I also find it hard to believe that 2.a4 could be as good as 2.Nf3 or 2.Nc3, except from a hypertheoretical perspective (all of these moves lead to a draw).

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/14/11 at 21:38:46:


I think you are right about this. How many U1800 players regularly play Nd5 sacs, e.g.?

Markovich wrote on 08/15/11 at 02:18:55:

Did you see the link? Before criticizing you could at least look at my article. I am tired of the empty talk. Give me a concrete suggestion for Black. I think the logic (principles, if you want) behind the move is pretty good, and yes, I have a tree of variations which only partly went into the article. 

I don't think I ever wrote on 1.a3. My principles do tell me that 1.e4 c5 2.h4 or 2.Nh3 or 2.Qf3 are dubious. However, my principles don't tell me whether 2.Na3 or 2.a4 is better. Sometimes there is no alternative to concrete analysis.

Larry Evans condemned unorthodox ideas. I remember one of his articles in Chess Life, where he found one error in a long analysis by Weaver Adams. On this basis alone Evans attacked Adams in a rude manner, quoting "principles in chess" and that A.'s stuff should never have been printed and so on. With a little effort of his own Evans could have repaired the analysis. But no, he had his principles, and filling two pages with empty phrases meant more to him than simply trying to find a better move.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/14/11 at 21:38:46:


Because it's known to be better, at least at higher levels, to stick to and develop a repertoire. I think Botvinnik was the first person to openly declare this idea, and said he could fit it all in one notebook. In fact it's absolute beginners that play something different every day of the week. 

If you're learning a math book, you don't do part of chapter one monday, part of chapter two tuesday etc., it's easier to study one thing at the time or you just won't know what you're doing.

Fromper wrote on 08/08/11 at 22:46:55:

This is a good reason to keep on playing the Morra Gambit. I only noted that it doesn't apply anymore as soon as White faces stronger opponents.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/12/11 at 21:49:59:

This is a good reason to play 2.Nc3. Alas I'm too weak to take benefit of it. I lack the necessary positional skills.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/12/11 at 21:49:59:

You don't have to, because I have played OTB the Morra Gambit, the GPA and even Bb5-variations way more often than the Open Sicilian (only 4 games; score 2½).
In corr. chess I have played the Open Sicilian more often, overall with good results.
Moreover with my Dutch ELO about 1800 I don't belong to the biased stronger players who prefer 2.Nf3 and 3.d4.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/12/11 at 21:49:59:

You still avoid my counterargument that this applies to say the Löwenfish as well. Similar approaches are possible against the Sveshnikov as well. If you don't believe, consult Davies' Tame the Sicilian. It contains an entire repertoire based on the Open Sicilian and still is smaller than several books I own on several Anti-Sicilians.
As for the Sveshnikov: 6.Nf3 is an easy solution. So is 7.Nd5. White has done well with 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 and 11.g3. I would like to recommend the piece sac 11.Bxb5 too, but Black can avoid it with 10...Bg7. Maybe someone likes 11.c3 Bg7 (f5) 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nc2 0-0 14.Nce3 Be6 15.g3 better.
Before anyone screams: "but Black can equalize this or that way!" remember: 1.e4 c5 is equal anyhow. If there is an edge after all for White an U1800 player will not be able to maintain it anyway, certainly not in the sophisticated lines you recommend after 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/12/11 at 21:49:59:

No, I did not claim that. I claimed that "tons of theory" is the wrong reason to avoid the Open Sicilian, simply because White does not need to study tons of theory to play it. My point of view is this: 1.e4 c5 is equal anyway. So the way to go is posing problems. If anyone thinks he/she can do that with 2.b3, the Closed Sicilian, the GPA or even 2.a4, go ahead.
Moreover I made another point - an ambitious amateur of U1800, who wants to improve, should usually focus on relatively simple strategy and complex tactics instead of complex strategy and simple tactics. Then offbeat Open Sicilians are perfect.
What I specifically attack is the idea of "the Open Sicilians are too much work now, I'll postpone it for a few years". This will lead to postponing it eternally.
Yochanan Afek said something similar about taking up the Ruy Lopez vs. sticking to the Scotch.

If anyone has positive reasons to play some Anti-Sicilian, he/she has my blessings. These days I play 1.d4, so it's not a question for me anymore. Except that the NID, Rubinstein Variation (4.e3) is also equal. Still I have a positive score with it, in corr. chess.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/13/11 at 08:24:11:

Then you can wait until the cows come home. And again: I don't cheer about the strength of 2.Nf3. This is another logical fallacy. This one is called a strawman.
So for the zillionth time: your arguments to avoid the Open Sicilian are wrong. That doesn't imply that 2.Nf3 is better than 2.b3 or 2.Nc3. I am certainly not stupid enough to argue that the Löwenfish is stronger than the Czerniak Variation, the Closed and the GPA.
What I argue is simply this (also for the zillionth time): your arguments to play various Anti-Sicilians also apply to the Löwenfish and the sidelines of the Sveshnikov I mentioned. This is exactly what I wrote in the first sentence of this post.

Concrete analyses by Top GMs haven't had much influence, they often start at move 15. Anyway, players of all levels did find a few results: 

In the Dutch 1.d4 f5 set-ups with an early e4 are not successful. For example, the Staunton Gambit 2.e4 leads to exchanges and simplification (=). 

Against 1.f4, neither the immediate 1...e5 (+=) nor the various plans after 1...d5 which prepare e7-e5 can fully equalize. 

In the English Opening 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3, only few players like to play 2...Nf6 followed by d5. 

The Spanish is sometimes regarded as White's best system in the Open Games. In contrast to 3.d4 or other "faster" systems it often requires patient manoeuvering. 

[sarcasm] But of course, the Sicilian is the one and only exception. Here it is best to ruin your pawn structure for the ending, open the game prematurely, allow all kind of forcing lines and simplifications. And even with best play from Black, White has "winning chances". [/sarcasm]

Play 2.Nf3, if you want. Maybe one day I'll join the 2.Nf3 camp, if Sveshnikov is solved. But this cheering about the strength of 2.Nf3 is ridiculous.

As a player around Fromper's level, or a little higher (1900-2000 OTB), I can confirm that the advantage of the first move is essentially swamped by the randomness of play at this level.  My results with Black are as good, or better than, my results with the White pieces (This is, probably, because I spend a lot of time on my Black openings, but just play chess with White.  Yes, I realize this is dumb.  I have a great score against my Black repertoire - all my own openings are clearly a forced loss!)

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that for players "down here with the rest of us," playing OTB chess below master strength, opening choice is far more a matter of taste than theoretical validity.  In all probability you will play three or four "second-best" theoretical recommendations and end up in the hinterlands of theory (if not out of it entirely) by move 12.   And if you don't, your opponent will play the London System or something and make "theory" borderline irrelevant.

So the Smith-Morra is probably as good as anything else, although I can't imagine a gambit player not enjoying the actual Open Sicilian, myself.