Sicilian for 1200?

A nice game by you. A few positional mistakes like Qb6 (Queen's not making any threats on the queenside against decent defense, and doesn't particularly want to be positioned there either when the king has castled short and when a pawn is blocking her vision on the kingside), and Nd4 (If the opponent played fxd4 instead of bxd4, they could follow up with Qf4, threatening both the the f6 knight and the d6 pawn. An unpleasant scenario). There's also the obvious blunder Qc7, giving up a pawn for free which could have been easily prevented. And what exactly was your idea behind Bxg3? This just gives away free material for no reason. But besides the mishaps, you played fairly well. You never blundered anything huge. You were never at and above a 2 point disadvantage. And you made the best series of responses to the humongous blunder Qb3, which failed to defend against black's attack. All with 25 minutes to spare. A good game overall.

No real excuse on Qc7 - just a bad move on my part.  

My thought on BxG3 was a sacrifice to move the rook to e3 and position it to take the undefended pawn with check on g3.  The other thing is I didn't think I had a great square to go to with the bishop and would lose tempe to move it out of the way and by taking I wouldn't lose a move.  The big advantage I had is his Queen was stuck in no-mans-land and I didn't want to give him a move to get it active.  I feel like maybe taking there was a slight inaccuracy - but honestly, at the time it seemed like the quickest way to  get to mate to me.  

In retrospect, I think if after white's pawn push to f4, the move I should have made is putting the rook on the e file and not put my bishop on h4.  

But overall - I still feel OK about it for a first time with this opening.  

Congratulations! It's not that difficult, isn't it? You don't have to study Theory as you will not be paired against 1600.

I've played it almost since the start here. Some will play bad things like Bowdler attack, or Smith Morra, where they retake the pawn with the queen, so I think you will be just fine. Don't be stressed too much about theory on 1 200 level, just do it gradually with opening explorer and analyzing your games.

Good luck.

For black, for now 2...e6, and for white something classic or modern. Good luck in learning this difficult opening.

#4, #7
If you guys are happy with your 1200 - 1300 ratings then so be it.
Dragon, King's Indian Defence, and Catalan are 3 of the most difficult openings to play.
Even Carlsen almost lost as white with the Catalan.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2122755 

I know people hate on beginners playing the Sicilian but trust me NOBODY knows enough about it in the 1200 level to refute you even if you make terrible moves there. I played it regularly when I was 1200, and my results weren't too terrible.

You got to know opening theory, but that starts until like 1200 to 1300 rating

So if you are lower, don't worry, and if you are higher, than yes, the sicilian is theory packed for a opening and very sharp and tricky

I mean, the Sicilian defense accelerated dragon alone could get a 1000 page book and that is only 1 of the countless variations in the sicilian defense

I said I was happy with my progress, which as been consistently upward, not my rating.  

#32
My point is that the opening theoretical approach will not lead to any progress.
If you do not believe me, then at least take it from a world champion:

“Ninety percent of the book variations have no great value, because either they contain mistakes or they are based on fallacious assumptions; just forget about the openings and spend all that time on the endings.” - Capablanca

On 1 200 level, when black tries to get the Dragon in 50% of games he will get this instead:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or something different to that effect. On top of it, white player can struggle with such a sharp opening as well. I personally prefer more calm positions, and as white I don't have consistent results against open Sicilian (I recently switched to playing Moscow variation against 2. ...d6, because I already have pretty good results with Rossolimo). And let me tell you this.

People don't play Dragon Sicilian too often on that level. I only had a few games in it as white (with limited success). After 2. ...d6, most of the people go for Najdorf, and classical, Scheveningen and Dragon are in minority there. So, after a while, he will probably be more suited to it than his opponents.

So it is definitely not out of the question for him to try it at least. If he feels his results are not good, he could always switch to something different - Kan, Taimanov, or Accelerated Dragon which is completely different. 

He will not get theory beyond the first 8 moves in 95% of his games.

#34
"If he feels his results are not good, he could always switch to something different ."
Each time you switch openings you lose more, not less, because you have to re-build experience with the resulting positions.
If you play a decent opening with bad results, then the opening is not to blame, but your play especially middle game tactics. Switching openings does not improve that, but aggravates it.

You should choose the opening that at least somewhat gives you a comfortable position.

If I play Rosollimo and have 60-70% win rate and play open Sicilian against 2. ...d6 and have 40% win rate, it is probably the case where I handle calmer, maneuvering positions better. Opening itself is not to blame, but it means that I handle open Sicilian worse compared to my opponent than I handle some calmer position.

This also means that I should get better at calculation and tactics, and should focus my training to that effect, but that is a different story.

Of course, you shouldn't change openings all the time. I am playing for 2 years and I made some slight adjustments since I restarted playing chess. I certainly didn't switch openings every 3-4 months or so.

This is just. . . not true.  

Fried liver attack is a great opening for 700 - 800 level players - they'll win a lot of games by knowing it.  But if they're still playing Fried Liver Attack at 1000 level they're going to get refuted, every single time almost.   BTW, I've never switched openings because of "bad results" - I've switched because I want to learn something new, or I'm rewarding myself for making milestones.  In fact, I usually switch openings after improving my win percentage to be pretty high (relatively).   If you look at my profile you'll note my overall win is 53%, my 90 day is 54%, my 30 day is 55%, and my 7 day is a whopping 68% wins against opponents at my rating level.  So yeah, I'm not switching because of lack of success.  I want to learn new stuff.  

#39
If you have fun learning openings, then by all means enjoy.
Only be aware that it will not make you a better chess player.
Win rate has no meaning at all.
The win rate of all players should be around 50%.
If it is more than 50% then you play too weak opponents.
If it is less than 50% then you play too strong opponents.
The best measure for progress or lack of it is rating.

I sited my wins as a refutation of your discussion about switching openings because of lack of success. . .clearly not.  

I'm sitting at 1200 today and played my first game of chess in late May. . .I think my ratings progression has been just fine, TYVM.  

And, BTW, I exclusively play people at my level.  My settings are set to + or -100 points from my rating.    So I'm always playing someone who is about where I am.  

My overall win rate is a little better than 50% because I'm always making a little bit of progress.  Learning new stuff, all the time. 

#41
I am a bit stronger than you and give genuinely good advice for free, but if you do not appreciate, then so be it.

You're way more than a bit stronger than me!  I'm sure if we played you'd win 10/10 times.

#43
Well then all the more reason to believe that what I say may not be that stupid.