What Openings have Closed Centers?

No you are not set!!

Are you trying to get yourself killed on the chess board?

You see I know very well about dynamic and attacking lines.

Let me explain!

I play the Kings Indian Defense and Kings Indian Attack. The soul purpose of such lines is 99% of the time king side pawn storms to mate the enemy king.

However, Even though I love playing these lines. I can not be oblivious or naive about there faults.

I do like playing my K-I-D;however, in long standard time control games you need lines which are more solid. Which is why I also play the Gruenfeld. It is more solid. An the dynamic possibilities are still there. They are there in another form.

You said the following statement:

The reason why I like closed-center positions is becase of the dynamic and attacking possibilites which arise from it.

The dynamic and attacking possibilities may arise from the above 3 lines you mentioned. However, they are not super solid.

Player,

I apologize if I made this inssuficiently clear.

I like playing in TWO STYLES as white. One is my "strategic style". For that purpose, I use the english opening. The second is my "dynamics & attacking style", for which I use 1.e4. I meet 1...e6 with 2.b3, 1...c6 with Advance Caro, 1...e5 with 2.f4, 1...c5 with 2.d4 ... 3.c3, all of which are gambit lines.

Secondly, as black vs. 1.e4, I use my "dynamic & attacking style" for which I employ the SIcilian Dragon. As black vs. 1.e4, if I am in a strategic mood (which happens on rare occasions when I play black" I play the Scandinavian - 3...Qa5 variation. As black vs. 1.d4, the Dutch Stonewall combines dynamism (pawn storms) with strategy (piece play).

Let me re-emphasize; I'm not a fan of OVERLY SOLID PLAY. I like strategic (and slightly calm) varations at times, and dynamic (and attacking) variations at time. But strategy, and solidity, are two different things.

Again, I apologize if I'd made this inssuficiently clear.

Yours truly,

TT