White player vs Sicilian, which Sicilian gives the least theory to learn please?

Just follow good opening principles like in the KIA, b3 system, or even the Wing Gambit.

I have a rather unusual suggestion for you.
I could tell you to look into the Alapin (c3) but I must then be honest and tell you I personally can’t stand it.
Or, I could offer you solid lines that aren’t main lines (like Rosolimo and Checkhover) but those still require learning theory.
There is also the closed Sicilian (which is fantastic) with 2.Nc3 and the setup continues with: g3/Bg2/Nge2/0-0/f4/h3/Be3.

Instead, what I’m going to suggest is the... sensible approach.
Years ago Korchnoi said people won’t stop losing against the KID because they aren’t being sensible. He (Korchnoi) didn’t try to blow it out of the water with an over exposed structure. Instead he'd play g3/Bg2 lines which “killed” what the KID was intrinsically about and forced black to actually play chess.
So here’s my interpretation of the sensible approach vs the Sicilian:
You play (obviously 1.e4) followed by 2.Nf3 and then the move order might change depending on what black plays but the basic idea is not to play d4 but rather stop (in a solid fashion) what black wants to play.
So, if black plays ...h6 (indicating he wants to play ...b5) you play a4.
If he plays ...d6 or ...e6, you play e3 and Nc3 and h3 (to stop ...Bg4).
You can either play Re1 (after 0-0) or even play for a closed Scilian setup with e3/Be3/h3/Nh2/f4.
The key strategic thing here is the gentle hold over d5. If you play Nc3 then in conjunction with the pawn already on e4 and then g3/Bg2 you create a very strong yet gentle strategic grip.
Just use a real board and place your pieces (from the starting position) accordingly: pawn on e4, Nf3, Nc3, pawn on a4, pawn on g3, Bg2, pawn on e3, 0-0, pawn on h3, Be3.
You will need to play with it and develop a feel for when to play what.

There is one other system you might consider though... the Kopec: e4/Nf3/Bd3!? To be followed with c3/Bc2/d4 or d3.
It’s a surprisingly decent system.

@Ahmadinejad said in #7:
> # 5 -----> << I would reccomend.....a Basic Chess book or two like Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev & Neil Mcdonald ... Chess The Art Of Logical Thinking From The First move To The Last ... You can download these free from the Internet Archive >>
> This sounds like an excellent resource for multiple purposes.
> What is the Internet Archive ? --- A portion of this site, or an unaffiliated information resource ?

Even better, I have just found a study on Lichess of the book...

@ThunderClap said in #5:
> I would say that under 1000 & not wanting to learn theory means yes you have less time so ok I will make a suggestion . Play 2 Nf3 & after black responds with d6 you can play 3c3 with the idea of d4 . There is even a trap there 3.... Nf6 4Be2 Nxe4 5 Qa4+ check winning the Black Knight on e4 , NOW if Black plays 2... e6 or 2... Nc6 you can stick to the c3 plan but you have to pay attention to when your opponent attacks your e4 pawn ... on d5 you can play exd5 & then d4 & remember to castle Kingside early & Often . I would reccomend at your under 1000 Rating to read a Basic Chess book or two like Logical Chess Move by Move by Chernev & Neil Mcdonald ... Chess The Art Of Logical Thinking From The First move To The Last ... You can download these free from the Internet Archive

Thank you, I read Logical Chess years ago, have long since lost the book but it's good to see it is available as a free resource so I will read it again definitely.

I think I am more like a 12-1400 rated player but since studying I seem to be getting worse in the short term, although I hear this is pretty common as you start to change the way you think about the game.

Grand Prix attack or Smith Mora gambit, be savage, don't let your opponent play his theory quitely.

Let me copy one of my previous posts.
I believe that right now you don't need to learn any theory at all against the Sicilian.

Nepo's Simple Anti-Sicilian

- play 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3
- fianchetto both Bishops, play Nge2, castle kingside (not necessary in this order)

* easy to learn
* easy to play
* very safe
* avoids opponent's preparation

* you are not fighting for advantage, your opponent can easily equalize
* it is a "system", you might be tempted to play on autopilot, which is never a good thing

Isn't it better to play openings which have a lot of theory? Because in that case most people would have quite poor knowledge of the openings relative to the available information. Someone plays Sicilian against you doesn't mean they know a lot of theory. For me, for example, Sicilian = 1. e4 c5, Caro Kahn = 1. e4 c6, French = 1 e4 e6. And I bet for a lot of people (including myself), the book ends there.

@petri999 said in #8:
> given your strength your opponent will not know the opening either.

Yeah, I agree with this to be honest. I'd say just play the open Sicilian (1 e4 c5 2 nf3 Nc6/d6/e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 nxd4) and then play normal developing stuff. After that, white has a bit of a lead in development and more control of the center, which you can build on fairly easily, while black's compensation - basically a structural advantage in the endgame - is much harder to make relevant. The only thing to watch out for is the knight on d4 - you normally don't want to exchange it on c6 if black plays Nc6, but that means not forgetting that the queen is defending it and (eg) moving the queen away from the d file or putting a bishop on d2.

If at some point you find that your opponents are playing 20 moves of theory and crushing you then you can decide whether to shift to a less theoretical opening or learn 21 moves of theory, but that should be a way off to be honest.

@jonesmh said in #11:
> Just follow good opening principles like in the KIA, b3 system, or even the Wing Gambit.

Sorry to take this out of context (i mean my question is slightly out). The "b3 system". Why do you refer to it as a system.
I am curious about various versions of what "system" might mean. I would rather learn systems than long opening lines, it is as if, a system of opening was implicitely based on principles rather than anectdotal or intricate crevasses in some landscape. As if it was more about landscaping. You may not agree with that view, or it does not make sense, but still if I could ask everytime one was using the word "system" what they meant, I might see something emerging, guiding my further experience with chess world, or body of knowledge, in a way more amenable to my way of learning or thinking.... so i went and googled b3 system and chess. wikipedia history in altitude (notions of popularity within a small or unknown size population of very good players, artefact/transient advantages of such opening moves in that small history, and probably some expansion on to enumerating variations, etc... I did not see "system" though yet. So I would jump to your answer. does not have to be as verbose as my post. If you would give more clues, i would enjoy. thanks op. for letting me ask here....(i did not ask)...

By system I mean not specific lines but more of a general pattern. In both the KIA and b3 Sicilian, you avoid contact and develop normally (using the same piece and pawn placement) for the first ~dozen moves. The London and the Stonewall are good examples.

The problem with many systems is the stunted growth. The Stonewall allowed for three basic middlegame plans and most only use one. By using different formations, you'll grow an (maybe) get more enjoyment.

BTW, whenever "verbose" is uses, it's always a programmer.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.