Staunton-Cochrane Sicilian, "Sicilian killer"

I decided to post my favorite defense against the Sicilian, based on a suggestion from another thread (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/i-was-really-stuck-in-the-midgame-longer-game-feedback). This particular "defense against a defense" is officially called the Staunton-Cochrane Variation of the Sicilian Defense. My assessment is that it instantly transposes a Sicilian (an e4 opening) into a Symmetrical English opening (a c4 opening), which is an unusually drawish opening, therefore I believe it's a great way to bypass the complexities and tactics of the Sicilian. I discovered it when the computer played it against me once and I thought it was a great idea.

I mostly play against computers. Three computer programs I've used have been remarkably consistent in their handling of this opening as Black: they like to leave a hole at d5, to trade off their knights early, to advance f5 but then to lock up the "f" file with f4, to advance their "a" and "b" pawns, and to advance their "h" and "g" pawns. My strategy is to draw by keeping the pawn structure symmetrical, opening only one file (the "c" file), locking up both the queenside and kingside pawns, and trading off all the major pieces on the "c" file. Once that's done, it's a guaranteed draw since the bishops can't do anything in that locked up pawn structure.

I'm still learning the in's and out's of this variation, however. As one person pointed out in another thread, other ideas for Black are to retain the knights longer and shift the KN to the queenside, and I've been wondering about trading the bad bishops for knights (BxN) instead of the usual NxN trades, and also if Black can succeed in a kingside attack by the sacrifice Bxh3 and/or lining up his rooks and queen on the "g" and "h" files where my king is. Also I haven't learned how fianchettoing the KBs affect the game, and/or moving N-K2 instead of N-KB3. So far I've never encountered such play, or analyzed it.

Just last week I learned an important nuance about this position: that it makes a big difference for White whether Black plays ...e6 versus ...e5. Basically I learned that White should play d4 whenever he can, which is the case when Black plays ...e6, so as to avoid White not having a square to which to retreat his KN when threatened by a pawn. Feel free to critique this opening and my assessment of it. I think many players might find it useful.

Note the very similar outcomes of the position even from two different computers, evidenced by the following games that ended in the type of bishops-only draw I mentioned...

And every once in a while I catch the computer making mistakes, whereupon I can win...

I have discovered the Kopec system and find it to be versatile and flexible, no matter what Sicilian line gets played against you.

.

A bit similar, sometimes I like to play it like the Botvinnik system:

And you're very flexible getting to choose between d4, b4, and f4.  Particularly I think it's fun to play with your pieces behind your pawns in the following expansion: h3, g4, Ng3, f4.

Besides my semantical complaint that you can't play a defense against the Sicilian(), there was a discussion about this line a couple months ago in the forums that I was a part of...but I can't remember what thread it was!  Real useful eh? 

But yeah this line is completely sound and I'd also play it Botvinnik style as shell_knight pointed out.  

Googled it, looks fine.  Those types of middlegames are why I like to play the 3.Bb5 stuff with white, pretty much the same type of stuff.

Thanks, ParadoxOfNone. I was unfamiliar with the Kopec system (http://www.chess.com/groups/view/the-kopec-system), but I'll look into that more. Offhand I like my system better since it's essentially no longer even an e4 opening, whereas the Kopec system still looks like an e4 opening to me.

One thread in the past month had a title about "a hexagon of pawns thing" where I posted my first game above in that thread and where I received some responses about ideas for Black, and people mentioned it was called the Botvinnik formation, but I can't find that thread now (this site doesn't facilitate search by user responses or keywords). Eventually I'll be looking at the Botvinnik system, for sure.

P.S.--I found that hexagon post:

"Hexagon of pawns" thing. (What do you call it? Is it good?)
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/quothexagon-of-pawnsquot-thing-what-do-you-call-it-is-it-good

I have tried the Botvinnik, not by conscious choice but, by instinct. I was surprised when the evaluation came back so highly regarded. I still lost the game. I used to try the same pawn structure from the Botvinnik but , with different knight formations too. I didn't utilize my knights as well apparently. I always seemed to lose games in which I got my pawns into that structure but, I wasn't as well rounded of a player then. Perhaps I should revisit the idea sometime ?

I used to think the g1 knight should still come to f3, to support a "d" pawn push and not block the queen's access to the d1-h5 diagonal. I am never too comfortable with backward center pawns and a closed bishop. I don't ordinarily go for fianchettoed systems either. I tend to think it isn't centrally as strong and wastes the bishop pair. It seems too defensive. Playing the Botvinnik seems to only be a good system if you like to play the fianchetto(s) and enjoy cat and mouse games in the center. I can't vouch for the queen side fianchetto idea. It is just a hunch that it is playable.

I prefer the Kopec system because, I am a Ruy Lopez player and it forces the game into those type of positions that I am used to and comfortable with. It is also, rather flexible. It seems like I almost never see a system that is so constant positionally, regardless of how the opponent may change their play. When you can make a mockery of your opponent's move order, it makes their long hours of studying theory moot, when they play you. It also has them thinking for nothing during your game(s) with them.

I am looking for a clever way to throw a wrench into the plans of French players. I think it would be not only a prerequisite on my part to becoming much better but, to learn it before I start trying to understand how to tear down other black defenses. The KID, Nimzo-Indian and Pirc come to mind but, dealing with Sicilian Dragon players should give me experience with that sort of basic position and subsequent variations.

Those are more good ideas, pfren. It's likely that my playing too much against computers of 1600-1800 strength is reinforcing my bad habits that aren't getting punished properly with more long-term ideas that humans would have. As I mentioned, I've just not had those ideas played against me yet, for the most part. I lost badly on Yahoo games years ago with this opening against a high-rated player, and when I analyzed my game afterward, it looked as if he had me outplayed right from the start (he played ...e6 as well), with no let-up, whereupon I almost abandoned this variation. Since I'm currently relearning my repertoire, I threw this opening idea out partly for feedback such as yours, thanks.

+10000

People cheated horribly on yahoo also. It is likely that they were deterring you from remembering good lines of play, when you kept getting smashed by engines...

Yes, Yahoo was horrible for being filled with cheaters, which is why I stopped using it and will never use it again. In this case I don't believe my opponent was cheating, however, because: (1) He had a lot of friends who were sitting in, watching our game, so he had a good reputation; (2) When I played 2. c4 he stalled a long time to think about it, whereas a computer would've likely just checked its opening book and responded right away; (3) His ideas were deep: he chose ...e6, found a fundamental weakness in my position, invaded on the "c" file, and beat me. I haven't seen any computer that could do that. Unfortunately, I don't believe I have a copy of that game anymore.

Yahoo doesn't even offer player vs player chess anymore. I am sure the cheating and cost to maintain it also played into it's demise.

You may be right but, I don't bet against the idea that cheaters weren't being called out for 100% engine matches and how quickly they made their moves, even back then. I am sure players were finding ways to cheat and not draw as much attention.

You may be also right about the issue of positional ignorance. However, it is possible they could have used a game like Chessmaster, which had characters of reduced engine strength. Even though it was a longer term gain in choosing a "weaker" move by the numbers at a shallower ply depth, I find often that the better long term moves, even have initial gains, that pay off in the short term too. Strong moves aren't exactly, initially weak, if you know what I mean.

Yahoo chess is proof that chess ability is often mutually exclusive to overall intelligence.

What an uninspirational style of chess...no offense, but i would die of boredom if i would play like the OP...

It worked fine for Karpov :P

No offense taken. I agree. My philosophy of trying to draw as White goes against most people's style, motivations, and philosophies. (My nickname at one club was "Draws," which I tried to use as my username here, but it was already taken.) The difference is that if I played such an opening against a better player I'd have a good chance of drawing (at least nowadays), whereas if you played a main line Sicilian against a better player, most likely you'd lose. That's exactly why the top players choose the Sicilian: it's a struggle in an environment where the best man usually wins. I'm trying to change the environment so that the best man has a very hard time winning. That's advice I read years ago, I believe in Chess Life, that even a medium strength player who has mastered an opening (especially a drawish one) has a good chance of drawing against *anyone*.

If I played the exchange slav against a master I would lose just as easy as if I played the slav gambit

I think I have yet to play an engine that keeps the game a draw and waits to attack you after you make a mistake. I'd prefer to emulate their attacking or equalizing style more so, than play not to lose. I'll admit, it did work for Karpov and Petrosian (playing drawishly, not necessarily the Caro-Kann in Petrosian's case). Perhaps Karpov would have bested Kasparov more often, if he'd have been more proactive with black ?

Yes, I've been thinking about Karpov and Petrosian more lately, because I'm learning that their philosophy was the same as mine, which I didn't know until recently. I really didn't like Karpov's style because it was *so* defensive that he usually lost the initiative, which goes against Fischer's (and my) belief that there is one best move in each position, and I like to play that optimal move. Where my philosophy differs from Fischer's is that the meaning of "best" depends on your goal. Fischer's goal was to win with either color, my goal is to draw with either color (*unless* my opponent makes a mistake!). Therefore the best 2nd move for White in the Sicilian if you're trying to win is 2. Nf3, but I claim the best 2nd move for White in the Sicilian if you're trying to draw is 2. c4. As a more general statement, I believe players should first adopt a philosophy before adopting openings, because the latter depends on the former.

The sicilian is refuted by the wing gambit 2.b4 so I'm not sure why it's even played anymore.