So moving your queen's bishop's pawn up, the cornerstone of the Sicilian, I just don't know about it? I mean, it's awesome having that pawn up in front of your knight, because otherwise the pawn is practically useless behind him, but I feel like it really clogs up the board and neuters your king's bishop and also your queen's pawn to a certain extent.
i'm ok with moving the queen bishop's pawn up because 90% of the time the king is castling to the other side. i just like having control of the, uh, weak side as much as possible with my pawns.
but i don't even know what sicilian means off the top of my head, so yeah.
Sometimes I get way too greedy. Especially when I put king in check with my knight, while simultaneously threatening another piece with the same knight. JUST TAKE THE DAMN ROOK AND BE HAPPY, DAMNIT
It's funny how little I get out of looking at master games. They do so many things I don't understand. I don't even really know why Nimzowitsch resigned at the end of the Alekhine's Gun game.
No, not immediately, but the connected pawn advantage in the endgame after the exchanges would be deadly. You and I and anyone on this board wouldn't resign there since white at our levels can and will make all sorts of stupid moves, but at that championship GM level, its over. Plus you know, the gun thing.