Openings against e4 that are Open (except e5)

Some game examples can be seen if one uses a computer to view the review at Starting Out: The Sicilian.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf

LOL

It seems to me that it would be best for you to look at some games and judge for yourself how free you feel your bishops to be.

OK

It's a great defense. I play it myself and I love it.

For what I have read on this topic, I think it is what you are looking for.

That being said I want to make clear a couple of things, first of all, you can't have everything in a concrete opening, for example "I want to preserv my 2 bishops, but at the same time I want them out and working soon, also I want space and not a cramped position etc"

Anyway, with the Scandi I promise you will get out your bad bishop (c8), and the other one will be good. You can try to preserv it by playing Bf5 and h6 instead of the normal Bg4 pinning the white's knight on f3. So if this is one of your priorities, with the Scandi you will get it. Also, it will be a kind of an open position, because the center is demolished, so I think this is what you are looking for.

Another pro about this defense is the limited theory. Compared with e5 or Sicilians or whatever, if you focus on 1 variation (I recommend you the Classical Qa5 line) you will get the same positions a lot. So it's very simple to learn.

Ofc there is always downside, in the Scandi you will not have a pawn in the center, so you will develop on the 6th, 7ht and 8th rank, like in the Classical Caro-Kann line. Anyway I don't think thats a big problem, you will have soon counterplay opportunities, mostly by advancing in the queenside where you have 3 nice pawns.

As I said, I discovered this defence and I quickly fell in love with it, I have tried everything and I feel so identified with what you said, or instance:

-When I played e5: I stopped playing it because of there was a lot of different openings and variations, and all of them have tricks that white ofc know and I dont.

-When I played the French: it's a solid opening but I got too many cramped positions, bad bishop play forever, no counterplay, always defending... I mean come on...

-Then I tried the Caro-Kann as trying to play somewhat "improved french", but guess what, all the tempos I wasted in the start of the game (c6, getting the bad bishop out etc) made me have difficulties to end up casteling, or getting destroyed by a strong attack because my opponent had all the time in the world to prepare it.

-The Sicilian: again, a lot of theory on it, I wasn't confident playing random moves every time, so many different positions every game, very tactical games, not solid... I mean... not for me.

And then the Scandi: a sound opening, very solid, very easy to learn and to play, your king always get castled without trouble, counterplay opportunities, the pair of bishops if I want... I mean, it's perfect for players like me!

What a joke!  You really think people don't know Sicilian theory or French Theory or Caro-Kann Theory?  Dream on!  I know more French theory than I do 1...e5 theory.

If you want to avoid having to know as many lines, you can eliminate the Scotch, Italian, and Ruy Lopez by playing the Petroff.  All you need to know outside of the Petroff is move 2 alternatives to 2.Nf3, like the Vienna, King's Gambit, and Danish Gambit.

Also, if you are looking for open Bishops, the Semi-Open Defenses are not your answer.  They all have a problem piece.  The French and the Caro-Kann, it's the light-squared Bishop.  The d6-Sicilians it's often the Dark-Squared Bishop while in the e6-Sicilians, it's the Light-Squared Bishop.

To be fair, it doesn’t seem that it would be quite accurate to characterize you as being at the same “level” as HolyCrusader5. Still, I am inclined to guess that you are at least approximately right about players around 1700 having Sicilian, French, and Caro-Kann experience. What about the Scandinavian?

You really can't generalize a rating with an opening.

I'm an Expert (based on over the board standard time control rating).  If you compare me to say, a 1700 player, overall, I'm a stronger player than he or she is.  Does that mean I am equally better than him or her in all openings?  Absolutely not!  Openings are not like endgames.  Lucena's position applies to all pawns except Rook pawns with a Rook and King each and the defending King cut off from the Pawn.  They are all basically the same.  Queen Pawn, King Pawn, Bishop Pawn, Knight Pawn.  Openings are not like that.  For example, I have tried again and again and again and I cannot make sense at all out of the Exchange Grunfeld.  Give me White, Black wins.  Give me Black, White wins.  I avoid the opening like the plague.  However, a 1700 player could have the Grunfeld as his primary defense to 1.d4.  On the flip side, there are 2200 players that might play 1.d4 as White and 1...e5 against 1.e4 that truly have no understanding of the French Defense (similar to my lack of ability to play the Grunfeld), so to compare rating to knowledge of openings is highly flawed.

So as for the Scandinavian, you could face a 1700 player that is knowledgeable in the Scandinavian, especially if they also play it as Black themselves!

But perhaps it means that your knowledge is not necessarily a reliable indication of what one is likely to encounter at the 1700 level.

The question is not about what “could” happen. I think that HolyCrusader5 is trying to think in terms of what is most likely.

It's very ironic because I play the Gruenfeld as black. 

Actually, I used to play the English, and I got wrecked by somebody who knew way more theory than me on it somehow (he played the English)

It's actually 1400. 

But thanks.

I do face many 1700 players, so I do have some idea where their issues are.  I played in a tournament this past weekend with 2 sections.  Open and under 1600.  As the 6 seed of about 30 to 40 players in the Open Section, I faced a 1660 in Round 1.  I was Black, and it was a fianchetto Kings Indian, specifically the line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Nf3 O-O 5.g3 d6 6.Bg2 c6 7.O-O Bf5 8.b3 Ne4 9.Bb2 Nxc3 10.Bxc3 Be4.  White went so far out of his way to avoid trading Bishops that he played Bh3 and a number of other meaningless moves in the middle game and I mated him on move 35.  1600 and 1700 players do this.  They go out of their way to avoid trading certain pieces and try to force trade other pieces that do not go in line with the plan needed.  They do not truly understand the position and any opening theory known by them is likely memorized rather than understood, which is not good!

Nobody should remotely care about what is likely.  It is all about understanding and specifically not memorizing.  I do not go around saying that facing a 1700 player makes the Exchange French more likely than the Winawer French and vice versa for a 2300 player.  I make sure I understand both and am ready for whichever I face.  Same goes for the Tarrasch, Advance, and Kings Indian Attack.  If you understand rather than memorize openings, you should be able to figure out the bad moves by your opponent, why they are bad, and why some other move is the main line.

From somewhat the other side of the fence, I also have had some opportunity to observe 1700 players, and I have tried to indicate that my perception of them does not differ greatly from yours. However, there are (I think) a few additional points worth noting: (1) As I think you have also previously indicated, there is apt to be some variation from one player to another of the same rating. (2) Your own opening knowledge is (I continue to think) not necessarily a reliable indication of what one is likely to encounter at the 1700 level. (3) It appears that 1700 isn’t really the right rating to think about. I think that HolyCrasader5 indicated that his rating is “actually 1400.” At that level, I think it is perhaps a little bit (maybe not much) more plausible to hope to (mostly) encounter players who know/understand more about 1 e4 e5 than 1 e4 c5.

Quite frankly, I almost never have seen a 1400 actually understand any openings, whether it be 1...e5 or 1...c5.

I play at a club on Tuesday nights with many well below 1700, including 1400s but also 1000 players as well.  Obviously they are not playing against me (2 sections, under 1700 and over 1700).  We play 1 round a week at G/75 with a 15 second increment.

You can categorize it into 4 groups of people:

Adults - Most of these are people that started playing tournament chess late in life or those that work a taxing job that likely requires more than 40 hours of their time dedicated to work that only show maybe 26 times a year or less, or in a couple of cases people with a handicap.

ADHD Kids - These are the ones that will never sit down and shut up.  You are telling them all the time to be quiet.  Many of them probably have no interest and would rather talk all night and are being forced to play by either their doctor or parent.

Computer Dependent Kids - These are the bozos that think chess is nothing more than constantly asking a computer for advice and evaluation and take that number, such as +0.87, and treat it as gospel.  They tend to be ok at tactics, but have no positional understanding at all because they have never had a person or a book written by a person explain why you want to do something like trade pieces when you have a disadvantage in space.

Future Stars - These are the ones that will get to 2000 and above one day.  These are the kids that can actually explain in their own words to say, a coach, what they were actually thinking.  It may be flawed, but they have a plan and actual ideas what they are doing and the flaws will get fixed.  Their answer to everything is not "That's what Rybka says" or "I lost because White went out of book on move 7" or "I must be winning because I have 27 points in material to his 26", etc, like the Computer Dependent Kids.

If you observe a lower section of a club on a regular basis, you can usually pick out the ones that will move up versus the ones that never will get anywhere after maybe 10 games by each player.  Pay attention to their game itself, their antics (are they focused or not paying attention and either doodling, talking, playing with their chair, etc), how they react after the game - especially losses, etc.

Let's also not forget, I was once 1400! (Late 1997 to about mid 1998).

Is understanding a yes-or-no thing or a matter of degree? I think the HolyCrusader5 hope was to have a better understanding than most opponents. I don't know how realistic that would be. Conventional wisdom seems to be to advise lower-level players to focus on 1 e4 e5, but, a while ago, there was a chess.com discussion participant who seemed to enjoy Sicilian adventures. I do not remember the rating of the person, but I think others commented that the games did not show a real understanding of the Sicilian.