White doing "whatever" of course could mean playing c4 and steering the game into a King's Indian....just something you should be aware of if you're playing those moves in an attempt to stay away from heavily theoretical openings

najdorf, najdorf, and some more najdorf.

i actually like the black side of the ruy lopez. it gives me lots of options. i enjoy playing 1.e5 but i would not recomend it to a begginer because of all the tricky lines. i would instead recomend scandi with qxd5 because there is not much to learn yet you get a solid structure.

1...e5 is always fun.

everyone that thinks that the KIA and c3 refutes/ makes it hard for black in the sicilian, your so stupid, you just don't understand what the point of c5 is, honestly. c5 is the best choice if your trying for a win. GMs have played it WAY more then e5 against e4. lol if they didnt like c3 and the KIA would they play it? i think not.

Actually, that may not be true. I have seen many top level games starting with 1...e5 in modern chess. At that level, a draw with black is a good result, which may be why there are so many games with 1...e5 these days. It would be interesting to see some stats on how often 1...e5 and 1...c5 are played at GM level, because I am not so sure that 1...c5 is as overwhelmingly popular as people think.

In my Megadatabase 2009 with both players rated over 2500- 15,000 games were played e4-e5 and 25,000 games were played with e4-c5.

If KIA and c3 don't make it hard for Black, why should c5 make it hard for White?

And if 1. e4 c5 was a winning line for Black, why should White play 1. e4 at all? Isn't it a mistake? 1. e4? c5! looks too strange.

GMs don't fear being countered with 1... c5 as White more or less than they fear playing against c3 and the KIA as Black.

The interrelationship between White's and Black's play is way too high and too complex to claim there is an overwhelming Black's reply at his very first move in the game. After all, chess is not a solved game, and it will remain such for a very long time. At least until it keeps being played competitively.

well 1.d4 has a 54.1% chance of winning as white.

1.e4 has a 52.1% chance of winning due to the sicillian defence.

So 1... c5 is the best reply

Where did you get those statistics from? 54.1% winning chance is too much for a game between equally skilled players.

Yes. But winning 54% of the time is crushing.

on the internet, i think it was in something but i just can't remember...

Have both of you considered that if (winning chance + losing chance = 100%) it means that the drawing chance has been "normalized" into both winning and losing chances?

54%-40%-6% (W-D-L) is crushing ---> 74%-26% (W-L)

54%-46% (W-L) is not crushing

1.e4 c5 must have a lower drawing chance than 1.e4 e5. Overall (W-L) I think 1.e4.e5 has higher winning chance than 1.e4 c5.

But year and rating factor is also critical to consider. And especially when you have studied the variations, you can exclude weak variations and consider new novelties, so the number doesn't mean anything to you anymore.

Here is a chessgames database, the information like this is not useful for me.

Drawing chance eludes you. If you win 54%, you won't lose 46%. Claiming the opposite is what is actually exaggerated. Also, you can't win 70% of your games against an equally skilled opponent. If you assume your opponent will make a mistake, why do you assume you'll be correct? Bad openings can give white 70% losing chances too, but we are talking about good openings. Be more objective.

Try to find another example then. I believe that wherever you search, there will be variations of 1.e4 c5 that give better winning chances for White. There will be other openings to compare with too. Anyway, to use statistics as an argument, we should have them at our disposal.

For example, from yusuf_prasojo's data, we can see that the sicilian is at the fifth place by scoring after:

1) 1...h5% 100%

2) 1...Na6 75%

3) 1...g5% 53%

4) 1... g6 48,45%

5) 1...c5 47,7%

i know where but just cant remember :L

Well.  I personally seem to use 1. ... e5, or the sicilian.  I think!!hehe

true that, you seem pretty good at the sicilian with the NM at the front of the name, what first move for black do you prefer??

Sorry, but I have already explained what I think about using statistics (as well as any other data) as an argument. You have to present them. Otherwise you are guessing.

And if you are not talking about equally skilled players, why did you spend so much time (and so much of my time) on disputing, provided I have written that at the very beginning?

Or you want to say "Garry Kasparov will beat everyone with the sicilian. That's why everyone should play the sicilian."?