I don't agree that 1...c5 is better for beginners than 1...e5. The Sicilian is essentially a positional defense, where Black tries to survive White's initial space advantage and freeer piece play in order to strike back later with his central pawn structure, open c-file and Q-side minority. In other words, not only does Black have to be able to defend against the typical White aggressive systems, he also has to know how to handle the position positionally if White chooses a quiet system. This seems pretty advanced for a beginner to me.

In contrast, 1...e5 is, I think, easier for a beginner, because Black's goals are the same as White's: central control, free piece play. So I would advise 1...e5 to a beginner, and then a switch to 1...c5 after he has become more experienced.

I do not know why we are talking of a beginner, but anyway: With 1.e4 e5, a mistake would of course be to prepare for 2.Nf3 variations only. If White plays 2.f4, you either need to have memorized 3 phone books of super sharp theory, or you rely on your practical strength and that the opponent probably (and hopefully) hasn't prepared best replies to non-theorectical black moves anyway.

(Another topic would be 2.Nc3 and f2-f4 later.)

But I think the initial poster had already decided against 1...c5 anyway. It is possible though that he - like myself in the past - had a wrong impression from the sicilian not having tried more variations. As mentioned above, I like to play the Löwenthal and have no particular troubles with it, even without having learned much theory.

I am a type of player who can play a position quite ok without needing any highly sophisticated strategical ideas or the like, on my level which is "somewhat" below GM level :laff: (But don't get me wrong, I use "strategical" NOT in a simple positional sense, which is sometimes confused.)

I think it is wrong to tell beginners that they need to "understand plans" to play an opening well. That is simply not true for the next 1,000 Elos of improvement. It's almost perfect if they can avoid big weaknesses, lose nothing and get a playable position. Their opponents aren't Kasparovs either.

You don't need to memorize a phonebook to be succesfull against the King's gambit. All it takes is a good book and remembering the logic behind those moves.

In 1.e4 e5 these logical ideas are easyier to understand then in the:

Pirc: Counterattack must be precisely planned, black is in trouble when it fails
Modern: same
French: Black will have know just how bad the c8 bishop is, has less space, and if the attcak ont he centre isn't planned correctly...
Sicilian: You will have to be able to calculate and understand what attacks do and what attacks dont work..... quite impossible for a beginner.

So stick to 1.e4 e5 and when u mastered that.... go start on a sicilian

The "offbeat" yet "sound" Nimzovich Defense (1 e4 Nc6) leads to complex games that don't require both sides to know twenty moves of theory to survive.

"A Complete Defense for Black" by GM Raymond Keene and IM Byron Jacobs advocates 1...Nc6 against all first moves by White. The book has a ton of annotated games. A good read.

Morozovich once said "I used to blunder a pawn with 1 e4 e5 2 f4 ef, but then I grew up."

Matt, you're a strong player and I certainly respect your chess opinions--in general--but here I must respectfully disagree most vigorously.

As Reshevsky noted in one of his books, ALL chess is positional, assuming that over-used term is properly understood, so the Sicilian is no more positional than is 1...e5.

You write: "Sicilian: You will have to be able to calculate and understand what attacks do and what attacks dont work.....quite impossible for a beginner."

You talk down to the beginner, and invite him to progress slowly, having little or no confidence in his abilities. On the contrary, I talk UP to the beginner; I invite him to progress quickly as well as soundly, since I have the greatest confidence in his abilities, assuming that he starts with zest for the game and a very moderate willingness to work hard (two hours a day--even one, if it is intense and never skipped).

When I was a beginner in the early 1980s, I played the Najdorf Variation--misleadingly said to be fearsomely complex--and I scored well with it. And though I'm very near master strength today, I certainly wasn't when I started. I have no special abilities, am not of superior intelligence, and have had no tutors or coaches or other advantages that typical beginners did not have. I just studied the fundamentals and put a substantial amount of time into studying how those fundamentals are applied in the three major stages of the game.

Here is one of my earliest games using the Sicilian against an experienced C-player:

E. Stewart-CK, Tacoma Quads, Rd 2, 7/25/81 B86: Sicilian Scheveningen/Najdorf: 6 Bc4, without early ...b5

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6

This is the Najdorf Variation. Let's take stock: so far, White has swapped a two-pawn center to get a more active knight and some attacking chances. Black has held his own in the center and has prepared queenside counterplay with ...a6 (planning ...b5). What's so hard for a beginner to understand?

6 Bc4

White puts his bishop on a fine attacking diagonal leading directly to the weakest spot in Black's king position (the f7-pawn is only defended by the king).

6...e6

Black defends by blocking out the bishop with a pawn.

7 Bb3

White retreats his bishop to a secure post, still eyeing f7; in doing so, he prevents Black from gaining a tempo by playing ...b5, so White moved the same piece twice, but he did not lose time.

7...Qc7

Here is a fairly non-obvious move that is easily explained. Black is going to make this move in many variations of the Sicilian and making it now does not compromise him or cost him time. He not only adds protection to f7 and b7, and continues his protection of d6, which will be even more important in the event of ...e5, but he gets out of potential trouble that is often caused when a White rook comes to d1. Finally, he vacates d8 for a rook or even a minor piece. Black gets a lot out of this move!

8 f4

White expands and makes sure that if he wants to put a knight on f3 it will not block the f-pawn; also, the f-pawn attacks e5, an important central square, and each pawn (f4-pawn and e4-pawn) is prepared to support the advance of the other pawn.

8...Nbd7

Black stays flexible and adds more protection to his center, and the knight on d7 is ready to jump over to the kingside to assist in defensive duties.

9 0-0 Be7 10 f5 e5

White has forced a concession, yet Black has some gains which offset this newly-created weakness (the hole on d5); increased control of d4 is one of them.

11 Nde2 b5 12 Bg5 Bb7

White attacks on the kingside, and Black counters both in the center and on the queenside. The White e-pawn is brought under attack--a common theme in many openings.

13 Bxf6 Nxf6 14 Bd5

White occupies the hole on d5 but doesn't immediately gain anything from his occupation.

14...Rc8 15 Bxb7 Qxb7 16 Ng3 h5!

This is the second Black move that is not conventional, but it, too, makes sense. With the center closed up, Black has little need to castle, and in any case, if he did, to either wing, he would be in greater danger, so he stays put in the center and advances his h-pawn in an effort to undermine the knight on g3.

At this point, Fritz gives 17 Qd3 h4 18 Nh1 h3, with a clear advantage to Black. I went on to win the game in 35 moves.

So where are all those complications? Here is a typical beginner playing the Najdorf Sicilian against one of his first tournament opponents and gaining a clear advantage after 16 moves. Clearly, it wasn't impossible for me to play the Sicilian well. At the time of the game, I had not studied the opening for more than 3 months, and that study consisted of playing over Najdorf Sicilians from My 60 Memorable Games and from Chess Life for a couple of hours per day.

The interesting thing about the opening moves of this particular game is that Fritz does not comment on any of the first 16, indicating that White did not follow a good plan. I did nothing special with Black; I simply applied the fundamentals (Matt's logic!) and got a very good game.

The Nimzovich Defense is sound, in the simpest sense of the word--it does not immediately lose, and White must know some theory in order to get his usual slight advantage, but current theory indicates that after 2 Nf3, with best play, Black can easily end up at a clear disadvantage, and with no real prospects of counterattacking. Black gives away too much space. Yet, that said, Miles did well with it, and perhaps even today there are some masters brave enough to employ it.

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

he he he just saw this topic recently lol,

I also feel (in the spirit of violence) that the sicilian is the way to enjoy violent games of chess, simply becoz "wrong" castling happens more than in other opennings ( I could be wrong here lol no pun intended) ;-) , .

With 1.e4 e5 white can simply play boring chess like Ruy Exch etc... it is a symetrical openning not an unbalanced one (like the sicilian is)

My time playing 1....e5 wasn't really subjected to vast tactical fights of fantasy, except in the KGA, most of the games had prepared responses and more "normal" chess resulted.

A lot in chess depends on ones' opponent, as white I would always play 1.e4 and play either evans gambit,Max Lange,2knights,fried liver etc...
anything for a buzz, however I hated facing 1...d5
or the petroff , anyway my point is that it was me as white that allowed the violence, like I said above some ppl will just play 1,e4 e5 2.Nf3
the go for Ruy Exch or 4 Knights, or something not so sharp.


If we are talking about a begginer then definately
play 1...e5 as well as 1....c5 as well as 1...d5
in that order .

I also agree with various comments by PB and CK ,
with 1...e5 black has to at least prepare for KGA
and other Bishop opennings,however I don't really believe that any of these opennings favour black.
(better than the sicilian, I may need to add)

just an example from my earlier days check out the date !


[Event "#91 Evans"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sean"]
[Black "Ernest 06/2/99 *****"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "55"]
[EventDate "1999.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 exd4 7. cxd4 Bb4+ 8.
Nbd2 d6 9. Qb3 Qf6 10. O-O Bxd2 11. Bxd2 h6 12. e5 dxe5 13. Rae1 Nge7 14. d5
Nd4 15. Nxd4 exd4 16. Bb4 Be6 17. dxe6 O-O-O 18. exf7 Ng6 19. Rb1 b6 20. Rfe1
c5 21. Ba6+ Kc7 22. Bxc5 bxc5 23. Qb7+ Kd6 24. Bb5 Ne7 25. Qa6+ Kc7 26. Re6
Qxe6 27. Qxe6 Nd5 28. Qc6+ 1-0

What do u mean with near a master title? I am aware that Americans with 2200 can call themselves 'Master', ******* if you ask me. Don't be so vague please. When I talk about a 'master' it's someone who had 2400+ at one point and scored 3 IM norms.

I am aware that single victories can happen in every opening, your game is a nice example for it. You can quote various sources and twist their meaning to back up what you say (in this case Reshevsky is your victim).

My point was that if you want something that is theoretically correct (even when some 2400+ prepares against you) and reliable you will find out that 1.e4 e5! is the only way to do so.

For instance after:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4

we reach a main line Ruy Lopez, with a little study and games VS rybka I have 5 draws vs IM's ,1 Draw vs a GM, 13 wins vs 2000-2300 and 1 loss.

No sicilian can ever beat such reliability, there are just too many things to that need be explored. So, stick with 1.e4 e5!