I'm curious about what you think and also want to state my position.
Originally posted by exigentskyMy opinion. The Sveshnikov is alright, but somewhat more limited than the others, and probably a bit less dangerous. The Dragon is good versus stronger players, as you have standard attacking ideas to follow, and so will score a surprise victory here and there. However - for the same reason - it is bad against weaker players, as they too have standard attacking ideas to follow, and so you will drop games against them from time to time.
I know that there really isn't a "best" Sicilian for everyone. However, in your opinion, which Sicilian do you consider to be the "best." Right now, I'm debating between the Sveshnikov, Dragon and the Najdorf.
BTW: I previously believed that the Najdorf was without a doubt the best Sicilian, but upon buying a book on it, I'm no longer certain. It seem ...[text shortened]... ome lines. Learn more here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=42018
The Najdorf is harder to generalize about because of the diversity of positions that result from it, with significant choices for both players for several moves straight away. But, I think the Najdorf is great to play for black - the one drawback being the 6. Bg5 line, after which white often generates very sharp attacks.
Btw, I don't see any reason for black to settle upon one black sicilian system exclusively.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Oh come on, Bc4 scores a lot less than 9. 0-0-0 and it is clearly not as strong. I guess it isn't a big error, but it is a subtle positional inaccuracy.
For one thing, I think you really worry about statistics much more than necessary. The one thing about the Dragon and such is that it has swung in and out of fashion, and many different lines have been tried. So if you search for 9.Bc4 in chessbase, you are finding responses like Rb8, Bd7, Qa5, and lines that are out of fashion or completely refuted. 9.Bc4 ...[text shortened]... y to put my calculation ability up against anyone of my rating, and probably a bit higher.
Also, the a5 line of the HAD is indeed not too good. I stuck with it for months, but it was plagued by quick simplifications and thus draws. Furthermore, it surprisingly led to less exciting games. Since, switching to d6, I have to say that I think this line may even be better for BLACK!
As for the bind, I hate it too. It's almost impossible to win against White. Sure, it comes up rarely and it is unlikely that White will know his stuff at the 1800 level, but just a bit higher and that all changes. As such, this is not sustainable. I want to be able to hold my own theoretically at any level. Thus, if I don't find an antidote for the drawishness, I'm giving up this opening.
My opinion has changed on the subject because I just drew 2 1600 players in the bind! Arghhh! White made some errors, but due to the vast space advantage and the solid position, it didn't matter so much. On the other hand, I played almost perfectly and still drew!. I thought it might just be me though, so I ran 15 engine games in the opening position from the game. The results were: 12 draws and 3 wins for White! 🙁 Black couldn't score the full point even once! So I'm definitely growing exasperated with the bind.
I'm having trouble deciding on a sicilian that fits my style. I play the King's Gambit and Benko Gambit, because I like sharp, active, attacking openings. Are there any sicilians that fit this bill? I'd imagine the answer to that would be yes, but I'm having tons of trouble getting one that works. I picked up Starting out: The sicilian which covers the dragon and Acc. dragon, najdorf, schven., kalish., svesh., among others and seems nice, but I'm still not sure what to go with. I thought the HAD might be cool, but from what I hear it's very positional, which I hate. So, any ideas?
Originally posted by cmsMasterIt sounds like you prefer positions with open lines for your pieces. Even the Open Sicilian isn't really as open as the Benko or King's Gambit imo. I don't think there's really a reply to 1.e4 which guarantees this kind of thing for black, unless maybe something obscure like the risky lines after 1. ... b6.
I'm having trouble deciding on a sicilian that fits my style. I play the King's Gambit and Benko Gambit, because I like sharp, active, attacking openings. Are there any sicilians that fit this bill? I'd imagine the answer to that would be yes, but I'm having tons of trouble getting one that works. I picked up Starting out: The sicilian which covers the ...[text shortened]... AD might be cool, but from what I hear it's very positional, which I hate. So, any ideas?
Which is why I went for the Sicilian. Nothing seems open and active enough for me. In positional chess I suffer, but when things open up I dominate. Are there any gambit variations in the sicilian? Also, how active is the dragon acc. dragon, and HAD in comparison to the najdorf or sveshnikov?
1 edit
Originally posted by cmsMasterYes, cmsMaster, the HAD also weighs heavily on positional understanding. However, there is not a single Sicilian without its own deal of positional ideas and motifs. Out of the Najdorf, Scheveningen, Taimanov, Paulsen etc. the HAD is actually pretty light on difficult positional ideas. It's all pretty straightforward and logical. As for activity, I think that the Dragon/HAD generally feel more active. On the other hand, the Najdorf can also lead to some really wild games. I enjoy playing both.
Which is why I went for the Sicilian. Nothing seems open and active enough for me. In positional chess I suffer, but when things open up I dominate. Are there any gambit variations in the sicilian? Also, how active is the dragon acc. dragon, and HAD in comparison to the najdorf or sveshnikov?
The only really difficult positional line in the HAD is the Maroczy bind. On the other hand, it is very thematic and occurs rarely at this level. Although, if White plays reasonably, it almost certainly ends in a draw.
This is why I am furiously working on an antidote involving the latest GM and engine analysis. It will offer black a good position with good winning chances. Furthermore, it will no longer be so positional. Results are very promising thus far and engine games have shown black scoring 53%, the same score as in master games. The old line scored only about 40%, so this is a big improvement. I will give the verdict after a lot more work in about a week.
Originally posted by cmsMasterWell I am repeating myself but I seriously think you should consider not the Sicilian but the obscure responses to 1. e4 that do open the game up, eg the 1. ... b6 lines with ...f5 or maybe something bonkers like the Latvian or Schiellmann (?) Gambits, and the Two Knights against the Piano. Also the sharpest lines in the Sicilian where black attacks from the off (like the Polugaevsky variation of the Najdorf - very open!) typically involve both sides attacking each other. So even then, it's not as if you can claim the initiative solely for yourself, unlike in several variations of the King's Gambit (and maybe the Benko? I'm not sure.)
Which is why I went for the Sicilian. Nothing seems open and active enough for me. In positional chess I suffer, but when things open up I dominate. Are there any gambit variations in the sicilian? Also, how active is the dragon acc. dragon, and HAD in comparison to the najdorf or sveshnikov?
I even more seriously think you should try to learn the rudiments of positional chess, applicable in nearly every opening you might encounter!
Originally posted by TommyCI know the rudiments of positional chess as I had used the English for about 2 months. Anyhow, I think I'll give both the dragon and the Polugaevsky a try.
Well I am repeating myself but I seriously think you should consider not the Sicilian but the obscure responses to 1. e4 that do open the game up, eg the 1. ... b6 lines with ...f5 or maybe something bonkers like the Latvian or Schiellmann (?) Gambits, and the Two Knights against the Piano. Also the sharpest lines in the Sicilian where black attacks from the ...[text shortened]... rn the rudiments of positional chess, applicable in nearly every opening you might encounter!
Originally posted by exigentskyI'm not so sure this is true at the lower levels. For the very brief time I played the Najdorf, I got alot of Bg5, and alot less of everything else.
OK, but remember to play that Najdorf variation you need A LOT of theory. Furthermore, White usually doesn't play Bg5 and instead goes for Be3, f3, Be2 or some other option. You would be lucky to get that position in 1/10 of your games.