Well, the thing is that you seem like a somewhat decent player, so it's OK for you to experiment with openings, knowing what you're doing and that it's not the best productive way to increase ratings.
Trying to narrow down my defences to 3 against 1.e4 and 3 against 1.d4...
Sort:
Apr 15, 2017
0
#3
I'd recommend the French and Caro-Kann, since the Sveshnikov is mainly a lot of theory, little room for creativity without just having a worse position.
If you want the Sveshnikov though, I'd replace French with Sveshnikov, since both are rather theoretical.
Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines, though one thing I guess I forgot to mention above is that the Caro and French are kind of similar in some ways; e.g. pawns on light squares, white gets more space in the center, black often waits to counter attack, etc., so if the goal is to have a variety of different positions, perhaps I should drop one for the Sveshnikov.
I found the French could be quite theoretical or not so much, depending on what lines black chose. Recently I would play 3...Be7 against the Tarrasch and the Black Queen Blues/Portisch Hook variation (the Qa5-a4 one, blocking up the queenside) in the Winawer, with good positions most of the time. I agree though that the Sveshnikov leaves little room for creativity, especially in the early stages of the game, but something about it is just fascinating to me.... Not sure what exactly...
I'll think about this more because I am in no hurry to decide, and in any case it is just a matter of playing something I used to play, so the learning curve is not so steep.
Apr 16, 2017
0
#5
What about KID / Pirc / modern defense both on 1. e4, 1. d4 and, actually, everything. It narrows U to the unique choice! 
That's not a bad idea -- the Pirc, I mean. I am not about to play the KID with black; have never been attracted to it and much prefer the lighter work load of the Modern Benoni and Leningrad, but did play the Pirc for a little while. Here is how I see it:
Pirc
Pros: Lots of scope to imbalance the game and outplay a lower rated player because the lines aren't as well worked-out and forced as in many sicilians; leads to many different strutures and is flexible; white is not always so well-prepared; less to remember than in many sharp openings; combines well with Leningrad Dutch due to 1.d4 d6 move order, avoiding anti-dutch lines potentially.
Cons: White gets a lot of freedom to do as he pleases in the center in the early part of the opening, due to it being less directly confrontational in the center than many defences; still not sure what is the best way to proceed against 3.f3, seeing as I don't want to play a Saemisch KID with Black; not all that interesting to analyze from a theoretical perspective (maybe the Austrian Attack in some lines is); it is hard to get myself excited at the prospect of playing it again, though maybe that can be changed with some inspiration.
I play somewhat the same lines as you with black versus d4: Those being Modern Benoni and Semi-Slav, at least currently.
With black versus e4 I normaly play Caro these days, just because it is simple enough to play, without knowing much theory, and somewhat similar to Slav.
As for the lines to try - I would avoid playing the Sicilian as it needs quite a bit of study time, although If you want to do that - go with the Taimanov variation(Basically closest you can get to Hedgehog, which sometimes comes from Benoni as well)
Other than that, and what is suggested above, maybe Scandinavian, as it is easier to reach the c6/e6 versus d4+other pawn structures.
Personally I also like to play e5 sometime , and try my luck in the Ruy Lopez, but I figure that is too classical for you.
I know, I know, I should really just play one defence against all of White's first moves so that I can focus more on other parts of the game, but on the other hand I am no beginner, and like opening theory and variety, so yeah, spare me this lecture.
Anyways, against 1.d4 the choice was easy: continue with the Modern Benoni (which I have great results with and can be really fun) and the Leningrad Dutch (which is great when I need to create an imbalance to win against weaker players, or frustrate 1.d4 system specialists) and take-up the Semi-Slav once again (great pedigree, and can lead to fascinating complex positions which I like playing and analyzing with both colours). I only mention this because it may affect my choices against 1.e4.
Against 1.e4 these days I am mostly playing 1...e5, and am mostly happy with it as my main weapon. It is challenging for White, has many options, is the most principled, and is great for improving all aspects of chess. Thus, I cannot really see myself eliminating it from my repertoire. I am also playing the French occasionally, and have been tempted to take up the Caro-Kann and Sveshnikov Sicilian again, but four is too many and thus something has to go. Making a decision is not easy though, so I guess I will analyze the pros and cons and you guys can help me decide.
French:
Pros: A lot of room for creativity in closed positions; love the Winawer varation and it has a lot of ways for Black to get a good game without entering the Warsaw or PP variations; potentially combines well with the Dutch and Benoni due to 1...e6 move-order option; generally more sharp; imbalanced lines than the Caro-Kann.
Cons: Exchange variation is popular and rather boring; never completely happy with what I am doing against the Tarrasch; c8 bishop and cramped positions can be a headache.
Caro-Kann:
Pros: Combines great with Semi-Slav via 1...c6 move order; has enough sharp and ambitious lines to make for an interesting game (e.g. Schandorff's book); bishop on c8 is less of a problem; relatively theory-light compared to many openings, and White is often not so well-prepared.
Cons: Not sure how much I like the Panov-Botvinnik endgame, but it can be avoided; perhaps a little hard to generate chances in some lines if White doesn't do anything (though this rarely is the case).
Sveshnikov:
Pros: Perhaps one of the most interesting openings to study; dynamic attacking play in many lines; can be fun to play a position so full of holes and pawn weaknesses and have it be sound theoretically; White also gets confused in the mess that arrises.
Cons: A lot of people avoid it with the Rossolimo; deep theory in the mainlines means that forgetting something in the first 20-25 moves can often lead to disaster; sometimes feel like I am just playing theory rather than actual chess; I would often get a lot of opposite-coloured bishops endgames, which tended to be drawish; super-ugly pawn structure and d5 hole that make the whole opening feel shaky in principle.
These are all of the pros and cons I can think of off the top of my head. The Caro is looking like the winner of the three, but I would like to reincorporate one of the others at some point, or maybe something else. I also extensively played the Najdorf a while back, and dabbled a bit in the Pirc, Taimanov Sicilian, and Alekhine's, though none of those are really appealing at the moment. I am not in the mood to take up something new for the first time, as I have played enough different openings to know what I like and just want to be consistent with a few of them.
Thanks for any constuctive input regarding these opening choices.