King's Gambit

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

After 1...c5, White is OK (part i)

A curious phenomenon in the world of class players is the common fear of the Sicilian Defense. It seems many players if not afraid of 1...c5 are at least uncomfortable with it. The reasons given are usually:

Afraid of opponents preparation (the notorious bookworms)

Open Sicilian too complicated to understand

Wild tactics unsuitable to my style

Tried everything, nothing has worked

Point number one is usually more imaginary than real. Are there class players who have memorized dozens of lines in the Najdorf? Yes, there probably are. I've long ago stopped wondering at the lengths some people will go to avoid doing anything that requires them to think for their own if they can get away with mind-numbingly dull chugging like memorizing lines out of a book. Or maybe they've studied all of Garry Kasparov's games and picked up the lines as a side-effect. The question is: Is it useful at the club level? The answer is: No.

For one, any of these theoretical lines are easily avoided. If you're not comfortable playing against the common Najdorf or Dragon (another bookworm specialty) lines, just avoid them. Play 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ and get a perfectly good game. Secondly, even if the popular Sicilian lines give Black theoretical chances, it is unlikely a class player really understands all the subtleties of the defense. If you deviate early, before the situation gets critical maybe your opponent will get lost and forget what he was supposed to do in the first place - play chess, not recite opening lines!

For the second point, I can definitely sympathize. My own score against the Sicilian wasn't that hot. I did try the English Attack, but to be honest I got some pretty ugly defeats because of not having a feel for the two-edged attacking positions. It was probably a combination of not having enough attacking skill and not being familiar with the basic strategic goals from the white side. For a while I just avoided playing 1.e4 against anyone whom I knew to respond with the Sicilian - which suited me fine as Queen's Pawn openings are my main openings with White.

But at some point I figured I was afraid of a bunch of hot air. Looking at these people's ratings, they weren't any better than I was. I wasn't playing against Garry - so why was I afraid of their opening? What if I played something tricky but for which there is almost no literature? Would they really be able to handle the opening as well as the more popular lines? With that I then adopted the Wing Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.b4!?), an old gambit which is nowadays considered almost refuted but with good ideas that can still be employed in other variations. Theory scoffs at my choice, but I think my score with it was close to 80% while for a long time my score with the Open Sicilians was a fat 0%. Also, in casual skittles games it is murderous.

This brings us to the often discussed topic of anti-Sicilians. These are usually characterized by not being either Open Sicilians or Closed Sicilians. Almost every Sicilian player faces them regularly and many White players have their own pet anti-Sicilians. Asking around usually produces the concensus that they can be "OK", but that Black has nothing to worry about. The truth, or just collective cognitive dissonance? This is actually the main point of my thesis that White players mustn't fear the Sicilian. You can play normal developing moves aiming to keep the advantage in development without entering wild complications and still get a good game.

An often heard objection to anti-Sicilians is that they're too slow, quiet, give Black an easy game, all that jazz. Also, closed position are hard to play for class players. Contrary to what many people are erroneously taught in second-rate chess instructions books, it is not necessary to play 1.e4 e5 to achieve an open tactical game. To end the first part I present a game where two Georgian GMs start off in a slow variation that seems to offer Black no particular difficulties. In fact, the difficulties start early on and by move 20 Black is already lost! If such a quiet development scheme can wreck havoc against a GM, why would it not work against your average class player?

Gelashvili - Gagunashvili, Batumi 2001:

1. e4 c5
2. b3 d6
3. Bb2 Nf6
4. Bb5+ Bd7
5. Bxd7+ Nbxd7
6. d3 e5
7. Ne2 d5
8. exd5 Nxd5
9. O-O Be7
10. Nbc3 Nxc3
11. Nxc3 O-O
12. Nd5 Bd6
13. Qf3 Re8
14. Rae1 Re6

Position after 14...Re6

This looks like a bad chapter on overprotection from My System. All of Black's pieces are huddled behind his pawns accomplishing nothing while White already aims at the black king.

15. g3 Nb8

15...Qa5 16. a4 Rae8 17. Re2 Qd8 would help White.

16. Qg4 Rg6
17. Qc4 Nc6
18. f4! exf4

After the f-file opens up Black's position is quickly overrun. No better is 18...e4 19. f5.

19. Nxf4 Rg4

Position after 19...Rg4

Black must have missed White's reply, but 19...Na5 20. Qe4 Bxf4 21. Qxf4 is not convincing either.

20. Ne6!! Qh4
21. Rxf7 Rxc4
22. Rxg7+ Kh8
23. bxc4 Qh3
24. Rg5+ Nd4
25. Nxd4 Be5
26. Rexe5 h6
27. Re7 hxg5
28. Ne6+ Kg8
29. Rg7+ 1-0

Black could have resigned earlier but perhaps he wanted to give his opponent the satisfaction of achieving a zwickmühle

- posted by Toni @ 12:43 AM

3 Comments:

Can't say I much agree with an early statement concerning memorizing opening lines you made.

The point of memorizing these lines is not to necessarily play them, but become so familiar with the particular opening system that when your opponent goes off book, you know how to punish him for his lack of foresight.

Systems are designed to exploit weaknesses and give advantage. Wrong moves against an opening system should result in a lost game. . .as you discovered in your own experience with the Sicilian. . .

There's a reason why there is such a phrase as best play. . .

By Unknown, at 5:38 PM

If somebody is good enough to refute every mistake in the Sicilian made by their opponent, why are they still class players?

By Toni, at 2:42 AM

First, I agree that the Sicilian is difficult to play against mostly because we 1.e4 players are sometimes our own worst enemy. It's true that many Sicilian players are booked up. It's also true that they are usually booked up in the most common responses, but not in the less played lines. (as you suggest).
For that reason, in a current game - one of the very few email games that I play - I decided to respond to 1...c5 with the Grand Prix Attack, - and since this is the King's Gambit blog, , it seems appropriate to mention as the GP mimics the KG with 2.f4. (the moves in the current game of which I speak have been 1. e4 c5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 e6 4. Bb5 a6 5. Bxc6 bxc6 6. O-O d5 7. d3 d4 8. Nbd2 Nf6 9. Nc4 Nd7 10. Bd2 Bb7 11. Ba5 Qb8 - White seems to have the advantageous position, though it's hard to say what, if anything, Black did wrong). But the point is that Black is floundering because the territory was unfamiliar - unfamiliarity is something booked-up players can't abide (which would explain why they are booked-up - though this isn't to say my current opponent is booked-up).

Now, since I agreed with your basic idea, I feel free to disagree with commenter Jim. I think while his strategy is good, his tactics fail to support it. i.e. His points are well expressed and true, but they don't apply to the question at hand. His reasoning explains why a person should study to understand a system, but doesn't support why a person should memorize lines in openings. Memorizing lines doesn't aid in understaning opening systems, it just allows you to play on auto-pilot. To understand an opening system requires that you examine entire games using such systems. It's also untrue that systems are designed to exploit weaknesses, since that would imply that such weaknesses are inherent. It might be more accurate to say that some systems do encourage the creation of weaknesses which, if the player is good enough, might be exploited. To say that wrong moves in an opening system should result in a lost game...well, Lasker said the hardest game to win is a won game. Games don't win themselves and more than memorization equals thinking.

I hope these comments weren't too annoying...

By Anonymous, at 4:24 PM