Sounds like a solid plan man. I have been waiting far too long to brush up on my Sicilian lines. I have some games from some of my books I will post as well to contribute to the thread.
Sicilians
Sort:
Sure, I could join in analyzing it. But don't feel that you have to play this to get better and replace your other openings! Unless they're unsound, and if you play the philidor, then it wouldn't hurt to upgrade. But if you like ...e6, ...c6, the scandinavian for example it's not like learning the sicilian is a requirement. The only time that is particualrly favorable is when you get to a very high level.
On the other hand, maybe your style is good for the sicilian it's just too complicated at the moment. I'm just saying though you don't have to play the sicilian to do well if you don't want to.
I play the uncommon kan variation which I seem to do fairly well with. It's not as dangerous and more positional than most sicilians but black gets long term counterplay.
Elubas wrote:
Sure, I could join in analyzing it. But don't feel that you have to play this to get better and replace your other openings! Unless they're unsound, and if you play the philidor, then it wouldn't hurt to upgrade. But if you like ...e6, ...c6, the scandinavian for example it's not like learning the sicilian is a requirement. The only time that is particualrly favorable is when you get to a very high level.
On the other hand, maybe your style is good for the sicilian it's just too complicated at the moment. I'm just saying though you don't have to play the sicilian to do well if you don't want to.
I play the uncommon kan variation which I seem to do fairly well with. It's not as dangerous and more positional than most sicilians but black gets long term counterplay.
I think you said it well in your second paragraph. I like the style of the Sicilian, but the Scheveningen is just a bit too complicated right now. All of my other defenses are very draw-ish.
I love to analyse opening variants so you can definitely count me in! 
The only sicilian variants i have experience in are all the diffrent dragons and the pelikan variation. The acclarated dragon in perticular is very easy to handle, instead of going into super sharp position black can steer the game into a very positional one.
The sicilian scheveningen has never really caught my interest. To me it looks like a lame version of the najdorf, the reason for this is that black has already comitted hes pawn to e6 and therefore black can forget about the plan of playing e5 which he often does in the najdorf. It might be better for black to first offer white a najdorf then depending on whites move to play e6 transposing into a scheveningen/najdorf formation. This way black also avoids the ultrasharp keres attack, a lot of grandmasters seems to play the schveningen this way. And ofcourse the najdorf has never caught my interest either because of the extreme amount of theory but now im ready to give it a shot. 
I like the schevinegen, well the structure at least, but it could be reached by a najdorf order.
I feel like we need to get this thread going. Im going to start by analysing a variation similiar to the keres attack in the najdorf/scheveningen formation.
Sicilian Najdorf: Mainline
Explanation:
There are actually quite a few lines of the sicilian in general where ...Bd7 is played. Like in the schevinegen where black plays ...Nc6 often with the idea of ...Nxd4 and ...Bc6, to simplify so that he can get on with queenside counterplay, and that way the b file isn't blocked.
ah, that idea is often used in the classic dragon as well. Normally the bishop isn't so happy on d7, mistake by me.
Hey, thanks guys! I tried out the Najdorf mainline with those ideas in mind and it's already starting to grow on me. Of course, I can't keep this forum going without mention the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian. My biggest question regarding that would have to be why it is always considered "refuted/ un-refuted". What were the former "refutations", and what disproved them? Moreover, why is the Dragon always the target of these "refuters"?
Well, the dragon allows white to attack along the h file and castle queenside, so theorists are trying to get to the bottom of who's going to make their attack work first. People are quick to point out "refutations" for white but then black always finds a new idea to make things more complicated and this goes into a cycle. It's probably refuted somewhere down the line, just that nobody knows what it is! Same for the KID, where the main lines could be slightly unsound, but not even the top GM's have found it, though they have found white advantages.
English attack main line:
As I find myself some 400 points in rating higher than I was when the year began, I already begin to feel the pressure to play more "serious" openings. Those openings that give any beginner a chill down the spine, those openings that have been thoroughly analyzed for over 100 years. It seemed to be a daunting task, but I found that some openings developed naturally, despite their complexity. Pretty soon, I found myself inviting the Ruy Lopez as Black. The French Defense finally made sense to me. And I even learned how to handle "drawish" openings like the Queen's Gambit Declined and the Classical Petroff as my endgame improved. I felt like I had finally broken my old habit of playing gimmicky defenses and systems I could follow 5 moves deep without regard to the enemy position (the Pirc comes to mind, not that there's anything particularly faulty with it).
Yet, despite all my efforts, I still seem to be unable to build a nice Sicilian Defense. A search through any master's game would show pages of 1. e4 c5. The same cannot be said for the Russian Game, nor even the Ruy Lopez (not to the same extent, though I am aware that is definitely an arguable statement). Now, I can handle myself on a few Sicilians, like the Najdorf with an early e5 and the ever-popular and all-but-refuted Dragon, even the Pterodactyl Variations; however, none of those positions are particularly appealing to me.
So, after reading this, I am keen to the fact that it may seem like I am complaining over nothing, maybe even bragging. I apologize for that. Admittedly, I have spent the last 2 paragraphs trying create a façade that is contrary to my real ability. The truth is, I have always loved the Sicilian Scheveningen. It looks so simple, so elegant and symmetrical, so mature. I read through the games of greats like Kasparov and Flohr and dream of using such a sophisticated defense, yet looks can be deceiving, especially in the world of chess.
And now comes that dreaded moment of truth. By now it should be obvious what I am about to write next, though I will write nonetheless: I have a god-awful Scheveningen Variation. I never know when to place which knight where and under which circumstances. I fall for center-crippling maneuvers because I forget to put my queen on c7, or because I developed a bishop instead of castling. Of course, no plan can ever occur perfectly in chess if it requires specific moves that don't regard the enemy's pieces. I should know that, but for some reason the Scheveningen has me baffled. I know I'm supposed to be fighting for d5, but when do I make the time to defend the pawns? And what is with all of these minute maneuvers in Kasparov's games? He explains them as best he can, yet they still seem to be just out of the realm of my understanding.
Now I can't be the only person here that has trouble with some elusive form of the Sicilian. Well, actually, it's quite possible that I am. Either way, I think we should spend some time analyze a few Sicilians. I'll bring examples from books I have and I'll see if that helps anyone more than it did for me. The Sicilian, in the words (paraphrased words) of Kasparov, is one of the only defenses that offers Black an opportunity for an advantage, rather than simple equality.