What Openings have serious flaws?

Although most openings are named after GMs who have molded their openings to some sort of advantage, even their creators don't always play their own openings. Perhaps it's because they have counters or flaws.

For example, I find the Scandinavian defense to be very weak opening that results in my gaining more momentum. I find the Sicilian to be too complex for the amateur player to gain any sort of advantage over me, although extremely good for higher levels. I find the king's gambit to be too risky for white...

What do you think? Am I simply misunderstanding some of these great openings? Are there serious flaws to certain openings or simply counterplay?

Just as you say, most openings and defences have cons, just as they have pros, if there would be a opening or defence with only pros and no cons, everyone would be playing it.

Whether there are serious cons depends on your definition of serious, and the level of play you are at, your style and so forth. There are some serious cons for beginners to play the Sicilian, cons so huge they are most likely wasting their time. Just as the Kings gambit has some cons to it that scare most strong GM's away from it, except for occasional use as a surprise weapon.

Did I say I was an expert? No.

And my rating of 1466 is LIVE Rating, with 10-15 games. Those ratings aren't inflated as the online-chess ratings. So in essence, your rating is inflated, not mine.

Perhaps you don't understand the logic, but as I said a lot of amateur players at my level do the sicilian but I've never seen them gain a huge lead due to the opening itself, unless I made some serious mistake/blunder.

Most "amateurs" do not fully understand any opening - or at least I speak for myself - except in a fairly limited way. There are perhaps some lines which give more practical advantages like the Sicilian Morra at club level, but which are avoided by the GMs.

You can get away with almost anything - Basman was playing 1.e4 e5 2.a3! and won.

Just don't play the Damiano. Of course. That's just stupid.

I have decided the Budapest has serious flaws.  After 3. e4 black has nothing but wasted time

A similar opening. The englund gambit also has serious flaws. 

The ones I play...

I have to agree with a few people in this thread.

First, ANYTHING is playable below about 1600 OTB rating. If a player below that level thinks an opening has serious flaws, it really means that the player isn't good enough to understand the opening properly. A lot of things are still playable at higher levels which aren't quite good enough for top GM play, but I'm not qualified to judge those myself.

Second, Damiano's Defense is just lousy by any standard. (But you can probably get away with it below 1600 - see #1, above)

Third, the Englund Gambit isn't good enough for serious play, either, but I did quite well with it against opponents rated below 1600 in USCF tournaments. I gave up on it when the guys rated 1800+ clobbered me for playing it.

Yet it is still playable  by certain people like me. (although I dont really play it)

Here's my win!

What do you mean by serious flaws? Do you mean inferior or unplayable? If you mean inferior, openings like the scandinavian and the philidor are objectively inferior but still playable and solid.

"For example, I find the Scandinavian defense to be very weak opening that results in my gaining more momentum."

This is extremely exagerated, as despite the queen having to move black's position is still hard to crack, and compared with caro kann for example he does have the advantage of avoiding most advance lines with the pawn coming to e5, simply because 2 e5 against 1...d5 is just premature and gives black a really easy game. Also, some GM's actually like the 3...Qd6 lines, trying to make the queen a useful piece. Now, if someone plays 1...d5 without knowing what they're doing they will indeed get crushed, (they'll probably allow white to make use of his extra tempi) which may have been your experience using it or playing against it.

the correct answer to your question is that below 2000level all openings are playable:) to quote kasparov "at the amateurlevel everything work"

I'll disagree with that, just based on my own experiences with the Englund Gambit (1. d4 e5). I used to play it all the time, starting when my rating was in the 1300's. I won a bunch of games against players up to 1600 with it. In fact, I never lost with it against opponents rated below 1600 USCF.

But once I improved to the point where I started regularly playing against players rated 1800+, they would clobber me in this opening. They'd just give the gambit pawn back, avoiding the main lines where black supposedly gets an attack for his pawn, and get a big enough positional advantage that I couldn't do anything to them. These were the same opponents that I could sometimes beat when playing other openings.

This is why I think anything's playable up to about 1600-1700 OTB, but players over 1800 are good enough not to let you get away with complete garbage.

Some lines of the Baltic Defense have been refuted, to my knowledge.

Imo it isn't smart to play dubious openings even at lower levels. Why?

1. At some point when you improve you will be forced to change your opening rep and all those hours of getting used to the piece placement and pawn formation of your opening is lost.

2. Even at lower levels half a pawn of advantage can be felt. Even if amateurs miss tactics and position scores might fluctuate with several pawns back and fourth it is quite silly to just accept to start off with half a pawn down positionally every single time you start a game because that half a pawn will make you lose some of the game you could have won or drawn.

I mean why choose something dubious if there are sound alternatives no matter what your taste is. There are fully sound open, semi-open and closed openings. Pick one.

not to be rude but im not sure if i agree with that. do you really know the englundgambit that well? you have a deep understanding of the endgames arising from it?im pretty sure your endgameskills, middlegameunderstanding or tactics is the real reason you lost those games:)

I think the easiest refutation of the englund is simply: 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Qd5

Dead easy to remember and play imo. Frankly a 1600 that misplays the englund gambit in the opening doesn't deserve to be a 1600. Ofc that is if you actually were a 1600 when you met this 1600 player. I'm guessing that you were probably underrated back when you won with your englund gambit lines against 1600.

Around my level, players don't seem to fully understand openings, and neither do I most of the time. I just mentioned the Scandinavian and Sicilian because it seems like people just memorized the moves but they don't do them to gain some sort of positional advantage.

I don't quite understand the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Ryder Gambit , but I play it sometimes just for the trap line, and occasionally it works, when it doesn't work, I'm lost and just play naturally...  Not sure what to do about it, so I tend to not play it often.

At my level, I don't know if I should be studying various openings as counters to the kinds of openings my opponent does, or if I should learn one opening with white like Italian, and play it to my best and learn the different variations, and learn counters to a few white's most common openings like Ruy, Italian, or Scotch...Or learn a ton of openings and try them all...

I remember a bad blunder in the englund gambit. I wasn't really paying attention.

Isn't the King's Gambit refuted by Fischer's Defense 3...d6