whats the best way to learn the sicilian as a 1100-1200 player?

[Removed: Offensive] ~W

[Removed: Offensive] ~W

I meant Jimmy, not you

Thats because many people are still learning about this truth I speak of.

You can call it hate speech, conspiracy, or whatever 

But the truth is, it's not hate speech. It's just a fact.

Evil, corruption, is in power and I'm telling you who it is.

And it's not a conspiracy. There is empirical evidence of what I said, it's just being hidden.

Anyway, in an attempt to steer things back to the original topic:

For those who want to practice the Sicilian, chess.com has a fun training option:

Go to:

Learn -> Practice -> Openings -> e4 Openings (https://www.chess.com/practice/openings/e4-openings)

Scroll down until you find the three Sicilian options (Sicilian Alapin, Sicilian Closed, and Sicilian Open).

You can practice (from either color) playing these openings, against the engine, at a strength level of your choosing. It gives you eval scores and suggestions after each move, and you can undo moves if you want to try different lines and variations.

It's a useful training method that's free for all members who want to use it.

Shut the hell up or you are gonna be permanently banned and not able to make accounts

Jimmy, Who told me that I'm an filthy rat? I'm aren't,

Yeah, move order is important. That's why you play 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6.
++ If I recall correctly, the Accelerated Dragon move order is antiquated. 

If you play 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. d4 cxd4 then white has 4. Qxd4.
++ Sure, but then you just play normally with Nf6, Nc6, and normal development. If Qa4 and e5, then Nd5. White loses a decent amount of their advantage in this line.

You avoided the Rossolimo but for what? Some people prefer this but there's literally no point in doing this. It's just a different line that you have to learn instead.
++ But why learn it if you don't have to?

"Illiterate" omg dude. Pipe it down, I don't need your drama. Literally read the original post. Thread is titled "what's the best way to learn the sicilian as a 1100-1200 player?" NOT "should I play the sicilian?". You really had to get petty just because what I'm saying is completely true. (Waiting for your apology.)
++ I read the original post, as well as the rest of the comments and so I gave my opinion that the best way to learn the Sicilian as a 1100-1200 player is to reach 1500 and then learn it. The original poster also happened to post a comment about not being sure if they even wanted to learn it... which you responded to. This was why I unfairly called you illiterate, so I apologize. I misjudged you. You seem at least to want to help people improve at the game, and aside from my comments, you have been gruff but polite throughout the thread and called out that... fellow... recently.

Everyone should know the Fried Liver just like everyone should learn how to defend Scholar's Mate. This is super basic stuff. It's better to play Bc5 (Giuoco Piano) anyway. This is perfect to start out as you learn how to develop your pieces in an active, principled way. If you struggled to play against the Fried Liver then that's on your own play. If you enjoy the Petrov then go ahead but this is typically what higher level players play when they want a dry, positional game. It's like playing the Berlin Wall. It's better to play e5 Nc6 and learn some of the basic tactics and piece play of the game. If someone doesn't want to learn that then I don't know what to tell you because this is the most basic of the basic.
++ Everyone at a certain level should know. But below 1000 the Fried Liver is a genuine attack and the Scholar's Mate a legitimate strategem. I learnt it, but in the process, I also learned the Petrov's, Alekhine's, and Modern before I learned the popular Double King Pawn Openings like the Scotch, Italian, and Spanish. As such, I know a lot more and improved a lot quicker than I would've if I'd only played DKPOs.

Your entire philosophy is "anti-learning". Your idea is that you shouldn't play something if you have to learn. Learning is all a part of the process.
++No, my philosophy is 'ground-up learning'. I believe in starting with unorthodox openings (Alekhine's, Vienna, Ponziani, Scandinavian et cetera) before moving to incredibly solid, passive openings (Giuoco Pianissimo, KID, London/Colle) before moving to sidelines of popular aggressive openings (Scotch, Trompowsky, QGA, Delayed Alapin/Pin) before moving to mainlines of popular openings.

Also you can't necessarily say that your friend as stuck BECAUSE they play main line theory. That's pretty much a confirmation bias. Of course there are other skills in chess than knowing lines.
++ Yes, there are other skills, but they're only slightly worse than me at tactics, play endgames better than me, and only really struggle in late middlegames where I excel. Until very, very recently we went even. 

A lot of people are not even going to know the deep theory anyway even in main lines.
++ Yes, but a lot more are going to know mainline deep theory in their preferred openings and variations, which is why I don't recommend those. My reasoning follows: who preps deep theory against, for example, the Nimzowitsch sidelines compared to deep Najdorf mainlines?

Maybe your opponent didn't know much more theory than you did and you just got outplayed. If you found a style which works for you then fair play but that style can't necessarily be recommended to others.
++ That does happen. As for finding a style and recommending it, isn't that also what you're doing? We both recommend what we know and believe to be right, and that's great. At the end of the day, I hope OP tries out my advice and your advice and takes whichever works better for them.