Agressive response to 1.e4?

1...e5! and 1...c5! are all some good moves. 1...c6 could also be good. The opening is your own personal opening.

If my opponent is extremely wea

i prefer this to beat them quickly but otherwise i like e5

Yeah...it's embarrassing but...I actually fell for that trap last year the ONLY time I played 1...e5. Luckily for me, I managed to trap his queen and win the game. However, I guess the only way to really learn is to just go for it and hope for the best. I really feel like switching to 1...e5 could really reinvigorate my game and help me really advance as a player.

The Scandinavian Defense is ok in my book, there's some sharp play to be had from the 2...Nf6 lines.

You might also try the Pirc.  It will definitely take some time to really get comfortable with it, but it's given me a lot of really interesting games.

From my experiences, the most tactically agressive move is c5, the most positionally agressive move is g6 and the most strategically agressive move is d5.

Most chess players have issues with aggression because of their lack of passion for the game and reluctance to act when it doesn't bring them an "advantage". The only true way to learn is to completely disregard "opening theory" and challenge the other player's mind like chess is supposed to be.

If you truly want to learn chess, say no to new excuses for old moves. Do what feels right in the moment, or what you want to. If the game plays out wrong, try harder at it, if and only if they're clearly better with the immediate response, then you've come to a point where you understand something and can move on from the pressures of uncertainty, nervousness and cowardice plaguing most players trying to find "right moves" and "stronger play" because you've actually learned something instead of "lost".

Chess players in general have been trained to be cowards. They cautiously play into lines they wouldn't otherwise because some grandmaster or book told them it was "safe" and only how to deal with a few immediate threats and shallow theory. Theory that they'll readily forget in favor of memorizing clever tactical combinations and praying they come up in their next game so they collect more rating points (real or fake). Once you realize you're up against a bunch of pieces representing "what somebody else wants" vs. pieces representing "what you want" chess becomes fun =) the mental war it's supposed to be. Half my games violate opening theory and my rating's currently almost 2000 here. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from doing what you want but those other pieces over there :P

True chess should start on the basis of finding out how your opponent thinks and then taking advantage of something he or she might overlook, everything else is a psychological, strategic and tactical war built upon that foundation.

Mindless chess = dreaming for a chance to be clever

True chess = mental warfare (and kind of fun :))

Yeah, in most of the games I've played, the more aggressive player has a huge advantage psychologically even if not on the board. Attacking at this level seems to put the opponent into a passive state mentally and they tend to worry more about defense than trying to find attacking opportunities for themselves. It's also a lot easier to win a game by applying pressure to your opponent which can cause them to crack. That's the major reason why I've tired of the French Defense because I just have to sit their and absorb what white throws at me as opposed to looking for my own chances.

lol, what made you pick up the French in the first place?

I guess it's kinda like people want to do d5 but would like some support for it. But in reality, the other side gets to move so the entire game is just a wish hoping to come true and you're basically a spectator to white's plans like you said thinking the same exact thoughts until you spot a mistake he doesn't and happen to have the ability to establish or exploit an accidentally or purposely established web (boring :P)

d5 alone people flip out on, they act like white wins the game on move two by taking it, lol. It's ridiculous how they just listen to what they're told. I even play as black 1. e4 d5 1. exd5 e5?

I've learned it's most likely a really bad idea (endgames are unclear sometimes) and usually people make a positional error wide enough for me not to care about or compensate for the lost pawn. But it's amusing to watch them defend it with their life, and if they're not defending the doubled d pawn with every piece they own, they've taken the e as well through en passant giving me developmental lead so I'm fine with it. Especially considering I'm more familiar with the opening than they are.

Wow I get really off topic when I write down everything I think O.o

I originally started playing the French because I wasn't confident in my tactical ability so I tried to hide behind a "sound" opening. I figured if I kept the position closed, I could mask that area and try to win it in the endgame or wait for white to over-extend. However, I won't get much better playing that style of game, and as such I'm ready to open things up even if my results might suffer temporarily because of it.

have fun with it ^^ I played almost all of my bullet and blitz matches with made up openings at one point to see if people even knew how to counter them in the slightest and most people never found responses I couldn't later improve against or challenge in some other way. The way I saw it was kind of "show me your precious opening theory in action" and I'd try to make the positions as interesting and intense as possible. Turns out most players talk a better game than they play :)

The Bongcloud