Zatara wrote on 01/10/09 at 05:53:43:


Sveshnikov ? It is very dynamic......based upon hypermodern principles. Its a fighting opening .Well...white has tried to refute it for a very long time and has still not suceeded. Khalifman said openly that he didnt even try to refute the Sveshnikov because its not possible to refute it. Its is considered sound after all. 

According to Starting out the Sveshnikov it takes some time to learn to play the Sveshnikov...to get a feeling for the opening. Dont expect good result in the beginning. But the more you play it the more feeling you get for the opening. Its theorethical of course but you have great use if you understand the ideas behind it...and the maneuvers...like any opening. After you have played it a while you get the feeling for the Sveshnikov positions.  A feeling that the whiteplayer  often does not have. Another thing is that it seems many whiteplayers dont like to face it. 

A second thing I like with Sveshnikov compared to the Najdorf is that you (because of 2...Nc6) is better prepared for antisicilians like the Grand Prix attack and other move order tricks. I also hate to face the Moscow 3.Bb5+Check!!! I prefer to face  the anti-Sveshnikov if I have to. The Anti sicilians are also a part of the sicilian repertoire..lets not forget..wether we want it or not.

Van Wely said in his Sveshnikov chessbase DVD that you will never get mated (if you dont really want to of course ) early in the Sveshnikov...like what can happen black in the Najdorf.

(have edited just what I have misspelled).

Thanks all who posted.  I am wondering what people think of Sveshnikov sicilian? I hear you have to really learn the thoery as it is very hard to play by general priciples.  Is that true? 
Thanks,
Zatara

My idea of "how should one decide" is that it should arise rather naturally from general chess study -- from looking at a variety of games from a good monthly magazine, for instance.  What could be a better basis than that?   

Failing that, I like the dice idea.      

I personally don't see it as bleak as existentsky above.

The main attraction of the Najdorf is that it is the most elastic of all the Sicilians (the most 'principled' in my opinion are the Dragon proper and the Classical).

So if in need to avoid prepared lines, you can diversify in the future by adding viable alternatives (e.g. you can easily transpose to the Classical, the Dragon or the Scheveningen against specific variations that bother you / against 6. Bg5 or 6. Be3 which are the main lines, there are many alternative defences to choose from / against certain anti-Sicilians you may also chose the Kan/Taimanov or even French setups).

some rich chess imo..

The Najdorf is good below ~2100. After that, it's an incredible amount of work and you get seriously punished for the slightest inaccuracy. Usually, that means getting a terrible position.   It's dangerous going for the most popular opening that everyone and their dog has studied and expects without the utmost understanding and preparation. There are easier ways to get a good position and make your opening study productive. For example, the Classical is principled, active and sound but far less common. Some might even argue that Nc6 is much more logical than a6. The Richter-Rauzer is probably the only real test and Black has found improvements on old lines. Although, if the Najdorf really attracts you, go for it.

MilenPetrov wrote on 01/03/09 at 23:36:52:

Please tell us more!

I would recommend the Najdorf as your main Sicilian variation as Black, using a combination of ...e5 and ...e6 lines depending on your tastes.

If you want to learn a second variation of the Sicilian at a later stage, then you could also add the Scheviningen to your Black repertoire without much difficulty because the positions bear some resemblance to a Najdorf. 

I wouldn't recommend the Classical Sicilian as being the most dynamic of all the Sicilians. It is solid, but some of the most testing variations do give White an initiative that requires some precision to withstand.

@Bibs: