Despite its classification as an anti-sicilian opening, the C3 sicilian or Alapin is in fact very sicilian friendly and in most of the lines where black responds with 2...d5 followed by 3...Qxd4, black easily equalises.  It might even be said that 2...d5 followed by 3...Qxd4 is a refutation of C3 sicilian.  In fact, C3 should be called a sicilian-friendly not anti-sicilian opening.  Murray Chandler, the C3 sicilian expert, seems to agree as well.

Interesting....I'll have to take a look at that opening

Yes black equalizes in most lines or white only maintains a small plus but there is certaianly no refutation there is no main line were black gets an advantage

No you are wrong, in this line black does so well: 1.e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Be2 cxd4 7. cxd4 e6 8. Nc3 Qa5.  Now either 9.0-0 or 9. h3 black will have no problem whatsoever and equalises easily and in many games such as Markovic vs Maksimenko or Salov vs Gelfand black got even a better position.  Open sicilian is the only way despite entailing great theoratical knowledge.  C3, Bb5, wing gambit and smith morra are the lazy man's response to the sicilian.

c3-Sicilian is usually played against strong (black) players to avoid the complexity of the Open Sicilian lines so the game remains manageable, plus white gains 1-2 tempi by attacking black's queen.

Bb5 (Rossolimo look-alike) variation is also played to avoid the tons of theory of the Open Sicilian - white finishes development rapidly.

agreed, my favorite black line is  1.e4 c5 2.c3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.cxd4 d5 is simple to play as black but no refution

 9. d5 scores very well for white ( over 75% ) so I dont think this line looks good for black myself.  Also, 6. dxc5 scores well for white.

Post #6 is absolutely right 2...g6 is one of the best responses to c3 sicilian, don't give up this line, it can gain you lots of sweet victories.  Check Sam Collins's 'C3 Sicilian Explained' game 22 where he says in the conclusion that g6 is one of the best responses to c3 sicilian. 

Is Sam Collins's c3 Sicilian Explained a good book?

It's okay, it doesn't provide enough (up to date) theory IMO. But the explanations are good.

And, as NM Reb said, 6. dxc5 is probably an improvement on your supposed 'refutation' of the c3 sicilian.
Anyway if you're looking for a refutation I think you should be looking at 2. ..Nf6.

tiviakov doesnt seem to agree since he won ten or eleven games in a row with the c3sicilian against gms recently:) theoretical status is one thing but the c3sicilian is a dangerous thing in the right hands. people who say c3sicilian doesnt lead to theoretical advantage is right, but i welcome you to show me advantage in the insane amount of open sicilianlines. let me know if you refute the svesnikov and the dragon:)

Dragon is OK but Sveshnikov is almost refuted.  Most solid is najdorf.  Kasparov also used scheveningen with great success against Karpov especially till Karpov gave up e4 completely.  More logical than c3 is Bb5 sicilian and super GMs like Shirov and Ivanchuke have won many games with it.  The ultimate proof of a good opening is Kasparov's choice and he's always preferred the open sicilian and Bb5 to any other.

Sveshnikov is almost refuted?  Give me the line!

The sveshnikov is nowhere near refuted and scores about the same % as the najdorf does according to my data base.

1500-players claiming refutations of time-honored lines is one of the most amusing aspects of the chess.com "community".  Every patzer not only has a butthole, but also an opinion, and they both stink.

I love this variation of the sicilian!

could you please suggest any other books on the C3 Sicilian? Sam Collin's Book The C3 Sicilian Explained is good but somehow I feel like I lack something... thanks

lol! I know it bothers me too. thats why Im trying to rush this new account up to where it should be before I get thrown in the pen with them .

what bugs me even more is when books do it, and its usually when they take up a less popular (to "aviod theory") such as 1.e4 c5?! 2.b4!!!

does that piss anyone else off?

Yeah, "refutations" are a dime a dozen, and generally worth about the price. 

I'm not saying old lines don't become outdated as improvements crowd out the original variations in many cases, but openings grow or fall in favor due as much to current fashions as to any objective standard of worth.  The variations which are most popular receive the most attention and improvements from the best players, and so the old lines are forgotten - until some enterprising player pulls one out of the closet to spring on an unsuspecting opponent.

My reference database of 4 million games shows a different result than Reb's - the Nadjorf scores almost exactly 50%, while White scores almost 55% vs the Sveshnikov.  That doesn't mean anything in particular; there are 50,000 Nadjorf games and only 800 in the Sveshnikov.  So statistically, the larger number is far more likely to be accurate than the much smaller one.  The Sveshnikov could be much better or much worse.

However, even the Najdorf figure can't be relied upon for much, as it includes all variations and nearly all games played over its history.  There were some very successful early decades in lines no one will touch now, so what do those results tell us as to the variation's value?  Not a blessed thing!

You see, database stats are poor predictors of a move's actual worth.  For instance, suppose a line is very successful for White for many years, but then Black finds a novelty which turns the whole variation on its head.  Well, White stops playing it, so the database still shows a nice White edge in games won, and the killing novelty is a statistical insignificance because its discovery discredited the whole line.

Well when a book suggests a move such as 1. e4 c5  2. b4 I don't think they are claiming it refutes the Sicilian.  But yes, errors get propagated by books, but they're only annoying if you fall for them.  If you think critically and discover the error, then you can make the mistake in the book work for you, because your opponents are probably accepting the book assessment as completely accurate.

Case in point, though in the Vienna Game, not the Sicilian, in more than one book (including MCO 13 I believe) I've seen the following position (sorry I forgot to "set focus"; it would be the position after ...Bxf3) given as the ending point of the analysis with the assumption being that Black is better since the move 7. Qb5+! leading up to the position was given a question mark.  Sure Black threatens White's rook and checkmate, but White has one move that takes care of both threats, and the game quickly shifts over to Whites favor:

Haha.

I mean, it may be the best Sicilian in terms of winning chances and such, but solid? The Najdorf?

In the main 6.Bg5 lines Black is basically running around naked, wielding a bazooka and shouting "Mate me! Mate me! Bet you can't mate me!"