Switching to Sicilian, but which Sicilian?

Isn’t that a Slav line?

Please show some example lines. Because from what I know, the engine’s top 2 moves for white are e4 and d4.

so many examples

I believe he's thinking of these two games:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1048646

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044555

Computer doesn’t recommend alekhine, and I don’t think it likes Benoni/Benko very much either. 
Im not sure computer loves Grunfeld so much but it still makes sense 👍

those are still valid, playable examples

and the grünfeld is blacks best move

I generally like to delay my queen knight's development, in case I want to put it on d7 - so I don't really play the Sveshnikov. Others here would likely know better than I would.

But I'd say it's perfectly valid, if you like it - and have learned the basic setup of it.

Magnus played it against Caruana in the World Championship - so you know it's got to be good.

At the club level, I imagine a booked-up Sveshnikov player would generally outplay his white opponents, as I doubt many club players spend much time learning how to play against it. (At that level, I'd say something like the Dragon is far more common to see ...)

Cool 😎

The Boleslavsky structure may seem illogical in some senses if you are only thinking about the weaknesses. There is a hole on d5 and d6 is backwards.

As you said @IronSteam1, there was someone who didn't understand the position and claimed this was a positional mistake.

We know, however, that this is actually completely fine for black and there is dynamic compensation in exchange for the weaknesses. This is the same with many other structures in chess, like the IQP structure or hanging pawns structure. There is a structural weakness but it's perfectly playable as there are other benefits. The structures have their own logic and learning about this is a necessary part of chess improvement.

🥲

2. Bc4 is what all the cool kids are playing nowadays.

the boleslavsky structure should only be played with a6 allready on the board. otherwise white is winning,

Indeed these were the first versions of Geller's plan, later evolved by Karpov. It's not the sort of plan that can be stopped intuitively over the board. The Najdorf is full of pitfalls that can only be avoided by studying theory, expecting to diffuse them OTB is unrealistic, unless one has greater intuition than Fischer, Nunn , who had opening loses ( not losses that occured from the middlegame, the opening decided the outcome).

It needs good knowledge of theory to be played, more so than other openings that is, and it has lots of theory. If one can master the theory without this time consuming exercise being at the cost of other areas of the game, it can only be a good thing as it's a great weapon, Kasparov and Fischer weren't fools. But they were also professionals, while most players are probably better off investing that time to improve their game.

Improving your chess openings, IS improving your game! 
Just my opinion, but a good 40% of your time should be on the opening! And studying the middle games that arise from it

So basically it's the idea with Be3-a4-a5 then.

@FrogboyWarpz

Exactly, time invested into the opening is totally worth it if you consider that interesting and a part of your own journey of learning. Learning other parts of the game is important as well of course.

If you're willing to memorize a large amount of theory, then the obvious answer would be the Najdorf. According to theory, it's the best Sicilian. However, If you're not willing to memorize 15 different lines from move 6, I would either split it between the Dragon variation or the Paulsen-Kan variation. The Dragon is a bit more well-known, so your opponents might have a bit of prep against it, but most players are just oblivious to the Kan. If you want to take your opponents by surprise, the Kan would definitely be the best choice.

If you decide to play the Najdorf, know that you not only have to know its 15 different lines, you also have to learn the Closed Sicilian, the Grand Prix Attack, the Smith-Morra Gambit, the Alapin Sicilian, the Wing Gambit, and a dozen more major sidelines that need to be punished properly.

if you dont want theory the dragon sicilian is not what should be recommended

@TheSampson

If you play any Sicilian you also face the Closed, Grand Prix, Smith-Morra, Alapin, Wing Gambit, and the others. That's not specific to the Najdorf. If you play the Dragon or Kan, you face them just as much.

In the Najdorf there are about 7 lines which are played 90% of the time. Also, once you've learned something about a few, you start to get a hang of the structure and can improvise against a lot of the others. At least at our level, it's not necessary to know loads of theory for every single line.

You can start playing and learn as you go. Trying to memorise everything is not a good learning strategy at first. Learning through experience and anchor games helps you understand the ideas instead of just memorising them.

I agree and picked up over 200+ easy rapid points within two months against the 1500-2000 bracket players because both are easier to play and the plans are straightforward.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/74019657637

https://www.chess.com/game/live/72210972045

It depends on your style and what you find easiest to understand personally. For some, the Kan may be better suited. For others, the Najdorf is best.