At what Elo would you recommend studying the Sicilian?

I ask because there's a video in which IM Levi Rozman says that you shouldn't study it under 2000 because it's very complex and requires a lot of theory, yet GM Daniel Naroditsky recommends it at all levels, as a first opening to learn for black. I'm currently looking for some black openings, and want to know if it's worth investing my time in or if I'm better off looking elsewhere first.

So I'm seeking opinions on it. I'm particularly interested if you're high-rated and are therefore familiar with a lot of opening theory and can therefor compare, and if you're low-rated and play the Sicilian and can talk about how easy or difficult you find it.

The question of "when to study" seems increasingly blurred to me. I've never done any Chess book study and I don't know what the Sicilian is but it seems likely that I've seen it enough to have some degree of knowledge about it.

You can play anything you want against a computer. Just set up the position and start Stockfish. However, you'll never be able to make a person play what you want. They'll get you out of book by playing the Alapin, Grand Prix, Closed Sicilian, King's Indian Attack, Rossolimo, Moscow Variation or something. So it's not really like having a secret weapon that you can just roll over people with. You will learn by studying the opening but it might not help you win as much as you think it will.

Levy just tells people what to play based on his own preferences. His favourite opening is the Caro-Kann so he tells people to play that and tries to discourage people from playing Sicilian when he doesn't even play it himself. A lot of his viewers repeat the same view because they don't know any better. Levy's opinion about the sicilian is not popular amongst other chess coaches.

Sicilian can be a difficult opening, but is that any different in any other opening? If you decide to play the Caro-Kann or any other defence then you will have to dedicate yourself to that opening instead and learn all the variations and theory.

You should pick whichever defence you like most and stick with it. That way you will familiarise yourself with the patterns and learn and improve with the opening. It's better than giving yourself more work by learning an extra opening that someone else told you to play. Study smart, not hard.

There is no required rating for any opening. If you like the Sicilian then play it. Play the best you can, learn from your mistakes and enjoy the game.

People who say stuff like "You want to play the sicilian? Umm excuse me you're too low rated for that" are gatekeepers. It's just elitism.

Ahh chess.com never ceases to amaze me. "Just starting out equals 1250-1450" says the account that only plays Daily's and has a 90% winrate.

I am lower rated and switched to playing exclusively the sicilian in response to e4 and have done well with it. It's better than playing e5 and having to learn the Ruy Lopez, Italian, Scotch, Four Knights, King's Gambit, Vienna, etc.etc.

I don't like the Caro-Kann because it's very slow, static and passive.

Sicilian has always been the best choice for me. It's much more flexible, dynamic and a fighting opening for black.

+ The open sicilian is the #1 most beautiful opening in chess.

You can try to study whatever openings you want

Just make sure that you actually understand the opening and its ideas, and the reasoning behind the moves and why those moves are played, etc. Don't just blindly memorize moves with no understanding of them or why they're played

When your opponents are masters with e5, you should start the Sicilian.
I play the easy Taimanov lines that are easy to understand, it is on yourself to see if you could memorise and understand them.

@1

"At what Elo would you recommend studying the Sicilian?" ++ 2500

"IM Levi Rozman says that you shouldn't study it under 2000 because it's very complex"
++ He is right: it is complex, it has a lot of theory, it is not natural, it is sharp.

"GM Daniel Naroditsky recommends it at all levels" ++ It is a good opening.

"if it's worth investing my time in" ++ No.

"if I'm better off looking elsewhere first" ++ Simplest and best is 1 e4 e5.

Over the years, I've seen this advice on several openings:  Don't play opening X unless your rated over 2000+ because it's too complicated.  From my point of view, the fact that an opening is complicated is no reason to avoid it.  I may not know all of the nuances, but then, neither does my opponent (assuming that they have a similar rating).  By the fifth or sixth move, we're out of book and on our own.

depends on whether or not you take chess seriously, really

The Sicilian is going to come up 30% of the time. It wouldn't hurt to study it. My approach would be to learn a closed Sicilian for playing white because black can pull so many Sicilians on you. Then having a pet Sicilian to play as black in case white doesn't try to shut you down and decides to play ball. The Classical Sicilian or the Taimanov mentioned above sound like relatively tame Sicilians that would be easier to learn than some of the others. But don't let that stop you from playing whatever you like. If you want to learn the Dragon or the Najdorf, go for it. Just remember that if you get good at it people will avoid playing it with you. I mean why fight a kung fu master if you don't have to? That's why I say you need to know some deviations. A deviation is something you play to avoid playing what you don't want to play. Do whatever you want and have fun but studying openings is one of least productive things to study at our level of development. Tactics and endgames are more productive.

This. You can study any opening at any level if you enjoy it. The worst that can happen if you take, say, Giri's Chessable course on the Najdorf Sicilian, is that you end up memorizing theory lines that you never get to see because your opponents will never enter the main lines. At lower to intermediate levels you're very likely to end up facing a closed Sicilian (2. Nc3), a Rossolimo (3. Bb5+ if you play 2. ... Nc6, or even if you don't play it), a Smith-Morra, Grand Prix, and the like. This is because your opponents will want to avoid established theory, thinking that you are all booked-up. The best thing might then be to have some slightly unusual response prepared to each of these, and before you know it you are both out of theory and have a game of chess.

That said, studying main lines can be fun in its own right, and you learn something nevertheless (for example, get a general feel of where to put pieces in certain positions). It is of course also important to know why the main lines are main lines, and how to 'punish' inferior deviations.

One practical problem with, say, the Najdorf Sicilian, is that many variations are very move-order sensitive. Not only that, it's mutually move-order dependent, in the sense that if the opponent changes a move order you have to adapt accordingly, and if you play in lower time controls that can be a pain. Here's a concrete example:

Finally, I'd always take Daniel Naroditsky's advice over Levy's. 

2500? Boy, you gatekeepers sniffing glue. Go tell Eric Rosen and John Bartholomew not to play the Sicilian then as they are only 2400 rated IMs...

It's so sad how gatekeepers are so desperate to discourage other players from playing the Sicilian. Go find something better to do than tell people you don't know online not to play a move on a chess board. They basically just don't want to see you do well at something they couldn't.

Levy is the same. He used to play the Sicilian but quit because he struggled with it. So basically, he got crushed a few times and now he got salty and tries to discourage others. (And he is the type of person to get salty lol.)

Levy's online personality comes across as very toxic to me. I think he does it intentionally for the views. He is always mocking lower level players as part of his content. I've found that a lot of his fanbase pick up on this and copy his behaviour without considering that he is playing it up for the content.

Maybe he can be entertaining as a content creator if that's what you're into but he is not such a helpful or professional chess instructor, at least in his online personality.

This whole rant is very funny.

@18

"They basically just don't want to see you do well at something they couldn't."
++ Ask yourself two questions

1. Do you feel comfortable giving your opponent a lead in development and defending against an attack on your king?
2. Do you feel confident you can win an endgame if you have an extra pawn in the center?

If you answer twice yes, then Sicilian is good for you.
If you answer no once or twice, then Sicilian is not for you and 1...e5 is better suited.

Umm yeah, no sht...?

I used to, not again. Sicilian is more fun. It's more imbalanced.

Also white gets a lead in development in the opening but black has counterattacking chances in the middlegame. I play this opening with both colours.

Open sicilian is characterised typically by both players attacking each other on opposite sides of the board.