horrible at playing the sicilian

this is mainly due to the abundance of sidelines. almost all of them necessitate different plans and piece maneuvers from one another, making it extremely challenging to find any consistency. i switched from the d6 sicilian to the nf6 sicilian to restrict whites options as much as possible, but it remains a significant issue.

additionally, the positions that black gets from the sidelines simply don't suit my style. Perhaps my inexperience with the Sicilian is affecting my performance, but considering that o score only 30% against the bowdler, which is supposed to be easily punished, i think it is safe to say that these positions do not align with my style and preferences.

given everything mentioned so far, i think the best option is to ditch the sicilian and never play it again. however, i have always been fascinated by the positions i achieve in the open sicilian as black. in fact, i score quite decently in the mainline dragon, and this long-standing fascination makes it incredibly difficult to make a definitive decision.

i would like to ask what would you do if youre in my situation.

If I were you, I would play the Caro-Kann Defense based on the opening tree.

Sicilian Dragon?
Ruy Lopez Marshall gambit?
Two examples of variations that are sharp and heavily theoretical. You need to know the precise variations but what's the odds of reaching them? There are so many decent options by which white can diverge and you need to be prepared for them too.
Sure, you can reduce the theory workload but that means playing a less sharp opening that also means reduced winning chances as black.

"... For players with very limited experience, ... the Sicilian Defence ... normally leaves you with little room to manoeuvre and is best left until your positional skills develop. ... I'm still not excited about my students playing the Sicilian Defence at [the stage where they have a moderate level of experience and some opening competence], because it almost always means playing with less space and development, and in some cases with exotic and not particularly instructive pawn-structures. ... if you're taking the Sicilian up at [say, 1700 Elo and above], you should put in a lot of serious study time, as well as commit to playing it for a few years. ..." - IM John Watson (2010)
“... The Dragon and Najdorf Variations ... have been analyzed to twenty moves and more; if a player without adequate preparation walks into an analyzed sequence he may lose even to a weaker opponent. Under no circumstances should you handle these variations in serious games unless you are a professional chess player with unlimited time for study. ..." - GM Lajos Portisch (1974)

@kindaspongey said in #5:

“... The Dragon and Najdorf Variations ... have been analyzed to twenty moves and more; if a player without adequate preparation walks into an analyzed sequence he may lose even to a weaker opponent. Under no circumstances should you handle these variations in serious games unless you are a professional chess player with unlimited time for study. ..." - GM Lajos Portisch (1974)
IMHO more than anything, this quote illustrates how far GM point of view on the topic of openings is from reality of lower rated players like me - or majority of lichess players, FWIW. Well, not all GMs, thankfully, as e.g. the author of https://lichess.org/@/NoelStuder/blog/adult-improvers-why-gm-openings-might-not-suit-you/Q1LdFIUn also has a GM title but he can still understand the wide gap between his world and ours.

As I wrote in other topic(s) already, recently I played some games against stronger opponents (200-300 points higher rated) against Spanish (aka Ruy Lopez, me with black) and open Sicilian variations (me with white), i.e. exactly the opening everyone tells me to dread and to avoid at any cost because "there is a vast amount of theory and if you don't know it, you are dead lost". Surprprise, surprpise... these games were among those I felt best about. Sure, I lost most of them anyway, for various reasons, but not a single one because lack of opening theory knowledge.

I'm aware that it has a lot to do with my preference for open positions with tactical opportunities which force both sides to calculate carefully, compensating for my deficit in experience, intuition and positional sense. And I'm sure it wouldn't work for everyone. But this actually supports my point, IMHO: your choice of openings should be based on your strengths and weaknesses and your playing style and what aligns best with it, not on the amount of detailed opening theory available as that starts to play a role on much higher level than mine. And if/when I'm going to play someone rated, say, 2100+ FIDE, they are likely going to kill me with their theory knowledge in any opening.

Sicilian is fun and strong. But personnally when I play in competition and OTB i am too scared of my opponent preparation and I feel that i need to learn lines and lines. That is why I play from time to time a najdorf by pure pleasure online but not anymore sicilian OTB. I feel 1 e4 e5 is way more "human". Sure you have lots of theory but it is practical and intuitive. Of course choose your openings with what kind of middle game plan you like (initiative / pawn structure...).

@mkubecek said in #6:

As I wrote in other topic(s) already, recently I played some games against stronger opponents (200-300 points higher rated) against Spanish (aka Ruy Lopez, me with black) and open Sicilian variations (me with white), i.e. exactly the opening everyone tells me to dread and to avoid at any cost because "there is a vast amount of theory and if you don't know it, you are dead lost". Surprprise, surprpise... these games were among those I felt best about. Sure, I lost most of them anyway, for various reasons, but not a single one because lack of opening theory knowledge.

Yeah, I actually geeked out about this with a Python script and the Lichess databases the other day. Basically, if your opponent is rated about 2000 rapid and plays the Open Sicilian and you play a Najdorf and then play the top move from the master database in every position, on average you get to your first position that isn't in the masters database at all on about your tenth or eleventh move.

Since the Najdorf doesn't start until black's fifth move, and since most players can probably find a move or two of theory just by playing normal looking moves (so "the position is in the masters database" gives a pretty generous upper limit for "the opponent is still in prep"), I don't think that playing the Sicilian, or even the Najdorf, means that you need to worry about getting murdered by prepared piece sacs twenty moves deep in the English Attack, at least at that level.

I think there's a more valid discussion about an opening that gives you a position that's relatively easy to play vs (for instance) a line which is theoretically sound but in practice requires a lot of accurate play if you don't want to get checkmated in fifteen moves and in return only gives you a small endgame advantage which is super hard to convert, but I don 't buy the "too much theory" thing on its own.

I'm horrible at playing against the sicilian

@kindaspongey said in #5:

... “... The Dragon and Najdorf Variations ... have been analyzed to twenty moves and more; if a player without adequate preparation walks into an analyzed sequence he may lose even to a weaker opponent. Under no circumstances should you handle these variations in serious games unless you are a professional chess player with unlimited time for study. ..." - GM Lajos Portisch (1974)
@mkubecek said in #6:
... IMHO more than anything, this quote illustrates how far GM point of view on the topic of openings is from reality of lower rated players like me - or majority of lichess players, FWIW. Well, not all GMs, ... IMHO: your choice of openings should be based on your strengths and weaknesses and your playing style and what aligns best with it, not on the amount of detailed opening theory available as that starts to play a role on much higher level than mine. ...
I have a lot of sympathy for that point of view. I just provide the quotes as one factor to consider. If you are enthusiastic about an opening that you are using, that certainly is a very important consideration. On the other hand, if you feel horrible about an opening, quotes may help you to be aware of the possibility that an opening is not right for you at this time. Also, quotes can serve as an early warning for potential trouble down the road, even if an opening works well for you for now.
"... the Dragon ... is the easiest [Sicilian] variation to understand the fundamentals. ... the Dragon is good at club level, but as you start facing better players you're going to find yourself memorizing tons of lines and the latest analysis, ... From my experience with coaching players below 1800, you don't need to do that too much. ..." - Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014)