Drawing e4....

"the opening isn't really about developing and castling, it's about creating the structure you want to play with for the rest of the game,"

Definitely.

"and that structure is not inconsequential just because my rating is low..."

However here I have to disagree, unfortunately. If a player makes simple mistakes it will erase many moves of good play. That's the main reason. The priority is the, perhaps duller, aspect of the game of being able to consistently play moves that don't blunder anything tactically. These players can even be very uncreative, yet can be quite hard to beat because they don't give you an obvious opening to pounce on.

To have some idea of what you want to do in the opening is good, but that only takes about 20 minutes :) Just playing well in general is so much more important and is going to win so many more games, especially between under 1800 players.

I agree with Scottrf e5 is a good. It is solid and good and squares for development are more logical then in other openings. 

Of course, I'm only talking in terms of improvement. Fun is a perfectly good reason to study openings! But I don't think it's the most efficient way to improve results at your level; far from it, to be honest.

I agree that studying openings isn't the best route for relatively weak players to get better at chess, but there's something to be said for studying them enough to get a feel for what the games that arise from them are like. It's probably a good idea to play openings you actually like. I played the Qd6 variation of the Scandinavian for a while and did okay with it, but I can't say I was fond of it. Same thing with the Leningrad Dutch--did okay with it but i don't have the nerves of steel that I think someone would need to have to actually like playing that one.

Back to Alison's original question, what to play that isn't likely to produce the bloodbaths that arise from the Sicilian? I mostly play the French but you sound like you've played it enough to get a feel for it and don't much care for it. I've been playing the Caro Kann a bit lately--haven't really studied it, but I'm enjoying the variety of the pawn structures that arise depending on what variation White decides to play. Don't have much experience with it yet, but it seems pretty safe and stolid. The Panov-Botvinnik Attack makes me squirm a little, but I'm hoping that's just because the Caro Kann is new to me. You might give the Caro Kann a try.

Funny that you mention the Dutch - it was the first opening I learned (I went through Anna Muzychuk's games, and the Leningrad is in her repetoire)...I love the Dutch! You get a ton of space, take an unnerving level of control over the e4 square - which d4 players HATE - and create great opportunities both for a middlegame kingside attack and an endgame where your pawns are more advanced than your opponent's.......but I have been described as a rather steel nerved player. The first time I played at my club, one of the old A players looked over my game (I was picking off free pawns while my opponent was trying to checkmate me) and said "Well, she loses.....but she's not afraid of you." 

I'll look in to the Caro - it's been on a mental list for a while, and I'm sure I'll be able to jump in semi-comfortably because I do know the French structures. Honestly, once I get out of the D class, I'm probably going to switch to a classical ...e5 because it fits my style, but, having tried ...e5 against players in my rating range, EVERY terrible chess trap in every terrible chess book is e4, e5 based, so I get sick of having to kick back mate attempts from move 3 - they almost never work, but it's really stressful....I REALLY hate hackers. 

Traps are based on tactics. If you're routinely falling for them, it's probably a tactical rather than opening failure. Avoid searching for a magical opening. OK some traps are less than obvious but there aren't that many so shouldn't take that many games to learn.

I almost always get an OK game out of the opening from e5, and I'm often out of book quite early (some I know really well but most I don't). I just play for central control and development.

The funny thing about openings is that most players want an opening where they can just play chess. They get recommended 1... e5. They say: "naa, it's for complete beginners learning how the pieces move. I'll try the dragon, it's much more nice"

A few days later the complain about the dragon, how white can just play the Yugoslav and they're toast. Or maybe white can just play a sideline, and they have no idea what to do. Far too much theory. And so on.

The only players who play 1... e5 are beginners and super-GMs like Carlsen and Aronian (And a few wanna-be strong players like myself). Everyone else play the fancy Najdorf. 

By just analyzing this game: You had some opening chances where your opponent played weak but he managed to attack you a lot during this game and you defended well but you didn't get the chance to attack a lot yourself.  Just relax and finish developing, then slowly go with the attack with more pieces. Your tripling battery of rook queen rook (optimal is off course rook rook queen) was nice but your opponents knight was too close. 

On a strategic level your opponent did mostly one or two piece attacks that maybe won a pawn or two but didn't got him a good game, the moves d3 in combination with a3 allows black to equalise with ease.  Also your opponent didn't mind trading pieces which is bad when you are on the attack. Your strategic mistake was that your attack wasn't there and you were responding to your opponents threats too much. 

Interesting thought by silman about the opening: it's not about developing your pieces perse but the opening phase is about creating imbalances, a lead in development or in material, two bishops vs two knights, pawn structures, safe king etc., once an imbalance is created you should use this to your advantage to play the rest of the game. Something similar you said.

A nice drawish position against e4 is hard. With our ratings most of the games are decided by blunders, not the opening perse but some opening advice: Mostly you will have to deal with a lack of space like in the french or caro kann if you want something solid. And even then there are a lot of tactical positions that can arise. Choosing how drawish a game is is decided by both players.

Myself I recently had the same idea to get some solid development going without having to worry too much about my opponent. I started playing with the caro kann and most variations are pretty easy to do on basic principles and it's very solid. I like to get my bishop outside of the pawn chain and create an improved french by closing with e6. I have to look at the new mainline with Nd7 though instead of Bf5 on move 4. 

In blitz off course this is different and you can get wildly tactical positions with so called drawish openings. This was a game I played yesterday with the caro kann and I won a piece on move 8 in a very tactical position:

I actually *DON'T* want an opening where I can 'just play chess' - I want to do my best to force my opponent in to some book line I know and they don't. It's nonsensical to aim for nontheoretical positions and then ask for suggestions as to which theory positions to play.....like...."I want the green purple one". 

"You're bad at chess, play e5 and don't read any more books" has been suggested - duly noted, not what I was looking for. 

So you want to win by memorisation? That still takes technique, tactics and positional understanding to win.

I.e. even if you do know it better, it's probably still irrelevant.

The game in post two, you were won out of the opening, two pawns up, and lost, while refusing to take a free piece along the way.

I've been trying to do at least 50 tactic problems a day, I play through master games, I ask the computer to help me find my mistakes, I'm REALLY working on the "you suck at chess" thing.......REALLY WORKING

I haven't said you suck at chess. I'm simply saying your mistakes aren't based on not knowing opening lines.

If you want to win with memorisation, the dragon sicilian is probably best. If white tries for advantage, the lines becomes very theoretical and sharp. If he doesn't, you just get a game of chess.

If you only want the answer that you are looking for, just answer yourself, then.

A lot of REALLY good players are giving you REALLY good advice. It is up to you to listen to them.

Actually 1.e4 e5 has a ton of theory. A point in favor of playing solid classical openings is that the moves are often guided by sound principles of classical chess. You're often not hanging by a thread like you would be in a seemingly irrational Poisoned Pawn Najdorf. You typically have more options than you would in a sharp modern opening. Also you have access to many instructive games across the spectrum of chess history. It is an excellent tool for improvement.

If you like to memorize sharp openings, the Dragon is a good choice because the play is often very direct, but eventually you will want to expand your horizons if you wish to become a stronger player. If you want to start with a Sicilian, the Dragon is one of the best choices for a beginner. This is what I did. It wasn't until I was an expert that I learned the virtues of 1.e4 e5 for Black in practical play.

ratings irrelevent I think anyone with a 1000 rating in blitz has a good Idea of at least some openings I have never studied them or learned the names but most of my openings are textbook. Id like to think playing textbook openings limits the creativity but they sure are alot safer than winging. I like to combine openings and develop pieces switching the order to shroud an attack.I think development is way more important than learning the names.

People with 1000 ratings..... I was there once, I assure you I knew nothing about openings.

Different people have different strengths. You have to look at where you're losing games and before that getting bad positions.

"I actually *DON'T* want an opening where I can 'just play chess' - I want to do my best to force my opponent in to some book line I know and they don't."

So you actually live for cheap wins? Ok, strong GMs often do focus on this sort of thing, but that's because they are so good that there isn't a lot of room to outplay their opponents without surprising them (although Carlsen does give some evidence to the contrary on that point), and because it will actually pay off. Your winning strategy is way too unstable if you don't have a solid foundation of tactics -- even when you're close to a win you're reasonably likely to give your opponent a simple mistake that takes no ingenuity to take advantage of.

It's up to you though. Honestly I had very similar thoughts to yours when I was, I don't know, 1400-1700 USCF, waywardly going against the advice about not studying too much theory, and learning it the hard way instead. We like to think when we understand a particular position we're unbeatable -- but over the course of just a single game, the character can change drastically, and suddenly the opening understanding doesn't apply at all for the changed position we're in.