Sicilian Defence (Closed Sicilian)

2. Nc3 is the chief "Anti-Sicilian", the main sideline to 2. Nf3. White avoids opening the position (for now at least) and avoids the more theoretical main lines that follow 2. Nf3 and 3. d4. White may yet open the position, but White's second move suggests the possibility of playing a closed, manoeuvring way instead.

There are several approaches for White to keep the position closed:

• In the "traditional" way, White fianchettos the king side bishop to g2, from where it can pressure the centre. Then they can play moves like d3, Be3, O-O, and try to achieve f4 & f5 and attack on the kingside. Black meanwhile often attacks on the queenside.
• The other approach to develop the bishop along the a6-f1 diagonal first before they close the pawn chain with d3. This idea is seen in the Grand Prix attack, where White plays an early f4 (2...Nc6 3. f4, then e.g. 3...g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Bb5), or as a common move 3 sideline (2...Nc6 3. Bb5).

2. Nc3 supports either plan, f4 or g3, by controlling the d5 square (compare to 2. f4 or 2. g3, where in response to either the critical move is 2...d5!).

2...Nc6 is the most common reply. This develops a piece, controls the d4 and e5 squares, and avoids making a (committal) pawn move until White has shown more of their hand on move 3. For instance, Black may wish to play ...g6 and ...Bg7 against the traditional closed Sicilian with 3. g3 and 4. Bg3, but ...e6 and ...d5 against the Grand Prix attack with 3. f4.

2...d6 is also very reasonable. This opens an avenue to develop the queen side bishop and controls the e5 square (making it easier for Black to play ...Nf6). This avoids playing 2...Nc6: because 2. Nc3 only suggests the possibility of playing a closed position, if Black doesn't respond in whatever way they would have responded to 2. Nf3, they risk being "move-ordered" into a Sicilian they don't play. By delaying ...Nc6, if White transposes back to an open Sicilian with 3. Nf3 and 4. d4, Black has kept the option of playing the Najdorf variation, in which the knight does not come to c6.

2...e6 opens a line of development for the king side bishop. Black prepares to meet either the Grand Prix 3. f4 or the traditional closed Sicilian 3. g3 with 3...d5!, where Black is thought to be equal. Therefore it is usual for White to transpose back into an open Sicilian instead, and Black has to be prepared to play an e6 line like the Kan or Taimanov.

A number of other sidelines are possible, e.g. 2...a6 intending 3...b5 or 2...b6?! intending ...Bb7, but these often only transpose into an open Sicilian where Black is stuck playing eccentrically. 2...g6 is interesting in that, should White transpose into the open, they have to play against the Hyperaccelerated Dragon without the option of the best line, c4.

2...Nf6?!, already an irregular move in the open Sicilian, is worse here because after 3. e5 it has nowhere to go but back to b8.

Some people reserve the name "closed Sicilian" strictly for the approach where White fianchettos, for instance the move order 2...Nc6 3. g3. Most databases classify 2. Nc3 as the start of the closed Sicilian. Other analysts have used the name more generally and include several move orders that avoid d4, including 2. g3 (otherwise known as the Lasker-Dunne attack, 2. g3 plays similarly but White retains the option of c3 & d4), 2. d3 and 2. b3.^[1]

The closed Sicilian is popular among players wishing to avoid main line theory, or those who agree with Bent Larsen that giving up a central pawn for the c-pawn must surely be bad on positional grounds alone:^[2]

Almost everybody plays 3 P-Q4 [3. d4]. But isn’t this a positional error? I am not joking. I like my center pawns, and I like a QP [d pawn] better than a QBP [c pawn]! I know that sometimes White sacrifices a Knight on Q5 [d5] or K6 [e6] and smashes Black before he can castle, but in those games where this has been done, haven’t improvements always been found for Black afterward? Well then, isn’t 3 P-Q4 something like a cheap trap? I know it can be combined with purely strategical ideas, but I find it easier to discuss strategy when I have an extra center pawn! (emphasis added)

An early adopter of 2. Nc3 was Louis Paulsen, who played it in his 1862 match series against Adolf Anderssen.^[3] By the 20th century it was a favourite of many top players with White, including Boris Spassky.^[4]

For explanation of theory tables, see theory table and for notation, see algebraic notation.

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3

When contributing to this Wikibook, please follow the Conventions for organization.

Wikipedia has related information at Sicilian Defence.

• Kasparov, Garry, & Keene, Raymond 1989 Batsford chess openings 2. ISBN 0-8050-3409-9.