Statistically, it's a slight edge for White, but drawish overall. Is it because Bobby Fischer popularized it? Why is it remarkable when I don't see it in high ELO matches?
"drawish overall"
its how top players create imbalances without losing in 2 moves
its how top players create imbalances without losing in 2 moves
It's imbalanced, interesting and can lead to very dynamic positions, which might be what black wants to overcome the imbalance of white going first
blacks want to win
Statistically, it's Black's best scoring defence to 1.e4. White has no advantage. The downside is of course that there is a lot of theory to know, or at least be aware of, if you want to play it successfully.
Once again we have to summon old master Michael Stean. It's 42 years old! Could be written yesterday.
"Minority attacks derive from the Pawn structure, Pawn structures derive from the opening. Go back to the eras of Capablanca and Alekhine and you will see Queen's Gambits, hoards of them, with hoards of minority attacks descending from them. Nowadays [1978; still relevant] the Sicilian Defense is all the rage. Sicilians here, Sicilians there, Sicilians absolutely everywhere. Why this saturation with Sicilians? Does the Mafia's influence really extend this far? The answer lies in the minority attack. The whole idea of the Sicilian is for Black to trade his c Pawn for the d Pawn. White almost invariably obliges: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (or d6 or e6 or g6) 3.d4 cxd4, when Black immediately arrives at a minority attack Pawn structure. Half-open c file, extra central pawn, 2-3 minority on the Queenside; these are all the necessary ingredients. Sounds infallible, so where's the snag? Why doesn't Black win every game? The problem is of course that White has a lead in development in the early stages, which may prove difficult to survive. Black's prospects lie later in the game when the winds of White's initiative have blown themselves out."
The structural weaknesses White accepts because he is trying to avoid Black's plan to launch a minority attack to get a winning endgame and must attack. They are not the cause of Black having winning endgames (otherwise White wouldn't weaken his position in such a way); merely they are a symptom of him having to attack the Black King. The root cause of this is the minority attack, and this is why most Sicilian endgames are winning for him. The minority attack is also a theme in any Rook endgames, so it's not just a late middlegame idea."
"Minority attacks derive from the Pawn structure, Pawn structures derive from the opening. Go back to the eras of Capablanca and Alekhine and you will see Queen's Gambits, hoards of them, with hoards of minority attacks descending from them. Nowadays [1978; still relevant] the Sicilian Defense is all the rage. Sicilians here, Sicilians there, Sicilians absolutely everywhere. Why this saturation with Sicilians? Does the Mafia's influence really extend this far? The answer lies in the minority attack. The whole idea of the Sicilian is for Black to trade his c Pawn for the d Pawn. White almost invariably obliges: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (or d6 or e6 or g6) 3.d4 cxd4, when Black immediately arrives at a minority attack Pawn structure. Half-open c file, extra central pawn, 2-3 minority on the Queenside; these are all the necessary ingredients. Sounds infallible, so where's the snag? Why doesn't Black win every game? The problem is of course that White has a lead in development in the early stages, which may prove difficult to survive. Black's prospects lie later in the game when the winds of White's initiative have blown themselves out."
The structural weaknesses White accepts because he is trying to avoid Black's plan to launch a minority attack to get a winning endgame and must attack. They are not the cause of Black having winning endgames (otherwise White wouldn't weaken his position in such a way); merely they are a symptom of him having to attack the Black King. The root cause of this is the minority attack, and this is why most Sicilian endgames are winning for him. The minority attack is also a theme in any Rook endgames, so it's not just a late middlegame idea."
@DonTomaso : For instance 1...e5 is also full of theory. I don't see a downside here.
Stockfish likes to advice it as the best reaction to E4.
However, when I play sicilian I tend to lose, it contradicts with my playstyle around piece development and offense.
However, when I play sicilian I tend to lose, it contradicts with my playstyle around piece development and offense.
Many find it cool even though they gasp for space and development after 5 moves in every game they play . They don't know the traps at move 2 but they play simply for the sake of it .
#6 - this is why the standard joke is that if black manages to equalise in the Sicilian then they're probably winning, right?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.