Find an opening that suits my playing style well.

You can play ANY opening, and you don't have to know much about it- quite the opposite. Just knowledge of the opening fundamentals is more than enough. Factly, the less you know about pattern book moves, the better.

Picking an opening should be your last priority right now, as well as in the foreseeable future.

To piggyback on Pfren:

If you follow sound opening principles, you will be playing "book" moves most of the time. The best moves have been worked out before, not by some rote memorization, but by analysis.

Play according to the principles of democratic development of the pieces (pawns aren't pieces, their piece wannabes), control of the center, protecting the king and trying to keep your opponent from achieving those three goals, all while watching out for tactics, and you will be playing an opening that is right for you!

Never heard of that one 

Jokes aside, when I started going to the local chess club 2 years ago I was looking forward to great battles in the Sicilian....yeah right! Everyone keeps playing the Scandinavian, and it's sooo annoying. At first I called it 'the IKEA opening' and 'flatpack chess', being Swedish by origin myself. Nowadays I've added the Scandinavian to my own repertoire, and it works like the Till Eulenspiegel of chess: the opponent gets so annoyed and frustrated, he or she tries to punish you for playing such a low-grade opening and you end up getting a psychological advantage.....odd.

i just do the mirror

I understand that but I just want to find an opening that I will enjoy. If I don't enjoy it I won't be able to concentrate as easily. It is one of my lowest priorities, but I would still like some sort of more helpful insight.

It seems like I'll be better off searching by myself. Because no one seems to want to do anything other than tell me not to achieve my goal.

Well, you're asking us to tell you what you will enjoy playing. You don't see what's wrong with that question?

Expertise87 wrote:

Well, you're asking us to tell you what you will enjoy playing. You don't see what's wrong with that question?

I provided evidence of certain positional aspects I enjoy. I know it's difficult to think of such an opening but most people are just here to tell me not to try and achieve my goal. Doesn't really help me much...

Estragon wrote:

RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:

It seems like I'll be better off searching by myself. Because no one seems to want to do anything other than tell me not to achieve my goal.

Well, if you will only entertain the answer you want to hear, why did you ask the question in the first place?

To find your most comfortable, natural, and most productive style, you need to learn the basic center pawn structures, beginning with e4 e5 and the open games, then those associated more with the semi-open games, followed by the d4 d5 complex, then by the Indian defenses including the Benoni and Dutch, and finally the flank openings including the English, Reti, Breyer, Larsen, etc.

Note that I am NOT suggesting you "learn the openings" but rather the structures of which they are composed.  And you are best to learn the same way as anything else, by doing, by experience.  Don't worry about the "book" moves, lines, or variations.  Play the structures and follow the basic rules of opening development, applying what you learn about the strategies of each position as an addendum to those guidelines.

Supplement this by playing over master games sorted by those structures as you learn them.  Don't spend too much time on each game, the idea is not to try to analyze them deeply, but rather just long enough to see what is going on in the game.  So, perhaps 15-20 minutes per game - but it is important play over a cross section of all games, wins and losses and draws, and to play through each to its end.

Before long, you will begin to notice the limited number of patterns which result, the usual plans for both sides, the strategies and tactics which work and which do not, well into the middlegame, and also the typical openings which may result and how to play them.

You want to take those ideas and try to implement them in your own games, then review them to see where you went wrong.

In time, you will be playing any opening with more confidence than those who spend hours and hours trying to "learn openings."

How could you choose which car will best suit you if you don't drive them all, or at least all those within your price range? 

If finding openings which "suit your style" were as simple as posting a question on an internet forum where 99.9% of the people don't know you and have never played you, chess would be a rather easy game, wouldn't it?  But it isn't.  And if you really want to learn to play it, the first thing to learn is there are no shortcuts. 

I understand where you are coming from, but you do realise chess is that complex of a game that if I was to play every single opening out there I would probably die without finding an answer. There are over three million (I think that's the number, maybe higher) different possible ways to play the first four moves of a game per side.

I am not asking for an indefinite answer, rather suggestions that fit the criteria (referring to your metaphor of cars in my price range). I know I wish to play a very open game with powerful bishops, and I don't want the position to be too symmetrical.

I asked for help because I want to achieve the goal before I reach the age of 77. I can't play all possible openings that fit the criteria. However, there may be some players that can identify with the information I have provided and have helpful suggestions.

The scotch gambit, which was suggested earlier is currently an opening I very much like. I have sine well with it in my games against chess programs lately and will play it in live chess to test it out.

I'm not being lazy about it, I just thought I would see if anyone had some advice or suggestions that could help me achieve my goal. I understand that you're trying to help, but you can't expect me to sit down at a chess board for decades straight to see which opening line out of millions I like best. That's just not realistic.

I'll try one more time:

Your losses are not due to choosing openings that don't fit your style, they're due to missed tactics. The advice that Pfren and others have given is to stop worrying about which opening to play and start working on your tactics. I went through some of your recent games. Even players rated in the 1400s are busting on your 1.e4 d6 2.(any) f5 noise. If that's fun for you, then there really is no hope. Sure, you'll win a few games with it, but you will lose miserably far more often.

The secret to enjoying chess is winning. To win at chess consistently, don't rely on gimmicks. Work on tactics. You've received free advice from successful chess coaches. It's up to you to listen or to claim that nobody is willing to help you.

There is no magic bullet here unless you are willing to play down material

Nice answer.

Learning an opening to improve your results / feel better about the positions you're getting is a fairy tale.  Which is what people are trying to tell you.  If you want to learn a new opening, fine, but the secret is you'll be studying it from a middlegame perspective.  Pawn structures, common themes, maneuvers from master games, this sort of thing.  As everyone else has said it's the fundamentals that will help you play a solid and more enjoyable game from start to finish.  Studying openings themselves will have you feeling lost as soon as your memorized moves run out.

I'm not trying to find some golden opening that wins me all my games. I'm trying to find an opening that I can find interesting and enjoyable through certain positional aspects that I like. I know my tactics aren't perfect. But that doesn't mean I am going to enjoy playing any opening.

I'm not trying to study openings! I'm trying to find an opening that can help provide a middle game position I like. Not all openings are the same.

And baloghs defence is risky but not unplayable. It's not the only opening that is risky. If an IM (I think he was an IM anyway) couldn't provide any solid reasoning as to what was wrong with it it is not unsound. Maybe risky, but playable.

Your reasoning makes no sense regarding Balogh's defense.

My playing style is to shuffle pieces back and forth and wait for the other guy or gal to lose.

I haven't found any opening that's suitable for this yet.

Then, I guess your definition of "solid reasoning" is at best strange.

Here is 14-year old Magnus playing the Balogh A WHOLE TEMPO DOWN as white, and smashing his GM opponent in less than 20 moves...