Closed Sicilian: Win Rate by Lichess Rating

Sicilian Defense: Closed · 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 · CC0 name list

At 1500–1799 (Lichess rating), White scored 51.6% in 14,594 Sicilian Defense: Closed games (±0.8; games from Oct 2025–Sep 2026).

White won 49.8% of them, Black won 46.6%, and 3.5% were drawn.

White scores above 50% at this level (outside the margin)

In games from Oct 2025–Sep 2026, White scored 51.6% (±0.8) with the Sicilian Defense: Closed in sampled Lichess games at the 1500–1799 Lichess rating level (14,594 games). Observed results, not causation.

Data period: games from 1 Oct 2025 – 30 Sep 2026 (sample of the Lichess open database) · Page updated: 9 Oct 2026

52.9%

White's score at Lichess rating 2100+ · 14,691 games, Oct 2025–Sep 2026 sample

White scores 52.9% at 2100+ and 49.8% at 1200–1499.

Position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3. 59,733 games in this sample reached it — 861 of them by a different move order.

At a glance

In this sample, White's score ranged from 49.8% (1200–1499) to 52.9% (2100+).
Treat this spread with caution: the margins are approximate (see How it works).
It appeared most often in the 2100+ group (2.1% of that group's games).
Draws were most common in the 2100+ group (5.1%).

These are observed results for the selected games (rated, players within 200 rating points of each other). They describe what happened — they do not prove the opening caused the result.

Results by Lichess rating level

Each row shows how the Sicilian Defense: Closed games at one rating level ended: White wins, draws and Black wins, across all time controls combined. Rating level is the average Lichess rating of both players.

White won drawn Black won. Sicilian Defense: Closed — results by Lichess rating level, all time controls combined (minimum 300 games per row).

Under 12003,429 games

White wins 48.7% · draws 3.1% · Black wins 48.3% · White's score 50.2% ±1.6 · how common 0.4%
1200–14997,237 gamesCompared with

White wins 48.4% · draws 2.7% · Black wins 48.9% · White's score 49.8% ±1.1 · how common 0.6%
1500–179914,594 games

White wins 49.8% · draws 3.5% · Black wins 46.6% · White's score 51.6% ±0.8 · how common 0.9%
1800–209919,782 games

White wins 50.6% · draws 4.0% · Black wins 45.3% · White's score 52.7% ±0.7 · how common 1.5%
2100+14,691 gamesIn the headline

White wins 50.4% · draws 5.1% · Black wins 44.5% · White's score 52.9% ±0.8 · how common 2.1%

"White's score" = wins + half of draws. "±" is an approximate 95% margin based only on the number of games. It does not cover sampling bias or related games (the same players appear many times), so real uncertainty is larger. "How common" = share of all sampled games at that level that reached this position. Ratings are Lichess ratings; they are not interchangeable with Chess.com or FIDE ratings.

Compare it with another choice from the same position, at the Lichess level and time control you choose: Compare in Find Your Opening (the comparison needs JavaScript)

Results by time control

Each row shows how the Sicilian Defense: Closed games ended in one Lichess time control, across all rating levels combined.

Sicilian Defense: Closed — results by time control, all rating levels combined (minimum 300 games per row)
Time control	Games	White wins	Draws	Black wins	White's score
Bullet	27,038	50.4%	3.0%	46.6%	51.9%
Blitz	26,211	49.7%	4.8%	45.5%	52.1%
Rapid	6,211	49.8%	4.4%	45.8%	52.0%
Classical	273	Not enough games in this sample

This table and the rating rows are separate summaries: rating levels are not split by time control here, and time controls are not split by rating. Observed results only; approximate uncertainty applies as above.

Most played replies for Black at each level

Top replies with at least 150 games. "Score" is Black's score after that reply (wins + half of draws). These comparisons alone can't show that one reply is reliably better — the margins are approximate and stronger or weaker players may prefer different replies.

Replies to 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 by Lichess rating level, all time controls combined
Rating level	Reply · share · games · score
Under 1200	2...Nc6 ·45.5% · 1,558 · 49.1% ±2.4 2...d6 ·20.3% · 694 · 54.9% ±3.6 2...e6 ·15.6% · 534 · 50.7% ±4.2
1200–1499	2...Nc6 ·47.0% · 3,400 · 50.0% ±1.7 2...d6 ·22.0% · 1,587 · 50.6% ±2.4 2...e6 ·19.4% · 1,403 · 52.0% ±2.6
1500–1799	2...Nc6 ·47.5% · 6,936 · 48.1% ±1.2 2...d6 ·21.6% · 3,148 · 47.8% ±1.7 2...e6 ·20.6% · 3,000 · 50.0% ±1.8
1800–2099	2...Nc6 ·46.1% · 9,110 · 47.2% ±1.0 2...e6 ·22.7% · 4,482 · 48.6% ±1.4 2...d6 ·20.3% · 4,017 · 46.9% ±1.5
2100+	2...Nc6 ·41.6% · 6,110 · 46.1% ±1.2 2...e6 ·23.1% · 3,398 · 48.2% ±1.6 2...d6 ·20.8% · 3,051 · 47.7% ±1.7

Up next: related positions with a page

Earlier position: Sicilian Defense 1.e4 c5
Related line: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 (Sicilian Defense: Open)
Related line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 (King's Knight Opening)
Related line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 (Italian Game)

Other choices from the same position for White: each one's own level and score, as on its page
Opening	Lichess rating level	Games	White's score
vs Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit 1.e4 c5 2.d4	1500–1799	13,694	51.5% ±0.8
vs Sicilian Defense: Bowdler Attack 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4	1500–1799	17,399	48.4% ±0.7
vs Sicilian Defense: Alapin Variation 1.e4 c5 2.c3	1500–1799	10,189	52.0% ±1.0

Each row is a separate page with its own games. A difference smaller than the two margins combined is no clear difference. Observed results, not causation.

Deeper positions with this name

The free opening list gives the name Sicilian Defense: Closed to 10 deeper positions on this line as well. This page counts the first one; games in the 12-month sample that reached each deeper one:

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6: 14,890 games
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.g3: 1,494 games
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7: 1,475 games
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6: 1,278 games
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 d5: 1,128 games

Download these numbers: Sicilian Defense: Closed (CSV), released under CC0. For move-by-move exploration with your own filters, see the free Lichess opening explorer. This independent page lists each rating level and each time control in its own row for comparison.