Sicilian VS French: Which is better?

"It's not enough to be a good chess player - you also have to make good moves!"

Careful. You'll break the sarcasm meter.

If you want to surprise someone, you could try the Danish Morra (my invention): https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/is-this-the-danish-morra

That thread had several comments by a player who was banned. His comments were removed.

P.S. I meant to add on my first post that the best way to surprise people is play solid opening principles that lead to a playable middlegame, then hit them with tactics - which is the primary road to improvement for most of us so-so rated players.

I love playing the Nimzowitsch, especially the lines after 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.d5 Nce7.  1.Nc3 reaches the same position and is fun as well.  If anyone wants to learn this defense, I recommend watching the series of videos on it by Youtube user GJ_Chess.  Personally, I've given up on his 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5 lines.  I struggled to find something I liked against 2.Nf3 that wasn't e5.  I play d5 against that these days but I might change after seeing the user who suggested d6 and a pirc-like setup. 

Anyway, here's a great YouTube series on how to play the Nimzowitsch.  1...Nc6 

French will usually lock up your center with a space disadvantage unless you opponent opts for the exchange variation. Sicilian is aggresive and quite open. For a suprise, though, I always play Alekhine's defence where most people don't know the theory.

That's why I like to study at least the first five-to-eight moves of most openings. A lot of people discourage opening study for beginners and I do agree general opening principles, tactics and end-game study are more important, but I at least like to know what to do if someone plays Alekhine's Defense, 1. c4 or 1. g3 against me. I've had only one recent opponent play the French against me, but I see a lot of Sicilians (I'm studying the English Attack against most Sicilians). I'm learning the Tarrasch to play against the French and am in the middle of my first game with it now. Sicilian scores better for black.

What's the difference?

Fam, da Sicilian is WAY better trust me. No one plays the French these days unless they are like super duper experienced and like at least 2000 rating so do NOT play the French play the Sicilian cause you are NOT super duper experienced or 2000

You're not going to surprise people with a Sicilian or french. 

The pin variation is relatively easy to learn in the sicilian and isn't seen much... 

But if you really want a surprise: Nimzowitsch, Alehkine or Scandi. 

I would agree, but the Pin also runs into some problems if your opponent is prepared.

The Pin Variation threw me for a loop the first time I saw it, but now I know how to deal with it. It would be a nice surprise weapon.

The question is ridiculous. I'll tell you which one is easier to learn.

Sicilian chapters in ECO: B20 to B99  (80 chapters)

French chapters in ECO: C00 to C19 (20 chapters)

Umm, I disagree... I myself play the French, and by your definition of who should play it, obviously i meet it, i am 2200+. However, I have many friends who are successfully employing the French in their chess lives... 1700s, 1500s, and 1900s. So it is a matter of choice and preference. The Sicilian is very open and counterattacking, while the French leads to closed positions and accurate maneuvering. Often, the French can lead to attacking positions as well when Black plays ...c5 or ...f6 to attack White's pawn chain.

I think objectively and at the highest levels Sicilian is better (I say this as a French player myself).

But at any other level , and especially your level, it does not matter. Why don't check out annotated games of masters played in both openings, and see what you like more. 

But surprise it will never be, they are both mainstream openings.

At 1100 rapid level on Chess.com here, I learned that putting a lot of time and effort in studying openings (and not the middlegames that arise from them) like the Sicilian wouldn't help much. When I was still in the 1100s, virtually nobody played the Open Sicilian (the mainline) - they were playing some kind of response such as the Bowlder Attack (2.Bc4) or 2.d3 etc.

Stick to the French if you're OK with locked pawn chain structures AND symmetrical structures. Stick to the Dragon (Sicilian) if you're OK with very tactical and sharp chess. Stick to ...e6 Sicilians (Taimanov, Kan) if you want some decent counterplay without the game turning very sharp. I don't recommend the Najdorf, as there are way too many parts of the theory which can catch you off-guard.

However, it s unlikely you will ever get to play your line of the Sicilian/French at your level, as others on your level tend to stray from the mainline and play suboptimally.

Woah, woah. Did you just deny the analyses by grandmasters on the Sicilian?

Sure, White gives up his center pawn majority and gives Black a semi-open queenside file, but he gets a semi-open center file and a centralized knight (which Black can only reliably kick with ...e5, which weakens the d5 square and makes the d-pawn backward) in return.

However, I admit that I usually play anti-Sicilians as White, but mostly due to the reason that I hopefully catch my opponent off-book and neutralize some advantage he might get from knowing, say, 10 moves in opening theory for the Najdorf that I don't.

Lol, isn't it usually the other way around?

Pretty sure the Winawer has less theory than the Najdorf.

Can't White transpose into a Scotch with a natural 3.Nf3 and thus sidestep any specific theory a Nimzo player has prepared?

You do know that 3. d4 in the Sicilian does go against the rule of "not trading center pawns for flank pawns"? Personally, I prefer 3. Bb5, regardless of 2... Nc6 or 2... d6, unless black plays 2... e6 or 2... g6