whats the most interesting variation of the sicilian?

13.Rc1 is much more common recently, and it seems that Black is OK.

Of course you can exclude cases like this very recent one: Moves like 20...h4??? which was played by Stockfish are inexcusable positional mistakes, even for class B players.

Hmmmm.....looks like Im back to the drawing board on 1. Nf3  Im looking for something with some counterattacking potential.....maybe I can try to get a kings Indian with 1...Nf6 or a leningrad dutch with 1...f5? Im kind of wondering if the leningrad is good against the London though.

From what i understand, One of the least theoretical Sicilian variations is the classical.

I dont mind a playing against a closed sicilian or KIA which could happen with 2. g3 but 2. c4 looks like the game could be a symmetrical english which I would rather not enter.

...

I play the najdorf, and look at my results?

https://www.chess.com/explorer?moveList=e4+c5+Nf3+d6+d4+cxd4+Nxd4+Nf6+Nc3+a6&ply=9&gameSource=other&gameType=all&color=black&username=foofooes 

I always tell people to base their defense to 1.Nf3 on what they do against 1.d4, not 1.e4.

King's Indian/Grunfeld Player?  1...Nf6

Nimzo-Indian Player?  1...Nf6

QGD/Slav/QGA/Semi-Slav?  1...d5

Benoni?  1...c5 - You will often get Anti-Benoni lines, like 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nf6 3.d4, same as 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3.  2.e4 is of course a Sicilian.  After 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nf6, if White doesn't play 3.d4, Black can play 3...d5, leading to a Reversed Anti-Benoni.  Still in Benoni territory, just you are playing the White side of it a tempo down.

I guess I should be playing 1...Nf6 as I have played KID in the past and am currently studying grunfeld. Looks like 1..c5 could be interesting after all. What about 1..f5 with the intention of leningrad dutch?

Dear @james... you don't have to use something very complicated to play for a win? Many champions have played and won using the humble QGD, for example. 

Again, if you are a Dutch player against 1.d4, then 1.Nf3 f5 is fine.

The one advantage to the KID over any other is that there is no real "Anti-KID.  You have Anti-Grunfeld Lines, Anti-Nimzo lines, etc., but no Anti-KID.

For example:

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 or 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3, Black must play ...d5 NOW if he wants any hope at a Grunfeld (d4 would transpose).  After 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6, White can play 3.e4!, which says "bye bye" to the Grunfeld, but 3...d6 4.d4 Bg7 is a King's Indian Defense.

After say, 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6, you have the Mikenas-Flohr with 3.e4 or the "Anti-Nimzo-Indian" with 3.Nf3.

White can hold off d4, but after say, 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 O-O 5.Nf3 d6 6.O-O c6 (or any other valid 6th move of the Fianchetto King's Indian, like 6...Nbd7, for example, and now, White has nothing better than 7.d4, directly transposing to the King's Indian Defense.  7.d3 is useless for White.  After 7...e5, full equality has been achieved.

Even in the Symmetrical English, 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.O-O O-O, White has nothing bertter than 7.d4, against which Black can take, or play 7...d6, which is a direct transposition to the Yugoslav Variation of the Fianchetto King's Indian.

White has absolutely no effective way to avoid the King's Indian Defense, whereas many 1.Nf3 or 1.c4 players play those moves to specifically avoid the Nimzo-Indian and Grunfeld.  They will gladly transpose to the King's Indian, Queen's Gambit, Slav, etc., but not the Nimzo or Grunfeld.  Even myself, I occasionally play 1.Nf3 with full willingness to transpose to a QP opening, but NOT the Grunfeld (main reason I virtually quit 1.d4) or Nimzo-Indian.  I will gladly play a Classical King's Indian (1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.d4) or Saemisch King's Indian (1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.Nc3), but I avoid the Grunfeld like the plague, Black or White!  If there is one opening I can truly say I hate from both sides, it's the Grunfeld.

Averbakh and Samisch score fabulous against the KID.

Why not go for the Botvinnik setup if White tries to play an English or KIA?

Thats actually something Im not familiar with. Against the english I like playing a reverse dragon 1. c4 e5. I guess it might be a good idea to look at some ideas to meet KIA at some point but really KIA positions dont happen very often in my games so its probably a better idea to study something I see more often.

Thank you everyone for sharing your opinion about the different sicilian variations. I think I have what I need now,,,,I have decided to go with the sicilian dragon.

That's a mistake. It isn't very good. It's both not solid and it's passive. Hence all the variations ... accelerated, semi-accelerated etc.

Don't be silly.  It'll be fine.  And it's not passive if you're prepared to make the requisite exchange sacs, etc.  (The accelerated dragon can definitely become passive, if you wind up in a Maroczy bind, but that's a totally different opening.)

It takes a lot of theory to play it at the highest levels, but the lower the level, the less theory you can get away with.

You'll lose some, but that's the way it goes.  You'll certainly get some fun games out of it.

No matter what your main line choice is,  white has many options on just the 2nd move- the Smith and Wing gambits, c3, Nc3, f4 (and even odd moves like 2) b3 or 2) Na3 - as analyzed in books such as 'Secrets of Opening Surprises' (the SOS series by 'New in Chess') 

Thus, when playing the Sicilian as black,  as much as you want to play your main line- there will be many times you will face all these 2nd move white options, so that has to be taken into account- if you are wiling to devote the study time to all those sidelines.  Perhaps it might also be good -  if you are an e4 player, you also need to determine how to play against the Sicilian as white - play against your own lines, or adopt a 2nd move sideline?  

I actually am an e4 player and currently play sidelines against the sicilian...rossolimo, moscow, alapin. Also I used to play the closed sicilian as white so getting ready for the sidelines probably wont be a great deal of work of work for me. Im not that familar with the grandprix, wing gambit or the b3 line but I think I prefer to see if I can figure out what to do against those on my own before doing any special study for them.

Silly? I prefer to play solid Sicilians that are flexible. Not Sicilians where to win you have to exchange sac, which doesn't work if white plays well.

As a general rule, the worse the Sicilian variation is, the more dependent it is on theory to enable black to simply stay in the game and not get hammered.

I play the O'Kelly, which needs exactly zero theory that I didn't work out for myself.

The Dragon is extremely typecast and g7 is a passive square for the B. Everyone who plays against the Sicilian will have their favourite variation they play against the Dragon. GMs don't use it for a very good reason. It's passive unless white blunders badly.