Sharp Repertoire

Greetings everyone, I am looking to make my current repertoire sharper and more tactical. The openings that are sharp enough are in red. For the others, can you please supply some sharp lines? 

As White:

-Queen's Gambit, Rubinstein Variation

-Semi-Slav: Botvinnik Variation, Moscow Variation

-Catalan

-Symmetrical English with Early d4

-Queen's Indian Defense

-Main Line KID with 9. Ne1

-Main Line Benoni

-Benko with 4. Qc2

-Grunfeld with 5. Qb3

Note that I play Nf3 on the first or second move to avoid early e5 breaks by white. Also, I tend to avoid e4 openings as white. I am Ok to play the Scotch, but other systems (French and Sicilian) tend to bother me.

As Black:

-Sicilian, Najdorf Variation: Sozin Main Line, English Attack with e6, Be2 with e6, Poisoned Pawn Variation

-Nimzo-Indian/Benoni

-Symmetrical English

-Queen's Gambit Accepted

-Caro-Kann, Main Lines except Smyslov Variation

-Benko Gambit

Thanks so much!

~CiG

Eek!  Are you sure you want to play this kind of stuff?  You'll have to spend countless hours studying the cutting edge of theory before tournaments if you want to play stuff like the Botvinnik Semi-Slav and the Poisoned Pawn, and even then you're still likely to lose to an inferior move as the positions are so wildly complex and revolve around computer lines with forced sequences rather than basic logic.  It's completely your choice, but it seems a bit crazy to willingly go into this stuff when you'll have to spend 90% of your study time researching the latest theory on all these sharp lines.

Well, they certainly are complex, but I enjoy studying long and complex lines, and also like confusing my opponent. Also, if you learn the theory 20-30 moves deep, it is very easy to then focus on the middlegame/endgame plans.

Don't forget the anti-sicilians out there (since you play sicilian as black), such as the Moscow and Rossolimo. Some lines of the Bb5 sicilian can be sharp, but I think white is the side that gets to pick the variation for the most part. (Shameless link to group. )

The reason I enjoy these long theoretical lines is that from there I can easily prepare middlegame plans, without worrying about other moves rarely seen as much. As for the sharpness of my play, I used to consider myself a positional player, but a great percentage of my games were drawn: the only ones I ever one were the more aggressive battles. As for d4/Nf3, I think that it offers more flexibility than openings with e4.

Another point--although I do like long theoretical lines, it won't hurt my feelings if my opponent blunders on move 12.

I've been studying sidelines like this a fair bit too.

In all honesty, chessisgood will probably get excellent results if he really applies himself and memorizes all the lines for this stuff, even though I don't think he'll learn anything from it or develop as a player when he's following 30 moves of Kasparov/Rybka analysis.  The key point here is that everyone thinks that everyone else memorizes tons of theory and doesn't just try to get a normal position and play chess, so then the people who actually DO memorize tons and tons of theory end up winning convincingly if people play into their theoretical lines.  

IMO if you want to play sharper positions look at what players did a century ago. Play positions where the plans are similar and are connected by structure. everything gets "sharp" at some point the question is when does it get critical and how much time are you willing to invest in learning long theoretical lines. KI and Najdorf are massive theory wise. Any sicilian is good if you want sharp play. 

Avoid tricky crap openings that have a simple line for white to learn to 'refute' 1. d4 e5 is crap sorry to those that love the tricks its just a fancy 4 move mate thought process. Play classical systems and build from there. 
 simple and clean.... focus on learning simple middlegame plans and mastering very basic endgames by sight  (from someone who coaches the top team in the state, top players nationally and locally)

you can play this repertoire if you work a lot on it; and maybe even get decent results. However the improvement/effort ratio would be ridicously low. A 10 games match chessisgood1 (studyed this repertoire for hundreds of hours to master it) vs chessisgood2 (devoted the same amount of time to chess, studying less ambitious stuff and using the remaining time on middlegames, endgames and commented games) would probably end something like 3-7. 

Thanks for posting this also could I ask where you learned this line from I've been looking to spice up my catalan play.

There were certainly some good openings back then, but one must be careful. A lot have been discredited recently. e.g. Benoni without h3.

And then you face the Englund Gambit, Blackmar-Diemer, Elephant-Gambit and your preparation is for the trash can.

Its useless for an amateur player to learn lines with 20 or 30 moves, when you have no plan of tactics and strategy...the book says +- and you dont know why and your first "own" move is a mistake.

Well, you must realize that I plan to learn the ideas as well as the openings.

If you play 1. e4, you will eventually get to play the Evans Gambit. It doesn't get any sharper than that. 

Yes, but though I enjoy sharp play, I want the theoretical upper hand. I like to be attacked when I have the advantage.

If black accepts, white has about a 50% win ratio. All that d-pawn squirminess is uncalled for in someone who wants to drive home the win. It seems that someone is just a little afraid of a fight.

Ok, here's a good question: Why is it that whenever I ask something in the forums people question me instead of answering?

Also, I have already told you I am Ok with playing e4 so long as my opponent plays e5, but I don't want to play against the Sicilian.

The whole question is ridiculous. You don't want to play vs. the Sicilian, but the Nimzo-Indian, King's Indian, Queen's Indian, Benoni...are all dandy. You want something sharp but you want to be in the theoretical driver's seat. This isn't possible. If you want to cut down on your opponent's counterplay, you will get very static positions. If you play "sharp" lines, you will not be entirely in control. If such a magic repetoire existed, everyone would already be playing it and chess would be boring.

it seems unbelievabe to me that someone willing to create a sharp repertoire doesn't play 1.e4 for fear of 1...c5 (which should instead be what his attacking-oriented hearth loves to see), but i guess that it's a matter of tastes.

In my view you are trying to solve a problem in the wrong way; adopting a sharp opening repertoire is not going to make your games notably sharper, as long as your middlegame play is the same. Instead Studying middlegame attacking plans (there are plenty of good books on the subject out there) would reach the goal even if your repertoire doesn't change. that said, you can study this stuff if you want to, just be aware that it's not a particularly effective way to reach your main goal, and not at all a cost-effective way to improve your chess.

Regarting the "answering questions with questions" part, you will notice that the most productive discussions are those where people interacts with you instead of just listing answers.