Spassky attacked a little bit better than the average guy on the street.
He played the King's Gambit and the Closed Sicilian for a good chunk of his career. They aren't exactly similar, but the closed would cut out a bunch of your study time, if you intended to get into it deeply, and would still offer you plent of attacking chances, as long as you didn't mind that black could theoretically equalize. The lines are equal but with chances for both sides, rather than drawn, if you get me.
The Closed Sicilian's great if you want to be able to get away with knowing very little theory, and more often that not have a clear plan right out of the opening. The King's Gambit is more theoretical, but that applies for both sides, and it's definitely more critical for Black to know his theory than White.
I know!
The Fried Liver!
Isn't Fried Liver just another Lolli, being more aggressive than Lolli and going with Ng5 one move earlier (Lolli going for castling).
Seems it has the same problems as Lolli - being that opponent has to 'allow' you to play it.
BTW, as you might have noticed, I love saying 'Lolli'. :)
Definitely the opening with the best name.
Maybe look into an e4 with plans for a scotch game if d5. An open, closed, or c3 sicilian if c5. And if they play the scandinavian, you should understand what to do having defended it. Many have recommended the KG, however, there are a lot of variations in it if your opponent is well booked. That said a lot of times people know nothing, and you get a fun, aggresive game. That said you probably want something a little more solid to fall back on when playing stronger opponents.
This channel has some good basic information on openings. It might make a good springboard for finding a good match. http://www.youtube.com/user/KebuChess/videos
Seriously? No mention of the London System? I guess that's why I was able to spring it on a 2240 at a recent USCF tournament, and in spite of a 700 point ratings gap in his favor, was able to secure a victory. He claimed to have never seen it before. It is versatile, open, attacking, and gives you a basic structure that is almost entirely independent of black's move order.
Critics say that it strives to reach an equal position in the middlegame, sacrificing white's initiative of the first move. Advocates say that if you can count on getting through the first dozen moves without losing the game because your opponent is very well booked in some particular variation, you can actually play some real chess.
I don't know if it's played at the very top level because of the equality problem for white, but it's solid enough to play at least up to master level. And if you're at that level, you wouldn't be asking the questions you're asking.
Buy "Win With the London System" and go through the 50 games at the front. I learned a ton of chess theory from those well annotated games, even if I hadn't chosen to adopt the opening.
There's a lot to be said, and quite honestly, for the London. "Open" is not one of those things.
Although it can be played quite aggressively, as is true with any opening. See Miladinovic, Igor.
My favorite opening of all time, fun and sound, is for black. The caro-kann defense.
If you like open positions, e4 is best, though if you want to cut down on theory and play something a bit offbeat you could try Bird's opening. For e4:
Scotch 4 Knights is underrated against e5 and gives pressure and an open position.
Grand Prix is a good attacking line, not too hard to learn, against the Sicilian.
The French is always a headache. The Exchange gives an open position if you don't mind being theoretically equal after three moves: Morphy and Kasparov used to attack with it. The Advance is a good option but absolutely everyone plays it at club level so you won't surprise anyone.
Caro-Kann. The Exchange with Bd3 gives good attacking chances and is underrated.
150 attack against Pirc and Modern.
An easy repertoire to learn as White is Cyrus Lakdawala’s London System repertoire.
Thank you for your answers.
I feel I should clarify myself on few things -
'early' attack - I do not advertise that I should be attacking from second move - if I start attacking in middle game, after all the pieces have been developed, in 10th move, or even later, that's also fine.
In queen's gambit, you start actively attacking in the very endgame, after you make advance with queen's pawns. Everything up until that point, in most variations, is preparing of the terrain.
About strategy depth - it's unfair to say aggressivesociopath that I want just one plan. As I said, I have three main lines with Scandinavian, and quite a few sublines, and would be willing to learn a few for white. I just don't want to go into the staggering amount of variations Sicilian offers. Depending on the white's response, you need to play totally different approach with it.
I'll leave it to better minds than mine.
I'll try King's gambit first, looks mighty fine opening, then Benoni and Ponziani, and will report to you guys how all that went.