1.e4 or Avrukh 1.d4; no beginner Q

Hi, I am not a beginner, but at the same time not exactly a very good player. But I study chess pretty seriously, although I have slightly too little time available there days. I am a bit lost on what to play with white. 

I have always  played 1.d4, 1.Sf3, 1.c4, without really being 100% convinced of this being better than 1.e4. I have been afraid of the oceans of theory in the sharp 1.e4-universe. At the same time, my repertoire is I think slightly too passive somehow. I often lack something (joy?) in the English/Reti complex, and the classical QGD isn't exactly pure fun either IMHO.   

Now I want to go either 1.e4 or go for Avrukh praised Catalan-based d4-repertoare.

If 1.e4, I want to go for open sicilians, and aggressive options in all lines, but no unsound gambits ala Nigel Davis Gambiteer I. 

With Avrukh, I can count on heavy pressure + the fact that club players (like myself) generally don't know how to defend against the Catalan.

Any advise? Thanks!

I don't play 1.e4 because I find it boring and that's what most people play best against. At the moment I am trying every opening move out to see which is the best - I find that 1.g4 is best for me!

From either 1.e4 or 1.d4, I would chose d4 - however, sometimes I find this can lead to passive play. Hence the reason I play 1.g4, because the main line is an aggressive one.

But yeah, I do like the Catalan - it depends on what type of player you are though.

Basically, if you don't like theory, don't play 1.e4 or 1.d4.

I have nothing against theory itself, if it gives me an active position, with real winning chances. 1.g4 doesn't appear to be a life-time choice, perhaphs for blitz games, but it won't hold up for real OTB tournament chess.

I agree that most players have mapped-out answers to 1.e4. Not entirely so vs other first moves (well, vs 1.d4, most players know a system.. ) 

Haha get_lost. That is what I was thinking.

I plan on playing g4 in the future OTB - played it once before.

Sf3 = Nf3 

Left-handed tennis players have an advantage, because the opponents are used to play against right-handed players.

1.d4 chess players have an advantage, because the opponents are more used to play against 1.e4.

If, as you said, you want to play Open Sicilians and aggressive options (without the knucklehead gambits--which is a good sign of rationality) then you will not be happy as a chessplayer unless you start playing the open games.

A lot of players will chime in on questions like this with very unhelpful advice or exclamations of how d4 sucks or e4 sucks...or how everything sucks...but your question gets to the heart of what one wants out of chess.

I started out as an e4 player ages ago. Then I decided to go for the smaller study load and "sound, positional chess" with d4. I did terribly for an entire season of the old team league that played in Boston in the 80s, losing every game...until the last game, when I played white and pulled out the Smith-Morra Gambit and blasted my opponent.

If YOU like the feel of open games, then YOU need to play them.

Avrukh's d4 Repertoire books are extremely good, and your experience in the English/Réti will certainly help you digest the material, since almost all of the variations he recommends involve a kingside fianchetto. On the other hand, there are still mounds of theory to learn if you want to take up 1.d4. Have you looked into Mihael Marin's The English Opening, also from the Grandmaster Repertoire series? If you've read and enjoyed GM Kosten's The Dynamic English, you're sure to love these books, since Marin adopts and updates a great deal of Kosten's recommended lines.

I'd recommend playing 1.e4. It will help you more with tactics and introduce you to a wider variety of positions and pawn structures IMO. 1.d4 is good, but if you choose to play it I think you should avoid the Catalan until you are at least 2000 strength OTB because it takes a lot of positional understanding and finess to handle properly. Seriously, you may surprise your opponents with it, but once you are up against someone who knows how to play the black side of it, and you are required to sac a pawn or two for long-term positional compensation, you may find yourself in a tough situation.

Sorry, guys! Nf3

Yes, I have it, and I am a big fan of Marin. But his lines are not always what I hoped for. E.g., versus the Keres defence, I think the resulting positions are quite boring and lifeless. In my eyes pretty equal, no real winning chances. And I don't udnerstand how to get some really pressure on Black after either QGD or Slav set-ups? Reti? Playable, but not really so aggressive.  So I wonder if i should by Marins 2nd and 3rd vols, or lose 1.c4+2.g3 and go for 1.d4

Thanks. This is a gut feeling I have, the only reason why I don't simply buy these otherwise obviously brilliant books by Avrukh. The positional complexity is perhaps too enormous for me to handle. There is another kind of complexity in the Sicilian landscape, I imagine. But of a different nature: attacking chess, aggressive direct chess. My impression, only.

Man, what should I go for ...  

Thanks. I want either an aggressive attacking position, or (if I can't objectively obtain that or an advantage) I want at least a complicated position with lots of play inherent. Not simplified position, symmetry.

I am not sure what I want; an opening complex that can motivate me to study harder, creating a thrill during the games which I lack at the moment

Thanks! I have the "Dyn Reti", and again, I don't quite like the 1...c5-lines. I know, I am pretty picky, don't like anything  

Maybe I should give 1.e4 a chance. I guess it would make me a better chess player, even if I discover that it isn't my thing after all, later if I switch back to closed openings... 

Any good resources with respect to 1.e4? I have Watson's 4 volumes on openings, San Lous 2005, McDonald's book, Aagaards attacking manual. Nothing else related to 1.e4

I suggest that if you are an aggressive player looking into 1.d4, then Starting Out: 1.d4 by John Cox is a really good choice-I have it and I like most of the lines it gives-especially the Bayonet Attack vs. KID (my favorite opening as white). Against the Slav, it advocates 6.Ne5 which is pretty aggressive and agaisnt the Semi-Slav, it advocates 5.Bg5 going into a Botvinnik,Anti-Moscow Gambit, or QGD Cambridge Springs. Against the QGD, it tells you to play the  Ne2 Exchange Variation. Pretty much gives the main lines against everything including stuff like Albin'sBadCountergambit and the Chigorin...

However, it lacks coverage vs. 5...Be7 the QGD Orthodox which I suspect you will see a lot but its easy to play against and moves are natural so you can just make your pet line against it. I personally am a fan of castling long and attacking w/ h4.

Avrukh's repertoire is very technical, so if you're looking for fun and enjoyment, I'd suggest you give 1.e4 a try, so you'll see fresh positions. Besides, it will probably help your chess more.

What do you see from your opponents most often, 1.d4 or 1.e4?  That may help you decide. I see 1.e4 more often, so, even though I played 1.d4 for a time, I find it better playing 1.e4 at the moment and knowing how to defend against 1.e4. And yes, 1.e4 will develop tactics faster than 1.d4.

Here's a move order I like a lot when playing 1.e4 - The Scotch. I found many players, at least at my level of play, burn some time on the clock thinking after I pushed my d-pawn to d4.

Many good contributions here, thanks! Yes, I feel more and more inclined to try 1.e4, give it a year and see if I am that kind of player. So Avrukh is technical; I suspected that. Surely good lines, but probably impossible to remember all the critical lines and difficult to fully understand the positional underlying ideas. 

So the Scotch is good? I will look at that. I probably want to avoid Ruy Lopes in the beginning, focusing on the Sicilian first. 

How about phasing in 1.e4 slowly, playing e.g,. KIA versus French and Closed Sic verus 1...c5? While learning to handle Caro-Kann, Pirc, Alekhine, etc? Good or bad decision? Thanks

No, interesting.. I will consider it. No really boring options for Black, a party-killer that you see in 20% of the games (like QGD versus 1.c4)?