Wiki re: Sicilian Defence

Below is a link to the wiki on the Sicilian Defence (1.e4 c5):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence

One obscure point not mentioned is that after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3, and then 2...e6 or 2...Nc6, White can play 3.c3 (instead of 3.d4 to get an Open Sicilian), to try to get to an Alapin Sicilian (2.c3) line - one where Black's second move has deprived him of some options that he could have used if White began with 2.c3; in turn, White is already committed to playing Nf3, by his choice at move two, but in the Alapin White seldom does without playing Nf3 early on (still, he has lost such an option, however slightly he may regret it).

So, it might be argued that after 2.Nf3, Black's most principled move to get some sort of Open Sicilian variation would be 2...d6 (since 3.c3 doesn't have to lead to a normal Alapin line), even though that cuts out quite a number of Open Sicilian variations Black might play that can start with 2...e6 or 2...Nc6. One solution to this slightly vexing 'bureaucratic' issue that may bug you or your coach (due to Alapin players being possible opponents at some point) is to have at least one 2...d6 Open Sicilian variation in your repertoire as Black, even if you also play a 2...e6 or 2...Nc6 variation, so you can use everything vs. the Alapin if you wish. Alternatively, you might always play the same variation(s) vs. the Alapin proper (2.c3) as Black as you would if the game started with 2.Nf3 e6 (or 2...Nc6) 3.c3, even though you may at least initially feel slightly irked that you are missing extra paths you could take as Black if White started with 2.c3 instead.

Repertoire books of the subject matter type Beating the Sicilian (i.e. advocating White side of Open Sicilians) have interested me over the years, even though I now as a veteran play Anti-Sicilians at least as much (easier on study time and the nerves, and Kaufman, plus his engine, has recommended some). Shaw rejects Anti-Sicilians as not putting enough pressure on Black, but immediate pressure is not everything in chess.

Shaw's Playing 1.e4 series deals with Sicilian Main Lines in one volume (sidelines by Black are lumped in with the French volume). The book does the expected (= hatchet job) to uncommon-at-elite-level 'main lines' that include Four Kts, Lowenthal, Kalashnikov and Accelerated Dragon (the latter the only one with any sort of history of success for Black at elite level, although success has often been just a draw for the second player). The Sveshnikov has fallen on hard times due to the positional main lines - Black is pretty well fighting to avoid facing more than a micro-disadvantage if White knows what to do, and hardly wins anymore at elite level. The cornerstone of the Sicilian, the Scheveningen, by the traditional move order (and as a whole), has become marginalized, mostly due to the Keres Attack (6.g4 - when objectively best is no doubt 6...h6 - I think Black has a sporting chance, fwiw), although this book advocates the English Attack setup wherever it can be used (Scheveningen players can avoid the Keres by tricky move orders, too, although these can have drawbacks). The book likes White's practical chances, without finding a true theoretical edge a purist would demand. It's a similar story with the Najdorf English (6.f3 e5) but here Shaw often loves White's position in endgames, in spite of 0.00 by engine(s) - here I've looked a bit myself (with Houdini alongside), and with CA16 database, and there are various interesting tries to avoid the book's analysis before said endgames arise. The book doesn't give Black much respect in the Classical variation vs. the English Attack, but this seems (to this old-timer) hard to trust - I meant to check a number of things, if I ever hope to play the Classical as Black.

The book does give respect to the so-called Taimanov (aka Paulsen, really), but notes Black faces ample dangers. There is no respect for the Kan shown (due to 5.c4), some of the abuse simply being verbal expression of faith in the White side, but CA16 database and Houdini both comfort me with numerous ideas for Black in a number of lines, as I play this defence now and then. The Dragon historically goes in and out of theoretical trouble, but barely looks okay to me, in spite of what the book says. It advocates the 9.0-0-0 Yugoslav, when, sadly, 9...Nxd4 and 9...Be6 (besides other, weird, sidelines) look thoroughly refuted. I have some hopes for 9...Bd7, but clearly the main line is 9...d5 - not much respect for it shown by the book, but between older books I have and some computer insights, I keep hope for Black (it's another Sicilian I use at times).