Sicilian Defence for begginers??

Main

Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:53:08
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

I once heard that it not a good idea for lower rated players (how low is
low??) to play the Sicilian Defense. The argument I heard is that there
is a lot of theory associated with it, making it an unwise choice.

I made this comment to someone else, who felt this is wrong.

Comments? At what sort of rating (ICC) would you think it is wise or not
to learn that as an opening?

I normally reply with the Smith-Morra Gambit, which I know is
technically unsound, but seems to catch quite a few people out at my
level (around 1300 on ICC). If I was a GM though, I'm sure I would not
play the Smith-Morra.

--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)

Date: 15 Sep 2006 13:32:35
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

> In our category, we are counseled to study and drill tactics. I cannot
> argue with this, and indeed I've been doing a lot of that

At the level where one player hangs a piece or pawn every game due to
blunders or basic tactics, sharp tactics help more than other skills.

> after half a dozen or ten moves I'm already in an inferior position.
> It isn't a matter of necessarily making a gross blunder, even a not so
> gross one, but of getting into an inferior situation due to moves that
> are not quite precise.

> This correlates with some interesting advice I read somewhere or other:
> to learn an opening, get hold of 200 full, preferrably annotated
> high-level games in that opening and play them over multiple times.
> (The precise number, 200, doesn't matter, as long as it's quite large.)

Playing through 10-20 games is a good idea. I'm not sure about 200,
especially since you get losing postions, and are a lower class player.

If you rarely lose material to blunders or basic tactics, have you
studied strategy? I played through "The Amateur's Mind" last weekend,
and now I can spot positional blunders, sometimes. There's much more to
positional chess than trying to double your opponents' pawns!

Date: 16 Sep 2006 22:45:16
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>> In our category, we are counseled to study and drill tactics. I cannot
>> argue with this, and indeed I've been doing a lot of that
>
> At the level where one player hangs a piece or pawn every game due to
> blunders or basic tactics, sharp tactics help more than other skills.

Masters hang pawns in the opening too, even some GMs have been known to do
it.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 15 Sep 2006 08:30:17
From:
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

> This is why weaker players are advised, again and again, to study
> complete games. You will learn all you need to know about the opening
> for quite some time by doing so. You will also learn how the opening
> moves you do know are connected to play in the middle- and endgame.

This correlates with some interesting advice I read somewhere or other:
to learn an opening, get hold of 200 full, preferrably annotated
high-level games in that opening and play them over multiple times.
(The precise number, 200, doesn't matter, as long as it's quite large.)

Thank you for this insight and your other insights. They are
worthwhile and valuable.

Date: 14 Sep 2006 13:57:11
From:
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

[email protected] wrote:
> > 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 c6 6.Be2 g6 7.O-O Bg7

help bot wrote:
> Hint: 1.e4 forstalls ...d5, because after: 2.ed Qxd5, the Black
> Queen gets chased around the board, when in fact her best
> square is the one she originally occupied!

Doh!

> 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 d6 3.Qd1!

Scary. Black got himself into this mess by playing 1...e5?. I'll stick
to the aggressive 1...d5! for now. It, umm, attacks the e-pawn.

Date: 14 Sep 2006 07:01:01
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

> Fallacy: those who are weak in the opening will not see where they truly
> lose a game, and attribute it to their last, rather than first, blunder,
> even if the first blunder set the stage for the win.

This raises a really good and important point, one about which I have
had my own concerns as a lower class player.

In our category, we are counseled to study and drill tactics. I cannot
argue with this, and indeed I've been doing a lot of that, and it's
showing at least some results in actual play (I am able to create and
carry out attacks that previously would never have happened).

But we are also counseled, essentially, not to bother very much with
openings.

So I go into a game with a better player, and, because I'm hardly up to
date on openings, after half a dozen or ten moves I'm already in an
inferior position. Of course, that happens because the other guy has
made better moves than I have -duh- but it seems that had I spent at
least a little more time on openings, I would have fared better.

It isn't a matter of necessarily making a gross blunder, even a not so
gross one, but of getting into an inferior situation due to moves that
are not quite precise.

It seems that even the lower class player ought to know some opening
lines (not pure memorization, but accompanied with principles) to at
least approach the middle game on a somewhat equitable basis.

Date: 18 Sep 2006 00:05:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

Very good post man! Honesty is always winning!

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> Fallacy: those who are weak in the opening will not see where they truly
>> lose a game, and attribute it to their last, rather than first, blunder,
>> even if the first blunder set the stage for the win.

yes

> This raises a really good and important point, one about which I have
> had my own concerns as a lower class player.
>
> In our category, we are counseled to study and drill tactics. I cannot
> argue with this, and indeed I've been doing a lot of that, and it's
> showing at least some results in actual play (I am able to create and
> carry out attacks that previously would never have happened).
>
> But we are also counseled, essentially, not to bother very much with
> openings.
>
> So I go into a game with a better player, and, because I'm hardly up to
> date on openings, after half a dozen or ten moves I'm already in an
> inferior position. Of course, that happens because the other guy has
> made better moves than I have -duh- but it seems that had I spent at
> least a little more time on openings, I would have fared better.

but the truth is that you would have had to spend a vast amount of time on
openings to compete with the 'better player'

what you need to understand is that, as black, then you really control the
opening, and you need to know far less than white - therefore you might
chose an opening system that you understand - and if you get beat up in it,
then understand where you went wrong - but otherwise you will not be worse
at move 10, and you can then pitch your tactical wits against the higher
rated player

you will still likely lose since higher rated players /usually/ chose
tactical rather than strategic means to confound opponents at move 10 - i
do, although i also win with a better strategic plan, the better chance is
to play tactical games with the opponent, who usually just messes it up.

the hardest sort of opponent for me is the player who keeps at a distance,
who declines tactical engagements on his own initiative until move 20+

i am simply better at brawling than you! so don't get so close or it will
hurt. playing the sicilian is inviting both strategic and tactical
interactions, both of which are beyond players who are unhappy with tactical
motifs, and frankly, don't have any strategic ideas in their heads

so unless you LOVE tactical interactions, play the damned hedgehog! keep
your distance, since you are not good enough to get close and still be in
control - otherwise you play directly into what the stronger player wants -
a tactical brawl he is confident of winning

cordially, a master player

> It isn't a matter of necessarily making a gross blunder, even a not so
> gross one, but of getting into an inferior situation due to moves that
> are not quite precise.
>
> It seems that even the lower class player ought to know some opening
> lines (not pure memorization, but accompanied with principles) to at
> least approach the middle game on a somewhat equitable basis.
>

Date: 17 Sep 2006 21:17:23
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>>> Fallacy: those who are weak in the opening will not see where they truly
>>> lose a game, and attribute it to their last, rather than first, blunder,
>>> even if the first blunder set the stage for the win.
>
> yes

That was me you were quoting.

>> This raises a really good and important point, one about which I have
>> had my own concerns as a lower class player.
>>
>> In our category, we are counseled to study and drill tactics. I cannot
>> argue with this, and indeed I've been doing a lot of that, and it's
>> showing at least some results in actual play (I am able to create and
>> carry out attacks that previously would never have happened).
>>
>> But we are also counseled, essentially, not to bother very much with
>> openings.
>>
>> So I go into a game with a better player, and, because I'm hardly up to
>> date on openings, after half a dozen or ten moves I'm already in an
>> inferior position. Of course, that happens because the other guy has
>> made better moves than I have -duh- but it seems that had I spent at
>> least a little more time on openings, I would have fared better.
>
> but the truth is that you would have had to spend a vast amount of time on
> openings to compete with the 'better player'

No shit.

I would think the best way to see what the most important parts of chess are
is to look at what separates the top, not the bottom players, and that is
usually opening or early-middlegame strength (early middlegame players are
very dangerous as long as they are competent in the opening).

> what you need to understand is that, as black, then you really control the
> opening,

I find this not to be the case at all. White's first move sets quite a
tone.

>and you need to know far less than white -

I also disagree with this, but I can understand the viewpoint.

>therefore you might chose an opening system that you understand - and if
>you get beat up in it, then understand where you went wrong - but otherwise
>you will not be worse at move 10, and you can then pitch your tactical wits
>against the higher rated player

What about learning HOW TO PLAY THE OPENING?

> you will still likely lose since higher rated players /usually/ chose
> tactical rather than strategic means to confound opponents at move 10

well the "choice" is usually to just blast the weak opponent apart. Said
weakling must create the opportunity first.

>- i do, although i also win with a better strategic plan, the better chance
>is to play tactical games with the opponent, who usually just messes it up.
>
> the hardest sort of opponent for me is the player who keeps at a distance,
> who declines tactical engagements on his own initiative until move 20+

One who doesn't let you crush him early.

> i am simply better at brawling than you! so don't get so close or it will
> hurt. playing the sicilian is inviting both strategic and tactical
> interactions, both of which are beyond players who are unhappy with
> tactical motifs, and frankly, don't have any strategic ideas in their
> heads
>
> so unless you LOVE tactical interactions, play the damned hedgehog! keep
> your distance, since you are not good enough to get close and still be in
> control - otherwise you play directly into what the stronger player
> wants - a tactical brawl he is confident of winning
>
> cordially, a master player

Masters aren't that strong.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 16 Sep 2006 22:31:55
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>> Fallacy: those who are weak in the opening will not see where they truly
>> lose a game, and attribute it to their last, rather than first, blunder,
>> even if the first blunder set the stage for the win.
>
> This raises a really good and important point, one about which I have
> had my own concerns as a lower class player.
>
> In our category, we are counseled to study and drill tactics. I cannot
> argue with this, and indeed I've been doing a lot of that, and it's
> showing at least some results in actual play (I am able to create and
> carry out attacks that previously would never have happened).
>
> But we are also counseled, essentially, not to bother very much with
> openings.

Usually because most teachers suck in the opening. The high school I
coached in 1989 would repeatedly defeat more experienced schools with far
superior endgame players who never got to the endgame because of the intense
pressure my kids were trained to put on them from move one.

> So I go into a game with a better player, and, because I'm hardly up to
> date on openings, after half a dozen or ten moves I'm already in an
> inferior position.

Just as if you were in a boxing match and let the other guy have the first
punch, because the "end" of the fight is what matters.

In football, control over the line of scrimmage is usually decisive. In
tennis, serve is usually decisive; in basketball, a strong fast break can be
decisive, etc.

>Of course, that happens because the other guy has
> made better moves than I have -duh- but it seems that had I spent at
> least a little more time on openings, I would have fared better.

For ANY player, the quickest way to improve his rating is to extend his
opening repertoire by one correct move in all positions. This is simply
because what you study in the opening will occur in practice far more often
than any endgames you might learn. That said, it never hurts to know how to
finish someone off, and you can also "book up" in the endgame from checkmate
back out to move one.

> It isn't a matter of necessarily making a gross blunder, even a not so
> gross one, but of getting into an inferior situation due to moves that
> are not quite precise.

And since they aren't immediately losing, the opening is not blamed for the
loss.

> It seems that even the lower class player ought to know some opening
> lines (not pure memorization, but accompanied with principles) to at
> least approach the middle game on a somewhat equitable basis.

You also get better study material from your games if you don't make some
book mistake in the opening.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 17 Sep 2006 19:08:08
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Just as if you were in a boxing match and let the other guy have the first
> punch, because the "end" of the fight is what matters.

You're revealing that you know as little about boxing as you do about
tennis, basketball, and, it appears, chess.

The "first punch" is one of the least important things in boxing. In
fact, throwing a punch too soon is a classic mistake.

> In football, control over the line of scrimmage is usually decisive. In
> tennis, serve is usually decisive; in basketball, a strong fast break can be
> decisive, etc.

In tennis, as I've pointed out before, serve is NOT usually decisive. In
basketball, a fast break comes from playing hard defense and getting a
rebound - eg, there's NO correlation between it and the opening.

>
> For ANY player, the quickest way to improve his rating is to extend his
> opening repertoire by one correct move in all positions.

You've alleged this many, many times, but strangely, you've never
offered any evidence to it save for a one-minute game of chess (which is
the one circumstance where this advice may hold).

-Ron

Date: 17 Sep 2006 18:47:34
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>> Just as if you were in a boxing match and let the other guy have the
>> first
>> punch, because the "end" of the fight is what matters.
>
> You're revealing that you know as little about boxing as you do about
> tennis, basketball, and, it appears, chess.

All that's being revealed here is your lack of class.

> The "first punch" is one of the least important things in boxing. In
> fact, throwing a punch too soon is a classic mistake.

Tell that to Tyson.

>> In football, control over the line of scrimmage is usually decisive. In
>> tennis, serve is usually decisive; in basketball, a strong fast break can
>> be
>> decisive, etc.
>
> In tennis, as I've pointed out before, serve is NOT usually decisive.

How many GAMES of tennis at the top levels have service breaks?

>In
> basketball, a fast break comes from playing hard defense and getting a
> rebound - eg, there's NO correlation between it and the opening.

It's the opening of a play.

>> For ANY player, the quickest way to improve his rating is to extend his
>> opening repertoire by one correct move in all positions.
>
> You've alleged this many, many times, but strangely, you've never
> offered any evidence to it save for a one-minute game of chess (which is
> the one circumstance where this advice may hold).

I'm in training. I don't share my best games and openings for that reason.
No need to tip off the competition. When I do publish something, it's
either out of my B or C repertoire, or I switch up the move order so someone
doesn't know what I play.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 19 Sep 2006 16:20:27
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected] > wrote:
>>> In football, control over the line of scrimmage is usually
>>> decisive. In tennis, serve is usually decisive; in basketball, a
>>> strong fast break can be decisive, etc.
>>
>> In tennis, as I've pointed out before, serve is NOT usually decisive.
>
> How many GAMES of tennis at the top levels have service breaks?

One or two per set. What's your point?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Disgusting Flower (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ flower but it'll turn your stomach!

Date: 19 Sep 2006 22:14:00
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>>> In tennis, as I've pointed out before, serve is NOT usually decisive.
>>
>> How many GAMES of tennis at the top levels have service breaks?
>
> One or two per set. What's your point?

That serve is usually decisive in a game of tennis.

Date: 20 Sep 2006 12:16:43
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected] > wrote:
>>>> In tennis, as I've pointed out before, serve is NOT usually decisive.
>>>
>>> How many GAMES of tennis at the top levels have service breaks?
>>
>> One or two per set. What's your point?
>
> That serve is usually decisive in a game of tennis.

You've only shown that *having the serve* is usually decisive. That's
equivalent to arguing that playing with the white pieces is usually
decisive, not to arguing that deep opening study is usually decisive.

This is a chess newsgroup. What's your point?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Generic Robot (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-tech robot but it's just like
all the others!

Date: 22 Sep 2006 00:07:25
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>>>>> In tennis, as I've pointed out before, serve is NOT usually decisive.
>>>>
>>>> How many GAMES of tennis at the top levels have service breaks?
>>>
>>> One or two per set. What's your point?
>>
>> That serve is usually decisive in a game of tennis.
>
> You've only shown that *having the serve* is usually decisive.

And why would that be unless the serve itself meant something?

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 22 Sep 2006 11:11:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected] > wrote:
>>>>>> In tennis, as I've pointed out before, serve is NOT usually decisive.
>>>>> How many GAMES of tennis at the top levels have service breaks?
>>>> One or two per set. What's your point?
>>> That serve is usually decisive in a game of tennis.
>> You've only shown that *having the serve* is usually decisive.
> And why would that be unless the serve itself meant something?

You have yet to establish:

1) that improving one's serve is the best way to improve one's tennis
performance;
2) that, even if 1) is true, this has any relevance to chess.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Pointy-Haired Widget (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a thingy that's completely clueless!

Date: 22 Sep 2006 17:56:07
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>> And why would that be unless the serve itself meant something?
>
> You have yet to establish:
>
> 1) that improving one's serve is the best way to improve one's tennis
> performance;

If serve is an advantage, then improving one's serve would improve that
advantage. It will keep the player in the game longer if he has a better
serve.

> 2) that, even if 1) is true, this has any relevance to chess.

It has to do with sequence, which applies to any sport (perhaps the previous
poster is challenged with regard to abstract thought and pattern
recognition, you know, Ph.D. stuff).

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 25 Sep 2006 11:49:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

In article <[email protected] >,
Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\" <[email protected] > wrote:
>>> And why would that be unless the serve itself meant something?
>>
>> You have yet to establish:
>>
>> 1) that improving one's serve is the best way to improve one's
>> tennis performance;
>
> If serve is an advantage, then improving one's serve would improve
> that advantage. It will keep the player in the game longer if he
> has a better serve.

There are other ways to improve tennis performance. You have yet to
establish that improving one's serve is the best way to improve one's
tennis performance.

>> 2) that, even if 1) is true, this has any relevance to chess.
>
> It has to do with sequence, which applies to any sport (perhaps the
> previous poster is challenged with regard to abstract thought and
> pattern recognition, you know, Ph.D. stuff).

You have yet to establish that this has any relevance to chess.

> --
> Money is not "game."
> Looks are not "game."
> Social status or value is not "game."
> Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
>
> A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
> teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
> get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Trim the bloody sig. Four lines is the standard.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Miniature Gigantic T-Shirt (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fashion statement but it's huge
and you can hold in it your hand!

Date: 18 Sep 2006 16:09:13
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > The "first punch" is one of the least important things in boxing. In
> > fact, throwing a punch too soon is a classic mistake.
>
> Tell that to Tyson.

A great example! Thanks for bringing him up.

Because, you see, Tyson hit harder than anyone else, with incredible
handspeed (this is the young Tyson, back before his trainer died).

Thousands of boxers worked as hard as they could to punch as hard as
Tyson, to have his ability to hit with that much force in combinations,
and they couldn't do it.

And if one of them went into a fight, trying to be Tyson, he'd get his
ass kicked. They lack the handspeed and the power, and in fighting as if
they had it, they'd get walloped, hard. Assuming they landed the punches
Tyson could land, they wouldn't knock their opponents out and they'd be
vulnerable to counterpunches.

So it is with, I venture to say, every reader on RCGA. Imagine for a
moment you transplanted Kasparov's opening knowledge into my head.
Great, right?

Actually, no. You see, I might make some sacrifices I wouldn't otherwise
make, but I lack the tactical judgement to follow up properly. So
instead of turning into brilliant victories, they'd be losses. I'd lack
the technique to convert a lot of endgames he won, so I'd lose points
there, too.

On the other hand, with stronger tactical and technical skills than my
opponent, I can outplay them despite getting outplayed in the opening.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: one school of thought on
improvement has been taught by Tarrasch, Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinnik,
Silman, Seirawan, and really, basically every teaching professional of
note.

The other has been taught by Ray Gordon.

Furthermore, Ray suggests that his program is supposed to help develop
players into world-champions, but look at the development of world
champions. Did any of them emphasize opening innovation until they were
a top-flight players? We have the early games of Kasparov, Alekhine,
Tal, Fischer, and others readily available.

And what you see is, when they were developing players, they focused on
their ability to out-tactic and out-strategize their opponents, to
outplay them in the endgame. Only once they were playing at the highest
levels did their games start to reveal a lot of opening preparation.

-Ron

Date: 18 Sep 2006 16:09:02
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>> > The "first punch" is one of the least important things in boxing. In
>> > fact, throwing a punch too soon is a classic mistake.
>>
>> Tell that to Tyson.
>
> A great example! Thanks for bringing him up.
>
> Because, you see, Tyson hit harder than anyone else, with incredible
> handspeed (this is the young Tyson, back before his trainer died).
>
> Thousands of boxers worked as hard as they could to punch as hard as
> Tyson, to have his ability to hit with that much force in combinations,
> and they couldn't do it.
>
> And if one of them went into a fight, trying to be Tyson, he'd get his
> ass kicked. They lack the handspeed and the power, and in fighting as if
> they had it, they'd get walloped, hard. Assuming they landed the punches
> Tyson could land, they wouldn't knock their opponents out and they'd be
> vulnerable to counterpunches.
>
> So it is with, I venture to say, every reader on RCGA. Imagine for a
> moment you transplanted Kasparov's opening knowledge into my head.
> Great, right?

he's comparing boxers and what they were BORN with to chessplayers and what
they ACQUIRE.

> Actually, no. You see, I might make some sacrifices I wouldn't otherwise
> make, but I lack the tactical judgement to follow up properly.

Then you should try another game.

>So
> instead of turning into brilliant victories, they'd be losses. I'd lack
> the technique to convert a lot of endgames he won, so I'd lose points
> there, too.

How many hours a week do you study?

> On the other hand, with stronger tactical and technical skills than my
> opponent, I can outplay them despite getting outplayed in the opening.

So a stronger opening on your part would lead to fewer wins. Right.

> I've said it before and I'll say it again: one school of thought on
> improvement has been taught by Tarrasch, Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinnik,
> Silman, Seirawan, and really, basically every teaching professional of
> note.
>
> The other has been taught by Ray Gordon.

And practiced by Fischer and Kasparov.

> Furthermore, Ray suggests that his program is supposed to help develop
> players into world-champions, but look at the development of world
> champions. Did any of them emphasize opening innovation until they were
> a top-flight players?

Did I say players should innovate? No, I said they should learn how to play
the opening.

>We have the early games of Kasparov, Alekhine,
> Tal, Fischer, and others readily available.
>
> And what you see is, when they were developing players, they focused on
> their ability to out-tactic and out-strategize their opponents, to
> outplay them in the endgame. Only once they were playing at the highest
> levels did their games start to reveal a lot of opening preparation.

Yet to get to those levels, they had to keep equality or better in the
opening against GM level competition.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 17 Sep 2006 15:24:06
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

In article
<[email protected] >,
Ron <[email protected] > wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Just as if you were in a boxing match and let the other guy have the first
> > punch, because the "end" of the fight is what matters.
>
> You're revealing that you know as little about boxing as you do about
> tennis, basketball, and, it appears, chess.
>
> The "first punch" is one of the least important things in boxing. In
> fact, throwing a punch too soon is a classic mistake.

I'm sure you'll admit that it depends on the punch.

--Harold Buck

"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."

-Homer J. Simpson

Date: 15 Sep 2006 20:21:36
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

In rec.games.chess.analysis [email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>> Fallacy: those who are weak in the opening will not see where they truly
>> lose a game, and attribute it to their last, rather than first, blunder,
>> even if the first blunder set the stage for the win.
>
> This raises a really good and important point, one about which I have
> had my own concerns as a lower class player.
>
> In our category, we are counseled to study and drill tactics. I cannot
> argue with this, and indeed I've been doing a lot of that, and it's
> showing at least some results in actual play (I am able to create and
> carry out attacks that previously would never have happened).
>
> But we are also counseled, essentially, not to bother very much with
> openings.
>

Read "My System" by Nimsovich (sp?) ... very good book that should help you
out quite rapidly. It will help you through the opening by simply allowing
you to see what makes for a superior or inferior position, and you don't have
to memorize anything.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Date: 16 Sep 2006 22:47:19
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>> This raises a really good and important point, one about which I have
>> had my own concerns as a lower class player.
>>
>> In our category, we are counseled to study and drill tactics. I cannot
>> argue with this, and indeed I've been doing a lot of that, and it's
>> showing at least some results in actual play (I am able to create and
>> carry out attacks that previously would never have happened).
>>
>> But we are also counseled, essentially, not to bother very much with
>> openings.
>>
>
> Read "My System" by Nimsovich (sp?) ... very good book that should help
> you
> out quite rapidly. It will help you through the opening by simply
> allowing
> you to see what makes for a superior or inferior position, and you don't
> have
> to memorize anything.

My System teaches middlegames very well, and unless your opponent is
super-strong in the opening, you won't be refuted by the time this knowledge
kicks in. My sparring partner used to have a GM-strength middlegame, and
only played the opening to survive, but for him that was the best strategy.

Someone who tries to win in the early middlegame (like Karpov) is like a
racehorse who tracks the early speed from just off the pace and pounces on
the turn. It's not like a "frontrunner" who memorizes a repertoire, but
it's still a strong focus on the opening and early part of the game, and my
next frontier for improvement, in fact, as my opening book tramples more and
more on middlegamie positions.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 14 Sep 2006 16:12:00
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> It seems that even the lower class player ought to know some opening
> lines (not pure memorization, but accompanied with principles) to at
> least approach the middle game on a somewhat equitable basis.

The problem is that a little opening knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Yes, after you play a game, you should probably look up the opening. See
where you deviated. Try to figure out what your plan should have been.
Etc.

But knowing "a little opening theory" leads to two problems:

First, it exposes you to far more prepared traps & sacrifices by your
opponent. Nobody bothers to "book up" for very early deviations* - if
you deviate on move five from the known lines, you're more likely to
throw both players on their own devices. If you deviate on move 13,
you're more likely playing into his (strategic as well as memorized)
preparation.

Secondly, opening evaluations are only meaningful if you know how to
play the resulting positions. If, say, you play an opening line which is
supposed to lead to a slight endgame advantage - but your endgame skills
suck, or you have a habit of hanging pawns in the middlgame - well, then
that opening evaluation is meaningless to you.

In other words, it doesn't matter if the position after move 10 is
considered favorable by GMs if you don't know how to play it.

This is why weaker players are advised, again and again, to study
complete games. You will learn all you need to know about the opening
for quite some time by doing so. You will also learn how the opening
moves you do know are connected to play in the middle- and endgame.

Lastly, recognize that your first deviation from accepted theory is
almost certainly not a losing move. It often takes two or three
inaccurate moves for a 1500 player to wander into a distinctly inferior
position. Computer analysis of the games of players in that range show
that the advantage often swings back and forth wildly. If you have a
half dozen moves in a game where the evaluation swings by a pawn or
more, how important is a .4 opening advantage?

-Ron

*except for Ray, but he's a crackpot.

Date: 16 Sep 2006 22:44:36
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>> It seems that even the lower class player ought to know some opening
>> lines (not pure memorization, but accompanied with principles) to at
>> least approach the middle game on a somewhat equitable basis.
>
> The problem is that a little opening knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Only for the opponent.

>
> Yes, after you play a game, you should probably look up the opening. See
> where you deviated. Try to figure out what your plan should have been.
> Etc.

One can do that in the endgame too. How about studying the opening beyond
"deviations" and actually selecting a repertoire that won't have to be
changed with every mistake?

I spent four years constructing a repertoire that can be played at literally
any level. As my technique improves, my rating goes up (even at my age),
and I don't have to suddenly abandon lines because every player in the new,
higher class knows how to refute it.

For example, you can play 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 cxd4 4. Qxd4 and get to
2200 with it, but soon after that, you'll reach a point where all of your
opponents know how to refute it, and most have the technique to hold the
advantage to win. At that point, you'll be back at square one, whereas if
you had a GM repertoire, you wouldn't have to change it a bit, and your
previous experience can be built upon.

> But knowing "a little opening theory" leads to two problems:
>
> First, it exposes you to far more prepared traps & sacrifices by your
> opponent.

Yet that chess study someone linked to said that the best way to improve is
to push one's boundaries. How else to learn how to prevent traps?

Why would a player with a long-term improvement plan worry about getting
tricked for a while as he's learning how to properly open a chessgame?

When I came back to this game a few years ago I was stuck in that mindset
for a month or two: my 1991 repertoire was no longer ahead of the crowd, and
I had forgotten a great deal of it, so I tried playing avoidance lines to
avoid losing. I then decided to just bite the bullet, play my old stuff,
and rebuild. Now I have a stronger repertoire than ever, and I'm pulling
even with the GMs again in that I can't be blown out of the opening by
anyone, and often do the blowing out.

>Nobody bothers to "book up" for very early deviations*

Wanna bet? Computers have shown time and again that those former backwaters
of ECO hide many rich lines over the simplistic analysis.

>- if
> you deviate on move five from the known lines, you're more likely to
> throw both players on their own devices.

I would disagree, as the deviation is far less likely to be sound. The
operators of Hydra let the program loose from its opening book around move
10, for what that's worth.

>If you deviate on move 13,
> you're more likely playing into his (strategic as well as memorized)
> preparation.

If one knows how to play the opening, this shouldn't be a problem, as they
have general knoweldge to fall back on.

> Secondly, opening evaluations are only meaningful if you know how to
> play the resulting positions.

How does one learn them withou ever beginning to play them?

>If, say, you play an opening line which is
> supposed to lead to a slight endgame advantage - but your endgame skills
> suck, or you have a habit of hanging pawns in the middlgame - well, then
> that opening evaluation is meaningless to you.

So it's better to play from a DISADVANTAGE and just lose the game against a
GM earlier rather than endure having to lose a better position?

The evaluation is not meaningless and in fact is meaningful because it shows
the point at which the player's repertoire hits the wall.

You think the guy playing the Black side of the Poisoned Pawn didn't go
through hell learning it? This is the same guy you fear so badly you won't
even play into his lines, and studying and being willing to extend his
repertoire, through painful experience at times, is what made him so
"fearful" in the first place.

The real question with opening study is whether you're looking to win next
week or next year.

> In other words, it doesn't matter if the position after move 10 is
> considered favorable by GMs if you don't know how to play it.

The fact that he doesn't know how to play a favorable position at move 10 is
very useful to know in knowing what to teach him next.

Are you suggesting he would have done better against the GM had he given up
the favorable position at say move six instead of move 20?

> This is why weaker players are advised, again and again, to study
> complete games. You will learn all you need to know about the opening
> for quite some time by doing so.

Since they're going to STAY weak players without opening knowledge, of
course they won't "need" it. It's only if they want to *improve* their
ratings.

Instead of saying "weak players don't need to know the opening" try "players
who don't know the opening stay weak" The 1600 player who masters the Open
Sicilian from both colors is not going to stay 1600.

>You will also learn how the opening
> moves you do know are connected to play in the middle- and endgame.

If he has to change his repertoire, he won't have the long-term benefit of
this.

> Lastly, recognize that your first deviation from accepted theory is
> almost certainly not a losing move. It often takes two or three
> inaccurate moves for a 1500 player to wander into a distinctly inferior
> position. Computer analysis of the games of players in that range show
> that the advantage often swings back and forth wildly.

As it can with GMs.

>If you have a
> half dozen moves in a game where the evaluation swings by a pawn or
> more, how important is a .4 opening advantage?

0.4 pawns leaves the opponent one step away from failure.

Weak tennis players can overcome a weak serve and don't need a strong one,
but if they want to become strong players, they do.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 13 Sep 2006 22:51:55
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

[email protected] wrote:

> I'm noticing more and more how my early moves foretell the end result.
>
> Opening:
> 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 c6 6.Be2 g6 7.O-O Bg7
>
> Early Middlegame:
> 8.Bg5? h6? 9.Bh4? g5? 10.Bg3 g4? 11.Ne5
>
> In my first three out-of-book moves I waste tempos chasing White's
> pieces onto active squares, advance my g- and h-pawns where they're
> hard to protect, and lose the opportunity to castle on both sides! Is
> it any surprise I was defending the rest of the game?

Hint: 1.e4 forstalls ...d5, because after: 2.ed Qxd5, the Black
Queen gets chased around the board, when in fact her best
square is the one she originally occupied!

----------

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 d6 3.Qd1!

----------

Don't try to force things -- unless you calculate a winning
combination. Instead, give your opponent a little rope. You
will be amazed what a weak player can do to himself with
just a little rope! Trip, hogtie himself, or even get hanged.

-- help bot

Date: 14 Sep 2006 23:56:11
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

help bot wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>I'm noticing more and more how my early moves foretell the end result.
>>
>>Opening:
>> 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 c6 6.Be2 g6 7.O-O Bg7
>>
>>Early Middlegame:
>> 8.Bg5? h6? 9.Bh4? g5? 10.Bg3 g4? 11.Ne5
>>
>>In my first three out-of-book moves I waste tempos chasing White's
>>pieces onto active squares, advance my g- and h-pawns where they're
>>hard to protect, and lose the opportunity to castle on both sides! Is
>>it any surprise I was defending the rest of the game?
>
>
>
> Hint: 1.e4 forstalls ...d5, because after: 2.ed Qxd5, the Black
> Queen gets chased around the board, when in fact her best
> square is the one she originally occupied!

That's really not that simple a situation.

While I personally feel that maybe white gets a little more pressure
than in other openings, the Scandinavian is quite fine and of course
black has pretty much equality after 6.Be2 (white simply has to play
6.Bd2 or 6.Bc4 if he wants an advantage).

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:

> I've never understood the logic of 3. Nc3. It's not like Black's
queen is
> going to set up residence on d5, and chasing her to a5 doesn't seem
fatal
> for Black.

As to that, you can easily see that black has much more pressure on the
white position after e.g. 3.d4 Nc6 or 3.Nf3 Bg4. On the other hand 3.Nc4
Qa5 4.d4 doesn't really allow the same (4...Bg4 is obvious nonsense and
is a bit dubious even after e.g. 4...Nf6 5.Bd2, while of course great
after 4...Nf6 5.Bc4 - 4...Nc6 also is quite dubious due to various Bb5
ideas). Eventually Bc1-d2 sets up nasty discovered attacks on the queen,
funnily enough a lot of opening books don't think these are dangerous,
but they facilitate a lot of key ideas for white (e.g. various Nc3-d5xf6
maneuvers damaging the black pawn structure or various d4-d5
break-throughs).

And in the end it's the simple fact that white gets a development move
for free (Nc3), while black in contrast gets to move his queen from d5
to a5 (which doesn't really help him much - maybe it is not a square
that is worse than d5, but it's not a clearly better square either).

Date: 16 Sep 2006 11:56:39
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

> Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>
> > I've never understood the logic of 3. Nc3. It's not like Black's
> queen is
> > going to set up residence on d5, and chasing her to a5 doesn't seem
> fatal
> > for Black.
>
> As to that, you can easily see that black has much more pressure on the
> white position after e.g. 3.d4 Nc6 or 3.Nf3 Bg4. On the other hand 3.Nc4
> Qa5 4.d4 doesn't really allow the same (4...Bg4 is obvious nonsense and is
> a bit dubious even after e.g. 4...Nf6 5.Bd2, while of course great after
> 4...Nf6 5.Bc4 - 4...Nc6 also is quite dubious due to various Bb5 ideas).
> Eventually Bc1-d2 sets up nasty discovered attacks on the queen, funnily
> enough a lot of opening books don't think these are dangerous, but they
> facilitate a lot of key ideas for white (e.g. various Nc3-d5xf6 maneuvers
> damaging the black pawn structure or various d4-d5 break-throughs).
>
> And in the end it's the simple fact that white gets a development move for
> free (Nc3), while black in contrast gets to move his queen from d5 to a5
> (which doesn't really help him much - maybe it is not a square that is
> worse than d5, but it's not a clearly better square either).

It's better in that d5 is vulnerable to attack. White can pick up the extra
tempo naturally by letting the queen sit on d4.

3. d4 Nc6 has a price, namely an undeveloped kingside or an easy target for
White on the Queenside, and sacrificial play is usually the best way to
exploit this.

What 3. Nc3 does for White is most of what I don't like to get from the
opening, which is a narrow set of themes and move orders leading to a narrow
range of positions where White has a slight superiority in positions that
Black will almost always have more experience with.

3. Qf3! gives White a persistent nudge and flips the script in that Black
rarely sees it, and even if he is familiar with it, there's not much he can
do to exploit it.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 14 Sep 2006 02:37:40
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>> I'm noticing more and more how my early moves foretell the end result.
>>
>> Opening:
>> 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 c6 6.Be2 g6 7.O-O Bg7
>>
>> Early Middlegame:
>> 8.Bg5? h6? 9.Bh4? g5? 10.Bg3 g4? 11.Ne5
>>
>> In my first three out-of-book moves I waste tempos chasing White's
>> pieces onto active squares, advance my g- and h-pawns where they're
>> hard to protect, and lose the opportunity to castle on both sides! Is
>> it any surprise I was defending the rest of the game?
>
>
> Hint: 1.e4 forstalls ...d5, because after: 2.ed Qxd5, the Black
> Queen gets chased around the board, when in fact her best
> square is the one she originally occupied!

I've never understood the logic of 3. Nc3. It's not like Black's queen is
going to set up residence on d5, and chasing her to a5 doesn't seem fatal
for Black.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 13 Sep 2006 22:32:31
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> > The danger is in spending too much time memorizing opening moves, when
> > at your level or my level that is rarely why we win or lose. I don't
> > often blunder material, but I only learned what a "plan" was this
> > weekend, so you know what perspective my answers come from. :)
>
> Fallacy: those who are weak in the opening will not see where they truly
> lose a game, and attribute it to their last, rather than first, blunder,
> even if the first blunder set the stage for the win.

I'm noticing more and more how my early moves foretell the end result.

Opening:
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 c6 6.Be2 g6 7.O-O Bg7

Early Middlegame:
8.Bg5? h6? 9.Bh4? g5? 10.Bg3 g4? 11.Ne5

In my first three out-of-book moves I waste tempos chasing White's
pieces onto active squares, advance my g- and h-pawns where they're
hard to protect, and lose the opportunity to castle on both sides! Is
it any surprise I was defending the rest of the game?

Date: 14 Sep 2006 00:03:13
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

>I once heard that it not a good idea for lower rated players (how low is
>low??) to play the Sicilian Defense. The argument I heard is that there is
>a lot of theory associated with it, making it an unwise choice.

Unless of course you want to become a HIGHER rated player one day.

> I made this comment to someone else, who felt this is wrong.
>
> Comments? At what sort of rating (ICC) would you think it is wise or not
> to learn that as an opening?

I think the same rules for improvement apply to all levels.

> I normally reply with the Smith-Morra Gambit, which I know is technically
> unsound, but seems to catch quite a few people out at my level (around
> 1300 on ICC). If I was a GM though, I'm sure I would not play the
> Smith-Morra.

Then figure out what you would want to do as a GM and grow into it.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 13 Sep 2006 07:53:29
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> I once heard that it not a good idea for lower rated players (how low is
> low??) to play the Sicilian Defense.
=====================
Balderdash! Play the Sicilian early on in your career. A super
solid variation to start with would be the Taimanov.
I might add that one should pursue in chess as well as in life
whatever is of interest. I can only wish that I had started 40 years
ago with cosmology, advanced math and physics.

Old Haasie

Date: 13 Sep 2006 07:42:33
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

"...The Smith-Morra is quite sound up to a rather high level. I know
experts
and masters who use it with success. .." (Ron)
===================
I learned from Fritz a good way to deal with the Smith Morra when
playing black. Black's KN early on simply goes to e7 then to g6.
Black keeps the pawn and stays out of the way of White's "brilliant"
book attacks. The net net is that White eventually exhausts himself
and goes into the endgame a pawn down... which he usually loses.

Old Haasie

Date: 13 Sep 2006 23:50:06
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I learned from Fritz a good way to deal with the Smith Morra when
> playing black. Black's KN early on simply goes to e7 then to g6.
> Black keeps the pawn and stays out of the way of White's "brilliant"
> book attacks. The net net is that White eventually exhausts himself
> and goes into the endgame a pawn down... which he usually loses.

This is a pretty common defense, and if it were as simple as you say,
then the SMG would fall out of fashion fairly quickly.

There is one line which troubles me against the the SMG, but this isn't
it. You're correct, though, that against an inexperienced player forcing
him to think (as these defenses will do) rather than play the thematic
moves he's used to automatically, is a good idea.

Date: 13 Sep 2006 08:11:12
From: Stefan Renzewitz
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

Hello Dave

"Dave (from the UK)" <[email protected] >
schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:[email protected]...

> I normally reply with the Smith-Morra Gambit, which I know is technically
> unsound, but seems to catch quite a few people out at my level (around
> 1300 on ICC). If I was a GM though, I'm sure I would not play the
> Smith-Morra.
>

Among others GM's Adams, Chandler and Bobby Fisher played the Smith-Morra
Gambit already. In the anti-sicilian book for black by GM Rogozenko he says
that he couldn't find a clear way for black to equalize and thus recommends
to transpose into the Alapin Sicilian.

Overall I don't see why you would call this opening technically unsound so
easily. The Evans-Gambit was not fashion and then Kasparov won two games in
a row with it and everybody started to study it again. The same is true for
the Kings Gambit after Short and Invantschuk used it successfully. Not to
mention my favorite Chigorin and Morosevich :)

Regards,

Stefan

--

http://www.chesspositiontrainer.com
Learn your opening faster than ever before - for free

Date: 13 Sep 2006 01:28:42
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

In article <[email protected] >,
"Dave (from the UK)"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> I normally reply with the Smith-Morra Gambit, which I know is
> technically unsound, but seems to catch quite a few people out at my
> level (around 1300 on ICC). If I was a GM though, I'm sure I would not
> play the Smith-Morra.

The Smith-Morra is quite sound up to a rather high level. I know experts
and masters who use it with success.

This issue with the sicilian for people at your level isn't so much the
theory (which becomes an issue as you get a bit stronger) but rather
that the positions are simply easier to play for white than for black.

White gets a space advantage and an development advantage, as well as
the initiative - the sort of things players at your level know how to
exploit. Black is trying to maintain the structural advantage of an
extra central pawn - which is pretty trivial, when you consider how
often players of your level hang pawns.

Black often has to play defense with almost perfect timing. And while
it's true that if he succeeds, he often has advantage, playing
perfectly-timed defense is not the sort of thing 1300-on-ICC players do
well. Therefore, the practical chances will favor white.

-Ron

Date: 12 Sep 2006 17:46:21
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> I once heard that it not a good idea for lower rated players (how low is
> low??) to play the Sicilian Defense. The argument I heard is that there
> is a lot of theory associated with it, making it an unwise choice.

Your question is simpler if you divide it into three parts:

1. Is it wise to play the Sicilian? --- Sure, if it fits you. Play
some games to see if you you like it. For example, the KIA and Slav
didn't fit me at all. The English and Scandinavian fit perfectly.

2. Is it wise to learn the ideas behind it? --- Sure, it's helpful to
know the basic ideas. Here's two pages that cover them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defense
http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/Openings/sicilian_ToC.html

3. Is it wise to memorize many moves? --- Learn as you play. That
limits your opening study to a healthy amount, focuses you on the lines
your opponent actually plays, and you'll get to figure out why/if the
book move is better. You'll want a good opening book to help you.

The danger is in spending too much time memorizing opening moves, when
at your level or my level that is rarely why we win or lose. I don't
often blunder material, but I only learned what a "plan" was this
weekend, so you know what perspective my answers come from. :)

---
Become a Chess Expert
http://likesforests.blogspot.com/

Date: 14 Sep 2006 00:04:10
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Sicilian Defence for begginers??

> The danger is in spending too much time memorizing opening moves, when
> at your level or my level that is rarely why we win or lose. I don't
> often blunder material, but I only learned what a "plan" was this
> weekend, so you know what perspective my answers come from. :)

Fallacy: those who are weak in the opening will not see where they truly
lose a game, and attribute it to their last, rather than first, blunder,
even if the first blunder set the stage for the win.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."