I used to play the Nf6 Scandi, but eventually lost interest once white players latched onto ideas involving Bb5+. With correct play, white can obtain a nice advantage and black is left with little prospects for counterplay.

@SCK mainly I prefer my own brand of Najdorf where black has the option of ...0-0-0
or sometimes a more sedate option with ...Nc6 and ...Be7 , however round about the time
I started trying out 1.d4 (thanks to a horowitz book I borrowed) I started using the
classic dragon ( no accl yet) flavour of the sicilian.
Just looking thru my database of completed games from gk and itsyourturn and have roughly
since feb2007 ( wow it doesn't feel that long ago at all! ) about 81 black sicilian
(mostly dragon) games.-30 +43 =8 roughly speaking.Some of the games are white early
Bc4 (we covered this phenomenon in another thread) some were white 3.Bb5+ and some were
white ealry f4 (grand prix) [ a quick side note note just looking thru Dbs and saw this
[ 1.e4 c5 2.f4 e5! ha ha I ended up winning in a tactical battle where I lost a piece]
seems there were only 3! Najdorf setups I had white twice -2 +1 all even fights.
13 ! were 2.Bc4 -2 + 10 =1.
To round off the last 20 games (average opp elo 1704) upto date -6 +12 =2.
So all in all a lot for me to go thru.

Just thinking about it now , about Petrosianic question on who when or what.
I think it brings some nice ideas , against what strength do we try to win and with what
openning? when do we draw the line and choose a drawish openning if ever?
Personally I would choose my most attacking and comfortable openning, so even if I lose
at least I gain experience.
The problem I have is I can't (for now) dream of playing 1...e5 vs some1
of elo even 100 above me ( I' m guessing I'm 1700), nor the French (my next choice).
So that leaves (against 1800+) only various sicilians.The obvious problem now presents,
what if this 1800+ opponent is not only a sicilian expert but a sicilian killer!! ha ha ha ?

For those of a similar or below elo I would try almost anything basically depending
on the stakes of the game.

Maybe at the end of the day openning battles/choices are not where we should focus?
Maybe simple equality is the easier method? simplify in 3 or 4 moves then focus on
structure/position etc... middle game structures?

check out this battle

[Event "Team match"]
[Site "http://gameknot.com/chess.pl?"]
[Date "2009.01.06"]
[Round "?"]
[White "haddibje"]
[Black "ninjax"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B50"]
[WhiteElo "1785"]
[BlackElo "1778"]
[Annotator ",Sean"]
[PlyCount "88"]
[EventDate "2009.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2006.11.20"]
[TimeControl "1/604800:0"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. O-O Nc6 6. c3 Nf6 7. d4 cxd4 8.
cxd4 Nxe4 9. d5 Nb8 $4 10. Re1 Nf6 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bxf6 gxf6 13. Nd4 Rg8 14. Nc3
a6 $2 15. g3 Bg7 16. Qd3 Bf8 17. Nf5 Kd8 18. Rac1 e5 19. h4 b5 20. a4 b4 21.
Nd1 Qxa4 $6 22. Nde3 Nd7 23. Nc4 Nc5 $6 24. Qb1 Kc7 25. Nce3 Rd8 26. Rxc5+ dxc5
27. d6+ Bxd6 28. Nd5+ Kb8 29. Nxf6 Rg6 30. Ne4 Bf8 31. Qc1 Rc6 32. Qc4 Rc7 33.
Nf6 Rd1 34. Rxd1 Qxd1+ 35. Kg2 Qa4 36. Qe4 Qc6 $2 {
I was on the phone when making this move} 37. Nd5 $2 Rd7 38. Nfe3 Bg7 {
protects e5 as well as f8 and gets the B of the back rank} 39. f3 f5 40. Qc4 e4
41. fxe4 fxe4 42. Qxe4 Bd4 43. Qe8+ Kb7 44. Kh3 Rxd5 {white resigns} 0-1

Hi Gambit, nice avatar. I love SI with black. As a variation I played some Caro Kann last year, but now I am faitful to the SI again. However, meeting a lot of 1 e4 c5 2 c3 made me add 2 - e6 to the repertoire, where you have a French after 3 d4 d5. Just to see other types of positions (and I avoid FR with 3 Nc3!).

SI gives you a lot of different types of play if white plays the open main line. The Kan, Sveshnikov, Najdorf and Dragon have different pawn formation and different "temperament". I am learning more about the Classical at the moment. As a safe option, the Four Knights is solid, after 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Nc6.

So what I am saying, after thinking about other defences to 1 e4, I found that c5 should give enough variation.

your right there Akselborg ! I have been thinking the same thing,
and ur also right about the avatar! he he he ....

One problem playing against lower rated players is that if the lower rated player plays for a draw with white, he can get in to positions in the Caro-Kann, French, Scandinavian that is very drawish. Actually I just remember that was the very reason that I many years ago gave up playing the Caro-Kann and the Scandinavian! After 1… e5 or 1… c5 I have much better opportunities to go for complications.

However after exclusively playing the Sicilian for many years, I just got so tired of it. Now for about two years I have played the 1… e5, and really love doing so. But I also feel I need an alternative, especially against players who like to play the Ruy Lopez, since I hate the Spanish torture.

I have lately been looking at the Scandinavian, but I have found out it is still difficult to win with the Scandinavian if White goes for a draw. And that also goes for the Modern Scandinavian (2…Nf6) after 3.Nc3, which gives equality and that might be fine for a GM, but I much prefer "roughly equal but unclear".

Perhaps I after all should take a look at the Sicilian again, but I need some new variations, I have been thinking about looking at the Classical. But so far I have only been thinking about it. I want to find something not too theoretically for my second opening, since I don’t have time to learn too many heavily theoretical lines.

"the Spanish torture" is pretty rough. I've had many games from both sides in CC chess, and the opening boils down to white having a firm, long-lasting advantage. Black ends up basically playing for the draw, as risky lines like the Marshall Attack are nearly refuted in CC play. I've got a current CC game going where black tried the Marshall and is rated nearly 2900, yet I've got a winning position barely 20 moves deep.

I've sort of been rating opening choices against 1. e4 after almost 200 CC games. Here's my breakdown from those games:

1...c5 Still a wild card and best chance at counterplay. Requires the most time spent researching the opening.
1...e5 More stable, but also more difficult to win with should white opt for the Spanish.
1...e6 Probably the most stable, but theory has to be water-tight. Sometimes counterplay comes up for free when white over-presses.
1...c6 Slightly risky, but new ideas are starting to thwart previously powerful lines for white. The Panov-Botvinnik has become neutralized by g6-Bg7.
1...Nf6 About the same risk as c6, though less counterplay opportunity.
1...d5 Risky and black has little counterplay available if white is booked out.

I've not tried the Pirc yet among other less popular tries against 1.e4 in serious CC play. One thing I have learned from playing the top-rated players on the CC site I frequent, is that you want to play for advance variations in openings that have them. This includes the Caro-Kann and French lines. There are some "safety" lines black can adopt if you allow for trades in the center like black's dxe4 after Nc3 in the French. I've had to settle for boring draws in these games, where black settles for a slightly worse, but drawish position. In top-level CC, you want to keep as much material on the board, so I believe advance lines are the key to keeping the road difficult for black.

If you're content with a draw, there's always the Petroff.

And, have you ever considered the Philidor? At the Club level, it can be quite handy.

If you're really gunning for the win, the Sicilian is still your best bet, of course.

I wonder why top-level OTB players don't seem to research top-level CC much. Or do they? Or perhaps their secret preparation is better than the CC state of the art?

Stick to one opening variation within the Sicilian until you are familiar with its twists and turns. If you say that you wish to add a second or third opening to your arsenal, the presumption is that you already "have" the Sicilian in there, too, and that couldn't be true unless you have played hundreds of games with it over a span of many years. Every minute spent on openings is a minute NOT spent on far more important material which you have to master to advance your play dramatically. Here are some topics to consider:

BASIC COMBINATIONS

How well do you know the Classic Bishop Sacrifice? It has a multitude of uses and crops up everywhere. It goes all the way back to Polerio (in his book of 1590); that's 16th century knowledge with which many a 21st century (!) club player has only the most nodding acquaintance. There are many other tactical devices which you should know by heart. Computer analysis of a large selection of your games would disclose numerous combinations containing stock tactical devices which you either missed or did not fully exploit; this is excellent training material, and if you put the games on a disc, you have a handy tool for reviewing these powerful combinational weapons in a timely manner; you could do so for a half-hour before every playing session, and your playing strength would benefit immensely.

ENDGAMES

How well do you know the rule of the square? key squares? the opposition? triangulation? the Lucena Position? the Philidor Position? the Reti Maneuver? If a friend pointed to an empty chess board and asked you to demonstrate for him any of the above, could you do it without fail? If not, you need to work on your endgame.

First master the essentials, which have not changed and which will--as long as there are no substantial alterations to the rules--never change, before you think about spending hours and months and years attempting to master more of that which changes continually.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Explaining metaphysics to the nation,
I wish he would explain his Explanation."

--Byron, Don Juan