As white, I've been faced with the Sicilian numerous times. The problem is that I don't know how to reply. At first, when I got Nunn's Chess Openings, I figured I was going to adapt the Alapin but after looking at the statistics at chessgames.com, I was dissuaded to abandon that line. So now the problem is... which opening should I play against the Sicilian? I know lots of top players just play Nf3 and then d4, but I don't want to memorize all those numerous lines that black can play (like the Najdorf, Dragon, etc.) So what do you think I should do? Stick with the Alapin even though it has horrible statistics or just memorize all the Black Sicilian replies and play Nf3 and d4? Thanks in advance.

Full memorization is almost impossible. I'd just learn the basics for the most common variations and do it on the fly.

Don't pick an opening based on statistics. Pick it based on if you like playing the resulting positions.

The c3 is a reasonable choice against the sicilian if you like the resulting positions.

You mean the best white attack? Classically speaking you cannot defend as white.

In the Sicilian defense you'd do well to avoid black's back yard (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 ... 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4) unless you're going to be studying tonnes of opening theory; and that is a rather bad idea for everyone below expert level and still not such a great idea for experts up to masters.

Unless you're going to be studying openings to death, statistics just don't mean much, in the case of the Alapin, I think they draw the wrong picture.

Some choices:
- There's the Closed, Nc3-g3-Bg2-d3-Nge2 and its cousin the Grand Prix attack which sets up similarly but with f4. You get a closed pawn chain and pretty much a balanced game.
- The Alapin, which has a simple idea of playing 2. c3 ... 3.d4, white aims to maintain two center pawns and use them later on, natural moves, can't go wrong with it no matter what chessgames.com's statistics say.
- Smith-Morra gambit, 2. d4 ... 3. c3, gives up a pawn for development that black can hang on to, it's alright for white. If you look around, you'll find some of Fromper's exploits in the SMG on the forum.

There are some other variations that only 'work' against subvariations (after 2. Nf3). For example, the Moscow (2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+) is okay, the related Rossolimo (2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5) is good and that Qxd4-line (2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 Qxd4) can be a lot of fun for white.

I started off with the Alapin myself and after years playing that, I moved on to what I have in my signature. I'd recommend the Alapin for you, you won't get swamped by subtleties and you can figure it out as you go along.

Agreed with the others. Don't use statistics to pick an opening. Even at the master level, that's a bad idea, but it's especially useless at the amateur level. For low-mid level players, the person who knows more about the opening being played will do better, regardless of how good the opening is. That's why I used to do so well with the Englund Gambit as black (1. d4 e5?!), until I tried it on guys rated 1800+ USCF, and they pointed out over the board just how lousy it is. It worked just fine for me in the U1400 and U1600 sections of tournaments.

The Alapin's a perfectly respectable variation, and it even sees use at the grandmaster level. If you like those types of middle games, then stick with it. Otherwise, try something different.

Heh. Apparently, I have a reputation.

I'll say that the SMG is fun once you get used to it, but I took a few beatings when I was learning it. Like most gambits, it requires a little more work than your average opening, since you're already a pawn down, so you can't get away with just playing defense. Of course, if you're an attacking player by nature, this might be easier for you. I'm not an attacker naturally - I started playing gambits to go against my nature and force myself to learn how to attack, and now that I've switched back to a less aggressive repertoire, the SMG is the one and only gambit I decided to stick with.

--Fromper

Thanks everyone. I was a bit wary of statistics since it usually depends on who's playing white and who's playing black. So my question now is if I don't use statistics, what do I use? I don't know what my style is and I don't know which resulting position I like. It looks the same to me (I don't prefer knights to bishops or vice versa). Basically what I want is something solid. So how do I figure out which opening is the most solid? Sorry if this post is kinda confusing. Thanks.

They're all solid! Pick a line that sounds interesting, and play it a few times. If you like it, stick with it. If you don't like it, try something else. There's really no hard and fast rule to choosing openings.

--Fromper

Obviously though, there are less reputable lines. Such as the Wing Gambit and a bunch of goofy stuff like 2. b3, 2. Bc4 and Nakamura's 2. Qh5..

Like we're saying though, pick something and try it out.

But the problem is that I don't know if I like it. They're all the same to me. So how do I choose? Based on my win percentages with them? But then wouldn't it depend on hte strenght of my opponent?

When I said they're all solid, I was referring to the various Sicilian lines mentioned in this thread. There are some truly awful openings out there that I wouldn't recommend, though I think complete beginners should try out some of them once in a while just to get clobbered and see why they don't work.

As I said, pick one at random. Play it a few times. If you enjoy the resulting positions, then stick with it. If not, switch to something else.

--Fromper