THE Chess Opening

What do you think is the chess opening that represents chess? Not just the game itself, but the ideas, the players, the games, the history...

An explanation for your choice would be appreicated. ☺

Hmmmmmmmmmmm......Starting position?

1.nc3 because it blocks the c pawn (IT IS A METPAPHOR FOR PROFESSIONAL CHESS PLAYERS CHOOSING A BAD CAREER)

Well, it's in the category. Nonetheless I don't see why some devoted chessplayers call their own game "bad".

Just to be contrary, I'm gonna go with the Sicilian.  In FCO, Paul van der Sterren writes "If one opening could serve as a metaphor for the huge progress our understanding of chess has made in the course of the 20th century, from classical, in tune with clear, albeit static positional features to modern, complex, and highly dynamic; there is only one candidate: the Sicilian Defence".   I probably would have written something about "black's best attempt to seize the inititiative by unbalancing the position", but I'll defer to the Dutch GM's description since he actually knows what he is talking about...

I like to eat pie, but I would probably recommend against trying to make a living by winning pie eating contests! Of course, it is even worse in the chess case, because these people might have actually contributed something to the world if they had any sense...

this is similar to saying which human represents humanity, yet to a lesser extent. while people who need "black and white" rules (pun intended) to understand chess (the exact mentality bobby fischer himself hated and thought was the epitomy of an simpleton's approach to the game, this mentality manifesting itself in his sociopathy) may break down the opening as what it is (an array of different sequences of moves) without regard to the most efficient way to consider the opening from the perspective of a human brain (with limited calculatory capacity, thoughts outside of chess, and emotions), it is really the human ideas and judgements behind the moves that allow the limited human brain to discern good moves in extremely ambiguous and yet-defined positions without actually counting ahead each and every possibility (there are more of them from the starting position than can be atoms in the universe!). this is how the openings people memorize were formed in the first place. openings are handy in getting the information out to people (whose needs of it vary), but the purpose of naming them has, and is evolving into recognizing the people who formed them. so if one were to crassly pick which array of moves best demonstrates the process of the opening manifested in the ideas, players, games, and history, it would be nearly impossible to accurately weigh which period in opening development is more important, which ideology is more important, and the relationship between the two shown in the progressive merging of ideologies to a fluid body of judgement that is now taught as opening theory. leaving the decision then to judgement based upon certain expected values, i would say that it would have to be the sicilian as it merges so many different schools of thought on opening theory, is one of (maybe the) most developed opening in chess history, is the most successful try against e4, and is one of the oldest and most played openings in the game. the ruy lopez is old(er), is about as analyzed, and historically has an equally (probably more) massive usage, but it represents only a certain, limited range of ideas about the opening that the sicilian not only includes, but exceeds. the ruy lopez is really only classical and neo-classical in primarily dynamic or passively dynamic ways when played accurately, whereas the sicilian can be modernly dynamic (in it's most popular variations), modernly static, classically static (usually via 2.nc3), and even hypermodern in some variations. the sicilian also transposes into WAY more openings, and is the most fluid open game opening. nobody really knows the true answer to this question within any reliable certainty, but this is my best guess. 

my post pretty much says what the person this guy is referencing says, but with an anal attempt to cover more loopholes and "tactics" of the argument