I found that interesting about going through the complete games as part of the theory, I am usually a "forced-lines" man after using Stockfisk and its brute force to depth=33 and move 45 in the 6. Bg5 (recently with 6...Nbd7) lines as home preparation. I remember back in the early 2000s when I used to analyse the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn down into move 40+ because it was just more fun, despite being much more dangeorus than playing against, till exempel, 1. e4 c5 2. d3.

I suppose it is perhaps psychological, the anti-Sicilian stuff has plagued me actually longer than I had in my other thread where I struggle to equalise quite often as White in the opening, and usually get destroyed off of the board in many games. The Closed Sicilian with 6. Be3, for example, always considered harmless and usually not analysed in severe detail in most Sicilian books, has caused me extreme problems since 1999. I believe that in my entire chess career, I only have one win against the 6. Be3 Closed Sicilian out of perhaps 12 or 13 (cannot remember exact number) games , and that was back in 2004.

I agree that it is a weird thing to fear an easier equalising anti-Sicilian choice by part of White, but many things I find more difficult and defies logic, like how I usually find it easier to secure draws and play straight for the win as Black, but as White I want to at least equalise.

In fact out of my entire Black repertoire, the anti-Sicilians are the only group of openings that I can feel the "traditional" disadvantage of not having the first move. Just weird, I guess. But at least I have The Killer Sicilian for some new anti-Sicilian suggestions

But I still wonder if it is true with other Sicilian players that anti-Sicilian White players tend to play main lines against Pirc and Caro-Kann.

To answer the OP, one of the main points of the Sicilian is that if White avoids 2.Nf3/3.d4, you get quite easy equality (with the possible exception of the Rossolimo/Moscow, where some work is required) and no forced drawing lines. If you don't like these positions then it means you either have a very large gap in your chess understanding/knowledge or the Sicilian doesn't suit you at all and you'd be better off with 1...e5, for instance.

In my case I found my understanding of the Anti-Sicilians as a whole improved drastically when I studied 'Experts on the Anti-Sicilian'. Don't worry about picking lines to form a repertoire, just go through it cover to cover, play through about a thousand top-level games in full, and you'll probably go from fearing Anti-Sicilians to begging for them.   

If you also have the French in your repertoire, you can try to avoid some of the Anti-Sicilians by playing 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5.

At club level there is a fair chance that your opponent will play 3.Nf3.
3. c3 should not worry you if you play the French. 3...d5 looks okay, and 3...b6 is an idea, too.

From time to time I try to make this approach work. I normally play the French, but I would like to play the Taimanow or the Kan Sicilian for a change without learning all the Antis.
Unfortunately I never dared to play 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5 in a tournament game, because 3.d5 - the Franco-Benoni - leaves Black with a very passive position.

I would love to find something here, but the thread about the Franco-Benoni is not very encouraging:
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1190012680

Still, it might be a decent surprise weapon. You can play like this against weaker opponents if you know they play the Exchange French and you definitely have to win.

Apparently Eric finds the difficulty of play for him fits the theoretical assessments. For most players, though, certain variations or position types are just not congenial despite the variations' theoretical status. GM Marin decided that the Sicilian was just not for him; GM King, I believe, stated that he just can't get comfortable in Benoni positions as White. One IM quoted in Burgess's book was afraid of the Albin. I know another strong IM who plays 1.d4 2.Nf3 to prevent the Budapest, Benko, Schara, etc.  There are also openings where you perform ok but suffer the whole time. I know a master who always has trouble against the Old Indian. Do you think he hasn't studied it?

As long as your repertoire is not stultifying, there is nothing wrong, and a lot right, about constructing a repertoire that avoids certain openings where you are uncomfortable or consistently perform worse than expected.

ErictheRed wrote on 03/12/15 at 18:13:40:


which anti do you claim "instant equality" against??

I looked in the database about 2. Nc3, and instead of transposing to the Grand Prix, I saw games where Black continued Pirc development and either White played d4 and transposed to the Austrian, which is no problem, or played Bc4, in which case Blackk often played ...c6 and then ...d5 or ...b5 which looks like an original position that I have not see in books, but in any case it looks less annoying than for example, Rossolimo stuff.

Still I notice that those who are "low-theory" players seem to enter the "main" lines of the Pirc and Caro-Kann, even though they might be a player who does 3. Bb5 or 2. c3 against the Sicilian, KIA or Two Knights against French. I am not exactly sure why this is, but if it is it could be to the advantage I suppose, if someone plays both Sicilian and Pirc.

Actually there are two rather annoying "Antis" against the Pirc (that the repertoire books hardly mention at all, instead pretending that 2.d4 is forced):

1.e4 d6 2.Nc3 (trying to play like or even transpose to a Closed Sicilian or Grand Prix Attack, significantly with Black already committed to ...d6)
and 1.e4 d6 2.c4 (White is apparently happy with a King's Indian, Maroczy Bind, or English Botvinnik system, which Black may or may not be ready to enter).

Most White players seem unaware of these lines though and just trot out 2.d4/3.Nc3, even those who don't know much further theory. As White I would seriously consider 2.Nc3 and 2.c4 against the Pirc, if not for the fact that I mostly reach it via 1.d4 d6 2.e4.