Actually this is the best advice. If you don't want to play open Sicilian you shouldn't play 1.e4.

another random question, but why do most open sicilians end up castling long? It just seems like the king comes under a tremendous amount of pressure from the open c file.

d2d4 you are levels ahead of us and this may be true for you, but this advice does not apply to players <2300.

Because black almost always castles short, so his king is also under attack. Why? If OP doesn't like open, sharp positions and prefers closed or semi-open ones, it would be a good idea to switch to 1.d4.
If he wants to stick to 1.e4 though, then I would recommend 2.c3.

I think for most of us mere mortals (below master strength) the main point is not to reach a theoretical opening advantage but to reach a middlegame position that one feels comfortable playing. 2. c3 does that for me.

I'm fine with sharp open positions. Not really sure what's bugging me about open sicilian positions. Combination of things I guess - I'm always out-theoried and don't have the time or inclination to learn the theory, and I don't really like how the centre ends up in sicilian. The center is open but you can't really make much progress there because Black still has both central pawns and you only have one. And it seems like you get stuck in similar positions over and over. Against 1...e5 I play the Bishop's Opening and really enjoy that. There are a number of ways the game can develop - I might not get to play f4 at all, or when I play it the pawn might get exchanged, or it might go on to f5 and spearhead a king's-side attack. The game isn't necessarily open from the beginning but it threatens to open up at any moment. I also enjoy being the one having the half-open flank f-file, as opposed to the sicilian where it's my opponent who gets to have the half-open c-file.

Play 2.c3 then, unless you don't like having an isolated d4-pawn. Good thing about Alapin variation is that you shouldn't have any difficulties in finding a plan once you have developed your pieces.

2.F4, 2.D4 CD 3.C3 and 2.B4 are all good alternatives. 2.C3 is probably a better move than these but can be quite dull.

Unless something big has changed in the last couple years (and it may have), 2. f4 is pretty terrible. If you're going to play the GPA, at least play 2. Nc3 and 3. f4 or 3. Bb5 and then f4.

I'll usually play 2.NF3 anyway, but on the few times I've tried 2.F4 online it has worked quite well. Why is 2. F4 terrible, 2..D5? My opponents have nearly always played something like d6, g6, bg7, castles kingside and I've got a decent attack.

Yep, the 1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 gambit is supposed to be pretty good for black. I'm not sure exactly why, but I haven't seen anyone even try to dispute this yet. And since there are people everywhere willing to take up hopeless openings (BDG...) that seems to imply that this opening is super hopeless for white.

it's not "super hopeless" imo, surely no worse than the BDG. But it has pretty much no upside over 2. Nc3 3. f4

You can also try the King's Indian attack. For example, 1. e4 c5 2. nf3 x 3. d3 x 4. g3 etc...
basically a reversed Kings Indian defense.

Rybka 3, for one, likes the morra-smith

The Morra Gambit has a problem similar to reverse implied odds in Poker: Black can either try to refute it or he can simply transpose into the Alapin Sicilian with Nf6.

You should play 2. Nc3 3. f4 to stop 2...d5 in the Grand Prix.

I enjoy the Smith-Morra and play it almost always in blitz...you end up with very active pieces...and you also get a lot of declines (which I like)

You can also try the Wing gambit 2. B4...it is funny looking and you can probably assume your opponent will be off book

I used to play the KIA almost exclusively vs. the Sicilian - it gets kinda tough though against a 2. d6 or Nc6 because he reserves the option to play e5 at some point, and the point of the KIA is to eventually take that square for yourself - against the Kan (2. ..e6) it's great cause he wastes an extra tempo if he wants to grab e5 - I think the first game in Fischer's 60 memorable games is a KIA vs Sicilian

Lately, I've been gravitating towards the 3. Bb5 since almost everything I see is a Dragon or Accelerated Dragon - I'm getting pretty bored with my openings and am preparing a review of them from Carsten Hansen's book on openings to kinda get a feel for what else I could play - (used a QGD for the first time I think today but opponent was 1250 and I whooped him with a checkmate pretty fast )

I guess I like the idea of a Bb5 more then c3 but I might try them both at some point but to book up on so many prepared Sicilian lines just doesn't sound like fun to me.

whiskeytown, I recently started trying the Dutch Leningrad against 1. d4. I have no real idea what I'm doing, neither do most of my opponents though. And I get to stay out of typical 1.d4 positions which I can't stand.

Unless you must win a game... Why not face the open Sicilians as a challenge to get better?

Losing 100 Open Sicilian games and analyzing each one would certainly be more beneficial than just playing c3 100 times, right?

No.

2. c3 is a totally valid system with a thorough positional foundation. Though I agree that analyzing each of your games would be very beneficial. Doesn't have to do anything with the opening, though.

But if you're choosing c3 because that is your comfort zone... the best way to improve your game is to explore a different style of game.

Don't get me wrong, the advice in this thread is great... Just offering a different perspective.

I have always liked playing.

1.e4 c5 2.c4?! You follow up like a Botvinnik English Nc3,g3,Bg2,e4

I have had great success with it against very booked up Sicilian theory players and gets them on their own really quickly.

I started playing it for the same reason when I was around 1500. I've played this exclusively until now and it has worked pretty well despite my favourite line being +1.5 to white according to Fritz after about 20 moves; I only realised this recently but still play it. I've had a couple of master scalps with it and generally good results so it definitely had practical chances, but chances are considering my last opponent's prep vs me irl, people will know what to play vs me with a quick database search . It's still a beast at blitz and unprepared opponents, and there are sound lines as some 2600s (I think Gurevich plays it and I've seen others but can't remember names, Naka might have played it at the US open) still play it occasionally.