Open sicilian vs antisicilians are they worth it?

So i recently been looking on the antisicilians and my first impression is there is so much theory on them i might as well learn the open sicilian. There is alot of theory but the plans are fairly straight forward at least in the english attack that im looking at. Any thoughts?

If I told you that I am roughly 2100 over the board, and I told you that the specific reason that I do not play the Sicilian as Black any more is because of the Open Sicilian, and that if I were guaranteed an Anti-Sicilian every time, I'd play the Sicilian every day and twice on Sunday, does that give you a hint what you should study?

All the low-rated chumps that complain about the Sicilian because of having to know the Anti-Sicilians, and that they actually WANT a Najdorf or Dragon or Taimanov, clearly they don't understand chess and neither does their opponents.  The higher up you get, the more you realize as Black that the only line that is dangerous for you is the Open Sicilian.

All you need to do is make sure you UNDERSTAND, NOT MEMORIZE, lines like the c3-Sicilian (requires knowledge of what to do against IQPs if you play 2...d5 or what to do with closed centers if you play 2...Nf6), the Closed Sicilian, the Grand Prix Attack, etc.

The way to beat the Sicilian is with 2.Nf3, and if 2...Nc6, 2...d6, or 2...e6, then 3.d4!

thats kinda my impression too thriller im 50/50 on the subject

Depends, the rossolimo (against Nc6)is very strong his sister the Bb5+ Moscow (against d6) not so much.  Against the e6-sicilians the best anti-sicilian is a delayed alapin setup which is somewhere inbetween.

Since the topic is arleady opened i would like to ask the question about the sicilian.

One of the biggest eye-opening moments in my chess career was when i understood how does King's gambit (and Vienna) work. I exchange a side pawn (the f one) for a central pawn (the e one) and so get a strong centre  that can advance if circumstances permit and i get semi-open f file as premium. It is a great strategy, and queen's gambit work on a similar idea - a side pawn for a central pawn. If there is a chess strategy i understand it is this one.

And this is reason i have difficult time understanding open sicilian. The main point behind the sicilian, is that the pawn on c5 dissuades white from playing d4 and taking the centre, by the threat of exchanging a side pawn for a central pawn. Still, in open sicilian white does exactly that! Why? It then has to deal with black's central pawn majority, which even I understand to be a very potent force.

Against the sicilian i use Grand Prix attack, because od similarities to Vienna Gambit i play in open games. At least i  know what am i doing. Still i know that open sicilian is considered much sounder.

"The important is , is this line easy to understand? Are the moves easy to remember?"

True, dat.

 Here's another illustration of the strength of the Knight on d4 and the danger of sacrifices on the light squares:

way too dogmatic for someone who isnt even master.

the anti-sicilians are supposed to equalize quicker.

 but anyone who claims they are harmless doesnt know what they are talking about. especially in the closed sicilians where both sides have all their pieces with non-symmetrical objectives.

for black this means 1. you dont have too know as much theory to equalize 2.both sides begin playing chess much quicker, which is often what white wants.

Yep they can all be very dangerous, the equalising methods are often not that easy to find OTB.   More than once have lost against One of these "harmless lines" only to go home and find the answer was in a little footnote in my book, but as you do not have access to it during the game you are pretty much on your own.

    Am much happier with black when white plays the supposedly better main lines, because am more likely to know and remember the antidote, and am in familiar patterns

Even if the moscow is not soo strong theoretically its a nice way to play against a higher rated opponent who is very well prepared in the najdorf or the dragon.

A lot depends on your approach.  If you play to win on move 1 as Black, then yes, equality does not equate to easy game.

If you are like me and merely play to equalize as Black and maintain that stance unless white self-capitulates, then Black has absolutely zero problems in anti-sicilian.

Facing an Anti-Sicilian is like facing the Exchange French.  I have no problems going Symmetrical on you for 11 or so moves until you play 12.h3, after which I leave my pawn on h7 to play Bg4-h5-g6 to contest your battery while you cannot contest mine.  Others try to force asymmetry early on and this is what White wants.

The same goes for the anti-Sicilian.  Play to draw until white self destructs and if he never does, take the draw.  Don't force the issue as Black and you have the easiest game ever.

what do yo do in a must win if white only wants the draw, your not seriously pulling out the french are you?

you are comparing the most boring defense variation ever with anti-sicilians?

you would think that now more than ever with chess engines now helping us innovate and re-evaluate opening variations, that elite chess would be following the footsteps of "opening perfection " that the likes of players like kasparov tried to pull off. ironically the opposite has happened. engines have pretty much proved that you can get away with so much experimentation. an original untried sideline worth 0.00 is now just as capable of causing problems as 20+ moves of theory. familiarity is the name of the game now (although opening trends are still quite relevant)

Thank you  DeirdreSkye and Blueemu. I definnetally have something to study.

you gotta be freaking kidding me. exchange french is one of the most boring lines ever with a VERY high draw percentage. (so much so stronger players with black might avoid using it agaisnt weaker players who might play it to avoid the long drawn out effort to avoid drawing).

the methods used to create asymmetry help a bit, but its still symmetrical pawn structures, and equal chances for the most part. any fool knows that. 

Normally in these threads I post something to the effect "there is no such thing as bad openings, at the club level."

But here I peaked at your rating. At 2000, maybe there are some bad openings. 

I wouldn't know.

i doubt that's what's holding you back. 1.b4 is my main opening and i get good games even agaisnt GM's with it. so long as you are not playing dubious gambits or stuff that wastes way too much tempo you should be fine.