Any aggressive gambits I should try out with white?

But, hypothetically, what if some people actually ENJOY playing "system openings"? Has that really not crossed your mind?

Plenty of people obviously enjoy playing those types of openings, which is why they're played. Just because some people don't enjoy openings like the London System doesn't mean everyone hates them. I for one have nothing against system openings.

Well the majority of people DONT enjoy playing systems soo that means it.

I don't know what you mean by "that means it." Also, why do you think most people don't like playing system openings?

ask people around if they like to play system openings. Gotham subs will overwhelmingly say yes but other people will say overwhelmingly no.

Somewhat true. I rarely play system openings and ive been a gotham sub for about a year and a half. It truly depends on who you talk to and how dedicated they are to playing chess. I'm living proof of that statement.

How would you know? GothamChess has way too many subscribers and a lot of people like stuff like the Colle, the London, and especially the Tartakower Defense. You aren’t everyone, and forum commenters definitely aren’t everyone either.

I have a couple of options for you to try and study (These are some I have learned): The Geschev Gambit or Budapest Gambit. The Danish Gambit I dont 100% suggest but it can be overpowered if played correctly. The Scotch Gambit and the Vienna Gambit are fine, but my top suggestion is the Benko Gambit because grandmasters play it and Ive played. Out of the 5 times Ive ever played it Ive only lost once, so I highly suggest the BENKO GAMBIT. Also try Evans Gambit or the Dying Grandma Gambit (The last one was a joke.)

Dude no way you know the dying grandma gambit!

Not all systems are like that. The stonewall Dutch isn't passive. The KID setup isn't dull. But I get your point the London and Colle and Tarktakower are very boring

Well i wouldnt call the KID a system, Nor the dutch. They are very fun openings.

There is a difference between systems and openings. Systems are general setups, While openings require you to play different move for each move. Cant like just pick one thing and always use it like in systems.
Lets take london.
On move 3 they always play Nf3/e3, Then they setup the pyramid.
And lets look at indian defense.
They generally decide to play alot of prep like grunfeld, East indian, West indian, c5 indian, Very good.
Dutch players have alot to play too.
g6, e6, c5, nf6, Alot of options. Cant go just 1 setup to win em all.

And a bonus to that, The other thing that makes people like e4 is the potential for brilliant moves.
You see, It really just focuses on things such as development and material, While in those d4 systems there can be no captures for well over 10 - 12 moves.
d4 really is bassicaly closed. Another reason people dont like it.
This removes alot of potential for brilliant moves.

Ok, you're right, the KID isn't really a system, but the stonewall Dutch is. The Dutch in general had three variations to choose from, of which the stonewall system is one

Yes, if I just asked a bunch of regular forum posters, system openings might be more disliked than liked. But, as @TheSampson said, forum posters aren't the only people you can take into account. I think that if you took a wider and more random variety of chess players, you would probably get a fairly even amount of people that like and dislike those types of openings.

The Halloween Gambit. It's very very aggressive. (im not lying this is a fr fr gambit)

I'm sorry, what???

You're dissing the entirety of d4 now?? And the reason people want to play e4 instead of d4 is because it gets them more brilliant moves??

Firstly, what do you have against other d4 openings that aren't systems? The Queen's Gambit? The Catalan? The Trompowsky? Even if you don't like the London and the Colle, why do you have to insult all of d4??

And are you trying to say d4 isn't focusing on development?? You say e4 really focuses on development, making it sound like d4 doesn't. How??

Also, is your only purpose of playing chess to make brilliant moves?? Besides the fact that it's probably just not true that d4 would get you fewer brilliant moves (due to the fact that there are tactical and aggressive d4 openings), it's also not a particularly bad thing even if that were true, unless brilliant moves are all you aim for.

ok bud. chill out my guy

Looks like someone's not a fan of not capturing every piece they see. It's not each player's job to entertain their opponent. Being boring isn't a crime and if you're getting mad when your opponent plays something boring, it helps them a lot when you lose due to not thinking straight. Chess and emotion don't mix well.

Jeez bro, I'm sorry people try to follow principles and not get mated in the opening, but also don't want to spend all their time on learning theory. I deeply apologize that people have the audacity to play chess against you.

Tbh i woudlnt say that about the indian, Indian is NOT a system its a very aggresive and fine opening. I dis litteraly everything else. Queens gambit? No.
Catalan? No.
There is something about d4 that i hate with every inch of my soul but i cant tell you what it is. Alot of people feel the same.