Chess Openings for White

I would assume that you prefer those which are easy to absorb and implement. Almost all that fall into this category are what I call system-type openings. The unifying concept is to get a setup of pieces and pawns that is almost universally applicable with the fewest possibilities for the opponent to deviate favorably, thereby limiting the positions you have to study.

d4 systems include:

the london system with Bf4, either with Nc3 or c3

the e3 system, either heading for a colle pawn triangle of c3 d4 e3 or a reversed queen's gambit declined setup with be2 nf3 and 00

catalan type systems with g3, bg2 and c4. quite hard to play though.

i decided not to include the tromp with bg5 and the torre with nf3 nf6 and bg5 because these are not as easy to play in a near-universal manner as the ones above.

e4 systems

the king's indian attack with nf3, g3, bg2 00 and so on. it gives king safety.

the reversed philidor with d3, c3, nf3, qc2, be2, 00, nbd2 and so on. in my opinion difficult to play for someone just starting out as the positions mostly require unusual maneuvering.

c4 systems

the g3 setup, nf3, 00, and could go for a double fianchetto with b3 and bb2 or play it some more standard way with d4 or e4.

the botvinnik triangle with nc3, d3, e4, and mostly g3 and bg2

the reversed tarrasch setup with e3, nf3, nc3 and later d4 aiming for an open game

the original reti concept of double fianchetto, with b3 and bb2, and g3 and bg2, and then d3, nbd2 and rc1-c2, qa1 stuff

that's about it as far as i am aware. i would recommend those that lead to more open tactical type of positions because you need to play them well in any case. and also since i assume you reach more open positions in the scandinavian part of your repertoire. also try to solve tactics everyday for at least 15 minutes.

I would counter the argument of post 2 for multiple reasons:

1) System openings do not work as a catch-all system.  You actually have to know when they are ok and when they are bad:

Examples:

1.e4 d5 - KIA impossible

1.e4 d6, 1.e4 Nf6, 1.e4 e5 - KIA is a slight advantage for Black

1.e4 e6, 1.e4 c5, 1.e4 c6 - These are really the only cases where the KIA is legit

1.d4 g6 2.Bf4? - This move is bad because of Bg7/d6/Nc6 or d7/e5 - Even Lakdawala, a London guru, acknowledges this!

Colle - 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 - ok so far, and after 3...e6, the Colle is fine, but 3...Bf5 or 3...Bg4, all 4th moves by White are bad except 4.c4, which will lead back to Slav theory after 4...c6.

Torre - No good against early d5 - 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bg5 Ne4! =/+

English as a system - saying "I will play X, Y, Z against everything" is horrible.  A popular one is to play 1.c4, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.Nc3 against all.  Cannot do that!  1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2? (Even Marin, the king of 2.g3, points out that ...Nc6 should always be answered by Nc3) 3...f5! 4.Nc3 Nf6 and Black has an excellent position as e4 will come with no good place for the White Knight as the Bishop occupies g2.  Answer is 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Nc3! f5 4.Nf3! Nf6 5.d4! And now after 5...e4, 6.Nh4!, looking to entice g5 or harass f5 and g6.  If ...g5, then Ng2! and after a timely h4 at a point when Black must take or advance, f4 is a beautiful outpost for the Knight.  Despite 2.g3, the Bishop in this line is developed classically, usually to e2.

2) Therefore, scrap everything said in post 2.  Here is your answer for effective lines that are fairly simple:

Play 1.e4

Against 1...e5, Slow Italian (Eliminates Two Knights Defense Tricks.  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 and now 3...Bc5 4.O-O Nf6 5.d3 or 3...Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.O-O (two defensive responses by Black, 1 system)

Against 1...c5, Closed Sicilian.  It is only equal, but it is simple, which is what you called for.  After 2.Nc3, White will play g3/Bg2/d3 and then attack on the Kingside

Against 1...e6, advance variation is simple.  1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 (5...Bd7 6.Be2! and White will easily be able to castle to safety) 6.a3 Nh6 (6...c4 7.Nbd2 Na5 8.g3 with h4 and Bh3 and O-O coming.  White gets a decent kingside attack with a slight advantage) 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nh5 9.Bb2! (To cover both d4 and e5) Bd7 (9...Be7 10.Bd3 intending 11.Bxf5) 10.g4! And the Knight must retreat with an unclear game and 3 possible results

Against the Caro-Kann, The Advance with 4.Nf3 (not 4.Nc3) is very simple.  An hour of research is all you read need.

dude you must hate the post to say "scrap it," as if it were garbage. you did not even state what implied or explicitly stated argument you were against. bring that ego down a bit.

Uhm, learn how to read!  I SPECIFICALLY STATED problems with each of the "system" lines and why they cannot be used as a full blown system, contrary to popular belief!

Yes, GMs play the London, Colle, Torre, KIA, English, etc.  Even Carlsen!

Do you see any of them play it as a "system" against "Everything"?  If your answer is yes, show the proof!

The truth is, no "system" works!  Period!

I have played many of those lines you mention, but never as a standalone system, and breaking the hard truth to the OP that the approach in post 2 does not work!  Period!  Sorry that the truth hurts your super-sensitive feelings, but it is the truth.

Case in point:

For most of 2018, I played the openings you mentioned as White:

1.d4 and now:

A) 1...g6 2.e4! (Torre, London, Colle, all crap against the Modern.

B) 1...c5 2.d5! Nf6 3.Nc3! Leading to a Schmidt or Closed Benoni, with no c4, both good for White

C) 1...f5 2.Bg5

D) 1...d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 and now 3...e6 4.Bd3 or 3...Bf5/3...Bg4 4.c4! (4.Bd3 is garbage here)

E) 1...Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 (2...e6 3.Bg5 / 2...d5 3.e3) 3.Bg5

But notice that this is not one "system", this is just as complicated as playing 2.c4.  Modern, Slav, Various Benonis, Torre, Colle all possible, strictly decided by Black!

That is why I said scrap it all from post 2 and play simpler lines that may be equal, but you do not fall into the "White is worse" trap by trying to cookie cutter everything into the same moves against all defenses because the truth is that it does not work!

This doesn't really make much sense though.  You're saying he should ignore a system like the London and instead learn half a dozen different opening responses to 1.e4.  Wouldn't it be easier to just adopt a system that's applicable in ~90% of his games, and then learn the 2 or 3 instances in which he needs to deviate from the typical system play?  That seems like it is much more straight forward than learning all of the openings you've suggested.

If you want to learn chess, then making changes based on an opponent's move is an essential skill.

Again, you are confusing yourself.  You still cannot play the same moves 90% of the time.  While the Modern Defense may be the only one that outright makes the London System bad, that does not mean that you can simply play the same moves against everything else.  Saying "Play the same first half-dozen moves against everything except the Modern" would be like saying play the same half-dozen moves against all Sicilians!

Telling someone to close their eyes and play 1.d4 (peek for 1...g6, if no 1...g6, the re-close eyes), 2.Nf3, 3.Bf4, 4.e3, 5.h3, 6.Be2, 7.O-O, 8.Nbd2 (OK, open your eyes now) would be like saying "Play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 and now close your eyes and play 3.d4, 4.Nxd4, 5.Nc3, and 6.Be3."

The point is, the London against a KID structure is apples to oranges compared to the London vs 1...d5.  Yet, way too many people just robotically play the same moves, thinking that all that matters is White's moves until you reach move 10, and only then will I actually look at what Black is doing!  That is absolutely ludicrous!  And yet, having played almost 3000 over the board games at over 750 tournaments, I have seen it first hand numerous times by players below 2200.

So the answer is no!  They should not "just learn the London System plus 2 or 3 others against certain responses!"  The other issue is that without a diversity in pawn structures, your growth in chess will come to a screeching halt!

This is why, when setting up a repertoire for the first time, going with simple (even if it means equal instead of advantage), sound lines with a diversity of pawn structures.  If you understand this, when you reach higher levels, making the adjustment will not be nearly as drastic as having to make the switch from the monotonous lines like the London or KIA.  I made the mistake years ago of trying to play the KIA via 1.Nf3, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.d3, 5.O-O, 6.Re1 7.Nbd2, 8.e4 against virtually everything as White and it stunted my growth at the time.

You have to trust me on this one.  I was once that 1177 player back in early 1997.  Biggest mistake I ever made as White was the 6 months I played the KIA against everyone.  Diversity in pawn structure is the way to succeed in the long run!

I prefer the Vienna for White it works well agaisnt E5 which is play a ton and for the Sicilian you go into a Grand Prix as for things like Caro kann that’s a separate  study that I personally need to look into more.

If the Vienna works better for you than the Slow Italian, and the Grand Prix works better for you than the Closed, Go for it!  Did not say my suggestion was the only one.  If you are looking for simplicity rather than an advantage, avoid the Open Sicilian (Closed, Grand Prix, Alapin, etc all sound enough to at minimum maintain equality).  If you want the absolute best line theoretically at the sacrifice of having to put in a ton of time into the openings, play 3.d4.  If sound is all that matters, and you are ok with equality, then 2.Nc3 or 2.c3 are fine for White.

HAVE BEEN STUDYING THE GAMES OF ALPHA ZERO. 

ALPHA ZERO LIKES THESE OPENINGS   1. d4       1. c4     1. Nf3

ALPHA ZERO DOES NOT OPEN 1.e4   [UNLESS FORCED TO DO SO]

WHEN ALPHA ZERO PLAYS BLACK IT RESPONDS TO 1. e4   with   e5.

ALPHA ZERO KNOWS THE DRAWING LINE VS THE RUY LOPEZ. 

[SORRY FOR CAPS--=MEDICAL PROBLEM]

At that point it moreso depends on what OP is looking for.  A reasonably solid opening that they can use in their games without having to learn a dozen different openings and pawn structures?  Then yeah, something like the London system works perfectly fine.  It's okay for someone to just want to learn the game and have fun with it, rather than adopt some rigorous training regime with the aim of one day becoming a master.

I'm also not certain why someone can't learn to play the london system, and also learn how to adapt to and counter an opponent's moves?  Seems unreasonable to suggest the only choices here are between playing 1.e4 like you suggested, and playing blind for the first 10 moves.  You can actually learn the London System and then how to respond to your opponent.  It's hard to deny that most of their games will take on a pretty similar structure and development strategy in the london system, even if they are adapting to their opponents moves when necessary.  So if OP is seeking more the route of simplicity, then yes, adopting a systems opening would be a perfectly viable choice. 

And if you really wanted to add something more useful to the conversation, you should maybe adopt a less aggressive and combative tone to your comments.  Just say what you've told me, that focusing on a single opening/pawn structure will stunt their growth, and that they should make sure to not robotically respond with the same moves in every game.  Then at that point, they have the information to actually decide for themselves whether your advice makes more sense for achieving what they want with their opening repertoire.  Dismissing someone else's answer without providing your reasoning for it doesn't actually provide all that much value.

Bongcloud

👌

you basically said system openings do not work as a catch-all system and for this reason these sytem opening suggestions should be scrapped, and then you proceeded to suggest something else.

some problems:

i did not claim that system openings will be a catch-all, at any point in my statement. i said it limits the number of ways the opponent can deviate favorably. so you are basically arguing a premise that i did not even make.

all the faults of these system openings you just outlined merely show that they cannot be played against everything, but i also did not make a claim that one can play them against everything, so again arguing against a premise i did not make. 

i think you have a problem with reading comprehension, at the very least, or you simply have this compulsion to look for specific phrases within comments, ignoring context, and building up your case from virtually nothing. your statements do not make sense to me from the point of view of arguing over a stated premise.

The problem is though, the way it is written, a low rated player (below 1800) will read it and think that using it as a catch all system will work.  There is nothing in that message alerting the pitfalls that can occur.

I specified many of those pitfalls in post 3, so do not lie and tell me I build the case from nothing!  You are so full of BS when you make such a comment, or else you are freaking blind or are incapable of reading!

To reitterate:

You advise the London in post 2 but make no mention of how bad it is against the Modern Defense that it is basically unplayable.

You advise the Colle with no mention that the Colle only works when Black's light-squared Bishop is behind the Pawn chain (just like the Catalan, another that only work with the Black LSB behind the pawn chain.

You advise the g3-English but make no mention of the problems with responding to Nc6 with Bg2, and how and why Nc6 must be answered by Nc3.

After your obvious expression of cluelessness in post 4 about post 3, I went further in post 5 to explain that it is not a complete discharge of "systematic" openings, but rather showing how to go about using them if you are going to take that route, and showing it is not simpler than other approaches that you have the false impression of being more complicated.

And yes, I suggested an e4 repertoire, but nowhere did I say it has to be e4.  I have played d4, c4, Nf3, even offbeat lines like b4 or Nc3 in my lifetime.  But no matter what you choose, advising a cookie-cutter approach with no mention of the pitfalls and actually helping them understand them just shows that you do not understand them yourself!

For example, to just say "I played d4, Nf3, e3, and Bd3, and I have a Colle and am so proud of myself for remembering the name" is totally useless.  You must understand the criticality of Black's LSB being blocked off, the domination of the e5-square by White, making it virtually impossible for Black to get that Bishop out, the weakened light squares on the kingside as a result.  Doesn't this sound a lot like another opening?  The French Defense?  It is no accident that over 70 percent of cases of successful executions of the Greek Gift Sacrifice by White come from either the Colle System or French Defense.

Without this information, giving a clearer picture of why you advise the Colle System, and specifying when it would actually work, would give the user the false impression that it is fine against any defense by Black, and it really isn't.  If Black gets that Bishop outside the pawn chain, the point behind the Colle is defeated and White is worse after 3...Bf5 4.Bd3.  One must understand that when the Bishop is swung out to f5, and especially after e6, locking it outside the pawn chain, that the kingside light squares are no longer weak (the whole point of the Colle System), and that now the Queenside light squares are weak, and that White must play 4.c4 and now follow Slav strategy, which is all about executing the Queenside weaknesses in Black's camp, predominantly the light squares.

It boils down to getting players to understand the point behind a system rather than just blurting out names of openings because the early moves are similar.

Once you truly understand the point behind a system, you realize that recommending it to a beginner is a total mistake!  The Colle only works when Black has weakened his Kingside Light Squares by hemming the Bishop behind the pawn chain.

I could also write pages upon pages of when and why other system openings work and when they do not, but this post is not to rewrite the books on these systems.  It is to get across to you why post 2 is extremely misleading to a lower rated player, and why I suggested a series of lines low in complexity rather than trying to cookie cut it into the same moves every time.  Playing the same moves with no idea why you are doing it is a recipe for disaster compared to learning a series of fairly simple lines where the ideas are easier to understand, even if it means reacting differently to Black's various responses.

Capiche?

Once again, everyone in this thread, including the original poster, is missing the forest for the trees. He's rated under 1100. 90% of his games will be decided by who leaves the most pieces en prise, and the other 10% will be decided by single move tactics. It doesn't matter what opening you play at that level, and studying openings won't help improve your play.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't be striving to play good opening moves. It just means that sticking to any single opening, and learning how to play it properly, is pointless. Get the book Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev. It'll teach you opening principles that apply to every opening, so you can improvise even if your opponent does something completely off the wall. That's what matters at that level.

Worry about picking specific named openings when your rating hits 1500+.