Which has more theory to Learn for Black: Classical e5 or Sicilian?

Patzer here who has not done much in the way of opening study.  But I know I have to do it in order to be more competitive in OTB rated play.  

I have read that it's best to not spend too much time on Opening Study.  Which makes sense, and suits me well.  BUT I want to do some opening study.  Now I have heard that it's best for beginners and intermediates to start out with 1. ... e5 against the 1. e4 move.  Rationale:  Start out with classical chess, plus get better feel for Open Games.  This makes sense to me.

However, there is King's Gambit, Scotch Game, Scotch Gambit, Vienna Game, Guiocco Piano, Ruy Lopez, etc.  That seems like a lot of theory there to study!

Then there is the Sicilian Defense.  Fights for a win from the beginning, and asymmetrical.  Yet very theory intensive and also there's a lot of anti-Sicilians to prep for as well.  Closed Sicilian, Grand Prix Attack, Smith-Morra, etc....

Currently, I just want to pick from one of these two, and I want to pick the one that is the easiest and has the least amount of critical opening theory to learn.  What say thee, chess.com community?

Tough one!

I would say it depends on the Sicilian variation you plan to head into 

If you choose 1....e5, then there is a wealth of games from the 19th Century, as most elite Masters were great at these moves....

You will have to make decisions....What to play against the Ruy? Do you like the Berlin, the Open Ruy Lopez, or the Closed Chigorin or Breyer, or the Zaitsesv?

 Or how about the Marshall attack?

It depends on your temperament. do you have patience, as is required in most closed openings, specially with Black? Or do you need quick, tactical games?

So many choices!

You can narrow it by going with the Russian Defense (a.k.a. Petroff).

Rids you of having to know the Ruy Lopez, Italian, and Scotch.  You do still need an answer to the King's Gambit, Vienna, Center Game, etc.

Yes, you must plan, whether in the 1...e5 or 1...c5 systems, your response to different options by White.

In the 1...e5 systems, you must have an idea of what to do against different systems by White, from the King's Gambit to Scoth Gambit, to Bc4 vs. Bb5, etc.....

The great Masters of the 19th Century mostly played 1....e5, so you have plenty of games form that era to look into. Into the 20th Century, players like Rubinstein, Lasker and Keres are all great with Black in these systems.

Including possibilities arising from 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4.

A chess.com blogger, Midnas Lament, plays/played the Petroff, and her titled coach told her to stop and play 2... Nc6 to round out or solidify her chess foundation.

Hence the "etc".

Dutch defense 

Every coach will tell you something different.  Do not latch on to what one coach says.  One will tell you the Dragon sux, the next will tell you the French sux, the next will tell you the English sux.  2...Nc6 doesn't diversify, it is just different.  If you want diversity, gotta play both, plus the French and Caro!

I was wondering about the Scheveningen (sp?) variation.  Najdorf is so theory laden.  Dragon is so theory laden too.  Sveshnikov seems so fashionable, and thus theory must be increasing.   

Moreover, it seems like a lot of Sicilians transpose into one another, so gotta learn many of them.

The Scheveningen is nice... but you'd better be able to defend well....White usually attacks on the kingside....

If you choose e5, then there are not very many good responses you will have to deal with because you can pretty much choose what you will play against the Ruy Lopez, the Italian, and the Scotch. However, you will have to learn the narrow path to equality or better against unsound-ish lines like the King’s Gambit, Center Game, Danish Gambit, Goering Gambit, Evans Gambit,etc. On the Petrov as an option, look at what @ThrillerFan wrote above.

If you choose c5, you will need to pick a variation in the Open Sicilian (You also need to know some anti-Sicilians, but you can mostly play them by feeling not tons of theory)

Anyway, Variations

Dragon- Tons of Theory, Lots of Great wins, Fun games, Some bad losses

Najdorf-Same as Dragon, but probably a bit harder to learn

Taimanov and Kan- Solid, easier to learn, still a bit of theory

Kalashnikov-Much less theory, probably not as good

Sveshnikov-Similar to Dragon,Najdorf, In some lines you’ll need to memorize computer lines to draw

Scheveningen- Probably a bit less theory, but good luck against the Keres attack

Richter-Rauzer- Maybe less theory than Sveshnikov, but similar 

(Hyper-) Accelerated Dragon- Less theory, more solid than Dragon, less winning chances

If you want minimal theory, I’d recommend either the Taimanov or Accelerated Dragon Sicilian or an e5 line.

Based on the OP’s comments something like the Dragon would be a nightmare with the only moves

I played a dragon game recently like this and as you can see 17.Rh8 was an only move

@SeniorPatzer The main criteria is not "how much theory do I need to learn to play this?" but "how good am I or how comfortable do I feel when playing this?

This is because most opening systems are about plans that will evolve during the middlegame. If you prefer playing slow non-active games, then probably the Sicilian Dragon is not for you, but if you enjoy having to assess and calculate critical lines then the Sicilian Dragon may be the system for you.

Then, it's not if Sicilian or symmetrical but how active are the systems you choose what determines the amount of theory you need to be up-to-date.

The single opening with the most theory is the Ruy Lopez. The Sicilian, starting on the first move by Black, probably has more books written about it than the Spanish (which starts on White's third move). 

You can't avoid theory after 1.e4. I wouldn't worry too much about how much theory any specific opening has and work more on understanding the one or two openings you choose to play. Understanding begins with analyzing complete games, not memorizing lines.

That will be true of ANY line that avoids theory. Avoiding theory MEANS cutting corners on your chess education.

Find openings you like to play.  Understand why the pieces, and pawns go where they do.  What kind of middle game positions are you comfortable with?  Start with this, and you're on your way.

From a Reddit page:

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/5k66xa/an_end_to_im_a_beginner_what_openings_should_i/

As the American Grandmaster William Lombardy put it, "All openings are perfectly sound below the master level."

As for memorization vs. understanding.

Who better to answer this question than the legendary former World Champion and master of opening preparation Garry Kasparov himself? I quote

In June 2005 in New York I gave a special training session to a group of the leading young players in the United States. I had asked them each to bring two of their games for us to review, one win and one loss. A talented twelve-year-old raced through the opening moves of his loss, eager to get to the point where he thought he'd gone wrong. I stopped him and asked why he had played a certain pawn push in the sharp opening variation. His answer didn't surprise me: "That's what Vallejo played!" Of course I also knew that the Spanish Grandmaster had employed this move in a recent game, but I also knew that if this youngster didn't understand the motive behind the move, he was already headed for trouble.

This boy's response took me back to my own sessions with Botvinnik thirty years earlier. On more than one occasion he chided me for committing this same sin of blind emulation. The great teacher insisted that his students recognize the rationale behind every move. As a result, all of us learned to become great skeptics, even of the moves of the best players. We would discover a powerful idea behind each Grandmaster move, but we also found improvements. We studied, we questioned, we grappled with the idea behind a series of moves, and eventually we could build our understanding and create more and better strategies.

For players who depend on memorization, the opening ends when their memory runs out of moves and they have to start thinking for themselves. A rote opening might carry you to move five, or even move thirty, but this practice always inhibits your development as a player. It is one thing for a world-class player to rely on memorization; he already knows all of the whys behind the moves. For your own development it's far more important to think for yourself from the very start.

--- Garry Kasparov, How Life Imitates Chess