I try to be careful while giving advice (and I might even despise it). But I decided to impose my views regarding the Sicilian defense. It is worth noting that, this introduction is a so-called “post-mortem” introduction, written only after I finished the essay. Before writing the essay, I had no thesis statement (which now you can find in the title), and I didn’t bring the arguments you are going to read soon to support my hypothesis. I had something to say about chess openings overall, but as I began typing, new ideas emerged, which brought me to the final conclusion.
Mark Dvoretsky, in his famous Opening Preparation (co-authored with Artur Yusupov, the republished version is called Secrets of Opening Preparation) writes that the choice of chess openings should be based upon a player’s own taste and style. He then brings an example of a calm pupil, who opted for Sicilian and King’s Indian Defenses (which are very sharp lines) while playing with Black pieces. Dvoretsky advised him to switch to calmer opening lines, where positional and slower play is more common. After that, the pupil saw improvement in his tournament results.
If you follow my weekly chess progress reports, these all may seem counter-intuitive to what I am doing. I, a rather introverted individual (which is not very difficult to guess, I guess), am studying the Sicilian with Black pieces. I am switching from the French defense, by the way, which is a much calmer opening variation. Now I will try to explain why I am doing what I am doing, and hopefully, succeed with my explanation.
Mikhail Botvinnik, the 6th World Chess Champion, had a quite interesting remark. He was assuming that (and I hope I am not interpreting his words), a chess player who doesn’t play 1…e5 against 1.e4 will never be capable of mastering the positional play (I should put the reference of this claim, but unfortunately, I forgot the title of its source. Weirdly enough, it could be the previously mentioned book as well).
Botvinnik’s statement might be very bold, and not related to the Sicilian defense (which is quite true). But let me elaborate on it furthermore, and everything will click into place.
Take an example of Kasparov, a strict Najdorf or Scheveningen player. The choice of his openings is not strange, as Kasparov is usually considered to be an attacking player with an aggressive style (though he was certainly strong at position play, too. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be capable of beating Karpov in the World Chess Championship matches). For this reason, the Sicilian Defense was more close to his nature, helping him to get positions where he felt at ease while playing.
The same words can be said about Fischer, who was the first professional chess player according to Kasparov himself. And by “professional”, Kasparov meant “universal” (i.e. good at both positional and tactical aspects of the game). Though the aggressive style of playing was also close to Fischer’s nature, for which reason, he also opted for the Sicilian Defense in most of his games.
According to my database, Fischer had 1…e5 with Black pieces against White’s 1.e4 only a handful of times (the last date he played 1…e5 in his professional chess career was 1963, nine years before he became the World Chess Champion). Whereas, Kasparov played this opening move as an act of surprise and mainly in blitz or rapid games.
So I feel like playing 1…e5 has nothing to do with excelling at chess (although such basic statistics is certainly not enough to be sure about it). But one reason why Botvinnik voiced his claim might be that his practical chess career was before the “universal era” which Fischer brought to chess. Botvinnik was amazing at positional chess, where he could maneuver with his pieces and exploit the weaknesses of his opponents’ positions. However, in sharp situations, he was not feeling very comfortable and could even miss some simple tactics. That was his main weakness as a chess player.
And it also seems like, what Dvoretsky says is probably correct: while choosing an opening, it is essential to consider your own taste and style (Both Fischer and Kasparov followed that rule). But before refuting Botvinnik’s claim about 1…e5 (which, by the way, is not an opposite claim), let’s consider my choice with the Sicilian Defense.
I am a calm, positional chess player. I don’t like to calculate, I don’t like tactics. I like to simplify positions. But as I have already analyzed it in one of my posts, this lack of aggressiveness is probably my weakness right now (just like it was the weakness of Botvinnik or any other non-universal chess player).
Looking at the games of elite-level chess players (especially top 5-10), I doubt if there is someone who can be labeled specifically a positional or tactical player; as they all are universal chess players. Yes, they have some inclinations toward certain types of positions: some of them like to play endgames, some sharp positions, etc. But none of them can be considered to be weak in some area of chess (which wasn’t the case in the previous century).
In addition to that, I also doubt if there is a Super-GM who doesn’t have the Sicilian Defense in his opening repertoire with Black pieces. It is the most popular reply to White’s King’s pawn movement in the first move (with the best results), and there is a reason for that.
There are more chances for Black to seize the initiative in the opening and go for a win with 1…c5, than in any other opening (as Black usually exchanges its “c” pawn to the White’s central “d” pawn, and thus, creates asymmetry in the pawn structure. With 1…e5 or 1…e6, it is more difficult to achieve that).
One of my difficulties with the French Defense (especially against weaker opponents) was that White can easily exchange the “e” pawns after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5, creating a strong symmetry in the pawn structure (as 3…Qxd5 gives up the center and is considered to be bad for Black). This symmetry usually leads to an easy draw, but it is not excluded that White can attempt to play for a win (though the exchange variation is not a great choice for that). With the Sicilian Defense, this kind of “struggle to win” option doesn’t sound viable.
So, if the first reason for me deciding to go for the Sicilian Defense as my main option with Black pieces is a possibility of a more lively play, the second reason is that I want to deliberately put myself into the situations, where I do not feel very comfortable. A deeper look at my decision will notice Botvinnik’s hidden logic in action (despite completely twisted one): “Those who don’t play 1…c5 will never reach mastery in tactical play.”
For me, only in this way – by deliberately making myself go into more aggressive variations where calculation skills are essential – I can improve my chess. Though I have got a surprise here: Botvinnik played 1…c5 almost as many times as 1…e5 and showed better statistics (although, his main weapon was our lovely French Defense). It is also worth mentioning that, Botvinnik’s opponents were not weak chess players (names of Alekhine and Smyslov should be a sign that Botvinnik’s knowledge in this opening variation was deep, otherwise, defeat was inevitable).
That statistics looks weird to me, because of pure logic about taste and style mentioned above. This weirdness and all the previous analysis make me put the following bold verdict, which I admittedly realized only after typing all the previous paragraphs: If you want to become a serious chess player, the Sicilian defense must be a part of your opening repertoire with Black pieces.
It doesn’t matter how much I admire Botvinnik’s chess genius. I should admit that he wasn’t a universal chess player. Yet the Sicilian Defense, despite not being in complete accordance with his playing style, has brought him fine results. Kasparov and Fischer succeeded with the Sicilian defense, rarely switching to the other pawn moves. And almost all the top players have 1…c5 in their opening repertoire. I guess that is enough support for my main statement.
Now returning to the taste and style thing. If you are a beginner or a club player, I believe that you should choose your openings according to your taste for now (and you don’t need to put much effort into learning the opening lines in this stage anyway). Furthermore, you might have some difficulties while memorizing all the sharp lines and move orders in the Sicilian defense (or in any other sharp opening variation). In that case, the openings with a calmer play, or “systems” are more preferable.
But as you improve your chess skills and progress into higher levels, I doubt if there is a chance for you to ever become a strong Grand Master without learning the Sicilian Defense. At that stage, it doesn’t matter who you are: a tactician or a positional player. You must become the universal chess player, and having the Sicilian Defense in your opening repertoire will help you with that. Indeed, I believe that this defense is the truest “Best by Test”.
Mark Dvoretsky, in his famous Opening Preparation (co-authored with Artur Yusupov, the republished version is called Secrets of Opening Preparation) writes that the choice of chess openings should be based upon a player’s own taste and style. He then brings an example of a calm pupil, who opted for Sicilian and King’s Indian Defenses (which are very sharp lines) while playing with Black pieces. Dvoretsky advised him to switch to calmer opening lines, where positional and slower play is more common. After that, the pupil saw improvement in his tournament results.
If you follow my weekly chess progress reports, these all may seem counter-intuitive to what I am doing. I, a rather introverted individual (which is not very difficult to guess, I guess), am studying the Sicilian with Black pieces. I am switching from the French defense, by the way, which is a much calmer opening variation. Now I will try to explain why I am doing what I am doing, and hopefully, succeed with my explanation.
Mikhail Botvinnik, the 6th World Chess Champion, had a quite interesting remark. He was assuming that (and I hope I am not interpreting his words), a chess player who doesn’t play 1…e5 against 1.e4 will never be capable of mastering the positional play (I should put the reference of this claim, but unfortunately, I forgot the title of its source. Weirdly enough, it could be the previously mentioned book as well).
Botvinnik’s statement might be very bold, and not related to the Sicilian defense (which is quite true). But let me elaborate on it furthermore, and everything will click into place.
Take an example of Kasparov, a strict Najdorf or Scheveningen player. The choice of his openings is not strange, as Kasparov is usually considered to be an attacking player with an aggressive style (though he was certainly strong at position play, too. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be capable of beating Karpov in the World Chess Championship matches). For this reason, the Sicilian Defense was more close to his nature, helping him to get positions where he felt at ease while playing.
The same words can be said about Fischer, who was the first professional chess player according to Kasparov himself. And by “professional”, Kasparov meant “universal” (i.e. good at both positional and tactical aspects of the game). Though the aggressive style of playing was also close to Fischer’s nature, for which reason, he also opted for the Sicilian Defense in most of his games.
According to my database, Fischer had 1…e5 with Black pieces against White’s 1.e4 only a handful of times (the last date he played 1…e5 in his professional chess career was 1963, nine years before he became the World Chess Champion). Whereas, Kasparov played this opening move as an act of surprise and mainly in blitz or rapid games.
So I feel like playing 1…e5 has nothing to do with excelling at chess (although such basic statistics is certainly not enough to be sure about it). But one reason why Botvinnik voiced his claim might be that his practical chess career was before the “universal era” which Fischer brought to chess. Botvinnik was amazing at positional chess, where he could maneuver with his pieces and exploit the weaknesses of his opponents’ positions. However, in sharp situations, he was not feeling very comfortable and could even miss some simple tactics. That was his main weakness as a chess player.
And it also seems like, what Dvoretsky says is probably correct: while choosing an opening, it is essential to consider your own taste and style (Both Fischer and Kasparov followed that rule). But before refuting Botvinnik’s claim about 1…e5 (which, by the way, is not an opposite claim), let’s consider my choice with the Sicilian Defense.
I am a calm, positional chess player. I don’t like to calculate, I don’t like tactics. I like to simplify positions. But as I have already analyzed it in one of my posts, this lack of aggressiveness is probably my weakness right now (just like it was the weakness of Botvinnik or any other non-universal chess player).
Looking at the games of elite-level chess players (especially top 5-10), I doubt if there is someone who can be labeled specifically a positional or tactical player; as they all are universal chess players. Yes, they have some inclinations toward certain types of positions: some of them like to play endgames, some sharp positions, etc. But none of them can be considered to be weak in some area of chess (which wasn’t the case in the previous century).
In addition to that, I also doubt if there is a Super-GM who doesn’t have the Sicilian Defense in his opening repertoire with Black pieces. It is the most popular reply to White’s King’s pawn movement in the first move (with the best results), and there is a reason for that.
There are more chances for Black to seize the initiative in the opening and go for a win with 1…c5, than in any other opening (as Black usually exchanges its “c” pawn to the White’s central “d” pawn, and thus, creates asymmetry in the pawn structure. With 1…e5 or 1…e6, it is more difficult to achieve that).
One of my difficulties with the French Defense (especially against weaker opponents) was that White can easily exchange the “e” pawns after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5, creating a strong symmetry in the pawn structure (as 3…Qxd5 gives up the center and is considered to be bad for Black). This symmetry usually leads to an easy draw, but it is not excluded that White can attempt to play for a win (though the exchange variation is not a great choice for that). With the Sicilian Defense, this kind of “struggle to win” option doesn’t sound viable.
So, if the first reason for me deciding to go for the Sicilian Defense as my main option with Black pieces is a possibility of a more lively play, the second reason is that I want to deliberately put myself into the situations, where I do not feel very comfortable. A deeper look at my decision will notice Botvinnik’s hidden logic in action (despite completely twisted one): “Those who don’t play 1…c5 will never reach mastery in tactical play.”
For me, only in this way – by deliberately making myself go into more aggressive variations where calculation skills are essential – I can improve my chess. Though I have got a surprise here: Botvinnik played 1…c5 almost as many times as 1…e5 and showed better statistics (although, his main weapon was our lovely French Defense). It is also worth mentioning that, Botvinnik’s opponents were not weak chess players (names of Alekhine and Smyslov should be a sign that Botvinnik’s knowledge in this opening variation was deep, otherwise, defeat was inevitable).
That statistics looks weird to me, because of pure logic about taste and style mentioned above. This weirdness and all the previous analysis make me put the following bold verdict, which I admittedly realized only after typing all the previous paragraphs: If you want to become a serious chess player, the Sicilian defense must be a part of your opening repertoire with Black pieces.
It doesn’t matter how much I admire Botvinnik’s chess genius. I should admit that he wasn’t a universal chess player. Yet the Sicilian Defense, despite not being in complete accordance with his playing style, has brought him fine results. Kasparov and Fischer succeeded with the Sicilian defense, rarely switching to the other pawn moves. And almost all the top players have 1…c5 in their opening repertoire. I guess that is enough support for my main statement.
Now returning to the taste and style thing. If you are a beginner or a club player, I believe that you should choose your openings according to your taste for now (and you don’t need to put much effort into learning the opening lines in this stage anyway). Furthermore, you might have some difficulties while memorizing all the sharp lines and move orders in the Sicilian defense (or in any other sharp opening variation). In that case, the openings with a calmer play, or “systems” are more preferable.
But as you improve your chess skills and progress into higher levels, I doubt if there is a chance for you to ever become a strong Grand Master without learning the Sicilian Defense. At that stage, it doesn’t matter who you are: a tactician or a positional player. You must become the universal chess player, and having the Sicilian Defense in your opening repertoire will help you with that. Indeed, I believe that this defense is the truest “Best by Test”.
