Should Beginners Play the Sicilian?

 The Sicilian: it's what all the cool kids play.  It's the sharpest, most dynamic, most aggressive reply to 1.e4.  It has the best stats, the best win-rate, the fewest draws ... and the most theory.  A single inaccuracy, a slip in move order, leads to crushing attacks ... for either side.  It's probably the most interesting opening in all of chess.

So the question becomes, should beginners be playing the Sicilian?

At the risk of sounding like a lawyer, this will depend on what we mean by "beginner," "should", "play" and "the Sicilian."  I'm going to examine each one.  It will be more interesting than it sounds, I promise.

Should "BEGINNERS" Play the Sicilian?

What does a beginner stop being a beginner?  This question might be worth its own blog post.  I've seen numbers ranging from 800 to 1800 online elo.  This is complicated by the fact a 1800 on lichess is very different from a 1800 on chess.com.  Further, different time controls have different player pools: an 1800 in bullet or blitz is a different accomplishment, and arguably a different skillset, than 1800 in a long time control.

For example, the following rating spread is not atypical:

Is this player a beginner?  Nearly 1800 in classical says no, but nearly 1300 in blitz says maybe?

Ultimately, I think ratings are a red herring.  Graduating from beginner to intermediate isn't a number, it's a skill set.  I would loosely classify it as the following:

• One Movers: Beginners frequently hang pieces and don't take free pieces --> Intermediates rarely do this
• Vision: Beginners struggle to see the whole board --> Intermediate players can with less effort
• Threats: Beginners rarely notice opponent threats --> Intermediate players often do
• Understanding: Beginners often don't know what to do --> Same with intermediate players! But Intermediates know more common plans and structures
• Blunders: Beginner games are almost exclusively decided by blunders --> Essentially the same

Each of these categories exists on a spectrum, and any of them can hold your rating back. For my purposes, I would make the following conclusion: somebody on the lowest end of each of these spectrums should NOT play the Sicilian.  Not because the Sicilian is bad, but literally because it makes no difference. If you can't see one-move threats or take free material, then the choice of opening doesn't matter at all.  Simply put, a rank beginner isn't strong enough to meaningfully get any benefit from playing a Sicilian middlegame.

As you improve at these skills, though, then you start playing more interesting positions, and there reaches a point where choice of opening has an impact on the game.  Not necessarily a big impact, but still an impact.  At this point, gaining some coveted Sicilian experience may make sense.

In my view, if you are brand new and literally just learned how the pieces move, then you shouldn't be playing 1...c5.  If you have to ask, "How does the Knight move again?" every time you look at the board, then openings don't matter. If you mostly take free pieces, though, and can see the board with minimal effort, if you mostly notice what your opponent is threatening and you can follow some simple plans, then I think you can get some benefit by playing the Sicilian.

I'm not necessarily saying you SHOULD play it, but simply that there is some benefit.  What benefit?

Gaining Experience

The Sicilian feature some of the most interesting and complicated positions in all of chess.  There are near infinite possibilities, and different plans gain or lose effectiveness based on the subtlest of nuances.  For example, here's the Sicilian Najdorf, the most popular Sicilian variation:

It's been five moves.  Let's look at the following possibilities, all just five moves long.  Look at the incredible depth and diversity in positions.  Here's the first one:

Standard opposite-castling position.  Black is throwing his pawns, White will either throw his or push through in the center.  Notice that Black is playing with the "small center", pawns on e6 + d6, trying to restrict White's fully-developed army.

This position is completely different.  Same-side castling, and Black has the "normal" Sicilian central structure of e5+d6. Black's strategy here is often to take on f4 and then place a piece on e5, using that as a source of counterplay.  Compare that to this:

The Black pieces are identically placed, but the position is noticeably different. Because White has not played f4, Black cannot exchange his e-pawn, and so he cannot use the "put a piece on e5 for counterplay" strategy we saw above. It's the same Black set-up, but a different plan.  Let's do one more:

Again opposite-sided castling, again Black using the "small center", but notice that White is using his pawns faster compared to the first example.  White is keeping his Bishop on f1 to focus on a central pawn push.  Still opposite-side castling, still mutual attacking opportunities, but it's a different flavour.

Do you know how you get better at detecting these different "flavours" of positions and reacting appropriately?  It's not through studying.  Believe me, I've tried.  Studying, learning lines, memorizing variations, that does very little.  To learn how to play these positions ... you need to play these positions.  You need practical experience.

It's not just me saying that.  Masters have said this for years.  This is why virtually every opening course comes with model games, to at least simulate this experience process. GM Smirnov says you need at least five games in a new opening before it starts feeling comfortable (and he meant in the context of OTB games); GM Shankland has said something to the same effect.  There is no substitute for experience.

The sooner you start playing the Sicilian, the sooner you can start getting this experience.  Ok, so that leads to...

"SHOULD" Beginners Play the Sicilian?

First off, I don't want to be an elitist gatekeeper, especially for amateur chess players.  Are you just playing chess as a hobby, something to pass the time?  Then be my guest, play the Sicilian.  The question becomes more nuanced if you have more ambition.  If you want to reach your absolute chess potential, should you play the Sicilian?

I should premise this by asking, do you want to play the Sicilian? If you have no desire, then I won't force you.  It's not a prerequisite.  History is filled with great players that rarely if ever played the Sicilian, so no worries.

Let's start with the main objections.  Why should beginners NOT play the Sicilian?  What's the rationale?  Essentially, it's a "learn to walk before you run" argument:

• One Movers: Beginners are advised to play open positions because it maximizes the opportunities for simple tactics. The Sicilian, especially anti-Sicilians, aren't fully open and reduce this learning opportunity.
  
• Vision: Beginners struggle with board vision.  It therefore makes sense to play simpler, open positions with less complexity, as it requires less processing power.
  
• Threats: Beginners rarely notice opponent threats. Threats in the Sicilian can be more nuanced and long-term, and these are impossible to stop if you can't even see simpler threats.
• Understanding: Beginners often struggle in simpler positions.  The complex nature of Sicilian middlegames makes this even harder.
  
• Blunders: Because basic tactics and blunders decide beginner games, beginners should focus on studying these rather than worrying about openings.
  

I think these are good arguments.  I think they should be considered strongly.  That said, they aren't the most common arguments.  I did a brief internet search and came up with the following:

• There's too much theory.
• It's too hard.
• You'll play nothing but Anti-Sicilians.
• There's too much theory.
  

Frankly, these are terrible arguments, because...

Should Beginners "PLAY" the Sicilian?

The question is NOT should a beginner study the Sicilian.  The question is whether you should sit down and play 1...c5 on your next game.  There are two very different things.

You don't need to study the Sicilian to play it.  That's what I did.  I was a kid, I leaned there was an opening called the Dragon.  Dragon's are awesome!  I have to play that.  I learned the first few moves and played a bunch of games.  How did that go?

Honestly, not well.  In terms of results, I had four wins in my first year or so.  In terms of experience, though, it was invaluable.  I learned from these games.  I got better.  I developed a better sense of timing and counterplay.  I grew as a player, and the wins started to come.

I achieved this almost exclusively by playing.  I didn't study theory, though I did study master games in the Sicilian.  I couldn't tell you what the 10th move in the Yugoslav Attack was, but I knew the general ideas and plans.  In short, I knew what I was supposed to do.  I was no longer a beginner, and I have reaped the benefits of years of Sicilian experience.  Let's do one more chart, just to brag:

If people would only play 1.e4 against Young Smithy, that would have been great!  You can also pinpoint the exact moment I quit chess, but that's another story...

Theory is a Trap.  Just Play.

I said at the beginning I don't want to be a gatekeeper.  A lot of people let theory be that gatekeeper.  They don't want to study the equivalent of a large novel just to play a game of chess.

This is almost two novels worth of words, in fact.

You are right.  A beginner should not go through this before they play the Sicilian.  Arguably, nobody needs to go through this.  Just play.

Now, it's true that if your opponent has studied a lot of theory and you haven't, you'll probably get a worse position.  You'll certainly have to spend more time thinking.  You might even lose straight out.  Oh well.  Learn from it, figure out what you did wrong and where you can improve, and then go play another game.  You're still gaining that experience.

And this leads me back to the most common objections against playing the Sicilian.

• There's too much theory. You don't need theory.  Just play.
  
• It's too hard. Do you know what?  It's hard for your opponent, too.
  
• You'll play nothing but Anti-Sicilians. So what?
  
• There's too much theory. How often do your opponents play perfect theory?  Never.  So why should you?

This might be the clinching argument for me.  Yes, there's a lot of Sicilian theory, but beginners don't know theory!  That means this is the perfect time to start!  If neither of you know theory, then it's just pure experience.  Believe me, it is MUCH easier to get experience and competitive games against beginners than people rated over 2,000.

One of my biggest chess desires is to learn the King's Indian Defence. It's a magical opening.  Similar to the Sicilian, it takes experience to play it well.  I don't have that.  I only played it a handful of times as a kid, and never in that beginner stage.  When I try to play it now, I face people who have 20 years of battling the KID as White, and I've been steamrolled.  Not fun, and minimal learning opportunities.

It's like saving for retirement.  The sooner you start, the better.  If you truly want to play the Sicilian, or any opening, then start as early as possible.  Get that experience.  Reap the benefits.

Should Beginners Play "THE SICILIAN"?

The final question tends to be WHICH Sicilian should I play?  I'm going to side-step this question and say, "Whatever."  I used to have strong opinions on this, but now I think virtually any option is good.  That said, here's a non-exhaustive list roughly in the order that Sicilians get recommended:

• Accelerated Dragon: All the fun of the Dragon, but avoids the critical attacking set-up.
• The Kan: My second-ever Sicilian. The combination of ...e6, ...a6 and ...b5 was quite intuitive to play.
• The Classical / Rauzer: Perhaps the most flexible option and my current favourite.
• The Kalashnikov: It's the Svesnikov's little brother but more fun.
• The Four Knights and Taimanov: Similar to the Kan, the combination of e6, a6 and b5 is an excellent start.
• The Dragon: It has a really cool name.
• The Najdorf: Why not?

Any option is fine.  It really depends on what type of middlegame you are after.  I would recommend against playing the "novelty" Sicilians, like the Grivas with an early ...Qb6, the Nimzo with 2...Nf6 and the O'Kelly with 2...a6.  If you aren't playing a mainline Sicilian middlegame, then you aren't really gaining Sicilian experience, which is the main benefit in my view.  All of these sidestep the normal middlegame in some way, and it feels off to me. 

At the same time, I'm not a gatekeeper.  Play what you want.

But What About Those Objections?

I listed several serious objections to playing the Sicilian, mostly revolved around the complex nature of Sicilian middlegames being ill-suited for developing beginner's tactical alertness and positional understanding.  It's true.  Playing the Sicilian instead of 1...e5 probably makes it harder to learn and absorb the pure fundamentals of chess.  Is this a worry?

Again, this comes down to your definition of beginner.  I listed five factors, but those are arbitrary.  The more "beginner" you are at seeing tactics and threats and all that, the more you'll benefit from playing open positions where you'll get the most opportunity to see tactics and threats.

At a certain point, you'll be in that mushy middle: not a pure beginner, but not yet an intermediate.  You have a choice.  Keep playing simple open games and work on your fundamentals, or start playing the Sicilian to get that experience.  It's a trade-off... but it's not a particularly big one.  If you analyze your games, train your tactics, study master games, etc etc, if you do all the normal stuff, you'll still improve.  Maybe you could have done it faster or more efficiently, but improvement is improvement.

Some chess circles paint a picture that you must play 1...e5 as Black until you are X rating before you even consider another opening.  That's not true.  That's certainly not what I did.  Indeed, I switched from 1...e5 almost as soon as I learned other openings existed. Maybe I'll share that story for another day.

Finally, don't forget: you still play White, and you have to face other first moves as Black.  You have lots of opportunity to play open games there.  Honestly, some sort of attacking, gambit repertoire as White combined with your two "dream" defences against 1.e4 and 1.d4 is probably the perfect repertoire for anyone that is beyond pure beginner.

Smithy's Final Recommendation

Are you beyond a rank beginner?  And do you want to play the Sicilian?  If both answers are yes, then go ahead, play it.

Here's my suggestion: jump in with both feet.  Take one hour maximum to study.  That's one hour more than I had when I did this. Maybe watch a few free YouTube videos, check out some master games, read an article, whatever.  Give yourself one hour to get your feet wet, and then jump in.  Don't fall in the trap of studying theory.  Don't buy courses. You don't need it.  Jump in.  Start swimming.

You'll probably drown in your first game.  If you are like me, you might drown in your first 15 games.  That sucks.  It gets better, though, and there's never a better time to start gaining experience than at the beginner level.  So swim.  Have fun.