How to beat the Sicillan

The Open is the proper way to challenge the Sicilian, yes.

If you are looking for ways to "easily destroy your opponent", then chess is not the proper game for you. All sound openings lead eventually to roughly equal positions.

That's what makes them SOUND openings.

@1

"Should I continue playing the Open Sicllan?"
++ There are many viable alternatives: the Closed Sicilian 2 Nc3, the Alapin Variation 2 c3, the Grand Prix Attack 2 f4, the Rossolimo/Moscow Variations 2 Nf3, 3 Bb5(+).

"Is there tips for Caro-kann"
++ There are many viable variations: The Classical 3 Nc3, the Advance 3 e5, the Fantasy Variation 3 f3, the Exchange Variation 3 exd5 4 Bd3, the Panov Attack 3 exd5 4 c4, the 2 knights 2 Nc3 3 Nf3, the King's Indian Attack 2 d3.

The Open Sicilian is the best and the main line of the Sicilian for a reason. At the end of the day though, you are playing your opponent so it all depends on how you play.

The best way to destroy your opponents is to just get better at the game. Learn tactics, positional play, understand the ideas of the opening you play properly. There is no easy way to do this even if you play a different opening.

There is no anti-sicilian which will give you "a solution" as they are all inferior to the main line of the Sicilian. Many are playable but not as good. The main line is the main line for a reason. If something else was better then that would be the main line.

The best alternative is Rossolimo/Moscow or Alapin but these are much more positional, dry variations so it's not recommended if you actually want to attack and destroy your opponents.

The Alapin isn't any better than other Sicilian openings for white, but it does put pressure on your opponent to respond a bit differently from a normal Sicilian setup and they may be less familiar with it (although in my experience, it's very popular right now at my level).

Also, same goes for the Grand Prix attack.

Alapin isn't as viable as more people know it now. If someone doesn't know it then you can get a decent position but main line is just very dry and equal and white doesn't have many attacking ideas. I've met Alapin players who don't actually know how to play the main line because they only play it "to avoid theory" and then don't know Alapin theory. It's just very passive.

Grand Prix Attack has attacking ideas but is very simple and caveman so it's easy for black to learn it as well. At master level it's basically a refuted opening. Black just wins too many games against it and white wins so few.

Last time I checked, which was a few years ago, Magnus had a minus score agsinst the Alapin at classical time control, after he became a GM. Things may have changed in the meantime.

Source?

I'm checking some databases and he has a good score against the Alapin.

You just have to get good at chess.

It's the only way, no shortcuts. Only when you see the beast the Sicilian is, you may attempt to defeat it. But it depends on playing strength, too.

@7

"white doesn't have many attacking ideas"
++ It is a more positional approach: play d4 without trading a central pawn for a wing pawn. Sveshnikov considered it stronger than the Open Sicilian.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1111109 

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070874

"Grand Prix Attack has attacking ideas but is very simple and caveman"
++ With Bc4 it is caveman, but with Bb5 it is like a reversed Nimzovich Indian Defense.

"At master level it's basically a refuted opening. Black just wins too many games"
++ No, it leads to equality, just like the Open Sicilian.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1111278 

@9

Carlsen as black won 9, lost 4, and drew 11:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1375760

The open Sicilian can be huge and can require a lot of maintenance as it's rather theoretical. If you choose to open the Sicilian, it's a question of which lines you will play, some are less theory heavy than others.

Do you want to be spending a lot of time on your preparation for the Yugoslav attack? Because eg this sort of line is mostly a contest between the preparation of two players. Tbh I'd avoid anything that's that theory-heavy, For non-professionals it's simply not worth the time effort required, expect to need plenty of subscriptions to stay up to date if you adopt sharp lines across the board.

You could go for more positional lines in the open ( eg use Karpov's old E4 repertoire Vs the Sicilian as a starting point ) or you could pick one of [Alapin, Closed] and learn to play the positions well. 

For the Caro, all major lines are fine, you could play either the Panov or the two Knights.

It's best not to spread misconceptions just because you don't like an opening. I understand there are a lot of people like you who don't like playing the Sicilian so you just want everyone to play Alapin every time but it's just not a positive attitude about chess.

For anyone who actually knows the Open Sicilian and doesn't just play Alapin "to avoid theory", you would know that once you understand basic ideas and attacking plans it can be very intuitive.

"Omg please don't play the Open Sicilian there's so much theory! Just play Alapin!" These are just huge misconceptions spread by people who don't like the Sicilian. An opening being "theoretical" only applies to people who actually know the theory. You are not playing against a 3000+ super GM who is booked up on every line. 2 beginners playing an Open Sicilian are still 2 beginners playing chess so it makes 0 difference.

If you don't like the Sicilian, that's fine. If you don't want to learn the Open Sicilian properly, that's fine. I'm not judging your taste. But just because YOU don't like an opening doesn't make it fair to try to discourage and dishearten everyone else about it.

I started playing the Open Sicilian (with both White and Black) in OTB CFC-rated tournaments back when I was 1400 strength. And yes, I lost some games and won some games. Like I would with any other opening.

I comment according to my views which don't need to agree with yours.

Also, I am "accountable" for what I write, not what you think I write. eg contrary to what you believe I wrote, I actually gave pointers towards an open Sicilian repertoire that's manageable, should the OP choose that route, as well as alternatives to the open, which are of course fine for the OP as well independently of whether you want to open the Sicilian or not.

For some open Sicilians I think the difference with other openings ( or other open Sicilians ) is that unless one knows the theoretical narrow path, they could be toasted. Of course with any opening one will score wins, suffer losses and make draws but there's also the question, if I'm steered out of my preparation, what are the chances I can find decent moves. If this becomes the question of being able to discover OTB a sequence of only-moves, it becomes harder. Eg it's hard to recover the Dragon theory using a mix of positional principles and OTB calculation. Of course theory moves may pop up as candidate moves , but making the correct choices on the fly is harder than in less theoretical openings.

Effectively it translates to a question of whether one "allows" the opening to steer in complex positions that they may not be able to evaluate OTB even in principle. A finite number of positions like this are probably ok and can be prepared from home but too many of them just makes the task a huge project that most folks won't have time for.

All of that only applies if the opponent is capable of keeping the theoretical pressure on you, which (in complex positions without clear strategic sign-posts) means that he has out-prepared you. That would be equally serious in the Ruy Lopez or the Petroff.

Even if you have reason to believe that your opponent has superior preparation, playing the Sicilian is hardly a suicide mission. The one opportunity I had to play (Black) against a Super-GM, I played a Sicilian Najdorf.

Go big or go home!

 That's exactly the point that in some open Sicilians it may become a question of who will outprepare, and not all folks want that. It can happen everywhere of course but risk is higher in very theoretical openings.

As long as one is happy with taking the risk that they may not be able to find good moves otb even in principle, it's ok but what's the advantage of taking that risk?

If the Najdorf is your main defence Vs E4 you did well to play it but if my memory doesn't fail me, we had discussed in another thread a game of yours where you had done the extensive home prep required to play a sharp Sicilian.

The risk can only be avoided by doing the homework on these lines, which is a huge project, or by avoiding the said lines.

This is a lot of the misconceptions. The idea that there is a "theoretical narrow path" and "it must be followed". This is actually a contradiction from the perspective that the Sicilian is difficult because there are many variations. In many Najdorf variations there are many playable lines so it's not forcing at all. It's very flexible.

Bg5 Najdorf has many different lines within it. The idea you suggest is that "well you have to learn every single line off by heart or you'll lose". The same could be said of any other opening. That you have to learn every possible response to every possible move and the entire line or you'll lose. It's a misrepresentation. You say that this only applies to Open Sicilian but I've had games against the Closed Sicilian and Alapin where the opponent didn't know the line or the proper response to certain moves and quickly ended up with a worse position. The idea that you convey is essentially that you must play the Open Sicilian correctly but you don't have to play the Alapin or Closed Sicilian correctly...

You can play the Open Sicilian line you like and do your best.

Finding good moves is just part of learning to play chess well. The opponent has to do the same thing so they are in the same boat.

Some Sicilians have a more narrow line like Sveshnikov but they are easier to learn and understand because of that.