Learning the Sicilian

I want to learn the Sicilian, how to play it and how to counter it.

I want to practice what I know and learn more about it.

I would love some volunteers, all levels, to play games with me so I learn and practice it.

I would very much appreciate it if people would volunteer and help me

Games may be daily or rapid only. (Then maybe some blitz games once I get a hang of it.)

I also appreciate it if you would post down in the comments below a few things that helped you or someone you know learn the Sicilian.

Thank you for reading!

The open Sicilian is what you should try to play to better understand it. Keep in mind that I play 1.d4 and don't really know that much from White's side

Anything I can get is always helpful, thank you 

I only started learning it last month. The first dozen or so rapid games with it I lost horribly, but honestly I didn't mind. Going in I knew that it would be nothing short of catastrophic, and I wasn't wrong. But here I'm going to ask you: why do you want to learn it from both sides? It's best to stick with 1.. e5, which is what I've seen you exclusively play for quite a while.

But if you're serious about it, you're going to want to explore the opening and find out which pawn structures/ideas appeal to you the most. And don't say "the one that works best"! Actually consider which playstyle/pawn structures suit you the most, and then look at classical games in those specific variations. Usually games played around 1960-1990 work best for these. Good luck!

@4

"games played around 1960-1990 work best"
++ No. Many lines of the Sicilian that worked from 1960-1990 have been refuted since.
Many new games have been played and much new analysis has been added.
Look at recent material: the World Championship match Caruana - Carlsen, the Candidates' Tournaments etc.

Looking at recent material isn't beneficial for players around 1300 like me and OP, because much of the lines that the players go into is deep prep, and often people play into lines that are actually just plain bad in order to gain an advantage, betting on their opponent not knowing the specific lines/move order to refute the idea.

The reason I suggested older games is because much of the Sicilian's main ideas were developed around this time period, there's some great model games in very specific variations that are very clear to follow along. For example, Kasparov's Scheveningen, or Karpov's Taimanov, especially them playing against lower-rated opponents. Studying contemporary games is often very misleading.

@6

"Looking at recent material isn't beneficial for players around 1300"
++ Study of openings is not beneficial for players around 1300 and much beyond.

"because much of the lines that the players go into is deep prep"
++ Much of the lines 1960-1990 were also deep prep.
Here is a famous example: deep prep by black refuted over the board by white
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1048762

"often people play into lines that are actually just plain bad in order to gain an advantage, betting on their opponent not knowing the specific lines/move order to refute the idea."
++ Betting is a bad idea. Normal people try to play good moves.

"much of the Sicilian's main ideas were developed around this time period"
++ Many of those ideas have been refuted and many new ideas have been developed since.

"Kasparov's Scheveningen, or Karpov's Taimanov" ++ Both are suspect now

"especially them playing against lower-rated opponents" ++ No, that is misleading.
If you seek the truth, then look for games between equally matched opponents.

"Studying contemporary games is often very misleading." ++ No, on the contrary: the old games are misleading while often refuted since. The modern top games are closest to the truth.
Example: deep prep by white, but black adequately defends until he stumbles in the endgame.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1993385 

You don't get his point at all.

He is NOT studying the Sicilian from the perspective of theory.  He does not care what the latest novelty is on move 17 because the level of opposition will never be in book near that far onto the game.

He is right.  The older games would help him out more because he is looking for general pattern recognition and how to handle such strengths and weaknesses.

For example, take the Najdorf Sicilian with 6.Be2, 6.Be3, or 6.f4 - lines where Black plays ...e5.

He is not looking for what to do on move 24 of the English Attack.  He is learns things like how to attack (White) or Defend (Black) a backwards pawn on d6.

What general concepts might Black try to make ...d5 a reality.

What prevention measures might White take to prevent d5.  For example, if a Black Knight goes to b6, to cover d5, should White advance the a-pawn to a4 and a5 to dislodge the Knight?  Is it cramping Black?  Or is it weakening White?

Things like that!  That is how I learned the French.  I did not start off by learning the 12...d4 Winawer out to a draw, which it basically is.  I learned about White's wrecked pawn structure, Black's advantages in an endgame, Black's dark square weaknesses, especially g7, in the middle game, the pawn breaks and when to execute them.  Playing ...f6 is not automatic.  In some cases, it is outright bad, like in the KIA vs French line where Black pawnstorms the Queenside.

When he understands the positional basics of the Najdorrf, or whichever Sicilian he is studying, which hopefully he is also studying Endgames (CRITICAL), Strategy, and Tactics as well, only then when he has played the Najdorf or whichever Sicilian for a couple of years and has reached 1800 or so (he should also be playing over the board), only then does he need to worry about modern theory.  And yes, at that point in time when he is facing the big guys and his games will go 25 moves into theory, only then does he need to worry about what you are harping at.  He is taking the right approach, unlike morons that think trick openings are the way to go where you have to start all over.  Here, he will have a solid foundation of the Sicilian Defense and will have something to work off of.  If he played say, 1...g5, and then tried to learn the Sicilian after he falsely got to 1800 off trickery, then he would have to start all over and would fail.  It would be like trying to go from little league baseball to professional ballet.  If you wanted to take up professional ballet, you should have taken beginner ballet classes from the get go.  That is how you succeed.  That is how I became successful with the French Defense, and that is how this guy can become successful with the Sicilian.  I am not a Sicilian advocate, but I can safely say that everything I said above is accurate.  Now when he gets up there and needs help with Black's new 27th move, he will have to get that advice from someone else.  I answer all the deep theory French questions on here, and give general advice for other SOUND openings, like the Sicilian, Caro, and 1...e5.

I've been playing the Sicilian for a couple months now and I'd be glad to help you get started, though it kind of depends on which you play. I personally play the Najdorf, and I'm very comfortable with the common positions such that I think I'd be helpful, as well as most early d6 Sicilian structures. If you're thinking of playing a French Sicilian structure (with the early e6 instead, like the Taimanov or the Kan), I don't think I could help as much there.

I am also looking for some practice. If you add me, I would be happy to accept your challenge.

I play Najdorf with black. Open Sicilian with white.

I'd be very happy to play 1. e4 against you so that you can practice the Sicilian. I'm rated quite a bit lower than you (around 1000), so you could practice consolidating your advantage against a weaker player and get more confidence with the opening.

My favourite when d4

Thank you