chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Sicilian (B53)
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Qxd4

Number of games in database: 1710
Years covered: 1936 to 2017
Overall record:
   White wins 37.0%
   Black wins 29.9%
   Draws 33.1%

Popularity graph, by decade

Explore this opening  |  Search for sacrifices in this opening.
PRACTITIONERS
With the White Pieces With the Black Pieces
Evgeni Vasiukov  31 games
Sergei Zhigalko  22 games
Vadim Zvjaginsev  17 games
David Navara  10 games
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave  9 games
Dimitri Gurevich  9 games
NOTABLE GAMES [what is this?]
White Wins Black Wins
M De Bolster vs NN, 1970
Vasiukov vs Van Wely, 2002
Kamsky vs Lautier, 1993
Svidler vs Kasparov, 1999
Kasimdzhanov vs Kasparov, 1999
L Shamayev vs Ufimtsev, 1949
<< previous chapter next chapter >>

 page 1 of 69; games 1-25 of 1,710  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. V Uulberg vs L Kremer 0-129 1936 Munich OlympiadB53 Sicilian
2. Chekhover vs Lisitsin ½-½30 1938 URS-ch sfB53 Sicilian
3. L Szabo vs S Landau  ½-½45 1939 MatchB53 Sicilian
4. Szily vs Bogoljubov  0-137 1939 StuttgartB53 Sicilian
5. I V Rohacek vs Bogoljubov  0-156 1942 MunichB53 Sicilian
6. Geller vs Kogan 1-034 1946 OdessaB53 Sicilian
7. Chistiakov vs Kotov ½-½56 1946 RUSB53 Sicilian
8. W Shipman vs H Fajans  ½-½27 1946 47th US OpenB53 Sicilian
9. F Howard vs W Shipman  0-141 1948 USA-chB53 Sicilian
10. V Castaldi vs Szabados 1-049 1948 8, Venice it ITAB53 Sicilian
11. Szily vs Stahlberg  ½-½26 1949 Trencianske TepliceB53 Sicilian
12. L Shamayev vs Ufimtsev 0-134 1949 Ch URS (1/2 final)B53 Sicilian
13. P Leepin vs H Johner  ½-½17 1950 SUI-chB53 Sicilian
14. E Paoli vs Szabados  ½-½21 1950 VeniceB53 Sicilian
15. Szabo vs Kotov 1-037 1950 Budapest CandidatesB53 Sicilian
16. N Dantas vs M Eidelman  ½-½43 1952 Rio de Janeiro itB53 Sicilian
17. N Dantas vs E Eliskases  0-150 1952 Rio de Janeiro itB53 Sicilian
18. J Vesely vs V Brat  ½-½37 1953 CSR-ch PragueB53 Sicilian
19. A Mengarini vs A Sandrin  1-024 1953 54th US OpenB53 Sicilian
20. A Mengarini vs M Turiansky  ½-½80 1953 54th US OpenB53 Sicilian
21. Robatsch vs Larsen  ½-½40 1954 02 AmsterdamB53 Sicilian
22. G Meszaros vs Ujtelky  ½-½55 1954 Budapest ttB53 Sicilian
23. A Mengarini vs Larry Evans  0-146 1954 USA-chB53 Sicilian
24. A Bannik vs Simagin  ½-½36 1954 URS-chTB53 Sicilian
25. Lutikov vs Cherepkov  ½-½24 1955 URS-ch sfB53 Sicilian
 page 1 of 69; games 1-25 of 1,710  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Mar-27-04  ds99bwood9: 4.e5 is bad as it leaves a backward pawn on the d-file which white will place immense pressure on. I myself play the Chekhover and the best continuation for black is indeed 4.a6, although white continues development with Bg5 and prepares for castling queenside. But, ruy you are indeed correct that black can launch (as I have encountered) a massive queenside attack if white falls behind in development, so for those wishing to avoid this an early c4 helps bind the centre and counters black pawn breaks... although this leaves a hole which I'm not particularly happy about, but by all means the position is playable. Of course, your opponent could screw you with 2.e6, forcing you into mainline theory. But hey, deal with it!
Mar-28-04
Premium Chessgames Member
  refutor: any opinions on this line? i faced it for the first time in a rated game today and the opening went

White : NN
Black : Refutor

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Bb5 a6 <i know that ...Bd7 is theory> 6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.O-O Nf6 <7. ... e5 is better, the "dragon" setup isn't optimal> 8.Nc3 g6 9.Bg5 Bg7 10.Qd3 <worried about potential tactics down the long diagonal?> 10. ... O-O 11.Rad1 Bb7 12.e5 dxe5 13.Qxd8 Rfxd8 14.Rxd8+ Rxd8 15.Nxe5

this is a pretty even position and i know basically nothing about this line. how does white aim for more than equality in this line? also is 4.Qxd4 viable v. 2. ...e6 for instance?

Mar-28-04  SicilianDragon: Overall, it probably isn't best to fall into White's plans with 4...Nc6. Instead, you may want to employ somethign a little more subtle such as 4...Bd7. Then, after 5. c4 Nc6 6. Qd2, you can head for a Dragon setup with 6...g6. Also, there is no real need to play a6 so early given that White is going to capture of c6 eventually anyway. You also may want to try 5...Bg4!? which looks very interesting. 4. Qxd4 is just kind of an offbeat opening where White aims for quick developement and (usually) queenside castling with something like 4...Nc6 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Nc3 Nf6 8. Bg5 e6 9. O-O-O. Rather than going with that or enticing White to chop off the knight, 5...Bg4 or 4...Bd7 both look like they should get White out of any opening preparation. Qxd4 is, like most anti-Siclians against 2...d6 (eg 3. Bb5+) based on quick development. 3. Bb5+ is based on quick development of the kingside pieces and an early O-O while Qxd4 shows that White wants to development his queenside pieces and connect his rooks (usually with O-O-O) as quickly as possible. Realistically, if Black has an IQ greater than 10 he should be able to equalize out of the opening and it is more or less used for surprise value then for its strength as an opening.
Mar-29-04  ds99bwood9: <4...Bd7 both look like they should get White out of any opening preparation.> ... 4.Bd7 is mainline theory, for which White's best responses are either 5.Bg5 or 5.Be3, allowing White to continue rapid development and enable early castling long. Whilst I agree that 5...Bg4 may well take White out of opening preparation, to all intents and purposes if White wishes to castle long then plans to disrupt the kingside pawn structure at this time seem irrelevant. Also, White can maintain a slight advantage with an early c4, binding the centre (as many have said) and countering a fair few of Black's attacking options. So, in all fairnness Dragon, equality is perhaps not as easy to achieve as you assume, as many fine wins have been achieved with this opening. That said, mainline theory I will agree is still a better option to pursue, but for those like myself who have university studies to contend with, learning less theory and spending more time on positional play is probably time well spent. In answer to refutor's question in response to 2...e6, unless you are willing to sacrifice a tempo early on, which with most sicilian setups is not particularly wise, the best bet I'm afraid is to enter mainline theory and pursue maybe the English Attack. That's my two cents.
Nov-20-04  FearsomePawn: I recently played a6. In an online game and my opponent replied Be3, but when I played Nc6 he played Qb6!? then his blockade of my b-pawn caused me some trouble. Should I take the queen?
Nov-20-04
Premium Chessgames Member
  acirce: <Should I take the queen?> Yes. The ensuing endgame is almost completely equal. It may seem boring to some but certainly it has chances for both. In that sense Black should be happy with the opening. Black will have to play moves like ..Kf8 that may seem awkward but is no big deal in lines such as

6.Qb6 Qxb6 7.Bxb6 g6 8.Nc3 Bg7 9.Nd5 Kf8 10.0-0-0 Nf6 or 8..Bh6!? 9.Nd5 Kf8 10.Be2 Kg7

Aug-11-05  bomb the bishop: Just like to ask anyone that knows of any good books on this opening, if they can post the books titles, I feel this is a very strong opening
Aug-12-05  bishopmate: This is a cool Sicilian position I reached while playing a game.

Blitz:10' Brampton

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.N1c3 a6 7.Na3 Nf6 8.Bg5 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 0-0 12.Nc2 Rb8 13.h4 Bd7 14.g3 Be7 15.Bg2 Be6 16.Nce3 Qd7 17.Qd3 Bd8 18.0-0 Ne7 19.Rfd1 Qa7

I played the move 20. h5 here looking for some initiative on the kingside maybe. Do you guys think that was the right decision to take, if now what do you recommend i should have done?

Aug-13-05  SEMENELIN: 20. h5 is too early there are many moves h5 is too early f3 is more better. The knight and the bishop are too watch out.
Sep-02-05  bishopmate: <SEMELIN> doesn't f3 look a little dangerous?... especially in lines like bxd5 exd5 bb6? or bxd5 exd5 f5?
Sep-03-05  SEMENELIN: <bishopmate> ur line is different =)
Sep-18-05  bomb the bishop: Any good books on this opening?
Sep-19-05  midknightblue: shout there was a great lecture available through the net (put together by ICC/chess.fm on this opening. I cannot remember, GM Larry Christiansen maybe, did it, not sure.
Sep-03-06  Tariqov: <sicilian dragon>In my opinion i disagree, i think 4...Nc6 is better then the other moves, even kasparov played Nc6. All you have to be prepared is that you should know about Bg5-xf6, Be7-xf6(not gxf6?) when white should not take the pawn Qxd6 as you will gain some counterplay with Bxc3 or Qa5 Rd8 etc.
Sep-03-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  KingG: I used to play 4...Nc6, but after reading 'Anti-Sicilians: A guide for black' by Dorian Rogozenko, i switched to his recommendation of 4...a6, after which Black gets an even more comfortable game.
Nov-01-06  BaranDuin: This opening is great for white if he wants a draw against a stronger player or if he likes a more positional Maroczy-like type of game.

Nov-09-06  WarmasterKron: It's also good for white if s/he doesn't want to learn mountains of theory that come with 4.Nxd4.
Nov-09-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: <KingG> Never seen the 4...a6 move, but after looking in the DB, I see there are quite a few games.

What is the idea behind moving a6?

Nov-09-06  alicefujimori: <WannaBe>Preventing the bishop from pinning the c6 knight.
Nov-09-06
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: <alicefujimori> Okay, thanks, same move is seen in the Najdorf variation. Should have thought of that. =)
Nov-09-06  e4Newman: in the mainline najdorf ...a6 was actually intended to prevent Nb5 but of course it also works well to prevent Bb5
Nov-09-06  WarmasterKron: Something I've been playing around with this evening. It's probably completely unsound (according to the Opening Explorer, it's never been played in this database - rarely a good sign), but that's never bothered me in the past:

1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 d6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Qxd4 Nc6
5.Bb5 f5

Someone tell me what's not quite right about it, please.

Nov-10-06  e4Newman: one thing i can say for sure, it's very refreshing to see new ideas like that
Jan-17-08  Arbitrarily0: This is actually called the Chekhover Variation. How come this page makes no mention of it?
May-24-09  battaile: WarmasterKron: Definitely looks playable, I'm guessing the reason its not played is that it creates a weakness on e6?
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific opening and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC