thanks for that.I'd rather avoid the accelerated due to the Maroczy bind though.

the Kan I've tried that a few times with some moderate success...and the Taimanov is similar to the French I think.I'll give the Taimonov a try

+1

And about 95% of the positional ideas in any opening stem from the typical central pawn structures which occur.  There are only a couple of pawn breaks available for each side in any given structure, and they also create specific conditions for ideal piece placements.  How any structure must be played remains the same; much of opening theory consists of the tactical nuances encountered in implementing one's strategy and/or inhibiting the opponent's.

I think this is very accurate. There are openings I've studied and played that I "know" but simply have poor results in. Now, granted I'm a patzer, but I think it's true at every level that some structures just are more suited to a person's understand of how pieces and pawns work together than others.

One of my worst openings: 1. b4 as white and King's Gambit as black.

I used to be a 1. e4 fanatic, but now, I'm starting to like flank openings more, especially 1. c4 (English) and 1. b4 (Grob [?]).

In fact, I think flank openings are more suited for me than the common 1. e4's and 1. d4's.

You can call it Sokolsky, Polish or Orangutan depending on your mood. The Grob is 1.g4.

often players think that xxx opening is their worst opening because they lose in 10-20 moves so they start to transfer to closed systems to survive longer. Players think that they played a better game because it lasted longer. Often this is just because it takes longer for mistakes to be converted. 

start with open and semi open games then work on closed or at the very least play systems where open positions occur.

For me, it's playing the black side of the Ruy Lopez. The nebulous crushing grip white gets is something that takes years to become comfortable with, and I just never could. I remember trying it in CC on this site once against a NM, and I got an ideal middlegame position by following a book on the subject, yet I could do nothing with the position except slowly lose ground. That's why I love concept openings like the French or Caro-Kann. You get a concrete gameplan by default, and nebulous moves by white are less of a concern for me in those openings.

My bad.

"Play the Sicillian! It's bloody good!" he said.

So I did, and I lost. 

"Screw your Sicillian. Scandinavian looks like the way to go," I said.

"NOOOOOO!! SCANDINAVIAN IS THE DEVIL'S SPAWN," he said.

But I played it anyway, and I won. 

As a younger player I played a Nm and he told me I defended very well having lasted 36 moves. However he said if I learned to use my sword in conjunction with my good defence I would be a much stronger player. I never did get to use my sword properly and so I hang around in the 1600 - 1800's. I do still enjoy chess greatly after 50 years. It helps stave off dementia I think! I only use a few openings, the Ruy Lopez being my most used. I used to be fond of the Modern Benoni but stronger plays usually wiped the floor with me. Mostly I use sound principles such as good pawn structure and castling only when needed. I don't worry about losing. It's just a game.

For me, the opening that I wasn't successful until now is the Trompowsky attack 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5

ahhh now we know what to play against you ! lol

I have the most trouble with the Grunfeld from both sides, I think it's because there isn't a set central pawn structure.  My results are good as White, but usually not due to the opening, but with Black I just suck at it.

Why do people think that the Dragon is so sharp? I played it a while back and it stunk. All I got were rook endings...

look at the recent Nakamura-Robson game from the US championship. Lots of tactics and risks. the dragon is insanely sharp in many variations (not all) just because you or your opponents dont play it that way doesnt change things

@TonyH, you probably have more experience than me, so you are probably correct. I am just wondering; is the Najdorf is sharper than the Dragon or not?

every opening has sharp positions.. The dragon just has IMO less wiggle room in its lines than the najdorf, but thats just me. i do not like the yugoslav attack as black. Its too easy to find logical continuations for white and just lose if you forget 1 move. Najdorf is tricky enough that black often doesnt have such easy play. I studied the e5 najdrof forawhile it was more controllable but has some  very dangerous lines. The kasparov najdorf was more a move order thing to avoid the keres agianst the schevinegn (sp)