I hate playing black against super unambitious d4 openings.

How unambitious.  It irritates me so bad when my opponents play such passive boring openings.

But he should play the open sicilian if he wants to maximize his probability of getting an opening advantage.

I don't know why he doesn't play 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 against the sicilian, well, maybe 2.c3 players are less risk averse, maybe he wants to bore his oponnents.

On which side are you shooting yourself?

Both sides are lost in that line.

Anyway, against the french I like this line (just to make some mess in the board):

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nc3!?

Easier said than done. You may notice that most London players delay Nf3 as long as possible, often until after playing h3. This allows white to use the Bg5-Bh4 maneuver. If Nf3 is played, it's usually before Nd2, which leaves the Nfd2 maneuver available for white. Black can get the bishop, but it leaves white well ahead. Here are some examples.

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=742150960

Looks like you played on the white side of the London system and drew. Color me surprised. /sarcasm

I don't like playing against d4 as black, and my opponents recently seem to know it. Everyone seems to be playing d4. I love a good sicilian battle. C'est la vie.......

It's unambitious.  While white certainly has attacking chances, black can equlize much easier than in the open sicilian.  The best way for white to preserve his advantage is to play the open sicilian.  Decades of master level play have shown the open sicilian to be the best option for white.

I don't have anything against the c3 Sicilian or Grand Prix.  It's simply funny that the OP hates on d-pawn specials and then plays unambitious openings himself.

http://www.chess.com/video/player/dealing-with-passive-queen-pawn-openings

Dear OP, I will play you in a "boring" d4 game. Let's see who wins.

I don't see how putting a pawn on d5 can be termed "wild and stupid." Like I said if you don't think you're getting good play then put a pawn on the fourth rank and grab some of the center. In the opening you played into a solid but passive position in which White had a space advantage and the only antidote was to trade material. That's just middlegame strategy. If that's not what you want then developing this way is not going to suit you. 

Complaining about shuffling pieces is just a long-winded way of saying that you and your opponent aren't able to read the position and end up creating weaknesses. That's a middlegame problem not an opening problem. Anyway it's no big deal and you won't always know what to do all the time. All you can really do is just keep your eyes open for opportunities.

The other point is that playing for the opening advantage and memorising theory is a waste of time when your opponents are just going to shuffle around and make weaknesses. I don't think there's anything wrong with learning them but they're just not going to make or break games. Some players are more concerned with delaying piece contact until the middlegame to avoid theory because once the middlegame starts players shuffle around and make weaknesses. I know I do. 

Well, you can call the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit a dubious, unsound or even refuted opening (statements with which I personally don't agree), but I can't see anybody making a case to call the BDG "unambitious" - on the contrary.

And if anybody thinks opening with the BDG is as good as resigning - please challenge some players of The Unsound Openers (or Blackmar-Diemer Gambit) to a one-on-one game, a team match or a vote chess game. I'd be more than interested to see your "refutation".

+1

This is the point. It's not about the "chess truth".

It's just about somebody criticizing 1.d4 sidelines, but then playing 1.e4 sidelines against the sicilian.

Do you think that your oponnents playing the sicilian have too much fun when you play 2.c3? you are boring them, they are probably experts in the open sicilian lines. Why you don't play what they would prefer?

As for my game, sure I play london system, but in that particular game that you linked I played c4 and Nc3, so I don't know how is that a london.

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=742150960

(and of course, I'll continue playing Bf4 against that particular oponnent, since he has already told me that he get bored with that positions, why should I play lines that he likes?).

What is so wrong with a draw?

OP thinks of this quote: To play for a draw, at any rate with white, is to some degree a crime against chess.  -  Mikhail Tal (Chessquotes.com)

I have no problems with draws though. If my opponent likes drawing 90% of his games, let him! I play chess for winning though, and don't take premature draws (I think, but actually I once took a draw in move 18 because I was a little worse, and my opponent offered it). 

Estrinian wrote:

What is so wrong with a draw?

Depends on who you ask, I hate not winning, so draws are less appealing to me, hence why I play the kings gambit

There is a difference between an unambitious opening, ie the d4 sidelines, and playing a different line. C3 sicilian and Grand Prix are unambitious? Might as well call anything in the Ruy Lopez unambitious too. There's a huge difference between playing the slowest and quietest openings wasting your opening advantage, and playing a slightly different line that is definitely up for debate about which is better. Trying to call the Grand Prix unambitious compared to the open sicilians... makes me laugh. Ya'll are just angry that the London and Colle are for players that really don't really want to play chess.

@@ socialista - playing 9 moves before playing c4 only because your opponent played a slow opening in response does not mean your opening wasnt 'unambitious.' Also, you guys played that crap unambitious opening and didn't even press into the Q+B+pawns endgame? What is that crap? Do you only like playing the 15-20 or so moves in the middlegame? Is that it? Play a boring opening, YAY an average middlegame, oh wait a boring endgame - DRAW. Thats how your game went. Also, if you're playing a friend and you only play lines that he finds boring just so you can get some kind of a psychological advantage, that is pretty damn dumb. Play for a real advantage on the board. Its not like any level of chess player that is any good is going to let the 'London' or other non-ambitious opening psyche them out. They don't loathe the opening because they lose. If people lost they might light it more because its exciting. When I see it, I think, wow this guy should've just let me play white if he wants to play black. Then I either win or draw.

As white, you have a choice between:

1. A line that black scores better than white in, but is stupid easy to learn

2. A line that white scores better than black in, but takes a little bit of effort

Choosing option #1 (the grand prix attack) would be the very definition of unambitious.  You are quite simply giving up your advantage (in fact taking a disadvantage) for a simpler game.  This is no less unambitious than playing the london system.

"kponds wrote:

As white, you have a choice between:

1. A line that black scores better than white in, but is stupid easy to learn

2. A line that white scores better than black in, but takes a little bit of effort

Choosing option #1 (the grand prix attack) would be the very definition of unambitious.  You are quite simply giving up your advantage (in fact taking a disadvantage) for a simpler game.  This is no less unambitious than playing the london system."

I just looked at your stats, and you aren't good enough to have a real, useful, informed opinion on the ambitious ness of either opening.