The sicilian paradox: Bad for weaker players ? not so much

We all heard at some point of our lives that the sicilian is hard to play for weaker players (1800 below).

However... When we look at the databases, the sicilian scores better than e5 at every level.

I searched games with players between 1400 and 1900 on chesstempo and surprise:

e5: Black wins 28% and LOSES 40%

c5: Black wins 34% (YES, 34) and white wins 36. almost equal. 

It seems you can't fight the numbers. The sicilian is ok to everybody, and scores better than e5 even if you don't "fully" understand it. 

The first thing they teach you in statistics class, is that you can statistically prove anything.

In this case the difference is just too big.

What percentage of those games were actually decided by the opening?  What percentage was decided by blunders?  Mistakes? tactics?  What percentage was decided in the middlegame?  What percentage was decided in the endgame? 

I wouldnt exactly say black won because of the opening when the game was decided in the ending.

In my opinion (and having experience playing it while being a weak player), it is a viable option. While you are a beginner, you will be playing (a lot) against Bowdler attack for sub 1 200 players, but you will encounter it on higher levels as well from time to time, and you will be playing against a bad variation of Smith Morra (where white retakes the pawn with the queen).

You will be playing some open sicilians as well, but as people from both colors are not versed in theory, the result is anyone's guess. On your level however, people have memorized a few moves, not too many of course. 

You will lose some games horribly, but so what, I was able to lose some games pretty fast while playing Slav defense or against London system etc. Try to build upon your losses, try to understand which move was losing and see what was the alternative in that situation. If you plan on taking chess as a hobby, you have a lot of time to improve your play in the Sicilian. If you don't really like it after some time, switch it for something else. In any case you will be getting a lot of different stuff and games will not be boring. 

Now I did play 1. ...e5 as a child, but I was never anything special, so when I restarted playing last year, I was realistically a beginner.

People suggest playing 1. ...e5 because in theory, symmetrical game is more beginner friendly, easier to understand, but it is not the only way to play the game. If losing some open sicilian game fast will not make you hate chess, go for it.  

As for the statistics, it is probably not that important.

sicilian better e5

everyone play sicilian NOW.

After I figured that most people mess up the Sicilian just like they mess up every other opening, I resorted to the Open Variation (2. Nf3 3. d4) instead of trying to work around weird anti-Sicilian systems. 

There is this guy at chess club that is a career C player.  Spends all his time working with engines, and openings.  And after all that work, he is still a C player. 

I played the Sicilian Najdorf as Black from the time I was around 1400 strength (OTB).

Naturally, I suffered some disasters. But I also learned a lot and played some nice games.

I help run scholastic tournaments that cater to kids that dont take chess seriously.  90+% of the kids are rated under 1000.  They will come up to me after a game and ask: "Why did i lose?"  And I tell them you lost because you gave away material, and played fast.  I get some that will answer back: "Well...It wasn't my fault.  I played the Sicilian, and they didn't know any theory, so it confused me."

I understand that. But the numbers shows some tendencies. It doesn't mean they lost in the opening, but probably the middlegames arising from that have more possibilities. More chances to win, probably.

I see what your saying, but if most beginner games are decided by blunders and tactics, giving up pieces and playing too fast, then does it really matter what opening they play? Then why not the Sicilian?

"...it wasn't my fault!"

It's entirely your fault. If you leave them with that lesson, at least they will have learned something from their chess efforts.

It does seem paradoxical to me that people tell beginners not to play the Sicilian because of "too much theory" and then recommend e5 like the Ruy Lopez and Italian aren't chocked full of theory as well. 

I'm of the belief that playing anything theoretically sound is fine.

It is not the theory itself that makes the Sicilian a beast compared to other openings. 

It is the amount of non-rational theory.  To play the Italian or Roy Lopez well, one can make moves that follow developmental theory fairly closely.   To play the Sicilian well, one must make a bunch of quiet moves that improve your position before the attack. Even understanding these moves is pretty rough for a high level player, let alone a newbie. 

hi sup

I agree.

The Sicilian can be difficult to understand, for many beginners. Especially d6 Sicilians, where black adopts somewhat unusual pawn structures, compared to a more "normal" king's pawn game.

Black has resources, of course. But they may be hard to find. Sometimes this means avoiding castling, and staying in the center of the board. Sometimes this means developing your queen early. Sometimes this means advancing your wing pawns (a6+b5) instead of developing your pieces. Sometimes this means pushing a pawn to e6, and then later pushing it again to e5, even when doing so leaves the d6 pawn backward ...

And so on, and so forth. Black has a lot of interesting ideas, but they tend to break a lot of principles that beginners are still being taught, which might lead to a lot of confusion.

It makes no difference to me what opening anyone plays.  But what i would suggest is learning and understanding the "why" behind the moves, and not just memorizing moves.

Exactly! Here is what GM Naroditsky said on stream:

"I don’t believe in this whole thing that beginners should not learn openings. When you hit 900-1000 that’s really when you should start learning openings.

Not learning openings will hold you back tremendously and learning openings at an early stage actually helps you not only acquire results, which last I checked people want to win games, but it helps you cement general chess principles when you know your openings well and get good positions. When you get good positions you have a greater chance at fostering the right kind of habits.

You should definitely have a repertoire, you should memorize some of the main lines and you should understand them."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuDQbMlXeDQ&t=1284s

Nothing