Is the Sicilian really chess?

What's in it for me is having a good chance at beating white. You need to figure out how to defeat the Sicilian. Learn the English and Yugoslav Attacks, or learn how to play the Alapin (2. c3).

I just get the impression that one of the first things e4 players learn in any form of chess education is ways to tackle the sicilian defence.

@arctic the only thing in this whole thread I absolutely agree with....

if you play e4 you WILL see sicilian.   french too....

that is why both are my reportoire against e4.  I don't want to play e4e5 Qh5

like it white doesnt give black info on his/her set up

I agree. Against I e4 I don't play 1 e5.  I used to play Sicilian and French. Now I'm trying Caro-Kann because I can usually get my QB into action my faster than in the French.

Only titled players really know and understand 30 moves of theory. Anyone else is memorizing their way into a middlegame with limited understanding. Do you honestly believe that if you memorized 30 moves of theory that this would help you to defeat a GM or a better player? No it wouldn't help you to win because there is still a middlegame to be played. Maybe you'd even get a better position but you'd still have to play the middlegame and the ending too. Opening theory doesn't help you or teach you to do this. Even the most beginner-friendly manual in the world cannot help you play a whole middlegame. 

Some people say that the point of the opening is to get a playable position in the middlegame. That's what you should focus on. Regardless of the opening knowledge of your opponents, the middlegame must still be played and this is where most games are won and lost.

And as far as the opening goes, 2.Nf3 can lead to a very large variety of positions and even this move isn't forced.

If you hate it that much, try this foolproof anti-Sicilian system: 1 d4

You are missing the whole point. It isn't worth getting to the middlegame. It's not chess. It is closer to doing a crossword puzzle. Nothing wrong with that if you enjoy it. I can see using the Sicilian in serious competition but for recreation? When you are trying to have fun? It escapes me.

it certainly looks smells and feels like chess though , it has pawn strucyure piece development recognisable strategic aims (for band w ) ,

but if the sicilian isnt for you then look to never allowing your opponent to do it , 1c4// 1 d4// 1 knf3// 1  b3 lots of things you can do

How is it like a puzzle? Puzzles have definite answers. Chess isn't like that at all. i'm not sure if you are seeing the game for what it really is here. What exactly don't you like about the sicilian?

There is no reason anyone rated below 2200 or so should be making any effort to memorize 30 moves of theory. This will be less than useless to you in an actual game. You need to know basic piece placement and pawn structures for the major openings and UNDERSTAND the ideas for both sides. Indeed even at master level and above, no one blindly memorizes moves. Strong players learn lines but still focus on understanding the typical positions, plans, and tactical motifs, and try to innovate with their own new ideas.

The game above is a good example. White's win had nothing to do with preparation or memorizing lines. In a typical Be2 Najdorf pawn structure, black handed white the game with 14...Bg4??, a positional blunder that gives white a good knight vs. a bad bishop for the rest of the game. Black had to play 14...Be6 and fight for the d5 square. If black had studied the Sicilian with the goal of UNDERSTANDING, rather than MEMORIZING, he would have known this.

That said, the Sicilian is a good opening to play for both sides for those trying to learn chess at any level. It teaches you a variety of opening and middlegame plans and typical pawn structures and leads to complex battles from which you learn tactics.

With my chess students, I don't teach opening lines. I teach strategy, tactics, and understanding the game. I'm currently taking new students if anyone is interested.

good spot re bg4

I strongly agree with ebolakitty re the Sicilian; you cannot play the Najdorf or the Dragon without knowing tons of theory, and the higher your elo the more theory you need to know as your opponent will be booked up. Up to say 1400ish it doesn't matter too much, and I agree with some of the posters here, playing with or against the Sicilian is useful and teaches you some basic plans which is good general chess knowledge (ie Rauzer attacks, minatory attacks etc). Beyond 1400 it becomes bookish and boring and I don't think it is good for improving your chess knowledge. If you play, or play against, the Sicilian you end up studying theory so you don’t get out booked in a game, but studying opening theory is not good for you (you should be studying endgame, strategy and tactics). Some posters mentioned playing anti-Sicilians. Most of these are quite dull, quite theoretical and not so easy to play (the Alapin is actually hard for lower rated players to get a grip on, the Grand Prix often involves making a piece sacrifice which is scary for weaker players, and the Rosolimo/Moscow variations are quite complex).

At the risk of being very controversial I find most e4 openings bookish and dull; who wants to play the mainline French (or the Spanish, or Scotch, or Italian) – booked to the gills. This is not recreational chess it is professional chess. As a result I have decided to leave 1e4 and 1e4 c4 (as black) and have moved on to 1d4 aiming for the London System, little theory and you get to play chess and improve your decision making. Some people enjoy theoretical chess and good luck to them, but personally I don’t. As others have posted play 1d4, 1c4, 1f4 or 1Nf3 and free yourself from the theoretical forcing lines of 1e4. I think it is very positive for your chess education to play such lines and it is so much more fun. I hated playing the Sicilian (and just about any 1e4 opening).

PS Against 1e4 I have returned to Alekhine’s Defence, you can easily find non-theoretical replies to 1e4 and very rewarding to play (see Tim Taylor’s book Alekhine Alert). Much more fun than facing a Rauzer/English/Yogoslav or a Sozin.

Yes I'm sure there are plenty of 1900s out there that know better than 2500 players. They just don't feel like being 2500 that's all...

I didn't memorize lines when I started playing the Sicilian.  I just figured out a basic way to open and I applied general opening principles and strategic ideas to not let up and eventually white makes a mistake and you win.  All chess is is learning not to make a mistake.  The problem with the Sicilian is that if you make even a tiny slight error you pay for it the entire game and usually end up losing because of it.  I respect people who play the Silician because they have to learn now to grind out wins without making any kind of positional or strategic mistake at all or else they lose.

I have always admired the Sicilian opening, so much so that I wrote a fantasy novel loosely based on it. I spent some time researching the opening and am now convinced that with the Sicilian, either black loses quickly or wins long. It is for the brave. I did some high-level analysis of Garry Kasparov's games using the Sicilian and it surely is for the brave and patient chess folks out there!

I will probably spend the rest of the year really learning the opening, I am starting to inject some aggression in my chess game and think that the Sicilian would suit my playing style.