But there's another type of favourite move: moves we love to face. Moves we sit there hoping our opponent will be tempted to play, moves that suit us down to the ground. Many of these can pass by in the course of a single game. If we leave traps, tempting undefended b-pawns, that kind of thing, we might be whispering to ourselves virtually every move, Go ahead, make my day. And then there are certain openings or variations we just love to be faced with.
In this sense, then, these are a few of my favourite moves . . .
. . . which is to say, after 1.e4 c5
are collectively some of my favourite moves to face as black.
And for more than one reason, too. It's not just that these positions are equal at worst for black, something anyway I feel is also true of many mainline Sicilians. It's not just that I'm suddenly much less likely to be on the receiving end of a miniature than after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4. It's not just that the theory runs out so much sooner, that individual moves are so much less critical, that the positions are less susceptible to tactical surprises.
. . . which is to say, after 1.e4 c5
2. Not-Nf3
are collectively some of my favourite moves to face as black.
And for more than one reason, too. It's not just that these positions are equal at worst for black, something anyway I feel is also true of many mainline Sicilians. It's not just that I'm suddenly much less likely to be on the receiving end of a miniature than after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4. It's not just that the theory runs out so much sooner, that individual moves are so much less critical, that the positions are less susceptible to tactical surprises.
It's also what these moves say about my opponent. Relief spreads through my mind: aha! I think, my opponent is not up for fighting on the sharpest opening battlefield, is not theoried up to the eyeballs, will duck the critical continuations in the hope of a psychological surprise, prefers the easy life. You just made my day. Indeed I positively start to relax and enjoy chess after such moves.
Which is probably why the only game I have lost this season with black began 1. e4 c5 2. c3.
21 comments:
What do you think about 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 ? Just out of interest.
Annoniemouse
I play this as white in friendly games some times against Jonathan B. I usually try to drop the white bishop back after castling and playing Re1, but I think it's more ambitious to play Bxc6 damaging the pawns at some point. If black plays 3...Nd4 then it's interesting, too.
Black is equal or better after 1 e4c5 2 c3? Really?
PG
Rybka book says =, so it must be true.
If I could guarantee 1...c5 I would always play 1.e4. I'm never more comfortable at the board than when I'm on the white side of a closed Sicilian.
Yes, my Morra gambit always goes well...except against Tom
What if your opponent tries his best to avoid opening theory but works like a dog on endgames and middle game planning/tactics. Easy life indeed :).
Open Sicilians are ideal for practicing middlegames, because they lead to such rich positions.
Strictly speaking this also all applies in my field (1.e4 e5) to "not the Lopez", and for that matter "not the mainline up to and including 9.c3". But you do occasionally get some little basket who knows what they're doing in the Evans Gambit. Or similar.
Rather symmetrically, after 1. e4 e5, what would worry the most would be 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4.
For rather tangential reasons, this discussion has reminded me of this old column by Andrew Martin (which IIRC was the 2nd mention I'd ever seen of the SBCC).
One of AM's other offerings in that series (can't remember which one, sadly) remarked of a particular line or game:
Total bullshit, but very difficult to play against. Isn't that what it's all about?
which has always struck me as a useful motto for lower-level woodpushers such as myself.
Here's the quote.
I disagree with Andrew that you should play lines which are tricky but dubious. There may be occasions when it is a good idea to do so for competitive or opponent reasons - that last-round must-win against a solid and highly theoretical player, say. But in general I think you learn more from playing the most critical positions you can, which are rarely sidelines and rarely unorthodox. Better practical experience, deeper understanding of chess, that kind of thing.
Also, you know, if you want to play an opening for twenty years, it probably needs to be sound.
Well, I have played the 2c3 Sicilian for nearly 30 years ;-)
The truth is that when I started it *could* be considered a sideline. IMO that is no longer the case - it is now a mainstream opening in it's own right, as shown by the fact that most leading GMs have played it at some point.
Discuss.......
The only surprise side-line in England at club level v the Sicilian is 2.Nf3 followed by 3.d4!
I faced 1 e4 c5, 2 Nc3 as Black last night and was looking forward to a scrummy Closed Sicilian ... but after 2 ... Nc6 the cad switched back to an open with 3 Nf3 and 4 d4
Incidentally i've played 1. ... c5 seven times since taking it up on a whim and faced Open Sicilians in four of those seven (and lost all four!)
+1 =2 =0 in 'other' Sicilians (two against 2. c3 and one against a Closed)
Trying to move-order your way to the open usually gives black extra possibilities (such as omitting Nf6, closing with e5).
Do you blame your losses on the opening? It certainly fits my theme...
Don't we all?
Oops, forgot about this thread. Well, to put things in context, after playing low-level chess (U125) properly from school years up till about 1999-ish, came back to the game in 2003 and spent a few happy years wheeling out Grand Prix/Vienna type "systems" against people in the 100-160ish range in the Northumbria Chess League. The fairly short time limits perhaps encouraged/condoned this kind of neglect of the "proper" variations against 1 ... e5 or 1 ... c5; a lot depended on the opposition too.
Though in a rare bout of playing proper openings, I once went down the 6 Be3 c5 7 dc line of the Saemisch (as Black) and more or less remembered enough of the positional ideas to come out on top.
Post a Comment