It's difficult to say. Even if I don't play as often nowadays, I still had numerous games where I played the Sicilian with White, played normal moves and Black just kind of self-destructed after some time. That's in the 1400-1600 range. OTB players are definitely a lot more booked up if and they're playing Sicilians, then it's a dangerous weapon at any level, especially with a good coach.
You're free to play it if you like, but it's definitely not an effortless opening.
There is no point studying ANY opening for as long as you blunder something every second move. And Levy Rozman is a kid entertainer, not a chess teacher.
Below Expert level (and certainly, below 1200 level) you should forget about memorized theoretical lines and just play an opening that you ENJOY.
At that level of playing strength, your greatest asset in your personal growth as a chess player is NOT your tactical or strategic ability, or your situational awareness, or your memory...
Your best asset at that level is your enjoyment and enthusiasm for the game. That's what will keep you working to improve. If you lose your sense of fun in the game, your rate of improvement will drop like a rock.
So you should play openings that promise to be fun. For me... yes, that included the Sicilian (against 1. e4) and the King's Indian Defense (against 1. d4), even though I adopted both openings before I was really strong enough to understand them properly.
I had fun... and therefore I kept at it and improved as a player.
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
The Sicilian is only "very complex and requires a lot of theory" if you're playing against, say, a grandmaster.
If you're facing GMs on a regular basis, then yes, I would say it's time to "book up".
But if you're playing against opponents who are below GM level, then the Sicilian is perfectly playable in an intuitive, trial-and-error way.
Sometimes you'll mess up and get punished for it. But that's what practice is for - you learn from those mistakes, adjust, and become a little stronger as a result ...
Every loss is a stepping stone to reaching a deeper understanding.
I think that this is true for many openings. A few years ago there was a similar thread about the Catalan. As I recall, the OP of that thread, who was having some success playing the Catalan, was considering giving it up because a noted coach had stated that players rated less than 2300 shouldn't play the Catalan because of the complexities.
I was taken to task because I suggested that this may not apply to lower rated players as we are quickly "out of book" and on our own no matter what opening we play.
@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.
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.
You do realize tygxc has a well established reputation on these forums for giving the absolute most god awful advice on EVERY SINGLE forum post right? It's literally their persona. I can't even tell if they're a troll or not
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
Those two advices aren't necessarily incompatible. Studying any opening is useless below a certain level, but beginners still need to play something. You can play 1...c5 without studying it... notice the definition of "study" is flexible as well.
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.
How should we know, you haven't even played a single game here.
if you're low-rated and play the Sicilian and can talk about how easy or difficult you find it.
When I was new I chose the Sicilian because Kasparov was the world champion and that's what he played... but I never liked it and soon gave it up for 1...d5.
And even now I'm uncomfortable on both sides of 3.d4 mainline sicilians. Some are strategically complex, and some feel like a coin flip with mutual mating attacks. Most variations have massive amounts of theory. It's just not the kind of chess I enjoy.
I did get the feeling it might be a troll but wanted to make a point anyways lol. I didn't know they had a reputation for it though.
I did get the feeling it might be a troll but wanted to make a point anyways lol. I didn't know they had a reputation for it though.
His 2nd post in this topic was fine IMO.
That's pretty much how @tygxc is. A few posts are actually good, but many are intensely wrong.
And really, the only annoying thing about his first post was saying 2500 for the sicilian.
He's right that it's good, it's sharp, and that 1.e4 e5 is simpler and more suitable for a beginner.
It depends on what you mean by "study". Do you mean memorizing all the possible replies 15 moves deep? Do you mean using engines to choose the best possibilities from that point? Then no, don't study the Sicilian until you are much stronger and experienced. In fact, don't try to study ANY opening or defence that way. Just learn the basic ideas, what different systems in the first few moves are aiming for, and try to achieve positions where you can understand what each side's plan should be.
Remember that opponents at your level don't really understand all the fine points of the different openings either. Even if they have memorized more variations than you have, they are likely to be thrown off-balance as soon as you play a move they don't know. Some players here have learned a few traps in their pet opening lines, but falling into them will show you what weaknesses lurk in you positions. Losing a few games and some rating points is not as important for a beginner as learning more about the game.
His first post was ok and just a matter of opinion. His second post was completely wrong.
The sicilian in a nutshell is black falling behind in development but having an extra center pawn. I think his post was fine.
Maybe [Levy] 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
Yep, his channel is about entertainment, not instruction.
The Sicilian is one of the most complex openings in all of chess. In my opinion, such a sophisticated opening is not suited for beginners. I would suggest studying the opening once you reach 1500 intermediate level. Then you will be strong enough to be able to dedicate time to study the opening and understand the moves you are playing.
The reason why some chess influencers like Levy Rozman suggest different openings like the Caro-Kann and London is because they are much easier to play. They abide closely by the basic opening principles that are also taught along with the openings. For example, the Caro-Kann is a good opening for beginners because while it can be intensively studied, there are really only three main variations that a play would need to know, and it follows the strict set of opening principles. Obviously the London System is an easy opening for beginners because they can play the same setup every time with little to no consequences.
However, the Sicilian defense is different in this regard. The opening has many branches by White and Black and is not easily studied or adapted to the basic opening principles. Look at this, for instance:
As you can see, my point is clearly represented in that there are many---too many variations for beginners or even intermediate players to study. On the other hand, look at the London System. There is one main setup and all White has to know are a few ways to improve upon Black's setup, but nothing else! And in the Caro-Kann, Black has to know at most three variations and other than c6, d5, they just have to develop naturally with the knights and castle. With the Sicilian both the players have no less than a few options every move and they have to choose their approach and anticipate their opponent's approach as well!
In conclusion, there is not really any one rating level that an opening is perfectly adapted to, but in general the simpler and easier to play openings are best suited for beginners. The Sicilian is such a vast opening that it really does not belong in the hands of beginners, let alone barely anyone, as 95% of players will most likely commit an error in the extremely complicated opening anyway. I'm not saying it's a bad opening or that you have to be a certain rating to study it. You could most definitely have good success with it by studying it hard at 1000 rating and then having a fully readied opening at 1500. That might be the way to go! But if you are a beginner and you want to learn the Sicilian, you should learn the Dragon because it is almost like a setup with the fianchettoed bishop and overall it is not too hard to learn as long as you do not get smooshed on the kingside!
Op is one them bots which takes a question from Reddit and posts it here I don't know why.
White is likely to attack Q-side
Can depend on the variation but in the main variations of the Najdorf white castles queenside and attacks kingside.
For example:
suggest different openings like the Caro-Kann and London is because they are much easier to play.
One of my OTB games, opponent didn't know what the Panov Attack was, lol:
I WOULD NOT RECCOMEND AT ALL!! I used to play sicclian for a long time and all the time there is just soo many lines... if you like to study theory then you can consider maybe after 1800+ chess.com blitz/rapid, a lot of opening theory and learning all the plans and everything then maybe it's for you. It certainly wasn't for me. And I was just playing like dragon, classical sicclian as such. Imagine if you play the najdorf. Don't get lured into the trap unless thats absolutely sure that's what you want to do. Sicclian is one of those openings that has some "prestige" to it (unlike the london system) but don't play it just because if you play you seem profesional like the GM's. Do whats best for you, I am speaking from the experince that I had with sicclian for about 1.5 years be careful it may not be a hole you want to be stuck in.
You have to know a lot of theory to play Caro-Kann and London as well. Eric Rosen plays London very well but that's because he's done a lot of analysis on the opening and is very familiar with a lot of the common mistakes and theoretical lines.
If you don't know that stuff then you are just going to get a passive, slightly worse position against any decent player.
If you play Caro Kann you have to know:
Advance, Short (3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3)
Advance, Tal (3. e5 Bf5 4. h4)
Van der Wiel Attack (3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3)
Main Line (3. Nc3) (to be fair you can pick any one variation but each has a lot of traps you need to be aware of.)
Exchange Rubinstein (3. exd5 cxd5 4. Bd3)
Panov Attack (3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4)
Two Knights Attack (2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3)
Of course there are many other lines but those are the main ones so let's leave it there. That's 7 variations. If you like playing that then go ahead but it's not reasonable to tell someone else to learn that when that isn't what they want to play. Just because you learned that doesn't mean someone else wants to.
I don't play the sicilian, thus, I am not familiar with the book moves. Just for fun, I am playing it in Daily game. This allows me to compare my moves with the moves in Explorer while the game is in progress. Just using general opening principles and moves that I know from experience are good moves, I made it to move 9 before the position was no longer in the database. That's about as far as I know the moves for the openings that I normally play in response to 1. e4 (either 1. ...e5 or 1. ...c6). My advice: Play whatever opening you fancy, and don't worry about whether it's suitable for your rating.