I have noticed that there are several Sicilian variations:

1) Najdorf

2) Schevenigen

3) Dragon

4) Accelerated Dragon

5) Sveshnikov

6) Kan / Taimanov Variation

Which of these is the best and which is easiest to learn?  are they all good?

Here are my thoughts. Please tell me if I am wrong.

1) Najdorf

Most theory and requires a lot of study to memorize lines.  Most developed.  But provides Black the greatest winning chances.

2) Schvenigen.

Not as much theory as Najdorf.  But still requires a lot of study.  More solid that Najdorf.  Give black winning chances. and more dynamic becaue the pawn is on e6 square instead of e5.

3) Dragon

Lots of theory.  Less solid because of Yugoslav attack. 

Leads to usually a win or lost/draw for black because of the cutting edgeness to it.  Playing with a bon fire.

4) Accelerated Dragon

Very solid system.  Most games lead to draws for Black

5) Sveshnikov

has some theory. leads to cutting edge and double edge positions.  Black needs to be confortable playing dyanmically

6) Kan/Taimanov

Very solid and flexible system.  easiest to play.  leads to draws/wins for black

please help me out

thanks

i want to pick a sicilian to play so i can be a soprano or part of the godfather family of chess.

You already pretty much have the idea of what each sicilian is about to you..now all you need to do is figure out which one suits your liking most, by what you said

Its all personal preference...

Dragon is best because then you get to use all kinds of cool phrases like "the fire breathing bishop on g7". 

Which Sicilian variation is best and why?

If you do some independent research you'll find the variation where you apply fish bladders to your skin is really a remedy for every kind of chess related ailment.

Insightful.

is it ok if i just picked a sicilian variation and try it out. let's say i pick the kan or the accelerated dragon because it is the easiest or more solid.

won't other people laugh at me for not playing the najdorf because that variation is more mainstream and leads to a win for black. i don't understand why a lot of people play the najdorf online and in tournaments but they are not very good at it.  is it because they want to be cool.

is it okay i play the kan and win games at it and don't want to play the najdorf or another variation.

also am i wasting my time trying to learn the kan

because if the najdorf is the best opening then shouldn't i spend time studying that instead of the kan.  because let's i study the kan for 3 years and find out that the best that black can get is a draw.  does that mean i wasted 3 years of playing and studying the kan.

i guess my question is what do i gain by being a specialist of one opening versus being a generalist and being average with several openings.

I don't know but i think Najdorf and dragon is better and easier for player

If all these sicilian variations are good then why doesn't people like Kramnik or Kasparov regularly play the Kan/Taimanov ?

If we look at the world champions:

Alekhine never played the sicilian (why is that? )

Capablanca never play the sicilian (why is that? )

Botvinnik never played the sicilian (why is that ? )

Tal always played the Najdorf

Smyslov played the schevengigen

Petrosian played the najdorf

Spassky played the najdorf or classical

Fischer played the najdorf

Karpov played the Taimanov/Kan

Kasparov played the Najdorf or schevenigen

Kramnik played the sveshnikov

Anand played the najdorf

Topalov played the najdorf

Carlsen played the najdorf

so it looks like the najdorf is the best.

but okay i will try playing the accelerated dragon or kan because they are easier.  but doesn't it seem that they are bad because everyone is always playing the najdorf. 

2 questions:

1) can a GM beat a 2400 rated player with the black pieces if the GM played the Kan against the 2200 rated player? 

2) can a GM beat a 2400 rated player with the black pieces if the GM played the Accelerated Dragon against the 2200 rated player? 

if the answer to these 2 questions is yes, then my question is why?

is it because the opening is really good or is because the GM is a specialist and memorized 30 lines deep of the opening or is it something else

thanks

Taimanov is a very topical opening right now, but for some reason people hate on the Kan. I don't understand why the Taimanov is good and the Kan is bad. doesn't make much sense to me.

yeah i accidentally wrote the incorrect numbers

so if a gm can beat a 2200-2400 regardless of opening

then why does the GM win.

and does that mean any opening is good? 

why did Fischer just play the King's Indian Defense, Grunfeld, or Queens Gambit Accepted (1992) if any opening is okay.

he could have played the semi-slav defense or the queen's gambit declined or the budapest gambit or the stonewall dutch

but refused to do so. i don't understand why GMs choose to specialize with one opening system.  doesn't it make it easier to prepare against them

and less chance that the GM will win the thousands dollars of prize money in the open tournament

Any mainline opening is good, yes.  GM's play certain openings the same reason that us patzers play certain openings; they like them.  You are correct that sticking with the same openings makes it easier to be prepared against, which is why nowadays at the top level there aren't many players who play strictly the same lines like Fischer did in his time.      

i got taught schevenigen but got sick of facing richter rauser so to stick with mistress sicilian i choose taimanov this has made it easy for me to flow into kan

is it a draw ?depends who you are playing and if the pair of you are going to just follow mainlines as long as poss it prob will be

but for me im happy to still be a 1 .....c5 player even if i do this without database just feel

Well lets see:

How about the SICILIAN MOSCOW? Or the ROSSOLIMO? Or the OPEN SICILIAN? But if on the 2. .... E6 is played that eliminates the OPEN.

Then there is also th Alapin? The ACCELERATED DRAGON? The O'KELLY SICILIAN?

So with so many choices you should decide on one or two that you would benefit from.

IMHO

But you should remember that all those great players you mentioned prior to this, is that they were master and not some normal player playing a game on chess.com

DENVER

my personal feeling is that najdorf is best. It almost apears that it answers every problem white can make while giving counter chances. The worse both players are the more I like whites chances though.

the kan is also very good and perhaps slightly easier on both white and black

Dragon is not refuted, but its awfully close if white plays the yugoslav attack.

accelerated dragon is a passive system, one of those openings that just hopes for overconfidence from white.

the schevenigen is kinda like the dragon to me. One mistake away from being impossible for a class player to defend if white plays the keres attack. It should be noted using the kasparov move order does avoid the keres.

I play najdorf and sometimes the Kan, many players at my level do not play testing lines against the najdorf making it very easy to get an advantage as black. I have run into a few players that know the theory on some attacks and I have been beaten without a chance.

The Najdorf due to the fact that you reach incredibly rich endgames with two rooks and queen vs. two rooks and queen and maximize your winning chances against white in sharp positions that represent the epitome of cutting edge chess!  It is a very concrete opening where anything goes and rules are often flouted, so not just modern in a purely theoretical sense! 

As for the Dragon the d5 square is too weak, and the Scheviningen allows the Keres Attack.  Again the ...e5 Sicilian leaves d6 and d5 too weak.  There are weaknesses in the Najdorf, but black has ample resources and chances to counter them. 

Well unless you transpose to a Scheveningen, your d5 square is also going to be weak in the pure Najdorf.

Yes I alluded to that, but also said that black has resources on dealing with them if he understands and knows the theory.  The b6,d6,d5, and f5 squares tend to be weak. 

what is people's opinion on the kan?