Recently, I played a game where my opponent made a move in the sicillian I believe was an inaccuracy. I want not just specific moves, but comments on my thought process so I can gain confidence in creating plans on the spot in the future.

Again, specific moves are nice, but I am more interested in general advice on how to form a plan when your opponent breaks opening theory.

I don't really see any problems with your thought process. But you have to remember, don't only think about you plan. Always  have a good look over the board, ALWAYS. On move 8. Nxd6 simply wins a pawn, with check. Black has to take, and he made a hole on the dark squares (kingside).

That's hilarious, I can't even believe I didn't see that. The pawn is always protected by the bishop and queen on d6, and I never have a knight on F5, so I don't even check anymore!

I don't care for 4.....e5 either.   Usual is 4.....Nf6   5 Nc3 and then either 5....g6,   5....e6,  or  5.....a6 have been played by many Grandmasters

in your analysis, if 5....Nc6  6 Nxc6, B-d7,  then winning is 7 Nxd8

White looks to control the position after 7 Nf5  and after 7.....g6 ??  Prologue1 already points out 8 Nxd6 wins a key pawn.

In the game  Qxd6 on moves 9 thru 11 has to be good too.

Thanks for pointing out that the knight can take the queen. I was about to go play a game of chess, but maybe I shouldn't right now after missing a move like that ?!?

Reuben Fine says of ...e5 in the Sicilian...

(p. 66)

   There are, further, three

important considerations in all

variations:

   1. Black must never allow White

to play c4 in the opening because

he then has no counterplay on the

c-file and is therefore doomed to

passivity.

   2. After white has played d4,

Black must not move ...e5, leav-

ing his d-pawn backward on an

open file.

   3. White must not be passive:

he must attack because time is

on Black's side (it usually is in

(p. 67)

cramped positions). That is why

the Sicilian is so effective against

a pussyfooter.

Fine, Reuben. 1989. The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings, Algebraic Edition. New York: Random House, Inc.

I recall analysing this messy position with my friend IM Takis Pandavos some 35 years ago. Since then rather little has changed- the variation is certainly risky, but quite playable. GM Boris Grachev is playing it very frequently with good results.

Maybe it will become popular one of these days- who knows...

Trying to "punish" opponents for opening inaccuricies can lead to a lot of trouble... Often it is better to continue along normal lines.

If I were to continue along normal lines, I would play Nc3 and he would capture my knight with exd3.

So that's why I didn't go along normal lines.

That being said, do you think my thought process was too one dimensional or do you think I kept in focus the idea of playing good moves?

Pfren, that opening looks hilarious. Almost as hilarious as the fried liver attack proper (where white actually sacrifices the knight). I think I might play at least a few games of it as black. I always love to play the most tactically complicated openings (Clarifcation: Regardless of my win record in them. They are fun, not necesarrily effective.)

Well, if 5. Nc3 after 4...e5 is a normal move for you, we might have a different understanding of "moves along normal lines"

I didn't criticise the way you reacted in this case. I just think that this attude of "I haven't seen this move before, this must be wrong, I have to punish him/her for playing that" can lead to misjudgements. There is a funny anecdote in Rowson's "7 Deadly Chess Sins" where he tries to punish Morozevitch for playing Qxd4 in the Sicilian. 

Okay, I think I can understand what you meant ot say (2 days doesn't count as necromancy, right?)

What I mean is that I had a certain plan that I would follow if my opponent followed the book, since he made a different move, I needed to make a new plan. I wasn't punishing him, only recognizing that I would have to have a different plan to respond to different moves that involved different weaknessness in the opponent's camp. This is the same way that Qxd4 in the sicillian (I always called the move the "scandinavian attack", but I recently learned there is a proper name for it which I don't remember) requires a different plan from black. Black should conciously decide to change his plan, not necesarrily with an attitude of punishing his opponent, but hit the mental "refresh" button. He should not decide to continue his normal plans such as nadorf/dragon/sheveningan (or however you spell it) and ignore the fact that white play Qxd4 instead of Nf3.

Perhaps that better explains my thought process.

I played against a bot

and the first move was an "inaccuracy" I was confused, normally every first move I tried was a book move so I have no idea why this happened