Hey guys. I've migrated away from playing 1e4, mostly because I hate going against the Najdorf Sicilian:

1e4 c5 2Nf3 d6 3d4 cxd4 4Nxd4 Nf6 5Nc3 a6...

I've played a little bit of the 6Be3 line, with black either playing 6... e5, Ng4, or e6. Maybe this is my best overall option with the idea of setting up with f3, castling queenside and attacking the kingside. I've actually done ok with this setup in the past, so maybe I should stick with it.

I've also played a Be2 and 0-0 setup, but it seems that black slowly is able to shatter my queenside and hang in against my kingside attack.

I've avoided 6Bg5 because there is so much theory that I would expect most Najdorf players to know. When the opening is known 20 moves deep by a lot of players, I tend to avoid it.

I've seen a few GMs play 6a4, but it seems to be a very drawish line.

For any of you that play open Sicilian with white, what do you play against the Najdorf?

I suggest you play Be3,Be2,0-0,f4,a4 setup (maybe not in this order). It doesn't require huge amounts of theory and is solid and at the same time good for a win. Karpov is probably the biggest exponent of this system and I suggest you study his games. There was also a game against between Mam (can't spell his name) and Gelfand I believe in the Dortmund 2007 tournament where black tried something different with Rc8 instead of Na5 which is usual. This allowed a4-a5 and white got a great game.

If you like you could show us some games of yours where you play this. It could be that you missunderstand the ideas and don't get to the positions you like.

Good luck

Shakhriyar Mamedyarov.

I know some people who use the Smith-Morra successfully up at the expert/master level. Before giving up 1.e4, I'd consider giving up the open sicilian.

My practical results went up a tremendous amount when I stopped playing the open sicilian.

Not the answer you were looking for, but hopefully food for thought.

c3 sicilian is not good enough for a win if black knows just a little theory, closed sicilian isn't very challenging either, morra you have to know some theory aswell and everyone don't like playing a pawn down. If there was something simple that gave good results against the sicilian I would dump the open right away but I haven't found anything satisfactory yet. What do you play that gives you so good results?

I switched to the Smith-Morra (I don't know what my USCF rating would be these days. I'm about 2000 standard on FICS). But switching to the Smith-Morra was party of a general move away from having to pay attention to opening theory that resulted in my rating shooting up over 100 points on FICS.

The Morra has a really bad reputation, which, in my opinion, is not justified. Black often gets "equality" but it's a dynamic equality with white having persistent compensation for the pawn, and black's wins are all about nurturing that extra pawn into the endgame.

At my level, I really don't understand the concept of "not being able to play for a win" in almost any opening except the most sterile. The c3 - and if you play the morra there are a couple of transpositions you have to deal with into the c3 - gives both sides plenty of dynamic play.

I'm not a big gambit player, either. I've been looking into various Sicilian options lately, too, and there are a few that haven't been mentioned yet in this thread. There's the Grand Prix Attack, where white plays 2. Nc3 and 3. f4 (see the Correspondence games thread for an example of Phobetor playing this in a game here). There's also the 3. Bb5 lines.

Someone around here even mentioned an oddball variation that I've never seen anywhere else: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4!? Nc6 5. Bb5 with 6. Bxc6 on the next move. Obviously, this only works if black plays 2. ... d6 instead of 2. ... Nc6. This line is probably objectively weaker than other options, but below the master level, each player's comfort level with the opening is more important than how strong the opening really is.

Personally, after looking into all these various lines, I've pretty much decided that I'll play just about anything, including the open lines. Instead of fearing openings with heavy theory, I like to dive in head first, lose a few games to players with superior knowledge, but learn along the way. As long as you compare your games afterwards to how GM's would play, you'll learn the theory, sometimes the hard way. After a while, you'll know these opening lines as well as your opponents. I'd rather spend my time becoming better at tactics and endgames than researching what opening moves to play.

--Fromper

The Najdorf Defence of the Sicilian:
The system does not appear in Fine's PCO. But in later MCO's, Russian Opening Manuals, German Manuals (Schwarz's Opening series) and Euwe's
monograph entire chapters were written on the subject.
Bobby Fischer used to play a Sozin like variation against the Najdorf.
On one occasion tried 6.h3 (which never caught on).
The idea of every opening is not the opening but the concept.
Rapid development, mobility of pieces, Pawn Structure, and a plan of action.
For the rest of us, the Sicilian as a whole provides good results for Black.
Almost at one time 46% of the time. (Much higher than other openings).
Whenever you have a problem playing against an opening the problem:
1. You do not know how to play against it.
2. At what stage do you develop a plan.
3. What is White's idea, and Black's idea.
Note in 1959 at Bled Fischer when visiting Spassky saw a Russian Magazine
on Spassky's table, and asked to borrow it. He used the ideas in the Magazine to defeat Olafsson. In a match against Reshevsky, (A Sicilian)
Fischer lured Reshevsky into a trap and won Reshevsky's Queen in about 9 moves. (He took the moves from a USSR Chess magazine).
For the rest of us today:
Get a book on openings that explains Openings.
Secondly, go to Chesslive.de and enter the opening moves, games in that opening will be located. Play over the GM games. (There are many garbage games
on the website).
Thirdly, do not copy moves for any openings. Understand the concept.
Fourthly, a whole lot of advice from a Batsford book:
Petrosian: Ignorance leads to disappointment. In other words if you do not study an opening, and understand the concept, you will be disappointed (by loss).
Evans: 1. concenetrate. 2. Think ahead. 3. Learn from your losses.
4. Study.
See also Kotov's How to Think like a Chessmaster. It is deep but a learning
experience. (From the book a quote from Alekhine - never copy moves from Grandmasters (( without knowing why))).
Another idea is to develop "trees for your moves. If you move there, my
opponent will move ..... Visualize the possibilities of moves.

I don't know. It seems to me that people who play the Najdorf or the Dragon specialize in it enough that you can lose a lot of games without learning enough to play it well simply by comparing your deviations to grandmaster games.

Merely looking at where you deviated is not enough. And, without dedicated study, it's a challenge to keep on top of the myriad transpositions. Similar moves in slightly different positions have an nasty habit of having really different repurcussions in the open sicillian.

Fromper, you said you're about 1400, right, and focusing on your tactics.

I know you said you don't like gambits, but I think you should play them. I think you need to learn how to play them, because gambits throw into high relief the problems you have to solve as a developing player. You'll also get games which will help focus your tactical practice onto practical positions.

I wrote in another thread - and only you can say if this applies to you or not - that a lot of player eschew attacking play because they're afraid of it. But you can't be good at chess if you don't know how to attack, so you have to get over that fear and get the experience of playing - and winning - wild, open games.

Only then will it make sense to consider whether another approach is right for you. But if you're not comfortable with open, attacking play, then your game has a major hole it in that you will not be able to hide. Closed games can become open ones in a hurry, and you have to be able to open it up yourself if doing so is favorable for you.

I don't always completely avoid all gambits. But I've had people recommend gambits at times, and I try them without really understanding them, and it ends up just being me losing a pawn for nothing.

I don't mind giving up a pawn if I do understand how it leads to an attack. For instance, as noted in the Giuoco Piano game thread, I play the early e5 lines of the Giuoco Piano and Two Knights a lot as white, where I often end up never retaking the black pawn on d4, because I'm too busy attacking. I've also been trying out the recent recommendation here on Chess Forums to try the Scotch Gambit, which sometimes transposes into the Italian/Two Knights positions I already know.

I guess I just don't "get" the Smith-Morra Gambit. I don't understand how it leads to a worthwhile attack, because I've never really studied it, and I've got better things to study right now.

--Fromper