What is the Minimum Knowledge Needed of the Open Sicilian for Non-Sicilian Players?

@nighteyes1234 

That is not productive, and are you common on the forums, (because I haven't heard of you before, no offense my fellow member)?

Also why do just hate the information that was spread? For some reason it just seems like you don't like information or you don't use your resources effeciently and because of this you are discrediting it. However I would like to see you write a paper on Sicilian Defense and see how much you know, whether basic or advanced and then spread it on the web for common use like this person or group of people did.

Plus it is not memorizing, it quite literally shows the theory, games and gives different understandings for different styles but for some reason you just seem like you are hating on this for no reason.

The correct info is already out there...and occasionally on this forum. Where it is promptly ignored.

It goes back to the perspective of a thing.  If you want to win and win quick, you are interested in that info. If you want to learn about it, there is that educational info.Its that simple. Its not a question of moral superiority.

But to answer your question...you have to go back to chess 101..and answer what is strategy. Then apply that to the question. Hint: Dont go to website mentioning chess. Go to educational perspective.

Dont go to 6 ways to win in 5 moves. Dont go to what should strategy be...or what you think it should be. Dont go to what it is but thats according to evil race.

So when you find it, you'll know that what Open Silician is about!

No, no my friend you have it all mixed up of course this is not about "moral superiority" this is about just giving this information and let him depict what is best for his style(very important), chess personality(if that is a thing), and his preferences(most importantly).

Of course opening theory is not strategy and it never will be, matter of fact I don't study that much opening theory. However among this I found a helpful website, it wasn't supposed to be a step by step guide but a guide to see the whole picture of the repitoire of the Sicilian Defense and their different lines that could be played.

Plus you cannot win quick, there is no such thing my friend, you have to consistently make the correct moves without blundering or making crucial mistakes to win games. So unless your opponent is making terrible move, consistently winning is not something that comes often, especially in master play as 70% of games are draws in chess on that level. 

I think you are overthinking what is happening, and though sometimes it is good to overthink, I don't see the problem here but regardless hopefully this was helpful to your understanding @nighteyes1234.

"perspective of a thing", "moral superiority", "educational perspective", "according to evil race"

In other words, nothing matters if you play blitz. All the information available can't be used as knowledge in practice if there's not enough time to figure out things that are not provided for you to remember.

And if you don't play blitz, the information of discussion is limited as to how much it will help you understand anything more.

Do with it whatever you will or won't, or you can babbled on about either incoherently.

Hmm...e6/d5 chain?

Ok...well, that pretty much clears things up for me.

Except one minor detail...

I'm completely lost now.

Could you be so kind as to help me understand?

one of the main strengths of the sicilian is that it does not define black's intentions regarding the central pawn structure. black can go e6 and d5, or d6 and e5, or even e6 and d6. most of the main sicilians revolve around this concept.

This was my understanding (of the open Sicilians) before.

Very true #29(post) the Sicilian is an open system, not a closed one so it isn't neccessarily something that is revolved around only a few concepts or idea's. There were years of theory surrounded by this opening, and it wasn't made just to hark on 1 or 2 ideas as it is a system in which many openings/lines can be played and each set of them have a different idea, even if it just be a slighlty different idea. 

The Sicilian is not like a closed system such as the Orangutan or the Grob or something along those lines. It is an opening that people have many options, and though the Sicilian is known for imbalancing players or in other words attacking players, this opening has proven you can play in all styles, whether for white or for black. 

So there is no limiting here, the only person that can be limiting anything is somenoe's own self, as this opening is vast and the theory is long and because of this you can learn much. Much of this theory can be very effective because you can get the upperhand in relativley getting the basic or advanced knowledge in the opening through in affect with the game and give you a good start from the beginning and among knowing a good amount of theory and having even better understanding the game should come full circle, depending on the moves played.

Something that can be confusing is the terminology being used and the "naming" of structures/variations sometimes aren't the same thing or shared by everyone.

"a Maroczy Bind structure" is one example...

You might find the "structure" defined by both sides' pawns or just one side's (usually White's) pawns. Some descriptions are simply White having a pawns on c4 and e4, but that's not necessarily always "called" a Maroczy Bind (if there's no real "bind").

Then we have the word "positions" thrown inro the mix. How long does the Najdorf variation actually keep a "Najdorf" structure? How often is the Boleslavsky Hole mentioned? Does the Najdorf name take over because a6 was played earlier in the move order? How often is e5 the next pawn move by Black? I think the Boleslavsky variation had a6 played before the Najdorf variation was ever a thing.

How much difference does an a-pawn make to a structure? Some say it's insignificant when talking about one structure and yet they call it something else in another situation. Take the Caro/French for instance, (imo) there's a significant difference there.

Then there's the questionable ones like "Dragondorph" and Schevendorf". Where's the rationale to it all?

Reading Flores-Rios' book, he has sturctures called Najdorf type I & II (or King's Indian type 1 & 2) and maybe some variants of those. There's no uniiversal nomenclature, call it whatever you want at your convenience.