Class players and the Sicilian

There is no getting around it -- the Sicilian is a complex and many-splendored beast. Many find it intimidating. 

Some advise class players to stick with the more straightforward double KP defenses or learn less sharp, less intricate defenses like the French.

I'm sure it's easy for regular Black players to get blown out of the water against, say, a Najdorf expert. But how often does that happen?

Class players mostly play other class players and their games are hard-fought but imperfect.

Should class players avoid the Sicilian or just wade in if the Sicilian fits their stlye?

Um, that's the Sveshnikov, which has plenty of theory too. May I recommend the Paulsen instead? It has very little theory and is just about the easiest Sicilian to play.

3.Bb5.... So much for all that Sveshnikov theory. This is the second time I've seen that cjxchess guy spouting off nonsense about the Sveshkinov. On the other topic he even claimed that if you master the Sveshnikov you've mastered the entire Sicilian. Nonsense!

Show me where I said black isn't fine against the rossolimo. I didn't. You seem to think that knowing the sveshnikov is some easy way of mastering the Sicilian and I just pointed out one of the many deviations white can choose before black even gets a sveshnikov which makes your claims nonsense.

Around 2010, IM John Watson wrote, "... For players with very limited experience, ... the Sicilian Defence ... normally leaves you with little room to manoeuvre and is best left until your positional skills develop. ... I'm still not excited about my students playing the Sicilian Defence at [the stage where they have a moderate level of experience and some opening competence], because it almost always means playing with less space and development, and in some cases with exotic and not particularly instructive pawn-structures. ... if you're taking the Sicilian up at [say, 1700 Elo and above], you should put in a lot of serious study time, as well as commit to playing it for a few years. ..."
In 2012, IM Greg Shahade wrote, "... These days ....c5 is more popular than ....e5, so who's to say that the lessons learned in e5 are somehow more valuable? It was by far the most popular opening in the past, but it's no longer the case. The lessons in the Sicilian, as irrational as they may seem to a relative newcomer, are very important to learn and who's to say that this type of action packed/dynamic chess is not just as good a way to start as the more classical style of chess. I definitely think that playing only 1.e4 e5 until 2000 is way too harsh a restriction in today's world of chess that is so much more than just classical 1.e4 e5 openings. That's not to say it's bad to play only 1.e4 e5 until 2000, but I think it's incorrect to assume that this is the proper way to approach chess development." Around the same time, he did acknowledge, "I specialize at teaching players who aspire to be pretty strong...like at least 2200, and usually higher, so I'm less skilled at helping 1500-1600 players without any particular ambitions to become great at chess".
In 2014, Pete Tamburro wrote, "... You will see [in Openings for Amateurs] the reply to 1.e4 to be the great reply of the open games with 1...e5. The Sicilian Dragon is presented as an alternative. ... I have found that scholastic players take to the Sicilian Dragon very quickly. ... A cautionary note: the Dragon is good at club level, but as you start facing better players you're going to find yourself memorizing tons of lines and the latest analysis, ... From my experience with coaching players below 1800, you won't need to do that too much. ..."

haha! I'm a fellow najdorf player here

The only thing you've mastered is how to sound like an imbecile.

It's not about OTB results and that. It's quite simple: In order to understand and play properly modern asymmetrical games like the Sicilian, you MUST understand classical chess first- else you are wasting your time reading and memorizing useless stuff.

Post #2 is as stupid/ far from reality as it gets.

In all likelihood, yes, but I have a hard time believing that 3. Bb5 is not a legitimate try for a (smaller) opening advantage, and I have to dispute your claim that Black has no problems. Sure, Black has achieved a perfectly good position out of the opening, but I wouldn't call it equal just yet. In fact, I think White has a definite slight edge here. Why? Here's what I think.

- The Nc4, which hits e5, points at b6 (which means that b6 could fall if a b2-b4 break smashes the queenside open), and cannot be easily dislodged without making a concession, is slightly superior to the Ne6, which has only one strong square (f4) which White can simply keep it out of.

- The Be3, which is already sitting on the nice c1-h6 diagonal, has multiple futures: it can hit e5 by f2-f3 and Bf2-g3, support an f2-f4 push in conjunction with Qd2 and Rf1, put pressure on the c5 and b6 pawns after f3 and Qf2 followed by a later b2-b4 or exploit the kingside dark squares with Qd2 and Bh6. This makes it clearly superior to the Bg7, which has no immediate future other than preventing d3-d4.

- White has more pawn breaks than Black. b2-b4, d3-d4 and f2-f4 are all possible. Black's only pawn breaks are the rather ineffectual ... b6-b5-b4 and ... f7-f5, which is double-edged as it will either leave e5 isolated or leave Black's King somewhat exposed.

Well said pfren.

I have played the sicilian almost since i started playing chess but I wonder if Im missing something by not playing... e5 or the french. my OTB is 2100

Clearly the Sicilian is working well for you, in which case, continue playing it! (Especially at 2100 when Sicilian mega-theory is not as daunting as at the class level.) But in my (very) humble opinion, everyone should play and explore the Ruy Lopez on both sides at some point in their chess career. The positions in the absolute main lines like, say, the Breyer (my main defense to 1. e4) are almost too rich for a 1550 like me to truly appreciate.

@cjxchess16: There are some decent points in your post, but I feel compelled to point out some of the more preposterous conclusions in it. Firstly, you claim that Black is clearly better, but White has done absolutely nothing wrong. How can the position be better for Black if White's only "mistake" was not playing 3. d4? Secondly, you claim that White has to launch a pawn storm on the Kingside to even try to refute ... f5. In reality, White simply plays exf5 and on ... gxf5 responds Qh5 when the attack on f5 is already annoying.

MUST?

As usual, I'll take issue with such an absolute statement. Of the four guys I played chess with in high school and college, three became masters and one became an expert.

None of them played double KP as Black past the absolute novice stage. None of them went out of their way to learn "classical chess" either, though I'm sure they picked up some in their studies.

If you want to learn calculus you MUST know algebra and trig. No kidding. You can't even read a calculus textbook without algebra and trig.

I see no such sequential requirements in chess beyond learning the rules, relative piece values and some very general notions about the opening.

Yes.

Is understanding-classical-chess a yes-or-no-thing or a matter-of-degree?

Is the usefulness-of-reading a yes-or-no-thing or a matter-of-degree?

Last two tourney games in the 4...dxc line I won as white rather easily... not that black is bad, black has various reliable setups... but I had seen some GM games in the lines my opponents chose, and it became clear I was more familiar with the ideas, so by move 25 or so they didn't have any play.

Here's a better brief preview of the opening.

I never got the Sicilian, always thought it was stupid, I have not memorized much about it but tend to win against it mostly as white either with d5 pawn push or Bg6 on the third move, and play something different every time to keep it fun, it almost always lets me get to my endgame where I shine.

pfren: Chess has its openings. Debate has its fallacies.

You've just provided an example of the "ipse dixit" fallacy: an assertion without proof; or a dogmatic expression of opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit