21 Jan '09 16:30>
I'm debating reverting back to e5. I'm just not sure playing the sicilian is right for me. There are just about half a million different lines. e5 players out there why do you play e5 and not c5?
Originally posted by kmac27International master Andrew martin states that masters play 1...c5 when they want to win and 1...e5 when they don't want to lose!
I'm debating reverting back to e5. I'm just not sure playing the sicilian is right for me. There are just about half a million different lines. e5 players out there why do you play e5 and not c5?
Originally posted by kmac27switching off from c5 is probably the smart thing to do for us beginners, as we have so much basics to cover even without the huge block of opening theory. but dragon just happens to be the only one I've felt comfortable in so far, so I'm a bit stuck with having to learn the theory. and if it was just the dragon it would be okay. but there are all the anti-sicilians, with more than enough of theory to learn as well. it's a huge amount of work, which could be spent on more important general things.
I'm debating reverting back to e5. I'm just not sure playing the sicilian is right for me. There are just about half a million different lines. e5 players out there why do you play e5 and not c5?
Originally posted by kmac27I've been playing c5 lately, having recently changed from e5.
I'm debating reverting back to e5. I'm just not sure playing the sicilian is right for me. There are just about half a million different lines. e5 players out there why do you play e5 and not c5?
Originally posted by kmac27I pay c5 because I hate defending against the Ruy Lopez. I can sometimes do it fairly well, but I feel like I'm playing with both hands tied behind my back. It's just no fun. I always hear about how dangerous the Dragon is for black but I've never seen someone successfully execute a Yugoslav against me and until that happens a couple of times, I'm gonna stick with the Dragon.
I'm debating reverting back to e5. I'm just not sure playing the sicilian is right for me. There are just about half a million different lines. e5 players out there why do you play e5 and not c5?
Originally posted by kmac27I turned back to e5 just because of traxler possibility. I am thinking to turn to c5 just to avoid Ruy Lopez 😛
I'm debating reverting back to e5. I'm just not sure playing the sicilian is right for me. There are just about half a million different lines. e5 players out there why do you play e5 and not c5?
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsWhat do you say about Ruy Lopez ? What is the best defence against it ? It gives me nightmares 😛
1. ... e5 is the more classical approach. I have found that it is a lot easier to refute weak opening moves with 1. ... e5 than the Sicilian. There are also more tactics in open games. When white knows what he's doing, you still get a very playable position. I have read over and over again that players should learn classical games first. On ...[text shortened]... Gambit Accepted, etc) not tricky sidelines that don't really hold up in critical positions.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsI somewhat disagree with this description. Positionally, the Sicilian makes a lot more sense than a lot of opening variations. Black stops 2. d4 with a flank pawn instead of a center pawn. In the main line for instance, Black exchanges his c-pawn for White's d-pawn. This is very positionally desirable - Black now has two center pawns vs. White's one, and I would also go so far as to say the c-file is generally more useful than the d-file.
The Sicilian defense is great too. It's a little loose. It seems as though black is making a slight positional concession in return for winning chances (no symmetrical positions at all). It does have the top GM seal of approval though.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!With the Sicilian, you are basically playing the English Opening a tempo down. Players that would never even open with 1.c4 don't realise that they are doing just that.
I somewhat disagree with this description. Positionally, the Sicilian makes a lot more sense than a lot of opening variations. Black stops 2. d4 with a flank pawn instead of a center pawn. In the main line for instance, Black exchanges his c-pawn for White's d-pawn. This is very positionally desirable - Black now has two center pawns vs. White's one, and I ...[text shortened]... he more Black wins.
Just some thoughts. 😀 Not trying to pick on you too hard Paul