What to play against 1. e4

PS: if you are a KIA player against French pawns-structure, you also get transposition possibilities before playing Nc3.

Ruben72d makes some good points which I agree with. I disagree with him however on the following:

At our level of play (say 1800+) it is odd indeed to suggest in any way that there are alternatives to 'calculating'. In the correspondence mode of daily chess, with at least a day or many days to make a single move, once the game moves out of recorded master game territory, which it always will at our level, often even before the tenth move in an opening, then it is ALL about calculating, or analysis of various lines one wishes to explore, taking strategic thinking also into account where one can. Because we are not masters with many of the possible better lines and pros and cons already in our heads, we just have to explore them to see where they go, depending of course  on how deep one explores promising lines.  

So really, like ruben72d says, choose openings or defences you are comfortable with, and that that you feel suit your sort of style of play (eg being attacking basically, I love castling the other side to what my opponent has in situations where I  recognize promising attacking possibilities; conversely a more cautious or defensive player would castle on the same side to keep it more defensive). But in all of this, there is no alternative to 'calculating' the various lines on offer. If you don't want to get into deep analysis of unique board positions in the middle game (for that's what always happens at our level) then you will flat-line at some level, unable to improve, 

Players who don't like deep analysis should stick to forms of speed chess where quick pattern recognition and common tactical pointers are recognised speedily and lines are much more shallowly played than slow chess. 30 minute games, in unique middle game situations are often played only a few moves deep - totally unlike daily chess where often complicated scenarios demand 10, 20 or more moves deep on lines one wishes to explore.  This is one of the reasons why many good non titled slow form players are nowhere near as good at speed chess and also why many speed players can't handle the very time consuming analytical demands of slow chess. 

Well, I'm a bit busy today, I'll reply tomorrow, now I just write my general thoughs: 

RuneTonseth wrote:

The openings I mentionned are choices on White side.

It was not an answer to the topic but to the part where your mentionned your difficulty to play against the Sicilian. I gave you a possible opening as White against the Sicilian.

I know it, when I wrote about Closed, of course, I meant white, no need to explain, thanks for suggestion.

Edit: Now I understand, you misunderstood sth, I corrected my comment, last paragraph was a summary, not an answer to you. Sorry.

No offense taken.

I'm enjoying the Scandinavian Defense (1.e4 d5) these days.

Leads to an active, counter-attacking game with a lot of flexibility for black.

Modern World Champions like Anand and Carlsen have used it from time to time—so you know it must have some merit. :)

Haro-Hann on the other hand is terribly balanced these days, not that the pawn structure is any different.

It looks like you have tried just about everything BUT the French, so you might as well give that a try.  As for the exchange variation, it is very far from being a draw if Black wants to make a fight of it.  Players of the French are generally happy to see the exchange variation.  It generally shows that White is not up for a fight and/or is too lazy to learn the opening properly.

Some lines of the French are quite passive and justify the term "Defence", but Black has many  adventurous options in all the main sub-systems that would be better called "French Counterattacks"

 Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta!

Una tromba? Non un corno francese, trombone o?

Una sega.

Modest and Polite is correct : )

The French packs a wicked counter-punch in most of the main lines, and the thing that in my mind puts it over the Sicilian is that there are VERY FEW trick lines and fancy gambits that white can pull on you to throw you off your game.

Both from a stategic and tactical viewpoint, there's a LOT to offer the French defender. Generally, you can be an everlasting pain in the ass to white and he can't do much about it but play the board.

And the Exchange lines are no worry. White literally throws his initiative on move 3 and it turns into a game of "No, YOU show your cards first" that white is forced lose. Just look at the board on move 3: white commits a knight? Pin it and play. White commits a bishop? Your knight is free to roam. You're totally fluid while white is forced to commit to a plan before you do. The Exchange lines are losers for white on that point.

The OP has clearly stated his primary defence is 1...e5 and likely to remain so, so there's not much point suggesting other theory intense-openings like the Sicilian. People can be quite happy playing the Open Games, you know?

Anyway, your second choice would be something easy to learn, with not too much theory behind it. Ideally there would be a limited amount of diffrent plans available so you don't have to solve complicated strategical problems in an unfamiliar position. If the opening is maybe not 100% sound, that's not much of an issue as you intend it to be used against lower rated opponents and/or in a must win situation. I would steer clear of the mainline openings (Sicilian, Caro-Kann, French) for that very reason. Of all the suggestions here I imagine 1...b6 and 1...d5 fit the bill best, as you will play similar positions against whatever White chooses to play anyway.

The Modern would be similar, but you have already said you're not comfy at all in the resulting positions. As I suspect 1...b6 might lead to likewise experiences I would put my bets on 1...d5 for you.

As you go about experimenting it might well be that you realize you actually don't need a 2nd choice but rather play 1...e5 anyway to win even the very equalish positions by your greater experience. Instead of learning yet another opening you might put the time saved into studying endings which apart from being a good thing in itself will give you the means to win "boring" positions.

Taimanov was beaten badly by Fischer, if that wasn't a lesson to learn from then don't know what it is, the better player is always the boss. Caro-Kann is complicated enough, very unbalanced in this respect.

One thing about 1. ... e5. The Kings Gambit. Don't be fooled, that is some scary shit. And you don't see it enough to prep for it as hard as you have to.

Don't worry about the KG. Take the pawn, and then make sure you castle queenside while throwing your pawns at White's king. Even better, find one of the lines where you check him and he has to give up castling rights. The KG is a walk on hot coals for White if Black has a prepared line. (I've played both sides and won more than lost in both, by the way).

If the King's Gambit or the Scandinavian scares you then you are either well above or well below my level of understanding. I have played against well prepared opponents, kinda throwing at me the aforementioned openings during some bullet sessions and I can assure you that there was a lot of theory behind their moves, they are well prepared players. They were mostly losing, almost never on time.