Maybe this will sound dumb to experienced players but i'm a noob so don't go to hard. Have been studying open Sicilian lines out of books and watching many videos on the different variations lately. I think I understand the basic principle behind it but one thing bothers me and that is what if white does not play d4 to try to attack the c5 pwn? All of these mainlines always show white playing d4 and then exchanging it off with black's c5 pwn then taking back w/ the knight. What if white doesn't do this? Does this mess up the entire theory for black? I see in all of the open Sicilian lines like Dragon, Najdorf, Classical, ect that c5 pwn exchange in the books then when I play it in club against someone as black they don't attack the c5 pwn. Does it mess things up if c5 isn't traded off?
I mean playing d4 IS the open Sicilian. The open Sicilian is 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nxd4
There are many sidelines, like the closed Sicilian or the Alapin that white can play to avoid the open.
There are many sidelines, like the closed Sicilian or the Alapin that white can play to avoid the open.
EXOprimal, there is no 3. Nd4 after 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 :)
Black's objective in any opening is to get equality. In the Open Sicilian, black lags in development to get a center pawn majority. If white doesn't play d4, the center remains closed, and black has an easier time getting to equality.
The main reason for not playing the open variation is the amount of theory. White would have to prepare against all the open variations, whereas black would only have to know the variations of his defense. And we know that one mistake in the Sicilian often means the game.
Without the d4 exchange, the game is less tactical and more positional. White maintains a space advantage and more pressure on the kingside, however black retains more center control and space on the queenside. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1104948 is a game where the pressure on c5 helps white win the game, something he couldn't do if it was exchanged.
The main reason for not playing the open variation is the amount of theory. White would have to prepare against all the open variations, whereas black would only have to know the variations of his defense. And we know that one mistake in the Sicilian often means the game.
Without the d4 exchange, the game is less tactical and more positional. White maintains a space advantage and more pressure on the kingside, however black retains more center control and space on the queenside. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1104948 is a game where the pressure on c5 helps white win the game, something he couldn't do if it was exchanged.
Open Sicilian: e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 nxd4 (classical)
Open Sicilian can also be with d6 instead of Nc6 and everything else is the same. e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 nxd4 (Most of the time they are differentiated by the use of the word "modern" as far as I know.) With some slight exceptions.
@DonJohnson666 I don't understand what you are trying to say can you provide an example.
"exchange in the books then when I play it in club against someone as black they don't attack the c5 pwn. Does it mess things up if c5 isn't traded off?"
Open Sicilian can also be with d6 instead of Nc6 and everything else is the same. e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 nxd4 (Most of the time they are differentiated by the use of the word "modern" as far as I know.) With some slight exceptions.
@DonJohnson666 I don't understand what you are trying to say can you provide an example.
"exchange in the books then when I play it in club against someone as black they don't attack the c5 pwn. Does it mess things up if c5 isn't traded off?"
There are many viable side lines that do not involve 2 Nf3, 3 d4 and 4 Nxd4:
The closed Sicilian with 2 Nc3, the Alapin variation with 2 c3, the Sicilian Gambit with 2 b4, the Grand Prix Attack with 2 f4, the Morra Gambit with 2 d4 and 3 c3, the Basman System with 2 Nf3 and 3 c3, the Rossolimo with 2 Nf3 and 3 Bb5.
Many white players specialize in one of these side lines so as to avoid the main line.
My advice: do not worry about openings just play it and think about your moves. You can look up the theory after your game.
The closed Sicilian with 2 Nc3, the Alapin variation with 2 c3, the Sicilian Gambit with 2 b4, the Grand Prix Attack with 2 f4, the Morra Gambit with 2 d4 and 3 c3, the Basman System with 2 Nf3 and 3 c3, the Rossolimo with 2 Nf3 and 3 Bb5.
Many white players specialize in one of these side lines so as to avoid the main line.
My advice: do not worry about openings just play it and think about your moves. You can look up the theory after your game.
Guys, let me tell a "secret" every good player knows: It's the long-term structure which makes the Sicilian outstanding!
It is well known that the Larsen calls the (open) Sicilian "a cheap trick". Because in the long run Black is really better, the c-file minority attack with a- and b-pawns is pleasant. The-c-file ist better than whites d-file, a pawn more in the center, more dynamics.
So all he has to do ist to survive the middlegame, equalizing ist often =+. :D Another "rule": White wins the open Sic. quickly or Black wins. ;) (Lanka)
I play Sicilian myself sometimes but with white I spoil the black Sicilian fun with 3.Bb5.
It is well known that the Larsen calls the (open) Sicilian "a cheap trick". Because in the long run Black is really better, the c-file minority attack with a- and b-pawns is pleasant. The-c-file ist better than whites d-file, a pawn more in the center, more dynamics.
So all he has to do ist to survive the middlegame, equalizing ist often =+. :D Another "rule": White wins the open Sic. quickly or Black wins. ;) (Lanka)
I play Sicilian myself sometimes but with white I spoil the black Sicilian fun with 3.Bb5.
@Sarg0n I agree, but then the question is why so many grandmasters play the open Sicilian.
Smyslov and Spassky used to play the closed Sicilian with 2 Nc3. For the match Spassky - Fischer in 1972, Spassky shifted to open Sicilians, presumably on advice of team of seconds. Fischer played open Sicilians his whole career, but in the revanche match Fischer - Spassky in 1992 he played closed Sicilians 2 Nc3 and Rossolimo 3 Bb5. So his years without play might have led him to eschew the open Sicilian.
Anand has played the Alapin 2 c3 if I recall correctly.
Carlsen has played the Basman system 2 Nf3, 3 Be2, 4 c3.
Why is it that so many grandmasters still play the open Sicilian?
Smyslov and Spassky used to play the closed Sicilian with 2 Nc3. For the match Spassky - Fischer in 1972, Spassky shifted to open Sicilians, presumably on advice of team of seconds. Fischer played open Sicilians his whole career, but in the revanche match Fischer - Spassky in 1992 he played closed Sicilians 2 Nc3 and Rossolimo 3 Bb5. So his years without play might have led him to eschew the open Sicilian.
Anand has played the Alapin 2 c3 if I recall correctly.
Carlsen has played the Basman system 2 Nf3, 3 Be2, 4 c3.
Why is it that so many grandmasters still play the open Sicilian?
Well, the short term advantage (quick attacking) favours white, the long term black. So, everyone gets his share. No contradiction.
OK @Sarg0n but why do most grandmasters sacrifice their long term prospects in favour of short term attacking chances? For example the Morra Gambit 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 also gives up long term chances in favour of short term attacking chances, but is not played at top level. Even the grandmasters of a more positional style usually play the Open Sicilian. If it were short term/long term then I would expect the more aggressive players to play the open Sicilian and the more positional players to chose some form of closed Sicilian.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.