Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Is the Classical Sicilian that bad? (Read 12854 times)
CarriedbyGg
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 77
Joined: 02/06/15
Gender: Male
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #27 - 05/22/17 at 09:45:22
Post Tools
I also had the impression that it is fully playable, although more passive than other tries. The bishop often doesn't need to go to e7, that's why these refinements like the Kozul variation became more popular. Structure-wise, it's of course the same. But you committed your bishop to a passive square already, whereas in other lines it might go to g7 or h6.
On the other hand, lines may be less forcing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4245
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #26 - 05/22/17 at 00:35:17
Post Tools
Well, I don't know that anyone has ever claimed that that old Spassky main line (as I think of it) isn't playable. 

I'm reminded that Edmar Mednis chose between 9...Be7 and 9...b5 based on the tournament situation and such.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 2590
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #25 - 05/22/17 at 00:08:35
Post Tools
I notice GM Roiz just analyzed 8...Bd7 9.f4 Be7 in the Richter-Rauzer on the main site. It looks like he's claiming "...this system still looks playable for the second player".

I'm not subscribed at the moment since I hardly play, but it must be worth checking out for those who are.

Last fall I looked at Negi's chapter on the Richter-Rauzer, and what struck me was just how many different ways Black has to play against it. And White can't just meet them on general principles, he must know concrete ideas against each to have hopes of an advantage. That chapter ironically made me want to try it with Black again.

So it take it that the Classical Sicilian can still be a good practical weapon below GM level, even if it's not the very best Sicilian theoretically.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CarriedbyGg
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 77
Joined: 02/06/15
Gender: Male
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #24 - 05/21/17 at 19:56:51
Post Tools
Please try to read Kozul again. The layout makes it unreadable, I admit, but it's packed with nice explanations.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 887
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #23 - 05/21/17 at 14:25:30
Post Tools
CarriedbyGg wrote on 05/20/17 at 14:28:44:
Kozuls book is written by the expert on the line and contains not only numerous novelties and interesting variations, but also a lot of positional advice. However, as stated above, you can only read this book without going crazy if you type it into chessbase.
Second thing is that it requires a certain playing strength (I would assume 1900+)
Third, this only covers the Bg5 Rauzer! For everything else, there are other things:

First, Marins DVD. Cannot comment on that.

Second, Yermolinskys book, which I really like! Definitely worth the money and I think you get it cheap these days. Also covers other interesting lines in the Rauzer.

There is also another DVD by Kosten I think, which is also quite decent.

So, Kozul for the Kozul and Yermo for the rest probably! Wink


Yermo's book is a terrific collection of annotated games and his opinions, as a very strong exponent of the Classical, are astute and still largely relevant.

Raetsky & Chetverik is their usual competent job but this book didn't inspire me.

Wells & Osnos remains a good source for earlier theory.

As I've mentioned before, my own explorations of the Classical began with "The Easy Guide to the Classical Sicilian" by the Finnish GM Jouni Yrjölä, which would still be my top recommendation for any 1900+ player keen on taking up this opening. The explanations are very good and there is a nice balance of theory and annotated games. Obviously the detailed theory needs some updating but it's very user-friendly and a great place to start.

Kozul's book was a huge disappointment - I find it very hard to use.

Kosten's Chessbase CD did not cover 6 Bg5 but remains useful for other lines.

Marin's DVD - like Bibs, I was initially rather put off by his annoying speech mannerisms, but the material seems very well considered and I'd say it is well worth persevering!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CarriedbyGg
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 77
Joined: 02/06/15
Gender: Male
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #22 - 05/20/17 at 14:28:44
Post Tools
Kozuls book is written by the expert on the line and contains not only numerous novelties and interesting variations, but also a lot of positional advice. However, as stated above, you can only read this book without going crazy if you type it into chessbase.
Second thing is that it requires a certain playing strength (I would assume 1900+)
Third, this only covers the Bg5 Rauzer! For everything else, there are other things:

First, Marins DVD. Cannot comment on that.

Second, Yermolinskys book, which I really like! Definitely worth the money and I think you get it cheap these days. Also covers other interesting lines in the Rauzer.

There is also another DVD by Kosten I think, which is also quite decent.

So, Kozul for the Kozul and Yermo for the rest probably! Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bobbyh64
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 273
Joined: 05/15/08
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #21 - 05/20/17 at 13:16:15
Post Tools
I'd like to play the Classical and CarriedbyGg's post has inspired me! So is Kozul's book considered the best or most practical resource to take up the opening?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CarriedbyGg
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 77
Joined: 02/06/15
Gender: Male
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #20 - 05/09/17 at 11:22:06
Post Tools
There may not have been a lot of fuzz here about the classical sicilian, but when reading this thread I get interest in it again. It remains a dangerously double-edged opening that does not get the interest that it deserves. Especially the Kozul variation is strategically so unbalanced it is no wonder that the maestro is able to use the same supersharp variation for 30 years and nobody refuted it yet.
Even if it's += (and I find it hard to attach such a sign to such an unbalanced position) you can easily move order your opponent or play some other idea.

This is probably the biggest advantage of comparing the Najdorf and the kozul variation as you main weapon: the forcing lines are rare. White really needs to be comfortable with the messy "+=" he gets in a typical position and is seldomly able to outprepare Black. That's why I prefer Kozul's treatment in his book versus Marin's in the DVD because he heads down a narrow path to an endgame that is easier to prepare for. And indeed, as we saw in the thread related to the book here, the two treatments could not be more different:

Kozul and Negi meet: Kozul just says "unclear", Negi quotes one game and says it's easier to play with White.

Marin and Negi meet: Negi quotes corr. games and improves on those ideas to outsmart the treatment of Marin.

Who needs to work more on his repertoire after this, someone preparing with Marin or with Kozul?

Then there is the line Li Chao is playing with an early h6 and often an early b4 like Caruana played against Karjakin. I get that on this level it might not be the best weapon to use, but on GM/IM/FM level it is perfect, especially against weaker opponents. Strategically unbalanced, but if you are aware you are probably not getting mated with Black.

These were just my thoughts that I had in the last days (:
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 887
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #19 - 03/29/16 at 14:57:45
Post Tools
dfan wrote on 03/29/16 at 13:08:56:
Paddy wrote on 03/29/16 at 12:53:15:
Latest: in the final round of the Candidates it was no great surprise that, against Kariakin, Caruana chose the Sicilian in a game in which he would most likely need to play for a win. What was a slight surprise was his choice not only of the Classical (which he had not played since 2009) but of a slightly strange idea in the Rauser:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8.O-O-O Bd7 9. f4 h6!? 10. Bh4 b5 11. Bxf6 gxf6.
Caruana mentioned after the game that he had studied Li Chao's games in preparation. But what is the point of inserting ...h6 on move 9, if you're intending to head for a Kozul set-up? It seems to reduce (no...Bh6) rather than increase Black's options. As far as I can see its only virtue is psychological, hoping to worry White with the possibilities of ...Nxe4 or ...g5 and maybe gain time on the clock.
Explanation. anyone?


van Kampen said in the chess24 broadcast that one point was to remove White's option of playing Qh6 in some lines (after the Bf8 has moved, obviously).


Thanks dfan, that's probably a valid point, but I'm not convinced it's the whole story.

In the evoutionary tree of the Rauser, before the Kozul there was what we might call the Spassky variation, since it was Spassky's choice, both against Fischer in their 1972 match and subsequently. It runs 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 a6 8.0-0-0 Bd7 9.f4 Be7 10.Nf3 b5, and now 11.Bxf6 gxf6, reaching the same pawn structure as the Kozul, but with Black's bishop already committed to e7. (Exchanging on f6 has proved more popular with White than the still critical and rather unclear 11.e5 b4 12.exf6 bxc3.)

One of the main reasons why the Kozul overtook the Spassky variation in popularity was the realisation that Black's important unopposed dark-squared bishop is more flexible on f8 and in fact it rarely goes to e7 in the Kozul, with the result that Qh6 is rarely an issue!

Maybe Li Chao found a particular line in the Kozul where he wants or needs to play ...Be7 while preventing Qh6? Or maybe my original suspicion that Caruana's decision to insert ...h6 was largely psychological is correct.

All in all, I'm still rather mystified!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 691
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #18 - 03/29/16 at 13:08:56
Post Tools
Paddy wrote on 03/29/16 at 12:53:15:
Latest: in the final round of the Candidates it was no great surprise that, against Kariakin, Caruana chose the Sicilian in a game in which he would most likely need to play for a win. What was a slight surprise was his choice not only of the Classical (which he had not played since 2009) but of a slightly strange idea in the Rauser:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8.O-O-O Bd7 9. f4 h6!? 10. Bh4 b5 11. Bxf6 gxf6.
Caruana mentioned after the game that he had studied Li Chao's games in preparation. But what is the point of inserting ...h6 on move 9, if you're intending to head for a Kozul set-up? It seems to reduce (no...Bh6) rather than increase Black's options. As far as I can see its only virtue is psychological, hoping to worry White with the possibilities of ...Nxe4 or ...g5 and maybe gain time on the clock.
Explanation. anyone?

van Kampen said in the chess24 broadcast that one point was to remove White's option of playing Qh6 in some lines (after the Bf8 has moved, obviously).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 887
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #17 - 03/29/16 at 12:53:15
Post Tools
IMJohnCox wrote on 03/02/16 at 02:17:25:
OK, one interesting comparison I noticed with Marin's DVD is that in the main line 11.Kb1 Qb6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.f5, Kozul and Jankovic give 13...b4 a question mark "?" on page 133 (variation B), while it is Marin's recommendation (Video 5 by transposition). The difference is that after 14.Ne2, Marin recommends 14...e5, while K&J just give 14...Bxe4 and Marin warns of the dangers of taking this pawn (well, in a similar position, if not this exact variation by my recollection).

>You're doing better than me if you've even managed to find whereever it is they analyse 13...b4 at all. The layout of this book really is something else - just surreal. It makes you realise that our editors are underestimated and/or that it's not as easy as it looks to produce a comprehensible text.


Talking of Marin's DVD - in Video 6 he shows 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 a6 8.0-0-0 Bd7 9.f4 b5 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.f5 Qb6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Kb1 b4 14.Ne2 e5 15.Ng3 h5 16.h4 Bh6 17.Qxd6 Rd8 18.Qxd8+ Qxd8 19.Rxd8+ Kxd8 20.Nxh5 Ke7 as an example of how Black can sometimes sac a pawn or two and still have sufficient counterplay with the two bishops. The principle is most likely correct, but the latest Negi book points out that instead of 20.Nxh5 White should play 20.Bxa6 with the idea of an eventual a3!, answering ...bxa3 with b4!. This doesn't refute the Kozul, of course, but might be a rather important addition to our understanding of White's resources in this type of position.

Latest: in the final round of the Candidates it was no great surprise that, against Kariakin, Caruana chose the Sicilian in a game in which he would most likely need to play for a win. What was a slight surprise was his choice not only of the Classical (which he had not played since 2009) but of a slightly strange idea in the Rauser:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8.O-O-O Bd7 9. f4 h6!? 10. Bh4 b5 11. Bxf6 gxf6.
Caruana mentioned after the game that he had studied Li Chao's games in preparation. But what is the point of inserting ...h6 on move 9, if you're intending to head for a Kozul set-up? It seems to reduce (no...Bh6) rather than increase Black's options. As far as I can see its only virtue is psychological, hoping to worry White with the possibilities of ...Nxe4 or ...g5 and maybe gain time on the clock.
Explanation. anyone?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ChevyBanginStyle
Full Member
***
Offline


2 \infty & *CRUNCH*

Posts: 238
Joined: 01/03/10
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #16 - 03/02/16 at 07:59:56
Post Tools
Yeah, the layout is a bit horrendous. A large part of the organization looks like guitar chords or something (e.g. DFCA Line), but there is some sympathy for the reader:

"At some specific places we thought it helpfull (sic) to underscore some parts to make it easier for you to find the main variation. It might not be consistent with the overall layout but may be helpful."

Thanks, editorial team! Smiley

In defense of the editing, they do have chapter indices, which helped me somewhat through the maze.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IMJohnCox
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1547
Location: London
Joined: 01/28/06
Gender: Male
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #15 - 03/02/16 at 02:17:25
Post Tools


OK, one interesting comparison I noticed with Marin's DVD is that in the main line 11.Kb1 Qb6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.f5, Kozul and Jankovic give 13...b4 a question mark "?" on page 133 (variation B), while it is Marin's recommendation (Video 5 by transposition). The difference is that after 14.Ne2, Marin recommends 14...e5, while K&J just give 14...Bxe4 and Marin warns of the dangers of taking this pawn (well, in a similar position, if not this exact variation by my recollection).

>You're doing better than me if you've even managed to find whereever it is they analyse 13...b4 at all. The layout of this book really is something else - just surreal. It makes you realise that our editors are underestimated and/or that it's not as easy as it looks to produce a comprehensible text.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ChevyBanginStyle
Full Member
***
Offline


2 \infty & *CRUNCH*

Posts: 238
Joined: 01/03/10
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #14 - 02/29/16 at 19:30:45
Post Tools
To expand on Stigma's post:

I think the Classical significantly weakens the English Attack.

6.Be3 Ng4! is an improved version of the Najdorf line (Nc6 is much more useful than a6) and 6.f3 e5! is a comfortable Boleslavsky (precursor of the Najdorf). Note that Black can play a5 in one move to play against the knight on b3 and this is at least one favorable comparison with the Najdorf.

For just about everything else besides 6.Bg5 or 6.Bc4, you can play a comfortable Boleslavsky or Dragon (having bypassed the Yugoslav). I've noticed that a lot of amateurs get move-ordered when they play 6.Be2 to try to avoid theory. In this case, the Dragon can be an unpleasant surprise, since they may prefer the Yugoslav but never got around to studying the Rauzer or Sozin carefully. In my experience, a lot of players get confused by this move order.

I think 6.Bc4 should be taken seriously, but I don't think it should be greatly feared either. The modern approaches that delay castling are very interesting. The theory in some places seems less charted than the Najdorf here, so I think you can force White to think on his own more and still get good counterplay. Marin's DVD has an interesting system with Bd7 against the Velimirovic that appears to be little explored.

6.Bg5 is the real monster here. A lot of people know this is the best move, but maybe aren't completely sure why. The Kozul can be very sharp and takes careful study. (For me, this is the biggest obstacle in the Classical repertoire by far.)  It's easy to mess up when you're playing it for the first time. One thing to remember is that Black will often sacrifice a pawn (or sometimes two!) to trade queens and enter an endgame where he has dynamic compensation with the bishop pair and piece activity while attacking White's weaknesses. I think it's an underestimated system often due to some false assumptions. There is a lot of theory to learn here, but I think it has good practical potential if you do your homework since the theory is less known and sometimes less explored than the Najdorf.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4245
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Is the Classical Sicilian that bad?
Reply #13 - 02/29/16 at 19:20:56
Post Tools
I presume it may be the case that the Richter-Rauzer should enable White to reach "+=" territory.  I have no idea where such thoughts as that it may "win by force" come from.

Regarding ...a6, although Black often plays it later in the Classical, there are quite a few "book" lines in which he doesn't.  That can be connected with such things as ...e5, or ...Nxd4 and ...Qa5, or ...a5, or ...Na5 and ...b6 etc. as the case may be.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo