I must respectfully disagree with Post #23. Even though the color complex differs between the KID and the French, it doesn't really matter. The same goals and structures are still in place. ... c7-c5 and ... f7-f5 are exactly the same pawn break on different sides of the board. f4-f5 and c4-c5 are the same too. In the French, Black has some ideas on the kingside too. Securing the f5-square with ... h5 and the ... f6 break are good examples. In many KID lines, Black will play ... a5 and ... Na6. The only difference between the KID and the French is this: In the French, Black can play ... cxd4 trying to win the d-pawn, and for the most part, White can play dxc5 trying to use the d4-square. In the KID, ... fxe4 is only possible in certain lines. e4 and f5 are solidly defended in the KID, and so White will only ever play exf5 to expose Black's King. Black will only ever play ... fxe4 if it is part of an equalizing sequence.

Did you just call someone with a higher daily rating than you a "mediocre player"?

Daily Ratings mean nothing.  You have no idea who has used a bot to achieve their rating (1467 Tactics rating?  Prime suspect!).  Also, I often use daily to work on openings before using them in meaningful, over the board play.

There is no Rick (or Richard) Stewart in the FIDE rating list, so I'm going out on a limb to say he's unrated there.  Not sure how the Canadian Chess Federation works of if he even has a rating there.

So I'm going to go out on a limb and say that my 2117 USCF rating and roughly 2000 FIDE rating beats his "unrated", and if all I played in daily was my bread and butter openings and used a bot as well, I'd be ahead of him there, but I don't because all internet chess ratings, whether that be chess.com blitz, chess.com correspondence, ICC bullet, FICS Standard, or anything else, they mean nothing compared to true over the board play, period!

Trying to convincing me otherwise is like trying to convince an idiot living out in the sticks of the United States what is wrong with the clown he voted for a month ago!

You are totally clueless!

First off, the whole purpose of the discussion is to discuss similar defenses where one is specifically a defense to e4 and the other is specifically a defense to d4, implying "A player that plays X against e4 should play Y against d4".

So your "one is a KP opening and the other is a QP opening" as a way to say that they are nothing alike is pointless given the discussion at hand.

And you don't understand anything at all if you base it all on occupying dark versus light squares.

Comparing the French and the King's Indian:

1) Both frequently result in a BLOCKED center.  The fact that White's pawns are on dark squares in the French and Black's pawns are on dark squares in the King's Indian is irrelevant.  The center is BLOCKED!  Not semi-closed, like the QGD, totally BLOCKED!

2) Both entail a very similar strategy that applies to all positions with Blocked centers.  You must observe which direction your pawns point!  You also can not play passive in these types of positions.  The King's Indian is not a passive defense, it's an attacking defense.  The same can be said for the French as the only one arguably more aggressive against e4 is the Sicilian!

In the King's Indian, which direction do Black's pawns point?  Which direction do White's pawns point?  In a typical King's Indian game, what ideas do you see White and Black executing?  Isn't White trying to train-wreck Black's Queenside?  Attack d6?  Invade on c7?  Promote a pawn over there eventually?  Isn't black pushing ...f5, ...g5, ...g4, trying to entice h3 by White, sacrifice the Bishop on h3, rip open the Kingside?  This is all not by accident.  White's pawns that are blocked in the center point towards the Queenside, Black's the Kingside.  The Pawn Pointing Theory dictates the play, and this theory applies whenever the center is completely blocked!

Now let's look at the French.  Where does White attack, typically, in the French?  Kingside!  Black the Queenside!  Why?  Look at where the blocked pawns point!  Black's point toward the Queenside, White's the Kingside!

Both openings require the same type of understanding to master.  It's not about which side of the board you attack that makes two openings similar.  If that was your basis, then the King's Indian Defense - Classical Variation and the Queen's Gambit Declined - Exchange Variation would be "similar openings" in your book as both entail White attacking the Queenside and Black attacking the Kingside, but how those attacks are conducted and the ideas behind them are NOTHING ALIKE!  Comparing the QGD to the KID is like comparing lemonade to beer.

Comparing two openings based on a single side's pawns or ideas is ludicrious.  Chess is a game involving 2 players, not 1.  The KID and Pirc are nothing alike.  The QGD and French are nothing alike.  The KID and French both require the same train of thought to master.  Notice I say "to master", not "to play as White" or "to play as Black".  If you master an opening, you can play it from either side!

Study the French and KID in depth and you should be able to crush your opponent with either color in either opening!

I disagree with this concept of low-rated players not having a 'style'. Just because the majority of moves made by such players are bad doesn't mean they can't be described by certain adjectives and not by others. For example, regardless of how many mistakes/blunders I make, if all I ever do is throw pawns/pieces at the opponents king and sac/blunder things in order to attack, you would describe me as an aggressive player. Terrible, granted, but aggressive would be a fair description.

Incidentally, if you were one of the top chess computers, then GMs would seem like patzers to you (indeed they would have close to 0% chance of beating you), and by the logic applied by some people you could accuse them of not being good enough to have a style.

I would even argue that a lower standard of play results in a wider range of moves that could be played in a given position (i.e. the fact that weak players can't filter out the bad moves/blunders as easily means they have more 'candidate moves', in their mind, from which to choose). So the moves played have a greater chance of being selected based on the personal preferences of the player, rather than what is likely objectively to be the best move.

Now don't get me wrong, I hate it when players go on about their 'style' (e.g. "I'm an intuitive positional grinder escape artist" or some such garbage), it's a waste of time and they should focus on playing objectively good moves.

So basically, I'd argue that weak players are perfectly capable of having a style, it's just that they should try not to.

chesster3145 wrote:

"... you cannot play chess by "style", ..."

Did anyone propose "playing chess by" style?

chesster3145 wrote:

"... usually there is only one good approach that fits with the needs of the position. ..."

How about the opening position? The position after 1 e4 ? The position after 1 d4 ? The position after 1 c4 ? The position after 1 Nf3 ?

Well, according to chesster3145, apparently 3 out of the 4 moves are just flat out bad because there is only one good approach according to him.

Be interesting to see which he thinks of 1.d4, 1.e4, 1.c4, and 1.Nf3 is the "only move", or maybe it's a different move, like 1.h4!

The December 2016 issue of Chess lists the top twenty openings compiled from a list of 2895 October games where both players were rated over 2400 Elo. Some of the list entries report: 133 King's Indians,108 Caro Kanns, 97 Nimzo-Indians, 94 Slavs, 88 Declined Queen's Gambits, 87 Najdorf Sicilians, 56 Kan Sicilians, 52 Classical Gruenfelds, and 49 Semi-Slavs.

chesster3145 wrote:

"... No one below master has a style, ... what most players have are preferences or attributes ..."

GM John Nunn (1998): "... The first step is to think about your personal style. Do you prefer open, tactical positions or closed, strategic positions? Does an attack on your king make you nervous, or are you happy so long as you have a counter-attack? Do you prefer main lines, or something slightly offbeat? ..."

What difference does it make whether one refers to these sorts of considerations with the word, "style", or some other word?

chesster3145 wrote:

"... A player's attributes can and will change over time."

Sounds like a good point, but it seems to me that it gets somewhat lost if one spends most of one's writing going on about whether to use the word, "style", or the word, "attribute".

"Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.

For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)

Ziad, I admire your well mannered and polite nature. You don't see "Sir" much in an OP response  I'm sure you're wondering, ...who pulled the Fire Alarm, LOL! Happens Ziad .

As a new player, I think monkeywithgun's suggestion of the Alapin (1.e4 c5, 2.c3) against the Sicilian is a excellent idea, saving you a ton of time & voluminous, Sicilian opening/theory study (for now). It can be a very powerful weapon for White (with one Opening and variations to learn)!

The following videos from GM Gregory Kaidanov are a fine start, but use the search button (there's a ton of material on chess.com alone on the Alapin). Enjoy! 

A Guide for White: Avoiding the Sicilian - Alapin Part 1 & 2!

https://www.chess.com/video/player/a-guide-for-white-avoiding-the-sicilian---alapin-part-1  

https://www.chess.com/video/player/a-guide-for-white-avoiding-the-sicilian---alapin-part-2

Also:

GM Roman Dzindzichashvili

 (you can also watch (see links in below) Part 3 & 4 for entertainment purposes, like The Wing Gambit (1.e4 c5, 2. b4, GM Roman calls it the "worst opening for White" against 1. ...c5, lol) and IM Esserman's favorite, The Smith-Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5, 2.d4 cxd, 3.c3)

The 'Anti' Sicilians - Part 1: 2... d-Pawn Moves!

https://www.chess.com/video/player/the-anti-sicilians---part-1-the-alapin-12

The 'Anti' Sicilians - Part 2: 2... Nf6 & Others!

https://www.chess.com/video/player/the-anti-sicilians---part-2-the-alapin-2

IM Danny Rench:

Chess Openings: How to Play the Anti-Sicilian - The Alapin!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWo-g7gwCOw

FM Alisa Melekhina:

How to Win in the c3 Sicilian in 21 moves or less - FM Alisa Melekhina

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vaTT8jcDf4

GM Ron Henley

c3 Sicilian - Crushing Black with the c3 Sicilian by GM Ron Henley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9ZxjXViu8c

Also, I own GM Evgeny Sveshnikov's The Complete c3 Sicilian (The Alapin Variation by it's Greatest Expert), which is a tome (just looked, ...574 pages) !  GM Sveshnikov was a former trainer of Anatoly Karpov!  He sported a 70% result (according to the bio on the back of the book) in over 600 games! There are innumerable, incredibly well-annotated games, a list of "opening catastrophies" to be avoided or exploited and cool Exercises inside. You can pick it up at Amazon.com. It's published by NEW IN CHESS and is the go-to reference book on the Alapin, for many players. I can assure you, if you get through it (unlike me so far ), in merely this one Anti-Sicilian variant, you'll be known for it!

Good luck!

Straw man much? Your argument is absurd and idiotic. I'm saying the same thing that Karpov himself said: "Although I may have cause to prefer a slow positional grind over complicated tactics, if the position offers me only one objectively good choice, I take it!"

*this quote is not exact*

And I would agree. My intention was to state that low-rated "styles" do exist in some way, shape or form, but they certainly are not the way noobs imagine them to be.

Another point that needs to be stressed is that a class player with a style is still a class player! A class player can never be Tal, and a class player can never be Karpov. Put simply, class player styles manifest themselves in small, subconscious biases, not "unreal skills".

Anyone see a difference between the two statements? Also, was Karpov saying anything intended to help with opening selection?

The IM knows better in chess than GOOGLERS. Otherwise FIDE will demote him.

Where, in this thread, is there a "noob" imagining himself or herself to be a Tal or a Karpov? ZiadMsoliman was asking for advice about opening selection.

"It is generally accepted that one should try to choose openings which fit in with one's style" - FM Steve Giddins (2003)

It seems like a good bet that an advice-seeker has been given this style-advice somewhere along the way. Consequently, if one wants opening-selection help, it is only natural to start by attempting to describe one's style. If such attempts seem like "garbage", it might be remembered that the person may have been given the style-advice by a would-be helper who wasn't as studious as GM John Nunn (or IM Jeremy Silman or FM Steve Giddins) with regard to identifying some specific considerations that go into opening selection.

If a person is asking for help with opening selection, one is going way off the subject if one goes on about move selection in general.

Ohhh no I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread! But I've seen countless threads where people say things very similar that what I described (e.g. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/chess-styles-in-depth), and it's pretty silly!

I'm aware my comment wasn't an answer to the OP's question, but a number of people had raised this point and I thought I'd share my views on the matter.

General-Mayhem wrote:

"... Ohhh no I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread! ..."

You might want to take another look at your previous post (#29) and ask yourself about the degree to which you made that clear.

"It is generally accepted that one should try to choose openings which fit in with one's style" - FM Steve Giddins (2003)

".....when players go on about their 'style' (e.g. "I'm an intuitive positional grinder escape artist" or some such garbage)....."

Given that the OP clearly wasn't doing this, I'd think it's obvious for anyone with even a very modest level of intelligence that I wasn't referring to him.