Changing theory notwithstanding, I would be very interested to know what Inn2 thought about the Sveshnikov or Kalashnikov as an opening at this level?  Before learning much non-Dragon Sicilian theory, I intuitively found myself drawn to an early e5 strike as Black.  I suspect that the Sveshnikov has become too much of a minefield (would you say as much as the Najdorf?), but what about the Kalashnikov?  I've always had a soft spot for this opening...

I think the Sicilian is a very good choice as Black can learn valuable piece play and engage in both rigid defense and counterattack.  The Sicilian provides good opportunities for both positional and tactical play.  Inn2 makes a good point about theory, and these days it probably applies even at more modest levels since novices seem intent on taking on topical lines and keeping up with innovations online.

The only drawback at the amateur level is that Black probably has to cope with all those anti-Sicilians, since many players at that level will have a c3, Bb5, or something prepared in response to 1 ... c5, though there have been several discussions of this on other threads already...

The Sicilian is a good opening.  If you like it, you should play it.  This is much better than playing a less theoretical opening that you would feel uncomfortable playing.  I think the Najdorf is an "advanced" Sicilian, but if you like it, you should pursue it.  You will learn a lot about counterattack and utilising dynamic factors in a position.  It would probably be helpful to have a stronger player who plays the Najdorf that you could talk to, since it is a difficult opening to learn on your own.  There are some good books that came out recently, like Arizmendi and Moreno's Mastering the Najdorf and Emm's Play the Najdorf.  Also the older book by King, Winning With the Najdorf, has good explanations.  Also, I think there is a new Starting Out book by Gallagher coming out later in the year.  So it seems like there are a lot good books geared towards someone learning the Najdorf.  One of the main reasons I played the Dragon, was that there was a good book for a player starting out in the opening (Ward's Winning With the Dragon).  I was interested in the opening prior to owning the book, and I did not play the Dragon because anyone me told to, and I do not regret that I made that choice.  It has been one of my most effective opening choices.

I was wandering what every one thought about amature players playing the sicilian. I am one of them and have recieved some varried responses from i should be playing 1.e5 instead of going for a sicilian and what not untill i master double king pawn openings. This is dumb to me as i could not think of why i would switch if i mastered them let alone i would like to know who is a master of double king pawn openings!!?

Somthing else i was wandering is what variations do you see amatures playing the most. This is always interesting because the sicilian like the spanish is somthing characteristic of ones own personal style. Slow and steady or wild and complicated the sicilian is a neat way to under stand a person. Fischer for instance was a very forward person and he played a nice double edged najdorf. I am a very social and out going person and it fits my style to play it. The positions just feel right.

And if any of you would like to contribute to why amatures should not play the sicilian i am willing to absorb that too even though i might not agree with it. Maybe some one hear can sway me. How ever i must admit since i started playing the sicilian i am enjoying the freedom from the french. To have 2 decent bishops is awesome!