French or Sicilian?

I have looked at both of these openings lately, and this is some of my takes so far. (Najdorf and Winawer)

If you use an engine assessment to build and your repertoire, I would say the Sicilian imbalances are evaluated pretty accurate by an engine. The French seems to avoid a definitive concrete evaluation from the engine … not that you don't use an engine … it's just you will have to use your knowledge of imbalances a lot also as the White or Black player.

The French engine assessment is probably biased for White due to the placement of pawns in the center (among other things) … so this has to be taken into consideration when contemplating the engine evaluation every move. (which most of us will forget to do) In general whether White's space and mobility counts or if the center is a liability …and this is hard for a human let alone an engine to evaluate.  

I think both are suited for OTB play. I think the Sicilian takes advantage of the tools available more readily and is more forgiving of mistakes in practical play. (So maybe one of many reasons it's more popular)

I think you all are shorting yourselves only aiming for a 1600 rating? 1b3. and 1...g6 gets me to 1900-2100 on various platforms and OTB. I think put the work into the type of positions you like (except the obvious questionable openings) Najdorf ,Winawer, Petroff, Breyer, Caro-Kann, etc and the understanding will come and maybe the points 😎  

Any thoughts?

You are absolutely wrong about one thing.  The Sicilian Defense is not forgiving at all!  Most of the time, one small error by Black and it is lights out, especially in sharp lines like the Yugoslav Attack (against the Dragon), the English Attack (against the Najdorf or Scandinavian), and the Morra Gambit.  Openings like that and it is one strike you are out!

Considering these 2 positons i.e. when analyzing say 13 lines at one time to a depth/37 with Stockfish, I would rather take the Sicilian postion as Black if I was just winging it and trying avoid a howler move.

The French line (0.76) (0.77) (0.78) (0.82) (0.89) (0.89) (0.89) (1.03) (1.09) (1.73) etc

The Sicilian line (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.09) (0.32) (0.35) (0.46) (0.73) (1.18) (1.23) etc 

maybe not a good example to use the sozin line as it is in my opinion the trickiest line against the najdorf and one you probably need to know inside out first and foremost. black can easily get killed with various tactical strikes on e6, d5, f5, etc.

in the qg4 winawer black at least tries to gain dynamic compensation, giving up almost all of his kingside pawns.

so if i were winging it as black in both the sozin and the winawer qg4 i would probably get slaughtered in the sozin more frequently.

+1 it took my many games of trail and error to get to where I am right now where I don’t make mistakes often in the opening 

I prefer French. Sicilian has a lot of lines and your opponent can choose to play closed instead of 3.d4

Your opponent has a lot of good options against the French also.  I swapped out the French for the classical Sicilian a few months ago,  most sidelines I see only promise white an even game (sometimes not even that).  White doesn't have a huge set of options if he's interested in some theoretical advantage.

The point about the engine assessment is an important one.  The French Defense is best explained in hypermodern terms, but the engines are mostly programmed with classical rules of positional assessment, and this is where the difference arises.  Black's ability to target and undermine d4 is greater compensation for the spatial disadvantage than the computer considers it to be.

Anyone who plays the French Defense actively as black can expect at worst a level game.  The Sicilian is so rife with tactics and anti-systems that it is much harder to play on principle.

I think I'm going to have to disagree with quite a bit of that.

Explaining openings in terms of classical/hypermodern will only get you so far.  Most modern day openings (even traditionally classical ones) are a nice blend of both ideas. 

Look at the French, in the advance variation blacks first 3 moves are all pawn moves that not only attack but occupy the center.  That doesn't fit nicely into the hypermodern box.

In some variations, black will even play c5-c4 and bottle up on the queenside taking pressure off of d4.  

Also, I think the Sicilian if a bit more thematic than you give it credit for.  Both sides are usually looking to control the d5 square, both sides have common piece sacs, etc.

Ultimately, French vs Sicilan is a matter of taste.

Which Sicilian would you recommend for starters?

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not but I think the e6 Sicilians make more sense in the beginning than the d6 lines.  I'd start with the Kan or the Taimanov.  The Kan isn't something that white can just sweep off the board, but you have to put up with a stronger version of the Maroczy bind.  The Taimanov is better against the bind but you have to deal with a stronger version of the English attack and the Qf3 lines.

You could also look into the accelerated/ hyperaccelerated dragons, but if you are coming from the French, the e6 Sicilians might seem a little more familiar.

Thanks. Yeah I was considering trying the Kan or the Taimanov.

No problem, many of the lines can transpose between them as well..... more importantly, why are there so many emus on the site?!?