Positional Queen's gambit?

I really hate and am bad at playing with an isolani and try for my life to avoid it anytime it's possible. Though that means I really need to practice at it! But would it not be better if I play something that I feel is more fun/comfortable for me than playing general begginners recomendation openings? But yes, I am absolutly considering it. But could you elaborate your thoughts about this would do me good? Keep in mind I have 0 interest in getting better rating. I really do not want to jump between openings as I stated earlier, so if you could explain further It would be greatly appreciated!

Yes, I am very serious about the game. Since I have time to practice since I am home all days long, I want to try to get as best as possible. I want to get a teacher/coach/mentor, but does not know where to search for dito. Even pay for it. 

I've thought the more open (less pawns) the game is, the more drawish it tends to be? Like the exchange variaton of the French (althought in this case, it is not "drawish" opposite what many tends to belive. Black simply plays on the f-file and forget about the open e-file).

It's so long now since I learned chess that I can't remember all my reactions to different openings, except that the tempo of an opening suites one particular player or another and 1.e4 games demand a lot of theory because so many black players have systems or defences that they know in some depth. There's a lot of rubbish talked around here about the desirability of learning openings but the fact is that in the real world, most players agree with me that openings are important because they can be used to try to reach the types of games we like.

I remember spending a great deal of time learning the Vienna Opening. I didn't bother with the Vienna Gambit, which seemed inferior. The Vienna Opening can vary according to the moves black plays from stodgy to extremely wild. It seems to be a mistake to think that if white plays 1. e4, then the resulting game is an "open game". It's just that with 1.d4, the tendency for wild play is somewhat more limited. This seems to be what the O.P. is after: therefore he should be encouraged to learn 1.d4 openings.

There is also the London System . Works against practically all openings. 

d4, Bf4, Nf3, e3, Bd3 (or Be2, which I prefer), O-O, c3, Nbd2, Qc2.

Personally, I'm get very comfortable positions in this opening, and it avoids a lot of theory.

Three common responses by black to be aware of:

1) KID. Try to keep their Bishop blunted with your pawns on c3, d4, e3.

2) When they want to disturb the balance with c5, if they capture, try to recapture with the e-pawn (if tactically possible). This allows for easier development and attacking lines at their king.

3) Be aware. This opening is very strategic, and becoming popular. Don't get lost in crazy tactical lines. Instead, go very smooth and solid, waiting for your opponent to make positional errors, then pounce.

Studying endgame positions by Capablanca will help you to understand how and when to capture .

Interesting forum, I love the Queen's Gambit (I play it a lot) and I always try to play it positionally. You do not need aggressive play, in fact the opening is usually the opposite. Do not be fooled by the name, the Queen's Gambit is not a "true" Gambit. When the opening was created it was thought to be a gambit (as you are clearly sacrificing a pawn), but newer analysis (as of last few hundred years) has shown this to be a solid opening where White can always get the pawn back, or Black is forced into extreme measures that are often unfavorable (pawn not worth the effort, and Black should eventually return the pawn). The Queen's Gambit is a really old opening, therefore with a lot of theory. For example, the Queen's Gambit Central Variation, Greco Variation (d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 b5 a4) was played by Greco circa year 1600! Isn't it cool how old chess is, and even computers agree with some of these ancient lines? An opening from the 1600s I still sometimes get over the board over 400 years later! If White learns the theory, this will be seen as not a "true Gambit" where aggressive play is not required (as gambits often require). If you compare this to true gambits such as the King's Gambit, or the Danish Gambit, you will see many differences; Queen's Gambit is, by contemporary views, a misnomer title - as it is not really a gambit upon closer inspection into the vast theory.

I tend to write a lot at times, but as a Queen's Gambit player (and upon noticing your forum question not 100% adequately answered), I feel almost obligated to write this. Usually players mention this opening getting the pawn back by the normal variation (d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e3) but e4 lines are equally rewarding (although more theory is probably needed for 3.e4 versus 3.e3) and the pawn often is still returned (willing or unwillingly). Many knowledgeable chess players recall a line where Black loses the a8 Rook if they attempt to hang onto the pawn (via White's Queen on f3, of course via 3.e3 not 3.e4) - however, getting the pawn returned is much greater than this known trick, as this merely scratches the surface. Gambits usually end up in an inferior position if the opponent knows the opening, but this is not as true for this opening. Obviously opening knowledge is beneficial (even without gambits), but gambits especially crumble against higher level play. This is why the King's Gambit is rarely seen past 2000 rating, or the Englund Gambit past 1600 and so on, but the Queen's Gambit is played even at GM play - it is simply not a "true Gambit".

By the way, on a side note: against the solid London System c5 early on is surprisingly effective with Queenside play (of course study this a bit before a game, but this should get you started)

In conclusion, aggressive play is not usually coming from the Queen's Gambit (but any opening can of course turn sharp and aggressive very fast) and this opening is actually not really regarded as a "Gambit" at all nowadays. I hope this better answers the deep thoughts here in this forum; this is really just the tip of the iceberg. I do not intend to write a book from this long post, but a lot needs to be addressed and clarified here. I hope this is seen as helpful