Most Aggressive Openings?

Yes, but when somebody wants to contradict what I say and I believe that my thoughts were right, I will defend what I said and try to back it up as best as I can.  I hope it hasn't caused you any problems.

1. Flick-Knife Attack (a.k.a. The Taimanov Variation of the Modern Benoni, the 8.Bb5+ line)

2. Latvian Gambit

3. Grunfeld

I play none of these except the Latvian occasionally in Blitz.

Ah I see now chasm, we're all good :)

1. Fried liver attack opening

2. Evans gambit

3. Old benoni

Very good topic Phife_Dawg!

Saragossa opening (1. c3) is a passive and unambitious approach - not an aggressive opening.

Englund Gambit

Scotch Gambit

Rice Gambit

Latvian Gambit

Lolli Gambit

Danish Gambit

From Gambit

Judging by this list, "aggressive" means "not quite sound, but if I throw away a pawn in the opening, I feel like I'm attacking".

For White, the more aggressive lines are not ones that peter out to dull equality after 20 moves, they are openings that give white nasty attacking chances throughout the game. 

Some aggressive openings for White include the Two Knights, the Botvinnik Variation of the Queen's Gambit, and the main line of the Spanish.

In each of those, white maintains dangerous attacking chances throughout the game and Black needs to be extremely careful not to be blown out, not just on the first few moves, but deep into the middle game.

Take a look at this opening and learn just how aggressive the Queen's gambit can be!

Someone said earlier this is not a good question. It's either that or an excellent question because it's so open to interpretation and creating debate. If you wanted discussion this question is great. It's all about how you think about chess and what it means to be aggressive.

I think Sicilian and Elephant Gambit are both good answers as Black. I also think the French is a good answer the same way the Siclian is, unbalancing the game right away, also the French attacks White's center, and I know people will come back and say the French is passive and solid. I think the most passive thing Black can do is something like the Pirc/Modern or Hippo giving White the center for next to nothing, and someone else will say Black's most agressive option is rope-a-dope Modern stuff *daring* to give White the center so Black can have something to shoot at. It depends how you think of a position and what you mean by aggressive.

Ok, White, Muzio Gambit (I suppose the Lolli is too but the Lolli is very bad)... I have to agree with Parham although that I would certainly say it is also too agressive to be any good... I might think the same about the Ryder vs the normal BGD unless some fan wants to educate me. Also Spanish Game. Morra Gambit especially double pawn sac where I don't see the same engame line as the Danish. Vienna Gambit, even Grand Prix Attack, Levenfish, stuff with f4 seems "agressive" to me even in the Closed Sicilian. (I don't agree with Danish Gambit only because I think the line that leads to a boring even engame is well-known enough the gambit can't have much sting. Am I wrong?) Um... Fantasy variation of the Caro.

Black, 2 Knights, Jaenisch, Elephant and Sicilian and French as said above. (At the risk of starting an argument that's already happening on several threads I don't think the Latvian Gambit is terribly agressive if you play objectively the best moves. It seems like Black plays to the get the pawn back with speculative early Queen moves and it's White who actually gets a free hand in development in the meantime. A Latvian Gambit practicioner even once described the opening to me as more of a solid, positional tool, not an ambitious attack.)

(Vienna/Bishop's Opening "Frankenstien Dracula" Variation might be the best answer for both sides of the board.)

Albin and Benoni are good answers against d4 and I tend to think Soller gambit and stuff is as well... Also how about the Dutch! I'm surprised nobody said that one yet... and the Bf4 compared to regular QG stuff seems like a step in the agressive direction developing the Bishop to a more active square. KID and Grunfeld. I like that someone said "Old Benoni" which is the move order I play but it depends. I think at my level it is more agressive to play that move order, but at some point people are too smart/well-studied to fall into worse lines because of the "combative" instant challenge to their d pawn. At some point the main move order which is actually a better try becomes the more agressive option obviously because it is a better try.

(Or in other words nearly every opening can be "the most agressive" choice.)

(Also anything invented by Clyde Nakamura obviuously)

Multiple people have recommended the Latvian. How do you all think of that in comparison to the Elephant Gambit?

They're both garbage, but the Elephant is definitely worse. Just play sound openings, avoid trash, don't worry about throwing the kitchen sink at your opponent every game, learn to assess the position and play the correct moves, not the moves you would "like" to play, and your chess will improve far more than if you stick to a repertoire of cheap unsound gambits. Play mainlines with both colours and you will do better in the long run -- yes that means Open Sicilians, not Morra gambits; Ruy Lopez, not the Danish Gambit; etc.

Trompovsky is aggressive

Thats the veresov, tromp doesnt have Nc3.

Look's more like the "alice through the looking glass" version of the Ruy Lopez... :)

Marra Gambit against Kasparov http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070396 It isn't played more at the higher levels because White already has an attack against the Sicilian and doesn't need a gambit, but it doesn't seem to be bad (unless you can actually give a refutation;) it's just a question of style. Ok the open line is better but the gambit won't lose you the game and it is clearly an agressive option. I don't think the Danish is bad either, just fairly boring,

and personally I think the Elephant is a better try than the Latvian to confuse the opponent and get in an attack if they don't know how to play it safe.. .see the games of Phil Corbin for example. ( http://www.thechessdrum.net/palview2/sakelsek-corbin.htm http://www.thechessdrum.net/palview3/short-corbin.htm )

ruy lopez

Yes, Kasparov got a bad position once against the Smith-Morra. That doesn't make it good. In fact, Eric Schiller, in the link provided, shows how Black could have gained a slight advantage!

Bent Larsen once commented on a game where Ken Smith was white: "1.e4 e6? (1...c5 would have won a pawn!)"

There are a lot of tactical tricks in the Smith Morra, but if Black is patient and careful, white's best is to reach a normal Sicilian position where his c-pawn has somehow been erased. Why not just play the main lines of the Sicilian!

Every time I've seen someone try to refute the Morra Gambit someone else has shown how white can drop a knight in the middle of the board and get a good position after the melee. I'll take a look at the Schiller Bust, though. (I have to admit I haven't kept up since I stopped playing the Morra; I just don't think it's bad. I'm actually getting interested in the Kopec system lately just to try to get out of "the opening" and "just play chess" quickly against the Sicilian but that's way off topic as I don't think anyone in their right mind would call that an agressive approach.)

Congratulations! You've discovered a line where, if white plays really well, he is surviving despite being a pawn down!

I would of thought the Queens Gambit or the London system with full on attack intent for white.