Anti Sicilian

exactly.

Actually that's not bullying. He made very fair points of which you didn't respond a single one of them.

In 1997 Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. From then on engines have improved at a quicker pace than humans. The strongest engine is almost 3500, and that's with opening databases and endgame tablebases so statistically it's impossible for a human to be "at least 3300." Engines still have trouble understanding concepts like fortresses and although their positional play has improved since the Deep Blue days there are still anti-computer techniques which show there are still flaws in our engines. 

Also, 3-4 hours a day isn't lazy by any standard. That's roughly 1/4th of their time spent awake. So unless they wish to have no life, then yes 3-4 hours is lazy. 

Asking for games you've played is also a fair question. Anyone can claim anything standing behind a computer being anonymous. I'm far from perfect, but at least I don't hide my real personality, I sometimes post my otb games on my blog here that no one reads, and I play USCF rated events here which prove I at least am not a fake person.

And your claim that is "I'm top 5-10% in the world" is laughable, mainly because there is a big difference between 5% and 10%. I had read in an article by chessbase that 99 percentile is about 2050ish FIDE. So given the current rating slope, being in the 90-95 percentile would have to be about somewhere between 1800-1850 FIDE, so claiming to be in the 2250-2300 rating range is laughable at the very least.

Also people improve at rapid rates, but with time that improvement slows down, but I'm sure you know about the law of diminishing returns, right?

Also the part of being rejected by women has no relevance to this discussion which according to what I've learned in behavioral psychology getting off topic is an attempt to distract someone from their lies and/or mischief. 

And finally, you claimed that person was being a bully, however your final three sentences show that the bully is in fact you.

Call down people, I dont want any fighting on my thread, now tell me interesting replies to the sicilian, so far the wing gambit is winning.

Those guys and their big egos, find something better to do instead of dreaming to be the next Carlsen.

Oh this is fun. Where do I start? With the fact that you still ignored every point made that's involving chess. You're just replying to the parts that have nothing to do with chess, the topic in hand, which is normal behaviour for someone that isn't being fully honest. 

Secondly, being in the 90-95th percentile is about 1800-1850FIDE, so your math must be wrong.

But ok, say you're right, explain this to me. You say you were 2000ish in 1989, and so you were absent from chess for about 23 years, and for two years have been studying 12-16 hours a day, right? Those up to right now are your words. Now, you also said the average GM studies for about 3-4 hours a day or 1/4th of their time spent awake. You spend at least 3/4ths of your time studying, or in other words 3 times as much as an average GM. Magnus Carlsen got his GM title in about 5 years (time starting since his first tournament). Say Carlsen studied about 4 hours a day (he was a kid, so he also went to school excluding 1 year he didnt).Using our logic, since you have studied about 3 times as much as an average GM using the most modest calculations(12/4) rather than (16/4) you have studied the equalent of 6 years Magnus studied when he got his GM title (5 years), and you're still stuck at 2250. So there must be something wrong with your studying habits. Also, going back to my second sentence, you were 2000 in 1989, so in 2 years of wasting most of your time spent awake with chess, you have only managed to get 250 rating points? Hmmm.. I guess there must be something wrong there as well. 

But who am I to judge?

Hey Mero Manito, stop playing the sabelotodo game  . Now give me some openings and go to eat some tacos to relax.

TLTR!

Im rated close to you so take my advice with a grain of salt, but I personally have been going back and forth between Smith morra gambit and open Sicilian and just trying to learn from my games in both. When I win or lose, I look for what circumstances changed the tide of the game and you'll see common themes. I don't study much theory either though I'm sure thats the best way to improve in any aspect of chess, but you can learn a lot from your own games! You can even try Sicilian yourself when you play black and see what works against you. Best of luck!

You have made a couple more false statements, like saying 1900 in 1990 is a 1400 today. That could not be any more false. At sub IM level the engines haven't really made any impact. A 1900 back then is still a 1900 today. I have older friends (people born in the 70s) than me and when we have argued about competition then and now they all have said the same thing; it's almost the same. In fact, Kasparov last played in 05 and 12 years later he's almost as strong as he was back then (assuming, based on his blitz and rapid performance, we can't know for sure unless he plays classical). 

In addition to that, you also claimed the game of chess is solved, which simply isn't true. Today the best we have is a 7 man tablebase. It will be ages until we have a 32 man tablebase. Checkers is solved, so is Connect Four, but chess is no where near close to being solved.

About Carlsen and Nakamura not improving anymore, that's not because they don't study enough, or they have too many distractions but because up to today the human mind can only do so much. All the chess knowledge has been acquired over generations, and will keep doing so. Next generation's GMs will very likely be stronger than these GMs, not because these GMs aren't competent enough, but rather because they have more games to look at, and simply more chess information available to them, either opening novelties, tablebases with more men than 7, or stronger engines. This disproves your theory that players hit a wall because of "poor foundation". The players hit a wall because there is only so much information available to them. 

You also said that Carlsen equally sucks at every opening and only plays [expletive] like the London, which in fact isn't true. Carlsen for the most part is willing to go the dangerous waters of the Ruy Lopez and Sicilian, which are the two openings he plays the most often with both colours according to chessgames (almost 500 games with the Sicilian and over 300 with the Ruy). 

And your claim that Carlsen's book is 2400 is absurd. Over the years Carlsen has given some interesting novelties on some of the most theoretical openings. A 2400 opening book couldn't possibly do that. And Carlsen didn't just improve like that in 5 years because of "perfecting your mediocrity". Carlsen after reaching his GM title in 04 took him only 3 more years to reach 2700. In 8 years since his first tournament hand a sub 1000 rating he was 2700+. He was trained by Kasparov a World Champ that revolutionized chess, not by whatever perfecting your mediocrity means.

And finally, your accomplishments sound great, and some seem plausible and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but when it comes to your chess you have said a lot of inaccurate things and I can't believe what you say without proof.

Just a P.S. In post #58 you said "Anyone who wants to watch me play can do so" Well, I want to watch you play, what chess site do you play and what is your username so I can see?

Is "good" a yes-or-no thing or a matter of degree? Is "investing time" a yes-or-no thing or a matter of degree? Does anyone have the right to decide for everyone what counts as "good", what counts as "lazy", etc.? If someone is paying an employee, that gives the person the right to decide whether or not a job is being done satisfactorily, but what if we are talking about an activity that is not for a boss?

"... simplicity  and economy ... are the characteristics of the opening systems of many great masters. They do not strain unduly for advantages in the opening; they would just as soon move on to the next phase of the game, hoping their skill will overcome the opponent in the middlegame or endgame. ... the most complicated variations demand huge amounts of time for home analysis, time available only to professional chess players. ... I will discuss here only openings and defenses that in my opinion offer simplicity and economy. ... The Dragon and Najdorf Variations ... have been analyzed to twenty moves and more; if a player without adequate preparation walks into an analyzed sequence he may lose even to a weaker opponent. Under no circumstances should you handle these variations in serious games  unless you are a professional chess player with unlimited time for study. ... [After 1 e4 c5,] I suggest that you consider ...: the wing gambits with [b4] (but of course not everyone likes to sacrifice a pawn); or [c3] followed by [d4]; or variations with [Bb5] ([2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5], or [2 Nf3 d6 3 Bb5+]); or systems with [g3] ([2 Nf3 e6 3 d3 d5 4 Nbd2] followed by [g3]) with transposition to the King's Indian Attack. Among the systems in which [g3] is played, best known is the Closed Sicilian ([2 Nc3] and [3 g3]), ... " - GM Lajos Portisch (1974)

"... I almost always answer 1.e4 with 1...c5, and the move 2.Nf3 is chosen against me in less than half of my games. So I would like to dispel immedeiately the illusion that the sidelines are unimportant and rarely seen. ..." - GM Evgeny Sveshnikov (2014)

Is it you? Tell yes or no.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170514061810/https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Ray_Gordon

You don't need to play the open sicilian just to beat class players. It's not until you get good enough to have people need to prepare for you that you should even consider questioning your opening decisions barring things that are just unsound.

Yes, I want to experiment, thanks, those games are so creative .

Any ideas for 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 d5? I couldn't find anything good for White.

If 1. e4 c5 2. Na3 d5 just playing exd5 is good for white because if black recaptures with the queen white develops with tempo via Nf3-Bc4 and then strikes in the center with d4, or if Nf6 trying to recapture with the knight then Bb5+ and d4 if the knight blocks or c4 if the bishop blocks.