<I do however have to agree with <square dance> that I find it strange that an 1.e4 player wouldn't want to play an open sicilian. There is a lot of theory, but most of it isn't that relevent unless you are playing on a fairly high level. At the lower and intermediate levels, the better tactical player will almost always win.>

I agree with both your points, but I would argue that they are not that important. As far as the theory goes, I think it's Black who is the one who really needs to worry about it. If he doesn't know his theory, he could get destroyed in 20 moves, whereas if White doesn't know the theory the worst that usually happens is that he allows Black to equalise. And the fact is not that many people are really that well booked up on anything other than the absolute main lines.

I think everyone should at least try the open Sicilian for a while and then analyse their losses to see if it really was because of the opening that they lost. I have a feeling that the opening probably doesn't have much to do with it in the vast majority of cases.

As for the long term chances Black gets, I think that is more than compensated by the short term ones White gets.

<Also, <whatthefat> and I crunched the database numbers and observed that White scored worse against the Sicilian than against any 1. e4 or 1. d4 opening.> This doesn't really surprise me, but did the anti-sicilians do any better than the open sicilians?

From a practical point of view I do have to admit that I see the advantage in anti-sicilians: you don't need to know what to do against all the Black systems, you get positions that you are probably more familiar with than you opponent, and many Black players often feel some psychological discomfort when facing anti sicilians(even reportidly Kasparov!). However, I feel that the open sicilian should be played for several reasons:

1)It's good for learning and improving tactical skill. It should be played for the same reasons beginners are often recommended to play gambits.

2) It's fun. You get plenty of interesting games, and far more opportunity to sacrifice material than in most other openings. This also gives good practical chances because most people aren't that good at defending so your attacks have good chances of succeeding.

3)You get some variety. You aren't always playing the same types of positions over and over again. I guess this is most important if you play a lot of blitz.

4)I think it's good for your chess culture to be familiar with such a mainstream opening. I know that this has little practical relevence, but I tend to value it quite highly.

We didn't check, but I've seen figures elsewhere indicating that the anti-Sicilians do worse (admittedly, one reason for that is low-rated players using the Grand Prix against high-rated players).

<As for the long term chances Black gets, I think that is more than compensated by the short term ones White gets.>

It depends what kind of chances you value, I guess. Maybe I'm really not an e4 player.

Thanks for all the tips!

I have to admit that I am being a bit stereotypical with my 'real 1.e4 player' comments. I'm always defending 1.d4 players against the charge that they are just looking to take play into an endgame as soon as possible, and here I am stereotyping 1.e4 players as blood-crazed attackers. Maybe I should have said that for those who like open, attacking play, they should play the open sicilian, whereas those who prefer closed, manoevering play should perhaps go for an anti-sicilian.

The problem is I tend to think that no matter what you do, Black will always have good long-term chances on the Q-side, so you more or less need to attack on the K-side anyway. And if that's the case then I think it's best to go with the open sicilian. Although I must admit that the closed sicilian and the grand prix offer good practical chances of building up a dangerous attack, particularly against an unprepared opponent.

<Very good post, by the way.> Thanks.

Yes, 20+ years ago when I played in tournaments I generally played 1. d4 and tried to win by some sort of stereotyped positional plan. Then I read (from Ken Smith?) that you should play 1. e4 to work on your tactics, and since I regularly got squashed tactically, I decided to switch to 1. e4. It worked well enough, except against the Sicilian. I bought Nunn's <Beating the Sicilian>, but...the Sicilian beat me. I also bought a book on 2. c3, but I fared even worse, partly because I just couldn't believe for a second that 2. c3 was the best move. Then I stopped playing competitively for a decade or so. When I started playing internet chess in the late 90s, 3. d4 worked pretty well until I started meeting strong opponents. For all my chess sins, I am not one to overestimate the importance of the opening, but in open Sicilians but I couldn't shake the feeling that the future belonged to Black, which was tough for me, because the games I love are when I succeed in trading momentary discomfort for long-term advantage. Inspired by Gelashvili, I tried 2. b3, but succeeded only in proving that I was no Gelashvili.

I've tinkered with other ways to open a chess game. I fell in love with Alekhine's Defense as Black, so I started playing 1. g3 occasionally, trying to reach an Alekhine's reversed. Occasionally I reached a Sicilian reversed, which generally worked out very well -- all those nice Sicilian positional pluses, without so much theory. So 1. c4 would be a natural choice, but the Symmetrical English doesn't appeal to me at all. I don't want to switch to 1. d4 because I think it makes no sense for a player of my modest strength to take the time completely revamp his opening repertoire, when he is still losing so many games because of two-move oversights.

6.g3! has worked for me :-)

I mainly play 1.d4 or 1.Nf3 these days but occasionally go back to 1.e4. But just like you I've realized I don't really like to meet the Sicilian. Irrational perhaps but so it is. All other openings are quite fine, especially the Ruy (seems I'm unlike you in that regard).

<but in open Sicilians but I couldn't shake the feeling that the future belonged to Black, which was tough for me, because the games I love are when I succeed in trading momentary discomfort for long-term advantage.>

Exactly.

<Inspired by Gelashvili, I tried 2. b3, but succeeded only in proving that I was no Gelashvili.>

Thanks! I will look into it. The only example I know is Matulovic vs Fischer, 1968, but surely that is not the final word.

<I think after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6, 3.b3 is quite playable.>

I will look at that too. Though I think ...e5 is only one of White's problems in this opening.

Well, given all those Evans Gambits I've played, 1. e4 c5 2. b4 does seem worth a look too...

[Event "rated standard match"]
[Site "freechess.org"]
[Date "2008.04.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "TheBB"]
[Black "pokrate"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1874"]
[BlackElo "1794"]
[ECO "B20"]
[TimeControl "900+5"]

<Something relatively slow and positional against the Najdorf would be helpful.> I agree with <acirce>'s recommendation of 6.g3. Black needs to know what he's doing to be able to get counterplay, and it's very flexible from White's point of view. The traditional recommendation is 6.Be2 of course, but against 6...e6 that can become very sharp and theoretical.

1. e4 c5 2. b3 Nc6 3. Bb2 d6 4. f4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 O-O 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Bd3 e5 11. fxe5 dxe5 12. Qd2 Qc7 13. O-O-O Be6 14. h3

click for larger view

13... c5 15. Nd5 Nxd5 16. exd5 Bxd5 17. Bxh7+ Kxh7 18. Qxd5 Bf6 19. Rhe1 Qa5 20. Kb1 Kg8

click for larger view

21. Bxe5! Rfe8 22. Bxf6 Rxe1 23. Qxa8+ Kh7 24. Qf3 Rxd1+ 25. Qxd1 gxf6

click for larger view

The queen endgame is winning.

26. Qh5+ Kg7 27. Qg4+ Kh7 28. Qh4+ Kg7 29. Qg3+ Kh7 30. h4 Qb4 31. Qd3+ Kg7 32. g3 a5 33. c3 Qb7 34. Kb2 Qc6 35. Ka3 Qb6 36. Qc4 Qc6 37. Qg4+ Kh7 38. Qf5+ Kg7 39. h5 Qd6

click for larger view

40. h6+!

Finishing in style :).

40... Kh8 41. Qg4 Qf8 42. Qg7+ Qxg7 43. hxg7+ Kxg7 44. Ka4 1-0

click for larger view

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2009.07.21"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Hiarcs Headbangers"]
[Black "CC GM Harvey Williamson"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[PlyCount "63"]

I'd probably play 8.fxe5 with the idea of winning a pawn thanks to the Qh5+ fork trick, but that's not particularly solid for White - when I say "I'd probably play" I mean in a meaningless 3 0 blitz game, not against CC GM Harvey Williamson; while the third logical possibility of 8.0-0 Bg4 is nothing special for White. On move 9 opening the f-file for White's rook is rather attractive, especially as there's no clear alternative (9.0-0 exf4 10.exf4 Bg4/h3 is still nothing special for the first player).

After that I might vary due to a desire to capture at d4 with a knight: that is, either 11.Nxd4 or 10.0-0, 11.d4 and 12.Nxd4. But in these lines White has to deal with multiple weaknesses (weakened king position on one hand and an isolated e-pawn on the other) so quite probably the Headbangers' plan is better. Another alternative is 10.e4!?, I'm not sure about the value of that but it looks risky.

Indeed, I can't see any real improvement on the Headbangers' play. (What did you have in mind?) If the Headbangers wanted more than the draw, then the moment to deviate probably came with 16.Ba4!? - but that calls for a team of analysts, not someone mainly involved in this for 1.b3 experience. (And I presume the Headbangers were such a team of analysts, and rejected it.)