30 Sep 06
Originally posted by SquelchbelchSquel Belch learn chess "properly". Do not rely on these anti-xyz openings. You can add 100-300 elo points easily by playing according to sound chess principles.
I've been the Grand Prix Attack- 2.f4
or the Morra Gambit- 2.d4...cxd4 3.c3 against the pesky Sicilian as I almost invariably open with 1.e4, looking to go KG or Spanish.
Can anyone give me any decent examples of these or any other anti-Sicilians?
Originally posted by thesonofsaul
I play the alapin which can certainly be consider ...[text shortened]... now. There is an interesting link that describes the opening and offers an annotated GM game.
Son of saul, I fail to see how your Alapin gave you an opening advantage. Your win came because your opponent had poor middlegame play. You appeared to let him repeat moves.
30 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by z00tA) No opening gives an automatic advantage. You play what you are comfortable with. The guy asked a question, and I answered it.
Son of saul, I fail to see how your Alapin gave you an opening advantage. Your win came because your opponent had poor middlegame play. You appeared to let him repeat moves.
2) Most of my wins are due to poor middlegame play. What's your point?
III) What in the hell does "let him repeat moves" mean?
30 Sep 06
Originally posted by thesonofsaulOpenings are not meaningless through-the-motion routines but have deep stategic ideas. Assuming you know the dragon, King's Indian or Slav you can tell me the intended ideas of those openings. You have not demonstrated any opening advantage gained from the Alapin that you converted to a win. If you have any such game you are free to show it.
A) No opening gives an automatic advantage. You play what you are comfortable with. The guy asked a question, and I answered it.
2) Most of my wins are due to poor middlegame play. What's your point?
III) What in the hell does "let him repeat moves" mean?
Move repetition leads to a draw. Ask Topalov what would have happened had move repetition occured in game 1.
30 Sep 06
Originally posted by z00tAh. I just looked through the game and I see what you mean by the move repitition. It only happened once and I only did that to see what he would do. I find it is often a good idea to allow moves to repeat once or even twice to have a glimpse into your opponent's mind. Would he be willing to take a draw rather than make a different move? Will he compromise his position in order to avoid a draw? I don't recall if I was willing to take a draw at the time. That all depends on my state of mind, how much sleep I got the night before, and whether or not I remembered to take my meds that morning.
Openings are not meaningless through-the-motion routines but have deep stategic ideas. Assuming you know the dragon, King's Indian or Slav you can tell me the intended ideas of those openings. You have not demonstrated any opening advantage gained from the Alapin that you converted to a win. If you have any such game you are free to show it.
Move repetition leads to a draw. Ask Topalov what would have happened had move repetition occured in game 1.
Perhaps I did not play it well, but the stratagy behind the alapin sicilian is quite simple and also, I would think, quite obvious. White wants to build a strong central structure for easy development and construction of attacking chances. Black cannot allow this, so any plans he has get subsumed by the need to stop this from happening. To do this, black's moves become mostly defensive and he may find it difficult to create the structure he wants. Also, in some lines (like the one played in the example I provided) the black queen gets flushed out early, either giving white tempo right off or giving white the chance to build structure and attack with tempo.
Are you telling me you didn't see any of this in the game I played? As I said, perhaps I didn't do it well and left holes all over the place, but that is the general idea. Perhaps you could play it better--more power to you.
I never intended to suggest the openings are meaningless, only that there is no opening that promises an automatic win if both players play fairly accurately. If you have an example of an opening that does this, feel free to post it.
30 Sep 06
Originally posted by AmauroteHas some merit as a Gambit but I think the Smith-Morra Gambit is sounder.
Game 1575376
30 Sep 06
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI tend to agree with thesonofsaul here. He did win the game after all so the opening achieved his objective even if not played perfectly. The repetition of moves allows a Knight outpost on e5 to be obtained and we all know thats not a bad square for a Knight.
A) No opening gives an automatic advantage. You play what you are comfortable with. The guy asked a question, and I answered it.
2) Most of my wins are due to poor middlegame play. What's your point?
III) What in the hell does "let him repeat moves" mean?
I haven't finished any c3 games yet so don't know if I prefer it to the Morra or not. As my previously quoted 6 games shows I obtain good results with the Morra.
30 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Dragon FireAbsolutely, it's very unsound, but in terms of producing exciting chess I don't think it's much worse than the KG - nearly all of the games I've had with it have ended up with a ridiculously over-developed queenside and a kingside retarded enough to make defensive play a relatively distant project. The positional side of the SWG is so odd it feels almost non-Euclidian at times, and I nearly always feel that I have the chance to retrieve the game, however ludicrous my errors:
Has some merit as a Gambit but I think the Smith-Morra Gambit is sounder.
Game 1485846
If I had to play an anti-Sicilian (and to be honest I'm not sure anti-Sicilians are worth the effort against the average Sicilian player with a stand-by as solid as the Open), I think I'd go for Nc3 and then maybe transpose into the Grand Prix to confuse my opponent. But the SWG is the most fun of all of them in terms of pure chess.
30 Sep 06
Originally posted by yelobIt seems quite popular--I had never considered it. In the database at chesslab.com 45% of the games opened this way were won by white, and 28% by black. The rest of the games were called because of various restroom issues. Of course, many of the games in chesslab are of dubious origin and sometimes games are repeated, but it seems like a very playable opening.
Isn't 2.Na3 supposed to be the current anti sicilian favourite,I dont know anything about it but saw it on TWIC I think.
30 Sep 06
Originally posted by AmauroteScarey stuff. White gives up a whole Rook and gets away with it. Was ... QXb1(N) not on? I have not looked at it in detail but was a6 actually necessary.
Absolutely, it's very unsound, but in terms of producing exciting chess I don't think it's much worse than the KG - nearly all of the games I've had with it have ended up with a ridiculously over-developed queenside and a kingside retarded enough to make defensive play a relatively distant project. The positional side of the SWG is so odd it feels almost no ...[text shortened]... to confuse my opponent. But the SWG is the most fun of all of them in terms of pure chess.
01 Oct 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireYes, this is possible, but Black chooses to concentrate on prophylaxis and Queen-hunting instead...a6 was inevitable at some point, he's a Nadjorf player by instinct. What interested me was that I had no particular plan in that game and no merit whatsoever in my position, I simply decided not to resign and follow the logic of the board. The logic of the SWG is that it produces some rapid queenside attacking and leaves both kings out in the open for as long as White's queenside is the issue.
Scarey stuff. White gives up a whole Rook and gets away with it. Was ... QXb1(N) not on? I have not looked at it in detail but was a6 actually necessary.
01 Oct 06
Thank you all for your responses. Been a bit busy last few days so will look through the example games & ideas as soon as I get a chance.
I've tried the wing gambit 1.e4...c5 2.b4...cxb4 3.a3...bxa3 4.Bxa3, but that just looks like my arse is way out in the breeze! You basically surrender the queenside defence for an extra move of development in the centre. Although there are good chances & I have development of e4 & the bish on a tasty long diagonal I personally don't think it's very wise against anyone 1400+ 😲