What is a better opening Scandanavian or Benoni

Let's see John Nunn played the Benoni quite regularly to name one strong GM. The  Benoni gives Black lots of dynamic chances. It is perfectly playable excdept against God and pwerhaps Kasparov. I have played it in many OTB games against people rated as high as 2400--the games were won or lost not because of the opening but  due to middlegame/ndgame or transition errors.

"How could I ever become a great player if I'm always playing the Benoni?"

I'm sure Tal and Bronstein could answer that for you--they were playing and winning with the Benoni when theory said it was losing.  And while Kasparov seems to have distain for this opening, theory (Capablanca) said that the King's Indian was a joke.  Lesson here: All it takes is one fiery little genius to upend current theory and make the opening popular again.  So I won't disrespect the Benoni and the KID; instead, I pay hommage to my heros and play these crazy lines.  Because even if I lose these games, they are rowdy and fun to play, and that's what i play chess for.

Umm, way to stay positive.... And truthfully, dedication is what made all of the professionals of every sport, every game, every show, every movie what it is today. Dedication made Hollywood what it is today. Why can't dedication work for everyone else? It can. According to your logic, there would be no profession of any kind....... Honestly dude, that was really jerk-ish (and childish) to put someone down like that with lies at that. What is this? Middle school?

openings have their ups and downs, which often makes certain openings more favorable than others to people. But in this post, we are asking about opinions. Basically what I would do in this kind of post is list out all of the favorable things and all of the unfavorable things of each opening, and then compare them. I personally don't know or play either of these openings, but I just noticed how many people are listing the favorable things about one of the openings and the unfavorable things about the other.

Yeah, I never really started chess until high school.  So by that logic, I will never be a great player despite how much I improve during high school.

And why does someone have to become a GM by high school? What's the difference of working hard now instead of as a kid? Maybe as an adult it would be much harder, but I can put in quite a bit of time to chess. With that said, I wouldn't mind only becoming a very good player (though I don't know what rating you mean; expert?) but I just don't understand why people can't move up just because they are a bit older. I'm not putting my hopes up too high because I shouldn't but I think it's possible for me to get to master level at some point in my lifetime.

Well, it's a matter of degree, but I'm inclined to agree with Gonnosuke on this one.  IM Andrew Martin recently posted a response to someone who started chess at age 44 and wanted to know how to become world-class.  When IM Martin told him to forget about that and just play chess for enjoyment and improvement, but not for high-level achievement because that was a pipe dream, Martin was criticized -- I think wrongly.  There are some relatively late starters who became great -- I have in mind Yasser Seirawan, who became US Champion despite starting chess at 12 years old.  But he may be one of the "exceptions that prove the rule":  if 12 is pretty old/late, then 44 is just ancient/too late.  But remember, by "too late" I only mean "too late to make GM or IM." 

But why is it "too late"? I'm only 14.

I don't know much about the scandinavian, but I've studied almost every single line of the Benoni so I know it pretty well, and I'm convinced that it is a perfectly playable opening.

Of course, the Taimanov variation and any other early f4 variations are very sharp and black has to play very actively to create counterplay, but with enough knowledge of the theory black is alright.

In fact, I even think that the Nbd7 sub-variation in the taimanov (somewhat considered to be defused) is playable, I did much analysis on this one, gave one whole day to Rybka to analyze it, and it seemed that black had even more winning chances though it ended in a draw.

That might be the problem with the Benoni, if your opponent knows the theory perfectly, and if he's a good player, it will probably be difficult to beat him. But hey, you're black, so if your opponent plays perfectly it's absolutely normal to have a very slight disadvantage. There are no openings with black where every line guarantees equality.

And if you are really afraid of f4 and of the taimanov, then you can just play the Benoni in a different move order: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 and now that white has committed to Nf3 you won't have to face the most critical lines. That's what many modern Benoni players do. Top grandmasters included. (Topalov plays the Benoni, Ivanchuk recently played it in its match against Carlsen though he lost the game in an unusual sub-variation, etc)

Phew Gonnnosuke is a really real poster!

Korchnoi is also good evidence that chess is a young man's game.  Korchnoi played in his first match for the world championship when he was 47.  Any older than that, and I think it is too late to make a bid for the world championship.

Other late bloomers would include Janis Klovans who won the GM title at age 62, and Igor Ivanov who was 58.

Correspondence chess is perhaps a little more senior friendly.  Fedor Bohatirchuk won his CCIM title when he was age 75.

I played the benoni for many years as black and it served me well EXCEPT when facing players over 2200. When I played it against masters I had a bad result. Would I have done better with the QGD, Slav or Nimzo ?  Perhaps, yes but I would probably still have had a slight minus result. Today I rarely play the benoni but still do sometimes. I usually only play it now against sub 2200 opponents AND when I can avoid the early f4 lines by white. In swiss tournaments you need to win with black as well as with white if you want a chance to win the tournament and for winning purposes the benoni is better than QGD imo because its far more unbalanced. This creates winning chances for BOTH players which means you may lose more and win more but draw less than with say a QGD or slav. This has been my experience anyway. I certainly believe that under 2200 the benoni is a perfectly playable opening. Fischer's first win ever against Spassky was game 3 on their 1972 match and Fischer played the Benoni..... nuff said.

A very strong IM once gave me an interesting answer when I asked him : " Isnt the latvian gambit bad ? "  He responded : " There are no bad openings, only bad chessplayers." 

Trying to compare two different opening systems, with one being "better" than the other, is really rather pointless. It's like asking which is better, an apple or an orange.

I would like to know which is better, the queens knight or the king's knight?

I actually have a goal to be an IM in the future.  One of my biggest regrets is that I didn't start chess earlier.  But I totally disagree with your assessment that a 14 year old rated 1600 can not make GM.  With hard work, practice, and playing lots of games, I'm pretty sure someone could make the GM title by the time they graduate from college.

 You should set yourself more reasonable goals and as you reach them raise the bar.... when I was 1600 my goal was to reach 1800, when I did that my new goal was to reach 2000. I think setting your goal too high can lead to failure/disappointment. Set reasonable goals and when you reach them set new reasonable goals and work towards achieving them.

I know.  My present goal is to reach 1800.  I was just elaborating on my long term goal.

Bohatirchuk was 31 when he first debuted in the second Soviet championship in 1923.  He really was a late bloomer.  Semyon Furman and Vladimir Simagin were both 26 when they made their international debuts. Ivanov was 21 when he first started appearing in the Soviet Team Championships.  Korchnoi was probably the youngest, debuted in the Soviet Under-18 championships at age 15, but it wasn't till he was into his forties that he reached his top form.  Anyway, my main point is that some players continue to improve their form on into old age.  It's never too late to try.

My goal is just to become any kind of master, over 2200. I realize this will take lots of hard work probably for a few years but I created a training routine for myself about studying every aspect of the game through high rated tactics trainer puzzles, going over my games in depth with and without computer, annotating master games for both tactics and strategy, re studying strategy books like my system with a chess board and so on. However, right now I have only followed it loosely because I don't always want to do that! But that stuff should put me at a higher level in the long run especially by analyzing my games because then I can see why I couldn't correctly apply my knowledge of chess in the particular game and improve whatever part of my actual game based on that. I should probably get a chess coach too.

I've only been playing the game again for about 2 months or so after taking 11 years off (I'm 25 now). My rating was 1030 when I was young because I only played in a few tournaments. In the past 2 months my rating has gone up almost 600 points and my goal is to reach 1800 by the fall or winter time and then really work hard to get up to 2000. I think it is attainable for me. I've already had some crushing wins against players rated between 1950 and 2000 and I've drawn others. I donked off a few easily won games to players weaker than me, but those were mostly rust and tournament inexperience. There are gaps in my game that I've identified and I've been training to overcome them and once I do I think I"ll be well on my way.