Is it wrong that I hardly ever play e4 or d4 as white ??

Because when I first started learning chess, I actually felt like playing e4 and d4 will have many disadvantages bc my opponent (assuming they are not an idiot) will play openings that become very long and usually end in a draw in the middle game. Plus they expect it, and I want them to NOT be expecting of anything.

I usually have luck playing very unorthodox openings such as a3, Nc3, b4, f4, g3, c3, and d3.
on top of that, sometimes it transitions into common openings like the Sicilian (1.e4-c5) if I play 1.c3 - c5 2. e4. (Sicilian Alapin)

I suppose it is because I like playing for traps and tricks a lot.  my go to opening is usually f4 or g3.

it ALSO might be because im a contrarian, a person who hates anything that is popular or popularized by the media or public.  

I hear people say that these openings are weak, but I refuse to believe them. I actually have quite a bit of luck with these openings.   It might be because I'm trying to throw people off their game or comfort zone.   At the same time, I feel like because I trained up with these openings instead, trying to learn more about center pawn moves will be harder now that Im a little more advanced. (kinda as if you grew up speaking 2 languages vs being an adult wanting to speak 2 languages)

I think Id rather learn more openings with e4, d4 later when I reach a rating of 1800 or higher 
(I am currently rated 1678 ELO on Lichess, but not here bc I I dont want to pay for Diamond yet.  When I do I might continue on here instead)

e4 and d4 are 2 of the best and most diverse opening moves and avoiding them is like avoiding 95% of different chess positions and structures. Even if you like offbeat stuff, there is more offbeat stuff within these lines.

I keep hearing the inexplicable terror people have of "the theory". They don't want to play Sicilian because of theory. They don't want to play Queen's Gambit because of theory. I heard one guy say he doesn't play 1. e4 because there's too much theory. It's an insane phobia people have. Why do they even play chess if they can't play 1. e4?

All good opening moves are essentially known so eventually you will have to experience trying to outplay an opponent from a position that they are familiar with. If you play an inferior move just to try to throw someone off, eventually someone will just be good enough to punish the move. It's not worth playing for a surprise factor if it isn't actually good.

I think you should play whatever works for you. If you keep winning with a move then you have no reason not to play it. However, e4 and d4 are very basic, principled and instructive to the player.

I understand, but then again, I already learned most of the opening theory behind e4 and d4, I think its just rather boring to me. Like I said, I hate popular things. its a personal belief lol XD. With black, I sometimes play common lines, but at the same time not really. If I feel like playing the Sicilian, I usually play the katalimov variation with 2. b6. and even then, some positions I have been doing my own studying on such as Froms gambit, strom gambit, the mieses-krotic attack.
I'm for sure will be ready when I do have to use these moves, but as of so far, even with only starting chess about 3 weeks ago from no knowledge to 1600+, I dont think i'll use them yet

I understand. You should play what you enjoy.

Yeah that’s me, I dodge theory as much as possible.

I started off with e4 at the 800-1200 bracket. Moved onto the English at 1200-1400 and happily settled with the Reti against the 1500-2000 pool of players.

I play Nf3 as my mainline and c4 as a sideline due to the success. The extra time I have left over from not studying opening theory is utilized on basic tactics training, end games and game analysis; I believe this is the best use of my time.

You say that you already learned most of the theory behind e4 and d4, yet, only started playing chess 3 weeks ago? Impossible. Even if you were a savant, I would be skeptical of that timeline.

I will say this is a fair point. There are so many different lines and variations within those lines that you can't possibly know all of them. Even GMs still find lines that they were unaware of or lines that are rare and unfamiliar with.

Just because you skimmed over a few main lines, to say "e4 and d4, yeah I just know it all now" is getting way ahead of yourself. Maybe you studied extremely intensively to find out as many variations as possible but you aren't going to remember all of that in such a small time period. There would definitely still be a lot of things that you missed.

I studied to try to find as many variations as I possibly could. There are still some openings that you loads of different lines when you get past the surface or variations which don't have official names.

Yeah man, you're right. I wasn't wanting to argue about it but that is total bs.

If you think all of e4 and d4 is boring then I think that's just sad. That's not to say that what you play isn't interesting either but it's a massive part of the game of chess. If you are interested in chess in any meaningful way then you will see all the greatest games throughout history are played from e4 and d4 and it's like "all of that just bores me". Nothing wrong with playing other stuff but that's just lacking passion for the game.

The opera game is just boring e4.

Kasparov vs Karpov, more boring e4 games.

All of Fischer's games? Boring e4.

It's to say an entire first move is boring because you determined that you already learned everything there is to know about it.

I think the term "opening theory" gets tossed around too much, especially with beginners. I'm 42 years old, been playing chess most of my life, and I'm still trying to understand what the idea of "opening theory" really even means. Obviously, in a general sense, I understand that it is a study of the openings. Skimming through Fundamental Chess Openings, for example, on the Italian game, does not mean that you all of a sudden "know the theory". You could spend your entire life studying just one variation of the Sicilian (and still not fully understand it ). If I were a coach, teaching beginners, I would recommend the term "opening theory" not enter your vocabulary. Work on fundamentals, tactics, vision, etc. If you really want to study one phase of the game, studying the endgame will be more beneficial than studying openings.

I think when a lot of lower rated players talk about opening theory, they just mean tabiya positions of main lines.

I believe people should study openings as a beginner but not in the same way one would study them in depth at a higher level. Studying openings by memorising long lines of theory without knowing what any of it means is not good practice. Beginners should study openings in the sense of understanding the first few moves and reaching a position they like and know how to play. Then the other factors are important to learn like tactics, positional chess and endgames.

Openings are important at all levels though. Understanding good opening practice and how to punish poor opening practice by the opponent can be significant in the game result.

I use lichess more now, Ive been playing offline for about a month now. Also, I have 2 brothers who are high rated players and a sister thats a WIM. so I kinda sorta learned a little my whole life but never really played chess until recently. I always hated chess growing up.
Regardless, I still know lots of theory behind e4 and d4, but like I said, I hate popular things in life. Just like popular things and trends in public or the media, I want to stand out more. Regardless again, I still have yet to be beaten extensively with my openings.

2 months? My opinion remains the same as with 3 weeks.

Please know I am not trying to be rude. I am trying to give you honest advice.

I agree. But even that takes years of study. I guess it comes down to how each person defines "opening theory".

I stan' you. But its just one of those things like "if it aint broke, it aint need fixing"
I'll use these openings more when I start to need them more

It doesn't make a difference. The Ruy Lopez is an absolutely massive opening on it's own and that's just one variant of e4-e5, only one of the responses to e4. You can say "Oh, the Ruy Lopez, like the Closed and the Berlin endgame right?" when there is a massive number of variations.

• Closed Ruy Lopez
• Open Ruy Lopez
• Marshall Attack
• Arkhangelsk
• Berlin
• Steinitz
• Schliemann
• Cordel
• Cozio

This isn't even all of them but each of these are different openings with their own structures, bodies of theory and lines hidden within them. And this is only 1 opening within e4 e5 out of

• Ruy Lopez
• Italian
• Scotch
• Four Knights
• Ponziani
• Petrov
• Philidor
• King's Gambit
• Vienna

Each with many lines and variations within them.

The Najdorf itself is probably equally as big as the Ruy Lopez and that's just 1 type of Open Sicilian. You can say "Oh the Najdorf, like the English Attack, right?"

• English Attack
• Classical
• Opocensky
• Adams Attack
• Fischer-Sozin Attack
• Amsterdam
• Zagreb

This isn't even all of them and each of these can be responded to in different ways like with e5, e6 or even g6, changing the character of the game and entering totally different variations. The English Attack itself can still branch off into totally different lines.

e4 e5 and e4 c5 are 2 whole entire planets of different openings and variations. e6 the French and c6 the Caro Kann are more fixed structures so not quite as diverse but still very large in their own right.

The French can be broadly divided into these variations

• Winawer
• Steinitz
• Classical
• Burn
• MacCutcheon
• Tarrasch
• Advance
• Two Knights Attack
• King's Indian Attack
• Exchange

And even when you know what all of these are, these are still all different openings with their own lines within them.

Then there is the Pirc which can be followed by

• Austrian Attack
• 150 Attack
• Classical
• Byrne
• Sveshnikov
• Bayonet Attack
• Kholmov

Each with their own variations. Not to mention the Modern, Scandinavian, Alekhine's Defence, and many others.

e4 is an entire universe of different openings.

d4 is another universe.

It's up to you to play whatever you enjoy or what works for you but if all of this is just boring to you or you hate it then that's a shame. Even if not just for the openings themselves then also for the magnificent games played from them.

I like to stand out as well but not just for the sake of it. I want to feel that the moves I make in the opening have real meaning and purpose, whether it's main or alternative, instead of just being randomly quirky with no meaning or purpose.

Even so, e4 and d4 are such massive universes of openings that there are so many offbeat lines within these moves as well.

This is just my perspective on the matter.

Oh I'm definitely fascinated by all the games of e4 and d4, and all tbh. 
Again, I haven played long, so there is still plenty of time for me to study. All that being said, going back to the language example, if you want to speak a new language over another, it would probably be best to add that language later after you can speak the first one.
Definitely, Its very overwelming to study all these openings at once, I wish I could just memorize memorize memorize, but I think it be best to know what I can, and learn from the games I play.