Move 2

[Brian-E]

Firstly, henryzz, apologies in advance if starting a new topic to discuss our move 2 is not your intended format, and please moderate as appropriate!

We have a Sicilian, 1.e4 c5.

How do people feel about the type of game we want to steer for? Should it be highly theoretical, as many Sicilian lines are? Or should we deliberately steer clear of sharp theoretical lines? My own slight preference is for the latter, because simply looking up the latest theory has always bored me in correspondence chess. I've always been one for going "out of the book" as soon as possible as long as it doesn't damage the chances of initiative with White.

Naturally 2.Nf3 is a candidate move, and the main theoretical lines start from there.

The gambit 2.d4 is popular in some circles. I suggest it is a bit unwise in a correspondence game, though, unless anyone has a new idea in this variation.

My preference would be a move like 2.Nc3, or 2.c3. Both lead to reasonable prospects of opening advantage without going down the over-heavily analysed, sharply theoretical lines.

I am, naturally, expecting the rest of you to disagree and put your own ideas forward. Let's discuss it!:smile:

[henryzz]

Don't worry about starting the thread before me. You have probably done a better job.

My first instinct after looking at the Sicilian wikipedia page for a while is that 75% of people make the move Nf3 for a reason. The theory does seem more developed for this variation than any other.
I need to experiment on a board with Nc3 a bit before I make any sort of decision. Nf3 is my normal move.

[richs]

I like the Nc3 line of play. As Brian mentions, it is not as analyzed as the Nf3 response and may throw our opponets off a bit. It also tneds to a more open, active board. And Henry, for sure we will definitely have to be planning where we go with this.

[Zeta-Flux]

If we want to get off book, we can always do 2. Qh5?! :-)

My vote is for Nc3. I've never done well against the Sicilian, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

[henryzz]

Where do we plan to go from nc3? As far as I can tell it often goes to a closed sicilian which means we will want to attack on the flanks.

[Brian-E]

[QUOTE=henryzz;314006]Where do we plan to go from nc3? As far as I can tell it often goes to a closed sicilian which means we will want to attack on the flanks.[/QUOTE]
The "closed sicilian", indeed what I would have in mind if we played Nc3 (though the move is still extremely flexible and can lead to other variations, which is also perfectly true of 2.Nf3 by the way), has good potential of unleashing a devastating attack on an unsuspecting Black king if Black is lulled into a false sense of security and plays too passively. Our pieces might initially develop behind pawns on d3, e4, f4 and g3 (fianchettoed bishop on g2), but this pawn front is mobile and dangerous, and pawn breaks such as f4-f5 or e4-e5 or g3-g4-g5 may be in the air. So "closed" can become "open" very easily in this opening. The main difference between this plan and sharper variations of the open Sicilian like the Najdorf, Taimanov, Scheveningen, etc is that Black is more likely to have to plan their own defence and counter-attacks instead of looking the moves up on Wikipedia.

[henryzz]

richs and zeta-flux have said before the discussion finished that they liked Nc3. They haven't voted in the poll. Should I count this? Only 1 of them needs to vote for Nc3 anyway since it is 2-0 currently. Should I have started the poll earlier?

[Brian-E]

I would say you got it about right with the poll. We need to discuss things first, after all.

As you say, richs and Zeta-Flux have also advocated 2.Nc3, more or less definitively. So it looks as if we have complete agreement. It's your call, but in my opinion we (you) are ready to PM Batalov with our move.:smile:

[Zeta-Flux]

In the future, if my discussion matches the majority vote, feel free to count it. :-)