Which is better? Caro-Kann or Sicillian?

silly defense and the karen can......

LOL, the Karen-Can Defense! That will make you lose out of frustration over its obnoxiousness!

karen can defense: manager variation

Poisitions where a human would suffer in are practically indefnesible. You seem to be very reliant on this specific variation of the Philidor. It is little played at a high level because black has little reason to go for these lines when they can play more solid Spanish or Italian setups without hte possibility of loosing. However, even at the highest level, the Harham can be a good surprise weapon, a dangerous one might I add, in faster time controls. See Praggnanandhaa, R. vs Wei Yi where black successfully implemented the right queenside plan and went on to win convincingly. Just because an opening in your opinion looks "no fun" and "barely playable" doesnt mean that that is the case. Again, its your lack of experience that leads to such a faulty evaluation.

If we were to stretch the definition of compensation to fit the Alekhine, then in a similar way, black has compensation in the "passive" Harham Philidor in the form of a more stable centre and mobile queenside play. Again, my previous arguements "Understanding of the pawn structures, endgames, positions, basic theory, etc. all allow more experienced players to not only hold but win these seemingly passive 0.6 positions lesser experienced players, like yourself, may categorize as impossibly difficult to play in." still holds true.

As for the Grunfeld and KID, my arguement is that evaluations like 0.6 should be thrown out the door entirely. The position, is just that, an even position. The only advantage you give for white is the big centre, but that is all it is, a big centre. You argue that "One should qualitatively examine the position and see that one gets something practical, like dynamic compensation against whatever the computer thinks is so good for white, to work with." and while I agree that such a perspective is applicable to more sharper 1.0 positions, at 0.6, the position is just even with both sides having different plans and goals.

"Poisitions where a human would suffer in are practically indefnesible."

So the answer is yes, you are trying to strawman me. You're taking what I'm actually saying and trying to shift it into what you want me to be saying in order to refute that.

"You seem to be very reliant on this specific variation of the Philidor."

Reliant on? I mention the variation by way of a concrete example and now you want to frame me as being "reliant on" it. I picked it because I picked two contrasting examples to fit what I was saying about a +0.6 eval, one that was rather dynamic, the Benko, and the other that was rather passive, the Philidor Hanham. My point is that when seeing a +0.6 eval one wants to see what it's all about, not just look at a number.

"Just because an opening in your opinion looks "no fun" and "barely playable" doesnt mean that that is the case. Again, its your lack of experience that leads to such a faulty evaluation."

You have no idea about my experience level.

But let's ask some other inexperienced players what they think?

Bobby Fischer: "The Philidor Defense is a very passive opening. It allows White to seize the initiative and dictate the game."
Viktor Korchnoi: "The Philidor Defense is a good way to lose slowly."

I couldn't readily find a quote regarding the Hanham in particular, but it's reputation most of my chess playing life has been as a defense for masochists. The so-called "Lion Variation" may have revived its standing somewhat, but really the Lion is more of an offshoot of the Pirc, as 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 and white doesn't have to play 4. Nc3 but can play 4. Bc4 and then 4...Nf6 5. dxe5 is very good for white. So black has to resort to the Pirc move order 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 and even then hope white accommodates with 4. Nf3

Or how about how it performs statistically? 4. Bc4 variation white wins 57% draw 22% black wins 21%. Yeah, that's inspiring.

"If we were to stretch the definition of compensation to fit the Alekhine, then in a similar way, black has compensation in the "passive" Harham Philidor in the form of a more stable centre and mobile queenside play."

I don't agree my definition is a stretch. You just love to try and frame things to your advantage, don't you?

And the things you speak about with the Hanham aren't really compensation. The Hanham tries to avoid the "surrender of the center" and to strongpoint e5, so, in other words, it tries to stand toe to toe with white without the need for compensation. But the cost is to be rather passive and be subject to considerable pressure by white.

"As for the Grunfeld and KID... The only advantage you give for white is the big centre, but that is all it is, a big centre."

Yeah, like the big center has ever been considered any sort of advantage in chess. A popular chess author once wrote, to paraphrase, the big center, if allowed to be consolidated, will suffocate the opponent. The player playing against it has to play with all energy to dismantle it less he stand permanently worse. It's understood in chess the big center is not a neutral thing, at least in the opening and middlegame.

but I think this will be my final response. I'm not interested in this type of interaction, where a discussion is turned into a rhetorical sparring match with someone who isn't, in my opinion, acting in good faith and isn't trying to respond to my actual positions. We're not discussing chess here anymore. We're playing a game of your devising.

For the record, I have played the Philidor.

The Hanham variation is very strong.

The Hanham variation is one of the Best Philidor variations and it isn’t passive.

Most people who call the Philidor Passive are referring to the Exchange Variation.

The Exchange Variation trades off Black furthest center pawn which causes Black to have lack of space.

Top Players still play the Hanham Variation, but they use the Pirc move order to prevent 4.Bc4 lines.

The 4.Bc4 line is often played in main Philidor move order and the positions can become extremely complicated.

Obviously, you peeps are having different conversation entirely and I don’t know why you’re going to drag Philidor into this conversation.

There is nothing wrong with the Philidor.

I probably should have been more clear in specifying the move order I was referring to when commenting on the Hanham. Mentally I was thinking the line 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4. Bc4, but I never dreamed my comment would raise such a hullabaloo.

But yes you're right. 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 and black gets a better deal than in the above line.

One thing I'd ask (and if you say no that's fine and you're perfectly justified and that is convention), but is there maybe a relevant sense in which 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 4. Nf3 Nd7 could be reasoned to not be the Philidor but in fact a line of the Pirc? Convention says otherwise and says we've transposed into the Philidor, but given that 4. Nc3 makes far less sense after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 than 4. Nf3 does after 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 I can't help but associate the position with the PIrc, and not the Philidor.

@Post #88

To fully answer your question, I would have to explain a lot of Philidor stuff to set the stage.

I don’t really have time and this thread is certainly not the place for me to write a mile long post about the Philidor on a Caro Kan/ Sicilian thread.

The Short 5 min answer to your question is:

No, The positions are mainly Philidor positions.

It’s hard to consider them Philidor positions if you’re not a Philidor player yourself.

Philidor players are trying to manipulate their opponents into getting into their set up.

They are doing Move Order Tricks.