So what’s your favorite chess openings and why

Hey everyone! Im curious about your favorite chess openings. Do you like:

Kings Pawn Opening (1. e4): Attack fast and go for the win early!

Queens Pawn Opening (1. d4): Solid and safe, great for building a strong position.

Italian Game (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4): Simple and classic for beginners.

 Sicilian Defense (1. e4 c5): A smart way to counterattack if you are black

So I’d like to hear about what opening do you like!

I have a love-hate relationship with Chigorins defence (1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6).

The reason I have had trouble settling for this opening is because I realize that there are low-theory options for white where I think black struggles. Even though nobody has played these lines against me, my knowledge of their existence bothers me.

With that said, it suits my playstyle extremely well. In face, in official classical games, I have a perfect record with the Chigorin out of 12 games with it. 100% win rate as black, even though I think that it has some objective problems people at my level (1850 FIDE 2000 rapid chess.com) does not seem to know about them. If I were to pick my 5 best official FIDE wins, three of them would be in the Chigorin.

The Tarrasch Defense. My King is always safe and even if black loses his IQP there is a half way decent chance of holding the game because of a remaining balanced pawn structure/space/activity. Having said that, it has problems and is not considered quite a top level defense. For instance, if white knows it he can take black into an endgame with white having the bishop pair in a rather open position, then black is pretty much stuck just playing to draw.

Kasparov did well with the Tarrasch Defense, using it to carry him to the WC. After losing two games to Karpov he gave up on it. We aren't playing against Karpovs.

My issue with the Tarrasch is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 and now not 6.g3, but rather, 6.dxc5!

As black I've settled on Taimanov + Slav these days. 
Of course it had been changing every 6 months for a while but I don't think it's going to change for black at this point, I've considered every tradeoff I can think of and I feel pretty confident. 
But I think the process of searching and experimentation is one you can't skip, and no one can really tell you what opening you should play ultimately. 
I like both the Slav / Taimanov because they're very rich, not overly common (especially certain sidelines in them), they force white to play precisely, and they're still completely solid... at below masters level if white screws up... which he often does, you just equalize or even end up better. Most of the time I find I get advantage in the opening. I screw it up in the midgame, but that's because I have yet to seriously study the midgame. At the same time, if white doesn't screw up... they're viable lines even at high level. 
For white... I'm still not satisfied entirely, but I've been playing 1. Nc3. I might be exploring the nimzo larsen soon though. But the Trompowsky is a good repertoire for 1. d4. I also like the vienna in 1. e4. I would play d4 or e4 but they just feel very played out, and I notice the resistance I encounter is much more serious in both. But still I like the lines in both. 
Tarrasch I carefully considered, it was in the top 5 options, but ultimately I just like the solidity of the QGA or Slav more. With the IQP you really have to capitalize on the opportunities you have, it fits some peoples style but I think I'm a more positional player.

If your sole focus is to get the Queen out, why not the Wayward Queen Attack? 1.e4.e5 2.Qh5.

I assume you are thinking about the line 6...d4 7 Na4 Bxc5 8 Nxc5 Qa5+ and now white plays either 9 Bd2 or 9 Qd2. White has grabbed the bishop pair.

That is the line I had in mind when I wrote that white can take black into an endgame in which white has the bishop pair. In his book Fight 1 d4 with the Tarrasch, GM Vassilios Kotronias spent 10 days analyzing 6 dxc5 because he was obsessed with it. He covers it in a lot of pages. Eventually he has it as equal. SF 17 has white as around 0.20 better, not so bad if one trusts SF.

A reason why white scores 70% is because the average rating of the white side is around 2480, the average rating of the black side is around 2370. That alone is enough to skew the percentage results. Plus, yes, club player with the black pieces likely caves in to the bishop pair at times.

Taking it a little further, after a line often played 9 Qd2 Qxc5 10 e3 dxe3 11 Qxe3+ Qxe3+ 12 Bxe3 white has the bishop pair and a knight vs two knights and a bishop. But white should be hard pressed to actually win this. Black's IQP is gone and the pawn structure remaining is exactly the same ---h2 g2 f2 b2 a2 vs h7 g7 f7 b7 a7. The pawns haven't even moved. Black has no weaknesses.

The Tarrasch Defense is a practical choice it seems to me for anyone who wants to keep complexity down, won't mind putting up with mild pressure from the two bishops, and won't mind drawing as black.

Kings Pawn, I'm a beginner so I am used to it, plus it develops my King and Queen! (someone tell me this is a bad opening and they get $1T)

Bishop and Queen

The answer is yes, that ending with an opening position and White has the two bishops. That line often leads to a pure BB vs BN ending on an opening board. Yes, it is not refuted, but it is FAR EASIER for White to play from a human perspective.

Opening assessments by artificial intelligence are often hogwash. Sure, if it's +5 or -5, it is pretty safe to say that one side is lost. But if I am Black and I have a choice between a simple defense from a practical perspective that is +0.4 or a defense that that is +0.2 because of a sequence of only moves by Black (and I don't mean the only legal move, I mean where all other moves lose), give me the simpler defense that is +0.4, especially a case where White must find a long series of only moves to hold the advantage, and if they do, OK, you might have to defend a rook ending with White's rook more active. In most cases, white will lose the advantage or, better yet, wind up in as worse position.

Outside of +- and -+, computer assessments are meaningless unless you are playing true correspondence chess, like ICCF, not the daily hogwash here.

All the more reason the Petroff is my favorite Opening.

QGD exchange variation. Straightforward plan for white, you can go for minority attack or expand in the center.

Sometimes I'll watch a chess streamer's game live. Last week (Tuesday I think it was) I spotted Dina's live stream game, and you were her opponent. The stream eventually froze so no one watching saw the end of the game. I went to the USCF today to see how it ended, but somehow it hasn't been rated. Someone tonight in chat (she has a live stream game going) said it ended in a draw. The reason why I'm bringing it up is I want to ask you if pushing the h pawn quickly in the Dutch is a repertoire or standard or were you winging it looking to attack her King's formation? It was certainly interesting but I didn't know what to make of it.

My favourite opening is one which I never play. It's the Allgaier Gambit 1.e4, e5; 2. f4, ef; 3.Nf3, g5; 4. h4, g4; 5. Ng5, h6; 6.Nxf7 and so on. Aesthetically it appeals to me beyond words. The beauty of it matters. But objectively and in my own practical games I cannot make it work. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

King's pawn o just like it

I just like it

Botez Gambit:Fork Variation [Site "Chess.com"] [Result "0-1"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qh4 3. Nxh4 g5 4. Nf5 Nc6 5. Qh5 d6 6. Ng7+ Ke7 7. Nf5+ Ke8 8. Ng7+ Ke7 9. Nf5+ Kd8 10. Ng7 Bg4 11. Qh6 Nb4 12. Nh5 Nxc2# 0-1