Please! Anything but the London.

I want more fun! I'm an 800 having played White London for a couple months. Time for me to find another opening. Something more aggressive and less rigid that doesn't lend itself to tight positional and drawn out games. Yet is still relatively easy to learn and doesn't have a lot of theory and complexity. Is there such a system(s)? I could also use a similar recommendation for Black.

The Stonewall is a good alternative. The colle-Zukertort system is another very good alternative.

I suggest this setup:

Then (since you want flexibility), how you develop the rest of your pawns and pieces is completely up to you.

For a bit of trivia: this same setup was suggested by Magnus Carlsen, when he was asked by fans for a good opening system to play.

The slav is the London for black

It seems you want something aggressive and more tactical. I would recommend you to play 1. e4, and play the following things based off your playstyle (If you want to of course.)

Or you could just play the scotch:

Comparing the Slav to the London is like comparing the Earth to Neptune a as a kid. As a kid, you think both celestial objects are basically the same because they are both planets in the solar system. But as you grow older and more experienced, you realize that the two celestial objects have major differences (gas giant vs rocky planet, temperature, distance from the sun, orbit, etc.), that, all combined and accumulated together, make the two planets vastly different from each other in general.

If you always approach chess from the easiest, less intensive perspective, you will never improve. I used to only study openings for over a year because it was the only thing I could bring myself to do. I barely improved a result. If I would have spent that time on painstakingly going over endgame books, setting up examples and playing them, looking over studies, etc., I would be a far stronger player than I am today.

I have agreed with several Grandmasters who are against playing system-based openings as they expose the player to only one type of a position and instill the wrong principles early on in a chess player's career. I would strongly suggest you put in the work in going over several openings to choose your preferred one and then study it to the required degree at your skill level.

Nicholas, I appreciate your comment on not selecting an approach (opening?) based on ease of learning and less intensive (complex?). So my question is this...the London, the Italian, the Stonewall, the Colle, based on what I've read, all fit the description of easy to learn and less complex. So do I understand correctly, that I should not choose these openings? Thanks! BTW I spend about 90 minutes a day on my game.

You should play.........

the London. Anyways I think e4 would be a good fit. You can try the King's gambit or other early f4 lines. They certainly are exciting if you want them to be.

Italian is not the system. It can be played ONLY if your opponent answers e5, and defends the pawn with the knight. If he plays the sicilian or the caro-kann, there is no italian for you. If in e4 e5 he defends the pawn with 2.d6, there is no italian.

as a kid u learn about the different planets in the solar system in science and recognise their differences

The London and Colle are closer to system-based openings and I would recommend for you to stay away from them and avoid choosing them because they involve playing the same set of moves every game and can slow down your chess progression. On the other hand, such system-based openings are quick to implement and can be experimented with, with the goal of having fun in mind. The position below is a general London setup and can be played against anything black tries.

On the other hand, theory-based openings like the Italian and the Stonewall are not systems. The Italian, for example can only be played in particular positions (in this case, 1. e4 and 1. e5 positions). Some of these "theory-based" openings can be easy to learn but are still more difficult to prepare when compared to system-based openings. As @lassus_dinnao mentioned, you would have to put in more work to learn something against the Sicilian, the Caro Kann, and the French if you want to play the Italian. In the diagram below, you can see that you would have to put in more effort in learning the other lines in 1. e4. In exchange for this effort, you will be exposed to more types of positions which would help you understand the game better (playing opposite side castling positions in the Sicilian, introduced to positional play in the French, etc.). On the downside, you would be spending more time on your openings, perhaps time that could be better spent on improving other parts of your game (a trap I myself fell into).

Hope this helped clarify some of the confusion. Just because an opening is complex and difficult to learn does not mean that it will necessarily help you improve the most if you learn it. It comes down to recognizing the difference between system-based and theory-based openings, the pros and cons of each type of opening, and making the choice that is best for you.

Thank you Nicholas and all who responded to my request!

Hi!

I would suggest you play 1. e4 as main opening because you will be exposed to a number of different positions and this will help you broaden your horizons as a chess player.

For a complete reperoire for beginners, you might check out my post: https://www.chess.com/blog/maafernan/openings-for-beginners

Good luck!

Just play KIA (against c5, e6, Nf6, d5) or Pirc set ups with 1.Nf3 opening (against e5) that is two easy openings to learn, can be played as white or black (KID). If you get tired of it you can play your old London system just delayed by the Nf3 move. Both solid and have some nice attacks in them.