Guys, I think we can stop this loop now. I get your points
OK, thanks. Checking out now ...
My search ended a month ago.
My first move as white will always be: 1. b4.
You should first try to find out what type of game suits you best and than chose the opening.
If you like sharp open play with lot of tactics 1.e4 is probably your best choice.
If you prefer calm positional play you are maybe better of with 1.d4 or 1.c4
E.g. I never play 1.e4 and I never answer 1.e4 with 1... e5 because I prefer locked positions with calm play.
If you want to play the Nimzo-Larsen, you'll need the books by Jacobs&Tait (Nimzo-Larsen attack) and Odessky (Play 1.b3). Then there's a nice two-part video by GM Smirnov:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xk0m94_b3_sport?start=689
Thanks for the last two posts. I will look for those sources!
I just play the English no matter what color I am.
I suggest the English, with a fianchetto. I used to play it (and still occasionally do), and actually picked it up in about five minutes after reading this. I've a rather good record with it, but switched to 1. e4 to try to get more out of the first move advantage.
I just told you to watch games to understand the opening. If you memorize lines you won't know what's going on,
I am sorry, but I don't get your comments. Who said I was going to memorize lines? I was talking about the opposite.
Then, again, there are other respectible ways of opening a chess game than 1.e4. See e.g., the posts on 1.c4.
Another thing: I am not a new beginner. I have played less than 10 games here so far, so ignore my rating. I have 1900+ OTB in the club I played.
YES I want to "study games", by the way.
an improve.
It sounds like the OP understands this. It sounds like he feels working on middlegame planning is where he needs to focus his energy, and the NL is a great way to do it.
Thanks for this; I am happy that you read my post a bit more carefully than some others here .. I want to avoid getting absorbed into studying forced lines, I think it is much more important to study (e.g.,) endgames.
I will post a couple of NL attempts here later, just for fun.
Thanks again!
Yes, I find myself in a similar situation. I can't help but revert back to the Colle, Torre attack, and London systems. Recently I've been looking into the KIA, with a lot of success. I'm wondering though, how you view the Nimzo-Larsen Attack? Have you had success with it? I've been thinking about trying it myself.
I personally have little to no respect of the Nimzo-Larsen Attack or Larsen's Opening. I beat a 2447 in August 2010 (the only player I've ever beaten over 2300, though I have many draws to 2300+) with Black against Larsen's Opening. The inclusion of 1.Nf3 doesn't prevent e5. Black can play an early d6, and go for a reversed closed sicilian setup, as White will likey play c4 at some point.
I say stick with 1.e4 or 1.d4. If you hate the 30+ move book lines of the Sicilian, do like Spassky did and play the Closed Sicilian as White vs 1...c5.
Interesting that most people seem to think that nothing else than 1.e4 is ok.
Did you guys read Watson's 4 volumes on chess openings? He claimes that all openings are playable, ans essentially equally useful.
Personally I enjoy the mystery behind 1.Nf3. Usually leads to a Queens Pawn Game, but it has the ability to confuse black as to what defense to adopt.
1.e4 is considered by many to be "the" opening move for white, and there is good reason behind it. But whether it's your opening or not is up to you, and how you want/like to play.
I understand your pain.. I am booking my white repertoire into "Opening Wizard" right now for white and am a 1.e4 player.. what a pain in the @$$. Sicilian, French, Pirc, Caro Kann, Scandinavian etc etc
For a low maintenance white opening repertoire. Colle Koltanowski is as easy as it gets.
My .02
I personally have little to no respect of the Nimzo-Larsen Attack or Larsen's Opening. I beat a 2447 in August 2010 (the only player I've ever beaten over 2300, though I have many draws to 2300+) with Black against Larsen's Opening. The inclusion of 1.Nf3 doesn't prevent e5. Black can play an early d6, and go for a reversed closed sicilian setup, as White will likey play c4 at some point.
I say stick with 1.e4 or 1.d4. If you hate the 30+ move book lines of the Sicilian, do like Spassky did and play the Closed Sicilian as White vs 1...c5.
What is with all of these self proclaimed masters that refuse to play games on chess.com and to take the free membership by revealing their title? I don't get it..
He never said he was a master but for the record hes actually someone who has beaten a 2400 according to the USCF member search thing...
I just don't get all those who claim that only 1.e4 is the path.
Surely you MUST agree that 1.d4 and 1.c4 are equally valid, since these moves have been played million of times by grandmasters. Deny that, and you have revealed yourself quite unserious.
Of course, 1.Nf3 is as good as those other three moves! Why did Kramnik play it otherwise? Etc Etc.
So forget about the "play 1.e4-thing". (Of course, it is a very strong opening in itself, but not the only one, by far).
Secondly, how do you handle The Petroff??? I have very little problem in most of my games when white play 1.e4. Sure, at times I lose, but not really due to the opening itself. I don't see that heavy attack in those games, it is pretty equal middle games.
I would love to see those 1.e4-guys depressed in a world where every black player goes for the Petroff 
Yes, I find myself in a similar situation. I can't help but revert back to the Colle, Torre attack, and London systems. Recently I've been looking into the KIA, with a lot of success. I'm wondering though, how you view the Nimzo-Larsen Attack? Have you had success with it? I've been thinking about trying it myself.
Hi! My thinking about it is this:
I kind of like non-forcing play, with plenty of possiblities to transpose into something else if needed. If you play 1.e4 and get a Caro-Kann, well, it is not that easy to find a new path, it is the Advance, or Exchange, or Panov, essentially. With NL, I interpret it as a way of getting some versions of the English (e.g., I hate the Keres, so I like to avoid 1...e5), or a Reti perhaps, or a reversed Queens Indian. Perhaps I go g2-g3 in some lines, to (maybe) get a Catalan or even a KIA at times. I don't know if this will work out well for me, but it is an practical advantage to get rich middlegames without needing to prepare any variations in advance.
Hard to take those "Play 1.e4" guys seriously, since Fischer, Petrosian, Spassky, Nimzowisch, and MANY OTHER strong grandmasters played 1.b3 or 1.Nf3 and 2.b3 to some degree. So, if it was pure rubbish they would have known it very early on.
So far, on the www, I have got rather good-looking middle games, with essentially zero NL theory (although I believe I have a rather OK allround opening knowledge, for my level).
I just don't get all those who claim that only 1.e4 is the path.
Surely you MUST agree that 1.d4 and 1.c4 are equally valid, since these moves have been played million of times by grandmasters. Deny that, and you have revealed yourself quite unserious.
Of course, 1.Nf3 is as good as those other three moves! Why did Kramnik play it otherwise? Etc Etc.
So forget about the "play 1.e4-thing". (Of course, it is a very strong opening in itself, but not the only one, by far).
Secondly, how do you handle The Petroff??? I have very little problem in most of my games when white play 1.e4. Sure, at times I lose, but not really due to the opening itself. I don't see that heavy attack in those games, it is pretty equal middle games.
I would love to see those 1.e4-guys depressed in a world where every black player goes for the Petroff
You don't even need to justify playing something other than 1. e4. Fischer almost always used it, and look what became of him! (Just kidding, of course.) No need to turn this into one of those silly e4 vs. d4 (or any other first move) threads.
To answer your Petroff question, the Bishop's opening is one way to sidestep those troubles, and potentially transpose into some Italian lines, as Nunn suggests in his Beating 1. e4 e5 book.
In my humble opinion, opening preparation doesn't help much until much higher levels, but it can be fun for some (including me). On the other hand, I have learned quite a lot about general styles and ideas during my studies of the Bb5 Sicilians and French. It was probably an inefficient investment of time from an objective standpoint, but I enjoyed it nevertheless.
In over-the-board chess I struggled for years as I could not learn enough theory on e4 as white to cope at the levels I was playing at. Then I discovered the KID as black and realised i could play 1) Nf3 as white a tempo up. The KID/KIA are good for me as I have a poor memory and once you know the basic ideas and patterns you dont really need to know a lot of theory either as black against d4 etc or as white. 1) Nf3 might not be a world-beater but I get decent results in Glasgow League division one with it, playing against anything from 1650-2000. I won't probably make top board but I will be board 3 next season and see no reason to change my systems.
Hi, my first post here (but I have played club chess for a decade so I am not a new beginner).
Those of you who are in this siutation: you have made serious attempts to work out a respetable repertoire as white, but in the end found it to require too much work. Now you look for a simpler off-beat system that allows you to play chess without needing to prepare lines against booked-up opponents.
I played 1.e4 but found it quite difficult to meet the Sicillian. I played 1.d4 and 1.c4 but certain systems seemed to need rather much opening work, to get reasonable positions. And, most black players study systems as black against these first moves.
So, I have now tried Torre attack (c3+d4+Nf3+Bg5), London (as Torre, but Bf4), Bird (f4, b3 or g3), and now I am trying the Nimzo-Larsen attack.
What do you think: 1.Nf3 + 2.b3, with possibilities to transpose into certain mainlines at desire. E.g., against the Dutch I can go 2.c4 + 3.g3, and there can be an English sometimes. Dear friends, I would really like to hear from you your free thoughts on all this. Do you struggle in a similar fashion, seeking the "heaven" (some system that suddenly will transform your play :)
Regularly switching openings is probably the worst strategy you can adopt here. Try sticking with something you like for some time, and see what happens.
If you can't build a repertoire by yourself, buy a repertoire book, or ask a friend or a chess coach to help you.
riations
But if you don't watch games then how are you supposed to know what's going on?
Please explain why I MUST study 1.e4-games ONLY to improve.
Isn't it enough to study, say, 10 books by Dvoretsky? Is that your point?