Non-E4 openings?

thats good to

I too hated dealing with the French until I started playing 3. Nc3, which I agree is most in the spirit of other 1. e4 openings. It takes some study, but at least you get *fun* positions to study (unless they play the bloody Rubinstein...).

I used to love getting the Rubinstein because of the queen trap. However, people get better and they prevent such tricks. But with semi-open openings like French or Caro, playing aggressively is the best chance for an advantage which a lot of people don't do because they rather go into the Exchange than have fun

Queens gambit

London and queens gambit are two very good d4 openings

Pawn a3 is worth trying

dude simple. . . bong cloud

hello

@SamuelAjedrez95, you play sharp lines. Respect, but those aren't for me, and wouldn't be even if I didn't have a sneaking suspicion that my opponent, as a mainline French or Sicilian player, would have studied them in more depth than I have. 

pffft dont tell him! its about as much respect as we ever gonna get!

LOOOOL

Best opening d4

yes sir

The question is what do you expect to be different with d4.

If you play the Tromposwky vs 1. ..Nf6, you still have the Dutch, 1. ..d6/..g6, the old Benoni with 1. ..c5, 1. ..e6 which may go in several directions.

Also, 1. ..d5 has QGD, including Tarrasch, Schara von Hennig and Semi-Tarrash, QGA, Slav, Semi-Slav, Triangle which may or may not turn into a Slav-stonewall and of course other entirely playable offshoots e.g. Chigorin, Albin Counter and others e.g. Baltic, Australian.

What I'm trying to get to is that while a "typical" 1.d4 repertoire may (depending on how it's built) have less theory than a "typical" 1.e4 but it's not going to be 5% the size.

If you want drastic cuts in repertoire size you need to play systems, but before doing so why not get a repertoire book with good but short and non-theoretical lines, e.g. Emm's "attacking with 1.e4" was a good book for that purpose, it's a rather short book.

Otherwise as others said why not try the English especially a setup that's going to be easier to play e.g. get hold of Tony Kosten's old book.

Difficult to firmly recommend anything without knowing the context of why you dislike some e4 responses.

If the concern is breadth of responses and having to deal with too many defenses than a "system" opening like the London, Colle, Botvinnik, or KIA could work. Of course system openings trade theoretical strength for playing similar setups every game and many people think they're stunting for chess growth. 

If the issue is particular frustrations with particular black responses to e4, then learning new ways of combating those defenses is probably the way to go.

Lastly, if you just want to learn something new to change things up and want a quality opening, it's hard to go wrong with the Queen's gambit, however the book for d4-c4 positions is enormous. 

Ah yeah, it certainly depends on your style. Either you enjoy French and Sicilian positions, in which case e4 is for you, or you don't and it's worth trying something else.

However, it has to be said that some people who don't enjoy these positions exaggerate the need for studying theory. Especially at lower levels, it's likely that the opponent doesn't actually know any more theory than you do. They are also human.

there is nothing wrong with playing the london, so long as you dont ONLY play the london

Yes my national master overlord

wow, you guys are very smart

wow