Is there a decent book that explains the sicilian? Something that doesn’t go in too deep, but geared toward someone in the 1300 range.
I looked at a few books on the sicilian, and most of them are for specific lines, and the the books mostly just jump to move 4 to 6, and don’t explain the first few moves at all.
I"ve been playing the sicilian fairly regular on FICS recently, and have gotten some mixed results. -Enough that I keep playing it. But I mostly just memorized a few different move orders for the first few moves. I don’t really know why those particular move orders are used though.
-And also, at my level, I’d presume I get out of book post haste anyway. Be a miracle if I played the sicilian and me and my opponent actually stayed in book for more than 4 or 5 moves.
I would also be interested in what books on the Sicilian may be out there aimed at players with lower ratings. (I also wonder if that is a self-evident contradiction. There’s so much out there in the Sicilian that just grasping its scope is an exercise. For example, if one asked what books are out there on the Open Game or Closed Game for lower rated players…
One book I’ve considered purchasing is the Starting Out: Sicilian, but this is solely on description and title.
I’ve been told it’s a real challenge to write opening books and instructional articles aimed at lower rated players, because many of them (as a 1400 player I should probably say ‘us’) don’t understand positional chess well enough to know what to do with a slight edge that might arise from a particular opening variation.
I’m reminded of a comment Bruce Pandolfini made at a national scholastic some years ago. In one game on the high boards in the next to last round, Bruce told me that player X was going to lose the game, even though he had a small positional advantage at the time. What Bruce predicted was that the player would get impatient and try to break through prematurely on the queenside, which wouldn’t work. He was right, too.
What do people think of Reuben Fine’s book “The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings”?
It’s an excellent book. Unfortunately many lower-rated players think memorizing variations is some sort of magic charm. Understanding what you’re doing is more important.
In the opening, or playing chess at all? Or perhaps life in general?
But seriously… I agree with what you’re saying.
But also, in my opinion, one problem for lower-rated players is the lack of a semantic map to understand “what one is doing.” And, equally important, what one’s opponent is doing. Most of the many games I lose occur because I have failed to have a correct understanding of the board situation - I thought I knew what I was doing, but I turned out to be wrong. And I have also won games in lost positions because my understanding of the board turned out to be more correct than my opponent’s.
While books/coaches/teachers/software/you-name-it may help to fill in those meanings this takes time, effort, and usually money. (Duh, LV!) As one is starting out in lower levels, there may well be concrete value in studying and memorizing a few variations, so that one has a reasonable chance of getting a playable middle game. And do so in a way that does not cause one to lose on time.
We all know there are no magic wands in Chess - that’s one of the reasons I play. But I also feel that the current overall trend in instruction amounts to, “never memorize variations until you’re an intermediate player - study ideas instead.” (Which is not what I think you were saying, but rather my take on this advice being repeated to every new player.) And that, in and of itself, is simply recommending one magic wand over another.
It is something that needs to be said. (And, as I said, I agree that understanding is more important than rote memorization.) Two questions, though. Players on their way up at some point do in fact study specific opening lines, correct? Why?
Why should lower rated players study specific opening lines?
One answer may be that several prominent authors recommend it, though they may intend that advice for higher rated readers.
Beyond that, there’s probably nothing inherently WRONG with doing it, though it may be a less than efficient effort if the player doesn’t fully understand WHY certain lines are better than others, which goes back to the point about understanding what to do with a position once you reach it.
Also, it probably is prudent to know some of the traps and pitfalls in the openings you play.
I think they do this because they get tired of losing!
Of course, most games are lost by tactical blunders at the lower levels, but even there it is an annoying to get a lousy position out of the opening and be under pressure the whole game.
I don’t study openings much, but I try to learn some of the major ones, so that my games don’t get boring. I mean, other than playing 1. d4 almost exclusively as white… but after move 1, (as white), there are a LOT of different lines I can play. I guess my main lines with black are the sicilian, french, and indian lines.
I just happen to like those lines. I got tired of the French though. I don’t play it much nowadays.
