Sicilian for 1200?

#45
You have 2000, 2100, 2200, all the way to 2900.
For that reason I usually try to quote world champions.
"Show me three lines of the opening theory moves and
I will prove to you that two of them are incorrect." - Lasker

For club players

GM perelshteyn

1.Acc dragon,2.najdorf,3.scandi,4.lion,5.rat

IM kavutskyi

1.Dragon, 2.najdorf 3.Kan, 4.e5, 5.Caro

IM pruess

says Play all openings

GM Smirnov

 Kan or scandi with 2.Nf6 but you should play e5 for a while to start.

The thing about the Sicilian at the lower level is that 90% of the time, White is going to play a sideline because they don't know any theory. As a Sicilian player myself, I also started learning it at ~1200 level. At first, I started to learn some theory from an Openings book I have, but realised it wouldn't matter if my opponents didn't go into theory. The best thing you can do is learn a few lines on a specific Sicilian (e.g. Accelerated Dragon, Sveshnikov, Classical, etc.) and learn how to deal with sidelines by playing against them. If you're at a point where you already know how to neutralize sidelines and wanna start learning the good stuff, there are some great courses here in Chess.com or over at Chessable.

Hope this advice helped. Good luck on your journey!

Methinks you shouldn't worry. He will waste HIS time, after all.

In terms of memorizing variations, especially [for players rated] below about 2000, I would tone [opening study] way down, maybe 10% of your study time or less.

Jonathan Hawkins, Grandmaster and professional trainer.

And of course his "below about 2000" means FIDE ELO, not chess dot com rating.

Game 2 w/ Sicilian Dragon

Another W - but this time it was a strange resignation.  I'd say the positions are near equal and we were headed rapidly for an end game.  Not sure why the other player resigned.  

https://lichess.org/jXb5FhHb/black

Maybe they had somewhere to go or their connection suddenly got lost. Honestly don't know why anyone would resign in this position thinking they were losing.

OK - 3rd game with the Dragon Sicilian and 3rd win - this one played to the end.  

https://lichess.org/6msN6blr/black#114

And I am officially liking it!  So much to learn - making a lot of little inaccuracies - but it is solid and fun to play.  

This claim is as bold as it is false.... Just simply completely and absolutely wrong.... Actually the Fried Liver Attack hasn't been refuted, in fact, if black allows it, white is better... I think you're confusing the Fried Liver, aka Fegatello,  with the knight attack.... the fried liver only happens after 6.Nxf7 as shown

I have played it since I had 3 digits and won and lost many games, but not because of the opening, but due to a blunder later in the game... many players 1200 and above fell for the knight sac on f7 allowing Fried Liver...

Now, the knight attack (which is what I think you meant) is 4.Ng5 in the two knights italian, also not refuted... just know how to react to the traxler and you're fine

Even if black knows the "refutation"  sacrificing the d pawn for active play, it is FAR from being refuted... just because it's not the absolute best move it does not mean its been it's refuted.... here white is trying to hold on to the extra pawn while black has to prove their compensation with active play

 I still play the knight attack sometimes at 1600-1800 most people go into the main line above, considered best for black and I still get good results, especially when opponent doesn't properly use black's initiative and I manage to get my pieces out and coordinated them and hold on to that pawn...so whether you're 500, 800, 1000, 1200, 1700, 2000 or 2300, neither knight attack nor the fried liver have been refuted... 

Also noting the "trappy-ish" lines with b5 (ulvestad and fritz variation) are better for white, but there's still plenty of play for both sides

I honestly believe that any opening can be learned by almost anyone at any level and they'll do ok.

There's this argument that goes "well that opening involves a lot of complicated theory, so you should probably wait." I humbly disagree. If you play a complex opening and don't know the theory all that well, there's a really good chance that your opponent, who is on the same level, will be just as clueless or more.

I was told not to study the Alekhine because, well, it was weird, and that there's a ton of theory. I was look, ooh! I like theory! Challenge accepted! Well, it turns out that I knew a little theory and my opponents knew exactly zero. Same thing happened with the Grunfeld, which is notoriously theory-laden. I do more than fine. Leningrad Dutch? No problem. Against that NOBODY below about 1500 plays theory and nobody really knows what to make of it.

So if you want to learn an opening, don't let anyone tell you that it's too complicated. Don't waste years of your life trying to pull the same fried liver trick. Heck, if you start early, by the time you're pushing 1700, you'll have it down pat instead of just starting to learn it.

Good attitude. Explore chess openings while young. Don't mind critics who tell Sicilian and other openings is exclusive to higher rated players. 

Two things : 

1. Naroditsky is at a level where he instantly sees all but the most complicated tactics so he has absolutely no idea what it's like when someone can't see the most basic tactics. He is giving advice by subconsciously thinking about his own skill.

2.  "Time" situation only comes in when u are playing bullet or blitz, in which case at lower levels it doesn't really matter since almost all bullet games will be won by flagging.

Studying theory is stupid at a low level

Dude - I've played fried liver many many many times - and no, I'm not confusing it.  

Patently false. I've won more games than I can count because I knew the theory, could recognize a mistake, and knew how to punish it. Once again, at *any* level, if you know the best move automatically, and your opponent does not and has to spend time thinking to come up with what *might* be the best move, you're better. Heck, at least three times today I played the King's Gambit and I was like "oh, well that's a mistake, let me punish that for you." Did I have to calculate anything? No. I already knew it was a bad move and I already knew how to punish it.

There's just zero logic in the argument "you don't need to know theory before x level." None. Makes absolutely no sense if you're being rational.

This is a bad argument. Just because the vast majority of games are decided by blunders and tactics does not mean that theory is useless or even unhelpful. I've never claimed that if you study openings you will automatically win. But if you get to the middle game in a better position because you know theory and your opponent doesn't, then your chances are better. End of story.

What is the old saying? Tactics flow from superior positions?

Because my question wasn't "should I study openings". . ..

Well then it's even worse because you clearly have absolutely no clue, not the slightest idea of what you're talking about, dude.... I was just letting you know that, regardless of level, fried liver (and knight attack, for that matter) have not been refuted at all... but sure by all means feel free to stay ignorant in thinking whatever you please because you played it "many many many times" and keep on spreading misinformation by blatantly stating fake foolishness such as "But if they're still playing Fried Liver Attack at 1000 level they're going to get refuted, every single time almost.  " - I won't try to stop you again lmao

No way

I'm like 1300 and it's difficult to play against a fried liver

In fact, I'm still not able to properly battle against a fried liver 

My experience differs quite a bit. Just now my opponent played apparently an opening called the reti opening and i played something called the "king's indian attack"... again, NEVER heard of either of those two in my life... however i had a winning advantage by move 13 but i missed a deep tactical shot which made me lose the advantage and later the game...

This is just one of the examples, i know absolutely 0 theory and i have had no issues so far  which could be pinned down to the opening itself. Played like 120 games but never even once did i think "i wish i knew this opening"... it's ALWAYS me either executing a tactic which lets me win or missing a tactic which lets my opponent win.

I am by no means an expert ofcourse, but i am not a beginner either and i never needed any opening theory. I can imagine it being even more true for beginners.

All this "opening" talk is completely useless. One should just get good at the "looking ahead" part of chess, the BASICS of chess. Studying theory is as useful as playing in the mud when it comes to beginners and intermediate players

Just go into the line I showed in my previous post on the third page... Or instead of playing 3...Nf6 and going into the two knights italian you can try playing the Giuoco Piano where you play 3...Bc5 instead... just take a quick look at what to do against evans gambit (you'll see it maybe probably 1 out of every 10 games) and you'll be fine