Learning 1.e4 e5 thoroughly

My guess is that he's done nothing but more lip flapping the last 3 weeks . 

Save the left-handed serves for certain strategic moments since the opponent would acclimate if done earlier. 

No one plays 1.d4 to avoid tactics but rather because they're in the mood for the kind of imbalances 1.d4 brings, wants to avoid the Sicilian and Berlin Defense or specific preperation against an opponent. 

If he learns 1.e4 thoroughly then he'll have serious gaps against 1.d4.  As white just setup a Torre attack and play c3 or c4  or even not move the pawn depending on the kind of position you'll end up in.  As black the Queen's Indian will offer you experience with imbalances and plans you'll find against other systems like 1.Nf3 or 1.c4.

You agree with me? Are you taking cat nip? Perhaps I am hallucinating. I did not go to sleep last night. Not at all.

Let's take out the word "thoroughly." OK, I retract that word.

I don't want to get away from tactics. I want to improve my tactics. I think I am horrible at them now but may have some potential if I work hard at them. I started play 1.e4. I switched to 1.d4. Now I have decided I should play both (not in the same game ). A friend and former colleague of mine who is trying to attain his Candidate Master (got up to 2150 USCF then his marriage just ended and he dropped down) told me Chicken, you will be doing yourself a disservice if you don't play some 1.e4 along with 1.d4 (in the long-run). I now am going to play 1.d4, say, 70% of the time, 1.e4 say 20%, and 1.c4 10%. Eventually I'll try 1.Nf3...once I get a lot better. I think that's reasonable...and I find it more challenging and interesting to switch (no swith-hitter remarks necessary).

I notice my games open up with 1.d4 quite often. I'll throw in the Tromp or Torre once in a while in addition to my QG.

I have been rapdily trying to get my games down to a reasonable number. I also, I play 1...e5 to 1.e4 and I started with a few things...for example, the Ponziani...starting slowly. I have also been playing in a Ruy Lopez tourney. Additionally, I tried the Cordel and liked it.

Of the openings you mentioned, I have solid lines against the Spanish, Italian, Scotch, and Four Knights. I need to find lines for the Ponz, Phil, and Russian though. I can also handle the King's Gambit no problem, etc.

I don't have enough experience to intelligently answer what I like yet. Maybe the Berlin or Chigorin or...etc....not sure yet...

e6. You can reach out more squares.

Did you say "lip fattening?" I beginning to consider that.

I have lines for Tromp as White, and for Torre and Tromp as Black. I need lines for Torre as White.

As Black I do Nimzo or Bogo (haven't really tried QID, just Bogo).

Also, I have no idea what to do when opening with 1.e4 against the Sicilian Defense. I have studied some 1.e4 c5 2.b3 games. Not hard to learn. I think I should try the Open Sicilian sometimes too (even though I will get creamed).

I steer clear of double e-pawn openings.  To much to learn, to much to study, to much to remember, to much work. 

Of course, one could make that argument about the entire game of chess.

What do you do instead, specifically?

Now I want to know what line you have against the scotch that you learned how to play in three weeks.

I thought you were talking about the liquor!

Wait let me consult with my notes.....now wait a second, all I said was I have a line against it. I never said "I learned how to play" it. I don't know what you mean by that. I just have a line that I have written down that I can use against it. I have been told not to learn things thoroughly.

You have a rating of 1886 and you don't have a line against the Scotch? Come on!

What? You have to make moves like Nc6, Nf6, Bc5/e7 d5/d6 etc. These moves are the most natural in the world. Of course, move orders are sometimes important against certain gambits, (many gambits can be simply declined and you can play chess, for example Evans gambit with the simple Bb6) but you can learn them.

The only serious try for white after e4-e5 Nf3 Nc6 is The ruy lopez, you have many options against that, everything else is just easy equality for black. Of course you should know the plans, but that is true for any opening. 

I think there is more theory that you have to know in any single open sicilian line than in the whole e4-e5. 

I play the English as white, and the Benko/Benoni as black.  I dont like studying openings ( i find it boring) so i keep the opening as simplified as possible.  As a GM once said: The opening serves 1 purpose.  To get to a playable middle game.

I prefer to study, and learn the pawn structures behind openings.  Memorizing lines of theory bores me to tears. 

As long as i can get to a playable middlegame im good.

I dont play e4, or e5 so im good :-)

You think wrong .  

Of course I have a line against the Scotch.

Does your line against the Scotch have an assessment? How did you pick it? Right now if you were to face the Scotch against equal opposition, what would happen?

At the risk of incuring Bill Clinton jokes: what does "having" a line mean? Or maybe it is more of "a once I had a line, or should I say once it had me."

I have lines for girls when I am drinking Scotch.

A low-level (certainly not a GM) gave the line to me. I would come out of the opening losing for sure, that's why we chose it. I don't know if I would win after that. That's silly question. What is the point you are failing and flailing to make? That you didn't inhale?

That's the most you will get out of this gentleman who ostensbily spreads his copious advice all over my threads I am told.

You think wrong. BRILLIANT. Sounds like lip flapping with nothing of substance again.

Of course on the 2200+ level you should know the theory whatever you play. But below 2000, wasting time on weak openings like the vienna game or ponziani and similar openings just doesn't make any sense. Normal logical developing moves are fine. What you really have to know below 2000 is just the scotch game/gambit, the italian (the gambits) (the two knights defense if you play that but Bc5 is much simpler) and of course the Ruy lopez. And again, there are a few critical moves/move orders you have to know on move 5-6-7 (approximately), nothing special. After that, what matters is understanding and planning, these are not some sharp lines of sicilian defense. Again, on the 2200+ level things are different because you want to get advantage against weak openings like ponziani, but below 2000 it's enough if you know to play d5 and you are ok. (Serious players of course don't play ponziani, it was just an example)
And of course against weak gambits you can learn something in a couple of minutes or you can decline it and play chess. (Danish gambit, or the one that start like the danish but you take the pawn on c3 and things like that) Even the king's gambit is simple, just play 2..d5 and then take the f4 pawn, again nothing to fear, and no need for endless theory. 

Why bother to give real advice to lip flappers who won't use it ?  You are an outstanding example , in fact .